PREFACE. It is the object of the following Glossary to explain and illustrate all such words, phrases, and constructions, in the Authorized Version of the Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, and in the Book of Common Prayer, as are either obsolete or archaic. In books which have become so familiar, and which have so leavened our language, it is somewhat difficult to fix a standard by which to decide whether a word is partially or entirely obsolete, whether the phrase of which it is part is fallen into disuse, and whether the construction in which it is found is such as no modern writer would employ. In endeavouring to form an opinion for myself on these points, I have excluded from the comparison all such works in modern English literature as are immediately or indirectly derived from the books in question; I mean all sermons, devotional writings, and the so-called religious newspapers and periodicals. Their language is to so large an extent made up of unconscious quotation from our Authorized Version that, while they keep alive much that is valuable, they create the impression that the language has undergone far less change than has in reality befallen it. Setting aside therefore all literature of this kind, I have endeavoured, in the case of each word, or phrase, or construction, to ascertain whether it would find a place naturally in the usual prose writing of the day: I say 'naturally,' because I wish to exclude all conscious and intentional employment of archaisms. It is necessary, moreover, to take prose as the standard, because in all languages poetry has dominion over the words of many generations. By this subjective process I may have excluded some expressions which others would have inserted, and I may have inserted some which they would have excluded. I will only ask any reader, before pronouncing a judgement upon this point, to consider carefully the context of the passages which are in each case selected for illustration. There are of course instances in which there will be differences of opinion, but I hope I shall have succeeded in making these as few as possible. In considering the language of our English Bible, we must bear in mind that it has become what it is by a growth of eighty-six years, from the publication of Tyndale's New Testament in 1525 to that of the Authorized Version in 1611. Further, it must be remembered that our translators founded their work upon the previous versions, retaining whatever in them could be retained, and amending what was faulty. The result was therefore of necessity a kind of mosaic, and the English of the Authorized Version represents, not the language of 1611 in its integrity, but the language which prevailed from time to time during the previous century. It is in the writings of this period, therefore, that illustrations are to be sought, and from them the examples given in the present volume are chiefly derived. All these examples, except where the contrary is expressly stated, have been gathered in the course of independent reading, and in the few instances where quotations have been borrowed they have been carefully verified. At the end I have added, for convenience of reference, an index of the editions of books most frequently quoted. In the case of works not included in this index, as they are less frequently referred to, the date of the edition is given with the quotation. I may take this opportunity of mentioning a curious biblio graphical fact with regard to Udal's translation of Erasmus's Paraphrase, which I have not seen elsewhere mentioned. Of the first volume of this work, printed in 1548, three editions at least were issued, all bearing the same date. Before describing the differences between them it will be as well to state that the volume contains the Paraphrase of Erasmus on the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, that each book is preceded by the translator's dedication, and by Erasmus's preface, and that, in all the .editions of 1548, each book has the folios separately numbered and a separate set of signatures. The three copies bearing the date 1548, which I have examined, are roughly distinguished as follows: In (1) the folios are not numbered in the translator's dedication or in Erasmus's preface, but in the paraphrase alone. In (2) the system of numbering the folios is so irregular that it can best be distinguished as agreeing neither with (1) nor (3). In (3) the numbering of the folios includes both the translator's dedication and Erasmus's preface. In the edition of 1551 the folios are numbered continuously throughout the volume. As I only recently discovered these variations, I used for purposes of quotation copies of the editions |