cock (from beau, ‘fine,' or baud, 'bold'), and queer diminutives. Intimacy or familiarity explains these phenomena, and supplies the common term between abusive language and the dialect of tender fondness. On the one hand we have the familiarity of affection; on the other, the familiarity of contempt.1

Whenever a word comes to have a disagreeable sense, some synonym begins to take its place in ordinary language. The synonym may be a new word borrowed for the express purpose, but it is more commonly a word already established, which may suffer a slight change of meaning, perhaps by being more generalized. Thus, when knave began to acquire a disagreeable signification, servant, from the French, took its place. Servant was already in the language, but was a somewhat more dignified and special word than knave. In modern usage, with the spread of democratic feeling, there has been, particularly in America, a tendency to abandon this word servant in favor of help, or domestic, or some other less plain-spoken term.2 This conducts us directly to euphemism, which will be treated in the following chapter.

1 Compare fellow (p. 287), in which the influences here described have made themselves felt.

2 The history of help in this sense is fully discussed by Albert Matthews in the Transactions of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, V, 225 ff.

that the use originated on this side of the water. However that may be, the passage from foolish' (applied to persons) to excellent' (applied to either persons or things) seems inexplicable until the history of the word is known, and gives us one more example of the folly of appealing to the Stoic etymon.1

Naughty is a curious example of the ups and downs to which words are subject, particularly words of approval or reproach. It is from naught, and meant originally either destitute,' or 'good-for-nothing.' In the latter sense it became a general synonym for bad.' King Lear's fool says This is a naughty night to swim in'; the records. of Plymouth Colony speak of small and naughty canoes' (1661). In its application to morals, naughty was perhaps a euphemism at first, but it soon came to be a term of extreme reprobation. A naughty world' and 'naughty lady' in Shakspere are exactly equivalent to wicked' in Modern English. Since his time the word has lost all dignity on account of its application to the peccadillos of children. When used of older persons, it is purely sportive, and has far less force than it possessed at the very beginning of its career.

The whimsicality of affection takes delight in transforming abusive words into caresses. 'Lie still, ye thief, says Lady Percy to her husband. Desdemona is Othello's 'excellent wretch' before Iago springs his snares. The dead Cordelia is my poor fool' to King Lear. Rogue, rascal, toad, tyke (cur'), and even snake, are pet names for little children. All this is akin to the employment of grotesque pet names like chuck (in Macbeth), honey, baw

1 See p. 230.

2 We may compare the Latin nequam and our good-for-nothing, nobody,' and the colloquialno sort (or kind) of a man.'

a

cock (from beau, fine,' or baud, 'bold'), and queer diminutives. Intimacy or familiarity explains these phenomena, and supplies the common term between abusive language and the dialect of tender fondness. On the one hand we have the familiarity of affection; on the other, the familiarity of contempt.1

Whenever a word comes to have a disagreeable sense, some synonym begins to take its place in ordinary language. The synonym may be a new word borrowed for the express purpose, but it is more commonly a word. already established, which may suffer a slight change of meaning, perhaps by being more generalized. Thus, when knave began to acquire a disagreeable signification, servant, from the French, took its place. Servant was already in the language, but was a somewhat more dignified and special word than knave. In modern usage, with the spread of democratic feeling, there has been, particularly in America, a tendency to abandon this word servant in favor of help, or domestic, or some other less plain-spoken term.2 This conducts us directly to euphemism, which will be treated in the following chapter.

1 Compare fellow (p. 287), in which the influences here described have

made themselves felt.

2 The history of help in this sense is fully discussed by Albert Matthews in the Transactions of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, V, 225 ff.

CHAPTER XXI

EUPHEMISM

DECENCY and propriety are powerful forces in changing the meanings of words, or in driving them out of use. They are also very ancient forces. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a state of society so low as to be exempt from their operations. Prudery may be ridiculous, but it is not unnatural. It is merely the self-conscious expression of tendencies that have affected language from the remotest times, and that have their roots in the most primitive philosophy of the human race. The propriety of the Hottentot may differ from the white man's propriety, but, such as it is, he feels under bonds to observe it, and the bonds are quite as stringent as those which regulate our own society. In particular, he is very loath to call a spade a spade.'

The origins of euphemism, then, are to be sought not in our complex civilization, but in those conceptions of language which are common to men in every stage of culture. We instinctively avoid the mention of death, and take refuge in such vague or softened phrases as he has passed away,' he is gone,' the deceased,' the departed,' 'the late Mr. Smith.' The savage feels still greater reluctance. Sometimes he even refuses to utter the name of a person who is no longer living, or to give it to a child, so that the name actually becomes obsolete among the tribe. This

agreement between the civilized man and the savage points to the solution of the whole problem. It is unlucky to speak of death or misfortune, for, in all men's minds, there is a mysterious but indissoluble connection between the thing and the word. To pronounce the word may bring the thing to pass. Here we are on familiar ground. The power of the word,' as we have already seen,1 is a conception that appeals with equal force to the Stoic philosopher (with his etymon) and the medicine-man with his rigmarole of senseless charms.

Thus euphemism becomes immediately intelligible. Nothing that the savage does or says is free from ceremonial restrictions. The most innocent acts or speeches may be fraught with tremendous consequences if they violate a taboo or run counter to a religious requirement. Such and such words are allowable under one set of circumstances, but forbidden under another. The habit of linguistic caution is thus formed, and what we call decency of language is the last result.

The Australian aborigines are very near the bottom of the social scale. Yet they have many rigid rules of decency and propriety in speech. They feel no hesitation, to be sure, in speaking of all sorts of things which we never mention in polite society. Yet they have two words for almost every such idea, and they shudder at the thought of employing the wrong synonym in a mixed company. In short, the language of these naked savages is provided with all the apparatus of an elaborated euphemism.

The Greek word euphemism itself has ceremonial connections. It comes from ev (eû), 'well,' and pnμí (phẽmí), 'to speak.' Evonμeîte (euphémeîte), 'speak fair,' the im1 See pp. 228 ff.