In his essay “The Death of Words,” C.S. Lewis briefly describes the horrific consequences of (for lack of a more succinct description) the evolution of language. Words change meanings, and Lewis does not contest this fact. However, Lewis does call into question whether or not this change is a good thing.<\/p>\n
There are, indeed, few words which were once insulting and are now complimentary\u2014democrat<\/em> <\/strong>is the only one that comes readily to mind. But surely there are words that have become merely\u00a0<\/em>complimentary\u2014words which once had a definable sense and which are now nothing more than noises of vague approval? The clearest example is the word gentleman<\/em><\/strong>. This was once…a term which defined a social and heraldic fact. The question whether Snooks was a gentleman was almost as soluble as the question whether he was a barrister or a Master of Arts. The same question, asked forty years ago (when it was asked very often), admitted of no solution. The word had become merely eulogistic, and the qualities on which the eulogy was based varied from moment to moment even in the mind of the same speaker. This is one of the ways in which words die. (105-6)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Lewis is greatly disturbed that words lose their power (as is evident, according to Lewis, when a speaker has to qualify his use of a dead word like gentleman<\/em> by saying that someone is a ‘a true gentleman’ or ‘a real gentleman, and so forth). In fact, Lewis spends almost the whole next page depicting relativistic language. Listing word after word whose meaning has changed, Lewis observes a disturbing trend and even argues, \u201cThis process is going on very rapidly at the moment.\u201d<\/p>\n
Worse than this, Lewis fears that the trend will soon overtake the most important idea of our time: Christianity. Lewis is concerned that the very word Christian<\/em> was at that ‘moment on the brink’ of death as a word.<\/p>\n
When politicians talk of \u2018Christian<\/i>\u00a0moral standards\u2019 they are not always thinking of anything which distinguishes Christian morality from Confucian or Stoic or Benthamite morality. One often feels that it is merely one literary variant among the ‘adoring epithets’ which, in our political style, the expression ‘moral standards’ is felt to require; civilised<\/em> <\/strong>(another ruined word) or modern<\/em> <\/strong>or democratic<\/em> <\/strong>or enlightened<\/em> <\/strong>would have done just as well. But it will really be a great nuisance if the word Christian<\/em> <\/strong>becomes simply a synonym for good<\/strong><\/em>. (107)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
As a Christian, this was of course a disconcerting thought for Lewis. He looks to the future with his final statement, wondering what will happen to these ideas he holds so dear. With the destruction of the words surrounding them, will they survive the test of time?<\/p>\n