Monthly Archives: July 2017

Pecksniffery

Pecksniffery is a word for doings of a Pecksniffian character, which is to say characteristic of a Pecksniff. It is, in short, the output of Pecksniffianism.

If this sounds like an eponym from a Charles Dickens novel, you have it exactly. Seth Pecksniff is an architect – or, well, he runs an architecture school, lives off the students’ tuition, and passes off their work as his own. His assistant and former student is Tom Pinch. But it is another student, and his travails and detour to the United States, who is the title character of the book: Martin Chuzzlewit.

I could really go into the characteristics of Dickensian names, but I’m not going to. Here, take this Wikipedia cataloguing of them and play a drinking game: read them aloud in turn and every time someone laughs they have to do a shot. You’ll all be under the table.

But if you were all Pecksniffs, you would not be, or would not admit to being. A Pecksniff, as we use the term now, is a person who presents a high moral character and proclaims moral virtues but in practice has pretty much none of them. As Dickens wrote, “Some people likened him to a direction-post, which is always telling the way to a place, and never goes there.”

A useful detail of a Pecksniff, unlike some other kinds of hypocrite, is that a Pecksniff may well truly believe himself (or herself) to be a person of virtue. A Pecksniff also tends to be a busybody. You likely know some such people (though you may keep them at arm’s length – or farther). A person who, for instance, is an ardent outspoken advocate for the rights of others (perhaps some group of which he or she is not a member), never failing to shame and control anyone who might be accused of some minor transgression or sin of omission against those others, but somehow never doing anything actively helpful for those whose concerns he or she uses as cudgels. Or a business owner who adamantly refuses to allow the business to support or condone certain things on moral grounds but somehow manages to justify questionable activities that sluice money to violent criminals.

The world is full of Pecksniffery. In truth, nearly all of us probably have at least some small amount of Pecksniffianism in us, talking a great show, wanting to be seen as good people, denouncing others for failings, but, when it comes down to it, being a bit too busy or financially pinched or or or… Our high moral pronouncements need to be taken with a grain of salt. Or several kilograms of it.

Or a pinch of snuff, I suppose. A pinch? No, a pinch is a moderate amount. More like a peck (which, since we don’t use such measures anymore, I will tell you is two dry gallons, which is a quarter of a bushel – and, yes, that means a literal ten-gallon hat would be a bushel and a peck). I’m not going to say that Dickens had immoderate amounts of snuff in mind when he named Pecksniff, but I do note that his assistant – a fellow of moderation and genuine good character – is named Pinch.

I suppose you could say that’s a test of a person’s character: whether they come through in a pinch… or come through as a Pecksniff.

The donzerly spangles

I timed my latest article for The Week for July 4. I thought it might be nice to have something light and fun on an American theme to get away from the unpleasant stream of daily political news, at least briefly. (Oh, and if you’re raising an eyebrow at the first-person statements in the article, I am, after all, an American citizen – dual Canadian-American, in fact – and have lived in the US, though I’m happy in Toronto now.) How many of these did you know?

Impress your fellow Americans with the patriotic etymologies of these July 4 words

 

duckie

Look at this.

It was docked – or moored, or whatever you want to say – in Toronto all weekend. It’s the world’s largest, um, what would you call it…

You know, of course. It’s the world’s largest rubber duckie.

Duckie? Why not just rubber duck?

You could call it that too, sure. Rubber ducks have been called rubber ducks since they hit the market decades ago. The first floating rubber ducks – the iconic uncapsizeable shape designed by sculptor Peter Ganine – came out in 1940. But duckie is a term of endearment, with that diminutive –ie on the end, and it seems altogether fitting for a bathtub toy with such a fond cartoonish appearance.

Besides, Jim Henson.

You know, the creator of the Muppets. That was his voice you heard as Ernie, singing about his favourite bathtub toy. (Since Henson’s death, Steve Whitmire and then Billy Barkhurst have done the voice.) Jeff Moss wrote the song.

The phrase rubber duckie took off starting in the late 1960s, when the song came out. Rubber is by far the most common word preceding duckie.

But this big duck in Toronto Harbour would not fit in a bathtub. It may be cute, but it’s not diminutive. Heck, even the little duckie behind it is not squeeze-toy size.

The big duckie is six storeys tall and weighs 13.6 tonnes. I’m not sure it’s even made of rubber. It’s inflatable (I guess if it springs a leak they can fix it with duck tape). You could fit a suburban house inside it. But it’s still a duckie, which shows that diminutives do not necessarily imply small size.

But, as you can see in the photos, it was very popular. Lots of people wanted to play with it. Some people have carped about the cost, but it all seems just ducky with merchants in the area.

Oh, yeah, ducky. We’ve recently passed the 120th anniversary of the Oxford English Dictionary’s first citation of ducky meaning ‘fine’ in print. But it’s been almost 200 years since ducky as a term of endearment first showed up (“Come over here, ducky”) – if you’re going to be lovey-dovey, a ducky holds more water than a dovey.

Could we spell rubber duckie as rubber ducky? Sure, we could, and many people do. It’s an available alternative. But, for the record, the Sesame Street song is “Rubber Duckie.” And the big duck – now departed from Toronto – is, as its Twitter account proclaims, a duckie.