View the H-OIEAHC Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-OIEAHC's May 2002 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-OIEAHC's May 2002 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
To: H-NET/OIEAHC Electronic Association in Early American Studies <H-OIEAHC@H-NET.MSU.EDU> X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] Delivered-to: H-OIEAHC@h-net.msu.edu Original-recipient: rfc822;john.saillant@vmh.cc.wmich.edu As one with a strong background in literature, I'd have to second Tracy Wood's comments - with some explanation. Until the advent of various religious organizations and public morals committees during and after the American Second Awakening, and with the growth of British Victorian sensibilities across the pond, notions of the profane remained largely limited to phrases of a religious nature. Some colloquial language might have been considered "rude" during the 18th century, however, as social rank was of paramount concern in a highly stratified society. Just as today, much of this language involved allusions to antisocial or animal-like (low) behavior. As always, the terms were employed as simile or metaphor (e.g. n. mud raker, rake; v. shag, fuck; adj. cock sure, bawdy). Whether a word or phrase was considered inappropriate depended on what kind(s) of images or references were conjured; and by definition, what level of "worldly" knowledge its utterance suggested. To the point, a word's acceptable usage depended on the context or social circumstance in which the utterance arose. Unlike those of the Victorian era to the present, 17th century speakers were less concerned with any inherent "evil" or "moral degradation" that might come from the use of "low" language. What was of concern, however, was whether the language would introduce "social degradation" during an inappropriate circumstance. After all, the use of language often serves to delineate social rank - to set one's self apart from the "low-born" masses. During the 18th century, just as today, the interjection of colloquial speech could jeopardize one's reputation if issued in a public setting that involved socially charged dynamics. As a result, the more private the setting, the more open the communication; the more public the setting, the more restrictive the exchange. While gentlemen's clubs and private drawing rooms were replete with "colorful" language, pedestrian exchanges were generally more restrictive - more formal. Political circles often witnessed the use of colorful language for shock value as a rhetorical method for calling attention to a comment as being "to the point"; conversely, formal receptions and church socials were venues for the most "proper" or "sophisticated" language. With the advent of "moral" considerations during the 19th century, public assessment of language evolved into a consideration of one's purity of mind and purpose. As a result, "colorful" language generally became restricted to only the most private circumstances, if acceptable at all. Of course, with the rise of urban tensions and the relative collapse of social barriers during the 20th century, the occasional utterance of "rude" language in pedestrian circumstances has become the norm for even the most "high born" American. Witness the ever present "$&*@ off" as regularly issued on the streets of New York - a scene often romanticized as indicating a freedom of expression. Regards, John Lalla
|