as,' be farther observes, 'nothing is pages of a lexicon. The liberty -therefore complained of,is only the liberty of retaining what former writers of dictionaries had intro duced. The next objection brought a gainst Johnson, is, his injudicious selection of authorities.' Among the authors cited in support of his definitions,' says the writer, 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 seventeenth 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 favourite; yet the style of sir T. is not English; and it is astonishing that a man attempting to 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.' We are not particularly anxious to vindicate the style of sir Thomas, though we have some respect for his labours. But why, Mr. W., this falling out with writers of the seventeenth century? In what period of the world did Tillotson, Locke, Milton, and Dryden live and write? Milton published some of his smaller poems, and several tracts in prose, before Brown's vulgar errors saw the light. But Til lotson, Locke, and Dryden, having fortunately written a few years af ter the unlucky sir Thomas, fell into the Augustan age of English literature....... The first fault which Mr. W, has noticed in Johnson's Dictionary, is, the insertion of a multitude of words that do not belong to our language. The number of this class,' he thinks, 'probably rises to two thousand or more.' It seems however, as well from his own acknowledgment, as the authorities produced by the lexicographer, that they were noted in dictionaries before the time of Johnson. Their preservation has been altogether harmless, except by adding a few leaves to a ponder ous work; for we are not acquainted with any writers who search their dictionaries to find out un common words: and the vocabulary preserved by memory, and used from recollection, is acquired by Johnson for authorities in ed by reading and, conversation, the use of words, which sufficiently instead of being drawn from the betray the affectation of the writer. Vol. IV. No. 12. 4N Mr, W. has indeed produced several passages from Brown, quot He is also 'confident that the number of words inserted, which are hot authorized by any English writer, and those which are found only in a single pedantick author like Brown, and which are really no part of the language, amount to four or five thousand at least a tenth part of the whole number. He infers therefore, that "Johnson's dictionary furnishes no standard of correct English; but in its present form tends very much to pervert and corrupt the language.' Let experience decide how far the work has this corrupting tendency. The writer concedes, under the next head of objections, that it is questionable how far vulgar and cant words are to be admitted into a dictionary: but, if any portion of such be inadmissible, Johnson has trangressed the rules of lexitography beyond any other compiler. J volete low word vulgar sense vulgar and unauthorised, &c. > Mr. W. will not contendTM that Shakspeare and B. Jonson should in no case be quoted as authorities. One great end of a dictionary is to enable us, in reading as well popular as learned writers, to ascertain the meaning of words which are not familiar; for without this means of interpreting them, whole passages might to the bulk of readers forever remain unintelligible. What thanks should we owe to the authors of our Latin dictionaries, if they had confined themselves to the elegant latinity of the age of Augustus? And if we may, with Addisony suppose in prospect a state of change and refinement, when the papers of him and his coadjutors shall pass for quaint, vulgar, or obsolete language, a line may be drawn, which shall exclude them from the catalogue of pure English authors.' If therefore Mr. W. will allow us to suggest a principle to qualify his own, it shall be this; that new words however formed should be received with caution; that old words should be rarely rejected;while, at the same time, in many cases, they should be attended with such marks of censure, as Johnson has very It is well known that, of this description of words, some are adopted on the authority of Ben Jonson, and a large proportion on that of Shakspeare. Shakspeare is an author whom the English, and all who speak the same tongue, reverence and admire: an author who will last as long, as the language in which he wrote. He has been more read and more com-judiciously adoptedbennis csende mented upon, than any other writ- Another charge brought against Jer of his nation; and hence cer- Johnson's dictionary is, 'a want of tainly he is entitled to an explana- just discrimination in his definition of those words, which, though tions. The examples selected to hot current in the eighteenth cen- prove this are in point, and they tury, and used, many of them, as might be multiplied. It would be low, cant terms in his own age, are next to miraculous, if the definiyet a part of written language. tions in such an inimense vocabuBut what sort of reception has lary were not sometimes imperfect Johnson given to these words? Mr. and sometimes false. There is W. has examined his work too much difficulty in explaining words faithfully to be ignorant of the cau- nearly synonimous, especially tious manner in which he has in- words of a moral import. Simple troduced them." They are follow-words also, which cannot be made ed by such warnings as these 66-plainer, will suffer from ab periA word made for the sentence. 1 phrastic definition; and ambiguous words, whose etymology as well as meaning is doubtful, must be set tled by usage, instead of conjectural derivation. With Mr. W.'s verbal criticism of several passages from different -authors we find no fault : and the utility of verbal criticism, however much the practice of it may be despised, cannot be questioned by those, who will condescend to be come the criticks, or be patient under their discipline. But with what sort of writers must we supopose Mr. W. to have been conversant, when be tells us that, in the course of thirty years reading, he has not found a single author who appears to have been accurately acquainted with the true import and force of terms in his own lan sguage. The best of our writers, probably for want of sufficiently sanalysing their words, have sometimes used them in a vague or improper manner. Let us not revolt hat the boldness of the accusation, , when they are charged with ignobrance of the import of words. No doubt Swift, and Temple, and Addison, and Johnson are children in language, and are to be deprecated as dangerous models, and avoided as men, who not only preserved abuses already existing when they wrote, but contributed to increase } the corruption of the English tongue We do not pretend to question MI. W.'s superiority to these gentlemen as a writer, though from our perverted taste, and long acquaintance with them, we do feel - some reluctance in giving up such companions. However, perfection is very desirable; and if our prejudices arenot too inveterate,and ✓ we are not too restless and turbu. lent when our friends are roughly used, we have the assurance of a guide thro' the mazes of language, Another particular,' says Mr. W., 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 authors of repu tation. Yet, in fact, this will be found on careful examination to be one of the most exceptionable parts of his performance; for two reasons: first, that no small share of his examples are [is] 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 definitions." He allows that the examples taken from those authors, who did not use language with purity, have not had a very extensive effect in corrupting the style of writing : while many of them therefore in our view, are useful, the remainder of them are little worse than trifling, in the opinion of our author. The few examples, which he has cited, as throwing no light on the definitions, are sufficientlyto his purpose. There is indeed no necessity of explaining what every one understands; and that Johnson has multiplied authorities under some words, without increasing the value of his work, as a dictionary for the explaining of terms, every one will admit. But we cannot join with Mr. W. in his assertion, that ONE HALF of Johnson's dictionary is composed of quotations equally as useless' as those he has selected. We are little anxious however to obtain the precise proportion, that the su ! perfluous bears to the useful; and are free to declare our satisfaction with the plan of citing passages from reputable authors, and leaving the reader to judge, whether the word to be explained conform in the author quoted to the definition of the lexicographer. Nothing can be more fair in the writer of a dictionary: and instances exhibited from various standard writers to prove the meaning of a word, a meaning which has generally obtained, would satisfy us in "opposition to all doubtful, or even indisputable etymologies. amusing to some minds, and is not After selecting several examples from Johnson to shew what ety"mology is, and producing a few of his own to shew what he intends it shall be in his proposed work," Mr. W. proceeds to the peroration. Mr. W. observes, contemptuously enough, that whether this mode of constructing the work was "intended for the benefit of the compiier, or whether it was a speculation of the booksellers, as Mr. Tooke has suggested, is hardly worth an inquiry. But an inquiry would satisfy Mr. W. that neither the benefit of the compiler, nor the speculation of the booksellers, dictated the precise form of the Doctor's work. He originally formed it on a plan still larger than that which was executed; and -intended that the examples quoted to illustrate his definitions, should serve the double purpose of explaining the meaning of words, and of amusing those who should examine his dictionary. He was In this part of his performance obliged to reduce his quotations, if he ascribes some general merit to not in number, at least in quanti- Johnson, and speaks of the modern ty and thus to mutilate the ex- European improvements in phitracts, which he had been at solology. He has little hope of aid much pains in collecting. ul nos from his fellow-citizens, especially The last defect in Johnson's from those in the large towns : dictionary, that Mr. W. notices,while, to heighten their ingratiis the inaccuracy of the etymolo-tude, he thinks his labours disingies. fo 9010* & el dterested, and of far less conseThe tracing of words through a quence to himself than to his counThe Tong line of ancestry, and giving try! He condemns our servile Ythe direct and collateral branches dependence upon European autheir respective places in the gen-thorities and opinions, and recomvalogical tree, is undoubtedly verymends it to pur citizens to lay aside 2 their modern English books. This recommendation probably extends to all those writings that are called English classicks, which were doubtless included in Mr. W.'s thirty years reading, whose authors we are told were not accurately acquainted with the true import and force of terms in their own language.' We have extended our review of this pamphlet beyond our common limits for the same number of pages; because it embraces several principles of the lexicographer, some of which are novel, and may prove dangerous in their operation. We are not among the number of those,who contend that Johnson is faultless. His errours and defects are numerous; but the gengeral plan of his dictionary is judicious, and the execution displays a wonderful extent of research into English writers, and as much accuracy and discrimination in the definitions, as could be expected in the time employed, and with the means that could be procured. It is certainly to be wished, that it were much nearer perfection than it actually is. We are not so bigoted to the work, as to discourage all attempts to improve it, or to produce a better: and we feel perfectly willing to indulge Mr. W. in his labours, even if they promise less in our opinion, than in his own. Not disposed to hazard our repurtation as prophets, we forbear to foretel the merit of his intended production.lt d i plete. I shall pursue it with zeal, and undoubtedly with success.' What then have we to fear! All the intricacies of language are to be unravelled. Why should we care how? It will be sufficient for us to enjoy the advantages that will result. It has indeed been remarked, that empyricks are always the most confident of curing disease, while they are ignorant of the constitutions of their patient, and the qualities of their prescriptions: but let not a parallel thence be forced for an ungenerous surmise against our author. He has a right to express his confidence at the beginning of the race; and if he should not gain the prize for which he started, it will be the time after his failure, for those who are disposed to worry a jaded author, to assail him with the weapons of ridicule and malice. ART. 70. An Essay on the rights and duties of nations, relative to fugitives from justice, considered with reference to the affair of the Chesapeake. By an American. Boston, D. Carlisle, 5, Court-street. Ir foreigners should ever read our ephemeral and local essays, and should from the character of these form an opinion of our nation, and of the talents of its literary men, we should have no reason to complain of the contemptuous opinion, which every literary Mr. W. repeats the remark of man in Europe entertains of the Darwin, that the discoveries of state of literature in our country. Mr. Tooke unfold at a single flash It is a source of no little satisfacthe true theory of language, which tion to us, that the work, of which had lain for ages buried beneath we now propose to take some the learned lumber of the schools.' small notice, can never do any That author however,' he adds, very extensive injury to the repu ** has left; the investigation incom-tation of our country; for we much |