LESSON III.
The Greek noun δοῦλος, doulos, which we say means a slave unconditionally, so far as we have been able to examine, took its origin, both phonetically and literally, among the Greeks. Let us take δοῶ, as theme for διδώμι, and λοὐω, or from the radical λοῶ, lŏō: both phonetically and significantly the word is complete. At the most ancient period of the Greeks, it is said they had no slaves, and it is a little remarkable that the word “doulos” is very seldom found in the most ancient of the Greek writers: but other nations more advanced had slaves. The idea, slave, was then expressed by them by the term δμώς, dmos, evidently of foreign origin. This latter term was nearly or quite obsolete as early as the days of Alexander, when the word doulos is found to have taken its place.
The ancient and Eastern nations were particular in their custom of bathing their bodies and washing their feet, &c. One of the first and most important uses to which the early Greeks seem to have applied slaves, was in these personal purifications; and hence the peculiar name δοῦλος originated; δου-λούω, one whose office it was to bathe and wash them, a bondman for that particular use.
There is no instance in which Homer has used the word incompatible with such an association. The most affecting, we may say afflicting, circumstance in which he has introduced the word is the parting of Hector and Andromache; when Hector, anticipating his own death, and the probability of her being made a slave to the Greeks, emphatically laments her being compelled to carry water for her master, as if that was a particular employment in which the doulos was engaged.
But it does not affect the force of our argument, even if it shall be thought that the origin we give the word is doubtful. All we at the present moment propose is, that it is an original Greek term, all of which terms, either remotely or immediately, spring from particles having a significant and phonetic relation with the derivative. Such has been the doctrine of all who have written upon the philology and origin of the Greek language. Valckenaerus (the edition of Venice, published by Coletos) says, p. 8—
“Verba simplicia apud Græcos sunt vel ‘primitiva,’ vel a primitivis per varios flexus ‘derivata.’
“Primitiva verba admodum sunt ‘pauca:’ ‘derivatorum’ numerus est infinitus.
“‘Binæ’ literarum syllabæ verbum primitivum constituunt.
“Verba primitiva, secundum observationem tertiam, dissyllaba sunt vel ‘bilittera,’ vel trilittera, vel quadrilittera.
“Primitiva ‘bilittera,’ per rei naturam, dari possunt in universum (si vel totam linguam perscrutemur) tantum quinque, nempe ἄω,ἔω, ὅω,ἴω, ὔω Primitiva ‘trilittera’ sunt, quæ a ‘vocali,’ ‘quadrilittera’ (pleraque saltem) quæ a ‘consonante,’ incipiunt. Hoc certum est: sed de eo etiamnum addubito, an nonnulla verba ‘quinque’ litteris constantia pro ‘primitivis’ debeant haberi?” &c.
And Lennepius, de Anologia Linguæ Græcæ, (eadem editio,) p. 38:
“Cognita literarum potestate, earumque antiquitate, ad primas linguæ Græcæ origines indagandas progrediendum est. Videndum itaque primo loco, quænam voces pro ‘simplicissimis originibus’ haberi possint, quænam minus? Hoc autem ut rite peragatur, quædam de ‘partibus orationis’ ante sunt monenda.
“Ex viii. partibus quas vulgo statuunt grammatici, ‘Verbum et Nomen’ principem obtinent locum: quum reliquæ omnes facillime ad harum partium alterutram referi possint. Quapropter etiam ‘Aristoteles,’ aliique de veteribus, revera ‘duas’ tantum esse ‘partes orationis’ voluerunt.
“Addunt quidem alii tertiam partem, utriusque, nempe et ‘verbi et nominis, ligamentum,’ sive particulas, quod, nempe, particulæ orationem in unum corpus veluti connectant et devinciant. Sed, qui attentius ‘particularum’ naturam inspexerit, facile animadvertat, omnia fere, quæ ‘particularum’ nomine insigniuntur, si ‘exteriorem formam’ eorumque naturam grammaticam inspiciamus, referenda esse vel ad ‘nomen’ vel ad ‘verbum.’
“Ita verbi gr.: particula ᾽ȣ͂ν, Lat. igitur, revera participium est, contracta pro ἐὸν, quod neutrum a masculo ἐὼν est, quo modo participium verbi ἐὼ, vel εἰμὶ, pronuntiarunt Iones, quum Attici ἐὸν contraxerint in ᾽ȣ͂ν. Apparet itaque, Græcum ᾽ȣ͂ν revera pertinere ad nomina participialia. Eadem ratio cernitur quoque in particulis ποὶ, πῆ, πȣ͂, quæ ‘adverbia loci’ dicuntur, quorum duo priora proprie ‘dativa antiqua’ sunt, postremum vero genitivus est; quemadmodum similis ratio cernitur in adverbiis quæ dicuntur ‘Loci’ apud Latinos, quò, quà, et similibus.
“Ad ‘verba’ porro referenda sunt ἄγε, φέρε, ἰδȣ͂, ἲθι, ἔια vel ἔα, et plura alia similia, id quod in aliis clarius, in aliis minus manifesto, apparet. Horum tamen omnium rationem eandem fuisse in prima linguæ Græcæ infantia, non est quod dubitemus.
“Hæc igitur quum revera sic sese habeant, jam porro inquirendum est, utrum verba, an vero nomina, ‘primas’ linguæ Græcæ stirpes nobis subministrent.
“Docet autem ipsa rei natura, si de ‘simplicissimis’ verbis sermo fiat, ‘nomina’ a ‘verbis,’ non verba a nominibus, primum esse formata.
“Quum enim omnes res vocabulis, tanquam nominibus, signatæ, ab usu qui singulis adest, vel quacumque etiam actione, nomina, sua acceperint: clare apparet, sicut ipsam actionem unde res denominata sit, ita etiam verbum, quo actio designetur, præcedere nomini, quod ab actione aliqua rei sit inditum. Atque hoc adeo certum est, non solum in lingua Græca, sed etiam omnibus omnino linguis, ut extra omnem controversiam positum esse videatur: nisi quis delabatur illuc, ut linguas integras, qua late patent, nullo artificio humano accedente, uno temporis articulo hominibus divinitus datas esse, eosque statim caluisse tot myriadas quot in singulis linguis sunt vocabulorum; tametsi res ipsas vocabulis istis designandas plerosque primos homines ignorasse certum est.
“Hoc autem quam sit rationi contrarium, atque ipsi experientiæ, facile apparet, si modo consideremus, ea ratione multa vocabula existere jam debuisse priusquam eorum utilitas inter homines ulla esset, quæque proinde, non nisi vani et inutiles soni, facile et sine ulla jactura dediscenda fuissent.
“Quin imo experientia abunde docet, primum res ipsas inveniri hominum industria, deinde autem inventis nomina imponi, sive ab utilitate sive alia qualitate ducta. Ex quo porro apparet, quo plures res ab aliquo populo inveniantur, eo ditiorem et uberiorem eorum linguam fieri, ut adeo mirandum non sit tantam esse linguæ Græcæ copiam et ubertatem, quum exculta ea fuerit a populo ingeniosissimo, cui omnes artes et disciplinæ non tantum primordia sua, sed etiam omnem fere splendorem, debent. Linguas itaque diligenter consideranti, idem quod in artibus, in iis quoque usu venire apparebit: eas nimirum a paucis simplicissimisque initiis profectas, non nisi sensim et progressu temporis ad eam qua postea patuerunt amplitudinem pervenisse. Quum autem hominum natura ita sit comparata, ut primum eas res circumspiciat, quæ necessario ad vitam sustentandam, et cum aliis quibuscum homo societatis vinculo conjunctus est secure agendam, requirantur, dein vero ea excogitat quæ vitam jucundiorem possint reddere, valde verisimile fit vocabula ea in linguis antiquissima esse quibus res designantur ad vitam degendam necessariæ, si recesseris ab iis vocabulis, quæ in antiquissimorum vocabulorum locum deinceps substitute sunt, ut revera hujus generis multæ vocabulorum formæ inveniantur, quæ verborum obsoletorum locum occupaverunt.
“Porro non alienum erit hic observasse non tantum ejusmodi vocabula antiquissima existimari debere, sed etiam ‘ipsas’ significationes verbis subjectas tanto antiquioris usus esse, tantoque magis proprias esse habendas, quanto sunt propiores iis rebus quas corporis sensibus percipimus. Ab iis enim semper servata quadam similitudine ad reliquas quascumque verborum significationes progrediendum est: ut adeo appareat, paucissimas revera esse proprias verborum ‘significationes,’ nec alias esse nisi corporeas, sive eas quibus res sensibus externis expositæ designantur.
“E contrario autem, translatarum significationum copiam immensam, quæ ex propria notione, tanquam ex trunco arboris rami, quaquaversum pateant; manente similitudine inter eas omnes et propriam seu primam stirpis significationem, similiter atque rami, utcumque dispersi, et communem et communis trunci naturam retinent.
“Ex his præterea intelligitur ea verba, quæ ὄνοματα πεποιήμενα a Græcis vocantur, sic dicta quia a ‘nomine’ vel ‘sono’ formentur, ‘propriam’ eam significationem quæ soni, unde facta sunt, naturam referat. Quorum verborum numerus ingens revera in linguis est, et longe major quam vulgo credi solet. Sed, ut ad propositum redeamus, ex iis quæ supra dicta sunt, clare apparet, simplicissimas origines non posse repeti nisi ab ejusmodi verbis, quibus actiones ipsæ significentur; adeoque a verbis sic proprie dictis.
“Quumque actiones infinitæ, sive nulli certæ personæ adsignatæ, per rei naturam antecedere debeant iis quæ certæ personæ attribuuntur, verba ‘infinitiva’ simplicissima proprie primas linguæ Græcæ origines continere certum est.
“Harum autem plurimæ, quum jam a longissimis temporibus, una cum plerisque notionibus propriis, ex usu ceciderint, ac difficillimaæ sæpe indagatu sint, quo certiores progredi possimus, id semper tenendum est, ne quidquam admittamus quod constanti analogiæ linguæ repugnet; dein etiam, ut ex ipsis linguæ reliquiis, rite inter se comparatis, inquiramus a quo verbo originali vocabulum quodque oriatur: etiam tum, quum minus ipsum verbum originale superstes sit.
“Ubi enim in sequentibus agetur de ‘simplicissimis’ verbis ‘primitivis,’ id non ita accipiendum est quasi ea omnia, sicut etiam multa derivata simpliciora, florente lingua Græcæ, in sermone Graæcorum adhuc exstitisse vellem; sed tantum, in primo linguæ Græcæ ortu, aut exstitisse revera aut saltem existere potuisse. Neque enim, in hoc linguæ Græcæ defectu, æque certo sciri potest, an tanta copia, quantam fingere verborum per linguæ naturam constanti analogiæ ductu liceat, prima linguæ Græcæ ætate reipsa viguerit.”
Our object is here to present the Greek scholar, who may not have reflected on the subject, such suggestions as will lead him to perceive that δοῦλος, doulos, is an original Greek word, not borrowed; and although he may not agree with us in the derivation of the term, yet that he may readily satisfy himself what is the true derivation. It is true, Scheidius, in his “Animadversiones ad analogiam linguæ Græcæ,” has criticized the views of Lennepius, and has devoted near thirty pages to that which is our quotation from him; and we did fancy, upon its examination, that he had rather established than weakened the argument of Lennepius: in fact we did propose to quote him as authority; but to the most of us long quotations, in a language to us unknown, are quite objectionable. We therefore refer to his work, pp. 246 to 275, apud Paddenburg et filium, 1790, “Traiecti ad Rhenum.” It has been said by some of those who contend that δοῦλος, when found in the Greek Testament, does not mean slave, that the Greek, like all other languages of modern date, is a compilation from the more ancient ones; and since the Greeks at an early day had no slaves, it is evident, it is good proof that the more ancient tribes, from whom they and their language descended, had none; and in all such early periods of the world men never had words in their language to express things which did not exist among them, of which they could have no idea.
Therefore δοῦλος could not have meant slave,—“an idea of which they had no notion.” Even if this statement were true, we do not perceive how it proves their proposition. To show the futility of such argument, we consent, for the moment, that δοῦλος is not an original Greek word, but was borrowed from some other language, in which it meant something distinct from the idea of slave: say, a freeman, if you choose. Language, and all its parts, has ever been found to conform itself to the habits and wants of those who use it. Wherefore we often find a term, which some centuries ago expressed a certain distinct idea, now to express quite a different one. We therefore cannot say, with any propriety, that, because the word δοῦλος meant a “freeman,” at the age of Noah, that it also meant the same thing at the age of Alexander. If it meant a “freeman” at the age of Noah, we are to determine that fact by its use at that period; if otherwise, we should be able to prove that our word slave does not mean a slave now, but a proud and lofty distinction.
It is a term borrowed from the Schlavonic, where its significance was fame, renown, &c.; but the Schlavonians going into bondage to other nations, upon their inroads on Europe, the term implying fame in their ancient national distinctions came to signify in succeeding ages the condition of bondage. But although, as we have seen, a language is modified by the habits of those who apply it, yet this liability to change ceases when the language ceases to be the common vehicle of thought. Such substantially has been the case with the ancient Hebrew, since the era of the prophets; and such has, emphatically, been the case with the ancient Greek since the breaking down of the Roman Empire.
And even at the age of the apostles, the Greek had already arrived at the very highest point of its cultivation. No history, no writer gives proof of any subsequent improvement. If, then, we desire with seriousness and truth to determine the significance of any term then in use, the same is alone to be found by an investigation of the Greek literature of that age.
There are two modes by which an idea expressed in one language is explained in another. Where both languages contain words of synonymous meaning, then the expressing the idea through the medium of the words in another language, is properly what we mean by “translation.” But in many instances, the second language contains no word or words which are synonymes of the term by which the idea is expressed in the language which we wish to translate. In that case we can accomplish the object only by transferring the term expressing the idea from the one language to the other. Example:—When the French exhibited to the natives here a padlock, the natives associated the thing with their idea of the tortoise, from the fancied mechanical resemblance, and with them the name of the one became the name of the other also. But when we exhibited to them a steamboat, they found their language destitute of any word to express their idea of the thing exhibited; consequently, they transferred into their own language the word steamboat, to express the new idea.
With a view to be enabled to come to a truthful decision as to the definiteness of the idea intended to be conveyed by the word doulos, when used in the writings of the apostles, let us make a suitable inquiry among the Greek authors read and studied at their time, regardless of what may be the result as to the establishment of any peculiar theory or favourite notion. Let a development of the truth be the sole object of the research, careless of what else may stand or fall thereby. And since all have not chosen to burden themselves with the toilsome lesson necessary in a preparation for such examination, we consent that such may pass it by with the same indifference with which they regard the study.