most pleasing of our provincial forms of speech, especially as spoken in the North and East Ridings of Yorkshire. The Durham pronunciation, though soft, is monotonous and drawling; and that of Northumberland is disfigured by the burr and an exagge rated Scotch accent.

The resemblance between this dialect and the lowland Scotch will strike every one who compares Mr. Brockett's glossary with Dr. Jamieson's dictionary, or Minot's poems with Barbour's Bruce. In fact, it is still a matter of debate among our literary antiquaries, whether some of our metrical romances — Sir Tristrem,' for example-were written to the north or the south of the Tweed. In our opinion, both may be practically considered as forming one and the same dialect. The vocabularies, it is true, are not perfectly identical, many words being used in Scotland which are unknown in England, and vice versû; but the verbal forms, the grammatical constructions, and all other distinguishing characteristics are the same in both countries. And now questions arise on which much Christian ink has been shed, and no small acrimony displayed: Where was this dialect first manufactured, and out of what materials?-Was it imported into Scotland from England, or into England from Scotland, or did it grow up in both countries simultaneously?

We thought, on concluding many years back an examination of the points of history and geography involved in the above questions, that they had all been set at rest long ago by Usher and Lloyd; and notwithstanding the arguments adduced by Dr. Jamieson-the present champion of the Pinkertonian hypothesis -we think so still. On one side we have the positive testimony of contemporary authors on the other, the dreams of Pinkerton, and the assertions of Dempster and Hector Boethius: men who thought it the duty of an historian-like that of au ambassador-to tell lies for the good of his country. We could easily show that the cardinal argument for the Scandinavian origin of the Picts-the very corner-stone of Dr. Jamieson's theory is a three-fold begging of the question; but we consider it superfluous to discuss a point, which, after all, we do not feel concerned to prove or disprove.* Whatever might be the race or language of the Picts, it is difficult to deduce the origin of the Scoto-Northumbrian dialect from them-for this weighty reason, that two of the three millions who speak it inhabit districts where

We the more willingly waive this subject at present, because we know that a work in which it is largely discussed will shortly issue from the press. We allude to Mr. William Skene's Essay on the Highlanders of Scotland, which obtained the Highland Society of London's gold medal for 1835-but which the author is understood to be bringing before the public at large in a much extended form.

that

that people never had a permanent settlement during any known period of their history. We first find them mentioned at the end of the third century, in conjunction with the Irish. Their precise abode is not specified, but we know that they did not occupy either Lothian or Galloway during the latter part of the fourth century. In the time of Valentinian, the ancient frontier of Antoninus was restored by the establishment of the new province of Valentia, having the Clyde and the Forth for its northern boundary. After the usurpation of Maximus, the barbarians beyond the frontier made repeated irruptions, which were successively repelled, till the final departure of the Roman forces, in the time of Honorius, left the northern part of the province at their mercy for several years. We have tolerably express testimony as to the proper territory of the Picts at this period. Gildas, speaking of their destructive invasion when the Roman forces were withdrawn, describes them as a transmarine nation from the north-words which Dr. Jamieson seizes upon in confirmation of his theory of their Scandinavian origin. Bede, however, who had evidently this passage of Gildas before him, will inform us in what sense his expressions are to be understood,-' We call these people (the Scots and Picts) transmarine—not because they were situated out of Britain, but because they were separated from the territory of the Britons by the intervention of two arms of the sea, of considerable length and breadth; one of which penetrates the land of Britain on the side of the eastern sea, the other of the western.' Thus, according to the idea of Bede, who knew a great deal more about the Picts than we do-' transmarine from the north'- means neither more nor less than from the other side of the Friths of Forth and Clyde. As Dr. Jamieson lays great stress on Bede's account of the Scythian origin of this people, he cannot decently reject his testimony in the present instance. -Testem quem quis inducit pro se-tenetur recipere contrà se.' . As we are not writing the history of those ages, we shall content ourselves with observing that the Britons, after enduring the depredations of the barbarians for several years, at last derived courage from despair, and drove them back to their own territories. Gildas expressly states that, in his time, they were seated in the extremest parts of the island, occasionally emerging from thence for purposes of plunder and devastation;' and the whole tenor of Bede's history plainly shows that he knew of no* Pictish community

Dr. Lingard-whose general perspicacity in questions of this sort we cheerfully acknowledge-is evidently mistaken in placing Candida Casa (or Whitherne in Galloway) in the Pictish territory, on the strength of its being the cathedral of St. Ninian, the apostle of the southern Picts. This, we think, will appear from the following considerations:-1. In the time of Ninian, who died a. p. 432, the province

of

community to the south of the friths, from the arrival of the Saxons to his own time. Any one who bestows a moderate degree of attention on the early history of the island, will perceive that the conquests of Ida and his immediate successors in Bernicia were not made over Picts, but Britons of Cymric race; and that in the time of Oswy and Ecgfrid, the Saxons had not only military possession of a considerable tract of Pictish territory to the north of the Forth, but had even made some progress in colonizing it. It is true that the battle of Drumnechtan, A. D. 685, re-established the independence of the Picts; but it is equally certain that they made no permanent conquest in the Northumbrian territory after that period. This is decisively proved by the fact, that, at the time Bede wrote his history, A. D. 731, Abercorn, in Linlithgowshire, was within the Saxon limits, being described by him as situated in the Anglian territory, but adjoining the frith which separates the land of the Angles from that of the Picts.' During the next 120 years, we find them engaged in a series of sanguinary conflicts with the western Britons, the Scots, and the Danes; and before A. D. S50, they ceased to exist as an independent nation. We leave our readers to judge how probable it is that the Picts should plant a language, which it has never been proved that they spoke, in a district of which they never, as far as we know, had the civil administration for ten consecutive years.

We shall now bring an argument or two on the other side of the question, and leave our readers to judge which way the evidence seems to preponderate.

Let us first consult the Highlanders, who are universally allowed to be great genealogists, and to have excellent traditional memories.

6

of Valentia was, at least nominally, in the possession of the Romans, or Romanized Britons. 2. In the passage of Bede referred to by Dr. Lingard, Ninian is said to have erected his church at Candida Casa of stone, insolito Brittonibus more.' 3. In a preceding passage (Eccl. Hist, 1. i., c. 1.), Bede expressly describes the frith of Clyde as the boundary between the Britons and the Picts, sinus maris permaximus, qui antiquitus gentem Britonum a Pictis secernebat.' Antiquitus secernebat' does not mean that the Picts afterwards gained a settlement to the southward, but refers to the subsequent occupation of Argyle by the Scots. 4. The population of Strath Clyde to the north, and of Cumberland to the south, was undoubtedly British. 5. The writer of Ninian's life expressly says, that after ordaining bishops and priests among his Pictish converts, and putting all things in order, ad Ecclesiam suam est regressus'—i. e. to his British cathedral at Candida Casa. In another instance, Dr. Lingard goes still more widely astray (vol. i., p. 278), when he places the Badecan wyllan of the Saxon chronicle in Lothian. It is undoubtedly-as Gibson supposes -Bakewell, called Bathequell as late as the 13th century; and Peacland, where the chronicler places it, is not the land of the Picts, but the Peak in Derbyshire. The reference to Camden is nothing to the purpose. He had no better authority for asserting that Lothian was called Pictland, than Hector Boethius-who contrived to extract the name out of the Pentland hills-as the Portuguese find Ulysses in Lisbon.

They

They were well acquainted with the Scandinavians, whom they, as well as the Irish and the Welsh, uniformly call Lochlinneach; and have also sundry traditions respecting the Cruithneach or Picts. But do they ever call the Lowland Scots, or their language, by either of those appellations? No such thing! they regularly apply to both the term Sassgunach* or Sassenach-the very word which they, as well as the Irish, Manks, Armoricans, and Welsh, also constantly employ to denote English and Englishmen. If Dr. Jamieson will clearly and satisfactorily explain how a people and tongue not Saxon came to be so styled by their Gaelic neighbours, we will almost promise to believe in his Pictish etymologies.

Our next appeal shall be to the language itself. The general drift of Dr. Jamieson's reasoning is, that the Picts were a Scandinavian people, speaking a language identical, or nearly so, with Icelandic. If this really were the case, we say with confidence that the Lowland Scotch cannot be its lineal descendant, for this plain reason, that it is not, as to its structure and basis, a Scandinavian dialect. A tongue of Norse extraction is distinguished from a German, Belgic, or Saxon one by several broadly marked and unequivocal peculiarities. In all the latter the definite article is a distinct prepositive term:-e. g., Germ., der könig; Ang.-Sax., se cyning; Eng., the king. In the Scandinavian dialects it is uniformly postpositive and coalescing with its substantive, analogous to the status emphaticus of the Aramean languages: e. g.-Icelandic, konung, king-konunginn, the king; Danish, mand, man -manden, the man. In Icelandic and its descendants there is a simple passive voice-ek elska, I love; ek elskast, I am loved: in all the German and Saxon languages the passive is formed by the perfect participle and the verb substantive, like the German ich werde geliebet. The above, as well as many peculiarities in the substance and form of the pronouns and numerals, are as conspicuous in Danish and Swedish, after five centuries of adulteration with Low German, as in the most ancient Icelandic monuments; and it is impossible for a person, even slightly acquainted with their structure, to read two consecutive sentences in one of those three languages, or any of their subordinate dialects, without perceiving to what family they belong. In Lowland Scotch, on the contrary, we meet with nothing of the kind. There we find not the smallest vestiges of a postpositive article or a passive voice;

It may be objected they also call the Lowlanders, Dubh Gall-a name formerly given by the Irish to the Danes. This, however, is not a national appellation, but a term of contempt, denoting black strangers; also applied to Englishmen, but never to the Picts.

and

and the pronouns, numerals, and most of the particles, plainly belong to the Saxon family.

For the proof of those assertions we refer our readers to the grammars of Grimm and Rask; reserving to ourselves the privilege of saying a few words about Scottish particles. We shall preface our remarks with an extract from a work well known to Dr. Jamieson, in the hope that an argument founded on the principles there laid down will have some weight with him and his disciples.

The particles, or winged words, as they have been denominated, are preferred in proof of the affinity between Greek and Gothic,* for several reasons. These are generally of the highest antiquity, most of them having received their established form and acceptation in ages prior to that of history. They are also more permanent than most other terms; being constantly in use, entering into the composition of many other words; constituting an essential part of every regular language, and determining the meaning of every phrase that is employed to express our thoughts. They are also least likely to be introduced into another language; because, from the various and nice shades of signification which they assume, they are far more unintelligible to foreigners than the mere names of things or of actions; and although the latter, from vicinity or occasional intercourse, are frequently adopted, this is rarely the case as to the particles; because the adoption of them would produce an important change in the very structure of a language which has been previously formed.'-Jamieson, Hermes Scythicus, p. 2.

All this is very excellent, and furnishes an infallible criterion for tracing the affinities of tongues. Whoever takes the trouble to compare the particles-especially the simple prepositions and conjunctions-in Icelandic and Anglo-Saxon-will find sufficient resemblance to prove that they are kindred tongues; and sufficient dissimilarity to show that they do not belong to the same division of the great Germanic family. Many particles in the two languages are identical, or nearly so, in sound and meaning-many are of cognate origin, but differ materially in form-and many others have nothing in common; proving clearly that the two tribes who spoke those languages must have been long and widely separated after branching off from the parent stock. The case is equally clear with respect to the derivative languages. English particles show a direct descent from Anglo-Saxon; while those of Denmark and Sweden are, with the exception of a few Lower Saxon terms, as unequivocally from the Icelandic. Every

Our

It seems rather an extraordinary instance of nyctalopia to see the affinity between Greek and Gothic, and not to see that between Lowland Scotch and AngloSaxon.

smatterer