President Obama caused some confusion yesterday when he suggested that "There's something about August going into September where everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up." Pundits immediately began to scratch their heads in wonderment, and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was today forced to clarify that the phrase was meant to suggest nocturnal micturation, or bed-wetting. While its meaning may have shifted over the course of time (it originally was intended to signify general vexation), "wee-weed up" is not an Obama coinage; it has a long and storied history in the English language.

The first recorded use of the phrase appears in the late 1300s, in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. The phrase is actually in the opening passage of the poem, in its old English form of "wye," suggesting that it was familiar enough to contemporary readers:

When that Aprille with his shoures sote
The drogte of Marche hath perced to the rote
And bathed ev'ry veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendered is the flour
When Zephirus eek with his swete breath
Inspired hath in ev'ry holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne
And smale fowles maken melodye,
Sondry folk are all a-wye
(So pricketh hem Nature in her corages):
Than longen folk to goon on pilgrimages

Other variations from the era include "a-wied," "woe-woede," and "alle a-wieded to the tippe."

Two hundred years on, it was still in currency; it makes several appearances in the work of William Shakespeare, as seen, for example, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, written approximately 1596. (Note that the spelling now seems to mirror modern orthography.)

HELENA
O weary night, O long and tedious night,
Abate thy hour! Shine comforts from the east,
That I may back to Athens by daylight,
From these that my poor company detest:
And sleep, I beg thee, let me succor from thy cup
Lest I become as them, all wee-weed up.

The King James Bible, a project begun several years later and completed in 1611, also contains the word in many passages. Here's Matthew 27:17-24.

Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. But the chief priests and elders agitated the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather the crowd remained wee-weed up, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

As late as 1791, the phrase was still in use, as evidenced in this passage from James Boswell's The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL. D.

We got into a boat to cross over to Black-friars; and as we moved along the Thames, I talked to him of a little volume, which, altogether unknown to him, was advertised to be published in a few days, under the title of Johnsoniana, or Bon-Mots of Dr. Johnson. JOHNSON. 'Sir, it is a mighty impudent thing.' BOSWELL. 'Pray, Sir, could you have no redress if you were to prosecute a publisher for bringing out, under your name, what you never said, and ascribing to you dull stupid nonsense, or making you swear profanely, as many ignorant relaters of your bon-mots do?' JOHNSON. 'No, Sir; there will always be some truth mixed with the falsehood, and how can it be ascertained how much is true and how much is false? Besides, Sir, what damages would a jury give me for having been represented as swearing?' BOSWELL. 'I think, Sir, you should at least disavow such a publication, because the world and posterity might with much plausible foundation say, "Here is a volume which was publickly advertised and came out in Dr. Johnson's own time, and, by his silence, was admitted by him to be genuine."' JOHNSON. 'I shall not allow myself to be wee-weed up about the matter.'

although the conversation in question had taken place many years earlier, which may indicate that it had begun to fall from favor, as only a few scattered usages occurred in 19th century works of literature, and none at all in those of the 20th century.

So what to make of President Obama's utterance yesterday? It's fairly obvious that this is a deeply learned man, whose breadth and depth of knowledge encompasses not only the major issues of the day, but also classic literature, lexicology, lexicography, and the demotic phraseology of vastly different eras from our own. Rather than express surprise or confusion, perhaps the pundits might better reflect why their own intelligence is so lacking when it comes to these areas.