When Samuel Johnson\u2019s A Dictionary of the English Language<\/em> was published in 1755, it was neither the first work of its kind nor even the most comprehensive, yet its erudition, detail and authoritative manner ensured that it became a pillar of British culture. The key to its appeal lay in Johnson\u2019s decision to extract his word list from the literature of the previous 200 years. The dictionary\u2019s definitions are buttressed with illustrative quotations from some 500 authors, ranging from Shakespeare<\/a> to Milton to Swift, and these combine to make it an anthology of quotable sentiments.<\/div>\n\n
The dictionary is a testament to the tastes and values of the age in which it was produced. Sometimes Johnson\u2019s personal opinions colour his definitions \u2013 not all his contemporaries would have agreed that luggage is \u201cany thing of more bulk than value\u201d or that a distiller is \u201cone who makes and sells pernicious and inflammatory spirits\u201d. Yet far more often the dictionary documents the shifting boundaries of 18th-century society and thought. When Johnson explains that a novel is \u201ca small tale, generally of love\u201d, he alerts us to the low esteem in which prose fiction was held by his learned peers, while his definition of money as \u201cmetal coined for the purposes of commerce\u201d is a reminder that paper currency was then a recent and quite unpopular development.<\/div>\n
Samuel Johnson: what\u2019s in his dictionary?<\/h2>\n
The word commerce is one that crops us repeatedly: the dictionary testifies to the march of Georgian commercialism. London\u2019s commercial fashions, for instance, are the province of Joseph Addison, Johnson\u2019s favourite diarist of urban pretentiousness. Addison is hot on modish contemporary slang (fiddlefaddle, wiseacre, incog as a short form of incognito) and on modish phenomena (the chop-house, the sofa, the practice of eating snails). It is to the quotable essayist that Johnson owes his entries for whitewash, \u201ca kind of make-up used by women who wished to make their skin look fair\u201d, and for modesty-piece, a word Addison coined to describe the lace which concealed the more exciting parts of women\u2019s breasts.<\/div>\n\n
\n

How long did it take Dr Johnson to compile his dictionary?<\/h4>\n
Dr Samuel Johnson published his Dictionary of the English Language in 1755, but how long did this mammoth text take him to compile?<\/h6>\n
Asked to make a new dictionary in 1746 by a group of booksellers, Dr Samuel Johnson saw his role as to \u201cremove rubbish\u201d from the paths of learning. It took him and six assistants between eight and nine years to compile 42,773 words, complete with supporting quotations. The word \u2018take\u2019 needed five pages and 134 definitions. One wonders if \u2018taking the biscuit\u2019 was in there.<\/p>\n
Johnson published his Dictionary of the English Language in 1755. Compare that to the equivalent French dictionary, which required over half a century of work from 40 scholars, and the scale of his achievement becomes clear. His lexicon was by no means complete, though, as it included only a fraction of English words. Johnson left out X entirely, saying: \u201cX is a letter, which, though found in Saxon words, begins no word in the English language.\u201d<\/p>\n
His little nuggets of humour highlighted the flaws in his method. He defined \u2018oats\u2019 as \u201cA grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people,\u201d and under \u2018dull\u2019 he put: \u201cNot exhilarating, not delightful, as \u2018to make dictionaries is dull work\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n
This answer was taken from BBC History Revealed Magazine<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n
<\/p><\/div> <\/section><\/div>\n\n
Johnson records plenty of other fashions and innovations: the toyshop, mezzotints, spa towns, the tobacconist (where once the word had signified a tobacco addict, it now denoted a vendor), the newspaper advertisement, the shoeblack, the mania for tulips, and the cosmetic beauty-spot. In an oblique comment on the contemporary rage for vases \u2013 such a boon to that other famous native of Staffordshire, Josiah Wedgwood \u2013 he defines vase as \u201cgenerally a vessel rather for show than use\u201d.<\/div>\n\n
He also notes the phenomenon of the umbrella, a \u201cskreen [sic] used in hot countries to keep off the sun, and in others to bear off the rain\u201d. Umbrellas were not exactly new (Defoe had equipped Robinson Crusoe with an umbrella made of goatskin in 1719), but they were rarely used as a form of protection against British rain until the late 18th century. The philanthropist Jonas Hanway was supposedly the first Londoner to carry one for such purposes, in the early 1750s, and was mocked for doing so.<\/div>\n\n
As it happened, Hanway was one of the many eminent figures with whom Johnson tangled. Hanway liked to warn of the dangers of drinking tea, claiming it was \u201cpernicious to health, obstructing industry and impoverishing the nation\u201d. To Johnson this seemed risibly wrong-headed; he was pleased to pronounce himself a \u201chardened and shameless tea-drinker\u201d.<\/div>\n\n
Yet although it was the fashion for tea-drinking that mainly drove demand for another fruit of the colonies, sugar (which Johnson defines as \u201cthe native salt of the sugar-cane, obtained by the expression and evaporation of its juice\u201d) it was coffee that proved the more remarkable phenomenon of the age. Johnson gives a clue to this when he defines coffeehouse as \u201ca house of entertainment where coffee is sold, and the guests are supplied with newspapers\u201d. It was this relationship between coffee<\/a> and entertainment that made it such a potent force.<\/div>\n\n
\n

From his definition of cricket \u2013 ‘a sport, at which the contenders drive a ball with sticks in opposition to each other’ \u2013 we can infer that he never saw it played… <\/blockquote> <\/div> <\/div> <\/div>\n<\/div> <\/div>\n\n
Coffee was first imported to Europe from Yemen in the early part of the 17th century. The first English coffee house opened in 1652; by the middle of the following century there were several thousand in London. Coffee houses were meeting places, where customers \u2013 predominantly male \u2013 could convene to discuss politics and current affairs. By the time of the dictionary they were not so much gentlemanly snuggeries as commercial exchanges, often doubling up as libraries or theatres. They were centres, too, of political opposition, and, as they were open to all ranks and religions, they allowed a rare freedom of information and expression. Sceptics like Hanway may have been troubled most of all, then, by the capacity of tea and coffee to act as social lubricants.<\/div>\n\n
Changes in 18th-century leisure threatened the traditional structures of class and faith. For instance, the rising popularity of sports like football and cricket cut across social divides, and reflected the increasing commercialisation of leisure. Matches were money-making spectacles, calculated to attract a paying audience, many of whom would also gamble on the outcome. In defining sport as \u201cdiversion of the field, as of fowling, hunting, fishing\u201d Johnson chooses to omit the newer, codified sports, but they are noticed elsewhere in the dictionary. From his definition of cricket \u2013 \u201ca sport, at which the contenders drive a ball with sticks in opposition to each other\u201d \u2013 we can infer that he never saw it played. Yet it was worth including; the crowds at matches were by the 1750s numbering thousands rather than hundreds.<\/div>\n\n
\n
$\"""\"$ <\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture><\/div>