ALTHOUGH dictionaries are so numerous, so well known, and so much used, they vary so greatly in the nature and treatment of their subjects that any definition must be very much modified in order to include some works so entitled and usually so called. In its proper and most usual meaning, a dictionary is a book containing a collection of the words of a language, dialect, or subject, arranged alphabetically or in some other definite order, and with explanations in the same or some other language. What is essential is, that the words given should be all or most of those belonging to the subject of the dictionary, or at least be very many in number, and that they should be arranged in definite order, and accompanied with interpretations. Many other characters may rightly and advantageously belong to a dictionary, but these are the essentials. When the words are few in number, being only a small part of those belonging to the subject, or when they are given without explanation, or some only are explained, or the explanations are partial, the work is called a vocabulary. An alphabetical arrangement of the words of some book or author with references to the places where they occur is called an index. When under each word the phrases containing it are added to the references, the work is called a concordance. Sometimes, however, these names are given to true dictionaries; thus the great Italian dictionary of the Academy of La Crusca, in six volumes folio, is called Vocabolario, and Ernesti’s dictionary to Cicero is called Index. When the words are arranged according to a definite system of classification under heads and subdivisions, according to their nature or their meaning, the book is usually called a classed vocabulary; but when sufficient explanations are given, it is often accepted as a dictionary, like the Onomastiχon cf Julius Pollux, or the native dictionaries of Sanskrit, Manchu, and many other languages. Dictionaries were originally books of reference explaining the words of a language or of some part of it. As the names of things, as well as those of persons and places, are words, and often require explanation even more than other classes of words, they were necessarily included in dictionaries, and often to a very great extent. In time, books were devoted to them alone, and were limited to special subjects, and these have so multiplied, that dictionaries of things now rival in number and variety those of words or of languages, while they 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; dictionaries of bibliography, relating to all books, or to those of some particular kind or country; dictionaries of geography, of the whole world, of particular countries, or of small districts, of towns and of villages, of castles, monasteries, and other buildings. There are dictionaries of philosophy; of mathematics; of natural history, zoology, botany; of birds, trees, plants, and flowers; of chemistry, geology, and mineralogy; of architecture, painting, and music; of medicine, surgery, anatomy, pathology, and physiology; of diplomacy; of law, canon, civil, statutory, and criminal; of political and social sciences; of agriculture, rural economy, and gardening; of commerce, navigation, horsemanship, and the military art; of mechanics, machines, and the manual arts. There are dictionaries of antiquities, of chronology, of dates, of genealogy, of heraldry, of diplomatics, of abbreviations, of useful receipts, of monograms, of adulterations, and of very many other subjects. And lastly, there are dictionaries of the arts and sciences, and their comprehensive offspring, encyclopaedias, which include in themselves every branch of knowledge. The tendency of dictionaries of language is to increase the vocabulary, to multiply articles; the tendencies of dictionaries of things, and especially of encyclopaedias, is to diminish the number of articles, fusing subjects together as far as possible, and to develop the explanation, making it longer and more copious and circumstantial. This does away with the necessity of turning to many articles scattered through all parts of the work for a complete view of a subject. On the other hand, as requiring an index, it is less convenient for frequent reference on minor points.

Dictionariwm is a word of low or modern Latinity; dictio, from which it was formed, was used in mediaeval Latin to mean a word. Lexicon is a corresponding word of Greek origin, meaning a book of or for words—a dictionary. A glossary is properly a collection of unusual or foreign words requiring explanation. It is the name frequently given to English dictionaries of dialects, which the Germans usually call idioticon, and the Italians vocabolario. Wörterbuch, a book of words, was first used among the Germans according to Grimm, by Kramer (1719), imitated from the Dutch woordenboek. From the Germans the Swedes and Danes adopted ordbok, ordbog. The Icelandic ordabôk, like the German, contains the genitive plural. The Slavonic nations use slovar, slovnik, and the Southern Slavs ryetshnik, from slovo, ryetsh, a word, formed, like dictionary and lexicon, without composition. Many other names have been given to dictionaries, as thesaurus, Sprachschatz, cornucopia, gazo-phylacium, comprehensorium, catholicon, to indicate their completeness; manipulus predicantium, promptorium puerorum, liber memorialis, bortus vocabulorum, ionia (a violet bed), alveary (a beehive), kamoos (the sea), haft kulzum (the seven seas), tsze tien (a standard of character), onomasticon, nomenclator, bibliotheca, eluci-dario, Mundart, Sammlung, clavis, scala, pharetra, La

Crusca from th'e great Italian dictionary, and Calepine (in Spanish and Italian) from the Latin dictionary of Calepinus.

A dictionary of language should contain all the words which may be reasonably looked for in it, so arranged as to be readily and surely found, and so explained as to make their meaning, and if possible their use, clear to those who have a competent knowledge of the language or languages in which the explanations are given. Some dictionaries may suppose a very considerable degree of knowledge in those who use them, but though one could not be written which would make every word clear to a young child, they should in general be as easy and simple as possible. A full and complete dictionary of a great literary language can be compiled only by great labour, patience, knowledge, and skill, employed for many years in collecting, correcting, adjusting, and completing the labours of many previous generations of workers. Such a dictionary should include all the words of the language. As a great library cannot select books and publications, but must collect and preserve all without regard to their apparent value or worthlessness, for it is impossible to foretell what may be valued in future times, or what may be required by its readers for completing their researches, so a complete and standard dictionary should make no choice. Words obsolete and newly coined, barbarous, vulgar, and affected, temporary, provincial, and local, belonging to peculiar classes, professions, pursuits, and trades, should all find their place,—the only question being as to the evidence for their existence,—not indeed, all received with equal honour and regard, but with their characteristics and defects duly noted and pointed out. A complete dictionary should be the complete record and picture, or, as Archbishop Trench says, the inventory of language. It must contain all words ever in any way belonging to it, in writing or in speech, or it will not be a complete record, and will not satisfy those who consult it. Lexicographers have too often tried to exercise a choice, and not content with being recorders, have made themselves judges of words, and refiners and improvers of language, and have attempted not only to reform the language, but to check it in that growth and development which is inherent in all living tongues, and to make their dictionaries standards and rules of language, rather than inventories and records. Unfortunately, this error is echoed by popular opinion; and a standard dictionary is too often supposed to be an arbitrator of words, rather than a standard of excellence among dictionaries. The intention of the author should be, as Bescherelle says, not to reform the language, but to present it with all its caprices, anomalies, irregularities, beauties, defects,—in a word, as the nation has made it. The precise value or worthlessness of a word can only be marked when it is admitted. If not found in the dictionary, it may be supposed to have been unknown to the author, as there is nothing to show that it has been condemned and rejected. The French Academy at first rejected all technical terms, but was compelled by popular clamour and the success of Furetière’s dictionary, in which very many were given, to admit them in increasing numbers in its seoond and all subsequent editions. It is the more necessary that they should not be excluded, as the meanings are difficult to learn, and are most often looked for; and a dictionary intended for general use, should, as Dr Johnson says, include the words belonging to every profession. Obsolete words are admitted by Johnson, Littré, and other first-rate lexicographers, only when they have remained in use after a certain period. Richardson gives ónly those useful for etymology, which is Littré’s rule for patois. Grimm admits all words at any time belonging to High German or its dialects. The great German dictionaries generally admit dialects, and in this respect are more complete than the French and English. The Chinese give in their standard dictionaries every character known to exist, though many are erroneous, corrupt, vulgar, or local, or are merely improvements proposed by some eminent person. Of tfie ancient characters, sometimes the pronunciation, and occasionally the meaning, are unknown, while both one and the other are in some cases completely lost. Johnson omits all words relating to proper names, but they, as well as proper names, often as really belong to a language as any other words. The Philological Society propose that their new dictionary of English, begun in 1856, shall contain “every word occurring in the literature of the language,” and “admit as authorities all English books,” unwisely excepting “such as are devoted to purely scientific subjects, as treatises on electricity, mathematics,” <fcc., beginning “with that definite appearance of an English type of language distinct from the preceding semi-Saxon,” about the year 1250. Their vocabulary of words beginning with the letter B, printed in .1863, contains 17,729. The practice of universal admission of words is becoming more generally adopted in standard dictionaries of all languages.

Words can be most surely and quickly found when arranged alphabetically in a single series. Other arrangements, though sometimes more useful, are not so generally convenient. When it is thought desirable to separate any class of words, they should still be also inserted in their proper places in the general alphabet. In a large dictionary a small separate additional alphabet is almost lost, and is usually overlooked by searchers. According to Grimm, the alphabetical arrangement not only facilitates reference, but makes the author’s work quicker and surer; “for he who would insert rich contributions must have the places for them before his eyes, and not have to search about undecidedly to find whether the word is already there or not.” The order of the alphabet should be that commonly used in the language. Any other makes reference more slow and uncertain. Grimm says that the order of the Sanskrit alphabet, adopted by Diefenbach and others, brings confusion rather than light to European languages. The etymological arrangement under roots has been generally condemned by experience. It places all words of the same origin together, so that they can be at once seen, which is often very useful and important, and is a great help in learning a language, as it assists the memory. But a word not belonging to the small number of roots cannot be found unless its root is known; otherwise it must be looked for in the index, or if there is none, sought for by guess-work in many places. And as etymologies will vary according to fancy or knowledge, no word, as Grimm says, will be sure of its place, and no arrangement is more destructive of the object and use of a dictionary. All its advantages may be secured by giving under each root a list of derivatives. Another system, more rarely adopted, though perhaps more useful, is that of arranging all words under their leading ideas, so that all those relating to a subject are seen together, and the proper word to express an idea may be found almost as easily as the idea expressed by a word may be found in an ordinary dictionary. It is, in fact, a classed vocabulary of all the words of the language, with the sections arranged alphabetically, and resembles in its purpose the classified index of a bibliographical dictionary, while it is quite as useful and necessary. Boissiere has chosen about 2000 common words, under each of which he gives all the French words evidently attached to it by community of ideas, or by relations of habitual use, cause, means, effect, or any analogy whatever. This part, he says, shows how to call things by their right names, and, as he remarks, great care is taken to teach children grammar, but none to teach them words. In the upper part of each page he gives all the words in alphabetical order, with a reference to the group in which each will be found. Roget, in his Thesaurus, gives under each head (1000 in number) not only the words belonging to the idea, but their opposites, and adds at the end of the book an index of all the words. This system, on account of its very great use and value, might well be made a subsidiary part of a standard dictionary, the groups being placed in the general alphabet, and a reference to each group being added to each word. The arrangement by terminations is of use grammatically and stenogra-phically, and for making out words of which the beginning is illegible or wanting. A dictionary of rhymes is similar, but not exactly the same, and is of little use except for making verses, and, when the rhymes are perfect, for showing the pronunciation. In the Semitic languages words are commonly placed under their roots, and in MS. lexicons the roots are often arranged alphabetically, according to the last radical. When Lane was making his great Arabic lexicon, he generally had before him eight or ten native lexicons, containing three different arrangements of roots. In Chinese dictionaries the characters are usually arranged under the 214 radicals, which now serve as an alphabet. In former times the number varied, and was much greater. The characters under each radical are further subdivided according to the number of strokes used in making each character, in addition to its radical, or the abbreviation of its radical which each character contains. But no arrangement is attempted of the characters having the same number of strokes. Other systems are sometimes used, arranged by tones and endings, and by the characters (about 1040) called phonetics.

In the separate articles of a dictionary the arrangement must vary very much with the language, as well as with the word itself. When necessary, the orthography, pronunciation, and grammatical inflexions of the word should be given, and any variations of these at different times and places carefully pointed out, as well as the character of the word, such as obsolete, provincial, &c.; and forms beginning with a different spelling should be placed in separate articles, with references to the main article. The etymology should be given, referring derivatives to their respective roots; and under each root giving, if not the derivation as far back as it can be traced, at least what Littré calls the secondary etymology—that is, deriving it from a word not belonging to the language, as when a French word is traced to a Latin or German word without proceeding farther; and cognate words should generally be enumerated, often with their principal meanings. This gives a primary meaning, but care must be taken that the derivation is a real one, not a mere fancy or guess. The times when the word was introduced or became obsolete should be noted, and the meaning it bore at first, as well as those which prevailed at various periods. The meanings may be arranged in a series, not merely as they may be imagined to have been logically developed from each other, but as their connection may be traced, and can be shown to have existed in actual use; and where this connection cannot be traced, the defect should be pointed out. Sometimes, too, the meanings are, as Johnson says, collateral. In some kinds of dictionaries the explanations may be merely sufficient to identify the word, as in Bilderdijk’s Voordenboek υoor de Nederduitsche Spelling, or, as in most small dictionaries, they may merely give the sense. They may also be full and complete explanations of all the meanings, and again, as is necessary in a complete dictionary, may include usage. The explanations of the meanings should be precise and not vague, real definitions and not a mere reference of one word to another of the same meaning, as when the French Academy explains fier by hautain, altier, and hautain by fier, orgueilleux. But when one language is explained by another, nothing conveys the meaning so well as a perfectly equivalent word. The interpretation of a language by itself is, as Dr Johnson says, very difficult, for there is no other word to express the idea, and simple ideas cannot be described. Therefore, in Grimm’s dictionary Latin and other languages are used when necessary. Synonyms and homonyms should be given, as well as words of opposite meaning, and their similarities and differences explained. Remarks should be made on difficulties, faults to be avoided, peculiar constructions, figurative, idiomatic, and proverbial expressions, and the origin of these given when possible. All this should be done in the fewest and plainest words. Eloquence is out of place in a dictionary; but the author must not fear fulness when it is necessary, and must not allow brevity to make him obscure. A complete dictionary of a copious language must necessarily be a very large book, but much space may be saved by the use of well-selected terms and abbreviations, and by typographical arrangements.

Examples form a very important part of a dictionary, but one which is generally omitted, often neglected, and seldom so carefully attended to as it deserves. When no quotations are given, the whole language depends on the authority of the author of the dictionary. The French Academy have always claimed the right of making their own examples. Voltaire says they seem to have made a law not to quote, but, he adds, a dictionary without quotations is a skeleton. Examples may be arranged either under the meanings they illustrate, which is the usual and most useful plan, or, in languages possessing an extensive literature of long duration, chronologically in one series, as the Philological Society formerly proposed. Littré has adopted a medium, and gives examples from authors of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries under the meanings to which they belong, and those from previous authors in a chronological series. Each quotation should give a complete sense, and not be a mere fragment of a sentence. It should, if possible, be instructive and interesting in itself, but should not on this account be made too long. Those containing etymologies, definitions, or explanations of a word, as well as those in which it is joined to words of the same or opposite meaning, and those which mark its introduction or disuse, and those in which it is used as a foreign word not yet naturalized, should be especially sought for. Each should have as exact a reference as possible. The common practice of giving only the author’s name makes it sometimes impossible to verify a quotation without searching through his entire works, which may fill many volumes. In the case of some rare words, when the quotation would add nothing to the information otherwise given, the mere reference may suffice. The value of a dictionary and the richness of its vocabulary depend very much on the carefulness and extent of the search for examples, which can only be complete when it has extended to the whole literature of the language. If concordances and full indexes were more universal, the search for examples would be much facilitated. The foundation of the Philological Society’s intended dictionary was to have been the reading of all English books not purely scientific for examples by volunteers. In October 1864, 1149 had been read, and 360 were in hand.

Though complete dictionaries of a language are very few, and none as yet exists in English, large dictionaries are many. The tendency of great dictionaries is to unite in themselves all the peculiar features of special dictionaries. A large dictionary is most useful when a word is...