What do you think?
Rate this book
The Long Trail: What the Soldiers Sang and Said in the Great War of 1914 to 1918
This jewel of a book was first published by Eric Patridge's Scholartis Press in 1930. It went into three editions (the last of them in 1931), and has now been completely revised and re-arranged by Mr. Brophy.
It consists of an informative and entertaining introduction; a collection of songs, ribald sentimental, satiric, made up by unknown soldiers and a fascinating glossary of soldiers slang. The authors, 1914 volunteers, were both infantryman and they started on this book while they were still close to the First World War. There is an authentic ring of first-hand experience int heir work as well as scholarship. No one who set out to compile such a book today could come anywhere near it, while at the same time the re-writing for this edition gives us the benefit of a long view as well as a sense of being there.
It was astonishing to discover the extent to which attitudes have changed in the last twenty-five years about what is printable and what is not. The number of words (besides the obvious ones) for which, in the early thirties, dashes had to be substituted made some of the songs look almost as though they had been transcribed in morse code. In this edition the words have been restored, an Mr Brophy, in his Introduction has put the whole matter of soldiers' language into a modern perspective.
Both the songs and (especially) the glossary are of great value to students of language , but the book appeals to a far wider audience. Imaginations have turned back to the war of 1914-18 (witness the success of Oh What A Lovely War ) .and here is the essence of its most moving aspect: the courage, gaiety and astringent cynicism with which men armed themselves against the horrors of trench warfare.
(Description as appears in the 1965 editions dust jacket flaps).
It consists of an informative and entertaining introduction; a collection of songs, ribald sentimental, satiric, made up by unknown soldiers and a fascinating glossary of soldiers slang. The authors, 1914 volunteers, were both infantryman and they started on this book while they were still close to the First World War. There is an authentic ring of first-hand experience int heir work as well as scholarship. No one who set out to compile such a book today could come anywhere near it, while at the same time the re-writing for this edition gives us the benefit of a long view as well as a sense of being there.
It was astonishing to discover the extent to which attitudes have changed in the last twenty-five years about what is printable and what is not. The number of words (besides the obvious ones) for which, in the early thirties, dashes had to be substituted made some of the songs look almost as though they had been transcribed in morse code. In this edition the words have been restored, an Mr Brophy, in his Introduction has put the whole matter of soldiers' language into a modern perspective.
Both the songs and (especially) the glossary are of great value to students of language , but the book appeals to a far wider audience. Imaginations have turned back to the war of 1914-18 (witness the success of Oh What A Lovely War ) .and here is the essence of its most moving aspect: the courage, gaiety and astringent cynicism with which men armed themselves against the horrors of trench warfare.
(Description as appears in the 1965 editions dust jacket flaps).
- GenresWarNonfictionLanguage
239 pages, Hardcover
First published May 25, 1930
8 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 4, 2013
There seems to be some publishing history at work here. The book I read originally was is called: Soldiers Songs and Slang, and was published in a limited edition in 1931. 'The Long Trail etc..' is the 1965 reissue which would have been the fourth edition and is mostly the work of John Brophy. There's a 2008 reissue with a foreword by Malcolm Brown retitled "The Daily Telegraph Dictionary of Tommies' Songs and Slang, 1914-1918'. Comparisons to follow.
The original book is fascinating for two reasons: its content, and the odd way in which the editors' own cultural assumptions seem to be at odd with their material.
Like all older slang dictionaries, it's readable from cover to cover, and the fascination lies in seeing words and phrases that had entered common speech within fifty years emerging as slang: "that's put the Kibosh on that" or the phrase "clicked' as in, he met her and they 'clicked'.
Like most slang dictionaries it has its own sense of humour: a 'landowner' is someone who is dead and buried...And some of the definitions are fine examples of wit.
But what makes this book doubly interesting is the way it seems to be fighting with itself.
The 1930s edition, written before the changes to the obscene publication act in 1959, presumably omits the obscenities to avoid problems with the law. This means that some of the songs are a row of dashes, others disappear to be replaced by:
"Mother Hunt: an eight line snatch, more witty than the run of soldier's songs. But this gay and ribald commentary upon an old lady's misfortunes can hardly be printed here."
A snatch here being a type of song...
But the editors' attitude may be more important here than the law. Ostensibly written to preserve the language and songs of soldiers, it seems tangled by an attitude that wants to pretend that 999 of every thousand didn't behave or speak in any way that might shock a rather sniffy drawing room matron. It flaunts its own class assumptions: as when the editors note that the rhymes in one song are the way they are due to incorrect lower class pronunciation or that obscenities, 'come from the stews of the cities; vents for the exasperation of the slum-born and the slum-bred'.
It's ironic that in a book trying to chart the shifts in language caused by the war, the editors won't print the words they are discussing. Swearing was so common that "If the Sergeant said:'Get your ___ rifles!' it was understood as a matter of routine' But if he said 'Get your Rifles' there was an immediate implication of urgency and danger".
They identify three words, common to the solider, but they are "very ugly words", "ugly in form and in sound". They write: "it may be enlightening to examine their nature" but they can only identify them in paragraphs of euphemistic squirming, ending the 'discussion' on the uplifting thought: 'The man to whom circumstances allows some cleanliness, peace and order, and who centres his life on wife and children has no need of these curse words and despises them.'
So now I'm intrigued to know if the 1965 version printed these "ugly" words...
(Brophy didn't. Admitting that their omission in the original was on legal advice, in 1965 he printed Bugger, on the grounds that few remember what it means, but the the other two words, though the changes to the Obscene publications act would have allowed them to print without fear of prosecution, he refused to print. Though, in listing other words he had reinstated, he admitted to quietly removing them from the original,)
The original book is fascinating for two reasons: its content, and the odd way in which the editors' own cultural assumptions seem to be at odd with their material.
Like all older slang dictionaries, it's readable from cover to cover, and the fascination lies in seeing words and phrases that had entered common speech within fifty years emerging as slang: "that's put the Kibosh on that" or the phrase "clicked' as in, he met her and they 'clicked'.
Like most slang dictionaries it has its own sense of humour: a 'landowner' is someone who is dead and buried...And some of the definitions are fine examples of wit.
But what makes this book doubly interesting is the way it seems to be fighting with itself.
The 1930s edition, written before the changes to the obscene publication act in 1959, presumably omits the obscenities to avoid problems with the law. This means that some of the songs are a row of dashes, others disappear to be replaced by:
"Mother Hunt: an eight line snatch, more witty than the run of soldier's songs. But this gay and ribald commentary upon an old lady's misfortunes can hardly be printed here."
A snatch here being a type of song...
But the editors' attitude may be more important here than the law. Ostensibly written to preserve the language and songs of soldiers, it seems tangled by an attitude that wants to pretend that 999 of every thousand didn't behave or speak in any way that might shock a rather sniffy drawing room matron. It flaunts its own class assumptions: as when the editors note that the rhymes in one song are the way they are due to incorrect lower class pronunciation or that obscenities, 'come from the stews of the cities; vents for the exasperation of the slum-born and the slum-bred'.
It's ironic that in a book trying to chart the shifts in language caused by the war, the editors won't print the words they are discussing. Swearing was so common that "If the Sergeant said:'Get your ___ rifles!' it was understood as a matter of routine' But if he said 'Get your Rifles' there was an immediate implication of urgency and danger".
They identify three words, common to the solider, but they are "very ugly words", "ugly in form and in sound". They write: "it may be enlightening to examine their nature" but they can only identify them in paragraphs of euphemistic squirming, ending the 'discussion' on the uplifting thought: 'The man to whom circumstances allows some cleanliness, peace and order, and who centres his life on wife and children has no need of these curse words and despises them.'
So now I'm intrigued to know if the 1965 version printed these "ugly" words...
(Brophy didn't. Admitting that their omission in the original was on legal advice, in 1965 he printed Bugger, on the grounds that few remember what it means, but the the other two words, though the changes to the Obscene publications act would have allowed them to print without fear of prosecution, he refused to print. Though, in listing other words he had reinstated, he admitted to quietly removing them from the original,)
January 22, 2015
This primary source was written by two men who joined the infantry in 1914. Because of that, this is a hugely valuable reference (song and slang) book to keep to one’s side when reading books or documents on or close in time to the geographically disparate theatres of battle that we group under the title of the First World War.
I was intrigued to read (p.72) the following definition of ”Black Hand Gang” (p.72): A party selected, from volunteers when possible, for some hazardous enterprise such as a trench raid”. A peacetime example can be found at https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Slang yields information on attitude, song on longings. The very beginnings of enormous social change, for good, and for not so good, are here in “The Long Trail”; warding off the grave danger of an ignorance which seeks to apply present-day social conventions to the morals, actions, and society of our forebears.
Overall, here is a book which at first glance is a reference book. Yet read cover to cover, an image of a world long gone is brought sharply back into focus, and is found to be not really quite so different from our own day as we like to imagine.
I was intrigued to read (p.72) the following definition of ”Black Hand Gang” (p.72): A party selected, from volunteers when possible, for some hazardous enterprise such as a trench raid”. A peacetime example can be found at https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Slang yields information on attitude, song on longings. The very beginnings of enormous social change, for good, and for not so good, are here in “The Long Trail”; warding off the grave danger of an ignorance which seeks to apply present-day social conventions to the morals, actions, and society of our forebears.
Overall, here is a book which at first glance is a reference book. Yet read cover to cover, an image of a world long gone is brought sharply back into focus, and is found to be not really quite so different from our own day as we like to imagine.
March 13, 2017
Much of what I read is directly related to the historical novels I write. I read this book, learned a lot that was useful to my writing. It is filled with definitions of the vast number of phrases the soldiers developed to talk with each other. It gave me words and phrases to avoid, since the descriptions often had a date or event when the phrase came into use. Also, it is wonderful to read what attitude or view the phrase expressed.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews