<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0290" id="link2H_4_0290"></SPAN></p>
<h2> BOOK SEVENTH.—SLANG </h2>
<p><SPAN name="linkimage-0035" id="image-0035">
<!-- IMG --> </SPAN> <SPAN href="images/4b7-1-slang.jpg">Enlarge</SPAN></p>
<div class="fig"> <ANTIMG src="images/4b7-1-slangTH.jpg" alt="Slang B7-1-slang " width-obs="100%" /><br/></div>
<p><SPAN name="link2HCH0252" id="link2HCH0252"></SPAN></p>
<h2> CHAPTER I—ORIGIN </h2>
<h3> Pigritia is a terrible word. </h3>
<p>It engenders a whole world, la p�gre, for which read theft, and a hell, la
p�grenne, for which read hunger.</p>
<p>Thus, idleness is the mother.</p>
<p>She has a son, theft, and a daughter, hunger.</p>
<p>Where are we at this moment? In the land of slang.</p>
<p>What is slang? It is at one and the same time, a nation and a dialect; it
is theft in its two kinds; people and language.</p>
<p>When, four and thirty years ago, the narrator of this grave and sombre
history introduced into a work written with the same aim as this<SPAN href="#linknote-39" name="linknoteref-39" id="noteref-39">39</SPAN> a thief
who talked argot, there arose amazement and clamor.—"What! How!
Argot! Why, argot is horrible! It is the language of prisons, galleys,
convicts, of everything that is most abominable in society!" etc., etc.</p>
<p>We have never understood this sort of objections.</p>
<p>Since that time, two powerful romancers, one of whom is a profound
observer of the human heart, the other an intrepid friend of the people,
Balzac and Eugene Sue, having represented their ruffians as talking their
natural language, as the author of The Last Day of a Condemned Man did in
1828, the same objections have been raised. People repeated: "What do
authors mean by that revolting dialect? Slang is odious! Slang makes one
shudder!"</p>
<p>Who denies that? Of course it does.</p>
<p>When it is a question of probing a wound, a gulf, a society, since when
has it been considered wrong to go too far? to go to the bottom? We have
always thought that it was sometimes a courageous act, and, at least, a
simple and useful deed, worthy of the sympathetic attention which duty
accepted and fulfilled merits. Why should one not explore everything, and
study everything? Why should one halt on the way? The halt is a matter
depending on the sounding-line, and not on the leadsman.</p>
<p>Certainly, too, it is neither an attractive nor an easy task to undertake
an investigation into the lowest depths of the social order, where terra
firma comes to an end and where mud begins, to rummage in those vague,
murky waves, to follow up, to seize and to fling, still quivering, upon
the pavement that abject dialect which is dripping with filth when thus
brought to the light, that pustulous vocabulary each word of which seems
an unclean ring from a monster of the mire and the shadows. Nothing is
more lugubrious than the contemplation thus in its nudity, in the broad
light of thought, of the horrible swarming of slang. It seems, in fact, to
be a sort of horrible beast made for the night which has just been torn
from its cesspool. One thinks one beholds a frightful, living, and
bristling thicket which quivers, rustles, wavers, returns to shadow,
threatens and glares. One word resembles a claw, another an extinguished
and bleeding eye, such and such a phrase seems to move like the claw of a
crab. All this is alive with the hideous vitality of things which have
been organized out of disorganization.</p>
<p>Now, when has horror ever excluded study? Since when has malady banished
medicine? Can one imagine a naturalist refusing to study the viper, the
bat, the scorpion, the centipede, the tarantula, and one who would cast
them back into their darkness, saying: "Oh! how ugly that is!" The thinker
who should turn aside from slang would resemble a surgeon who should avert
his face from an ulcer or a wart. He would be like a philologist refusing
to examine a fact in language, a philosopher hesitating to scrutinize a
fact in humanity. For, it must be stated to those who are ignorant of the
case, that argot is both a literary phenomenon and a social result. What
is slang, properly speaking? It is the language of wretchedness.</p>
<p>We may be stopped; the fact may be put to us in general terms, which is
one way of attenuating it; we may be told, that all trades, professions,
it may be added, all the accidents of the social hierarchy and all forms
of intelligence, have their own slang. The merchant who says: "Montpellier
not active, Marseilles fine quality," the broker on 'change who says:
"Assets at end of current month," the gambler who says: "Tiers et tout,
refait de pique," the sheriff of the Norman Isles who says: "The holder in
fee reverting to his landed estate cannot claim the fruits of that estate
during the hereditary seizure of the real estate by the mortgagor," the
playwright who says: "The piece was hissed," the comedian who says: "I've
made a hit," the philosopher who says: "Phenomenal triplicity," the
huntsman who says: "Voileci allais, Voileci fuyant," the phrenologist who
says: "Amativeness, combativeness, secretiveness," the infantry soldier
who says: "My shooting-iron," the cavalry-man who says: "My turkey-cock,"
the fencing-master who says: "Tierce, quarte, break," the printer who
says: "My shooting-stick and galley,"—all, printer, fencing-master,
cavalry dragoon, infantry-man, phrenologist, huntsman, philosopher,
comedian, playwright, sheriff, gambler, stock-broker, and merchant, speak
slang. The painter who says: "My grinder," the notary who says: "My
Skip-the-Gutter," the hairdresser who says: "My mealyback," the cobbler
who says: "My cub," talks slang. Strictly speaking, if one absolutely
insists on the point, all the different fashions of saying the right and
the left, the sailor's port and starboard, the scene-shifter's court-side,
and garden-side, the beadle's Gospel-side and Epistle-side, are slang.
There is the slang of the affected lady as well as of the precieuses. The
Hotel Rambouillet nearly adjoins the Cour des Miracles. There is a slang
of duchesses, witness this phrase contained in a love-letter from a very
great lady and a very pretty woman of the Restoration: "You will find in
this gossip a fultitude of reasons why I should libertize."<SPAN href="#linknote-40" name="linknoteref-40" id="noteref-40">40</SPAN>
Diplomatic ciphers are slang; the pontifical chancellery by using 26 for
Rome, grkztntgzyal for despatch, and abfxustgrnogrkzu tu XI. for the Due
de Modena, speaks slang. The physicians of the Middle Ages who, for
carrot, radish, and turnip, said Opoponach, perfroschinum, reptitalmus,
dracatholicum, angelorum, postmegorum, talked slang. The
sugar-manufacturer who says: "Loaf, clarified, lumps, bastard, common,
burnt,"—this honest manufacturer talks slang. A certain school of
criticism twenty years ago, which used to say: "Half of the works of
Shakespeare consists of plays upon words and puns,"—talked slang.
The poet, and the artist who, with profound understanding, would designate
M. de Montmorency as "a bourgeois," if he were not a judge of verses and
statues, speak slang. The classic Academician who calls flowers "Flora,"
fruits, "Pomona," the sea, "Neptune," love, "fires," beauty, "charms," a
horse, "a courser," the white or tricolored cockade, "the rose of
Bellona," the three-cornered hat, "Mars' triangle,"—that classical
Academician talks slang. Algebra, medicine, botany, have each their slang.
The tongue which is employed on board ship, that wonderful language of the
sea, which is so complete and so picturesque, which was spoken by Jean
Bart, Duquesne, Suffren, and Duperre, which mingles with the whistling of
the rigging, the sound of the speaking-trumpets, the shock of the
boarding-irons, the roll of the sea, the wind, the gale, the cannon, is
wholly a heroic and dazzling slang, which is to the fierce slang of the
thieves what the lion is to the jackal.</p>
<p>No doubt. But say what we will, this manner of understanding the word
slang is an extension which every one will not admit. For our part, we
reserve to the word its ancient and precise, circumscribed and determined
significance, and we restrict slang to slang. The veritable slang and the
slang that is pre-eminently slang, if the two words can be coupled thus,
the slang immemorial which was a kingdom, is nothing else, we repeat, than
the homely, uneasy, crafty, treacherous, venomous, cruel, equivocal, vile,
profound, fatal tongue of wretchedness. There exists, at the extremity of
all abasement and all misfortunes, a last misery which revolts and makes
up its mind to enter into conflict with the whole mass of fortunate facts
and reigning rights; a fearful conflict, where, now cunning, now violent,
unhealthy and ferocious at one and the same time, it attacks the social
order with pin-pricks through vice, and with club-blows through crime. To
meet the needs of this conflict, wretchedness has invented a language of
combat, which is slang.</p>
<p>To keep afloat and to rescue from oblivion, to hold above the gulf, were
it but a fragment of some language which man has spoken and which would,
otherwise, be lost, that is to say, one of the elements, good or bad, of
which civilization is composed, or by which it is complicated, to extend
the records of social observation; is to serve civilization itself. This
service Plautus rendered, consciously or unconsciously, by making two
Carthaginian soldiers talk Phoenician; that service Moliere rendered, by
making so many of his characters talk Levantine and all sorts of dialects.
Here objections spring up afresh. Phoenician, very good! Levantine, quite
right! Even dialect, let that pass! They are tongues which have belonged
to nations or provinces; but slang! What is the use of preserving slang?
What is the good of assisting slang "to survive"?</p>
<p>To this we reply in one word, only. Assuredly, if the tongue which a
nation or a province has spoken is worthy of interest, the language which
has been spoken by a misery is still more worthy of attention and study.</p>
<p>It is the language which has been spoken, in France, for example, for more
than four centuries, not only by a misery, but by every possible human
misery.</p>
<p>And then, we insist upon it, the study of social deformities and
infirmities, and the task of pointing them out with a view to remedy, is
not a business in which choice is permitted. The historian of manners and
ideas has no less austere a mission than the historian of events. The
latter has the surface of civilization, the conflicts of crowns, the
births of princes, the marriages of kings, battles, assemblages, great
public men, revolutions in the daylight, everything on the exterior; the
other historian has the interior, the depths, the people who toil, suffer,
wait, the oppressed woman, the agonizing child, the secret war between man
and man, obscure ferocities, prejudices, plotted iniquities, the
subterranean, the indistinct tremors of multitudes, the die-of-hunger, the
counter-blows of the law, the secret evolution of souls, the go-bare-foot,
the bare-armed, the disinherited, the orphans, the unhappy, and the
infamous, all the forms which roam through the darkness. He must descend
with his heart full of charity, and severity at the same time, as a
brother and as a judge, to those impenetrable casemates where crawl,
pell-mell, those who bleed and those who deal the blow, those who weep and
those who curse, those who fast and those who devour, those who endure
evil and those who inflict it. Have these historians of hearts and souls
duties at all inferior to the historians of external facts? Does any one
think that Alighieri has any fewer things to say than Machiavelli? Is the
under side of civilization any less important than the upper side merely
because it is deeper and more sombre? Do we really know the mountain well
when we are not acquainted with the cavern?</p>
<p>Let us say, moreover, parenthetically, that from a few words of what
precedes a marked separation might be inferred between the two classes of
historians which does not exist in our mind. No one is a good historian of
the patent, visible, striking, and public life of peoples, if he is not,
at the same time, in a certain measure, the historian of their deep and
hidden life; and no one is a good historian of the interior unless he
understands how, at need, to be the historian of the exterior also. The
history of manners and ideas permeates the history of events, and this is
true reciprocally. They constitute two different orders of facts which
correspond to each other, which are always interlaced, and which often
bring forth results. All the lineaments which providence traces on the
surface of a nation have their parallels, sombre but distinct, in their
depths, and all convulsions of the depths produce ebullitions on the
surface. True history being a mixture of all things, the true historian
mingles in everything.</p>
<p>Man is not a circle with a single centre; he is an ellipse with a double
focus. Facts form one of these, and ideas the other.</p>
<p>Slang is nothing but a dressing-room where the tongue having some bad
action to perform, disguises itself. There it clothes itself in
word-masks, in metaphor-rags. In this guise it becomes horrible.</p>
<p>One finds it difficult to recognize. Is it really the French tongue, the
great human tongue? Behold it ready to step upon the stage and to retort
upon crime, and prepared for all the employments of the repertory of evil.
It no longer walks, it hobbles; it limps on the crutch of the Court of
Miracles, a crutch metamorphosable into a club; it is called vagrancy;
every sort of spectre, its dressers, have painted its face, it crawls and
rears, the double gait of the reptile. Henceforth, it is apt at all roles,
it is made suspicious by the counterfeiter, covered with verdigris by the
forger, blacked by the soot of the incendiary; and the murderer applies
its rouge.</p>
<p>When one listens, by the side of honest men, at the portals of society,
one overhears the dialogues of those who are on the outside. One
distinguishes questions and replies. One perceives, without understanding
it, a hideous murmur, sounding almost like human accents, but more nearly
resembling a howl than an articulate word. It is slang. The words are
misshapen and stamped with an indescribable and fantastic bestiality. One
thinks one hears hydras talking.</p>
<p>It is unintelligible in the dark. It gnashes and whispers, completing the
gloom with mystery. It is black in misfortune, it is blacker still in
crime; these two blacknesses amalgamated, compose slang. Obscurity in the
atmosphere, obscurity in acts, obscurity in voices. Terrible, toad-like
tongue which goes and comes, leaps, crawls, slobbers, and stirs about in
monstrous wise in that immense gray fog composed of rain and night, of
hunger, of vice, of falsehood, of injustice, of nudity, of suffocation,
and of winter, the high noonday of the miserable.</p>
<p>Let us have compassion on the chastised. Alas! Who are we ourselves? Who
am I who now address you? Who are you who are listening to me? And are you
very sure that we have done nothing before we were born? The earth is not
devoid of resemblance to a jail. Who knows whether man is not a recaptured
offender against divine justice? Look closely at life. It is so made, that
everywhere we feel the sense of punishment.</p>
<p>Are you what is called a happy man? Well! you are sad every day. Each day
has its own great grief or its little care. Yesterday you were trembling
for a health that is dear to you, to-day you fear for your own; to-morrow
it will be anxiety about money, the day after to-morrow the diatribe of a
slanderer, the day after that, the misfortune of some friend; then the
prevailing weather, then something that has been broken or lost, then a
pleasure with which your conscience and your vertebral column reproach
you; again, the course of public affairs. This without reckoning in the
pains of the heart. And so it goes on. One cloud is dispelled, another
forms. There is hardly one day out of a hundred which is wholly joyous and
sunny. And you belong to that small class who are happy! As for the rest
of mankind, stagnating night rests upon them.</p>
<p>Thoughtful minds make but little use of the phrase: the fortunate and the
unfortunate. In this world, evidently the vestibule of another, there are
no fortunate.</p>
<p>The real human division is this: the luminous and the shady. To diminish
the number of the shady, to augment the number of the luminous,—that
is the object. That is why we cry: Education! science! To teach reading,
means to light the fire; every syllable spelled out sparkles.</p>
<p>However, he who says light does not, necessarily, say joy. People suffer
in the light; excess burns. The flame is the enemy of the wing. To burn
without ceasing to fly,—therein lies the marvel of genius.</p>
<p>When you shall have learned to know, and to love, you will still suffer.
The day is born in tears. The luminous weep, if only over those in
darkness.</p>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />