>I think the class identification has to be prior, and the pejorative senses
>attached to it. So, the scullery is filthy, as there weren't many resources
>for her to be otherwise and her work was filthy; sexually loose because her
>virtue had little social or economic value and loss of same wasn't as
>likely to invalidate her for marriage as it would have a girl in the
>doweried classes.
I'd be inclined to agree, Mark, but the *recorded early references (from
just after 1400) are heavily loaded to the negative, and even from the
beginning, the particular sense of slut as scullery or kitchen maid is quite
rare in comparison to other (simply pejorative) uses.
********************
The OED gives:
1. a. A woman of dirty, slovenly, or untidy habits or appearance; a foul
slattern.
1402 Hoccleve Letter of Cupid 237 The foulest slutte of al a tovne.
b. A kitchen-maid; a drudge. rare.
c1450 St. Cuthbert (Surtees) 133 The quene her toke to make a slutte, And
to vile services her putt.
?c. A troublesome or awkward creature. Obs.-1
c1460 J. Russell Bk. Nurture in Babees Bk. (1868) 158 Crabbe is a slutt
to kerve & a wrawd wight.
2. a. A woman of a low or loose character; a bold or impudent girl; a
hussy, jade.
c1450 Cov. Myst. (Shaks. Soc.) 218 Com forth, thou sloveyn! com forthe,
thou slutte!
******************************
So all the meanings come in about the same time over a fifty year period,
with the neutral "kitchen maid" by far the least common. This seems to be
confirmed by the references in LEME (Lexicons of Early Modern English).
Would that it were otherwise, and I'd agree that the class element lies
behind it. Nevertheless, the word *itself was negative from the start,
rather than the negative associations becoming attached to it.
To coin a possibility, women who were perceived as sluts tended to end up as
scullery-maids, rather than vice versa.
Counter-intuitive, I agree. :-(
Robin
|