has not yet been paralleled.

Before the Lexicon of Johnson was printed, ne Dictionary to which the epithet classical could be affixed, had arisen in this country; our language was loose and disarranged, and, though etymology had been cultivated with success by Bailey, we had no authorities or definitions for our words. These, although many exceptions may be selected, constitute the chief excellence of our author's philological labours, and still render his book a work of most useful reference; whilst a deficiency in the philosophy of grammar and language, and in the knowledge of the Teutonic dialects, together with much ignorance of old English literature, are his prominent faults. It may be said, indeed, in mitigation, that the first of these defects was the fault rather of the age than of the individual, and that, with few exceptions, nothing of much value on the subject was published before the Epea Pteroenta of Horne Tooke; with regard to the second, the study of the Gothic tongue and its sister idioms had, at that time, been little cultivated in England, nor was its utility in the illustration of our language become so apparent as in the present day; and as to the importance of black letter reading, it must be confessed that until within these thirty years, few were acquainted with the riches that it held in store.

"It would have been a matter of national advantage," observes Mr. Headly, "had Johnson, after an attentive perusal of the poets of this age, distinguished in his Dictionary those particular obsolete words which, from their sound and significance, merit use and adoption; the sanction of his authority might have gone far towards restoring them to that rank, both in writing and conversation, which they have too long undeservedly forfeited: but, by the contracted list of authors his quotations are drawn from, it is evident he neglected dirtying himself in the dust of the Black Letter; a task, which, however uninviting, was indispensably requisite to the completion of his plan; and without which, no man can clearly survey the foundations of our language.'

For near thirty years, however, the censure which the Lexicon of Johnson had to encounter was trifling; the ridicule of Wilkes, the threats of Kenrick, the "Lexiphanes" of Campbell, and the "Deformities of Johnson" by Callender, though they might excite a smile at the expence of our author, were too imbecile to make any impression on the fabric which they meant to injure.

* Introduction to his "Select Beauties of Ancient English Poetry," p. 18.

It appears, indeed, to be admitted by all who have devoted themselves to English philology, that, however numerous may be the omissions of Johnson, the excellence of the plan, and in part of the execution, remain undisputed; and even the defects have indirectly been of essential service to the cause of literature, by stimulating the exertions and emulation of others. Since the era of the publication of this classical Vocabulary, the attention of the British literati has been peculiarly fixed on the cultivation and systematic improvement of our language, and its structure and its wealth of words are at length much better known and appreciated.

66

The Dictionaries which, with small intervals, immediately succeeded the work of Johnson, are not of great value. In 1761, appeared Rider's Universal English Dictionary, 4to; and in 1773, "A new Dictionary of the English Language," by William Kenrick, LL.D. 4to; this is principally directed towards the correction of orthoepy, but his plan is complicated and incorrect. In 1775, was published "A Dictionary of the English Language, answering at once the purposes of Rhyming, Spelling, and Pronouncing, on a plan not hitherto attempted," 8vo, by J. Walker. The plan of this production is certainly novel, and, in.

the mechanism of rhyme, may prove a work of some utility. In the same year was printed also, A new and complete Dictionary of the English Language, 2 vols. 8vo; by John Ash, LL.D. which, in the mere accumulation of words, is extensive beyond any precedent in this country; it includes obsolete, provincial, and cant words and phrases, besides a multitude of technical terms, and is, therefore, from its copiousness, an useful, and has been a popular compilation; but as a standard of authority it cannot be held in any estimation.

It was not, indeed, until the year 1780, that a Dictionary was published which might be placed. on the same shelf with that of Johnson. What the author of the Rambler had done for the orthography of our language, was executed by Mr. Sheridan for its orthoepy; his labours were given to the world in two volumes 4to, and have established the principles and the general rules upon which our pronunciation is founded; an effort attended, perhaps, with more difficulty and hazard of success than accompanies the orthographical department.

In the year 1783, an attempt was made by the Rev. George William Lemon, to furnish the public with an English Derivative Dictionary; in a ponderous quarto, entituled English Etymology,

this gentleman endeavours to prove that the foundations and structure of our language are derived solely from the Greek. "Let the channel or channels," he says, "for there are undoubtedly many, through which the words of our modern English have been derived to us, be whatever they may, Roman, Gothic, Celtic, Saxon, Teutonic, or Icelandic, still it is the Greek alone that is the true basis of the English tongue." A position so unlimited and absurd, very soon consigned the etymologies of Mr. Lemon to oblivion.

During the construction of the Dictionary of Johnson, and of those which we have just enumerated, some light was thrown upon the philosophy of language and grammar by the productions of Harris, of Lowth, and of Monboddo; the Hermes of the first in 1752, the Grammar of the second in 1762, and the Origin and Progress of Language of the third, the first volume of which was published in 1773, certainly contributed in no small degree to the progress of philological learning; but it is, nevertheless, to the exertions of the last twenty-three years, that English Grammar will be indebted for its systematic correctness, its consistency and truth. In Lexicography, indeed, if no work has yet appeared which can boast of any pretensions to supersede the work of Johnson, preparations are rapidly making for such a