The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-06-19
A CHAPTER ON SWEARING.
The Genesis OF Oaths, Imprecations
and Anathemas.
From MacMalan's Magazine.

Belch, in burst of vinous confidence, 18th
a terrible oath. with staggering accent
sha ply twanged off, gives manhood more
appreciation than ever truth itself would
have earned him." This is doctrine which
has never lacked supporters. Professors of
strong language, if they have never been
more plentiful Ia one age than another.
have not as yet been seriously threat
ened with extinction. No symp-
toms have hitherto been devel-
oped from which VS. could fairly fore
tell the approaching end Of the long reign
OF imprecation. From iims to time. it is
true, there appears to be a lull in the dis
ease; its virulence, at all events, becomes
less pa ent o. the surface. and its ex Icerba-
tons seem TO occur at logger int walls and
wit a somewhat milder intensi V. But
none tho less it is there. Swearing, like
tailoring, is a matter # fashion, and never
es out OF fashiol altogether. The form is
apt 10 change; particular phrases become
unpopular, then are, then obsolete; yes the
matter and fundamental idea remain tie
same, and tue satisfaction Of what
Hotspur calls ga good mouth-flling
oath" seems TO descend, with volume
abated from generation to generation.
Non jurors. of course. have always existed
among us in greater or less pleaty, even as
tsetotallers and vegetarians; but impreca-
tons are no more exit ct tlan alcohol or
butchers meat. So Gent and popular a
custom is surely wor by of some little
attention. Why do we swear, aid yyhats
Whence arises tue apparently in rdi ate
FEELING of conten ment which fol ows toe
delivery IT a specia ly pungent execration?
Why do the oaths Of one age sound ridicu-
lou and lose all their point and oma Ii
the mouth OF an ther3 rAese aud kindred
reflections seem to suggest themselves at
the outset.
Etymology does not help us muc1 here.
indeed is rather embarrassiny than other
wise. We are referred to the Aryan root
slCdr, sgnif ling TO mum" IT 'shuzz.p To
swear meant originally, 'to declare" or
affirm" Hence the word on-sUer, of
which the strict etymolog cal equivalent is
ITO swear in opposition to-" al 5! taers DO
hose unto thls day whose answers are thus
only too radically correct. Oath, M no
syllable which may be traced ia the Cor
man Ed, AID in sundry otter leu .oaic
dialects, affords o clew to the origin of th +,
sentiment whic itemboiies. "Blaspheny.n
again, OF speaking injuriously,n is a mere
descriptive term, easy emo gh to derive, but
conveying, when re olved in O its factors
no 1ntimation of tue special sense which the
word has for centuries carried with it.
Finally, TO curse is connected, according
w oSAA1O VA Oui AdOoG iAlOu6In TOOD X uOtjerS.
with the Swedish korsa, and NAV thus
possibly signify the act of making the sig
OF the cross-an explanation too fimsv an 4
tar-fetched to be ranked above the level of
conjecture. Beyond these poor shreds of
philologlcal guess work we are in no wise
helped on our way by the laborious tribe of
lexicographers
Roughly speaking, we may divide the
practice OF swearing into three main varie-
ties: 1t is either asseverative, denunciato-
ry or int jectional. These varieties again
admit, . peclally the last, of certain sub
divisions. 1t is to the first-class that thoss
judicial afirmations belong. under stress of
"hicl we bind our elves TO set forth at Q
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth" sacraments, or oaths of allegiance.
fall under the same head The $50 help
me Gid" II our own law courts finds a
worthy forerunner in the sc ID do so to me
md more Also" or the frequent las thv
soul hveth," OF biblical authority; and
18th these may be compared the common
ne Did and ma Ola OF the Greek classics
strong assevervations, however, of rs nat
ure are more usually oonve ed, for colloqalal
purposes, through the medium of hypothe-
sis. The speaker invites the most fearful
catastrophe conceivable by religious min Is.
if what he asserts be not the fact. Briefly
ne pits his veracity against perditioa.
OF de unciation, there is nc better spac-
men exta1t than the commina ion service
app lnted by the churc of E lgland for use
IN Ash Wednesday,. Ernulpnu.' "Digest f
Gu ses," VIII SO bitterness so offended Uncle
oby, can scarcely be con sid cred IN IRE *
laustIve, or the ban under whose filence
the Jackdaw of Ri inns so mise "a bIy
moulted. But in private life We are accus-
omed to employ delicately graduated
scale of combination. Srarti on me
such generality as 'Occupet ertre nun,
scdbtes, the devil take the uindm ST. We
may rise to the highest flights of wither g
blasphemy, and illuminate a varied
mas against those who NAV
have provoked cur Indignation. BIT it is
in tue third variety, that which we NAV
call the interjectionai or compile nentary.
that our fancy permits US tue gr attest PLAY.
We may indulge in il under the form Of
either ejaculation or cpl het, and there is a
copious glo sary Of bot kin Is to choose
from. 1t is, and for mauy generations has
been, the most popular of all varieties of
she oath, and. humanity speaking, the most
harmless. Often, indeed, 1t appears as a
mere exclamati n, inoffensive, meaning
less, and boas,ing neither rhyme nor
reason.
Our older writers abound in imprecations
of all shades of intensi Y. They so nett mes
afford, to those who have that taste. agree
able eoymolog cal muces, being, r @
most part, curious exa nples Of era is or
contraction. Quite long lis mignt Q
made of such 81 tculations as odds pitt
kins," "By my halidom," "rfegs y
"'Slight," "By Gods liggens," and the like.
WHAT strikes us most forc.bly here is the
extreme familiarity with which most
sacred names and attributes are freely
handled. And with this familiarity is
j ined an evident disinclnati n to call
things and persons by their &C ,ustomed
names; hence the frequent cJrruptions IL
is as tho gh the swearers Of that day
argued that under the cloak of a more or
less grotesque travesty their profa ity
would be co doned by GoPs sonties. II
for instance; which is vaIi usly explained
by the commentators as a vulgarism for
saints" or sane tiles" So too, ''lak M
for 'ladv,n "Zoundsn and "Gog,s
wouns," for Goods wounds" ''G.s
for "Jesus" Shyness in ordinary
to disguise itself in excessive brltsquelie,
and the Elizabethan improcatory de
seems to have been based Oh sonewh t the
same principle. How otherwise are we TO
account for the ridiculous dlminu ives aad
PAROLES which we SO frequentls lad doing
duty as expietlves? A lotner curious ref G.
ii n is thia-that in our ow day the com
Elementary profanities of the Shakespear an
and subsequent as are apt TO be- regarded
in the light Of nothing more than very
mediocre pleasantly.