Etymological epiphany

[haggholm]

I am currently reading Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes. Being written in ‘Anno Domini’ 1651, it uses some language that is not so much in current parlance, so for instance, he contrasts, in one passage, Innocence with its opposite, Nocence.

I've used that word, actually, but humorously, as the logical but (I thought) non-existent antonym of innocence. Seeing it, however, made me realise that, obviously, it must share its root with nocebo. The Latin placebo means I please, and is familiar in the context of the placebo effect, when a benefit is felt from the ingestion of a substance that, in itself, does not produce the effect—a positive psychosomatic reaction, in other words. Less familiar is the nocebo effect, which is perfectly analogous, except that it confers harm not benefit. The word nocebo means I harm.

The adjective nocent, then, must refer to someone having the quality of harming: Tending to harm, or having harmed, perhaps. Innocent, by the same logic, refers to someone who does not harm, or has not harmed. When I think about it in these terms, it seems ridiculously obvious, but the concept of innocence is (in my mind at least) so tied up with abstract notions of justice that I had quite divorced it from its original context of causing, or not causing harm. Say what you will about Hobbes's conclusions; he certainly does not make the mistake of forgetting what the aims of justice are.

It brings me an obscure sort of pleasure to puzzle out classical etymology for myself, in however small ways.

Comments

[sheepykins.livejournal.com]

I love this post.