THE DICTIONARY
15 April 1755
13. Johnson’s Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language
August 1747
| Johnson’s aspirations as expressed in 1747 were not all to be realized in the finished Dictionary; but the Plan remains a significant critical document as his first extensive statement on lexicography. It was published in the form of a letter to Lord Chesterfield. |
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 is not enough that a dictionary delights the critic, unless at the same time it instructs the learner; as it is to little 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.
[discusses lexicographical problems, including spelling, pronunciation, and etymology.]
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.
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.
[discusses syntax and the definition and classification of words.]
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?1
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:3 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, 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 bewildred, and in the mazes of such 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
14. Foreign notice of the Plan
1747
| The text is a translation of the original printed by J.H.Sledd and G.J.Kolb, Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, Chicago, 1955, 219 n. 132. Evidence of European interest was provided by a flattering notice in the Bibliothèque raisonnée des ouvrages des savans (published in Amsterdam) for July-September 1747, in the section entitled ‘Nouvelles Literaires, De Londres’. |
It is not surprising that few nations have reputable dictionaries of their own language. The task is as laborious as it is unglamorous, and is appropriate for a society rather than an individual. It is to their Academy that the French are indebted for all their dictionaries. Although, till now, a similar institution may have been very desirable in this city, for some time a single individual has been working on a complete dictionary, and he has just published the Plan in a Letter to Lord Chesterfield. This nobleman, accustomed to promoting useful projects and knowing better than anyone else the beauties and the hazards of the English language, has encouraged the author—by the name of Johnson—to undertake his thankless task. The writer expounds in his Letter the method and the rules which he intends to follow. We cannot improve on the discrimination revealed in his survey or the nicety of the details which he offers as examples. His work convinces us that in order to be a good critic one must be a good philosopher. The history of words is inextricably bound up with the history of ideas, and common sense is no less necessary than literary knowledge to study a language in its development and its eccentricities, which often cease to appear so when the causes are unravelled. Mr. Johnson brings to his work everything necessary for success, and even those who have not made a special study of English can profitably read a Letter written with such lucidity and unusual elegance. If the dictionary is characterised by the same qualities, Englishmen will find it a book well worth waiting for.
15. Chesterfield in the World
1754
| Text from the World, Nos. 100–1, 28 November and 5 December, 1754, in 1794 edition, ii. 294–305. In November and December 1754 Lord Chesterfield contributed to the World (a periodical published by Dodsley) two essays ‘puffing’ the forthcoming Dictionary. Despite the postscript to the first, it is likely that Dodsley encouraged Chesterfield to write them. The publication of the essays gave the appearance of active interest on Chesterfield’s part between 1747 and 1754; in fact he had shown none; hence the irritation in Johnson’s famous letter (No. 17). Though the essays were anonymous their authorship was made public when they were reprinted in the Scots Magazine, December 1754 (the Gentleman’s Magazine and the London Magazine also reprinted them in the same month). Read objectively, the first essay is courteous and polished; its final paragraphs—like much of the second essay—are affected and condescending. See Introduction, p. 4. |
(a) 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 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 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 Mr. Johnson, already published, we have good reason to believe that he will bring this as near to perfection as any one 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 of Florence, and some at Paris, had met at each other’s houses to talk over and consider their respective languages: upon which they published some short essays, which essays were the embrios 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. Johnson 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 free-born 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, nor 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, 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 an 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 its way singly by its own weight and merit, under the conduct of those leaders, Shakespear, Bacon, Milton, Locke, Newton, Swift, Pope, Addison, &c. A nobler 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 its 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 its rise and progress to my fair country-women, whose natural turn is more to the copiousness, than to the correction of diction. I would not advise him to be rash enough to proscribe any of those happy redundancies, and luxuriances 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 and 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.
(b) When I intimated in my last paper some distrust of Mr. Johnson’s complaisance to the fair 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 inclined 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 more 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 his comedies. Some inattentive and undiscerning people have, I know, taken it to be a term synonimous with coquetry; but I lay hold of this opportunity to undeceive them, and eventually to inform Mr. Johnson, that flirtation is short of coquetry, and intimates only the first hints of approximation, 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 its 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 word 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 contented with enriching our language by words absolutely new, my fair country-women have gone still farther, and improved it by the application and extension of old ones to various and very 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 its 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 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 snuff-box that was produced in company to be VASTLY pretty, because it was 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 at present two very different orthographies, the PEDANTIC, and the POLITE; the one founded upon certain dry 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 performed by book, than merely by the ear, which may be variously affected by the same sounds. I therefore most earnestly recommend to my fair country-women, 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 innocent letter 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 the 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 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 inoffensive 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. Johnson’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 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 country-women, 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’s1 incomparable concertos; 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.
16. Johnson writes to Thomas Warton
1 February 1755
| Life, i. 278. Johnson informs Warton that the Dictionary is finished. |
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 brother2 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.3 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 Canto4 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 or 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.
17. Johnson’s letter to Chesterfield
7 February 1755
| Life, i. 261–3. Johnson refused to allow Chesterfield the seeming responsibility for his growing prominence in the literary world (see No. 15). The letter is a brilliant display of controlled venom; but by implication it is also an unequivocal declaration by a professional writer of his allegiance to the reading public. Any hint of patronage was offensive to Johnson. The letter, though known at once to ‘the town’, was not published until Boswell issued it in pamphlet form in 1790; it sold for half a guinea. |
February 7, 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 publick, 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;1 —that I might obtain that regard for
which I saw the world contending; but I found my attendance so little encouraged, that neither pride nor modesty would suffer me to continue it. When I had once addressed your Lordship in publick, 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 room, 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 Virgil2 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 cynical asperity not to confess obligations where no benefit has been received, or to be unwilling that the Publick 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 exaltation,
My Lord,
Your Lordship’s most humble,
Most obedient servant,
Sam. Johnson.
18. Johnson’s Preface
1755
| Text from the version corrected by Johnson for the fourth edition, 1773. Johnson explains and justifies his lexicographical procedures; gives a view of the scope of his achievement; and while asserting his claim to distinction, frankly confesses the shortcomings of his Dictionary. Subsequently critics often censured him for defects he had already admitted. See Introduction, p. 24. |
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.
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 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 recompense has been yet granted to very few.
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.
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.
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.
[discusses orthography.]
In this part of the work [orthography], 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 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.1 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.
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.2 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.
[on his etymological procedure.]
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.
[on his principles of selection in the word-list.]
Many words yet stand supported only by the name of Bailey, Ainsworth, Philips,3 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.
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.
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….
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;4 and Aristotle doubts whether 
in the Iliad, signifies a mule, or muleteer, I may surely, without shame, leave some obscurities to happier industry…
[the difficulties posed by definition.]
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.
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, to gladden, or exhilarate, that every learner of English may be assisted by his own tongue.
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.
When I first 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.
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.
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.
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.
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,5 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 groundwork 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.
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 translations 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.
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 observed.
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.
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, 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.
When words are used equivocally, I receive them in either sense; when they are metaphorical, I adopt them in their primitive acceptation.
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.
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.
Thus have I laboured by settling the orthography, displaying the analogy, regulating the structures, and 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.
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.
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.
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, with 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.
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 ended, though not completed.
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.
[Johnson reluctantly admits the inability of a lexicographer to ‘fix our language’ and prevent ‘those alterations which time and chance’ inevitably effect. He surveys the causes of change.]
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 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.
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, 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.
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;6 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.
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 inconveniences and distraction, in sickness and in 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;7 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 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.
19. Adam Smith, unsigned review Edinburgh Review
May 1755, i, 61–73
| The anonymous reviewer of the Dictionary in the Edinburgh was Adam Smith (1723–90), then Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow (where Boswell heard him lecture in 1759). The review was reprinted in the Scots Magazine, November 1755; in abbreviated form, as an addendum to Adelung’s essay (No. 21) in 1798; in the European Magazine, 1802; as well as in Smith’s Works, 1811. See Introduction, pp. 4, 24. |
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 believe, are to be found in the dictionary that ever 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 more 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. 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.
[Smith selects ‘but’ and ‘humour’ as his examples.]
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 the 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 judgments ill-founded; but if a work of this nature be much in use, it has received the sanction of the public approbation.
20. Horne Tooke’s Diversions of Purley
1786
| Text from Diversions, ed. R.Taylor, 1829, i. 211–12. John Horne Tooke (1736–1812) —‘one of the most systematically frantic etymologists who ever lived’ (Sledd and Kolb, Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary, 183) —had nothing favourable to say about Johnson’s work. His political radicalism, support for Wilkes, and sympathy for the American colonies sharpened his antagonism to Johnson. The following extract (from the chapter on conjunctions) includes a characteristically contemptuous reference, together with a dismissive footnote (later quoted by Webster, No. 22). See Introduction, pp. 4, 24. |
LEST.
Junius1 only says— ‘LEST, least, minimus, v. little.’ Under Least, he says— ‘LEAST, lest, minimus. Contractum est ex 
v. little, parvus.’ And under Little, to which he refers us, there is nothing to the purpose.
Skinner2 says— ‘LEST, ab A.S.Læs, minus, q.d. quo minus hoc fiat.’
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 reasoner 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 presentiment 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.
21. A German view of the Dictionary
1798
| Text from Three Philological Essays, 1798, clxix-clxxxii. A German lexicographer who pronounced with unusual authority on the Dictionary was Johann Christoph Adelung (1732–1806). The full title in English of his Neues Grammatisch-kritischen Wörterbuch der Englischen, Leipzig, 1783–96, reads: ‘New grammatical-critical dictionary of the English language for Germans; principally from the great English work of Mr. Samuel Johnson, designed according to his fourth edition and enlarged with many entries, definitions and examples’. Adelung’s Three Philological Essays, translated by A.F.M.Willich, appeared in London in 1798; the third essay is entitled ‘On the relative merits and demerits of Johnson’s English Dictionary’. It is printed here almost entire. See Introduction, pp. 5, 24–5. |
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 abridgment 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 the 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, ‘that he found it impossible to frequent the workshops of mechanics, the mines, magazines, ship-yards, &c. in order to inquire into the different terms and phrases, which are peculiar to these pursuits.’ 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.
It will be admitted, that a dictionary of a language ought to possess the greatest possible degree of completeness, particularly with respect to names and technical terms, which are more rarely employed in common language, and the meaning of which cannot be conjectured from the context. As such words frequently become an object of research, I have found myself under the disagreeable necessity of filling up these chasms as far as my time, my plan, and my source of information would admit. Thus I have increased the stock of words, occurring in Johnson’s and other English Dictionaries of distinguished merit, with a great number (perhaps several thousands) of words which were wanting; especially such as concern the objects of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, of the English constitution, and of various other departments. With regard to the laws, manners, and customs of England, I have availed myself of the well known work of Entick.1
The proper names of countries, places, and persons, when deviating from the genuine orthography, I have likewise more correctly stated, and added such as have been omitted in Johnson’s and other dictionaries.
For the improvement of terms in social language, I am much indebted to Boyer’s English and French Dictionary.2 But as I had, in this respect, placed more confidence in Johnson than I could justify after a careful examination of his work; and as, on this account, I did not bestow the portion of time requisite to a close comparison with other Dictionaries, I readily confess, that there remains much to be done yet, especially with the assistance of the latest English productions in the department of Belles Lettres. For, in latter times, the English language appears to have undergone the same changes as the French and German.
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, Spenser, &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; an 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,
[on accentuation in the English language.]
In the remaining part of grammatical determinations of words, I have followed Johnson as my guide, and carefully distinguished the neuter from the active form of verbs: though, in a few instances, I have been induced to differ from him, when he had mistaken the neutral use of an active verb for a neuter verb.
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 cases 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 derivations 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 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 was unacquainted with the German and other languages related to it….
V. To ascertain the principal and peculiar signification of a word, from which the others, if there be 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 inquiries. On this account, we can form no great expectations, and we must be satisfied with his classification of the different meanings of words, so as they in every instance appeared to him most proper. His want of knowledge in etymology, however, is attended with this advantage, that it has guarded him against a thousand follies, to which the pseudo-etymologists, of all languages and climates, are very liable.
[briefly censures Johnson for being unnecessarily ‘liberal with a variety of significations’ of words.]
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 disadvantage of this practice. There are no words completely synonymous in any language; nor 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. I am sensible, that in this manner the idea of a word cannot be exhausted, nor is it possible to point out this idea with all its shades and subtle modifications. I further admit, that this developement of the idea is not in all instances practicable; since the meaning of a word, in many cases, is so obscure that it cannot be made perspicuous. Yet, at the same time, where this expedient is applicable, it affords the most certain method of exhibiting a competent notion of every word and its significations; while it serves to promote a clear and just knowledge of things in general. This, therefore, is one of the most important advantages of Johnson’s Dictionary: for the author possessed a very happy talent of displaying the idea of a word in a concise, intelligible, and pertinent manner. In this respect, I have throughout followed him as my guide, except where I was obliged to contract the significations of words, which he had unnecessarily accumulated, and consequently to search for an appropriate and more comprehensive idea.
Johnson has not avoided the common error of lexicographers, who have either neglected to state 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.
[Adelung has corrected this defect in his German dictionary.]
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 greater 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, and 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 word. 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.
[concludes by discussing problems facing the compiler of an English-German dictionary.]
22. An American view of the Dictionary
1807
| The Letter to Dr. David Ramsay, New Haven, 1807, by the American lexicographer, Noah Webster (1758–1843). See Introduction, pp. 4, 25. |
Sir,
I received, a few days past, your favor of June 20th, in which you inform me that the ‘prejudices against any American attempts to improve Dr. Johnson, are very strong in that city.’ This intelligence is not wholly unexpected; for similar prejudices have been manifested in some parts of the northern states. A man who has read with slight attention the history of nations, in their advances from barbarism to civilization and science, cannot be surprised at the strength of prejudices long established, and never disturbed. Few centuries have elapsed, since many men lost their lives or their liberty, by publishing NEW TRUTHS; and not two centuries have past, since Galileo was imprisoned by an ecclesiastical court, for defending the truth of the Copernican System, condemned to do penance for three years, and his book burnt at Rome, as containing dangerous and damnable heresies. This example is cited as one of a multitude which the history of man presents to our view; and if it differs in degree, it accords in principle, with the case now before the American public.
Philology, as it respects the origin and history of words, and the principles of construction in sentences, is, at this moment, in a condition somewhat similar to that of astronomy under the system of Tycho Brahe, with the solar system revolving round this terrestrial ball. And if gentlemen, who never suspected the weakness of the principles which they have been taught in their schools, should be alarmed at the suggestion, and utter a few anathemas against the discoverers, it should be remembered that evidence will gradually undermine their prejudices, and demolish the whole system of error. Imprisonment and death are no longer the penalties inflicted on the publishers of truth; and the man who is deterred by opposition and calumny, from attacking what he knows to be fundamentally wrong, is no soldier in the field of literary combat.
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.1 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. 1, p. 182.
[quotes ‘Johnson’s merit ought not…deserve success.’2]
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 writings 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 desperavimus, studium cum spe senescit.’ Velleius Paterculus. lib. 1. 17.3
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 parts of the island at the time, and evidently long before Caesar invaded the country. Equally erroneous is his assertion that 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 from Wallis’ Grammar,4 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 Phillips5 —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, advesperate, adjugate, agriculation, abstrude, injudicable, epicosity, 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.6 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 employ-
ment; 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 portion 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 favorite; 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 of 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 taste:
The effects of their activity are not precipitously abrupted, but gradually proceed to their cessations.
Authors are also suspicious, nor greedily to be swallowed, who write of secrets, to deliver antipathies, sympathies, and the occult abstrusities of things.
The intire or broken compagination of the magnetical fabric.
Some have written rhetorically and concessively, not controverting, but assuming the question, which, taken as granted, advantaged the illation.
Its fluctuations are but motions subservient, which winds, shelves, and every interjacency irregulates.
Separated by the voice of God, things in their species come out in uncommunicated varieties and inrelative seminalities.
See Johnson’s Dictionary, under the words in Italics.
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 ever 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,7 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 from 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, ariolation, assation, ataraxy, clancular, comminuible, conclusible, dedentition, deuteroscopy, digladiation, dignotion, cubiculary, discubitory, exolution, exenterate, incompossible, incompossibility, indigitate, &c. 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 number.
The evils resulting from this injudicious selection of words are not limited to the sphere of Johnson’s work; had this been the case, the increased bulk of the book, by the insertion of useless words, would, in a degree, have been a remedy for the evils, by circumscribing its sale and use. But most of these words are transcribed into all the later compilations
—Ash, Walker, Sheridan, &c. and even the pocket Dictionaries are swelled in size by a multitude of unused and barbarous words. Nor does the evil rest here; some terms are copied into the dictionaries of foreign languages; and a German or a Spaniard who is learning English, must suppose all these terms to be really a part of our language; he will of course learn them as such, and introduce them into his discourse and writings, until corrected by a familiar acquaintance with the language now spoken. Johnson’s Dictionary therefore furnishes no standard of correct English: but in its present form, tends very much to corrupt and pervert the language.
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 fishify, jackalent, parma-citty, jiggumbob, conjobble, foutra, &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 Johnsonian presses, against the wretch who could thus sully his book and corrupt the language. But Shakespeare and Butler need 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 his 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 chastize 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. —See a similar error under the word obelisk, which, in its character as a reference, the author defines to be a ‘mark of censure in the margin of a book’ —evidently because, Grew, in the passage cited for illustration, used it in that sense. But certainly an obelisk is as often used, as a reference to things indifferent or worthy of praise, as to things worthy of censure. Let the following definitions be noted:
Industrious.
1. Diligent, laborious, assiduous, opposed to slothful. ‘Frugal and industrious men are commonly friendly to the established government.’ Temple.
2. Laborious to a particular end; opposite to remiss. ‘He himself being excellently learned, and industrious to seek out the truth of all things concerning the original of his own people, hath set down the testimony of the ancients truly.’ Spenser.
‘Let our just censures
Attend the true event, and put we on
Industrious soldiership.’ Shakespeare.
‘His thoughts were low:
To vice industrious; but to nobler deeds,
Timorous and slothful.’ Milton.
3. Designed; done for the purpose.
‘The industrious perforation of the tendons of the second joints of fingers and toes, draw the tendons of the third joints through.’ More.
‘Observe carefully all the events which happen either by an occasional occurrence of various causes, or by the industrious application of knowing men.’ Watts.
It may be questioned whether the second definition of industrious, above recited, is necessary, as distinct from the first. What difference is there in the sense of the word, whether it marks a habit of application to one object or to twenty? If any distinction should be thought necessary, it should rather be noted under the first head in the following manner:— ‘Diligent, laborious, assiduous; denoting a habit of diligent application to business in general, or to a particular object.’ —This however is not very material.
But in the third definition, the author has evidently mistaken the use of the term. The ‘industrious perforation of tendons,’ does not signify an industry, designed or for a particular purpose, any more than in every other case. The word industrious is used to denote a perforation made with industry, that is, with diligence and care—the epithet being applied to the effect instead of the cause. So also the industrious application of knowing men, in the passage from Watts, means their application bestowed with diligence. The industry of men is always directed to some object, and generally to one object at a time; but this particular or general application requires no distinction of definition. Indeed, upon this system of explanation, the application of a word to any and every purpose would require a separate definition. Probably one fourth of Johnson’s definitions are of this kind—serving not only to swell the size of the book, without use, but rather to embarrass and mislead the student, than to enlighten him.
[further examples of inadequate definitions follow.]
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.
‘Fraud’, says the author, is ‘Deceit; cheat; trick; artifice; subtilty; stratagem.’ But a man may use tricks, artifice, subtilty and stratagems, in a thousand ways without fraud; and he may be deceived, without being defrauded. Johnson has defined the word in the loose sense which fraud had in Latin, without discriminating between that, and the strict technical sense which is most frequent in our language.
‘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….
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 Glanvil, 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 Shakspeare, as Johnson has quoted his works more frequently than any other, and relies much on his authority. Shakespeare was a man of little learning; and altho, when he wrote the popular language of his day, his use of words was tolerably correct, yet whenever he attempted a style beyond that, he often fell into the grossest improprieties. Thus he speaks of the insisture of the heavens and the planets—cords too intrinsecate—to patient a person—a pelting river and pelting farm—to sanctuarise murder—sightless stains for offensive stains—the sternage of a navy—compunctious visitings of nature—a combinate husband—of convertite—conspectuity and corresponsive, &c. barbarisms which every correct ear instantly condemns—and for which he certainly could plead no authority, even in the pedantic age in which he lived. Some of them perhaps may be ascribed to a license of writing which he thought justifiable—but more of them, to his want of erudition. Whatever admiration the world may bestow on the Genius of Shakspeare his language is full of errors, and ought not to be offered as a model for imitation.
The other objection to Johnson’s quotations, is, that a great part of them throw no light on his definitions; indeed a great part of English words require no illustration. Take the following examples:
Alley—a walk in a garden.
‘And all within were walks and alleys wide,
With footing worn, and leading inward far.’ Spenser.
‘Where alleys are close gravelled, the earth putteth forth the first year knot grass and after, spire grass.’ Bacon.
‘…Yonder alleys green
Our walk at noon, with branches overgrown.’ Milton.
‘Come to my fair love, our morning’s task we lose;
Some labor, even the easiest life would choose;
Ours is not great, the dangling boughs to crop,
Whose too luxuriant growth our alleys stop.’ Dryden.
‘The thriving plants, ignoble broomsticks made,
Now sweep those alleys they were born to shade.’ Pope.
Now, let me inquire, is any man, after reading all these passages, better acquainted with the meaning of alley? Do the passages throw the smallest light on the definition? Certainly they do not. The quotations serve no purpose but to show that Spenser, Bacon, Milton, Dryden and Pope used the word alley for a walk in a garden. And what then? Does any reader of English want all these authorities to show the word to be legitimate? Far from it. Nineteen twentieths of all our words are so common, that they require no proof at all of legitimacy. Yet the example here given is by no means the most exceptionable for the number of authorities cited. The author sometimes offers thirty or forty lines to illustrate words which every man, woman and child understands as well as Johnson. Thirty-five lines of exemplification under the word froth, for example, are just as useless in explaining the word, as would be the same number of lines from the language of the six nations.
‘Finger,’ says Johnson, ‘is the flexible member of the hand by which men catch and hold.’ —Now to prove this he cites passages from six authors.
‘The fingers and thumb in each hand consist of fifteen bones—there being three to each finger.’ Quincy.
‘…You seem to understand me,
By each at once her choppy finger laying
Upon her skinny lips.’ Shakespeare.
‘Diogenes, who is never said
For aught that ever I could read
To whine, put fingers in the eye and sob,
Because he had never another tub.’ Hudibras.
‘The hand is divided into four fingers bending forward, and one opposite to them bending backwards, and of greater strength than any of them singly, which we call the thumb, to join with them severally or united; whereby it is fitted to lay hold of objects of any size or quantity.’ Ray.
‘A hand of vast extension, and a prodigious number of fingers playing upon all the organ pipes of the world, and making every one sound a particular note.’ Keil.
‘Poor Peg sewed, spun, and knit for a livelihood, till her fingers’ ends were sore.’ Arbuthnot.
Here we arrive at the end of the author’s exemplification of this sense of finger—and except a little anatomical knowledge from Quincy and Ray, what have we learnt from these long quotations? Why, surely nothing—except what we all knew before, that English authors have used the word finger just as the word is now used.
One half of the whole bulk of Johnson’s Dictionary is composed of quotations equally useless. One half of all the money that has been paid for the book, and which, in fifty years, must have been a very great amount, has been taken from the purchasers for what is entirely useless. Whether this mode of constructing the work was intended for the benefit of the compiler, or whether it was a speculation of the booksellers, as Mr. Tooke has suggested, is hardly worth an inquiry—but I am confident in the assertion, that the superfluous size of the work operates as one of the grossest impositions ever practiced on the public. Ainsworth’s illustrations of Latin words, which are, beyond comparison, the most judicious in plan and execution, are comprised in less than one third of the compass.
7. The last defect in Johnson’s Dictionary, which I shall notice, is the inaccuracy of the etymologies. As this has been generally considered as the least important part of a Dictionary, the subject has been little investigated, and is very imperfectly understood, even by men of science. —Johnson scarcely entered the threshold of the subject. He consulted chiefly Junius and Skinner;8 the latter of whom was not possessed of learning adequate to the investigation—and Junius, like Vossius, Scaliger9 and most other etymologists on the continent, labored to deduce all languages from the Greek. Hence these authors neglected the principal sources of information, which were to be found only in the north of Europe, and in the west of Ireland and Scotland. In another particular, they all failed of success—they never discovered some of the principal modes in which the primitive radical words were combined to form the more modern compounds. On this subject therefore almost every thing remains to be done.
To give very numerous examples of Johnson’s errors in etymology would exceed the limits prescribed to these remarks. Two or three examples must serve as specimens of the general tenor of his work.
‘School’, Johnson deduces from the Latin schola—French école. He then gives for definitions—1st. A house of discipline and instruction. 2. a place of literary education; a university. 3. a state of instruction. 4. system of doctrine as delivered by particular teachers. 5. the age of the church and form of theology succeeding that of the fathers. Here the author first mistakes the origin of the word, and omits wholly the primary sense, and that which is still its principal sense.
School is of Teutonic origin, scole, scolu, denoting a multitude or great number collected. We have the original sense in a school of fish; which has been corrupted, by blundering writers, into shoal or shole. From this root the Romans had their schola, and not from the Greek scholé, otium, as Ainsworth supposes. Hence the first and principal sense of the word, which Johnson has overlooked, is a number of persons collected for the purpose of receiving instruction. The persons thus assembled constitute the school. The other senses are derivative.
Side Johnson deduces from side, Saxon—sijde, Dutch; but what the word originally expressed, he does not inform us; then beginning his definitions with ‘the part of animals fortified by ribs’ —he proceeds through eight senses of the word, without ever glancing at the original and most important idea which it was intended to express.
Side is from the Saxon, sid, broad, wide—the original idea is, that side is the broad part of a thing, opposed to the ends or narrow part. In the
same manner, the Latins took their latus, side, from latus, broad. From this sense, are easily deduced all the uses of the word—tho in some instances, its uses have deviated from the primitive sense.
From not understanding the radical terms, it has happened that Johnson, like all other lexicographers, has often, not to say generally, begun his definitions at the wrong end—beginning with a remote, collateral or figurative sense, and placing the original meaning the very last in order. Ainsworth’s Latin Dictionary, the best specimen of Lexicography extant, is liable to the same objection; and from the same cause, a want of etymological knowledge.
As this subject involves so large a portion of errors, that I hardly know where to begin or what to select, from the mass of mistakes and imperfections, I shall not pursue the attempt to notice Johnson’s errors; but to enable the reader more easily to comprehend the uses of a correct deduction of words from their originals, and to see the miserable state of this species of learning in Europe, as well as in this country, I will present an example of real etymology; having first stated the opinion of the standard authors.
‘Censeo,’ says Vossius, ‘cum varie sumatur, et difficile dictu sit, quae notio sit princeps, difficile est enim indicare quam originem habeat.’10 After stating the difficulty of arriving at the primitive idea and the origin of the word, he proceeds in his usual manner, to offer the conjectures of learned men. He mentions the Hebrew, ks, to count or number, as one of the words from which authors have deduced it. And Parkhurst11 actually deduces the word from this Hebrew root, inserting n, to make out the orthography. Vossius labors through half a column with his conjectures, and leaves the word where he found it. Ainsworth says nothing on the subject.
‘King,’ says Johnson, ‘is a contraction of the Teutonic cuning or cyning, which signified stout or valiant.’ Can, con and ken the same author refers to the Teutonic verb, cunnan, to know—and there he leaves us.
But all these difficulties vanish, when we recur to the primitive Celtic, in which language kcan, ccan, chean or ken signified the head, as it still does in the Irish and Erse. The word being gutturally pronounced, modern authors write it with a different initial consonant; but this creates no difficulty.
From this term, denoting the head of the human body, were formed
the Gothic kunnan and the Saxon cunnan—to know—this operation of the mind being supposed to be seated in the head. Hence our modern con and ken, both having primarily the same idea. Hence our modern can which is only a dialectical variation of con and ken, and originally signified to know—its modern application to express physical power, rather than intellectual, is of a recent date—and the transition is easy from know—to, know to do—and thence, to be able to do….
These examples will show what etymology is, in the books now published, and what I intend it shall be in my proposed work. I can affirm that nearly one half of what is called etymology in Vossius, Junius, Skinner, Johnson and Ainsworth, consists of groundless conjectures, or in statements that throw not a ray of light on the subject.
The errors of Johnson’s Dictionary have been the subject of much complaint in Great Britain….
I can assure these gentlemen [Mason and Croft] and the American public that the errors in Johnson’s Dictionary are ten times as numerous as they suppose; and that the confidence now reposed in its accuracy, is the greatest injury to philology that now exists. I can assure them further that if any man, whatever may be his abilities in other respects, should attempt to compile a new Dictionary, or amend Johnson’s, without a profound knowledge of etymology, he will unquestionably do as much harm as good.
If this representation of the imperfections of Johnson’s Dictionary is just, it may be asked, what are the excellencies in the work to which it owes its reputation? To this inquiry the answer is obvious: Dr. Johnson has given many definitions of words which his predecessors had omitted, and added illustrations which, in many instances, are very valuable. These real improvements could not fail to be duly appreciated; while the display of erudition in numerous extracts from English writers, concurring with the reputation which the author derived from his other writings, have led the public to repose an undue confidence in his opinions. —This is probably the sense in which we are to understand Mr. H.Tooke, in the passage cited, in which he declares that the portion of merit which the Dictionary possesses, renders it the more dangerous. Indeed, in any branch of literature, nothing is so dangerous as the errors of a great man.
But the great advances in Philology which have been made in Europe, within the last twenty years, enable us to disabuse ourselves of these prepossessions. And I am firmly persuaded that, whatever prejudices my fellow citizens now entertain, they will be satisfied, at a period not very remote, that this subject is far better understood now, than it was in the age of Dr. Johnson….
[refers to the need for an American dictionary and the minimal interest shown in it by his countrymen.]
But I must put an end to these remarks, for a volume would not contain the truths that I might unfold on this subject. Let me only add, what I am prepared, by a minute examination of this subject, to affirm, that not a single page of Johnson’s Dictionary is correct—every page requires amendments or admits of material improvement. This remark, with some abatement, is true also of the Greek and Latin Dictionaries now used in our seminaries of learning.
Our Grammars are equally defective and erroneous. Most of the principles of construction in our language are established, so as to admit of no controversy. But of the doubtful points, which a critical knowledge of the history of our language is required to adjust, not half of them have been correctly settled by Lowth12 and his followers: and I have no hesitation in affirming, that the grammars now taught in our schools, introduce more errors than they correct. Neither Lowth nor Johnson understood the Saxon or Primitive English, without which no man can compile a real English Grammar.
The discoveries of Mr. H.Tooke, as Darwin has remarked, unfold, at a single flash, the true theory of language which had lain, for ages, buried beneath the learned lumber of the schools. That author, however, has left the investigation incomplete. I shall pursue it with zeal—and undoubtedly with success.
Accept my respects,
N.WEBSTER.
NEW HAVEN, OCT. 1807.