3. ART (_or Expression_). 3. CONATION (or Will and Desire).
2. SCIENCE. 2. KNOWING.
1. NATURE (_or Impression_). 1. FEELING (_or Affection_).
The point of present importance in the use of these discriminations is
to make clear to the mind of the reader what perhaps is sufficiently
implied in the very terms themselves, namely: that _Impression_ and
_Expression_ are correlative to, and, in a sense, exactly reflect each
other; that the totality of _Impression_, or the Universe which enters
the mind through the senses, is repeated--with a modification, it is
true, but still with traceable identity, or with a definite and unbroken
relationship--in the totality of _Expression_, or in the Universe of
Art, taken as the entirety of what man does or creates. It is by the
mediation of Science or Knowledge, that one of these worlds is converted
into the other. Nature or _Impression_ is the aggregate of the Rays of
Incidence falling upon a mirror; Science is the Reflecting Mirror; and
Art or Human Performance is the aggregate of the Reflected Rays, whose
angles can be exactly calculated by the knowledge of the angle of
incidence. Science or Knowledge is not only the mirror which makes the
Reflection, but it is the plane or level which is to furnish us the
means of adjusting the angles; of knowing their correspondence or
relation to each other; and of translating the one into the other.
Science must, therefore, as it develops, be the instrument of informing
us of the exact analogy between Nature and Art; and must enable us so to
apply the Laws of Nature, or the Laws of God as exhibited in Nature,
that they shall become a perfect canon of life and action, in all our
attempted performances and constructions, whatsoever they may be; or,
_vice versa_, it must enable us from the knowledge of the laws of our
own actions to reveal the secrets of Nature, and to know, by the
analogy, in what manner she acts. It will then perhaps be found that the
Moral Code, as dictated by inspiration, is only the forecast, through
that method, of what is destined to be more perfectly revealed to the
intellect, when the veil is rent by the millennial perfection of man.
It will be perceived by the reader that the term Art is here employed in
a larger than its usual sense, although the analogy in question has a
special intensification when we confine the term to mean, as it
ordinarily does, the _choicest performances_ of man. The term Science
has also a larger and a smaller extension. In the larger sense it means
the totality of knowledge _extracted from Impression_ or the observation
of Nature, and distinguished _from mere Impression_ or Nature on the one
hand, and from _Expression_, Action, Performance, or Art--the
reprojection of the knowledge into new forms of being--on the other
hand. In the more restricted sense, Science means systematized
knowledge, or, still more specifically, the Body of Principles or Laws
in accordance with which knowledge becomes systematized in the mind.
The larger and the smaller Art-Performances of Humanity--first, all the
Work or Product of the Creative Power of Man; and, secondly, Grand and
Fine Art, as the Choice Product of that faculty--are again epitomized in
LANGUAGE or SPEECH. This last is the Sense-Bearing
Product of the Lips and Coöperative Organs, put representatively for the
product of the hands and of all the other instrumentalities of action.
_It is in this representative sense that_ LANGUAGE _is
preëminently and distinctively denominated_ EXPRESSION. But, as
we have seen, _Expression_ is the Equivalent and exact Reflect of
_Impression_; Art, of Nature; through the mediation of Science, meaning
thereby the Laws of Knowing. _These Laws of Knowing thus hold an exact
relation to the Laws of Doing_; or, in other words, _Scientific Laws to
Creative and Vital Laws_, which last are the Laws of Administration,
human and divine. _As an epitome or miniature, then, the Laws of
Language must be an exact reproduction of the Laws of the Universe._
Language itself, in other words, must be an epitome or miniature image,
in all its perfection, of the Universe at large; as the image formed
upon the retina of the eye, though infinitely small in the comparison,
is an exact epitome or image, inversely, of the external world presented
to the vision.
Let the reader guard himself well against supposing that what is here
meant is the mere commonplace truth that Language is the equivalent of
our _Impression_ of the Universe, in the fact that we can, through the
medium of Language, describe, and in that sense _express_, what we think
and feel of and about the Universe. What is here intended is something
far more recondite than this superficial relation between Speech,
Thought, and the World thought _about_. It is this--That, in the
Phenomena, the Laws, and the Indications of the Structure of
Language--considered as a fabric, or Word-World--_there is an exact
image or reproduction, in a miniature way, of the Phenomena, the Laws,
and the Indications of the entire Universe; in so definite and traceable
a manner as to furnish to us, when the analogy is understood, a complete
model and illustration of the Science of the Universe as a whole_.
If this be true, the immense importance of the discovery can hardly be
over-estimated. We are furnished by means of it with a simple object,
of manageable dimensions, as the subject of our direct investigations;
which, when mastered, will, by reflection, and a definite law of
relation and proportion, enable us to master the Plan of the Universe;
and so to constitute a one Science out of the many Sciences by
recognizing the Domains which they cover as parts of a larger domain,
which is equivalent to the whole.
Holding fast, then, to this thought, let us proceed to the endeavor so
to distribute the totality of the aspects of Language as to exhaust the
subject; and, by a concurrent projection of the analogies into the
larger domain of the Universe as a whole, to establish a valid
scientific _nexus_ between the minor and the major spheres of our
investigation.
First recurring to the preceding table, and translating the Abstract
Conceptions, NATURE, SCIENCE, and ART, into their
Concrete Equivalents or Analogies, they will stand thus:
_Abstract._ _Concrete._
3. ART. 3. HUMAN PRODUCTION. (Art Creation.)
2. SCIENCE. 2. MAN.
1. NATURE. 1. THE WORLD. (The Natural Universe.)
This is to say, that the World or the Natural Universe is put for the
Natural Impression which it makes of itself on the mind of the knowing
subject; that the Knowing Subject is put in the place of Knowledge; and
that the Product of Activity--the Thing Created--is put for the Activity
itself or the Act of Creation.
It is clear enough that this distribution is exhaustive, thus: 1. The
World, including, in a sense, all things; but here contrasted with, and
in that sense _excluding_, two of its own minor domains; 2. Man,
including Spirit, and God, in so far as human (not seeking to compass or
bring within our scientific classification whatsoever is divine in a
sense absolutely supernatural or transcending the Universe as such); 3.
The Collective or Aggregate Product of Human Activity; including,
especially, as norm or sample, Grand and Fine Art, the Choice Product of
Human Activity; and, in a _more_ especial sense, Language, as the
Special or Typical EXPRESSION, which exactly counterparts and
represents the totality of IMPRESSION made by _Primitive_
Nature or The World, upon Man or the Human Mind.
Nature has again, therefore, like both Science and Art, as shown above,
a double significance, in the former and larger of which it includes and
covers or envelops the two other departments of Being; in the latter and
smaller of which it excludes them, and makes Nature, or the World, to
stand over against them, as that which is to be compared with Man and
the Product of the Labor of Man; and in an especial sense with that
particular product called Speech. The easy transition from the minor to
the larger conception of Nature or the World is what renders Language a
type, not only of the Universe as distinguished from Man and the Product
of his Activity, _but equally a type of the Universe in that larger
sense in which it embraces them both_.
Hence the two terms of our comparison are: 1. LANGUAGE, as the
miniature and image of the whole, with, 2. The World or Universe, in
that larger sense in which it _is_ the whole, and, as such, includes
Language and all else.
Observe, in the next place, that Art, whether in the larger or in the
smaller sense which we have assigned to it, is the Product of the
Combination and Blending of Science with Nature (reflective knowledge
with natural impression); or, speaking in the concrete, of the
conjunction of man with the outside world; man as the Agent or Actor,
and the World or Nature as the Object wrought upon.
In the production of Speech, the _phonos_ or mere sound is the natural,
unwrought material, which corresponds with the Reality of Nature; and
the Meaning or Minding which acts on, articulates and organizes the
Sound into Speech, and which _measures_ the sound quantitatively, as in
Music, is the Scientific Attribute corresponding with Knowledge. The
result of these two in combination is the Art of Speech, generally, and
Improvisation or Song as the Fine Art of this Lingual Domain.
But passing from the Abstract to the Concrete Domain, Unwrought Natural
Sound, bearing its proportion of meaning, furnishes the great basic
department of language, which, for the reason that it is basic, is
usually regarded as the whole of language, namely, ORAL SPEECH,
or SPEECH LANGUAGE, as distinguished from MUSIC AND
SONG.
Music, on the other hand, is _wrought_ or _measured_ Sound, bearing also
its proportion of meaning; a superior language, corresponding with
_Science_, from its relation to _measure_, to _numbers_, to _fixed
laws_; as Oral Speech corresponds, in its freedom and unconstraint, with
Nature.
Music and Oral Language united or married to each other constitute
SONG, which is then the analogue or type, or Nature's
hieroglyph, in this Domain, of Art.
We say instinctively the _Art_ of Speech; the _Science_ of Music, and
the Art of Singing. In the first instance, Art is used for Natural
Performance or Nature; but the whole of speech falling within the domain
of art or performance, its lowest or natural division still has some
claim to the distinction of an art. The first step of this series,
Nature, and the third step, Art, repeat each other by overstepping the
second, which is Science, as _Do_ is accordant with _Mi_, but
disharmonic with _Re_. It is, therefore, from the instinctual perception
of this harmony, that Oral Speech, the basis of Language, the true
Nature-department of Language, is still denominated the _Art_ of Speech.
Adhering, however, to the Concrete Domain, and seeking our analogies
there, oral speech, a Concrete Thing, does not directly correspond with
Nature, an Abstract Conception, but with The World, a concrete thing;
nor does Music, a Concrete Thing, correspond with Science, an Abstract
Conception, but with Man (the Mind-being, Knowledge-being, the
Science-being), a concrete thing; nor, again, does Song, a Concrete
Thing, correspond with Art, an Abstract Conception, but with Human
Product or Doing, a concrete thing. Song is again but the lowest and
simple expression for that combination of Music and Oral Expression,
aided by Action, to which the Italians, full of instinct for Art, have
given the name OPERA, THE WORK _par excellence_, the
culmination of Art in Movement and Sound. This word, from the Latin,
_opus, operari_, work, to work, connects in idea with the Greek [Greek:
poiheô], and the whole with Action and Art. This last relationship
accounts beautifully for the fact that the words _poetry_, _poesy_, and
_poet_ should be derived from the Greek word [Greek: poiheô], which
signifies simply TO DO.
The first threefold division of Language and of The Universe, both
brought into a parallelism in the Concrete--the three ascending Stories
of each Edifice, so to speak, when compared with each other--appear then
as shown in the table below:
_Language._ _The Universe._
3. SONG. 3. HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT.
2. MUSIC. 2. MAN.
1. ORAL SPEECH. 1. THE WORLD.
Oral Speech is the agglomerism of Sound, conceived of as roundish or _in
the lump_, as an undifferentiated Oneness or mass; and, when wholly
unarticulated, it is the _Bawl_, a mere orthographical variation of
_Ball_; that is to say, it is, to the imagination, Globe-shaped, or
_World_-shaped. It is the concrete or massive world of Language or
Speech.
Music is the _Strain_ or the Abstractism of Sound. _To strain_ means
TO DRAW. _Ab-stract_ is from the Latin _ab_, FROM, and
_strahere_, TO DRAW. The idea is not here _roundish_, as in the
other case, but _elongate_; sound made into a _strain_, a _cord_, or a
_string_, equivalent to a _line_, which is the subject of
_measure_-ment, by _notes_ (or points) and _intervals_. The line, with
its _twoness_ of determination and extremity, has a relation to the
number TWO, like that which the _ball_ or _globe_ has to the
number ONE. The _line_ is at the same time the type of The
Abstract, the Domain of Science, and hence of Science, and of
_Knowledge_, and again, in the concrete, of _Man_, the
_Knowledge-being_. The _ball_ (bawl) is at the same time the type of The
Concrete (_con_, WITH, _crescere_, TO GROW; THE GROWN
TOGETHER, or AGGLOMERATE-world), and hence of Nature, and
again _in_ The Concrete, of The World, as contrasted with Man.
Song is the _measure of the strain_ and the _mingle of the bawl_ again
commingled with each other, in a composite blending of _The Measured_
and _The Free_. As the Composity of that which has for its numerical
type Two, with that which has for its numerical type One, the proper
numerical type of Song is Three; or thus:
_Language._ _Number._
3. Song, THREE.
2. Music, TWO.
1. Oral Speech, ONE.
These numerical analogues can only be adverted to here, and their
meaning may not be very distinctly perceived. Their full exposition and
that of their immense importance as principles and guides in the domain
of analogy must be treated of elsewhere.
Rhythm is the _measure_ of the _strain_. Music is the _mingled measure_
of _many strains_. Song is the higher mingling of _music_ with the
_bawl_ (the phonos, or the material of Oral Speech).
_Measure_ is the analogue of _Science_, and hence Music is another such
analogue. _Men_-s, MIND, and _men_-sura, MEASURE, are
etymologically cognate words; so the English words MEAN-ing,
THE MIND _that is in a thing_, and MEAN, the average
or measure, or the dia-_meter_, or through-_measure_ of a thing. Again,
the concrete analogue of Science (_Knowledge_, _Mind_, _The Abstract,_
etc.) is, as we have seen, Man. MEN-s, MAN,
_hu_-MAN-us, are again, probably, etymologically cognate to
_homo_, _hominis_, _hoc men_-s, as _hodie_ is to _hoc_ or _hæc dies_.
The Line or Cord is the instrument of _measuring_, and as such is again
the type of Science, as the Ball or Globe is the type of Nature; the
Line, the type of _strictness_, _straightness_, _stretchedness_,
_exactness_; and the lump or aggregative form, that of Freedom from
Constraint, Solution, as of the water-drop, and of Absolute-ness (_ab_,
FROM, and _solvere_, TO FREE). THE RELATIVE
repeats THE ABSTRACT; and THE ABSOLUTE, in Philosophy,
repeats THE CONCRETE. The Relative has for its type _Two_, or
_di-termination_ (_dis_ or _di_, _Two_, and _termini_, ENDS);
and the Absolute has for its type _One_, [Greek: to hen] of the Greeks.
EXISTENCE, embodying The Absolute _and_ The Relative; the _one_
and the _two_; has for its type Three; and the all-sided aspect of
Universal Being which distinguishes and yet combines these _three_
aspects of Being, is TRI-UNITY, OR THE THREE IN ONE.
The Trinism, or third story of ascension in the constitution of things,
again divides into Two Branches, the first of which accords with Duism
(_music_, _line_, _science_, _mind_, _man_), and the second with Unism
(_oral speech_, _globe_, _nature_, _world_).
In respect to Language, the division here made distributes Song (as the
higher type, including all music) into two great departments; as, 1.
COMPOSITION, and 2. PERFORMANCE, or _the Song_as a
_Thing_, and _Singing_ as an _Act_. Song as a whole is the analogue in
language of the totality of _Human Achievement_, in the distribution of
the total Universe, as shown above. The same division applied here
distinguishes the _permanent product_ of human activity, the book or the
statue, from the performance of man--the action of the author or
sculptor. It is the distinction of the Latins between 1. _Res_, and 2.
_Res gestæ_.
Dismissing for the present the higher domain of Language, which is Song,
we reduce the scope of investigation to the lower and middle divisions,
namely: 1. To Oral Speech, and 2. To Music; and, in the distribution of
the Universe at large, to the corresponding lower and middle divisions,
namely: 1. The World (Nature), and 2. Man (Mind).
Oral Speech, the Nature-department of language, separates,
grammatically, into two grand Subdivisions, as follows: 1. Analysis, The
Elements of Language, namely, The Alphabetic and Syllabic distribution
of Language, culminating in Word-Building;--The Word in Language being
THE INDIVIDUAL in that Domain; and, 2. Synthesis, Construction,
the Grammatical Domain proper, including the Parts of Speech and their
Syntax, or their _putting together_ in a Structure or Lingual
Construction.
The first of these is the Domain of the Elementality of Language, and
corresponds with and illustrates what Kant denominates QUALITY;
as the name of one of the groups of three in his table of the twelve
Categories of the Understanding. This group of Quality includes 1.
AFFIRMATION; 2. NEGATION; and 3. LIMITATION.
By Affirmation is meant the Positive Element or Factor of Being; by
Negation, the Negative Element; and by Limitation is meant the
Articulation, that is to say, the _jointing_ or _joining_ of the
Positive and Negative Elements, in a _seam_ or _ridge_, which is the
_existential_ reality, arising from the positive (quasi-negative) and
the negative grounds of Being.
The Positive Element or Factor of Oral Speech, the Absolute Reality or
'Affirmation' of Language, is Vocal Utterance, or, specifically, the
kind of Sound called VOWEL.
The Negative Element or Factor of Oral Speech, the 'Negation' of Kant,
as illustrated in the Speech Domain, is SILENCE; the Silences
or Intervals of Rest which intervene between Sounds (and, by repetition,
between Syllables, Words, Sentences, and the still larger divisions of
Speech).
The Limitational Element of Oral Speech is CONSONANTISM, or,
specifically, the Consonant Sounds, which for that reason are otherwise
denominated Articulations, or _jointings_; as they are the breaks of the
otherwise continuous vocal utterance of Vowel Sound, and, at the same
time, the joinings between the fragments of Vowel Sound, namely, the
Vowels, and the surrounding and intervening medium of Silence. The
Consonants thus become, in a sense, the Bony Structure, or Skeleton of
Speech, the most prominent part, that which furnishes the fossil remains
of Language, which are investigated by the Comparative Philologists.
Sound, the Positive Element or Factor, the Affirmation, the Eternal Yea,
the Absolute _Reality_, is the SOMETHING of Speech.
Silence, the Negative Element or Factor, the Negation, the Eternal Nay,
the Absolute Unreality, is the NOTHING of Speech.
Articulate Sound, the Resultant Element, the _Limitation_ or
Articulation, the Eternal Transition, the Arriving and Departing, is the
EXISTENTIAL REALITY, which comes up between and out of the
Absolute Vocality (quasi-negative), and the Absolute Silence.
But the Vowel Absolute, the continuous, unbroken, unarticulated,
undifferentiated, monotonous Vowel-Sound, would be precisely equivalent
to Silence. This, then, illustrates the famous fundamental aphorism of
the Philosophy of Hegel: SOMETHING = (equal to)
NOTHING; and the seemingly absurd Hegelian affirmation that the
_real Something_ is the resultant of the conjunction of two Nothings.
What Kant denominates Quality, would be, for some uses, better
denominated Elementism or Elementality, and the Domain in which this
principle dominates might then be called the Elementismus of such larger
Domain as may be under consideration. Thus the Elementismus (or
Elementary Domain) of Language would include _Sounds_, or _the
Alphabet_, _Syllables_, and _Root-Words_. These are three _powers_ or
gradations of the Roots of Language. This same domain might therefore be
called the Radicismus or Root-Domain of Language. Typically, one-letter,
two-letter, and three-letter roots, again, represent these three powers.
The Elementismus or Radicismus of the Universe, correspondential with
that of Language, consists of the Metaphysical, the Scientific, and the
Descriptive Principles of Being. The parallelism is exhibited throughout
in the following table:
_Language_. _Universe_.
_3d Power_. ROOT-WORDS 3. DESCRIPTIVE GENERALIZATIONS.
(Three-letter Syllables). (Averages).
_2d Power_. SYLLABLES 2. SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.
(Two-letter Syllables). (Force, Attraction, etc.)
{3. ARTICULATIONS. {3. CATEGORIES.
_1st Power_. THE ALPHABET {2. SILENCE. 1. METAPHYSICAL PRINCIPLES. {2. NOTHING.
(One-letter Syllables). {1. SOUND. {1. SOMETHING.
It results from this table that the deep Metaphysical Domain, wherein
Aristotle and Kant were laboring to categorize the Universe, is the
Alphabetic Domain of Universal Being; and that their profound effort
was, so to speak, to discover The Alphabet of the Universe. It also
appears that the Syllabarium of the Universe, and typically the open
two-letter syllables of Language, as _bi, be, ba_, correspond as
analogues with the Physical Principles which lie at the basis of the
Sciences; and finally, that the completed Root-Words, typically the
closed three-letter syllables, or usual monosyllabic root-words, as
_min, men, man_, correspond with the descriptive generalizations or
general averages of Natural Science, as _Universe itself, Matter, Mind,
Movement_, etc.
These analogies need further elaboration and confirmation to render them
perfectly clear and to establish them beyond cavil--such as space here
does not admit of. Let us hurry on, therefore, to the _Relational_ or
Constructive Domains of Language and the Universe, where the analogies
are more obvious.
The second of Kant's groups of Categories, in the order in which it is
most appropriate now to consider them, he denominates RELATION.
Relation is _that which intervenes between the_ PARTS _of a_
WHOLE.
_Prepositions_ are especially defined in Grammar as words denoting
_relations_. Our attention is thus turned in the Domain of Language to
the _Parts_ of Speech; and to the Syntax (putting together), or
Construction of these Parts into the wholeness of Discourse. This is
more specifically the Department of Grammar. Conjointly these are what
may be denominated the Relationismus of Language. This is the Domain
immediately above the Elementismus. In the same way the division of the
human body or any other object into Parts, Limbs, Members, etc., and the
recombination of these into a structural whole, arises in the scale of
creation above the Domain of Elements (Ultimate, Proximate, Chemical,
etc.), this last embracing only the _qualitative_ nature of the
_substances_ entering into the structure. In the Universe at large,
therefore, this Relational Domain is that in which we shall find Things,
Properties, Actions, and, specifically, the Relations between such, and
their Combinations into Structures and Departments, Branches, or Limbs
of Being, and finally into the total Universe itself, which is the
analogue of the totality of Language.
Relation has a threefold aspect: first, in respect to Space; second, in
respect to Time; and third, in respect to _Instance_ or Present Being,
the conjunction of the _Here_ and the _Now_.
The first of these aspects subdivides into what Kant denominates, 1.
SUBSTANCE, and 2. INHERENCE.
The second of these aspects subdivides into what Kant denominates, 1.
CAUSE, and 2. DEPENDENCE.
The third of these aspects of Relation Kant sums up in the term
RECIPROCAL ACTION.
Commencing with the first of these three subdivisions of Relation, and
making our application within the Domain of Language, it is obvious that
it refers to the Substantive and Adjective region of Grammar; Substance
relating to Substantives, and Inherence (or Attributes) to Adjectives;
or otherwise stated, thus:
SUBSTANTIVES = THINGS (= Substance.--_Kant_).
ADJECTIVES = PROPERTIES (= Inherence.--_Kant_).
The one Thing inclusive of all minor Things is the Universe. The
Universe as Thing, or the concrete domain of Being, subdivides into the
world of Things proper as distinguished from the Personal world, or the
Human world or Man. This first division of the _substantive_ Universe
corresponds with the first grand grammatical division of Nouns
Substantive into 1. Common Nouns Substantive, and 2. Proper Nouns
Substantive.
Common Nouns Substantive correspond with Things proper, not aspiring to
the rank of Personality; Things put in contrast with Persons; Things in
that sense in which we speak of a person derogatorily as _a mere thing_;
hence, _common_ or _ordinary_, and as a common, undistinguished herd of
objects, only named and discriminated by the class-name of the class of
objects to which they belong.
Proper Nouns Substantive are the individual and distinctive names of
Men, Women, and Children. Hence they belong to and correspond with the
domain of Personality, or to that of Man as against the world of mere
Things. Some objects, lower in the scale of Being than man, are treated
with that respect and consideration which ordinarily attach to Human
Beings, and are then dignified by applying to them Proper Names. These
are especially the Domestic Animals immediately associated with man;
Mountains, Rivers, Lakes, etc. Restated, this discrimination is as
follows: