What do you think?
Rate this book
Speaker's Meaning
Book by Barfield, Owen
- GenresPhilosophyPsychology
128 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1967
3 people are currently reading
106 people want to read
About the author
Owen Barfield
71 books177 followersArthur Owen Barfield was a British philosopher, author, poet, and critic.
Barfield was born in London. He was educated at Highgate School and Wadham College, Oxford and in 1920 received a first class degree in English language and literature. After finishing his B. Litt., which became his third book Poetic Diction, he was a dedicated poet and author for over ten years. After 1934 his profession was as a solicitor in London, from which he retired in 1959 aged 60. Thereafter he had many guest appointments as Visiting Professor in North America. Barfield published numerous essays, books, and articles. His primary focus was on what he called the "evolution of consciousness," which is an idea which occurs frequently in his writings. He is best known as a founding father of Anthroposophy in the English speaking world.
Barfield has been known as "the first and last Inkling". He had a profound influence on C. S. Lewis, and through his books The Silver Trumpet and Poetic Diction (dedicated to C.S. Lewis), an appreciable effect on J. R. R. Tolkien. Lewis was a good friend of Barfield since 1919, and termed Barfield "the best and wisest of my unofficial teachers". That Barfield did not consider philosophy merely intellectually is illustrated by a well-known interchange that took place between Lewis and Barfield. Lewis one day made the mistake of referring to philosophy as "a subject." "It wasn't a subject to Plato," said Barfield, "It was a way." Lewis refers to Barfield as the "Second Friend" in Surprised by Joy:
Barfield and C. S. Lewis met in 1919 and were close friends for 44 years. Barfield was instrumental in converting Lewis to theism during the early period of their friendship which they affectionately called 'The Great War'. Maud also guided Lewis. As well as being friend and teacher to Lewis, Barfield was his legal adviser and trustee. Lewis dedicated his 1936 book Allegory of Love to Barfield. Lewis wrote his 1949 book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe for Lucy Barfield and he dedicated The Voyage of the Dawn Treader to Geoffrey in 1952.
Barfield was born in London. He was educated at Highgate School and Wadham College, Oxford and in 1920 received a first class degree in English language and literature. After finishing his B. Litt., which became his third book Poetic Diction, he was a dedicated poet and author for over ten years. After 1934 his profession was as a solicitor in London, from which he retired in 1959 aged 60. Thereafter he had many guest appointments as Visiting Professor in North America. Barfield published numerous essays, books, and articles. His primary focus was on what he called the "evolution of consciousness," which is an idea which occurs frequently in his writings. He is best known as a founding father of Anthroposophy in the English speaking world.
Barfield has been known as "the first and last Inkling". He had a profound influence on C. S. Lewis, and through his books The Silver Trumpet and Poetic Diction (dedicated to C.S. Lewis), an appreciable effect on J. R. R. Tolkien. Lewis was a good friend of Barfield since 1919, and termed Barfield "the best and wisest of my unofficial teachers". That Barfield did not consider philosophy merely intellectually is illustrated by a well-known interchange that took place between Lewis and Barfield. Lewis one day made the mistake of referring to philosophy as "a subject." "It wasn't a subject to Plato," said Barfield, "It was a way." Lewis refers to Barfield as the "Second Friend" in Surprised by Joy:
But the Second Friend is the man who disagrees with you about everything. He is not so much the alter ego as the antiself. Of course he shares your interests; otherwise he would not become your friend at all. But he has approached them all at a different angle. He has read all the right books but has got the wrong thing out of every one. It is as if he spoke your language but mispronounced it. How can he be so nearly right and yet, invariably, just not right?
Barfield and C. S. Lewis met in 1919 and were close friends for 44 years. Barfield was instrumental in converting Lewis to theism during the early period of their friendship which they affectionately called 'The Great War'. Maud also guided Lewis. As well as being friend and teacher to Lewis, Barfield was his legal adviser and trustee. Lewis dedicated his 1936 book Allegory of Love to Barfield. Lewis wrote his 1949 book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe for Lucy Barfield and he dedicated The Voyage of the Dawn Treader to Geoffrey in 1952.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
December 5, 2012
Owen Barfield is one of those thinkers I feel like I’m supposed to admire, but despite reading this little book and (half of) Poetic Diction, I need to admit that he bores me to tears. Also, I wonder if he isn’t a bit of a crank.
In Speaker’s Meaning Barfield wants to suggest that mind precedes matter and that nature has an “inner” life and not only an outer one (i.e. the kind open to scientific inquiry). He further wants to suggest that it’s at least possible to attempt to demonstrate this by an analysis of the history of linguistic meaning, and especially of metaphor. There’s a lot of suggesting going on and very little arguing. It feels sloppy, irresponsible, bloviatory.
Don’t let me dissuade you from venturing forth into the mire of Barfieldiana, however. I am no authority on the man or his ideas. It’s very possible I misunderstand him completely. I warn you, however, that if you do pick up some Barfield you’ll have to grapple with sentences like the following:
"As against this, I have contended that an overall historic-semantic points to successive phases marking a progression from one type of subject-object relation towards another; from the state of active object, correlative to passive subject, to the state of passive object, correlative to passive subject."
No one, I suspect, can have anything very worthy to say if it’s necessary to say it like that.
In Speaker’s Meaning Barfield wants to suggest that mind precedes matter and that nature has an “inner” life and not only an outer one (i.e. the kind open to scientific inquiry). He further wants to suggest that it’s at least possible to attempt to demonstrate this by an analysis of the history of linguistic meaning, and especially of metaphor. There’s a lot of suggesting going on and very little arguing. It feels sloppy, irresponsible, bloviatory.
Don’t let me dissuade you from venturing forth into the mire of Barfieldiana, however. I am no authority on the man or his ideas. It’s very possible I misunderstand him completely. I warn you, however, that if you do pick up some Barfield you’ll have to grapple with sentences like the following:
"As against this, I have contended that an overall historic-semantic points to successive phases marking a progression from one type of subject-object relation towards another; from the state of active object, correlative to passive subject, to the state of passive object, correlative to passive subject."
No one, I suspect, can have anything very worthy to say if it’s necessary to say it like that.
November 12, 2018
An interesting (and counter-intuitive) essay on the evolution of words that appear concrete/immaterial, or what Barfield calls "outer" and "inner".
"As the history of philosophy reflects the latest stage of this agelong process, so the semantic history of the words "subject" and "subjective" reflects the history of philosophy. Thus, for 'subjective,' we find in the Oxford English Dictionary, supported by quotations, the lexical meaning, in the seventeenth century : pertaining to the essence or reality of a thing; real, essential. A further lexical meaning, but dating back now only to the first half of the eighteenth century, is: having its source in the mind. By the second half of the same century we have : pertaining or peculiar to an individual subject or his mental operations . . . personal, individual. … It is clear, I think, that this equation of individualized mind with unreality, which is implicit in its predominant lexical meaning today, irrupted into subjective from the factitious picture, prevalent in the nineteenth century, of a world of existential objects chronologically anterior to any existential subject (and therefore supposed more “real”)-a world of outsides with no inside to them. We have forgotten that the concept of an object without a subject is as abstract as the concept of a surface without a depth and as futile as that of a back without a front" (p.79).
"As the history of philosophy reflects the latest stage of this agelong process, so the semantic history of the words "subject" and "subjective" reflects the history of philosophy. Thus, for 'subjective,' we find in the Oxford English Dictionary, supported by quotations, the lexical meaning, in the seventeenth century : pertaining to the essence or reality of a thing; real, essential. A further lexical meaning, but dating back now only to the first half of the eighteenth century, is: having its source in the mind. By the second half of the same century we have : pertaining or peculiar to an individual subject or his mental operations . . . personal, individual. … It is clear, I think, that this equation of individualized mind with unreality, which is implicit in its predominant lexical meaning today, irrupted into subjective from the factitious picture, prevalent in the nineteenth century, of a world of existential objects chronologically anterior to any existential subject (and therefore supposed more “real”)-a world of outsides with no inside to them. We have forgotten that the concept of an object without a subject is as abstract as the concept of a surface without a depth and as futile as that of a back without a front" (p.79).
April 16, 2022
I was aware of the impact that Barfield’s accusation of “chronological snobbery” had on the C.S. Lewis, and this book is a detailed exploration - through a series of lectures - of what Barfield was talking about. It’s a fascinating study of history - or really, the history of history - and the development of language. While this is not primarily a book of apologetics, Barfield’s conclusions are devastating to the philosophical and historical presuppositions of evolutionary theory.
It’s a bit heady at times - there are passages that I had to re-read and then re-read again before I comprehended his point (and even then, sometimes I just had to move on), but the overall gist is profoundly simple: we assume/read our assumptions back into our theories of historical/language (and scientific) development. Even the term “prehistory/prehistoric) is a modern term developed to confirm a progressive view of society. Because history can only be studied via the recorded events, we miss the complexity of the lives that made history - so we project our modern assumptions onto them… and - even if unintentionally - reshape the past to fit our present. Barfield critiques this by leading us through the historic development of something concrete - language - where we can actually see how/when/and even why meanings changed (including a fascinating look at the development of “focus” and “gravity”) and the consequences of those changes (for good or ill).
It’s a bit heady at times - there are passages that I had to re-read and then re-read again before I comprehended his point (and even then, sometimes I just had to move on), but the overall gist is profoundly simple: we assume/read our assumptions back into our theories of historical/language (and scientific) development. Even the term “prehistory/prehistoric) is a modern term developed to confirm a progressive view of society. Because history can only be studied via the recorded events, we miss the complexity of the lives that made history - so we project our modern assumptions onto them… and - even if unintentionally - reshape the past to fit our present. Barfield critiques this by leading us through the historic development of something concrete - language - where we can actually see how/when/and even why meanings changed (including a fascinating look at the development of “focus” and “gravity”) and the consequences of those changes (for good or ill).
December 16, 2024
This 81-page book taken from four university lectures Barfield gave is an even more succinct presentation than Saving the Appearances of his views on how the evolution of language proves the primacy of mind before matter, and the evolution of consciousness as a contraction into individuality.
April 5, 2021
I'm sure this is excellent but I really didn't understand most of it! So my rating is more a reflection on my ignorance than on the book itself.
January 1, 2013
Four and a half stars.
However, given the news on television in the last week, I'm almost tempted to give Barfield five and a half stars.
I'm a name ferret, constantly searching out the original sense of names, not the sanitised meanings so prevalent today. As a result, I observe the way people use their own names and interact with the meaning as if it is an incarnation of self.
Consequently, I am acutely interested in what various thinkers perceive as the 'meaning of meaning'.
Barfield's ideas come closest to explaining my observations. In fact, he explains attitudes I couldn't account for: the sudden jump out of reasoned logic when certain thoughts are approached. That reaction has always baffled me but Barfield's hypothesis of a taboo seems a likely explanation.
I was particularly taken by his thought that some speakers take figurative language and make it mean 'more than is yet recognized'.
Such, he says, was the case with Kepler and Newton, each of whom took a metaphor and invested it with so much meaning that it changed the nature of the word they borrowed so poetically. Focus and gravity are the respective metaphors in question.
And although some might quibble with Barfield, I think this last week has proven his point beyond much doubt. Television news has repeatedly highlighted the decision of the Macquarie Dictionary to change the definition of misogyny as a result of a speech back in October by Julia Gillard, attacking Tony Abbott.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary has, incredibly to my mind, followed the Macquarie's lead.
One speaker - Julia Gillard - personalising the word misogyny in subtle ways has changed its official meaning throughout much of the English-speaking world.
You've got to wonder about this as a legacy.
However, given the news on television in the last week, I'm almost tempted to give Barfield five and a half stars.
I'm a name ferret, constantly searching out the original sense of names, not the sanitised meanings so prevalent today. As a result, I observe the way people use their own names and interact with the meaning as if it is an incarnation of self.
Consequently, I am acutely interested in what various thinkers perceive as the 'meaning of meaning'.
Barfield's ideas come closest to explaining my observations. In fact, he explains attitudes I couldn't account for: the sudden jump out of reasoned logic when certain thoughts are approached. That reaction has always baffled me but Barfield's hypothesis of a taboo seems a likely explanation.
I was particularly taken by his thought that some speakers take figurative language and make it mean 'more than is yet recognized'.
Such, he says, was the case with Kepler and Newton, each of whom took a metaphor and invested it with so much meaning that it changed the nature of the word they borrowed so poetically. Focus and gravity are the respective metaphors in question.
And although some might quibble with Barfield, I think this last week has proven his point beyond much doubt. Television news has repeatedly highlighted the decision of the Macquarie Dictionary to change the definition of misogyny as a result of a speech back in October by Julia Gillard, attacking Tony Abbott.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary has, incredibly to my mind, followed the Macquarie's lead.
One speaker - Julia Gillard - personalising the word misogyny in subtle ways has changed its official meaning throughout much of the English-speaking world.
You've got to wonder about this as a legacy.
July 31, 2013
So my first question is how exactly do you rate a book that you are too stupid to understand?
+1 for Barfield's discussion of the expressive and the communicative meanings of words.
+1 for the discussion of the difference between "inspiration" and "imagination."
+2 for the idea of how the meaning of language expands and contracts over time, and of how figurative meaning can change into literal meaning, and for how there is no historical linguistic evidence that words began with concrete meanings before they possessed metaphorical meanings.
+1 for Barfield's discussion of the expressive and the communicative meanings of words.
+1 for the discussion of the difference between "inspiration" and "imagination."
+2 for the idea of how the meaning of language expands and contracts over time, and of how figurative meaning can change into literal meaning, and for how there is no historical linguistic evidence that words began with concrete meanings before they possessed metaphorical meanings.
March 20, 2016
The book presents four University lectures that Barfield presented in the United States in 1965. This book goes well with his earlier Romanticism Comes of Age. I recommend it.
December 16, 2014
Read: 13-15 Sep 2009. Enjoyed.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews