"Hunc over de" clubs, NY 1736?

[Joel S. Berson]

At 10/4/2007 10:04 PM, Doug Wilson wrote:
[I had written:]
>>This strikes me as satire also, and probably a pointed and serious
>>political comment: Hunk over Dee as evasion; maintain Truth as
>>honesty.  Whether this letter has sexual overtones, I don't know
>>[although Diana is reputed to be a virgin].  But surely the earlier
>>letter from "Trusty Roger" does.
>
>But some people are just named Roger or Diana.

In the 18th century pseudonymity was prevalent.  Serious letter
writers chose constructed Latin names, sometimes related to the
subject or point of view (such as Philopatria or Cato), or left their
letters unsigned (often the signature would be "A Friend"), or (less
frequently) signed their real names (as I assume the "Andrew Merrill"
is on one of the hunc-over-de letters).  I don't think any *serious*
letter-writer would sign "Trusty Roger".  Nor is it my impression
that letter-writers signed with only a (real) first name.

>I don't see any sexual
>reference at all in Diana's letter.

I admit I don't either, in the letter, but we are removed nearly 300
years from the style of humor.  And once again I see I carelessly
omitted parts of both letters, "return addresses" below each
signature.  "Trusty Roger"s letter ends:
----------------
Your Humble Servant,
Trusty Roger

Direct for me at the Sign of the Torn-Gown and Towsled Headcloaths
near the Bowling-Green.
----------------
Strong evidence for sexual suggestion, I think.  And an example of a
"punch line", reserving the clue that the letter is satiric or comic
to the very end?

"Diana"s letter ends:
------------
Diana.

P.S.  Direct for me at the Sign of Descretion [sic] between the
Fortification and the Old-Slip.
-----------------
Is this "discretion", "desecration", or a clever play on both?  Does
it have a sexual or defecatory tinge?

>As for Roger's article, I think
>it's ambiguous; I'm not sure whether he's trying to be suggestive or
>not and if he is I have no idea whether he's justified. Maybe it's
>all a joke with no substance. OTOH, maybe he's underestimating an
>outrageous truth. I just don't think we can tell from so little material.

I am convinced that the set of three letters-to-the-editor are trying
to be all three: serious about party factionalism (a significant
cause of contention at that time, although I know Massachusetts, but
very little about New York), satiric, and suggestive.  I agree that
the material is limited for this instance.  But my view of it comes
from familiarity with other 18th-century newspaper essays and letters.

Joel

>There is mention of "hunkadee" in the _American Notes and Queries_
>from 1890, at Google Books. A connection to Bengali (or maybe Hindi)
>is presented. "Another country heard from!" as my card-playing crony
>used to say.
>
>Is there any record of the 19th century game actually being called
>"hunk over dee", or is it merely the judgement of some 19th century
>writer that the 19th century "hunk-a-dee"/"hunk o' dee" must be a
>contraction of the 18th century "hunk over dee"?
>
>-- Doug Wilson
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1049 - Release Date:
>10/4/2007 8:59 AM
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

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