Category A Dictionary of the English Language – 1755

Police

Bran

I am currently in the United States, where over the past few months there have been numerous protests against police brutality (that have then been met with even more police brutality...), which have called for defunding the police. Given the US's relative lack of social programs, things that would be better handled by mental health, social workers, etc. fall under the police's umbrella, and they tend to overreact, armed to the teeth as they are with military surplus equipment, with violence and force, even though, I would argue, their main duty should be to preserve the lives of the people in their districts, especially those who may or may not be guilty of a crime. I thought it might be interesting, given these recent debates, to see how the police were viewed over a hundred years ago.

In Samuel Johnson's 1755 Dictionary of the English Language, police doesn't necessarily refer to a specific body of people, but includes generally "the regulation and government of a city or country, so far as regards the inhabitants".

Johnson notes that the word police comes from the French; the beginning of the 11th edition Encyclopædia Britannica article on the subject notes that the "word was adopted in English in the 18th century and was disliked as a symbol of foreign oppression". The article on police can be found in volume 21, spanning across pages 978 through 981. It is interesting to see how often abuses of power or the employment of the police as an oppressive force against the citizenship is mentioned. Here are some choice excerpts:

A French king, Charles V., is said to have been the first to invent a police, 'to increase the happiness and security of his people.' It developed into an engine of horrible oppression, and as such was repugnant to the feelings of a free people.

[...]

The state of London at that date [~1770], and indeed of the whole country at large, was deplorable. Crime was rampant, highwaymen terrorized the roads, footpads infested the streets, burglaries were of constant occurrence, river thieves on the Thames committed depredations wholesale. The watchmen appointed by parishes were useless, inadequate, inefficient and untrustworthy, acting often as accessories in aiding and abetting crime. Year after year the shortcomings and defects were emphasized and some better means of protection were constantly advocated. [...] The crying need for reform and the introduction of a proper police was admitted by the government in 1829, when Sir Robert Peel laid the foundation of a better system. Much opposition was offered to the scheme, which was denounced as an insidious attempt to enslave the people by arbitrary and tyrannical methods. The police were to be employed, it was said, as the instruments of a new despotism, the enlisted members of a new standing army, under the centralized authority, riding roughshod over the peaceable citizens. But the guardians of order, under the judicious guidance of such sensible chiefs as Colonel Rowan and Sir Henry Maine, soon lived down the hostility first exhibited, and although one serious and lamentable collision occurred between the mob and the police in 1833, it was agreed two years later that the new police was rapidly diminishing, and that it had fully answered the purpose for which it was formed.

[...]

The aim and object of the police force remain the same as when first created, but its functions have been varied and extended in scope and intention. To secure obedience to the law is a first and principal duty; to deal with breaches of the rules made by authority, to detect, pursue and arrest offenders. Next comes the preservation of order, the protection of all reputable people, and the maintenance of public peace by checking riot and disturbance or noisy demonstration, by enforcing the observance of the thousand and one regulations laid down for the general good. The police have become the ministers of a social despotism resolute in its watchful care and control of the whole community, well-meaning and paternal, although when carried to extreme length the tendency is to diminish self-reliance and independence in the individual. The police are necessarily in close relation with the state; they are the direct representatives of the supreme government, the servants of the Crown and legislature. In England every constable when he joins the force makes a declaration and swears that he will serve the sovereign loyally and diligently, and so acquires the rights and privileges of a peace officer of and for the crown. The state employs police solely in the interests of the public welfare. No sort of espionage is attempted, no effort made to penetrate privacy; no claim to pry into the secret actions of law-abiding persons is or would be tolerated; the agents of authority must not seek information by underhand or unworthy means. In other countries the police system has been worked more arbitrarily; it has been used to check free speech, to interfere with the right of public meetings, and condemn the expression of opinion hostile to or critical of the ruling powers. An all-powerful police, minutely organized, has in some foreign states grown into a terrible engine of oppression and made daily life nearly intolerable. In England the people are free to assemble as they please, to march in procession through the streets, to gather in open spaces, to listen to the harangues, often forcibly expressed, of mob orators, provided always that no obstruction is caused or that no disorder or breach of the peace is threatened.

[...]

France. — It is a matter of history that under Louis XIV., who created the police in Paris, and in succeeding times, the most unpopular and unjustifiable use was made of police as a secret instrument for the purposes of despotic government. Napoleon availed himself largely of police instruments, especially through his minister Fouché. On the restoration of constitutional government under Louis Philippe, police action was less dangerous, bu the danger revived under the second empire. [...] The regular police organization, which preserves order, checks evil-doing, and 'runs-in' malefactors, falls naturally and broadly into two grand divisions, the administrative and the active, the police 'in the office' and the police 'out of doors.' The first attends to the clerical business, voluminous and incessant. An army of clerks in the numerous bureaus, hundreds of patient government employés, the ronds de cuir, as they are contemptuously called, because they sit for choice on round leather cushions, are engaged constantly writing and filling in forms for hours and hours, day after day. The active army of police out of doors, which constitutes the second half of the whole machine, is divided into two classes: that in uniform and that in plain clothes. Every visitor to Paris is familiar with the rather theatrical-looking policeman, in his short frock-coat or cape, smart képi cocked on one side of his head, and with a sword by his side.

[...]

Russia was till lately the most police-ridden country in the world; not even in France in the worst days of the monarchy were the people so much in the hands of the police. To give some idea of the wide-reaching functions of the police the power assumed in matters momentous and quite insignificant, we may quote from the list of circulars issued by the minister of the interior to the governors of the various provinces during four recent years. The governors were directed to regulate religious instruction in secular schools, to prevent horse-stealing, to control subscriptions collected for the holy places in Palestine, to regulate the advertisements of medicines and the printing on cigarette papers, to examine the quality of quinine soap and overlook the cosmetics and other toilet articles — such as soap, starch, brillantine, tooth-brushes and insect-powder — provided by chemists. They were to issue regulations for the proper construction of houses and villages, to exercise an active censorship over published price-lists and printed notes of invitation and visiting cards, as well as seals and rubber stamps. All private meetings and public gatherings, with the expressions of opinion and the class of subjects discussed, were to be controlled by the police.

A Dictionary of the English Language (1755)

Bran

Details

Title: A Dictionary of the English Language
Author: Samuel Johnson
Volumes: 2 (facsimile: 1)
Language: English
Publisher: F. and P Knapton, T. and T. Longman, C. Hitch and L. Hawes, A. Millar, and R. and J. Dodsley. (facsimile: Times Books)
Year: 1775 (facsimile: 1983)
Pages: 2,316

This one is particularly special to me. I'm an enormous fan of this dictionary, to the point that I started digitizing this dictionary in 2011. I handed the digitization project over to Beth Young at the University of Central Florida in 2016. (Check it out here!) Part of the impetus for digitizing it was that I had such difficulty in finding an unabridged copy of the dictionary to read; I only lucked into this particular facsimile (at a ridiculously low price to boot) a couple of years ago. This facsimile is not true-to-life sized; the pages are shrunk to about half the length and width of the actual dictionary, and both volumes have been bound together. This reduction in physical size does make it easier to read or randomly browse the dictionary, so no complaints here. The title pages are also rendered in black-and-white (the original had selective red lettering). It is a complete unabridged facsimile, though, complete with all of the introductory material and ornaments. This particular facsimile was published by Times Books (London) in 1983 through arrangement with Japan's Yushodo Booksellers and Toppan Printing Co.

A Dictionary of the English Language, by Samuel Johnson, was published in 1755 in two folio-size volumes (it's about 20 pounds in weight - not exactly light reading). It took Johnson over 9 years of work to compile, and it generally holds the designation of being the first true, thorough dictionary of the English language. Its groundbreaking quality lies in the fact that he illustrates the definitions of the words with quotes from major works of English literary, philosophical, and scientific literature (generally ranging from Spencer on to his own time); this is a feature later adopted by the Oxford English Dictionary and the Grimm brothers' Deutsches Wörterbuch. It is also known for some of the more humorous definitions peppered throughout. A lexicographer, for instance, is defined as a "writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words." Johnson had attempted to get funding for the dictionary from Lord Chesterfield, who reneged on providing a financial contribution, but still attempted to coax Johnson into dedicating the work to him; in possible retribution, one of the definitions for "patron" is "a wretch who supports with insolence, and is paid with flattery."

Johnson's dictionary begins with a preface, in which he explains his general methodology for selecting, defining, and spelling words. He also apologizes for any faults in a statement I feel would resonate well with anyone now attempting to create without financial resources or abundant leisure time: "In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed; and though no book was ever spared out of tenderness to the authour, and the world is little solicitous to know whence proceeded the faults of that which it condemns; yet it may gratify curiosity to inform it, that the English Dictionary was written with little assistance of the learned, and without any patronage of the great; not in the soft obscurities of retirement, or under the shelter of academick bowers, but amidst inconvenience and distraction, in sickness and in sorrow: and it may repress the triumph of malignant criticism to observe, that if our language is not here fully displayed, I have only failed in an attempt which no human powers have hitherto completed."

The preface is followed by "A History of the English Language" which is essentially an anthology of early English works, starting with a piece by Alfred the Great from the 9th century and ending with a selection from Dr. Thomas Wilson's The arte of rhetorique (1553). These sometimes very long specimens are presented without translation or commentary. This is followed by "A Grammar of the English Tongue," which includes information on pronunciation, parts of speech, syntax, and poetical forms. Here is a chart to help decipher the Anglo-Saxon font used in both the "History of the English Language" and in the etymologies provided for entries throughout the dictionary:

Sample Entries

In order to provide a common ground for comparison between the various reference works in this guide, I attempt to look up the same two terms in each: "umbrella" and "Saint Louis."


Umbre'lla. n.s. [from umbra, Lat.] A skreen used in hot countries to keep off the sun, and in others to bear off the rain.

I can carry your umbrella, and fan your ladyship. Dryden.

          Good housewives
Defended by th' umbrella's oily shed,
Safe through the wet on clinking pattens tread. Gay.

The quote by John Dryden is taken from his play Don Sebastian. The John Gay quote is from Book 1 ("Of the Implements for walking the Streets, and Signs of the Weather") of his long poem Trivia, or the Art of Walking the Streets of London.

"Saint Louis," as a geographical place name and not a word in common usage in 18th century England, does not itself have an entry, but we can cheat and split it into its constituent components to provide more examples.

SAINT. n.s. [saint, French; sanctus, Latin.] A person eminent for piety and virtue.

To thee be worship and thy saints for aye. Shakesp.

She will not stay the siege of loving terms,
Nor ope her lap to saint seducing gold. Shakespeare.

Then thus I cloath my naked villainy
With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil. Shakespeare.

Miracles are required of all who aspire to this dignity, because they say an hypocrite may imitate a saint in all other particulars. Addison on Italy.

By thy example kings are taught to sway,
Heroes to fight, and saints may learn to pray. Granville.

So unaffected, so compos'd a mind;
So firm, yet soft, so strong, yet so refin'd,
Heav'n, as its purest gold, by tortures try'd,
The saint sustain'd it, but the woman dy'd. Pope.

The first Shakespeare quote is from Timon of Athens, the second is from Romeo's pining for Rosaline in Romeo and Juliet, and the third comes from Richard III. As Johnson mentions, the bit from Joseph Addison comes from his "Remarks on Several Parts of Italy, &c. in the Years 1701, 1702, 1703." The quotation from George Granville, 1st Baron Lansdowne, can be found in one of his poems dedicated "to the King." Alexander Pope's quote comes from his epitaph "On Mrs. Corbet, Who died of a Cancer in her Breast." Finally, here's the closest entry to "Louis."

LOUIS D'OR. n.s. [French.] A golden coin of France, valued at about seventeen shillings.

If he is desired to change a louis d'or, he must consider of it. Spectator, N. 305.

This number of The Spectator was written by Joseph Addison.

Be sure to visit Johnson's Dictionary Online!

Achoo! Looking Up the Common Cold

Bran

Penny received a rather unintended and unwanted present for Christmas: her first cold. It was a very long week and a half, with a very crabby baby, but she seems to have come out stronger in the end. She is now starting to roll over onto her side, which is hopefully an exciting preview of front-to-back or back-to-front rolling. Unfortunately, I did not come out so well after her ordeal. I now have the wretched cold.

The OED first records cold (an acute and self-limited episode of catarrhal illness of the upper respiratory tract, often with sneezing, running of the eyes, sore throat, cough, and slight fever, now known to be caused by any of numerous viruses") in the 14th century. It became common a little later, in the 18th century. My good man Johnson is quoted in the cold entry, with a line from his 154th Rambler: "All whom I entreat to sing are troubled with colds."

Johnson includes the sickness as the 3rd definition of cold in his own dictionary:

>A disease caused by cold; the obstruction of perspiration.

What disease hast thou? ——
A whorson cold, sir; a cough. Shakesp. Henry IV. p. 2.

Let no ungentle cold destroy
All taste we have of heav'nly joy. Roscommon.

Those rains, so covering the earth, might providentially contribute to the disruption of it, by stopping all the pores, and all evaporation, which would make the vapours within struggle violently, as we get a fever by a cold. Burnet.

In Johnson's time, a cold was believed to be caused by blocked pores - the bodily humors became unbalanced as sweat was unable to escape. The 1919 World Book gives another potential cause: "Intemperance, constipation and other unhygienic habits of living predispose one to colds, for when the body resistance is weakened disease germs more easily affect the mucous membranes." (Vol. 3, p. 1469) The entry reminds the reader that quick treatment is important to prevent more serious problems, and unstopping the bowels (proper hygiene!) is crucial in treating a cold: "Rest in bed with little food, hot foot-baths and hot drinks and the use of a purgative will be found helpful." The encyclopedia's advice for hardening the body to be resistant to colds is contrary to that of the German grandmother, who fears drafts to death: "The practice of taking cold baths, sleeping with the windows wide open and taking plenty of exercise tend to keep the body in a resistant condition."

Later reference works are, of course, a bit more scientific. The 1965 Encyclopædia Britannica is incredibly statistical in its entry for cold, common (which introduced me to the wonderful word mucopurulent, or "consisting of mucus and pus"), consisting all sorts of numerical facts: according to the American Institute of Public Opinion, 1 in 7 Americans had a cold the 1st week of November (Vol. 6, pp. 41-42). The average person has 2-3 colds a year. The article also mentions the studies conducted by the Common Cold Research Unit at Salisbury, England, where "normal volunteers, students and others are housed in pairs under conditions of isolation from other people" where they are "subjected to experiment, usually by intranasal instillation of cold virus." There are many other fascinating facts; for instance, cold viruses can be "preserved for years at -76° C in dry ice." Despite their name, "experiments have been carried out in which human subjects have been chilled by standing about in drafts in wet bathing suits, by wearing wet socks, by going for walks in the rain; yet no colds were induced nor were the subjects abnormally susceptible to administration of small doses of common cold virus." (I sure hope they were paid well.)

Basically, the cold doesn't cause colds, people do. Want to avoid the cold? Become a hermit. Genetics also seem to play a role: "studies from Cornell university (Ithaca, NY) indicated that 25% of the students had approximately 75% of the colds in that institution." Another helpful tip is to not pluck nose hairs, as these unsightly "natural defenses" aid in keeping the cold virus out of the nose (p. 43). I appreciate the Britannica's advice concerning cold treatments (including vitamins and diet changes) and their general ineffectiveness: "Most preparations widely utilized for cold treatment are of no more value than sugar tablets. Controlled studies have shown that there is no justification for the use of antihistamine drugs, various preparations of the sulfonamides, penicillin or other antibiotics. [...] if these drugs are used for minor infections, such as colds, there may develop in the nose and throat strains of germs that are resistant to them; they become valueless for the treatment of severe infections to which these germs may give rise." At the same time, however, it is a bit depressing that this information has been around for over 50 years and is still ignored by a great number (if not the majority) of the populace.