ENGLISH DICTIONARIES.1 DR. JOHNSON'S Dictionary was the first attempt at a critical review of the English language, and he is justly considered as the father of English lexicography. The substantial truth of this statement is not affected by the existence in the previous century of such learned works as those of Junius and Skinner. These works are in many respects excellent, showing industry, knowledge, and research, and, considering the state of philology at the time, often surprisingly successful in their main object, that of elucidating the derivation of English words. But they are not, either in form or substance, English dictionaries in the proper meaning of the term. In their general aspect they are rather contributions to European, or at least Teutonic etymology, derived from the special study of one of the Teutonic tongues, and in this respect may be fairly ranked with the works of Wachter, Schilter, and Kilian. 11. A Dictionary of the English Language. By ROBERT GORDON LATHAM, M.A., M.D., F.R.Š., etc. Founded on that of Dr. Samuel Johnson, as edited by the Rev. H. J. Todd, M.A. With numerous Emendations and Additions. Parts I. to XXIV. London: 1868. 2. A Dictionary of English Etymology. By HENSLEIGH WEDGWOOD, M.A., late Fellow of Chr. Coll., Cambridge. 3 vols. London: 1859. 3. A Glossarial Index to the Printed English Literature of the Thirteenth Century. By HERBERT COLERIDGE. London: 1858. 4. A Select Glossary of English Words used formerly in Senses different from the Present. By RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH, D.D. Second Edition, revised and improved. London: 1856. Edinburgh Review, July, 1868. The mere fact of their being written in Latin sufficiently illustrates their general position as learned works addressed to scholars at large, rather than designed for national or popular use. They are both, moreover, as their titles indicate, occupied exclusively with etymology, and etymology is only one means of illustrating the signification of words, and that not the most authoritative or direct. They no doubt supplied valuable materials to the English lexicographer; and Johnson turned them to good account, having relied, as he tells us, mainly on Skinner for his etymologies. But they are not English dictionaries. The other works claiming this title produced during the former half of the eighteenth century are in reality glossaries of foreign, archaic, and technical terms, or mere vocabularies, lists of words without any definite or detailed illustration of their meaning. This is true not only of Blount and Phillips, Coles and Kersey, but of Bailey, whose well-known Universal Etymological Dictionary is, however, a considerable advance on its predecessors, and was avowedly the foundation of Johnson's own work. Though he added largely to the previous vocabularies, almost the only original feature of Bailey's dictionary is the number of proverbs and proverbial sayings scattered through the work, and his explanations of these are not only detailed, but often quaint, ingenious, and amusing. Neither the learned works on etymology, the miscellaneous glossaries of hard words," nor the popular vocabularies for the use of schools, met the primary requirements of an English lexicon. Johnson's work is the first dictionary of the language worthy of the name, because he first attempted to make a complete list of English words sanctioned by literary use, and to explain their meaning, not only by brief definitions, but by copious literary illustrations, by examples of their actual use taken from authors of authority and repute. This last is in fact the cardinal requisite of a good dictionary. Unless it fully illustrates the meaning of words by apt and significant examples of their use, no such work can pretend to any original value or permanent authority as a lexicon of the language. It is in this respect mainly that Johnson's work constitutes an era in the scientific exposition of English words. His etymologies are often unsatisfactory, and almost always second-hand, derived, as he tells us, mainly from Junius and Skinner, eked out by suggestions from scattered and casual correspondents. Many of his definitions are, it is true, excellent, because, though disliking the drudgery of verbal exposition, he applied his mind honestly to the task, and constantly endeavoured, by generalising examples of their use, to exhibit the meaning of the more important words in the shape of a critical description or summary of their contents. But at best this kind of exposition must be imperfect, in many cases' only partially developing the central conception of a significant word without attempting to seize or fix its finer shades of meaning. And Johnson confessedly fell short of what might be easily attained in this direction, some of his definitions being gratuitously obscure and almost ludicrously involved, irrelevant, and perplexing. But his literary illustrations are copious and interesting, and this new and invaluable feature, combined with the general current of good sense and critical insight running through his verbal explanations, justly gave to his elaborate review of the language the value and authority of a standard work. But a century having elapsed since this really great work appeared, had its execution been even more perfect, it must by this time be in many respects out of date. The mere changes in a living tongue during such an interval would be sufficient to produce this result apart from any special increase in the materials for its scientific elucidation. The last half-century has, however, been a period of extraordinary activity in every department of philological inquiry, and especially in those languages that help to throw most light on the origin and history of our own. The Germans are before us in this as in most other branches of special scholarship. They may almost be said indeed to have elaborated during the interval the new science of comparative philology, and to have exhausted the scientific exposition of those branches of it most directly connected with their own tongue. But the results of their labours after all are not, in our view, so valuable to the English lexicographer as they are generally supposed to be. The abundant materials these foreign scholars have accumulated and arranged for the ready comparison of kindred words in a multitude of cognate tongues, may indeed easily become a hindrance and a snare rather than a help to the English lexicographer. His main business is to elucidate fully the meaning of English words; and the cardinal condition of success in this respect is a thorough and detailed knowledge of the vernacular literature, especially at the critical period when the language attained its majority and assumed its present shape. Apart from this special knowledge, even minute and exact philological scholar ship is quite as likely to lead the English critic astray as to guide him aright; and this injurious effect is, as it seems to us, apparent in one of the works at the head of our article, Mr. Wedgwood's "Dictionary of English Etymology". A too exclusive reliance on the suggestions and analogies of comparative philology, combined with a limited knowledge of the native literature, has not unfrequently vitiated his painstaking and in many respects successful attempt to elucidate more fully the sources of our English speech. To one thoroughly conversant with English literature in its rise and progress, as well as during its best periods, comparative philology is of course a valuable help; but, after all, it is in the fuller critical study of our own literature, especially in its early stages, rather than in the labours of foreign scholars, that the true materials for a more scientific and complete exposition of the language are to be found. Happily these invaluable materials have largely accumulated during the last few years. To say nothing of the accomplished Anglo-Saxon scholars our own country has recently produced, and the light their critical labours have thrown on the earliest forms of our mother tongue, the more useful book societies-such as the Parker, the Camden, and the Percy-have published for the first time, and placed within the reach of students, many extremely rare, valuable, and interesting monuments of our early literature. The Record Commission has done the same, while the most recent organisation for issuing rare and archaic literary works that have hitherto been virtually inaccessible either as manuscripts or books of luxury-the Early English Text Society—is actively at work, and |