Samuel Johnson's Unpublished Revisions to the Dictionary of the English Language: A Facsimile Edition

One of the more provocative aspects of Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language is the subtle way in which Johnson’s underlying beliefs and idiosyncrasies are revealed. With Allen Reddick’s edition of Johnson’s 1773—previously unpublished—revisions of the letter B, these beliefs and idiosyncrasies more fully come to life, significantly adding to our understanding of Johnson as collaborator and lexicographer. In addition, Reddick’s text is interesting for the light it sheds on Johnson’s revision process.

The letter B annotations exist today by a strange twist of fate. Although the material was intended to be the printer’s copy, the changes were for some reason ultimately not incorporated by the printer. This oversight is fortune for us since, as the printer did not use the pages, they were not discarded as printers’ copies usually were. As a result today Reddick is able to provide a facsimile and an analysis of this British Library copy, which encompasses the last page of ‘A’ through the letter ‘B’ (sigs 2N1-3U1) of the Dictionary (BL C.45.k.3). The facsimile itself makes up a large part of his glossy quarto volume, which also includes an introduction, notes on selected changes and annotations, a transcription of the facsimile, along with a rationale and explanation of the transcription, an explanation of the Sneyd-Gimbel copy (named after two previous owners, Ralph Sneyd and Col. Richard Gimbel), and a few pages of fascsimile of the Sneyd-Gimbel copy. This edition is especially useful because of Reddick’s transcription of these pages and because of a notes section that highlights the most interesting of Johnson’s revisions, which center on the illustrative quotes. It also provides key evidence of the methods of Johnson’s revision, of the more central role his amanuenses played, and of his revised understanding of what types of illustrative quotes his Dictionary should include. Overall, Reddick’s edition is essential to our understanding of Johnson’s revision process.

In his earlier The Making of Johnson’s Dictionary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), Reddick claimed that the letter B annotations were “central to the story of Johnson’s revising” (95). In the present volume, Reddick expands his argument and details with far more specificity the steps that brought the British Library copy into existence.

1. In preparation for the first edition, Johnson used vertical lines to mark passages that he thought would be useful in “literary, theological, humanistic and historical, as well as technical and other types of works, mainly written during the period between Sir Philip Sidney and Alexander Pope” (ix).

2. Quotes were then copied on blank paper and cut into strips.

3. These quotes were organized and copied into notebooks in the appropriate location in the wordlist.

4. These notebooks were abandoned for use in the first edition, since they weren’t efficient.

5. However, for the fourth edition, Johnson asked one amanuensis, probably the Scotsman William Macbean, to select quotes from these notebooks (rather than from the printed leaves of the first edition).

6. The amanuensis would subsequently recopy the selected quotes on to clearer portions of the notebook, add headwords, and include etymology or use.

7. These quotes were copied out and the slips of paper were then placed under the appropriate word heading in what is now the Sneyd-Gimbel, a three-volume version of complete, or nearly complete, letters of the first edition with slips interleaved, probably by the amaneunsis William McBean, to present Johnson with new material for the revision. The Sneyd-Gimbel copy is now housed at Yale University’s Beinecke library.

8. Then a third amanuensis, V.J. Peyton, copied the text from the slips in the Sneyd-Gimbel to blank leaves inserted between the pages of the first edition leaves.

9. Johnson then added, deleted and altered material and then keyed in the prepared text to the precise location in the printed text.

10. Johnson also used annotations and changes made by George Steevens, Johnson’s collaborator on the revised edition of Shakespeare.

11. This new combination is the British Library copy.

In terms of new analysis of Johnson’s methods and attitudes as he did his revisions, the “Notes on Selected Changes and Annotations” section in Samuel Johnson’s Unpublished Revisions is the most interesting. Reddick expands on the work of James Sledd, Gwin Kolb, and Arthur Sherbo, highlighting

* patterns within the B material that include the expansion and consolidation of headwords;
* the shift of quotes to illustrate different definitions;
* comments on such use such as “antiquated,” “obsolete,” “elegant,” “proper,” “not in use,” and “a low word”;
* the substitution of proper names for third-person pronouns;
* the addition of quotations directed toward theological and ideological connotations; and
* closer attention to phrasal or particle verbs.

Reddick also discovers that George Steevens likely had a larger hand in the revision process and that Johnson’s control over these revisions is more pronounced than has previously been understood. Furthermore, he suggests that added quotations were originally chosen by the amanuensis, who also provided many notes on “dialect, Scots usage, custom and history,” as well as notes on “rural and antiquated words” and that “in every case” (xiii) these are excised by Johnson. Thus “Johnson tends to suppress linguistic difference in English” (xiii) while also valuing Scots, both by employing five as amanuenses and by encouraging Boswell to compile a Scottish dictionary.

Some of the more provocative implications of the revisions that Reddick highlights revolve around traditional notions of Johnson. For example, Reddick notes that Thompson “was dropped more than any other writer between the first and fourth editions, probably because of his increased association with ‘liberty’ causes and what Johnson considered his ‘strange poetic diction’” (xvii). Similarly, Johnson’s use of William Laud in the illustrative quote “To Behead” points to Johnson’s political sympathies toward “Laudians,” and thus to his support of the King and enforced unity in the Church of England. In the illustrative quote for “Beatitude,” Johnson crossed out “he” to clarify that Mahomet was the subject being modified, and Reddick argues that this revision “allows Johnson to emphasize, by implication, the superiority of the Christian faith” (xvii). One especially interesting feature is the small drawing of a pointing hand that Johnson writes onto a first edition page at the entry for “Because.” Reddick explains that this is not a note for the amanuensis or printer, but instead for Johnson himself, who used it to draw his own attention to passages of religious significance: “In this case, Johnson points out Hammond’s eloquent statement of the redemptive power of Christ’s sacrifice and the requirement that a sinner reform in order to enjoy it” (xviii).

The Appendix offers a detailed description of the Sneyd-Gimbel copy. In the revision stage, these notebooks proved useful, since they had more complete quotes and provided more space for additions than the printed first edition had. The Appendix also shows how these slips were then inserted into a first edition text in the appropriate locations, creating the Sneyd-Gimble copy. This version was then used by the amanuensis, V. J. Peyton, who copied out the slips onto blank sheets and interleaved these into another first edition text, creating the British Library copy. Reddick’s edition of Johnson’s revision of the B material is an important and intriguing work that not only allows us greater access to Johnson’s method, but also to his mind.