Greetings,
I thought I had already posted this, but it seems that I hadn't. This is a previous project that I had done. It traces the history of swear words.This subject has come to my attention again ever since I watched the most interesting "History of Swearing" on Netflix recently. Enjoy. Oh, yes, be warned, this is quite long.
Cheers,
Henry.
The following
discussion contains language which some may find offensive. This investigation
is not suitable for minors without adult supervision. This is a discussion
about offensive language and this language has not been censored by the author
in anyway. Reader discretion is advised.
The author
and publisher claim copyright over material which is original and thus written
by the author and published by this publisher. All other material previously
published and not in the public domain is copyright to its original author and
publisher.
Swearing,
profanity, cuss words, curse words, there are many different terms which are
used for these words which cause offence to people. There has been little
scholarly study on the subject of these often used words in the English
language, or any other for that matter. In some cases it is because they are
simply not used, like English, in other it is because the subject is somewhat
taboo and simply not studied, or considered worthy of study.
The
examination that follows focuses on the subject of swearing in the Elizabethan
period primarily, as this is the area of focus chosen. It is also an area of
great interest as it is considered a period in which the English language
flowered and found many of its greatest expressions. This will, however,
include some material which addresses periods before and after it, as is the
nature of history that there are connections before and after a period which
need investigation so the primary area can be understood better. Further, it is
hoped that by investigating this topic, those who would recreate this period of
history would do so with a greater understanding of the language from a more
holistic perspective.
The
examination is divided into five parts and each will address a particular
aspect of swearing as it pertains to the subject in general, or as it pertains
to the Elizabethan period in particular. These have been organised to provide
the reader first with a foundation of understanding from which a greater
understanding of this part of Elizabethan English can be gained. Then it moves
on to subjects which pertain more specifically to swearing in the Elizabethan
period.
The first is
to define swearing and address two different words, swearing and profanity.
This is to see how they are both similar and different in addressing these
types of expression. It is necessary to provide a clear understanding of these
terms so that there is an understanding of the type of language that is going
to be addressed.
A general
history of swearing is then presented, discussing swearing in general to
describe who swears in a general sense and how long this has been happening.
There is discourse about the targets of swearing which are common to all forms
of what is generically termed ‘bad language’. This is followed by a very
general history from the Middle Ages up to our contemporary period of history.
Perspective in an historical sense is gained from this positioning in history
and this over view.
The third,
and largest part, is the discussion of the Elizabethan period. It does not just
examine swearing but other taboo subjects of the period which were associated.
The subjects of cant and slang are also addressed in this section, along with
the ever-present subject of censorship which appears whenever the subject of
swearing is discussed. This is a social discussion of Elizabethan taboo
language, more than just focusing on swearing.
There are
some swear words which have much older origins than we might think, and some of
these are addressed in the fourth part. This part discusses various terms and
some swear words, some of which are present in our modern age. This is designed
as a discussion of how the words have changed in meaning over time, in some
cases, and in others they have remained the same. Again this addresses taboo
language under the heading of swearing.
The fifth and
final section discusses the subject of euphemism, a method by which swearing
was avoided. This technique allowed playwrights, authors and printers to
indicate toward a swear word, and yet not actually have the swear word in
print. The subject of “minced oaths” will also be addressed in relation to
euphemisms. Further the effect censorship on language, even into our Modern
English will be indicated here, with the presence of the euphemism.
Overall,
while the discussion is primarily about swearing, it really does encompass much
more than that. There is much more associated with what is considered ‘bad
language’ than just swearing. There are also terms which are still considered
on the borderline of taboo, along with entire underground languages used by
people to avoid detection of their activities; these also need to be
considered. To understand the entirety of the phenomenon a foundation is
required and that is found in understanding the meaning and history of the
expressions.
Definition
Before a
discussion of a thing can start, the thing must be defined. In the case of this
investigation, the thing that needs to be defined is swearing, or profanity, or
‘bad language’ as some might call it. This is the problem, there are different
words for what it is called, and different definitions that go along with these
words. For fluidity of conversation and to limit it somewhat two terms have
been selected, being the most common, swearing and profanity, and these have
been investigated for definition of each. The idea being that there should be
elements of commonality found, that will be presented, and the two brought
together in a common definition.
Profanity
Profanity in
its modern sense covers a broad range of words, and is used as a generalised
term referring to what would generally be termed ‘bad language’ in its
vernacular sense. This is what is considered socially offensive language, as
the definition of the term by Wikipedia (2019) presents,
“Profanity is socially offensive
language, which may also be called cursing,
curse words or swearing (British English), cuss
words (American English vernacular and Canada), swear words, or expletives.
Used in this sense, profanity is language that is generally considered by
certain parts of a culture to be strongly impolite, rude, or offensive.”
The
definition of profanity presented allows for a broad scope of examination due
to the connections made by the presentation of other words which are connected
to it, one of those being swearing, which will be discussed below. This is the
advantage of a definition which does not simply just define the word in a
mechanical, literal sense. Two dictionary definitions will be presented for the
same term for a comparative examination.
“1a : the quality or state of
being profane
b : the use of
profane language
2a : profane language
b : an
utterance of profane language”
The
Merriam-Webster (2019) definition of profanity is very dry and does not give
the reader much information aside from a literal definition of the term. There
is no relation to other terms present as there is in the Wikipedia entry
presented previously. The two separate definitions presented are defining the
same term but using a slightly different perspective, but they do not relate
the term other than to itself. The Cambridge University Press (2019)
definition, at least relates the term to an outside condition describing
elements of it, and describing why the language is offensive, “(an example of)
showing no respect for a god or a religion, especially through language
... an offensive or obscene word or
phrase:”
which gives it an advantage over the Merriam-Webster.
For a
complete understanding of the term a simple, dry definition of the term and
some simple relation to other terms is a beginning. There are further elements
which allow the term to be better placed and understood. The first of these is
some historical detail to see how the word was used, and the second, etymology
of the word, its origins and where it came from. These allow for a greater
understanding of the term.
While the
modern sense of the word is simply related to offensive language in general,
the older concept of the word was more related to religious concepts, and
things that were held to be sacred. “In its older, more literal sense,
"profanity" refers to a lack of respect for things that are held to
be sacred,”
this offense to the sacred is an element of language which will re-appear in
many of the discussions which will follow. The etymology of the word even
points toward offending the sacred.
“The term "profane"
originates from classical Latin "profanus", literally "before
(outside) the temple". It carried the meaning of either "desecrating
what is holy" or "with a secular purpose" as early as the
1450s.”
Profane is
the root word of profanity, so things that were profane were things which were
“outside the temple”, or outside the sacred, so offensive to the sacred, likely
to be taken away or outside the sacred in a permanent sense. This presents the
origins of the word in the sphere of the religious and shows its medieval or
late-Renaissance origins as becoming secular.
With the
definition, some history and the etymology of the word in hand, a greater
understanding of the word is now possible. This means that a greater understanding
of the use of these types of words is now possible, and also people’s reactions
to them. To understand something more than a simple definition is required. In
the case of profanity, they are words or phrases which are socially offensive
to a group of people for some particular reason; the reasons and the words
changing over time.
Swearing
Two
definitions of swearing have been sourced; both are similar in that they are
approaching a similar subject. Unfortunately they do not have the encyclopaedic
approach that some definitions would take to the same subject. This means that
there is not the same detail that has been supplied about profanity as in the
Wikipedia entry.
The first, supplied by Lexico.com
(2019) is simple, "The use of offensive language."[6] In it s simplicity, it is quite broad covering any offensive language which is used, and this topic seems to have this about. The second definition is much the same in its non-specificity unlike the definition given for profanity, “rude
or offensive language that someone uses, especially when they are angry”.
The only element of specificity is that it is used especially when a person is
angry. This still leaves the definition quite open.
The definition of swearing is
essentially the use of offensive language which is used especially when angry,
which combines the elements of both of the definitions which have been supplied
by the sources cited. This is a much broader definition and takes into account
much more language than that of profanity, at least from one perspective. The
two definitions need to be compared for the best result to address what will be
discussed in the following investigation.
Swearing and Profanity
Definitions
have been supplied for both terms and comparisons made between these terms, and
there are common elements which appear in both. In both cases the language
which is being used is considered offensive, it is offensive to a particular
group of individuals, in both cases the language used is considered impolite in
general conversation in most instances, in both cases, as will be presented
throughout the investigation, they have a very historical context. The result
is that both of the words are considered to be interchangeable for the purposes
of this investigation. The broader definition of swearing as defined as
socially offensive language will be used throughout this investigation.
General History
Once a thing
is defined it is useful to examine some of its previous and post history
briefly before examining it in detail. So, here is a general history and
examination of swearing is presented. This will examine how long people have
been swearing the prime topics of swearing, a somewhat closer examination of
the Middle Ages as the period before the Renaissance and thus the Elizabethan
period, and a very brief view of later on. This forms some of the framework as
to examine a topic it is easier to see it once its past has been examined
somewhat.
A Long Time
There are
some cultures where swearing does not appear, “But most cultures swear and have
been doing so for a very long time.”
Swearing has a very long history. This is a method of expression of disbelief,
pain and anger which has been part of cultures since people could speak, “people
have always sworn”.
It is a part of our speech that has been a method of throwing offense at a
person, group, or even a thing which may or may not have caused offence, but, “Swearing
in spoken speech has always been a thing, and it has always been offensive.”
The reason for the offensive nature of swearing is the targets of the swearing.
These tend to be personal subjects.
Targets
“Swearing seems to have some
near-universal qualities. In almost all cultures, swearing involves one or more
of the following: filth, the forbidden (particularly incest), and the sacred,
and usually all three. Most cultures have two levels of swearing – relatively
mild and highly profane.”
The targets
of swearing involve those things which are personal to the individual who is
the target of the offensive language, or used in such fashion to express the
level of anger or disgust at the target of the offensive language which is
used. What is most interesting is that this is sometimes even used in humorous
situations, “people have been laughing at their own sacrilege, bodily
functions, and sexuality for as long as language has existed.”
This results in a very long history of swearing, but for the purposes of this
examination, a somewhat truncated history will be presented, more closely
representative of the age immediately previous to the Elizabethan.
The Middle Ages
“In medieval English, at a time
when wars were fought in disputes over religious doctrine and authority, the
chief category of profanity was, at first, invoking—that is, swearing to—the
name of God, Jesus or other religious figures in heated moments, along the
lines of “By God!” Even now, we describe profanity as “swearing” or as
muttering “oaths”.”
Due to the
wars over religion, and the Crusades among other historical conflicts regarding
religion need to be taken into account here, the consideration of offensive
language was less concerned with the person and more concerned with the sacred.
Offenses against religion were considered highly offensive even in their verbal
form, “In the Dark and Middle Ages, for instance, religious cursing - profanity
- was the worst thing you could say.”
This is where it is possible to see the origins of the idea of “swearing” being
a term for foul language being that the utterances were often swearing to or by
some sacred person or object.
“To swear by or to God lightly
was considered sinful, which is the origin of the expression to take the Lord’s
name in vain (translated from Biblical Hebrew for “emptily”).”
Such sins
were considered particularly egregious as they were against the primal Ten
Commandments, one of which specifically stated not to take the Lord’s name in
vain, rather than some misdemeanour of some obscure law of proper language that
was supposed to be used. People can be sticklers for rules when they want to
and some would cause real problems for a person who committed such a sin. One
thing that said is that people can also find creative ways for getting around
rules as well, hence, the euphemism.
“Taking the Lord's name in vain
was linguistic anathema during those theocratic times. Even something which
seems innocuous to modern ears, such as "by Christ's wounds", was
verboten: you had to shorten it, and therefore strip it of its impact, thus giving
us that lovely Shakespearean word "zounds".”
With all of
the strict rules about not using religious references, thus cutting out one
complete area of swearing, it could be expected that swearing was a bit of an
issue during the Middle Ages and that people would be shocked by its use, quite
the contrary. Well-known, and now, well-respected authors of the period
presented what would be considered swearing in our own period through their
writings. Indeed some words which are now considered swearing were considered
the correct anatomical words.
“Chaucer had available to him a
thoroughly inoffensive word referring to the sex act, swive. An anatomy book in the 1400s could casually refer to a part
of the female anatomy with what we today call the C-word.”
Words have
changed, this is true, but some have followed language through the ages, as
will be noted later in this investigation when some of our favourite swear
words will be presented as much older than one might think, and quite a bit
more foreign as well. Swearing in the Middle Ages had the same breadth as it
does in the current age, simply there were harsher penalties for getting caught
saying some of it. One would not want to get caught using a religious swear in
front of a priest, but other swearing may simply pass by, swearing was not
particularly shocking.
“obscenity, wasn't considered
especially outré until the late Middle Ages. That's the one we most associate
with the basic idea of "swearing": the f-word, the two c-words, the
three p-words, the s-word, and all the rest of this pantheon of bawdy,
alternative expressions for bodily functions.”
Often it is
thought that because Middle English and even Early Modern English (EModE) are
earlier than our own Present Day or Modern English (PDE or ME), that the
authors of the period lacked imagination in their expression. Clearly, the
recognised authors of the periods debunk this idea, but because many do not
understand their language, they do not understand what they gave. The area of
‘bad language’ is not the easiest to add to due to its historical origins.
“Historically only a few literary
authors, such as Geoffrey Chaucer, François Rabelais, William Shakespeare, Ben
Jonson, and the Earl of Rochester
have managed to add to the stock of swearwords, foul language, and insults.”
(Hughes, 2006:251)
The list is
short, but distinguished. Geoffrey Chaucer’s name appears, as has already been
noted for his presentations of various words of origin, but two of Elizabethan
significance need to be noted being William Shakespeare and Ben Jonson. A
person may say that they have never noticed any obscene language in
Shakespeare’s plays, mostly this is because of the unknown context; many of his
jokes are also missed as well. Further it is not like our high school teachers
are going to point them out particularly either. The Renaissance is known for
the flouring of arts and sciences, language was no different, and profanity
followed suit.
Renaissance
“Swearing in England during the
Renaissance (a period of disputed length, but here taken to extend
approximately from 1400 to 1600) showed two radically contrary tendencies,
toward efflorescence and censorship. The extraordinary exuberance of the
religious oaths of the Middle Ages continued and was enriched by a great variety
of new secular modes. The practice of flyting,
or set-piece tirades of astonishing personal abuse, reached its highest point
of development in Scotland in the early sixteenth century.”
While the
investigation which is the primary aim focusses on a much narrower portion of
history, the Elizabethan Period (1553 – 1603), the same applies to the radical
tendencies which have been expressed. Religious tensions wavered for a brief
period, and then accelerated again, meaning that euphemisms became more popular
as did more secular approaches to swearing. Flyting, the exchange between two
people of insults, became popular in plays. Due to the nature of the age,
obscenity was sometimes covered, “Although Shakespeare had a weakness for
double entendre puns, on the whole he was a fairly restrained and not terribly
inventive swearer.”
Should Shakespeare or many of the
other writers be examined, and indeed their language is examined thoroughly,
from the perspective of EModE rather than PDE, there will be more found. Indeed
this is the issue which is found often. Read from the perspective of an
individual of their period the language is “colourful” to say the least. The
rivalry between writers it could almost be seen in the words on the page as if
the two in their plays are standing against one another, throwing back and
forth their remarks.
“Shakespeare (1564–1616) and Ben
Jonson (1572–1637) indulged in scurrilous personal “conflicts of wit,” and
both playwrights included in their plays many passages of personal execration,
cursing, and desperate exclamation of such power that they are still painful to
read and hear.”
(Hughes, 2006:389)
Much Later
The lively
exchanges found in the pages of the authors often caught the attention of the
Master of Revels Elizabeth’s chief censor. Ideas about the censorship of
language and content were not new then and it is certainly not new in our age.
More than one book has caught the eye of the censor and been banned even in our
own age, “Catch-22, Tropic of Cancer, and Naked Lunch are all examples of books
that have been banned at one time for being obscene.”
The reason that is given is that it is best for the public.
Often these titles return to the
shelves some decades later, with a change of administration or a change of
social situation. For the most part, works which were censored by the Master of
Revels did not reappear. This investigation will focus primarily on the
Elizabethan history and words of interest, but words from earlier times will
also present themselves, primarily due to their origins.
Elizabethan
“In a sense it is more narrowly
focused than the notion of ‘bad language’, which includes a wide range of
intensifying expressions, some of which are mild (such as verily), some much stronger (such as whoreson), and some very strong or rude (such as figo). Several items permit varied
amounts of force, such as beshrew
(‘curse’, ‘devil take’), which is mild when used by Thesus ... but strong when
used by Richard.”
‘Bad language’
is a catch-all term for every slip of the tongue that might offend someone. For the most part, when Elizabethan’s swore,
they were either intending to make their intentions known about a particular
occurrence, or they were trying to offend someone. The only differences were
the manner in which they were performing this act and also the amount of force
from the resulting expression that was used. While our modern age seems to have
confined itself to a relatively few words, the Elizabethans were not so
limited.
“Elizabethans took a delight with
language, weaving together terms to form stinging phrases of wit. Shakespeare
himself is thought to have invented (or first published) nearly 1,700 words.
This was a period prior to the first English Dictionary (published 1604) where
you might stitch together "ale" and "louse" to accuse your
neighbor of being an "ale-louse" and no one could gainsay your
usage.”
One of the
unexpected consequences of the Tudor education program, teaching the population
to read and write, so that they could read the Bible in the English language,
was that people could also express themselves, and they were not short on doing
so. While the rules of the language were, more or less, set. Spelling was
certainly not and neither were certain other conventions of Modern English,
which anyone will notice if they read a piece from the Early Modern English
period. Unlike our modern age where things always have to be new, or at least
seem to be new, the Elizabethans had no issue with using language and terms
from the past and using them for their own uses.
“The great efflorescence of
swearing in Elizabethan and Restoration times took place during periods of
great national prosperity and optimism, not depression. The terms related to
the Plague appear decades, if not centuries, after the cataclysm. Furthermore,
swearing of the excretory and genital kind shows a continuous history not
dependent on national disasters as catalysts.”
The pattern
of swearing and its association with private parts and excretions which come
from such private parts seems to be universal and constant. While we may think
ourselves originators of some insults and offensive language, much of this
language we owe to our ancestors. For the Elizabethans as much as ourselves,
swearing was not limited to such things as genitalia and excretory matter which
came from them, a part of swearing was directing such language at others.
Social Status
“Insults demean the target in
some way by calling into question their abilities, worth, or social position.
... an ale-soused apple john (drunken
withered old apple) is unambiguously an insult.”
In the modern
age our social position does not really count for much, so when someone attacks
it, it has less effect, this is a personal attack. For the Elizabethan who lived by their social status, it was
much more significant. The connections made by the gentry and nobles guaranteed
their livelihoods. An attack against this was an attack against their
livelihood. Most of the others are understandable, even in a modern context.
This emphasis on social position, ability and character was the reason why the
insult was a very effective weapon.
“Elizabethans sure knew how to
bandy around the insults. A lot of insults are based on social status but your
moral character could also be called into question (and given that a lot of
your business or indeed your dignity would have relied on your ability to make
an oath before God and have it believed) this was a pretty damning insult to
men and women alike.”
The bottom of
this social structure, so the lowest of the social position, was the criminal.
There were different breeds of criminal enterprise, as there are today, and
some which were considered semi-legal even, though were considered low enough
on the social ladder that they were in such a position where they might as well
be with the criminals because they were considered much the same. Some
interesting and familiar terms will be discussed, some of which will appear
again in other discussions, but take care that the Early Modern definition
accompanies you not the modern so that you are not confused.
Low Social Position
Brothels,
beggars and traitors, these will be the subjects which will follow in this part
of the investigation. What will be found here may not be what is expected as
some of these words have changed in meaning over time. Here we will find
expressions regarding those individuals who were considered of the lowest
positions in society, even though some were invited to visit some of the higher
parts of society on occasion, or were visited by some of those of the higher
echelons of society.
Brothels
“The major Elizabethan theaters
were all built in an area of London noted for its brothels. Part of
Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure
(ca. 1604) is set in a brothel run by the graphically-named Mistress Overdone.”
In modern
times, the theatre has been associated with high-class and upper-echelon
society, where those who are important go for an evening of socialisation. This
was not the case in the Elizabethan period. Theatres were considered places low
disrepute, if a troupe wanted to play for a higher-class crowd they had to
travel to them, and they were invited
to do so. So the theatres were placed in the same vicinity as ‘houses of
ill-repute’ as they might be known today. The word “brothel” itself did not
originally have this meaning.
“Interestingly, brothel itself first meant a “rascal” or
“lewd person” in the fourteenth century, a brothel
house being originally a place frequented by such types, before acquiring
its independent form and modern meaning about 1593.”
The change in
language should be noted. The word brothel changes from denoting an individual
of suspect character in the fourteenth century to acquiring its modern meaning
at the close of the sixteenth century. This is a change over some 200 years. This
word is just the beginning of the words which we take for granted, knowing what
they mean. In our modern era a punk is an individual from a sub-culture who
dresses in a particular way and listens to particular music, and may or may not
engage in particular activities. What will be indicated here, and given more
detail when the words in particular are discussed is this term had another
meaning in the Elizabethan period.
“it had a clear underground
Elizabethan sense, shown when the Duke in Measure
for Measure (1604) says of Mariana: “She may be a punk, for many of them
are neither Maid [virgin], Widow or Wife” (V i 179).” (Hughes, 2006:370)
In essence, a
punk was a prostitute in the Elizabethan era, quite a bit different from our
modern connotations of the word. This change in the meaning of the word is
quite dramatic and it is vital that we research words and their meanings in their context before assuming we know
what is meant by the author. In the same strata of society there are those who
were unable to find employment, and who had to resort to begging on the
streets, an issue which is still being faced in modern cities today.
Beggar
There were legitimate beggars,
those who had fallen on hard times due to a loss of employment or some other
catastrophe in their lives. Unfortunately, as today some of these individuals
were not as honest as they could be. Some were tending toward the more criminal
element which also existed alongside those legitimate beggars. It must be
remembered that social welfare was not considered in this period. “Beggar is recorded as a term of contempt
from about 1300 and is so used in Shakespeare in Richard III (1592)”. The
term is seen as carrying the same sort of weight as it is in the modern period,
but in this short description, it does not describe all of the reason for the
contempt associated. Further detail from Hughes (2006) is available for
explanation, and points toward those of the more criminal elment.
“in Elizabethan times there
emerged a less genuine underclass consisting of idlers and confidence
tricksters, ... Hence the term beggar
(which probably derives from a mendicant or begging religious order called the
Beghards) changed from being a literal description to a term of reproach. Those
who were physically fit but work-shy and often aggressive in their manner were
called sturdy beggars, a term
recorded from 1538. The social problem they embodied is starkly alluded to in
Act 39 of Queen Elizabeth (1597): “For the suppressing of rogues, vagabonds and
sturdy beggars.””
The
underclass indicated describes a group of individuals who made their living
from begging, claiming that they were unable to work, while still being able to
hence being called “sturdy” beggars. This also points toward another type of
beggar, the sort who had been put in this situation, often not due to any fault
of their own, but due to sickness or injury. These are the individuals who were
disabled in some fashion, and as will be noted there is a distinct lack of
empathy toward them.
“Cripple, related to the verb “to creep,” is recorded from
Anglo-Saxon times, notably in the place-name Cripplegate in London (about
1000). Gross lack of sympathy is shown in the old saying recorded by Angel Day
in 1586: “Of ancient time it hath often been said that it is ill halting before
a cripple” (The English Secretary II).”
The word
“cripple” is now considered ill-advised or even inflammatory in reference to
those with some sort of disability, especially those with a physical
disability. The history of the word indicates something different, not just an
indication of physical disability but a method of movement, and disgust in
regard to these individuals. Further, the same individuals who cause issue for
other beggars, the “sturdy beggars” also cause issue for those who are disabled
as they are also treated with suspicion.
“Studies of the Elizabethan
underworld present the disabled as a clearly visible underclass provoking
hostility and suspicion rather than sympathy, since there were so many
confidence tricksters, bogus cripples, and able-bodied beggars, known at the
time as sturdy beggars.”
The beggar
and the prostitute were considered to be on the blurry edge of the legality in
the Elizabethan period, indeed in many senses they remain so in our modern period.
There were evidently those in the class who would take advantage and use the
position to make a living using confidence tricks to avoid work. At the other
end of the legal scale is the traitor, considered the worst and most dangerous
of all criminals, though this same idea was applied to other areas not just
politically.
Traitor
“In medieval times the monarch
was regarded as embodying the nation, so that treason, technically high treason, was a capital offense,
being both a personal and a national betrayal. Offenders were typically hanged,
drawn (disemboweled), and quartered (cut into four pieces), their decapitated
heads being displayed at Traitors’ Gate on London Bridge.”
Being hung,
drawn and quartered was the most dreadful of death sentences that could be
pronounced. To be more accurate, they were hung for a short period, not until
they passed out. Then brought down and were disembowelled while still alive,
and only then did death come when they were cut into four pieces starting with
the beheading. This punishment was thought so horrible that in many cases the
sentence was commuted to a simple beheading. That this punishment would be
meted out on a human being demonstrates the level of seriousness treason, and
thus those considered traitors were thought. To be called such was an insult to
say the least, and Shakespeare was not one to hold back using it.
“In Shakespeare’s works the word
[traitor] is the third most common noun of opprobrium, with nearly two hundred
uses, coming after villain and knave, which are less specific. “Thou
art a traitor and a miscreant” is a typical instance (Richard II I i 39), the word being preceded by a great variety of
adjectives, such as monstrous, vile, filthy, viperous, and
even toad-spotted (since toads were
thought to be poisonous).”
Shakespeare’s
use of the word traitor adding the descriptive words to it give a clear
impression of how people of the Elizabethan age felt about those who did not
follow their word, or who were not loyal. To be called a traitor in any form
was to be considered one of the lowest. In the political sense the sentence was
most often death, as has been presented, in a religious sense i.e. changing
religion; the offense of doing so was regarded as bad as failing a test of
loyalty. To wit words were developed to describe those who were considered
disloyal to their faith.
“From medieval through to
Renaissance times, abandoning or changing one’s religion was regarded with
detestation. Consequently, powerful terms like apostate (ca. 1340) and recreant
became frequent terms of abuse, joining words like miscreant (ca. 1330), originally meaning “infidel,” before it
acquired the modern sense of “villain” or “scoundrel.” Interestingly, the
original senses of pervert and perversion concerned religious betrayal.
Today all these words are either obsolete or used in different senses.
Contemptuous terms like turncoat (ca.
1557) and renegade (ca. 1583) came to
be used in both religious and political contexts. The same is true of the verb
to defect, first used (ca. 1596) of
those who had defected from the Christian religion”
There are
words mentioned above which will be somewhat familiar to the modern ear, but as
the language has changed, so has the meaning of the words. In our modern age,
questions of religion are far less important, in most situations, than they
were in the Middle Age and Early Modern periods. So many of the words relate to
religion where now they relate to more secular subjects, denoting the change in
focus of the society in which the language is found. In all cases these can be
related to the idea of traitor in that the display a sense of betrayal in some
form. This is further related to ideas about the workforce and solidarity with
it.
“Various terms condemn breach of
loyalty or solidarity in the workforce, stigmatizing those who refuse to join a
strike, break a strike, or take over the work of a striker. The strongest term
is scab, from Elizabethan times a
general term of abuse for what the Oxford
English Dictionary wittily calls “a mean, low ‘scurvy’ fellow,”” (Hughes,
2006:466)
The word
“scab” has followed through the language into our Modern English as an
individual who is of low status who leaches of others and does not pay his way.
This individual still has the impression established by the Oxford English
Dictionary, but other ideas have also been attached. Being that the current era
is more monetized it is more concerning financial situation. Unlike the
Elizabethan term which just seems to refer to an individual of low status to be
avoided. One thing which is unfortunately common between the Elizabethan period
and ours are concerns regarding race.
Race
Elizabethan
England was a relatively cosmopolitan nation, at least if you look at the
largest centres like London. Here, would be found people from other countries
which were there to buy and trade, others were present for diplomatic purposes,
and others were refugees from wars on
the Continent. Less of these people made it out of the main cities. The
Spaniards and the Italians had an influence on the culture of England it is
true, but it is not to say that foreigners were accepted. “Elizabethan England
was not really multicultural, so that foreigners such as Jews, blackamoors,
Italians, and Spaniards stood out.” More
like the character Iago in Shakespeare’s Othello,
the English attitude toward foreigners was more negative than positive. In the
case of the Italians there was somewhat of a history to take into account.
Italian
“English attitudes toward Italy
and its peoples have historically been contradictory, a mixture of admiration
and repulsion, governed by cultural affiliations and religious divisions. The
positive stereotype derives from the status of Italy as the cultural repository
of Roman civilization, much emphasized in medieval and Renaissance times, and
persisting to this day.”
The Italians
are respected for the cultural developments of the Renaissance and the flouring
of civilisation and the achievements of the Romans. Indeed their sense of
fashion was even respected along with their ideas of courtliness in the
Elizabethan period. These aspects of the Italian culture were, and are all
respected, but they are still considered foreign, not of English heritage. This
was made even starker of a contrast during Henry VIII’s break with the Catholic
faith.
“However, as a consequence of
Henry VIII’s break with Rome in 1536 and his declaration of the Church of
England, Italy became the home of a hostile religion and a political enemy.”
Once the
leader of a nation breaks with another nation, it is expected that there will
be some hostility that will gradually develop and present itself in the
culture. So with the break with the Catholic Church, it can be expected that
there was some hostility toward the Italians in Tudor England, and as a
consequence in the ages that followed. Some of this was depicted as a political
presentation of an opponent others were using the same ideas to paint a similar
picture.
“On the Elizabethan and Jacobean
stage, Italy was depicted as a decadent, corrupt, politically devious society,
a hotbed of family betrayal, incest, murder, and treachery of every conceivable
form. Cardinals and bishops were frequently the instigators of appalling
crimes. A new stage villain emerged, ruthless, demonic, and cynically amused at
his treacheries. He was styled the machiavel,
derived from Niccolò Machiavelli, the Italian statesman and author of The Prince (1523), a highly influential
work of political philosophy.”
The machiavel is a character which is painted
based on the supposed cut-throat political theories of Niccolò Machiavelli.
This character is portrayed as an individual who will do anything to achieve
their goal, who truly believes that “the ends justify the means”. Using this
reference to an Italian work allowed the English to point at the Italians as
devious and imprint in the culture. A similar style of undercurrent mistrust is
evident in relation to the Jews as well.
“Announcing his program of evil,
Shakespeare’s Richard III boasts (1590–1591) that he will “set the murderous
machiavel to school” (Henry VI Part
3, III ii 193). The figure of Machiavel plays the Prologue to Christopher
Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta (1589).”
Jews
Jews have
been the target of attacks for many years, indeed most of history. Some of it
is because they had no home and therefore wandered about. Some of it is because
of religious reasons and people’s rejection of their beliefs. Another part of
it is because they are simply different, and this scares people. In regard to
the Elizabethans there are two approaches which were taken.
“Shylock is an original and
sympathetic study of the Jew as alien and victim, called impersonally “Jew” or
“the Jew” throughout, using language full of Old Testament references to Jewish
custom. When Shylock agrees to make the loan, Antonio expresses mock surprise,
saying “gentle Jew” (punning on gentile),
adding (after Shylock has exited) the ironic comment: “This Hebrew will turn
Christian: he grows kind” (I iii 178–79). The play juxtaposes the strict
punitive code of the Old Testament, symbolized in Shylock’s “bond,” and the
merciful code of the New, which Portia seeks to evoke in her famous speech on
“the quality of mercy” (IV i 184). Despite Shylock’s intensely moving speech
“Hath not a Jew eyes?” (III i 60–75), he remains an alien rejected by Venetian
society and in the end is totally ruined.”
Shylock is
the main Jewish character from Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice. He is presented as an individual who wants to
take advantage, but also who has advantage take of him. He is also presented as
“alien” therefore different from the other people in the play. This difference
is emphasised in his approach to life, and then is broken somewhat in is
questioning of similarity. The character remains alien and is broken by the
system. The other is Barabbas from The
Jew of Malta.
“Barabbas is a melodramatic
version of the ruthless Machiavellian intriguer and a continuation of the
figure of Herod, presented on the Elizabethan stage as arrogant and bizarre. Marlowe
defiantly names his protagonist after one of the thieves crucified with Christ,
while the title, The Jew of Malta,
clearly demarcates him as an outsider in an alien multicultural context.”
Barabbas is a
different character. He is not the tragic character of Shylock portrayed by
Shakespeare but one who presents the character of a Machiavellian man pursuing
his ends without consideration for its consequences. This aligns this character
with the alien outsider, much like the Italian, spoken of previously. Unlike
Shylock who attempts to persuade similarity, Barabbas is seen as a clear
outsider. A presentation in fiction of the Jewish, and Italian, character felt
in Elizabethan times.
Bawdy
“Bawdy, meaning “naughty, sexually suggestive or obscene talk or
behavior,” derives from bawd, a
medieval term for a procurer, later a procuress of prostitutes. The term,
recorded from the early sixteenth century, is essentially rooted in the
underworld and its coded speech,” (Hughes,
2006:19)
Bawdy has
come to mean something which is a little sexually suggestive, as the definition
implies, but as is noted by the medieval term, relates to the procurement of
prostitutes. This presents a development in the language where something is
taken meaning one thing and then is changed to mean another, while still
related in its essence to the original. The term bawdy is related also to underground language.
“The general term for this bawdy
underground language, which thrived in Elizabethan times and was surprisingly
elaborate, was cant. One of the first
guides to cant, Robert Greene’s racy A
Notable Discovery of Coosnage (1591),” (Hughes,
2006:20)
Cant and Slang
The
underground language, or cant, is a subject, along with slang, which must be
discussed in relation to Elizabethan swearing as many of the words which were
used come from this part of the language. There was great study of this part of
the English language in the Elizabethan period, to the point that, as indicated
above, there were dictionaries explaining this language quite prevalent in the
period.
“The recording of slang,
profanity, and obscenity has a surprisingly long and continuous history,
actually preceding that of the “proper” dictionary. The practice starts in
Elizabethan times with a rich vein of works explicating underground slang or cant to an ignorant public, and has
continued to the present in related works presented under the general term
“slang,” with increasing emphasis on obscenity or taboo terms. The earliest
works are not dictionaries in format, but are guides to the urban underworld
milieu and population, interspersed with glossaries or sections explaining the
key terms of the argot known variously as Pedlar’s French, Thieves’ Latin, and
St. Giles’s Greek. Cant and slang are originally code languages
developing among particular urban groups, although over time some terms radiate
outward into the wider speech community. The original canting works claimed to
fulfill a public function by alerting the public to unfamiliar terms used by
cheats and confidence tricksters.”
The first
“dictionary” of slang was printed some fifty years before the first “proper”
dictionary, demonstrating the interest in such underground language. These
books were presented as a public service so that people could be aware of the
presence of such underground language so that they would not be tricked by its
secondary meanings for seemingly normal words. This idea of language with
double-meaning is familiar today with words which are used in a similar sense
by criminal enterprises to hide their illicit activities. In the case of these
canting languages, they were in some cases almost complete languages that a
knowing person could discuss with another fluent in it an enterprise without
another knowing what was going on. This was the reason for the printing of such
dictionaries and guides.
“In 1591, Robert Greene produced
the sensationalist title A notable
Discovery of Coosnage [Trickery]. Now daily practised by sundry lewd
persons called Connie-catchers [card-sharpers]
and Crosse-biters [Swindlers or
Whores]. Greene explains the ironic use of the term “law” in this set, amongst
whom Sacking Law is “lechery,” Crossbiting Law is “cosenage by whores,”
and Cony-catching Law is “cozenage by
cards.” Other specialist uses are commodity
for a whore, trugging-place for a
whorehouse, and some oaths, such as “Gerry gan the Ruffian cly thee”
interpreted as “A torde in thy mouthe, the deuill take thee.””
While
Greene’s example was not the first, it being published in 1552
it demonstrated how the language was used and how it turned known language into
underground language and back again for the convenience of those who were
knowledgeable of it. It supplied an ability to decipher the language of the
underground to figure out what was actually being said, so that a person was
not taken advantage of.
These texts may be examined with a certain amount of scepticism in our modern
age, especially as to their use, but this is undoubted as it opens a part of
the language which is important to the overall development of the language.
“These Elizabethan canting
dictionaries are an important sociolinguistic phenomenon, being the first
record of a clearly developed underworld code language or argot. Many of the
key terms in these sources are cited as first instances in the OED.”
Indeed many
of our modern slang terms can be related to this flowering of the language in
the Elizabethan period, if not directly then certainly by some route, as many
of the expressions used are far too familiar to be of coincidence. These
expressions demonstrate similar feelings back then as they do now, and this
idea needs to be acknowledged. For example, in the Elizabethan period, “Sunday citizens would be those assuming
a temporary urbanity, putting on their “Sunday best” and using polite rather
than coarse everyday oaths.”
This expresses the idea that the “Sunday citizen” would use language of
temporary civility rather than using their usual coarse language, a similar
modern slang term “Sunday Christian” means a similar thing, except it is
directed toward behaviour.
Flyting
Flyting is “a
dispute or exchange of personal abuse in verse form”.
This was quite popular amongst the playwrights and other authors in the
Elizabethan period. It was a way in which two characters could have a
confrontation in words. Unlike serious confrontations which may lead to
physical conflict, this was more of word-battle, in the sense of the modern
rap-battle.
“the great Shakespearean scenes
of linguistic confrontation are essentially passionate expressions of
character-conflict in which language is taken in deadly earnest, and lives are
irrecoverably changed or even destroyed. Flyting, on the other hand, has an
essential element of license, of wordplay, since otherwise the grievous insults
would lead to duels and other extreme modes of exacting satisfaction.”
The problem
with this form of verbal repartee was that it could, if one of the parties took
things too seriously, lead to a physical confrontation with sword in hand. This
was the nature of duelling in the Elizabethan period that verbal slips were
allowed to a certain point, but after that, then matters would have to be
settled in an affair of honour. The result of this is that there are examples
of flyting present in Shakespeare, but not all that many.
“There are also vestiges of
flyting in some of the violent confrontations in Elizabethan tragedy, such as
Hamlet’s caustic repartee, the furious exchanges between Lear and Kent, and the
berating of Oswald by Kent in King Lear
(II ii 14–22).”
While not
exactly swearing per se, it is a form of language in which language is used as
a weapon like swearing and is thus worth mentioning here. This exchange of
words between two individuals going back and forth until one has no answer,
admits defeat, or there is an insult so grievous that honour cannot be held
could be seen as a form of provocation. The artistry used by the author or
playwright demonstrates how two characters can contend with one another without
resorting to physical violence.
Puns
Puns are old,
and were used by the Elizabethans. Shakespeare was quite well-known for his
double entendre and his puns. What can be noted in puns in some puns is some
social or political commentary. “Puns using the
netherlands and the low countries
to refer to the genital area were common in Elizabethan times.” This
is a play on the idea of the nether regions or the area below the belt. It also
pointed to some political and social feeling about the geographical area in
regard to the wars that were being fought there. While not inherently obscene,
the idea was clearly indicated.
Obscene
The word
“obscene” gets used when the subject of swearing is discussed. It appears in
legislation, and also on classifications of movies and other multi-media. The
question that needs to be asked is what the word actually means in an
Elizabethan sense. This way words can be understood from the viewpoint of the
Elizabethan, rather than the modern, mind.
“Obscene is designated as “of doubtful etymology” by the OED, which nevertheless derives it from
Latin obscenus, which had a strong
religious sense of “inauspicious, ill-omened, abominable, disgusting, filthy,
lewd.” Shakespeare is accorded the first quotation, in 1597, from Richard II when the Bishop of Carlisle
condemns the usurping of the throne as “So heinous, black and obscene a deed”
(IV i 122). The earlier meanings are clearly intended, in view of the
disastrous consequences of the action. However, the term possibly derives from
Latin caenum, “filth,” and there are
Elizabethan quotations referring to “obscene ballads” and to “obscene and
filthy communications.””
The word is
from a Latin origin, which is no particular surprise, and had religious
connotations, as did many words relating to swearing and the description of it.
Shakespeare seems to be the first publicised use of the word, and relates it,
rather than to its religious root more to a simpler origin of “filth”, which is
mentioned in the religious context also, but here is more specified. It could
be then connoted that word obscene for the Elizabethans had more to do with
general filth than with the religious sense previously indicated. Profanity
seems always to have had a religious connotation.
Profanity
Profanity has
been taken for another word for swearing, the religious connotations for the
two terms have been, for the most part, removed in most modern languages and
now more simply refer to ‘bad language’ though for some, the religious
connotations still exist.
This is a nature of the language in which the words were used and also the
origins of the swearing itself. The idea of “swearing” comes from an oath
taken.
“These [oaths] were a bit
stronger than our modern day swear words because taking an oath in Elizabethan
times meant invoking God to listen and bear witness to your oath. If you were a
Catholic and you said something like ‘God’s Flesh’, you believed that you were
actually harming God with your words. ... Needless to say, it would’ve been more than just frowned upon… it would
have been outright blasphemy.”
To swear
meant to take an oath thus invoking God, and with religion being such a
sensitive issue during this period, this made things very serious. Clearly if
that oath was taken in the form of harming some part of God, then it would have
been taken even more seriously. These exclamations form one of the prime
reasons that such swearing is referred to as profanity, as the expressions are
profane, thus of a religious nature. Such oaths did not necessarily have to
invoke deliberately religious intent.
“You can swear ‘by’ virtually
anything you hold dear, and these expressions range from the most sacred
notions of Christianity to quite everyday notions of human behaviour and the
environment.”
Some of these
oaths were taken by some rather mundane objects, though taken to be held dear
by the swearer of the oath, this is what made the impact of the oath, rather
than the exclamation itself. These exclamations were considered quite a concern
to the powers that be, so much so that legislation was introduced to restrict
their usage on the stage. “The more specific British offense usually termed
Profanity on the Stage, which provoked quite stringent policing from
Elizabethan times onward,” more
information about censorship will be presented further along in this
discussion. Considered under a similar light were curses, from which we get the
idea of “curse words”.
Curses
“Curses are an expression of
desired harm. A pox upon thee!
basically wishes death upon the recipient (either via small pox or syphilis
(french pox)). As with oaths, a curse is most effective upon an item of
pre-eminent worth.”
The curse was
another way that an Elizabethan person may express their displeasure with
another individual. This was usually aimed at the thing that the individual
prized the most and, as indicated, was an expression of desired harm. The most
well-known of these was spoken by the character Mercutio in the play Romeo and Juliet, “A plague a both your
houses!”
These curses are also used by other authors and playwrights to express extreme
dissatisfaction between two characters. There has been the accusation that such
swearing was a symptom of the lower classes, but evidence is to the contrary.
Class Difference
“The attribution of foul language
to artisans and the lower classes is typical and traditional, found in the
medieval phrase for foul language, namely cherles
termes, meaning “peasant talk” or “low-class language.” In Hamlet (1600) the hero berates himself
at one point that he should lose verbal control”
There is
often the sense given that ‘bad language’ comes from the lower classes, that
people of the upper classes do not use such language because it is beneath them.
This idea was quite popular in some ages, even though there is evidence quite
to the contrary as is evident in Hamlet,
for example. These expressions would not have come to light as they had been
removed from Shakespeare’s works in an earlier period. Modern editions have
restored the original language.
“Modern editions [of
Shakespeare], having restored original texts as much as possible, provide
evidence of a remarkable number of swearing expressions. This is chiefly a
reflection of the range of characters in the plays ... whose swearing habits
range from princely affirmations of honour ... to servants’ allusions to horse
diseases ... and include many special usages”
The modern
editions of Shakespeare give evidence of not only those of lower stations swearing,
but also those of higher stations using ‘bad language’ to express their anger,
or disgust, or exclamation at incidences or people. This literary example
presents evidence that swearing was not confined to the lower classes but was
universal to all classes. The literary evidence provided by Shakespeare is then
reinforced by evidence of an historical nature that members of the nobility
were quite free in their manner of speech should the situation provide and be
suitable.
“The saying confirms the observation
of many of his contemporaries, that the nobility swore freely, and even Queen
Elizabeth, according to one contemporary, “swore like a man,” a form of
upper-class insouciance or disregard
for traditional restraints. ... Elyot also follows Chaucer and other medieval writers in regarding gambling as a great
provoker of oaths.”
Censorship
Just because
it is evident that even the ruling monarch swore, it did not mean that swearing
was accepted. “The description of swearing is massively complicated by the
influence of expurgators during the period.”
There were those who removed parts of the language from texts for religious
reasons, there were those who removed language because it simply offended them,
and these were not even officials, though some of them were.
The subject of censorship is one
which causes great controversy in our modern age, especially when a government
body wants to censor some piece of art or writing of an artist. The most
important thing to note is that these concerns about censorship are not new.
“All the forms of censorship with which the modern world is familiar were
instituted after the Middle Ages (... the Index was instituted by the Vatican
in 1546.).”
The Index was a list of books which were banned by the Vatican for various
reasons and quite a few famous ones were on it including works by René
Descartes, Sir Francis Bacon and Thomas Hobbes.
Legislation was introduced in England and Scotland against swearing.
“the period also saw the
beginnings of severe restraints against swearing, framed in various pieces of
legislation. Strict punishments were proposed in Scotland in 1551 and in
England in 1606 and 1623. One of the great cultural glories of the Elizabethan
Age was the flowering of the drama, highly popular with both the nobility and
the groundlings. However, formal censorship of plays was embodied in the figure
of the Master of the Revels, a position initiated in 1574, two years before
James Burbage had even built the first theater in London.”
The
legislation is one of the reasons why it is difficult to trace the use of
swearing in this period, the cant and slang dictionaries assist with this
history, but the history of the censorship is also of importance as well as it
presents a particular social leaning of the government, at least in public.
What should be noted about the Master of Revels is that this position was
giving increasing power to censor plays, thus increasing power to change
elements of the content of the plays. In many ways, this position allowed the holder
to present or deny what was going to be shown on the stage, even though he was
an officer in service to another far more important court official.
Master of Revels
“As a Court officer in the
service of the Lord Chamberlain, the Master of the Revels was increasingly
given the pre-emptive right to censor plays, which the actors were required to
recite and present to him prior to public performance. The final irony was that
the players had to pay him a fee:”
In the
rankings of officials the Master of Revels was a court officer who really had
not all that much power, save over the censorship of plays, though potentially
quite lucrative as indicated by the payments received. This was a role which
was given to the office additionally, but was not the original purpose of the
role. The change in role gave this particular functionary the ability to
determine what plays would and would not be seen by both the public and also
the court.
“The title of this official was
originally literal, referring to the person appointed to organize and lead
revels in the Royal Household or the Inns of Court prior to the construction of
the early theaters. The first recorded reference to the Master of the Revels is
in 1495, and his office was initially concerned with building and painting
spectacular scenery. However, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth (1558–1603),
the function of the Master changed from being that of a Minister of
Entertainment, as the name suggests, to a licenser and censor of plays and
stage performances.”
The Master of
Revels’ position changed from a functionary organiser of entertainments for the
court of the monarch, and the building and decoration of scenery, to a role of
chief censor and licenser of plays and other stage performances, which is quite
a significant change. One held no particular power other than choosing what the
court would see for entertainment. The additional power gave the position power
over all entertainment, essentially within the Realm. The effects of this are
evident in what was allowed and what was not.
“In 1581 Queen Elizabeth
commanded players and playwrights to recite their shows, interludes and plays
before Tilney [Master of Revels], who was authorized “to order and reforme,
auctorise [approve] and put down [suppress]” them as he thought fit (Chambers,
1923, IV, 285–87). If he approved a play, he signed the text, which became the
only “allowed copy” for performance. In the early period the grounds for
censorship usually derived from matters of doctrine and politics, since the
drama was becoming secularized, politically “relevant” and satirical of
contemporary issues and personages. In 1559, the second year of her reign,
Elizabeth commanded that no plays were to be performed “wherein either matters
of religion or the governaunce of the estate or the commonweale shalbe handled
or treated” (Chambers 1923, IV, 263–64). Accordingly, in Shakespeare’s Richard II (1597), the scene depicting
the abdication of the king was cut.”
The control
which the Master of Revels exerted must be understood. He was able to control
what the court saw in his previous function, but now he could also control what
the public saw as well. In this way he had the ability to control what image of
the monarchy was presented, and what image of the nobility was presented on the
stage. Not to mention what image of foreign persons and nobility was presented.
This power should not be understated as it was through plays (much like the
mass media today) that many formed or were informed of their opinion of certain
matters. Considerations have to be made of the reason for these interventions
by the Master of Revels.
Interventions
“the Elizabethan theater, a new,
thriving public activity, was regarded with suspicion as being a potentially
subversive medium, both politically and spiritually, and was subject to
censorship by the official known as the Master
of the Revels.”
The
playhouses were eyed with suspicion, because as has been indicated, this is
where many people, especially the lower classes, formed their opinions of
things. This is the reason why the treatment of race in The Merchant of Venice and The
Jew of Malta are so important, because they informed the public how to act.
Likewise, the play Henry V by
Shakespeare informed people what to think of foreigners and the rights of
Englishmen. So the playhouses and playwrights were considered potentially
politically subversive.
Then one has
to examine the interventions themselves for data about the controlling aspect
of the government actually. “Putting the interventions in perspective, some
thirty instances of censorship are recorded out of about 2,000 plays written
between 1590 and 1642,”
so in consideration, there were not all that many interventions by the Master
of Revels. Some of this can be put down to that the playwrights simply wrote
things that were appealing to what was appropriate, so there was no need for
censorship. Another point of view is that the authors self-censored.
“The interventions of the Master
[of Revels], as well as some self-censorship, resulted in the toning down of
oaths in the plays of Shakespeare (1564–1616) and Ben Jonson (1572–1637) and to
the growth of minced oaths.”
The subject
of minced oaths is one that will appear in a later discussion as it was a
mechanism for avoiding the presentation of swearing in print. Indeed there were
a couple of different ways that authors used to avoid censorship by the Master
of Revels, by hiding their language. What will be noted in the patterns of
language through the ages is that these methods did not present themselves
until they were needed. “Euphemisms were thus not required, until censorship was instituted in the
sixteenth century.” The
subject of euphemisms, thus avoiding swearing by abbreviation or some other
mechanism of language, is a subject which will be discussed in some detail
later on.
The
Elizabethans used swearing as a method of expressing themselves in various
ways. It was not confined to the lower classes as some might suggest, but was
present at all levels of society. The same patterns of swearing still follow
along with the same targets of swearing being maintained being filth, the
forbidden, and the sacred, or some modification of these. There is evidence of
language change and language usage in different ways. This part of the investigation
covered slightly more than just swearing, but the terms and elements were
necessary to see how the Elizabethans used language which was associated with
swearing.
Swear Words
When swear
words are considered there are some which stick out as popular. There are also
those which seem to have modern origins and those which would more likely have
older origins. For some really good examples of Shakespeare’s swearing Austin
(2018)
has lots of examples, so do other sources.
What will be presented here are
two lots of swear words. The first lot are those which appear in Elizabethan
texts, and do not appear regularly, or at all, in modern texts. While the
second lot are words which are used in our modern age, several of which have
changed in meaning over the period. While most of these words are definitively
swear words, some of them are not and are just associated with subjects of a
similar nature. These are a few examples, there are many more.
Elizabethan Words
The following
words are of Elizabethan origin, or at least were most prevalently used in the
Elizabethan period. They are not used particularly much in our modern period,
but one or two of them may pop up now and then. They have been placed in
alphabetical order for convenience.
Bear-Garden
“An earlier locale of bad
language generating a specific historical term is bear-garden. The original Bear Garden was a theater built in
Elizabethan times on the south bank of the Thames; it was especially associated
with bearbaiting and other cruel and rowdy sports of the time. The foul
language emanating from there was recorded in a number of sayings,”
More likely
it was the activities and the results that were generating the bad language
rather than the mere location. As seems to be the situation with most sports,
betting occurred and people tend to get rather more vocal when there is some
portion of money involved. It is most interesting that bad language emanating
from a location can result in the location being associated with the language,
rather than the individuals being associated with the language.
Fie
“The common equivalent of disgust
is fie (f-eye). This is not the eff-word you're thinking of, but more akin to
"ugh" or "bleh". Fie upon your artless speech! Fie, away
sir!”
(Renfaire.com, 2015)
The
“eff-word” can be found quite a bit later in the discussion, under the “modern”
words. This is an expression of disgust at something. Not a swear word just an
expression of disgust, an exclamation, which often swear words are used for as
well. This is an example where a swear word is not used for an exclamation of
disgust, a milder form of exclamation.
Ruffler
There are terms
of the Elizabethans which were used to describe particular types of character.
Sometimes a character would appear upon the stage, as part of a play. This
character would attract a particular term to describe him or her. These
descriptive terms were the same terms used to describe individuals found in
society.
“On the Elizabethan stage there
emerged the ironic type of the miles
gloriosus, derived from the Roman comedian Plautus, full of bluster and
often incoherent oaths, typified by Pistol in Shakespeare’s Henry V (1599) and Bobadill in Ben
Jonson’s Everyman in His Humour
(1598).”
The character
should be familiar to people who have read the plays, but also to those who
have seen their like in other situations. This is a soldier-like character who
acts with a lot of bluster, often claiming to know things that he does not,
claiming honours that he is not worthy, and using language of a very rough
kind. The idea of swearing like a soldier would describe this character’s
language well. For the playwright, these characters were derived from
individuals of truth.
“To some extent these figures
also derived from the sixteenth-century social type termed the ruffler, a vagabond, or a parasite of a
military or more often pseudo-military kind, who made a living out of verbal
aggression.”
The ruffler
is an individual who may have followed many of the campaigns, but it is
doubtful that he actually fought in any of them. This character lived off the
loot that was available from battlegrounds and villages that were passed. He
may have fought, but only when he was absolutely required to, like when he was
caught. He used very coarse language and bluster to get his point across, and
force his targets to do things.
Scurvy
“[scurvy] first recorded in 1579
in an Elizabethan guide to the underworld, warning the reader “Looke that thou
flee from this scabbed and scurvie company of dauncers” (John Northbrooke, Dicing, 64b). Much in use in Elizabethan
times,”
Scurvy as a
descriptive word is derived from the disease which results from a lack of
Vitamin C, the early symptoms of scurvy being discomfort and lethargy, with
poor wound healing.
This is no doubt what the descriptive term is describing when using it, an
individual who is lazy and lethargic. It is also associated with disease in
general related to malnutrition, or ones with poor hygiene. Most often the term
is related to those of a lower class.
Short Interval
Then, returning to the classic
subjects of swearing, “By Elizabethan times a short interval was called “a pissing
while.””
Clearly, this is related to the short time that it takes to urinate. Here we
see the relationship again between the use of a private activity and a simple
activity put together to result in a term.
Some of these Elizabethan terms
have relation to modern terms used today, others have fallen by the wayside as
the expressions have changed or the foundations have become irrelevant. The
origins of the expressions are most interesting as they give some idea about
where the concept came from and can tell us about how the language changed.
This is the reason that all language should be studied, even the ‘bad
language’.
“Modern” Words
There are
many modern words which have much older origins. Some of these origins are
quite different to their modern meanings, and some have remained the same. What
will be presented below are terms which are still used in modern speech, but
were also used in the Elizabethan period. Both where they have changed and
where they have remained the same are significant as it shows where language
has changed and where it has remained the same.
Cat/house
“The other offending term (cat) carried an underground sense of
“prostitute” from Elizabethan times until about 1910. (The sense has continued
as cathouse, a slang term for “brothel”
in both British and American English.)”
The term
cathouse is one which is familiar to most people in slang reference to a
brothel. For the origin of this term it is necessary to examine the diminutive
of the word “cat”. This was used as a term of reference, at least in the
underground, for a prostitute. So, a house where prostitutes stay is a
cathouse, not too much of an extension of the idea really. So here we see the
larger form, but not the smaller form of the word being passed to the modern term.
Devil
“Devil was used freely in the Elizabethan era in sermons, in
folktales, especially in the drama, despite the censorship against the use of
the name of God on the stage. Shakespeare uses it in a direct personal fashion
of the villainous characters such as Aaron the Moor in Titus Andronicus (1592) and Iago in Othello (1604), as well as in Macbeth
and Hamlet, which deal with profound
spiritual and metaphysical matters. Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus (ca.1592) contains blasphemously shocking scenes in
which the devil Mephostophilis is conjured up on the stage.” (Hughes,
2006)
Despite heavy
censorship against the word God in the Elizabethan period, and somewhat after,
mentioning the Devil did not attract such attention. It seemed that blasphemy
only went in one direction and that the use of the Devil in any form was
acceptable. This is most interesting and quite a bit different from our modern
age in which scenes containing images of the Devil are considered subject to
disapproval by some of a religious feeling. This is clearly evident by the
objection to such use by certain metal bands which caused a great stir. Again
we see an Elizabethan concept, or actually an older concept, which has been
brought through the ages to our own.
Fuck
The “F-word”, the f-bomb, it has
different names depending on who is speaking, and yet all know exactly what
word is being spoken about. There are those who would think that this word is
quite modern, even belonging to the twentieth-century, but it clearly does not.
There is evidence of a much older origin.
“The modern eff-word was in usage by 1500, but the learned Elizabethan would
employ the common verb swive.
Humorous modern effects result from the use of terms such as pig farker (middle low german
"ferken"), which means pig farmer and is rather different from a pig swiver.”
(Renfaire.com, 2015)
So the word
fuck was in usage by 1500, meaning that it was known even earlier, definitively
not a modern word. What will be noted is that according to the above, the term
was not used, but the term swive was
used instead. The German origin words for farmer are presented as being close
to the word, but it really does not give an explanation as to the reason why it
was not used, as it was clearly available.
“In Elizabethan times, when fuck was highly taboo, the French term foutra was brought into play. Although
it has been obsolete for a long time, it has generated cognate, but not
obviously related forms, such as footering
and footling and the exclamation my foot! This example shows a common
feature of the evolution of swearing terms, and language in general, namely
that origins become less recognizable with time.”
From one
source there is a different verb, swive
used. From another there is a word taken from a different language, French foutra. Both claim that the word fuck
was not used for different reasons, one because the learned would use the
other, and the other because it was highly taboo. In either case, it presents
interesting changes in language and that some words gain and maintain certain
statuses, though it must be admitted, while fuck does maintain some of its
shock value in some circles in the modern era, it is much less effective than
it was.
Geek
Then there are
words which seem to have changed in meaning over time. The geek in the modern
era is one known to associate with a certain crowd, usually those of a
particular sub-culture. These individuals tend to be into science and other
intellectually challenging pursuits, thus most of the participants usually
intelligent but somewhat socially inept. “Geek
is possibly related to Elizabethan English geck,
“a fool,””
clearly this word did not retain its original meaning but was changed to
something different. This change to the more intellectual has only been a
recent change, “1933, Ersine, ‘Any man, of a sucker’;”
as can be seen here the same meaning has followed more recently than would be
expected. The change to focus on a social issue is a more recent change.
Moll
The term moll
is one which is a term of degradation. There are two modern ideas for this
particular term, one is a gangster’s girlfriend; the other is a woman of loose
sexual morals.
In this way this term has, in a sense retained much of its meaning, “Moll had the sense of “prostitute” in
Elizabethan times,”
thus showing that some terms stay much the same throughout history.
Naughty
“Curiously, the use of both naughty and naught as clear sexual innuendo extend back to Elizabethan English,
when a naughty-house was a brothel.
In Shakespeare’s Richard III,
Gloucester makes a “man of the world” allusion to King Edward’s notorious
affair with Mistress Shore (I i 98–100).”
Much like, moll, above, the term naughty and the
ideas associated with it have retained much of their meaning from the
Elizabethan period all the way into the modern period. This word has become so
popularly used that it has passed from slang into being a part of normal
parlance, thus the sexually provocative definition of naughty can be found in
many dictionaries as a part of its definition.
Punk
A punk in its
dictionary definition, in the modern sense can mean several things. It can mean
a gangster, a young inexperienced person, a type of musician, a member of a
particular sub-culture, or even a young homosexual partner.
Amongst the same definition is the recognition of the Elizabethan definition of
the word.
“In its earliest sense, in
Elizabethan times, punk meant a
prostitute, subsequently the mistress of a soldier or criminal, then the male
concubine of a tramp, finally a worthless male person.”
What will be
noted is that some of these definitions of the word did come through to the
modern definition. Obviously the type of musician and sub-culture could not as
they did not develop until the mid-1970s. This word shows how a word can change
while retaining some of the meaning found in its original definition. This
shows how some words considered to be modern are actually quite a bit older
than they are first thought. This phenomenon has been presented here, but also
in other parts of this overall investigation.
Euphemisms
A euphemism
is defined as “the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for
one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.”
So it is a word or expression which is substituted in place of the original
because the original would cause offense to those which might hear it. The
euphemism has a history which is quite long.
“euphemisms were already starting
to appear. The expression “I cannot tell what the dickens his name is,” still
current in British English, first appears about 1598 in Shakespeare’s The Merry Wives of Windsor (III ii 19).”
One of the
most interesting things about the euphemism and its use is that it can be
tracked through history alongside that of censorship. In other words the use of
the euphemism can be laid at the feet of censorship for its creation. Elements
of censorship were present in the later Middle Ages, before that they were not
present. “Euphemisms were thus not required, until censorship was instituted in the sixteenth century.”
The elements of censorship truly began to be felt in the sixteenth century as a
result of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.
One of the
most interesting things is that the English language does not tend to use
euphemisms all that much, there is evidence, but English uses another device,
which will be discussed further along, “tendency to transform profanities into
harmless expressions is a particular characteristic of English swearing. Most
languages employ euphemism”.
The most interesting thing about this is that this transference is often taken
as euphemism, or a type of euphemism.
“In all cases the basic process
of euphemization is the same: there is a surreptitious erosion of the unacceptable
or taboo word, transforming it by means of phonetic disguise into a seemingly
innocuous variant. The results are also termed minced oaths, since God’s name is mangled in some way.”
The subject
of minced oaths is one which will be discussed in more detail a little further
along. The euphemism in the Elizabethan period, and after, was primarily used
to change religious terms to disguise them somewhat so that people would not be
offended, or the writing was less likely to be picked up by the censors. One
case is “cock”, which is used for penis, but was also a euphemism for God.
Here is an example of a double-euphemism as the same word is another word for a
rooster, or at least is in our Modern English. There were further examples of
changes to words to avoid religious entanglements, or censorship entanglements,
as the case may be.
“The need to avoid such
transgressions produced various euphemisms, many of them familiar today, such
as “by Jove,” “by George,” “gosh,” “golly” and “Odsbodikins,” which started as
“God’s body.” “Zounds!” was a twee shortening of “By his wounds,” as in those
of Jesus.”
(McWhorter, 2015)
The last two,
“odsbodkins” and “zounds” are two which fall into a category of minced oaths,
which may or may not be different from euphemisms depending on which reference
is being sourced. This is where the line between euphemisms and minced oaths
blurs quite frequently. As they are serving the same purpose, for the
consideration of this investigation, they are considered to be a type of
euphemism rather than a different word usage.
Minced Oaths
“With the subsequent development
of the theatre and of printing, authors came under pressure to avoid
blasphemous or profane terms and thus created new euphemisms. This is
especially the case in the Elizabethan period, when censorship became overt and
active. Thus it is noteworthy that all the “minced oaths” listed from 1598 to
1602 are first recorded in dramatic contexts, the first instances of ’sblood and ’slid occurring in Shakespeare, while those of ’slight and ’sbody are
found in Ben Jonson.”
Censorship
put pressure on playwrights and printers alike to prevent profane terms from
appearing in their works, which led to the development of new euphemisms to replace
the terms that they wanted present. One of these methods was the use of
abbreviation in the form of “minced oaths”. These terms were shortened forms of
the terms disguised against the originals so they would not be noticed, however
such replacements occurred before and after the restrictions of the Elizabethan
period.
“the censorship against using the
name of God on the Elizabethan stage obviously had its effects. Nevertheless,
the field shows only two terms, gis
and jis, prior to the Elizabethan period,
one form, geminy, which coincides
with the Restoration,”
Such terms
should be noted in any history of these terms and acknowledged that while there
was a prevalence of the use of such abbreviations and replacements in the
Elizabethan period, they were not restricted to this period. The “minced oath”
demonstrates a development in the language designed to cover terms which may
have been offensive, and clearly were the result of censorship in one form or
another of playwrights and printers of the Medieval and Renaissance periods.
Further many of these euphemisms have continued in the language into Modern
English, examples include some of those already presented, such as “golly”,
“gosh” and “gee-whiz”. Other examples have less obvious origins such as “gadzooks”
indicating God’s hooks.
Expressions such as these have flowed into our Modern English without much
attention, or consideration of their origin.
Conclusion
When this
investigation first started it was going to focus only on swearing, it has since
broadened to include a couple of other subjects which are included in the much
broader subject of ‘bad language’, and even beyond that in some instances. The
Elizabethan period is a period of flux both in the area of language, religion
and politics. This makes this particular era fascinating for the study of an
aspect of language which was affected by all of these elements. Changes and
tensions with concerns of religion resulted in concerns over politics, thus how
language was expressed and things were presented in language. All of these
effects can be seen in the changes in language and the censorship of it during
this period.
By following
the changes in expression, or even the changes in meaning in a single word, one
can find different changes in the language but also hints of similar changes in
society. This is because if further examples are examined similar changes are
expressed in these expressions or words. Evidence for this is clearly found in
words which have originated in earlier language and remained present in the
language up to Modern English. While these words often do not have the same
meanings as they originally some still do.
‘Bad
language’ and underground languages are typically subjects which are considered
taboo and as such have not garnered the scholarly attention that they might
otherwise have. What needs to be recognised in this situation is that it is
just language and any moralistic attribution is attribution of the individual
or group, not inherent in the language. This investigation, in part, is
designed to bring some of this language out of the dark and into the light of
investigation as a subject for legitimate scholarly investigation.
The material
which is present in the preceding investigation primarily addresses the
Elizabethan period, but also concerns some of the periods before and after that
period as language does not often simply sprout and stop, it flows through
language. The origins of one word are often found in an era previous, and the
word may continue to be used in periods afterward, both ends are of concern.
The Elizabethan period was chosen due to this era being a period of a great
flowering of the English language.
Each of the
sections addressed a particular aspect of the subject at hand, in its own
particular way. Definitions and a history were presented first. These were
designed to establish a common foundation upon which information more
specifically about Elizabethan mechanisms of language could be built. While
this is the case, both were important in their own way.
It is evident
that the primary section was the Elizabethan section as it was the largest.
This section also had the broadest scope of language, not only covering
swearing but also subjects such as slang and cant. These subjects were related
in that they were underground languages and used some of the known swear words
as code words for other things. This subject also identified particular targets
of swearing and other forms of abusive language. The background of these
highlighted certain social and political aspects of Elizabethan society which
clearly influenced the language. These societal, political and religious
aspects all coloured the ‘bad language’ which was present in Elizabethan
society.
Further, the
subject of censorship, a subject which is socially and politically charged even
in our modern age, was discussed in relation to the language that was used.
This was related to the individuals who were placed in charge of censoring the
articles published. There is an accusation that swearing had its origins in the
lower classes when it was known that even Queen Elizabeth herself was quite
known for her swearing. She delegated an individual in charge of censorship of
language, through the office of the Lord Chamberlain, this is most ironic. It should
also be noted that the proportion of plays which were censored by the Master of
Revels was relatively low.
Following the
discussion of the Elizabethan period was a discussion of some words used in the
period and a separation between them into those which have survived into our
modern era. There were quite a few and some had changed their meanings quite a
bit, others not so much. This demonstrated some places in which language had
changed, and others in which it had not, or at least not significantly.
The last
discussion was about the euphemism, a tool of language which has followed
through into Modern English. A tool designed to cover something which is
offensive with something that is not so offensive; in some cases, so that the
offensive can be implied without being said. These were used more often as
censorship became stronger in the sixteenth-century, but had already been
present in the language. Another example, or sub-set, the “minced oath” was
also presented which was an abbreviation of the complete term, designed again
to cover, somewhat, the offensive term. Both of these were used to avoid
censorship.
Elizabethan
English is different from Modern English, this is undoubted. There are links
between these two languages, and these links need to be recognised so that
common ground may be found and thus a greater understanding of both may be
achieved. This must be achieved not only in the more common aspects of the
language but also in other aspects of the language. ‘Bad language’ is a subject
not particularly well studied as it is considered taboo, but this, like any
subject needs to be approached from an intellectual point of view.
For those who
would examine the Elizabethan period, only through an examination of all of the
language will there be an understanding of it completely. There are aspects of
the works of Shakespeare which are closed to the reader unless they understand
this aspect of the language. For those who would recreate the Elizabethan
period, understanding all of the language will give completeness to expression
in all circumstances. All of the language needs attention.
Austin, S. (2018) “Historical Fiction Tools: Elizabethan
Swearing, Cursing and Vocabulary” in Sophie Writes, https://sophie-writes.com/2018/05/31/historical-fiction-tools-elizabethan-swearing-cursing-and-vocabulary/,
[accessed 14/12/2019]
Bryson, B. (1990) Mother
Tongue: The English Language, Penguin Books Ltd, London
Cambridge University Press (2019) “Profanity” in Cambridge
Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/profanity,
[accessed 14/12/2019]
Cambridge University Press (2019a) “Swearing” in Cambridge
Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/swearing?topic=swearing-and-blasphemy,
[accessed 14/12/2019]
Crystal, D. and Crystal B. (2002) Shakespeare’s Words: A Glossary & Language Compendium, Penguin
Books Ltd, London
Dennis, T. (2019) “The History of Swearing and Censorship in
Writing” in Scribendi, https://www.scribendi.com/advice/swearing_and_censorship.en.html,
[accessed 14/12/2019]
Dictionary.com (2020) “Euphemism” in Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/euphemism,
[accessed 17/01/2020]
Hughes, G. (2006) The
Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of Oaths, Profanity, Foul
Language, and Ethnic Slurs in the English-Speaking World, M.E. Sharpe, Inc.,
Armonk
Independent.ie (2019) “On Cussing: A history of bad
language: from zounds to F-bombs” in Independent.ie – Books, https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/book-reviews/on-cussing-a-history-of-bad-language-from-zounds-to-fbombs-37938604.html,
[accessed 14/12/2019]
Lexico.com (2019) “Swearing” in Lexico.com, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/swearing,
[accessed 14/12/2019]
McWhorter, J. (2015) “How Dare You Say That! The Evolution
of Profanity” in Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-dare-you-say-that-the-evolution-of-profanity-1437168515,
[accessed 14/12/2019]
Merriam-Webster (2019) “Profanity” in Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profanity#synonyms,
[accessed 14/12/2019]
Merriam-Webster (2020) “Flyting” in Merriam-Webster
Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flyting,
[accessed 13/1/2020]
Merriam-Webster (2020a) “Punk” in Merriam-Webster
Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punk,
[accessed, 15/01/2019]
Partridge, E. (1995) The
Wordsworth Dictionary of the Underworld, Wordsworth Editions Ltd, Ware
Renfaire.com (2015) “Elizabethan Oaths, Curses, and Insults”
www.renfaire.com/Language/insults.html,
[accessed 14/12/2019]
Shakespeare, W. (2010) “Romeo and Juliet” in The Complete Works of Shakespeare: The
Alexander Text, HarperCollins Publishers, London
Wikipedia (2019) “Profanity” in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profanity,
[accessed 3/12/2019]
Wikipedia (2020) “List of authors and works on the Index
Librorum Prohibitorum” in
Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_and_works_on_the_Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum,
[accessed 14/01/2020]
Wikipedia (2020a) “Scurvy” in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy,
[accessed 15/01/2020]
Wikipedia (2020b) “Moll (slang)” in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moll_(slang),
[accessed 15/01/2020]
Hughes, G. (2006) The Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of
Oaths, Profanity, Foul Language, and Ethnic Slurs in
the English-Speaking World, M.E.
Sharpe, Inc., Armonk, p.251
Hughes, G. (2006) The Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of Oaths, Profanity,
Foul Language, and Ethnic Slurs in the English-Speaking World, M.E. Sharpe,
Inc., Armonk, p.216
Wikipedia (2020) “List
of authors and works on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum” in Wikipedia,
Hughes, G. (2006) The Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of Oaths, Profanity,
Foul Language, and Ethnic Slurs in the English-Speaking World, M.E. Sharpe,
Inc., Armonk, p.54
Hughes, G. (2006) The Encyclopedia of Swearing: The Social History of
