Johnson's Dictionary and bang, budge, fuss, gambler, shabby, and touchy

[Joel S. Berson]

A correspondent on the list named below asks the question given
below.  If you can reply to the C18-L list, please do so and also
copy ADS-L.  Otherwise, I will pass on any replies.

Joel


>Reply-To:     18th Century Interdisciplinary Discussion <C18-L at lists.psu.edu>
>Subject: [C18-L] Johnson's Dictionary and bang, budge, fuss,
>gambler, shabby, and touchy
>Sender:       18th Century Interdisciplinary Discussion <C18-L at lists.psu.edu>
>
>I participate in an online trivia league, and yesterday I was asked
>a question about Johnson's Dictionary to which I didn't know the answer:
>"The words bang, budge, fuss, gambler, shabby and touchy did not
>appear in Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language. Why not?"
>
>The answer was "Johnson didn't like them." Looking for more
>background on this, I found this British Library page on the
>Dictionary that explains:
>"He also decided that many words were not good enough for the
>dictionary - words such as bang, budge, fuss, gambler, shabby and
>touchy were all left out. Johnson was criticised for imposing his
>personality on to the book. However, his dictionary was enormously
>popular and highly respected for its epic sense of scholarship."
>http://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/dic/johnson/1755johnsonsdictionary.html
>
>This thorough-looking site on the history of English says much the same:
>"Johnson also deliberately omitted from his dictionary several words
>he disliked or considered vulgar (including bang, budge, fuss,
>gambler, shabby and touchy), but these useful words have clearly
>survived intact regardless of his opinions."
>http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/history_early_modern.html
>
>Here's the thing, though. It's not true. ALL those words appear in
>the 1755 first edition of the Dictionary, although Johnson does
>stigmatize them with labels like "low word" or "cant". Clearly no
>one could write this who's actually looked up those words, and the
>similarity of the lists implies a common ancestor. Does anyone know
>where this notion might have come from?
>
>John Overholt
>Curator
>Donald and Mary Hyde Collection of Dr. Samuel Johnson/
>Early Modern Books and Manuscripts
>Houghton Library
>Harvard University
>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/houghton/
>http://twitter.com/john_overholt
>http://houghtonlib.tumblr.com/
>
>-:-:-:--:-:-:--:-:-:--:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-
>      To leave C18-L or adjust your subscription, click here:
>         http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=C18-L&A=1
>                 To search the C18-L Archives:
>              http://lists.psu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=C18-L
>           Selected Readings, C18-L's online bibliography:
>        http://www.personal.psu.edu/special/C18/sr/sr.htm
>                     The C18-L Home Page:
>         http://www.personal.psu.edu/special/C18/c18-l.htm

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org