Daily Life in Elizabethan England by Jeffrey L. Forgeng Page B

fig of Spain—was the equivalent of giving someone the finger today. A similarly insulting gesture was biting the thumb, still seen in parts of Europe today.
    Elizabethan English had a particularly rich vocabulary for expressing anger or contempt. The four-letter words of modern English were familiar, though used more as nouns and verbs than as exclamations. Strong language usually took the form of blasphemy, for example swearing by various attributes of God (sometimes abbreviated to ’Ods or ’S): Ods bodkins meant “God’s little body”; the modern Londoner’s strewth comes from
    “God’s truth”; gadzooks, from “God’s hooks [i.e., fingernails].” Those who had emotions to express but did not wish to cross the bounds of politeness or piety had plenty of milder options: forsooth, i’ faith (in faith), la.
    Elizabethan insults tell us much about the cultural values of the day.
    Common types of insulting terms related to bodily uncleanness or
    unhealthfulness ( dirty, poxy, lousy ), social inferiority ( peasant, churl, slave ), lack of intelligence ( fool, ninnyhammer, sot ), or subhuman status ( beast, cur, dog ).
    Most of these insults would not have literal implications, but others could be taken more seriously. In 1586 a Salisbury woman was accused of having ranted at a wife of a former mayor of the town, calling her “Mistress Stinks, Mistress Fart . . . Mistress Jakes, Mistress Tosspot, and Mistress Drunkensoul.”6 The first three insults were merely offensive, but the last two amounted to accusations of drunkenness, and could lead to a law-suit for defamation. Sexual insults could have even graver ramifications.
    Terms that implied that a woman was sexually incontinent ( whore, jade, quean ) had the potential to ruin her good reputation. For a man, one of the most serious insults was to imply unchastity on the part of his mother ( whoreson ) or wife ( cuckold ). Equally threatening were insults that accused a person of untruthfulness: to accuse a man of lying (called giving him the lie ) was to invite potentially lethal conflict. Elizabethans had to learn from a young age that words had consequences: a serious insult could lead to legal action, or even to a duel.
    Elizabethan children like their modern counterparts found it hard to resist the forbidden fruits of rude speech and conduct: a major responsibil-Households and the Course of Life
    51
    ity of parents and teachers was to prevent rude conduct from becoming habitual, by beatings if necessary. Roger Ascham, who had been tutor to Queen Elizabeth when she was still a princess, was appalled by the laxity of some younger parents:
    This last summer I was in a gentleman’s house, where a young child, somewhat past four years old, could in no wise frame his tongue to say a little short grace; and yet he could roundly rap out so many ugly oaths, and those of the newest fashion, as some good man of fourscore years old hath never heard named before; and that which was most detestable of all, his father and mother would laugh at it. I much doubt, what comfort, another day, this child shall bring unto them. This child using much the company of serving men, and giving good ear to their talk, did easily learn, what he shall hardly forget all the days of his life hereafter.7
    As Ascham suggests, children were expected to learn the rudiments of religion from a very young age. By law, the parish minister was required to provide religious instruction on alternate Sundays and on all holy days.
    All children over age 6 were required to attend, but most would already have received basic religious instruction at home. In particular, every child was expected to memorize the Ten Commandments, the Articles of Belief (also called the Creed—the basic statement of Christian belief), and the Lord’s Prayer. The major component of the minister’s instruction would be the catechism, a series of questions and answers regarding Christian belief. Parents who failed to send