kylenano
2005-Apr-02, 09:58 PM
Today the Guardian had an article on Johnson's Dictionary, published 250 years ago: Words count (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1449513,00.html)
In 1746, some months after his 36th birthday, Samuel Johnson, that great literary figure of the 18th century, affectionately referred to as the Good Doctor, began work on his monumental Dictionary of the English Language . It took him nine years. April 15 marks the 250th anniversary of its publication.
They give some of his definitions (end of article): An A-Z of English (without the X) (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1449514,00.html)
Johnson's definitions
Astrology The practice of foretelling things by the knowledge of the stars; an art now generally exploded, as without reason
I thought it frustrating that 250 years ago astrology was questioned, yet it is still around all this time later. Johnson researched the dictionary thoroughly - as described in the articles - so he wasn't writing without authority. But as some of the definitions are idiosyncratic, even eccentric (risque?) maybe they weren't taken too seriously.
In 1746, some months after his 36th birthday, Samuel Johnson, that great literary figure of the 18th century, affectionately referred to as the Good Doctor, began work on his monumental Dictionary of the English Language . It took him nine years. April 15 marks the 250th anniversary of its publication.
They give some of his definitions (end of article): An A-Z of English (without the X) (http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1449514,00.html)
Johnson's definitions
Astrology The practice of foretelling things by the knowledge of the stars; an art now generally exploded, as without reason
I thought it frustrating that 250 years ago astrology was questioned, yet it is still around all this time later. Johnson researched the dictionary thoroughly - as described in the articles - so he wasn't writing without authority. But as some of the definitions are idiosyncratic, even eccentric (risque?) maybe they weren't taken too seriously.