Goropius, born in what is now North Brabant, used etymology to argue that the language of Eden was the same as the local dialect spoken in his region. His theory, though largely dismissed by contemporary critics, highlights an unusual moment in the intellectual history of the Renaissance, when scholars eagerly tried to link modern languages with ancient biblical traditions.
The Language of Eden: A Dutch Dialect?
Johannes Goropius Becanus was deeply fascinated by language, and in the 16th century, questions about the “original” language of humanity were on many scholars’ minds. Goropius proposed that Adam and Eve spoke what he called “Adamic,” a language he believed to be linked to the Brabantian dialect of his home province.
He argued that Brabantian, with its short words and simplicity, was a more fitting candidate for the original language of mankind than Hebrew, Latin, or Greek, which had much more complex structures. According to Goropius, if Adam gave names to all things, including Eve, he did so in this language, which was simpler and more natural than the languages of antiquity.
This claim was not made in isolation. Scholars throughout history have attempted to identify the language spoken by Adam and Eve, with some asserting it was Hebrew, while others, like Goropius, looked to their own languages. Goropius’s theory, however, was among the most unusual, suggesting that Eden itself might have been situated in his own Brabant, an argument that mingled linguistic speculation with geographical imagination.
Etymology and Biblical Names: The Brabantian Roots
Goropius’s arguments rested on an audacious etymology of biblical names, which he believed revealed their Brabantian origins. For instance, he claimed that the name “Noah” came from the Brabantian word nood, meaning “need,” while “Adam” was derived from Hath-Dam, which he translated as “barrier against hate.”
His interpretations of other names were similarly far-fetched, and he even extended his theory to Egyptian hieroglyphs, which he also argued were derived from Brabantian. This kind of etymological reasoning, based more on personal impressions than linguistic science, was not widely accepted by his peers. Nevertheless, Goropius’s work captured attention because it linked ancient biblical figures to a modern European dialect.
Goropius’s theories were part of a growing trend in 16th-century Europe, as scholars began questioning the origins of human language. However, his work stood out for its extreme claims and lack of rigorous evidence. While many agreed with the idea that languages might have biblical roots, few were willing to accept Goropius’s radical theory.
The Reaction: Scholars Dismiss Goropius’s Theory
Despite the appeal of Goropius’s theories to some contemporaries, most scholars rejected his claims. His ideas were dismissed by leading figures like Justus Lipsius, a prominent humanist of the time, who criticized the lack of scholarly rigor in Goropius’s work. The Calvinist scholar Joseph Scaliger went so far as to call the theory “nonsense.” Critics argued that Goropius’s attempt to connect his local dialect to the language of Eden was not just misguided but damaging to the study of philology.
However, Goropius did not lack supporters. The Flemish cartographer Abraham Ortellius and the English historian Richard Hakluyt found aspects of his work appealing, with Ortellius even endorsing the theory of a Dutch linguistic superiority. Despite these endorsements, Goropius’s theories failed to gain any long-term academic support, and the term “goropism” emerged, referring to a discredited hypothesis in which a modern language was claimed to be the original human language.
Though his ideas were largely discredited, Goropius’s work remains an intriguing chapter in the history of linguistics, shedding light on the intellectual climate of Renaissance Europe and the ways in which scholars tried to connect modern languages to biblical traditions.