Tag: history

NSFW: Swear Like a Victorian

I recently finished reading Melissa Mohr's delightful book Holy Sh*t: A Brief History of Swearing. Among other things, it's a fun, light illustration of some of the drivers behind what makes certain words taboo—granted, without discussing much in the way of formal linguistics—and should make apparent, in my view, how arbitrary many of those distinctions are.

To summarize her thesis, she divides curses into the holy and the shit: respectively, words and phrases that invoke religious ideas and bodily/sexual language. In the Middle Ages, religious oaths were thought to be much more offensive because they either forced God to bear witness to a lie, hence deceiving Him, or committed actual physical violence against Jesus, while words like fuckshit, and cunt were simply the most direct words for their referents. They most likely would not have raised an eyebrow.

During the Renaissance, however, sensibilities began to change. Religious curses, still reviled by some modern believers, nevertheless began to lose some of their shock value, making way for shit-words to claim a measure of notoriety for themselves, eventually culminating in the Victorian Era's extreme animus toward foul language. According to Mohr, this transition continues today, with one notable exception: racial epithets have now basically supplanted both the holy and the shit as the most shocking language.

Anyway, I highly recommend the book, and because I am both a lover of language and an overgrown man-child who's maintained his juvenile sense of humor despite being buffeted by the mentally erosive forces of time, experience, and a joyless commitment to pessimism, I'd like to reproduce a smattering of glorious Victorian sexual euphemisms taken from a chapter in Holy Shit titled "Gamahuche, Godemiche, and the Huffle".

Enjoy.

You'll forgive me the absurd vulgarity, I hope. File: Wikimedia Commons

You'll forgive me the absurd, gleeful vulgarity, I hope.
File: Wikimedia Commons

 

Mouse over the references to see the truly hilarious original wording of selected definitions. Also, some of these words predate the Victorian era, but the chapter seems to imply they would have been in regular, if vulgar, use during Queen Victoria's reign.

Huffle, Bagpipe: blowjob

Gamahuche: fellatio, cunnilingus

Larking: some sources claim fellatio, but Mohr seems to favor Gordon Williams's argument that it means, to put it in words she does not, titty fucking. She also references an engraving called "The Larking Cull" (1800) which shows a man doing just such a thing. You can view it at the British Museum's website!

To Tip the Velvet: either French-kissing or cunnilingus

Covent Garden Ague: venereal disease

Covent Garden Abbess: bawd

Covent Garden Nun: prostitute

Godemiche: dildo

Lobcock: a big, rubbery one

Rantallion: I must leave it to Grose here again: "one whose scrotum is so relaxed as to be longer than his penis, i.e. whose shot pouch is longer than the barrel of his piece"

Fartleberries: dingleberries

Burning Shame: Grose defines this as "a lighted candle stuck into the parts of a woman, certainly not intended by nature for a candlestick"

The following were all slang words for penis. As with many euphemisms, some of these are more innocuous than others and probably depend largely on context, which might render them either as the uncomfortable, ill-willed curses I referred to in an earlier footnote or simply as crude and goofy:

Pego
Arse-opener
Arse-wedge
Beard-splitter
Chinkstopper
Plugtail
Thomas
Man Thomas
Machine
Tool

Euphemisms for vagina:

the Monosyllable
Quim
Pussy
a woman's Commodity
Madge

Euphemisms for sexual intercourse:

Roger
Screw
Have Your Greens

Bubbies, Diddeys: breasts

Bushelbubby: a woman with large breasts

 

 

 

A Habit Worse Than Heroin

Journalism [is]… a low trade and a habit worse than heroin, a strange seedy world of misfits and drunkards and failures. Hunter S. Thompson
Simon Read. War of Words: A Tale of Newsprint and Murder. Union Square Press, 2009. 320 pages. ISBN-10: 1402756127

Simon Read. War of Words: A Tale of Newsprint and Murder. Union Square Press, 2009. 320 pages. ISBN-10: 1402756127

Simon Read begins War of Words: A Tale of Newsprint and Murder with two quotations, the first an excerpt from the Daily Dramatic Chronicle (later the San Francisco Chronicle) comparing the marksmanship of American journalists to that of their French counterparts and the second a fitting quote from Thompson's indelible The Great Shark Hunt, a landmark collection of essays and articles that chronicle Thompson's slog through the mid- to late-1960s and 1970s.

It is hard to imagine anything (journalistically, at least) that rivals the depravity Thompson encountered and, in some cases, perpetuated during the Hippie movement, the 1972 presidential campaign, and Richard Nixon with the notable exception of the Vietnam Conflict.  Enter War of Words, Read's account of an unimaginable and, by turns, almost comic rivalry between the founding editors of the San Francisco Chronicle Michael and Charles De Young and Reverend Isaac S. Kalloch, mayor of San Francisco from 1879-81.  While not an account of drug-fueled rampages like those of the often prescient Thompson, it is somehow fitting the events Read recounts are prefaced with a quote from a writer who spurned the journalistic establishment as cowardly and hypocritically beholden to calling itself objective.  While Michael and Charles de Young couldn't be considered cowards nor — as Read illustrates — objective, their actions and involvement with Mayor Kalloch were something of an antecedent to the activities that spurred Hunter S. Thompson to write those words and were coincidentally driven by the founding editors of a paper for which Thompson himself would one day write.

At its heart, War of Words is a quintessential American story, a tale of two ambitious, young men who built one of the largest and most influential newspapers of the day almost from scratch and the eventual corruptive influence of the power they eventually gained. Michael and Charles de Young literally began their endeavor with a $20 loan from a friend in order to start a theatre review that they would hand deliver throughout San Francisco.

Read doesn't necessarily comment or appear to push a morality tale upon us, though it is telling that he makes sure to note that the de Youngs' transition from entertainment editors to political opinion-makers came under the auspices of providing San Francisco with a newspaper willing to expose graft and corruption among city and state politicians in an attempt to restore dignity to the government.  It was to be a paper for the people, but as circulation grew, the de Youngs (more notably Charles) began to take personal stake in the outcomes of elections.  The San Francisco political scene in the 1870s was tumultuous and marked by immigration disputes over how to deal with a swelling Chinese workforce and the doldrums of a gold rush that had waned over the past twenty years.  This new xenophobia in many ways led to the creation and galvanization of the Workingmen's Party, a political entity that Rev. Isaac Kalloch, the de Youngs' eventual nemesis, would eventually come to lead.

Ultimately, Kalloch proves to be the lynchpin and powering force behind Read's narrative in War of Words.  In his review of War of Words for the Chronicle, Joshua Spivak notes that Kalloch is the richest of any of the characters, and I tend to agree on this account.

Kalloch started as a minister in New England whose riveting, boisterous speeches gained him a considerable celebrity among his parishioners.  An inspiring orator, he found his public life considerably altered by allegations that he'd had an affair with another woman, an old friend of his from university, at a nearby hotel.  It is during Read's descriptions of the trial that War of Words truly hits its stride and becomes a brisk account of mostly salacious details.  There is no insignificant amount of comedy for the modern reader as Read notes that descriptions of sexual acts such as those given under oath by the hotel manager were certainly not commonplace and likely shocking to attendees of the trial.  One can easily imagine the fodder such a trial would provide for trash magazines and tabloids were it to happen today.

Though he was eventually acquitted, Kalloch eventually moved away from New England, and after a foray into the Plains states where he remained beset by further rumors of lechery and financial misdeed, he moved west to San Francisco in 1875.

I am obviously skipping over important bits here and there, and I should mention that what makes Kalloch so interesting is his willingness, for a time, to stand up for some progressive views of the time.  An abolitionist since childhood and later a supporter of Asian and black rights, the reader's introduction to Kalloch (aside from the adultery) is largely favorable until the man once known as "the Golden Voice" becomes the helmsmen and mayoral candidate for the Workingmen's Party, an upstart movement responsible for rioting and violence as well as fervent opponents of immigrants, especially Asians, in California.  In the end, Read paints Kalloch as an opportunist who, by the time he comes to San Francisco, becomes more enamored with the acquisition of power than with the sincerity of his beliefs and who abuses the charge of his status as preacher for the Baptist church to further his political ambitions.

The book comes to its boil when the de Young brothers and Kalloch butt heads, initially over perceived slights, and then Kalloch reading publicly an old smear article published by a rival of the Chronicle's depicting the founding editors' mother as a whore in crude, shocking language.  The article itself had been a point of violence for the de Youngs upon its original publication, and the consequences proved similar the second time around eventually resulting in the gruesome assassination of Charles de Young.

War of Words is an interesting story, one of those historical anecdotes normally served to the public by little else than local historical societies and out-of-the-way websites.  Read specializes in rustling up these old stories (SEE: On the House: The Bizarre Killing of Michael Malloy, The Killing Skies) and dusting them off, their prior neglect sometimes due to nothing more than a selective mainstream taste for history. In the case of the events surrounding the San Francisco Chronicle in the 1870s, the murder of Charles de Young was a well-publicized event not only in San Francisco but around the country.  Sometimes we tend to lose even seemingly major events to the ravages of time.

Read has found a way to bridge the gap, though, and his excitement for his subject matter is apparent.  War of Words reads much more like a novel than a historical account and its narrator possesses a notable lack of impartiality.  That's not to say Read takes sides, but the book pitches and swells along with pointed, often bilious excerpts from the Chronicle and its contemporaries as well as accounts from witnesses and those involved with the various rifts presented throughout in such a way that the reader is swept up in the fray.  The amount of research Read has invested in his tome is quite staggering.  He has plumbed the depths of many newspapers and other publications of the time and has resurfaced with scores of fascinating excerpts for the history junkie.  More importantly, he knows when to allow the historical literature to do his talking for him.

There are times when some of his descriptions such as those of a physical twitch or rolling of the eyes seem unverifiable, and it is the one potential downfall of novelizing, so to speak, the narrative, but the citation list ought to quell at least some of those fears.  All in all, Read appears to bet the pot on immersion rather than didacticism while drawing from a sound base of material, which he describes richly and with great enthusiasm.

This review originally appeared in the Sloth Jockey Books section.