1801: On the Word “Miracle”
By the Right Reverend John Mallard, Bishop of Ducks‑on‑Pond
There are certain words whose pedigree betrays them. They arrive before us clad in celestial satin, only to be revealed, on etymological undressing, as creatures of the earth—perhaps even of the looking‑glass. Such a one is miracle. The vulgar imagination conceives it as God’s impolite interruption of His own creation. The linguist suggests something far subtler and, indeed, far more flattering to human eyesight.
According to the new Compendium of Antique Words by the industrious Mr. Bethune‑Shiel (that book which makes philology as indecently delightful as alchemy), miracle comes to us from mirari, “to wonder,” but with deeper resonances of “to look upon too closely.” The primitive root, we are told, was smei—yes, the very syllable that gives birth to smile and, by a cousin’s marriage, to smirk. The miracle, therefore, is not a thunderbolt in theology but a muscular event of the human face. Religion, it would seem, began when Man first smiled at the inexplicable.
This genealogy pleases me exceedingly. It rescues the word from monopoly by Providence and returns it to the innocent astonishment of perception itself. Dr. Corbyn, whose tedious sermons fill the circulating libraries, insists that belief precedes wonder. I would invert him: it is wonder, careless and sensuous, that fathers belief. What miracles exist outside the eyelid? None, until an observer declares them so.
The Compendium mischievously proceeds to recruit an entire household of allied terms. Mirror, admire, marvel, mirage, mirific—all descend from the same luminous stock. In the medieval Latin glossaries there even appears a distant and possibly apocryphal form, manel, defined as “to regard with enamoured curiosity.” I am tempted to canonise it as the patron verb of aesthetes. Thus one might say, “He manels the sunset,” or, “The Bishop manelled the choirboys’ harmonics,” without any implication that supernatural forces had been involved—only beauty observed to the point of intoxication.
Indeed, the mirific—the “wonder‑making”—belongs as much to art as to divinity. Lady Stott’s recent poem The Mirific Garden speaks of flowers that “beheld themselves into bloom,” a botanical plagiarism of Milton’s angels, but not without charm. “All looking,” she says, “is creation’s continuation.” A doctrine perilously close to truth.
From the Greek mysteries we inherit the same intuition. The goddess Themis, we are told, first taught mortals to worship by contemplation, not by offering. To gaze was to nourish. Here again we see the miracle not performed but perceived: an act of the eye rather than the hand. How disappointed she must be, poor Themis, to find her descendants still searching heaven for interruptions instead of noticing the delicate irregularities of their own reflections.
I was reminded of this two evenings past while preparing the episcopal mirror for the Duke, who, like all my family, prefers his image to his doctrine. The silvering, worn by candle smoke, gave back a doubled visage—half radiant, half eroded. Wondering whether one ought to bless or to polish such a defect, I discovered myself hymning softly the old psalm, “It is marvellous in our eyes.” And truly it was so. The mirror, by falsifying me, produced a better theology than any I have preached.
Perhaps it is not profane, then, to assert that the miracle is essentially aesthetic: the point where perception collapses beneath its own delight. The smile—our earliest liturgy—remains its emblem. The rustic who grins at dawn performs unconsciously the same rite as the bishop who extols divine provision; both merely acknowledge astonishment. The philosophers, of course, try to arrest this astonishment in systems. Mr. Godwin calls it “rational enthusiasm,” while Miss Wollstonecraft, more musical, describes it as “that spiritual vanity by which the senses pay compliments to the soul.” Admirable phrases both, though I am inclined to trust neither the reason nor the soul so fully. They tend to explain away the shimmer that first provoked them.
Mr. Bethune‑Shiel adds, with his usual mild malice, that in the vulgar Latin there was a secondary derivative, mirare, “to gaze with care,” from which mirage and mirror descend. “It is a thing observable,” he notes, “that men who admire long enough become creators.” This seems to me the secret faith of artists, priests, and lovers alike—that attention itself gives life. What else is prayer but an aesthetic of scrutiny? The Almighty, meanwhile, survives by being looked at. If we ceased, heaven would darken from neglect.
Thus the miracle, conscientiously pursued, dissolves into its own mirror. The divine and the sensual meet upon the same reflective plane. Admiration—another child of mirari—was once a sacred exercise; now it is the pastime of drawing‑rooms and prefaces. The secular world, always more consistent than the devout, has understood the origin though not the dignity of its wonder. It smiles more easily than it prays.
I have lately recommended to my clergy that they adopt a theory of minor miracles, each traceable to acts of perception. The first—the morning’s mirror seen without disgust. The second—the courteous smile truly felt. The third—the admiration of beauty without demand. These, I maintain, are more divine than any suspension of natural law. Providence, if it exists, prefers the courteous observer to the clamorous devotee.
One might object that such a programme abolishes heaven altogether. So it does—and leaves in its place a more affectionate earth. Mr. Craske, our curate, fears for my orthodoxy. He claims to detect “a smiling atheism” in my sermons. Very good; smiling is closer to prayer than grim conviction ever was. In the first chapter of the Life of St. Euphranor (newly reissued by the Society for Pious Romances), the saint is rebuked for laughing during the apparition of an angel. “I laughed,” she replies, “that wonder might breathe.” A finer theology, I think, than the entire Nicene Creed.
And yet, even while I write this, I sense the shadow of my own vanity. To make elegance serve as doctrine is the oldest temptation of the clerical caste. Beauty is our substitute for belief. I recognise the manoeuvre and, of course, proceed with it. For what else is possible in a century that has learned to doubt and yet continues to dress? The miracle, in 1801, wears satin robes of irony. Faith is a matter of visual taste.
If any reader demands a conclusion (as the educated always do), I shall offer none. The word miracle itself concludes nothing—it merely opens the eyelid wider. Between smile and mirror, marvel and admire, the divine dwindles graciously into etiquette. To look, to like, to linger: these verbs are our residual sacraments. Let the Church call that heresy if it must. I call it optics.
You are here: States of Grace > Philosophy