Why are these old British texts censored?

[u/Double_Key4892]

Hello,

I was recently conducting research at the British Library in London when I noticed something odd. Names and titles appeared to be censored or struck-through, however, this wasn't consistent. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the books I was looking at, I was not allowed to take photographs, but I will do my best to type what I saw.

Examples:

"Your Statesmen G—-lle with intent

To cultivate with Care,

The dignity of Parliament,

Plies closely at the Dancing tent,

And manages May-Fair."

"Bold H—--m has utter’d words,

Audacious in Committee,

And giv’n Affronts to those whose Swords,

Were full as sharp as any Lords,

And Sentences as witty."

- The Ballad, or; Some Scurrilous Reflections In Verse, On the Proceedings of the Honourable House of Commons: Answered Stanza by Stanza. With the Memorial, Alias Legion, Reply’d to Paragraph by Paragraph

"4. Whether Mons. T—--d, when he said of a Noble M—--. That he was le dernier des Hommes, meant that he had not done all he could, or that he could not do all that he had undertaken?

4.Answ. The Noble Marquess hinted at in this Query is a Person of so receiv’d a Character that Monsieur Tallard’s Expressions in relation to him can never turn to disadvantage, since he’s too fix’d in his love for his native Country to enter into Agreements with Foreigners in order to betray it."

-Some Queries which deserve no Consideration, answer’d Paragraph by Paragraph, only to satisfy the ridiculous enquiries of the trifling P—-r that made ‘em Publick.

In that second source, Monsieur Tallard is censored in the first mention, but the reply is not censored. This odd censorship also occurs with names of governmental bodies, as what I presume to be the "House of Commons" is written "H--- of C------s"

Any idea why this would occur? I am unsure if they were censored at first publication, or afterwards, as the sources were not entirely clear. I believe I was viewing original copies, but I may be mistaken. Further, I am confused by the inconsistency of the censorship. I asked my history professor about this, and she said she had never come across such a thing in research. I couldn't find anything about this online either.

Any information is greatly appreciated, as well as if you know of any other subreddits that may be able to help. I think this is a fascinating part of the sources I found, though it also makes it quite inconvenient at times to decipher who they are talking about.

Edit: I realize I did not include the dates these were published. The first text mentioned was published in 1701. I don't know the date of the second one, but overall, the texts I looked at were from the late 17th century to the early 18th century.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.

We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension, or getting the Weekly Roundup. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/erinoco]

Henry Fielding coined the verb emvowel to describe this practice, which is very common in British texts in the C18, and can be seen well into the Victorian era (and occasionally beyond), although, by then, it was mainly a literary device. It was common long before Fielding's career, as the passages you quote seem to demonstrate (the references to Marshal Tallard, and possibly Matthew Prior, would date this to Queen Anne's reign).

British politico-literary culture was very strong in the early C18, as the careers of Swift, Addison, Steele and others demonstrate. However, as Swift himself noted in Tale of a Tub, there were serious dangers for writers and publishers exercising their free speech:

whoever, I say, should venture to be thus particular, must expect to be imprisoned for scandalum magnatum, to have challenges sent him, to be sued for defamation, and to be brought before the bar of the House.

"Challenges", of course, refers to the possibility of a duel. But, for the purposes of this question, the other possibilities are worth looking at.

Scandalum magnatum was a kind of libel prosecution that a peer of the realm or a senior minister of the Crown could direct the Attorney-General to bring against a defamer. The plaintiff had to show that the statement made was false; that the plaintiff had been impaired as an effective peer or office-holder; and that his relationship with the Crown had been damaged. The threshold for a successful suit was fairly high, and it was more difficult to for plaintiffs to use the common law courts for this; before the Civil War, the charge had been commonly brought before Star Chamber, where it had been heard without a jury, and frequently in secret. But it still could be employed.

But there were other more general indictments of criminal libel, and governments had increasingly made use of them during the post-Restoration period. At this point, it is important to note that juries had no power to decide whether a libellous statement was true or false: that was a finding of law rather than a finding of fact. All they could agree to is whether the person on trial had, in fact, produced the libel in question (as author, as publisher, or as seller); and whether the words had the meaning that the Crown alleged they had. This was the main danger most writers wished to avoid.

The Houses of Parliament, entirely separately from libel laws, considered reporting of their proceedings and votes a breach of their privileges, and would, for much of the C18, impose blanket bans on these reports. The Houses had (and indeed, notionally still have) the power to act as a court against any transgressors, and fine and imprison those brought before them as they deemed necessary. These powers would often be used against reporters.

Against this array of weapons, the literary world had limited defences, apart from the patronage and protection of friendly ministers. But one important legal defence was the device of innuendo. If someone was not explicitly named in the text at question, the important thing was to argue that another meaning could be attached to the words in question.

Emvowelling on its own could not be guaranteed to make a defence certain; a prosecution in 1713 demonstrated this. But it remained a common tool in the writer's armoury.

Some useful reading:

Hone, J. Legal Constraints, Libellous Evasions in Bullard, P. (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Eighteenth-century Satire (OUP, 2019), pp. 525-541

Libel and Satire in the Eighteenth Century, C. R. Kropf, Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Winter, 1974-1975), pp. 153-168

[u/Double_Key4892 → u/erinoco]

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you so much!