Valid. I do that sometimes, as I am aware that I have the unfortunate tendency to type like I talk. Could be worse, though. At least you don't have to live with me.
I did go back and re-read my post to see if I could identify which area of the sentence structure seemed to be causing all of the difficulty; for reasons unknown I focused on the idiomatic expression, 'pot calling the kettle black'. It's a very unique and interesting statement to make, but in a literal sense is isolated enough from the mainstream perspective that it was not likely to be an accidental comparison. I assume, for most people at least, that we're not in the habit of imagining things from the perspective of inanimate objects. But it did make me quite curious, so I decided I had to go research its origins, because the idiom as it stands on its own feels too... coincidental.
So. Research!
As generally understood from a literal standpoint, the person accusing (the "pot") is understood to share some quality with the target of their accusation (the "kettle"). The pot is mocking the kettle for a little soot when the pot itself is thoroughly covered in the same.
An alternative interpretation with basis on historical data states that the pot is sooty (being placed on a fire), while the kettle is clean and shiny (being placed on coals only), and hence when the pot accuses the kettle of being black, it is the pot’s own sooty reflection that it sees: the pot accuses the kettle of a fault that only the pot has, rather than one that they share. Basis for this is drawn from historical information, wherein cast iron tools were often blackened with pitch deliberately in order to keep them from rusting. Blackening a stove after winter and before summer was a common practice. If both the pot and the kettle had been blackened with pitch, then they would both share the same quality. However, this is in direct contrast to the literal interpretation; given the psychological nature of this interpretation, I am not surprised to find most references sourced only after the mid 1960s.
But
where does it come from? I need historical data!
Maxwell, William Henry. (1904)
Maxwell's Elementary Grammar. A children's book in wide circulation in the early century contained the following poem, which is the first time 'pot' and 'kettle' were used:
"Oho!' said the pot to the kettle; "You are dirty and ugly and black! Sure no one would think you were metal, except when you're given a crack."
"Not so! Not so! kettle said to the pot; "'Tis your own dirty image you see; for I am so clean without blemish or blot that your blackness is mirrored in me!"
The first English equivalent:
Geoffrey Chaucer, Geoffrey. (circa 1380)
Troilus and Criseyde. The original passage reads 'one who has a glass head should beware of stones', as a counsel to caution being judgmental. The modern derivative of this passage is idealized as 'Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones'.
But earliest known records of actual appearance? I had to email a Professor of Etymology at the University of Toronto to get a real answer (and he responded very quickly <3) with some fascinating reading material: I
hyperlinked the relevant passage in this book.
"The crab spoke thus,
seizing the snake in its claws,
'One’s comrade should be straight
and not think crooked thoughts."
So, the very source of all of this, where it all began, was from a Greek drinking song sometime during the late 6th century BCE, known colloquially as
the Snake and the Crab. This parable was survived through recitation, before finally being recorded as
one of Aesop's Fables (#196 specifically).
How very enlightening! Of course, I should have looked at Aesop as a general starting point, considering how much of
everything is drawn from his works but the roundabout path had its merits, such as the first recorded mention of pot and kettle in a children's schoolbook. I shall have to remember that.
However, I think the most interesting part of this whole adventure has been the tie-in to modern medicine and its application in psychological projection, specifically Draft H as a defense mechanism. I'm currently undertaking specialization courses in my field for Canine Psychopathology, Canine Neuropathy and Canine Behavioral Modification for so I must do more research on this. I am quite intrigued as to applications of the relevant schools of thought in relation to animal psychology...
Thank you!
it hurts more