A Dictionary of the English Language: An Anthology

by Samuel Johnson, David Crystal (Introduction)

Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, published in 1755, marked a milestone in a language in desperate need of standards. No English dictionary before it had devoted so much space to everyday words, been so thorough in its definitions, or illustrated usage by quoting from Shakespeare and other great writers. Johnson's was the dictionary used by Jane Austen and Charles Dickens, Wordsworth and Coleridge, the Brontës and the Brownings, Thomas Hardy and Oscar Wilde. This new edition, edited by David Crystal, will contain a selection from the original, offering memorable passages on subjects ranging from books and critics to dreams and ethics.

Genres: Reference, Classics, Nonfiction, 18th Century, Language, Linguistics, Writing

704 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1755

About the author

People note British writer and lexicographer Samuel Johnson, known as "Doctor Johnson," for his Dictionary of the English Language (1755), for Lives of the Poets (1781), and for his series of essays, published under the titles The Rambler (1752) and The Idler (1758).

Samuel Johnson used the first consistent Universal Etymological English Dictionary , first published in 1721, of British lexicographer Nathan Bailey as a reference.

Beginning as a journalist on Grub street, this English author made lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist, moralist, novelist, literary critic, biographer, and editor. People described Johnson as "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history." James Boswell subjected him to Life of Samuel Johnson , one of the most celebrated biographies in English. This biography alongside other biographies, documented behavior and mannerisms of Johnson in such detail that they informed the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS), a condition unknown to 18th-century physicians. He presented a tall and robust figure, but his odd gestures and tics confused some persons on their first encounters.

Johnson attended Pembroke college, Oxford for a year before his lack of funds compelled him to leave. After working as a teacher, he moved to London, where he began to write essays for The Gentleman's Magazine. His early works include the biography The Life of Richard Savage and the poem " The Vanity of Human Wishes ." Christian morality permeated works of Johnson, a devout and compassionate man. He, a conservative Anglican, nevertheless respected persons of other denominations that demonstrated a commitment to teachings of Christ.

After nine years of work, people in 1755 published his preeminent Dictionary of the English Language, bringing him popularity and success until the completion of the Oxford English Dictionary in 1905, a century and a half later. In the following years, he published essays, an influential annotated edition of plays of William Shakespeare, and the well-read novel Rasselas . In 1763, he befriended James Boswell, with whom he later travelled to Scotland; A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland , travel narrative of Johnson, described the journey. Towards the end of his life, he produced the massive and influential Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets , which includes biographies and evaluations of 17th- and 18th-century poets.

After a series of illnesses, Johnson died on the evening; people buried his body in Westminster abbey. In the years following death, people began to recognize a lasting effect of Samuel Johnson on literary criticism even as the only great critic of English literature.

Reviews

[Roy Lotz · Rating 4 out of 5]

LEXICOGRAPHER: A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words.

A dictionary is a marvelous thing. I discovered this during my first year in college, when I was finally asked to do some challenging reading (and when I finally decided to start doing the assigned readings). It was with some shame that I admitted to myself, after a few weeks, that I often came across a word I did not understand. Indeed, this happened with such frequency that I finally resolved to underline all of the words I could not confidently define, and then look them up. But even this didn’t seem like enough. By the time I encountered the troublesome word again, its definition would be forgotten. Thus the “Word Project” was born.

To forcibly expand my pitiful lexicon, I resolved that I would write out the definition of every unfamiliar word in the back of a marble notebook. Then, to reinforce the definition, I would flip to the front of the notebook and use the word in a sentence. Astoundingly, I actually followed through with this resolution, and carried on the habit for years—filling up two whole marble notebooks in the process, comprising thousands of words, definitions, and sentences. I even filled up the margins with lists of synonyms. (I cannot help feeling that I have gotten much lazier with time. Could I be so disciplined now?)

A few examples from the first page include: inculcate, surfeit, equivocal, corroborate, and depredation. By the time I got to the second notebook, the words were more exotic: jactitation (the restless turning of the body in illness), imago (the unconscious idealized mental image of someone), and ontogenesis (which I’ll let you look up). But I find the lists of synonyms, or near-synonyms, more interesting now. For example: petulant, peevish, tetchy, crotchety, fractious. Or: effrontery, impudence, impertinence, insolence. I could go on—synonyms are wonderful fun, at least for writers—but I shall resist.

The project was a success. My vocabulary improved markedly, to the point when I so rarely came across an unfamiliar word that I stopped bothering to write them down. (It does still happen from time to time, though.) However, my loftier goals were unrealized. You see, I had hoped that, by expanding my vocabulary, I might even make myself noticeably more intelligent. A mind with more words to express itself must, I theorized, think more efficiently. Unfortunately, that theory did not seem to hold water (half the time I don’t think in words, anyway), and my mental acuity remained unchanged. I also thought that such a project might improve my writing. And though I do think I am, at least, more sensitive to language as a result of the project, I normally prefer to use simpler words, anyway.

Even so, in retrospect the “Word Project” was one of the greatest things I ever did for my own education. The definitions of these abstruse words were, for me, a kind of key to the wider world of knowledge and literature. I would never have developed my love of books had I constantly been scratching my head at unfamiliar words. So I have a keen appreciation for any “harmless drudge” who chooses to write a dictionary. Lexicographers do the world a great service.

This volume is, of course, not a book one can use as a standard dictionary. David Crystal has edited the 2,300 pages of dense text into something more manageable, by selecting for those passages that the modern writer might find most curious. Included are words that are now obsolete, words whose meanings have significantly changed, and words with especially pleasurable definitions.

As an example of the latter, fun is defined as “sport, high merriment, frolicksome delight.” And to flatter is “to sooth with praises; to praise with blandishments; to gratify by servile obsequiousness.” As you can see, Johnson has a tendency to pleonasm in his definitions. He is also fond of expressing his opinion of a given word, in a way that no modern dictionary would. “Fun,” for example, is “a low cant word,” and many terms are dismissed as “barbarous.”

Some words have changed in surprising ways. Johnson defines punk as “a whore; a common prostitute; a strumpet,” and punctuation as “the act or method of pointing.” Yet the most delightful entries are perhaps those words which are no longer used. Often one feels that it is a shame it should be so. What is wrong with smellfeast (“one who haunts tables”), fopdoodle (“an insignificant wretch”), and mouth-friend (“one who professes friendship without intending it”)?

If nothing else, it is worth reading this anthology to fully admire Samuel Johnson’s genius and industry. Virtually nobody nowadays would undertake to write a dictionary single-handedly. And such a task would be so massive—running the gamut from scientific jargon to recent slang—that it is difficult to image anyone succeeding. That Johnson did succeed is, more than any other of his accomplishments, the reason he was so widely venerated during his lifetime. (His contemporaries more often referred to him as “Dictionary Johnson” rather than “Dr.”)

And even if his dictionary is hopelessly outdated now, it still can serve as a model of strong writing. Johnson’s definitions are a pleasure to read through—punchy, pugnacious, and punctilious—and each one is accompanied by at least one (often many more) quotation from well-respected authors. This way, the reader’s mind is expanded while her taste is refined. An elegant idea, at least. Yet if I wish to accomplish anything in this review, it is not to praise Johnson’s Dictionary—worthy though it is of praise—but to exhort you to pause, every so often, and ask yourself whether you really know what a word means. A trip to a dictionary can open up new realms of reality.

[L · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yes I read a dictionary....

But this dictionary is far more than what you will find in Webster, Oxford or Collins, for many reasons. I will outline three below.
The first is because Johnson's dictionary was the first attempt at a comprehensive dictionary, and therefore a modern reader can see the developments of the language in it. Words commonly used in the 1700s are outdated or non-existent in modern languages, and equally words that were outdated then are used often now. These small insights add up and alone create a wonderful linguistic experience.

The second, and honestly more interesting reason, is that Johnson employs great writers of the past for examples of words in context. There are quotes from Shakespeare, Pope, Dryden and more, and a reader can enjoy perusing these quotes while becoming somewhat familiar with their styles. At this point I feel comfortable approaching these older writers as I've had a sample of what they offer.

The third point is that Johnson is simply witty, and that alone can make a dictionary interesting to read. Humour comes through in the short descriptions, and often in unexpected places, though they keep this dictionary interesting.

As a final note do not attempt to read this like a normal book, as you will be either bored stiff or outright tired by the time you finish the letter A. Skim, jump in and out, try to find funny words and you will have a great time.

[sigurd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Qualche tempo fa un bambino inventò un termine che propose all'accademia della Crusca, il termine era petaloso, e fu ritenuto valido. non so se è petaloso sia stato inserito nei dizionari moderni. avrebbe avuto il plauso di Samuel Johnson. La cosa invece ha sorpreso me, perché le accademie in Italia sorsero non per accettare nuove parole, ma per selezionare le migliori e mantenerle. Poche parole, ma buone. Infatti nei primi dizionari non esistevano parole tecniche o gergali. Il compito della Crusca era di mettere un freno alla lingua, era di stabilire definitivamente il lessico. (Mi è sempre stata sul cazzo la Crusca). Anche se Johnson ricevette l'incarico da alcuni librai di redigere un dizionario, non credeva che la lingua si potesse stabilire in modo definitivo. la lingua, scrisse, non era opera di sapienti, ma di pescatori, di gente umile. la lingua viene fatta dal caso, e l'abitudine crea una norma che è corretta se viene adoperata da un canone di scrittori, che per Johnson andavano da Philip Sydney a Ben Jonson o giù di lì. dopo la Restaurazione infatti lo scrivere in inglese venne contaminato da gallicismi, e a Samuel Johnson, che era un profondo nazionalista, questo non stava bene. E' celebre la sua battuta, molto caustica, sui francesi: avrebbe completato da solo il dizionario in 3 anni mentre alla accademia francese erano serviti almeno quaranta persone in un tempo di quaranta anni per fare un dizionario francese. Se quaranta per quaranta faceva milleseicento, la proporzione era di tre inglesi contro milleseicento francesi. La proporzione era molto giusta, disse Samuel Johnson.
#franciamerda
#ridatecelagioconda
#germania2006

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this cover to cover. Then report back: let me know if you're game to Doc-Johnsonize Wikipedia entries. We need more wit in our dicts.

[Meg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and quite witty in places. I was lucky enough to get an eighteenth century one volume copy (in poor condition) at a local flea market, and I love the sense of history you get from reading something genuinely over 200 years old.

Some of the entries:-

báckfriend n.s. [from back and friend.] A friend backwards; that is, an enemy in secret.

cóffeehouse n.s. [coffee and house.] A house of entertainment where coffee is sold, and the guests are supplied with news papers.

enthúsiasm n.s. [ενθουσιασμος.]
1. A vain belief of private revelation; a vain confidence of divine favour or communication.

Excise: A hateful tax levied upon commodities, and adjudged not by the common judges of property, but wretches hired by those to whom excise is paid.

Kickshaw: A dish so changed by the cookery that it can scarcely be known.

Lexicographer: A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words.

To worm: To deprive a dog of something, nobody knows what, under his tongue, which is said to prevent him, nobody knows why, from running mad.

[Richard · Rating 5 out of 5]

No, I have certainly not read this anthology from cover to,cover. But then it is a book to be browsed and it certainly can give great enjoyment.
First, Johnson was a great scholar, perhaps the greatest in the 18th century and his enormous knowledge of the language is astounding. His use of written examples of a word’s usage shows a breadth of reading and the extracts are very well chosen.

Of course many of the words Johnson regards as current are now obsolete such as “arietate” which means “to butt heads together”. This isn’t even in the Merriam Webster Unabridged Third International Dictionary. It is in Noah Webster’s 1848 edition but the only source given is “Samuel Johnson”. Of course it is in the OED with even more examples but is labelled as “archaic”.

Sometimes a familiar word has an unexpected surprise. “Billiards” turns out to be a corruption of: “BA’LLIARDS. n.s. [from ball and yard, or stick to push it with.] A play at which a ball is driven by the end of a stick; now corruptly called billiards.”

“Diaper” as a noun means A “Linen cloth woven in flowers, and other figures” followed with elaborate quotations from Spenser and Shakespeare.
As a verb it means “To variegate, to,diversify, to flower.” Or “To draw flowers upon cloaths.” (sic)

The part of the book that should be read first and in its entirety is the superb introduction by David Crystal which gives a thorough historical perspective of the composition of the Dictionary and explains why it is such an Important landmark in English literature. Crystal also includes Johnson’s own introduction and Boswell’s various extracts concerning it from his monumental “Life of Johnson”.

[Ardyss (With Her Head in a Book) · Rating 5 out of 5]

The preface was interesting enough to warrant 4 stars; the effort he went through to make this massive doorstop (I swear I'm not using it for this purpose but it's be a damn good doorstopper) gives it 5 stars.

[Troy Farlow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting!!!!

[. · Rating 5 out of 5]

It would take a shrewd adjudicator with a highly retentive memory and an almost encyclopaedic reading to successfully rein in a sprawling English language... who else but Johnson could fit the bill?

The withering humour and undisguised authority he brings to the task is nothing short of delightful, from his tut-tutting at Swift for his misuse of the word 'incarnate', to his disapproval of French words such as 'finesse' which are unnecessarily creeping into the language, to those ignorant barbarians who spell 'nowise' as 'noways'.

A highlight for me was his entry for 'electricity' which captured the excitement of this new science, also of note: Amatorculist, a little insignificant lover; Armisonous, rustling with armour; Cerulifick, having the power to produce a blue colour; Death-watch, an insect which makes a ticking noise; Huggermugger, a secret bye-place; Kissingcrust, the crust formed when two loaves accidentally touch; Makebate, breeder of quarrels; Obequitation, the act of riding about; Papaverous, resembling a poppy; Philomot, coloured like a dead leaf; Slubberdegullion, a sorry wretch; Tatterdemalion, a ragged fellow.

[Grace Tierney · Rating 5 out of 5]

The classic.
Delighted to finally have a copy, and a lovely edition too.
Yes, I read it from cover to cover but now it goes on my etymology reference shelves to help me write my Wordfoolery blog and books.

[Jessica Goldberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Okay, obviously I didn't read all of it, but I did read hundreds of random entries, and found it astonishingly entertaining.

[Harley · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good book to have on your bedside table. Just open it up anywhere and find some interesting words.

[sichen li]

Oats. A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people.

Novel. A small tale, generally of love.

[Marcos Augusto · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published in two volumes in 1755, six years later than planned but remarkably quickly for so extensive an undertaking. The degree of master of arts, conferred on him by the University of Oxford for his Rambler essays and the Dictionary, was proudly noted on the title page. Johnson henceforth would be known in familiar 18th-century style as “Dictionary Johnson” or “The Rambler.” There had been earlier English dictionaries, but none on the scale of Johnson’s. In addition to giving etymologies, not the strong point of Johnson and his contemporaries, and definitions, in which he excelled, Johnson illustrated usage with quotations drawn almost entirely from writing from the Elizabethan period to his own time, though few living authors were quoted (the novelists Samuel Richardson and Charlotte Lennox, Garrick, Reynolds, and Johnson himself among them). His preface boldly asserts that the “chief glory of every people arises from its authors,” and his book (the phrase he always used for it) was his own claim to be ranked among them. He was pleased that what took the French Academy 40 years to perform for their language was accomplished by one Englishman in 9 years. It may have been his desire to fix the language by his work, yet he realized that languages do not follow prescription but are continually changing. Johnson did not work systematically from a word list but marked up the books he read for copying. Thus it is no surprise that some earlier dictionaries contain more words and that Johnson’s has striking omissions (“literary” for one). Yet his definitions were a great improvement over those of his predecessors, and his illustrations from writers since the Elizabethan Age form an anthology and established a canon. Because he insisted not only on correct usage but also on morality and piety, the illustrations of words often come from sermons and conduct books as well as from a range of literature. The skeptical philosopher Thomas Hobbes and the writer Bernard de Mandeville, who praised the public benefits of brothels, were excluded on moral grounds, and in the Plan for the Dictionary Johnson explains that the inclusion of a writer could be taken as an invitation to read his work.

[Garrett McMahon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Biestings

[Keaton]

Read: Excerpts from "Preface" and a few entries