Language of the 18th Century: Greetings, Conversations, and Partings to Accent Your Presentation

Living history in the manner of which I have presented here is not for everyone.

Remember - this is an opinion piece.  Nothing more---nothing less.

....................................................

As living historians,  we care greatly about the clothing we wear.  We sometimes go to such extremes to make sure every nuance - every stitch - is absolutely spot on.  And why wouldn't we?  It is the first thing people see when they come out to a reenactment.

Then we open our mouths,  and much of the magic disappears.

Well,  you know we can do something about that,  right?

....................................................

"You are judged by the words you use" ~~~~~~~

I believe this to be true in all walks of life,  so why should it not be true for us as living historians?  There are few things worse at a reenactment than to watch as an impeccably-dressed historic reenactor speaks to a group of visitors and hear them talk using full modern vernacular,  even,  like,  using the,  you know,  slang of  21st century high schoolers---no cap.  Or worse yet,  pull out a phone as if giving a power point presentation or something.

Arrgghhh!!

Now,  mind!  I am not even necessarily meaning we should speak in a 1st person vernacular here.  But at least give a hint that you pertain to somewhat be of another era in your speech patterns.

Please allow me to explain:

My dear,  I am not quite sure how we
found ourselves suddenly back into the
time of the founding generation,  but we
must conform else there could be problems.

To study language of times past can be a daunting task.  Since there are no actual recordings of the human voice before the end of the 19th century,  we may never know for certain how the English language and conversations during the time of the American Revolution may have truly sounded,  or even how certain words were pronounced.  However,  with a little detective work,  we can make very good educated guesses.  Reading books,  especially diaries,  letters,  journals,  and even news print  (such as broadsides)  can certainly steer us in the right direction.  Since so many colonials spelled their words phonetically,  their writings can be a guide for us in our own pursuit of how they spoke.

One good example of  "phonetics as language"  comes from the well-researched book about Paul Revere by David Hackett Fischer called  Paul Revere's Ride.  In it Fischer writes how Revere spoke with a  "harsh,  nasal,  New England twang"  and that we can  "hear him  (by)  the eccentric way he spelled his words."  For example,  Paul Revere wrote the word  'get'  as  'git'  every time,  and,  though his mother's maiden name was  'Hitchborn,'  it was written as  'Hitchbon.'  We also sometimes find  'charter'  as  'chattaer,'  which was probably pronounced with no  'r'  at all.  'Boston'  was  'Bast'n,'  'marsh'  became  'mash,'  'want'  was  'weren't,'  'hull'  for  'whole,'  'foller'  for  'follow,'  'sarve'  for  'serve,'  and  'acummin'  for  'coming.'

18th century Connecticut farmer,  Samuel Daggett,  consistently wrote  'coffin'  as  'coffain  or  'coffan,'  and  'potatoes'  as  'pertators.'  And he wrote  'booshil'  for  'bushel.'

I have seen similar phonetics in my own ancestral family.  For instance,  my 18th century 5th great grandparents,  Jonathan and Mary Heacock,  which I always pronounced as HEEcock,  have spelled their surname numerous times more as HAYcock in documents of the time.  This leads me to believe the pronunciation of the first syllable is most likely HAY and not HEE. 

Now I,  in no way,  plan to attempt to speak with an accent during an event in the way an old Bostonian such as Paul Revere may have spoken.  However,  like the accessories brought to accent one's camp site,  such as lanterns,  eating & drinking utensils,  and period tools & crafts,  language,  to a good extent,  is also important,  for it brings a greater understanding to the period for us socially as modern students of history.  And,  yes,  it is true that the farther back in time we go,  the more difficult words can be to read or even pronounce.  Even then,  there is enough familiar verbiage that one can discern to give,  for instance,  the Renaissance reenactor's voice a flair that will keep their speech pattern more interesting,  without sounding like a typical RenFaire rennie announcer.

As for me,  I only go back to the mid-18th century,  and therefore the spoken word isn't impossible to use or understand.  And...there are a few phrases which can easily be applied to my vernacular---without  an accent.

Welcome to the 1760s.

How fun it can be to add some color  (or,  ahem,  colour)  to a presentation by tossing in a word here or a sentence there that fits the time you are representing.

An 18th century time-traveler's companion

There are numerous period diaries and journals available in book form - wonderful language guides - and can easily be purchased on line.  However,  there is also a book I found where the author did some deep research on the colonial language herself by way of  said diaries & journals,  as well as broadsides,  letters,  depositions...really digging to get as close as one can to this almost foreign language,  and she gathered the examples for a concise book:  "Eighteenth Century English as a Second Language."  Cathleene Hellier's book is,  simply put,  the best available researched source on the subject that I've seen.  In fact,  it is the only  book like this that I've seen!  Ms.  Hellier is a Colonial Williamsburg historian who works in the training and research department for the historic open-air museum,  and the book is published through the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.  This could be the most extensive assemblage of colonial verbiage collected as a teaching tool available.  Yes,  it does center around the Virginia dialect,  so the accent can be slightly different as compared to New England,  but I am willing to bet word usage and phrases can very well be accepted throughout the colonies.  In between the front and back cover you'll find  "a series of lessons designed to help character interpreters to better understand how English was spoken in the eighteenth century and,  consequently,  to help them to sound more like the persons they portray."

What I have in this week's post is only a quick overview of a few of the lessons I've learned and read on and will hopefully be another way to lead living historians onto another pathway in our journey to bring the past forward:

~Meetings and greetings~

First off,  it is unfortunate that Ms.  Hellier does not go into the bow or curtsy,  for I was at the mercy of other living historians and the internet for this info.  But as I combed through my research,  the following is the deduction I have been able to arrive at,  and you can be assured that what I have written herein is fairly sound-------

A slight bow at the waist with slightly extended arms  (or arm)  is the proper way for two colonial men to greet each other,  followed by the verbal greeting of your choice:

"How do you do?"  was a popular greeting and oftentimes included 

an extended hand and slight bow between gentlemen.  

"Pray,  good sir,  if I may be so bold..."

"I wish you a good day."

"What say you,  sir,  on a day such as this?"

"Good morning"  (or  "good day"  or  "good night" - depending,  obviously,  

on the time of  day).

"But what's wrong with  'Hello'?"  you ask.

It was not until Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the telephone in 1876 that  "hello"  came about.  When this telephone device came along that year nobody was sure what the correct way to answer it was.  The use of  ‘hello’  was suggested by Thomas Edison.  Bell,  however,  preferred the use of the nautical terms  ‘ahoy’  or  ‘ahoy-hoy’  as used to hail ships.  'Hello'  eventually won out in popular usage,  but if you watch the cartoon series  ‘The Simpsons’  you’ll find that Mr.  Burns always answers the phone,  "ahoy-hoy." 

Prior to  using the word  'hello'  as a greeting,  the predominant address would have been as listed above.  The word  "halloo"  or  "hullo"  existed,  but it was used as an expression of surprise - you'll find it a lot in Arthur Conan Doyle's  'Sherlock Holmes'  stories.   And Thomas Edison's workers would shout  "halloo"  to each other at the Menlo Park laboratory.  Even Charles Dickens wrote in  'A Christmas Carol'  (1843):  "A merry Christmas to everybody!   A happy New Year to all the world!  Hallo here!  Whoop!  Hallo!"

So,  simply removing  "hello"  or  "hi"  from your presentation is a wonderfully easy start.

The handshake between men in the 18th century living history world has always been a no-no.  It was thought to be as foreign to one from the 1700s as a high-five.  But I have found the opposite to be true.  Though there were no  "high fives"  at the time,  there was the hand shake.  Now it seems that in the 16th and 17th centuries,  and probably for a good deal of the 18th century,  shaking hands had a different meaning from the ritual act we know today.  It looks as if the gesture was not part of any greeting or parting behavior at all but that it had quite different connotations which centered around such concepts as friendship,  brotherhood,  peace,  reconciliation,  accord,  or mutual agreement.  A handshake was also used to seal a business transaction.  

So,  what all this means is that though the handshake as a greeting was not common practice,  it was not an unknown gesture at the time for reasons noted above.  And I am pretty certain not every culture shook hands.

But,  it was a part of society in some form or another.

This comes from the well-researched book,  A Cultural History of Gesture by Jan Bremmer & Herman Roodenburg.

The Celebration of the Peace of Munster painting by Heist from 1648.
Check out the two men clasping hands in a shake on the right.

Now,  for the women,  we have the curtsy.

The curtsy  (or curtsey)  is a traditional gesture of greeting by a girl or a woman to someone more senior in social rank and dates back to at least the Middle Ages.  It is derived from a  'courtesy'  and is simply a mark of respect.  It became gender specific in the 17th century,  with men adopting the bow,  and women the curtsey.  Like the bow for a male,  the curtsey was used by women as a greeting in the 18th century.

"How do you do,  Miss Jordan,  I am right heartily glad to see you."

"Good day to you,  Sir."

From what I could find,  neither the bow nor the curtsy should be directed toward anyone of a lower class from one of  a higher class.  Only lower to upper and to equals  (usually of a middling on up)  class.

Of course,  different centuries had different courtesies.  Please,  if you have corrections and further information  (from good sources),  let me know.  I certainly would appreciate it. 

"Honour me,  Madam,  with one dance."

"You do me honour,  Sir,  but I believe I will not dance at all."

Many thanks to Jordan for the poses.

And continuing on...

Many folks also addressed one another according to relationship:

father,  mother,  grandfather,  grandmother,  daughter,  son,  nephew,  

uncle,  cousin,  etc.:  

"My dear Niece!  It is very good to see you on this day." 

 Another popular greeting  (and one that has become my personal favorite)  was  

"How does all at home?"

or

 "How does your father  (mother,  etc.) ?"

"Mr."  was still used before the surname,  such as  "Mr.  Jones,"  and  "Mrs."  was used as we use it today,  though there were quite a few who still pronounced it as  "mistress."

"Miss Wright.

I pray this day finds you well.

How does your father,  old fellow?"

~Useful expressions~

Other ways to help build upon your conversation that will certainly liven up any presentation at a reenactment for visitors and/or other living historians to hear or even take part in would be to include a shortening of some phrases,  such as  'or else'  to just  "else"  and use  "only"  for a substitute for  'but': 

"I am glad I did not travel to Lexington this evening else I would be
caught in the excitement." 

"My dear wife had planned to travel with me only she felt unwell."

Here are a few other phrases that can be used:

"to have been brought to bed of a son/daughter"  (meaning to have given birth of a son or daughter - excellent especially if you know of someone who recently had a baby)

"to have catched cold"  (during cold and flu season,  this can be a great description during a conversation)

"to be much mended"  (feeling better - - yep  "I was very ill but I am now much mended.")

"a very fine weather day"  (this can be used quite often...daily,  in fact)

"the wind chopped about"  (changed direction - I like this one)

"go to housekeeping,"  (This phrase comes from the book  "A Midwife's Tale"  by Lauren Ulrich,  which was when a newlywed couple moved in together after marriage)

~More expressions to use~

 (Some of which are still used today with the same meanings)

Here I am conversing with Mr.  John Greenhow,  who was a merchant in Williamsburg from about 1755 until his death in 1787.

"I did  not get a wink of sleep  last night due to the severity of the storm last evening.

Here are a few more expressions:

* to bring up the rear

* to stand a chance

* to be true blue

* to be in the dark

* let the cat out of the bag

* to be in the dumps

* to be at the end of one's tether

* to be sent upon a fool's errand

* to not care a farthing  (or a fig)  about_______

* to take the bull by the horns

* necessity is the mother of invention

* it never rains but it pours

* when in Rome,  do as the Romans do

* to put on airs

* make hay while the sun shines

"Well,  my dear,  the proof of the pudding is in the eating..."

To continue to make your speech sound more 18th century,  occasionally use the form  "was"  instead of  were,  or use  "is"  instead of are.  

For example,  say  "You are not the man you was formerly,"  instead of  "you are not the man you were formerly."  

Another good example is  "My servant is run away,"  instead of saying  "My servant has run away."

Rather than say  "He had nearly died,"  say,  instead,  "He had near died."

What was considered  "genteel profanity"  in the 18th century is unlike a prayer today:

God knows,  God forbid,  Lord!,  God bless me  (used mainly by women:  "God bless me!  I hardly knew you!"),  Thank God - -

"Alas,  poor Anna,  Lord bless me,  she sang out of tune at times,  though,  thank God, 
not always!"

Adding  "a-"  to a verbal form used as an adjective,  such as Paul Revere did for  'coming'  ("a-cummin'")  will also help to liven up your 18th century language usage:

a-laughing

a-visitng

a-trembling

And as far as contractions,  most that we use today were in general conversational use in the 18th century:

don't

couldn't

wouldn't

But here are a few popular contractions from the 1700s that have lost favor in our modern society:

'Tain't  (it is not)

sha'n't  (shall not)

mayn't  (may not)

ha'n't  (have/had/has not)

One pamphlet from Colonial Williamsburg,  "Eight Easy Ways To Make Your Speech Sound More Eighteenth-Century,"  suggests that interpreters say,  " 'tis"  and  " 'twill"  in place of  "it's"  and  "it'll."  It also recommends  "sir"  and  "madam"  in direct address to provide an atmosphere of proper formality,  even in everyday conversation.

When I was at Colonial Williamsburg,  the interpreters there used  "above stairs"  and  "luster"  in place of  "upstairs"  and  "chandelier."   It's this sort of thing I hope to strive for when I am out at an event,  especially inside or around period structures:  to create the atmosphere of the time.  Oh,  it will not happen every time...but I mean,  imagine,  while at a reenactment,  hearing one of the living historians say,  "How does your lady,  sir?"  which I believe would catch the ear and mind of a visitor,  don't you?  And they may imagine that 18th century folk spoke more elegantly and properly.  But the usage of such ungrammatical   (but period-correct)  constructions as  "suprisingest"  for  "most surprising"  and to mangle subject-predicate agreement will help to give different historical perspectives.

Imagine the conversations!
(photo courtesy of Fred Blystone)

~Partings and farewells~

The common  "Your servant,"  "I am your obedient servant,"  and  "I am your most humble servant,"  are all certainly very acceptable to use when parting company.

"I wish you a good day,"  or  "Good day to you,  sir"  are also very good parting comments.

Imagine seeing Rebecca & I speaking as we were.

For two of us to part company,  the farewell should go something like this:

Me:  "Good day to you madam."

Rebecca: "The like to you, sir." 

It would be very difficult for the two of us to carry on a full conversation as colonials,  for it would take such a long time to learn everything to make it not sound contrived - almost like learning a foreign language.  However,  by dropping in a few bits of terminology from the past to flavor our speech could brighten what the visitor hear and perhaps pull them into our world of 250 years ago,  even for a short time.  

Now,  I know that many in this hobby could not care less about historic language use,  but I personally would like to see living historians do more than learn about the past;  I feel to help bring the past to life we should try to undo the present beyond clothing by weeding out modernisms as best as we can,  which means,  as representatives of colonials and early Republic,  anything that entered American English after 1800.  Out goes  "okay"  and  "no problem."  In place of   "I'd like your input,"  we can try to substitute  "What are your sentiments?"  But some seemingly modern sayings have colonial roots,  such as  "Birds of a feather flock together,"  "When in Rome,  do as the Romans do,"  and  "No news is good news."  Using adages like those can build a bridge between living historians and visitors because they help people understand that what they still may say today reaches into the past.

It takes practice and is an initial slow-go to pull it all together,  but imagine what it would be like to visit a reenactment and listen in on the colonials conversing:

"How do you do?  How does all at home?"

"Oh,  some have catched cold but seem to be much mended."

"Aye,  I am heartily glad to hear this.  And,  pray,  how have your crops fared?"

"Indeed my crops have fared well,  though I have concerns.  It seemed so warm yesternight,  yet still we have a frost.  I sha'n't let it go to the dogs,  however."

"I am afraid we shall make but little corn unless we have rain soon."

A little story:

It's a clear Virginia day at Colonial Williamsburg.  Behind the Governor's Palace,  the eighteenth-century George Washington,  in the person of a character interpreter,  stands on a slightly raised platform,  speaking to a twenty-first-century audience about the political tensions that led to the American Revolution.  At the end,  one among the crowd asks a question,  an inquiry that shows the listener hasn't been paying attention.  Good naturedly,  the general says:  "Did you tune me out when I talked about that just a few minutes ago?"

The visitor laughs,  and the crowd laughs with him,  and Washington laughs and answers the question,  and the ever-so-slight linguistic hitch-if that's what it was-goes all but unnoticed.  The scene,  nevertheless,  illustrates an ever-present challenge for the costumed men and women of Colonial Williamsburg,  the interpreters who daily don not only the clothing but the vocabulary of the 1700s.  Washington said  "tune out,"  a phrase not coined until broadcasting began.  Its entry in the Oxford English Dictionary says it first appeared in print in 1931.  The real-life Father of Our Country,  knowing nothing of twirling knobs and dials to get better radio reception,  could not have used so anachronistic an expression.

From  "Speaking of the Past:  the Words of Colonial Williamsburg"

by James Breig

When Larissa  &  I do our historic presenting,  we do a semi-1st person as a colonial husband  &  wife,  though we will speak with a modern tongue.  We are teaching here,  which is a bit different than doing living history.  But we still stray from the trendy slang words,  which could and would squelch our  "authenticity."

Yes,  the clothing one wears can help to guide the way they act.  It is rather difficult to be a 21st century person while in knee breeches or a colonial dress no matter how hard you try.  In fact,  you look silly if you do!

.   .   .

As far as language of the 1770s goes,  I barely scratched the surface.  Like most live languages,  English changes as it goes,  collecting new words and phrases to fit new conditions and modifying or discarding ones that no longer work.  It was as true three centuries ago as it is today.  

But please understand - I know the difficulty in keeping a total conversation in this manner.  However,  to intersperse a few of these verbal gems into your presentation while dropping modern vernacular during a reenactment will definitely spice up the atmosphere.  Now,  I fully understand that reenacting in this manner is not for everyone.  Heck---it's not even for me under many conditions.  And I'm not saying it's better or worse than other forms of historic presenting.  It is only a different path - not above or below.

The reenacting season is about to begin - - I hope today's posting helps you find a very successful journey in recreating the past.  Remember:  to hear an exchange centered on 21st century news events or the latest hot technology from those dressed in period clothing can be such a let down for the modern visitor who perhaps paid money to come to the reenactment.  

It was to me before I got into the hobby.

I understand that it happens - sometimes necessarily so during explanations or then  &  now circumstances.  But,  unfortunately,  other times,  unnecessarily so.  I mean,  you wouldn't leave a 2 liter bottle of Coke where it can easily be seen or wear a wristwatch at an event,  would you?

Yeah...just Ken's own thoughts...

Until next time,  see you in time.

Back in the day one had to dig deep and sometimes read between the lines to find the much sought after information about 18th century living.  But here in the 21st century,  there are books--plenty of books--of this type available.  It's just a matter of keeping your eyes peeled.  I may be scanning through various web sites such as  Jas Townsend or Samson Historical  (and other sites,  including Amazon.com)  and will find books of this flavor available.  I also look for the bibliographies cited in the books I own to find where the author got some of their information.  And still, the members of various Facebook history pages may also throw in some of their finds - but be careful with social networking sites,  for those memes are so often wrong or strictly agenda-filled.  Don't get your degree in history by attending Facebook University.

So there are numerous ways today in which to find deep and well-researched history books.

And,  I have to say,  now that I help to teach high school history classes,  I do pass along the interesting information I find to the students.  And by doing so,  maybe---just maybe---I might garner a stronger interest in the subject from them.

Stronger than what I had when in school.

Here are a few postings about books I have in my collection

Looking At The World Through Their Eyes

History Books About the 18th Century

Researching the 18th Century

"Museum in a Book" Books Put History at Your Fingertips

~   ~   ~