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