Davis 1

Paige Davis
14 October 2014
ENG 332
Sister Grover
Reading Response #2: Implications of Biases in Language
Samuel Johnsons A Dictionary of the English Language indicates a high degree of
historically social, cultural, and political biases considering the texts purpose as a linguistic
reference. Among the words included for this collection, the words anthology, genius, oats,
patron, pension, tory, whig, and wit indicate some of these biases. By examining these
words and Johnsons definitions and comparing them with the history of their usage, Johnsons
personal biases and the prejudices of the society he was surrounded by indicate the overall scope
of different historical, social, and political biases available during mid-18th century England.
Compared to our modern understanding of some words, Johnsons interpretation and
definitions of anthology and pension display some of his personal biases or surrounding social
biases that limit the extent of their definitions. Johnsons definition of anthology as [a]
collection of flowers seems so limited (and ironic because it is the first under the heading of being
part of an anthology within a literary anthology). However, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
confirms that the use of anthology was limited to the literal collection, act of collecting and
gathering, or the art of writing treatise and extended essays about flowers, based on the Greek roots
of anth- for flowers and ology for collection. However, beginning in 1640, flowers could
also reference small poems and epigrams (particularly those of the Greeks). Thus, the use of
anthology at Johnsons time also regularly referenced a collection of poetry. However, the
common definition we understand and use today to reference a collection of different literary

Davis 2
works was not used until 1856 (anthology, n.). With this in mind, Johnsons seemingly narrow
definition is not very narrow at all.
Pension, on the other hand, provides a brief and narrow description ([a]n allowance
made to anyone without an equivalent. In England it is generally understood to mean pay given to
a state hireling for treason to his country) that rarely fits the general usage of the term. The OED
also notes that the most common uses as a regular paymentfor present services or to retain
allegiance, good will or a regular payment made to a person of rank or a royal favourite to enable
him or her to live to an expected standard. While these are the more common uses that modern
readers might recognize, there are also related uses common by 1755 (when Johnson published
the Dictionary) regarding regular or fixed payments to retired employees, board and lodging for
students, or ecclesiastical payment from a benefice. While these are all wide uses that were
common starting, depending on the definition, between 1382 and 1570, Johnsons limited
definition indicates that anyone paid a pension is guilty of treason. Johnson (by extension of his
definition) claims that anyone of the church (either Catholic or Anglican, though OED says it was
more common in the Anglican Church), royalty, persons of military or social rank, or those
requiring food and board while they pursuit their education are also traitors paid to betray their
nation. It is debatable whether Johnson felt any true antipathy for all of these classes and ranks of
respect, but his definition exposes the potential that his experiences with poverty in his childhood
left an acerbic understanding or reflection of how the rich use or gain their money and resources
(Norton 2842). Beyond the limited definition Johnson offers, the footnotes in this particular
anthology note how [i]n 1762 Johnson was awarded a pension, but he did not revise the definition
in later editions (2935). There is a great deal of irony in light of this detail because not only did
he insult anyone of respected class or rank in English society with his original definition, but he

Davis 3
also calls himself a traitor as well. This unintended hypocrisy indicates that not only was Johnson
limited in his work of creating and recording definitions of words by his own experiences, but by
his biases as well.
While his Dictionary provides a snapshot into Johnsons own biases, it also gives modern
readers a glimpse of some of the general, socially acceptable biases against gender that Johnson
reflects in his definitions. Specific entries that expose these socially gendered prejudices include
genius and wit. Johnsons definition for both genius and wit captures an overall
misogynist attitude regarding who is capable of such elevated thought. The first and second senses
of genius suggest it to mean [t]he protecting or ruling power of men, places, or things and [a]
man endowed with superior faculties, respectively (2934). While the first sense is not entirely
gender biased, considering most literature refers to all of humankind or humanity as the collective
man. However, the second is severely limiting by specifying an individual man, rather than the
collective man. Similarly, the fourth and fifth senses of wit ([a] man of fancy and [a] man of
genius, respectively) suggest a similar individual man, rather than the collective man(kind),
indicating a preference for the male sex over the female sex in terms of capacity and ability to
fulfill these definitions. These may be the socially acceptable trends and definitions that Johnson
felt obligated to include. While most of the words that Johnson supplies with biased definitions
only contain the one description, these two words have multiple definitionssome of them the
gender-limited ones listed, but many of the others providing a broader sense of the possible
applications. Between these extraneous definitions and Francis Burneys journal records of her
experiences with Samuel Johnson (2997-2999), Johnsons own opinion of the female capacity to
intelligence, genius, and wit shines through. While most others of his time were quite sexist in
their view of what women were (and were not) capable of, Johnson provides plenty of examples

Davis 4
and encouragement for women to exceed the expectations set by societyto rise above them in
the pursuit of intelligence and education.
Johnsons definitions of oats, tory, and whig contain a residual of his political biases
as well. These words are unique in the way Johnson defines them because of what he includes or
omits. For oats, Johnson includes that it is [a] grain, which in England is generally given to
horses, but in Scotland supports the people (2935). This inclusion of oats being a Scottish feed
observes a social and political antithesis between the English and the Scots that has held strong for
centuries. While it could be read that he was anthropomorphically comparing horses to Scots, or
comparing Scots to horses as beautiful creatures that are dependable, powerful, and strong purely
because they eat the same grain (which is quite the support for oatmeal, in that case), it is more
likely that he meant the comparison in the negative sense. By zoomorphically (or, even more
narrowly, equestropomorphically) comparing Scots to horses, he indicates a pervading
antagonistic belief that Scots, like horses, are meant to be ridden, worked, broken, and tamed for
casual abuse.
Within this extreme English nationalism, Johnson also exhibits some personal biases
toward two political factions in England. Alphabetically, Johnson provides the definition of a
tory first, describing, [o]ne who adheres to the ancient constitution of the state, and the apostolic
hierarchy of the church of England, opposed to a whig and accompanied by a quote by Addison.
In contrast, the entry about whig is simplified to [t]he name of a faction and accompanied by
a quote, though this one more moderate between the two factions, by Jonathan Swift. This contrast
provides an interesting lens through which to view Johnsons own political beliefs indirectly.
According to the OED, tory (or Tory) was the political faction of individuals who, in the 17th
century, were Irish Papists, Royalists, and bandits of other races like the Scottish Highlanders.

Davis 5
They were, in short, those who supported James IIIs succession to the throne because on his
religion as a Roman Catholic, and thus supported his son, Charles the III, in the Jacobite cause
("Tory, n. and adj."). On the other hand, the OED entry for whig (or Whig) describes one who
follows the Scottish Presbyterian cause in the 17th century, or generally applied to rebels to the
Royalists, and included those who opposed James IIs succession to the throne (and, by extension,
the succession of his bloodline) ("Whig, n.2 and adj."). While he carefully stays objective in his
definition of a tory and uses a rather moderate quote between the two parties by Swift in
describing a whig, the mere fact that the entry for tory clarifies the political factions purpose
and tendencies and the entry for whig does not hold equal weight indicates Johnsons preference
for Tories. Furthermore, in light of these more thorough descriptions of each parliamentary party,
Johnsons tendency to give the Tories more weight proves him sympathetic toward the Stewart
cause for the majority of his adult life. This conviction probably held firm until the Jacobite causes
demise at Culloden in 1746, only a year before Johnson announces his intention and Plan to
begin work on the Dictionary and eight years before he completes the endeavor (2941). This
historical aspect also indicates why he would have avoided including even more detail in his
descriptions of those two dictionary entries because the political atmosphere was not very kind for
those sympathetic with the rebellious cause.
Through a study of the words and definitions that Samuel Johnson provided in A Dictionary
of the English Language, it is possible to examine the way language changes, the particular biases
of an individual lexicographer, and the consideration of other biases necessary to reflect the social
milieu of the period.

Davis 6
Works Cited
"anthology, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 11 October 2014.
Johnson, Samuel. "A Dictionary of the English Language." The Norton Anthology of English
Literature. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. 9th. Vol. C. New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
2012. 2841-2843, 2930-2936. Print.
"pension, n." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 13 October 2014.
"Tory, n. and adj." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 13 October
2014.
"Whig, n.2 and adj." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 13 October
2014.