Saint Thomas More's shocking and extremely coarse language!

[LutheranDK]

I am going to go all Dante on you people.

Catholics historically are offended by the blasphemous. Protestants are offended by the vulgar.

And the blasphemous

 

[O.S.Luke]

An old Catholic priest I used to know was always fond of saying, “Profanity is the language of the ignorant.”

He obviously wasn’t Irish. :irish3: And yes, I resemble that remark!

O+

 

[ralphinal]

And the blasphemous

True, I did not mean to make it sound like they weren’t

 

[Cluny]

In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis remarked that modern people frequently confuse propriety and chastity.

In Tudor times, perfectly chaste women used language that in our day would be used only by women who had abandoned all moral restraints.

And remember, some people might be very salty with their close friends, but not otherwise.

There are times when a large vocabulary is no substitute for profanity. TV shows about 9/11 record bystanders saying short words as the planes flew into the buildings. Perfectly reasonable reaction under the circumstances.

 

[ralphinal]

One of my personal favorite examples of this being carried too far was in England, I think in the Victorian age. Pianos had skirts lest their legs showed. Same with other furnature. i mean come on people.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As near as I can tell, except for the upper middle class in Victorian England, English speakers have historically been prolific cussers and quite vulgar. Shakespeare is full of references, some veiled, some not, that are really breathtaking. “It is her handwriting. I can tell by her 'C’s her 'U’s (etc)” “If a hart do after hind, let him seek out Rosalind…etc.” And Chaucer? “And Nicholas let fly a f–t, as loud as if it was a thunderclap.” “A woman with a mustache?” Etc., etc.

I recall an amusing explanation as to why some of the Indian tribes called the English “God-dons” and a hilarious complaint by an Indian chief as to the insanity of the English in saying "G-d d–n, in effect: “Great Spirit send into fire for all time, horse kicked me. Great Sprit send into fire for all time, powder get wet. White man crazy.”

They did, however, try to do it with cleverness and even a certain amount of (strange to tell) class. It is the unexpected t–d in the jewel box that amuses, not the privy.

There is time and place and company as well. I absolutely can’t stand hearing vulgarity in mixed company. I have no illusions about how women talk among themselves, and vulgarity among men is so common as to be pervasive. In the bar, and among members of one’s own gender, it can be amusing if well turned. I will not allow it in mixed company in my office. Nor will I put up with it in the presence of children.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Thanks for the link, I hadn’t seen the post you refer to.

I guess that makes me an equal opportunity critic!

 

[DaveBj]

For what it’s worth, there are eight usages of the word ps in the King James Bible. Six of them (all references to cutting off =killing] everyone who pseth against a wall =every male]) are duplicated in the D-R. In the other two (famine references to having to eat one’s own dung and drink one’s own p**s), the D-R uses “urine.”

This is a good discussion. I do not use scatalogical language, but I am in agreement with those who hold that there are situations for which a heartfelt “Bs!” is an appropriate response.

DaveBj

 

[graceandglory]

This is a good discussion. I do not use scatalogical language, but I am in agreement with those who hold that there are situations for which a heartfelt “Bs!” is an appropriate response.

DaveBj

I wish this discussion would go on. I am not a big cusser. But I completely agree with what you said when there are certain situations…Like when another adult tells you an outright lie right to your face that both of you know is a lie. I wish there was something better to use.
I don’t like using vulgar language. I feel sometimes it is the only thing in our language to say that conveys exactly the meaning I intend.

 

[ralphinal]

The comedian Lewis Black, in less than clean terms, said that profanity is what keeps normal people from picking up a tire iron and beating the **** out of each other.

 

[Contarini]

A few months back, I *documented *on this forum Luther’s use of foul language (not surprisingly, it wasn’t my most warmly received post. Again, I am very sorry if I offended anyone. And again, I want to emphasize: I’m only interested in documented historical facts, not silly sensationalism.).

Anyway, I was recently shocked to learn that St. Thomas More himself, also used much the same kind of foul language as did Luther!

In his Response to Luther, St. Thomas More resorted to - albeit very occasionally - the use of very unsaintly language!

Now I’ve heard it said that the use of such coarse language was somewhat justified on the basis of the times. But hmmm…somehow, I don’t find that very convincing. But I’d like to hear others opinions.

So friends (both Catholic or Protestant), what do you think; is anyone ever justified in using such foul language, even in the heat of controversy?

I’ve posted a sampling of More’ language below (you never know when something might disappear from Wikipedia!). The last two quotes are from the Wikipedia article on More, section on Religious polemics. The first quote I found after having just recently read More’s Responsio for myself.

But before going further, I’d like to emphasize the fact that, while More does indeed come down very strongly on Luther throughout this work, having now read the work for myself, I can honestly say that the vast majority of More’s words are nowhere near the egregious nature of the following. And yes, there are a few more rough statements, but again, they are the exception, not the rule.

Anyway, here goes…(Luther, of course, is the “scoundrel” to whom More refers).

And again:

The unfiltered version of these quotes, for anyone interested, can be found at Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More#Religious_polemics

Finally, I was going to recommend everyone buy and read this very interesting and important work for himself, but as can be seen below, it’s a bit on the pricey side! Better probably to do what I did - just go to the library.

The Yale Edition of The Complete Works of St. Thomas More: Volume 5, Responsio ad Lutherum, John Headly, ed., Yale University Press (September 10, 1969), ISBN-10: 0300011237,ISBN-13: 978-0300011234

amazon.com/Yale-Complete-Works-Thomas-More/dp/0300011237

People in the sixteenth century really thought that their theological opponents were doing the work of Satan. And why use polite language when talking about Satan? Arguably our prudery when describing evil is what needs to be defended.

The real problem is with the conviction of polemicists on both sides of the sixteenth-century debates that their opponents were so evil as to warrant this language.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

The comedian Lewis Black, in less than clean terms, said that profanity is what keeps normal people from picking up a tire iron and beating the **** out of each other.

 

[First_of_9]

Mark Twain once said that at times there is a comfort in profanity that is denied even to prayer.

Or as my wife’s grandmother said, “Sometimes a ‘shucky darn’ just isn’t enough.”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A few months back, I *documented *on this forum Luther’s use of foul language (not surprisingly, it wasn’t my most warmly received post. Again, I am very sorry if I offended anyone. And again, I want to emphasize: I’m only interested in documented historical facts, not silly sensationalism.).

Anyway, I was recently shocked to learn that St. Thomas More himself, also used much the same kind of foul language as did Luther!

In his Response to Luther, St. Thomas More resorted to - albeit very occasionally - the use of very unsaintly language!

Now I’ve heard it said that the use of such coarse language was somewhat justified on the basis of the times. But hmmm…somehow, I don’t find that very convincing. But I’d like to hear others opinions.

So friends (both Catholic or Protestant), what do you think; is anyone ever justified in using such foul language, even in the heat of controversy?

I’ve posted a sampling of More’ language below (you never know when something might disappear from Wikipedia!). The last two quotes are from the Wikipedia article on More, section on Religious polemics. The first quote I found after having just recently read More’s Responsio for myself.

But before going further, I’d like to emphasize the fact that, while More does indeed come down very strongly on Luther throughout this work, having now read the work for myself, I can honestly say that the vast majority of More’s words are nowhere near the egregious nature of the following. And yes, there are a few more rough statements, but again, they are the exception, not the rule.

Anyway, here goes…(Luther, of course, is the “scoundrel” to whom More refers).

And again:

The unfiltered version of these quotes, for anyone interested, can be found at Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More#Religious_polemics

Finally, I was going to recommend everyone buy and read this very interesting and important work for himself, but as can be seen below, it’s a bit on the pricey side! Better probably to do what I did - just go to the library.

The Yale Edition of The Complete Works of St. Thomas More: Volume 5, Responsio ad Lutherum, John Headly, ed., Yale University Press (September 10, 1969), ISBN-10: 0300011237,ISBN-13: 978-0300011234

amazon.com/Yale-Complete-Works-Thomas-More/dp/0300011237

This is not news.​

16th-century polemic was not over-polite, so it shouldn’t be a surprise to find Luther or More indulging in some expressions which get anyone here banned pretty quickly. They were better than their times in some ways, but not in others. Christian “bad language” has a long history, that extends into the NT - Jerome was a gifted & prolific vilifier of his opponents, as his language towards Jovinian, Helvidius, & Rufinus rather suggests. No rubbish about “understanding others”, or mildness,or graciousness, for him. The Middle Ages were less inhibited in some respects than we are apt to be - & there was a long tradition of denunciation of the clergy & religious by Catholics, & of parody & satire directed against sacred things. (see Margaret Waddell for some examples; Dante; & Chaucer; etc). Even before Luther there was a good deal of hatred of Rome because of its financial exactions in Germany itself; & there was a good deal of reciprocal loathing between Spaniards & Italians; so it is hardly surprising if some of this surfaces in Luther.

If the use of unpleasant language were a valid objection the possibilty that a man might have something needing said, Jesus, Peter, John & Paul would all be ruled out. Lavatorial vocabulary is arguably a less serious matter than accusing people of “lying” & being children of the devil (see John 8). If certain sainted Fathers are not de-sanctified by their far from attractive language, I don’t see why Luther’s theology is to be rejected because of his linguistic unlovelinesses. Maybe criticisms should start with Jesus - he is the founder of the Christian movement; which Luther never aspired to be.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am going to go all Dante on you people.

Catholics historically are offended by the blasphemous. Protestants are offended by the vulgar.

Luther was Catholic in upbringing, as was More. Do you see any blasphemy in what they said? No. You see vulgarity. There is a difference.

All the difference in the world. Are you going to quote Paradiso 27 ? Letter VII might strike people as blasphemous now - but then, calling Henry VII “Lamb of God”, as Dante does, would not have. Maybe what strikes us as filthy language in 16th-century authors would not have struck a contemporary in the same way - IMHO, the purpose of that sort of thing may have been to bury one’s opponent under a deluge of humiliating language. And certain “words” do that very well, far better than others - calling someone an article of female anatomy is much more effective saying they are silly.​

Maybe those who used “coarse language” did so because they considered it the appropriate response, the one suited to the circumstances. This might be a humanist’s response: for both More & Luther were influenced by Christian humanism, if in different degrees (likewise Dante).

 

[ralphinal]

All the difference in the world. Are you going to quote Paradiso 27 ? Letter VII might strike people as blasphemous now - but then, calling Henry VII “Lamb of God”, as Dante does, would not have. Maybe what strikes us as filthy language in 16th-century authors would not have struck a contemporary in the same way - IMHO, the purpose of that sort of thing may have been to bury one’s opponent under a deluge of humiliating language. And certain “words” do that very well, far better than others - calling someone an article of female anatomy is much more effective saying they are silly.​

Maybe those who used “coarse language” did so because they considered it the appropriate response, the one suited to the circumstances. This might be a humanist’s response: for both More & Luther were influenced by Christian humanism, if in different degrees (likewise Dante).

It is all about culture and intent. These people did not use this language to shock, but to express a concept in a culturally acceptable way.

Today’s use of such language is primarily to shock or to make up for a lacking vocabulary. I assure you neither More or Luther were lacking in vocabulary.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

People in the sixteenth century really thought that their theological opponents were doing the work of Satan. And why use polite language when talking about Satan? Arguably our prudery when describing evil is what needs to be defended.

The real problem is with the conviction of polemicists on both sides of the sixteenth-century debates that their opponents were so evil as to warrant this language.

Edwin

That Luther did indeed believe that his “opponents were so evil as to warrant this language” is quite true. Nevertheless, even if I were to grant (which I do not), that the foul language of of a More or a Luther (and heaven knows how many others) might somehow be justified, still, it seems to me that there has to come a point beyond which the use of such language really does become excessive and unwarranted.

And certainly it would appear that, judging by the following, for example, Luther, as well as some of his Catholic opponents, did indeed take things to excess, even by the standards of their own day.

Luther was incredibly abusive to all his opponents, and saw Satan behind them all. His Catholic opponents returned the abuse with interest and lodged a similar charge of satanic motivation. – Introduction, p. 2.

After briefly discussing Luther’s letter to Froschauer, Bullinger characterized Luther’s efforts in his Against Hanswurst (1541) as unbecoming, completely immodest, entirely scurrilous, and frivolous. In Against the Jews and Their Lies (1543) Luther’s foul language and scurrility, unbefitting anyone and especially an aged theologian, rendered his profitable and plausible arguments useless and unfit. Modesty, prudence, piety, and gravity were what suited such a theologian as Luther.

The example of Luther’s audacious raillery, Bullinger said, had spread and captured many ministers who then troubled true piety. Moreover, it had strengthened and hardened the kingdom of Antichrist, whose worshipers clamored that evangelical ministers were not heralds of the gospel but satiric and abusive buffoons. They should all be at pains, Bullinger advised, to take the church and modesty into account, to recall the example of the prophets and apostles, and to prevent the occurrence, on account of jealousy and arrogance, of something more severe. pp. 202-203.

Luther and the False Brethren, Mark U. Edwards, Stanford Univ Press (June 1975),ISBN-10: 0804708835.

But what else can I can say except that, as bad and embarrassing as some of this stuff is - for Catholics and Protestants alike - I am glad, truly glad, that it is now, finally, beginning to see the light of day.

May we all learn and grow from this information.

 

[Contarini]

That Luther did indeed believe that his “opponents were so evil as to warrant this language” is quite true. Nevertheless, even if I were to grant (which I do not), that the foul language of of a More or a Luther (and heaven knows how many others) might somehow be justified, still, it seems to me that there has to come a point beyond which the use of such language really does become excessive and unwarranted.

And certainly it would appear that, judging by the following, for example, Luther, as well as some of his Catholic opponents, did indeed take things to excess, even by the standards of their own day.

Luther and the False Brethren, Mark U. Edwards, Stanford Univ Press (June 1975),ISBN-10: 0804708835.

Yes, I agree that Luther was scurrilous even by the standards of the 16th century. Not everyone was equally so. More and Luther were two striking examples, though in part they are well known because they were so good at it. Generally the Reformed were more refined in their insults. And the Reformed (like Bullinger) made much of Luther’s scurrility because their narrative (at least after 1529-30, more or less) was that Lutherans and Reformed really didn’t have that much separating them, but that Luther created division through his intemperate language and overly dogmatic beliefs. (Chief among which was his insistence on the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist.) They needed to say this in order to create a common front and claim Luther as a founding figure while explaining the fact that he refused to accept them as orthodox.

That doesn’t mean that Bullinger didn’t have some good points. But he certainly had polemical reasons for making this particular argument about Luther. And generally in the 16th century the kind of language people used reflected the kind of rhetorical point they were trying to make. Not that personality didn’t affect their rhetoric, of course. But modern people tend to jump to psychological explanations over against social and rhetorical ones (or did until recent years, with the rise of “new historicism” and other similar movements). This is arguably a defect in Edwards. At least, Heiko Oberman argued that Edwards’ interpretation of the “old Luther’s” scurrilous language ignored the presence of this language in the young Luther as well and the fact that this language served a rhetorical purpose.

Edwin

 

[Cluny]

From the King James Bible of 1611:

1 Samuel 25:22​

So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

1 Samuel 25:34​

For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

1 Kings 14:10​

Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.

1 Kings 16:11​

And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.

1 Kings 21:21​

Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel,

2 Kings 9:8​

For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel:

2 Kings 18:27​

But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own **** with you?

Isaiah 36:12​

But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own **** with you?

 

[DaveBj]

From the King James Bible of 1611:

1 Samuel 25:22​

So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

etc.

And the KJV of our day, and the D-R (except for the last two). See my post on the subject above.

DaveBj