In conclusion, from the history of the family of man, we may all know that the descendants of Japheth and Shem, when free from amalgamation with the black tribes, are white people. Unless then the descendants of Ham were black, how are we to account for the phenomena of the existence of that colour among men? Philosophy has been in search, and history has been on the watch; facts upon facts have been recorded touching every matter; but have you ever heard of the uncontaminated descendants of Japheth, living in the extreme, or in the central zone, exhibiting the woolly crown of the sons of Ham?
LESSON XV.
We suggest some origin, some complexion of thought, from whence may have emanated the word “Ham,” and its derivatives, as found to have existed in the days of the prophets; and we may here state that the Shemitic languages seem to exist all in a cluster, like so many grapes; nor are we able to say which stands nearest the vine. Doubts may be raised as to the priority of any one named; yet we might adduce some proof that the Coptic is younger, as we could that the Greek is younger still.
The Arabic word مَاma ma corresponds with the Syriac [ܡܳܐma] ma, and the Hebrew מָהmâ mah, and has been translated into the Latin quid, as an interrogatory, used in all languages very elliptically. Thus, Gen. iv. 10: מֶ֣ה עָשִׂ֑יתָme ʿāśîtā “What have you done?” If the עָשִׂ֑יתָāśîtā had been omitted, the מֶ֣הme would have expressed the whole idea.
It was an interrogatory expression of exclamation and astonishment, to one who had committed a heinous offence. So when Laban pursued, Jacob said, מָהmâ mah, What is my trespass? &c., as if in derision,—What is my horrid crime? Ever since the days of Cain some have manifested wicked acts, as though they were operated on by some strong desire, some coveting overwhelming to reason,—as if the action was in total disregard of the consequences that must follow it. This state of mind seems to have been expressed, in some measure, by the particular use of this particle. Let us conceive that such a state of mind must be a heated, a disturbed state of mind, as was that of Cain, and as must have been that of Jacob, had he stolen the goods of Laban. The word thus incidentally expressive of such an idea, by being preceded or influenced by a particle implying particularity, giving it definiteness and boundary, must necessarily be converted into an action or actor, implying some portion of the primitive idea; and hence we find הֵֽמָּהhēmmâ and همُّhamm and هَمَيhammi ham and hami in Arabic, ܚܳܡ ham in Syriac, to mean a cognate idea, i. e. to grow hot, &c., to boil, rage, &c., sometimes tumult, &c., &c. And we now ask, these being facts, is it difficult to point in the direction of the origin of the word Ham? Nor is it a matter of any importance, if the relationship exists, whether the noun and verb have descended from such exclamatory particle, or the reverse; yet we can easily imagine, in the early condition of things, that the mind, taking cognisance of some horrid act, would impel some such exclamation, and that it would become the progenitor of the name of the act or actor.
However this may be, each Hebrew scholar will inform us that the word הָםhām is an irregular Hebrew word. Grammarians have usually arranged words of this peculiar class among the Heemanti and augmented words, and they have accurately noticed that the punctuatists have always preceded the םm mem by a (ָＴ) Kamets, or a (וֹô) Kholem. This circumstance has induced Hiller to suppose that the םm mem, as a Heemanti, was a particle, while the adjunct was either הֵםhēm or אוֹםʾôm; but all agree that the form of these nouns shows that they are intensive in their signification.
If then הָםhām ham is a particle of הָמָהhāmâ hamah, which carries with it the ideas before named, it may be less difficult to conceive how the particle, when added to other nouns, will make them intensive also, while the particle itself would be used alone to express some intensity in an emphatic manner, more particularly of its root.
But we find the word חָ֞םḥām ham, as applied to the son of Noah, from the root הָמָהhāmâ hammah, or חֵמַהḥēma and used in Hebrew thus: In Josh. ix. 12, “This our bread we took hot [חָ֞םḥām] for our provision,” &c. Job xxxvii. 17, and vi. 17: “How thy garments warm (חַמִּ֑יםḥammîm hammin, hot) when he quieteth the earth by the south wind.” “What time they wax warm, they vanish when it is hot,” בְּ֝חֻמּ֗וֹbĕḥummô behummo, in the heat. So Gen. viii. 22: “While the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, cold and heat וָחֹ֜םwāḥōm, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease.” Gen. xviii. 1: “And he sat in the tent door in the heat בְּחֹ֥םbĕḥōm of the day.” 1 Sam. xi. 9–11: “To-morrow, by the time the sun is hot, (בְּחֹ֣םbĕḥōm be hom, in heat.) And slew the Ammonites until the heat of the day,” עַדחֹםʿadḥōm ad hom, until the hot. xxi. 7 (the 6th of the English text): “To put hot, חֹ֔םḥōm hot in the day,” &c. 2 Sam. iv. 5: “And came about the heat of the day,” כְּחֹ֣םkĕḥōm ke hom, at the hot. Isa. xxiii. 4: “Like a clear heat כְּחֹםkĕḥōm upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat בְּחֹ֥םbĕḥōm of harvest.” Hag. i. 6: “Ye clothe you, but there is none warm,” לְחֹ֥םlĕḥōm be hom, not hot. Jer. li. 39: “In their heats,” בְּחֻמָּםbĕḥummām be hummon, in their heats, &c.
But in Hebrew, as in some other languages, the phonetic power expressing the idea hot, heat, &c. was cognate with rage, stubbornness, anger, wickedness, &c. &c., and hence we say hell is hot, and hence, in Dan. iii. 13, 19: “Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage,” חֱמָֹאḥĕmāōʾ hama, heat, hot. “Therefore shall he go forth with great fury,” בְּחִמָּ֣א֥bĕḥimmāʾ be hama, heat, rage, fury, &c.