Subject: ‘Interesting Words’

All of these articles and images are available for licensing: click on an image to see further details and licensing options; contact us about licensing textual content.

Killing the fatted calf marks the celebration of unconfined joy

Posted in Animals, Bible, Interesting Words, Language, Religion on Thursday, 22 August 2013

This edited article about the language of the Bible originally appeared in Look and Learn issue number 381 published on 3 May 1969.

Prodigal son, picture, image, illustration

The return of the prodigal son

It is Michael’s twenty-first birthday. He has been away from home for the past few months, working overseas to gain experience in his job. But he has come back for this great day. A splendid party is being held, and in the course of it someone says: “This is a great party, Michael! They’ve certainly killed the fatted calf for you!”

He means, of course, that Michael’s parents have gone to a great deal of trouble and expense to provide such splendid things to eat and drink. But why, you may wonder, should he say so in this way?

For the answer, we must turn to St. Luke’s Gospel, chapter fifteen, verses 11 to 32, and read there the story of another boy who left home, many centuries ago.

This boy was restless and not very considerate. He asked if he could have right away the inheritance to which he would be entitled on his father’s death.

This request rather upset the boy’s father, but he agreed, hoping no doubt that this would make his son more content and help him to settle down. Instead of doing this, however, the boy packed his belongings, took his inheritance, and set off.

Soon he had spent every penny he had, and, to make matters worse, a great famine made food very scarce, so that it was impossible to get any even by begging. The boy did manage to find a job of sorts, minding pigs, but as he worked at that very humble task, he felt so hungry that he would gladly have eaten the food on which the pigs were fed. He began to realise how foolish he had been, and how much better off the humblest servant in his father’s house was. In the end, he set off home, ready to tell his father how sorry he was, and to ask if he could be taken back, not as a son, but as a servant.

All this time, the father had been waiting anxiously for news of his son, and when he saw the boy coming, he could not wait for him to reach the house. Instead, he ran along the road to meet him, flung his arms around him, and, before more than a few faltering words had escaped the boy’s lips, called to the servants – “Quick! A new coat for him! And some shoes! Make a feast! Kill the fatted calf! My son, whom I thought was dead, is alive again; he was lost, and is found!”

This story, or “parable,” is often called the “Parable of the Prodigal Son.”

Why it is ominous when we see the writing on the wall

Posted in Bible, Interesting Words, Language, Religion on Wednesday, 21 August 2013

This edited article about the language of the Bible originally appeared in Look and Learn issue number 380 published on 26 April 1969.

Belshazzar's Feast, picture, image, illustration

The writing on the wall at Belshazzar's Feast by Peter Jackson

Everyone in the firm knew that John Barker was about to get the sack. There had been so many complaints about his work, and the manager had made it plain that, unless things improved, John would have to go. Instead of waiting for this to happen, John resigned, and so avoided the disgrace of being dismissed. When he heard the news, one of John’s mates said to another, “He must have seen the writing on the wall!”

We all know what the speaker meant, but how many of us know the story in which “the writing on the wall” first appeared?

It is a very old story, dating from the time (about the 6th century B.C.) when the Kingdom of Babylon was ruled by a man named Belshazzar. Among the inhabitants of his country were many Jewish exiles, brought there from Jerusalem when their homeland was conquered by the armies of Babylon.

One day, Belshazzar gave a great feast for the members of his court. In order to surprise them with something new, he ordered the sacred gold vessels which had been seized from the temple at Jerusalem to be used for serving the food and wine at his feast. This was a terrible crime in the eyes of the Jews, and it gave Belshazzar satisfaction to torment his old enemies in this way. No doubt, his guests thought his idea very clever and amusing.

Then, in the middle of the feast, silence suddenly fell upon the assembled guests. They found themselves peering into the shadows at the palace wall opposite where Belshazzar was sitting. A mysterious hand was slowly writing a message on the wall in letters large enough for all to read, but in words which no one there could understand.

The hand vanished, but the writing on the wall remained. The King sent for the cleverest of his wise men, but none of them could tell him what the message said.

Then someone remembered one of the Jewish exiles, called Daniel, who had won a great reputation for interpreting dreams. Daniel was sent for, and to everyone’s amazement he was able to tell Belshazzar what the mysterious writing meant.

The guests were first shocked, then terrified, by the message which Daniel slowly translated: GOD HATH NUMBERED THY KINGDOM AND FINISHED IT. THOU ART WEIGHED IN THE BALANCES AND ART FOUND WANTING. THY KINGDOM IS DIVIDED AND GIVEN TO THE MEDES AND PERSIANS (Daniel, Chapter 5, verses 26-28).

That very night, the armies of the Medes and Persians stormed the city of Babylon. Belshazzar himself was killed, and the dreadful prophecy written by the mysterious hand came true.

Those who have some disaster or misfortune revealed to them before it happens are therefore said, like Belshazzar and his guests, to have seen “the writing on the wall”.

The much reviled Samaritan turned out to be a saviour

Posted in Bible, Interesting Words, Language, Religion on Wednesday, 21 August 2013

This edited article about the language of the Bible originally appeared in Look and Learn issue number 379 published on 19 April 1969.

Good Samaritan, picture, image, illustration

The good Samaritan helps out as the Levite passes on the other side

Earlier this year, there was a nasty accident in the snow. A small boy, unable to control the rather large sledge he was riding on, cut his face badly when it crashed into a fence. His big brother was uncertain what to do, for they were a long way from home. But then a woman came up and said, “Put him into my car, and we will run him straight to hospital.” The woman waited for the boys at the hospital, and then drove them home.

“Thank you so much!” the boys’ mother said. “You really have been a good Samaritan!”

Most of us have heard these words in similar situations, but some of us may not know why it has become proverbial to call a person who is ready to help another in trouble “a good Samaritan.”

The Samaritans are a small tribe, akin to the Jews, who still live in a little district called Samaria, a few miles north of Jerusalem. Today, they number only a few hundred people, but they have their own language and customs, of which they are very proud. In the time of Jesus Christ, they were more numerous, but they were despised by their Jewish fellow-countrymen because of their separate history and strange beliefs. Jesus, however, seems to have had a particular regard for them, because he spoke favourably about them on more than one occasion.

It was a story told by Jesus which made the word “Samaritan” world-famous. You will find this story in Chapter Ten of St. Luke’s Gospel. Jesus described how a man was travelling from Jerusalem down the steep mountain track to Jericho, when he was attacked by bandits. Having robbed him of everything he had, even his clothes, the bandits beat him senseless.

A little while afterwards, two other people came along. One was a priest and the second was a Levite (an assistant from the Temple). Being supposedly religious men, either of these might have been expected to come to the aid of the wounded traveller, but neither of them did so. Perhaps they were afraid of being attacked themselves, or perhaps (as people sometimes say today) they “just did not want to get involved.” Whatever the reason, they passed on quickly.

Then a third man arrived. He was not a Jew, but a Samaritan, and as such might not have been expected to show much sympathy for the man who had been attacked. But, in his pity for this wounded traveller, he forgot all differences of race, and went to his side. Not only did he give him “first aid”, but he put him on his own donkey and, after taking him to the next inn on the road, paid for him to be looked after there till he recovered.

When Jesus asked which of the three had been a true neighbour to the man who was robbed, everyone naturally replied, “The one who took care of him.” And because he was a Samaritan, this man became known as “the good Samaritan.”

This name has since been given to countless people who have followed the good Samaritan’s example of helping those in trouble.

Animal cruelty in Biblical times gave us the first scapegoat

Posted in Animals, Bible, Interesting Words, Language, Religion, Sinners on Wednesday, 21 August 2013

This edited article about the language of the Bible originally appeared in Look and Learn issue number 378 published on 12 April 1969.

Aaron and the Scapegoat, picture, image, illustration

The goat was driven out into the wilderness to perish from hunger and thirs

To be made a “Scapegoat” is both unpleasant and unfair. It can sometimes happen when people are involved in making a disturbance. Driven to desperation, the authorities may pick on one person who is then punished very severely for what others have also been doing. We say that the one so punished has been made “the scapegoat” for all the rest.

The word itself, a very old one, is really short for “escape goat,” but the idea it expresses is much older than the English language, into which it came when a Hebrew word from the Old Testament was first translated in this way.

The story of “the scapegoat” is found in the third Book of the Bible, Leviticus, which means “the Law of the Levites.” The Levites were a tribe especially appointed to carry out certain religious duties for the ancient Hebrews.

In Chapter 6 of this Book we read that Aaron, the brother of Moses, devised a ceremony by which he could, in the name of God Himself, show to the Hebrew tribes that they had been set free from all their sins. After offering various prayers and sacrifices which were intended to lift the burden of their sins from all the Hebrew tribes, Aaron laid his hands solemnly upon the head of a goat which had been chosen for this purpose. The idea behind this was that all the Hebrews’ wickedness and guilt was thus transferred to the goat. The goat was then driven out into the wilderness, to perish alone there from hunger and thirst.

To us, this seems a very cruel thing to do to a harmless animal, but the Hebrews believed that the sufferings of the unfortunate “scapegoat” were fully justified by the fact that it carried all their sins away, and “lost” them in the wilderness.

When we use the word “scapegoat” for someone who is made to take the blame, we are recalling a nation’s need to get rid of its sense of failure before God, and the strange way devised for doing this nearly thirty centuries ago.

A broken bridge gave Pontefract its third and lasting place-name

Posted in British Towns, Castles, Historical articles, History, Interesting Words on Wednesday, 21 August 2013

This edited article about Pontefract originally appeared in Look and Learn issue number 378 published on 12 April 1969.

Pontefract Castle, picture, image, illustration

Pontefract Castle

Pontefract is a name well-known in sweetshops. Liquorice Pontefract cakes have long been famous. We might be calling them “Tateshall cakes,” though, after one of Pontefract’s earlier names, if a bridge hadn’t collapsed some 900 years ago.

The story of this Yorkshire town and its various names, with their many different spellings, began in ancient times. Wild Brigante tribesmen settled there. Then Roman soldiers came and, while in occupation, planted liquorice, a bushy plant, the long, thin roots of which they boiled and crushed for the juice.

The Saxons called the place “Kirby,” a name also found in Essex, Norfolk and other counties, meaning “a village with a church.” Eventually this was changed to “Tateshall,” from the Queen of Northumbria’s name.

Tateshall was so strategically placed, at a crossing of main roads, that William the Conqueror ordered a fortress to be built there, making Tateshall a castle town of Yorkshire, along with Skipton (a name meaning “a sheep farm”), Conisbrough (“the fort of the king”) and Middleham (“middle village”).

William chose the castle site – a rocky hill – personally, and work began in 1069. The castle became one of the strongest and finest of fortresses, with high walls and eight towers topped by slender turrets. It was the scene of magnificent and exciting royal arrivals, with trumpeters and heralds. King Edward IV, Henry VIII, James I and Charles I stayed there. But it also acquired a dark reputation for terrible tortures and executions. Richard II died in its icy dungeons.

About the time when the building of the castle began, there was an engineering disaster and Tateshall became known as “Fracti-pontis,” which is Latin for “broken bridge.” The two words were later reversed and joined to make “Pontefracto,” which became, in Old French, “Ponfreit.”

Nowadays “Pomfret” – a variation of Ponfreit – is still the local people’s name for Pontefract, and for its cakes. These were made in the 17th century as a medicine; then, in 1760, a local chemist, George Dunhill, first had the idea of adding sugar to the liquorice, turning it into a sweetmeat.

The original method of making the cakes is to roll the liquorice into a sausage-shape, pinch off small round lumps and stamp them with a marker. Pontefract’s liquorice is now imported, and many cakes are made by machine. All, however, are stamped with the design of a gate – a symbol of the castle (today a ruin), built when Pontefract had “a broken bridge.”

Pontius Pilate failed to wash away his part in Christ’s Crucifixion

Posted in Bible, Interesting Words, Language, Religion on Tuesday, 20 August 2013

This edited article about the language of the Bible originally appeared in Look and Learn issue number 377 published on 5 April 1969.

Pilate washes his hands, picture, image, illustration

In the First Station of the Cross Christ is sentenced to death by Pilate, who washes his hands after the judgement

“When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person . . .”

(St. Matthew, Chapter 27, verse 24)

When we hear someone say that they “wash their hands of the whole affair,” we know exactly what they mean. They disapprove of something which has been decided, and they cannot agree with those who want to go ahead with it. They will have nothing to do with it, and, to make their disapproval as emphatic as possible, they use a phrase which suggests that, however dirty other people’s hands may get in the matter, their own will be clean. They have “washed their hands of it.”

We may be familiar with this expression, but few people know that when they use these words, they are in fact copying someone who did not content himself with saying them, but who actually did wash his hands in front of the people with whom he disagreed. A good reason for his doing this was the fact that his voice could scarcely be heard in the uproar created by an angry crowd. It was useless to tell them what he thought, so he decided to show them, in this dramatic way.

The incident took place on the first Good Friday, in Jerusalem. At the time hundreds of people had come into the city for the Feast of the Passover. This Feast filled the Jews with such fervour for their faith that there was always the danger of rebellion breaking out against the Romans, who occupied and governed the country at that time.

To understand what happened on that first Good Friday, it is important to remember that the Roman Governor and his army were both feared and resented by the Jews. The Romans, for their part, never understood this proud and independent people, with their devotion to the God of Israel and the Law of Moses. The two powers helped each other only when it seemed really necessary, and the events of the first Good Friday were a tragic example of this.

Read the rest of this article »

The curious compliment of calling someone ‘the salt of the earth’

Posted in Bible, Interesting Words, Language, Minerals, Trade on Monday, 19 August 2013

This edited article about the language of the Bible originally appeared in Look and Learn issue number 376 published on 29 March 1969.

Salt traders, pictuire, image, illustration

Prehistoric salt trading colony, Hallstadt, Upper Austria

If there is too much salt in our food, it will make us thirsty. And many sailors believe that if they were shipwrecked they should not drink sea-water for fear of it driving them mad with thirst.

So to refer to someone whom we greatly admire as “the salt of the earth” may not seem much of a compliment. Yet the words are often heard. Supposing you were watching a lifeboat putting out to sea in rough weather to help a ship in distress; you might hear someone in the admiring but anxious crowd of onlookers say: “Wonderful men, those! They are the salt of the earth!”

Salt is, in fact, much more valuable than most of us realise. Without sufficient salt in our diet we become ill, so vital is it to the health of human beings. Salt is also an essential part of most animals’ diets, and many country cow-sheds have a “salt lick” by each stall.

We learn about common salt in chemistry lessons. This substance is indeed so cheap and so widely available as to deserve the description “common”.

But in some countries even today, and formerly in many others, salt is anything but common. On the contrary, it is rare and expensive. I remember seeing large blocks of salt being carefully weighed at a market in a remote part of Africa. They were being used in payment for other goods instead of money.

If that seems strange, think of our saying that a person who works really hard is “worth his salt”. This is a saying that goes back a very long way, to the days of the Romans, who received part of their wages in salt (“salary” means “salt-money”); and to the days of sailing ships, when, especially on long voyages, a ration of salt was an essential part of a sailor’s wages! Many old sea stories also remind us of the days when food could not be sealed in cans or kept in refrigerators and had to be preserved in salt, either dry, or in a solution of “brine”. Today, in many parts of the country, people still pack beans and other vegetables between layers of salt, as a way of storing them for winter use. So perhaps we should think of salt more gratefully than we sometimes do, especially when we realise how essential it is yet how scarce it can sometimes be.

In the time of Jesus Christ, salt was highly prized because it was the only known means of preserving food. Jesus spoke of his chosen followers, the disciples, as “the salt of the earth” (Matthew, chapter 5, verse 13), meaning that they could do among their fellows many of the useful and necessary things that salt did in their homes. But he added a warning that salt which had lost its flavour and strength was only fit to be thrown away. This was a warning to all who follow him to maintain the true worth and flavour of their faith.

Nathan the Prophet reproached King David the sinner

Posted in Animals, Bible, Interesting Words, Language, Religion on Monday, 19 August 2013

This edited article about the language of the Bible originally appeared in Look and Learn issue number 375 published on 22 March 1969.

Nathan reproaches David, picture, image, illustration

Nathan the prophet denounces the sin of David by William Hole

In modern language, what we may call a “pet project” was sometimes referred to by older generations as an “ewe lamb.” In either case we mean not a living animal or person, but some part of our work for which we have a particular enthusiasm, sometimes something which we have “nursed along,” and to which we have given special care. When someone in charge wants us to hand this favourite job over to someone else, a friend may say, “But you can’t take that away from him! It’s his one ewe lamb!”

The words take us back many centuries, to the time when King David ruled the Hebrew nation. David was a deeply religious man, and in many ways he was a splendid King. But he did one very wicked and cruel thing during the early part of his reign. He wanted to take as his wife a woman who was already married to an officer in the army, and he plotted for this man to be killed in a way which would seem as though it had happened in the ordinary course of battle. After the man’s death, David married the widow.

All this seemed to have been done in an honourable manner, but there was one person who knew David’s guilty secret. This was the prophet Nathan. Nathan was too prudent to risk the king’s anger by accusing him openly of such a crime, but he found a more roundabout way of touching his conscience. He told David a story.

The story was about a rich man who had great flocks and herds, and a poor man who had only one little ewe lamb, which was a family pet. When some guests arrived at the rich man’s house for a meal, he was too mean to kill any of his own sheep for food; instead he stole the poor man’s ewe lamb, and killed that for his guests.

David was furious when he heard this story. Supposing it to be true, he said to the prophet Nathan, “The man who did this shall die for his crime, and repay the poor man four times over!”

There was a tense moment as Nathan looked at the king. Then he said quietly but firmly, “You are the man!”

Like most people, David was quick in seeing the faults of others, but slow to see his own. He had never dreamed that the story to which he was listening was really a word-picture of the way in which he himself had behaved towards the innocent soldier. The soldier’s wife had been dearer to her husband than even the one ewe lamb had been to its owner, and David had seized her just as ruthlessly.

When David understood what Nathan had been trying to say, he was deeply sorry.

The wolf in sheep’s clothing is a simple metaphor for human cunning

Posted in Animals, Bible, Interesting Words, Language on Thursday, 15 August 2013

This edited article about the language of the Bible originally appeared in Look and Learn issue number 373 published on 8 March 1969.

The hanged wolf, picture, image, illustration

In Aesop's fable a shepherd hangs the wolf he had reared as a sheep dog

All sorts of people used to come to Jesus for help and advice, and some of the most unlikely of them became his friends.

The religious leaders of his day used to criticise him for the company he kept. They thought he could not know much about people if he spent his time with those whose evil ways were common knowledge to everybody else. But Jesus knew what he was doing, and some of the worst characters changed for the better after meeting him.

The only kind of people Jesus really disliked were those he called hypocrites. Pretending to be better or wiser than you really were was something which he could not stand.

Among the people who criticised him most often, there were many who did not live up to the high standards which they claimed to follow. One religious group in particular, known as the “Pharisees,” Jesus accused quite openly of hypocrisy.

Jesus accused the Pharisees of many things, reproaching them especially for their concern with little details of religious observance, while at the same time giving way to their own pride and greed. He never stopped trying to bring this home to them, hoping, perhaps, that even among the Pharisees someone might be found who would respond to his message, admit their past failures, and start a new life in his company.

He was not entirely unsuccessful. We know of at least one Pharisee who thought very seriously about what Jesus had said, came to Jesus secretly, and talked with him far into the night. His name was Nicodemus, and his visit to Jesus is mentioned in St. John’s Gospel, chapter 3.

Time after time, Jesus used strong language about hypocrisy among the religious leaders of his day. One day he accused them in new and striking words.

“Beware,” he said, “of false prophets” [that is, religious teachers] “who come to you in sheeps’ clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (St. Matthew, chapter 7, verse 15).

His hearers would be able to picture this in their minds more readily than we can. Many of them were shepherds themselves, and all were used to seeing flocks of sheep on the hillsides. They knew only too well that wolves were on the watch, hungry (“ravening”), fierce and cunning, always looking for a chance to seize one of the sheep and devour it.

The idea of a wolf actually putting on a sheepskin and pretending to be a sheep must have seemed rather far-fetched, but Jesus’s hearers knew just what he meant when he described people in this way. They were hypocrites, and dangerous ones at that.

These words of his have been handed down to become a common expression in English for a wicked person who puts on an air of seeming innocence in order to trap or mislead others.

Only a multi-millionaire could afford today’s equivalent of a King’s ransom

Posted in Historical articles, History, Interesting Words, Language, Politics, Royalty, War on Wednesday, 14 August 2013

This edited article about historical ransoms originally appeared in Look and Learn issue number 373 published on 8 March 1969.

Queen Eleanor pays a ransom, picture, image, illustration

Eleanor of Aquitaine's son, Richard the Lionheart, was captured whilst away on the Crusades, and it was she who paid his ransom, by Jose Luis Salinas

“Worth a king’s ransom,” we say, conjuring up mental pictures of coffers bursting with jewels and gold coins.

But just how much was a king’s ransom?

Richard the Lionheart was captured on his way home from the Third Crusade in 1192 by Duke Leopold of Austria. The Austrian Emperor asked 150,000 marks for him (100,000 marks for the Imperial treasury, and 50,000 for the Duke). This was equivalent to about £2 million today.

As usual, the poor English taxpayer had to suffer. Enough money for a “down payment” for Richard’s release was raised over two years by taxes on income and goods, augmented by fines from those who had supported Bad King John during his brother’s absence. The balance was never paid in full, but the Emperor eventually let Richard go.

In the Middle Ages, ransom money – not to mention booty – was an important addition to a soldier’s pay, which was meagre. A Welsh spearman, for instance, received 2d. a day, while a mounted archer earned 6d. if he provided his own horse. Otherwise he got 3d.

So it was not only loyalty to King and country or his overlord that made the bowman or yeoman don his pot hat and leather jerkin and rally to the colours. There was also the hope that one day he might be lucky enough to capture a V.I.P., who could be sold to his C.O., who in turn would dispose of him to the king (at a profit, of course). And there were “consolation prizes” as well, in the shape of humbler prisoners and loot.

Of course it depended on who captured whom. Many a gallant knight had subsequently to pay back a fortune he had obtained in ransom money to purchase his own freedom.

As in Richard’s case, a king’s ransom money was usually paid by instalments. The first payment secured freedom on parole, or in exchange for hostages, sometimes both, and details of further regular payments were agreed by treaty.

The ransom system had one great virtue; it saved many lives on the battlefield, particularly during mopping-up operations. No one wanted to destroy a potential source of income.

Read the rest of this article »