An Illustrated Dictionary of Words Used in Art and Archaeology

This Dictionary was commenced as an amended edition of that written by M. Ernest Bosc, architect of Paris, and contains the 450 engravings published in the French work, to which about 250 more have been added. Little or nothing, however, of the text of M. Bosc’s work has been left standing; his definitions having, in the process of revision under reference to original works, almost entirely disappeared. The whole work, as it now stands, has been drawn from, or carefully corrected by, the best authorities in each of its special branches. Considerable prominence has been given to Architecture, from the French original corrected from English writers; to Christian Antiquities from Martigny, and the Dictionary of Dr. Smith and Professor Cheetham, and other authorities; to Mediæval Armour, and terms of Chivalry, chiefly from Meyrick’s Ancient Armour; to Costume from Planché and Fairholt; to Heraldryfrom Boutell’s and Mrs. Bury Palliser’s works; to Pottery, the substance of the articles on this subject being derived from M. Jacquemart’s work; to Needlework, Ivories, Musical Instruments, Goldsmiths’ Work, Painters’ Materials and Processes Ancient and Modern, Colour, &c., with references to the several authorities referred to.

The Greek and Roman Antiquities, which are the principal part of M. Bosc’s work, have been in this volume reduced to the smallest possible compass: the Dictionaries of Dr. Smith and Rich must be referred to by those who require fuller definitions upon this subject, which would of itself fill ten such books as the present.

A few Indian, Chinese, and Japanese Terms, which have come into ordinary use in art, have been sought out and inserted: in the first-mentioned Dr. Birdwood’s Handbooks have been a most useful guide. Finally, it is necessary to state, that many words essential to the completeness of the work would have been in danger of omission, if I had not had before me Mr. Fairholt’s admirable Dictionary of Art Terms, which, occupying a more restricted ground than this, is so thorough and accurate in dealing with all that it professes to include, that the only raison d’être of this work is the very much wider and different ground that it covers, and the greater condensation of its definitions. Obviously the substance of every statement in the work is borrowed from some previous writer on the subject, and it is evident that a Dictionary of Reference is not a convenient vehicle for theory or invention.