This may be called the age of dictionary making. All philological
scholarship seems to culminate in historic derivation. Without
referring invidiously to cultivated foreign languages, each of which
has many such monuments of elaborate, accurate, and patient research,
it may be said with confidence that the English language is unrivaled
in its lexicographers, who at the close of the nineteenth century have
completed works which only a few decades ago were not thought of as
possible. Dr. Johnson prepared his unabridged dictionary in seven years
"with little assistance from the great," an achievement which at the
time excited wonder and admiration, though insignificant indeed in
comparison with present performances. And yet there may be some doubt
about the comparatively greater usefulness to the general reader of
the bulky volumes of the modern publishers. In illustration the reader
might find an analysis of one of the oldest English dictionaries an
interesting example.
For several years I have had at hand "An Universal Etymological English
Dictionary and Interpreter of Hard Words," by N. Bailey, 1747. On
almost all occasions when I have needed to consult a dictionary I have
found it satisfactory, some of its learning, on account of its very
quaintnesses and contemporaneous character, being better adapted to
a particular definition than modern directness. Perhaps its greatest
defect is the absence from it of scientific terms, of which, however,
there were very few at that time.
The introduction is exceedingly learned and the causes of change in
language are discussed with much ingenuity. Many examples of Saxon
antiquities are given, one of which, the Lord's prayer, written about
A. D. 900, by Alfred, Bishop of Durham, we may quote, from which "it
doth appear," says Bailey, "that the English Saxon Language, of
which the Normans despoiled us in great Part, had its beauties, was
significant and emphatical, and preferable to what they imposed upon
us." Here is the prayer:
"Our Father which art in Heavens, be hallowed thine name; come
thine Kingdom; be thy will so as in Heavens and in Earth. Our Loaf
supersubstantial give us to-day, and forgive us Debts our so we forgive
Debts ours, and do not lead us into Temptation, but deliver us from
Evil."
The introduction is in Latin. Greek, Hebrew, and Saxon characters are
used in the definitions. Bailey defines the meanings of proverbs with
far more particularity than is necessary, perhaps, and yet a small
volume could be made up of these curious "common or old pithy sayings,"
as he defines them, many of which are obsolete or unknown to the
readers of the present day. Instance:
"As sure as God's in Gloucestershire." This proverb is said to have its
rise, on account that there were more rich and mitred abbeys in that
than in any two shires of England beside; but some, from William of
Malmsbury, refer it to the fruitfulness of it in religion, in that it
is said to have returned the seed of the gospel with the increase of
an hundred fold. And "Good wine needs no bush." This proverb intimates
that virtue is valuable for itself, and that internal goodness stands
in need of no external flourishes or ornaments; and so we say "A good
face needs no band."
One other, a short one: "All goes down gutter lane." This is applied to
those who spend all in drunkenness and gluttony, alluding to the Latin
word gutter, which signifies the throat.
Not a few of these proverbs, with their explanations, occupy whole
pages of the dictionary, and where they are traced to the Greeks or the
Hebrews the original characters are brought into use as incontestable
evidence of their authenticity. Definitions are numerous of words
which, while perfectly legitimate and of Saxon origin and of common
usage in the age of Elizabeth, are omitted at the present day from
lexicons in deference to the prevalence of a more delicate taste.
The book contains about one thousand pages, is printed in a style
little dissimilar to present unabridged dictionaries, and must have
been of prodigious assistance to the author's successors. He does
not deprecate the labors of his predecessors, whom he acknowledges
to have saved him much trouble, but he claims to have omitted their
redundancies in order to make room to supply their deficiencies to the
extent of several thousand words, "in no English dictionary before
extant," and that he is the first who attempted an etymological part.
This very important contribution to English literature--far more
important then than any similar performance could be now--is, strange
to say, nowhere mentioned in what is regarded as the best history of
English literature. And just here the remark might be appropriately
made that omissions of this kind in standard literary histories and
cyclopædias go far to call in question the qualifications of the
editors. A word may be overlooked or forgotten, but a scholar who has
contributed substantially to the growth and enrichment of a great
language deserves a better fate.