I do not remember to have remarked that any writer notices how uniformly,
in almost all languages, the same primary idea has been attached to the
eye. This universal consent is the more remarkable, inasmuch as the
connexion in question, though of course most appropriate and significant in
itself, hardly seems to indicate the most prominent characteristic, or what
we should deem to be _par excellence_ the obvious qualities of the eye; in
a word, we should scarcely expect a term derived from a physical attribute
or property.
The eye is suggestive of life, of divinity, of intellect, piercing
acuteness (_acies_); and again, of truth, of joy, of love: but these seem
to have been disregarded, as being mere indistinctive accidents, and the
primary idea which, by the common consent of almost all nations, has been
thought most properly to symbolise this organ is a spring--_fons_, [Greek:
pege].
Thus, from [Hebrew: `IYN], _manare, scatere_, a word not in use, according
to Fuerst, we have the Hebrew [Hebrew: `AYIN], _fons aquarum et
lacrimarum_, h. e. _oculus_. This word however, in its simple form, seems
to have almost lost its primary signification, being used most generally in
its secondary--_oculus_. (Old Testament Hebrew version, _passim_.) In the
sense of _fons_, its derivative [Hebrew: MA`YAN] is usually substituted.
Precisely the same connexion of ideas is to be found in the Syriac, the
Ethiopic, and the Arabic.
Again, in the Greek we find the rarely-used word [Greek: ope], a fountain,
or more properly the _eye_, whence it wells out,--the same form as [Greek:
ope], _oculus_; [Greek: ops, opsis, optomai]. Thus, in St. James his
Epistle, cap. iii. 11.: [Greek: meti he pege ek tes autes opes bruei to
gluku kai to pikron].
In the Welsh, likewise, a parallel case occurs: _Llygad_, an eye, signifies
also the spring from which water flows, as in the same passage of St.
James: _a ydyw ffynnon o'r un llygad_ (from one spring or eye) _yn rhoi
dwfr melus a chwerw?_
On arriving at the Teutonic or old German tongue, we find the same
connexion still existing: _Avg_, _auga_,--_oculus_; whence _ougen
ostendere_--Gothis _augo_; and _awe, auge, ave, campus ad {26} amnem_.
(Vid. Schilteri, _Thes._, vol. iii. _ad voc._) And here we cannot help
noticing the similarity between these words and the Hebrew [Hebrew: Y'OR],
which (as well as the Coptic _iaro_) means primarily a river or stream from
a spring; but, according to Professor Lee, is allied to [Hebrew: 'WOR],
light, the enlightenment of the mind, the opening of the eyes; and he adds,
"the application of the term to water, as _running, translucid_, &c., is
easy." Here, then, is a similar connexion of ideas with a change in the
metaphor.
In the dialects which descended from the Teutonic in the Saxon branch, the
connexion between these two distinct objects is also singularly preserved.
It is to be found in the Low German, the Friesic, and the Anglo-Saxon. In
the latter we have _ea_, _eah_, _eagor_, a welling, flowing stream; _eah_,
_aegh_, _eage_, an eye, which might be abundantly illustrated.
We could hardly fail to find in Shakspeare some allusion to these connected
images in the old tongue; no speck of beauty could exist and escape his
ken. Thus:
"In that respect, too, like a loving child,
Shed yet some small drops from thy tender spring,
Because kind Nature doth require it so."
_Tit. And._, Act V. Sc. 3.
"Back, foolish tears, back to your native spring;
Your tributary drops belong to woe,
Which you, mistaking, offer up for joy."
_Rom. and Jul._, Act III. Sc. 2.
Many of the phrases of the ancient tongues, in which the eye bears a part,
have been handed down to us, and are still preserved in our own. My space,
however, forbids me to do more than allude to them; but there is one very
forcible expression in the Hebrew [Hebrew: `AYIN B`AYIN], literally, eye in
eye, which we render much less forcibly--face to face. The Welsh have
preserved it exactly in their _llygad yn llygad_. Indeed, this is not the
only instance in which they are proud of having handed down the Hebrew
idiom in all its purity. Shakspeare twice uses the old phrase:
"Since then my office hath so far prevailed,
That face to face, and royal eye to eye,
You have congreeted."--_Hen. V._, Act V. Sc. 2.
And in _Tro. and Cres._, Act III. Sc. 3; but it appears now to be obsolete.
Before concluding, I cannot help noticing, in connexion with this subject,
the Old English term "the apple of the eye." I am unable to trace it beyond
the Anglo-Saxon. The Teutonic _sehandes ougen_, _pupilla oculi_, is totally
distinct; _seha_ being merely _medius punctus oculi_, whence _sehan_,
_videre_. In the Semitic languages, as well as in the Greek and Latin, the
origin of the term is the same, and gives no clue to the meaning of the
Saxon term. Thus, in the Hebrew [Hebrew: 'IYSHWON], dim. of [Hebrew:
'IYSH], _homunculus_, the small image of a person seen in the eye. In
Arabic it is the _man_ or _daughter of the eye_. In Greek we have [Greek:
kore, korasion, korasidon]; and in Latin, _pupa, pupula, pupilla_.
Has any light been thrown on the Anglo-Saxon term? Can it be that _iris_,
not the pupil, is taken to represent an apple? The pupil itself would then
be the eye of the apple of the eye.