Olde Swear Words

 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.

Language Warning!

          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.

Copyright Disclaimer

          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.

Introduction

          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.”[1]

 

          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”[2]

 

          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:”[3] 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,”[4] 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.”[5]

 

          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”[7]. 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.”[8] 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”.[9] 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.”[10] 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.”[11]

 

          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.”[12] 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”.”[13]

 

          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.”[14] 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”).”[15]

 

          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".”[16]

 

          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.”[17]

 

          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.”[18]

 

          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.”[19] (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.”[20]

 

          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.”[21]

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.”[22] (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.”[23] 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.”[24]

 

          ‘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.”[25]

 

          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.”[26]

 

          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.”[27]

 

          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.”[28]

 

          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.”[29]

 

          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.”[30]

 

          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)”.[31] 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.””[32]

 

          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).”[33]

 

          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.”[34]

 

          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.”[35]

 

          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).”[36]

 

          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”[37]

 

          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.”[38] 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.”[39]

 

          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.”[40]

 

          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.”[41]

 

          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).”[42]

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.”[43]

 

          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.”[44]

 

          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,”[45] (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),”[46] (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.”[47]

 

          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.””[48]

 

          While Greene’s example was not the first, it being published in 1552[49] 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.[50] 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.”[51]

 

          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.”[52] 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”.[53] 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.”[54]

 

          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).”[55]

 

          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.”[56] 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.””[57]

 

          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.[58] 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.”[59]

 

          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.”[60]

 

          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,”[61] 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.”[62]

 

          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!”[63] 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”[64]

 

          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”[65]

 

          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.”[66]

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.”[67] 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.).”[68] 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.[69] 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.”[70]

 

          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:”[71]

 

          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.”[72]

 

          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.”[73]

 

          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.”[74]

 

          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,”[75] 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.”[76]

 

          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.”[77] 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)[78] 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,”[79]

 

          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!”[80] (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).”[81]

 

          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.”[82]

 

          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,”[83]

 

          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.[84] 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.””[85] 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.)”[86]

 

          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.”[87] (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.”[88] (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.”[89]

 

          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,””[90] 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’;”[91] 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.[92] In this way this term has, in a sense retained much of its meaning, “Moll had the sense of “prostitute” in Elizabethan times,”[93] 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).”[94]

 

          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.[95] 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.”[96]

 

          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.”[97] 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).”[98]

 

          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.”[99] 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”.[100] 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.”[101]

 

          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.[102] 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.”[103] (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.”[104]

 

          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,”[105]

 

          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.[106] 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.

Bibliography

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]

 

---

[1] Wikipedia (2019) “Profanity” in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profanity, [accessed 3/12/2019]

[2] Merriam-Webster (2019) “Profanity” in Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profanity#synonyms, [accessed 14/12/2019]

[3] Cambridge University Press (2019) “Profanity” in Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/profanity, [accessed 14/12/2019]

[4] Wikipedia (2019)

[5] ibid.

[6] Lexico.com (2019) “Swearing” in Lexico.com, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/swearing, [accessed 14/12/2019]

[7] Cambridge University Press (2019a) “Swearing” in Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/swearing?topic=swearing-and-blasphemy, [accessed 14/12/2019]

[8] Bryson, B. (1990) Mother Tongue: The English Language, Penguin Books Ltd, London, p.210

[9] 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]

[10] ibid.

[11] Bryson (1990), p.211

[12] Dennis (2019)

[13] 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]

[14] 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]

[15] McWhorter (2015)

[16] Independent.ie (2019)

[17] McWhorter (2015)

[18] Independent.ie (2019)

[19] 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

[20] ibid, p.389

[21] Bryson (1990), p.215

[22] Hughes (2006), p.389

[23] Dennis (2019)

[24] Crystal, D. and Crystal B. (2002) Shakespeare’s Words: A Glossary & Language Compendium, Penguin Books Ltd, London, p.435

[25] Renfaire.com (2015) “Elizabethan Oaths, Curses, and Insults” www.renfaire.com/Language/insults.html, [accessed 14/12/2019]

[26] 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

[27] Renfaire.com (2015)

[28] 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]

[29] Hughes (2006), p.364

[30] ibid, p.364

[31] ibid, p.20

[32] ibid, p.20

[33] ibid, p.131

[34] ibid, p.131

[35] ibid, p.465

[36] ibid, p.465

[37] ibid. p.466

[38] ibid, p.415

[39] Ibid, p.257

[40] ibid, p.257

[41] ibid, p.257

[42] ibid, p.257

[43] ibid, p.268

[44] ibid, p.268

[45] ibid, p.19

[46] ibid, p.20

[47] ibid, p.125

[48] ibid, p.125

[49] An anonymous work carrying the dramatic title A manifest detection of the moste vyle and detestable use of Diceplay, ibid. p.125

[50] Copies of this are available online https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/4483 and http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Greene/Notable_Discovery.pdf, for example

[51] ibid, p.126

[52] ibid, p.505

[53] Merriam-Webster (2020) “Flyting” in Merriam-Webster Dictionary,  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/flyting, [accessed 13/1/2019]

[54] Hughes (2006), p.177

[55] ibid, p.176

[56] ibid, p.30

[57] ibid, p.332

[58] “All the principal synonyms for swearing, notably profanity, blasphemy, and obscenity, originally had strong religious denotations. This is now generally only true of blasphemy, although profanity in British English still commonly implies language that is irreverent or blasphemous, rather than simply shocking.” ibid, p.362

[59] Austin (2018)

[60] Crystal and Crystal (2002), p.435

[61] Hughes (2006), p.362

[62] Renfaire.com (2015)

[63] Shakespeare, W. (2010) “Romeo and Juliet” in The Complete Works of Shakespeare: The Alexander Text, HarperCollins Publishers, London, p.967, III i 103

[64] Hughes (2006), p.54

[65] Crystal and Crystal (2002), p.435

[66] Hughes (2006), p.54

[67] Crystal and Crystal (2002), p.435

[68] Hughes (2006), p.312

[69] 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]

[70] Hughes (2006), p.390

[71] ibid, p.308

[72] ibid, p.307

[73] ibid, p.308

[74] ibid, p.415

[75] ibid, p.308

[76] ibid, p.308

[77] Ibid, p.202

[78] 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]

[79] 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

[80] Renfaire.com (2015) “Elizabethan Oaths, Curses, and Insults” www.renfaire.com/Language/insults.html, [accessed 14/12/2019]

[81] Hughes (2006), p.440

[82] ibid, p.440

[83] ibid, p.134

[84] Wikipedia (2020a) “Scurvy” in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy, [accessed 15/01/2020]

[85] Hughes (2006), p.312

[86] ibid, p.3

[87] ibid, p.119

[88] Renfaire.com (2015)

[89] Hughes (2006), p.135

[90] ibid, p.251

[91] Partridge, E. (1995) The Wordsworth Dictionary of the Underworld, Wordsworth Editions Ltd, Ware, p.282

[92] Wikipedia (2020b) “Moll (slang)” in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moll_(slang), [accessed 15/01/2020]

[93] Hughes (2006), p.363

[94] ibid, p.16

[95] Merriam-Webster (2020a) “punk” in Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/punk, [accessed, 15/01/2020]

[96] Hughes (2006), p.370

[97] Dictionary.com (2020) “Euphemism” in Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/euphemism, [accessed 17/01/2020]

[98] 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.119

[99] ibid, p.202

[100] Bryson, B. (1990) Mother Tongue: The English Language, Penguin Books Ltd, London, p.214

[101] Hughes (2006), p.202

[102] Bryson (1990), p.214

[103] 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]

[104] Hughes (2006), p.202

[105] ibid, p.264

[106] Bryson (1990), p.214