Cutting Deals and Striking Bargains: The History of an Idiom Bruce William Jones California State University, Bakersfield, CA, USA [Note: The full text of this article, with references and diacritical marks, is available in English Today, 46 (1996).] Click on the BACK button at any time to return to a previous level. In our age of high-speed electronic communication, new slang spreads rapidly and rapidly becomes obsolete. However, some of our language patterns are very slow to change. For example, many centuries after Copernicus, our language still behaves as if the sun rises and sets around us. The slang expression which is the subject of this paper is the phrase, "to cut a deal," referring to the making of an agreement. The oldest written reference to this expression cited in the most recent dictionary of American slang (Lighter, "Cut," 15b), comes from 1979, but its oral usage is undoubtedly older than that. I want to argue that the expression, in fact, may have a history nearly 4,000 years old. Specifically, I believe the English phrase is a translation of Biblical Hebrew. In turn, the Hebrew usage is based on international practice for making agreements in the ancient world which was widespread among many different peoples over a long period of time. The expression "cutting a deal" is both slang, in that it has not yet become widely accepted as part of the English language, and also an idiom, because it has its own peculiar, non-literal meaning. Most idioms have a logic of their own, and there are usually reasons behind them, even if they have been forgotten. In this case, verbs for cutting were chosen because of the ritual cutting of animals which accompanied the making of agreements. The ritual action survived at least as late as the time of Xerxes I in the 5th century BCE. We will probably never know when, where or by whom the expression was first used in English. Tracing slang is always an uncertain process because of its oral origins. However, some explanations are more likely than others. There are at least three possible sources for the slang term: Hebrew, French or an indigenous development within English. I will argue that Hebrew is the most likely. The inner-English explanation, related to cutting a deck of cards before dealing them, is appealing in its simplicity, but it loses its initial plausibility when analyzed. It requires that the verb, to deal, become a noun and change its meaning radically. Dealing cards has nothing to do with making deals, and it is hard to imagine how cutting a deck of cards can be related to making an agreement. However, the Lighter dictionary does make an association between card playing and cutting deals. Its first citation says "cutting deals with the Soviets is hazardous [because] often the Soviets end up holding all the cards." Surely, the connection to playing cards is a secondary association that arises because of the double meaning of "deal." Could French be the source? French has an idiomatic expression, couper a poire en deux, to cut a pear in two, which dates from at least 1933 (Tresor 1988, v. 13, 680. Cf. Rey and Chantreau 1979, 754). Here, the cutting refers to sharing equally in the risks and benefits of an agreement, to compromising in such a way that the parties "split the difference" between them. One might argue that the French idiom is the source for the American expression, to cut a deal, but there is no easy way to explain how it would move from French to American English between 1933 and 1979 unless it came by way of Quebec, the largest English-French bilingual population in North America. I know of no evidence for such a route. What is the evidence for a source in Hebrew and ancient ritual practices? The usual Hebrew idiom for making an agreement is karat berit, to cut a covenant, and the term can refer to many different kinds of agreement, e. g., a treaty, a contract, a loyalty oath. Circumcision, of course, is a cutting ritual, and circumcision is a symbol of Israel's covenant with God. However, as I shall demonstrate, the choice of verb has a pre-Israelite background that Hebrew shares with other languages. The cutting of the penis is later than the semantic association of cutting and making agreements. There are several ancient languages in which some verb for cutting or killing is used for making agreements, often from unrelated cultural contexts. Weinfeld has pointed out that not only was there a shared terminology for making treaties in Akkadian, Hittite, Hebrew, Aramaic and Phoenician, but that similar terms were used by the Greeks and Romans. Among these terms are various words for cut, sometimes occurring in idiomatic combinations, such as "to cut an oath" in Phoenician and in Homeric Greek (1973). The choice of verb comes from the world of solemn oaths, contracts and international treaties, where cutting was central to a ritual used in making agreements. An animal was killed and cut up, and the person who entered into the agreement invoked a conditional self-curse upon himself, saying, in effect, "May the same thing happen to me if I violate this agreement." According to Herodotus, related rituals were used by Scythians and Persians, though we do not know the terminology they used. (See below.) Several Biblical characters invoke a self-curse upon themselves without any ritual action when they say, "God do so to me, and more also" (I Sam 14:44, 20:13; II Sam 3:9, 19:13; I Kings 2:23, 19:2, 20:10). Modern children do a similar thing when they confirm a promise by saying "Cross my heart and hope to die." Ancient participants likely understood the ritual action to intensify and strengthen the oath, thus making its violation a more serious matter. I do not claim that all of these ancient expressions have a single origin, but only that they share a common worldview in which ritual actions and the words of a curse are thought to have power and in which one object may represent another in sympathetic magic. The ritual animal stands for the person making the oath so that the fate of the one will become the fate of the other if the oath is violated. In most, but not all, instances involving an animal ritual, persons of unequal status are making the agreement, and only the inferior party takes upon himself the acted-out self-curse. While our ritual actions for making agreements have changed drastically -- e. g., we place a seal, sign our names or shake hands to mark the conclusion of a bargain -- we still use rituals to legitimize or formalize agreements, just as our ancestors did four millennia ago. The oldest examples of an animal ritual associated with making an agreement occur in two 18th century BCE Akkadian texts. First, in a text from Alalakh in Anatolia, Abban places himself under oath to Yarimlim and cuts the neck of a sheep. Then he takes upon himself a conditional curse, "If I take back that which I gave thee" (Wiseman 1958), implying that Abban's neck will be cut like the neck of the sheep, if he should violate his agreement. About the same time, in the local dialect of the Amorite inhabitants of Mari on the upper Euphrates River, the expression "to kill a donkey foal" was synonymous with making a covenant (Held 1970). Sometimes the ritual is acted out with wax, salt or other food, without killing an animal. The Hittite Soldiers' Oath, from ca. 1400 BCE, both provides the words the soldiers say and describes the accompanying ritual action. The officiating priest places wax and mutton fat in their hands. He throws them on a flame and says: "Just as this wax melts, and just as the mutton fat dissolves, -- whoever breaks these oaths, . . . let [him] melt lik[e wax], let him dissolve like [mutton fat]!" [The me]n declare: "So be it!" (i:41-ii:4; ANET, 353). During this ritual, a priest scatters salt and says, "Just as the salt is scattered on the hearth -- whoever breaks these oaths, . . . let him be scattered like the salt!" The soldier crushes a malt loaf in his hands while the priest says, "Whoever breaks these oaths, . . . let them grind their bones in the same way!" The soldiers reply, "So be it!" (ii:9-30; ANET, p. 353). Wax effigies were used in a similar way in 8th century Syria and in the 7th century BCE by the Greek colonists who founded Cyrene in north Africa (Faraone 1993, 60-62). Some scholars (e. g. Weinfeld 1970) see the ritual slaughter of animals as a form of sacrifice. However, the 8th century Akkadian treaty between Assyrian king Ashurnirari and his Syrian vassal Mati'ilu is explicit that the ritual lamb is not sacrifice, but symbolically represents the vassal and his potential fate: This spring lamb has been brought from its fold not for sacrifice, not for a banquet, not for a purchase, not for (divination). . . . It has been brought to sanction the treaty between Ashurnirari and Mati'ilu. . . . This head is not the head of a lamb, it is the head of Mati'ilu, it is the head of his sons, his officials, and the people of his land. If Mati'ilu sins against this treaty, so may, just as the head of this spring lamb is torn off, and its knuckle placed in its mouth, [. . .] the head of Mati'ilu will be torn off (i:10ff., ANET, 532). The wording of the treaty invites us to visualize the ritual scene in which the lamb is slowly dismembered to demonstrate what can happen to Mati'ilu, his sons and people. Perhaps some of the lamb is even eaten during the ritual, because the tablet threatens later that Mati'ilu and his people can become so starved that they will eat their children, who will "taste as good to them as the flesh of spring lambs" (iv, ANET, 533). In the following century, another Assyrian king, Esarhaddon, imposed a treaty ritual upon his vassals in which animals were disemboweled before them, as a sign of what might happen to them. This very elaborate treaty has some 250 lines of curses against any vassal who would rebel against the king or his son. The ritual was also elaborate, with the flesh of young lambs put in their mothers' mouths and their entrails rolled around their feet, as a warning of what rebellious vassals could expect (lines 547-554, ANET, p.539). If we may take the words of Esarhaddon's treaty literally, it was sealed with several such ritual actions, including splashing blood on a chariot and slitting a waterskin. As the water ran out, the vassals were threatened with dying of thirst (lines 612-615, 652-655; ANET, pp. 540, 541). The Aramaic example comes from the 8th century BCE Sefire Inscription, which refers to itself as "this treaty which Bar Gayah has cut" (KAI 222:A:7). Bar Gayah, king of an unidentified Ktk, and his vassal, Matti`el of Arpad (perhaps the same Mati'ilu mentioned above), entered into an agreement, the breaking of which would bring a series of punishments down upon Matti`el and his city. The wording of the treaty suggests that it was confirmed with ritual actions: As this wax is consumed by fire, thus M[atti`el] shall be consumed [by fi]re. . . . [As] this calf is cut up, thus Matti`el and his nobles shall be cut up (ANET 660; KAI 222:A:37, 39, 40; cf. Fitzmyer, 1967). The Phoenician example is a 7th century BCE incantation from Arslan Tash which speaks of "cutting an oath" (krt 'lt, KAI, 27:9, cf. ANET 658; Zevit, 1977). In both the Iliad (2:124; 3:73, 93, 105; 4:155; 19:191) and the Odyssey (24:483), oaths or "oaths of trust" (horkia pista) are regularly "cut." The reason for this terminology is made clear in the Iliad 3:245-301, where there is a detailed description of the agreement among the Achaians and Trojans about the rules of their forthcoming encounter. Heralds bring forward two lambs and a goatskin of wine; Agamemnon cuts some hair from the heads of the lambs, and the heralds pass it out to both Greeks and Trojans. Agamemnon then prays to Zeus, the sun, the rivers, the earth and the gods of the underworld to be witnesses to their agreement; he asks that they take vengeance on any who breaks his sworn oath. Then, Agamemnon cuts the throats of the lambs, and some of the wine is poured out. Spokesmen from both sides ask Zeus to punish whoever first breaks their agreement: "May their brains be thus poured forth upon the ground even as this wine, theirs and their children's; and may their wives be made slaves to others" (3:298-301, Loeb; cf. 4:155-159.). The poet does not explain the significance of the hair, but very likely accepting the hair is a way of taking the fate of the lambs upon their own heads. Homeric terminology persists in Greek for another six centuries, so that someone as late as Polybius in the 2nd century BCE can use "cutting an oath" to describe the making of an agreement (21:24:3, 21:32:15). One vivid form of the ritual, used by Israelites (Loewenstamm 1968), Persians, Greeks and Macedonians (Faraone 1993, 71) involves walking between the severed pieces of the animal. Jeremiah 34 describes an event at the beginning of the 6th century, near the end of the monarchy; the Babylonians had been besieging Judah, and the people of Jerusalem feared that God had abandoned them. In desperation, King Zedekiah had entered into a covenant with his people to free all their Hebrew slaves, as God's law demanded. After doing so they had second thoughts and reclaimed their property. Jeremiah says that the covenant violators will be made like "the calf which they cut in two and passed between its parts" (34:18) and become carrion for birds and wild animals. We have a striking example of a loyalty oath acted out "between the pieces" in Herodotus. He tells a remarkable story in connection with Xerxes' invasion of Greece (VII:38-40). Pythius of Lydia, who has five sons in the king's army, asks that the eldest be excused from service in order to take care of him in his old age. Previously, Pythius had impressed the king by offering him all his wealth to support the war effort (VII:28, 29). Now, Xerxes becomes enraged. He says he is being generous by not killing Pythius and all his sons because of his insolence. Instead, he kills only the eldest. Herodotus explains carefully that the son's body is cut in half, with the two pieces placed on opposite sides of the road. Then, the whole army marches between the pieces on its way across the Hellespont. This story is all the more remarkable because Herodotus has no idea why Xerxes would do such an outrageous thing. To him, it is just another example of Xerxes' foolish arrogance; it makes no more sense to him than the king's decision to whip and brand the waters of the Hellespont for daring to break up his bridge (VII:35). However, from our vantage point, we can reconstruct the king's rationale. Pythius and the king had made an agreement; the king has granted him the title of royal "friend." Xerxes clearly understands that to mean that Pythius and his family have assumed obligations to him, which Pythius has violated. Each soldier in the king's army also has obligations, and marching between the halves of the elder son would remind all of them of the penalties for ignoring their duty. They all could anticipate the same treatment if they failed in their commitment. Herodotus also says that the Scythians formalized their oaths by a different sort of ritual cutting. He reports that the contracting parties wound themselves and drip a little of their blood into a bowl of wine. Next, they dip their weapons into the mixture and then drink it (4:70). Again, if Herodotus understands the significance of the ritual, he fails to say so. Latin usage is slightly different from that of the other languages discussed so far, although it draws from a similar worldview. Latin does not use "cut" in connection with making agreements. Rather, the usual phrase for making a treaty or compact combines foedus with some verb for striking, piercing or killing (icere, percutere, ferire). None of the Latin phrases is a source for the French couper a poire en deux, cited above, but the Latin combination has survived in the English expression, to strike a bargain. The 1544 example in OED, "to stryke truce" demonstrates its Latin ancestry in ferire foedus (OED, "Strike," 70). The Latin Old Testament typically translates "cutting a covenant" with either ferire foedus (Judges 2:2, Job 40:28, Hosea 10:4) or percussit foedus (I Samuel 23:18, II Samuel 5:3, Jeremiah 34:8, II Chronicles 34:31). The connection between striking or killing and making an agreement can be reconstructed with the help of Livy. Livy describes the making of a compact between the Romans and the Albans (I:24). The ritual was already archaic for him; he says that no memory of a compact more ancient than this one has been preserved. The priests, with the permission of the king, speak and act on behalf of the people. The spokesman pronounces the oath in their name, and asks Jupiter to punish the Romans if they are the first to break the compact. "So smite (ferire) the Roman People as I shall here today smite this pig" (I:24:8, Loeb). The animal is an integral part of the ritual, playing the role familiar from near eastern treaties. The pig is not a sacrifice to Jupiter, but is ritually identified with the makers of the agreement, who can expect the same fate if they violate the compact. Jupiter is the witness and enforcer of the oath. We are faced with a methodological problem. How do we move from Herodotus and Polybius to 20th century American slang? There is a gap of some two thousand years before words for cutting agreements reappear, and there are no native speakers of Akkadian or Phoenician today. I believe that the vehicle for bridging the gap is the Hebrew Bible, which kept the idiom alive. It is common for phrases and expressions to move from one language to another in a process of lexical borrowing. However, I am not speaking here of words borrowed from one language to another, like schmuck or ciao. Rather, this borrowing is a loan translation from one language to another, similar to the way in which the proverbial "by the skin of my teeth" has come into English from Hebrew, by way of the King James Bible (Job 19:20). Likewise, second- and third-generation Americans in Minnesota and Wisconsin may ask "Are you coming with?" The question is very awkward in English, but it is perfectly proper in German (kommen Sie mit?) and in some Scandinavian languages. The English sentence is an overly literal translation from another language, which is exactly what we claim for "to cut a deal." A similar thing has happened among those in India who speak English as a second language. They will frequently add an "isn't it?" at the end of a declarative statement, roughly equivalent to the American "you know?" The English "isn't it?" is a substrate influence, a translation from their Indian mother- tongues. Another example would be the phrase, "enough already," translated from Yiddish. All that is required for the transmission of an idiom from Hebrew to English is a critical mass of bilingual persons. The individuals responsible would not need to know Hebrew well enough to use it in daily conversation. The phrase is common in the Bible and the language of the synagogue. Most Orthodox or Conservative Jews -- and many Reform Jews -- who knew enough Hebrew to go through Bar Mitzvah would be familiar with the phrase. There are communities of Jews in New York City and Los Angeles, both places where usage of "cutting a deal" is common. New York and Los Angeles are the centers of America's entertainment industry, which provides numerous channels for the rapid dissemination of its language fads. In an earlier generation, Yiddish expressions made their way into English via that route, even before television. Examples have been well documented (Rosten 1968). As noted at the beginning, certainty is impossible when dealing with origins of slang, but I believe that I have identified a very likely evolutionary path. Language conventions are very conservative. Idioms can be translated literally from one language to another, and they may persist for centuries after most people have forgotten the reasons for their origin. I believe that the idiom, to cut an agreement, was used in many languages and many forms over a period of almost 4,000 years. After two millennia in which it disappeared everywhere except in the Hebrew Bible, it has reappeared in this century in American slang. Click on the BACK button at any time to return to a previous level. Abbreviations ANET Pritchard, James B., ed. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton UP. KAI Donner, H. and W. Rollig 1962-64. Kanaanaische und aramaische Inschriften Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1962-64. Loeb "Loeb Classical Library." Cambridge: Harvard UP. OED Simpson, J. A. and E. S. C. Weiner, ed. 1989. Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon. References Faraone, Christopher A. 1993. "Molten Wax, Spilt Wine and Mutilated Animals: Sympathetic Magic in Near Eastern and Early Greek Oath Ceremonies." Journal of Hellenic Studies 113, 60-80. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1967. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Held, Moshe. December 1970. "Philological Notes on the Mari Covenant Rituals." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 200, 32-40. Lighter, Jonathan E., ed. 1994. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang. New York: Random House. Vol. 1, A-G. Loewenstamm, Samuel E. 1968. "Zur Traditionsgeschichte des Bundes zwischen den Stucken." VT, 18, 500-506. Rey, Alain and Sophie Chantreau. 1979. Dictionnaire des expressions et locutions, rev., ed. Paris: Robert. Rosten, Leo. 1968. The Joys of Yiddish. New York: McGraw- Hill. Tresor de la langue francaise: Dictionnaire de la langue du XIXe et du XXe siecle (1789-1960). 1988. Gallimard: Centre National de la Research Scientifique; Institut National de la Langue Francaise. Weinfeld, Moshe. 1970. "The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East." Journal of the American Oriental Society 90, 184-203. ____________. 1973. "Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East and Its Influence on the West." Journal of the American Oriental Society. 93, 190-199. Wiseman, Donald J. 1958. "Abban and Alalah." Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12, 124-129. Zevit, Ziony. 1977. "A Phoenician Inscription and Biblical Covenant Theology." Israel Exploration Journal 27, 110-118. Click on the BACK button to return to the previous level.