Blackadder:
A Cunning Linguist?
An investigation into the linguistic devices used to
create, maintain and support comic effect in the
historical television situation comedy, Blackadder
Page 1 of 12
Contents
1.
Introduction
3
2.
Description of Data
4
3.
Aim
4
4.
Methodology
4
5.
Analysis
Lexical Features
Grammatical Features
Character-Specific Devices and Idiolect
Blackadder
Prince George
Dr Johnson
Baldrick
Minor Characters/General Comments
5
5
7
9
9
9
10
11
11
6.
Conclusion
12
7.
Evaluation
12
Page 2 of 12
Introduction
Blackadder was probably the most popular British sitcom of the 1980s. Its four series
lasted through almost the whole decade, from 1983 to 1989, although the story itself
actually spans over 400 years from the entirely fabricated era of Richard IV in 1485
to World War One and the Western Front, 1917. The first series was written by
Richard Curtis and Rowan Atkinson (who plays the character of Blackadder); in the
following three, Ben Elton took Atkinson’s place as co-writer, and the style of the
series altered considerably. Richard Curtis and Ben Elton were (and still are)
successful in their own right - Elton is a popular stand-up comedian, and has written
several books (of which one has been made into a film), as well as plays, musicals
and television series, and Curtis has written screenplays for several films, including,
notably, the immensely popular British films Four Weddings and a Funeral and
Notting Hill. The series also featured many well-known British actors - including, but
not limited to, Brian Blessed, Tony Robinson, Miranda Richardson, Hugh Laurie,
Stephen Fry, and of course Rowan Atkinson as Blackadder.
Blackadder was relatively groundbreaking for its day. Whilst neither being so
obviously gruesome and dark as more recent television series such as The League of
Gentlemen, nor courting controversy in the manner of the satirical mock-currentaffairs series Brass Eye, the series sits with similar programs of the time such as The
Young Ones and Not the Nine O’Clock News as running at a tangent to the wilfully
inoffensive humour of, for example, The Good Life or Terry and June, employing in
its arsenal constant reference to taboo subjects – sex, death, bodily functions –
alongside a general disregard for historical and literary accuracy (despite its
purportedly accurate historical situations), and an inventive and often surreal turn of
phrase. It should be remembered, however, that the writers weren’t generally trying
to make any particular point with all this: it’s all in the name of comedy. The
historical settings of the series are used almost entirely to provide a context for the
tomfoolery. The program often makes references to literary figures of the past,
including Shakespeare and, in the series investigated here, several important Regency
figures, such as Samuel Johnson, author of the first English Dictionary. It is here that
the attraction lies for an English Language student.
Page 3 of 12
Description of Data
The source material being analysed is the script of ‘Ink and Incapability’ an episode
from the third series of the historical situation comedy Blackadder (Blackadder the
Third), taken from the official script anthology Blackadder: The Whole Damn
Dynasty 1485-1917. In the episode, Doctor Johnson is attempting to persuade
Blackadder’s master, Prince George, to be the patron of his now famous dictionary.
We learn that Blackadder has a particular dislike for Johnson, which is rooted in his
not receiving any feedback from him for his book, ‘Edmund: A Butler’s Tale’,
written under the alias of Gertrude Perkins. A variety of complications then lead the
episode towards its conclusion.
This episode is particularly appropriate for linguistic analysis because it is directly
concerned with the ‘mother tongue’. The events within it, particularly Blackadder
using invented words, also present an interesting basis for investigation.
Aim
The interest of this investigation lies in how comedy is produced; the aim is to
investigate the ways in which comic and dramatic effect are created in this episode
and, in doing so, to examine what, linguistically, makes the comedy in Blackadder as
effective as it is.
Methodology
Because the source material is written rather than spoken or transcribed, the
investigation entailed close reading and analysis of the text at hand, bearing in mind
that the material was written to be performed. The sections cover the general lexical
and grammatical features of the episode, followed by analyses of the linguistic traits
applied to each main character. All sections are linked to the development of comic
and dramatic effect within the episode.
Page 4 of 12
Analysis
Lexical Features
Much of the comedy in Blackadder derives from the vocabulary. One example of the
way the language is manipulated is the way that the characters simultaneously use
both pseudo-‘olde-worlde’ expressions, such as sit ye down, and more modern
terminology – colloquial and otherwise - for example, nouns like roller-coaster,
millionaire, brainbox, and thicko, and insults like the imperative get stuffed. While
the old-fashioned words and phrases are ostensibly used to create a sense of period,
they are deliberately clichéd and actually serve to make the episode seem more out of
place and anachronistic. Similarly, the more modern language that is used draws
attention to itself because it patently would not belong in a straightforward period
drama.
Humour also comes from the unexpectedness and implausibility of this juxtaposition
of language from entirely different eras. The technique is taken further by bringing in
twentieth-century concepts such as, for example, film titles, where Blackadder
comments to Johnson, regarding the only book that is ‘even better’ than the
dictionary:
“And what’s that, sir? Dictionary 2: The Return of the Killer Dictionaries?”
The words that Blackadder invents (to annoy Dr Johnson) also add to the comedy.
The actual structure of the words is often quite plausible – for example, the invented
abstract noun contrafibulatories contains the prefix contra (as in contraindications)
and the suffix -tories (the plural of -tory, as in inventory), as well as the noun fibula.
Most of them include recognizable prefixes or suffixes – for example: anaspeptic,
velocitous, periconbobulations, interphrastically. However, the length and
complexity of the words, when taken as a whole, makes them seem unusual at the
very least. When taken in the context of the situation (that is, Blackadder speaking to
Johnson - whom he dislikes - regarding his dictionary, which is supposed to contain
every word in the English language) and noting that each of these six words used is
directed entirely towards Johnson by Blackadder, both their fabricated nature and the
motive behind their use becomes clear. Blackadder wants to frustrate Johnson by
mentioning words that will not be in his dictionary. Rather than risk using rare
existing words, he makes some up on the spot. The humour comes from Johnson’s
gullibility and his annoyance at not having included the fabricated words in the
Dictionary. The behaviour of Blackadder could also be a source of some surprise and
amusement to the audience; the series as a whole was the first to have portrayed
Page 5 of 12
historical figures as ‘real people’ as such – that is, prior to Blackadder, these people
(real or fabricated) were more often than not portrayed as straightforward individuals
with impeccable manners.
The script also uses a considerable amount of highly imaginative figurative speech;
throughout the characters’ lines it is possible to pick out an abundance of wildly
exaggerated and often bizarre metaphors and similes. The technique, whilst amusing
on its own, creating such phrases as ‘the sexual capacity of a rutting rhino’ or ‘a
beard the size of a rhododendron bush’, is also applied to the characters in subtly
different ways in order to establish different aspects of their personality. Therefore,
while Blackadder’s statement that Baldrick and George’s help would be ‘as useful as
a barber’s shop on the steps of the guillotine’ is funny because it is both unusually
inventive and evocative as well as, to an extent, logical and incisive, George’s desire
to be ‘as clever as a stick in a bucket of pig swill’ is funny because it is both absurd
and makes very little sense: a stick, being inanimate, is incapable of being clever,
regardless of whether it is stuck in a bucket of swill. There is also a joke running
through the episode whereby Doctor Johnson constantly constructs pointless, bizarre,
and laborious similes: “A servant who is an influence for the good is like a dog who
speaks. Very rare”; “A man who can change a prince’s mind is like a dog who speaks
Norwegian – even rarer”; “A copy, sir, is like fitting wheels to a tomato – time
consuming and completely unnecessary”, and, ultimately, “A burnt novel, sir, is like
a burnt dog…” by which time Blackadder is so irritated as to cut him off completely,
telling the distinguished academic to “shut up”. The progression of the similes from
peculiar to ridiculous is a good example of the writers knowingly pushing a joke
almost too much, only for it to be deliberately brought down, in this case by
Blackadder’s exasperated interjection. The comedy of the statements themselves lies
in the fact that, of all the things that are rare or time-wasting, Johnson’s choices of
talking dogs and wheeled tomatoes are utterly unexpected and apparently totally
random; it would seem that the process of composing them in the first place was, in
itself, ‘time consuming and completely unnecessary’.
Page 6 of 12
Grammatical Features
The title of Blackadder’s imaginary sequel to the dictionary draws in a typically
anachronistic reference to modern culture:
Dictionary 2: The Return of the Killer Dictionaries
The style of this is typical of those used for film sequels, for example in the second
Terminator film:
Terminator 2: Judgement Day
It makes use of the same formula of combining the original film title (which is in this
case a noun, and is typically either that or a noun phrase - for example Children of a
Lesser God) with the sequential number of the film, to create a new noun phrase,
followed by a colon, and then the actual title of the new sequel (Judgement Day).
The title also draws from the system applied to the sequel to the film Attack Of The
Killer Tomatoes!, amongst others:
Return of the Killer Tomatoes!
whereby the original title, almost invariably ‘Attack of the…’, is changed slightly to
the equally formulaic ‘Return of the…’. Films whose titles conformed to this style are
more often than not either of the low budget, b-movie stock or are parodies thereof.
The use of a format derived from these stale conventions has formulaic connotations,
as well as connotations of poor quality and of undemanding comedy. Applying said
format to the world’s first dictionary, a product which was created long before films
were even conceived of and which was intended to be taken entirely seriously, is
amusing not only because it contradicts the nature of the dictionary, but because of
the absurdity of applying conventions relating to the entirely modern phenomenon of
the cinema to an archaic reference book. This nonchalant disregard for historical
accuracy is typical of Blackadder’s approach to comedy, which often involves
manipulating and distorting history.
Page 7 of 12
Baldrick’s ‘book’ both defies and embraces storytelling conventions in a very
peculiar fashion. It follows the traditional pattern of introducing the main character
with the first line, for example:
Once upon a time there lived…
or
Once upon a time there was…
It also follows the traditional ‘fairytale ending’ convention, whereby the main
characters (or character in this case) live(s) ‘happily ever after’.
However, the familiarity ends there. The story consists of these two parts alone – as
such, there is not any story; there is only a character. The story is actually condensed
to a single sentence. This alone would be unexpected (as well as somewhat typical of
typical of Baldrick, who explains its shortness by saying that he’ can’t stand long
books’), and therefore would be at least mildly amusing, but the comedy is added to
greatly by the main character actually being a ‘lovely little sausage’, named after the
author. Baldrick is evidently not aware of the issues that arise when
anthropomorphizing a sausage – even if it is a ‘lovely little’ one – not least of which
is that it is a physical impossibility for a sausage to live ‘happily ever after’, or, for
that matter, even to live at all. The sheer incongruity of Baldrick introducing a
sausage as his main (and indeed only character), and then going so far as to name it
after himself can only add to the humour, in that it implies that he has quite an
affinity with sausages – even, perhaps, to the extent that he would quite like to be
one. This idea is quite bizarre, and as such the audience is compelled to laugh at not
only the brevity and uselessness of the story – it is about as short as a fairytale could
be – but at its strangeness, despite it being grammatically correct. This sense of a
surreally distorted version of reality is commonplace in Blackadder – in fact, it is a
vital part of its constitution, the setting of the series being by definition a twisted
interpretation of accepted historical fact. The program capitalises on this by being
deliberately anachronistic in terms of language use. For example, the register
throughout is blurred between formal and informal - the characters simultaneously
use highly informal colloquialisms like ‘know-it all’ and ‘bloody well’ alongside,
amongst other things, the formal personal pronoun ‘one’. This amalgamation of
opposing degrees of formality results in such strange lines as Blackadder’s “I am
delighted to have been instrumental in keeping your bosom free of arses”.
Page 8 of 12
Character-Specific Devices and Idiolect
In a script, the majority of character presentation and development is achieved
through the speeches of a character (alongside a small amount of stage direction).
The writers of Blackadder, in particular, have applied a range of linguistic traits to
each character in order to express certain aspects of their personalities.
Edmund Blackadder
Blackadder, the central character, has a tendency for ironic exaggeration, saying
things that could appear to be ignorant when taken out of context but which in his
hands are loaded with sarcasm (although much of this effect is gained through the
delivery of the lines):
“Sir Thomas More…burned alive for refusing to recant his Catholicism, must
have been kicking himself…that it never occurred to him to say ‘I recant my
Catholicism’”.
At the same time, he often expresses himself in an unnecessarily pompous manner,
using an unusual combination of hyperbole and ironic understatement; his
conversation is solely in a formal tone, despite frequently using colloquialisms such
as ‘niggle’ and ‘fatty’; and his comments are often highly critical and employ, again,
extreme exaggeration, for example describing the dictionary as ‘the most pointless
book since How To Learn French was translated into French’. The humour from this
comment comes from the paradox that in order to read a French phrasebook in
French, you would actually have to learn French first, thus negating the necessity of
the phrasebook. Blackadder often uses this kind of statement, deliberately employing
extreme exaggeration in order to put a point across. Blackadder’s consistently
condescending attitude and manner serve to emotionally distance his character from
the audience, making it difficult to feel sympathy for him, which in turn serves to
make the events which occur later regarding the dictionary getting lost and his book
being burned more humorous than upsetting.
Prince George
In contrast, Prince George retains the overstatement but has little or no sense of
irony:
“I want people to say, ‘That George, why he’s as clever as a stick in a bucket
of pig swill’”.
Page 9 of 12
He uses what could be termed the language of the stereotypical ‘public-school idiot’
– for example, his use of words such as ‘bravo’, and ‘jolly’, and combination of an
informal sentence structure with a mixture of both informal and formal vocabulary
(“…being patron of this complete cowpat of a book will set the seal once and for all
on my reputation as an utter turnip head”). To add to this, any attempt he makes at
wordplay is entirely on a basic, puerile level, for example when he says that he has
completed the ‘B’ section of the dictionary but that he “had some trouble with
belching – but (he) think(s he) got it sorted out in the end” and then promptly belches
and says “Oh, no. There I go again”. His readily admitting to having “been working
on that joke for quite some time” makes this funnier. The comedy is not necessarily a
direct consequence of George’s feeble joke; much of it comes from the context of the
situation, in that George feels it appropriate to spend a long time constructing a
childish joke even though his butler is in a life or death situation and in dire need of
his help.
Dr Johnson
Doctor Johnson, though we see little of his character (described upon his introduction
as ‘sixty, fat and pompous’), also has some particular linguistic traits. The most
noticeable of these is his use of excessively complicated and formal language,
particularly in his first two speeches, where he speaks of celebrating “the
encyclopaedic implementation of (his) premeditated orchestration of demotic AngloSaxon” and having “terminated (his) uninterrupted categorization of the vocabulary
of our post-Norman tongue (or, in much simplified terms, the completion of the
dictionary). His needlessly ornate language is an obvious reference to his stature as
an academic, and results in his character being both caricatured and belittled
somewhat. This irreverent depiction is funny because it contradicts the typical
presentation of historical characters like Johnson, who are generally taken very
seriously. Coincidentally, further exemplification of George’s ignorant attitude can
be found in his immediate response to Johnson’s elaborate manner of speech. Being
unable to understand any of it, he immediately assumes that the obscure language
must be somehow referring to Johnson’s sexual escapades, which he imagines to be
‘damn saucy’. This response is designed to give an insight into George’s mind: his
wholly inaccurate interpretation exploits both his stupidity and his immaturity to
comic effect.
Page 10 of 12
Baldrick
Baldrick is given few lines in this particular episode, but those that he does have are
designed to give an impression of naivety and innocence, not to mention low
intelligence and servility. This impression is given by his frequent and often very
basic linguistic mis-steps, for example mistaking the figure of speech ‘sour grapes’
for ‘bag of grapefruits’, and pronouncing his peculiar story as his ‘magnificent
octopus’ in a feeble attempt to imitate Blackadder’s overblown description of his
own book as his ‘magnum opus’ (ie great work). The character is representative of
the stereotypical peasant of the period, for example of his earnest fear that if he steals
Johnson’s copy of the dictionary he will ‘go to hell forever’.
Minor characters/general comments on characters
Blackadder, as a series, does tend to present characters as either extreme stereotypes
or in complete contradiction to the expected. For example, in this episode we find
Blackadder explaining to Baldrick that Mrs Radcliffe, Jane Austen and Dorothy
Wordsworth are all in fact men (with both Austen and Wordsworth allegedly
sporting sizable beards – Austen’s apparently comparable to ‘a rhododendron bush’,
and Wordsworth’s even larger), and that ‘James Boswell is the only real woman
writing at the moment and that’s just because she wants to get inside Johnson’s
britches’. The poets in Mrs Miggins’ coffee shop, whilst given small roles, are utterly
different to what would be expected (with the exception of Shelley, who conforms to
the other extreme and rather excessively orders ‘one cup of the brown juicings of that
naughty bean we call coffee’). Both Byron and Coleridge are portrayed as
bloodthirsty and willing to gruesomely execute anybody who loses the dictionary, as
well as being sycophantic towards the pompous Johnson. This pattern of
simultaneously pandering to and utterly defying our expectations, of characters in
particular, is an important part of Blackadder’s comic effect.
The contrasts between the traits attributed to the characters are highly important in
determining their interaction. Blackadder has both Baldrick and George completely
under control, abusing both his feudal superiority over Baldrick and his intellectual
superiority over the moronic George. Humour is drawn both from Blackadder’s
blatant manipulation of George – for example, where he persuades him that his own
decision not to become patron of the Dictionary was nothing more than a ‘brilliant’
joke – and from his indifferently patronising attitude towards the naïve Baldrick.
Page 11 of 12
Conclusion
The writers of Blackadder have employed a variety of means of setting up, creating,
and maintaining comic effect, which include:

Manipulating linguistic aspects such as vocabulary, register, and means of
expression within individual characters in order to develop the attributes of
said characters;

Deliberately and obviously creating characters that either rigidly conform to
or totally defy stereotypes and\or conventions;

Consistently mingling modern and archaic terminology in order to present a
deliberately anachronistic and unconventional view of the period, whilst also
maintaining a minimal degree of historical accuracy;

Employing elaborately constructed, extremely imaginative, and almost
invariably unusual metaphors/similes/figurative speech, alongside a large
amount of irony, as well as using both hyperbole and understatement, and;

Expressing an irreverent interpretation of the past, whilst retaining a
reasonable degree of credibility.
Evaluation
Although the length of the material used for this investigation merits a much more indepth analysis than is present here, the time available for its completion has limited,
to however small an extent, its depth. However, more could certainly be made of the
vocabulary used in the episode – in particular the juxtaposition of modern and ‘old’
words, and the effect of a character’s vocabulary upon the audience’s impression of
them - and more in depth analysis of the interesting grammatical features would be
potentially revealing. A section on phonology, whilst limited by the written nature of
the data, could be interesting in revealing some of the effects that may transpire upon
the material actually being acted out. Overall, I am fairly happy with how the
investigation, in particular the depth to which I was able to analyse the characters in
the episode.
Page 12 of 12