[855] He defines both towards the wind. The definitions remain unchanged in the fourth edition, the last corrected by Johnson, and also in the third edition of the abridgment, though this abridgment was made by him. Pastern also remains unaltered in this latter edition. In the fourth edition he corrected it. ‘The drawback of his character,’ wrote Sir Joshua Reynolds, ‘is entertaining prejudices on very slight foundations; giving an opinion, perhaps, first at random, but from its being contradicted he thinks himself obliged always to support it, or, if he cannot support, still not to acquiesce. Of this I remember an instance of a defect or forgetfulness in his Dictionary. I asked him how he came not to correct it in the second edition. “No,” says he, “they made so much of it that I would not flatter them by altering it.”’ Taylor’s Reynolds, ii. 461.
[856] In his Preface (Works, v. 50) he anticipated errors and laughter. ‘A few wild blunders and risible absurdities, from which no work of such multiplicity was ever free, may for a time furnish folly with laughter and harden ignorance into contempt’ In a letter written nearly thirty years later he said:—‘Dictionaries are like watches, the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to go quite true.’ Piozzi Letters, ii. 406.
[857] See post, under July 20, 1762.
[858] ‘Network. Anything reticulated or decussated, at equal distances, with interstices between the intersections.’ Reticulated is defined ‘Made of network; formed with interstitial vacuities.’
[859] ‘That part of my work on which I expect malignity most frequently to fasten is the Explanation…. Such is the fate of hapless lexicography, that not only darkness, but light, impedes and distresses it; things may be not only too little, but too much known, to be happily illustrated.’ Johnson’s Works, v. 34.
[860] In the original, ‘to admit a definition.’ Ib.
[861] In the original, ‘drier.’ Ib. 38.
[862] ‘Tory. (A cant term derived, I suppose, from an Irish word signifying a savage.) One who adheres to the ancient constitution of the state, and the apostolical hierarchy of the Church of England: opposed to a whig.’
[863] ‘Whig. The name of a faction.’ Lord Marchmont (post, May 12, 1778) said that ‘Johnson was the first that brought Whig and Tory into a dictionary.’ In this he was mistaken. In the fourth edition of Dr. Adam Littleton’s Linguae Latinae Liber Dictionarius, published in 1703, Whig is translated Homo fanaticus, factiosus; Whiggism, Enthusiasmus, Perduellio; Tory, bog-trotter or Irish robber, Praedo Hibernicus; Tory opposed to whig, Regiarum partium assertor. These definitions are not in the first edition, published in 1678. A pensioner or bride [bribed] person is rendered _Mercenarius.
[864] ‘Pension. An allowance made to any one without an equivalent. In England it is generally understood to mean pay given to a state hireling for treason to his country.’ Pensioner is defined as ‘One who is supported by an allowance paid at the will of another; a dependant.’ These definitions remain in the fourth edition, corrected by Johnson in 1773.
[865] ‘Oats. A grain which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people.’ See post, March 23, 1776, and March 21, 1783. ‘Did you ever hear,’ wrote Sir Walter Scott, ‘of Lord Elibank’s reply when Johnson’s famous definition of oats was pointed out first to him. “Very true, and where will you find such men and such horses?”’ Croker’s Carres, ii. 35.
[866] He thus defines Excise: ‘A hateful tax levied upon commodities, and adjudged not by the common judges of property, but wretches hired by those to whom Excise is paid.’ The Commissioners of Excise being offended by this severe reflection, consulted Mr. Murray, then Attorney General, to know whether redress could be legally obtained. I wished to have procured for my readers a copy of the opinion which he gave, and which may now be justly considered as history; but the mysterious secrecy of office, it seems, would not permit it. I am, however, informed, by very good authority, that its import was, that the passage might be considered as actionable; but that it would be more prudent in the board not to prosecute. Johnson never made the smallest alteration in this passage. We find he still retained his early prejudice against Excise; for in The Idler, No. 65, there is the following very extraordinary paragraph: ‘The authenticity of Clarendon’s history, though printed with the sanction of one of the first Universities of the world, had not an unexpected manuscript been happily discovered, would, with the help of factious credulity, have been brought into question by the two lowest of all human beings, a Scribbler for a party, and a Commissioner of Excise.’—The persons to whom he alludes were Mr. John Oldmixon, and George Ducket, Esq. BOSWELL. Mr. Croker obtained a copy of the case.
‘Case for the opinion of Mr. Attorney-General.
‘Mr. Samuel Johnson has lately published “A Dictionary of the English
Language,” in which are the following words:—
‘“EXCISE, n.s. A hateful tax levied upon commodities and adjudged not by the common judges of property, but by wretches hired by those to whom excise is paid.”
‘The author’s definition being observed by the Commissioners of Excise, they desire the favour of your opinion. “Qu. Whether it will not be considered as a libel, and if so, whether it is not proper to proceed against the author, printers, and publishers thereof, or any and which of them, by information, or how otherwise?”
‘I am of opinion that it is a libel. But under all the circumstances, I should think it better to give him an opportunity of altering his definition; and, in case he do not, to threaten him with an information.
‘29th Nov. 1755. W. Murray.’ In one of the Parl. Debates of 1742 Johnson makes Pitt say that ‘it is probable that we shall detect bribery descending through a long subordination of wretches combined against the public happiness, from the prime minister surrounded by peers and officers of state to the exciseman dictating politics amidst a company of mechanics whom he debauches at the public expense, and lists in the service of his master with the taxes which he gathers.’ Parl. Hist., xii. 570. See ante, p. 36, note 5.
[867] He defined Favourite as ‘One chosen as a companion by a superiour; a mean wretch, whose whole business is by any means to please:’ and Revolution as ‘change in the state of a government or country. It is used among us kat hexochaen for the change produced by the admission of King William and Queen Mary.’ For these definitions Wilkes attacked him in The North Briton, No. xii. In the fourth edition Johnson gives a second definition of patriot:—‘It is sometimes used for a factious disturber of the government.’ Premier and prime minister are not defined. Post, April 14, 1775. See also ante, p. 264 note, for the definition of patron; and post, April 28, 1783 for that of alias.
[868] ‘There have been great contests in the Privy Council about the trial of the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford [on a charge of Jacobitism]: Lord Gower pressed it extremely. He asked the Attorney-General his opinion, who told him the evidence did not appear strong enough. Lord Gower said:—“Mr. Attorney, you seem to be very lukewarm for your party.” He replied:—“My Lord, I never was lukewarm for my party, nor ever was but of one party!”’ Walpole’s Letters, ii. 140. Mr. Croker assumes that Johnson here ‘attempted a pun, and wrote the name (as pronounced) Go’er. Johnson was very little likely to pun, for ‘he had a great contempt for that species of wit.’ Post, April 30, 1773.
[869] Boswell omits the salutation which follows this definition:
Chair Ithakae met haethla, met halgea pikra Haspasios teon oudas ikanomai.
‘Dr. Johnson,’ says Miss Burney, ‘inquired if I had ever yet visited Grub-street, but was obliged to restrain his anger when I answered “No;” because he had never paid his respects to it himself. “However,” says he, “you and I, Burney, will go together; we have a very good right to go,