4

When following the formal English rule of Reverential Capitals, any reference to God Almighty is capitalized, as are equivalent non-Christian entities such as "Allah" or the neo-pagan "Goddess" (and various similar entities from fiction, like the Creator from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time.)

Does the rule extend as well to polytheistic deities of infinite character? If discussing a variation of Greek gods where each deity has infinite and omnipresent control over their particular sphere of influence, would pronouns be capitalized when they wouldn't otherwise be?

Zeus controls lightning. Do not anger Him.

or

Zeus controls lightning. Do not anger him.

(Assume, of course, that reverential capitals are otherwise used, as in "Jesus and His apostles.")

4
  • 3
    There is no divine rule about this. Dec 7, 2013 at 7:38
  • I'd suppose the reverence is to the entity, not to its proper name. (meta: I'd also think there are avoidable adjectives in the question.)
    – Kris
    Dec 7, 2013 at 7:42
  • I adjusted the examples for clarity's sake.
    – DougM
    Dec 7, 2013 at 7:56
  • Related english.stackexchange.com/questions/3139/…
    – Mitch
    Feb 23, 2014 at 1:17

3 Answers 3

2

No, only monotheistic gods are capitalised by those who adhere to this convention, not Zeus or other dieties.

...but the other gods were gathered together in the halls of Olympian Zeus. Among them the father of gods and men was first to speak, for in his heart he thought of noble Aegisthus, [30] whom far-famed Orestes, Agamemnon's son, had slain. Thinking on him he spoke among the immortals, and said: ...

Odyssey I, ca. 27–31 (translation by A.T. Murray, 1919).

The exception ought to be Cerberus.

7
  • Which one do you mean?
    – Kris
    Dec 7, 2013 at 8:53
  • You're taking one example and incorrectly using it to support a claim that this monotheistic/polytheistic capitalization convention is somehow standard. It's not. For example, the Chicago Manual of Style, 15e, says that Astarte, Freyja, and Mithra deserve capitalization simply because they're proper nouns, pronouns referring to the Christian God and Jesus are not, and there is no chauvinistic distinction between religions as you suggest. That doesn't mean they're right and you're wrong; it just means that what you're proposing as a standard rule isn't a standard rule.
    – user16723
    Feb 21, 2014 at 5:24
  • @BenCrowell: I phrased my answer carefully: only monotheistic gods are capitalised by those who adhere to this convention, not Zeus or other deities. You will notice by those who adhere to this convention. The only definitive statement here is that non-monotheistic deities are not capitalised; I said nothing about the capitalisation of monotheistic gods in general, nor did I make any statement about those who do not adhere to the convention. You may dispute this based on some style book, but I assure you that it is not standard in classics to capitalise gods. Feb 21, 2014 at 11:28
  • @BenCrowell: Are you sure what you and the Chicago Manual are talking about are the pronouns, as opposed to the proper nouns? Nobody would spell zeus. My answer is only about the pronouns. Feb 21, 2014 at 11:31
  • @Cerberus: only monotheistic gods are capitalised by those who adhere to this convention The point is that there is no universal convention, just individual conventions. Your quote shows that A.T. Murray either didn't use reverential capitals at all or perhaps followed some monotheistic/polythestic rule. The quote in my answer from the Chicago Manual of Style shows that they don't use reverential capitals at all.
    – user16723
    Feb 21, 2014 at 15:06
1

It's a common misconception that, according to some standardized rule in the English language, references to the Christian deity --- or various other divine beings --- should be capitalized. English does have a standard rule about capitalizing proper nouns.

Capitalized, because they're proper nouns:

We should get Mother a birthday present.

We should sacrifice an unblemished calf to God.

Not capitalized:

My mother is a librarian.

The practice of capitalizing references to deities, when not proper nouns, is not standardized.

For our heart shall reioyce in him: because we haue trusted in his holy name. -- King James Bible (1611), Psalms 33:21

For in Him doth our heart rejoice, For in His holy name we have trusted. -- Young's Literal Translation (1862)

For our heart rejoices in him, because we have trusted in his holy name. -- World English Bible (1997)

As you can see from the dates of the three examples, this practice of adding extra capitalization out of respect, called reverential capitalization, was something that gained popularity in the 19th century and later became less popular. The historical sequence is something like this. The original holy texts of Judaism and Christianity were written in languages that didn't have a distinction between capital and lowercase letters. When early English translations of the Bible such as Tyndale's were made, English rules of spelling and capitalization weren't standardized. In the 17th and 18th centuries, people started capitalizing all nouns in English (see Capitalisation of nouns in English in the 17th and 18th centuries ). Later this convention was abandoned, and one of the people who was influential in this was Benjamin Blayney, who produced a 1769 edition of the King James Bible in which nouns were not capitalized. (Blayney may have done this simply to save space on the page. See Gordon Campbell, Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011.) Now that nouns were no longer being capitalized in general, it occurred to some people in the 19th century that the Christian deity would be gratified if we would give him back the capital letters that other nouns no longer enjoyed. This practice then fell out of favor in bibles, but remained enshrined in various style manuals and house styles.

In summary, reverential capitals have no strong historical basis in English, have never been standardized, and are optional. Plenty of people who believe strongly in their religions feel no need to demonstrate it by using capitals in phrases such as "in His holy name." These capitals are distracting to the reader, and should be avoided. If you worship Odin, and you think He will be gratified by capital letters in words referring to Him, feel free to do so, but there is no standard rule requiring you to do so.

As an example of a modern style, the Chicago Manual of Style, 15e, says that Astarte, Freyja, and Mithra deserve capitalization simply because they're proper nouns, while pronouns referring to the Christian God and Jesus do not:

They prayed to God that he would deliver them. -- Chicago Manual of Style, 15e, 8.102

This makes sense in a multicultural society, where it would would come across as chauvinistic if we gave the Lamb of God His reverential capital but told Freya that She didn't deserve one. The Associated Press Stylebook also says not to capitalize the pronouns. The US Government Printing Office Style Manual says to capitalize pronouns like Him, but not to capitalize himself. These examples show that there is no standard rule in English about whether to use reverential capitals.

Some confusion may result from the fact that in a monotheistic religion, you can have "God" as a proper noun (praise God) or "god" as a common noun (gods of silver, or gods of gold). In a polytheistic context, there is no way that it could ever be a proper noun, since it's not the name of a specific being. This may leave people with the impression that there is a standard rule in English that for purposes of capitalization we should treat the deities of some religions in one way and the deities of other religions in a different way. The only standard rule at work here is that we capitalize proper nouns.

3
  • 1
    Your answer argues against the basis of a question rather than answering it. It's not "should you follow Reverential Capitals", it's "how should you apply it if you do."
    – DougM
    Feb 21, 2014 at 13:31
  • @DougM: If someone is writing a magazine article, and the magazine follows the Chicago Manual of Style, then they should follow that style. If they aren't trying to sell their writing to someone who has a preference, they can do whatever they like (or whatever they think will please their deity), because there is no standardized rule.
    – user16723
    Feb 21, 2014 at 15:02
  • @DougM An appropriate answer to a question of the form "Does the rule extend to..." is "There is no such rule." Feb 21, 2014 at 16:35
-2

If you are writing primarily for yourself or to express your own view (whether or not others will share), you can darn well set your own style. In Luxembourg, the tiny European duchy, they refer to The Grand Duke with a capitalized pronoun: "In fact, He speaks several languages beside the Luxembourgian of His people." In the USA, the website of the current successor to the American Nazi Party (yes, their free speech rights are protected under the Constitution!) refer to Adolf Hitler with a capitalized "He." (You can look both both these examples up if you want to, and probably find others.) Publishers, who take responsibility for what they disseminate, can certainly impose their style-book rules, however. Every large newspaper has such a rule-book; others use the Associated Press Stylebook, The [University of] Chicago [Press] Manual of Style or something similar. There are dozens of standards, from the MLA (Modern Library Association) recognized by most academic presses and journals, to one, in all likelyhood, just published yesterday by someone who felt that it is desperately needed in today's confusing world.

2

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.