Full citation:Turton, Stephen. 2024. Before the Word Was Queer: Sexuality and the English Dictionary 1600-1930. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-316-51873-1
A study of the handling of transgressive sexuality in English dictionaries over the centuries.
Chapter 2 – Estranging English
* * *
This chapter begins exploring the assertion that languages bear an essential relationship to the nature of their speakers, and that deviations of the language from this essential quality can be attributed to foreign influences. This idea appears in the introduction to a 1676 dictionary. The naturalization of words is paralleled to the naturalization of citizens and must be a strongly policed. Ethnic stereotypes are ascribed to languages along with the people who speak them. English, of course, is assumed to be neutral, moderate, and free from excess.
This establishes the principle that dictionaries have a moral mission to exclude words that represent concepts that should be excluded from English culture. Or at least such uninvited word usage should be presented with appropriate judgment noted. (Chapter 3 will specifically explore how the strategy was applied to language for f/f relations.)
This chapter looks at how dictionaries excluded or marginalized language for transgressive sexuality either specifically situating them as foreign (via etymology) or as displaced in time and space (via citation choice). The high status of classical literature posed a problem that might be handled more subtly.
Entries for “sodomy” invoke both strategies, emphasizing the foreign origin of the word, and its reference to biblical eras (taking the later equation of Sodom with m/m sex as a given). Similarly, etymologies of “bugger” that traced it to Bulgaria, even if simply via analogy of the punishment by burning , applied both to heretics (via a specific heresy attributed to Bulgaria) and sodomites.
It was common for dictionaries to ascribe the origins of both the word and the practice to specific foreign origins. A 1670 law dictionary assigns those origins to Italy, and specifically to Lombardy. [Note: Although the book doesn’t mention this, there may be additional relevant stereotypes associated with Lombardy, long associated with Italian banking practices. But it may be simply that Lombardy was the most familiar region of Italy when viewed from distant England.] Not only were claims made that foreigners brought the word/practice to England, but that visiting foreign climes could result in Englishman picking up both.
Terms related to “pederasty” underwent similar treatment, with the added complication of the esteem in which classical civilizations were held. Definitions of pederasty conflated it with sodomy (specifically with “boys” as a target) but the inherent contradictions in this equivalence resulted in ambiguity, due to the positive connotations of pederasty in classical texts. Further, pederasty was often defined as desire for boys, not specifically referring to a sex act. As usual, definitions that assume a male agent (without specifying one) created space for understanding the word in ways not intended. The scope of meaning for “boys” or “children” used in these definitions did not necessarily align with the “beardless adolescent” of classical reference.
The chapter explores a variety of other terms for a male receptive partner, with their supposed origins. Most are of clearly non-English origin and fit with the pattern of distancing. One exception, in some definitions, is “leman”—a word that is found for a non-marital sexual partner regardless of gender. Some dictionaries connected it with French “le mignon” (which would imply a grammatically male partner) while other propose an English source meaning “lie-man, one who lies with a man,” including female partners.
The author suggests that a m/m definition was prevalent in the early 17th century, but gave way to a more general sense by the 18th century, at which point new etymologies were suggested, either French (l’aimant(e)) or Germanic (leof-man). As a proposed Germanic origin takes center stage, definitions that focus on m/m senses have disappeared.
[Note: I think the book has failed in not noting the earlier usage of the word in a generic sense, and its Old English origins incorporating the non-gendered sense of “man=person” with the meaning “loved one”. As it stands, the text implies a same-sex meaning was original and only later supplanted. But I may be misunderstanding the book’s intent, as it may be trying to say that in the 17th century (when dictionaries were beginning to be a thing) the same-sex sense was prevalent, rather than suggesting that it was the original meaning.]
There is a discussion of how there is an abundance of terms for a receptive male (same-sex) partner in contrast to fewer for the insertive partner, who is in many ways, assumed as the default. [Note: compare with Latin vocabulary where the insertive partner is simply a default “man” while there are specific terms for different types of receptive partner.] The projection of a “passive” role onto the receptive partner is parallel by grammatically passive constructions. The receptive partner “is fucked, is hired, is abused, is kept, is loved.” The exception being “semantically passive” constructions where he “suffers [an act]” which is a wording also found for female partners in m/f sex.
The lexicographers’ emphasis on foreign origins for words about non-normative sex extended to the quotations selected to illustrate them, which situate the subjects of the quotes distantly in time and space, rather than using equally-available passages referring to persons and events in England.
As a classical education could not help but touch on mythological examples of m/m love, the treatment of these situations and characters in dictionaries intended for scholars is instructive. At the same time that dictionaries are defining “ganymede” (as a noun) as a receptive male sexual partner, they describe Ganymede (the mythic character) simply as being “beloved” by Jupiter. This creates a circular logical failure when the same books define “love” in heterosexual terms. Though, again, this requires the lexicographers to exclude usage in which “love” and more explicit sexual terms are clearly used in same-sex contexts.
The treatment of Sappho and other classical women is included in this chapter, although f/f language in general is treated in the next chapter. Classical dictionaries discussing the Calisto myth focus on how Jupiter tricked her into sex, but omit that the disguise relied on an assumption of f/f desire (involving Diana). The latter motif comes to be admitted in 18th century references.
Treatments of the Iphis myth up through the 19th century give her no agency, despite Ovid’s text clearly depicting her as a desiring agent.
Sappho—in general early modern discourse—is handled in three ways: as a poet, in the Phaon story, and as a lover of women. Literary references of the time clearly acknowledge the last, but dictionary entries largely do not, with a few exceptions in woks aimed at an elite male audience, rather than a general one. “Aimed at” does some heavy lifting, as even dictionaries that explicitly describe their readership in male terms may have women in their subscriber lists.
In contrast, dictionaries that present themselves as aimed at a female readership omit reference to Sappho’s same-sex loves.
By the mid 19th century, dictionary references to Sappho might include rejections of the claims about f/f love (to “redeem” her reputation), while a few began acknowledging it. And, of course, any acknowledgement of Sappho’s same-sex reputation could take comfort in the knowledge that she was long ago and far away.
Add new comment