The Old Anglo-Scottish Dialect. 451 ART. VII.-1. The Brus, writ be Master Johne Barbour. Aberdeen. Printed for the Spalding Club. 1856. 2. The Pricke of Conscience (Stimulus Conscientia). A Northumbrian Poem. By RICHARD ROLLE DE HAMPOLE. Edited (for the Philological Society) by RICHARD MORRIS. 1863. IT cannot be doubted that the old Scottish language of our forefathers is hastening to decay; and it is not improbable that before the close of the century the use or the knowledge of it may be confined to the humblest classes, or to the most retired districts of our native land. A hundred years ago it was freely current among the better ranks of society, and at the beginning of this century, it was the common language of our nurseries, and was intelligible to every one. Now, however, our nursemaids and nursery-governesses speak nothing but a sort of school-English; our sons and daughters conclude their education beyond the Tweed, and except by special study, are unable to appreciate either Burns or Ramsay; and every day the number becomes fewer of those who could stand the test which an old friend of ours used to apply, of being able to interpret the lines in the "Address to the Deil:" "And dawtit twal-pint Hawkie's gane As yell's the Bill." This change is so natural, and indeed so necessary an effect of the wider diffusion of uniform education and of an increased communication with our Southern neighbours, that it ought not to excite either wonder or regret. But let us hope that, if the old Scottish dialect is thus doomed to languish and die, it may thereby gain something of that additional honour which ought to attend the departed. Things in every-day use have about them a certain tincture, if not of vulgarity, yet at least of triviality, which antiquity tends to remove. If we had the veritable "parritch-pats and auld saut-backets" of an antediluvian age, they would not be vulgar but venerable. Our Scottish tongue has still strong claims on our regard, though it may no longer be colloquially used. It is deserving of careful study, both for its intrinsic excellence as a vigorous and expressive form of speech, and as an apt vehicle by which men of distinguished intellect and genius have conveyed to the world the creations of their fancy and the emotions of their heart. It must always have an additional attraction for Scotchmen, or those interested in Scotland, as being a true reflex of the national character and an indispensable key to the national history. But we are desirous at this time to interest in its study, not only our fellow-countrymen of Scotland, but all our brethren of British birth, and we wish, therefore, to point out some strong inducements to their making its better acquaintance. And here, in the outset, we may both ask and attempt to answer the question, What is this Scottish tongue which we are thus seeking to recommend to notice? What is it as to its elements, and as to its affinities with other systems of speech? The answer, in our view of the matter, is short and simple. The Scottish is but another form of English. The two are sister dialects of one and the same language. No one, we think, who approaches the consideration of this subject without prejudice or prepossession, can fail to arrive at the same result. If we regard as among the most ancient and authentic remains of Scottish, the well-known lines that are said to have been made on the death of Alexander III., we shall be convinced that we are dealing with a mere variety of old English. Divesting them of some peculiarities of spelling, we recognise scarcely more than a single word in them that is not ordinary Saxon and Norman. The character of the language is precisely that which belongs to English, being a graft of Norman inserted on an Anglo-Saxon stem. If, indeed, we take a wider view, and compare together the longer compositions of Scottish and of English writers which begin to abound in the fourteenth century, we shall find certain inter-diversities of form which deserve our attention. If, for instance, we compare Barbour and Chaucer, who are as nearly as possible contemporaries, and belong to the latter portion of the fourteenth century, we discover differences both in words and grammatical forms, but chiefly in the latter, which naturally call for explanation, and lead us to inquire from what source these discrepancies arise. Before, however, we can determine whether there is here a sufficient ground for separating Old Scottish from Old English, the previous question occurs, Whether there is only one form of old English of that period, or whether, among English writers themselves, there are not diversities, more or less great, corresponding to those which distinguish the poet of Bannockburn from the Morning Star of English literature. We soon find that there are such diversities, and we are thus involved in an examination of the different dialects of early English, to see if we can trace in any of them an identity or close resemblance with our own Northern tongue. We should not consider ourselves competent guides, and our readers would probably be unwilling to follow our footsteps, through the various and intricate differences of old or existing English dialects, with their several local limits at successive periods of time. But we have here on our table four wellknown volumes, which will sufficiently illustrate this question for our present purpose. These contain the Metrical Chronicles The Old Anglo-Scottish Dialect. 453 published by old Thomas Hearne, two of the volumes being occupied by the work of Robert of Gloucester, and the other two devoted to that of Robert de Brunne. In these two compositions we see at a glance a marked diversity of dialect, such as cannot be ascribed to difference of date; for the two writers lived within half a century of each other, Robert of Gloucester having written after 1280 and Robert de Brunne before 1330. The contrast is plainly ascribable to the different localities to which the writers belong, the one connected with the western and the other with the eastern part of England--Robert de Brunne being a monk first at Sempringham, and afterwards at Sixhill in Lincolnshire. We shall here notice a few of the points in which the dialects of these two chronicles differ from each other. These are: 1. The absence or extreme rarity in Robert de Brunne of the prefix y or i (the Saxon ge), and its frequent occurrence in Robert of Gloucester, particularly as the sign of the past participle. 2. The use in Robert de Brunne of the demonstratives they, their, them, as the plural of the third personal pronoun, instead of the proper and original plural of he, being hi, hire, hem, which are found in Robert of Gloucester. 3. The absence or rarity in the Lincolnshire chronicle of the final n in the infinitive and in the other inflections of verbs, with the remarkable exception of the n of the past participle, which in those verbs which the Germans call strong is more faithfully preserved in Robert de Brunne than in the monk of Gloucester. 4. The greater rarity in Robert de Brunne of the final n in the plurals of nouns; the plural of brother, for instance, being not brethren, but brether, while ky not kine is the plural of cow. 5. The absence in Robert de Brunne of the termination th in the inflection of verbs, and the substitution of the final s instead of it; the second person plural of the imperative always ending in s when it has any inflection at all. Now these differences, some of which have found their way into modern English, are among the most remarkable of those which distinguish Barbour from Chaucer, the dialect of Barbour having a strong resemblance to that of Robert de Brunne, while Chaucer approximates to that of Robert of Gloucester.. We are thus led to the conclusion that the old Scottish language of this early period corresponds more nearly with the old English of the east of England, than with that of the south or west. A further examination of early English compositions will convince us that, in the 13th and 14th century the east coast of Britain, from Essex northward to the Forth, was occupied by a population substantially the same in blood, and, with insignificant local varieties, speaking throughout its whole extent one and the same Anglo Norman tongue, of a character sufficiently distinguished from the English of Chaucer, and the other southern and western writers of England, to deserve the name of a separate dialect or language. We have probable grounds for believing that the Angles, who occupied the eastern part of England, were a different tribe or family from those Saxons who followed or accompanied them in their migration from Germany. At one period the Anglian kingdoms in England were equal if not superior to their Saxon neighbours, not only in enterprise and energy, but in learning and literature. But in the progress of events the Anglian districts were more exposed to the ravages of pagan marauders, both domestic and foreign; and the same devastations and disasters which enfeebled their political power, destroyed in a great measure the monuments of their literary genius. The influence and the language of the West Saxons came in this way to gain the ascendant; and what may be termed classical Anglo-Saxon, as preserved in literature, is chiefly the language of the West Saxon kingdom. It is even probable that works such as the poems of Cadmon, composed originally in the Northumbrian or Anglian dialect, have been transmuted by some southern scribe or reciter into the Saxon form in which we now possess them. The proper Anglian tongue has only of late years been begun to be studied. By Hickes it was not well understood, but later grammarians have cleared up the subject, and the works published by the Surtees Society have afforded valuable materials for maturing the inquiry. When Hickes spoke of the Anglian dialect as Dano-Saxon, he promulgated a theory which is unsupported by evidence, and probably erroneous in fact. The term seemed to imply that the Anglian was originally identical with the common Anglo-Saxon, and only came to differ from it in being subsequently corrupted by the infusion of Danish influences. In some respects, certainly, there is an approach to Scandinavian forms in the remains which we possess of the earlier Anglian tongue, and of the Anglo-Norman of the Northumbrian districts; but it is probable that some of these resemblances existed long before in the primitive settlements occupied by the Anglian immigrants in the neighbourhood of the modern districts of Eastern Schleswig. It is well observed by a high authority, that in the relative position of the Angles and Saxons, the dialect of the Angles would more nearly resemble that of their neighbours, the Norsemen, while the Saxons would approximate to the men of the Low Countries, from whom they were divided only by the Elbe. It is possible, however, that after the Anglian immigration to England, and under the disturbing effects of The Old Anglo-Scottish Dialect. 455 the Danish invasions, the Scandinavian tendencies which existed in the Anglian dialect may have received a certain impulse; and in this way the abolition of the final n in the infinitive of verbs, and of the prefix ge, which is wholly unknown to the Scandinavian languages, may have become more complete and confirmed. But it is true, on the other hand, as Dr. Guest has remarked, that the most characteristic peculiarities of Scandinavian inflection seem never to have been imported into the Anglian or Anglo-Norman dialects; such as the postposition of the definite article, the -r inflexion of verbs, and the use of a proper passive voice, which appear in all the Scandinavian tongues, but are wholly unknown to the dialects of northern England or southern Scotland. It is often unsafe here to infer that words which now seem to be peculiar to the Scandinavian languages are truly derived from that source; for if they have a form consistent with Anglian rules, they may equally belong to the old Anglian tongue, though, from want of early records, we may be unable to trace them. Thus the word gate, as used for a street, has been supposed to be Scandinavian; but there is nothing to hinder its being Anglian as well, since the root is very widely spread, and this is precisely the shape which it would bear if the Anglians had used it. There are other words, however, which we find in the Old English of the North, and which are undoubtedly Scandinavian; such as ettle, to aim at; settle, to adjust; flit, to remove; sitt, a sickness or sorrow. All of these words, according to the Anglian type of their etymology, would have had before the t a guttural ch or gh, which the Scandinavian languages reject, and their occurrence in the forms wer have mentioned, is conclusive evidence of their having been adopted from the Norsemen. But, on the other hand, the extent to which the Northern English retained, and to which the Scottish dialect still retains, the internal guttural in its full energy, is a standing protest against the theory of a Scandinavian origin. The common words nicht, dochter, aucht, and many other Scottish forms, are wholly inconsistent with the genius of the Scandinavian tongues, which, with a softness resembling that of the Italian, convert these forms into natt, dottir, atta, etc. The peculiarly Scotch words but and ben, afford another example of divergence from Scandinavian principles, as no such words would have been used or understood by the Old Norsemen, to whom the prefix or preposition by or be was unknown. The frequent termination of the inflections of the verb in the letter s is certainly not Scandinavian; and if there be a connexion between that termination and the Scandinavian -r inflection, the Anglian is the older of the two. Hazardous as it may seem to lay hold of a single peculiarity, and use it as an important distinction, we cannot refrain from |