Bloody Oath

[Generali]

Hi All

Does anyone know when we moved in English from blasphemous words being taboo to sexual words being taboo instead (f... and c... are both used by Chaucer but now I feel the need to censor those words). In the past words like 'zounds' (Gods wounds) were used euphemistically rather as we use 'sugar' today.

So when the change and why?

[redsturgeon]

I'd guess during the Victorian era when all things bodily and sexual became taboo.

John

[UncleEbenezer]

I'd guess during the Victorian era when all things bodily and sexual became taboo.

John

Deary me, no, it ain't that simple.

Go back before the Victorian era. Jane Austen's subjects are sexual/romantic, but her language is clean. Many other authors - e.g. Jonathan Swift - may be thoroughly rude about their society, but their language is still sexually clean. I could cite numerous other authors from the 18th and pre-Victorian 19th century. Mozart was being thoroughly transgressive when he mentioned bodily functions, and such filth wasn't published.

Perhaps a lot of the taboos against such things were in fact a reaction of revulsion against Rabelaisian excess?

Taboos move with every generation.

[stewamax]

Indeed. But in the seventeenth century and earlier, acceptable written English could uncompromisingly direct in matters about which we are prudish. An oft-quoted example is the marriage service from the Anglican Book of Common prayer (1662) which cautions that marriage
is …. not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First….
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Even up-tight Victorian Christians had to use this; the law made exception only for Jews and Quakers. It was only in 1928 that
the first official 'softening' of the language came, but that 1928 edition was never authorised!

Even today, a reading in church of Song of Solomon from the King James Authorised version of 1611 can raise eyebrows.

[GoSeigen]

Indeed. But in the seventeenth century and earlier, acceptable written English could uncompromisingly direct in matters about which we are prudish. An oft-quoted example is the marriage service from the Anglican Book of Common prayer (1662) which cautions that marriage
is …. not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First….
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Even up-tight Victorian Christians had to use this; the law made exception only for Jews and Quakers. It was only in 1928 that
the first official 'softening' of the language came, but that 1928 edition was never authorised!

Even today, a reading in church of Song of Solomon from the King James Authorised version of 1611 can raise eyebrows.

Being these days an irregular churchgoer, I was rather bemused when I accompanied my mother to her Baptist Christmas carol service where a 13 year old pre-pubescent girl had the role of reading about how Mary was a virgin and would not need to have relations with Joseph but -- I kid you not -- that the "Holy Spirit would come on her" and she would be with child. Luckily the mulled wine was served after the carols or I'd have spat all over the old biddies in front of me!


GS

[Slarti]

Taboos move with every generation.

When Alf Garnet first called Else a silly moo or cow my parents were shocked out of their socks, as where and when they grew up any man who used such phrases to a woman would have been set upon and severely beaten.

Changes can also be regional.

Slarti

[Lootman]

Taboos move with every generation.

When Alf Garnet first called Else a silly moo or cow my parents were shocked out of their socks

But wasn't Warren Mitchell's character actually satirising the kind of man who would speak to Else in such terms?

At the time the BBC was quite strict about obscenities and so made-up or euphemistic terms of abuse were used instead, like "Plonker" on Only Fools. Other examples are "Green Grow my Nadgers Oh!" by Kenneth Williams (*) and a Fry & Laurie sketch consisting entirely of words that sounded obscene were not not real words at all.

(*) "One's the grunge upon my splod, masking my cordwangle."

[Slarti]

Taboos move with every generation.

When Alf Garnet first called Else a silly moo or cow my parents were shocked out of their socks

But wasn't Warren Mitchell's character actually satirising the kind of man who would speak to Else in such terms?

At the time the BBC was quite strict about obscenities and so made-up or euphemistic terms of abuse were used instead, like "Plonker" on Only Fools. Other examples are "Green Grow my Nadgers Oh!" by Kenneth Williams (*) and a Fry and Laurie stetch consisting entirely of words that sounded obscene were not not real words at all.

(*) "One's the grunge upon my splod, masking my cordwangle."

Alf was satirising the type of right wing bigoted old git who would be racially dismissive and very non PC. What shocked them was that such language would be on the TV that early in the evening such that a 12 year old (me) could see it. The language to them was post watershed language.

As for Kenneth Williams, most of his stuff on Round The Horn, etc, was Polari and far from euphemistic. It was just that the powers at the Beeb didn't understand.

Slarti

[Watis]

Taboos move with every generation.

When Alf Garnet first called Else a silly moo or cow my parents were shocked out of their socks

But wasn't Warren Mitchell's character actually satirising the kind of man who would speak to Else in such terms?

At the time the BBC was quite strict about obscenities and so made-up or euphemistic terms of abuse were used instead, like "Plonker" on Only Fools. Other examples are "Green Grow my Nadgers Oh!" by Kenneth Williams (*) and a Fry & Laurie sketch consisting entirely of words that sounded obscene were not not real words at all.

(*) "One's the grunge upon my splod, masking my cordwangle."

Quite. I have always believed, rightly or wrongly, that the use of 'naff' by the Fletcher character in Porridge was a placeholder for that much naughtier word beginning with 'F'.

Watis

[UncleEbenezer]

Indeed. But in the seventeenth century and earlier, acceptable written English could uncompromisingly direct in matters about which we are prudish. An oft-quoted example

Erm, so what in your quote was ever actually taboo? It's perhaps in modern times that marriage language has come under more pressure than ever before, as the language of ownership has largely gone, and that of heterosexuality and reproduction is coming under pressure.

[UncleEbenezer]

At the time the BBC was quite strict about obscenities and so made-up or euphemistic terms of abuse were used instead, like "Plonker" on Only Fools. Other examples are "Green Grow my Nadgers Oh!" by Kenneth Williams (*) and a Fry & Laurie sketch consisting entirely of words that sounded obscene were not not real words at all.

(*) "One's the grunge upon my splod, masking my cordwangle."

I suspect the BBC may have been turning a blind eye.

The tradition you describe came from pre-BBC music halls. Which in turn came from earlier traditions. The English madrigal tradition is full of humourous euphemism and double-entendre, in exactly the same way as the Carry-On films.

[stewamax]

Erm, so what in your quote was ever actually taboo? It's perhaps in modern times that marriage language has come under more pressure than ever before, as the language of ownership has largely gone, and that of heterosexuality and reproduction is coming under pressure.

My point was that, unlike almost any other material people read or heard, the language of the C of E marriage services (and the BCP in general) was not optional if you wished to marry - even if you were a Methodist, Baptist, or a member of the Church of Rome*. It was written at a time when such blunt phraseology was the norm and, the C of E being a conservative organisation, was not changed legally in England until quite recently even though there have been ineffective moves to do so for at least a hundred years. The Victorians just had to put up with it!

* I believe this is so but am open to correction

[Slarti]

My point was that, unlike almost any other material people read or heard, the language of the C of E marriage services (and the BCP in general) was not optional if you wished to marry - even if you were a Methodist, Baptist, or a member of the Church of Rome*.

From 1753 to 1836 everybody other than Quakers and Jews had to be married in the C of E to have any legal rights.

Slarti

[MikeyWorld]

Many other authors - e.g. Jonathan Swift - may be thoroughly rude about their society, but their language is still sexually clean.

I seem to remember that Gulliver kept banging on about the size of his chap.

[Generali]

Thanks to all for the very interesting answers but it seems that still I am not really any further in my attempt to understand when and why this changed.

To my mind it was a profound change in the way that the English language was/is used and presumably it didn't occur as any sort of edict as swearing is generally the most spontaneous and basest sort of speech (think about the last time you fell or stubbed your toe).

The search for an answer continues!

Thanks once again.

G

[XFool]

...and I thought this was about Yahoo!