University of Virginia Library

I

Two sets of materials offer a fascinating glimpse into Johnson's working
method in preparing the revisions for the fourth edition of the Dictionary.[7]
The first is the Sneyd-Gimbel copy—so called for its previous owners—now
held by the Beinecke Library at Yale University (shelfmark MS Vault Johnson).
This copy contains first edition (1755) sheets from the letter A through
the entry for Pumpion (with several gaps), corrected and annotated in the
hands of Johnson and an amanuensis and interleaved with more than 1,800
slips containing additional illustrative quotations. In The Making of Johnson's
Dictionary, Allen Reddick mounts a persuasive argument that the
Sneyd-Gimbel materials represent a preliminary stage in Johnson's preparations
for the revised fourth edition.[8] A heretofore perplexing set of materials
is a second partial and annotated copy of the dictionary, British Library
C.45.k3,[9] which consists of mixed first and third edition sheets from "A""Jailer,"
interleaved, with manuscript notes for revisions to the text. The
sheets for letter "B" are from the first edition (1755) and are annotated by
Johnson and an amanuensis; the remaining letters, "A" and "C"-"I/J," are
third edition sheets (1765) annotated by George Steevens,[10] whose work is

markedly different from Johnson's. Johnson reorders entries, adds new lemmas
and new senses of words, and deletes some quotations while adding
others. (The fourth edition would eventually include some 3000 new illustrative
quotations.) Steevens on the other hand, although he offers numerous
suggestions for additional illustrative quotations, concentrates on usage notes
and textual corrections to Shakespeare quotations.[11] How these apparently
disparate materials might have come together has been an enduring mystery.
Prior to their identification of Steevens's hand, Sledd and Kolb described the
problem:

While some of the mystery must remain, a reconsideration of the evidence
will show that Steevens almost certainly annotated the BL copy in order to
assist Johnson in revising for the fourth edition of the Dictionary, that at
least some of these annotations resulted in printed revisions in the fourth
edition, and that the missing third edition sheets of the letter B—whose place
is taken by the first edition sheets annotated by Johnson—served as the printer's
copy for that letter in F4.

Reddick argues convincingly that the first edition sheets in the BL copy—
those annotated by Johnson—represent a second stage in the revision process
and were intended as printer's copy for the revised edition, but were for some
reason never used. How they might have been mislaid or made otherwise
unavailable is unknown and, absent new documentary evidence, probably
unknowable. But, in the event, Johnson was forced hastily to reedit the letter
"B,"[13] with the result that the printed revisions in "B" are of a very different
order and magnitude from those found in the rest of the Dictionary. There
are for example fewer than half the number of new quotations that on average
appear in other letters of the revised Dictionary, and authors like Bacon,
Spenser, and Browne whose works frequently supply new illustrations in
adjacent portions of the revision do not appear at all in the new illustrations
in "B." Additionally, "B" is the only letter in the revision which is shorter
(by four pages) than in previous editions, "because very little new material
was added, while long quotations and references (as in other sections of the
text) were deleted or abridged."[14]

Reddick also asserts that "the corrections and additions" from the portion
of the BL copy annotated by Steevens "were never incorporated into the
Dictionary," indicating that "Johnson probably did not have access to them"
(193). And, after offering several possible scenarios to explain the odd juxtaposition
of Johnson's and Steevens's work in the BL copy, including one that
implies some chicanery on Steevens's part, Reddick concludes that Steevens
annotated the third edition sheets only after Johnson's death, at the request
of Charles Marsh, a fellow member of the Society of Antiquaries who had
purchased the materials when Johnson's library was dispersed in 1785 (193194).
But my own collation of Steevens's annotations in the BL copy against
the printed text of the revised fourth edition of the Dictionary (1773) indicates
that a number of Steevens's suggestions were in fact adopted by Johnson.
While he made no systematic use of the annotations—only a small
proportion of the more than 760 changes Steevens proposed appear to have
influenced the text of F4—in some forty-four instances Johnson either accepts
Steevens's suggestion outright, or alters an entry in a way which suggests that
Steevens's note was the probable source of the revision.[15] Why Johnson admitted
only a small number of Steevens's suggestions and what procedure he
used to incorporate those that were accepted remain obscure. But a substantial
number of Steevens's proposed revisions—around 310 of the 760—
are Shakespeare quotations which offer supplementary examples for words
and senses which were already illustrated in F1. While one of Johnson's purposes
for the revision was to provide additional illustrations, Shakespeare was
already heavily represented in the word list and only one of the printed
Steevensian revisions adds a Shakespeare quotation to an existing sense of
a word.[16] (For additional authorities in F4 Johnson relied heavily on the
Bible and Milton, at least in part because concordances were available.) Additionally,
Steevens for some reason annotated a copy of the third edition
(1765), while Johnson had prepared his revisions (rightly) from a copy of
the first edition (1755). Dozens of corrections suggested by Steevens in the BL
copy are to corruptions that had crept into the text in the transmission from
first to third editions, and were thus unnecessary to an edition set from annotated
first edition sheets. (They amply attest, however, to Steevens's perspicacity

as a proofreader.) Thus if the unnecessary corrections and Shakespeare
quotations are excepted from the total, Johnson adopted in some form
roughly 10% of Steevens's suggestions.[17] I say "in some form" because, as will
be seen below, some of the printed revisions vary to a greater or lesser degree
from Steevens manuscript notes. This is not altogether surprising considering
that, whatever Johnson's method for selecting instances to incorporate in F4,
Steevens's notes, corrections, and quotations would need first to be transcribed
on the interleaves of the printer's copy, probably by an amanuensis, and then
set in type by compositors. Variation could have crept in at each stage. The
Steevensian revisions that Johnson did choose to print take a variety of forms:
some correct textual errors, others rectify problems with usage and etymology,
provide additional illustrative quotations, or introduce new senses of
words. A few cases add new lemmata to the word list.

Several of the revisions correct small textual errors in Shakespeare quotations
and thereby attest to Steevens's meticulous attention to detail and
prodigious memory, for no Shakespeare concordance was available until
1787. Under To Abut, for example, F1's reading "Perilous the narrow" from
Henry V is corrected in F4 to "The narrow perilous," and under To Croak 2,
F4 corrects F1's "The raven himself not hoarse" to "is hoarse" in the first line
of the Macbeth quotation. Steevens's expertise is not limited to the works of
Shakespeare; in the F1 entry for Almond Tree, the first line of a Fairy
Queen quotation reads: "Like to an almond tree, you're mounted high."
Steevens, thoroughly familiar with Spenser's characteristic archaizing, noted
that "you're mounted" should properly read "ymounted." In F4 the reading
is simply "mounted high," with "you're" deleted. The original error had
probably arisen from a compositor's failure to recognize Spencer's use of the
archaic past tense "ymounted" and thus mistaking the "y" for the abbreviation
"yr."

A more complex example occurs in the entry for Cannibal, where
Steevens alters the F3 reading of an Othello quotation from "It was my hent
to speak" to "hint" (my emphasis). In F1 the word had read "bent," an apparent
transcriber's or compositor's error that had been corrected to "hent"
in F3; since F4 was set from a copy of F1, without Steevens's suggestion the
reading might well have remained "bent" in the later editions. This series of
readings effectively illustrates the interconnection between the Dictionary
and the Shakespeare edition. The Shakespeare First Folio (1623) and Second
Quarto (1630) both read "hint," while the First Quarto (1622) reads "hent."
William Warburton, whose 1747 edition was Johnson's source for Shakespeare
quotations,[18] had accepted "hent," appending a note defining it as
"use, custom." In collecting "authorities" for the first edition of the Dictionary

(1755) Johnson had uncritically accepted Warburton's reading, but when he
came to edit Shakespeare ten years later, he rejected the Second Quarto reading,
adopting instead the First Folio's "hint." Johnson prints Warburton's
note on the reading, followed by one of his own: "Hent is not use [sic] in
Shakespeare, nor, I believe in any other author. . . ."[19] The 1773 Johnson/
Steevens edition also prints both, followed by an additional note from
Steevens which indicates that he was fully aware of the conflicting readings
which had given rise to his suggestion in the BL copy. (The same quotation
had been used to illustrate Antre, and again Steevens questioned the reading
"hent," but the correction was never made.)

Among the corrections suggested by Steevens and accepted by Johnson,
roughly a quarter involve the addition of new illustrative quotations.[20] In
several instances Steevens provides a quotation for a word not otherwise
illustrated. Finding that Coigne "1. A corner." lacked an example in F1,
Steevens suggests a quotation from Macbeth: "—no jutting frieze, / Buttress
or coigne of vantage, but this bird / Hath made his pendant bed or procreant
cradle." Reading further, Steevens found that Johnson had used this very
quotation (and another from Shakespeare) to illustrate the same sense, but
under the spelling Coin. There Steevens notes: "Coigne is not spelt coin in
the ancient Editions or in Dr. Johnson's." In F4 both quotations are moved
from Coin to Coigne, and the anglicized lemma, though retained, is not illustrated.
For Dexterous, not illustrated in F1, Steevens offers "For both his
dextrous hands the lance could wield. Pope's Homer." Johnson duly adds the
quotation in F4 as "For both their dext'rous hands their lance could wield.
Pope."; the source of the error "their" for "his" is unclear. Similarly, for
Downhil adj., Steevens proposes "and the first stage a downhill green-sword
yields. Congreve." In F4, Johnson prints "And the first steps a downhil greensward
yields. Congreve."[21] This instance meets only the minimum requirement
for illustrations: as Johnson acknowledged in the "Preface" to the
Dictionary, "Many quotations serve no other purpose than that of proving
the bare existence of words." But ideally quotations would be "useful to
some other end than the illustration of the word" by the additional performance
of an aesthetic or didactic function. "It is not sufficient that a word is
found unless it be so combined as that its meaning is apparently determined
by the tract and tenor of the sentence . . ." (F1, B2v-C1r).[22] That is, quotations
should preferably not only illustrate the existence of a particular
word or sense, but additionally, through contextual clues, assist in defining

it. Steevens was throughly familiar with the aims and methods of compiling
"authorities" as Johnson repeatedly calls them. Under To Defeat, for
example, Steevens argues that: "To defeat. Perhaps in the following instance
means to alter, to change. Defeat thy favour with an usurped beard.
Shakespeare." In F4 Johnson, satisfied that the conjunction of "defeat" and
"usurp" fulfilled the "tenor and tract" test, adopts Steevens's suggestion by
adding "to undo" to the definition and illustrating it: "Defeat thy favour
with usurped beard. Shakespeare."

The revision of the lemma Eisel again attests to the complex interactions
between Steevens's editorial activities and his work on the Dictionary. In F1
Johnson had defied eisel as "Vinegar; verjuice; any acid" and illustrated it
with a quotation from Hamlet: "Woo't drink up eisel, eat a crocodile? / I'll
do it." In the BL copy, Steevens crosses through the quotation, adds a note
which insists that "The passage from Hamlet is controverted," and offers
several alternatives: "Whilst like a willing patient, I will drink / Potions of
Eisel 'gainst my strong infection. The Complaint a Poem attributed to Shakespeare";[23]
"—Remember therewithal / how Christ for the fasted with Eisel
& gall. Sir Thomas More"; "Kned in with Eisel strong and egre; / And there
to she was lene and megre. Chaucer's Romaunt of the Rose." In F4 the Hamlet
passage is dropped, replaced by the More quotation which comes from his
translation of Pico della Mirandola's life of Johan Picus. Atypically, Johnson
expanded the passage Steevens had suggested: "Cast in thy mind / How thou
resemblest Christ, as with sower poison, / If thou paine thy taste; remember
therewithall / How Christ for thee tasted eisel and gall. Sir. Thomas More."
Johnson corrects Steevens "fasted with" to "tasted," while introducing the
reading "poison" for "potion," an easy transcription or compositorial error
through metathesis and a mistaking of long s- for t- (if indeed "potion" had
been the spelling of his source[24] ).

It had been Steevens himself who had controverted the reading eisel in
the 1773 Johnson/Steevens edition (10:321-322 n. 5), where the line is given
as "Woo't drink up Esil? Eat a crocodile?" Steevens appended a long note on
the reading "Esil," quoting Theobald's edition of 1733 in which "Eisel"—a
reading accepted by nearly all modern editors—was first conjectured as the
original of Q2's Esill and F1's Esile (Q1 had read "vessels"). Theobald rejects
earlier commentators' notion that Esill/Esile is the name of a river in
Denmark, contending that "there is none there so called."[25] Steevens, however,
argues otherwise, citing an unnamed "old Latin account of Denmark"
which includes "the names of several rivers little differing from Esil, or Elsill,

in spelling or pronunciation." Steevens goes on to allege that "no" authours
later than Chaucer or Skelton make use of eysel for vinegar: nor has Shakespeare
employed it in any other of his plays." His comments are curious in
light of the passages he had suggested in the BL copy which, as I have shown,
must have been annotated prior to the publication of the revised 1773
editions of both the Dictionary and the Plays of William Shakespeare. The
More quotation is roughly contemporary with Skelton, but, although "Eisel"
does not in fact appear elsewhere in Shakespeare's plays, it is found in Sonnet
111: "Whilst like a willing pacient I will drinke, / Potions of Eysell gainst my
strong infection."[26] This is of course the very passage Steevens had cited in
the BL copy, where its source is wrongly identified as "The Complaint a Poem
attributed to Shakespeare." How Steevens could have known the line when
annotating the BL copy, but not when writing the textual note for the Shakespeare
edition, is curious. But Steevens clearly uses the Dictionary to substantiate
his own reading of the passage, suppressing counter-evidence by advising
Johnson to delete the Hamlet quotation. And Steevens's note seems almost
certainly to have prompted Johnson's revision of the entry, although the
means by which a longer version of the More quotation was used is unclear.

In several instances Steevens suggests that an additional sense of a word
be defined and illustrated. For Affection, Steevens's note on the interleaf is
keyed by an "x" to follow the eighth sense of affection and offers: "affection.
Affectatation [sic] / x No sallets in the lines &c this [sic] / might indite the
Author of Affection. Shak. Hamlet" and "—witty without affection Shak.
Love's L.L." And in the 4th edition Johnson adds a 9th sense: "9. It is used
by Shakespeare sometimes for affectation. / There was nothing in it that could
indict the authour of affection.[27] Shakespeare." At To Clamour, Steevens
observes of the second Shakespeare quotation—"Clamour your tongues, and
not a word more"—that "This instance proves just the contrary to what was
intended by it. To clamour bells is to silence them by raising them upright."
In F4 Johnson adds a second sense of the word: "2. In Shakespeare it seems to
mean actively, to stop from noise" and illustrates it with the suggested quotation.
(It is worth noting in passing that "clamour" is thus one of the rare
words like "sanction," "cleave," and "let" that can mean the opposite of
itself.)

When Johnson accepts a suggestion, the revised text is generally straightforward

enough. For example under Caisson Steevens notes: "Likewise the
floating frame in which the Piers of Bridges are built," and in F4 Johnson
adds a second sense of the word: "2. A wooden case in which the piers of
bridges are built within the water." In several instances, however, a suggestion
is accepted, but with a bit of editorial commentary which indicates
that Johnson remains unconvinced by Steevens's argument. In F1 Johnson,
citing Pope, derives Argosy from the name of Jason's ship Argo. Steevens's
note reads: "Argosy is as probably derived from Ragusa formerly famous for
Pirates (hence Shakespeare's Argosine) but now tributary to the Porte." In
F4 the etymology is altered to read: "Derived by Pope from Argo, the name
of Jason's shop; supposed by others to be a vessel of Ragusa or Ragosa, a
Ragozine, corrupted." Here one may detect a hint of disapprobation in Johnson's
"supposed by others." In F1 the word Comart n.s. is not defined, although
it is illustrated by a quotation from Hamlet. Steevens crosses through the
quotation and on the interleaf writes: "The word was inserted by Warburton,
but no Dict. that I have seen gives any example of it." Johnson nevertheless
retains both lemma and quotation in F4, but modifies the definition: "This
word, which I have only met with in one place, seems to signify; treaty;
article from con and mart, or market."[28] That one place had been in the
Second Quarto of Hamlet (1604-5).[29] Warburton's Shakespeare (1747)—the
edition Johnson used for collecting quotations for the Dictionary—had accepted
the reading "comart" instead of the First Folio's "cou'nant." Johnson's
edition of 1765 follows the First Folio in reading "cov'nant," although
Warburton's note defending Q2's "comart" is included; the 1773 Johnson/
Steevens edition reads "covenant." Warburton's note is appended, but is now
followed by Steevens's rebuttal which echoes his note in the BL copy: "I can
find no such word as comart in any dictionary" (10:151). Again the intersection
of the two projects is manifest.

In several instances Johnson adds a lemma to F4 that had been suggested
by Steevens in the BL copy. On an interleaf Steevens proposes "Chargeful a
word employed by Shakespeare," although, uncharacteristically, he does not
cite a specific passage. (It is in fact used only once, in Comedy of Errors 4.1.29.)
Johnson adds the lemma in F4, defining it as "Expensive, costly. Not in use."
Here Johnson accepts Steevens's suggestion almost grudgingly, as if to say,
"Well yes, it may well be found in Shakespeare, but I didn't include it because
it's not current." Johnson's tone may be in part a reaction to the brusqueness
of some of Steevens's notes. Under To Chance, for example, Steevens crossed

through the first Shakespeare quotation, adding a note that "This instance
will not do," and under Commiseration, where again a quotation is marked
through, the note reads simply, "This is a bad instance." Steevens tone should
not, however, be taken as evidence that his annotations were not intended
for Johnson's eyes. Reddick, for example, argues that the annotations were
probably made after Johnson's death since in several of the annotations
"Steevens seems to speak of Johnson as a third party (i.e. `Compliments in
this passage is the same as compliments, and is so explained by Dr. Johnson
in his Shakespeare'), rather than to address the lexicographer directly, [which]
seems to suggest that they were not executed for Johnson's use" (193-194).
But Steevens's use of the third person results from the habitual manner in
which both Johnson and Steevens referred to each other in their notes to the
Shakespeare edition. A search of the Chadwyck-Healey electronic text of the
second Johnson/Steevens edition (1778) reveals that, in the textual notes,
Johnson refers to "Mr. Steevens" twenty-five times and that Steevens refers to
"Dr. Johnson" on one hundred and forty occasions.[30] While the great majority
of Johnson's notes cite "Mr. Steevens" with approbation, on at least one occasion
(cited above), Johnson observes that "Mr. Steevens appears to have
forgot our author's 111th sonnet."

Steevens is much more apt to contradict Johnson and his tone is reminiscent
of that in the BL annotations:

In exchange for Steevens's invaluable assistance, Johnson was apparently
willing to tolerate a bit of brusqueness.

In addition to the previous examples of corrections and additions inspired
by Steevens's notes in the BL copy, there are also a number of instances
where Johnson apparently responds to Steevens's suggestions not by
revising but by deleting the passage in question.[31] One major stage of the
Dictionary revision had, in fact, been the deletion of superfluities and the
truncation or compression of entries to allow space for new material to be
included. The extent of Johnson's editorial excisions is apparent when considering
that although some 3,000 new quotations were added, the fourth

edition is only eighteen pages longer than the first.[32] In one or two instances
it could be argued that the deletion would have been made independent of
Steevens's suggestion. Under Aroynt, for example, Steevens proposes an alteration
to the quotation which was not accepted, but also notes that it had
been wrongly attributed to Shak. King Lear, rather than to Macbeth. In F4 it
is attributed simply to Shakespeare. Since Johnson frequently truncates attributions
in F4, this particular instance may not have been a response to
Steevens's note, but no space is saved by the shortening. In other cases, however,
the deletion was apparently prompted by Steevens's notes. In the first
Shakespeare quotation illustrating Addition 4, the third line in F1 reads "The
sway, revenue, execution of th'last." Steevens indicates that the last words
should read "the rest." In the fourth edition "of th'last" is simply excised,
although no space is saved. (This is a rare instance where the attribution is
expanded in F4, to Shakes. King Lear from F1's Shakespeare.) The primary
sense of Chamber 1 is defined as "An apartment in a house; generally used
for those appropriated to lodging." Steevens crosses through the first Shakespeare
quotation, from Richard III: "Welcome, sweet prince, to London,
to your chamber." His note states: "Chamber, in this instance, signifies
London anciently called Camera regea." In F4 the quotation is deleted.
In F1 Johnson defines Commere as "A common mother" and illustrates it
with a quotation from Hamlet: "As peace should still her wheaten garland
wear, / And stand a commere 'tween their amities." Steevens crosses through
the entry, and notes on the interleaf: "There is no such word in Shakespeare.
Commere was instead of comma by Warburton." Johnson drops the entry
entirely in F4.

One final example again indicates the cross-fertilization between the
Dictionary and the Shakespeare edition. For the word Hail n.s. Steevens
marked for deletion the illustration "As thick as hail / Came post on post.
Shakespeare's Macbeth." This had been the reading, first proposed by Rowe,
of Warburton's edition (1747) from which Johnson had chosen his Shakespeare
illustrations. And Johnson had printed the line thus in his 1765
Shakespeare edition, but appended a note reading:

In the 1773 edition Johnson, perhaps prompted by Steevens's corroborative
note in the BL copy, adopts his own suggestion and prints "As thick as tale /
Came post with post."

As the preceding series of examples demonstrate, Steevens's sedulous
labors in annotating the BL copy were utilized by Johnson, although not
systematically so. The strong suggestion is that Steevens worked closely with
Johnson over a period of many years on both the Shakespeare editions and
the Dictionary.[33] And while Allen Reddick has brilliantly reconstructed the
several stages in Johnson's lexicographic development, this new awareness of
Steeven's deep involvement provides fresh clues about the nature and provenance
of the British Library copy. The first edition sheets were certainly, as
Reddick suggests, prepared by Johnson as printer's copy for the letter "B."
But why were they never used for that purpose, and how did they come to be
inserted between the third edition sheets annotated by Steevens? How Johnson
or the printer might have mislaid the material must remain mysterious,
but it is possible to say with some assurance what was used in its stead. It is
evident that where the Johnsonian material for the letter "B" is inserted in
the BL copy, Steevens's annotated third edition sheets for the same letter are
absent; it would be difficult to imagine a situation in which Steevens would
have annotated only the letters "A" and "C-I/J." I consequently suspected
that when the printer's copy for the letter "B" was mislaid, Johnson, rather
than beginning from scratch, took what was nearest to hand—Steevens's annotated
third edition sheets—hastily augmented them with a few additional
revisions, and sent the copy off to the printers. This scenario would account
for the different nature and magnitude of revisions in the printed text of the
letter "B" as compared to the rest of the fourth edition of the Dictionary.

To confirm my suspicions I collated the first thirty pages of the letter "B"
in the first, third, and fourth editions and through recension determined
that, unlike the rest of the fourth edition, "B" was set from third rather than
first edition sheets. The following is a sample of the more than sixty instances
of shared F3-F4 readings in the collated pages:

                     

Location	F1 reading	Shared F3/F4 reading
To Baa (Sidney)	treble baas⁁ for	treble baas, for
Babble (Milton)	mere	meer
Baby 1 (1st Locke)	plumbs	plums
Baccivorous (definition)	A devourer of berries	Devouring berries
Balance (Sir John Davies)	burden'd	burden
Ballad-singer (definition)	employment it is	employment is
Bank n.s. 4 (South)	Their	There
Barbarian n.s. (etymology)	only foreign	only a foreign
Barm (Shakespeare)	drink to bear	drink bear
Base n 7 (Dryden)	trebles squeak	trebles queak

The first three are among the many examples where the readings of (relatively)
indifferent accidentals in F3/F4 agree against F1. In serving to determine
the copy from which F4 was set, they are valuable only in their sheer

frequency, for in individual instances it is always possible that the compositors
of separate editions coincidentally produced the same divergence from
copy. More suggestive is the entry for Baccivorous, because it represents a
rare instance in which a substantive change had been made in the third edition.
Since the word is an adjective, Johnson had properly altered the first
edition reading "A devourer of berries" to "Devouring berries" for the third
edition. Had the letter "B" in the fourth edition been set from first rather
than third-edition sheets, this change would in all likelihood have been lost.
Most conclusive, however, are instances where F3/F4 agree in manifest error,
where the F1 reading had been correct; it is highly improbable that the compositors
and proofreaders of separate editions would repeatedly and coincidently
commit and allow to stand identical variance from copy.[34] In order to
assure myself that the letter "B" had been set throughout from third edition
sheets, I additionally collated six pages near the end, from 3R1r through 3S2r,
and found a dozen instances where again the text of F3/F4 agreed against F1.
Since shared error is more conclusive than shared correction, the most telling
example occurs under Bunch 4, where a line from Fairy Queen appears correctly
in F1 as "A bunch of hairs discoloured"; in both F3 and F4, "discoloured"
becomes the nonsensical (in context) "discover'd." Additional
support is found in the shared misspellings of several headwords: F1's "Bivalvular"
appears in both F3 and F4 as "Bivalvula," and F1 "Bobbin" as
F3/F4 "Bobin." The letter "B" in F4 was thus demonstrably set not from F1,
as is the rest of the Dictionary, but from F3.

As noted above, the new illustrative quotations found in the letter "B"
are both fewer in number and different in source from those found in adjacent
letters. It is thus useful to compare the new illustrations which appear in the
printed text of the letter "B" with the suggestion for new quotations Steevens
had made in the BL copy. In "B," as with most of Vol. I, the largest number
of new illustrations in F4 come from the Bible (there are 25), due largely to
the availability of Cruden's concordance. But second to the Bible are Shakespeare
and Pope with 16 new quotations each: this compares with 21 new
Shakespeare quotations and 80 new Pope quotations in the whole of Volume
II.[35] The over-representation of Shakespeare is particularly striking, and provides

an additional indication that Steevens's annotated F3 sheets for "B"
must have served as printer's copy for the revised edition.

Additionally, I have collated approximately the first quarter of the letter
"B" in F1 and F4 and found a comparatively large proportion of the sorts of
changes Steevens had proposed in the BL copy (and that, on the basis of the
BL copy for "B," Johnson himself rarely made).[36] There are, for example,
small corrections to Shakespeare quotations under To Bait v.a. l, To Bait v.n.,
Bank 1, and To Beguile; a longish usage note following the Shakespeare
quotations which illustrates Bankrupt adj.; new "authorities" (Shakespeare
of course) for Baa and Beggarly; and the new lemmas To Bass and Beef-witted
and a third sense of Bastard, all illustrated with Shakespeare quotations.
Remarkably, there are two instances in the letter "B" of F4 where Johnson
cites Steevens by name. The first, discovered during collation, occurs in the
etymology for Beef-Eater n.s.: "from beef and eat, because the commons is
beef when on waiting. Mr. Steevens derives it thus: Beefeater may come from
beaufetier, one who attends the sideboard, which was anciently placed in a
beaufet. The business of the beef-eaters was, and perhaps is still, to attend the
king at meals." A search of both F1 and F4 of A Dictionary of the English
Language on CD-ROM[37] revealed a second example in F4 under Bumbast:
"falsely written for bombast; bombast and bombasine being mentioned, with
great probability, by Junius, as coming from boom, a tree, and sein, silk; the
silk or cotton of a tree. Mr. Steevens, with much more probability, deduces
them all from bombycinus."[38] Nowhere else in either F1 or F4 does Johnson
mention Steevens. The confluence of circumstantial evidence supports my
original conjecture that Steevens's annotated third edition sheets for the
letter "B" served as the basis, and ultimately as printer's copy, for Johnson's
revision of this letter in F4. At some point after the letter "B" was printed
off, the missing sheets Johnson originally had prepared must have been located
and were inserted in their proper alphabetical order in Steevens's annotated
3rd edition copy, replacing what had now become copy for that
letter. That explains why the BL copy is made up of mixed third and first
edition sheets, annotated by Steevens and Johnson respectively.