Let us beware of it. Let us not encourage its approach under any of its insidious forms, or well-sounding issues. When people talk glibly about their "breadth of view," "lack of prejudice," declare that "one church is as good as another," that they are "truth-seekers," look to find the exact character of these things. Are they thus because they have no real convictions? Perchance they have "stolen the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in."

Let us "be not faithless, but believing." Let us do our part to keep alive in human hearts profound moral convictions, that the world may still be capable of moral heroisms. E. A. Perry.

ARTICLE XXVII.

The Word" Hell" in Various Languages.

The Subject Stated.—The opinion, or belief, that a portion of the human race will suffer endless torment, without hope and without relief, is, and has been, the view held by a large proportion of the people speaking the Aryan tongues. Has this always been true, and do dialects of all the various trunks of languages afford a clear and explicit word, meaning in itself the true state of the damned? Is this belief inherent in the constitution of man, and does it find expression in his rites and ceremonies? If this be true, then the question is decided, and there are no just grounds for farther controversy.

Collateral Statements. The defender of religion needs no stronger argument than the simple fact that all nations and tribes, under all and every condition incident to human society, have and do believe in religion; and, further, make that belief manifest in various ways. Sir John Lubbock 1 holds "that there are races altogether devoid of religion.' This statement is based on another which occurs in his "Pre-His

1 Origin of Civilization, p. 121.

1

toric Times" (p. 467): "It has been asserted over and over again that there is no race of men so degraded as to be entirely without a religion-without some idea of a deity. So far from this being true, the very reverse is the case. Many, we might say all, of the most savage races are, according to the nearly universal testimony of travelers, in this condition." This is certainly a most sweeping statement. Would the evidence of travelers be conclusive when it is so well known that among savages their religion and superstitions are carefully concealed from the stranger? On the other hand, Tylor 2 has more considerately discussed the question and shown that the same writers have given evidence that prove their statements to be misleading: "They seem hardly to have recognized anything short of the organized and established theology of the higher races as being religion at all." So long as it is true that there are many tribes who cannot count higher than seven, it must be expected that their religious expressions will be difficult to interpret. Neither can it be expected that missionaries devoid of a practical knowledge of anthropology, will be able to bestow exact information upon subjects not fully appreciated by them.

So far as my own investigations have proceeded, I find that wherever I have been able to obtain clear evidence, all people have and do believe in one Supreme God, though many may enter their pantheon.

To whom the Subject Belongs.-The word Hell, and all the ideas which that term suggests, have been almost wholly monopolized by the theologian. There is no reason why teachings concerning this appellative should be restricted to one class. Because the term has been particularly adopted by the theologian, and by him certain definite significations invented, that, by no means, renders it plausible that he should be the sole and perpetual possessor.

All questions relating to man belong to the science of anthropology. Questions of religion, whether mythological or revealed; whether accepted, rejected, or implied, all come within

2 Primitive Culture, Vol. 1., p. p. 418-421.

that domain. Philology, also, is but a branch. If a root-word develops certain mental operations, whether present or past, it but brings forth a question relating to the science of man. Language is but the entrepot of the mind of man. Philology best contributes to our understanding of the development of that mind.

Theology cannot be considered as a separate expression differing distinctly from man. If it relates to a distinct conception of God, it must be considered that the knowledge must be based upon what man is at the time that he gives utterance to his beliefs. If religion is the subject, then the thought paramount is only a sentiment, instinct; or else a sense of obligation due to a superior or divine being.

The stand-point of the theologian is a narrow one — bending everything to his peculiar views of God and man's religious duty. The anthropologist takes man as his stand-point, and carefully interprets the processes of his development and resulting causes.

The word Hell, and all the ideas it conveys, should be handed bodily over to the anthropologist, notwithstanding the fact that it has been a mighty force in religion, and a triumphant power in the establishing and perpetuating of priestcraft; although its promulgation has suffused the world in blood, and brought incalculable misery upon suffering humanity, already grievously burdened. Whence comes a belief in a Divine Being has been carefully discussed from the many-sided human stand-point. What are the names for Deity, and whence derived, or why used, have occupied more or less interest among philologists. If the higher relations of life are just subjects for philosophical, or other consideration, so, also, are the questions relating to the baser or avenging expressions of the mind.

There is a gentler sense to the word Hell than that usually implied. To consider it in all its bearings would open up the whole question of the doctrine of a future life as held by the various tribes of mankind. The doctrine of rewards and punishments is co-extensive with the race itself. Hence the

concept cannot here be treated in a philosophical or philological sense, but rather as a simple exhibition of words employed by various types of mankind.

Etymology.

one.

The word as it stands is largely an English

All philologists are not agreed in tracing its origin to the Teutonic. Webster derives its origin from the AngloSaxon helan, to conceal, to hide, and then refers to the obsolete word hele as further proof of his correctness. Worcester, more cautious, quotes from Bosworth, "The old Halla, or Walhala, the abode of death of the northern nations, may be the origin of hell." While both lexicographers give various words in the Teutonic dialects, yet are silent respecting possible Keltic derivations.

The careful student of the Keltic language is painfully aware of the utter unreliability of the standard English lexicons on a large class of words. The reason is well understood, consisting of not only a want of knowledge of the Keltic on the part of the editors, but also, because their works are virtually revised editions of that of Dr. Johnson, who confessed his ig norance in the following terse words: "Of the Erse3 language, as I understand nothing, I cannot say more than I have been told. It is the rude speech of a barbarous people, who had few thoughts to express, and were content, as they conceived grossly, to be grossly understood." 4

This display of the grossest ignorance exhibits the cause of his brutal assaults upon the people, their language and literature. Such a man would be poor authority upon exact etymology. Guided by Dr. Johnson's Dictionary, etymologists have pursued the policy of slighting the Keltic and exalting the Teutonic-forgetting, or else deliberately concealing the field of literature still preserved in the former, and which existed when there was none in the latter; also that the geographical territory now occupied by the latter was once the great home of the former.

It is not true that the Saxons either killed off, or drove, all 8 Highland Scotch is meant.

4 Journey to the Western Islands, p, 100.

NEW SERIES. VOL.

XXV.

29

the Britons into Wales. Nor is it true that the essentials of the English language come from the Teutonic. Max Müller has justly observed "We know that German is most closely united with the Keltic: that Keltic is most closely united with Latin." 5 There are a great number of Keltic words in the English language derived immediately from the Greek and Latin; while many more, as any Keltic scholar can testify, are absorbed

directly from the Keltic.

I would hesitate long before asserting that the ancient dialect of the Britons was either Kymric or Gaelic. Words from both are numerous in the English; perhaps more of the latter than the former.

It certainly appears most reasonable to me that the word Hell, instead of being derived from the Teutonic helan, comes from the Keltic Hul, which is still preserved in the Kymric (Welsh) tongue. It has the same meaning in the Keltic as helan has in the Anglo-Saxon. In the Kymric we have hul (cover, coverlet ;) hulio (to cover, to spread over) ; huliur—pronounced as the English hillier — (coverer, slater). It requires no stretch of the imagination to discover that the word Hell approaches nearer Hul than it does Helan.

6

Keltic Tongues. - A view of Keltic religions will show that they were devoid of the conception of a place of perpetual torture. The Kelts' religion was Druidism simple and pure. The final condition of man has been summed up by Davies as follows: "The happy souls, when thrice purified in the sun, ascend to a succession of still higher spheres, from whence they can no more descend to traverse the circle of those globes and stars which float in a less pure atmosphere. Souls which are sullied with earthly impurities, are to be refined by repeated changes and probations, till the last stain of evil is worn away, and they are ultimately ripened for immortal bliss in a higher sphere."

5"Chips from a German Workshop," Vol. IV. p. 215. Dr. Stratton (“Celtic Origin of Greek and Latin,") gives a list of 1075 Celtic words in the Latin. This includes words derived immediately from the Greek. The Greek list embraces 744 Celtic words. Both exclusive of proper names.