UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Smollett’s manipulation of language in the Tabitha Bramble and Winifred Jenkins letters in Humphry Clinker Flick, Jane 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A8 F56.pdf [ 8.91MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093423.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093423-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093423-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093423-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093423-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093423-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093423-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093423-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093423.ris

Full Text

SMOLLETT'S MANIPULATION OF LANGUAGE IN THE TABITHA BRAMBLE AND WINIFRED JENKINS LETTERS IN HUMPHRY CLINKER by Jane F l i ck B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971 A thesis submitted in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of English We accept th i s thesis as conforming to the required standard The Univers ity of B r i t i s h October, 1975 Columbia In presenting th i s thesis in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th i s thes i s fo r f i nanc i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten pe rm i ss i on . Department of English  The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date in OrtnhPr 1Q75 ABSTRACT In th i s work I intend to explain and i l l u s t r a t e the simple and systematic language processes used by Smollett ( in both simple and complex examples) and discuss the results he achieves. I intend to show that Smollett was extremely observant of normal var iat ions in the language used around him and of l i n g u i s t i c var iat ion governed by such parameters as region, socia l status, educational l e v e l , sex, or age and, that he used th i s var iety for the purpose of sa t i re and s t ra i gh t -forward humour, often producing puns, many of which have sexual and scatalogical double-entendres. Further, i t i s my contention that Smollett, fa r from confusing the reader with or ig ina l and a rb i t ra ry processes, explo i ts normal systematic processes-of- natural language to the f u l l e s t extent. I do not mean th i s to be taken as implying that he lacked o r i g i n a l i t y or c r ea t i v i t y but rather that he had the a b i l i t y to perceive that normal human language has almost unlimited potential for his par t i cu la r purposes, hitherto almost unexploited in th i s manner. Also, he had the a b i l i t y to carry out the extremely d i f f i c u l t task of opening this var iety of language to the printed page in such a way that the reader could share his appreciation. An understanding of Smol lett ' s manipulation of language w i l l enable the reader to peruse the passages under discussion with more ease 11 and s a t i s f a c t i on , and also with more accuracy than w i l l be obtained from reading some of the published explanations, ingenious though they may be. I t i s my intent ion to provide the reader with the means to decipher words in the text which might seem puzzling so that he may enjoy the word play and the social a l lus ions made through the language, ju s t as an attent ive reader might have done in the l a te eighteenth century. This study i s confined to an invest igat ion of language processes applied to l e x i ca l items; no attent ion is given to syntax or grammar although even the casual reader w i l l be aware of departures from standard grammatical pract ices, especia l ly in Win's l e t t e r s . Win's substandard grammar, l i k e her misspel l ings, contributes heavily to Smol lett ' s character izat ion of her. The words dealt with in th is study are those which deviate markedly from the standards of eighteenth century spe l l ing and which, in the mil ieu of spe l l ing reform, would s t r i ke the reader as substandard or vulgar, much in the same way that a cu l t ivated reader of the twentieth century, schooled in prescr ipt ive grammar, would ins tant ly notice the use of double negatives such as "he d idn ' t never." An examination of Win's and Tabitha 's misspell ings reveals which are merely orthographic departures from the conventional representation of spoken English and which are indicators of phonological or pronunciation var iants. Purely orthographic errors suggest the w r i t e r ' s i n f e r i o r education and, often c lose ly a l l i e d , an i n f e r i o r socia l pos i t ion. When Lady Wentworth writes " A l l my fyer syde is in good health" or refers to "the Duke of Molberry," we can understand from her phonetic spel l ings of f i r e s i de and Marlborough that she speaks a standard d i a l ec t but does not spe l l according to standard. But, when we encounter "Mr. Coshgrave, the fashioner in Shuffo lk-s t reet, tuck me out, and made me his own shecretary" (p. 211), we are to understand a d i s t i n c t l y d i f fe rent pronunciation of Cosgrave, Suffo lk, took, and secretary. The ind icat ion of a variant pronunciation might lead the reader to search out the regional and socia l d ia lects in which such variants occur to discover what possible implications the wr i ter wishes to make by recording these pronunciations. Pronunciation may also be indicated not by reported speech but by a seemingly naive form of phonetic t ranscr ipt ion - - a rather a r t f u l means of character izat ion This study, then, w i l l focus on misspell ings merely as misspel l ings and on misspell ings as indicators of pronunciation. CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Orthography 19 Background to eighteenth century spe l l ing 19 u/o_ spe l l ing var iat ions 30 Aspirat ion: h/h-less spel l ings 36 Alternate spel l ings for unstressed sy l lab les 40 Word approximations 41 Foreign words, loan words, fo lk etymology, proper names Homonym spel l ings 56 Eye Dialect 62 Misdiv is ion of a r t i c l e s 73 III. Pronunciation 77 Background to eighteenth century phonology 77 Cl ipping 84 Metathesis 86 D i s s imi la t ion : r/1 confusion 88 Ass imi lat ion 90 Consonant c luster s imp l i f i c a t i on 92 Excrescent L~d] or Ct ] 94 Loss of OH : voca l izat ion 95 Loss of [w]: vocal izat ion 96 Intrusive Cr3 97 Inserted r. to represent [cQ 97 Aspirat ion: addition and omission of Ch] 98 Interchange of Cv] for [w]; [w] for Cv] 102 Subst itut ion of [ v r ] for [wr] 104 Voicing and Devoid'ng 105 Devoicing 105 Voicing 111 Subst itut ion of [ f ] for [hw] 113 Subst itut ion of [ ? ] for Cs] 113 Subst itut ion of [ s ] for [ £ ] and [ s ] for [sH 115 Subst itut ion of [ s ] for Cs] 115 Sub s t i t i t i on of [k ] for [ t ] ; [ f ] for C©], 116 G£U and [ t ] for 10} - iv -Vowel Changes 117 Intrusive schwa 121 Subst itut ion of [ a r ] for [ a r ] 123 Raising of [£ ] to [x] 126 Raising of a&] to [fe] 128 Lowering of [fi] to [ « ] 129 Lengthening of Co] indicated by ou spe l l ing 130 Unrounding of [v] [O] 130 Miscellaneous vowel changes 131 IV. Conclusion 134 Footnotes 141 Bib!iography 164 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to acknowledge my great indebtedness to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Pa t r i c i a M. Wolfe, who has been extraord inar i ly generous with her time and her advice. I am espec ia l ly grateful for her suggestions for the organization of the thesis mater ia l . - vi -I INTRODUCTION When The Expedition of Humphry Cl inker was published in June of 1771, only three months before Smol lett ' s death, the novel must have surprised those readers who were expecting another Roderick Random (1748) or Peregrine P ick le (1751) from his pen. Smol lett ' s e a r l i e r novels focus upon one character in each and take the i r t i t l e s from the i r heroes. Humphry Cl inker can hardly be said to focus on one character and certa in ly not upon the t i t u l a r hero, Humphry, a character picked up inc identa l l y in the narrat ive. Humphry Cl inker is a novel peopled with some well-developed characters but i t i s a novel without a hero, at least without a hero who might meet the expectations of the eighteenth century reader and very s p e c i f i c a l l y a reader of Smol lett ' s novels expecting a hero in the l i ne of Roderick Random, Peregrine P i ck l e , Ferdinand Count Fathom or S i r Launcelot Greaves. Smol lett ' s e a r l i e r novels were very much a part of the picaresque t r ad i t i o n , a phenomenon which i s not surpris ing in l i gh t of the great popularity which the genre enjoyed in the period. Smollett had translated and published Le Sages' G i l Bias in 1748 jus t pr ior to the publ icat ion of Roderick Random and had begun work on a t rans lat ion of Cervantes' Don Quixote in the same year. That there was a demand for picaresque - 1 -2 l i t e r a tu re i s attested to by the several edit ions of Don Quixote in pr int at the time (and the preparation of yet another by Smol lett ) , by the popularity of Smol lett ' s own novels and, of course, by the even greater popularity of F ie ld ing ' s novels. Joseph Andrews (1742), which bore on i t s or ig ina l t i t l e page "The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews and of his Friend Mr. Abraham Adams, written in Imitation of the Manner of Cervantes' Don Quixote," leaves no doubt about th is appeal, nor do Jonathan Wild (1743), and Tom Jones (1749), the de f i n i t i v e novel of this type in English. Smol lett ' s readers, who might reasonably have antic ipated a new picaresque romp, must have been s ta r t led to f ind instead an episto lary novel - - but an episto lary novel with some differences. The immense success of the epistolary novel had been established by Richardson's novels, Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded (1740), C lar i ssa (1747-8), and S i r Charles Grandison (1753-4). Pamela inspired no less than sixteen imitations and burlesques ( including F ie ld ing ' s Shamela) and Clar i s sa has secured for i t s e l f the pre-eminent place as the de f i n i t i v e episto lary English novel. Humphry Cl inker i s not a novel in the t r ad i t i on of Richardson - - i t lacks the complexity of psychological ins ight and the intens i ty generated by a correspondence which has es sent ia l l y one subject for a focus. Humphry Cl inker has for i t s formal structure the episto lary framework, but i t i s a novel of mixed genres. It i s an adventure novel and a travel book in an episto lary package, calculated through i t s make-up to a t t rac t a wide audience. The travel book aspect of Humphry Cl inker cap i ta l i zes on the vogue for travel l i t e r a tu re - - a vogue which Smollett pays service to in the 3 prefatory l e t t e r of Henry Davis, Bookseller, in response to the Reverend Jonathan Dustwich's atteir.pt to s e l l the Humphry Cl inker letters. Mr. Davis writes: The taste of the town i s so changeable. Then there have been so many le t te r s upon travels l a t e l y published - - What between Smol le t t ' s , Sharp's, De r r i ck ' s , Thickness 's, Balt imore 's and B a r r e t t i ' s , together with Shandy's Sentimental Travels, the public seems to be cloyed with that kind of entertainment - -Nevertheless, I w i l l , i f you please, run the risque of pr int ing and publishing, and you shal l have half the p ro f i t s of the impression . . . l . (pp. 2-3). Smollett is enjoying himself, especia l ly in his acknowledgement of his own Travels Through France and I ta ly (1766) and Sterne's A Sentimental Journey Through France and I ta ly (1768), which featured many s ly digs at Smollett in the persona of the ever i r a s c i b l e t r a v e l l e r , "the learned Smelfungus".2 Besides taking advantage of the taste for travel books and for epistolary and picaresque f i c t i o n s , Smollett has added the element of the fami l i a r essay. Humphry Cl inker provides sometimes a discourse on medicine and san i tat ion, an essay on national and personal economy, an essay on taste, an essay on sociology, and sometimes a paeon for the splendours of Scotland. In th is l a t t e r case he even goes so far as to introduce "a l i t t l e ode [to Leven-Water], by Dr. Smollett, who was born on the banks of i t " (p. 249) in one of Matt 's l e t t e r s . Humphry  CI inker i s very r i ch in i t s d i ve r s i t y of topics and interest s . But Humphry Cl inker is espec ia l ly fasc inat ing as a novel of character and car icature. Through the i r d i f f e r i ng points of view the l e t te r s reveal the characters as they see themselves and as they are seen by the i r t r ave l l i ng .companions. The episto lary technique i s most valuable 4 in the f l e x i b i l i t y which i t allows through point of view. We are treated to characters who show us about themselves while t e l l i n g us about the others ' characters. These l i v e l y l e t t e r s , wr itten by a family on a tour through England and Scotland, afford us hours of pleasure as we get to know more about the wr i ter s . The pr inc ipal personage of the l e t t e r s , i f there can be said to be a pr inc ipal personage, i s Matthew Bramble. He i s a gouty country Squire who suffers from a var iety of complaints and undertakes the journey in hopes of regaining his health at one of the many spas throughout England. Matt i s e s sent ia l l y kind and generous, but these qua l i t i e s are hidden beneath a tempermental and i r a s c i b l e personal ity. He i s accompanied by his s i s t e r Tabitha, a st ingy, middle-aged v i rg in searching for a husband; by his nephew, Jeremy Melford, l a t e l y a student at Oxford, who is rather ashamed of his conservative and countr i f ied uncle; by his niece Lydia, a sentimental young g i r l fresh from a Gloucester f i n i sh ing school; and by Winifred Jenkins, an ignorant young country g i r l , and lady ' s maid to Tabitha. The l e t t e r writers correspond with persons whose l e t te r s are not included in the novel and we are l e f t to speculate upon the i r various personal i t ies from hints dropped in the l e t t e r s . The one exception i s Wilson, Lydia 's admirer. Wilson is in r e a l i t y a well-born young man, George Dennison, who disguises himself as a s t r o l l i n g player. I t i s in this guise that he meets Liddy. The l e t t e r which he writes to Liddy is a highly s t y l i zed and very stagey l e t t e r professing undying admiration. Smollett s a t i r i ze s the excessively romantic ideas of both Wilson and Liddy through the outrageously affected styles of the i r l e t t e r s . 5 Matthew writes twenty-seven l e t te r s which take up a l i t t l e more than 37 per cent of the novel. These l e t te r s are directed home to Wales to his dear f r iend and physician, Richard Lewis. Doctor Lewis i s addressed as Doctor, Lewis, and as Dear Dick, depending upon Matt 's needs and moods. It i s in these l e t te r s that the essay features are most pronounced as Matt shares his p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l , and philosophical views with his f r i end. Matthew Bramble and Doctor Lewis are equals and they may draw upon the same kinds of backgrounds of references in the i r l e t t e r s . Matt may readi ly quote a passage of Horace or al lude to some p o l i t i c a l happening, confidant that Lewis w i l l understand and possibly share his fee l ings. They are gentlemen of the world, sophisticated and well educated; they are not country bumpkins or boorish squires l i k e F ie ld ing ' s Squire Western or Vanbrugh's S i r Tunbelly Clumsey. Matt 's l e t te r s (and Lewis' by implication) are well-informed and elegantly written with a real ease of s t y le . They give the l i e to the conventional image of the Welsh squire as a ru s t i c oaf. Jery writes to S i r Watkin P h i l l i p s , a col lege f r iend at Jesus College, Oxford, and we may observe his use of several sty les of address - -Dear Knight, P h i l l i p s , and Dear Wat. It i s evident that Jery wishes to be considered a part of P h i l l i p s ' set at Oxford and he affects a fami l i a r s ty le of w r i t i n g ; his l e t te r s do not have the natural intimacy to be expected in l e t te r s between good fr iends. Jery ' s l e t te r s are informative and the narrative progress of the novel i s advanced more by Jery ' s l e t te r s than by the others. The others ' l e t te r s often serve merely as divergent commentary upon Je r y ' s . He writes only one more 6 l e t t e r than Matt but since his l e t te r s are usually longer they account for about 46 per cent of the novel. Because Jery i s not on intimate terms with P h i l l i p s , his l e t te r s are f i l l e d with detai led descriptions of incidents of travel and of his companions. This i s entertaining padding. He tends to report events f ac tua l l y although he is often at some pains to heighten the humorousness of s i tuat ions for P h i l l i p s ' benef it. Jery, by deprecating his fami ly, seeks to dissociate himself from i t ; he says, with some surpr ise, "I have got into a family of o r i g i na l s , whom I may one day attempt to describe for your amusement" (p. 8). The impl icat ion, of course, i s that he does not belong with such a co l l e c t i on . By making fun of his uncle Matt as "o ld Squaretoes" and his aunt Tabitha as an old maid, Jery draws a l i ne between himself and his elders. By making fun of Tabitha as "exceedingly starched, va in, and r id i cu lous " and Liddy as "remarkably simple and quite ignorant of the world;" he i s able to emphasize his super ior i ty to them in social and educational terms. In the cases of Tabitha and Win, he is further able to emphasize that they are Welsh bumpkins while he i s not by making fun of the i r language and of the i r dress. For Jery the impression of urbanity and polish i s everything, and he employs the t a c t i c of r i d i c u l e to reinforce i t . He i s , of course, superior to the women of the family simply because he i s a man in a man's world, and his l e t te r s show this advantage in the i r s ty le and frame of reference. This is not to say that Smollett does not bu i ld i n to , Jery ' s l e t te r s some small means of puncturing his pretensions, espec ia l ly 7 through Jery ' s use of language. The commonplace knowledge of the c lass ics so evident in Matt 's l e t te r s is also i l l u s t r a t e d in Jery ' s l e t te r s to P h i l l i p s . On one occasion, Jery quotes Horace in such a fashion that we must assume that P h i l l i p s would immediately ident i f y the reference. I r on i ca l l y Jery, who is rather vain of his e rud i t ion, 3 misquotes Horace. On another occasion, Jery t r i e s to show off his knowledge by commenting on the fau l t s of the "learned doctor ' s discourse" at Bath.^ When Smollett wants to r i d i c u l e Jery ' s pretensions v ia his language, he does not have Jery misspell words or indicate a variant or d ia lec ta l pronunciation through his spe l l ing (cf. F ie ld ing ' s Jonathan Wild), he doesn't use reported speech to indicate d ia lec t (c.-f. Chaucer's students in The Reeve's Tale), and he doesn't have Jery misuse language through malapropisms (cf. Shakespeare's Dogberry, Sheridan's Mrs. Malaprop). These are a l l methods of low humour. He uses a l l these techniques in Win's and Tabitha 's l e t t e r s , but he attacks Jery ' s use of language at a d i f fe rent and higher level by attacking the young squire's pretension to erudit ion through language. Of the remaining correspondents, Lydia Melford i s the most f luent with about 6.5 per cent of the novel taken up with her l e t te r s while the ten le t te r s of Win make up about 5.5 per cent and the s ix l e t te r s of Tabitha about 1.5 per cent. I t may come as a surprise that Liddy i s more loquacious than Win, since Liddy does not make as great an impression upon the reader. This might be explained by the rather f l a t character izat ion of Liddy - - she is l i t t l e more than the romantic stage heroine who i s a l l s e n s i b i l i t y . Liddy seems l i k e a paper-thin character when measured against the more substantial Win, who projects 8 a great flesh-and-blood v i t a l i t y through her l e t te r s and exhibits a more r e a l i s t i c concern with every day happenings. Win can f r e t about her smock f a l l i n g o f f in the bath and about having new feet knitted into her socks - - such worries are simply too real for Miss Liddy. Lydia 's diminution as a character may also be connected with the sty le of her l e t t e r s . Liddy, unlike her aunt or her aunt's maid, has had a taste of formal education (at Mrs. Jermyn's in Gloucester). Her l i t e r acy and general f a m i l i a r i t y with the ar t of wr i t ing po l i t e l e t te r s may explain why her le t ter s are less s t r i k i ng than those of Win or Tabitha. They are, for the most part, very ordinary le t te r s which any young g i r l of a reasonable education might wr ite to a dear school f r iend - - Miss Lae t i t i a ( "Letty") W i l l i s - - or to her governess -•- Mrs. Jermyn. Liddy 1 s l e t te r s may very well be too good i f we are to bel ieve many of the c r i t i c i sms of the period about l ad ie s ' l e t t e r wr i t i ng . Certa in ly , Liddy 's l e t te r s exh ib i t the strained romantic s ty le (mentioned above in connection with Wilson's l e t t e r ) but they also exhib i t a certain a r t i f i c e which was thought to be a special feature of women's l e t t e r s . Liddy 's l e t t e r to Mrs. Jermyn i s a l e t t e r in the polished school-g i r l s ty le . I t i s measured and composed and a t r i f l e s t i l t e d . The cu l t ivated ending is done to excess when Liddy concludes "I shal l have no peace of mind ' t i l I know my dear and ever honoured governess has forgiven her poor, disconsolate, f o r l o rn , / Affect ionate humble servant, t i l death, / Lydia Melford" (p. 9). This l e t t e r i s immediately followed by a l e t t e r to her "dearest Letty. " Miss W i l l i s i s treated to an 9 informal s ty le of address as Liddy plunges into the l e t t e r with a great long rush of a sentence. The l e t t e r i s a l ternate ly f u l l of set-pieces of et iquette (e. g. " i t i s a grievous addit ion to my other misfortunes, that I am deprived of your agreeable company and conversation, at a time when I need so much the comfort of your good humour and good sense"), of proverbial f i l l e r s (e. g. " l e t us t rust to time and the chapter of accidents; or rather to that Providence which w i l l not f a i l , sooner or l a t e r , to reward those that walk in the paths of honour and v i r t u e " ) , and of stagey exclamations, the high rhetor ic of melodrama (e. g. "you may t e l l him I have no occasion for a p icture, while the o r i g ina l continues engraved on my - - But no: I would not have you t e l l him that ne i ther " ) . "Dear Letty" rates only an "af fect ionate Lydia Melford" in c los ing, probably a certain sign of a genuine af fect ion (pp. 10, 11). Smol lett ' s pleasure in poking fun at such an affected s ty le of wr i t ing is obvious. He also s a t i r i ze s the content of Liddy 's l e t t e r s . For example, he has her wr i te , "I begin to be in love with so l i tude, and th i s i s a charming romantic place." Liddy dwells at some length on the pleasures of so l i tude, only to close her l e t t e r , "To make th i s place a perfect paradise to me, nothing is wanting but an agreeable companion and dear f r i end , such as my dear Miss W i l l i s " (pp. 26-27). Smollett presents us with many such instances of Liddy 's romantically muddled th ink ing; Liddy 's romantic thoughts are pa r t i cu l a r l y muddled because she parrots the language of rural sol itude while del ight ing in the pleasures of company and of the c i t i e s , Bath and London. 10 Win's and Tabitha 's l e t te r s present an en t i re l y d i f f e ren t , but equally conventional, idea of women's l e t t e r s . These women are presented as semi-1 i te ra te s , Win's inadequacies being much greater than Tabitha ' s . These two conventional views, that i s , of women's l e t te r s as charmingly but affectedly easy in the i r styles ( l i k e Liddy 's) or as i l l i t e r a t e ( l i k e Win's and Tabby's) were pronounced, not only in the eighteenth century but also in the nineteenth. Consider, for example, th i s exchange between Catherine Morland and Henry Ti lney in Northanger Abbey (1818): "But, perhaps, I keep no j ou rna l . " "Perhaps you are not s i t t i n g in th i s room, and I am not s i t t i n g by you. These are points in which a doubt i s equally possible. Not keep a journal ! How are your absent cousins to understand the tenour of your l i f e in Bath without one? How are the c i v i l i t i e s and compliments of every day to be related as they ought to be, unless noted down every evening in a journal? How are your various dresses to be remembered, and the par t i cu la r state of your complexion, and curl of your hair to be described in a l l the i r d i v e r s i t i e s , without having constant recourse to a journal? - - My dear madam, I am not so ignorant of young l ad ie s ' ways as you wish to believe me; i t i s th is de l ight fu l habit of journa l i z ing which largely contributes to form the easy s ty le of wr i t ing fo r which ladies are so generally celebrated. Every body allows that the ta lent of wr i t ing agreeable le t te r s i s pecu l ia r ly female. Nature may have done something, but I am sure i t must be es sent ia l l y ass isted by the pract ice of keeping a jou rna l . " "I have sometimes thought," said Catherine, doubtingly, "whether ladies do write so much better l e t te r s than gentlemen! That is - - I should not think the super ior i ty was always on our s ide. " "As far as I have had opportunity of judging, i t appears to me that the usual s ty le of l e t t e r -w r i t i n g among women i s f a u l t l e s s , except in three pa r t i cu la r s . " "And what are they?" "A general defic iency of subject, a tota l inattent ion to stops, and a very frequent ignorance of grammar." "Upon my word! I need not have been a f ra id of disclaiming the compliment. You do not think too highly of us in that way." "I should no more lay i t down as a general rule that women write better l e t te r s than men, than that they sing 11 better duets, or draw better landscapes. In every power, of which taste i s the foundation, excellence i s pretty f a i r l y divided between the sexes."5 Ti lney i s , of course, exaggerating for e f fec t , but his views are quite c l ea r l y stated. Win's and Tabitha 's l e t te r s are vulnerable to T i lney ' s c r i t i c i s m s , for their, strengths are minimal. Tabitha 's l e t t e r s , with only a spr ink l ing of dashes, show more attention to stops than we might reasonably expect. Win's l e t t e r s , however, are ent i re l y over-run with dashes -- that happy solution for the l e t t e r wr i ter who does not understand the f ine mechanics of punctuation. Even Liddy, unassailable by comparison, must come under attack, for she too exhib its an inattent ion to stops. As for subject, the l e t te r s of a l l three women would surely seem def i c ient to a c r i t i c l i k e Henry Ti lney. Liddy runs on about love, fr iendship and the tour i s t s ights; Tabitha about home economy, her dog's laxat ive and her own patent medicines; and Winifred about scrapes, surprises and clothes. To a man, these would hardly appeal as subjects of interest since they so thoroughly smack of "puf f s , powders, patches, B ib les , b i l l e t doux" - - the domain of women as Pope deft ly expresses i t in The Rape of the Lock. Win's and Tabitha 's l e t te r s reveal a great deal about the i r persona l i t ies . We learn that Tabitha i s an i l l -tempered and parsimonious old maid who sees herself as the great manager of the household fortunes at Brambleton H a l l ; and a l l th i s from her f i r s t l e t t e r , ostensibly designed as a l e t t e r of ins t ruct ion to the housekeeper, Mrs. Gwyllim, who receives a l l of Tabitha 's l e t te r s but one. Doctor Lewis receives a sharp l e t t e r 12 of rebuke from Tabitha, and that l e t t e r reveals her utter sel f i shness. Tabitha 's l e t te r s rarely contain any descr ipt ion of events; they are too f u l l of business and of Tabitha and they are a poor hunting ground for any commentary upon her companions. Tabitha i s b l i t h e l y unaware that she is a r i d i cu lous , antiquated harridan. In th i s respect, she may remind the reader of Congreve's Lady Wishfort, for she shares with her an absurd personal vanity impervious to a l l attack. Tabitha 's greedy nature i s apparent in every l e t t e r she wr ites. While her avariciousness i s always apparent, her lechery i s less so, but only because i t i s hidden behind a semi-transparent screen of language. Tabitha 's l e t te r s are r i f e with sexual innuendoes. She is able to a l t e r even a B i b l i c a l homily into a sexual double-entendre as she writes "I desire you w i l l redouble your care and circum-f l e x i on , that the family may be well managed in our absence; for you know, you must render account, not only to your earthly master, but also to him that is above" (p. 156). Tabitha 's d i s to r t i on of the language i s one of Smol lett ' s most malleable means of rendering her character. Win is revealed in her l e t te r s as gossipy, good-natured, impression-able, naive, and, unl ike Tabitha, generous in her wi l l ingness to share her observations and feel ings with her correspondent, her fe l low servant, Mary Jones. And, in her own way, she too i s interested in impressing her correspondent, although she does not have to work as hard as Jery to do i t . Win i s beset by the desire to be better than she i s , in short, to be as good as her "bet te r s " . Unfortunately for her, the only lady she i s able to observe at close hand i s Tabitha - - a poor model indeed. Liddy, i t seems, i s too close in age to Win to impress 13 her as a r e a l , grown-up lady. Win's l e t te r s to Mary constantly assert that Mary can have no conception of the l i f e Win i s leading away from Wales. Win lords i t over poor Mary saying at one time, "0 Molly 1 you that l i v e in the country have no deception of our doings at Bath" (p. 42) and, at another, "0 , voman! voman! i f thou had'st but the least consumption of what pleasure we scu l le r s have" (p. 109). By the end of the novel, Win has moved far above Mary - - at least as Win sees i t . And Win, who righteously asserted to Mary that she was cer ta in ly legit imate because her "parents were marred according to the r ights of holy mother crutch" (p. 338), has managed this great soc ia l leap forward by marrying the bastard son of Matthew Bramble, the footman, Humphry Cl inker. I t i s through th i s kind of comic irony and through Win's misuse of language that Smollett deflates her overblown aspirat ions. A thorough-going comic treatment of her semi - l i terate l e t te r s reveals her as a memorable and l ikeable character, while shattering her pretensions to a higher soc ia l status. Win's and Tabitha 's l e t ter s have many features in common. They are wr itten to people at home in Wales, and they share many comic overtones - - misspel l ings, malapropisms, d ia lec t features, and unintentional double-entendres. This s i m i l a r i t y i s odd when we consider Win's and Tabitha 's disparate socia l posit ions. The marks of l i t e r a cy and s t y l i s t i c consciousness which are so much a part of the l e t te r s of Tabitha 's socia l equals, Matthew, Jery and Liddy, are s t r i k i n g l y absent in her l e t t e r s . This curious point may possibly be explained by the socia l context. In the older generation, Matthew would natural ly be more educated than Tabitha, ju s t as Jery, in the younger generation, i s obviously 14 more educated than Liddy. Liddy too would probably have more formal schooling than Tabitha because the interest in educating women grew as the eighteenth century progressed. If Tabitha i s characterized as a "maiden of f o r t y - f i v e " at the date of pub l icat ion, the reader may assume that she would probably have been ready for schooling from her tenth year - - that i s , about 1736. We may discover from l i t e r a tu re of the period, from the publ icat ion of grammar and spe l l ing books, and from John Newberry's f i r s t publications s p e c i f i c a l l y for chi ldren in the 1740's, that the interest in educating women to read and write adequately was only ju s t beginning to make i t s e l f f e l t outside of London. Liddy, of course, who i s only seventeen, would have benefitted from th is movement. Even so, we must observe that Liddy 's education, beyond the question of l i t e r a c y , is i n f e r i o r to that of her brother. We cannot be surprised by the level of l i t e r a c y which Win displays in her l e t t e r s . I t i s , in f ac t , quite unexpected that Win writes as well as she does since a master was under no obl igat ion to see that his servants learned the two R's. Win's achievement of semi- l i teracy may be a r e f l e c t i on upon the congenial l i f e at Brambleton Hall under Matt Bramble's d i rect ion or i t may be a somewhat ideal ized view of servant l i t e r a c y , since any smattering of l i t e r acy would be unusual. At any rate, i t i s c ruc ia l to Smol lett ' s comic intentions to depict Win as semi - l i te ra te . It i s through her mangling of language that he i s able to present her as a l i v e l y serving g i r l with a servant 's unique point of view while introducing a new range of humour into the eighteenth century novel. 15 One of the outstanding features of Humphry Cl inker i s the deviant language found in the l e t te r s of Tabitha Bramble and, even more noticeably, in those of her maidservant, Win Jenkins. Indeed, so unusual i s the language that these le t te r s can pose a problem to the casual reader. Some readers are led to pore over them with mounting exasperation and f r u s t r a t i on , some to skim over them l i g h t l y , and some to skip them completely. The following are typical examples of passages from Win's l e t t e r s ; I have underlined the more perplexing words: 0, voman! voman! i f thou had'st but the least consumption of what pleasures we scu l lers have, when we can cunster the crabbidst buck o f f hand, and spe l l the ethnitch vords without lucking at the primmer, (p. 109) 0! that ever a gentlewoman of years and d i scret ion should tare her a i r , and disporridge herself for such a nubjack.1 (p. 306) The captain himself had a huge hassock of a i r , with three t a i l s , and a tumtawdry coat, boddered with su l fur . - - Wan said he was a monkey-bank; and the ould bot t le r swore he was the born imich of T i t i d a l 1. (p. 352) The f i r s t time I was mortally a f r a i d , [of going into the bath] and f lustered a l l day; and afterwards made believe that I had got the heddick; but mistress sa id , i f I d i dn ' t go, I should take a dose of bumtaffy . . . (p. 43). That she [the witch] mought do me no harm, I crossed her hand with a tas ter , and bid her t e l l my fortune . . . (p. 261). Such passages have also caused d i f f i c u l t y for readers f ami l i a r with eighteenth century l i t e r a tu re and even for scholars who have specia l ized in the language of these l e t t e r s . For instance, of the underlined words in the passage quoted, Boggs remarks: Perhaps to increase the l i n g u i s t i c complexity of Win's language and to puzzle future l i n g u i s t i c researchers, Smollett invented at least eight words for Win's vocabulary: s cu l l e r s , tas ter , and cunster ( in the exact sense in which he uses themT~and tumtawdry, t i t i d a l ! [ s i c ] , bum-taffy [ s i c ] , nubjack, 16 and ethnitch ( in any sense whatsoever). An invest igat ion of the methods by which Smollett coined these words i s the subject for another paper, but b r i e f l y they mean the fo l lowing: s cu l l e r s , "workers in a s c u l l e r y " ; tas ter , "a piece of money to buy a dram of s p i r i t s " ; cunster, "understand"; tumtawdry, " inelegant rough wool c loth or inelegant rough wool m u l t i -coloured c l o t h " ; t i t i d a l 1 [ s i c ] , a variant of T i t i v i l , one of the demons in the mystery plays; bum-taffy [ s i c ] , "a l a xa t i ve " ; nubjack "a fe l low f i t for hanging"; and ethni tch, an adjective meaning " ea s i l y bound together."6 Boggs attempts to explain the l ex i ca l variants by invest igat ing the possible etymological connections these words might d isp lay. He often searches fa r a f i e l d to do so. However, I believe that such an att i tude as Boggs displays in treat ing every puzzling word as i f i t were unique misrepresents the nature of Smol lett ' s achievement. I do not believe that he attains his e f fect by perverting the normal meaning of words, fa r less by creating new coinages.' 7 Rather, I intend to show that Smollett was extremely observant of normal var iat ions in the language used around him and of l i n g u i s t i c var iat ion governed by such parameters as region, socia l status, educational l e v e l , sex, or age; and, that he used th i s var iety for the purpose of sa t i re and straightforward humour, often producing puns, many of which are sexual and scatalogical double-entendres. Further, i t i s my contention that Smollett, far from confusing the reader with o r i g ina l and a rb i t ra ry processes, explo i t s normal systematic processes of natural language to the f u l l e s t extent. I do not mean th i s to be taken as implying that he lacked o r i g i n a l i t y or c r e a t i v i t y , but rather that he had the a b i l i t y to perceive that normal human language has almost unlimited potential for his pa r t i cu la r purposes, h itherto l i t t l e exploited in th i s manner. Also, he had 17 the a b i l i t y to carry out the extremely d i f f i c u l t task of opening th i s var iety of language to the printed page in such a way that the o reader could share his appreciation. In th i s work I intend to explain and i l l u s t r a t e the simple and systematic processes used by Smollett ( in both simple and complex examples) and discuss the results he achieves. An understanding of Smol lett ' s manipulation of language w i l l enable the reader to peruse the passages under discussion with more ease and s a t i s f a c t i on , and also with more accuracy than w i l l be obtained from reading some of the q published explanations, ingenious though they may be. It i s my intention to provide the reader with the means to decipher words in the text which might seem puzzling so that he may enjoy the word play and the social a l lus ions made through the language, ju s t as an attent ive reader might have done in the late eighteenth century. This study i s confined to an invest igat ion of language processes applied to l e x i c a l items; no attention i s given to syntax or grammar although even the casual reader w i l l be aware of departures from standard grammatical pract ices, especia l ly in Win's l e t t e r s . Win's substandard grammar, l i k e her misspel l ings, contributes heavily to Smol lett ' s character izat ion. The words dealt with in th i s study are those which deviate markedly from the standards of eighteenth century spe l l ing and which, in the mi l ieu of spe l l ing reform, would s t r i ke the reader as substandard or vulgar, much in the same way that a cu l t ivated reader of the twentieth century, schooled in prescr ipt ive grammar, would ins tant ly notice the use of double negatives such as "he d i dn ' t never." An examination of 18 Win's and Tabitha 's misspell ings reveals which spel l ings are merely orthographical departures from the conventional representation of spoken English and which are indicators of phonological or pronunciation var iants. Purely orthographic errors suggest the w r i t e r ' s i n f e r i o r education and, often c lose ly a l l i e d , an i n f e r i o r social pos i t ion. When Lady Wentworth writes " A l l my fyer syde i s in good health" or refers to "the Duke of Molberry", we can understand from her phonetic spel l ings of f i r e s i de and Marlborough that she speaks a standard d i a l ec t but does not spel l according to standard. But when we encounter "Mr. Coshgrave, the fashioner in Shuffo lk-st reet, tuck me out, and made me his own shecretary" (p. 211), we are to understand a d i s t i n c t l y d i f fe rent pronunciation of Cosgrave, Suffo lk, took, and secretary. The indicat ion of a variant pronunciation might lead the reader to search out the regional and soc ia l d ia lects in which such variants occur to discover what possible implications the wr i ter wishes to make by recording these pronunciations. Pronunciation may also be indicated not by reported speech but by a seemingly naive form of phonetic t ranscr ipt ion - -a rather a r t f u l means of character izat ion. This study, then, w i l l focus on misspell ings merely as misspel l ings, and on misspell ings as indicators of pronunc iat ion.^ I would l i k e f i r s t to discuss the orthographic features of Win's and Tabitha 's l e t te r s and then fol low with a discussion of the variant pronunciations s ignal led by the misspel l ings. I t i s worthwhile, however, to look at the pedagogical background against which the women's spe l l ing practices would be viewed and to consider the att itudes to spe l l ing which had been established by the late eighteenth century. II Orthography Background to Eighteenth Century Spel l ing Seventeenth century orthoepists were interested in spe l l ing from a theoret ical point of view. They could see that spe l l ing was inconsistent in many words, and that one word could be spel led many ways; that words which were pronounced s im i l a r l y were not spelled s im i l a r l y ; and that there was no consistent re lat ionship between phonetics and orthography. For th is reason, many orthoepists often directed the i r attent ion to sound-symbol relat ionships and discussions of the theory of sounds (e. g. Richard Robinson's Art of Pronuntiation [1716H). The l a te r t r ad i t i o n , however, owes more to the ideas of Mulcaster (Elementarie, 1582) who was concerned mainly that each word should have one agreed spe l l ing which everyone would use; his purpose was pr imar i ly pract ica l and pedagogical. It i s not surpr is ing that th i s view should be seized upon in the eighteenth century; the r i se of the middle class was accompanied by a r i se in l i t e r acy with the be l i e f that l i t e r a cy was a mark of socia l status. And one of the ways of determining degrees of l i t e r a cy was to establ ish a standard for spe l l ing (and l a t e r , for pronunciation). Eighteenth century spe l l ing writers were not interested in theory but in conformity to an accepted socia l standard. One of - 19 -20 the by-products of th i s growing desire for uniformity was the establishment of spe l l ing pronunciations. The new knowledge of spe l l ing was responsible for changing the pronunciation of certa in words whose written forms for one reason or another do not indicate pronunciations which had become t r a d i t i o n a l . For instance, Theobald had a history of being pronounced Tibbald (as indicated) by Pope's spe l l ing of the name of Lewis Theobald, the Shakespearean commentator), but because the pronunci- , ation has been a ltered to r e f l e c t the spe l l i ng and i s now Theobald, i t i s un l ike ly that a London bus dr iver would respond to a request to be put down at Tibbald ' s Road since the pronunciation is now o ld -1 ? fashioned i f not altogether archaic. The North American pronunciation of eat with a long e_ sound CiH as opposed to the standard B r i t i s h pronunciation of eat with a»he-rf_e sound CfiD i s another ready example of a spe l l ing pronunciation. The snob value of correct spe l l ing and a good pronunciation began to be recognized in the eighteenth century, and i t i s in th i s period that we f ind the beginnings of modern att itudes to spe l l ing and pronunciation. Matters of spe l l ing and pronunciation were of interest at an e a r l i e r date, of course, but the awareness of "correctness" at a broad level of l i t e r a t e society was not developed. Spel l ing was usually included in t reat i ses on grammar or in word l i s t s ; i t rare ly rated i t s own t reat i se . Grammar and spe l l ing books had begun to appear by the middle of the sixteenth century with such works as The Opening of the Unreasonable Writing of Our Inglish Toung (1551), An Orthographie (1569) and A Methode or Comfortable Beginning for Al1  Unlearned (1570) by John Hart and, a l i t t l e l a t e r , Wil laim Bul lokar ' s 21 Booke at Large (1580) and Br ief Grammar (1586) . I J In the seventeenth century too, spe l l ing was usually included in more general works. The interest in spe l l i ng reform did grow, however; Alexander G i l ' s Logonomia  Anglica (1619), Charles But le r ' s English Grammar (1633) and James Howell 's The New English Grammar (1662) were widely known. The works of Richard Hodges, pa r t i cu l a r l y A Special Help to Orthographie (1643) and The Pla inest Directions for the True Writing of English (1649), contributed to the developing interest in spe l l ing as a separate area of knowledge. The new emphasis on spe l l i ng was, of course, related to a growing interest in phonology (or orthoepy as i t was then ca l l ed ) . The works of the spe l l ing reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth century were not as strongly prescr ipt ive as those produced in the eighteenth century. The eighteenth century saw a r i se in the number of books which dealt exc lus ive ly with spe l l i ng ; the best known of these were El isha Coles ' The Compleat English Schoolmaster (1674) [ a precursor, but important in the eighteenth century], John Jones' P ract ica l Phonography (1701), Thomas Tu i te ' s The Oxford Spel l ing Book (1726), the anonymous I r i sh Spel1ing Book (1740), Solomon Lowe's C r i t i c a l Spel1ing Book (1755), and James Elphinston 's A Minniature Ov Inglish Orthoggraphy (1795). By the end of the century, spe l l ing - - that i s , " cor rect " spe l l ing — had acquired a great social value. The spe l l ing reformers were joined by the lexicographers, who earnestly believed that i t was possible to es tab l i sh , once and for a l l , a uniform spe l l ing which would be accepted as the correct form 22 for each and every English word. What was probably the most important eighteenth century development in the English language, the publ icat ion of Dr. Johnson's Dictionary in 1755, contributed might i ly to th i s be l i e f and the present-day image of Dr. Johnson as the divine lawgiver cum lexicographer i s the resu l t . While Johnson did acknowledge, for the most part, the pr ior claims of usage and did dispute the appeals to l og i c , Latin grammar, and entrenched prejudice which formed the foundation for the claims made by his contemporaries, his admiration for those who were his socia l betters often influenced his judgement. Along with his t yp ica l eighteenth century desire to " f i x " the language went a good deal of respect for upper class usage. The customary spel l ings and pronunciations of the upper class provided the model for "correctness" in many instances. Johnson's desire to " f i x " the language i s necessari ly t i ed up with his b e l i e f that "For Pronunciation, the best general rule is to consider those as the most elegant speakers who deviate least from the written word" ( in his section on orthography). Although Johnson's prescr ipt ions for orthography were less r i g i d than those for phono logy j 4 the resu l t was approximate in socia l terms. The implications of Johnson's "best general ru le " are obvious; in order to speak "e legant ly" i t i s necessary to follow a uniform orthographical standard without deviation. A deviation in speech might eas i ly resu l t from a deviant, that i s to say, inelegant, orthography. C lear l y , then, persons who depart from the standard spe l l ing are inelegant and w i l l , by the i r orthographic usage, label themselves as such - - or in Johnson's more opprobrious terms, class themselves with "the lowest of the people." By the end of the century, th i s value judgement, based as i t i s upon spe l l i ng , is a commonplace. 23 The lexicographers following Johnson tended to reinforce his view, especia l ly with regard to analogy, and agreement between spe l l ing and pronunciation. Under these circumstances, as the emphasis on "fashionable" pronunciation grew, there developed a kind of class d ia lec t through the medium of spe l l i ng . John Jones' P ract ica l Phonography (1701) was rather advanced in using pronunciation via a spe l l ing book as a s e l l i n g point. In his preface, he promised The Book w i l l shew any Beginner (who must without Instruction:, sound Words according to the v i s i b l e Letters ; and therefore very often f a l s l y ) to sound a l l Words r i g h t l y , neatly, and  fashionably (how d i f fe rent soever they are, by view of the Letters , from the r ight Sound) at f i r s t s ight, without a_ teacher This i s a step away from the usual aim of spe l l ing books, l i k e Co les ' , to render English " i n the plainest order." The concern for fashion is of par t i cu la r interest with regard to the misspell ings in Tabitha's and Win's l e t t e r s , and i t is s i gn i f i can t that lexicographers and orthographers take especial care in advising the ladies - - "The Fai r Sex" - - of the soc ia l consequences which might ar ise from bad spe l l i ng . Stephen Jones, in his advertisement for A Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language (1796) observes: The conversation of the Fa i r Sex, animated with gracefu l -ness and elegance of d i c t i o n , never f a i l s to charm on paper. They always succeed in bearing o f f the pr ize of ep is to lary ease; but i t sometimes happens, that perfect accuracy of spe l l i ng is unregarded in the midst of a copious and genial flow of sentiment. — Whenever, therefore, any doubt may ar i se respecting the accepted mode of spe l l ing a word, reference to th i s small cabinet w i l l immediately remove i t . — The refined and del icate sentiments of a lady, when corning through the medium of a pen, should always appear in a corresponding dress. — She should remember, that  the purer the snow, the most conspicuous the speck.To" 24 Jones' appeal for correct spe l l i ng assumes an interest in the soc ia l advantage of correctness, and i t is amusing to observe the way in which he insinuates a connection between pur ity of spe l l ing and pur i ty of character. Jones couches the d e s i r a b i l i t y of good spe l l ing in very t e l l i n g terms. He speaks not merely of prof ic iency in s pe l l i n g ; instead, true to the s p i r i t of the times, he speaks of "perfect accuracy". His appeal is calculated to make the l ad ie s ' minds run along the tracks of fashion - - "gracefulness," "elegance," "the accepted mode" and "corresponding dress," these are a l l the concerns of those who wish no other aim in l i f e but to charm, e i ther in the salon or, as Jones suggests, on paper. And i f they are to charm on paper, i t must be in le t te r s since "ep i s to lary ease" was i t s e l f the height of fashion in the age of s e n s i b i l i t y . The publ ication of Lady Mary Wortley Montague's Persian Letters in 1763 was a great sensation, and i t was possible for one to become famous, l i k e Horace Walpole, merely for wr i t ing l e t t e r s . Few women were such s k i l l e d l e t t e r writers as Lady Mary Wortley Montague, El izabeth Montagu or Fanny Burney, but ladies of fashion were concerned to wr ite we l l . The importance of the l e t t e r as a vehicle for sentiment as well as information was undisputed, in l i t e r a r y as well as private l i f e . The epistolary novel enjoyed a considerable vogue from i t s r i se in the middle of the century with Richardson's Pamela, begun as a series of model l e t te r s for the ins t ruct ion of would-be wr i te r s , to i t s decline in the nineteenth century with Jane Austen's Lady Susan (posthumously published in 1871 , but probably wr itten in 1 7 9 3 - 4 ) J 7 The l e t te r s in the novels of the period were usually 25 we l l -wr i t ten , of course, and correct ly spel led. The reader of Pamela must exercise an extremely w i l l i n g suspension of d i sbe l i e f in accepting Pamela Andrews' l e t te r s as the work of a common serving g i r l . Apart from the l e t t e r s ' eth ical concerns, which F ield ing could not r e s i s t s a t i r i z i n g in Shamela and Joseph Andrews, Pamela's l e t te r s are too well wr i t ten. The reader of Humphry C l inker , however, can read i ly accept Win Jenkins ' l e t te r s as the more l i k e l y productions of a servant, not only because she offers a d i s t i n c t l y servant-centred view of her l i t t l e world, but also because her s ty le i s so unfashionably low and her spe l l ing so outrageously bad. For the eighteenth century reader attuned to the controversies over spe l l ing - - the re la t ion of "cor rect " spe l l ing to "correct " pronunciation as a social indicator or the movement to introduce spel l ings based upon phonetic pr inc ip les - - Win's spel l ings would provide much merriment. The e r r a t i c spe l l ing in Win's and Tabitha 's l e t te r s immediately s t r ikes the reader's eye. We must, however, give these spel l ings more than a cursory examination i f we are to determine whether the e f fect is meant to be one purely of misspell ing or whether Smollett i s interested to show variant pronunciations. The fact that much of the humour i s los t i f the passages are merely heard and not seen suggests that the visual impact i s s i gn i f i can t . I s h a l l , therefore, discuss the purely orthographic aspects of Smol lett ' s representation of Win's and Tabitha 's d i a lec t insofar as I can disentangle th i s from the question of the i r indiv idual e locut ion. Smollett cap i ta l i zes on the growing acceptance of the idea of accurate spe l l ing as an ind icator , not only of l i t e r a cy but also of 26 soc ia l status. He i s able to use the spe l l ing - - or misspel l ing - -practices of Win and Tabitha as characteriz ing features. Win may be quickly placed as a semi - l i terate servant wr i t ing the sort of l e t t e r a reader might expect from a flesh-and-blood maid servant. Tabitha 's l e t t e r s , however, o f fer more of a surprise. The content of her l e t t e r s , the instruct ions to the head of a household for the management of a country estate, place her s o c i a l l y , but the sty le and the spe l l ing are unexpected; a reader might reasonably expect her to present a more l i t e r a t e front than she does. While Tabitha 's mistakes in spe l l ing and word use are proportionately fewer than Win's, they stand out more; f i r s t l y because the reader sees the errors as more glar ing in the l e t te r s of a lady - - even a countr i f ied lady - - than in the l e t te r s of a servant (give or take the convention of the a r t i c u l a t e , highly s k i l l e d Pamela Andrews), and secondly, because Tabitha 's l e t te r s are otherwise quite conventional. They lack such ungainly grammatical structures as Win's "being as how I nose what I nose" or "Miss Liddy had l i k e to have run away". I t i s possible to read aloud a l e t t e r of Tabitha 's to a person unfamil iar with Humphry C l inker , s l i de over the fun provided by the misspell ings and homonyms and concentrate instead upon the puns and malapropisms. The humour ar i s ing from the orthography is uniquely dependent upon the re lat ionsh ip of the reader to the printed page. There i s simply no way in which the humour can be transmitted through another form. While i t i s conceivable (though not l i k e l y ) that a drama or movie could be made of such episto lary works as Richardson's C lar i ssa or Burney's Eve!ina (1778), i t i s impossible to imagine a 27 successful transfer for Humphry Cl inker in general or the characters of Win and Tabitha in pa r t i cu la r . In one sense, then spe l l ing i s a l l , and Smollett has thrown open the i r l e t te r s with an i n v i t a t i on to indulge in the socia l snobbery of the times and pass judgement - - a l be i t a l ight-hearted one — on his Welsh lady and her maid. The l e t te r s of Win would doubtless afford great pleasure to many ladies because they o f fe r a very real reason for enjoyment - - almost any l i t e r a t e lady wr i t ing could feel superior to Win. Smollett has also ant ic ipated his readers' enjoyment of the humorous p o s s i b i l i t i e s resu l t ing from a genuine "inelegance" in spe l l ing and inv i ted them to surrender themselves, in a way that Stephen Jones would have found abhorrent, to the power of "the f a i r sex" - - Win and Tabitha? - - to charm on paper. Smollett i s able to use the spe l l i ng to s a t i r i z e the soc ia l affectat ions of Tabitha and Win. Tabitha 's pretense to a proper basic education is badly punctured when she fractures common foreign words as well as common English words. <^  Noncompush^ for non compos ( 4 4 ) , ^ ^bum-daffee)> for baume de vie (6) and ^neglejay^ for negligee (6) i l l u s t r a t e Tabitha 's powers. \^Neglejay^, however, does seem to represent a f a i r attempt at French for Tabitha. Win's pretensions are jus t as humorously dealt with. Win affects the education of a superior lady ' s maid and lords i t over Mary Jones: . . . and I pray of a l l love, you w i l l mind your v r i t i n g and your s p i l l i n g ; f o r , craving your pardon, Molly, i t made me suet to disseyfer your l a s t scrabble, which was delivered by the hind at Bath - - 0, voman! voman! i f thou hadst but the least consumption of what pleasure we scu l le r s have, when we can cunster the crabbidst buck of f hand, and spel l the ethnitch vords without lucking at the primmer. (109) 28 Win"a adjurations, ending as they do with a touch of sorrow for poor Molly who cannot, l i k e herself , have any conception of the pleasures which scholars have who can construe t e r r i b l y d i f f i c u l t books in an e f fo r t l e s s or off-hand way are espec ia l ly h i l a r i ou s . Win must turn th i s great g i f t not to crabbed books - - which she can construe with ease (or so she says) - - but to Mol ly ' s l e t te r s which she must sweat to decipher. Though Win i s obviously only semi - l i te rate herse l f , she boasts to the other servants of her superior s k i l l s . Smollett pa ra l l e l s Win's a f fectat ion of education in another character t r a i t , Win's personal conceit. Win manages to deceive herself into thinking that she gives the impression of being more a t t rac t i ve phys ica l ly and more elegantly dressed than she i s . Writing from London ( in the l e t t e r quoted above) Win boasts to Molly that she was so well dressed and so much the mirror of fashion that she was "taken by lamp-light for an iminent poul terer ' s daughter" (109). Surely th i s confusion represents the attainment of the pinnacle of recognition in the beau monde! Win, in addition to deluding herse l f , fancies that she w i l l improve her stat ion in the world i f she copies the manners of a lady. And to Win's mind, she i s fortunate enough to serve a real lady - - Tabitha - - who provides a ready model. Win's lack of experience, of course, makes i t impossible for her to have a standard for judging Welsh ladies much less English lad ies. The resu l t of Wim's misguided emulation i s predictably funny, espec ia l ly because of the great discrepancy in the i r ages. Jery, at one point describes th i s emulation to his f r iend P h i l l i p s : 29 Nature intended Jenkins for something very d i f fe rent from the character of her mistress; yet custom and habit have effected a wonderful resemblance betwixt them in many par t i cu la r s . Win, to be sure, i s much younger and more agreeable in her person; she i s l ikewise tender-hearted and benevolent, qua l i t i e s for which her mistress i s by no means remarkable, . . . but then she seems to have adopted Mrs. Tabby's manner with her cast cloaths. - - She dresses and endeavours to look l i k e her mistress, although her own looks are much more engaging. - - She enters into her scheme of oeconomy, learns her phrases, repeats her remarks, imitates her s t i l e in scolding the i n f e r i o r servants, and, f i n a l l y , subscribes i m p l i c i t l y to her system of devotion . . . (p. 208). Jery ' s remarks indicate that Win's copying of her mistress ' s ty le extends to language - - " learns her phrases, repeats her remarks" and to her s ty le of speaking. Since we know nothing of her upbringing, i t i s possible to speculate that she learned her l e t te r s from Tabitha. Jery would probably not be surprised to f ind Win copying Tabitha 's spe l l ing too. Because Win's and Tabitha's spe l l ing ( i . e. misspell ings) are s t r i k i n g l y s imi la r in many cases, we are able to speculate upon the p o s s i b i l i t y that they represent variant pronunciations; th i s aspect of the spel l ings w i l l be discussed l a t e r . But apart from indicat ing pronunciation, Smollett uses simple misspell ings for d i f fe rent purposes. The mere fact that a word i s misspelled at a l l affords the reader an opportunity to feel superior to and to laugh at the i l l i t e r a t e wr i te r . In addit ion, male readers have an addit ional source of amusement in that both writers are females - - usually considered less g i f ted i n t e l l e c t u -a l l y , and ce r t a i n l y , in f ac t , less educated than the i r male contemporaries. Furthermore, the type of misspell ing allows Smollett to d i f f e ren t i a te between the social levels of Tabitha as mistress and Win as servant. Thus misspell ings are used as a means of comic character izat ion and 30 to h ighl ight humorous social s i tuat ions. For instance, a misspel l ing of baume da vie by Tabitha as^bum-daffee^>(6) and by Win as ^bumtaffy^ (43)20 i l l u s t r a t e s a social difference as well as a difference in pronunciation. Tabitha 's spe l l i ng , although a de f in i te departure from the French, gives the reader the clue necessary to understand Win's version. Tabitha 's spe l l ing shows that she knows the words baume de vie are, somehow, separate French forms even though she may never have seen them wr i t ten , that the c[ i s e s sent i a l , and that the accent f a l l s on the f i na l s y l l ab le - - th is she indicates by doubling the f i n a l _e to represent H i T h e subst i tut ion of u^  for o_, very common in Win's l e t te r s (and possibly suggesting a pronunciation variant since Win seems to try to spel l phonetical ly when she is in doubt), i s not s i gn i f i can t in Tabitha's l e t t e r s . u/o Spel l ing Variations As with most of Smol lett ' s spe l l ings , th is use of u^  for c^  i s not a purely random deviation but i s , instead, made plaus ible by a common feature of standard English spe l l i ng . Many modern English words which are pronounced with [A] are spel led with o_, as son, come, honey, in contrast to sun, hum, runny, where u i s used. This var iat ion has i t s o r ig in in early Middle Engl ish, where o_ was often (but not consistently) used where Old English had employed u^  for the sound [V] when th i s occurred next to such l e t te r s as y_, w, n_, or m, since the sequences such as vu^ , wu, uii, and urn were not very leg ib le in the contemporary cal l igraphy. This u/o var iat ion for ME [ A 3 from NE L\r] i s now f i rmly embedded in standard orthography, and i t is not surpr is ing that someone 31 imperfectly educated should become confused and extend th i s var iat ion to words normally spelled with o_. Thus, where educated people use o for LtO, Co3 as in l o rd , pot, and either u or o for [A] as in son, sun, Win generalizes th i s to use e ither u_ or o^  not merely for [A] but also for CPG, L~P] and also for [V]; e. g. <^buck^ for book, <^futt^ for foot , ^stud^ for stood. The resu l t i s that in Win's spel l ings u/o are t o t a l l y confused, and the choice of spe l l ing seems often to depend on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a pun e. g. ^bumbeseens^ (bum-be-seen) for bombazine (44). Smollett i s able to i n jec t a pun while adding to his character i -zation of her as a semi-1 i t e r a te . The consistency of Win's use of u for o_ might at f i r s t glance seem to suggest a consistency in pronunciation; that i s , that Win has fronted and lowered [V] to LX] <(lucking^ for looking (109), and [fcf] to D\] < (cu l l i ck^for chol ic (307) with some regu lar i ty . But, i t i s probably the resu l t more of spe l l i ng confusion than of pronunciation. A glance at Win's spel l ings reveals the fol lowing changes: Misspel l ing Standard Spel l ing Page Reference u_ for o_; usually [pO or [OH bumbeseens bombazines 44 bumtaffy* baume de vie 43 cuddling cod!ing 307 cul1ick cho l i c 307 cu l ly - f lower caul i f lower 220 cumpliments compliments 353 cunster conster construe 109 cunty county 43 Dunquickset Don Quixote 306 gumbustion combustion 43 huggling ogling 220 Macully Macawly 260 a nubjack an object 306 pumpydoor pompadour 44 32 scuf f le scoffer 306 scu l le r s scholars 109 smuck smock 261, 337 su l l en l y solemnly 307 Sunders Saunders 260 Tummas Thomas 307 tumtawdry Tom-tawdry 352 u^  for o; usually [V] buck book 109, 338 cuck cook 70, 71 f u t t foot 108 hornbuck hornbook 155, 221 luck look 44 lucking looking 109 stud stood 155 tuck took 155, 337, 307 * note that Win must have known an old-fashioned pronunciation of baume / balm as [bowx] --- by then i t would probably be [baa-.trG or [bcum] as today in Standard English. Several of these spel l ings have an added interest in that they also suggest d i a l ec t pronunciations, ^ fu t t^ , ^stud^, and ^tuck^.^ Since th i s kind of spe l l ing confusion i s very s l i gh t in Tabitha 's l e t t e r s , we are able to assume that Tabitha i s better educated - - as she natura l ly would be - - and has a wider knowledge of u/o spe l l ing conventions. But to return to Win's s pe l l i n g , ^bumtaffyy ; Win duplicates the u^  of Tabitha 's in ^bum^, but the d appears as t_ here as in several other of Win's misspelled words and the f i n a l quantity, the ind icat ion of French accentuation, is missing. Win has not, at the time of sett ing out from Monmouthshire, any d i rect contact with French usage and cer ta in l y she has none of the advantages (which Tabitha questionably exhib its ) of a passing f a m i l i a r i t y with the language. It i s not unt i l she goes to a French f r i s eu r in London that Win "discovers" French, only to write a l i t t l e sample of her newly acquired French for the 33 benefit of Molly: . . . I have had my hair cut and pippered, and singed, and bolstered, and buckled, in the newest fashion by a French freezer - - Parley vow Francey - - Vee madrnansell - - I now carr ies my head higher than arrow private gentlewoman of Vales. (109) I f th i s i s the extent of Win's knowledge of French, i t i s not surpr is ing that ^bumtaffy^ should be her nearest approximation of baume de v i e . ^ The number of subst itut ions of for o_ in Tabitha 's l e t te r s is very l imited when compared with those of Win noted above. Again, i t seems un l ike ly that any of these variants are connected with actual pronunciation. Instead, the a l te rat ion indicates a comic lowering of the words in which i t occurs. Smollett gets a great deal of mileage out of these spe l l i ng errors , since rare ly i s he content with only one e f fect . As well as suggesting lack of l i t e r a cy and a personal self-deception as to the extent of the i r achievements, many of Win's and Tabitha 's misspell ings produce puns - - frequently with sexual and scatalogical imp l i cat ions .^ 3 ^Bum-daffee^ takes the French o r i g ina l down a notch, and Smollett has embedded i t in a series of d i rect ions to Mrs. Gwyllim concerning Tabitha 's patent medicines; Williams may bring over my bum-daffee, and the v io l with the easings of Dr. H i l l ' s dock-water, and Chowder's l a c k s i t i f . The poor creature has been t e r r i b l y constuprated ever since we l e f t huom. (6) In the context, ^bum-daffee^ seems to be as much regarded as a laxat ive as a restorat ive and Tabitha moves eas i l y to the subject of easings ( i . e. dung) although she means to say essence of dock-water, on to a laxat ive for her dog and a discussion of the animal 's const ipat ion. If the misspel l ing does not simply lower the word ^bum-daffee^ through sound confusion, the context sinks i t completely. 34 ^Guzz l i n g^ for gosling (274) goes through the same kind of change in English. The vu lgar i ty of the word adds a note of humour and suggests something about Tabitha 's stinginess in running the Bramble household. Tabitha worries about the hinds having "excess to the strong bear" (6). She means, of course, that she can ' t bear the idea of the servants having access to the beer, and th i s i s only one of many l i t t l e economies she i n s i s t s upon in her l e t te r s to Mrs. Gwyllim since she i s determined that she "won't loose a cheese-paring" (44) i f she can help i t . In a l a te r l e t t e r when she supposes "there i s a power of turks, chikings, and guzzling about the house" (274) the reader is reminded of her obsession with f r uga l i t y and her fears that the servants w i l l be romping and guzzling beer while she i s away. The mistaken form of ^guzz l ing^ for goslings underlines the intention of the pun, since ^chick ings^ for chickens and ^turks^ for turkeys both reta in the plural while goslinqs is converted to the s ingular, ^guzzling^. In her f i r s t l e t t e r , Smollett uses another u^  for o_ spe l l ing to make a pun of the same kind. She wr i tes ; "I desire y o u ' l l clap a pad-luck on the wind-s e l l e r , and l e t none of the men have excess to the strong bear" (6). X^Pad-luck^ for pad-lock, l i k e ^excess^ for access, suggests a contrary meaning since i t i s the luck of foot-pads, pa r t i cu l a r l y wine-cel lar foot-pads, against which Tabitha i s anxious to lock her door. Smollett pokes fun at her absurd concern while suggesting that she can ' t s p e l l . ^Rumping^ for romping appears when Tabitha wr i tes , "I know that hussy, Mary Jones, loves to be rumping with the men" (6). Tabitha is anxious to dampen the high s p i r i t s of her servants who enjoy the pleasant past-times of a pot of beer and a good romp. Instead of merely 35 suggesting that Mary should rest ra in her high s p i r i t s , Tabitha suggests through the subst i tut ion of rumping that Mary is promiscuous and enjoys rumping which, as Farmer t e l l s us in Slang and Its Analogues, was an eighteenth century slang term for copulation. The most obvious of the sexual puns i s Tabitha 's use of (accunt^ for account (156, 274, 351) in such statements as "you must render accunt, not only to your earthly master, but also to him that is above" (156) and "I desire you w i l l get your accunts ready for inspection" (351). In the f i r s t instance, Smollett gets in another joke as well as the sexual pun by making fun of the language of the methodist preachers by playing with the text , "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar 's ". Tabitha also writes "I hope you w i l l keep accunt of Roger's purseeding . . ." (274). This l a t t e r statement i s followed a l i t t l e further along by Tabitha 's wish that "Roger search in to , and make a general clearance of the s l i t holes which the maids have in secret. " In both cases, Roger (slang for the penis) i s probably well equipped to deal with Tabitha 's inst ruct ions. This kind of sexual pun is very common in Tabitha 's l e t te r s and, of course, in other l i t e r a tu re as 24 we l l . Even though Win uses u^  for o^  with greater frequency th i s form, not as ^accunt^, but as ^cunty^ for county (43), appears in her l e t te r s only once ( i t i s otherwise spelled co r rec t l y , p. 352). Although Win does not exh ib i t Tabitha 's obsession with sexual matters and man-trapping - - at least not to a comparable degree -•- we cannot mistake the sexual double-entendre embedded in her l e t t e r when she writes (of a would-be su i tor of Tabitha 's) "There i s S i r Yury M ic l i gu t , 36 of Balnaclinch in the cunty of Kalloway." She mangles Ballynahinch in Galway in such a way to produce, unmistakeably, " ba l l in a c l inch in the cunty" with an obliviousness of her creat ion, of course. While i t might be argued that ^cunty^ was a variant pronunciation, th i s i s highly un l ike ly since cunt had as notable a use (and history of use) in sexual slang in the eighteenth century as i t does now. It i s also d i f f i c u l t to imagine a plaus ible mispronunciation which th i s spe l l i ng might otherwise represent. Aspi rat ion: h/h-less spel l ings Any reader of Win's l e t te r s cannot help but be struck by her obvious d i f f i c u l t i e s with asp i rat ion; H's pop up in unexpected places and as cheerfu l ly disappear when you expect to f ind them. This form of misspel l ing i s found ch i e f l y in Win's l e t t e r s ; there are only a few instances of the addition of h_ in Tabitha 's l e t te r s and none of the dropping of h_. The fact that h_ was never pronounced has l i t t l e or no social and regional s ign i f icance - - v i r t u a l l y no one pronounced i t . But educated people knew that although h_ was not pronounced many words that began with a vowel ( in pronunciation) were spelled with J i , and they knew which words they were. Win, however, knows only that some words which are pronounced with an i n i t i a l vowel are spelled with h_, but does not know which they are. Therefore, her spe l l ing errors t e l l us nothing pa r t i cu l a r l y s i gn i f i cant about her pronunciation. They do, however, t e l l us (a) that her education i s l imited and her spe l l ing imperfect and (b) that she has social asp i rat ions, wishing to ape her 37 betters, since a person t o t a l l y without an awareness of the soc ia l s ign i f icance of jx would simply omit a l l h 's. The reduced number of confusions in Tabitha 's l e t te r s would suggest that she knows the standard inconsistencies in the English spel l ings for words such as he i r , honour, herb, and hour. Win, however, b l i t h e l y writes ( h a i r ) for ai_r (261 , 306, 352), ( a m p for harm (219, 261), ( h a i r ) for heir (337) and (hearth) for earth (155), in a haphazard run at asp i rat ion. Of Win's select ion of unaspirated forms,(umble) for humble (338), and (umphry) and (umpry^ for Humphry (107, 108) were normally unaspirated in standard eighteenth century usage and seem, therefore, to represent misspell ings only. That is to say, these 27 spel l ings are approximate phonetic spel l ings of standard pronunciations of her day although the modern reader might not recognize them as such. The contemporary reader would very l i k e l y have registered a smile at Win's ignorance of spe l l ing and not at Win's "vulgar" pronunciation. Aspiration i s another area in which spe l l ing pronunciation has had some e f fec t ; many words which were unaspirated in early Modern English have come to be aspirated in present day Engl ish, (as for example, hospital which was t r ad i t i o na l l y pronounced " o s p i t a l " or oo " s p i t t l e " ) . James Elphinston, using his own form of phonetic t ranscr ipt ion to put the case for orthographical reform, is a good source for the or ig ina l pronunciation of some of these words: 8. 0V FALSE ASPIRACION But no example can warrant dhe aspir ing i d e l l e r , dhat pretends to lead he i r , heritage, her i tab le , he r i to r ; h_erb, herbage, he rba l i s t ; honour, honorary, honourable; and even er r i tage, e r r i t a b e l , e r r i t o r ; erb, erbage, e r ba l i s t ; onnor, onnorary, onnorabel; widh dhe umbel umor ov dhe prezzent 38 our; hwich doubtless can alone be ca l led our our. Yet aspiracions cannot be denied to 1 i n he r r i t , i n h e r i t a n c e , i nhe r r i t o r , heredditary. 9 Elphinston, wr i t ing about twenty-five years a f te r the publ icat ion of Humphry C l inker , confirms some of Win's usages as her own kind of spe l l ing pronunciations. With the exception of ('umble^ and <(l)mphry}, however, i t does appear that Win's sporadic asp i rat ions, unlike the u/o spe l l ing var iat ion discussed above, may indicate an actual representa-t ion of pronunciation and w i l l be discussed below under that heading. The few fau l ty aspirations which appear in Tabitha 's l e t te r s a l l involve the unnecessary addition of h_ and the context would suggest that the misspell ings are not ind icat ive of pronunciation as are Win's. (Haired") for aired (274), (Harse^ for Arse (274), ^hearth^ for earth (78), and ^ H o y d e n ' f o r Elden's (274), are Tabitha 's only departures, and a l l have comic overtones. Tabitha, in ant ic ipat ion of Lismahago's v i s i t to Brambleton Hall for the winter ' s duration, 3^ 1 d i rects Mrs. Gwyllim to spare no pains in preparing the house: . . . burn a fagget every day in the yellow damask room: have the tester and curtains dusted, and the father-bed and matrosses well haired, because, perhaps, with the b l i s s i ng of haven, they may be yoosed on some occasion. (274) Smollett, by s l i p p i n g ^ w e l l ha i red^ and ^father-bed^> into Tabitha 's d i rect ions , introduces a sexual double-entendre which intimates that Lismahago's v i s i t i s not the only thing which Tabitha i s ant i c ipat ing . ^Well haired^ i s doubly funny as i t was a widely used descr ipt ive term for l ivestock.31 Second only to Tabitha 's obsession with man-hunting is her concern with the management of Brambleton Hall and of the l ivestock in pa r t i cu la r . I t i s through the l ivestock that Tabitha 39 i s able to further indulge her greed by making a l i t t l e extra money for herself (see her l e t t e r s , pp. 6, 44, 78, 274). Husbandry, animal or otherwise, is a subject very near and dear to the heart of Tabitha, and Smollett does not l e t s l i p a chance to poke fun at Tabitha 's "earthiness". In the same l e t t e r , Tabitha describes the ( pea r l s ) ( i . e. peri Is) of her t rave l s , espec ia l ly her v i s i t to the Devi 1's Harse a-pike and, Hoyden's Hole , these famous sights being "The Dev i l ' s Arse in the Peaks " 3 2 and "Elden's Hole" (274 ) . 3 3 The use of (Har se ) for Arse i s surpr is ing here because i t seems unusual that Smollett does not seize the opportunity to cap i t a l i ze on the reference to Arse and l e t the word stand without the h_, pa r t i cu l a r l y since he immediately juxtaposes (Hoyden's Hole). Instead of doubling the prurient p o s s i b i l i t i e s of the place names, he seems instead to have chosen merely to indicate 3 4 that Tabitha simply i s n ' t able to spel l the names of these s ights, well known to eighteenth century readers and to those who had t rave l led into Derbyshire and the Peaks D i s t r i c t . ^Hearth), Tabitha 's other aspirated var iant, appears in a l e t t e r to Dr. Lewis. She complains of his dealings (on her brother ' s behalf) with the servants of Brambleton Ha l l . She inveighs against Lewis for lumping her a f f a i r s with "the refuge and skim of the hearth" (78) - -s p e c i f i c a l l y the servants of Bramble's hearth - - and manages to twist a l i t t l e the proverbial phrase, "the refuse and scum of the earth " . The aspirat ion of earth as (^hearth) seems to be another instance of Smol lett ' s changing the word for the sake of a pun . 3 6 40 \ Alternate Spell ings for Unstressed Syl lables Yet another feature of Win's spe l l ing which i s of l i t t l e s ign i f icance in Tabitha 's l e t te r s - - except for obvious word play - - i s her inconsistent spe l l ing of unstressed sy l l ab le s . But before we look at Win's large assortment of these spe l l i ng s , l e t us look at those, a comparative few, which appear in Tabitha 's l e t t e r s . The only outstanding examples from Tabitha 's are (concurrents') fo r concurrence (44), and ^porpuss") and (porpuses) for purpose (156, 351); these are, t y p i c a l l y , used to ra ise the laugh at Tabitha 's semi - l i terate state. Concurrants appears in the opening l ines of Tabitha's second l e t t e r and i t s e f f e c t , l i k e that of (porpuss') which fo l lows, is to cu r t a i l severely the seriousness of her rage at Dr. Lewis' actions: I am astonished, that Dr. Lewis should take upon him to give away Alderney, without my p r i v i t y and concurrants - -What s i gn i f i e s my brother 's order? My brother i s l i t t l e better than Non-Compush. (44) In the same l e t t e r , Tabitha t e l l s Mrs. Gwyllim that she "wrote to doctor Lewis for the same porpuss," that i s , to vent her rage on him because she has been "done out of" one of her precious animals. It i s d i f f i c u l t to accept her indignation - - misdirected as i t i s against the char i ty of her brother - - when i t i s so badly expressed in her spe l l i ng . In the f i n a l appearance of {'porpuses^, the ef fect of the misspel l ing is r id icu lous indeed. Tabitha, showing some small signs of mellowing subsequent to her marriage to Lismahago, i s t ry ing to impress Mrs. Gwyllim with the solemnity of the occasion and the divine nature of marriage. She wr i tes : 41 Heaven, for wise porpuses, hath ordained that I should change my name and c i t a t i on in l i f e , so that I am not to be considered any more as manger of my brother 's family . . . (351),.. Smol lett ' s apposition of (wise porpuses) to Heaven is h i l a r ious in a sentence which vaguely echoes the re l i g ious idiom - - possibly that of the marriage service which Tabitha has ju s t heard - - with "Heaven . . . hath ordained," etc. and proceeds to malapropism af ter malapropism. Tabitha is mocked in Je ry ' s l e t te r s fo r her mouthing of the Methodist sentiments which she hears from Cl inker , and th i s l e t t e r makes i t abundantly c lear why. The fact that the Heaven which ordains the fate of Tabitha i s a heaven for "wise porpoises" adds a further touch of the ludicrous to the marriage proceedings which are so f u l l y described in Jery ' s and Win's l e t t e r s . The phonetic confusion of unstressed sy l lab les in these words i s not the point of the word play, then: i t i s the humour which results from the misspel l ings. Win's inconsistent spe l l ing of unstressed sy l lab les does, however. contribute much to the po r t ra i t of her as a semi-1 i t e ra te who proceeds with her spel l ings by guess and by God. It i s also evident that Win's spel l ings must represent pronunciation - - or lack of d i s t i n c t i on in pronunciation - - as well as mere untutored orthography. The attempt to transcribe unstressed sy l lab les i s , of course, dependent upon Smol lett ' s observation of speech practices - - the very normal process in rapid speech of reducing unstressed vowels to what the eighteenth century phoneticians referred to as "obscure" vowels. But i t i s the purely orthographic aspect which is of interest in indicat ing Win's level of l i t e r a c y . 42 If,we ignore the obvious misspell ings which de f i n i t e l y indicate radica l pronunciation variants (e. g. ( f i l l i t c h ) for v i l l a ge and ^Hottogon) for Octagon) 3 7 and d i rect our attention to Win's orthographic representa-t ion of unstressed s y l l ab l e s , we w i l l f ind a var iety of spe l l i ng subst i tut ions. Win's ignorance of the pertinent spe l l ing conventions is most obvious in her medial and f i n a l spel l ings of unstressed sy l l ab le s . In the medial pos i t ion, she has Win's spe l l ing Standard form Subst itut ion Page Reference Mittamouse mi ttimus a for i 155 mullaner m i l l j ne r a for i 42 kindalsnuffs candle_ snuffs a for e 338 congeror conjurer e for u 155 bumbeseens bombazines e for a 44 oper it ion appari t ion e for a 261 selvjdges savages i for a 261, 352 gallow manky calamanco 0 for a 72, 337 Hottogon Octagon 0 for a 42 exorcise exercise 0 for e 156 These are a l l subst itut ions of one vowel for another, as indicated. In an even larger select ion of var iants, y_ is substituted for any vowel in an unstressed medial pos i t ion: Win's spe l l i ng Standard form Subst itut ion Page Reference pumpy_door pompadour y for a 44 Hil lyjfents elephants y for e 108 surryjnony ceremony y for e 337 monkey_-bank mountebank y for e 352 turkey_-shell tortoise-she! 1 y for e 109, 155 [ to r t -e - she l lH Harry_ King 's Row Harlequin 's Row y for e 43 43 Honeyjnils honymil cul ly_-f lower animals anjmal cau l i f lower/f lour y for i y for i y for i 108 43 220 manty_-maker p i l l y be r manteau maker pi 1lowbere y for o/eau y for o/eau 42 7 congyration conjuration y for u 261 In the f i n a l pos i t ions, we f i nd : Win's spe l l ing Standard form Subst itut ion Page Referen< gustass prusias T i t i d a l l j u s t i ce precious T idd ido l l a for i a for ous a for o 155 306 352 discounselled scul lers disconsolate scholars e for a e for a 338 109 imich f i l l i t ch image v i l l a ge i for a i for a 352 108 Providinch Providence i for e 352 congeror conjurer o for e 155 s i1 fur su l fur s i1ver s i l v e r u for e u for e 42 337, 352 bally_ Cval leyJ vally_ value val ue y for u y for u 352 220 gal low manky_ calamanco y for o 72, 337 Most of these spe l l ing subst itut ions are understandable in terms of the confusion of sounds, since they represent the sounds designated in a phonetic alphabet by the schwa symbol [ 3 ] . Of course, these spel l ings do not indicate any extreme differences in pronunciation since educated and upper-class speakers almost ce r ta i n l y , then as now, pronounced unstressed vowels as a schwa. Nevertheless, there has always been a tendency for teachers of English and especia l ly e locut ion i s t s to emphasize f a l s e l y the pronunciation of these vowels. And, since 44 Walker and Nares, revered orthoepists of Win's century, f e l t that these vowels should be c lea r l y a r t i cu l a ted , an ind icat ion of a tendency to merge these vowels would give the impression that Win's pronunciation is vulgar in spite of the fact that the spel l ings r e f l e c t nothing but the standard pronunciations of the eighteenth century. 3 ^ By ind icat ing th i s tendency to " s l u r " or "obscure" the vowels in Win's l e t t e r s , Smollett i s adding to the impression that Win's speech i s exceedingly vulgar. And, as pointed out e a r l i e r , vu lgar i ty or a relegation to a place with "the lower order of speakers" was s oc i a l l y damning in an age which placed an emphasis on elegance and order in a l l things. Word Approximations. Zachrisson, wr i t ing on spe l l ing reform, remarks, " I t has been said that no Englishman or American can spel l with certa inty an English word he has not seen wr i t ten , or fee l certa in about the pronunciation of an English word he has only seen written and never heard spoken. "^ While this i s overstating the case perhaps, i t i s c lear that Win and Tabitha, in the i r misspell ings or approximations of words, are not so very d i f fe rent from most English speakers. The word approximations which appear in the i r l e t te r s are of two types. The f i r s t involves words which are unfamil iar to imperfectly educated English speakers. These words are often en t i re l y foreign (e. g. ^bum-daffee) for baume de vie) or have foreign roots (e. g. ^excess) for access), usually from Latin or Greek. The second type of word approximation is simply an attempt to spel l phonetical ly through the use of simpler homonym forms ((mare) for mayor) or to represent 45 standard pronunciations through s imp l i f i ed , quasi-phonetic spel l ings ( ( l a f f ) f o r laugh, <cums) for comes). This l a t t e r approach to spe l l ing in l i t e r a r y texts has been dubbed "eye d i a l ec t " by c r i t i c s studying d ia lec t representation. I w i l l discuss these orthographic features • and eye d ia lec t with par t i cu la r attention to the ways in which Smollett employs these techniques for comic e f fect in Win's and Tabitha 's l e t t e r s . As we might expect, the number of foreign words badly fractured through spe l l ing approximations i s not as great in Tabitha 's l e t te r s as in Win's. Tabitha 's most obvious misspell ings are (bum-daffee^ for baume de vie (6), (Non-compush) for non compos (44), (neg le jay) for negl igee (6), and <(Macklin) for Mechl in ( 6 ) . ^ These words are en t i r e l y foreign. (Bum-daffee) and(neglejay) both render the impression of a genuine attempt at French pronunciation and the equally genuine, j a r r i ng accent which the spe l l ing suggests. Tabitha also produces some hybrid words - - words which are neither foreign nor English: ^concurrants) for concurrence (44), (amissor ies) for emissaries (156), (oecumenical) for oeconomical (352) and (constuprated) for constipated (6). These words are d i s t i c t l y off -key, and since they are not exactly recognizable as English words, they are another medium for a minor attack on Tabitha 's desire to impress with her knowledge of "b i g " words. This passion for big words, a great embarrass-ment to Matt and a source of amusement to Jery, Tabitha indulges even when wr i t ing home to Mrs. Gwyllim. It i s probable that Mrs. Gwyllim, a Welsh country-woman, would hardly be in a posit ion to know the difference and, l i k e Win, would assume that Tabitha, because she i s 46 a lady born and bred, must be correct in a l l her wr i t ings . (Concurrants^ and (amissories) are close in sound to the words they are meant to represent, and the error common to both is the b lurr ing of the_e sound. The erroneous word bases, currants and amiss, are both a l i t t l e awry in the context. They are, however, words which Tabitha might normally encounter in conversation or w r i t i n g , cer ta in ly with greater frequency than concurrence or emissaries. Currants has a decidedly rural f lavour and reminds us of Tabitha 's concerns with the produce of the Brarnbleton estate. Smollett uses these earth-bound touches throughout her l e t t e r s , and another good example i s Tabitha 's request for her " rose-co l la rd neglejay" (6). The reader is more inc l ined to think of co l l a rd greens than of an elegant and fashionably coloured garment. Tabitha 's spe l l ing of (oecumenical^ with i t s s i m i l a r i t y to ecumenical i s incongruous in a discussion of direct ions for the preparation of Brarnbleton Hall and the h i r ing of a replacement - - a good ma id -o f - a l l -work who w i l l not want "extravagant wages" - - for Win Jenkins. Tabitha 's st ing iness, d ign i f ied by the t i t l e of economy, could hardly be further from any "ecumenical" concerns; the mistake i s ludicrous. The spe l l ing error (disregarding for the moment the reversal of the sounds in the middle sy l lab le ) might possibly r e f l e c t Tabitha 's old-fashioned education. After a l l , her main attempts at acquiring proper schooling would have been carr ied on in the late 1730's or early 1740 1s, when a s t r i c t observance of spe l l ing analogous with c l a s s i ca l forms was very much the fashion. The spe l l ing might resu l t from a vague knowledge that 47 economy belongs to that class of words [Greek root words beginning with oikos] which were spelled with oe instead of e. Not, of course, that Tabitha would be aware of th is rule in such terms. It i s more l i k e l y that i t would simply be the case of "when in doubt, more is probably bet ter " . The old s pe l l i n g , however, had pretty well disappeared by the middle of the century except for i t s appearance in the more conservative spe l l ing books^ and does not appear in the d ict ionar ies of Sheridan, Walker, and Jones which were widely accepted as standard at the century 's c lose. Lacking a sound knowledge of Lat in or Greek roots, Tabitha produces such spel l ings as ( ' l a c k s i t i f ) for laxat ive (6)^ 3 and •(metamurphysis) for metamorphosis (274). The middle of ^metamurphysis^, murphy, is a favourite b i t of word play with Smollett. I t appears not only in CI inker in the l e t te r s of Tabitha and Win, but also in Smol lett ' s f i r s t novel, Roderick Random, also as a comical word contort ion. Win's version i s even more imaginative than Tabitha ' s ; i t appears as (matthewmurphy'd") for metamorphosed in her account of the discovery that Wilson i s r ea l l y the son of Charles Dennison. She says, "The player man that came a f te r miss Liddy . . . i s now matthewmurphy'd into a f ine young gentleman" (337). Win's choice of the word adds a nice l i t t l e touch of l i ke l ihood in that metamorphosed seems to be a popular word with Bramble and Jery and so i t i s very l i k e l y that both Win and Tabitha would hear the word bandied about and wish to impress with i t .44 That the word seems to have been used concerning young George Dennison i s obvious since Liddy, wr i t ing to Mrs. Jermyn in the l e t t e r which precedes Win's, writes:' " --Ah! madam, the s l ighted 48 Wilson is metamorphosed into George Dennison, only son and heir of a gentleman, whose character is second to none in England, as you may understand upon enquiry" (336). Win is merely echoing Liddy 's observation in her own in imitable way. In Roderick Random, (murphy) is imbedded not in metamorphosis but in place of Morpheus in a very funny phrase. The form appears in a l e t t e r from Clarinda to Beau Jackson. Clar inda, l i k e Win, i s semi - l i terate and produces a hodge-podge of spel l ings which might eas i l y have been l i f t e d from one of Win's l e t te r s as far as the orthography goes although the s ty le and content i s very unlike anything which Win produces: Dear Kreeter, As you are the animable hopjack of my contemplaysins, your aydear is i n fe rna l l y skimming before my keymerycal fansee, when Murphy sends his puppies to the heys of s l ipp ing mortals; and when Febus shines from his merrydying throne; whereupon I shal l canseeif old whorie time has lo s t his pinners, as also Cubit his harrows, unt i l thou enjoy sweet purpose in the loaksheek harms of thy fa i th foo l to commend, Clayrennder, Wingar-yeard, Droory Lane, January 12th. This l e t t e r of Clar inda ' s offers a profusion of " e r ro r s " ; misspell ings and malapropisms abound and the density of spel l ings which represent pronunciation variants ((aydear) for idea, {s l ipping) for sleeping and {harrows) and (harms) for arrows and arms) is greater than anything to be found in Humphry Cl inker. Clar inda ' s l e t t e r i s extremely concentrated in th i s respect because i t i s a "one shot" exposure of the nymph's pretensions to l i t e r acy and to consideration as one of the " f a i r " of the Beau Monde. Clar inda ' s passing knowledge of the c l a s s i c s , however, 49 should never have been committed to paper, for the divine ^Clayrennder^ seems to have the same d i f f i c u l t y with Morpheus and his poppies that Win and Tabitha f ind with metamorphosis. When Win's d i f f i c u l t i e s with foreign words are compared with those of Tabitha, we come away with the sense that Tabitha has very l i t t l e to worry about. Win's l e t te r s are replete with mutilated foreign words. In addition to Win's de l ight fu l matthewmurphy'd we f ind a var iety of words and phrases which have suffered strange transformations. Proper names with a foreign twist are especia l ly troublesome for Win; she writes (Matthewsull in) for Methuselah (306) and ( i s sabel ) for Jezebel (219, 220 ) . 4 5 (Matthewsullin) l i k e ^Matthewmurphy'd*) incorporates a f ami l i a r name, Matthew, and ^IssabeO substitutes another f ami l i a r name (almost spelled correct ly) for an uncommon one. (This transforma-tion process i s a common feature throughout*the history of English word formation as unfamil iar words are reanalyzed in terms of f ami l i a r English words.)46 It i s not at a l l uncommon for loan words to be transformed by speakers unfamil iar with the languages from which they are borrowed into compounds of f am i l i a r native words (e. g. Fr. mouseron became Eng. mushroom).47 The process by which the unfamil iar word is changed by the i l l i t e r a t e or the unwary to a more common form (and thus becomes associated with a fa l se word ancestry) i s known as folk etymology. James Gordon provides several examples: When the separate elements of Old English t i t + mase 'small b i r d 1 passed out of use, the compound became titmouse. In the same way shamefast became shamefaced, "and hiccup was respel led hiccough, although the or ig ina l pronunciation 50 has remained. The introduction of French words among the i l l i t e r a t e majority gave r i se to a number of such novelt ies. For example, berfray, o r i g i n a l l y a tower b u i l t for simple protect ion, became be l f ry when put to a d i f fe rent use; c a r r i o l e , o r i g i n a l l y a carriage for four persons, became carrya l1 ; chartreuse became charterhouse; appentis, o r i g i n a l l y a small outhouse b u i l t against a w a l l , became a penthouse; p ico is became pickaxe; primerole became primrose; and s a l i e r e , an instrument dispensing s a l t , entered into a compound word s a l t c e l l a r , with the second element modified on the model of wine ce l la r .48 Smollett presumably had observed th i s process of subst i tut ion and r e a l i s t i c a l l y attr ibutes i t to Win as a character having a l imited education; he i s therefore able to enrich Win's repertoire of garbled unfamil iar words, both foreign and English. Win creates a var iety of interest ing words through th i s process as she substitutes more homely words for foreign loan words. Win produces (squintasense) f ° r quintessence (43), (spear) for sphere using her gaffe to comment on her ignorance of the Bible story and to make game of her penchant for the Bible-quoting C l inker. To begin, he sets her up by having her describe the way in which she is dressed to go to a play in Newcastle. Her clothes and make-up are badly overdone because she has succumbed to the f l a t t e r y of Jery ' s foppish valet and taken his advice on how to dress s t y l i s h l y . Win, however, fancies herse l f dressed in the l a tes t Paris fashion and Smollett punctures th is impression through Win's s pe l l i n g , he has her wr i te , "I thoft Smollett has a b i t of fun with Win on the score 51 as how, there was no arm in going to a play at Newcastle, with my hair dressed in the Parish fash ion" , def t l y reducing Win's modishness to the c i r c l e of a country v i l l a ge . A l l t h i s , merely to prepare us for a joke about a painted Jezebel. When Win is attacked by a mob of c o l l i e r s , she cannot understand why they c a l l her (hoar^ and f a i n t e d Issabel^ for she seems to know of neither whores nor J e z e b e l s . ^ Then, when Win seeks an explanation from her fel low servant and zealous Methodist, Humphry, she finds him unwil l ing to expla in; he thrusts a B ible into her hand instead: . . . I read of van Issabel a painted har lo t , that vas thrown out of a vindore, and the dogs came and l i cked her blood - -But I am no har lot ; and, with God's bless ing, no dogs shal l have my poor blood to l i c k : marry, Heaven fo rb id , amen! (219-20) She i s hardly wiser. The s ign i f icance of the passage is l o s t on her i f she takes the warning l i t e r a l l y , fearing that the dogs w i l l l i c k her blood and, ce r t a i n l y , she comes away from her reading unable to spe l l Jezebel. The object lesson might as eas i l y be about Queen Esther as Queen Jezebel for a l l Win has learned. Win's garbling of names i s not confined to the exot ic ; she does as well with home-grown names, converting Dutton to (D i t ton^ (219/220), Dennison to ( b a l l i s o n ^ (352), Bu l l fo rd to<^Bal l fart ) (307), Melford to ^ M i l l f a r t ^ (352), Thomas to ^Tummas>) (307) and so on. In a descr ipt ion of the v i s i t to Bath, Win triumphantly boasts to Molly - - Dear g i r l , I have seen a l l the f ine shews of Bath; the Prades, the Squires, and the C i r c l i s , the Crashit, the Hottogon, and Bloody Bui ldings, and Harry King's Row . . . (42, What she r ea l l y means is that she has seen the North and South Parades, the Squares, the Circus, the Crescent, the Octagon 5 0 [Chapel], Bladud's 52 Buildings and Harlequin 's Row, a l l famous sights in Bath and the object of much c r i t i c i s m from Bramble in his letters.51 Neither does Win spare I r i sh or Scott ish names. She writes from Bath of " S i r Yury M ic l i gu t , of Balnaclinch in the cunty of Kalloway" and we know from Jery ' s l e t te r s that she is referr ing to S i r U l i c  Mack i l l i gut from Ballynahinch in Galway (p. 60). Apart from the sexual puns, th is l i t t l e phrase includes two jokes designed to get a laugh from Smol lett ' s Scott ish readers who would enjoy (Kalloway) for Galloway in Scotland (and not Galway in I reland), and for the reference to the mickle gut posture of S i r U l i c . In her l e t te r s from (Grasco) (260, 262) Win talks about (Lof f Loming) 5 2 (260, 261) and (Kairmann) (261) which, could the reader not guess, are spel led out by Matt and Liddy who also wr ite from Glasgow about Lough Lomond and Cameron. Win i s scarcely better with personal names; S i r George Colquhoun (243, 262) i s rendered as ( S i r George Coon) (261), 53 the reverend Mr. M'Corkindale (228, 237) as the reverend (Mr. Macrocodile) 5 4 (260), Mr. Moffat as (parson Marrofat^ (143), Archy M'Alpine (226) as (Mr. Machappy) (338) and Saunders Macawly as ^Sunders Macully) (260). While these names do represent several kinds of phonological changes (e. g. metathesis in M'Corkindale / Macrocodile, Kairmann / Cameron, devoicing, Glasgow / Grasco; a sp i ra t ion , M'Alpine / Machappy e t c . ) , the transformations of these names seem to be ordered as much by a whimsical wish to create comical names as by any attempt to represent regularized sound changes. The foreign word forms non compos and habeas corpus undergo a d i f fe rent and unique change when they are elevated to the status of proper names. Non compos appears as ^Non-compush^ (44) when Tabitha 53 in her usual i r a s c i b l e s ty le complains about her brother ' s generosity: - - What s i gn i f i e s my brother ' s order? My brother i s l i t t l e better than Non-compush. He would give away the s h i r t of f his back, and the teeth out of his head • • (44): Here Tabitha, in one deft stroke, turns her c r i t i c i s m of Matt into the highest form of praise for his se l f lessness; but from her point of view, i t i s not a laudable qual i ty but something akin to madness. Tabitha has doubtless heard the term non compos and the way in which she refers to (Non-compush}5 5 indicates that she does understand the implications of the term. Her manner of reference, however, is laughable since she intimates that ^Non-compush} could well be a notorious f o o l . A confusion of the legal term with a person seems poss ible, especia l ly since Smollett uses a s im i l a r but more outrageous confusion in a l e t t e r of Win's; she writes about the arrest of Humphry Cl inker: Lord knows, what mought have happened to th i s pyehouse young man, i f master had not applied to Apias Kirkus, who l i ve s with the ould b a i l l i f f , and i s , they say, f i v e hundred years ould, (God bless us!) and a congeror . . . (155). Win, in her credulous way, believes that a wr i t of habeas corpus, which she has heard mentioned in the course of C l i nker ' s c r i s i s , can only be a r e a l , l i v e conjuror who can set free the pious Humphry ( for an account of the habeas corpus proceedings, see Je ry ' s l e t t e r , p. 150). Win's attempt to reproduce what she thinks she hears i s very much constrained by her l imi ted vocabulary and by the fact that she has no f a m i l i a r i t y with Lat in. These l im i ta t ions are, in th i s instance, further complicated by her d i f f i c u l t i e s with aspirat ion -•- she drops the h_ of habeas which ought, l o g i c a l l y , to be changed into Hapi as instead of ( A p i a s } . ^ The whole transformation, (Apias Korkus), i s 54 a seemingly capricious b i t of word play but i t i s , in f a c t , dependent upon several predictable sound changes and the obvious phonetic spe l l ing of k_ for £ in corpus. The tota l e f fec t , in spite of the regular i ty of the forms, i s one of d ro l l confusion. In the same passage Win presents the reader with a de l i ght fu l word approximation, (pyehouse) for pious (155), formed by the process of fo lk etymology. The operating constraint is the necessity of producing an unfamil iar word, using known or f ami l i a r words as a basis for the construction. Win's fau l ty aspirat ion provides the excuse for the invention as she inserts the h_ into pious to produce (pyehouse), a l i k e l y combination of two English words. This tendency to analyze -ous or - i s endings as -house i s evident in James Gordon's example of appentis reanalyzed as a penthouse quoted above. The opposite tendency, that of reducing words ending in -house to unstressed -us, i s a common feature of lower class speech. A loan word which is treated to the same inventive process is mountebank. Seldom used by present day speakers, mountebank was commonly encountered in eighteenth century newspapers, l e t t e r s , and novels as a term of reproach; i t was presumably popular in conversation too. Win converts mountebank into (mqnkey-bank^ (352) as she reports what she overhears concerning Lismahago's wedding ensemble: - - Wan said he was a monkey-bank; and the ould bot t le r swore he was the born imich of T i t i d a l l . The two English words combined in th i s manner lend an even more r id icu lous a i r to the o u t f i t than is conveyed in Jery ' s detai led descr ipt ion of Lismahago (347). 55 Smol lett ' s l i n g u i s t i c cleverness in shattering these kinds of foreign words and then producing humorous English hybrid forms i s further augmented by the element of c r e d i b i l i t y . Win's choice of words for her l e t te r s i s very p laus ib le, even considering her i n f e r i o r composition s k i l l s . Her choice of words seems to be based upon her experience of language, pa r t i cu l a r l y vocabulary, as we might natura l ly expect. But Smollett o f fe r s , i n d i r e c t l y , explanations of the source of these words by having the same words - - in the i r non-fractured forms - -appear in the l e t te r s of the other members of the family. As a r e su l t , Win's l e t te r s often provide a kind of comic echo as she t r i e s to ape her betters with respect to the i r vocabularies. When Win wr i tes , " i t shal l never be said I mentioned a syllabub of the matter" (221), we are not r ea l l y surprised by her attempt to wr ite such a word as sy l l ab le since we f ind Bramble wr i t ing : "but don't say a sy l l ab le of the matter to any l i v i n g soul " (5). My e a r l i e r discussion of metamorphosis as (metamurphysis^ (Tabitha, 274) and (matthewmurphy'd} (337) and habeas  corpus as <^Apias Korkus^ touches on this same element of copying and the manner in which Smollett provides a plausible context for the h i l a r i ou s l y copied forms. There are, of course, many other examples of th i s kind of explanatory reinforcement throughout the l e t t e r s . Another kind of p l a u s i b i l i t y i s lent to Win's choice of words by the d i rect report which she gives us of her own consciousness of try ing to copy foreign words. As a r e su l t , she makes up some very funny " f rang la i s " forms such as "Vee madmansell" and "Parley vow Francey". Direct report is also given quite frequently through Jery ' s l e t te r s 56 as he i s espec ia l ly amused by the absurd language of Win and Tabitha and g lee fu l l y comments upon i t in his l e t te r s to P h i l l i p s . ^ 7 Homonym Spell ings Turning now from Win's word approximations which a l t e r foreign words into hybrid-English words, l e t us look at the word approximations which are attempts to spel l phonetical ly through the use of simpler homonym forms. The homonyms are often used to provide humour through incongruity, as for instance when we f i nd Win t e l l i n g Mary about a servants ' squabble in Bath in which the cook was "ready for to go before the mare" while she herself had "got a varrant from the mare" to search the cook's box (71).58 Word subst i tut ion of th is kind prompts a very elementary comic response when the reader i s inv i ted to imagine the l i t e r a l confusion and to laugh at the ignorance which produces such a spe l l i ng . I am d i s i nc l i ned to regard these word substitutions as malapropisms in the ordinary sense of the word since they are an appeal to the eye instead of the ear and not used with the same dramatic foolishness which we f ind in the language of characters l i k e F ie ld ing ' s Mrs. S l ips lop (1742) or Sheridan's Mrs. Malaprop (1775). Win's malapropisms, apart from these simple homonym types, depend upon misspell ings such as ^ang les^ for angels (338) or upon a confusion of one big word for another as for example, ^persecut ion) for prosecution (72) and ^repos i tory) for suppository (7). Win's many spel l ings of the simple homonym type of malapropism would have no comic e f fect for the ear since often the pronunciations which the spel l ings r e f l e c t were widely recognized as standard. In f a c t , most of Win's mistaken words have a history of 57 confusion, and the pedagogical practices which meant to sunder such paired words as mayor / mare did l i t t l e more than reinforce the confusion by always discussing the words as supposedly contrastive pairs . A cautionary note which warned students of English of the d i f f i c u l t i e s in separating these words and the necessity for absolute correctness was inev itably prefixed to tables of s imi la r sounding words. The practice of introducing spe l l ing words to be learned as "near a l i k e " ( in sound) or as "homophones" was evident in the work of the major seventeenth century spe l l ing reformers, and notably in Hodges (c. 1640) and Cooper (c. 1687). Dobson (English Pronunciation 1500-1800) r e l i e s upon the "near a l i k e " l i s t s of these writers to ascertain current pronunciations, as upon many others. The pract ice of using homophone l i s t s was taken for granted as a useful method and we can f ind many examples in eighteenth century spe l l ing books. From Tu i te ' s The Oxford Spel l ing Book (pp. 8 0 - 1 0 1 ) I have chosen a few words which Win confuses and which are found in "A Table of Words the same, or nearly a l i ke in sound, but d i f fe rent in spe l l i ng and s i g n i f i c a t i o n " : a i r , the element are, in being he i r , to an estate blew, did blow* blue, a colour ee l l a r of l iquor s * s e l l e r that s e l l s dew, on the grass due, a debt hair of the head hare, a beast La t i n , a language la ten, t i n male, the he of any kind* ma i l , armour mare, a beast mayor of London pa i r , or couple pare, to cut, or c l i p pear, f r u i t r i gh t , not wrong r i t e , custom, or ceremony wright, a wheelwright write with a pen 58 sole of a shoe soa l , or so le, a f i s h soul and body stood did stand stud an embossment su i t at law, or of cloaths s u i t , to s u i t , to match, or agree soot in a chimney tai1 of a beast ta le or story *Also Tabitha tare amongst corn, or weight a l low 'd tear, to rend, or that drops from the eye v a i l , or v e i l , a covering va le, a va l ley va l l ey , a dale value, worth v i a l , a glass v i o l , a musical instrument wane, or wane, or moon's decrease wain or cart wean a ch i l d from the treast The I r i sh Spel l ing Book (pp. 133-48) 6 0 also offers a table "of Words the same, or nearly a l i ke in Sound, but d i f fe rent in S i g n i f i c a t i on , and in Spe l l ing . " The table contains many words l i s t e d in the e a r l i e r table by Tuite: blow did blow r ight ju s t or true blue a colour r i te a ceremony wright a workman ee l l a r of Liquors wri te with a pen s e l l e r that se l l e th s i t e s i tuat ion dew from Heaven c i t e to summon due A Debt do to do soal of a Shoe sole a f i s h hair of the Head sole alone hare on the Fields heir of an Estate stood did stand stud an embossment Latin old Roman Latten t i n drawn t a i l the end ta le a story mai 1 Armour male an he vale below a H i l l vei 1 a covering pair a couple a Waggon pare to cut wain pear F ru i t wane to decrease wean a Chi ld 59 At the r i sk of being r epe t i t i v e , I also quote from Solomon Lowe's C r i t i c a l Spel l ing Book (1755). Lowe i s often more helpful as a guide to contemporary pronunciation since he i s w i l l i n g to write such entries as "He had his portmanteau [port-man-tie] behind him" (96), and "A pair of chamois [shammy] shoes" (94), to guide his reader to the accepted pronunciation while advising him of " spe l l i ng preferables" . Lowe gives several tables of "equivocals" which of fer us some excel lent information on spe l l ing as i t relates to pronunciation. In Lowe's "EQUIVOCALS, that have the Same (or Nearly the same) Sound but Di f ferent Spe l l ing " we f i nd : The wind b1ew: A blue colour A hoar-frost. A son of a whore. 'T i s l a t t en , or iron t i nn ' d over. The l a t i n tongue. A coat of mai1. A male c h i l d . A stud of horses. He stood in the way. The tares in corn. She tears her hair. To ve i l the face. A vale or va l ley . A servant 's va i I s . The vales or va l leys . She \^eil_s_ her face. A bass -v io l . A g las s -ph ia l . To buy good wares. What cloaths he wears? (pp. 100-111) The l i s t s give errors so common as to receive the pa r t i cu la r attention of the orthoepists, and we are able to see that Win's and Tabitha 's educations may only be judged in part by these mistakes since a l l kinds of people -- not jus t old-fashioned provincia ls or uneducated servants - - made them. The l i s t s also provide a quick, 60 ready-made framework for Smol lett ' s jokes. It i s possible to assume that the commonplace nature of the l i s t s and the general awareness of these bug-bears of spe l l ing would i n c i t e the eighteenth century reader to smile immediately as he t icked of f Win's mistakes. I f , a f te r a l l , the l i t e r a t e had suffered through the process of learning these d i s t i n c t i on s , they would probably have an instant recognition of the errors and an instant pleasure in catching Win out. Smol lett ' s use of these pa r t i cu la r examples gives his readers (then as now) the opportunity to pass judgement on Win by fee l ing superior, to laugh at her mistakes, and to enjoy an addit ional touch of humour in Smol lett ' s a b i l i t y to put Win in her place within the social and comic range of the novel. Tabitha 's errors - - ( b l ew) for blue (351), (dew) for due (274), (male) for mai1 (6) and ( s e l l e r ) for c e l l a r (6, 45, 274) are a l l l i s t e d , but the fact that Tabitha seems to be r e l a t i v e l y free of th i s type of error i s another means of characteriz ing her as better educated than Win, not by informing us that she i s a lady and Win a maidservant but through the evidence of her wr i t i ng . We may see from the tables that Win's mistakes are presented as proof of what happens when a careful attention to discr iminating spel l ings of " l ike-sounding" or "near -a l ike " words is lacking. Win's homonym spel l ings are l i s t e d below, and a glance at the sentences in the text in which they occur w i l l confirm the simple humorous intent of the mix-ups which Smollett has explo ited. 61 baring bearing 220 ha i r * a i r 261, 306, ha i r * heir 337 hare hair 107 hoar whore 219 Latten Latin 44 mai 1 male 42 mare mayor 71 pear pair 352 r ights r i t e s 338 r i t e write 107 s i tes sights 180 sole soul 197, 109, soot su i t 42, 261 , steel ing steal ing 206 stud* stood 155 t a i l ta le 70, 220 tares tears eye 358 Vales* Wales 109 V a i l s * Wales 260 va l l y value 220 vaned weaned 109 vei 1 vale 155, 338 v i o l phial / v a i l 352 ware wear (noun) 338, 219 wares wears (very) 338 338 *See pronunciation below for discussion of obvious features: a sp i ra t ion, v/w interchange, a l so , note d ia lec t pronunciation (as well as standard) indicated by u_/q_ subst i tut ion in stud. The puns which derive from these spel l ings are sometimes a l i t t l e r isque, as for instance when Win says "0, If I was given to t a i l -baring [two puns in one blow3, I have my own secrets to discover" (220). This we expect from Smollett. Or, the puns are sometimes s l y as when Smollett has Win wr ite two puns on vaiIs (the payment or p r o f i t which servants expected to receive in addit ion to a regular wage or s a l a r y ) . ^ One is a t rad i t i ona l anti-Scots joke (playing on miserl iness) as Win refers in passing to "SUNDERS MACULLY, the Scotchman, who pushes d i r e c t l y for Va i l s " (260) as the de l iverer of her l e t t e r . The other is a l i t t l e dig at Win as she is fancying 62 herself better than she i s ; a f ter she has dressed up in cast-clothes and had her hair elaborately - - and i t i s c lear by impl i cat ion, f oo l i s h l y - - c o i f f ed , she boasts, "I now carr ies my head higher than arrow private gentlewoman of Vales" (109). Smollett gets several digs at Win's vanity here as he also mocks the l ad ie s ' hair fashions of the times. Win's l i t t l e bubble of pride is burst by her unfortunate comparison since any gentlewoman of Wales i s , on the f i r s t count, a mere prov inc ia l frump and any gentlewoman of va i l s i s , on the second count, merely a servant and beneath the consideration of the beau monde. Smol lett ' s homonym spel l ings are used to develop such puns as these, and quick references to the pages c i ted in the l i s t of Win's homonym spel l ings w i l l reveal more puns and incongruit ies to any twentieth century reader who may have merely skimmed the l e t t e r s . Eye Dialect In addit ion to the use of homonyms for alternate spe l l ings , we also f ind substandard spel l ings which represent standard pronunciations. The spel l ings are quasi-phonetic as, for example,^cums} for comes in Tabitha 's f i r s t l e t t e r which begins "When th i s cums to hand, be sure to pack up . . ." (6). This practice i s generally designated as "eye d i a l ec t " by those studying the representation of d i a lec t in l i t e r a t u r e . Such spel l ings mean nothing phonet ical ly; they are merely a sort of v isual signal to the reader that the d ia lec t speaker - -or in the case of e ither Win or Tabitha, the d ia lec t wr i ter - - i s not l i t e r a t e . Eye d ia lec t forms occur with reasonable frequency in the writ ings of most authors who attempt to represent d i a l e c t . ^ 5 Sumner Ives comments: 63 To the extent that an author r e i i e s on this purely visual d i a l e c t , he can be said to be del iberate ly overstating the ignorance, or i l l i t e r a c y , or his characters. Some of i t , however, seems to be inevitable even in the most ca re fu l l y done l i t e r a r y d ia lec t . In f a c t , some of i t actua l ly f a c i l i t a t e s the reading. For example, the addition of a f i n a l L~tli." to once necessitates the spe l l ing of the f i r s t part of the word as WUN-, since ONCET would suggest a two sy l l ab le pronunciation; s im i l a r l y , the EE in P'LEECEMAN, though i t indicates the conventional vowel, i s j u s t i f i e d in order to prevent the unwary reader from pronouncing P'LICE — to rhyme with s l i c e . * 6 Smol lett ' s eye d ia lec t words usually employ simple spe l l ing subst itut ions f ami l i a r to a l l English speakers. These subst itut ions do not a l t e r the sound although they r ad i ca l l y a l t e r the appearance of the words and do much to endorce the impression of Win and Tabitha as semi-1 i te ra te s . The two sounds of c are rendered as k in ( K l i n k e r ) for CI inker, (Kandles) for candles, and ( looker) fo r lucre and as £ in ( s i t t y ) fo r c i t y ^ 7 and { s i v i l ) for c i v i l . " S i l en t " l e t te r s are l o s t : b_ i s Tost in comb coom ; i n i t i a l k i s l o s t in know, knew, knows (no, new, nows, nose); w i s l o s t in wrap ( r ap ) , wrapped ( r a p t ) and sword ( sord) ; h_ i s l o s t in rheumatics (rummaticks) while cjih i s l o s t by means of a lternate spe l l ing conventions. We f ind ( n i t e ) and ( l i t e ) (night and 1 ight) , ( t h o ' t ) and ( b r o ' t ) (thought and brought), and ( thy ) (thigh). The l e t t e r t_ i s doubled in ( b i t t ) and ( f i t t s ) . Alternate spel l ings appear for the same sound as, for example, or for i_r in (burd), (thurd), ( shur t ) , and ur. for e_r in (murcy), ( surv ice), and (pursecut ion). 6 ^ in add i t ion, we have ch_ for t i in (menchioned), _x for cc in ( i x i den t ) , and ck_ for dh in (stomick) (stomach) and for c in { t i n c k t u r ) ( t incture) and (rummaticks) (rheumatics). "Obscure" sounds are treated with s imi la r endings, as ( i m i c h ) f o r image, 64 (cowitch^) fo r cowhage, ^marridge} for marriage, ( c lapt } fo r clapped and ( rapt} for wrapped. The l e t t e r f_ i s substituted for the more complex £h_ spe l l ing to produce (fizzogmany} for physiognamy^ and -(disseyffer} for decipher and for the cjh_ spe l l ing to produce ^ l a f f ^ and<^enuff}. The vowel combination ous is ' pared to us_ as in ^skandelus} for scandalous. A misspelled word such as (menchioned} suggests a c loser re la t ion between spe l l ing and sound through ch_ than does the conventional ti_j the impl icat ion seems to be that Win tends to s impl i fy her spe l l ing because she has a simple education at best. By applying conventional spe l l i ng ru les , Win produces ^primmer} for p r imer , 7 0 <^sware} for swear, and <jtare} and ^tar ing^ for t e a r . ^ She also produces ^yuse^ for use (both verb and noun forms), as Tabitha produces <^yoosed} for used, by insert ing the y_ sound which the pronunciation suggests. In the same way, she spel l s one and once_ as ^wan} and (wance} since the w sound is there in the pronunciation, and the conventional s pe l l i n g , given English spe l l ing ru les , suggests a pronunciation for one as own predicted by the f i n a l s i l e n t e^  and l ikewise for once. Win's w i s l o g i c a l l y , i f i nco r rec t l y , added. Many of these eye d ia lec t spel l ings are simply phonetic renderings, as ^Dunquickset} fo r Don Quixote, 7 ^ ^marokin furze} for American fur s , ^ass of etida"} for asafoetida, < i i t e l } for 1i t t l e , ^purpuss} for purpose (a more reasonable spel l ing and a charming pun since a cat does purr ) , and grades ' } for Parades and ^gardnir} for gardener, both of which record the natural tendency to shorten the pronunciation by squeezing out the unstressed vowels. 65 Smol lett ' s s o l i d i n s t i n c t for p l a u s i b i l i t y when combined with a cleverness in contro l l ing the complexity of his word changes produces some excel lent eye d ia lec t forms. As Ives points out, some care must be taken to guide the unwary reader away from a mispronunciation. Smollett is careful to do th i s . When he has Win wr i te <(coom) for comb, he eliminates the s i l e n t b_, but he also lengthens the quantity of the o_ sound by doubling i t so that the reader cannot possibly mistake i t for the short £ in come. As a by-product, he is able to suggest a d i a lec ta l pronunciation and to get a l i t t l e ru s t i c reverberation by intimating that Win knows more about coombs than about combs. (Ginneys) is another excel lent example; Smollett has s imp l i f i ed guineas to i t s obvious sound content, but had he been less s k i l f u l , he might have produced (gineas) or {ginneas) which could have been open to interpretat ion as a three s y l l ab le word. His phrase (marokin fu rze ) is also interest ing. It appears in Win's descr ipt ion of the wedding ensemble of Tabitha: As for madam Lashmiheygo, you nose her p i c k l e a r i t i e s - -her head, to be sure, was f i n t a s t i c a l ; and her spouse had rapt her with a long marokin furze cloak from the land of the selvidges, thof they say i t i s of immense ba l l y . (352) (Marokin) i s c lear with i t s k for £ and i t s haphazard spe l l i ng of unstressed vowels ; 7 4 ( f u r z e ) i s a straightforward phonetic rendering. The phrase is pa r t i cu l a r l y humorous since i t suggests that Win doesn't know about America and cannot therefore understand the difference in j[ (marokin) and American; to Win, i t i s merely "the land of the selvidges". ( Fu r ze ) i s a very common word (and a homonym of furs) and this i s merely another rural overtone which is injected into 66 Win's l e t t e r . Phonet ical ly, the phrase is pretty c lea r , espec ia l ly since we have the exact " t r an s l a t i on , " (even of ( b a l l y ) for va l l y for value) in Jery ' s l e t t e r of November 8th: She was dressed in the s t i l e of 1739; and the day being cold, put on a manteel of green velvet laced with gold: but this was taken off by her bridegroom, who threw over her shoulders a fur cloak of American sables, valued at four-score guineas, a present equally agreeable and unexpected. (347) A glance through the following l i s t of eye d ia lec t spel l ings w i l l a t test to the formation of the spel l ings using the techniques mentioned above. Interested readers may also consult the page references to investigate possible puns which ar i se as a resu l t . For instance, we get a punning twist in statements in the l e t te r s such as Win's "But I nose what I nose" (306). Win's l e t t e r s , from her f i r s t in which she t e l l s Mary that "we servints should see a l l and say nothing" (7), are f u l l of indicat ions that Win is always "nosing" out the news. Win's l e t te r s are sprinkled with tan ta l i z i ng assertions: "But I scorn for to exclose the secrets of the family" (307); "0 gracious! i f God iiad not given me a good stock of d i sc re t ion , what a power of things might not I reveal , consarning old mistress and young mistress" (42) , and "But you nose, Molly, I was always famous for keeping secrets" (43) - - th i s l a s t statement pleasantly suggesting that Win overlooks the fact that you cannot keep secrets and be "famous" for keeping them too. Win's assertions are inev i tably preceded or followed by some inadvertent b i t of gossip. But Win's nosiness often protects her from the f u l l brunt of her mistress ' anger, a point which she well understands when she says to Molly that she has escaped a real scouring 67 from Tabitha because "she knows as I know whats what" (43). As we here get pure information and no pun, both the spel l ings are correct. I t i s through puns such as ('nose} for knows (a substandard verb form as Win uses i t ) that Smollett can add to the humorous character izat ion of Win, while re inforc ing the view of her as semi-1 i te rate through the use of eye d i a l ec t . Win's eye d ia lec t spe l l ings : 43 155 337 Aberga'nny Abergavenny Aberga'ny 44, Abergany •I 306 axident, axidents accident 43, b i t t b i t 107 b ro ' t brought 107 burd bird 306 burth b i r th 306 clapt clapped 261 coom comb 109 cowitch cowhage / cowage 70 d isseyffer decipher 109 Dunquickset Don Quixote 306 eyther ei ther 43 enuff enough 71, f i t t s f i t s 42 fizzogmany physiognamy 42 f l u r t a t i o n f 1 i r t a t i o n 220 furze furs 352 ginneys guineas 70 Glostar Gloucester 6, imich image 352 kandles candles 71 Kl inker CI inker 107, l a f f laugh 43 l i t e l i g h t 70, looker lucre 155 marokin (A)merican 352 marridge marriage 338 menchioned mentioned 221 murcy mercy 307 nite-cap night-cap 71 ( f o r t )n i te fortn ight 337 no know 71, new knew 261 nows75 knows 262 220, 220 306 108, 109, 155 352 307 68 nose Prades primmer pumpydoor pursecution pye-bald rap rapt remembring shurt s i t t y s i vi 1 skandelus sord sower stomick surv ice 7 ^ sware tare, tar ing t h o ' t thy tro l lopes thurd wan wance yuse knows Parades primer pompadour persecution (malapropism for piebald wrapp wrapped rememberi ng s h i r t c i t y c i vi 1 scandalous sword sour stomach service swear tear (v.) thought th i gh t ro l lopee* th i rd one once use (n.) " (v.) 352 43, 307, 42 109 44 72 prosecution) 108 219 43, 43 306 108 108 71 108 109 43, 42 71, 306, 108, 337 42 338 306, 43, 307 155 221 109, 338, 306, 352 307, 262 155 306, 108 338, 44 307 352 *A l o o se - f i t t i n g gown. Tabitha's eye d ia lec t spel l ings are s i gn i f i c an t l y fewer since her educational level ought to preclude most of these kinds of errors: anemi1 animal 6 bloo blue 6 cums comes 6, gardnir gardener 6 Glostar Gloucester 6 l i t e l l i t t l e 6 purpuss purpose 78 rummaticks rheumatics 351 t incktur t incture 45 yoosed used 274 While the place names ( G l o s t a r } and ^Abergany} are de f i n i t e l y pecul iar in the i r spe l l ing appearance, they are not pecul iar as indicators 69 of pronunciation because they are phonetical ly correct. Also, Gloster was used for a long while as a standard spe l l i ng . Solomon Lowe is careful to indicate the correct pronunciation in his C r i t i c a l Spel l ing Book (1755) by means of phonetics. He writes "At abergavenny Cab-er--ghe-neeH in monmouthshire" 7 7 and "He l i ves at gloucester Eglos-turH." 78 Any reader fami l i a r with these towns would recognize the eye d i a l ec t form as correct in i t s representation while enjoying a laugh at Win's and Tabitha 's spe l l i ng . In addit ion to these whole-word eye d ia lec t forms, there are vestiges of eye d i a l ec t technique in several other misspelled words. That is to say, a word l i k e ( k o r k u s ) for corpus, which is subject pr imar i ly to transformation as a loan word, also represents an attempt at eye d ia lec t because the k_ in (korkus) is a c lear ind icat ion of the normal pronunciation of _c in corpus. The same is true of (shamble) for charnbre with regard to the sh^  for ch_. Another example is the subst i tut ion of _u for ou. as mentioned in connection with ( skandelus ) (and a lso, of course, the c for k); th i s i s also evident in (churned) and (churning) for journeyed and journeying, but the main point of interest i s Smol lett ' s attempt to represent a variant pronunciation ([c] for [J], see below), and a tendency to shorten the words by omitting the -ey in journeyed and journeying. Another example of a word in which the chief focus i s pronunciation i s (ketched) for catched or caught. The most s i gn i f i can t feature indicated by Win's spe l l ing is that the word i s a substandard d ia lec t verb form, but the use of k for c (which indicates nothing about 70 pronunciation) is a simple use of eye d ia lec t spe l l i ng . Smollett is able to use one spe l l ing to indicate several things about Win's approach to language. In ^byeb i l l } for B i b l e/ y Win has combined two short, f am i l i a r words but the pronunciation "appears" s l i g h t l y d i f fe rent according to English patterns of stress than that for B ib le. Nonetheless, th i s spe l l ing represents a use of eye d ia lec t since the reader cannot mistake the close proximity of the words and the intent to represent B ib le . The fol lowing l i s t s present examples of eye d ia lec t features which appear in these mixed forms - - forms in which loan word formation, variant vowel or consonant pronunciation, d ia lec t usage, or variant stress patterns might be of more interest as indicators of soc ia l d i a l ec t than the mere misspell ings with which they are combined. Win's l e x i c a l items: axercise byebi11 churned churning dist inkson furder ketched k imf i t tab le kindalsnuffs selvidges s i serary skewering shamble surrymony veezel exercise Bible journeyed journeying d i s t i n c t i on further (farther) catched (caught) comfortable candlesnuffs savages ce r t i o r a r i scouring chambre ceremony weasel 43 219 260 261 306 70, 70, 307 338 261 , 70 72 214, 337 306 338 71 352 306 Tabitha's l ex i ca l items: guzzling kergo* purseeding skewred goslings cargo proceeding scoured 274 274 274 274 71 *This may be a simple misspel l ing - - she knows some words with Car] are (er^, e. g. Derby. These l i s t s of eye d ia lec t words (or var iat ions) might give the impression that Smollett r e l i e s very heavily upon eye d i a l ec t to convince the reader of the semi - l i terate states of the two women. But th i s i s not so. Smollett uses many other l i n g u i s t i c means to convey this notion, and the actual number of eye d ia lec t usages, when compared with a l l the deviant spel l ings or word usages in the l e t t e r s , w i l l be seen to be surpr i s ing ly s m a l l . ^ It i s , in f a c t , d i f f i c u l t to f ind a passage which has a good c luster of eye d i a l ec t spel l ings because they are sprinkled about through the l e t t e r s . In the fol lowing passage, the underlined eye d ia lec t words i l l u s t r a t e th i s point: The cuck* brazened i t out, and said i t was her r i t e * to rummage the pantry; and she was ready for to go before the mare*: that he had been her pott icary * many years, and would never think of hurting a poor sarvant*, for giving away the scraps of the kitchen - - I went another way to work with madam Betty, because she had been saucy, and ca l l ed me skandelus names; and said 0 F r i z z l e * couldn ' t abide me, and twenty other odorous* falsehoods. I got a varrant* from the mare*, and her box being sarched* by the constable, my things came out sure enuff; besides a f u l l pound of vax* candles, and a nite-cap of mistress, that I could sware to on my cruperal * oaf* . . . (71-2). * Indicates var iants. This passage has a greater proportion of eye d ia lec t spel l ings than i s usual in Win's l e t t e r s ; even so, of the eighteen variants indicated, only the four underlined are eye d ia lec t s p e l l i n g s . ^ Eye d ia lec t is e s sent ia l l y caricatured spe l l i ng , and i t contr ibutes, in Humphry C l inker, to the rather overblown, comic treatment of Win and Tabitha as characters. They are caricatured through the i r own misspell ings as surely as through the i r exaggerated behavior or character 72 t r a i t s , and the i l l u s i o n of the l e t te r s as o r ig ina l s rather than Smol lett ' s creations doubles the force of th is se l f - ca r i ca tu re . Opposing this tendency towards exaggeration in spe l l ing are several counterforces. The humorous frequency of eye-dialect spe l l ing i s balanced in Humphry Cl inker by correct spel l ings and by Smol lett ' s attempts to represent features of real d i a l ec t s , even i f the representation op i s not always consistent with one d i a l ec t . Another important counter-balance for the impressions which the use of eye d ia lec t promotes is the very serious content of Bramble's l e t te r s - - his social and philosophical concerns - - and the highly informative qua l i ty of Jery ' s l e t t e r s . The impressions received from Win's and Tabitha 's l e t te r s are heightened in the i r r id icu lous usage by the contrast to the more elegant l e t t e r wr i te r s , Bramble, Jery, and Liddy, while at the same time, the s i l l i n e s s of the content i s natural ly minimized through the point of view provided by the var iety of l e t t e r -w r i t e r s . Another feature of Win's orthography which does not have any s i g n i f i -cance for pronunciation is her habit of attaching a r t i c l e s to fol lowing or preceding words, as for example, her wr i t ing of (nubjack} for an object (306) or <^narro} for ne 'er a, i . e. never a (107, 155). Because she i s only semi-1 i t e r a te , she does not necessari ly understand where the words ought to be divided and she becomes confused when she writes them down. In the same way, she writes (marokin} for American (352) and omits the A because she assumes i t is an a r t i c l e preceding a word. In her sentence, "her spouse rapt her with a long marokin furze cloak," she uses the a^  as an a r t i c l e preceding the adjective - - i t s normal placement in conventional usage. Since she i s geographically ignorant 73 of America, she appears to assume that a ^marokin) fur cloak i s obviously ju s t another kind of fur - - l i k e an ermine fur cloak or a fox fur cloak. Misdiv is ion of a r t i c l e s The misdiv is ion of a r t i c l e s has been observed as an ordinary feature of English from Middle English onwards. I t has been common for f i n a l n in the i nde f in i te a r t i c l e to attach i t s e l f to a fol lowing noun beginning with a vowel as, for example, newt (ME an ewte; OE an efete, cf . modern d i a l ec t form an eft) and a nickname (ME an ekename). However, in umpire (ME noumpere), adder (ME nadder) auger (ME nauger) and apron (ME napron, naperon), the process has been reversed: the n of the noun has attached i t s e l f to the a r t i c l e . ^ This f i r s t kind of misdiv is ion i s a prominent feature of Cockney speech, and Will iam Matthews traces i t back to the sixteenth century, remarking the "attaching the jn of "an' to the fol lowing word, a nold hore, a nebe (an ebb), at a nend, a nold man."86 In the eighteenth century i t would doubtless be c l a s s i f i e d as a mark of vu lgar i ty on the printed page. Speech at normal speed has no breaks in the stream of sound, so that there would be no d iv i s ion between the a r t i c l e and noun in an  object, and i t s t ranscr ipt ion as a nobject would not be any indicat ion of deviant pronunciation. Hodges (1644) includes such phrases as an arrow: a narrow, a notion: an ocean in his "near a l i k e " l i s t and Cooper (1685 and 1687) even l i s t s such examples in his " a l i k e " l i s t while warning against them as "barbarous speaking." Clear ly i t i s not barbarous speaking these spe l l ing reformers are concerned with as much as barbarous spe l l ing insofar as pronunciation variants cannot be discerned beyond " a l i k e " qua l i ty in homophone l i s t s . 74 Smollett has observed the process of misd iv i s ion, perhaps through personal experience and a sharp ear for the confusion ( i f indeed i t could be discerned), or perhaps through a knowledge gleaned from his reading of the prescr ipt ive pronouncements commonly encountered in eighteenth century spe l l ing books and grammars. In e i ther case, he would be aware of such an error as a sign of i n f e r i o r or socia l d i a lec t when he att r ibutes th i s process to Win. Psychological ly, the a t t r i bu t i on is very convincing as a " r e a l " l i n g u i s t i c feature in Win's l e t t e r s : f i r s t , because i t has been observed by language histor ians to be a natural language occurrence for many people - - especia l ly to d ia lec t speakers;^ 7 second, because i t i s u t te r l y convincing as a feature of character izat ion that a person of Win's educational background should make th i s kind of error. Win's misdivis ions include^nubjack} for an object (306), ^narro"} for never a (107, 155) and nurro for never a (220) and the related form farrow} for ever a (109, 352). The words appear in the fol lowing contexts: ^nubjack}: - - 0! that ever a gentlewoman of years and d i scret ion should tare her a i r , and cry and disporridge herself for such a numjackl (306)88 ('narro / nurro / arrow)': . . . which shews that \ . . a hound [may] be staunch, thof he has got narro hare on his buttocks . . . (107). As for master and the young ' squ i re, they have as yet had narrow glimpse of the new l i g h t . (155) . . . and behold there i s nurro geaks Cjakes] in the whole kingdom, nor any thing for poor sarvants, but a barrel with a pair of tongs thrown a-cross . . . (220). 75 . . . and, thof he don't enter in caparison with great folks of qua l i t y , yet he has got as good blood in his veins as arrow pr ivet ' squire in the county . . . (352). I now carr ies my head higher than arrow pr ivate gentlewoman of Vales. (109) Of these misdivis ions (nubjack^ seems to have been espec ia l ly puzzling to modern readers although i t is un l ike ly that an eighteenth century reader would have been puzzled, since the phrase l !an object of a f fec t i on " was current; ce r ta in l y , an eighteenth century reader f am i l i a r with the century 's sexual slang would not have been too bemused. Arthur Boggs has made a complex etymological argument for the word fo rmat ion^ but in t h i s , as in most other examples of Smol lett ' s word play, the simplest l i n g u i s t i c explanation i s the l i k e l i e s t so lut ion. Smollett i s using the expression "object" in the most usual slang manner, that is "the object of one's a f f e c t i on , " j u s t as he uses i t (spelled correct ly ) in Peregrine P ick le when he writes "This composition, which seems to have been inspired by a much more amiable object . . . . At the same time, he is able to suggest an alternate slang usage and i t s d i a lec t usage as a "deformed or diseased person; a miserable creature; an i m b e c i l e " ^ - - a usage which would amuse many of Smol lett ' s readers. (Nubjack^ i s a superb example of Smol lett ' s ingenuity in getting several ef fects from one var ia t ion . It provides the fol lowing l i n g u i s t i c variants: (1) fau l ty word d i v i s i on , (2) u/o_ spe l l ing confusion, (3) consonant c luster s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , ^ 2 (4) d i a l ec t usage, and (5) a salacious pun. Surely i t i s an i n ju s t i ce to Smol lett ' s c r ea t i v i t y with language to suggest that he is merely combining two slang terms? (Na r ro ) , (nurro), and (arrow) for never a and ever a do not present any d i f f i c u l t i e s since they are simply phonetic t ranscr ipt ions of 76 f am i l i a r vulgar pronunciations and of d ia lec t pronunciations which are s t i l l in use today (see OED). Wright's EDD gives the history of the d ia lec t use and many examples. Win's l e t te r s contain the whole spectrum of forms in the development of never a which is as fo l lows: never contracts to ne 'er ; Ce3 becomes GGG before LrU (see ( s a r t a i n } , ^sarvant^, (parson} in discussions of pronunciation variants) to produce nar. So we have these steps; never a_ to ne 'er a_ to nar a^  to nar - - the a r t i c l e being replaced by the schwa Cd] as i t i s joined to nar as the unstressed s y l l ab le of narro. Smol lett ' s use of th is form is s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned by Partridge in discussing arrow in A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional  English. Win has the fol lowing examples: ne 'er i t shal l ne 'er be said 261 ne ' r a i t has got ne ' r a bottom 261 na ' r a and na ' r a smoak upon our backs 42 narro thof he has got narro hare on his buttocks 107 narro As for master and the young ' squ i re, they have as yet had narro glimpse of the new l i g h t . 155 nurro there is nurro geaks in the whole kingdom 220 arrow I now carr ies my head higher than arrow private gentlewoman of Vales 109 arrow as arrow pr ivet ' squire in the county 352 Because the form was so widely recognized as d i a l e c t a l , i t could be used with a guaranteed ef fect in suggesting the vulgar i ty of a character. F ie ld ing uses the form frequently in Tom Jones (1749) and manages, at one point, to get both usages into one sentence, "There i s narrow a one of a l l those o f f i c e r fellows but looks upon himself to be as good as arrow a squire of £500 a year" (VII I, i i ) . Smollett, in using the forms, manages a pun or two as well as the suggestion of vu lgar i ty (107, 155). I l l Pronunciation Background to eighteenth century phonology We have seen in Win's and Tabitha 's l e t te r s that Smollett has used spel l ings ( i . e. misspell ings) which have no s ign i f icance for pronunciation to indicate the womens' d i f fe rent social and educational l e ve l s , and in addit ion we have seen that these spel l ings are the resu l t of a careful and conscious manipulation to produce comic effects in a var iety of wordplays. When we turn our attention to the spel l ings which do have s ign i f icance for pronunciation we w i l l see that Smollett has used phonological features to denote socia l and educational levels again in a d i f fe rent way and also to indicate regional features of speech. Smollett uses a select ion of well-known phonological features associated with Welsh-English speakers in the l e t te r s of both women since he is interested to c l a s s i f y them as Welsh; he also uses a se lect ion of features associated widely with ru s t i c d i a lec t speech. These variant t r a i t s mark Tabitha and Win as count r i f i ed . The exact locat ion of the regional character i s t ic s i s not as s i gn i f i can t as the fact that these t r a i t s s i gn i fy that the women are not fashionable and do not speak the received pronunciation of London. In add i t ion, he uses phonological indicators of Cockney speech of the eighteenth century. He does not want to show that they are Cockneys; rather he i s interested - 77 -78 in typ i fy ing them as vulgar speakers, and the Cockney variants were widely recognized (and decried) as the very quintessence of vu lgar i ty in the period. It i s a f a i r l y common l i t e r a r y practice to use Cockney speech t r a i t s merely to suggest vu lgar i ty. In short, Smollett draws upon a wide variety of pronunciation variants to create a convincing comic character izat ion for each of the women. But before we look s p e c i f i c a l l y at his manipulations of normal language processes, l e t us look at the att itudes toward pronunciation common in the period to see how the eighteenth century audience may have viewed his variant pronunciations v ia spe l l i ng . Borje Holmberg, wr i t ing On the Concept of Standard English and the History of Modern English Pronunciation (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1964), discusses the development toward the Received Standard Pronunciation of our time. He discusses when and in what connection the desire to reach uniformity in the co l loqu ia l language has been expressed, what c r i t e r i a of Standard English have been approved, what types of pronunciation have been accepted and what changes in the att i tude to Standard English have occurred. His out l ine of eighteenth century att itudes toward pronunciation - - att itudes very consistent with the spe l l ing att itudes discussed e a r l i e r - - i s very helpful in recreating the climate of opinion in the period. With the information Holmberg offers and the period sources to which he directs his readers, we are able to judge with more accuracy the ef fect of Smol lett ' s use of spe l l ing to indicate pronunciation. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries no de f i n i te standard of pronunciation existed although the movement toward a standard was 79 underway, as evidenced by the fact that the orthoepists of the time f e l t that a certa in pronunciation was to be preferred to other types. Class d i s t inc t ions were not a prominent feature in any of the works which dealt with pronunciation although G i l l (1619) i s notable for his attack on the al legedly affected speech of a type of upper-class woman whom he c a l l s Mopsae, but th is i s contrary to the kinds of social attack which fol low in the eighteenth century. In the seventeenth century Appeals for "better " pronunciation were not ch i e f l y based on social conditions. No 17th century grammarian advises his reader to avoid th i s or that pronunciation because i t i s heard only among the lower classes. I t i s c lear that the fee l ing had not yet grown up that pronunciation was a class shibboleth. This was to come l a t e r , when the suddenly wel l -to-do bourgeois were try ing to r i s e above the i r stat ions . . . . It can be said with reasonable j u s t i f i c a t i o n that the fee l ing for a standard that did ex i s t in the seventeenth century was largely t heo re t i ca l , and hardly influenced the speech of the average educated speaker.94 It i s in the eighteenth century that we f ind the beginnings of the present att i tude toward pronunciation for i t was then that a decidedly snobbish att i tude toward pronunciation developed. John Jones' P ract ica l Phonography, published at the turn of the century, throws some l i g h t on changing att i tudes. Although he i s , himself, very tolerant in his att i tudes toward variant pronunciations, he does announce (as mentioned e a r l i e r in connection with spel l ing) that he wants to teach his readers to pronounce "fashionably." Jones' tolerance was a feature unusual in l a te r orthoepists. Isaac Watts has the dubious d i s t i n c t i on of being the f i r s t to compile l i s t s of words with pronunciations to be avoided - - pronunciations, that i s , which are common in London, 80 "espec ia l l y among the vulgar." Watt's introduction of th i s technique i s important because the label of vu lgar i ty was to become the most e f fec t i ve means with which to attack pronunciation in the eighteenth century. The interest in pronunciation as a social indicator (of class or region) was growing, and many of the orthoepists of the period attempt to focus the i r reader 's attention on the acqu i s i t ion of the "best" pronunciation while a le r t ing him to the possible socia l consequences of a "bad" pronunciation, that i s , regional or lower class pronunciations. The introduction of pronouncing d ic t ionar ies in the l a t t e r half of the eighteenth century i s a further testament to th is pa r t i cu la r interest in pronunciation. Ea r l i e r generations had been s a t i s f i ed with word l i s t s which were especia l ly useful as guides to spe l l i ng . Once advances were made with respect to spe l l ing reform and the establishment of spe l l ing standards, i t was only natural that standardized pronunciation should seem the next step. And of course, pronunciation guides were an essential a id . While Dr. Johnson's Dictionary (1755) was the major publishing event of the age, i t s usefulness as a d ict ionary did not en t i r e l y sa t i s f y subscribers with a desire for pronunciation guidance. Sheridan's General Dictionary (1780) was a work of monumental s ign i f icance and constituted a great advance in lexicography by providing for the f i r s t time a simple and workable system for ind icat ing pronunciation; the other "pronouncing" d ict ionar ies which followed, including John Walker's A C r i t i c a l Pronouncing Dictionary (1791), were considerably influenced 81 by Sheridan's methods and att itudes (and usually acknowledged the i r indebtedness to Sheridan). The writers of these d ict ionar ies exerted a profound influence on educational methods and writers of text-books for the next f i f t y years and, of course, on the average l i t e r a t e man. Dr. Johnson's influence cannot be minimized, however. Although his Dictionary lacked a pronunciation guide for indiv idual words, i t did not lack a general guide. Johnson's pos it ion regarding pronunciation was very much in l i ne with his pos it ion on spe l l i ng . He was as interested in seeing the language " f i x e d " in the mouth as on paper, and his pronouncement that "the best general rule i s to consider those as the most elegant speakers who deviate least from the wr itten word" f i rmly established a class consciousness of pronunciation and the idea that words should sound as they are wr i t ten. His relegation of deviant speakers to "the lowest order" and his insistence on the wr itten word as the model of speech paved the way to speech reform and the proscr ipt ion of variant pronunciations. It was inev i table in th i s climate of opinion that variants should come to be regarded as "corrupt ions" , and i t i s to th i s at t i tude in the eighteenth century that we owe many of the pedagogical practices of Victorians and Moderns who decry alternate forms in speech as corrupt. The idea of "pu r i t y " of language i s also a commonplace in the period.95 The be l i e f in " f i x e d " pr inc ip les which led to the establishment of a standard of language as "reputable, nat iona l , and current" ( i . e. good use based upon "reputable custom" in the c a p i t a l ) ^ 6 also led to the establishment of a standard pronunciation based on the speech 97 of "the better sort of people at London". London as the geographical 82 standard had been assumed for several centuries and th i s aspect of the standard i s not unusual, but the soc ia l c r i t e r i a defining "the better sort of people at London" are harder to pinpoint. We may, however, assume fashion and learning as two of the necessary c r i t e r i a . A person who spoke with an unfashionable prov inc ia l accent or revealed a lack of education through his speech was stigmatised as never before when speech became a socia l yardst ick and "cor rect " pronunciation was of prime importance. And that person who revealed by his speech that he was a member of "the lower order of people at London" ( i . e. the Cockneys) was doomed to socia l disgrace. For the author who wanted a guaranteed comic e f fec t , an emphasis upon prov inc ia l pronunciations (e. g. F ie ld ing ' s Jonathan Wild, Smol lett ' s Deborah Hornbeck) was a safe bet. Variant or d i a lec ta l features in speech were reserved for comic characters; i t is unthinkable for instance that Sophia Western could speak in the broad Somerset d ia lec t att r ibuted to her father. Proper heroines spoke cor rect ly and wrote correct ly and this convention i s very obvious in Smol lett ' s novels. His female characters tend to be e i ther unapproachable paragons (e. g. Aurel ia Darnel CSJLGJ, Emil ia [PPJ, Monimia CFCF], and Narcissa [RPJ) or buffoons (e. g. Gr i zz le P i ck l e , [PIP], Clarinda [RRJ, Mrs. Gobble CSLGJ]) although Dolly Cowslip, in sp i te of her d ia lec t speech, comes of f a l i t t l e better than the reader might i n i t i a l l y expect and i s treated to some non-humorous human qua l i t i e s in her character izat ion. When a Smollett heroine writes a l e t t e r (e. g. Narcissa ' s l e t t e r , Roderick Random,. Chapter VX) i t i s an elegant l e t t e r , we l l - spe l led and without a tinge of variant features: i t i s 83 only his "comic heroines" - - the buffoons - - Win, Tabitha, Deborah Hornbeck and Clarinda - - who wr ite horr ib ly misspelled l e t te r s f u l l of words which assault the reader's eye and suggest variant pronunciations through the i r orthography. This technique of language use i s an e f fect i ve i f conventional means of suggesting character; i t i s also an e f fect i ve means to signal to the reader that he i s to make socia l judgements about a character on the basis of language, written or spoken. Smollett manipulates Win's and Tabitha 's spel l ings to produce a large number of pronunciation var iants. I t i s my intention to deal with the most obvious of these by concentrating upon the language processes used to create the variants and by concentrating on the ways in which the consonants and vowels have been affected by these changes. In determining the pronunciation Smollett would associate with the orthographic conventions I am assuming that the changes in spe l l ing are made with reference to educated London English since Smollett was well aware of the antagonistic att i tude towards the Scots (cf. Dr. Johnson) and the stigma attached to Scott ish pronunciations (see Roderick Random, Chapter XI I I). Via the persona of Matt Bramble he comments on i t in Humphry Cl inker: I think the Scots would do w e l l , for t he i r own sakes, to adopt the English idioms and pronunciations; those of them espec ia l ly who are resolved to push the i r fortunes in South B r i t a i n . I know, by experience, how eas i l y an Englishman i s influenced by the ear, and how apt he is to laugh when he hears his own language spoken with a foreign or prov inc ia l accent. I have known a member of the House of Commons speak with great energy and prec i s ion, without being able to engage at tent ion, because his observations were made in the Scots d i a l e c t , which certa in ly gives a clownish a i r , even to sentiments of the greatest d ignity and decorum. (231) 84 As a wr i t e r , he would use the standard i f possible to assure himself of a wide audience. My treatment of consonantal changes, losses, or gains w i l l be more extensive than that of vowels because i t i s possible to interpret with some degree of accuracy the probable intentions behind consonant a l terat ions . With vowels, however, i t i s d i f fe rent . The interpretat ion of vowels and vowel quantit ies indicated by standard orthography even manipulated orthography'-- i s exceedingly d i f f i c u l t , a fact which most present-day recorders of d ia lec t s t i l l f ind in sp i te of an internat ional phonetic alphabet and e lectron ic means of recording. Clipping A feature of English word formation which Smollett observes and uses in his word play is c l ipp ing or aphesis. An abbreviation, or cl ipped form, must be regarded as a new word, pa r t i cu l a r l y when, as i t frequently does, i t supplants the longer form altogether. Thus, mob can be said to have supplanted mobile vulgus 'movable, or f i c k l e , common people, ' and taxicab to have supplanted taximeter cabr io let to the extent that the longer form is no longer associated with i t , and two new words, t a x i and cab, have taken over independently. A special type of abbreviation consists of what is l e f t over a f te r an i n i t i a l unstressed s y l l ab le has been l o s t ; 'scuse and 'cause (for excuse me and because), two ch i ld i sh speech forms may i l l u s t r a t e . Frequently, th i s phenomenon has resulted in two d i f fe rent words, for instance, fender, fence, cute, squire, and sport, which are simply aphetic forms of defender, defense, accute, esquire, and disport. Sometimes, however, an aphetic form may occur simply as a variant of the longer form, for instance possum (from opossum) and coon (from racoon).98 In the eighteenth century, for instance, pothecary and s p i t t l e (or sp i t a l ) were aphetic forms of apothecary and h o s p i t a l T h e I r i sh Spel l ing 85 Book of 1740 provides examples in a table "Of Words commonly spoken shorter than they are wr i t ten " of words which were created through the dropping of unstressed sy l l ab le s : med'cin poticary sample scape s p i t t l e s tab l i sh state sumner surgeon venturer v i t t l e s purtenances 111 evi 1 medicine apothecary apurtences example escape hospital establ ish estate summoner chirurgeon adventurer v ictua l s (The I r i sh Spel l ing Book., p. 148) While modern day English has retained some of these shortened words in standard usage (e. g. sample, surgeon), spe l l ing pronunciation has restored the older forms in other (e. g. hosp i ta l , apothecary). I t i s c lea r , however, that the above l i s t was meant as a guide to pronunciation and not to shortened spe l l ing forms since the conventional spel l ings are also given. We may assume, therefore, that Win's misspell ings of th i s kind are another means of c l a s s i f y i ng her as i l l i t e r a t e in , spite of the fact that the spel l ings do represent ordinary pronunciation and not an i n f e r i o r pronunciation. Smollett has Win use three common eighteenth century words, scaped (72, 260), pott icary (71)^00 a n ( j s£urre^^ and, using the same pr inc ip le of aphetic formation, invents two others, ^marokin^ for American ( 3 5 2 ) 1 0 2 and ( t r i g g i n g ^ f o r int r igu ing (70). While scaped and pott icary did not survive the censure of the prescr ipt ive spe l l ing teachers beyond the end of the eighteenth century, they did survive as widely-used 86 d ia lec t words. I t i s not very l i k e l y , then, that Smol lett ' s use of these words was used to reinforce the view of Win as a country bumpkin even though that is doubtless the impression the words make upon readers of the nineteenth century and the modern period. Instead, the misspelled forms are but another comment upon Win's i l l i t e r a t e state. Metathesis Metathesis i s the transposit ion of speech sounds, most usually of a consonant and a vowel, though two consonants may metathesize (e. g. wasp / waps). In Engl ish, the most common metathesis involves Cr] and a vowel; i t may occur when OH precedes a vowel, as in perty for pretty, hunderd for hundred, apern for apron. and pernounce for pronounce, or when [ r ] follows a vowel as in northren for northern, eastren for eastern, southren for southern, and c i s t ren for cistern.104 Win has both types of [>] metathesis: LrH and a fol lowing vowel: a f fea r ' d a f ra id 261 Kairmann Cameron [l<&mran] 261 Mattermoney matrimony 352 portend pretend 338 pursecution prosecution 72 purtection protection 353 purtests protests 338 purvail prevai l 219 portend pretend 338 preceding vowel and following [ r ] : cruperal corporeal 72 crutch church 261, 338, 338 Macrocodile M'Corkindale 260 p ra t i c l e pa r t i c l e 262 preformed performed 337 profuming perfuming 220 87 Tabitha has three of the f i r s t type: partake partected purseeding protect protected proceeding 6, 274 45 -274 and one of the second: acrons acorns 156 Smollett uses the metathesis of L r ] in Win's l e t te r s to create such puns as " - - My parents were marred according to the r ights of holy mother crutch, in the face of men and angles.. " (338) in the middle of her protestations that she " d i dn ' t come on the wrong side of the blanket," or a reference to the "holy bands of mattermoney" (352) when discussing the weddings of the three happy couples. The matter of money has, by this time in the novel, had a great deal to do with the appropriateness of the l ad ie s ' choices. Smollett is able to create puns while categorizing Win as a vulgar s peake r , 1 0 5 and hinting at Tabitha 's possible regional d i a l ec t . In addit ion to the predominant Cr] types of metathesis there are several others; examples of other frequent metatheses are tradegy for ' tragedy, revelant for relevant, aks for ask, and waps for wasp. Of these, Win has ( a x ) (262) and (axed) (43, 219) for ask, and (aster i sks) (7, 220) for h y s t e r i c s . 1 0 6 Wright, while entering AKSE, AXE, AX, in his Provincia l Glossary, d ign i f ie s the word by stat ing "This word which now passes for a mere vulgarism, is the or ig ina l Saxon form, and used commonly by Chaucer and o t h e r s . " 1 0 7 The form is standard in d ia lec ta l usage. Win also reverses n and m to produce (fizzogmany) for physiognamy (42) - - another word probably unfamil iar to her in i t s conventional 88 form while possibly not in i t s d i a lec t form f i zzog . 108 This pa r t i cu la r metathesis, l i k e aks for ask, i s a vulgar usage which is d i a l ec ta l in general and a Cockneyism in par t i cu la r . Pegge notes the Cockney reversa l , vemon and vemonous 1^ along with other examples of Cockney metathesis recorded in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Modern anenomes for anemones is of the same order. Tabitha has n and m reversed in ^oecumenical) for oeconomical (352) and [c] and [ s ] reversed in a metathesis- l ike formation, obviously in the interests of introducing an of f -co lour pun, i n \ b e s h i t s / for beseeches (156). Related to metathesis and to the ass imi lat ion of [n] to [m] is a speech confusion associated with vulgar usage, the confusion of Cn] malapropisms to produce incongruity. The f i r s t instance is pa r t i cu l a r l y humorous as Win asserts, "I have su l len ly promised to Mr. C l inker , that neither man, woman, nor c h i l d , shal l no that arrow said a c i v i l thing to me in the way of i n fec t i on " (307). This i s more of Win's character i s t i c pride in being "famous for keeping secrets" - - Molly, as usual, doesn't count as "man, woman, nor c h i l d " - - and Win's unwillingness to promise secrecy could hardly be more blatant. D i s s imi lat ion: [ r ] - • ] confusion D i s s imi lat ion i s a "phonetic process in which two neighbouring sounds that were once a l i ke become d i f fe rent . In the words derived 89 in Engl ish, I t a l i a n , and French from Latin peregrinus the f i r s t r_ has become d i s s im i la r to the second one by changing to 1_: p i l g r im. Sometimes one of the neighbouring sounds w i l l disappear completely. This kind of d i s s im i la t ion is i l l u s t r a t e d in the common pronunciation of 1 ibrary , February, secretary in which the f i r s t r. i s l o s t in each w o r d . " ^ 0 D i ss imi lat ion depends, in part, upon the d i f f i c u l t y of forming the separate sounds. Because the l iqu ids [1] and [rH are c lose ly related in a r t i c u l a t i o n , there may be some confusion in the auditory d i sc r imin-ation of these sounds and in the r e p r o d u c t i o n . ^ In certa in languages other than Engl ish, CI3 and [>] are the same sound ( i . e. they represent one phoneme), and the use i s en t i r e l y predictable according to whether the sound occurs in a word i n i t i a l , medial, or f i na l pos i t ion. Speakers of or ienta l languages, for instance, f ind i t d i f f i c u l t to learn C1• and L~r] as separate sounds of English ( i . e. as two phonemes) and, as 112 a re su l t , produce reversed sounds. For speakers of Engl ish, th is reversal i s l i k e l y to occur, but the fact that a seeming confusion is evident in d i s s im i la t ion suggests that the confusion might be mistaken for d i s s im i la t ion i t s e l f . Smol lett ' s keen ear must have caught the process of d i s s im i la t ion for he has performed a l i t t l e s le ight of hand with Win's spe l l ing to suggest a pecu l i a r i t y of her speech, the confusion of the l i qu id s . He has Win write (Grascow^ and ^Grasco} for Glasgow (260, 262) and ^Harry King's Row} for Harlequin 's Row (43), using r_ for 1_. Using for _r, she writes ^ s c u f f l e } fo r scoffer (306) and ^shamble} for chambre (219, 306). In the l a t t e r case, Win's confusion i s further complicated by her mis interpretat ion of a foreign word. 90 Ass imi lat ion Ass imi lat ion, by contrast, i s the phonetic process by which one sound changes to resemble or become ident ica l with a sound near i t . Ass imi lat ion may come about because two sounds resemble each other in that they are a r t i cu la ted in the same part of the mouth. The two pronunciations spelled strength and strenth i l l u s t r a t e th i s . The sound of nq_ in the f i r s t pronunciation comes to resemble the sound of n in the second. The second one i s easier to pronounce because both the jn and the th are a r t i cu la ted in the front of the mouth. In ngth, the tongue i s in the back of the mouth for n£ and moves to the front of the mouth for th. In strenth then, we have a pronunciation shortcut; the sound of ng_ has been assimilated to,.has been made l i k e , the sound of rw In a second kind of a s s imi la t ion , one sound becomes ident ica l with another. An example of th i s can be found in the pronunciation of horseshoe. The usual pronunciation might be spelled horshoe. Here the f i n a l is of horse i s assimilated to , has become ident ica l wi th, the sh_ sound of shoe. This standard pronunciation is a shortcut; i t reduces the movements of the tongue from two to one at th i s point in the pronunciation of the w o r d . 3 A l l utterances are consecutive, and i t i s a feature of v i r t u a l l y every known language that speakers tend to a l t e r vowels and consonants to shortcut the process of a r t i c u l a t i on . Ass imi lat ion is ju s t one of Win's many ways of shortcutting language, for instance, (horshoe) for horseshoe ( 2 6 1 ) 1 1 4 and (impfiddle^> for i n f i de l (306). The ass imi lat ion process to produce ( impf idd le ) i s as fol lows: [n] becomes M ( i . e. a palatal nasal moves forward to become a l ab ia l nasal) because [m] is c loser in point of a r t i cu l a t i on to [ f ] (a labio-dental f r i c a t i v e ) than [n] , and the [p] (a b ib l ab ia l stop) ju s t natural ly intrudes in smoothing the move from DrQ to f_f]. Win's formation of impfiddle i s also conditioned by the fact that she analyzes the unfamil iar word as a compound of two ordinary English words, imp and f i d d l e . 1 1 5 91 Although [n] becomes ftVj] before velars in stressed s y l l ab l e s , there is a tendency in English speech to substitute [n] for [rj] in unstressed sy l lab les (e. g. hunt in ' , shoot in ' , f i s h i n ' , which are spel l ings used to indicate a phonetic value of [n ] , the palatal nasal). Because of t h i s , improperly educated people know that some words which they pronounce with [n] are spelled ng_, but do not know which words [n] words to spel l n£. They therefore hypercorrect and spel l [n] with n£ when r ea l l y n i s the correct spe l l i ng . D Assimilations of [n] are common in English as nasals tend to ass imi late to a fol lowing consonant (e. g. before [g] or [ k ] ) . At a l l periods of the language [n] tends to become Qj] before velars. The change i s regular in stressed sy l lab les and occurs, for example in monk, canker, and banquet.^ 7 Although prefixes in i n - and com-commonly contain En], th i s may not be so in words in which the pref ix i s f e l t as inseparable (e. g. Income, conquer, concrete, congress)J ^ Win's l e t te r s have only one example of th is form of a s s imi la t ion , (carry ing c row^for carr ion crow (306) in which the fol lowing [k ] af fects the [n] . But Win's and Tabitha 's l e t te r s have another common feature, c lose ly a l l i e d with this change. There are many examples of [ry] for f i n a l [n]. From Win's l e t t e r s : Addingborough Edinburgh 221 assings essence 307 Harry King's Row Harlequin's Row 43 mounting Mountain 261, 261 pursing person 108, 352 Loff Loming Loch Lomond 260 [ f i n a l [d] dropped] 92 and from Tabitha ' s : chickings chickens 274 easings essence 6 This inverse pronunciation of Dj3 for [n ] , represented in spe l l ing by ing for i_n, i s very common among "would-be-fine-speakers" and marks them as socia l climbers as i t does Win and T a b i t h a . ^ This change is also evident in e a r l i e r Engl ish; we f ind Shakespeare 's(cushings) (cushions), ( javel ings) ( j ave l i n s ) , and (kapking^ (napkin) i l l u s t r a t i n g I Of] th i s reversa l . Smol lett ' s use of th i s in the l e t te r s often occasions some fun as for example, when Edinburgh i s f i t t i n g l y turned into Adding  Borough in honour of the Scots ' penny consciousness. And essence is turned into easings (a widely used d i a l ec ta l word for dung, as mentioned ea r l i e r ) in Tabitha 's l e t t e r and into pass ings) --• with the obvious "shock value" - - in Win's letter.121 Tabitha 's misspell ings are interest ing since one i s connected with an o f f -co lour joke and the other, ()hickings^, is not t e r r i b l y far o f f from the common diminutive term ch ick l ings , l i s t e d in Johnson's d ict ionary. Tabitha i s ta lk ing about eggs hatching and a "power of turks, chickings and guzzling (goslings) about the house" and i t i s possible that her error i s meant not to be a glar ing use of [tjj for [n ] , but merely an ignorant spe l l i ng . Consonant c luster s imp l i f i ca t i on Closely related to ass imi lat ion i s consonant c luster s imp l i f i c a t i on , a process in which a group of consonants i s reduced to only one instead of t w o , 1 2 2 or two instead of t h r e e . ! 2 3 Ass imi lat ion may occur in certa in f i n a l groups where the second consonant is often l o s t , normally 93 by ass imi lat ion to the f i r s t . ^ 4 From the late fourteenth century onward f i na l [d] and L~t] are los t af ter dentals, a f ter [ k ] , and a f te r [p]. The process is assimalatory; [d] (and more rare ly [ t ] ) i s l o s t a f te r [n ] , and [ t ] a f ter voiceless consonants (especia l ly [k ] and CpU). It was apparently common in vulgar and d ia lec ta l speech. I 2 5 Smollett provides examples of these consonant c luster s imp l i f i ca t ions in Tabitha's "vulgarisms", (partake} f ° r protect (6, 274)^6 a n c | (talons} for talents (78), and in Win's ^par feck } for perfect ( 3 3 7 ) 1 2 7 and (nubjack^ for (a)n object (306)^^ and in ^temp} for tempt (219). Smollett also has Win s impl i fy Baynard's into (Baynar 's^ (306), a loss of [d] fol lowing OD and another f i n a l pos it ion s imp l i f i c a t i on . Dobson i l l u s t r a t e s th is par t i cu la r ass imi lat ion with the homophone 129 pair leper / leopard. He does, however, note that loss of dentals a f te r OH i s not frequent and c i tes harness / hardness in the medial pos it ion as one of the few examples.-*-30 In certa in words a medial consonant is los t by being assimilated to a fol lowing consonant. The development when in progress i s considered character i s t i c of vulgar or d i a lec ta l speech ( l i k e the f i n a l s imp l i f i c a t i o n ) , but h i s t o r i c a l l y is quite frequent and has produced some of our present ex i s t ing forms. In general these forms were produced by changes 131 or ig inat ing in Middle English. From the fourteenth century onward there is a marked tendency to s impl i fy a group of three (or four) consonants by losing the sound of the middle one (or l a s t but one). The consonants lo s t are those that are lo s t in the f i na l posit ion (as discussed above), but the ass imilatory process occurs more frequently when another consonant f o l l o w s . * 3 2 94. This medial consonant c luster s imp l i f i ca t i on i s found in Win's ^lottogon) for Octagon ( 4 2 ) * 3 3 in which the [k ] i s ass imilated to the fol lowing [ t ] , and in ( content ib le^ for contemptible (352) in which the middle consonant CpH i s assimilated to the fol lowing [ t ] and the [m] i s further assimilated to the nasal M since the nasal Cn] i s c loser in point of a r t i cu l a t i on to the dental [ t ] than to the l ab ia l DTG. I t i s also found in (bran-new^ for brand-new ( 3 3 7 ) 1 3 4 and in ^grinestone^ for grindstone ( J 0 7 ) ^ in which the dental i s los t af ter M. Excrescent [d] or [ t ] Smollett att r ibutes to Win a tendency to add dental sounds to certa in words in her l e t t e r s , and th i s addit ion i s a common procedure. In late Middle English and in Modern English there i s a tendency for "excrescent" stops to develop a f te r nasals; th is i s the resu l t of a premature clos ing of the nasal passage, so that the release of the oral stop is a d i s t i n c t a r t i cu la to ry process and i s heard as a d i s t i n c t sound. It i s very common for a dental stop, [d] or [ t ] , to be "tacked on" to the end of a word; our words ancient, pageant, and parchment developed the i r f i n a l t ' s in the f i f teenth century by th i s process. The addit ion of a dental where i t i s normally absent is frequently a feature of d i a lec t speech. In the d ia lects in a few instances, a ;t has been added af ter n_, f , or s_, as in sermont, suddent, vermint 5  sc ruf t ( s c ru f f ) , and wunst ( once ) . * 3 7 Win adds t only once, wr i t ing {sarment^ for sermon (155). 95 The addit ion of d_ i s more common, usually developing a f te r n, jr. Wright notes that i t i s seldom, i f ever, found north of Yorkshire except in a few i so lated words, drown, gown, yj)n, and scholar. But some common examples of excrescent d_ are: feeld ( f ee l ) , drownd (drown), gallond (ga l lon), gownd (gown), sound (swoon), wind (wine), and mi Herd (m i l l e r ) . We f ind some of these in Win's l e t t e r s : ('bands} for banns (352), (wind} for wine (108), ^drownding'} for drowning (260), ^sounded'} for swooned (261) and a curious use of ( and^ for arn in the phrases, " f o r she never spun and hank of yarn in her l i f e " (338). We f ind only (wind-sel ler} for wine-cel lar (6) in Tabitha 's l e t t e r s . The addition of d_ or t_ to indicate the sounds of [d] and CtH i s eas i ly recognized as a feature of d i a lec t speech and i t was, in the eighteenth century, as now, character i s t i c of Cockney speech - - the speech of "the vulgar sort of people at London" as Walker puts i t . Stage representation of d i a l ec t often uses f i na l t in I r i sh English and f i na l d in Cockney English. But for Smol lett ' s purposes, the addit ion of e ither was an immediate indicator of vu lgar i ty . Loss of [ r ] : vocal izat ion 1 The omission of j°_ in comfort, comfortable, forward, and Lord to produce (comfit} (108, 220, 261), ^k imf i t t ab ley (307, 307), (forewoocfy (306, 307) and ^Laud*} (43) i s another commonly recognized l i n g u i s t i c process which has affected English in the early Modern English period - -that of the vocal izat ion of [rU in unstressed sy l l ab le s . That is to I OQ say, [ r ] (except before a vowel or s y l l ab i c consonant) is vocalized to the schwa a sound to which Modern English [ r H is c lose ly a l l i e d . 96 In unstressed sy l lab les the resu l t i s to ob l i te ra te the d i s t i n c t i on between s y l l ab i c Cr] and Cr ] . The vocal izat ion of Cr] i s common in d i a l ec t forms in the early Modern English period and the vocal izat ion of Cr] in a l l s y l l ab les is a development of Modern English which has los t post -vocal ic , preconsonantal and f i n a l Cr] everywhere, even when stressed, in Standard English. Loss of o n Dobson, in a discussion of the vocal izat ion of consonants, observes the loss of Cw], especia l ly before QV] and Co]. He notes the change of swoon to soun in the la te fourteenth century, noting that excrescent [d] was usually a prominent feature of th i s pa r t i cu la r word .^ 4 0 Win has th i s very form in sounded for swooned (261). Of th i s par t i cu la r word Walker comments in his C r i t i c a l Pronouncing Dictionary (p. 57), "In swoon, however, th i s l e t t e r Cw] i s always heard, and pronouncing i t soon i s vulgar." Win is again damned by her usage. Of the loss of Cw]'before IV] Dobson remarks that i t " i s pr imar i ly a Scottish and Western development but i s not confined to these d i a l e c t s ; [see Wright EDG, p. 207]. Dickens shows i t in the Cockney speech of the Wellers" (Dobson I I, p. 980). Win exhibits a loss of Cw] in wool to produce (owl ) ( 2 1 9 ) 1 4 1 and in world to produce ( o r l d ^ (220), and in pennyworth to produce pennorth ( 4 3 ) . A l l of these pronunciations appear as d i a l e c t , as do ^comfit) , ( k im f i t t ab l e ) and (forewood^ (also as forwad, forrad, etc.) and are recorded in the EDD. These spel l ings also mark Win's pronunciations as substandard. 97 Intrusive [ r ] Another feature of Win's speech indicated by her spe l l ing i s the presence of " i n t ru s i ve r". By " i n t rus i ve r" i s meant a pronunciation with Cr] where this i s not etymologically " j u s t i f i e d " , that i s , where the _r i s not descended from Early Modern English T>H and does not occur in the spe l l i ng . The _r i s inserted only before a vowel and by th i s we know that C r ] ' s were no longer pronounced before a consonant. Intrusive and l ink ing r ' s (e. g. law and order sounded as lore and order) are frequently, .i:n l i t e r a t u r e , used as a character i s t i c mark of vu lgar i ty . J Jespersen remarks that "the oldest example, perhaps, i s in Smollett (quoted by Storm L in Englische Ph i lo log ie , 1892, p. 919]): your aydear i s : the windore opened." I 4 4 Smollett used the intrus ive r. in the l e t te r s of Clarinda (Roderick Random) and Deborah Hornbeck (Peregrine P ick le) to suggest lowness, and he uses i t to the same purpose in Win's l e t te r s in ( f e l l o r ) (43, 70), (vindore)> (219), and (windore') (220, 3 0 7 ) . 1 4 5 Win also inserts _r into the middle of a word; we f ind {odorous) for odious (71). This l a s t , however, seems more plaus ibly to exp lo i t the malapropism since i t i s humorously joined with falsehood in (odorous falsehood^ to suggest Win's outrage at having someone t e l l a " s t ink ing l i e " about her. Tabitha has no instances of intrus ive _r beyond her misspel l ing of (constuprated^ for constipated (6). Inserted r to represent Cg:] Related to the intrus ive r, but only in appearance, i s Win's spe l l ing of (chrishmarsh) for Christmas (352). This i s not an example 98 of intrus ive r j rather, i t i s an attempt to represent a long vowel sound of Cf l : ] . s im i la r to that in Standard B r i t i s h Engl ish, path and glass. Jespersen notes that " i t may be mentioned that ar_ i s the only way of popularly ind icat ing the sound of Ca:3, as when people are intended to pronounce Iago as "Yargo" or E-argo" . . . or answer as arnser . . . . Thus also must be explained the spel1ing marm for ma'am, for instance, in Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes books."*46 Aspirat ion: addit ion and omission of L~h] Win's haphazard spe l l ing of h_-less words with h and vice versa would i nc l i ne a reader, at f i r s t glance, to think that her spe l l ing represents her own pattern of fau l ty asp i rat ion in speech. It i s , however, less l i k e l y that Win's spe l l ing represents f a u l t i l y aspirated or non-aspirated words than that i t indicates that she is unable to d ist inguish such words but i s anxious to write them cor rect l y . I t fol lows that she i s aware that some words not pronounced with h are spel led with h_ - - as humble, honour, humour, and hospital in the eighteenth century -- while words pronounced with _h were also spelled with h_. Smol lett ' s technique here i s a su re - f i re way of exposing Win's ignorance, be i t of spe l l ing or pronunciation. The loss of h in many circumstances is a feature of educated speech; in rapid speech ( I ' ve , I 'd, you 'd) , in the second part of many compounds (Nottingham, shepherd), a f ter Cr3 (Durham, forehead - - " fo r red " in Standard B r i t i s h Engl ish), and between a strong and a weak vowel (vehic le, nihi l ism).147 While the leaving out of_h in the above cases i s a part of educated speech, the omission of h takes place i nd i f f e ren t l y 99 in a l l classes of words in a l l English d ia lects except the very northern-most, parts of Durham, Cumber land,^ and in East A n g l i a . ^ Here Chi i s completely l o s t as a s i gn i f i can t part of the sound system, and the same i s true of the vulgar speech of the towns (e. g. Cockney in London). Accompanying this loss of Chi i s the phenomenon of the fa l se insert ion of Chi : Jespersen explains the phenomenon: When people lose the sense of Ch] as a d i s t i n c t i v e sound, i t i s a matter of indifference to them how a vowel begins; they do not hear any difference between Cha] with the g l id ing from a more open posit ion of the vocal chords . . . and the simple Ca] with a rapid inaudible t rans i t i on from s i lence to vocal v ibrat ion . . . . Many novel ists would have us bel ieve, that people who drop the i r aspirates place fa l se aspirates before every vowel that should have no Ch i ; such systematic perversion is not, however, in human nature. But they sometimes inadvertently put an Ch] between two vowels (rarely af ter a consonant), espec ia l ly when the word i s to receive extra emphasis, and of course, without any regard to whether the word "ought to" have Ch] or not. The observer, however, to whom Ch] or no Ch] i s s i g n i f i c an t , f a i l s to notice the words which agree with his own r u l e 3 but i s struck with the instances of disagreement, deducing from them the impression of a systematic perversion. ("Am an' heggs").151 Win's spe l l ings , l i k e most of the variants in her l e t t e r s , are not cons istently "perverse" in the i r appl icat ions. She may write two forms, one correct and one incorrect , on the same page as for example, "and she to ld me such things - - descriving Mr. Cl inker to a h a i r " , and "but the ould edmiral could not have made his a i r to stand on end" (p. 261). (Note that Win puts in h_ between two vowels and drops_h af ter a consonant; cf . Jespersen's comment above.) This feature of using two forms may represent a kind of realism but i t i s more probable that Smollett is concerned to introduce only a manageable number of 100 variants into one par t i cu la r section so that the reader 's sense is not "overloaded" with a var iety of information to interpret . Jespersen discusses the disappearance of L~hj and remarks that 15? i t i s very d i f f i c u l t to t e l l how old the disappearance i s . The f i r s t mention of i t i s in 1787 when Elphinston talks about the " i l s , ouzes, earing the owls in dhe hevening, orse, a r t , arm, &c." Walker, in his discussion of the four fau l t s of pronunciation of the Londoners (see below under discussion of [v] for [w] etc.) complains of the i r "not sounding h_ where i t ought to be sounded, and inverse ly. " Walker wri tes: A s t i l l worse habit than the l a s t [not sounding h_ a f ter wH preva i l s , . . . that of sinking the h_ at the beginning of words where i t ought to be sounded, and of sounding i t , e ither where i t i s not seen, or where i t ought to be sunk . . . . This i s a v ice perfect ly s imi la r to that of pronouncing the v_ for the w, and the w for the v, and requires a s im i la r method to correct it.T53 Walker i s out l in ing the poor speech of "the lower sort of people at London" and we can observe that Win i s c l a s s i f i e d as the lower s o r t j 5 ^ theoret i ca l l y from Wales. Win's spel l ings are as fol lows: addition of h_ Busshard Buzzard 155 Haddingborough Edinburgh 220, 220, 220 Halteration a l te ra t ion 352 hanger anger 220 hair heir 337 hays eyes 307 heys eyes 306 hearth earth 155 Hottogon Octagon 42 h i l l y f en t s elephants 108 honeymils animals 108 honymi1 animal 43 101 huggling hylands peyhouse Machappy a i r arm art a done Apias aster isks exaltations umble* umphry* urn pry* ogling islands pious M'Alpine omission of h_ hair harm heart have done habeus hysterics exhortations humble Humphry Humphry 220 261 , 261 109, 155, 261 338 261, 306, 352 219, 261 262 7 155 7, 220 260 338 107 108 *These words, as indicated above in the discussion of h_ spe l l ings , are spelled as normally pronounced in the eighteenth century. Some of these haphazard spe l l ing changes are the resu l t of Smol lett ' s intent to pun. (Hal terat ion^ and (rylands) provide two ready examples. Jery speaks of marriage in terms of being "noosed" (333) while Matthew observes " - - I have great hopes that he [LismahagoU and Tabby w i l l be as happily paired as any two draught animals in the kingdom" (339); such remarks are a cheerful preparation for Win's announcement: PR0VIDINCH hath bin pleased to make great halterat ion in the pasture of our a f f a i r s . - - We were yesterday three k ip le chined, by the grease of God, in the holy bands of mattermoney . . . (352). The suggestion of ha l te r s , pastures, chains, and bands sets up a nice associat ion to reinforce Matthew's e a r l i e r observations. (Hylands*) for is lands appears in Win's descr ipt ion of Loch Lomond: . . . Loff Loming, which i s a wonderful sea of fresh water, with a power of hylands in the midst on ' t . - - They say as how i t has got n 'er a bottom, and was made by a musician . . . and QhasU a f l oa t ing hyland . . . (261). Smollett i s , of course, having Win confuse the Highlands of Scotland with the islands of Loch Lomond. 102 These spe l l ing changes provide addit ional opportunities for rnalapropisms in such phrases as "I was going into a f i t of as ter icks " (220), "Ould Scratch has not a greater enemy upon hearth than Mr. C l inker " (155) (a comparison which somewhat diminishes Mr. C l i nker ' s area of sovereignty in th i s regard), and "she would cast the heys of in fect ion upon such a carrying crow" (306) followed immediately by "I have seen with my own hays" ( 3 0 7 ) . T h e r e are several other interest ing rnalapropisms resu l t ing from th is haphazard insert ion or deletion of I n . ^ Smollett, as usual, gets two effects instead of one from a s ingle a l t e r a t i on . Interchange of [v ] for LV]; L~wH for [vH The interchange of y_ and w is another s t r i k i ng feature which appears only in Win's l e t t e r s ; Tabitha 's are free from any suggestion of th i s variant pronunciation. The confusion of L~vH and [wH has long been thought to r e f l e c t one of the most obvious "errors " in Londoners — s p e c i f i c a l l y Cockney - - pronunciation and d i rect attent ion was f i r s t given to the def ic ienc ies of the i r pronunciation in the eighteenth c e n t u r y . B y the end of the century we f ind Walker inveighing against the four " f au l t s of the Londoners'': (1) Pronouncing s^  i n d i s t i n c t l y a f ter s t ; (2) Pronouncing w for _v, and inversely; (3) Not sounding h a f te r w;*58 an<j ( 4 ) [\Qt sounding h_ where i t ought to be sounded, and inversely. He i s joined by Stephen Jones in 1796. With reference to the interchange of y_ and w, Walker says: The pronunciation of y_ for w, and more frequently of w for v among the inhabitants of London, and those not always of the lowest order, is a blemish of the f i r s t magnitude. The d i f f i c u l t y of remedying th i s defect is the greater, 103 as the cure of one of these mistakes has a tendency to promote the other, (pp. x i i - x i i i ) I t i s th i s very confusion which writers of l i t e r a r y d ia lec t have seized upon to characterize Cockney s p e e c h . ^ Walker makes an interest ing point when he says that w for y_ was more frequent than _y_ for w. It i s extremely doubtful whether the variant was ever as popular as the novel ists suggest. While w for y_ i s s t i l l a commonplace in words l i k e wicious, w i t t l e s , weal, and winegar in nineteenth century novels (Dickens' Sam Weller and Thackeray's Jeames Yellowplush), i t has dropped out of modern Cockney pronunciation and i s rare ly used. And y_ for w seems to have disappeared completely before the end of the nineteenth century; an informant of Matthews, born in 1865, could not reca l l ever having heard y_ for w. Smollett i s p a r t i a l l y responsible for the use of these interchangeable spel l ings as a commonplace feature of l i t e r a r y d ia lec t as a resu l t of his introduction of them in his early novels. Matthews remarks that a f ter the spe l l ing wingar (vinegar) in Roderick Random, these variants become the chief charac te r i s t i c of Cockney dialogue in novels and they are condemned by the c r i t i c s for being an overs impl i f icat ion of the d i a l ec t J^O Walker's suggestion that the subst i tut ion of y_ for w was encouraged by attempts to correct the reverse (and more common) subst i tut ion i s a plaus ible explanation, i f not in terms of d i f f i c u l t y in the actual a r t i c u l a t i on of the sounds, then perhaps in terms of hypercorrection which results from a confusion as to when to pronounce one and when the o t h e r . W i n probably knows that the interchange of y_ and w i s frowned upon and in her anxiety to be correct, she hypercorrects. 104 Amusingly, she produces more y_ for w spel l ings than the reverse. Win's spel l ings are as fo l lows: Cw] for Cv] wal ly valet 219 wi 11ian v i l l a i n 155 winegar vinegar 44 Cv] for Cw] Vai l s Wales 260 Vales Wales 109 van wan (one) 219, vaned weaned 109 varrant warrant 71 vas was 219 vax wax 71 vee oui (Fr.) 109 veezel weasel 306 Velsh Welsh 220 Velchvoman Welshwoman 262 Welch Welsh (Welch) 261 v i n d o r e l 6 2 windore (window) 219 ving wing 70 v i tch witch 261 v i te white 72 (wite, no aspirat ion) 71 vitness wi tness voman woman 109, vords words 261, The only example from Tabitha 's l e t te r s i s ( V i l l i a m s ) f ° r Hi 11 jams (78, 156) which she also spel ls cor rect ly as Williams (p. 6). Subst itut ion of Cvr] fo r Cwr] Also related to Win's interchange of _v and w i s a curious change of vr for wr in ( v r i t i n g ) (109) and ^vronging^(71) - - cer ta in ly not a Londoner's charac te r i s t i c even though i t makes the same impression upon the eye. As a representation of a pronunciation var iant, i n i t i a l ICO Cvr] i s unusual. Even in the d ia lects i t i s uncommon, there i s 105 a mere handful of vr entries in the English Dialect Dictionary: vrack (wreck), vratch (wretch), vrath (wrath), etc. with vreet and vreyjt (write) from Scotland and Lancashire. Interest ing ly, the variant i s frequent only in Scotland, Somerset, and Devon a l l areas with which Smollett had some f a m i l i a r i t y . 1 6 4 At any ra te , Smollett i s using the device as another convenient and obvious means of representing Win's i n f e r i o r speech through wr i t i ng . Voicing and Devoicing The process of voicing and devoicing are evident in Win's (and to a lesser extent in Tabitha 's) l e t t e r s . A voiced sound i s one made when breath forced from the lungs vibrates the vocal cords. A l l vowels are voiced sounds, as are some consonants. Voiceless sounds are those made without v ibrat ion of the vocal cords. Some consonants are voiceless. The voiced stops are L~b]:, L~d], [g] and the voiceless stops are L~p], CtH, and [>]; the voiced f r i c a t i v e s are Cv], Lo], L z ] , and [ z ] and the voiceless f r i c a t i v e s are C f ] , Ld], Cs] and Ls ] . The voiced a f f r i c a te i s L j ] and the voiceless is [jc]. When a word with a voiced consonant (e. g. gain) i s pronounced without voicing (e. g. cain) we may say that the consonant Eg 3 has been devoiced to Ek]. Voicing i s a reversal of the process. Devoicing Devoicing i s a feature of Welsh phonology and the slang term for a Welshman, Taffy, i s based on the Welsh pronunciation of Davy with the Ed] devoiced to Ct~J and the Ev]'devoiced to E f ] - This nickname, l i k e Sawney for the Scot 's Alexander, was popular in the eighteenth century. 106 In Win's l e t te r s we f ind a range of devoicing while in Tabitha 's devoicing i s r e s t r i c ted to [ t ] for Cd] and [ f ] for CvH. The examples from the i r l e t te r s are: . [ p i for Cb] (Win) A m - a c habeas 155 A p i a s , Tabitha 3 3 8 T a p i t ? \ Bramble 338 B r a m p 6 * Brambleton 352 Brampleton* S i ah 338 0 P a n i a h MMI 155, 306 p y e b i l l * ? l b ! ? 338 Jyeblow* b y - b l o w 3 3 8 *Note that Win doesn't devoice the i n i t i a l [b] of Brampleton , Brample , while she devoices the i n i t i a l L~bH of pyeb i l l , pyeblow and not the medial. [ t ] for Ldl (Win) B a l l f a r t Bu l l ford 307 bumtaffy baume de vie 43 Mi 11 f a r t Mel ford 352 (Tabitha) impotent impudent .78 Lfl for Cv] (Win) bumtaffy baume de vie 43 f i l l i t ch v i l l a ge 108 f i r en i n v i r g i n 108 s i 1 fur s i l v e r 42 su l fur s i l v e r 337, 352 (Tabitha) bum-daffee baume de vie 6 l a c k s i t i f laxat ive 6 leaf leave 78 safe save 78 [ k : for Eg] (Win) cain gain 155 chuckling juggl ing 306 Kalloway Galway 43 [confused with Galloway in Scotland] Grascow, Grasco Glasgow 260, 262, 262 107 [ c l for C J : (Win) checket chined chuckling churned churning cowtich f i 1 1 i tch f i r e n i n imich unbreech [sD for [zD (Win) Busshard f_s] for [ z ] bumbeseens close Issabel [ c ] for Cz] rouch Cs] for [ s ] s i 11ings jacket joined juggling journeyed journeying cowhage v i l l a ge v i r g in image umbrage Buzzard bombazines clothes Jezebel rouge 352 352 306 260 261 70 108 108 352 338 155 44 219 219, 219, 220, 220 219 219 s h i l l i n g s To the eighteenth century reader with a "good ear" th i s devoicing may have meant several things - - a l l of them pre jud ic ia l to Win's and Tabitha 's pretensions to a place in the fashionable world. Devoicing (as also voicing which w i l l be discussed below) was character i s t i c of Cockney speech; Matthews gives many examples from early Cockney, among them leaf ( leave), errants (errands), apsent (absent), weefer (weaver), b a l l i t (ba l lad) , vacabond (vagabond), and necklect (neglect). Mayhew (1861) adds chew!ry (jewel 1 r y ) . 1 6 5 Under these circumstances, devoicing in Win's and Tabitha 's l e t te r s i s a very t e l l i n g mark of vu lgar i ty . Devoic,i:ng i s also very important in contributing to Smol lett ' s 108 character izat ion of Win and Tabitha as Welsh, since devoicing was recognized as the most obvious s ingle feature of Welsh speakers of Engl ish. Walker, in his preface to his C r i t i c a l Pronouncing Dictionary (1791), writes about the features of pronunciation pecul iar to d i f fe rent groups of people and how these pecu l i a r i t i e s may present problems for such speakers as wish to be in command of the best sort of English pronunciation. He glances in passing at provincial d i a l ec t s , remarking that "there are d ia lects pecul iar to Cornwall, Lancashire, Yorkshire, and every distant county in England" but he singles out for attention the speech of the natives of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and London ( i . e. Cockneys). We are indebted to Walker for doing th i s because he provides us with a good deal of information about how the Englishman of the eighteenth century thought the Welsh pronounced Engl ish, or even, perhaps, how the Welsh did speak. Walker writes: Besides a pecu l i a r i t y of i n f l e x i on , which I take to be a f a l l i n g circumflex, d i r e c t l y opposite to that of the Scotch, the Welch pronounce the sharp consonants and aspirations instead of the f l a t . . . . Thus for big they say pick; for blood, ploot; and for good, coot. Instead of v i r tue and v ice, they say f i r t u e and f i c e ; instead of zeal and praise, they say seal and prace; instead of these and those, they say thece and thoce; and instead of azure and os ier they say aysher and osher; and for j a i l , chai1. Thus there are nine d i s t i n c t consonant sounds which, to the Welch, are en t i re l y uselessJ66 Walker s p e c i f i c a l l y mentions the devoicing of [ b ] , [ d ] , [ g ] , [ v ] , LzH, Cz], and [ c ] , a l l of which are used in Win's l e t t e r s . I t i s very l i k e l y that Smollett could have drawn upon such common-place assumptions concerning Welsh speakers as are voiced by Walker some years a f te r the publ icat ion of Humphry CI inker. Usually, these kinds of s imp l i f i ed be l ie f s about how a certa in group of non-natives speaks 109 English tend to become common property, much in the same way that present day English speakers may a t t r ibute to Japanese speakers a certa in d i f f i c u l t y with [ l ] and Cr ] . I t i s possible that a formula of sorts could be eas i l y applied to suggest a Welsh pronunciation merely by ind icat ing devoicing. F l ue l l en ' s speech in Henry V i s characterized in th i s way; he exclaims (By Cheshu) for By Jesu and uses phrases such as " a 1 uttered as prave words at the pridge as you shal l see" and " i t i s l i k e a coal of f i r e , sometimes plue and sometimes red" ( I I I , i v ) . Shakespeare repeats /prave) and (pr idge) several times to emphasize the devoiced qua l i ty of the words. He also has FJuellen repeat the i n te r jec t ion "look you" over and over again. Smollett uses devoicing as a character i s t i c of the Welshman, Morgan's speech in Roderick Random, and he also uses the repet i t ion of "look you", a feature which he may have borrowed from Shakespeare's character izat ion of F lue l len. Smollett, however, extends the range of devoicing beyond that used by Shakespeare and i t i s possible that Smollett, through personal contact with Welsh speakers, perhaps during his period of service as a sh ip ' s surgeon or at some other time in his l i f e , may simply have observed very ca re fu l l y at f i r s t hand these Welsh character i s t i c s . In keeping with a f irm sense of u t i l i z i n g the features which w i l l guarantee maximum e f fec t , Smollett has concentrated on the very obvious devoicing of [b ] , [dD, [g ] , [v ] and C j ] to [pH, [ t ] , [ k ] , [ f ] , and CcD. A confusion in voicing in a word l i k e ( f i l l i t c h ) for v i l l a ge is immediately recognizable as English gone awry and immediately suggestive of a substandard form of pronunciation. Devoicing of the most obvious 110 kind guarantees that a reader w i l l reg i s ter the form as a l ien (assuming he knows of Cockney usage), or as provincia l (assuming he knows of Welsh usage). In any case, Smollett i s able to suggest a substandard or vulgar usage by a few t e l l i n g changes in the spe l l i ng . And, of course, he i s able to introduce a few puns in dubious taste as in the devoicing of L~d] to Ct] which produces two fa r t s and a bum in ( B a l l f a r t } , ( M i l l f a r t ) , and (bumtaffy}, or, in the same devoicing in Tabitha 's l e t t e r , a r i s i b l e malapropism with (impotent} for impudent. This l a s t has a few very funny associations for the reader attuned to Tabitha 's unconscious obsession with sex. Welsh i s generally thought to lack the a f f r i ca te s [jH and [c3; th i s assumption i s based upon modern Welsh phonology and is contrary to Walker's observation about the subst i tut ion of Cc] for [ j ] in eighteenth century Welsh phonology ( i . e. the Welsh say cha i l for j a i l ) and to Smol lett ' s pract ice of using CcD for CjH in Win's l e t te r s (e. g. (churning} for journeying . Gary Underwood asserts that Welsh normally lacks both [cH and CjH and that th is i s ref lected in the subst i tut ion of [sH for e ither of these a f f r i ca te s with the resu l t that gentleman becomes (shentleman} and cheese becomes<^sheese} in Morgan's speech in Roderick Random.1 He argues that the Welsh do have the phoneme CsJ and that i t i s the closest possible replacement for e i ther Lc] or EjH. Walker's observation runs contrary to th i s and tends to lend contemporary authority to Smol lett ' s many examples of devoiced C j ] as a phenomenon which the eighteenth century reader might be fami l i a r with as a Welsh cha rac te r i s t i c . The absence of the phoneme CjTll in the Welsh sound system is also ref lected in teres t ing ly in the unconventional subst i tut ion of [gH in for [ j ! in Win's and Tabitha 's l e t t e r s . Thus we f i nd : Win's: angles angels 338 congeror conjuror 155 congyration conjuration 261 geaks jakes 220 Gerusalem Jerusalem 109 ginketting junketting 70 gurney journey 109 gustass j u s t i ce 155 magisterial majestic 108 St Gimses St. James' 108 Tabitha ' s : gurney journey 156 These par t i cu la r substitutions are reasonably interpreted as CgH for CjH. even in the case of {congyration), (congeror), and (mag i s t e r i a l ^ where the medial £ could possibly represent L~JJ as i t does in such common English words as changeable, col 1egiate, reg i s t rat ion where the L~gH i s followed by a vowel. Smol lett ' s care in having Win spel l these words with g instead of j_ indicates that he wishes to ensure that the reader w i l l interpret them as variant pronunciations. And, of course, we must as usual be aware of Smol lett ' s humorous intent in having Win produce malapropisms (e. g. (angles), (magisterial^)) and a l i t t l e dig at Just ice Buzzard as a "gusty ass." Voicing The contrary process of voicing i s d i r e c t l y opposed to the representa-t ion of Win and Tabitha as Welsh speakers of English. I t i s , instead, a commonly recognized feature of the Cockney d ia lec t and, l i k e other Cockney features, deplored as vulgar. Matthews says: 112 Voicing of normally voiceless stop consonants is a feature of vulgar speech. Such spel l ings as pardner, beedle, eggspect are frequent in l i t e r a r y Cockney and they are symbols for a much more extensive r e a l i t y : the Cockney tends to " d u l l " or voice voiceless consonants in many other words, prodestant, samwidge (sandwich), mizzletoe, carpender, 'Obkins, etc. . . . Elphinston declares that in vulgar London speech, p_, j<, and f_ were pronounced b_, cj_, and v and c i tes the fol lowing examples: padrole, pardner, proddestant, prizes (prices) vew (few). Other i l l u s t r a t i o n s are: Errors of Pronunciation, beadle (beetle) . . . gobble (cobble); . . . Pegge, skrimidge, radidges, rubbidge, furbidge; Mayhew, . . . beadle, pardner, mizzletoe, etc. <oy Voicing i s not as important in the l e t te r s as devoicing when considered in terms of the number of examples Win and Tabitha produce. We have: [g] for [k] (Win) frog frock 352 gallowmanky calamanco 72, 337 in garnet incarnate 70 gumbustion combustion 260, 262 [v] fo r [f] (Win) v a g a r i e s ^ f i ga r ie s / vagaries 109 varthing farth ing 43 viol"170 phial / v i a l 307 In Tabitha 's l e t t e r s there i s only one example of v_ substituted for f_, (reverence) for reference (274). What appears to be the voicing of EtH to Cd] in (h 'scounselled") for disconsolate (338) i s probably the resu l t of attaching an inappropriate pref ix (e. g. d i s - ) to a word which would not normally have i t , to suggest i l l i t e r a c y . The fact that i t i s an i so lated example would suggest that i t i s not devoicing but a vulgarly formed malapropism. Win does add the wrong pref ix to other words (e. g. (discarnp) (70), (unc lose) (306), (disseyfer^> (109), etc.) and this feature of formation is also found in countr i f ied speech* 7 ! a s we-|] a s - j n cockney. I 7 2 113 Subst itut ion of L"f] for L~hw] A pecul iar pronunciation of [ f ] for [h.w] i s indicated by Win's spe l l ing o f ^ f e y ) for whey (262) ^ f i f f ^ f o r whiff ( 2 2 0 ) , and ( f ipp ing*) for whipping ( 1 0 9 ) J 7 3 This sound change i s not charac te r i s t i c of Standard Engl ish, however. Wright t e l l s us that " i n i t i a l _hw has become f_ in northeast Scotland in such words as what, wheat, wheel, whelp, when, where, whey, whi le, whine, wh i s t le , white, why. Smollett may have been acquainted with th i s pronunciation, although i t was not common in his home area of western Scotland; i f so, he may have registered the sound as a d i s t i n c t provincial ism and may simply have thrown i t in to produce a l i t t l e yokel flavour in Win's l e t t e r s . Amusingly, Tabitha has one example, in ^phims} for whims (78) , which is spelled with the joh_ spe l l ing for f_. Her possible mispronunciation, although dupl icat ing Win's, affords a s l i g h t l y d i f fe rent twist in the humour. Tabitha 's spe l l ing may indicate that she is aware of the presence of h_ in the conventional spe l l ing (or pronunciation) and, in her anxiety to be correct, she misspel l s , using ]Dh_ for wh_, only to prove that a l i t t l e learning is a dangerous thing indeed. Her error seems - - only v i s ua l l y , however - - to be a cut above Win's J 7 5 Substitution of [ s ] for [ s ] The change of s^  to SJT_ i s a vulgar and d ia lec ta l change. In d ia lects v generally there i s a tendency for [ s ] to become Qs]; i t af fects ch ie f l y 1 7fi f i n a l CsU, but also medial, and occas ional ly, i n i t i a l U s ] . 1 / 0 In the eighteenth century th i s change was recognized (notably by Elphinston 114 who gives cut lash, nonplush, and frontishpiece) as a vulgarism and found i t s way into l i s t s as s t i l l another pronunciation which the elegant speaker must avoid. The change i s s t i l l a feature of present day d i a l e c t s , pa r t i cu l a r l y Cockney. 1 7 7 Win has a f a i r sampling of spel l ings ind icat ing th i s pronunciation change: Chrishmarsh* Christmas 352 Crashit Crescent 42 Lashmiheygo Lismahago 352 Lashmihago Lismahago 306 Lashmyhago Lismahago 306 Mattrash mattress 307 Parish Paris 219 *Note two changes in one word but retention of i n i t i a l Ch_ in the spe l l ing instead of possible eye d ia lec t k_. Tabitha 's only use i s in (Non-compush} for non compos (44), a form which we might compare with the Cockney's (non-plush 'd^ for non plussed. In addit ion to i l l u s t r a t i n g the ignorance of spe l l ing conventions and suggesting vulgar pronunciations, Smollett has, in some instances, managed to squeeze in some puns. His opinion of the Crescent at Bath i s probably one with that of Matt Bramble, who complains b i t t e r l y about the bui ld ing movement based on geometric f igures. Through Win's misspel l ing and possible mispronunciation, Smollett can introduce the idea that such architecture as the Crescent i s "crass s h i t " . Win's ^ a r i s h ^ f o r Paris as mentioned above in connection with her mangling of foreign names i s a good slap at her pretensions to fashionable dress. We might also suspect a pun on old Lismahago who i s under the lash of Tabitha 's a f fect ions . Dobson notes that when the change of s^  to sh_ occurred a f te r the resu l t was n(t)sh which was i den t i f i ed with older -nch. Such word 115 pairs as quince / quench, lance / launch are the re su l t . Win produces one of these in (P rov id inch ) for Providence (352) in the phrase, "PROVIDINCH hath bin pleased", which echoes an ea r l i e r l e t t e r of Tabitha. Win's echo of " I t has pleased Providence to . . ." (274) is a very s t ra ight -forward example of the maid copying the mistress. S i tuat ion of Csj for L~c], L~s] for [ s ] The pronunciation phenomenon of CsU for L~cH as indicated by Win's spe l l ing of s_ for ch_ would seem to be related to_sh for £, but i t i s very d i f f i c u l t to explain as a normal English phonological process. There i s no evidence for ch_ a l te r ing inthn's way, even in the d ia lec t s . As Wright points out, words which have £h in the l i t e r a r y language generally also have i t in the d ia lec t s . Even s^  for sh_ which appears in Win's { s i l l i ng s ) ' for s h i l l i n g s ( 2 1 9 ) , ^ <^distinkson) for d i s t i nc t i on (306), (prusias') for precious (306) and (seeps) for sheeps (220) i s unusual. S^  for sjn in an i n i t i a l posit ion may be found in a few iso lated d ia lec t words; srimp (shrimp), srink (shr ink), s r i ve l ( s h r i ve l ) , sroud (shroud), srub (shrub), and srug (shrug)J^O Of these, srimps and srub were common Cockney un t i l the end of the nineteenth century but seem to have disappeared since there i s no evidence for th i s pronunciation in modern Cockney speech.^1 For Smol lett ' s purposes i t i s useful as a reinforcement of Win's vulgar speech. I am inc l ined to think that the par t i cu la r change of ch to s does not represent pronunciation at a l l , but i s simply a pronunciation-l i k e indicator which Smollett has thrown in to measure Win's i n a b i l i t y to s p e l l . At the same time, he i s possibly interested in making a 116 s l i g h t l y o f f -co lour pun. The variant .s for ch is found in three places I dropt my pett i coat , and could not get i t up from the bottom - - But what did that s igni fy? they mought l a f f , but they could see nothing; for I was up to the s in in water. (43) 0 gracious! i f God had not given me a good stock of d i s c re t ion , what a power of things might not I revea l , consarning old mistress and young mistress; Jews with beards, that were no Jews; but handsome Chr i s t ians, without a hair upon the i r s i n , s t r o l l i n g with spectacles, to get speech of Miss Liddy. (42) . . . and I was shewn an ould v i t c h , ca l led Elspath Ringavey, with a red pet t i coat , bleared eyes, and a mould of grey b r i s t l e s on her s in . (261) I am, at th i s point, w i l l i n g to concede that I may be "reading into i t " since my search for s in as a slang term connected with the genitals has, to date, turned nothing up; but in l i g h t of Smol lett ' s propensity for making salacious jokes or commenting on vulgar i ty while showing off Win's mis spe l l ing, I think that ( s i n ) for chin is not simply an unexplainable mistake in representing pronunciation. Subst i tut ions: [k ] for [ t ] ; Cf ] fo r Qg], fj]; [ t ] for [&). Three curious consonant variants occur in Win's spe l l ing and a l l of them are ind icat ive of Cockney pronunciation; k for t, f_ for th , and t for th^. These variants were and s t i l l are recognizable as Cockneyisms and, with the l imited exceptions of L~t] for Eg] as phonological variants for the Shetland and Orkney Islands and the I s le of Man, are not typ ica l of any other d i a l e c t J ^ 2 /\n eighteenth century reader aware of received pronunciation standards and the proscr ipt ion of Londoner English would recognize them as Cockneyisms and i t i s very in the novel, but i t appears contexts are s im i l a r : 117 l i k e l y that a reader unfamil iar with these spec i f i c vulgarisms would assume them to represent some form of provincia l pronunciation. K. fo r Jb appears in (monkey-bank} for mountebank (352) and <^urkey-shell} for to r to i se - she l l (109, 155); these words conform to 183 Cockney Hamlick (Hamlet), vomick (vomit) and benefick (benef i t ) . F_ for tJi_ i s used in (aaf} for oath (72, 155) which conforms to Cockney mouf (mouth), loph ( loth) and Redr i f f ( Ro the rh i t he ) . 1 8 4 T for th G9G, i s used in(Mattew)for Matthew (338) and (turd) for t h i rd (338) which conform to the Cockney terd ( t h i r d ) , Tersday and Tiersday (Thursday) . 1 8 5 T for th \Jr\ i s used in { f a r t i n g ^ for farthing ( 2 2 0 ) . 1 8 6 The introduction of another seemingly naive use of f a r t and turd is f a c i l i t a t e d by th i s sound change. And Win's dismissive "I v a l l y not his going a f a r t i n g " i s humorously i n tens i f i ed as a resu l t of the change. Vowel Changes The interpretat ion of vowel quantit ies in l i t e r a r y representations of d i a l ec t speech i s extremely d i f f i c u l t . For instance, when we f ind path in a text , we may be uncertain whether i t i s to be pronounced with a low front vowel Dae.] or a back vowel \JX] since the spe l l ing cannot indicate for us the length of the vowel and our understanding of the spe l l ing w i l l depend upon our own pronunciations ( i . e. whether we normally say path in the standard B r i t i s h English manner or in the manner predominant in North America). The ea r l i e r discussion of the introduction of _r into a word l i k e marster for master to indicate a long a [<J3 suggests one of the d i f f i c u l t i e s . When a reader without 118 GcfcH in his own d ia lec t encounters the spe l l ing marster, he i s inc l ined to i dent i f y the sound with tar or bar with the f u l l pronunciation of LrH in his own d i a lec t . In addit ion to the d i f f i c u l t y with quantity or qua l i ty of a vowel, a reader i s also at some odds in ascertaining the impression which the author wishes to convey by a l te r ing the spel l ings of vowels. I f , for instance, an author uses jr in marster to indicate a long a_, what i s the reader to think? If the reader also has a long a_ in his d i a l e c t , i t i s un l ike ly that he w i l l attach a stigma to i t s use or w i l l reg i s ter i t as a variant at a l l . I f , on the other hand, he does not have the Leek, he is inc l ined to view the variant as character i s t i c of a regional or soc ia l d i a l ec t unlike his own. A l terat ions in the spe l l ing of vowels may not simply indicate a change of one vowel pronunciation for another. For instance, when we encounter the spe l l ing of ^ f i n t a s t i c a l ^ for fantas t i ca l (352), an i so lated example of j_ for a_ in the tex t , possibly meant to represent [XJ for we observe the change in the f i r s t s y l l ab le . At f i r s t glance i_ for a_ indicates the pronunciation of f i n as opposed to fan in the f i r s t s y l l a b l e , possibly the resu l t of the ra i s ing of GjK U to [X3. But, since we cannot know the stress pattern which Smollett assumed his readers would at t r ibute to the word as normally spoken, the j _ may only represent an obscuring of the vowel ( i f the stress i s on - t a s - , as i t normally would be in modern pronunciation) and not a f u l l y stressed alternate vowel (as i t would be i f the stress were on f i n - ) . The remove in time compounds a d i f f i c u l t y such as t h i s . 119 It i s c ruc ia l that we, as readers, understand the norm against which we must measure a deviation. This norm w i l l necessari ly be affected by the author 's own speech habits, his acuteness in observing vowel quant i t ies , and by the accepted speech of the audience for whom the work i s projected. We cannot know Smol lett ' s personal a r t i cu l a t i on of vowels although we do know that he had a d i s t i n c t , Scott ish accentuation of vowels which l a i d him open to mockery in the contemporary press. ^ 7 Smol lett ' s powers of language observation were considerable i f we may judge from his attempts in a l l of his novels to represent d ia lec t e i ther through reported speech, or l e t t e r s , or by his attempts to catch the very id iosyncrat ic t r i c k s of such characters as Hawser Trunnion in Peregrine P ick le and Captain Crowe in S i r Launcelot Greaves. Even with these considerable powers, Smollett may not have been capable of reg i ster ing the d i f f e ren t i a t i on of vowel sounds. After a l l , Smollett was not a trained l i n gu i s t ; and, when we consider that i t takes a year or more of sustained appl icat ion for a modern student of d ia lec t to learn to transcribe accurately, we need not be disappointed with Smol lett ' s attempts. Smol lett ' s technique of indicat ing d ia lec t features i s only one contr ibution to the a r t i s t i c wholeness of the novel. Audience expectation is a prominent feature of the norm, since we may assume that Smol lett ' s variants are meant to be immediately recognizable as pronunciations diverging from a standard. And that standard was probably, in Walker's terms, the speech "of the better sort of people at London." Certa in ly , Smol lett ' s readers were the l i t e r a t e members of soc iety, and of the beau monde - - people who enjoyed 120 being in on the l a tes t fashion, be i t c lothes, amusements, or books. Smol lett ' s variants are intended to be viewed (or "heard") alongside the standard London pronunciation. Against th i s background, d ia lec t pronunciation and d ia lec t words - - f rex ious, obstropulous, etc. - -would show up d i s t i n c t l y . I t i s very easy for a reader to spot the d ia lec t words and d ia lec t grammar even at a distance of two hundred years. The pronunciation of consonants i s also an accessible area since the qual i ty of consonants has not altered great ly ; we have l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y d ist inguish ing when a Cgl i s replaced by a Ek3, when two consonants are reversed, or when a consonant has been omitted. Vowels, however, present greater d i f f i c u l t i e s because i t has always been d i f f i c u l t to record them exactly. Phoneticians and language histor ians engage in heated debate about the interpretat ion of a vowel from spel l ings and homophone l i s t s and from statements of e a r l i e r phoneticians. This interpretat ion problem often leads to such statements from Dobson, for instance, as "Wyld is mistaken in his be l i e f that G i l records Ci:j in the speech of the Mopsae," or " Lu ick ' s explanation i s forced on him by his incorrect view that ME Cy:H was pronounced [ i y ] or [ j y ] in the sixteenth century." Proof of the d i f f e r i n g view i s inev i tab ly undertaken in an elaborately reasoned footnote which, i f i t proves nothing e l se, proves that the interpretat ion of a vowel i s a very taxing chore indeed. There does seem to be a consensus of opinion about certa in vowel quant i t ie s , however. The interpretat ion of certa in spe l l ing changes seems necessary simply because the examples from the text are not, 121 l i k e ^ f i n t a s t i c a l ^ , i so lated examples. The fact that Smollett may introduce a number of examples of one change ought to a l e r t the reader that he i s probably making some point about the a l tered pronunciation. In many cases, however, there w i l l be only one spe l l ing change poss ibly, but not necessar i ly, ind icat i ve of a pronunciation var iant. It may be meant pr imar i ly as a spe l l ing error. For example, we f ind Win wr i t ing ^creesus^ for c r i s i s (307), possibly representing a change of diphthong LarH to the high front vowel [ i j . Since Walker indicates the normal pronunciation as " k r i - s i s " with "the long diphthongal _i_, as in pine, t i - t l e , " we know that Win's pronunciation must, according to her s pe l l i n g , d i f f e r from the standard. How are we to interpret i t ? Simply as non-standard or, perhaps as a d ia lec t pronunciation common in parts of Scotland, Yorkshire, Cumberland and Somerset where advise 188 i s pronounced adveese? x Surely the importance must be merely in the difference indicated - - any difference from the standard. And in a case where the pronunciation variant has some consistency (and interpretat ion of the spe l l ing seems to be consistent with phonological history) perhaps then we may look for differences which would have some de f in i te implications ( i . e. vu lgar i ty , d ia lect ) for the eighteenth century reader. Intrusive Schwa Smollett also notes the phenomena of intrus ive vowels or consonants in speech. Although these intrusions occur in the speech of w e l l -educated people with some frequency, they are usually associated with 122 vulgar or d i a l ec ta l usage. An intrus ive schwa 1 0 3 sometimes occurs between consonants in certa in words, for instance, between 1_ and m in elm, f i l m , between ji and r_ in Henry, between r_ and m in alarm (to produce a pronunciation s imi la r to the archaic var iant, alarum), between th and r_ in a r t h r i t i s , between th and 1_ in athlete and in many other such consonant environments. Walker and Jones both regard the intrus ive schwa as a "blemish in speaking" and comment upon i t in a lament for the defects of Cockney pronunciation: The l e t t e r s^  a f ter st_, from the very d i f f i c u l t y of i t s pronunciation, is often sounded i n a r t i c u l a t e l y . - - The inhabitants of London, of the lower order, cut the knot, and pronounce i t in a d i s t i n c t s y l l ab l e , as i f e^  were before i t , but th is i s to be avoided as the greatest blemish in speaking, the l a s t three l e t te r s in posts, mists, f i s t s , etc. must a l l be d i s t i n c t l y heard in one s y l l ab l e , and without permitting the l e t te r s to coalesce. For the acquiring of th i s sound, i t w i l l be proper to select nouns that end in sj: or s te, to form them into p l u r a l , and pronounce them fo r c i b l y and d i s t i n c t l y every day. (Walker, 1791, Preface, p. x i i ) (Jones, 1797, p. 19) Walker also deplores a s imi la r habit in the I r i sh : I t may be observed too, that the natives of Ireland pronounce rm at the end of a word so d i s t i n c t l y as to form two separate s y l l ab le s . Thus storm and farm seem sounded by them as i f written staw-rum, fa-rum; while the English sound the r_ so soft and so close to the m, that i t seems pronounced nearly as i f written stawm, faam. Nearly the same observations are appl icable to 1m . . . . (Walker, p. x i ) Win's only example of th is "blemish" i s her spe l l ing of beasts as ^ b e a s t i s ^ (108). ^ B e a s t i s ^ i s very s imi la r to a form which appears almost twenty years e a r l i e r in Peregrine P ick le in a love note which Deborah Hornbeck writes to Peregrine. She includes direct ions to her hote l , marked 123 by "two postis at the ga i t , naytheir of um vory hole." This i s but one of many l i n g u i s t i c indicat ions in Mistress Hornbeck's l e t t e r (as also in Win's) that the lady i s semi - l i terate and belongs to a low social order indeed - - the Cockneys. 1 ^ ^Beas t i s ^ , or i t s near equivalents, baistes x and bee-ustez , ^2 i s a d ia lec t form pr imar i ly although Ha l l iwe l l l i s t s i t with the note, "BESTEZ. Beasts . . . 193 now a common vulgarism." From such evidence as th i s we f ind that Win i s again cast into the company of "people of the lower sort " from London and of d i a lec t speakers from the country. Subst itut ion of [or ] for [3r] Win's spe l l ing (and to a lesser extent, Tabitha 's) r e f l ec t s the common eighteenth century pronunciation of ar for er in such words as (consarned), {sarched), {sarvant), { s a r t i n l y ) , etc. This pronunciation i s due, in part, to an h i s t o r i ca l development of er to ar dating from late Middle Engl ish; th i s change may be i l l u s t r a t e d by such examples as ME ferre becoming f a r , ME sterre becoming s tar , and ME percely becoming parsley. This development was common in proper names too; for instance, we have Jervois becoming Gervase and la te r Jarv i s and the occupational sergeant becoming Sargent. ^ 4 In person we have a s p l i t t i n g into two words: parson "clergyman" and person "human being"; the spec ia l ized meaning of parson prevented people fee l ing person and parson to be the same word, and the two pronunciations have survived as separate words. The pronunciation of ar for er_, however, began to f a l l under general censure in the eighteenth century as a vulgarism and the 124 pronunciation thereafter was a ready indicator of vulgar or d ia lec ta l speech. At the beginning of the century we f ind Jones (In Pract ica l Phonography D701]) stat ing as a matter of fact that the sound of a_ is written e_ " i n Berks, Clerk, eleven, Herbert, Merchant, Mercy, Owen, phrentick, ve rd ic t , yellow. & . " ^ 6 By the end of the century, the t ide has turned and we f ind the following in Nares 1 Orthoepy (1784): Sometimes, but not very frequently, th i s vowel [E] takes the sounds of other l e t t e r s . It i s pronounced . . . l i k e A short, in celery (general ly), in c le rk , mesh, Serjeant, t e r r i e r , yellow. Errand and errant have th i s also in common usage, but are more becomingly pronounced with the proper short sound of E. Merchant formerly was pronounced as i f there was an a in the f i r s t s y l l a b l e ; but i t has now returned, with a l l i t s der ivat ives , to the proper sound of short EJ97 Nares 1 commentary indicates that the pronunciation is s t i l l to be heard, but his choice of words, "becomingly pronounced" and "proper sound," in connection with the desirable use of er indicates that he is doing his b i t to squeeze i t out of "common usage" so that i t w i l l be heard "not very frequently" at a l l . Walker also provides some interest ing notes on the pronunciation at the end of the century: There i s a remarkable exception to the common sound of th i s l e t t e r [E] in the words c le rk , sergeant, and a few others, where we f ind the e_ pronounced l i k e the a in dark and margin. But th is exception, I imagine, was, t i l l within these few years, the general rule of sounding this l e t t e r before r.> followed by another consonant. Thirty years ago every one pronounced the f i r s t s y l l ab le of merchant l i k e the mono-syllable march, and as i t was anciently wr i t ten , marchant. Service and servant are s t i l l heard among the lower order of speakers, as i f wr i tten sarvice and sarvant; and even among the better sor t , we sometimes hear, S i r , your sarvant; though this pronunciation of the word s ingly would be looked upon as a mark of the lowest vu lgar i ty . The proper names Derby and Berkeley, s t i l l reta in the old sound, as i f wr i tten Darby and Barkeley: but even these, in po l i t e 125 usage, are getting the common sound, nearly as i f wr itten Durby and Burke!ey. As th i s modern pronunciation of the e_ has a tendency to s impl i fy the language by lessening the number of exceptions, i t ought cer ta in ly to be indulged.199 Walker's commentary, l i k e that of Nares', i s f u l l of value judgements - -"the lower order of speakers," "the better sor t , " "mark of the lowest vu lgar i ty " - - but Walker t e l l s us more about when the common usage began to change as a resu l t of th is pressure to speak elegantly. From Walker we may discover that the change from ar^ to er in acceptable speech preceded the publ icat ion of Humphry Cl inker by about ten years. Smollett, l i v i n g as he did in urban society where such change is more quickly made, seized upon th i s pronunciation as a mark of vu lgar i ty which would be read i ly recognized. It has come to be used for th i s purpose in many la te r nove l i s t s , t o o . 2 0 0 Win's use of th i s pronunciation i s as fo l lows: consarned 71, 155 consarning 42 consarns 155 l aming 338 marokin 352 parfeck 337 parquisi tes 7, 7, 70, 306 parson 306 (for person, not parson) sarched 71 sarment 155 sarta in 7, 306, 306, 307, 338 s a r t i n l y 43 sarvant 108, 156, 220, 307, 70, 71, sarvent 44, 307, 352 sarvice 44, 72, 306, 307, 338, 338, S tar l ing 260 (for S t i r l i n g , Scotland) 108 (for universal) varsa l 2 °l There is a point of interest in the variants for servant. Smollett "e r r s " by having Win write ( s e r v i n t s ) (7) and service (7) in her opening l e t t e r ; but he never makes the mistake of having her not make a mistake a f te r th i s l e t t e r . 126 Tabitha 's use of ar. for er i s l imi ted by comparison with Win's; she has ^ sarvents^ (44, 45) and ( sarvants^(156, 274, 352) and ^unsart in} (45) only. Inversely, she has ^ke rgo^ fo r cargo (274), a form which appears correct ly in Win's l e t t e r from Bath (71). I t i s possible that th i s i s another misspel l ing which indicates only that Tabitha can ' t spel l although i t i s possible that i t might represent a kind of hypercorrection; I i n c l i ne to the former. Tabitha does, for instance, spe l l perfect (274) and vermin ^vermineS (156) with ejr and these two words, in d ia lec t speech and in vulgar speech, are normally represented as having ar. Win also has the exceptional use of ^kerkas ses^ fo r carcasses (220). An i so lated variant which would seem to be connected with the change of er to ar_ i s Win's ^a r s } for ears (338) in " i f my own ars may be trusted, the clerk ca l led the banes of marridge betwixt Opani^h Lashmeheygo, and Tapitha Brample." Given the context, however, i t seems l i k e another instance of Smol lett ' s whimsical spe l l ing change to make room for a pun, (and another example of Smol lett ' s s k i l l in s l ipp ing in the forbidden arse). Raising of Qg] to ClU Win's l e t te r s show evidence of the ra i s ing of short JB BEJ to short j_ Cx] in such spel l ings a s ^ s p i 11 i n g ^ f o r spel 1 ing (109), (minchioned^ for mentioned (261), ( M i l l f a r t ^ for Mel ford (352), ^ r o v i d i n c l ^ for Providence (352), ^ s m i ' l l ^ f c r smel 1 (338) and ^ t i n d e r ^ for tender (262). We also f i n d ^ m i s t r i s s ^ for mistress (220, 306, 337) 127 and ( s e r v i n t s ) for servants (7), but these l a t t e r examples are more probably indicators of alternate spe l l ing of unstressed sy l l ab le s . I t i s also a point of interest that mentioned i s spelled also as (nenchioned^, retaining the short e_ (221). Although th i s ra i s ing of short e_ C£] to short was a character i s t i c of early Middle English (e. g. ME henge became hinge, ME sprenkle became sp r ink le ) , l a te r ra i s ing i s on the whole less common. 2 0 2 203 But i t does occur in present day English in nib, 1impet, and t r i v e t , and i t i s a prominent feature of educated Southern speech in the United States where short e_ and short i_ are merged as short j_ before the front consonants, espec ia l ly n . . 2 0 4 The ra i s ing of [£.] to Lx] was a 205 feature in d ia lec t pronunciation in certa in words and a common practice o n e in Cockney speech, even from ea r l i e s t times. This pronunciation is yet another ind icat ion of vu lgar i ty in B r i t i s h speech which could be exploited in l i t e r a t u r e . F ie ld ing uses i t in a l e t t e r from Jonathan Wild to Miss Tishy, "I am konvinced you must be s ins ibe l of my v io lent passion for you . . . 1 1 2 0 7 as one of many l i n g u i s t i c means to unmask Jonathan. How widespread the condemnation of th is pronunciation was in the eighteenth century i t i s hard to say. Walker has some comment upon i t : This l e t t e r [E] f a l l s into an i r regu lar sound, but s t i l l a sound which is i t s nearest re la t ion in the words, England, yes, and pretty, where the e_ i s heard l i k e short i_. Vulgar speakers are gu i l t y of the same i r r egu l a r i t y in engine, as i f wr itten ingine; but th i s cannot be too care fu l l y a v o i d e d . 2 0 8 I t i s d i f f i c u l t to t e l l from t h i s , however, whether Walker is warning more against a general C H for C£D pronunciation or pr imar i ly against the vulgar pronunciation of engine. 128 The B 3 for L~£H pronunciation was observed by Pegge in Kinsington (Kensington) and by Mayhew in ivver (ever), r i g l a r ( regular) , g i t s (gets), Siven (Seven), depinds (depends) and cimeter.y (cemetery), and Thackeray used this Cockney character i s t i c in The Yellowplush Papers. 2 Smollett appears, once again, to have begun early to characterize vulgar i ty by th i s spe l l ing in the l i t e r a r y representation of a substandard pronunciation. Tabitha has one i so lated use of th i s change, in ( b l i s s i n g } for blessing (274) when i t appears in the phrase "with the b l i s s ing of haven." It seems that Smollett is parodying Tabitha 's use of stock re l i g ious phrases and making a s ly dig at her hopes that Lismahago w i l l be the excuse for keeping "the father-bed and matrosses well haired, because, perhaps, with the b l i s s i ng of haven, they may be yoosed." Raising of [32] to 06.] Win's l e t te r s have many examples of short e L~£] for short a Cae-H, possibly ind icat ing a character i s t i c Cockney pronunciation. 2*° "The raised pronunciation of short a_, which resembles the ordinary sound of short e., has always been a feature of the d ia lec t . . . even the l a te r [ i . e. l a te r than the 17th century] orthoepists and novel ists regard th i s vowel as a Cockneyism." 2** Walker records ketch as a corrupt but widely used London form for c a t c h 2 * 2 as does Mayhew in the nineteenth century. Win has the fol lowing examples: checket jacket 352 edmiral admiral 261, 261 excepted accepted 155, 338 feet fact 70 ketched catched (caught) 70, ,71 129 ket t le ca t t l e 306 selvidges savages 261, 352 While the spel l ings do represent th is pronunciation, they are, in addit ion, used for malapropisms with intent to pun (e. g. (excepted^, ( ke t t l e ^ , ^e lv idges ) ' ) . Lowering of L"£ ] to §E] The reverse, short a_ [32] for short e_C£T], is more frequent in Win's l e t t e r s . This vowel change is a feature of the d ia lects of southern Scotland, south-east Kent and the south-west Count ry 2 1 3 but i t i s not, l i k e e^  for a^ , a Cockney feature. Win has the fol lowing examples: Addingborough Edinburgh 221 assings essence 207 axercise exercise 43 Crashi t Crescent 42 fackins feckins 108 Haddingborough Edinburgh 220, Matthewmurphy'd metamorphosed 337 Matthewsullin Methuselah 306 mattrash mattress 307 a nubjack an object 306 refrash refresh 44 sat set 262 than then 338 taster tester 261 squintasense quintessence 43 yal low* yellow 42, *There is a strong p o s s i b i l i t y that yallow was the standard pronunciation for yellow in the period (cf. Jones, P ract i ca l  Phonography). Many of these spel l ings represent more than a simple pronunciation variant since the words in which they appear may have addit ional pronunciation variants (e. g. ^Haddingborough) a sp i ra t ion, [n] becomes CrjH) or may be puns (e. g. passings), (Adding-borough), ^cras-sh i f^) constructed by the spe l l ing changes. 130 Lengthening of Co] indicated by ou spe l l ing Win and Tabitha have many words spel led with ou_ which have under normal circumstances the long sound of o. This pronunciation is a feature of most Scott ish d ia lec t s . Examples from the l e t te r s are as fol lows: Win coorn* comb 109*length indicated by could cold 307, 307 gould gold 155, 352 mould mold 261 ould old 7, 155, 220, 261, 306 ould Scratch Old Scratch 155 scoulded scolded 43, 220 tould to ld 42 Tabitha ould old 6, 274 sould sold 6 Walker, speaking of "the th i rd sound of 0_ as in prove, move, womb, &c." notes that "Gold i s pronounced l i k e goold in fami l i a r conversation; but in verse and solemn language, especia l ly that of the sc r ip ture, ought always to rhyme with o ld , f o l d , &c." Tuite notes that "0 sounds o long in these words, bold, hold, co ld , o ld , scold, so ld, t o l d , except gold" (p. 29). With the exception of the " f a m i l i a r " pronunciation of gold, Tabitha 's and Win's spel l ings indicate variants not acceptable in correct usage. Unrounding of L l f l , [Q] If we compare tea and too we w i l l see that the second of these vowels i s accompanied by a puckering or forward rounding of the l i p s 131 which enables us to d ist inguish unrounded and rounded vowels. Of the back vowels Cu], Cvl, Co], DS, [OH, and [a], a l l are rounded with the exception of Qbj. Win has several examples of spel l ings which possibly indicate an unrounded vowel [A] as in nut, come; e. g . ( b u c k ) (109, 338), (cuek} (70, 71), ( f u t t ) (108), (hornbuck} (155, 201 ), ( l uck } (44), ( l u c k i n g } (109), ( s tud) (155), and <tuck)(155, 337, 307), 214 while Tabitha has none. This pronunciation is common in d i a l ec t speech and i t i s a s i gn i f i can t feature of Cockney; Matthews gives f u t t , bucks, 215 stud, tuk, and hudd for foot, books, stood, took, and hood. This i s also a feature in many American d i a lec t s . Win also seems to have many examples of the unrounding of LPH in words such as (bumtaffy}, (cumpliments), etc. (see pp. 29, 30 above under o/u spe l l ing va r i a t i ons ) , and we may note the same process of unrounding. This change is character i s t i c of many Scott ish d i a l ec t s , but not in such a wide var iety of words. I t i s possible that th is change may not be s i gn i f i can t as a pronunciation change but pr imar i ly as an o/u spe l l ing variant as discussed above. Miscellaneous Vowel Changes There are in addit ion to the vowel changes discussed above many which are i so la ted , that is to say, there are one or two changes of one vowel for another (e. g. (bear } (71) and (hare} (72) for beer and hear) rather than many examples of a spec i f i c vowel change such as the lowering of [ £ ] to 1363 discussed above. Most of these i so lated vowel changes seem designed ent i re ly for the i r values as puns. For 132 instance, \ (Ba l I f a r t^ for Bul l ford (307) i s probably developed to combine bal1 and f a r t for purely humorous associat ion. The devoicing of [d] to [ t ] i s cons istent ly used by Smollett to suggest Welsh pronunciation, but the lowering of Bull to Bal1 i s the only example of [ p ] for &/] or G&] for [>] in the whole text. We may assume that Smollett wants to a l t e r the name to ra ise a laugh. Double-entendres are happily created through singular vowel a l te rat ions . ^Chined^ for joined (352) may suggest an instance of Cockney diphthong pronunciation of C3E] or G3I] ( i . e. schwa) for [OJ], but the thrust of the change comes from the suggestion that the couples are chained l i k e beasts in harness rather than as loving human beings joined in marriage. (Pa leass^ for palace (108) uses long [e] fo r short a_ [32] as another excuse to get ass into the text. In the same way, the i so lated lowering of long e_ H i ] to short i_ [ J ] produces ( p i s s ^ (307) and ^ s h i t s ^ (307) for piece and sheets in Win's Tetters, while Tabitha produces ^bitchmast} (156) for beechmast [a kind of fodder for pigs] to get bitch into the text in an unexpected pos i t ion. By a l te r ing short u_ D\] to short 1 [%3, Tabitha creates two more taboo words, ^ s h i t ^ ( 6 ) and ^ s l i t ^ (274) out of shut and s l u t . 2 1 7 A l l of these changes are a rather left-handed way of getting taboo words into pr in t while having them pour naively from the mouths of two seemingly innocent women. Not a l l of Smol lett ' s minor vowel changes are designed to introduce espec ia l ly of f -co lour puns, of course. He is also interested to play on s i tuat ionsv ia word changes and to juggle fami l i a r phrases. The 133 only other example of short i_ for long e_ i s in Win's statement that she wishes to " l i v e upon dissent terms of c i v i l i t y " with Mrs. Gwyllim •-a f te r she has returned to the Brarnbleton estate. Win's decision to turn over a new leaf and have decent re lat ions with Mrs. Gwyllim i s , of course, shown up for the pure paper sentiment i t i s . And the only other example of short j_ for short u occurs in Tabitha 's l e t t e r when she garbles a proverbial phrase, "the refuse and scum of the earth, " to produce "the refuge and skim of the hearth" (78) instead. The changes in th is phrase are d i s t i n c t i v e ; not only i s scum changed to skim, but earth is aspirated to hearth and the change of refuse to refuge i s a common d i a l ec ta l confusion especia l ly associated with 218 Cockney speech. If we may judge from the ways in which Smollett has changed i so lated vowels in these few examples, we may see that his changes are usually not randomly selected but are, instead, determi by an intent to make a spec i f i c word play in the l e t t e r s . IV CONCLUSION Once we have investigated the ways in which Smollett manipulates the spel l ings in Win's and Tabitha 's l e t te r s to produce language variants through systematic processes or changes, we are a lerted to the p o s s i b i l i t i e s for language var iety in Humphry Cl inker. Our awareness of the ways in which Smollett uses the spel l ings in Win's and Tabitha 's l e t te r s to indicate pronunciation variants and to indicate semi - l i te rate states of education allows us to enjoy more f u l l y the deviant features of the women's l e t t e r s . Our understanding also of eighteenth century spe l l ing conventions and pronunciation variants insofar as they d i f f e r from our modern practices also helps us appreciate the possible effects Smollett wished to create. If we return now to the passages with which we began this study and apply the pr inc ip les of language change discussed in th i s paper, we w i l l see that there i s l i t t l e need for the elaborate etymological explanations which have been used to " t rans la te " puzzling words in Smol lett ' s text. 0 voman! voman! i f thou had'st but the least consumption of what pleasures we scu l lers have, when we can cunster the crabbidst buck off hand, and spel l the ethnitch vords without lucking at the primmer. (109) 0! that ever a gentlewoman of years and d i scret ion should tare her a i r , and disporridge herself for such a nubjack! (306) - 134 -135 The captain himself had a huge hassock of a i r , with three t a i l s , and-a tumtawdry coat, boddered with su l fur . - - Wan said he was a monkey-bank; and the ould bot t le r swore he was the born imich of T i t i d a l 1. (352) The f i r s t time I was mortally a f ra id and f lustered a l l day; and afterwards made believe that I had got the heddick; but mistress sa id , i f I d idn ' t go, I should take a dose of bumtaffy . . . (43). That she mought do me no harm, I crossed her hand with a ta s ter , and bid her t e l l my fortune . . . (261). Of the underlined words which have puzzled Arthur Boggs into c a l l i n g them "coinages," l e t us look f i r s t at the common vowel feature in ( s cu l l e r s^ , ^cunster},(nubjack}, ^umtawdry}, and ^umtaf fy } . These words are a l l examples of the u/o spe l l ing var iat ion which possibly re f lec t s the unrounding of CPU, or Lo] to LA]. With th i s one change we would have s co l l e r s , conster, nobjack, torntawdry, and bomtaffy. Of these "new" spe l l ings , conster is a standard variant pronunciation (and spel l ing) for construe while tomtawdry is a d ia lec t version of tawdry, a common word for "vulgar f i n e r y . " 2 * 3 Sco l le r s , bomtaffy and nobjack require a few more changes, however, before they are " t rans lated" into standard forms. Sco l le r s , however, needs only the subst i tut ion of ch_ for the s imp l i f i ed spe l l ing of c_ before i t emerges as schol lers and, from the context, as scholars. The f i na l stages of a l te r ing the spe l l ing of £ to a_ in the unstressed sy l l ab le and dropping out an unnecessary ]_ fol low natura l ly . I t i s important to emphasize, however, that once the i n i t i a l change of u to has been made (with the obvious change in pronunciation to schol lers) the actual word, scholars, i s se l f -ev ident because the spe l l ing i s 136 es sent ia l l y phonetic before further changes are made in l i ne with spe l l ing conventions. Bomtaffy requires only one change af ter the i n t i a l change of u_ to o_ and that i s the change resu l t ing from the p r inc ip le of d e v o i c i n g . 2 2 0 When Win's bomtaffy i s compared with Tabitha 's s imi la r bom-daffee (assuming the £ for £ change) and voiced to bomdavvy (cf. Tabitha 's bom-davvee), a reader f ami l i a r with the per iod ' s quack medicines and restorat ives would recognize baume de vie and the s imp l i f i c a t i on of the French _au spe l l i ng . Nobjack i s more complex, but only in the visual sense, because i t i s quite c lear in i t s context once we have ascertained that "such a nobjack" i s "such an objack" because of fau l ty word d i v i s i on . To the reader who can "hear" the phrase there is no real d i f f i c u l t y because the actual written phrase, "such an object, " i s not hidden at a l l . However, to the reader perplexed by the visual form of the word, there i s a further challenge is requir ing the transformation of a_ to e_ (so obvious in other words 1 ike(Addingborough) for Edinburgh) and the addit ion of f i n a l t_which Win, in common with many speakers, seems to lose in so many words. Two other words underlined above, T i t i d a l l and tas ter , are subject to several of the same changes used for the words discussed. By applying the pr inc ip les of devoicing and the alternate spel l ings for unstressed sy l lab les T i t i d a l 1 becomes Tiddidol1 or T i d i do l . For the modern reader th i s name has no s i gn i f i cance, but for the readers enjoying the novel as a new work i t would have a great deal of s ign i f i cance. 137 Tididol1 was the nickname of Richard Grenv i l l e , Lord Temple, a powerful p o l i t i c a l f igure in the court of George III and an enemy of Smollett. The nickname i s very apt in i t s appl icat ion to Lismahago, especia l ly as he i s described by Jery. T i d i do l l was a very current joke since several p o l i t i c a l pasquinades had appeared between 1760 and 1770 2 2* and in the Morning Chronicle of 1770 an i l l - na tu red wr i ter described Temple in the fol lowing manner: . . . the external form of his nobleman discovers nothing to his advantage . . . . Length, without shape or proportion, and a countenance in which the most penetrating eye perceives no expression . . . . Nature seems to have thrown him into existence in one of her moods of f r o l i c , and to make him more conspicuous, she has given him rank. By making Lismahago appear so badly dressed in his ungainly f igure and then saying that he is the "born imich of T i t i d a l l , " Smollett is able to make a jab at Temple which would be recognized quite read i ly . Tidydol1 i s a d i a l ec t word which means "an over-dressed old woman" and i t may be the or ig ina l for the nickname. Taster i s merely another change of e_ to a_ l i k e that in objack for objeck / object, and the resu l t ing word is te s te r , a slang term for sixpence. Tester has a long h i s tory; i t dates from the days of Henry VIII and was s t i l l in use in the nineteenth century, recorded by Hotten in his Dictionary of Modern Slang, Cant and Vulgar Words (London: J . C. Hotten, 1860). Smollett used tester in i t s usual form in his novels and, in add i t ion, he has Timothy Crabshaw of S i r Launcelot Greaves use i t . Interest ing ly, Crabshaw also speaks in vestiges of d i a l ec t and his words are subject to some vowel changes; he uses teaster instead of tester as he says " I ' s e wager a teaster, the foul f iend has l e f t the seaman, and got into G i l be r t , that he has . . ." (SLG, 138 Chapt. VI I I ). I suspect that Boggs was eas i ly d istracted by the fact that taster seems to conform to the spe l l i ng rules for long a_ predicted by a f i n a l e_ as i f the word derived from taste; instead, i t seems to fol low the pattern of test / tester as i f formed from " t a s t " (with short a). The la s t word ( e t h n i t c h ) i s , of a l l the variants in Humphry C l inker , the most d i f f i c u l t to explain s a t i s f a c t o r i l y . While I cannot put forward a completely convincing explanation for i t s formation, I feel quite convinced that i t i s not very l i k e l y another coinage since there seems no concrete evidence for other coinages in the l e t t e r s . Ethnick may be what Win means to say but i t s normal meaning according to Johnson's Dictionary was "heathen, pagan, not Jewish, not Chr i s t i an , " and th i s sense would put a s t ra in upon the context. Heathenish, according to Johnson, meant "w i l d , savage, rapacious and c rue l " and there seems to be no evidence for the co l loqu ia l usage of heathenish as "abominable" at the time. Heathenish in the slang sense of very d i f f i c u l t ( i . e. " i t was a heathenish hard thing to do") would be appropriate but th is usage i s not recorded in the period. In terms of the pr inc ip les of word change which Smollett employed with some degree of consistency i t might be explained as fo l lows: (a) h i s lacking in Win's word because of fau l ty a sp i ra t ion ; (b) the middle s y l l ab le of heathenish (c) the change in the f i n a l consonant c luster i s from [ s ] to [ c ] . While th i s possible explanation i s not quite sa t i s fac tory , I would argue that i t i s more sensible in the context and more probable in terms of is l o s t by s y l l ab i c reduction (e. g. Parades becomes 139 Smol lett ' s normal pract ice of making systematic rather than a rb i t ra ry changes. Further, i t is a more l i k e l y appl icat ion of meaning than Boggs' etymological explanation which ult imately suggests the opposite of what the context seems to imply i f we understand Win to say "you can have no conception of the pleasure we scholars ( i . e. those who can read and write) have when we can construe the most d i f f i c u l t book of f hand and spel l the [hardest, c rue l l y hard, foreign] words without looking at the primer." The context suggests something l i k e t h i s . Further, I assume from Smol lett ' s usual pract ice that he is making some joke of Win's pretension to spel l cor rect ly the hard word which she has s p e c i f i c a l l y chosen as an i l l u s t r a t i o n for boasting about her spe l l ing powers and that i t must be s imi la r (e. g. ethnick, heathenish) to what she does wr i te . If we look at the other variants in the br ie f passages c i ted and ident i f y the processes or changes, omitting from discussion the variants ( s c u l l e r s ^ , - funster} , ^ethnitch}, ^ub jack } , ^umtawdry}, ^ T i t i d a l l } , (bumtaffy^, and (taster} , they may be analyzed as fo l lows: voman, voman [v ] for [w] consumption malapropism buck, lucking L A : for m primmer eye d ia lec t tare homonym, malapropism a i r , a i r fau l ty aspirat ion,_h- less spe l l ing disporridge word approximation boddered vocal izat ion of [ r ] wan eye d i a l ec t monkey-bank Ckj for [ t ] , a lternate spe l l ing of unstressed sy l l ab le ould [u'O for [o:I] v imich devoicing, [ c ] for [ j ] heddick eye d i a l ec t mought d ia lec t verb form 140 Applying the pr inc ip les discussed in th i s paper, the interested reader might do the same with the fol lowing passage: 0 woman, what chuckling and changing have I seen! - - Wel l , there ' s nothing sartain in th i s world - - Who would have thought that m i s t r i s s , a f ter a l l the pains taken for the good of her prusias so le, would go for to throw away her poor body? that she would cast the heys of in fect ion upon such a carrying-crow as Lashmihago! as old as Matthewsullin, as dry as a red herr ing, and as pore as a starved veezel - -0, Molly! hadst thou seen him come down the ladder, in a shurt so scanty, that i t could not kiver his nakedness! - -The young ' squire ca l led him Dunquickset; but he looked for a l l the world l i k e Cradoc-ap Morgan, the ould t inker that suffered at Abergany for s teel ing of kett le - - Then he's a profane s cu f f l e , and, as Mr. Cl inker says, no better than an impfiddle cont inual ly playing upon the pye -b i l l and the new-burth . . . (306). Notes A l l references to Humphry C l inker , unless otherwise stated, are to The Expedition of Humphry Cl inker edited with an introduction by Lewis M. Knapp (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1966). 2 At the same time that Smollett is enjoying his a l lus ions to the writers of the Grand Tour, he i s also employing the mock introduct ion, a popular convention for explaining how a series of l e t te r s or set of memoirs happens to come into the hands of the s e l l e r . This technique was popular in the eighteenth century; i t was used, for example, by Defoe in Moll Flanders (1722), by Swift in Gu l l i v e r ' s Travels (1726), and by Charles Johnstone in Chrysal (1760) and i t was parodied by Sterne in A Sentimental Journey (1768). 3 Jery po int less ly Lat inizes "pointed out by the fingers of passers-by" and, in so doing misquotes Horace: "monstror d ig i to praetereuntium" from Carmina, IV, i i i , ,22. Jery produces "praetereuntium d ig i to monstratus" (p. 185T 4 See p. 19. Smollett is wryly attacking fa l se learning through the medium of language in the doctor 's speech and, at the same time, exposing Je ry ' s vanity of learning. Latin expressions are scattered about Jery ' s l e t te r s as well as Bramble's. Bramble's usages are often unobtrusive and when they are not, they usually add a range of associations. Jery ' s usages seem strained for the most part. 5 Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey, Vol. V of The Novels of Jane  Austen, 3rd ed. (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1933), pp. 27-8. 6 W. Arthur'Boggs, "D ia lecta l Ingenuity in Humphry C l inker , " Papers on Language and L i terature, I (1965), 327-37. Boggs is referr ing to an e a r l i e r a r t i c l e , " Smol let t ' s Coinages in the Win Jenkins ' Let ters , " Language Quarterly, II (1963), 2-4. 7 The variants which Boggs discusses as coinages are not newly created words. They may be more simply explained; scul1ers = scholars, cunster = construe, taster = tester (a slang term for sixpence), tumtawdry = tomtawdry (a d ia lec t term for vulgar f i ne r y ) , ethnitch - ethnick or heathenish (synonymous terms in the eighteenth century), nubjack = an object, bumtaffy = baume de v ie , and t i t i da l 1 = T idd ido l l or T i d i do l l - 141 -142 (the nickname for Lord Temple current in the 1760's and 1770's). A l l of these variants are produced by normal language processes to be discussed in th is paper. 8 For a discussion of the d i f f i c u l t y of representing d ia lects in written form, see Sumner Ives 1 , "A Theory of L i terary D ia lect , " A Various Language: Perspectives on American Dia lects , ed. Juanita V. Williamson and V i rg in ia M. Burke (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), pp. 145-78. 9 See also W. Arthur Boggs', "Win Jenkins ' Archaisms and Proverbial Phrases," Language Quarterly IV (1965), pp. 33-6 and "Some Standard Eighteenth-Century English Usages," The Quarterly Journal of Speech LI (1965), pp. 304-6. The only other scholar to give any attent ion to Smol lett ' s language in Humphry Cl inker i s Paul-Gabriel Bouce in Les_ Romans de Smollett: Etude Cr i t ique (Par is: D id ier , 1971). *0 See Constance Davies, English Pronunciation from the Fifteenth  to the Eighteenth Century (London: J . M. Dent and Sons, 1934), pp. 144-5. 1* I have attempted to use source materials which are as close to the publ icat ion date of Humphry Cl inker as poss ible, but there are some obvious d i f f i c u l t i e s , not with books on spe l l ing and grammar as much as with books on pronunciation. Johnson's Dictionary (1755) would seem the log ica l source for def in i t ions and conventional spe l l ings , but i t does not include a pronunciation guide. It has been necessary, therefore, to re ly upon Sheridan's General Dictionary (1780) and Walker's C r i t i c a l Pronouncing Dictionary (1791) as they were the most widely used and respected of the pronouncing d ic t ionar ies of the late eighteenth century. Material on d ia lec t presents more problems because d ia lec t d ic t ionar ies or glossaries were non-existent. Ba i ley ' s Universal  Etymological Dictionary (1721), however, did include some d ia lec t words. But the major reference works date from the turn of our century, well over a hundred years l a te r than Humphry Cl inker. But Wright's English  Dia lect Dictionary (1898) boasts "the complete vocabulary of a l l English d ia lec t words which are s t i l l in use or are known to have been in use at any time during the la s t two hundred years in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales." Wright's English Dialect Grammar (1905) provides the most r e l i a b l e information on d ia lec t phonology (and is c losest in point of time to Smol lett ' s date of writ ing) unti 1 the publ icat ion of The Leeds Survey of English Dialects in the 1960's. For slang terms I have used Grose's C lass ica l Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1796), also l a te r in the period, and the large work by Farmer and Henley, Slang and Its Analogues (1890). Er ic Partr idge ' s A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional Usage (1966) has also been useful. 12 For a discussion of spe l l ing pronunciations, see Thomas Pyles, The Origins and Development of the English Language (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964), pp. 46-9. 143 13 For an exhaustive bibliography of such works see R. C. A lston, A Bibliography of the English Language from the Invention of Pr int ing to the Year 1800 (Leeds: E. J . Arnold and Son, 1 9 6 5 T For a detai led examination of early English pronunciation, see J . J . Dobson, English Pronunciation 1500-1700, 2 vols. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 19577. 14 "We are not surprised, then, to f ind Johnson, whose main e f for t s in orthographic reform were directed toward establ ishing analogy, basing his pronunciation as much as possible on analogy. Boswell says that Johnson pronounced heard with a double e_, heerd, instead of pronouncing i t herd, as i t i s usually done, because, Johnson explained i f i t were pro-nounced . herd, there would be a s ingle exception from the English pronunciation of the s y l l ab l e , -ear, and he thought i t better not to have that exception. And th i s in sp i te of the fact that such a pronuncia-t ion was never supported by any grammarian." Esther K. Sheldon, Standards  of English Pronunciation According to the Grammarians and Orthoepists  of the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries, (Manuscript thes i s ) . Univ. of Wisconsin Library. Cited by Bflrje Holmberg, On the Concept of Standard English and the History of Modern English Pronunciation. (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1964), p. 25. 15 John Jones, Pract ica l Phonography (1701; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1969), Preface [p. 2, unnumbered]. 16 Stephen Jones, A Pronouncing Dictionary of the_ English Language (1796; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1969). 17 The episto lary novel was es sent ia l l y f in ished in the nineteenth century although there were exceptions (e. g. Swinburne's Love's Crosscurrents). For a discussion of the vogue of the episto lary novel, see J . M. S. Tompkins, The Popular Novel in England 1770-1800 (London: Methuen and Co., 1932), pp. 333-7. 18 James Elphinston 's A Minniature Ov Ing!ish Orthoggraphy (1795; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1967) provides an excel lent example. 19 This form of b racket ing ,^ ), followed by a number ind icat ing page reference, w i l l signal a misspel l ing transcribed from the text. Standard forms w i l l be underlined. 2 0 See below for a discussion of th i s word as a typ ica l example of Welsh devoicing. 21 See Joseph Wright, The English Dialect Grammar (Oxford: Henry Frowde, 1905), pp. 140-5. Hereafter c i ted as EDG. 22 See fol lowing discussion of Win's other fractured French words and fo lk etymologies. 144 " In the review of Humphry CI inker in The Gentleman's Magazine for 1771, the fol lowing remarks appear (pp. 317-21): The s t i l e of th is work is frequently stercoraceous, and some times i t is also prur ient. The prur ient, however, i s as harmless as the stercoraceous, as i t tends much more to c h i l l than to enflame every imagination, except perhaps those of the thieves and bunters in Broad St. G i l e s , to whom the coarsest terms being f am i l i a r , they convey sensual ideas without the antidote of disgust. The reviewer c l ea r l y recognizes Smol lett ' s intent to use language in th i s way but i s not alarmed. The V ictor ian reaction to th i s feature of Smol lett ' s work was not so to lerant ; i t may be t yp i f i ed by the fol lowing comment from A. G. L. L 'Estranges' History of English Humour (1878; rpt. New York: Burt Frankl in, 1970), pp. 123-4. I t has generally been the custom to couple the name of Smollett with that of F ie ld ing , but the former has scarcely any claim to be regarded as a humorist, except such as i s largely due to the use of gross indel icacy and coarse car icature. Even S i r Walter Scott could not r e s i s t commenting "There i s a tone of vulgar i ty about a l l his productions." 24 Cf. Wycherley's Country Wife, Hamlet's a l lu s ion to "country pleasures'," and Katherine's response to "Le foot . . . et le count," Henry V, I I I, i v . Farmer provides many examples from Elizabethan l i t e r a t u r e in Slang and Its Analogues (printed for private subscribers, 1890). 25 This i s s t i l l a phenomenon in certa in d ia lects in England; see Peter Trudgi11, The Social D i f fe rent ia t ion of English in Norwich (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1974), pp. 834. Note also the map on p. 83 ind icat ing "h- less " areas. 2 6 See below for discussion of aspirat ion / non-aspiration as possible variant pronunciations. 2 7 Thomas Tuite, The Oxford Spel l ing Book (1726; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1967)7 p. 54: "H_ has i t s proper sound in the beginning of a word, as in hand, ha i r , h id , hope, hurt, yet h_ i s mute in the beginning of several words, as herb, he i r , heiress, honest, honour, hour, hosp i ta l , humble, Humphry." For addit ional information from the period on aspirat ion see also Robert Nares, Elements of Orthoepy (1784; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1968), pp. 108-10. 145 2 8 Anonymous, The I r i sh Spel l ing Book o_r, Instruction for the Reading of Engl ish, F i t ted for the Youth of Ireland (1740, rpt. Menston5 The Scolar Press, 1969). p. 148: "Of words commonly spoken shorter than they are wr i t t en . " 2 9 Elphinston, Ingl ish Orthoggraphy, p. 26. 3° See Jery ' s l e t t e r of September 12, p. 267. 3* Joseph Wright, English Dia lect Dict ionary, 6 vols. (1898; rpt. New York: Hacker Art Books, 1962) indicates that the term may be seen in many advertisements for the sale of stock; "Three very fresh beast, . . . the beast are a l l f resh, wel1-haired"; see entry BEAST, Wright's d ict ionary w i l l be c i ted hereafter as EDD. 32 Ident i f ied in Will iam Axon's English Dialect Words of the Eighteenth  Century [from Ba i ley ' s Dictionary!]. (London: Published For the English D ia lect Society, 1883), p. 41: "Dev i l ' s Arse a Peak . . . a peak = in the Peak D i s t r i c t . . . a great unfathomable Hole in Derbyshire, having a great many corners l i k e so many apartments, of which there are several strange Accounts given." 33 Hoyden's Hole has not been annotated in any edit ions of Humphry Cl inker to date. But once a method of understanding Win's and Tabitha 's aspirat ion is c lear , i t i s log ica l to look for a name beginning not with h_ but with a vowel. Francis Grose supplies the answer in A Prov inc ia l Glossary (1787; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1968) in his section on proverbs. He quotes a proverb from Derbyshire: Elden-Hole Wants F i l l i n g A saying commonly used to great boasters, who vaunt they can do wonderful feats ; pointing out to them one worthy of the i r undertaking; that i s , the f i l l i n g up El den-hole, a f i s sure in the earth, vulgarly deemed bottomless. Cotton, in his descr ipt ion of the Peak, relates some f r u i t l e s s attempts to measure i t s depth. Smollett has again manipulated a fami l i a r name (at least to the eighteenth century reader who went on jaunts to Buxton Spa) to produce an of f -co lour pun. 34 A possible alternate explanation i s provided by Er ic Partridge in his Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (1937; rpt. Mew York: Macmillan and Co., 1961) who notes "arse . . . Ca. 1700-1930, rare ly printed in f u l l ; even B. E. [Dict ionary of the Canting Crew] (1690) on one occasion pr ints as ' a r ' , and Grose often omits the_r"-Perhaps this, usage was as close as Smollett wished to come to offending 146 in pr int with th i s par t i cu la r word. Partridge hereafter c i ted as Diet, of Slang and Unc. 35 Like the Grand Tour, travel within B r i t a i n became very popular in the eighteenth century and there are many accounts. See George Watson, ed., The New Cambridge Bibliography of English L i te ra tu re , II (Cambridge: Cambridge Univers ity Press, 1971), 1395-1410 for l i s t i n g s of B r i t i s h travel from general works (e. g. Defoe's A Tour Thro' The Whole Island  of Great B r i t a i n 1724, -25, -26) to the specif ic~Te. g. Reverend Will iam Bray's Sketch of a^  Tour into Derbyshire and Yorkshire, etc. 1777). 36 When ^hearth} appears fo r earth in Win's l e t t e r s , i t too has a diminishing e f f ec t ; Win declares that "Ould Scratch has not a greater enemy upon hearth than Mr. C l inker , who i s , indeed a very powerful! labourer in the Lord's vineyard" (155) and unwittingly reduces her praise of C l inker. He i s not the glorious Chr i s t i an , s t r i v i n g might i ly against the devi l out in the wide world; instead, he i s the hero of the hearth, working against the devi l with the women and servants of Bramble's household. This i s one facet of Smol lett ' s s a t i r i c a l c r i t i c i s m of the Methodist c a l l i n g , a feature which he.shares with other writers of the period, and most notably with Christopher Anstey, The New Bath Guide: or Memoirs of the B-N-D Family (Dublin, 1766), an obvious source for Humphry CI inker. 37 See pronunciation guide below for devoicing, a sp i ra t ion, and ass imi lat ion in these words. In these and other l ex i ca l items with obviously variant phonological features, discussion of pronunciation w i l l usually fo l low. 38 Walker voices th is att i tude succ inct ly ( C r i t i c a l Pronouncing Dict ionary, p. 23): . . . I t may indeed be observed that there i s scarcely any thing more distinguishes a person of mean and good education than the pronunciation of the unaccented vowels. When vowels are under the accent, the prince and the lowest of the people, with very few exceptions, pronounce them in the same manner; but the unaccented vowels in the mouth of the former have a d i s t i n c t , open, and spec i f i c sound, while the l a t t e r often t o t a l l y sink them, or change them, into some other sound. Those therefore, who wish to pronounce elegantly must; be pa r t i cu l a r l y attent ive to the unaccented vowels; as a neat pronunciation of these, forms one of the greatest beauties of speaking. 39 Misspel l ings of i n i t i a l , unstressed vowels are few; Nunciose^ for enclose (306) and ^excepted/for accepted (155, 338) appear, at f i r s t glance, to f i t th i s pattern, but the actual comic reversals in meaning which the words provide i nc l i ne me to regard the words as del iberate rnalapropisms instead of unstressed spel l ings . The other words with-misspelled i n i t i a l vowels are ^edmiral} for admiral (261), 147 <^operition) for apparit ion (261), and ( iminent) for eminent (109), but these words (or the i r hybrid forms) would a l l receive i n i t i a l stress. 40 R. E. Zachrisson, "Four Hundred Years of English Spel l ing Reform," Studia Neophilologica, IV (1931-2), pp. 1-70. 41 A kind of lace headdress popular in the 1760's. See C. W i l l e t t Cunnington, P h i l l i s Cunnington and Charles Beard, A Dictionary of  English Costume (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1960), p. 23. 42 Lowe (The C r i t i c a l Spel l ing Book, 1755) advocates the old spe l l ing oeconomy, p. 45. Smollett normally spel l s i t oeconomy elsewhere in Humphry C l inker , cf . pp. 85, 207, 241, 296, 350. 43 The f i n a l _v of laxat ive has been devoiced in typ ica l Welsh fashion; see devoicing below. 44 Jery reports Matthew's speech to Liddy and Tabitha announcing that Humphry is his i l l e g i t ima te son: ' S i s t e r , (said my uncle) there i s a poor re la t ion that recommends himself to your good graces - - The quondam Humphry Cl inker i s metamorphosed into Matthew Loyd; and claims the honour being your carnal kinsman - - in short, the rogue proves to be a crab of my own planting in the days of hot blood and unrestrained l i b e r t i n i s m . ' (pp. 318-9) 45 For a d i f f e ren t view, compare Je ry ' s account of the "painted Jezebel" inc ident, p. 209. 46 See Einar Haugen, "The Analysis of L ingu i s t i c Borrowing," Language, 26 (1950), pp. 210-31. 47 See OED. 48 James D. Gordon, The English Language: An H i s to r i ca l Introduction (New York: Thomas Y. Crowe11, 1972), p. 20. 49 This incident may also contain a sexual a l lu s ion since Jezebel was another slang term for pudendum; i t s conjunction with whore would suggest a p o s s i b i l i t y . 50 The Octagon Chapel in Milsom Street was opened in 1767; i t would have been a "new" s ight for the Bramble entourage. For a descr ipt ion of the Octagon, and other s ights, and for a contemporary map of Bath, see The New Bath Guide; or Useful Pocket Companion, a new ed i t i on , corrected and much enlarged"(Bath: R. Crut twe l l , 1780). 51 See below for a discussion of the obvious pronunciation changes indicated by these spe l l ings . 148 ^ This i s a " spe l l i ng joke" rather than a "pronunciation joke" since Win would not wr i te Lough as ( l o f f / on the basis of pronunciation; she might l o g i c a l l y write (Lock">- (or something akin to i t ) . The spe l l i ng of s L o f f ^ - - f f for £h - - i s analogous with l a f f / laugh, enuff / enough, forms which also appear in Win's l e t t e r s . 53 Paul-Gabriel Bouce comments on the obvious sexual play of Coon: " L ' i n ten t i on pa l l i a rde - - a la maniere polyglotte de Shakespeare dans Henry V ( I I I , 4), ou Katharine s ' indigne d'entendre pronouncer ((de foot et de coun^ - - est encore plus nette, vu le contexte d^vetu, quand Win f a i t de S i r George Colquhoun (^Sir George Coon}/ ." Le Romans de Smollett, pp. 383-4. 54 Smollett executes a s a t i r i c thrust at the hypocr i t ica l Methodist minister,(Mr. Macrocodile) 55 See pa ra l l e l form (Viumplush) for non plus in Smol lett ' s The  L i fe and Adventures of Ferdinand Count Fathom (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 197) ), Chapt. IX and discussion of [5] for [ s ] in pronunciation section below. 56 See pronunciation guide for discussion of Welsh devoicing of [bH to Hp]; compare also the Cockney version of habeas corpus, 'hap 'orth of Copperas", recorded by Samuel Pegge, Anecdotes of the English  Language (London: J . Nichols, 1814), p. 75. 57 See e a r l i e r discussion of Jery ' s report of Tabitha 's conversation with James Quin. 58 John Jones, Pract ica l Phonography (1701) comments on the pronunciations of mayor in his preface. He remarks that i t i s sounded very d i f f e ren t l y from the way in which "the v i s i b l e Letters pos i t i ve l y inform Beginners that i t i s to be sounded," and notes that the "customary and fashionable sound" i s mair - - l i k e Win's mare. The anonymous Vocabulary of Such  Words in the English Language as are of dubious and Unsettled Accentuation (1797, rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1967) includes mayor and indicates the pronunciation ma _r but the author adds, "I have marked th i s word l i k e Mr. Sheridan; Mr. Walker pronounces i t tria-ur." 59 Thomas Tui te, The Oxford Spel l ing Book. 60 The I r i sh Spel l ing Book. 61 Va i l s were very often a good reason for choosing a lower paying job. See references in Win's l e t te r s to va i l s and perquis ites parquisites , pp. 7, 70, 306. 62 The absurd height of l ad ie s ' hair fashions was caricatured by Rowlandson and others; see Thomas Wright's A Caricature History of  the Georges (London: John Camden Hotten, 1868) for examples. 149 63 The joke of Win's pretensions to being a gentlewoman i s something Tike the young Moll Flander 's notion that a "gentlewoman" is any independent lady who can, l i k e Mo l l ' s governess, support herself by her needlework. CA The exceptions, of course, are the homonyms which have i n i t i a l consonants misspelled through Smol lett ' s attempt to represent d ia lec t pronunciation as well (e. g. (Vales) for Wales). 65 Although comprehensive studies of l i t e r a r y d ia lec t are lack ing, there are many i so lated studies of indiv idual authors (e. g. Joel Chandler Harr i s , Bret Harte, Charles Dickens, George E l i o t , Thomas Hardy). For a l i s t of writ ings on B r i t i s h Novel i s ts , see Norman Page, Speech in the English Novel (London: Longman, 1973), pp. 87-9 and for a se lect ion on American nove l i s t s , see Williamson and Burke, A, Various Language, c i ted above. 66 Sumner Ives, "A Theory of L i terary D ia lect , " reprinted in A Various Language, p. 154. 6 7 Tuite gives Win's spe l l ing as a guide to pronunciation; " . . . I_ sounds ee short, in the end of a s y l l a b l e , i f the fol lowing s y l l ab le begins with a consonant that sounds double, as c i t y , p i t y , . . . which are pronounc'd as i f wr i tten c i t - t y , p i t - t y . " 68 The or spe l l ing seems to have been thought a vulgar error. Nares Orthoepy (p. 26), discussing "u short" notes: " . . . the l e t t e r r. produces th i s e f fect upon an l_ as upon an ^immediately preceding i t in the same s y l l ab l e . Ex. b i rd , c i r c l e , f i rm, v i r g i n , &c. so that i t i s not easy, in these circumstances, to trace the orthography from the sound. Vergin, v i r g i n , and vurgin, would be pronounced exactly a l i k e . . . . I t seems that our ancestors dist inguished these sounds more cor rect l y . Bishop Gardiner, in his f i r s t l e t t e r to Cheke, mentions a w i t t i c i sm of Nicholas Rowley, a fel low Cantab, with him, to th i s e f f e c t : "Let handsome g i r l s be ca l led v i r g in s , p la in ones vurgins." The discr iminat ion of sounds indicated by the ea r l i e r spel l ings disappeared as those sounds began to merge (see. Butler 1634, Hodges 1644, and Cooper 1685 and 1687 for documentation). The idea that only the vulgar could make such errors as not to d ist inguish in pronunciation these sounds seems to have been transferred to vulgar errors in spe l l i ng . 69 Fizzog i s a common d i a lec t word; EDD notes i t s use in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, Nottinghamshire, and Lincolnshire. Win combines i t with many by a metathesis ( i . e. reversal of m and n), since she has no f a m i l i a r i t y with physiognamy. Fizzog i s also common in present day American slang; i t even appears as the t i t l e for a Carl Sandburg poem. 7 0 Spel l ing books warn against th i s misspel l ing, and i t i s noted that even "the wr i ter of the age" could e r r . Pope i s quoted as misspel l ing i t in The Art of Sinking in Poetry (89, 1727 ed i t i on ) , "the substance of many a f a i r volume, might be reduced to the s ize of a primmer." 150 7 * This i s the verb and not the noun form which was treated above in the homonym sequence of tear ( in the eye) and tare ( in the corn). 7 2 ^Dunquickset^ is a favourite spe l l ing of Smol let t ' s . He uses i t in S i r Launcelot Greaves, with a var iat ion i n \ Dunquicksot^ (the knight) and in the name of one of the novel 's characters, S i r Valentine Quickset. In the l a t t e r case, quickset i s humorously relevant since a quickset i s a hedge and S i r Valentine is an avid fox-hunter. The phonetic spe l l ing (Dunquickset/ more c lose ly approximates the usual eighteenth century pronunciation since the tendency to pronounce i t in the Spanish manner i s a somewhat modern development. See The L i fe  and Adventures of S i r Launcelot Greaves, edited with an introduction by David Evans "(London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1973). 7 3 Sumner Ives, "A Theory of L i terary D ia lect " (p. 147), commenting on the control of a var iety of d ia lec t features in the l i t e r a r y representa-t ion of d i a l ec t observes: "Nearly a l l examples of l i t e r a r y d i a l ec t are de l iberate ly incomplete; the author i s an a r t i s t , not a l i ngu i s t or a soc io log i s t , and his purpose is l i t e r a r y rather than s c i e n t i f i c . In working out his compromise between ar t and l i n g u i s t i c s , each author has made his own decision as to how many of the pecu l i a r i t i e s in his character ' s speech he can pro f i tab ly represent . . . . From the tota l l i n g u i s t i c material ava i l ab le , he selects those features that seem to be t y p i c a l , to be most representative of the sort of person he i s portray-ing. " 7 4 This word provides a blatant example of Boggs missing the obvious. In his a r t i c l e , "A Win Jenkins ' Lexicon," Bu l l e t i n of the New York Public L ibrary, LXVIII (1964), pp. 323-30, he says of thfs" word: "marokin. a variant of maroquin obsolete by Win's time. Since maroquin i s a leather, and Win obviously uses the word in reference to an American f u r , marokin i s probably a malapropism for martin. In e i ther event, no l i n g u i s t i c explanation has been found for the change of kw to j<, or of t_ to k." I t i s un l ike ly that Smollett would a t t r ibute to Win, of a l l people, the use of an obsolete word and further, Boggs' d i f f i c u l t y in making an explanation only involves two fa l se assumptions of his own making. 7 5 (NOWS^ i s one of Smol lett ' s few errors in creating eye d i a l e c t ; the pronunciation i s natural ly [naus] instead of r_noz]. 7 ^ Service appears in th i s form only once. It i s otherwise a l tered to ^ s a r v i c e^ to indicate vulgar pronunciation; see a discussion of th i s pronunciation feature below. 77 Solomon Lowe, The C r i t i c a l Spel l ing Book (1755, rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1967), p. 75. See also James Adams, The Pronunciation of the English Language (1799, rpt . Menston: The Scolar Press, 1968), p. 123. 151 / 0 Lowe, p. 80. 7 9 See also ( p y e b i l l } (155), another twist to ( b y e b i l l } . The main interest here i s the devoicing of [b] to Cp]; see devoicing below. 8 0 Even a comparison of Win's eye d i a l ec t spel l ings with the select ion of variants Boggs l i s t s in "A Win Jenkins ' Lexicon," Bu l l e t i n of the New York Public L ibrary, LXVIII (1964), 323-30 and in "D ia lecta l Ingenuity in Humphry CI inker, " Papers on Language and L i te ra tu re , I (1965), 327-37 w i l l serve to i l l u s t r a t e . 8* Some of these variants have been discussed above, others are to fol low. Variants include o/u spe l l ings , homonyms, vulgarisms, word subst i tut ions, rnalapropisms, metathesis of r_, and variant spel l ings representing normal eighteenth century pronunciations (e. g. pot t i ca ry ) . 82 See pronunciation guide below. 83 See also treatment of ^marokin} as eye d ia lec t in preceding sect ion. Partr idge ' s Diet, of Slang and Unc. has the fol lowing entry: "Merrika (or - e r ) ; Merrican, -kan, k in , America, American: solecism ( - - 1887) Baumann QLondonismen]." 84 For a c lea r , documented discussion of misd iv i s ion, see Dobson, I I, pp. 1005-6. 85 Pyles (p. 185), notes that a s imi la r process has applied to pronouns: Rather important changes are to be noted in the pronouns. In the personal ones the h i s t o r i c a l forms of the f i r s t person remained as J_, me, and mine and my_, with the older d i s t i nc t i on between the n-less form of the possessive and the older form with n being for a long time maintained as i t had been in Middle English from the thirteenth century on - - that is, mine before a vowel or h_, and my_ before consonants. This d i s t i n c t i on continued to be made down to the eighteenth century, when my_ came to be the only regular f i r s t persona possessive modifier. The Fool ' s nuncle in King Lear i s due to his misunderstanding of mine uncle as my nuncle; and i t is l i k e l y that Ned, He!ly, and Noll (a nickname usually associated with Ol iver Goldsmith) have the same or ig in from mine Edward, mine Eleanor, mine 01iver. 8 6 Wil l iam Matthews, Cockney Past and Present (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1938), p. 191. Hereafter c i ted as Matthews, CPP. 87 Dobson notes that the absence of these features in most of the homophone l i s t s ( i . e. apart from Cooper) is a " c lear ind icat ion of the vulgar or d i a l ec ta l status of the development", Dobson, I I, p. 1006. 152 Note here Win's use of "ever a gentlewoman" and compare with uses of farrow "/'which follows (e. g. "arrow private gentlewoman"). Compare also Win's use of "arrow private gentlewoman" with "arrow pr ivet squire" and the a l ternat ion of pr ivate / pr ivet . Usages such as th is are sprinkled throughout: Smollett does not confine himself to one spe l l ing ( i . e. ^privet*) for private) because he often uses his misspell ings for d i f fe rent purposes. For example, he uses " p r i ve t " with squire to make an a l lu s ion to typ ica l country squires (punning on the i r concerns with pr ivet hedges and other country matters), but has no such use for th is misspel l ing when Win writes "arrow private gentlewoman". This very well i l l u s t r a t e s Sumner Ives1 point, quoted e a r l i e r , that the chief intent ion of the novel i s t i s a r t i s t i c , not l i n g u i s t i c or soc io log i ca l . ^ 9 Boggs, " Smol let t ' s Coinages in the Win Jenkins Letters " [ c f . note 74H (p. 3) makes the fol lowing assertions: "In addit ion to bum-ta f f y [ s i c ] , two more of Smol lett ' s best coinages are nubjack . . . and ethnitch, both of which reveal a ta lent for l i n g u i s t i c ingenuity. Only in Win's reference to Lismahago are nub and jack used in combination: "such a nubjack." However, Grose defines nub as a cant term for "neck," nubbing as hanging," and a nubbing cheat as "the gallows." Grose does not give Jack as a common appel lat ion for fe l low, but he does give th i rteen examples of i t s use in combination as Jack Tar, e t c . , and the O.E.D. reveals that Jack was s t i l l used in the eighteenth century as a term for "a l ad , fe l low, chap; esp. a low-bred or an ill-mannered fe l low, 'a knave'." Thus a nubjack must be a common fel low or ill-mannered person f i t only for hanging. Again, the salacious may be present in that Grose also defines nub as " c o i t i o n . " Interest ing ly, what Boggs adds as an afterthought i s probably the real source of the reason for va r i a t i on * Grose does l i s t nub as a verb for copulate (1785) and i t i s l i s t e d in Slang and Its Analogues, as is also Jack for penis e rec t io , along with Roger, Peter etc. as other generic slang terms. Boggs presumably did not check slang d ict ionar ies for sexual terms. 9 0 Smollett, The Adventures of Peregrine P ick le edited with an introduction by James L. CIifford~TLondon: Oxford Univ. Press, 1964), p. 676. 9 1 Wright 's EDD: OBJECT; i t i s l i s t e d in use in Sc., I r e i . , Nhb., Wm., Yks., L i n . , Dor., Cor., "Also written objekd Sh. I. and in forms objeck Abd. objick Sh. I., Cor." Wright's l i s t i n g of objeck and objick confirms the natural process of consonant c luster s imp l i f i ca t i on in d ia lec t speech. Slang and Its Analogues; "object, subs, (col loq.) 1. A laughing (or gazing) stock 2. A sweetheart ( i . e. the OBJECT of one's a f fec t i ons ) . " y ^ See pronunciation " below. 9 3 Matthews, CPJP, pp. 156-7; 225. 153 94 Bb'rje Holmberg, On the Concept, p. 19. 95 This is not to say that " pu r i t y " was not assumed and " vu lga r i t y " was not condemned before the eighteenth century. For example, Owen Pr i ce , a Welsh schoolmaster, writes in his Vocal Organ, 1665: "I have not been guided by our vulgar pronunciation, but by that of London and our un iver s i t ie s where the language i s purely spoken," and Christopher Cooper condemned i so lated examples of variants as "barbarous speaking". 96 George Campbell's de f i n i t i on of good usage, The Philosophy  of Rhetoric, 1776. 97 Lowe, pp. 12-3. 98 For discussion of these and other examples see Pyles, pp. 282-4 and Otto Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar, (London: George Al len and Unwin, 1961) 7 Vols. , I, pp. 281-4. Hereafter c i ted as Jespersen: a l l references are to Vol. I, Sounds and Spel l ings. 99 See above for discussion of "h - less " spel l ings and the standard eighteenth century form, " o s p i t a l " . 100 Note that Smol lett ' s spe l l ing of pott icary with t_ for th is l i k e that in The I r i sh Spel l ing Book. The th pronunciation in present day English i s , l i k e the reversion to the whole-word spe l l i n g , the resu l t of spe l l ing pronunciation. 101 'Squire (with the apostrophe) was the standard usage but Smol lett ' s self-consciousness in using a shortened form without the apostrophe is evident because he does use the normal form in Win's le t ter *on several occasions (72, 107, 219). 102 See previous discussion of ('marokin} as eye d ia lec t and as a misdivided word. 103 Wright, EDD. Also, th i s omission of the i n i t i a l unstressed s y l l ab le was charac te r i s t i c of Cockney; see Matthews, CPP, p. 172. 104 see Dobson, I I, pp. 906-10, 1005 for discussion of metathesis and the history of words which have changed as a result of i t , both in spe l l ing and pronunciation. For example, Middle English b r i d , thr idde, gaers-graes, clapsen and d r i t have become Modern English b i r d , t h i r d , grass, c lasp, and d i r t . 105 See Wright, EDG, pp. 219-20, for discussion of the metathesis of CrU as a feature of d i a lec t speech, espec ia l ly in the south-west. He gives many examples, some of which reta in the middle English forms, as in b r i d , (b i rd ) , gars (grass), etc. 1°6 Smollett is obviously interested in the malapropism here. 154 l u / Thomas Wright, A Dictionary of Obsolete and Provincial Engl i s h , 2 Vols. (London: George Bel l and Sons. 1893). Hereafter c i ted as A Provincia l Glossary. 1 0 8 Wright, EDG, p. 250. 109 Pegge, Anecdotes of the English Language (London: J . Nichols, 1814), p. 61. HO Andrew MacLeish, A Glossary of Grammar and L ingu i s t ics (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, Universal Library Ed i t ion, 1972), pp. 40-1. Hereafter c i ted as MacLeish. H I Wright, EDG, p. 215 notes that " f l a i l has become f r a i l by d i s s im i la t ion in Sc. Dur. Yks. Chs. Not. L ie. Nhp. Brks. e.An. Ken. Sus. I.W. Wi l . Som." H2 This character i s t i c d i f f i c u l t y has become an old chestnut in comic routines in which the phrases, "rotsa ruck" and " f l i e d l i c e " occur to give the impression of or iental speakers try ing English. 113 MacLeish, pp. 15-6. H4 This, of course, is the standard pronunciation of horseshoe and Win's s pe l l i n g , while documenting the ass imi lat ion as a normal feature, does l i t t l e more than t e l l us that Win can ' t spel l i t conventionally. H 5 See ea r l i e r discussions of fo lk etymology in word formation. 116 H i s t o r i c a l l y this.confusion is well documented. See Frederick Theodore Visser, A H i s to r i ca l Syntax of the English Language (Leyden: B r i l l , 1936). 1 1 7 We may note, for instance, that CnH remains in Vancouver when i t stands alone and the stress is on -cou-; but when i t i s joined with another word (e. g. Vancouver Island) the stress moves to Van-and the palatal [ n j becomes a velar LVjH by ass imi lat ion to the velar [kH, becoming thus "Vangcouver". 1 1 8 Dobson II, pp. 952-3. 11^ Jespersen I, p. 357, refers to the s a t i r i c a l purpose of such pronunciations in l a te r nove l i s t s ' work; Thackeray's r ibbing for ribbon (The Newcomes), ruing for ruin and 1inning for 1inen (Vanity Fair) and Dickens' orf ing for orphan (David Copperfield). 1 2 0 Pyles, p. 177. 121 The essence referred to - - Dr. H i l l ' s essence of dockwater - -was a well-known patent medicine of the eighteenth century. John H i l l , 155 or " S i r John" as he pompously styled himself, was neither a recognized doctor nor a " S i r " . Smollett disapproved of H i l l as a notorious quack and i t i s not. accident that his name should be coupled with dung and ass in something written by Dr. Smollett. 122 f,i a ny 0 f our s i l en t l e t t e r words (e. g. lamb, womb, comb, damn, solemn) l o s t the i r f i n a l sounds by ass imi lat ion to the preceding consonant in the s imp l i f i c a t i on of pronunciation. 123 |_ o s s of [p3 a f te r [m] (temptation, consumption) and loss of [b3 a f ter Cm] (dumbness). I OA See Dobson II, pp. 960-5 for discussion and examples. 125 Dobson II, p. 962. 126 Smollett combines a malapropism with the ass imi lat ion. He has Tabitha wr ite partected (45) elsewhere, and in so doing focuses on the metathesis of [r3 instead of the malapropism. 127 The vulgar i ty of Win's speech i s underscored by the fact that a var iant, acceptable eighteenth century pronunciation for perfect was perfet, omitting not the [t3 but the [k3. Tu i te ' s Oxford Spel l ing Book, p. 49 notes "C i s l o s t in ve rd ic t , indictment, perfect, v i c tua l s , e t c . " This i s , of course, based on the or ig ina l pronunciation as the word was borrowed from the French cf. Chaucer's " p a r f i t " . The_c was l a te r restored from the Latin form. 128 See e a r l i e r discussion of (nubjack) under word misd iv i s ion. 129 Dobson II, p. 962. 13° Dobson II, p. 969. While L~d] i s not normally lo s t a f ter [ r 3 , i t i s often lo s t a f ter the other l i q u i d , [13 (e. g. wi le for wij_d, ch i l e for c h i l d , sh ie l fo r sh ie ld ) . Af ter [ r j however, quite the reverse i s l i k e l y to happen with [d3 being developed (as a f te r [13 and [n3 too) to produce such vulgar pronunciations as scholard for scholar. See also Wright, EDG, pp. 234-6 for documentation of excrescent [d3, and see Win's examples of excrescent [d3 below. 1 3 1 Dobson II, p. 965. 132 An environment of [13 or [ r3 provides exceptions. In dumbness, e t c . , the same loss occurs as in dumb, but before [13 and [r3 Tas in bramble, mumble, assembled, resemblance, amber, embrace, encumbrance,) the [b3 is normally kept; see Dobson II, pp. 967-8. 1 3 3 See also discussion of (Hottogon) under asp i rat ion. 1 3 4 This form of brand-new i s commonly d i a lec ta l (cf. Wright's EDD and Thomas Wright's Provincia l Glossary), also of interest is the OED's c i t a t i on of th i s use in Gay's Beggar's Opera, I I, v, 28. 156 135 standard d ia lec t form, EDD. Also, grindstone was commonly pronounced without the [d] in previous centuries. Spel l ing pronunciation has brought back the f u l l pronunciation in Standard English. 1 3 6 Dobson II, p. 1002. 1 3 7 Wright EDG, p. 230, notes that "few, i f any, d ia lects have added a _t in ancient (Fr. ancien), pheasant (0. Fr. fa i san) . 133 see Dobson II, pp. 914-5 for explanation of these exceptions. 139 Wright, ED65 p. 219. 1 4 0 Dobson I I, pp. 979-80. *41 See Wright, EDG, p. 207. ( bw i ya l s o involves the interchange of o and w. Smollett is probably interested in the incongruity of the malapropism, but his spe l l ing very l i k e l y represents a lengthening of the o^  and not the low back vowel [o ] . 14? I t is d i f f i c u l t to t e l l whether Win's spe l l ing re f lec t s the conventional pronunciation with Cr ] . Although Johnson does not give the short form of pennyworth, i t seems to have been commonly pronounced. Tu i te ' s Oxford Spel l ing Book notes that "X is l o s t in pennyv/orth which i s pronounc'd penn'orth" (p. 33) and elsewhere that w i s not sounded "when the foregoing s y l l ab le does not end in _r, as in Ed-ward, Green-wich, back-ward, penny-worth, which i s pronounc'd pennorth" (p. 64). Tuite does not suggest that the r_ i s deleted in acceptable pronunciation. See also Wright, EDG p. 211" on the disappearance of medial w in pennyworth and other examples. Intrusive r. is also a prominent Cockney feature; see Matthews, CPP, p. 177. 1 4 4 Jespersen I, p. 372. 145 Win's pronunciations of ^windcre*} and ( f e l l o r ^ a r e singled out as vulgar by several " au tho r i t i e s " : Elphinston, Pr inc ip les of English Grammar, 1787: "febel v o ca l l i t y C i . e. in the end of a word] haz made Grocenes C i . e. vu lga r i t y ] assume r_ in dhe co l loqu ia l idear and windowr, for idea and window." En f i e ld , The Speaker, 1790: "Other provincial improprieties . . . the changing of ow into er, or of aw into or, as in fe l low, window, the law of the land." Walker, The C r i t i c a l Pronouncing Dict ionary, 1791: "The vulgar shorten th i s sound Cow] and pronounce the o_ obscurely, and sometimes as i f followed by jr, as winder, f e l l e r , for window, and fe l low; but th is i s almost too despicable for not ice. " 157 Jespersen I, p. 360. For a discussion of the uses of the a_r spe l l i ng device in the representation of r- less d ia lects in l i t e r a t u r e , see Sumner Ives, "A Theory of L i terary D ia lect , " pp. 150-63. 147 Jespersen I, pp. 375-81. 1 4 8 Wright, EDG, p. 254. 1 4 9 Peter Trudgi 11, The Social D i f fe rent ia t ion p_f English in  Norwich (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1974) notes that " i n most parts of England and pa r t i cu l a r l y in urban areas, ChU indices are l i k e l y to be in d i rect and straightforward re la t ion to the education and social class of the speaker" although th i s s i tuat ion i s not true for Norwich today for other reasons connected with an older h-pronouncing area surrounding Norwich. See pp. 83-4. 1 5 0 Matthews, CPP, pp. 163-4. 151 Jespersen I, pp. 378-9. 152 Dobson has very l i t t l e on the loss of [h] beyond the h i s t o r i c a l loss in i n i t i a l pos it ion before D H , M , [rH, and [w] from the Old English groups hj_> hn.> hL> anc^ M - A S his study i s confined to the period 1500-1700, th i s i s not surpr is ing in l i g h t of Jespersen's d i f f i c u l t y in f inding evidence. 153 Walker, Preface, p. x i i i . 154 Jespersen observes that Elizabethan (and even eighteenth century) authors who represent vulgarisms so frequently, do not seem to use omissions and misspell ings of h's as a character i s t i c of low class speech. Possibly no one pronounced L~ h], so no one inserted i t as a hypercorrection. It would seem that Smollett i s an exception, using i t in Win's l e t t e r s , in Clar inda ' s l e t t e r in Roderick Random, and in Deborah Hornbeck's in Peregrine P i ck le . 1 5 5 Boggs, "A Win Jenkins Lexicon," omits discussion of (hays) (307), but observes for (heys) (306): "a Winism for gaze. In Welsh, under certa in circumstances i n i t i a l g mutates to - ( i s los t ) which would give a resultant aze (ez), a form which, since she often misuses asp i rat ion, she might pronounce heys (hez)." Mr. Boggs i s at some pains to make the matter more d i f f i c u l t than i t need be. The assumption of aspirat ion d i f f i c u l t i e s and the interpretat ion of the spel l ings as eyes (rhyming with ayes) seems clear enough. But we are also provided with the exact phrase in S i r Launcelot Greaves, Chapt. I; " . . . But Tom Clarke, who seemed to have cast the eyes of a f fect ion upon the landlady 's eldest daughter, Dol ly, objected." 155 see also ( a r t ) , <^\pias), (exha l ta t ions ) in context. See also discussion under h spel l ings of Tabitha 's ( ha i r ed ) (274), (Hoyden/ (274),(Harse) (274) and (hearth) (78). 158 l 3 / Matthews, CPP, 226 f. The f i r s t of these was the anonymous work, The Writing Scholar 's Companion, 1695. 1 5 8 Mote that he st icks s t r i c t l y to the spe l l i ng ; we never have sounded an [h] af ter [w] but Old English hwaet had i t s spe l l ing changed to what with no change in the pronunciation of the consonants. 159 Matthews remarks "The Cockney dialogue in eighteenth and nineteenth century novels was conventional. The novel i st was content to represent a yoke l ' s d i a lec t by a few odd spel l ings l i k e wool (w i l l ) or Zunday, no matter where he was supposed to come from, and he thought i t s u f f i c i en t to represent a Cockney by misplacing a few h's or by interchanging v and w, cons istently or incons istent ly. This convention also served to represent general vulgarism. Dickens, for example, uses th i s "Cockney" d i a l ec t as the speech of several country characters, Peggoty for example." CPP, pp. 156-7. 150 Thomas Sheridan, A Course of Lectures on Elocution (1762; rpt. New York: Benjamin Blom, 196877 provides references to th i s Cockney interchange which suggest a s imp l i f i ed view. 161 Dobson, II, 948, comments on the use of [v] for ' [w3: " insofar as i t i s not merely an inverted spe l l i n g , i t i s due to confusion in speech on the part of Cockneys endeavouring to use the StE [ v ] . " He also notes that the sound-change in the South-east was from [v] to [w3 (and this would help to explain the more frequent production of [w] for [ v ] ) , while in the North the reverse appl ied. " 152 Vindore was obviously pronounced with a schwa [ S G and not with door/dore ending ( i . e. Win's pronunciation would be [v ind^]). She doesn't pronounce [rH a f te r vowels and doesn't know when to put them i n , so she hypercorrects the spe l l i ng . This spe l l i ng , however, is a common provincia l spe l l ing of a word formed on the pr inc ip les of a "door for wind" - - a kind of fo lk etymology. ] 6 3 Wright, EDG, p. 208. 154 Smol lett ' s l i f e in Scotland, years of l i v i n g in Bath, and experiences as a sh ip ' s surgeon meeting sa i lo r s from the south coast may account for his awareness of the forms. I 6 5 Matthews, CPP, p. 174. l b D Walker, Preface, p. x i i . 157 Gary Underwood, " L ingu i s t i c Realism in Roderick Random," Journal of English and Germanic Philology LXIX (1970), p. 36. Boggs also accepts this and in his a r t i c l e , "D ia lecta l Ingenuity in Humphry CI inker" [see note 80 above]^ Boggs i s pa r t i cu l a r l y concerned because he feels that Smol lett ' s use of [CU i s inconsistent with the interpretat ion of Win's variants as Welsh phonemic changes - - but only as Boggs himself views them. 159 1 5 8 Matthews, CPP, p. 174. *69 i n Lowe's C r i t i c a l Spel l ing Book we f ind the fol lowing guide to pronunciation under J7: "A pretty vagary ( f ig -a - ry ) Mr. vaughan said so. Wine in the vault. At vaux-hall (fox-haw!) near Lambeth. A vehement north wind." He seems to indicate that the standard pronunciation i s devoiced. 170 ^ V i o l ^ may present a problem for interpretat ion. Smollett i s c l ea r l y ind icat ing a d i f fe rent pronunciation while enjoying a malapropism since he normally spelled the word as phi al (e. g. S i r  Launcelot Greaves, chapt. 10, paragraph 1, " . . . satchel hanging round his neck, and a phial displayed in his r ight hand.") But the word is spelled v i a l by Wesley in his Sermons (1747) and by Nugent in The  Grand Tour (1756) who agree with the usage of Sheridan and Stephen Jones, who write " v i - e l " as correct in the i r pronunciation guides. Smol lett ' s usual spe l l ing i s endorsed by Walker with the pronunciation, " f i - a l " . 171 See A Prov inc ia l Glossary for disgrade, disnatured, etc. 172 See Pegge's Anecdotes for discommode, unpossible, etc. 173 This pronunciation is also a feature of the speech of Concordance, the Scott ish schoolteacher in Roderick Random; Gary Underwood, " L i ngu i s t i c Realism in Roderick Random" [see note 167 above] is unfamil iar with the d ia lec t var iant, and assumes that i t "may be a ' con t inenta l ' a f fec ta t i on , since he teaches La t i n , French, and I ta l i an as well as Engl ish." 1 7 4 Wright, EDG, pp. 208-9. 175 The analysis of th i s sound change provides an example of Boggs' typ ica l approach to Smol lett ' s var iants; he treats each as i f i t were a unique example instead of applying a p r i n c i p l e , even af ter he has discovered i t , to the variants which have features in common. A b r ie f look at the [ f ] for [wh] spel l ings w i l l i l l u s t r a t e . The meaning of each of the variant words is quite c lear from context: . . . but the got ' s - fey has sat her on her legs again. - -You nows got ' s fey is mother's milk to a Velchvoman. (262) . . . I was going into a f i t of as ter icks , when th i s f i f f , saving your presence, took me by the nose so powerfully that I sneezed three times, and found myself wonderfully refreshed . . . (220). . . . Mr. Kl inker wa 'n ' t long in his debt - - with a good oaken sapling he dusted his doublet, for a l l his golden cheese-toaster; and f ipping me under his arm, carr ied me huom, I nose not how, being I was in such a f l u s t r a t i on . . . (108-9). 160 and Tabitha 's . . . I hope, Docter, you w i l l not go to put any more such phims in my brother 's head, to the prejudice of my pocket . . . (78). Boggs, commenting on th i s spe l l ing states, " f i f f . a Winism for whif f . The subst i tut ion of f for wh i s not character i s t i c of Welsh speech, but th i s exchange is found in certa in areas of Scotland" and, omitting to l i s t e ither fey or phims, goes on to l i s t " f i pp ing . A Winism for s l ipp ing for which no l i n g u i s t i c explanation has been found for the use of f_ for sj_." I t seems a p i ty that Mr. Boggs should have found the l i n g u i s t i c explanation of the change without perceiving the regularit. of the appl icat ion. Had he done so, the " t ran s l a t i on " of f ipping (even i f he were unfamil iar with the co l loqu ia l use of whipping and had neglected to check i t ) might have occurred to him. See Bogg's a r t i c l e "A Win Jenkins ' Lexicon", c i ted above [note 80] . 1 7 6 See Dobson II, pp. 947-8 and Wright EDG, pp. 24-, 245. 1 7 7 Matthews CPP, P- 184. 178 Pegge, p. 66. 1 7 9 Boggs' "D ia lecta l Ingenuity in Humphry C l inker , " p. 330, explains f i l l i n g s ) as an "archaism pecul iar to Welsh or I r i s h " but does not c i t e a source. He does not make any comment upon {seeps), (clistinkson), etc. 18° Wright, EDG, pp. 248-9. 181 Matthews, CPF\ p. 184. 182 Wright, EDG, p. 238. Dobson II, p. 948, c i tes th is change as a vulgar pronunciation recognized as such as early as the seventeenth century. 183 Matthews, £P_c5 p . 188. 184 Matthews, CPP, pp. 162-3; also y_ for th . He c i tes s p e c i f i c a l l y the use of oaf as one of the prominent Cockneyisms in Humphry C l inker ; see p. 229. 1 8 5 Notes that Win also has (Matthewmurphy'd) (337) and (Matthewsull (306). N ' v 186 Matthew, CPP, p. 177; farthing also appears as E a r t h i n g ) (43) when Smollett is more interested in interchanging [v ] for [ f ] than in using [f] for [ £ ] . 161 19,1 1 A caricature of Lord Bute and Smollett appeared in The North  Br iton in 1762 with a speech, out of Smol lett ' s mouth, underneath. He i s caricatured by his general accent and we f ind such words as mak (make), geud (good), f r a ' (from), Hauld (hold), gowden (golden), etc. Thomas Wright 's Caricature History of the Georges, p. 273. 1 8 8 Wright, EDG, p. 198; a l so, Wright indicates that the pronunciation of c r i s i s in Aberdeenshire was Creeze. 1 8 9 See Pyles for examples, pp. 61 and 176; see Wright, EDG, p. 206, for a discussion of th is phenomenon (svarabhakti, from the Sanskrit) as i t relates to d ia lec t pronunciation and for examples from a variety of d ia lec t s . 190 Peregrine P i ck l e , p. 214. 1 9 1 Matthews, C_PP, p. 173. 192 EDD. 193 James 0. Ha l l iwe l1 , A Dictionary of Archaic and_ Provincia l Words (London: n. p., 1901), 5th ed. 2 vols. 194 Jespersen I, pp. 197-9; th is pronunciation of sergeant has survived into present English. 1 9 5 Wright, EDG, p. 182; Matthews, CPP, p. 181. 1 9 6 Jones, p. 24. 1 9 7 Nares, pp. 20-1. 198 There was, of course, e a r l i e r censure of the ar pronunciation. Coote in 1597 described i t as "the barbarous speech of your country people" as noted in Dobson II, pp. 56-62. 1 " Walker, p. 13. 200 Jespersen I, p. 198, gives examples from Goldsmith, Byron, and Dickens. F ie ld ing also used i t (e. g. desarts in Tom Jones, Book I I). 201 This truncated form of universal i s a standard d ia lec t word in such phrases as " i n the whole varsal wor ld " ; EDD. 202 Gin c r i t i c i z e d the ra i s ing of e_ to i_ as a Mopsae or d i a lec ta l pronunciation. See P. Wolfe, L ingu i s t i c Change and the Great Vowel  Sh i f t in English (Berkeley: Univ. of Ca l i f o rn ia Press, 1972), pp. 53-4. Dobson II, pp. 567-9; Jespersen I, pp. 64-6 also discusses th i s . 162 2 0 4 Gordon, p. 290; see also Lucia C. Morgan, "North Carolina Accents," A Various Language, pp. 271-2. 205 Wright, EDG, pp. 54-5. 2 °6 Matthews, CPP, pp. 169-70. He notes evidence for th i s pronunciation from churchwardens' entries as fo l lows; chistes 1553, e r i ck t ing 1581, Inguist 1621, Riddy 1630, s p i c i f i e d 1641, pibbles 1683. 2 0 7 Henry F ie ld ing , Jonathan Wild (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1853), p. 140. 2 0 8 Walker, p. 14. 2 0 9 See Matthews, CPP, pp. 169-70. I t i s of interest that the inverse, e_ for i_, does not appear in Win's l e t te r s although i t i s an equally s i gn i f i can t feature of Cockney speech and of d i a l e c t ; Coote (1597) recorded i t as "the barabarous speech of your country people." p i n This i s also a feature in many Scots d i a l e c t s ; see Wright, EDG, p. 51. 2 * * Matthews, CPP, p. 162. He gives several examples of pre-eighteenth century words affected: messe (mass), then (than), Crenmer (Cranmer), gel Ion (ga l lon) , wex (waxJT 2 1 2 Walker, p. 12. 2 1 3 Wright, EDG, p. 51. 2 1 4 Wright, EDG, pp. 140-41. 2 1 5 Wright, EDG, pp. 79-80. 2 1 6 Wright, EDG, pp. 199-200. pi 7 S l i t appears in Tabitha 's command "and l e t Roger search in to , and make a general clearance of the s l i t holes which the maids have in secret . . . ." S I i t was [ i s ? ] a slang term for the female pudendum and Roger for the male member according to Farmer's Slang and Its  Analogues. S l i t was also widely understood in the same sense in northern d ia lects according to Wright 's Provincia l Glossary. 2 1 8 Pegge, p. 70. 2 * 9 Wright's EDD l i s t s tawdry as "cheap f inery " but two English Dia lect Society Publ icat ions, A Glossary of Words Used in the Neighbour- hood Of Whitby, Vol. IV, and A Glossary of Words Used in Manley and Corringham, L incolnsh i re, Vol. VI, give Tom-tawdry, Xthe whole form as i t appears in Humphry CI inker) with the one minor change. The f i r s t 163 glossary gives "Tom Tawdry, a ragged i nd i v idua l , a sloven," and the second gives "Tom-tawdry, vulgar f i ne r y . " We f ind tawdry used in th is sense in Jery ' s l e t t e r , p. 209, in his descr ipt ion of his va le t , Dutton who is wearing "a s i l k coat . . . with a tawdry waistcoat of tarnished brocade." I t also appears in the descr ipt ion of Aurel ia Darnel 's wedding ensemble in S i r Launcelot Greaves, the f i na l chapter: "The br ide, instead of being disguised in tawdry s tuf f s of gold and s i l v e r , and sweating under a harness of diamonds," according to the elegant taste of the times, appeared in a negligee of p la in blue s a t t i n , without any other jewels than her eyes." Baume de vie must have been pronounced in Standard English at th is time asTbainf l - - that i s , a long unrounded vowel. However, e a r l i e r such words had had [ 3 ] l i k e t a l k , bald, etc. - - that i s , only before l ab ia l s had i t changed. Before velars and dentals [ 3 ] i s retained. But we cannot explain a change of DE*.:• to [ A ] (at leas t , not so we l l ) . So i t seems possible that Win and Tabitha were fami l i a r with and used a ru s t i c archaic pronunciation of [bD:m]. Wright records in the English Dia lect Dictionary under BALM such pronunciations as indicated by baulm (Essex), baum (Cumberland, north Lancashire, L incolnsh i re, Hertfordshire), and bawm (Yorkshire, Cheshire, Shropshire). See A. S. Turberv i l l e , The House of Lords in the XVI11th  Century (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1927J, p. 290; also The Dictionary of National Biography, and The Grenvi l le Correspondence (London: n. p., 1853), Vol. IV, p. 514. BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, James. The Pronunciation of the English Language. 1799; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1968. Alston, R. C. A Bibliography of the English Language from the Invention  of P r in t ing to the Year 1800. Leeds: E. J . Arnold and Son, 1965. Anderson, Howard, P h i l i p B. Daghlian and I rv in Ehreppreis. The Familar  Letter in the Eighteenth Century. Lawrence, Kansas: Univ. of Kansas Press, 1966. Anonymous. The I r i sh Spel l ing Book. 1740; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1969. . The New Bath Guide; or Useful Pocket Companion. Bath: R. Crut twel l , 1780. . A Vocabulary of Such Words in the English Language as are of Dubious or Unsettled Pronunciation. 1797; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1967. Anstey, Christopher. The New Bath Guide or, Memoirs of the B-R-D  Family, 8th ed. London: J . Dodsley, 1772. Austen, Jane. Northanger Abbey, Vol. V of The Novels of Jane Austen, 3rd ed. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1933. Axon, Will iam E. A., ed. English Dialect Words of the Eighteenth Century: as shown in the "Universal Etymological Dictionary" of Nathaniel Bai ley. Vol. 41. London: Published for the English Dialect Society, 1883. Barbeau, A. L i f e and Letters at Bath in the XVI11th Century. London: Will iam Hej;fiemann, 1904. Barr iere, A lbert. A Dictionary of Slang, Jargon and Cant. London: the Bal lant ine Press, 1889. - 164 -165 Boggs, W. Arthur. ' "B i r thday Su i t ' and 'Cheese-Toaster, ' " Notes and Queries, n. s. XIII (1966), 465. . "D ia lecta l Ingenuity in Humphry C l inker , " Papers on English Language and L i terature, I (1965), 327-37. . "Hassock of Hair , " Notes and Queries, n. s. VII (1960), 72-3. . " Smol let t ' s Coinages in the Win Jenkins ' Let ter s , " Language Quarterly, II (1963), 2-4. . "Some Standard Eighteenth-Century English Usages," Quarterly Journal of Speech, LI (1965), 304-6. . "Win Jenkins ' Addenda to Mr. Murray's Dict ionary, " Discourse, IXTT966), 83-91. . "Win Jenkins ' Archaisms and Proverbial Phrases," Language Quarterly, IV (1965), 33-6. . "A Win Jenkins ' Lexicon," Bu l l e t i n of the New York Public L ibrary, LXVIII (1964), 323-30. . "Win Jenkins ' Malapropisms," The Jammu and Kashmir University Review, IV (1961), 130-40. Bouce, Paul-Gabr ie l . Les Romans de Smollett: Etude Cr i t ique. Par i s : D id ier , 1971. Brewer, Ebenezer Cobham. The Reader's Handbook of A l lus ions , References, P lots . London: Chatto and Windus, 1895. Brook, G. L. English Dia lects. London: Andre Deutsch, 1963. Bruce, Donald. Radical Doctor Smollett. London: V ictor Gollancz, 1964. Chambers, R. W. and Marjorie Daunt. A Book of London English 1384-1425. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1931. Coles, E l i sha. The Compleat English Schoolmaster. 1674; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1969. Cunnington, C. W i l l e t t , P h i l l i s Cunnington and Charles Beard. A Dictionary of English Costume. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1960. Cunnington, P h i l l i s and Catherine Lucas. Occupational Costume in England, From the 11th Century. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1967. Dalrymple, Hugh. "Rodondo, or the State Jugglers," 1761; rpt . in A Col lect ion of Scarce, Curious and Valuable Pieces Both in Verse  and Prose. Edinburgh: Walter Ruddjiman, 1773. 166 Davies, Constance. English Pronunciation from the Fifteenth to the  Eighteenth Century. London: J . M. Dent and Sons, 1934. Dawson, Lawrence Hawkins. A Dictionary of Nicknames and Pseudonyms. London: George Rout!edge and Sons, 1909. Dobson, E. J . English Pronunciation 1500-1700. 2 vols. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1957. Duncan, Jef f rey L. "The Rural Ideal in Eighteenth-Century F i c t i o n , " Studies in English L i terature, 1500-1900, Vol. VIII (1968), 517-35. Elphinston, James. A Minniature Qy flnglish Orthoggraphy. 1795; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1967. Evans, David L. "Humphry Cl inker: Smol lett ' s Tempered Augustanism," C r i t i c i sm , Vol. IX (1967), 257-74. Eve r i t t , Graham. Doctors and Doctors: Some Curious Chapters in Medical  History and Quackery. London: Swann, Sonnerschein Lowrey and Co., 1888. Farmer, John S. Slang and Its Analogues: Past and Present. 7 vols. London: Printed For Subscribers Only, 1890. F ie ld ing , Henry. The History of the L i fe of the Late Mr. Jonathan Wild the Great. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1853. . The History of Tom Jones: A Foundling. New York: The Modern L ibrary, 1940. . Joseph Andrews. Ed. Martin C. Battest in . Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan Univ. Press, 1967. Franklyn, Ju l i an . The Cockney: A Survey of London L i f e and Language. London: Andre Deutsch, 1953. Freeman, Wi11iam. A Concise Dictionary of English Slang. London: English Univers i t ies Press, 1955. Gadd, David. Georgian Summer: Bath in the Eighteenth Century. Bath: Adams and Dart, 1971. Geeson, Ceci1. A Northumberland and Durham Word Book: The Liv ing  D ia lect . Newcastle upon Tyne: Harold H i l l , 1969. Gleason, H. A. An Introduction to Descriptive L ingu i s t i c s . New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1956. Gordon, James D. The English Language: An H i s to r i ca l Introduction. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1972. 167 Grose, Francis. A C lass ica l Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue. London: S. Hooper, 1785. . The 01io: being a^  co l l e c t i on of essays, dialogues, l e t t e r s , biographical sketches, anecdotes, pieces of poetry, parodies, bon mots, epigrams, epitaphs, &c. ch ie f l y o r i g i n a l , 2nd ed. London: Hooper and Wigstead, 1796. . A Prov inc ia l Glossary. 1787; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1968. H a l l i w e l l , James Orchard. A Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words. London: J . R. Smith, 1847. Hannay, David. The L i f e of Tobias George Smollett. London: Walter Scott, 1887. Haugen, Einar. "The Analysis of L ingu i s t i c Borrowing," Language, 26 (1950), 210-31. Hibbert, Christopher. The Grand Tour. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Holmberg, Borje. James Douglas on English Pronunciation C. 1740. Lund Studies in English XXVI (1956), 1-354. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1956. . On the Concept of Standard English and The History of Modern English Pronunciation. Lund: CAvSfc, Gleerup, 1964. [Hotten, John Camden.] A Dictionary of Modern Slang, Cant and Vulgar  Words, 2nd ed. London: J . C. Hotten, 1860. Ives, Sumner. "A Theory of L i terary D ia lect , " A Various Language. Eds. Juanita V. Williamson and V i r g i n i a M. Burke. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. Jespersen, Otto. A Modern English Grammar on H i s to r i ca l P r i nc ip l e s . 7 vols. London: George Al len and Unwin L td . , 1961. Jones, Daniel. An English Pronouncing Dictionary. London: J . M. Dent and Sons, 1956. Jones, John. Pract ica l Phonography. 1701; rpt . Menston: The Scolar Press, 1969. Jones, Stephen. A Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language. 1796; rpt . Menston: The Scolar Press, 1969. Kahrl, George M. Tobias Smollett: Trave l ler -Nove l i s t . New York: Octagon Books Inc., 1968. 168 Kenrick, Wil l iam. A New Dictionary of the English Language. London: J . Dodsley, 1773. Microprint. Knapp, Lewis Mansfield. Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners. New York: Russell and Russel l , 1953. Koker itz, Helge. "English Pronunciation as Described in Shorthand Systems of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries," Studia  Neophilologica, VII (1935), 73-146. Korte, Donald M. An Annotated Bibliography of Smollett Scholarship 1946-68. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1969. Latham, Edward. A Dictionary of Names, Nicknames and Surnames of Persons, Places and Things. London: George Routledge and Sons L td . , 1904. L'Estrange, A. G. L. A History of English Humour. 1878; rpt . New York: Burt Frankl in, 1970. Lowe, Soloman. The C r i t i c a l Spel l ing Book. 1755; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1967. Mcintosh, Angus. An Introductory Survey of Scott ish Dia lects. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons L td . , 1952. MacLeish, Andrew. A Glossary of Grammar and L ingu i s t i c s . New York: Grosset and Dunlap Inc., 1971. Machyn, Henry. The Diary of Henry Machyn. Ed. J . G. Nichols. London: The Camden Society, 1848. Mackay, Charles. Lost Beauties of the English Language. London: Chatto and Windus [no date]. Matthews, Wi11iam. Cockney Past and Present: A Short History of the Dialect of London. London: George Routledge and Sons, L t d v , 1938. . "English Pronunciations and Shorthand in the Early Modern Per iod," Univ. of Ca l i f o rn ia Publications in Engl ish, IX (1943), 133-214. Mead, Wi 11 iam Edward. The Grand Tour in_ the Eighteenth Century. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n and Co., 1914. M e l v i l i e , Lewis. The L i fe and Letters of Tobias Smollett. London: Faber and Gwyer, 1926. Morgan, Lucia C. "North Carolina Accents," A Various Language. Eds. Juanita V. Williamson and V i r g in i a M. Burke. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. 169 Morris-Jones, John. An Elementary Welsh Grammar. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1921. . A Welsh Grammar, H i s to r i ca l and Comparative: Phonology and Accidence. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1955. Mosse, Fernand. A Handbook of Middle English. Translated by James A. Walker. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1952. Nares, Robert. Elements of Orthoepy. 1784; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1968. Nelson, Francis W. "Some Dia lecta l Verb Forms in England," Orbis, 10 (1961), 1-14. Noyes, Edward S. The Letters of Tobias Smollett, M.D. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1926. Orton, Harold. The Phonology of a South Durham Dialect. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, 1933. Orton, Harold and Wilfred J . Hal l iday. A Survey of English Dia lects. 8 vols. Leeds: Leeds Univ. Press, 1962. Osselton, N. E. "Formal and Informal Spel l ing in the Eighteenth Century: errour, honour, and related words," English Studies, 44 (1963), 267-75. Page, Norman. Speech in the English Novel. London: Longman Group, 1973. Partr idge, E r i c . A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional Usage. 1937; rpt. New York: Macmillan and Co., 1966. . Slang Today and Yesterday, 2nd ed. London: George Routledge and Sons, 1935. Peacock, Edward. A Glossary of Words Used in the Wapentakes of Manley  and Corringham, Lincolnshire. Vol. VI. London: English Dialect Society Publ icat ions, 1876. Pegge, Samuel. Anecdotes of the English Language: Chief ly Regarding the Local Dialect of London and Its Environs. London: J . Nichols, 1814. Planche, James Robinson. Cyclopedia of Costume. London: Chatto and Windus, 1876. P r i ce , Jolan Vladimir. Tobias Smollett: The Expedition of Humphry  CI inker. London: Edward Arnold, 1973. 170 Pr i ce , Martin. To the Palace of Wisdom: Studies in order and energy  from Dryden to Blake. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1965. Py1es, Thomas. The Origins and Development of the English Language. New York: Harcourt Brace and World, 1964. Ray, John. A Co l lect ion of English Words. 1691; rpt . Menston: The Scolar Press, 1969. Robinson, Francis K i l da le . A Glossary of Words Used in the Neighbourhood  of Whitby. Vol. IV. London: English Dialect Society Publ icat ions, 1873. Rudd, Sayer. Prodomos: or Observations on the English Letters. 1755; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1967. Shakespeare, Wil l iam. King Henry V. Ed. J . H. Walter. London: Methuen and Co. L td . , 1961. Sheldon, Esther K. "Pronouncing Systems in Eighteenth Century D ic t ionar ies , " Language, 22 (1946), 27-41. . Standards of English Pronunciation according to the Grammarians and Orthoepists of the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries~CManuscript Thesis, 1938). Univers ity of Wisconsin Library. [Cited by B*6rje Holmberg in On the Concept of Standard English and the History of  Modern English Pronunciation. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1964.] Sheridan, Thomas. A Course of Lectures on Elocution. 1762; rpt. New York: Benjamin Blom, Inc., 1968. . Elements of English. 1786; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1968. . A General Dictionary of the English Language. 2 vols. London: " J . Dodsley, 1780. S ivertsen, Eva. Cockney Phonology. New York: Humanities Press, 1960. Skeat, Walter W. English Dialects from the Eighth Century to the Present Day. 1896; rpt . Vaduz: Kraus Reprint L td . , 1965. Smith, W. J . , ed. The Grenvi l le Papers. 4 vols. London: [no publ i sher] , 1852-3. Smith, Wi11iam. An Attempt To Render the Pronunciation of the English • Language More Easy. 1795; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1969. Smollett, Tobias. The Adventures of Ferdinand Count Fathom. Ed. with an introduction by Damian Grant. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1971 171 . The Adventures of Peregrine P ick le . Edited with an introduction by James L. C l i f f o r d . London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1964. . The Expedition of Humphry Cl inker. Edited with an introduction by Lewis M. Knapp. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1966. . The L i fe and Adventures of Sir_ Launcelot Greaves. Edited with an introduction by David Evans. London: Oxford Univ. Press. 1973. Spector. Robert Donald. Tobias George Smollett. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1968. Sundby, B e r t i l , ed. Christopher Cooper's English Teacher (1687). Lund Studies in English XXII (1953), 1-120b. Lund: C. W. K. Gleeruo, 1953. Tompkins, J . R. S. The Popular Novel in England 1770-1800. London: Methuen and Co., 1932. Trudgi11, Peter. The Social D i f fe rent ia t ion of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1974. . Soc io ! ingu i s t i c s : An Introduction. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1974. Tucker, Susie I. Protean Shape: A Study in Eighteenth Century Vocabulary  and Usage. London: Athlone Press, 1967. Tuite, Thomas. The Oxford Spel l ing Book. 1726; rpt. Menston: The Scolar Press, 1967. Turberv i l l e , A. S. The House of Lords in the XVIIIth Century. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1927. Underwood, Gary. " L i ngu i s t i c Realism in Roderick Random," Journal of English and Germanic Phi lo logy, LXIX (1970), 32-40. Urban, Sylvanus, ed. The Gentleman's Magazine: and H i s to r i ca l Chronicle. London, 1771. V i s ser , Frederick Theodore. A H i s to r i ca l Syntax of the English Language. Leyden: B r i l l , 1936. Wagenknecht, Edward. Cavalcade of the English Novel. 1943; rpt . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Walker, John. A C r i t i c a l Pronouncing Dictionary. 1791; rpt . Menston: The Scolar Press, 1968. 172 Warrack, Alexander and Will iam Grant. A Scots Dia lect Dict ionary. Edinburgh: [no publ i sher] , 1911. Watson, George, ed. The New Cambridge Bibliography of English L i te rature, II. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1971. Williamson, Juanita V. and V i r g in i a M. Burke, eds. A Various Language: Perspectives on American Dia lects . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. Wolfe, Pa t r i c i a M. L ingu i s t i c Change and the Great Vowel Sh i f t in Engl ish. Berkeley: Univ. of Ca l i f o rn ia Press, 1972. Wrenn, C. L. Word and Symbol: Studies in English Language. London: Longmans Green and Co., 1967. Wright, Joseph. The English Dialect Dictionary. 6 vols. 1898; rpt . New York: Hacker Art Books, 1962. . The English Dialect Grammar. Oxford: Henry Frowde, 1905. Wright, Thomas. A Caricature History of the Georges. London: John Camden Hotten," 1868. . A Dictionary of Obsolete and Provincia l English. 2 vols. London: George Bel l and Sons, 1893. Wyld, Henry C. A History of Modern Col loquial English. London: T. Fisher Unwin L td . , 1920. Zachrisson, R. E. "Four Hundred Years of English Spel l ing Reform," Studia Neophilologica, IV (1931-2), 1-70. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093423/manifest

Comment

Related Items