ne 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.
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: