420 
edly, we made use of no such word) 
when warning him upon the supposi- 
tion of his being a foreigner, that “ there 
goes something more to making an 
English scholar” (one of the rarest 
of characters, even among English 
literati themselves,) “ than consulting 
Johnson’s derivations and interpreta- 
tions:’”’ a warning which, we believe, 
cannot be too frequently repeated, or 
too strongly impressed; but the de- 
monstration of the grounds of which 
would lead us into a length of disqui- 
sition (to say nothing of the angry con- 
troversy it might provoke,) perfectly 
inconsistent with the character of a 
mere note, on an article of correspon- 
dence. With respect to Todd’s Dic- 
tionary,—as Dr. Johnson was the autho- 
rity appealed to, it never occurred to 
us that it was necessary to look to the 
additions and corrections made by Mr, 
Todd: for, although Mr. Duvard may 
consider it as being “ allowed to be 
greatly superior to any other edition of 
Johnson’s Dictionary,” we consider it 
to be, in all in which it differs, and in 
all which it adds, a perfectly distinct 
authority: and, although it is not ne- 
cessary, in this place, to enter into any 
particular criticism of the bulky volumes 
thus referred to, we will take the 
liberty of stating it as our opinion, 
that all that is additional in the la- 
bours of Mr. Todd is by no means 
improvement—that, if the vocabulary of 
Dr. Johnson is extended, his errors 
are extended also, and that the radical 
defects are in both the same. That 
several of the best and most legitimate 
words in the English language were 
omitted by Dr. Johnson, is unques- 
tionably true; it is equally true, how- 
ever, that many words that are not 
English, and never ought to be ad- 
mitted as such, were also by Dr. John- 
son inserted. Whether Mr. Todd has 
supplied all the desiderata, we have 
never taken the pains to examine; nor, 
without the devotion of more time than 
we can spare from more important 
labours, would it be practicable to 
do so; but we know that he has 
added very greatly to the incumbran- 
ces of the latter description, and that, 
in both dictionaries, there are many 
words that, if they had been admitted 
at all, should have been marked as od- 
solete, or as apocryphal. That Todd, 
as well as Johnson, has the word Idiot- 
ism, in the sense in which Mr. Duvard 
has used it, is undoubtedly true; but, 
- in the edition we have at hand, no 
Note on Duvard. 
(Dee. 1, 
other authority is quoted than that of 
Bishop Hall.* We take it for granted, 
however, without thetrouble of referring 
to the edition quoted by our correspon- 
dent, that he is correct in his statement ; 
and, that an instance has been produced 
from Dryden, also, of a similar use of 
the term, Even this, however, would 
not change our opinion of the impro- 
priety of so using it now; for, though 
we do not admit with Mr. Pope, that, 
“such as Chaucer is, shall Dryden 
be;”+ yet, this is not the only in- 
stance in which even Dryden has used, 
and that familiarly and systematically, 
an idiom, which a correct and ele- 
gant writer of the present day would 
not make use of;{ and again, we re- 
peat, that the word idiotism, as a syno- 
nyme for idiom, is obsolete; and, even 
if it were not, yet, according to the 
principles and analogies of our lan- 
guage, we maintain that it ought to 
become so: for as we have adopted 
the word idiot, in the sole signification 
of fool, or natural ; and, as the adjunct 
particle ism has, in the English lan- 
guage, a fixed and determinate mean- 
ing,—qualifying always in the same way, 
without altering the signification of the 
primitive 
* The octavo abridgment with which we 
have thus far satisfied ourselves, in the 
hope that, in the present age of publishing 
speculation, and under the influence of the 
feeling so often expressed of the desirable- 
ness of sucha work, a real etymological and 
derivative Dictionary of the English lan- 
guage, would, by a competent combination 
of learning and talent, be undertaken; which, 
in less bulk perhaps, would place more 
utility and more satisfactory information on 
our shelves :—by a competent combination, we 
say: for it is the very madness of presump- 
tion to suppose that any one man should 
execute such a work, adequately, by him- 
self,—unless he were to deyote to it the 
whole of a long and laborious life. 
+ Our language has three grand stays, 
which Mr. P. does not seem to have 
thought of, unparalleled, perhaps, in any 
living language, which have a tendency to 
give it, upon the main, stability: Shak- 
speare, Milton, and, above all, the old 
standard translation of the Bible. So long 
as these retain their popularity, and the 
last, in particular, escapes the fanatic rage 
of controversial innovation, additions may 
continue to be made, and distinctions may 
go on refining: but-very little of what was 
English, in and before the time of Dryden, 
can become as obsolete as the English of 
Chaucer. ; 
+ We may instance, for example, his 
wo’nots and his sha’nots. oti 
