, 1880-01-10
JOHNSON'S DICTIONARY.

Did It Mako tho Written Bngllsh Of
uMyt-nv,aeneo Q. fsaak Waiton
S..na ana ~ Sns Mas.neW 1, Anao-spei1,'E s No.
nnoo,, "s' ~ ."mn 1w.,.a nas- -SnyHae Gan",.,.ss.e
] .noim.. % 1srnr ,,o',,'.harr eer ~""''"Sio"
Among tho rev points Which remain to be
tatlon of tho case In favor Of n fonctic rofonn
Of Enelish snnftfng n tho i,nnortanro uhlr,,
ne nsslgrs to Dr. Jotinsol's Dictionary In tho
formation Of the orthografy OF tho present
Gxed by Tol,nson,s Dictinnnry. and M ha lcft
i tsas1 y has, VIII qnl'apo1tant t. exceptions. 6 M @
Dictionary almost % Instantly petriaed the 3
forms Of the words included In It. rhe nnt-
ycrsal ndontion at the smelling ~ cn,novet hv
hln aiIesteo even inc lew processes toward
al1nplL1icution that Were then going un.n Yet
ngain: ut was not until tho appearance of
JoNuson,s Dictionary. In l7ss, t),at the ortloe-
pafv can he anil to ava bccono @ xe9 p JlIu !, ar
we are told, moreover, thae - The injury TINT
johnson did tho orthogrlfy Of our tongue
ca1l hardly be Inscribed to his tcachlngs,n
This belief Is altoaether erroneous. john
so!l HciuaeF lo!1ueo nor A1cu En6llSn
orthograpfy There was no adoption, uni
Yersa1 or partial, of tho spelling employed by
Johnson. II H. not trua tl,ot Enp1I.l, ~.
thosrapiy en- Sannot DO sala TO- have become
liked until 17b5, tile date Of the appearance OF
,lol.nsoh,s Dlctlon4ry. Johnson did the Or
lmoeGnphy gil {no EhEns9h tongue no injury;
,J,nt, johnson s}d not for'u IN any degree our
nl0uerli ertaogrnply, because nc took It
simply as ha found 1t, Ills spelling was not
aaGp.Sn , uniseisn!ly OF partlaliy, MMca1ise
tu!l nifty years before that event; English
ofthogfupfy was as inuch fixed during That
GniIeceasnt aIe Maii century es + had been ~ my
ia. n9a eet4F thnt 1hMs: S1nes, hH RsnK hhfue y TO-
neither harm nor good.
That 1t is true will, think, plntnly appear
upon the pr presentation Of certain facts liz the
casc: ! lai, III general way. co,ne long
1s ns L sa NV ny Sst &c f9Fts ss e
fonte stecHic and characteristic facts, nude
certain books the subject Of careful compare
.stn;, son; II WIS ase;ary drndgeEy, but when you
are z onV ona s 1f ay Ct 9[9ahd eonn1 4
knoWlGdges3@ count the noses I could
not, II would, repent here tho details Of my
comparison anu ln mercy 70 my readers
Woall hoS do so u could. ! shall merely
clear.
JOl.nson's Dictionary Was published in
l7I. The first, edition OF lsaak Walton's
'C0Mp!ete Angler WIS published IN 1EaS, -
to NIL lMtG,its aud purposes Just q CENTURY be-
fora the Dictionary. Waltan. although he
Tas not llke that master of English style,
John n!lnynn,, q wholly lllltorato man, Wns
yet unettutntetl, aud was not u good sIelier
for Ills day; but WE may pass over That dtsA-
blllty (which makes ag1slMBt my viow) in
consideration OF the position Of Ills book In
literature mud Of Its date. Tho examination.
Ut the words upon u hundred pages Ut
tho original edition Of tho " Complete Angler -
p,!d tho comparison Of them WITH Jollason's
Dictionary, shows eighty words In the for,ner
WHICH are spelled as they aro not spp!Iett In
the hitter. fhat il, one word III n pugu and
II Nunrteri There being an nyeragH ut iH0
words on pnge of the TComplete Angter.'
we hive IL, ,00O words on the 100 pages, BY
which wN Sue tlllt (lccording to this cuni-
parison) Walton spelled differently from Dr.
johnson only IN me word in s,5l
Advancing s0tne twenty-five years, Let us
take Lord 0hlriJnstles Sir Matthew 1Ialo's
"l.ife OF pomllonlus Att,p,is,' which was
published III lG71,-a good book for tho pur.
puse,-tta autilora scholar aIti lnp1l OF lei
{ers, The first edition, which OF course I
use, Ia carefully printed, but iy not without
Typographical errors, which, Iii my copy, Aru
onretuity cOrrectol Il, n contemporary hat,l,
which mention Mrre!y to show that Bucl.
errors were not p..sset over at that day, III
q hundred pages ot tllls book thera are thirty
two wortts. tle spelling Of which Is different