the scope and intent of the present work, though it may not satisfy those critics who, without examination, seek to decry or put aside that which it has cost years of labour and research to produce. For the rest, however, a conscientious worker may well be content to abide the result of careful and honest criticism, whether for praise or demerit.
Great as was the initial difficulty in regard to a dividing line between the three great divisions of colloquial English—dialectical, technical, and slang—it was clearly and obviously necessary to draw the line somewhere. After careful consideration, I adopted, as a standard between literary and non-literary English, Annandale's edition of Ogilvie's Imperial English Dictionary. With but few exceptions, it will be found that no word is here included which is there set down as forming part of the orthodox inheritance of "the noble English tongue." The next great difficulty with which I found myself confronted was the determination of the exact meanings of slang words and expressions. Frequently I discovered I had to deal with a veritable Proteus—slang used to-day in one sense shades off to-morrow into many modifications. This fact I have had to keep steadily in mind. It will account, in some instances, for what may, at first sight, appear to be an unnecessarily extended list of illustrative quotations; in such cases it will generally be found, on examination, that different shades of meaning are exemplified.
As regards treatment, I have adopted, though not in its entirety, what is commonly known as the "historical method," supplementing this by an attempt at the comparative study of slang, i.e., the presentation of un-*
