Condoms in Rochester

Thu Apr 11 03:24:04 UTC 2013

Now that I see Farmer & Henley:

Knowing a little about books attributed to
"Rochester, Roscommon, and Dorset", I infer that
the "Panegyric upon Cundum", although italicized
in F & H, is not a book but something (likely a
poem) within a collection.  There are several
_The Works of the Earls of Rochester, Roscomon
[sic], and Dorset, the Dukes of Devonshire,
Buckinghamshire, &c. : with memoirs of their
lives_, one dated 1777 (not 1767, although
perhaps there is an edition of that date
also).  So F & H presumably did not misdate
Rochester, but at worst only an edition of R, R, and D.

F & H missed earlier editions of R, R, and D.

A 1752 edition is available in Google Books, and
it does contain "A "Panegyric upon Cundum", with
a suitable quotation, identical to the OED's 1728 quotation:
   1728   W. Kennett in W. Pattison Cupid's
Metamorphoses 307   Happy the Man, who in his
Pocket keeps, Whether with Green or Scarlet Ribband bound, A well made C.
except that R, R, and D spell it out fully.

There are earlier collections of R and R's poems
(some without D, some with other titles), going
back to 1701.  One is 1739 (No preview, but in
ECCO), which Google Books also "hits" with
cundum.  One might search ECCO to see if the
OED's ?1706 / 1708 can be antedated.

As with other items within these collections, I
think it is not always the case that Rochester
wrote what is attributed to him in them.  And if
he did indeed write the "Panegyric", although it
would then antedate the OED (Rochester died in
1680), it probably was available only in manuscript.

(The 1665 attribution mentioned by Larry is a bit
suspicious, let alone probably without any solid
evidence -- John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, was only 18 that year.)

Thus no antedating of the OED into the 17th century, I conclude.

Joel

At 4/10/2013 08:28 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
>On Apr 10, 2013, at 2:00 PM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
>
> > At 4/10/2013 12:00 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
> >> On Apr 10, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Joel S. Berson wrote:
> >>
> >> > Where would one find a collection of terms used for "condom" in the
> >> > 18th century -- both standard and slang?
> >> >
> >> > Joel
> >> >
> >> I don't know about collections, but Farmer &
> >> Henley (1890-1904) list such variants as "French
> >> letter", "Spanish letter", "Italian letter", and
> >> even "American letter", as well as "capote
> >> anglaise" (English overcoat), 'usually described
> >> in print as "specialities" or "circular
> >> protectors"', but with no cites. The entry for
> >> "cundum" curiously lists this as "an obsolete
> >> appliance worn in the act of coition
the modern
> >> equivalent is known as a French letter", with
> >> one cite from Rochester et al.'s "Panegyric upon Cundum", 1767.
> >
> > Wouldn't Rochester (if this one is the libertine
> > 2nd earl) be 1667, not 1767?  (See also Safire,
> > citation below.)  Although in 1667 he would have
> > been only 20.  (The first earl died in 1658; the
> > third died in 1680 at the age of 10.)  If
> > "Panegyric" really exists, it would antedate the
> > OED's "condom" by 40 years.  But I am wondering
> > -- I don't find "Panegyric ... Cundum" in Google Books or WorldCat.
>
>Right about the date, of course.  This
>site--http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2009/01/origin-of-condom.html--mentions
>the same panegyric, dating it to 1665 (maybe F&H
>were working with a later edition?); F&H appear
>to have taken the earl at his word in taking his
>subject to be an eponym for a putative (but
>apparently non-existent?) Dr. Cundum/Condom,
>physician to Charles II.  Grose apparently
>thought he was a colonel, rather than (or as well as?) a doctor.
>
>Here's the misdated F&H entry, in an awkwardly long URL:
>http://books.google.com/books?id=zqEYAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=%22Panegyric+upon+cundum%22&source=bl&ots=98Kb6sxdSG&sig=jzF6HD4kdyUFIMsByPxWzx3zKO4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BgNmUdiJDsfK4AOT3YCYBQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Panegyric%20upon%20cundum%22&f=false
>
> >
> > If there really is an instance of "French letter"
>No, the claim is there's an instance of "cundum", not of "French letter"
>
> > in 1667, it will antedate the OED's ?1844 and
> > c1856 by 180-odd years.  Which I only know from
> > having wondered yesterday how far back "French
> > letter" went, and being surprised it was so
> > late.
>
>As noted, F&H take "French letter" (and related
>ethnonyms) to be the *modern* (i.e. Victorian)
>replacement for the "obsolete" cundum, which
>suggests there wouldn't be a 17th c. cite for the former to be found.
>
>LH
>
> >  Ben's report from Grose is interesting --
> > an absence of slang for "condom" (which the OED
> > has from ?1706 and 1708) in the
> fairly-outspoken 18th century?  Surprises me!)
> >
> > No OED entries for "Spanish letter", "Italian
> > letter", "American letter", nor "capote anglaise" and "English overcoat".
> >
> > Safire had something to say about "cundom" in
> > _Coming to Terms_, in "Surgeon General's Warning"; see (Preview)
> >
> http://books.google.com/books?id=ni-9jilJ4n0C&pg=PT710&dq=rochester+panegyric+cundum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dqRlUf_iA-nD4AOg_YHQCQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA
> > (Therein on an unnumbered page.)  But probably
> > nothing on the 18th century (the Preview omits some pages).
> >
> > Joel
> >
> >
> >> LH, wondering whether the cundum would count as a major or minor appliance
> >>
> >> P.S. Glancing down the page from "French
> >> letter", I see that "French vice" is delicately
> >> glossed as 'a euphemism for all sexual
> >> malpractices'.  Wonder what the premiums for
> >> malpractice insurance were like back then.
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org