Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

invested the figure has gradually and undesignedly evaporated from that figure, and has left a mere vague phantom of a character in its place, a thing which is the representative of nothing. And if we set the gain against the loss of such a transition, we find that the symbol has gained enormously in range, to make up for what it has lost in local or pictorial force. While it was presentive it was tied to a single object: since it became a symbol, it is ubiquitous in its function.

But it is to be observed further—and the observation is of wider application—that the symbol which remains after the evaporation of the pictorial element of the hieroglyphic or picture-writing is the true correspondent to the intention with which the first effort was made at representing speech by the graphic art. Whatever there was in the picture which was germane to the intention has lived, while the alien parts have gradually died away, leaving behind the purely symbolic or alphabetical writing.

These observations will apply also in some degree to our two systems of numeration, the Roman and the Arabic. The numerals I and II and III and IIII are Presentive of the ideas of one and two and three and four, as truly as the holding up of so many fingers would represent those numbers. The numeral V is practically a mere symbol, though it began in presentation, if it be true that it is derived from the hand, the thumb forming the one side, and the four fingers the other. The figures r and z and 3 and 4 are, and so far as our knowledge reaches always were, pure symbols. It is worthy of observation, that the whole system of Decimal Arithmetic hinges upon these symbolic figures, or has acquired immense addition to its range of capabilities by the use of these figures. So in like manner will it be found by and bye, that the modern de

[ocr errors]

invested the figure has gradually and undesignedly evaporated from that figure, and has left a mere vague phantom of a character in its place, a thing which is the representative of nothing. And if we set the gain against the loss of such a transition, we find that the symbol has gained enormously in range, to make up for what it has lost in local or pictorial force. While it was presentive it was tied to a single object: since it became a symbol, it is ubiquitous in its function.

But it is to be observed further—and the observation is of wider application—that the symbol which remains after the evaporation of the pictorial element of the hieroglyphic or picture-writing is the true correspondent to the intention with which the first effort was made at representing speech by the graphic art. Whatever there was in the picture which was germane to the intention has lived, while the alien parts have gradually died away, leaving behind the purely symbolic or alphabetical writing.

These observations will apply also in some degree to our two systems of numeration, the Roman and the Arabic. The numerals I and II and III and IIII are Presentive of the ideas of one and two and three and four, as truly as the holding up of so many fingers would represent those numbers. The numeral V is practically a mere symbol, though it began in presentation, if it be true that it is derived from the hand, the thumb forming the one side, and the four fingers the other. The figures i and 2 and 3 and 4 are, and so far as our knowledge reaches always were, pure symbols. It is worthy of observation, that the whole system of Decimal Arithmetic hinges upon these symbolic figures, or has acquired immense addition to its range of capabilities by the use of these figures. So in like manner will it be found by and bye, that the modern development of languages has hinged mainly upon symbolic words, and that their instrumentality has been the chief means of what progress has been made in the capabilities of expression.

231. The same general tendency which makes symbols take the place of pictures, makes or has made symbolic words take the place of presentives in a great number of instances. This tendency has led to the formation out of the large mass of presentive verbs of a select number of symbolic verbs, which are the light and active intermediaries, and the general servants of the presentive verbs. Thus the verbs partake of both characters, the presentive and the symbolic. But as regards the rest of the parts of speech, they fall into two natural halves in the light of this distinction. The substantives, adjectives, and adverbs are presentive words; the pronouns, prepositions, and conjunctions are symbolic words.

But as the grammatical classification has become rigid in some of its parts, it must not be allowed to govern the Natural divisions which we are here seeking to establish. There is much of what is arbitrary in the denomination

assigned by grammarians to many a word. 234. Some will think perhaps that my symbolic words are found to invade the domain of noun, adjective, and adverb; while they fail to cover and fully occupy what I have assigned to

them—namely, the pronoun, conjunction, and preposition. Therefore the grammatical scheme should not be trusted

to as a frame for the new division. The student must seize

the distinction itself; and the illustration of it by reference

to the grammatical scale is only offered as a temporary

assistance.

As in the chapter Of the Parts of Speech we saw that

the same word assumes a diversity of characters, so here

Q

also the same word will be at one time presentive and at another time symbolic. And there is perhaps no more effective display of the distinction now before us than that which shews itself within the limits of the history of single words. Let us therefore take a few examples of the transition of a word from a presentive to a symbolic use.

232. Thing. This is a very good example, on account of its unmixed simpleness. For it is almost purely symbolic, and devoid of presentive power. It is still more. It is of universal application in its symbolic power. There is not a subject of speech which may not be indicated by the word thing.

For thou, O Lorde God, art the thynge that I longe for.—Psalm lxxi. 4, (IS39)

By these ways, as by the testimony of the creature, we come to find an eternal and independent Being, upon which all things else depend, and by which all things else are governed.—John Pearson, An Exposition of the Creed, Art. I.

It is plain that we cannot name a creature, whether visible or invisible, whether an object of sense or of thought, which may not be indicated by the word thing. It is therefore of universal application in its symbolical power.1

But if we ask, on the other hand, What idea does this word present? We answer, None! There is no creature, no subject of speech or of thought, which can claim the word thing as its presenter. There was a time when the word was presentive like any ordinary noun, but that time is now far behind us. The most recent example I am able to quote is of the fourteenth century.

In Chaucer's Prologue it occurs twice presentively:—

1 The few instances in which thing (with a faint rhetorical emphasis) is opposed to person, are to be regarded as stranded relics on the path of the transition which the bulk of the word has passed through.

« IndietroContinua »