220 



On Mr. Pytches English BiBionary. 



[Oct. 1, 



dclinilion. Mod of the active tranfitive 

 verbs in I lie Kniilifli language, capable ot" 

 being ufed without their regirnen being 

 exprelled, are, as I formerly ftated in 

 dumber 129, page 425, of your Maga- 

 zine, confidered by Johnfon as neuter, 

 and inferted with a fci-ies of appropriate 

 dc'liriitions afligned to them as fuch, and 

 a liring of quotations, in all which, I can 

 venture to alVert, the meaning is little, if 

 m any thing, different from that of the 

 ai'iive verb. In this Dictionary, and in 

 all the other's that I have examined, I 

 iind the word rejl fet down as an atljec- 

 tivc and as a lubftantivc. The latter it 

 certainly is ; but upon what principle of 

 definition it is reckoned an adjective, I 

 an; utterly at a lofs to deteniiine. John- 

 fun fays, — " JRty?, adj. Thofc not inclu- 

 ded in any propolitioo. Jil.r. By defcrip- 

 tion of their f|ualitics many things may 

 be learned ccnceniing the rcfi of tlicm. 

 Plato and the reji of them, &c. — V^cft, 

 fubfi. llcniainder, that remains. £r. 

 Ileligion gives part of its reward in hand, 

 and for the rejl, it offers «s the bell fecu- 

 rity that heaven can give." 



Perhaps this niiftake has arifcn from 

 the word's being equivalent net onlv to 

 the l.iitin reliquice or refiduiim, but to 

 rdiqui and aetcri. I have little heCta- 

 tion, however, in faying, that in both in- 

 ftances, and in all inilances, it is a fub- 

 fumtivc, referring cither to qunntitv, or, 

 as a colle/itivc, to number, and iiavint; no 

 better title to be ranked among adjec- 

 tives than the noun part, or any other 

 collective noun fubtlantive. But thcfe 

 arc not the only errors of this kind. 



His definitions are, in many inftances, 

 fo evidently tautological, aenigmatical, 

 negative, and circu'tons, that it fecms 

 ahnoll unneccffary to cxeniplifv or prove 

 the affertion. The many (fuppofed) va- 

 rious meanings affigned to huvewc in re- 

 ality lynonimous. In the eleven defini- 

 tions of the word nothing, it is evident it 

 lias but one identical meaning, and that 

 all the quotations contain exactly the 

 fame nothing. This ciTor is particularly 

 obvious in his defmitions and exeniplili- 

 cations of the particles ; and I have no 

 doubt, that, if the fuperSinities now men- 

 tioned were retrenched, it would reduce 

 the Dictionary one-fourth part of its prc- 

 fent cumbrous fizc, not only without de- 

 tiiment, but with conliderable advantage 

 to its real merit and utility. The word 

 poker is defined to be the " iroyi bar w ith 

 vihicli men ftir the fire ;" as if women, 

 «oo, when they found it necelfary, did 



not conceive themfelves to poffefs as 

 clever a knack of handling this well- 

 known inftrument as their male aifoci- 

 ates. Upon this principle I expected to 

 find a fewing-needlc defined to he an iron 

 bar, with an acute point at one end, and 

 a fmall perforation or aperture at the 

 other for the admillion of a thread or 

 filament, ufed by women, for the purpofe 

 of penetrating different pieces or parts of 

 cloth, Ike, previoully placed in a fuit- 

 able pofition, and of thereby connefling 

 them clofely together. When I referred 

 to the word, I found that I had a little 

 ovcrftrained the happinefs of indeed a 

 very luminous dciinition. The error of 

 explaining (if it can be called explana- 

 tion,) the ignotum per ignotum, vclfape 

 per ignoliiis, too much pervades this 

 Diction ai-y. The word ruji is defined to 

 be " the red defquamation on old iron.'' 

 The man, " not a woman, not a boy," 

 &:c." and the long, " not ([\o\X,"—Jhort, 

 " not long," liave been repeatedly expo- 

 fed and ridiculed. But, in freely ani- 

 madverting upon the vulnerable parts of 

 Dr. Johnibn as a lexicographer, no maa 

 can wifli to detract from, or to depre- 

 ciate, his real merits and great labours in 

 that character, much lefs to deny his va- 

 luable exertions and fervices as a ftrenn- 

 ous and zealous defender of the princi- 

 ples of morality. In any new edition of 

 this vvork, or in a new work of the fame 

 kind, thcfe and many fimilar abfurdities 

 ought to be avoided. 



With regard to the alterations which 

 Mr. Pytches intends to introduce into 

 his Diftionary, there are two points 

 which, I believe, will, without incurring 

 much impropriety on cither tide, admit a 

 difference of opmion. It is his inten- 

 tion, he fays, " to retain the u in can- 

 do«r, labour, ifec, becanfe in the pro- 

 nunciation of thefe words it is more re- 

 quired than ; but [this] not being the 

 cafe in autlio?(r, govcrnoj^r, &c., it will 

 be removed from them." If in this in- 

 fiance pronunciation is to be the crite- 

 rion of the propriety of adoption or of 

 rejection, I believe it will require a very 

 nice ear to difcovcr in what degree u is 

 lefs ncceffary in the former words than 

 in the latter. I conceive that his bed 

 plan is, to avoid tlie introduction of fuch 

 fubjefts of difpute into the body of his 

 work, but to diibufs thcfe imfettled dif- 

 ferences of opinion in a preliminary di(^ 

 fertation, to which references ought to 

 be made from the refpective words by a 

 figure, — a plan judicioully followed iq 



Mr, 



