form, is found already to be mutilated of these peculiarities, and not only so, but to be largely combined with a foreign tongue, and as highly Normanized as the language of England, from which indeed, at that period, it can with difficulty be distinguished, and from which it is as little distinguishable, as one provincial dialect of a country is from another. 5. We know, generally, that at different periods anterior to the first appearance of the Scottish language in any authentic shape, the inhabitants of the country must by war, commerce, and colonisation, have had a large intercourse and admixture with other Teutonic nations-with Danes, with Flemings, and with Saxons-sufficient to account for the introduction of various peculiarities of speech from all and each of these sources. 6. We know that the Anglo-Saxon itself was not a uniform or unmixed tongue, but, like all other languages, was diversified by local dialects, and interspersed with exotic words; and consequently that its literary monuments, while aiming at a refined style and classical standard, cannot be relied on as fully exhibiting it in all its forms or varieties, much less as revealing that under-current of homely phraseology, which constitutes so large a part of common speech, but which is so seldom embodied in any early literature. Keeping these premises before us, which we humbly think are beyond all question, we revert to the enquiry in which Dr Jamieson and others of the same school have expended so much labour and ingenuity. That enquiry is simply this- What was the character of the early Teutonic language, and of the early Teutonic people of Scotland-a language of which we have no monuments whatever in a primitive shape, and a people of whom we have no authentic history, till 1000 or 1200 years after their alleged introduction into the country? Given merely the writings of Barbour, and the romance of Sir Gawaine and the Grene Knight, or even, if you will, the apocryphal Sir Tristrem himself, all of which are in a Normanized tongue, and belong to the thirteenth or fourteenth century-to tell what was the nature of the pure Teutonic Scotch, spoken 1000 or even 500 years before, when the Normans had not been heard of? That is the problem of VOL. LII. NO. CCCXXI. which Dr Jamieson somewhat boldly attempts the solution, and which we humbly think would require the nice analysis and unerring sagacity of a philological Cuvier, capable of breathing life into dead bones, and of constructing a living creature out of a toe or a tooth. Let us suppose that the whole body of Anglo-Saxon literature and history had perished, and that we possessed in English nothing earlier than Robert de Brunne and Chaucer. In such a case it would require no small skill to reanimate the Teutonic portion of our language, and refer it to the old Saxon, which, in that view, would be its nearest known relative, and we might certainly expect a good many schismatics, who would found on the large admixture of Danish peculiarities which it presents, as clearly indicating its Scandinavian origin. The case supposed would resemble the actual state of the question regarding the Scottish language, as to which, in the absence of all authentic history, and of all original monuments, our conjectures, in so far as they diverge from the plain and simple appearances of things, must be in the highest degree hazardous and precipitate. In addition to the mere absence of earlier monuments or information, we have this material circumstance to disturb our speculations; that when the Scottish language does appear in a written form, it resembles the language of England so closely, that no two forms of speech can be pointed out that have so strong a similarity. It is in the face of this clear and near resemblance that Dr Jamieson and his followers would seek to persuade us that the Scottish tongue, of which we have no other or earlier monuments, was in its unknown original shape essentially different from that of the sister kingdom. It may be possible to make out this proposition; but candour must confess that it cannot be easy to do so, and that nothing but the strongest light thrown on the obscurity of previous ages, ought to persuade us that two things so strikingly alike in their visible manifestations were at one time distinguished by substantial diversities. The common arguments employed are wholly insufficient for the purpose. If it be said that Scotch is in some points widely different from Anglo-Saxon, why, so K The is English; yet we know that English is a product of Anglo-Saxon. vernacular Scotch may have at this day, and may have had from an early period, peculiarities for which the Auglo-Saxon or even the English will not account. But who shall tell us, in the absence of authentic records, by what influences and at what periods these peculiarities have been introduced, in the course of events and vicissitudes of many centuries? The question is not whether the Scottish and English dialects are literally identical, but whether they are diversified more than can be explained by casual and superficial causes; whether we have clear, unequivocal, and solid reasons for inferring that the Scotch language, if we could distinctly see it during the period in which it seems to be wrapped in total darkness, was radically different from its sister, and therefore radically different from itself in the only living shape in which it has been preserved. The change that made Scotch so like English, if it was not originally so, must have been very great, and the necessity of such an unexplained supposition, should induce us to be cautious in giving way to conjectures which in any view must be unsatisfactory. or If we adopt the general opinion, that the verses quoted by Wintown as having been composed on the death of Alexander III. have come to us in an authentic form, we must see in full force the tendency of the views above suggested. With the exception of one peculiar word, which is either French or Gaelic, these lines are pure English, and, if analyzed, can be correctly referred to genuine elements of an Anglo-Saxon and Norman character. They are worth inserting, to remind us of their true bearing and great importance: Quhen Alysander, oure kyng, wes dede, Of wyne and wax, of gamyn and gle. Looking at this relic as the earliest, or as a very early, specimen of the language, and as affording a fair sample of the stock, we are tempted to think that prejudice or presumption alone would seek in such a composition any reason or room for inferring a Scandinavian as opposed to an Anglian structure. The fact seems to be, that an over-anxiety to assert our national dignity has led our countrymen to maintain the original independence, not only of the two crowns in point of sovereignty, but of the two countries in point of community of blood: a feeling nearly the counterpart of that which makes some Americans of the present day indignant that their language should still be called English. It were enough for our reputation, we humbly think, that connected as the two nations were by the nearest consanguinity, the poorer and humbler of the two was able to maintain her ground in arts as well as in arms, and to contribute her fair contingent to the advancement and celebrity of their common language. If there be grounds for holding that, independently of any influx of AngloSaxons, there was a direct colonization of the eastern portion of Scotland from continental countries, it would still remain to be proved that such colonies were of Scandinavian and not of Germanic origin. We have no doubt that much of our laws and some part of our language have been derived from lower Germany; and we are certain that at least as many of our peculiarities may be referred to that source as to Scandinavian countries; though we must observe, at the same time, that the original identity of all the Teutonic tribes, makes it difficult often to tell from what section of them, in particular, any custom or expression has been derived. We cannot, we think, give a more characteristic specimen of Dr Jamieson's industry and candour, and at the same time of his mistaken prepossessions in this respect, than is supplied by the following articles in the Dictionary and Supplement under the word Steelbow : STEELBOW GOODS." Those goods on a farm which may not be carried off by a removing tenant, as being the property of the landlord, (S. see Supp.) "Till towards the beginning of this century, landlords, the better to enable their tenants to cultivate and sow their farms, frequently delivered to them, at their entry, corn, straw, cattle, or instruments of tillage, which got the name of steelbow goods, under condition that the like, in quantity and quality, should be re-delivered by the tenant at the expiration of the lease,' (Erskine's Instit. B. ii. T. 6, S 12.) "The stocking in Sanday, belonging to the proprietor, is called steelbow,' (P. Cross., Orkney Statist. Acc. vii. 472.) "This term, which appears to be very ancient, may be deduced from Teut. stell-en, Su. G. staell-a, to place, and Teut. bouw, a field, q. goods placed on a farm, or attached to it; or A. S. stael, Su. G. staell, locus and bo, supellex; q. the stocking of a place or farm. Bo is used in a very extensive sense, as denoting a farm: furniture of any kind, also cattle; from bo, bo-a, to prepare, to provide. This word, as still used in Orkney, is most probably of Scandinavian origin. It may be merely an inversion of Su. bo-staelle, a residence, domicilium. STEELBOW GOODS." I find, however, that this custom is referred to by Schilter, Gloss. vo. Stal, chalybs; stahline brieven, he says, are denominated from the matter which they respect, such as stahline vi he, or otherwise eisern vieh, (literally steel or iron cattle, S. fe or fee.) • Such a brief,' he adds, is a convention or bargain, by which he who receives a thing from another is bound to restore it, although it has perished by violent means." He cites a variety of writers on jurisprudence; but, in his usual manner, is indefinite and obscure. "Wachter is more distinct, and throws considerable light on the subject, by what he advances on the German term eisern, ferreus. From him we learn that this word, in a forensic sense, means inviolable. An eisern brief, he says, signifies 'letters of prorogation, which give security to a debtor that he shall not be incarcerated for five years, or be compelled to payment by his creditors; eisern vieh, animals substituted in place of those that have died, if a tenant changes his place of residence. The reason of the phraseology is, that the animals belonging to farms are viewed as immortal, and die to the tenant, not to the proprietor who placed them there. All from the nature of iron, which, while by its hardness it resists the touch and corruption, is a symbol of things inviolable and immortal. Hence the same figure was used by the Latins. Ferrea jura, i.e. perpetual and inviolable rights,' (Virgil, Georg. ii. 501.) Thus, the metaphorical phrase would literally signify unperishable goods.' One mode of contract, to be found in the Code Napoleon, seems to resemble the steelbow. What is called the Cheptel de Fer, or Cheptel of iron, is that by which the proprietor of a farm lets it on condition that, at the expiration of the lease, the farmer shall leave cattle of an equal value to those which he has received.' (Pinkerton's Recollections of Paris, ii. 222-3.) "The French term cheptel is from L. B. capitale, denoting a stock of cattle; for the word cattle is traced to this. (Vide Du Cange.) This seems to be an ancient custom, perhaps introduced into France by the Normans. The term fer might seem a translation of the first syllable in steelbow. I mention this fact, as it may be a clue to some other writer, more conversant with law, for discovering, by analogy, the origin of the designation. No light can be borrowed from Du Cange. From the termination, it is most probable that the word has been imported from Denmark, through the Shetland or Orkney islands; for we find a word of similar formation, though different in signification, still used in Denmark. This is sterboe (Wolff,) or rather stervboe, as given by Baden; rendered by the former, the estate after a dead man,' by the latter, hæreditas, bona relicta. It is evidently from sterv-e to die, and boe, the same with Su. G. bo, supellex, Isl. bu, res familiaris, pecora, &c. Thus stael-bu may be viewed as strictly analogous to German stahline vieh. The same law had extended to Denmark, and even to Iceland. For Haldorson renders Isl. kugilldi, pecudes ferreæ, and also by Dan. iernfae, i.e. iron cattle." We see here, in the first place, the inference drawn, that the word steelbow" is most probably of Scandinavian origin," and " may be merely an inversion of the Swedish bo-staelle, a residence, domicilium." This very hasty and unsatisfactory conjecture is afterwards abandoned, on its being discovered from Schilter that the Germans use both stahlin and eisern, (of steel and of iron,) as applicable to cattle in this very sense of perpetuity. But still the doctor," from the termination,” thinks it "most probable that the word has been imported from Denmark, through the Shetland or Orkney islands." The termination is certainly a very inadequate ground for this conclusion, as the word bow, German bau, ackerbau, &c., is diffused among all the Teutonic nations in the sense of occupation, cultivation, tenancy, and their accessories. A bowman or bower is a common term for a tenant or husbandman in most Teutonic countries. We are told by Mr Cay, in his work on Registration law, that there is in several counties in Scotland a particu lar kind of location called a " Bowing of Cows." The arrangement is, that the lessor is owner of the stock of cows, and lets them out with the privilege of grazing to the bower for a slump annual sum. Such transactions are fully discussed in Pothier's Treatise "Des Cheptels," particularly under the article" Du Cheptel de fer." The contract of steelbow was too widely spread over the continent, to admit of the supposition that we derived it from Denmark through the Orkney islands; and if the thing might have been got from Germany, with which, in the middle ages, we must have had at least as much intercourse as with Denmark, we may conclude that the word also came from the same quarter, especially as the precise reference to steel is literally to be found in the German phraseology. The doctor would have seen the nature and prevalence of this custom well explained in the following passage of Besoldus, quoted in Dirleton :-" Pecora dantur in socidam cum animalium casus in pastorem transfertur; qua conventione pecora ferrea effici et appellari solent; quod fit in multis provinciis Germaniæ; ubi cum fundo certus numerus ovium et vaccarum in feudum dari solet, ita ut vasallus, feudo finito, eundem numerum supplere et restituere teneatur." The idea and expression, however, are not limited to the case of tenancy. It was common for feudal superiors, municipalities, and others, all over Germany, to engage, for the convenience of the neighbourhood, to keep up a certain number of breeding or domestic cattle, which got the name of eisernes, stahlernes, ewiges, vieh. A stehelin rint or steel bull seems to have been a common subject of stipulation. We believe that the laws and social customs of Scotland, if carefully investigated from the time when they can first be authentically traced, would show that we have derived much more from Northern Germany, including Friesland and Flanders, which were remarkable for early civilization and commercial enterprize, than the prevalence of an erroneous theory has as yet allowed us to discover. We think that the objections to the Scandinavian theory of our origin are not exhausted by what we have now said: but that a close examination of the structure of the Scottish language demonstrates both negatively that it is not Scandinavian, and positively that it is Saxon or Germanic, being substantially in fact what it appears to be a dialect of English, and a daughter of that Anglo-Saxon language which assumed its most polished form in the classical writers of SaxonEngland, but of which there were indefinite varieties in the different portions of the island over which it was diffused. The Teutonic languages bear unequivocal marks of having at some remote period possessed an uniform or identical character, of which the most authentic representation appears to have been retained in the Gothic of Ulphilas. But long before the date of the Gothic Scriptures, and long, probably, before the Christian era, these languages had mutually diverged from their common centre, and assumed diversities of character which widely and palpably separated them from each other. The earliest Scandinavian writings that remain are distinguished by peculiarities of language, as remote from Gothic and Saxon as French is from Italian and Spanish, and those peculiarities are the most conspicuous in the most ancient forms of Scandinavian-the mythological poems of the Edda, or the heroic songs of the early Northmen. Stories are loosely told of the early Saxons and Scandinavians being mutually intelligible when speaking their native tongues; but these are deserving of only a very qualified belief. Individual words may have been interchanged and understood; but we must impeach altogether the authenticity of our best Teutonic monuments before we can suppose that Cædmon would ever have been understood by an audience of Danes, or the Voluspa by one of Anglo-Saxons. In process of time, indeed, a certain degree of assimilation was produced. Danish peculiarities were partially engrafted on the Saxon stock, or, more frequently still, a compromise was made between the extreme points, and a sort of Lingua Franca may have been introduced, which might be intelligible to both nations. It must be observed, however, that the change thus produced was not all on one side. The Scandinavian languages were themselves materially affected by the mutual intercourse that took place. Ihre expressly on this subject acknowledges the obligations under which his native language lay towards her elder sister, the Anglo-Saxon, as the great instrument of her civilization and conversion to Christianity; and Rask, a still higher authority, places the question beyond a doubt. He observes that the Anglo-Saxon, though widely different from Icelandic, has had great influence on the more modern northern tongues. "It was the frequent expeditions of the Scandinavian nations into England which, next to the introduction of Christianity, gave the first blow to the ancient language in the kingdoms of the North. The Danes continued their course of wars and victories the longest, and most steadfastly; their language has consequently undergone the greatest change; and from Canute the Great's conquest of England, we may date the decline of the Icelandic in Denmark. The court was now often in England; the army lay there a considerable length of time, and all laws, and public acts relating to England, were issued in Anglo-Saxon; while our own Scandinavian forefathers had, at the time, neither grammar nor dictionary, nor did they make their language an object of learned application. Every barbarism was therefore but too easily propagated. Intercourse with those Danes and Norwegians, who were previously settled in Northumberland and other provinces, and had formed for themselves a mixed dialect, opened the way to this corruption. Canute made himself master also of Norway; and, although that kingdom was soon lost again, there was a great mutual intercourse among the northern kingdoms, and with England. Thus the Anglo-Saxon became as it were a secondary source to these tongues, in their later state." Misled by a mere name, Dr Jamieson seems to have seen in the ancient Norse, a form of speech more allied to the proper Gothic than any Saxon tongue; and indeed, by a strange mistake, the Suio-Gothic or Swedish, a valuable and important dialect, but of which we believe there are no authentic monuments prior to the 13th or 14th century, is frequently referred to in his dictionary as the most ancient and authentic of all the Teutonic languages. These assumptions are founded on delusion. Though the names of Gothic and Gothland are geographically connected with Sweden, the Swedish and Scandinavian languages have no peculiar connexion with the the ancient Gothic, which is a Low Germanic dialect, and to which, first the old Saxon of Germany, and next, the Anglo-Saxon, are the most nearly allied of all the ancient Teutonic idioms. By connecting us with Scandinavia, therefore, Dr Jamieson was not truly bringing us nearer the fountain-head, but carrying us further off from it. A comparative examination of some of the most prominent peculiarities of structure in the Scandinavian and Saxon dialogue, will help to refute Dr Jamieson's theory. 1. One of the most striking characteristics of the Scandinavian languages is their sparing use, and sometimes their absolute rejection of the guttural aspirate, so conspicuous in the rest of the Teutonic family. In particular, where the aspirate should occur in the middle of a syllable before the letter t, it is uniformly absorbed in Scandinavian words, and assimilated to the following consonant. Compare in this respect the following cognate words in the Scandinavian and other dialects: Nahts, Goth. nox, niht, A.S. :— Natt, Icel. natt, Swed. nat Dan. [Compare the Italian notte, &c.] Dauhtar, Goth. filia, dohtor, A.S.:~ Dottir, Icel. dotter, Swed. datter, Dan. Ahtau, Goth. octo, eahta, A.S. :Atta, Icel. atta, Swed. otte, Dan. Mahta, Goth. potui, mihte, A.S:— Mátti, Icel. matte, Swed. matte, Dan. Raihts, Goth. rectus, riht, A.S. :Réttr, Icel. rat, Swed. ret, Dan. Bairhts, Goth. lucidus, beorht, A. S.:-Biartr, Icel. Waihts, Goth. res, wiht, A.S. :Vétt, vætt, Icel. It is impossible not to be struck with the peculiarity here pointed out, and which is not accidental but systematic. But when we ask whether the Teutonic Scotch belongs to the Scandinavian family which thus banished the guttural, or to the AngloSaxon branch which retained it, we shall not pause long for a reply. It is notorious that one of the strongest peculiarities of our vernacular tongue is its free use of the guttural aspirate. The words nicht, dochter, aicht, micht, richt, bricht, wicht, are framed on the very opposite system from the Scandinavian. In speaking of the Swedish interjection ach, but which is pronounced and sometimes written |