A Contrivance In Dramatic Dialogue

________________________________________________
Title:     A Contrivance In Dramatic Dialogue
Author: Isaac Disraeli [More Titles by Disraeli]

Crown, in his "City Politiques," 1688, a comedy written to satirise the Whigs of those days, was accused of having copied his character too closely after life, and his enemies turned his comedy into a libel. He has defended himself in his preface from this imputation. It was particularly laid to his charge, that in the characters of Bartoline, an old corrupt lawyer, and his wife Lucinda, a wanton country girl, he intended to ridicule a certain Serjeant M---- and his young wife. It was even said that the comedian mimicked the odd speech of the aforesaid Serjeant, who, having lost all his teeth, uttered his words in a very peculiar manner. On this, Crown tells us in his defence, that the comedian must not be blamed for this peculiarity, as it was an _invention_ of the author himself, who had taught it to the player. He seems to have considered it as no ordinary invention, and was so pleased with it that he has most painfully printed the speeches of the lawyer in this singular gibberish; and his reasons, as well as his discovery, appear remarkable.

He says, that "Not any one old man more than another is mimiqued, by Mr. Lee's way of speaking, which all comedians can witness, was my own _invention_, and Mr. Lee was taught it by me. To prove this farther, I have _printed_ Bartoline's part in that manner of spelling by which I taught it Mr. Lee. They who have no teeth cannot pronounce many letters plain, but perpetually lisp and break their words, and some words they cannot bring out at all. As for instance _th_ is pronounced by thrusting the tongue hard to the teeth, therefore that sound they cannot make, but something like it. For that reason you will often find in Bartoline's part, instead of _th_, _ya_, as _yat_ for that; _yish_ for this; _yosh_ for those; sometimes a _t_ is left out, as _housand_ for thousand; _hirty_ for thirty. _S_ they pronounce like _sh_, as _sher_ for sir; _musht_ for must; _t_ they speak like _ch_,--therefore you will find _chrue_ for true; _chreason_ for treason; _cho_ for to; _choo_ for two; _chen_ for ten; _chake_ for take. And this _ch_ is not to be pronounced like _k_, as 'tis in Christian, but as in child, church, chest. I desire the reader to observe these things, because otherwise he will hardly understand much of the lawyer's part, which in the opinion of all is the most divertising in the comedy; but when this ridiculous way of speaking is familiar with him, it will render the part more pleasant."

One hardly expects so curious a piece of orthoepy in the preface to a comedy. It may have required great observation and ingenuity to have discovered the cause of old toothless men mumbling their words. But as a piece of comic humour, on which the author appears to have prided himself, the effect is far from fortunate. Humour arising from a personal defect is but a miserable substitute for that of a more genuine kind. I shall give a specimen of this strange gibberish as it is so laboriously printed. It may amuse the reader to see his mother language transformed into so odd a shape that it is with difficulty he can recognise it.

Old Bartoline thus speaks:--"I wrong'd _my shelf, cho entcher incho bondsh_ of marriage and could not perform _covenantsh_ I might well _hinke_ you would _chake_ the forfeiture of the bond; and I never found _equichy_ in a _bedg_ in my life; but I'll trounce you _boh_; I have paved _jaylsh_ wi' the _bonesh_ of honester people _yen_ you are, _yat_ never did me nor any man any wrong, but had law of _yeir shydsh_ and right o' _yeir shydsh_, but because _yey_ had not me o' _yeir shydsh_. I ha' _hrown_ 'em in _jaylsh_, and got _yeir eshchatsch_ for my _clyentsh yat_ had no more _chytle_ to 'em _yen dogsh_."

[The end]
Isaac D'Israeli's essay: Contrivance In Dramatic Dialogue

________________________________________________



GO TO TOP OF SCREEN