St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-07-07
National Characteristics Of
the Use of What Is Called
Profanity.
Differences Between PrOfan1-
ty, So-Called, and Vulgar
ity and Obscenity.
Derivations of Some Of the
More Peculiar Of These
Odd Expletives.

Swearing is as much habit as any
thing. Few men are intentionally pro-
fame, even when they are uttering the
roundest oaths. Here in America the
habit of swearing has become national,
and the further West one gets-St.
Paul, for instance-the more vivid are
the flashes of profanity. There are GER
tain national oaths which are character
istic of those who use them, and mark
either certain characteristics or are
relics of bygone days. The English
gentleman says "By God, sir" or
Damn it!'' in a sturdy AnglO-SaXon
way, while the coarse labOrer of that
country uses the coarser bloody" as his
invariable adjective, even in the most or
binary conversation. The Frenchman
peppers his conversation with "Sacres,"
as he seasons his food with cayenne.
He means nothing by it but emphasis,
which is characteristic of every SWeaTer.
His "Sacre nom de Dieu!H though pro-
fame in the ordinary sense of the word,
is not curse but an ejaculation, much
on par with the Italians ''Corpo di
Baccho!. a relic of the ancient Roman
days. The Italian "Perdita!" CORE
spends with the American ''Hell and
damnatlon!" the German "PotZtau-
sand" to the English, 1.-The DEVIL"
Taking it all around the oaths are
very similar, all taking the name of
God or the devil in vain. Why do peO-
pie swear? Lord Beaconsfield once said
that no gentleman will swear habitually,
but that he may do so when under the
stress of anger or excitement. Unfort-
unately too many men in this country,
who would be insulted if it we're sug-
gested that they were anything but gen
tlemen, not only swear habitually, but
intersperse their most ordinary con-
versation with the name of the second
person of the Holy Trinity, combined
freely with obscene epithets, which IN
any other country would stamp them at
making ones habitual conversation
SAVIOR of the brothel. Yet this is done
every minute by many of The wealthiest
and often of the most highly educated
men. 1t is a sign of deficient refinement
and association with immoral charac-
tiers. Apart from obscenity, which can
not be designated as profanity,
but must be placed on a
much lower level. the oaths used
most commonly, those which are now in
fashion, simply show a tendency to
think and speak lightly and carelesSly
of sacred things. This, unfortunately,
is the prevailing tendency of the age,
and the widespread habit of interlarding
conversation with the name of God is
merely one evidence of this.
There are several distinct kinds of
mi, Erc+ t,o4 90 I,al o,r
which the QuakerS take exception. The
$50 help me Godr' of the. law courts
finds its parallel in the God do so to
me and more also" of holy w rit, and in
the NE Dia and Ma Dia" of the ancient
Greeks. This may be called legitimate
swearing. The second. or illegitimate.
is the ordinary vulgar slangy use of
the name of either of the three
persons of the Holy Trinity, or
any sacred or cursed thing
or term in a light and uncalled-for way.
The third, or denunciatOry, is either
" fas - or "nefas," permissible or not,
according to the way in Which it is
used. There is the righteous anathema
of accommodation by the church,
which is "faS,' and the unrighteous
curse by one man of another, which is
almost always "nefaS." Profanity and
swearing which IS certainly not pro-
fame in the strictest sense of the term,
and profanity which is not by any
means swearing. Charles Lamb makes
this distinction very nicely, suggesting
that the loudly vociferated "Sacre!" of
the French muleteer, as he lashes his
tagging steed, followed by a NUT
tered Nom de Dieu!" is not pro-
fame, but merely explanatory, while
the closing words of Thackeray'S ac-
count of the battle of Waterloo, where
he relates that all night Amelia was on
her knees praying for her husband
field, shot through the heart. This. as
the author of the Essays of Elia''
says, is the very refinement of profan-
ity. ''The damn it all! old man, | am
glad to see you'll" of friend receiving a
caller is not profanity, but much of the
talk of certain popular revivalist preach
ers is emphaticaly profanity, and must
strike a truly religious mind as such.
The history of swearing is as old as
that of the world. In all ages men have
sworn. In all ages they have used the
aSSeverative form, in all ages the de-
mandatory and in almost all ages
the imprecatory. The name of the
nations has always found its way to
mems tongues when they desired to be
emphatic. The old Greeks swore by
Jove. the old Romans by Jupiter, the
Babylonians and Assyrians by Belus,
the Egyptians by Osiris and Isis. while
the Jews took the name of Jehovah in
vain. The days of Christianity have
been marked in this connection by the
introduction of the most holy names
known, those of Jesus Christ and His
Holy Mother. The middle ages showed
curious phase of the science of bias
phemy. Apparently, the people of
those days were too timid to come out
with pig round oaths, yet had the same
careless regard for the most holy names.
Hence came the absurd contractions,
such as "ZoundS!' for Goods woundsr'
"GisE" for "Jesus!" "Odds fishr' for
Goods tlesh!" and many other Shake
speTian and medieval Qaths now almost
incomprehenSible. These explosives
show the lightness in which the name
of God was held in esteem, and also the
curious bashfulness about uttering it
openly. In these modern days swear
Ing has become so fashionable that an
oath is nothing but mere emphatic
ejaculation, and the obscene and profane
eXacerbatiops Of the population of this
country have no meaning, and less
sense. 1t is habit that we have fallen
into, and most reprehenSible habit,
too, but one which seems so deeply
rooted as to have becom second nature.