Customer Reviews

Defining the World: The Extraordinary Story of Dr Johnson's Dictionary

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Those who remember Samuel Johnson remember him through Boswell's vigorous and detailed biography, not through Johnson's literary works themselves. There are few experts steeped in eighteenth century literature who are closely familiar with Johnson's essays, poems, dramas, biographies of poets, and evaluations of the plays of Shakespeare. Most of us know, though, that a woman preaching is like a dog walking on its hind legs; one doesn't wonder that the task is done well, but rather that it is done at all. That's Johnson, speaking in Boswell's book, and countless other memorable episodes are there that are part of common culture. Johnson's greatest work is also seldom read today but is the foundation of a great deal of literary thought and philosophy. His _Dictionary of the English Language_ was published exactly 250 years ago. Henry Hitchings, in his book _Defining the World: The Extraordinary Story of Dr Johnson's Dictionary_ (Farrar, Straus and Giroux), has mined the dictionary in many ways to show that it is a treasure house: "More than any other English dictionary, it abounds with stories, arcane information, home truths, snippets of trivia, and lost myths." It also shows Johnson's interests, beliefs, prejudices, preachiness, and occasional ignorance in ways that Boswell could not. This is a delightful book, a lightly-written, loving tribute to Johnson and his great work, full of insights about the man and his times.

Hitchings has included many biographical facts to lead up to Johnson as lexicographer, but his dictionary is always central. The dictionary is astonishingly the work of this one man, toiling in his London garret (now a museum) and always criticizing himself for his sloth. Johnson's choice of words and his definitions of them often show the turns of his mind. He would not let objectivity interfere with his moral mission, as in "Suicide: the horrid crime of destroying oneself." He is decorous about naughty words, leaving many out, and including others that required reading between the lines. "Bagnio" he defined as "a house for bathing, sweating, and otherwise cleansing the body," but everyone knew it was a brothel disguised as a bathhouse, and Johnson was having some arch fun with his definition. Similarly droll, but again with insistent morality, was "bawd: one that introduces men and women to each other, for the promotion of debauchery." Johnson originally thought his dictionary would make firm the language against changes, but he eventually realized that such a goal was illusory. He was a bad prognosticator of which new words would last and which would not; he thought "ignoramus" and "shabby" were poor constructions that would prove to be ephemeral, and recommended the increased use of "ultimity: the last stage" and "to warray: to make war." In any huge undertaking such as this, there must be errors, and though errors here are few, they are entertaining. A tarantula, Johnson tells us, is "an insect whose bite is cured only by music," reflecting folklore of the time that had been recently confirmed by a Neapolitan violinist. Johnson had no ear or taste for music, so a sonata is merely "a tune." (After hearing a violinist's performance, someone mentioned how difficult the playing was, and Johnson said, "Difficult? Sir, I wish it were impossible.") A pastern is "the knee of a horse," when it ought to be (and Johnson revised it to be) "that part of the leg of a horse between the joint next the foot and the hoof." When he was asked, at a large dinner, how he managed to get this one so wrong, he was unevasive: "Ignorance, Madam, ignorance." He even admitted ignorance in his definition of "trolmydames", a word found in _The Winter's Tale_. Where the definition ought to be is rather a short confession: "Of this word I know not the meaning." This is a little better than the _Oxford English Dictionary_, which has yet to acknowledge even the existence of the word.

The _OED_, with its armies of readers, editors, and compilers, has far surpassed Johnson's great work, but includes much of it. Its first editor, James Murray, worked with Johnson's dictionary on his table beside him, and paid his preceding lexicographer tribute by including many of the definitions unchanged: "It would be mere affectation or folly to alter what cannot be improved." Hitchings's affectionate tribute accomplishes a worthy task of allowing us to admire anew Johnson's life and great work.

Defining the World does for Dr. Johnson's 18th century dictionary what Simon Winchester did in The Meaning of Everything for the Oxford English Dictionary. A popular, readable and enjoyable history. Hitchen's doesn't have the "spark" of Winchester's prose, he's only 30 and it's his first book, but he is well versed in his subject-he has a recent PhD on it in fact-the book is very well written. Most memorable for me were the descriptions of life in London in the middle to late 18th century and its many floppy characters. As befitting a book about a dictionary, there is substantial discussion of words and definitions and the many permutations-a seemingly dry subject but in the hands of Hitchings, under the guidance of Johnson's raw material, is really very funny and interesting. Unlike the OED, the Dictionary doesn't have a dramatic creation story, other than Johnson's colorful character which is as much mythology as reality. If for no other reason than I keep running into "Doctor Johnson" and his dictionary everywhere I turn, this book provided enjoyable context on what it's all about. As my studies will in the future focus on the 18th century, Dr Johnson has become an indespensible piece of culture to know about.

This book gets off to rather a slow start. The first 45 pages - about a sixth of the book - tell us of Johnson's life before he started work on the Dictionary. True, it links some of the events of Johnson's life to definitions he will give in his Dictionary; but such links are relatively few: the biographical element and the not unfamiliar social history of 18th century London predominate. That is pleasant enough, but one is impatient for the story of the Dictionary to begin. But when it does start, the book becomes really interesting and indeed fascinating.

Initially Johnson hoped to `stabilise' the English language, to exclude `low terms' from it, and, through many of the elevating passages he chose to illustrate the use of a word, to promote education, religion or morality. Later, however, he felt the responsibility to record how English was actually being used in his time - that being the view which predominates among modern lexicographers. If he has to include words of which he really disapproves, he notes that they are `cant'. But he happily included some robust slang expressions of his time and certain vigorous words of abuse. He was suitably idiosyncratic in deciding which words are cant (bamboozle, nervous, the drink stout, flirtation), which are `low' (ignoramus, simpleton) and which are not. He also had a great dislike for words recently imported from France, though he includes them: bourgeois, unique, champagne, cutlet, trait, ruse, finesse. He would of course have known what a huge range of French words came into the English language with the Norman Conquest; but for him any word, of whatever origin, that had been used by the Elizabethans had a respectable pedigree.

Johnson's methodology is interesting. He began with underlining a word in passages from his vast reading; that word would then be written on a slip of paper, together with the passage or passages in which it had figured; and the slips were then arranged in alphabetical order. Hitchings writes that `fundamentally Johnson was less interested in language than in its use by writers'. Johnson noted the etymological origin of words, but was more interested in how they had then developed therefrom through usage. He quoted lavishly from the Bible (4,617 times) and from some 500 authors, ranging from the famous to some who are today almost completely unknown - but refused to quote from writers such as Hobbes or Bolingbroke whom he thought too wicked. His quotations give one an insight into his own tastes and that of his contemporaries. As a result the Dictionary becomes what Hitchings calls `a giant commonplace book'.

In chapters on Johnson's melancholia and introspection we are give quotations which are reflections on such experiences. Others were chosen to illustrate the frustrations of marriage - Johnson's own marriage having been a very difficult one.

In the course of the book Hitchings quotes nearly 500 of the Dictionary's 42,733 definitions. Some of these are exceedingly polysyllabic and Latinate, rightly characterized by Hitchings as a `sesquipedalian avalanche'; in others, like his references to Scots, to Whigs or to Catholicism and Presbyterianism, he avowedly and robustly airs his prejudices, as he does in his laudatory quotation following the word `royalist'. He regards suicide as `a horrid crime'; he shows his contempt for foxhunters; his prejudice against alcohol is given expression in his definition of distillers. And there are many words now, alas, lost and not to be found in my Collins Dictionary (though they are in the great Oxford English Dictionary). Hitchings provides a feast of them throughout the book; here are just a few: abbey-lubber, giglet, extispicious, pickthank and pricklouse, jobbernowl and dandyprat, fopdoodle and witworm. Johnson also listed the delightful-sounding trolmydames because he had found it in Shakespeare, but confessed that `of this word I know not the meaning'. (The OED does not list it; but Webster's 1913 Dictionary does know it: the source seems to be a trou-madame, meaning a pigeonhole, and trolmydame is the name of `the game of nineholes'.)

Hitchings draws out very well how the Dictionary entries relate to the customs and fashions of his time, to its science and its entertainments.

The last forty pages of the book mainly tell the later history of the Dictionary and of its later editions. Although the Dictionary did have some violent critics, it quickly became a classic. In 1773 a fourth edition appeared, with significant changes made by Johnson himself. The Dictionary's definitions even figured in 20th century legal cases about the American Constitution, with lawyers claiming that the 1787 wording of the Constitution would have carried the meanings ascribed to them by the then standard authority of the Dictionary.

Although the 42,733 definitions in the first edition were but a small part of the 250,000 to 300,000 words in the English language at that time, Johnson's achievement was immense. He was after all the sole compiler of the Dictionary, compared with the 40 members of the French Academy who had toiled for 55 years to produce theirs. Johnson had hoped to complete the work in three years. In the end it took him nine, from 1746 to the first edition in 1755. And he had laboured without much help from the Earl of Chesterfield, to whom Johnson had submitted the original plan in hope of the Earl's patronage. By the time the Dictionary was about to be published, Johnson had made a name for himself with other writings, and the Earl now belatedly posed as Johnson's patron. Hitchings tells well the story of that famous put-down of the Earl by Johnson which was also a watershed in the history of patronage.

One feels like cheering. I have always had a liking for Johnson's quirky and forthright character. The Dictionary shares these qualities, and what I have learnt from this admirable, charming and scholarly book has further reinforced my affection for him.

Dr. Johnson is known for putting together the first comprehensive dictionary of the English language in the 18th century, creating a massive dictionary intended to be competed in 3 years, but which took over a decade of work. His dictionary was one of the most important creations of its times and it reached even into America with its importance - but relatively few accounts have followed Dr. Johnson's actual work. Defining The World: The Extraordinary Story Of Dr. Johnson's Dictionary also presents an A-Z dictionary-like arrangement to describe Johnson's effort, vision, mistakes, and frustrations in creating his famous work. It's a 'must' for any who would understand how the work was created, and its ongoing impact on the world.

After I read and enjoyed The Meaning of Everything, tackling this book (which I saw reviewed in The Weekly Standard) was a natural "second step" for me. Hitchings includes sufficient background material on Samuel Johnson to enlighten the uninformed without losing sight of his major goal, which is to demonstrate how Johnson tackled the daunting task of compiling an English dictionary in the 18th century with few models and minimal help available. Cleverly, Hitchings uses actual definitions of words from Johnson as the equivalents of chapter titles (I wonder just how long he had to fish through the dictionary to find words and definitions to match the progress of his narrative). An excellent effort.

A small book about Dr. Johnson and his dictionary that defined an age. It is a wonderful effort for those who love the English language and the words that give it life.

Only in his early thirties, Mr. Hitchings is a talented and intelligent writer of the type Dr. Johnson, if he were alive today, would certainly appreciate and invite into his company at the local coffeehouse.

Those who enjoy this book should take an oath to obtain and read "The Life of Samuel Johnson" by James Boswell.

Dr. Samuel Johnson created the first comprehensive English dictionary almost single-handedly, and this book traces the story of it's creation. Hitchings wrote his doctoral thesis on the same subject, and this book seems to be an expansion of his original work - I originally read the British publication but have since learned that this American publication is the same with a different title. The author is obviously well-researched on his subject, and this book is entertaining and informative, though sometimes slow and dry. The frame of the book is Johnson's life and the chapters are charmingly titled by a word and definition from the dictionary that is relevant to the chapter's subject matter, but the true meat and real delight of this book are the choice words and definitions Hitchings gleans from the original work and the anecdotes of Johnson's life that give glimpses into his mind.

The writing of the dictionary was truly an achievement, and Hitchings traces Johnson's ingenuity, labors, and ultimate impact with great care. In every paragraph it is obvious that Hitchings is an expert in his material and he treats the subject matter with respect. In addition to the many historical facts he presents regarding Johnson's life and career, Hitchings seems to take delight in sharing as many definitions as he can squeeze in, especially the odd ones, and draws many conclusions about Johnson himself from how they were written. In fact, I had the impression while reading it that it was the peculiarities of the Dictionary that got Hitchings interested to begin with. The fact that he is obviously an expert in his subject and presents his proof, from the dictionary, other contemporary sources, and Johnson's extensive writing, with every deduction makes this story both believable and interesting.

The only real fault in this book to me was the fact that Hitchings' writing is at times a little too dry and too fond of long words. Parts of the book drag and feel repetitive, though when I went back to figure out where the repetition was, I couldn't find it. It just felt that way while reading it, that I just wanted Hitchings to get to his next point already. Hitchings includes an immense amount of material with Johnson's life - history of dictionaries, circumstance of and commentary on life in the 18th century, and definition after definition - so the book felt very long.

The best part of this book is the joy of entertaining definitions. My favorites are the confusing ones, like "to lie with" meaning "to converse in bed," and the list of words with vastly different meanings than they carry today, such as "urinator" meaning "a diver, one who searches underwater." Hitchings shows his own flashes of humor and personality in his work, just as Johnson did, by sharing his favorite anecdotes of Johnson and his own tart remarks on Johnson's writings, such as the above definition of "to lie with," where he points out that Johnson "could certainly have been more straightforward." For anyone who enjoys words and their various meanings, it is well worth a read.

Putting together an English dictionary may not sound like a particularly juicy topic, but as several fine books on the making of the Oxford English Dictionary attest, it can be more interesting than one might imagine. Of course, Johnson's effort much antedated the OED, coming out originally in 1755, and even though his was not the first English dictionary, its impact has been enormous. For one thing, it appeared at an opportune time to assist the integration of Britain's growing empire and to facilitate trade. The author tells us a good deal about Johnson (Boswell did not cover it all) as a preface to his discussion of the actual process of developing the dictionary--a herculean job for a team, let alone one not too well organized scholar of poetry and literature.

True to its 18th century origins, the dictionary not merely listed and defined words, but undertook to identify the origins of words relying upon some 200 years of English literature. Moreover, again reflecting 18th century trends, Johnson tried to develop a scientific approach to language and lexicography. In addition, Johnson meant to manifest a sense of British national identity in his text, and accomplished this goal as well. To read the dictionary is to see reflected tastes and values of Johnson's period. So Johnson's dictionary is more than just a compilation of words, but becomes a much richer resource for understanding Johnson and his times. The author includes an interesting discussion of Johnson's impact on American English of the period, most directly as reflected in the dictionaries of Noah Webster and Joseph Worchester. All told, it is a valuable discussion well executed by the author, although it does drag a bit every so often.

This is an extraordinary book itself--part biography, part intellectual history, part cultural history, part criticism and part paean. I suppose it must be all these things to convey to the reader the extraordinary magnitude of Johnson's achievement as well as the extraordinary nature of Samuel Johnson, the eighteenth century polymath who 250 years ago created, single-handedly, the first great dictionary of the English language and in so doing produced a work of lasting greatness while at the same time laying down the standards by which lexicography is practiced even today.

Hitchings 35 chapters all begin with a word and a definition from Johnson's Dictionary. (Some letters are represented more than once, others not at all.) Thus we have chapters with titles like "Adventurous," "Amulet," "English," Lexicographer," "Patron," and "Philology." Johnson's definition of the word lexicographer is worth quoting. It reveals not only the self-deprecating man but also his emphasis on etymology. To Johnson, a lexicographer is "a writer of dictionaries, a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original and detailing the signification of words."

Johnson began work on the Dictionary in 1747, commissioned by a coalition of printers and booksellers. When he began, he confidently estimated that he could complete the work in three years. (In fact, it took him eight years.) He was to be paid 1,500 guineas (1,575), in installments, about 150,000 in today's money. The task dragged out because Johnson soon realized "the moral importance of the work and the philosophical difficulties of rationalizing language."

Johnson's innovation as a lexicographer was to infer meanings from actual use. Thus he read great swaths of English literature, searching for and recording examples of how writers actually used words. For the most part, lexicographers still follow Johnson's methods, though now they include spoken as well as written examples. By the time he had done, Johnson had approximately 110,000 quotations to illustrate 42,773 entries. (He used only half the quotations he collected.) Previous dictionary writers had simply taken their word lists from other works. Johnson did look at previous attempts and then abandoned that approach in favor of his perusal of English writers.

Early on, Johnson sought the patronage of the Earl of Chesterfield, a wealthy young aristocrat with a known interest in the arts. In an age before large publishing houses, contracts, copyrights and royalties, patronage--that is, financial support--was about the only way a writer could make a go of it. In the event, the Earl was of little or no help. Nonetheless, as the dictionary neared publication, Chesterfield let it be known that he would like the Dictionary to be dedicated to him. Johnson's reaction is famous. In a letter to the Earl, Johnson asserted that "[t]he notice which you have been pleased to take of my Labours, had it been early, had been kind; but it has been delayed till I am indifferent and cannot enjoy it, till I am solitary and cannot impart it, till I am known and do not want it."

Homer nods and even Johnson makes mistakes. His definitions are sometimes inaccurate or more complex than the thing defined. He defines "pastern" as the knee of a horse. It is not. His famous definition of "net"--anything with interstitial vacuities--is unnecessarily difficult. He also includes a number of unusual words, words which are today unknown and were unusual even in his own day. Examples include `amatorcultist,' a `little insignificant lover'; `bellygod,' `one who makes a god of his belly'; `deosculation', the `act of kissing'; `mouth-friend', `one who professes friendship without intending it' (one can see reason for reviving this word); `mouth-honor', `civility outwardly expressed without sincerity' (this one, too); `potvaliant', a person `heated with courage by strong drink'; `schiomachy', `battle with a shadow'; `shapesmith', `one who undertakes to improve the form of the body'; `vaticide', a `murderer of poets' (who would do such a thing); and `goldfinder,' a word used, humorously, by those who empty toilets. Still, despite its defects, Johnson's Dictionary was the standard for a century. The poet Robert Browning felt it necessary to read the thing through as a means of preparing himself for his career as a poet. And many other writers felt the same sort of respect for Johnson's work.

Such was Johnson's authority that no one felt the need to replace his Dictionary until 1857, when it was more than 100 years old. In that year, Hitchings writes, "London's august Philological Society decided that a new English dictionary was needed." Work on that dictionary, which was to become the Oxford English Dictionary, began on 12 May 1860. Completed with an army of assistants, the work on OED continued for 68 years. James Murray, the principal lexicographer, "worked with Johnson's Dictionary open on the table beside him in his Scriptorium. . . . In the end the OED reproduced around 1,700 of Johnson's definitions, marking them simply `J'. His layout and method of definition were also followed."

Even though the American Noah Webster despised Johnson, his reach extended across the Atlantic in his own day and touches us even now in the twenty-first century. According to Hitchings, American legal scholars, particularly constitutional scholars, consult Johnson's Dictionary to understand the meanings of words current at the time of the founding of our Republic. Hitchings cites the February 2000 case of Campbell v. Clinton. This action was brought by seventeen members of the US Congress, who argued that in authorizing approximately 4,500 air strikes in Yugoslavia, President Bill Clinton was declaring war, and, constitutionally, only Congress could make such declarations. The meanings of both `declare' and `war' were called into question, and the courts decided to "consult the dictionary which would have been the standard authority at the time when the Constitution was drawn up in 1787. That standard authority was of course Johnson."

Though it is now more than 250 years old, the great work continues to influence the affairs of men. Hitchings has written a spellbinding account of both the man and the work.

This is an extremely well- written and pleasurable book. It tells the story of the making of Dr. Johnson's Dictionary. Each of its chapters is presented as a dictionary entry beginning with the word 'Adventurous' and concluding with 'Zootomy'. The entry by entry device does not disturb the narrative flow of the book. Hitchings tells the story chronologically and provides excellent background biographical material. He gives a picture of Johnson's early years which in some sense complements and completes the picture given by Boswell in the English language's most well-known biography.
The picture Hitchings makes of Johnson is of an enormously vibrant figure , a man of tremendous energy who while condemning himself all the time for his 'sloth' was doing the work of many men at once. Hitchings in telling this story gives a very vivid picture of London life, especially London low- life in the late eighteenth century. His recounting of the friendship of Johnson with the poet Savage, about whom Johnson wrote his most interesting 'life as a poet' gives a sense of the tremendous disorder , dirt and yet attractiveness of that world.
Johnson despite his lonely dedication to his scholarship was an enormously sociable person, and this book is peopled with dozens of remarkable characters among them the actor Garrick, and the Dictionary's as it were patron, Lord Chesterfield.
The creating of the Dictionary was a tremendous labor. Johnson originally thought it would take three years but it took ten. The achievement was great, and as Hitchings makes clear it was not an etymological one alone. The 'Dictionary' is as Hitchings sees us a work of thought and of morals, and above all a work of Literature.
Hitchings traces the various aspects of the works creation, and reception, its importance to English Literature and Language.
This is an outstanding and highly recommended work, written with the intelligence and perception which a close association with Johnson's work would seem to almost necessarily bring.