"Disloyal" and a Primer on Gentleman by C. S. Lewis: Twelfth Week

 My word this week is "disloyal." This is a common enough word today, but it is what Johnson says about its possible usages that is interesting. The lexicographer gives four usages:

1. Not true to allegiance; faithless; false to a sovereign; disobedient.

2.  Dishonest; perfidious. Obsolete.

3. Not true to the marriage-bed.

4. False in love; not constant. The three latter senses are now obsolete.

Johnson relates that only the first usage was in use in his day. The last three had fallen out of use. The obsolescence of a word over a period of time is also commented on by C. S. Lewis in his preface to Mere Christianity.   

Here Lewis explains that the word gentleman once meant "something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property." The term merely described a state of being of the man and was not describing one who possesses honorable character. The latter meaning is certainly the normal usage in contemporary speech.  How did the change come into being? Lewis declares that it was the desire to be charitable, to spiritualize the word that brought the change. Spiritualizing the word not only changed its meaning but also changed its fundamental character from objective to subjective. Gentleman became a means to express praise, with the decision to give or withhold the praise a matter of personal approval because of what one perceives gentlemanly behavior to be. Lewis says this destroyed the utility of the word. Saying more about the viewpoint of the praiser rather than an objective consideration of the object at hand, gentleman became a "useless word." Sufficient words for praise already existed and the new use rendered the old objective use untenable without voluminous explanation. 

Trading objectivity for subjectivism in lexicography is a fallacy in fundamentals. The very nature of words are changed. Just as objectively describing the material possessions of a person is fundamentally different from describing their character; so is gentleman as a term of praise compared to a term describing what a man owns. The dichotomy is irrefutable. One is not the same as the other; neither can it be. 

This is why it is so important to understand that word meanings can and often do change over time, but being able to recognize whether the change is small and nuanced or is gross and a shift in identity from objective to subjective. Not seeing and comprehending this shift can wreak havoc in determining context, identifying properties, and discovering the truth. Substantial* and perhaps even intellectually fatal mistakes are sure to follow. This impediment defeats the would-be scholar even before he begins and instills a frustration and disheartedness that careful teaching and practice would have eliminated or kept from happening from the beginning. Little could be more important to the textual student and teacher alike.

Until next week.

John

* Case-in-point: One will need to delve into the connection between substance and substantial to understand how and why "Substantial" was chosen to convey the intended meaning of the sentence. I would encourage the reader to use this as a starting point of discovery to a better understanding of this topic.

The Subtle Artifice of the Wheelwright: Eleventh Week

 

The word of interest this week is “dishing.” If one were to suppose that the term means to produce a dished shape, that would but a part of the story. Johnson gives this definition, “Concave; a cant term among artificers.” There are certainly two words in the definition that are not likely to be in the common vocabulary of most people. “Cant” and “artificer” are words likely strange to most contemporary ears but certainly less so in Johnson’s day. Considering the possible usages for “cant” given by Johnson, and the context of the entry for “dish,” the meaning is language specific to a particular profession or trade. “Artificers” means, again according to Johnson and in the given context, those who make things – especially tradesmen or artists. “A cant term among artificers” then is a term specific to a given trade and used by its workers.

Interestingly, Johnson’s example for “dishing” comes from Mortimer’s 1708 practical treatise, The Whole Art of Husbandry; Or, The Way of Managing and Improving of Land, page 280. Here Mortimer describes the advantages of having a wagon or cart wheel concave from the rim to the hub on the outside of the wheel. This, of course causes the inside of the wheel to be convex from the hub to the rim. Mortimer suggests that the concave cross-section of the wheel (toward the outside) is helpful in strengthening the wheel when it invariably falls into uneven areas or holes as it turns. The movement on such occasions, according to the author, is toward the outside of the wheel. This pushes the hub toward the outside, in turn pushing the spokes against the fellies which are restrained by the iron rim encircling the outside of the wheel. This directional movement to the outside tends to tighten the components of the wheel rather than loosen them because it has the effect of increasing the diameter of the wooden wheel against the inside of the iron rim.

 

The drawing above is from James Burgess’ 1881 book, A Practical Treatise On Coach-Building Historical and Descriptive, page 37. The “dishing” of the wheels is seen if one observes the angle of the spokes relative to the hub when looking at the cross-section.

The shape and working properties of wagon, carriage, and cart wheels would have been rather ubiquitous in the eighteenth century, as are car wheels and their working properties are rather ho-hum today. Wagons, carriages, carts, and similar conveyances were the only forms of wheeled transportation in Johnson’s day. Far from being crude and poorly designed, the art of the wheelwright (an artificer of wheels) was highly and subtly engineered to marry the greatest strengths of wood and iron to produce objects graceful, strong, long-lasting, and terrifically utilitarian.

Johnson’s little entry for “dishing” bespeaks of the some of the best eighteenth-century design and craftsmanship. The word “artificers” nicely captures the “art” of the wheelwright – whose work seems a mystery to the ignorant but radiates its genius in useful simplicity.

Below is another drawing from Burgess, page 57, that shows the parts of a wheel. The term “nave” identifies the same part which is called a “hub” in the text of the post.

 

I am providing links on the right to both books mentioned, for those who wish to consult the original sources.

Until next week.

John

The Long Form "s" and a Difference With a Signification: Tenth Week

 

This week I would like to touch upon a subject yet unmentioned in this blog, though it is a matter obviously noticeable when reading Johnson’s dictionary. The matter to be considered is what the uninitiated might consider just an old printing style, irrelevant today. That, however, would not be the case. The long “s” found in Johnson was typical typography of the eighteenth-century. Please consider this image from the dictionary: 

The letters that appear to be an “f” in the red boxes are actually different forms of the long “s.” They differ from an “f” in that they either do not have a crossbar at all or only a half crossbar. Once this is known it is not difficult to see the words with “s” letters, though practice is required to become proficient with the mental substitution. Applying the substitution, we have: “n.s.,” “dissent,” “disagrees,” and “disagreement.” One will quickly discern that the long “s” was not used at the end of words, abbreviations in Johnson were excluded. The form was used at the beginning of words and anywhere before the last letter.

One may ask why eighteenth-century printers used such a form. The Printer in the Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg, by The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, relates that the form originated with early German printers – remember movable type was established in the West by the German, Johann Gutenberg, in the mid-fifteenth century. In trying to emulate hand-written script, the printers developed the flowing style of the long “s.” Later, English printers adopted the same form, and the long “s” became a standard part of eighteenth-century English and American typography. The form was popular until about 1800. Two very well know texts that used the long “s” are the 1611 King Janes Version Bible and the Declaration of Independence. Simply knowing how to read the long “s” form in the documents makes them less intimidating. This in turn brings one closer to the time and context of such great texts, increasing appreciation for and understanding of the labors and scholarly insights of those who wrote them.

___________________________________________________

Of a different note, but of a similar consequence, is a brief comparison between Johnson’s lexicography and that of a modern dictionary. Our test word is “discord,” and Johnson allows this of the word: 

1.      Disagreement; opposition; mutual anger; reciprocal oppugnancy.

2.      Difference, or contrariety of qualities. 

A more modern dictionary, The Pocket Oxford Dictionary from 1935, gives this definition: 

1.      Holding of opposed views, strife; harsh noise, clashing sounds, want of harmony between notes sounding together.

2.      Be at variance (with). 

At first blush, the two offerings seem to be practically identical. The substance is the same, but the difference is in the details. When Johnson offers “mutual anger,” “reciprocal oppugnancy,” and “contrariety of qualities” the words “mutual,” “reciprocal,” and “contrariety” emphasize the shared conflict inherent in “discord.” There could hardly be “discord” if only one person or one thing were involved. The Oxford definition does not highlight this quality, missing the essence of the word. Being able to capture the word’s essence, while couching the nuance in an accurate definition, is the quality that sets great dictionaries apart from those of lesser quality. 

Until next week.

John