# Obscure reference in a sermon, a put and a call



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 9, 2009)

This is a from a sermon circa 1650s by James Durham, centuries before the stock market and options; anyone have any good ideas what the bolded and red words may mean or referencing? My thought is some kind of game terminology or sports? 

Finally, I must say this word to them, that have some acquaintance with God, and some conviction of the fecklessness and great deficiency of their endeavors in preparing for death, for their both humbling and further upstirring to diligence, that there is amongst us, both little rousing of ourselves, little hastening to the coming of the day of God, little going out to meet the bridegroom. *Alas! we will, to speak so, take both a put and a call to make us advance towards death,* though we be drawing near to it daily, yet few of us, as I just now said, are waiting for, and hastening unto the coming of Christ, and of the Day of God.​


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 9, 2009)

I suspect he was talking about the same things we talk about when speaking of puts and calls.

There is pretty good evidence that forward option pricing was going on in medieval England and Europe. In the context, it sounds like Durham is using financial terms, essentially saying that people hope to bargain away the consequences of death.

Not on point, but I ran across a paper discussing options trading in the old days:

http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/59417/excerpt/9780521859417_excerpt.pdf


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 9, 2009)

Fascinating stuff Vic...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 9, 2009)

Thanks Vic; I didn't know it was that early. This is a good quote from that book 
Both put and call options (giving the holder the right but not the obligation to sell and the right but not the obligation to buy respectively) were written on tulip bulbs in Amsterdam in the 1600s. Adrian R. Bell, Chris Brooks, and Paul Dryburgh, The English Wool Market, C. 1230-1327 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 5. ​


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 9, 2009)

How does this put and call metaphorically speaking "advance" toward death?


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 9, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> How does this put and call metaphorically speaking "advance" toward death?



It is a bit obscure, but I thought he might be talking about hedging against the future:

"Alas! we will, to speak so, (hedge our positions as we--or try to insure against the) advance towards death, though we be drawing near to it daily, yet few of us, as I just now said, are waiting for, and hastening unto the coming of Christ, and of the Day of God."


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 9, 2009)

Perhaps it speaks more to the unwillingness to close the bargain, they're still advancing toward death, but not embracing Christ, etc?


----------



## Skyler (Mar 9, 2009)

It seems to me, not being familiar with the terminology used, that he uses parallelism in the sentence mentioned.

"Alas! we will, to speak so, take both a put and a call to make us advance towards death, though we be drawing near to it daily,"

as compared to

"yet few of us, as I just now said, are waiting for, and hastening unto the coming of Christ, and of the Day of God."

As he's comparing and contrasting the two, it seems to me that just as the second half refers to "waiting for" or "hastening unto" the coming of Christ, the first half should logically refer to something which causes us to approach death. That doesn't seem to jive with the given definition though.

On the other hand, he could just be grammatically wrong, and I'm trying to read way too much into it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 9, 2009)

Here's my understanding. I believe it IS a finance metaphor. It would be interesting to discover how many stock-brokers or financiers were in the congregation.

Now, the two are being set forth as things that are typically going in two different directions, either-or. But these can be forced options, right? Not always a choice approached full willingly.

I think the preacher is saying to the listener: why is it we must be prodded by force, regardless of whether it is a positive urge or an negative urge, to "advance" (which I take in a military sort of sense) toward death, sensibly, cognitively, with a Christian mind? Why do we not live with our eye always on that inevitable approach, and so be "making our plays" as we determine, and not when forced to TAKE both puts and calls? The financier who is always being forced is not sensibly placing his bets. He is obviously being a reactor, and not an actor.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 9, 2009)

Thanks Bruce!


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 10, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Thanks Bruce!



Yes, I like that interpretation too.


----------



## MW (Mar 10, 2009)

A "putt" is a "push" or a "prod" or a "nudge," and then by extension, an "admonition." Durham seems to be saying that we have to be pushed and prodded to get ready for death, i.e. it is something forced on us rather than something we hasten forward to do.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 10, 2009)

Thanks Matthew. The usage of put and call together is what is steering toward the options reference and I would not have thought that except, at least in Amsterdam, they were using puts and calls in the 1636-37 tulip craze that crashed their markets. However, England did not have such exchanges until the 1680s. Another thing to raise against the financial reference is that OED doesn't locate such usage in English before the 19th century. I'm using old OED For what it's worth.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 10, 2009)

I would still appreciate more input but Matthew is "nudging" me back toward what would be more likely. My current thinking is the financial reference is way too sophisticated and the "put" (Sc. nudge/admonition) "and call" (which I just noted is Sc. call or caw which is to drive, to compel) "to advance," sounds more like Durham. Certainly the use of a Scottish terms, and in synonymic pair, is very much Durham's style.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 10, 2009)

Here are the possible Scottish terms.
To Call, caw, Ca', v. n. 1. Submit to be driven, S. "That beast winna caw, for a' that I can do." i.e. that beast will not call for all that I can do, will not submit to be driven.

Put, putt, s. 1. A thrust; a push.


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 10, 2009)

From: http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/register/2004/2004_4888.pdf



> Puts and calls are parallel devices, with a put giving the holder the option to sell, and a call giving the holder an option to buy, a security under certain conditions.


----------



## speric (Mar 10, 2009)

Interesting. Thanks for the excerpt.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 10, 2009)

Lawerence shared this with his linguist dad and got the following response which he pm'd me and trust he won't mind my sharing with those that have shown interest in this. I think it confirms the simpler interpretation rather than the financial:
He, unprompted, said that since Durham was Scottish, that he would propose that he is using Anglicised Scots. That put and call refer to the droving of animals. When I told him that some were thinking that the quote referred to the put and call of financial transactions. He admitted that it could be, but that he doubted it since those terms are rarely used today, even though we have many more people familiar with trading than there would have been at that time.​


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 10, 2009)

If not finance, then most certainly a near precursor, it would seem. To be forced to take one or the other, a call or beck (pull from the front), or a push or shove from behind, to get us to advance (toward death in the illustration).


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 10, 2009)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Lawerence shared this with his linguist dad and got the following response which he pm'd me and trust he won't mind my sharing with those that have shown interest in this. I think it confirms the simpler interpretation rather than the financial:
> He, unprompted, said that since Durham was Scottish, that he would propose that he is using Anglicised Scots. That put and call refer to the droving of animals. When I told him that some were thinking that the quote referred to the put and call of financial transactions. He admitted that it could be, but that he doubted it since those terms are rarely used today, even though we have many more people familiar with trading than there would have been at that time.​



That makes a lot more sense.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 10, 2009)

I do think it far more likely drawing on herding than on finance, but the sense is certainly similar. Here is my note; any suggestions for refinement are much appreciated:
Finally, I must say this word to them, that have some acquaintance with God, and some conviction of the fecklessness and great deficiency of their endeavors in preparing for death, for their both humbling and further upstirring to diligence, that there is amongst us, both little rousing of ourselves, little hastening to the coming of the day of God, little going out to meet the bridegroom. *Alas! we will, to speak so, take both a put and a call*†*to make us advance towards death,* though we be drawing near to it daily, yet few of us, as I just now said, are waiting for, and hastening unto the coming of Christ, and of the Day of God.​[ †_Put, putt, s._ “A thrust; a push.” _Call, Caw, v. n. _“Submit to be driven” (Jamieson); i.e. like cattle, “we require both thrusts and drivings to make us advance towards death.”]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 10, 2009)

I'm sorry I couldn't weigh in soon enough to give you the wrong answer.


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 10, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm sorry I couldn't weigh in soon enough to give you the wrong answer.



This is why we like our Admins and Mods: Ever willing to be helpful.

(Now hoping I don't get beat with a dusty wig from John Owen as punishment.)


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 10, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *NaphtaliPress*
> _†Put, putt, s. “A thrust; a push.” Call, Caw, v. n. “Submit to be driven” (Jamieson); i.e. like cattle, “we require both thrusts and drivings to make us advance towards death.”_



In your note, I might make the definitions more grammatically parallel, if you can smoothly and accurately do so: instead of a noun and a verb, I might put them both as nouns.

I think the more general meaning you chose is probably a good choice; but it's a time like this when I wish my "Scottish" were better.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 10, 2009)

How's "thrustings and drivings"?


Prufrock said:


> > Originally Posted by *NaphtaliPress*
> > _†Put, putt, s. “A thrust; a push.” Call, Caw, v. n. “Submit to be driven” (Jamieson); i.e. like cattle, “we require both thrusts and drivings to make us advance towards death.”_
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 10, 2009)

Oops. I meant with respect to "Put, putt, s. “A thrust; a push.” Call, Caw, v. n. “Submit to be driven” (Jamieson);" not to your paraphrase.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 10, 2009)

Those are the entries from Jamieson; I don't think there are any that match n, n, v, v. Maybe that presents a problem. I have found an obsolete usage of "put" in OED (no work for the usage after 1533), where "put" also means drive. Close synonyms are common with Durham so that may be another option?


Prufrock said:


> Oops. I meant with respect to "Put, putt, s. “A thrust; a push.” Call, Caw, v. n. “Submit to be driven” (Jamieson);" not to your paraphrase.
> 
> Sorry for the lack of clarity.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 10, 2009)

Perhaps something like:

†Put, putt, s. “A thrust; a push.” Call, Caw: A driving, as in of cattle (from verb, _to caw_--to "Submit to be driven") (Jamieson); i.e. like cattle, “we require both thrusts and drivings to make us advance towards death.”

Granted, I made it pretty ugly; and hindsight, perhaps it is better as you had it.


----------

