'This definition rather goes a step beyond that of the clergyman, as it explains the words _a parte post_ by _Album Graecum_, which are more obscure than the former, and neither of which, out of my great regard to decency, I choose to translate.--Whether Dr Johnson composed his dictionary, after hearing the above-mentioned clergyman's sermon, or not, I cannot tell, but he seems very much to have taken him for his model, even though the said clergyman was a Presbyterian, and Dr Johnson has an aversion at Presbyterians. Thus, when he tells us, that _short_ is _not long_, and that _long_ is _not short_, he certainly might as well have told us that a thief is a man of a thievish disposition. I am surprised indeed how the intellects of a human creature could be obscured by pedantry, and the love of words, to such a degree, as to insert this distinction in a book, pretended to be written for the instruction and benefit of society. Much more am I surprised how the authors of all dictionaries of the English language have followed the same ridiculous plan, as if they had positively intended to make their books as little valuable as possible. Nay, I am almost tempted to think, that the readers have a natural inclination to peruse nonsense, and cannot be satisfied without a considerable quantity of that ingredient in every book which falls into their hands. _Long_ and _short_ are terms merely relative, and which every body knows; to explain them therefore by one another, is to explain them by themselves. But besides this ridiculous way of explaining a thing by itself, pedants, of whom we may justly reckon Dr Johnson the Prince, have fallen upon a most ingenious method of explaining the English by the _Latin_, or some other language still further beyond the reach of vulgar ken. Thus, when Dr Johnson defines _fire_, he tells us it is the _igneous element_. _To water_ (the verb) he tells us, is to _irrigate_, by which no doubt we are greatly edified. _To do_ is to _practise_, and _to practise_ is _to do_, &c.