doi:10.

1093/ijl/eci021

JOHNSON AMONG THE EARLY

MODERN GRAMMARIANS
Linda C. Mitchell: San Jose State University, Department of English and Comparative
Literature, San Jose,California (lmitchel@email.sjsu.edu)

The significance of Johnsons dictionary makes sense only when it is seen in the
context of early modern England school grammars. Seventeenth-century grammar
texts included many lexicographical components that dictionary authors had not yet
incorporated in their own lexicons. However, in the eighteenth century as grammarians
became more concerned with pedagogical issues in school grammars, lexicographers
focused on researching and documenting the English language. In A Dictionary of
the English Language (1755), Samuel Johnson combines successful practices of early
grammarians (e.g., grammar, etymology, usage notes, pronunciation, definitions, and
quotations) with witty commentary and literary quotations. Johnsons landmark
dictionary went beyond the efforts of grammarians in that Johnson wanted to do more
than provide lexicographical information. He wanted readers to enjoy reading the
dictionary and to increase their knowledge.

1. Introduction
Although lexicographers in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century England had
published some developed dictionaries, it was Samuel Johnsons Dictionary of
the English Language (1755) that set the standards for lexicons in both England
and America. Johnsons dictionary also marked a shift in language authority
from grammarians to lexicographers.1 In the seventeenth century, dictionaries
had consisted of crude lists of synonyms that served as rudimentary definitions to translate foreign languages like Latin or French, while grammar texts
included many of what we would consider lexicographical components:
pronunciation, spelling, definitions, etymology, and usage notes. Grammarians
were primarily responsible for decisions about the English language, decisions
they usually made by consulting Latin grammars that held a centuries-long
tradition of authority.
In the eighteenth century, decisions about language increasingly fell under
the purview of lexicographers. While grammarians continued to focus on
International Journal of Lexicography, Vol. 18 No. 2
2005 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions,
please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

Abstract

204

Linda C. Mitchell

grammar-related material, lexicographers developed more comprehensive

dictionaries. Johnson was able to write his monumental Dictionary of 1755
because he made use of several techniques grammarians had used in grammar
texts, such as incorporating usage notes, making decisions on correctness,
illustrating meanings with quotations, and even attempting witticisms.
Johnsons ability to use the most successful techniques of grammarians, as
well as lexicographers, helped to shift language authority to lexicographers.
[See also the discussion by Barnbrook of usage notes, this issue of
IJL editors.]

The significance of Johnsons dictionary makes sense only when it is seen in

the context of grammar texts in early modern England.2
Seventeenth-century grammar books were in Latin, with some explanation
in the vernacular, and they covered a wide range of language-related material.
Grammar texts might include such varied components as hard-word lists,3
spelling, pronunciation, synonyms, homonyms, etymology, Latin-English
dictionaries, poetry, logic, rhetoric, and Scripture lessons. Some texts even
included encyclopedic matter, such as caring for sick cows or planting crops.
It is important to note, however, that English grammar texts were not
considered reliable linguistic referees. Since Latin had centuries-old traditional
authority, grammarians looked to Latinists to arbitrate grammatical questions.
William Lilys A Short Introduction of Grammar (1567), for example, not only
held the rights to a nationally-approved grammar (of Latin) to be used in
schools, it also held a position of authority and prestige.
By mid-seventeenth-century, grammarians were already arguing for a
dictionary that would fulfill lexicographical needs. As early as 1649 George
Snell called for a dictionary that was separate from grammar texts. In The
Right Teaching of Useful Knowledge, Snell notes:
second medium to make the English tongue a settled, certain and corrected
language, would bee to cause a Lexicon to bee composed, wherein a full
measure of all sorts of words, as in a common store-house, may bee laid up.
(1649: 35)
He lists eight components to be included in the dictionary:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

words which are fair and pleasing words to the ear

origination (i.e., etymology)
a brief description of every noun and verb
words used frequently
words with different levels of meaning

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

2. Seventeenth-century grammarians and authority

Johnson Among the Early Modern Grammarians

205

(6) words that are Anglicized

(7) standardized lexicon and grammar
(8) rules that come from a designated authority (1649: 36)
This list is surprisingly well defined for the middle of the seventeenth century.
Snell claims that if these instructions are followed,

Johnson would follow these eight requirements in his dictionary.

Several grammarians of the seventeenth century were already using lexicographical techniques in their texts. In Orbis sensualium pictus (1659), also
considered to be an early foreign language dictionary, Johann Amos Comenius
defines words by using pictures to connect the names of objects with their
referents. A tool for teaching grammar and vocabulary to young children, the
book consists of a series of drawings in which each picture has numbers affixed
to things for the students to name. Below the drawing the numbers are listed
with vocabulary to correspond to the picture. Comenius experimented with
pictures and words to teach visible language, a method that is still used today
with children. Elisha Coles also uses a lexicographical format in Nolens Volens:
Or You Shall Make Latin Whether You Will or No (1675) to explain rules
in English with Latin examples, a method unusual for grammar texts in the
seventeenth century. He places an English word by a small drawing of
an object, then he uses the word in a quotation from the Bible, first on the left
side in English, then on the right side in Latin. Although Coles method was
an efficient one for teaching grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, spelling,
etymology, and religion, teachers found it easier to stay with known,
traditional ways of teaching grammar. Lexicographers in the next century,
however, would continue the practice of using pictures and quotations in
dictionaries.
In the seventeenth century, grammar books satisfied both Latin and English
vocabulary needs, while dictionaries were usually confined to one language.4
Grammar books had an advantage because they listed Latin-English and
English-Latin word lists, while dictionaries specialized only in difficult English
words. Until the end of the century grammar books were still all about Latin,
even when written in English, even when they were called English grammars
in their titles.5 Latin grammar books, therefore, were not always practical
for someone who wanted to find an English word and its synonym, spelling, or
pronunciation. Dictionaries, by contrast, could focus on short definitions and
could include more information about the word. For example, in A Table

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

language and the writing of it, and the Signification of it will bee always
undoubted and certain, without variation and change; and held to an
immutability; as the Latin now is, by the power of the Grammar and
Dictionaries for Latin. (1649: 40)

206

Linda C. Mitchell

3. Early eighteenth-century grammar texts and new lexicographical demands

In the early eighteenth-century, the publication of grammar books for English
created a greater demand for vocabulary in the vernacular. This demand
increased even more as the vernacular lexicon began to stabilize and the
dictionary-type material outgrew the parameters of grammar books.
Dictionaries, however, were still elementary, with only a short definition,
synonym, or commentary for each word; grammar books included the more
analytic information: pronunciation, meaning, parts-of-speech classification,
etymology, spelling, and usage. During this phase, grammarians (e.g., Guy
Mie`ge 1688, Richard Johnson 1706, Charles Gildon 1712, Michael Maittaire
1712, James Greenwood 1722) tried to retain their authority in making
decisions about language. One way they were able to sustain their authority
was to increase the kinds of material in grammar texts. For example, Gildon
added rhetoric, logic, poetry, and composition to the 1712 edition of Grammar
of the English Tongue.
Grammarians, however, were experiencing conflicts among themselves. They
could not agree on whether to teach grammar with Latin or English models,
whether to continue the practice of translation and imitation, and whether
to learn grammar first in Latin or in the native tongue. As a result, grammar
books were being called upon to play a stronger and larger pedagogical
role. As the opportunities for public education increased, children of the lower
and middle classes were filling classrooms, and schools needed grammar texts
to make students literate (see Watson 1909: 12134). In addition, the increased
need for skills in the commercial world forced authors of grammar books to
include practical instruction, such as familiarizing students with the format
of the business letter. Thus, while grammarians were battling over teaching
methods and grammatical theory, and at the same time producing texts for an
increasing curriculum and student body, lexicographers focused on setting
language standards.

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

Alphabeticall (1604) Robert Cawdrey lists hard usual English Words that
the reader may come across in Scriptures, sermons, or other places. With
The English Dictionary (1623), Henry Cockerams goal was to interpret hard
words so that the reader could gain competence in the vernacular when he or
she was reading, speaking, and writing. Cockeram claimed to be publishing
thousands of words never before published. Grammar books could not make
that claim because of space limitations; they were increasingly concerned
with explaining Latin grammar rules in the English vernacular. This bilingual
format meant that definitions had to be listed twice.
In the seventeenth century, grammarians still possessed the same authority
to make language decisions they had held since antiquity, and lexicographers
had not yet emerged as a distinct group.

Johnson Among the Early Modern Grammarians

207

4. Early eighteenth-century lexicographers

The move on the part of early eighteenth-century lexicographers to have more
control over language is not obvious as they were still making their mark. In
this stage lexicographers did much to shape dictionaries as we know them
today, but they continued many of the practices they had started in the
seventeenth century with improvements in their presentation of the material.
They continued the practice of using pictures in dictionaries because it was
an efficient method of defining words. The pedagogy of connecting words with
pictures is still used today, especially with young children and in foreign
language classes.
The first dictionary to have a compendium of grammar is Thomas Dyche
and William Pardons New General English Dictionary (1735).6 Dyche, also
a grammarian, was able to see the necessity of such an inclusion. He claimed

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

Moreover, grammarians had not resolved their long-standing argument

of custom and usage versus authority. Lexicographers in the meantime had
created a strong position for themselves by researching language and imposing
correctness on the vernacular. Early eighteenth-century lexicographers
inventoried definitions, pronunciation, and various forms of spelling.
Lexicographers like John Kersey (A New English Dictionary, 1702), Edward
Cocker (Cockers English Dictionary, 1704), and Nathan Bailey (An Universal
Etymological English Dictionary, 1721) helped establish the dictionary as a
reliable reference tool (see Hayashi 1978: 5789). Lexicographers did not see
themselves as authors of grammar texts; instead, they were protecting and
preserving the English language. Lexicographers took on another role, that
of standing in for an academy that would legislate linguistic matters, such as
the Academie Francaise formed in 1635 (see Leith 1983: chapter two). Most
grammarians wanted language to develop naturally and not be bound by an
academy that would dictate language decisions. However, some learned men
like Jonathan Swift were afraid that the English language would be corrupted,
and some even expressed the concern that what was being written at that time
would be unrecognizable to future generations.
In the early eighteenth century, as the vernacular became the language of
the educated, grammarians assumed a stronger pedagogical role in teaching
English to larger groups of students of the rising classes, while lexicographers
assumed the task of improving the content of dictionaries. In the seventeenth
century, dictionary entries had been unreliable, but now lexicographers were
documenting inventoried lists with an increasing degree of accuracy. The
dictionaries, however, were still at times misleading because they were incomplete documents of the language with unclear definitions, unrepresentative
examples of earlier words, and inadequate histories of words and word
families.

208

Linda C. Mitchell

5. Johnson and the early modern grammarians

Johnson inherited many legacies from early grammarians. He looked at the
ways grammarians attempted to codify rules for pronunciation and spelling;
he extended their work on definitions, etymology, and usage. Johnson was just
as concerned as grammarians about the English language being corrupted and
about fixing the language so that it would not deteriorate. Early eighteenthcentury lexicographers, such as Nathan Bailey, followed the methodology
of early grammarians by including many of the same components in their
dictionaries. Johnson referred to Baileys dictionary while writing his own.
Johnson shared an anxiousness with grammarians that the English language
would change beyond recognition. He may have read how Guy Mie`ge
(English Grammar 1688) warns both native speakers and foreigners not to
incorporate any more foreign words. Mie`ge observes that now the English is
come to so great Perfection, now tis grown so very Copious and Significant, by
the Accession of the Quintessence and Life of other Tongues, twere to be
wished that a Stop were put to this unbounded Way of Naturalizing foreign
Words (A9). Johnson also shares the concern with early grammarians that
foreigners will corrupt the English language.7 He argues that patriotism and
national identity should be reinforced by having foreigners learn the mother
tongue as soon as possible. However, while early grammarians were focused
on fixing the English language, eighteenth-century lexicographers like Johnson
aimed to slow the changes in language so that future generations would be

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

that his work was for those who wanted to write correctly and elegantly, and
he covered difficult words, technical terms, spelling, accents, and pronunciation. The publication of Dyche and Pardons dictionary indicates that grammarians had begun to lose ground, especially since this dictionary stressed
grammar and pronunciation. Lexicographers were working with historical and
empirical data and keeping abreast of linguistic changes. Grammarians, on the
other hand, had become pedagogues, teaching students how to use language,
publishing and republishing little-changed textbooks. The decline in the status
of the grammarian was evident by the middle of the eighteenth century. In
the preface to A New General English Dictionary (1744), Dyche and Pardon
denigrate the grammarian as a person who spends too much time on insignificant niceties, and perhaps they could claim to know, since they were themselves
both grammarians-turned-lexicographers. With Dyche and Pardon, the
responsibility for protecting the standards of English usage from corruption
and deterioration moved from grammarians to lexicographers, a transfer that
is still in force today though perhaps not fully recognized by all language
scholars. Grammarians who had in ancient times been pre-eminent were now
criticized and questioned for their pedagogy and theories, while lexicographers
were increasingly looked upon as authorities.

Johnson Among the Early Modern Grammarians

209

Total and sudden transformations of a language seldom happen;

conquests and migrations are now very rare; but there are other causes
of change . . . commerce, however necessary, however lucrative, as it
depraves the manners, corrupts the language; they that have frequent
intercourse with strangers, to whom they endeavour to accommodate
themselves, must in time learn a mingled dialect, like the jargon which
serves the traffickers on the Mediterranean and Indian coasts. This will
not always be confined to the exchange, the warehouse, or the port, but
will be communicated by degrees to other ranks of the people, and be
at last incorporated with the current speech. (Johnson 1755: Preface
sig. C2r)
Johnson argued that as a country grows, so does the language. The alternative
would be a stagnant, isolated nation.
There are likewise internal causes equally forcible. The language most
likely to continue long without alteration, would be that of a nation raised
a little, and but a little above barbarity, secluded from strangers, and
totally employed in procuring the conveniences of life; either without
books, or . . . with very few: men thus busied and unlearned, having
only such words as common use requires, would perhaps long
continue to express the same notions by the same signs. (Johnson 1755:
Preface sig. C2r)
Grammarians in the eighteenth century resisted change and moved to more
conservative, prescriptive beliefs about fixing language. Lexicographers like
Johnson, however, adopted more flexible, descriptive ideas of how language
changes naturally.
Despite his recognition of the mutability of living language, Johnson wanted
to do what grammar texts had not yet accomplished: codify and standardize

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

able to read English. The vernacular had been growing and changing in
unpredictable ways to the extent that sixteenth-century language contrasted
significantly with that of the eighteenth century. Johnson even states, no
dictionary of a living tongue ever can be perfect, since while it is hastening to
publication, some words are budding, and some falling away (1755: sig. C2v).
However, Johnsons dictionary helped stabilize the changes in language so that
future generations would recognize the English language.
The eighteenth century was a time of an expanding empire, and Johnson,
more than fellow grammarians, recognized how a growing nation would change
language. Language was affected by commercial trading in both foreign
countries and England. Moreover, many foreigners were entering England to
establish businesses. Johnson sees a natural progress taking place.

210

Linda C. Mitchell

With this consequence I will confess that I flattered myself for a while; but
now begin to fear that I have indulged expectation which neither reason
nor experience can justify . . . and with equal justice may the lexicographer
be derided, who being able to produce no example of a nation that has
preserved their words and phrases from mutability, shall imagine that his
dictionary can embalm his language, and secure it from corruption and
decay, that it is in his power to change sublunary nature, and clear the
world at once from folly, vanity, and affection. (Johnson 1755: Preface
sig. C2r)
Thus, Johnson admits that a lexicographer has limitations.
When they [words] are not gaining strength, they are generally losing it.
Though art may sometimes prolong their duration, it will rarely give them
perpetuity; and their changes will be almost always informing us that
language is the work of man, a being from whom permanence and stability
cannot be expected. (Plan 1747)
Grammarians were able to be more prescriptive because they recorded rules
in textbooks, but a lexicographer like Johnson was dealing with a body of
words that was growing and changing rapidly.
Johnson had greater freedom to exercise language authority than did the
early grammarians who had to use Latin when making decisions about

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

the English language. In the Preface to his Dictionary Johnson urges his peers
to protect the mother tongue: Tongues, like governments, have a natural
tendency to degeneration; we have long preserved our constitution, let us
make some struggles for our language (1755: sig. C2v). With the help of
books written by scholars and men of letters, Johnson claimed the role of
lexicographer and seized the authority from grammarians to legislate rules
of language, an authority that dictionary editors retain to this day. According
to Johnson, it was the responsibility of lexicographers to record anomalies
so that undesirable language habits were not perpetuated and reinforced. He
states, every language has likewise its improprieties and absurdities, which it is
the duty of the lexicographer to correct or proscribe (Plan 1747).
Johnson shared the fear of early eighteenth-century grammarians (e.g.,
Charles Gildon (1712), Michael Maittaire (1712), John Garretson (1719), and
James Greenwood (1722)) that the English language might deteriorate.
Johnson acknowledges that some supporters of his dictionary will require
that it should fix our language, and put a stop to those alterations which time
and change have hitherto been suffered to make in it without opposition
(Preface sig. C2r). In the Preface he anticipates the objections and concedes
that it is impossible to keep language in a fixed state:

Johnson Among the Early Modern Grammarians

211

the vernacular. He tries to observe the goals of both grammarians and

lexicographers:
where caprice has long wantoned without control, and vanity sought praise
and by petty reformation, I have endeavoured to proceed with a scholars
reverence for antiquity, and a grammarians regard to the genius of our
tongue. (Johnson 1755: Preface sig. A2v)
Johnson carries on the tradition of the early grammarians; however, takes it
a step farther.

The task of the lexicographer, he argues, is to correct or proscribe, not to

form (1755: Preface sig. A2r) here, with respect to orthography. He is the
first lexicographer and grammarian to pay serious attention to phrasal verbs.
He was also able to stabilize orthography in his dictionary.
Johnson departed from the early grammarians in other ways. Because of the
challenge of defining common words without using more difficult words in the
definitions, he depended on illustrative quotations. He specifies that he was
desirous that every quotation should be useful to some other end than the
illustration of a word (1755: Preface sig. B2v). Johnson complains that readers
seldom . . . turn over books only to amuse their leisure, and to gain degrees of
knowledge. He adds, these readers know not any other use of a dictionary
than that of adjusting orthography, or explaining terms of science or words of
infrequent occurrence, or remote derivation. For example, he defines philology
by borrowing a quotation from William Walkers instruction to teachers in
English Examples of the Latin Syntaxis: Temper all discourses of philology
with interspersions of morality (1686: A8r). This is Johnsons attempt to
connect education with morals (see DeMaria 1986: 13). When Johnson lists
meanings to a word, he includes quotations from diverse sources so that
readers can interpret for themselves political, philosophical, or moral concepts
(see Reddick 1990: 911). Early grammarians, however, were limited in that
grammar instruction included only religious and moral instruction. For
example, Elisha Coles (1675) connects grammar and Scripture for religious
instruction, and Edward Leedes (1685) correlates language with good character
moral lessons. Johnson claims he endeavoured to collect examples and

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

The words, thus selected and disposed, are grammatically considered;

they are referred to the different parts of speech; traced, when they are
irregularly inflected, through their various terminations; and illustrated
by observations, not indeed of great or striking importance, separately
considered, but necessary to the elucidation of our language, and hitherto
neglected or forgotten by English grammarians. (Johnson 1755: Preface
sig. B2r)

212

Linda C. Mitchell

authorities from the writers before Restoration, whose works I regard as the
wells of the English undefiled, as the pure sources of genuine diction (1755:
Preface sig. C1r).8 Although criticized by some as being too scholarly, he chose
quotations from Hooker (theology), Bacon (natural knowledge), Raleigh
(politics, war, and navigation), Spenser and Sidney (poetry and fiction),
and Shakespeare (diction of common life).9 Johnson owed much to the early
grammarians who experimented with lexicographical components in their
grammar texts, yet he greatly expanded and added to those components.

As Johnson and other dictionary authors discovered, lexicography has the

advantage of clarity, an element not always possible in grammar texts. Clarity
is what gave them an advantage over grammarians and, consequently, the
opportunity to seize linguistic authority. For example, A Vocabulary or Pocket
Dictionary (1765) more clearly identifies usage errors and more coherently
and consistently lists preferred usage than did grammar books (1765: sigs.
C1-C8).10 In it, the anonymous author describes what he calls the inflected
parts of speech (nouns, adjectives, verbs, pronouns) and the non-inflected
parts of speech (adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, interjections). In another
section, Of the signification and Use of Certain Words, he describes how
to make decisions on usage by referring to custom and to the best writers. The
third section of this chapter cites examples of incorrect word order and
preferred order. A second chapter on grammar, An Account of the Most
Usual Mistakes in English Grammar, clarifies structural and grammatical
problems. A structural mistake, for example, would be I had the same thought
as you, whereas the preferred usage is I had the same thought that you had
(1765: sig. C3). This particular dictionary also includes other information
about a word, such as its part of speech, the shades of its meaning, and its
etymology. It even included a history of the English language. Although the
anonymous author assumes that custom and usage should determine rules,
he argues that a grammarian should share in the responsibility of fixing the
meaning and use of words. Otherwise, the grammarian has nothing left him
belonging to the Language, but the Inflections, which are extremely few; and
the Order in which Words are placed in a Sentence (1765: sigs. B5r-B5v).
Building upon Johnsons authoritative work, other lexicographers continued to go beyond the limited scope of the dictionary to cover both grammar
and lexicon in even more detail. Lexicographers were also more alert than
grammarians to issues of conforming to rules and standards, especially to the
way people used language in social situations. John Entick, for example,
promises in The New Spelling Dictionary (1765) to help the reader write and
pronounce the English tongue with ease and propriety (1765: title page). In the
introduction, he reinforces his aim for people to speak and to write correctly

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

6. Grammarians among the lexicographers

Johnson Among the Early Modern Grammarians

213

7. Conclusion
Johnson saw himself as protector of the English language, despite its protean
instability. No grammarian or lexicographer had ever approached language
in such a complete and documented way.12 Johnson had a different aim from
fellow grammarians and lexicographers; he wanted to entertain as well as

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

and properly, to be instructed in the rules for right pronunciation, and in the
art of true spelling; and or how to write every word with proper letters (1765:
ix). He wishes to assist young People, Artificers, Tradesmen and Foreigners,
desirous to understand what they speak, read and write (1765: title page).
Entick claims that his grammatical introduction will facilitate the users proficiency in English and help him gain necessary social and linguistic competence.
In A New Dictionary of the English Language (1773) William Kenrick
states on the title page that he will include, for each entry, information on
orthography, etymology, and idiomatic use in writing, all of which had
appeared in the grammar books of the seventeenth century. He will also show
the correct pronunciation according to the present practice of polished
speakers in the Metropolis, further proof of the increased lexicographic focus
on communication at that time. He also includes what he calls a rhetorical
grammar to help people with contemporary speech and communication. Two
other publications aimed at the lower and middle classes are James Barclays
A Complete and Universal English Dictionary on a New Plan (1774) and
John Ashs The New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1775).
Both lexicographers include discussions of grammar and communication
skills. Barclay also adds an outline of ancient and modern history, and Ash
includes some essays on linguistic matters.
When lexicographers included grammar, they were unaware they were
gaining an authority over grammarians in standardizing the language. While
grammarians served as pedagogues, concentrating on classroom exercises and
fighting battles over teaching methodologies, lexicographers quietly inventoried and researched usage. In sum, lexicographers became the guardians of
language. The transfer of authority from grammar books to dictionaries was
complete by the latter part of the eighteenth century. Dictionaries now held
linguistic authority, while grammar texts served a purely pedagogical function.
As one might expect, the transfer of linguistic authority brought with it the
propensity for controversy.11 The battles were not just about a word change,
but about who controls language, what social classes are included, and what
groups are excluded. Previously, such grammar books as Lilys had the power
to decide those issues. As dictionaries became more influential and were able
to reach more people, they began to dominate the linguistic sphere. They could
encode values and reflect current language usage. Language is power, and
dictionaries could wield that power by standardizing language.

214

Linda C. Mitchell

inform his readers. Johnsons approach set a new standard for the authority
of dictionaries: an educational tradition in which dictionaries would supply
editorial comments and provide illustrative quotations that would increase
knowledge. Although lexicographers such as Nathan Bailey had published a
variety of dictionaries in the eighteenth century, it was Johnson who produced
the authoritative dictionary that was used for at least one hundred years and
that served as a basis for other dictionaries (e.g., Noah Webster 1806).13
Notes
1

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

I am indebted to Jameela Lares and E. D. Schragg for many helpful suggestions.

A Cordell Fellowship at the Rare Books Library, Indiana State University (Terre
Haute) and a fellowship at the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, UCLA,
provided time and support for work on this essay. I wish to thank Readers Services
at the Bodleian Library, Cambridge University Library, the Henry E. Huntington
Library, and the Folger Library for their generous assistance.
2
For a thorough discussion and bibliography of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century
grammarians, see Michael (1970).
3
Hard-word lists were often made up of polysyllabic, Latinate words, or even
Greek words, that were difficult to understand because they were not yet assimilated
into the mainstream of usage.1 Hard-word lists were a challenge for grammarians. These
lists were supposed to include only those words which a normal reader did not know,
but determining exactly which words were little known was not an easy task for those
early grammarians who also worked as lexicographers.
4
Dictionaries for translating one or more languages consisted of synonyms, but they
usually did not provide more extensive information.
5
It was not until the beginning of the eighteenth century that English grammar
books about English grammar are published.
6
The section on grammar is titled Youths Guide to the Latin Tongue (1735).
7
Jeremiah Wharton (1654), James Howell (1662), Joseph Aickin (1693), Henry
Care (1699), Guy Mie`ge (1688), James Greenwood (1722), James Harris (1751), Daniel
Fenning (1763), and John Rice (1765).
8
DeMaria (1986: x) notes that Johnson maintained an identifiable central cluster
of concerns: knowledge and ignorance, truth and probability, learning and education,
language, religion and morality, Johnsons Dictionary and the Language of Learning
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press).
9
DeMaria (1986: x) points out that the Dictionary is a chronicle of how these
subjects have been treated by the authors . . . In another sense, Johnsons book is
[important because] [h]e does not simply record everything available to him: he makes
choices about which works to include and which to exclude . . . .These choices are not
usually or mainly personal choices, but they are choices, and the vision of the intellectual world Johnson gives us is different from the vision in, say, Charles Richardsons
Dictionary or Websters III .
10
A Vocabulary or Pocket Dictionary (1765); a similar book was A Pocket Dictionary
or Complete English Expositor (1753).
11
For accounts of battles fought over Websters Third New International Dictionary
(1961), see Sledd and Ebbitt (1962).

Johnson Among the Early Modern Grammarians

215

12

Reddick (1990: 2) observes, In the eyes of many, soon after the Dictionary
appeared, Johnson began to be seen as a national institution creating a national
monument.
13
[For discussion, see the paper by Landau in this issue of IJL editors.]

References

B. Other Literature
DeMaria Jr., R. 1986. Johnsons Dictionary and the Language of Learning. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.
Hayashi, T. 1978. The Theory of English Lexicography 15301791. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Leith, D. 1983. A Social History of English. London: Routledge.

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

A. Dictionaries and Grammars

Ash, J. 1775. The New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language. London.
Bailey, N. 1721. An Universal Etymological English Dictionary. London.
Barclay, J. 1774. A Complete and Universal English Dictionary. London.
Cawdrey, R. 1604. A Table Alphabeticall. London.
Cocker, E. 1704. Cockers English Dictionary. London.
Cockeram, H. 1623. The English Dictionary. London.
Coles, E. 1675. Nolens Volens: Or You Shall Make Latin Whether You Will or
No. London.
Coles, E. 1679. A Dictionary, English-Latin, and Latin-English. London.
Comenius, J. A. 1659. Charles Hoole (trans.) Orbis sensualium pictus. London.
Dyche, T. 1707. A Guide to the English Tongue. London.
Dyche, T. 1731. The Spelling Dictionary. London.
Dyche, T. 1731. Youths Guide to the Latin Tongue. London.
Dyche, T. and Pardon, W. 1735. A New General English Dictionary. London.
Dyche, T. and Pardon, W. 1744. A New General English Dictionary. London.
Entick, J. 1765. The New Spelling Dictionary. London.
Garretson, J. 1719. English Exercises for School-Boys to Translate into Latin.
London.
Gildon, C. and Brightland, J. 1712. A Grammar of the English Tongue. London.
Greenwood, J. 1722. An Essay Towards a Practical English Grammar. London.
Greenwood, J. 1737. The Royal English Grammar. London.
Hoole, C. 1651. The Latin Grammar. London.
Johnson, R. 1706. Grammatical Commentaries. London.
Johnson, S. 1747. The Plan of a Dictionary of the English Language. London.
Johnson, S. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language. (First folio edition) London.
Kenrick, W. 1773. A New Dictionary of the English Language. London.
Kersey. J. 1702. A New English Dictionary. London.
Lily, W. 1567. A Short Introduction of Grammar. London.
Maittaire, M. 1712. The English Grammar. London.
Mie`ge, G. 1688. English Grammar. London.
Snell, G. 1649. The Right Teaching of Useful Knowledge London. A Vocabulary or
Pocket Dictionary. 1765. London.
Walker, W. 1686. English Examples of the Latin Syntaxis. London.

216

Linda C. Mitchell

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia on October 13, 2014

Michael, I. 1970. English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Reddick, A. 1990. The Making of Johnsons Dictionary, 17461773. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sledd, J. and Ebbitt, W. R. (eds.) 1962. Dictionaries and THAT Dictionary: A Casebook
on the Aims of Lexicographers and the Targets of Reviewers. Chicago: Scott,
Foresman.
Starnes, D. T. and Noyes, G. E. 1946. The English Dictionary from Cawdrey to Johnson,
16041755. Chapel Hill: University of North Caroline Press. (New edition with
additional material by G. Stein, 1991, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins).
Watson, F. 1909. The Beginnings of the Teaching of Modern Subjects in England.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wimsatt Jr., W. K. 1959. Johnsons Dictionary in F. W. Hilles (ed.) New Light on
Dr. Johnson. New Haven: Yale University Press, 6590.