Text: Edgar Allan Poe (?), Literary, Broadway Journal (New York), June 14, 1845, vol. 1, no. 24, p. ???-???

[page 377, column 2, continued:]

AN EXPLANATORY AND PHONOGRAPHIC PRONOUNCING DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE: To which is added a Vocabulary of Greek, Latin, Scripture, Christian, and Geographical Names, with their Pronunciation; together with a Collection of Words and Phrases from Foreign Languages, often met with in the Works of English Writers, with their Signification. Edited by William Bolles. New London. Published by Bolles & Williams.

A work such as Mr. Bolles has here given us, was certainly much needed — that is to say, a complete English Vocabulary with each word properly defined and its pronunciation distinctly exhibited. Walker's Sheridan has been long objectionable, of course; for during the last fifty years the advance of literature, and more especially of science, has introduced into the language a vast number of words which had no existence at the period of the compilation of that work. It contains only about 33,000 words, and the Dictionary now before us includes no less than 85,000 — “20,000 more than were ever offered to the American public in any one work” — this, too, exclusive of more than 20,000, Greek, Latin, Scripture, Christian, and Geographical proper names. Walker's volume, moreover, was essentially defective in its pronunciation, from a similar reason — that is to say, from the lapse of time since its composition, and the important changessanctioned by usage during the interval. The 100,000 words furnished by Mr. Bolles, are divided into syllables, with the pronunciation of each given phonographically according to Sheridan's rules, but with an absolutely rigorous application of them. Where the usage is settled, it has been scrupulously followed: where not, resort bas been had to analogy and classical authority.

Sheridan's rules were as follows:

No character should be set down in any word which is not pronounced. Every distinct simple sound should have a distinct character to mark it, for which itshould uniformly stand. The same character should never be set down as the representative of two different sounds. All compound sounds should be marked only by such characters as will naturally and necessarily produce those sounds, upon their being pronounced according to their names in the alphabet.

These rules are theoretically perfect, but the pronouncing dictionaries in use have invariably failed in carrying them into practice. Sheridan and Walker make no scruple, for example, of presenting to the eye letters for which no sound is heard. Mr. Bolles, in his Preface, furnishes us with some specimens of this error. The pronunciation of the word courteous, is, in Sheridan, kue-tshus — inWalker, kuri-tslie-us — and in Bolles, [page 378:] kert-yus. The last is indisputably the truest both as regards the phonographical distinctness with which the intended sounds are conveyed, and the more modern and polished pronunciation of the word itself.

The orthography of Dr. Johnson has been followed, in our opinion very properly, throughout; except “in cases where custom has decidedly sanctioned a change for the better, as in the omission of u in the termination our and of final k, preceded by c, in words derived from the learned languages, etc. etc.” We quote this last passage from Mr. Bolles, because we fully agree with him that custom has sufficiently established the orthographies in question, however much we may be inclined to dispute, in many cases, the justice or propriety of the custom.

Mr. Bolles has admitted obsolete words when they are to be found in authors not obsolete, “or when they have any form or beauty that may deserve revival.” His reason for admitting them when found in authors not obsolete is, with some modification, unanswerable. “Indeed,” he says, “the vocabulary of an explanatory English Dictionary would be exceedingly defective, in which one should look in vain for words occurring in such authors as Bacon, Boyle, Shakspeare, Milton, &c., while their works constitute a portion of the standard literature of the language.” It should be observed, however, that it is only in the case of such as Bacon, Boyle, Shakspeare and Milton, that the lexicographist is justifiable in applying this rule. Innumerable obsolete words may be found “in authors not obsolete,” which words, nevertheless, it would be folly to attempt resuscitating. We mean to say that Mr. Bolles’ proposition is, in his Preface, too loosely or too generally stated. In fact, that is to say in the body of his work, we perceive that he has confined his revivals within the proper limits — confined them to such authors as are emphatically standard. Ile has included, however, a vast number of words now regarded as obsolete — although we by no means think he has improperly included them. He promises an abridgment in which they will be omitted.

In regard to rules of pronunciation, we cannot do better than quote the author's own words, with which in the main, we heartily agree.

“These rules are so multitudinous, and the exceptions to almost all of them so numerous, that it is believed that in a work of this nature they tend more to embarrass than to aid the inquirer, and that however useful these troublesome appendages may be in works where the pronunciation is omitted or loosely giv.en, they are rendered useless by the plan of this dictionary, in which the pronunciation of any word can be much more readily and certainly ascertained by a bare inspection than by a reference to rules almost smothered atnid their own anomalies.”

With these judicious views Mr. Bolles. has contented himself with an introductory exposition of the principles on which Human Speech is founded — (a well written and altogether valuable paper) — some Directions to Foreigners (particularly the French) — and a few rules to be observed by the natives of Ireland and Wales, in order to attain a just pronunciation of English.

If, upon the whole, we cannot regard this work as the most profound (a vague word often vaguely applied) we are at least disposed to consider it the most comprehensive, the most accurate, and by far the most practical — that is to say the most useful of its class.

Its typographical execution is excellent. It is for sale, we understand, at the exceedingly moderate price of three dollars,

We are informed that Mr. Cornelius Matthews is not the author of the article in the North American Review which recently appeared in Simms’ Magazine. It was signed with the initials of Mr. M., but Simms was himself the author.