LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Celebrating the compilation of words

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Dear Sir:

This Friday is the 250th anniversary of the publication of the first great English-language dictionary. 15 April 1755 was the date that Dr. Samuel Johnson released to the world his famous Dictionary of the English Language.

Surprisingly for a reference work, this publication was (and is) a creative masterpiece. It gave us amusing definitions such as: “Patron: …a wretch who supports with insolence, and is paid with flattery.”

It also gave us entertaining quotations from famous authors such as Shakespeare and Swift. Some of these quotations are almost too entertaining to print.

Johnson’s dictionary was indeed a work of art. It is said to be the first dictionary that can be read with pleasure. This is true -- apart from a couple of aspects.

Firstly, if you are not a bodybuilder you will probably get limited pleasure from carrying this dictionary’s two giant volumes to your armchair for a relaxing perusal.

Secondly, if your spelling ability leaves a lot to be desired, you will generally despise this work. This dictionary, like all dictionaries, can be extremely useful for helping us to spell complex words. It is, however, partially responsible for these words being complicated in the first place.

Johnson did not create the mass of inconsistencies that we oxymoronically call a “spelling system.” For instance, he did not insert the p in receipt or the b in debt or even the g in sovereign as many have suggested. What he did do, however, was legitimise their existence by recording them in a commanding way in his authoritative dictionary.

Before Johnson, our spelling system still had a chance for change. Our spelling was only stable before he got hold of it, not crystallized. It had been in the process of stabilization a number of times before and had always managed to break free.

Johnson’s authority killed any possibility of that ever happening again. His dictionary locked our spelling in place before the really outrageous combinations had a chance to be simplified, or before the needless complexity of the whole system was brought to the attention of someone who could do something about it.

There have been some minor modifications since Johnson. These changes, however, are only a tiny fraction of what could have occurred if he hadn’t carved our spelling in stone in his two gigantic documents.

As intellectually respected as Johnson was, he was not an overly endearing individual. He dressed like a pauper, he could julienne you with his sharp tongue at the drop of a Jinsu, and he is reported to have hit a few people who pressed one of his many buttons.

(He wasn’t a snappy dresser but he had buttons galore). He was a prickly man that wasn’t to be messed with; consequently, very few did mess with him. That’s why we ended up with this dog’s breakfast of a spelling system -- no one had the courage to criticize him.

Niall McLeod Waldman, author
Spelling Dearest, Canada

Back...