Material from the Romantic Circles Website may not be downloaded, reproduced or disseminated in any manner without authorization unless it is for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, and/or classroom use as provided by the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended.
Unless otherwise noted, all Pages and Resources mounted on Romantic Circles are copyrighted by the author/editor and may be shared only in accordance with the Fair Use provisions of U.S. copyright law. Except as expressly permitted by this statement, redistribution or republication in any medium requires express prior written consent from the author/editors and advance notification of Romantic Circles. Any requests for authorization should be forwarded to Romantic Circles:>
By their use of these texts and images, users agree to the following conditions:
Users are not permitted to download these texts and images in order to mount them on their own servers. It is not in our interest or that of our users to have uncontrolled subsets of our holdings available elsewhere on the Internet. We make corrections and additions to our edited resources on a continual basis, and we want the most current text to be the only one generally available to all Internet users. Institutions can, of course, make a link to the copies at Romantic Circles, subject to our conditions of use.
Bodleian Library, MS Eng. Lett. c. 26. ALS; 4p. . Previously published: John Wood Warter (ed.), Selections from the Letters of Robert Southey, 4 vols (London, 1856), III, pp. 270–273. Note on the MS: This note was enclosed in a letter to Bedford, [14 September 1821] (Letter 3729). There is a fair copy of the letter to ‘Stumparumper’, also in Southey’s hand, in the British Library, Add MS 47891. We have used the Bodleian Library version as copy text because the deletions indicate that it is clearly the first version of this letter.
These letters were edited with the assistance of Ian Packer and Lynda Pratt
All quotation marks and apostrophes have been changed: " for “," for ”, ' for ‘, and ' for ’.
Any dashes occurring in line breaks have been removed.
Because of web browser variability, all hyphens have been typed on the U.S. keyboard.
Dashes have been rendered as a variable number of hyphens to give a more exact rendering of their length.
Southey's spelling has not been regularized.
Writing in other hands appearing on these manuscripts has been indicated as such, the content recorded in brackets.
& has been used for the ampersand sign.
£ has been used for £, the pound sign
All other characters, those with accents, non-breaking spaces, etc., have been encoded in HTML entity decimals.
Dont rub your eyes at that word Bedford, as if you were slopey. <The purport of> this letter which is to be as precious
as the Punic scenes in Plautus,xxxxxx in <to convey
the give you some account tho but an imperfect one of the language spoken in this house by> Mrs Coleridge s language, <& invented by her>, a
vocabulary of which I have carefully composed by the help of her
daughter & mine, when she has been red-raggifying in full
confabulumpatus. True it is that she has called us <persecutorums, &> great improprietors for performing this meritorious
xxxxx <task>; & has often told me not to be such a stuposity; threatening us sometimes that she will never say
anything that ends in lumpatus again; & sometimes that she will play the very dunder; & sometimes bidding us get away with our
toadywidferings. And she asks me how I can be such a Tom-noddycum <(tho my name as she knows is Robert)> & calls me detesty, a
mafrum, a goffrum, a chatterpye, a sillycum, & a great mawkinfort.
But when she speaks of you it is with a kinder meaning. You are not a vulgarum, nor a great ovverum govverum; the
appellations which she has in store for you are either words of direct endearment, or of that kind <sort> of objurgation
which is the playfullest mood of kindness. Thus you are a Stumparumper, because you are a shortycum; <& you are> a wattlykin, a
tendrum, – a detestabumpus, & a figurumpus. These are the words which come from her chapset when she speaks of you; & you need
not be told what they signifump.
I dare say you have set up a whickerandus at this, & I hope you will not be dollatory in expressing the satisfaction which you derive from knowing that you are thus decidedly in her good graces. Perhaps you may attempt an answer in the same strain, & show yourself none of the little blunderums who deserve to be bangated, but an apt pupolion which if you do you will deserve to be called as clever as De-Ciiggle.
Great light has been thrown upon the philosophy of language by Humboldtr Duponceauupon <in> his steps. From their researches & those of our countrymen in
Indiars Coleridges new language is not in like manner <investigated> by some profound philologist. – Mr Coleridge perhaps by xxxxxxx <the>
xxxxxxx application of Kantsxxxxxly
a diligent & faithful observer, <must confess that I> have but little insight into it. I can indeed partly guess why
asses donkeys in this language are called jacks, & why peck is a nose; why some part of an Elephants trunk is a
griper, but not why it is a snipe; why nog is a lump, bungay a bundle, & why trottlykins should stand for childrens feet; – but not
why my feet & yours should be opprobriously termed hocksen & hormangorgs. So too when I hear needles called nowgurs, – ladies,
laduls, whispering, twistering, – vinegar, wiganar, & a mist fogogrum, or fogrogrum, I have some glimpse, tho but a glimpse, of the
principle upon which these neologisms are introduced. I can perceive also the analogies by which the new vocabulary is to be extended;
for example, pie being called pie-īe-īe; it follows that pudding should be pudding-ūdding-ūdding. And a pew being called pewdiddledoo,
to be consistent, we should speak of the Churchdiddledurch, the Clerkdiddlederk, & the Parsondiddledarson, – only that this might
appear disrespectful to the Vicar.
But I should in vain seek to discover the rationale of other parts of this speech, though I were
to study the subject till I were as tired as a dogs detested hinder. And tho I get at the meaning by asking an explanation, still no
clue to the x xxx derivation is afforded. Thus for instance when it was said don’t roakin there & I desired to know what
was intended by this xxxx prohibition, the answer was ‘every body says roakin’, & when I prest for farther explanation,
I was informed that roaking was digging & grumping in a work-box. So too on the way from Mrs Calverts
On one occasion however I was fortunate enough to see this extraordinary language, if I may so express myself, in the mint, & in the very act of its coinage. Speaking of a labourer, she said – the Thumper, the What-dye-callder, – the Undoer – I cant hit upon it! – the cutter-up. – these were the very words received & noted as they came fresh from the die; – & they meant a man who was chopping wood.
I must now bring this letter to a conclusion. The account indeed is very incompleat, but you may rely upon its
fidelity. And tho of necessity I have spelt the words according to their pronunciation, I hope that this has not occasioned any
disvuegurment, & that none of them in reading will stick in your thrapple. The subject cannot be so important to you, as it is to
me, who live in a house where this language is spoken & therefore have been obliged to acquire some knowledge pay
attention to it. Yet it will not be <appear> altogether uninteresting to you <incurious>, connected as it is with
the philosophy of language <the science of philology>; & perhaps your regard for the inventor may give it a more than
ordinary interest in your eyes.
I forgot to say that Apple-dumple-dogs are Apple dumplings. & that Dogroggarum is a word of reproach for a dog.