Johnson, Samuel: War of words over English dictionary

(Redirected from War of words over English dictionary)

Neil Betteridge, from Derbyshire Local Studies Library at Matlock, reveals the fascinating story of the bitter feud between a Bretby Lord and Dr Samuel Johnson.

Sir Joshua Reynolds' 1814 portrait of Dr Samuel Johnson

DR Samuel Johnson was a frequent visitor to Derbyshire, particularly to Ashbourne, as well as someone with strong family connections to the area.

His father, Michael, was born at Great Cubley many years before his move to Lichfield as a book-seller.

A towering figure of English literature, Dr Johnson’s most famous literary achievement remains the publication of The Dictionary of the English Language, the 250th anniversary of which was celebrated last year.

It was over the patronage of this work that Johnson came into dispute with Philip Dormer Stanhope, the 4th Earl of Chesterfield, a member of the Stanhope family of Bretby Hall.

He was one of the leading aristocratic families of Derbyshire who was also distantly connected to the doctor through his mother’s family.

The dictionary was a truly substantial undertaking, the first comprehensive work of its kind in English, and not one which should be underestimated.

It occupied almost 10 years of his life, involving thousands of hours of scholarly research, all of which was done by Johnson himself.

He was not a rich man and he struggled to get by on the wages he earned from his journalism. Although he did have money from the publishers who initiated the project in 1747, he looked to find a patron to support his efforts.

The role of patron was an important one, similar to that of the modern-day sponsor.

In return for financial and other assistance, the author would dedicate a particular work to his benefactor, often with expressions of appropriate deference, or outright grovelling, to his social superior. The Earl of Chesterfield had been well known as the patron of Pope and was the friend of leading literary figures of the age such as Voltaire and Gibbon.

As he was also regarded as an authority on the English language, his backing would give the dictionary added credibility.

Unfortunately, any expectations Johnson had were not to be realised. Things got off to a bad start when he felt personally snubbed at being kept waiting in an ante-chamber, while Lord Chesterfield saw other people first.

The Earl was a busy man, who held government office at that time, and many people had legitimate claims on his time.

But Johnson did feel particularly aggrieved when a noted actor got preference before him. He is said to have left in high dudgeon before any meeting took place, but he did later admit to having actually received £10 from Chesterfield, as much as he had earned from any of his works up to then.

Whatever interest the Earl might have had in the dictionary, however, was not maintained. Whether this was deliberate, a result of business and work pressures, or merely a case of forgetfulness is open to debate, but the fact is that there was no further encouragement or money from that quarter, and Johnson’s pride ensured he did not ask again.

Several years later, as the project was nearing completion in 1754, Chesterfield revived his interest. He wrote two articles on the dictionary, generously praising the work and its creator, but overstating his own contribution and misrepresenting Johnson’s intentions.

The articles provoked a bitter response from the author, who sent the Earl a famously dismissive letter, asserting he had received little encouragement from him in the past and needed no assistance now the work was nearly finished.

He eloquently expressing himself with these words: “Is not a Patron, my Lord, one who looks with unconcern on a Man struggling for Life in the water and when he has reached ground encumbers him with help?”

He also put some of his feeling into his dictionary definition for “patron”: “One who countenances, supports or protects. Commonly a wretch who supports with insolence, and is paid with flattery.”

Chesterfield’s response was typical of a man who believed that one should not betray one’s true feelings in public. He did not try to deny his conduct or justify himself by putting forward his own side of the story.

He even left the letter out in his house for people who called to see for themselves. He realised he had made a serious error of judgement. There are sources which suggest he even made attempts to offer a personal apology, but Johnson rebuffed them out of hand

Dr Johnson was to have the last word on their relationship. After the death of the Earl of Chesterfield in 1773, the letters he wrote to his illegitimate son were published.

Although earning some faint praise from Johnson for their literary quality, the letters were berated by him as being irredeemably immoral and superficial. His verdict was that “they teach the morals of a whore and the manners of a dancing-master”, a judgement which has somewhat overshadowed their standing in the literary world ever since.

Pages linking here