Some time ago, an associate of mine invited me to write an introduction for a presentation, on his website, of his 1856 edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary.  I knew exactly where to begin — 131 years later, in 1987.  That year, I received as a gift for Christmas a brand new Webster's Ninth New Collegiate dictionary to add to my small but growing collection of dictionaries.  When I opened the gift, I did something that probably only a writer would bother to do.  I read the Preface.  It turned out to be a good thing because I learned something useful about dictionaries.  I learned that they do not define the meanings of words.

The associate who wanted me to write the introduction was glowing in his praise of what I had written.  Sadly, he didn't want anything nearly so long so he removed much of the material, reducing the length to fit his need.  Ah, but I got even.  I decided to modify the uncut introduction a little and use it as a Ravings Essay.  After a lot of rewriting, this essay is the result.  Now, back to the lesson that I learned about dictionaries.

The idea that dictionaries don't define the meanings of words is so much at odds with the general misunderstanding of them (dictionaries, not words) that I decided that I'd better be able to defend the statement.  So, I dug into my collection of old dictionaries, found my 1987 Webster's Ninth New Collegiate dictionary, blew the dust off of its top, and read the Preface again.  Here's an excerpt.

Page 1

Such ignorance among children isn't necessarily a trivial thing.  I remember the theory professed by one such colleague.  I think that we were probably in about the second grade at the time.  He had various bits and pieces of the process but he didn't know how they fit together.  He thought that, when it was time for mommy to have a baby, she had to go to a hospital to have sex with the doctor and then he would give her the baby.  Another friend wanted me to go home after school and ask my parents if we could fuck.  Neither of us knew what the word meant.  The only thing that saved me from whatever my parents' response would have been was my unreliable memory.  Such ignorance among children is deplorable.  Adults who advocate such ignorance, or who think that children that age aren't really interested, are even more ignorant than the children.

I remember when "certain words" finally appeared in the dictionaries.  It was during the early 1970's, during the time that I was an employee of the General Electric Company in San Jose, California.  My friend Gloria Ramos rushed into my office one day, absolutely aglow with enthusiasm.  "Look!"

Page 2

She exclaimed in quivering excitement, "I looked for every word I can think of, and they're ALL THERE!".

We looked and, sure enough, they were all there.  Thus, the philosophy professed by Archbishop Trench in 1857 took a step forward in 1973.  It was the Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary for 1973.  I went right out and bought one.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 3

So long as the meanings of words are determined by the people, it isn't surprising that the meanings of words will change from time to time.  Examples abound.  Consider two definitions of the word gay.

gay ....  1:  happily excited:  MERRY   2 a:  BRIGHT, LIVELY b:  brilliant in color  3:  given to social pleasures: also:  LICENTIOUS ....  — Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1965 gay ....  1:  happily excited:  MERRY b:  keenly alive and exuberant:  having or inducing high spirits <he turned from a sober traditional style to one more timely and  ~>  2 a:  BRIGHT, LIVELY < ~ sunny meadows>b:  brilliant in color 3:  given to social pleasures:  also:  LICENTIOUS  4a:  HOMOSEXUAL b:  being a socially integrated group oriented toward and concerned with the welfare of the homosexual .... — Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1973

Not only did the new meaning of gay appear suddenly, the change was of more than merely academic interest.  Indeed, in certain circumstances it could be of considerable significance not just to etymologists but to ordinary people.  Suppose, for example, that sometime during the 1950's the officers of the (allow me to imagine) Sober Institution for Gentle Habitude (SIGH) wrote into its charter a statement prohibiting any member of the Institution from engaging in any form of gay behavior at any SIGH function.  All that the SIGH officers had really intended by the anti-gay provision in their charter was that meetings should be conducted with a requisite degree of decorum.  Nevertheless, twenty or so years later, SIGH members might find themselves beset by totally unexpected demonstrations, protests, and maybe even lawsuits.  Neither SIGH nor its charter had changed.  Usage had changed.  When that happened, the meaning of the charter was transformed without a single change in its wording.

Another example of changed meaning that I'll mention, because of its political implications, is the word fascism.  Here are two definitions, spanning a time of about 5 decades.

fascism ....  1.  Fascism.  2.  any system of government in which property is privately owned, but all industry and business is regulated by a strong national government. n. — Thorndike Century Senior Dictionary, 1941 fascism ....  A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism .... — The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1992

Page 5

What about the second definition?  To me, it appears to be an impressive effort to construct a definition containing words that are so different from traditional American values, and with such negative connotations, that it would never occur to anyone to measure America today against the definition.  More significant, though, is the implication of the definition with regard to the purpose of dictionaries.  It might be, I must admit, that contemporary practice has actually produced the noted change in the usage of the word.  It's remotely possible that people really do think of fascism today as it's described in the later definition.  However, I think it's more likely that people don't think about fascism at all.  Maybe, instead, the lexicographers are toying with the idea of actually defining words themselves in certain specific instances.  After all, that was the philosophy back in the 18th century.  I wonder if this particular definition might be an effort by the makers of dictionaries to whitewash a government that is, after all, the source of the licenses by which those lexicographers function.  We can hope otherwise.  However, the power to license is the power to control and the power to control includes the power to destroy.  It wouldn't be surprising if the lexicographers are cautious.¹
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 6

The change in the meaning of gay happened over a period of time that can easily be measured in months.  Most people noticed the change in meaning.  The change in the meaning of fascism occurred over about 5 decades.  It appears that nobody noticed that change.  People don't tend to remember much about how things were 50 years ago.  However, the change can be discovered by recourse to old dictionaries, which still exist.  Imagine how difficult it would be to discover changes in meaning that happen over centuries.

When documents remain in use for long periods of time, then changes in the usage of the words in the documents guarantee that the meaning of the documents will change.  The imaginary SIGH charter was a whimsical example of the effect of such a change over 20 years.  However, real documents in the real world can have enormous authority over people's lives.  Changes in the meaning of such documents, when those changes go unrecognized or uncorrected, can cause a lot of damage.  A good example is the King James Version of the Holy Bible.  That matter is addressed in the Preface to the 1962 edition of the Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible.  Remember, that commentary regarding the King James Version is taken not from some secular critic but from a different version of the Holy Bible itself.  Remember also that, in spite of the availability of more recent versions, the King James Version remains to this day among the most popular translations of the Holy Bible, fueling the passions particularly of the fundamentalist Christians.

Page 7

I'll concede that dictionaries continue to show older meanings.  As it said in the Preface to the 1987 version of the Webster dictionary, quoted earlier, "the user of the dictionary may be confident that entries in the Collegiate are based on current as well as older material".  However, there are limits to how long a meaning will stay in a dictionary.  The King James Version of the Holy Bible, just mentioned, is a good example.  Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is worthless as a means to understand the King James Version of the Bible.

When authoritative documents remain in effect for long periods of time, then it becomes increasingly difficult to understand the intent of the writers.  Such difficulty can be more relevant in secular documents than in holy ones when secular governments have more control over people's lives than that exercised by religious authorities.

In this country, at this time, the most relevant example of such a document is the Constitution for the United States of America.  Regarding the Constitution, we're fortunate in that, unlike the Holy Bible, the originally intended meanings can be determined without us having to learn ancient Greek or Hebrew.  We can, instead, use dictionaries contemporary with the Constitution, or at least nearly so.  By discovering the meanings of the words at a time when the Constitution was written we can hope to discover the original intentions of the writers.  That brings this essay full circle and back to Bouvier's Law dictionary.

Granted, the Constitution was written between February and September of 1787.  However, dictionaries from 1787 are scarce so we use the earliest dictionaries that we can find.  In my case, that has been Bouvier's 1889 edition.  My associate, the one who prompted this essay, is fortunate enough to have an edition from 1856.

It's been 215 years since the Constitution was written.  It was 351 years between the time when the King James Version of the Holy Bible was new and the time of the publication of the Revised Standard version that I referenced.  The Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible documents the significant changes in usage of the words in the King James Version from 1611 until 1962.  So far as I'm aware, nobody has yet written a "Revised Standard Version" of the Constitution.  There have been amendments, but not revisions.  Therefore, the original text remains unmodified.  Understanding the Constitution has been made even more difficult by the amendment process because the
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 8

The fact is that I don't know what meanings have changed in the U.S. Constitution and what meanings haven't.  However, if the changes that occurred in the meanings of words in the Holy Bible happened in 351 years, and if changes in the language are linear with time (possibly a bold assumption), then we might expect changes in the meanings of words in the Constitution to be about 61% as significant as those in the King James Version of the Holy Bible.  Thus, I think that we should expect substantial changes in the understanding of the Constitution since it was written.  Like dust collecting, the changes are likely to go unnoticed for a while.  Nevertheless, they will be reflected in every aspect of political activity in this country.  Every branch of government will behave differently and every individual will be affected.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Page 9

If such changes are happening, then we might find evidence of them in the law dictionaries.  By now, it shouldn't be any surprise that I have an example.  Consider this definition of the word identification.

Oops.  There isn't an entry for identification in the 1889 edition of Bouvier's Law Dictionary.  The implications are at least interesting.  Apparently identification, the way that we think of it today, wasn't an issue in 1889.  I can't help but wonder if there might have been a presumption of innocence then.  Maybe people weren't required to provide ID as a prerequisite to everything.  Maybe they were presumed to be whoever they said that they were.

OK, we can't compare the change in the meaning of identification between 1889 and 1979.  Let's try another example.  Consider corporations, which have existed for a looooong time.

In 1889, Bouvier's Law Dictionary listed eight different kinds of corporations.²  In 1979, Black's Law Dictionary listed over 20 different kinds of corporations³ and five different ways of classifying them.⁴  The definition of corporation in Black's Law Dictionary is 2432 words long, as counted by my word processor.  The length of the definition in Bouvier's Law Dictionary is

Page 11

I think I've written enough now to make my point about changes in the usage of words.  It's evident that documents must be understood in terms of the meanings the words had at the times when the documents were written.  I've given some evidence that, at least in the case of law dictionaries, things might be getting increasingly complex instead of simpler.  So what?  Here's my opinion.

Since we can't roll back the contemporary practice and usage of words, we need at the very least to become proficient in the meanings of words as they were understood at the time when the documents were written.  Otherwise, we can't understand the documents.  The problem, of course, is that most people won't do it.  Instead, they'll end up relying on some sort of priesthood, be it sacred or secular.  That exalted clique will eventually become the masters of those that they pretend to serve.⁵  Therefore, some other solution to the problem of the changing usage of words is needed.

Suppose that we simply discard authoritative documents periodically and write new ones.  That would certainly insure that the documents reflected contemporary usage.  However, that can be a difficult thing to do.  By the time that the need for such a change is widely recognized, all activities that might lead to it are either illegal or securely regulated.  Such has been the case in this country for a long, long time.

At the very least, an occasional comparison of the meanings of words, as in the case of fascism, might alert us that it's time for a change.  If men died 50 years ago to save something that isn't even a memory anymore, if the country has become the very thing that those men fought to defeat, then the result is intolerable.  It's time for a change.

I believe that it's been time for a change since about 1790.  You, of course, might select a different date.  However, the important fact now is that the change is long overdue.  The longer we wait the more difficult it will be to do it.  If we wait long enough, then we might not be able to do it at all.

Page 13