3.  The words are more correctly spelled, partly by attention to their etymology, and partly by observation of the practice of the best authors.

4.  The etymologies and derivations, whether from foreign languages or from native roots, are more diligently traced, and more distinctly noted.

5.  The senses of each word are more copiously enumerated, and more clearly explained.

6.  Many words occurring in the elder authors, such as Spenser, Shakespeare, and Milton, which had been hitherto omitted, are here carefully inserted; so that this book may serve as a glossary or expository index to the poetical writers.

7.  To the words, and to the different senses of each word, are subjoined from the large dictionary the names of those writers by whom they have been used; so that the reader who knows the different periods of the language, and the time of its authors, may judge of the elegance or prevalence of any word, or meaning of a word; and without recurring to other books, may know what are antiquated, what are unusual, and what are recommended by the best authority.

The words of this Dictionary, as opposed to others, are more diligently collected, more accurately spelled, more faithfully explained, and more authentically ascertained.  Of an abstract it is not necessary to say more; and I hope, it will not be found that truth requires me to say less.

[1] Published in 2 vols. 1756.

MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS
ON THE
TRAGEDY OF MACBETH: 

WITH REMARKS ON SIR T. HANMER’S EDITION OF SHAKESPEARE.

FIRST PRINTED IN THE YEAR 1745.

[Transcriber’s note:  There are two footnote systems in use in this section.  The numbered footnotes in square brackets, [1], [2], etc, are those of the editor, and are to be found at the end of the section.  The lettered footnotes in round brackets, (a), (b), etc, are Johnson’s, and are to be found at the end of each Note.]

NOTE I.

ACT I. SCENE I.

  Enter three Witches.

In order to make a true estimate of the abilities and merit of a writer, it is always necessary to examine the genius of his age, and the opinions of his contemporaries.  A poet, who should now make the whole action of his tragedy depend upon enchantment, and produce the chief events by the assistance of supernatural agents, would be censured as transgressing the bounds of probability; he would be banished from the theatre to the nursery, and condemned to write fairy tales instead of tragedies; but a survey of the notions, that prevailed at the time when this play was written, will prove, that Shakespeare was in no danger of such censures, since he only turned the system that was then universally admitted to his advantage, and was far from over-burdening the credulity of his audience.