Stephanie Rudisaile 18th Century Literature
December 7, 2012
Final Essay
Locke’s Influence on Samuel Johnson and his Dictionary
When Samuel Johnson decided he was going to write a dictionary, he wanted it to be the
best one ever written. He was commissioned by a group of London booksellers. There were
many skeptics who didn’t believe one man could accomplish such a huge feat, but Johnson was
not discouraged and claimed he would complete it in only three years. With the help of six
assistants it actually took nine years, but Johnson did almost all of it single handedly and until
the Oxford English Dictionary came out, The Dictionary of the English Language was
considered the best there was.
Despite his positive outlook, Johnson soon found that his task would be a challenge since
he would not be just making a list of words, but establishing a standard to how 18th century
thinkers attached the relation between words and actual things or ideas. McLaverty states, “The
whole attempt, therefore, to bind words, notions, and things systematically together rests on the
basis of definition” (380). Altogether, it was a daunting task.
Samuel Johnson, knowledgeable and well-read scholar that he was, would have been very
familiar with the writings and ideas of John Locke, especially An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding. This work by Locke covers a lot on the philosophy of language and many of
Locke’s theories are expressed through Johnson as well. In fact, there are so many similarities
between the two that there is no doubt Locke had a prominent influence on Johnson’s dictionary.
Echoes of Locke’s theory on language are present in Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of
the English Language in the source and usage of illustrations as well as the content of definitions
specifically concerning the issue of language decay and fixed meanings.
Samuel Johnson had an interesting way of putting together definitions in his dictionary.
He would give his own explanation, but then reinforce it with an illustration from a work of
literature to help better explain the word’s meaning. For instance, Johnson’s entry on the word
“enthusiasm” is as follows:
ENTHU’SIASM. n.
A vain belief of private revelation; a vain confidence of divine favor or
communication.
Enthusiasm is founded neither on reason nor divine revelation, but rises from the
conceits of a warmed or overweening brain. –Locke.
He frequently added examples at the end of the definition so that when he felt like his
explanation was inadequate, understanding could be found by the way it was used in a sentence.
It is no coincidence that Johnson used Locke as an example. In fact, out of the many people who
are quoted in the dictionary, Locke is quoted the most. Locke is especially quoted in definitions
that agreed with what Johnson believed and philosophized. According to Elizabeth Hedrick in
“Locke’s Theory of Language and Johnson’s Dictionary,” out of the “10,000 philosophic
quotations appearing in the first volume of the Dictionary, the 1674 taken from Locke greatly
exceed the number taken from the works of other writers, with Browne and Arbuthnot, who are
quoted most frequently after Locke, both represented by over 600 fewer citations than Locke”
(423). From these frequent illustrations, it is easy to see Samuel Johnson’s high regard for Locke
and his ideas.
Aside from using Locke’s own quotations as examples in the definitions, Johnson also
follows a practice Locke mentions in the sixth chapter of book III of his Essay on Human
Understanding that suggests naming an object in order to help describe a simple idea.
Lockesuggested using some sort of concrete idea, or sort of universal experience to help the
reader better understand whatever concept is being implied (Hedrick, 427). Samuel Johnson’s
definition of the word “red” is:
RED. adj.
Of the colour of blood, of one of the primitive colours, which is subdivided into
many; as scarlet, cermilion, crimson.
For someone who didn’t know what “red” is, an excellent example is the color of blood.
Johnson uses what Locke describes his Essay on Human Understanding to use an example of
something that is actually red.
Johnson also sometimes says what something is not in order to better describe what it is.
For instance, his description of “motion” is “The act of changing place: opposed to rest.” This
definition is very useful, assuming the reader knows what the word “rest” means. He or she can
then surmise that “motion” is the opposite of “rest.”
One issue that Samuel Johnson came across when making his illustrations had to do with
the occasional word that has multiple meanings. H shared the same view that Locke expressed in
Book III where he “implies that he wishes he could do away with multiple meanings altogether”
(Hedrick, 430) since it would simplify the language. He even says, “Yet this is the least can be
expected, that in all Discourses, wherin one Man pretends to instruct or convince another, he
should use the same Word constantly in the same sense” (III, xi, 26).
Despite Johnson’s reservations toward words with multiple meanings, it appears that
Johnson was more open to them than many lexicographers and philosophers had been in the past.
He realized that even if he only put one meaning in the dictionary it did not mean that the other
meanings would just disappear from the language. He used a single definition whenever
possible, but he was open to having multiple definitions if the word required them. In “Locke’s
Theory of Language and Johnson’s Dictionary” Elizabeth Hedrick presented a table of the
amount of words with single and multiple meanings found in Johnson’s Dictionary for words
that start with the letter “f.” The total amount of entries add up to 2003. Out of those 2003 words
that started with “f” 1339, or 67% of the total were words with one definition. Out of the rest of
the words, 318 had two definitions and 346 of them had three or more definitions (433).
Samuel Johnson developed a particular and distinct method to handle the multiple
meanings, which may have come from Locke’s writing. He clearly stated how he planned to
write the definition with the most “natural and primitive signification” (Johnson, 133). One wellknown example of this is found in the definition of “nature.” First he describes it as “an
imaginary being supposed to preside over the material and animal world.” Then he uses an
example of Shakespeare to reinforce the first meaning. Following the first definition, there are an
additional ten meanings for “nature” that range from “the regular course of things” to simply
“sort; species.” Johnson provides the most widely accepted meaning first, but does not leave out
other, less common definitions.
Other than his source of illustrations, Johnson also widely drew the content of his
definitions from Locke’s ideas, or occasionally, even Locke’s writing. Specifically, he believed
in the close relationship between mental and verbal processes, the irreducibility of simple ideas,
and that complex ideas are created out of combinable parts. Although he came to disagree with
Locke on the idea of fixed meanings in language, he created his own opinion out of what Locke
had said.
One of most significant of Locke’s thoughts on language that Samuel Johnson was
influenced by in his Dictionary was the “linking of language with human psychology” (Hedrick,
426). Locke believed that the human brain could receive two types of ideas – simple and
complex. In fact, Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language is filled with Locke’s
philosophy on this matter. It could even be said that his philosophy on mental and linguistic
processes “shapes the Dictionary as a whole and determines the concept of explanation which we
are investigating” (McLaverty, 384). Johnson’s Dictionary only turned out the way it did
because of the influence of Locke’s theories.
One of the primary subjects in Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Undertanding is the
process of definition and judging from the Dictionary definitions, Johnson took what Locke said
to heart, especially the theory that words do not stand for things, but ideas. McLaverty, in “From
Definition to Explanation: Locke’s Influence on Johnson’s Dictionary” states that the
relationship of words to ideas “is of the utmost importance to communication that words be
annexed to clear, determinate ideas and that these ideas are those to which the words are
commonly applied” (384). Locke believed that words and ideas were closely related so having
the correct definition was extremely important.
Locke found two problems in the concept and process of definition: “Locke believed that
mystification and muddle arose from traditional methods of definition” (McLaverty, 384), and he
believed that simple ideas could not be defined. Simple ideas were things such as colors, space,
and duration. Simple ideas were irreducible since “they are the elements out of which all other
ideas are formed, and anyone who, thought defect of birth or accident, lacks the sensory capacity
to understand them can never hope to find another means of doing so” (Hedrick, 426). Simple
ideas can’t be broken down because a person is not able to understand a word until he or she can
relate it to the idea behind it. It is clear that Johnson agreed with Locke on this point and in a
situation where he needed to define a simple idea, he would do the best he could by defining it
with a synonym. An example of this is found in the previously mentioned definition of red, as
well as the definition of another color, yellow.
YELLOW. adj.
Being of a bright glaring color, as gold.
Johnson realized it was impossible to accurately define a color if the person reading the
definition had not seen the color before. Therefore, he gives an example, gold, to help illustrate
what it is since it is a simple idea and cannot be reduced any more than what it already is.
Another tool that Johnson used when attempting to define simple ideas was to include
negative terms, or antonyms, to further clarify the word. In Hedrick’s essay “Locke’s Theory of
Language and Johnson’s Dictionary,” it is mentioned that for the definition of “motion” Johnson
wrote, “The act of changing place: opposed to rest.” Therefore, if the reader does not understand
what motion is, but does understand the concept of rest, it will be easier to figure out that motion
is the opposite of rest.
In his Plan, Johnson closely echoes what Locke said about the relationship of words to
ideas, “There is often only one word for one idea; and though it be easy to translate the words
bright, sweet, salt, bitter into another language; it is not easy to explain them” (132). A
lexicographer like Samuel Johnson faced many difficulties when something’s nature, or
substance, is unknown or when the idea, or notion, of something is not definite and “various in
various minds” and therefore can’t really be accurately described.
Words that represent complex ideas are easier to define in the sense that they can be
broken down and described using words with simple ideas. However, they do present their own,
more subtle, challenges as well. Locke explains what complex ideas are by saying that they are
mostly brought about by three sorts of sensation, which are modes, substances, and relations.
The good thing is that all words with complex ideas, unlike simple ideas, can be defined. The
problem arises because “complex ideas are almost wholly products of the mind, often in fact
having no real existence outside it” (Hedrick, 428).
Things with substance provide great difficulty since everyone experiences things
differently and substances are the direct consequences of sensation. This means that “all our
ideas of substances are imperfect and inadequate” (McLaverty, 385) since the definition is up to
the discretion of the lexicographer and his or her experiences. This is shown clearly by some of
Samuel Johnson’s more famous definitions in his Dictionary of the English Language. Johnson
was a devout Tory and very much against the Whig party so when it came time to define them,
his opinion is very clear.
TO’RY. n.
One who adheres to the ancient constitution of the state, and the apostolical
hierarchy of the Church of England, opposed to a whig.
The definition is clear and well written, yet it is obvious that Samuel Johnson
sympathizes with them by the way he describes Tories as completely upright citizens who follow
definition of Whig.
WHIG. n.
The name of a faction.
Not only is the definition of Whig shorter and colder than the definition of Tory, but
using the word “faction” immediately makes the party sound undesirable. No doubt, had Samuel
Johnson been a Whig and not a Tory, the definitions of these two words would have sounded
drastically different.
Another humorous definition found in the Dictionary of the English Language is Samuel
Johnson’s definition of the word “lexicographer.” Of course, Johnson was defining himself and
it is clear to see his character in the way he describes the meaning of that word.
LEXICO’GRAPHER. n.
A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the
original, and detailing the signification of words.
Only Johnson would have defined a lexicographer as a “harmless drudge.” It makes the
reader smile as he so obviously put his own spin on the definition of the word.
Although it is interesting how sarcastic or colloquial his definitions can sometimes
appear, the definitions exemplify exactly what Locke was worried about when it came to
complex definitions. While a word with a simple idea like “triangle” is simple and easy to
understand once the reader has actually seen a triangle, the complex idea of what a
“lexicographer” is or does cannot be as easily pinpointed and, even when given a definition, will
always vary from reader to reader.
When it comes to complex definitions, examples in a sentence come in handy. For simple
ideas, examples do not really work. Placing the word “bright” in the sentence, “The sun was
bright” will not help the reader figure out the meaning of bright unless he or she is currently
staring and the sun and understands that brightness has to do with the amount of light coming
from it. Complex definitions do not have that problem since they are invariably made up of
several simple ideas. A great example of this is Johnson’s definition of “abstain.”
ABSTAIN. v.n.
To forbear, to deny one's self any gratification; with the particle from.
If thou judge it hard and difficult,
Conversing, looking, loving, to abstain
From love's due rites, nuptial embraces sweet;
And, with desires, to languish without hope. Milton's Paradise Lost, b. x. l. 993.
Following his own definition, Samuel Johnson provides an example from Paradise Lost
to further emphasize his point in case the reader did not understand the concept from his
description. The reader has the chance to deduce the meaning of the word from the context in
which Milton places it.
Interestingly enough, though Johnson wholeheartedly agreed with most of John Locke’s
theories and opinions, he grew to disagree with him on one important point. John Locke always
wanted English to be a fixed language, a language resistant to change so that his descendants
would not have the same difficulty reading his contemporaries as Locke had had reading
Chaucer.
Samuel Johnson would very much have liked to make English resistant to change, but he
came to realize that it would be an impossible task. Language grows on its own whether people
try to stop it or not. He must have seen clearly from his studies of word etymologies that words
and language are constantly shifting.
Elizabeth Hedrick, in her article “Locke’s Theory of Language and Johnson’s
Dictionary” brings up an interesting point. “Johnson, unlike Locke, consistently refers to
etymons in social rather than strictly philosophical terms, as the ‘parents’ or ‘ancestors’ of
modern significations” (440). This means that instead of believing words came into existence
through the relation between language and thoughts, Johnson saw that they evolved through the
social aspect of conversation. As mentioned before, he was careful to include multiple meanings
for words that required them, even if he would have rather stayed with the best definition.
Samuel Johnson was willing to sacrifice the original meaning of a word for its more
popular definition. For example, Johnson gives two meanings for the word “creditor.” The first
is, “He to whom a debt I owed; he that gives credit.” This is the definition that makes the most
sense to a person who already understands the concept, but in his research, Johnson discovered
that the etymology for the word “creditor” comes from a Latin root of a verb credo, which means
“to believe.” Johnson placed that definition second, making it plain that while he acknowledges
that though it once meant to “believe,” it does not only mean that now.
One of the most important aspects of Johnson’s experience in the Dictionary is that
Johnson realized better than Locke “the various ways in which human passion can carry the
meanings of words in directions never suggested by their etymons, subordinating their radical
senses to human attitudes and interests” (Hedrick, 442). For instance, in the definition for
“coffer” Johnson shows that the motivations of the specific person can “create a progress of
meaning” (Hedrick, 443) that is more personal instead of logical.
COFFER. n.
1. A chest generally for keeping money.
2. Treasure.
The meaning can shift from the container where the treasure is put, to the treasure itself
depending on how the individual views it. This is radically different from Locke who believed
that modern meanings of words were inferior to their original meanings.
While Samuel Johnson certainly wanted to be able to fix the language in a more or less
permanent state, he saw how unrealistic a goal that was. He mentioned that the French even had
their special academy and were still unable to prevent language change. Unlike many other
people in his day, Samuel Johnson accepted the fact that the language would change no matter
how hard he tried to stop it, but he could at least use the development of his dictionary as an
attempt to slow the change.
Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was not the first dictionary ever
written, its mention of both historical and modern definitions made it an outstanding contribution
to English letters. Much of the philosophy behind the way Johnson wrote out his definitions was
directly influenced by John Locke, especially the source of illustrations and the content of
definitions. Through Locke, Johnson developed an approach to the language by “genetic,
historical, and to a limited degree, social” means that enriched the definitions in his Dictionary
and made them all the more interesting.
Works Cited
Hedrick, Elizabeth. "Locke's Theory Of Language And Johnson's Dictionary." Eighteenth-Century
Studies 4 (1987): 422.JSTOR Arts & Sciences I. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.
Johnson, Samuel. “The plan of a Dictionary of the English Language.” (1747).
Locke, John. Cleveland, Meridian Books (1964).
McLaverty, James. "From Definition To Explanation: Locke's Influence On Johnson's Dictionary."
Journal Of The History Of Ideas 3 (1986): 377. JSTOR Arts & Sciences I. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.