the Oxford Dictionary that its pre-eminence rests. In comparison with that, Grimm's Dictionary affords only a cursory and imperfect view of German speech; and any other dictionary that could be named, of whatever living language, makes but a poor showing when compared with Grimm. Furthermore, the English Dictionary bears in a striking manner the impress of one controlling mind, notwithstanding the long period which its production has occupied and the risk which such protracted preparation involves of changes in the editorial control. Sir James Murray signed the preface to the first volume in April 1888. He died in July 1915, having been actively engaged upon the dictionary to the last, some portion of the work which had passed his hand being unprinted at the time of his death. The three editors who have carried on the work since his death were all associated with Sir James as co-editors while he was acting as editor in chief. One of them, Dr Henry Bradley, had been associated with him from the first. The announcement of Dr Bradley's death, which appeared in May, illustrates, with poignant emphasis, the risk above referred to. But the work is too far advanced now to be imperilled by the withdrawal of one of the collaborateurs, however distinguished personally and however completely identified with the undertaking he may have been. The other two, Dr W. A. Craigie and Mr C. T. Onions, have long been connected with the publication. Thus this work bears in a striking way the character of coherence, notwithstanding the long period of incubation and the large number of its contributors. Alike in plan and execution it must be pronounced without an equal among dictionaries. Fifty years ago, when interest in the project of this great work was beginning to spread from the Philological Society and its immediate supporters to wider circles of the British public, the plan of the work was made the subject of discussion by the late Sir E. B. Tylor in this Review.* 'To judge,' said he, 'from Mr Furnivall's last reports of the position of the undertaking, which give the state of the sub-editing, letter by letter, it appears that this work, preparatory to the actual elaboration of the dictionary, may now be half or three-quarters done, but is almost at a stand. The question which arises is not so much," When will the great work be done?" as, "Will it ever be done?" in our time at least. An effort as great, or greater than that which started the New English Dictionary fourteen years ago, will be needed to complete it fourteen years hence. Let us hope that, whether under the present or some new plan, English energy and skill will carry the undertaking through.' We now know that both energy and skill were forthcoming, but that the effort was to be far greater than Sir Edward Tylor supposed, and we know also that the result is such as to be commensurate to the effort. The interest of a dictionary is not exhausted when we have ascertained its contribution to literature and literary education. As with all the works of man it bears the impress of its maker's hand, and throws light upon the working of his mind. Reference has been made to well-known slips in Johnson's Dictionary. Other lexicographers have been no more free from the lapses which arise from inattention or the limitation which Johnson called 'pure ignorance.' A striking example was Webster's original definition of a Wicket-Keeper as 'the player at Cricket who stands with a bat to protect the wicket from a ball.' If not to pure ignorance, at least to gross inadvertence the slip was due by which in the Dictionnaire de l'Academie an eclipse was defined as 'the disappearance of a heavenly body due to the interposition of a celestial object between it and the observer.' In criticism of this definition, Arago caustically remarked that for upwards of 3000 years astronomers had made a practice of observing the eclipsed moon with no celestial object between themselves and it. Want of a judicious reserve in limiting his definitions to what was necessary led Phillips into a trap when he defined a quaver as 'the half of a crotchet, as a crotchet is the half of a quaver.' But it is not by such unconscious humour only that the maker of a dictionary becomes a minister to our delight. There is ample opportunity for a light touch and pleasant fancy in the selection and handling of illustrative quotations. Such opportunities present themselves sometimes unexpectedly; for example, something more than a desire to illustrate the meaning of the word 'hazard' must have prompted the selection for the Oxford Dictionary of the following quotation from old Thomas Browne, 'When a sick man leaves all to nature to do he hazards much, when he leaves all to the doctor to do he hazards more.' It is, however, in connexion with familiar words and pre-eminently with dialect that such selections most abound, and in the case of a work such as Prof. Joseph Wright's 'Dialect Dictionary,' they may be said to constitute much of the value of the work itself. Thus we have as an example of one of the dialects of the Midlands, Flapper'-a young partridge just able to fly, applied in joke to a girl of the bread-and-butter age.' Typical of Irish fancy is the use made in Antrim of the word 'feeding' to describe a fine drizzle of rain on a summer evening as a 'feeding of drooth.' Not so vivacious, but still typical, is the rustic wit of Somersetshire expressed in calling another a 'Zebín zided fuller.' 'How's make out that?' is the usual inquiry by the unwary. The bucolic answer is, 'Why, there's thy vore zide an' back zide, thy right zide an' left zide, thy inzide and outzide, and then there's thy blind zide, s'now.' ་ But it can hardly be overbold to hazard the opinion that the human interest of the dictionary has never been quite so systematically or successfully cultivated as in Mr Weekley's Etymological Dictionary of Modern English. A rebel against pedantry, its author offers his book 'to those lovers of our language who, without wishing to stumble about the dim regions which produce prehistoric roots and conjectural primitive teutonic word forms, have an educated interest in words and an intelligent curiosity as to their origins and earlier senses.' Having thus made choice of his public he provides them with very palatable manna. 'What is it?' was the inquiry with which the Israelites greeted the food which they found ready to their hand in the desert. What is it?' is the question with which the reader of Mr Weekley's vivacious preface will turn from it to his lexicon. A short inspection will satisfy him that both scholarship and industry are embodied there in very readable disquisition. A light but trenchant criticism, for instance, is conveyed in the definition of 'internecine' which is correctly given as 'deadly'; while its misuse by modern writers in the sense of intestine, almost common enough to amount to inveterate error and a secondary sense, is traced to its origin in the explanation-'Modern sense is due to erroneous explanation of "mutually destructive" in Johnson.' Johnson's slip has been perpetuated by most English lexicographers. Richardson, indeed, made the necessary correction but Ogilvie relapsed. Webster, who gives the correct meaning as the primary sense, adopts Johnson's definition as a secondary meaning. Less accurate, his American successor, Worcester, adopts Johnson's definition as the primary meaning of the word. It is significant of careful editing that the Century Dictionary gives the correct definition with out any reference to Johnson's slip; but it is striking t evidence of the influence of Johnson's work on English literature that a mere lapse on his part should so permeate the modern language. No less interesting in its precise detail is the following etymological notice of the word 'pantechnicon.' 'Coined (1830) from G. Tâν and Tεxvikós, relating to the arts, as name of a bazaar in Motcomb Street, Belgrave Square, which was later converted into a storehouse for furni ture. Now usually short for pantechnicon van.' Another instance of Mr Weekley's erudition must bring our quotations to an end even at the risk of leaving the reader to find out for himself the full answer to the question, What is it?' Duly registered as a new English word appears Sinn Fein traced back to 1882 as the title of an Irish play by T. S. Cleary. Already,' we are informed, i.e. since Easter 1916, the phrase has become current abroad,' and for that statement a French writer is avouched who, in the crisis of France's fate at the date named, applied it as a term of reproach to the traitors who were watching for a chance to stab in the back the nation fighting for its life at Verdun. With all his limitations the lexicographer may fairly say with old Chremes, Humani nihil a me alienum puto." J. W. GORDON. Art. 12.-THE DOLE AND DEMORALISATION. Petition with regard to the increased expenditure on (Cmd. Reports of Official Enquiries into the Expenditure of the Sheffield and Poplar Guardians, 1922. And other Official Documents. THERE is no more pressing problem in practical politics han that of the expenditure on public assistance. There s none that most of our statesmen and politicians are nore unwilling to face. In English home politics, from ime immemorial, the two questions that have mainly Fccupied English statesmen are the maintenance of a ound system of finance, and of a strong and efficient Navy. On these two problems the expenditure on direct ublic assistance threatens to have a disastrous influence. There is a third problem of a moral nature, and that is The maintenance of the national characteristics, a sound, honest, and efficient people, full of initiative, self-help, elf-reliance, and, if need be, self-sacrifice. Here again he expenditure in question threatens national disaster. A century ago, immediately after Waterloo, the country was faced with similar difficulties. Relatively speaking, here was the same financial position, and the same position of demoralisation in regard to public assistance. Between 1815 and 1834 the nation looked on in a kind of paralysis at the inordinate growth of moral abuses and industrial disaster, and of ruinous expenditure. Committees were appointed and reported, but nothing was done. Expenditure on public assistance had increased from 2,000,000l. in 1783 to 4,269,000l. in 1803 and 7,870,8007. in 1817 for a population of 11,000,000, that is, an expenditure of 14s. per head. The direct burden for the year anding March 25, 1832, amounted to 7,036,9687., and in addition the waste from the labour rate and roundsman system of employment was estimated at a further |
