God, Euphemisms for

In many religions, including Judaism, Brahmanism, and Islam, direct reference to the name of God is taboo. Christianity is more concessive in this regard, but the Old Testament injunction against taking the Lord’s name in vain (the Third Commandment) has continued to be regarded as a serious religious and moral breach. Since English has developed for most of its history in Christian societies, great numbers of euphemistic variants of this sacred name have grown up over the centuries. The same process has, understandably, occurred in the cases of the names of Jesus, Christ, and Lord, but to a lesser extent.

Historically, the earliest instances date from the fourteenth century, which is seemingly late, given the fact that Christianity was brought to England by Saint Augustine in the year 597. The Anglo-Saxon laws allude more to prohibitions against the naming of the pagan gods than to the Christian God. The historical development of the word-field is shown in the accompanying table:

Although the growth of the field has been continuous, it has not expanded at a constant rate. There is a notable hiatus between the first two instances in the fourteenth century and the plethora recorded nearly two hundred years later, especially the concentration of terms between 1598 and 1602. This group constitutes about a quarter of the whole field. If we regard 597 as the starting point of Christianity in England, we find that only two euphemisms are recorded in the thousand years elapsing between that date and the Elizabethan period. One explanation for this extraordinary gap could be the lack of surviving written documents. The other is somewhat paradoxical: al- though the Middle Ages can be rightly regarded as an age of faith, a quite astounding volume of religious swearing was uttered in the form of asseverations, ejaculations, blasphemies, and curses, both personal and institutional. Euphemisms were thus not required, until censorship was instituted in the sixteenth century. Subsequently there are other growth clusters between 1728 and 1749, as well as in the 1840s. Then there is an apparent hiatus between the appearance of the last term ( by Godfrey! ) and the present. This indicates a diminution of the power of the taboo as the name of God has become more openly used in print and broadcasting.

As with euphemisms in other categories, such as obscenity and scatology, the process may be overt, covert, or unconscious. Thus the peculiarly British ejaculations “by Jove!” or “ye gods!” are fairly obvious overt modes of avoiding the offending name. On the other hand, “by golly!” or “doggone!” are more covert, in that the context clearly indicating a profanity, although the form of words is seemingly innocent. Finally, forms like “strewth!” or “drat!” are more in the category of the unconscious, since the origins (“God’s truth!” and “God rot!”) are so deeply buried in the past that the original forms have become obscured. There are, however, plenty of marginal cases, such as “so help me” (for “so help me, God”).

In all cases the basic process of euphemization is the same: there is a surreptitious erosion of the unacceptable or taboo word, transforming it by means of phonetic disguise into a seemingly innocuous variant. The results are also termed minced oaths, since God’s name is mangled in some way. Although there are some standard words used as substitutions, such as cod (ca. 1569) and gracious (ca. 1760s), nearly all the forms so generated are original and odd, including such bizarre formations as odsbobs, gadzooks, ounds , and odrabbit it . (The OED lists other oddities such as God’s pittikins, God’s diggers, God’s ludd, God’s niggs, and God’s sonties , not all of which are understood.) Generally speaking, the process is collective and unconscious, the terms developing in waves of fashion and then, in the manner of all euphemisms, becoming unrecognizable and needing to be replaced.

Several major medieval texts were extremely censorious about swearing. These included Dan Michel’s Ayenbite of Inwit (“The Remorse of Conscience,” 1340) and Robert of Brunne’s Handlyng Synne (ca. 1300). In Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (1386–1400) the issue of profanity and its avoidance in public speech is openly dramatized in a number of combative exchanges, notably ( Epilogue of the Man of Law’s Tale , ll.1166-80) discussed further in the entry for Geoffrey Chaucer.

With the subsequent development of the theatre and of printing, authors came under pressure to avoid blasphemous or profane terms and thus created new euphemisms. This is especially the case in the Elizabethan period, when censorship became overt and active. Thus it is noteworthy that all the “minced oaths” listed from 1598 to 1602 are first recorded in dramatic contexts, the first instances of ‘sblood and ’slid occurring in Shakespeare, while those of ‘slight and ’sbody are found in Ben Jonson. In the decadent drama of the Restoration (1660–1700), the appropriateness of particular euphemisms even becomes part of the text.

Naturally, there are variations in the extent to which an individual speaker may be aware of the literal religious origins of the terms in question. However given the vast time scale of the language and the lack of philological awareness of most speakers, the origins of these euphemisms are commonly lost. There is also an element of fashion at work, so that many of these forms pass out of usage in a decade or two. Looking back over the field, it is notable how very few forms have survived longer than a century: among them are Jove, gosh, golly, by George, drat! Doggone, Great Scott! , and Good Grief!

Reflecting the general secularization of Western society, the taboo against using the name of God in vain has now largely eroded: hence the diminution of euphemisms in recent decades. Whereas Britain has become largely uncritical of profanity and blasphemy, in the United States concentrations of religious and ethnic communities generate correspondingly great variations from state to state on a scale between liberalism and fundamentalism. In the field of broadcasting, some American programs still censor out the name of God (even to the point of leaving a moment of silence on a soundtrack) in contexts where it would stand in the United Kingdom. In Australia and South Africa the comparative acceptance found in the United Kingdom largely applies. However, in the South African context the Afrikaans language provides a whole series of euphemistic outlets, since speakers are less sensitive about using taboo terms in other languages. Thus Afrikaans phrases like God! (pronounced with a guttural “g”) and the adjective Godverdomned (“goddammed”) and the like are often heard on the lips of English speakers.