DICTIONARY, a book containing a collection of the words of a language, arranged alphabetically or in some other definite order, with explanations of their meanings and often with other information concerning them, in the same or another language. Besides the meanings, there may be given, and usually is in the larger dictionaries, much additional information, such as pro nunciation, etymology, illustrative quotations, synonyms and idiomatic phrases. The word is used also, especially when accom panied by a qualifying term, to mean a word-book or lexicon of the terms used in some subject or some part or form of a lan guage, as a dictionary of music, of law, of etymology or of a dialect. A geographical dictionary is generally called a gazetteer. An index is an alphabetical arrangement of selected words of some book or author with references to the place where they occur. When under each word the phrases containing it are added to gether with references, the work is called a concordance. When the words are few in number, being only a small part of those belonging to the language or subject, or when they are given with little or no explanation, the work is called a vocabulary. When the work is merely a list of explanations of the difficult words and expressions in some particular subject or writing, it is called a glossary.
The first dictionaries explained only the words, or certain words, of a language. But as the names of things, persons and places are words and often require explanation even more than other classes of words, dictionaries gave increasing attention to things, persons and places. In time, books were devoted to them alone, sometimes limited to special subjects, and these books have so multiplied that they now rival in number and variety diction aries of words or of languages, and often far surpass them in bulk. There are dictionaries of biography and history, real and fictitious, general and special, relating to men of all countries, characters and professions; the English Dictionary of National Biography is an outstanding instance of one form of these. There are dictionaries of bibliography, relating to all books, or to those of some particular kind or country ; dictionaries of geography (gazetteers) of the whole world, of particular countries, of small districts, of towns and of villages; dictionaries of philosophy; of the Bible; of mathematics; of zoology; of botany; of chemistry, geology and mineralogy ; of architecture, painting and music ; of medicine; and of very many other subjects. And lastly, there are dictionaries of the arts and sciences, and their comprehensive offspring, encyclopaedias (q.v.), which include in themselves every branch of knowledge. This article is confined to an account of those dictionaries which are primarily word-books. This is practically the most convenient distinction from the subject-book or encyclopaedia. The two characters are often combined in one work; thus the Century Dictionary has encyclopaedic features, while the present edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, em bodies dictionary features. The tendency of general dictionaries as they become larger is to unite in themselves all the peculiar features of special dictionaries.
English lexicography began with attempts to explain Latin words by giving English equivalents. In the Promptorium Par vulorum, compiled in 1440 by Galfridus Grammaticus, a Domini can monk of Lynn Episcopi, in Norfolk, and printed by Pynson in 1499, English words were explained in Latin. The first diction aries of English words were not meant to be complete, but were limited to "hard" words, typically those derived from foreign languages, words in common use being presumed to require no attention ; thus Edward Phillips, nephew of John Milton, de scribed his New World of English Words (1658) as "containing the interpretation of such hard words as are derived from other languages." The first approach to success in collecting and de fining all words in good usage in the English language was made by Nathan Bailey in his folio dictionary published in 1730.
The lexicographer was long expected to register only words deemed "good" for literary use, with their "proper" meanings ; it was his duty to sift and refine, to decide authoritatively questions of usage, and thus to fix the language as completely as might be possible within the limits determined by the literary taste of his time. Thus the Accademia della Crusca, founded near the close of the 16th century, was established for the purpose of purifying in this way the Italian tongue, and in 1612 the Vocabolario degli Accadernici della Crusca, long the standard of that language, was published. The Academie Francaise, the first edition of whose dictionary appeared in 1694, had a similar origin. In England the idea of constructing a dictionary upon this principle arose during the second quarter of the 18th century. It was imagined by men of letters—among them Addison, Swift and Pope—that the Eng lish language had then attained such perfection that further im provement was hardly possible, and it was feared that if it were not fixed by lexicographic authority deterioration would soon begin. Since there was no English "academy," it was necessary that the task should be entrusted to some one whose learning would command respect, and the man who was chosen was Samuel Johnson. His dictionary, the first edition of which, in two folio volumes, appeared in 1755, was for its quotations and pithy definitions admirable, but it was inadequate even as a standard of the then existing literary usage. Johnson himself did not long entertain the belief that the natural development of a language can be arrested in that or in any other way. His work was, how ever, generally accepted as a final authority, and the ideas upon which it was founded dominated English lexicography for more than a century.
The first effective protest in England against the supremacy of this literary view was made by Dean (later Archbishop) Trench, in a paper on "Some Deficiencies in Existing English Diction aries" read before the Philological Society in 1857. "A diction ary," he said, "according to that idea of it which seems to me alone capable of being logically maintained, is an inventory of the language; much more, but this primarily. . . . It is no task of the maker of it to select the good words of the language. . . The business which he has undertaken is to collect and arrange all words, whether good or bad, whether they commend themselves to his judgment or otherwise. . . He is an historian of (the language), not a critic." In other words, for the literary view of the chief end of the general dictionary should be substituted the philological or scientific. In Germany this substitution had al ready been effected by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm in their dic tionary of the German language, the first volume of which appeared in 1854. In brief, then, the philologist's view is that the general dictionary of a language should be a record of all the words—current or obsolete—of that language, with all their mean ings and "uses, but should not attempt to be, except secondarily or indirectly, a guide to "good" usage.
This theoretical requirement must, of course, be modified con siderably in practice. The date at which a modern language is to be regarded by the lexicographer as "beginning" must, as a rule, be somewhat arbitrarily chosen ; while considerable portions of its earlier vocabulary cannot be recovered because of the incom pleteness of the literary record. Moreover, not even the most complete dictionary can include all the words which the records— earlier and later—actually contain. Many words, that is to say, which are found in the literature of a language cannot be regarded as, 'for lexicographic purposes, belonging to that language; while many more may or may not be held to belong to it, according to the judgment of the lexicographer. This is especially true of English.
Another important principle upon which Trench insisted, and which also expresses a requirement of modern scientific philology, is that the dictionary shall be not merely a record, but also an historical record of words and their uses. From the literary point of view the most important thing is present usage. To that alone the idea of a "standard" has any application. Dictionaries of the older type, therefore, usually make the common or "proper" mean ing of a word the starting point of its definition and arrange its other senses in a logical or accidental order, commonly ignoring the historical order in which the various meanings arose. The philologist, however, for whom the growth, or progressive altera tion, of a language is a fact of central importance, regards no record of a language as complete which does not exhibit this growth in its successive stages. He desires to know when and where each word, and each form and sense of it, are first found in the language; if the word or sense is obsolete, when it died; and any other fact that throws light upon its history and implications. He requires, accordingly, of the lexicographer that, having ascer tained these data, he shall make them the foundation of his ex position—in particular, of the arrangement of his definition, that sense being placed first which appeared first in time.
The adoption of the historical principle involves a further note worthy modification of older methods, namely, an important ex tension of the use of quotations. To Dr. Johnson belongs the credit showing how useful, when properly chosen, quotations may be, not only in corroborating the lexicographer's statements, but also in revealing special shades of meaning or variations of use which his definitions cannot well express. No part of Johnson's work is more valuable than this. The idea was more fully de veloped and applied by Dr. Charles Richardson, whose New Dic tionary of the English Language . . . Illustrated by Quotations from the Best Authors (1837) still remains a most valuable collec tion of literary illustrations. Until recently, however, with few exceptions lexicographers have employed quotations chiefly for the ends just mentioned—as instances of use or as illustrations of correct usage--with scarcely any recognition of their value as historical evidence ; and they have taken them almost exclusively from the works of the "best" authors. But since the data upon which conclusions with regard to the history of a word can be based must be collected chiefly from the literature of the language, it is evident that, in so far as the lexicographer is required to fur nish evidence for an historical inference, a quotation is the best form in which he can give it. A further rule of scholarly lexi cography, accordingly, is that quotations should be used, primarily, as historical evidence, and that the history of words and meanings should be exhibited by means of them. The earliest instance of use that can be found, and (if the word or sense is obsolete) the latest, are as a rule to be given; while in the case of an important word or sense, instances taken from successive periods of its cur rency also should be cited. Moreover, a quotation which contains an important bit of historical evidence must be used, whether its source is "good," from the literary point of view, or not— whether it is a classic of the language or from a daily newspaper ; though where choice is possible, preference should, of course, be given to quotations from the best writers.
Lastly, a much more important place in the scheme of the dic tionary is now assigned to the etymology of words. This may be attributed, in part, to the rapid development of etymology as a science, and to the greater abundance of trustworthy data ; but chiefly to the fact that from the historical point of view the con nection between that section of the biography of a word which lies within the language and its antecedent history has become more vital and interesting. Etymology, in other words, is essen tially the history of the form of a vvord up to the time when it became a part of the language, and is, in a measure, an extension of the history of the development of the word in the language. Moreover, it is the only means by which the exact relations of allied words can be ascertained, and the separation of words of the same form but of diverse origin (homonyms) can be effected, and is thus, for the dictionary, the foundation of all family history and correct genealogy. Related to the etymology of words are the changes in their form which may have occurred while they have been in use as parts of the language—modifications of their pro nunciation, changes resulting from analogy, and the like.
The ideal thus developed is primarily that of the general dic tionary of the purely philological type. The encyclopaedic type of dictionary, although it has often been criticized as hybrid—as a mixture of two things which should be kept distinct—is entirely defensible. Between the dictionary and the encyclopaedia the dividing line cannot be sharply drawn. There are words the mean ing of which cannot be explained fully without some description of things, and, on the other hand, the description of things and processes often involves the definition of names. The large vocab ulary of the general dictionary makes it possible to present cer tain kinds of encyclopaedic matter with a degree of fulness and a convenience of arrangement which are possible in no single work of any other class. In fact, it may be said that if the ency clopaedic dictionary did not exist it would have to be invented; that its justification is its indispensableness. Not the least of its advantages is that it makes legitimate the use of diagrams and pictorial illustrations, which are valuable aids to definition.
On its practical side the advance in lexicography has consisted in the elaboration of methods long in use rather than in the in vention of new ones. The only way to collect the data upon which the vocabulary, the definitions and the history are to be based is, of course, to search for them in the written monuments of the language. But the wider scope and special aims of the new lexi cography demand that the investigation shall be vastly more com prehensive, systematic and precise. It is necessary, in brief, that, as far as may be possible, records of every kind and of every period shall be examined systematically, in order that all the words, and senses and forms of words, which have existed may be found, and that enough excerpts to cover all the essential facts shall be made. The books, pamphlets, journals, newspapers, docu ments and so on which must thus be searched will be numbered by thousands, and the quotations selected may (as in the case of the Oxford New English Dictionary) be counted by millions. This task is beyond the powers of any one man, even though he be a Johnson, a Littre or a Grimm, and it is now assigned to a corps of readers whose number is limited only by the ability of the editor to profit by such assistance. The modern method of editing the material thus accumulated—the actual work of compilation— also is characterized by the application of the principle of co operation. Johnson boasted that his dictionary was written with but little assistance from the learned, and the same was in large measure true of that of Littre. Such attempts on the part of one man, with a few assistants, to write practically the whole of a general dictionary are no longer possible, not merely because of the vast labour necessitated by modern aims, but more especially because the immense development of the vocabularies of the special sciences, arts and technology renders indispensable the assistance, in the work of definition, of persons who are expert in their intricacies. The tendency, accordingly, has been to enlarge greatly the editorial staff, scores of sub-editors and contributors being now employed where a dozen or fewer were formerly suf ficient. In other words, the making of a dictionary has become a co-operative enterprise, to the success of which workers in all the fields of knowledge contribute.
The most complete exemplification of these principles and meth ods is the Oxford New English Dictionary, on historical principles, founded mainly on the materials collected by the Philological Society. This monumental work originated in the suggestion of Trench, in 1857, that an attempt should be made, under the direc tion of the Philological Society, to complete the vocabulary of existing dictionaries and to supply the historical information which they lacked. The suggestion was adopted, considerable material was collected, and Mr. Herbert Coleridge was appointed general editor. He died in 1861, and was succeeded by Dr. F. J. Furnivall. Little was done, however, beyond the collection of about 2,000, 00o quotations, until in 1878 the expense of printing and publish ing the proposed dictionary was assumed by the delegates of the Oxford University Press, and the editorship was entrusted to Dr. (afterwards Sir) J. A. H. Murray. As the historical point of be ginning, the middle of the i 2th century was selected, all words that were obsolete at that date being excluded, though the history of words that were current both before and after that date is given in its entirety; and it was decided that the search for quota tions—which, according to the original design, was to cover the entire literature down to the beginning of the i 6th century and as much of the subsequent literature (especially the works of the more important writers and works on special subjects) as might be possible—should be made more thorough. More than Soo readers, in all parts of the world, offered their aid ; and when the preface to the first volume appeared in 1888, the editor was able to announce that the readers had increased to 1,3oo and that 3 , 500,00o quotations, taken from the writings of more than 5,000 authors, had already been amassed. The whole work was planned to be completed in ten large volumes, each issued first in smaller parts. The first part was issued in 1884, and the dictionary, in ten full volumes or twenty half-volumes, was completed in 1928. The historical method of exposition, particularly by quotations, is ap plied in the Oxford New English Dictionary, if not in all cases with entire success, yet, on the whole, with a regularity and a pre cision which leave little to be desired. Special features of the book are the completeness with which variations of orthography (with dates) are given; the fullness and scientific excellence of the etymologies, which abound in new information and correction of old errors; the phonetic precision with which the present (British) pronunciation is indicated; and the elaborate subdivision of meanings. The definitions as a whole are marked by a high degree of accuracy, though in a certain number of cases (not explicable by the dates of the volumes) the meanings are not so full as one would expect. Work of such magnitude and quality is possible, practically, only when the editor of the dictionary can command not merely the aid of a very large number of scholars ' and men of science, but their gratuitous aid. In this the Oxford New English Dictionary was singularly fortunate. The conditions under which it originated, and its aim, interested scholars every where and led them to contribute their knowledge and time. The long list of names of such helpers in Sir J. A. H. Murray's preface is in curious contrast with their absence from Dr. Johnson's and the few which are given in that of Littre. Dr. Murray's chief collaborators and successors were Dr. Henry Bradley, Dr. William A. Craigie and Mr. Charles T. Onions. Of the dictionary as a whole it may be said that it is one of the greatest achievements of modern scholarship and research.
In the Deutsches Worterbuch of Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm the scientific spirit, as was said above, first found expression in general lexicography. The desirability of a complete inventory and investigation of German words was recognized by Leibnitz and by various i8th century scholars, but the plan and methods of the Grimms were the direct product of the then new scientific philology. Their design, in brief, was to give an exhaustive account of the words of the literary language (New High German) from about the end of the i 5th century, including their earlier etymo logical and later history, with references to important dialectal words and forms ; and to illustrate their use and history abun dantly by quotations. The first volume appeared in 1854. Jacob Grimm (died 1863) edited the first, second (with his brother, who died in 18S9) and third volumes and a part of the fourth; the others have been edited by various distinguished scholars.
These general principles lie also at the foundation of the schol arly Dictionnaire de la langue f rancaise of E. Littre, though they are there carried out less systematically and less completely. In the arrangement of the definitions the first place is given to the most primitive meaning of the word instead of to the most com mon one, as in the dictionary of the Academy ; but the other meanings follow in an order that is often logical rather than his torical. Quotations also are frequently used merely as literary illustrations, or are omitted entirely ; in the special paragraphs on the history of words before the i6th century, however, they are put to a strictly historical use. This dictionary—perhaps the greatest ever compiled by one man—was published in 1863-72.
In the making of all these great dictionaries the needs of the general public as well as those of scholars were kept in view. But the type to which the general dictionary designed for popular use has tended more and more to conform is the encyclopaedic. This combination of lexicon and encyclopaedia is exhibited in an ex treme form in the Grand dictionnaire universal du XIX siecle of Pierre Larousse. Besides common words and their definitions, it contains a great many proper names, with a correspondingly large number of biographical, geographical, historical and other articles, the connection of which with the strictly lexicographical part is purely mechanical. Its great utility makes it a model in many respects. Fifteen volumes were published (1866-76), and supple ments were brought out later. The Nouveau Larousse illustre started publication in Igor, and was completed in seven volumes in i go4. This was not an abridgment or a fresh edition of the Grand Dictionnaire of Pierre Larousse, but a distinct publication, as is also the Larousse Universel in two volumes (1923).
The notable work of this class in English is the Century Dic tionary, an American product, edited by Professor W. D. Whit ney, and published in 1889-91 in six volumes, containing 7,046 pages (large quarto). It conforms to the philological mode in giving with great fullness the older as well as the present vocab ulary of the language, and in the completeness of its etymologies; but it does not attempt to give the full history of every word within the language. Among its other more noteworthy charac teristics are the inclusion of a great number of modern scientific and technical words, and the abundance of its quotations. The quotations are for the most part provided with references, but they are not dated. The Century's great merits are the excellent enumeration of meanings and the accuracy of its explanations. In the application of the encyclopaedic method the Century is con servative, restricting, for the most part, the encyclopaedic matter to descriptive and other details which may legitimately be added to the definitions. Its pictorial illustrations are very numerous and well executed. In the manner of its compilation it is a good example of modern co-operative dictionary-making, being the joint product of a number of specialists.
No account of the dictionary would be complete that did not mention its educational influence in America. From the appear ance of the American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster, in 1828, the dictionary has served in America, in offices, schools and homes, as a working tool for masses of people with a common interest in understanding and using their mother tongue. The American dictionary, typically in one large volume, is, then, not primarily for a literary class, as Dr. Johnson's dic tionary was, and is not primarily, like the Oxford dictionary, a contribution to linguistic scholarship. It gives citations, since, as Voltaire said, a dictionary without them is a skeleton ; but it does not necessarily retain obsolete spelling in citations or use space in dating them and in giving precise references to edition and page. It seeks to register the forms in which words are currently written and printed, the pronunciations that are acceptable and the recog nized meanings. Its compactness, considering its comprehensive ness, is attained by technique in editing and typography. In addi tion to the New International Dictionary, which continues with honourable distinction the work begun by Noah Webster, an out standing dictionary of this type is the Standard Dictionary (1893 seqq.) .