291 
breathing ! The substitution of the one word for the other, 
which Mr. Arnold attempts, would lead to some very singular 
results if applied to his own pages.* But the fact is, that 
the derivation of the word is only another instance of what 
is so common in the language of children, and of races of 
men in their infancy, the employment of the concrete for the 
abstract. There seems some reason to suppose that the 
language of man in early times was confined to a few words, 
and those words connected with his most pressing wants and 
the ordinary phenomena around him. By degrees, as those 
phenomena were often seen to be the result of some invisible 
power, the word which originally referred to the external 
manifestation was transferred to the hidden principle within, 
and another word (generally equally onomatopoeetic) took tho 
place of the former to denote the external action. f To forget 
this, to attempt to define every word that is used, without 
admitting the existence of some primary intuitions which 
are antecedent to demonstration, is to make all language and 
even thought impossible, to reduce ourselves even below the 
level of the brutes by rendering us incapable of communicating 
with one another. J We may puzzle ourselves with Mr. Arnold, 
* A few instances may be given at random. “ God breathes here at 
bottom a deeply moved way of saying conduct or righteousness.” — Literature 
and Dogma, p. 47. “ But God is not a Person, and such a “terrible abstract” 
( God and the Bible, p. 77) cannot breathe .” ' Again ( Literature and Dogma, 
p. 199), “God breathes an influence ” — Mr. Arnold’s version of “God is a 
Spirit.” Compare Mr. Arnold, in God and the Bible, p. 77, and observe how 
the abstract becomes the concrete, and the concrete the abstract, at his 
bidding. 
t Mr. Arnold declares (God and the Bible, pp. 80, 81) that the word is signi- 
fies to breathe, and the word to exist means to grow, to step forth, and that all 
these denote certain activities belonging to humanity. This is one of his 
improved sayings, for which it would be well if he would advance a little 
proof. There is at least some ground for the opposite assertion in many 
languages. Thus, in Hebrew, run signifies originally to breathe, but it 
became in the end the recognized word to represent that which was the 
cause of the phenomenon, while other words, as nSJ, m3, 3tM, DttO, nn, &c., 
sometimes kindred and sometimes not, were used to represent the visible 
action. The same is the case in the kindred Semitic languages. So the 
Greeks used dpi and <pvm to represent the cause, i.e. existence, <pvaaw, 
7 Tvcu, and av%ui for the phenomenon breathing, growing. The Latins have 
their sum, es, fui, and their augeo, flo and spiro. The Germans their bin, ist, 
seyn, as well as their blasen, athmen, hauchen, wachsen : and we ourselves 
our be and is, as well as our puff, breathe, bloiv, grow. Dr. Curtius, Mr. 
Arnold’s authority, may have “ succoured a poor soul whom the philosophers 
had driven well-nigh to despair.” But Dr. Curtius only tells us what the 
root of our word is. He does not tell us that ero means, “ I will go on 
operating ,” though no one denies that it means, “ I will go on living.'” 
J The truth of this may be easily proved. Ask any one who addresses 
