VOL. III.
OXFOED, N. C., WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1877.
NO. 47.
THE ENCSIAMGli^G.
Friends I lox'O may (lie or leave me,
Friends I trust may trcaclierons i)rovr,
Hut Tlioii never wilt deceive me,
Oil, my Savior! in tliy love.
Oliango can ne’er tliis union sever
Death it.s links may never part;
Yesterday, to-day, for ever,
Thou the same liedeemer art.
On the cross love made Thee bearer
Of transgressions not Thine own.
And that love still makes Thee sharer
In our sorrows, on the throne.
From Thy glory Thou art bending
Still on earth i\ pitying eye;
And, ’mid angel songs ascending
Hears every mourner’s cry.
In tlie days of worldly gladness
Cold and proud our hearts may be,
but to whom, in fear or sadness,
Can we go but unto Thee i
From thiit de]ith of gloom and sorrow
Where TTiy lo\ e to man was shown,
Fvery bleeding heart may borrow
Hope and strength to bear its own.
Though the cup I drink be bitter.
Yet .since Thou hast made it mine,
This Thy love will make it sweeter
TTian tlie world’s best.mingled wine.
Darker days may yet betide mo,
Kluu'iier sorrows I may iirove;
lint the worst will never divhle me,
Oil, my Savior, from Thy love!
—liev. J. I). Stinis.
OUIGIS OE EAN«JJ.4«E.
Speech is the characteristic of
man. If culture is indispensable
to. the contrivance of language,
language is not less necessary to
tlie development of culture. If,
priniarily, language is but vocal
ized expression, then, in this
sense, all animals have each a
tongue peculiar to themselves.
This consideration overturns the
proposition that it is fashioned by
rules of men. It grows by rule.s
established in the constitution of
niind ; it is not created by reason,
but bv groiyth. According to
Gi'eene, language is a growth,
and, like every other growth, _ is
primarily dependent upon an in
ward vital energy. It has its or
igin and its development in an
swer to an instinctive desire of
the soul to express its thoughts
and feeling.s. The power of speech
is stinuilated by the presence of
, external objects, and takes its
actual form by means of an un
conscious ability to imitate the
vocal symbols which chance to
be made the conventional repre
sentatives of thought. It matters
not to what nation or people the
child may belong, the speech
which he hears in his childhood
becomes his vernacular tongue,
and all others are foreign. Place
him among the cultivated and re
fined, and he employs, he knows
not why, the pure and polished
speech of his guardians and asso-
dates. Ou the contrary, let him
fall among the rude and illiterate,
Y and he as readily and as surel}^
accepts for his 'native language,
his mother tongue, their perverted
words and incorrect modes of ex
pression. We would infer from
this author that he ignores the
supernatural, noticing only a con
stitutional tendency to language
in man to work itself out, and
produce words, or if you please,
roots or germs of words ; viz., by
imitation, by inierjeciion, by sym-
pathy, and by invention.^ _
■ But the three propositions most
generally laid down respecting
the origin of language, are; 1. a
supernatural revelation of a lan-
t guago alread}^ perfect to the first
human beings; 2. a of lan
guage given to the first human
beings in addition to all their
other peculiar faculties as human
beings; 3. merely a superior hu
man development of a general pow
er of language or faculty of ex-
pression possessed by the whole
animal world, inlierent, in fact, in
the constitution of all animated
beings as well >as man. Science
repudiates the Bible testimony,
takes no note of the supernatural,
but adopts the second and third
modes of conceiving of the origin
of language. If the first propo
sition be right, the succeeding
ones must be incorrect, for how
can constitutional bodily sense.s
or faculties be supernatural I
Among those who have thought
fit to inquire into the prime origin
of speech, it has been matter of
dispute, whether we ought to con
sider it a special gift from heaven,
or an acquisition of industiw—a
natural endowment, or an artifi
cial invention. Nor is anything
that has ever yet been said upon
it, sufficient to set the question
permanently at rest. If neither
language nor society could pre
cede each other, commoti sense
would suggest that they rise sim
ultaneously. It Adam was “the
first,” it certainl}' does not follow
that he was “the rudest” of his
race. If sin deformed the soul,
and soul gives suggestion to
thought, and language be the nat
ural offspring of thought, then
must our primogenitor’s language
so far have exceeded ours as pure
thoughts must exceed sinful ones,
and that Adam had an insight in
to natural things far bei'ond the
aentest philosopher, may be de
termined from his giving names
to all creatures, according to their
different coiistjtutions.
Plato, taking the Christian
view regarding the solution of
the problem of the origin of lan
guage, supposed it to bo divine
ly inspired ; but some of the an
cients, and most modern scholars
favor the natural creation of
speech by the innate faculties of
man. d.’he records of history
give little satisfaction on the sub
ject. Notwithstanding the patri
otic narrowness which induced
the Greek philosophers to look
with contempt on foreign nation
alities, disqualifying adequate
concepfions of the nature of lan
guage, some great principles of
glossology are found in Plato’s
“Cratylus.” Cratylus as.serts,
and not alone, that everything
has a name belonging to it by
nature, and not by an arbitrary
convention. Homer distinguish
ed the names given by the gods
from those used by men ; “whom
the gods call Hanthus, but men
Scamander.” Influence on the
formation of words is attributed
to gesticulation ; and the vocabu
laries of some savages or barba
rians are justly appreciated for
the natural significancy of their
words. Pythagoras, when asked
what being he thought to be the
wisest, replied : “First, the num
ber, and secondly, that which
has given names to things.” By
the former he meant the word, by
the latter the soul.
Manifold opinions have been
advanced concerning the original
language. Herodotus relates that
Psammetichus, wishing to learn
which was the first language, or
dered two babes to be brought
up without ever hearing a human
sound. They were nurtured on
the milk of goats wl.icli was
brought to them, and after two
vears pronounced first the word
hchos, which in Phrygian meant
broad. The Egyptians, therefore,
according to the historian, ad
mitted that the Phrygians were
more ancient than themselves.
Setting aside the claims to preem
inence advanced by the number
less known languages, Grotius
and others find traces of the prim
itive language in all others,
though what language that
was can only be conjectured. Ob
viously, the primordial condition
of the language must have cor
responded to the physical and
mental condition of the human
race. If the primordial condi
tions were inferior to the capaci
ties, then the theory of growth
and subsequent development is
plausible. The roots of .lan
guages shed much liglit on the
operations of the human mind;
and their study reveals two im
portant principles, viz., that all
so called metaphvsical teims are
in reality metaphorical expres
sions of material acts and proper
ties to which the mind likens its
own operations; and that lan
guages do not diverge in the ex
pression of the single categories
of material things, but only in
the application of these primitive
expressions as names to other
things.
To conclude with the ideas of
another, both primitive and cul
tivated men are impressed by the
same peculiarities of things but
the latter depend mostly, not on
what the mind through its own
exertion conceives, but on the
passive impress of association.
Primitive men, more sensitive
and perceptive, almost simulta
neously reacted- on their expe
riences ; their language, evolved
by, coincided with the impres
sions made by objects. Hence
their expressions were true etyma,
or imprints on the mind shown
externally by vocal sounds. Pro
gressive culture of course modi
fies the uses of these etyma. As
each true word, in its original ac
ceptation, is co-essential with the
impress that gave it birth, and as
men vary in mind and tempera
ment, the uses of the etymio sym
bols are various. Language uni
versally, as well as individually,
is a symbol of mental activity
and a mediator between different
minds. Man is a minor of all ob
jects ; material furnished by sense
is assimilated by mind and com
municated by speech. Language
is the acme of all human ener
gies, experiences and as.sociations;
a memento on the monument of
time marking the various phases
of intellectual progress or stagna
tion. Arohajology must be of a
practical utility to-day. Every
experiment and attainment of
former ages are but stars in the
firmament of progress, affording
light and help toward greater
achievements. Our present so
cial, religious, political, scientific,
and artistic culture is the compli
cated result of all that has been
lived through by our common
ancestry; only mixed digested,
filtered, modified by the assimi
lating power of time. If even
the works attributed to Orpheus,
Ilomer, Manu, Vyasa, Yalmika,
Ossian, Shakespeare, and to the
author of tlie Nihehmgen-Lied,
are each suspected to be the effu
sions of several men, how could
we now disentangle the conglo
merate mass of all languages into
the several contributions by each
nation or genius ? Speech, as a
necessary function of the human
faculties, arose instinctively, and
single languages were formed b)’
the peculiar choice or caprice of
their speakers, as influenced by
various agencies. Every people,
according to its own genius, amal
gamates the phonetic element
with its own feelings and concep
tions into an organic unity. The
forms of language also react on
the mind. Our very thoughts
are faint without their union with
the symbols of speech ; the oper
ations of the brain and heart, the
articulations of the vocal organs
and the reception of sounds by
the oars, being an inseparable
■synergv. thought orystalizes the
momentum of the mind and ut
ters it as a word ; and the atmos
pheric air is made to vibrate with
mental energ}'. Speech is as
much a function of thinking as
breathing is of living. It is not
a mere means of intercommuni
cation, but also of self instruc
tion. The peculiar qualities of
objects lead us to distinguish,
while their common characteris
tics lead us to combine. We ev
er strive after a clearer and more
comprehensible unit}’'. The
sound is the symbolic represen
tative of the object, of its mental
picture, and of the sympathetic
effort of the organs both of speech
and of hearing. In no other pro
duct of mental activity is there a
more complicated quantity of well
defined modifications, than in this
trinity of object, mind, and voice,
one and indivisible. The word
itself becomes in its turn a new
outward, tangible object, linking
the 'vorld with man and men
with each other. Speech is de
veloped only in society, and .men
can neither understand themselves
nor their own ideas fully except
by trying the intelligibility of
their words on eacli other. Mu
tual understanding sharpens the
intellectual powers of speakers,
so tliat with the increase of social
intercourse the language gains in
perfection. The power of think
ing needs to be kindled by the
homogeneity of general thouglit,
and tested by the heterogeneity
of individual thought. By soci
ety and by schooling, a whole
people, becomes liabiluated to
the limits of the preexisting lan
guage, whatever that may be.—
8. M. Frazier, in Barnes’ Fdiwa'
tional Monthly.
WONDEKFIIE EFFECT OF IM-
AOINA'lTOtV.
v'.ded they continued in the dit-
charge of their duty, d'ogother
with these addresses he sent to
the physicians small vials of col-
o ed water, which the patients
were assured were of immense
price, and of unspeakable virtue.
Many, who declared that all for
mer remedies had only made them
worse, now recovered in a few
days. A long and interesting ac
count of the wonderful working
of this purely imaginary antidote
was drawn up bv M. Van der
Mye, one of the physicians in the
garrison, w’hose office was thus
succssfully usurped by the Prince
of Orange, A corroborative proof
of the well-known power of the
imagination in affecting disea.=e
i.s afforded in the following Ara
bian fable: One day a traveler
met the Plague going into Cairo,
and accosted it thus; “Eor what
purpose are you entering Cairo!”
“To kill 3,000 people,” rejoined
the Plague. Some time after, the
traveler met the Plague on his
return, and said: “But you killed
30,000!” “Nay,” replied the
Plague, “I killed but 3,000; the
rest died of fright.”—‘icifie’s Siin~
day Magazine.
During the siege of Breda, in
the Netherlands, in 1625, the gar
rison was dreadfully afflicted with
the scurvy. So useless was the
medical aid afforded to the sol
diers, and so desperate were they
in consequence, that they resolved
to give up the city to the enemy.
This resolution came to the ears
of the Prince of Orange ; he im
mediately wrote addresses to the
men, assuring them that he pos
sessed - remedies that were un
known to physicians, and that he
would undertake their cure, pro-
The man, who has been to the
Black Hills, says the Bismarck
Tribune and returned, is a big gun
at the village drug store, and feels
called upon to tell the truth when
narrating his adventures. Such a
man, named Curt, was telling the
other night, how many Indians
he had killed during his three
months’ residence in the Hills.
After he had talked half an
hour, one of the listeners, who
had kept track of the number
killed, exhibited the figures.
“I find,” he exclaimed, “ that
you killed 1,500 savages in three
months!”
“Is that all?" exclaimed the un
abashed Black Hiller. “Why, I be
lieve you have left out a week’s
work there somewhere.”
“If you had such good luck
killing Indians, why didn't you
stay there?” demanded another
suspicious listener.
“Well, the truth, is, gentlemen,
I was afraid of mining my left
eye. I squinted along my gun-
barrel so much that my face was
being drawn out of shape, and
the sight was so far gone that I
had to be led about by a dog.”
“And yon killed Indians while
in that condition?”
“I did, though I’ve always felt
a little mean about it. I couldn't
see to shoot, and so I run ’em
down and kicked ’em to death. It
wasn’t manly in me, and I want
to ask the forgiveness of you,
gentlemen, right here and now.’’
There vvas a long spell of ap
palling silence, and then some
one said that Eph Francis had
bought a new coon-dog.
TKEE COEKAGE.
Charles Nil, during a memorable
seige, wa.s dictating a letter to his sec
retary. A shell struck the building,
and crasliiiig tlirongh the adjoining
rooms, made great havoc. The fright
ened scribe dropped his pen and would
have fled. “ What is the jnatter,” said
the king; “ why do you not go on
with your-writingf’ “Most graciou.s
sire, the bombshell—^the bombshell!”
“What has that to do witli the letter '! ’
replied the king. “ Co on with yonr
writing.” Daul was a ni:ui of serene
I and undaunted courage.