Johnson’s Dictionary in the Age of the British Enlightenment

---A Collection of Essays and Letters on his Dictionary and the Philosophy of Language in the Eighteenth Century ---

Edited by Prof. Isamu Hayakawa with the assitance of Mr. Keiji Nakamura

Johnson’s Dictionary, in both unabridged and abridged versions, can only be fully understood within the context of the British Enlightenment in the eighteenth century. Contextualisation requires the inclusion of various articles, papers, and books written about the Dictionary, as well as research about the philosophy of language during this time, which differed greatly from that of the nineteenth century following the emergence of comparative linguistics. Particularly relevant books include Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1690 and Watts’ Logick: or, the Right Use of Reason in the Enquiry after Truth, published in 1741. These texts profoundly influenced Johnson’s philosophy of language and his methods of lexicography, including definition.

After Johnson’s death, many lexicographers criticised his Dictionary and later augmented and supplemented it in various ways during the latter half of the eighteenth century.

(word-list, etymology) Mason, Todd

Johnson’s Dictionary (pronunciation) Ash, Sheridan, Walker

(synonym) Piozzi

Based on these works, English lexicography moved toward the Oxford English Dictionary, which was first planned as an enlargement and augmentation of Johnson’s Dictionary.

The research for this book was based heavily on J. E. Congleton and Elizabeth C. Congleton’s 1984 work, Johnson’s Dictionary, Bibliographical Survey 1746-1984. Similar to Congletons’ Survey, this study includes a collection of articles and papers about Johnson’s Dictionary, but it also includes chapters or prefaces taken from books about language or grammar that do not directly refer to Johnson or his Dictionary. Materials include texts from more than 100 sources scattered throughout eighteenth-century literature. The materials contained in this book are, even now, very difficult to access, so they should prove very useful to students of Johnson and his Dictionary.

This book includes four types of material:

1. Essays written by Johnson himself, including his Plan (1747) and Preface (1755);

2. Essays and prefaces from books about language or grammar, which do not refer to Johnson’s Dictionary;

3. Articles from magazines or letters about Johnson’s Dictionary, including Chesterfield’s essays written for the World and Webster’s harsh criticisms in the early 19th century; and

4. Articles from magazines or letters that do not directly refer to Johnson or his Dictionary but that are relevant to both.

This book is not available for public sale, but I hope it will be read worldwide by lexicographers, Johnsonians, scholars of Johnson and his works, and students of the philosophy of language throughout the eighteenth century.

Finally, I am honoured to publish this work and join the ranks of scholars and students of Johnson not only in Britain but worldwide. I am pleased to contribute in a small way to the Johnson Society of London, of which I am a member.

Notes to the Reader:

* Materials are ordered chronologically from 1690 to 1815.

* All materials were hand-typed from the original essays or articles, which means, in principle, that no materials were scanned or corrected by the editor.

* Text in prefaces to books published in the eighteenth century were often italicised; I have removed italicisation because it can be a distraction to modern readers.

* I have frequently inserted [sic] when a word’s spelling is archaic or a variant of modern spelling, but not every example is noted.

* I have provided contextualisation for some important words and phrases to make the material easier to access and to clarify the perspective of eighteenth-century linguistic theory.

* Short editorial notes are indicated by { }.

* A list of authors, with short notes, is suffixed at the end of this book.

TABLE of CONTENTS

　　If you are interested in this work and want to have a copy, don’t hesitate to send me an e-mail to the following address, asking for a copy of this work. I am happy to send you one with reasonable postage. And I am also happy to have errors and mistakes in the texts pointed out by you, which will be corrected in the next version. e-mail address: hayakawa@vega.aichi-u.ac.jp

1. John Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Vol. II, Book III. 1690. No. 1

2. Thomas Baker. “Chap. II Of Language.”Reflections upon Learning, wherein is shewn the Insufficiency. The Fourth Edition. 1708. No. 2

3. John Wilkins. “An Abstract of Dr. Wilkins’s Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language.” The Mathematical and Philosophical Works of the right Reverend John Wilkins, Late Lord Bishop of Chester. 1708. No. 3

4. Joseph Addison. [‘On the Conciseness of the English, in Common Discourse.’]The Spectator, No. 135. Saturday, August 4, 1711. No. 4

5. Joseph Addison. [‘On the Introduction of Foreign Words into the English Language’]The Spectator, No. 166. Saturday, September 8, 1711. No. 5

6. A Grammar of the English Tongue, with Notes, Giving the Grounds and Reason of Grammar in General. 1711. No. 6

8. John Oldmixon. Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to the Earl of Oxford, about the English Tongue. London, [1712]. No. 8

9. William Lily. ‘The Preface.’ A Short Introduction of Grammar Generally to be Used. 1714. No. 9

10. Thomas Sheridan. ‘THE PREFACE.’ An Easy Introduction Grammar in English. 1714. No. 10

11. Samuel Johnson. ‘1718.’ Diaries, Prayers, and Annals. Ed. E. L. McAdam, Jr. With Donald and Mary Hyde. 1958. No. 11

12. Ephraim Chambers. Some Considerations offered to the Publick, Preparatory to a Second Edition of Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. 1728. No. 12

13. James Greenwood (). ‘THE PREFACE.’ An Essay towards a Practical English Grammar, describing the Genius and Nature of the English Tongue. The third edition. 1729. No. 13

14. Benjamin Martin. “Of Language in general; of Grammar in general; and particularly that of the English Tongue.”Bibliotheca technologica: or, A philological library of literary arts and sciences. Viz. 1. Theology. XXV. Miscellanies. 1737. No. 14

15. Ephraim Chambers (ca.1680-1740). ‘THE PREFACE.’ Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. The Fifth Edition. Vol. I. 1741. No. 15

16. Isaac Watts. “Chap. VI. Special Rules to direct our Conceptions of Things. SECT. II-IV.” Logick: or, the Right Use of Reason in the Enquiry after Truth. The eighth edition, corrected. 1745. No. 16

17. Samuel Johnson. “A Short Scheme for Compiling a new Dictionary of the English Language.” April 30, 1746. No. 17

18. Samuel Johnson. Clerk’s copy of The Plan of a Dictionary (“fair Copy”), Post October 1746. No. 18

19. Advertisement. The London Evening-Post (Tuesday, April 14, 1747) No. 19

20. Samuel Johnson. The Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language; Addressed to the Right Honourable Philip Dormer, Earl of Chesterfield. 1747. No. 20

21. W. S. “The signification of Words how varied.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, XIX (February 1749) No. 21

22. Benjamin Martin. ‘THE PREFACE.’ Lingua Britannica Reformata: or, A New English Dictionary. 1749. No. 22

23. J[ames] H[arris]. ‘BOOK I. CHAP I. INTRODUCTION. Design of the Whole.’ Hermes: Or, A Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Language and Universal Grammar. 1751. No. 23

24. Samuel Johnson. The Rambler, No. 156. (Saturday, September 14, 1751) No. 24

25. Samuel Johnson. The Rambler, No. 168. (Saturday, October 26, 1751) No. 25

26. Samuel Johnson. The Rambler, No. 208. (Saturday, March 14, 1752) No. 26

27. Thomas Edwards. An Account of the Trial of the Letter γ alias Y. 1753. No. 27

28. Samuel Johnson. ‘Diary. Apr. 3, 1753.’ Diaries, Prayers, and Annals. Ed. E. L. McAdam, Jr. With Donald and Mary Hyde. 1958. No. 28

29. Samuel Richardson. [Correspondence in 1753] The Correspondence of Samuel Richardson. Ed. Anna Lætitia Barbauld. 1804. No. 29

30. Fourth Earl of Chesterfield (Philip Dormer Stanhope). The World, Number C. Thursday, November the 28th, 1754. No. 30

31. Fourth Earl of Chesterfield (Philip Dormer Stanhope, 1694-1773). The World, Number CI. Thursday, December the 5th, 1754. No. 31

32. Samuel Johnson. The Celebrated Letter to Chesterfield. British Museum Library. Add. Ms. 5713. “Copy of Dr. Johnson’s Letter to Lord Chesterfield; Corrected by himself, and given by him to Bennet Langton Esqre. Presented to the British Museum in June 1797.” No. 32

33. Advertisement for Johnson’s Dictionary. The Public Advertiser. 1755-1756. No. 33

34. A. Y. [Jerome Stone.] Scots Magazine, XVII (February 1755) No. 34

35. Samuel Johnson. ‘PREFACE.’ A Dictionary of the English Language. London, April 1755. No. 35

36. David Garrick. ‘On Johnson’s Dictionary.’ 1755. No. 36

38. Sir Tanfield Leman. ‘Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language.’ The Monthly Review, or, Literary Journal, XII (April 1755) No. 38

39. Adam Smith. “Review of Johnson’s Dictionary.” Edinburgh Review I (1 January to 1 June 1755) No. 39

40. John Maxwell, M.A. A Letter from a Friend in England to Mr. Maxwell, complaining of his Dilatoriness in the publication of his so-long- promised Work. 1755. No. 40

41. Benjamin Martin. ‘A Chronological Memoir of Occurrences, For May, 1755.’ Miscellaneous Correspondence, Containing a Variety of Subjects. Vol. I. (For the Year 1755 and 1756) 1755. No. 41

42. Samuel Johnson. ‘THE PREFACE.’ A Dictionary of the English Language. Abstracted from the Folio Edition. Vol. I. 1756. No. 42

43. Samuel Johnson. ‘THE PREFACE.’ A New Dictionary of Trade and Commerce. By Mr. Rolt. 1756. No. 43

44. John Wilkes. Letter on Johnson’s Dictionary. n.d. [1755-1759] Printed in The Bear and the Phoenix. 1978. No. 44

45. N. Drayton Thomas. “Preface.” An Abridgement of Ainsworth’s Dictionary of the Latin Tongue, 1758. No. 45

46. Joseph Baretti. ‘THE PREFACE.’ A Dictionary of the English and Italian Languages. 1760. No. 46

47. Daniel Fenning. The Royal English Dictionary. 1761. No. 47

48. Joseph Priestley. The Rudiments of English Grammar. 1768. No. 48

50. Joseph Priestley. “Lecture the Twelfth. Of the Regular Growth and Corruption of Languages.” A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar. 1762. No. 50

51. Robert Lowth. ‘PREFACE.’ A Short Introduction to English Grammar: with Critical Notes. 1762. No. 51

52. Thomas Sheridan. A Dissertation on the Causes of the Difficulties, Which occur, in Learning the English Tongue. 1762. No. 52

53. [John Wilkes.] The North Briton, No. 12 (August 21, 1762) No. 53

54. John Ash. ‘THE PREFACE.’ Grammatical Institutes; or, An Easy Introduction to Dr. Lowth’s English Grammar. 4th edition. 1763. No. 54

55. John Bartholomew Rogler. (Title Page) A Dictionary: English, German and French. Third edition. 1763. No. 55

56. M. Bayley. ‘PREFACE.’ An Universal Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. 1764. No. 56

57. William Kenrick. A Review of Dr. Johnson’s New Edition of Shakespeare... 1765. No. 57

59. Archibald Campbell. Lexiphanes, a Dialogue. 1767. No. 59

60. L. L. B. “Remarks on Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary.” The Political Register, Vol. III (October 1768, No. XIX) No. 60

61. John Maclaurin Dreghorn. “On Johnson’s Dictionary.” Essays in Verse. [Edinburgh, 1769] No. 61

62. George Colman, the elder. “A Letter from Lexiphanes; Containing Proposals for a Glossary or Vocabulary of the Vulgar Tongue.” St. James Chronicle, No. 1526 (December 1-4, 1770) No. 62

63. John Wilkes. A Letter to Samuel Johnson, L.L.D. 1770. No. 63

64. John Walters. A Dissertation on the Welsh Language, Pointing out it’s [sic] Antiquity, Copiousness, Grammatical Perfection. 1771. No. 64

65. Robert Fergusson. “To Dr. Samuel Johnson. Food for a New Edition of His Dictionary.” Weekly Magazine (Edinburgh), October 21, 1773. No. 65

66. Samuel Johnson. ‘Advertisement to this Edition.’ A Dictionary of the English Language. The Fourth Edition. 1773. No. 66

67. William Kenrick. ‘Introduction.’ A New Dictionary of the English Language. 1773. No. 67

68. Lord James Burnet Monboddo. ‘Introduction.’ Of the Origin and Progress of Language. Vol. I. 1773. No. 68

69. William Mitford. An Essay upon the Harmony of Language. 1774. No. 69

70. George Campbell. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Vol. I. 1776. No. 70

71. [Ephraim Chambers.] Proposals for Publishing in Weekly Numbers, Mr. Chambers’s CYCLOPÆDIA; or, Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. In Four Volumes. Jan. 1, 1778. No. 71

72. John Horne Tooke. A Letter to John Dunning, Esq. 1778. No. 72

73. Samuel Johnson. ‘Life of Roscommon.’ The Lives of the English Poets: and a Criticism on their Works. Vol. I. 1779. No. 73

74. Laetitia Lappet. “To the Author of the Mirror.” The Mirror, No. 89 (March 14, 1780) No. 74

75. Thomas Sheridan. ‘PREFACE.’ A General Dictionary of the English Language. 1780. No. 75

76. John Ireland. Hogarth Illustrated. Vol. I. London, [1781] No. 78

77. J. R. “A Censure of Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, and of the other Dictionaries of the English Language.” The Westminster Magazine, X (June 1782) No. 77

78. James Thomson Callender. Deformities of Dr. Samuel Johnson, selected from his works. 1782. No. 78

79. (Anonymous) ‘Impartial and Critical Review of New Publication.’ The Gentleman’s Magazine, LIII Part the Second (July 1783) No. 79

80. [James Thomson Callender.] ‘SECT. VIII.’ A Critical Review of the Works of Dr. Samuel Johnson. Second edition. 1783. No. 80

81. Joseph Ritson. Remarks, Critical and Illustrative, on the Text and Notes of the Last Edition of Shakespeare. 1783. No. 81

82. Robert Nares. ‘PREFACE.’ Elements of Orthoepy. 1784. No. 82

83. Thomas Tyers. “A Biographical Sketch of Dr. Samuel Johnson.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, LIV. Part the Second (December 1784) No. 83

84. William Cooke. The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. 1785. The second edition. No. 84

85. William Shaw. Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Late Dr. Samuel Johnson. 1785. No. 85

86. John Walker. “To Dr. Samuel Johnson.” A Rhetorical Grammar, or Course of Lessons in Elocution. 1785. No. 86

87. John Courtenay. A Poetical Review of the Literary and Moral Character of the Late Samuel Johnson, L.L.D. The Second Edition. 1786. No. 87

88. Richard Graves (the late Peter of Pontefract). “Elegy on the death of Dr. Samuel Johnson. To Sir Joshua Reynolds.” Lucubrations: Consisting of Essays, Reveries, &c. In Prose and Verse. 1786. No. 88

89. John Pinkerton ed. Ancient Scotish [sic] Poems, Never Before in Print. Vol. II. 1786. No. 89

90. John Horne Tooke. Επεα πτεροεντα, or The diversions of Purley. Part I. 1786. No. 90

91. Joseph Towers. An Essay on the Life, Character, and Writings of Dr. Samuel Johnson. 1786. No. 91

92. Sir Herbert Croft. “Oxford Dictionary of the English Language.”The Gentleman’s Magazine, LVII Part the Second (August 1787) No. 92

93. P. O. B. “Thoughts on Dictionaries.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, LVII Part the Second (September 1787) No. 93

94. Sir John Hawkins, Knt. The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. 1787. No. 94

95. A. B. D. “Remarks on Johnson’s Dictionary, with Hints for Improvements.”The Gentleman’s Magazine, LVIII Part the First (January 1788) No. 95

96. Sir Herbert Croft. “Oxford Dictionary of the English Language.”The Gentleman’s Magazine, LVIII Part the First (February 1788) No. 96

97. The Rev. Herbert Croft, L.L.B. An Unfinished Letter to the Right Honourable William Pitt, concerning the New Dictionary of the English Language. 1788. No. 97

98. A. B. C. “On Mr. Croft’s intended Dictionary of the English Language.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, LVIII Part the Second (November 1788) No. 98

99. Hester Lynch Piozzi. Letters to and from the Late Samuel Johnson, LL.D. Vol. II. 1788. No. 99

100. [Philip Withers.] “Proposals for a New English Dictionary.” Aristarchus, or The Principles of Composition. Second Edition. [1788] No. 100

101. Indignant. “Dr. Johnson vindicated.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, LIX Part the Second (July 1789) No. 101

102. Noah Webster. Dissertations on the English Language: with Notes, Historical and Critical. 1789. No. 102

103. Vicesimus Knox, M.A. Winter Evenings: or, Lucubrations on Life and Letters. The second edition. Vol. II. 1790. No. 103

104. James Boswell. (From 1747-1756) The Life of Samuel Johnson. 1791. No. 104

105. John Walker. ‘PREFACE’ A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. 1791. No. 105

106. Gebhardt Friedrich August Wendeborn, LL.D. A View of England toward the Close of the Eighteenth Century. Vol. II. 1791. No. 106

107. (Anonymous.) A Letter to James Boswell, Esq. 1792. No. 107

108. Sir Herbert Croft. Proposals for Publishing, in May Next, Croft’s Johnson’s Dictionary Corrected, without the Smallest Omission. 1792. No. 108

109. Arthur Murphy, Esq. An Essay on the Life and Genius of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. 1792. No. 109

110. Robert Nares. General Rules for the Pronunciation of the English Language, with complete lists of the exceptions. 1792. No. 110

111. Hester Lynch Piozzi. ‘PREFACE.’ British Synonymy. 1794. No. 111

112. Robert Anderson, M.D. The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. 1795. No. 112

113. Lindley Murray. English Grammar. 1795. No. 113

114. Benjamin Dawson, LL.D. Prolepsis Philologiæ Anglicanæ; or, Plan of a Philological and Synonymical Dictionary of the English Language. 1797. No. 114

115. Johann Christoph Adelung. “On the relative merits and demerits of Johnson’s English115 Dictionary.” Elements of Critical Philosophy... 1798. No. 115

116. W. N. ‘Johnson’s Dictionary how composed.’ The Gentleman’s Magazine, LXIX (Supplement 1799) No. 116

117. Octavious Graham Gilchrist. The Gentleman’s Magazine, LXX Part the First (April 1800) No. 117

118. George Mason. ‘PREFACE’ A Supplement to Johnson’s ‘Dictionary’. 1801l. No. 118

119. Jonathan Boucher. Proposals for Printing by Subscription, in two volumes, quarto: Linguæ Anglicanæ Veteris Thesaurus. [1801, 1802] No. 119

120. (Anonymous) Review of New Publications. Anecdotes of the English Language. The Gentleman’s Magazine, LXXIII Part the First (February 1803) No. 120

121. Samuel Pegge. “Cursory Remarks on Johnson’s Dictionary.” Anecdotes of the English Language. 1803. No. 121

122. Philo-Johnson. “Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary vindicated, versus Mason.”The Gentleman’ Magazine, LXXIV (March 1804) No. 122

123. S. M. “Grammatical Dictionary of the English Language?” The Gentleman’s Magazine, LXXIV Part the Second (November 1804) No. 123

124. Noah Webster. ‘Preface.’ A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language. 1806. No. 124

125. Noah Webster. A Letter to Dr. David Ramsay, or Charleston. 1807. No. 125

126. (Anonymous) “The Boston Review of Webster’s Dictionary.”The Monthly Anthology, and Boston Review, Vol. VII (October 1809) No. 126

127. Charles Richardson, Esq. Illustrations of English Philology. 1815. No. 127

♞ ♜ ♟ ♞ ♜ ♟ ♞ ♜ ♟ ♞ ♜ ♟ ♞ ♜ ♟

No. 1

1. John Locke. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Vol. II, Book III. London: Printed by Eliz. Holt, for Thomas Basset, 1690. The following text is based on the twelfth edition, published for C. Hitch, J. Pemberton, J. Beecroft and S. Symon in London, 1741.

CHAPTER II. Of the Signification of Words.

Words are sensible Signs, necessary for Communication.

§. 1. Man, though he have great Variety of Thoughts, and such from which others as well as himself might receive Profit and Delight; yet they are all within his own Breast, invisible and hidden from others, nor can of themselves be made appear. The Comfort and Advantage of Society not being to be had without Communication of Thoughts, it was necessary, that Man should find out some external sensible Signs, whereby those invisible Ideas, which his Thoughts are made up of, might be made known to others. For this purpose nothing was so fit, either for Plenty or Quickness, as those articulate Sounds, which with so much Ease and Variety, he found himself able to make. Thus we may conceive how Words, which were by Nature so well adapted to that purpose, came to be made Use of by Men, as the Signs of their Ideas; not by any natural Connexion, that there is between particular articulate Sounds and certain Ideas, for then there would be but one Language amongst all Men; but by a voluntary Imposition, whereby such a Word is made arbitrarily the Mark of such an Idea. The Use then of Words, is to be sensible Marks of Ideas; and the Ideas they stand for, are their proper and immediate Signification.

Words are the sensible Signs of his Ideas who uses them.

§. 2. The use Men have of these Marks, being either to record their own Thoughts for the Assistance of their own Memory; or, as it were, to bring out their Ideas, and lay them before the view of others: Words in their primary or immediate Signification, stand for nothing but the Ideas in the Mind of him that uses them, how imperfectly soever, or carelessly those Ideas are collected from the Things which they are supposed to represent. When a Man speaks to another, it is, that he may be understood; and the end of Speech is, that those Sounds, as Marks, may make known his Ideas to the Hearer. That then which Words are the Marks of, are the Ideas of the Speaker: Nor can any one apply them as Marks, immediately to any thing else, but the Ideas, that he himself hath. For this would be to make them Signs of his own Conceptions, and yet apply them to other Ideas; which would be to make them Signs and not Signs of his Ideas at the same time; and so in effect to have no Signification at all. Words being voluntary Signs, they cannot be voluntary Signs imposed by him on Things he knows not. That would be to make them Signs of nothing, Sounds without Signification. A Man cannot make his Words the Signs either of Qualities in Things, or of Conceptions in the Mind of another, whereof he has none in his own. ’Till he has some Ideas of his own, he cannot suppose them to correspond with the Conceptions of another Man; nor can he use any Signs for them: For thus they would be the Signs of he knows not what, which is in Truth to be the Signs of nothing. But when he represents to himself other Men’s Ideas, by some of his own, if he consent to give them the same Names, that other Men do, ’tis still to his own Ideas; to Ideas that he has, and not to Ideas that he has not.

Words are the sensible Signs of his Ideas who uses them.

§. 3. This is so necessary in the Use of Language, that in this respect, the Knowing, and the Ignorant; the Learned and the Unlearned, use the Words they speak (with any meaning) all alike. They, in every Man’s Mouth, stand for the Ideas he has, and which he would express by them. A child having taken Notice of nothing in the Metal he hears called Gold, but the bright shining yellow Colour, he applies the Word Gold only to his own Idea of that Colour, and nothing else; and therefore calls the same Colour in a Peacock’s Tail, Gold. Another that hath better observed, adds to shining yellow great Weight: and then the Sound Gold, when he uses it, stands for a complex Idea of a shining Yellow and very weighty Substance. Another adds to those Qualities, Fusibility: And then the Word Gold signifies to him a Body, bright, yellow, fusible, and very heavy. Another adds Malleability. Each of these uses equally the Word Gold, when they have Occasion to express the Idea, which they have applied it to: But it is evident that each can apply it only to his own Idea; nor can he make it stand, as a Sign of such a complex Idea, as he has not.

Words are often secretly referr’d. First, to the Ideas in other Men’s Minds.

§. 4. But though words, as they are used by Men, can properly and immediately signify nothing but the Ideas, that are in the Mind of the Speaker; yet they in their Thoughts give them a secret Reference to two other Things.

First, They suppose their Words to be Marks of the Ideas in the Minds also of other Men, with whom they communicate: For else they should talk in vain, and could not be understood, if the Sounds they applied to one Idea, were such, as by the Hearer were applied to another, which is to speak two Languages. But in this, Men stand not usually to examine, whether the Idea they and those they discourse with have in their Minds, be the same: But think it enough, that they use the Word, as they imagine, in the common Acceptation of that Language; in which they suppose, that the Idea they make it a Sign of, is precisely the same, to which the Understanding Men of that Country apply that Name.

Secondly, To the Reality of Things.

§. 5. Secondly, Because Men would not be thought to talk barely of their own Imaginations, but of Things as really they are; therefore they often suppose their Words to stand also for the Reality of Things. But this relating more particularly to Substances, and their Names, as perhaps the former does to simple Ideas and Modes, we shall speak of these two different ways of applying Words more at large, when we come to treat of the Names of mixed Modes, and Substances in particular: Tho’ give me leave here to say, that it is a perverting the use of Words, and brings unavoidable Obscurity and Confusion into their Signification, whenever we make them stand for any thing, but those Ideas we have in our own Minds.

Words by use readily excite Ideas.

§. 6. Concerning Words, also, it is farther to be considered: First, That they being immediately the Signs of Men’s Ideas; and by that means, the Instruments whereby Men communicate their Conceptions, and express to one another those Thoughts and Imaginations, they have within their own Breasts, there comes, by constant use, to be such a Connection between certain Sounds, and the Ideas they stand for, that the Names heard, almost as readily excite certain Ideas, as if the Objects themselves, which are apt to produce them, did actually affect the Senses. Which is manifestly so in all obvious sensible Qualities; and in all Substances that frequently and familiarly occur to us.

Words are often used without Signification.

§. 7. Secondly, That though the proper and immediate Signification of Words are Ideas in the Mind of the Speaker; yet, because by familiar use from our Cradles, we come to learn certain articulate Sounds very perfectly, and have them readily on our Tongues, and always at hand in our Memories, but yet are not always careful to examine, or settle their Significations perfectly, it often happens that Men, even when they would apply themselves to an attentive Consideration, do set their Thoughts more on Words than Things. Nay, because Words are many of them learned before the Ideas are known for which they stand: Therefore some, not only Children but Men, speak several Words, no otherwise than Parrots do, only because they have learned them, and have been accustomed to those Sounds. But so far as Words are of Use and Signification, so far is there a constant Connection between the Sound and the Idea, and a Designation, that the one stands for the other: without which Application of them, they are nothing but so much insignificant Noise.

Their Signification perfectly arbitrary.

§. 8. Words, by long and familiar use, as has been said, come to excite in Men certain Ideas so constantly and readily, that they are apt to suppose a natural Connection between them. But that they signify only Men’s peculiar Ideas, and that by a perfectly arbitrary Imposition, is evident, in that they often fail to excite in others (even that use the same Language) the same Ideas, we take them to be Signs of: And every Man has so inviolable a Liberty, to make Words stand for what Ideas he pleases, that no one hath the Power to make others have the same Ideas in their Minds that he has, when they use the same Words that he does. And therefore the great Augustus himself, in the Possession of that Power which ruled the World, acknowledged, he could not make a new Latin Word: which was as much as to say, That he could not arbitrarily appoint what Idea any Sound should be a Sign of, in the Mouths and common Language of his Subjects. ’Tis true, common use, by a tacit Consent, appropriates certain Sounds to certain Ideas in all Languages, which so far limits the Signification of that Sound, that unless a Man applies it to the same Idea, he does not speak properly: and let me add, that unless a Man’s Words excite the same Ideas in the Hearer, which he makes them stand for in speaking, he does not speak intelligibly. But whatever be the consequence of any Man’s using of Words differently, either from their general Meaning, or the particular Sense of the Person to whom he addresses them, this is certain, their Signification, in his use of them, is limited to his Ideas, and they can be Signs of nothing else. (pp. 4-7)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

CHAPTER IV. Of the Names of Simple Ideas.

Names of simple Ideas, Modes, and Substances, have each something peculiar.

§. 1. Though all Words, as I have shewn, signify nothing immediately but the Ideas in the Mind of the Speaker, yet upon a nearer Survey, we shall find that the Names of Simple Ideas, mixed Modes (under which I comprise Relations too) and natural Substances, have each of them something peculiar, and different from the other. For example:

First, Names of Simple Ideas, and Substances intimate real Existence.

§. 2. First, The Names of Simple Ideas, and Substances, with the abstract Ideas in the Mind, which they immediately signify, intimate also some real Existence, from which was derived their original Pattern. But the Names of mixed Modes, terminate in the Idea that is in the Mind, and lead not the Thoughts any farther, as we shall see more at large in the following Chapter.

Secondly, Names of Simple Ideas and Modes signify always both real and nominal Essence.

§. 3. Secondly, The Names of Simple Ideas and Modes, signify always the real, as well as nominal Essence of their Species. But the Names of natural Substances, signify rarely, if ever, any thing but barely the nominal Essences of those Species, as we shall shew in the Chapter that treats of the Names of Substances in particular.

Thirdly, Names of Simple Ideas undefinable.

§. 4. Thirdly, The Names of Simple ideas are not capable of any Definitions; the Names of all complex Ideas are. It has not, that I know, hitherto been taken Notice of by any Body, what Words are, and what are not capable of being defined: the want whereof is (as I am apt to think) not seldom the occasion of great wrangling and Obscurity in Men’s Discourses, whilst some demand Definitions of Terms that cannot be defined; and others think, they ought not to rest satisfied in an Explication made by a more general Word, and its Restriction, (or to speak in Terms of Art, by a Genus and Difference,) when even after such Definition made according to Rule, those who hear it, have often no more a clear Conception of the meaning of the Word, than they had before. This at least, I think, that the shewing what Words are, and what are not capable of Definitions, and wherein consists a good Definition, is not wholly besides our present Purpose; and perhaps, will afford so much Light to the Nature of these Signs, and our Ideas, as to deserve a more particular Consideration.

If all were definable, ’t would be a Process in infinitum.

§. 5. I will not here trouble myself, to prove that all Terms are not definable, from that Progress in infinitum, which it will visibly lead us into, if we should allow that all Names could be defined. For if the Terms of one Definition, were still to be defined by another, Where at last should we stop? But I shall from the Nature of our Ideas, and the Signification of our Words, shew, why some Names can, and others cannot be defined, and which they are.

What a Definition is.

§. 6. I think, it is agreed, that a Definition is nothing else but the showing the meaning of one Word by several other not synonymous Terms. The meaning of words being only the Ideas they are made to stand for by him that uses ’em; the meaning of any Term is then shewed, or the Word is defined, when, by other Words the Idea it is made the sign of, and annexed to, in the Mind of the Speaker, is as it were represented, or set before the view of another; and thus its Signification ascertained. This is the only use and end of Definitions; and therefore the only Measure of what is, or is not a good Definition.

Simple Ideas, why undefinable.

§. 7. This being premised, I say, that the Names of Simple Ideas, and those only, are incapable of being defined. The Reason whereof is this, That the several Terms of a Definition, signifying several Ideas, they can all together by no means represent an Idea, which has no Composition at all: And therefore a Definition, which is properly nothing but the showing the meaning of one Word by several others not signifying each the same thing, can in the Names of Simple Ideas have no place.

Instances; Motion.

§. 8. The not observing this Difference in our Ideas, and their Names, has produced that eminent trifling in the Schools, which is so easy to be observed in the Definitions they give us of some few of these Simple Ideas. For as to the greatest part of ’em, even those Masters of Definitions were fain to leave them untouched, merely by the Impossibility they found in it. What more exquisite Jargon could the Wit of Man invent, than this Definition, The Act of a Being in Power, as far forth as in Power? which would puzzle any rational Man, to whom it was not already known by its famous Absurdity, to guess what Word it could ever be supposed to be the Explication of. If Tully, asking a Dutchman what Beweeginge was, should have received this Explication in his own Language, that it was Aactus entis in potential, quatenus in potentia; I ask whether any one can imagine he could thereby have understood what the Word Beweeginge signified, or have guessed what Idea a Dutchman ordinarily had in his Mind, and would signify to another, when he used that Sound.

§. 9. Nor have the modern Philosophers, who have endeavoured to throw off the Jargon of the Schools, and speak intelligibly, much better succeeded in defining Simple Ideas, whether by explaining their Causes, or any otherwise. The Atomists, who define Motion to be a Passage from one place to another, What do they more than put one synonymous Word for another? For what is Passage other than Motion? And if they were asked what Passage was, How could they better define it than by Motion? For is it not at least as proper and significant, to say, Passage is a Motion from one Place to another, as to say, Motion is a Passage, &c.? This is to translate, and not to define, when we change two Words of the same Signification one for another; which when one is better understood than the other, may serve to discover what Idea the unknown stands for; but is very far from a Definition, unless we will say every English Word in the Dictionary, is the Definition of the Latin Word it answers, and that Motion is a Definition of Motus. Nor will the successive Application of the Parts of the Superficies of one Body, to those of another, which the Cartesians give us, prove a much better Definition of Motion, when well examined.

Light.

§. 10. The Act of Perspicuous, as far forth as perspicuous, is another Peripatetick Definition of a Simple Idea; which, tho’ not more absurd than the former of Motion, yet betrays its Uselessness and Insignificancy more plainly; because Experience will easily convince any one, that it cannot make the meaning of the Word Light (which it pretends to define) at all understood by a blind Man, but the Definition of Motion appears not at first sight so useless, because it escapes this way of Trial. For this Simple Idea, entering by the Touch as well as Sight, ’tis impossible to show an Example of any one, who has no other way to get the Idea of Motion, but barely by the Definition of that Name. Those who tell us, that Light is a great number of little Globules, striking briskly on the bottom of the Eye, speak more intelligibly than the Schools: but yet these Words never so well understood, would make the Idea, the Word Light stands for, no more known to a Man that understands it not before, than if one should tell him, that Light was nothing but a Company of little Tennis balls, which Fairies all Day long struck with Rackets against some Men’s Foreheads, whilst they passed by others. For granting this Explication of the thing to be true; yet the Idea of the Cause of Light, if we had it never so exact, would no more give us the Idea of Light itself, as it is such a particular Perception in us, than the Idea of the Figure and Motion of a sharp Piece of Steel would give us the Idea of that Pain which it is able to cause in us. For the Cause of any Sensation, and the Sensation itself, in all the Simple Ideas of one Sense, are two Ideas; and two Ideas so different and distant one from another, that no two can be more so. And therefore, should Des Cartes’s Globules strike never so long on the Retina of a Man, who was blind by a Gutta Serena, he would thereby never have any Idea of Light, or any thing approaching to it, though he understood what little Globules were, and what striking on another Body was, never so well. And therefore the Cartesians very well distinguish between that Light which is the Cause of that Sensation in us, and the Idea which is produced in us by it, and is that which is properly Light.

Simple Ideas, why undefinable, farther explained.

§. 11. Simple Ideas, as has been shewn, are only to be got by those Impressions, Objects themselves make on our Minds, by the proper Inlets apointed [sic] to each sort. If they are not received this way, all the Words in the World, made use of to explain, or define any of their Names, will never be able to produce in us the Idea it stands for. For, Words being Sounds, can produce in us no other Simple Ideas than of those very Sounds; nor excite any in us, but by that voluntary Connexion which is known to be between them, and those Simple Ideas which common Use has made them the Signs of. He that thinks otherwise, let him try if any Words can give him the Taste of a Pine-Apple, and make him have the true Idea of the Relish of that celebrated delicious Fruit. So far as he is told it has a Resemblance with any Tastes whereof he has the Ideas already in his Memory, imprinted there by sensible Objects, not Strangers to his Palate, so far may he approach that resemblance in his Mind. But this is not giving us that Idea by a Definition, but exciting in us other Simple Ideas, by their known Names; which will be still very different from the true taste of that Fruit itself. In Light and Colours, and all other Simple Ideas, it is the same thing: For the Signification of Sounds, is not natural, but only imposed and arbitrary. And no Definition of Light, or Redness, is more fitted or able to produce either of those Ideas in us, than the Sound Light, or Red, by itself. For to hope to produce an Idea of Light, or Colour, by a Sound, however formed, is to expect that Sounds should be visible, or Colours audible; and to make the Ears do the Office of all the other Senses. Which is all one as to say, that we might Taste, Smell, and See by the Ears: a sort of Philosophy worthy only of Sancho Panca, who had the Faculty to see Dulcinca by Hearsay. And therefore he that has not before received into his Mind, by the proper Inlet, the simple Idea which any Word stands for, can never come to know the Signification of that Word, by any other Words or Sounds, whatsoever put together, according to any Rules of Definition. The only way is, by applying to his Senses the proper Object; and so producing that Idea in him, for which he has learned the Name already. A studious blind Man, who had mightily beat his Head about visible Objects, and made use of the Explication of his Books and Friends, to understand those Names of Light and Colours, which often came in his way, bragged one Day, That he now understood what Scarlet signified. Upon which his Friend demanding, what Scarlet was? The blind Man answered, it was like the Sound of a Trumpet. Just such an Understanding of the Name of any other simple Idea will he have, who hopes to get it only from a Definition, or other Words made use of to explain it. (pp. 25-29)

No. 2

2. Thomas Baker. “Chap. II Of Language.”Reflections upon Learning, wherein is shewn the Insufficiency. Thereof, in its several Particulars: In order to evince the Usefulness and Necessity of Revelation. The Fourth Edition. London: Printed for A. Bosvile, 1708, pp. 9-23. {See another item.}

Languages being the Channels by which most of our Learning is convey’d, it is necessary to the attaining of Knowledge, that these should be kept clear and open ; if the Streams in these run muddy, or are corrupted, all the Knowledge that is convey’d by them must be obscure : Words at the best are no very certain sings of things ; they are liable to Ambiguity, and under that Ambiguity are often subject to very different Meanings ; and tho’ this, as far as it is the common condition of Speech, must be submitted to, and is no Objection in plain Laws and easie[sic] Precepts, that are intelligible enough in any Language ; yet in Matters of Science, it is much otherwise ; these are nice things; the strict Meaning is to be observ’d in them; nor can we mistake a Word without losing the Notion.

The first Language, the Hebrew, was very plain and simple, (a good Argument of its being an Original) consisting of few Roots, and those very simple and uncompounded: It seems fitted for the purpose, for which it was design’d, which was not so much to improve Men’s Knowledge, as to better their Lives, and this End it did perfectly Answer : Indeed the Ancient Tongues are generally the most uncompounded, and consequently more plain and easier ; but then, whilst things continued thus, as Languages were easie, so they were defective, and therefore as from necessity Men were put upon improving Speech; so particularly as Arts increased, Languages grew up with them, and Men were put upon Coining new Words to express the new Ideas they had of things. This has enlarged the Bounds of Language, and swoln it to such a height, that its Redundancy is now a greater Inconvenience, than the Defectiveness of it was before.

The Inconveniences from Languages are chiefly two ; First, Their Variety : And Secondly, Their Mutability. I. Were there only one Language in the World, Learning would be a much easier thing, than it now is ; Men might then immediately apply to things, whereas now a great part of our time is spent in Words, and that with so little Advantage, that we often blunt the edge of our Understanding, by dealing with such rough and unpleasant tools : For however apt Men may be to over-value the Tongues, and to think they have made a considerable progress in Learning, when they have once over-come these, yet in reality there is no internal worth in them, and Men may understand a thousand Languages without being the wiser, unless they attend to the things, that they deliver : It is in order to this that they are to be learnt, and it is the hard condition of Learning, that in this respect, it cannot be without them ; This labour must necessarily be devour’d in our way to Knowledge, and every Man must dig in this Mine, that hopes to be Master of the Treasure it conceals ; much Dross is to be separated, and many Difficulties to be over-come.

When I speak of the Variety of Languages, I do not mean that all of them are necessary, at least not to all sorts of Learning ; were this our Case, we could have few compleat Scholars ; but tho’ all of them be not necessary, yet some of them are allow’d to be so, particularly such as are stiled Learned ; and there is such a Connexion among most Tongues of the same kind, that it is hard to excel in any one, without some tolerable skill in the rest. This is pretty plain in the Greek and Latin, and the reason is clearer in the Eastern Tongues, where the Affinity is greater. Two of the Languages that in their different kinds pretend to most Learning, (I do not here inquire, how truly) are the Arabick and Greek, and it happens not well, that these two are the most copious and difficult. They that have skill (a) in the first assure us, that it abounds in Synonymous Words, that it has five hundred Words for a Lyon, and almost a thousand for a Sword, which are enough to make an intire Language ; and almost as many as all the Radicals in the Hebrew Tongue. And so for the Greek, which is uncontestedly Learned, most know how copious it is; for tho’ its Radicals are not so many as might be imagin’d, which some have computed not much to exceed three thousand, (b) yet this is abundantly made up in its Compositions, and however simple it may be in its Roots, it spreads very widely in its Branches : If we add to this, its many different Dialects, and all the various Inflections of Nouns and Verbs, which diversifie Words, and distinguish them from themselves ; this will swell the Account much higher, and make it almost an infinite thing. So that what from the Variety of Languages, and the Copia of those that are reputed Learned, one great Obstruction lies in the way of Learning.

The other Inconvenience is from their Mutability ; for whatever their Number may be, yet were there Nature fix’d, and their Condition sated, the Measures that are taken from them might be more steady ; but when to the Multitude of them, we add their Mutability, we are still under greater Difficulties. Words, like other things are subject to the common Fate of Vicissitude and Change ; they are always in Flux, Ebbing and Flowing, and have scarce any fixed Period : For being govern’d by Custom, which it self depends upon one of the most unconstant things in the World, the Humour of the People, it is scarce possible it should be otherwise : No Prince ever gave Laws to these. Cæsar, who gage Laws to Rome, could give none to its Language ; and it was look’d upon as the heighth[sic] of Flattery in that Sycophant, that offer’d to Complement him with such an extravagant Power ; in this, Custom is only absolute. We can scarce have a better instance of this, than in the Tongue we are now speaking of, the Latin ; that Language that was spoke soon after the Foundation of Rome, was perfectly unintelligible in the Age of Augustus ; nay, some hundred Years after that Period, and not 150, before Cicero’s time, the Tongue, that was then Vulgar, can hardly now be understood without a Comment. This is evident from the Inscription upon the Columma Rostrata, that is yet in being, and a Copy of which has been given us by Bishop Walton (c). In Cicero’s Age, that Tongue was in its full heighth ; it had been growing up till then, ever after it was declining, and had only one short Stage of Perfection. They that came after were observ’d to write with some mixture, even Livy had his Patavinity, which is most probably understood of a Tincture from his Country Education.

Successively on, they were more corrupt ; Paterculus, Seneca, &c. still writ with a grater mixture ; till at last, either by mixing with Foreign Nations, in sending Colonies, or by the breaking in of Barbarous People upon them, the Language sunk into Decay, and became utterly Barbarous.

(one long paragraph omitted)

Now under this great Multiplicity, as well as Change, what Difficulties are we to struggle with, and what Uncertainties are to be over-come? Our Words are so many, and so uncertain, that there is both great Difficulty in becoming Masters of them, and, after that, in fixing and determining their Sense : We are to trace them up to their first Originals, an afterwards to pursue them down to their last Decay, to mark their several Times and Periods, in all which they much vary, and are often capable of different Meanings, or their true Meaning is very obscure. There is only one way of coming at their Meaning, after they become dead Languages, and cease to be Vulgar, by the Books that have been writ in them ; but besides the want we are in of some of these, and Defects in those we have, tho’ they might serve well enough for common Ends and Uses : yet the things we are now enquiring after, are Matters of Science, which are abstruse things, and no so easie to be express’d in such proper Terms, as are not liable to be mis-understood ; Such particularly are Terms of Art, that must needs be obscure, as being too comprehensive, and taking in more Notions than one, under the same Word : which tho’ of good use, as being design’d to make Knowledge more Compendious, yet have frequently turned the other way, by requiring large Comments, that have been often writ upon a single Word, and perhaps after all, have left it more doubtful than it was before.

Dictionaries indeed have been call’d in to our Assistance, which have been compil’d with much Pains and in great Plenty, not only for Words, but for Sciences and Arts ; but besides the no great Agreement that is among them, they are swoln to such a height, and become so numerous, that those very Books, that were design’d as Helps, now breed Confusion, and their Bulk and Number is become a Burthen. Such alone as have been Compos’d for the French Tongue (which as yet is no Learned Language, though it bids pretty fair for it) would fill a Library, and only one of those, and that not the largest, has been the Work of Forty Years, tho’ it was carried on by the united Labours of the French Academy ; after all which Care, it has not escaped Censure, but has been thought to want Correction ; and does thereby shew how impossible it is to set Bounds, or give a Standard to Language, for which purpose it was design’d. Not only every Tongue, but every Faulty has met with this help ; Dictionaries are become a great part of Learning, and nothing remains, but that as it has far’d with Bibliotheques, which were grown so numerous, that (g) a Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum was thought a necessary Work, so Dictionaries should have the like service done them ; a Dictionarium Dictionariorum, might be a Work of some Use, I am sure of great Bulk, and I wonder it has not been yet undertaken.

To redress and heal all these Inconveniencies, an Universal Remedy, has indeed been thought of ; a Real Character and Philosophical Language, a Work that has been pursued of late with great Application, and with some Expectations of Success and Advantage ; But however plausible this may seem at a distance, it is to be fear’d, it is only so in the Theory, and that upon Tryal, it will be found an impracticable thing. For this Language being designed not to express Words but Things, we must first be agreed about the Nature of Things, before we can fix Marks and Characters to represent them, and I very much despair of such an Agreement. To name only one ; When Bishop Wilkins first undertook this Design, (h) Substance and Accidents were a receiv’d Division, and accordingly in ranking things, and reducing them to Heads, (which is the great Excellency of this Design) He proceeds according to the Order they stand in, of Substance and Accidents, in the Scale of Prædicaments ; but were he to begin now, and would suit his Design to the Philosophy in Vogue, he must draw a new Scheme, and instead of Accidents must take in Modes, which are very different from Accidents, both in Nature and Number. Bishop Wilkins was an extraordinary Person, but very Projecting, and I doubt this Design my go along with this Dædalus and Archimedes, and be ranked with his flying Chariot and Voyage to the Moon. The Division of Tongues was inflicted by GOD, as a Curse upon Human Ambition, and may have been continued since for the same Reason ; and as no Remedy has been yet found, so it is most probable, it is not to be expected, nor are we to hope to Unite that which GOD has divided. The Province of GOD may have so order’d it for a Check to Men’s Pride, who are otherwise apt to be building Babels, were there no Difficulties to obstruct and exercise them in their way.

No. 3

3. John Wilkins. “An Abstract of Dr. Wilkins’s Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language. Which was Printed by Order of the Royal Society, 1668.”The Mathematical and Philosophical Works of the right Reverend John Wilkins, Late Lord Bishop of Chester. London: Printed for J. Nicholson, etc., 1708, pp. 169-184.

(the first paragraph omitted)

The Advantages proposed by this Philosophical Language were, The facilitating of mutual Commerce among the several Nations of the World; the improving of Natural Knowledge; and the Propagation of Religion: Our Author was also of Opinion, that it might contribute much to the clearing of some Modern Differences in Religion, by unmasking many wild Errors that shelter themselves under the Disguise of Affected Phrases; which being philosophically unfolded, and rendred[sic] according to the Genuine and Natural Importance of Words, would appear to be Inconsistencies and Contradictions; and several of those pretended Mysterious Profound Notions, express’d in Big Swelling Words, by which Men set up for Reputation, being this way examin’d, would either appear to be Nonsense, or very jejune. But whatever might be the issue of this Attempt, as to the establishing of a Real Character, and bringing it into common Use among several Nations of the World, of which our Author had but very slender Expectations, yet of this he was confident, that the reducing of all Things and Notions to such kind of Tables as he proposed, were it as compleatly done as it might be, would prove the shortest and plainest Way for the attainment of Real Knowledge, that had yet been offer’d to the World. To which he added, That he thought his Tables, as now they are, were a much better and readier Course for training up Men in the knowledge of Things, than any other Way that he knew of. And inded [sic] since his Design of the Real Character is wholly neglected, that seems now to be the principal use of the Book, and alone makes it truly valuable.

In his Preface to the Reader he gives an Account how he came to engage in this work, viz. That by his Converse with Dr. Seth Ward, then Bishop of Salisbury, upon the various Desiderata, proposed by Learned Men to be still wanting to the Advancement of several parts of Learning, he found this of an Universal Character, to be one of the principal and most feasible, if regularly prosecuted ; but most of those who had attempted any thing like it, mistook their Foundation, by proposing a Character according to some particular Language, without reference to the Nature of Things, and that Common Notion of them wherein Mankind agrees: This Suggestion gave him the first distinct Apprehension of the proper Course to be taken for advancing such a Design.

He says it was a considerable time after this before he attempted it; and the first Occasion of it was; his desire to assist another Person in framing a Real Character from the Natural Notion of Things. In order to promote that Person’s Design, he drew up the Tables of Substances, or the Species of Natural Bodies, reduced under their several Heads, much the same as they are publish’d in this Essay. But the Person thinking this Method of too great a compass, and conceiving that he could provide for all the chief Radicals in a much shorter and easier Way, he did not make use of the Doctor’s Tables. Our Author however being convinc’d that this was the only way of effect such a Work, and being unwilling to lose so much Pains, he went on with the other Tables of Accidents, and then attempted the reduction of all other Words in the Dictionary to these Tables, either as they were synonimus to them, or to be defin’d by ’em; which was a true way to try the Fulness of those Tables, and likewise a Help to Learners, who without such a Direction, might not perhaps be able at first to find out the true Place and Notion of many Words.

For the farther compleating of this work, our Author fund it necessary to frame such a Natural Grammar, as might be suited to the Philosophy of Speech, abstracting from many unnecessary Rules belonging to instituted Languages. (pp. 169-172)

No. 4

4. Joseph Addison. [‘On the Conciseness of the English, in Common Discourse.’]The Spectator, No. 135. Saturday, August 4, 1711. {Addison took up monosyllables in English as one of the powerful characteristics, which is contrastive especially from French.}

I have somewhere read of an eminent Person who us’d in his private Offices of Devotion, to give Thanks to Heaven that he was Born a Frenchman: For my own part I look upon it as a peculiar Blessing that I was Born an Englishman. Among many other Reasons, I think my self very happy in my Country, as the Language of it is wonderfully adapted to a Man that is sparing of his Words, and an Enemy to Loquacity.

As I have frequently reflected on my good Fortune in this Particular, I shall communicate to the Publick my Speculations upon the English Tongue, not doubting but they will be acceptable to all my curious Readers.

The English delight in Silence more than any other European Nation, if the Remarks which are made on us by Foreigners are true. Our Discourse is not kept up in Conversation, but falls into more Pauses and Intervals than in our Neighbouring Countries; as it is observ’d, that the matter of our Writings is thrown much closer together, and lies in a narrower Compass than is usual in the Works of Foreign Authors: For, to favour our Natural Taciturnity, when we are obliged to utter our Thoughts, we do it in the shortest way we are able, and give as quick a Birth to our Conceptions as possible.

This Humour shows it self in several Remarks that we may make upon the English Language. As first of all by its abounding in Monosyllables, which gives us an Opportunity of delivering our Thoughts in few Sounds. This indeed takes off from the Elegance of our Tongue, but at the same time expresses our Ideas in the readiest manner, and consequently answers the first Design of Speech better than the multitude of Syllables, that makes the Words of other Languages more Tunable and Sonorous. The Sounds of our English Words are commonly like those of String Musick, short and transient, that rise and perish upon a single touch; those of other Languages are like the Notes of Wind Instruments, sweet and swelling, and lengthen’d out into variety of Modulation.

In the next place we may observe, that where the Words are not Monosyllables, we often make them so, as much as lies in our Power, by our Rapidity of Pronunciation; as it generally happens in most of our long Words which are deriv’d from the Latin, where we contract the length of the Syllables that gives them a grave and solemn Air in their own Language, to make them more proper for Dispatch, and more conformable to the Genius of our Tongue. This may find in a multitude of Words, as Liberty, Conspiracy, Theatre, Orator, &c.

The same natural Aversion to Loquacity has of late Years made a very considerable Alteration in our Language, by closing in one Syllable the Termination of our Præterperfect Tense, as in the Words drown’d, walk’d, arriv’d, for drowned, walked, arrived, which has very much disfigured the Tongue, and turn’d a tenth part of our smoothest Words into so many Clusters of Consonants. This is the more remarkable, because the want of Vowels in our Language has been the general Complaint of our politest Authors, who nevertheless are the Men that have made these Retrenchments, and consequently very much increased our former Scarcity.

This Reflection on the Words that end in ed, I have heard in Conversation from one of the greatest Genius’s this Age has produced. I think we may add to the foregoing Observation, the Change that has happen’d in our Language, by the Abbreviation of several Words that are terminated in eth, by substituting an s in the room of the last Syllable, as in drowns, walks, arrives, and innumerable other Words, which in the Pronunciation of our Forefathers were drowneth, walketh, arriveth. This has wonderfully multiplied a Letter which was before too frequent in the English Tongue, and added to that hissing in our Language, which is taken so much notice of by Foreigners; but as the same time humours our Taciturnity, and eases us of many superfluous Syllables.

I might here observe, that the same single Letter on many occasions does the Office of a whole Word, and represents the His and Her of our Forefathers. There is no doubt but the Ear of a Foreigner, which is the best Judge in this Case, would very much disapprove of such Innovations, which indeed we do our selves in some measure, by retaining the old Termination in Writing, and in all the Solemn Offices of our Religion.

As in the Instances I have given we have epitomized many of our particular Words to the Detriment of our Tongue, so on other Occasions we have drawn two Words into one, which has likewise very much unturned our Language, and clogged it with Consonants, as mayn’t, can’t, sha’n’t, wo’n’t, and the like, for may not, can not, shall not, will not, &c.

It is perhaps this Humour of speaking no more than we needs must, which has so miserably curtailed some of our Words, that in familiar Writings and Conversations they sometimes lose all but their first Syllables, as in Mob. rep. pos. incog. and the like; and as all ridiculous Words make their first Entry into a Language by familiar Phrases, I dare not answer for them that they will not in time be looked upon as a part of our Tongue. We see some of our Poets that have been so indiscreet as to imitate Hudibras’s Doggrel Expressions in their serious Compositions, by throwing out the signs of our Substantives, which are essential to the English Language. Nay this Humour of shortning our Language had once run so far that some of our celebrated Authors, among whom we may reckon Sir Roger L’ Estrange in particular, began to prune their Words of all superfluous Letters, as they termed them, in order to adjust the Spelling to the Pronunciation, which would have lost all our Etymologies, and have quite destroyed our Tongue.

We may here likewise observe that our Proper Names, when familiarized in English, generally dwindle to Monosyllables, whereas in other Modern Languages they receive a softer Turn on this occasion, by the Addition of a new Syllable. Nick in Italian is Nicolini, Jack in French Janot, and so of the rest.

There is another Particular in our Language which is a great Instance of our Frugality of Words, and that is the suppressing of several Particles, which must be produced in other Tongues to make a Sentence intelligible: This often perplexes the best Writers, when they find the Relatives, Who, which or that, at their Mercy whether it may have Admission or not, and will never be decided till we have something like an Academy, that by the best Authorities and Rules drawn from the Analogy of Languages shall settle all Controversies between Grammar and Idiom.

I have only considered our Language as it shows the Genius and natural Temper of the English, which is modest, thoughtful and sincere, and which perhaps may recommend the People, though it has spoiled the Tongue. We might perhaps carry the same Thought into other Languages, and deduce a great part of what is peculiar to them from the Genius of the People that speak them. It is certain the light talkative Humour of the French has not a little infected their Tongue, as might be shown by many Instances; as the Genius of the Italians, which is so much addicted to Musick and Ceremony, has moulded all their Words and Phrases to those particular Uses. The Stateliness and Gravity of the Spaniard shews it self to Perfection in the Solemnity of their Language; and the blunt honest Humour of the Germans sounds better in the Roughness of the High Dutch, than it would in a Politer Tongue.

No. 5

5. Joseph Addison. [‘On the Introduction of Foreign Words into the English Language’] The Spectator, No. 166. Saturday, September 8, 1711.

I have often wished, that as in our Constitution there are several Persons where Business it is to watch over our Laws, our Liberties and Commerce, that certain Men might be set apart, as Super-intendants of our Language, to hinder any Words of a Foreign Coin from passing among us; and in particular to prohibit any French Phrases from becoming Current in this Kingdom, when those of our own Stamp are altogether as valuable. The present War has so Adulterated our Tongue with strange Words, that it would be impossible for one of our Great-Grandfathers to know what his Posterity have been doing, were he to read their Exploits in a Modern News Paper. Our Warriors are very industrious in Propagating the French Language, at the same time that they are so gloriously successful in beating down their Power. Our Soldiers are Men of strong Heads for Action, and perform such Feats as they are not able to express. They want Words in their own Tongue to tell us what it is they Atchieve [sic], and therefore send us over Accounts of their Performances in a Jargon of Phrases, which they learn among their Conquered Enemies. They ought however to be provided with Secretaries, and assisted by Foreign Ministers, that can tell their Story for them in plain English, and let us know in our Mother-Tongue what it is our brave Country-men are about. The French would indeed be in the right to Publish the News of the present War in English- Phrases, and make their Campaigns unintelligible. Their People might flatter themselves that things are not so bad as they really are, were they thus palliated with Foreign Terms, and thrown into Shades and Obscurity. But the English cannot be too clear in their Narrative of those Actions, which have raised their Country to a higher pitch of Glory than it ever yet arrived at, and will be still the more admired the better they are explained.

For my part, by that time a Siege is carried on two or three Days, I am altogether lost and bewildered in it, and meet with so many inexplicable Difficulties that I do not know which Side has the better of it, till I am informed by the Tower Guns that the Place is surrendred[sic]. I do indeed make some Allowances for this part of the War, Fortifications having been Foreign Inventions, and upon that Account abounding in Foreign Terms. But when we have won Battels[sic] that may be described in our own Language, why are our Papers filled with so many unintelligible Exploits, and the French obliged to lend us a part of their Tongue before we can know how they are Conquer’d? They must be made accessory to their own Disgrace, as the Britains were formerly so artificially wrought in the Curtain of the Roman Theatre, that they seem’d to draw it up, in order to give the Spectators an opportunity of seeing their own Defeat celebrated upon the Stage: For so Mr. Dryden has translated that Verse in Virgil.

Atque intertexti tollant aulæa Britanni. (Purpurea intexti tollunt aulæa Britanni.)

Which interwoven Britains seem to raise,

And show the Triumph that their Shame display.

The Histories of all our former Wars are transmitted to us in our Vernacular Idiom, to use the Phrase of a great Modern Critick. I do not find in any of our Chronicles, that Edward the Third ever reconnoitred the Enemy, tho’ he often discover’d the Posture of the French, and as often vanquish’d them in Battel. The Black Prince passed many a River without the help of Pontoons, and filled a Ditch with Faggots as successfully as the Generals of our times do it with Fascines. Our Commanders lose half their Praise, and our People half their Joy, by means of those hard Words and dark Expressions in which our News Papers do so much abound. I have seen many a prudent Citizen, after having read every Article, enquire of his next Neighbour what News the Mail had brought.

I remember in that remarkable Year when our Country was deliver’d from the greatest Fears and Apprehensions, and raised to the greatest height of Gladness it had ever felt since it was a Nation, I mean the Year of Blenheim, I had the Copy of a Letter sent me out of the Country, which was written from a young Gentlemen in the Army to his Father, a Man of a good Estate and plain Sense: As the Letter was very modishly chequered with this Modern Military Eloquence, I shall present my Reader with a Copy of it.

SIR,

Upon the Junction of the French and Bavarian Armies they took Post behind a great Morass which they thought impracticable. Our General the next day sent a Party of Horse to reconnoitre them from a little Hauteur, at about a Mile distance from the Army, who return’d again to the Camp unobserv’d through several Defiles, in one of which they met with a Party of French that had been Marauding, and made them all Prisoners at Discretion. The Day after a Drum arrived at our Camp, with a Message which he would communicate to none but the General; he was followed by a Trumpet, who they say behaved himself very saucily, with a Message from the Duke of Bavaria. The next Morning our Army being divided into two Corps, made a Movement towards the Enemy: You will hear in the Publick Prints how we treated them, with the other Circumstances of that glorious Day. I had the good Fortune to be in the Regiment that push’d the Gens d’ Arms. Several French Battalions, who some say were a Corps de Reserve, made a show of Resistance; but it only proved a Gasconade, for upon our preparing to fill up a little Fossé, in order to attack them, they beat the Chamade, and sent us Charte Blanche. Their Commandant, with a great many other General Officers, and Troops without number, are made Prisoners of War, and will I believe give you a Visit in England, the Cartel not being yet settled. Not questioning but these Particulars will be very welcome to you, I Congratulate you upon them, and am your most dutiful Son, &c.

The Father of the young Gentleman upon the Perusal of the Letter found it contained great News, but could not guess what it was. He immediately communicated it to the Curate of the Parish, who upon the reading of it, being vexed to see any thing he could not understand, fell into a kind of Passion, and told him, that his Son had sent him a Letter that was neither Fish, nor Flesh, nor good Red Herring. I wish, says he, the Captain may be Compos Mentis, he talks of a saucy Trumpet, and a Drum that carries Messages: Then who is this Charte Blanche: He must either banter us, or he is out of his Senses. The Father, who always look’d upon the Curate as a learned Man, begun to fret inwardly at his Son’s Usage, and producing a Letter which he had written to him about three Posts afore, you see here, says he, when he writes for Mony[sic] he knows how to Speak intelligibly enough, there is no Man in England can express himself clearer, when he wants a new Furniture for his Horse. In short, the old Man was so puzzled upon the Point, that it might have fared ill with his Son, had he not seen all the Prints about three Days after filled with the same terms of Art, and that Charles only writ like other Men.

No. 6

6. A Grammar of the English Tongue, with Notes, Giving the Grounds and Reason of Grammar in General. To which is now added, The Arts of Poetry, Rhetoric, Logic, &c. London: Printed for John Brightland, 1711. {This grammar was variously attributed to John Brightland, Sir Richard Steel and Charles Gildon.}

The Tongue, therefore, which we are to treat of in the following Grammar, is the English in present use,... The Number of Learned Books, that have been written in this Language, and the Figure this Nation now makes, under the happy Auspices of HER MAJESTIES Reign, renders it worthy the Advantage other Tongues enjoy, which cannot by any means pretend to an equal Beauty and Energy; and that is, a Grammar proper to it self, which has never yet been brought to any tolerable Perfect, but was left so helpless, that to write it Purely and Correctly, it was necessary to study other Languages, in which the Art of Grammar was fixt. But this was incumber’d with so many Difficulties, that few Natives know how to write their own Mother Tongue.

This observation touch’d our sagacious Friend Mr. Brightland with a Desire of promoting the Honour of his Country in so Necessary a Point ; and made him spare neither Money nor Pains to procure such a Grammar for English, as the other Languages (both Ancient and Modern) enjoy. But after much Pains and a great many Promises from his Learned Friends, he found himself just where he set out, and this Work so far from being finish’d, that it was never well begun. But a Public Spirit (like his) is not easily baffled in its Pursuits ; and it being our Good Fortune to be acquainted with him, after so many Disappointments, he was pleas’d to press us to the Undertaking. The Motive was so Generous, and the End so Public-spirited, that tho’ we cou’d not think our selves better qualify’d than his other Acquaintance, yet our Will to gratify him, and our Desire of being serviceable to our Country in attempting this Grammar, banish’d all those modest Considerations, which might have deter’d us from so difficult an Undertaking. Wherefore being furnish’d with all the Helps, that either ancient or modern Writers cou’d supply us withal, and the Assistance of all our Learned Acquaintance, we have ventur’d to suffer our Endeavours to see the Public.

What we propos’d to our selves first, was to make our selves perfect Masters of what he design’d, which we found was to have a Grammar of our own Mother Tongue, by which Children and Woman, and others, who were ignorant of those call’d the Learned Tongues, might learn to Read and Write English with as great Justness and Exactness as the Learned may be suppos’d to do. Hence these two Particulars arose first, That we are not to forge a New Language, nor to alter the Orthography now in Use and settled by Custom, the Jus& Norma Loquendi, since that cou’d be of no use to either those, who are to Teach, or those, who are to Learn, and then wou’d have nothing to do with the Whimsical Invention;...

(two paragraphs omitted)

The next thing that Merits our Considerations, as previous to this Grammar, is, That this Grammar propos’d is for Children, Women, or the Ignorant of both Sexes, who must be the most numerous Teachers of it in this Nation ; and then we think it plainly follows, that in this Performance we ought not to wander so far from our Way as the Crabbed Kigdom of Critical Enquiries, and Parallels brought from the Ancient or Modern Tongues, or the disputes of the Old or New Grammarians, and the like since these are things above the Capacities of the Learners, and most of the Teachers ; but that we ought to make our Grammar as plain, obvious, and easie, as the Nature of the Thing will permit.

But since the Rational Grounds of Grammar may be thought Useful, we have added them in the Notes, as well as the Formation of Sounds, which may Instruct the reasonable Teacher in means of informing the Learner in many things necessary in Pronunciation, especially Foreigners, and such as may have any Natural Defect. This being in the Notes, does not interrupt the more Ignorant Learner of the Common Rules of the English Grammar, since those are plain and distinct by themselves.

In short, we hope we have come up to my Friend’s Design and to that we added a General Grammar as we have said, which may improve some, who think themselves perhaps better Grammarians, than they really are, by letting them into the Reasons of Things, which is as Pleasant as Useful.

No. 7

7. Swift, Jonathan. “A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue; in a Letter to the Most Honourable Robert Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain.” Dr. Swift’s Letter to the Lord High Treasurer. 1st Edition. LONDON: Printed for Benj. Tooke, 1712, pp. 48. {The corrections in the second edition published in the same year, are inserted in [ ].}

To the Most Honourable Robert Earl of Oxford, &c.

My Lord,

What I had the Honour of mentioning to Your Lordship some time ago in Conversation, was not a new Thought, just then started by Accident or Occasion, but the Result of long Reflection; and I have been confirmed in my Sentiments by the Opinion of some very judicious Persons, with whom I consulted. They all agreed, That nothing would be of greater Use towards the Improvement of Knowledge and Politeness, than some effectual Method for Correcting, Enlarging, and [Enlarging and] Ascertaining our Language; and they think it a Work very possible to be compassed, under the Protection of a Prince, the Countenance and Encouragement of a Ministry, and the Care of proper Persons chosen for such an Undertaking. I was glad to find Your Lordship’s Answer in so different a Style, from what hath been commonly made use of on the like Occasions, for some Years past, that [That] all such Thoughts must be deferred to a Time of Peace: A Topick which some have carried so far, that they would not have us, by any means, think of preserving our Civil or Religious Constitution, because we were engaged in a War abroad. It will be among the distinguishing Marks of your Ministry, My Lord, that you had the Genius above all such Regards, and that no reasonable Proposal for the Honour, the Advantage, or the Ornament of Your Country, however foreign to Your immediate Office, was ever neglected by You. I confess, the Merit of this Candor and Condescension is very much lessened, because Your Lordship hardly leaves us room to offer our good Wishes, removing all our Difficulties, and supplying all our Wants, faster than the most visionary Projector can adjust his Schemes. And therefore, My Lord, the Design of this Paper is not so much to offer You Ways and Means, as to complain of a Grievance, the redressing of which is to be Your own Work, as much as that of paying the Nation’s Debts, or opening a Trade into the South Sea; and though not of such immediate Benefit [Benefit,] as either of these, or any other of Your glorious Actions, yet perhaps, in future Ages, not less to Your Honour.

My Lord; [Lord,] I do here in the Name of all the Learned and Polite Persons of the Nation, complain to Your Lordship, as First Minister, the our Language is extremely imperfect; that its daily Improvements are by no means in proportion to its daily Corruptions; that the Pretenders to polish and refine it, have chiefly multiplied Abuses and Absurdities; and, that in many Instances, it offends against every Part of Grammar. But lest Your Lordship should think my Censure to be too severe, I shall take leave to be more particular.

I Believe Your Lordship will agree with me in the Reason, Why our Language is less Refined than those of Italy, Spain, or France. ’Tis plain that the Latin Tongue, in its Purity, was never in this Island; towards the Conquest of which few or no Attempts were made till the Time of Claudius; neither was that Language ever so vulgar in Britain, as it is known to have been in Gaul and Spain. Further, we find, that the Roman Legions here, were at length all recalled to help their Country against the Goths, and other barbarous Invaders. Mean time, the Britains, left to shift for themselves, and daily harassed by cruel Inroads from the Picts, were forced to call in the Saxons for their Defence; who, consequently, reduced the greatest Part of the Island to their own Power, drove the Britains into the most remote and mountainous Parts, and the rest of the Country, in Customs, Religion, and Language, became wholly Saxon. This I take to be the Reason why there are more Latin Words remaining in the British Tongue, than in the old Saxon; which, excepting some few Variations in the Orthography, is the same, in most original Words, with our present English, as well as with the German, and other Northern Dialects.

Edward the Confessor having lived long in France, appears to be the first who introduced any mixture of the French Tongue with the Saxon; the Court affecting what the Prince was fond of, and others taking it up for a Fashion, as it is now with us. William theConqueror proceeded much further; bringing over with him vast numbers of that Nation; scattering them in every Monastery; giving them great Quantities of Land, directing all Pleadings to be in that Language, and endeavouring to make it universal in the Kingdom. This, at least, is the Opinion generally received: But Your Lordship hath fully convinced me, that the French Tongue made yet a greater Progress here under Harry the Second, who had large Territories on that Continent, both from his Father and his Wife, made frequent Journies[sic] and Expeditions there, and was always attended with a number of his Countrymen, Retainers at his Court. For some Centuries after, there was a constant Intercourse between France and England, by the Dominions we possessed there, and the Conquests we made; so that our Language, between two and three hundred Years ago, seems to have had a greater mixture with French, than at present; many Words having been afterwards rejected, and some since the time of Spencer; although we have still retained not a few, which have been long antiquated in France. I could produce several Instances of both kinds, if it were of any Use or Entertainment.

TO examine into the several Circumstances by which the Language of a Country may be altered, would force me to enter into a wide Field. I shall only observe, That the Latin, the French, and the English, seem to have undergone the same Fortune. The first, from the Days of Romulus to those of Julius Cæsar, suffered perpetual Changes, and by what we meet in those Authors who occasionally speak on that Subject, as well as from certain Fragments of old Laws, it is manifest, that the Latin, Three hundred Years before Tully, was as unintelligible in his Time, as the English and French of the same Period are now; and these two have changed as much since William the Conqueror, [Conqueror] (which is but little less than Seven hundred Years) as the Latin appears to have done in the like Term. Whether our Language or the French will decline as fast as the Roman did, is a Question that would perhaps admit more Debate than it is worth. There were many Reasons for the Corruptions of the last: As, the Change of their Government into a Tyranny, which ruined the Study of Eloquence, there being no further Use or Encouragement for popular Orators: Their giving not only the Freedom of the City, but Capacity for Employments, to several Towns in Gaul, Spain, and Germany, and other distant Parts, as far as Asia; which brought a great Number of forein[sic] Pretenders into Rome: The slavish Disposition of the Senate and People, by which the Wit and Eloquence of the Age were wholly turned into Panegyrick, the most barren of all Subjects: The great Corruption of Manners, and Introduction of forein Luxury, with forein Terms to express it; with several others that might be assigned: Not to mention those Invasions from the Goths and Vandals, which are too obvious to insist on.

THE Roman Language arrived at great Perfection before it began to decay: And the French for these last Fifty Years hath been polishing as much as it will bear, and appears to be declining by the natural Inconstancy of that People, and the Affectation of some late Authors to introduce and multiply Cant Words, which is the most ruinous Corruption in any Language. La Bruyere, a late celebrated Writer among them, makes use of many hundred new Terms, which are not to be found in any of the common Dictionaries before his Time. But the English Tongue is not arrived to such a Degree of Perfection, as to make us apprehend any Thoughts of its Decay; and if it were once refined to a certain Standard, perhaps there might be Ways found out to fix it for ever; or at least till we are invaded and made a Conquest by some other State; and even then our best Writings might probably be preserved with Care, and grow into Esteem, and the Authors have a Chance for Immortality.

BUT without such great Revolutions as these, (to which we are, I think, less subject than Kingdoms upon the Continent) I see no absolute Necessity why any Language should be perpetually changing; for we find many Examples to the contrary. From Homer to Plutarch are above a Thousand Years; so long at least the Purity of the Greek Tongue may be allow’d [allowed] to last, and we know not how far before. The Grecians spread their Colonies round all the Coasts of Asia Minor, even to the Northern Parts, lying towards the Euxine; in every Island of the Ægean Sea, and several others in the Mediterranean; where the Language was preserved entire for many Ages, after they themselves became Colonies to Rome, and till they were over-run by the barbarous Nations, upon the Fall of that Empire. The Chinese have Books in their Language above two Thousand Years old, neither have the frequent Conquests of the Tartars been able to alter it. The German, Spanish, and Italian, have admitted few or no Changes for some Ages past. The other Languages of Europe I know nothing of, neither is there any occasion to consider them.

HAVING taken this compass, I return to those Considerations upon our own Language, which I would humbly offer Your Lordship. The Period wherein the English Tongue received most Improvement, I take to commence with the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s Reign, and to conclude with the Great Rebellion in Forty Two. ’Tis true, there was a very ill Taste both of Style and Wit, which prevailed under King James the First, but that seems to have been corrected in the first Years of his Successor, who among many other Qualifications of an excellent Prince, was a great Patron of Learning. From the Civil War to this present Time, I am apt to doubt whether the Corruptions in our Language have not at least equalled the Refinements of it; and these Corruptions very few of the best Authors of our Age have wholly escaped. During the Usurpation, such an Infusion of Enthusiastick Jargon prevailed in every Writing, as was not shaken off in many Years after. To this succeeded that Licentiousness which entered with the Restoration, and from infecting our Religion and Morals, fell to corrupt our Language; [,] which last was not like to be much improved by those who at that Time made up the Court of King Charles the Second; either such who had followed Him in His Banishment, or who had been altogether conversant in the Dialect of those Fanatick Times; or young Men, who had been educated in the same Company; so that the Court, which used to be the Standard of Propriety and Correctness of Speech, was then, and, I think, hath ever since continued the worst School in England for that Accomplishment; and so will remain, till better Care be taken in the Education of our your Nobility, that they may set out into the World with some Foundation of Literature, in order to qualify them for Patterns of Politeness. The Consequence of this Defect, upon our Language, may appear from Plays, and other Compositions, written for Entertainment within Fifty Years past; filled with a Succession of affected Phrases, and new, conceited Words, either borrowed from the current Style of the Court, or from those who, under the Character of Men of Wit and Pleasure, pretended to give the Law. Many of these Refinements have already been long antiquated, and are now hardly intelligible; which is no wonder, when they were the Product only of Ignorance and Caprice.

I HAVE never known this great Town without one or more Dunces of Figure, who had Credit enough to give Rise to some new Word, and propagate it in most Conversations, though it had neither Humor, nor Significancy. If it struck the present Taste, it was soon transferred into the Plays and current Scribbles of the Week, and became an Addition to our Language; while the Men of Wit and Learning, instead of early obviating such Corruptions, were too often seduced to imitate and comply with them.

THERE is another Sett of Men who have contributed very must to the spoiling of the English Tongue; I mean the Poets, from the Time of the Restoration. These Gentlemen, although they could not be insensible how much our Language was already overstocked with Monosyllables; yet, to same Time and Pains, introduced that barbarous Custom of abbreviating Words, to fit them to the Measure of their Verses; and this they have frequently done, so very injudiciously, as to form such harsh unharmonious Sounds, that none but a Northern Ear could endure: They have joined the most obdurate Consonants without one intervening Vowel, only to shorten a Syllable: And their Taste in time became so depraved, that what was at first a Poetical Licence, not to be justified, they made their Choice, alledging, that the Words pronounced at length, sounded faint and languid. This was a Pretence to take up the same Custom in Prose; so that most of the Books we see now a-days, are full of those Manglings and Abbreviations. Instances of this Abuse are innumerable: What does Your Lordship think of the Words, Drudg’d, Disturb’d, Rebuk’t, Fledg’d, and a thousand others, every where to be met in Prose as well as Verse? Where, by leaving out a Vowel to save a Syllable, we form so jarring a Sound, and so difficult to utter, that I have often wondred [sic] how it could ever obtain.

ANOTHER Cause (and perhaps borrowed from the former) which hath contributed not a little to the maiming of our Language, is a foolish Opinion, advanced of late Years, that we ought to spell exactly as we speak; which beside the obvious Inconvenience of utterly destroying our Etymology, would be a thing we should never see an End of. Not only the several Towns and Countries of England, have a different way of Pronouncing, but even here in London, they clip their Words after one Manner about the Court, another in the City, and a third in the Suburbs; and in a few Years, it is probable, will all differ from themselves, as Fancy or Fashion shall direct: All which reduced to Writing would entirely confound Orthography. Yet many People are so fond of this Conceit, that it is sometimes a difficult matter to read modern Books and Pamphlets; where the Words are so curtailed, and varied from their original Spelling, that whoever hath been used to plain English, will hardly know them by sight.

SEVERAL young Men at the Universities, terribly possessed with the fear of Pedantry, run into a worse Extream[sic], and think all Politeness to consist in reading the daily Trash sent down to them from hence: This they call knowing the World, and reading Men and Manners. Thus furnished they come up to Town, reckon all their Errors for Accomplishments, borrow the newest Sett of Phrases, and if they take a Pen into their Hands, all the odd Words they have picked up in a Coffee-House, or a Gaming Ordinary, are produced as Flowers of Style; and the Orthography refined to the utmost. To this we owe those monstrous Productions, which under the Names of Trips, Spies, Amusements, and other conceited Appellations, have over-run us for some Years past. To this we owe that strange Race of Wits, who tell us, they Write to the Humour of the Age: And I wish I could say, these quaint Fopperies were wholly absent from graver Subjects. In short, I would undertake to shew Your Lordship several Pieces, where the Beauties of this kind are so predominant, that with all your Skill in Languages, you could never be able either to read or understand them.

BUT I am very much mistaken, if many of these false Refinements among us, do not arise from a Principle which would quite destroy their Credit, if it were well understood and considered. For I am afraid, My Lord, that with all the real good Qualities of our Country, we are naturally not very Polite. This perpetual Disposition to shorten our Words, by retrenching the Vowels, is nothing else but a tendency to lapse into the Barbarity of those Northern Nations from whom we are descended, and whose Languages labour all under the same Defect. For it is worthy our Observation, that the Spaniard, the French, and the Italians, although derived from the same Northern Ancestors with our selves, are, with the utmost Difficulty, taught to pronounce our Words, which the Suedes and Danes, as well as the Germans and the Dutch, attain to with Ease, because our Syllables resemble theirs in the Roughness and Frequency of Consonants. Now, as we struggle with an ill Climate to improve the nobler kinds of Fruit, are at the Expence of Walls to receive and reverberate the faint Rays of the Sun, and fence against the Northern Blasts; we sometimes by the help of a good Soil equal the Productions] of warmer Countries, who have no need to be at so much Cost or Care. It is the same thing with respect to the politer Arts among us; and the same Defect of Heat which gives a Fierceness to our Natures, may contribute to that Roughness of our Language, which bears some Analogy to the harsh Fruit of colder Countries. For I do not reckon that we want a Genius more than the rest of our Neighbours: But Your Lordship will be of my Opinion, that we ought to struggle with these natural Disadvantages as much as we can, and be careful whom we employ, whenever we design to correct them, which is a Work that has hitherto been assumed by the least qualified Hands. So that if the Choice had been left to me, I would rather have trusted the Refinement of our Language, as far as it relates to Sound, to the Judgment of the Women, than of illiterate Court- Fops, half-witted Poets, and University-Boys. For, it is plain that Women in their manner of corrupting Words, do naturally discard the Consonants, as we do the Vowels. What I am going to tell Your Lordship, appears very trifling; that more than once, where some of both Sexes were in Company, I have persuaded two or three of each, to take a Pen, and write down a number of Letters joyned together, just as it came into their Heads, and upon reading this Gibberish we have found that which the Men had writ, by the frequent encountring[sic] of rough Consonants, to sound like High Dutch; and the other by the Women, like Italian, abounding in Vowels and Liquids. Now, though I would by no means give Ladies the Trouble of advising us in the Reformation of our Language; yet I cannot help thinking, that since they have been left out of all Meetings, except Parties at Play, or where worse Designs are carried on, our Conversation hath very much degenerated.

IN order to reform our Language, I conceive, My Lord, that a free judicious Choice should be made of such Persons, as are generally allowed to be best qualified for such a Work, without any regard to Quality, Party, or Profession. These, to a certain Number at least, should assemble at some appointed Time and Place, and fix on Rules by which they design to proceed. What Methods they will take, is not for me to prescribe. Your Lordship, and other Persons in great Employment, might please to be of the Number; and I am afraid, such a Society would want Your Instruction and Example, as much as Your Protection: For, I have, not without a little Envy, observed of late, the Style of some great Ministers very much to exceed that of any other Productions.

THE Persons who are to undertake this Work, will have the Example of the French before them, to imitate where these have proceeded right, and to avoid their Mistakes. Besides the Grammar-part, wherein we are allowed to be very defective, they will observe many gross Improprieties, which however authorised by Practice, and grown familiar, ought to be discarded. They will find many Words that deserve to be utterly thrown out of our Language, many more to be corrected; and perhaps not a few, long since antiquated, which ought to be restored, on account of their Energy and Sound.

BUT what I have most at Heart is, that some Method should be thought on for ascertaining and fixing our Language for ever, after such Alterations are made in it as shall be thought requisite. For I am of Opinion, that it is better a Language should not be wholly perfect, than that it should be perpetually changing; and we must give over at one Time, or at length infallibly change for the worse: As the Romans did, when they began to quit their Simplicity of Style for affected Refinements; such as we meet in Tacitus and other Authors, which ended by degrees in many Barbarities, even before the Goths had invaded Italy.

THE Fame our Writers is usually confined to these two Islands, and it is hard it should be limited in Time, as much as Place, by the perpetual Variations of our Speech. It is Your Lordship’s Observation, that if it were not for the Bible and Common Prayer Book in the vulgar Tongue, we should hardly be able to understand any Thing that was written among us an hundred Years ago: Which is certainly true: For those Books being perpetually read in Churches, have proved a kind of Standard for Language, especially to the common People. And I doubt whether the Alterations since introduced, have added much to the Beauty or Strength of the English Tongue, though they have taken off a great deal from that Simplicity, which is one of the greatest Perfections in any Language. You, My Lord, who are so conversant in the Sacred Writings, and so great a Judge of them in their Originals, will agree, that no Translation our Country ever yet produced, hath come up to that of the Old and New Testament: And by the many beautiful Passages, which I have often had the Honor to hear Your Lordship cite from thence, I am persuaded that the Translators of Bible were Masters of an English Style much fitter for that Work, than any we see in our present Writings, which I take to be owing to the Simplicity that runs through the whole. Then, as to the greatest part of our Liturgy, compiled long before the Translation of the Bible now in use, and little altered since; there seem to be in it as great strains of true sublime Eloquence, as are any where to be found in our Language; which every Man of good Taste will observe in the Communion-Service, that of Burial, and other Parts.

BUT where I say, that I would have our Language, after it is duly correct, always to last; I do not mean that it should never by enlarged: Provided, that no Word which a Society shall give a Sanction to, be afterwards antiquated and exploded, that they may have liberty to receive whatever new ones they shall find occasion for: Because then the old Books will yet be always valuable, according to their intrinsick Worth, and not thrown aside on account of unintelligible Words and Phrases, which appear harsh and uncouth, only because they are out of Fashion. Had the Roman Tongue continued vulgar in that City till this Time; it would have been absolutely necessary from the mighty Changes that have been made in Law and Religion; from the many Terms of Art required in Trade and in War; from the new Inventions that have happened in the World: From the vast spreading of Navigation and Commerce, with many other obvious Circumstances, to have made great Additions to that Language; yet the Ancients would still have been read, and understood with Pleasure and Ease. The Greek Tongue received many Enlargements between the Time of Homer, and that of Plutarch, yet the former Author was probably as well understood in Trajan’s Time, as the latter. What Horace says of Words going off and perishing like Leaves, and new ones coming in their Place, is a Misfortune he laments, rather than a Thing he approves; But I cannot see why this should be absolutely necessary, or if it were, what would have become of his Monumentum ære perennius.

WRITING by Memory only, as I do at present, I would gladly keep within my Depth; and therefore shall not enter into further Particulars. Neither do I pretend more than to shew the Usefulness of this Design, and to make some general Observations, leaving the rest to that Society, which I hope will owe its Institution and Patronage to Your Lordship. Besides, I would willingly avoid Repetition, having about a Year ago, communicated to the Publick, much of what I had to offer upon this Subject, by the Hands of an ingenious Gentleman, who for a long Time did thrice a Week divert or instruct the Kingdom by his Papers; and is supposed to pursue the same Design at present, under the Title of Spectator. This Author, who hath tried the Force and Compass of our Language with so much Success, agrees entirely with me in most of my Sentiments relating to it; so do the greatest part of the Men of Wit and Learning, whom I have had the Happiness to converse with; and therefore I imagine that such a Society would be pretty unanimous in the main Points.

YOUR Lordship must allow, that such a Work as this, brought to Perfection, would very much contribute to the Glory of Her Majesty’s Reign; which ought to be recorded in Words more durable than Brass, and such as our Posterity may read a thousand Years hence, with Pleasure as well as Admiration. I have always disapproved that false Compliment to Princes, that the most lasting Monument they can have, is the Hearts of their Subjects. It is indeed their greatest present Felicity to reign in their Subjects Hearts; but these are too perishable to preserve their Memories, which can only be done by the Pens of able and faithful Historians. And I take it to be Your Lordship’s Duty, as Prime Minister, to give order for inspecting our Language, and rendring it fit to record the History of so great and good a Princess. Besides, My Lord, as disinterested as You appear to the World, I am convinced, that no Man is more in the Power of a prevailing favorite Passion that Your Self; I mean that Desire of true and lasting Honor, which you have born along with You through every Stage of Your Life. To this You have often sacrificed Your Interest, Your Ease and Your Health: For preserving and encreasing this, you have exposed Your Person to secret Treachery, and open Violence. There is not perhaps an Example in History of any Minister, who in so short a time hath performed so many great Things, and overcome so many great Difficulties. Now, tho’ I am fully convinced, that You fear God, honor Your QUEEN, and love Your Country, as much as any of Your Fellow-Subjects; yet I must believe that the Desire of Fame hath been no inconsiderable Motive to quicken You in the Pursuit of those Actions which will best deserve it. But at the same time, I must be so plain as to tell Your Lordship, that if You will not take some Care to settle our Language, and put it into a state of Continuance, I cannot promise that Your Memory shall be preserved above an hundred Years, further than by imperfect Tradition.

AS barbarous and ignorant as we were in former Centuries, there was more effectual Care taken by our Ancestors, to preserve the Memory of Times and Persons, than we find in this Age of Learning and Politeness, as we are please to call it. The rude Latin of the Monks is still very intelligible; whereas, had their Records been delivered down only in the vulgar Tongue, so barren and so barbarous, so subject to continual succeeding Changes, they could not now be understood, unless by Antiquaries who made it their Study to expound them. And we must at this Day have been content with such poor Abstracts of our English Story, as laborious Men of low Genius would think fit to give us; And even these in the next Age would be likewise swallowed up in succeeding Collections. If Things go on at this rate, all I can promise Your Lordship is, that about two hundred Years hence, some painful Compiler, who will be at the Trouble of studying Old Language, may inform the World, that in the Reign of QUEEN ANNE, Robert Earl of Oxford, a very wise and excellent Man, was made High Treasurer, and saved his Country, which in those Days was almost ruined by a Foreign War, and a Domestick Faction. Thus much he may be able to pick out, and willing to transfer into his new History; but the rest of Your Character, which I or any other Writer may now value our selves by drawing, and the particular Account of the great Things done under Your Ministry, for which You are already so celebrated in most Parts of Europe, will probably be dropt, on account of the antiquated Style, and Manner they are delivered in.

HOW then shall any Man who hath a Genius for History, equal to the best of the Ancients, be able to undertake such a Work with Spirit and Chearfulness, when he considers, that he will be read with Pleasure but a very few Years, and in an Age or two shall hardly be understood without an Interpreter? This is like employing an excellent Statuary to work upon mouldring[sic] Stone. Those who apply their Studies to preserve the Memory of others, will always have some Concern for their own. And I believe it is for this Reason, that so few Writers among us, of any Distinction, have turned their Thoughts to such a discouraging Employment: For the best English Historian must lie under this Mortification, that when his Style grows antiquated, he will only be considered as a tedious Relator of Facts; and perhaps consulted in his turn, among other neglected Authors, to furnish Materials for some future Collector.

I DOUBT, Your Lordship is but ill entertained with a few scattered Thoughts, upon a Subject that deserves to be treated with Ability and Care: However, I must beg leave to add a few Words more, perhaps not altogether foreign to the same Matter. I know not whether that which I am going to say, may pass for Caution, Advice or Reproach, any of which will be justly thought very improper from one in my Station, to one in Yours. However, I must venture to affirm, that if Genius and Learning be not encouraged under Your Lordship’s Administration, you are the most inexcusable Person alive. All Your other Virtues, My Lord, will be defective without this; Your Affability, Candor, and good Nature; that perpetual agreeableness of Conversation, so disengaged in the midst of such a Weight of Business and Opposition; Even Your Justice, Prudence, and Magnanimity, will shine less bright without it. Your Lordship is universally allowed to possess a very large Portion in most Parts of Literature; and to this You owe the cultivating those many Virtues, which otherwise would have been less adorned, or in lower Perfection. Neither can You acquit your self of these Obligations, without letting the Arts, in their turn, share Your Influence and Protection: Besides, who knows, but some true Genius may happen to arise under Your Ministry, exortus ut ætherius Sol. Every Age might perhaps produce one or two of these to adorn it, if they were not sunk under the Censure and Obloquy of plodding, servile, imitating Pedants. I do not mean by a true Genius, any bold Writer who breaks through the Rules of Decency to distinguish himself by the singularity of Opinions; but one, who upon a deserving Subject, is able to open new Scenes, and discover a Vein of true and noble thinking, which never entered into any Imagination before: Every Stroke of whose Pen, is worth all the Paper blotted by Hundreds of others in the compass of their Lives. I know, My Lord, Your Friends will offer in Your Defence, that in Your private Capacity, You never refus’d Your Purse and Credit to the Service and Support of learned or ingenious Men; and that ever since You have been in publick Employment, You have constantly bestowed Your Favours to the most deserving Persons. But I desire Your Lordship not to be deceived: We never will admit of these Excuses, nor will allow Your private Liberality, as great as it is, to attone for Your excessive publick Thrift. But here again, I am afraid most good Subjects will interpose in Your Defence, by alleging the desperate Condition you found the Nation in, and the Necessity there was for so able and faithful a Steward, to retrieve it, if possible, by the utmost Frugality. We grant all this, My Lord; but then, it ought likewise to be considered, that You have already saved several Millions to the Publick, and that what we ask, is too inconsiderable to break into any Rules of the strictest good Husbandry. The French King bestows about half a dozen Pensions to learned Men in several Parts of Europe, and perhaps a dozen in his own Kingdom; which, in the whole, do probably not amount to half the Income of many a private Commoner in England; yet have more contributed to the Glory of that Prince, than any Million he hath otherwise employed. For Learning, like all true Merit, is easily satisfied, whilst the False and Counterfeit is perpetually craving, and never thinks it hath enough. The smallest Favour given by a Great Prince, as a Mark of Esteem, to reward the Endowments of the Mind, never fails to be returned with Praise and Gratitude, and loudly celebrated to the World. I have known some Years ago, several Pensions given to particular Persons (how deservedly I shall not enquire) any one of which, if divided into smaller Parcels, and distributed by the Crown, to those who might, upon occasion, distinguish themselves by some extraordinary Production of Wit or Learning, would be amply sufficient to answer the End. Or if any such Persons were above Money, (as every great Genius certainly is, with very moderate Conveniences of Life) a Medal, or some Mark of Distinction, would do full as well.

BUT I forget my Province, and find myself turning Projector before I am aware; although it be one of the last Characters under which I should desire to appear before Your Lordship, especially when I have the Ambition of aspiring to that of being, with the greatest Respect and Truth,

My Lord,
Your Lordship’s
most Obedient, most Obliged,
and most Humble Servant,
London, Feb. 22. 1711, 12. J. Swift.

No. 8

8. John Oldmixon. Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to the Earl of Oxford, about the English Tongue. London, [1712], pp. 38.

Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter, about Refining the English Tongue.

I should be guilty of the greater folly in the World, if I should go about to give a Character of Persons of whom I have no matter of Knowledge. To speak well or rill of ‘em wou’d be equally Ridiculous and Dangerous : For it must be all Invention, and I might then abuse a Man both in my Praise and Dispraise. It is thus with me with Respect to the Author of the Letter lately publish’d about our Language, and to his Patron. I know neither of them, and if I say a Word more than themselves, or the World have said of them, I must have recourse to Fiction, which I cannot think of without abhorrence, where Reputation is concern’d.

(one paragraph omitted)

This most Ingenious Writer has so great a Value for his own Judgment in Matters of Stile[sic], that he has put his Name to his Letter, and a Name greater than his own, as if he meant to Bully us into his Methods for pinning down our Language, and making it as Criminal to admit Foreign Words as Foreign Trades, tho’ our Tongue may be enrich’d by the one, as much as our Traffick by the other. He would have it corrected, enlarg’d and ascertain’d, and who must do it? He tells you with great Modesty and Discernment in the 27th Page, The Choice of Hands should be left to him, and he would then assign it over to the Women, because they are softer mouth’d, and are more for Liquids than the Men, as he try’d himself in a very notable Experiment. I wonder a grave, serious Divine, who is so well vers’d in College Learning, should in Compliment to a certain Lady, whose Breeding and Conversation must have given her wonderful Opportunities to refine our Tongue, imagine, that the Two Universities would give us so Essential a Branch of their Privileges to the Ladies, and take from them the Standard of English. This puts me in mind of Fontenelle’s way of Learning a Language, which he recommends to be by having an Intrigue with some Fair Foreigner ; and beginning with the Verb I Love, You Love, &c. It is well enough from Him, a Papist, or Layman, but for a Protestant Divine to erect an Academy of Women to improve our Stile, is very extraordinary and gallant, and little agrees with the cruel Quotations of the Author of the Tale of a Tub,.. (pp. 1-3)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Our Author sees no necessity of this Changing our Language. What has been the Fate of all Tongues Ancient and Modern, and for the same Reasons will Eternally be so, he wou’d defend ours from, because the Chinese have books in their Tongue above 2000 Years Old; And a History of 30000 Years Period with a Succession of Kings, 20000 Years before Adam. It wou’d be a Discovery worthy those Men have lately been reconciling Contradictions, and building Arguments upon Nonsence[sic], to find out that certain Standard for out Tongue, to which, if it were refin’d, he assures us, it might be fixt for Ever. This wou’d be doing what was never done before, what neither Roman nor Greek, which lasted the longest of any in its Purity, could pretend to. And this would not be the only strange thing that has lately happen’d to us, which never happen’d to a Nation before. It will be in vain to pretend to ascertain Language, unless they had the Secret of setting Rules for Thinking, and could bring Thought to a Standard too. For every Age, as well as every Nation, has its different manner of Thinking, of which the Expression and Words will always have a Relish, and be Barbarous or Polite, according as the Times take their Turn. If from the abundance of good Sense which appears lately in every thing we do, The Doctor can demonstrate, that we never were in a better way towards the Perfection of Thought and Language, let him set about his Academy as soon a he pleases. But if the contrary is apparent, it may not be improper to wait for some more propitious Opportunity. Besides, there will in all times be irregular Genius’s, who out of Humour will prefer Affectation to Nature, and mistake Novelty for Beauty. Boileau in his Reflections upon Longinus, has several Observations of this kind, which will shew the difference between true and false Judgment, by comparing what he writes with several Passages in the Doctor’s Letter; he is speaking of the famous Ronsard and his Imitators, Du-Bellai, Du Bartas, Desportes, and other French Poets in the Reigns of Henry III. And IV. who were in great Fame for a long while, and when he wrote, sunk into the last Contempt. (...)

Thus we see, that in order to bring us to the degree of Perfection with which the Doctor flatters us by means of his new Academy, they must teach us first to think justly, to distinguish false Beauty from true, and glaring from Brightness, to banish those that write by Humour, and receive only such as aim at Solidity in their Writings. How the Celebrated Tale of a Tub will come off then with the best Judges, I can easily guess, that excellent Treatise being much of the same nature as Rabelais,.. (pp. 26-28)

No. 9

9. William Lily. ‘The Preface.’ A Short Introduction of grammar Generally to be Used; Compiled and set forth for the bringing up all those that intend to attain to the Knowledge of the Latin Tongue. Oxford, 1714. [With contributions by John Colet, Thomas Robertson, and others]

Although the very great importance of having the first Rudiments of Grammar well laid, in order to all future progress in Learning, is a thing manifest in its self, and acknowledged by all sober men; (those Empricks who have pretended to a compendious arts of teaching, without Rule or Method, having been abundantly confuted by their shameful misadventures) yet the particular Conduct of grammatical Institution has in all times been variously discoursed, and no less diversly pursued. In the Rein of King Henry the Eight, when Philology had ain a manner the whole vogue of Reputation, a publick uniform way of Institution was upon great advice by Authority prescribed. But since then, the Art of Grammar having received large Advantages by the Labours of Learned Men in the foregoing and present Age; it has come to pass, that the Methods which were generally received, have upon that account, and perhaps the not so laudable inducements of Singularity and Innovation, with the profitable Harvest to be reaped from thence, fallen into Contempt; and private Schemes have been taken up, not only against the plain command of Authority, but the general interest of Learner, who, seldom growing up under the Care of one Master, were in this case upon every change constrained to begin afresh, to their great discouragement, and manifest loss of time. Now on the other part, it would be very unfortunate, if because one general Method is by Law imposed, and for the common benefit to be admitted, we should therefore be obliged for ever, to forfeit the advantage to be reaped from the improvements of succeeding times.

(two paragraphs omitted)

Having thus accounted for the present undertaking, with the learned Reader ; it may be seasonable to recommend it also to the learner : by saying that Grammar is the Sacrift, that bears the Key of Knowledge, by whom alone admittance can be had into the Temple of the Muses and treasures of Arts; even whatever can enrich the Mind, and raise it from the level of a Barbarian and Idiot to the dignity of an Intelligence. But this Sacrift is a severe Mistress, who being once contemned, will certainly revenge the Injury : it being evident that no Person ever yet despised Grammar, who had not this fault returned upon him ; and was not in every remarkable instances exposed thereby, and rendered despicable. It is true, Grammar only deals in Words, which are of much less intrinsic value than thing ; but since we can only form and express our notions of them, by the intervention of Speech, we cannot take benefit from one without the assistance of the other. Indeed words are as mony, which though it neither feeds, nor clothes, nor cures, or does any thing else that conduces to human life, yet virtually performs all this; but does it under this remarkable difference, that Princes have power over the rate of Coin, but the Grammarian only over Words. It would be observed farther, that Grammar, as she is a severe Mistress, is also a coy one ; and hardly admits any courtship, but of the youthful votary. There are indeed many who buy great industry, have redeemed the want of early Institution ; but in the performances of such, there still appears somewhat of stiffness and force; and what has more in it of Art than Nature: when on the other side be that begins an early Court, has greater assurances of favour; with little difficulty becomes a Denison of Rome and Athens, in whatsoever Climate he happens to be born; and makes their Languages his mother tongue: thereby obtaining a free address to all the wisdom of precedent ages, and the friendship of the Heroes of them; to treat familiarly with Xenophon and Cæsar, Demosthenes and Cicero, Thucydides and Livy, or whomsoever else be chuses[sic] for an acquaintance. He first will read ; then equal their Atchievements[sic] ; and having filled his head with their arts and knowledge, will crown it also with their Lawrels.

Whom these temptations, cannot move to study, let him throw away his book, and like an illiterate criminal perish for not reading in it : let him live a fool, and dye a brute.

No. 10

10. Thomas Sheridan. ‘THE PREFACE.’ An Easy Introduction Grammar in English. For the Understanding of the Latin Tongue. Compil’d not only for the Ease and Encouragement of Youth, but also for their Moral Improvement; having the Syntaxis Examples gather’d from the Choicest Pieces of the best Authors. Dublin: Printed for the Author, 1714, pp. i-viii.

It is a Duty Incumbent upon all who undertake that Great Trust, The Education of Youth, to find out the plainest and easiest Method of Instruction, more especially for their first Advances towards learning a Language, which they are altogether unacquainted with. For, First it is to be consider’d, that these Boys, who without any Pains, became insensibly perfect in their Mother-Tongue, must be much perplex’d, that they cannot with the same ease acquire another Tongue, without the Formality of Rules, and Vexation o f Elaborate Exercises. In the next place, being much fretted with the unusual Restraints of a School, who before liv’d in a manner Unconfin’d, it cannot be expected that their Application to their business shou’d be the Result of a willing Mind, but much less so, while they are first fight presented with a Heap of Rules, which are almost equally difficult both in English and Latin. And what is as great an Obstacle as any to their being recon’d to such a Life, is the unmerciful Tyranny of some Masters, who unreasonably attempt to Improve their Understandings; by frightening them out of their Wits. All which taken together, we shou’d not wonder to find Boys have generally such an Aversion for School, and such a cool Indifference for Books.

Shou’d not common Humanity then oblige us, in some Respects to lighten their Burdens, and made such Condescensions as their Tender Minds and narrow Capacities require? At least to relax those Chains that fetter their Understandings, which wou’d, no doubt, make their Learning less Grievous, and engage much more of their Thoughts to their Studies, that must be constantly employ’d upon the earnest wishes of a Delivery, when Taught with Uneasiness.

As Nature, by a most delicious Nutriment in our Infancy, forms us gradually to an Appetite for more substantial Food; and thus brings us to a sound and healthy Constitution at last: So shou’d we Imitate her in Intellectual Improvements, for the Mind in it’s Infancy, being no less Tender than the Body, is as liable to Miscarriage, and may by wrong Management be fill’d with gross Humours, and brought down to such a Weakness, that no Art can recover or strengthen it. The Body may, by the skill of a Physician, be brought to a right Temperament; but so very Nice and Delicate is the consistence of the Soul, that whatever Distempers it contracts by early Prejudices are Incurable. And what greater Prejudice can it receive, than the Straining of its Faculties, not only to carry more than it can bear, but the abuse of them in being Exercis’d about what it does not Understand.

Having often observ’d how afflicting and perplexing it was for young Boys to learn a Latin Grammar, and how many were by it deterr’d from Learning at all, and after all their Pains what a Confus’d Notion they had of it; I cou’d not be so void of Compassion, as not to use my Endeavours, to redeem them from so much Unnecessary Labour, and (if I may be allow’d the expression) what is worse, a Blinded Knowledge. For which reason, out of a Regard to my Country, the Good of which, depends much upon a right and early Cultivation of it’s Youth, I have Compil’d the following English Grammar for the attainment of the Latin Tongue; which, I am well assur’d, having already experienc’d Part of it, will be of more Advantage to the Schollar [sic], and a much more expeditious Preparation for those pleasanter Books, which have in themselves Charms sufficient to engage their Application, than those commonly Taught. (pp. i-iii)

No. 11

11. Samuel Johnson. ‘1718.’ Diaries, Prayers, and Annals. Ed. E. L. McAdam, Jr. With Donald and Mary Hyde. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958, p. 11-17.

On Thursday night a small portion of Aesop was learned by heart, and on Friday morning the lessons in Aesop were repeated; I believe, no those in Helvicus. On Friday afternoon repeated; I believe, not those in Helvicus. On Friday afternoon we learned Quae Genus; I suppose that other boys might say their repetition, but of this I have now no distinct remembrance. To learn Quae Genus was to me always pleasing; and As in Praesenti was, I know not why, always disgusting.

When we learned our Accidence we had no parts, but, I think, two lessons. The boys that came to school untaught read the Accidence twice through before they learned it by heart.

When we learned Propria quae Maribus, our parts were in the Accidence; when we learned As in Prasenti, our parts were in the Accidence and Propria quae Maribus; when we learned Syntaxis, in the former three. Propria quae Maribus I could repeat without any effort of recollection. I used to repeat it to my mother and Tom Johnson; and remember, that I once went as far as the middle of the paragraph, “Masula dicuntur monosyllaba,” in a dream.

On Saturday, as on Thursday, we were examined. We were sometimes, on one of those days, asked our Catechism, but with no regularity or constancy. G. Hector never had been taught his Catechism.

The progress of examination was this. When we learned Propria quae Maribus, we were examined in the Accidence; particularly we formed Verbs, that is, went through the same persons in all the Moods and Tenses. This was very difficult to me; and I was once very anxious about the next day, when this exercise was to be performed, in which I had failed till I was discouraged. My mother encouraged me, and I proceeded better. When I told her of my good escape, “We often,” said she, dear mother! “come off best, when we are most afraid.” She told me, that, once when she asked me about forming verbs, I said, “I did not form them in an ugly shape.” “You could not,” said she, “speak plain; and I was proud that I had a boy who was forming verbs.” These little memories sooth my mind. Of the parts of Corderius or Aesop, which we learned to repeat, I have not the least recollection, except of a passage in one of the Morals, where it is said of some man, that, when he hated another, he made him rich; this I repeated emphatically in my mother’s hearing, who could ever conceive that riches could bring any evil. She remarked it, as I expected.

I had the curiosity, two or three years ago, to look over Garretson’s Exercises, Willymot’s Particles, and Walker’s Exercises; and found very few sentences that I should have recollected if I had found them in any other books. That which is read without pleasure is not often recollected nor infixed by conversation, and therefore in a great measure drops from the memory. Thus it happens that those who are taken early from school, commonly lose all that they had learned.

When we learned As in Praesenti, we parsed Propria quae Maribus by Hool’s Terminations; and, when we learned Syntaxis, we parsed As in Praesenti; and afterwards Quae Genus, by the same book; sometimes, as I remember, proceeding in order of the rules, and sometimes, particularly in As in Presenti, taking words as they occurred in the Index.

The whole week before we broke up, and the part of the week in which we broke up, were spent wholly, I know not why, in examination; and were therefore easy to both us and the master. The two nights before the vacation were free from exercise.

This was the course of the school, which I remember with pleasure; for I was indulged and caressed by my master, and, I think, really excelled the rest.

Editor’s Note:

Walker, Treatise of English Particles...with a Praxis upon the Same (1655)

Charles Hoole, Corderius’s School Colloquies, English and Latin (1657)

John Garretson, English Exercises for School-boys to Translate into Latin (1690?)

Hermes Romanus...a Collection of Latin Words and Phrases for the Translating of Garretson’s English Exercises into Latin (1711?)

William Willymott, English Particles Exemplified in Sentences Designed for Latin Exercises (1703)

No. 12

12. Ephraim Chambers. Some Considerations offered to the Publick, Preparatory to a Second Edition of Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. 1728. [The number of the paragraph is indicated in the parentheses.]

The former Edition of Cyclopædia, it must be own’d, has many Failings. With whatever Care and Attention it was composed, it is far from having reached the Perfection which the Design admits of. This I have long been sensible of myself, and am so far from having made a Secret of it to others, that an ample and explicit Declaration of the Defects of the Book was made in the Preface, to prevent any Person being deceived in Purchasing it under the Notion of a compleat[sic] Work. Any Censures therefore which it has met with since, either in Publick or Private, are far from being any Surprize to me. No Person can well say harder Things of it than I have done; and to do Justice to my good natured Censors, I have heard of none that has been so severe upon it as it deserves. (paragraph 1)

’This no new Thing for a Man to grow dissatisfied with his Juvenile Writings, as the greater Part of this must be confessed to have been; The like Misfortune has befallen many even of the greatest men; of which St. Augustin, Grotius, Heinsius, Salmasius, and others, are illustrious Instances. The same Indulgence which has been granted to the Merit of these, will not, I hope, be denied to my Weakness: But they attuned for or their Offences of this Kind by their after? Writings; in which I would endeavour to profit by their Example; and, as my great Fault was to have been too hatly? in my first Publication, make some Reparation for it by being more slow and considerate in a second. (2)

For the rest, the best Apology I can make for past Errors and Omissions, will be by correcting and supplying them. Thus the Publick has some Right to, from the faraboule?? Reception it gave the former Book, which, under all its Disadvantages, not only met with Purchasers have with Paregyriffs. The Success of a Book, I know, is no unexceptionable Argument of the Merit of it; but however contemptibly some may speak of the Publick Jadgment, few have been known to lessen its Authority, who have had it on their Side. The only Use I pretend to make of it, is to be animated thereby to reble my E.... s to render the Work more worthy the prce?? Apprehension. (3)

Indeed much remains to be done in only to answer the Design of a Cyclopæia, or Universal Dictionary, in its just Latitude, Great Words cost but latehe??; and Authors have assumed a Right from Time Immemorial of employing them in them Tale Pages, without thinking themselves obliged to the first Observance of them. The Publick, they know, makes great Abatements, and will be contented with something much below the Perfection which is promised them. (4)

Those two Species of Dictionaries have, on I know not what Grounds, shared the Sciences between them; one having taken the Matters of Doctrine, and the other the Matters of Fact for its Province; so that the one deals only in general Definitions, Reasons, and Rules; the other in Particular Cases and Instances. But ’tis evident the Treaty of Partition is but ill concerted, where Generals are torn from the Particulars belonging to them; and Reasons and Rules are thrown into one Book, and the Facts and Instances on which they are built, into another: This makes them both lame of Necessity: The Historical Kind can give History but imperfectly, as only taking in the Personal Articles, as they are call’d, and omitting the General or Real ones, which should give Light to all the rest. Here, we find Britain, but not Island, Gauls, without Nation, and Taurus, the Danube, and Rialto, without Mountain, River, or Bridge. The like holds proportionably in the other Kind, which only takes in general Matters, without descending to particular Instances to exemplify and realize them. Here we find Island, without mention of Britain, Nation without Gauls, and Mountain and River without Taurus or the Danube. (6)

It were easy to enumerate many other Advantages to accrue from such a Work; particularly to Inventors, as this would served as a Kind of Register to secure their Property, and prevent all After-Claims of second and third Inventors. To Authors, by the Detail it would present of Books, to be consulted for Materials, and to prevent the growing Evil of endless Repetitions: To Readers, by the Characters it would exhibit of Writers and Editions, and indicating, in the larger Articles, the Order and Method of Reading them: To Philosophers, by removing in some Measure the Ambiguities of Language, that Source of endless Misunderstandings and Disputes: To the English Language, by fixing the Use and Acceptation of an infinite Number of Words; and thus supplying, in some Measure, the Want of an English Academy. In fine, to Posterity itself, by transmitting the great Lights of the present Age safe down to future Times. Lesser Books, and Writings on particular Subjects soon disappear; and, but for the large Collections of Pliny, Suidas, and Phatius, infinite Things known to the Ancients, must have been lost to us. (11)

If a Person thus qualified cannot be found, yet it does not follow that the Work is utterly impracticable; since what one Person cannot do, may be done by several. There are not wanting Hands enough in the World to do the Work in Perfection: The great Difficulty is, how to ???e, and apply them to it. Various kinds of Communities have ????fore (thereforeではないか) been form’d on the like Occasions; as that of susians? for making a Digest of the Roman Laws; that of Cry..Paphyrgantus.. for making a Reduction of the Body of History; the French Academy for composing a Dictionary, Grammar, and Rhetoric; that Della Crusca for wring Vocabulary; to say nothing of Monastic Congregant, as those of St. Vannus and St. M and the s of the Colleges of Paris, and Levais, who have publish’d divers Works by joint Labour. (13)

But none of these Methods seem adapted to the present State of Things, at least in our Nation: Monastic Communities we have none, since Henry VIII, and for Royal Academies, and Institutions on purpose, I know not whether any are to be expected. Besides, the Ceremony and Form which reign in such Assemblies, with the Jelousies and Disputes which arise in them from different Systems and ways of Thinking, have been found to defeat, in great measure, the Intention of them; so that their Works go heavily on, and with great Interruption, and after all commonly baulk the public Expectation. How many Years were the French Academists, to the Number of Forty the choicest Wits in France, in composing their Dictionary? How often did they alter the Plan of it; and yet when finish’d how many Faults did Furetiere find in a single Sheet publish’d as a Specimen? How many Meetings and what Ado was made in the same Academy for the Examination of a single Tragedy, the Cid of M. Corneille? Besides, of the three Works which that Academy was design’d to compose, two still remain, after near an hundred Years, untouch’d. The Case is much the same with that other celebrated Body Della Crusca, whose Vocabulary after forty Years spent in the Composition, came out with so many, and some such grievous Faults, as gave Occasion to many severe Critiques on it. (14)

In effect, none of these Methods seem adapted to the English Taste and Manner, who love to pursue their Speculations more at Liberty, as well as with less Show and Parade – One Way yet remains, which is almost peculiar to themselves; and in which they have produced Works beyond what any neighbouring Nation can boast of: I mean, the way of Voluntary, or Occasional Communications, where publick-spirited Persons at their Leisure and Liberty, furnish Materials and Intelligences to the Undertakers of useful Designs. Thus it was the Spectators, Tatlers, and many other Papers were carried on with surprising Spirit and Success; and to this Day most of our Journals, and other periodical Works are in great measure supported this Way. (15)

This Method seems no where practicable to better Advantage than in the Work before us. A great Part of the Copies of the former Edition have fallen into the Hands of Persons intelligent, some in one Branch of Knowledge, some in another; many of whom have had Opportunities of noting certain Defects in it, which they may be revail’d on to communicate. Many others having the Book at hand may be pleased to cast an Eye over it with the same View; and as any thing offers worthy Notice, to impart it as above. Lastly, All other Persons are desired, as any thing occurs in the Course either of their Reading or Speculation, that appears new or uncommon, any Point set in a better Light than usual, or brought into a shorter Compass, or reduced to a juster Principle, or disposed in a more convenient Method, or pursued to a greater Length, to communicate the same by this Means to the Publick; whether it be in Real or Verbal Matters, Philosophic or Literary ones, Civil or Ecclesiastical, Manual or Intellectual, Secret or Vulgar, Written or Unwritten ones. Any uncommon Phænomenon, Experiment, Problem, Solution, Calculation, Instrument, Process, Trade, or Business; any new Term lately adopted, or old one lost or revived; any Genealogy of a Word not commonly known, or Variation in the Use of it, or Acceptation not sufficiently authorized, or Orthography that has escaped common Notice; In fine, any Rule, Custom, Explication, Correction, Judgment of Book, or Edition, Detection of Anonymous or Pseudonymous Author; Censure, or Defence of Opinion, Principles, or the like. (16)

In this Invitation are included Persons of every Rank, Profession, and Degree of Knowledge; Men of Letters, of Business, and of Pleasure; the Universities, the Court, Country, Army, and Navy. Not a College, a Chapter, a mercantile Company, a Ship, scarce an House, or even a Man, but may contribute this Quota to the publick Instruction. It will be no Disappointment to the most Learned to throw a few Materials into this general Magazine; the less Learned may here lay aside their Apprehensions of appearing in a Work of Literature; being Masters of the Subject, they need not be sollicitous as to the Style and Manner; Many even among the Illiterate may here find Place, and be of Use to Men of the profounded Learning; they will find an Amusements in me, who shall even think it an Honour to be dictated to by some who can neither Write nor Read. (17)

Numerous Things are wanted from this last Quarter; and the more so, as they are not extant in Books, Libraries, and Cabinets of Vertuosi; but hid in Shops, Garnets, Cellars, Mines, and other obscure Places, where Men of Learning rarely penetrate; Rich Fields of Science lie thus neglected under Ground; Trades, Crafts, Mysteries, Practices, short Ways, with the whole vast Apparatus of unwritten Philosophy. (18)

For the Form in which the Communications are to be made, I pretend not to prescribe any. They who want Leisure or Inclination to digest their Materials into the Form of dictionary Articles, may be pleased to send them in any other. Such as cannot away with the Trouble of Translating, Extracting, or Transcribing any thing which they apprehend for the Purpose, are desired to indicate the Book or Paper where it occurs; and if such Book be scarce, that they would favour us with the Use of it, or at least signify where it may be met withal. (19)

I know not how far this Proposal will be comply’d with; but if only a Moiety of what might be expected from it take Effect, it may furnish the best Book in the Universe; and abundantly indemnify us in the Want of what other Countries are so fond of, Royal, Imperial, Cæsarian, and Ducal Academics, Palatine Societies, and the like: Splendid Names, pompous Titles, but rarely productive of Fruits answerable thereto! Many of our private Clubs might vie with their Academies; and much of the Conversation at certain Coffee-house Tables, with their Conferences in Form. (20)

At least, it is no ill Presage to the present Scheme, that there has appeared a Disposition to come into it, even before it was made; by the many Communications which have been already sent me, without seeking; and those by Persons whose Names would, several of them, do me so much Honour, that ‘’tis with Pain I forbear to mention them in Publiic till I have Leave for the End. (21)

Every body who knows either me, or the Nature of the Work, will acquit me of any sinister Views in the present Proposal, as if I aim’d to purchase either Reputation or Ease at other Peoples Expence. A Man must either be vain or silly to an uncommon Degree, that expects to raise a Character for Learning, by a Dictionary; a Work of Labour rather than Genius; and wherein Reputation may be lost, but none gain’d. It is known what Figure Lexicographers make in the Republick of Letters; with what Contempt they are treated by those who hold the first Rank therein; and how often, even the best of them, receive the Lash at the Hands of the Critics, for the Faults they unavoidably fall into. If the View of being useful did not operate stronger on some Minds than the Love of Fame, few would engage themselves in Works of this Kind, where all the Credit that will be allowed them, is that of being laborious Compilers. For myself, it is far from my Design to appropriate any of the Productions of others, but rather to leave every Person to reap the full Praise or Censure of his own Writings. My Rule will be, punctually to quote the Names of those who shall favour me with any Communications, to the several Passages they furnish, as well as to commemorate them at the Beginning of the Work, except any shall expressly desire to be conceal’d. ( 22)

For the Point of Ease, it would be an awkward Step towards it, to imbark in a Design attended with so much Fatigue. The Toils of Dictionary-writing, are such, that Scalinger could not find Terms hard enough for ’em, without representing ’em as a Punishment sufficient to expiate the blackest Crimes; Incest, Murder, or Parricide itself. The very Apparatus to this has cost me more than I care to mention: the Reader would be frighted to hear of a single Index consisting of above twenty Folio’s; so say nothing of the Pains that have been taken to settle the Oeconomy and most convenient Form of the Articles, which has been investigated like a Geometrical Problem, tried in all the Cases and Varieties, in order to arrive at that which unites the greatest Number of Advantages with the fewest Inconveniences. (23)

I expect it from the Equity of the Purchasers of the former Edition, not to incur any Censures from their Quarter. The Complaint against Improvements of Books of this Kind, is so unreasonable, and has been so often refuted, particularly by the Abbé Danet, and M. Bayle, that one might hope to hear no more of it. Particular Persons who may think themselves aggrieved, will, I believe, change their Sentiment when they consider. That if nothing of this Kind were published till a Man had made it as perfect as he was able, he must never publish it; and that if this were the Condition of writing a Dictionary, No-body would be found to undertake it: That if it be a Hardship to be saddled with an imperfect Edition, the Evil would still have been greater, to have involved more Persons in it, by repeated Impressions of the Book as it stood. In fine, that Posterity would be injured if this Pleas were allow’d, and that we ourselves must have been great Sufferers: For which of us would not lament if the several Dictionaries now extant were still in the same State of Imperfection as when first published! Calepin in a small Octavo, instead of Folio; Richelet in one Volume in Quarto, instead of three Folios; and Hoffman, Bayle, and Morery, in two Volumes each, instead of four, or six! However, any Satisfaction that can be made them, by publishing the Additional Articles apart, the Booksellers will readily comply with; having already given one Instance of Distinterestedness, in coming into the Expence of improving the Work, when they might have followed the Example of those concerned in Morery, who sold off four or five Editions running with all the Faults of the First. (24)

No. 13

13. James Greenwood. ‘THE PREFACE.’ An Essay towards a Practical English Grammar, describing the Genius and Nature of the English Tongue. The third edition with additions. London: Printed for Arthur, 1729, (preface being not paginated).

I need not, I hope, made any Apology for publishing a Grammar of our Mother Tongue, since it is too plain and evident, how necessary a Performance of this Nature is, and especially for those Persons, who talk for the most Part just as they have heard their Parents, Nurses, or Teachers, (who likewise may happen to be none of the best Speakers) talk; without every taking the Matter into any farther Consideration: It is indeed possible that a Young Gentleman or Lady may be enabled to speak pretty well upon some Subjects, and entertain a Visiter[sic] with Discourse that may be agreeable enough. Yet I do not well see how they should write any Thing with a tolerable correctness, unless they have some Taste of Grammar, or express themselves clearly, and deliver their Thoughts by Letter or otherwise, so as not to lay themselves open to the Censure of their Friends, of their blameable Spelling or false Syntax.

For which Reason after several others, I have endeavoured to explain the Principles of Grammar in such a perspicuous and familiar Way, as may rather incite, than discourage the Curiosity of such who would have a clear Notion of what they speak or write. And herein I have had a Regard to three Things: In the first Place I was desirous to do what in me lay, to excite Persons to the Study of their Mother Tongue. Secondly, To give such a plain and rational Account of Grammar, as might render it easy and delightful to our English Youth, who have for a long Time esteemed the Study of this useful Art very irksome, obscure and difficult: And this their wrong and hard Notion seems to have proceeded, partly from the unpleasing and disadvantageous Manner it has been delivered to them in, and partly through the Want of having every Thing explained and cleared up to their Understanding as they go along; Not to mention the teaching them Grammar in Latin, before they have learned any Thing of it in English. And every Body must readily grant that the Way to come to a true and clear Knowledge of any Art, is to explain Things unknown, by Things that are known. And I dare be bold to Say, that if the Grammar of our own Tongue was first Taught in our Schools, our Youth would in a far less Time, than they now commonly do, attain to an Understanding of the Latin Tongue, and also be better prepared for the Study of Things. My third Aim that I had in the writing this Treatise was, to oblige the Fair Sex, whose Education, perhaps, is too much neglected in this Particular: But I shall give you my Thought of this Matter, by transcribing part of a Letter which I wrote some Time ago, to the Ingenious Author of the Tatler upon this Head. “(Letter omitted)” I have therefore endeavoured to render every Thing easy and familiar to them, by explaining every Word that might hinder their learning these Matters with Pleasure.

I have in this Book taken in every Thing that was Material from Dr. Wallis, but he writing for Foreigners, and in Latin, I have not pursued his Method; as not being every where answerable to my Design.

I pretend not to call this a Compleat Grammar, no such Thing being to be expected from any one Person, but an Essay, in which I have to the best of my Abilities, consulted the Genius of our Language.

I must here confess, that I have been very much obliged in the following Papers to Bishop Wilkins’s Real Character, Dr. Wallis, Dr. Hickes’s Saxon Grammar; and I must also take Notice, that in two or three Places I have made use of Mr. Lock’s Expressions, because I liked them better than my own.

(three paragraphs omitted)

His humble Servant,

J. G.

No. 14

14. Benjamin Martin. “Of Language in general; of Grammar in general; and particularly that of the English Tongue.” Bibliotheca technologica: or, A philological library of literary arts and sciences. Viz. 1. Theology. XXV. Miscellanies. London: printed by S. Idle for John Noon, 1737, pp. 133-162.　

Language is a Set of Collection of Sounds or Notes made use of by any Nation or People to express the Ideas of their Minds, and by this means to render their Thoughts and Conceptions intelligible to each other. The Actual Communication of our Sentiments to others in this manner, is call’d Speech, or Speaking.

The component Parts of a Language are different Kinds of Sounds; of which some are Simple, and others variously Compounded. The Marks whereby the Simple Sounds are expressed to the Sight, are called Letters or Characters; and the various Assemblage and Combinations of Letters make the Expressions of Compound Sounds, which again are of divers Sorts, as Syllables, Words, and Phrases ; of which more by and by.

It is customary among all People to make an orderly Arrangement of all the Letters used in their Language, which we call by the Greek Name Alphabet ; as also of all the Words and Terms which compose the same : Ad such a Collection or Catalogue of Words is by Us called a Dictionary, and for the learned Languages, a Lexicon. And the Art which teaches how the Letters and Words are of any Language ought to be set and combin’d together for proper Speech, is what we call Grammar.

In Language we are to consider two main Things. viz. (1) The Idiom, Phraseology, or Manner of Expression, which is peculiar to that Nation, and different from what is used by any other. Thus when we say, All that came out of his Loins, the Hebrews say, out of his Thigh. We say, A person is Ten Years old; the Hebrew Idiom is, He is the Son o f Ten Years. We say, An Husband-man; they, A Man of the Earth, &c. (2) The second Thing is Dialect, which is the same in the main as the Original Language, but differs therefrom in the Ending or Termination of Words, for the most part; the Change of many entire Words, or the Addition or Leaving out proper Letters in the Syllables of Words. So the Name God in the Standard Greek is Theos, but in the Doric Dialect it is Seos ; thus for Glossa, a Tongue, the Attic Dialect says Glotta ; and thus in others.

(seven paragraphs omitted)

The English tongue, such as it is at this Day, which 1800 Years ago was the British or Welch, is now a Mixture of (1.) A little British ; (2.) a great deal of Latin ; (3) a yet far greater Part of Anglo-Saxon, and Teutonic ; (4.) some few Strictures of Danish ; and (5.) an Abundance of Norman French. But since those antient[sic] Times, we have, by means of Learning, Commerce, &c. received very great Improvements from the Greek, Latin, modern French, Italian, Dutch ; and many proper Names of Men, Places and Things, from the Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, and other Eastern Tongues.

But notwithstanding our Language is thus a Mixture or Compound of such heterogeneous Ingredients ; yet it must be withal consider’d, that only the choice and valuable Parts of other Tongues have been selected and incorporated together in the Body of our own, which therefore may be look’d upon as the Quintessence of various Tongues; and by enfranchising and indenizening foreign Words and Terms of Arts and Sciences, it is indeed become a very copious, pithy, significant and learned Language; abounding with all the Flowers of Rhetoric, capable of all the Delicacy, fine Similes and Allusions of Poetry, and of supplying both the Pulpit and Bar with all the Force and Energy that Speech can pretend to.

(one paragraph omitted)

Grammar is defined to be, The Art of expressing the Relation of Things by Words in Construction, with due Accent in Speaking and Orthography in Writing, according to the Custom of those, whose Language we learn: Or, Grammar is the Art of Speaking and Writing truly. Of Grammar there be four Parts. (1.) Orthography, which treats of Letters. (2.) Prosody, of Syllables, and due Pronunciation. (3.) Etymology, or Analogy, which treats of Words ; and (4.) Syntaxis, of Sentences, or due Construction of Words. (pp. 133-139)

No. 15

15. Ephraim Chambers. ‘THE PREFACE.’ Cyclopædia: or, an Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences. The Fifth Edition. Vol. I. London: Printed for D. Midwinter, etc., 1741, pp. ii-xxv.

It is not without some concern, that I put this work in the reader’s hands; a work so seemingly disproportionate to any single person’s experience, and which might have employed an academy. What adds to my apprehensions, is the scanty measure of time that could be employed in a performance, which a man’s whole life scarce appears equal to. The Vocabulary of the academy della Crusca was above forty years in compiling, and the Dictionary of the French academy much longer; and yet the present work will be found more extensive than either of them in its subject and design, as much as it falls short of them in respect of years, or of hands employed in it.

Here, the reader might be led to suspect something of disingenuity; and think I first offer him a book, and then give him reasons why I should not have done it. – But his suspicious will abate, when he is apprized of some advantages under which I engaged; which are superior to what had been known in any former work of the kind: since all that had been done in them, accrued, of course, to the benefit of this. I come, like an heir, to a large patrimony, gradually raised by the industry and endeavours of a long race of ancestors. What the French and Italian academists, the abbe Furetiere, the editors of Trevoux, Savary, Chauvin, Harris, Wolsius, Daviler, and others have done, has been subservient to my purpose. To say nothing of an inferior class of books of this kind, which contributed their share; dictionaries on almost every subject, from medicine and law, down to heraldry and the manage.

Yet this is but a part: I am far from having contented myself to take what was ready collected; but have augmented it with a large accession from other quarters. Few parts of the commonwealth of learning, but have been trafficked to on this occasion. Recourse has been frequently had to the originals themselves on the several arts; and, not to mention what small matters could be furnished from my own stock, the reader will here have extracts and accounts from a great number of books of all kinds, either overlooked by former lexicographers, or not then extant; and a multitude of improvements in the several parts, especially of natural knowledge, made in these late years. If instances hereof were required, I hope there are few pages which will not afford several.

Such are the sources from whence the materials of the present work were derived: which, it must be allowed, were more than sufficiently ample: So that the difficulty lay in the form, and œconomy of it; so to dispose such a multitude of materials, as not to make a confused heap of incoherent Parts, but one consistent Whole. – And here it must be confessed there was little assistance to be had. – Former lexicographers have scarce attempted any thing like structure in their works; nor seem to have been aware, that a dictionary was, in some measure, capable of the advantages of a continued discourse. Hence it is, that we see nothing like a whole in what they have done: and, for this reason, such materials as they did afford for the present work, generally needed farther preparation, ere they became fit for our purpose; which was as different from most of theirs, as a system from a cento.

Our view was, to consider the several matters, not only in themselves, but relatively, as they respect each other: both to treat them as so many wholes, and as so many parts of some greater whole; their connexion with which to be pointed out by a reference. So that by a course of references, from generals to particulars; from premises, to conclusions; from cause, to effect, and vice versa, i.e. from more, to less complex, and from less, to more; a communication might be opened between the several parts of the work; and the several articles be, in some measure, replaced in their natural order of science, out of which the alphabetical order had removed them.

(one paragraph, an instance of the article Anatomy, omitted)

Nor is the pursuit to be dropped here: but as the elements or data, in one art, are ordinarily quæsita in some other subordinate one, and are furnished thereby; (as here, for instance, the elements of anatomy are furnished by natural history, physics, and mechanics; and anatomy itself may be considered as a datum furnished to medicine:) we may carry on the view farther, and refer out of one art or province into the adjoining ones; and thus lay, as it were, the whole land of knowledge open. – It may appear, indeed, with the face of a wilderness; but it should be a wilderness through which a reader might find his way as securely, though not so expeditiously and easily, as through a regular parterre.

It may be even said, that if the System be an improvement upon the Dictionary; the Dictionary is some advantage to the System; and that this is, perhaps, the only way wherein the whole circle, or body of knowledge, with all its parts and dependences, can well be delivered. In any other form, many thousand lesser things must needs be concealed: all the pins, the joints, the binding of the fabric, must be invisible of course; all the lesser parts, one might say, all the parts whatsoever, must be, in some measure, swallowed up in the whole. The imagination, stretched and amplified to take in so large a structure, can have but a very general, undistinguishing perception of any of the component parts.—Whereas the parts are not less matter of knowledge when taken separately, than when put together. – Nay, and as our ideas are all individuals; and as every thing that exists is one, it may seem more natural to consider knowledge in its parts, i.e. as divided into separate articles, denoted by so many different terms; than to consider the whole assemblage in its utmost composition; which is a thing merely artificial, and the work of imagination.

And yet the latter way must be allowed to have many and real advantages over the former; which, in truth, is only o fuse and signification, as it partakes of it. – Whence it should follow, that the most advantageous way, is to make use of both: to consider every point, both as a part, to help the imagination to the whole; and as a whole, to help the understanding to each part. –Which is the view in the present work. – So far, we mean, as the many and great difficulties we had to labour under, would allow us to pursue it.

In this view we have endeavoured to give the substance of what has been hitherto discovered in the several branches of knowledge, both natural and artificial: that is, in the knowledge of nature, first, as she appears to our senses; either spontaneously, as in natural history; or with the assistance of art, as in anatomy, chymistry, medicine, agriculture, &c. Secondly, to our imagination; as in grammar, rhetoric, poetry, &c. Thirdly, to our reason; as in physics, metaphysics, logics, and mathematics: with the several subordinate arts arising from each, as agriculture, painting, sculpture, trade, manufactures, policy, law, &c. and numerous remote particulars, not immediately reducible to any of these heads; as heraldry, philology, antiquities, customs, &c.

The plan of the work, then, I hope, may be allowed to be good; whatever exceptions be taken to the execution of it. It would look extravagant to say, that half the men of letters of an age might be employed in it to advantage; and yet it will appear, that a work accomplished as it ought to be, on the footing of this, would answer most of the purposes of a library, except parade; and contribute more to the propagating of useful knowledge through the body of a people, than half the books extant. – After this, let the reader judge how far I may deserve censure for engaging in it, even under some disadvantages; and whether to have failed in such a design, may not be some degree of praise.

But it will be here necessary to carry on the division of knowledge, just laid down, a little farther; and make a more precise partition of the body thereof, in the formal way of an analysis: the rather, as an analysis, by shewing the origin and derivation of the several parts, and the relation in which they stand to their common stock, and to each other; will assist, both in reinstating the scatted articles in the book, and in connecting them together.

(a chart of KNOWLEDGE, omitted)

This is a view of knowledge, as it were in stamine; exhibiting only the grand, constituent parts thereof: it would be needless to pursue it into all its members and ramifications; which is the proper business of the book itself. It might here, therefore, seem sufficient to refer, from the several branches thus deduced, to the same in the course of the work; where their division is carried on. And yet this would sometimes prove inconvenient to the reader; who, to find some particular matter, would go a long circuit, and be referred backwards and forwards, from one end of the book to another: to say nothing of the interruptions which may frequently happen in the series of references. – To obviate this we have taken a middle course, and carried on the distribution further, in the way of notes at the bottom of the pages; but this in a looser manner, to prevent the embarrass of a strict analysis, so complex and diffusive as this must otherwise prove. Some of the principal articles, in each branch of science, are hereby brought to light, and such as will naturally suggest, and lead to the rest; so that this may afford the reader a sort of summary of the whole; and, at the same time, dispense a kind of auxiliary, or succedaneous order throughout the whole; the articles omitted, all naturally enough ranging themselves in their proper places among these. A detail of this kind is of the more consequence, as it may not only supply the office of a table of contents, by presenting the dispersed materials of the book in one view; but also that of a rubric, or directory, by indicating the order they are most advantageously read in. – Note, then, that the initial words of the notes, correspond to the final ones of the analysis; and that the several members, or items of both, make so many heads or articles in the book.

I might here have ended my preface; and perhaps the reader would be willing enough to be thus dismissed: But something has been already started, which will require further disquisition. – The distribution we have made of knowledge is founded o this; that the several branches thereof commence either Art or Science, according to the agency, or non-agency of the human mind, in respect thereof. – It remains to take the matter up a little higher, and explain the reason and manner of this operation: to consider knowledge in its principles, antecedent to such intervention of ours; and even pursue it up to its cause, and shew how it exists there; and trace the progress of the mind through the whole, and the order of the modifications induced by it. – This is a desideratum which we could not here decline entering upon, on account of its immediate relation to the present design. It is the basis of all learning in general; the great, but obscure hinge, on which the whole encyclopædia turns.

To be more explicite[sic]. – Words are the immediate matter of knowledge; I mean, of knowledge considered as communicable, or capable of being transmitted from one to another. We should have known many things without language; but it would only have been such as we had seen or perceived ourselves. The observations of others, could no way have been added to our own; but every individual must have gone through a course for himself, without any assistance, either from predecessors, or contemporaries. – It is evident, that in this case, nothing like an art or science could ever have arose: the little system of things, which come immediately in one man’s way, would but have afforded a slender stock of knowledge; especially to a being whose views were all to terminate in himself. Add, that as the chief occasions of his observation would have been of the same kind with those of other animals; it is probable his knowledge would not have been very different, whether we consider its quantity or quality. It is confessed, that all our knowledge, in its origin, is no other than sense; whence it should follow, that one being has no natural advantage over another, in its disposition for knowledge, other than what it has in the superior number, extent, or acuteness of its senses.

It is, then, to language that we are chiefly indebted for what we call science. By means of language our ideas and notices, though things in their own nature merely personal, and adapted only to private use, are extended to others, to improve their stock. And thus, by a kind of second sense, a man gets perceptions of the objects that are perceived by all mankind; and is present, as it were by proxy, to things at all distances from him: we hear sounds made a thousand years ago, and see things that pass a thousand miles off. If the eagle really sees, the raven smells, and the hare hears, farther and better than man; their sense, at best, is but narrow, in comparison of ours, which is extended, by the artifice of language, over the whole globe. They see with their own eyes only; we with those of a whole species. – In effect, by language, we are upon much the same footing, in respect of knowledge, as if each individual had the natural sense of a thousand: an accession, which, alone, must have set us far above any other animals. But at the same time, this very accession of a multitude of ideas, more than naturally belonged to us, must have been, in great measure, useless, without certain other faculties of ordering and arranging them; of abstracting, or making one a representative of many; of comparing them together, in order to learn their relations; and of combining them, &c. The effect whereof, is what we call discouraging, and philosophizing; whence arise doctrines, theories, &c.

(one paragraph omitted)

Hence arise two kinds of knowledge; the one absolute, including the standing phænomena; the other relative, or occasional, including what is done, or passes with regard to them. The former is, in some sense, permanent; the latter merely transient, or historical. The first is held forth, a already observed, in the vocabulary: the second is vague, and uncircumscribed by any bounds; being what fills all the other books. In effect, this last, being in some measure casual, may be said to be infinite: for that every new case, i.e. every new application and combination of the former, furnishes something new.

In the wide field of intelligibles, appear some parts which have been more cultivated than the rest; chiefly on account of the richness of the soil, and its easy tillage; but partly too, by reason of the skilful and industrious hands under which it has fallen. These spots, regularly laid out, and conveniently circumscribed, and fenced round, make what we call the Arts and Sciences: and to these have the labours and endeavours of the men of curiosity and learning, in all ages, been chiefly confined. Their bounds have been enlarged from time to time, and new acquisitions made from the adjoining waste; but still the space of ground they possess is but narrow; and there is room either to extend them vastly, o r to lay out new ones.

(one paragraph omitted)

Art, and Science, are, indeed, words of familiar use, and great significance, but, I doubt, little understood: philosophers have long laboured to explain and ascertain their notion and difference; but all their explanation amounts to little more, than the substituting one obscure notion for another. Their attempts have usually terminated in some abstracted definition which rather casts obscurity, than light on the subject; and expresses very little of the essence, and obvious phænomena thereof. – To come at which, we must be at the pains of a new investigation.

To Science, then, seem to belong such things as men may discover by the use of sense and reasoning: whatever the mind descries in virtue of that faculty whereby we perceive things and their relations, is matter of science: such are the laws of nature, the affections of bodies, the rules and criterions of right and wrong, truth and error, the properties of lines, and numbers, &c. Science, in effect, is the result of reason and sense, in their general or natural state, as imparted to all men, and not modified, or circumstantiated by any thing peculiar in the make of a man’s mind, the objects he has been conversant among, or the ideas he has present to him. In fine, science is no other than a series of deductions, or conclusions, which every person, endued with those faculties, may, with a proper degree of attention, see, and draw: and a science, i. e. a formed science, is no more than a system of such conclusions, relating to some one subject, orderly and artfully laid down in words. Thus a person who has all the ideas expressed in Euclid’s Definitions, and sees the immediate connection of those in his Axioms; which no man, acquainted with his language, can be supposed without; may be said to have it in his power, with attention and industry, to form all the theorems, and problems that follow: He has nothing to do, but to range those ideas orderly in his mind, compare them together, one by one, in all their changes, and put down the immediate relations observed in the comparison, i. e. their parity, imparity, &c. And after the relations of each to each are thus got, which make a kind of primary propositions; to proceed to combine them, and take down the relations resulting from a comparison of several combinations. Bu such means, without any other helps than penetration, and perseverance, might he make out an infinite number of propositions; possibly more than Euclid has done: there being a new relation, i. e. a new proposition, resulting from every new combination.

To Art, on the other hand, belong such things as mere reason would not have attained to; things which lie out of the direct path of deduction, and which require a peculiar cast, or turn of mind, to see or arrive at. A man might call these, the results of particular, or personal reason, in opposition to the former; but that such a denomination would be thought unphilosophical. It may, perhaps, be more just to consider reason, here, as modified or tinctured with something in the complection[sic], humour, or manner of thinking of the person; or as restrained and diverted out of its proper course, by some views or notices peculiar to him. – The difference between the tow, may be illustrated by that between wit and humour; the former whereof is a general faculty of exciting agreeable and surprising pictures in the imagination; and the latter a particular one: the former is pure and absolute in its kind; the latter tinged with something foreign and complexional.

An art and a science, therefore, only seem to differ as less and more pure: a science is a system of deductions, made by reason alone, undetermined by any thing foreign, or extrinsic to itself: an art, on the contrary, requires a number of data, and postulate, to be furnished from without; and never goes any length, without, at every turn, needing new ones. It is, in one sense, the knowledge and perception of these data that constitutes the art: the rest, that is, the doctrinal part, is of the nature of science; which attentive reason alone will descry.

(two paragraphs omitted)

Having discussed the nature and characters of art and science, it remains to settle the notion o f a Term of art; an expression as little understood as any thing in language. – Art and science, we have observed, are denominations of knowledge, under this or that habitude; and words are representatives of the several parts thereof. The whole compass of words, in all their cases, is supposed equivalent to the whole system of possible science, though it is only a small part thereof that is actual, i. e. only a few of the possible combinations are, or ever will be made.

The business of knowledge, then, is cantoned out among the body of words: but they do not bear equal shares thereof. Being creatures of our own, we have dealt with them accordingly; and made some more, others less significant, at pleasure: some stand for large provinces, others for pretty districts thereof. In effect, the order wherein we attain our knowledge, has occasioned us to make a kind of sortment in the matter thereof. Though the mind only sees and perceives individuals, which alone are the proper objects thereof; yet it has a power of combining and complicating these together, for its own conveniency [sic] : and hence its progress from particulars, to generals; from simple to complex, -- Hence we come to have words of all orders, and degrees; from the simplicity of an atom, to the complexness of the universe. It is pleasant to trace the mind, bundling up its ideas, and giving names to the several parcels; to observe, for instance, how it proceeds from the simple idea, thinking, to the more comprehensive one, knowledge, thence to a science, thence forward to scientifical, &c.

(one paragraph omitted)

Now what we call a term, is no other than “a word which denotes an assemblage, or system of ideas, relating to some one point, which the mind has artfully complicated, or associated together, for the convenience of its own operations.” Or, it is “a word which comprehends several ideas under a certain relation to each other, whereby they represent some complex piece of knowledge to the mind, for the conveniency, &c.” Or, “it is a word, which holds several different ideas combined together in a relation, such as they appeared under when the mind first considered them as a standing phænomenon, and took measures to have them fixed, or retained in that quality.”

(fifteen paragraphs omitted)

Having, therefore, dispatched some of the leading words of our titles, Art, Science, Term, and Definition: we proceed to consider the nature of a Dictionary. – It were to be wished, that the many adventures in print, who publish their thoughts under this or that from and denomination, would frame to themselves some precise notion of the character and laws thereof. – There is something arbitrary and artificial in all writings: they are a kind of draughts, or pictures, where the aspect, attitude and light, which the objects are taken in, though merely arbitrary, yet sway and direct the whole representation. Books are, as it were, plans or prospects of ideas artfully arranged and exhibited, not to the eye, but to the imagination; and there is a kind of analogous perspective, which obtains in them, wherein we have something not much unlike points of sight, and of distance. An author, in effect, has some particular view or design in drawing out his ideas; either nakedly, to represent something, or to distort and ridicule it, or to amplify and extenuate, or discover, or teach, or prove, &c. whence arise divers kinds of compositions, under the names of histories, discourses, treatise, essays, enquiries, examinations, paraphrases, courses, memoirs, burlesques, &c. in all which, though the matter or subject may be the same, the conduct or artificial part is very different; as much as a still-life from a history, or a grotesque, or a nudity, or a caricatour, or a scene-work, or a miniature, or a profile, &c. each of these methods of composition has its particular characters, and laws; and, to form a judgment of the things represented, from the picture made of them, it is necessary we be able to unravel, or undo what is artificial in them, resolve them into their former state, and extricate what has been added to them in the representation: that is, we should know the manner therefore; whether, e. gr. they be mere nature, shewn through this or that medium, in a fore, or side-view, withinside, or without, to be viewed from above, or below; or nature raised and improved, for the better, or the worse. – The case amounts to the same as the viewing of objects in a mirror; where, unless the form of the mirror be known, viz. whether it be plain, concave, convex, cylindric, or conic, &c. we can make no judgment of the magnitude, figure, &c. of the objects.

It is beyond my purpose to enter into the nature of the several methods of composition abovementioned. I shall only note, by the way, that the first writers in each, marked an chalked out the measures of all that came after them. – The several manners of composing amount to so many arts; which we have already shewn, are things, in great measure, personal, and depend on the genius or humour of the inventers.

Were we to enquire who first led up the way of Dictionaries, of late so much frequented; some little grammarian would, probably, be found at the head thereof: and from his particular views, designs, &c. if known, one might probably deduce, not only the general form, but even the particular circumstances of the modern productions under that name. The relation, however, extends both ways; and if we cannot deduce the nature of a Dictionary from the condition of the author, we may the condition of the author from the nature of the Dictionary. Thus much, at least, we may say, that he was an analyst; that his view was not to improve or advance knowledge, but to teach or convey it; and that he was hence led to unty[sic] the complexions, or bundles of ideas his predecessors had made, and reduce them to their natural simplicity: which is all that is essential to a lexicographer. Probably this was in the early days of the Egyptian sages, when words were more complex and obscure than now; and mystic symbols and hieroglyphics obtained; so that an explication of their marks or words, might amount to a revelation of their whole inner philosophy: in which case, instead of a grammarian, we must put perhaps a priest or mystagogue at the head of Dictionaries. – Indeed, this seems the more probably, for that a grammatical Dictionary could only have place where a language was already become very copious, and many synonymons got into it; or where the people of one language were desirous to learn that of another: which we have no reason to think could be very early, till much commerce and communication had made it necessary. (pp. ii-xvi)

No. 16

16. Isaac Watts. “Chap. VI. Special Rules to direct our Conceptions of Things. SECT. II-IV.” Logick: or, the Right Use of Reason in the Enquiry after Truth. With a Variety of Rules to guard against Error, in the Affairs of Religion and Human Life, as well as in the Sciences. The eighth edition, corrected. London: Printed for T. Longman, T. Shewell, and J. Brackstone, 1745, pp. 82-108. {One of the sources of Johnson’s concept of definition is this book, first published in 1724. He used the eighth edition.}

The First Part, Chap. VI. Special Rules to direct our Conception of Things

Sec. II. Of the Definition of Words or Names.

If we could conceive of Things as Angels and unbodied Spirits do, without involving them in those Clouds which Words and Language throw upon them, we should seldom be in Danger of such Mistakes as are perpetually committed by us in the present State: and indeed it would be of unknown Advantage to us to accustom ourselves to form Ideas of Things without Words, that we might know them in their own proper Nature. But since we must use Words, both to learn and to communicate most of our Notions, we should do it with just Rules of Caution. I have already declared in part, how often and by what Means our Words become the Occasions of Errors in our Conceptions of Things. To remedy such Inconveniences, we must get an exact Definition of the Words we make use of, i. e. we must determine precisely the Sense of our Words, which is called the Definition of the Name.

Now a Definition of the Name being only a Declaration in what Sense the Words is used, or what Idea or Object we mean by it, this may be expressed by any one or more of the Properties, Effects or Circumstances of that Object which do sufficiently distinguish it from other Objects : As if I were to tell what I mean by the Word Air, I may say it is that thin Matter which we breathe in and breathe out continually ; or it is that fluid Body in which the Birds fly a little above the Earth ; or it is that invisible Matter which fills all Places near the Earth, or which immediately encompasses the Globe of Earth and Water. So if I would tell what I mean by Light, I would say, it is that Medium whereby we see the Colours and Shapes of Things; or it is that which distinguishes the Day from the Night. If I were ask’d what I mean by Religion, I would answer, it is a Collection of all our Duties to God, if taken in a strict and limited Sense ; but if taken in a larger Sense, it is a Collection of all our Duties both to God and Man. These are called the Definitions of the Name.

Note, In defining the Name there is no Necessity that we should be acquainted with the intimate Essence or Nature of the Thing ; for any Manner of Description that will but sufficiently acquaint another Person what we mean by such a Word, is a sufficient Definition for the Name. And on this Account, a synonymous Word, or a mere Negation of the contrary, a Translation of the Word into another Tongue, or a Grammatical Explication of it, is sometimes sufficient for this Purpose ; as if one would know what I mean by a Sphere, I tell him it is a Globe; if he ask what is a Triangle, it is that which has three Angles; or an Oval is that which has the Shape of an Egg. Dark is that which has no Light : Asthma is a Difficulty of Breathing ; a Diaphoretick Medicine, or a Sudorifick, is something that will provoke Sweating ; and an Insolvent is a Man that cannot pay his Debts.

Since it is the Design of Logick, not only to assist us in Learning but in Teaching also, it is necessary that we should be furnish’d with some particular Directions relating to the Definitions of Names, both in Teaching and Learning.

Sec. III. Directions concerning the Definition of Names.

Direct. I. Have a Care of making Use of mere Words, instead of Ideas, i. e. such Words as have no Meaning, no Definition belong to them : Do not always imagine that there are Ideas wheresoever there are Names :..

Direct. II. Do not suppose that the Natures or Essences of Things always differ from one another, as much as their Names do. There are various Purposes in human Life, for which we put very different Names on the same Things, or on Things whose Natures are near a-kin ;..

Direct. III. Take heed of believing the Nature and Essence of two or more Things to be certainly the same, because they may have the same name given them. This has been an unhappy and fatal Occasion of a thousand Mistakes in the natural, in the civil, and in the religious Affairs of Life, both amongst the Vulgar and the Learned. (...)

Direct. IV. In Conversation or Reading be diligent to find out the true Sense, or distinct Idea, which the Speaker or Writer affixes to his Words; and especially to those Words which are the chief Subject of his Discourse. As far as possible take heed, lest you put more or fewer ideas into one Word, than the Person did when he wrote or spoke ; and endeavour that your Ideas of every Word may be the same as his were : Then you will judge better of what he speaks or writes. (...)

Direct. V. When we communicate our Notions to others, merely with a Design to inform and improve their Knowledge, let us in the Beginning of our Discourse take care to adjust the Definition of Names wheresoever there is need of it; that is, to determine plainly what we mean by the chief Words which are the Subject of our Discourse ; and be sure always to keep the same Ideas, whensoever we use the same Words, unless we give due Notice to the Change. (...)

Direct. VI. In your own Studies, as well as in the Communication of your Thoughts to others, merely for their Information, avoid ambiguous and equivocal Terms as much as possible. (...)

Direct. VII. In communicating your Notions, use every Word as near as possible in the same Sense in which Mankind commonly uses it ; or which Writers that have gone before you have usually affix’d to it, upon Condition that it is free from Ambiguity. (...)

SECT. IV. Of the Definition of Things.

As there is much confusion introduced into our Ideas, by the Means of those Words to which they are affixed, so the mingling our Ideas with each other without Caution, is a farther Occasion whereby they become confused. A Court Lady, born and bred up amongst Pomp and Equipage, and the vain Notions of Birth and Quality, constantly joins and mixes all these with the Idea of her self, and she imagines these to be essential to her Nature, and as it were necessary to her Being ; thence she is tempted to look upon menial Servants, and the lowest Rank of Mankind, as another Species of Beings quite distinct from her self. A Plough boy, that has never travelled beyond his own Village, and has seen nothing but thatch’d Houses and his Parish Church, is naturally led to imagine that Thatch belongs to the very Nature of a House, and that that must be a Church which is built of Stone, and especially if it has a Spire upon it. A Child whose Uncle has been excessive fond, and his School-master very severe, easily believes that Fondness always belongs to Uncles, and that Severity is essential to Masters or Instructors. He has seen also Soldiers with red Coats, or Ministers with long black Gowns, and therefore he persuades himself that these Garbs are essential to the Characters, and that he is not a Minister who has not a long black Gown, nor can he be a Soldier who is not dressed in red. It would be well if all such Mistakes ended with Childhood.

It might be also subjoined, that our complex Ideas become confused, not only by uniting or blending together more simple or single Ideas than really belong to them, as in the Instances just mention’d ; but Obscurity and Confusion sometimes come upon our Ideas also, for want of uniting a sufficient Number of single Ideas to make the complex one : so if I conceive of a Leopard only as a spotted Beast, this does not distinguish it from a Tyger or a Lynx, nor from many Dogs or Horses, which are spotted too ; and therefore a Leopard must have some more Ideas added to complete and distinguish it.

I grant that it is a large and free Acquaintance with the World, a watchful Observation and diligent Search into the Nature of Things that must fully correct this kind of Errors : The Rules of Logick are not sufficient to do it : But yet the Rules of Logick may instruct us by what means to distinguish one thing from another, and how to search and mark out as far as may be the Contents and Limits of the Nature of distinct Beings, and thus may give us great Assistance towards the Remedy of these Mistakes.

As the Definition of Names frees us from that Confusion which Words introduce, so the Definition of Things will in some Measure guard us against that Confusion which mingled Ideas have introduced : For as a Definition of the Name explains what any Word means, so a Definition of the Thing explains what is the Nature of that Thing.

In order to form a Definition of any Thing we must put forth these three Acts of the Mind.

First, Compare the Thing to be defined with other Things that are most like to itself, and see wherein its Essence or Nature agrees with them ; and this is call’d the general Nature or Genus in a Definition : So if you would define what Wine is, first compare it with other Things like itself, as Cyder, Perry, &c. and you will find it agrees essentially with them in this, that it s a Sort of Juice.

Secondly, Consider the most remarkable and primary Attribute, Property, or Idea wherein this Thing differs from those other Things that are most like it: and that is its essential or specific Difference : So Wine differs from Cyder and Perry, and all other Juices, in that it is pressed from a Grape. This may be called its special Nature, which distinguishes it from other Juices.

Thirdly, Join the general and special Nature together, or (which is all one) the Genus and the Difference, and these make up a Definition. So the Juice of a Grape, or Juice pressed from Grapes, is the Definition of Wine.

(one paragraph omitted)

After the same Manner if we would explain or define what the Picture of a Man is, we consider first the Genus or general Nature of it, which is a Representation ; and herein it agrees with many other Things, as a Statue, a Shadow, a Print, a verbal Description of a Man, &c. Then we consider wherein it differs from these, and we find it differs from a verbal Description in that it is a Representation to the Eye and not to the Ear : It differs from a Statue in that it is a Representation upon a flat Surface, and not in a solid Figure : it differs from a Shadow in that it is an abiding Representation and not a fleeting one : It differs from a Print or Draught, because it represents the Colours by Paint as well as the Shape of the Object by Delineation. Now so many or rather so few of these Ideas put together, as are just sufficient to distinguish a Picture from all other Representations, make up its essential Difference or its special Nature : and all these are included in its being painted on a plain Surface. Then join this to the Genus, which is a Representation ; and thus you have the complete Definition of the Picture of a Man, viz. it is the Representation of a Man in Paint upon a Surface (or a Plane.)

Here it must be observed, that when we speak of the Genus and Difference as composing a Definition, it must always be understood that the nearest Genus and the specific Difference are required.

(one paragraph omitted)

The specific Difference is that primary Attribute which distinguishes each Species from one another, while they stand ranked under the same general Nature or Genus. Tho’ Wine differs from other Liquids in that it is the Juice of a certain Fruit, yet this is but a general or generick Difference, for it does not distinguish Wine from Cyder or Perry ; the Specifick Difference of Wine therefore is its Pressure from the Grape ; as Cyder is pressed from Apples, and Perry from Pears.

(one paragraph omitted)

SECT. V. Rules of Definition of the Thing.

The special Rules of a good Definition, are these :

Rule I. A Definition must be universal, or as some call it, adequate ; that is, it must agree to all the particular Species or Individuals that are included under the same Idea ; so the Juice of a Grape agrees to all proper Wines, whether Red, White, French, Spanish, Florence, &c.

Rule II. It must be proper and peculiar to the Thing defined, and agree to that alone ; for it is the very Design of a Definition effectually to distinguish one Thing from all others : So the Juice of a Grape agrees to no other Substance, to no other Liquid, to no other Being but Wine.

(one paragraph omitted)

Rule III. A Definition ought to be clear and plain ; for the Design of it is to lead us into the Knowledge of the Thing defined.

Hence it will follow, that the Words used in a Definition ought not to be doubtful, and equivocal, and obscure, but as plain and easy as the Language will afford : And indeed it is a general Rule concerning the Definition both of Names and Things, that no Word should be used in either of them, which has any Darkness or Difficulty in it, unless it has been before explained or defined.

(three paragraph omitted)

Rule IV. It is also commonly prescribed amongst the Rules of Definition, that it should be short, so that it must have no Tautology in it, nor any Words superfluous. I confess Definitions ought to be expressed in as few Words as is consistent with a clear and just Explication of the Nature of the Thing defined, and a Distinction of it from all other Things beside : But it is of much more Importance, and far better, that a Definition should explain clearly the Subject we treat of, though the Words be many, than to leave Obscurities in the Sentence, by confining it within too narrow Limits. (...)

(one paragraph omitted)

V. If we add a fifth rule, it must be, that neither the Thing defined, or a mere synonymous Name, should make any Part of the Definition, for this would be no explication of the Nature of the Thing : and a synonymous Word at best could only be a Definition of the Name.

No. 17

17. Samuel Johnson. “A Short Scheme for Compiling a new Dictionary of the English Language.” April 30, 1746. Johnson on the English Language. New Heaven and London: Yale University Press, 2005, pp. 378-427.

No. 18

18. Samuel Johnson. Clerk’s copy of The Plan of a Dictionary (“fair Copy”), Post October 1746. {See Johnson on the English Language. New Heaven and London: Yale University Press, 2005, pp. 428-489. “Professor Osgood...seems to imply that Johnson had decided to dedicate the Plan to Chesterfield before April 30, 1746; but this, as we point out, is very unlikely.” (Sledd and Kolb 1955: 222, note 13)}

No. 19

19. Advertisement. The London Evening-Post (Tuesday, April 14, 1747) {The same advertisement appeared also on April 21. This ad may have appeared first in The Public Advertiser (20 March 1747).}

To the Publick,

There is now Preparing for the Press, in good Forwardness, in Two Volumes, Folio,

An English Dictionary ;

Etymological, |　Explanatory,

Analogical, | And

Syntactical, | Critical

In which the Words of the English Language are traced up to their Origin, deduced through their various Fluxions and Formations, regulated in their Construction, explain’d in all the Varieties of their Meaning, and exemplified in the whole Extent of their Use, according to the authority of our purest Writers.

To which is prefix’d

A Critical English Grammar, and a History of the English Language, from the Age of its earliest Monuments to the Time of Queen Elizabeth.

By Samuel Johnson.

Printed for J. and P. Knapton, T. Longman and T. Shewell, C. Hitch, A. Millar, and R. Dodsley.

No. 20

20. Samuel Johnson. The Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language; Addressed to the Right Honourable Philip Dormer, Earl of Chesterfield; One of His Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State. London: Printed for J. and P. Knapton, T. Longman and T. Shewell, C. Hitch, A. Millar, and R. Dodsley. 1747, 36pp. {The editor has provided the number of the paragraphs in the Plan for the easiness of reference. Changes or deletions in the other edition, published in the same year with 39 pages, is supplied in [ ]. This is surely the later edition, because the two words are deleted in the 37th paragraph, which was shown as a note in the back-sheet of the title page in the earlier edition.}

My LORD,

[1] WHEN first I undertook to write an English Dictionary, I had no expectation of any higher patronage than that of the proprietors of the copy, nor prospect of any other advantage than the price of my labour; I knew, that the work in which I engaged is generally considered as drudgery for the blind, as the proper toil of artless industry, a task that requires neither the light of learning, nor the activity of genius, but may be successfully performed without any greater [higher] quality than that of bearing burdens with dull patience, and beating the track of the alphabet with sluggish resolution.

[2] Whether this opinion, so long transmitted and so widely propagated, had its beginning from truth and nature, or from accident and prejudice, whether it be decreed by the authority of reason, or the tyranny of ignorance, that of all the candidates for literary praise, the unhappy lexicographer holds the lowest place, neither vanity nor interest incited me to enquire. It appeared that the province allotted me was of all the regions of learning generally confessed to be the least delightful, that it was believed to produce neither fruits nor flowers, and that after a long and laborious cultivation, not even the barren laurel had been found upon it.

[3] Yet on this province, my Lord, I enter’d with the pleasing hope, that as it was low, it likewise would be safe. I was drawn forward with the prospect of employment, which, tho’ not splendid, would be useful, and which tho’ it could not make my life envied, would keep it innocent; [,] which would awaken no passion, engage me in no contention, nor throw in my way any temptation to disturb the quiet of others by censure, or my own by flattery.

[4] I had read indeed of times, in which princes and statesmen thought it part of their honour to promote the improvement of their native tongues, and in which dictionaries were written under the protection of greatness. To the patrons of such undertakings, I willingly paid the homage of believing that they, who were thus solicitous for the perpetuity of their language, had reason to expect that their actions would be celebrated by posterity, and that the eloquence which they promoted would be employed in their praise. But I considered such acts of beneficence as prodigies, recorded rather to raise wonder than expectation; and, content with the terms that I had stipulated, had not suffered [suffer’d] my imagination to flatter me with any other encouragement, when I found that my design had been thought by your Lordship of importance sufficient to attract your favour.

[5] How far this unexpected distinction can be rated among the happy incidents of life, I am not yet able to determine. Its first effect has been to make me anxious lest it should fix the attention of the public too much upon me, and as it once happened to an epic poet of France, by raising the reputation of the attempt, obstruct the reception of the work. I imagine what the world will expect from a scheme, prosecuted under your Lordship’s influence, and I know that expectation, when her wings are once expanded, easily reaches heights which performance never will attain, and when she has mounted the summit of perfection, derides her follower, who dies in the pursuit.

[6] Not, therefore, to raise expectation, but to repress it, I here lay before your Lordship the plan of my undertaking, that more may not be demanded than I intend, and that before it is too far advanced to be thrown into a new method, I may be advertised of its defects or superfluities. Such informations I may justly hope from the emulation with which those who desire the praise of elegance or discernment must contend in the promotion of a design that you, my Lord, have not thought unworthy to share your attention with treaties and with wars.

[7] In the first attempt to methodise my ideas, I found a difficulty which extended itself to the whole work. It was not easy to determine by what rule of distinction the words of this dictionary were to be chosen. The chief intent of it is to preserve the purity, and ascertain the meaning of our English idiom; and this seems to require nothing more than that our language be considered so far as it is our own; that the words and phrases used in the general intercourse of life, or found in the works of those whom we commonly stile polite writers, be selected, without including the terms of particular professions, since, with the arts to which they relate, they are generally derived from other nations, and are very often the same in all the languages of this part of the world. This is perhaps the exact and pure idea of a grammatical dictionary; but in lexicography, as in other arts, naked science is too delicate for the purposes of life. The value of a work must be estimated by its use: It [it] is not enough that a dictionary delights the critic, unless [,] at the same time [,] it instructs the learner; as it is to little purpose, [purpose] that an engine amuses the philosopher by the subtilty of its mechanism, if it requires so much knowledge in its application, as to be of no advantage to the common workman.

[8] The title which I prefix to my work has long conveyed a very miscellaneous idea, and they that take a dictionary into their hands have been accustomed to expect from it, a solution of almost every difficulty. If foreign words therefore were rejected, it could be little regarded, except by critics, or those who aspire to criticism; and however it might enlighten those that write, would be all darkness to them that only read. The unlearned much oftener consult their dictionaries, for the meaning of words, than for their structures or formations; and the words that most want explanation, are generally terms of art, which therefore experience has taught my predecessors to spread with a kind of pompous luxuriance over their productions.

[9] The academicians of France, indeed, rejected terms of science in their first essay, but found afterwards a necessity of relaxing the rigour of their determination; and, tho’ [though] they would not naturalize them at once by a single act, permitted them by degrees to settle themselves among the natives, with little opposition, and it would surely be no proof of judgment to imitate them in an error which they have now retracted, and deprive the book of its chief use, by scrupulous distinctions.

[10] Of such words however, all are not equally to be considered as parts of our language, for some of them are naturalized and incorporated, but others still continue aliens, and are rather auxiliaries than subjects. This naturalization is produced either by an admission into common speech in some metaphorical signification, which is the acquisition of a kind of property among us, as we say the zenith of advancement, the meridian of life, the cynosure of neighbouring eyes; or it is the consequence of long intermixture and frequent use, by which the ear is accustomed to the sound of words [,] till their original is forgotten, as in equator, satellites; or of the change of a foreign to an English termination, and a conformity to the laws of the speech into which they are adopted, as in category, cachexy, peripneumony.

[11] Of those which still continue in the state of aliens, and have made no approaches towards assimilation, some seem necessary to be retained, because the purchasers of the dictionary will expect to find them. Such are many words in the common law, as capias, habeas corpus, præmunire, nisi prius: such are some terms of controversial divinity, as hypostasis; and of physick, as the names of diseases; and in general all terms which can be found in books not written professedly upon particular arts, or can be supposed necessary to those who do not regularly study them. Thus, when a reader not skilled in physick happens in Milton upon this line,

----pining atrophy,
Marasmus, and wide-wasting pestilence,

he will with equal expectation, look into his dictionary for the word marasmus, as for atrophy, or pestilence, and will have reason to complain if he does not find it.

[12] It seems necessary to the completion of a dictionary design’d [designed] not merely for critics [,] but for popular use, that it should comprise, in some degree, the peculiar words of every profession; that the terms of war and navigation should be inserted so far as they can be required by readers of travels, and of history; and those of law, merchandise, and mechanical trades, so far as they can be supposed useful in the occurrences of common life.

[13] But there ought, however, to be some distinction made between the different classes of words, and therefore it will be proper to print those which are incorporated into the language in the usual character, and those which are still to be considered as foreign in the Italick letter.

[14] Another question may arise, with regard to appellatives, or the names of species. It seems of no great use to set down the words horse, dog, cat, willow, alder, dasy[sic], rose, and a thousand others, of which it will be hard to give an explanation not more obscure than the word itself. Yet it is to be considered, that, if the names of animals be inserted, we must admit those which are more known, as well as those with which we are, by accident, less acquainted; and if they are all rejected, how will the reader be relieved from difficulties produced by allusions to the crocodile, the camæleon, the ichneumon, and the hyæna? If no plants are to be mentioned, the most pleasing part of nature will be excluded, and many beautiful epithets be unexplained. If only those which are less known are to be mentioned, who shall fix the limits of the reader’s learning? The importance of such explications appears from the mistakes which the want of them has occasioned. Had Shakespear had a dictionary of this kind, he had not made the woodbine entwine the honeysuckle; nor would Milton, with such assistance, have disposed so improperly of his ellops and his scorpion.

[15] Besides, as such words, like others, require that their accents should be settled, their sounds ascertained, and their etymologies deduced, they cannot be properly omitted in the dictionary. And though the explanations of some may be censured as trivial, because they are almost universally understood, and those of others as unnecessary, because they will seldom occur, yet it seems not proper to omit them, since it is rather to be wished that many readers should find more than they expect, than that one should miss what he might hope to find.

[16] When all the words are selected and arranged, the first part of the work to be considered is the orthography, which was long vague and uncertain, which at last, when its fluctuation ceased, was in many cases settled but by accident, and in which, according to your Lordship’s observation, there is still great uncertainty among the best critics; nor is it easy to state a rule by which we may decide between custom and reason, or between the equiponderant authorities of writers alike eminent for judgment and accuracy.

[17] The great orthographical contest has long subsisted between etymology and pronunciation. It has been demanded, on one hand, that men should write as they speak; but as it has been shewn that this conformity never was attained in any language, and that it is not more easy to persuade men to agree exactly in speaking than in writing, it may be asked with equal propriety, why men do not rather speak as they write. In France, where this controversy was at its greatest height, neither party, however ardent, durst adhere steadily to their own rule; the etymologist was often forced to spell with the people; and the advocate for the authority of pronunciation, found it sometimes deviating so capriciously from the received use of writing, that he was constrained to comply with the rule of his adversaries, lest he should loose [lose] the end by the means, and be left alone by following the croud [crowd].

[18] When a question of orthography is dubious, that practice has, in my opinion, a claim to preference, which preserves the greatest number of radical letters, or seems most to comply with the general custom of our language. But the chief rule which I propose to follow, is to make no innovation, without a reason sufficient to balance the inconvenience of change; and such reasons I do not expect often to find. All change is of itself an evil, which ought not to be hazarded but for evident advantage; and as inconstancy is in every case a mark of weakness, it will add nothing to the reputation of our tongue. There are, indeed, some who despise the inconveniencies of confusion, who seem to take pleasure in departing from custom, and to think alteration desirable for its own sake, [;] and the reformation of our orthography, which these writers have attempted, should not pass without its due honours, but that I suppose they hold singularity its own reward, or may dread the fascination of lavish praise.

[19] The present usage of spelling, where the present usage can be distinguished, will therefore in this work be generally followed, yet there will be often occasion to observe, that it is in itself inaccurate, and tolerated rather than chosen; particularly, when by the change of one letter, or more, the meaning of a word is obscured, as in farrier, for ferrier, as it was formerly written, from ferrum or fer; in gibberish for gebrish, the jargon of Geber, and his chymical followers, understood by none but their own tribe. It will be likewise sometimes proper to trace back the orthography of different ages, and shew by what gradations the word departed from its original.

[20] Closely connected with orthography is pronunciation, the stability of which is of great importance to the duration of a language, because the first change will naturally begin by corruptions in the living speech. The want of certain rules for the pronunciation of former ages, has made us wholly ignorant of the metrical art of our ancient poets; and since those who study their sentiments regret the loss of their numbers, it is surely time to provide that the harmony of the moderns may be more permanent.

[21] A new pronunciation will make almost a new speech, and therefore since one great end of this undertaking is to fix the English language, care will be taken to determine the accentuation of all polysyllables by proper authorities, as it is one of those capricious phænomena which cannot be easily reduced to rules. Thus there is no antecedent reason for difference of accent in the two words dolorous and sonorous, yet of the one Milton gives the sound in this line,

He pass’d o’er many a region dolorous;

and that of the other in this,

Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds.

[22] It may be likewise proper to remark metrical licenses, such as contractions, generous, gen’rous, reverend, rev’rend; and coalitions, as region, question.

[23] But it is still more necessary to fix the pronunciation of monosyllables, by placing with them words of correspondent sound, that one may guard the other against the danger of that variation, which to some of the most common, [common] has already happened, so that the words wound, and wind, as they are now frequently pronounced, will not rhyme to sound, and mind. It is to be remarked that many words written alike are differently pronounced [pronounc’d], as flow, and brow, which may be thus registered flow, woe, brow, now, or of which the exemplification may be generally given by a distich. Thus the words tear or lacerate, [lacerate] and tear the water of the eye, have the same letters, but may be distinguished thus, tear, dare; tear, peer.

[24] Some words have two sounds, which may be equally admitted, as being equally defensible by authority. Thus great is differently used.

For Swift and him despis’d the farce of state,
The sober follies of the wise and great. Pope.

As if misfortune made the throne her seat,
And none could be unhappy but the great. Rowe.

The care of such minute particulars may be censured as trifling, but these particulars have not been thought unworthy of attention in more polished languages.

[25] The accuracy of the French, in stating the sounds of their letters, is well known; and, among the Italians, Crescembeni has not thought it unnecessary to inform his countrymen of the words, which, in compliance with different rhymes, are allowed to be differently spelt, and of which the number is now so fix’d [fixed], that no modern poet is suffered to encrease it.

[26] When the orthography and pronunciation are adjusted, the Etymology or Derivation is next to be considered, and the words are to be distinguished according to the different classes, whether simple, as day, light, or compound as day-light; whether primitive, as, to act, or derivative, as action, actionable, active, activity. This will much facilitate the attainment of our language, which now stands in our dictionaries a confused heap of words without dependence, and without relation.

[27] When this part of the work is performed, it will be necessary to inquire how our primitives are to be deduced from foreign languages, which may be often very successfully performed by the assistance of our own etymologists. This search will give occasion to many curious disquisitions, and sometimes perhaps to conjectures, which, to readers unacquainted with this kind of study, cannot but appear improbable and capricious. But it may be reasonably imagined, that what is so much in the power of men as language, will very often be capriciously conducted. Nor are these disquisitions and conjectures to be considered altogether as wanton sports of wit, or vain shews of learning; our language is well known not to be primitive or self-originated, but to have adopted words of every generation, and [,] either for the supply of its necessities, or the encrease of its copiousness, to have received additions from very distant regions; so that in search of the progenitors of our speech, we may wander from the tropic to the frozen zone, and find some in the vallies of Palestine and some upon the rocks of Norway.

[28] Beside the derivation of particular words, there is likewise an etymology of phrases. Expressions are often taken from other languages, some apparently, as to run a risque, courir un risque; and some even when we do not seem to borrow their words; thus, to bring about or accomplish, appears an English phrase, but in reality our native word about has no such import, and it is [and is] only a French expression, of which we have an example in the common phrase, venir à bout d’une affaire.

[29] In exhibiting the descent of our language, our etymologists seem to have been too lavish of their learning, having traced almost every word through various tongues, only to shew what was shewn sufficiently by the first derivation. This practice is of great use in synoptical lexicons, where mutilated and doubtful languages are explained by their affinity to others more certain and extensive, but is generally superfluous in English etymologies. When the word is easily deduced from a Saxon original, I shall not often enquire further, since we know not the parent of the Saxon dialect, but when it is borrowed from the French, I shall shew whence the French is apparently derived. Where a Saxon root cannot be found, the defect may be supplied from kindred languages, which will be generally furnished with much liberality by the writers of our glossaries; writers who deserve often the highest praise, both of judgment and industry, and may expect at least to be mentioned with honour by me, whom they have freed from the greatest part of a very laborious work, and on whom they have imposed, at worst, only the easy task of rejecting superfluities.

[30] By tracing in this manner every word to its original, and not admitting, but with great caution, any of which no original can be found, we shall secure our language from being over-run with cant, from being crouded with low terms, the spawn of folly or affectation, which arise from no just principles of speech, and of which therefore no legitimate derivation can be shewn.

[31] When the etymology is thus adjusted, the Analogy of our language is next to be considered; when we have discovered whence our words are derived, we are to examine by what rules they are governed, and how they are inflected through their various terminations. The terminations of the English are few, but those few have hitherto remained unregarded by the writers of our dictionaries. Our substantives are declined only by the plural termination, our adjectives admit no variation but in the degrees of comparison, and our verbs are conjugated by auxiliary words, and are only changed in the preter tense.

[32] To our language may be with great justness applied the observation of Quintilian, that speech was not formed by an analogy sent from heaven. It did not descend to us in a state of uniformity and perfection, but was produced by necessity and enlarged by accident, and is therefore composed of dissimilar parts, thrown together by negligence, by affectation, by learning, or by ignorance.

[33] Our inflections therefore are by no means constant, but admit of numberless irregularities, which in this dictionary will be diligently noted. Thus fox makes in the plural foxes, but ox makes oxen. Sheep is the same in both numbers. Adjectives are sometimes compared by changing the last syllable, as proud, prouder, proudest; and sometimes by particles prefixed, as ambitious, more ambitious, most ambitious. The forms of our verbs are subject to great variety; some end their preter tense in ed, as I love, I loved, I have loved,[;] which may be called the regular form, and is followed by most of our verbs of southern original. But many depart from this rule, without agreeing in any other, as I shake, I shook, I have shaken or shook as it is sometimes written in poetry; I make, I made, I have made; I bring, I brought; I wring, I wrung, [;] and many others, which, as they cannot be reduced to rules, must be learned from the dictionary rather than the grammar.

[34] The verbs are likewise to be distinguished according to their qualities, as actives from neuters; the neglect of which has already introduced some barbarities in our conversation, which, if not obviated by just animadversions, may in time creep into our writings.

[35] Thus, my Lord, will our language be laid down, distinct in its minutest subdivisions, and resolved into its elemental principles. And who upon this survey can forbear to wish, that these fundamental atoms of our speech might obtain the firmness and immutability of the primogenial and constituent particles of matter, that they might retain their substance while they alter their appearance, and be varied and compounded, yet not destroyed. [?]

[36] But this is a privilege which words are scarcely to expect; [:] for, like their author, when they are not gaining strength, they are generally losing it. Though art may sometimes prolong their duration, it will rarely give them perpetuity, and their changes will be almost always informing us, that language is the work of man, of a being from whom permanence and stability cannot be derived.

[37] Words having been hitherto considered as separate and unconnected, are now to be likewise examined as they are ranged in their various relations to others by the rules of syntax or construction, to which I do not know that any regard has been yet shewn in English dictionaries, and in which the grammarians can give little assistance. The syntax of this language is too inconstant to be reduced to rules, and can be only learned by the distinct consideration of particular words as they are used by the best authors. Thus, we say, according to the present modes of speech, the soldier died of his wounds, and the sailor perished with hunger; and every man acquainted with our language would be offended by a change of these particles, which yet seem originally assigned by chance, there being no reason to be drawn from grammar or reason (Note: delete or reason) [or reason was deleted] why a man may not, with equal propriety, be said to dye with a wound, or perish of hunger.

[38] Our syntax therefore is not to be taught by general rules, but by special precedents; and in examining whether Addison has been with justice accused of a solecism in this passage,

The poor inhabitant----
Starves in the midst of nature’s bounty curst,
And in the loaden vineyard dies for thirst. [,]

it is not in our power to have recourse to any established laws of speech, but we must remark how the writers of former ages have used the same word, and consider whether he can be acquitted of impropriety, upon the testimony of Davies, given in his favour by a similar passage.

She loaths the watry glass wherein she gaz’d,
And shuns it still, although for thirst she dye.

[39] When the construction of a word is explained, it is necessary to pursue it through its train of Phraseology, through those forms where it is used in a manner peculiar to our language, or in senses not to be comprised in the general explanations; as from the verb make, arise these phrases, to make love, to make an end, to make way, as he made way for his followers, the ship made way before the wind; to make a bed, to make merry, to make a mock, to make presents, to make a doubt, to make out an assertion, to make good a breach, to make good a cause, to make nothing of an attempt, to make lamentation, to make a merit, and many others which will occur in reading with that view, and which only their frequency hinders from being generally remarked.

[40] The great labour is yet to come, the labour of interpreting these words and phrases with brevity, fulness, and perspicuity; a task of which the extent and intricacy is sufficiently shewn by the miscarriage of those who have generally attempted it. This difficulty is encreased [increased] by the necessity of explaining the words in the same language, for there is often only one word for one idea; and though it be easy to translate the words bright, sweet, salt, bitter, into another language, it is not easy to explain them.

[41] With regard to the interpretation many other questions have required consideration. It was some time doubted whether it be necessary to explain the things implied by particular words. As under the term baronet, whether instead of this explanation, a title of honour next in degree to that of baron, it would be better to mention more particularly the creation, privileges, and rank of baronets; and whether under the word barometer, instead of being satisfied with observing that it is an instrument to discover the weight of the air, it would be fit to spend a few lines upon its invention, construction and principles. It is not to be expected that with the explanation of the one the herald should be satisfied, or the philosopher with that of the other; but since it will be required by common readers, that the explications should be sufficient for common use, and since without some attention to such demands the dictionary cannot become generally valuable, I have determined to consult the best writers for explanations real as well as verbal, and perhaps I may at last have reason to say, after one of the augmenters of Furetier, that my book is more learned than its author.

[42] In explaining the general and popular language, it seems necessary to sort the several senses of each word, and to exhibit first its natural and primitive signification, as

To arrive, to reach the shore in a voyage. He arrived at a safe harbour.

[43] Then to give its consequential meaning, to arrive, to reach any place, whether by land or sea; as, he arrived at his country seat.

[44] Then its metaphorical sense, to obtain any thing desired; as, he arrived at a peerage.

[45] Then to mention any observation that arises from the comparison of one meaning with another; as, it may be remarked of the word arrive, that in consequence of its original and etymological sense, it cannot be properly applied but to words signifying something desirable; thus, we say a man arrived at happiness, but cannot say [,] without a mixture of irony, he arrived at misery.

[46] Ground, the earth, generally as opposed to the air or water. He swam till he reached ground. The bird fell to the ground.

[47] Then follows the accidental or consequential signification, in which ground implies any thing that lies under another; as, he laid colours upon a rough ground. The silk had blue flowers on a red ground.

[48] Then the remoter or metaphorical signification; as, the ground of his opinion was a false computation. The ground of his work was his father’s manuscript.

[49] After having gone through the natural and figurative senses, it will be proper to subjoin the poetical sense of each word, where it differs from that which is in common use; as, wanton applied to any thing of which the motion is irregular without terror, as

In wanton ringlets curl’d her hair.

To the poetical sense may succeed the familiar; as of toast, used to imply the person whose health is drunk.

The wise man’s passion, and the vain man’s toast. Pope.

[50] The familiar may be followed by the burlesque; as of mellow, applied to good fellowship:

In all thy humours, whether grave, or mellow. Addison.

[51] Or of bite used for cheat.

-----More a dupe than wit,
Sappho can tell you how this man was bit. Pope.

[52] And lastly, may be produced the peculiar sense, in which a word is found in any great author. As faculties in Shakespeare signifies the powers of authority.

---This Duncan
Has borne his faculties so meek, has been
So clear in his great office, that &c.

[53] The signification of adjectives, may be often ascertained by uniting them to substantives, as simple swain, simple sheep; sometimes the sense of a substantive may be elucidated by the epithets annexed to it in good authors, as the boundless ocean, the open lawns, and where such advantage can be gained by a short quotation it is not to be omitted.

[54] The difference of signification in words generally accounted synonimous, ought to be carefully observed; as in pride, haughtiness, arrogance; [:] and the strict and critical meaning ought to be distinguished from that which is loose and popular; as in the word perfection, which though in its philosophical and exact sense, it can be of little use among human beings, is often so much degraded from its original signification, that the academicians have inserted in their work the perfection of a language, and with a little more licentiousness might have prevailed on themselves to have added the perfection of a dictionary.

[55] There are many other characters of words which it will be of use to mention. Some have both an active and passive signification, as fearful, that which gives or which feels terror, a fearful prodigy, a fearful hare. Some have a personal, some a real meaning, as in opposition to old we use the adjective young of animated beings, and new of other things. Some are restrained to the sense of praise, and others to that of disapprobation, so commonly, though not always, we exhort to good actions, we instigate to ill; we animate, incite and encourage indifferently to good or bad. So we usually ascribe good, but impute evil; yet neither the use of these words, nor perhaps of any other in our licentious language, is so established as not to be often reversed by the correctest writers. I shall therefore, since the rules of stile, like those of law, arise from precedents often repeated, collect the testimonies on both sides, and endeavour to discover and promulgate the decrees of custom, who has so long possessed, whether by right or by usurpation, the sovereignty of words.

[56] It is necessary likewise to explain many words by their opposition to others; for contraries are best seen when they stand together. Thus the verb stand has one sense, as opposed to fall, and another as opposed to fly; for want of attending to which distinction, obvious as it is, the learned Dr. Bentley has squandered his criticism to no purpose, on these lines of Paradise Lost.

---In heaps
Chariot and charioteer lay overturn’d,
And fiery foaming steeds. What stood, recoil’d
O’erwearied, through the faint Satanic host,
Defensive scarce, or with pale fear surpris’d,
Fled ignominious-----

“Here,” says the critic, “as the sentence is now read, we find that what stood, fled,” and therefore he proposes an alteration, which he might have spared if he had consulted a dictionary, and found that nothing more was affirmed than, that those fled who did not fall.

[57] In explaining such meanings as seem accidental and adventitious, I shall endeavour to give an account of the means by which they were introduced. Thus to eke out any thing, signifies to lengthen it beyond its just dimensions by some low artifice, because the word eke was the usual refuge of our old writers when they wanted a syllable. And buxom, which means only obedient, is now made, in familiar phrases, to stand for wanton, because in an antient form of marriage, before the reformation, the bride promised complaisance and obedience in these terms, “I will be bonair and buxom in bed and at board.”

[58] I know well, my Lord, how trifling many of these remarks will appear separately considered, and how easily they may give occasion to the contemptuous merriment of sportive idleness, and the gloomy censures of arrogant stupidity; but dulness it is easy to despise, and laughter it is easy to repay. I shall not be solicitous [sollicitous] what is thought of my work by such as know not the difficulty or importance of philological studies, nor shall think those that have done nothing qualified to condemn me for doing little. It may not, however, be improper to remind them, that no terrestrial greatness is more than an aggregate of little things, and to inculcate after the Arabian proverb, that drops added to drops constitute the ocean.

[59] There remains yet to be considered the Distribution of words into their proper classes, or that part of lexicography which is strictly critical.

[60] The popular part of the language, which includes all words not appropriated to particular sciences, admits of many distinctions and subdivisions; as, into words of general use; words employed chiefly in poetry; words obsolete; words which are admitted only by particular writers, yet not in themselves improper; words used only in burlesque writing; and words impure and barbarous.

[61] Words of general use will be known by having no sign of particularity, and their various senses will be supported by authorities of all ages.

[62] The words appropriated to poetry will be distinguished by some mark prefixed, or will be known by having no authorities but those of poets.

[63] Of antiquated or obsolete words, none will be inserted, [inserted] but such as are to be found in authors, who wrote since the accession of Elizabeth, from which we date the golden age of our language; and of these many might be omitted, but that the reader may require, with an appearance of reason, that no difficulty should be left unresolved in books which he finds himself invited to read, as confessed and established models of stile. These will be likewise pointed out by some note of exclusion, but not of disgrace.

[64] The words which are found only in particular books, will be known by the single name of him that has used them; but such will be omitted, unless either their propriety, elegance, or force, or the reputation of their authors, affords some extraordinary reason for their reception.

[65] Words used in burlesque and familiar compositions, will be likewise mentioned with their proper authorities, such as dudgeon from Butler, and leasing from Prior, and will be diligently characterised by marks of distinction.

[66] Barbarous or impure, words and expressions, may be branded with some note of infamy, as they are carefully to be eradicated wherever they are found; and they occur too frequently even in the best writers. As in Pope,

----in endless errour [error] hurl’d.
’Tis these that early taint the female soul.

In Addison,

Attend to what a lesser muse indites.

And in Dryden,

A dreadful quiet felt, and worser far
Than arms.------

If this part of the work can be well performed, it will be equivalent to the proposal made by Boileau to the academicians, that they should review all their polite writers, and correct such impurities as might be found in them, that their authority might not contribute, at any distant time, to the depravation of the language.

[67] With regard to questions of purity, or propriety, I was once in doubt whether I should not attribute too much to myself in attempting to decide them, and whether my province was to extend beyond the proposition of the question, and the display of the suffrages on each side; but I have been since determined by your Lordship’s opinion, to interpose my own judgment, and shall therefore endeavour to support what appears to me most consonant to grammar and reason. Ausonius thought that modesty forbad him to plead inability for a task to which Cæsar had judged him equal.

Cur me posse negem posse quod ille putat?

And I may hope, my Lord, that since you, whose authority in our language is so generally acknowledged, have commissioned me to declare my own opinion, I shall be considered as exercising a kind of vicarious jurisdiction, and that the power which might have been denied to my own claim, will be readily allowed me as the delegate of your Lordship.

[68] In citing authorities, on which the credit of every part of this work must depend, it will be proper to observe some obvious rules, such as of preferring writers of the first reputation to those of an inferior rank, of noting the quotations with accuracy, and of selecting, when it can be conveniently done, such sentences, as, besides their immediate use, may give pleasure or instruction by conveying some elegance of language, or some precept of prudence, or piety.

[69] It has been asked, on some occasions, who shall judge the judges? And since with regard to this design, a question may arise by what authority the authorities are selected, it is necessary to obviate it, by declaring that many of the writers whose testimonies will be alleged [alledged], were selected by Mr. Pope, of whom I may be justified in affirming, that were he still alive, solicitous as he was for the success of this work, he would not be displeased that I have undertaken it.

[70] It will be proper that the quotations be ranged according to the ages of their authors, and it will afford an agreeable amusement, if to the words and phrases which are not of our own growth, the name of the writer who first introduced them can be affixed, and if, to words which are now antiquated, the authority be subjoined of him who last admitted them. Thus for scathe and buxom, now obsolete, Milton may be cited.

------The mountain oak
Stands scath’d to heaven------
------He with broad sails
Winnow’d the buxom air------

[71] By this method every word will have its history, and the reader will be informed of the gradual changes of the language, and have before his eyes the rise of some words, and the fall of others. But observations so minute and accurate are to be desired rather than expected, and if use be carefully supplied, curiosity must sometimes bear its disappointments.

[72] This, my Lord, is my idea of an English dictionary, a dictionary by which the pronunciation of our language may be fixed, and its attainment facilitated; by which its purity may be preserved, its use ascertained, and its duration lengthened. And though, perhaps, to correct the language of nations by books of grammar, and amend their manners by discourses of morality, may be tasks equally difficult; yet as it is unavoidable to wish, it is natural likewise to hope, that your Lordship’s patronage may not be wholly lost; that it may contribute to the preservation of antient, and the improvement of modern writers; that it may promote the reformation of those translators, who for want of understanding the characteristical difference of tongues, have formed a chaotic dialect of heterogeneous phrases; and awaken to the care of purer diction, some men of genius, whose attention to argument makes them negligent of stile, or whose rapid imagination, like the Peruvian torrents, when it brings down gold, mingles it with sand.

[73] When I survey the Plan which I have laid before you, I cannot, my Lord, but confess, that I am frighted at its extent, and, like the soldiers of Cæsar, look on Britain as a new world, which it is almost madness to invade. But I hope, that though I should not complete the conquest, I shall at least discover the coast, civilize part of the inhabitants, and make it easy for some other adventurer to proceed farther, to reduce them wholly to subjection, and settle them under laws.

[74] We are taught by the great Roman orator, that every man should propose to himself the highest degree of excellence, but that he may stop with honour at the second or third: though therefore my performance should fall below the excellence of other dictionaries, I may obtain, at least, the praise of having endeavoured well, nor shall I think it any reproach to my diligence, that I have retired without a triumph from a contest with united academies and long successions of learned compilers. I cannot hope in the warmest moments, to preserve so much caution through so long a work, as not often to sink into negligence, or to obtain so much knowledge of all its parts, as not frequently to fail by ignorance. I expect that sometimes the desire of accuracy, [accuracy] will urge me to superfluities, and sometimes the fear of prolixity betray me to omissions; that in the extent of such variety I shall be often bewildered, and in the mazes of such intricacy, [intricacy] be frequently entangled; that in one part refinement will be subtilised beyond exactness, and evidence dilated in another beyond perspicuity. Yet I do not despair of approbation from those who knowing the uncertainty of conjecture, the scantiness of knowledge, the fallibility of memory, and the unsteadiness of attention, can compare the causes of error with the means of avoiding it, and the extent of art with the capacity of man; and whatever be the event of my endeavours, I shall not easily regret an attempt which has procured me the honour of appearing thus publickly,

My Lord,

Your Lordship’s

Most Obedient,

and

Most Humble Servant,

SAM. JOHNSON.

No. 21

21. W. S. “The signification of Words how varied.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, XIX (February 1749), pp. 65-66.

One of the most peculiar circumstances relating to language is the mutation of the sense of words in different ages; so that the same word to which a good meaning was formerly affixed, may now have a signification directly opposite. This happens so universally, that, I believe, no language, whether antient [sic] or modern, has been exempted from it; but the change proceeds so slowly and insensibly, that the life of one man is not sufficient to afford him an opportunity of perceiving the change. With regard to our own language, if we look into those authors who flourish’d a century and half ago, numerous instances will occur; and the reading of the following passage in Turberville’s 2d Eclogue, a gentleman who was educated at Oxford, and wrote in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, led me into this observation.

(...)

Tho’ the cause of such mutations may be principally ascribed to the caprice of mankind, yet much may be imputed to words being debated by vulgar use. An instance of this kind we have in the word lawyer, a name vulgarly given to every the meanest pettifogger; every farrier, little apothecary, or surgeon’s mate, is also commonly honoured with the title of doctor; every chimney doctors are become frequent. So that doctor and lawyer will, perhaps, in time undergo the same change, with leech and pedant, though physician and counsellor still retain their dignity.

However, it is hoped, that our language will be more fixed, and better established when the publick is favoured with a new dictionary [Johnson’s], undertaken with that view, and adapted to answer several other valuable purposes; a work now in great forwardness.

No. 22

22. Benjamin Martin. ‘THE PREFACE.’ Lingua Britannica Reformata: or, A New English Dictionary. London: Printed for J. Hodge, 1749, pp. iii-xi.

Whoever considers the present state of Philological Literature, and what finall[sic] Improvements and Acquisitions have been made therein of late Years, especially in that Part which relates to Spelling-books and Dictionaries, in respect of the Number of Books constantly publish’d on these Subjects, must needs confess the Fortune of this Science far less considerable, and more inauspicious than that of any other whatsoever. The Article of English Dictionaries especially has been so far from any thing of a Progressive Improvement, that it is manifestly retrograde, and sinks from its low Apex; from bad, to very bad indeed. So far have our Dictionaries been from answering the End or Purposes of such a Book, that little more Use can be made of them than barely to know how to spell, and what is the Meaning of a Word in the gross; nor are they sufficient for this small Purpose neither, as I shall by and by easily shew.

I shall now proceed to specify and enumerate the proper Requisites of a Genuine English Dictionary; and shew how far the Reader may expect Mine to answer those several Characters respectively.

I. The first is Universality; a Dictionary is a Collection of all the Words in Use in any Language, And in this Respect it may admit of two Faults, viz. a Redundancy of useless and obsolete Words, and a Deficiency in those which are useful and necessary. And here I have endeavour’d to keep a just Mean. I refer my Reader for old and obsolete Words to the Glossaries on Chaucer, Spencer, &c. For Proverbs to Erasmus, Ray, and others; and for Historical Accounts of Persons, and Things, to Morreri, Collier, and the Antiquarians. These Matters are all foreign to an English Dictionary ; and being purged of these Superfluities, there is sufficient Room obtained for the Admittance of a great Number of Words omitted in others, and for a more particular and accurate Explanation of all. We have also dismiss’d, as useless, the numerous Families of Adjectives, Participles, and Verbal Nouns, and Nominal Verbs, where their Significations are the same, or no ways different from that which is contained in the Explication of the Radical Word; as Abusive, Abusively, Abusing, Abusiveness, from the Verb, to Aubse; which being once well explained, it is an Affront to the Reader, not to suppose him capable of understanding the Meaning of all the Derivatives from it, without our dull Repetitions. And any one who looks into the best English Dictionary hitherto publish’d (viz. Bailey’s in Folio) will easily be apprized of the vast Advantage that must accrue to an Author of but moderate Prudence and Oeconomy in this Respect. Nor have I been parsimonious to a very great Fault neither ; for I have given the Reader a greater Latitude of Speech than, I presume, he will ever venture to make Use of either in Speaking or Writing, if he aims at the Character of being Elegant and Polite only. But more of this under another Article.

II. Etymology is the Second Requisite of an English Dictionary ; and this, not so much in regard of its being a Gratification of the Curiosity all Men have of enquiring into the Original of Things ; but much more as it becomes absolutely necessary to a due Understanding and Emphatical Expression of many or most of our principal Words. Hence one great Advantage of learning the Language, is the enabling a Person to write or speak, with Certainty, Propriety, and genuine Elegance. And this is attainable in a great Measure by a meer English Reader, when the Etymology of Words is duly explained to him in his Dictionary. I say duly explained ; for to set before the Reader, Words in the original Language and Character, either without any Explanation at all, or but a partial one, is but mocking of him, and tantalizing his vain Expectation. (...) The Verb, to invent, signifies no more originally than to come or hit upon a Thing, or to find it out as it were by Chance ; yet for Want of knowing this, what wretched Work has been made by some of our modern half-formed Critics? In short, no Person can pretend to write with great Propriety, or criticise without Ridicule, who is not in some tolerable Degree acquainted with the original Significations of Words. How extremely deficient then must that Dictionary be which has no Etymology at all! And tho’ I will not pretent to have entirely compleated this part, yet I have gone a much greater Length in it, than any one before me, and have neglected very few Etymologies that were certain and easy to be come at ; as will be evident enough to the candid Peruser.

III. Orthography is most essential in an English Dictionary. By this no more is meant, than that a Person should be always able, by means of his Dictionary, to see how every Word is wrote or spelt, according to the current Usage of the most approved and polite Writers of the Age. And in this Respect our Dictionaries most certainly want a Reformation : For they all retain the old Way of writing technical Words with the redundant final k, after c; as Logick, Rhetorick, Musick, &c. which later Writers have justly discarded, and more neatly write Logic, Rhetoric, Music, &c. and accordingly they here stand in that Form through this Dictionary. Custom has sometimes introduced different Forms of Words from the same Original, as Adolescencey and Adolescence ; and here if both are equally orthographical, they are both set down, and the Reader is to use which he thinks fit. (...)

IV. Orthoepy teaches the true Method of spelling and pronouncing Words ; and is therefore a principal Requisite in a Dictionary. And since Speech is much more common and public than our Writing, it greatly behoves us to be as just and correct as possible, in that Particular. For what can reflect more on a Man’s Reputation for Learning, than to find him unable to pronounce or spell many Words in common Use? Yet how often do we hear the grating Sounds of Àn-ti-podes, for An-tì-podes; Hò-ri-zon, Ho-rì-zon;... But whom shall we blame for such false Pronunciation? Not those, surely, who make the Mistake, but more justly those who occasion them ; that is, those who, as Dictionary-Writers, are no other than blind Leaders of the Blind. For by what Dictionary extant can a Man regulate his Pronunciation, or correct his Errors in this Respect? Certainly, by no one at all. No Man that has not the Happiness of a learned Education or Conversation, can possibly guard against this Imperfection of Speech. To remedy which I have been more than ordinarily anxious, and hope I have in a great Measure succeeded by the following Expedient. (...)

V. A Critical and accurate Enumeration and Distinction of the several Significations of each respective Word must be allow’d by all to be indispensably the chiefest Care of every Writer of Dictionaries. And yet nothing is more certain, than that all our English Dictionaries are more notoriously deficient in this important Particular than in any other; indeed it has never been attempted in any one of them than I have seen. The Authors have contended themselves with barely transcribing one from another a few (and those not always the principal) Acceptations, in a promiscuous Manner, without any Order or proper Arrangement. This grand Defect it has been my principal Care to supply, and indeed was the greatest Motive to my undertaking this work. And that I might acquit myself more perfectly herein, I laid before my Amanuensis Ainsworth’s Latin Dictionary, and the Royal French Dictionary : where, in the English Part, as the Authors were obliged to consider every different Sense of an English Word, in order to make a proper Translation thereof into each respective Language; this Task was by that Means greatly facilitated ; and by a careful Collection and Addition of such others as the common Dictionaries, Glossaries, and Popular Speech supplied, ’tis presumed we have attain’d to no inconsiderable Perfection and Success in this most essential Part of our Work. No Method but his can give adequate and just Ideas of Words. This will be evident enough by Inspection of the following Dictionary, where many Words in almost every Page will appear to have 6, 8, 10, 15, and sometimes 20 and more different significations, of which not above 3 or 4 are to be found in any of our common Dictionaries. (...) By these few Instances it appears, in what a most defective and imperfect State our Dictionaries have hitherto been, and how necessary a Work of this Kind becomes to remove the Opprobrium under which this Branch of English Philology has so long laboured. In the Distribution of the various Acceptations of Words, Care has been taken to place them first which are truly Etymological or Original, or which are the same as the original Tongues. Then the General and Popular Significations follow; after these the Figurative or Metaphorical Uses of the Word; then the Humorous, Poetical, and Burlesque, when they occur, which in our Language are not so frequent as in Latin, French, and some others. Lastly, the various Scientifical Acceptations are explained at large in each respective Art or Science. To these are added the Compound or Double Words, as Water-Engine, Water-Gage, Water-Lily, Water-Fall, Water-Pot; and also the Phraseologies, as to Way a Horse, to Way-lay one, &c. But of these Things ’tis needless here to dwell upon Particulars, as they are obvious to the Reader in every Part of the Book.

VI. With respect to the English Philology, or the Literary Arts and Sciences, viz. Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Metaphysics, Theology, Mythology, &c. we have given such Definitions of Words and Terms, as may convey a clear, just, and Scientific Notion of them, according to the modern and most approved Authors, and the Etymologies from the original Languages. And this, I apprehend, is as much as can be expected from an English Dictionary; for, as to an Account at large of the several Subjects of these Sciences, and particularly Examples to illustrate them, that is the Business of a Treatise on the Sciences respectively ; to which the Reader, who desires to know more than a Verbal Explication of Words and Terms, must of Course be referred.

VII. In the Mathematical Part of this Work, we have been designedly very particular and explicite[sic] in giving an accurate Definition and full Exposition of all the Words and Terms now used in all the various Branches of this most extensive and intricate Part of Literature; and not only that, but lest the Idea might not be so easily attained by meer[sic] Description, there are added proper Examples, and Copper-Plate Figures to illustrate the same. For it is impossible by Words only to convey Ideas of this Kind. (...)

VIII. Philosophy is now not only restored to its native Purity and Perfection ; is not only the most rational and sublime Speculation ; but (to the Honour of Britain be it spoken) the most reigning Science of the Age. And as such it is highly incumbent on the Compiler of an English Dictionary to see that all the Words, Terms, and Phrases, used in this important and polite Species of Learning, should be in the clearest Manner defined ; and every Notion or Ida expressed with the utmost Propriety and critical Exactness. And in this Part of the Work, also, Sir I. Newton’s Definitions and Doctrines have been solely regarded ; so that as long as his Philosophy shall last, this Dictionary, I doubt not, will merit the Reputation of being quite genuine and orthodox.

IX. As Fortification,..

X. An English Grammar was thought necessary to be prefixed to a Dictionary of the English Tongue ; but a bare English Grammar, I think, much more properly belongs to a Spelling-book, and that a more general and Philosophical Account of Language, and in particular the English, should be made the Entrance to the Dictionary. Accordingly I have, with no small Labour, drawn up a Physico-Grammatical Essay on the Nature, Genius, and Rationale of the English Tongue, and shewn its Derivation from all the original Languages, and given a distinct Specimen of the Grammatical Construction of each Mother Tongue, viz. The Latin, Greek, Hebrew, ad Saxon ; and their respective Descendants, the Italian, Spanish, French, German, and Dutch ; by which Means this Essay will not only become an Elucidation of our Language in general, but may be found very useful as a Remembrancer to the Linguist himself. And as nothing before has been attempted in this Kind, I have Reason to hope it will meet with a favourable Reception.

Lastly, those Words and Phrases which have found Admittance into our Tongue, and yet appear like Aliens, in their native foreign Dress, as Item, Omen, Memorandum, Module, Jet d’ Eau, Aegro, &c. all these, I say, for Distinction Sake, I have put into Italic Characters. And I have, moreover, prefix’d the Mark (†) to many Words which are not to be used in common Discourse, or the genteel Diction ; but on particular Occasions only ; as to decapitate, to decease, &c.

Thus you have the Plan and general Oeconomy of the Work ; and though upon the Whole, I presume, this Dictionary is by much the most perfect of its Kind ; yet I am not so vain as to think it without Faults and Imperfections. For I can but too easily observe many, without the good Offices of the Critic ; but in Works of this Kind ’tis scarce possible to avoid Mistakes. The Public are too reasonable to expect it; too humane to be censorious ; and, I hope, too polite and learned not to think themselves worthy of a much better Dictionary than has been hitherto put into their Hands. Their kind Acceptance of this, till one more deserving shall appear, is all I at present intreat [sic]. My next Essay will be toward an Emendation of our Spelling-Books, and the low, absurd, and (I had almost said) prophane Methods of teaching Youth to read in the Generality of our common Schools.

No. 23

23. J[ames] H[arris]. ‘BOOK I. CHAP I. INTRODUCTION. Design of the Whole.’ Hermes: Or, A Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Language and Universal Grammar. London: Printed for J. Nourse and P. Vaillant, 1751, pp. 1-8.

From the influence of these sentiments, he has endeavoured to treat his [sc, the author’s] subject with as much order, correctness, and perspicuity as in his power; and if he has failed, he can safely say, (according to the vulgar phrase,) that the failure has been his misfortune, and not his fault. He scorns those trite and contemptible methods of anticipating pardon for a bad performance, that “it was the hasty fruits of a few idle hours; written merely for private amusement; never revised; published against consent, at the importunity of friends, copies (God knows how) having by stealth gotten abroad;” with other stale jargon of equal falsehood and inanity. May we not ask such Prefacers, If what they allege be true, what has the world to do with them and their crudities?

As to the Book itself, it can say this in its behalf, that it does not merely confine itself to what its title promises, but expatiates freely into whatever is collateral ; aiming on every occasion to rise in its inquiries, and to pass, as far as possible, from small matters to the greatest. Nor is it formed merely upon sentiments that are now in fashion, or supported only by such authorities as are modern. Many Authors are quoted, that now a-days are but little studies: and some perhaps, whose very names are hardly known. (from PREFACE. pp. vii-viii)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

If Men by nature had been framed for Solitude, they had never felt an Impulse to converse one with another. And if, like lower Animals, they had been by nature irrational, they could not have recogniz’d the proper Subjects of Discourse. Since Speech then is the joint Energie ofour best and noblest Faculties, (that is to say, of our Reason and our social Affection) being withal our peculiar Ornament and Distinction, as Men ; those Inquiries may surely be deemed interesting as well as liberal, which either search how Speech may be naturally resolved ; or how, when resolved, it may be again combined.

Here a large field for speculating opens before us. We may either behold Speech, as divided into its constituent Parts, as a Statue may be divided into its several Limbs ; or else, as resolved into its Matter and Form, as the same Statue may be resolved into its Marble and Figure.

These different Analyzings or Resolutions constitute what we call Philosophical, or Universal Grammar.

When we have viewed Speech thus analyzed, we may then consider it, as compounded. And here in the first place we may contemplate that Synthesis, which by combining simple Terms produces a Truth ; then by combining two Truths produces a third ; and thus others, and others, in continued Demonstration, till we are led, as by a road, into the regions of Science.

Now this is that Superior and most excellent Synthesis, which alone applies itself to our Intellect or Reason, and which to conduct according to rule, constitutes the Art of Logic.

After this we may turn to those inferior Compositions, which are productive of the Pathetick, and the Pleasant in all their kinds. These latter Compositions aspire not to the Intellect, but being addressed to the Imagination, the Affections, and the Sense, become from their different heightnings either Rhetoric or Poetry.

Nor need we necessarily view these Arts distinctly and apart. We may observe, if we please, how perfectly they co-incide. Grammar is equally requisite to every one of the rest. And though Logic may indeed subsist without Rhetoric or Poetry, yet so necessary to these last is a sound and correct Logic, that without it, they are no better than warbling Trifles.

Now all these Inquiries (as we have said already) ad such others arising from them as are of still sublime Contemplation, (of which in the Sequel there may be possibly not a few) may with justice be deem’d Inquiries both interesting and liberal.

At present we shall postpone the whole synthetical Part, (that is to say, Logic and Rhetoric) and confine ourselves to the analytical, that is to say Universal Grammar. In this we shall follow the Order, that we have above laid down, first dividing Speech, as a Whole into its constituent Parts ; then resolving it, as a Composite, into its Matter and Form ; two Methods of Analysis very different in their kind, and which lead to a variety of very different Speculations.

Should any one object, that in the course of our Inquiry we sometimes descend to things, which appear trivial and low ; let him look upon the Effects, to which those things contribute, then from the Dignity of the Consequences, let him honour the Principles.
The following Story may not improperly be here inserted. “When the Fame of Heraclitus was celebrated throughout Greece, there were certain persons, that had a curiosity to see so great a Man. They came, and, as it happen’d, found him warming himself in a Kitchen. The Meanness of the place occasioned them to stop, upon which the Philosopher thus accosted them – Enter (says he) boldly, for here too there are Gods.”

We shall only add, that as there is no part of Nature too mean for the Divine Presence; so there is no kind of Subject, having its foundation in Nature, that is below the Dignity of a philosophical Inquiry.

No. 24

24. Samuel Johnson. The Rambler, No. 156. (Saturday, September 14, 1751)

Among the innumerable Rules which the natural Desire of extending Authority, or the honest Ardour of promoting Knowledge, has from Age to Age prompted Men of very different Abilities to prescribe to Writers, all which have been received and established, have not the same original Right to our Regard. Some are indeed to be considered as fundamental and indispensable, others only as useful and convenient; some as dictated by Reason and Necessity, others as enacted by despotick Antiquity; some as invincibly supported by their Conformity to the Order of Nature, and the Operations of the Intellect, others as formed by Accident or instituted by Example, and therefore always liable to Dispute and Alteration.

That many Rules of Composition have been advanced by Criticks without consulting Nature and Reason, we cannot but suspect, when we find it peremptorily decreed by the ancient Masters that only three speaking Personages should appear at once upon the Stage, a Law which the Variety and Intricacy of modern Plays has made it impossible to be observed, we now violate without Scruple and, as Experience proves, without Inconvenience.

No. 25

25. Samuel Johnson. The Rambler, No. 168. (Saturday, October 26, 1751)

Words become low by the Occasions to which they are applied or the general Character of them who use them, and the Disgust which they produce arises from the Revivals of those Ideas with which they are commonly united. Thus if, in the most serious Discourse, a Phrase happens to occur which has been successfully employed in some ludicrous Narrative, the most grave Auditor finds it difficult to refrain from Laughter, when those whose Imagination is not prepossessed by the same accidental Association of Ideas, are utterly unable to guess the Reason of his Merriment. Words which convey Ideas of Dignity in our Age are banished from elegant Writing or Conversation in another, because they are in time debased by vulgar Mouths, and can be no longer heard without the involuntary Recollection of unpleasing Images.

When Macbeth is confirming himself in the horrid Purpose, he breaks into the Violence of his Emotions into a Wish natural to a Murderer,

----- Come, thick Night!

And pall thee in the dunnest Smoke of Hell,

That my keen Knife see not the Wound it makes,

Nor Heav’n peep through the Blanket of the dark,

To cry, hold, hold! -----

In this Passage is exerted all the Force of Poetry, that Force which calls new Powers into Being, which embodies Sentiment and animates lifeless Matter; yet perhaps scarce any Man now peruses it without some Disturbance of his Attention from the Counteraction of the Words to the Ideas. What can be more dreadful than to implore the Presence of Night, invested not in common Obscurity, but in the smoke of Hell? Yet the Force of this Invocation is destroyed by the Insertion of an Epithet now seldom heard but in the Stable, and dun Night may come or go without any other Notice than Contempt.

(omitted)

we cannot surely but sympathise with the Horrors of a Wretch about to murder his Master, his Friend, his Benefactor, who suspects that the Weapon will refuse its Office, and start back from the Breast which he is preparing to violate. Yet this Sentiment is weakened by the Name of an Instrument used by Butchers and by Cooks in the meanest Employments; we do not immediately believe that any Crime of Importance is to be committed with a Knife, and at last from the long Habit of connecting a Knife with sordid Offices, feel Aversions rather than Terror?

Macbeth proceeds to wish, in the Madness of Guilt, that the Inspection of Heaven may be intercepted, and that he may in the Involutions of infernal Darkness, escape the Eye of Providence. This is the utmost Extravagance of determined Wickedness; yet this is so debased by two unfortunate Words that, in this Instant while I am endeavouring to impress on my Reader the Energy of the Sentiment, I can scarce check my Risibility, when the Expression forces itself upon my Mind; for who, without some Relaxation of his Gravity, can hear of Divinities peeping thro’ a Blanket.

These Imperfections of Diction are less obvious to the Reader as he is less acquainted with common Usages of the Age; they are therefore wholly imperceptible to a Foreigner, who learns our Language from Books, and will strike a solitary Academick as a modish Lady.

Among the numerous Requisites that must concur to complete an Author, few are of more Importance than an early Entrance into the living World. The Seeds of Knowledge may be planted in Solitude but must be cultivated in Publick. Argumentation may be taught in Colleges and Theories in Retirement, but the Artifice of Embellishment and the Power of securing Attraction must be gained by general Converse.

No. 26

26. Samuel Johnson. The Rambler, No. 208. (Saturday, March 14, 1752) {G. B. Hill noted (Life. I, 257, n.2) that “If Lord Chesterfield had read the last number of The Rambler... [14 March 1752] he could scarcely have flattered himself with these expectations” – that Johnson would be induced by Chesterfield’s complimentary papers in The World (1754) to dedicate the Dictionary to him.}

TIME, which puts an end to all human pleasures and sorrows, has likewise concluded the labours of the Rambler. Having supported, for two years, the anxious employment of a periodical writer, and multiplied my essays to upwards of two hundred, I have now determined to desist.

The reasons of this resolution it is of little importance to declare, since justification is unnecessary when no objection is made. I am far from supposing, that the cessation of my performances will raise any inquiry, for I have never been much a favourite of the publick, nor can boast that, in the progress of my undertaking, I have been animated by the rewards of the liberal, the caresses of the great, or the praises of the eminent.

But I have no design to gratify pride by submission, or malice by lamentation; nor think it reasonable to complain of neglect from those whose regard I never solicited. If I have not been distinguished by the distributors of literary honours, I have seldom descended to the arts by which favour is obtained. I have seen the meteors of fashions rise and fall, without any attempt to add a moment to their duration. I have never complied with temporary curiosity, nor enabled my readers to discuss the topick of the day; I have rarely exemplified my assertions by living characters; in my papers, no man could look for censures of his enemies, or praises of himself; and they only were expected to peruse them, whose passions left them leisure for abstracted truth, and whom virtue could please by its naked dignity.

To some, however, I am indebted for encouragement, and to others for assistance. The number of my friends was never great, but they have been such as would not suffer me to think that I was writing in vain, and I did not feel much dejection from the want of popularity.

My obligations having not been frequent, my acknowledgments may be soon despatched. I can restore to all my correspondents their productions, with little diminution of the bulk of my volumes, though not without the loss of some pieces to which particular honours have been paid.

The parts from which I claim no other praise than that of having given them an opportunity of appearing, are the four billets in the tenth paper, the second letter in the fifteenth, the thirtieth, the forty-fourth, the ninety-seventh, and the hundredth papers, and the second letter in the hundred and seventh.

Having thus deprived myself of many excuses which candour might have admitted for the inequality of my compositions, being no longer able to allege the necessity of gratifying correspondents, the importunity with which publication was solicited, or obstinacy with which correction was rejected, I must remain accountable for all my faults, and submit, without subterfuge, to the censures of criticism, which, however, I shall not endeavour to soften by a formal deprecation, or to overbear by the influence of a patron. The supplications of an author never yet reprieved him a moment from oblivion; and, though greatness has sometimes sheltered guilt, it can afford no protection to ignorance or dulness. Having hitherto attempted only the propagation of truth, I will not at last violate it by the confession of terrours which I do not feel; having laboured to maintain the dignity of virtue, I will not now degrade it by the meanness of dedication.

The seeming vanity with which I have sometimes spoken of myself, would perhaps require an apology, were it not extenuated by the example of those who have published essays before me, and by the privilege which every nameless writer has been hitherto allowed. ``A mask,'' say Castiglione, ``confers a right of acting and speaking with less restraint, even when the wearer happens to be known.'' He that is discovered without his own consent, may claim some indulgence, and cannot be rigorously called to justify those sallies or frolicks which his disguise must prove him desirous to conceal.

But I have been cautious lest this offense should be frequently or grossly committed; for, as one of the philosophers directs us to live with a friend, as with one that is some time to become an enemy, I have always thought it the duty of an anonymous author to write, as if he expected to be hereafter known.

I am willing to flatter myself with hopes, that, by collecting these papers, I am not preparing, for my future life, either shame or repentance. That all are happily imagined, or accurately polished, that the same sentiments have not sometimes recurred, or the same expressions been too frequently repeated, I have not confidence in my abilities sufficient to warrant. He that condemns himself to compose on a stated day, will often bring to his task an attention dissipated, a memory embarrassed, an imagination overwhelmed, a mind distracted with anxieties, a body languishing with disease: he will labour on a barren topick, till it is too late to change it; or, in the ardour of invention, diffuse his thoughts into wild exuberance, which the pressing hour of publication cannot suffer judgment to examine or reduce.

Whatever shall be the final sentence of mankind, I have at least endeavoured to deserve their kindness. I have laboured to refine our language to grammatical purity, and to clear it from colloquial barbarisms, licentious idioms, and irregular combinations. Something, perhaps, I have added to the elegance of its construction, and something to the harmony of its cadence. When common words were less pleasing to the ear, or less distinct in their signification, I have familiarized the terms of philosophy, by applying them to popular ideas, but have rarely admitted any words not authorized by former writers; for I believe that whoever knows the English tongue in its present extent, will be able to express his thoughts without further help from other nations.

As it has been my principal design to inculcate wisdom or piety, I have allotted few papers to the idle sports of imagination. Some, perhaps, may be found, of which the highest excellence is harmless merriment; but scarcely any man is so steadily serious as not to complain, that the severity of dictatorial instruction has been too seldom relieved, and that he is driven by the sternness of the Rambler's philosophy to more cheerful and airy companions.

Next to the excursions of fancy are the disquisitions of criticism, which, in my opinion, is only to be ranked among the subordinate and instrumental arts. Arbitrary decision and general exclamation I have carefully avoided, by asserting nothing without a reason, and establishing all my principles of judgment on unalterable and evident truth.

In the pictures of life I have never been so studious of novelty or surprise, as to depart wholly from all resemblance; a fault which writers deservedly celebrated frequently commit, that they may raise, as the occasion requires, either mirth or abhorrence. Some enlargement may be allowed to declamation, and some exaggeration to burlesque, but as they deviate farther from reality, they become less useful, because their lessons will fail of application. The mind of the reader is carried away from the contemplation of his own manner; he finds in himself no likeness to the phantom before him; and though he laughs or rages, is not reformed.

The essays professedly serious, if I have been able to execute my own intentions, will be found exactly conformable to the precepts of Christianity, without any accommodation to the licentiousness and levity of the present age. I therefore look back on this part of my work with pleasure, which no blame or praise of man shall diminish or augment. I shall never envy the honours which wit and learning obtain in any other cause, if I can be numbered among the writers who have given ardour to virtue, and confidence to truth.

No. 27

27. Thomas Edwards. An Account of the Trial of the Letter γ alias Y. London: Printed for W. Owen, 1753, 23 pp.

PREFACE.

The following little piece cannot require a long preface; it is published with a design to put Gentlemen of learning and leisure in mind of settling the orthography of our language. This is a matter surely worthy the attention of all who would write correctly, which every man ought to do, at least in his Mother-tongue; and therefore it cannot be reckoned either trifling or pedantic to attend to it: Yet so it is, that our language is perhaps past it’s highest pitch of perfection, before we have any certain rule or manner of writing it.

The French have settled their spelling; but in doing it, they by too great a regard to their pronunciation have, I think, disfigured their language, and in numberless instances lost all traces of the Etymology of their words. Sir Roger L’estrange imitated their manner; and had his licentious way of spelling been generally followed, our English had not been now a language, but a jargon.

The two chief things hinted at in this piece are, Uniformity in spelling, where the reasons from derivation are the same; and, Preserving, as much as possibly may be, the marks of our Etymology; both which I apprehend are necessary to the rendering any language fixed and easily intelligible. Modes of pronunciation may vary; but orthography settled upon true principles will last as long as the language continues. (pp. v-vii)

AN ACCOUNT OF THE TRIAL, &c.

Once on a time the English Commonwealth of Letters, generally called the Alphabet, was very much disturbed that a certain Greek letter, whose real name was γψλον, had, contrary to the libertys and privileges of the English letters, insinuated himself into the English language, and invaded the province of an English letter, utterly excluding the said letter from several syllables, wherein he ought of right to exercise his office.

The Vowel I was the letter chiefly concerned in point of interest: he found himself wholly excluded from all jurisdiction in the end of words, and not only so, but he was frequently banished from the middle; insomuch that in Chaucer’s time this fugitive Greek had usurped his power in Wyfe, lyfe, Knyght, and innumerable other instances, and almost thrust him out of the English language: therefore, in a convention of the letters, he declared, that he could no longer bear this foreign usurpation; and conjured them, as they valued the privileges of the English Alphabet, which were so notoriously violated by this γ, under the name of y (whose example if others should follow, they had reason to apprehend the most fatal consequences from a Greek inundation) that they would join with him in a petition and remonstrance to Apollo, in order to regain his right, and have his jurisdiction settled.

The majority of the Alphabet heartily closed in with the proposal, some of them indeed from private views, and in hopes to regain some provinces which they thought invaded by other letters: the most public-spirited amongst them thought, that such a remonstrance might be very advantageous, as it would open the way to a general reformation, and be a means to settle their respective powers, and prevent private quarrels and incroachments on one another, as well as secure them against a foreign invasion.

H was not very much inclined to have matters examined into, for fear least he should be degraded into a simple aspiration; but was at last prevailed on to join in the petition by P and T, with whom he was collegue[sic] in the government of some provinces, and who told him they were all equally in danger of being supplanted by Φ and Θ, who, as they were credibly informed, were come over incognito for that purpose.

The whole Alphabet having at length agreed, some through fear, some through private pique, and others from public views, a petition was drawn up and signed by the Vowels first, and then by the Consonants according to their seniority, representing the illegal incroachments of γ, alias y, upon the English privileges; and praying that Apollo would fix a day for hearing the complaint of I against the said γ.

Apollo very readily granted the petition, assigned a day of hearing, and ordered γ to appear; at the same time declaring, that if any other members of the Alphabet had any grievances to complain of, he would then hear and redress them.

This declaration met with different reception according to the different interests of parties; some repented their signing the petition; but it was too late to go back: and now the whole Alphabet were busied in preparing either to defend or inlarge[sic] their respective provinces.

When the day of hearing was come, and the Court sate, the Vowel I began in pompous oration to shew, that notwithstanding γ was in reality a Greek letter, and had no right to a place in the English Alphabet, yet he had wrongfully intruded himself into it, and did actually take on him the place and power of I in numberless instances, to the disinherison of the said I.

“He represented, that even in the beginning of words, where Y was frequently used, it was the real power and office of I; that year, yoke, you, Yorke, &c. were pronounced, and ought to be written, iear, ioke, iou, iorke, &c.”

“As to the middle of words, he insisted, that though such incroachments had indeed been more frequent in former times, yet Y had usurped his place, and still continued to act as I in many words, as dying, flying, denying, &c.

“And for the ends of words, he was totally excluded from any place there, though the power was his in majesty, liberty, in, what he still valued more than either, Lady; in short, in all other instances where Y is generally used.

“That he apprehended it a notorious violation of English privilege, that a fugitive Greek, whose real power in his own country gave not even the lest umbrage for such a clame[sic], should thus insolently take upon him the power and jurisdiction of an English Vowel; and concluded, that he hoped Apollo would grant him justice against this intruder: and, if he did not banish him from the English Alphabet, that he would confine him to the power of U, to which he had a much juster pretense.

U was so shocked at this unexpected motion, that before he could recover himself enough to make any defense E rose up and seconded what had been said by I, beginning with scurrilous reflexions on the shape and figure of γ, which he compared to the Cross or Furca used in ancient executions; for which being reprimanded by the Court he desired that he might be appointed collegue[sic] with I to supplie[sic] the place of γ in the ends of words, according to several precedents which he quoted.

U now thought it high time for him to speak, and therefore rose up, and with some precipitation represented the surprise he was under to hear an insinuation so destructive to English privilege, and so particularly injurious to himself, and that without the lest ground, from a Vowel, who pretended to defend the Right of the English Alphabet.

He pleaded, that the same place and powers which γ had in the Greek language he stood fully intitled to in the English, and that therefore of right he ought to be possessed of the place of γ even in all Greek words anglicised, as System, Hypocrite, Hypothesis, and the like.

γ, alias Y, modestly urged in his defense, That they who cast such illiberal reflexions on his figure were ignorant of, or had forgot the deep mysterys which Pythagoras tells them are represented by it; that Custom the great Arbiter of languages had established him in those rights and privileges which he enjoyed; and though formerly they were much larger, yet when Custom abridged him of that extent of sway which he possessed in Chaucer’s time who was the great reformer and refiner of the English language, though then he might have pleaded possession time out of mind, yet he submitted without repining.

That he could not but wonder at the ingratitude of the English Alphabet, in shewing so much spleen against the Greeks from whom they derive their being, nay without whose assistance they have not so much as a name, except one coined by old nurses and borrowed by them from the superstition of Popery.

That whatever might be determined as to his power and place in words properly English, he thought he had an indisputable right to keep his place in all Greek words anglicised, since though it might not be agreeable to the English pride, it was highly consonant to reason that such words should bear the character of the language from whence they are derived.

Apollo after having heard all sides gave his determination to this effect. “That the jealousy which the English Alphabet, and I in particular, had shewn against γ proceded[sic] indeed from a laudable motive, a concern for their libertys, but seemed in reality entirely groundless, for that Y in all the instances given by I had not usurped his power, but was indeed only a deputy to, or more properly a different character of I, the power remaining wholly his; that particularly in dying, flying, and the participles of all verbs ending in IE, Y was put there only as a representative of IE, to prevent the unsightly cluster of vowels which would be huddled together in dieing, flieing, &c.”

Therefore to prevent future disputes between the said partys he Ordained, “That Y be never admitted into the middle of English words, except in such participles as aforesaid where he represents IE; provided nevertheless that he always exercise his power of γ in Greek words made English, as Style, System, Hypocrite, Hypothesis, &c.

“That he act as a different character of I in Yoke, Year, Yorke, and such like words.

“And that he stand as the representative of I or IE wherever they end a word, except in monosyllables where there is no other vowels, as die, tie, lie, &c.” (pp. 1-13)

No. 28

28. Samuel Johnson. ‘Diary. Apr. 3, 1753.’ Diaries, Prayers, and Annals. Ed. E. L. McAdam, Jr. With Donald and Mary Hyde. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958, p. 50.

Apr. 3, 1753. I began the 2^d vol of my Dictionary, room being left in the first for Preface, Grammar & History none of them yet begun.

O God who hast hitherto supported me enable me to proceed in this labour & in the Whole task of my present state that when I shall render up at the last day an account of the talent committed to me I may receive pardon for the sake of Jesus Christ. Amen.

No. 29

29. Samuel Richardson. [Correspondence in 1753] The Correspondence of Samuel Richardson. Ed. Anna Lætitia Barbauld. London: Printed for Richard Phillips, 1804.

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　TO THOMAS EDWARDS, ESQ.

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Turrick, April 21, 1753.

I am charmed, my dear Mr. Edwards, with your sweet story of a second Pamela. Had I drawn mine from the very life, I should have made a much more perfect piece of my first favourite – first, I mean, as to time.

I formerly shewed Mr. Johnson, author of the Ramblers, some few passages of your Trial in MS. without saying whose it was. You know he is writing a Dictionary, that will be an attempt to bring the English language to somewhat a standard. I forgot to send him one as I ought to have done, as from myself: but he, two or three days ago, sent me one he had bought, with a few remarks written in it, which I have caused to be transcribed, and to accompany this. I told him that they would receive your thanks, whatever were your opinion of the justice of them, and not your ill-will; for he, intending not offence, was at first shy of being named to you. I send you a copy of the letter he sent with them, notwithstanding the very high and undeserved compliment he makes me in it.

(two paragraphs omitted)

Your faithful and affectionate

humble servant,

S. Richardson. (Vol. III, pp. 59-62)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

TO MR. RICHARDSON.

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Turrick, May 1, 753.

I find I have been like the woodcock, who, they say, hides his head in a bush, and then thinks nobody sees him: for I was known it seems in Gloucestershire to be the author of the Trial, before I knew that it was published. However, it cannot be helped, and I must take the consequence. But had I not reason, my dear Mr. Richardson, to be diffident of my plan, and afraid of the consequence of giving the opinions of a fallible man as the unerring dictates of Apollo?

I thank you kindly for sending me Mr. Johnson’s remarks, and am obliged to him for them. I wish, indeed, I could have had his opinion before they were published, for I confess myself to be only a learner, and therefore not fit for the office of teaching; and these matters should be well discussed and examined into before they are decided peremptorily one way or other.

I am not for borrowing of the French any words which we can fairly derive from the Latin, or form from our own stock; for which reason I write honor, superior, &c. without taking any notice of the French termination eur, and governer, as we form defender.

Encroachment I acknowledge is right: but I think we are not obliged to write entitle; because, though it be not perhaps Ciceronian, yet we may as well go to the word intitulo, from whence the French form their entitler.

That y is often the Saxon character of i, is agreeable to the Decree, p. 12, 13.

Mr. Johnson’s conjecture about the Saxon з is, I think, certainly right; I have observed a proof of it in the name of a village in your neighbourhood, Ealing, which in old deeds is written sometimes Yealing, and sometimes Zealing, which seems a corruption of that character.

Page 16. I think Mr. J. is mistaken; the French write defense, offense: but whether they did or not, the derivation shews that we should

Page 17. Dr. Wallis makes lest, which he spells least, a conjunction; when we say least I should do so or so, it certain is one; but is it not like ne in the Latin, both adverb and conjunction?

Page 21. The objection against the spelling of farther is strong; and if by the same licence as we from the Saxon ?eo? make our far, and from ?eo??n? farthing, it be not allowable also to write farther, we must get the decree reversed, and restore u to his place: but the change of u into a seems not harder than that of o into e, which we make in the latter syllable; for the Saxons wrote ?u??o?.

I cannot recollect the lest ground for the exception Mr. W. takes: the man seems to be eat[sic] up with pride and ill nature, and I am afraid his new riband will make him still worse. Insolence, did he say? None but the most impudent man living could have used that word, speaking of Mr. Richardson. What would Miss S. say if she were to hear this story?

It is with great pleasure that I can tell you that I hope to see you in about three weeks time, when I shall come up to town about a little business. My stay, indeed, cannot be long; but I hope to see you and the rest of my friends again before the summer is over.

Dear Sir,

Your most affectionate

and obliged

T. Edwards.　 (Vol. III, pp. 62-65)

----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- -----

　　　　TO MR. RICHARDSON.

September 26, 1753.

DEAR SIR,

I return you my sincerest thanks for the volumes of your new work [sc. Sir Charles Grandison]; but it is a kind of tyrannical kindness to give only so much at a time, as makes more longed for: but that will probably be thought, even of the whole, when you have given it.

I have no objection but to the preface, in which you first mention the letters as fallen by some chance into your hands, and afterwards mention your health as such, that you almost despaired of going through your plan. If you were to require my opinion which part should be changed, I should be inclined to the suppression of that part which seems to disclaim the competition. What is modesty, if it deserts from truth? Of what use is the disguise, by which nothing is concealed?

You must forgive this; because it is meant well.

I thank you once more, dear Sir, for your books; but cannot I prevail this time for an index? such I wished, and shall wish, to Clarissa. Suppose that in one volume an accurate index was made to the three works; -- but while I am writing an objection arises – such an index to the three would look like the preclusion of a fourth, to which I will never contribute; for if I cannot benefit mankind, I hope never to injure them.

I am, Sir, your most obliged,

and most humble Servant,

Sam. Johnson. (Vol. V, pp. 283-284)

No. 30

30. Fourth Earl of Chesterfield (Philip Dormer Stanhope). The World, Number C. Thursday, November the 28th, 1754, pp. 599-604.

I heard the other day with great pleasure from my worthy friend Mr. Dodsley, that Mr. Johnson’s English Dictionary, with a grammar and history of our language prefixed, will be published this winter, in two large volumes in folio.

I had long lamented that we had no lawful standard of our language set up, for those to repair to, who might chuse[sic] to speak and write it grammatically and correctly: and I have as long wished that either some one person of distinguished abilities would undertake the work singly, or that a certain number of gentlemen would form themselves, or be formed by the government, into a society, for that purpose. The late ingenious doctor Swift proposed a plan of this nature to his friend (as he thought him) the lord treasurer Oxford, but without success; precision and perspicuity not being in general the favourite objects of ministers, and perhaps still less so of that minister than of any other.

Many people have imagined that so extensive a work would have been best performed by a number of persons, who should have taken their several departments, of examining, sifting, winnowing (I borrow this image from the Italian crusca) purifying, and finally fixing our language, by incorporating their respective funds into one joint stock. But whether this opinion be true or false, I think the public in general, and the republic of letters in particular, greatly obliged to Mr. Johnson, for having undertaken and executed so great and desirable a work. Perfection is not to be expected from man; but if we are to judge by the various works of Johnson, already published, we have good reason to believe that he will bring this as near to perfection as any man could do. The plan of it, which he published some years ago, seems to me to be a proof of it. Nothing can be more rationally imagined, or more accurately and elegantly expressed. I therefore recommend the previous perusal of it to all those who intend to buy the dictionary, and who, I suppose, are all those who can afford it.

The celebrated dictionaries of the Florentine and French academies owe their present size and perfection to very small beginnings. Some private gentlemen at Florence, ad some at Paris, had met at each others houses to talk over and consider their respective languages; upon which they published some short essays, which essays were the embrio’s of those perfect productions, that now do so much honour to the two nations. Even Spain, which seems not to be the soil where, of late at least, letters have either prospered or been cultivated, has produced a dictionary, and a good one too, of the Spanish language, in six large volumes in folio.

I cannot help thinking it a sort of disgrace to our nation, that hitherto we have had no such standard of our language; our dictionaries at present being more properly what our neighbours the Dutch and the Germans call theirs, word-books, than dictionaries in the superior sense of that title. All words, good and bad, are there jumbled indiscriminately together, insomuch that the injudicious reader may speak and write as inelegantly, improperly and vulgarly as he pleases, by and with the authority of one or other of our word-books.

It must be owned that our language is at present in a state of anarchy; and hitherto, perhaps, it may not have been the worse for it. During our free and open trade, many words and expressions have been imported, adopted and naturalized from other languages, which have greatly enriched our own. Let it still preserve what real strength and beauty it may have borrowed from others, but let it not, like the Tarpeian maid, be overwhelmed and crushed by unnecessary foreign ornaments. The time for discrimination seems to be now come. Toleration, adoption and naturalization have run their lengths. Good order and authority are now necessary. But where shall we find them, and at the same time, the obedience due to them? We must have recourse to the old Roman expedient in times of confusion, and chuse a dictator. Upon this principle I give my vote for Mr. Jonson to fill that great and arduous post. And I hereby declare that I make a total surrender of all my rights and privileges in the English language, as a freeborn British subject, to the said Mr. Johnson, during the term of his dictatorship. Nay more; I will not only obey him, like an old Roman, as my dictator, but, like a modern Roman, I will implicitly believe in him as my pope, and hold him to be infallible while in the chair; but no longer. More than this he cannot well require; for I presume that obedience can never be expected when there is neither terror to enforce, not interest to invite it.

I confess that I have so much honest English pride, or perhaps, prejudice about me, as to think myself more considerable for whatever contributes to the honour, the advantage, or the ornament of my native country. I have therefore a sensible pleasure in reflecting upon the rapid progress which our language has lately made, and still continues to make, all over Europe. It is frequently spoken, and almost universally understood, in Holland; it is kindly entertained as a relation in the most civilized parts of Germany; and it is studied as a learned language, though yet little spoke [sic], by all those in France and Italy, who either have, or pretend to have, any learning.

The spreading the French language over most parts of Europe, to the degree of making it almost a universal one, was always reckoned among the glories of the reign of Lewis the fourteenth. But be it remembered that the success of his arms first opened the way to it, though at the same time it must be owned, that a great number of most excellent authors who flourished in his time, added strength and velocity to its progress. Whereas our language has made it’s[sic] way singly by it’s own weight and merit, under the conduct of those great leaders, Shakespear, Bacon, Milton, Locke, Newton, Swift, Pope, Addison, &c. A noble sort of conquest, and a far more glorious triumph, since graced by none but willing captives!

These authors, though for the most part but indifferently translated into foreign languages, gave other nations a sample of the British genius. The copies, imperfect as they were, pleased, and excited a general desire of seeing the originals; and both our authors and our language soon became classical.

But a grammar, a dictionary, and a history of our language through it’s several stages, were still wanting at home, and importunately called for from abroad. Mr. Johnson’s labours will now, and, I dare say, very fully, supply that want, and greatly contribute to the farther spreading of our language in other countries. Learners were discouraged by finding no standard to resort to, and, consequently, thought it incapable of any. They will now be undeceived and encouraged.

There are many hints and considerations relative to our language, which I should have taken the liberty of suggesting to Mr. Johnson, had I not been convinced that they have equally occurred to him: but there is one, and a very material one it is, to which perhaps he may not have given all the necessary attention. I mean the genteeler part of our language, which owes both it’s rise and progress to my fair countrywomen, whose natural turn is more to the copiousness, than to the correctness of diction. I would not advise him to be rash enough to proscribe any of those happy redundancies and luxuriancies of expression, with which they have enriched our language. They willingly inflict fetters, but very unwillingly submit to wear them. In this case his task will be so difficult, that I design as a common friend, to propose in some future paper the means which appear to me the most likely to reconcile matters.

P. S. I hope that none of my courteous readers will upon this occasion be so uncourteous, as to suspect me of being a hired an d interested puff of this work; for I most solemnly protest, that neither Mr. Johnson, nor any person employed by him, nor any bookseller or booksellers concerned in the success of it, have ever offered me the usual compliment of a pair of gloves or a bottle of wine; nor has even Mr. Dodsley, though my publisher, and, as I am informed, deeply interested in the sale of this dictionary, so much as invited me to take a bit of mutton with him.

No. 31

31. Fourth Earl of Chesterfield (Philip Dormer Stanhope, 1694-1773). The World, Number CI. Thursday, December the 5th, 1754, pp. 605-610. {This essay, which refers to Johnson’s dictionary, has been considered of little importance in understanding Johnson or his dictionary. The editor, however, has an opinion that this kind of trivial essay will also be of some use in understanding the linguistic ideas in the 18th century.}

When I intimated in my last paper some distrust of Mr. Johnson’s complaisance to the fairer part of his readers, it was because I had a greater opinion of his impartiality and severity as a judge, than of his gallantry as a fine gentleman. And indeed I am well aware of the difficulties he would have to encounter, if he attempted to reconcile the polite, with the grammatical part of our language. Should he, by an act of power, banish and attaint many of the favourite words and expressions with which the ladies have so profusely enriched our language, he would excite the indignation of the most formidable, because the most lovely part of his readers: his dictionary would be condemned as a system of tyranny, and he himself, like the last Tarquin, run the risque of being deposed. So popular and so powerful is the female cause! On the other hand, should he, by an act of grace, admit, legitimate and incorporate into our language those words and expressions, which, hastily begot, owe their birth to the incontinency of female eloquence; what severe censures might he not justly apprehend from the learned part of his readers, who do not understand complaisances of that nature?

For my own part, as I am always enclined to plead the cause of my fair fellow-subjects, I shall now take the liberty of laying before Mr. Johnson those arguments which upon this occasion may be urged in their favour, as introductory to the compromise which I shall humbly offer and conclude with.

Language is indisputably the most immediate province of the fair sex: there they shine, there they excel. The torrents of their eloquence, especially in the vituperative way, stun all opposition, and bear away in one promiscuous heap, nouns, pronouns, verbs, moods and tenses. If words are wanting (which indeed happens but seldom) indignation instantly makes new ones; and I have often known four or five syllables that never met one another before, hastily and fortuitously jumbled into some word of mighty import.

Nor is the tender part of our language less obliged to that soft and amiable sex; their love being at least as productive as their indignation. Should they lament in an involuntary retirement the absence of the adored object, they give new murmurs to the brook, new sounds to the echo, and new notes to the plaintive Philomela. But when this happy copiousness flows, as it often does, into gentle numbers, good Gods! how is the poetical diction enriched, and the poetical licence extended! Even in common conversation, I never see a pretty mouth opening to speak, but I expect, and am seldom disappointed, some new improvement of our language. I remember many very expressive words coined in that fair mint. I assisted at the birth of that most significant word, flirtation, which dropped from the most beautiful mouth in the world, and which has since received the sanction of our most accurate Laureat in one of this comedies. Some inattentive and undiscerning people have, I know, taken it to be a term synonymous with coquetry; but I lay hold of this opportunity to undeceive them, and eventually to inform Mr. Johnson, that flirtation is short to coquetry, and intimates only the first hints of aproximation[sic], which subsequent coquetry may reduce to those preliminary articles, that commonly end in a definitive treaty.

I was also a witness to the rise and progress of that most important verb, to fuzz; which if not of legitimate birth, is at least of fair extraction. As I am not sure that it has yet made it’s way into Mr. Johnson’s literary retirement, I think myself obliged to inform him that it is at present the most useful, and the most used work in our language; since it means no less than dealing twice together with the same pack of cards, for luck’s sake, at whist.

Not content with enriching our language by words absolutely new, my fair countrywomen have gone still farther, and improved it by the application and extension of old ones to various and vary different significations. They take a word and change it, like a guinea into shillings for pocket money, to be employed in the several occasional purposes of the day. For instance, the adjective vast and it’s adverb vastly mean any thing, and are the fashionable words of the most fashionable people. A fine woman (under this head I comprehend all fine gentlemen too, not knowing in truth where else to place them properly) is vastly obliged, or vastly offended, vastly glad, or vastly sorry. Large objects are vastly great, small ones are vastly little; and I had lately the pleasure to hear a fine woman pronounce, by a happy metonymy, a very small gold sauff-box that was produced in company, to be vastly pretty, because it was so vastly little. Mr. Johnson will do well to consider seriously, to what degree he will restrain the various and extensive significations of this great word.

Another very material point still remains to be considered; I mean the orthography of our language, which is at present very various and unsettled.

We have present two very different orthographies, the pedantic, and the polite; the one sounded upon certain dry and crabbed rules of etymology and grammar, the other singly upon the justness and delicacy of the ear. I am thoroughly persuaded that Mr. Johnson will endeavour to establish the former; and I perfectly agree with him, provided it can be quietly brought about. Spelling, as well as music, is better preformed by book, than merely by the ear, which may be variously affected by the same sounds. I therefore most earnestly recommend to my fair countrywomen, and to their faithful, or faithless servants, the fine gentlemen of this realm, to surrender, as well for their own private, as for the public utility, all their natural rights and privileges of mis-spelling, which they have so long enjoyed, and so vigorously exerted. I have really known very fatal consequences attend that loose and uncertain practice of auricular orthography; of which I shall produce two instances as a sufficient warning.

A very fine gentleman wrote a very harmless and innocent letters to a very fine lady, giving her an account of some trifling commissions which he had executed according to her orders. This letter, though directed to the lady, was, by the mistake of a servant, delivered to, and opened by her husband; who finding all his attempts to understand it unsuccessful, took it for granted that it was a concerted cypher, under which a criminal correspondence, not much to his own honour or advantage, was secretly carried on. With the letter in his hand, and rage in his heart, he went immediately to his wife, and reproached her in the most injurious terms with her supposed infidelity. The lady, conscious of her own innocence, calmly enough requested to see the grounds of so unjust an accusation; and being accustomed to the auricular orthography, made shift to read to her incensed husband the most innoffesive[sic] letter that ever was written. The husband was undeceived, or at least wise enough to seem so; for in such nice cases one must not peremptorily decide. However, as sudden impressions are generally pretty strong, he has been observed to be more suspicious ever since.

The other accident had much worse consequences. Matters were happily brought, between a fine gentleman and a fine lady, to the decisive period of an appointment at a third place. The place where is always the lover’s business, the time when the lady’s. Accordingly an impatient and rapturous letter from the lover signified to the lady the house and street where; to which a tender answer from the lady assented, and appointed the time when. But unfortunately, from the uncertainty of the lover’s auricular orthography, the lady mistook both house and street, was conveyed in a hackney chair to a wrong one, and in the hurry and agitation which ladies are sometimes in upon those occasions, rushed into a house where she happened to be known, and her intentions consequently discovered. In the mean time the lover passed three or four hours at the right place, in the alternate agonies of impatient and disappointed love, tender fear and anxious jealousy.

Such examples really make one tremble; and will, I am convinced, determine my fair fellow-subjects and their adherents, to adopt, and scrupulously conform to Mr. Jonson’s rules of true orthography by book. In return to this concession, I seriously advise him to publish, by way of appendix to his great work, a genteel neological dictionary, containing those polite, though perhaps not strictly grammatical words and phrases, commonly used, and sometimes understood, by the beau monde. By such an act of toleration, who knows but he may, in time, bring them within the pale of the English language? The best latin[sic] dictionaries have commonly a short supplemental one annexed, of the obsolete and barbarous latin words, which pedants sometimes borrow to shew their erudition. Surely then my countrywomen, the enrichers, the patronesses, and the harmonizers of our language, deserve greater indulgence. I must also hint to Mr. Johnson, that such a small supplemental dictionary will contribute infinitely to the sale of the great one; and I make no question but that under the protection of that little work, the great one will be received in the genteelest houses. We shall frequently meet with it in ladies dressing rooms, lying upon the harpsichord, together with the knotting bag, and signor Di Giardino’s incomparable concerto’s; and even sometimes in the powder-rooms of our young nobility, upon the same shelf with their german flute, their powder mask, and their four-horse whip.

No. 32

February 1755

My lord----

I have been lately informed by the proprietor of the World that two Papers in which my Dictionary is recommended to the Public were written by your Lordship. To be so distinguished is an honour which, being very little accustomed to favours from the Great, I know not well how to receive, or in what terms to acknowledge.

When upon some slight encouragement I first visited your Lordship I was overpowered like the rest of Mankind by the enchantment of your address, and could not forbear to wish that I might boast myself Le Vainqueur du Vainqueur de la Terre, that I might obtain that regard for which I saw the world contending, but I found my attendance so little incouraged, that neither pride nor modesty would suffer me to continue it. When I had once addressed your Lordship in public, I had exhausted all the Art of pleasing which a retired and uncourtly Scholar can possess. I had done all that I could, and no Man is well pleased to have his all neglected, be it ever so little.

Seven years, My lord have now past since I waited in your outward Rooms or was repulsed from your Door, during which time I have been pushing on my work through difficulties of which it is useless to complain, and have brought it at last to the verge of Publication without one Act of assistance, one word of encouragement, or one smile of favour. Such treatment I did not expect, for I never had a Patron before.

The Shepherd in Virgil grew at last acquainted with Love, and found him a Native of the Rocks. Is not a Patron, My Lord, one who looks with unconcern on a Man struggling for Life in the water and when he has reached ground encumbers him with help. The notice which you have been pleased to take of my Labours, had it been early, had been kind; but it has been delayed till I am indifferent and cannot enjoy it, till I am solitary and cannot impart it, till I am known, and do not want it.

I hope it is no very cynical asperity not to confess obligation where no benefit has been received, or to be unwilling that the Public should consider me as owing that to a Patron, which Providence has enabled me to do for myself.

Having carried on my work thus far with so little obligation to any favourer of Learning I shall not be disappointed though I should conclude it, if less be possible, with less, for I have been long wakened from that Dream of hope, in which I once boasted myself with so much exultation,

My lord,

Your Lordship’s Most humble,

most obedient servant,

Sam. Johnson

No. 33

33. Advertisement for Johnson’s Dictionary. The Public Advertiser. 1755-1756. [The advertisement for February 27 contains no mention of the Plan.]

Next Month will be published,

In Two Large VOLUMES in FOLIO,

(Price bound Four Pounds Ten Shillings)

A DICTIONARY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE:

In which the Words are deduced from their Originals, and illustrated in their different Significations, by Examples from the best Writers.

To which are prefixed,

A GRAMMAR and a HISTORY of the LANGUAGE.

By SAMUEL JOHNSON, A.M.

Printed for J. and P. Knapton, T. and T. Longman, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Millar, and R. and J. Dodsley. (Thursday, February 27, 1755, No. 6344)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

This Month will be published,

In Two Large VOLUMES in FOLIO,

(Price bound Four Pounds Ten Shillings)

A DICTIONARY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE:

In which the Words are deduced from their Originals, and illustrated in their different Significations, by Examples from the best Writers.

To which are prefixed,

A GRAMMAR and a HISTORY of the LANGUAGE.

By SAMUEL JOHNSON, A.M.

Printed for J. and P. Knapton, T. and T. Longman, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Millar, and R. and J. Dodsley.

Where may be had, Gratis,

The Plan of this Dictionary,

Addressed to the Right Hon. the Earl of Chesterfield. (Saturday, March 1, 1755, No. 6346)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

This Month will be published,

In Two Large VOLUMES in FOLIO,

(Price bound Four Pounds Ten Shillings)

A DICTIONARY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE:

In which the Words are deduced from their Originals, and illustrated in their different Significations, by Examples from the best Writers.

To which are prefixed,

A GRAMMAR and a HISTORY of the LANGUAGE.

By SAMUEL JOHNSON, A.M.

Printed for J. and P. Knapton, T. and T. Longman, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Millar, and R. and J. Dodsley.

Where may be had, Gratis,

The Plan of this Dictionary,

Addressed to the Right Hon. the Earl of Chesterfield. (Saturday, March 1, 1755, No. 6346)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Next Month will be published,

In Two Large VOLUMES in FOLIO,

(Price bound Four Pounds Ten Shillings)

A DICTIONARY of the EBGLISG LANGUAGE:

In which the Words are deduced from their Originals, and illustrated in their different Significations, by Examples from the best Writers.

To which are prefixed,

A GRAMMAR and a HISTORY of the LANGUAGE.

By SAMUEL JOHNSON, A.M.

Printed for J. And P. Knapton, T. And T. Longman, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Millar, and R. And J. Dodsley. ( , March 27, 1755)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Tuesday the 15th Inst. will be published,

In Two Large VOLUMES in FOLIO,

(Price bound Four Pounds Ten Shillings)

A DICTIONARY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE:

In which the Words are deduced from their Originals, and illustrated in their different Significations, by Examples from the best Writers.

To which are prefixed,

A HISTORY of the LANGUAGE, and a GRAMMAR.

By SAMUEL JOHNSON, A.M.

Printed for J. and P. Knapton, T. and T. Longman, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Millar, and R. and J. Dodsley. (Tuesday, April 1, 1755, No. 6372)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

This Day is be published,

In Two Large VOLUMES in FOLIO,

(Price bound Four Pounds Ten Shillings)

A DICTIONARY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE:

In which the Words are deduced from their Originals, and illustrated in their different Significations, by Examples from the best Writers.

To which are prefixed,

A GRAMMAR and a HISTORY of the LANGUAGE.

By SAMUEL JOHNSON, A.M.

Printed for J. and P. Knapton, T. and T. Longman, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Millar, and R. and J. Dodsley. (April 15, 1755, No. 6390)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

In the London Magazine, for the Month of April, (to b e published Thursday next)

A Comprehensive Account will be given of the Plan of Mr. Johnson’s Dictionary particularly in relation to his Orthography, Etymology, Definition, and Illustration of Words from the best Authors. Together with a Specimen of the Manner of its Execution. (April 28, 1755, No. 3683)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

In a few Days will be published,

Proposals for Re-printing by subscription, In Weekly Numbers, at Six-pence each,

A DICTIONARY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE:

In which the Words are deduced from their Originals, and illustrated in their different Significations, by Examples from the best Writers.

To which are prefixed,

A GRAMMAR and a HISTORY of the LANGUAGE.

By SAMUEL JOHNSON, A.M.

To the Proposals will be subjoined, a general Account of the Work, extracted from the Preface.

Printed for J. and P. Knapton, T. and T. Longman, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Millar, and R. and J. Dodsley.

Of whom may be had, The above WORK complete, in two Volume Folio, Price bound Four Pound Ten Shillings. (May 31, 1755, No. 6424)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

This Day are published,

Proposals for Re-printing, Weekly, by Subscription.

A DICTIONARY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

In which the Words are deduced from their Originals, and illustrated in their different Significations, by Examples from the best Writers.

To which are prefixed,

A HISTORY of the LANGUAGE, and a GRAMMAR.

By SAMUEL JOHNSON, A.M.

The Acknowledge Utility of this Work, and the Desire that many have expressed to be possessed of it, who cannot so conveniently purchase it altogether, have determined the Proprietors to accommodate them on the following,

Conditions.

1. That the Book, which consists of 580 Sheets, making two large Volumes in Folio, shall be elegantly printed, and comprised in 165 numbers.

2. That the Numbers shall contain three and four Sheets alternately, and be delivered to the Subscribers at the Price of Sixpence.

3. That the first Number shall be published on Saturday the 14th Day of June, 1755, and the subsequent Numbers every Saturday, without Interruption, till the whole is completed.

¤ A number, containing seven Sheets, Price One Shilling, will also be published every Week, to supply those who chuse to purchase it in that Manner.

Subscriptions are taken in, and Proposals delivered, by the Proprietors, J. and P. Knapton, T. and T. Longman, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Millar, and R. and J. Dodsley: and also by S. Bladon at the Paper-Mill in Pater-noster-row.

Of whom may be had, The Work complete, Price bound Four Pound Ten Shillings. (Tuesday, June 10, 1755, No. 9478)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

On Monday Jan. 5, will be published,

In TWO VOLUMES, Octavo, Price 10 s. Bound,

A DICTIONARY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE:

In which the Words are deduced from their Originals, explained in their different Meanings; and authorised by the Names of the Writers in which they are found.

Abstracted from the Folio Edition, by the Author.

SAMUEL JOHNSON, A.M.

To which is prefixed, His GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

Printed for J. Knapton, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Millar, and R. and J. Dodsley, and M. And T. Longman.

Of whom may be had,

1. Mr. Johnson’s Dictionary, in Two large Volumes, Folio, Price bound 4 l. 10 s.

2. Also such as are desirous of having this Work may be supplied Weekly with seven sheets for 1 s. Or three sheets and a Half for 6d, beginning with No. I and so progressively till the Work is completed. (Saturday, December 20, 1755)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

This Day is published,

In TWO VOLUMES, Octavo, Price 10 s. Bound,

A DICTIONARY of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE:

In which the Words are deduced from their Originals, explained in their different Meanings; and authorised by the Names of the Writers in which they are found.

Abstracted from the Folio Edition, by the Author.

SAMUEL JOHNSON, A.M.

To which is prefixed, His GRAMMAR of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

Printed for J. Knapton, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Millar, and R. and J. Dodsley, and M. And T. Longman.

Of whom may be had,

1. Mr. Johnson’s Dictionary, in Two large Volumes, Folio, Price bound 4 l. 10 s.

No. 34

34. A. Y. [Jerome Stone.] Scots Magazine, XVII (February 1755), p. 91.

An English dictionary composed by the author of the Rambler, and patronized by the Earl of Chesterfield, that living standard of true British eloquence, must certainly be a masterpiece.

No. 35

35. Samuel Johnson. ‘PREFACE.’ A Dictionary of the English Language. London, April 1755. {Text comes from that of the first edition of the Dictionary (1755). The corrections in the fourth edition published in 1773 are inserted in [ ].}

[1] It is the fate of those who toil at the lower employments of life, to be rather driven by the fear of evil, than attracted by the prospect of good; to be exposed to censure, without hope of praise; to be disgraced by miscarriage, or punished for neglect, where success would have been without applause, and diligence without reward.

[2] Among these unhappy mortals is the writer of dictionaries; whom mankind have considered, not as the pupil, but the slave of science, the pionier of literature, doomed only to remove rubbish and clear obstructions from the paths of Learning and Genius, who [the parts through which Learning and Genius] press forward to conquest and glory, without bestowing a smile on the humble drudge that facilitates their progress. Every other authour may aspire to praise; the lexicographer can only hope to escape reproach, and even this negative recompence has been yet granted to very few.

[3] I have, notwithstanding this discouragement, attempted a dictionary of the English language, which, while it was employed in the cultivation of every species of literature, has itself been hitherto neglected,[;] suffered to spread, under the direction of chance, into wild exuberance,[;] resigned to the tyranny of time and fashion,[:] and exposed to the corruptions of ignorance, and caprices of innovation.

[4] When I took the first survey of my undertaking, I found our speech copious without order, and energetick without rules: wherever I turned my view, there was perplexity to be disentangled, and confusion to be regulated; choice was to be made out of boundless variety, without any established principle of selection; adulterations were to be detected, without a settled test of purity; and modes of expression to be rejected or received, without the suffrages of any writers of classical reputation or acknowledged authority.

[5] Having therefore no assistance but from general grammar, I applied myself to the perusal of our writers; and noting whatever might be of use to ascertain or illustrate any word or phrase, accumulated in time the materials of a dictionary, which, by degrees, I reduced to method, establishing to myself, in the progress of the work, such rules as experience and analogy suggested to me; experience, which practice and observation were continually increasing; and analogy, which, though in some words obscure, was evident in others.

[6] In adjusting the Orthography, which has been to this time unsettled and fortuitous, I found it necessary to distinguish those irregularities that are inherent in our tongue, and perhaps coeval with it, from others which the ignorance or negligence of later writers has produced. Every language has its anomalies, which, though inconvenient, and in themselves once unnecessary, must be tolerated among the imperfections of human things, and which require only to be registred, that they may not be increased, and ascertained, that they may not be confounded: but every language has likewise its improprieties and absurdities, which it is the duty of the lexicographer to correct or proscribe.

[7] As language was at its beginning merely oral, all words of necessary or common use were spoken before they were written; and while they were unfixed by any visible signs, must have been spoken with great diversity, as we now observe those who cannot read to catch sounds imperfectly, and utter them negligently. When this wild and barbarous jargon was first reduced to an alphabet, every penman endeavoured to express, as he could, the sounds which he was accustomed to pronounce or to receive, and vitiated in writing such words as were already vitiated in speech. The powers of the letters, when they were applied to a new language, must have been vague and unsettled, and therefore different hands would exhibit the same sound by different combinations.

[8] From this uncertain pronunciation arise in a great part the various dialects of the same country, which will always be observed to grow fewer, and less different, as books are multiplied; and from this arbitrary representation of sounds by letters, proceeds that diversity of spelling observable in the Saxon remains, and I suppose in the first books of every nation, which perplexes or destroys analogy, and produces anomalous formations, which, being once incorporated, can never be afterward dismissed or reformed.

[9] Of this kind are the derivatives length from long, strength from strong, darling from dear, breadth from broad, from dry, drought, and from high, height, which Milton, in zeal for analogy, writes highth; Quid te exempta juvat spinis de pluribus una; to change all would be too much, and to change one is nothing.

[10] This uncertainty is most frequent in the vowels, which are so capriciously pronounced, and so differently modified, by accident or affectation, not only in every province, but in every mouth, that to them, as is well known to etymologists, little regard is to be shewn in the deduction of one language from another.

[11] Such defects are not errours in orthography, but spots of barbarity impressed so deep in the English language, that criticism can never wash them away; these, therefore, must be permitted to remain untouched:[;] but many words have likewise been altered by accident, or depraved by ignorance, as the pronunciation of the vulgar has been weakly followed; and some still continue to be variously written, as authours differ in their care or skill: of these it was proper to enquire the true orthography, which I have always considered as depending on their derivation, and have therefore referred them to their original languages: thus I write enchant, enchantment, enchanter, after the French, and incantation after the Latin; thus entire is chosen rather than intire, because it passed to us not from the Latin integer, but from the French entier.

[12] Of many words it is difficult to say whether they were immediately received from the Latin or the French, since at the time when we had dominions in France, we had Latin service in our churches. It is, however, my opinion, that the French generally supplied us; for we have few Latin words, among the terms of domestick use, which are not French; but many French, which are very remote from Latin.

[13] Even in words of which the derivation is apparent, I have been often obliged to sacrifice uniformity to custom; thus I write, in compliance with a numberless majority, convey and inveigh, deceit and receipt, fancy and phantom; sometimes the derivative varies from the primitive, as explain and explanation, repeat and repetition.

[14] Some combinations of letters having the same power are used indifferently without any discoverable reason of choice, as in choak, choke; soap, sope; fewel, fuel, and many others; which I have sometimes inserted twice, that those who search for them under either form, may not search in vain.

[15] In examining the orthography of any doubtful word, the mode of spelling by which it is inserted in the series of the dictionary, is to be considered as that to which I give, perhaps not often rashly, the preference. I have left, in the examples, to every authour his own practice unmolested, that the reader may balance suffrages, and judge between us: but this question is not always to be determined by reputed or by real learning; some men, intent upon greater things, have thought little on sounds and derivations; some, knowing in the ancient tongues, have neglected those in which our words are commonly to be sought. Thus Hammond writes fecibleness for feasibleness, because I suppose he imagined it derived immediately from the Latin; and some words, such as dependant, dependent; dependance, dependence, vary their final syllable, as one or other [another] language is present to the writer.

[16] In this part of the work, where caprice has long wantoned without controul, and vanity sought praise by petty reformation, I have endeavoured to proceed with a scholar’s reverence for antiquity, and a grammarian’s regard to the genius of our tongue. I have attempted few alterations, and among those few, perhaps the greater part is from the modern to the ancient practice; and I hope I may be allowed to recommend to those, whose thoughts have been, perhaps, employed [been perhaps employed] too anxiously on verbal singularities, not to disturb, upon narrow views, or for minute propriety, the orthography of their fathers. It has been asserted, that for the law to be known, is of more importance than to be right. Change, says Hooker, is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better. There is in constancy and stability a general and lasting advantage, which will always overbalance the slow improvements of gradual correction. Much less ought our written language to comply with the corruptions of oral utterance, or copy that which every variation of time or place makes different from itself, and imitate those changes, which will again be changed, while imitation is employed in observing them.

[17] This recommendation of steadiness and uniformity does not proceed from an opinion, that particular combinations of letters have much influence on human happiness; or that truth may not be successfully taught by modes of spelling fanciful and erroneous: I am not yet so lost in lexicography, as to forget that words are the daughters of earth, and that things are the sons of heaven. Language is only the instrument of science, and words are but the signs of ideas: I wish, however, that the instrument might be less apt to decay, and that signs might be permanent, like the things which they denote.

[18] In settling the orthography, I have not wholly neglected the pronunciation, which I have directed, by printing an accent upon the acute or elevated syllable. It will sometimes be found, that the accent is placed by the authour quoted, on a different syllable from that marked in the alphabetical series; it is then to be understood, that custom has varied, or that the authour has, in my opinion, pronounced wrong. Short directions are sometimes given where the sound of letters is irregular; and if they are sometimes omitted, defect in such minute observations will be more easily excused, than superfluity.

[19] In the investigation both of the orthography and signification of words, their Etymology was necessarily to be considered, and they were therefore to be divided into primitives and derivatives. A primitive word, is that which can be traced no further to any English root; thus circumspect, circumvent, circumstance, delude, concave, and complicate, though compounds in the Latin, are to us primitives. Derivatives, are all those that can be referred to any word in English of greater simplicity.

[20] The derivatives I have referred to their primitives, with an accuracy sometimes needless; for who does not see that remoteness comes from remote, lovely from love, concavity from concave, and demonstrative from demonstrate? but this grammatical exuberance the scheme of my work did not allow me to repress. It is of great importance in examining the general fabrick of a language, to trace one word from another, by noting the usual modes of derivation and inflection; and uniformity must be preserved in systematical works, though sometimes at the expence of particular propriety.

[21] Among other derivatives I have been careful to insert and elucidate the anomalous plurals of nouns and preterites of verbs, which in the Teutonick dialects are very frequent, and, though [and though] familiar to those who have always used them, interrupt and embarrass the learners of our language.

[22] The two languages from which our primitives have been derived are the Roman and Teutonick: under the Roman I comprehend the French and provincial tongues; and under the Teutonick range the Saxon, German, and all their kindred dialects. Most of our polysyllables are Roman, and our words of one syllable are very often Teutonick.

[23] In assigning the Roman original, it has perhaps sometimes happened that I have mentioned only the Latin, when the word was borrowed from the French; and considering myself as employed only in the illustration of my own language, I have not been very careful to observe whether the Latin word be pure or barbarous, or the French elegant or obsolete.

[24] For the Teutonick etymologies I am commonly indebted to Junius and Skinner, the only names which I have forborn to quote when I copied their books; not that I might appropriate their labours or usurp their honours, but that I might spare a perpetual repetition by one general acknowledgment. Of these, whom I ought not to mention but with the reverence due to instructors and benefactors, Junius appears to have excelled in extent of learning, and Skinner in rectitude of understanding. Junius was accurately skilled in all the northern languages, Skinner probably examined the ancient and remoter dialects only by occasional inspection into dictionaries; but the learning of Junius is often of no other use than to show him a track by which he may deviate from his purpose, to which Skinner always presses forward by the shortest way. Skinner is often ignorant, but never ridiculous: Junius is always full of knowledge; but his variety distracts his judgment, and his learning is very frequently disgraced by his absurdities.

[25] The votaries of the northern muses will not perhaps easily restrain their indignation, when they find the name of Junius thus degraded by a disadvantageous comparison; but whatever reverence is due to his diligence, or his attainments, it can be no criminal degree of censoriousness to charge that etymologist with want of judgment, who can seriously derive dream from drama, because life is a drama, and a drama is a dream; and who declares with a tone of defiance, that no man can fail to derive moan from μόυος, monos, who [monos, single or solitary, who] considers that grief naturally loves to be alone.

[26] Our knowledge of the northern literature is so scanty, that of words undoubtedly Teutonick the original is not always to be found in any ancient language; and I have therefore inserted Dutch or German substitutes, which I consider not as radical but parallel, not as the parents, but sisters of the English.

[27] The words which are represented as thus related by descent or cognation, do not always agree in sense; for it is incident to words, as to their authours, to degenerate from their ancestors, and to change their manners when they change their country. It is sufficient, in etymological enquiries, if the senses of kindred words be found such as may easily pass into each other, or such as may both be referred to one general idea.

[28] The etymology, so far as it is yet known, was easily found in the volumes where it is particularly and professedly delivered; and, by proper attention to the rules of derivation, the orthography was soon adjusted. But to collect the Words of our language was a task of greater difficulty: the deficiency of dictionaries was immediately apparent; and when they were exhausted, what was yet wanting must be sought by fortuitous and unguided excursions into books, and gleaned as industry should find, or chance should offer it, in the boundless chaos of a living speech. My search, however, has been either skilful or lucky; for I have much augmented the vocabulary.

[29] As my design was a dictionary, common or appellative, I have omitted all words which have relation to proper names; such as Arian, Socinian, Calvinist, Benedictine, Mahometan; but have retained those of a more general nature, as Heathen, Pagan.

[30] Of the terms of art I have received such as could be found either in books of science or technical dictionaries; and have often inserted, from philosophical writers, words which are supported perhaps only by a single authority, and which being not admitted into general use, stand yet as candidates or probationers, and must depend for their adoption on the suffrage of futurity.

[31] The words which our authours have introduced by their knowledge of foreign languages, or ignorance of their own, by vanity or wantonness, by compliance with fashion, or [fashion or] lust of innovation, I have registred as they occurred, though commonly only to censure them, and warn others against the folly of naturalizing useless foreigners to the injury of the natives.

[32] I have not rejected any by design, merely because they were unnecessary or exuberant; but have received those which by different writers have been differently formed, as viscid, and viscidity, viscous, and viscosity.

[33] Compounded or double words I have seldom noted, except when they obtain a signification different from that which the components have in their simple state. Thus highwayman, woodman, and horsecourser, require an explication; but of thieflike or coachdriver no notice was needed, because the primitives contain the meaning of the compounds.

[34] Words arbitrarily formed by a constant and settled analogy, like diminutive adjectives in ish, as greenish, bluish, adverbs in ly, as dully, openly, substantives in ness, as vileness, faultiness, were less diligently sought, and many sometimes [and sometimes] have been omitted, when I had no authority that invited me to insert them; not that they are not genuine and regular offsprings of English roots, but because their relation to the primitive being always the same, their signification cannot be mistaken.

[35] The verbal nouns in ing, such as the keeping of the castle, the leading of the army, are always neglected, or placed only to illustrate the sense of the verb, except when they signify things as well as actions, and have therefore a plural number, as dwelling, living; or have an absolute and abstract signification, as colouring, painting, learning.

[36] The participles are likewise omitted, unless, by signifying rather qualities [rather habit or quality] than action, they take the nature of adjectives; as a thinking man, a man of prudence; a pacing horse, a horse that can pace: these I have ventured to call participial adjectives. But neither are these always inserted, because they are commonly to be understood, without any danger of mistake, by consulting the verb.

[37] Obsolete words are admitted, when they are found in authours not obsolete, or when they have any force or beauty that may deserve revival.

[38] As composition is one of the chief characteristicks of a language, I have endeavoured to make some reparation for the universal negligence of my predecessors, by inserting great numbers of compounded words, as may be found under after, fore, new, night, fair, and many more. These, numerous as they are, might be multiplied, but that use and curiosity are here satisfied, and the frame of our language and modes of our combination amply discovered.

[39] Of some forms of composition, such as that by which re is prefixed to note repetition, and un to signify contrariety or privation, all the examples cannot be accumulated, because the use of these particles, if not wholly arbitrary, is so little limited, that they are hourly affixed to new words as occasion requires, or is imagined to require them.

[40] There is another kind of composition more frequent in our language than perhaps in any other, from which arises to foreigners the greatest difficulty. We modify the signification of many verbs by a particle subjoined; as to come off, to escape by a fetch; to fall on, to attack; to fall off, to apostatize; to break off, to stop abruptly; to bear out, to justify; to fall in, to comply; to give over, to cease; to set off, to embellish; to set in, to begin a continual tenour; to set out, to begin a course or journey; to take off, to copy; with innumerable expressions of the same kind, of which some appear wildly irregular, being so far distant from the sense of the simple words, that no sagacity will be able to trace the steps by which they arrived at the present use. These I have noted with great care; and though I cannot flatter myself that the collection is complete, I believe I have so far assisted the students of our language, that this kind of phraseology will be no longer insuperable; and the combinations of verbs and particles, by chance omitted, will be easily explained by comparison with those that may be found.

[41] Many words yet stand supported only by the name of Bailey, Ainsworth, Philips, or the contracted Dict. for Dictionaries subjoined:[;] of these I am not always certain that they are read in any book but the works of lexicographers. Of such I have omitted many, because I had never read them; and many I have inserted, because they may perhaps exist, though they have escaped my notice: they are, however, to be yet considered as resting only upon the credit of former dictionaries. Others, which I considered as useful, or know to be proper, though I could not at present support them by authorities, I have suffered to stand upon my own attestation, claiming the same privilege with my predecessors of being sometimes credited without proof.

[42] The words, thus selected and disposed, are grammatically considered:[;] they are referred to the different parts of speech; traced, when they are irregularly inflected, through their various terminations; and illustrated by observations, not indeed of great or striking importance, separately considered, but necessary to the elucidation of our language, and hitherto neglected or forgotten by English grammarians.

[43] That part of my work on which I expect malignity most frequently to fasten, is the Explanation; in which I cannot hope to satisfy those, who are perhaps not inclined to be pleased, since I have not always been able to satisfy myself. To interpret a language by itself is very difficult; many words cannot be explained by synonimes, because the idea signified by them has not more than one appellation; nor by paraphrase, because simple ideas cannot be described. When the nature of things is unknown, or the notion unsettled and indefinite, and various in various minds, the words by which such notions are conveyed, or such things denoted, will be ambiguous and perplexed. And such is the fate of hapless lexicography, that not only darkness, but light, impedes and distresses it; things may be not only too little, but too much known, to be happily illustrated. To explain, requires the use of terms less abstruse than that which is to be explained, and such terms cannot always be found; for as nothing can be proved but by supposing something intuitively known, and evident without proof, so nothing can be defined but by the use of words too plain to admit a definition.

[44] Other words there are, of which the sense is too subtle and evanescent to be fixed in a paraphrase; such are all those which are by the grammarians termed expletives, and, in dead languages, are suffered to pass for empty sounds, of no other use than to fill a verse, or to modulate a period, but which are easily perceived in living tongues to have power and emphasis, though it be sometimes such as no other form of expression can convey.

[45] My labour has likewise been much increased by a class of verbs too frequent in the English language, of which the signification is so loose and general, the use so vague and indeterminate, and the senses detorted so widely from the first idea, that it is hard to trace them through the maze of variation, to catch them on the brink of utter inanity, to circumscribe them by any limitations, or interpret them by any words of distinct and settled meaning:[;] such are bear, break, come, cast, full, get, give, do, put, set, go, run, make, take, turn, throw. If of these the whole power is not accurately delivered, it must be remembered, that while our language is yet living, and variable by the caprice of every one that speaks it, these words are hourly shifting their relations, and can no more be ascertained in a dictionary, than a grove, in the agitation of a storm, can be accurately delineated from its picture in the water.

[46] The particles are among all nations applied with so great latitude, that they are not easily reducible under any regular scheme of explication: this difficulty is not less, nor perhaps greater, in English, than in other languages. I have laboured them with diligence, I hope with success; such at least as can be expected in a task, which no man, however learned or sagacious, has yet been able to perform.

[47] Some words there are which I cannot explain, because I do not understand them; these might have been omitted very often with little inconvenience, but I would not so far indulge my vanity as to decline this confession: for when Tully owns himself ignorant whether lessus, in the twelve tables, means a funeral song, or mourning garment; and Aristotle doubts whether οϋξευς, in the Iliad, signifies a mule, or muleteer, I may freely, without shame, leave some obscurities to happier industry, or future information.

[48] The rigour of interpretative lexicography requires that the explanation, and the word explained, should be always reciprocal; this I have always endeavoured, but could not always attain. Words are seldom exactly synonimous; a new term was not introduced, but because the former was thought inadequate: names, therefore, have often many ideas, but few ideas have many names. It was then necessary to use the proximate word, for the deficiency of single terms can very seldom be supplied by circumlocution; nor is the inconvenience great of such mutilated interpretations, because the sense may easily be collected entire from the examples.

[49] In every word of extensive use, it was requisite to mark the progress of its meaning, and show by what gradations of intermediate sense it has passed from its primitive to its remote and accidental signification; so that every foregoing explanation should tend to that which follows, and the series be regularly concatenated from the first notion to the last.

[50] This is specious, but not always practicable; kindred senses may be so interwoven, that the perplexity cannot be disentangled, nor any reason be assigned why one should be ranged before the other. When the radical idea branches out into parallel ramifications, how can a consecutive series be formed of senses in their nature collateral? The shades of meaning sometimes pass imperceptibly into each other; so that though on one side they apparently differ, yet it is impossible to mark the point of contact. Ideas of the same race, though not exactly alike, are sometimes so little different, that no words can express the dissimilitude, though the mind easily perceives it, when they are exhibited together; and sometimes there is such a confusion of acceptations, that discernment is wearied, and distinction puzzled, and perseverance herself hurries to an end, by crouding together what she cannot separate.

[51] These complaints of difficulty will, by those that have never considered words beyond their popular use, be thought only the jargon of a man willing to magnify his labours, and procure veneration to his studies by involution and obscurity. But every art is obscure to those that have not learned it: this uncertainty of terms, and commixture of ideas, is well known to those who have joined philosophy with grammar; and if I have not expressed them very clearly, it must be remembered that I am speaking of that which words are insufficient to explain.

[52] The original sense of words is often driven out of use by their metaphorical acceptations, yet must be inserted for the sake of a regular origination. Thus I know not whether ardour is used for material heat, or whether flagrant, in English, ever signifies the same with burning; yet such are the primitive ideas of these words, which are therefore set first, though without examples, that the figurative senses may be commodiously deduced.

[53] Such is the exuberance of signification which many words have obtained, that it was scarcely possible to collect all their senses; sometimes the meaning of derivatives must be sought in the mother term, and sometimes deficient explanations of the primitive may be supplied in the train of derivation. In any case of doubt or difficulty, it will be always proper to examine all the words of the same race; for some words are slightly passed over to avoid repetition, some admitted easier and clearer explanation than others, and all will be better understood, as they are considered in greater variety of structures and relations.

[54] All the interpretations of words are not written with the same skill, or the same happiness: things equally easy in themselves, are not all equally easy to any single mind. Every writer of a long work commits errours, where there appears neither ambiguity to mislead, nor obscurity to confound him; and in a search like this, many felicities of expression will be casually overlooked, many convenient parallels will be forgotten, and many particulars will admit improvement from a mind utterly unequal to the whole performance.

[55] But many seeming faults are to be imputed rather to the nature of the undertaking, than the negligence of the performer. Thus some explanations are unavoidably reciprocal or circular, as hind, the female of the stag; stag, the male of the hind: sometimes easier words are changed into harder, as burial into sepulture or interment, drier into desiccative, dryness into siccity or aridity, fit into paroxysm; for the easiest word, whatever it be, can never be translated into one more easy. But easiness and difficulty are merely relative, and if the present prevalence of our language should invite foreigners to this dictionary, many will be assisted by those words which now seem only to increase or produce obscurity. For this reason I have endeavoured frequently to join a Teutonick and Roman interpretation, as to cheer [cheer,] to gladden, or exhilarate, that every learner of English may be assisted by his own tongue.

[56] The solution of all difficulties, and the supply of all defects, must be sought in the examples, subjoined to the various senses of each word, and ranged according to the time of their authours.

[57] When first I collected these authorities, I was desirous that every quotation should be useful to some other end than the illustration of a word; I therefore extracted from philosophers principles of science; from historians remarkable facts; from chymists complete processes; from divines striking exhortations; and from poets beautiful descriptions. Such is design, while it is yet at a distance from execution. When the time called upon me to range this accumulation of elegance and wisdom into an alphabetical series, I soon discovered that the bulk of my volumes would fright away the student, and was forced to depart from my scheme of including all that was pleasing or useful in English literature, and reduce my transcripts very often to clusters of words, in which scarcely any meaning is retained; thus to the weariness of copying, I was condemned to add the vexation of expunging. Some passages I have yet spared, which may relieve the labour of verbal searches, and intersperse with verdure and flowers the dusty desarts of barren philology.

[58] The examples, thus mutilated, are no longer to be considered as conveying the sentiments or doctrine of their authours; the word for the sake of which they are inserted, with all its appendant clauses, has been carefully preserved; but it may sometimes happen, by hasty detruncation, that the general tendency of the sentence may be changed: the divine may desert his tenets, or the philosopher his system.

[59] Some of the examples have been taken from writers who were never mentioned as masters of elegance or models of stile; but words must be sought where they are used; and in what pages, eminent for purity, can terms of manufacture or agriculture be found? Many quotations serve no other purpose, than that of proving the bare existence of words, and are therefore selected with less scrupulousness than those which are to teach their structures and relations.

[60] My purpose was to admit no testimony of living authours, that I might not be misled by partiality, and that none of my cotemporaries might have reason to complain; nor have I departed from this resolution, but when some performance of uncommon excellence excited my veneration, when my memory supplied me, from late books, with an example that was wanting, or when my heart, in the tenderness of friendship, solicited admission for a favourite name.

[61] So far have I been from any care to grace my pages with modern decorations, that I have studiously endeavoured to collect examples and authorities from the writers before the restoration, whose works I regard as the wells of English undefiled, as the pure sources of genuine diction. Our language, for almost a century, has, by the concurrence of many causes, been gradually departing from its original Teutonick character, and deviating towards a Gallick structure and phraseology, from which it ought to be our endeavour to recal it, by making our ancient volumes the ground-work of stile, admitting among the additions of later times, only such as may supply real deficiencies, such as are readily adopted by the genius of our tongue, and incorporate easily with our native idioms.

[62] But as every language has a time of rudeness antecedent to perfection, as well as of false refinement and declension, I have been cautious lest my zeal for antiquity might drive me into times too remote, and croud my book with words now no longer understood. I have fixed Sidney’s work for the boundary, beyond which I make few excursions. From the authours which rose in the time of Elizabeth, a speech might be formed adequate to all the purposes of use and elegance. If the language of theology were extracted from Hooker and the translation of the Bible; the terms of natural knowledge from Bacon; the phrases of policy, war, and navigation from Raleigh; the dialect of poetry and fiction from Spenser and Sidney; and the diction of common life from Shakespeare, few ideas would be lost to mankind, for want of English words, in which they might be expressed.

[63] It is not sufficient that a word is found, unless it be so combined as that its meaning is apparently determined by the tract and tenour of the sentence; such passages I have therefore chosen, and when it happened that any authour gave a definition of a term, or such an explanation as is equivalent to a definition, I have placed his authority as a supplement to my own, without regard to the chronological order, that is otherwise observed.

[64] Some words, indeed, stand unsupported by any authority, but they are commonly derivative nouns or adverbs, formed from their primitives by regular and constant analogy, or names of things seldom occurring in books, or words of which I have reason to doubt the existence.

[65] There is more danger of censure from the multiplicity than paucity of examples; authorities will sometimes seem to have been accumulated without necessity or use, and perhaps some will be found, which might, without loss, have been omitted. But a work of this kind is not hastily to be charged with superfluities: those quotations [quotations,] which to careless or unskilful perusers appear only to repeat the same sense, will often exhibit, to a more accurate examiner, diversities of signification, or, at least, afford different shades of the same meaning: one will shew the word applied to persons, another to things; one will express an ill, another a good, and a third a neutral sense; one will prove the expression genuine from an ancient authour; another will shew it elegant from a modern: a doubtful authority is corroborated by another of more credit; an ambiguous sentence is ascertained by a passage clear and determinate; the word, how often soever repeated, appears with new associates and in different combinations, and every quotation contributes something to the stability or enlargement of the language.

[66] When words are used equivocally, I receive them in either sense; when they are metaphorical, I adopt them in their primitive acceptation.

[67] I have sometimes, though rarely, yielded to the temptation of exhibiting a genealogy of sentiments, by shewing how one authour copied the thoughts and diction of another: such quotations are indeed little more than repetitions, which might justly be censured, did they not gratify the mind, by affording a kind of intellectual history.

[68] The various syntactical structures occurring in the examples have been carefully noted; the licence or negligence with which many words have been hitherto used, has made our stile capricious and indeterminate; when the different combinations of the same word are exhibited together, the preference is readily given to propriety, and I have often endeavoured to direct the choice.

[69] Thus have I laboured to settle [by settling] the orthography, display [displaying] the analogy, regulate [regulating] the structures, and ascertain [ascertaining] the signification of English words, to perform all the parts of a faithful lexicographer: but I have not always executed my own scheme, or satisfied my own expectations. The work, whatever proofs of diligence and attention it may exhibit, is yet capable of many improvements: the orthography which I recommend is still controvertible, the etymology which I adopt is uncertain, and perhaps frequently erroneous; the explanations are sometimes too much contracted, and sometimes too much diffused, the significations are distinguished rather with subtilty than skill, and the attention is harrassed with unnecessary minuteness.

[70] The examples are too often injudiciously truncated, and perhaps sometimes, I hope very rarely, alleged in a mistaken sense; for in making this collection I trusted more to memory, than, in a state of disquiet and embarrassment, memory can contain, and purposed to supply at the review what was left incomplete in the first transcription.

[71] Many terms appropriated to particular occupations, though necessary and significant, are undoubtedly omitted; and of the words most studiously considered and exemplified, many senses have escaped observation.

[72] Yet these failures, however frequent, may admit extenuation and apology. To have attempted much is always laudable, even when the enterprize is above the strength that undertakes it: To rest below his own aim is incident to every one whose fancy is active, and whose views are comprehensive; nor is any man satisfied with himself because he has done much, but because he can conceive little. When first I engaged in this work, I resolved to leave neither words nor things unexamined, and pleased myself with a prospect of the hours which I should revel away in feasts of literature, the obscure recesses of northern learning, which I should enter and ransack, the treasures with which I expected every search into those neglected mines to reward my labour, and the triumph with which I should display my acquisitions to mankind. When I had thus enquired into the original of words, I resolved to show likewise my attention to things; to pierce deep into every science, to enquire the nature of every substance of which I inserted the name, to limit every idea by a definition strictly logical, and exhibit every production of art or nature in an accurate description, that my book might be in place of all other dictionaries whether appellative or technical. But these were the dreams of a poet doomed at last to wake a lexicographer. I soon found that it is too late to look for instruments, when the work calls for execution, and that whatever abilities I had brought to my task, with those I must finally perform it. To deliberate whenever I doubted, to enquire whenever I was ignorant, would have protracted the undertaking without end, and, perhaps, without much improvement; for I did not find by my first experiments, that what I had not of my own was easily to be obtained: I saw that one enquiry only gave occasion to another, that book referred to book, that to search was not always to find, and to find was not always to be informed; and that thus to persue perfection, was, like the first inhabitants of Arcadia, to chace the sun, which, when they had reached the hill where he seemed to rest, was still beheld at the same distance from them.

[73] I then contracted my design, determining to confide in myself, and no longer to solicit auxiliaries, which produced more incumbrance than assistance: by this I obtained at least one advantage, that I set limits to my work, which would in time be finished, [be ended,] though not completed.

[74] Despondency has never so far prevailed as to depress me to negligence; some faults will at last appear to be the effects of anxious diligence and persevering activity. The nice and subtle ramifications of meaning were not easily avoided by a mind intent upon accuracy, and convinced of the necessity of disentangling combinations, and separating similitudes. Many of the distinctions which to common readers appear useless and idle, will be found real and important by men versed in the school philosophy, without which no dictionary ever shall be accurately compiled, or skilfully examined.

[75] Some senses however there are, which, though not the same, are yet so nearly allied, that they are often confounded. Most men think indistinctly, and therefore cannot speak with exactness; and consequently some examples might be indifferently put to either signification: this uncertainty is not to be imputed to me, who do not form, but register the language; who do not teach men how they should think, but relate how they have hitherto expressed their thoughts.

[76] The imperfect sense of some examples I lamented, but could not remedy, and hope they will be compensated by innumerable passages selected with propriety, and preserved with exactness; some shining with sparks of imagination, and some replete with treasures of wisdom.

[77] The orthography and etymology, though imperfect, are not imperfect for want of care, but because care will not always be successful, and recollection or information come too late for use.

[78] That many terms of art and manufacture are omitted, must be frankly acknowledged; but for this defect I may boldly allege that it was unavoidable: I could not visit caverns to learn the miner’s language, nor take a voyage to perfect my skill in the dialect of navigation, nor visit the warehouses of merchants, and shops of artificers, to gain the names of wares, tools and operations, of which no mention is found in books; what favourable accident, or easy enquiry brought within my reach, has not been neglected; but it had been a hopeless labour to glean up words, by courting living information, and contesting with the sullenness of one, and the roughness of another.

[79] To furnish the academicians della Crusca with words of this kind, a series of comedies called la Fiera, or the Fair, was professedly written by Buonaroti; but I had no such assistant, and therefore was content to want what they must have wanted likewise, had they not luckily been so supplied.

[80] Nor are all words which are not found in the vocabulary, to be lamented as omissions. Of the laborious and mercantile part of the people, the diction is in a great measure casual and mutable; many of their terms are formed for some temporary or local convenience, and though current at certain times and places, are in others utterly unknown. This fugitive cant, which is always in a state of increase or decay, cannot be regarded as any part of the durable materials of a language, and therefore must be suffered to perish with other things unworthy of preservation.

[81] Care will sometimes betray to the appearance of negligence. He that is catching opportunities which seldom occur, will suffer those to pass by unreguarded, which he expects hourly to return; he that is searching for rare and remote things, will neglect those that are obvious and familiar: thus many of the most common and cursory words have been inserted with little illustration, because in gathering the authorities, I forbore to copy those which I thought likely to occur whenever they were wanted. It is remarkable that, in reviewing my collection, I found the word Sea unexemplified.

[82] Thus it happens, that in things difficult there is danger from ignorance, and in things easy from confidence; the mind, afraid of greatness, and disdainful of littleness, hastily withdraws herself from painful searches, and passes with scornful rapidity over tasks not adequate to her powers, sometimes too secure for caution, and again too anxious for vigorous effort; sometimes idle in a plain path, and sometimes distracted in labyrinths, and dissipated by different intentions.

[83] A large work is difficult because it is large, even though all its parts might singly be performed with facility; where there are many things to be done, each must be allowed its share of time and labour, in the proportion only which it bears to the whole; nor can it be expected, that the stones which form the dome of a temple, should be squared and polished like the diamond of a ring.

[84] Of the event of this work, for which, having laboured it with so much application, I cannot but have some degree of parental fondness, it is natural to form conjectures. Those who have been persuaded to think well of my design, require [design, will require] that it should fix our language, and put a stop to those alterations which time and chance have hitherto been suffered to make in it without opposition. With this consequence I will confess that I flattered myself for a while; but now begin to fear that I have indulged expectation which neither reason nor experience can justify. When we see men grow old and die at a certain time one after another, from century to century, we laugh at the elixir that promises to prolong life to a thousand years; and with equal justice may the lexicographer be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, or clear the world at once from folly, vanity, and affectation.

[85] With this hope, however, academies have been instituted, to guard the avenues of their languages, to retain fugitives, and repulse intruders; but their vigilance and activity have hitherto been vain; sounds are too volatile and subtile for legal restraints; to enchain syllables, and to lash the wind, are equally the undertakings of pride, unwilling to measure its desires by its strength. The French language has visibly changed under the inspection of the academy; the stile of Amelot’s translation of father Paul is observed by Le Courayer to be un peu passè; and no Italian will maintain, that the diction of any modern writer is not perceptibly different from that of Boccace, Machiavel, or Caro.

[86] Total and sudden transformations of a language seldom happen; conquests and migrations are now very rare: but there are other causes of change, which, though slow in their operation, and invisible in their progress, are perhaps as much superiour to human resistance, as the revolutions of the sky, or intumescence of the tide. Commerce, however necessary, however lucrative, as it depraves the manners, corrupts the language; they that have frequent intercourse with strangers, to whom they endeavour to accommodate themselves, must in time learn a mingled dialect, like the jargon which serves the traffickers on the Mediterranean and Indian coasts. This will not always be confined to the exchange, the warehouse, or the port, but will be communicated by degrees to other ranks of the people, and be at last incorporated with the current speech.

[87] There are likewise internal causes equally forcible. The language most likely to continue long without alteration, would be that of a nation raised a little, and but a little, above [a little above] barbarity, secluded from strangers, and totally employed in procuring the conveniencies of life; either without books, or, like some of the Mahometan countries, with very few: men thus busied and unlearned, having only such words as common use requires, would perhaps long continue to express the same notions by the same signs. But no such constancy can be expected in a people polished by arts, and classed by subordination, where one part of the community is sustained and accommodated by the labour of the other. Those who have much leisure to think, will always be enlarging the stock of ideas, and every increase of knowledge, whether real or fancied, will produce new words, or combinations of words. When the mind is unchained from necessity, it will range after convenience; when it is left at large in the fields of speculation, it will shift opinions; as any custom is disused, the words that expressed it must perish with it; as any opinion grows popular, it will innovate speech in the same proportion as it alters practice.

[88] As by the cultivation of various sciences, a language is amplified, it will be more furnished with words deflected from their original sense; the geometrician will talk of a courtier’s zenith, or the excentrick virtue of a wild hero, and the physician of sanguine expectations and phlegmatick delays. Copiousness of speech will give opportunities to capricious choice, by which some words will be preferred, and others degraded; vicissitudes of fashion will enforce the use of new, or extend the signification of known terms. The tropes of poetry will make hourly encroachments, and the metaphorical will become the current sense: pronunciation will be varied by levity or ignorance, and the pen must at length comply with the tongue; illiterate writers will at one time or other, by publick infatuation, rise into renown, who, not knowing the original import of words, will use them with colloquial licentiousness, confound distinction, and forget propriety. As politeness increases, some expressions will be considered as too gross and vulgar for the delicate, others as too formal and ceremonious for the gay and airy; new phrases are therefore adopted, which must, for the same reasons, be in time dismissed. Swift, in his petty treatise on the English language, allows that new words must sometimes be introduced, but proposes that none should be suffered to become obsolete. But what makes a word obsolete, more than general agreement to forbear it? and how shall it be continued, when it conveys an offensive idea, or recalled again into the mouths of mankind, when it has once by disuse become unfamiliar, and by unfamiliarity unpleasing [unfamiliar by disuse, and unpleasing by unfamiliarity].

[89] There is another cause of alteration more prevalent than any other, which yet in the present state of the world cannot be obviated. A mixture of two languages will produce a third distinct from both, and they will always be mixed, where the chief part of education, and the most conspicuous accomplishment, is skill in ancient or in foreign tongues. He that has long cultivated another language, will find its words and combinations croud upon his memory; and haste and negligence, refinement and affectation, will obtrude borrowed terms and exotick expressions.

[90] The great pest of speech is frequency of translation. No book was ever turned from one language into another, without imparting something of its native idiom; this is the most mischievous and comprehensive innovation; single words may enter by thousands, and the fabrick of the tongue continue the same, but new phraseology changes much at once; it alters not the single stones of the building, but the order of the columns. If an academy should be established for the cultivation of our stile, which I, who can never wish to see dependance multiplied, hope the spirit of English liberty will hinder or destroy, let them, instead of compiling grammars and dictionaries, endeavour, with all their influence, to stop the licence of translatours, whose idleness and ignorance, if it be suffered to proceed, will reduce us to babble a dialect of France.

[91] If the changes that we fear be thus irresistible, what remains but to acquiesce with silence, as in the other insurmountable distresses of humanity? it [It] remains that we retard what we cannot repel, that we palliate what we cannot cure. Life may be lengthened by care, though death cannot be ultimately defeated: tongues, like governments, have a natural tendency to degeneration; we have long preserved our constitution, let us make some struggles for our language.

[92] In hope of giving longevity to that which its own nature forbids to be immortal, I have devoted this book, the labour of years, to the honour of my country, that we may no longer yield the palm of philology to [philology, without a contest, to] the nations of the continent. The chief glory of every people arises from its authours: whether I shall add any thing by my own writings to the reputation of English literature, must be left to time: much of my life has been lost under the pressures of disease; much has been trifled away; and much has always been spent in provision for the day that was passing over me; but I shall not think my employment useless or ignoble, if by my assistance foreign nations, and distant ages, gain access to the propagators of knowledge, and understand the teachers of truth; if my labours afford light to the repositories of science, and add celebrity to Bacon, to Hooker, to Milton, and to Boyle.

[93] When I am animated by this wish, I look with pleasure on my book, however defective, and deliver it to the world with the spirit of a man that has endeavoured well. That it will immediately become popular I have not promised to myself: a few wild blunders, and risible absurdities, from which no work of such multiplicity was ever free, may for a time furnish folly with laughter, and harden ignorance in contempt; but useful diligence will at last prevail, and there never can be wanting some who distinguish desert; who will consider that no dictionary of a living tongue ever can be perfect, since while it is hastening to publication, some words are budding, and some falling away; that a whole life cannot be spent upon syntax and etymology, and that even a whole life would not be sufficient; that he, whose design includes whatever language can express, must often speak of what he does not understand; that a writer will sometimes be hurried by eagerness to the end, and sometimes faint with weariness under a task, which Scaliger compares to the labours of the anvil and the mine; that what is obvious is not always known, and what is known is not always present; that sudden fits of inadvertency will surprize vigilance, slight avocations will seduce attention, and casual eclipses of the mind will darken learning; and that the writer shall often in vain trace his memory at the moment of need, for that which yesterday he knew with intuitive readiness, and which will come uncalled into his thoughts to-morrow.

[94] In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed; and though no book was ever spared out of tenderness to the authour, and the world is little solicitous to know whence proceeded the faults of that which it condemns; yet it may gratify curiosity to inform it, that the English Dictionary was written with little assistance of the learned, and without any patronage of the great; not in the soft obscurities of retirement, or under the shelter of academick bowers, but amidst inconvenience and distraction, in sickness and in sorrow: and it [sorrow. It] may repress the triumph of malignant criticism to observe, that if our language is not here fully displayed, I have only failed in an attempt which no human powers have hitherto completed. If the lexicons of ancient tongues, now immutably fixed, and comprised in a few volumes, be yet, after the toil of successive ages, inadequate and delusive; if the aggregated knowledge, and co-operating diligence of the Italian academicians, did not secure them from the censure of Beni; if the embodied criticks of France, when fifty years had been spent upon their work, were obliged to change its oeconomy, and give their second edition another form, I may surely be contented without the praise of perfection, which, if I could obtain, in this gloom of solitude, what would it avail me? I have protracted my work till most of those whom I wished to please, have sunk [please have] into the grave, and success and miscarriage are empty sounds: I therefore dismiss it with frigid tranquillity, having little to fear or hope from censure or from praise.

No. 36

36. David Garrick. ‘On Johnson’s Dictionary.’ 1755. {Printed with minor variations in the April Issues of The Public Advertiser, etc.}

‘Talk of war with a Briton, he’ll boldly advance,

That one English soldier will beat ten of France;

Would we alter the boast from the sword to the pen,

Our odds are still greater, still greater our men....

First Shakespeare and Milton, like gods in the fight,

Have put their whole drama and epick to flight....

And Johnson, well arm’d like a hero of yore,

Has beat forty French, and will beat forty more!

No. 37

37. John Hawkesworth. “Some Account of a Dictionary of the English Language, by Samuel Johnson, A.M. in Two Vols Folio, 580 Sheets. Price 4 l. 10 s.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, XXV (April 1755), pp. 147-151. {This account is basically based on the paragraphs drawn from the plan and the preface, with some alterations. The editor cites its number of the paragraph in each work. It will be of some use to note that the following words are spelt differently from the original, Johnson’s being inserted in the parentheses: energetic (energetick), stile (style), chemical (chymical), shew (show), shewn (shown), comprised (comprised), terrour (terror), surprised (surprised), critic (critick), academic (academick), critics (criticks). }

The intent of this work is to fix the pronunciation, facilitate the attainment, preserve the purity, ascertain the use, and lengthen the duration of the English language. For the English language, while it was employed in the cultivation of every species of literature, has itself been hitherto neglected, suffered to spread under the direction of chance into wild exuberance, resigned to the tyranny of time and fashion, and exposed to the corruptions of ignorance, and the caprices of innovation.

“Our speech, says Mr Johnson, I found copious without order, and energetic without rule; wherever I turned my view there was perplexity to be disentangled, and confusion to be regulated; choice was to be made out of boundless variety, without any established principle of selection; adulterations were to be detected, without a settled test of purity; and modes of expression to be rejected or received, without the suffrages of any writers of classical reputation, or acknowledged authority.” [4th paragraph of the preface]

Having therefore no assistance but from general grammar, he applied himself to the perusal of our writers; and noting whatever might be of use to ascertain or illustrate any word or phrase, accumulated in time the materials of a dictionary, which, by degrees, he reduced to method, by such rules as experience and analogy suggested in the progress of the work. [Preface 5]

To preserve the purity, and ascertain the meaning of our English idiom, little more seems to be required than to consider the language so far as it is our own, that the words and phrases used in the general intercourse of life, or the works of those whom we commonly stile polite writers, be selected, without including the terms of particular professions, since these are generally derived from other nations, and are very often the same in all the languages of this part of the world; but as this dictionary was not designed merely for critics, but for popular use, it comprises the peculiar words of every science, art, and profession, even to mechanical trades. [Plan 7]

The whole work may be analysed into seven distinct and essential parts; 1, Orthography. 2, Pronunciation, 3, Etymology. 4, Analogy. 5. Syntax. 6. Phraseology. 7, Signification.

1. As to Orthography, the present usage of spelling is generally followed, but when the present usage is various, and the question of right doubtful, that practice is preferred which preserves the greatest number of radical letters, or seems most to comply with the general custom of our language, and no innovation is made without a reason sufficient to balance the inconvenience of change; and such reasons are rarely to be found, for all change is of itself an evil, which ought not to be hazarded but for evident advantage; and, as inconstancy is in every case a mark of weakness, it will add nothing to the reputation of our tongue. [Plan 18] However, where the usual orthography is inaccurate, notice is taken, that it is rather tolerated than chosen, particularly when by a change of one letter or more, the meaning of a word is obscured, as in farrier for ferrier, as it was formerly written from ferrum or fer; in gibberish, for Gebrish, the jargon of Geber, and his chemical followers, understood by none but their own tribe. The orthography of different ages is also sometimes traced back, to show by what gradations the word departed from its original. [Plan 19]

2. To give stability to our Pronunciation, for want of which we are now totally ignorant of the metrical art of our ancient poets, the accentuation of all polysyllables is determined by proper authorities, and distinguished by proper marks. It is determined by authority, because it cannot be reduced to rules, for there is no antecedent reason for difference of accent in the two words dolorous and sonorous, yet of the one Milton gives the sound in this line:

He pass’d o’er many a region dolorous;

and that of the other in this,

Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds. [Plan 21]

The sound of monosyllables is in many instances fixed, by placing with them others of a correspondent sound, to prevent the variation which has already happened to some; for wound and wind, as they are now frequently pronounced, will not rhyme with sound and mind. [Plan 23]

3. With respect to Etymology, or Derivation, words are distinguished into the different classes, whether simple, as day, light, or compound, as day-light; whether primitive, as to act, or derivative, as action, actionable, active, activity; and this must greatly facilitate the attainment of our language, which in all former dictionaries, is a confused heap of words, without dependence, and without relation. [Plan 26] Our primitives are then deduced from foreign languages, and not particularly words only, but phrases traced back to their origin. Of phrases some are taken from other languages, even when the words of which they consist are our own; as to bring about, or accomplish; which, tho’ it appears to be an English phrase, in reality French; for our native word about has no such import, but is a French expression, of which we have an example in the common phrase Venir à bout d’une affaire. [Plan 28]

When a word is easily deduced from a Saxon original, no further enquiry is made, but when it is borrowed from the French, the derivation of the French is shewn; and when a Saxon root cannot be found, the defect may be supplied from kindred languages. [Plan 29]

By tracing, in this manner, every word to its original, and not admitting, but with great caution, any of which no original can be found, our language is secured from being overrun with cant, and crowded with low terms, the spawn of folly or affectation, which arise from no just principles of speech, and of which therefore no legitimate derivation can be shown. [Plan 30]

4. Analogy, or the rules by which our words are inflected through their various terminations. The terminations of the English, indeed, are but few; but those few have hitherto remained unregarded by the writers of Dictionaries. [Plan 31]

The verbs are also distinguished according to their qualities, as actives and neuters; the neglect of which has already introduced some barbarisms in our conversation, which if not obviated by just animadversions, may in time creep into our writings. [Plan 34]

5. Syntax, or construction, which has hitherto been utterly neglected by lexicographers, and to which the grammarians can give little assistance, is here taught, not by rules indeed, because the syntax of the English language is too inconstant to be reduced to rules, but by the distinct consideration of particular words, as they are used by the best authors. We say, the soldier died of his wounds; and the sailor perished with hunger; yet there is no reason to be drawn from grammar, why a man may not, with equal propriety, be said to die with a wound or perish of hunger. [Plan 37]

6. Phraseology is shewn by pursuing a word through all the forms in which it is used, in a manner peculiar to our language, or in senses not to be comprized in general explanations, as from the verb make arise these phrases, to make love, to make an end, to make way, to make a bed, to make merry, to make presents, to make a doubt, and many others. [Plan 39]

7. Signification, with respect to technical terms, is not merely verbal, but real. As to the general and popular language, the several senses of each word are sorted, and it is first exhibited in its natural and primitive signification, [Plan 42] as to arrive, to reach the shore in a voyage. He arrived at a safe harbour [Plan 43]; then its consequential meaning is given: to arrive, to reach any place, whether by land or sea, as he arrived at his country seat. [Plan 44]

Then its metaphorical sense, to obtain any thing desired; as, he arrived at a peerage. [Plan 45]

After this an observation is frequently added, which arises from the comparison of one meaning with another, as of the arrive, that it cannot be properly applied but to words signifying something desirable; thus we say, a man arrived at happiness; but cannot say, without a mixture of irony, he arrived at misery. [Plan 46]

After the natural and figurative senses have been given, the poetical sense is subjoined, as wanton, applied to any thing of which the motion is irregular without terror.

In wanton ringlets curl’d her hair.

To the poetical sense may succeed the familiar, as of toast, used to imply the person whose health is drunk.

The wise man’s passion, and the vain man’s toast. [Plan 50]

The familiar is followed by the burlesque, as of mellow, applied to good fellowship.

In all thy humours, whether grave or mellow. [Plan 51]

And, lastly, we have the peculiar sense, in which a word is found in any great author: as faculties, in Shakespeare, signifies the powers of authority.

---This Duncan
Has borne his faculties so meek, has been
So clear in his great office, that, &c. [Plan 53]

The signification of adjectives if often ascertained by uniting them to substantives, as, simple swain, simple sheep: And sometimes the sense of a substantive is elucidated by the epithets annexed to it in good authors, as, boundless ocean, open lawns: and where such advantage can be gained by a short quotation, it is not omitted. [Plan 54]

The different signification of words generally accounted synonymous, is carefully observed, as in pride, haughtiness, arrogance; and the strict and critical meaning ought to be distinguished from that which is loose and popular; as the word perfection, which, though in its philosophical and exact sense it can be of little use among human beings, yet is often so much degraded from its original signification, that the academicians have inserted in their work, the perfection of a language, and, with a little more licentiousness, might have prevailed upon themselves to have added the perfection of a dictionary. [Plan 55]

Many other characters of words are also mentioned: some have both an active and passive signification, as fearful, that which gives or which feels terror, a fearful prodigy, a fearful hare. Some have a personal, some a real meaning, as, in opposition to old, we use the adjective young of animated beings, and new of other things. Some are restrained to the sense of praise, and others to that of disapprobation; so commonly, though not always, we exhort to good actions, we instigate to ill. We animate, incite and encourage indifferently to good or bad. With respect to the use of these words, which have been often reversed by the correctest writers, the testimonies are collected on both sides. [Plan 56]

Many words are also explained by their opposition to others, as contraries are best seen when they stand together. Thus the verb stand has one sense as opposed to fall, and another, as opposed to fly, for want of attending to which distinction, obvious as it is, the learned Dr. Bentley has squandered his criticism to no purpose on these lines of Paradise Lost:

---In heaps
Chariot and charioteer lay overturn’d,
And fiery foaming steeds. What stood, recoil’d
O’erwearied, through the faint Satanic host,
Defensive scarce, or with pale fear surpris’d,
Fled ignominious.-----

Here, says the critick, as the sentence is now read, we find that what stood, fled:” and, therefore, he proposes an alteration, which he might have spared, if he had consulted a dictionary, and found that nothing more was affirmed than, that those fled who did not fall. [Plan 56]

In this word, words are distributed into their proper classes; as words of general use; words employed chiefly in poetry; words obsolete; words which are admitted only by particular writers, yet not only in burlesque writing; band words corrupt and barbarous.

As to the authorities, on which the credit of every part of this work must depend, writers of the first reputation are always preferred, and such passages selected, as besides their immediate use, afford pleasure or instruction, by conveying some elegance of language, or some precept of prudence or piety. [Plan 68] And Mr. Johnson, to prevent his being misled by partiality, has not admitted the testimony of any living author, except when he was struck by some uncommon excellence, when his memory supplied me, from late books, or when he was solicitous to admit a favourite name; but if the whole of these quotations were brought together, they would not fill one sheet of his book. [Preface 60]

It is evident that such a work will in many particulars will admit improvement from a mind utterly unequal to the whole performance [Preface 54]; but let not any of those, who by long poring over minute parts, have discovered what was necessarily overlooked by an eye that could comprehend the whole, assume an air of superiority, or hope to escape the indignation of genius and learning, which, in the language of Milton, can burn after them for ever, if in the malignity of their folly they depreciate, for trivial imperfections, a work, in which perfection was possible to man; or attempt to withhold the honour which is due to him, who alone has effected in seven years, what the joint labour of forty academicians could not produce to a neighbouring nation in less than half a century.

To this dictionary is prefixed an history of our language, in which it is regularly traced from the old Gothic and Teutonic to modern English. And a grammar, which, however short, contains more than all that went before it. There is also a preface, which was written to give some account of the conduct of the work, and which will be found an indubitably testimony of its worth, by shewing the great knowledge of the author in what he professes to teach. It is written with tho’ it is only an avenue to the dusty desarts [sic] of barren philology, it abounds with flowers that can shoot only on poetic ground; it delights the passenger without detaining him by the way, and tho’ his mind is filled with pleasing images, yet he perceives at every step that he is approaching the End.

If any beside the author should think an apology for his work necessary, let them take it in his own words.

‘I look with pleasure on my book, however defective, and deliver it to the world with the spirit of a man that has endeavoured well. That it will immediately become popular I have not promised to myself: a few wild blunders, and risible absurdities, from which no work of such multiplicity was ever free, may for a time furnish folly with laughter, and harden ignorance in contempt; but useful diligence will at last prevail, and there never can be wanting some who distinguish desert; who will consider that no dictionary of a living tongue ever can be perfect, since while it is hastening to publication, some words are budding, and some falling away; that a whole life cannot be spent upon syntax and etymology, and that even a whole life would not be sufficient; that he, whose design includes whatever language can express, must often speak of what he does not understand; that a writer will sometimes be hurried by eagerness to the end, and sometimes faint with weariness under a task, which Scaliger compares to the labours of the anvil and the mine; that what is obvious is not always known, and what is known is not always present; that sudden fits of inadvertency will surprize vigilance, slight avocations will seduce attention, and casual eclipses of the mind will darken learning; and that the writer shall often in vain trace his memory at the moment of need, for that which yesterday he knew with intuitive readiness, and which will come uncalled into his thoughts to-morrow. [Preface 93]

‘In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed; and though no book was ever spared out of tenderness to the authour, and the world is little solicitous to know whence proceeded the faults of that which it condemns; yet it may gratify curiosity to inform it, that the English Dictionary was written with little assistance of the learned, and without any patronage of the great; not in the soft obscurities of retirement, or under the shelter of academic bowers, but amidst inconvenience and distraction, in sickness and in sorrow: and it may repress the triumph of malignant criticism to observe, that if our language is not here fully displayed, I have only failed in an attempt which no human powers have hitherto completed. If the lexicons of ancient tongues, now immutably fixed, and comprised in a few volumes, be yet, after the toil of successive ages, inadequate and delusive; if the aggregated knowledge, and co-operating diligence of the Italian academicians, did not secure them from the censure of Beni; if the embodied critics of France, when fifty years had been spent upon their work, were obliged to change its œconomy, and give their second edition another form, I may surely be contented without the praise of perfection, which, if I could obtain, in this gloom of solitude, what would it avail me? I have protracted my work till most of those whom I wished to please, have sunk into the grave, and success and miscarriage are empty sounds: I therefore dismiss it with frigid tranquillity, having little to fear or hope from censure or from praise. [Preface 94]

The word AIM is added as a Specimen of this work, by which it will appear, that a Dictionary may be an entertaining as well as an useful book.

(…)

No. 38

38. Sir Tanfield Leman. ‘Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language.’ The Monthly Review, or, Literary Journal, XII (April 1755). London: Printed for R. Griffiths, pp. 292-324. {See Benjamin Christie Nangle, The Monthly Review First Series 1749-1789}

The English language, though copious and expressive, has been generally deemed, by learned foreigners, impure and uncertain; they have frequently reflected, with severity, on our inattention to its imperfections. Some of the best writers among ourselves have, however, appeared conscious of the justice of this censure; particularly Swift, who, near fifty years ago, addressed to Lord Oxford, A proposal for correcting, improving, and ascertaining our tongue: the attempts which have been since made towards reforming our orthography and diction, seem rather the effect of caprice or affectation, than of knowledge or judgment. Lexicographers we have had, not a few, but such as, for the most part, were little better than copyists of each other. The ingenious Abbé le Blanc observes, that the French have made ours one of the learned languages; that even their women learn it, and have renounced Italian, to study English: yet the same author takes notice, that we had not so much as a good dictionary, or hardly a tolerable grammar. But these reproaches, we hope, will, in a great measure, be removed, as well as the acquiring a competent knowledge of the genius of our tongue facilitated, by the work before us; a work that has been much wanted, and no less early expected, especially by those who are acquainted with Mr. Johnson’s literary abilities.

A pretty circumstantial mention of this performance will, no doubt, be expected from us: the method we propose, therefore, to purpose, for the gratification of the reader’s curiosity, is to extract from our learned compiler’s preface, and account of what he has intended, and from his work, specimens of this execution.

(many paragraphs from the preface and specimens, omitted)

Such is Mr. Johnson’s account of what he has endeavoured; and, barely to say that he has well performed his task, would be too frigid a commendation of a performance that will be received with gratitude, by those who are sincerely zealous for the reputation of English literature: nevertheless, lavish as we might, justly, be in its praise, we are not blind to its imperfections; for some we have observed, even in the short time allowed us for the inspection of this large work, nor are all of them equally unimportant. Some may, perhaps, expect, that we should point out, what appears to us as defects; but this we decline, because most of them will be obvious to the judicious and inquisitive reader; nor are we inclinable to feed the malevolence of little or lazy critics: besides which, our assiduous and ingenious compiler has, in a great measure, anticipated all censure by his apologetical acknowledgments.---Upon the whole, if the prodigious extent of this undertaking, and the numerous difficulties necessarily attending it, be dully considered; also that it is the labour of one single person (who himself tells us, it ‘...’) instead of affording matter for envy or malignancy to prey upon, it must excite wonder and admiration to see how greatly he has succeeded. ‘...’ Mr. Johnson as candidly, as justly, observes, that he may certainly be ‘contented without the praise of perfection.’

In tracing the history of our language he deduces it from the time of Alfred, when he supposes it first to have taken a form ‘capable of expressing all the sentiments of a civilised people.’ A specimen of the manner of writing in those days he gives from that king’s paraphrase or imitation of Boethius: he produces also another from a Saxon version of the gospels, presumed to have been made between the time of Alfred and the Norman conquest; against which he has place Wickliffe’s translation of the same, in opposite columns, whereby may be seen, at our view, the variation of our tongue in that period.—Sir John Gower he considers as the first of our authors, who can be properly said to have wrote English: from hence he points out briefly, but clearly, the alterations and improvements in our language, down to the reign of Elizabeth; and has all along illustrated his observations by apposite samples of the different modes of orthography and style, as they prevailed at different times.

His grammar is concise, yet far from being obscure; several of his remarks are uncommon, if not new, and all of them deserving particular attention. The prosody is treated with an accuracy we do not remember to have met with in other grammarians and the whole appears to us well calculated to serve its professed purpose, which is, that ‘the English language may be learned, if the reader be acquainted with grammatical terms, or taught by a master to those who are more ignorant.’

Hence we should conclude; but, perhaps, some apology may be thought necessary for ourselves on account of this precipitated article; for precipitated it has been, in the hope of obliging our readers; and to their candid consideration we submit the only and true excuse we have to other, viz, the very short time we have allowed ourselves for the consideration of so extensive a performance. It is not to be supposed that in the few days elapsed since the publication of these large volumes, we could peruse the whole, or even so large a portion of them, as might serve to justify a critical detail: but from a persuasion that our readers would be impatient for some account of so important a work, and that the earlier it was communicated, the more welcome it would prove, we thought it rather expedient to decline and elaborate, and, consequently, a protracted review; and have chose to let Mr. Johnson speak for himself; contenting ourselves with having endeavoured to elucidate his declared intention, by correspondent specimens of his performance; wherein, we trust, justice will appear to have been impartially done, between the author and the publick, at least as far as could be, reasonably, expected from us, under such inadequate circumstances of limitation and dispatch.

No. 39

39. Adam Smith. “Review of Johnson’s Dictionary.” Edinburgh Review I (1 January to 1 June 1755), pp. 61-63. {The following text is from Adam Smith, Essays on Philosophical Subjects, edited by W. P. D. Wightman and J. C. Bryce (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980, pp. 232-241).}

A Dictionary of the English Language, by Samuel Johnson, A. M. Knapton 2 Vols. Folio, ₤4, 15s.”

1 The present undertaking is very extensive. A dictionary of the English language, however useful, or rather necessary, has never been hitherto attempted with the least degree of success. To explain hard words and terms of art seems to have been the chief purpose of all the former compositions which have borne the title of English dictionaries. Mr. Johnson has extended his views much farther, and has made a very full collection of all the different meanings of each English word, justified by examples from authors of good reputation. When we compare this book with other dictionaries, the merit of its author appears very extraordinary. Those which in modern languages have gained the most esteem, are that of the French academy, and that of the academy Della Crusca. Both these were composed by a numerous society of learned men, and took up a longer time in the composition, than the life of a single person could well have afforded. The dictionary of the English language is the work of a single person, and composed in a period of time very inconsiderable, when compared with the extent of the work. The collection of words appears to be very accurate, and must be allowed to be very ample. Most words, we believed, are to be found in the dictionary that every were almost suspected to be English; but we cannot help wishing, that the author had trusted less to the judgment of those who may consult him, and had oftener passed his own censure upon those words which are not of approved use, tho’ sometimes to be met with in authors of no mean name. Where a work is admitted to be highly useful, and the execution of it intitled to praise; the adding, that it might have been most useful, can scarcely, we hope, be deemed a censure of it. The merit of Mr. Johnson’s dictionary is so great, that it cannot detract from it to take notice of some defects, the supplying which, would, in our judgment, add a considerable share of merit to that which it already possesses. Those defects consist chiefly in the plan, which appears to us not to be sufficiently grammatical. The different significations of a word are indeed collected; but they are seldom digested into general classes, or ranged under the meaning which the word principally expresses. And sufficient care has not been taken to distinguish the words apparently synonomous[sic]. The only method of explaining what we intend, is by inserting an article or two from Mr. Johnson, and by opposing to them the same articles, digested in the manner which we would have wished him to have followed.

2 BUT conjunct. [buze, buzan, Saxon.]

1. Except. (three illustrations from Bacon, Smith and Swift, omitted)

2. Yet; nevertheless. It sometimes only enforces yet. (two illustrations from Bacon and Swift, omitted)

3. The particle which introduces the minor of a syllogism; now. (two illustrations from Watts and Brahall against Hobbes, omitted)

4. Only; nothing more than. (nine illustrations, omitted)

5. Than. (illustration from Guardian, omitted)

6. But that; without this consequence that. (illustration from Dryden, omitted)

7. Otherwise than that. (two illustrations from Hooker and Shakespeare, omitted)

8. Not otherwise than. (illustration from Dryden, omitted)

9. By any other means than. (illustration from Shakespeare, omitted)

10. If it were not for this; if this were not. (two illustrations from Shakespeare, omitted)

11. However; howbeit. (illustration from Dryden, omitted)

12. It is used after no doubt, no question, and such words, and signifies the same with that. It sometimes is joined with that. (three illustrations from Bacon, Dryden and Addison, omitted)

13. That. This seems no proper sense in this place. (illustration from Dryden, omitted)

14. Otherwise than. (illustration from Shakespeare, omitted)

15. Even; not longer ago than. (two illustrations from Dryden and Locke, omitted)

16. A particle by which the meaning of the foregoing sentence is bounded or restrained. (illustration from Dryden, omitted)

17. An objective particle; yet it may be objected. (two illustrations from Shakespeare and Bentley, omitted)

18. But for; without; had not this been. (three illustrations from Waller, Dryden, and Dryden, omitted)

3. BUT, an English particle which denotes opposition, and which, according to the different modifications of the general sense of opposition, sometimes holds the place of an adverb, sometimes of a preposition, sometimes of a conjunction, and sometimes even of an interjection. It serves as a conjunction of four different species, as an adversitive[sic], as an alternative, as a conductive, and as a transitive conjunction. In its original and most proper meaning, however, it seems to be an adversitive conjunction, in the sense in which it is synonomous[sic] with however; and in which it is expressed in Latin by sed, in French by mais. I should have done this, but was prevented: I should have done this; I was however prevented. The difference betwixt these two particles seems to consist chiefly in this, That but must always stand at the beginning of the sentence whose opposition it marks to what went before; whereas however is introduced more gracefully after the beginning of the opposed sentence: and that the construction may often be continued, when we make use of but; whereas, it must always be interrupted when we make use of however.

The use of but, upon this account, seems often to mark a more precipitate keenness in denoting the opposition, than the use of however. If, in talking of a quarrel, a person should say, I should have made some apology for my conduct, but was prevented by his insolence; he would seem to express more passion and keenness than if he had said, I should have made some apology for my conduct, I was however prevented by his insolence.

2. But is likewise an alternative conjunction in the sense in which it is nearly synonomous with the English unless, and except, with the Latin nisi, and with the French sinon.

The people are not to be satisfied, but by remitting them some of their taxes.

Unless by remitting them, etc.

Except by remitting them, etc.

The first expression seems to mark more peculiarly the insufficiency of every other means to pacify the people, but that which is proposed. The every other means to pacify the people, but that which is proposed. The second seems to mark more peculiarly, that either this means must be employed, or the public disturbances will go on, and is therefore more alternative than the first. The third expression seems to mark the sense of one who out of all the means that can be proposed, chuses that which is more effectual. When we make use of unless, we do not mark that we have considered of any other means besides that which is poposed. Whereas, when we make use of but or except, we show that we have considered of some other means. Except a positive choice of the means proposed. Unless marks neither the one nor the other; and merely denotes an alternative, that either this must be done, or that will follow.

3. But is likewise a conductive conjunction in the sense in which it is nearly synonomous with the Latin quin, with the French que, and with the English than or that, when the first is preceded and the other followed by the particles of negation no or not.

The full moon was no sooner up, than he privately opened the gate of paradise.

But he privately opened, etc.

It cannot be doubted, that the King of Spain will not reform most of the abuses.

But the King of Spain will reform, etc.

Who shall believe, but you misuse the reverence of your place.

That you do not misuse, etc.

It cannot be but nature hath some director, etc.

It cannot be that nature has not some director.

4. But is likewise a transitive conjunction in the sense in which it is synonomous with the Latin sed, and with the French or.

All animals are mortal, but all men are animals, etc.

5. But is likewise an adverb of quantity, and signifies no more than, and is nearly synonomous with the Latin tantum, and with the English only.

I saw no more than three plants.

I saw but three plants.

I saw three plants only.

A genius so elevated and unconfined as Mr. Cowley’s was no more than necessary to make Pindar speak English.

Was but necessary, etc.

Was only necessary, etc.

This last expression might here, perhaps, be thought improper, because it might give occasion to an ambiguity; and might either signify, that nothing less than such a genius was capable of making Pindar speak English, or that nothing more was requisite for this purpose. Saving this ambiguity, the expression is, in every other respect, perfectly proper.

I should sin to think but nobly of my grandmother.

No more than nobly, etc.

Only nobly, etc.

Ulysses was formidable, but to his friends.

To his friends only.

Did but men consider the true notion of God.

Did men only consider, etc.

Beroe but now I left.

Beroe I left now only.

6. But is also a preposition, in which use it is synonomous with except, and would be expressed in Latin by praeter, in French by hors.

They are all dead but three.

They are all dead except three.

Who can it be ye gods but perjur’d Lycon?

Except perjur’d Lycon, etc.

7. But is also used as an interjection, tho’ not frequently; as in this phrase,

Good God, but she is handdom!

4 HUMOUR. n. s. [humeur, French; homor, Latin]

(nine senses with illustrations, omitted)

5 - 13 (comments on HUMOUR, omitted)

14 These instances may serve to explain the plan of a Dictionary which suggested itself to us. It can import no reflection upon Mr. Johnsons Dictionary that he subject has been viewed in a different light by others; and it is at least a matter of curiosity to consider the different views in which it appears. Any man who was about to compose a dictionary or rather a grammar of the English language, must acknowledge himself indebted to Mr. Johnson for abridging at least one half of his labour. All those who are under any difficulty with respect to a particular word or phrase, are in the same situation. The dictionary presents them a full collection of examples; from whence indeed they are left to determine, but by which the determination is rendered easy. In this country, the usefulness of it will be soon felt, as there is no standard of correct language in conversation; if our recommendation could in any degree incite to the perusal of it, we would earnestly recommend it to all those who are desirous to improve and correct their language, frequently to consult the dictionary. Its merit must be determined by the frequent resort that is had to it. This is the most unerring test of its value: criticisms may be false, private judgements ill-founded; but if a work of this nature be much in use, it has received the sanction of the public approbation.

No. 40

40. John Maxwell, M.A. A Letter from a Friend in England to Mr. Maxwell, complaining of his Dilatoriness in the publication of hi so-long-promised Work: With a character of Mr. Jonson’s English Dictionary, lately published and Mr. Maxwell’s Justification of himself, also, a Specimen of the Work which he has in Hand, in an explanation of the words, nature and assises. Dublin, 1755, 25pp.

Dear Sir,

In your last you wrote to me thus: “I think you are too long in publishing your work, after advertising, and others think so too; and that Johnson’s work coming out first will hinder the sale of yours. People will not consider, which is the best Plan, or best executed, but will be ready to take up with the first. You have observed several material Faults in Johnson very justly.

In very particular answer to the foregoing, I reply as follows, for your own satisfaction, and that of your acquaintance, to whom you may communicate it, if any thing which I can say for myself upon the present occasion can satisfy; and they whom may reasons cannot satisfy, must remain unsatisfied, and take up with Johnson’s work, if they choose it, and that they care not to wait any longer, though it were to have a much better, if there should prove a much better between them.

In the first place, I shall lay down a character of Mr. Johnson’s performance, without the least exaggeration.

And first as to the extensiveness of his Plan.

1. He rises no higher in the language than Sir Philip Sidney, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; so that he has none of Chaucer’s peculiar Words, Senses of Words, or Phrases, which I look upon to be a great Defect, considering that he is the first of our classic writers, and so much admired by those who understand him, which few do well, and that with a good deal of difficulty and much study, and that for want of a proper help; beside Gower, Lydgate, Pierce Plowman, Taylor the water-poet, Drayton, Skelton poet-laureat[sic] to Henry VIII, whom several red with labour, though not to be compared with Chaucer. Many critical readers would be glad to be acquainted with the Æra of Words, and the Senses of Words, Phrases, and Idioms in the language, which the quotations from authors of the several different ages, would let them into, as also the Phraseology, and Orthography, how they altered.

2. He does not take in the Scotch, which are the English greatly illustrate one antoher, the former being only a Dialect of the latter.

3. Nor the several County-Dialects of England. Do not the explainers of the Greek tongue take in all their Dialects? and would not a Greek lexicographer be despised, who should omit them?

4. Nor the obsolete words in old Records, Histories, and Acts of Parliament.

1. He has been guilty of very numerous and material omissions, as well with respect t o words, as senses of words, which fall within the compass of time, which he prescribes to himself; more particularly in Natural History, in the words relative to which he is very defective; as for instance, in the first volume he has omitted the following names of Birds.

Alcatrace, Allan-hawk, Alpe, Amber, Artfoot, Atricapilla, Attagen, Auk, Avocetta. (...)

He is equally defective in Quadrupeds, Fishes, Reptiles, Insects, Fossils, and the other articles of Natural History, besides numerous others, and several Senses of Words.

He omits the names of even the more remarkable religious sects, Anabaptist, Arian, Arminian, Calvinist, Socinian, &c.

He is also very defective, with respect to the Phraseology and Idioms of the language, which are so essential a part of it; and takes no notice of the Proverbs, not even such as require explanation, to make them intelligible to a common reader, and which are to be met with in English classic writers; for want of which those passages are not generally well understood, as where Ben. Johnson, speaking of a proud man, says of him, that he would drink to no one below the salt. All the articles in this paragraph, all good Lexicographers in every language explain.

Under the particle AS, he has but thirty heads, the first sixteen of which contain so many different senses of the word, huddled together, in a most confused manner; the other fourteen being its phraseology, laid down alphabetically; whereas I have above ninety Articles, thus methodized for the reader’s ease in finding out any particular, and in order to give him a clearer notion (not an idea) of the whole.

(the author’s analysis of AS, omitted)

Mr. Johnson is also poor in his Etymologies, even from Northern languages, but more so, with respect to the Oriental tongues, (considering the helps he had, or might have had,) to which he seems an utter stranger.

As he is greatly defective in words, senses of words, and phraseology, so he is very confused and immethodical in ranging the senses of words, where they are many “uniens dividend, and dividens unienda;” nor determinate and precise enough, in the sense which he aims at; nor is he by any means exact enough, in distinguishing the senses of words which have very nearly the same signification; as Wave, Surge, and Billow; Advice and Counsel; Will and Shall; in the distinguishing of which last two words, seems to me to lye the greatest nicety and difficulty in the English language. This I call the contrasting of words.

And so much at present for Mr. Johnson’s work.

As to the fault which people find, and the disappointment, which perhaps they meet with, in my not being yet ready for publication, after my having begun to advertise so long ago, what I have to say for myself, is as follows.

I was many years upon this work before I knew that Mr. Johnson (whom I had no knowledge of) was upon any such undertaking. He himself advertised several years before he published. When I found that he began to advertise, I thought that it was proper for me to advertise also, that I was upon such a work, and that with this view, viz. to hinder as many as I could thereby influence, from buying his work, when it should come out, in expectation that mine might prove a much better one, and that when both were out, they might choose which appeared to be the best. For this, I think, I was no way to be blamed; and I am sure, that there are many on this side the water at least, who are influenced by it; and for not offering to publish, immediately upon Mr. Johnson’s edition of his work, I think I am sufficiently justified upon this account; because I intend, if God spares me life, health, and my present abilities, such as they are, for a few years more, (how many I cannot precisely say) to make mine a work so superior to Mr. Johnson’s, as to leave no pretence for any rivalship or competition between us; and as for such as they, whom such considerations as these will not satisfy, they must remain unsatisfied, let them do as they please.

(the author’s long explanation of the NATURE and ASSISES, omitted)

Preparing for the Press, by John Maxwell, M.A. the following Work, viz.

The English Language, from its original, and through its several Dialects, explained, illustrated, and exemplified; containing the following Head. I. The Orthography adjusted. II. The pronunciation. III. The Etymologies. IV. The Significations of all Words, with the best Authorities. V. The Phraseology, with the like Authorities. VI. the greatest Nicety in every Language generally consisting in the Particles, it is proposed to be very particular therein. VII. All the proverbs, proverbial Words and Phrases, with the Explanation of such obscure ones as occur, and the Original of as many as the Author hath been able to trace. VIII. Good Definitions. IX. The Author farther proposeth to explain such Passages in our principal Poets, Chaucer, Gower, and their Contemporaries; Gawin Douglas Bishop of Dunkeld, Spenser, Shakespear, Ben. Johnson, Waller, Butler, Milton, &c. as seem to want Illustration.

As near as can at present be computed, the Work will amount to about Four Volumes in Folio; and is to be printed by Subscription, for which Proposals will be published, as soon as the Work is ready for the Press.

No. 41

41. Benjamin Martin. ‘A Chronological Memoir of Occurrences, For May, 1755.’ Miscellaneous Correspondence, Containing a Variety of Subjects. Vol. I.(For the Year 1755 and 1756) London, 1755, p. 86.

Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, 2 Vol. Fol. Knapton, Longman, &c. 4l. 10s. bound. – As the Plan of this Work cannot but sufficiently known from the great Numbers of it distributed gratis for several Years past, we shall only say, that, in the Opinion of good Judges, the Work has great Merit, perhaps more than any other single Hand could have given it. – The ingenious Author traces our Language from the Days of King Alfred, when he first judges it capable of expressing all the Sentiments of a cilviliz’d People: He gives several Specimens of the Manner of Writing at that Time, and the many Variations our Language has since undergone; illustrating his Observations by proper Examples in Style and Orthography according to the prevailing Modes at different Periods. – We shall give the following Article for a Sample of his Method: (the example of PLEASURE omitted)

No. 42

42. Samuel Johnson. ‘THE PREFACE.’ A Dictionary of the English Language. Abstracted from the Folio Edition. Vol. I. London: Printed for J. Knapton, etc., 1756.

Having been long employed in the study and cultivation of the English language, I lately published a dictionary like those compiled by the academies of Italy and France, for the use of such as aspire to exactness of criticism or elegance of style.

But it has been since considered that works of that kind are by no means necessary to the greater number of readers, who, seldom intending to write or presuming to judge, turn over books only to amuse their leisure, and to gain degrees of knowledge suitable to lower characters, or necessary to the common business of life: these know not any other use of a dictionary than that of adjusting orthography, or explain terms of science or words of infrequent occurrence, or remote derivation.

For these purposes many dictionaries have been written by different authors, and with different degrees of skill; but none of them have yet fallen into my hands by which even the lowest expectations could be satisfied. Some of their authors wanted industry, and others literature: some knew not their own defects, and others were too idle to supply them.

For this reason a small dictionary appeared yet to be wanting to common readers : and, as I may without arrogance claim to myself a longer acquaintance with the lexicography of our language than any other writer has had, I shall hope to be considered as having more experience at least than most of my predecessors, and as more likely to accommodate the nation with a vocabulary of daily use. I therefore offer to the publick an abstract or epitome of my former work.

In comparing this with other dictionaries of the same kind it will be found to have several advantages.

I. It contains many words not to be found in any other.

II. Many barbarous terms and phrases by which other dictionaries may vitiate the style are rejected from this.

III. The words are more correctly spelled, partly by attention to their etymology, and partly by observation of the practice of the best authors.

IV. The etymologies and derivations, whether from foreign languages or from native roots, are more diligently traced, and more distinctly noted.

V. The senses of each word are more copiously enumerated, and more clearly explained.

VI. Many words occurring in the elder authors, such as Spenser, Shakespeare, and Milton, which had been hitherto omitted, are here carefully inserted; so that this book may serve as a glossary or expository index to the poetical writers.

VII. To the words, and to the different senses of each word, are subjoined from the large dictionary the names of those writes by whom they have been used; so that th e reader who knows the different periods of the language, and the term of its authors, may judge of the elegance or prevalence of any word, or meaning of a word; and without recurring to other books, may know what re antiquated, what are unusual, and what are recommended by the best authority.

The words of this dictionary, as opposed o others, are more diligently collected, more accurately spelled, more faithfully explained, and more authentically ascertained. O fan abstract it　is not necessary to say more; and I hope, it will not be found that truth requires me to say less.

No. 43

43. Samuel Johnson. ‘THE PREFACE.’ A New Dictionary of Trade and Commerce, compiled from the Information of the most Eminent Merchants, and from the Works of the best Writers on Commercial Subjects in all Languages. By Mr. Rolt. 1756, (no pagination). {According to Boswell’s Life (I, 358-9), “He [Johnson]...contributed this year [1761] the Preface to ‘Rolt’s Dictionary of Trade and Commerce,’ in which he displays such a clear and comprehensive knowledge of the subject,..” The first edition of this dictionary was published in 1756, with the same preface as that in the second published in 1761.}

No expectation is more fallacious than that which authors form of the reception which their labours will find among mankind. Scarcely any man publishes a book, whatever it be, without believing that he has caught the moment when the publick attention is vacant to his call, and the world is disposed in a particular manner to hear the art which he undertakes to teach.

(two paragraphs omitted)

Nor is the form of this work less popular than the subject. It has lately been the practice of the learned to range knowledge by the alphabet, and publish dictionaries of every kind of literature. This practice has perhaps been carried too far by the force of fashion. Sciences, in themselves systematical and coherent, are not very properly broken into such fortuitous distributions. A dictionary of Arithmetick or Geometry can serve only to confound. But commerce, considered in its whole extent, seems to refuse any other method of arrangement, as it comprises innumerable particulars unconnected with each other, among which there is no reason why any should be first or last, better than is furnished by the letter that compose their names.

(four paragraphs omitted)

To give a detail or analysis of our work is very difficult; a volume intended to contain whatever is requisite to be known by every trader, necessarily becomes so miscellaneous and unconnected as not to be easily reducible to heads; yet, since we pretend in some measure to treat of traffick as a science, and to make that regular and systematical which has hitherto been to a great degree fortuitous and conjectural. And has often succeeded by chance rather than by conduct, it will be proper to shew that a distribution of parts has been attempted, which though rude and inadequate will at least preserve some order, and enable the mind to take a methodical and successive view of this design.

(several paragraphs omitted)

We therefore hope that we shall not repent the labour of compiling this work, nor flatter ourselves unreasonably, in predicting a favourable reception to a book which no condition of life can render useless, which may contribute to the advantage of all that make or receive laws, of all that buy or sell, of all that wish to keep or improve their possessions, of all that desire to be rich, and all that desire to be wise.

No. 44

44. John Wilkes. Letter on Johnson’s Dictionary. n.d. [1755-1759] Printed in The Bear and the Phoenix. Given out at the Annual Dinner of the Johnsoninas, 1978. {See Wilkes (1762).}

SIR,

How much the English Letters are indebted to Mr Samuel Johnson A. M. You will judge from the following Specimen of the Grammar prefix’d to his English Dictionary.

“H seldom, perhaps never, begins any but the first syllable, in which it is always sounded with a full breath, except in heir, herb, hostler, honour, humble, honest, humour, and their derivatives.”

The author of this remark must be a man of a quick appre-hen-sion, and compre-hensive genius; but I can never forgive his un-hand-some be-haviour to the poor knight-hood, priest-hood, and widow-hood, nor his in-humanity to all man-hood and woman-hood. I do not indeed wonder at so great a Scholar’s disregarding a maiden-head, but should he dare to treat the God-head with neglect? It be-hooves us to detect the fals-hoods of this writer, and his ad-herents; yet be-hold! his modesty keeps pace with his learning. In his Preface he says, “I have devoted this Book, the labour of years, to the honour of my country.” If this is the honour of our country, it is (to quote Milton) honour dis-honourable: But how un-happy are we in mistaking our talents! This writer might have been of real service to his country as a cow-herd, or goat-herd, or the simplicity of a shep-herd would very well become him. As a hostler, he would have encreased[sic] his little stock of science, for he would have heard all his English guests crying out to him, hostler with a strong aspiration, and never ostler. But there is, on recollection, another employment he is still fitter for: I mean that of Haberdsher of small wares; a trade which bears so great an affinity to his present business of piddling in words and syllables, that the transformation would be easier than any in the Metamorphosis; that of the nymph Charybdis into a whirlpool only excepted. In this occupation he would, in all likely-hood, leave all competitors far be-hind him; and though he says he is un-healthy, he might pursue it un-hurt, and for the most par un-hous’d – So much for this logger-head.

I am, &c.

No. 45

45. N. Drayton Thomas. “Preface.” An Abridgement of Ainsworth’s Dictionary of the Latin Tongue, 1758, pp. iii-viii.

In the English part we have likewise observed the same method, that is to say, to adopt no words but such as were either easily formed in themselves, or countenanced by good authority. Under this head we have likewise added many senses as annexed to a word, which were not given it before. We have also inserted not a few which were not before to be met with in this work, for which we appeal to the letter Z only: under all these articles, we acknowledge ourselves not a little indebted to the celebrated Mr. Johnson, whose admirable treasure of the English language we confess to have used with freedom, and we hope with improvement.

For the spelling, as the Reader may possibly think it somewhat particular in such words as end in ed and ing, (for instance, in omited and omiting) we have only this to offer in its defence, viz. that it appeared to us the truest; have always thought it an absurd custom in participles and derivatives from such words, as have only a single consonant at the end of the primitive, to double that consonant unnecessarily in the derivative. Unreasonably, notwithstanding, as this seemed, we should not have adventured so bold an innovation, but that we were countenanced herein by a gentleman, whose name, if we were permited to mention it, would be thought sufficient authority for what we have done. But though his merit neither stands in need of our pen, nor will his modesty permit us to let the publick know who we have been so greatly indebted to in the course of this work; we think it, notwithstanding, incumbent upon us to declare, that we are under obligations to him for the revisal of some of the sheets, but more especially of his assistance in drawing up the plan, upon which the present abridgement is formed. (pp. vi-vii)

No. 46

46. Joseph Baretti. ‘THE PREFACE.’ A Dictionary of the English and Italian Languages. London, 1760, pp. 3-5.

The Learners therefore may be assured that the two Grammars I here offer them are not raked together from those three works, as that of the Palermo lately published. Mine, such as they are, are intirely[sic] new. That of Mr. Samuel Johnson prefixed to his English Dictionary, and that of Buonmattei were my guides. The performances of these two accurate philosophers I have generally followed, and often translated; and as to the Italian Prosody my short attempt may perhaps be called the first of that kind; for although the Italian Nation be reputed eminently poetical, yet whatever be the reason of such strange neglect, no prosody of their language has hitherto appeared amongst them since Criticism fixed her seat in Italy. (p. 5)

No. 47

47. Daniel Fenning. The Royal English Dictionary: or, a Treasury of the English Language. London: Printed for S. Crowder, 1761, p. 3.

It frequently should, consistent with analogy, be used in the last syllables of words, which are derived to us by the medium of the French from Latin words, ending in or; thus we should spell authour, errour, honour, labour; but not as innovators, who for want of attending to the genius our language, and from an utter ignorance of our ancient writers, generally write author, error, honor, labor; for indeed the last syllable of these words is neither pronounced as if written or, or ur, but as if compounded of both those sounds. Mr. Samuel Johnson, whose works have rendered him justly esteemed, for their elegant correctness, and sublime sentiments, has endeavoured to restore this spellings, and it were to be wished, that if the analogy of our language will not strengthen his reasons, yet even fashion will give force to his example.

No. 48

48. Joseph Priestley. The Rudiments of English Grammar, adapted to the use of schools; with notes and observations, for the use of those who have made some proficiency. London, 1768. {First published in 1761.}

Grammar may be compared to a treatise of Natural Philosophy; the one consisting of observations on the various changes, combinations, and mutual affections of words; and the other on those of the parts of nature; and were the language of men as uniform as the works of nature, the grammar of language would be as indisputable in its principles as the grammar of nature. But since good authors have adopted different forms of speech, and in a case which admits of no standard but that of custom, one authority may be of as much weight as another; the analogy of language is the only thing to which we can have recourse, to adjust these differences. For language, to answer the intent of it, which is to express our thoughts with certainty in an intercourse with one another, must be fixed and consistent with itself.

By an attention to these maxims hath this grammatical performance been conducted. The best and the most numerous authorities have been carefully followed. Where they have been contradictory, recourse hath been had to analogy, as the last resource. If this should decide for neither of two contrary practices, the thing must remain undecided, till all-governing custom shall declare in favour of the one or the other.

As to a public Academy, invested with authority to ascertain the use of words, which is a project that some persons are very sanguine in their expectations from, I think it not only unsuitable to the genius of a free nation, but in itself ill calculated to reform and fix a language. We need make no doubt but that the best forms of speech will, in time, establish themselves by their own superior excellence: and, in all controversies, it is better to wait the decisions of Time, which are slow and sure, than to take those of Synods, which are often hasty and injudicous[sic]. A manufacture for which there is a great demand, and a language which many persons have leisure to read and write, are both sure to be brought, in time, to all the perfection of which they are capable. What would Academies have contributed to the perfection of the Greek and Latin languages? Or who, in those free sates, would have submitted to them?

The propriety of introducing the English grammar into English schools, cannot be disputed; a competent knowledge of our own language being both useful and ornamental in every profession, and a critical knowledge of it absolutely necessary to all persons of a liberal education. The little difficulty there is apprehended to be in the study of it, is the chief reason, I believe, why it hath been so much neglected. (p. xvii-xx)

----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- -----

The word lesser, though condemned by Mr. Johnson, and other English grammarians, is often used by good writers. The greater number frequently fly before the lesser. Smollet’s Voltaire, vol. I. P. 172. (p. 75)

I prefer the term oblique case of Dr. Johnson to objective case, which Dr. Lowth uses. (p. 102)

The auxiliary verb shall reverts to its original signification in its conditional form, when if, or any other particle expressing uncertainty, is prefixed to it. I should go, means I ought to go; but if I should go, means if it happen that I go, This observation is Mr. Johnson’s. (p. 129)

No. 50

50. Joseph Priestley. “Lecture the Twelfth. Of the Regular Growth and Corruption of Languages.” A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar. Warrington: Printed by W. Eyres, 1762, pp. 168-186.

Languages, like all other arts which owe their cultivation, if not their invention, to men, which subsist by their use of them, and are daily subject to human caprice, cannot be expected to continue long in the same state: whether ancient, or modern; whether simple, or complex in their structure, they have a kind of regular growth, improvement, and declension; and are moreover liable to many intermediate fluctuations. No internal constitution can preserve them either from the general revolutions, or the particular accidents.

The regular growth of languages proceeds from the necessity of giving names to new objects, new ideas, and new combinations of ideas; combinations existing, either in nature, or formed in the imagination. Hence the language of those nations hath ever grown copious whose situation and occasions were such as brought them acquainted with various scenes of nature, or obliged them to have recourse to the improvements of art.

The private life and policy of the Hebrews, living under an absolute monarchy, and whose religion forbad them the use of the arts of painting and statuary; and the immediate design of which was to keep them clear of all connection with neighbouring nations, was too uniform to afford them many opportunities or occasions of enlarging, or embellishing their language.

Whereas the Greeks, divided into a great number of separate communities, perpetually vying with each other in power, policy, commerce, and arts; most of the states republics, where all kind of honours and emoluments were the prize of eloquence; whose private policy abounded with such institutions as games, festivals, &c. which drew a vast concourse of people together, and where men distinguished themselves by their talents in publick speaking; where not only publick consultations were held for the general utility of Greece, but poems, and even histories, were recited in publick, could not fail giving particular attention to their language. And Athens, whose constitution was a more perfect democracy, and in other respects afforded more scope for the use of language, and where the rewards of literary excellence were more certain, and more inviting, was deemed to be in a more especial manner the feat of eloquence in Greece. The Athenians in general valued themselves upon their exquisite taste for the purity and propriety of their language, and among them the arts of oratory were held in reputation, and flourished long after polite literature was totally forgotten in every other part of Greece.

Next the Athenians, the inhabitants of the sea part towns of Asia minor, addicted to commerce, subject to frequent revolutions, and peculiarly connected with Athens, distinguished themselves for their skill in the powers of language.

Universally, in countries where there were no arts to exercise the inventive faculties of men, and to augment and diversify their stock of ideas, nor any other inducement to excel in the use of speech, language hath been very barren; and, in every respect, ill adapted to express the ideas of more cultivated minds. What the poems were that Ovid wrote in the Getic language we are not informed; but certain we may be, from the nature of things, that they must have fallen infinitely short of his Latin compositions; if not in delicacy of sentiment, at least in accuracy and ease of expression.

The progress of human life in general is from poverty to riches, and from riches to luxury, and ruin: in Architecture structures have always been at first heavy, and inconvenient, then useful and ornamental, and lastly real propriety and magnificence have been lost in superfluous decorations. Our very dress is at first plain and aukward[sic], then easy and elegant, and lastly downright fantastical. Stages of a similar nature may be observed in the progress of all human arts; and language, being liable to the same influences, hath undergone the same changes. Whenever a language hath emerged from its first rough state of nature, and hath acquired a sufficient copia of significant and harmonious terms, arbitrary and whimsical ideas of excellence have been superadded to those which wee natural and becoming, till at length the latter have been intirely sacrificed to the former.

I shall exemplify these observations by a short history of the revolutions of the Roman language. About the time of the first Punic war, when the inscription upon the Columna Rostra was written, the Latin tongue seems to have been very barbarous, and void of that regularity and harmony which it was afterwards distinguished by. In consequence of more extensive connections with foreign countries and states in consequence of the Romans having more power, wealth, and influence to contend for among themselves, and especially upon the introduction of the Grecian arts and sciences, all the chief men of the state applied themselves with indefatigable assiduity to the cultivation of their language, and in one age it arrived to all the perfection it ever attained.

In this state it continued till the dissolution of the commonwealth; after which time when little use was made of the Rostrum, and judicial proceedings took a form which left little to the pleader: when, in short, the practice of oratory did not bring along with it those honours and advantages that had formerly attended it; in those circumstances, persons addicted to letters having no occasion for the ancient manly and free eloquence, fell, though an affectation of novelty, into a number trifling and puerile refinements in style: analogies, instead of being fetched from nature, were borrowed from language itself; and verbal conceits and turns were admired for true wit and just sentiment. Afterwards, upon the irruption of northern barbarians, the language itself became mixed and adulterated as well as the taste of the writers corrupted: universal confusion was introduced, and the old Roman tongue intirely lost.

There are certain limits beyond which the growth of a language cannot extend. Whatever be the improvements in human life, and the human mind; let men’s acquaintance with the powers of nature and art be ever so extensive, their ideas and those combinations and relations of them which it will be at all convenient to express by words cannot be infinite. When, therefore, a people hath words and modifications of words sufficient for the occasions they have for the use of them, for the language to grow still more copious, and to have words and modifications to express more things and relations than they could attend to, were absurd and burthensome. Trees, in the most proper soil and climate, grow but to a certain height; and when arrived to their full size, all the redundant juices serve only to nourish various excrescences, as funguses, mosses, &c. which deform and waste them. In like manner, all the pains that we bestow upon a language, when it is sufficiently perfect for all the uses of it, serve only to disfigure it, to lessen its real value, and incumber[sic] it with useless rules and refinements, which embarrass the speaker or writer, and are of no advantage to the hearer to reader.

The time in which a language arrives at in perfection, it is natural to conjecture, will be when the people that speak it have occasion to make the greatest use of it; which will be when their power and influence abroad, and when arts, sciences and liberty at home are at the greatest height. As these grow less considerable, the language will naturally contract itself with the occasions of it, if it be not preserved by writing.

When a language is complete in all its parts, and the Grammar of it hath received its last improvement, the introduction of a few new terms, suited to casual new ideas and occurrences, and adjusted to the established rules, doth not deserve the name of an improvement in the language. We do not call an oak, that is grown to its full size, more perfect, for an additional leaf of acorn. Perhaps one intire century favourable to the polite arts may have been sufficient, in general, to bring any language to its perfection.

Before a language have acquired a sufficient number of modifications and forms of speech, different forms must necessarily be adopted by different persons: but the best forms of speech, the most commodious for use, and the most agreeable to the analogy of the language, will at length establish themselves, and become universal, by their superior excellence: and at the time that a language hath begun to be spoken and written with uniformity, it may be taken for granted, to be arrived to its maturity and perfection. For till a sufficient number of forms have become universal, different forms will occur to different persons, and the language will be written with great dissimilarity. The English language, in particular, cannot be said to have been fixed till about the reign of queen Ann. Before that time, every writer adopted what words he thought proper from foreign tongues; only a small part of them have since that period been in use; but they are now perfectly incorporated with the language, and our most licentious writers of any reputation are very sparing in introducing others.

In general, those writings which have contributed to fix a language are deemed classical in a country, and a studied imitation of them by succeeding writers tends still more to promote a perfect uniformity in writing.

The progress of a language towards perfection may be considerably accelerated by the labours of persons who give their attention to it; if they study the analogy of the language, recommend phrases that are agreeable to it, and detect and expose those that are improper. While literary critics keep within these bounds, and their opinions are left to recommend themselves by their own weight, they do a very important service to a language: but when their decisions have the sanction of any authority, and forms of speech are adopted because recommended by them, and not on account of the reasons that might be alledged[sic] in their favour, since all men, and all bodies of men, are fallible, the interposition of their authority is in danger of contributing to establish phrases and constructions, which the more mature judgment of after ages would see reason to correct; and though the spirit of men will assert their liberty, in rejecting what they do not approve, such undue influence may keep a language much longer in an imperfect state than it otherwise would have been.

All the real service that any men, or bodies of men, can do to a language, is to analyze it into its parts, to show distinctly what are the materials and composition of it, and thereby make the whole structure of it perfectly understood. For when, by the judicious disposition of every thing belonging to a language, all its analogies are seen at one view, it will presently appear what it redundant, deficient, or ambiguous, in the words or construction of it.

Before an improvement can be made of any thing its present powers must be perfectly known. Before we can improve upon Nature, by an artificial combination of its powers, the laws of nature must be understood; and they are only to be understood by a careful observation of what doth in fact take place in consequence of them. A digest of these observations makes a system of natural philosophy.

In like manner, to improve upon a language, observations must be made upon the manner in which words are actually used in it. A methodical enumeration of the rules and laws of its construction is the Grammar of it; as a Dictionary is that which contains all the words of a language, and an account of all in the senses in which they are used. If the language be a dead one, the remains only of the writers of it can be made use of; if it be a living one, the forms of conversation must not be wholly overlooked. In the former case, no innovations can be made. Those who wrote in the language while it was a living one will be accounted the standards of it, and even their imperfections must be adopted by all who use it after them; unless (as hath been thought of with respect to some of the dead languages) mankind should agree to form a more perfect and philosophical language out of the remains of it: in which case, it could no longer be considered as a dead, but as a revived and living language.

In modern and living languages, it is absurd to pretend to set up the compositions of any person or persons whatsoever as the standard of writing, or their conversation as the invariable rule of speaking. With respect to customs, laws, and every thing that is changeable, the body of a people, who, in this respect, cannot but be free, will certainly assert their liberty, in making what innovations they judge to be expedient and useful. The general prevailing custom, where ever it happen to be, can be the only standard for the time that it prevails. And in a case that admits of no authority to controul[sic] a man’s actions, it is in vain to pretend that any person may not attempt to introduce whatever he thinks to be an improvement. Indeed the fear of becoming ridiculous is sufficient to prevent, many very extravagant and absurd proposals.

The chief thing to be attended to in the improvement of a language is the analogy of it. The most consistent are its principles, the more it is of a piece with itself, the more commodious it will be for use: and it cannot be looked upon as any great or alarming innovation, merely to disuse some constructions that clash with others, and to confine ones self to one sense of any single word or phrase.

The immense and valuable performance of Mr. Johnson’s contains an account of almost all the senses in which all the words of the English language are used: and it is very possible, from little more than the examples he hath given from our best writers of the use of every word in every sense, to compose a grammar of all the varieties of manner in which words are used, both as to their inflection and disposition, which together with the dictionary, would be a complete system of our language as now used.

Merely to drop what, from a view of such a system, were apparently useless and inconvenient, would make the language as perfect as the general nature of it would admit. To introduce into it all that, upon the same view, would appear to be wanting to it, might seem too great an innovation; to alter its nature, and character, and make another language: and if it were thought necessary to form a new language, it were better to begin from the first, upon the most philosophical principles, than take for the foundation of it any of the imperfect languages now in use.

No. 51

51. Robert Lowth. ‘PREFACE.’ A Short Introduction to English Grammar: with Critical Notes. London: Printed for A. Millar and R. And J. Dodsley, 1762, pp. i-xv.

The English Language hath been much cultivated during the last two hundred years. It hath been considerably polished and refined; it hath been greatly enlarged in extent and compass; its force and energy, its variety, richness, and elegance, have been tried with good success, in verse and in prose, upon all subjects, and in every kind of stile: but whatever other improvements it may have received, it hath made no advances in Grammatical accuracy.

It is now about fifty years since Doctor Swift made a public remonstrance, addressed to the Earl of Oxford, then Lord Treasure, of the imperfect State of our Language; alledging in particular, “that in many instances it offended against every part of Grammar.” Swift must be allowed to have been a good judge of this matter. He was himself very attentive to this part, both in his own writings, and in his remarks upon those of his friends: he is one of our most correct, and perhaps our very best prose writer. Indeed the justness of this complaint, as far as I can find, hath never been questioned; and yet no effectual method hath hitherto been taken to redress the grievance of which he complains.

But let us consider, how, and in what extent, we are to understand this charge brought against the English Language. Does it mean, that the English Language as it is spoken by the politest part of the nation, and as it stands in the writings of our most approved authors, oftentimes offends against every part of Grammar? Thus far, I am afraid, the charge is true. Or does it further imply, that our Language is in its nature irregular and capricious; not subject, or not easily reduceable, to a System of rules? In this respect, I am persuaded, the charge is wholly without foundation.

The English Language is perhaps of all the present European Languages by much the most simple in its form and construction. Of all the ancient Languages extant that is the most simple, which is undoubtedly the most ancient: but even that Language itself does not equal the English in simplicity.

(one paragraph omitted)

It is not owing then to any peculiar irregularity or difficulty of our Language, that the general practice both of speaking and writing it is chargeable with inaccuracy. It is not the Language, but the practice, that is in fault. The truth is, Grammar is very much neglected among us: and it is not the difficulty of the Language, but on the contrary the simplicity and facility of it, that occasions this neglect. Were the Language less easy and simple, we should find ourselves under a necessity of studying it with more care and attention. But as it is, we take it for granted, that we have a competent knowledge and skill, and are able to acquit ourselves properly, in our own native tongue: a faculty solely acquired by use, conducted by habit, and tried by the ear, carries us on without reflection; we meet with no rubs or difficulties in our way, or we do not perceive them; we find ourselves able to go on without rules, and we do not so much as suspect that we stand in need of them.

(two paragraphs omitted)

The principal design of a Grammar of any Language is to each us to express ourselves with propriety in that Language, and to be able to judge of every phrase and form of construction, whether it be right or not. The plain way of doing this, is to lay down rules, and to illustrate them by examples. But besides shewing what is right, the matter may be further explained by pointing out what is wrong. I will not take upon me to say, whether we have any Grammar that sufficiently performs the first part: but the latter method here called in, as subservient to the former, may perhaps be found in this case to be of the two the more useful and effectual manner of instruction.

Besides this principal design of Grammar in our own Language, there is a secondary use to which it may be applied, and which, I think, is not attended to as it deserves. A good foundation in the General Principles of Grammar is in the first place necessary for all those who are initiated in a learned education; and for all others likewise, who shall have occasion to furnish themselves with the knowledge of modern languages. Universal Grammar cannot be taught abstractedly: it must be done with reference to some language already known, in which the terms to be explained, and the rules exemplified. The learner is supposed to be unacquainted with all but his own native tongue; and in what other, consistently with reason and common sense, would you go about to explain it to him? When he has a competent knowledge of the main principles, the common terms, the general rules, the whole subject and business of Grammar, exemplified in his own Language; he then will apply himself with great advantage to any foreign language, whether ancient or modern. To enter at once upon the Science of Grammar, and the Study of a foreign Language, is to encounter two difficulties together, each of which would be much lessened by being taken separately and in its proper order. For these plain reasons a competent Grammatical knowledge of our own Language is the true foundation upon which all Literature, properly so called, ought to be raised. If this method were adopted in our Schools; if children were first taught the common principles of Grammar by some short and clear System of English Grammar, which happily by is simplicity and facility is perhaps of all others the fittest for such a purpose, they would have some notion of what they were going about, when they should enter into the Latin Grammar; and would hardly be engaged so many years, as they now are, in that most irksome and difficult part of literature, with so much labour of the memory, and with so little assistance of the understanding.

A design somewhat of this kind gave occasion to the following little System, intended merely for a private and domestic use. The chief end of it was to explain the general principles of Grammar as clearly and intelligibly as possible. In the Definitions therefore easiness and perspicuity have been sometimes prefered[sic] to logical exactness. The common Divisions have been complied with, as far as truth and reason could permit. The known and received Terms have been retained, except in one of two instances, where others offered themselves, which seemed much more significant. All disquisitions, which appeared to have more of subtilty[sic] than of usefulness in them, have been avoided. In a word, it was calculated for the use of the Learner even of the lowest class. Those, who would enter more deeply into this Subject, will find it fully and accurately handled, with the greatest acuteness of investigation, perspicuity of explication, and elegance of method, in a Treatise intitled Hermes, by James Harris Esq; he most beautiful and perfect example of Analysis that has been exhibited since the days of Aristotle.

The following short System is proposed only as an Essay, upon a Subject, tho’ of little esteem, yet of no small importance; and in which the want of something better adapted to real use and practice, than what we have at present, seems to be generally acknowledged. If those, who are qualified to judge of such matters, and do not look upon them as beneath their notice, shall so far approve of it, as to think it worth a revisal, and capable of being improved into something really useful; their remarks and assistance, communicated through the hands of the Bookseller, shall be received with all proper deference and acknowledgement.

No. 52

52. Thomas Sheridan. A Dissertation on the Causes of the Difficulties, Which occur, in Learning the English Tongue. With a Scheme for Publishing an English Grammar and Dictionary, upon a Plan entirely New. London: Printed fro R. And J. Dodsley, Mr. Davies, and Mr. Henderson, 1762, 36pp. {No mention is made of Johnson or his dictionary.}

It is a truth well known, that when a foreigner arrives in London, and enquries for a master to teach him the language of the Country, there is no such person to be found; nor is there any method open to him, by which he may be assisted, in attaining a just manner of speaking English.

This is not the case in the more Southern Countries of Europe, such as Italy, France, and Spain; where foreigners may be taught to speak the respective tongues of those countries, with the utmost propriety, by skilful masters, with the aid of proper grammar and dictionaries.

On this account it is, that the English are still classed by the people of those countries, amongst the more rude, and scarcely civilized nations of the North. They affix the term of barbarism to this country, in the same manner as the Greeks did to the rest of the world; and on the same principle, on account of the neglect of regulating and polishing our speech. It was on that account chiefly that the Greeks looked down upon the rest of the world with contempt; nor did they make any distinction between the Romans their conquerors, and other nations, including them under the common denomination of Barbarians; till the Romans, by a like application to the culture of their language, became their rivals in that article, and have had their names ever since joined to them, in contradistinction to all other nations of antiquity.

And indeed, a neglect of their speech, is not only a characteristical mark of barbarism in all nations, but the sure means of continuing them in that state; as on the contrary, the regulation and refinement of language is a necessary step towards introducing politeness. It is therefore much to be wished, for the honour, as well as interest of this country, that an article of such importance, should no longer be so shamefully neglected.

The great difficulty of the English tongue lies in the pronunciation; an exactness in which, after all the pains they can take, is found to be unattainable, not only by foreigners, but Provincials. The chief cause of this, has been the want of method in teaching it, by a well digested system of rules. Some of our grammarians indeed, begin their work with a definition, that would lead us to expect a regular treatise on this subject. They set out with telling us that grammar consists of two parts, Orthoёpy, or the just manner of pronouncing; and Orthography, or the just manner of writing words. So that they define grammar, to be the art of teaching people to speak, and write correctly, according to the custom of those whose language we learn. But after they have made this distinction, they scarce take any farther notice of orthoёpy, and their whole pains are employed about the other article, orthography. They were deterred from that part of the work by the immense difficulty of the undertaking; and as there never has been any publick encouragement to such a work, either by societies, or Royal munificence, (means which produced the regulation and refinement of their several tongues in neighbouring countries,) there has been no one hardy enough to engage in the task, upon a precarious prospect of reward.

This is the task on which I am now employed; to restore the first, and noblest part of grammar, to its just rank and power; and to reduce the other to its due state of subordination: to make the spoken language, as it ought to be, the archetype; of which, the written language should be considered only as the type.

(two paragraphs omitted)

(three charts of vowels omitted)

(one paragraph omitted)

(chart of consonants omitted)

(one paragraph omitted)

Words written, may be considered two ways; either as types of sounds, which stand for ideas; or, immediate types of ideas, without any reference to sound. Deaf men can consider them only in the latter light: To those who have the organs of hearing, they may stand in both, or either.

When written words are considered only as the types of sounds, in order to make them correspond to their arcdhe-types, the four following rules should be strictly observed:

1. No character should be set down in any word, which is not pronounced.

2. Every distinct simple sound, should have a distinct character to mark it; for which, it should uniformly stand.

3. The same character should never be set down, as the representative of two different sounds.

4. All compound sounds, should be marked only by such characters, as will naturally, and necessarily produce those sounds, upon being properly pronounced, in the order in which they are placed.

(seven paragraphs omitted)

Whilst the dispute between the opposite parties remains unsettled, it is impossible that the part of the confusion, which is occasioned by it, can be removed; and if, upon adjusting the difference between them, the remedy would offer itself, and were within reach, nothing would be so easy as to shew that all the arguments advanced by the advocates for derivation, however specious at first view, are, in reality, to the last degree weak and frivolous; and have taken their rise wholly from a partial and mistaken view of the end and use of written language. And on the other hand, it might be demonstrated, by more cogent arguments than any hitherto used, that the advocates for spelling according to pronunciation, are engaged in a just cause; which they know not how to defend, from want of a full comprehension of the subject; and that they have failed of their end, by endeavouring to use means, which are utterly inadequate to the attainment of it. But as the settling this point would only clear the way for alleviating a small part of the disease, whose source lies deeper, in the very vitals, in the alphabet itself; I shall not waste my time in examining the branching streams, but go at once to the fountain head.

(several paragraphs omitted)

Indeed any design of that sort must prove to the last degree impracticable, and consequently fail o fits end. Nor could a thought of this kind enter into the head of any one, who knows that the whole power of a Roman Emperor, was in vain exerted, to introduce a single letter into ther[sic] alphabet, the Æolic digramma; though such a character was confessedly wanting. But in the present scheme it is not proposed that there should be the least change in our alphabet, or alteration made in the mode of writing or spelling English. The object of it is, to fix such a standard of pronunciation, by means of visible marks, that it may be in the power of every one, to acquire an accurate manner of uttering every word in the English tongue, by applying to that standard. In order to this, the author of this scheme proposes to publish a Dictionary, in which the true pronunciation, of all the words in our tongue, shall be pointed out by visible and accurate marks. To effect this, one column shall exhibit the words in alphabetical order as they are written, or spelt; and in another column, opposite to each word shall be marked its just pronunciation. The principle upon which this is performed is the simplest that can be conceived. Any one of moderate capacity may in an hour’s time make himself master of the marks, and then he can no more mistake the pronunciation, than they who are acquainted with the notes, can mistake in reading music; or with the points, in reading Hebrew.

To this Dictionary shall be prefixed a Rhetorical Grammar, upon the following plan:

1st, The number of simple sounds in the English tongue shall be ascertained. Such as have no peculiar letters in our alphabet to represent them shall be pointed out, and have proper marks assigned to them to distinguish them in writing, and proper names in speaking of them.

2dly, All such simple sound as are peculiar to the English shall be pointed out; and the difference in that respect between ours, the French, Italian, Spanish, and German, severally shewn. The manner in which those sounds are formed shall be manifested; and a method laid down whereby masters may speedily teach Foreigners to pronounce those sounds, ad to make them familiar to the organs, so as to be uttered with ease.

3dly, The number of our double sounds or dipthongs[sic] (an article in which the grossest mistakes have been committed) shall be ascertained; the manner of their formation, and the particular vowels whereof each is compounded, shall be made evident.

4thly, Syllables shall be treated of, and particularly such combinations of letters in syllables, as are peculiar to our tongue, and the manner of sounding them, shall be shewn, and made easy. Under this head also shall be contained such combinations of letters in writing, as produced different sounds in utterance, in any of the above-mentioned languages, from what they do in ours.

5thly, Our manner of uniting syllables so as to form words shall be considered, and of distinguishing those syllables from each other in pronunciation, shewing what letters are kept together, and what separated in utterance; often erroneously marked in our grammars and spelling books, whose authors have divided their syllables, by rules that have no refaced to pronunciation. Under this head will be laid open the nature and use of our accent, that grand master-key to the pronunciation of our tongue, whose nature has hitherto been little understood, or grosly[sic] mistaken. This is evidently shewn in our dictionaries, where the accent is invariably placed over the vowel of the accented syllable. Now nothing is of more moment in our tongue than to know when the accent is on the vowel, and when on the consonant. By placing it constantly over the vowel, there is a rule of error established, which must infallibly mislead Provincials and Foreigners, in the pronunciation of all words, where the accent ought to be on the consonant. (...)

(two paragraphs omitted)

Such a grammar and dictionary will lay the foundation for regulating and refining our speech, till it is brought to the degree of perfection whereof in its nature it is capable; and afterwards of fixing it in that state to perpetuity, by a sure and settled standard. For tho’ in a living tongue changes are not to be prevented, whilst any plausible colour can be given that such changes are made for the better; yet, after the general rules of analogy shall have been laid open, all alterations hereafter will be made in conformity to those rules, in order to render our language more regular and complete. Nor will novelty or caprice, (the sources of fashion); or partial views of the constitution of our tongue, have it in their power to innovate as usual; for the rising generation, preinstructed in the true genius of our tongue, and the rules by which it ought to be governed, will oppose any attempts in individuals, to introduce changes not made in conformity to those rules. And such alterations only, as shall be by common suffrage by judged necessary to promote order and regularity in our tongue, will, by common suffrage, be admitted.

When a certain standard of pronunciation is in every one’s hands, men in general will find the befit of it too great, readily to admit any alteration but such as shall appear absolutely necessary. Thus will our language be resumed from the worst of evils, a continual fluctuation, in which state it has been from the time of the Saxons to this day.

Upon examination it will be found, that the pronunciation of our tongue has in general been formed upon the best principle in the world. Luckily for us the pedants bore no sway in settling that part of our language; which province, by the power of fashion, sell to the lot of people of education at Court: Who having no biass[sic] of particular or partial rules to misguide them, were governed by one general rule, the very best by which the pronunciation of any tongue could be regulated, which was that of gradually changing the sounds of words, from those which were most difficult, to those which were most easily uttered by the organs of speech. And as it is an indisputable truth, that the sounds which are most easily uttered by the organs of speech, are most pleasing to the organ of hearing, it must be granted, that this is the very best rule by which the pronunciation of any language could be formed. Upon this principle, the pronunciation of English, as used by people of the bet taste at court, is so perfect, that there are few, of our words, capable of improvement in that respect. And this is a good reason for seizing this juncture to fix that pronunciation by a settled standard, in order to make it permanent.

(three paragraphs omitted)

No. 53

53. [John Wilkes.] The North Briton, No. 12 (August 21, 1762) {Attack on the Dictionary and the pension, following that in the North Briton No. 12 (August 12, 1762).}

Sir,

I do not know in any controversy so sure a method of coming at truth (which is always　the pretence, though so seldom the real object of modern enquiries) as a just and strict definition of all the words and phrases of any importance, which are afterwards to be in use. This practice is universal, excepting only in theological and political controversy. If I take up a book of mathematics, the writer defines in the very first page, what a triangle, a circle, or a trapezium is; and then argues closely from the precise and accurate ideas of each, which the author and reader have previously settled. A book of fortification as regularly sets out with explaining to me what a bastion, a demi-lune, or a horn-work is. I have read much religious controversy; for unhappily there is as little agreement between the ministers of the gospel, as between the ministers of state. I do not however remember to have found in any of our divines a satisfactory definition of faith, free will, or predestination. We are not yet arrived at the same accuracy, with respect to the meaning of these words, as of a circle or a square. The same remark will hold true in political controversy. Who has with any precision defined the words faction or patriot? The word favourite alone we have of late pretty fully understood the force of – both from the definitions of the Monitor and of the North Briton : yet give me leave to say, Sir, that neither of you have reached the force and closeness of expression in the great lexicographer, Mr. Johnson, who defines a favourite to be a mean wretch, whose whole business is by any means to please. But whether the word has been well defined or not, in former periods of the English history, the effect of it has been very fully felt, and even at this hour it is never uttered but with the most unjust passion and ill-founded resentment, as if the nation was now smarting from the sad consequences of its reality, and exertion in pride and insolence.

The word pension likewise has of late much puzzled our politicians. I do not recollect that any one of them has ventured at a definition of it. Mr. Johnson, as he is now a pensioner, one should naturally have recourse to, for the truest literary information on this subject. His definition then of a pension is, an allowance made to any one, without an equivalent. In England it is generally understood to mean pay given to a state hireling for treason to his country. And under the word pensioner we read, 1. one who is supported by an allowance paid at the will of another : a dependant. 2. a slave of state, hired by a stipend to obey his master. But with submission to so great a prodigy of learning, I should think both definitions very erroneous. Is the said Mr. Johnson a dependant? or is he a slave of state, hired by a stipend to obey his master? There is, according to hi, no alternative. Is his pension understood to be pay given him as a state hireling for treason to his country? Whoever gave it him, must then have read London, a Poem, &c. &c. and must have mistaken all his distant hints and dark allusions. As Mr. Johnson therefore has, I think, failed in this account, may I, after so great an authority, venture at a short definition of so intricate a word? A pension then I would call an annual reward from the Prince for services performed, or expected to be performed, to the country. Let us consider the celebrated Mr. Johnson, and a few other late pensioners, in this light.

(one paragraph omitted)

There are fair extracts from the celebrated English Dictionary, which was presented by a noble Lord in such pomp to the Academy della Crusca. It will give the country of the old Romans the justest ideas of English liberty, and of the present patrons of it among us, who have so liberally rewarded the author. But the literati of Italy will not only find the work an excellent literary dictionary, but a complete system of English politics and history, and every thing recorded in the manly stile of old Rome. As we have had our tyrants as well as they, a Roman spirit has rose against them here, and, as it ever will, has bore down all before it. The expulsion of the Tarquins is not told by any old Roman historian in more animated language, and more glowing words, than the expulsion of the inveterate enemies of liberty, the whole race of the Stuarts. Mr. Johnson says, the Revolution is the change produced by the admission of King William and Queen Mary. What noble words! what a bold glowing expression! I should not have dwelt so long upon Mr. Johnson’s literary merit, if I did not believe that his writings had done more real service to the family on the throne, than any man’s – excepting only Mr. Secretary Murray’s; another name sacred to George and Liberty.

No. 54

54. John Ash. ‘THE PREFACE.’ Grammatical Institutes; or, An Easy Introduction to Dr. Lowth’s English Grammar, designed for the use of Schools. 4th edition, London: Printed for E. And D. Dilly, 1763, pp. iii-vi.

The Importance of an English Education is now pretty well understood; and it is generally acknowledged, that, not only for Ladies, but for young Gentlemen designed merely for Trade, an intimate Acquaintance with the Proprieties, and Beauties of the English Tongue, would be a very desirable, and necessary Attainment; far preferable to a Smattering of the learned Languages.

But then, it has been supposed, even by Men of Learning, that the English tongue is too vague, and untractable to be reduced to any certain Standard, or Rules of Construction; and that a competent Knowledge of it cannot be attained without an Acquaintance with the Latin.

This vulgar Error, for so I beg Leave to call it, might perhaps arise from a too partial fondness for the Latin, in which, about two Centuries ago, we had the Service of the Church, the Translation of the Bible, and most other Books, few, of any Value, being then extant in our Mother Tongue.

But now the Case is happily altered. Nor do I think the Error above-mentioned would have been so long indulged under the Blessings of the Reformation, had it not been for the many fruitless Attempts, which have been made, to fix the Grammatical Construction of the English Tongue.

Many Gentlemen, who have written on this Subject, have too inconsiderately adopted various Distinctions of the learned Languages, which have no Existence in our own: Many, on the other hand, convinced of this Impropriety, have been too brief, at least, too general in their Definitions, and Rules, running into the quite opposite Extreme: And most of them, I think, have too much neglected the Peculiarities of the Language on which they wrote.

These Considerations have induced me to suffer the following little Manual to appear amongst my Friends, in the Manner it now does. How far it may answer the End proposed I must leave them to determine. If it has any Merit, it must be found in Conciseness, Conection[sic], and Application to eh proper Genius of our Mother Tongue.

No. 55

55. John Bartholomew Rogler. (Title Page) A Dictionary: English, German and French. Third edition. Leipzig: Printed for John Frederick Gleditsch, 1763.　{“Herr Rogler...has given a Dictionary, German and English, which is properly a translation of the Dictionary of Mr. Samuel Johnson, as he says in his title page. But from the unlucky inclination to be voluminous, which is so remarkable in Germans, he has enriched it forsooth with 3000 words taken from others, so that he has amassed all the rubbish which Mr. Johnson has with so much judicious care kept out of his Book.” (J. Boswell, A Tour through the Courts of German. Private Papers...from Malahide Castle. Ed. By G. Scott and F. A. Pottle, 1928-34, III, 119-120.)}

A Dictionary, English, German and French, Containing not only The English Words in their Alphabetical Order, together with their several Significations; but also their Proper Accent, Phrases, Figurative Speeches, Idioms, and Proverbs, by Mr. Christian Ludwig. Now carefully revised, corrected, and throughout augmented with more than 12000 words, taken out of Samuel Johnson’s English Dictionary and others, by John Bartholomew Rogler., A. M.

No. 56

56. M. Bayley (?). ‘PREFACE.’ An Universal Etymological Dictionary of the English Language. To which is prefixed, A Grammar of the English Language. Edinburgh: Printed for the Proprietors, 1764, pp. iii-iv. {This is presumed to be a pirated edition of N. Bailey’s dictionary. However, it is very interesting to think highly of Johnson, without referring to N. Bailey at all.}

The study of languages is a matter of so important in itself, so useful to mankind, and so essential in the various branches of literature, that men of the greatest genius and most distinguished abilities have applied themselves with the utmost assiduity to the cultivation of it. This has given rise to a vast number of dictionaries of the most considerable dead and living languages; and as these have been published at different times, every succeeding work has been useful for correcting the mistakes, and supplying the defects of that which preceded it.

The English language is now arrived at its greatest perfect, may justly vie with any living language in the world, and is become the study and admiration of the literati in foreign part. It is certain, that the French, though now spoken in every court of Europe, falls far short of it, with regard to conciseness, purity, and strength of expression, and its peculiar suitableness for every species of sublime and elegant writing, as well as its being remarkably adapted to convey the free and manly sentiments of British subjects. The study of this noble and graceful language ought therefore to be cultivated with the warmest zeal, and the pure fountains of it, the learned and elaborate treatises of such of our countrymen as have excelled in accuracy and purity of diction, carefully perused, in order to discover the different meanings in which the words of our language are used. By this means, as Mr. Johnson justly observes, the reader who knows the different periods of the language, and the time of its authors, may judge of the elegance and prevalence of any word, or meaning of a word; and may know what are antiquated, what are unusual, and what are recommended by the best authority. And it is no small honour to North Britain, that it has of late furnished several literary productions, that are universally allowed to be of equal merit, with the best of those compiled by our brethren in the southern part of the island.

Of late years several dictionaries of the English language have appeared; all of which have been favourably received by the public, and the merit of most of them is confessed: but none of them comparable to that large and elaborate dictionary published, in 1755, by Mr. Samuel Johnson, who with indefatigable industry has, from the best authorities, corrected the mistakes, retrenched the superfluities, and supplied the defects of those who went before him, and considerably increased the number of words.

In compiling the following work, we have carefully selected every thing valuable to be found in former dictionaries; and as Mr Johnson’s plan is certainly the best, we have conformed more to it than to any other.

(four paragraphs omitted)

No. 57

57. William Kenrick. A Review of Dr. Johnson’s New Edition of Shakespeare... London: Printed for J. Payne, 1765, 133pp.

The note contained in this page [sc. Vol. I. Page 17.] is so far a good one, as it is necessary and proper to give the reader an idea of the system of enchantment, on which the plot and machinery of the play is conducted. I should therefore have passed it over an unexceptionable, had it come from any other pen than that of Dr. Jonson. But as the world hath been pleased very publickly to impute sentiments to him, which seem incongruous with those he here professes, I cannot pass it over without some little animadversion. The incongruity I mean lies here : the Doctor, I have been frequently informed, very religiously believes in the existence of ghosts and apparitions ; although he here strongly insinuates that there never was any such thing practised as witchcraft. But if he believes the story of the witch of Endor, and that the ghost of Samuel appeared to Saul, as doubtless he does, he must believe in the exercise of witchcraft, and also in its power over departed spirits. For, though some divines maintain that it was the devil who appeared in the form of Samuel, and not the ghost of Samuel himself : yet, as Dr. Johnson, in the note before us, adopts the distinction made by king James in his demonology, viz. that an enchanter is one who commands the devil, whereas the witch only serves him, he cannot be allowed to shelter himself under the opinion of those learned theologues. (pp. 4-5)

----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- -----

I wish our editor had given his reason for restoring the former reading, against the authority of all the later editions. He will say perhaps they are of no authority, as Theobald did of the editions of Rowe and Pope. But reason and authority seem in this case to be so much at variance, that I am apprehensive our editor will go near to be thought authority-mad, at least by many, for making this restoration without assigning the motive for it. Madness hath been, with propriety, called a fever of the mind, by writers of all ages and countries ; and it is at best a pleonasm, o r apiece of tautology, of Ariel to say, they played tricks of desperation, after he had said they were seized with madness. Perhaps our editor might think there was an impropriety, in saying that a soul felt a fever of the mind. But, not to stand upon the philosophical distinction that might justly be made between the mind and the soul. He cannot be ignorant that the word soul is here used in the vulgar and popular sense, as a man, a person. Will he persist in thinking it a sufficient reason for abiding by the old copies, that the transcribers and compositors could read? The same plea might be argued for perpetuating a number of blunders committed in the present edition. Admitting also, after all, that the oldest copes are likely to be most authentic, and that such reading, if erroneous, could not thus pass through successive editions ; yet I will undertake, in behalf of Shakespeare, to affirm, that he did not write the above sentence, as it now stands in the text. The commentators on Shakespeare are all very liberal in their declarations against the ungrammaticalness of his stile. Now I will not here contend, whether he always wrote grammatically or not ; but this I will maintain, that he always wrote idiomatically ; if he did not always write grammar, he always wrote English. (pp. 5-6)

No. 58

58. A Friend (R. R.) ‘SECT. II. Reasons for the Reviewer’s having a less exalted opinion of Dr. J’s abilities than has been entertained by the publick in general.’ A Defence of Mr. Kenrick’s Review of Dr. Johnson’s Shakespeare: Containing a number of curious and ludicrous anecdotes of literary biography. London: Printed for S. Bladon, 1766, pp. 5-11.

CONTENTS.

Sect. I. Introductory.

Sect. II Reasons for the Reviewer’s having a less exalted opinion of Dr. J’s abilities than has been entertained by the publick in general.

Sect. III. Questions offered to Dr. Johnson’s friends, respecting some curious anecdotes of the life and literary conduct of that gentleman.

Sect. IV. Whether Dr. J. deserves better treatment than he has received; and how far Mr. K. Is excusable in having so treated him

Sect. V. Specimens of the literary abilities and candour of the Critical Reviewers, occasionally exercised on the writings of Mr. K and particularly on his Review of Dr. J’s Shakespeare.

SECT. VI. Of the ingenuousness, impartiality, and urbanity of Sylvanus Urban, Gent. regarding the writings of Mr. K. and particularly his Review of Dr. Johnson’s Shakespeare.

SECT. VII. Remarks on the strictures of the Candid Reviewers, and the others volunteer criticks that have taken upon them to abuse the Reviewer of Dr. J’s Shakespeare.

SECT. VIII. On the modesty of men of letters.

SECT. IX. On literary knowledge; with some remarks on ignorance and inattention.

POSTSCRIPT. Addressed to the Monthly Reviewers.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The Reviewer, it seems, had been some years abroad, when he first heard of the publication of Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary ; a work of which he had formed the highest expectations from the supposed abilities and great reputation of its author. At the same time, being apprehensive that his own application to the use of foreign languages might, in some measure, corrupt that of his native tongue, he procured Dr. J’s apparently elaborate performance, in order to correct both his memory and judgment, as either might occasionally fail him. Having thus, during an interval of several years, had more frequent occasions to consult an English dictionary, than possibly would have happened to him in any other situation, he could not fail of being greatly surprised and disappointed at the many palpable and gross mistakes which had escaped this celebrated lexicographer. He was not so unreasonable to expect, indeed, that, in a work of such extent, a number of trivial, and perhaps some important errors, should not escape the most attentive and industrious compiler. He could neither expect, however, nor overlook such an amazing number of blunders and inconsistencies in etymology, orthoepy, idiom and grammatical construction, as were to be found in a work, which was boasted of as a capital undertaking, and recommended to foreigners as a standard of the English language.

He would have been careless of the honour, and wanting to the literature of his country*, had he not every where taken a proper occasion, therefore, to speak of the defects and imperfections of Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary. At the same time, that he might not be thought to depreciate the labours of another, without sufficient cause, he amused himself occasionally with forming a table of errata to that performance, intending some time or other to offer it to the proprietors; and, in case of their refusal to accept it, to lay it before the publick.

The Reviewer’s list of errors was pretty copious when he returned to England ; since when, having applied more closely to literature matters, he hath increased it almost tenfold, and that by no means to the honour of Dr. Johnson’s boasted erudition and profound knowledge of the English tongue.

This detection of the Lexicographer induced the Reviewer to make a closer examination, than he had before done, into the compositions of the writer ; in which were found the same traces of inattention to the idiom of our tongue, and of his imperfect acquaintance with other modern languages. In the mean time, he was found to be eternally aiming at the introduction of Latinisms, and other vicious modes of expression, by way of enriching our tongue; but thereby corrupting it, as he himself says of Shakespeare, ‘by almost every mode of depravation.’

In his productions of imagination, his invention appeared weak and languid. It exerted itself, indeed, now and then with tolerable success in a dream or vision ; but it was hardly ever wide awake, without seeming fatigued with its efforts toward vigility, and involuntarily dropping into a doze again. As to his works of knowledge and judgment, there appeared hardly any trace of the author’s acquaintance with the sciences in any of his writings ; nay, even his pretended profundity in morals, and the knowledge of mankind, seemed to the Reviewer nothing more than a quaint and affected exhibition of the trite observations and hackney’d reflections of others.

* Especially as he observed that succeeding dictionary-writers, both abroad and at home, implicitly adopted the most egregious errors on the authority of Johnson. Sufficient proof of this may be had by an examination of Bailey’s Dictionary, improved by Scott; Baretti’s Italian and English Dictionary, and others. (pp. 6-8)

No. 59

59. Archibald Campbell. Lexiphanes, a Dialogue. Imitated from Lucian, and suited to the present Times. Being an attempt to restore the English Tongue to its ancient Purity, and to correct, as well as expose, the affected Style, hard Words, and absurd Phraseology of many late Writers, and particularly of Our English Lexiphanes, the Rambler. 1767. London: J. Knox.

Nor can you be indifferent about the language of your native country, that country you love so much, of which you are so bright an ornament, and whose excellent constitution you have illustrated, explained and defended, both in your publick and private capacity with so great zeal and success. But, my Lord, the Ramblers of Mr. J----n, who has, besides the advantage of being author of, what is believed, the only Grammar and Dictionary we yet have, not to mention many works of others, all in the same strain, and much applauded and sought after, are proposed with great confidence to the publick, not only by the man himself, but by his numerous followers and admirers, as the best model of writing, and the only standard of purity and elegance in the English tongue; and what is worse, are actually thought to be so by nine readers of ten in the nation. Hence the question plainly comes to this result. Whether we shall continue to write and speak the language transmitted down to us by our ancestors, who have hardly derived more honour to their country, from their numberless victories obtained, and gallant exploits performed in every quarter of the globe, than from their inimitable writings in every branch of science and literature; or whether we shall adopt, I will not say a new language, but a barbarous jargon, attempted to be imposed upon us, by a few School-masters and Pedants, who owe all their credit to their petulance and impudence, who are equally ignorant of books and men, and who think they have done a fine thing when they have tack’d an English termination to a Latin word, and have huddled together a parcel of quaint unmeaning phrases, whose only effect is to make the stupid reader stare, and cry ‘’tis mighty fine. (pp. xxi-xxiii)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Now, whoever considers the definition of oats, given by Lexiphanes in his dictionary, and quoted in page 23d of this dialogue, cannot conceive any thing to be meant by Consumers of Oats, in the general and comprehensive sense of the expression, other than English horses or mares, and Scotch men or women. ’Tis certain, a foreigner who studies our language grammatically, and who must naturally look upon this work of our renown’d Lexicographer, as the standard of our tongue, and have recourse to it, in order to learn the strength and idiom, and peculiar meaning and energy of our words and phrases; ’tis certain, I say, that such a person, in such a case, could understand nothing else by it. What then must he think of the above advertisement? will he not naturally conclude, that ’tis an ordinary thing in London, for Horses and Scotch men to meet at a tavern, like friends and acquaintances, over a bottle; to appoint committees, out of their respective bodies, to consult together on their special affairs; and jointly to address such a venerable society as their worships, the Justices, about their nearest and most important concern, namely, the price of Oats, their common food.

Ambiguities of this kind, which may be productive of very troublesome mistakes and inconveniencies, are great imperfections in a language, and ought carefully to be guarded against. It would be labour thrown away to petition the great Lexiphanes, to alter one tittle, or jôta of his dictionary, and to accommodate it to our weakness and prejudices; barely to suggest the expediency of such a measure, would be high treason against his Lexicographical powers and authority. (note on page 38-39)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

This, however, is not all I find fault with. Where the D---l! have you collected all this trash of hard words, from what magazine or repository have you raked together these perverse terms and absurd phrases, wherewith you have bespattered me, who never did you any wrong, at so unmerciful a rate? Some, I see, are of your own invention ; for others you must have ransacked the old musty volumes of former times, justly disregarded when first written, and now deservedly forgotten. The rest I perceive you have gleaned up, with infinite pains, from Greek and Latin, from scholastic writers, and books on the abstruse sciences. And you think you have done a mighty pretty feat, that you have performed an eminent service to learning, when you have wriggled, in over head and shoulders, a new-fashioned long-tailed word, what in your own phrase I would call a vermicular word, or a dark term of art, without considering whether it be proper to the subject, suited to the capacity of your readers, or indeed whether it be an English word or not. You are the unfittest person of any I know for what you have undertaken, to compile a dictionary. Though ’tis indeed no wonder you should be employed by booksellers in such a work. (pp. 69-70)

No. 60

60. L. L. B. “Remarks on Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary.” The Political Register, Vol. III (October 1768, No. XIX), pp. 209-213.

Dr. Johnson’s explanation of several of the following words, have at different times, and on different occasions been held out to public view.–His political principles have been marked with that contempt which they deserve, by every true friend to the interests of mankind.—His pedantry has been deservedly laughed at,--while his learning has indeed been admired.--How truly pitiable!—that learning should have made a sacrifice at the altar of a detestable party,--or indulged in the weaknesses of ignorance;--that the ambition of being approved, or even of being found consistent with common sense, should not have got the better of so low a passion, as the affectation of singularity.—What friend to liberty, can read his unjust reflection on the Whigs, and his fulsome incense offered to the Tories, without certain emotions, unknown to the fawning sycophants to the doctrine of passive obedience and non resistance?—But let his doctor give in his evidence, before you pass your judgment on his testimony.

Whig.—The name of a Faction.

Tory.—One who adheres to the ancient constitution of the state, and the apostolical hierarchy of the church of England, opposed to a Whig.

Revolution.—Change in the state of a government or country. It is used among us (ギリシャ語), for the change produced by the admission of king William and queen Mary.

How cool a representation is here of the great and glorious revolution of 1688, the very epocha of Liberty—an even which secured to us, every thing that is dear to us as Englishmen,--as member of a free state.—The principles of our government have not suffered alone from the pen of this writer,--he is guilty of high treason to the very language of his country.—In vain, however (we may thank our starts) hath he attempted to supplant the ease and elegance of Addision, for the bombast of the Rambler.—Clio is admirable in every line,--but Pomposo is unintelligible and pedantic.—Had he confined his stiff and mysterious expressions to the Rambler, he would have been more pardonable,--but surely it is the greatest affront to commonsense (nay a contradiction in terms) to introduce a jargon of sounds,-- where he should have written down (as the phrase is) to the meanest capacity.—Justice, however, demands that he should be viewed as he appears to the naked eye,--and not through the medium of any representation.

(explanations from the Dictionary of such words as Opiate, Shoeing-horn, To Squeak, To Twist, To Twitch, To Twitter, To Dodge, Chink, Correption, Line, Liable, Perspirable, Cough, Burying-place, To Breathe)

He is equally famous for his explanations of other certain words.—But in these he has rather indulged his pride and spleen,--than shewn forth either his principles of his pedantry, as

(explanations from the Dictionary of such words as Excise, Favourite, Gazetteer, Oats, Pensioner, Alias)

Many additions might be made to the words, I have here pointed out as exceptionable ;--but let these suffice.—Sufficient evidence is collected to prove his partiality and his pedantry. The literary abilities of the author, untainted by those mean passions and low interests which appear in so glaring a manner through almost every page, were equal to the great work he had set himself about ;--but since it has received so deep a tincture of the opposite ingredients ;--let it rise or fall in every man’s estimation, according as he thinks it merits the encomiums generally bestowed upon it.

No. 61

61. John Maclaurin Dreghorn. “On Johnson’s Dictionary.” Essays in Verse. [Edinburgh, 1769], pp. 10-12.

In love with a pedantic jargon,

Our poets, now a-days, are far gone;

Hence, he alone can read their songs,

To whom the gift of tongues belongs;

Or, who to make him understand,

Keeps Johnson’s lexicon at hand;

Which an improper name has got,

He should have dubb’d it polyglot.

Be warned, young poet, and take heed,

That Johnson you with caution read,

Always attentively distinguish

The Greek and Latin words, from English;

And never use such as ’tis wise

Not to attempt to nat’ralize;

Suffice the following specimen,

To make the admonition plain.

Little of anthropopathy has he,

That in you fulgid curricle reclines,

Alone, while I, depauperated bard!

The streets pedestrious scour; whey with bland voice,

Bids he me not his vectitation share?

Alas! he fears my lacerated coat,

And visage pale, with frigorific want,

Wou’d bring dedecoration on his chaise.

Me miserable! That th’ Aonian hill,

Is not auriferous, nor fit to bear,

That farinaceous food, support of bards;

Carnivorous but seldom, that the soil

Which Hippocrene humectates, nothing yields,

But steril laurels, and aquatics sour.

To dulcify th’ absinthiated cup

Of life, receiv’d from thy novercl hand,

Shall I have nothing, muse, to lenify?

Thy heart indurate, shall poetic woe,

And plaintive ejulation, nought avail.

Riches desiderate I never did;

Ev’n when in mood most optative: a farm

Small, but arboreous, was all I ask’d.

I, when a rustic, wou’d my blatant calves,

Well-pleas’d ablactate, and delighted tend

My gemelliparous sheep, or scorn to rear

The strutting turkey, and the strepent goose,

Then to dendrology my thoughts I’d turn,

A fav’rite care shou’d horticulture be,

But most of all, wou’d geoponics please.

While ambulation, thoughtless I protract,

The tir’d sun appropinquates to the sea,

And now my arid throat, and latrant guts,

Vociferate for supper ; but what house

To get it in, gives dubitation sad.

O! for a turgid bottle of strong beer,

Mature for imbition ; and O! for ----

(Dear object of hiation,) mutton-pye.

No. 62

62. George Colman, the elder. “A Letter from Lexiphanes; Containing Proposals for a Glossary or Vocabulary of the Vulgar Tongue: intended as a Supplement to a larger Dictionary.” St. James Chronicle, No. 1526 (December 1-4, 1770). Reprinted in Colman’s Prose on Several Occasions. London: T. Cadel, 1787, II, pp. 92-97.

There are in every language, ancient and modern, certain heterogeneous words and anomalous expressions, which render it more difficult to be acquired by students and foreigners than even the most licentious idiomatic phrases, or the most irregular combination of sentences. In vain may the laborious Lexicographer boast of having traced every radical word through a collateral series of Parallel Ramifications. The Philologist still toils with hopeless investigation, and finds himself bewildered in the maze of petty Familiarity and entangled in Colloquial Barbarisms. The Ebullitions of Convivial or Epistolary Humour, and the Sallies of Dramatick Hilarity, the Lucubrations of the Periodical Essayist, the Sportive Vein and Dry Intelligence of our Diurnal, Nocturnal, and Hebdomadal Historians, are almost totally unintelligible for want of an adequate interpretation. To remedy this defect in English Literature, I have, with infinite labour, compiled a Vocabulary or Glossary, intended as a Supplement to a larger and more solemn Dictionary. It is easy to foresee that the idle and illiterate will complain that I have increased their labours by endeavouring to diminish them, and that I have explained what is more easy by what is more difficult – Ignotum per, ignotius. I expect, on the other hand, the liberal acknowledgments of the learned. He who is buried in Sholastick Retirement, secluded from the assemblies of the Gay, and remote from the circles of the Polite, will at once comprehend the definitions, and be grateful for such a seasonable and necessary Elucidation of his Mother Tongue. Annexed to this letter is a short specimen of the Work, thrown together in a vague and desultory manner, not even adhering to alphabetical concatenation. The whole will be comprised in two Folio Volumes, and will appear some time within the ensuing twenty years. In the mean while, subscriptions are taken in at all the most eminent booksellers in London and Westminster; of whom may be learnt all further particulars relative to this arduous and important undertaking. (pp. 92-94)

No. 63

63. John Wilkes. A Letter to Samuel Johnson, L.L.D. London: Printed for J. Almon, 1770, 51pp. {This was written in reply to ‘The False Alarm’.}

It shall be my humble, but laborious province, to endeavour to reduce your lofty speculations to the level of vulgar apprehension; not so much with a view to unwind a thread of refined sophistry, of which indeed you have observed a commendable frugality; still less to investigate candid argument, of which it is not easy to discover a trace; but to develope[sic] what little meaning you may have wished to impart, by dissipating the cloud of words in which it is at present involved, and by exhibiting it in the form in which it must destroy itself, the language of common sense. (p. 8)

No. 64

64. John Walters. A Dissertation on the Welsh Language, Pointing out it’s [sic] Antiquity, Copiousness, Grammatical Perfection, with Remarks on it’s Poetry; and Other Articles not Foreign to the Subject. Cowbridge: Printed for the Author, 1771, pp. 38-39.

It must, however, be considered that it is impossible to read any language with propriety, without an acquaintance with it’s Accent; but in the Welsh this is easily attainable; for all it’s words (of what quality soever), consisting of more than one syllable, are accented on the Penultima, excepting Verbs ending in au and oi, together with contracted Verbals derived from the former, which have their Ultima circumflexed. So that with regard to accentuation, this our Language hath confessedly the advantage, not only over the English, but even over those learned Languages the Greek and Latin: for the rules accenting in the former of these, i. e. the Greek, as being made to clash with, and, as it were, to fly in the face of the natural Quantity of syllables, are unnatural, perplex, and intricate; and in the latter, one ought to be well-skilled in it’s Prosody and laws of Versification before he pretends to reach with any degree of accuracy. But the native simplicity of our Language, in this point, never appears to equal advantage as when contrasted with the English, whose mode of Accent is at this day capriciously puzzling, as having of late been continually shifting with the veering Taste of the times, which is as unsteady as a weather-cock: nor hath the celebrated Johnson with all his literary abilities – with Learning and Reason at his side, and Fame in his train – been able to subdue the ever-changing Proteus, reduce him to, and fix him in, the natural shape.

No. 65

65. Robert Fergusson. “To Dr. Samuel Johnson. Food for a New Edition of His Dictionary.” Weekly Magazine (Edinburgh), October 21, 1773, p. 114. Reprinted in his Poems on Various Subjects, The Second Edition, Part II, Edinburgh, 1782, pp. 125-128.

Let Wilkes and Churchill rage no more,

Tho’ scarce provision, learning’s good;

What can these hungries next implore,

E’en Samuel Johnson loves our food.

Great pedagogue, whose literarian lore,

With syllable and syllable conjoin’d,

To transmutate and verify, has learn’d

The whole revolving scientific names

That in the alphabetic columns lie,

Far from the knowledge of mortalic shapes;

As we, who never can peroculate

The miracles by thee miraculiz’d,

The Muse silential long, with mouth apert,

Would give vibration to stagnatic tongue,

And loud encomiate thy puissant name,

Eulogiated from the green decline

Of Thames’s banks to Scoticanian shores,

Where Loch-lomondian liquids undulize.

To meminate thy name in after times,

The mighty Mayor of each regalian town

Shall consignate thy work to parchment fair

In roll burgharian, and their tables all

Shall fumigate with fumigation strong:

Scotland, from perpendicularian hills,

Shall emigrate her fair muttonian store,

Which late had there in pedestration walk’d,

And o’er her airy heights perambuliz’d.

Oh, blackest execrations on thy head,

Edina shameless! tho’ he came within

The bounds of your Notation; tho’ you knew

His Honorific name, you noted not,

But basely suffer’d him to chariotize

Far from your tow’rs, wih smoke that nubilate,

Nor drank one amicitial swelling cup

To welcome him convivial. Bailies all!

With rage inflated, catenations tear,

Nor ever after be you vinculiz’d,

Since you that sociability denied

To him whose potent Lexiphanian stile

Words can prolongate, and inswell his page

With what in others to a line’s confin’d.

Welcome, thou verbal potentate and prince?

To hills and vallies, where emerging oats

From earth assuage our pauperty to bay,

And bless they name, they dictionarian skill,

Which there definitive will still remain,

And oft be speculiz’d by taper blue,

While yourth studentious turn they folio page.

Have you as yet, in per’patetic mood,

Regarded with the texture of the eye

The cave cavernick, where fraternal bard,

Churchill, depicted pauperated swains,

With thraldom and bleak want, reducted sore;

Where Nature, coloriz’d, so coarsely fades,

And puts her russet par’phernalia on?

Have you as yet the way explorified

To let lignarian chalice, swell’d with oats,

Thy orofice approach? Have you as yet,

With skin fresh rubified by scarlet spheres,

Apply’d brimstonic undion(?) to your hide,

To terrify the salamandrian fire

That from involuntary digits asks

The strong allaceration? – Or can you swill

The usquebalian flames of whisky blue

In fermentation strong? Have you apply’d

The kelt aerian to your Anglian thighs,

And with renunciation assigniz’d

Your breeches in Londona to be worn?

Can you, in frigor of Highlandian sky,

On heathy summits take nocturnal rest?

It cannot be – You may as well desire

An alderman leave plumb-puddenia(?) store,

And scratch the tegument from pottage-dish,

As bid they countrymen, and thee conjoin’d,

Forsake stomachic joys. Then hie you home,

And be a malcontent, that naked hinds,

On lentiles fed, can make your kingdom quake,

And tremulate Old England libertiz’d!

No. 66

66. Samuel Johnson. ‘Advertisement to this Edition.’ A Dictionary of the English Language. The Fourth Edition, London: Printed by W. Strahan, for W. Strahan and others, 1773.

Many are the works of human industry, which to begin and finish are hardly granted to the same man. He that undertakes to compile a Dictionary, undertakes that, which, if it comprehends the full extent of his design, he knows himself unable to perform. Yet his labours, though deficient, may be useful, and with the hope of this inferior praise, he must incite his activity, and solace his weariness.

Perfection is unattainable, but nearer and nearer approaches may be made; and finding my Dictionary about to be reprinted, I have endeavoured, by a revisal, to make it less reprehensible. I will not deny that I found many parts requiring emendation, and many more capable of improvement. Many faults I have corrected, some superfluities I have taken away, and some deficiencies I have supplied. I have methodised some parts that were disordered, and illuminated some that were obscure. Yet the changes or additions bear a very small proportion to the whole. The critick will now have less to object, but the student who has bought any of the former copies, needs not repent; he will not, without nice collation, perceive how they differ, and usefulness seldom depends upon little things.

For negligence or deficience[sic], I have perhaps not need of more apology than the nature of the work will furnish; I have left that inaccurate which never was made exact, and that imperfect which never was complete.

S. Johnson.

No. 67

67. William Kenrick. ‘Introduction.’ A New Dictionary of the English Language. London: Printed for John and Francis Rivington and others, 1773, pp. i-viii.

With respect to the etymology, explanation of words, and illustration of idiom and phraseology, the ready will find that I have generally followed the celebrated dictionary of the learned Dr. Johnson. As the present performance is chiefly calculated to correct and ascertain the orthoepy of our tongue, I thought it might of some advantage to its readers, to make it at the same time a copious index to a work of very general acceptation, in which the little authorities, collected from our best writers, may be consulted at large. (p. viii)

No. 68

68. Lord James Burnet Monboddo. ‘Introduction.’ Of the Origin and Progress of Language. Vol. I. Edinburgh: Printed for A. Kincaid & W. Creech, Edinburgh and T. Cadell, London, 1773, pp. 1-4.

As the use of speech is supposed to be that which chiefly distinguishes us from the brute creation; and is truly so, if by speech we understand, not only the mere words or sounds of a language, but the conceptions of the mind that are signified by those sounds; it is a matter of curious inquiry, from whence we have derived this distinguishing prerogative of our nature; how it first began; and by what degrees it arrived to that state of perfection to which it has been brought, if not among us, at least in other ages and nations of the world. This inquiry becomes the more interesting, as well as of greater curiosity, when we consider, that it leads us back to what may be called the origin of the human race; since without the use of reason and speech we have no pretentions to humanity, nor can with any propriety be called men; but must be contented to rank with the other animals here below, over whom we assume so much superiority, and exercise dominion chiefly by means of the advantages that the use of language gives us. From this birth of human nature, as it may be called, we will endeavour to trace its progress to its state of maturity. This progress, in the individual, is very well known; but we propose here to exhibit the species itself in its infancy, -- first mute; then lisping an stammering; next by slow degrees learning to speak, very lamely and imperfectly at first; but at last, from such rude essays, forming an art the most curious, as well as most useful among men. The subject is, so far as I know, entirely new; no author, antient or modern, that has fallen into my hands, having professedly treated of it. And though I have met with hints concerning it in the course of my reading, they are such as have rather excited than satisfied my curiosity.

These reasons have induced me to set down, and give to the public, my thoughts upon this subject, which are the fruit of much study and inquiry, continued with some interruptions for several years, and of many materials collected during that time. But if, notwithstanding, in this undiscovered country, where I am guided by no light or track, I have lost my way, I hope to be forgiven by every reader of sense and candour, who will allow at least this merit to my work, that I have opened a new field of speculation, in which even my errors may be of use, by serving as beacons to direct into the right course men of greater learning and abilities.

The work will be divided into three parts. The first will treat of the origin of language, and of the nature of the first languages; or, as they may be more properly called, rude essays towards language, which were practised before the art was invented. – The second will explain the nature of the art, shewing in what it chiefly consists, and how it differs from those first untaught attempts to speak. In this part of my work, I will give an account of those parts of language which appear to me the most artificial, and of most difficult invention. I will also treat of style, or composition in words, as belonging to the art of language; and I think it will not appear foreign to my subject to say something likewise of poetry and rhetoric, being arts of which language furnishes the materials. – The subject of the third and last part will be the corruption of language; of which I shall endeavour to assign the causes, and trace the progress. – The first part will be chiefly philosophical, mixed however with a good deal of history, and facts, by which I shall endeavour to support my theories, and philosophical speculations. The two last parts will be grammatical and critical. The style will be plain and didactic, such as is suitable to a subject that is to be treated as a matter of science. It will not therefore have that mixture of the rhetorical and poetical, that is so common in the fashionable writings of this age, upon whatever subject, and which pleases the vulgar so much: for as I do not write for the vulgar, I will not adapt my style, any more than my matter, to their taste.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

“PART I. BOOK I. CHAPTER I. Definition of the subject. – Whether language be from nature, or acquired habit.”By language I mean the expression of the conceptions of the mind by articulate sounds. These conceptions are either of particulars, i. Ed. Individual things, or of generals. No language ever existed, or can be conceived, consisting only of the expression of individuals, or what is commonly called proper name: and the truth is, that these make but a very inconsiderable part of every language. What therefore constitutes the essential part of language, and makes it truly deserve that name, is the expression of generals, or ideas, according to the language of the philosophy that I have learned. For as to the name of general ideas, by which they are commonly known, it supposes, that the conceptions of individuals, that is, the perceptions of sense, are likewise ideas; from which it is necessary to distinguish the conceptions of generals by the name of general ideas. But I cannot approve of introducing into philosophy a language which confounds under one name two things so different in their natures, as the operations of sense and of intellect; a confusion which, in my apprehension, has given rise to very great errors......

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

And as Thucydides’s stile is not to be understood except by a very good Greek scholar, so neither is Milton’s (though not near so obscure in English as Thucydides is in Greek) to be perfectly understood, except by a scholar who has formed his taste of good writing upon the antient[sic] masters of the art. It was no wonder, therefore, that such a critic as Dr. Johnson, who, in my opinion, was neither a scholar nor a man of taste, should pronounce, among the other oracles which he has uttered from his tripod, Milton does not write English, (and I have heard some of the Doctor’s admirers say the same), but a Babylonish dialect. And indeed an unlearned critic, who judges of the English language, by what is now written in it, will be disposed to censure those classical idioms of Milton above mentioned as harsh and uncouth; though, if he be more candid and good natured than the Doctor, he may not give so hard an epithet to Milton’s stile, and which indeed is the worst thing that could be said of any stile, as to call it Babylonish. But the Doctor, who was not a Greek scholar, and could not read Halicarnassian’s critical works in the original, which cannot be understood in the translation, where the several ways of distinguishing stile from common speech by the grammatical figures of construction, are better explained than by any other author, knew of no other way of adorning his stile, and making what he thought fine writing, except by epithets, antitheses, and coining new words. Now, if he had been scholar enough to have read Thucydides, the great standard for what I call the made stile, he would have been that it could be made without either epithet or antithesis: And as to new coined words, if Thucydides had attempted that, the people of Athens had such regard for the purity and chastity of their language, that they would not have born it, any more than I think the people of England should have born the words that Dr Johnson has made, and the reflections that he has thrown out upon an author, who does so much honour to modern times and to the English nation in particular. The commendation of the Paradise Lost, with which he concludes his life of Milton, is I think more absurd than his censures of him, and so ridiculous that, if I had had a better opinion of the Doctor’s critical talents, I should have imagined that he said it by way of irony and ridicule of Milton. He says that ‘the Paradise Lost is not the greatest of heroic poems, only because it is not the first.’ Now, as the chief merit of a poem, a picture, or indeed of every work of art, is the choice of the subject, if Dr Johnson had been but the twentieth part of the tythe of a critic, (to use an expression of Shakespear), he would have known that, by the nature of things, it was impossible, of such a subject as that of the Paradise Lost, to make so fine a poem s the Iliad of Homer. (...)

The Doctor has pleased not only to censure the English of Milton, in the strong terms above mentioned, but to attack his Latin in that noble work which gained him so much reputation all over Europe, I mean his Defensio pro Populo Anglicano, in which he encountered a man who was reputed the greatest scholar of the age, and with such success, that it is said to have proved the cause of his death. In this work Milton has shown that Salmansius did not write good Latin; and, in return, the Doctor has endeavoured to show that Milton’s Latin is as bad; but in this he has not succeeded.

Before I read this criticism, though I knew the Doctor was no Greek scholar, I believed that he had understood Latin as much at least as any man can understand a learned language, who understood not the science of language nor any other science. But I am now in doubt, whether he was even a complete Latin scholar in the common sense of the word, though he had not only learned it as other men do, but taught it.

What I have said here of Dr. Johnson will, I know, be very unpopular, as the Doctor was very much admired during his life, and has been wonderfully celebrated since his death. But I write neither for profit nor fame; or, if I were desirous of fame, I think, I could say with Milton ‘that I am not so destitute of other hopes, and means more certain no attain it,’ as to become the panegyrist of Dr. Johnson; or, if I had desired that reputation, I could not have exceeded, nor even have come up to what Dr Barettie has said in his praise; for in two words he has celebrated him more than all his other encomiasts put together, who in my opinion would have praised him much better if they had not used so many words, and had related fewer particulars concerning him; for Dr. Beattie has called him the great and the good Dr Johnson. Now some men have been great that were not good, and others have been good that were not great; but to be both good and great makes a character absolutely compleat.

But though I were able to praise Dr. Johnson as ably as Dr. Beattie has done, I am not at all disposed to display my panegyrical talents in that way: So far from that, I hold that the praise and admiration, which so many of the English nation (not the whole, nor the men of learning and taste among them), have bestowed upon Dr Johnson, both alive and dead, is one of the greatest disgraces that ever befel them, considered as a nation of learning and taste, and the most adverse to their national character: for Dr Johnson was t most invidious and malignant man I have ever known, who praised no author or book that other people praise, and in private conversation was ready to cavil at and contradict every thing, that was said, and could not with any patience hear any other person draw the attention for short a time. (pp. 260-271)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Book III. Chap. IX. Progress of the Barbarous Langaues towards Improvement.—Account of Languages that are not barbarous spoken by Barbarous Nations; -- such as that of the Garani, -- of the Algonkins, -- of the Goths, -- of the Albinaquis. – This last too artisicial.

But although the Huron language be, as I have said, the most rude and imperfect of any that have come to my knowledge, yet even in it we can see beginnings of improvement; which are the more to be attended to, that they are so many steps of the progress of the human mind in the art of thinking.

And, in the first place, as the great defect of all barbarous languages is, the expressing different things by the same word, without abstracting and separating them one from another; where-ever we see any one thing expressed by a distinct word, it is to be reckoned an improvement of the people in the faculty of thinking, and by consequence of their language: for if they had not first formed a separate idea of the thing, they never would have expressed it by a separate word. I have observed already, that they are not so far advanced in abstraction as to divide the quality from the substance in which it is inherent, and to express it by a distinct word; but they have made an abstraction less violent, and with which it was natural they should begin; I mean, of the substance from the qualities; and considered the substance as existing by itself, without any particular quality, and have given it a separate name. This, I think, must necessarily have been the first abstract idea that was in any degree perfect, formed by men; and accordingly the Hurons have come the length of forming some such ideas, and giving names to them. For example, they have a word which denotes trees simply; others which denote certain species of trees, of fruits, and of animals; others that denote works of art, without the addition of any quality.

2dly, In generalization they have begun to go beyond the lowest species, not only in trees, but in animals: for though they have not a word, as I have already observed, to express the genus animal, yet they come pretty near it, having a general word which denotes the quadrupeds of the forest, and another which denotes the tame quadrupeds, such as dogs and cats.

3dly, They have made some progress in that most artificial part of speech, the verb; for, in the first place, they have carried abstraction so far in some few instances, that they have abstracted the action from the agent, and from every circumstance accompanying it, and have invented a word to express it simply by itself. Then they have made the distinction of the three persons; and in some few of their verbs this distinction is marked by a variation or inflection of the word, as in the expression, I am hurt, -- thou art hurt, -- He is hurt, the same word, with a different inflection in the beginning, expresses all the three persons. This indeed is uncommon; but it is not so uncommon that one of the persons should be distinguished from the rest by a variation of the word; as in the word which signifies to sneeze, the second person of the present is distinguished from the first person by the addition of the letter s to the beginning of the word. Thus the first person, I sneeze, is atsonsta, and it is the same with the third; but the second person is satsonsta. And in this very verb there is a mood, namely the infinitive, viz. atshonsta, denoting the action by itself, without any person. I have found too one verb, and but one, where there is a distinction of the time by a variation of the word; it is the verb signifying to say, in which the present, I say, is distinguished from the perfect, I have said, by a different form of the word. (pp. 371-374)

No. 69

69. William Mitford. An Essay upon the Harmony of Language, intended Principally to Illustrate that of the English Language. London: Printed by Scott and for J. Robson, 1774, 292pp.

It is obvious that in English pronunciation every polysyllable has one syllable distinguished by peculiar strength of tone. This strong tone is commonly called by way of eminence the accent. The situation of this accent is not determinable by any certain rules. Dr. Johnson has indeed collected some in the grammar prefixed to his dictionary; but he does not propose them as complete or infallible, though perhaps the best that can be given. This however is not a point of much consequence while our language continues to be spoken as it is at present; the place of the accent being, except in a very few words, sufficiently determined by custom, and well known. It is moreover, in most of our dictionaries, accurately marked. (pp. 28-29)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Mr. Johnson has inserted in the history of the English language prefixed to his dictionary, two poems as specimens of Saxon poetry, and a third written at a time when our language was properly neither Saxon nor English, but something between both. The two others partake also of this mixt nature and are not of that old Saxon kind to which Dr Percy alludes. They are all in rime, and not only their rhythmus is perfectly distinguishable, but, as Mr. Johnson observes, “they contain apparently the rudiments of our present lyric measures, and the writers may be justly considered as the genuine ancestors of the English poets.” Short extracts will serve for examples, Mr. Johnson’s work being in every body’s hands, and these I shall give in modern characters:

(omitted)

Mr. Johnson supposes the date of this pooem[sic] to be about the middle of the 12th century. The measure is the very same with that of Milton’s Allegro e il Penseroso, beginning indifferently with a complete foot, or a single accented syllable; only that here the farther licence is taken of sometimes dropping an unaccented syllable in the middle of a verse. The same liberties are taken in the ore ancient poem of which the following is an extract, which is otherwise almost a perfect example of the most common of our modern lyric measures. (pp. 160-162)

No. 70

70. George Campbell. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Vol. I. London: Printed for W. Strahan; and T. Cadell; and W. Creech at Edinburgh, 1776.

Advice, in the commercial idiom, means information or intelligence; nervous, in open defiance of analogy, doth in the medical cant, as Johnson expresseth it, denote, having weak nerves; and the word turtle, though pre-occupied time immemorial by a species of doves, is, as we learn from the same authority, employed by sailors and gluttons, to signify a tortoise. (p. 356)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Yet it is certain, that even some of our best critics and grammarians, talk occasionally, as if they had a notion of some other standard, though they ever give us a single hint to direct us where to search for it. Doctor Johnson, for example, in the preface to his very valuable Dictionary, acknowledges properly the absolute dominion of custom over language, and yet, in the explanation of particular words, expresseth himself sometimes in a manner that is inconsistent with this doctrine, “This word,” says he in one place, “though common, and used by the best writers, is perhaps barbarous.” I have always understand a barbarism in speech to be a term or expression totally unsupported by the present usage of good writers in the language. A meaning very different is suggested here, but what that meaning is, it will not be easy to conjecture. Nor has this celeb rated writer given us on the word barbarous, any definition of the term which will throw light on his application of it in the passage quoted. I entirely agree with Doctor Priestley, that it will never be the arbitrary rules of any man, or body of men whatever, that will ascertain the language, there being no other dictator here but use.

It is indeed easier to discover the aim of our critics in their observations on this subject, than the meaning of the terms which they employ. There are often employed without precision; their aim, however, is generally good. It is, as much as possible, to give a check to innovation. But the means which they use for this purpose, have sometimes even a contrary tendency. If you will replace what hath been long since expunged from the language, and extirpate what is firmly rooted, undoubtedly you yourself become an innovator. If you desert the present use, and by your example at least, establish it as a maxi, that every critic may revive at pleasure old-fashioned terms, inflections, and combinations, and make such alterations on words as will bring them nearer to what he supposeth to be the etymon, there can be nothing fixed or stable on the subject. Possibly you prefer the usage that prevailed in the reign of queen Elizabeth; another may, with as good reason, have a partiality for that which subsisted in the days of Chaucer. And with regard to etymology, about which grammarians make so much useless bustle; if every one hath a privilege of altering words, according to this own opinion of their origin, the opinions of the learned being on this subject so various, nothing but a general chaos can ensue. (pp. 361-363)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Johnson hath given us in his Dictionary, the word lowlily, which is as bad as any of them, but without quoting authorities. In these and suchlike, the simple forms, as heavenly, godly, timely, daily, homely, courtly, comely, seem always to have served both for adjective and adverb; though this too hath its inconvenience. It deserves our notice, that the repetition of a syllable is never offensive, when either one or both are long, as in papa, mamma, murmur, tartar, barbarous, lily. (p. 394)

No. 71

71. [Ephraim Chambers (ca.1680-1740).] Proposals for Publishing in Weekly Numbers, Mr. Chambers’s CYCLOPÆDIA; or, Universal Dictionary of Arts and Sciences: with The Supplement and Modern Improvements incorporated in one Alphabet. In Four Volumes. Illustrated with a great Number of Copper Plates. London, Jan. 1, 1778, 4 pp.

Conditions.

I. The Work will make Four Large Volumes in Folio, handsomely printed with a New Letter on a Fine Demy Paper.

II. Three Sheets shall be delivered every Week, stitched in blue Paper. Price Sixpence.

III. In the Course of the Work will be given gratis, the Plates formerly engraved for the Cyclopædia and Supplement, with Others, to illustrate the Improvements made in the present Edition.

IV. Number I. will be published on Saturday, January 31, 1778, with which will be given a New and Elegant Frontispiece, designed by Dodd, and engraved by Cook.

V. The subsequent Numbers will be regularly published every Week, till the Work is completed.

ADVERTISEMENRT.

The utility of compilations which contain an Abstract of Universal Science arranged in alphabetical order, is so generally allowed, that it is needless to say any thing in recommendation of the design and plan of the work now offered to the public. – Mr. Chambers’s Dictionary has long maintained distinguished reputation, not only in our own country, but in most parts of Europe, where science hath been, in any degree, cultivated and encouraged. The learned authors of the French Encyclopedie have testified the high opinion which they entertained of its excellence, by introducing the greatest part of it into their celebrated publication; and all works of a similar kind published in this kingdom, for several years past, have been, for the most part, abridgments of this Dictionary, with very few alterations or additions.

The Proprietors of this work, apprized of its importance and value, and desirous that it should be as complete as possible, some years ago procured a Supplement to be added to the Dictionary of Mr. Chambers, containing Articles, which had been wholly omitted or imperfectly discussed in the original Work.

The sale has answered their expectations: and they have considered this circumstance as a pleasing evidence of the approbation with which the public hath honoured their endeavours of contributing to the information and improvement of mankind. – Thus encouraged, they have kept in view the enlargement and progress of science; and they have been anxious, that a work, which has been already so highly honoured, should continue to deserve acceptance and esteem, by receiving every correction and improvement which the progressive and advanced state of science requires.

They have, therefore, for several years, at a considerable expence[sic], engaged different persons in collecting materials for this purpose; and have now the satisfaction to inform the public, that the work is in such forwardness as to allow beginning to publish at the time mentioned in the Proposals.

The Proprietors are happy in declaring, that the plan upon which this work is conducted will not require the addition of another volume, not be attended with any considerable advance of price to the purchasers.

As it is proposed, when the work is finished, to annex a particular account of the additions and improvements that shall have been made in it, there is the less necessity for enlarging on the subject at present; especially as the mode of publication will give the purchasers who are acquainted with the original work, an opportunity of judging for themselves. – Something, however, it may be proper to observe concerning the present edition.

Next to the careful insertion of every modern discovery and invention, a principal object has been to incorporate the Supplement with the Original Work, so as to render the whole an uniform System of Literature and Science. – It is likewise proposed to exclude obsolete science, to retrench superfluous matter, to abridge articles that are needlessly diffuse; and thus to make room for introducing, from original writers, and from the most approved authorities, as well as from the communications of the friends of learning and science, those improvements that have occured[sic] in the various objects comprehended in this work, since its first compilation, and the subsequent publication of the Supplement.

The number of plates will be considerably increased, in order to illustrate the additions and alterations made in the work; as, in many instances, the view of a figure will supersede the necessity of a laboured description, and better answer the purpose of information. – The Frontispiece is to be considered rather as a matter of ornament than utility, though the Proprietors hope it will appear to be proper and characteristic.

Such is the present edition: and such have been the views and labours of the Proprietors for no inconsiderable number of years. – From the Public there is not the least doubt of obtaining a proper reception, if the work shall appear to be, what we have endeavoured to make it, A System of Useful Learning, calculated for the instruction and improvement of our fellow-creatures.

The Editor, who has undertaken to superintend the publication, is very sensible of the great variety of subjects which it comprehends; and that errors and defects may escape his notice, after the most diligent attention: he, therefore, earnestly solicits the assistance and contribution of the friends of literature and science, towards rendering this work as accurate and perfect, as the nature and limits of it will allow. – Such Communications may be addressed to the Editor, at last(?), Longman’s, Bookseller, in Pater-noster Row.

No. 72

72. John Horne Tooke. A Letter to John Dunning, Esq. By Mr. Horne. London: for J. Johnson, 1778, 68pp.

S. Johnson says, -- “lest, Conj. (from the Adjective Least) That not.”

This last deduction is a curious one indeed ; and it would puzzle as sagacious a reasoned as S. Johnson to supply the middle steps to his conclusion from Least, (which always however means some) to “That not (which means none at all.) It seems as if, when he wrote this, he had already in his mind a pressentiment[sic] of some future occasion in which such reasoning would be convenient. As thus, -- “The Mother Country, the Seat of Government, must necessarily enjoy the greatest share of dignity, power, rights and privileges : an united or associated kingdom must have in some degree a smaller share : and their colonies the least share ;” – That is (according to S. Johnson)* None of any kind.

* Johnson’s merit ought not be denied to him ; but his Dictionary is the most imperfect and faulty, and the least valuable of any of his productions ; and that share of merit which it possesses makes it by so much the more hurtful. I rejoice however that, though the least valuable, he found it the most profitable : for I could never read his Preface without shedding a tear. (p. 56)

No. 73

73. Samuel Johnson. ‘Life of Roscommon.’ The Lives of the English Poets: and a Criticism on their Works. Vol. I. Dublin: Whitestone, etc.,, 1779, pp. 413-424.

When he [sc. Roscommon] had finished his business, he returned to London; was made master of the horse to the dutchess of York; and married the lady Frances, daughter of the earl of Burlington, and widow of colonel Courteney.

He now busied his mind with literary projects, and formed the plan of a society for refining our language, and fixing its standard; in imitation, says Fenton, of those learned and polite societies with which he had been acquainted abroad. In this design his friend Dryden is said to have assisted him.

The same design, it is well known, was revived by Dr. Swift in the ministry of Oxford; but it has never since been publickly mentioned, though at that time great expectations were formed by some at least of its establishment and its effects. Such a society might, perhaps, without much difficulty be collected; but that it would produce what is expected from it, may be doubted.

The Italian academy seems to have obtained its end. The language was refined, and so fixed that it has changed but little. The French academy thought that they refined their language, and boutless thought rightly; but the event has not shewn that they fixed it; for the French of the present time is very different from that of the last century.

In this country an academy could be expected to do but little. If an academician’s place were profitable, it would be given by interest; if attendance were gratuitous, it would be rarely paid, and no man would endure the least disgust. Unanimity is impossible, and debate would separate the assembly.

But suppose the philological decree made and promulgated, what would be its authority? In absolute governments, there is sometimes a general reverence paid to all that has the sanction of power, and the countenance of greatness. How little this is the sate of our country needs not to be told. We live in an age in which it is a kind of publick sport to refuse all respect that cannot be enforced. The edicts of an English academy would probably be read by many, only that they might be sure to disobey them.

That our language is in perpetual danger of corruption cannot be denied; but what prevention can be found? The present manners of the nation would deride authority, and therefore nothing is left but that every writer should criticize himself.

All hopes of new literary institutions were quickly suppressed by the contentious turbulence of king James’s reign; and Roscommon, foreseeing that some violent concussion of the State was at hand, purposed to retire to Rome, alleging, that it was best to sit near the chimney when the chamber smoaked[sic]; a sentence of which the application seems not very clear. (pp. 416-418)

No. 74

74. Laetitia Lappet. “To the Author of the Mirror.” The Mirror, No. 89 (March 14, 1780)

Sir,

I am just going to commence business as a Milliner, and am resolved to bestow more than common pains in furnishing out as elegant a shop-list as possible, being of opinion, that much of the employment a shop-keeper gets, is owing to the attraction of a happy fancied sign, advertisement, or shop-bill. In executing this intention, I have met with several difficulties; and, therefore, am induced to trouble you for a solution of them. A friend of mine, whom I consulted, (because, as he was often reading, I imagined him to be a wise and learned man), advised me to look into a book called Johnson’s Dictionary, which he said would spell, explain, and describe to me, any thing I was at a loss about. Accordingly, after some difficulty, I procured a sight of this book from a relation, who was acquainted with a bookseller. But, as this same Johnson explains his words in a foreign language, I am as much at a loss as ever; because I am totally ignorant what language it is, and, therefore, cannot judge, whether what he says be such a description of my commodities, as will bring me customers. Upon my looking, for instance, as his explanation of net-work, I find it to be, ‘any thing reticulated or decussated with interstices betwixt the intersections.’ Now, Mr. Mirror, I beg the favour of you to tell me, what language this is. You certainly can easily do it, when you have obtained such a character in town for wisdom and learning. If it should be French, be so good as translate it to me; and, if it proves to be such a description as I think suits the net-work I have on hand, I shall most gladly insert it in my bill. But, if it should turn out to be Latin, Greek, Hebrew, or Dutch, or any other heathen language, I would not meddle with it for all the world; for no person then would come near my shop. I am advised by all my friends to put as much French into my bills and advertisements as possible; and, indeed, I believe the advice is good; for I have a relation a Perruquier, as he calls himself, who has told me, that he believed he owed almost all his business (and a great deal he had) to an advertisement in the news-papers interlarded with French words. It began thus; for I copied it letter for letter, ‘Perruques au dernier gout, made to fit the head, avec une air bien degagé,’ to be had,’ &c. This wig-maker informed me, that there was scarcely a young beau in town who wore a wig that could resist his advertisement.

(two paragraphs omitted)

I am, sir,

Your very Humble Servant,

Letitia Lappet.

No. 75

75. Thomas Sheridan. ‘PREFACE.’ A General Dictionary of the English Language. One Main Object of Which, Is, To Establish a Plain and Permanent Standard of Pronunciation, To Which is Prefixed a Rhetorical Grammar. London: Printed for J. Dodsley, C. Dilly and J. Wilkie, 1780.

There was a time, and that at no very distant period, which may be called the Augustan age of England, I mean during the reign of Queen Anne, when English was the language spoken at court; and when the same attention was paid to propriety of pronunciation, as that of French at the Court of Versailles. This produced a uniformity in that article in all the polite circles; and a gentleman or lady would have been as much ashamed of a wrong pronunciation then, as persons of a liberal education would now be of mis-spelling words. But on the accession of a foreign family to the throne, amid the many blessings conferred y that happy event, the English language suffered much by being banished the court, to make room for the French. From that time the regard formerly paid to pronunciation has been gradually declining; so that now the greatest improprieties in that point are to be found among people of fashion; many pronunciations, which thirty or forty years ago were confined to the vulgar, are gradually gaining ground; and if something be not done to stop this growing evil, and fix a general standard at present, the English is likely to become a mere jargon, which every one may pronounce as he pleases. It is to be wished, that such a standard had been established at the period before mentioned, as it is probably, that English was then spoken in its highest state of perfection. Nor is it yet too late to recover it in that very state. It was my fortune to receive the early part of my education under a master, who made that a material object of instruction to the youth committed to his care. He was the intimate friend, and chosen companion of Swift; who had passed great part of his life in a familiar intercourse with the most distinguished men of the age, whether for rank or genius. Eminent as he was for the purity and accuracy of his style, he was not more attentive to that point in writing, than he was to exactness of pronunciation in speaking. Nor could he bear to hear any mistakes committed by his friends in that respect, without correcting them. I had the happiness to be much with him in the early part of my life, and for several months read to him three or four hours a day, receiving still the benefit of his instruction. I have since had frequent opportunities of being convinced that a uniformity of pronunciation had prevailed at the court of Queen Anne, by comparing Swift’s with that of many distinguished personages who were there initiated into life; among the number of which were the Duke of Dorset and the Earl of Chesterfield. And that very pronunciation is still the customary one among the descendants of all the politer part of the world bred in that reign. Upon investigating the principles on which the pronunciation of that time was formed, I found, that though there were no rules laid down for its regulation, yet there was a secret influence of analogy constantly operating, which attracted the different words, according to their several classes, to itself as their center. And where there were any deviations from that analogy, the anomalies were founded upon the best principle by which speech can be regulated, that of preferring the pronunciation which was the most easy to the organs of speech, and consequently most agreeable to the ear. So far the Author has laid open his pretensions, upon a supposition that pronunciation depended only upon custom and fashion. But when he adds, that he is the first who ever laid open the principles upon which our pronunciation is funded, and the rules by which it is regulated, he hopes the claim he had laid in to the office he has undertaken, will not be considered as either vain or presumptuous.

When we reflect, that no evil so great can befall any language, as a perpetual fluctuation both in point of spelling and pronouncing, it is surely a point to be wished, that a permanent and obvious standard to both should at some certain period be established; and if possible, that period should be fixed upon, when probably they were in the greatest degree of perfection. Dr. Johnson’s spelling has been implicitly followed in the present Dictionary. It scarce deviates from that used by the writers in Queen Anne’s reign; as he has judiciously rejected several innovations attempted since that time by vain and pragmatical writers, who, from an affectation of singularity, have attempted to introduce changes, upon principles which will by no means stand the test of examination: and it might indisputably be proved, that no alterations in that respect, productive of any real benefit, can be made, without new moulding our alphabet, and making a considerable addition to its characters; a point utterly impracticable.

With regard to pronunciation, the Author has laid his reasons before the public of his having followed that which was established at the same æra. Thus, in both these articles, has he in this one work endeavoured to fix two anchors to our floating language, in order to keep it steady against the gales of caprice, and current of fashion.

In the explanatory part he has chiefly followed Dr. Johnson; only sometimes making use of plainer words, more adapted to the capacity of English readers.

As the utmost accuracy was necessary in using the marks of pronunciation, he has exerted such industry in this respect, by reiterated examination of each proof sheet before it was printed off, that he hopes there is not an error of any consequence throughout the whole.

No. 76

76. John Ireland. Hogarth Illustrated. Vol. I. London, [1781], note on p. 92.

That wild beasts were exhibited, is however certain from the following anecdote, which not being noted by any of Doctor Johnson’s biographers, may as well have a place here.

When the Doctor first became acquainted with David Mallet, they once went with some other gentlemen to laugh away an hour at Southwark fair. At one of the booths where wild beasts were exhibited to the wondering crowd, was a very large bear, which the showman assured them was cotcbed in the undiscovered desarts of the remotest Russia. The bear was muzzled, and might therefore be approached with safety, but to all the company, except Johnson, was very surly and ill-tempered; of the philosopher he appeared extremely fond, rubbed against him, and displayed every mark of aukward partiality, and subdued kindness. “How is it,” said one of the company, “that this save [sic] animal is so attached to Mr. Johnson?”—”From a very natural cause,” replied Mallet; “the bear is a Russian philosopher, and he knows that Linnœus would have placed him in the same class with the English moralist. They are two barbarous animal, of one species.”

No. 77

77. J. R. “A Censure of Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, and of the other Dictionaries of the English Language.” The Westminster Magazine, X (June 1782), pp. 324-325.

There does not appear any good reason for what is very remarkable, the omission of the Participles in Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, and in all the other English Dictionaries, excepting perhaps that their insertion would swell the size of the volume. This might undoubtedly be an argument of force, in respect to an abridgement; but should not, I think, have weight in a complete system of the languages. Few words, perhaps, occur so often. Many of them are derived from verbs now seldom used; and some of them have modes of meanings, which their infinitives do not always convey. To explain may idea more completely, I shall offer one or two examples. Interested, (as he did it with an interested view) expresses a sense, in which the infinitive to interest has never been used. Superannuated is a common word; whist to superannuate, is hardly to be met with. Collected, or recollected, as implying presence of mind, or the full possession of one’s power or faculties, is a sense in which the infinitives are rarely, if at all, used. Diseased, distempered, are very common words; whilst their verbs are seldom to be found in our modern language. Deformed appears to have as good a claim to a place as ugly; afflicted or dejected, as sorrowful or melancholy; indisposed as sick; emaciated as lean; determined as resolute; celebrated as celebrious; and although the meanings of some of those participles may be more easily collected from their verbs, yet the frequency of their use seems to give them a better title to notice than, even the infinitives themselves. (...)

There is another class of words, a kind of compound participles, or adjectives, which appear also intitled to some attention; because , as they have no single verb, to which their derivation can be traced, we cannot, without a precise definition, discover from a Dictionary what is their received sense; as good, natured, illomened, self-interested; and other words of a similar combination.

The participles present also deserve notice; as some of these seem likewise to possess meanings different from their roots. To deserve, signifies to be worthy of good or ill; but deserving, (as a deserving man) is always received in a good sense. To forego, in the sense of preceding, being mentioned before, is, I believe, obsolete); whilst foregoing, (as the foregoing text) is common. (...)

I would not be supposed by these observations to have the most distant wish to depreciate the labours of those learned and ingenious authors. I am too sensible of the impossibility of reaching perfection in this line of literature, indeed if any, to consider a few omissions or inadvertencies, as carrying with them the slightest imputation. A bricklayer’s labour may spy defects in the works of an Inigo Jones; but that would not deprive him of the reputation of a great architect. If the remarks I have hazarded are just, they may be thought worthy of attention; if trifling, they will be neglected.

No. 78

78. James Thomson Callender. Deformities of Dr. Samuel Johnson, selected from his works. Edinburgh: Printed for the Author and T. Longman, and J. Stockdale, 1782, 63pp. Reprinted by the Augustan Reprint Society, 1971.

In the number of men who dishonour their own genius, may be ranked Dr Samuel Johnson; for his abilities and learning are not accompanied by candour and generosity. (...) He boasted, that no new word was to be found in his writings; though, in glory above all authors of his time, he did not fancy that entitled him to ingross or insult conversation. He was no less remarkably clean, than some are remarkably dirty. His love of fame never led him into the lowest of all vices; and a sense of his own dignity made him respect the importance and the feelings of others. (...) His learning had no pedantry; his piety no superstition; his benevolence almost no parallel. For the memory of this man, who may be classed with Cato and Phocion, the Doctor feels no tenderness or respect. (p. 1)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

As the word kail is not to be found in his Dictionary, an English reader will be at a loss to find out what he means. His assertion is perfectly ridiculous; and here a new contradiction must be swallowed by the Doctor’s believers; for, if oats be ‘a grain, which in England, is generally given to horses, but, in Scotland, supports the people,’ in that case; it is easy to guess how they lived without kail. Oats are said to thrive best in cold and barren countries; and, to have mentioned this circumstance, had surely been better than to stuff his folios with such peevish nonsense. (pp. 7-8)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

A brig, a luger, a schooner, a galliot, a galleon, a proa, a punt, a xebeque, and a snow, are not inserted in this complete English Dictionary; but a Cutter is, ‘a nimble boat that cuts the water.’ Did we ever hear of a boat that did not cut the water? This explanation, like that of a at least twenty thousand others, is defective; because, besides a man of war’s boat, the word Cutter is applied to a small vessel with one mast, rigged as a sloop, that sails very near the wind; from which peculiarity, its appellation is derived. (p. 16)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Part of his book has value; but take it all in all, and perhaps it is the strangest farrago that ever pedantry put together. It will be said that these are partial specimens, but we shall trace him through many ramifications of learning, and find his ignorance extreme. A sensible reader will try his own abilities, in judging of the Doctor’s great performance. Nor will he throw down this pamphlet, because by some unaccountable infatuation, the dictionary has for six and twenty years been admired by thousands and ten thousands who have never seen it. Let us exert that courage of thought, and that contempt of quackery, which to feel, and to display, is the privilege and the pride of a Briton. In a country where no man fears his kind, can any man fear the sound of a celebrated name, or crouch behind the banner of Dullness, because it is born by Samuel Johnson, A. M & LL.D.? (p. 32)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

That cold ‘is not hot – not warm – chill – having sense of cold – having cold qualities.’ That coldly ‘is without heat,’ that coldness is ‘want of heat;’ and a heap of similar jargon. – Blot. ‘A blur.’ – Blur. ‘A blot.’ The Doctor’s admirers will answer, that in so great a work there was no room for long definitions. I reply, that his account of Whipgrasfing, of Will-with-a-Wisp, of a Wood-loose, and of the Stool of Repentance, are very long; that if he was to say no more of a Roman Consul, he should have said nothing at all; and that there are other books of the same kind, and of half the price too, which find room for copious and useful definitions. Pardon’s dictionary is not much less than the Doctor’s octavo, though it is only six shillings; (7th edition) and of many articles, such as the Roman Legion, there is a very clear and full explanation. Besides which, it contains a description of the counties, the cities, and the market towns in England; and in the end of the book there is inserted a list of near 7000 proper names, none of which are to be found in the Doctor’s dictionary. With what then has Johnson filled his book? With words of his own coining, with roots, and authorities often ridiculous, and always useless; or with definitions impertinent and erroneous. (pp. 46-47)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The preface sets out with a pitiful untruth. Having mentioned the publication of his folio dictionary, he subjoins, ‘it has since been considered that works of that kind are by no means necessary for the bulk of readers.’ Here he would insinuate that the abstract was an after-thought: But every body sees that its publication was delayed only to accelerate the sale of his folio dictionary. There is not room now left us to dissect every sentence in the preface to his octavo. We shall therefore conclude the subject with one particular, wherein the Doctor’s taste, learning, and genius blaze in their meridian.

In the title page to his octavo dictionary we are informed that the words are ‘authorised by the names of the writers in whose works they are found.’ And this tale is repeated at greater length in the preface, where ‘it will be found that truth requires him to say less:’ For under letter A only there are between four and five hundred words, for which the Idler has not assigned any authority – and of these one hundred and eighty are to be found in no language under heaven. He boasts indeed that his dictionary ‘contains many words not to be found in any other.’ But it also contains many words not to be found at all in any other books. (pp. 56-57)

No. 79

79. (Anonymous) ‘Impartial and Critical Review of New Publication.’ The Gentleman’s Magazine, LIII Part the Second (July 1783), pp. 592-595.

Remarks, Critical and Illustrative, on the Text and Notes of the Last Edition of Shakespeare. 8vo.

These Remarks can proceed from no other than the virulent pen of Wartono-Mastix, the modern Zoilus, who, however just his criticisms, by the manner in which he conveys them, cannot fail to disgust his readers and irritate his opponents. It has been his principal business, very properly, to collate the original and authentic editions of his author. The assertion of his “eight professed editors,” particularly Dr. Johnson, Mr. Steevens, and Mr. Malone, that they have diligently performed this laborious but necessary task, our critic denies, even for a single play; and these assertions, it must be owned, are abundantly confirmed, supposing the references just, in the course of these Remarks. Of them we shall exhibit a few, as a specimen both of his matter and manner; though of the latter he is so bad a judge himself, that he thinks it “not inconsistent with a due sense of obligations and the profoundest respect.”

(two paragraphs omitted)

Cavalierly as Mr. R. treats these two learned prelates, Dr. Johnson fares much worse, and, bulky as his Dictionary is, he lugs it in headlong, merely to bespatter a work which does honour to its author and to our language; e.g. Minnekin is evidently a corruption of mannekin, or manikin, properly mankin, “a little man.” – “Dr. Johnson,” says Mr. R. “is so very imperfectly acquired with the nature and derivation of the English language (and, in that respect, his Dictionary, how valuable soever it may be on account of the explanation and use of English words, is beneath contempt; there being scarcely ten words properly deduced in the whole work,) that it is no wonder to find him making minnekin, and minx the same word. But minnekin does not mean a nice trifling girl: and, though a substantive, is oftener used adjectively, than otherwise: so in Midas (not John Lylies): “My manikin Miss.”— As mankin got changed into minnekin, ‘a little man,’ so they formed minnekenness, ‘a little woman, a girl;’ which has since, by corruption, become minx. Thus laddess (ladess) from lad, has, by a similar progress, become lass.” (p. 593)

No. 80

80. [James Thomson Callender.] ‘SECT. VIII.’ A Critical Review of the Works of Dr. Samuel Johnson. Second edition. Edinburgh: Printed for the Author, 1783, pp. 55-60. {In 1787, this review was also printed for R. Rusted, in London without the name of the author.}

In compiling a dictionary, by far the most difficult and important part of an author’s task is that of explain the meaning of the words. This portion of his work Dr Johnson has, (I think) performed with very little success. He tells us, that white, the noun substantive signifies, “the albugineous part of an egg” Taste is “gustation” Suds, “a lixivium of soap and water.” A mill, ““an engine or fabric in which corn is comminuted.” A millcog, “The denticulations, &c. Milk, “An emulsion,” &c.

What would Lord Bacon have said or thought, had he heard our author summon him to prove, that a milk pan was “a vessel in which milk is kept in the dairy.” Mr Locke would not have been very proud to hear himself introduced, as affirming that milk pottage is “food made by boiling milk with “water and oat-meal.” Bacon would no doubt term Dr Johnson a creature patched up of hard words, and compare some of his imitators to “asses standing under a tree.” Mr Lock has already ║ afforded us his opinion in the most explicit, forcible, and humiliating language. But common sense does not stand in need even of so great a man’s authority.

For his absurdities on this head, our author has composed, in his preface, an elaborate apology. His prolix and confused reveries cannot convince, but they fatigue and disgust, and unhappy reader is eager to turn over the page as fast as possible. Suppose that a preacher, in haranguing his audience, should explain some of the misty passages in St Paul, by reading them in the Greek text, would not every person conclude him only fit for Bedlam! What better is it in Dr. Johnson to explain the plainest words by the most obscure ! Burial, by sepulture; Drive, by desiccative; Dryness, by siccity, or aridity; Fit, by paroxysm ; to cheer, to exhilarate; and so on. All this is the most stupid pedantic nonsense imaginable ; and all that he says in three folio pages will not convince us, that this is the way to explain words.

I shall proceed to give a variety of quotations from the Doctor’s book. They will occupy a considerable space, but they will ascertain whether his dictionary is, or is not a work of value. I have left our some part of the definitions of about three or four of the vocables.

(one paragraph omitted)

Of these definitions the greater part convey no meaning to the common reader. Most of them would answer many other words, as well as those to which they are applied ; and the rest are explained by each other, which is no explanation at all; for surely one may as well pretend to explain a thing by itself, and say that twisted is twisted, as that twisted is contorted, and contorted, twisted. (...)

(two paragraphs omitted)

These quotations are a very fair sample of the Doctor’s genius and learning, and from them no man will have a great opinion of either. As all here said is so well known already, that it was not worth repeating, or is buried in scientific terms, which few understand, or is false in fact ; for when we trace this author through all his frivolous and useless variations, we discover that his imperfections are equal to his pedantry. Of the Ash, and more than twenty others in the above list, we are only told that they are trees. Of several, we only learn, that they are plants; and what difference does the Doctor mean to specify between a plant and a tree. The Horse Chesnut[sic] is a tree as well as a plant. And the Larch again is a plant as well as a tree. Indeed the Doctor himself is a plant, if we understand his explanation of that word ; for he was unquestionably produced by seed, and so was a whale, and therefore every animal is a plant.

(three paragraphs omitted)

It is really strange that on so plain a subject the Doctor found so little to say, and that what he hath said hath so very little meaning. Every carpenter in England could have informed him, that Hornbeam, for instance, is an Evergreen ; that it resists the wind remarkably ; that it grows on the coldest hills, and in the worst soil, better than almost any other tree ; that the wood is white, tough and flexible, and that it burns as clear as a candle. Since he wanted to talk of the species of trees, he might have said, that of Ash there are 10, of Thorn 23, of Acacia 30, and of Holly 35 species; and of Larch, that on this wood Raphael exhibited his art, before the use of canvas in painting began to be known.

Whoever imagines the Doctor to be a man of general learning, will not be more surprised at his numerous mistakes, than his numerous omissions. The Mahogany, the Pimento, the Hickery, the Cassia, the Coffee, and Tea trees, are all wanting. The Sagou, and Bread-fruit trees, so singular and so valuable, and not inserted, nor the Laburnum, or the Tallow tree, or the Tacamahanca, which bears our severest winters, and is very much used by physicians in the West Indies. An Apple, a Plum, a Peach, and an Orange, are all mentioned, while, by the most unpardonable negligence, the trees themselves are forgot.

No. 81

81. Joseph Ritson. Remarks, Critical and Illustrative, on the Text and Notes of the Last Edition of Shakespeare. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1783.

The folio, according to Mr. Steevens, reads mimmick; perhaps for mimick, a word more familiar than that exhibited by one of the 4 tos, for the other reads minnick. After all minnock, mimmick, and minnick, are onely[sic], perhaps, misprints for mommock, which comes nearly to the same letters, and signifies a huge misshapen thing; and is very properly applyed[sic] by a Fairy to a clumsy over-grown clown. Minnekin is evidently a corruption of mannekin or manikin, properly mankin, a little man. Dr. Johnson is so very imperfectly acquired with the nature and derivation of the English language (and, in that respect, his dictionary, how valuable soever it may be on account of the explanation and use of English words, is beneath contempt; there being scarcely ten words properly deduced in the whole work), that it is no wonder to find him making minnekin, and minx the same word. But minnekin does not mean a nice trifling girl: and, though a substantive, is oftener used adjectively, than otherwise: so in Midas (not John Lylies): “My manikin miss.” – As mankin got changed into minnekin, ‘a little man,’ so they formed minnekenness, ‘a little woman, a girl;’ which has since, by corruption, become minx. Thus Laddess (Ladess) from Lad, has, by a similar progress, become Lass.” (p. 44)

No. 82

82. Robert Nares. ‘PREFACE.’ Elements of Orthoepy: Containing a Distinct View of the Whole Analogy of the English Language; so far as it Relates to Pronunciation, Accent, and Quantity. London: Printed for T. Payne & Son, 1784, pp. iii-xxvi. コピー済み

Language, being perpetually in use, is not easily preserved from corruption. Violent and gross injuries, indeed, such as proceed from the attacks of vulgar or provincial barbarism, are readily perceived and repelled; but there are enemies which act against it more secretly, and therefore more irresistibly. The arbitrary caprice of fashion, and the spirit of improvement misdirected, are daily making changes in the structure and found of language ; which, though separately inconsiderable, are after some time important in the total amount : and as the celestial signs had nearly changed their places before the slow but constant motion of the equinoxes was detected, so a language may have departed considerably from the fixed point of purity, and the harmony of its construction may be materially injured, before those minute changes, which affect only single words or syllables, shall have attracted the public observation.

In an enlightened and improving age much, perhaps, is not to be apprehended from the inroads of mere caprice : at such a period it will generally be perceived that needless irregularity is the worst of all deformities ; and that nothing is so truly elegant in language as the simplicity of unviolated analogy. Rules will therefore be observed, so far as they are known and acknowledged; but at the same time the desire of improvement having once been excited, will not remain inactive; and its efforts, unless assisted by knowledge as much as they are prompted by zeal, will not unfrequently be found pernicious ; so that the very persons whose intention it is to perfect the instrument of reason, will deprave and disorder it unknowingly. At such a time, then, it becomes peculiarly necessary that the analogy of language should be fully examined and understood ; that its rules should be carefully laid down ; and that it should be clearly shown how much it contains which, being already right, should be defended from change and violation ; how much it has that demands amendment ; and how much that, for fear of greater inconveniences, must perhaps be left unaltered, though irregular.

So complete a view of the whole analogy of language, so far as it exists, and of its want of analogy, so far as it is yet unremedied, must be the best security that can be provided against corrupt or injudicious innovation.

Happily for language, that part of it which is highest in importance is the least liable to suffer from the attempts of innovators. Its internal or grammatical structure, being founded on the solid principles of reason, powerfully resists depravation. Barbarism alone can delight in deviating from laws so evidently just as those of general grammar, or so evidently necessary as those of particular grammars superadded to them : and this part of the English language, as its dignity demands, has already been treated in such a manner as to make further attempts unnecessary. (pp. iii-vi)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The English Dictionary appeared; and, as the weight of truth and reason is irresistible, its authority has nearly fixed the external form of our language; and from its decisions few appeals have yet been made. Indeed so convenient is it to have one acknowledged standard to recur to, so much preferable, in matters of this nature, is a trifling degree of irregularity to a continual change, and fruitless pursuit of unattainable perfection, that it is earnestly to be hoped that no author will henceforth, on slight grounds, be tempted to innovate. There is but little acuteness required to propose, even rightly, the correction of a letter in several single words ; but an amendment so slight will make the public no reparation for the inconvenience which must arise from inconsistent practice, and a renewal of the idle spirit of needless alteration. The innovations even of Voltaire have judiciously been rejected in France.

Consistently with these principles, it will be found that the chapter here presented to the reader, tends rather to call forth to notice some parts of the English Dictionary, which seem to have attracted too little the attention of the public, than to combat the opinions of its Author. The information contained within a copious dictionary, may, in many instances, be almost lost for want of being expected. What is sought, in such a work, is readily discovered ; but whatever happens not to be considered, may, where nothing is forced into observation, long remain unnoticed. This appears to have happened with respect to some alterations in orthography proposed by Dr. Johnson ; and of such materials, collected in the pursuit of my other inquiries, the present chapter is made up. If I have sometimes opposed my author, it is generally for the sake of preventing, not to introducing, innovation.

Such an attempt it is probable that the great Author of the English Dictionary himself will not reprehend, as he is every where the declared enemy of unnecessary innovation. The principles, on which he founds his improvements, are the stable ones of etymology and analogy; the former science probably will not soon be made completely understood than it is by him; and if, in the latter, a few steps may have been made beyond the limits of his observation, they have been gained only by the pursuit of minute researches, inconsistent with the greatness of his undertaking. In drawing out the following list of words, I have set down chiefly those, in writing which the public practice still differs from what the Lexicographer proposes, or still appears to be fluctuating. Some words are admitted for other reasons, but not very many. The words, as he writes them, stand in the margin. What is subjoined is intended, as has been said, sometimes to confirm, and sometimes to oppose, the alteration suggested in the Dictionary ; very often merely to present it to the attention of the reader.

Account, not accmpt: nor is the p retained in any of the derivatives.

Advertise, not advertize. The terminations –ize and –ise require regulation. It does not

appear that Dr. Johnson prescribed any rule to himself for using the one or the other;...

Affraid, not afraid, from the origin to affray.

Agast, and aghast. The former is defended by supporting it derived from to agaze; the

latter by deducing it from a and ghast, for ghost. Custom favours the latter.

Agen, according to etymology, more right than again.

To ake, not to ach; but in compliance with custom only. Etymology requires the latter

form; the analogy of our pronunciation, the former. By an oversight, the substantive ake, though referred to in the word ache, is wholly omitted in the Dictionary. Ache is used only in the plural, and as a dissyllable, with the ch soft:

“Fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar.” Shaksp. Tempest. (pp. 269-274)

No. 83

83. Thomas Tyers. “A Biographical Sketch of Dr. Samuel Johnson.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, LIV. Part the Second (December 1784), pp. 899-911. {The part [* ] is inserted from an expanded and amended version of this sketch, reprinted by Augustan Reprint Society, No. 34, 1952, pp. 7-8.}

He [sc. Johnson] was employed by Osborne to make a catalogue of the Harleian Library. Perhaps, like those who stay too long on an errand, he did not make the expedition his employer expected, from whom he might deserve a gentle reprimand. The fact was, when he opened a book he liked, he could not restrain from reading it. The bookseller upbraided him in a gross manner, and, as tradition goes, gave him the lye direct, though our catalogue-maker offered at an excuse. Johnson turned the volume into a weapon, and knocked him down, and told him, “not to be in a hurry to rise, for when he did, he proposed kicking him down stairs.” Perhaps the lye direct may be punished ad modum recipientis, as the law gives no satisfaction. His account of the collection, and the tracts that are printed in quarto volumes, were well received by the public. Of his folio labours in his English Dictionary a word must be said; but here is not room for much. [*This writer has sufficient proof that Dodsley suggested the first idea of this great collection. Johnson wanted a long and a large literary employment. The proposal rather took him by surprise. Lantr molis crat(?) The pecuniary bargain was necessary to him, and the engagement for time and payment was concluded. Bu the work went on but slowly. The money was all gone (for time and money are the most wastable things in the world) before the talk was completed. Illness, wariness, or dissipation, clogged the wheels of this machine. A refreshing ice was perpetually necessary; or, to use classical instead of legal allusion, golden showers were to be thrown into the lap of this literary Danae, to the amount of three hundred additional pounds. It required the purses of five eminent booksellers to be opened to pay for the labours of this Hercules. When Johnson came to settle with his employers, said Andrew Millar, they produced their receipts for the money they had advanced, most of which were for small sums. He was confounded to find the balance against himself, of he kept no account, and that he had been working nine years for nothing. The creditor, instantly became the debtor. The booksellers generously made him a present of the difference, and paid his reckoning for him. Dodsley wished for an alphabetical list of the books quoted for this dictionary to be prefixed to the work; but he was not gratified.] The delineation of his plan, which was esteemed a beautiful composition, was inscribed to Lord Chesterfield, no doubt with permission, whilst he was secretary of state. It was at this time, he said, he aimed at elegance of writing, and set for his emulation the Preface of Chambers to his Cyclopedia. Johnson undoubtedly expected beneficial patronage. It should seem that he was in the acquaintance of his Lordship, and that he had dined at his table, by an allusion to him in a letter to his son, printed by Mrs. Stanhope, and which he himself would have been afraid to publish. Whilst he was ineffectually hallooing the Graces in the ear of his son, he set before him the slovenly behaviour of our author at his table, whom he acknowledges as a great genius, but points him out as a rock to avoid, and considers him only as “a respectable Hottentot.” When the book came out, Johnson took his revenge, by saying of it. “that the instructions to his son inculcated the manners of a dancing master, and the morals of a prostitute.” Within this year or two he observed (for anger is a short-lived passion), that, bating some improprieties, it contained good directions, and was not a bad system of education. But Johnson probably did not think so highly of his own appearance as of his morals. For, on being asked if Mr. Spence had not paid him a visit? “Yes,” says he, “and he probably may think he visited a bear.” “Johnson,” says the author of the Life of Socrates, “is a literary savage,” “Very likely,” replied Johnson; “and Cooper (who was as thick as long) is a literary Punchinello.”

(one paragraph omitted)

Lord Chesterfield indeed commends and recommends Mr. Johnson’s Dictionary in two or three numbers of the World. “Not words alone pleased him.” “When I had undergone, says the compiler, a long and fatiguing voyage, and was just getting into port, this Lord sent out a small cock-boat to pilot me in.” The agreement for this great work was fifteen hundred pounds. This was a large bookseller’s venture at that time: and it is in many shares. Robertson, Gibbon, and a few more, have raised the price of manuscript copies. In the course of fifteen years, two and twenty thousand pounds have been paid to four authors. Johnson’s world of words demands frequent editions. His titles of Doctor of Laws from Dublin and from Oxford (both of which came to him unasked an unknown, and only not unmerited); his pension from the King, which is to be considered as a reward for his pioneering services in the English language, and by no means as a bribe; gave him consequence, and made the Dictionary and it’s author more extensively known. It is a royal satisfaction to have made the life of a learned man more comfortable to him.

“These are imperial works, and worthy Kings.”

Lord Corke, who would have been kinder to him than Stanhope (if he could) as soon as it came out, presented the Dictionary to the Academy della Crusca at Florence in 1755. Even for the abridgement in octavo, which puts it into every body’s hands, he was paid to his satisfaction, by the liberality of his booksellers. His reputation is as great for compiling, digesting, and ascertaining the English language, as if he had invented it. His Grammar in the beginning of the work was the best in our language, in the opinion of Goldsmith. During the printing of his Dictionary, the Ramblers came out periodically; for he could do more than one thing at a time. He declared that he wrote them by way of relief from his application to his Dictionary, and for the reward. He has told this writer, that he had no expectation they would have met with so much success, and been so much read and admired. What was amusement to him, is instruction to others. Goldsmith declared, that a system of morals might be drawn from these Essays: this idea is taken up and executed y a publication in an alphabetical series of moral maxims. (pp. 902-903)

No. 84

84. William Cooke (-). The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. with Occasional Remarks on his Writings, an Authentic Copy of his Will, and a Catalogue of His Works... London: Printed for G. Kearsley, 1785. The second edition with considerable additions and corrections, pp. 24-26. [First published in Dublin in 1785.]

The success of this Poem [sc. The Vanity of Human Wishes] balancing, at least in fame, his disappointment on the stage, it was reasonable to expect Mr. Johnson would have returned to the charge as a dramatic writer; but whether from disgust, or discovering, that this species of writing was not his forte, he roused himself to search for fame and immortality upon more successful ground; and who will say he did not succeed in his two subsequent works – his Dictionary and the Rambler? None, but those who are equally callous to the perceptions of knowledge, and the sympathies of moral virtue.

It not unfrequently happens with great minds, that difficulties and embarrassments [sic] call them out with redoubled exertions. Had Mr. Johnson succeeded as a dramatist, he probably would have found it more for his case and profit, to have continued to write for the stage: his friend Garrick being manager, might have forwarded his views; and his name would have, perhaps, at this day, stood in the médiocre list of tragedy-writers. But, soiled in this his first attempt, he was determined to rise, like Antæus, from his fall; and put in claims for higher and more substantial honours. With this view he conceived the design of one of the noblest and most useful, though at the same time the most laborious work that would possibly be undertake by one man, viz. A complete Grammar and Dictionary of our hitherto unsettled Language.

(one paragraph omitted)

The execution of this work cost him the labour of many years, the letter to Lord Chesterfield, when the plan was already sketched, being dated in 1747, and the whole not finished till 1755; and without doubt, previous to the first mentioned period, he must have made many preparatory collections and observations; but the manner in which it was at last executed, made ample amends for public expectation. Nor did his praises rest with his own countrymen: several of the foreign academies, and particularly the Acadmia della Crusca, paid him such honours on the occasion, as leave all encomiums in this place entirely superfluous. (pp. -26) コピーした

No. 85

85. William Shaw. Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Late Dr. Samuel Johnson. The whole authenticated by living evidence. London: Printed for J. Walker, 1785, pp. 75-82.

Hitherto he [sc. Johnson] had tried his genius as a translator, a satirist, and a biographer; he was now to appear a philologist. The plan of his Dictionary, which he displays with so much elegance and dignity in an address to the late Earl of Chesterfield, was published so early as the year 1748. This performance promised something so much like what all men of taste had long thought wanting to the purity, stability, and perfection of our language, exhibited an object of such magnitude to the public mind, and was itself so exquisite a specimen of the happiest arrangement and most polished diction, that is brought Johnson forward to general attention with peculiar advantage. The eye of all the world were turned on what part the nobleman thus distinguished would now act in concert with the first writer, and interested by the sketch of a work the most laborious and useful of any which even then had roused the curiosity and excited the wonder of an enlightened age. From a secretary of state, still more illustrious for his elegant accomplishments than for his high birth or official situation something like substantial encouragement was expected to an understanding which aimed at no less than a standard Dictionary of the English tongue. His lordship was a competent judge of the subject. He acknowledged its importance and necessity. He occupied a sphere in life, an influence among the great, and a character among the learned, which enabled him to do much. His vanity was not inferior to his power; and had the talents of Johnson stooped to the prostituted language of adulation, his toil had probably been considerably alleviated by the taste, the address, the assiduity and the countenance of Chesterfield. But nothing can be conceived more diametrically opposite and irreconcieable than the tempers, the prejudices, the habits, the pursuits, and the peculiarities of these contemporary wits. A semblance of intimacy took place, in which it is not likely that either were sincere. The oddities of the author furnished the peer with a fund of ridicule, and the fastidious elegance of the peer excited only the aversion, contempt, and pity of the author. All the celebrated qualities of Chesterfield, said (Johnson to an intimate friend, to whom he was then in the habit of unbosoming himself on occasion) are like certain species of fruit which is pleasant enough to the eye, but there is no tasting it without danger.

In this well written pamphlet it was his ambition to rival the preface to Chambers’s Dictionary. How far he succeeded is not easily determined. It will not be denied, that he possesses more energy of language, and perhaps a more beautiful arrangement of the multifarious particulars to which he solicits the public attention, but he certainly wants the simplicity, and indeed is proscribed by his subject from displaying the knowledge, of Chambers.

Chesterfield joined in the general applause which followed the exhibition of a design thus replete with utility in the aim, and originality in the execution. He was proud to have attracted the regards of such a man as Johnson, and flattered himself with the hopes of fresh accession of same, from being the patron of such a work. But the manners of the operator were so disgusting to this Mæcenas of letters, and learned men, that the only concern he took in the matter was saying a few polite things at his table, and congratulating the lovers of grammar on the improvement which that science would derive from the labours of Johnson. It is a disgrace to his memory, and to the age, that the author of an undertaking so arduous and extensive was not placed beyond the recurrence of necessity, and that while his genius was conferring permanency on their language, the exigencies of his situation impelled him to apply to other means for daily subsistence.

The talents requisite for such an undertaking seldom meet in one man. Its magnitude was enough to stagger any resolution less vigorous, to repress any ardour less manly, to derange any intellect less collected than that of Johnson. But his capacity was competent to the object. His reading was chiefly philological, his taste was improved by an intimate acquaintance with all the classical remains of antiquity, his memory retained with exactness whatever his judgment had matured; and he possessed a penetration or discernment characteristically solid, cool, and discriminating. It was not a composition that depended on the paroxysms of genius, a vigorous imagination, fertility of invention, originality of conception, or brilliancy of style. Patient industry, laborious attention, a determination of forgetting the lassitude of fatigue by a renewal of the task; and a mind, which notwithstanding a thousand avocations and obstacles, like the water in a river, still returned to the same channel, and pursued the same course; were some of the qualifications with which Johnson formed the plan, and entered on the compilation of his Dictionary.

No. 86

86. John Walker. “To Dr. Samuel Johnson.” A Rhetorical Grammar, or Course of Lessons in Elocution. London: Printed for the Author, 1785.

Sir,

If the conferring of benefits be what commonly constitutes a Patron, to Students in Elocution you are the greatest patron in the kingdom. You not only first awakened the public to an attention to their language, but, by an Herculean labour, afforded them a guide, which has conducted them to a thousand improvements. This was sufficient to attract the admiration and acknowledgments of your country, if you had not shown, by your moral and critical writings, that, though you were the only person proper to undertake so laborious a task, you were almost the only one who ought to have been exempted from it. But though I am proud of an opportunity of confessing my obligations to your public labours, I am much more ambitious of telling the world that I have been long honoured with the friendship and advice of him, whose name will be mentioned among the Lockes, the Newtons, and the Fenelons, as the friend of Revelation, and whose life is an indisputable proof of the sincerity of his attachment to it.

I am,

SIR,

With the greatest Respect

Your obliged, humble Servant,

J. Walker

No. 87

87. John Courtenay. A Poetical Review of the Literary and Moral Character of the Late Samuel Johnson, L.L.D. The Second Edition. London: Printed for Charles Dilly, 1786. {The first edition was published in Dublin in 1786.}

By grateful bards his name be eve sung,

Whose sterling touch has fix’d the English tongue!

Fortune’s dire weight, the patron’s cold disdain,

“Shook off, like dew-drops from the lion’s mane;”

Unknown, unaided, in a friendless state,

Without one smile of favour from the great;

The bulky tome his curious care refines,

Till the great work in full perfection shines:

His wide research and patient skill displays

What scarce was sketch’d in Anna’s golden days;

What only learning’s aggregated toil

Slowly accomplish’d in each foreign soil. (pp. 10-12)

No. 88

Mature in age, with fame, with honour crown’d

For virtue revenc’d, as for wit renown’d;

Whose bosom glow’d with purest precepts fraught;

Whose life express’d each precept which he taught.

Such Johnson was – but is, alas! no more!

Let Literature herself the loss deplore;

With Piety and Virtue by her side,

In sable mourn their guardian and their pride.

Though life is frail, all human glories vain,

Yet Johnson’s bays unfaded shall remain;

His works survive, to future ages dear,

And latest times his memory revere;

Who first from fashion’s laws our language freed

(A task, where none but Johnson could succeed;)

With genius, taste, and erudition join’d,

Each term abstruse, each dubious phrase defin’d,

And fix’d the standard of that wavering tongue,

In which himself had written – Pope had sung.

As plann’d by him, e’en dictionaries please;

He moral truths has taught with classic ease:

Add, that his writings blend, thro’ every page,

The christian hero, and the learned sage.

Our Poets’ works with critic skill he weigh’d,

Their faults, their beauties, and their lives display’d.

From him, to judge with freedom we may learn,

And solid sense from empty sound discern.

Himself correct, he hardly knew to spare

Those bards, who boldly vend unfinish’d ware.

Unaw’d by names, if by too rigid laws

Some bards he jundg’d, who merit just applause,

With equal candour, by a gentler test,

He others tried, whom rival wits oppress’d.

E’en Watts and Blackmore, whose flat strains abound

With pious traits, in him a patron found.

Bt while we justly praise what Johnson wrote,

Are then his humble charities forgot?

Himself not rich, he shar’d his slender store

With those who were, but ought not to be, poor;

Sought modest merit, in its dark abode,

The naked cloth’d and gave the hungry food.

Nor were his friendships less his joy or pride,

With whom in friendship Garrick liv’d and died.

And Reynolds, doom’d, alas! His friend to mourn.

And deck with cypress wreaths his hallow’d urn;

Whose matchless skill has done, what painting can,

That those who read his work, may view the man.

Nor, Thurlow, thou disdain they meed of praise,

Whose bounty strove they drooping friend to raise,

If haply warmer climes might yet restore

That health, which medicine could assist no more.

Stern for to vice, by virtue’s friends caress’d,

Thus Johnson liv’d, with learned leisure blest;

Happy through life, yet happier in his end,

Who, dying, claim’d his Saviour for his frien.

Ob. 13 Dec. 1784.

No. 89

89. John Pinkerton ed. Ancient Scotish [sic] Poems, Never Before in Print. But now published from the MS. Collections of Sir Richard Maitland. Vol. II. London: Printed for Charles Dilly and William Creech at Edinburgh, 1786, pp. 403-404 (note for p. 71).

White was his face as pain de maine.

Upon which line Mr. Tyrwhitt quotes this Tale in the Maitland MS. and tells us Skinner derives the term from panis matutinus. When will the nonsense of Skinner and Junius cease to be quoted by men of sense? These authors are always for Greek or Latin etymologies. The English and Scotish[sic] languages are of Northern, not of Greek or Latin Origin. When an etymologist shall arise possest[sic] of perfect knowledge of the Celtic, Gothic, Teutonic, Franco-Teutonic, and Islandic tongues; and of good sense; then we may expect just origins of our words, but never till then. Far fewer of our etymologies are even from the old French than what is believed; and the old French itself is derived from the above languages, mixed with barbarous Latin, so that there is no occasion to drink of the troubled flood, while its clear spring is at hand. Dr. Johnson, the poor copier of Junius and Skinner, did not even know, it may be inferred, what he ought to have studied before he wrote a Dictionary; much less how to write a Dictionary itself. Next century will pronounce his work, what it really is, a disgrace to the language. His examples, tho already allowed his sole merit, are as ill chosen as his etymologies; and very many as misquoted, or given to wrong authors, so that, such as they are, they can scarcely be depended on. An academy alone can write a dictionary. It would require at least six men of deep learning to adjust etymologies; and twenty proper judges to settle what words actually belong to our language. Any schoolmaster might have done what Johnson did. His dictionary is merely a glossary to his own barbarous works. Indeed, that a man of very small learning (see his works), but confessedly quite ignorant of the Northern tongues, should pretend to write a English dictionary at all: that a man, confessedly without taste, should attempt to define the nicer powers of words, a chief province of taste: that a man, confessedly the very worst wrier in the language save Sir Thomas Browne, and whose whole works are true pages of inanity, wrapt in barbarism, should set up for a judge of our language: are all ideas to excite laughter. But peace to his manes! He was a pious man, and is gone: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord, for they rest from their labour, and their works do follow them.

No. 90

90. John Horne Tooke. Επεα πτεροεντα, or The diversions of Purley. Part I. London : Printed for the author, 1786.

B. Perhaps you imagine that, if he had been aware that he was only writing concerning Language, he might have avoided treating of the origin of Ideas; and so have escaped the quantity of abuse which has been unjustly poured upon him for his opinion on that subject.

H. No. I think he would have set out just as he did, with the origin of Ideas; the proper starting-post of a Grammarian who is to treat of their signs. Nor is he singular in referring them all to the Senses; and in beginning an account of Language in that manner.

B. What difference then do you imagine it would have made in Mr. Lock’s Essay, if he had sooner been aware of the inseparable connexion[sic] between words and knowledge; or, in the language of Sir Hugh, in Shakespeare, that “the lips is parcel of the mind.”

H. Much. And amongst many other things, I think he would not have talked of the composition of ideas; but would have seen that it was merely a contrivance of Language: and that the only composition was in the terms; and consequently that it was as improper to speak of a complex idea, as it would be to call a constellation a complex star: And that they are not ideas, but merely terms, which are general and abstract. I think too that he would have seen the advantage of “thoroughly weighing” not only (as he says) “the imperfections of Language;” but its perfections also: For the perfections of Language, not properly understood, have been one of the chief causes of the imperfections of our philosophy. And indeed, from numberless passages throughout his Essay, Mr. Locke seems to me to have suspected something of this sort: and especially from what he hints in his last chapter; where, speaking of t doctrine of signs, he says – “The consideration then of Ideas and Words, as the great instruments of knowledge, makes no despicable part of their contemplation who would take a view of human knowledge in the whole extent of it. And perhaps, if they were distinctly weighed and duly considered, they would afford us another sort of Logick ad Critick than what we have hitherto been acquainted with.” (pp. 46-51)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

B. In this and in all similar instances, what is an? For I can by no means agree with the account which Dr. S. Johnson gives of it in his Dictionary: and I do not know that any other person has ever attempted to explain it.

H. How does he account for it?

B. He says,---“an is sometimes in old authors a contraction of And if.” Of which he gives a very unlucky instance from Shakespeare; where both an and if are used in the same line.

-------“ He cannot flatter, He!

An honest mind and plain: he must speak Truth:

An they will take it,---So, if not; he’s plain.”

Where, if an was a contraction of and if; an and if should rather change places.

H. I can no more agree with Dr. S. Johnson than you do. (pp. 145-146)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

If the definition of a Conjunction is adhered to, I am afraid that and, in such instances, will appear to be no more a Conjunction, (that is a connecter of sentences) that Though in the instance I have given under that word: or than But, in Mr. Locke’s second instance; or than Else, when called by S. Johnson a Pronoun; or than Since, when used for Sithence or for Syne. In short, I am afraid that the Grammarians will scarcely have an entire Conjunction left: for I apprehend that there is not one of those words which they call Conjunctions, which is not sometimes used (and that very properly) without connecting sentences. (pp. 265-266)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

B. Still I have difficulty to trust to this explanation. For Dr. S. Johnson has numbered up twenty different meanings of this Preposition from. He says, it denotes, “1. Privation. (…)” To these he adds twenty-two manners of using it. And he has accompanied each with instances sufficiently numerous, as proofs.

H. And yet in all his instances (which, I believe, are above seventy) from continues to retain invariably one and the same single meaning. (pp. 378-381)

No. 91

91. Joseph Towers (1737-1799). An Essay on the Life, Character, and Writings of Dr. Samuel Johnson. London: Printed for Charles Dilly, 1786, 124pp.

His Dictionary was a work of great labour, and great merit, and has not been praised more than it deserves. That it has faults cannot be denied; nor would any man, who was at all competent to judge of such a work, suppose it possible that it should be without. But by the completion of it, with all its defects, he might justly be considered as having rendered a signal service to the republic of letters. As our language had then attained to a considerable degree of perfection, it was important that a common standard should be established, which might at least have some tendency to prevent that perpetual fluctuation, to which languages are subject, and thereby to secure to the English language, and to English authors, a more permanent duration.

The preface to his Dictionary contains many just and acute observations respecting general grammar, and that of the English language in particular: and the close of his preface is highly eloquent and pathetic. During the time in which he was employed in the compilation of his Dictionary, he sometimes laboured under the accumulated distresses of ill health, and of a scanty and precarious income. “The English Dictionary,” says he, “was not written in the soft obscurities of retirement...” (pp. 38-39)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

His life of Dr. Watts is written with great candour; and, perhaps, he might be the more inclined to do justice to that ingenious divine, though a Dissenter, not only from respect for his piety, but also from some grateful remembrance of the assistance which he had received from his works, in the compilation of his Dictionary. He has many quotations from Watts, and has incorporated into his Dictionary not a few of the definitions which occur in the Logic of that writer. Mr. Courtenay, in the notes to his “Poetical Review of the literary and moral character of Dr. Johnson,” has given eight lines from Watts’s poems, as a sufficient specimen to enable the reader to judge of his poetical merit. But surely to select a few of the worst lines of an author, who wrote so much as Dr. Watts did, is not a very candid method of estimating his merit. If Mr. Courtenay, instead of the lines which he has selected, had given Dr. Watts’s ode to lady Sunderland, its elegance and beauty would have been acknowledged by every reader of taste. (pp. 98-99) コピーとれない

No. 92

92. Sir Herbert Croft. “Oxford Dictionary of the English Language.”The Gentleman’s Magazine, LVII Part the Second (August 1787), pp. 651-652.

Letter to the Editor from the Gentleman employed upon a New Dictionary of the English Language down to nearly the End of the Eighteenth Century.

Sir, Oxford, Aug. 3.

In your publication for last month I observe that you are pleased to speak of the work upon which I have been for some years employed, and rather to call upon me to speak to the publick about it.

It was always my intention so to do, Sir, when I should be able to inform the publick of my having made very considerable progress. That time is, now, not far distant; as I have, for a good while, counted a collection of more than 5000 words, which are not in the wonderful, though very imperfect, Dictionary of my great friend and master Johnson.

This, however, is by no means the principal part of what I have done; and still less of what I mean to do, though I could almost write my letter to you, Sir, in English words, which are not to be found in Johnson’s English Dictionary.

For a man, with a natural dislike to work, that was hired by the booksellers, and was under the harrows of poverty, Johnson did much, did wonders (and you shall see, hereafter, that I will water his laurels, not, like some of his friends, root them up): but much remains to be done, in every thing which regards the English language, by a man, aware of the use of Saxon, who sits down from choice to the task, and who sits down to it long enough.

My principal hopes are from having put together my manuscripts (now nearly 200 quarto volumes) in such a manner that every step I make in the work counts; and, that the first person who shall go by my house after my death, and can read, may see directly how far I had advanced, if I should not live to finish it. If I should, I shall transcribe, hereafter, from my original manuscripts for the press; and shall deposit the manuscripts themselves (since they will contain, at perhaps every word, many more passages than I shall use), together with my collection of all dictionaries, grammars, essays, treatises, &c. respecting the English language, in some public library.

If any literary person would do me the favour of calling upon me, in his way through the University, before I publish an account of the progress I have made, or after, I shall be very happy to show him my manuscripts, &c. Any of your correspondents, Sir, would greatly oblige me, who would have the goodness, either privately, or through your Magazine, to mention any books or manuscripts at all in my way, or (particularly) to point out any defects in Johnson’s Dictionary, or any thing which can in the least contribute to render a Dictionary of the English Language more complete: they shall not find me shrink from any thing, because it demands time or toil.

These few words, I thought due, Sir, to your notice of my work. Before long I shall perhaps trouble the publick with many more, if I be not deterred by Pope, who made sad havock with poor verbal criticks in his life-time, and who continues still to hold the rod over us in the only apophthegm which remains upon record as his – “the publisher of a Dictionary may know the meaning of a single word, but not of two words put together.”

Yours, &c. H. C.

** This correspondent, who is the author of the Life of Young amongst Johnson’s Lives, and has Johnson’s testimony and the publick’s to his being able to put words together, is desired to accept our thanks for the foregoing letter.

Our correspondents in general will please to take notice that we have the gentleman’s address, and that we shall, at all times, be ready to transmit any thing to him privately, or to prior in our Magazine any thing of merit which relates to his work, provided it be not too long for our purpose, under the title we have affixed to this article – “Oxford Dictionary of the English Language” – to which we wish no more success than it shall appear to merit, but certainly all that, as must every Englishman and American.

No. 93

93. P. O. B. “Thoughts on Dictionaries.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, LVII Part the Second (September 1787), pp. 790-791. {See the work by Thomas Baker (1708) included in this selection.}

Mr. Urban, Sep. 18.

The compiling of a Dictionary of any language is an act that partakes a little of the degeneracy of the age in which it is executed. I speak, under favour, with regard to all compilers, past, present, and to come. The English language was greatly corrupted when Johnson undertook his; and he increased the corruption by inserting new coined words, for which he could procure no sanction. When the language of Babel is introduced into a country, a Dictionary is set on foot, like a code of sumptuary laws, to reform and retrench. In the chaste untainted æra of a language, while Atticism and pure Latinity prevail, we hear of no Dictionaries or Lexicons. The writers de verborum significatione under Augustus, were rather glossographers, or antiquary collectors of old words; and as to Julius Pollux and Suidas, and Hesychius, and 20 more, they lived almost in the decline of the Greek empire.

Let us hear the shrewd observation of the learned Thomas Baker, in his “Reflection on Learning,” p. 19: -- “Dictionaries have been called in to our assistance, which have been compiled with great pains, not only for words, but for sciences and arts; but, besides the no great agreement there is among them, they are swoln[sic] to such a height, and become so numerous, that those very books that were designed as helps now breed confusion, and their bulk, and number is become a burthen. Such alone as have been composed for the French tongue (which as yet is no learned language) would fill a library, and only one of those, and that not the largest, has been the work of 40 years, thought it was carried on by the united labours of the French Academy: after all which care it has not escaped censure, but has been thought to want correction, and does therefore shew how impossible it is to set bounds, or give a standard, to language, for which purpose it was designed. Not only every tongue but every faculty has met with this help. Dictionaries are become a great part of learning, and nothing remains but that, as it has fared with Bibliotheques, which were grown so numerous that a Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum was thought a necessary work, so Dictionaries should have the like service done them. A Dictionarium Dictionariorum might be a work of some use, I am sure of great bulk, and I wonder it has not been yet undertaken.”

Let not your Oxford Dictionary-maker consider this as a reflection on his undertaking, to which I desire to be accounted a well-wisher. But, when a language comes to a degree of neologisme, to cite your next correspondent, it becomes necessary to sift the chaff from the wheat through a Dictionary.

Did you ever read a more bombastic rhapsody than in your p. 679, 680?

All that has hitherto been said about the return of Lord Montague to the religion of his fathers does very little credit to him or the cause; it is the recantation of a man of little reflection on any subject, of great superstition, and of a weak and unprincipled mind. Can the sensible Abbé take the offering sacrifices for the dead for a proof of sincere piety, and not rather suppose that the same weakness of judgement made Lord and Lady M. bigots in opposite systems. Yours, &c. P. O. B.

No. 94

94. Sir John Hawkins, Knt. The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. London: Printed for J. Buckland, etc., 1787, pp. 170-175.

By this and other of Johnson’s writings, his reputation as a scholar and a philologist was so well established, that the booksellers of greatest opulence in the city, who had long medicated the publication of a dictionary, after the mode of those of France and the Academia della Crusca, looked upon him as a fit person to be employed in such an undertaking. He was at that time in the vigour of his life, and by the offer of a liberal reward from men of such known worth as those were who made it, was tempted to engage with them, and accordingly set himself to compile that work, which, he living to complete it, does him and all concerned in it great honour.

Nor can we suppose but that he was in a great measure incited to the prosecution of this laborious work by a reflection of the state of our language at his time, from the imperfection of all English dictionaries then extant, and the great distance in point of improvement in this kind of literature between us and some of our neighbours. And here let me take occasion, by an enumeration of the several authors that had gone before him, to point out the sources of that intelligence which Jonson’s voluminous work contains.

Of Latin dictionaries and such as give the significations of English appellatives with a view only to illustrate the Latin, he must be supposed to have made some use, and of these the earliest is Sir Thomas Elyot’s Bibliotheca Eliotæ, published in 1541. This was improved by Cooper after many years’ labor, by the addition of 33000 words, and published in 1565 in a large folio, and was a reason with Queen Elizabeth for promoting him to the bishopric of Lincoln.

In 1572 was published an Alvearie or quadruple dictionary of four sundry tongues, namely, English, Latin, Greek and French, by John Baret of Cambridge, compiled with the assistance of his pupils, but arranged and methodized by himself. This fact he ingenuously confessed in his preface, which, as a literary curiosity, is inserted below.

To Baret’s succeeded John Minsheu’s Guide into the tongues, first published in 1617 in eleven, and in 1627 in nine languages, but with a considerable increase in the number of radical words. In this the author undertakes to give the etymologies or derivations of the greater part of the words therein contained, but as they amount at the most to no more than 14713, the work must be deemed not sufficiently copious.

In 1656, Thomas Blount a lawyer of the Inner Temple, published a small volume, intitled ‘Glossographia, or a dictionary interpreting such hard words, whether Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, &c. that are now used in our refined English tongue, &c.’ in which the articles though few are well explained. This book, as far as it went, was of singular use to Edward Philips, a nephew and pupil of Milton, in the compilation of a dictionary by him published in folio, 1657, intitled ‘The New World of Words,’ which, as it is much more copious than that of Blount, and comprehends a great quantity of matter, must be looked on s the basis of English lexicography.

Of technical as also etymological dictionaries, many have long been extant, namely, The interpreter or Law Dictionary of Dr. Cowell a civilian, a Common-Law Dictionary of the above Thomas Blount, the Etymologicum of Junius, and another of Skinner, both well known and frequently referred to, and of these did Johnson avail himself.

The dictionary of Nathan Bailey a school-master, was first published in a thick octavo volume, so well disposed with respect to the character and method of printing, as to contain more matter than could otherwise have been comprised[sic] in a volume of that size. After it had passed many editions with improvements by the author himself, he meditated an enlargement of it, and being assisted in the mathematical part by Mr. Gordon, in the botanical by the famous gardener Philip Miller, and in the etymological by Mr. Lediard, a professor of the modern languages, it was published in a folio size. The last improvement of it was by Dr. Joseph Nicoll Scott, who, of a dissenting teacher had become a physician and a writer for the bookseller.

Jonson, who before this time, together with his wife, had lived in obscurity, lodging at different houses in the courts and alleys in and about the Strand and Fleet street, had, for the purpose of carrying on this arduous work, and being near the printers employed in it, taken a handsome house in Gogh square, and fitted up a room in it with desks and other accommodations for amanuenses, who, to the number of five or six, he kept constantly under his eye. And interleaved copy of Bailey’s dictionary in folio he made the repository of the several articles, and these he collected by incessant reading the best authors in our language, in the practice whereof, his method was to score with a black-lead pencil the words by him selected, and give them over to his assistants to insert in their places. (...)

No. 95

95. A. B. D. “Remarks on Johnson’s Dictionary, with Hints for Improvements.”The Gentleman’s Magazine, LVIII Part the First (January 1788), pp. 7-8.

Mr. Urban, Jan. 7.

(three paragraphs omitted)

It is with pleasure I received intimation of the new English Dictionary undertaken by Mr. Herbert Croft. No book is more wanted in England than a good Dictionary of the language; and this, I conceive, may be said without implying any severe reflection against Dr. Johnson. It is but by slow and gradual steps that a work of this nature can be brought to perfection; and I have often been sorry to see, that men of letters did not seem to think they could do justice to Dr. Jonson, unless they praised his work as possessing absolute instead of relative perfection. Many English words are certainly omitted in that work, as Mr. Croft very properly remarks, LVII. 651; and perhaps be might have added, that many improper words have been admitted, which tend not only to swell the volume (a circumstance of small importance indeed), but also to corrupt the language. Dr. Johnson was fond of long sounding words, derived from the Latin. This was his hobby-horse, and he was at great pains to pick them up with care wherever he could find them, and give them a place in his work. And as the taste for coining new words of this kind was very prevalent about a century ago, many writers of that period seem to have thought it intimated a poverty of genius, and want of learning, if they did not crowd their pages with sonorous words of this kind that had never before been used, and which, as being perfectly useless, never were by others employed afterwards. Such words as these do not, surely, deserve the name of English words, and ought to be excluded from an English Dictionary; or, if admitted at all, they should be marked there as barbarisms only. I had once the curiosity to run over the letter D in Johnson’s Dictionary, in search of words of this class; and there I found some hundreds of words, that neither I myself, nor any of my literary friends to whom I showed the list, could recollect ever to have seen in any English writer whatever. It will be of use to mark such words either as obsolete or as barbarisms.

But the radical defect of Johnson’s Dictionary is the imperfect or the erroneous explanation of the meaning of the words that are there admitted. These explanations are in almost every case so obscure, or so indefinite, as to convey no accurate idea to the mind of the ignorant person who consults the Dictionary for information. I doubt not but Mr. Croft will apply his chief attention to this very important part of his work. It is not enough that Dr. Johnson has produced, in his large work, passages from the several authors he quotes as authorities – for although it should happen that the word should bear the same meaning in the quotation that is given to it in the text, with the explanation he gives of it (which is not always the case), yet as our best writers have, on many occasions, employed a word in an improper sense, it may often happen that the reader will thus be lead[sic] into great perplexity and error. The compiler of a Dictionary should understand the language so well, as to be able to give the precise idea that should be annexed to each word, and to point out the nice differences between that word and others which in certain circumstances may be synonymous, though on other occasions their meaning is very distinct and different. These peculiarities should be illustrated by apposite examples, furnished by the author himself for the occasion, -- which might be farther corroborated by passages selected from our best authors. An example of this mode of explaining words occurs, under the article Dictionary, in the Encyclopædia Britannica, published at Edinburgh; to which I beg leave here to refer the reader.

I am satisfied, however, that the abilities of no one man, however intelligent he may be, are sufficient to compleat[sic] a Dictionary of any language upon that plan. To supply the omissions, and to correct the errors, of such a work, one plan, and only one, occurs to me as effectual. Let the person or persons who engage in such an arduous undertaking, when their materials are so far collected as to admit of copying out the articles for the press, begin the work, by publishing gradually as they advance one leaf, or more, as they can overtake it, in some Periodical Miscellany that is very generally read by men of letters in Britain [and without any flattery, Mr. Urban, I know of none so well entitled to that honour as your own], giving in that leaf their own explanations full, simply pointing out, by exact references, the writers they would quote as additional authorities, with a general invitation to all persons to transmit to some one, appointed for that purpose, such observations as occurred, tending to correct errors or to supply defects; all of which, when they were evidently right, might be adopted, and such as appeared of a doubtful nature, might be inserted in some future number of the Miscellany, accompanied with explanations for the farther consideration of the publick. In this way the work might be gradually advancing towards completion; and, at a proper period, the new work might begin to be published by itself in separate numbers, that room might be thus given for father corrections during its publication, which corrections might be inserted into the Appendix, so as to render it as compleat as possible. In this way, and in this way only, as I apprehend, may we hope to obtain in time a Dictionary of the English language, that in point of copiousness, distinctness, and accuracy, would exceed the works of the same kind undertaken by the joint labours of the learned Academicians in other part of Europe.

In a Dictionary of this kind it would be proper to admit all words, whether they had now grown obsolete, or were only provincial or barbarous, putting a distinguishing mark, with full explanations concerning each. The authorities for each word should also be printed at full length; and occasionally should be given examples of the improper use of such words even by our most classical authors, with the reasons why these were rejected. All this should be printed in a work by itself, to which references should be made in the Dictionary, so as to admit of being readily consulted at pleasure. In this way the bulk of the work would not be so exceedingly cumbersome, as if the full authorities were printed in the Dictionary itself. The authorities could be occasionally consulted by the curious, and might be suffered to remain untouched by those who were perfectly satisfied with the shorter illustrations in the Dictionary itself.

If you think these short hints can in any measure tend towards the perfection of this great national work, I should be glad they obtained a place in your valuable Miscellany. And if further elucidations are required, I shall furnish you with a particular address to me if called for. A. B. D.

No. 96

96. Sir Herbert Croft. “Oxford Dictionary of the English Language.”The Gentleman’s Magazine, LVIII Part the First (February 1788), p. 91.

Agreeably to the desires of the following among his correspondents, Mr. Croft acknowledges their favours in this publication.

He very much tanks them all. It is his intention to deposit their communications in some public library, whether he use them or not; along with all his MSS. and his philological library.

D. D. advises kindly, but there have been good reasons for not publishing yet. In the course of the summer it is hoped that a volume will be ready, to shew (what a few pages will not shew) the incredible, radical, and incurable defects of Johnson; the progress made in the new Dictionary, and the manner in which it is carried on.

“Gratitude” may be assured, that the author of the new Dictionary can never forget what he owes to Johnson. He will praise that mighty man more, in fact, than ten Knights who write his life. He will say that, every time he takes up Johnson’s Dictionary, he is more convinced it deserves to be put into the fire; but he will also say, that, every time he takes it up, he is more astonished to think what the poor, poverty-stricken, bookseller-sold, man has done, and more and more convinced that the book, which the new Dictionary shall displace from our shelves, is perhaps the greatest work by one individual (all things considered) that has every appeared in any country.—The Essay, which “Gratitude” mentions and offers, Mr. C. Has already marked, to be transcribed by his assistants of his Dictionary.

No. 97

97. The Rev. Herbert Croft, L.L.B. An Unfinished Letter to the Right Honourable William Pitt, concerning the New Dictionary of the English Language. London: Printed in March, 1788.

If my object were only to give a new edition of Johnson’s Dictionary, and to supply his defects, a task for which I trust that I was not exactly born – all these three parts of the Dictionary are executed in such a manner as to leave enough to do for him who would undertake the labour.

1. With regard to Etymology there are not many people who will refuse to believe the defects of Johnson, because it is pretty well known how much he trusted to Junius and Skinner, and how ignorant he was of those Languages from which the English is derived, even so ignorant perhaps as not to be able to read them. (...) (p. 10)

2. With regard to the explanations of words, they who have seldomest looked at Johnson, and only as a book of reference, well know how even so great a mind as his, in moments of soreness and discontent, suffered some of the dirtiest passions to mingle with the dignity of a Dictionary: yet, here again, we are not to blame the man, but his fate. (...) (pp. 11-12)

3. But there still remains a third part of Johnson’s Dictionary, which consists of the authorities to support the significations assigned to the words. He book boasts, that it is a Dictionary of authority. This I must venture, in a great measure, if no t entirely, to deny. (...) (p. 17)

No. 98

98. A. B. C. “On Mr. Croft’s intended Dictionary of the English Language.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, LVIII Part the Second (November 1788), p. 948.

** Imagining we should meet the wishes of the writer of the following letter, we communicated it to Mr. Croft; who desires us never to hesitate about printing any thing which apparently finds fault with him or his Dictionary; as he is persuaded, that no writer will wantonly abuse one, who gives so much of his time and his money to the publick, without, as yet, the least encouragement but approbation; or, if any writer should, that such abuse is a species of encouragement.

Mr. Urban,

I was most agreeably surprised to find that Dr. Johnson’s famous Dictionary is at last likely to be supplanted by what will, I hope, really merit that epithet; and the letter from the future editor, p. 91, in answer to various correspondents, with the account he gives of his meditated plan, appears to me no bad prognostic of it. That Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary should, I was almost going to say, have been endured for so many years, has long been matter of astonishment to me. What then, that it should have had encomiums lavished upon it, nay, and from writers of no small eminence in the literary world! Strange! but no, Mr. Urban, nothing is strange with creatures whom Nature happens to have made with dispositions to put their opinions and judgements in other hands than their own; who judge a work from the man, not the man from the work; who, from pre-supposing that a writer of great general eminence (and who greater, who almost so great, as the late Dr. Johnson!) will be great in a new undertaking (not much matter, perhaps, what) conclude he has been so when that work is produced, then to be examined so independently of the writer, that he should, if possible, be forgotten, and when even the work itself shews that he has not been so great.

Were it now, Mr. Urban, for the respectable letter from the editor of the new Dictionary, and perhaps as much from one of your correspondents of the next month, who signs himself A. B. D. I should scarcely have hazarded such a letter as this to you. It would in that case certainly have met with the disregard, to use no stronger term, that perhaps it may still only merit. Be that as it may, thoughts are free; and I venture on these for the treatment of your own at free discretion.

The critic I allude to, as well as the proposed writer Mr. H. Croft, has forestalled many of my objections to the Doctor’s Dictionary, as well as remarked on others that may have escaped my inferior notice: and let any man, I will only say of common sense, reflect on what those particularized objections are! Will not such a person, will not every reader, who now at last, it is presumed, will be so good (that is, to himself) as to open his eyes, somewhat wonder that even any compiler of a Dictionary should have rendered himself liable to the imputation of them? I will be bold to say, that no man of the most common intelligence can open Dr. J’s small Dictionary (I have never seen any other), in any part of it, without finding more than one instance of defect of some kind or other. Both Mr. Croft and A. B. D. give instances, or general assertions, of defective particulars, both of commission and omission, in Dr. Johnson: I have neither of those writer’s letters just now before me, so that I do not recollect exactly what either marks, or points at: but no matter, if I repeat any particular of either, nay the double remark in any instance will serve to enforce it the stronger. – The letter-writer, I remember, says, that he had enumerated, I think, some hundreds of Latin words Anglicized, that no English writer, or, at least, none of any taste, had ever made use of. I think too, one or both justly remarks, that it is not enough that a precedent or quotation be produced, as stamping a valid authority for its use, for, as already said, even a good writer, in general, may deviate into an unwarrantable peculiarity or adoption. It is the business of the Dictionary-writer (I beg the Doctor’s pardon, the Lexicographer,) to attend to the language, if not solely, primarily and chiefly indeed, and himself, from general observation of the best writers, to mark the most eligible words or phrases: but Dr. Jonson not only quotes continually the least respectable of our modern writers, for his authorities, indifferently with the best, but even the old and obsolete ones. In short, Mr. Urban, it seems endless to point out the defects of this great man’s Dictionary, and I have often pitied the poor foreigners who were to learn their English from it, and more especially their style. I remember, some years ago, a young lady’s writing a letter to a friend of hers, from words picked out form Johnson’s Dictionary, and very fairly picked, in order to divert and puzzle her friend; in which, it will be easily imagined, she did not fail. He friend did not understand a syllable of what was written to her. A. B. C.

----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- -----

A. B. C. “Remarks on Dr. Johnson’s and the intended Oxford Dictionary.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, (Supplement for the Year 1788), pp. 1152-1154.

Remarks on Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, concluded from p. 948.

Mr. Urban, Dec. 17.

I am unwilling, long as this letter is, to send it forth without some instances of failure, after general assertions of them only. Let me then quote a few of them, and of that kind which must perhaps be the most liable to objection, as to ill consequences, of any; I mean, where the description is vaguely and imperfectly given, though how much more if falsely? Of the first sort I recollect an instance in looking lately after the accounts given of planets and comets, on the first of which he says, “planets are erratic or wandering (not bodies, but) stars, &c.” After which, however, first hear how he defines the word erratic, of which he says, “erratic, a. s. wandering, uncertain, keeping no certain order, irregular, changeable: and how far this is exact and apt to the word planet (the most certain and regular of things), must be judged. As to comet, he says, “a heavenly body in the planetary region, appearing suddenly, and gain disappearing. They are distinguished from other (again) stars by a long train of light always opposite to the sun.” And this is all he says of comets, and is it sufficiently descriptive of those surprising and so puzzling heavenly bodies? But even while writing this letter, I took the measure of looking at a venture after descriptions of certain common things, where I have often found the Doctor very erroneous indeed. (...)

(several paragraphs omitted)

Our language, it is I believe agreed, wants not a little correction; it is in many instances vague and unfixed (consequently, not obscure?) and very particularly from the same word having (or at least assuming) so many different significations; and surely this, whether defect or abuse, is, far from being restrained or discouraged by Johnson’s Dictionary, on the contrary, not a little promoted and countenanced. Yet surely a line might be drawn in many instances where there is none, but a synonyme (I use a French word that should be English) admitted. The French have an admirable little work, called Synonymes François, that perhaps Mr. Croft may not do ill to consult. As to orthography, it is defective indeed, and I fear remedyless[sic]. What a difficulty, particularly in pronunciation, from the force of certain letters, (often the very same, pronounced contrarily) to foreigners who would learn our language!

I cannot forbear one remark as to what I see continually urged in favour of Dr. J. viz. the labour of such a work, which indeed, if true, is no reason for misconstruction, &c. of words when got; and it is this, that labour it to be sure must be, yet is it enough, considered how easy it is to copy out words from other Dictionaries, of which there are so many, and so ample ones?

Yours, &c. A.B.C. (pp. 1152-1153)

No. 99

99. Hester Lynch Piozzi. Letters to and from the Late Samuel Johnson, LL.D. to which are added Some Poems never before Printed. Vol. II, London: Printed for A. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1788, pp. 410-411.

Dear Sir, Lichfield, October 20, 1784.

You have abundance of naughty tricks; is this your way of writing to a poor sick friend twice a week? Post comes after ;post, and brings no letter from Mr. Sastres. If you know any thing, write and tell it; if you know nothing, write and say that you know nothing.

What comes of the specimen? If the book-sellers want a specimen, in which a keen critic can spy no faults, they must wait for another generation. Had not the Crusca Faults? Did not the Academicians of France commit many faults? It is enough that a dictionary is better than others of the same kind. A perfect performance of any kind is not to be expected, and certainly not a perfect dictionary.

Mrs. Desmoulines never writes, and I know not how things go on at home; tell me, dear Sir, what you can.

If Mr. Seward be in town tell me his direction, for I ought to write to him.

I am very weak, and have bad nights.

I am, dear Sir,

Your, &c.

No. 100

100. [Philip Withers.] “Proposals for a New English Dictionary.” Aristarchus, or The Principles of Composition, containing a Methodical Arrangement of the Improprieties Frequent in Writing and Conversation, with Select Rules for Attaining to Purity and Elegance of Expression. Second Edition. London, [1788], pp. 425-432.

It has been publicly affirmed by a Gentleman already named, that Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary is a wretched Performance, and a DISGRACE to the Nation which pratronized it.

Other Gentlemen have published their Sentiments in Terms equally severe. “I am surprized that all the Authors of the Dictionaries of the English Language have copied Dr. Johnson’s ridiculous Definitions. If Johnson’s be reckoned the best, what must the other Dictionaries be? And what must we think of those who mistake a Book, filled with such stupid Assemblages of Words, for a learned Composition.” (Mirror, abridged, No.12)

Another Gentleman delivers his Opinion with similar Freedom “Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary exhibits in every Page, perhaps without a single Exception, a Variety of Errors and Absurdities. The Doctor has repeatedly allowed, that his Book is deformed by a Profusion of Errors.”

Mr. Tooke, in his Essay, declares that Dr. Johnson was so sensible of his Errors, that he intended to adopt the Definitions suggested by him, in a Letter to Mr. Dunning. If this be true, it proves that the Author’s “wild Blunder, and risible Absurdities” – I am now quoting the Language of his Preface – served to bring Conviction Home to his own Breast, as well as “to furnish Folly with Laughter, and to harden Ignorance into Contempt.” Does it add to the Reputation of Dr. Johnson that he published a Dictionary with such Blunders and Absurdities as FOOLS might discover, and the ILLITERATE despise?

We are informed by Mr. Whitaker, that upwards of THREE THOUSAND Errors occur in Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, in DERIVATIONS only! And I affirm, on a very moderate Computation, that upwards of TWELVE HUNDRED Words, inserted in this celebrated Work, are not to be found in any Author, in any Language in the World. But though called into Being by a Man of such transcendent Fame, I dare affirm they will be speedily consigned to Oblivion.

Consummate Skill in DERIVATION is the first Excellence of a Lexicographer. Precision in the DEFINITION of Words is next in Value and Importance.

Thousands of Dr. Johnson’s Definitions are CIRCUITOUS, and consequently they convey no Information. e.g. LONG “not short.” SHORT “not long.” BLOT “a Blur.” BLUR “a Blot.” YOUNG “not old.” OLD “not young.”

Some of his Definitions have the appearance of Ænigmas. e.g. A WHIP “an Instrument of Correction tough and pliant!!” The terms tough yet pliant verge on Nonsense.

COMMON SENSE might have apprized Dr. Johnson, that every Native in the Kingdom, of the Age of three Years, has a much clearer Idea of a Whip, than his Definition is capable of conveying. And as to a Foreigner, it is impossible he should know what the Doctor means by a WHIP, from the Definition here given

NET-WORK “anything reticulated or decussated at equal Distances.”

Not One Native in five hundred comprehends the Terms of this curious Definition. Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary abounds with similar Absurdities. It was the usual Practice of this celebrated Lexicographer to define Words by a rotular Process, and to explain an IGNOTUM per IGNOTIUS. It ought to be considered, that the Import of many hundred Words is so clearly understood by the NATIVES that the very Attempt to make them better known is ridiculous. It is proper to notice the FIGURATIVE Use of a popular Term of the Benefit even of Natives. But as to a FOREIGNR, the correspondent Word in his own Language in the best Explanation. A Parisian will, in a Moment, comprehend the Signification of Network, if you inform him it is RESEAU. But he cannot comprehend Doctor Johnson’s Explanation, unless he have a previous Knowledge of the Thing defined, and then the Explanation is USELESS.

But the Doctor’s Definitions and Derivations are not merely useless; they are sometimes erroneous, and frequently ABSURD. e. g.

MAN is a human Being. 2. Not a Woman. 3. Not a Boy. 4. Not a Beast.

It is impossible for Language to convey a clearer Idea of the nominal Essence of MAN, than what we obtain from Experience. The Doctor informs us, that MAN is a MANLY Being. And after thus sagaciously informing us what Man IS, it was absurd to a Degree of being eminently ridiculous, to proceed to what Man IS NOT. And especially, after telling us MAN is a HUMAN Being, to add – not a BEAST, was a Step beyond being ridiculous. (pp. 425-428)

No. 101

101. Indignant. “Dr. Johnson vindicated.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, LIX Part the Second (July 1789), pp. 613-614.

Mr. Urban, May 30.

The fate of your old acquaintance Dr. Johnson has been peculiarly hard. His friends have been, in some respects, his greatest foes; and his enemies, taking advantage of their misconduct, have depreciated his worth, and laboured (though in vain) to bring down his superior talents to their humble level. But of all the miserable manglers of his well-earned fame, surely A. B. C. (vol. LVIII p. 1152) is the most intolerable. Johnson, in his Dictionary, calls planets and comets stars, and the former he stiles erratic; for doing which he hath ample authority, and all competent judges will acknowledge that he hath, maugre the bungling sneers of your correspondent. For though comets are not really hairy or planets erratic, yet the appearances they make justify the names that are given them, and the application of those terms to them; just as the apparent rising and setting of the sun justify the terms to him, though it is well known that he always remains nearly fixed in the centre of our system; and both comets and planets will be, as they have ever been, accounted stars (astra, Bacon), till your sagacious hypercritic shall be able to demonstrate that they are not “luminous bodies appearing in the nocturnal sky.”

But A. B. C. seems to be more of a Sportsman than Astronomer; and, as I am none myself, I must decline the pleasure of pursuing him in that character. I can, however, perceive that he knows not how to spell the verb chase, though he has asserted very dogmatically that it does not belong to coursing. I wish Peter Pindar had been at his elbow when he made the assertion.

A.B.C. is also a Divine, and quotes St. Paul; which I was the rather surprised at, as I could not presume that such ignorant fellows as Johnson, or such inconclusive reasoners as the Apostle, would be admitted into the company of, or acknowledged by, gentlemen of such deep erudition. Nevertheless, so it is; and I think it but fair to transcribe the passage, lest you or your readers should (as you very possibly may) have forgot it. “It is good, even from the authority of St. Paul (and surely, Mr. Urban, not in the worst of his texts) to bear all things.” Now, Sir, I am willing to believe that a sort of accomplishment is here intended (though of what sort is not so evident), and yet I am much afraid that I shall be obliged to relinquish the favour thus graciously intended for the Apostle. For though I have taken some pains to find out this celebrated text, I am not able; and, from the little acquaintance I have with St. Paul, I am inclined to suspect, that he never did, or could, have given such a piece of advice; but that, on the contrary, he would rather have instructed his followers to shut their ears, aye, and eyes too, against many things,　and　particularly　against　such　vile　scribbling　as　that　I　have　just　been　pointing　out;　but　Dr　Johnson’s memory is placed far beyond the reach of such pointless, groveling detractors. Indignant.

No. 102

102. Noah Webster. Dissertations on the English Language: with Notes, Historical and Critical. To which is added, by way of Appendix, An Essay on Reformed Mode of Spelling. Boston: Printed for the Author, 1789.

In the singularity of spelling certain words, I am authorized by Sidney, Clarendon, Middleton, Blackstone, Ash, or other eminent writers, whose authority, being supported by good principles and convenience, is deemed superior to that of Johnson, whose pedantry has corrupted the purity of our language, and whose principles would in time destroy all agreement between the spelling and pronunciation of words. I once believed that a reformation of our othography[sic] would be unnecessary and impractical. This opinion was hasty ; being the result of a slight examination of the subject. I now believe with Dr. Franklin that such a reformation is practicable and highly necessary. (p. xi)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

But when a language has arrived at a certain stage of improvement, it must be stationary or become retrograde; for improvements in science either cease, or become slow and too inconsiderable to affect materially the tone of a language. This stage of improvement is the period when a nation abounds with writers of the first class, both for abilities and taste. This period in England commenced with the age of Queen Elizabeth and ended with the reign of George II. It would have been fortunate for the language, had the stile of writing and the pronunciation of words been fixed, as they stood in the reign of Queen Ann and her successor. Few improvements have been made since that time ; but innumerable corruptions in pronunciation have been introduced by Garrick, and in stile, by Johnson, Gibbon and their imitators. (p. 30)

----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- -----

But how few of the modern writers have pursued the same manner of writing? Johnson’s stile is a mixture of Latin and English; an intolerable composition of Latinity, affected smoothness, scholastic accuracy and roundness of periods. The benefits derived from his morality and his erudition, will hardly counterbalance the mischief done by his manner of writing. (p.32)

----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- -----

If this means and a means are now, and have immemorially been, used by good authors and the nation in general, neither Johnson, Lowth, nor any other person, however learned, has a right to say that the phrases are not good English. That this is the fact, every person may satisfy himself, by consulting the good authors and observing the universal practice in discourse. (p. 205)

No. 103

103. Vicesimus Knox, M.A. Winter Evenings: or, Lucubrations on Life and Letters. The second edition, corrected and enlarged. Vol. II. London: Printed for Charles Dilly, 1790, pp. 574-575.

Was Dr. Johnson encouraged by the university in writing his Dictionary of the Language; a work that ought to have proceeded from the university, by the alma mater of Oxford? Did he receive any assistance from her? He resided but a little while at Pembroke College. He speaks most contemptuously of his tutor there; he expresses, in his Tour, his low estimation of academical honours. Late in life, long after his Dictionary appeared, and in consequence of the interposition of a few personal friends, Oxford gave him a diploma. But was not the favour shewn him then, really, though not ostensibly, more owing to his political pamphlets in defence of the American war, than to his great merits as a lexicographer? He says himself that his dictionary was written with little assistance of the learned, and without any patronage of the great; not in the soft obscurities of retirement, nor under the shelter of academic bowers. Were the Biographia Brittannica, and the Encyclopedia in the hands of Oxford and Cambridge literati, or of diffenters, shut out from academic bowers?

No. 104

104. James Boswell. (From 1747-1756) The Life of Samuel Johnson. London, 1791.

((1747)) ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- -----

But the year 1747 is distinguished as the epoch, when Johnson’s arduous and important work, his DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, was announced to the world, by the publication of its Plan or PROSPECTUS.

How long this immense undertaking had been the object of his contemplation, I do not know. I once asked him by what means he had attained to that astonishing knowledge of our language, by which he was enabled to realise a design of such extent and accumulated difficulty. He told me, that “it was not the effect of particular study; but that it had grown up in his mind insensibly.” I have been informed by Mr. James Dodsley, that several years before this period, when Johnson was one day sitting in his brother Robert’s shop, he heard his brother suggest to him, that a Dictionary of the English Language would be a work that would be well received by the publick; that Johnson seemed at first to catch at the proposition, but, after a pause, said, in his abrupt decisive manner, “I believe I shall not undertake it.” That he, however, had bestowed much thought upon the subject, before be published his “Plan,” is evident from the enlarged, clear, and accurate views which it exhibits; and we find him mentioning in that tract, that many of the writers whose testimonies were to be produced as authorities, were selected by Pope; which proves that he had been furnished, probably by Mr. Robert Dodsley, with whatever hints that eminent poet had contributed towards a great literary project, that had been the subject of important consideration in a former reign.

The booksellers who contracted with Johnson, single and unaided, for the execution of a work, which in other countries has not been effected but by the co-operating exertions of many, were Mr. Robert Dodsley, Mr. Charles Hitch, Mr. Andrew Millar, the two Messieurs Longman, and the two Messieurs Knapton. The price stipulated was fifteen hundred and seventy-five pounds.

The “Plan” was addressed to Philip Dormer, Earl of Chesterfield, then one of his Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State; a nobleman who was very ambitious of literary distinction, and who, upon being informed of the design, had expressed himself in terms very favourable to its success. There is, perhaps, in every thing of any consequence, a secret history which it would be amusing to know, could we have it authentically communicated. Johnson told me, “Sir, the way in which the plan of my Dictionary came to be inscribed to Lord Chesterfield, was this: I had neglected to write it by the time appointed. Dodsley suggested a desire to have it addressed to Lord Chesterfield. I laid hold of this as a pretext for delay, that it might be better done, and let Dodsley have his desire. I said to my friend, Dr. Bathurst, ‘Now if any good comes of my addressing to Lord Chesterfield, it will be ascribed to deep policy,’ when, in fact, it was only a casual excuse for laziness.”

It is worthy of observation, that the “Plan” has not only the substantial merit of comprehension, perspicuity, and precision, but that the language of it is unexceptionably excellent; it being altogether free from that inflation of style, and those uncommon but apt and energetick words, which in some of his writings have been censured, with more petulance than justice; and never was there a more dignified strain of compliment than that in which he courts the attention of one, who, he had been persuaded to believe, would be a respectable patron.

“With regard to questions of purity or propriety, (says he) I was once in doubt whether I should not attribute to myself too much in attempting to decide them, and whether my province was to extend beyond the proposition of the question, and the display of the suffrages on each side; but I have been since determined by your Lordship’s opinion, to interpose my own judgement, and shall therefore endeavour to support what appears to me most consonant to grammar and reason. Ausonius thought that modesty forbade him to plead inability for a task to which Caesar had judged him equal:

   Cur me posse negem, posse quod ille putat?

And I may hope, my Lord, that since you, whose authority in our language is so generally acknowledged, have commissioned me to declare my own opinion, I shall be considered as exercising a kind of vicarious jurisdiction; and that the power which might have been denied to my own claim, will be readily allowed me as the delegate of your Lordship.”

This passage proves, that Johnson’s addressing his “Plan” to Lord Chesterfield was not merely in consequence of the result of a report by means of Dodsley, that the Earl favoured the design; but that there had been a particular communication with his Lordship concerning it. Dr. Taylor told me, that Johnson sent his “Plan” to him in manuscript, for his perusal; and that when it was lying upon his table, Mr. William Whitehead happened to pay him a visit, and being shewn it, was highly pleased with such parts of it as he had time to read, and begged to take it home with him, which he was allowed to do; that from him it got into the hands of a noble Lord, who carried it to Lord Chesterfield. When Taylor observed this might be an advantage, Johnson replied, “No, Sir, it would have come out with more bloom, if it had not been seen before by any body.”

The opinion conceived of it by another noble authour, appears from the following extract of a letter from the Earl of Orrery to Dr. Birch:

“Caledon, Dec. 30, 1747.

“I have just now seen the specimen of Mr. Johnson’s Dictionary, addressed to Lord Chesterfield. I am much pleased with the plan, and I think the specimen is one of the best that I have ever read. Most specimens disgust, rather than prejudice us in favour of the work to follow; but the language of Mr. Johnson’s is good, and the arguments are properly and modestly expressed. However, some expressions may be cavilled at, but they are trifles. I’ll mention one: the barren laurel. The laurel is not barren, in any sense whatever; it bears fruits and flowers. Sed hae sunt nugae, and I have great expectations from the performance.”

((1748)) ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- -----

That he was fully aware of the arduous nature of the undertaking, he acknowledges; and shews himself perfectly sensible of it in the conclusion of his “Plan;” but he had a noble consciousness of his own abilities, which enabled him to go on with undaunted spirit.

Dr. Adams found him one day busy at his Dictionary, when the following dialogue ensued. -- “ADAMS. This is a great work, Sir, How are you to get all the etymologies? JOHNSON. Why, Sir, here is a shelf with Junius, and Skinner, and others; and there is a Welch gentleman who has published a collection of Welch proverbs, who will help me with the Welch. ADAMS. But, Sir, how can you do this in three years? JOHNSON. Sir, I have no doubt that I can do it in three years. ADAMS. But the French Academy, which consists of forty members, took forty years to compile their Dictionary. JOHNSON. Sir, thus it is. This is the proportion. Let me see; forty times forty is sixteen hundred. As three to sixteen hundred, so is the proportion of an Englishman to a Frenchman.” With so much ease and pleasantry could he talk of that prodigious labour which he had undertaken to execute.

The publick has had, from another pen, a long detail of what had been done in this country by prior Lexicographers; and no doubt Johnson was wise, to avail himself of them, so far as they went: but the learned, yet judicious research of etymology, the various, yet accurate display of definition, and the rich collection of authorities, were reserved for the superiour mind of our great philologist. For the mechanical part he employed, as he told me, six amanuenses; and let it be remembered by the natives of North-Britain, to whom he is supposed to have been so hostile, that five of them were of that country. There were two Messieurs Macbean; Mr. Shiels, who, we shall hereafter see, partly wrote the Lives of the Poets to which the name of Cibber is affixed: Mr. Stewart, son of Mr. George Stewart, bookseller at Edinburgh; and a Mr. Maitland. The sixth of these humble assistants was Mr. Peyton, who, I believe, taught French, and published some elementary tracts.

----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ------ ----- -----

While the Dictionary was going forward, Johnson lived part of the time in Holborn, part in Gough-square, Fleet-street; and he had an upper room fitted up like a counting-house for the purpose, in which he gave to the copyists their several tasks: The words, partly taken from other dictionaries, and partly supplied by himself, having been first written down with spaces left between them, he delivered in writing their etymologies, definitions, and various significations. The authorities were copied from the books themselves, in which he had marked the passages with a black-lead pencil, the traces of which could easily be effaced. I have seen several of them, in which that trouble had not been taken; so that they were just as when used by the copyists. It is remarkable, that he was so attentive in the choice of the passages in which words were authorised, that one may read page after page of his Dictionary with improvement and pleasure; and it should not pass unobserved, that he has quoted no authour whose writings had a tendency to hurt sound religion and morality.

The necessary expence of preparing a work of such magnitude for the press, must have been a considerable deduction from the price stipulated to be paid for the copyright, I understand that nothing was allowed by the booksellers on that account; and I remember his telling me, that a large portion of it having, by mistake, been written upon both sides of the paper, so as to be inconvenient for the compositor, it cost him twenty pounds to have it transcribed upon one side only.

((1750)) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Every page of the Rambler shews a mind teeming with classical allusion and poetical imagery: illustrations from other writers are, upon all occasions, so ready, and mingle so easily in his periods, that the whole appears of one uniform vivid texture.

The style of this work has been censured by some shallow criticks as involved and turgid, and abounding with antiquated and hard words. So ill-founded is the first part of this objection, that I will challenge all who may honour this book with a perusal, to point out any English writer whose language conveys his meaning with equal force and perspicuity. It must, indeed, be allowed, that the structure of his sentences is expanded, and often has somewhat of the inversion of Latin; and that he delighted to express familiar thoughts in philosophical language; being in this the reverse of Socrates, who, it is said, reduced philosophy to the simplicity of common life. But us attend to what he himself says in his concluding paper: “When common words were less pleasing to the ear, or less distinct in their signification, I have familiarised the terms of philosophy, by applying them to popular ideas.” And, as to the second part of this objection, upon a late careful revision of the work, I can with confidence say, that it is amazing how few of those words, for which it has been unjustly characterised, are actually to be found in it; I am sure, not the proportion of one to each paper. This idle charge has been echoed from one babbler to another, who have confounded Johnson’s Essays with Johnson’s Dictionary; and because he thought it right in a Lexicon of our language to collect many words which had fallen into disuse, but were supported by great authorities, it has been imagined that all of this have been woven into his own compositions. That some of them have been adopted by him unnecessarily, may, perhaps, be allowed; but, in general they are evidently an advantage, for without them his stately ideas would be confined and cramped. “He that thinks with more extent than another, will want words of larger meaning.” He once told me, that he had formed his style upon that of Sir William Temple, and upon Chambers’s Proposal for his Dictionary. He certainly was mistaken; or if he imagined at first that he was imitating Temple, he was very unsuccessful, for nothing can be more unlike than the simplicity of Temple, and the richness of Johnson. Their styles differ as plain cloth and brocade. Temple, indeed, seems equally erroneous in supposing that he himself had formed his style upon Sandys’s View of the State of Religion in the Western parts of the World.

The style of Johnson was, undoubtedly, much formed upon that of the great writers in the last century, Hooker, Bacon, Sanderson, Hakewell, and others; those “GIANTS,” as they were well characterised by A GREAT PERSONAGE, whose authority, were I to name him, would stamp a reverence on the opinion.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Yet Johnson assured me, that he had not taken upon him to add more than four or five words to the English language, of his own formation; and he was very much offended at the general licence by no means “modestly taken” in his time, not only to coin new words, but to use many words in senses quite different from their established meaning, and those frequently very fantastical.

Sir Thomas Brown, whose Life Johnson wrote, was remarkably fond of Anglo-Latin diction; and to his example we are to ascribe Johnson’s sometimes indulging himself in this kind of phraseology. Johnson’s comprehension of mind was the mould for his language. Had his conceptions been narrower, his expression would have been easier. His sentences have a dignified march; and, it is certain, that his example has given a general elevation to the language of his country, for many of our best writers have approached very near to him; and, from the influence which he has had upon our composition, scarcely any thing is written now that is not better expressed than was usual before he appeared to lead the national taste.

((1754)) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The Dictionary, we may believe, afforded Johnson full occupation this year. As it approached to its conclusion, he probably worked with redoubled vigour, as seamen increase their exertion and alacrity when they have a near prospect of their haven.

Lord Chesterfield, to whom Johnson had paid the high compliment of addressing to his Lordship the Plan of his Dictionary, had behaved to him in such a manner as to excite his contempt and indignation. The world has been for many years amused with a story confidently told, and as confidently repeated with additional circumstances, that a sudden disgust was taken by Johnson upon occasion of his having been one day kept long in waiting in his Lordship’s antechamber, for which the reason assigned was, that he had company with him; and that at last, when the door opened, out walked Colley Cibber; and that Johnson was so violently provoked when he found for whom he had been so long excluded, that he went away in a passion, and never would return. I remember having mentioned this story to George Lord Lyttelton, who told me, he was very intimate with Lord Chesterfield; and holding it as a well-known truth, defended Lord Chesterfield by saying, that “Cibber, who had been introduced familiarly by the back-stairs, had probably not been there above ten minutes.” It may seem strange even to entertain a doubt concerning a story so long and so wildly current, and thus implicitly adopted, if not sanctioned, by the authority which I have mentioned; but Johnson himself assured me, that there was not the least foundation for it. He told me, that there never was any particular incident which produced a quarrel between Lord Chesterfield and him; but that his Lordship’s continued neglect was the reason why he resolved to have no connexion with him. When the Dictionary was upon the eve of publication, Lord Chesterfield, who, it is said, had flattered himself with expectations that Johnson would dedicate the work to him, attempted, in a courtly manner, to soothe and insinuate himself with the Sage, conscious, as it should seem, of the cold indifference with which he had treated its learned authour; and further attempted to conciliate him, by writing two papers in “The World,” in recommendation of the work; and it must be confessed, that they contain some studied compliments, so finely turned, that if there had been no previous offence, it is probable that Johnson would have been highly delighted. Praise, in general, was pleasing to him; but by praise from a man of rank and elegant accomplishments, he was peculiarly gratified.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

This courtly device failed of its effect. Johnson, who thought that “all was false and hollow,” despised the honeyed words, and was even indignant that Lord Chesterfield should, for a moment, imagine, that he could be the dupe of such an artifice. His expression to me concerning Lord Chesterfield, upon this occasion, was, “Sir, after making great professions, he had, for many years, taken no notice of me; but when my Dictionary was coming out, he fell a scribbling in ‘The World’ about it. Upon which, I wrote him a letter expressed in civil terms, but such as might shew him that I did not mind what he said or wrote, and that I had done with him.”

This is that celebrated letter of which so much has been said, and about which curiosity has been so long excited, without being gratified. I for many years solicited Johnson to favour me with a copy of it, that so excellent a composition might not be lost to posterity. He delayed from time to time to give it me;1 till at last in 1781, when we were on a visit at Mr. Dilly’s, at Southill in Bedfordshire, he was pleased to dictate it to me from memory. He afterwards found among his papers a copy of it, which he had dictated to Mr. Baretti, with its title and corrections, in his own hand-writing. This he gave to Mr. Langton; adding that if it were to come into print, he wished it to be from that copy. By Mr. Langton’s kindness, I am enabled to enrich my work with a perfect transcript of what the world has so eagerly desired to see.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

“While this was the talk of the town, (says Dr. Adams, in a letter to me) I happened to visit Dr. Warburton, who finding that I was acquainted with Johnson, desired me earnestly to carry his compliments to him, and to tell him, that he honoured him for his manly behaviour in rejecting these condescensions of Lord Chesterfield, and for resenting the treatment he had received from him with a proper spirit. Johnson was visibly pleased with this compliment, for he had always a high opinion of Warburton.5 Indeed, the force of mind which appeared in this letter, was congenial with that which Warburton himself amply possessed.”

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

That Lord Chesterfield must have been mortified by the lofty contempt, and polite, yet keen, satire with which Johnson exhibited him to himself in this letter, it is impossible to doubt. He, however, with that glossy duplicity which was his constant study, affected to be quite unconcerned. Dr. Adams mentioned to Mr. Robert Dodsley that he was sorry Johnson had written his letter to Lord Chesterfield. Dodsley, with the true feelings of trade, said “he was very sorry too; for that he had a property in the Dictionary, to which his Lordship’s patronage might have been of consequence.” He then told Dr. Adams, that Lord Chesterfield had shewn him the letter. “I should have imagined (replied Dr. Adams) that Lord Chesterfield would have concealed it.” “Poh! (said Dodsley) do you think a letter from Johnson could hurt Lord Chesterfield? Not at all, Sir. It lay upon his table, where any body might see it. He read it to me; said, ‘this man has great powers,’ pointed out the severest passages, and observed how well they were expressed.” This air of indifference, which imposed upon the worthy Dodsley, was certainly nothing but a specimen of that dissimulation which Lord Chesterfield inculcated as one of the most essential lessons for the conduct of life. His Lordship endeavoured to justify himself to Dodsley from the charges brought against him by Johnson; but we may judge of the flimsiness of his defence, from his having excused his neglect of Johnson, by saying, that “he had heard he had changed his lodgings, and did not know where he lived”; as if there could have been the smallest difficulty to inform himself of that circumstance, by enquiring in the literary circle with which his Lordship was well acquainted, and was, indeed, himself, one of its ornaments.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Dr. Adams expostulated with Johnson, and suggested, that his not being admitted when he called on him, was probably not to be imputed to Lord Chesterfield; for his Lordship had declared to Dodsley, that “he would have turned off the best servant he ever had, if he had known that he denied him to a man who would have been always more than welcome”; and in confirmation of this, he insisted on Lord Chesterfield’s general affability and easiness of access, especially to literary men. “Sir, (said Johnson) that is not Lord Chesterfield; he is the proudest man this day existing.” “No, (said Dr. Adams) there is one person, at least, as proud; I think, by your own account you are the prouder man of the two.” “But mine (replied Johnson instantly) was defensive pride.” This, as Dr. Adams well observed, was one of those happy turns for which he was so remarkably ready.

Johnson having now explicitly avowed his opinion of Lord Chesterfield, did not refrain from expressing himself concerning that nobleman with pointed freedom: “This man (said he) I thought had been a Lord among wits; but, I find, he is only a wit among Lords!” And when his Letters to his natural son were published, he observed, that “they teach the morals of a whore, and the manners of a dancing-master.”

The character of a “respectable Hottentot,” in Lord Chesterfield’s letters, has been generally understood to be meant for Johnson, and I have no doubt that it was. But I remember when the Literary Property of those letters was contested in the Court of Session in Scotland, and Mr. Henry Dundas, one of the counsel for the proprietors, read this character as an exhibition of Johnson, Sir David Dalrymple, Lord Hailes, one of the judges, maintained, with some warmth, that it was not intended as a portrait of Johnson, but of a late noble Lord, distinguished for abstruse science. I have heard Johnson himself talk of the character, and say that it was meant for George Lord Lyttelton, in which I could by no means agree; for his Lordship had nothing of that violence which is a conspicuous feature in the composition. Finding that my illustrious friend could bear to have it supposed that it might be meant for him, I said, laughingly, that there was one trait which unquestionably did not belong to him; “he throws his meat any where but down his throat.” “Sir, (said he,) Lord Chesterfield never saw me eat in his life.”

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

“TO THE REVEREND MR. THOMAS WARTON.

“SIR,

“IT is but an ill return for the book with which you were pleased to favour me, to have delayed my thanks for it till now. I am too apt to be negligent; but I can never deliberately shew my disrespect to a man of your character; and I now pay you a very honest acknowledgement, for the advancement of the literature of our native country. You have shewn to all, who shall hereafter attempt the study of our ancient authours, the way to success; by directing them to the perusal of the books which those authours had read. Of this method, Hughes, and men much greater than Hughes, seem never to have thought. The reason why the authours, which are yet read, of the sixteenth century, are so little understood, is, that they are read alone; and no help is borrowed from those who lived with them, or before them. Some part of this ignorance I hope to remove by my book, which now draws towards its end; but which I cannot finish to my mind, without visiting the libraries of Oxford, which I therefore hope to see in a fortnight. I know not how long I shall stay, or where I shall lodge; but shall be sure to look for you at my arrival, and we shall easily settle the rest. I am, dear Sir,

“Your most obedient, &c.

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

“[London] July 16, 1754.”

Of his conversation while at Oxford at this time, Mr. Warton preserved and communicated to me the following memorial, which, though not written with all the care and attention which that learned and elegant writer bestowed on those compositions which he intended for the publick eye, is so happily expressed in an easy style, that I should injure it by any alteration:

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The following letter was written by Dr. Johnson to Mr. Chambers, of Lincoln College, afterwards Sir Robert Chambers, one of the judges in India:

“TO MR. CHAMBERS, OF LINCOLN COLLEGE.

“DEAR SIR,

“THE commission which I delayed to trouble you with at your departure, I am now obliged to send you; and beg that you will be so kind as to carry it to Mr. Warton, of Trinity, to whom I should have written immediately, but that I know not if he be yet come back to Oxford.

“In the Catalogue of MSS. of Gr. Brit. see vol. I. pag. 18. MSS. Bodl. MARTYRIUM XV. martyrum sub Juliano, auctore Theophylacto.

“It is desired that Mr. Warton will enquire, and send word, what will be the cost of transcribing this manuscript.

Vol. II p. 32. Num. 1022. 58. COLL. Nov. -- Commentaria in Acta Apostol. -- Comment. in Septem Epistolas Catholicas.

“He is desired to tell what is the age of each of these manuscripts: and what it will cost to have a transcript of the two first pages of each.

“If Mr. Warton be not in Oxford, you may try if you can get it done by any body else; or stay till he comes according to your own convenience. It is for an Italian literato.

“The answer is to be directed to his Excellency Mr. Zon, Venetian Resident, Soho-Square.

“I hope, dear Sir, that you do not regret the change of London for Oxford. Mr. Baretti is well, and Miss Williams; and we shall all be glad to hear from you, whenever you shall be so kind as to write to, Sir,

“Your most humble servant,

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

“Nov. 21, 1754.”

The degree of Master of Arts, which, it has been observed, could not be obtained for him at an early period of his life, was now considered as an honour of considerable importance, in order to grace the title-page of his Dictionary; and his character in the literary world being by this time deservedly high, his friends thought that, if proper exertions were made, the University of Oxford would pay him the compliment.

“TO THE REVEREND MR. THOMAS WARTON.

“DEAR SIR,

“I AM extremely obliged to you and to Mr. Wise, for the uncommon care which you have taken of my interest; if you can accomplish your kind design, I shall certainly take me a little habitation among you.

“The books which I promised to Mr. Wise, I have not been able to procure: but I shall send him a Finnick Dictionary, the only copy, perhaps, in England, which was presented me by a learned Swede: but I keep it back, that it may make a set of my own books of the new edition, with which I shall accompany it, more welcome. You will assure him of my gratitude.

“Poor dear Collins! -- Would a letter give him any pleasure? I have a mind to write.

“I am glad of your hindrance in your Spenserian design, yet I would not have it delayed. Three hours a day stolen from sleep and amusement will produce it. Let a Servitour transcribe the quotations, and interleave them with references, to save time. This will shorten the work, and lessen the fatigue.

“Can I do any thing to promoting the diploma? I would not be wanting to co-operate with your kindness; of which, whatever be the effect, I shall be, dear Sir,

“Your most obliged, &c.

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

“[London,] Nov. 28, 1754.”

TO THE SAME.

“DEAR SIR,

“I AM extremely sensible of the favour done me, both by Mr. Wise and yourself. The book cannot, I think, be printed in less than six weeks, nor probably so soon; and I will keep back the title-page, for such an insertion as you seem to promise me. Be pleased to let me know what money I shall send you for bearing the expence of the affair; and I will take care that you may have it ready at your hand.

“I had lately the favour of a letter from your brother, with some account of poor Collins, for whom I am much concerned. I have a notion, that by very great temperance, or more properly abstinence he may yet recover.

“There is an old English and Latin book of poems by Barclay, called ‘The Ship of Fools;’ at the end of which are a number of Eglogues, -- so he writes it, from Egloga, -- which are probably the first in our language. If you cannot find the book, I will get Mr. Dodsley to send it you.

“I shall be extremely glad to hear from you again, to know, if the affair proceeds. I have mentioned it to none of my friends, for fear of being laughed at for my disappointment.

“You know poor Mr. Dodsley has lost his wife; I believe he is much affected. I hope he will not suffer so much as I yet suffer for the loss of mine.

 Oimoi ti d’ oimoi; thneta gar peponthamen.

I have ever since seemed to myself broken off from mankind; a kind of solitary wanderer in the wild of life, without any direction, or fixed point of view: a gloomy gazer on the world to which I have little relation. Yet I would endeavour, by the help of you and your brother, to supply the want of closer union, by friendship: and hope to have long the pleasure of being, dear Sir,

“Most affectionately your’s,

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

“[London] Dec. 21, 1754.”

((1755)) ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

In 1755 we behold him to great advantage; his degree of Master of Arts conferred upon him, his Dictionary published, his correspondence animated, his benevolence exercised.

“TO THE REVEREND MR. THOMAS WARTON.

“DEAR SIR,

“I WROTE to you some weeks ago, but believe did not direct accurately, and therefore know not whether you had my letter. I would, likewise, write to your brother, but know not where to find him. I now begin to see land, after having wandered, according to Mr. Warburton’s phrase, in this vast sea of words. What reception I shall meet with on the shore, I know not; whether the sound of bells, and acclamations of the people, which Ariosto talks of in his last Canto, or a general murmur of dislike, I know not: whether I shall find upon the coast a Calypso that will court, or a Polypheme that will resist. But if Polypheme comes, have at his eye. I hope, however, the criticks will let me be at peace; for though I do not much fear their skill and strength, I am a little afraid of myself, and would not willingly feel so much ill-will in my bosom as literary quarrels are apt to excite.

“Mr. Baretti is about a work for which he is in great want of Crescimbeni, which you may have again when you please.

“There is nothing considerable done or doing among us here. We are not, perhaps, as innocent as villagers, but most of us seem to be as idle. I hope, however, you are busy; and should be glad to know what you are doing.

“I am, dearest Sir,
“Your humble servant,

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

[“London] Feb. 4, 1755.”

TO THE SAME.

“DEAR SIR,

“I RECEIVED your letter this day, with great sense of the favour that has been done me;1 for which I return my most sincere thanks; and entreat you to pay to Mr. Wise such returns as I ought to make for so much kindness so little deserved.

“I sent Mr. Wise the Lexicon, and afterwards wrote to him; but know not whether he had either the book or letter. Be so good as to contrive to enquire.

“But why does my dear Mr. Warton tell me nothing of himself? Where hangs the new volume?2 Can I help? Let not the past labour be lost, for want of a little more; but snatch what time you can from the Hall, and the pupils, and the coffee-house, and the parks, and complete your design.

“I am, dear Sir, &c.

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

“[London] Feb. 4, 1755.”

TO THE SAME.

“DEAR SIR,

“I HAD a letter last week from Mr. Wise, but have yet heard nothing from you, nor know in what state my affair stands; of which I beg you to inform me, if you can, tomorrow, by the return of the post.

“Mr. Wise sends me word, that he has not had the Finnick Lexicon yet, which I sent some time ago; and if he has it not, you must enquire after it. However, do not let your letter stay for that.

“Your brother, who is a better correspondent than you, and not much better, sends me word, that your pupils keep you in College: but they do not keep you from writing too? Let them, at least, give you time to write to, dear Sir,

“Your most affectionate, &c.

“SAM. JOHNSON.

[“London] Feb. 13, 1755.”

TO THE SAME.

“DEAR SIR,

“DR. KING was with me a few minutes before your letter; this, however, is the first instance in which your kind intentions to me have ever been frustrated.5 I have now the full effect of your care and benevolence; and am far from thinking it a slight honour, or a small advantage; since it will put the enjoyment of your conversation more frequently in the power of, dear Sir,

“Your most obliged and affectionate,

“SAM. JOHNSON.

“P.S. I have enclosed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor which you will read; and, if you like it, seal and give him.

“[London] Feb. 1755.”

As the Publick will doubtless be pleased to see the whole progress of this well-earned academical honour, I shall insert the Chancellor of Oxford’s letter to the University,7 the diploma, and Johnson’s letter of thanks to the Vice-Chancellor.

“To the Reverend Dr. HUDDESFORD, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford: to be communicated to the Heads of Houses, and proposed in Convocation.

“MR. VICE-CHANCELLOR, AND GENTLEMEN,

“MR. SAMUEL JOHNSON, who was formerly of Pembroke College, having very eminently distinguished himself by the publication of a series of Essays, excellently calculated to form the manners of the people, and in which the cause of religion and morality is every where maintained by the strongest powers of argument and language; and who shortly intends to publish a Dictionary of the English Tongue, formed on a new plan, and executed with the greatest labour and judgement; I persuade myself that I shall act agreeably to the sentiments of the whole University, in desiring that it may be proposed in convocation to confer on him the degree of Master of Arts by diploma, to which I readily give my consent; and am,

“Mr. Vice-Chancellor, and Gentlemen,

“Your affectionate friend and servant,

“ARRAN.”

“Grosvenor-street, Feb. 4, 1755.”

“Term. Scti.

“Hilarii.

“DIPLOMA MAGISTRI JOHNSON.

“1755.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

TO THE REVEREND MR. THOMAS WARTON.

“DEAR SIR,

“AFTER I received my diploma, I wrote you a letter of thanks, with a letter to the Vice-Chancellor, and sent another to Mr. Wise; but have heard from nobody since, and begin to think myself forgotten. It is true, I sent you a double letter, and you may fear an expensive correspondent; but I would have taken it kindly, if you had returned it treble: and what is a double letter to a petty king, that having fellowship and fines, can sleep without a Modus in his head?

“Dear Mr. Warton, let me hear from you, and tell me something, I care not what, so I hear it but from you. Something I will tell you: -- I hope to see my Dictionary bound and lettered, next week; -- vasta mole superbus. And I have a great mind to come to Oxford at Easter; but you will not invite me. Shall I come uninvited, or stay here where nobody perhaps would miss me if I went? A hard choice! But such is the world to, dear Sir,

“Yours, &c.

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

“[London] March 20, 1755.”

TO THE SAME.

“DEAR SIR,

“THOUGH not to write, when a man can write so well, is an offence sufficiently heinous, yet I shall pass it by. I am very glad that the Vice-Chancellor was pleased with my note. I shall impatiently expect you at London, that we may consider what to do next. I intend in the winter to open a Bibliotheque, and remember, that you are to subscribe a sheet a year: let us try, likewise, if we cannot persuade your brother to subscribe another. My book is now coming in luminis oras. What will be its fate I know not, nor think much, because thinking is to no purpose. I must stand the censure of the great vulgar and the small; of those that understand it, and that understand it not. But in all this, I suffer not alone; every writer has the same difficulties, and, perhaps, every writer talks of them more than he thinks.

“You will be pleased to make my compliments to all my friends; and be so kind, at every idle hour, as to remember, dear Sir,

“Yours, &c.

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

“[London] March 25, 1755.”

Dr. Adams told me, that this scheme of a Bibliotheque was a serious one: for upon his visiting him one day, he found his parlour floor covered with parcels of foreign and English literary journals, and he told Dr. Adams he meant to undertake a Review. “How, Sir, (said Dr. Adams,) can you think of doing it alone? All branches of knowledge must be considered in it. Do you know Mathematicks? Do you know Natural History?” Johnson answered, “Why, Sir, I must do as well as I can. My chief purpose is to give my countrymen a view of what is doing in literature upon the continent; and I shall have, in a good measure, the choice of my subject, for I shall select such books as I best understand.” Dr. Adams suggested, that as Dr. Maty had just then finished his Bibliotheque Britannique, which was a well-executed work, giving foreigners an account of British publications, he might, with great advantage assume him as an assistant. “He, (said Johnson) the little black dog! I’d throw him into the Thames.” The scheme, however, was dropped.

In one of his little memorandum books I find the following hints for his intended Review or Literary Journal: “The Annals of Literature, foreign as well as domestick. Imitate Le Clerc -- Bayle -- Barbeyrac. Infelicity of Journals in England. ‘Works of the learned.’ We cannot take in all. Sometimes copy from foreign Journalists. Always tell.”

“TO DR. BIRCH.

“March 29, 1755.

“SIR,

“I HAVE sent some parts of my Dictionary, such as were at hand, for your inspection. The favour which I beg is, that if you do not like them, you will say nothing. I am, Sir,

“Your most affectionate humble servant,

“SAMUEL JOHNSON.”

“TO MR. SAMUEL JOHNSON

“Norfolk-street, April 23, 1755.

“SIR,

“THE part of your Dictionary which you have favoured me with the sight of has given me such an idea of the whole, that I most sincerely congratulate the publick upon the acquisition of a work long wanted, and now executed with an industry, accuracy, and judgement, equal to the importance of the subject. You might, perhaps, have chosen one in which your genius would have appeared to more advantage, but you could not have fixed upon any other in which your labours would have done such substantial service to the present age and to posterity. I am glad that your health has supported the application necessary to the performance of so vast a task; and can undertake to promise you as one (though perhaps the only) reward of it, the approbation and thanks of every well-wisher to the honour of the English language. I am, with the greatest regard, Sir,

“Your most faithful and
“Most affectionate humble servant,

“THO. BIRCH.”

Mr. Charles Burney, who has since distinguished himself so much in the science of Musick, and obtained a Doctor’s degree from the University of Oxford, had been driven from the capital by bad health, and was now residing at Lynne Regis in Norfolk. He had been so much delighted with Johnson’s Rambler, and the plan of his Dictionary, that when the great work was announced in the newspapers as nearly finished, he wrote to Dr. Johnson, begging to be informed when and in what manner his Dictionary would be published; entreating, if it should be by subscription, or he should have any books at his own disposal, to be favoured with six copies for himself and friends.

In answer to this application, Dr. Johnson wrote the following letter, of which (to use Dr. Burney’s own words) “if it be remembered that it was written to an obscure young man, who at this time had not distinguished himself even in his own profession, but whose name could never have reached the authour of THE RAMBLER, the politeness and urbanity may be opposed to some of the stories which have been lately circulated of Dr. Johnson’s natural rudeness and ferocity.”

“TO MR. BURNEY, IN LYNNE REGIS, NORFOLK.

“SIR,

“IF you imagine that by delaying my answer I intended to show any neglect of the notice with which you have favoured me, you will neither think justly of yourself nor of me. Your civilities were offered with too much elegance not to engage attention; and I have too much pleasure in pleasing men like you, not to feel very sensibly the distinction which you have bestowed upon me.

“Few consequences of my endeavours to please or to benefit mankind have delighted me more than your friendship thus voluntarily offered, which now I have it I hope to keep, because I hope to continue to deserve it.

“I have no Dictionaries to dispose of for myself, but shall be glad to have you direct your friends to Mr. Dodsley, because it was by his recommendation that I was employed in the work.

“When you have leisure to think again upon me, let me be favoured with another letter; and another yet, when you have looked into my Dictionary. If you find faults, I shall endeavour to mend them; if you find none, I shall think you blinded by kind partiality: but to have made you partial in his favour, will very much gratify the ambition of, Sir,

“Your most obliged
“And most humble servant,

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

“Gough-square, Fleet-street,
“April 8, 1755.”

Mr. Andrew Millar, bookseller in the Strand, took the principal charge of conducting the publication of Johnson’s Dictionary; and as the patience of the proprietors was repeatedly tried and almost exhausted, by their expecting that the work would be compleated, within the time which Johnson had sanguinely supposed, the learned author was often goaded to dispatch, more especially as he had received all the copy money, by different drafts, a considerable time before he had finished his task. When the messenger who carried the last sheet to Millar returned, Johnson asked him, “Well, what did he say?” -- “Sir, (answered the messenger) he said, thank GOD I have done with him.” “I am glad (replied Johnson, with a smile,) that he thanks GOD for any thing.” It is remarkable, that those with whom Johnson chiefly contracted for his literary labours were Scotchmen, Mr. Millar and Mr. Strahan. Millar, though himself no great judge of literature, had good sense enough to have for his friends very able men, to give him their opinion and advice in the purchase of copyright; the consequence of which was his acquiring a very large fortune, with liberality. Johnson said of him, “I respect Millar, Sir; he has raised the price of literature.” The same praise may be justly given to Panckoucke, the eminent bookseller of Paris. Mr. Strahan’s liberality, judgement, and success, are well known.

“TO BENNET LANGTON, ESQ. AT LANGTON, NEAR SPILSBY, LINCOLNSHIRE.

“SIR,

“IT has been long observed, that men do not suspect faults which they do not commit; your own elegance of manners, and punctuality of complaisance, did not suffer you to impute to me that negligence of which I was guilty, and which I have not since atoned. I received both your letters, and received them with pleasure proportioned to the esteem which so short an acquaintance strongly impressed, and which I hope to confirm by nearer knowledge, though I am afraid that gratification will be for a time withheld.

“I have, indeed, published my Book, of which I beg to know your father’s judgement, and yours; and I have now staid long enough to watch its progress in the world. It has, you see, no patrons, and, I think, has yet had no opponents, except the criticks of the coffee-house, whose outcries are soon dispersed into the air, and are thought on no more; from this, therefore, I am at liberty, and think of taking the opportunity of this interval to make an excursion, and why not then into Lincolnshire? or, to mention a stronger attraction, why not to dear Mr. Langton? I will give the true reason, which I know you will approve: -- I have a mother more than eighty years old, who has counted the days to the publication of my book, in hopes of seeing me; and to her, if I can disengage myself here, I resolve to go.

“As I know, dear Sir, that to delay my visit for a reason like this, will not deprive me of your esteem, I beg it may not lessen your kindness. I have very seldom received an offer of friendship which I so earnestly desire to cultivate and mature. I shall rejoice to hear from you, till I can see you, and will see you as soon as I can; for when the duty that calls me to Lichfield is discharged, my inclination will carry me to Langton. I shall delight to hear the ocean roar, or see the stars twinkle, in the company of men to whom Nature does not spread her volumes, or utter her voice in vain.

“Do not, dear Sir, make the slowness of this letter a precedent for delay, or imagine that I approved the incivility that I have committed; for I have known you enough to love you, and sincerely to wish a further knowledge; and I assure you once more, that to live in a house that contains such a father and such a son, will be accounted a very uncommon degree of pleasure, by, dear Sir,

“Your most obliged,
“And most humble servant,

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

“May 6, 1755.”

“TO THE REVEREND MR. THOMAS WARTON.

“DEAR SIR,

“I AM grieved that you should think me capable of neglecting your letters; and beg you will never admit any such suspicion again. I purpose to come down next week, if you shall be there; or any other week, that shall be more agreeable to you. Therefore let me know. I can stay this visit but a week; but intend to make preparations for a longer stay next time; being resolved not to lose sight of the University. How goes Apollonius? Don’t let him be forgotten. Some things of this kind must be done, to keep us up. Pay my compliments to Mr. Wise, and all my other friends. I think to come to Kettel-Hall. I am, Sir,

“Your most affectionate, &c.

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

“[London] May 13, 1755:”

TO THE SAME.

“DEAR SIR,

“IT is strange how many things will happen to intercept every pleasure, though it [be] only that of two friends meeting together. I have promised myself every day to inform you when you might expect me at Oxford, and have not been able to fix a time. The time, however, is, I think, at last come, and I promise myself to repose in Kettel-Hall, one of the first nights of the next week. I am afraid my stay with you cannot be long; but what is the inference? We must endeavour to make it cheerful. I wish your brother could meet us, that we might go and drink tea with Mr. Wise in a body. I hope he will be at Oxford, or at his nest of British and Saxon antiquities. I shall expect to see Spenser finished, and many other things begun. Dodsley is gone to visit the Dutch. The Dictionary sells well. The rest of the world goes on as it did. Dear Sir,

“Your most affectionate, &c.

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

“[London] June 10, 1755.”

TO THE SAME.

“DEAR SIR,

“TO talk of coming to you, and not yet to come, has an air of trifling which I would not willingly have among you; and which, I believe, you will not willingly impute to me, when I have told you, that since my promise, two of our partners are dead, and that I was solicited to suspend my excursion till we could recover from our confusion.

“I have not laid aside my purpose; for every day makes me more impatient of staying from you. But death, you know, hears not supplications, nor pays any regard to the convenience of mortals. I hope now to see you next week; but next week is but another name for to-morrow, which has been noted for promising and deceiving.

“I am, &c.

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

[“London] June 24, 1755.”

TO THE SAME.

“DEAR SIR,

“I TOLD you that among the manuscripts are some things of Sir Thomas More. I beg you to pass an hour in looking on them, and procure a transcript of the ten or twenty first lines of each, to be compared with what I have; that I may know whether they are yet published. The manuscripts are these:

“Catalogue of Bodl. MS. pag. 122. F. 3. Sir Thomas More.

“1. Fall of angels. 2. Creation and fall of mankind. 3. Determination of the Trinity for the rescue of mankind. 4. Five lectures of our Saviour’s passion. 5. Of the institution of the Sacrament, three lectures. 6. How to receive the blessed body of our Lord sacramentally. 7. Neomenia, the new moon. 8. De tristitia, taedio, pavore, et oratione Christi ante captionem ejus.

“Catalogue, pag. 154. Life of Sir Thomas More. Qu. Whether Roper’s? Pag. 363. De resignatione Magni Sigilli in manus Regis per D. Thomam Morum. Pag. 364. Mori Defensio Moriae.

“If you procure the young gentleman in the library to write out what you think fit to be written, I will send to Mr. Prince the bookseller to pay him what you shall think proper.

“Be pleased to make my compliments to Mr. Wise, and all my friends. I am, Sir,

“Your affectionate, &c.

“SAM. JOHNSON.”

“[London] Aug. 7, 1755.”

The Dictionary, with a Grammar and History of the English Language, being now at length published, in two volumes folio, the world contemplated with wonder so stupendous a work atchieved by one man, while other countries had thought such undertakings fit only for whole academies. Vast as his powers were, I cannot but think that his imagination deceived him, when he supposed that by constant application he might have performed the task in three years. Let the Preface be attentively perused, in which is given, in a clear, strong, and glowing style, a comprehensive, yet particular view of what he had done; and it will be evident, that the time he employed upon it was comparatively short. I am unwilling to swell my book with long quotations from what is in every body’s hands, and I believe there are few prose compositions in the English language that are read with more delight, or are more impressed upon the memory, than that preliminary discourse. One of its excellencies has always struck me with peculiar admiration; I mean the perspicuity with which he has expressed abstract scientifick notions. As an instance of this, I shall quote the following sentence: “When the radical idea branches out into parallel ramifications, how can a consecutive series be formed of senses in their own nature collateral?” We have here an example of what has been often said, and I believe with justice, that there is for every thought a certain nice adaptation of words which none other could equal, and which, when a man has been so fortunate as to hit, he has attained, in that particular case, the perfection of language.

The extensive reading which was absolutely necessary for the accumulation of authorities, and which alone may account for Johnson’s, retentive mind being enriched with a very large and various store of knowledge and imagery, must have occupied several years. The Preface furnishes an eminent instance of a double talent, of which Johnson was fully conscious. Sir Joshua Reynolds heard him say, “There are two things which I am confident I can do very well: one is an introduction to any literary work, stating what it is to contain, and how it should be executed in the most perfect manner: the other is a conclusion, shewing from various causes why the execution has not been equal to what the authour promised to himself and to the publick.”

How should puny scribblers be abashed and disappointed, when they find him displaying a perfect theory of lexicographical excellence, yet at the same time candidly and modestly allowing that he “had not satisfied his own expectations.” Here was a fair occasion for the exercise of Johnson’s modesty, when he was called upon to compare his own arduous performance, not with those of other individuals, (in which case his inflexible regard to truth would have been violated had he affected diffidence,) but with speculative perfection; as he, who can outstrip all his competitors in the race, may yet be sensible of his deficiency when he runs against time. Well might he say, that “the English Dictionary was written with little assistance of the learned;” for he told me, that the only aid which he received was a paper containing twenty etymologies, sent to him by a person then unknown, who he was afterwards informed was Dr. Pearce, Bishop of Rochester. The etymologies, though they exhibit learning and judgement, are not, I think, entitled to the first praise amongst the various parts of this immense work. The definitions have always appeared to me such astonishing proofs of acuteness of intellect and precision of language, as indicate a genius of the highest rank. This it is which marks the superior excellence of Johnson’s Dictionary over others equally or even more voluminous, and must have made it a work of much greater mental labour than mere Lexicons, or Word-Books, as the Dutch call them. They, who will make the experiment of trying how they can define a few words of whatever nature, will soon be satisfied of the unquestionable justice of this observation, which I can assure my readers is founded upon much study, and upon communication with more minds than my own.

A few of his definitions must be admitted to be erroneous. Thus, Windward and Leeward, though directly of opposite meaning, are defined identically the same way; as to which inconsiderable specks it is enough to observe, that his Preface announces that he was aware there might be many such in so immense a work; nor was he at all disconcerted when an instance was pointed out to him. A lady once asked him how he came to define Pastern the knee of a horse: instead of making an elaborate defence, as she expected, he at once answered, “Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance.” His definition of Network has been often quoted with sportive malignity, as obscuring a thing in itself very plain. But to these frivolous censures no other answer is necessary than that with which we are furnished by his own Preface. “To explain, requires the use of terms less abstruse than that which is to be explained, and such terms cannot always be found. For as nothing can be proved but by supposing something intuitively known, and evident without proof, so nothing can be defined but by the use of words too plain to admit of definition. Sometimes easier words are changed into harder; as, burial, into sepulture or interment; dry, into desiccative; dryness, into siccity or aridity; fit, into paroxism; for, the easiest word, whatever it be, can never be translated into one more easy.”

His introducing his own opinions, and even prejudices, under general definitions of words, while at the same time the original meaning of the words is not explained, as his Tory, Whig, Pension, Oats, Excise, and a few more, cannot be fully defended, and must be placed to the account of capricious and humorous indulgence. Talking to me upon this subject when we were at Ashbourne in 1777, he mentioned a still stronger instance of the predominance of his private feelings in the composition of this work, than any now to be found in it. “You know, Sir, Lord Gower forsook the old Jacobite interest. When I came to the Renegado, after telling that it meant ‘one who deserts to the enemy, a revolter,’ I added, Sometimes we say a GOWER. Thus it went to the press: but the printer had more wit than I, and struck it out.”

Let it, however, be remembered, that this indulgence does not display itself only in sarcasm towards others, but sometimes in playful illusion to the notions commonly entertained of his own laborious task. Thus: “Grub-street, the name of a street in London, much inhabited by writers of small histories, dictionaries, and temporary poems; whence, any mean production is called Grub-street.” -- “Lexicographer, a writer of dictionaries, a harmless drudge.”

At the time when he was concluding his very eloquent Preface, Johnson’s mind appears to have been in such a state of depression, that we cannot contemplate without wonder the vigourous and splendid thoughts which so highly distinguish that performance. “I (says he) may surely be contented without the praise of perfection, which if I could obtain in this gloom of solitude, what would it avail me? I have protracted my work till most of those whom I wished to please have sunk into the grave; and success and miscarriage are empty sounds. I therefore dismiss it with frigid tranquillity, having little to fear or hope from censure or from praise.” That this indifference was rather a temporary than an habitual feeling, appears, I think, from his letters to Mr. Warton; and however he may have been affected for the moment, certain it is that the honours which his great work procured him, both at home and abroad, were very grateful to him. His friend the Earl of Corke and Orrery, being at Florence, presented it to the Accademia della Crusca. That Academy sent Johnson their Vocabolario, and the French Academy sent him their Dictionnaire, which Mr. Langton had the pleasure to convey to him.

It must undoubtedly seem strange, that the conclusion of his Preface should be expressed in terms so desponding, when it is considered that the authour was then only in his forty-sixth year. But we must ascribe its gloom to that miserable dejection of spirits to which he was constitutionally subject, and which was aggravated by the death of his wife two years before. I have heard it ingeniously observed by a lady of rank and elegance, that “his melancholy was then at its meridian.” It pleased GOD to grant him almost thirty years of life after this time; and once when he was in a placid frame of mind, he was obliged to own to me that he had enjoyed happier days, and had many more friends, since that gloomy hour, than before.

It is a sad saying, that “most of those whom he wished to please had sunk into the grave;” and his case at forty-five was singularly unhappy, unless the circle of his friends was very narrow. I have often thought, that as longevity is generally desired, and I believe, generally expected, it would be wise to be continually adding to the number of our friends, that the loss of some may be supplied by others. Friendship, “the wine of life,” should, like a well-stocked cellar, be thus continually renewed; and it is consolatory to think, that although we can seldom add what will equal the generous first growths of our youth, yet friendship becomes insensibly old in much less time than is commonly imagined, and not many years are required to make it very mellow and pleasant. Warmth will, no doubt, make a considerable difference. Men of affectionate temper and bright fancy will coalesce a great deal sooner than those who are cold and dull.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The celebrated Mr. Wilkes, whose notions and habits of life were very opposite to his, but who was ever eminent for literature and vivacity, sallied forth with a little Jeu d’Esprit upon the following passage in his Grammar of the English Tongue, prefixed to the Dictionary: “H seldom, perhaps never, begins any but the first syllable.” In an essay printed in “the Public Advertiser,” this lively writer enumerated many instances in opposition to this remark; for example, “The authour of this observation must be a man of a quick appre-hension, and of a most compre-hensive genius.” The position is undoubtedly expressed with too much latitude.

This light sally, we may suppose, made no great impression on our Lexicographer; for we find that he did not alter the passage till many years afterwards.

He had the pleasure of being treated in a very different manner by his old pupil Mr. Garrick, in the following complimentary Epigram:

               “On JOHNSON’S DICTIONARY.

“TALK of war with a Briton, he’ll boldly advance, That one

English soldier will beat ten of France; Would we alter the

boast from the sword to the pen, Our odds are still greater,

still greater our men; In the deep mines of science though

Frenchmen may toil, Can their strength be compar’d to Locke,

Newton, and Boyle?  Let them rally their heroes, send forth all

their pow’rs, Their verse-men and prose-men, then match them

with ours!  First Shakspeare and Milton, like Gods in the fight,

Have put their whole drama and epick to flight; In satires,

epistles, and odes, would they cope, Their numbers retreat

before Dryden and Pope; And Johnson, well-arm’d like a hero of

yore, Has beat forty French, and will beat

forty more!”

((1756))----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

IN 1756 Johnson found that the great fame of his Dictionary had not set him above the necessity of “making provision for the day that was passing over him.” No royal or noble patron extended a munificent hand to give independence to the man who had conferred stability on the language of his country. We may feel indignant that there should have been such unworthy neglect; but we must, at the same time, congratulate ourselves, when we consider, that to this very neglect, operating to rouse the natural indolence of his constitution, we owe many valuable productions, which otherwise, perhaps, might never have appeared.

He had spent, during the progress of the work, the money for which he had contracted to write his Dictionary. We have seen that the reward of his labour was only fifteen hundred and seventy-five pounds; and when the expence of amanuenses and paper, and other articles, are deducted, his clear profit was very inconsiderable. I once said to him, “I am sorry, Sir, you did not get more for your Dictionary.” His answer was, “I am sorry too. But it was very well. The booksellers are generous liberal-minded men.” He, upon all occasions, did ample justice to their character in this respect. He considered them as the patrons of literature; and, indeed, although they have eventually been considerable gainers by his Dictionary, it is to them that we owe its having been undertaken and carried through at the risk of great expence, for they were not absolutely sure of being indemnified.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

His works this year were, an abstract or epitome, in octavo, of his folio Dictionary, and a few essays in a monthly publication, “THE UNIVERSAL VISITER.” Christopher Smart, with whose unhappy vacillation of mind he sincerely sympathised, was one of the stated undertakers of this miscellany; and it was to assist him that Johnson sometimes employed his pen. All the essays marked with two asterisks have been ascribed to him; but I am confident, from internal evidence, that of these, neither “The Life of Chaucer,” “Reflections on the State of Portugal,” nor an “Essay On Architecture,” were written by him. I am equally confident, upon the same evidence, that he wrote, “Further Thoughts on Agriculture”; + being the sequel of a very inferiour essay on the same subject, and which, though carried on as if by the same hand, is both in thinking and expression so far above it, and so strikingly peculiar, as to leave no doubt of its true parent; and that he also wrote “A Dissertation on the State of Literature and Authours,” + and “A Dissertation on the Epitaphs written by Pope.” * The last of these, indeed, he afterwards added to his “Idler.” Why the essays truly written by him are marked in the same manner with some which he did not write, I cannot explain; but with deference to those who have ascribed to him the three essays which I have rejected they want all the characteristical marks of Johnsonian composition.

No. 105

105. John Walker. ‘PREFACE’ A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. To which are prefixed, Principles of English Pronunciation. London, 1791, pp. iii-viii.

Few subjects have of late years more employed the pens of every class of critics, than the improvement of the English language. The greatest abilities in the nation have been exerted in cultivating and reforming it; nor have a thousand minor critics been wanting to add their mite of amendment to their native tongue. Johnson, whose large mind and just taste made him capable of enriching and adorning the language with original composition, has condescended to the drudgery of disentangling, explaining, and arranging it, and left a lasting monument of his ability, labour, and patience; and Dr. Lowth, the politest scholar of the age, has veiled his superiority in his short Introduction to English Grammar. The ponderous folio has gravely vindicated the rights of analogy; and the light ephemeral sheet of news has corrected errors in Grammar, as well as Politics, by slyly marking them in italics.

Nor has the improvement stopped here. While Johnson and Lowth have been insensibly operating on the orthography and construction of our language, its pronunciation has not been neglected. The importance of a consistent and regular pronunciation was too obvious to be overlooked; and the want of this consistency and regularity induced several ingenious men to endeavour at a reformation; who, by exhibiting the anomalies of pronunciation, and pointing out its analogies, have reclaimed some words that were not irrecoverably fixed in a wrong sound, and prevented others from being perverted by ignorance or caprice. (from Preface)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Without any derogation from the character of Dr. Johnson, it may be asserted, that in these observations we do not perceive that justness and accuracy of thinking for which he is so remarkable. It would be doing great injustice to him to suppose, that he meant to exclude all possibility of conveying the actual pronunciation of many words that depart manifestly from their orthography, or of those that are written alike, and pronounced differently and inversely. He has marked these differences with great propriety himself in many places of his Dictionary; and it is to be regretted that he did not extend these remarks farther. It is impossible, therefore, he could suppose, that, because the almost imperceptible glances of colloquial pronunciation were not to be caught and described by the pen, that the very perceptible difference between the initial accented syllables of money and monitor, or the final unaccented syllables of finite and infinite, could not be sufficiently marked upon paper. (...)

The truth is, Dr. Johnson seems to have had a confused idea of the distinctness and indistinctness with which, on solemn or familiar occasions, we sometimes pronounce the unaccented vowels; and with respect to these, it must be owned, that his remarks are not entirely without foundation. The English language, with respect to its pronunciation, is evidently divisible into accented and unaccented sounds. (from Preface)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

As those sounds, therefore, which are the most generally received among the learned and polite, as well as the bulk of speakers, are the most legitimate, we may conclude that a majority of two of these States ought always to concur, in order to constitute what is called good usage.

But though custom, when general, is commonly well understood, there are several states and degrees of it which are exceedingly obscure and equivocal; and the only method of knowing the extent of custom in these cases, seems to be an inspection of those Dictionaries which professedly treat of pronunciation. We have now so many works of this kind, that the general current of custom, with respect to the sound of words, may be collected from them with almost as much certainty as the general sense of words from Johnson. An exhibition of the opinions of Orthöepists about the sound of words always appeared to me a very rational method of determining what is called custom. This method I have adopted in the following work ;and if I have sometimes dissented from the majority, it has been, either from a persuasion of being better informed of what was the actual custom of speaking, or from a partially to the evident analogies of the language.

And here I must intreat the candid reader to make every reasonable allowance for the freedom with which I have criticised other writers on this subject, and particularly Mr. Sheridan. As a man, a gentleman, and a scholar, I knew Mr. Sheridan, and respected him; and think every student in elocution owes him a tribute of thinks for his unwearied addressed to the publick, to rouse them to the study of the delivery of their native tongue. But his tribute, however just, does not exempt him from examination. His credit with the world necessarily subjects him to animadversion, because the errors of such a writer are dangerous in proportion to his reputation: this has made me zealous to remark his inaccuracies, but not without giving my reasons; nor have I ever taken advantage of such faults as may be called inadvertencies. On the same principles I have ventured to criticise Dr. Johnson, whose friendship and advice I was honoured with, whose memory I love, and whose intellectual powers impress me with something like veneration and awe. (....)

With respect to the explanation of words, except in very few instances, I have scrupulously followed Dr. Johnson. His Dictionary has been deemed lawful plunder by every subsequent Lexicographer; and so servilely[sic] has it been copied, that such words as he must have omitted merely by mistake, as Predilection, Respectable, Descriptive, Sulky, Mimetick, Isolated, Inimical, Decompose, and many others, are neither in Mr. Sheridan’s, Dr. Kenrick’s, nor several other Dictionaries. (from Preface)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

In the word sceptic, where the first s, according to analogy, ought to be pronounced like s, Dr. Johnson has not only given his approbation to the sound of k, but has, contrary to general practice, spelt the word skeptic. It may be observed, perhaps, in this, as on other occasions, of that truly great clarity that he is but seldom wrong, but when he is so that he is generally wrong to absurdity. What a monster does this word skeptic appear to an eye the least classical or correct! And if this alteration be right, why should we hesitate to write and pronounce scene, sceptre, and Lacedæmon, and skene, skepter, and Lakedæmon, as there is the same reason for k in all? It is not, however, my intention to cross the general current of polite and classical pronunciation, which I know is that of sounding the c as k; my objection is only to writing it with the k; and in this, I think I am supported by the best authority since the publication of Johnson’s Dictionary. (p. 40)

No. 106

106. Gebhardt Friedrich August Wendeborn, LL.D. A View of England toward the Close of the Eighteenth Century. Vol. II. London: Printed for G. G. J. And J. Robinson, 1791, p. 39.

The English being a compound of many ancient and modern languages, received additions from time to time, and adopts new words, when others, which were before much in use, become obsolete*. The translation of the Bible, was formerly regarded as a standard, or a classic of the language; and Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary, quotes it frequently as a authority; but it is, at present no more so. Many words which occur in the Bible, and the orthography of some, would at present not be used by good writers. It has several times been proposed to make a new translation for common use, and under authority, but, hitherto, it has been of no effect.

* Dr. Johnson, in his great Dictionary, has collected about 48,000 words, and it was then thought that he had let but very few behind. The rev. Mr. Croft, however, has asserted, that he has found more than 11,000, which are omitted. The new Dictionary which he proposes to publish, will, on this supposition, and on account of the new plan he has adopted, have a great superiority over that of Johnson. It is, therefore, much to be wished, that he may meet in his great undertakings, with that encouragement, which it deserves. (p. 39)

No. 107

107. (Anonymous.) A Letter to James Boswell, Esq. With some Remarks on Johnson’s Dictionary, and on Language, &c. London: Printed for J. Kirby, 1792. {The writer might be Piozzi.}

I say, few sheets, Mr. Boswell, for I have neither the desire nor ability to go upon the arduous and laborious task of thorough investigation of the work [sc. Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary] ; no, Sir ; I mean this but as a sketch, a hint, an induendo, if you please ; -- the employment and amusement of a very few idle hours ; but with a sincere intent, or wish at least, of its proving, while itself a single and insignificant spark, yet one from which the luminous mind of some one of the many minds of this country, doubtless so gifted, might catch fire at, and then drive forth to its far extended blaze of light, which a true, accurate, discriminating, and tasteful fixation* of the English tongue must produce ; yes, Mr. Boswell, and then, not only for the advantage and honour of our own country, but, (for the former at least,) of the nations around us ; nay, and that surely, from reverberation, and form consequential circumstances, of still increased honour from thence to our ownselves also.

Language, Mr. Boswell, is a consideration of no inconsiderable moment to society, still more to civilized, and still more yet, to refined society ; which last, we of this age and country to be sure, and I say not untruely [sic], define our ownselves to be. What is language? It is the vehicle of idea. It is the mutual communication of thought from man to man. What then is, nay must be, its primary many perfection? Surely perspicuity, clearness, intelligibleness : -- And what are the means of language to produce that effect? Distinctness, apt apropriation of word or term to thought, and regularity and clearness of context in the diffusion and necessary variety of its employment;.. (pp. 2-4)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Is it not then, I ask, to be wished, that for every idea there should be a sign of it in language? This, it is plain, must be a satisfaction both to the utterer or communicator, of that his idea, and equally so to his hearer. What a corrector, a destroyer of sophistry and of falsehood, (for is not sophistry falsehood?) would this be! Yes, say you ; but then, what a tameness what a sameness, and what an inelegance would language be reduced to ? by varying your terms and your sentences, you give energy and beauty, and expression to language ; and by synonymes, in your language, you adorn, you enforce it.

What have I to answer to this? Why certainly, that I in part agree to it, but not to the degree it is practised in our language, and which I am sorry to add, this dictionary seems rather to encourage and increase, than repress and diminish. Yes, Dr. Johnson seems to have adopted, in his plan, the very reverse of what a most elegant French writer, elegant even on that dry subject, has adopted for his, in a little work called “Syonymes Francois,” in which he shades or draws the line of distinction in terms, surely very refinedly and very accurately ; this work is, I dare say, very well known to the elegant part of English readers, and I flatter myself, that they do not disagree with this account of it. Whether Dr. Johnson does not even err grossly in the contrary practice, I would equally refer to such readers. No one perhaps admires dr. Johnson in his Ramblers, and many other of his writings, nay, very particularly in some of his critical ones, than I do ; and even in his dictionary I will not dispute his accurate distinctions in many parts of it. I have no partiality for or against the man. No, I willingly would see and admire his perfections, but I would equally see his imperfections ; and as to things I suppose to be such in him, I will very soon give at least some few examples, which every one may see and judge of equally with myself; in the respect I now speak of, I do most certainly think him defective even to a wonderful degree, and even so much so, as to give senses to words countenanced by no existing or past writer of any acknowledged merit or reputation*. Where he seems to give senses, radically ad totally mistaken, I shall also give some examples, for free discussion, as well as contradiction, if they deserve it.

* The writers quoted by Dr. Johnson for his authorities, are (I confess my ignorance), in general such, as I not only never met with, but often such a I never heard of ; a Brown, among others I know as little, is continually referred to for one ; and what is the man or his writings, I know not at all. There are other such, I am not more, acquainted with ; and few indeed of the respectable authors every reader has met with, do I see in the list. There are some, however respectable ones, surely of now too old a date for indisputable authoritativeness. (pp. 12-15)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

I had intended to conclude with this list of hard words (for I will join no other appellation to them), but a few more thoughts have since occurred to me, which as relating to a subject, (whatever be my treatment of it) I can but esteem very truly important, I am unwilling to suppress; and for this reason, that though the majority of those thoughts should appear little worthy of notice, yet if any, nay only one of them, happens to do otherwise, I can never repent the having set them forth, or the public blame me for it.

I will farther observe then that in other particulars than I have hitherto mentioned, or at least I have only glanced at, this Dictionary appears reprehensible; and to want correction or improvement, to be of that use to the English nation and to foreign ones, they must universally wish it to be. As further proof of this, I have reflected that though I have given a little list of English words that have seemed (and I flatter myself not less so to my readers than myself) very erroneously defined, yet that I have not minutely looked into the nicer distinction of terms that may, not only have been given as synonymous, but received as such inaccurately. I have before remarked that Doctor Johnson had manifestly proceeded on quite a different not to say contrary principle from the writer of the little French work called Synonimes Francois, even to the huddling together, as such, words that have a very distantly-connected analogy, one with the other, if almost perhaps, at times, even any at all ; far indeed from dividing and subdividing meanings as that delicate and I may almost say intuitive French refiner and writer (if my memory does not deceive me, for it is long ago, indeed, since I saw the work) to me appeared to have accurately and truly done. – I have therefore bethought me of trying a specimen or two of the same kind, though only as example for some future and much more able attempter of the same. (pp. 55-56)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

One or two more instances of amazingly deficient particulars in this Dictionary, have caught my eye (as in truth almost all my examples have done) quite by accident ; and even after I thought I had closed my account ; but their temptations I could not resist, as still fresh food to my own ardent wish of a reformed Dictionary of our language, and indeed fresh argument for the want of it. And does Mr. Boswell imagine after all that I am the only person through the land who dissents from his given description and encomium of the Dictionary as herein quoted by me in part, and may be seen completely in his work? Certainly not;.. (p. 62)

No. 108

108. Sir Herbert Croft. Proposals for Publishing, in May Next, Croft’s Johnson’s Dictionary Corrected, without the Smallest Omission; Considerably Improved; and Enlarged with More than Twenty Thousand Words, Illustrated by Examples from the Books Quoted by D. Johnson, and from others of the best Authority in our own and former Times. London, May 1792, pp. 1-4.

The Rev. Herbert Croft, LL.B. of University College, Oxford, after employing some years on this expensive work, unpatronized and unsupported, ventures, however unwillingly, now that he can fix the time for publication, upon a step which he has repeatedly been advised to take, and which his great friend and patron Bishop Lowth particularly urged, after seeing his MSS, in 1785.

(one paragraph omitted)

In this new Dictionary of the English Language, the whole of Dr. J.’s [sc. Johnson’s] book will be religiously preserved. All that is done by Mr. C. Will be immediately distinguishable from the labours of Dr. J.; and Mr. C. Undertakes.

I. corrections. [sc. to correct such errors as occur to him in dr. J’s dictionary]

I. When Mr. C. has reason to think Dr. J. wrong in the derivation, the explanation, or the illustration of a word, he means to submit to his readers the result of his own researches, distinguished in a way which cannot be mistaken, immediately after the part of Dr. J.’s book to which he objects.

II. Many thousand errors will be corrected in Dr. J.’s quotations and references; for which his affecting Preface confesses that... There are instances of his quoting the same passage, three or four different times, in as many different ways, or with as many different references.

III. In printing the new Dictionary, Dr. J.’s first edition of 1755 will be used; because the publishers have thought proper, in later editions, to curtail and strike out elucidations, and to contract particular references into general ones, for the purpose, as it seems, of saving paper. (...)

II. IMPROVEMENTS.

I. Examples will be added to some thousands of Dr. J.’s words, which now stand, to the amount of more than a third of the whole, without any authority, in that Dictionary of our language, “in which,” the title-page tells us, “the words are illustrated by examples.”

II. For these examples, as well as for those which Mr. C. Adds to Dr. J’s, it has been the author’s study to select, as often as possible, passages which are useful to some other end than the illustration of the word;...

III. Minute and particular references, especially to examples of this kind, will be given by the present author, and will be added to innumerable examples, at which Dr. J. Gives only the writer’s name.

IV. All examples, thus doubly useful, will be distinguished by an asterisk; because scarcely any reader ever closes Dr. J.’s book, as soon as he has found that for which he opened it; such is the attraction of detached passages: and the asterisks of the new Dictionary will always compel the lingerer to turn his time to account, by attracting his eye to something that will improve his mind.

V. A new mark,, which cannot create any confusion, will be used at ironical and satirical passages, and at passages in which it happens, as Dr. J. Says in his Preface,.. (...)

VI. Mr. C. Means to lose no opportunity of warning his readers against those words, which the present age considers as vulgar, as obsolete, or as not sufficiently established.

VII. When Dr. J.’s examples, or the additional ones, offend against certain general rules of grammar, in which all are agreed, and which will be laid down at the beginning of this Dictionary; corrections of such ungrammatical passages will be submitted to the reader in a way perfectly plain and simple. (...)

VIII. Since it may be expected that the present Dictionary will be often quoted for what is pleasing or useful in English literature, and still oftener for the grammatical queries, in both of which cases it would be desirable to refer to the particular page, column and line; a mode of printing this Dictionary is adopted, by numbering the columns, and placing figures down the page between the columns;, which will facilitate such references.

IX. (omitted)

III. ADDITIONS.

Dr. J’s Dictionary was published almost half a century ago; and, as he professed not to quote his contemporaries, which is by no means the present writer’s rule, it stops more than eighty years short of the present time, and, in fact, comes down only to the year 1709, when Dr. J. was born. It contains about Forty-eight Thousand words, of which it is supposed hat more than fifteen thousand words and senses are not illustrated by any examples. The author of the Dictionary now ready for publications, besides supplying many of these fifteen thousand with examples, which is one of the improvements, has illustrated Dr. J.’s words by many additional examples, and has added in their alphabetical order more than Twenty thousand other words, illustrated by examples from the writers whom Dr. J. quotes, and from others of the best authority in our own and former times.

Such is the Dictionary of our Language which Mr. C. has built upon the foundation of Dr. Johnson’s. He readily confesses that, without Dr. J.’s book, he never could have brought his own to this conclusion: and Mr. C., who has best reason to know the innumerable faults and defects of Dr. J.’s Dictionary, is not afraid to pronounce it the grandest specimen of diligence and genius, in one man, which any language can boast – considering the incredibly short time spent upon it, only eight or nine years, during which too the Rambler was composed; and adverting to all the neglected author’s circumstances of “inconvenience and distraction, of sickness and of sorrow.”

(one paragraph omitted9

(TERMS OF THE SUBSCRIPTION, omitted)

London, No. 22, New-street, Spring-gardens,

May, 1792. Herbert Croft.

No. 109

109. Arthur Murphy, Esq. An Essay on the Life and Genius of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. London: Printed for T. Longman, etc., 1793, 187pp.

It is said, upon good authority, that Johnson once received from Lord Chesterfield the sum of ten pounds. It were to be wished that the secret had never transpired. It was mean to receive it, and meaner to give it. It may be imagined, that, for Johnson’s ferocity, as it has been called, there was some foundation in his finances; and, as his Dictionary was brought to a conclusion, that money was now to flow un upon him. The reverse was the case. For his subsistence, during the progress of the work, he had received at different times the amount of his contract; and, when his receipts were produced to him at a tavern-dinner given by the booksellers, it appeared, that he had been paid a hundred pounds and upwards more than his due. The author of a book, called Lexiphanes, written by a Mr. Campbell, a Scotchman, and purser of a man of war, endeavoured to blast his laurels, but in vain. The world applauded, and Johnson never replied. “Abuse,” he said, “is often of service: there is nothing so dangerous to an author as silence; his name, like a shuttle-cock, must be beat backward and forward, or it falls to the ground.” Lexiphanes professed o be an imitation of the pleasant manner of Lucian; but humour was not the talent of the writer of Lexiphanes. As Dryden says, “He had too much horse-play in his raillery.”

It was in the summer 1754, that the present writer became acquainted with Dr. Johnson. The cause of his first visit is related by Mrs. Piozzi nearly in the following manner. “Mr. Murphy being engaged in a periodical paper, the Gray’s-Inn Journal, was at a friend’s house in the country, and, no being disposed to lose pleasure for business, wished to content this bookseller by some unstudied essay. He therefore took up a French Journal Litéraire, and translating something he liked, sent it away to town. Time, however, discovered that he translated from the French a Rambler, which had been taken from the English without acknowledgement. Upon this discovery Mr. Murphy thought it right to make his excuses to Dr. Johnson. He went next day, and found him covered with soot, like a chimney-sweeper, in a little room, as if he had been acting Lungs in the Alchymist, making æther. (...)” (pp. 78-79)

No. 110

110. Robert Nares. General Rules for the Pronunciation of the English Language, with complete lists of the exceptions. London: Printed for Edward Jeffery, 1792.

Language, being perpetually in use, is not easily preserved from corruption. Violent and gross injuries, indeed, such as proceed from the attacks of vulgar or provincial barbarism, are readily perceived and repelled; but there are enemies which act against it more secretly, and therefore more irresistibly. The arbitrary caprice of fashion, and the spirit of improvement misdirected, are daily making changes in the structure and found of language; which, though separately inconsiderable, are after some time important in the total amount: and as the celestial signs had nearly changed their places before the slow but constant motion of the equinoxes was detected, so a language may have departed considerably from the fixed point of purity, and the harmony of its construction may be materially injured, before those minute changes, which affect only single words or syllables, shall have attracted the public observation.

In an enlightened and improving age much, perhaps, is not to be apprehended from the inroads of mere caprice: at such a period it will generally be perceived that needless irregularity is the worst of all deformities; and that nothing is so truly elegant in language as the simplicity of unviolated analogy. Rules will therefore be observed, so far as they are known and acknowledged; but at the same time the desire of improvement having once been excited, will not remain inactive; and its efforts, unless assisted by knowledge as much as they are prompted by zeal, will not unfrequently be found pernicious; so that the very persons whose intention it is to perfect the instrument of reason, will deprave and disorder it unknowingly. At such a time, then, it becomes peculiarly necessary that the analogy of language should be fully examined and understood; that its rules should be carefully laid down; and that it should be clearly shown how much it contains which, being already right, should be defended from change and violation; how much it has that demands amendment; and how much that, for fear of greater inconveniences, must perhaps be lest unaltered, though irregular.

So complete a view of the whole analogy of language, so far s it exists, and of its want of analogy, so far as it is yet unremedied, must be the best security that can be provided against corrupt or injudicious innovation.

Happily for language, that part of it which is highest in importance is the least liable to suffer from the attempts of innovators. Its internal or grammatical structure, being founded on the solid principles of reason, powerfully resists depravation. Barbarism alone can delight in deviating from laws so evidently just as those of general grammar, or so evidently necessary as those of particular grammars superadded to them: and this part of the English language, as its dignity demands, has already been treated in such a manner as to make further attempts unnecessary. (pp. iv-vi)

-----

K has uniformly the hard sound of c. It supplies the place of c, where that letter would be softened by the following vowel, as in keen, ken, king, &c.; and, according to Dr. Johnson, in skirrbus and skeptic. This necessity not appearing in kalendar, that word is now written calendar. It is joined with n in the beginning of many words, but is wholly silent in that situation: ex. knack, knee, knight, know, knuckle. K is never doubled; but c is introduced before it, when the effect of the double letter is required, as in cockle, truckle, &c. (p. 110)

No. 111

111. Hester Lynch Piozzi. ‘PREFACE.’ British Synonymy; or, an attempt at regulating the choice of words in familiar conversation. London: G. G. J. And J. Robinson, 1794, pp. i-viii.

And now lest the motto of this book should, though infinitely the best part of it, pass unobserved; a loose translation shall serve to retrace it, if coarsely, on the reader’s mind, and fix “more firmly there the first impression.”

“Homer then, prince of poets, elates that Minerva appeared to Diomed in the battle, and clearing his sight, set to view the warring deities, giving him power to discern which were gods and which were men.---While Plato explains the allegory into no more than this: How Wisdom or Reason should in like manner so dispel the mists of the mind, that it may be at liberty to discern, examine, and contemplate what is good and what is evil.”

If then to the selection of words in conversation and elegant colloquial language a book may give assistance, the Author, with that deference she so justly owes a generous public, modestly offers her’s; persuaded that, while men teach to write with propriety, a woman may at worst be qualified---through long practice---to direct the choice of phrases in familiar talk, Nor has the Ars recte loquendi, as Sanctius calls grammar, escaped her observation, though this may surely be setting talk somewhat too high; for grammar, that teaches us to analyse speech into her elements, and again synthetize her into that composite form we commonly find before us, might have pretensions to a higher title, terming itself Ars recte scribendi rather---Province of men and scholars, some of whom have told me that Ammonius has observed, I believe in Com. de Prœdic. p. 28., that even a child knows how to put a sentence together, and say Socrates walketh; but how to resolve this sentence into noun and verb, these again into syllables, and syllables into letters or elements---here he is at a stand. Of this, indeed, first of mundane sciences it befits me to be a learner, not a teacher, while once of the most desirable appellations in our unassuming tongue implies a pupil or student rather than a doctor or professor of philology; nor know I any term adequate to that of a good scholar in any modern language, whence one is often at a pause in explaining its meaning to foreigners.

Such excellence were in truth superfluous to a work like this, intended chiefly for a parlour window, and acknowledging itself unworthy of a place upon a library shelf. For Selden says wisely, that to know which way the wind sits we throw up a straw, not a stone: my little book then---levior cortice---may on that principle suffice to direct travellers on their way, till a more complicated and valuable piece of workmanship be found to further their research.

We must not meantime retard our progress with studied definitions of every quality coming under consideration; or even by very long descriptions of the same, either by their adjuncts or causes; for although every definition is genericè a description, yet we all see that every description is not definitive---And although the final cause of definition is to fix the true and adequate meaning of words or terms, without knowledge of which we stir not a step in logic; yet here we must not suffer ourselves to be so detained, as synonymy has more to do with elegance than truth---And I well remember an observation made by my earliest, perhaps my truest friend, Doctor Arthur Collier, that women should learn rhetoric in order to persuade their husbands, while men studied to render themselves good logicians, for the sake of obtaining arms against female oratory.

’Tis my best hope at present, that they will not over strictly examine, or with much severity censure my weak attempt; but recollecting that as words form the medium of knowledge, so it often happens that they create the mists of error too; and if I can in the course of this little work dispel a doubt, or clear up a difficulty to foreigners, who can alone be supposed to know less of the matter than myself,---I shall have an honour to boast, and like my countryman Glendower in Shakespeare’s Henry the Fourth, have given our tongue an helpful ornament. But though I mean not, like Abbé Girard, to make my preface the panegyrick to my book, much less to make that book, as he does, a vehicle for sentiments somewhat reprehensible---see page 36. vol. i. I should be too happy, could I imitate this delicacy of discrimination, and felicity of expression, while that general power of thinking, which Boileau says is the first quality of every written performance, gives a vivifying principle to the Frenchman’s volumes, I can scarce hope will be ever found to invigorate mine.

Let however the votaries of pleonasm, with the learned Vaugelas at their head, but stand my friends this once; we will endeavour to rescue that pleasing rhetorical figure from the imputation of tautology, in a work undertaken near the banks of the Thames which Sir John Denham describes, in terms so closely allied though never synonymous, so truly beautiful, though approaching to redundancy.

Tho’ deep yet clear, tho’ gentle yet not dull,

Strong without rage, without o’erflowing---full.

No. 112

112. Robert Anderson, M.D. The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. London: Printed for J. & A. Arch, and for Bell & Bradfoth, and J. Mundell & Co. Edinburgh, 1795, pp. 260-261.

And surely, when it is considered, that “amidst sickness and sorrow,” he [sc. Johnson] exerted his faculties in so many works for the benefit of mankind, and particularly that he achieved the great and admirable Dictionary of our language, we must be astonished at his resolution. The solemn text of “him to whom much is given, much will be required,” seems to have been ever present to his mind in a rigorous sense, and to have made him dissatisfied with his labours and acts of goodness, however comparatively great; so that the unavoidable consciousness of his superiority was in that respect a cause of disquiet. He suffered so much from this, and from the gloom which perpetually haunted him, and made solitude frightful, that it may be said of him, “If in this life only he had hope, he was of all men most miserable.” He loved praise when it was brought to him; but was too proud to seek for it. He was somewhat susceptible of flattery. As he was general and unconfined in his studies, he cannot be considered as master of any one particular science; but he had accumulated a vast and various collection of learning and knowledge, which was so arranged in his mind, as to be ever in readiness to be brought forth.

No. 113

113. Lindley Murray. English Grammar, adapted to the different classes of learners. With an appendix, containing rules and observations for promoting perspicuity in speaking and writing. York, 1795.

The study of perspicuity requires attention, first, to Single Words and Phrases; ad then, to the Construction of Sentences.

Perspicuity, considered with respect to words and phrases, requires these three qualities in them: Purity, Propriety, and Precision.

PURITY

Is the use of such words or constructions as belong to the idiom of the language which we speak, in opposition to words and phrases that are obsolete, or new-coined, or new-modelled, or ungrammatical, or not English.

(one paragraph omitted)

PROPRIETY

Is the selection of such words as the best usage has appropriated to those ideas which we intend to express by them, in opposition to low expressions, and to words and phrases which would be less significant of the ides that we mean to convey. Style may be pure, and yet deficient in propriety; for the words may be ill chosen, not adapted to the subjects, nor fully expressive of the author’s sense.

To prevent propriety, therefore, in our words and phrases, we must

Avoid low expressions; supply defective words; avoid using the same word in different senses; guard against the injudicious use of technical phrases; keep clear of double meaning; avoid unintelligible words, and all such words and phrases as are not appropriated to our meaning.

(some paragraphs omitted)

PRECISION

Is the third requisite of perspicuity with respect to words and phrases: It signifies retrenching superfluities, and pruning the expression, so as to exhibit neither more nor less than an exact copy of the person’s idea who uses it.

The words used to express ideas may be faulty in three respects. 1st, They may either not express that idea which the author intends, but some other which only resembles or is a-kin to it; or, secondly, They may express that idea, but not fully and completely; or, thirdly, They may express it, together with something more than is intended. Precision stands opposed to these three faults, but chiefly to the last. In an author’s writing with propriety, his being free of the two former faults seems implied. The words which he uses may be proper; that is, they may express that idea which he intends, and they may express it fully; but to be precise, signifies that they express that idea, and no more. (pp. 180-185)

No. 114

114. Benjamin Dawson, LL.D. Prolepsis Philologiæ Anglicanæ; or, Plan of a Philological and Synonymical Dictionary of the English Language. London: Printed by George Jermyn: Ipswich, 1797, 47pp.

All languages have this imperfection, that they want words to express certain ideas. No language can be in the other extreme, so as to have a redundancy of words, For, as words were invented to express ideas, more words were not invented to express ideas, more words were not invented than there were ideas to be expressed by them. And, so words are subsequent to ideas and occur not immediately on the acquisition of new ideas, but are introduced gradually into a language, requiring time and usage to fix their signification and gain them a reception, there will ever be a deficiency of words to answer certain ideas. For new ideas are almost incessantly rising in the mind and wait not for words, or other signs, to communicate them, but are necessarily and instantaneously excited by new objects. Writers notwithstanding frequently go into the other extreme, multiplying words without necessity, and without ideas to correspond to them. (p. 1)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

What has been observed in the foregoing chapters, more particularly in the two first, leads to this conclusion: That the method, on which all our Dictionarians generally proceed – of explaining one word by another – is not only defective but erroneous. In dictionaries which give the sense of the words of one language in the terms of another, this mode of explanation is not equally objectionable, nay, in many instances it is both necessary and most proper; as every language must have words to which the same ideas are affixed with those that are conveyed by words of a different language. Thus the idea affixed to the English word water, is the same with that which is conveyed by the word eau in French, aqua in Latin,.. So that each of those foreign words are sufficiently explained in English by the single term water; because they are each perfectly synonymous with it. But how can the word water be explained in an English Dictionary in this way? Or what other single word shall we find in our language that conveys precisely the same idea? It is impossible to find one. For it will not surely be thought to be properly and fully explained by either of the term Sea or, Urine*. It follows, that it must be explained periphrastically, i. e. in more terms than one.

* Vide Johnson’s Dictionary on the word. (p. 33)

No. 115

115. Johann Christoph Adelung. “On the relative merits and demerits of Johnson’s English Dictionary.” Elements of Critical Philosophy...To which are added three philological essays translated from the German of John Christopher Adelung by Anthony F. M. Willich. London: T. N. Longman, 1798, pp. clxix-clxxxvi.

The English are in possession of a very copious Dictionary of their language, with which the late Dr. Samuel Johnson has presented them, and of which the fourth edition appeared (London, 1773) with some additions, in two large Folio Volumes, comprising upwards of thirty Alphabets, or 716 Sheets of letter press.

As the completeness of this work, together with the critical and philosophic manner, which the author follows, has been frequently the subject of great praise, not only in England, but also in other countries, by recommending it as a model of a useful dictionary for any language ; I was induced to think, that an accurate abridgement of this work might of itself suffice, to supply so important a defect in German literature, Nor indeed had I directed my views further, when I resolved upon publishing an English-German Dictionary, designed chiefly for the use of my countrymen. But upon a more minute inquiry into the merits of Johnson’s work, I very soon discovered, that this performance, notwithstanding the many advantages it possesses, is replete with great imperfections. As these imperfections are of such a nature, as to exhibit themselves more remarkably in an abridgment, translated into German, than they perhaps do appear in the original ; and as the principal utility, which the Germans expect from such an undertaking, might thus have been much diminished, I was obliged to submit to a more arduous task than I was, at first, inclined to undertake.

This assertion will not be considered as unjust, when I shall point out, individually, the principal requisites to a Dictionary, and remark upon every point, how far Johnson has performed his duty, and wherein I have endeavoured to improve upon him.

1. In the number of words.

2. In the value and dignity of every word, whether it be quite obsolete or current ; and in the latter case, whether it is used in the more elevated, poetical, social, or vulgar style.

3. In the grammatical nature of the word, to which I also refer the orthography, the mark of the accent, and the pronunciation.

4. In the etymology or derivation.

5. In the decomposition of the principal idea denoted by the word ; -- either by means of a definition, or by a synonymous German word ; and in the analysis of the different significations.

6. In the illustration of words by examples ; and,

7. In the grammatical combination, or the use of every word, with respect to the syntax.

Conformable to this division of the subject, I shall offer some remarks upon each of these particular points.

I. Concerning the number and practical use of words, I expected to find the work of Johnson in its greatest perfection. In a book, consisting of 2864 pages, large folio, and four times reprinted, I hoped to meet with the whole treasure, or at least with the most necessary and current words, of the English language. But, in this respect, my disappointment was great ; and those, who have consulted Johnson’s Dictionary with the same view, will agree with me, that upon this very point he displays his weakest side. We must however do him the justice to allow, that with respect to terms of science, and written language, his work is very complete ; but it is defective in social language, in the language of civil life, and in the terms of arts and manufactures. His defect in the last-mentioned branches, the author himself acknowledges in the preface, and makes this strange apology for it, “(omitted).” Yet this is a great desideratum to foreigners, and considerably detracts from the merit of a work of this nature : for these are the precise cases, in which they have most frequent occasion for consulting a Dictionary. To this head we may refer the names of plants, fishes, birds, and insects, frequently occurring in common life, of which a great number are wanting in the work of Johnson; though this deficiency might have been most easily supplied, as there certainly is no want of botanical books and publications on Natural History, in the English language. In order to show the extent of this deficiency, in a particular instance, I shall only remark, that in the single work containing the last voyage of Capt. Cook, in two moderate volumes, octavo, (published 1782) there occur nearly one hundred words, relating partly to navigation, partly to Natural History, that cannot be found in Johnson’s or other Dictionaries.

(three paragraphs omitted)

II. It is well known, that all the words of a language do not possess an equal value or degree of currency : some of them are entirely obsolete, but still occur in writings, which are studied in modern times, for instance, in the translation of the Bible, in Shakespeare, Spencer, &c. ; others are peculiar to poetical language ; again, others are current only in certain provinces, or in particular situations of life ; and still others are vulgar, and exploded from the more dignified written style, as well as from the polite circles of conversation. It is one of Johnson’s great merits, that he has carefully attended to this distinction ; I have likewise marked it, in my English and German Dictionary, with equal attention ; and I have pointed out the most necessary of these distinctions, by means of particular signs or characters.

III. Next to the preceding, I consider the grammatical designation of every word as the most important part of a good Dictionary : and under this head I place not only the orthography, the accentuation, and pronunciation, but also the classification of a word, to whatever class it belongs as a part of speech, and finally, its inflection : whether it be regularly or irregularly declined or conjugated. Upon this point, also, Johnson is in most instances very correct ; excepting that he does not always distinguish the substantive from the adverb, and this again from the adjective ; and imperfection which, with the aid of some general ideas of grammar, I have had no great difficulty to remedy. -- In the spelling of words, Johnson has adopted the method prevalent among all sensible people, and consigned the orthographic disputes to those, who, from want of more important knowledge, have no other means of obtaining reputation. For my part, I saw no reason for differing from Johnson on this head. – The proper accentuation is, in the accent, which I have premised in the second Essay. (...)

IV. The proximate derivation of a word is a matter of importance in all languages ; for upon this circumstance depends not only the full idea or intelligibility of words, but likewise their orthography. Johnson has sensibly perceived this difficulty, and consequently has shortly pointed out the immediate derivatives, “in case where he was acquainted with them;” and I must add, “that he has done it in such a manner as appeared to him the most proper.” For, upon this particular head, his Dictionary is very defective. When an English word is derived from the French or Latin, he does not easily mistake its proximate root: in words, that are obvious derivatives of familiar Anglo-Saxon terms, he is equally successful. But in most other cases, he proves himself a shallow etymologist : and as his own notions of the origin of languages were not very clear, he is frequently led into great errors. Thus he considers the words, with whose origin he is unacquainted, either as fortuitous and cant words, or he derives them frequently in the absurdest manner from words nearly corresponding in sound, while he aims at explaining them in three or four different ways ; for instance, “to chirp,” derived from, “to chear[sic] up, to make cheerful, &c.” yet this word obviously comes from the vernacular German, tschirpen or zirpen, “to twitter like birds.” This may serve as a specimen of the manner, in which he searches for the source of one river in the mouth of another, which is altogether different from the former. Here I have had frequent opportunities of correcting him ; particularly as Skinner was his principal hero in etymology, and as Johnson himself unacquainted with the German and other languages related to it. But in case, where the derivation of a word required laborious researches, such as would have occupied much room to little purpose, I have rather passed it over altogether, because the like words are generally considered as radicals, or as proper names. And as the object expressed by a word of this kind must be represented by a sensible exhibition of the thing itself, the method of rendering it intelligible, by a probable derivations, is but a negative advantage : though the etymology of it might be established by a far-fetcehd analogy with other words.

(one paragraph omitted)

V. To ascertain the principal and peculiar signification of a word, from which the others, if there by any, must be derived, has been my next employment. This, indeed, is always the most difficult point in a Dictionary : a point, which not only presupposes correct ideas of the origin of languages, but also the most precise knowledge of every word, and of its use from the earliest periods. The whole of this knowledge must be founded upon a sufficient number of works, written by men who lived in the different ages, in which the language was spoken. But as we possess no such number of works in any language, as is sufficient to make us acquainted with all the words, that are or have been current in it ; it may be easily conjectured, that the primitive signification of every word cannot be pointed out with precision. But even in cases where this is possible, it requires the most careful examination of all the ancient monuments of a language, that are still preserved together with much sound philosophy, in order to avoid falling into dreams and fancies, and deriving, in an arbitrary manner, the words from one another. In etymology, as soon as it carried him beyond the proximate derivation of a word, my predecessor has not been very successful. For, even in the latter case, he relied too much upon the authority of others ; and it evidently appears from his Dictionary, that the structure of language did not induce him to philosophical inquires. (...)

(one paragraph omitted)

It is a very common practice among the compilers of dictionaries, to point out the signification of a word, by means of a synonymous expression used in another language. A small share of correct philological knowledge must convince every one of the impropriety and disadvantages of this practice. There are no words completely synonymous in any language ; not can any two words, from different languages, be considered as synonymous. And although in languages, that bear strong marks of affinity to one another, there should be two words of common origin, or even radically the same, such as “ground” with the German Grund : “to go,” with the German gehen ; they still deviate in the indirect significations, or, at least, in the application to individual cases. The safest and most rational method, therefore, is to resolve every signification into other words, or to give a clear and, if possible, concise definition of it. (...)

Johnson has not avoided the common error of lexicographers, who have either neglected to sate the names of plants and animals, or have done it in a very vague and undetermined manner. He commonly dismisses the names of vegetables with the addition, “a plant.” Thus he forsakes the reader, where a guide is most anxiously looked for. (...)

VI. In order to supply the imperfect definitions of words, the signification of which cannot be fully collected from the notion contained in the definition, it is a necessary point in a Dictionary, to illustrate them by examples. From these illustrations, this additional advantage results, that the grammatical use of a word, and its combination with other parts of speech, can be rendered more conspicuous. Johnson is very liberal with his examples, and not unfrequently prodigal to excess. The great number of them, he has extracted from poetical works, as he had employed much of his time in publishing the English poets. I have made it my study, to hold a middle course, had to select from the rich store of Johnson’s examples the most concise and pertinent, especially in such cases as appeared to require an example, to show the precise meaning or the grammatical use of a words. As, however, his examples and the whole stock of his words principally relate to the language of authors or “written language;” I have endeavoured to supply the obvious want of examples for the purposes of social life, from the above quoted English and French dictionary, by Boyer ; a work, the phrases and exemplifications of which are principally of the latter kind.

VII. Concerning the practical application of words, when in connexion with others, Johnson has bestowed great attention upon the most important cases, in which every word may occur. His accuracy in this respect has induced me to adopt his examples, without attempting to change or improve them.

(five paragraphs omitted)

No. 116

116. W. N. ‘Johnson’s Dictionary how composed.’ The Gentleman’s Magazine, LXIX (Supplement 1799), pp. 1171-1172. {Francis Stuart, Johnson’s amanuensis, and the making of the Dictionary.}

Mr. Urban, Dec. 26.

The following note on Captain Grose’s Olio May, perhaps, be acceptable to the lovers of biography. You may rely on their authenticity. W. N.

P. 161. A porter-drinking man, Steward.] This Steward was Francis Stuart. He was the son of a shop-keeper in Edinburgh, and was brought up to the law. For several years he was employed as a writer in some of the principal offices of Edinburgh; and being a man of good natural parts, and given to literature, he frequently assisted in digesting and arranging MSS. for the press; and, among other employments of this sort, he used to boast of assisting or copying some of the juvenile productions of the afterwards celebrated Lord Kaims, when he was very young, and a correspondent with the Edinburgh Magazine. When he came to London, he stuck more closely to the press; and in his walk of copying or arranging for the press, he got recommended to Dr. Jonson, who then lived in Gough-square. Frank was a great admirer of the Doctor, and upon all occasions consulted him; and the Doctor had also a very respectable opinion of his amanuensis Frank Stuart, as he always familiary[sic] called him. But it was not only in collecting authorities that Frank was employed, he was the man who did every thing in the writing way for him, and managed all his affairs between the Doctor, his bookseller, and his creditors, who were then often very troublesome, and every species of business the Doctor had to do out of doors; and for this he was much better qualified than the Doctor himself, as he had been more accustomed to common business, and more conversant in the ways of men.

That he was a porter-drinking man, as Capt. Grose says, may be admitted; for he usually spent his evenings at the Bible, in Shire-lane, a house of call for bookbinders and printers; where Frank was in good esteem among some creditable neighbours that frequented the back-room; for, except his fuddling, he was a very worthy character. But his drinking and conviviality, he used to say, he left behind him at Edinburgh, where he had connected himself with some jovial wits and great card-players, which made his journey to London very prudent and necessary, as nothing but such a measure could break off the connexion, or bring them to good hours and moderation. In one of those night rambles, Stuart and his companions met with the mob procession when they are conducting Capt. Porteous to be hanged; and Stuart and his companions were next day examined about it before the town-council, when (as Stuart used to say) “we were found to be too drunk to have any hand in the business.” But he gave a most accurate and particular account of that memorable transaction in the Edinburgh Magazine of that time, which he was rather fond of relating.

In another walk, besides collecting authorities, he was remarkably useful to Dr. J.; that was, in the explanation of low cant phrases, which the Doctor used to get Frank to give his explanation of first; and all words relating to gambling and car playing, such as All Fours, Catch-honours, Cribbage, &c. were, among the Typos, said to be Frank Stuart’s, corrected by the Doctor, for which he received a second payment. At the time this happened, the Dictionary was going on printing very briskly in three departments, letter D, G, and L, being at work upon at the same time; and as the Doctor was, in the printing-house phrase, out of town, that is, had received more money than he had produced MS. for, the proprietors restricted him in his payments, and would answer no more demands from him than at the rate of a guinea for every sheet of MS. copy he delivered; which was paid him by Mr. Strahan on delivery; and the Doctor readily agreed to this. The coy was written upon 4to post, and in two columns each page. The Doctor wrote, in his own hand, the words and the explanation, and generally two or three words in each column, leaving a space between each for the authorities, which were pasted on as they were collected by the different clerks or amanuenses employed: and in this mode the MS. was so regular, that the sheet of MS. which made a sheet of print could be very exactly ascertained. Every guinea parcel came after this agreement regularly tied up, and was put upon a shelf in the corrector’s room till wanted. The MS. being then in great forwardness, the Doctor supplied copy faster than the printers called for it; and in one of the heaps of copy it happened that, upon giving it out to the compositors, some sheets of the old MS. that had been printed off were found among the new MS. paid for. As the MS. was then in such a ready and forward state, it is but justice to the Doctor’s character to say, that he does not appear to be driven to his shifts so much as to make use of this shabby trick to get three or four guineas, for it amounted to no more. It is, therefore, more probably that it happened by the Doctor’s keeping the cold copy, which was always returned him with the proof, in a disorderly manner. But another mode of accounting for this was, at that time, very current in the printing-house. The Doctor, besides his old and constant assistant, Stuart, had several others, some of them not of the best characters; and one of this class had been lately discharged, whom the Doctor had been very kind to, notwithstanding all his loose and idle tricks; and it was generally supposed that he had fallen upon this expedient of picking up the old MS. to raise a few guineas, finding the money so readily paid on the MS. as he delivered it. Upon the whole, every body was inclined to acquit the Doctor, as he had been well known to have rather too little thoughts about money matters. And what served to compleat[sic] the Doctor’s acquittal was, Stuart immediately on the discovery supplying the quantum of right copy (for it was ready); which set every thing to rights, and that in the course of an hour or two, as the write of this note can truly assert, as he was employed in the business.

How such an erroneous and injurious account of an accident so fairly and justly to be accounted for, and the Doctor’s character cleared from all imputation of art or guilt, came to Capt. Grose’s ears, is hard to be accounted for: but it appears to have been picked up among the common gossip of the press-room, or other remote parts of the printing-house, where the right state of the fsct[sic] could not be minutely related, nor accurately known. W. N.

No. 117

117. Octavious Graham Gilchrist. The Gentleman’s Magazine, LXX Part the First (April 1800), pp. 335-336.

Mr. Urban, March 23.

In justice to the memory of departed excellence, I request a small portion of the Gentleman’s Magazine, to notice the attacks made upon several authors; whose writings are, and will continue to be, read and admired; and whose abilities are justly considered an honour to their country.

In the notes to the Work I allude to is the following notice of Dr. Johnson:

“Dr. Johnson, the poor copier of Junius and Skynner, did not even know, it may be inferred, what he ought to have studied before he wrote a Dictionary; much less how to write a Dictionary itself. Next age will pronounce his work, what it really is, a disgrace to the language. His examples, though already allowed his sole merit, are as ill-chosen as his etymologies; and very many are misquoted, or given to wrong authors, so that, such as they are, they can scarcely be depended upon. Any schoolmaster might have done what Johnson did. His Dictionary is merely a glossary to his own barbarous works. Indeed, that a man of very small learning (see his works), but confessedly quite ignorant of the Northern tongues, should pretend to write a dictionary at all; that a man, confessedly without taste, should attempt to define the nicer powers of words, a chief province of taste; that a man, confessedly the very worst writer in the language, save Sir Thomas Brown, and whose whole works are true pages of inanity wrapt in barbarism, should set up for a judge of our language; are all ideas to excite laughter.”

It was reserved for the superior wisdom and sagacity of this Annotator, to discover the ignorance and emptiness of Samuel Johnson, and to tell all the world they were fools for admiring that man’s writings; but it is probable the Works of Johnson will last as long as the language he has strengthened and helped to perpetuate; and, so far from his Dictionary having lost its credit, it is still more and more admired, and, except in a few instances where he has failed, is the only one that can be referred to as an authority. The eagerness and delight with which his other works are bought and read is a flat contradict on to this invidious assailant. But to proceed —

A few pages forward he observes,

“There is a je-ne-seai-quoi of sheer frenzy and brutality in the writings of that man (Arbuthnot), his master Swift, and Bolingbroke; which shew that a wrong head as well as a heart of infernal depravity must go to the composition of a High Tory. Arbuthnot and Bolingbroke are no longer read nor printed; nor will Swift, in 20 years, save his Gulliver, in St. Paul’s church-yard, with a gilt cover, for children, and his Hey my Kitten, my kitten, at Dyot-street, St. Giles’s. His works are one disgrace to common sense and human nature. His style now inferior to that of every news-paper.”

The infidelity of Bolingbroke has justly consigned his works (the greater part however) to oblivion; but Arbuthnot will be read as long as the inimitable wit of Martinus Scriblerus is understood; and this captious writer must have the power of working miracles, as well as the spirit of prophecy, before he can condemn Swift to the Nursery, or St. Giles’s. The assertion with respect to this style is too absurd to be noticed. The reader may judge of the taste of this writer by his abuse of the above author; or, if he is not satisfied, he shall have more instances.

“A short allegory, such as that of an ode or a tale, is a most delicious treat; but a long allegory is always dull: witness Spenser, whom nobody can read, and yet he is thought a good poet! But Douglas had not Ariosto and Tasso to copy, which is in fact the whole of Spenser’s merit.”

To the following assertion respecting “the moral Gower,” I shall oppose the opinion of a better judge, and a poet and writer of infinitely greater taste and learning.

“Chaucer’s fame was not wide till after his death in 1400: Gower, the stupidest of all writers, had always been preferred to him.”

Mr. Warton says; “Considered in a general view, the Confessio Amantis may be pronounced to be no unpleasing miscellany of those shorter tales which delighted the readers of the middle age.”

If more examples were wanted, I could furnish you with them; but these are as good as a thousand.

It has long been observed, that authors are irritable genus; but such attacks deserve the strongest reprobation, because they are wholly unprovoked, and cannot have been gendered by personal affront. The field of Literature is extensive, and no man of abilities need endeavour to sap the foundation of another’s reputation in order to build his own upon the ruins.

Yours, &c. O.G.G.

No. 118

118. George Mason. ‘PREFACE’ A Supplement to Johnson’s ‘Dictionary’: of Which the Palpable Errors are Attempted to be Rectified, and its Material Omissions Supplied. London: Printed for John White, Leigh and Sothebys, and T. Payne, 1801, pp. i-v.

Of all publications perhaps not one can be mentioned, where scrupulous exactness should be more peculiarly observed, than in a Dictionary. Yet Johnson’s abounds with inaccuracies, as much as any English book whatsoever – written by a scholar. Demonstrating this in the present place may be considered as wholly unnecessary, since so great a portion of those articles, which form the ensuing vocabulary, contain in themselves incontestable proof of the assertion. Nor need these manifest defects at all be wondered at, in on who took every opportunity of testifying a dislike to his task, and complaining of it as a drudgery ; whereas to those that are intent upon their employment, and attached to literary investigation – labor ipse voluptas.

To this dissatisfaction at his undertaking, possibly we are to attribute Johnson’s various inconsistencies with himself, and with any due regularity in the execution of his work ; but it is also equally evident, that he has fallen into many an error for want of rightly comprehending passages in authors, produced by him for examples. This muddiness of intellect sadly besmears and defaces almost every page of the composition : yet is the plan of our author’s Dictionary early commendable, and (as far as that plan has been duly completed) the work itself in high estimation. Were not the writer of the following sheets fully convicted of this, he must of consequence regard his own labour as absolutely useless. And it may be reckoned an unpardonable mark of presumption in him, to suppose himself capable of rendering in any degree perfect so considerable a book, by inconsiderable and inadequate additions and corrections. He does however strongly believe, that he has made the double compilation by far more useful to the public than was the single one, and that he has exceedingly lessened the labour of any future experiment in a similar way. – But in what respects Johnson’s method has here been followed, and with what variations, he now conceives in his business to explain.

Johnson says in his preface – “In assigning the Roman original....considering myself as employed only in the illustration of my own language, I have not been careful to observe, whether the Latin word be pure or barbarous.” This the present compiler regards as a very reprehensible piece of negligence in any teacher of language, and consequently has adhered to a stricter method in additional articles of his own. He thinks himself however so far bound by Johnson’s excuse, as not to animadvert upon any thing of this kind as an error of the Dictionary : such faults indeed hardly come within the province of the Supplement, the matter being (as Johnson alledges) foreign to the point of illustrating English.

(one paragraph omitted)

Johnson’s preface proceeds – “Of the terms of art I have received such as could be found either in books of science or technical dictionaries.” This portion of the work was executed very irregularly indeed ; and in what relates to terms of the law most ignorantly. The whole of this part has been here attempted to be rectified ; and the specifications only so far extended, as seemed to be most suitable to a general Dictionary.

(two paragraphs omitted)

“The verbal nouns in ing...are always neglected, or placed only to illustrate the sense of the verb.” This mode of proceeding the compiler regards as unsatisfactory, and therefore declines following it. He has however so far acquiesced in the humour of his predecessor, as not to bring forward by way of omission any such verbal noun, which he has found exemplified among the illustrations of its parent verb.

The compiler has been exceedingly cautious of condemning any word whatsoever for obsolete. It is almost beyond the power of an individual to pronounce authoritatively on this subject. Johnson, in doing so, has often only manifested the narrowness of his intelligence.

(two paragraphs omitted)

The Compiler of this Supplement does not undertake to correct all the mistakes in Johnson. That lexicographer’s etymologies are deservedly reckoned the most erroneous part of his Dictionary ; yet this portion of it has not here undergone a thorough examination. Learning of such kind is rather matter of curiosity, than of common utility ; nor has the present writer sufficient knowledge of the various early languages, to enable him to carry etymological criticism to its greatest possible extent. There are also many of Johnson’s other observations highly ridiculous, which it has not been thought requisite to animadvert upon, as they are sufficiently glaring to expose themselves.

(one paragraph omitted)

Johnson was well aware in his life-time of the general dissatisfaction, which his negligence or deficience had created; but he thought it enough to say in reply (at the close of his advertisement to the fourth edition) “I have left that inaccurate which never was made exact, and that imperfect which never was complete.” Readers might look for reformation ; but this magisterial sentence was the whole to be deigned them.

(POSTSCRIPT omitted)

No. 119

119. Jonathan Boucher. Proposals for Printing by Subscription, in two volumes, quarto: Linguæ Anglicanæ Veteris Thesaurus; or, A Glossary of the Ancient English Language, in Two Parts: The First Comprising Provincialisms, or Such Old Words, as still exist in the Various Dialects of the Provinces; and the second, such Archaisms, Old Words, as, being lost even to the Provinces, are now to be found only in Old English and Scottish Writers: Intended to be a Supplement to Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary; and, in conjunction with that work, to exhibit A Complete View of the whole English Language. By the Reverend Jonathan Boucher, M. A., Vicar of Epsom. London, [1801, 1802], 15pp. {Boucher’s Glossary of Archaic and Provincial Words was published in London, in 1832 after his death.}

It seems to be proper to apprize the Public, that the Work here announced differs materially, both in its purpose and plan, from other Supplements to Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary. Unawed by the obsolete spellings of old writers, or by the wild, and sometimes almost unaccountable, varieties of Provincial Speech, I humbly trust I have here accomplished that which Dr. Ash, in his very useful work, intended, but was deterred, by is magnitude, from attempting. In thus presuming, however, to “supply the material omissions” of our great national lexicographer, it is far from my purpose to dwell with satisfaction, on the inaccuracies, real or imaginary, of my venerable prototype. I am ambitious, on the contrary, to place myself among the foremost of those who regard that work, as a stupendous monument of individual talent and exertion; my chief objections to it being the scantiness of its outlines, and the defectiveness of its plan : objections, such as Dr. Johnson himself, had he been still living, and in full possession of youth and strength, could hardly have hoped to remove. His “Dictionary of the English Language” is, what it professes to be, a dictionary only of the language, as spoken and written by the best speakers, and best modern writers : but the words, which it is the object of these Two Supplementary Volumes to explain (words, of which scarcely one in a hundred has found a place wither in Dr. Johnson’s, or any other Dictionary) are as fairly entitled to the appellation of English, as any of those to which he has done such ample justice in his immortal work.

Hence, however valuable in other respects Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary confessedly is, his warmest admirers cannot deny it to be still incomplete, as leaving unexplained many good and significant words, only because they happen to have fallen into disuse; notwithstanding their being yet spoken by a large portion of the community, and still found in authors, on whose works the nation has long rested no ordinary portion of its high literary fame.

Owing to this incompleteness, Dr. Johnson’s work does not exhibit a fair and full historical view of our language; which, to be understood and appreciated as it ought to be, should be viewed and examined in all its bearings, and more especially during its infancy. In this sate it may be said still to exist in the various Dialects of the kingdom, and in the Archaisms of our Speech ; which, in most instances, may be regarded as counterparts of dialects. Yet has no scientific investigation of our dialects ever been attempted, and a complete Archaiological Glossary (which, unaccompanied by a glossary of our dialects, never can be complete) is still a desideratum in English literature. And whilst the language of the provinces is fastidiously rejected as vulgar, and that of ancient writers as obsolete, we need not wonder that at length both are become unintelligible ; so that even Wicliffe’s Translation of the Scriptures, venerable as it is both for its subject, its age, and its author, is, like the original before his version, again locked up in an unknown tongue. The productions of Spelman, Skinner, Junius, and Minshew, which alone have any claim to the title of Archaiological Glossaries, though of great merit – and merit too of a kind that we could ill bear the loss of – seldom elucidate the obsolete words and phrases of our ancient chroniclers and poets. Many words even in Spenser and Shakspeare[sic] (who are moderns when compared with several other ancient writers, whose works, much to the credit of the national taste, seem to be in a fair way of emerging from that neglect to which they have so long been doomed) require explanations, that might in vain be sought for in any of our Lexicographers. From Dr. Johnson’s motto it might have been inferred, that it was his intention to revive many of those strong expressive words, which give such force and dignity to Chaucer, Gower, Pierce, Plowman, and their contemporary the learned Bishop of Dunkeld; and also to rescue many more, which, having long been abandoned to the uncultivated dialects of peasants, have become so disfigured and disguised, that it is not always easy to recognise them. But this, as is well known, he has not done : whilst yet, under the sanction of the same motto, he seems to have felt little scruple to reprobate and reject, as low and obsolete, such words as he judged to have “parum splendoris,” – to be “sine pondere” – and “honore indigna.” It might have been hoped, that the several Glossaries annexed to our ancient writers would have filled up this chasm ; but this (without excepting even Ruddiman’s, Urry’s, and Tyrrwhit’s, by far the best that we have) has hitherto been done very imperfectly. The glossarists themselves, seldom condescending to look far beyond that author immediately before them, have too often contented themselves with giving that sense of the word they intended to explain, which it seemed to bear in the context: and hence it is not very uncommon to find one interpretation contradicted by another. (pp. 3-5)

No. 120

120. (Anonymous) Review of New Publications. Anecdotes of the English Language: Chiefly Regarding the Local Dialect of London and its Enviorons... London. The Gentleman’s Magazine, LXXIII Part the First (February 1803), pp. 145-147.

The aim of this pleasant writer, the second Antiquary of the House of Pegge, is, to vindicate the dialect of London, or the “Cockney language,” from the imputation of vulgarisms and ungrammaticalness, and justify, by a happy selection of examples from writers of the Elizabethan age, that it rather has preserved the original character of our language than adulterated it by corruptions. (p. 145)

No. 121

121. Samuel Pegge. “Cursory Remarks on Johnson’s Dictionary.” Anecdotes of the English Language; Chiefly Regarding the Local Dialect of London and its Environs; whence it will appear that the Natives of the Metropolis, and its Vicinities, have not corrupted the Language of their Ancestors; in a letter from Samuel Pegge, Esq. F.S. A. to an old Acquaintance, and Co-fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. London: Printed for F. And C. Rivington, T. Payne and J. White, 1803, pp. 249-258.

It is not my purpose to comment upon Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary. Thus much, however, may be allowed, that when he engaged in this laborious and voluminous work (for I will not call it otherwise great), it is acknowledged that he wrote for bread, and was paid by the sheet. It was not a task to which his refulgent genius ever prompted him; his thoughts were too elevated to have selected such an office; and, therefore, it was submitted to as an infliction necessary for the supply of his immediate occasions. Thus he devoured his Dictionary; as it grew faster than he wrote it: for at the close of it the balance was against him. He was honest, and did his best, I make no doubt; and therefore Peace to his Shade! He did not wilfully, like Baretti, secrete 4000 words for a second edition.

I do not think Lexicography was his forte. He submitted to it; and we are at present highly obliged by his labours, painful as they must have been to him. This branch of erudition is enough for one man, however qualified.

Criticism is equally out of Dr. Johnson’s line. His Notes on Shakespeare are trifling and unsatisfactory, compared with those of Mr. Steevens; for which it may be said, and I hope without offence, that Dr. Johnson had every thing else to do; while Mr. Steevens was absorbed in the subject, and was totus in illo.

Dr. Johnson’s work, great as it is, cannot be called a perfect, or even a satisfactory work. He built on old foundations, some of which he pulled down, which should have remained; and left others standing, which he was able to have demolished. He worked for a body of Booksellers, called The Trade; -- was paid generally in advance – and it is very discernible in many cases wherein he was diligent, and wherein he was indolent and inattentive. When money was wanting, sheets were written apace; when money was in his pocket, he was more deliberate and investigative. He had too much vis inertiœ, and a want of enthusiastic zeal, founded on an independent love of his subject; and passed things over, because he was not in a humour to examine them thoroughly, or when some other object called him from this laborious work to more pleasing and flattering subjects, better suited to the bent of his great and unbounded faculties.

Dr. Johnson was not at all aware of the authenticity of dialectical expressions, and therefore seldom attends to them, or considers them as natives, but as outcasts; whereas they contain more originality than most words, &c. in common use at this day, which are begotten by Absurdity on its fantastical mistress Refinement. The languages of our ancestors, preserved in our Provinces, are not all by one common parent; for, if you would seek for the terms and expressions of the Northern people, it will be in vain to ransack the British tongue; for it is all Saxon, as is the Scotch. On the other hand, it will be as fruitless to hunt for the language of the West of England, which is entirely British, in the Anglo-Saxon mine of the North.

A word more on this Dictionary, and I have done. It professes to be an English Dictionary, and is too much so; for, though I do not wish such a work to contain expressions, borrowed from other languages, though daily in use; yet there are technical words, which often have started, though compounded or borrowed even from the Greek, which by naturalization ought to have a place in a National Dictionary. How otherwise is the next generation to understand what is meant by the Lyceum, the Eidophusicon, Sir Ashton Lever’s Holophusicon, Walker’s Eidoranion, or the Panorama? – Ranelagh, the Pantheon, Vauxhall, may perhaps survive some time longer; but, of the others, some are already gone, and the rest will probably die with their sponsors.

To these may be added the new-fangled terms for various articles in dress, both male and female, in furniture, and general domestic use.

Many of these terms were well known in Dr. Johnson’s time; and many have arisen since: but I would make the observation general, by saying that such words, as denizens, ought to have a place in an English Dictionary.

As to words newly coined, we see many very justifiable in the News-papers of every day.

I have no right to arraign Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, but because it frequently disappoints me; for the subject of the preceding sheets is beyond the reach of Dictionaries in general, which are necessarily confined to radical existing words. It is, however, to be lamented that we of this country, which possesses a language strong and energetic enough to convey to us every thing worth knowing, must be dragged headlong through the Latin and Greek tongues, without the least attention to the tongues, without the common grammatical construction of our own. The consequence is, that in a course of years we forget the two former, when it is too late to study the latter, unless perchance some inquisitive peculiarity of reading conducts us to it. The drudgery, the discipline, the fears, and flagellations of the early stages of education are intolerable inflections; when after all these, and the subsequent academic progresses from a Frenchman to a Bachelor of Arts, the Toga Virilis, where tasks and impositions end, and the party thinks himself a man of the world, he finds that he can scarcely write English, and that what he writes is not always the most correctly spelt. (pp. 251-254)

No. 122

122. Philo-Johnson. “Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary vindicated, versus Mason.”The Gentleman’ Magazine, LXXIV (March 1804), pp. 222-223.

Mr. Urban, March 16.

A book came out some little time ago, under the title “A Supplement to Johnson’s Dictionary,” by Mr. Mason. In this work Johnson is accused of “muddiness of intellect, which,” says Mason, “sadly besmears and defaces almost every page of the composition.” I appeal to you, whether this is not improper language with respect to that most valuable Lexicographer. What then will you say when scarce a single charge is substantiated which Mr. Mason alledges against Johnson. In the Monthly Review for October 1802, this book is mentioned; and though Mason is justly deprecated for the above language, yet an extract is made from Mason’s book of some of the words omitted in Johnson; which list of words any body may see by referring to p. 139, of the October Review;　but　the　Reviewers　have　taken　these　words　merely　upon　the　authority　of　Mason,　without　examining whether they were really omitted or not. I read the extract in the Review, and, upon making a search, found, to my great astonishment, the greater part of the words said to have been left out, either in the Dictionary, or satisfactory reasons given in Johnson’s preface for their non-appearance in the work. Upon this I wrote the following letter to the Review.

“To the Monthly Reviewers.

“Gentlemen, Reading, the other day, your number for October 1802, I met with the review of a book, entitled “Mason’s supplement to Johnson’s Dictionary;” and Dr. Johnson, as I thought, unjustly blamed. To substantiate his accusation, Mr. Mason gives a collection of words, mentioned in your Review, as being omitted by Dr. Johnson; the whole of these words I have looked for in the Dictionary, and to me very great surprise that the greater part of the words said to be omitted are in reality not so. In his preface Dr. Johnson declares it his intention to leave out all participles, with the exception of a few which he calls Participal Adjectives; “but neither,” says Johnson, “are these always inserted, because they are commonly to be understood, without danger of mistake by consulting the verb.” We shall not, therefore, be surprised, after reading this, not to find in the Dictionary, “bickering,” “displanting,” &c. for the omission of which Mr. Mason blames Dr. Johnson. The Dictionary has no such a word in it as “feud” (an allotment of land), but we find “feudal” with the same meaning, which Dr. Johnson no doubt thought the proper term. In the doubtful expressions Dr. Johnson says he has taken that which he conceived to be supported by the best authority, and speaks at length on this subject in the second page of his preface. The word “hackney” is not placed separately as an adjective in the work, but we find it used as an adjective in several of his quotations, viz. “hackney coach,” “hackney authors,” &c. In the same manner, we do not find rhythm a separate article, but looking for rhyme we find “rhyme or rhythm;” and we cannot certainly say rhythm is not in the Dictionary when we thus find it a synonym with rhyme. We find ink-horn, but no ink-stand, which Dr. Johnson probably thought a corruption. Mr. Mason affirms, that we do not find acid in the book used as a substantive; it is true we do not find it a separate article, but we find “acids” thus used in Iris quotation from Quincy. We find hand-maid, and looking for maid we find maid or maiden. Why should we blame Dr. Johnson for leaving out, duskiness, effeminately, insecurely, &c. when, in his preface, he expressly tells us, “Words arbitrarily formed by a constant and settled analogy, like diminutive adjectives in ish, adverbs in ly, substantives in ness, were less diligently sought, and sometimes have been omitted, when I had no authority that tempted me to insert them.” For which he gives his reason immediately after. Besides these particular words that I have mentioned, there are a great many more reported by Mr. Mason to have been omitted, which any body may find by looking for them in the Dictionary, viz. acrid, brogues, cannibal, gully, hobby-horse, and a great many more. The Reviewers themselves mention the word “airy,” a nest of hawks, as not being found; but if they will look for it according to the common mode of spelling it, “aerie,” they will find it with the same meaning. Neither can we reasonably expect to find many sea terms, when the Doctor expressly says in his preface, “Many terms appropriated to particular occupations, though necessary and significant, are undoubtedly omitted,” &c.

This, Sir, was the purport of my letter to the Monthly Review. I received for answer, “that they were forty that they could not afford room to insert it; but said, I might send it with propriety to the Conductors of a Magazine.” I instantly made choice of the Gentleman’s Magazine, well knowing its great circulation, and its character for candour and respectability. It appears to me the greatest ingratitude in not exerting every nerve in defence of a man to whom the world are under such very great obligations, when we see him thus invidiously carped at by an Emendator, who has evidently not read even the Preface to the Dictionary.

I am sorry to say, I think the Reviewers are highly reprehensible in suffering the collection of words, said to be omitted, to pass unnoticed. We in general imagine we may safely trust to their examination; but the present case is a very striking instance of this mistake.

Yours, &c. Philo-Johnson.

No. 123

123. S. M. “Grammatical Dictionary of the English Language?” The Gentleman’s Magazine, LXXIV Part the Second (November 1804), pp. 1010-1011.

Mr. Urban, Oct. 17.

More than forty years ago, Bishop Lowth observed that the energy, variety, richness, and elegance of the English language had been abundantly proved, by numberless trials, in verse and in prose, upon all subjects, and in every kind of style; but in the same sentence he also observes, that, whatever other improvement it might have received, it had made no advances for the last 200 years in grammatical accuracy. The latter assertion would certainly be untrue, if applied to our own times; though we may still affirm, that Grammar is very much neglected among us; and there is still reason to urge the necessity of investigating the principles of our language, and studying it grammatically, if we would attain to a due degree of skill in it. The general practice both of speaking and writing it is still chargeable with inaccuracy. In the Bishop’s opinion, it is not the language, but the practice, that is in fault.

Unwilling as I am to dissent from authority so respectable, I cannot help contending, that our inaccuracy, in many cases, arises, and will necessarily arise, not from an indolent habit, but from the imperfect of the language itself. In one point, and that essential to the perfection of it (the regimen of our nouns and verbs), our Grammar is deplorably deficient.

　It may be said, that I identify the language itself with the use of it. As long, however, as any one, notwithstanding great care and attention, is liable to fall into an improper mode of expression, or at least has strong doubts, from contradictory authorities, of the proper one, I have no hesitation in asserting, that his inaccuracy may fairly be said to arise, not from any fault of his own, but of the language he uses.

One of the most formidable difficulties which both natives and foreigners have to encounter in learning the English tongue, is owing to the want of rules for the regimen or government of its words.

Great allowance is certainly to be made in a living and variable language: the dead ones are no longer subject to variation; their rules are permanent, ad cannot be transgressed with impunity. But the impossibility of attaining perfect precision is no good argument why we should be content to remain in a state of absolute uncertainty.

We have seen the effect of an Academy, instituted for the express purpose of regulating and perfecting the French language. There is scarcely a word to be found in it, that has not a fixed signification and regular regimen. The satyrical[sic] Boileau, indeed, insinuates, that the French academy sometimes indulged itself upon trifling subjects, for instance, whether it should be said Il a extrêmement d’ esprit, or il a extrêment de l’ esprit: and one of their decisions, respecting the use of le rather than la, by a female in particular cases, provoked the ridicule of Mad. Sevigné, who declared, that she should fancy herself ornamented with a beard on her chin, were she to say Je le suis, instead of Je la suis. Neither the Satyrist nor the elegant Letter-writer were deficient in wit; but in these observations we have no proof of their judgment.

The good resulting from the Academy is this; that, with the exception of the licentious Voltaire, who delighted to run counter to every thing that had the appearance of an establishment, the French language is uniform in its structure and application; and every one may, if he please, write or speak it with the greatest correctness.

Look into their Grammars and Dictionaries, and you find not only almost every noun, verb, and adjective, defined, as to meaning, but their use exemplified as to government in connexion with other words. The verbs, in particular, are given with the prepositions they require; and, if different ones are used, the different senses are annexed to them.

Though we have abundance of Dictionaries and Grammars, we have not one of either upon the French plan. Had Johnson compleated[sic] his set of words, and given to each its proper adjunct, with explanations and distinctions; had he to this prefixed such a grammar, as he perhaps above all others was able to write; had he done this con amore, instead of sitting down doggedly an hour at a time, with the views and feeling of an hireling; he would have added much to the many obligations he has laid us under, and to the high reputation he so deservedly obtained.

Such however, was not Johnson’s idea: and I am not aware, that it has been pursued by any other in this country. A Dictionary composed with a particular view to the use of prepositions with verbs and nouns is, to me at least, a desideratum. As to the mere meaning of words, we want no further information. We have words, but we are still either ignorant or extremely inaccurate in the application and connexion of them.

I shall be happy if any one of your readers, who may view the subjects in the same light with myself, will give it a serious consideration, and communicate his opinion of it. And happier still should I feel, should this hint stimulate any person to undertake a Dictionary upon the plan I have suggested.

If you admit these few lines into your Miscellany, you shall hear again from an old friend and constant reader, though a New Correspondent, S. M.

No. 124

124. Noah Webster. ‘Preface.’ A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language. 1806.

To men who have been accustomed to repose almost implicit confidence in the authors of our principal dictionaries and grammars, it may appear at first incredible, that such writers as Johnson and Lowth, should have mistaken many of the fundamental principles of the language. But that such is the fact, will appear certain to any man who will read a few pages in a Saxon author. For example, those distinguished scholars, following the opinion of Wallis, suppose own, to be a participle of the verb to owe; when a moderate acquaintance with the Saxon will show that it has not the remotest connection with that verb. Indeed a man, well versed in etymology, will at once see the improbability, not to say, impossibility, that two words of such distinct significations, as to be indebted and to possess, can have sprung from a common root. Own, in Saxon agen, agenan, agenne, is derived from the verb agan, to possess; the g being in Saxon a mere guttural aspirate, suppressed in the progress of civilization, as in nagel, nail, slagen, slay, agen, own. “Each, says Johnson, denotes, 1st. Either of two. 2d. Every one of any number. This sense is rare except in poetry.” To prove the last remark to be an error, we need not resort to the Saxon, for every book we read, and every conversation we hear, demonstrates the fact. “The princes of Israel, being twelve men, each one was for the house of his fathers.”－ Numb. i. 44. This is the true original import of the word; it has no appropriate reference to two, more than to ten thousand. “Thyder man ne mihte geseglian on anum monthe, gyf man on nyht wicode and œlce dœge hæfde amberne wind.” “Thither a man could not fail in a month, if he should watch at night and each day should have a fair wind.” Alfred’s Orosius, Ch. I. See also page 61, 63, 79, 219. Lond. 1773. and Sax. Ch. By Gibson, page 185, 186. The second definition of Johnson is therefore the only true one; but not well expressed.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Lesser, says Johnson, is a barbarous corruption of less, formed by the vulgar from the habit of terminating comparatives in er. He denounces worser in the same style; and Lowth and all other grammarians repeat the sentence of proscription. Had these authors ever read a Saxon book with attention, they must have perceived their error. Lesser and worser are not double comparatives, but mere corruptions of lœsse, lœssa; wyrse, wyrsa, which were simple comparatives in the Saxon. Worser is now obsolete; but lesser maintains its ground as the equivalent of less. See Sax. Ch. p. 171. Alf. Oros. page 16, 17.

“He is mistaken, tho never so wise,” Johnson thinks to be justly accused of solecism. But this is the true original Saxon idiom－”Nan man ne dorste slean otherne man, neesde he nœfre swa mocel yfel gedon with those otherne. “No man durst slay another, let him have done to him never so much evil.” Sax. Ch. 190. The true resolution of the phrase is, let him have done so much evil to him as never before－or as never was done before－a very forcible manner of expressing the idea. “If I make my hand never so clean”－“Charm he never so wisely”－“Ask me never so much dowry and gift”－are legitimate English phrases, which our best writers have used; which are perceived in popular practice, and which the grammarian has no right to proscribe－How would the elegant Addison, that pre-eminent writer of unadulterated English, smile, were he to rise from the grave, and see this genuine idiom in the Spectator, stigmatized, by a hypercritical Editor, as bad grammar, and printed in Italics!

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Of the numerous dictionaries of the English Language which are used in the United States, Bailey’s and Johnson’s are those which are considered as containing the most original materials; and Johnson’s in particular is the fund from which modern compilers have selected the substance of their works. On Bailey’s orthography, etymologies and definition of mathematical terms, Johnson has made little improvement. The excellence of Johnson’s work consists chiefly in presenting to the reader the various different significations of words distinctly arranged and exemplified. On this part of the work, the author has bestowed uncommon pains, and has usually displayed critical discernment aided by extensive and various reading. Yet even in this part of his dictionary, many errors escaped his pen, and some of them are so obvious that it is not easy to number them with the effects of ordinary negligence.

Thus according to Johnson’s definition, an administratrix is a woman “who administers in consequence of a will”; and obvious as the error is, we find it copied into Sheridan, Walker, Jones, &c.

Misnomer, says Johnson, is “an indictment or any other act vacated by a wrong name”; as incorrect definition, copied into Sheridan, Walker, Perry, Entick, Jones, Ash, &c.

Obligee Johnson defines to be “one bound by a legal and written contract”－the true definition of obligor; and this obvious blunder is transcribed into Sheridan, Walker, Entick, Perry, Ash and Jones.

Such mistakes are the more surprising, because the compiler had Jacob and Cowel before him, and usually copied the definition of law terms from one or the other of those authorities. These errors are corrected by Mason; but others have escaped his notice. For example, Johnson’s definition of murder is not technically correct, as it would answer equally well for man-slaughter; yet Mason has not noticed the inaccuracy. Specially Johnson defines by particularity; and what is singular, cites for exemplification of a passage from Hale, in which the word has its technical sense of a bond or instrument under seal. Yet this palpable error has escaped the observation of Mason, and been transcribed by other compilers into their dictionaries.

Boll is defined by Johnson “a round stalk or stem;” the verb to boll, “to rise in a stalk,” “the flax was bolled.” Ex. 9, 31. I have ever supposed the most unlettered reader of the bible to have a correct understanding of this passage; and the mistake of the lexicographer has always appeared to me a remarkable instance of negligence. Yet it may be accounted for. Boll, in the Saxon bolla, was the ancient correct orthography of bowl, and probably is derived from the Hebrew gebōl, the word used in this passage. The translators unquestionably used this old orthography of bowl, which Johnson mistook for bole, a stem, and without examining the original, explained it in conformity with that idea. But the real sense of the passage is, that the seed vessel of the flax, the pericarp or capsule, was formed. The Seventy translate the Hebrew by spermatizon, seeded, or seeding, and this sense is rendered certain by the corresponding term used to denote the state of the barley, abib, eared or being in the ear.

This error of Johnson, however obvious, has been transcribed by most or all later compilers of English dictionaries. It is received also into the Latin dictionaries of Ainsworth and Entick; into the Dutch dictionary of Willcocks, the German of Fahrenkruger, by N. Bailey: the French of Boyer and the Italian of Montucci.

This fact is a remarkable proof of the indolence of authors, of their confidence in the opinions of a great man, and their willingness to live upon the labors of others. It shows us also the extensive mischiefs resulting from the mistakes of an eminent author, and the danger of taking his opinions upon trust.

Johnson’s mistake in the definition of clout is the more remarkable, as it proves him to have misinterpreted his favorite author, Shakespear, as well as Milton. The clouted brognes and clouted shoon of those poets were shoes with soles studded with nails; such shoes as our country people have worn within my memory, and I am told, still wear, in some parts of America. Johnson supposed the word clouted to signify patched or mended coarsely－an error which the passage cited from Shakespear readily detects, for the “clouted brogues” were put off, to prevent the nails from making too much noise.

But the instances in which Johnson has wholly mistaken the sense of words, are far less numerous than those in which he has failed to explain the appropriate senses of words apparently synonymous. Thus abdicate and resign may, by negligent writers, be used in nearly the same sense. But in strictness, each has a distinct appropriate and technical sense－abdication denoting the abandonment of an office or trust without formality, and resignation, the voluntary surrender of a commission or office to the constituent.

Alleviate, says Johnson, is to “make light, to ease, or soften.” True; but what is its appropriate sense? to what objects does it apply? a ship is made light by unloading, and a guinea is made light by clipping; but neither of them is alleviated. A mental is softened by fusion, tho it is not alleviated. The appropriate sense of the word is to make lighter or diminish an evil, or burden, as pain, grief, cares and the like; and a principal use of dictionaries is to mark this particular application of words.

To exemplify this word, Johnson cites from Harvey the following passage. “The pains taken in the speculative will much alleviate me in describing the practical part.” Here alleviate is used for relieve; or the words my task ought to have been used insted [sic] of me. To alleviate me, is hardly English; and this is one of a multitude of instances, in which Johnson has cited as an authority what he should have condemned as an error.

Acquire, says Johnson, is “to gain by one’s own labor, what is not received from nature, or transmitted by inheritance.” Yet Blackstone writes with accuracy that “an heir acquires an estate by descent,” B. 2. Ch. 14; And a plant acquires a green color from the solar rays, which is the work of nature and not of its own labor. Johnson has therefore wholly mistaken the appropriate sense of the word, in deducing it from the manner of obtaining, rather than from the nature of the thing obtained. Acquire is to get or obtain something which becomes permanent or inherent in the possessor. We acquire titles to property, rights, qualities, &c. but the chemist who obtains spirit by distillation does not acquire it; nor do we acquire a book which we borrow.

This species of imperfection is one of the principal defects in all our dictionaries; it occurs in almost every page, defeating, in a great degree, the object of such works, and contributing to a want of precision which is a blemish in our best authors.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Drought and height are corruptions of drugothe, heatho; which the Saxons formed from dryg and heh or heah, dry and high, by adding the termination th as in length from leng; strength from streng, and as we form truth from true, width from wide, warmth from warm. The Saxon termination th is universally preserved in the popular pronunciation of this country; and so far is it from being an error or corruption, that it is the very essence of the nouns, drouth, and highth. Men therefore who use this pronunciation, tho chargeable with “a zeal for analogy,” as Johnson observes of Milton, and tho they may not imitate Garrick as Walker does, will still have the honor to be correct, and to preserve the purity of the original orthography. They will further have the honor of conforming to what is in fact the national pronunciation, and has been, from the earliest records of our language. Height is an innovation comparatively modern; and drought is the Belgic dialect of the Teutonic; but neither of the words existed in the Saxon, the parent of our language.

The use of k at the end of words after c, deserves notice, as it affords a remarkable proof of the corruption of language by means of heedless writers. Johnson remarks that c, having no determinate sound, according to English orthography never ends a word. Had this eminent critic examined ancient authorities with more care, he would have found the reverse of his affirmation to be the truth. The practice, in his time, of closing all words with k after c, on which he founded his observation, was a Norman innovation.

The history of these letters is shortly this. The Romans used c as an equivalent for the Greek k, as appears by the translation of Greek into Latin, and of Latin into Greek, made while both were living languages. The Roman c is the Hebrew caph inverted and rounded at the angles, and the Greek kappa was probably formed from the same character. The Greek alphabet did not recognize c, nor the Roman alphabet k. When therefore the Romans borrowed and naturalized Greek words containing a k, they used for it their own equivalent letter c.

Hence the Greek keler, swift, was written in Latin celer; kentauros, a centaur, centaurus; keros, wax, cera; kio, to move, cieo; kinnabaris, cinnabar; kinnamon, cinnamum; mousikes, musicus; leaving not a particle of doubt that c and k were letters of precisely the same power.

The Saxons had probably no knowledge of letters, till they settled in England; and in that country, no letters were known, but those of the Roman alphabet, a knowledge of which had been left there by the Romans. The Saxons therefore adopted the Roman characters, with a few variations, which were required by particular sounds in their language. Hence, till after the conquest, c was used to express the power of k, as in the Latin language; and insted of not terminating any English word, as Johnson alleges, it terminated every word, whether the power of k occurred; as in boc, book; folc, folk; wic, wick; ric, rick. In a volume of Saxon history, written in the twelfth century, the letter k is not found in ten words.

-----

For a like reason, as well as to purify our orthography from corruptions and restore to words their genuine spelling, we ought to reject u from honor, favor, candor, error, and others of this class. Under the Norman princes, when every effort or royal authority was exerted to crush the Saxons and obliterate their language, the Norman French was the only language of the English courts and legal proceedings, and the Latin words which, at that period, were introduced into use in England, came clothed with the French livery. At the same time, to preserve a trace of their originals, the o of the Latin honor, as well as the u of the French honeur was retained in the terminating syllable. Hence for some centuries, our language was disfigured with a class of mongrels, splendour, inferiour, superiour, authours, and the like, which are neither Latin nor French, nor calculated to exhibit the English pronunciation. Johnson, in reverence to usage, retained this vitious [sic] orthography, without regarding the palpable absurdity of inserting u in primitive words, when it must be omitted in the derivatives, superiority, inferiority and the like; for no person ever wrote superiourity, infreriourity. A sense of propriety however, has nearly triumphed over these errors; and our best writers have almost unanimously rejected the u from this whole class of words, except perhaps ten or twelve. From these also Ash has very consistently rejected u, restoring the purity of the original orthography.

Johnson often committed errors, but seldom gave his sanction to innovations, unauthorized by any good principle. Yet in a few instances he has departed from his usual caution. An instance occurs in his change of sceptic to skeptic. This innovation had some countenance in the pronunciation which had been corrupted by the Universities; for Greek scholars had discovered that the original was skeptikos, from skeptomai. The mischiefs which proceed from such partial views of subjects are incalculable. It is a thing of no consequence whether we pronounce vowels and consonants as the Greeks and Romans pronounced them－but it is of immense practical importance, that when we have analogies established in our own language, we should, on no account, violate them by introducing unnecessary exceptions.

-----

In the northern states, it has been customary for gentlemen of education to follow the rule laid down by the great Dr. Johnson, “That those are the most elegant speakers, who deviate least from the written language.” Notwithstanding what Walker has remarked upon this observation, I must consider it as preeminently the best rule to direct the national practice of pronunciation, that was ever offered, and the only correct standard by which usage can be generally regulated.

Neither this rule, nor any other can reach every case. Differences between the orthography and pronunciation exist, which are too inveterate to be removed. But this rule furnishes the most effectual barrier which can be erected against the rage of innovation－it offers standard, in most words, superior to the authority of local usages, and less invidious than the opinions of individuals. It is further recommended by this supreme excellence, that it corresponds with the original design of alphabetical writing, and preserves the benefits of that invention－benefits which local usages tend to destroy, but which no authority of court and stage, nor of compilers claming to be standards of propriety, should induce us ever to relinquish.

This reasoning is justified by a remarkable fact. Before the publication of Sheridan’s Dictionary, the pronunciation of words in the northern states was so uniform, that it is doubtful whether the gentlemen of education differed in fifty words; and this uniformity still exists, among those who have made no use of any standard author. Yet the standard authors themselves and those who follow them, differ in some thousands of words. It is further to be remarked that the common unadulterated pronunciation of the New England gentlemen, is almost uniformly the pronunciation which prevailed in England, anterior to Sheridan’s time, and which, I am assured by English gentlemen, is still the pronunciation of the body of the British nation: the pronunciation recommended by Sheridan and Walker being there called the London dialect, and considered as a corruption. However this may be, I know from careful examination, that the old pronunciation is established on the authority of a thousand years practice; that it accords with the above recited rule of Johnson, corresponding best with the written language, preserving the natural sounds of the letters and the established principles of analogy. To these principles, men of taste should bow, with the reverence which is inspired by antiquity, and supported by a love of truth. The English authors who aim to fix a standard, refine too much upon sounds; for excessive refinement in language, like metaphysical subtleties in ethics and theology, insted of producing the desired conformity of opinions, tend to awaken doubts, distract opinions, and generate endless controversy and confusion.

-----

Real improvements should never be checked; but the changes which are made by the fashionable part of a nation, who are sometimes ignorant and often capricious and proud of singularity, prove not unfrequently [sic] to be gross improprieties, which, like modes of dress, have a temporary currency, and are then condemned to neglect and oblivion. Hence from the practice of the gay and fashionable world, there is always an appeal to a higher tribunal; the great body of literary and well informed men in a nation, whose opinion of propriety is not to be seduced, nor their judgment perverted by the influence of names and of fashion. Hence the established popular usages of a nation are rarely changed, but by a conquest or great revolution among the inhabitants of a country. Custom among a whole people erects an impregnable bulwark against the assaults of innovation; and we are indebted to popular usage for the preservation of many English idioms, which writers and critics, from an affectation of refinement, have most injudiciously attempted to banish. It is a curious fact, which I shall, in another work, demonstrate, that the principal corruptions of our language, within the last five hundred years, are the work, not of the vulgar, as is commonly supposed, but of authors and writers, pretending to purify and refine the language.

Real improvements in pronunciation arise from a popular tendency to abridge words which are of difficult pronunciation; to soften or reject harsh letters and syllables; and to give to letters and syllables such sounds, and to words such a disposition of accent, as best suit the organs of utterance and of hearing. Any alteration in pronunciation on which is not recommended by these advantages, will never become general.

-----

Mason in the preface to his supplement to Johnson’s Dictionary, remarks, that “that Lexicographer’s etymologies are deservedly reckoned the most erroneous part of his Dictionary.” To apologize for not undertaking to revise that part of Johnson’s work, he mentions his want of sufficient knowledge of the early languages－and says “learning of such kind is rather matter of curiosity than of common utility.” In that latter sentiment I cannot agree with him－but it is true, that imperfect etymologies or those which throw no light on the history of language and of ideas, are of little use; and to the wretched state of etymological learning we are probably to ascribe the common mistake respecting its utility. In truth, few men have obtained knowledge enough of the subject to appreciate its value. This seems to have been the case with Swift, whose ridicule had a mischievous effect in bringing the study of etymology into disrepute.

Johnson, who, when correctness depended solely on the exertions of his vast intellectual powers, seldom make a mistake, was often betrayed into errors, by his natural indolence, which led him to write often without investigation, or he must have been pressed by disease and poverty, to send his papers to the press in an unfinished state. Whatever reasons may be assigned for the fact, it is not to be questioned that his Dictionary was left very imperfect, and especially in the etymologies. In this part of his work he informs us, that he relied chiefly on Skinner and Junius, who sometimes misled him－certain it is, he neglected to consult some of the best authorities on the subject.

I have not finished the investigation of this part of his work; but as far as I have proceeded, I find a multitude of palpable errors; and a still greater number of etymologies imperfectly stated. His mistake in the etymology of comptroller has had a mischievous effect, and it is the more surprizing [sic], as he deserted Skinner, Junius, Bailey, and I believe, every other authority, and gave a false orthography, without deducing it from any originals.

It is evident that Johnson supposed comptroller, to have a different original from control; than which nothing can be more false. It is simply a combination of two French words contre, and rolle－which are from the Latin contra-rotula. The ancients rolled their parchments into the form of a wheel; hence a register or record, obtained, in the middle ages, the game of rotula, a little wheel, which the French softened into rolle. Hence controll, that is, contre-rolle, is to counter check－to check or govern by a counter register－and the officer who does this is a controller, formerly called in barbarous Latin, contra-rotulator, in French controllour. This derivation gives the precise signification of the word. But comptroller, deduced from compter, to count, from computo, give for signification, a counter of the records or computer of the rolls－which is nonsense. That such a blunder should ever have been made by a man of letters, is not easily accounted for; but that it should still hold its place in dictionaries and in practice, would be incredible, if our laws, records and constant practice were not evidences of the fact.

Johnson gives for the etymology of island, the Latin insula, the Italian isola, and ealand, which he calls Erse. Now the two first have nothing to do with the word, and the latter, tho it may be Erse, is also a Saxon word which the English dictionaries do not explain. The Saxons wrote the word igland, ealond, and ieland, which, with a strong guttural aspirate, are not very different in sound. It is a compound of ea water, still preserved in the French eau, and land,－ealand, water land, land in water, a very significant word. The etymology however was lost, and the word corrupted by the French into island, which the English servilely adopted, with the consonant s, which no more belongs to the word, than any other letter in the alphabet. Our pronunciation preserves the Saxon ieland, with a trifling difference of sound; and it was formerly written by good authors, iland.

For the original of acre, Johnson gives the Saxon œcre; which, by the way, is a mistake, for, in every instance, in which I have found it in Saxon books, the order of the letters is acer, œcere. Of what use is it that the author has given this word for the original of acre, without further information? The history of the word is this. Agros in Greek, and ager in Latin signified an open field of indeterminate limits. Our Teutonic ancestors wrote the word acker, converting the g into the close consonant k, which is still the German orthography; but the word was not restricted to a particular quantity of land, until the reign of Edward I. and then the quantity was ascertained by statute. In the German and Dutch, the word retains its orthography acker, akker, and its primitive sense of field.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Errors of this kind which have corrupted the orthography or perverted the definitions of words, are numerous; but far less so, than imperfect etymologies, or such as throw no light upon the origin of words, nor give any history of ideas. Thus when Johnson and Bailey give the Saxon freond for the original of friend, they inform us only of a trifling change in the orthography. Of what use is this? If they had traced the word to its root, they would have informed us the freond is the participle of the present tense of the Saxon verb freon, to love; and we should be led to the radical idea of the word. When they refer the word again, to the Saxon agen, they give us no useful information respecting its origin, and they are inaccurate in giving the least usual spelling of the Saxon. Again, is only a different orthography of against, and from the same radical, ongean, which was sometimes written togeanes, agen, &c. for the Saxon orthography was, in some degree, unsettled, as might be expected among a people who had neither dictionaries nor printing presses. The true spelling was ongean. This is a compound of on and gean, equivalent to the Latin contra, and not improbably gean and contra may have a common radical. The sense of the word is contrary, or in opposition to, which we retain in the word against. The primitive sense of again, is contrary; the word being first applied to moving in an opposite direction. To come again, is to come contrary, that is, contrary to the first course; and from this sense, the translation was easy to that of return or second going; and hence from visible action in a second going, the word came to signify the abstract idea of repetition.

Johnson refers our word obey to the French obeir. He might, with equal truth, have inverted the derivation and deduced the French obeir from the English obey. Both words have a like meaning, and both are from the same original. Had the author been more careful and more inquisitive, he would have found the root in the Saxon abugan, from bugan to bend, which also is the root of bow.

In numerous particulars Johnson’s etymologies are erroneous or imperfect. In some instances, he refers a word to a Saxon original, which he should have traced back to the Hebrew, as earth, which is certainly of Hebrew origin. In many cases he refers words to the Latin which are of Greek or Arabic original; as cinnabar, cinnamon, amomum; and what is worse, he some times refers us to a word which never existed; as accommodable to a Latin word accommodabilis; adversative, to adversativus; affluxion to affluxio, which are certainly not found in the Latin language.

These are a few examples only of the mistakes and imperfections found in the best dictionary of the English language. Etymology judiciously traced and displayed, exhibits not merely the origin of words, but the history of the progress of ideas and of the human intellect. Indeed the etymology of the languages of Europe will throw no inconsiderable light on the origin and history of the several nations who people it, and confirm in no small degree, the scripture account of the dispersion of men. But I have seen no work on this subject which is well executed. From an examination of the Hebrew, Saxon and Gothic radicals, I can affirm, that the etymologies of Bailey and Johnson are so defective, that they ought not to be republished without a careful revision, with numerous emendations.

When to this consideration is added the necessity of supplying the new terms with which common usage and various discoveries and improvements, since the publication of Johnson’s work, have augmented the catalogue of English words; it is presumed that the merit of this undertaking will be duly appreciated. Words, as Horace and Quintilian observe, are like the leaves of trees; some falling into disuse, and others growing into practice. “Nedum sermonum stet honos et gratia vivax” A living language, like a vast river, moves with a slow but irresistible current. Even the genius of a Bacon, or a Shakespear could not prevent words which they used from sliding, insensibly into neglect; and many of the terms, which, in their time, were familiar to an English ear, cannot now be understood without a glossary.

-----

I have made no material alterations in the orthography of words, except to correct most palpable errors. In a few instances, I have preferred the orthography of Newton, Prideaux, Hook, Dryden, Whiston, &c. to that of Johnson, as being more analogical and purely English, as in scepter, sepulcher. In omitting u in honor and a few words of that class, I have pursed a common practice in this country, authorized by the principle of uniformity and by etymology, as well as by Ash’s dictionary. In omitting k after c, I have unequivocal propriety, and the present usage for authorities. In a few words, modern writers are gradually purifying the orthography from its corruptions. Thus Edwards in his history of the West-Indies, and Gregory in his Economy of Nature, Pope, Hoole, &c. restore mold to its true spelling; and it would be no small convenience to revive the etymological spelling of aker. Cullen in his translation of Clavigero, follows Bacon and Davenant in the true Saxon orthography of drouth, and the elegant Blackstone has corrected the orthography of nusanee and duchy.

-----

Thus the English, like every living language, is in a state of progression, as rapid now as at any former period; even more rapid, than before the great Dr. Johnson “flattered himself that he might fix the language and put a stop to alterations”－an idea as chimerical as that of Sheridan and Walker, who have attempted to make the mounting enunciation of the stage, a fixed standard of national pronunciation. It is fruitless to attempt to fix that which is in its nature, changeable, and to fix which beyond the power of alteration, would be the greatest evil that could happen to a living language. “If the language of theology, says Johnson, were extracted from Hooker, and the translation of the bible; the terms of natural knowledge from Bacon; the phrases of policy, war and navigation from Raliegh; the dialect of poetry and fiction, from Spenser and Sidney; and the diction of common life from Shakespear, few ideas would be lost to mankind for want of English words in which they might be expressed.” How shortsighted was that learned man! Many words found in all the authors mentioned are no longer used; and two of those writers cannot be read without a glossary. Scarcely was this lexicographer in his grave, when new discoveries in natural history originated a language almost entirely new, in some of its branches, and changed the whole face of the science. From the changes in civil policy, manners, arts of life and other circumstances attending the settlement of English colonies in America; most of the language of heraldry, hawking, hunting, and especially that of the old feudal and hierarchal establishments of England, will become utterly extinct in this country－much of it already forms a part of the neglected rubbish of antiquity.

No. 125

125. Noah Webster. A Letter to Dr. David Ramsay, or Charleston, respecting the Errors in Johnson’s Dictionary, and other Lexicons. New Haven: Printed by Oliver Steele, 1807, 28pp.

(two paragraphs omitted)

I know your love of letters, and your disposition to give a patient and candid attention to discussions and details of facts which may elucidate any interesting branch of literature. I have therefore taken the liberty to address to you a few remarks and statements, intended as a brief sketch only of the errors and imperfections in Johnson’s Dictionary, and the Lexicons of other languages, now used as classical books in our seminaries of learning. These remarks I shall transmit to you through the medium of the press.

It is well known that Johnson’s Dictionary has been, for half a century, a standard authority in the English Language, from which all later compilers have drawn their materials. That his work is, in some respects, erroneous and defective, has long been known in Great-Britain, and Mason has lately ventured to attempt, and with some success, to supply the defects and correct the errors. Two or three other compilers in England are engaged in a like undertaking; but these gentlemen seem to be deficient in the scheme of their work.

A few years ago, Mr. Horne Tooke undertook to investigate the origin of the English particles; and in his researches, discovered that Lexicographers had never become acquainted with these classes of words, and in remarking on their errors, he takes occasion to express his opinion of Johnson’s Dictionary in the following terms. – Diversions of Purley, vol. I, p. 182. Note, Phil. Edit.

“(omitted)”

These animadversions, which are directly opposed to popular opinion, coming from a man who had penetrated deeply into the history of our language, are calculated to excite curiosity, and deserve a careful examination.

Extravagant praise of any human production, like indiscriminate censure, is seldom well founded; and both are evidences of want of candor or want of discernment. On a careful examination of the merits of Johnson’s Dictionary, it will unquestionably appear that the blind admiration which would impose it upon the world as a very accurate and indisputable authority, errs as much upon one extreme, as the pointed condemnation of the whole work, does upon the other. But it is the fate of man to vibrate from one extreme to another. The great intellectual powers of Dr. Johnson, displayed in many of his works, but especially in his Rambler and his Rasselas, have raised his reputation to high distinction, and impressed upon all his opinions a stamp of authority, which gives them currency among men, without an examination into their intrinsic value. The character of correctness which he merited and obtained from his ethical writings, on subjects of which all men can judge, has been very naturally transferred to his philological works, on which few men are competent to decide.—Yet nothing is more natural than that his writings on men and manners should be correct, as their correctness must depend chiefly on observation and on reading that requires little labor; while his dictionary, the accuracy of which must depend on minute distinctions or laborious researches into unentertaining books may be left extremely imperfect and full of error.

These circumstances however are seldom considered; and Johnson’s wrings had, in Philology, the effect which Newton’s discoveries had in Mathematics, to interrupt for a time the progress of this branch of learning; for when any man has pushed his researches so far beyond his contemporaries, that all men despair of proceeding beyond him, they will naturally consider his principles and decisions as the limit of perfection on that particular subject, and repose their opinions upon his authority, without examining into their validity... “Ubi aut præteriri aut æquari eos posse desperavimu, stadium cum spec senescit.” Vell. Paterculus. Lib. 1. 17.

In the preface to Johnson’s Dictionary, we have a splendid specimen of elevated composition, not indeed perfectly free from faults, but generally correct in diction as well as in principle.

In the history of the English Language, the author has proved himself very imperfectly acquainted with the subject. He commences with a most egregious error, in supposing the Saxon language to have been introduced into Britain in the fifth century, after the Romans had abandoned the island; whereas, nothing is better attested in history than that the branch of the Teutonic, which constitutes the basis of our present language, was introduced by the Belgic tribes, which occupied all the southern part of the island at the time, and evidently long before Cesar invaded the country. Equally erroneous in his assertion than the Saxons and Welsh were nations totally distinct. The number of words of Celtic original plainly discoverable in the English language, is much greater than Johnson supposed; and the affinity of those nations is more fully manifested by numerous Celtic words found in the German, Swedish and other Teutonic dialects. But there is demonstration of that affinity in two facts, which seem to have escaped observation – first, the use of the same relative pronoun by the Irish and Scotch of Celtic origin, as well as by the Greeks, Romans and every Teutonic nation – and second, by the construction of some of the cases of nouns.

This part of Johnson’s work, as well as his Grammar, which is chiefly extracted Wallis’ Grammar, if they are not “contemptible performances,” to use Tooke’s language, are wretchedly imperfect. They abound with errors; but the principal fault is, that they contain very few of the material and important facts which would serve to illustrate the history of the language, and of the several nations from which it is derived. This field of inquiry has never been fully explored; it is a fruitful field, and hereafter the cultivation of it is to produce a valuable harvest of historical information.

In a brief survey of the work under consideration, a few general faults in the execution of it will be named.

1. The insertion of a multitude of words that do not belong to the language. These words Johnson informs us, are inserted on the authority of Bailey, Ainsworth and Phillips – but they are confessedly terms which have never been used in oral or written English. Language consists of words uttered by the tongue; or written in books for the purpose of being read. Terms which are not authorised by either of these modes of communicating ideas, are no part of a language, and have no claim to a place in a dictionary. – Such are the following – Adversable, adversperate, adjugate, agriculation, abstrude, injudicable, spicosity, crapulence, morigerous, tenebrosity, balbucinate, illachrymable, &c. The number of this class of words is not known; but it probably rises to two thousand or more. Some of them are omitted by Sheridan, Walker, Jones, Perry, Entick, Hamilton, &c. But most of them are retained in all the English Dictionaries, and Ash has been careful to preserve them all. These words seem to have been anglicized from the Latin language, and inserted by the first compilers of English Dictionaries, in their vocabularies, as candidates for employment; but having never been called into service, they stand like impertinent intruders into good company; a sort of unwelcome guests, who are treated with coldness and neglect. They no more belong to the English language than the same number of Patagonian words; and the insertion and retention of them in English dictionaries is a violation of all the rules of lexicography. Had a native of the United States taken a fiftieth part of the same liberty, in a similar production, the admirers of Johnson, and other English writers, would have branded him with the most pointed opprobrium.

2. Another class of material errors in the great work of Dr. Johnson, proceed from an injudicious selection of authorities. Among the authors cited in support of his definitions, there are indeed the names of Tillotson, Newton, Locke, Milton, Dryden, Addison, Swift and Pope; but no small port of words in his vocabulary, are selected from writers of the 17th century, who, though well versed in the learned languages, had neither taste nor a correct knowledge of English. Of these writers, Sir Thomas Brown seems to have been a favourite; yet the style of Sir Thomas is not English; and it is astonishing that a man attempting to give the world a standard of the English Language should have ever mentioned his name, but with a reprobation of his style and use of words. The affectation o f Latinity was indeed a common vice of authors from the revival of letters to the age of Queen Ann; but Brown in attempting to write Latin-English, exceeded all his contemporaries, and actually rendered himself unintelligible. The following examples will afford a specimen of his pedantry and ill tastes: --

(quotations omitted)

There are probably thousands of similar passages in Johnson’s Dictionary, cited as authorities for the use of words which no other English writer and no English speaker every used; words which, as Horne Tooke says, are no more English than the language of the Hottentots. Were the only evil of introducing such authorities, to swell the size of the book with nonsense, we might consent to overlook the injury; but Johnson has suffered thousands of these terms to pass as authorized English words, by which means the student is apt to be misled, especially before his taste is formed by extensive reading. Indeed some writers of age and judgement are led by Johnson’s authority to the use of words which are not English, and which give their style an air of pedantry and obscurity; and not unfrequently, to the use of words which do not belong to the language. Thus in a letter of ------, published not long ago, respecting Burr’s conspiracy, the writer spoke of matters of dubiosity – doubtless upon the authority of English Dictionaries, transcribed from Johnson’s, who cites Sir Thomas Brown for the use of this barbarous word. So form an illegitimate word used by Thompson, infracted, Johnson took the liberty to form the verb infract, which has been frequently used for the true word infringe, and doubtless upon his sole authority. From a careful examination of this work, and its effect upon the language, I am inclined to believe that Johnson’s authority has multiplied instead of reducing the number of corruptions in the English language. Let any man of correct taste cast his eye on such words as denominable, opiniatry, areolation...and let him say whether a dictionary which gives thousands of such terms, as authorized English words, is a safe standard of writing. From a general view of the work, I am confident the number of words inserted which are not authorized by any English writer, and those which are found only in a single pedantic author, like Brown, and which are really no part of the language, amount to four or five thousand; at least a tenth part of the whole umber.

(one paragraph omitted)

3. It is questionable how far vulgar and cant words are to be admitted into a Dictionary; but one thing must be acknowledged by any man who will inspect the several dictionaries in the English language, that if any portion of such words are inadmissible, Johnson has transgressed the rules of lexicography beyond any other compiler; for his work contains more of the lowest of all vulgar words, than any other now extant, Ash excepted. It may be alledged that it is the duty of a lexicographer to insert and define all words found in English books: then such words as fishfy, jackalent, parma-citty, jiggumbobo, conjobble, foubra, &c. Are legitimate English words! Alas, had a native of the United States introduced such vulgar words and offensive ribaldry into a similar work, what columns of abuse would have issued from the Johsonian presses, against the wretch who could thus sully his book ad corrupt the language. But Shakespeare and Butler used such words in their writings!!! Yes, vulgar manners and characters must be represented by vulgar language; the writer of plays must accommodate his language to his audience; the rabble in the galleries are entitled to their share of amusement; and a part of every play must be composed of obscenity and vulgar ribaldry. In this manner, the lowest language and the coarsest manners are exhibited before a promiscuous audience, and derive some importance from the reputation of the writer and of the actors. From plays they pass into other books – yes, into standard authorities; and national language, as well as morals, are corrupted and debased by the influence of the stage!

4. It has been generally believed that a prime excellence of Johnson’s Dictionary is, the accuracy with which the different senses of words are distinguished; and uncommon praises have been bestowed upon the author’s power of discrimination. On a critical attention however to this definitions, it will appear that a want of just discrimination, is one of the principal defects of his works; and that to this defect, we may ascribe innumerable errors, and no small part of the superfluous bulk of the Dictionary. Let the reader attend to the following examples.

“Larceny.” “Petty Theft.” Exemplification. “Those laws would be very unjust, that should chastise murder and petty larceny with the same punishment.” Spectator.

This is all that Johnson has given us for definition and illustration of the word larceny; and every lawyer must observe that the definition is incorrect. Larceny comprehends every species of theft; not only grand and petty larceny, but burglary and robbery; tho the latter are usually arranged as separate crimes. – The author seems not to have understood the word; his definition is taken from the passage in the Spectator; and the word petty, in that passage, which should form no part of the definition, is prefixed to larceny. This is a very common fault with our author: not understanding the term, or not discriminating between the true sense of the term by itself, and its sense in connection, he often takes a part of the passage selected, for illustration, and incorporates it into the definition. Thousands of examples of this negligence are to be found in his Dictionary. (...)

(the definitions of industrious, notarial, peculation, earn, ford, mutinyare omitted)

Johnson’s Dictionary abounds with similar inaccuracies, which prove the author’s want of discrimination, or most unpardonable negligence.

5. Equally manifest is Johnson’s want of discrimination in defining words nearly synonymous; or rather words which bear some portion of a common signification.

(one paragraph omitted)

“Impracticable,” the author defines by “not to be performed, unfeasible, impossible;” and “impracticableness” by “impossibility.” Impossible implies an absurdity, contradiction, or utter want of power to be, or to be done, in the abstract; but impracticable signifies only, not to be done by human means or by the means proposed.

(one paragraph omitted)

The pernicious effects of the common negligence of men of letters in making themselves accurately acquainted with the import of words, are visible in our best authors; and for want of nicely discriminating the various senses of words somewhat allied, our Dictionaries want half the value which ought to be possessed by such publications.

(some instances omitted)

But I will not multiply examples. Let me only add, that in the course of thirty years reading, I have not found a single author who appears to have been accurately acquainted with the true import and force of terms in his own language. And a multitude of errors committed by writers, evidently from their misapprehending the import of words, are cited as authorities by Johnson, instead of being noticed with censure. Indeed, thousands of instances are to be found in modern books, of a misapplication of terms, which are clearly ascribable to the negligence and mistakes of that lexicographer.

6. Another particular which is supposed to add greatly to the value of Johnson’s Dictionary, is the illustration of the various senses of words by passages from English authors of reputation. Yet, in fact, this will be found, on careful examination, one of the most exceptionable parts of his performance: For two reasons – First, that no small part of his examples are taken from authors who did not write the language with purity – and second, that a still larger portion of them throw not the least light on his definitions.

The first objection has been considered in the previous remarks, and proved by extracts from Brown’s vulgar errors – a work which manifests the most intolerable pedantry, and a total want of taste. Would the limits of this sketch permit, I would give further illustrations, by extracts from Glavil, Digby, Ayliffe, Peacham, L’Estrange and other authors, which Johnson has cited as authorities – writers who are so far from being models of classical purity, that they have been long since condemned for their want of taste, and are now known only by name. As far as their works have any influence, it is derived from Johnson’s authority, and the passages he has cited; and as far as this authority goes, it has a tendency to corrupt the style of writing. The examples I have given prove that it has had some effect; tho fortunately not very extensive. Of the old authors cited, it is however proper to notice Shakespeare, as Johnson has quoted his works more frequently than any other, and relies much on his authority. (...)

(the following paragraphs omitted)

No. 126

126. (Anonymous) “The Boston Review of Webster’s Dictionary.” The Monthly Anthology, and Boston Review, Vol. VII (October 1809), pp. 246-264.

The periodical sittings of a learned society are, it is said, devoted to the pages of Mr. Webster’s expected work, but the principles of it, we presume, may be found in the duodecimo under review. The English language is not indeed to be corrupted by a single writer, or undermined by a whole fraternity. It will continue in its present state as long as the rock-rooted seat of our forefathers is venerable for genius, learning, arts, liberty, religion, and law, and until these are forgotten by their descendants. But a temporary departure from the standard may be produced in a small part of our country by men, whose justification of the vulgar will procure them adherents, and whose pride will be engaged to extol their exertions, since they have so long digged in the rubbish of antiquity, that every thing discovered is thought to be a treasure. In fifty, or perhaps a hundred of our village schools this Compendious Dictionary of Mr. Webster is insinuating suspicions of the definitions of Johnson, justifying ridiculous violations of grammar, and spreading hurtful innovation in orthography.

The preface of twenty three pages contains a full exposition of Mr. Webster’s principles. We shall therefore give it most of our attention, since the publick cannot be surprised at our confession, that we have not compared every word, or every fiftieth word in this book with the same in Johnson.

We first find some remarks on the improper definitions and grammatical distribution of certain words by Johnson and Lowth, arising from their ignorance of the Saxon, on some of which we made comments in our review of the “Grammar.” (p. 247)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

In the greatest part of the orthography of Johnson, the world has indeed, as Mr. Webster laments, implicitly followed him without a wish for independence; and in the two classes of words, from which u and k have been expelled by many, we hope his supremacy will once more be established. But with the exception of those two changes, the authority of Johnson has fixed the standard of spelling to the whole community who write English; and it has been even more conclusive than his definitions. Yet if we were put to the question, we might confess, that sceptick would be more agreeable than skeptick; and that one or even two but, we dare not say more, words might change their orthography for the better. (p. 253)

No. 127

127. Charles Richardson, Esq. Illustrations of English Philology. London: Gale and Fenner, 1815. {Republished by J. Mawman in 1826.}

CONTENTS.

Advertisement. {Including many extracts from the English lexicon publishing in the Encyclopædia Metropolitana and the English dictionary of Dr. Johnson.}

1. Letter the First. The Plan of Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary

2. Analysis of the Grammatical Principles of the Diversions of Purley

3. A Critical Examination of Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary

4. Letter the Second. Mr. Todd, the Editor of Johnson’s Dictionary

5. Letter the Third. Mr. Dugald Stewart, “On the Tendency of some late Philological Speculations”

Dear Lamberick,

I have long been in possession of your high opinion of the Diversions of Purley ; and of your very low opinion of the Dictionary of Doctor Johnson. With respect to the former, we are not, I believe, singular in considering that, as a work of Grammar merely, it stands without a rival. The learning and abilities of the author are generally allowed to have been fully equal to his subject ; and even the ardent imagination of Mr. Erskine presents no exaggerated picture of the laborious diligence with which Mr. Tooke pursued his philological researches.

(four paragraphs omitted)

You would observe from that advertisement, that it is Mr. Todd’s intention to present us with the Dictionary of Johnson with numerous corrections, and with the addition of many thousand words ; and further that emendations are to be admitted from Horne Tooke, and (risum teneas!) from Mr. Malone. – Madame de Stael, who is now the Cynosure of the critics, has very oddly – to English ears – combined the names of Milton and Young : this we must excuse in a foreigner, and a lady ; but that a learned Englishman should thus jumble a Malone into equal place with a Horne Tooke, does really augur so ill of his discernment and good sense, that the impulse to mirth at the oddity of such a classification of emendators was repressed by my apprehensions of some fatal influence from its absurdity.

Whatever may be Mr. Todd’s abilities in explaining the signification of words, I cannot, from the specimen which this advertisement presents, consider him as very successful in the expression of his own meaning. “In these labours also” (he informs us) “it may not be omitted, the plan of Dr. Johnson has been respectfully followed ; and if it shall be found that in the construction of the present work the Editor has been at all successful, be must gratefully attribute his success to having built upon so noble a foundation.”

I must confess that I am a little at a loss to collect with clearness any thing from this sentence except great humility of profession. Is this, I ask, to be the Dictionary of Henry J. Todd alone, or of Samuel Johnson, merely with the corrections and additions of Mr. Todd? The passage which I have just quoted countenances the former supposition ; the preceding part of his advertisement conforms the latter. If, then, Mr. Todd be merely the Editor, what pretence will he have either to the merit or demerit of the construction of the work ; unless he not only the plan of Johnson in his own portion of the performance, but actually in the execution of his editorial office presume to reduce the original Dictionary of Johnson to the scale which that plan supplies? If he blend, -- and probably this is all that he intends, -- his own corrections and additions really constructed upon Johnson’s plan, (imperfect and superficial as it is) with the original Dictionary in an unaltered or in a partially altered state, it may instantly be foreseen that Mr. Todd is about to present to the world as complete a tissue of discordant materials ; of errors preserved and errors corrected; of plan violated and plan adhered to, as the most enthusiastic idolater of confusion can covet or desire. (pp. 1-5)

By the Plan, you recollect, seven divisions of meaning are the full portion allowed by Johnson ; -- from the Dictionary I could select you half a dozen starveling monosyllables, to which he has allotted four hundred and sixty-four explanations, that is , about seventy to each (upon the average) more than the Plan concedes to them as their due. An adherence to the Plan, then, would have diminished the bulk of the Dictionary in rather an unwelcome degree; -- for these six little words occupy the space of forty folio columns.

By the Plan we perceive that the metaphorical sense was always carefully to be distinguished from the primitive; and of course we may infer, each was to be supported by distinct and proper examples. Not so in the Dictionary – There he tells us, that “A Mite is a small insect found in cheese or corn:” and for example we find, “Virginity breeds mites.” Blanket, he also informs us, means “A woollen cover, soft and loosely woven, spread commonly upon a bed, over the linen sheet, for the procurement of warmth.” And this is his first example :

Nor Heaven Peep through the blanket of the dark

To cry, hold, hold!

Again, -- I must assure you, that such nicety and exactness pervade the whole Dictionary ; -- and you will find abundant proof that they do so in the Criticism. (pp. 121-13)

A List of Authors

Addison, Joseph (1672-1719)　Essayist, poet and statesman. The first ‘Spectator’ appeared in 1712.

Adelung, Johann Christoph (1732-1806) German grammarian and philologist.

Anderson, Robert, M.D. (1750-1830) Editor and Biographer of the British poets.

Ash, John (1724?-1779) Lexicographer. New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language (2 vols., 1775)

Baker, Thomas (1656-1740) Eminent author and antiquary born in Lanchester.

Baretti, Joseph (1719-1789) Lexicographer of English-Italian dictionaries.

Bayley, M. (?)

Boswell, James (1740-1795) The descendant of a Scotch family, biographer of S. Johnson,

Boucher, Jonathan (1738-1804) Divine and philo- loger.

Brightland, John (?-1717)

Callender, James Thomson (1758-1803) A native of Scotland, miscellaneous writer.

Campbell, Archibald (1726?-1780) Satirist, who called Johnson ‘the great corrupter of our taste and language.’

Campbell, George (1716-1796) Divine, born in Aberdeen, where his father was a minister.

Chambers, Ephraim (1680?-1740) Encyclopaedist, born at Kendal, where his father owned a small farm.

Chesterfield, Fourth Earl of (Philip Dormer Stanhope 1694-1773) Politician, wit, and letter-writer.

Colet, John (?)

Colman, George, the elder (1732-1794) Dramatist, born in Florence.

Cooke, William (?-1824) Writer. Known as ‘Conversa- tion Cooke’ from his poem Conversation (1796).

Courtenay, John (1741-1816) Politician. A Political Review of the Literary and Moral Character of the Late Samuel Johnson (1786)

Croft, Sir Herbert (1751-1816) Author, educated at University College, Oxford.

Dawson, Benjamin, LL.D. (1729-1814) Divine. In later life he turned his attention to English philology and issued a learned prolepsis of a new English diction- nary.

Edwards, Thomas (1699-1757) Critic. Chiefly known by his controversy with Warburton.

Fenning, Daniel (1714/15-1767) Lexicographer. The Royal English Dictionary or Treasury of the English Language (1761)

Fergusson, Robert (1750-1774) Scottish poet, born in Edinburgh.

Garrick, David (1717-1779) Actor. Johnson’s student and friend.

Gilchrist, Octavious Graham (1779-1823) Antiquary, educated at Magdalen College, Oxford.

Gildon, Charles (1665-1724) Miscellaneous writer. His family was Roman catholic.

Graves, Richard (the late Peter of Pontefract 1715- 1804) English minister, poet, and novelist.

Greenwood, James (?-1737) Grammarian. An Essay towards a Practical English Grammar (1711)

Harris, James (1709-1780) Author of Hermes. Johnson seems to have respected his scholarship, but called him ‘a prig and a bad prig.’

Hawkesworth, John (1715?-1773) Upon Garrick’s recommendation in 1771 he was appointed by Lord Sandwich, then first lord of the admiralty.

Hawkins, Sir John, Knt. (1719-1789) Author. Friend of S. Johnson and H. Walpole.

Johnson, Samuel (1709-1784) Author and compiler of A Dictionary of the English Language (1755).

Kenrick, William (1725?-1779) Miscellaneous writer. He translated Rousseau’s Eloisa in 1761, for which he received the degree of LL.D. from University of Aberdeen.

Knox, Vicesimus, M.A. (1752-1821) Miscellaneous writer. Boswell says that he “appears to have the imitari avec of Johnson’s style perpetually in his mind.”

Lappet, Laetitia (?)

Leman, Sir Tanfield (1714-1762) Author of An Historical Deduction of a Government (1748).

Lily, William (1468?-1522) Grammarian, educated at Magdalen College, Oxford.

Lock, John (1632-1704) Philosopher. The first of the British empricists.

Ludwig, Christian (?)

Maclaurin, John (Lord Dreghorn, 1734-1796) Scot- tish judge.

Martin, Benjamin (1705-1782) Mathematician, in- strument maker and general compiler. Lingua Britan- nica Reformata (1749)

Mason, George (1735-1806) Miscellaneous writer, educated at Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

Maxwell, John, M.A. (?)

Mitford, William (1744-1827) Historian, educated at Queen’s College, Oxford.

Monboddo, Lord (James Burnet 1714-1799) Scotch judge, educated at Aberdeen and Edinburgh Univer- sities. Having decided to adopt the bar, he went to the university of Gröningen.

Murphy, Arthur, Esq. (1727-1805) Author and actor. Biographer of S. Johnson.

Murray, Lindley (1745-1826) Eminent grammarian, born in Philadelphia and educated in America. In 1784 he left there and never returned.

Nares, Robert (1753-1829) Philologist, educated at Christ Church, Oxford. General Rules for the Pronun- ciation of the English Language (1792)

Oldmixon, John (1673-1742) Historian and pam- phleteer.

Pegge, Samuel (1733-1800) Antiquary, poet, and musical composer, educated at St. John’s College, Cambridge.

Pickerton, John (1758-1826) Antiquarian, cartogra- pher, author and historian.

Piozzi, Hester Lynch (1741-1821) Friend of S. Johnson. Well read in English literature and author of a synonymous dictionary.

Priestley, Joseph (1733-1804) Theologian and man of science.

Richardson, Charles, Esq. (1775-1865) Ardent philo- logist of the school of Horne Tooke. As a lexicographer, he issued the prospectus of a ‘New English Dictionary’ in 1834.

Richardson, Samuel (1689-1761) Novelist. Pamela was composed between November 1739 to January 1740.

Ritson, Joseph (1752-1803) Antiquary. He zealously studied English literature and history, and especially ballad poetry.

Robertson, Thomas (?)

Rogler, John Bartholomew (?)

Shaw, William (1749-1831) Gaelic scholar. His first work is An Analysis of the Gaelic Language (1778). A portion of the ‘Proposals’ for this work was written by S. Johnson.

Sheridan, Thomas (1719-1788) Actor and ‘orthoepist’. He lectured on elocution with great success. He acquired such an influence with Wedderburn as to persuade him to move the Earl of Bute to bestow a pension upon S. Johnson.

Smith, Adam (1723-1790) Political economist, educated at Glasgow University. Wealth of Nations (1776)

Steel, Sir Richard (1672-1729) Essayist, dramatist, and politician.

Swift, Jonathan (1667-1745) Satirist, essayist, and author of Gulliver’s Travels.

Thomas, N. Drayton (?)

Tooke, John Horne (1736-1812) Politician and philologist. At Calais, he made the acquaintance of T. Sheridan, and at Paris was first introduced to J. Wilkes.

Towers, Joseph (1737-1799) Biographer. A Letter to Dr. Samuel Johnson (1775)

Tyers, Thomas (1726-1787) Author. Great favourtite with Johnson. Johnson has described him as ‘Tom Restless,’ the ‘ambulatory’ student who devoted little time to books, but wandered about for ideas to the coffee-house and debating club. He was in reality a considerable reader.

Walker, John (1732-1807) Actor, philologist, and lexicographer. His work, A Critical Pronouncing Dictio- nary (1791), was long regarded as the statute-book of English orthoepy.

Walters, John (1721-1797) Welsh lexicographer. An English-Welsh Dictionary (in fifteen parts 1770-94)

Watts, Isaac (1674-1748) The first prolific and popular English hymn writer. His work influenced Johnson’s way of definition.

Webster, Noah (1758-1843) American grammarian and compiler of An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828).

Wendeborn, Gebhardt Friedrich August, LL.D. (1715-1769). Translator of A View of England Towards the Close of the Eighteenth Century (1791).

Wilkes, John (1727-1797) English radical, journalist and politician.

Wilkins, John (1614-1672) Bishop of Chester.

Withers, Philip (?-1790) Writer of considerable distinction, educated at Trinity College and Queen’s College, Cambridge.

REFERENCE

Clifford, James L. And Donald J. Greene (1970) Samuel Johnson, A Survey and Bibliography of Critical Studies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Congleton, J. E. and Elizabeth C. Congleton (1984) Johnson’s Dictionary, Bibliographical Survey 1746-1984, With Excepts for all Entries. Terra Heute, Ind.: Dictionary Society of North America.

Davis, Herbert and Louis Landa ed. (1973) A Proposal for Correcting the English Tongue, Polite Conversation etc. IV. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Rypins, Stanley (1925) “Johnson’s Dictionary Reviewed by His Contemporaries,” Philological Quarterly, IV, 283.

Segar, Mary (1931) “Dictionary Making in the Early Eighteenth Century,” Review of English Studies, VII, 211.

Sledd, James H. and Gwin J. Kolb (1955) Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, Essays in the Biography of a Book. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.