Skip to main content

What's the leklywhode?

Oxford's spelling was idiosyncratic, even for an Elizabethan. He almost always wrote "lek" for like, in all its forms: "misleke," "leklywhodes," and "lekwise," among many others. Another quirk of his is "wowld" for would. Alan Nelson writes: "So characteristic is Oxford's spelling in this regard that the three spellings 'cowld', 'showld', and 'wowld', along with 'lek' for 'like', are almost enough in themselves to identify a piece of writing as his."

Nelson also notes that Oxford's e-for-i and wh-for-h spellings are "typical for an East Anglian dialect, reminding us that Oxford spent his formative years in rural Essex. Thus Oxford (like his contemporary Walter Ralegh) habitually spoke a provincial dialect."

Who's the country bumpkin now?

A third and "distinctly odder habit is Oxford's invariable use of 'oft' or 'ofte' for 'ought'" which Nelson sees as "a positive linguistic error, not just a rural dialect."

None of these Oxfordian markers appear in the canon--and distinctive spellings do have a way of persisting even through the hands of printers, as loud wallpaper shows through a coat of whitewash. Conversely, none of Shakespeare's linguistic idiosyncrasies appear in Oxford's writing. And the provincial dialect in Shakespeare belongs to the West Midlands, not East Anglia

Share this post

Disqus comments