The final plan (1849–1852)

The final plan for the new dictionary that would eventually become the WNT was presented in 1851 and printed in 1852. This section will consider the final plan as well as the discussions that preceded it, focusing, as before, on the variational dimensions of time, region, mode, domain and origin. An outline of the genesis and the structure of the WNT can be found in van Sterkenburg (1992) and van Sterkenburg (2011: 159–182).

In 1849, the plan for a new dictionary of Dutch was brought to the attention of two important institutions in the social organisation of the study of Dutch. In one of the meetings of the Commissie voor Taal- en Letterkunde (‘Commission for Linguistics and Literature’) of the Maatschappij, it was suggested that the Maatschappij take up work on a general, descriptive dictionary of the Dutch lan-guage. The Commissie decided that not enough material had been collected in the past so that the idea of creating such a dictionary was still premature (Handelingen 1850a: 30–32). A similar proposal was presented at the first Nederlandsch congres

‘Dutch congress’, which was to generate ever more concrete plans that would even-tually result in the WNT. In this period, the project proposals still used terms such as complete dictionary and general dictionary.

7.6.1 Congress 1849

The first Nederlandsch congres (‘Dutch congress’, Ghent, 1849), initiated by schol-ars from Belgium, aimed to bring together scholschol-ars from the north and the south working on the language and literature of the Low Countries (Willemyns 1993).

Between 1849 and 1912, 32 Dutch congresses were organised in a predominantly nationalistic spirit (Noordegraaf 1999: 357–358).

At the first conference, Gerth-Van-Wijk proposed the creation of a uniform spelling and grammar of Dutch and of a complete Dutch linguistic dictionary (Handelingen 1850b: 87). The ideological background of the proposal was the de-sired uniformity of the gemeenschappelyke moedertael ‘common mother tongue’

throughout the language area, i.e. the need to standardise the spelling, grammar and lexicon of the Dutch language (Handelingen 1850b: 85). Gerth-van-Wijk’s lex-icographical appeal is usually considered to have been a crucial step in the genesis of the WNT (Willemyns 1993: 78).

In the discussions following Gerth-van-Wijk’s wydloopige verhandeling ‘elab-orate lecture’ (Handelingen 1850b: 85), important issues related to the aforemen-tioned variational dimensions were raised. Snellaert, one of the organisers of the conference, wanted the congress to embrace the plan of a general, linguistic dic-tionary founded on de levende spraek van al de nederlandsche gewesten, zoowel als de boekentael ‘the living language of all the Dutch regions, as well as the written language’ (Handelingen 1850b: 88). J. A. Alberdingk Thijm also welcomed the idea, though he criticised Gerth-van-Wijk’s striving for uniformity in the case of gram-mar and spelling (Handelingen 1850b: 89). As to the dictionary, he stated:

I wish that from the various places of the Low Countries the beautiful images and threads that constitute the Dutch language will be brought together, so that we will thus gather a treasury of the richness of our mother tongue, a museum, in which the various language forms (with the possible exception of the low idiotisms – that depends on the plan) will be listed, so that Dutch authors will know what they have at their disposal. This does not mean that they have to learn which forms should be used, but that they will become aware of what forms can be used.⁸

The quote is important for various reasons, one of which is that it introduced the term museum into the debate, which would become a common designator for the envisaged dictionary. Alberdingk Thijm confirmed the regional inclusiveness of the current plans, also expressed by Snellaert, while excluding what used to be called street language, i.e. coarse and vulgar language, largely restricted to informal spoken language (Section 7.2). The term low idiotisms carried with it a social meaning that would be brought to light in the following years.

Interestingly, the quote identifies a whole new target audience. The eighteenth- century plans did not usually offer much reflection on the target audience. The 8. “ik wensch dat uit de verschillende oorden van Nederland de schoone beelden en lynen zullen by elkaêr gedragen worden, waeruit de nederlandsche tael bestaet, opdat wy aldus eene schatkamer van al de rykdommen onzer moederspraeke verzamelen, een muzeum, waerin de verschillende taelvormen (onder voorbehoud der uitmonstering der lage idiotismen – dat hangt van het plan af) zullen worden op zy gesteld; opdat de nederlandsche schryver wete waerover hy te beschikken heeft. Niet alzoo, dat hy daeruit leert wat vormen hy moet gebruiken, maer dat hy er uit zie wat vormen hem ten gebruike staen” (Handelingen 1850b: 90).

Beredeneerd plan (1773: 2), for example, simply stated that a dictionary comprising all the Dutch words would be important to anyone interested in the Dutch language.

The inclusive approach of the period appears to be mirrored by the inclusive con-ceptualisation of the intended readership. Alberdingk Thijm, however, had a much stricter audience in mind when he referred to de nederlandsche schryver ‘the Dutch author’. Snellaert had used similar wordings. The embryonically present literary orientation would be made explicit in later years.

The congress decided that a committee should investigate the plan for a dic-tionary. Snellaert and Alberdingk Thijm became members of this committee. The committee members were expected to report at the next congress (Handelingen 1850b: 91).

7.6.2 Congress 1850

At the second Dutch congress (Amsterdam, 1850), some of the committee members shared their thoughts on the plan for a new Dutch dictionary, though Alberdingk Thijm and Snellaert did not. From this time onwards, almost all the discussions about the new dictionary revolved around the question of what to include in the dictionary, or more precisely around the question of how to make the dictionary more exclusive than implied by the still quite inclusive proposals of Snellaert and Alberdingk Thijm.

Committee member J. H. Bormans attacked the idea of generality put forward by Alberdingk-Thijm and Snellaert (Handelingen 1851: 95–110). Adopting expres-sions such as een algemeen idiotikon ‘a general idioticon, i.e. collection of local and regional lexical items’, eene schatkamer ‘a treasury’, een museum aller onzer gewestspraken ‘a museum of all our regional languages’, Bormans ironically referred to de schilderende tael ‘the colourful language’ of Alberdingk-Thijm (Handelingen 1851: 101), whose proposal he heavily criticised. Following up on Snellaert’s and Alberdingk-Thijm’s literary orientation, he made the following statement:

The literary commonwealth is inherently always more or less an aristocratic affair.

Didn’t Mr Snellaert – when he already so deeply offended the authority of the privileged language, of the written language, by demanding some sort of universal suffrage for all classes of words – fear that, when his principle would be adopted, barbarism and stupidity would soon occupy the whole literature?⁹

9. “Het lettergemeenebest is uit zijnen aard altijd iets min of meer aristocratisch. Vreesde de Heer Snellaert niet, toen hij […] door een soort van algemeen stemregt voor alle klassen van woorden te eischen, het gezag der geprivilegieerde tael, der boekentael, reeds zo diep krenkte, dat bij aldien zijn princiep aangenomen werd, de barbarei en domheid […] eerst-daegs de gansche letterkunde zouden overrompelen?” (Handelingen 1851: 101–102).

In a classic gate-keeping move, Bormans contrasted the inclusive ideal with the extremely exclusive alternative of the written literary language. The attitude towards the spoken language and regional varieties as being despicable implied another problem. Bormans argued that it was generally accepted that the Dutch regional languages and Platduitsch ‘Low German’ on the other side of the political border had de zelfde wortels ‘the same roots’ (Handelingen 1851: 103). If the new diction-ary was supposed to be general in terms of region and diachrony, there would be no reason for the exclusion of Low German. Instead, all the Low German snippers

‘snippets’, dispersed over the platdeutsche gewesten ‘Low German regions’ should also be collected (Handelingen 1851: 103).

J. David from Louvain was much more sympathetic to the idea of a new, gen-eral Dutch dictionary (Handelingen 1851: 111–116). He confirmed the importance of taking into account “dialectal differences living on in the mouth of the people”

(Handelingen 1851: 113; my translation). What was less obvious was the impor-tance of the diachronic dimension. David only wanted to include medieval words that were still used in one or more regions. Words that had fallen completely out of use should not be included, “as belonging to a Middle Dutch dictionary rather than to one that should present the language in its current and cultivated state”

(Handelingen 1851: 113; my translation). Note that current, in the view of David, included the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Handelingen 1851: 113).

Prudens van Duyse embraced the idea of a general Dutch dictionary, while signalling still other categories of words to be excluded from the dictionary (Handelingen 1851: 116–123). Apart from specialised vocabulary, he made it par-ticularly clear that the regionally varying spoken language had to be included, though not Straattaal ‘street language’ (Handelingen 1851: 119):

Street language, stuff of a low kind, should be rejected. We consider street language the language that is repudiated by polite, decent people, and that has no place in writings of good taste.¹⁰

Arie de Jager dwelled upon the many plans that had already been developed since the second half of the eighteenth century, within the Maatschappij and the Koninklijk Instituut (Handelingen 1851: 123–130), rhetorically concluding that some people thought these plans would never be realised. De Jager argued against the inclusive approach, and in particular, against the inclusion of historical forms, regional words and specialised vocabulary. The diachronic, regional and domain-related varia-tion championed since van Iperen had to be reduced. Apart from the feasibility of

10. “Straattaal, als goedje van slecht allooi, zou men verwerpen. Als straattaal aanschouwen wij zulke, die door beschaafde, fatsoenlijke menschen verstooten wordt, en in schriften van smaak geene plaats kan vinden” (Handelingen 1851: 119).

the project, the usefulness of a general dictionary was one of his main arguments against such a dictionary:

To many, the extensiveness of the work would also hinder its usefulness. The cur-rent need primarily demands a dictionary of the Dutch language, as it manifests itself in the polite spoken and written language in the regions, both Belgian and Dutch, that belong to her territory.¹¹

For de Jager, too, the exclusion of historic forms still implied the inclusion of the writers of the Golden Age (Handelingen 1851: 128). Medieval, regional and technical words should be collected in afzonderlijke werken ‘in separate works’

(Handelingen 1851: 128). Later that day, de Jager would lecture about het belang van de kennis der Idiotismen onzer taal, en over hetgeen aan die kennis nog ontbreekt

‘the importance of the knowledge of the regional vocabulary of our language, and about what is still lacking in this knowledge’ (Handelingen 1851: 151–156). It was a powerful plea for fundamental research of regional words, which, however, did not belong in the general dictionary.

With most of the variational dimensions having been questioned, an important issue that remained was the dimension of origin, and specifically the acceptability of French loans. Michiel van der Voort from Brussels had sent in a letter on this topic, which was read at the congress and printed in the Handelingen (1851: 136–

141). Van der Voort argued that a general dictionary was in itself a good idea, which needed to be preceded, however, by a committee that would make an in-ventory of indigenous alternatives to French loans, so that the general dictionary could avoid the inclusion of French loans. The ideological position taken by van der Voort was not new, as anti-French sentiments had been very common in the Low Countries, also in the lexicographical debates (see e.g. van Iperen; Section 7.2).

Van der Voort’s fierce rhetoric, however, is noteworthy, with complaints about the French language having crept into the Dutch language als eene kanker ‘like a cancer’ (Handelingen 1851: 138).

After these strong critiques of the inclusive ideal, Alberdingk Thijm once more took the floor to defend the desired inclusiveness (Handelingen 1851: 142–151). He now took a positivistic approach, arguing that it had become common to abandon received knowledge and take a fresh look at all empirical facts available: “I wish that principle were applied to the Dutch language” (Handelingen 1851: 144; my translation). In spite of the many difficulties raised by Bormans, he continued, the

11. “De uitgebreidheid van het werk zou ook bij velen de bruikbaarheid in den weg staan. De behoefte van het tegenwoordig oogenblik eischt het allereerst een Woordenboek van de neder-landsche taal, zoo als deze zich als beschaafde spreek- en schrijftaal thans vertoont in de gewesten, zoowel belgische als noord-nederlandsche, die tot haar gebied behooren” (Handelingen 1851: 127).

congress should lay the foundation of a Dutch dictionary, which should primarily comprise de levende elementen, die in de taal van heel het volk aanwezig zijn ‘the living elements that are present in the language of the whole people’ (Handelingen 1851: 144–145). As such, the dictionary should become een afspiegeling der levende volksttaal ‘a reflection of the living language of the people’ (Handelingen 1851: 145).

While reconfirming his inclusive ideal, Alberdingk Thijm did elaborate on two restrictions. Acknowledging the historical affinity between Dutch and Low German, he nevertheless stated that boundaries had to be drawn, and rhetorically asked why one would not do this in a more or less arbitrary manner? All borders and boundaries, are arbitrary, he continued, as High German is as close to Low German as Low German is to Dutch, and therefore:

we are making a dictionary for the people of the countries, presently separated by the names of Holland and Belgium, that can be considered to make up the Low Countries; for the Low Countries of Charles V, for the Low Countries of King Willem I; these are the Low Countries that are entitled to a dictionary, because they have established a literature of their own, a unique national character and a national culture, and therefore, having developed close connections, they can exercise their rights to a treasury of their common language more strongly than their Low German speaking neighbours.¹²

The Handelingen state that this part of Alberdingk Thijm’s speech was applauded.

Cancelling out Bormans’ argument, Alberdingk Thijm embraced the idea of the Dutch language area as one cultural and ethnological space, and thus as one cul-tural nation. This idea was the ideological basis of the Dutch congresses, and it was only because Bormans had addressed the status of Low German that Alberdingk Thijm needed to elaborate on this restriction, which had been implied by all the dictionary plans before him.

Alberdingk Thijm adopted David’s view that a diachronic boundary should be set, and that only Middle Dutch words should be included that were still used (Handelingen 1851: 148). Obsolete words should be included in a Middle Dutch dictionary, to which he now added that the congress ought to provide de natie […] met een Woordenboek van de moderne Nederlandsche taal ‘the nation

12. “wij maken een Woordenboek voor het volk van de landen, die, thands door den naam van Holland en Belgiën gescheiden, gerekend kunnen worden Nederland uit te maken; voor de Nederlanden van Karel V, voor de Nederlanden van Koning Willem I: dat zijn de Nederlanden, die aanspraak hebben op een woordenboek, omdat zij eene eigene eene eigenaardige letterkunde gevestigd hebben, eene eigene volks-characteristiek en nationale beschaving wisten te ontwik-kelen, en, daardoor, in enger verbintenis met elkander getreden, hoogere rechten dan hunne plat-Duitsch sprekende geburen kunnen doen gelden op eene schatkamer hunner gemeenschap-pelijke taal” (Handelingen 1851: 147).

with a dictionary of the modern Dutch language’. Note that modern here means post-medieval. This concession resulted in a temporally less inclusive approach, which Alberdingk Thijm justified by referring to the recent plan of Matthias de Vries to make a Middle Dutch dictionary, which he optimistically expected to be complete in three or four years’ time (Handelingen 1851: 148).¹³

A main issue in the discussions was the desired degree of inclusiveness of the new dictionary. The variational dimensions of region, time, domain, mode and origin were all questioned. In the discussions, the term beschaafd ‘polite, cultivated’

occurred, a common term to refer to socially privileged groups, and in terms of language, to the variety used by these groups as well as to the written literary lan-guage. The word beschaafd was used by the commentators David, de Jager, and van Duyse, while Bormans took a position that was even more strongly exclusive. In the plan of 1791, devised within the Maatschappij, the term beschaefd had occurred to designate what the new dictionary should not be limited to (see above, Section 7.3).

Obviously, beschaafd has a social significance that would become even clearer in the final plan, presented to the third Dutch congress of 1851.

In the eighteenth-century plans, a remarkable difference existed between the inclusive approach appropriated for the dictionary, and the exclusive approach common in normative grammar. As discussed in 7.3, this difference led Hinlópen to suggest an extension of the inclusive approach to the field of grammar in 1791.

The discussions at the Dutch congress, however, would result in the other alterna-tive, viz. the extension of the exclusive approach to the field of lexicography.

s7-6-2-p15

The following day, the congress accepted Alberdingk Thijm’s proposal to estab-lish a committee that would devise a detailed plan for a new dictionary (Handelingen 1851: 164, 171). The committee comprised three northern members, viz. de Vries, de Jager and H. J. Koenen, and three southern members, viz. David, Snellaert and Van Duyse. De Vries would present the final plan for a dictionary at the third Dutch congress.

7.6.3 Congress 1851

At the third Dutch congress (Brussels, 1851), Karel Frans Stallaert from Brussels spoke Over volkstael in spraek en schrift, met betrekking tot het ontworpen alge-meen nederlandsche woordenboek (‘About the language of the people in speech and in writing, with respect to the devised plan for a general Dutch dictionary’, cf.

13. At the same time when de Vries was working on the WNT, he also worked on the Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek (MNW) ‘Middle Dutch dictionary’, which would however only appear between 1885 and 1929, largely compiled by Eelco Verwijs and Jakob Verdam (de Tollenaere 1977: 238).

Handelingen 1852: 85–90). Referring to the discussions of the year before, Stallaert began by expressing the hope

that a free, unprejudiced, thorough and fair investigation will be the basis of the envisaged dictionary, that the language of the people will be seriously and diligently listened to, and the countless pearls of language and history that have been under-estimated and called street language for too long will be shown.¹⁴

Interestingly, Stallaert’s inclusive approach is primarily socially oriented. He dis-regarded the variational dimensions that had been central to the discussion since the 1760s, viz. region, time and domain, and focused on the social aspect, which had become more important in recent years. Stallaert’s main claim was that the restriction to the language used in the Low Countries was unmotivated, and that Low German should also be taken into account. He sided with Bormans – for whom it had been an argument against the whole dictionary project – that the national border between the Netherlands and Germany should be disregarded.

After Stallaert’s speech, it was decided that the discussion would be postponed until the following day, which would be entirely devoted to the dictionary plans.

It is obvious, however, that Stallaert’s idea did not stand a chance as the congress

It is obvious, however, that Stallaert’s idea did not stand a chance as the congress