“Speak of the Devil!”
The problem with dead metaphors
George Orwell said in his Politics and the English Language that “dead metaphors [have] lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves.” He defines “dead metaphors” as those that have been over used so much that the people using them do not know what the comparison originally meant and are probably using them incorrectly. This change in language because the speakers are simply too lazy to invent new combinations of words, as well as the disinterestedness that the misuse of phrases shows, are some of his largest critiques of current language as compared to the past when speakers were thoughtful, intentional, and clear.
Most people have heard the phrase “speak of the Devil,” whether on TV or in everyday life. In these contexts we know it to mean surprise at someone’s sudden arrival when they were being spoken about. Although today the phrase is commonly used in this way, it did not always have such a casual tone and George Orwell would critique our use of it. He looked to the past in order to exemplify how the English language should be used.
The phrase we use today, “speak of the Devil,” is not used in its original form or context. It was first recorded in Piazza Universale, a book of common European phrases written in 1666 where the author claims it is of English origin, though similar phrases appear in older texts and in other languages. The original wording from this text is “Talk of the Devil, and he’s presently at your elbow.” The entirety of the phrase was used in this, or similar, wording until the meaning began to change in the nineteenth century.
When the phrase appears to have originated, or at least became a common saying, it was a warning, not against speaking of other people, but against mentioning the Devil by name. During the seventeenth century, fear and superstition about religion, and specifically evil, was widespread in Europe. This concern was exacerbated by the witch hunts, that were at their prime at this point. For the people of this time, the possibility of the Devil appearing was quite real and they warned against mentioning him by name to avoid this. Although this warning was not always heeded, it does explain the original meaning and use of the phrase “speak of the Devil” in its long form. This meaning conforms to what Orwell deams the proper use of English in that it was able to evoke an image that listeners could identify with, it applied directly to their circumstances, and it was new.
By the nineteenth century, the meaning of the phrase began to change from a caution against evil to a more casual warning. In The Stevens Point Journal in 1892, the phrase was used as part of a warning against eavesdropping, saying “No good of himself does a listener hear, Speak of the devil he’s sure to appear.” While the entire phrase was still used, it was taken out of the social context in which it came to be, lessening its ability to create an image with power. It was also used to express a different meaning than originally intended, both critiques Orwell uses against dying metaphors in modern English and our use of them. The meaning of the phrase continued to change throughout the following decades to its current use as an expression of surprise and coincidence.
“Speak of the Devil, and he’s sure to appear” was shortened by the mid-twentieth century to its current form, “speak of the Devil!” This shortening of the phrase shifted the meaning further from its original usage and took it out of its context in words and in the beliefs of the society it was used in. This shift exemplifies George Orwell’s critique of modern language use. In his Politics and the English Language, he criticizes the use of dead and dying metaphors. These are comparisons that have been taken out of their intended context and have their meanings altered but continue to be used, he says, because people are too lazy to come up with their own metaphors. This phrase in particular was taken out of its original context of paranoid seventeenth century England and is now used very casually to express surprise and coincidence, causing the phrase to become almost meaningless.
This drastic change in the phrase corrupted its meaning, use, and form. The public’s attitudes towards religion changed with the passage of time and developments in science but rather than invent original expressions, they chose to debase this one, which when first used had the power to evoke a moving image but now only expresses mild surprise. In addition to the phrase itself being ruined and its power removed, the continued misuse of it further removed it, and those who used it, from the church and their traditional teachings. It had the reverse effect of destroying those teachings for the people as well.
In today’s world language travels faster than it has ever before and is being used and heard constantly by more people than ever. With this mass use of language phrases are used over and over, often in the wrong context and their meanings can be misinterpreted and lost more quickly than previously. It is the job of the people to listen carefully to how their language is being used and presented to them and ensure that it is with intention and clarity and that it is not further corrupted simply because it is being used more.
