Puritan euphemisms

[Joel S. Berson]

At 10/25/2012 09:49 AM, George Thompson wrote:
>"Till within a few years past the editing of newspapers has been wholly in
>the hands of mere printers.  From them *original* matter was not to be
>expected.  ***"
>      Commercial Advertiser, January 21, 1802, p. 3, col. 1

Perhaps a rather supercilious assertion, from the grand vantage point
of the new 19th century?  There was at least a modest amount of
original writing in the 18th-century newspapers.  Some even by the
mere printers -- such as James and Benjamin Franklin in the
New-England Courant of 1721-23.  It is true, however, that much of
the "original writing" (essays, etc.) was taken from the British press.


>Before the Revolution, newspapers were edited by a craftsman, a printer.
>  After the Revolution, big-city papers, at least, were edited by guys who
>were expected to think deeply about government and such like.

Writers before the Revolution thought, and wrote, deeply about
serious things like government, and of course religion.  The
contentions with the British government over how the colonies should
be governed ascended beginning in the 1720s, and numerous essays
appeared in print.

>Whether they
>did or not, they at least wrote a fine turgid prose, in which nothing is
>ever "seen" -- it's "perceived".   A good portion of their other stuff was
>submitted by subscribers, writing under pseudonyms.

Since most was anonymous, it's hard to tell.   The NEC is somewhat of
an outlier (and did not last long), but thanks to Ben Franklin we
know who wrote many of its essays in its first year, and they were a
group I would call founders rather than subscribers.  Poetry by
Matthew Adams, Mather Byles, and Joseph Green appeared in the 1720s
and later, in other newspapers.  Around 1740 Samuel Johnson, later
president of King's College, NYC, published three essays on religion
in the Boston newspapers.

Some is certainly turgid, but some is not.  Contrat Mather Byles's
poem on Commencement with its successors by Matthew Adams and Josey
('stiller) Green.  (Green, it occurs to me, might be a good source of
colloquialisms.)

>the subscribers were
>mostly businessmen, not necessarily educated, but equally turgid.
>The newspapers of the 1750s, 60s & 70s are likely to be written in a more
>colloquial prose, but not slangy, of course.
>
>I've read a good deal in the NYC papers of the mid 18th C, and haven't
>encountered "Jiminy Cricket" or anything similar.  What I have found of
>interest I've noted and posted here.  Some of you may still remember fondly
>the Gormagunt.

Similarly, I've read a lot in the Boston newspapers (although I'm
sure less than George has of the NY papers), and haven't noticed any
mincing.  And I too would have posted here.

>When I was in 6th grade, the school librarian heard a girl say Jeepers
>Creepers, or maybe Gosh, or perhaps even Gadszooks.  In any event, she
>pulled her to one side and chastized her for using a word that was clearly
>a euphemism for A Forbidden Term.  Meriden, Conn., ca. 1952.

Must have been a hangover from the strict laws of the colony of New
Haven of the 16th and 17th centuries -- those that Samuel Peters
called "blue".  :-)

Joel

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