This Week's Etymology Lesson

According to Charles MacLean (in his MacLean's Miscellany of Whisky), the word peatreek doesn't mean what you probably think it does.

The Lowland Scots for smoke is 'reek' -- Edinburgh, with its smoking tenements, was once known as 'Auld Reekie' -- and after 1824 'peatreek' came to be used to describe illicit homemade hooch, no doubt a reference to the smoky aroma and flavour of such whisky. In the remote Highlands, where peat was the main (in some places, only) source of domestic fuel, the kilning of malt was done entirely over a peat fire. (p. 105)

So peatreek is synonymous with moonshine, not a descriptor of the aroma of a peaty whisky. In light of this fact, consider Jim Murray's review of Dalwhinnie 15 year old, as quoted in Kevin Erskine's Instant Expert's Guide to Single Malt Scotch:

Nose: Sublime stuff: a curious mixture of coke smoke and peat-reek wafts teasingly over the gently honied malt. (p. 60)

So is Jim Murray aware of what peatreek traditionally has been, meaning that he's using the phrase in his review as an amusing counterpoint to it, or does he assume that peatreek refers to peaty aromas in a whisky?

What Does a Butler Do?

I know, I know, he butles. Seriously, though it should have been obvious, I had never given any thought to the origin of the term butler. It turns out that it derives from the Old French word bouteillier, which is a form of the word bouteille, meaning bottle. One of the butler's chief duties is to be the servant responsible for the storage and service of wine and spirits. Given that in the olden days (maybe the 1970s, right, Emmet?) wine and spirits were purchased in cask or crocks unsuitable for the table, this involved transferring the wine or liquor into clear glass decanters for service. So, really, the answer to the question is that a butler bottles.

Today's Etymological Trivia

The phrase "fifth column" comes from a statement that Nationalist General Emilio Mola made to a journalist as his troops approached Madrid in 1936, which was then controlled by the Spanish Republicans. He would take Madrid, he told the journalist, because he had four columns of troops marching on Madrid and a fifth column of supporters inside the city.

(And, incidentally, Mola did not take Madrid in 1936.)