I read an essay recently (“Lake Panic,” page 111) which describes an enormous difference between the author’s experience of one of our small, shallow lakes in Wisconsin and a cold, deep, and clear lake in Maine; the former, friendly, gentle, peaceful, but the latter strangely terrifying despite its clear water and idyllic surroundings.
“It was terrifying,” I thought to myself as I read, “Because it wasn’t a lake, it was a mere.” That’s a near-archaic word. You may have only encountered “mere” if you had British Literature at some point in your schooling and studied Beowulf in an older translation. Sometimes it’s translated “sea” or “lake.” But in my mind, a mere is no ordinary lake:
Steep stony slopes, narrow ways
Choked paths, uncertain gullies,
Cliff-ledges over haunted lakes.
He took the lead with a few good
Men, to sound the unknown way,
Until he reached a mountain grove,
Above grey stone, a hanging wood,
Dour and dismal. The water below,
Seethed with blood. For the Danes,
The Shieldings’ Friends, there was
Heart’s pain to endure; grief woke
In those noble thanes, on finding
Aeschere’s head by the cliff-edge.
The lake welled blood – folk stared –
A fiery gore.
Source, pg 52.
Words have meanings and connotations; this we all know. But words have more, too. They carry a hidden genome that marks their source and origin, a skeleton inside of each word that hauls a suitcase full of history and culture that bounces along behind the word’s contemporary meaning. Nearly all of this is unknown at a conscious level to us, the users of our words. Some are quite sensitive to it: Churchill famously was, as was JRR Tolkien, being, as he was, a professional philologist and professor of English language and literature. Most of us are not consciously aware of words’ histories, though.
But philology knows. Philology remembers. And although I’m a casual amateur at paying attention to philological matters, my hunches about words are sometimes very good. Because of my gut instinct to think of that Maine lake as a mere, I suspected that “mere” might be of Anglo-Saxon origin and that perhaps “lake” was not.
I was correct.
“Mere” shares a source with the “mer-” in “mermaid.” It’s also cognate with the “mari-” in “maritime,” although that variation of a much older shared source word (the original shared word was proto-Indo-European) crashes into English via Latin, a very loud and obvious route, rather like a Roman Legion stomping into town and wrecking the furniture at Hrothgar’s longhouse.
The word “lake” has proto-Indo-European origins as well, although it comes into Modern English via Middle French. Respectable enough, but not that interesting to me. It’s not an Anglo-Saxon word. But mere is.
Because the Anglo Saxons hold the oldest, deepest parts of the English language, because they lived in the midst of heart and blood and God and monsters of every type, their words often have a ghostly ring around them that lingers in the air after you speak them in a way that words such “institution,” “celebratory,” “asylum,” or “fizzle” do not. (Latin, Latin, Greek, and French-influenced Middle English words, respectively.)
This is why clear, cold deep water encircled with bluffs of stone that terrifies is a mere and the sandy-bottomed warm water left behind by an ancient ice boulder, lined with summer cottages, is a lake.