Alexander Gill tells us (p. 16) that it
was a Northern provincialism to pronounce _cloth_ long (like _both_),
and accordingly we are safe in believing that _moth_ was pronounced
precisely as it is now. Mr. White again endeavors to find support in the
fact that _Armado_ and _renegado_ are spelt _Armatho_ and _renegatho_
in the Folio. Of course they were, (just as the Italian _Petruccio_ and
_Boraccio_ are spelt _Petruchio_ and _Borachio_,) because, being
Spanish words, they were so pronounced. His argument from the frequent
substitution of _had_ for _hath_ is equally inconclusive, because we
may either suppose it a misprint, or, as is possible, a mistake of the
printer for the Anglo-Saxon sign for _th_, which, as many contractions
certainly did, may have survived in writing long after it was banished
from print, and which would be easily confounded with _d_. Can Mr.
White find an example of _dod_ for _doth_, where the word could not be
doubtful to the compositor? The inability of foreigners to pronounce the
_th_ was often made a source of fun on the stage. Puttenham speaks of
_dousand_ for _thousand_ as a vulgarism. Shakspeare himself makes Caius
say _dat_, and "by my _trot_"; and in Marston's "Dutch Courtezan," (Act
ii. Sc. 1,) we find Francischina, (a Dutch woman,) saying, "You have
brought mine love, mine honor, mine body, all to _noting_!"--to which
her interlocutrix answers, "To nothing!" It is plain that Marston did
not harden his _th_s into _t_s, nor suppose that his audience were in
the habit of doing so.
Pages:
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307