RESTATED ^Lii A LETTER TO Dr. David Ramsay, CHARLESTON, (S. C.J RESPECTING THE ERRORS IN JOHNSON'S DICTIONARY, AND OTHER LEXICONS. \ c / WZ9* Y/y -,€2 BY NOAH WEBSTER, ESQ. N^V' - - v NEW-HAVEN : PRINTED BY OLIVER STEELE $ CO. isor. V 1- . '. •. A / " * V. i A LETTER TD /)#. iX^/D HAM SAY. Z Sir, I RECEIVED, a few days past, your favor of June 20th» in which you inform me that the u prejudices against any American attempts to improve Dr. Johnson, are very strong in that city." This intelligence is not wholly un- expected ; for similar prejudices have been manifested in some parts of the northern states. A man a\1k> has read with slight attention the history of nations, in their advan- ces 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 Gali- leo was imprisoned by an ecclesiastical court, for defend- ing 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 ex- ample is cited as one of a multitude which the history of man presents to our view ; and if it differs in degree, itac* cords in principle, with the case now before the American public. ^000% nr; ;■■;;:,■■ -;* JTCTHDIV/..-. *0S —CHANGE 4 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 astron- omy under the system of Tycho Brahe, with the solar sys- tem 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 lite- rature. 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 Lan- guage, 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 suc- cess, to supply the defects and correct the errors. Two or three other compilers in England are engaged in a like undertaking ; but these gentlemen seem to be deficient in the scheme of their work. A few years ago, Mr.HorneTooke undertook to investi- gate the origin of the English particles ; and in his re- searches, discovered that Lexicographers had never be- come acquainted with these classes of words, and in re- marking on their errors, he takes occasion to express his 5 opinion of Johnson's Dictionary in the following terms.— Diversions of Purley, vol. 1, p. 182. Note, Phil. Edit. " Johnson's merit ought not to be denied to him; but his Dictionary is the most imperfect and faulty, and the least valuable of any of his productions ; and that share of merit which it possesses, makes it by so much the more hurtful. I rejoice, however, that though the least valua- ble, he found it the most profitable ; for I could never read his preface without shedding a tear. And yet it must be confessed, that his Grammar and History, and Dictionary of what he calls the English Language, are, in all respects (except the bulk of the latter) most truly contemptible performances ; and a reproach to the learning and industry of a nation which could receive them with the slightest ap- probation. Nearly one third of this Dictionary is as much the language of the Hottentots as of the English; and it would be no difficult matter so to translate one of the plain- est and most popular numbers of the Spectator into the language of that dictionary, that no mere Englishman, though well read in his own language, would be able to comprehend one sentence of it. " It appears to be a work of labor, and yet is in truth one of the most idle performances ever offered to the pub- lic ; compiled by an author who possessed not one single requisite for the undertaking, and (being a publication of a set of booksellers) owing its success lo that very circum- stance which makes it impossible that it should deserve success." 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 indis- criminate 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 wdl 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 A2 6 the other. But it is the fate of man to vibrate from one extreme to another. The great intellectual pow- ers of Dr. Johnson, displayed in many of his works, but es- pecially in his Rambler and his Rasselas, have raised his reputation to high distinction, and impressed upon all his opinions a stamp oiauthonty, which gives them currency a- mong men, without an cxaminationinto 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 philiiogi- eal 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 correctscss 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 nnentertaining 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 Avhich 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 co- temporaries, that all men despair of proccedingbeyond 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 praeteriri aut aequari eos posse desperavimus, studium cum spe senescit." Veil. Pater- culus. lib. 1. 17. In the preface to Johnson's Dictionary, we have a splen- did 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 sub- ject. He commences with a most egregious error, in sup- posing the Saxon language to have been introduced into Britain in the fifth century, after the Romans had abandon- ed the island ; whereas, nothing is better attested in history 7 than that the branch of the Teutonic, which constitutes the basis of our present language, was introduced by the Bel- gic tribes, which occupied all the southern part of the isl- and at the time, and evidently long before Cesar invaded the country. Equally erroneous is his assertion that the Saxons and Welsh were nations totally distinct. The num- ber 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 obser- vation—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. 'I his part of Johnson's work, as well as his Grammar, which is chiefly extracted from Wallis' Grammar, if they are not " contemptible performances," to use Tooke's lan- guage, are wretchedly imperfect. They abound with er- rors ; 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 na- tions from which it is derived. This field of inquiry has never been fully explored ; it is a fruitful field, and here- after 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 in- serted on the authority of Bailey, Ainsworth and Phillips__ but they are confessedly terms which have never been used in oral or written English. Language consists of words uttered by the tongue ; or written in books for the purpose of being read. Terms which are not authorised by either of these modes of communicating ideas, are no part of a language, and ha\e no claim to a place in a dictionary___ Such are the following—Advcr&able, advetsperate, adjugate, agriculation, abstrude, injudicable, spicesity, crapulence, mori- B gerous, tenc&rosfft/, b&lbuciutlte* iNachn/mahle, 8cc. The number of this class of words is not known ; but it probably rises to two thousand or more. Some of them are omit- ted by Sheridan, Walker, Jones, Perry, Entick, Hamilton, fcc. but most of them are retained in all the English Dic- tionaries, and Ash has been careful to preserve them all. These words seem to have been anglicized from the Latin language, and inserted by the first compilers of English Dictionaries, in their vocabularies, as candidates for em- ployment ; but having ne\erbeen 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 in- sertion 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 au- thorities. Among the authors cited in support of his defi- nitions, 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 4o 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 affecta- tion 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 co- temporaries, and actually rendered himself unintelligible. The following examples will affo*d a specimen of his ped* antry and ill taste:—< - • 9 " The effects of their activity are «ot precipitously abrupttd, but gradually proceed to their cessations." " Authors are also suspicious, nor greedily to be swallowed, who write of secrets, to deliver antipathies, sympatliies, and the occult abstrusities of things." " The intire or broken compagination of the magnetical fabric." " Some have written rhetorically and concessively, not contro- verting, but assuming the question, which, taken as granted, ad- vantaged the illation." "Its fluctuations are but motions subservient, which winds, ■helves, and every interjacency irregulates." " Separated by the voice of God, things in their species came out in uncommunicated varieties and irrelative 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 speak- er ever used ; words which, as Home 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 over- look 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 bis taste is formed by extensive reading. Indeed some wri- ters of ag'e 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 un- frequently, to the use of words which do not belong to the language. Thus in a letter of-------, published not long ago, respecting Burr's conspiracy, the writer spoke of matters of dubiosity—doubtless upon the authority of Eng- lish 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 exam- ination of this work, and its effect upon the language, I am inclined to believe that Johnson's authority has multi- plied instead of reducing the number of corruptions in the 10 English language. I*eta»y man of correct taste cast his eye on such words as denominate, opiniatry, ariolation, assation, ataraxy, clancular, comminuible, conclusible, de- demition, deuteroscopy, xligladiation, dignotion, cubical*- ry, discubitory, exolution, exenterate, incompossible, ini c'oMpossibilky,indigitate,8cc.and let him say whether a dic- tionary which gives thousands of such terms, as authorized English words, is a safe standard of writing. From a gen- eral 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 teiitk part of the ivhole number. The evils resulting from this injudicious selection of woods 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, hav« been a remedy for the evils, by circumscribing its sale and use. But most of these words are transcribed into ail the later compilations—Ash, Walker, Sheridan, Sec. 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 for* eign languages ; and a German or a Spaniard wiho is learn- ing 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.* * In the English-Dutch Dictionary of Willcocke, we find the compiler has translated ariolation, clancular, denominable, commi- nuible, &c. into Dutch. In Bailey's Fahrenkruger, we see digladi- ation, dignotion, exenterate, &c. turned into German. These, or similar words, are by Neuman translated into Spanish—and where the mischief ends, it is impossible to ascertain. And what must for- eigners think of English taste and erudition, when they are told that their Dictionaries contain thousands of such words which are pot used by the English nation ! 11 3. It is questionable how far yulgarand cant words are tb be admitted into a Dictionary ; but one thing must be acknowledged by any man who will inspect the several dic- tionaries 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 al- ledged that it is the duty of a lexicographer to insert and define all words found in English books : then such words Us fishify, jackalent, parma-citty, jiggumbob, conjobble, fou- tra, &c. are legitimate English words I 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 cor- rupt the language. But Shakespeare and Butler used such words in their writings '.!! Yes, vulgar manners and characters must be represented by vulgar language ; the writer of plays must accommodate his language to his au- dience ; the rabble in the galleries are entitled to their share of amusement; and a part of every play must be compos- ed of obscenity and vulgar ribaldry. In this manner, the lowest language and the coarsest manners are exhibited before a promiscuous audience, and derive some impor- tance 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 I 4. It has been generally believed that a prime excel- lence of Johnson's Dictionary is, the accuracy with which the different senses of words are distinguished ; and un- common 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 discrim- ination, 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 andpetty larceny with the same punishment." Spectator. 12 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 compre- hends every species of theft ; not only grand and petty lar- ceny, 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 pas- sage,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 con- nection, he often takes a part of the passage selected for illustration, and incorporates it into the definition. Thou- sands 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 J " Industrious. 1. Diligent, laborious, assiduous, opposed to slothful. " Frugal and industrious men are commonly friendly to the estab- lished 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. Spencer. Let our just censures Attend the true event, and put we on Industrious soldiership. Shakspeare. 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 tetidoiis of the third joints through. Mote. 13 • •* Observe carefully all the events which happen cither by an oe- cassional occurrence of various causes, or by the industrious applica- tion 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 mis- taken the use of the term. The " industrious perforation of tendons," does not signify anindustry, 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. ^ deed, 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. Notarial, Johnson defines, "taken by a notary"—and for illustration, gives this passage from Ayliffe. ' " It may be called an authentic writing, tho not a public instrument, * This use of attributes is legitimate, to a certain extent; but it requires correct taste and an acquaintance with good usage, to mark the limits beyond which the use of such words is forced and improper. Thus "criminal law," "numb palsy," " putrid fever," are well established phrases; but Dr.Bedoes, in the use of "scro- phulous remedies," " insane paroxysm," and " incurable establish- ment," has transgresed all the bounds of propriety. Ses his Hy- geia. Ess. 6th. 41,42.—10th. 22, 55. 14 through want of notarial evidence." Here the Lexicogra- pher has given a definition from example—evidmce taken by a notary ; but let the definition be extended to other le- gitimate and common expressions :—<• notarial seal," " no- tarial business," " notarial character"—then we have a seal taken by a notary, &c—and what sort of language is this ? Pecula'ion,says Johnson, is "robbery of the public—theft of the public money." According to this definition, a per- son who breaks into an edifice and steals money from a public treasury, is a peculator—which every man of com- mon education knows is not true, as the word is understood by the English and their descendants in this country. Earn, says Johnson, is " to gain as the reward or wages of labor, or any performance." But this is not correct; for many a man earns money, who never gains it. To earn, is to merit by an equivalent in service, not by an equivalent in money. Ford, says Johnson, is " to pass without swimming."— He ought at least to have said, to pass water or a stream. Now according to this definition, a man that passes over a stream on a bridge, or a bird that flies over it, fords the stream ; for both pass it without swimming. Mutiny, says our author, is " insurrection, sedition"— but it is neither one nor the other, except among soldiers and mariners. Johnson's Dictionary abounds with similar inaccuracies, which prove the author's want of discrimination, or most unpardonable negligence. 5. Equally manifest is Johnson's want of discrimination in defining words nearly synonymous ; or rather words which bear some portion of a common signification. "Fraud," says the author, is "Deceit; cheat; trick; arti- fice ; 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 fraus had in Latin, without discriminating between that, and the strict technical sense which is most frequent in our language. 15 " Impracticable," the author defines by « not to be per- formed, unfeasible, impossible ;" and " impracticableness" by " impossibility." Im/iossible implies an absurdity, con- tradiction, or utter want of power to be, or to be done, m the abstract; but impracticable signifies only, not to be done by human means, or by the means proposed. Ask, is defined by petition and beg—demand andctaim; but beg implies much more earnestness than ask; while demand and claim have a different import; both conveying the idea of right in the person asking, and obligation or supposed ob- ligation in the person requested. Johnson explains the word, when used for setting a price on goods, by demand and claim. But this is an error ; a man cannot demand a price for his commodity ; for altho he has a right to set his price, no man is under any obligation to buy. So also assent and consent are defined by each other; and some writers have actually confounded the terms. Hut assent is merely an agreement of the mind to things not affecting rights ; as one assents to an abstract proposition ; but consent car- ries with it an agreement to some proposal that affects one's rights ; as consent to sell, to exchange, &c. The pernicious effects of the common negligence of men of letters in making themselves accurately acquainted with the import of words, are visible in our best authors ; and for want of nicely discriminating the various senses of words somewhat allied, our Dictionaries want half the value which ought to be possessed by such publications. Of numerous examples which I have noted to verify this re- mark, take the following instances : " We are all prompted by the same motives, all deceived by the same fallacies, all animated by hope, obstructed by danger, entangled by desire, and seduced by pleasure." Jiambler, No. 50. Here Johnson has used obstructed for deterred ; for dan- ger operates on the mind by moral influence ; not by phy- sical power. "This lake (Maris,) is entirely the produce of human industry." Beloe's Herod. Euterp. 149. Produce, in its present acceptation, is not used for that which is produced by mere art or labor, without the agency of nature.. The word should have been production, or work. 16 " All animals drew their origin from Asia, and thence spread into other countries—with these were introduced some customs and in- ventions, of which the Americans were deprived on account ot their distance, &c." Cullen's Clavrgero. Dis- 4. The American savages could not be deprived of inven- tions which they never possessed—previous possession being necessarily implied in deprived. This use of depri- ved for destitute is not unfrequent. Smellie, in bis Philoso- phy of Natural History, chap. 4. speaks of " matter as de- prived of spontaneous motion and other qualities of anima- ted beings." This use of the word is a gross impropriety. " These errors, (in the Copies of Aristotle) have been increased by the officiousness of later transcribers " Enfield. Hist. Phil. b. 2. ch. 9. The author meant multiplied, instead of increased : mul- tiply is the word to express additional numbers—increase expresses only an enlargement of bulk or quantity. ' ' •' " I have never found it to affect the tongue with any discerniblt taste." Heron's Fourcroy. vol. 1.321. Land. 1796. «' Tin has a very discernible smell. Ibm. 2. 445, and 472. Diacern is applied to the eye and to the mind; but never to the sense of feeling, taste, or smell.. The word is used by mistake for perceptible. Nothing is more common than to use attain for obtain or procure. Attain can never be used with propriety, except when to naturally follows it.—" Such knowledge is high ; I cannot attain to it." A man attains [to'] a high degree of celebrity.—This is the true and only legitimate use of the word, expressing an effort towards the object. To is often omitted after the verb, and sometimes with propriety ; but U to cannot be supplied, the word is improperly used. The best authors have erred in the use of the word. Thus the passage cited by Johnson from Swift, to illustrate his first definition, is not English. " All the nobility here could not attain the same favor as Wood did." It ought to be obtain or procure. Dr. Johnson himself, not discrimina- ting between the two words, or misled by the mistakes of others, used the word in the same inaccurate manner.—- Letter to Drmnmond. 1766. 17 And his first definition of the word, "to gain, procure, obtain"—founded on the errors of authors, has been the means of propagating this use of attain—a use at which the ears of a correct scholar cannot but revolt.—" After all the answers, which can be attained, shall be received," is the language of a learned society in our own country—and who can read it without regretting the miserable state of phi- lological criticism ? " Receive my sincere congratulations on your present assemblage," said a Governor to the legislature of a certain state. See also Life of Washington, vol. 1. 74. Assemblage is rarely or never used of persons; and never legitimately used for the act of collecting or coming together. See Life of Washington, 4th. 13. escorted used for convoyed; and perhaps the error may be ascribed entirely to Johnson, who defines escort by convoy—not considering that escort is a guard by land, and not by water. " Many persons having been near patients of the small pox, without acquiring the disease." Darwin's Zoon. Sect. 33. To acquire a disease is most palpable nonsense. " Principles are no other but the primordial nature of things up- on which systems are predicated."—" Morals, predicated upon the connection "between man and man." Trial of Self ridge, p. 133. Predicate, a term in logic, is to affirm one thing of an- other ; and the common misuse of the word shows the wretched state of critical knowledge in our country. Paley, book 1. chap. 7. Mor. Philos. speaks of the « de- pravity of what man is about to do ;" and book 3, chap. 5. of evacuating the force of promises; and this barbarous language is in a classical school book, used in our colleges* It is evidently borrowed from Bacon and South, whom Johnson has cited as authorities. ^ Addison uses this expression—" the veracity of facts ;' and Bryant, the " veracity of the scriptures ;" both of which are egregious mistakes. Veracity is the disposition to speak truth, and not verity, or truth itself. Veracity, ex. vi termini, is predicable only of a moral agent, or intelli- gent being. A man oiveracity will always speak truth or verity, this is the only legitimate use of the word. 18 An American Governor speaks about " embarrassing the avenue to justice." Gillies, in his translation of Aristotle, says, " We must proceed cautiously from particulars to generals, that we may not be cheated (deceived) by words" —not considering that cheat refers to property. He tells us too of encountering disgrace without the expectancy of honor—using the word as synonymous with expectation.- We everyday hear, in our own country, of wrongs which excite the sensibility of the public; the writers mistaking sensibility, or the faculty of receiving impressions, for sen- sation, the effect or impressions received. 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 ac- quainted 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 instan- stances are to be found in modern books, of a misapplica- tion of terms, which are clearly ascribable to the negli- gence 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 au- thors 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 def- initions. The first objection has been considered in the previous remarks, and proved by extracts from Brown's \ulgar er- rors—a work which manifests the most intolerable pedan- try, and a total want of taste. Would the limits of this sketch permit, I would give further illustrations, by ex- tracts 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 pu- rity, that they have been long since condemned for their iy want of taste, and are now known only by name. As far as their works have any influence, it is derived from John- son'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 exten- sive. 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 au- thority. Shakespeare was a man of little learning ; and altho, when be wrote the popular language of his day, his useof words was tolerably correct,yet whenever he attempted a style beyond that, he often fell into the grossest impropri- eties. Thus he speaks of the inusture of the heavens and the planets—cords too intrinsecate—to patient a persor— a pelting river and pelting farm—to sanctuarise murder— sightless stains for offensive stains—the sternage of a navy— compunctious visitings of nature—a combinafe husband—of convertite—-conspectuity and corresponsive, &c. barbarisms which every correct car instantly condemns—and for which he certainly could plead no authority, even in the pedan- tic age in which he lived. Some of them perhaps may be ascribed to a license of writing which he thought justifia- ble—but more of them, to his want of erudition. What- ever 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 hijs definitions ; in- i:i.ed a great part of English words require no illustration. Take the following examples : " Alley—a walk in a garden." " And all within were wr.lks 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 my fair love, our morning's task we lose ; Some labor, even the easiest life would choose j 20 Ours is not great, the dangling boughs to crop, Whose too luxuriant growth our alleys slop." Dry den. " The thriving plant*, 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 t 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 au- thorities 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 some times offers thirty or forty lines to illustrate words which every man, woman and child understands as well as John- son. 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 lan- guage of the six nations. " Finger," says Johnson, " is the flexible member of the hand by which men catch and hold."—Now to prove this be cites passages from six authors. " The fingers and thumb in each hand consist of fifteen bones—. Vhere being three to each finger." $>uincy. **.....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 sti'ength than any of them singly, which we call the thumb, to join with then) severally or united ; whereby it is fitted to lay hold of objects of any size or quantity." Pay. " A hand of a vast extension, and a prodigious number of finger* playing upon all the organ pipes of the world, and, making every one sound a particular note." KeiU 21 " Poor Peg sewed, spun, and knit for a livelihood, till her fin- gers' 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—ex- cept 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 spectc- lation of the booksellers, as Mr. Tooke has suggested, is hardly worth an inquiry—but I am confident in the asser- tion, 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, be- yond comparison, the most judicious in plan and execu- tion, 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; the latter of whom was not possessed of learning adequate to the inves- tigation—.and Junius, like Vossius, Scaliger and most oth- er etymologists on the continent, labored to deduce all languages from the Greek. Hence these authors neglect- ed the principal sources of information, which were to be found only in the north of Europe, and in the west of Ire- land 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. 22 To give very numerous examples of Johnson s errors in etymology would exceed the limits prescribed to these re- marks. Two or three examples must serve as specimens of the general tenor of his work. " School," Johnson deduces from the Latin schola—. French ecole. He then gives for definitions— 1 st. A house of discipline and instruction. 2. a place of literary edu- cation ; a university. 3. a state of instruction. 4. sys- tem 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 ori- ginal sense in a school of fish ; which has been corrupted, by blundering writers, into shoal or shole. From this root theRomans had their schola, and not from the Greek schole, otium, as Ainsworth supposes. Hence the first and prin- cipal 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 in- form us ; then beginning his definitions with " the part of animals fortified by ribs"—he proceeds through eight sen- ses 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 hap- pened that Johnson, like all other lexicographers, has of- ten, 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 23 of Lexicography extant, is liable to the sfime objection, and from the same cause, a want of etymological knowl- edge. As this subject involves so large a portion of errors, that I baldly know where to begin or what to select, i: >m the mass of mistakes and imperfections, I shall not pnrtuc the attempt to notice Johnson's errors ; but to enable the read- er more easily to comprehend the usescf a correct deduc- tion of words from their origii als, and to see the misera- ble state of this species of learning in Europe, as well as in this country, I will present an example of real etymol- ogy ; having first stated the opinion of the standard authors. " Censeo," says Vossius, " cum varie sumatur, et diffi- cile dictu sit, quae notio sit princeps, difficile est enim in- dicare, quam originem habeat." After stating the diffi- culty of arriving at the primitive idea and the origin of the word, he proceeds in his usual manner, to offer the con- jectures of learned men. He mentions the Hebrew, ks, to count or number, as one of the words from which au- thors have deduced it. And Parkhurst 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. u King," says Johnson," is a contraction of the Teutonic tuning 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 kean, cean, 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 *«—its modern application to ex- 24 press physical power, rather than intellectual, is of a re- cent date—and the transition is easy from know—to, know to do—and thence, to be able to do. Hence also the Welsh gun to know and ceini,, to see—the old Irish gnia, knowl- edge, and a judge—the Greek gnco— that is, gcnco, for kerno—and hence the English know—that is, kenow— through the Saxon cnawan. From the same root the Ro- mans formed their censeo, [pronounced kensco] to think or judge—intellectual operations. Hence the same word came to be used for taking an account of citizens by the head or poll, and hence to rate or assess them by the poll. And as the censors, or numberers of polls, were invested with the power of punishing citizens for immoral conduct, the word came to denote censure, censorious. Hence also we have census, enumeration of polls. From this word, in the sense of head, we have king, or head of a tribe or nation, and the Asiatics, their khan. It would be needless to trace the ramifications of the word, in the modern languages, as they are very obvious. " Broad," says Johnson, Saxon, brad, and there he leaves the etymology. Board, he dedutes from the Gothic baurd—Saxon braed. This word is nearly the same in all the Teutonic dialects, and its original meaning was width, extent. Teutonic breit; Gothic, braids ; Saxon, brad ; Danish, bred; Bel- gic, breed. Fiom the sense of width or extent, it came to be applied to a thin wide piece of wood, a board—in Saxon bred. British, bwrd. As boards were used to eat on, hence Irish bord, a table—to board—to eat at the board or table—boarder, Sec* From the same root, we have bord, in the old law books, a cottage built of boards—and bordmen, bordarii, &c. who supplied the table. From the idea of width, the same word came to denote side, rim, and afterwards, edge. Hence the French D'abord, at first,' * " Lauti, cibum capiunt; separate singulis sedes, et sua cui- que mensa." Tacit. De Mor. Germ. 22. " The Germans, after washing, take their meals—each person having a separate-seat and table." It is thus that etymology and history illustrate each other. The primitive mode, in rude ages, was probably for individuals to lay their food upon a board on their knees. Hence a board was the table. 25 is, at the side or margin—abord, access—border, to lonn an edge or vim—embroider, and bordure. Hence also, to board a ship—to come to the side and enter— aboard, on the boards or planks—overboard, over the side ; by the board, by the side-starboard, steer board, or helm- side, &c. " Starboard," says Johnson, " Steor board, Saxon"— and there he leaves us. In this instance, as in more than half the words in the language, he might as well have said nothing on the subject, for his etymologies afford not a particle of light. Star, in this word, is from the same Teutonic root as steer. The word has a common origin with star, and the Greek aster—and doubtless o.iginatcd in tie practice of directing vessels by the stars, in primitive ages—to steer, is to star—to point a vessel to a star. Hence in Saxon, ste ore is the helm or director of a ship, and with a trifling difference in orthography, this word retains that sense in German, Dutch and Swedish, to this day. As the man at helm stands with the tiller at his right hand, that side of a ship was called stcor-bord, helm-side. The word is now contracted into starboard. " Wave," says Johnson, " waege, Saxon, waegb, Dutch, vague, French." " Weigh, woegan, Saxon, weghen, Dutch." Here he leaves us, without informing us what these words mean. The origin of these and several other words is in the Teu- tonic watg, a wave, and the radical idea is that of a fluctu- ating motion, like that of waves—the first thing that would strike the mind of unlettered man. Hence the Saxon warg or weg, a balance for weighing—which rises and falls like the w.ves. From this idea and this word, we have w, igh to rise and fall, or be sustained, like scales—and by consequence, to carry or sustain—to weigh a pound, is to carry or suttuin a pound. Hence also we have wag to move one way and the other, like waves—as a man does in waggery. Hence the Latins had their veho, (pronounced k''s'9, gutuirally)—-to carry—with a'l bs derivatives—atf- veh ■>, con veho, in veho, Etc. And let it be remembered that weight and vectum, are the same word—vectuin being- pi onounced by tie Romans weetum or wrgtum. Weight is 26 the participle of weigh, and signifies carried, sustained-- thatis, what is sustained in scales. Waggon, a carrier, is from the same root. Let it be observed, however, that our ancestors did not receive the word from the Romans. On the contrary, the Romans received the word from the north ; and it is a material point of history which I can prove to demonstration, that the great body of Greeks and Romans were descendants from the Scythians or Teutones, who colonized their respective countries, before the era of profane history. " Wed" says Johnson, " wedian, Saxon," and there be leaves us in obscurity; for he evidently knew not the meaning of the word. Wed is from a common root with the Latin vador [wa- dorj and the original idea is to pledge, engage, &c. Wed, therefore, ex vi term;.:i,] contains in it the solemn contract, or mutual pledge of fidelity, which is the essence of mar- riage ; an idea that never entered the heads of our lexi- cographers. 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 sub- ject of much complaint in Great Britain. Mason, in the preface to hii supplement observes, that " of all publica- tions, not one can be mentioned, where scrupulous exact- ness ahouldbe more peculiarly observed, than in a Diction- ary. Yet Johnson's abounds witl\ inaccuracies as much as any English book whattver, written by a scholar." Johnson himself acknowledges this in the advertisement to the •• fourth edition, where h:-* says, " I have left that inaccurate which never was made exact, and that imperfect which never was completed." Indeed ! had it been made exact and comhl ted, how could it be left inaccurate and incomplete ? T^ Miison observes that Johnson often mistook the meaning of pas- sages which he produced as examples, and that " this muddines* of intellect sadly besmears and defaces almost every page." Seve- ral methods have been proposed in England to remedy the evil.— the Hev. Herbert Crofis proposed to write a new Dictionary; but 27 Mason supposed it better to let Johnson's work remain unmolested, and add a supplement to rectify his errors and supply his defects. I can assure these gentlemen 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 exisls. I can assure them fur- ther 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 unquestion- ablp do as much harm as good. If this representation of the imperfections of Johnson's Diction- ary is just, it may be asked, what are the excellencies in the wort 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 erudi- tion 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 dan- gerous. Indeed, in any branch of literature, notlung is so danger- ous 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, our- selves of these prepossessions. And I am firmly persuaded that, whatever prejudices my fellow citizens now entertain, they will \ S# 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. With regard to any aid from patronage, to enable me the more speedily to execute my contemplated work, I am not very solicit- ous. I have published my design, and my wishes ; with some slight expectation that a small number of my fellow citizens would re- joice in the opportunity of lending their countenance to so impor- tant an undertaking. A few gentlemen of literary distinction have duly appreciated the merit of the design; but the general spirit manifested in the large towns gives me little room to expect any aid from mv fellow citizens. I therefore rely alone upon my own re- sources,' and am not without a belief that I shall be able, with these alone, to accomplish mv design. If I should succeed, my opposers will certainly regret their premature expressions of disapprobation. I ask no favors: the undertaking is Herculean, but it is ot tar less consequence to me than to my country. . _ It is however a melancholy consideration that the minds ot a greatapartof our citizens are not only fettered, but actually hum- bled by a servile reverence of European "rthont.es Theylookto EuropJ for opinions, as for fashions ; and whether they are: light or wrong, expedient or inexpedient, are questions that seldom oc- s 28 eupy a thought This respect for foreign opinions is now the moit formidable banier to any advances in critical knowledge ; nor can we have scholars of deep erudition on this subject, till our citizens lay aside their modern English books, and push their researches into antiquity. It is impossible to improve in knowledge, while we take it for granted the books we have cannot be improved. While this per- nicious error governs public opinion in this country, the mind is en- €laved—it is chained down to a limited range of inquiry—the intel- lectual powers cease to be exerted in search of truth. " Studium cumspe tenesatV This delusion is the insidious Delilah by which the Sampsons of our country are shorn of their locks." In running over die gross and palpable errors which spread themselves over every page of what are considered as standard books, I hardly know which sentiment predominates in my mind—regret at the low state of philological learning, or indignation at the efforts made to check every attempt to improve it. 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 on- ly add, what I am prepared, by a minute examination of this sub- ject, to affirm, that not a single page of Johnson's Dictionary is correct—every page requires amendment, or admits of material improvement. This remark, with some abatement, is true also of the Greek and I.atin 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 < f the doubtful points, which a critical knowledge of the history of our language is required to ad- ^ just, not half of them have been correct!) settled by Lowth and ■ his followers ; and I have no hesitation in affirming, that the gram-^a mars now taught in oar schools, introduce more errors than they cor- rect. Neither Lowlh nor Johnson understood the Saxon or Prim- itive English, without which no man can compile a real English Grammar. The discoveries of Mr. H. Tooke, as Darwin has remarked, un- f*ld, 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-Have::, Oct. 1307.