Essays On Education And Kindred Subjects (Fiscle Part- 11), Herbert Spencer [historical books to read .txt] 📗
- Author: Herbert Spencer
Book online «Essays On Education And Kindred Subjects (Fiscle Part- 11), Herbert Spencer [historical books to read .txt] 📗». Author Herbert Spencer
Regulations Made By Him, And The Regulations Handed Down From The Old
God-Kings, Who Were Rendered Ever More Sacred By Time And The
Accumulation Of Myths. Hence Came Respectively, Law And Morality: The
One Growing Ever More Concrete, The Other More Abstract; The Authority
Of The One Ever On The Decrease, That Of The Other Ever On The Increase;
Originally The Same, But Now Placed Daily In More Marked Antagonism.
Simultaneously There Has Been Going On A Separation Of The Institutions
Administering These Two Codes Of Conduct. While They Were Yet One, Of
Course Church And State Were One: The King Was Arch-Priest, Not
Nominally, But Really--Alike The Giver Of New Commands And The Chief
Interpreter Of The Old Commands; And The Deputy-Priests Coming Out Of
His Family Were Thus Simply Expounders Of The Dictates Of Their
Ancestry: At First As Recollected, And Afterwards As Ascertained By
Professed Interviews With Them. This Union--Which Still Existed
Practically During The Middle Ages, When The Authority Of Kings Was
Mixed Up With The Authority Of The Pope, When There Were Bishop-Rulers
Having All The Powers Of Feudal Lords, And When Priests Punished By
Penances--Has Been, Step By Step, Becoming Less Close. Though Monarchs
Are Still "Defenders Of The Faith," And Ecclesiastical Chiefs, They Are
But Nominally Such. Though Bishops Still Have Civil Power, It Is Not
What They Once Had. Protestantism Shook Loose The Bonds Of Union;
Dissent Has Long Been Busy In Organising A Mechanism For The Exercise Of
Part 2 Chapter 2 (On Manners And Fashion) Pg 84Religious Control, Wholly Independent Of Law; In America, A Separate
Organisation For That Purpose Already Exists; And If Anything Is To Be
Hoped From The Anti-State-Church Association--Or, As It Has Been Newly
Named, "The Society For The Liberation Of Religion From State Patronage
And Control"--We Shall Presently Have A Separate Organisation Here Also.
Thus Alike In Authority, In Essence, And In Form, Political And
Spiritual Rule Have Been Ever More Widely Diverging From The Same Root.
That Increasing Division Of Labour Which Marks The Progress Of Society
In Other Things, Marks It Also In This Separation Of Government Into
Civil And Religious; And If We Observe How The Morality Which Forms The
Substance Of Religions In General, Is Beginning To Be Purified From The
Associated Creeds, We May Anticipate That This Division Will Be
Ultimately Carried Much Further.
Passing Now To The Third Species Of Control--That Of Manners--We Shall
Find That This, Too, While It Had A Common Genesis With The Others, Has
Gradually Come To Have A Distinct Sphere And A Special Embodiment. Among
Early Aggregations Of Men Before Yet Social Observances Existed, The
Sole Forms Of Courtesy Known Were The Signs Of Submission To The Strong
Man; As The Sole Law Was His Will, And The Sole Religion The Awe Of His
Supposed Supernaturalness. Originally, Ceremonies Were Modes Of
Behaviour To The God-King. Our Commonest Titles Have Been Derived From
His Names. And All Salutations Were Primarily Worship Paid To Him. Let
Us Trace Out These Truths In Detail, Beginning With Titles.
The Fact Already Noticed, That The Names Of Early Kings Among Divers
Races Are Formed By The Addition Of Certain Syllables To The Names Of
Their Gods--Which Certain Syllables, Like Our _Mac_ And _Fitz_, Probably
Mean "Son Of," Or "Descended From"--At Once Gives Meaning To The Term
_Father_ As A Divine Title. And When We Read, In Selden, That "The
Composition Out Of These Names Of Deities Was Not Only Proper To Kings:
Their Grandes And More Honourable Subjects" (No Doubt Members Of The
Royal Race) "Had Sometimes The Like;" We See How The Term _Father_,
Properly Used By These Also, And By Their Multiplying Descendants, Came
To Be A Title Used By The People In General. And It Is Significant As
Bearing On This Point, That Among The Most Barbarous Nation In Europe,
Where Belief In The Divine Nature Of The Ruler Still Lingers, _Father_
In This Higher Sense Is Still A Regal Distinction. When, Again, We
Remember How The Divinity At First Ascribed To Kings Was Not A
Complimentary Fiction But A Supposed Fact; And How, Further, Under The
Fetish Philosophy The Celestial Bodies Are Believed To Be Personages Who
Once Lived Among Men; We See That The Appellations Of Oriental Rulers,
"Brother To The Sun," Etc., Were Probably Once Expressive Of A Genuine
Belief; And Have Simply, Like Many Other Things, Continued In Use After
All Meaning Has Gone Out Of Them. We Way Infer, Too, That The Titles,
God, Lord, Divinity, Were Given To Primitive Rulers Literally--That The
_Nostra Divinitas_ Applied To The Roman Emperors, And The Various Sacred
Designations That Have Been Borne By Monarchs, Down To The Still Extant
Phrase, "Our Lord The King," Are The Dead And Dying Forms Of What Were
Once Living Facts. From These Names, God, Father, Lord, Divinity,
Originally Belonging To The God-King, And Afterwards To God And The
King, The Derivation Of Our Commonest Titles Of Respect Is Clearly
Traceable.
There Is Reason To Think That These Titles Were Originally Proper Names.
Not Only Do We See Among The Egyptians, Where Pharaoh Was Synonymous
With King, And Among The Romans, Where To Be Cæsar Meant To Be Emperor,
That The Proper Names Of The Greatest Men Were Transferred To Their
Successors, And So Became Class Names; But In The Scandinavian Mythology
We May Trace A Human Title Of Honour Up To The Proper Name Of A Divine
Personage. In Anglo-Saxon _Bealdor_, Or _Baldor_, Means _Lord_; And
Balder Is The Name Of The Favourite Of Odin's Sons--The Gods Who With
Him Constitute The Teutonic Pantheon. How These Names Of Honour Became
General Is Easily Understood. The Relatives Of The Primitive Kings--The
Grandees Described By Selden As Having Names Formed On Those Of The
Gods, And Shown By This To Be Members Of The Divine Race--Necessarily
Shared In The Epithets, Such As _Lord_, Descriptive Of Superhuman
Relationships And Nature. Their Ever-Multiplying Offspring Inheriting
These, Gradually Rendered Them Comparatively Common. And Then They Came
To Be Applied To Every Man Of Power: Partly From The Fact That, In These
Early Days When Men Conceived Divinity Simply As A Stronger Kind Of
Humanity, Great Persons Could Be Called By Divine Epithets With But
Little Exaggeration; Partly From The Fact That The Unusually Potent Were
Apt To Be Considered As Unrecognised Or Illegitimate Descendants Of "The
Strong, The Destroyer, The Powerful One;" And Partly, Also, From
Compliment And The Desire To Propitiate.
Progressively As Superstition Diminished, This Last Became The Sole
Cause. And If We Remember That It Is The Nature Of Compliment, As We
Daily Hear It, To Attribute More Than Is Due--That In The Constantly
Widening Application Of "Esquire," In The Perpetual Repetition Of "Your
Honour" By The Fawning Irishman, And In The Use Of The Name "Gentleman"
To Any Coalheaver Or Dustman By The Lower Classes Of London, We Have
Current Examples Of The Depreciation Of Titles Consequent On
Compliment--And That In Barbarous Times, When The Wish To Propitiate Was
Stronger Than Now, This Effect Must Have Been Greater; We Shall See That
There Naturally Arose An Extensive Misuse Of All Early Distinctions.
Hence The Facts, That The Jews Called Herod A God; That _Father_, In Its
Higher Sense, Was A Term Used Among Them By Servants To Masters; That
_Lord_ Was Applicable To Any Person Of Worth And Power. Hence, Too, The
Fact That, In The Later Periods Of The Roman Empire, Every Man Saluted
His Neighbour As _Dominus_ And _Rex_.
But It Is In The Titles Of The Middle Ages, And In The Growth Of Our
Modern Ones Out Of Them, That The Process Is Most Clearly Seen. _Herr_,
_Don_, _Signior_, _Seigneur_, _Sennor_, Were All Originally Names Of
Rulers--Of Feudal Lords. By The Complimentary Use Of These Names To All
Who Could, On Any Pretence, Be Supposed To Merit Them, And By Successive
Degradations Of Them From Each Step In The Descent To A Still Lower One,
They Have Come To Be Common Forms Of Address. At First The Phrase In
Which A Serf Accosted His Despotic Chief, _Mein Herr_ Is Now Familiarly
Applied In Germany To Ordinary People. The Spanish Title _Don_, Once
Proper To Noblemen And Gentlemen Only, Is Now Accorded To All Classes.
So, Too, Is It With _Signior_ In Italy. _Seigneur_ And _Monseigneur_, By
Contraction In _Sieur_ And _Monsieur_, Have Produced The Term Of Respect
Claimed By Every Frenchman. And Whether _Sire_ Be Or Be Not A Like
Contraction Of _Signior_, It Is Clear That, As It Was Borne By Sundry Of
The Ancient Feudal Lords Of France, Who, As Selden Says, "Affected
Rather To Bee Stiled By The Name Of _Sire_ Than Baron, As _Le Sire De
Montmorencie_, _Le Sire De Beauieu_, And The Like," And As It Has Been
Part 2 Chapter 2 (On Manners And Fashion) Pg 85Commonly Used To Monarchs, Our Word _Sir_, Which Is Derived From It,
Originally Meant Lord Or King. Thus, Too, Is It With Feminine Titles.
_Lady_, Which, According To Horne Tooke, Means _Exalted_, And Was At
First Given Only To The Few, Is Now Given To All Women Of Education.
_Dame_, Once An Honourable Name To Which, In Old Books, We Find The
Epithets Of "High-Born" And "Stately" Affixed, Has Now, By Repeated
Widenings Of Its Application, Become Relatively A Term Of Contempt. And
If We Trace The Compound Of This, _Ma Dame_, Through Its
Contractions--_Madam_, _Ma'am_, _Mam_, _Mum_, We Find That The "Yes'm"
Of Sally To Her Mistress Is Originally Equivalent To "Yes, My Exalted,"
Or "Yes, Your Highness." Throughout, Therefore, The Genesis Of Words Of
Honour Has Been The Same. Just As With The Jews And With The Romans, Has
It Been With The Modern Europeans. Tracing These Everyday Names To Their
Primitive Significations Of _Lord_ And _King_, And Remembering That In
Aboriginal Societies These Were Applied Only To The Gods And Their
Descendants, We Arrive At The Conclusion That Our Familiar _Sir_ And
_Monsieur_ Are, In Their Primary And Expanded Meanings, Terms Of
Adoration.
Further To Illustrate This Gradual Depreciation Of Titles And To Confirm
The Inference Drawn, It May Be Well To Notice In Passing, That The
Oldest Of Them Have, As Might Be Expected, Been Depreciated To The
Greatest Extent. Thus, _Master_--A Word Proved By Its Derivation And By
The Similarity Of The Connate Words In Other Languages (Fr., _Maître_
For _Master_; Russ., _Master_: Dan., _Meester_; Ger., _Meister_) To Have
Been One Of The Earliest In Use For Expressing Lordship--Has Now Become
Applicable To Children Only, And Under The Modification Of "Mister," To
Persons Next Above The Labourer. Again, Knighthood, The Oldest Kind Of
Dignity, Is Also The Lowest; And Knight Bachelor, Which Is The Lowest
Order Of Knighthood, Is More Ancient Than Any Other Of The Orders.
Similarly, Too, With The Peerage, Baron Is Alike The Earliest And Least
Elevated Of Its Divisions. This Continual Degradation Of All Names Of
Honour Has, From Time To Time, Made It Requisite To Introduce New Ones
Having That Distinguishing Effect Which The Originals Had Lost By
Generality Of Use; Just As Our Habit Of Misapplying Superlatives Has, By
Gradually Destroying Their Force, Entailed The Need For Fresh Ones. And
If, Within The Last Thousand Years, This Process Has Produced Effects
Thus Marked, We May Readily Conceive How, During Previous Thousands, The
Titles Of Gods And Demi-Gods Came To Be Used To All Persons Exercising
Power; As They Have Since Come To Be Used
Comments (0)