_A_ DISSERTATION _concerning the_ INFLUENCE _of_ LANGUAGE _on_ OPINIONS,
_and of_ OPINIONS _on_ LANGUAGE.[62]
[62] This title, and many of the following ideas, are
borrowed from a treatise of Mr. Michaelis, director of the
Royal Society of Gottingen.
The design of this dissertation is to show how far truth and accuracy of
thinking are concerned in a clear understanding of _words_. I am
sensible that in the eye of prejudice and ignorance, grammatical
researches are the business of school boys; and hence we may deduce the
reason why philosophers have generally been so inattentiv to this
subject. But if it can be proved that the _mere use of words_ has led
nations into error, and still continues the delusion, we cannot hesitate
a moment to conclude, that grammatical enquiries are worthy of the labor
of _men_.
The Greek name of the Supreme Being, _Theos_, is derived from _Theo, to
run, or move one's self_. Hence we discover the ideas which the Greeks
originally entertained of God, viz. that he was the _great principle of
motion_. The same word, it is said, was primarily appropriated to the
stars, as moving bodies; and it is probable that, in the early ages of
Greece, the heavenly bodies might be esteemed Deities, and denominated
_Theoi, moving bodies_ or _principles_. The Latin word _Deus_ was used
to denote those inferior beings which we call _spirits_ or _angels_, or
perhaps _one God_ among several. To giv the true idea of _Deus_ in
French and English, the word should be rendered _le Dieu, the God_. This
at least may be said of the word, in its true _original_ sense; however
it may have been used in the later ages of Rome.
The English word _God_, is merely the old Saxon adjectiv _god_, now
spelt and pronounced _good_.
The German _Gott_ is from the same root. The words _God_ and _good_
therefore are synonimous. The derivation of the word leads us to the
notions which our ancestors entertained of the Supreme Being; supposing
him to be the principle or author of good, they called him, by way of
eminence, _Good_, or _the Good_. By long use and the progress of
knowlege, the word is become the name of the great Creator, and we have
added to it ideas of other attributes, as justice, power, immutability,
&c. Had our heathen ancestors entertained different ideas of the Deity;
had they, for instance, supposed justice to have been his leading
attribute, if I may use the term, they would have called him _the just_;
and this appellation, by being uniformly appropriated to a certain
invisible being, or supposed cause of certain events, would in time have
lost the article _the_, and _just_ would have become the _name_ of the
Deity. Such is the influence of opinion in the formation of language.
Let us now compare the names of the Deity in the three languages; the
Greek, _Theos_, denoting a _moving being_, or the _principle of action_,
evinces to us that the Greeks gave the name to the _cause of events_,
without having very clear ideas of the nature or attributes of that
cause. They supposed the great operations of nature to have each its
cause; and hence the plurality of causes, _theoi_, or moving principles.
The Romans borrowed the same word, _Deus_, and used it to denote the
celestial _agents_ or _gods_ which they supposed to exist, and to
superintend the affairs of the universe.
Our northern ancestors had an idea that all favorable events must have
an efficient cause; and to this cause they gave the name of _God_ or
_good_. Hence we observe that the English and German words _God_ and
_Got_ do not convey precisely the same idea, as the _Theos_ and _Deus_
of the Greeks and Romans. The former cannot be used in the plural
number; as they are the names of a single indivisible being; the latter
were used as names common to a number of beings.
The word _Demon_, in Greek, was used to signify subordinate deities,
both good and evil. The Jews, who had more perfect ideas of the Supreme
Being, supposed there could be but one good Deity, and consequently that
all the _demons_ of the Greeks must be _evil_ beings or _devils_. In
this sense alone they used the word, and this restricted sense has been
communicated thro Christian countries in modern ages. The opinion of the
Jews, therefore, has had a material effect upon language, and would lead
us into an error respecting the Greek mythology; unless we should trace
the word _demon_ to its primitiv signification.
The word _devil_, in English, is merely a corruption of _the evil_,
occasioned by a rapid pronunciation. This will not appear improbable to
those who know, that in some of the Saxon dialects, the character which
we write _th_ is almost invariably written and pronounced _d_. Hence we
learn, the notion which our ancestors entertained of the _cause of
evil_, or of unfortunate events. They probably ascribed such events to a
malignant principle, or being, which they called, by way of eminence,
_the evil_; and these words, corrupted by common use, have given name to
the being or principle.
I would only observe here that the etymology of these two words, _God_
and _devil_, proves that the Manichean doctrine of a _good_ and _evil_
principle prevailed among our northern ancestors. It has prevailed over
most of the eastern countries in all ages, and Christianity admits the
doctrine, with this improvement only, that it supposes the _evil_
principle to be subordinate to the _good_. The supreme cause of events,
Christians believe to be _good_ or _God_, for the words are radically
the same; the _cause of evil_ they believe to be subordinate; yet,
strange as it may seem, they suppose the _subordinate evil_ principle to
be the most prevalent.
We are informed by Ludolph, that the Ethiopeans, having but one word for
_nature_ and _person_, could not understand the controversy about
Christ's two natures. This is not surprising; nations, in a savage
state, or which have not been accustomed to metaphysical disquisitions,
have no terms to communicate abstract ideas, which they never
entertained; and hence the absurdity of attempting to christianize
savages. Before men can be Christians they must be civilized; nay, they
must be philosophers. It is probable that many who are called
Christians, are in the state of the Ethiopians, with respect to the same
doctrin; and that they pass thro life, without ever having any clear
ideas of the different natures of Christ. Yet the distinction is
constantly made in words; and that distinction passes for a difference
of ideas. Such is the influence of language on opinion.
The words _soul_, _mind_ and _spirit_, are constantly used by people,
and probably the difference of words has given rise to an opinion that
there is an actual difference of things. Yet I very much question
whether the persons who use these words every day, annex any distinct
ideas to them; or if they do, whether they could explain the difference.
The Greeks believed in the doctrin of transmigration. They had observed
the metamorphosis of the caterpillar, and supposing the same soul to
animate the different bodies, and believing the soul to be perpetual or
immortal, they made the butterfly the hieroglyphic of the soul: Hence
the Greek word for soul, _psuke_, came to signify also a _butterfly_.
For want of attending to the true etymology of the word _glory_, false
opinions have gained an establishment in the world, and it may be
hazardous to dispute them. It is said that the _glory_ of God does not
depend on his creatures, and that the glory of the good man depends not
on the opinion of others. But what is glory? The Greek word _doxe_
explains it. It is derived from _dokeo, to think_; and signifies the
_good opinion of others_. This is its _true_ original meaning; a man's
glory therefore consists in having the good opinion of men, and this
cannot generally be obtained, but by meritorious actions. The _glory_ of
God consists in the exalted ideas which his creatures entertain of his
being and perfections. His _glory_ therefore depends _wholly on his
creatures_. The word is indeed often used to signify the greatness,
splendor or excellence of the divine character. In this sense the
_divine glory_ may be independent of created beings; but it is not the
primitiv sense of the word, nor the sense which answers to the original
meaning of the Greek _doxe_, and the Latin _gloria_.
No right in England and America is so much celebrated as that of _trial
by peers_; by which is commonly understood, _trial by equals_. The right
is valuable, but is not derived from the primitiv custom of _trial by
equals_; on the contrary, it is very questionable whether such a custom
existed prior to Alfred. Yet the _trial by peers_ existed long before,
and can be traced back to the date of the Christian era. The truth is,
the word _peer_ is not derived from the Latin _par_, equal; but from the
German, or Teutonic _bar_ or _par_, which signified a landholder,
freeman or judge. The _bars_ were that class of men who held the _fees_
or property in estates; and from whom the word _baron_ and the attendant
privileges are derived. We have the same root in _baron_, _baronet_,
_parliament_, _parish_, and many other words, all implying some degree
of authority, eminence or jurisdiction. From the same word _bar_ or
_par_, (for _B_ and _P_ are convertible letters) the word _peer_ is
derived, as it is used in the common expressions _house of peers_,
_trial by peers_. It signified originally, not _equals_, but _judges_ or
barons. The _house of peers_ in England derives its appellation and its
jurisdiction from the ancient mode of trial by _bars_ or barons; for it
is the final resort in all judicial cases. Yet the ancient English
lawyers, supposing the word to be from the Latin _par_, equal, have
explained it in that sense, and multiplied encomiums without end upon
the excellence of the privilege. The privilege is valuable, but its
excellence, if it consists in a _trial by equals_, is modern, compared
with the original custom, which was a _trial by barons_, or principal
landholders.
It is probable that our modern writers, misunderstanding the term
_voluptas_, have passed too severe censures upon epicures. The true
primitiv meaning of _voluptas_ was that of _pleasurable sensations_
arising from innocent gratifications. Our modern word _voluptuousness_
carries with it a much stronger idea, and hence we are led into an error
reflecting the doctrine of Epicurus, who might confine his ideas of
pleasure to innocent gratifications.
We have been accustomed from childhood to hear the expressions, _the dew
falls_; _the dews of heaven_; and it is probable that nine people out of
ten, have never suspected the inaccuracy of the phrases. But _dew_ is
merely the perspiration of the earth; it _rises_ instead of _falling_,
and rises during the night.[63]
[63] Any person may prove this by a trifling experiment. Let
him place a glass receiver or bowl over the grass in a
summer's day, and the next morning he will find as much dew
_under_ it as around it.
The truth is this; the particles of water are constantly
exhaled from the earth by the heat of the sun. During the day
time, these particles ascend in an imperceptible manner, and
furnish the atmosphere with the materials of clouds and rain.
But in the night, the atmosphere grows cool, while the earth,
retaining a superior degree of heat, continues to throw off
the particles of water. These particles, meeting the colder
atmosphere, are condensed, and lodge upon the surface of the
earth, grass, trees and other objects. So that the
expression, _the dew falls_, is in a degree true, altho it
_first rises_ from the earth.
It was also supposed that _manna_ in the eastern countries, came from
above, and it is called in scripture _bread from heaven_. Yet _manna_ is
a gum, exuding from plants, trees and bushes, when pierced by certain
insects. The truth of this fact was not discovered, till the middle of
the sixteenth century.
Every man knows, when the prices of goods rise, it is said they become
_dear_; yet when the prices rise in consequence of an overflowing sum of
money in circulation, the fact is that the _value of money falls_, and
the value of goods remains the same. This erroneous opinion had an
amazing effect in raising popular clamor, at the commencement of the
late revolution.
I will name but one other instance, which has a material influence upon
our moral and religious opinions. It is said in scripture that _God
hardened Pharaoh's heart_. How? Was there a miracle in the case? By no
means. The manner of speaking leads us into the mistake. The first cause
is mentioned, and not the intermediate cause or causes. So we should
say, that _General Washington attacked the British troops at Monmouth_;
altho he was at a great distance when the attack was commenced, and only
_ordered_ the attack. I suspect that similar modes of speaking in
scripture often lead superficial minds into mistakes, and in some
instances, giv occasion to infidels to scoff at passages, which, if
rightly understood, would silence all objections.
This is a fruitful theme, and would lead an ingenious inquirer into a
wide field of investigation. But I have neither time nor talents to do
it justice; the few hints here suggested may have some effect in
convincing my readers of the importance and utility of all candid
researches into the origin and structure of speech; and pave the way for
further investigations, which may assist us in correcting our ideas and
ascertaining the force and beauty of our own language.
No. XIX.