For it is

people to whom they gave laws, as receiving their language from them. well known that, although a variety of Gothic words are retained in the Italian, by far the greatest proportion is Roman.

Can it be supposed, then, without directly contradicting universal experience, that a few Saxons, who were not conquerors but refugees, could give language to the nation that afforded them protection? Has any change similar to this taken place among the Welsh, who are viewed as the same people with the Picts, notwithstanding their intercourse with the English during several centuries, since the cessation of national hostilities? Have the Celts of Ireland renounced their language in compliment to the English of the Pale, as they have been called, who, in proportion, were certainly far more numerous than the Saxons belonging to the court of Canmore? Few nations have been more tenacious of the customs and language of their ancestors than the Celtic inhabitants of Scotland. We know how little progress has been made for more than half a century past in diffusing the English tongue through the Highlands; although not only the arm of power has been employed to dissolve the feudal attachments, but the aid of learning and religion has been called in. The young are indeed taught to read English, but often they read without understanding, and still prefer speaking Gaelic.

Had the Saxon found its way into Scotland in the manner supposed, it would necessarily have been superinduced on the Gaelic. This has always been the case, where one language prevailed over another, unless the people who spoke the original language were either completely or nearly exterminated. Thus was the Norman gradually incorporated with the Saxon, as the Frankish had been with the Latinized Celtic of France. But the number of Gaelic words to be found in what is called the Broad Scots, bears a very small proportion to the body of the language.

It is well known, that in many places on the borders of the Highlands, where, according to the hypothesis controverted, the one language should appear as it were melting into the other, they are kept totally distinct. This is particularly remarked in the account of the parish of Dowally in Perthshire. "It is a curious fact, that the hills of King's Seat and Craigy Barns, which form the lower boundary of Dowally, have been for centuries the separating barrier of these languages. In the first house below them, the English is, and has been spoken; and the Gaelic, in the first house (not above a mile distant) above them." Statist. Acc., xx. 490. In some instances a rivulet forms as effectual a boundary in this respect, as if an ocean intervened.

Malcolm Canmore, according to the testimony of Simeon of Durham and Brompton, in his incursions into England, carried so many captives with him, that they were afterwards seen not only in every village, but in every house. Had this been literally the case, his army must have borne some resemblance to that of Xerxes. But, although this had been literally the case, would captives or slaves overpower the language of their masters? Is it not admitted, at any rate, that after the

death of Malcolm they "were driven away by the usual enmity of the Gaelic people;" that "the Celtic inhabitants would not submit to" the authority of Duncan, till he had agreed never again to introduce Normans or English into their country; that "this jealousy of strangers continued under Donal Bane;" and that it "occasioned insurrections under William the Lyon?" Caled., p. 498. It is evident that some Saxon Barons, with their followers, received lands in Scotland during some of the succeeding reigns. But, a few individuals could not produce greater effects in Scotland, than all the power of the Norman Barons in England. It seems also undeniable, that the foreigners of distinction who settled in Scotland, particularly in the reign of David I., were mostly Normans, and therefore could not introduce the Saxon. According to Lesley, Hist. Scot., Lib. vi., p. 201, this was the case even in the time of Canmore.

It is very questionable, if, even during the reign of Edward the Confessor, French was not the language principally spoken at court. It has been asserted, indeed, that during this reign "the Anglo-Saxon had ceased to be cultivated." V. Ellis's Spec., i. 39. Camden has said that Edward the Confessor "resided long in France, and is charged by historians of his time to have returned from thence wholly Frenchified." Remains, p. 210.

It has been supposed that this unparalleled change was partly owing to occasional intercourse with the northern counties of England, which were subjected to the Scottish crown. But this intercourse was by far too limited to have any influence in completely changing a language. It would be more natural to invert the idea and to suppose that the inhabitants of these countries had received the peculiar terms, which they retain in common with the vulgar of Scotland, from the residence of the Scots among them, while the heir-apparent of our crown was Prince of Cumberland.

It is certain that Domesday-book, a work compiled by order of William the Conqueror, from an actual survey of the whole of England, does not include any of the counties lying to the North of the Humber; which is a proof that, in that age; these counties were considered as belonging to Scotland.

Hardyng acknowledges that all the country to the North of the Humber once pertained to Scotland. "He made the bye ways throughout Britain, and he founded the archflamynes, at London one for Logres, another at Yorke for Albanye, that nowe is Scotlande; for that time from Humber north that was that tyme Scotland; and the thyrd at Carleon in Wales, for al Wales." Chron. Rubr. of c. 33, Fol. 29, a.

This indeed refers to a period long prior to the Christian era; and the account is evidently fabulous. But I mention it, because it is here admitted by the Chronicler, hostile as he was to the independence of Scotland, as a circumstance which could not be denied, that in former times the country to the North of the Humber. was viewed as a part of Scotland.

But there is still a more natural account of the great similarity of language between Scotland and the North of England. To me it appears that Mr. Pinkerton has proved, from undoubted testimony, that the Picts had possession of the North of England for more than a century before Ida founded the kingdom of Bernicia; and that, although for a time they were subjected to the power of the Angles, they afterwards regained their authority in this quarter. V. Enquiry, I. 321-335.

It may be viewed as a confirmation of this account, that, in the North of England, th is often changed into d. "In the N.,” "In the N.," says Lambe,- "th is frequently changed into d; as, for father, we say fader; for girth, gird; for Rothbury, a town in Northumberland, Rodbury; for Lothian, Loudon." Notes to the Battle of Floddon, p. 80.

This is a distinguishing characteristic of the dialect of Angus, which was undoubtedly a part of the Pictish territory. For baith, both, they still say baid; for skaith, injury, skaid; for maith, a maggot, maid, &c. Now, it is well known that this is a peculiarity of the ancient Scandinavian. The Icelanders, at this day, pronounce the th as if it were d; they often, indeed, write d, where th occurs in A.-S. and in the German dialects.

It has also been supposed that the Flemings, a considerable number of whom occasionally settled in Scotland, contributed to the change of language. But, from all the evidence that we have of a Flemish colonization, the effect is evidently by far too great for the cause. Whatever influence, as tradesmen, they might be supposed to have in towns, it must have been very inconsiderable in the interior parts of the country. As it is said that " Aberdeenshire was particularly distinguished in early times for considerable colonies of Flemings," it has been inferred that "we may thus perceive the true source to which may be traced up the Teutonic dialect of Aberdeenshire, that is even now called the Broad Buchan.” Caled., p. 603, 604. But it will appear from the following Dictionary, that many of these words are not Teutonic, but Scandinavian. At any rate, the fact is undeniable, that many of the terms common in S., and especially in the North, are not to be found in any Anglo-Saxon, Flemish, or Teutonic Lexicon, but occur in those of Iceland, Sweden, or Denmark. Were there only a few of this description, it might be supposed that they had found their way into our language by commercial intercourse, or by some straggling settlers. But their number is such, that they cannot be ascribed to any adventitious cause.

Here I might refer the reader to the following words, under one letter only: Bar, Bargane, v. and s., Barrat, Bathe, Bauchle, Beik, Beild, v. and s., Beirth, Bene, a., Beugh, Bike, Bilbie, Billie, Bismar, Blait, Blout, Bludder, Boden, Boldin, Boo, Boun, Brachen, Brade, v. and s., Brag, Braith, Brash, Break, v., Bree, s. 2, Brent, a., Breth, Brim, Broche, Brod, v. and s., Brogue, Broukit, Buller, v. and s., Burde. I might also refer to Dordermeat, Emmis, Gleg, Ithand, (eident), Stanners, and to a thousand of the same description.

d

Here I might also mention the remarkable analogies of idea, displayed in very singular figures or modes of expression, common to our language with those of the North of Europe, even where the words themselves are radically different. Many of these occur in this work, which cannot reasonably be considered as merely casual, or as proceeding from any intercourse in later ages; but, in connexion with other evidence, may well be viewed as indications of national affinity. I may refer to the articles, LOUN's PIECE, and POCKSHAKINGS, as examples of this coincidence.

One thing very remarkable is, that, among the vulgar, the names of herbs in the North of S. are either the same with those still used in Sweden and other northern countries, or nearly allied. The same observation applies, pretty generally through S., to the names of quadrupeds, of birds, of insects, and of fishes.

The circumstance of the Scottish language bearing so striking a resemblance to the English in its form, which has been undoubtedly borrowed from the French, and particularly in its becoming indeclinable, has been urged as a powerful proof that we borrowed our language from our southern neighbours. But Mr. Ellis has manifested his judgment, not less than his candour, in the solution of this apparent difficulty. He shews that, "at the era assigned for the introduction of A.-Saxon into Scotland, as indeed it had not been previously mingled with Norman, although it had, the Saxon refugees would never have wished to introduce into that country which afforded them an asylum, a language which they must have considered as the badge of their slavery." He also shews that, as the "influx of French words did not begin to produce a sensible change in the language of England till the beginning, or perhaps the middle, of the thirteenth century, its importation into Scotland ought to be capable of being distinctly traced; and that, as the improvements of the common language would pass by slow gradations from the original into the provincial idiom, the composition of the English bards would be clearly distinguished by superiority of elegance." He denies, however, that this is the case, quoting the elegiac sonnet on the death of Alexander III., as superior to any English composition of that early period.

Upon the whole, he is disposed to conclude, that "our language was separately formed in the two countries, and that it has owed its identity to its being constructed of similar materials, by similar gradations, and by nations in the same state of society." He thinks that the Scots borrowed the French idioms and phrases, like the English, from the Norman Romance, "the most widely diffused and most cultivated language, excepting the Italian, of civilised Europe." He also ascribes a considerable influence to the early and close union between the French and Scots, justly observing, that any improvements borrowed from the former would not be retarded in Scotland, as they were in England, by a different language being spoken in the country from that which was spoken at court; because "the dialect of the Scottish kings was the same with that of their subjects." Spec. I. 226-233.

As it is evident that the language could not have been imported into Scotland by the Saxon refugees with its French idioms, it is equally clear that these were not borrowed from the English. For, in this case, the language of Scotland must, in its improvements, still have been at least a century behind that of England. Although this had been verified by fact, it would scarcely have been credible that our fathers had been indebted to the English for these improvements. The two nations were generally in a state of hostility; and it is never during war that nations borrow from each other refinements in language, unless a few military terms can be viewed in this light. Too few of our early writers resided long enough in England, to have made any material change on the language of their country when they returned. Besides, we have a great variety of French terms and idioms, that have been early introduced into our language, which do not seem to have been ever known in England.

It

Here, also, a circumstance ought to be called into account, which seems to have been hitherto overlooked on this subject. Many families are mentioned by our historians as having come out of France and settled in Scotland, at different periods. appears, indeed, that many families of French or Norman extraction had come into Scotland during the reign of Malcolm Canmore. Sub haec etiam tempora (says Lesley), Freser, Sanchir, Monteth, Montgomery, Campbell, Brise, Betoun, Tailyefer, Bothuell, ingens denique nobilium numerus, ex Gallia venit.-De Reb. Scot., Lib. vi. p. 201. It is natural to suppose that these would introduce many French terms and idioms; and, as Mr. Ellis observes, the same language having been spoken at the court and in the country, there would be no resistance to them. Here, perhaps, it may be proper to take notice of another objection to the derivation of our language from Scandinavia. This is its great affinity to the A.-Saxon. But this is of no weight. For, although it appears that a variety of terms were used in the Scandinavian dialects, which had not passed into the A.Saxon and other Germ. dialects, the structure of both was so much the same, that ancient writers speak of them as one language in the time of Ethelred the son of Edgar. Illa aetate eadem fuit lingua Anglica, Norwegica et Danica; mutatio autem facta est, occupata per Wilhelmum Nothum Anglia. Gunnlaug. Sag. p. 87. V. Peringskiold, Moniment, Upsal., p. 182. Seren. De Vet. Sueo-Goth. cum Anglis Usu., pp. 14, 15.

Some have affected to view the celebrated Odin as a fabulous character. The more intelligent northern writers, indeed, acknowledge that he, to whom great antiquity is ascribed, and who was worshipped as a god, must be viewed in this light. Yet they admit the existence of a later Odin, who led the Scandinavians towards the shores of the Baltic. While it is a presumption in favour of the existence of such a person, it is a further proof that, in an early age, the Saxons and Scandinavians were viewed as the same people; that both Bede and the northern writers trace the lineage of Hengist and Horsa, the chiefs who conquered Englaud, to Odin. Peringskiold has given the genealogy of Hengist as the twelfth