Bruce N H
Active Member
Hi all,
(BTW, not so much a direct question, but for some reason I can't "post a new thread" in the other sub-forum - it keeps saying I need to log in and I keep logging in).
In Exploring LotR 66, July 10, 2018, there was some discussion of the word "condescend" in its original and modern uses.* I'm pretty sure we've also previously discussed the word villain in the same way, and I'm quite sure we'll see some discussion along these lines in the Malory class (again words like villain and gentleman, but also chivalry). Anyway, and I'm sure Corey is very familiar with this essay, but if others haven't read it I'd point you to C.S. Lewis' "The Death of Words". It's in the collection On Stories and Other Essays on Literature, but much more conveniently you can find it in the archives of the Spectator (the magazine where it was originally published) at this link:
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/22nd-september-1944/9/the-death-of-words
He looks at the usage of words like gentleman, villain, abstract, concrete, modern, practical, contemporary, Christian, and others, and writes about how their meanings have been lost. Lewis doesn't discuss "condescend", but it could go on that list. The key quote is this:
"The truth is that words originally. descriptive tend to become terms either of mere praise or of mere blame. The vocabulary-of flattery and insult is continually enlarged at the expense of the vocabulary-of definition. As old horses go to the knacker's yard, or old ships to the breakers, so words in their last decay go to swell the enormous list of synonyms for good and bad. And as long as most people are more anxious to express their likes and dislikes than to describe facts, this must remain a universal truth about language."
(Interestingly, my printing of On stories omits that first sentence, but the Spectator link includes an image of the original printing).
So "condescend" changes from the action of one who is truly higher (e.g. Aragorn) coming down along side of those who are truly lower (e.g. the hobbits), but instead it is a derisive view of the fact that anyone would think themselves higher in the first place.
Later in the essay Lewis talks about motive, and here I would (with fear and trembling) disagree with him. "It is important to notice that the danger to the word Christian comes not from its open enemies, but from its friends. It was not egalitarians, it was officious admires of gentility, who killed the word gentleman." I'd disagree - I think that at least in modern terms (maybe we got here by stages?) it is egalitarians who would most destroy the word gentleman, or villain. If there is no valid distinction of class, words that are based on those distinctions must be meaningless, so they must just mean a sense of approval or disapproval. I think Corey was saying much the same about "condescend" in last week's Exploring LotR. To my (and Corey's) defense in mildly disagreeing with Lewis I would also recruit Lewis. In the preface to Mere Christianity he similarly discusses the fates of the words "gentleman" and "Christian", making many of the same points*, but giving a slightly different motivation for the changing usage of the word "gentleman", here changing the words as an egalitarian would, focused on character traits rather than class distinctions:
"But then there came people who said -- so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully -- 'Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? ...' They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing."
Anyway, back to The Death of Words, and then I'll close an over-long post. I can't leave without including this wonderful sentence from Lewis:
"To save any word from the eulogistic and dyslogistic abyss is a task worth the efforts of all who love the English language. ... That is always the trouble about allowing words to slip into the abyss. Once turn swine into a mere insult, and you need a new word (pig) when you want to talk about the animal."***
Bruce
*I would point out (and have previously) that the word condescend has retained it's original meaning in religious usage (the "condescension of Christ"), but have to admit that I'm probably more used to hearing that in older hymns. I'd bet that a liturgical Lutheran or high-church Anglican would probably be much more likely to use it and a member of a non-denominational praise-band style church would probably think it sounded very strange.
**I'm assuming the Preface to Mere Christianity was written after the "Death of Words" essay (which was published in 1944). The book was published in 1952, though it was based in part on radio talks given from 1942-44.
***Of course this could be applied to about any debate on Twitter - once you start calling anyone you disagree with a ____ (fascist, communist, etc), you'll need new words to actually talk about those political movements.
(BTW, not so much a direct question, but for some reason I can't "post a new thread" in the other sub-forum - it keeps saying I need to log in and I keep logging in).
In Exploring LotR 66, July 10, 2018, there was some discussion of the word "condescend" in its original and modern uses.* I'm pretty sure we've also previously discussed the word villain in the same way, and I'm quite sure we'll see some discussion along these lines in the Malory class (again words like villain and gentleman, but also chivalry). Anyway, and I'm sure Corey is very familiar with this essay, but if others haven't read it I'd point you to C.S. Lewis' "The Death of Words". It's in the collection On Stories and Other Essays on Literature, but much more conveniently you can find it in the archives of the Spectator (the magazine where it was originally published) at this link:
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/22nd-september-1944/9/the-death-of-words
He looks at the usage of words like gentleman, villain, abstract, concrete, modern, practical, contemporary, Christian, and others, and writes about how their meanings have been lost. Lewis doesn't discuss "condescend", but it could go on that list. The key quote is this:
"The truth is that words originally. descriptive tend to become terms either of mere praise or of mere blame. The vocabulary-of flattery and insult is continually enlarged at the expense of the vocabulary-of definition. As old horses go to the knacker's yard, or old ships to the breakers, so words in their last decay go to swell the enormous list of synonyms for good and bad. And as long as most people are more anxious to express their likes and dislikes than to describe facts, this must remain a universal truth about language."
(Interestingly, my printing of On stories omits that first sentence, but the Spectator link includes an image of the original printing).
So "condescend" changes from the action of one who is truly higher (e.g. Aragorn) coming down along side of those who are truly lower (e.g. the hobbits), but instead it is a derisive view of the fact that anyone would think themselves higher in the first place.
Later in the essay Lewis talks about motive, and here I would (with fear and trembling) disagree with him. "It is important to notice that the danger to the word Christian comes not from its open enemies, but from its friends. It was not egalitarians, it was officious admires of gentility, who killed the word gentleman." I'd disagree - I think that at least in modern terms (maybe we got here by stages?) it is egalitarians who would most destroy the word gentleman, or villain. If there is no valid distinction of class, words that are based on those distinctions must be meaningless, so they must just mean a sense of approval or disapproval. I think Corey was saying much the same about "condescend" in last week's Exploring LotR. To my (and Corey's) defense in mildly disagreeing with Lewis I would also recruit Lewis. In the preface to Mere Christianity he similarly discusses the fates of the words "gentleman" and "Christian", making many of the same points*, but giving a slightly different motivation for the changing usage of the word "gentleman", here changing the words as an egalitarian would, focused on character traits rather than class distinctions:
"But then there came people who said -- so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully -- 'Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? ...' They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing."
Anyway, back to The Death of Words, and then I'll close an over-long post. I can't leave without including this wonderful sentence from Lewis:
"To save any word from the eulogistic and dyslogistic abyss is a task worth the efforts of all who love the English language. ... That is always the trouble about allowing words to slip into the abyss. Once turn swine into a mere insult, and you need a new word (pig) when you want to talk about the animal."***
Bruce
*I would point out (and have previously) that the word condescend has retained it's original meaning in religious usage (the "condescension of Christ"), but have to admit that I'm probably more used to hearing that in older hymns. I'd bet that a liturgical Lutheran or high-church Anglican would probably be much more likely to use it and a member of a non-denominational praise-band style church would probably think it sounded very strange.
**I'm assuming the Preface to Mere Christianity was written after the "Death of Words" essay (which was published in 1944). The book was published in 1952, though it was based in part on radio talks given from 1942-44.
***Of course this could be applied to about any debate on Twitter - once you start calling anyone you disagree with a ____ (fascist, communist, etc), you'll need new words to actually talk about those political movements.