A dictionary of the English language ...

1104 Pages·1785·123.709 MB·English

by  Samuel Johnson

DICTIONARY
O F T H E
LANGUAGE.
ENGLISH
VOL
I.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
/
http://vyww.archive.org/details/dictionaryofengl01johnuoft

Samuel
Johk^son,
i..i..d.
:
DICTIONARY
A
OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE:
I N W H I C H
THE WORDS ARE DEDUCED FROM THEIR ORIGINALS,
AND ILLUSXaATED IN THEIR DIFFERENT SIGNIFICATIONS BY EXAMPLES" FROM THE BEST WRITERS.
TO WHICH ARE PREFIXED,
HISTORYoF.THE LANGUAGE,
A
AND
ENGLISH GRAMMAR.
An
SAMUEL JOHNSON,
By LL.D.
TWO VOLUMES.
IN
V O L. L ^
THE SIXTH EDITION.
Cum tabulis animum cenforis fumet honefti
Auilebit quKcunque paruin fplendoris habebunt,
Et fine pondere erunt, ct honore indigna ferentur,
Verba moverc loco; quamvis invita recedant,
Et vcrfciituT adhuc intra penetralia Vcftx:
Obfcurata d;u populo bonus eruet, atqUe
Proferct in luccm fpcctolii vocabula rerum,
(^i.x- prifcis mcmorata Catonibus atque Cethsgis
Nunc fitus informis preinit ct delerta vetuftas. HoR.
LONDON
Piinteil for J. F. and C. Rivrrr.TOs, L. Davis, T. Payne and Sos, T. Losgmas, B. I,aw, J. Dodsley, C. Di^ly,
W. LowKors, G. G. J. ariil J. Kobinson, T. Cadeli., Jo.Johnson,,J. Kobson, W. Richardson, J. Nichols,
R.Ealdwih, W. Goldsmith, J. Murray, W. Stuart, P. Elmsly, W. Fox, S. H.vYtf, V. OoiuviE,
W. Bent, T. and J. Eoerton, J. Phillips, nnd M. NjiWBERV.
M.DCC.LXXXV.

;
R E F A C
E.
IT is the fate of thofe who toil at the lower employments of life, to be rather driven by the fear of'
evil, than attrafted by the profpedt of good to be expofed to cenfure, without hope ofpraife to be
j ;
difgraced by mifcarriage, or punifhed for negleft, where fuccefs would have been without applaufe,
and diligence withoutreward.
Among thefe unhappy mortals is the writer ofdiflionarlesj whom mankind have confidered, not as the
pupil, but the Have of fcience, the pioneer of literature, doomed only to remove rubbifh and clear ob-
ftruftions from the paths through which Learning and Genius prefs forwai-d to conqueft and glory, without
bellowing a fmile on the humble drudge that facilitates their progrefs. Every other author may afpire to
praife; the lexicographer can only hope to efcape reproach, and even this negative recompenfe has been yet
granted to very few.
I have, notwithftanding this difcouragement, attempted a Dictionary of the Englijh language, which,
while it was employed in the cultivation of every fpecies of literature, has itfelf been hitherto negleftedj
fuffered to fpread, under the direftion of chance, into wild exuberance refigned to the tyranny of time
;
and fafhion; and expofed to the corruptions of ignorance, and caprices of innovation.
"When I took the firft furvey of my undertaking, I found our fpeech copious without order, and
energetick without rules: wherever I turned my view, there was perplexity to be difentangled, and con-
fufion to be regulated; choice was to be made out of boundlefs variety, without any eftablifhed principle
of feledlion ; adulterations were to be deted:ed, without a fettled tcft of purity ; and modes of expreffion
to be rejefted or received, without the fuffrages of any writers of claflical reputation or acknowledged
authority.
Having therefore no affiftance but from general grammar, I applied myfelfto the perufal ofour writers
and noting whatever might be of ufe to afcertain or illuftrate any word or phrafc, accumulated in time the
materials ofa didionary, which, by degrees, I reduced to method, eftablifliing to myfelf, in the progrefs
of the work, fuch rules as experience and analogy fuggefted to me ; experience, which pradice and ob-
fervation were continually increafing; and analogy, which, though in fome words obfcure, was evident in
Others.
In adjufting the Orthography, which iias been to this time unfetcled and fortuitous, I found it necef-
fary to diftinguilh thofe irregularities that are inherent in our tongue, and perhaps coeval with it, from
others.which the ignorance or negligence of laterwriters has produced. Every language has its anomalies,
which, though inconvenient, and in themfelves once unneceffary, muft be tolerated among the imperfec-
tions of human things, and which require only to be rcgiflered, that they may not be increafed, and afcer-
tained, that they may not be confounded: but every language has likewife its improprieties and abfurdides,
which it is the duty of the lexicographer to corredl or profcribe.
As language was at its beginning merely oral, all words of neceflary or common ufe'were ifjolicn be-.
fore they were written ; and while they were unfixed by any vifible figns, muft ha,ve been fpoken with
great diverfity, as we now obferve thofe who cannot read to catch founds imperfeftly, and utter them
negligently. When this wild and barbarous jargon was firft reduced to an alphabet, every penman endea-
voured to exprefs, as he could, the founds which he was accuftomed to pronounce or to receive, and vi-
tiated in writing fuch words as were already vitiated in fpeech. The powers of the letters, when they
were applied to a new language, muft have been vague and unfettlcd, and therefore different hands would
exhibit the fame found by diiFerent combinations,
7 From
PREFACE.
From this uncfrtain pronunciation arifc in a great part the various dialcds of the fame country, which
will alwAVs bcr obfcrved to grow fewer, and lefs different, as books are multiplied ; and from this arbitrary
reprcfc-nt.uion of founds by letters, proceeds that divcrfity of fpclling obfcrvablc in the Saxon remains,
and I fupjx>fc in the firft books of every nation, which perplexes or dcftroys analogy, and produces ano-
maUius formations, that, being once incorporated, can never be afterwards difmiffed or reformed.
Ofthis kind arc the derivatives length from long, Jirwgth from ftrong, darling from dear, breadth from
kr—d^ from dry^ drought, and from' high, height, which Miltctt, in real for analogy, writes highthi
^id te fxempta JHvat Jpinis de pluribus una ? to change all would be too much, and to change one is
nothing.
Tl)i 'rninty is moft frequent in theVowels, which are fo capricioufly pronounced, and fo difFer-
cnily i: i, by accident or afFcAation, not only in every province, but in every mouth, that to
them, as Vk well known to ctymologifts, little regard is to be (hewn in the dcdu<5bion ofone language from
JUiotlier.
Such defeifls are not errours in orthography, but fpots ofbarbarity imprefl*ed fo deep in the EtigUJh
language, that criticifm can never wa(h ihcm away : thefe, therefore, muft be permitted to remain un-
touched but many words have likcwife been altered by accident, or depraved by ignorance, as the pro-
;
nunciation of the vulgar has been weakly followed ; and fome ftill continue to be varioufly written, as
authors differ in their care or fkill : of thefe it was proper to enquire the true orthography, which 1 have
always confidcreil as depending on their derivation, and have therefore referred them to their original lan-
guages : thus I write enchant, enchantment, enchanter, after the French, and incantation after the Latin ; thus
tniire is chofcn rather than intire, becaufc it paffcd to us not from the Latin integer, but from the French
tntiir.
Of many words it is difficult to fay whether they were immediately received from the Latin or the
French, fincc at the time v^hen we had dominions in France, we had Latin fcrvice in our churches. It is,
however, my opinion, that the French generally fupplied us for we hav^ few Latin words, among the
j
terms ofdomeftick ufe, which are not French; but many French, which are very remote from Latin.
Even in words ofJwhich the derivation is apparent, I have been often obliged to facrifice uniformity to
cuffom thus I write. In compliance v ith a numberlefs majority, convey and inveigh, deceit and receipt,
J
fancy and phantom fomctimes the derivative varies from the primitive, as explain and explanation, repeat
-,
4f>d repetition.
Some combinations of letters having the fame power, are ufed indifirrently without any difcoverable
'
reafon ofchoice, as in choak, choke /oap,fope fewel, fuel, and many others; which I have fomctimes in-
; ;
fcrted twice, that thofe who fearch for them under either form, may not fcarch in vain.
! In examining the orthography ofany doubtful word, the mode offpelling by which it is infcrted in the
(cries of the dictionary, is to be confidercd as that to which I give, perhaps not often rafhly, the prefer-
ence. I have left, in the examples, to every author Iiis own praftice unmolefled, that the reader may
J)alar.ce fuffrages, andjudge between us: but this qucftion is not always to be determined by reputed or
by rf.n Irirniii'i;; fome men, intent upon greater things, have thought little on founds and derivations;
f) in the ancient tongues, have neglefted tnofe inwhich ourwords are commonly to be fought.
T' .' writes " " '> (or feajillenejs, becaufe I fuppofe he imagined it derived immediately
Tr'' . _ ; ; and I uds, fuch as dependant, dependent; dependance, dependence, vary their final
lyllablc, as one or another language is prefent to the writer.
Jn this part ofthe work, where caprice has long wantoned without controul, and vanity fought praife
,
by petty reformation, I have endeavoured to proceed with a fcholar's reverence for antiquity, and a gram-
piarian's regard to die genius of our tongue. I have attempted few alterations, and among tiiofe few,
perhaps the greater part is from the modern to the ancient praftice; and I hope I may be allowed to re-
—
corv ' to thofe, whofe thoughts have been perlnps employed too anxioufly oii verbal fingularitics, not
|(> upon narrow views, or for minute propriety, the orthography of their fatliers. It has been
afll-rted, that for tlie law to be kninvn, is of more imf)ortance than to be right. Change, fays Hooker, is
rot made without inconvenience, even from worfe to better. There is in conft^ancy and Itability a general
and lafling advantage, which wiU always overbalance the flow improvements of g"radual correction.
Much
$