That site from which the quote was taken is rather poorly written, although they do quote Geoge Chauncey’s book a bit later about the origins of the word “gay.”
They start out their discussion by saying
The bolding in the quote is mine.
There is NO evidence that “faggot” was used in referrence to a homosexual male before 1914, contrary to the supposition in that article.
There is NO evidence that “the term faggot…may have been extended to include gay males…” before 1914.
All anyone has to do is come up with a print cite before 1914, and we’ll be well on our way to understanding more about it.
But the idea that burning faggots 500 years ago, and that being the orign of the term for male homosexuals is the stuff that email glurge is made of.
I’d heard (not from a reputable source, but im sure they’d swear that they heard it from one) that ‘faggot’ was used as a synonym for ‘male fairy’ at one point or another, and that it made the jump to a derogatory term for homosexuals from there, a jump that certainly seems plausible, given the emasculated connotations of fairy. as i say, i have no evidence whatsoever, but has anyone else heard this?
I have to agree with you about that site being poorly written. I had originally hear the faggot/burn at the stake connection from a gay rights website, when I asked the origin of the word. I tried to find that site, but with little time, yesterday, I just grabbed something without reading the whole mess.
I guess what strikes me is that this theory seems to make a lot of sense. It connects the term with a plausible action and origin.
Even if the term wasn’t in use before the early part of last century, could the legend of adding our fey bretheren to the fire inspired the term. That is, could a lot of folk, around 1914, be talking about homosexuals and related the story? An urban legend, perhaps.
I’d like to find out what the social opinions were at that time. Was homosexuality a common topic of discussion? Would people have related such tales? Did the chuch issue statements or proclamations that might have inspired interest?
Fagging - Fagging is the practice of making new boys at boarding schools into slaves for the older boys. If you are fagging for an older boy you might find yourself running his bath, cleaning his shoes or performing more undesirable tasks.
I also read in a book on Lewis Carroll that “fagging” and “faggot” come from the same source; sexual abuse in the British public school. And I think whoever wrote the intro to my version of Raffles: The Amateur Cracksman makes note that Bunny fagged for Raffles and that this may “explain their devotion to each other,” nudge nudge.
Harris’s unhappiness grew after his father enrolled him at Ruabon, on the border between England and Wales. Like many British schools of that era, Ruabon had organized traditional fagging into a rigid pyramid of chiefs, monitors, and submonitors, who were with the younger boys and who presumably guided their footsteps during most hours of the day and night. Harris had to endure a claustrophobic existence of rigid discipline and stupid punishments.
Fag. A goody but an oldie. Over here a ‘fag’ is a cigarette. So in the song ‘It’s a long way to Tipperary’ the line ‘As long as you have a Lucifer to light your fag’ is not a fundamentalist Christian’s statement that all homosexuals will burn for eternity in hell, but saying that ‘if you always have a match to light your cigarette…’
Fag #2. (Oh no not again!) When at a public (i.e. private - confused you will be) school in the UK, you may have to ‘fag’ for an older boy. This usually involves shining shoes, cleaning up and performing other favours for this older lad. In return for fagging, the older boy looks after your interests and makes sure that you fit into the school and promote the school spirit (bon vivre, not necessarily the alcoholic kind). This may also be a fag (i.e. a tiresome thing).
Faggots. Meat balls made from offal (chopped liver) in gravy. Also a small bundle of logs suitable to burn on a fire.
Other aspects of school life are not neglected. The system of fagging, where small boys had to do chores and run errands for the mighty sixth-formers,was easily abused: it could turn in the direction of favoritism or bullying, and, by throwing the young and unprotected child into contact with much older boys, be the occasion of homosexual practice, whether or not coerced. This is referred to only obliquely in Tom Brown. A boy who attempts to coerce Tom and Scud into fagging is described thus: “He was one of the miserable, little, pretty, white-handed, curly-headed boys, petted and pampered by some of the big fellows, who wrote their verses for them, taught them to drink and use bad language, and did all they could to spoil them for everything” (201).
How the heck would throwing people onto the fire make it burn more fiercely? I don’t know if you noticed this, but wood burns a lot better than meat. And if they’re not tied to a stake in the middle, what’s keeping these “faggots” in the fire? Even a person in a full hogtie can still squirm pretty well, and I imagine that if I were thrown into a fire, I’d try pretty hard to get out.
Do people really put this little thought into things that they read? No wonder urban legends are so prevalent!
ckondek. Thanks for the input. While anything is possible, I haven’t found a use of the word “faggot” in all of the published things about English schools written before 1914. They always seems to call the act “fagging” and refer to the underclassman as a fag. But never a faggot.
It’s just hard to think that there never appeared in print before 1914 a cite of the word faggot in relationship to an underclassman serving an upperclassman, if you assume that this may be the source of the homosexual usage of the term.
Boys were fagging in English schools since the 1700’s. The term “fagging” was probably not in use in the US much around 1900.
Just going with the probabilities. Anything is always possible.
Actually, I suspect that a human body may indeed add to the fierceness of the flame. There used to be an idiom “to fry a faggot”, meaning to be executed at the stake. (Note, that’s “to be executed”, not “to execute”. Advocates of the theory in question – well, frankly, they lie outright about that part.) Note that “fry” historically does not mean “cook in a ‘frying pan’” (a recent American development); it means what we today call “deep fat fry”.
You see, the flame would melt fat out of the body, which would drip onto the burning wood…
Well, anyway, this is also wrong, because homosexuals, as such, were not burned, and neither were witches, under English law. Burning was reserved for traitors and lapsed heretics. Witches were hanged. I’m not sure what the official penalty for sodomy was, except that it wasn’t burning, but throughout most of history, the custom, in practice, was usually “Don’t ask; don’t tell.”
Yes! I find that the most fascinating part of the whole mystery and, as you said, anything’s possible. That and the mysterious crossing of the Atlantic from GB to the States if in fact that’s how it happened. It makes me want to pore over obscure Victorian novels looking for references to “faggots.” Surely I’ve already wasted enough time on this in my over-active Googling in the posts above!
I have this weird, wishful theory that linguistic mysteries like these can all be traced to one moment in time, one casual remark in conversation, never commemorated and lost to history forever.
My medical terminology instructor mentioned to the class one day that the medical root term “phag”, from the Latin word for eat or swallow, was the “origin of the slang word for a homosexual male”. Kind of a weird thing for a teacher to say, but I thought it was interesting.
guys. I realise I am new and very ignorant…BUT could I please ask all the americans to stop jumping to the conclusion that being a fag in an english public school means you are subjected to sexual abuse. It so rarely happens it is beyond belief (bearing in mind how popular the tales of it are). In fact (having known lots of public school chaps (and being one myself) I know of no actual homosexual occurances between a a chap and his fag. It just does not happen. Your fag is your responsibility - so you don’t do that kind of thing or allow the fag to be abused by anyone else.
Also I think that the rumours of historical sexual abuse within england are played up a tad (I would say that wouldn’t I?). Really…the nation is not (nor has it ever been to the best of my studies) a playground for rich homosexuals who take advatage of others whilst calling them fags / faggots or anything else.
As far as I can tell the americans took the perfectly good word of “fag” and corrupted it’s meaning. Why I can’t say. Some people (english) have corrupted the word poof also (makes ordering soft furnishings very tricky!).
As said in the first place, there does not seem to be any connection at all between British public-school “fag” and gay “fag”/“faggot”. The meaning seems to derive from “faggot” as a mildly abusive term for a woman or animal, the origin of which is unknown.
Mon Bon Ami - I can certainly see why this stereotype would offend your English soul. But salacious stories travel better than the mundane truth, and the fact is, British public schools seem have the image of homosexuality attached to them, at least humorously. See Stephen J. Fry’s The Liar. Besides which, put a bunch of hormone-tormented pubescent boys together, well … This of course is by no means limited to the British.
As far as “fag” to “faggot”, this is perhaps a back-formation by Americans who have never historically used either term, and so perhaps may have misinterpreted them? No evidence for this, just a SWAG (scientific wild-ass guess).
As my article said, students at Harvard in the early 1800’s used “fag” to refer to underclassmen in just the way that the British did. So Americans have used the term historically.
Whoops, you’re right. I didn’t go back and re-read the article before I posted. :smack: Still, Americans have never - I could be wrong about this, call me on it if I am - used the word “faggot” to mean “bundle of sticks”. That’s why I guessed that “faggot” could be a back-formation from “fag”.
Great article, by the way.
You’re certainly thinking, and I appreciate it, but Americans actually DID use and understand that terminology. I can give you lots of cites if necessary.
While I had explored this possiblity in little detail, I’ve done a bit more since you replied.
It seems that the term faggoting to mean a kind of embroidery or stiching was much more common in the US at the turn of the 20th century than I though. A digital search of some newspapers of the day found the term in ads for clothiers rather frequently.
I won’t dismiss the possible connection out of hand. It still seems unlikely, but I’ll try to explore this more and thanks for the suggestion.
samclem, I bow to your scholarship. You obviously did a lot of research for this article. I would like to see some citations for American use of “faggot” as “bundle of sticks.” Not out of any doubt of your assertion; just for my own edification. I thought I knew a lot about American English, but that one’s new to me. Live and learn, eh?
You can e-mail me if you don’t want to post the cites. Thanks.