THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WOOD AND A FOREST (COMMENT). (In a letter in the TLS (April 26, 2018), Charles Lock pointed out that in Shakespeare’s time, “wood” and “forest” had different senses. He says:”‘Wood’ is a near homophone of ‘wode’ (mad)…A wood is a place of wildness, where madmen and outlaws tend to hide. A forest is a controlled space.”
Lock concluded: “…in Shakespeare’s plays the distinction remains: in a wood near Athens [in A Midsummer Night’s Dream] wild things happen, while Birnam Wood defies nature.”
The additional meaning of “rooky” emphasizes that woods and Birnam Woods in particular are treacherous places.
I think the distinction in meaning tracks with modern usage. I think of phrases like “lost in the woods” or the woods being referred to in horror movies, rather than “the forest” conjuring up images of the Pacific Northwest or national parks. Not scientific, by any means, but it fits in my mind.
Thank you for this! It had never occurred to me that they would have separate meanings and implications. I would have said they could be used interchangeably. To me the sound of the word “forest ” sounds more wild than “wood”, but that’s very idiosyncratic probably.
When I was in first grade I became preoccupied with the difference between “city” and “town” while I was learning to read. My teacher said that towns are small compared to cities but that didn’t really satisfy me.