Broadly speaking : Scots language and British imperialism

BROADLY SPEAKING: SCOTS LANGUAGE AND BRITISH

IMPERIALISM

Sean Murphy

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the

University of St Andrews

2017

Full metadata for this item is available in

St Andrews Research Repository at:

http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/11047

This item is protected by original copyright

http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/

http://hdl.handle.net/10023/11047

SeanMurphy,‘BroadlySpeaking.

Scotslanguageand

Britishimperialism.’

Abstract

Thisthesisoffersathree-prongedperspectiveonthehistoricalinterconnections

betweenLowlandScotslanguage(s)andBritishimperialism.Throughanalysesofthe

manifestationofScotslinguisticvarietiesoutwithScotlandduringthenineteenth

century,alongsideScottishconcernsformaintainingthesocio-linguistic“propriety”

andliterary“standards”of“English,”thisdiscussionarguesthatcertainelements

withinLowlandlanguagewereemployedinprojectingasentimental-yetcelebratory

conceptionofScottishimperialprestige.

PartIdirectlyengageswithnineteenth-century“diasporic”articulationsofLowland

Scotsforms,focusingonatriumphal,ceremonialvocalisationofScottishshibboleths,

termed“verbaltartanry.”Muchlikephysicalemblemsofnineteenth-centuryScottish

iconography,itissuggestedthataverbaltartanryservedtoaccentuateScots

distinctionwithinabroaderBritishframework,tiedtoawiderimperialsuperiorism.

PartsIIandIII looktotheoriginsofthisverbaltartanry.

PartII turnsbacktomideighteenth-centuryScottishlinguisticconcerns,suggesting

theemergenceofaproto-typicalverbaltartanrythroughearlieranxietiestoascertain

“correct”English“standards,”andtheparalleldrivetoperceive,prohibit,and

prescribeScottishlinguisticusage.Itisarguedthatlatereighteenth-centuryScottish

philologicalprioritiesfortherootsand“purity”ofLowlandScotsforms–linkedto

“ancient”literatureand“racially”-loadedoriginmyths–ledtoanencouraged

“uncovering”ofhallowedlinguistictraits.Thisrenegotiatedreverenceforcertain

Lowlandformswasbolsteredbycontemporary“diasporic”imaginings–envisioning,

indeedpre-emptingthesignificanceofScotsmigrantsinthesentimentalpreservation

ofaseemingly-threatenedlinguisticdistinction.

PartIII looksbeyondScotlandintheearlydecadesofthenineteenthcentury.Through

aconsiderationofthemarkedlydifferentcolonialand“post-colonial”contextsof

BritishIndiaandtheearlyAmericanRepublic,attitudestowardscertain,distinctive

Lowlandforms,togetherwithScots’assertionsofEnglishlinguistic“standards,”

demonstrateaScottishsocio-culturalalignmentwithBritishimperialprestige.

FirBeth.

“[…]vivualacorsthihailgloab.Ah’vesprangmatrap.

Maleid

‘sinthespittleothilivinanatweenthisheetsothidictionars.”1

“Ifsalivafromthemouthofonewhoseheadisnotcorrectenters

one’smouth,one’sheadalsobecomesnotcorrect.”2

1AdaptedfromRobertCrawford,‘BurnsAyontAuldReekie,’RobertCrawfordandW.N.Herbert,Sharawaggi,(Edinburgh,1990),p.52.2GabrielOkara,TheVoice,(London,1970),p.27.

Contents

Part1.VerbalTartanryandtheScottishdiaspora.

“LaughableproofofthedangerofanybutScotsmenmeddlingwithourDoricdialect.”...........................................................................................1

“WheneverScotchmengather”:inventedtraditions,tartanry,and‘diaspora.’...7

Nationinconversation................................................................................19

“ADoricdialectoffame”:Burnsanddiaspora.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Kin-spicuousconsumption:diasporaandStAndrew’sDay... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

PartII.Eighteenth-centuryScotssub-versions.

“Solejudgesandlawgiversinlanguage”:Sub-versions‘Scotticisms,’andasettlingof‘standards.’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

“InaeLexicographicplot”:RevealingScotssub-versions...............................82

PartIII.Nineteenth-centuryScots‘abroad.’

“Imprestonvellum.”Transatlanticconcerns.................................................111

“Thoughfalsehistonesattimesmightbe.”ScotsinIndia.............................158

Conclusion.

“MorecuriousthanaHindumarriage(laughter).”........................................202

Bibliography............................................................................................210

Acknowledgements

ThisthesiswasmadepossiblethroughtheawardofaCarnegie-CaledonianPhD

Scholarshipin2013.Iwould,therefore,l iketoexpressmygratitudetotheCarnegie

TrustfortheUniversitiesofScotlandfortheirsupportandencouragementofmy

research.

Forhisguidance,trust,andinspirationalfaithintheproject,I wouldliketothankmy

supervisor,ProfessorColinKidd.IamalsogratefulfortheadviceofProfessorGerard

CarruthersoftheUniversityofGlasgow,andProfessorRobertMcCollMillarofthe

UniversityofAberdeen.

|P a g e

1

I.VerbaltartanryandtheScottishdiaspora.

Deartokenfraemynativelan’,

Thoubonniebuncho’heather;

I’llshelteryewi’tenderhan’

Fraeoorextremeso’weather;

I’llplantyeinapato’mool

Broughta’thewayfraeOban,

Anslochanyewi’watercool

An’clearasfraeLochLoman’!

An’whentheScotchman’sdaycomesroon–

SaintAndra’sdaysaecheerie–

I’lltak’yewi’metothetoon,

TaebuskmyoldGlengarry;

An’you’llseefacesthereyeken,

Whaspeiledwi’metheheather,–

BrawHielan’lassesan’theirmen

Shalldanceareelthegither!

JohnImrie,(Toronto,1898).3

(ToprovemysaulisScotsImaunbegin

Wi’what’sstilldeemedScotsandthefolkexpect,

Andspireupsynebyvisibledegrees

Toheichtswhereo’thefulesha’eneverrecked.

ButanceIgetthemthereI’llwhummlethem[…]).

HughMacDiarmid,(Edinburgh,1926).

3JohnImrie,TheScot–AtHomeandAbroad,(Toronto,1898),pp.13-14.

|P a g e

2

“LaughableproofofthedangerofanybutScotsmenmeddlingwithourDoricdialect.”

In1818,theScotstravellerJohnDuncanattendedaStAndrew’sDaydinnerinNewYorkCity.Hewas

decidedlyunimpressedbytheAmericanattempttohonourthepatronsaintofScotland.

Thedayhadbegunwithsuchpromise.Inhisjournal,Duncanrecalledhowhishearthad

“throbbedhigh”duringhismorningstrollalongBroadway,revellinginthe“broadbluebanner”of

theSaltire“wavingoverthedemocraticheadsoftheNewYorkers.”4Thetravellerdepartedforthe

banquetinbuoyantspirits:“IgolikeatrueScotsmantodinewiththeStAndrew’sSocietyofNew

York[…]Scotlandforever!”5

YettheeveningleftDuncan“sadlymortified”byablendedScots-Americantriumphalism–

“amiserablyinsipiddisplayofYankeeismandLand-of-Cakeism;neitheronenorother,butboth

spoiled.”6Theguestwasunderwhelmedbytheevent’shaphazardproceedings,dislikingthe

pomposityoftheexpatriateoffice-holdersoftheNewYorksociety,“conspicuousamongthemenof

thenorthcountrie”intheir“broadblueandwhitecollars,fromwhichhungalargemedallionofthe

patronofScotland.”7Duncan,recallingTamo’Shanter,madeanearlydeparture,recounting“‘the

nichtdraveonwi’sangsandclatter,’and[at]abouttenIrosefromthetable,”feeling,unlikeTam,

fairlygladtobeonhisway,and“notalittlemortifiedattheextremelydilutednationalityofsomeof

theScotsmenofNewYork.”8

Fewofthesociety’sritualsmanagedtoescapethecriticaleyeoftheirScottishguest,and

evenbeforethedinnerDuncanwastakenabackbyafarcicallackoforganisation.TheScotreported

thatwhilewaitingintheantechamberhis“nationalfeelingswereroused”bythepipemusicofa

“brawnylimbedsonofthemountains”who“struttedupanddownthehall,brayingScottishairs

withallhismight.”9Unfortunately,oncethemembershadbeenusheredintothemainhalltobegin

thedinnerrituals,“thegilliesofthehotel”failedtoinformthepiper,sothatwhilethemasterof

ceremonies“wasraisinghisvoicewithin,thepipeswerestillvociferatingwithout,sothatthesounds

drownedeachotherandwelostthebenefitofboth.”10

4JohnM.Duncan,TravelsThroughPartoftheUnitedStatesandCanadain1818and1819,(Glasgow,1823),2vols.,II,p.235.5Ibid.6Ibid7Ibid,II,p.236.8Ibid,II,p.239.9Ibid,II,p.236.10Ibid.

|P a g e

3

ThefooditselfprovidedthenextsourceofdissatisfactionforDuncan,whowasincensedby

thelackofanyScottishdishesupontheotherwisewell-ladentables:

Assoonasthecoverswereremoved,myeyesranovertheampleboardinquestofthebarley

kail,thesmokingsheep’sheadandtrotters,thesonsyhaggis,

‘Wha’spinwadhelptomendamill,

Intimeo’need’

Butalas!Thesenationalluxuriesfoundnoplaceinthebilloffare;notevenasolitaryfragmentof

oatmealcakewastobeseen.Asumptuousdinnerwasbeforeus,butnotasolitarydishthat

wascharacteristicofournativeland.11

Theguestremonstratedwithoneofthesocietyofficeholders“ontheinconsistencyofsuchataSt

Andrew’sdinner,”andwasinformedoftheratherpoorreceptionofpreviousattemptsto

“manufactureahaggis”:

[…]theappetitesoftheAmerico-Scotsmenhadbecometoorefinedtorelishsuchfare.They

sippedamorselortwofromthepointofateaspoon,andthenbellowedout“Waiter,takeaway

this.”Iheardthatinanotherquarterthatintothesaidhaggisafewraisinshadbeenintroduced,

asanAmericanimprovement;butthisIcouldhardlythinkpossible.12

Deprivedofhishaggis,Duncanconsoledhimselfwiththeprospectoftheafter-dinnertoasts,which

heexpectedtobe“morecommemorativeofauldlangsyne,”andofanentertainment“exclusively

national.”13However,theScottishguestwastofindthepost-dinnerproceedingsevenmore

unpalatablethantheall-Americanbilloffare.

Perhapsthemostpalpableinsultoftheeveningcamefromarenditionofpoetry,offeredby

athird-generationScotsNewYorker.Duncanexpendsampleenergyinrecountingtherecital:

AyoungAmerican,thegrandsonIbelieveofaScotsman,onbeingcalledforasongpledhis

inabilitytosing,butvolunteeredarecitation;–andtoevincehispartialityforthenationalbard

heannouncedhischoicetobeTamo’Shanter.Theyounggentlemanhoweversoonbetrayedhis

ignoranceofTam’smothertongue,andtorturedourearswiththemostterribleimitationofthe

ScotishdialectthateverIheard.Itwasmostamusingtoseetheinvoluntarycontortionof

mouth,thattravelledfromonenorthernvisagetoanother[…]Heprobablythoughtthatifhe

madeverybadEnglish,hecouldnotmissmakingveryexcellentScots,andbadenoughEnglish

11Ibid,II,pp.236-37.12Ibid,II,p.237,f.7.13Ibid,II,p.237.

|P a g e

4

hecertainlydidmake.Happilyhestuckfastabouthalfwaythrough,andwesilencedhimwitha

veryequivocalthunderofapplause.14

Duncansuppliesquotations,attemptingaphoneticrepresentationoftheover-zealousrenderingof

Scotspoetry:

‘Aewinterneet,

Tamhadgotplanteduncoreet;

Fastbyaninglebleezingfeenly

Wi’reamingswatsthatdrankdiveenly!’

TheeffortsoftheenthusiasticAmerican-Scotweredeemed“alaughableproofofthedangerofany

butScotsmenmeddlingwithourDoricdialect.”15

Duncan’saccountoftheeveningispunctuatedbyhisrecognitionofScottishlinguisticdistinction.

Thetravellerclearlydemonstratesasensitivitytowardsothers’useandinterpretationsofLowland

language;emphasising,inironicitalics,theScotsutterancesbothoftheyoungpoetryreaderandthe

NewYorksocietymembers–notable“amongthemenofthenorthcountrie.”WithinDuncan’s

narrative,theoffice-bearers’bombasticreceptionof“theirbritherScots”arerenderedas“broad”

and“conspicuous”astheirSaltire-stripedcollarsandsizeableStAndrew’smedallions.The“gilliesof

thehotel”arenearasnoticeableasthe“brawnylimbedsonofthemountains”who“brayed”the

bagpipemusicthroughouttheopeningaddress.

DuncansimilarlyspiceshisownprosewithascatteringofBurnsianScotsquotations,

perhapsmockingtheposturingofthe“Americo-Scotsmen.”Insupposingan“involuntarycontortion

ofmouth,thattravelledfromonenorthernvisagetoanother”uponhearingtheyoungreader’s

attemptedaccent,Duncanappearseagertohighlightthegeneralreactiontotherecitation.The

“veryequivocalthunderofapplause”whichbroughttheperformancetoitsearlyconclusionisseen

assuggestiveofashared,unspokendistainforthe“terribleimitation”which“torturedourears.”

Duncan’sdiscussionoftheuseofLowlandScotslanguageattheStAndrew’sSocietydinner

inNewYorkin1818isillustrativeofanumberofperceptionsthatwerebecomingincreasingly

commoninthedevelopmentoftheassociationalcultureofexpatriateScotsduringthenineteenth

century–fundamentalthemeswhichformthebasisofthisinvestigation.Essentially,thisthesis

arguesthattheuseofdistinctiveScotslinguisticformsdemonstrated,andstilldoesdemonstrate,a

14Ibid,II,p.239.15Ibid.

|P a g e

5

senseofattachmenttonotionsofScotland–avisualandaudibleexpressionofnationalsentiment

nolessovertthanthememorialisationofScotland’spatronsaintortheflyingofthe“broadblue

banner”oftheSaltire.ThecalendareventsofScottishassociationalculture–theStAndrew’sDay

dinners,Hogmanaycelebrations,BurnsSuppersandCaledoniasocietyfunctions–providedapt

occasions,bothathomeandabroad,forpredominantlyLowlandScotsandtheirdescendantsto

engageinanassortmentof“invented”ScotstraditionssuffusedwithHighlandiconography,

commonlytermed“tartanry.”16Assuggestedbyarecentinvestigation,Scottishassociations,both

withinandoutwithScotland,offereda“universallyaccessibleandusablecommondenominator”in

theconstructionandenactmentof“collectiveidentity,”andprovidedanunmistakableoutletfor

displaysofanenvisionedScottishness,ofwhichanovertlyScotticisedlanguage,averbaltartanry,

wasasignificant,andlargelyunexplored,factor.17

JohnDuncan’saccountindicatesthatdistinctivelinguistictraitscouldexpressamultiplicity

ofsentimentsandpurposes.ForDuncan,the“native”Scot,hisenvisionedauthorityinpossessively

determiningthe“propriety”of“ourDoricdialect,”andhisrecognitionofthe“laughable”resultsof

non-Scots“meddling”withthelanguage,enabledthetravellertoproclaimhimselfa“true

Scotsman”whenabroad,therebydistancinghimselffromexpatriatesandnon-Scotsalike.

WhilethistetchylinguisticattachmentcelebratedScotsdistinctionfromanassertive,and

fairlyauthoritativeperspective,itwasalsofraughtwithinsecurity.Duncanappearskeento

disassociateLowlandlinguisticcharacteristicsfromsuppositionsof“vulgarity”and“impropriety.”

Crucially,DuncanimaginesAnglo-Americanassumptionsof“excellent”Scotstobeakinto“verybad

English,”andasensitivitytoanticipatednegativityunderpinshisdislikeofthepoetryrecital.In

concludingthatthereaderproffereda“badenoughEnglish”ratherthanScots,Duncandisconnects

an“acceptable”LowlandScotsidiomfromanAnglo-centred“impropriety,”whilstpositioning

himselfasareputableauthoritybothofScotsandEnglish“standards.”Inassertingthe“danger”of

16HughTrevor-Roper,‘TheInventionofTradition:TheHighlandTraditionofScotland,’TheInventionofTradition,EricHobsbawmandTerrenceRangereds.,(Cambridge,1983),MurrayG.Pittock,TheInventionofScotland,(London,1991),MurrayG.Pittock,CelticIdentityandtheBritishImage,(Manchester,1999),CharlesWithers,‘TheHistoricalCreationoftheScottishHighlands,’TheManufactureofScottishHistory,IanDonnachieandChristopherWhatleyeds.,(Edinburgh,1992),pp.154-56,LeahLeneman,‘Anewroleforalostcause:LowlandromanticisationoftheJacobiteHighlander,’LeahLenemaned.,NewPerspectivesinScottishSocialHistory,(Aberdeen,1988),p.120.Fortheenactmentof“inventedtraditions”inanimperialcontext,seeJohnM.MacKenzie,‘EmpireandNationalIdentitiestheCaseofScotland,’TransactionsoftheRoyalHistoricalSociety,(1998),Vol.8,pp.215-231,pp.220-22,ElizabethBuettner,‘HaggisintheRaj:PrivateandPublicCelebrationsofScottishnessinLateImperialIndia,’ScottishHistoricalReview,Vol.LXXXI,2,212,(October2002),pp.212-239.Also,IanBrowned.,FromTartantoTartanry,ScottishCulture,HistoryandMyth,(Edinburgh,2012).17TanjaBueltmann,AndrewHinsonandGraemeMorton,‘Introduction:Diaspora,AssociationsandScottishIdentity,’Bueltmann,etaleds.,TiesofBluid,KinandCountrie,(Guelph,2009),p.10.

|P a g e

6

non-Scots“meddling”with“ourDoricdialect,”Duncanprescribestwointerconnectedcodesof

linguistic“correctness.”

ButifLowlandlanguagewasinfusedwithissuesofprescriptiveandpre-emptive“propriety,”

itwasalsoimbuedwiththecelebratoryelementofperformance.FortheAmericanmembersofthe

StAndrew’sSocietyasmuchasJohnDuncan,deliberate,perceptiblyScottishexpressions

emphasisedasenseofsocio-culturalcohesion.Byaddressingeachotheras“britherScots,”society

officeholdersemphasisedtheirmembershipstatus,expressing“conspicuous”distinctiveness.For

theyoung,third-generationpoetryreader,his“imitated”discoursefunctionedasavehiclethrough

whichto“evincehispartiality”bothforthe“nationalbard”andaparticularbranchofhisancestral

heritage–anaffiliationexpressedthroughaself-conscious,overt,andtemporarymannerof

speaking.

SoforDuncanandthegroupofScottishexpatriates,asmuchastheyoungpoetryreader,

theuseofLowlandlanguagewasessentiallyperformative.Suchlinguisticusage,toborrowAngela

McCarthy’susefulterm,servedasa“personalmanifestationofScottishness”–shibbolethsthrough

whichScotsmigrantsandtheirdescendants“identifiedthemselvesasScottish,andwereidentified

byothersasScottish”;exhibitingachosenalignmentwithacertain“collectiveidentity”outwiththe

nation.18Themanifestationofaverbaltartanry,apersonalandperformativeexpressionof

Scottishnessnegotiatedthroughtheutilisationofdistinctivelinguisticdevices,andgivenvoice

withinthesocial–andsocially“acceptable”–parametersofScottishglobalassociationalculture,is

thecentralthemeofthischapter.

18AngelaMcCarthy,‘NationalIdentitiesandTwentieth-CenturyScottishMigrantsinEngland,’ WilliamL.Millered.,Anglo-ScottishRelationsfrom1900toDevolutionandBeyond,(Oxford,2005),pp.174,179.

|P a g e

7

“WheneverScotchmengather”:inventedtraditions,tartanry,and“diaspora.”

Today,wheneverScotchmengathertogethertocelebratetheirnationalidentity,theyassertit

openlybycertaindistinctivenationalapparatus. Theywearthekilt,woveninatartanwhosecolourandpatternindicatestheir“clan”;andiftheyindulgeinmusic,theirinstrumentisthe

bagpipe.Thisapparatus,towhichtheyascribegreatantiquity,isinfactlargelymodern.Itwas

developedafter,sometimeslongafter,theUnionwithEnglandagainstwhichitis,inasense,a

protest.19

Withtheselines,HughTrevor-Roperbeginshiscritiqueofthe‘HighlandTraditionofScotland’–an

infamousbroadsideagainstthepopularreverenceofthe“ancient”culturaliconsoftheScottish

nation.Asisevidentfromhisintroductorysentiments,thehistorianheldthegatheringsof

“Scotchmen”tobefundamentaltotheir“celebration”andperpetuationofa“distinctive”–and

distinctlyspurious–“nationalapparatus.”Indeed,Trevor-Roper’svehementattempttodebunkthe

‘Highlandtradition’mayhavebeenanindignantreactiononthepartofthehistorianagainstthe

chauvinistic,“here’staeus,wha’slikeus?”tendencyoftheassociationaloccasionsonwhich

“Scotchmengathertogether.”20

Withinthedeliberatelyinflammatoryarticle,Trevor-Ropersetouttoshatteranumberof

originmythssurroundingpopularScottishiconography,famouslydeclaring“thewholeconceptofa

distinctHighlandcultureandtradition”tobe“aretrospectiveinvention.”21Accreditingthe

developmentofthe“philibeg,”orshortkilt,totheEnglishindustrialistThomasRawlinson,Trevor-

Ropersawsuch“invented”symbolstobesuggestiveofanationalpropensitytoindulgeinfable;

corroboratingJohnsonianclaimsofScots’“easyreceptionofanimprobablefiction.”22Despite

levellingvalidcriticismofTrevor-Roper’sfailuretograspthefundamentalrelevanceof“invented

traditions”–whichlieslessinthecomicallyquestionableoriginsoftheircreationbutratherinthe

motivationbehindtheirenactmentandendurance23–Scottishacademehasoftenhandledtartanry

withamixtureofexasperationanddisdainreminiscentoftheOxfordhistorian.A“distorted

19Trevor-Roper,‘InventionofTradition,’InventionofTradition,p.15.20ThemischievousstreakinHughTrevor-Ropercanbegleanedfromhisprivatecorrespondence.ThehistorianjokesaboutdefacingtheWallacemonumentatBemersydenearMelrose,“devisingtheobscenemutilationsortauntinggraffiti(e.g.“RememberFlodden”)whichImightinflictuponit,”RichardDavenport-Hinesed.,LettersfromOxford,(London,2006),p.58.21Trevor-Roper,‘InventionofTradition,’p.15.Also,HughTrevor-Roper,TheInventionofScotland,(London,2009).22Trevor-Roper,‘InventionofTradition,’pp.15,22.SamuelJohnson,AJourneytotheWesternIslesofScotland,(1775),PeterLevied.,(London,1984),p.119.23See,forexample,CairnsCraig,OutofHistory,NarrativeParadigmsinScottishandBritishCulture,(Edinburgh,1996),p.pp.110-11,CarlaSassi,WhyScottishLiteratureMatters,(Edinburgh,2005),p.63,CelesteRay,‘Introduction,’CelesteRayed.,TransatlanticScots,(Tuscaloosa,2005),p.6.

|P a g e

8

pageantry”ofHighlandsymbolsisfrequentlyseenasrepresentativeofalamentable“eclipse”ofthe

nation’s“genuine”culture.24Moreover,the“visiblesignsorculturemarkers”ofthisiconographyare

seentobesuggestiveofScotland’s“internalcolonialism”withinBritain,ahollowacceptanceofthe

“materialtokens”profferedbyaLowlandeliteintentonobtainingacloserculturalalignmentwith

Englandinordertoreapthespoilsofunionandempire.25

Indeed,thedevelopmentoftartanryisviewedtolinkintoalongsuccessionofwhatCairns

Craigterms“mythsofhistoricalirrelevance,”spawnedsincetheparliamentaryunionof1707

[…]inrecoilfromtheapparentlyfeaturelessintegrationofScottishlifeintoanindustrialculture

whosepowerandwhoseidentityliesoutsideScottishcontrol,[andwhich]acknowledgesitsown

inabilitytolayholdofcontemporaryrealitybyprojectingitselfuponimagesofasocietyequally

impotentbeforetheforcesofhistory.26

Thus,muchoftheiconographyofpost-unionScotland,developedoveraperiodwhenthenation

wasreckonedless“distinctlyandconfidentlyherself,”wasobservedtoplace“anincreasing

emphasisupontheemotionaltrappingsoftheScottishpast,”taintedby“themarkofanarrow

parochialism.”27Attheturnofthetwenty-firstcentury,thenovelistWilliamMcIlvanneysupposeda

Scottishhistoricalconsciousnesstobeepitomisedbyanoverfocusupon“wilfulfragments”more

“emotionalthanrational,”envisioninganationalitytypifiedbysporadicenactment–a“seriesof

gesturesratherthanasequenceofactions.”28

Thekilt,clantartan,haggis,andbagpipes–demonstrativeofthe“trappings,”“gestures,”

and“fragments”ofanemotive,historically“impotent”Scottishness–wereproclaimedbrazen

examplesof“self-delusionservingtofortifynationalcohesion.”29CertainScottishcultural

commentatorsappeartohavebeenreluctanttore-evaluatethiscaricaturediconographyof

Highlandorigin,perhapswaryoffallingfoulofTrevor-Roper-esqueaccusationsofhistorical

inaccuracyandnaivety,orfallingpreytoTomNairn’s“tartanmonster”andendorsingthe“popular

sub-romanticism”ofaRoyalMilegift-shopkitsch.30Duringthelaterdecadesofthetwentieth

century,tartanrywasdamnedasanunforgivableculturaldistortion–emblemsofhistorical

24DavidMcCrone,AngelaMorrisandRichardKiely,Scotland.TheBrand,(Edinburgh,1995),pp.207,5,Pittock,InventionofScotland,p.100,MichaelHechter,InternalColonialism,(London,1975),p.9.25CairnsCraig,‘Mythsagainsthistory:tartanryandKailyardin19thcenturyScottishliterature,’ColinMcArthured.ScotchReels,(London,1982),p.10,Hechter,InternalColonialism,pp.9,342-3,TomNairn,TheBreak-UpofBritain,(Edinburgh,2003),pp.82-107.26Craig,‘Mythsagainsthistory,’p.15.27MarinelAsh,TheStrangeDeathofScottishHistory,(Edinburgh,1980)p.10.28QuotedinDavidMcCrone,UnderstandingScotland,(London,2001),p.128.29‘NationsandtheirPast,’TheEconomist,21December1996,p.56,quotedinHughCheape,‘GheibhteBreacainCharnaid(“ScarletTartansWouldBeGot…”):TheReinventionofTradition,’TartantoTartanry,p.15.30TomNairn,TheBreak-UpofBritain,(London,1981),p.116.

|P a g e

9

“redundancy”and“irrelevance”inwhichaprocessionof“parodicred-nosed,kilted,drunken,mean

Scotsmenofmusichallcomedyandpicturepostcardjokes”wasseentoreflecta“cancerous

nationalinferioritycomplex:thequiteunmistakablepsychologicalend-productoftwocenturiesof

tawdrypalliatives.”31

Ironically,throughsuchindignanthandwringingatthesupposed“culturalcringe,”the

cringe-worthinessofScottishnationalrepresentationbecameallthebetterexemplified.Whenwe

considertheobviouspointthatall“traditions”wereatsomestage“invented,”andthatagreat

manynationsandculturesfindsymbolicrepresentationthroughasimilarlyspurioussetofimages

andappealstomythichistory,Scotsappeartohavebeenparticularlyperturbedbytheissues

surroundingtheirownnationaliconography.32

Thisanxietyseemstohaveabatedslightly.OnecommonmethodusedbyScotstodistance,

andperhapsdisassociatethemselvesfromsomeofthemoreexcessiveelementsoftartanry,isto

redirectthissymbolismoutwithScotland–attributinganenthusiasmforsuch“traditions”tothe

“exile’scurseofover-indulgenceinScottishkitsch.”33Atartanryperceivedtoperpetuate“national

self-delusionorbespokehistory”isdismissedashavinglittletodowitha“real”or“genuine”

Scottishculture,andisbelievedtobegenerally“suppliedbyorforScotsinexileeitherinthecities

ofEnglandoroverseas”–“fromTexastoTokyo.”34Relativelyrecentinnovations,new“invented

traditions”suchasNationalTartanDayintheUnitedStates,datingfrom1997,andthe2009re-

assertionoftheGatheringoftheClansatEdinburgharelargelyregardedasthedomainof

“Americanpilgrims,”evidenceoftheScottishgovernmentalinitiativesfor“energisingandengaging

ourdiaspora.”35

Whiletheglobalappealoftartantryhasbeenviewedtobe“excruciating”forsomeScots,

seentopropagateagarish“Highlandistvision”distastefulto“genuine”Caledoniansensibilities,it

couldbearguedthatnowsufficientlydistancedfromatartanryonlycelebratedinearnestoverseas,

present-dayScotscanironicallyappreciatethecultural,andcertainlytouristic,meritoftheir“gaudy

31Craig,‘Mythsagainsthistory,’pp.10,13,15.LindsayPaterson,‘“ScotchMyths”–2,’BulletinofScottishPolitics,(Edinburgh;ScottishInternationalInstitute),2,spring1981,.67-71,pp.67-68.32DavidGoldie,‘Don’ttaketheHighRoad:TartanryanditsCritics,’TartantoTartanry,pp.240-1.33BillyKay,TheScottishWorld,(Edinburgh,2005),p.14.34Cheape,‘GheibhteBreacainCharnaid,’p.15,Trevor-Roper,InventionofScotland,p.236.Also,JamesHunter,‘Foreword,’TransatlanticScots,p.xiii,DavidMcCrone,‘WhoAreWe?UnderstandingScottishIdentity,’CatherineDiDomenico,AlexLaw,JonathanSkinner,MickSmitheds.,BoundariesandIdentities:Nation,PoliticsandCultureinScotland,(Dundee,2001),pp.20-2.35PaulBasu,HighlandHomecomings,GenealogyandHeritageTourismintheScottishDiaspora,(Abingdon,2007),p.19,CharlotteChambers,‘Edinburghseesthelargestevergatheringofclanchiefs,’Independent,26July2009,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/edinburgh-sees-the-largest-ever-gathering-of-clan-chiefs-1761486.html,http://www.tartanday.org/history,Bueltmann,etal.,‘Introduction,’TiesofBluid,p.1.SeealsoT.M.Devine,TotheEndsoftheEarth,(London,2011),pp.287-8.

|P a g e

10

ethniccaricature.”36TheabilityofScotsto“parade”unashamedlyreclaimediconsoftartanry

becomesasignofthevitalityofmodernScotland,anationnolongerinthralltoauniformityof

embarrassingkitsch;acaseperhaps,oftakingthebestfrombothworlds–ofhavingone’shaggis

andeatingit?37

Butacertainambivalencepersists.ThemixedresponsetoDavidZolkwer’sOpeningCeremonytothe

2014CommonwealthGames,hostedinGlasgowamidaheadypoliticalclimatepriortothe

IndependenceReferenduminSeptember,pointstothedifficultiesofpitchingScottishnesstobotha

domesticandaninternationalaudience.ThoughreckonedarelativesuccessbytheDailyTelegraph,

notingthat“everylovableclichéofScotlandwasaddressed,”Zolkwer’startan-bedeckedfestivity

wasalsoslammedasa“hideousembarrassment”inwhichjokeyScotstropeswereseentoofferan

unreflective,andmuch-too-cloyingcaricatureofthenation’slargestcity.38

Inthisinstance,contemporaryissuesofrepresentationandreceptionofferinsightinto

Scottishexpatriateassociationsofpreviouscenturies.Atroot,theCommonwealthceremonyat

Parkheadwasaglobalpageantforaneventmarkedbyalegacyofimperialism–thedirect

descendantofthegrandEmpireExhibitionsofabygoneeraofBritishglobaldominance.Aswiththe

cultoftartanrywhichrosetoprominenceduringthatverysameperiod,thetaskofthe2014

ceremonylayinplottingouttheelementsmostcommonlyinterpretedas“Scottish”byapan-

nationalaudience.

Indeed,theceremonyoffersaneatreflectionoftartanryitself.Byerringcautiouslyon“just

therightsideofkitsch”Zolkwer’seventeffectivelymetthedemands,bothathomeandabroad,for

ananticipatedScottishness;indulgingwhatAlanRiachtermsthe“humandesirethatisrepresented

inclichés,caricatures,andconventionalpieties.”39Whatis“Scottish”islargelydeterminedbythat

36CelesteRay,‘AncestralClanscapesandTransatlanticTartaneers,’PapergivenattheSymposiumonReturnMigration,ScottishCentreforDiasporaStudies,UniversityofEdinburgh,May2010,pp.7,10,MichaelNewton,‘PayingforthePlaid:ScottishGaelicIdentityPoliticsinNineteenth-centuryNorthAmerica,’TartantoTartanry,p.72,Devine,EndsoftheEarth,pp.274-85.37Newton,‘PayingforthePlaid,’p.72.CairnsCraig,OutofHistory,(Edinburgh,1996),pp.110-11.38JimWhite,‘CommonwealthGames2014,’DailyTelegraph,23July2014,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/commonwealthgames/10987385/Commonwealth-Games-2014-Glasgow-is-first-winner-with-opening-ceremony.html.JulieMcDowall,‘TVReview,’HeraldScotland,23July2014,http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts_ents/13171459.TV_review_the_Games_opening_ceremony/.39IanJack,‘TheCommonwealthOpeningGamesCeremony:justtherightsideofkitsch,’Guardian,25July2014,https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/25/commonwealth-games-opening-ceremony-right-side-of-kitsch.AlanRiachRepresentingScotlandinLiterature,PopularCultureandIconography,(Basingstoke,2005),p.31.

|P a g e

11

whichiswidelyacceptedandexpectedtobe“Scottish.”And,asmuchofZolkwer’sceremony

indicated,thereisacertainmischievousenjoymenttobehadinplayinguptosuchstereotyping.

Yetthedirectoralsoinsistedontheoverarchingthemeof“universality”withinthe

ceremony,of“lookingmoreatwhatwehaveincommonthanwhatdifferentiatesus.”40Butsuch

intentionallybroad,all-encompassingnotionsof“humour,warmth,[and]celebratingwhatwehave

incommon,”werealsoreckonedtorequireanarchetypically“vernacular”spicing.41“Althoughwe

aretellingauniversalstory,”Zolkwerclaimedthetaletobephrased“withadistinctlyGlaswegian

accent,whichmeanswearegoingtobeirreverent,funny,principled,sincere,inclusive,personal,

direct.”42Thisdifferentiating“accent”thereforeenabledanenvisionedScots-Glaswegian

exceptionalismtoinfusethewidercelebrationofthe“universal”believedtounderscoretheevent.

Moreover,this“distinctlyGlaswegianaccent”wasseentohave“meaning,”andalignedwith

acollectionofself-congratulatorycharacteristics.Inthisregard,thefigurative“accent”ofthe

Glasgowceremonydirectlyresemblesthetonesofnineteenth-centuryverbaltartanry–assertinga

laudableScotsessenceencasedwithinthebroader,“universal”themesunderpinningempireand

“commonwealth.”Asmuchasthetheatricallyoversizedkilts,dancingteacakes,andparading

Highlandterriers,LowlandScotslinguisticdistinctionwasonshowduringtheCommonwealth

celebrations.Ononememorableoccasion,acontemporaryverbaltartanryconnectedseveral

strandsoftransnational,English-speakingdiscourse;withtheScots-AmericanhostJohnBarrowman,

“inScottishaccentmode,”offeringaScotticisedversionofthequintessentiallyAustralianrock

anthem“LandDownUnder”(“Wecomefromthelandofheather/Wheremenwearkiltsand

womenblether").43Inthisregard,theopeningceremonyofthe2014Commonwealthgames–a

tongue-in-cheekfusionofavarietyofelementsviewedasstereotypically“Scottish”fromalargely

externalperspective–hasmuchincommonwiththearticulationsofScottishglobalassociational

cultureofthenineteenthcentury.

Ofcourse,thecruxofsuchsymbolismisnotinanywayuniquetoScotland.Allsuchnational

tropescomeintobeingthroughtheexternalrecognitionandperpetuationofhow“ithersseeus.”44

Allnationsandculturesfindrepresentationthroughaforeignfondnessforthesimplicityofmyth,

kitsch,andcaricature.Thespuriousaspectsoftartanry,likeallsuch“inventedtraditions,”oughtnot

40Anon.,‘Glasgow2014:City‘buzzing’aheadofCommonwealthGames,’BBCNews,22July2014,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28419108.41Ibid.42Ibid.43KevinO’Sullivan,‘BBCgoingOTTincoveringCommonwealthGames,’Mirror,26July2014,http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-reviews/bbc-going-ott-covering-commonwealth-3918194.44Forthe“looking-glassself,”seeCharlesCooley,HumanNatureandtheSocialOrder,(NewYork,1902),pp.151-3.

|P a g e

12

beacauseformajorconcern.Thedangerliesinsteadinanyprescriptiveinsistenceupona“real,”

“natural,”or“genuine”nationalrepresentation.

Inthislight,theiconographyoftheScottishdiasporacanofferaninstructivehistoricalexamplein

whichthe“superficialparaphernalia”and“performedScottishness”oftartanrybecamemore

pronouncedthroughtheallureofthe“indistinct”–thefaded,romanticised“homeland,”“more

imaginedthanreal.”45ThegreaterthespatialandtemporalgulfseparatingScotsmigrantsandtheir

descendantsfromasupposed“homeland,”themorethis“homeland”wasitselfsupposed,andan

“auld”Scotlandembodiedthroughclearlyidentifiabletropescametobesoughtandsanctified

throughouttheglobe.46AstheanthropologistPaulBasuargues,acontemporarysenseofdiasporic

Scots“heritage”takesrootthroughsuchconfluxofhistoryanddistance–aprocessof“shared

imagining,”generatedwithinaself-perpetuating“mediascape”through“whichdiasporicScotslearn

whatitistobediasporicScots.”47Inthisregard,Basu’sinsightintoa“sharedimagining”resembles

the“imaginedpoliticalcommunity”underpinningBenedictAnderson’sinfluentialthesisonthe

developmentofnationalism–so“imagined”throughtheburgeoningearly-modern“mediascape”of

printcapitalism.48

UnlikecertainScottishfrustrationswithtartanry,neitherBasunorAndersonappeartohold

muchtruckwiththewrestlingofthe“real”fromthe“imagined,”orthe“natural”fromthe

“invented.”Ofcourse,diasporicenvisioningsof“heritage”shouldbevieweddifferentlytoother

analysesofScottishhistoryorculture.Nevertheless,certaininterconnectionsoughtnotbe

overlooked.If,accordingtoCelesteRay,atartanry-fuelledScotsdiaspora“heritage”servesas

“somethingofarhapsodyonhistory,”thenstudentsofScottishhistorywoulddowelltokeepanear

outforsuchstrains.49Indeed,theveryconceptofdiasporaoffersakeymeansofobservingthereal-

worldimpactofarhapsodicimagination.

AvtarBrahperceivesmigratory“diasporicidentities”as“atoncelocalandglobal”–

“networksoftransnationalidentificationsencompassing“imagined”and“encountered”

45MichaelFry,‘TheScottishDiasporaandtheEmpire,’MurrayStewartLeithandDuncanSimeds.,TheModernScottishDiaspora,(Edinburgh,2014),p.38,MurrayPittock,TheRoadtoIndependence,(London,2008),p.137,Basu,HighlandHomecomings,pp.41-2,MurrayStewartLeithandDuncanSim,‘Introduction:TheScottishDiaspora,’ModernScottishDiaspora,p.646CelesteRay,‘Ancestralclanscapesandtransatlantictartaneers,’MarioVarricchioed.,BacktoCaledonia,(Edinburgh,2012),pp.170-1.47Basu,HighlandHomecomings,pp.92,93.48BenedictAnderson,ImaginedCommunities,(1983:London,2006),pp.37-46.Also,TanjaBueltmann,AndrewHinsonandGraemeMorton,TheScottishDiaspora,(Edinburgh,2013),pp.26-7.49CelesteRay,HighlandHeritage,(ChapelHill,2001),p.7.

|P a g e

13

communities.”50ForBrah,therapportbetweenthe“imagined”and“encountered”isimperativeto

this“diasporicimagination,”inwhichtheconceptof“home”canservebothas“amythicplaceof

desire”and“placeofnoreturn,”whilstalsoretainingtherathermoreearthy“livedexperienceof

thelocality”and“historicallyspecificeverydayofsocialrelations.”51Sonotionsof“home,”operating

in“creativetension”withthoseof“dispersion,”interleavebotha“there”anda“here”;reflectiveof

whatBrahseesasawistful“homingdesire”ratherthananearnest,day-to-dayyearningforan

actualancestralhome.52Becauseofthisinherentfluidityandfractious,contestedessence,

transnationaldiasporasareviewedtoprovideapoignantcritiquetoanyinsistenceuponimmutable

“fixedorigins”withinnationalnarratives.53

YetmuchofthetartanicsymbolismexpressiveofaScottish“diasporicimagination”stands

inareductive,essentialistcontrast.Likemanyglobalexamples,thehistoricalmanifestationof

“Scottishdiaspora”isviewedtodemonstratesuchdiversityastopromptthesuggestionofa

pluralityof“Scottishdiasporas.”54Anuancedandlengthyanalysisofthe“diaspora”tagappearsto

bearequisiteforcontemporaryinvestigationsofScottishglobalcommunities.55However,theissue

ofdiasporaisalsoviewedasyetanotherpotentially“essentialisingtrope”withinScottish

historiography,andatermalreadyloadedwithconnotationsofoppressionandforceddisplacement

canbealltooeasilyappendedtoexaggeratedclaimsofScottish“victimology.”56

ThisismostnotablythecasewithinaHighlandculturalcontext,inwhichtheromantic

glamourofJacobitismandthe“foundationaltrauma”ofnineteenth-centuryruraldepopulationhave

beenseentoinfuseaScottishdiasporawiththe“moralrhetoricofexile,”overridingamore“morally

ambiguoushistory”ofvoluntarymigrationandcolonialism.57Aswiththeiconsoftartanry,the

perceivedplightoftheGaìdhealtachd,“themosthistoricallyphotogenicofBritishexiles,”isbest

seentorepresentthenation,andahistoryofScottishmigrationiscolouredbythenoble,tragic,and

50AvtarBrah,CartographiesofDiaspora,(Abingdon,1996),p.196.51Ibid,p.192.52Ibid,pp.192-3,180,16.53Ibid,pp.180,193.AlsoRobinCohen,‘Solid,DuctileandLiquid:ChangingNotionsofHomelandandHomeinDiasporaStudies,’EliezerBen-RafaelandTirzhakSternbergeds.,Transnationalism.Diasporasandtheadventofanew(dis)order,(Boston,Mass,2009).54LeithandSim,‘Introduction,’pp.10-11,Basu,HighlandHomecomings,p.17,CatrionaM.M.Macdonald,‘ImaginingtheScottishDiaspora:EmigrationandTransnationalLiteratureintheLateModernPeriod,’BritainandtheWorld5.1(2012),pp.12–42,pp.15-19.Fortaxonomiesof“diaspora,”seeWilliamSafran,‘Diasporasinmodernsocieties:mythsofhomelandandreturn,’Diaspora1,1(1991),83-99,RobinCohenGlobaldiasporas:anintroduction,(London,2000).55Bueltmann,etal,ScottishDiaspora,pp.1-27,LeithandSim,‘Introduction,’pp.1-11.56Bueltmann,etal,‘Introduction,’TiesofBluid,pp.1-2,Basu,HighlandHomecomings,pp.11-12,193-4,Macdonald,‘ImaginingtheScottishDiaspora,’pp.19-20.57Basu,HighlandHomecomings,pp.193.

|P a g e

14

“aboriginal”allureoftheHighlands.58ThemultiplicityofScottishhistoricaldiasporas–centuriesof

transnationalmovement,encompassingtheback-and-forthoftradeandprofessionalsojourning,

plantation-owningand“overseeing,”militaryservice,religiousmissions,colonial“settlement”/

“indigenous”dispossession,alongwitheconomicmigration,bothHighlandandLowland–hasbeen

largelyoverlaidwiththemisty-eyedimageryof“LochaberNoMore.”59

ThisthesissuggestssuchsentimentaltartanglosswasaproductofBritishimperialrhetoric

itself.AsJohnMacKenzienotes,thesymbolismofa“re-inventedHighlandculture”servedto

facilitatethe“interactionofhomeandEmpire”duringthenineteenthcentury,effectinga

“reconciliationofScottishethnicnationalismwithitsglobalstage.”60Theassociationalcultureofthe

Scottishdiaspora,whilea“cunninglycontrivedamalgam”comprisingboth“HighlandandLowland

elements,”waskeentoexhibitanexpatriateScottishnessthroughtheexplicitly“ethnic”emblemsof

Highland-derivedtartanry–“almostasdifferentasitwaspossibletobefromEngland.”61Assuch,

wistfulaspectsofHighlandexileandacultureoflostcausesinter-lockedwiththerathermoreself-

congratulatory,imperialundertonesofScottishdiasporiccelebrations.Itwaspreciselyduringthis

nineteenth-centuryperiodthatScotsacquiredtheaccoladeof“perfect,prefabricatedempire-

builders.”62Nowherewasthisepithetseentobebetterdemonstratedthaninthemythicarchetype

oftheHighlandsoldier–“permittedkilted‘other’”topresumptionsofanormativeBritishculture

andmasculinity.63

Consequently,theimperiallegacyoftheScottishnation,unquestionablycomplicitin“the

skulduggeryofEmpire,”iscomplicatedbyacolonialambivalencesurroundingHighland-rooted

representation.64Undoubtedly,significantsegmentsoftheGaelic-speakingcommunitiesofthe

58EricRichards,‘TheLastoftheClanandOtherHighlandEmigrants,’TomBrookingandJennieColemaneds.,TheHeatherandtheFern,(Otago,2003),p.33,Basu,HighlandHomecomings,p.200,214,NealAscherson,StoneVoices,(London,2002),p.212.59ForanimportantdiscussionofthevariednatureofScottishdiaspora,seeAngelaMcCarthyed.,AGlobalClan,(London2006).Also,JohnM.MacKenzieandT.M.Devineeds.,ScotlandandtheBritishEmpire(Oxford,2011).60JohnM.MacKenzie,‘EmpireandNationalIdentities,’p.221.61Ibid,RichardJ.Finlay,‘CaledoniaorNorthBritain?ScottishIdentityintheEighteenthCentury,’DauvitBroun,R.J.FinlayandMichaelLyncheds.,ImageandIdentity,(Edinburgh,1998),p.150,JohnM.MacKenzieandT.M.Devine,‘Introduction,’ScotlandandtheBritishEmpire,pp.12-14.62MacKenzie,‘EmpireandNationalIdentities,’p.225-6.63HeatherStreets,MartialRaces,(Manchester,2004),p.viii,JohnM.MacKenzie,‘AScottishEmpire?TheScottishdiasporaandinteractiveidentities,’HeatherandtheFern,p.22,EricRichards,‘IroniesoftheHighlandExodus,1740-1900,’WilfredPrestandGrahamTullocheds.,ScatterlingsofEmpire,(StLucia,2001),p.74,DavidForsythandWendyUgolinieds.,AGlobalForce,(Edinburgh,2016).64E.J.Cowan,‘TheMythofScotchCanada,’MarjoryHarperandMichaelE.Vanceeds.,Myth,MigrationandtheMakingofMemory,(Edinburgh,2000),p.56.Also,CarlaSassiandTheovanHeijnsbergen,‘Introduction,’CarlaSassiandTheovanHeijnsbergeneds.,WithinandWithoutEmpire,(Newcastleupon-Tyne,2013),pp.3-6,MichaelGardiner,‘Introduction,’MichaelGardiner,GraemeMacdonald,andNiallO’Gallaghereds.,ScottishLiteratureandPostcolonialLiterature,(Edinburgh,2011),pp.1,3,5,CarlaSassi,ScottishLiteratureMatters,pp.

|P a g e

15

ScottishHighlandsandIslandssufferedundertheoversightandcolonialattitudesoftheBritish

government.65Yetthetropesoftartanrycantodaydisplayamarkedlymoresinisterhuewhen

framedwithinanuncriticalinsistenceuponaHighlandisedvictim-Scotland.WithintheUnitedStates,

certaincontemporaryassertionsofdiasporicScotsaffinityhavebeenseentoserveaself-indulgent

disavowalofWASP“powerandprivilege,”(“white,”“Anglo-Saxon,”Protestant),where“Celtic”

Scottish“heritage”offerstheoptionofamiddle-American“dissimilation”–pointingtothe

“recovery”ofa“moredistinctive,particularethnicidentity”throughentryintoasupposedly

“victimisedminoritygroup.”66

RichardZumkhawala-CookrecognisesthisScots-American“minoritygroup”mentalityasa

nuancedstrategyinthepreservationofsocio-culturalprivilege.67ProjectionsofScottish“heritage”

areseentopromotean“uncontaminated,harmonious,geographicallylimited,andthoroughly

nationalizedspace,”inwhichchauvinisticconceptionsof“history,race,andnationalpride”playinto

a“fantasyofearlyScottishlife[…]profoundlymediatedandenabledbycommoditiesof“auld”

Scottishculture.”68Notethelinguisticswitch.Throughtheoccasional,associationalrole-playof

Scottishvictimhood,the“racial,”patriarchal,andsocio-economicpoweroftheperformersareboth

underscoredandobscuredthrough“heritage”rhetoric.TherecentpeddlingofDNAtestingto

uncovera“genuine”Scotsancestrysuggestsanotherdiscomfitingaspectof“heritage”–highlighting

aworryingreadinesstoengagewiththesciencefictionsof“race”inthepromulgationand

commodificationofdesired“diasporic”ancestry.69AsZumkhawala-Cooksuggests,onecannot

neglectthetingeof“ethnicsupremacism”colouringaspectsofcontemporaryScottishassociational

culture,andnorshouldweignoretheimperiallegaciesofbigotry,violence,dispossession,and

superiorismwhichlurkwithinitsfoundations.70

Torecap,muchliketwenty-first-centurymanifestationsofScottish“heritage,”thehistorical

enactments,perceptions,andprojectionsoftartanryareofamuchgreatersignificancethanany

notional“authenticity.”WithinScotlandandthroughoutmuchoftheglobe,iconsoftartanry

5,61-3,84-103,NigelLeask,‘“TheirGroveso’SweetMyrtles”:RobertBurnsandtheScottishColonialExperience,’MurrayPittocked.,BurnsinGlobalCulture,(Plymouth,2011),pp.173-5.65See,forexample,BertholdSchoene,‘APassagetoScotland:ScottishLiteratureandtheBritishPostcolonialCondition,’Scotlands,2.1,(1995),107-122,pp.109-13.66Basu,HighlandHomecoming,pp.22,198,CelesteRay,HighlandHeritage,p.13.67RichardZumkhawala-Cook,ScotlandAsWeKnowIt,(Jefferson,2008),pp.110-11.68Ibid.69JennyBlain,‘Ancestral‘Scottishness’andHeritageTourism,’ModernScottishDiaspora,pp.166-7.70Ibid,p.133.AlsoKay,ScottishWorld,pp.133-46.MurrayPittock,‘PlaidingtheInventionofScotland,’TartantoTartanry,p.44

|P a g e

16

exemplifiedacommodified,temporaryengagementina“patriotismofmasquerade.”71Whenbased

withinthenation,thisenactedstanceisoftendismissedascontemptiblecultural“redundancy”and

“impotence”–a“signofScottishvirilitywhichendorsedtheprocessofScottishemasculation.”72

However,thesedomesticdisplaysof“fancy-dressfreedom”reflectadarkercharacterwhen

consideredalongsidesimilarexhibitionsoutwithScotland.73

Indeed,ithasbeensuggestedthatthetropesoftartanrywerereinforcedthrougha

transnationalnegotiationofScottishsensibilities.AsGraemeMortonhashighlighted,inan“ageof

deepeninginformationflows”nineteenth-centuryScots“hadthemeanstoknowmoreabout

themselves”thaneverbefore,simultaneouslypossessing“greateropportunitytolearnabout

others,whethertheyresidedinsidethenationoroutsideitsboundaries.”74Mortonposits,“[b]eing

Scottishwasnotarejectionoftheunknown,butareflectionoftheknown,”supposing“thenation’s

history”tobe“indialoguewiththenation’sidentities.”75

Itwasthroughthisglobal,nineteenth-century“dialogue”thatthe“known”traitsoftartanry

weresolidified,withdiasporicScotsviewedtohavebeenparticularlyeagertoengageinthis

“objectification”of“personalhistorythroughculturalsymbolsofthenation”–“theideological

meansofperpetuatingthenationalselfwhenawayasmuchasbackhome.”76Foranationas

thoroughlytouchedbyglobalmigrationasScotlandinthenineteenthcentury,thiswasalwayslikely

todoubleback.77Mortonsuggestsacycleof“perpetuation”and“objectification”tohave

underscoreda“dialogue”between“diaspora”and“homeland,”andthoughthe“communicative

powerofobjectification,”diasporicimaginings“offeredupaframeworkforotherScots[…]to

imagineatransplantedhome.”78Bywayofapre-emptivenostalgiaofemigration-exile,fuelledby

thesamesentimentalised,popularconceptionofHighland-Scotsculturethatitwouldalsofeedinto,

theiconographyoftartanrybecameevermoreappealing–accentuatedthroughacyclicScots

interchangeflittingwithinandoutwiththenation.79

71Pittock,‘PlaidingtheInventionofScotland,’p.39.72Ibid.73Ibid.74GraemeMorton,OurselvesandOthers,(Edinburgh,2012),p.4.75Ibid.76Ibid,p.248.77Mortonsupposesover2.33millionpeopletohaveleftScotlandbetween1825-1938,reckoningoneineverytwoScotstohave“hadsomelifeexperience–directorotherwise”oflifeoutwiththenation,Ibid,pp.248-9,268.78Ibid,p.268.79Thishasbeenseentounderpinlater,twentieth-centuryperceptionsofan“extensivetraditionofglobalmigration,”AngelaMcCarthy,‘PersonalAccountsofLeavingScotland,1921-1954,’ScottishHistoricalReview,Vol.LXXXIII,2,216,(October2004),pp.196-215,pp.211,201.

|P a g e

17

Truetoform,Scottishcommentatorshavefocuseduponthesimplefraudulenceofsuch

“objectification,”blurringboththemeansandmotivesbehinditsconstruction.Inhisperceptive

interpretationofa“Scottishdiscursiveunconscious,”ColinMcArthurrecognisesatransatlantic,

“mantralike”broadcastofrecognisableScottishtraits–a“hegemonicbricolageofimages,

narratives,subnarratives,tones,andturnsofphrase.”80Thoughdoubtlesslyinsightful,McArthur

presentsthis“limited,repetitiverepertoireofimagesandutterancesrelatingtoScotland”asthe

fairlyinsufferable,essentiallyAnglo-American“appropriation”or“restriction”ofdiscourse,atodds

withan“indigenous”Scotsoutlook.”81Whilehis“Scottishdiscursiveunconscious”effectivelypoints

tomoreglobal,dialogicaspectsatworkwithinthepromulgationandprolongationoftartanry,

McArthur’sanalysispresentsthisasafairlyone-way,“hegemonic”con,primarilyderivedbythe

diaspora.McArthurdulyacknowledgeshisownskewedperspective,“exacerbatedbytheindigenous

Scot’sexasperationattheflagrantinventionoftraditionatplay,”whichheoffersalongsidean

admitted“impatiencewiththeutterancesoftransatlanticScots.”82

BothpopularandacademicconceptionsofScottishdiasporicassociationsremainsimilarly

attachedtosuch“inauthentic,”somewhatindulgentenactmentsofScottishness,conductedthrough

anover-adherencetodebunkedmythsandembarrassingly“inventedtraditions.”Thepejorative

labelofthe“BurnsSupperschool”enteredintohistoriographicalparlanceinthemid-1950swith

GeorgeShepperson’sattemptstocounterthe“chauvinisticenthusiasm”ofacoterieofScots-

Americanhistorians;linkingover-zealousassertionsofScottishexceptionalismtotheself-

congratulatorycharacterofassociationaltributestotheScotspoet.83Overhalfacenturylater,this

ambivalencecontinues.

Inacollectionofengaginganddiscipline-definingarticlesonScottishglobalassociational

culture,TanjaBueltmannassertsthenecessityoflooking“beyondtheromanticised,shortbread-tin

façade”commonlyenvisagedofScots’diasporicgroupings.84Thisisalltothegood.Historical

investigationsmustattempttolook“beyond”suchmisleadingobjectification.However,the

significanceofthe“façade”itselfcannotbeoverlooked.Infact,itisimperativetolookboth

“beyond”andbeneaththesurfaceofsuchdiasporicprojections.Theverycovergraphicof

Bueltmann’scollection–animageofaginger-bearded,tartan-cladclans-man,perchedatopastool,

80ColinMcArthur,‘TransatlanticScots,TheirInterlocutors,andtheScottishDiscursiveUnconscious,’TransatlanticScots,pp.341,340.81Ibid,pp.351,340.82Ibid,p.348.83GeorgeShepperson,‘WritingsinScottish-AmericanHistory:ABriefSurvey,’WilliamandMaryQuarterlyJournal,3,Vol.11,2(April1954),163-78,p.165.84TanjaBueltmann,‘EthnicIdentity,SportingCaledoniaandRespectability:ScottishAssociationalLifeinNewZealand,’TiesofBluid,p.168.

|P a g e

18

draminhand–demonstratesthattheoldhabitofresortingtothetartanic“façade”doesindeeddie

hard.Withthisinmind,itissignificantthatthetitleofthepublication,“TiesofBluid,Kinand

Countrie,”providesaprimeexampleofverbaltartanryinaction;assertingScotsdistinctionthrough

theinvocationoftheever-so-divergentlanguageutilised“wheneverScotchmengather”overseas.

Thechoiceoftitleisrenderedallthemorenotablebytherelativelackofinvestigationintothe

relevanceofScotslanguagewithinthepublication.85

Soinsum,the“inventedtraditions”oftartanryremainacontentiousissueformanyScots,

andcontemporaryanxietiescanbebothassuagedandprovokedthroughconnectionstothe

endearing(orinsufferable)manifestationofcertainsymbols,oftenperceivedasthe“wayoverthe

top”indulgencesofdiasporicassociations.86Nevertheless,tartanryandexpatriateScottishgroups

appeartobelinkedwithinbothapopularandacademicconsciousness,whichregardthe

expressivelyScottishiconographyoftartanryastheratherparticularprovinceofdiasporic

associationalcultureandthepeculiarenactmentofScottishnessoutwithScotland.87

ConsideringtheubiquityofScottishglobalassociationsthroughoutthenineteenthcentury,

itislittlewonder.AteventssuchasJohnDuncan’s1818StAndrew’sDaydinnerinNewYork,society

members,predominantlymaleandelite,wouldadornthemselvesinScottishparaphernalia;dressing

inkiltsandsportingsprigsofheather,andpassedtheeveningindulginginlibationsofwhiskyand

theconsumptionofhaggis,perhapslaterparticipatinginScottishdanceswiththeaccompanimentof

apipeband.88Cultural“authenticity”clearlyplayedsecondfiddletothemotivesunderpinningsuch

pageantry.Andallsuchoutwardtrappingsultimatelyrevolvedaroundapre-ordainedceremonyof

toasts,speeches,songs,andpoetryrecitals–ritualscentredaroundlinguisticusage,wherethe

shibbolethsofverbaltartanrywereselectedtoevokeatoneofScottishnessnolesstangiblethan

the“materialtokens”ofanationalfood,music,anddress.89

Beforedelvingdeeperintodiasporicverbaltartanry,itwouldbeexpedienttoprovidea

workingdefinitionofthetermandoutlineitsorigins,whichlie,perhapsunsurprisingly,inthecult

statusaffordedtothelanguageofScotland’s“nationalbard”–RobertBurns.

85AnotableexceptionisinGraemeMorton’s,‘EthnicIdentityintheCivicWorldofScottishAssociationalCulture,’TiesofBluid,pp.43-44.86Kay,ScottishWorld,p.16,Basu,HighlandHomecomings,pp.17-24,42-43.87AngelaMcCarthy,ScottishnessandIrishnessinNewZealandsince1840,(Manchester,2011),pp.55,56-111.88Buettner,‘HaggisintheRaj,’p.215,GordonT.Stewart,JuteandEmpire,(Manchester1998),p.233-34,McCarthy,ScottishnessandIrishness,pp.52-53,TanjaBueltmann,ScottishEthnicityandtheMakingofNewZealandSociety,1850-1930,(Edinburgh,2011),pp.80-81,JohnM.MacKenziewithNigelDalziel,TheScotsinSouthAfrica,(Johannesburg,2007),pp.242-47.89Buettner,‘HaggisintheRaj,’p.225,McCarthy,ScottishnessandIrishnessinNewZealand,p.85.

|P a g e

19

Nationinconversation.

Itismarkedlynottheintentionofthisthesistobecomemiredinalinguisticdebateoverwhatdoes

ordoesnotconstitute“Scotslanguage.”90Indeed,theseeminglyworrisomemultiplicityandfluidity

ofLowlandlanguage(s)havebeenseentocontributetoa“woefulneglect”ofthehistorical

manifestationofsuchformsoverseas,withScotsvarietiesfrequentlyobscuredbythesolidityand

relativehomogeneityofGaelicinmarkingthedistinctionofdiasporicScots.91Yet,the“hybrid”and

historicallyproblematiccharacterofLowlandlanguage(s),notoriouslydifficulttopindown,isitselfa

keyindicatorofthefundamentalcomplexityandmalleabilityoflanguage–aconcept,whichbyits

verynatureshouldeluderestrictivedefinition.92Theoutlookofthisthesisisessentiallyhistorical,

andisthereforefarmoreconcernedwithinterpretationsandprojectionsofLowlandlanguagethan

anyinsisted“authenticity”ofasingularScotstongue.

Verbaltartanry,toreiterateMcCarthy’sphrase,was–andis–oneexampleofthemyriad

“personalmanifestationsofScottishness”bywhichScotsperceivedthemselves,andwereperceived

byothers,asScots.Forthepurposesofthisinvestigation,theterm“verbaltartanry”isappliedvery

broadlyandquitesimplytoanyformofLowland-linkedlanguagethatisperceptiblyregisteredas

“Scottish”withinthesourcesthemselves.Assuch,historicalshibbolethsofaglobalverbaltartanry

areoftenasformulaicandpredictableasthestereotypicalScottishemblemsofhaggis,bagpipes,

andclantartan.

Certainnineteenth-centuryScotstravellersregisteredlinguisticdistinctionwith“delight.”

Commentingonthe“intenselyScotch”settlementofOtagowhenjourneyingthroughNewZealand’s

SouthIsland,thecolonialsojournerJamesInglisrecalled“[i]twasdelightfultohearthedearauld

Scottishtongue,tonotetheScottishnamesofthestreets,andmarktheprevailingnomenclatureon

thesign-boards.”93YetInglisadmittedbeing“scarcelyprepared”fortheextentofScotsphraseology

90Classicdiscussionsinclude,DavidMuirson,TheGuidScotsTongue,(Edinburgh,1977),A.J.AitkenandTomMcArthureds.,LanguagesofScotland,(Edinburgh,1979),SusanRomaineandNancyDorian,ScotlandasaLinguisticArea,(Glasgow,1981),J.DerrickMcClureed.,ScotlandandtheLowlandTongue,(Aberdeen,1983).Also,JohnCorbett,J.DerrickMcClureandJaneStuart-Smith,‘ABriefHistoryofScots,’JohnCorbett,J.DerrickMcClureandJaneStuart-Smitheds.,TheEdinburghCompaniontoScots,(Edinburgh,2003).91AngelaMcCarthy,PersonalnarrativesofIrishandScottishmigration,1921-65,(Manchester,2007),p.185.92PeterTrudgill,Accent,DialectandtheSchool,(London,1975),pp.17,20,68-70,JohnCorbett,LanguageandScottishLiterature,(Edinburgh,1997),pp.2-5,10,13,RobertCrawford,IdentifyingPoets,(Edinburgh,1993),pp.162-3,JeffreySkoblow,DoobleTongue:Scots,Burns,Contradiction,(London,2001),pp.18-20,MichaelGardiner,ModernScottishCulture,(Edinburgh,2005),pp.120-30,AnetteI.Hagan,UrbanScotsDialectWriting,(Bern,2002),pp.11-12,29,51,JohnCorbett,WrittenintheLanguageoftheScottishNation.AHistoryofLiteraryTranslationintoScots,(Clevedon,1999),pp.175,184-6.93JamesInglis,OurNewZealandCousins,(London,1887),p.226.

|P a g e

20

atOtago.94“Onperusingthewine-carteattheGrandHotel,”he“foundtheFrench‘St.JulienMedoc’

figuringasStJulienM’Doe,”andmarvelledthat“theverywine-cardsinthehotels”hadbeen

“transmogrifiedfromFrenchtoScotch.”95

SuchlexicalcharminscribedScottishsuccessandstatusinOtago.Prestige-Scotsforms

functionedasthe“prevailingnomenclature”ofstreetnamesandbusinesssigns.“Transmogrified”

Scotsvintagesservedatthe“GrandHotel.”Elsewhereonhistravels,Inglisappearslessappreciative

ofotherdiasporiclinguisticdifferences,sneeringatthe“sing-songjabberofChinamen”atLake

Wakatipu,andobserving“thesecelestials”tohaveacquiredthesobriquetof“Scotchmanofthe

East,”“fortheyareasubiquitous.”96“NotthatthecannyCaledonianfeelsmuchflatteredbythat

comparison,”Inglisadded.97

TheScotsmusicianDavidKennedy,whotouredextensivelythroughouttheBritishempire

duringthe1870s,registeredsimilarambivalence.98RecallingarecitalatCapeTown’s“MutualHall,”

Kennedysupposed:

TheScottishelementwasverystronginouraudiences,andweweretoldwehadbeen

themeansofunitingourcountrymentogether,weldingthem,asitwere,whileunderthe

warmthofScottishsentimentandsong.99

YetuponhisarrivalattheCape,theKennedyfamilywitnessedasomewhatcoolerdemonstrationof

suchsocio-cultural“welding”:

Alongsidethewharf,wefoundourselvesunderabroilingsun,withhundredsofblacks

awaitingus,andscoresofEuropeans,boastingpuggarees,linencoats,andwhite

umbrellas.Thegangwaywasshovedonboardbyadozencoolies,‘bossed’byaburly

Scottishgentleman,whose‘braidScots’toneswerethefirstwordsthatgreetedusin

SouthAfrica.100

Theaccentofthe“gentleman”overseer,“bossing”indenturedlabourers,offersadimmerreflection

oftheglobal“warmth”ofScots’“sentimentandsong.”Perhapslessaffecting,suchpunctuated

“braidScots”appearedcomparablyeffectivein“unitingourcountrymen”overseas.

94Ibid.95Ibid.96Ibid,p.182.97Ibid.98Alongwithhisfatherandsister,KennedytravelledthroughAustralia,Tasmania,NewZealand,theU.S,Canada,SouthAfrica,India,and“Ceylon.”DavidKennedy,SingingRoundtheWorld,ANarrativeofhisColonialandIndianTours,(London,1887).99DavidKennedy,KennedyattheCape,(Edinburgh,1879),p.14.100Ibid,p.8.

|P a g e

21

ThisshedsamarkedlydifferentlightonLowlandScotsforms,oftenconsignedtoa

“nostalgia-shroudedniche”andevenlikenedtothelanguages“ofnativesincolonisedterritories

undertheruleofimperialgovernment.”101CertainLowlandexpressionsmarkedScottishimperial

prestigethroughoutthenineteenthcentury,anembodimentofthelinguisticprojectionsof

“symbolicpower”identifiedbyPierreBourdieu.102Themuch-discussed“heteroglossia”ofScotland

waskey.AsCairnsCraighasasserted,aScottishliteraryconditionistincturedbyan

acknowledgementofinteractionswithinandbetween“traditionally”-recognisedregisters–an

awarenessof“intersections”and“spacesbetween,”highlightingthedialogueof“vernacular”and

“standard,”“native”and“international.”103

VerbaltartanryfunctionedasaperformativebreakwithinEnglish“standards,”whilstalso

operatingintheintersticesbetweenthethreecommonlyregistered,differentiatedlinguisticentities

associatedwiththeScottishnation:English,Gaelic,andtherathermorevagueclassificationthatis

LowlandScots.Withinadiasporiccontext,thetropesofverbaltartanrywerealsobolsteredbythe

recognitionoffurtherlinguisticmultiplicityassumedtoexemplifytheirrevocabledifferenceof

colonial“others.”Assuch,verbaltartanrymediatedbetweenlinguisticvarietywhilstoperating

withinassumed“standards,”evincingthe“heteroglossic”overlapofanarrayofBritishimperial

discourses.

Followingtheliterarytheoryoftheearlytwentieth-centuryRussianphilosopherMikhail

Bakhtin,whopositedthe“interillumination”andinter-lockinghybridityofheteroglossiatoexist

withinandbetweenlanguages,commentatorshavemuseduponthe“multivocality”oftheScottish

nation,blessedwitha“richmutualinterferenceofdialectsandtongues.”104The“heteroglossic

conditionofScotland,”emphasisedbyan“assemblyoflanguagesandcultures”–namelyEnglish,

Scots,andGaelic–hasbeenpresentedasacrediblechallengeto“essentialist”conceptionsof“one

trueScotland.”105Andrightlyso.Yetthelinguistic“pluralismofandinScotland,”isalsoseenas

“significantlyremovedfromthatofEnglandorBritainasawhole.”106Thisismoreproblematic.In

acceptingBakhtin’shypothesis,onemustfactorintheheteroglossiapresentwithinandbetweenall

101DerrickJ.McClure,WhyScotsMatters,(Edinburgh,2009),pp.25.102PierreBourdieu,LanguageandSymbolicPower,JohnB.Thompsoned.,trans.GinoRaymondandMatthewAdamson,(Oxford,1991),pp.33-4,37-75.ForaninvestigationofthelinguisticdisplaysofcontemporaryEnglishmigrantswithintheUnitedStates,seeKatherineW.Jones’sAccentonPrivilege,EnglishIdentitiesandAnglophiliaontheU.S.,(Philadelphia,2001),pp.108-40103Craig,OutofHistory,pp.177,194,200-2.104MikhailBakhtin,TheDialogicImagination,FourEssaysbyM.M.Bakhtin,MichaelHolquisted.,trans.,CarylEmersonandMichaelHolquist,(Austin,1996),pp.12,270-9,Sassi,ScottishLiteratureMatters,pp.3,9,RobertCrawford,‘BakhtinandScotland,’Scotlands,(1994),1,pp.55-65,p.60.105Crawford,‘BakhtinandScotland,’pp.60,57.106Ibid,p.60,Crawford,IdentifyingPoets,pp.6-16.

|P a g e

22

languages,literatures,andcultures.ThisScoto-centricstandpointappearstoimplythatwhileall

languages,literatures,andculturesareheteroglossic,some(i.e.“ours”)maybemoreheteroglossic

thanothers.107

ThelegacyofBakhtinianassertions,“inthisactivelypolyglotworld”wheremultiple

languages“throwlightoneachother,”hasclearlybeenofgreatbenefitwithinaScottishliterary

context.108Perhapsmostnotably,interpretationsofheteroglossiahaveeasedthepassingofthe

long-perceived,either-orlinguisticbinarismbindingScottishcreativeexpression–seentoexhibit

theconstricting“paradox,”polarity,and“antisyzygy”ofclashinglanguages.109Assuch,theexplicit,

heteroglossiclinksunderpinninghistorically“Scottish”languageshaveservedaspecific,overturning

purpose.

Yetheteroglossiafunctionsasmuchwithinasbetween“languages.”Thecentral,universal

relevanceofBakhtin’sthesisliesinthesocio-linguisticmaskingofheteroglossicconnectionsthrough

theassumptionof“unitary”language“standards”–“forcesthatservetounifyandcentralizethe

verbal-ideologicalworld.”110Inthis,aScottishsituationispoignantlyreflected,yetnomoresothan

thatofanyothersocio-culturalenvironmentofintermingling“slangs,”“dialects,”“vernaculars,”and

“languages.”Bakhtinnotes,

[…]unitarylanguageisnotsomethinggiven[dan]butisalwaysinessenceposited[zadan]

–andateverymomentofitslinguisticlifeitisopposedtotherealitiesofheteroglossia.

Butatthesametimeitmakesitsrealpresencefeltasaforceforovercomingthis

heteroglossia,imposingspecificlimitstoit,guaranteeingacertainmaximumofmutual

understandingandcrystalizingintoareal,althoughstillrelative,unity–theunityofthe

reigningconversational(everyday)andliterarylanguage,‘correct’language.111

Throughsuchenacted“standards”veilingheteroglossicbonds,thelinguisticallureofverbaltartanry

wassolidified–demonstratinganacceptablyconventionaland“correct”Scotsdivergence,

burnishedbyaHighlandisedsheenbutconveyedthroughessentiallyEnglish-speakingdiscourse.

107ForabriefcritiqueoftheselectiveScottishadoptionofBakhtinianthought,seePeterMcCarey,‘OccasionalPaper:ByeByeBakhtin,’InternationalJournalofScottishLiterature,2(spring/summer2007),pp.1-4.108Bakhtin,DialogicImagination,p.12.109GerardCarruthers,ScottishLiterature,(Edinburgh,2009),pp.14-26.Keydiscussionsinclude,GeorgeGregorySmith,ScottishLiterature:CharacterandInfluence,(London,1919),ChristopherMurrayGrieve,AlbynorScotlandandtheFuture,(London,1927),EdwinMuir,ScottandScotland,(Edinburgh,1936),KurtWittig,TheScottishTraditioninLiterature,(Edinburgh,1958),DavidDaiches,TheParadoxofScottishCulture,(London,1964).110Bakhtin,DialogicImagination,p.270.111Ibid.

|P a g e

23

DiasporicarticulationsofverbaltartanryactuallyresembleBakhtin’sviewofthe

constructionofaclassical,singular“monoglossia,”hallowedinenvisageduniformityand“epic

distance”:

[…]theepicworldachievesaradicaldegreeofcompletednessnotonlyinitscontentbut

initsmeaninganditsvaluesaswell.Theepicworldisconstructedinthezoneofan

absolutedistancedimage,beyondthesphereofpossiblecontactwiththedeveloping,

incomplete,andthereforere-thinking,re-evaluatingpresent.[Emphasisadded.]112

Aswiththedialogic-diasporicnegotiationofScottishtropes,the“dominantforceandtruth”of

Bakhtin’s“epic”isframedwithin“thevalorized-hierarchicalcategoryofthepast,inadistancedand

distantimage.”113Amidthe“realities”ofheteroglossia,Bakhtinseesa“socio-ideologicallanguage

consciousness”tobecome“creative.”114“Surroundedbyheteroglossiaandnotatallasingle,unitary

language,inviableandindisputable,”thisconsciousnessisbesetwith“thenecessityofhavingto

choosealanguage.”115WithinanenvironmentunderpinnedbyBritishcolonialismandsupposed

colonial“difference,”thediscourseofverbaltartanrywasso“chosen”:

Witheachliterary-verbalperformance,consciousnessmustactivelyorientateitself

amidstheterglossia,itmustmoveinandoccupyapositionforitselfwithinit,itchooses,

inotherwords,a‘language.’116

Aswiththis“literary-verbalperformance,”throughwhichthe“standards”and“uniformity”of

languageareenacted,thediasporictropesofverbaltartanrywereprojectedandperceived.

Underpinningsuchperceptionsandprojectionsweretwokeycharacteristicsnotedofcontemporary

Lowlandlanguage–interconnectedelementslabelled“overtScotticisms”and“idealScots”bythe

socio-linguistA.J.Aitken.117Obviously,inorderforverbaltartanrytofunctionasaneffectivemarker

forassociationalgroupsbothwithinScotlandandoverseas,ithad,likeallsuchiconography,tobe

recognisableandconspicuous,inaclear,symbolicconnectionwithScotland.

InhisanalysisofScotsusageinthelatetwentiethcentury,Aitkenemployedtheterm“overt

Scotticisms”todenotethecuriouslycommonplacetendencyofScottishspeakersof“standard”

112Ibid,p.17.113Ibid,p.20.114Ibid,p.295.115Ibid.116Ibid.117A.J.Aitken,‘ScottishAccentsandDialects,’PeterTrudgilled.,LanguageintheBritishIsles,(Cambridge,1984),p.107,A.J.Aitken,‘TheGoodOldScotsTongue:DoesScotshaveanIdentity?’EinarHaugen,J.DerrickMcClure,andDerickThomsoneds.,MinorityLanguagesToday,(Edinburgh,1990),pp.79-82.

|P a g e

24

Englishto“intentionallydepart”fromtheir“regular”linguisticusage;voicing,oncertainoccasions,

specificand“selected”“Scottish-markedexpressions.”118Such“overtScotticisms”–deliberate,

“Scottish-marked”departuresfromaperceived“standard”–werenotedtoinclude“alargenumber

oftraditionalvernacularScotswordsandword-forms,”althoughsignificantlynot“thosestigmatized

localisms[…]regardedasvulgarisms.”119

Revealingly,AitkenobservedtheinstanceswhenScotsappearedmostinclinedtoassert

theirlinguisticdistinctiontobepredominantly,althoughnotexclusively,associational:“occasions

whenitseemsdesirabletoclaimmembershipofthein-groupofScots–aBurnsSocietymeetinglet

ussay.”120Withhisoffhand,first-come-to-mindexampleof,“letussay,”Scots“in-groups”atBurns

societies,Aitkeninstinctivelycorrelated“overt”linguisticusagebothwithScottishassociational

cultureandtheworkofRobertBurns–analignmentreminiscentofTrevor-Roper’sconnectionof

“inventedtraditions”withtheoccasionsonwhich“Scotchmengather.”

ItwasthepoetryofBurns,theannualvenerationofwhomremainsavestigialreminderof

thepotencyofScottishassociationalculture,whichwasinstrumentalinthesanitisationand

sanctificationof“overtScotticisms”withinnineteenth-centurydiasporicgatherings.121Overthis

period,Burnsianlanguagebecameevermorecermonialised,hailedasholyrelicsofverbaltartanry.

JohnDuncan’saccountofthe1818StAndrew’scelebrationatNewYork,barelytwodecadesafter

thepoet’sdeath,isindicativeofhowrapidlyBurnswasacknowledgedas“nationalbard”by

diasporicScots.Moreover,thelinguisticself-consciousnesswithinDuncan’snarrativeappearsto

reflectAitken’slatetwentieth-centurynotionof“overtScotticisms”withinanearlynineteenth-

centurydiasporiccontext.

However,itwasthelatterhalfofthenineteenthcenturythatformedthedefinitiveperiodin

thedevelopmentofaglobalverbaltartanry.Theperiodencompassingthefirstcentenariesof

Burns’sbirth,death,andpublicationoftheKilmarnockeditionofPoems,ChieflyintheScottish

DialectendowedScotswithaseriesofpoignantopportunitiestorevelinBurnsianaoutwith

Scotland,cultivatingfurtherappreciationofthepoetamongyoungergenerations.Moreover,the

BurnscultenabledpredominantlyelitemembersofScottishassociationstoindulgeinaself-

118Aitken,‘ScottishAccents,’p.107.119Ibid.120Ibid.121AlanRiach,‘HeatherandFern:TheBurnsEffectinNewZealandVerse,’HeatherandtheFern,pp.161-9,MurrayPittock,‘“ALongFarewelltoAllMyGreatness”:TheHistoryandReputationofRobertBurns,’BurnsinGlobalCulture,(Plymouth,2011),pp.35-41,ClarkMcGinn,‘VehementCelebrations:TheGlobalCelebrationoftheBurnsSuppersince1801,’BurnsinGlobalCulture,pp.194-200,SharonAlker,LeithDavis,andHollyFaithNelson,‘Introduction,’Alkeretaleds.,RobertBurnsandTransatlanticCulture,(Farnham,2012),pp.3-10,ElizabethWaterston,RaptinPlaid,(Toronto,2001),pp.4-19.

|P a g e

25

congratulatorycelebrationofcertain“national”characteristics,whilepayinglipservicetothe

increasinglyenvogueperceptionofBurnsasachampionof“universallove.”122

Aswithalargely“platitudinous”invocationofa“white,”male,andelitesocio-cultural

“universality,”suchdiasporicvenerationpromulgatedalexiconofaccepted–andacceptable–

Lowlandlanguage,renderedpalatablethroughthelegitimisingpaleofScottishassociational

culture.123ThroughtheircelebrationsofBurnsianpoetryand“propriety,”nineteenth-century

Scottishassociations,muchlikeAitken’smore-recent“in-groups,”extolledthequalitiesofa

“homely”andessentiallyornamentalScotsphraseology,emphatically“refined”from“stigmatized

localisms”and“vulgarisms.”ThecultstatusbestoweduponBurns,ceremonialisingcertainScots

excerpts,wasprevalentbothwithinandoutwithScotland.However,aswithtartanry,appreciations

ofBurns,bothhomeandabroad,wereoftentintedwithallusionstodiasporicnostalgiaandthe

“epicdistance”ofexile,whileseeminglystereotypicalScotscharacteristics,unsubtlylinkedtoBurns,

wereseentosymboliseabeneficialScottishinfluenceuponBritishimperialism.

Suchactsofreverence-revelryfamouslydrewtheireofHughMacDiarmidinthe1920s,

skeweringtheglobalBurnscultintheopeningstanzasof‘ADrunkManLooksattheThistle.’In

deridingaworldwidesham-Scotspageantry,mockingthepomposityof“CrooseLondonScotties,”

thepoet’sangerflaredatthe“inauthentic.”124Yet,MacDiarmid’sirritationattheglobalidolatryof

BurnsandsuchflimsyassumptionsofScottishnessbetrayedanaggressiveessentialisminitself.125

Thepoetscornedtheflatulent“annualguzzle”ofBurns’svenerationasultimately“un-Scottish,”and

byhighlightingthesuperficialityofthesocio-linguisticmasqueradeconducted“inpidginEnglishorin

wild-fowlScots,”MacDiarmidbemoanedthesuppressionorsubversionof“genuine”Scottish

qualities.126

MacDiarmid’svitriolreflectstheextenttowhichsuchself-congratulatory,transnational

Scotsposturinghadpersistedintotheearlydecadesofthetwentiethcentury.Thisrhetoricwas

evidentoutwithScotland.“IthasbeensaidthattheScotisneversomuchathomeaswhenheis

abroad,”professedtheScots-AmericanemigrantJohnFoordin1921;envisioningthe“vigorofthe

Scottishrace”in“thefactthatforfivehundredyearstheLandO’Cakesenrichedtheworldwiththe

122KyleHughes,‘“Scots,StandFirm,andourEmpireisSafe”:ThePoliticisationofScottishClubsandSocietiesinBelfastduringtheHomeRuleEra,c.1885-1914,’,TiesofBluid,pp.209-10,208,GerardCarruthers,‘Burns’sPoliticalReputationinNorthAmerica,’BurnsandTransatlanticCulture,pp.92-3.123Carruthers,‘Burns’sPoliticalReputation,’p.98.124HughMacDiarmid,ADrunkManLooksattheThistle,KennethButhlayed.,(Edinburgh,1987),p.8.125Craig,OutofHistory,pp.108-9.126ChristopherMurrayGrieve,AlbynorScotlandandtheFuture,(London,1927),pp.12-13,MacDiarmid,DrunkManLooksattheThistle,p.8.

|P a g e

26

surplusofherablemen.”127FoordcombinedaScots-Americantriumphalism,“antidoteagainstall

thatwasbaseorignoble,”withadiasporicglamour“enshrinedintheinnersanctuary”of

“memories,sentiments,yearnings,”andunderpinnedbya“quaintandcopiousDoricspeechwhich

makessodirectanappealtotheheartsofmenwhethertheyaretothemannerbornornot.”128This

wasa“Scottishcharacter”whichFoordsupposed“moldedintotheformsthatScottandBurnsmade

immortal”;alinguisticcraftingideallysuitedtotugatexpatriateheartstrings:

So,aswecherishthememoriesoftheMotherland,keepintouchwiththesimpleannals

ofourchildhood’shome,orthehomeofourkin,baskinthefiresideglowofitshomely

humor,ordwellinimaginationamidthehauntsofoldromance,wearethebetter

AmericansfortheScottishheritagefromwhichheartandmindalikederiveinspiration

anddelight.129

Crucially,suchdiasporicsensibilitieswerealsoimaginedwithinScotland,wherean

appreciationof“Doricspeech”wasamplifiedbyanticipationsof“epicdistance”and“exile.”In

December1912,CharlesMurray,reckonedthen“themostpopularvernacularpoetinScotland,”

washonouredatadinnerreceptionatAberdeen’sPalaceHotel,toastedas“ourAberdeenshire

Burns.”130Butthis“vernacularpoet”wasmerelyvisitingScotland,enjoyingabrieffurloughfromhis

wide-rangingcareerinBritishSouthAfrica,whereheservedasaminemanagerandsurveyoronthe

Witwatersrandbeforeembarkingonasuccessfulstintinthecolonialcivilservice.

Welcoming“OurGuest,”AlexanderMackie,editoroftheAberdeenUniversityReview,

laudedMurrayinglobalterms–celebratingtheScot’spoetry“penetratingintoeveryregionwhere

ourfellow-countrymenaretobefound.”131Mackiehighlightedthe“contrastbetweenthesunny

land”ofMurray’s“adoptionandthemoresombrebutbelovedplaceofhisbirth,”reflecting,as

“[a]bsencemakestheheartgrowfonder”:

Theexiledcolonist’saffectionswaxwarmtothemothercountry,andthisgivesone

dominantnotetoMurray’slyre.Revolvingmanymemoriesofhisyouthfuldaysandof

sceneswithdrawnfromsight,helooksacrossthemilesofmountainousveldt[…].132

127JohnFoord,‘Foreword,’GeorgeFraserBlack,Scotland’sMarkonAmerica,(NewYork,1921),pp.3,6.128Ibid,pp.3,5.129Ibid,p.3.130JonathonHyslop,‘MakingScotlandinSouthAfrica:CharlesMurray,theTransvaal’sAberdeenshirepoet,’DavidLambertandAlanLestereds.,ColonialLivesAcrosstheBritishEmpire,(Cambridge,2006),p.310,AlexanderMackieed.,DinnerinHonourofCharlesMurray,(Aberdeen,1912-13),p.13,AlexR.Scott,OursistheHarvest,ALifeofCharlesMurray,(Aberdeen,2003),p.95.131Mackie,Dinner,p.13.132Ibid,p.16.

|P a g e

27

Murrayhimselfaddressedthese“affections”ofthe“exiledcolonist,”framinganotable

portionofhisownspeecharoundaninsistenceuponadiasporicScots“patriotism”suffusedwith

imperialpride:

Iwouldliketotakeitasevidenceofyourinterestandcareforyourcountrymenwhoare

abroad–(applause)–forallthosewhohavekepttheoldtraditionsintheirmindsandthe

loveoftheoldcountryintheirhearts.Icanassureyouathomeyouhavenoideaofthe

patriotismoftheScotabroad.IfyoucouldonlyhavebeeninAfricaonSaturdayitwould

havesurprisedyou.St.Andrew’sisthedayofthewholeyearfortheScotsinSouthAfrica.

(Applause).NotavillagefromCapeTowntotheZambezi–ImightalmostsayCairo–if

therearetwoScotsthere(anditisapoordorpthatcannotboastofthatmuch),butwill

haveitsCaledonianSociety,anditsSt.Andrew’sbanquet,andonSt.Andrew’sdaythe

telegraphwireswillbehummingfrommorningtonightinmessagescouchedinScotsof

goodwillandbrotherhoodpassingfromonesocietytotheother,theoperatorsgrowling

intheuncouthtaal,andcontrivingwithconsiderablesuccesstomutilateitontheway.133

EnvisioningStAndrewsDayeventsknittingtogetheraneminentScottishpresenceupontheAfrican

continent,Murray,withevidentsatisfaction,supposeda“humming”networkoftelegraphcables

conveyingScotsgreetings.Tellingly,the“operators”chargedwithconductingthesecommunications

areratherlessfavourablyportrayed,seento“mutilate”thediscourse,“growling”in“uncouthtaal”

–“LowDutch”ancestorofAfrikaans.

Yet,MurrayalsonotedaparticularScotsaffinitywiththis“simplerAfrikaans–theTaal–

whichhasbeenspokenonthefarmsoftheveldtforgenerations.”134AtthePalaceHotel,Murray

musedthat“Scotslikeourselvesmusthaveadeepsympathywithanycountryorracewhichloves

itsownlanguageandseekstopreserveit”;registeringanespeciallyScottish“interest”inthe

interchangebetweenEnglishandAfrikaans,thetwo“official”languagesattheCape:

[…]iftheDutchlanguagedoesmaintainitselfagainsttheEnglish,manyofuswillbe

temptedtowishthatasimilarprovisionhadbeenmadetopreserveourScotslanguageat

theUnionofScotlandandEngland.(Laughterandapplause).135

Thisinterpretationexemplifiesasecondkeyaspectofverbaltartanry–reflectingAitken’s

conceptionofamythic,“idealScots.”

133Ibid,p.24.134QuotedinScott,OursistheHarvest,p.162.AlsoCharlesChristie,SomememoriesofCharlesMurrayandafewfriends,(Pretoria,1943),pp.21-2.135Mackie,Dinner,p.22.

|P a g e

28

Theideaof“idealScots”ispredicatedupontheperceivedlossor“decay”ofasolid,historicLowland

literary“standard.”136CharlesMurray’sfriendandfellow-AberdonianAlexanderMackieprovidesa

quintessentialexampleofthisconviction.Intheintroductiontohis1908editionofWilliam

Alexander’sJohnnyGibbo’Gushetneuk,Mackieinterpretedthenovelist’s“Doric”tobe“atits

raciest,caughtjustintimebeforetheEducationActof1872begantotakeeffect.”137Supposinga

Scotsliteraryprestigeinterlinkedwithadoomed“Doric,”Mackiereflectedthatthough“[t]hedialect

willnotdieawhileyet,[…]thereislittledoubtthatunderacompulsoryEnglisheducationitspurity

andbreadthofvocabularyarealreadyonthewane.”138Inhis1912tributetoMurray,Mackie

similarlydweltuponcontemporary“corruption,”inwhichpopularScotsauthors“compromised

matterswiththeirpublicbyaliberalwateringoftheirlanguage.”139“Thesearedaysofdiluted

dialect,”MackiejokedtohisAberdonianaudience,toasting,“[w]eherelikeourScotchneat.”140

ThelinguisticandliteraryhistoryoftheScottishnationislitteredwithsuchbleakinsistences

uponencroaching“English”forms,andthe“corruption,”“dilution,”oruprootingofLowland

varieties.Throughdomesticapathyandinattention,aswellasinsidious“Anglicisation,”adignified,

“national”Scotstongueisviewedtohave“decayed”tothatofa“dialect”–alinguistic“haphazard,”

“akindofbrokenEnglish.”141Commentingonthisfrequentlyheldperception,andrecognisingthe

“strangelytimelessquality”tosuchnarratives,Aitkenquestionedthe“firmlyheldandconstantly

repeatedbelief”intheperennialdeclineofLowlandlanguage.142

Aitkensuggeststhatthroughthislong-standingconceptionof“corruption”andpending

extinction,certainScotstraitsbecameimbuedwiththe“delightfulness”of“threatenedwordsand

expressions,”supposingthisphenomenon“stylisticallymarkedforStandardEnglishspeakers”within

acontextwhere“StandardEnglishistheunmarkedvariety.”143Ultimately,this“threatened”Scots

idealisenshrinedbyparallelassumptionsofacommon,conventionalregisterofEnglishlinguistic

“standards.”Thatwhichisgeneral,secure,and“standard”isthusthought“English.”Conversely,

contemporaryLowlandforms,supposedlystrippedof“standards”andhamstrungsomewhere

136Aitken,‘GoodOldScotsTongue,’pp.79-80.137WilliamAlexander,JohnnyGibbo’Gushetneuk,(Edinburgh,1908),p.xxi.138Ibid.139Mackie,Dinner,p.16.140Ibid.141Aitken,‘GoodOldScotsTongue,’pp.79,DouglasYoung,‘PlasticScots’andtheScottishLiteraryTradition,(Glasgow,1948),pp.3,7,11-12,Muirson,GuidScotsTongue,(Edinburgh,1977),pp.7,56.142Aitken,‘GoodOldScotsTongue,’pp.81,82.143Ibid,p.81.

|P a g e

29

betweenslangandaccent,“dialect”and“vernacular,”arebelievedboth“unfocussed”andmore

locally-linked;“onthewane,”yetin“oppositionto‘ordinarylanguage.’”144

Perceptionsofthismythic,ever-threatenedScotslanguage–“ourlang-a-deeinmither

tongue”–contributedtoawistful,diasporicattachmenttosuchseeminglydisplacedScottish

traits.145Asisdiscussedinalaterchapter,anenvisioned“corruption”andlinguistic“decline”were

markedfactorsbehindanupsurgeofinterestinLowlandlexicographywithinScotlandduringthe

lateeighteenthcentury.Thiswasalsoanotedconcernforsubsequentgenerationsoutwiththe

nation.“TheScotchlanguageis,perhaps,destinedtoperish,”lamentedabrief,anonymousarticle

printedthroughouttheUnitedStatesinearly1859,insisting,“[t]herearemanyScotchwordsand

Scotchexpressionswhichoughttobesavedfromthewreck.”146

Essentially,Scotsformswereseentoenhance“English,”reflectingthecentury-old

argumentsofAllanRamsayandpreviousgenerationsof“revivalist”Scotswriters.TheAmerican

articlesupposedbysuch“adoption,theEnglishlanguagewouldbeimmenselyenriched,”and“[t]he

Scotchlanguage,”thoughpossessing“noRomanmajesty,”wasconsideredto“lenditselfmost

opulentlytopathosandhumor”:

[…]InitshomelinessthereisapowerafterwhichtheEnglishlanguageoftenstrivesin

vain–whatineffectishomeliness,butthatwhich,comingfromthehome,goesback

thitherwithnaturalimpulseandirresistibleforce.Alanguagelosesitsmoralempire,

whenitdesertsentirely,astheEnglishlanguagehasdesertedthecommonspeechofthe

people;andthatmoralempiregone,whatavailsalearnedairandrhetorical

embellishment?147

CertainScotsforms,both“homely”andhoming,wereheraldedastheembodimentofa“moral

empire”–a“naturalimpulseandirresistibleforce”flickeringbetweenpreconceivedspacesof

“home”and“abroad.”

Conceptionsofthethreatened,andhomely-homingessenceofLowlandlanguagewere

voicedinScotlandduringpreciselythesameperiod.DeanEdwardBannermanRamsay’s1858

ReminiscencesofScottishLifeandCharacterofferedaninfluentialmirroringofScotsnostalgia,

144C.IMacafee,‘OngoingChangeinModernScots:TheSocialDimension,’CharlesJonesed.,EdinburghHistoryoftheScotsLanguage,(Edinburgh,1997),pp.515,517-18,526.145BillyKay,TheMitherTongue,(Edinburgh,1986),p.16146Anon.‘ScotchWords,’WheelingDailyIntelligencer(Virginia),19January1859,p.2,‘ScotchWords,’GreencastleBanner,(PutnamCounty,Indiana),26January1859,ScotchWords,’Anti-SlaveryBugle,(Lisbon,Ohio),29January1859,p.4,‘TheScotchTongue,’DailyEveningBulletin(SanFrancisco,California),10March1859,nopage.147ThepiecewasalsoprintedinBritain,featuringalongsidethemorbidlystiltedScotspoem‘Faither’sDeath,’TheEnglishPresbyterianMinister,(London),January1860,p.17.

|P a g e

30

flavouredwithanexilicyearningandsentimentalisingofLowlandlanguage.Ramsaywasreckoned

“themostpopularauthorofthisgeneration”bytheadvocateandhistorianCosmoInneswithinhis

prefacetothetwenty-secondeditionoftheReminiscencesin1874.148Innesobservedthe

“marvelloussuccess”ofRamsayand“thelittlebook”tohavetraversed“[a]llovertheworld,

whereverScotchmenandScotchlanguagehavemadetheirway–andthatembraceswide

regions.”149

Ramsay–EpiscopalianDeanoftheEdinburghdiocese–wroteof“Scottishlanguage”

assuminga“farmoreimpressivecharacterwhenheardamongstthosewhospeakadifferent

tongue,andwhenencounteredinotherlands,”identifyinga“nationalattachmentsostronginthe

Scottishcharacter”:

[…]whilstabsent,howeverlongatime,ScotchmenneverforgettheirScottishhome.Inall

varietiesandclimatestheirheartseverturntowardthe‘lando’cakesandbritherScots.’

ScottishfestivalsarekeptwithScottishfeelingson‘Greenland’sicymountains’or‘India’s

coralstrand.’[Originalemphasis].150

RamsaycelebratedaScotssuperiorisminwhichpunctuatedLowlandphrasesfusedwiththehymn

lyricsofReginaldHeber–AnglicanBishopofCalcuttaintheearly1820s–presenting“Scottish

feelings”ascelebratoryandsentimental,atoncequaintlylocalisedandforcefullyglobal.151

Aswithtartanry,thiswasaglobally-envisionedandglobally-constructedsenseofdifference,

underscoredbythediasporicnegotiationofa“threatened”Scotsessence.Asthetitleofhis

“Reminiscences”suggests,Ramsaystressedanintentionto“preservenationalpeculiaritieswhich

arethuspassingawayfromus,”commentingthat“onegreatpleasure”ofhisundertakingwas

collectingarangeoftalessuggestiveof“ScottishLifeandCharacter”fromindividualsthroughout

theglobe.152Revealingly,muchofthematerialfortheReminiscenceswasclaimedtohaveoriginated

beyondScotland;receivedbyanauthorespeciallykeentoproclaimsuch“numerousand

sympatheticcommunications”weresourced

[…]ImayliterallysayfromScotchmeninallquartersoftheworld;sometimes

communicatingverygoodexamplesofScottishhumour,andalwaysexpressingtheir

148CosmoInnes,‘MemoirofDeanRamsay,’Dean[EdwardBannerman]Ramsay,ReminiscencesofScottishLifeandCharacter,twenty-secondedition,(Edinburgh,1874),p.lxi.149Ibid.150Dean[EdwardBannerman]Ramsay,ReminiscencesofScottishLifeandCharacter,(1858:Edinburgh,1871),pp.106,xix.151ForHeber,seeJeffreyRichard,Imperialismandmusic.Britain1876-1953,(Manchester,2001),p.386-87152Ramsay,Reminiscences,(1871),p.xix.

|P a g e

31

greatpleasureinreading,whenindistantlandsandforeignscenes,anecdoteswhich

remindthemofScotland,andoftheiraindaysof‘auldlangsyne.’[Originalemphasis.]153

Inthismanner,thenostalgiaforthe“GoodOldScotsTongue,”amythicideallong-obscuredbya

normative“English,”andalwaysonthebrinkofextinction,wasenvisagedwithanextra,exilic

twinge.154Aswithothertropesoftartanry,suchScotsformswerefurtherobjectifiedthrough

sentimentaliseddiasporicreactionstothephysicalandhistoricaldistanceofthe“aindays”of“auld

langsyne.”

AsIhavesuggestedelsewhere,asenseof“kailyardiccontra(-)diction”laybeneaththeseglobal

manifestationsofLowlandlanguage–framingaforeign-yet-familiarScotsdistinctionwithinacouthy

rusticitywhichalsohintedatScottishimperialprideandculturalsuperiorism.155Bythelaterdecades

ofthenineteenthcentury,theubiquityofScotsformswithintheboundsoftheBritishempireand

the“Anglo-world”wasremarkable.156Lowlandlanguagewasevenutilisedinassertingbourgeoning

“dominion”patriotism.AheadofStAndrewsDayin1890,theToronto-basedScottishCanadian

printedthecongratulations“ofabritherScotinHamilton”:

[…]wehailyeasabritherwhahasgi’entaeusapaperthatwillsupplyalangfeltwant

oothereinCanada.TheYankeesaremayea’richtbutgiemeapapero’oorain.Wehae

ideas,an’notions,an’peculiaritiestae,thatcanbestbereflectitbyanorgano’oorain–

wedinnaaywanttaebegauntaeoorbigblusterin’cousinacrossthebordertaefin’oot

fitheroorhairtsareintherichtplaceorno’.157

Theshort-livedweeklymagazine,issuedfrom1890-92bytheTorontoprintinghouseofthe

ScotsmigrantJohnImrie,offeredanextensiveselectionofserials,poetry,andevenadvertisements

couchedinLowlandlanguage.Onecorrespondentremarkedthatthepublication’sadoptionof

“HighlandandLowlanddialects,shouldcommendittoeverysonoftheheather.”158Readerswere

instructedto“‘comeawa’to’Micklethwaite’sPhotographGallery”onthecornerofJarvisandKing’s

street,andtradesmensuchasJ.L.Robin,theWilcoxStreet“ScotchPainter,”offeredtheirservices

153Ibid.154Cowan,‘MythofScotchCanada,’Myth,MigrationandtheMakingofMemory,pp.61-4,TomBrooking,‘SharingouttheHaggis:TheSpecialScottishContributiontoNewZealandHistory,’HeatherandtheFern,pp.53-4.155SeanMurphy,‘Scotland,‘GreaterBritain,’andtheKailyardicContra(-)diction,’ScottishLiteraryReview,Vol.8,1,(Spring/Summer2016),pp.69-91,pp.72-3.156JamesBelich,ReplenishingtheEarth,TheSettlerRevolutionandtheRiseoftheAnglo-World,1783-1939,(Oxford,2009),pp.14,67.157Anon.,‘AsOthersSeeUs,’ScottishCanadian,(Toronto),No.3,27November1890,p.10.158Ibid,No.10,15January1891,p.3.

|P a g e

32

“taegetyourceilingswhitewashedandyourwa’spapered,an’awarkduneasitshouldbedune.”159

JamesLangskill,“ScotchGrocer”ofGerrardStreet,kepthismessagesimple–“Dinnaforgettaegang

orTelephonetoJAMESLANGSKILLTHESCOTCHGROCERfora’yewantinhisline.”160Thisperhaps

promptedtheslightlymoreassertiveresponsefromaKing’sStreetcompetitorthreeweekslater,

“Hi!Hi!!Hi!!!WhoisToronto’sScotchGrocer?JAS.F.Copland…He’saguidane.”161

Ultimately,suchScots-inflecteddiscourse,“overt”andoften“idealised,”operatedin

dialoguewith“standard”EnglishandBritishimperialprestige.Anearlytwentieth-centuryAustralian

counterparttotheScottishCanadian,providedregularassertionsofthe“propriety”ofcertainScots

forms,whileassuringreadersofthebenevolentScottishpresencewithintheantipodes.Thefirst

editionoftheMelbourne-basedScot,AtHameandAbroadcelebrated“theglowofScottish

patriotismwhichmadetheoldcountryfreeandgreat,”notingthis“cannotfailtobegoodfor

Australasia.”162Adiasporicsenseofconnectionwasintegral.Theeditorreckonedthepublication“a

medium”for“theScotinAustraliaandNewZealand,”“wherebyhemaybekeptintouchwithhis

countrymen‘athame,’”alsoinsisting“[t]o‘theScotathame’”that“wemayproveaconnectinglink

withthe‘Scotabroad.’”163

AswiththeScottishCanadian,theMelbournemagazinefrequentlyprintedScotsverses

sentimentalisingthestrainsof“MyMitherTongue”(“nowseldomheard”which“waftmebacktae

blythertimes”),whilstalsoissuingcallstoridtheworldof“‘Stage’Scotch’–“Can’tweagitateforits

abolition[?]Sometimesit’samusing,butmostlyit’spainful.”164“MissEloiseJuno,”CollinsStreet

elocutionist,advertisedwithintheScot,seekingthecustomof“[p]arentswhoproposetohavetheir

childrentaughttoappreciateandrenderpoetryorproseefficiently,”stressing,“pureand

unadulteratedScotchDoricisalsoimpartedifrequired.”165

SuchassertionsofLowlandlinguistic“purity”blendedwithacolonialchauvinism,inwhich

short,light-heartedarticlespokedfunatScottishimperialsuccess.AcorrespondentinSouthAfrica

jokedofaWelshrailwaymanbeingobligedtogivehisnametheScotticisedtweakof“MacEvans”

whenseekingemploymentinDurban,andmused:

159Ibid,No.1.,13November1890,p.13,No.41,20August1891,p.11.160Ibid.No.19,19March,1891,p.5.161Ibid,No.22,9April1891,p.13.162‘Editorial,’TheScot,AtHameandAbroad,(Melbourne),No.1,1June1902,p.1.163Ibid.164Ibid,p.15.165Ibid,p.17.

|P a g e

33

Ifyou’reScotchandwantabilletinNatal,[…]you’resuretogetit.They’reallScotchon

therailway,andIamsureitmustbeverygratifyingtoanybodyfreshfromthe‘lando’

cakes’tohearhismanyquestionsansweredinbroad‘Glasgie’or‘Hieland.’166

WhilemanyaccountsofScotsexceptionalismweresimilarlytongue-in-cheek,rathermore

disconcertingexpressionsofculturalsuperiorismcirculatedwithintheperiodical.Onearticle,

reprintedfromtheNewYorkSun,reportedthat“ScotsmenareindignantattheBritishWar

DepartmentassigningthepipesandtartantoIndianandnegroregiments”;complainingofthe

“pipers”of“theWestAfricanregimentrecruitedatSierraLeone,”and“Sepoyregiments”arrayedin

“theGraham,Campbell,OldStuartandUrquharttartans.”167

Infact,ScotsformsprovidedameansofpunctuatingaHighlandiseddistinction.TheScottish

CanadianofferedoccasionalcomparisonsofHighlandersand“natives,”printingtheletterof“Aneo’

theMacAlpines,”hintingatScottish“indigeneity”:

Idinnakenfetherthereisonyaffinityatweenthered-skinnedbodiesantheHeilantman,

butfaithSandy,itlooksawfu’likeittaeme”onseeinganotherofhis‘clan’dancewithan

Indianwoman.168

RunningasporadicGaeliccolumn,andoccasionallyprintingarticlesofferinginstructionintheGaelic

language,theScottishCanadianmostregularlypraisedtheGaìdhealtachdusingLowlanddevices–a

distinctivebutultimatelycomprehensiblelinguisticmediumforspeakersof“standard”English.“I

haeseentwanumbero’yerexcellentpaper,”onereadercommentedinJanuary1891,noting“Ijist

wanttaetellyethatIlikitthemraleweel.I’mverragladye’reprentin’apaperwi’sic’agraun’-

soundin’name,”andreckoning“theScotchthistlean’oorainmapleleafluikuncoweel

thegither.”169Yet,thecorrespondentdevotedmostofhisScots-inflectedlettertoaninsistenceupon

thebeautyandvitalityofGaelic,discussingarecentarticleandhisowndesiredfluencyinthat

language:

I’mproodtaetellyethatIunderstaun’theGaelicmysel’altho’Idinnapretendtaereadit

I’prent.ButIwantittaefindootwhatthepairsonwhawrittheGaelicwasdiscoursin’

aboot,saeIjistthochtIwadtrytaemak’ootaleetleo’itmysel’an’altho’Isayitwha

shudna,itwasamazin’hoomonyo’thewordsIculdmak’ootwi’aweebito’studyin’.170

166Ibid,No.2,1July1902,p.12.167Ibid,No.1,p.9.168ScottishCanadian,No.6,18December1890,p.5.169Ibid,No.12,29January1891,p.9.170Ibid.

|P a g e

34

TheGaeliclanguage,imbuedwiththeHighland-deriveddesirabilityofmanyofthe“prood”emblems

oftartanry,wascelebratedasanemphaticallyScottishlanguage.171However,astheletter

demonstrates,LowlandlinguisticdeviceswereusedinassertingGaelicoverseas,akeymeansofre-

orientingScottishHighlandismwithinapredominantlyEnglish-speakingenvironment.

Intriguingly,theweekpriortothepublicationoftheScots-pennedpaeantoGaelic,the

ScottishCanadianprintedanotheralternately-accentedpiece.Onthesamepageasaletterpraising

their“genuinedialectGaeliccolumn,”theeditorsofferedanarticleentitled‘HangingaRattleSnake,’

composedinsupposedly“Efiopian”English:

MistahEditah–I’senotabigot.Nosah.I’dsoonahgibderighthandobfellahshiptera

‘spectabulwhitemandanIwoodteradis-espectabulwunobmyowncullah.Allowme

dentercongratilateyerasdeeditahobdeSCOTTISHCANADIANandterwishyerandyer

paypahawerryhappyNooYeah,andmanyobdem.[…]WesegotinTorontoDeIrish

CanadiananddeSCOTTISHCANADIAN.Wyden,shoodn’twehabdayah,also,DeEfiopian

Canadian?172

Regardlessoftheprovenanceofeitherthe“Efiopian”authorortheScots-accentedfanof

Gaelic,thefactremainsthattheScottishCanadianacknowledgedthesignificanceofdistinctive

lexicalmarkerswithinlarger“English”parameters.Anynotionsofcultural,linguistic,oreven

individual“authenticity”areaptlymoot.Duetothehistoricalmysteryregardingtheidentityand

“cullah”ofthe“Efiopian”correspondent,thisdiscoursestandsbothasaconfidentarticulationof

“BlackEnglish”andalsotheshudderinglyinsultinglinguistic“blackface”perhapsadoptedinracist

jestbytheeditorsoftheScottishCanadian.Assuch,thesupposed“origins”or“authenticity”of

linguisticshibbolethsappearappropriatelyproblematic,underscoringtheprimaryconcernofthis

investigation–themannerinwhichlinguistictraitswereprojectedandperceived.

So,certainLowlandformswerefavourablyexhibitedasverbaltartanry,“idealised”and“overtly”

presentedoverseas.Thisglobalphenomenonoccurredintandemwithanineteenth-centurysurgein

“vernacular”prosewithintheScottishnation,inbothpopularliteratureandthedomesticpress.173

Vitally,suchvibrantarticulationsofwrittenScotsformsoperatedinjuxtapositionwithother171FordiscussionsofdiasporicengagementwithGaelic,seeRobertMcCollMillar,‘Gaelic-InfluencedScotsinpre-RevolutionaryMaryland,’UrelandStureandIainClarksoneds.,LanguageContactAcrosstheNorthAtlantic,(Hiedelberg,1996),MichaelB.Montgomery,‘TheLinguisticLandscapeofEighteenth-CenturySouthArgyll,asRevealedbyHighlandScotEmigrantstoNorthCarolina’,JohnM.KirkandIseabailMacleodeds.,Scots:StudiesinLanguageandLiterature,(Amsterdam,2013).172ScottishCanadian,No.11,22Jan1891,p.3.173EmmaLetley,FromGalttoDouglasBrown,(Edinburgh,1988),WilliamDonaldson,PopularLiteratureinVictorianScotland,(Aberdeen,1986),WilliamDonaldson,TheLanguageofthePeople,(Aberdeen,1989).

|P a g e

35

registers,mostnotablyEnglish“standards.”AsAnetteHaganhashighlighted,supplementingWilliam

Donaldson’sinvestigationsintonineteenth-century“vernacularprose”–the“stablesecularreading-

matterofthegreatmajorityofScots”–such“Scotscontributions”werebetteraccentuatedthrough

theirdiscernible,on-pagecontrastwiththe“standard”Englishpredominatingwithinthesame

publications.174

OutwithScotland,Lowlandformssimilarlyfunctionedthroughthisforeign-yet-familiar

accordwithEnglish“standards.”Indeed,someScotsformswereupheldagainstEnglish

“improprieties”andametropolitantrendof“StageScotch.”“Don’tgotoLondonforyourScotch,my

reader!”advisedtheMelbourneScot,“[l]istentoitasitmaystillbespokenatyourgranny’s

Ingleside.”175QuotingRobertFord’sThistledown–aPaisley-basedcollectionof“Scotchhumour”–

thearticlesawScotsrenderingstoservebesideEnglish“standards,”yetinsistedthe“Scotch”be

disassociatedfromsourcesofsouthernlinguistic“corruption”:

Don’tlearnEnglishless;[…]read,write,andspeakScotchmorefrequently.And,when

doingso,rememberyouarenotindulginginamerevulgarcorruptionofEnglish,

comparablewiththebarbarousdialectsofYorkshireandDevon,butinatrueanddistinct,

apowerfulandbeautifullanguageofyourown.176

ImaginedbothwithinandoutwithEnglish“standards,”such“Scotch”wasadvocatedalongsidea

defensiveconsciousnessoflinguistic“vulgarity,”andvoicedamidparallelaccusationsofdialectal

“barbarity”withinEngland.

Butofcourse,Ford’s“Scotch”assertions,furthercirculatedbytheMelbourneScot,are

expressedthroughanEnglishlinguisticmedium.Assuch,thisdiasporicrepositioningisreminiscent

ofJamesBuzard’sassessmentofthefictionofWalterScott,perceivingtheauthortostrive“fora

doublegoal,anintelligibleforeignness,forsomethingatoncealienandEnglish.”177Buzard’s

interpretation,reflectingMaryLouisePratt’snotionofthecolonialconstructionof

“autoethnography”–“inresponsetoorindialoguewith[…]metropolitanrepresentations”–canbe

moregenerallyappliedtoverbaltartanry.178

Throughaspeciesof“culturaltranslation,”BuzardobservesScott’sfusionofHighlandand

Lowlandtropes,grouped“undertheroomyauspicesof‘foreigness-to-the-English,’”asblurring

174Donaldson,PopularLiterature,p.35,Donaldson,LanguageofthePeople,pp.1-2,Hagan,UrbanScots,p.81.175TheScot,No.3,IAugust1902,p.2.RobertFord,Thistledown.ABookofScotchhumourcharacterfolklorestory&anecdote,(1891:Paisley,1913),pp.29-30.176Ibid.177JamesBuzard,DisorientingFiction,(Princeton,2005),pp.74-5.178MaryLouisePratt,TravelWritingandTransculturation,(London,1992),p.7.

|P a g e

36

Scottishrepresentationto“appearoneunivocalsubstance,”“unitedinalterity.”179Thus,Buzard

reckonsaLowlandScotsphraseology,“which,withsometinkering,iscapableofsoundingstrangeto

Englishauditorsandbeingunderstoodbythem,”toserveScott’sliterarypurposesofexpressinga

holistic,recognisableandintelligiblyforeignScottishnessfromanAnglo-centeredperspective.180As

GrahamTullochhasnoted,thisliteraryrenegotiationofcertainLowlandtropes–boostedbyBurns

andtypifiedwithintheimmenselypopularnovelsofScott–providedahighlyinfluentialnineteenth-

centuryguideforthedemonstrationofdistinctivelyScottishformsthroughouttheEnglish-speaking

world.181

Inthismanner,an“overt”and“idealised”verbaltartanrymergedwithmuchofthe

Highland-rootediconographyoftheScottishnation.Verbaltartanryfunctionedasanaccessibleand

easilyrecognisablediscoursetobemimicked,eversoslightlyreminiscentofHomiK.Bhabha’s

conceptionof“colonialmimicry”–“theappropriateobjectsofacolonialistchainofcommand,

authorizedversionsofotherness.”182Bhabhafurtherdefinedthis“double-visioned”mimicry,“the

signofadoublearticulation,”“thedesireforareformed,recognizableOther”:

[…]asubjectofadifferencethatisalmostthesame,butnotquite.Whichistosay,that

thediscourseofmimicryisconstructedaroundanambivalence;inordertobeeffective,

mimicrymustcontinuallyproduceitsslippage,itsexcess,itsdifference.[Original

emphasis.]183

Theconspicuous“slippage,”“excess,”and“difference”ofLowlandtropesprovidedashifting

platformuponwhichtopitchScotsnostalgiaandimperialdistinctionwithinAnglo-centred

discourses.

DiscussingtheScottishHighlandsandBritishimperialism,KennethO’Neiloffersamirrored

imagingofBhabha’ssentiments,viewinga“Highlanddiscourse”toreflectaScots“desireto

constitutearecognisableSelfasasubjectofsamenessthatisdifferentbutnotquite.”184Verbal

tartanrycanbeseentofluctuatebetweentheseinvertedtwinparameters,skimmingintermittently

179Buzard,DisorientingFiction,p.75.180Ibid,p.76.181GrahamTulloch,TheLanguageofWalterScott,(London,1980),pp.167-8,180-2,GrahamTulloch,‘TheScotsLanguageinAustralia,’EdinburghHistoryoftheScotsLanguage,p.625,GrahamTulloch,‘StylesofScotsinAustralianLiteraryTexts,’Scots:StudiesinLanguageandLiterature,pp.214-16.182HomiK.Bhabha,TheLocationofCulture,(London,1994),p.88.183Ibid,p.86,87.184KennethMcNeil,Scotland,BritainandEmpire,(Columbus,2007),p.7.

|P a g e

37

betweenScottish“sameness”and“difference”withinaBritishimperialconsciousness,hovering

mainlyasanEnglishlinguistic“notquite”–apartialdistinction,foreign-yet-familiar.185

Remarkably,suchinflectionspersistincolouringthecommemorationofScottishmigration

andimperialinvolvement.Arecent,largelycelebratoryroll-callofglobalScottishplace-names–

highlightingthe“influenceofScotsoverseas,whetherrailroadengineer,pioneerfarmer,displaced

crofterormulti-millionaire”–beingswith“anoldsaying:‘ThaimwiaguidScotstongueintheirheid

arefittaegangowertheworld.’”186SuchScotsaphorismsof“diasporic”“fitness”descendfromthe

verbaltartanryofpreviouscenturies.

Predictably,thisfamiliarforeignnesswascementedthroughoneoeuvreinparticular:the

totemicpoetryofRobertBurns.

185See,Skoblow,DoobleTongue,pp.19-20.186ElspethWills,AbbotsfordtoZion.TheStoryofScottishPlaceNamesAroundtheWorld,(Edinburgh,2016),p.xi.Alsohttp://www.birlinn.co.uk/Abbotsford-to-Zion.html.

|P a g e

38

“ADoricdialectoffame”:Burnsanddiaspora.

SpeakingbeforetheBostonBurnsClubin1859,thepoet-philosopherRalphWaldoEmerson,

famouslyproclaimedtheAyrshirebardtohave“madethatLowlandScotchaDoricdialectoffame”–

“theonlyexampleinhistoryofalanguagemadeclassicbythegeniusofasingleman.”187Marking

thecentenaryofthepoet’sbirth,EmersonsawBurns’s“secretofgenius”tobetypifiedintheglobal

expansionoftheidiomofhis“ruraldistrict”–a“patois”once“unintelligibletoallbutnatives.”188

“Howmany‘BonnieDoons,’and‘JohnAnderson,myjoes’and‘AuldLangsynes’allaroundtheearth

havehisversebeenappliedto!”Emersonenthused.189ThecapacityofBurns’sverseto“drawfrom

thebottomofsocietythestrengthofitsspeech”captivatedtheBostoniantranscendentalist,who

celebratedsuchpropensityto“astonishtheearsofthepolitewiththeseartlesswords,betterthan

art,andfilteredofalltheoffenceofbeauty.”190

Yet“theScottishdialect,whichaloneBurnsperfectlyknew,”wasreckonedarelative

mysterytotheAnglo-Americanreadershipofthemid-nineteenthcentury.191OneProfessorNairne,

keynotespeakeratthe1859centenaryheldatAstorHousebytheBurnsClubofNewYork,

concededthatsuchexclusivelyScottishlanguage,“inwhichallhisbestpoetryiswritten,must

presenttotheAmericannearlyasmuchdifficultyasaforeigntongue.”192ForNairne,thiswas

indicativeof“thefastidiousdelicacyofAmericans,”ill-equippedto“fullyappreciatethewitand

intimatedrollerythatpalliateandgofartoexcusetheblemish”ofthe“frequentcoarsenessofthe

Scottishvernacular.”193Regardlessofthisgeneralincapacitytocomprehend,letaloneappreciate

thepoetryofBurns,Nairneanticipatedhisstrains,

[…]evennowinourearslikeanomnipresentharmony;andtherewilltheyeverbe,asthe

tonesofamother’sloveareroundaboutthechildwhomshehascommendedtothe

mercyofHeaven!Thesesongsandthesepoemsaretheinspiredbreathingsnotmerelyof

themanBurns,butofallbroadScotland;fortheconcentratedfeelingofthelandtook

possessionofthepoet’ssoul,andpoureditselffromthepoet’slips.194

SimilarnotionswerecelebratedatcentenariesinScotland.AttheEdinburghCorn

Exchange,onespeaker“graphicallytold”ofaninstanceina“distanthotel”where,187JamesBallantineed.,ChronicleoftheHundredthBirthdayofRobertBurns,(Edinburgh,1859),p.551.188Ibid.189Ibid.190Ibid.191Ibid,p.591.192Ibid.193Ibid,p.592.194Ibid,p.591.

|P a g e

39

[…]amanofcolourwasreadingBurnsandlaughingmostimmoderately.Thoughhe(the

Ethiopian),confessednottoknowalltheScotchwords,yethefeltandunderstoodthose

greatbroadstrokesofhumour,those‘touchesofnature’whichmakethe‘wholeworld

kin,’thatheloudlylaughed.Andacompanyofgentlemenalsolaughedatthesightofhis

greatblackshiningface,showingteethaswhiteasamouthfulofsnow.Sointhisdistant

hoteltheAyrshiremagicianwasconjuringwithequalfacilityrichhumourandgleefrom

theheartsofblackandwhite.195

BurnsianlanguagewasseentoboastaScottishvirtue,exemplifyingglobal“kinship.”

InNewYork,NairnealsoalignedBurnsiansoundingswitharomanticisedScotland.Ina

lengthy,wonderfullygrandiloquentpassage,NairneenvisagedaScotsdiasporicconvergence“from

alltheendsoftheearth”:

[…]fromoutofthelongdarknessofthepolarnight,whereScottishprowshavebeenthe

mostadventurous;fromtheburningdesertsandthewizardstreamsofAfrica,[…]from

thegorgeousplainsandmysteriousmountainsofIndia,[…]fromwhereverCaledonians

havefoundnewhomes–andthatiseverywhere,thoughnomenlovetheirowncountry

withafonderintensityoflove;–fromeveryregionunderthewholesky,[…]thesweet

echoesoftheseAyrshiremelodiesarecoming,andwhatScottishsouldoesnotcatchthe

gatheringjoywithoutbeingexhortedbyabrotherScotsmantolisten?Theyarecoming

fromthesunnySouth,wherethebroomandtheheatherarenotforgottenamonggayer

blossoms,andthememoryofthegowanisdearerthanthepresentsplendourofthe

cactus;theyarecomingfromtheCanadianwilderness,[…]theyarecomingfromthe

Orient,wherethesongofthenightingaledoesnotcompensateforthenotesofthemavis

andthelintie;theyarecomingfromtheWest,wheretheforestsaregrander,andthe

riversbroader,butnoneofthemsoenchantingasthe‘banksandbraeso’bonnieDoon.’

Theyarecomingfromthegrassyburn-side;[…]theyarecomingevenyetfromthebattle-

fieldsofSpainandthestormybivouackofWaterloo;theyarecoming,likethesolsticeof

sadness,fromthedrearencampmentatSebastopol;theyarecoming,likethevoiceof

hope,fromtheforlornandfamishinggarrisonofLucknow!Thewholeairisfilledwith

theirmusic.196

SuchoutpouringswerenotjustconsignedtoU.S.associations.AspeechataToronto

centenaryofBurns’sbirthinvokedsimilarimagery,envisagingupon“aspothewninourowndayout

oftheoldsavage-hauntedpinesofOntario’swoodedshores,”thepoemsofBurns,“alreadyapartof

thelivinglanguageofourcommonrace,”

195Ibid,p.22.196Ibid,pp.590-91.

|P a g e

40

[…]beingthisnightsungwhereverthefreebannerofEnglandfloatsonthebreeze;and

whereverthelanguageisspokeninheritedbyhersons.[…]Bytheechoesoftheirmusic,

repeatedfromlandtoland,mayfancyfollowtheflagofBritishfreedomroundtheworld.

[…]AtAden,ontheoldRedSea;inAfrica,onherAtlanticcoastsandherfar-southern

Capeofstorms;inIndiawheretherushoftheGangesrepliestotheansweringshoutsof

Britain’striumphantanddauntlesssons;onthatisland-continentofAustralasianseas[…]

andwheretheflagofagreatrepublicflauntsproudlyoverthehardydescendantsofour

commonstock–toeachandallofthese,astoourselves,thepeasant’svoice,sweeping

alongtheelectricwiresofgenius,isheardthrillingthisnight[…].197

AtaSydneycentenary,thechair,MrJ.Wilson,offeredacomparableobservation,albeitwith

decidedlyfewerinvocationsof“thepeasant’svoice,”andalludingto“racialised”imperial

superiority:

SharingasIdoinnosmalldegreeinthisprideofbirth,howhonoureddoIfeelin

presidingatthismagnificentfestival,[…]adaywhichwillnotonlybecommemorated

wherethebroadbannerofBritainwaves,butineverypartoftheworldwherethefootof

thewhitemanhastrodden.InthegreatrepublicofAmerica,–inthecrowdedcitiesof

China,–inthetorridplainsofIndia,–ay,eveninthedesertofAfrica,forwhere

Livingstoneis,thememoryofhisgiftedcountrymanwillnotbeforgotten.[…]though

manyyearsabsentfrommynativeland,IamheartandsoulaScotsman,–thatScotland

tomeisthebrightspotinthedistance,–thelandoffreedom,literature,andscience,–

thelandof‘honestmenandbonnielasses’;andthat,tome,thememoryofBurnsisa

sacredthing.198

Whetherintendedtoexpresssentimentsofatranscendentalreverenceofthe“artless,”orto

championthe“footofthewhiteman,”eachoratorinterlinkedScottishqualitiesandBurnsian

language–comfortablyaccommodatedunderthe“freebannerofEngland”and“broadbannerof

Britain.”

But,thedistinctlyScottishlanguageofBurnswaswidelyacknowledged.JohnRae,speaking

inSydneyinresponsetoWilson,recognisedthatBurns“loved,also,theScotchlanguage,”stressing

theolddisclaimerthat“itwasnotfromnecessitybutfromchoicethatheadoptedthepeculiar

197Ibid,pp.542-43.198Ibid,p.535.

|P a g e

41

dialectofhiscountry.”199ForRae,comprehensionofthis“peculiar”tonguewasyetanotherexample

ofScotsexceptionalism:

[…]someofthebestportionsofBurns’productionscanbethoroughlyunderstoodand

appreciatedonlybyScotchmen.AllScotchmenknowthatthereispeculiartoBurns’

languageamellownessofexpressionwhichnotranslationcanconvey,andthatthose

whohavenotbeenaccustomedtothatlanguagefromtheirinfancyalmost–whoare

obligedtohaverecoursetoaglossary–losealargeportionofBurns’poeticbeauties.

TheygazeatthegreatluminaryofScotlandshornofhisbeams.ThelanguageofBurnsis

thelanguageoftheheart.200

Itwassuggestedthatthis“appreciation”intensifiedoverseas,andwasoftenobservedby

diasporicScots.201SirHenryBarkly,GovernorofMelbourne,declaredatthecentenaryofBurns’s

birth,

[t]hatnativetongue–stumbling-blockasitprovesto‘So’throns,’andmuchasithas

doubtlessstoodinthewayofthefullappreciationofBurns’meritsinothercountries–

hasbeenprobablythekeystoneofhispopularityamonghisowncountrymen.Inthe

coloniesofGreatBritainespeciallywheresomanythousandScotchmenaresettled–the

oncefamiliartonesoftheScottishdialect,mingledwiththedulcetstrainsofthepoet,

servetorecallthescenesofinfancy,toawakenthetenderestrecollectionsofyouth.

HencetheverynameofBurnsseemstobedoublyreverentialamongScotchcolonists

thusestrangedfromtheirkindredandtheirhomes.202

ThomasM’Combie,chairoftheMelbourneBurnssociety,respondedwithevengreateremphasis

upona“doubled”reverenceof“oncefamiliartones.”Proclaimingthe“greatpleasurederived”from

thesongsandpoemsofBurnsoverseas,M’Combiepondered:

[…]howmuchmorepeculiarlygratefularetheytoScotsmen,andparticularlytoScotsmenina

far-offland?Whenhehearsoneofhisfamiliarlays,themelodycharmsandabsorbshissenses

likeaspellofenchantment.203

Thechairsaw“eachsucceedinggeneration”to“paymoreenthusiastictribute”toBurns’s

“memory”:

[…]hisfamehasdailyincreased,andhiswritingsarenowhouseholdwordsfrompoleto

pole,[…]whentheScotsmanleaveshisownlandtoseekhisfortunebyhishighcourage199Ibid,p.537.200Ibid.201McGinn,‘VehementCelebrations,’BurnsinGlobalCulture,pp.195,200.202Ballantine,Chronicle,p.529203Ibid,p.528.

|P a g e

42

andindomitableperseverance,hetakesalongwiththecarefullytreasuredBiblethe

worksofBurns,andnexttotheWordofGod,helovestoreadhim.204

M’CombiestressedafurthervitalitytoBurns’sverse,reflectingafrequentthemeofthe

associationalvenerationofBurns,“commendingthepoetforhaving“collectedallthemany

beautifulairsofhisnativeland.”205WithinScotlandandoverseas,thepoetwascreditedwithan

almostsinglehandedpreservationand“refinement”ofScotsforms.

M’CombiereckonedBurnstohave“elevatedthehomelylanguageoftheScotspeasantryto

conveyhisfeelingsandsentimentsofsurpassingtruth,”successfullyrescuingtheScottishidiom

fromseeminglyinevitableextinction.206Decadeslater,theAucklandFederationBurns’Clubandthe

AucklandCaledonianSociety,mergingtocelebratethe1886centenaryofthepublicationofthe

KilmarnockeditionofBurns’spoems,identifiedthe“practicaljustification”forcommemorating

Burns“throughouttheoldandthenewworld,”notingtheeffortmadebythepoet“torefineand

purifythesongsofScotland,andtopreservethenationalmusic.”207

ForProfessorGeorgeWilson,speakingatQueenStreetHallinEdinburghonthecentenary

ofBurns’sbirth,thepoet’spreservationofScotsvarietieswasparamount.HedeclaredBurnsto

have

[…]sangourScottishtongueintoareputethatitneverhadbefore,andsecuredforitalongevity

thatotherwiseitneverwouldhavehad,sothathewouldbeaboldmanwhowouldpredictthe

timewhenthatmotherspeechwilldie,sinceEnglishmenlearnitfornothingbuttolearnthe

songsofBurns.Suchishispoweroverthelanguageofourheartsandthelanguageofour

country,thatScotsmenscatteredovereverypartoftheworldareonthisdayassembledaswe

arenow[…]AllthroughAnglo-Saxondom,fromthefrozenNorthtotheGulfofMexico,and

thencetotheTierradelFuego,itisthesame;andwhereverthelanguageofBurnsisunderstood,

therehispoemsarelistenedtoandhissongsaresung.208

ArchibaldPrimrose,fifthearlofRoseberyandformerBritishPrimeMinister,famously

reiteratedthesesentiments.Inanoft-quoted1896addressatDumfries,markingthecentenaryof

Burns’sdeath,Roseberysawthepoettohave“exaltedourrace,”and“hallowedScotlandandthe

Scottishtongue”–“[b]eforehistimewehadforalongperiodbeenscarcelyrecognised,[…]falling

204Ibid,p.526.205Ibid,p.528.206Ibid,p.527.207‘Burns’CentenaryCelebration,’NewZealandHerald,17August1886,p.5.208Ballantine,Chronicle,p.28.

|P a g e

43

outoftherecollectionoftheworld.”209RoseberysawBurns“tostarttohisfeet,”“reassert[ing]

Scotland’sclaimtonationalexistence.”210Withinverseswhich“rangthroughtheworld,”thepoet

“thuspreservedtheScottishlanguageforeverformankindwillneverallowtodiethatidiomin

whichhissongsandpoemsareenshrined.”211

MirroringtheglobalScottishassociationsthroughoutthelatterhalfofthenineteenth

century,RoseberyextolledBurnsas“thewatchwordofanation,”andcelebratedthediasporic

reverenceforthepoetwhich“carriesandimplantsBurns-worshipallovertheglobeasbirdscarry

seeds.”212RoseberydeclaredBurns’sbirthcelebrated“moreuniversallythanthatofanyhuman

being,”supposingthepoetto“reign”over“agreaterdominionthananyempirethattheworldhas

everseen.”213

DeliveringanotheraddressattheStAndrew’sHallinGlasgowlaterthatday,Rosebery

pickedupwherehehadleftoffinDumfries,presentingBurnsastherightfulrecipientof“thesigns

andsymptomsofworld-widedevotion”:

Thatgenerousandimmortalsoulpervadestheuniverseto-day.Inthehummingcityandinthe

crowdofmen;inthebackwoodandintheswamp;wherethesentinelpacesthebleakfrontier,

wherethesailorsmokeshiseveningpipe;andaboveall,wherethefarmerandhismenpursue

theirsummertoil,whetherundertheStarsandStripesorundertheUnionJack,–thethoughts

andsympathyofmenaredirectedtoRobertBurns.214

RoseberyagainstressedthefundamentalimportanceofBurns’spreservation,now“purification,”of

Lowlandforms:

ManyofBurns’ssongswerealreadyinexistenceinthelipsandmindsofthepeople–roughand

coarseandobscene.Ourbenefactortakesthem,andwithatoughofinspiredalchemy

transmutesthemandleavesthempuregold[…]Butforhim,thoseancientairs,oftenweddedto

wordswhichnodecentmancouldrecite,wouldhaveperishedfromthatcorruptionifnotfrom

neglect.Herescuedthemforusbyhissongs,andindoingsohehallowedthelifeandsweetened

thebreathofScotland.215

Butforthe“inspiredalchemy”oftheheaven-sent,heaven-taughtploughman,Scottish

literaryforms,“roughandcoarseandobscene”withincontemporary“lipsandminds,”wouldhave

209[ArchibaldPrimrose]LordRosebery,MiscellaniesLiteraryandHistorical,(London,1921),pp.4-5.210Ibid,p.5.211Ibid.212Ibid,p.13213Ibid.214Ibid,p.15.215Ibid,p.23.

|P a g e

44

witheredaway,perhapsjustifiablyinRosebery’sview,asaconsequenceofScots“corruption.”

RatherthanechoinganEmersonianappreciationofthe“artless”Burns,Rosebery’srhetoricsuggests

Scotsformstohaveundergoneanear-transubstantivereclassification:“hallowed,”“transmuted,”

and“enshrined”bysuchverse.

YetatNewYorkin1859,ProfessorNairnehadpre-emptedRosebery’spseudo-deificationof

Burnsandhisperceptionofthepoet’selevationofLowlandlanguage.Nairneproclaimedthepoet’s

personificationoftheScottishnationandofScotsforms–the“inspiredbreathingsnotmerelyofthe

manBurns,butofallbroadScotland”:

Innocasewithinthewiderangeofliteraturehastherebeensuchacomplete

identificationofindividualgeniuswiththeheartofawholepeople.Theromanticlove,

theproudpoverty,thesturdyindependence,themanlypiety,theloathingofhypocrisy,

thequainthumour,thepassionfornaturalbeauty,thesternenthusiasm–allbelongto

Scotlandasanation,andallfoundtheiroracleandinterpreterinRobertBurns.Whenhe

spoke,hespoke,asitwere,fromthenationalhearttotheseparateheartsofthenation.

HiswordswerethewordsofthegeneralmotherofScotsmen,andhenceitisthatthe

soulsofallherchildrenleaptothestrainsofherchosenrepresentativeson.Whenhe

goestoothercountriesforamodel,andtriestoimitatetheclassical,heisusuallyfeeble.

Whenhisfootisonhisnativeheath,andhistonguearticulateshisnativelanguage,his

fullstrengthreturns,andheisoncemoretheCaledonianApollo.216

Burnsianlanguagewasthusperceivedandproclaimedasaperfected,“pure”Scotslexicon,

representativeofapantheonofpositive,supposedlyScottishtraits.Aspoet-prophet,“oracleand

interpreter”ofScottishexceptionalism,Burnswashailedasthemouthpiecethroughwhichtochannel

“thewordsofthegeneralmotherofScotsmen.”

Moreover,throughcontemporarydevelopmentsinglobaltravelandcommunications,this

symbolicBurnsianinfluencewasaccorded“thepresenceofalivingpower.”217Emphasisingthe

recentproliferationofthetelegraphandthe1850completionofthetransatlanticcable,global

associationsstressedthatdiasporicScotswereliterallylinkedintheir1859centenaries,bound

together,inthewordsofLordArdmillan,speakingattheEdinburghMusicHall,by

216Ballantine,Chronicle,p.591.217Ibid,p.7.

|P a g e

45

[…]theelectricchainwhichknitstheheartsofScotchmenineverypartoftheworld,

stirringusnotonlytoadmirationofthepoet’sgenius,buttotheloveofcountry,of

liberty,andofhome,andofallthingsbeautifulandgood.218

AttheTradeHallinGlasgow,DonaldCampbellofferedaloftyportrayalofintertwined“voicesofour

brethrenbeyondthedeep,”makingclearuseofverbaltartanry:

Noristhehomageconfinedtoour‘auldrespeckitmither.’Englandsendsbackawarm

response,andfromthesisterislethereisanechoofkindredtone.TheAtlanticcableis

mute;butthisnighttheeasternandwesternworldsareunitedbythegoldenchainof

fellow-feeling,and‘thoughseasbetweenusbraidmayroar,’wecanalmostfancywehear

thevoicesofourbrethrenbeyondthedeepre-echoingtoourcallthenameofRobert

Burns.Inthelandofgold,also,ourcountrymenwillbegathered;andamidstthered

fieldsofInd[ia]thetartan’dheroesofoldScotiawillbesingingwithtearfuleyesthe

much-lovedlaysofCoila’sbardanddreamingwithwearyheartsoftheirfar-awayfriends

andthehometheymayneverseeagain.Ithasbeensaidthatthesunneversetsonthe

dominionsofourQueen,andifsuchbethecase,thenthenameandfameofRobert

Burnswillthisnightrollinonecontinuousswellallroundthisvastglobewhichwe

inhabit.219

ThroughsuchassociationalcelebrationsofRobertBurns,Scotsimaginedthemselvesaglobally

interwovencommunity,“unitedbythegoldenchain”ofappreciation“sweepingalongtheelectric

wiresofgenius.”Andthroughsuchveneration,Scotsventriloquizeda“hallowed”linguisticmodel

thatRoseberysupposedashaving“exaltedourrace.”

Bythelatenineteenthcentury,suchdiasporicinvocationshadbecomesocommonplace,andBurns

souniversallyregardedasanauthorityonLowlandlanguage,thatcredulousappealstothepoetas

theultimatesourceofScots“propriety”hadbecometheobjectofridicule.TheMissouri-bornauthor

MarkTwainofferedadecisivemodelforbestingaScotsmaninapubargumentonthesubjectof

Scotsphraseology.

In1898,thePortlandSundayOregonianre-printedTwain’stale–originallypublishedwithin

MoreTrampsAbroad–remindingreadersthat“controversiesabouttheScotchdialectare

notoriouslydangerousaffairs,”andintroducingtheextractasanexample“whichthrowsnewlighton

218Ibid.219Ibid,pp.81-82.

|P a g e

46

theirmanagement.”220Stumblingintoanimpassioned,bar-roomdisputeamong“amixtureof

Scotch,English,American,CanadianandAustralasianfolk”overthe“correct”Scotspronunciationof

theword“three,”Twain’snarratoremergestriumphantafterinitiallyprovokingthewrathofthis

“GreaterBritish”contingent,doubtingthetermbepronounced“thraw”:

Itwasanerrorofjudgement.Therewasamomentofastonishedandominoussilence,

thenweatherensued.Thestormaroseandspreadinasurprisingway,andIwassnowed

underinaveryfewminutes.Itwasabaddefeatforme;akindofWaterloo[…]Butjust

thenIhadasavingthought,atleastathoughtthatofferedachance.Whenthestormwas

stillragingImadeupaScotchcouplet,andthenspokeupandsaid:

‘Verywell,don’tsayanymore.Iconfessdefeat.IthoughtIknewbutIseemymistake.I

wasdeceivedbyoneofyourScotchpoets.’

‘AScotchpoet!Ohcome!Namehim!’

‘RobertBurns.’

Itiswonderfulthepowerofthatname.Thesemenlookeddoubtfulbutparalyzedallthe

same.Theywerequitesilentforamoment;thenoneofthemsaid–withthereverencein

hisvoicewhichisalwayspresentinaScotchman’stonewhenheuttersthename:

‘DoesRobbieBurnssay–whatdoeshesay?’

‘Thisiswhathesays:

Therewasnaebairnsbutonlythree–

Oneatthebreast,twaattheknee’

Itendedthediscussion.Therewasnomanthereprofaneenough,disloyalenough,tosay

anywordagainstathingwhichRobertBurnshadsettled.Ishallalwayshonorthatgreat

nameforthesalvationitbroughtmeinthetimeofmygreatneed.221

SuchwashisuncontestedauthoritythatanyinvocationofBurnsofferedthelastwordon

issuesofLowlandlinguistic“propriety.”WhileTwain’sactualpoint-scoring,bogus-Burnsianusageis

ofcoursehighlyquestionable,theanecdoteanditssubsequentcirculationaretestamenttothe

mannerinwhichBurnswasgloballyregardedasingularsourceofScots“appropriacy.”

This“revered”alignmentwithBurnslentadegreeoflinguistic“legitimacy”toother

distinctlyScottish,butnon-Burnsianutterances.InRosebery’smemorablephraseBurnshad

“sweetenedthebreath”ofallScotland,andwhilecertain,perhapsmost,manifestationsofLowland

220Untitled,SundayOregonian,(Portland),2January1898,p.2.MarkTwain,MoreTrampsAbroad,(London,1897),pp.40-41.221Ibid.

|P a g e

47

languagewerelikelybelieved“rough,coarseandobscene”throughoutthenineteenthcentury,an

increasingnumberofother“overtScotticisms”filteredintoadiasporiclexicon.Thisexpandedverbal

tartanry,wasexpressedalongsideBurnsianaphorismsatthemostregularandwidespreadofall

associationalcelebrations–theStAndrew’sDaydinner.

|P a g e

48

Kin-spicuousconsumption:diasporaandStAndrew’sDay.

InearlyNovember1895,theMilwaukeeJournalprintedacopyof“averyuniqueinvitation”toan

upcoming“entertainment”:

We’vesomesconesandoat-cakesandshort-breadandtwaorthreeitherthingsfraethe

auldcountree,an’willyenocomean’preetheman’haeadrapo’teaan’acrackwi’usat

theBethanykirkonThursdaye’enthefourteenthofNovember.

Oorguidfrien,RobertMenzies,willgieusaweebitreadingabootbonnieScotland,

an’there’llbesomegran’singin’andspeakin’andagudetimefora’.

Yemichtjuistmentionthistaeyerfrien’san’speirthema’taecomewi’ye.

Ye’llhaetogiethemonatthedoortwenty-fivebawbeesanhe’llgieyeabonniebit

ticketthatyecanjuistkeepasaremembraneer.222

WhilethisadvertisementwasindeedarareexampleofanemphaticusageofovertlyScottified

linguisticstyle,itwasbynomeans“veryunique.”TheinvitationtotheeventattheBethany“kirk”is

illustrativeoftheessentialmannerinwhichdiasporicverbaltartanrywasusedforshow.St

Andrew’sDaycelebrationsprovideaubiquitousnineteenth-centurymodelforananalysisofsuch

performativelinguisticassertions,apantomimeofproclaimedScotsaffinityinwhicheventheoft-

toastedtitleof“theDayanda’wha’honorit”wasawidelyrecognisedandcommonlyvoiced

utteranceofverbaltartanry.

Itwasremarkedbya“prominentCanadianScot”onatourofNewZealand,thatwhile“theIrishman

wasanIrishmanalltheyearround,”theScotwas“aScotonlyonStAndrew’sday.”223Althoughthis

commentwasperceivedbyaChristchurchpublicationtobeindicativeofa“mildmannerofsarcasm

astotheHomeRulequestion,”theobservationwascheerfullydeemed“acomplimenttothe

patriotismofbothraces”;withScots,having“nopoliticalwrongorgrievancetoredress,”

commendedfortheiroccasionalnationalcelebration,comfortablyoperatingalongsideaBritish

imperialism.224

WhileBurnsiancentenariesweremarkedwithcomparablefervourbothwithinandoutwith

Scotland,StAndrew’sDayeventsweregenerallyperceivedastheprovinceofexpatriatesandlater

222‘InvitationinScotchDialect,’MilwaukeeJournal,8November1895,p.1.223‘Sprigso’Heather,’Star(Christchurch),24October1908,p.4.224Ibid.

|P a g e

49

generationsofScotslivingabroad.225Thoughsomeearlytwentieth-centurycommentatorsbecame

concernedby“thelong-standingreproachthatonlyexiledScotsobservedStAndrew’sDay,”many

oftheircontemporarieshonouredthepropensityofScotstomarkthedayoftheirpatronsaintwhen

overseas,reckoningaceremonial,symbolicreconnectionwithScotlandtobedemonstrativeofthe

fraternityofallbranchesof“britherScots.”226

WithinScotlandinthelate-nineteenthcentury,diasporicStAndrew’sDaycelebrations

appearedemblematicofaseeminglyinherentnationalmerit.In1895,theScotsmandeclared:

Scotsmenabroadarenotafeeblefolk.Theycarrywiththem,alongwiththeirnative

energy,shrewdnessandforceofcharacter,agoodlyheritageoftheideasandbeliefs,the

habitsandcustoms[…]thathavebeendrawnfromthehomesoilandbredinthebone.It

isnotadefect,but,onthecontrary,ameritintheircharacterasColoniststhat[…]they

seektoendowit[theiradoptedcountry]withsomethingofthepeculiarqualityoftheir

ownbloodandtheirownland[…]andifthisfirmresolvetotransportpartofScotland

withthemoverseasandplantitondistantshoresisnotsovisibleatothertimes,itis

mademanifestatthegreatnationalfestivals.227

ForScotslivingthroughthedecadesoflatenineteenth-centuryimperialtriumphalism,Scotland’s

“prolongedVictorianorgyofself-esteem,”theoverseascommemorationofScotland’spatronsaint

providedyetanotheropportunitytobaskinthewell-establishedtropesofScotsexceptionalism,

refractedandmagnifiedthroughadiasporiclens.228

DiasporicStAndrew’sDaycelebrationsdidnotdisappoint.Expatriatesocietymembers

phrasedtheirproclamationsofScottishaffinitywithasignificantsmatteringofverbaltartanry.A

speechdeliveredataStAndrew’sDaydinneratCalcuttain1893,regardedbyElizabethBuettneras

characteristicofmanysucheventsinBritishcolonialIndia,offersaparticularlystrikingexample:

Wearea’proudbeyondmeasure,ofthe‘Lando’Cakes,’the‘LandoftheMountainand

theFlood’–‘AuldCaledonia’–‘BonnieScotland’–andweareproudtobeknownasher

grateful,patrioticsons,theoffspringofWallaceandBruce,andJohnKnoxand‘Rabbie’

Burns,andmanyotheralmostastranscendentheroesofnationalcivilandreligious

liberty.

Weareproud,moreover,of‘yinanither.’IneveryworthybritherScotwe

discoverandtaketoourhearts‘asocialhonestbillie’[…]amanrearedunderthe

225H.J.H.Hanham,ScottishNationalism,(Cambridge,Mass.1969),p.18,Buettner,‘HaggisintheRaj,’pp.221-222.226Buettner,‘HaggisintheRaj,’p.222.227QuotedinBueltmannetal,‘Introduction,’TiesofBluid,p.9.228MichaelFry,TheScottishEmpire,(Edinburgh,2001),p.496.

|P a g e

50

influenceoftheteachingsandtraditionsofthesamedearoldhomeofsincerityand

independence,andthriftandprudenceandrobustcommonsense–deeplyconsciousof

thisgloriousheritage[…]theheatherandthehaggisandthemountaindew–thekilted

warriors–thestirringstrainso’thepipes.229

ThisaddressconscriptsacanonofScotsimagery–nationalheroes,“gloriousheritage,”andtartanic

emblemsofhaggisandheather,kiltsandbagpipes.Allsuchsymbolsareinvokedinassertinga

transnationalsentimentofuniversalScottishqualities,incarnate“ineveryworthybritherScot,”“‘a

socialhonestbillie.’”

Threeyearsearlier,aNewZealandnewspaperprintedanarticleofferingsimilarsentiments,

celebratingthat“onecolonyatleastattheantipodesisgracedbythepresenceofaScotch

Governor,aScotchPremierandaScotchPresidentoftheCouncil.”230Asaconsequenceofthe“most

solidandsterlingworth”oftheScotsin“fightingbattles,advancingthegreatnessanddoingthe

workoftheEmpire”:

[…]sooneandallofusfeelprideintheLando’Cakes,whetherwebeEnglishmen,Irishmen

orfull-kiltedScotchmen,andmaywellaffordtohumorthelittlenationalvanitiesthatenter

somarkedlyintotheconstitutionoftheScottishcharacter.231

Thearticleendswitharoll-calloftheiconsofa“full-kilted”nation,conveyedamiddeliberateScots

terminology:

[…]thelandofplaidsandkilts,bagpipesandhielanflings,golfandcurling,dominesand

gaugers,beadlesandstickitministers,haggisandcockieleeke,oatmealcakesandbarley

bree,stalwartladsandwinsomebonnielasses.232

Such“nationalvanities”areclearlybolsteredbytheemploymentofexaggeratedlyScottish

language.233

Itwasthroughtheovertrepresentationofsuchsymbolsthataglobalverbaltartanrywas

perhapsmostfrequentlyandeffectivelyutilised.WithintherhetoricofStAndrew’sDayspeeches

overseas,theScottishnationitselfwascommonlyidentifiedthroughepithetsofverbaltartanry–

“AuldCaledonia,”“AuldScotia,”“BonnieScotland,”orthemostpopularnineteenth-century

appellation,the“Lando’Cakes.”Indeed,theidiosyncrasiesofScottishcuisineprovidedapoignant

exampleoftheverbaltartanryoftheScottishassociationsofNewZealand,withthesamplemenus

229Buettner,‘HaggisintheRaj,’p.226,‘StAndrew’sDinner,’CalcuttaEnglishman,1Dec.1893,p.8.230‘Scotchmen,Attention,’BruceHerald,28January1890,p.4.231Ibid.232Ibid.233Ibid.

|P a g e

51

ofStAndrew’sDaycelebrationsindicatingthedesireofexpatriateScotstoindulgeinthe

conspicuousconsumptionofdistinctlyScottishfoodanddrink,revellingintheesoterictitlesofsuch

delicacies.

ItwasnotedbytheDailySouthernCrossinan1855StAndrew’sDayarticlethat“Scotchmen

aregenerallysupposedtohaveapartialityfor‘kailbrose’and‘bannockso’barleymeal.’”234In

Tupeka,almosttwentyyearslater,attendantsatalectureattheCongregationalChurchwere

reminded,

[w]eneednotforget,whileinthelandofouradoption,ournationaldishes.Agoodhaggis

shouldstillbethestandarddishonStAndrew’sDay.Asingitsheep’sheadisworthyof

someattention.235

ItwasnotedthatMrBathgate,thelecturer,“comparednorthernwithsoutherncookery,giving

preferencetotheformer,apparentlyinatrulynationalspirit.”236

ThispredilectionwasnotlimitedtotheassociationsofNewZealand.ThereportofaSt

Andrew’sBanquetatBombay,intriguinglycirculatedinaNewZealandnewspaperin1882,noted

thattheguestsofthesocietywereofferedseveralScottish“coorses,”interspersedwithregular

intervalsinwhichtorechargewith“aweedrappeeTalisker”or“aweeDonal’o’Glenlivat.”237The

Bombay“Billo’Fare”offeredanarrayofScottish-nameddishesincluding“IndienHaddiesSmekkit,”

“MincedCollopsonabane,wi’sma,peasfraFrance,”“StuffedBubblyJockroastitan’Soo’sLeg

bakit,”and“GleskieMagistrateswi’tattiesroastit.”238Followingthedinner,extendedoversix

“coorses”andnumerous“drams,”theguestsweresentontheirwaywith“jistanitherdram,tae

keepa’doon.”239

Overadecadeandahalflater,theDunedinBurnsClubissuedasimilarorderofceremonies

fortheirStAndrew’sDaycelebrationdinner,includinganimpressivedessertlist:

GrozetTairt.AippleTairt.RhubarbTairt.Baps.AitCakeinfarls.Bakes.Parleys.Curran’laif

wi’raisinsintilt.Scones.Snaps.Shortbreedwi’sweetieson’t.CurdsandCream.Glesgae

Jeeliean’ithertrifles.(Mycertie!we’llhaeanitherdram.)240

234‘StAndrew’sDayDinner,’DailySouthernCross,30November1855,p.3.235‘MrBathgateon‘OldTimesinScotland,’TuapekaTimes,24June1874,p.5.236Ibid.237‘Sanny’sBillo'Fare,’GreyRiverArgus,25March1882,p.2.238Ibid.239Ibid.240‘St.Andrew'sDay,’NorthOtagoTimes,27October1898,p.1,alsoprintedas‘AScot’sDinner,’TimaruHerald,3December1898,p.4.

|P a g e

52

TheconsideratemembersoftheDunedinBurnsClubattachedanadditionalmessage,offeringa

Scotticisedselectionofbeverages“[f]orTeetotalFolkansiclike”:“we’llhaeClaret(whichsomefolk

ca’SoorDook),CuddleMyDearie,Skeichan,TreacleYill,anditherdrinkso’thatilk,NewMaskitTea,

etc.”241

SuchdistinctivefarewasevenasourceofamusementinNewZealand,hintingthatthehabit

ofScottifyingStAndrew’sDaymenuswaswellrecognisedintheantipodes.In1880theChristchurch

StarderidedtheassertionofanIrishnewspaperthatScotssubsistonnothingexceptthe“Memories

oftheirPast.”242Thearticleproposedtheotherextreme,offeringthemenuofarecentStAndrew’s

DaydinnerasevidenceofScottishoverindulgence;

SomeScotchmen,however,believeinhavingplentytoeatanddrinktoo,andavarietyat

that.HereisabilloffarepresentedatlastStAndrew’sDay:–‘Cauldkailhet,cockie

leekie,sautherrin,an’tatties,doosan’champittatties,nowt’scloots,singedsheep’s

head,biledmuttonan’neeps,bubblyjockan’callerou,grosettarts,nicketbaps,brandy

snaps,cookies,parleys,nits,grosets,thesneeshinmull,&c.’OurCaledonianfriendswere

well-providedforintheliquordepartment,whichincludedGlenlivet,Glentakit,Long

John,PeatReek,andSoorDook.Itwouldtakeawayallvestigeofappetiteforanordinary

individualmerelytoreadtheabove.243

PerhapsawareofthequestionableculinaryreputationofScotland,someAmericansocieties

attemptedtoappeaseallpalettes;insertingaselectionoftokenScottishdishesintotheirSt

Andrew’sDayspreads.In1882,theScottishSocietyofMilwaukeesupplementedtheirmaincourses

of“Baked-Redsnapper,al’Italiane,”“TenderloinofBeef,auJus,”and“RoastQuail,stuffed”with

side-offeringssidesofhaggis,“ScotchBroth”and“ArgylePunch.”244

Whilesomeassociations,suchastheStAndrew’sSocietyofCleveland,reflectingJohn

Duncan’s1818observationoftheAmericandislikeofScottishfood,madelittleefforttoScottify

theirStAndrew’sDaydinners,insteadserving“alamodeBeef”andfourdifferentbreedsofduck,

theprovisionandsubsequentreportingofScottishfoodwasanotablemethodforassociational

ScotstoproclaimtheirScottishness.245TheCanterburyPressdeclaredofan1887StAndrew’sDay

dinner,“thebilloffarebristleswithappropriatenames,”recalling“‘SaumonfraeAuldScotland,’

‘Grousean’PatricksfraetheMuirso’Scotland,’andthatfavouritedishof‘Haggis.’”246

241Ibid.242‘HereandThere,’Star,9October1880,p.3.243Ibid.244‘St.Andrew’sBanquet,AnnualEventoftheScottishSociety,’MilwaukeeJournal,30November1892,p.1.245‘StAndrew’sFestival,’ClevelandDailyHerald,1December1869,p.1.246‘CanterburyCaledonianSociety,’Press,1December1887,p.6.

|P a g e

53

Overadecadelater,theOtagoDailyTimesnotedthatatamonthlymeetingoftheGaelic

Society“thebroadScotchbilloffare”accorded“suchmerriment,”declaringthe“document”a

“workofartandamasterpieceofquaintliterature.”247TheironyoftheGaelicSocietyissuingbillsof

farein“broadScotch”appearslostonthereporter,indicativeofthemannerinwhichLowlandforms

predominatedwithindiasporicverbaltartanry,andhintingthatsuchmenu-cardshadbecomea

widelyacceptedglobalexpressionofScottishcharacteristics.AstheMelbourneScotmusedin1902,

commentingonthosepartakinginthe“ScotchBillofFare”(a“kairdo’goodthings”),ataSt

Andrew’sDayDinneratPretoria:

ThecuriousthingaboutthemisthattheystayScotch!Youcansometimescatchthegreat

bigbirronaman’stongue,evenwhenhe’sbeenfiftyyearsanAustralian.Theynever

seemtobeashamedofbeingScotch.248

Areportofthe1883StAndrew’sDaycelebrationoftheCanterburyCaledoniaSocietyservesasa

final,poignantexampleoftheoverseasmanifestationofaculinaryverbaltartanry,wheretheefforts

madebydiasporicScotstoprocureandconsumecertaindishesintertwinedwithanovertusageof

Lowlandlinguistictraits.

Lastnight,StAndrew’sDaywascelebratedbyasupper,whichwasgivenatthe

CommercialHotel,whichwasattendedbyaboutsixtygentlemenhailingfromthe‘lando’

cakes.’ForsometimepasttheCommitteeoftheCaledonianSocietyhavebeenmaking

preparationsfortheoccasion,whichitwashardlynecessarytosaywereattendedwith

success.Thecatering,withtheexceptionoftwoitems–thehaggisandtheoatcakes–

wasplacedinthehandsofMrWarner,andheperformedhisworktothepleasureofall

concerned.

Shortlyafternineo’clockMrWatttookthechair,andDrStewartandtheVice-

Chair,andaftergracehadbeendelivered,thecompany,toabidereligiouslytothebill-of-

fare,eachtook‘aweedrappieofMiltonDuff.’ThiswassucceededbyAberdeensaut

herrinsandtatties,whichwereaccompany[sic.]byaweedrappieofthatsimilar

beveragetothatalreadymentioned.Thefirst‘coorse’consistedof‘stewedhenswi’

paddockstools,’‘mincedcollopswi’sma’peas’and‘aweeDonalo’Glenlivet,’andthe

‘secondcoorse’was‘Giggoto’muttonwiredcurran’jellie,’and‘stuffedBubblyJocks

roastit.’Thefollowingdishwastheoneoftheevening,andasthewaiterscarriedthe

haggisitsentrancewasannouncedbyPiperMacGregor,whoplayedalivelytuneonthe

247‘GaelicSociety,’OtagoDailyTimes,5November1898,p.7.248TheScot,No.4,1September1902,p.7.

|P a g e

54

bagpipes,andthepartycheered.ThehaggishasbeenspeciallypreparedbyMrsSteward,

thewifeofthevice-chairman,thatshehadsucceededinpleasingallwasshownbythe

heartywayinwhichitwaseaten.Itwasnecessarytohave‘anotherweeDonalo’Milton-

Duff,’andthencamethegrouse.ThistheChairmanintimatedhadcomeintheIonicfrom

Scotland,togetherwithasprigofheatherfromtheMurray[sic.]hills.Buttherewasonly

onebird,andasthecoverwasliftedandthegrouseshownaroaroflaughterpassed

roundthetableatitssmalldimensions.Twoveryappropriatelineshasbeenselected,

namely,

Kill’tontheHielandHillsmairthatthreemonthsago,

Anbrochta’thisgateinsnaw

Thoughsmall,alltastedthedelicacy,whichdoubtlessremindedthemofoldandhappy

days.‘Tatties,biledandchappit,andbashedneeps’followedand‘neistcametheMitie

Dunlopcheesean’oatcake,wiamixtie-maxtieo’ingins,lettuces,analoto’othergreen

things,’and‘jistanitherDonaltokeepa’doon.’Thesupperwassucceededbytoasts,

songs,andselectionsonthepipesbythepiperandalsobyastringband.

Thefirsttoastontheprogrammewasthatof‘HerMajestytheQueen,’which

wasproposedbytheChairmananddrunkwithmusicalhonors,andwassucceededby

‘TheHealthoftheGovernor,’alsoproposedbytheChairman.Duringthetimehis

Excellencyhadbeeninthecolonyhehadshownhimselftobeofactivetemperament,

andwillingtowork,andhe(theChairman)hopedthathemighthavealongerreignthan

hisprocessor.249

Theratherabsurdimageofaminiscule,heather-adornedHighlandgrouse,transportedhalf

wayroundtheglobe,despitebeingtoosmalltoenablethegueststotastemorethanamorsel,

servesasanaptmetaphorfornineteenth-centuryScottishdiasporictartanry.Consciouslyinvoked

anddeliberatelydisplayed,yetfleeting,personal,andinherentlyexclusive;themouthfulofgrouse

standsinenvisagedreminiscenceof“oldandhappydays,”aceremonialtaste,butnothingmore

substantial.TheScotticisedlanguageofthedinnertablereportedbythePress,andtheaccentuating

fragmentofpoetrywhichaccompaniedthegrouse–boastingofthebird’s“Hieland”origins–

performacomparableroletothedishesthemselves,voicingadesiredadherencetotheemotive

trappingsofScotsaffinity,toastingimperialprestige.

Discussingthesubstructureofthe“imaginedpoliticalcommunity,”GayatriChakrovarty

Spivaklocatestherootsofnationalismwithinthe“underivedprivate,”stemmingfromthe“rock-

249‘CaledonianGathering,’Press,1December1883,p.3.Alsoreportedas‘StAndrew’sDay,’Star,1December1883,p.4.

|P a g e

55

bottomcomfortofone’sownlanguageandone’shome.”250Suchbedrocksecurityisnotedtowork

intandemwiththeimplicit,“bottom-linesharedunease”alignedto“theremovalof[this]

comfort.”251ForSpivak,attachmenttothe“nationthing”operatesostensiblywithina“public

sphere,”butwithanultimatebasis,essentialintheexpressionand“mobilization”ofsuchfeelings,

lyinginanestablishedprivate:theinternal“simplethereness”ofanassumed,unthreateningaffinity

anditsinverse–thefearforthelossofthatverysameanticipated“comfort.”252

Spivaksupposesthecomplexitiesofnationalismtoariseintheinterplaybetweenthese

configurationsof“public”and“private”;adouble-thinkatoncenegotiating“withthemostprivatein

theinterestofcontrollingthepublicsphere,”“recoding”an“underivedprivate”–the“simple

thereness”of“knowncomfort”–asthepolaropposite,the“antonymofthepublicsphere.”253The

servingofthetinygrouse,completewithitsgarnishof“Murrayhills”heatherand“very

appropriate”Scotscouplet,offersaglimpseofthe“underivedprivate”ininteractionwiththe

“public.”ThisovertandexplicitdemonstrationofdiasporicScottishnessfunctionedthroughthe

amplificationofminute,momentarysensations–culinaryandlinguistictriggersofthe“most

private”–thetasteof“oldandhappydays”lingeringuponthe“mithertongue.”

InMilwaukeein1886,“TheMitherTongue”itselfenteredintotheStAndrew’sDayschedule

ofafter-dinnertoasts,whereitwashonouredforits“CompositeOriginandthePowerofitsPithand

Pathos.”254“MrJohnJohnson”offeredanaddress,outlining“averyinterestinghistoryofthe‘Mither

Tongue,’”bywhich“hedidnotintendtheGaelictongue[…]buthepresumedthatthelowland

Scotchwasintended.”255Johnsoninsisted“Englishspeakingpeople”had“adoptedmanyofthebest

Scotchwords,”declaring,

[…]therewasmoresongandenjoymentincoldScotlandthanmerryEngland,[…]very

aptlyexpressedinthemithertongue.WhereistheScotchmanwhoseheartisnotthrilled

withthegloriousmemorieswhichrushthroughhisheart,andhefeelsthefullpowerof

Scottishmusicandthemothertongue?ScotchmendowelltosingScotchsongsandtell

Scotchstoriestokeepfreshandgreenthememoriesofauldlangsyne.256

Nearlythirtyyearsearlier,comparablereflectionswereofferedtotheStAndrew’sSocietyof

Montreal“toillustrateandadornthecommonbrotherhoodwhichknitsustothoseofourownland,

250GayatriChakravortySpivak,NationalismandtheImagination,(Calcutta,2010),pp.15-17.251Ibid,15-17.252Ibid,p.17.253Ibid,pp.57,17-18.254‘St.Andrew’sDay:TheAnnualBanquetoftheScottishSociety,’MilwaukeeSentinel,1December1886,p.2.255Ibid.256Ibid.

|P a g e

56

kindredandtongue.”257Inanaptly-titledsermon,“TheBeneficialInfluenceofaWell-Regulated

Nationality,”theRev.AlexanderKempdiscussedanexilicoverhearingofsharedScotslanguage,

shoringupsupportfor“honestpoverty”:

ItcannotbesaidofScotchmenthattheyhaveeverbeenindifferenttothewantsorthe

sorrowsoftheircountrymen.Noneofus,Ibelieve,canheartheDoricfamiliarlanguage

ofournativehome,speakingthewordsofdistressortellingtalesofsuffering,without

feelingtheliveliestsympathywiththesufferer.Hewouldnotbeworthyofthefairfame

ofhisnativeland,whocouldlookonacountrymaninrags,orcarewornwithhonest

poverty,andnotseektoministerwithalovinghandhiswants.258

In1851,“SonsofStAndrew”inAuckland,“desirousofturningthecordialfeeling”oftheirrecentSt

Andrew’sDaycelebration“tothepurposeofpracticalandbenevolentutility,”officiallyformedtheir

StAndrew’sSociety,“anxiousbytheproofoffraternalkindness,toshowthemselves‘brither

Scots.’”259

SuchScotsaphorismsevokedtheemotive,personalpullofan“underivedprivate,”invoked

tomotivatea“fraternalkindness”overseas.AstheAucklandsocietyindicates,Scotsforms,

objectifiedasverbaltartanty,negotiatedwithanovert,publiclyenactedScotspersona–the

altruistic,implicitlyaffluentarchetypeofthe“britherScot.”Indeed,“BritherScotstheHaleWarld

O’er”wasafrequentlyvoicedtoastoftheCanterburyCaledonianSocietyattheirStAndrew’sDay

gatherings.260

“Ourfolkhavebeenfew,butourbrothersinherittheearth,”remarkedtheRev.Alexander

WhyteinaStAndrew’sDay“meditation”printedintheNewZealandHeraldin1908.261Inanarticle

riddledwithverbaltartanry,Whyteemphasisedthe“clannish”affectionof“brither”Scots,

assembling“attheendsoftheearth.”262ForWhyte,Scotswereunitedinseemingly-shared

experienceof“thesimplelife”–the“buttan’ben”or“auldclaybiggin’”ofthefamilyhome,“the

mother’scareandthefather’ssmile”:

Thatfamilyaffectionfollowedthemthroughoutlife.OnNewYear’sDayandNewYear’s

Sabbaththesonsanddaughtersgatheredtotheoldhomeandtheoldpew.Inthethickof

257Rev.AlexanderF.Kemp,TheBeneficialInfluenceofaWell-RegulatedNationality,(Montreal,1857),p.3.258Ibid,pp.3-4.259‘StAndrew’sSociety,’NewZealander,13December1851,p.3.260‘CanterburyCaledonianSociety,’Press,1December1887,p.6,‘StAndrewsDay,’Press,1December1892,p.5.261‘OurScottishHeritage,’NewZealandHerald,5December1908,p.5.262Ibid.

|P a g e

57

battletheystoodshouldertoshoulder.Itwasnotnecessarytoremindthem,‘andwhen

yethinkuponyourmither,mindyebekindtoaneanither.’263

Suchrecollectionsofdomesticrusticity,an“underivedprivate,”supposedlyendowed

diasporicScotswithfundamentalpatrioticvirtues.The“clanisthedevelopedhousehold,”Whyte

declared,“[i]snotthefamilytheunitoftheState?”264RecurringScotsmaximsprojectedthe

seeminglyinherentScotsqualitiesofegalitarianism–“themomentaman‘daursbefairfora’that’”

–moderation–“themanwhois‘contendedwi’little’abhorscovetousness”–andsimplereligious

clarity–“thosewhohavehadthe‘parritchandcarritch’[porridgeandtheShorterCatechism]can

knowtheirGod.”265

ForWhyte,verbaltartanrywasparamount,facilitatinga“public”projectionofsuchtraits,

supposing,as“applesofgoldinbasketsofsilver,allthosebenefitshavecometoussetinour

mothertongue.”266Whyteconcludedbyextollingthetenetsofverbaltartanry,assertingScottish

exceptionalismoverseas:

Inforeignparts,likethese,we‘haegottentoourEnglish,’butnowandthen,‘whenwi’a

neebarcrony,’wecroonthemusicofthebraidScots.Thisnightweenthronethespeech

ofourfathersinourheartsandonourlips,tosurvive‘a’themisca’ino’thepernickity

andfashionable.’‘Itisanancientanhonourabletongue,wirutesdeepi’theyirth;aulder

thanmuckleo’theEnglish.itcamdoontillusthromeourGothicandPictishforebears;it

washeardonthebattlefieldwi’Bruce;itwaftitthetriumphantprayersandsangso’the

martyrsintilheeven;itdirl’tonthetongueo’JohnKnox,denoucin’wrang;itsweeten’t

theheevenlikeletterso’SamuelRutherford;andaneaththethecko’monyamuirland

cottageite’ennoocarriesthankstillheeven,andbringstheblessin’sdoun.’Andsoour

recollectionsof‘theDaysofAuldLangSyne’areswathedingentlenessintheScots

versionofStPaul’sGreek:–‘Lovetholeslang,iskindandcannie,lovevauntsna’itsel’,

isnasuneupliftit,isna’gientoflytin’,castsnaebyganes;tholesa’things,lippensa’things,

looksforrittoa’things,driesa’things.Gintherebelearitsalldwineawa’;butnoofirm

bidesfaith,hope,love,thisthrie,butloveisaboonthema’.’267

WithintheStAndrew’sDaycelebrationsofexpatriateScots,Lowlandlanguage“wi’rutesdeepi’the

yirth,”evocativeofaninherent,privatereflectionofthe“simplethereness”ofcomfortinthe

familiar,becamemomentarily,symbolically,andpublically“enthroned”asverbaltartanry.

263Ibid.264Ibid.265Ibid.266Ibid.267Ibid.

|P a g e

58

The“musicofbraidScots,”which“waftit”triumphanttoventriloquizethewordsofStPaul,

wasself-consciously“crooned”withinglobalcelebrations.Thisofferedalinguisticproclamationof

Scottishnessinwhichindividualsentimentofthe“mostprivate”negotiatedwithandfoundpublic

expressionamidtheoutwardtrappingsoftheScottishassociationalcultureoftheBritishimperial

world.

Andsuchexpressionswerethemselvesmarkedly“diasporic.”ThequotationswithinWhyte’sspeech,

reportedbytheAuckland-basedHerald,weresourcedfromtheNewTestamentinBraidScots,

compiledbyWilliamWyeSmith,aScots-Canadianmigrant.268Inaprefacecomposedfrom“St.

Catherines.Canada,”WyeSmithdiscussedthemotivesbehindhis1901Scotstranslation,

celebratingacertainduality.269“IbegudetothinkthataiblinsProvidencehadgienmetheScots

bludeandtheScotstongue,”WyeSmithrecalled,alsoacknowledgingthefortuityofhavingbeen

provided“witheAmericanedication.”270TheScotsémigrérecognisedthesignificanceofhismixed-

“English”legacy,offeringdivinethanks“fortheverareasonthat–haeinbaithlang’ages–Isoud

recommendtheWordinScots;andjuistScotseneuchnotobeunfathomabletotheordinarEnglish

reader.”271WyeSmithhighlightedhisdistinctive,heteroglossically-informeddiscourse.Anaccepted,

recognisableregister–“notquite”ofsamenessnordifference–foreignandfamiliar.

CertainScotsexcerptswerethusconceivedandcirculatedwithanawarenessoflinguistic

mixingbetrayingtransnationalconceptionsof“abroad.”Andcrucially,theselatenineteenth,early

twentieth-centurydisplayspunctuatedthegenerallycelebratorynotionsofScottishexpatriate

successandsocio-culturalsuperiorityamidthebackdropoftheBritishempire.

ThisphenomenonappearsafarcryfromtheScottishlinguisticconcernsofthemid-to-late

eighteenthcentury,Burns’sownlifetime–aperiodassociatedwith“English”linguistic

“standardisation,”andtheprescriptionsplacedupon“Scotticisms.”Havingbegunbydemonstrating

thediasporicubiquityofScotsformsfromtheearlynineteenthcenturyonward,theremainderof

thisthesisattemptstouncovertherootsoftheglobalupsurgeofverbaltartanry.Whilemaintaining

aneyeon“diaspora,”thenextsectioniscentredonScotland–discussingthemideighteenth-

centurydomesticconcernfor“Scotticisms,”beforedelvingintothelaterphilologicalrenegotiation,

andrehabilitationofsomeLowlandforms.Assuch,thefollowingchaptersareintendedtooffer268WilliamWyeSmithed.,TheNewTestamentinBraidScots,(1901:Paisley,1904),pp.iii,221.Also,GrahamTulloch,‘TheEnglishandScotsLanguagesinScottishReligiousLife,’ColinMacLeanandKennethVeitcheds.,Religion,ScottishLifeandSociety,Vol.12,(Edinburgh,2006),p.355.269Smithed.,NewTestament,p.iii.270Ibid.271Ibid.

|P a g e

59

insightintotheeventualireofJohnDuncanin1818,bemoaningthe“impropriety”of“meddlingwith

ourDoricdialect.”

|P a g e

60

PartII.Eighteenth-centuryScotssub-versions.

“Solejudgesandlawgiversinlanguage”:Sub-versions,“Scotticisms,”andasettlingof“standards.”

“Oldthingsmustbethendoneaway–newmannersmustbeassumed,

andanewlanguageadopted.”

JohnSinclair,(London,1782).

Midwaythroughhis1779TreatiseontheProvincialDialectofScotland,theAberdonianlawyerand

sometimelinguistSylvesterDouglasofferedpointersonthe“correct”pronunciationoftheEnglish

diphthong“oaasinboat.”1Douglasprovidedacolourfulanecdote,illustratingtheparticulardangers

forScotsspeakers:

Notlongago,aScotchGentleman,inadebateintheHouseofCommonsupontheAffairs

ofAmerica,beganaspeechinwhichheproposedtoexaminewhetheritwouldbemore

advisabletoadoptcompulsive,orsoothingmeasurestowardsthecolonies.Unfortunately

insteadofsoothe,coaxwasthewordthathadpresenteditselftohismind.Andhe

pronounceditasifwrittencox.2

Theenunciationofthehaplesspoliticianeffectivelyendedhisaddress.Hisrenderingof“coax,”

“addedtoseveralotherpeculiaritiesofmanneranddialect,”wasnotedtohave“tickledtheHouse

extremely,andproducedagenerallaugh.”3Douglasconcluded:

TheGentlemanwasunconsciousofthefalsepronounciation[sic.]intowhichhehad

fallen.Hisspeechhadbeenpremeditated,andcoaxwas,itseems,asortofcue,orcatch

word.Everytimethereforethatthesilenceofhishearerspermittedhimtoresumehis

harangue,hebeganbyrepeatingthisunluckyword.Buteveryfreshrepetitionofit

occasioningalouderburstoflaughter,hewasobligedatlastfairlytogivethematterup.

Andbreakoffhisorationinthemiddle.4

1SylvesterDouglas,ATreatiseontheProvincialDialectofScotland,(1779),CharlesJonesed.,(Edinburgh,1991),p.185.2Ibid.3Ibid.4Ibid.

|P a g e

61

Themember’ssuggestionsforimprovingrelationsbetweentheBritishgovernmentandtheir

increasinglyfractiousAmericancolonieswentunheard.Thiscautionarytale,containedwithin

Douglas’snuanceddiscussionofScotsphonology,offersaneatreflectionofthelinguistichandicap

ofmany“NorthBritons”duringthelateeighteenthcentury.

Scottishinsecuritywithregardtoaccentandidiomduringtheperiodiswelldocumented.

Indeed,withindiscussionsof“enlightenment”-eraBritishhistory,ithasbecomesomethingofa

requirementtoreflectontheeffortsofScotsspeakerstodivestthemselvesofanydistinctive

language–theinfamous“Scotticisms”anticipatedasoutlandish,uncouth,andlikelytoprovoke

Englishderision.5Ithasevenbeensuggestedthatintermsoftheirlanguage,eighteenth-century

Lowlandelitesandintellectuals“wishedferventlynottobeScots,”withdiscerniblelinguistic

differencesconsideredanunfortunatesourceof“provincialembarrassment,”best“mellowed”in

speechand“expunged”fromprose.6Withinthissomewhatcounter-intuitivecontext,theScottish

pursuitofaBritishliteraryrecognitionisseentohavebeenreflectedthroughadeterminationto

ape,andthenexcelin,Britishmetropolitanmodes–to“outAugustantheAugustans”and“out-

EnglishtheEnglish.”7

Manyofthemostprestigiousfiguresofthe“ScottishEnlightenment”presentcentral

testimonytothisshifttowardssouthern“standards.”Inhis1759HistoryofScotland,William

Robertson–futureprincipaloftheUniversityofEdinburghandModeratoroftheChurchofScotland

–famouslyremarkedthatduetotheimbalancedUnionofCrownsof1603,“theEnglishnaturally

becamethesolejudgesandlawgiversinlanguage,andrejectedassolecisms,everyformofspeech

towhichtheirearwasnotaccustomed.”8Writinginthe1750s,Robertsonbelievedthetimeshad

mercifullychangedforthebetter,andheeagerlyperceivedtheparliamentaryUnionof1707tohave

5SeeHenryGreyGraham,TheSocialLifeofScotlandintheEighteenthCentury,(1899:London,1937),pp.77-9,114-21,Daiches,ParadoxofScottishCulture,KennethSimpson,TheProteanScot,(Aberdeen,1988),pp.72-125.For“Scotticisms,”seeJamesG.Basker,‘ScottcismsandtheProblemofCulturalIdentityinEighteenth-CenturyBritain,’JohnDwyerandRichardB.Shereds.,SociabilityandSocietyinEighteenth-CenturyScotland,(Edinburgh,1993),DavidHewitt,‘ScoticismsandCulturalConflict,’RonaldP.Drapered.,TheLiteratureofRegionandNation,(NewYork,1989),andMarinaDossena,ScotticismsinGrammarandVocabulary,(Edinburgh,2005).6JanetAdamSmith,‘SomeEighteenth-CenturyIdeasofScotland,’N.T.PhillipsonandRosalindMitchisoneds.,ScotlandintheAgeofImprovement,(Edinburgh,1970),p.110,ColinKidd,SubvertingScotland’sPast:ScottishWhigHistoriansandthecreationonanAnglo-BritishIdentity,1689-c.,1830,(Cambridge,1993),pp.2-3.Also,Dossena,Scotticisms,pp.57-72,CharlesJones,ALanguageSuppressed,(Edinburgh,1995),pp.vii-21,LyndaMugglestone,TalkingProper,TheRiseofAccentasaSocialSymbol,(Oxford,1995).7DavidCraig,ScottishLiteratureandtheScottishPeople1680-1839,(London,1961),p.55,Smith,‘Eighteenth-CenturyIdeas,’ScotlandintheAgeofImprovement,p.112.Also,ManfredGörlach,StillMoreEnglishes,(Amsterdam,2002),p.53.8WilliamRobertson,TheHistoryofScotlandDuringtheReignsofQueenMaryandKingJamesVI.,(1759:London,1794),2vols.,I,pp.312.

|P a g e

62

usheredinagoldenageofequitybetweenthenationsofEnglandandScotland,havingmore

effectively“renderedthemonepeople.”9

RobertsonenvisionedthebondsofBritishnessinrevealinglylinguisticterms:

[…]thedistinctionswhichhadsubsistedformanyagesgraduallywearaway;peculiarities

disappear;andthesamemannersprevailinbothpartsoftheisland;thesameauthorsare

readandadmired;thesameentertainmentsarefrequentedbytheelegantandpolite;

andthesamestandardoftaste,andofpurityinlanguage,isestablished.TheScots,after

beingplaced,duringthewholecentury,inasituationnolessfataltolibertythantothe

tasteandgeniusofthenation,wereatonceputinpossessionofprivilegesmorevaluable

thanthosewhichtheirancestorshadformerlyenjoyed;andeveryobstructionthathad

retardedtheirpursuit,orpreventedtheiracquisitionofliteraryfame,wastotally

removed[…].10

TheScotproclaimedauniformityofBritish“liberty”andlanguage,upheldalongsideanoverarching,

implicitlyAnglo-centred“purity”and“standardoftaste.”ForRobertson,suchtiesentailedScottish

accesstoEnglishcultural“standards”onanostensiblyequalfooting,and,ifadequatelyemulated,

languagewasimaginedtobenownoreasonable“obstruction”toScots’“acquisitionofliterary

fame.”11

Thissupposed“fame”wasbynomeansconfinedto“literary”Scots.Infact,thecareerof

SylvesterDouglasprovidesafittingdemonstrationofthepost-union“privileges”whichawaited

industrious,well-connectedScotsmenwhoweremindfuloftheir‘p’sand‘q’s.Followinghis

propitiousmarriagetoKatharineNorth,daughteroftheformerPrimeMinisterFrederickNorth,

Douglas’sstarroseremarkablyquicklywithintheranksoftheBritishpoliticalelite.12Duringthe

1790stheScotobtainedaseriesofgovernmentofficesoftenpertainingtoimperialmanagement.In

1793DouglaswasmadeChiefSecretarytotheEarlofWestmoreland,Lord-LieutenantofIreland,

andjusttwoyearslaterwasinvitedontotheBoardofControloftheEastIndiaCompany.In1800

theScotwaselevatedtotheIrishpeerage,adoptingthetitleofLordGlenbervieofKincardineinan

elevationwhichaccompaniedhisappointmentasGovernoroftheCapeofGoodHope.13

9Ibid,I,p.313.10Ibid.See,ColinKidd,‘TheIdeologicalSignificanceofRobertson’sHistoryofScotland,’StewartJ.Browned.,WilliamRobertsonandtheExpansionofEmpire,(Cambridge,1997),pp.122-4.11Robertson,HistoryofScotland,I,pp.313-14.12Douglasisbrieflynotedamongthe“Scotscronies”ofHenryDundas,MichaelFry,TheDundasDespotism,(Edinburgh,1992),p.207.ForDouglas’sownperspectiveasapolitical“place-hunter”see,FrancisBickleyed.,TheDiariesofSylvesterDouglas,(London,1928),2vols.,I,p.vi.13Anon.,‘No.XVI.TheRightHon.SylvesterDouglas,’TheAnnualBiographyandObituaryfortheYear1824,VIII,(London,1824),pp.335-44,339-40.

|P a g e

63

AnotedadvocateoftheUnionof1800,DouglassatfirstintheIrishandthentheBritish

parliament.Afterhisdeath,theScotwasrememberedasa“frequentspeaker”withintheHouseof

Commons,and“hisutterance,whichwasslowandsolemn”wascommended,“instrictharmony

withtheprofoundandintellectualexpressionofhiscountenance.”14OnemaywonderhowDouglas,

addressingParliamentorpreparinghispoliticalutterances,mighthavecasthismindbacktohisown

warningsofanunacceptable,potentiallydamagingScotspronunciation.15

Significantlyconsciousoftheindignityattachedtolinguisticvariance,Douglasexemplifies

thepotentialforlateeighteenth-centuryScottish“elites”toconformtoEnglishnorms,while

becomingcomfortablyaccommodatedwithinthepoliticalechelonsoftheBritishempire.Moreover,

asishintedintheexamplefromDouglas’s1779Treatise,Scottishwould-beimperialists,desiringto

deliberateuponsuchcriticalissuesasthe“AffairsofAmerica”intheearly1770s,couldonly

realisticallycontributetoBritishcolonialdiscoursethroughanactive,self-consciousavoidanceofan

overtlyScotsinflection.

Yetthecomplexlinguisticpigmentationoflateeighteenth-centuryBritainwasrarelyassimpleas

suppositionsofanAnglo-centricwhitewashmaysuggest.In1757,inoneofhismorenotorious

remarks,DavidHumecommendedRobertson’sHistoryofScotland;declaringtoGilbertElliotof

Minto,fellowScotandrecently-appointedLordoftheAdmiralty,

[…]reallyitisadmirablehowmanyMenofGeniusthisCountryproducesatpresent.Isit

norstrangethat,atatimewhenwehavelostourPrinces,ourParliaments,our

independentGovernment,eventhePresenceofourchiefNobility,areunhappy,inour

AccentandPronunciation,speakaverycorruptDialectoftheTongue[…];isitnot

strange,Isay,that,intheseCircumstances,weshou’dreallybethePeoplemost

distinguish’dforLiteratureinEurope.16

Hume’scommentary,oftenparsedtoreflectScottishanxietyinmattersoflanguage,canalsobe

readasanassertionofScots’capabilitytoovercomesuchapparentlinguistichindrances.

Withinthiswell-knownextract,Scottishliteraryaccomplishmentislaudedalongsidea

recognitionofsocio-linguisticdisadvantage.Indeed,suchintellectual“distinction”isrenderedallthe

moreimpressivebyHume’sdramaticemphasisofthesupposedly“corrupt”and“unhappy”factorof

14Ibid,p.340.15Douglasdoesoccasionallyfocusuponthepraiseworthyoratoryofcertainparliamentaryspeakers,seeBickley,Diaries,II,p.16.16J.Y.T.Greiged.,TheLettersofDavidHume,(1932:Oxford,2011),2vols.,I,p.255.

|P a g e

64

Scots’language.Ultimately,Hume’sreflectionuponthe“manyMenofGeniusthisCountry

produces”waspromptedincelebrationofRobertson’sHistory–perceivedasyetanotherhigh-

qualityScotsofferingwhichservedtoboostconfidenceinthenationalcapacitytomatchthevery

bestofEnglishliterarymores.

Overthepasttwodecades,awealthofscholarshiphasemphasisedScottishagencyin

determiningAnglo-Britishliterary“standards”duringthelatterhalfoftheeighteenthcentury.In

assertingthe“Scottishinvention”ofEnglishliteraryscholarship,RobertCrawfordpersuasivelylinks

thelinguisticconcernsofmanyScotsintellectualstotheiradvocacyofa“fullyBritishethos.”17The

denigrationofdistinctiveScotsformsinadrivetowardsdefining“purer”English“standards”is

thereforeviewedasapatriotically“pro-British”undertaking,ratherthanasasimplistically“anti-

Scottishgesture”–anattitudeinkeepingwiththeobjectivesofaScotsintelligentsiatomaintainan

activeroleindirectinga“harmonious,ifhegemonic”Britishdiscourse.18Suchsentimentshavebeen

developedbyMarinaDossenaandSusanRennieininsightfulgrammaticalandlexicographical

investigations,revealingtheoverlappingmotivesthatworkedtobothprohibitandprescribethe

usageofcertainScotsvarietiesduringtheperiod.19

AsCharlesJones’swide-ranginganalysesofeighteenth-centurylanguage-planningandScots

phonologyhaveshown,interpretationsofLowlandlanguageandEnglish“standards”differed

dramaticallywithinScotland.Opposingone-dimensionalsuspicionsofa“de-culturingconspiracy”

vyingtosupplantScotsvarietiesinfavourofsouthern“standards,”Jonesdiscussesamultifaceted

“Scottishgrammaticaltradition.”20Acknowledgingmanyprominenteighteenth-centuryScots

grammariansasvociferousadvocatesofanAnglo-Britishlinguistic“standardisation,”Jonesalso

highlightsarelated“preservationandenhancement”ofScotsformswhichdevelopedalongsidea

counteractiveenergytodeterminean“acceptableScottishphonologicaloutput,”distinctfrom

Englishorthographicrepresentation.21

17RobertCrawford,‘Introduction,’RobertCrawforded.,TheScottishInventionofEnglishLiterature,(Cambridge,1998),pp.7.SeealsoColinKidd,‘NorthBritishnessandtheNatureofEighteenth-CenturyBritishPatriotisms,’HistoricalJournal,Vol.39,2,(June1996),pp.361-382.18RobertCrawford,DevolvingEnglishLiterature,(Edinburgh,1992),p.18,JohnDwyer,‘Introduction–A“PeculiarBlessing”:SocialConverseinScotlandfromHutchesontoBurns,’SociabilityandSociety,p.6.AlsoMarinaDossena,‘PrintandScotticisms,’StephenW.Brown,andWarrenMcDougalleds.,TheEdinburghHistoryoftheBookinScotland.Volume2,(Edinburgh,2012),pp.545-50.19Compare,forexample,Dossena,Scotticisms,p.57,SusanRennie,Jamieson’sDictionaryofScots,(Oxford,2012),p.58.20Jones,LanguageSuppressed,p.vii.21Ibid,pp.vii,viii.Seealso,CharlesJones,‘ScottishStandardEnglishinthelateeighteenthcentury,’TransactionsofthePhilologicalSociety,91:1,(1993),95-131,CharlesJones,EnglishPronunciationintheEighteenthandNineteenthCenturies,(Basingstoke,2006),pp.124-5,134,156-7.

|P a g e

65

Whileitisundeniablethatbythemid-eighteenthcenturythegenerallinguisticoutlookin

LowlandScotlandhadbecomegearedtowardssouth-facingmodels,theinterlockingrelationship

betweenLowlandScotstraitsandthoseofthe“standard”“English”languageoftheemergingBritish

nationwasdecidedlymorecomplex.FollowingRobertMillar’sconvincinglyfluidinterpretationof

certainScottishlinguisticcharacteristicsbecomingsystematically“subsumed”intoratherthan

indiscriminatelyoverturnedbyanalienandmonolithic“standard”language,thischapterpresents

thecasenotforanoppressive,EnglishlinguisticsubversionofScotsforms,butforthepotentialof

multipleScottishsub-versionsoperatingwithin“English”language“standards”;contemporaneous

strainsofalternatevarietiesrunningattimescounterto,butalsofrequentlyintersectingwith

surfacenotionsofasingular,“standard”Anglo-Britishlanguage,itselfbynomeansasuniformas

certaincriticsmightattempttomakeout.22

Assuch,thisdiscussionseekstohighlighttheinterrelationbetweentheeighteenth-century

drivetowardsAnglo-centred“standardisation”inScotlandandthenotoriouseffortsofmanyelites

andintellectualstotempertheirso-called“Scotticisms.”Withintheseinterlinkedphenomena,

distinctiveScotssub-versionsbecamebetter-definedthroughself-consciousactsofremoval–an

emotively-tintedprocesssowingtheseedsofthediasporicverbaltartanrywhichwoulddevelopin

latergenerations.

Asacompositereadingoftheinvaluable,twinperspectivesofJanetSorensenandSusan

Manningindicates,thestrenuousScottishattempttopursuetheidealised“standards”ofBritish

societalpolitenessandlinguistic“purity”promptedagreaterawarenessofthe“performed,artificial

quality”ofa“national”Anglo-Britishlanguage,alongsideanaccompanyingattentivenesstothe

“fragmentary”othernessofalternateScotsforms–sub-versionsin(andof)“standard”“rendered

peculiarorremarkable”throughconspicuous“separation.”23Throughparallel,singling-outprocesses

ofovertadditionandsubtraction,boththevarietiesperceivedas“standardEnglish”and“Scots”

couldbecomeconversely,yetcomparablydistinctiveforlateeighteenth-centuryScottishwritersand

speakers.24Themorethemodesofalinguistic“Anglicism”wereactivelyencouraged,emphasised,

and“enacted,”themorethedetracted“Scotticisms”becameconnectedandunderscoredthrough

22RobertMcCollMillar,Language,Nation,andPower,(Basingstoke,2005),p.89.SeealsoJamesMilroy,‘Historicaldescriptionandtheideologyofthestandardlanguage,’LauraWrighted.,TheDevelopmentofStandardEnglish,1300-1800,(Cambridge,2000).23JanetSorensen,TheGrammarofEmpireinEighteenthCenturyBritishWriting,(Cambridge,2000),p.151,SusanManning,FragmentsofUnion,(NewYork,2002),p.244.24Forarelateddiscussionontheinterconnectionsbetween“standard”and“non-standard”language,perceivedthroughtheprismofpre-conceivedlinguistic“vulgarity”recodedascriminalitywithinEnglandduringthelatterhalfoftheeighteenthcentury,seeJanetSorensen,‘VulgarTongues:CantingDictionariesandtheLanguageofthePeopleinEighteenth-CenturyBritain,’Eighteenth-CenturyStudies,Vol.37,No.3,(2004),435-454.

|P a g e

66

theirabsenceorjuxtaposition;progressivelymarkedasoutlandish,archaic,andexoticasa

heightenedside-effectoftheverypracticesthatsoughttheirdisplacement.25

Itisvitaltorecognisetheexistenceofdifferingyetinterconnectedconceptionsoflanguage

“standardisation”duringthisperiod.Crucially,eighteenth-centuryScottishlinguisticconcerns

bridgedtheintersticesbetweenthewiderBritishdrivetosolidifyEnglish“standards,”andcertain

assumptionsofneglectandfalse-starting“standardisation”whichpertainedmorespeciallyto

languagewithinScotland.

LinguisticprescriptivismwasverymuchaBritishcompulsionduringtheeighteenthcentury;

withanAnglo-centred“standardisation”imaginedasakeymeanstopintogetheranotherwise

“uneasyamalgam”ofconstituentnationalitieswithintheBritisharchipelago.26Ithasbecomea

commonplacetohighlightthedeep-seated“provincial”interestinascertainingandasserting

“correct”Anglo-centred“standards”duringtheperiod.However,inrecognisingtheinfamously

enthusiasticresponsetoEnglishlanguageplanningineighteenth-centuryScotland,itisalso

importanttolocatesuch“provincial”linguistic“polishing”withingreaterBritish,andwider

Europeancontextsofgrammaticalconcern.27Putsimply,linguisticprescriptionwasnotasolely

Scottishissue.

“Standardisation”inlanguagewasclearlyperceivedtogohandinhandwiththe

constructionofBritishnessintheeighteenthcentury.Inthepublishednotestohiswildlypopular

lecturetoursoftheearly1760s,theIrishelocutionistThomasSheridandeclared,

[…]itcannotbedeniedthatanuniformityofpronunciationthroughoutScotland,Wales

andIreland,aswellasthroughtheseveralcountiesofEngland,wouldbeapointmuchto

bewished;asitmightingreatmeasuredestroythoseodiousdistinctionsbetween

subjectsofthesameKing,andmembersofthesamecommunity,whichareever

attendedwithillconsequences,andwhicharechieflykeptalivebydifferenceof

pronunciation,anddialects[…].28

SheridanenvisionedanidealisedBritish“uniformity”tobeundonebymulti-national,“provincial”

distinction,insisting,25SusanManning,‘Post-UnionScotlandandtheScottishIdiomofBritishness,’IanBrown,ThomasOwenClancy,SusanManningandMurrayPittockeds.,TheEdinburghHistoryofScottishLiterature,(Edinburgh,2007),pp.49-51.26TonyCrowley,LanguageinHistory,(London,1996),p.68.27Mugglestone,TalkingProper,pp.30,45,BobHarris,‘Communicating,’ElizabethFoyster,andChristopherA.Whatleyeds.,AHistoryofEverydayLifeinScotland,1600-1800,(Edinburgh,2010),p.167.28ThomasSheridan,ACourseofLecturesonElocution,(London,1762),p.206.

|P a g e

67

[…]thisdifferenceisnotsomuchbetweenindividuals,aswholebodiesofmen;

inhabitantsofdifferentcountries,andspeakingonecommonlanguage,withoutagreeing

onthemannerofpronouncingit.ThusnotonlytheScotch,Irish,andWelsh,haveeach

theirownidioms,whichuniformlyprevailinthosecountries,butalmosteverycountyin

England,hasitsparticulardialect.29

TheIrishmanconcludedthe“standards”ofthissingularBritish“commonlanguage”asbest

determinedby“thelotofthatwhichprevailsatcourt,thesourceoffashionsofallkinds.”30Within

thiscomposite“onenation”perspective,Sheridanfamouslysupposedalternativelinguisticvarieties

and“allotherdialects”throughouttheBritishnationas“suremarks,eitherofaprovincial,rustic,

pedantic,ormechaniceducation;andthereforehavesomedegreeofdisgraceannexedtothem.”31

Twodecadeslater,SirJohnSinclairofUlbster–Scotsparliamentarianandcompilerofthe

mammothStatisticalAccountofScotland–offeredsimilarsentimentsfromaspecificallyScottish

standpoint.ReflectingDouglas’snervyfableoftheScotspoliticianmockedforhispronunciation,

Sinclairdeclaredindividualswho,

[…]wishtomixwiththeworld,andparticularlythosewhoseobjectitistohavesome

shareintheadministrationofnationalaffairs,areunderthenecessityofconformingto

thetaste,themanners,andthelanguageofthePublic.Oldthingsmustbethendone

away–newmannersmustbeassumed,andanewlanguageadopted.32

LikeSheridan,Sinclairstressedtheimportanceofgreaterlinguisticself-scrutinythroughoutthe

British“provinces,”insisting“nordoesthisobservationapplytoScotchmenonly”:

[…]thesameremarkmaybeextendedtotheIrish,totheWelsh,andtotheinhabitantsof

severaldistrictsinEngland;allofwhomhavemanywordsandphrasespeculiarto

themselves,whichareunintelligibleinthesenate-house,andinthecapital.33

Sinclairapprovedthat“oflatemanyScotchauthorshaveshewnanuncommondegreeof

attentiontothepurityoftheirstileanddiction,”andpresentedlinguistic“correction”asan

admirablypatrioticBritishpursuit,soothinghistorictensions:

Itisnothoweverinaprivate,butinanationalview,andasacircumstanceofimportance

tothePublicingeneral,thatthesubjectoughtproperlytobeconsidered.Whilstso

strikingadifferenceasthatoflanguageexistsbetweenEnglandandScotland,antient

29Ibid,p.30.30Ibid.31Ibid.32JohnSinclair,ObservationsontheScottishDialect,(London,1782),pp.1-2.33Ibid,p.2.

|P a g e

68

[sic.]localprejudiceswillnotberemoved;norcanitbeexpectedthattwoneighbouring

nations,which,thoughnowsohappilyunited,wereformanyagesatvariancewitheach

other,willbeabletoconsiderthemselvesasthesamepeople.34

ForSinclairasmuchasSheridan,linguistichomogeneitywasintimatelylinkedwithaharmonious

Britishnationality,demandinganalignmentofallregionalcomponents–includingthosewithin

England–toanapprovedanduniform“standard.”

Ofcourse,inthecommentaryofbothSheridanandSinclair,Anglo-Britishlanguage“standards”were

closelyconnectedtoprojectionsofpoliticalpowerandsocialprestige.AsTonyCrowleyhashinted,

Sheridan’sprescriptivismwasinfusedwitha“colonialfantasy”ofculturalsuperiority.35TheIrishman

envisagedanEnglish“standard”as“athirdclassicallanguage”to“rivalorevenexcelthenoble

languagesofGreeceandRome.”36Withoccasionalreferencesto“barbarous”languages“notworth

preserving,”andalinguistic“savagery”inwhich“thenativesofsuchcountries,arelittlemorethan

mereanimals,”SheridanconsideredanEnglish“standard”language“initsownnaturecapableof

theutmostexpressionandharmony”;proclaiming“inpointofgivingdelight,itwouldnotyieldto

thoseofantiquity;andthatitismuchbetterfittedforuniversaluse.”37

ButSheridanwasalsoconsciousofanundesirablelinguisticmultiplicityevidenteveninthe

Britishcapital;identifyingthat“intheverymetropolistwodifferentmodesofpronunciationprevail

bywhichtheinhabitantsofonepartofthetownaredistinguishedfromthoseoftheother.”38The

elocutionistwaskeentodifferentiatebetweentheunseemlysub-version“currentinthecity,andis

calledthecockney,”and“theotheratthecourt,[…]calledthepoliteconversation.”39“Amongst

thesevariousdialects”–encompassingallurbanandrurallinguisticdifferencewithinBritain–

Sheridanreflected,“onemusthavethepreference,andbecomefashionable”;selectingthespoken

modeofthe“court,”“acquiredonlybyconversingwithpeopleinpubliclife”:

[…]itisasortofproofthatapersonhaskeptgoodcompany,andonthataccountis

soughtafterbyall,whowishtobeconsideredasfashionablepeople,ormembersofthe

beaumonde.40

34Ibid,pp.3,2-3.35Crowley,LanguageinHistory,p.72.36ThomasSheridan,BritishEducation,(London,1756),p.367,ThomasSheridan,ACourseofLecturesonElocution,(London,1798),p.301.37Sheridan,LecturesonElocution,(1798),pp.248,271,301,Sheridan,BritishEducation,p.367.38Sheridan,LecturesonElocution,(1762),p.30.39Ibid.40Ibid.

|P a g e

69

Yetincelebratingsuchasocio-linguistic“standard,”Sheridanwasforcedtoacknowledgethe

threatthatalternateversionsposedtonotionsofa“fashionable”languageofthe“beaumonde.”

Indeed,theIrishmanbuiltacareeraroundtheverypresumptionthata“standard”language

necessarilyrequiredattentionanddiligentstudy.Theexistinglinguisticsub-versionsofBritishcities

and“peripheries,”attimesoperatingbothoutwithandwithinthese“English”“standards,”were

consequentlyscornedanddisconnected.Aswiththeso-called“Scotticisms,”theseBritishlinguistic

sub-versionsironicallybecamebetterdefinedthroughtheirreputeddifferencefromanassumed

andanxiously-analysed“correctness.”

Sheridanfearedsub-versiveincursion,reinterpretedasthecarelessslippingof“standards.”

Hereckoned“nothingbutthemostshamefulneglect”ofhisidealised“standard”could“preventthe

English,fromhandingdowntoposterityathirdclassicallanguage,offarmoreimportance”than

eithertheancientGreekorLatin.41Sheridanviewedhisownattemptstoremedysuch“neglect”–

the“generalinabilitytoread,orspeak,withproprietyandgraceinpublic”running“thro’thenatives

oftheBritishdominions”–asavital,patrioticundertaking.42Aslinguisticsub-versionsoperated

beneathglossydiscursivesurfaces,lateeighteenth-centurylanguage“standards”wererequiredto

berigorouslyupheld,andprotectedfrom“neglect.”

WithinSinclair’sObservations,theScotsimilarlyconsiderednotionsofnational“neglect”

alongsidethoseofself-consciouslinguistic“refinement.”Yetratherthanplottingoutthecelebrated

destinyofa“classical”Englishtongue,Sinclairdweltonthehistorical“deterioration”ofScotsforms

–interpretedascloselinguisticrelationstothoseofthesouth,unfortunatelysunderedfromEnglish

“standards”throughaprolongedperiodofdisregard.Sinclairdefined“Scotchlanguage”as“adialect

oftheSaxonoroldEnglish,withsometriflingvariations,”andattested,

[…]thetwolanguagesoriginallyweresonearlythesame,thattheprincipaldifferencesat

presentbetweenthem,areowingtotheScotchhavingretainedmanywordsandphrases

whichhavefallenintodisuseamongtheEnglish.43

TheMPproclaimedageneralhistoricsimilaritybetween“ScotchandEnglishdialects,”supposing

thatevenduringthereignofJamesVIandI,thevarieties“werenotsodissimilarastheyareat

present.”44

SinclairclaimedexistinglinguisticdifferencesbetweenEnglandandScotlandasrelatively

recentphenomena,theconsequenceofamixtureofScottishindolenceandEnglishinnovation:41Sheridan,BritishEducation,p.367.42Sheridan,LecturesonElocution,(1798),p.27.43Sinclair,Observations,p.4.44Ibid.p.9.

|P a g e

70

Time,however,andcommerce,joinedtotheeffortsofmanyingeniousmen,havesince

introducedvariousalterationsandimprovementsintotheEnglishlanguage,which,from

ignorance,inattention,ornationalprejudices,havenotalwayspenetratedintothe

north.45

Scotsformswerethereforeseenassomethingofananachronism–linkedtolaxity,ambivalence,

andtheoutworn“prejudices”ofaonceseparatenation.Indeed,Sinclairanticipatedthedaywhen

suchlimitedLowlandvarietieswouldbebroughtintolinewithEnglish“improvements”:

Butthetime,itishoped,willsoonarrive,whenadifference,soobvioustothemeanest

capacity,shallnolongerexistbetweentwocountriesbynaturesointimatelyconnected.

Ingarb,inmanners,ingovernmentwearethesame;andifthesamelanguagewere

spokenonbothsidesoftheTweed,somesmalldiversityinourlawsandecclesiastical

establishmentsexcepted,nostrikingmarkofdistinctionwouldremainbetweenthesons

ofEnglandandCaledonia.46

Sinclairofferedaratherdifferentinterpretationoflinguistic“standardisation,”suggesting

theScottishnationtohaveinadequatelymaintainedthevitalityofLowlandlanguageinanactof

abandonmentunfavourablycomparedwiththe“alterations”madetotheEnglishtongue.Lowland

languagewastherebypresentedasproofofSheridan’ssupposed“neglect”–indicativeofa“failed”

Scots“standard.”47Consequently,Sinclair’s“nationalview”sawlittleoptionforScottishspeakers

buttoreconcilethemselveswiththeAnglo-centred“standards”developingwithinBritain.

Yet,whileSinclairpraisedthehistoric“alterationsandimprovements”whichhadeffectedso

greatachangebetweenEnglishandScotsforms,hewasrathermorescepticalwhenitcameto

acceptingcontemporarylinguisticchanges.“Languages,”Sinclairadmitted“aresubjecttoavariety

ofalterations,andatfirsttheyoughttobeso,”imaginingthe“roughsentimentsofatribeofwarlike

Barbarians,suchastheSaxons”tobe“tooharshandruggedforthenicerfeelingsoftheirposterity,”

andinsistingthat“alanguageshouldbeabletoexpressthevastaccumulationofnewandvaried

ideasthatnecessarilyariseinalearnedandcommercialnation.”48

However,theScotmaintained“thereisapointbeyondwhichalterationsoughtnottobe

rashlycompliedwith,”supposingthatfurtheradjustment“mustproveequallypernicious,whether

theobjectbetointroducenew,ortoexplodeoldandwell-knownwordsandphrases”:

45Ibid.46Ibid,pp.9-10.47Millar,Language,Nation,andPower,pp.89-90.48Sinclair,Observations,p.12.

|P a g e

71

[…]whenalanguage(aswasthecasewiththatofEnglandinthereignofQueenAnne)

hasonceacquiredanampleshareofstrength,copiousnessandbeauty,materialchanges

areseldomnecessary,andingeneraloughttobecarefullyavoided.49

Revealingly,the“reignofQueenAnne”–theperiodencompassingtheparliamentaryunion

betweenEnglandandScotland–wasproposedbySinclairasthehistoricalcut-offmarkingamore-

or-lesscompleteEnglish.This“Augustan,”towhichsubsequentchangeswerereckoned“seldom

necessary,”wasseentoexhibitsufficientlinguistic“copiousness,”andcementedasSinclair’s

“standard.”Indeed,theScotviewedsubsequentvariationstobe“rash”and“pernicious,”andthe

linguisticprescriptionsoftheearlyeighteenthcenturywerelaudedbySinclairasaformalised

finishedproduct,aversetolaterchange.

ItiswithinthiscontextthatSinclairfirstturnshisattentionto“Scoticisms”–definedas

anathematotheearly-eighteenth-century“classicalperiod”ofsolidifyingEnglish“standards”:

Ifthatage,thereforeistobeconsideredastheclassicalperiodoftheEnglishlanguage,a

Scoticismmaybedefinedtobethatmodeofspeakingorwriting(foritisdifficulttodraw

thelinebetweencolloquialandwrittenidioms)whichnowprevailsinScotland,andis

neitheratthistimegenerallyknowninEngland,norwascurrentattheaerawehave

mentioned.50

Drawnindirectcontradistinctionfromthoseforms“generallyknowninEngland”sincethe“aera”of

Union,Sinclair’s“Scoticisms”areeffectivelylockedoutofAnglo-British“standards.”Indifferingfrom

Sinclair’searly-eighteenthcenturymodel,“Scoticisms”werethusunabletopermeateintoa

saturated“English,”imaginedtoaccommodatenofurtheraddition.Sinclairadvisedthatdistinctly

Scottishvarieties,likeotherseeminglyneedlesslatter-daylinguisticsupplements,“oughttobe

carefullyavoided,”andespousedthe“natural”condition“foraninferiorkingdomtoimitatethe

mannersandlanguageofawealthierandmorepowerfulneighbour.”51

Sinclair’sperspectivewasrootedinhisassumptionoftheinadequacyofaseventeenth-

centuryScots“standardisation,”towhichtheonlyremedywastheemulationofAnglo-centred

“standards”alreadyclosed-offtoScottishinfusion.InanactreflectiveofwhatMurrayPittock

memorablytermedthe“paradigmsofthesadScottishstorywiththehappyBritishending,”the

49Ibid,p.13.50Ibid,p.14.51Ibid,p.8.

|P a g e

72

unsuccessfulcentralisationofLowlandlanguagewaspresentedasyetanotherinstanceofthe

manifold“historicfailures”oftheindependentScotskingdom.52

Significantly,WilliamRobertson’scommentaryupon“solejudgesandlawgiversinlanguage”

iscontainedwithinaconsiderationoftheverysameissue.WithinhisHistoryofScotland,oneofthe

quintessentialtextsofScottishWhighistoriography,RobertsonblendsthemeritsofanAnglo-

inspiredsocio-political“improvement”ofScotlandwithadenigrationofindigenousScotstradition

andstatecraftpriortotheUnionof1707.53AtthecloseofRobertson’sHistory,Scottishlinguistic

developmentisfusedtoabenevolentAnglophileunionism,whereEnglish“refinement”inboth

languageandpoliticalgovernanceiscontrastedwithanignominiouslegacyofScottish

backwardnessfollowingthedynasticUnionof1603:

The[Scottish]courtbeingwithdrawn,nodomesticstandardofproprietyandcorrectness

ofspeechremained;theveryfewcompositionsthatScotlandproducedweretriedbythe

Englishstandard,andeverywordorphrasethatvariedintheleastfromthat,was

consideredasbarbarous;whereas,ifthetwonationshadcontinueddistinct,eachmight

haveretainedidiomsandformsofspeechpeculiartoitself;andthese,rendered

fashionablebytheexampleofacourt,andsupportedbytheauthorityofwritersof

reputation,mighthavebeenviewedinthesamelightwiththevarietiesoccasionedbythe

differentdialectsintheGreektongue;theyevenmighthavebeenconsideredasbeauties;

and,inmanycasesmighthavebeenusedpromiscuouslybytheauthorsofbothnations.

But,bytheaccession,theEnglishnaturallybecamethesolejudgesandlawgiversin

language,andrejectedassolecisms,everyformofspeechtowhichtheirearwasnot

accustomed.NordidtheScots,whiletheintercoursebetweenthetwonationswas

inconsiderable,andancientprejudiceswerestillsoviolentastopreventimmigration,

possessthemeansofrefiningtheirowntongueaccordingtothepurityoftheEnglish

standard.Onthecontrary,newcorruptionsflowedintoitfromeverydifferentsource.54

RatherlikeSinclair,Robertsonviewedtheconsequencesoftheabsenteemonarchytohave

effacedany“domesticstandardofproprietyandcorrectness”inScotland,consolidatingthe52MurrayG.H.Pittock,‘StaffandStudents:TheTeachingofRhetoric’,ScottishLiteraryJournal,23,1,(May1996),33-41,p.35.Kidd,SubvertingScotland’sPast,pp.98-100,109,127,140.ResearchintothedevelopmentanddispersalofcertainLowlandvarietiesoffersamuchmorecomplexpictureoflanguage“standardisation”inearlymodernScotland.Forinfluentialdiscussionsofthedevelopmentofasixteenth-century“proto-standard”ofScots,highlightingaconsciousassertionofScottishlinguisticdifferencewhilstacknowledgingtheinherentoverlapwithSouthernEnglishforms,seeJeremyJ.Smith,OlderScots.ALinguisticReader,(Edinburgh,2012),pp.8-12,Corbett,LanguageoftheScottishNation,pp.5,74-5.AnneliMeurman-Solin,VariationandChangeinEarlyScottishProse.StudiesBasedontheHelsinkiCorpusofOlderScots,(Helsinki,1993),pp.36,40-9,AnneliMeurman-Solin,‘Changefromaboveorbelow?MappingthelocioflinguisticchangeinthehistoryofScottishEnglish,’DevelopmentofStandardEnglish,pp.155-7,166-7.53Kidd,‘IdeologicalSignificanceofRoberson’sHistory,’WilliamRobertson,p.122.54Robertson,HistoryofScotland,pp.312-13.

|P a g e

73

“natural”authorityof“theEnglish”as“solejudgesandlawgiversinlanguage.”Robertsonsaw

Scotlandasthereforeforcedintoafatallinguisticdoublebind;deprivedbothofanindependent

“standardofpropriety,”and,from“inconsiderable”previouscontact,deniedthe“meansofrefining

theirtongueaccordingtothepurityoftheEnglishstandard.”

Lackingbotha“domesticstandard”andpracticalaccesstoanEnglishalternative,Robertson

sawlanguageinScotlandtohavebeen“tried,”andinevitablycondemned,“bytheEnglish

standard.”Thiswasa“standard”againstwhichanyScotssub-versivedifference–“everywordor

phrasethatvariedintheleast”–wasdeemedimplicitlydeficientbythecodesofAnglo-centred

“lawgivers.”Yetpeculiarly,inhiselegytofailedLowland“standardisation,”Robertsonstrucka

ratherpositivenote.

Identifyingtheconsequencesofthe1603dynasticuniontoliebehindcontemporaryScottish

linguisticshortcomings,Robertsonpoignantlydweltonthecounter-factualofaonce-possibleScots

“standard,”buttressedbythe“authority”ofanindependentcourt.Thehistoriansupposed“ifthe

twonationshadcontinueddistinct,”Lowlandforms,“renderedfashionable”asadignifiedScottish

“standard,”couldhavestoodcomfortablyalongsideanEnglishsistertongue.Suchrespectfully

separateforms,potential“beuties”comparableto“differentdialectsintheGreektongue,”were

evensuggestedasbeing“promiscuously”employedbyScotsandEnglishalike.

WhileRobertsonassertedsuchlinguisticequivalencebetweenthenationsasverymuchnot

thecaseinreality,the“what-if?”ofamythicScottish“standard,”comparedinnotably“classical”

termstoanEnglishtongue,servedtoinfuseLowlandformswithsomemuch-welcomeprestige.By

theturnofthenineteenthcentury,theconceptionofScotsformsservingasa“Doricdialect”toan

English“standard”wasfairlycommon,loadingLowlandvarietieswithvaguely“classical”

connotationsofhistoricreputeandrusticsimplicity.55

Duringthelateeighteenthcentury,Lowlandlanguagewasseentodifferinanumberofwaysfroma

“standard”English.AsevidencedbytheexcerptfromSylvesterDouglas’s1779Treatise,someScots

forms,suchasthemuch-maligned“Scotticisms,”couldfunctionaspejorativelinguisticsubstandard,

consciouslysuppressedandactivelyavoided.YetthecomplexitiessurroundingLowlandlanguagefar

exceededtheseissuesofprohibition.AsinthecaseofJohnSinclair,interpretationsofahistorically-

failedScots“standard”underpinnedWhignotionsofamoribundspellofScottishculturalgloom,

55ForanearlyexampleoftheassociationsofAberdeenshirelanguagewiththeterm“Doric,”seeCharlesJones,‘AlexanderGeddes:AnEighteenth-CenturyScottishOrthoepistandDialectologist,’FoliaLinguisticaHistorica,XV/1-2,(1994),pp.71-103,73,75.

|P a g e

74

brightenedbybenevolentunion.AsishintedwithinthecommentaryofWilliamRobertson,thepre-

emptedpotentialoffailedScottish“standardisation”couldbewistfullyre-envisaged–commended

alongsideoptimisticassertionsoftheshared“standardoftaste”andlinguistic“purity”bondingthe

newly-fusednationsofScotlandandEngland.

Bytheearlynineteenthcentury,Scotssub-versionswereincreasinglyprojectedasanovert

andself-consciouslydivergentcounter-“standard,”assuredlyremovedfromearlieranxieties.Thisis

ofcourserelatedtothelateeighteenth-centuryliterary“revival”commonlyassociatedwiththe

poetryofRobertBurns.WhileBurns,himselfresurrectingelementsoftheearlier“revival”

spearheadedbyAllanRamsay,canbecreditedwiththepromotionofarenewedsenseofScots

culturalreassertion,muchoftheBurnsianoeuvrealsoservesasaprimeexampleofthemannerin

whichScotssub-versionscametobeskilfullyarticulatedwithintheparametersofAnglo-centred

“standards.”Asasuccessionofcompellingliterarydiscussionshavenoted,Burns’spoeticstylings,

reflectingaRamsay-esqueconsciousnessofresonantandrecognisablydistinctregisters,highlight

thepotentialforadiplomatic“sprinkling”and“slightintermixtureofScotswords&phraseology”

whichworkedatoncetobothblendandbolstertheinternalborderswithinexpandingAnglo-British

literary“standards.”56

Burns–theultimatepoetofaScoto-Britishsub-verse–demandedaScottishpresence

withinaBritishliteraturethroughhisstressingof“intermingledom,”toborrowhisown,

characteristicallyaptterm.57FollowingthetermssetbyBurnsiana,Lowlandlinguisticsub-versions

couldservetosubtlyinfuse,ratherthanstaunchlyoppose,“English”“standards,”markingbotha

Scottishagencyandautonomywithinunion-and-empirewhilstalsosuggestingthepotentialforan

outward-lookingScotsaffinitywithinoverarchingBritishbonds.Ironically,thisintermingledBurnsian

sub-versecametobeperceivedasa“standard”ofScotsbymanyreadersbothwithinScotlandand

aroundtheglobe,andwassubsequentlyenshrinedwithintherhetoricofverbaltartanry.Thisshift

withinLowlandlanguage–readjustinganangsty,hushedsuppressionof“Scotticisms”tothe

buoyantexhibitionofverbaltartanry–occurredoveraremarkablyshorthistoricalperiod.Thiswas

alsoalinguisticreconfigurationwhichwasnotablyglobalinitsscope,andoftenarticulatedthe

triumphalismofBritishimperialprestige.56J.DeLanceyFergusoned.,TheLettersofRobertBurns,(Oxford,1931),2vols.,II,pp.122,148.SeeDavidDaiches,RobertBurns,(London,1966),p.37,pp.254-5,CarolMcGuirk,RobertBurnsandtheSentimentalEra,(Athens,Georgia,1985),p.xii,Crawford,DevolvingEnglishLiterature,pp.88-110,Dossena,Scotticisms,pp.90-102,GerardCarruthers,‘Introduction,’GerardCarruthersed.,TheEdinburghCompaniontoRobertBurns,(Edinburgh,2009),pp.4-5,AlexBroadhead,TheLanguageofRobertBurns,(Plymouth,2014).DohraAhmeded.RottenEnglish,(NewYork,2007),pp.49-55.57Crawford,DevolvingEnglishLiterature,pp.106-9.Seealso,ThomasFrank,‘Languagestandardizationineighteenth-centuryScotland,’DieterSteinandIngridTieken-BoonvanOstadeeds.,TowardsaStandardEnglish,1600-1800,(Berlin,1993),pp.56-7.

|P a g e

75

InMay1825,justtwoyearsafterthedeathofSylvesterDouglas,agroupofovertwohundredBritish

emigrantsboardedtheSymmetryfromtheLeithdocks,headingfortheArgentinePampas.The

migrantsrevelledintheirScottishness.Earlyintothevoyage,ScotspassengerWilliamGrierson

recorded“EnglishandtheScotch”tobe“gettingmorefriendlywithoneanother,”yetdescribed

withevidentrelishanon-boardaltercationinwhichaLondonbricklayerwasbeaten“most

completely”aftergetting“intocuffs,withoneofourScotchlads.”58Amonthlater,Griersonnoted

manyoftheScotstravellersregularlybandingtogethertoindulgeinmemoriesoftheirhomeland,

reportingthat“everySaturday-nightwehaveatoasttoallabsentfriendsandwethinkontheland

ofCakes.”59Thediaristvividlyrecalledtheeventsofonelively,mid-Julyevening:

Fiddle,FluteandBagpipestruckupallatonce,andourSwainsandNymphsmadethe

deckrebound,andshowedthat8,000milesofSeahadnotcooledtheirScottishblood,

noralltheSultryforceoftheTorridZonesunktheirPhysicalpowers,whiletheydanced

theHighland-fling,withallitshonours,mirthandglee[…]formyownpartIfancied

myselfinthelandofcakes,celebratingsomeHarvest-homeorScottishNuptials.–Ithad

afineeffectuponall,youngandold–whenretiredtotheCabin,wededicatedanhouror

two,tosomeofBurns’mostPatrioticlays,and‘Mirthwentroundandcheerfulchat.’60

Theceilidh,culminatinginan“hourortwo”ofexplicitly“Patriotic”renditionsofBurns,clearly

demonstratesthejovialexceptionalismonboard–typicalofsomanynineteenth-centurydiasporic

Scotscommunities.Oneislefttowonderatwhatthesilent,non-Scotscontingentmadeofallthis,

andwhetherotherpassengerfactionssoughtsimilarlyidiosyncraticrepresentationaboardthe

curiously-namedshipofSymmetry.

Comparedwiththelinguisticinsecuritycommonlyseentohauntthoseoftheprevious

generation,theScotsemigrantsaboardtheSymmetryalsohintedataself-consciouslexicaldisplay

borderingonverbaltartanry.A“PoeticAccountoftheVoyage,”composedby“TamO’Stirling,”

offeredafamiliar,sentimentalcouplingofexilicnostalgiaandovertlinguistictraits:

Fraethelando’brownheathandtartanplaids,

FraetheCountryo’cakesandbarleybannocks,

Acomelyselectiono’chieldsandmaids,

58WilliamGrierson,‘TheVoyageoftheSymmetry,’IainA.D.Stewarted.,FromCaledoniatothePampas,(EastLinton,2000),p.42.59Ibid,p.5360Ibid,pp.61-2.

|P a g e

76

OnboardoftheSymmetryswungtheirham’ocks.61

Throughouttheverse,Lowlandformsareconfidentlyassertedalongsidearatherdiscomfiting

displayofsocio-cultural,andattimes“racial”superiority.Inonestrikinginstance,thepoetmuseson

themigrants’anticipationoftheirnewhome:

TheywonderedwhatpeopletheArgentineswere,

Savageorcivilised–colour,andfigure,

Andlassiesresolvedtheywoulddroonthemselvesere

They’dgangwithoutclaesorbekissedbyanigger.62

Inthepenultimatestanza,“Scotch”linguisticdistinctionisseentosettheimmigrantssomewhat

proudlyapartuponarrival,

TheSymmetryanchored,boatsgatheraroundthem,

Whilejabberingforeignerstheirluggagereceived,

TheBabelo’tongueswasenoughtoconfoundthem,

ButnobodyunderstoodScotch,theyperceived.63

These“Scotch”varietiesarepresentedhereinamanneralmostwhollyremovedfromtheapologetic

“provincial”awkwardnessoftensupposedoflater-eighteenth-centuryScottishlinguisticusage.

Instead,LowlandlanguageappearstoratherfavourablymarkoutanenvisionedScotsprestige

withinthedisorientating“Babelo’tongues”;conspicuouslydifferentiatingthenewarrivalsfromthe

subservient,“jabberingforeigners”collectingtheirbaggage.

Suchformswereperhapsprioritisedontheveryassumptionthat“nobodyunderstood

Scotch,”withLowlandlanguagepotentiallyviewedasaneffectivelineofdemarcationtobedrawn

byScotsinunfamiliarterritory.Attheveryleast,the“PoeticAccount”aptlyhighlightstheextentto

whichinterpretationsofLowlandlanguagehadalteredwithinaremarkablyshortspaceoftime,

suggestingthemannerinwhichdistinctivelinguisticformshadbecomeharnessedinthe

demonstrationofaScottishdifferenceoverseas.ButthisScotsdifferentiationwasinvariablytied

intoanalignmentwiththewidersocio-cultural,religious,and“racial”associationsofabroader

Britishimperialpatriotism.

61‘TamO’Stirling’sPoeticAccountoftheVoyageoftheSymmetry,’CaledoniatothePampas,p.117.Also,JamesDodds,RecordsoftheScottishSettlersontheRiverPlateandtheirChurches,(BuenosAires,1897),pp.24-6.62‘PoeticAccount,’pp.119-2063Ibid,p.120.

|P a g e

77

Duringthisperiod,theemotionalunderpinningsofLowlandlanguagehadalsobecomemore

pronounced.Withineighteenth-centuryaccounts,onecanoccasionallyobserveadignifiedreflection

uponaccentedScotsdifference.Notably,earliercommendationsoftenfocuseduponScots’abilities

todextrouslyemployawrittenEnglishofthehighestliterary“standard.”ItwasnotedthatWilliam

Robertson,visitingLondonin1768,“didnotdisappoint”thehigh“expectation,”and“thoughhe

spokebroadScotchinpointofpronunciationandaccentortone,”thehistorianwasdeemedto

possess“thelanguageofliteratureandtaste,andofanenlightenedandliberalmind.”64Another

renownedEdinburghluminarycelebratedforanendearingbalanceofspokenScotsdistinctionand

Englishliterary“propriety”wasHenryHome,LordKames,whose1762ElementsofCriticism

provokedVoltaire’sfamouslywrycommentarywithintheGazetteLitteraireregardingScottish

reverencefor“taste.”65

JohnRamsayofOchtertyrememorablydescribedKamesashaving“hadawonderfulnaivete

peculiartohimself,”stressing,it“mustnotbeomittedthatthelanguageofhissocialhourwaspure

Scots,nowiselikewhathespokeonthebenchwhichapproachedEnglish.”66Inacompelling

discussion,RamsayreflecteduponthelanguageofKames’s“socialhour”:

Inallprobabilityheusedthesamewords,phrases,andarticulationswhichthefriends

andcompanionsofhisyoungeryearsmadeuseofintheirfestivehours,whenpeople’s

heartsknittooneanother.Neverthelesstherewasnothingmeanordisgustinginhis

phraseologyortone.Onthecontrary,greatwashisfelicityinsketchingoutcharacterand

incidentswithaglowingyethastypencil.ThechangeofafewofhisDoricphraseswould

havespoilthishumorousstories,renderingthemflatandinsipid.Yetthoughtoooldto

unlearnhisnativedialect,hewishedtherisinggenerationtospeakEnglishwithgraceand

propriety,reprobatingonlyaffectationandvulgarism.67

Revealingly,RamsaysituatedKames’sScots“Doricphrases”withinalinguisticinterchangebetween

thephilosopher’sownapprovalofEnglish“graceandpropriety”andhisabhorrenceof“affectation

andvulgarism.”Ramsayfocusedonthe“flatandinsipid”effectsofremovingsuchScotssub-versions

64AlexanderCarlyle,TheAutobiographyofDr.AlexanderCarlyleofInveresk1722-1805,JohnHillBurtoned.,(1860:London,1910),p.519.65VoltaireremarkedinareviewofKamesin1764,

[i]tisanadmirablesignoftheprogressofthehumanspiritthatweshouldhavecomingfromScotlandtodayrulesfortasteinallthearts,fromtheepicpoemtogardening.[…]andweneednotdespairofverysoonreceivingtreatisesonpoeticsandrhetoricsfromtheOrkneyIslands.

QuotedinWilliamC.Lehmann,HenryHome,LordKames,andtheScottishEnlightenment,(TheHague,1971),pp.44-5.Voltaire’s“egregioussneer”isalsoreckoneda“concealedeulogy”toScottishacumen,ErnestC.Mossner,TheForgottenHume,(Bristol,1990),p.202.66JohnRamsay,ScotlandandScotsmen,AlexanderAllardyceed.,(1888:Bristol,1996),2vols.,I,pp.211-2.67Ibid.

|P a g e

78

–pre-emptivelydefendedas“nothingmeanordisgusting,”yet“nowise”nearthelanguage

employedbyKamesinhishigh-statuspositionasaCourtofSessionjudge.

WithinhisaccountofKames,whichalsocomparedthephilosopher’s“social”speechwith

theprecise,writteninformalityofhis“glowingyethastypencil,”Ramsayclearlyinjectshisown

nostalgiaforScottishlinguisticsub-versions–assumed“inallprobability”tobeemblematicof

“youngeryears”and“heartsknittooneanother.”InhisconsiderationofKames,Ramsay’s

prioritisationofAnglo-centred“standards”for“therisinggeneration”andcommendationofScots

attachmenttopastidiosyncrasybecomesevident;suggestiveofagradualshiftineighteenth-century

sensibilitiesinwhichScottishauthorsofthelaterdecades,increasinglyexposedtoEnglishlinguistic

“standards,”begantobemoananemphasisedabsenceofScottishparticularity.68Essentially,such

linguisticwistfulnesswasrenderedpermissiblethroughtheassociatedprestigeofScottishliterary

proficiencyin“English”–demonstrative,asRamsayreflected,ofanerawhere“[n]obodynow

doubtedthepossibilityofaScotsmanwritingpure,nay,evenelegantEnglish,whilsthespokehis

nativedialectalittlediversified.”69

Emotionandsentiment,fusedtotherecognitionofanestablishedScotsaffinityfor

“correct”English“standards,”servedtopermitthe“propriety”ofsomeLowlandvarieties.Even

SylvesterDouglasidentifiedan“appropriate”contextforfamiliar,familialScotssub-versions.Ina

touchingdiaryentrywrittenonHogmanay1817,Douglasreflectedonthedeathofhiswifeearlierin

theyear,recallingtheirlifetogether:

Theimageofmydearwiferecurstomeathousandtimesinaday[…]Iseeherkind

endearinglooks,hearherutterthesortofdialectwehadframedforourselvesandcalled

theEnglishlanguage,aftertheScotchdiminutives–wifey,busby,pappy,mammy.,etc.–

wecalledeachother,sisseytohersisters,etc.

Thesefamilymodesbecameknowntothosesisseysandtosomeintimate

friendsandthekindestwerepeircedatthem(thatanestablishedwordoftheNorths

evenbeforeIknewthem).70

Anticipatinghisfirstyearasawidower,Douglas–authorofoneofthebest-knownlateeighteenth-

centurydiscoursesonScottishlinguisticproscription–wasmovedtoreminisceuponaffable“Scotch

diminutives”withinthelinguisticinterplayofhisownfamily.Suchspirited,intimateexamplesof

68RobertMcCollMillar,‘Tobringbylanguageneartothelanguageofmen?DialectandDialectUseintheEighteenthandEarlyNineteenthCenturies:SomeObservations,’JohnM.KirkandIseabailMacleodeds.Scots:StudiesinLanguageandLiterature,(Amsterdam,2013),pp.82-3.SeealsoCorbett,McClure,andStuart-Smith,‘ABriefHistoryofScots,’EdinburghCompaniontoScots,pp.12-15.69Ramsay,ScotlandandScotsmen,I,p.310.70Bickleyed.,Diaries,II,p.280.

|P a g e

79

linguisticdistinction,wereofcourseinnowayuniquetoLowlandScots.Indeed,Douglasprovidesa

valuableglimpseintotheunconventionalitywithinhistoricinterfamilialcommunication;reflecting

contentedlyonadiscourse“wehadframedforourselves,”andhighlightingtheinterfusionofa

rangeofconstituentelementswithinthat“sortofdialect.”

ButboththesentimentalityandspecificitywhichDouglasattachedto“Scotch”phraseology

istelling.Likeallsuchsub-versions,mostScotsformsoperatedinadirectandoftenconsciousactof

divergencefromnotional“standards”duringthelateeighteenthcentury.Yetperhapsunlikeother

Britishsub-versionsandlinguisticvarieties,someLowlandformswereimbuedwithadditional

significance;envisionedwithinalegacyoffailedstandardisation,reckonedaclassical“Doric”

reflectionofanEnglish“sisterdialect,”andconsideredtoindicateaculturaldistinctioncaught

somewhatbetweenthedignityofthe“regional”and“national.”Tobesure,someproblematic

Scottishvarietieswerebrandedassubstandard“Scotticisms”banishedfrom“polite”discourse.

However,subsequentgenerations,notablyincludingbothEnglishandScots,cametoperceive

Lowland“Scotch”asanacceptablecounter-“standard”toEnglish,tobeupheldasanappropriately

emotiveScotssymbol.

ThisinvestigationnowturnstoDouglas’sfriendandfellow-AberdonianJamesBeattie–poet,

scholar,andoutspokencommentatoronScottishlinguisticissues.Beattieprovidesinsightintothe

concernsofmanyamongtheScottishsocialandintellectual“elite”oftheperiod.Promptedby

anxiousdesirestoreplicatethe“best”ofEnglishlinguistic“standards,”Scottishscholarssuchas

Beattiewerealsoheavilymotivatedbyacongruentdrivetodeterminethecriteriabywhichthe

“best”languagewastobedefined,hotlydebatingthemosteffectivemeanstomeetsuch

“standards.”

In-keepingwithanexpansivebodyofhistoricalandliteraryscholarshipdocumenting

Scottishagencyinconstructing(andcontesting)thecultural,constitutional,andintellectualbondsof

Britishnessduringtheeighteenthcentury,thisstudyassertstheactiveroleofScotscriticsinboth

directinganddictatingthetermsofBritishlinguistic“standards.”71Itisimperativetonote,however,

thataneffectiveemulationofAnglo-centred“standards”wasfiercelycontestedwithintheScottish

71Keytextsinclude,ColinKidd,UnionandUnionisms,(Cambridge,2008),MurrayPittock,InventingandReinventingBritain,(Basingstoke,1997),LeithDavis,ActsofUnion,(Stanford,1998),Crawforded.,ScottishInventionofEnglishLiterature,Crawford,DevolvingEnglishLiterature,Sorensen,TheGrammarofEmpire,Manning,FragmentsofUnion,PennyFielding,WritingandOrality,(Oxford,1996).

|P a g e

80

nation,andtheviewofJamesBeattieinAberdeenwasnotablydifferent,andattimesdirectly

hostiletotherathermoretriumphalassertionsofanEdinburgh-basedintelligentsia.72

InalettertoDouglasinJanuary1778–theyearbeforethepublicationoftheTreatiseonthe

ProvincialDialectofScotland–Beattieprovidedastrikinglyself-reflectivecommentaryuponthe

difficultiesofspeakingandwritingEnglishinScotland:

ThegreatestdifficultyinacquiringtheartofwritingEnglish,isonewhichIhaveseldom

heardourcountrymencomplainof,andwhichIwasneversensibleoftillIhadspent

someyearsinlabouringtoacquirethatart.Itis,togiveavernacularcasttotheEnglish

wewrite.[…]WewholiveinScotlandareobligedtostudyEnglishfrombooks,likeadead

language.Accordingly,whenwewrite,wewriteitlikeadeadlanguage,whichwe

understand,butcannotspeak;avoiding,perhaps,allungrammaticalexpressions,and

eventhebarbarismsofourcountry,butatthesametimewithoutcommunicatingthat

neatness,ease,andsoftnessofphrase,[…].Ourstyleisstatelyandunwieldy,andclogs

thetongueinpronunciation,andsmellsofthelamp.Weareslavestothelanguagewe

write,andarecontinuallyafraidofcommittinggrossblunders;and,whenaneasy,

familiar,idiomaticalphraseoccurs,darenotadoptit,ifwerecollectnoauthority,forfear

ofScotticisms.Inaword,wehandleEnglish,asapersonwhocannotfencehandlesa

sword;continuallyafraidofhurtingourselveswithit,orlettingitfall,ormakingsome

awkwardmotionthatshallbetrayourignorance.AnEnglishauthoroflearningisthe

master,nottheslave,ofhislanguage,andwieldsitgracefully,becausehewieldsitwith

ease,andwithfullassurancethathehasthecommandofit.[Originalemphasis].73

Insistinguponanelusive“vernacularcast,”Beattieoffersahazeofcumbrous,sensoryimages;

projectingaScottishlinguisticclumsinessreekingofitsownstudiousnessandcongealingwithinthe

mouthsofitsspeakers.Ever-mindfuloftheinterferenceofpotential“Scotticisms”–identifiedas

thenotorioussub-versionsScots“darenotadopt[…]ifwerecollectnoauthority”–Beattiedepicts

hisfellowcountrymenas“slavestothelanguagewewrite,”strivingforarelaxedcomfort,andyet

paradoxicallycompelledtoreject“aneasy,familiar,idiomaticalphrase.”Douglas’sdiscussionofthe

ProvincialDialectofScotland,highlightingthepotentialdangersofdistinctiveScotspronunciation,is

clearlymarkedbyBeattie’sinfluence.74

72DavidHewitt,‘JamesBeattieandtheLanguagesofScotland,’JenniferJ.CarterandJoanH.Pittockeds.,AberdeenandtheEnlightenment,(Aberdeen,1987).73WilliamForbes,AnAccountoftheLifeandWritingsofJamesBeattie,(1806:Bristol,1997),pp.16-17.74Afterthepublicationofhis1779Treatise,Douglasdidnotsubstantiallyfollowuponhisresearch.Itislikelythattherequirementsofhispoliticalcareertookprecedence.However,ithasbeensuggestedthatDouglasmayhavecuthisinvestigationsshortasBeattie’sownworkonLowlandlanguage“hadanticipatedsomuchofwhathehadtosay,”MargaretForbes,BeattieandhisFriends,(London,1904),p.167.

|P a g e

81

Beattienumberedamongthemostdiligentcollectorsof“Scotticisms,”andthephilosopher’s

socio-linguisticleaningsofferavaluableglimpseintolateeighteenth-centuryprioritiesand

prescriptionsinlanguage.75Ashasbeennoted,thetrendforeliminating“Scotticisms”essentially

servedtoheightenScots’consciousnessoftheirownsub-versivedistinctions.Thenextchapter

discusseshowthisenhancedlinguisticself-scrutinycontributedtoanincreaseddifferentiationof

Scotsforms–afrequentlyfavourablereappraisalculminatinginJohnJamieson’s1808Etymological

DictionaryoftheScottishLanguage:essentiallyanextensive,much-vaunted,andquiteliterally

definitivelistof“Scotticisms.”

RatherlikeThomasSheridan,Beattielamentedcontemporary“neglect”ofthelinguistic

“propriety”ofa“Britishliterature”–aliterary“perfection”whichhealignedwithsimilar“Augustan”

modesasJohnSinclair.76Becauseofthisverydesireforaclearlydefined,easilyaccessibleBritish

“standard,”BeattieespousedtheconsciousseparationandpreservationofaminorityofScots

forms.ReiteratingthesentimentsofbothRobertsonandSinclair,Beattieextolledthenotional

legacyofScottishlinguistic“neglect”andfailed“standardisation.”Yet,Beattiealsoperceivedthe

limited,occasionalmeritof“classical”Lowlandlanguage–reflectiveofamythicageoflostliterary

“propriety,”alsoservingasvehicleforanidealised,“provincial”simplicity.

Beattie’sconceptionofScotslinguisticdistinction,conspicuouslydifferingfromthe“purity”

and“propriety”ofmetropolitan“English”norms,evenmotivatedthepoettotryhishandat

composing“broadScotch”poetryhimself.Inanactofprototypicalverbaltartanry,Beattiesenta

sampleofhis“Scotch”versestoafriendinLondon,imaginingasentimentaldiasporicfamiliarityto

counteractanyimaginedlinguisticshortcomings.Assuch,theinterconnectionsbetween

“Scotticisms,”sub-versions,andtheintertwininglegaciesofScotsandEnglish“standards,”both

“home”and“abroad,”becomesyetmoreevident.

75AcentraltextisBeattie’s,Scoticisms.ArrangedinAlphabeticalOrder,(Edinburgh,1787).Thescholaralsocompiledanearlier,privatelycirculatedcollection–JamesBeattie,AListofTwoHundredScotticisms.,(Aberdeen,1779).76Beattie,Scoticisms,pp.3-4,5.

|P a g e

82

“InaeLexicographicplot”:RevealingScotssub-versions.

“Collect,wijudgement,skill an’care,

Thewordsan’phrasesrichan’rare,

Thatinaldbeuks,foragesby,

Likeherbsinhortissiccis , ly

Exposethemtotheopenair;

Andwash,andclean,andtrim,andpare

Theirwusantparts–I’mfairmista’en

Ifyettheydinnagrowagain!”

AlexanderGeddes,(Edinburgh,1792).

JamesBeattiepennedatleastonepoemin“broadScotchDialect.”TheAberdeenphilosopheralso

expressedapersonalinterest“dialect”literature,assistinginthepublicationofAlexanderRoss’s

lengthy1768pastoralHelenore,ortheFortunateShepherdess.ShortlyafterChristmasin1767,

BeattiewrotetotheblindpoetThomasBlacklock,hintingathisroleintheprintingofRoss’sScots

pieceatAberdeen:

TherewillsoonbepublishedinthisplaceapoeminthebroadScotchDialect.TheAuthor

wholivesinaremotepartofthecountryhascommittedthecareofthemanuscriptto

me.Ihavereaditover,andfinditisnotdestituteofhumourorinvention;butthe

humourislow,andtheinventionhasmuchofthatsortofimprobabilityintowhichatotal

ignoranceofmankindisapttobetrayanAuthor.1

“Thelanguageismotleyenough,”henoted,somewhatapprovingly:“itisnotthelanguageofAllan

Ramsay,butthedialectsofAngus,MearnsandAberdeenshirealljumbledtogether.”2

YetBeattiealsoexpressedconcernforScotslinguistic“purity”;highlightinghispreference

forlate-medievalpoetry“writteninthegenuineScotchDialect,”andcriticisingmanyofthe

compositionsofAllanRamsay,“writteninasortofEnglish.”3Tocombattheproblemofsuch

unseemlysub-versiveblending,BeattiesuggestedthatBlacklockprefacehisforthcomingliterary

collectionwitha“DissertationontheScotchLanguage,versificationandpoetry,”supposing“weare

1RogerJ.Robinsoned.,TheCorrespondenceofJamesBeattie,(Bristol,2004),4vols.,II,pp.56-7.2Ibid,II,p.57.3Ibid,II,p.59.

|P a g e

83

bynomeansinaconditiontocopewithourNeighbourstheEnglish,”yetreckoning“mostofour

homespunstrainsareabovecontempt,andthatmanyofthemareexcellent.”4

InJuly1768BeattiementionedbothBlacklock’s“Dissertation,”andRoss’spoetrytoJohn

Gregory–renownedphilosopher-physicianofKingsCollegeinAberdeen.Healsorevealedthatby

wayofpublicisingRoss’sHelenore,hehimselfhadwritten“afewscotchversesinrecommendation

ofthework,[…]insertedintheAberdeenJournal,andhavebeenofsomeuseinpromotingthe

sale”:

TheseversesaremyfirstattemptintheScotchDialect,andwillveryprobablybemylast;

forthoughIverymuchadmiresomeofouroldScotchpoems,Iwouldnotwishtoaddto

thenumberofthem.5

“Withoutregardtoourpoliticalcircumstances,”Beattieconcluded,

[…]theEnglishlanguage,fromitsownintrinsickvalue,isathousandtimesmoreworthy

ofourcultivation.TheScotchtongueisreallybarreninitself,and,havingbeenlong

confinedtothelowestsortofpeople,isnowbecomeincapableofexpressinganything

butlowhumour.HoweverIcouldwishtoseeagoodcollectionofthebestpiecesinthat

dialect,withaproperglossary,thattheymayneitherbelost,norbecomeunintelligible.6

Clearly,BeattieperceivedcurrentmanifestationsofLowlandlanguageill-fittedforpurposesof

literaryprestige.Butwhileheextolled“the“intrinsickvalue”ofEnglishformsandwholeheartedly

welcomedtheir“cultivation”inScotland,Beattiealsosoughttomaintainthe“bestpieces”ofa

“homespun”Lowlandliterature,affixed“withaproperglossary.”Beattie’senthusiasmforthe

English“standards”appearstohavebeenrelatedtohisdesiretoeulogiseanidealised,“genuine”

Scotsphraseology.

ButBeattiewasalsoconsciousofaparallelappealofScotsforms:theirsub-versive

resonancewithdiasporicdistancefromhomeandnostalgiafordaysgoneby.WritingtoWilliam

ForbesinOctober1768,Beattiedecidedtosendhisfriendacopyofhis“broadScotch”poem;

supposingthatForbes,thenabsentinLondon,wouldappreciatethedistinctivelanguage:

Whenoneisfarfromhome,thesightofaCountrymanwillgivepleasure,eventhough

thatCountrymanshouldnothaveanythingveryengaginginhisappearance.This

considerationhasinducedmetosendyouafewversesintheBroadScotchDialect,which

Iwrotelastsummer,andpublished(underafeignedname)inthenewspapers,inorder

4Ibid.5Ibid,II,p.62.6Ibid.

|P a g e

84

tohelpforwardthesaleofabookwhichanacquaintanceofminehadwritteninthat

Dialect.7

Likeningthe“pleasure”ofreadinghispoemtothatofencounteringacompatriot“farfrom

home,”BeattieimaginedForbes’sdistanceanddifferenceinLondontocounteracttheotherwise

“unengaging”Scotsforms.IntroducinghispoemtoForbes,Beattiereiteratedhiscontemptfor

Lowlandlanguage;declaring,

[…]itismyfirstattemptinthatstile,andwillbemylast;forIdonotthinktheBroad

Scotchalanguageworththecultivating,especiallyasittendstocorruptamuchnobler

one,theEnglish.8

Inspiteofthesereservationsregarding“propriety,”Beattie’s“consideration”ofdiasporic

enjoymentpromptedhimtosendtheScotspoemanyway.Regardlessofhisnotoriousconcernfor

Scottishsub-versions“corrupting”English“standards,”Beattiepresentedhisown“dialect”poem,

envisioningtheemotionalsignificanceofmeetingwithsuchScottishshibbolethsabroad.Extollingan

“ancient”Scotsliterary“purity,”suchsentimentalisedinterpretationsofLowlandlanguageinexile

wouldinfuseScottishsub-versionsaroundtheglobe,oftenoperatinginasomewhatparadoxical

dialoguewithcelebrationsofBritishimperialsupremacy.

Beattie’s“broadScotch”poemoffersapoignantgaugeofthephilosopher’sviewofthepurposes

andparametersofLowlandlanguage–presentedasaone-dimensionalliterarydevicebestsuitedto

documentingitsowndecline.9MuchlikeRoss’sown“invocation”withinHelenore,inwhichthe

museScotadecriesthewaningofthe“gueedauldScots”amongher“childer,”Beattie’spoem

functionsasa“broadScotch”lamenttothefast-vanishingstatusof“broadScotch.”10“SinceAllan’s

death,”Beattiecomplains,“naebodycar’d/ForanestospeerhowScotafar’d,”referencingAllan

Ramsay–theEdinburghwig-makerpoetwhomhefrequentlyscornedforwritingina“sortof

English.”11

ThroughoutBeattie’spoem,Scotssub-versionsarecommendedas“pithy,”yetalsoarchaic

andoutlandish–an“auldfarren,”“cuntraleed”admittedlydifferentfrom“braw”southernvarieties,

7Ibid,II,pp.64-5.8Ibid,II,p.65.9JamesBeattie,‘ToMrAlexanderRossatLochlee,’AlexanderRoss,Helenore;or,theFortunateShepherdess,(1768:Dundee,1812),pp.3-6.10Ibid,p.9.11Ibid,p.4.

|P a g e

85

butultimatelyconfinedtothenorth.12AddressingRoss,Beattieevensuggeststhat“Criticks”further

afield“neednatrythyjokestofathom,”instructingthepoettoseekappreciationsomewhatcloser

tohome:

ButilkaMearnsandAngusbairn

Thytalesandsangsbyheartshalllearn;

AndChielsshallcomefraeyondtheCairn-

-amounth,rightvousty,

IfRosswillbesaekindassharein

TheirpintatDrowsty.13

BeattiesupposesRoss’sversetoservebestatalocallevel,ideallywhendrinkingin“Drowsty”–

whichhenotesas“analehouseinLochlee.”14Despitereferencing“ascreed”ofearlierScotsauthors

ofnationalrepute–GawinDouglas,WilliamDunbar,DrummondofHawthornden,“andmae/ThatI

canname,foro’myfay,”Beattieperceivesthe“broadScotchdialect”ofhisowngenerationtobea

“barren”literaryfield.15Ashissole“dialect”poemsuggests,Beattiesaw“broadScotch”asfitonly

formusinguponitsownperipheralstatusandseeminglyinevitabledecline.

YetthiswasthetypeofpoemwhichBeattiechosetosendtoForbesinLondon,expecting

hisfriendtotake“pleasure”inreadingScotsformsdespairingoftheirownsub-versivelimitations.

Forbeswasanticipatedtobothlamentandcelebratethislocalisedlanguage,rootedto“Drowsty”

yetactuallypresentuponthepageinLondon.Indeed,Beattie“considered”Forbes’ssentimentality

inhisabsencefromScotlandtobethekeyfactorbehindhisappreciationofthe“corrupt”“broad

Scotch.”

ThisisanearlyexampleofakeythemeofmuchoftheLowlandScotslanguageoperatingin

dialoguebetween“home”and“abroad”duringthefollowingcentury.Theconnotationsattachedto

suchlanguage–envisagedas“auldfarren,”“couthy,”regionally-bound,andevendestinedtoperish

–reverberatedstronglywiththenostalgiawhichmanyScotsfelt,andwishedtofeel,whenliving

outwiththenation.Alignedwiththelegacyofan“applied”Scottishantiquarianismasserting

growingperceptionsofLowlandlinguistic“purity,”acertainbreedofsub-versions“not[…]worth

thecultivating”inScotland,wereexportedandreadilyadoptedbyincreasingnumbersofdiasporic

12Ibid,pp.4-5.13Ibid,p.6.14Robinson,Correspondence,II,p.67.15Beattie,‘AlexanderRoss,’p.5.

|P a g e

86

Scots.16Lowlandlanguagewaslinkedbothwithanemotional“exile,”andmoreominously,with

notionsofScots’prestigeandexclusivecultural“purity.”Thischapteroffersadiscussionoflate

eighteenth-centuryconceptionsofthephilological“purity”ofLowlandforms–discourses

contributingtotheidealisationandeventualunveilingofcertainScotssub-versionsbytheturnof

thenineteenthcentury.

PromptedinpartbythepopularinfamyofJamesMacpherson’sOssian“translations,”aschoolof

lateeighteenth-centuryintellectualsstrovetoreasserttheculturalandlinguisticheritageofthe

ScottishLowlands.Inanattempttowrestconceptionsofthenation’shistoryandlanguageaway

fromthe“Celtic”allureoftheGaìdhealtachd,LowlandScotswereencouragedtoimaginean

alternative“racial”legacy,tracedto“Teutonic”Saxonsand,morecontroversially,Goths.17Tothis

end,antiquarianslabouredtoproclaimaScots“purity,”oftenwhilstattemptingtoemphasisean

alignmentwith“ancient”Englishvarieties.18

TheOssiandebacle,contestingthe“authenticity”oftheGaelicrootsofMacpherson’s1759

FragmentsofAncientPoetry,rumbledirritablyalongtothecloseoftheeighteenthcentury.

Nevertheless,Macpherson’scontroversial“discoveries”successfullypackagedatranslatedHighland-

GaelicsensibilityripeforexportationtoEuropeandNorthAmerica.19Irrespectiveofconcernsof

“authenticity”or“originality,”itcannotbedeniedthatthroughOssianandMacpherson,Scotland

wasaccordedanewlevelofinternationalreputeandliterarynotoriety.20

WhileadetaileddiscussionofMacpherson’sOssianisclearlyoutwiththeboundsofthis

study,thereisonepointofcomparisontobemadewithcontemporaneousissuesofLowlandScots

sub-versions.ThepoetryofOssian,regardlessofitsprovenance,wasfamousthroughtranslation,

andreceivednotorietythroughthedistinctlackofwrittenGaelicmaterialtosubstantiate

Macpherson’sclaimsof“originality.”Macpherson’shugelypopularpublicationsexistthereforeas

16For“appliedantiquarianism”seeIainGordonBrown,‘ModernRomeandAncientCaledonia:theUnionandthePoliticsofScottishCulture,’AndrewHooked.,TheHistoryofScottishLiterature,Volume21660-1800,(Aberdeen,1987),p.35.17ColinKidd,‘TeutonistEthnologyandScottishNationalistInhibition,1780-1880,’ScottishHistoricalReview,74,(1995),45-68,ColinKidd,TheForgingoftheRaces,(Cambridge,2006),pp.110-11.18CharlesJones,‘Phonology,’CharlesJonesed.,TheEdinburghHistoryoftheScotsLanguage,(Edinburgh,1997),pp.275-6,ColinKidd,‘Race,TheologyandRevival:ScotsPhilologyanditsContextsintheAgeofPinkertonandJamieson,ScottishStudiesReview,(November2002),20-33,ColinKidd,BritishIdentitiesBeforeNationalism:EthnicityandNationhoodintheAtlanticWorld,1600-1800,(Cambridge,1999),pp.279-87.19Pittock,CelticIdentity,pp.40-55,Manning,FragmentsofUnion,p.80,149,156,Fielding,WritingandOrality,pp.9-12,McNeil,Scotland,BritainandEmpire,pp.26-8,34-51.20SeeKatieTrumpener,BardicNationalism.TheRomanticNovelandtheBritishEmpire,(Princeton,1997),pp.74-127.Also,ThomasM.Curley,SamuelJohnson,TheOssianFraud,andtheCelticRevivalinGreatBritainandIreland,(Cambridge,2009),Trevor-Roper,InventionofScotland,pp.106-90.

|P a g e

87

translationswithouttext,andasKennethMcNeilobserves,the“fragments”functionasan

“untraceablegap”–a“blankspace”symbolicofacircumscriptionof“oralityintotextandGaelicinto

English.”21McNeilconcludestheOssiannicversestobe“nationaltextthatcannotberead.”22Nor

perhaps,wereanysuchnon-transcribed“origins”everintendedtobe.Ofgreaterimportarethe

fracturesofMacpherson’sOssiannic“translations”–demonstrativeoflinguisticadaptationsand

absences.

WithinOssian,PennyFieldingperceivesthe“troublesome”aspectoforality–theconflict

andconfluenceof“contestedauthority”with“afigureofnationalorigin,”emphasisingthe

necessarydualityofexpressionandrepressionwithinlanguage.23SuchareadingofOssiannicorality

blendsinstructivelywithSusanManning’sperceptionofliterary“fragments,”reflectingan“imageof

theuntranslatabilityofemotion.”24ThroughManning’s“fragments,”muchlikeFielding’s

“troublesome”siteofclashingorality,Macpherson’sOssianbecomes“remembered”byvirtueof

being“lost,”where“emotionalmeaning”isrendered“throughthefailuresofutterance.”25

Notionsofconspicuousabsenceandadaptation–translationsandtranslocationswithin

language–areapplicabletothetracingofScotssub-versionswithinlater-eighteenthandearly

nineteenth-centurydiscourses.Asdiscussed,an“idealScots”wasimaginedthroughalegacyofsuch

supposedfailure,loss,andmisappropriation.Witheveraneyeoninheritedlinguisticvulnerability,

antiquariansstroveforasurerfootholdforScotsforms,securefromenvisioned“oblivion.”

In1782,theStirlingshirelairdJohnCallanderofCraigforthprintedtwosixteenth-century

Scotspoems,widelyattributedtoKingJamesV.IssuedinthesameyearasSinclair’sObservationson

theScottishDialect,Callander’sprefacetothepoemsdisplayedaconcernforcontemporary

linguisticinterferencecomparabletothatoftheScotspolitician.Inanapproachwhichappears

whollyopposedtogrammaticalconventionsoftheperiod,Callanderwarnedofthedangerposedto

“ancient”Lowlandsub-versionsby“corrupting,”encroaching“standards.”

Callanderwasfascinatedby“[o]urlanguage,asitisatpresentspokenbythecommon

peopleintheLowlands,andasitappearsinthewritingspriortotheseventeenthcentury,”

proclaimingahumbleScotspreservationof“ancient”linguisticpedigree.26“InScotland,”Callander

declared“theOldSaxondialect[…]hasmaintaineditsgroundmuchlongerthaninEngland,andin

muchgreaterpurity”:21McNeil,WritingtheHighlands,p.28.22Ibid.23Fielding,WritingandOrality,pp.9,11.24Manning,FragmentsofUnion,p.156.25Ibid.26JohnCallander,PrefacetoTwoAncientScottishPoems,(Edinburgh,1782),pp.8-9.

|P a g e

88

[…]owingtothelatercultivationofthispartoftheisland,anditslessfrequent

communicationwithstrangers[…]we,inScotland,havepreservedtheoriginaltongue,

whileithasbeenmangled,andalmostdefacedbyoursouthernneighbours.27

Throughsupposedhistoricalseclusion,Lowlandspeechwasbelievedtohaveretainedmuch

ofan“originaltongue”alignedwith“Germanic”language,andremovedfrommutated“southern”

English.WhileclearlysupposingScotssuperiority,thelairdalsoinsisteduponthe“OldSaxon”stock

ofbothScotlandandEngland.This“Saxon”wasmostimpressively,andsub-versively,“preserved”

withinLowlandlanguage.Callandersawthislinguisticretentionreflectedinmuchofthe

contemporaryspokenlanguageoftheLowlands–sub-versionsinScots’pronunciationperhapseven

workingwithinwrittenEnglish“standards.”

AprestigiousScotspronunciationwasseentoemphasise“racial”categorisation.Callander

assertedthe“intimateconnectionoftheScotswiththeTeutonic,German,Islandic,andother

northerndialects,”indicated“first,fromthesimilarityofsoundandenunciation.”28Heimagineda

mutual“soundofthevowels”tolink“thesameuniformtonesinthebroadScotch”with“the

languagesabovementioned,”perceivingthe“Germangutturalpronunciationofch,g,gh”tobe

“quitenaturaltotheScotchman.”29Conversely,the“singularcapriceoftheEnglishpronunciation”

wasviewedtohave“variedandconfounded”southernspokenlanguage“beyondthe

comprehensionofrule.”30

ButtheissueofwhatScotsformstoextolandthequestionofwheresuchphilological

“purity”mayhaveoriginatedwerebothpointsofsomecontention.JamesBeattie,venerating

“genuineScotchDialect,”wouldhavebeenscepticalofCallander’sproclamationofwidespread

Scots“purity,”“asitisatpresentspoken”amongthe“common”populace.However,Beattiewas

rathermorepliablewhenitcametoassessingthe“propriety”of“ancient”literaryforms.Like

Callander,BeattiegenerallybelievedthatmostacceptablewrittenScotsvarietieswerealready

consignedtothepast,“priortotheseventeenthcentury,”andtherebyremovedfromsubsequent

Englishinfluenceandinterference.

“AlltheScotchpoemsofmeritthatIhaveseenarealreadyinprint,”BeattiedeclaredinJune

1778,reckoning“allthepoetryintheScotchdialectthatdeservestobehandeddowntoposterity

mightbecomprisedintwoorthreesmallvolumes.”31Withinthesameletter,hecomparedhistiny,

27Ibid,p.9.28Ibid,p.11.29Ibid.30Ibid.31Robinson,Correspondence,III,p.69.

|P a g e

89

preservedmiscellanyofScotsversewiththe“many[…]imputedtous,whichdousnohonour;

whichyoumustbesensibleof,ifeveryoulookedintothatCollectionwhichiscalledtheEver-

green.”32Yetagain,Beattiecastigatedthelinguistic“mixing”ofAllanRamsayandother“Scotch”

authors:

FormerlyourmenofgeniuswroteinLatin;andoflatetheyhavewritteninEnglish.Those

whonowwriteinScotchuseanaffected,mixed,barbarousdialect,whichisneither

ScotchnorEnglish,butastrangejumbleofboth.33

Significantly,thiscommentencapsulatingBeattie’sdeepdistasteforthe“affected”sub-versive

“jumble”takenfor“Scotch,”wasaddressedtoJohnPinkerton,thenatwenty-year-oldaspiringpoet

who,asateenager,hadsoughtBeattie’sliteraryguidance.34

Overalongandcontroversialcareer,JohnPinkertonworkedtopreserveandgreatlyexpandthe

printedcanonof“ancient”Scottishpoetry,farexceedingtheconservationofthe“twoorthreesmall

volumes”suggestedbyBeattie.PinkertonmaintainedBeattie’scontemptforcontemporaryScots

sub-versions.Beattie,ontheotherhand,associatedPinkertonwiththeunsightlylinguistic

infractionsofbothnorthandsouthoftheborder;describingPinkertoninasingleinstanceas

speaking“withastrongEdinburghaccent”whilstalsoseeming“toaboundtoomuchinournew-

fashionedEnglish.”35

Pinkertonisperhapsbestrememberedforhis1787DissertationontheOriginandProgress

oftheScythiansorGoths,inwhichhefamouslyargued“Gothic,”opposedto“Saxon”or“Celtic,”

originsofthePicts.36PinkertonpresentedLowlandlanguageaskeyevidenceofsuch“Gothic”

ancestry.WhereCallanderenvisionedan“OldSaxon”commontobothnations,maintainedin

LowlandScotlandbut“mangled”inEngland,Pinkertonmadethecaseforanolderphilological

sunderingofacore“Gothic”tongue.PinkertonsupposedaLowland“Picto-Gothic”language,

reconcilableto,yetrespectablydifferentfrom“Saxon-Gothic”strandswithinEnglish.Despitetaking

adifferenttacktoCallander,Pinkerton’sthesissimilarlyalignedLowlandScottishlanguagewitha

32Ibid.33Ibid.34PatrickO’Flaherty,Scotland’sPariah.TheLifeandWorkofJohnPinkerton,1758-1826,(Toronto,2015),pp.8-10,21.35Forbes,BeattieandhisFriends,pp.301-2.36JohnPinkerton,ADissertationontheOriginandProgressoftheScythiansorGoths,(London,1787),pp.67,109.ColinKidd,‘TheIdeologicalUsesofthePicts,1707-c.1900,’EdwardJ.CowanandRichardJ.Finlay,eds.ScottishHistoryandthePowerofthePast,(Edinburgh,2002),pp.173-7.

|P a g e

90

“Saxon”English“sisterdialect”;againsuggestinga“racially”congruent“Teutonism”withinboth

nations.

PinkertonoutlinedthistheorywithintheprefacetohisAncientScotishPoemsof1786:

ThePictscomingfromthenorthofScandinaviaandtheSaxonsfromthesouth,the

languageswereasnearlyalliedasScotishandEnglish.TheScythianorGothicwasthe

parentofboth:butthePictsmigratingfourorfivecenturies,ormore,beforetheSaxons,

thePictishtonguewasanelderdaughteroftheGothic,andmorelikethemother.Hence

theScotishdialecthasinnumerablewordstobefoundintheGothic,butnotintheSaxon.

[…]TheirlanguagewastheGothic,asisevidentfromthespeechofthelowlandScots

theirdescendants.IamwellawarethattheScotishlanguageisreputedadialectofthe

English:butitisonlyasisterlanguage.37

Pinkertonlikenedcontemporarysimilaritiesof“ScotishandEnglish”tohistoriclinkagesbetween

“Saxon”and“Pictish,”andlikeCallander,heemphasisedtheroot“purity”ofa“Teutonic”Scots:

[…]notoneIrishwordoccursintheScotishtongue:thewholewordsproperlyScotishare

ofGothicparentage;thoafewarecollaterallyfoundintheSaxon,alsoadaughterofthe

Gothic.ButtheGothicwordisalwaystheScotishprimitive,nottheSaxon:asisplainfrom

theGothicspelling,andScotishpronunciation.38

AsCallanderimaginedanEnglishneglectand“corruption”ofa“Saxon”tongue,Pinkerton’s

conceptionofan“earlierGothic,”“Pictish”languagealsohintedatthegreaterprestigeofLowland

language,closertoan“ancient”linguistic“purity.”

Pinkertonpromoteda“collateralrelation”betweenEnglandandLowlandScotland,stressing

aparitybetweenthe“sisterdialects”of“Pictish”and“Saxon.”39Yetthispositionedthe“Pictish”in

subtlesuperiorityovera“Saxon”conspicuouslydistancedfromthe“Gothic”:

[...]Pictish,Saxon,ScotishandEnglish,arebothequallyderivedfromtheGothic.Their

greatfamiliaritythencanbenowonder.ThePictishwastheearlierGothic,theSaxonthe

later;theidiomandbodyofthelanguagewereeverthesame.Butnearlyonehalfofthe

oldScotishwordsisnottobefoundintheSaxon,butsolelyintheGothic.40

Inthismanner,theantiquarianwasabletosteercertainScottishandEnglishformsintoparallel

linguisticchannels“equallyderived”fromaprestigious“Teutonic”source.Yetthis“collateral

37JohnPinkerton,AncientScotishPoems,(London,1786)2vols.,I,p.liii.38Ibid,I,p.liii.39Ibid,I,p.lxx.40Ibid,I,p.lxxi.

|P a g e

91

relation”wasarticulatedalongsidetheimplicitpre-eminenceofan“earlier”Scots“Gothic”overthe

less“ancient”English“Saxon.”

ButthequestionremainedofwhichScotssub-versionstouphold.ForPinkerton,itwas

decidedlynotthelanguagecurrentlyspokenthroughoutmuchoftheLowlands.Pinkertonalmost

exclusivelyalignedhis“Picto-Gothic”toseemingly-threatened“Scotishdialectinpoetry,”ofwhich

heasserted“Ibelieve,nomanineitherkingdomwouldwishanextinction.”41AswithBeattie,

PinkertonenvisionedliteraryScotsformswithinawiderBritishcontext;servingasa“sister

language”tomirrorthoseofthesouth–“akindofDoricdialecttotheEnglish”witha“simplicity

whichwillalwaysrecommenditwherethatcharacteroughttoprevail.”42

“But,”Pinkertonwarned,

[…]itweretobewishedthatitshouldberegardedinbothkingdomsequallyasonlyas

anancientandapoeticallanguage,andnothingcantakeitsomuchoutofthehandsof

thevulgarasarigidpreservationoftheoldspelling.[Emphasisadded.]43

An“ancientandpoeticallanguage,”wasseentohavebeensullied“inthehandsofthevulgar,”

primarilythroughthesub-versiveinterferenceofthetranslationsofstapleScotstextssuchas

Barbour’sBruceandBlindHary’sWallace.44PinkertonwasdisdainfulofScots“dialect”literature

characterisedbya“modernspelling”neither“English”nor“Doric,”whichworkedtoconfoundsuch

classifications.45

Yetrevealingly,PinkertonalsolikenedtheLowland“Picto-Gothic”tolanguagewithinthe

Scottishnorth-east;complimentingthecomparatively-recentpoetryofAlexanderRossas“avery

Scoto-Picitshtongue,intermixedwithalittleEnglish.”46Pinkertonalsosupposeda“heroicortragic

tale,inthepureBuchandialect,wouldbeveryacceptable.”47However,theantiquarianultimately

stressedcaution;advisingagainstthe“commonfaultoftakingcantphrasesforoldspeech.”48“Use

thewordsofthevulgar”Pinkertoninstructed,“butuseancientandgraveidiomsandmanner.

Rememberthisvulgarspeechwasoncethespeechofheroes.”49

41Ibid,I,p.xvii.42Ibid.43Ibid.44Ibid,I,p.xviii45Ibid.46Ibid,I,p.cxlii.47Ibid.48Ibid.49Ibid.

|P a g e

92

Indeed,thisinsistenceupon“heroic”tropeswaspairedwithastarkdenigrationofthe

majorityofLowlandlanguage.InhisAncientScotishPoems,Pinkertondirectlyaddressedthe

scepticismsurroundingthe“propriety”ofpreservinganyovertlyScotsformsatall;combininga

justificationofhisendeavourswithadamningdismissalofthe“colloquial”:

PerhapssomemaysaythattheScotsthemselveswishtoabolishtheirdialecttotally,and

substitutetheEnglish;whythenattempttopreservetheScotishlanguage?Letme

answerthatnonecanmoresincerelywishforanextinctionoftheScotishcolloquial

dialectthatIdo[…].[Originalemphasis.]50

PinkertonreiteratedsentimentsofJamesBeattie,maintaining“therearefewmodernScotticisms

whicharenotbarbarisms.”51YetPinkertonimmediatelyacknowledgedthecontroversyofsucha

claim:

[…]thoanativeofEdinburghwondersthattheEnglisharenotsensibleoftheeleganceof

suchphrasesasgivingamanahat,forpullingoffyourhattohim;sittingintothefire,for

drawingtowardsthefire;sittingatthefootofatable,forsittingatthebottom;&c.

[Originalemphasis.]52

Inthisbriefbuttellinghesitation,theantiquarian–himselfa“nativeofEdinburgh”–betraysa

linguisticattachmentandindividualconsciousnessofthecomplexityindetermininglinguistic

“elegance.”

AcopyofPinkerton’sAncientScotishPoemsattheNationalLibraryofScotlandoffersan

indicationoffurtherambivalencewithregardtothisparticularcomment.53Atthefootofthepage,

Pinkertonisreprimandedinanirritablehandwrittenannotation,accusedofprovidinginadequate

examplesofScots“elegance.”Respondingtotheexpression“givingamanahat,”Pinkerton’s

detractorscrawls,“WhatCompanyyoumusthavekept,”declaring“Thisneverwasthelanguageof

anyScotchmanabovetherankofafootman.”Theterm“sittingintothefire,”issimilarlycensured,

reckoned“avulgarAnglicismasmuchasaScotticism.”

Pinkerton’soutlookandthesubsequentcritiqueofhisenvisagedScots“elegance”are

suggestiveofthecontentiousuncertaintysurroundingScotssub-versions.Theparticularityof

Pinkerton’s“Picto-Gothic,”enshrinedinthedistinctiveorthographyofselectedScotspoetry,was

proclaimedalongsidetheantiquarian’s“sincere”desireforthe“extinction”of“colloquial”Lowland

forms.ThisresponsenotablymirrorstherecommendationwithinJamesBeattie’s1778letterto50Ibid,I,p.xvii51Ibid.52Ibid.53Pinkerton,AncientScotishPoems…,(London,1786),NLS,[Ai]5/1.7-8,2vols.,I,p.xvii.

|P a g e

93

Pinkerton,andisalsorathersimilartotheAberdonian’ssentimentswithinhisown“dialect”verseof

thepreviousdecade.

ButPinkertonalsoappearstohavebeensomewhattornbythe“elegance”ofcertain

expressionsfromtheScottishcapital.Moreover,hissuggestedexamplesofpermissible,even

appropriateScotsphraseswerethenthemselvesderidedinlaterannotations.ForPinkerton’s

anonymouscritic,suppositionsofcross-border“vulgarity”andconceptionsof“rank”and

“Company”wereseentocounterclaimsto“propriety”orevenScottishprovenance.Pinkerton’s

prefacetohis“ancient”collection,acornerstoneoflateeighteenth-centurylinguisticantiquarianism

whicheffectivelywelcomedanexterminationof“Scotishcolloquialdialect,”isatextnevertheless

touchedbysub-versiveinterjections.

However,Pinkerton’sscholarshipwasmoreclearlymarkedbythesupposedcertaintieswhich

accompaniedtheantiquarian’sownunmitigatedracism.Inaffirmingthe“Gothic”rootofthe

LowlandPicts,Pinkertonfamouslysoughttoheapscornupon“Celtic”Scots–apeopleheperceived

“farinferiortothePictsintheextentoftheirpossessionsandantiquityoftheirsettlement”within

thenation.54Pinkerton’s“racial”outlookextendedwellbeyondtheboundsofBritainandwas

typifiedbyaraw,boorishsimplicity.Inaninfamouspassage,heprofessed“sofarfromallnations

beingdescendedofoneman,therearemanyracesofmenofquitedifferentformsandattributes,”

listing,

[…]theobliqueeyed,flat-favouredChinese;theolivecoloured,lank-hairedEastIndian;

thelarge-limbed,duskyTurk;theelegantGreek;thescowlingHungarian;thelarge,blue-

eyedGerman;thesquatDutch;thefloridHibernian.55

Pinkertonqueriedwhetherhiscarefully-categorisedsamplescouldform“onerace”alongside“the

curl-patedblackEithiop,”“thecopper-facedAmerican,”“thebear-likeLaplander,”“thebestial

ZamoiedeorEsquimaux,”andhemusedderisively,“[h]asthelovelyCircassiangirlthesingular

naturalfig-leafoftheHottentotwench?HastheEgyptianthemonkey-shapedheadofaNegro?”56

TheScot’sphilologywasfirmlyrootedwithinsuchabhorrentclassification.

ThisalignmentisparticularlyevidentwithinPinkerton’s1789InquiryintotheHistoryof

Scotland.Inanadvertisementtothe1814edition,hecontestedthevoguefor“imaginary

antiquaries”unsubtlyassociatedwithGaelicscholarship;disdainfullycomplainingthat“evenlittle

54Ibid,I,p.xlii.55Ibid,I,p.xxv.56Ibid,I,pp.xxv-xxvi.

|P a g e

94

misseslispabouttheauthenticityofOssian,andtheantiquepurityoftheCelticlanguage.”57

Introducingachapteron“PikishLanguage,”Pinkerton’sreassertionofLowland“Gothic”wasclearly

intendedtocombatanyconsiderationofGaelic“antiquepurity”andisheavilyinter-fusedwiththe

rhetoricof“race”:

Everyone,whohasbeeninNorthBritain,knowsthattheLowlandersofthatcountryare

asdifferentfromtheHighlanders,astheEnglisharefromtheWelch.Theraceisso

extremelydistinctastostrikeallatfirstsight.InpersontheLowlandersaretallandlarge,

withfaircomplexions,andoftenwithflaxen,yellowandredhair,andblueeyes;the

grandfeaturesoftheGoths,inallancientwriters.ThelowerclassesoftheHighlanders

aregenerallydiminutive,ifweexceptsomeofNorwegiandescent;withbrown

complexion,andalmostalwaysblackcurledhair,anddarkeyes.Inmindandinmanners

thedistinctionismarked.TheLowlandersareacute,industrious,sensible,erect,free.The

Highlandersindolent,slavish,strangerstoindustry.58

Morethaneventhe“grandfeaturesoftheGoths,”Pinkertoninsisted“Languageisofallothersthe

surestmarkoftheoriginofnations,”rejectinganynotionofahistoric“Celtic”presencewithin

easternandsouthernScotland.Theantiquarianmaintained“thereisnotashadowofproofthatthe

IrishtonguewasatallusedintheLowlandsofScotland,”concluding“itisneedlesstoinsistfurther

uponthis.”59

Such“racial”entanglementisevidentwithinJohnJamieson’s1808EtymologicalDictionary

oftheScottishLanguage–hislandmarkattemptindocumentingLowlandScotsvocabulary.While

Jamieson–ministeroftheAnti-burgherNicholsonStreetchurchinEdinburgh–wasbynomeansas

explicitasPinkertoninaligning“race”andphilology,hislexicographywasneverthelessinfluencedby

theenvisionedprestigeofan“ancient,”distinctlyScottishtongueof“Picto-Gothic”origin.60

Jamiesonmadedirectreferencetothe“undoubtedtestimony”of“MrPinkerton,”affirmingthe

“Gothic”provenanceof“Pictish”languagewithinNorthumbriaandLowlandScotland.61Indeed,a

57JohnPinkerton,AnInquiryintotheHistoryofScotland,(1789:Edinburgh,1814),2vols.,I,p.iv.58Ibid,I,p.339.59Ibid,II,p.160.60Likemostnuancedactsoflexicography,Jamieson’sEtymologicalDictionaryhasbeenviewedtofuseanumberof“divergentstrands”;combiningtheoutlookofseveral“specialisedbranches”withinlateeighteenth-centuryScottishlinguisticscholarship.Opentoavarietyofinfluences,includingthoseexponentsofgrammaticalprescription,linguisticantiquarianism,andcontemporaryScotspoetry,Jamiesonisperceivedtohave“borrowedfromandsubsumedeach.”SusanRennie,Jamieson’sDictionary,p.58.ForJamieson’searly“Picto-Gothic”inspirationsseeSusanRennie,‘JamiesonandtheNineteenthCentury,’IseabailMacleodandJ.DerrickMcClureeds.,ScotlandinDefinition:AHistoryofScottishDictionaries,(Edinburgh,2012),pp.63-5.61JohnJamieson,‘ADissertationontheOriginoftheScottishLanguage,’AnEtymologicalDictionaryoftheScottishLanguage,(Edinburgh,1808),2vols,I,pp.23.

|P a g e

95

significantportionofJamieson’s‘Dissertation’offeredfurtherassertionsofthe“Scandinavianorigin

ofthePicts.”62

MuchlikePinkerton,Jamiesonproclaimedthehistoricstatusofasingular“Scottish

Language,”dissociatedfromEnglishvarieties:

IdonothesitatetocallthattheScottishLanguage,whichhasgenerallybeenconsidered

innootherlightthanmerelyonalevelwiththedifferentprovincialdialectsofthe

English.[…]Iamboldtoaffirmthatithasasjustaclaimtothedesignationofapeculiar

languageasmostoftheotherlanguagesofEurope.[Originalemphasis.]63

Jamiesonfamouslydeclaredthat“[f]romtheviewheregivenofittothepublic,intheformofan

ETYMOLOGICALDICTIONARY,”thelanguageoftheScottishLowlandswould“appear[…]notmore

nearlyalliedtotheEnglish,thantheBelgicistotheGerman,theDanishtotheSwedish,orthe

PortuguesetotheSpanish.”64Forthelexicographer,itwasimperativetoemphasisethehistoric

differencebetweenthelanguageofEnglandandthatoftheScottishLowlands:

Callitadialect,ifyouwill;adialectofAnglo-Saxonitcannotbe:[…]thereisnogood

reasonforsupposing,thatitwaseverimportedfromthesouthernpartofourisland.65

Addressingthe“unprejudicedreader,”Jamiesonpresumedafamiliarsenseofproscription

within“ScottishLanguage,”declaringhisscholarship“mayalsoservetomarkthedifference

betweenwordswhichmaybecalledclassical,andothersmerelycolloquial”–distinguishing

“betweenbothofthese,asfarastheyareproper,”andsuggesting“suchasbelongtoastilllower

class,beingmerecorruptions,canttermsorpuerilities.”66Jamiesonalsoemployedimpassioned

rhetoricoflinguisticconservation;attestingtothe“necessity”ofhisDictionaryin“preservingfrom

beingtotallylost,”

[…]manyancientandemphaticterms,whichnowoccuronlyintheconversationofthe

sageofthehamlet,andoccasionallymentionedbyhimasthosewhichhehasheardhis

fathersuse.67

Withinearly,predominantlyLondon-basedreviews,themeritofJamieson’sDictionarywas

oftendiscussedalongsideasentimentalityseenbehindtheundertaking.68Yetagain,an“ancient”

62Ibid,I,pp.25-8.63Ibid,I,p.iv.64Ibid.65Ibid.66Ibid,I,p.iii.67Ibid,I,p.iii.68Rennie,Jamieson’sDictionary,pp.157-8.

|P a g e

96

ScotswaswistfullyenvisagedtobethreatenedbyBritishlinguistictrendsand“standards.”The

CriticalReviewlaudedJamieson’sattempttopreserveLowlandvarieties“graduallybecoming

mergedinthemorepolishedandusefuldialectofSouthBritain.”69TheAnnualReviewandHistoryof

Literaturelamented“theneglectofthevernacularlanguage[…]nowgeneralamongtheScotch,”

predictingJamieson’s“repertoriumofit,inacenturytocome”to“proveamostinvaluable

treasure.”70TheLiteraryPanoramaalsoanticipatedtheperiodwhen“theusagesandobservancesof

manypartsofthenortherndistrictsofourlandshallhavebecomeobsolete,”andcommended

Jamiesonforcompilinga“greaterqualityofillustrativeinformationthananylexicographerthatwe

recollectinourlanguage.”71TheMonthlyReviewofSeptember1810offeredperhapsthemost

pessimisticresponse;praisingthelexicographer’sendeavourstopreservea“decayinglanguage,”

andconcludingthat“beforemanymoreyearsareelapsed,”only“veryfainttracesoftheantient

languagewillprobablybeallthatremain.”72

Suchsuppositionsof“antient”Lowlandlanguageprimarilyderivedfrominterpretationsof

philologicalandcultural“purity.”Withadmittedlylessanti-“Celtic”vitriolthantheworkofJohn

Pinkerton,Jamieson’sDictionarywasnonethelesstouchedwithsimilar“racial”assumptions.Tacit

“racial”categorisationlurkedwithinJamieson’slexicography.73“Language,”heinsisted,was

“universallyadmitted”as“oneofthebestcriterionsoftheoriginofanation,”believingthatan

“accurateandcomparativeexaminationofourvernacularlanguage”would“throwconsiderable

light”upon“thefainttraceswhichhistoryaffords,withrespecttotheoriginofthose,whoformany

centurieshavebeendistinguishedfromtheCelticrace,asspeakingtheScottishlanguage.”74

Withintheconcludingparagraphsofhis‘Dissertation,’Jamieson’sphilologicalperspectives

intertwinewithadistinctly“racial”interpretationofthecontemporarydistinctionbetweenHighland

andLowlandScots:

Itisuniversallyadmitted,thatthereisacertainNationalCharacterofanexternalkind

whichdistinguishesonepeoplefromanother.[…]Tacituslongagoremarkedthestriking

resemblancebetweentheGermansandCaledonians.Everystranger,atthisday,observes

thegreatdifferenceoffeaturesandcomplexionbetweentheHighlandersand

69‘Jamieson’sDictionaryoftheScottishLanguage,’CriticalReview,14,1,(May,1808),pp,72-84.70‘Jamieson’sDictionary,’AnnualReviewandHistoryofLiterature,7,(January,1808),pp.425-37.71‘EtymologicalDictionaryoftheScottishLanguage,’LiteraryPanorama,5(November-December,1808),pp.225-41,438-48.72‘Jamieson’sEtymologicalScottishDictionary,’MonthlyReview,63,(September1810),pp.11-31.73Kidd,‘Race,TheologyandRevival,’pp.21,27.74Jamieson,Dictionary,I,p.iv.

|P a g e

97

Lowlanders.NointelligentpersoninEnglandisindangerofconfoundingtheWelshwith

theposterityoftheSaxons.Now,iftheLowlandScotsbenotaGothicrace,butinfactthe

descendantsoftheancientBritish,theymustbesupposedtoretainsomenational

semblanceoftheWelsh.Butwillanyimpartialobserverventuretoassert,thatinfeature,

complexion,orform,thereisanysuchsimilarity,astoinducetheslightestapprehension

thattheyhavebeenoriginallythesamepeople?75

ThefirstpagesofJamieson’s‘Dissertation’displayacomparably“racial”outlook.TheScot

discussedhowhislong-held“hypothesis”ofLowlandlanguage“beingmerelyacorruptdialectofthe

English,oratleastoftheAnglo-Saxon”hadbeenoverturnedbyanalternative,“racially”-weighted

interpretation:

Havinglongadheredtothishypothesis,withoutanyparticularinvestigation,itisprobable

thatImightneverhavethoughtofcallingitinquestion,hadInothearditpositively

asserted,byalearnedforeigner,thatwehadnotreceivedourlanguagefromtheEnglish;

thatthereweremanywordsinthemouthsofthevulgarinScotland,whichhadnever

passedthroughthechanneloftheAnglo-Saxon,orbeenspokeninEngland,althoughstill

usedinthelanguagesoftheNorthofEurope;thattheScottishwasnottobeviewedasa

daughteroftheAnglo-Saxon,butas,incommonwiththelatter,derivedfromtheancient

Gothic;andthat,whilewehadtoregretthewantofauthenticrecords,anaccurateand

extensiveinvestigationofthelanguageofourcountrymightthrowconsiderablelighton

herancienthistory,particularlyastotheoriginofherfirstinhabitants.76

ClearlyreflectingthesentimentsofJohnPinkerton,Jamiesonacknowledgedtheinfluenceofanother

scholar–the“learnedforeigner”GrimurThorkelin,ProfessorofHistoryandAntiquitiesatthe

UniversityofCopenhagen.77

Jamieson’sconnectionwithThorkelin–aself-proclaimed“Goth”–providesfurtherevidence

ofthe“racial”tincturetotheScot’sscholarship,alsohintingattherootofhisdesiretofavourably

distinguishLowlandlanguagefromEnglishalternatives.Jamiesonrecountedbeinginitiallyupbraided

bytheIcelandicscholarforspeakingina“contemptuousmannerofthelanguageofyourcountry,

whichis,infact,moreancientthantheEnglish.”78Withinthisformativeexchange,Thorkelinalso

75Ibid,I,p.46.76Ibid,I,p.1.77ForJamiesonandThorkelin,seeRennie,Jamieson’sDictionaryofScots,pp.5-6,61-66.78QuotedinJohnJohnstone,‘MemoirofDr.Jamieson,’ADictionaryoftheScottishLanguage.,(Edinburgh,1846),p.xiv.

|P a g e

98

promptedJamiesontoembarkuponhispursuitofconspicuouslydivergentLowlandphraseology,

urgingtheScotto“writedownalltheremarkableoruncouthwordsofthedistrict”ofAngus.79

WritingtoThorkelininJanuary1802,Jamiesonacknowledgedthesignificanceofthisearly

encouragement:

Ismiledattheproposal;havingentertainednootherthanthecommonidea,thatour

languagewasmerelyacorruptionoftheEnglish.You,onthecontrary,assuredmethatin

thebroadScottishyouhadfoundsomehundredsofwords,purelyGothic,thathadnever

cometousthroughthechannelofAnglo-Saxon.80

ThorkelinhadhimselfconductedphilologicalfieldworkinScotland,andwrotetoJamiesonofhis

researchover“fourmonthsinAngusandSutherland”wherehehad“metwithbetweenthreeand

fourhundredwordspurelyGothic,thatwereneverusedinAnglo-Saxon.”81Thescholardiscussedhis

findingsinemphatically“racial”terms;reflecting“thatIamprettywell-acquaintedwithGothic,”

openlyidentifyingwiththis“unmixed”grouping:

IamaGoth;anativeofIceland;theinhabitantsofwhichareanunmixedrace,whospeak

thesamelanguagewhichtheirancestorsbroughtfromNorwayathousandyearsago.82

ThorkelinassuredJamiesonofScandinavian“Gothic”connectionsuncoveredduringhistimein

Scotland;declaring“[a]llormostofthesewordswhichIhavenoteddown,arefamiliartomeinmy

nativeisland.”83SuchassertionsofahistoricLowlandlanguageandculture,imbuedwith“more

ancient,”“purelyGothic”associations,andremovedfromtheenvisionedindignitiesofEnglish

influence,clearlyimpacteduponJamieson’sownscholarlyperspective.

LaterinterpretationsofJamieson’slexicographydownplayedtheScot’sparticularfocusuponthe

increasingly-contestednotionof“Picto-Gothic”Lowlandlanguage,butneverthelessconveyeda

comparableconcernforthe“purity”andprestigeofScotsforms.84Theeditorofthepocket-sized,

79Ibid.80QuotedinRennie,Jamieson’sDictionaryofScots,p.64.81QuotedinJohnstone,‘Memoir,’p.xiv.82Ibid.83Ibid.84Pinkertonwasaccusedof“railingagainsttheCelts,”JamesTytler’s,ADissertationontheOriginandAntiquityoftheScottishNation,(London,1795),p.25.YetPinkerton’s“Picto-Gothic”thesisservedintothenineteenthcentury,influencingJamesSibbald’s,ChronicleofScottishPoetry,(Edinburgh,1802),4vols.,IV,pp.x,xi,xxx-xxxii,xliiixlv.Sibbald’sinterpretationwaschallengedbyGeorgeChalmers,ThePoeticalWorksofSirDavidLyndsay,(Edinburgh,1806),3vols.,I,p.146.Seealso,AlexanderMurray’sdismissalof“thepretendedTeutonismofthePicts,”insistingonacommon

|P a g e

99

DictionaryoftheScottishLanguageof1827,“founded”uponJamieson’sscholarship,madeno

attempttodebate“ancient”Scotsroots;insistinghis“object,”

[…]isnottotracetheoriginoftheScottishlanguage,itismerelytoexplainthe

significance,andtoenablethegeneralreadertounderstandthemeaning,ofthewords,

withoutattemptingtosearchfortheirderivation;toenterintothespiritofanauthorwho

usestheScottishtongue;andtorelishhishumourwithoutenquiringwhetherthe

languageinwhichitisconveyedbeofCelticorGothicorigin.85

However,therhetoricofculturalandphilological“purism”lingeredinsuchassertionsofScots

“significance.”TheprefacediscussedahistoricdeclineofLowlandforms;perceivingtheunionsof

1603and1707tohave“destroyedthenationalityoftheScottishlanguage,”issuinginaneraof

contemptiblenegligenceinwhichthe“purityoftheScottishlanguagewasnolongerattendedto.”86

TheprefacealsoincludedaheavilysentimentalisedreflectionuponthemaintenanceofLowland

literaryforms,notingthatwhile“hasteningfasttooblivion”Scotsvarietieswere“cherishedand

preservedonlybythefondnessofhernativebards,whopouredforththeirenrapturedlaysinthe

expressivelanguageoftheirbelovedcountry.”87

Nearlytwentyyearslater,an1846editionofJamieson’sDictionaryincludedabiographyof

thelexicographer,voicingacomparableviewofavenerable-yet-vulnerableScotslinguistic

retention.Jamieson’stextwasprojectedasthe“master-key”toawealthof“innocentand

delightful”Scotsforms,enshrininga“soundliterature”of“imperishable”prestige.88Resurgentsub-

versionswereseentoenableindividualsto“thinkandfeelasancientScots”ofahallowedlineage,

withsuchlinguisticidiosyncrasyenvisagedto“keepopen”the

[...]literarytreasuresoftheirfathers,thepagesoftheirBurnsandScott;andthoseof

othernationalworkswhich,butforthismaster-key,musthaveverysoonbecomesealed

books.89

Triumphalassociationsof“racial”andlinguistic“purity”infusedsuchassumptions–aninheritance

ofthephilological“Teutonism”ofapreviousgenerationoflinguisticantiquarians.

ThisunlockingofLowland“literarytreasures”withJamieson’s“master-key”wasnotably

transnational.“Futuregenerations”ofScotswith“offsetsineverydistantland”wereimaginedto

“Gothic”rootinbothEnglandandScotland,AlexanderMurray,HistoryoftheEuropeanLanguages,(Edinburgh,1823),2vols.,II,pp.444-3,465,466.85Anon.,ADictionaryoftheScottishLanguage;foundeduponthatofJohnJamieson,(Edinburgh,1827),p.vii.86Ibid,pp.vii,viii.87Ibid,p.viii.88Johnstone,‘Memoir,’p.xv.89Ibid.

|P a g e

100

proudlyalignthemselveswithan“ancient”linguisticheritagewhichhadweatheredthreatsof

extinctiontonowwaxgloballytriumphant.90Bythemid-nineteenthcentury,Jamieson’sDictionary

wasperceivedtolieattheheartofarenewedandconfidently“sound”Scotsdistinction,

consecrating“theimperishablerecordsofourhistory,ourliterature,andourusages.”91

Paradoxically,thissenseof“imperishable”linguisticattachmentwasemphasisedbymyths

ofvulnerability.Scots’“literarytreasures”–historictexts“oftheirfathers,”ever-susceptibleto

being“sealed”toposterity–wereseentorequireaconsciousandconsistentefforttobekept

“open.”92Bythemid-nineteenthcentury,adistinctandpossessivelyScottishliterature,“pagesof

theirBurnsandScott,”hadformedanunequivocal,sub-versivecanonforScotsbothwithinand

outwiththenation.Asthe1846editionofJamieson’sDictionaryindicates,theseScots-inflected

textswereimaginedaspurportedlyclosedor“sealedbooks,”andcelebratedthroughdeliberateacts

of“keepingopen.”Such“sound,”yetpotentially“sealed”texts,supposedlyclosedintheir

demonstrationoflinguisticdistinction,weresymbolicallyprisedopen–consciouslypraisedand

activelyreprisedbydiasporicScots.Significantly,Jamieson’sDictionarywaspresentedasa“master-

key”tothisprocess.

AsintheearliercaseofOssian,thistransnationalprojectionofScots’culturalandlinguistic

exclusivitywaspredicatedupontheconsciousexhibitionofthatwhichwasbelievedtohavebeen

lost,locked,orobscured:anactofdeliberatelyrevealingperceivedsub-versionsinlanguage.The

discoursesofCallander,Pinkerton,andJamiesonindicatetheshifttowardsthisovertlinguistic

display,andsuchperspectivesaremarkedbyacomparableintentiontouncoverandexhibitScots

distinctions.Afinal,lateeighteenth-centuryinstanceofthisoccurswithinAlexanderGeddes’swell-

knowndiscussionofthe“Scoto-SaxonDialect,”submittedtotheSocietyofAntiquariesofScotland

in1792.

Inhisaffirmationofa“Scoto-Saxon”tongue,Geddes–Banffshire-bornpriestandscholar–offered

comparableassertionstothoseofJohnCallander,insistinguponasharedlinguistic“Saxonism”of

EnglandandScotland.UnlikeJamieson,GeddeswashighlyscepticalofPinkerton’snotionofthe

“Gothic”Picts.Infact,Geddesexplicitlydismissedthisthesis–offeringgeographicalplace-namesof

LowlandScotlandas“atleastoneverystrongproof”thatthelanguageoftheregion“wasnota

90Ibid.91Ibid.92Ibid.

|P a g e

101

Gothicdialect.”93ForGeddes,the“Scoto-Saxon”wasinsteadderivedfromfifth-century“Anglo-

Saxon,”butwasnoblydistinctfromthe“presentEnglishtongue,”whichheperceivedamuch-

melded“Normanic-Dano-Saxon.”94YetGeddes,aremarkablepolymathandbiblicalscholarof

internationalrepute,wasnomereexponentofcrasslinguistic“purity.”95

RecentattemptstorescueGeddesfromhistoricalandliteraryobscurityhaveshownthe

Scot’sscholarshiptobemarkedbyaconsciousnessoflinguisticsub-versionswithinbothEnglishand

Scots“standards.”96Alongwithhis‘ThreeScottishPoems’and“Scoto-Saxon”‘Dissertation’of1792,

Geddesalsopresentedtwolesser-knowncompositionstotheScottishSocietyofAntiquariesthat

year–abraceofclassicaltexts“tránslâtitintoSkottisvers.”97Introducingthesetwotranslations,

Geddessignificantlydifferentiatedbetweenthepair,notingjustone“maybecalledtheScottish

Doric.”98Inananalysisofbothtranslations,CharlesJonesperceivestheregional“Buchandialect”to

reflectGeddes’s“Doric,”determiningtheotherpoemtobeofanalternatevariety“representingthe

dialectofEdinburgh”–suggestiveofapossible“ScottishStandardEnglish.”99Jonesidentifies

Geddesasprovidingarare,yetclearprojectionoflinguisticvariationwithinLowlandlanguage.100In

awiderdiscussionofthe“multifarious”Geddes,GerardCarrutherssimilarlypresentstheScotas

mindfulofadiverse,linguistic“fluidity.”101Evidently,Geddes’swasinstilledwithanawarenessof

thesub-versiveessenceof–andwithin–his“Scoto-Saxon.”

Inbothhis‘Dissertation’and‘ScottishPoems’GeddespokedfunatEnglishlinguistic

intermixture,yetacknowledgedthatLowlandlanguage,thoughimaginedas“pureSaxon,”wasitself

derivedfromavarietyofsources:

93AlexanderGeddes,‘ThreeScottishPoems;withaPreviousDissertationontheScoto-SaxonDialect,’ArchaeologicaScotica,(Edinburgh,1792),4vols.,I,pp.402-41,p.408.94Geddes,‘ThreeScottishPoems,’pp.404-7,p.407,Jones,LanguageSuppressed,p.16.95SeeBernardAspinwall,‘TheLastLaughofaHumaneFaith,DrAlexanderGeddes1737-1801,’NewBlackfriars,58,(July1977),pp.333-340,ReginaldC.Fuller,AlexanderGeddes,1737-1802.PioneerofBiblicalCriticism,(1984:London,2015),MarkGoldie,‘AlexanderGeddesattheLimitsoftheCatholicEnlightenment,’HistoricalJournal,53.1,(March2010),pp.61-86,WilliamJohnstoneed.TheBibleandtheEnlightenment.ACaseStudy:AlexanderGeddes1737-1802,(London,2004).96GerardCarruthers,‘ScatteredRemains:TheLiteraryCareerofAlexanderGeddes,’BibleandtheEnlightenment,CharlesJones,‘AlexanderGeddes:AnEighteenth-CenturyScottishOrthoepistandDialectologist,’FoliaLinguisticaHistorica,XV/1-2,(1994),pp.71-103.97AlexanderGeddes,‘TheFirstEklogofVirgil,tránslâtitintoSkottisvers,’SocietyofAntiquariesofScotland,I,pp.457-62.98AlexanderGeddes,‘TheFirstIdillionofTheokritusm,traánslâtitintoSkottisvers,’SocietyofAntiquariesofScotland,I,pp.562-9,p.462,n.NoteGeddes’sinclusionofdifferingorthographyfor“tránslâtit”and“traánslâtit.”99Jones,‘AlexanderGeddes,’pp.73,75.100Ibid,pp.75,77,79.101Carruthers,‘ScatteredRemains,’BibleandtheEnlightenment,pp.67,64-5.

|P a g e

102

OnanalysingtheScoto-Saxondialect,Ifinditcomposed;First,andchiefly,ofpureSaxon;

Secondly,ofSaxonizedCeltic,whetherWelsh,Pictish,orErse;Thirdly,ofSaxonized

NormanoroldFrench;Fourthly,ofmoremodernFrenchScoticized;Fifthly,ofDanish,

Dutch,andFlemish,occasionallyincorporated;Sixthly,ofwordsborrowedfromdead

languages.Itmustnotbesupposed,thatalltheseareblendedtogetherinthesame

proportionineveryScottishprovincialdialect.102

ThiswasanassertionofScottishlinguisticheterogeneityalmostentirelydetachedfromthemixed

influencesand“standards”ofEngland.

Forallhisinsight,Geddespresentedwhatmusthavebeenafairlyfamiliarargumentby

1792;attestingthatgenerationsofScots“servilelyaping”the“Anglo-Saxon”inthewakeofthe1603

dynasticunion,hadnecessitatedadeclineintheprestigeand“purity”ofthe“Scoto-Saxon”–“in

manypoints,”“superior”toitsEnglishequivalent.103LikebothBeattieandPinkerton,Geddeswas

dismissiveofrecentLowlandliterature;declaring“thosewho,foralmostacenturypast,have

writteninScots[…]havenotdulydiscriminatedthegenuineScottishidiomforitsvulgarisms.”104

GeddessawScottishauthorstohavetarnishedthe“Scoto-Saxon”lustreinseekingtosimply

differfromEnglishlanguage“standards”:

ThustowriteScottishpoetry(forprosehasseldombeenattempted),nothingmorewas

deemednecessarythantoloadthecompositionwithanumberoflowwordsandtrite

proverbialphrases,incommonuseamongtheilliterate;andthemoreanomalousand

fartherremovedfrompoliteusagethosewordsandphraseswere,somuchthemore

appositeandeligibletheywereaccounted.Itwasenoughthattheywerenotfoundinan

EnglishlexicontogivethemapreferenceintheScottishglossary[…].105

AssertinganarbitraryScotslinguisticdifferencewasclearlyinsufficientinGeddes’seyes.106Indeed,

instressingacommon“Saxon”source,GeddesdismissedthenotionthatScotsformswererequired

todifferfrom“standard”English,complaining,

[…]norwasiteveronceconsidered,thatallwordstrulyAnglo-SaxonwereastrulyScoto-

Saxonwords;andthateveryexotictermwhichtheEnglishhaveborrowedfromother

languages,theScotshadanequalrighttoappropriate.107

102Geddes,‘ScottishPoems,’pp.415-16,103Ibid,p.404.104Ibid,p.403.105Ibid.106Carruthers,‘ScatteredRemains,’BibleandtheEnlightenment,p.65.107Geddes,‘ScottishPoems,’p.403.SeealsoJ.DerrickMcClure,‘ThedistinctivenessofScots:Perceptionsandreality,’RaymondHickeyed.,VarietiesofEnglishinWriting,(Amsterdam,2010)pp.116-7.

|P a g e

103

Demandingheightenedlinguistic“rights,”andstressingScottishsimilaritiestoEnglish,

GeddesinsistedupongreaterproscriptionsinScotland;reckoningany“generalstandard”of

Lowlandlanguage“totallyneglected,”anddenouncingtheconsequent,sub-versivetraditionin

which“everyoneadoptedthatmodeofspellingandphrazingwhich‘wasgoodinhisowneyes.’”108

However,Geddesobservedthatincertainpocketsofhisownnorth-east,in“theshiresofForfar,

Kincardineshire,Aberdeen,Banff,andElgin,theScottishstillexistsinitsmaturepurity,or,ifyouwill,

initsnativerudeness.”109Yetagain,this“rude,”“purity”wasseentobeunderimmediatethreat:

Buteventhereitiseverydaylosingground;andyieldingtotheEnglishidiom.Hencethe

greaterexpediencyofcollectingtheoldtermsassoonaspossible,andfromthemouths

oftheoldestinhabitants.110

Adeclining“Doric”ofhumbleantiquity,vulnerabletoextinctionandAnglicisation,wasclearlypaired

withGeddes’sownenthusiasmforthe“Scoto-Saxon.”

ThisconsiderationaccompaniedGeddes’sawarenessofthesub-versivenatureofScots

distinction.Withinthe‘Epistle’of1792,heexpressedaconsistentwishforLowlandformstobe

unearthedandunveiled.Employingtropesofhorticulturalneglectandregeneration,Geddes

entreatedhisScotsreaderstobettertendtheirlinguisticbounty:

Wi’pains,onCaledoniangrund,

Digfortheirroots,‘eretheybedead,

FreGretnaGreentoPeterhead;

Andplantthemquick,assoonasgot,

InaeLexicographicplot.

[…]

Collect,wijudgement,skillan’care,

Thewordsan’phrasesrichan’rare,

Thatinaldbeuks,foragesby,

Likeherbsinhortissiccis,ly

Exposethemtotheopenair;

Andwash,andclean,andtrim,andpare

Theirwusantparts–I’mfairmista’en

Ifyettheydinnagrowagain.111

108Geddes,‘ScottishPoems,’pp.403-4.109Ibid,p.439.110Ibid.

|P a g e

104

Suggestingbothanorganicandengineeredlinguisticnurturing,Geddespresentsadualenterprisein

discerningScotsidiosyncrasy–atonceantiquarianandphilological–advocatingthesourcingof“ald

beuks,”alongsidethemoredown-to-earthgraspingforsubmergedlexical“roots.”

ButthispracticeofuncoveringconcealedLowlandformswasonlypartofGeddes’sconcern.

ThepoetwasalsoawareoftheimportanceforsuchScotssub-versionstobeactivelydisplayed–

uprooted,thenre-routedto“thrive”in“aeLexicographicplot.”Geddesessentiallywelcomedthe

“exposure”ofdesiredLowlandtraits,andanovertexhibitionofScotsformswasimaginedasthekey

intermediarystagebetweenaninitial“collection”andalater,crafted“cleansing.”

Directlyfollowingthisproclaimeddisplay,GeddesresumedhisderisionofEnglishlinguistic

hybridity.Afrequently-quotedextractdemonstratestheScot’stongue-in-cheekdistasteforthe

prestigeofEnglish:

LetbragartEnglandindistain

Ha’dilkalingo,buthera’in:

Hera’in,wewat,saywhatshecan,

Islikehertrue-bornEnglishman,

Avilepromiscuousmungrelseed

OfDanish,Dutch,an’Normanbreed,

An’prostituted,sincetoa’

Thejargonsonthisearthlyba’!112

Abandoninghishorticulturalconceit,Geddesadoptsadifferentbiologicalperspective–mockingthe

“impurity”ofa“mungrel”English.Alreadyhintingatasexualand“racial”contemptfor

“promiscuous,”“prostituted”intermixture,Geddes’simagerybecomesmoreovert.

ThepoetcomparesEnglish“standards”withfeminisedScotssub-versions,assumingan

increasinglysexualtone,coupledwithadisparagementoffawningsocialaffectations.Geddes

deridesaservile“English”artificiality,

Bedek’t‘tistrue,an’madefu’smart

Wi’mekillearning,painsan’art;

An’taughttobaik,an’benge,an’bou

Asdogsan’dancin’mastersdo:

Wi’farditcheeksan’pouder’thair,

111Ibid,p.446.112Ibid,p.447.

|P a g e

105

An’brazenconfidentialstare–

Whileours,ablatean’bashfu’maid

Concealsherblusheswi’herplaid;

Anisunwillan’todisplay

Herbeutiesinthefaceo’day.113

This“brazen”gazeandflimsyveneeraredismissedbyGeddesinfavourofdemureScotssub-

versions.These“bashfu’”alternativesarerevealingly“concealed.”Languagecharacterisedthrough

conspicuousabsence–“unwillan’todisplay”–isheldaboveanEnglishfoppishposturing,whilst

beingsimultaneously,andself-consciouslyobscuredbehinda“plaid.”

Geddesintensifiesthisimagery,fusinganappreciationoftheveiled“purity”ofLowland

languagewithadisturbingreturntohisconceitofseeingScotssub-versionslaidbareforalltosee.

Inadepictioninwhichracistundertonesco-minglewiththoseofforceful,sexualvoyeurism,Geddes

welcomesthe“stripping”ofEnglishandScotsforms:

Botstripthembaith–an’seewha’sshape

Hasleastthesemblanceofanape?

Wha’slim’sarestraughtest?Whacansheu

Thewhiterskin,an’fairerheu;

An’whilk,inshort,isthemairfit

Togendergenuinemanlywit?

I’llpledemypen,you’lljudgementpass

InfavoroftheScottislass.114

Inadistinctlymoresinistermannerthanearlierbotanicalimagesofunearthinglinguistic

specimens,Geddesre-envisagestherevealingofScottishsub-versions.Withinthisfairlyunsettling

projection,GeddesproclaimsthemeritsofLowlandlanguagethroughthenotionofanunderlying

“racial”andsexual“purity,”predicateduponthe“stripping”ofoutwardlayering.When“stripped”

ofanysurfacedcovering,thesub-versionsofthe“Scottislass”areanticipatedtodisplayagreater

“purity”thanEnglish“standards.”Assuch,thefeminised“purity”ofScotssub-versionsisexposed

andsubmittedtoa“judgement”definedthroughthe“gendering”of“genuine”and“manly”

appreciation.

Thissupposed“purity”isexpressedinbothgenderedand“racial”terms.Traditionally-

envisagedfeminine“beuties,”typifiedthrough“whiter,”“fairer”colouring,arealsopresentedasthe113Ibid.114Ibid,pp.447-8.

|P a g e

106

physicaltraitsimaginedasleast“ape”-like.Apre-empted“heu”ofScots“purity,”alignedwiththe

“racial”andsexualised“whiteness”ofa“basfu’maid,”isseenunder-wrapsandunder-statedwhen

comparedwithabare-faced,“promiscuous”English.Theheavily-loaded“purity”ofScotsformsis

essentiallyhiddenfromthe“faceo’day”;suggestiveofavulnerablesub-versivesplendourwhich

canonlybeglimpsedthroughanecessarybreachofplaid-veiledtrappings.

Significantly,intheverysameyearashisdiscussionof“Scoto-Saxon,”Geddespennedan

anonymoussatireinwhichheemployedconspicuouslysimilarimageryinlampooningananti-

abolitioniststanceontheBritishslavetrade.115Adoptingamocking,virulentlyracistrhetoric,

Geddeshadhisnarratorsarcasticallyopposethe“rashandinconsiderate”supposition“thatthevile

andbarbarousBlacksofAfricahaveanequalrighttofreedomwiththerestofthehumanrace.”116

Followingthesketchylogicalpremisethatanyrestrictionofhumanlibertyisakinto“slavery,”

Geddes’sCatholicnarrator,incensedbythelegalandpoliticalrestrictionsplaceduponhimselfand

hisco-religionists,reflectsbitterly:

[…]ifacertaindegreeofSlaverybethenecessaryportionofmankind,whyshouldthe

Negroes,whoarescarcelymen,beexemptedfromanydegreeofslaverythattheycan

bear–iftheEuropeanrace,whoreflectsostronglytheirMaker’simageinthewhiteness

oftheirskin,thenoblenessoftheirfeatures,andthesymmetryoftheirlimbs;–inshort,

whoarelittlelessthanangels,be,notwithstanding,doomedbyNaturetoliveinastateof

perpetualSlavery,withwhatdecencycanitbeasserted,thattheAfricans,whoseblack

complexion,beast-likelineaments,andmis-shapenmembersdemonstratethemtobe

littlemorethanincarnatedevils,arenaturallyentitledtothesamedegreeoffreedomas

ourselves?[Originalemphasis].117

Referencesto“racial”differencesarealmostidenticaltoGeddes’smetaphorsforlinguistic

“purity”whichoccurwithinhisverseonthe“Scoto-Saxon.”Thevirtuesof“whiteness”andlimb-

“symmetry”arenotablyrepeated,alongwiththesordidpreoccupationwith“beast-like”biology.

Revealingly,Geddes’s“apology”alsoplayswithchillinggrammaticaltropesinascertaininga

“rational”correlationbetweenconceptionsof“race”andslavery.Geddes’ssatireconcludes“[a]

BlackandaSlavehavebecomesynonymousterms,”“logically”dismissingthenotionof“African

freedom”as“asolecisminlanguage.”118Geddesalsoattemptsascornfulswipeataratherone-

dimensionalconsiderationofBritishimperial“liberty”;suggesting,

115SeeJohnMasonGood,MemoirsoftheLifeandWritingsoftheReverendAlexanderGeddes,(London,1803),pp.269-79.116Anon.[AlexanderGeddes],AnApologyforSlavery,(London,1792),p.7.117Ibid,pp.22-3,38,37.118Ibid,p.24.

|P a g e

107

LibertyshallbedealtoutindifferentunequalpartstothesubjectsofGreatBritain[…]

accordingtoapoliticalbalance,ofwhichtheoriginalstandardiskeptatStJames’s;but

exactmodelsofitsenttoDublin,Quebec,andotherplacesconcerned.119

Heavilyscepticalofany“originalstandard,”GeddesrailsagainstpioussuppositionsofBritish

metropolitanandimperialprestige;perhapsevenincludingadisparagementofindolentreflections

onlinguistic“solecisms”alongsideotherhypocriticalpreconceptionsofBritish“racial,”religious,and

constitutionalsuperiority.

Geddes’sApologyforSlaveryisacompellingabolitionistsatireindireneedoffurther

investigation.120Evidently,thetextstandsinaratherawkwardjuxtapositiontothescholar’s“Scoto-

Saxon”musingsofthesameyear.Indeed,thereisadistinct,disconcertingechoofthevehement

racismofGeddes’smockpolemicwithinhisseemingly-earnestprojectionofScottishlinguistic

delicacy–demonstrative,inhisownmemorableterm,of“leastthesemblanceofanape.”

ForGeddes,therhetoricof“racial”andlinguistic“purity”appearstohaveworkedboth

ways.Themetaphorofplaid-veiled“whiteness”infusedhisprojectionofunsullied“Scoto-Saxon.”

YettheScotalsocontemptuouslyemployednotablysimilarimages,alongsidethemock-logicof

linguistic“standards,”toridiculeconceptionsofimmutable“racial”categoriesandcapabilities.

Whetherseriouslyintendedorsatiricallyexaggerated,Geddes’stextsindicatethemannerinwhich

therhetoricoflinguistic“judgement”and“purity”hadthepotentialtopermeateintoglobalnotions

ofScoto-Britishexclusivity.Bythe1790s,celebrationsofScotslinguistic“purity”hadthepotentialto

bevoicedalongsideotherunsavouryinterpretationsofculturalsupremacy,andbytheturnofthe

century,certainScottishsub-versionshadbecomeintertwinedwiththe“Teutonic”rootsofa

supposedlyimperial“race.”Aboveallelse,Geddes’s“Scoto-Saxon”sentimentsdemonstratethe

extenttowhichScotswereencouragedtouncoverandexhibitsupposedlysubmergedlinguistic

traits.

Yet,modelsofsuchlinguisticexhibitionismwerefarfromclear,noruniversallyaccepted.James

Beattieremainedcharacteristicallyunconvinced.WritinginJanuary1793,Beattieonceagain

dismissedcontemporaryScotsarticulations,maintaininghisbeliefinthe“propriety”ofan“antient

language,”“whenScotland,beinganindependentnation,hadarighttoprescribetherulesofits

119Ibid,p.35.120TheApologyforSlaveryisnotablyabsentfromthevastmajorityofresearchintoGeddes’scareerandinfluence.However,thetextisincludedwithinPaulKeened.,RevolutionsinRomanticLiterature.Ananthologyofprintculture,1780-1832,(Plymouth,2004),pp.318,320.SeealsoCarruthers,‘ScatteredRemains,’BibleandtheEnlightenment,pp.76-7.

|P a g e

108

owntongue.”121Evertheenthusiastforasingular“Britishliterature,”thephilosopheravowed“now

thelanguageofGreatBritainisEnglish,”insisting“anattempttorevivetheolddialect,orratherto

mingleEnglishandBroadScotchwordstogether,isaffectation.”122

Contending“nomannowalivecanwritetheScotchofthereignofJamesIVorV,”Beattie

remainedscepticalofanypracticalpurposesfor“affected”Scotsdiscourse:

IfweweretohearaclergymanprayorpreachinBroadScotch,shouldwenotsaythathe

wasburlesquingreligion;andifweweretoreceivealetterofbusinessinthesamestyle,

woulditbepossibleforustobelievethatourcorrespondentwasinearnest?Doesitnot

showthatthemodernScotchdialect,suchasImeanasweseeinAllanRamsay,isfrom

itsvulgaritybecomeridiculous?

Thephilosopherwasunmovedbytherecentupsurgeinappreciationforthe“modernScotch

dialect”akintothatofRamsay.Indeed,barelyayearafterGeddes’sespousalofthe“Scoto-Saxon,”

Beattie’slettercoincidentallyinvertedthepriest’sattestationsofthefeminine“beuties”

underpinningLowlandlanguage.

CommentingontheincreasingpopularityforcombiningScotslyricswith“traditional”music,

Beattiesupposed,

[a]fineoldScotchair,withBroadScotchwordssungtoit,seemstomesuchan

incongruity.Asabeautifulwoman,withdirtyhandsandface,imitatingthewalkand

strideofaplowman.123

FarfromGeddes’sprojectionofaveiled,alluring“purity,”BeattiesawLowlandformstooddly

distort“fineoldScotch”music–infecting“airs”withtheunwelcomegaitofa“plowman,”befouling

womanlybeautywithanearthy“incongruity.”124

BeattiewaswritingtoGeorgeThomson–Edinburghlawyer,musician,andScotsballad-

collector.TheAberdonianofferedadviceonThomson’sforthcomingSelectCollectionofOriginal

ScottishAirsfortheVoice,thefirstvolumeofwhichappearedfivemonthslater,containingsix

versesbyoneRobertBurns–“Heaven-taughtploughman”ofHenryMackenzie’sinfamousLounger

articleof1786.125The“plowman”Burns,notedwithinMackenzie’sreviewtopenpoetry“almost

121Robinson,Correspondence,IV,p.179.122Ibid.123Ibid.124SeeIanC.Robertson,‘TheBardandtheMinstrel,’ScottishLiteraryReview,Vol.8,1,(Spring/Summer,2016),pp.133-42.125HenryMacKenzie,‘RobertBurns,’Lounger,XCVII,9December1786,pp.385-88,DavidPurdie,KirsteenMcCueandGerardCarruthers,MauriceLindsay’sTheBurnsEncyclopaedia,(London,2013),p.316.AlsoRobertCrawford,TheBard.RobertBurns,ABiography,(London,2009),pp.360,365,381,DonaldA.Lowed.The

|P a g e

109

English,”advocatedtheverysortofRamsay-inspiredintermixturetowhichBeattiewasnotably

opposed.Ironically,itwasBeattie’sdismissiveconceptionofLowlandlanguage,a“modern”

linguistic“jumble”alignedwiththerough,masculinepastoralismofthe“plowman,”thatwould

spectacularlygaingroundduringthefollowingdecades;underscoringsub-versiveinflectionsof

verbaltartanry.

Inmid-September1792,lessthanfourmonthsbeforeBeattie’slettertoThomson,thesong-

collectorreceivedanoticefromBurns,offeringhisaidinthecompilationoftheSelectCollection.

Burnsprofessedto“positivelyaddtomyenjoymentsincomplyingwithit,”famouslyadvocatingan

increasedsmatteringofLowlandlanguagewithinThomson’svolume:

[…]willyouletmehavealistofyourairswiththefirstlineoftheversesyouintendfor

them,thatImayhaveanopportunityofsuggestinganalterationthatmayoccurtome–

youknow‘tisthewayofmytrade–stillleavingyou,Gentlemen,[…]toapprove,or

reject,atyourpleasureinyourownPublication?[…]Ápropos,ifyouareforEnglish

verses,thereis,onmypart,anendofthematter.–Whetherinthesimplicityofthe

Ballad,orthepathosoftheSong,Icanonlyhopetopleasemyselfinbeingallowedat

leastasprinklingofournativetongue.Englishverses,particularlytheworksofScotsmen,

thathavemerit,arecertainlyveryeligible.126

BurnsproposedanincreasedinterjectionofScotsforms,offeringhisownsupplementary

“alterations.”Inalaterletter,BurnsreckonedThomsontobe“toofastidious”inhis“ideasofSongs

&ballads”;tactfullyacknowledgingtohiseditorthat“yourcriticismsarejust,”whilstchampioning

thesub-versivemeritofLowlandlanguage:

[…]letmeremarktoyou,inthesentiment&styleofourScotish[sic]airs,thereisa

pastoralsimplicity,asomethingthatonemaycall,theDoricstyle&dialectofvocalmusic,

towhichadashofournativetongue&mannersisparticularly,naypeculiarlyapposite.127

JamesBeattiewasalsoconsciousoftheincreasingappealofthis“incongruous”linguistic

combination.InhislettertoThomsonofJanuary1793,thephilosopherreassertedhisdisdain:

[…]thoughIgreatlyadmireouroldScotchmusick,Icanbynomeansreconcilemyselfto

theBroadScotchwords.Which,thelongerIlive,Idislikethemore.Aserioussubjectthey

debase,andmakeridiculous;anhumourousonetheygenerally,ifnotalways,make

SongsofRobertBurns,(Abingdon,1993),pp.14-18,PernilleStrande-Sørensen,‘AuthenticationofNationalidentity:MacphersonandBurnsasEditorsofScottishBallads,’LeneØstermark-Johansened.,AnglesontheEnglish-speakingWorld,Volume3.RomanticGenerations,(Copenhagen,2003),pp.17-22.126J.DeLanceyFergusonandG.RossRoyeds.,TheLettersofRobertBurns,(Oxford,1985),2vols.,IIpp.148-9.127Ibid,II,p.153.

|P a g e

110

indelicate,orclownishatleastIwishthereforetheremaybeasfewofthemaspossiblein

yourwork.128

YetBeattieacknowledgedthathisownappreciationhadbecomeratherunpopular.Reflectingonhis

earlierdismissalofamixed,“BroadScotch”thephilosopheradmitted:

This,however,thoughIcouldgiveyoumanygoodreasonsforit,isanopiniononwhich

manyofyourreaderswouldnotagreewithme;anditisnodoubtyourdutytomakeyour

collectionaspopularasyoucan.129

Burns’slettertoThomsonhintedatasimilarconsciousness.Concludingtheletter,Burns

downplayedthedesireforpersonalpaymentin“thehonestenthusiasmwithwhichIembarkinyour

undertaking,”signingoffwiththerevealing“phraseoftheSeason,‘Gudespeedthewark!’”130

128Robinson,Correspondence,IV,p.179.129Ibid.130FergusonandRoy,Letters,II,p.150.

|P a g e

111

PartIII.Nineteenth-centuryScots“abroad.”

“Imprestonvellum.”Transatlanticconcerns.

“YouspeakneitherEnglishnorScotch,butsomethingdifferent,which

IconcludeisthelanguageofAmerica.”1

LordMarchmont,quotedinBoswell’sLifeofJohnson,(London,1791).

But’snaeyourfu’t,mycantyCallan,

Thatyefa’shorto’theAuldAllan;

There’sneitherHighlandman,norLallan’,

That’sherethesame;

Butfindshimscrimpito’thetalen’

Hehadathame.

HughHenryBrackenridge,(Washington,1801).

TocousinRabin,asyeca’me,

Ye’doutthecityMobiledrawme,

An’Indiantales‘boutAlabama,

Shrewdlyye’dtell‘ im;

An’a’Louisianashawme,

Imprestonvellum

RobertDinsmoor, (Haverhill, Massachusetts,1828).

1GeorgeBirkbeckNormanHillandL.F.Powelleds.,Boswell’sLifeofJohnson,(1934:Oxford,2014),6vols.,II,p.160.

|P a g e

112

LessthantwentyyearsafterthedeathofBurns,thepoet’snamehadbecomesynonymouswith

Lowland“Scotch”language.AtleastthatwastheviewofThomasJefferson.WritingfromMonticello

tothegrammarianJohnWaldoinAugust1813,theformerU.S.presidentpresentedhimselfasan

enthusiasticproponentoflinguisticchange,declaring,

Iamnofriend[…]towhatiscalledPurism,butazealousonetotheNeologywhichhas

introducedthesetwowordswithouttheauthorityofanydictionary.Iconsidertheoneas

destroyingthenerveandbeautyoflanguage,whiletheotherimprovesboth,andaddsto

itscopiousness.2

Jeffersonwelcomedtheseeminglyinevitableexpansionoflanguagewithintheyoungand

comparably“copious”Americannation,supposing

[…]sogreatgrowingapopulation,spreadoversuchanextentofcountry,withsucha

varietyofclimatesofproductions,ofarts,mustenlargetheirlanguage,tomakeitanswer

tothepurposeofexpressingallideas,thenewaswellastheold.3

Placingconsiderableemphasisuponthelinguisticnoveltyandinnovationhebelievedcentral

tothefoundationofan“Americandialect,”Jeffersonalludedtoexisting,“oldworld”differences

within“theEnglishlanguage”:

Thenewcircumstancesunderwhichweareplaced,callfornewwords,newphrases,and

forthetransferofoldwordstonewobjects.AnAmericandialectwillthereforebe

formed;sowillaWest-IndianandAsiatic,asaScotchandanIrisharealreadyformed.But

whetherwilltheseadulterate,orenrichtheEnglishlanguage?Hasthebeautifulpoetryof

Burns,orhisScottishdialect,disfiguredit?DidtheAtheniansconsidertheDoric,the

Ionian,theÆolic,andotherdialectsasdisfiguringorbeautifyingtheirlanguage?4

Envisioninganencroachingrangeofglobal“Englishes,”Jeffersonsawthedialectalalternativesof

IrelandandScotlandtoreflectaclassically-comparedlinguistic“enrichment.”ForJefferson,this

incorporated“Scotch”waswhollyassociatedwiththe“beautifulpoetryofBurns,”andcharacterised

by“hisScottishdialect.”5

Jeffersonviewedtheascendancyofan“Anglo-world”tobeevidencedinthelinguistic

expansionof“English”:“theconsequence,toacertaindegree,ofitstransplantationfromthe

2ThomasJefferson,Writings,MerrillD.Petersoned.,(NewYork,1984),p.1295.CarolPercy,‘PoliticalperspectivesonlinguisticinnovationinindependentAmerica.LearningfromthelibrariesofThomasJefferson(1743-1826),’MarinaDossenaed.,TransatlanticPerspectivesonLateModernEnglish,(Amsterdam,2015).3Jefferson,Writings,p.1295.4Ibid,pp.1295-6.5Crawford,DevolvingEnglishLiterature,pp.176-8.

|P a g e

113

latitudeofLondonintoeveryclimateoftheglobe.”6Duetothisapparentpre-eminence,he

supposedsuchlanguage“thegreaterdegreethemoreprecious”–embodying“theorganofthe

developmentofthehumanmind.”7Elsewhere,Jeffersoncelebratedthe“peculiarvalue”of“Anglo-

Saxon”languagewithintheUnitedStates:“abranchofthesameoriginalGothicstock”inneedof

“distinguishedattentioninAmericaneducation.”8ForJefferson,thiswas“alanguagealreadyfraught

withalltheeminentscienceofourparentcountry,”aprestigiouslinguistictiewhichthepolitician

sawas“thefuturevehicleofwhateverwemayourselvesachieve,anddestinedtooccupymuch

spaceontheglobe.”9Thismultifarious“English”comfortablyaccommodatedBurnsian“Scotch.”

Butwithinhis1813lettertoWaldo,Jeffersonidentifedcertainexponentsofthelinguistic

“purism”towhichhewassostronglyopposed.Such“critics”werealsoconnectedwithScotland.

Jeffersonconfessed,

Ihavenotbeenalittledisappointed,andmadesuspiciousofmyownjudgement,on

seeingtheEdinburghReviews,theablestcriticsoftheage,settheirfacesagainstthe

introductionofnewwordsintotheEnglishlanguage;theyareparticularlyapprehensive

thatthewritersoftheUnitedStateswilladulterateit.10

Fortheformerpresident,Scottishauthorsservedasexemplarsbothofan“enriching”linguistic

intermixtureandofastalwart,conservativeadherencetothe“standards”imaginedtogovern

“English”discourse.JeffersonwasclearonwhichoutlookhedesiredforthefledglingAmerican

republic:

[…]shouldthelanguageofEnglandcontinuestationary,weshallprobablyenlargeour

employmentofit,untilitsnewcharactermayseparateitinnameaswellasinpower,

fromthemother-tongue.11

Jefferson’stestimonyhighlightsthemannerinwhichScotswritershadcometorepresent

bothamodelandachallengeforemergentsub-versionsof–andwithin–“thelanguageof

England”bytheearlynineteenthcentury.Desirousofadignified“Americandialect”comparabletoa

Burnsian“Scotch,”JeffersonfoundhimselfopposedbytheauthoritativeeditorsoftheEdinburgh

Review,the“ablestcriticsoftheage,”scepticaloffurther“adulterations”of“English”language.

6Peterson,Writings,p.1299.7Ibid.8ThomasJefferson,ReportoftheCommissionersfortheUniversityofVirginia,(1818),JeanM.Yarbroughed.,TheEssentialJefferson,(Indianapolis,2006),p.72.9Ibid.10Peterson,Writings,p.1295.11Ibid,p.1300.

|P a g e

114

Curiously,thelinguisticconcernsofpreviousgenerationsofScotsandAnglo-Americansarejudged

tohavebeenstrikinglysimilar.NotableparallelsweredrawninJohnCliveandBernardBailyn’s

seminalessayof1954,presentingScotlandandtheAmericancoloniesascomparable“cultural

provinces”ofaneighteenth-centuryEnglishimperium.CliveandBailynproposedthatthe

inhabitantsofthe“tworegions,”boundbyapervasiveawarenessoftheirown“peripheral”status

werecharacterisedbyasimilar“senseofguiltregardinglocalmannerisms,”andayearningto

emulatethe“Englishways”ofmetropolitanLondon.12

Conversely,thepulloftheEnglishcapitalwasreckonedtohavebeencounteredinboth

“peripheries”bya“compensatorylocalpride,evolvingintoapatriotism.”13CliveandBailyn

imaginedan“enlightened,”“creative”ScotsandAnglo-American“provincialculture”tohave

emergedinthe“mingling”ofthesetwocontendingelements,strikinganuneasybalancebetween

desiresfor“cosmopolitansophistication”andthe“simplicityandpurity[…]ofnativism.”14As

Jefferson’sexamplesuggests,tracesofthisawkwardconfluencewerestillevidentwithintheUnited

Statesintheearly1800s.However,forsomeScotslivingthroughthefinaldecadesoftheeighteenth

century,thefearforthetwin“provincial”threatsofsocial“alienation”andcultural“rootlessness”

wasalreadybeginningtoabate.15

CliveandBailynhavebeenrightlycriticisedforofferingalimitedinsightintorelations

betweenScotlandandtheAmericancolonies,focusinguponanarrow“province-metropole”

correlationthatneglectedthewiderinterplayofarangeofeighteenth-centuryculturalcentres.16

However,the“culturalprovince”modelstillfunctionsasaninstructiveroottothestudyoflate

eighteenth-centuryScottishandAnglo-Americansocio-culturalinterconnections.17AndrewHook’s

compelling1975investigationScotlandandAmericaidentifiesaScoto-Americanexchangesimilarly

typifiedbyashared“provincial”strivingforsupposed,Anglo-centred“correctness,”blendingwith

anincreasedappreciationforlocalised,“vernacular”literature.18

12JohnCliveandBernardBailyn,‘England’sCulturalProvinces:ScotlandandAmerica,’WilliamandMaryQuarterlyJournal,3,Vol.11,2,(April1954),200-13,pp.209,211.13Ibid,p.211.14Ibid,p.212.15Ibid.16RichardB.Sher,‘Introduction,’RichardB.SherandJeffreyR.Smitteneds.,ScotlandandAmericaintheAgeofEnlightenment,(Edinburgh,1990),pp.4-5.17See,forexample,WilliamR.Brock,ScotusAmericanus,(Edinburgh,1982),pp.168-71.18AndrewHook,ScotlandandAmerica:AStudyofCulturalRelations,1750-1835,(Glasgow,1975),pp.81-2,32,78-92,116-67.AlsoAndrewHook,FromGoosecreektoGandercleuch,(EastLinton,1999),pp.pp.25-57,94-115,ThomasP.Miller,‘Witherspoon,BlairandtheRhetoricofCivicHumanism,’ScotlandandAmerica,FranklinE.Court,‘ScottishliteraryteachinginNorthAmerica,’ScottishInventionofEnglishLiterature,Crawford,DevolvingEnglishLiterature,pp.176-82.

|P a g e

115

Inacomparablemanner,underlyingconceptionsofthelinguisticdistinctionsof“provincial”

ScotsandAnglo-Americans,uncomfortablysunderedbothphysicallyandpsychologicallyfroman

envisaged“English”core,areembeddedinSusanManning’s“puritan-provincialvision.”For

Manning,asemi-divergentuseoflanguagewasfundamental–seentoserveas“thesource”and

“manifestation”ofa“predeterminedpassivityanddistancefromtheheartofexperience,”

underpinningaScoto-American“provincialrelationshiptothecentre.”19Withaneyeforliterary

“fragments”and“disjunctions,”ManningobservedScottishandAnglo-Americanattitudestowards

languagetohavedemonstratedafamiliarly“provincial”senseofself-scrutinyinthefaceofassumed

authority.20StressingthedistinctionsinthelanguageofScotsandAnglo-Americanstobeonsome

levelreconcilabletoAnglo-centred“standards,”Manningpresentedthe“English”languageasa

pointofbothtransculturalintegrationand“interference”:

“English”wasatoncetheunavoidablemediumofwrittenexpressionforScotsand

Americansandanarenaofculturalconfrontationwheretheycouldbothfindthemselves

wanting(theyweren’t,afterall“native”Englishspeakers),and,inadifferentsense,“find

themselves”indeviancefromunitedBritain;linguisticmarkersweretheevidenceoftheir

differentidentity.21

Evidently,concernsfor“English”language“standards”andacceptable“dialectal”sub-versionsare

perceivedtohavebeenofcomparableconcernforeighteenth-century“provincials”onbothsidesof

theAtlantic.

Yet,bytheearlynineteenthcentury–ahistoricaljuncturenotablystraddlingboththe

passinggloryof“enlightenment”andthelaterfervourfortheworkofRobertBurnsandWalterScott

–Scotlandenteredintoanewageoflinguisticandliteraryself-assertion.Duringthisperiod,certain

Scotssub-versionsandlinguisticidiosyncrasieswerelaudedlikeneverbefore.22Atthesametime,

andfarfromcoincidentally,the“Scotchcritics”oftheEdinburghReviewestablishedthemselves

amongtheforemostliterary“lawgivers”ofanexpanding“Anglo-world.”

ThefocusofthischapterisdirectedoutwithScotlandtotheyoungrepublicoftheUnited

States.Withinthisturn-of-the-century,“post-colonial”contexttheincreasinglyconfident

articulationofScotssub-versionsarescrutinisedalongsideaparallelenthusiasmforthe“standards”

and“standardisation”ofanever-moreglobal“English.”YetbeforeturningtotheU.S.,itisnecessary

19SusanManning,Thepuritan-provincialvision,(Cambridge,1990),p.51.20Ibid,Manning,FragmentsofUnion,pp.241-52.21Manning,FragmentsofUnion,pp.259,250.22Letley,GalttoDouglasBrown,pp.49-51.

|P a g e

116

todwelluponthesignificanceofanintellectualgenerationmarkedbytheEdinburghReviewin

Scotland.

Despitehisdifferenceofopiniononthesubjectof“anAmericandialect,”ThomasJeffersonheldthe

EdinburghReviewinhighregard,declaringthepublication“unrivalledinmerit”anddestinedto

“becomearealEncyclopaedia,justlytakingitsstationinourlibrarieswiththemostvaluable

depositoriesofhumanknowledge.”23Notoriouslydifficulttoplease,memorablylampoonedbyLord

Byronas“youngtyrants”and“Northernwolves,”thewritersoftheReviewobtainedan

internationalreputationandcontemporaryliterary“authority”outstrippingthatofeventheScottish

literatiofthepreviousdecades.24

Establishedin1802bythreerestlessScotslawyers,FrancisJeffrey,FrancisHorner,and

HenryBrougham,alongwiththeAnglicanclergymanSydneySmith–“undisputedfather”ofthe

periodicalwhoservedasitsfirsteditor–theEdinburghReviewwasnotedbythefounderstohave

beenprimarilysetuptoserve“ourownamusementandimprovement–joinedwiththegratification

ofsomepersonal,andsomenationalvanity.”25Thiswasa“vanity”whichatonceadheredtoloose

Scoto-Britishtenetsofpoliticaland“philosophic”Whiggism,whilstalsoharbouringarathermore

specifiedattachmenttothehistoricdistinctionofScotlanditself.26

Theseearlynineteenth-centurycritics,representativeofamorecomfortablyAnglophile

Scots“elite,”havebeenseentoreflectanageofdiminishinginsecurityinissuesoflanguage;even

perceivedproponentsofadeft“conversationalexhibition”particulartotheScottishcapital.27

Nevertheless,inheritingthelingering“provincial”anxietiesandlinguisticapprehensionsoftheir

“enlightened”forebears,thewritersoftheReviewalsoremainedconsciousoftheinterconnections

betweennotionsofbothBritish“nation”and“locality,”(andimperial“province”and“metropole”),

23J.JeffersonLooneyed.,ThePapersofThomasJefferson,(Princeton,2010),12vols.,VII,p.367.24GeorgeGordonByron,EnglishBardsandScotchReviewers;aSatire,(1809:London,1810),pp.34,7.BartonSwaim,ScottishMenofLettersandtheNewPublicSphere,1802-1834,(Cranbury,2009),pp.23-4,JoanneShattock,PoliticsandReviewers,(Leicester,1989),pp.1-3,14-15,GeorgePottinger,HeirsoftheEnlightenment,(Edinburgh,1992).25JohnClive,ScotchReviewers,(London,1957),p.25,FrancisJeffreytoFrancisHorner,8September1803,quotedinHenryCockburn,LifeofFrancisJeffrey,(1852:Edinburgh,1872),2vols.,II,p.72.26Kidd,SubvertingScotland’sPast,p.10,JamesA.Greig,FrancisJeffreyoftheEdinburghReview,(London,1948),pp.50,BiancamariaFontana,Rethinkingthepoliticsofcommercialsociety:theEdinburghReview1802-1832,(Cambridge,1985),pp.2-3,113-46,182-5,WilliamChristie,TheEdinburghReviewintheLiteraryCultureofRomanticBritain,(London,2009),pp.47-58,IanDuncan,Scott’sShadow.TheNovelinRomanticEdinburgh,(Princeton,2007),pp.1-31.HornerandBroughamwereelectedtoParliamentasmembersoftheWhigparty.27Swaim,ScottishMenofLetters,p.76.Also,AlexBenchimol,IntellectualPoliticsandCulturalConflictintheRomanticPeriod.ScottishWhigs,EnglishRadicalsandtheMakingoftheBritishPublicSphere,(Farnham,2010),pp.97-117.

|P a g e

117

whilstsimilarlyupholdingthe“standards”seentogovernanEnglish“worldlanguage.”28Notably,it

waswithintheheydayoftheReviewthatScotslinguisticsub-versionsbegantobevociferouslyand

self-consciouslychampioned–oftenaccentuatingpangsofnationalisednostalgia.29

Butsuchbackward-lookingsentimentalitywasgenerallylesscharacteristicoftheReviewers

themselves.Indeed,theseindividualswereverymuchmenoftheirtime.Warilypraisedas“thefar

famedandfardreadedEdinburghReview”bythePhiladelphiaPortFolioin1811,theScottish

publicationwieldedawideliteraryauthorityonbothsidesoftheAtlanticduringthefirsthalfofthe

nineteenthcentury.30Fromitsinceptionin1802,theReviewwasinhighdemandwithintheUnited

States,andwassoonprintedinbothBostonandNewYorkCity.31

OpponentsoftheReviewacknowledgeditsformidableglobalreputation.Oneparticularly

combative1819critique,pennedby“AnAmerican”inresponsetotheReview’sstanceonthe“foul

stain”ofslaverywithintheU.S.,expressed“averyhighrespect”forthe“authorsofaliterary

journal”having“longstood”as“watchfulandfaithfulcentinels,[…]overtheliberties,theliterature,

andthemoralsofEurope,andwhosereportsareread,fromtheGangestotheMissouri.”32As

ThomasJefferson’sletterof1813indicates,the“EdinburghReviews”wereseenasnonetoofriendly

towardswriterswithintheUnitedStates,andthese“Scotchcritics”wereregularlyaccusedof

harbouringprejudicetowardsanemergentAmericanliterature.33Indeed,theReviewdisplayedan

28Ibid,pp.72-101.AlsoWilliamStClair,TheReadingNationintheRomanticPeriod,(Cambridge,2004),p.254.29ThisisreflectedindepictionsofthelanguageofFrancisJeffrey,thevenerableeditorwhopresidedovertheReviewfrom1802to1829.Muchlikehis“enlightenment”predecessors,JeffreywasmotivatedtomodifyhisScottishpronunciation,andlaterdiscussionsofthecriticfrequentlycomparehislinguisticconcernstothoseoftheeighteenth-centuryliterati,Clive,ScotchReviewers,pp.18-19,Pottinger,Heirs,pp.9,18-19,Grieg,FrancisJeffrey,p.57,PhilipFlynn,FrancisJeffrey,(London,1978),p.170.Jeffreywasinfamouslyunsuccessfulinhisendeavourstoacquireanacceptably“English”diction.Lockhart’sLetterstohisKinsfolk,andCockburn’sLifeofJeffreybothdwellonhisuniqueandoftentimesunseemlyEnglishstylings.Significantly,thetwoaccountsalsoofferadistinctlymorepositiveinterpretationofLowlandScotslanguage,reckonedtoexudean“airofbroadandundisguisedsincerity,”andreflect“thepreservationofaliteraturesopeculiarandsopicturesque,”a“classicScotch,ofwhichmuchisgoodEnglish.”JohnGibsonLockhart,Peter’sLetterstohisKinsfolk,(Edinburgh,1819),3vols.,II,p.70,Cockburn,LifeofFrancisJeffrey,I,pp.45-6.AswithearlieridealisationsofLowlandlanguage,this“classicScotch”wasmarkedbyitsownmarginality;suggestiveof“thelastpurelyScotchagethatScotlandwasdestinedtosee.”Cockburn,LifeofFrancisJeffrey,I,151.AlsoRamsay,ScotlandandScotsmen,II,pp.543-5.PaulHendersonScott,ScotlandResurgent.CommentsontheculturalandpoliticalrevivalofScotland,(Edinburgh,2003)pp.101-2.30‘CriticismforthePortFolio.EnglishBardsandScotchReviewers,aSatirebyLordByron,’PortFolio,NewSeries,V,1,(NewYork,1811),p.440.SeeHook,ScotlandandAmerica,pp.93-104.31ClaireElliotandAndrewHookeds.,FrancisJeffrey’sAmericanJournal:NewYorktoWashington1813,(Glasgow,2011),pp.xiii,87n.63.32Anon.,‘LettertotheEdinburghReviewers:by“AnAmerican,”’NationalIntelligencer(Washington),16November1819,pp.1,2.33Hook,ScotlandandAmerica,pp.99-100,Clive,ScotchReviewers,pp.168-8,175.SydneySmith’s1820article,‘WhoReadsanAmericanBook?’isfrequentlyreferencedasvitalformativetextwithinanAmerican

|P a g e

118

intriguinglydifferentattitudetowardsScotsandAmericansub-versionsof–andwithin–this

“English”language.34

Famously,theReviewprintedahugelyinfluentialdiscussionofthepoetryofRobertBurnsin

1809,inwhichFrancisJeffrey,authorofthepiece,issuedarousing,yetsomewhatdefensive

celebrationofcertainScotsforms.Essentially,JeffreypresentedBurnsiandiscourseinanotably

sentimentallight,projectedalongwithaconspicuoustintofScotstriumphalism.Inalengthy

digression,JeffreyinsistedBurns’slanguage,“thisScotch,”was“nottobeconsideredasaprovincial

dialect,–thevehicleofonlyrusticvulgarityandrudelocalhumour.”35“TheScotch”wasdeclareda

tongue“bynomeanspeculiartothevulgar,”andhonouredas“thelanguageofawholecountry,–

longanindependentkingdom,andstillseparateinlaws,characterandmanners.”36

LookingbacktoanimaginedageoflinguisticstabilityandseparateScots“standards,”the

ReviewimbuedLowlandlanguage–“thecommonspeechofthewholenationinearlylife”–witha

prestigepredicateduponanemotionalattachmenttoadeclining“olden”age.Alludingtowhatwas,

inalllikelihood,theambivalenceofhimselfandhiscolleaguesattheReview,Jeffreyadmitted“[i]n

latertimes”suchlanguage“hasbeen,insomemeasure,laidasidebythemoreambitiousand

aspiringofthepresentgeneration.”37YettheeditorinsistedthatScotsformswere“stillrecollected,”

“evenbythem”whohadgravitatedtowardsEnglish“standards,”upheld“asthefamiliarlanguageof

theirchildhood,andofthosewhoweretheearliestobjectsoftheirloveandveneration”:

Itisconnectedintheirimagination,notonlywiththatoldentime,whichisuniformly

conceivedasmorepure,lofty,andsimplethanthepresent,butalsowithallthesoftand

brightcoloursofrememberedchildhoodanddomesticaffection.38

Thisreflectionuponrose-tintedtonesof“domesticaffection”wasaccompaniedbyaninsistence

upontheliterarysuperiorityof“theScotch”evocativeofthesmeddumofthelikesofAlexander

GeddesandJohnJamieson:

literarycanon.BranderMatthews,AmericanismsandBriticismswithotheressaysonIsms,(NewYork,1892),p.103,SusanHarrisSmith,AmericanDrama,TheBastardArt,(Cambridge,1997),p.9,EmoryElliot,TheCambridgeIntroductiontoEarlyAmericanLiterature,(Cambridge,2002),p.170,RichardGravil,RomanticDialogues.Anglo-AmericanContinuities,1776-1862,(Penrith,2015),pp.92-101.34Foradiscussionofanti-AmericanbiaswithintheReview,seePaulWheelerMowbray,AmericaThroughBritishEyes,(AnnArbour,1935),Hook,ScotlandandAmerica,p.100,JosephEaton,TheAnglo-AmericanPaperWar.DebatesabouttheNewRepublic,1800-1825,(London,2012),pp.83-5,105-7,141-3,PamPerkins,‘ReviewingAmerica:FrancisJeffrey,TheEdinburghReview,andtheUnitedStates,’Scotlandandthe19th-CenturyWorld.35FrancisJeffrey,‘RobertBurns,’EdinburghReview,XIII,(1808-9),ContributionstotheEdinburghReview,(London,1853),p.429.36Ibid.37Ibid.38Ibid.

|P a g e

119

[…]itisthelanguageofagreatbodyofpoetry,withwhichalmostallScotchmenare

familiar;and,inparticular,ofagreatmultitudeofsongs,writtenwithmoretenderness,

nature,andfeeling,thananyotherlyriccompositionsthatareextant,[…]theScotchis,in

reality,ahighlypoeticallanguage;andthatitisanignorant,aswellasanilliberal

prejudice,whichwouldseektoconfounditwiththebarbarousdialectsofYorkshireor

Devon.39

DriventoshieldScotsformsfrom“illiberalprejudice”whilstnotablydismissing“barbarous”

English“dialects,”JeffreyfocussedonthelinguisticaccomplishmentsofBurns,emphasisingthe

poet’sAnglo-centredcredentials.“IncomposinghisScottishpoems,”Jeffreyinsisted,“Burnsdidnot

merelymakeaninstinctiveandnecessaryuseoftheonlydialecthecouldemploy,”stressingthatthe

Ayrshirepoet“couldwriteinthedialectofEnglandwithfargreaterpurityandproprietythannine

tenthsofthosewhoarecalledwelleducatedinthatcountry.”40

Thus,thenewfoundliteraryrespectabilityofcertainScotsformstiedinwithaninsistence

uponBurns’suncompromisedproficiency“inthedialectofEngland.”Assuch,Jeffreyreiterated

AllanRamsay’scentury-oldassertionofaScottish“mastery”oftheEnglishlanguage;an

accomplishmentperceivedtoaccordpost-unionScotstheauthoritytoincorporatetheirown“liquid

andsonorous”pronunciationand“nativeWordsofeminentSignificancy”withinanexplicitly

“British”discourse.41

InhisconsiderationofBurns’sskillinharnessing“English,”Jeffreypaidtributeto“the

variationspreservedbyDrCurrie,”alludingtoJamesCurrie–thepoet’seditorandbiographerwho

hadonceattemptedtoestablishhimselfasamerchantontheJamesRiverinVirginia.42Currie,later

physiciantoavibrantScotscommunityatLiverpool,hadonceadmittedtohissisterAnnetotolerate

“nothingsolittleastheawkwardattemptsofaScotsmantobeanEnglishman.”43Yetwithinhis1800

anthologyofBurns’sworkandcorrespondence,Curriewaskeentoassertthepoet’s“English”

acumen.

CurriefamouslyquotedtheEdinburghprofessorandphilosopherDugaldStewart.Stewart,

whohadservedassomethingofanintellectualmentortoseveralofthefoundersoftheEdinburgh

Review,acknowledgedBurns’s“remarkable”turnofphrase;emphasisingthe“fluency[…]precision,

andoriginalityofhislanguage,”andrecognisingthatasthepoet,“aimedatpurityinhisturnof

39Ibid,p.430.40Ibid.41AllanRamsay,Poems,(Edinburgh,1721),2vols.,I,p.vii,Crawford,DevolvingEnglishLiterature,p.105.42Jeffrey,Contributions,p.430.SeeRobertDonaldThornton,JamesCurrie.TheEntireStrangerandRobertBurns,(London,1963),pp.32-66.43QuotedinThornton,JamesCurrie,p.234.

|P a g e

120

expression,”he“avoidedmoresuccessfullythanmostScotchmen,thepeculiaritiesofScottish

phraseology.”44Curriealsoofferedtestimonyoftheuncommondegreeofencouragementwhich

BurnshadreceivedinhisEnglishstudies,andprovidedtheperspectiveofhisboyhoodschoolmaster

–whohadnotedthatthepoet’sfather,WilliamBurness,

[…]spoketheEnglishlanguagewithmorepropriety,(bothwithrespecttodictionand

pronunciation)thananymanIknewwithnogreatadvantages.Thishadaverygood

effectontheboys,whobegantotalk,andreasonlikemen,muchsoonerthantheir

neighbours.45

Thedrivetodiscussthe“English”affinityandappealofBurnsisevidentwithinCurrie’sown

“prefatoryremarks,”whereheinsisteduponthecapacityofdistinctScotsformstobeencased

withinawider“English”framework.“Thoughthedialect”ofBurns’s“happiesteffusions”was

reckoned“peculiartoScotland,”Curriecelebratedthepan-nationalappealofthepoet’s

“reputation,”which“extendeditselfbeyondthelimitsofthatcountry,”“admiredastheoffspringof

originalgenius,bypersonsoftasteineverypartofthesisterislands.”46CurrielikenedBurns’s

handlingofarangeoflinguisticelementsto“amusicianthatrunsfromthelowesttothehighestof

hiskeys,”supposing“theuseoftheScottishdialectenableshimtoaddtwoadditionalnotestothe

bottomofhisscale.”47CurrieallocatedBurns’sScotsan“additional,”identifiablysub-versivestatus

withinthisassignedsetofsocio-linguisticparameters,admittedwithinanAnglo-centred“scale”yet

distinguishedthroughaconspicuouspresenceatthe“bottom.”

AsbothLeithDavisandCarolMcGurikhavediscussed,Currie’sinterpretationofBurns

servedtodirectastreamoflaternineteenth-centuryperspectives,merginga“culturalmemory”of

thepoetwithScoto-Britishpatriotism.48ForCurrie,suchaScots-Britishbondingwascomplicatedby

whathesawasthedemandfora“rapidchange”of“manneranddialect.”49Theseassociations

clearlycontributedtotheincreasinglypicturesqueoutlookonScottishidiosyncrasyintheearly

nineteenthcentury,fusinganemotiveculturalpreservationwith“personsoftaste.”50Indeed,Currie

44JamesCurrieed.,TheWorksofRobertBurns,(1800:London,1806),4vols.,I,p.137.ForStewartandtheEdinburghReviewsee,Clive,ScotchReviewers,pp.24-5,Pottinger,Heirs,pp.6,21,54,67,Benchimol,IntellectualPoliticsandCulturalConflict,pp.57-9,101-3.45Currie,Burns,I,p.95.46Ibid,I,p.1.47Ibid,I,pp.328-9.48CarolMcGuirk,‘ThePoliticsofTheCollectedBurns,’W.N.HerbertandRichardPriceeds.,GairfishDiscovery,(BridgeofWeir,1991),p.37,CarolMcGuirk,‘HauntedbyAuthority:Nineteenth-centuryAmericanConstructionsofRobertBurnsandScotland,’RobertCrawforded.,RobertBurnsandCulturalAuthority,(Edinburgh,1997),pp.144,151-2,LeithDavis,‘NegotiatingCulturalMemory:JamesCurrie’sWorksofRobertBurns,’InternationalJournalofScottishLiterature,6,(Spring/Summer2010),pp.1-16.49Currie,Burns,I,p.25,50Ibid.

|P a g e

121

perceivedthewaningofnational“peculiarity”toblendwithsentimental-yet-celebratory

assumptionsofexile,ankeycharacteristicofverbaltartanry:

[…]thesceneryofacountry,thepeculiarmannersitsinhabitants,andthemartial

achievementsoftheirancestorsareembodiedinnationalsongs,andunitedtonational

music.Bythiscombination,thetiesthatattachmentothelandoftheirbirthare

multipliedandstrengthened;andtheimagesofinfancy,stronglyassociatingwiththe

generousaffections,resisttheinfluenceoftime,andofnewimpressions;theyoften

surviveincountriesfardistant,andamidstfardifferentscenes,tothelatestperiodsof

life,tosoothetheheartwiththepleasuresofmemory,whenthoseofhopedieaway.51

Inafurtherdiscussion,Currieoutlinedtheessenceofverbaltartanryitself.Followingon

fromhisbottom-of-the-scaleanalogy,thebiographerattemptedtoreconcileBurns’s“peasant”

lexiconwithawider,moresocially“respectable”Scottishappreciationofhisverse.Currie

“confidentlypredicted”thatthe“beautifulstrain”ofBurns“willbesungwithequalorsuperior

interest,onthebanksoftheGangesoroftheMississippi,asonthoseoftheTayortheTweed”:

Burnswroteprofessionallyforthepeasantryofhiscountry,andbythemtheirnative

dialectisuniversallyrelished.ToanumerousclassofthenativesofScotlandofanother

descriptionitmayalsobeconsideredasattractiveinadifferentpointofview.Estranged

fromtheirnativesoil,andspreadoverforeignlands,theidiomoftheircountryunites

withthesentimentsandthedescriptionsonwhichitisemployed,torecal[sic.]totheir

mindstheinterestingscenesofinfancyandyouth–toawakenmanypleasing,many

tenderrecollections.Literarymen,residingatEdinburghorAberdeen,cannotjudgeon

thispointforonehundredandfiftythousandoftheirexpatriatedcountrymen.52

Inthismanner,legionsof“expatriatedcountrymen”wereanticipatedtoleadthechargeina

sentimentalreconfigurationofLowlandlanguage.Currie,himselfwithpersonalexperienceofliving

outwithScotland,wasanotableexponentofthis.

Yet,thisreadingofaBurnsian“Scotch”hadalsobecomegenerallyacceptableto“literarymen.”

FrancisJeffrey,citingCurrie’saccountwithinhisowndiscussionofBurns,offeredanamplificationof

thebiographer’snegotiationofLowlandformswithinAnglo-centredliterary“standards.”Jeffrey’s

perspectiveofferedaredoubtable,oft-quotedreappraisalofScotssub-versions,andwasfrequently

reprintedonbothsidesoftheAtlanticthroughoutthefollowingdecades.Aslateasthespringof

51Ibid,I,p.30.52Ibid,I,pp.329-30.

|P a g e

122

1844,near-identicalextractsfromJeffrey’sBurns-baseddiscussionofthe“Scotchdialect”appeared

innewspapersasfar-removedastheLancasterGazetteandthePhiladelphiaNorthAmerican.53

Thoughundoubtedlyfavourable,Jeffrey’sreviewdidnothesitatetopointoutcertain

defectsobservedwithintheworkofBurns.Perceivingthepoettohavetaken“muchgreaterpains

withthebeautyandpurityofhisexpressionsinScotchthaninEnglish,”Jeffreysaw“muchto

censure,aswellasmuchtopraise.”54Burns’s“Scottishcompositions”were“greatlypreferredtohis

Englishones,”andJeffreywasparticularlyunimpressedbyonesignificantaspectofBurns’soeuvre.55

Jeffreywasperturbedbyagenerallackof“propriety.”56LikeningcertainBurnsianelements

to“theveryslangoftheworstGermanplaysandthelowestofourtownnovels,”Jeffreysupposed

the“leadingviceinBurns’scharacter,”and“cardinaldeformity”within“allofhisproductions,”tobe

“hiscontempt,oraffectationofcontempt,forprudence,decencyandregularity;andhisadmiration

ofthoughtlessness,oddity,andvehementsensibility.”57Acritiqueofacomparable“irregularity”

gracedthepagesoftheEdinburghReviewoneyearlater,colouringJeffrey’sdiscussionoftheAnglo-

AmericanpoetJoelBarlowandhis1807“transatlanticEpic”theColumbiad.58TheReview

disapprovedofbothBarlowandBurns’sapparentlackofadherencetocanonicalliterary

“standards.”Yetessentially,itwasBarlow’sAmericanlexiconandBurns’sEnglishverses,which

receivedthestrongestcriticism.TheScot’semploymentofLowlandformslargelyescapedsuch

censure.

Barlow–Anglo-Americanpolymathanddiplomat,whohadoncerepresentedU.S.interests

atthehostile“Barbary”portsofAlgiers,Tunis,andTripoli–wasreckonedtohavecomposed,“the

firstspecimenof[…]anyconsiderableworkcomposedinanAmericantongue.”59Thiswasafairly

dubiousaccolade.AswithhisperceptionofBurns’s“contempt”fortherulesof“prudence,decency

andregularity,”JeffreydeemedBarlow’s“Americantongue”toshowsimilardeficiencyintermsof

toneandlinguisticdecorum.Barlow’sepicwasviewedtodemonstrate“thewantofaliterary

society,toanimate,controul,andrefine,”andobservedtobetraya“curiousintermixture”of

53‘SelectedAnecdotes&c.,’LancasterGazetteandGeneralAdvertiserforLancashire,Westmorland,6April,1844,nopage,‘TheScotchDialect,’NorthAmericanandDailyAdvertiser,(Philadelphia)24May1844,p.1.54Jeffrey,Contributions,pp.430,427.55Ibid,pp.427-8.56SusanManning,PoeticsofCharacter.TransatlanticEncounters1700-1900,(Cambridge,2013),p.254.57Jeffrey,Contributions,p.426.58Anon.[FrancisJeffrey],‘TheColumbiad:aPoembyJoelBarlow,’EdinburghReview,XV(Edinburgh,1809-10),p.25.59Ibid,p.28.SeeRichardBuelJr.,JoelBarlow.AmericanCitizeninaRevolutionaryWorld,(Baltimore,2011).

|P a g e

123

register–combiningan“extremehomelinessandflatness,withasortofturbulentandbombastic

elevation.”60

JeffreydeclaredBarlow’sphraseology“maybeknownfromallothertonguesbyanutter

disregardofalldistinctionbetweenwhatshouldbecalledloftyandelegant,andlowandvulgar

expressions.”61DrawingsardonicparallelsbetweenthelanguageoftheColumbiadandearly

Americanpolitics,theScotsupposed,“[t]heserepublicanliteratiseemtomakeitapointof

consciencetohavenoaristorcraticaldistinctions–evenintheirvocabulary.”62AlthoughJeffrey’s

considerationoftheColumbiadwasbynomeanswhollynegative,Barlow’sindifferencetosocio-

linguistic“distinction”wasseenasanunforgivableflaw.TheReviewconcludedthatifthepoet

“wouldpaysomeattentiontopurityofstyle,andsimplicityofcomposition,andcherishinhimselfa

certainfastidiousnessoftaste”–“notyettobefound[…]evenamongthebettereducated”ofhis

compatriots–itwaspredictedthattheAmerican“mightproducesomethingwhichEnglishpoets

wouldenvy,andEnglishcriticsapplaud.”63Bycontrast,the“Scotch”ofBurnsappearstohavebeen

morethancapableofachievingthiselusive“English”approval.

In1820,JeffreywasrequiredtodefendhisassessmentofBarlow’sColumbiad,respondingto

a“singularlyunjustattack”upontheEdinburghReviewwithinRobertWalsh’sAppealfromthe

JudgementsofGreatBritainofthepreviousyear,whichaccusedtheScottishperiodicalofanti-

Americanbias.64InhisAppeal,Walsh–anativeofBaltimorewhohadestablishedtheAmerican

ReviewatPhiladelphiain1811–wasdriventocontestthe“slanders”“incessantlyheaped”uponthe

UnitedStates“byBritishwriters,”andprotestedthe“excessesofobloquy”oftheEdinburghand

QuarterlyReviewsinparticular.65

InhiscritiqueoftheAppeal,JeffreyrespondedtoWalsh’sallegations,brusquelyrejectinghis

chargeofprejudice.JeffreycitedanextractfromanearliereditionoftheReview,“our12thVolume,”

andstoodbyhisopinionofliteratureinAmerica,reassertingtheinfamousstatementthat

“Americansdonotwritebooks.”66However,theeditorcontended,“itmustnotbeinferred,from

this,thattheyareindifferentaboutliterature,”projectingaviewofa“provincial”American

intelligentsia,dependentuponAnglo-centredmetropolitandirection:

60[Jeffrey],‘Columbiad,’p.25.61Ibid,p.29.62Ibid.63Ibid,p.39.64FrancisJeffrey,‘UnitedStatesofAmerica,’EdinburghReviewXXXIII,(1820),Contributions,p.799.65RobertWalsh,AnAppealfromtheJudgementsofGreatBritainrespectingtheUnitedStatesofAmerica,(Philadelphia,1819),pp.iv,vi.66Jeffrey,Contributions,p.808.

|P a g e

124

[…]theygetbooksenoughfromusintheirownlanguage;andare,inthisrespect,justin

theconditionofanyofourgreattradingormanufacturingdistrictsathome,withinthe

localityofwhichthereisnoencouragementforauthorstosettle.67

AnAmerican“condition”waslikenedtothatofcertainBritish“localities,”seentoprovidea

comparablelackofcreative“encouragement”orappeal.

Inlightofthis,JeffreychallengedWalsh’sclaimsof“national”prejudice.Reiteratinghis

earlierverdictontheColumbiad,thecriticadmitted“[i]tisverytruethatwehavelaughedathis

strangeneologisms,andpointedoutsomeofitsothermanifoldfaults,”butqueried“isitpossiblefor

anyonetoseriouslybelieve,thatthisgentlecastigationwasdictatedbynationalanimosity?”68

RecallinghisownsuggestionsforBarlowto“paysomeattentiontopurityofstyleandsimplicityof

composition”bywayofgaining“English”appreciation,JeffreydismissedWalsh’scriticism,musing

“[a]rethereanytraceshere,[…]ofnationalspiteandhostility?”69Indeed,Jeffreyproclaimedhis

ownbenevolenceandimpartialityindirectingan“appropriate,”Anglo-centreddiscourse:

[…]isitnottrue,thatouraccountofthepoemis,onthewhole,notonlyfairbut

favourable,andthetoneofourremarksasgood-humoured,andfriendlyasiftheauthor

hadbeenawhiggishScotchman?70

Jeffrey’sremarkpointstoacertaindegreeofself-consciousness,withtheeditor

emphasisingthatallauthors,eventhe“whiggishScotchman”typesoftheReview,wereopento

stylisticcensure.Acknowledgingthe“friendly”directionrequiredbybothScotsandAnglo-

Americansintheirattempted“English”composition,Jeffreyhintedatalingeringanxietyin

employingsuchtropes,awell-notedcharacteristicofearlier“provincial”apprehensionswithinboth

nations.

ButBurnsian“Scotch”wasviewedinadifferentlight,andnolongerboundbysuch

circumscription.ThoughScottishandAnglo-Americanconsternationoveracceptablelinguisticand

cultural“standards”wouldrumbleonthroughoutthecenturies,everconsciousofAnglo-British

scorn,certainLowlandlinguistictraits,exemplifiedinthe“Scotch”ofBurns,becameconfidently

articulatedandmarkedwithevermoreaplomb.

67Ibid.68Ibid,p.809.69Ibid.70Ibid.

|P a g e

125

ThisisdemonstratedbyabriefAnglo-AmericanscatteringofScotspoetryattheturnofthe

nineteenthcentury.Asnumerousscholarshaveshown,Scottishliteraryandintellectualconnections

weredeeplyembeddedwithinthesocio-culturalframeworkoftheformerBritishcoloniesinNorth

America.71Jefferson,afamousenthusiastbothforthepoetryofOssianandtherhetoricof

“enlightenment”intellectualssuchasHughBlair,providesanotable,butbynomeansatypical

example.72ConnectingthepopularityofRobertBurnstoanearlierAmericanappreciationofsuch

textsasJohnHome’sDouglasandthepoetryofOssianandRamsay,AndrewHookconvincinglylinks

thevoguefora“heroic,”“self-consciouslyScottish”literaryrepresentationintheUnitedStateswith

alaterinterestinmore“vernacular”stylingsinspiredbythe“ploughmanpoet.”73

TheworkofBurnswaswellknownwithintheUnitedStates,andvolumesofhispoetrywere

regularlyprintedatPhiladelphia,Boston,Baltimore,andNewYorkCitythroughoutthe1790sand

theearlydecadesofthenineteenthcentury.74Hooklocatesa“flourishingoff-shoot”ofa“Scottish

vernaculartradition”withintheUnitedStatesatthisveryperiod,uncoveringaremarkableflowering

ofScoto-AmericanpoetrycloselyassociatedwithBurnsiantonesandtropes.75Printedprimarily

withinliterarymagazinessuchasthePhiladelphiaPortFolio,thissprinklingofScots-inflectedverse,

ofteninspiredbyanddirectlyaddressedtoBurns,highlightstheearlysynonymyestablished

betweentheAyrshirepoetandgeneralconceptionsofLowlandlanguage.Whilethisbrief,popular

manifestationofdiasporicpoetrydiddisplayelementsofaspecificallyScottishsenseofrustic

nostalgia,thissub-versivesproutingwassomewhatmorethanamere“off-shoot”ofadomestic

branchofScotsliterature.Infact,twoofthemostprolificpoetsdidnotidentifyas“Scots.”Rather,

theymadeaconcertedefforttoproclaimthemselves“Scots-Irish.”

DavidBruce,“Scots-Irishman”ofPennsylvaniaandRobertDinsmoor,“RusticBard”from

NewHampshire,provideafascinatingdemonstrationofScotsformsharnessedtoparticular“post-

71Keytextsinclude,Hook,ScotlandandAmerica,pp.73-173,SherandSmitten.,ScotlandandAmericaintheAgeofEnlightenment,WilliamC.Lehmann,ScottishandScotch-IrishContributionstoEarlyAmericanLifeandCulture,(London,1978),107-56,SusanManningandFrancisD.Coglianoeds.,TheAtlanticEnlightenment,(Aldershot,2008).72TheScotWilliamSmall,Jefferson’sprofessorandmentorattheCollegeofWilliamandMary,isviewedasaninfluentialfigure,JohnDosPassos,TheHeartandHeadofThomasJefferson,(NewYork,1954),pp.84-102,FrancisW.Hirst,LifeandLettersofThomasJefferson,(NewYork,1926),pp.24-6.ForJefferson’senthusiasmforScotsauthors,Ossianinparticular,seeDouglasL.Wilsoned.,Jefferson’sLiteraryCommonplaceBook,(Princeton,1989),pp.13,141-5,150-1,171-3,AndrewBurnstein,TheInnerJefferson,(Charlottesville,1996),pp.31-4,127-30,IainMcLean,‘ScottishEnlightenmentinfluenceonThomasJefferson’sBook-Buying:IntroducingJefferson’sLibraries,’OxfordUniversity,Nuffield’sWorkingPapersSeries,(2011):https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/2011/Iain%20McLean_working%20paper%202011_01.pdf73Hook,ScotlandandAmerica,p.117,127-30.74RhonaBrown,‘“Guidblackprent”:RobertBurnsandtheContemporaryScottishandAmericanPeriodicalPress,’BurnsandTransatlanticCulture,pp.79-82.Hook,ScotlandandAmerica,p.129.75Hook,ScotlandandAmerica,p.133.

|P a g e

126

colonial”concernsofcertain“white-settler”networkswithintheearlyAmericanrepublic.The

differingrangeandinterestsofthese“Scots-Irish”writerssuggestthepotentialforabroad

employmentofLowlandlanguagewithintheUnitedStatesattheturnofthecentury.Thereisa

significantsmatteringofémigrésentimentalitythroughouttheworkofthetwo“Scots-Irish”writers,

andbothoftenoperatewithinaBurnsianframework.However,itisimportanttonotethat

DinsmoorandBruce,respectivelyborninthe1750sand1760s,werenearcontemporariesofBurns,

andunlikelytohaveidolisedthepoetinamannercomparabletothatofsubsequentgenerations.

Indeed,theexpandinginfluenceofBurns,andtheever-increasingassumptionthathis

poetrytypifiedallScotsforms,canbegleanedfromBruceandDinsmoor’scollections.Perhaps

surprisinglygiventhechosentitle,theeditorofBruce’s1801PoemsChieflyintheScottishDialect

providesonlypassingreferencetoBurns,makingnoattempttodrawcomparisonswithBruce’sown

employmentofScotsphraseology.Instead,mirroringtheattitudeofCurrieandJeffrey,theeditor

assertedthe“propriety”ofBruce’slanguage,stressingthatthepoet’s“choice”ofScotsformswas

nomereconsequenceofan“incapacity”in“English”:

Itishopedthatthelanguagewillbefoundsimple,natural,andcorrect,thesentiment

just,andevidentlyflowingfromageniusofnomeanorder.Thosewhodonotunderstand

theScotslanguage,willbedeprivedofgreatpleasure,whicheveryonewhodoeswill

certainlyreceiveinperusalofthosepoemswritteninthenativedialectoftheAuthor.

ManyhaveregrettedthathedidnotwritemoreinEnglish.–Thespecimensheregiven

arefullproofthattheAuthor’schoicedidnotproceedfromincapacity.76

However,DinsmoorwascompelledtoaddresstheBurnsianconnectionwithinhisIncidental

Poems,printedatthemarkedlylaterdateof1828.Writinginthethirdperson,Dinsmoorinsistedon

his“new-world”difference:

ItmaybesaidhewritesintheScotchdialect,andwithamanifestreferencetoBurns.

RespectinghisusingtheScotchdialect,wewouldremarkthatheisreallyofScotch

descent,thoughofAmericanbirth;andbegantowritepoetryprobablybeforeheknew

thatBurnsexisted.77

The“RusticBard”acknowledgedadebttoBurns,yetassertedhisessentiallyAmerican

redeploymentofScotsforms:

[…]insteadofcharginghimwithimitatingBurns,weareratherastonishedatthegood

senseanddiscrimination,whichledhimtomaketheproperuseofhisfavouriteauthor.

76DavidBruce,PoemsChieflyintheScottishDialect,(Washington,1801),p.viii.77RobertDinsmoor,IncidentalPoemsaccompaniedwithletters,(Haverhill,1828),pp.viii-ix.

|P a g e

127

Whateversimilitudetheremaybebetweenthem,heshewspeculiarjudgementinnot

transfusingasinglesampleofforeignsceneryintohisnativeland.IfheresemblesBurns,

itiswithallthediversityofthetwocountriesinwhicheachwereborn.Burnsisthebonny

DoonflowingthroughthebanksandbraesofScotland,andDinsmoor,istheMerrimack,

passingthroughourwesternsoilandreflectingfromitscrustalbedthewesternscenery

throughwhichitpasses.78

Tellingly,BruceandDinsmoor’spublicationsstandnearthebeginningandendofthisearly

nineteenth-centurydiasporicupsurgeofScots-inflectedpoetry.WhileBrucereferredtoBurnsand

regularlyemployedhistrademarkStandardHabbiestanza,the1801Poemsofferednosubstantial,

self-reflectivecomparisontotheScotspoet.Rather,Bruce’seditoremphasisedthelinguistic

“correctness”anddexterityofthe“Scots-Irishman”inasimilarmannertocontemporarydevoteesof

Burns.Bycontrast,Dinsmoor’slatervolumeappearsobligedtonegotiatethetheninescapable

associationswiththeAyrshirepoet,assertinganembeddingofBurnsianelementswithin“our

westernsoil.”

ButBruceandDinsmoordomorethanhighlighttheascensionofBurnsasatransatlantic

Scotsicon.Bothpoets,andtheirconspicuousemploymentofLowlandlanguage,providean

invaluableglimpseintothesocio-politicalprioritiesofearlynineteenth-century“Scots-Irish”migrant

networks.79Indeed,BruceandDinsmoorreflectintriguinglydifferentdiasporicperspectives.

Bruce’spoemsoftenfollowapolemicalFederalistagenda,andaScotsinflectionfrequently

supplementshishearty,anti-“Jacobin”sentiments:

I,farowreth’Atlantic’swave

Athoughtlessmultitudeamang,

FraemadDemocracytosave,

Puroutmyunavailingsang.80

DedicatinghisPoemstoAlexanderAddison–PresidentofthePennsylvaniaCourtsofCommonPleas

laterimpeachedonaccusation“ofgreatabusesandindelicaciesasaman”–Bruce’sphraseology

underpinnedasimplerage,unencumberedbyseditious,graspingradicalism:

Thaesangsarewritteninthephrase

78Ibid,pp.viii-ix.79Fordiscussionsof“Scot’sIrish”migrationtotheU.S.,seeJamesG.Leyburn,TheScotch-Irish.ASocialHistory,(Durham,NorthCarolina,1962),PatrickGriffin,ThePeoplewithNoName.Ireland’sUlsterScots,America’sScotsIrish,andtheCreationoftheBritishAtlanticWorld,1689-1764,(Princeton,2001).80DavidBruce,‘Paddy’sAdvice,’quotedinHarryR.Warfel,‘DavidBruce,FederalistPoetofWesternPennsylvania,’WesternPennsylvaniaHistoricalMagazine,July-October,1925,8,3-4,p.1.

|P a g e

128

Ourforbearsspakeinitherdays

Douce,honestcarls!ontheirbraes

Theyliv'dfu’snug,

Wi'sober,simple,peacefu'ways,

Antoom'dtheircogg.

Theyhadnaheardo’TamasPaine,

An'a'thediabolictrain

Hisprincipleshaebroughtonmen

Theypaidtheirrent;

An,’findingilkthingelsetheiraitt,

Theywerecontent.[OriginalEmphasis].81

BrucealsolinkedLowlandlanguagetoconceptionsofScottishpoliticalprideandrationality.

His‘VersesonReadingthePoemsofRobertBurns’combinearusticScotsidyllwithacutting

depictionofanemerginggenerationofAmericanpoliticians,dismissiveofFederalisticons.

HonouringBurns,“saesweetinhamelyphrase,”Bruceaddressedthepoetfromacynicalpolitical

standpoint:

But,whathadmaistemploy’dyourvein,

An’faundyeaythereadiestgame,

Wadbeourpoliticians;

Theyswarmlikeflees,an’bizz,an’sting,

An’dabtheirsnoutsinilkathing,

Withoutorleaveorlicense.

Itmaksnawharethedeiltheycomefrae,

Ancetheysetfootupo'thecountrie,

They'refill'dwi’inspiration:

Theirdepthofknowledge,monyfathoms

Dingsthato'Washingtonan'Adams

Toguidean'rulethenation![Originalemphasis].82

81ThomasLloyd,TheTrialofAlexanderAddison,Esq.,(Lancaster,1803),p.5,Bruce,Poems,p.xii.82Bruce,Poems,pp.30-1.

|P a g e

129

Crucially,the“Scots-Irishman”intersperseshiscollectionwithadditional,Scots-accented

Federalistvoices,suchasthatofhisfellowScotsémigréHughHenryBrackenridge–“britherBrack”

–theauthor-editorandJusticeoftheSupremeCourtofPennsylvaniawhomBruceengagedina

good-naturedboutofpoeticflyting.83Brucealsoincludedahumorousaddress‘ToPeterPorcupine,”

ofPorcupine’sGazetteofPhiladelphia,inwhichhescornedtheeditor’sdislikeofhis“crabbed

Scotch,”offeringasalutetotheanti-“Jacobin”stanceof“myneeborPeter,”inironic,unapologetic

Scotsphraseology.84

Mostnotably,inhis‘NewSongfortheJacobins,’Brucerespondedtoattemptsofhispolitical

antagonists“toridiculetheAuthor'sScotsdialect.”85Targetinghis“Jacobin”detractors,Bruce

offeredamockapology:

[t]heAuthorisreallysorry,thathecouldnotaccommodatethelanguageofthisSongto

thedelicateorgansofthoseforwhoseuseitisdesigned;butindeedtheymustblamethe

perverseobstinacyoftheMuse.86

ThepoetpresentedhimselfindebatewithhisScots“Muse,”imploring“her,foronce,toexchange

herbarbarouspronunciationforthesoftertonesofamorecultivatedlanguage,”insisting“her

“cannas”and“dinnas”werebecomequiteintolerable”:

[…]butthetestylittleScotsGentlewomangrewangry—calledhim‘senselesscooff’—

‘witlessgowk,’and‘gilly-gapas’—Shesaidthatshehadsunghersongsinhernative

dialecttofarbetterfolkthanhimorhisfine-ear'dJacobins,towhom,shesupposed,he

nowintendedtomakehiscourt;shecalledhim‘fause,ungratefu’tyke’;thathaditnot

beenforher‘barbarouspronunciation,’andher‘intolerablecannasanddinnas,’hisname

wouldnotbeknownsixmilesfromhiscabbin,butnowitwasspreadalloverthecountry,

andbyandbyeitwouldgetintoabook,andbe,perhaps,carriedallovertheContinent.87

Clearly,BrucepresentedhisuseofLowlandlanguageinstaunchpoliticaloppositionto“fine-ear’d

Jacobins,”alsoassertinghisownsub-versiverenownasapoet,“carriedallovertheContinent”asa

possibleconsequenceofhisdistinctiveScotsforms.

Bruce’sbrandingasthe“Scots-Irishman”wascalculatedtosuithissocio-politicalinterests

withinPennsylvania.Asseveraldiscussionsoftheforgingofa“Scotch-Irish”ethnicitywithinthe

earlyAmericanrepublichavesuggested,aspiringnorth-Irishemigrants,linkedbypreviouswavesof

83Ibid,p.100,Warfel,‘Bruce,’p.12.84Bruce,Poems,pp.106-10.85Ibid,p.80.86Ibid.87Ibid,pp.80-1.

|P a g e

130

Scots-UlstermigrationtothelanguageandmarkedlyPresbyteriancultureofLowlandScotland,

soughttodifferentiatethemselvesfrom“wild”IrishCatholiccommunitiesseentoberebellious,

culturally“backward,”andlinguistically“alien”byanAnglo-American“elite.”88Bruce’sPoemsreflect

this.Thecollectionhighlightstheinteractionofthe“Scots-Irishman”withseveralprominent

membersofPennsylvaniasociety,andBruce’sexhibitionofapolitically-charged,recognisablyScots

phraseologyappearsapoignantindicationofhisalignmentwitharespectableFederalism.

Bruce’seditorevenacknowledgedthepoet’sadoptionofthe“Scots-Irish”moniker,along

withtheconspicuouspseudonymof“Whiskey,”wasintendedtoappealto“thepeople,whoare

distinguishedbythenameofScots-Irish“,“mostnumerousinthecountry,”andtoalsodisassociate

BruceandhiscommunityfrominvolvementintherecentWhiskeyRebellion.89“TheScots-Irish”he

noted,“wereatthistime,muchblamedfortheiractivity”inthe“outrageousopposition,”and“the

Author'smaindesign”wastochallengethis“indiscriminatecensure”:

[…]althoughmanywereblameable,allwerenot;andthattherewasstillonefaithful

ScotsIrishman,whowasasfondofwhiskyasanyofhiscountrymen,butwasstillwilling

topayforthelibertyofdrinkingit.90

Dinsmoor’spoemsevinceasimilarlyforthright“Scots-Irish”socio-culturalcohesion.However,

Dinsmoor–third-generation,NewHampshire-bornexpatriate–appearsmorekeenon

sentimentalisinghisownheritage.Bruce,whoinhisyouthhaddirectpersonalexperienceof

migration,ismarkedlylessinclinedtopursuethistrope.91Whilethe“Scots-Irishman”wasdrivento

cultivateanupstanding,political-poeticreputation,the“RusticBard”–descendedfrommigrants–

stresseda“Scots-Irish”respectabilityofasomewhatdifferentnature.

Dinsmoor’sIncidentalPoemshighlightthemannerinwhichLowlandScotsformsprojecteda

fanciful,transatlantic“clannishness.”ThetitlesofDinsmoor’spoemsfrequentlyconveythiswistful

“Scots-Irish”fraternity.Onesuchpiece,‘TheAuthortohisfriendCol.SilasDinsmoor,ofMobile,

Alabama,inScotch,thedialectoftheirancestors,’providesaclearexampleofDinsmoor’s

88J.D.C.Clark,TheLanguageofLiberty,1660-1832,(Cambridge,1994),pp.208,214-5,258,292-3,307,KerbyA.Miller,‘TheNewEnglandandFederalistoriginsof“Scotch-Irish”ethnicity,’WilliamKellyandJohnR.Youngeds.,UlsterandScotland,1600-2000,(Dublin,2004),pp.113-17,EdwardJ.Cowan,‘ProphesyandProphylaxis:AParadigmfortheScotchIrish?’H.TylerBlethenandCurtisW.WoodJr.eds.,UlsterandNorthAmerica,TransatlanticPerspectivesontheScotch-Irish,(Tuscaloosa,1997),p.23,Lehmann,ScottishandScotch-IrishContributions,pp.28-9,36-48,NeilIrvinPainter,AHistoryofWhitePeople,(NewYork,2010),p.133.89Bruce,Poems,p.11.90Ibid,Warfel,‘Bruce,’p.10.91BruceemigratedfromCaithnesstoMarylandin1784,Bruce,Poems,p.v.ThepoetmayhavealsomovedbetweenScotlandandIrelandinhisyouth,Warfel,‘Bruce,’pp.2-3.

|P a g e

131

venerationof“ancient”ancestryfusedtomore-recentdiasporicwanderings.92Thepoetaddresses

hiskinsman,mentioning“Londonderry”–thefinalrestingplaceoftheir“greatgrandsire”inCounty

DerrywhichsharedanamewiththeNewHampshiretownofDinsmoor’sbirth:

Whanweourancientlineretrace,

Hewasthefirsto’a’ourrace,

CauldErinca’hisnativeplace,

O’nameDinsmore!

Andfirstthatsawwi’joyfu’face,

Columbia’sshore!

Thoughdeathourancestorshascleeket,

An’underclodsthemcloselysteeket;

Theirnativetongueweyetwadspeakit,

Wiaccentglib;

Andmarktheplacetheirchimneyreeket,

Likebrotherssib.93

Thiscelebratorymergence“O’nameDinsmore!”withanattempted,admittedly“glib”preservation

of“theirnativetongue”isre-routedtotheNorthAmericancontinent:

TocousinRabin,asyeca’me,

Ye’doutthecityMobiledrawme,

An’Indiantales‘boutAlabama,

Shrewdlyye’dtell‘im;

An’a’Louisianashawme,

Imprestonvellum.94

Spanningbothplaceandtime,Dinsmooremotivelylinksanancestorin“hisnativeplace”with

“Indiantales”anddepictionsofsouthernstates,“imprestonvellum”inanactoffurtherof

transferenceandtranslation.

Anotherexampleofsuchintertwiningoftransatlantic“Scots-Irish”tiesoccursina

remarkably-titledpoem–supposedlywrittenbyDinsmoorintheUnitedStates,submittedtoa

Belfastpublication,andinspiredbythediasporicexperienceofreceivingScotspoetryinNew

92Dinsmoor,IncidentalPoems,pp.184.93Ibid,p.185.94Ibid,p.186.

|P a g e

132

Hampshire.Dinsmooralsoincludeda“request”foryetanotherverseinLowlandlanguage.Thework

appearsundertheheading:

‘FortheHencockGazette[Belfast].Lineswrittenbyagentlemantoafriendinthistown,

afterreceivingfromhimacopyofthe‘AddresstoRobertBurns,’whichwasprintedinthe

BelfastGazette,sometimesince;witharequestthathewouldsendhim,‘MrsHamilton’s

CompactwithOldAge,’whichappearedinoneoftheChristianDisciples,forthelast

year.95

The“Scots-Irish”linguisticconnectionsdonotendwiththepoem’stitle.Dinsmooropensby

addressinghisBelfastassociate,

Mylateken’dfrien’o’reverendfame,

Saf’tomyhan’thoseversescame,

Compos’dbysomeauldfarrandame.96

Throughoutthepoem,Dinsmoorspeculatesonthe“auldfarran”author:

WereshesomeAboriginesquaw,

Thatsingssaesweetbynature’slaw,

I’dmeetherinahazleshaw,

Orsomegreenloany,

An’makhertawnyphizan’a’

Mywelcomecrony.97

TheAmericanQuakerpoetJohnGreenleafWhittier–whoexperimentedwithScotsversedespitehis

minimalScottishconnections–laterjokedthatwithinthoselinesDinsmoorpresentedhimself“ina

sadwayforaPresbyteriandeacon.”98

Atanearlierstageinthepoem,Dinsmoormadeanother,knowingreferencetoScots

linguisticinterconnection.Againmusingonthefemalepoet,hesupposed:

Idoubtnashe’saGorhamlady,

SprangfraeaCaledoniandaddy,

WhainauldScotia’stonguesaeready,

Attunessiclays.

95Ibid,p.171.DinsmoorwaslikelyreferringtoElizabethHamilton’s‘AuldAge,’quotedinElizabethBenger,MemoirsoftheLateMrsElizabethHamilton,(1818:Cambridge,2014),2vols.,I,pp.201-4.96Dinsmoor,IncidentalPoems,p.171.97Ibid,p.172.98JohnGreenleafWhittier,ProseWorksofJohnGreenleafWhittier,(Boston,1866),2vols.,I,p.471.

|P a g e

133

An’taksfraebardsinhighlandplaidy,

Theirlaurelbays.99

Dinsmoor’s“Gorhamlady”wastheauthorofanearlierverse‘WritteninbroadScotch,’printedin

theNewYorkMagazineofNovember1790.100ExtractswereincludedwithinIncidentalPoems,

furtherhighlightingthetendencyofthesepoetstoseekoutsupplementaryScotsversesand

voices.101The“Gorhamlady”providesanaptreflectionofScoto-AmericantributestoBurns,written

withinthepoet’sownlifetime:

Fairfa’yeRobbie,cantycallan,

Wharhym’stamaistasweelasAllan[Ramsay],

An’pleaseshighlan’ladsan’lawlan,

Wiyourauldgab.102

LikeBruce,Dinsmoorincorporatedthepoetryofhis“Scots-Irish”associates,includingthat

ofRev.DavidM’Gregore–thelikelyrelativeofawomanDinsmoorhaddeemed“thebestScotch

dictionaryinLondonderry.”103Inhisaddress‘ToR.Dinsmoor,’M’Gregorenotedthepainshehad

takeninpenninghisScotspoem:

TowritetoRab,theRusticBard,

Isnaesiceasytask,buthard,

Syneeverylinewillmeetreward,

Wi’sleeinspection,

Andshawitsel’baithblaitan’scar’d

Wi’imperfection.104

AccordingDinsmoorrespectfulliterarydeference,M’Gregore’sconfessionperhapsalsoindicatesthe

closeattentiondemandedbythe“RusticBard”toconventionsofScotslinguistic“propriety.”105

AfinalexampleofDinsmoor’sinterconnectivityisapoemtohisniece,“OnReceivingFrom

HerACopyOf‘Waverly.’”Inthisinstance,DinsmoordownplayshisIrishconnections,andthough

99Dinsmoor,IncidentalPoems,p.172.100‘VersesWritteninbroadScotch,andaddressedtoRobertBurns,theAir-shirePoet,’NewYorkMagazine:or,LiteraryRepository,I,(November1790),pp.668-9,Hook,ScotlandandAmerica,p.134.101Dinsmoor,IncidentalPoems,pp.167-8.102Ibid,p.167.103Ibid,p.17.104Ibid,p.105.105Forthepoet’slinguistic“correctness,”seeFrankFergusonandAlisterMcReynoldseds.,RobertDinsmoor’sScotch-IrishPoems,(Belfast,2012),pp.xviii.

|P a g e

134

employingStandardHabbie,hetempershisScotsphraseology.HonouringScott’snovel,Dinsmoor

offeredaheraldicpledgeofhisScotsheritageinfusinganAmericanpatriotism:

ThehighestpedigreeIplead–

AYankeeborn–trueScottishbreed,

SprungfromtheLairdofAchenmead–

Hisname,Dinsmoor,

WhodweltuponthebanksofTweed,

Indaysofyore.106

Thiscelebrated,Scott-inspiredfusionislatermeldedintotherhetoricofmigration,with“sires”of

both“Albion”and“Scotia”bondedin“providential”exodus:

LetusthatProvidenceadore,

ThoughloudAtlanticbillowsroar,

WhichtookoursiresfromAlbion’sshore,

OrScotia’sstrand,

Andbroughttheiroffspringsafelyo’er

Toblessthisland.107

AswithBruce’sprofessionof“Scots-Irish”Federalism,Dinsmoor’spoetry,similarlyspiced

withLowlandlanguage,emphasisedanexpatriateheritageofidentifiable,commendabledistinction.

This“Scots-Irish”sensibilityoperatedinrelativeharmonywitharespectable,conservativeAnglo-

Americansocio-politicalconsensus.108WhileLowlandScotsformscouldprovideanacceptable,

advantageousflavouringwithintheearlyAmericanrepublic,itisvitaltonotethat,likeBurns,

DinsmoorandBrucealsopennedversesinanoticeablymore“standard”English.109

CertainmalleableScotssub-versionswereusedtocolourthoseofScotsdescentina

favourablelight.Dinsmoor’s“nativetongue,”attimesconspicuouslyfeminised,exoticised,and

romanticised–likenedtoboththesongofan“Aboriginalsquaw”andthatofan“auldfarrandame”

–alsobetrayedhisancestraltriumphalism.In‘Antiquity–TheAuldGun,’Dinsmoorbestoweda

Scotsaccentuponacherishedfamilyheirloom,givingvoicetoaninheritedweaponinagrim

commendationofreligiousmilitancyandcolonialaggression:

106Dinsmoor,IncidentalPoems,p.13.107Ibid.108Miller,‘Federalistorigins,’UlsterandScotland,p.117.109ForlinguisticinterconnectionsbetweenUlsterScotsandAmericanEnglish,seeMichaelB.Montgomery,FromUlstertoAmerica.TheScotch-IrishHeritageofAmericanEnglish,(Belfast,2006),MichaelB.MontgomeryandRobertJ.Gregg,‘TheScotsLanguageinUlster,’EdinburghHistoryofScotsLanguage,pp.590-8.

|P a g e

135

Topope,orprelate,orpretender,

NaeDinsmoorarmswoulde’ersurrender;

Trueprotestants,anoblegender,

Ca’dPresbyterian!

Forthem,Iwasabaulddefender,

Sayth’antiquarian.

Whanmasterbroughtmetothisland,

Iayestoodchargedathisrighthand;

NaeIndianwarriore’ercouldstand,

AgainstDinsmoor!

Myhailwasdeath,athiscommand,

Wi’thunderingroar!110

Yetevenwithinthisvenerationofviolent“Scots-Irish”heritage,undercurrentsof

sentimentalitywereever-present.Astheself-styled“RusticBard,”Dinsmoorincorporatedthis

wistfulelementintohisownpersona,andsubsequentdiscussionsofhisworkcelebratedthepoetas

aquaint,outmodedphenomenon.Decadeslater,WhittierlikenedDinsmoor’s“Scottishdialect”to

thatof“awizard’srhyme,”endowedwith“thepowerofbearingusbacktothepast.”111

Giventheparticular“ethnic”concernsofthe“Scots-Irish”poets,thetropeoflinguistic

sentimentalityironicallypointedtothebreadthofScottishaffiliation–perceivedtobridgecultural

divisionsbetweenHighlandersandLowlandersoverseas.DinsmoorimaginedaScottishliterary

mantlepassing“fraebardsinhighlandplaidy,”whilethe“Gorhamlady”consideredBurns’s“auld

gab”equallypleasingto“highlan’ladsan’lawlan.”Inaconspicuouslysimilarstanza,makinguseof

thesamefelicitousrhyme,HughHenryBrackenridgewrotetoBruce:

But'snaeyourfu't,mycantyCallan,

Thatyefa’shorto'theAuldAllan[Ramsay];

There'sneitherHighlandman,norLallan,'

That'sherethesame;

Butfindshimscrimpito'thetalen'

Hehadathame.112

110Dinsmoor,IncidentalPoems,p.189.111Whittier,ProseWorks,pp.461.Seealsoalatenineteenth-centurycollectionofDinsmoor’swork,JamesDinsmoored.,PoemsofRobertDinsmoor,(Boston,1898),pp.12,14-5.112Bruce,Poems,p.18.

|P a g e

136

Recognisinginevitable“newworld”influencesuponthephraseologyof“AuldAllan”Ramsay,

Brackenridgewasunperturbedbya“scrimpit”ScotstonguewithinPennsylvania:

Bethisas’tmay,itdoesmeguid,

Tomeetwi'aneo'myanebluid,

Iwassaeglada'masitranwud

Tobethegither;

ButImaunnow,gaechewmycad

Andhadmyblether.113

StrikingabalancebetweencontemporarydomesticfearsofdecliningScotsformsandthe

consequent,self-consciousdrivefortheirpreservation,Brackenridgeidentifiedthegratifying,

blether-thegithermeritofLowlandlanguageinAmerica,whilstacknowledgingthatScottishmigrants

wereunlikelytomaintainsuch“standard”tropesinperpetuity.Bruceagreed.Thoughgenerallyless

disposedtosentimentality,the“Scots-Irishman”respondedtoBrackenridge,modestlydownplaying

comparisonstoRamsay,

Hissangswillbethewarlds'delyte

Tillwitandsensegangouto’date;

There'snaethingIcansayorwrite

Sicfamewillwin;

I'mnaemairthanabletherskyte,

Compar'dwi'him.114

Bruceidentifiedhimselfassimilarly“scrimpit”ofhame-wrought“talen,’”presentinganAmerican

landscapeasparticularlyuninspiringtohis“musie”:

Whare'sthereaForth,aTweed,orTay?

Thro'hillsandgreensthatsaftlystray,

Whareshepherdsspen'thesimmer'sday

Saepeacefulie.–

Thirscenesgar'dAllanlilthislay

Wi'sicaglee.

What'sheretogiethemindaheese?

Deilhetava',butgreatlangtrees,

113Ibid.114Ibid,p.20.

|P a g e

137

Naeflow'ryhaughsorbonybraes

Topleasetheeen,

Norbleatingflocksupo'theleas

Areheardorseen.115

AndrewHookinterpretsBruce’sassertionofAmerican“barrenness”asananticipationof

theanxietiesoflatergenerationsofAnglo-Americanauthors,frustratedattheirdistancefrom“old

world”literarytraditions.116Clearly,Bruceissuesasweepinglydismissivecommentaryuponan

Americanscene.However,thiswasasmuchanostalgicreflectionuponthedisplaced“braes,”

“haughs,”and“leas”ofaRamsianpastoralasitwasacontemptuousrejectionofAmerican

inspiration.AnticipatingthedevelopmentofanAnglo-American“nationalliterature,”andperceiving

theinfluenceofBurnsandScottuponsubsequentgenerationswithintheUnitedStates,Hook

reckonstheearlierScoto-American“vernacular”poetrytobelittlemorethana“bizarrefootnote”to

thisbroadertale.117

Withregardtoawidernineteenth-centuryAmericancontextandcanon,thisisacredible

interpretation.Yetthislong-sighted,somewhatpre-emptivetracingofaliteraryfuturemarkedby

BurnsandScottperhapsoverlooksthemannerinwhichtheearliersurgeofScoto-American

versificationharkedbacktoawell-establishedLowlandtraditiontypifiednotsomuchbyBurns,but

by“AuldAllan”Ramsay.ThoughdrawingheavilyfromacontemporaneousBurns,thisappearsa

diasporicresponsetoolderScotsconnectionsratherthantheBurns-stirredanticipationofAnglo-

Americanliterarypotential.WitheveraneyeonBurns,Hooksupposesthe“viable”registerofBruce

andDinsmoortohaveofferedanearly,sub-versive“solution”toAmericanculturalandliterary

apprehensions.118Again,thisisaninstructiveobservation.Butsuch“viable”alternativeswerefirst

structuredaroundcertainaccepted,respectable,andalreadybackward-lookingScotsconventions–

voicedwithinanAnglo-Americandiscourseandnegotiatingthesocialconcernsandaspirationsof

particulardiasporicScotsnetworks.

JustassubsequentgenerationscasttheirmindsbacktoBurns,manyturn-of-the-century

transatlanticmigrantsimbuedAllanRamsaywithsimilardiasporicsentimentality.And,aswiththe

global,Burns-boostedcommemorationofverbaltartanrythroughoutthenineteenth-century,these

early,nostalgically-inflectedScoto-Americanverseswereintimatelylinkedwithwiderconceptionsof

Anglo-centredliteratureandlinguistic“standards.”115Ibid,p.21.116Hook,ScotlandandAmerica,p.139.117Ibid,pp.139-40,AndrewHook,‘Scotland,theUSA,andNationalLiteraturesintheNineteenthCentury’,Scotlandandthe19th-CenturyWorld,pp.49-50.118Hook,ScotlandandAmerica,p.139.

|P a g e

138

ItwasnoneotherthanRobertWalsh,antagonistoftheEdinburghReview,whoofferedastriking,

earlynineteenth-centuryinsistenceuponAnglo-AmericanaffiliationwithScotsauthorsand

“dialect.”119In1811,yearsbeforehisAppealdecryingtheanti-AmericanprejudiceofScottish

periodicals,Walshassertedhiscompatriots’appreciationofScottishliterature.Discussingthe‘Lady

oftheLake,’WalshattestedtothepopularityofWalterScottintheU.S.,supposing“[n]opoetical

works,notexceptingeventhoseofCowperandBurns,havebeenmorewidelycirculatedinthis

country.”120

WalshapproximatedScott’sepicandhisearlier‘LayoftheLastMinstrel’tohaveeachsold

overfourthousandcopiesintheU.S.,stressinganenthusiasmforScottishpoets.ThePhiladelphia

bookmanalsohighlightedaScotscuriosityforAnglo-Americanpreferences,notinghehad“often

beenaskedinthecountryofMr.Scott,whetherthepeopleoftheUnitedStatesweregenerally

acquaintedwiththepoetryofBurnsandBeattie.”121HighlightingcontemporaryScottishconcerns

forthecompositionsofBurnsandBeattie–markedlydissimilarpoetsintermsoftheirlanguageand

laterpopularity–Walshrespondedtodisparagingclaimsoftheintellectualandcultural

“provincialism”oftheAmericannation.Hedeclared“[t]heanswerwhichwehavegiven,andwhich

westillgive”tothisScottish“query”was“calculatedtostartlethecredulityofthose,whoseeinusa

meretillingandshopkeepingrace.”122

Walshclaimed

[…]theworksofthetwopoetswehavejustcitedandevenofMr.Scott,areheremore

widelycirculated,moregenerallyread,andperhapsbetterunderstoodthaninEngland

takenseparatelyfromScotland.Thedialectofthelatterismorefamiliarandmore

gratefultousthantotheinhabitantsofhersisterkingdom.Welookwithreverenceupon

theliteraryandscientificcharacterofScotland,andarealwayspreparedtoreceivewith

admiration,theintellectualoff-springofhercapital,whichweconsiderasthemetropolis

ofgeniusandlearning.123

AsHookhasobserved,Walsh’s“apparentlyoddbelief”inamorefavourablereceptionofScots

“dialect”intheUnitedStateswaslikelyrelatedtoanexistingexpatriatepredilectionforLowland

119Ibid,p.134.120RobertWalsh,‘ForeignLiterature,’AmericanReviewofHistoryandPolitics,I,(Philadelphia,1811),p.166.121Ibid.122Ibid.123Ibid,pp.166-7.

|P a g e

139

forms.124However,inchallengingan“ostentatiousandsometimesmalevolentcontempt,”Walsh

stressedtheU.S.“reverence”forScotsliteratureandlanguageaspartofawiderAnglo-American

engagementwith“English”works.Essentially,Walshdemandedamorerespectful“English”

considerationofanAnglo-Americanreadership:

Nodispositionwouldappeartobemorenaturalandjust,particularlyinthemindofan

Englishwriter,towhomitshouldbeamostdelightful,aswellasaconciliatory

anticipation,thatheistohave,inanotherhemisphere,avastbodyofreaderscapable,by

thecircumstanceoftheirpossessingthesamelanguage,andfromtheiruniversal

acquaintancewithletters,ofappreciatingallhisexcellencies,bothofthoughtanddiction,

andmostdisposedtocherishandpropagatehisfamewiththemosteagerfondness.

EveryEnglishpoet,historianorphilosophershould,whenengagedinthebusinessof

composition,looktothiscountryforsomeportionofhisreward.125

Walshstressedthecompatibilityofa“vastbody”oftransatlanticreaders,unitedin“the

samelanguage,”sharinganappreciation“bothofthoughtanddiction.”AnAmericanreadershipwas

viewedtolookwithfamiliarityandgratitudetoaScottishnavigationofacceptable“English”literary

channels.Crucially,inpromotingAnglo-Americaninterests,Walshsupposed“England”tobe“taken

separatelyfromScotland.”126InsistinguponanAnglo-AmericanappreciationofScottishliterary

output,WalshcelebratedthedistinctiveincorporationofScotsauthorsand“dialect”withinan

“English”literature,desirousofacomparable,“conciliatoryanticipation”recognisingcomparably

“capable”interpretationswithinhisownnation.

Significantly,WalshidentifedbothBurnsandBeattieasexemplarsofthisScottish

negotiationof“English”literature,pairingthesub-versiveinfluenceofBurnswithBeattie’smore

prescriptive,Anglo-centricoutlook.Aconcernforacceptablelanguage“standards,”reminiscentof

thatoftheAberdeenintellectual,wasevidentwithintheUnitedStatesduringthefirsthalfofthe

nineteenthcentury.

Thecoiningofthepejorativelinguisticterm“Americanism”isattributedtoaScot–John

Witherspoon,thePaisley-basedEvangelicalministerwhomigratedtotheAmericancoloniesin

1768.127In1781,Witherspoon,PresidentoftheCollegeofNewJerseyandoneoftwoScottish

signatoriestotheDeclarationofIndependence,famouslydefined“Americanism”indirect

comparisontothesub-versionsofhishomeland:

124Hook,ScotlandandAmerica,p.134.125Walsh,‘ForeignLiterature,’pp.167-8.126Ibid.127GeorgePhilipKrapp,TheEnglishLanguageinAmerica,(1925:NewYork,1960),2vols.,I,p.72.SeesectionI“ReligionandRevolution:TheTwoWorldsofJohnWitherspoon,”SherandSmitten,ScotlandandAmerica.

|P a g e

140

ThewordAmericanism[…]isexactlysimilarinitsformationandsignificationastheword

Scotticism.BythewordScotticismisunderstoodanytermorphrase,andindeedany

thingeitherinconstruction,pronounciation[sic]oraccentuation,thatispeculiartoNorth

Britain.128

Witherspoonattestedtothenarrativethatsincetheunionofcrowns“theScottishmannerof

speaking,cametobeconsideredasaprovincialbarbarism;which,therefore,allscholarsarenowat

theutmostpainstoavoid,”citingWilliamRobertson’sHistoryofScotland.129

However,Witherspoonalsoprofessedthe“manyinstancesinwhichtheScotchwayisas

good,”imaginingcircumstances,

[…]inwhicheverypersonwhohastheleasttasteastotheproprietyofalanguagein

general,mustconfessthatitisbetterthanthatofEngland,yetspeakersandwritersmust

conformtocustom.130

Critiquing“custom,”Witherspoonsupposedit“veryprobable”thatthe“reverse”ofthe

Scottishlinguisticsituation,“orratheritscounterpart,willhappeninAmerica”:

BeingentirelyseparatedfromBritain,weshallfindsomecentreorstandardofourown,

andnotbesubjecttotheinhabitantsofthatisland,eitherinreceivingnewwaysof

speakingorrejectingtheold.131

Within“thisnewempire,”a“greatdistance”fromtheAnglo-centredmetropole“inwhichthe

standardofthelanguageisasyetsupposedtobefound,”theScotponderedanAmerican“centerof

learningandpoliteness[…]whichshallobtaininfluenceandprescribetheruleofspeechandwriting

toeveryotherpart.”132YetevencontemplatingthelikelihoodofalteredAnglo-American

“standards,”theScot’sownlanguagereceived“oldworld”censure.Amonthafterprinting

Witherspoon’spiece,thePennsylvaniaJournalnotedtheobjectionsof“Quercus,”whohighlighted

thescholar’s“scotticism”and“improper”linguisticdifferencefroman“Englishman.”133

AswithinBritain,LowlandScotsformswerefrequentlyseentostanduncomfortablyatodds

withlanguage“standards”intheAmericancoloniesduringtheeighteenthcentury,anunfavourable

128JohnWitherspoon,‘TheDruid,’V,PennsylvaniaJournalandTheWeeklyAdvertiser,’May1781,M.M.Mathewsed.,TheBeginningsofAmericanEnglish,(Chicago,1931),p.17.TheotherScottosigntheDeclarationofIndependencewastheFife-born,Pennsylvania-basedlawyerJamesWilson.129Ibid.SeeR.GordonTait,ThePietyofJohnWitherspoon,(Louisville,2001),ThomasAhnert,TheMoralCultureoftheScottishEnlightenment,1690-1805,(NewHaven,2014),pp.66-7.130Witherspoon,BeginningsofAmericanEnglish,p.17.131Ibid,pp.17-18.132Ibid,p.15.133Ibid,p.37.

|P a g e

141

perceptionoftenmatchedbyasuspicionofScotscommunitiesinthe“newworld.”“Toomuch

Scoticism!”exclaimedtheYaleCongregationalistEzraStiles,issuingawell-notedcounterblastto

Witherspoon’spoliticalinfluence.134SomeScotsimmigrantsevensoughtsocial,religious,and

linguisticaffiliationsoutwithEnglish-speakinggroups.HughSimm,astaunchPresbyterianand

studentofWitherspoon,whohadfollowedhismentorfromthewestofScotlandtotheCollegeof

NewJersey,emphasisedhisconnectionwithDutchcommunitiesatAlbanyinNewYork.In1774,ina

lettertohisbrotherAndrew,aPaisleyweaver,Simmnotedhis“greatestlabour”of“learningthe

dutch,”the“Commonlanguageinthisplace,”explainingthatbecause“therewasnominsterinthe

presbetyrien[sic.]churchitwasnecessarythenthatImustlearndutchorbedeprivedofpublic

ordinancesalthogether.”135Aligninghimselflinguisticallyandreligiouslywithhisadopted

community,Simmsaw“agreatagreementbetwixttheolddutchandtheoldScotch”phraseology,

“whichnotonlymakesitmoreeasytolearnbutalsoenablesmetounderstandmanyoldScotch

wordsmutchbetterthanIcoulddobefore.”136

Conversely,ScotsliteratiwereseentotypifytheAnglo-British“standards”consideredtoo

distanttobeeffectivelyappliedwithintheUnitedStates.In1789,NoahWebster,theConnecticut

lexicographerwhowouldlatercompiletherenowned1828AmericanDictionaryoftheEnglish

Language,declared“politicalharmony”synonymouswithaspecificallynational“uniformityof

language.”137Hefamouslyinsisted:

[a]sanindependentnation,ourhonourrequiresustohaveasystemofourown,in

languageaswellasgovernment.GreatBritain,whosechildrenweare,andwhose

languagewespeak,shouldnolongerbeourstandard;forthetasteofherwritersis

alreadycorrupted,andherlanguageisonthedecline.Butifitwerenotso,sheisattoo

greatadistancetobeourmodel,andtoinstructusintheprinciplesofourown

tongue.138

134RobertM.CalhoonandTimothyM.Barnes,‘MoralAllegiance.JohnWitherspoonandLoyalistRecantation,’RobertM.Calhoon,TimothyM.Barnes,andRobertS.Daviseds.,ToryInsurgents.TheLoyalistPerceptionandotheressays,(Columbia,2010),pp.324-7,IanCharlesCargillGraham,ColonistsfromScotland,(NewYork,1956),p.130,131-4,CharlesH.Haws,ScotsintheOldDominion1685-1800,(Edinburgh,1980),pp.53-69,113-18.135QuotedinBarbaraDeWolfeed.,DiscoveriesofAmerica:PersonalAccountsofBritishEmigrantstoNorthAmericaduringtheRevolutionaryEra,(Cambridge,1997),p.142.AlsoJoyceGoodfriend,‘ScotsandSchism:theNewYorkCityPresbyterianChurchinthe1750s,’NedC.Landsmaned.,NationandProvinceintheFirstBritishEmpire,(London,2001),pp.222,229.136DeWolfe,DiscoveriesofAmerica,p.142.137NoahWebster,DissertationsontheEnglishLanguage,(1789),R.C.Alstoned.,EnglishLinguistics1500-1800,(Menston,1967),p.20.138Ibid,pp.20-21.

|P a g e

142

Inanearlieressay,Websterwarnedofconstructing“oursystemsinAmerica”upon“mouldering

pillarsofantiquity”:

ItisthebusinessofAmericanstoselectthewisdomofallnations,asthebasisofher

constitutions–toavoidtheirerrours,–topreventtheintroductionofforeignvicesand

corruptionsandcheckthecareerofherown,–topromotevirtueandpatriotism,–to

embellishandimprovethesciences,–todiffuseanuniformityandpurityoflanguage,–

toaddsuperiordignitytothisinfantEmpireandtohumannature.139

WebsterassertedtheexclusivelyAmericanopportunitytocleanse“thisinfantEmpire”oflinguistic

“corruptions.”Muchlikethecontemporaryexponentsofthe“purity”ofa“Gothic”or“Scoto-Saxon”

tongue,WebstersupposedanAnglo-Americanlanguagetobecloserto“correctness”thanexisting

English“standards.”140

ScottishauthorsseemedtoofferparticularproofofthedangersofreadilyacceptingAnglo-

centredprescriptions.HonouringthestyleofbothAddisonandMilton,Webstermused

[…]howfewofthemodernwritershavepursuedthesamemannerofwriting[...]The

namesofaRobertson,aHume,aHome[Kames]andaBlair,almostsilencecriticism;butI

mustrepeatwhatalearnedScotchgentlemanonceacknowledgedtome,‘thattheScotch

writersarenotthemodelsofthepureEnglishstile.’Theirstileisgenerallystiff,

sometimesawkward,andnotalwayscorrect.Robertsonlaborshisstileandsometimes

introducesawordmerelyforthesakeofroundingaperiod.HumehasborrowedFrench

idiomswithoutnumber;[…]LordKaims’mannerisstiff;andDrBlair,whosestileisless

exceptionableintheseparticulars,hashoweverintroduced,intohiswritings,several

foreignidiomsandungrammaticalphrases.TheScotchwritersnowstandalmostthefirst

forerudition;butperhapsnomancanwriteaforeignlanguagewithgenuinepurity.141

Dismissingthe“stiff,”“awkward,”andultimately“foreign”limitationsofleadingScottishluminaries,

andreferencingthedoubtsofa“learnedScotchgentleman,”Webster’ssentimentsappear

conspicuouslysimilartothoseofJamesBeattie,contemptuousofthelinguisticpretensionsofthe

Edinburghliterati.142

YetunlikeBeattie,Websterdidnotadvocateanever-closeralignmentwithAnglo-British

models.Heproposedtheopposite,championinganemergentAnglo-Americanlanguageestablished

139NoahWebster,AGrammaticalInstitute,oftheEnglishLanguage,(1783),R.C.Alstoned.,EnglishLinguistics1500-1800,no.89,(Menston,1968),pp.14-15.140PaulLangford,‘MannersandCharacterinAnglo-AmericanPerceptions,1750-1850,’FredM.LeventhalandRolandQuinaulteds.,Anglo-AmericanMinds.FromRevolutiontoPartnership,(Aldershot,2000),p.84.141Webster,Dissertations,pp.32-3.142Robinsoned.,Correspondence,II,pp.161,179;III,54,61-2,102-3.

|P a g e

143

through“theunanimousconsentofanation,andafixedprincipleinterwovenwiththevery

constructionofalanguage,coevalandcoextensivewithit.”143Websterlikenedthisexplicitly

nationaltongueto“thecommonlawsoftheland,ortheimmutablerulesofmorality,”urginghis

compatriots“toretainourownpracticeandbeourownstandards,”andchallenging“analogiesof

thelanguage,wheretheEnglishhaveinfringedthem.”144

Curiously,inanotetohisDissertations,Websteridentified“thetwobestwritersin

America.”145OnewasBenjaminFranklin,theotherJohnWitherspoon–identifiedas“anexception”

totheruleofScots’stiltedEnglish,andpraisedfora“stile”“easy,simpleandelegant.”146Webster

celebratedtherelaxedcompetencyofFranklinandWitherspoon,observingthat“[t]hewordsthey

use,andtheirarrangement,appeartoflowspontaneouslyfromtheirmannerofthinking.”147

Highlightingthe“contrastivelexicographicalapproaches”ofWebsterandJohnJamiesonin

hisEtymologicalScotsdictionary,LauraO’Connorcomparestheattentiontoan“ever-expanding

catalogue”ofAmerican-Englishwiththe“compensatorypreservation”ofScotsforms–linguistic

traitsunderscoredas“substandardordeviantidioms,”“quaint,arcane,vanishing“fossilpoetry.””148

ThiscomparisonhighlightshowAnglo-American“standards”weregeneratedthroughaprocess

distinctlysplinteredfromtheconservationofScotssub-versions.

However,Webster’searlyassertionsbetraytracesofwhollydifferentlinguisticconcerns.

ScottishexamplesappeartohavepointedtothewaysandmeansofanAnglo-Americanavoidance

of“English”linguisticpit-falls.Scotsintellectualsdemonstratedthedangersofsimplytoeingthe

“standard”line.Essentially,Websterattestedtothe“awkward,”over-wroughtlanguageofthe

literatiwhilstlaudingthefluencyofWitherspoon–theirScoto-American,one-timeantagonist.

Witherspoonwasalsonotablyscepticalofarbitrarylinguistic“custom”andreceptivetoapotential

“propriety”ofScotsforms.InstrivingforanAnglo-Americanlanguageof“genuinepurity,”Webster

soughttodifferentiatebetweenadry“erudition”anda“spontaneous”eloquenceseenas“easy,

simpleandelegant.”AlsoacknowledgingFranklin,WebsternoticeablyemployedScoto-Britishand

Scoto-Americanexamplestomarkbothsidesofthislinguisticcoin.

Scots“authorities”appearedwithinotherearlynineteenth-centurydiscourses,offeredasa

caution,ifnotacounter,toWebster’sradicallinguisticproclamations.Inan1816lexicon“supposed

143Webster,Dissertations,p.29.144Ibid,pp.29,129.145Ibid,p.33.146Ibid.147Ibid.148LauraO’Connor,HauntedEnglish,TheCelticFringe,theBritishEmpire,andDe-Anglicization,(Baltimore,2006),pp.115-16.

|P a g e

144

tobepeculiartotheUnitedStatesofAmerica,”JohnPickeringissuedathinly-veiledchallengeto

Websterandthose“whowouldunsettlethewholeofouradmirablelanguage”to“conformtotheir

whimsicalnotionsofpropriety.”149Massachusetts-born,London-educated,andsonofWebster’sold

friendColonelTimothyPickering,JohnPickeringstressedtheharshtransatlanticrealitiesofAnglo-

centrism:

Itistrue,indeed,thatourcountrymenmayspeakandwriteinadialectofEnglish,which

willbeunderstoodintheUnitedStates;butiftheyareambitiousofhavingtheirworks

readbyEnglishmenaswellasbyAmericans,theymustwriteinalanguagethat

Englishmencanreadwithpleasure.150

Quoting“severaloftheBritishReviews,[…]themostdistinguishedofourpresentday,”

PickeringpresentedtheEdinburghReview’sassessmentofanAmericanpublication,Livesof

Washington:

‘InthesevolumeswehavefoundagreatmanywordsandphraseswhichEnglishcriticism

refusestoacknowledge.AmericahasthrownofftheyokeoftheBritishnation,butshe

woulddowellforsometime,totakethelawsofcompositionfromtheAddisons,the

SwiftsandtheRobertsonsofherancientsovereign.’[Originalemphasis].151

Pickeringprofessed,

[s]uchisthestronglanguageoftheBritishscholarsonthissubject.[…]shouldnotthe

opinionsofsuchwritersstimulateustoinquiry,thatwemayascertainwhethertheir

animadversionsarefellfoundedornot?WeseethesamecriticscensuretheScotticisms

oftheirnorthernbrethren,thepeculiaritiesoftheIrish,andtheprovincialcorruptionsof

theirownEnglishwriters.Wecannotthereforebesowantinginliberalityastothink,

that,whendecidingupontheliteraryclaimsofAmericans,theyaregovernedbyprejudice

andjealousy.[Originalemphasis].152

TheauthorrecognisedaScotssensitivitywellequippedto“censure”“provincial

corruptions.”DiscussingthelinguistichumilityofWitherspoon,Beattie,andtheAberdeenlinguist

andrhetoricianGeorgeCampbell,PickeringclearlysawScottishperspectivestoofferinstructionin

anAnglo-Americancontext.Such“Britishscholars”wereseenasparticularlywellqualifiedto

uncover“provincial”linguisticslips,notleast“theScotticismsoftheirnorthernbrethren.”

149QuotedinDavidMickelthwait,NoahWebsterandtheAmericanDictionary,(Jefferson,2005),p.172.150JohnPickering,AVocabularyorCollectionofWordsandPhrases…peculiartotheUnitedStatesofAmerica,(1816),BeginningsofAmericanEnglish,p.66.151Ibid,p.70.152Ibid.

|P a g e

145

WhileWebsterreassertedhisstance,insistingonAnglo-Americanlinguistic“purity”inhis

1817“LettertotheHonorableJohnPickering,”otherU.S.publicationswelcomedamorevigilant,

self-consciousengagementwithAnglo-centredmodes.153AssessingPickering’sperspectivesin1816,

theNorth-AmericanReviewadvisedlinguistic“caution”tocompatriotsseekingtobe“rankedamong

goodEnglishscholars.”154TheNorth-AmericansupportedPickering’sconciliatoryapproach,

supposingsub-versive“innovations”inAnglo-Americanlanguage“cannotbeexpectedtoextend

theirinfluenceinanydegree,toEngland”:

[…]asfarascriticsofthelattercountryareconversantwithourwrittenproductions,we

shallnotsufferforwantofadmonitionandcensure,whenwetrespassagainst

establishedrules[…]ourprideisconcernedintheknowledgeandobservanceofthose

rules,anditmustbemortifiedwhenwearedetectedinviolatingthem.155

Advocatinganacceptable“observance”ofsuch“rules,”theauthorofthereviewpointedto

“DoctorBeattie,”“anotherlearnedScotchman,besidesthatwhichMr.Pickeringcitesofthe

celebratedDoctorCampbell.”156ThejournalpraisedBeattie’s“modesty”and“solicitude”inhisdrive

“towritetheEnglishlanguagewithcorrectnessandpurity,”presentingtheAberdonianasa

paradigmoftheself-criticaldiligencerequiredfora“provincial”mirroringofAnglo-Britishlinguistic

mores.157

Crucially,Beattie’sconceptionof“Scotticisms”wasalsodiscussed.TheNorth-American

quotedfromthephilosopher’scorrespondence,assertingthe“degeneration”oftheEnglish

languagein1785,andremarkingattheextenttowhich“Scottishidioms,havegotintoitoflate.”158

AcknowledgingtheproblematictangleofScotsandEnglishvarieties,theNorth-Americanconceded

Beattieto“havebeeninerrourrespectingsomeofhissupposedScotticisms.”159Thejournal

recognisedthedifficultiesinunscramblingScotsfromEnglishlinguisticforms,supposing“muchisto

beallowedforthetendencyofthewritingsoftheScotchandEnglishtoacquireaclose

resemblance,”andperceiving“aconstantlyincreasingcommunityofliterarylaboursand

productions”betweenbothnations.160

153NoahWebster,ALettertotheHonorableJohnPickering,(Boston,1817).154S.Willard,‘AVocabulary,&c.,’NorthAmericanReviewandMiscellaneousJournal,III(Boston,1816),p.357.155Ibid,pp.357-8.156Ibid.157Ibid.158Ibid,also,Robinson,Correspondence,III,pp.242.159Willard,‘Vocabulary,’p.358160Ibid.

|P a g e

146

Throughthis“increasingcommunity”and“closeresemblance,”a“learned”Scots“modesty”

and“solicitude”wasrecommended.TheNorth-Americanhighlightedthecontemporaryrelevanceof

earlierScotsattemptstonavigateAnglo-centered“standards”:

Whateverclemency,therefore,Americanwritersmaydemandfortheirfaultsintheuse

ofwords,theycannotclaimexemptionfromthenecessityofdiligentstudyoftheEnglish

language,iftheywouldavoidimproprietiesandbarbarisms.161

Pickering’swork,recommendedfor“theattentiveexaminationofeveryAmericanscholar,”was

seentoembodyawide“English”alignmentinwhichearlierScottishconcernsfor“standards”could

offerguidanceonexistingAnglo-Americanlinguisticissues.162

Earlynineteenth-centuryreflectionsuponScotsandAnglo-Americansub-versionswithintheUnited

Statesoftenregisteredacomparabledifferencefromandsimilaritytoabroader“English.”John

Melish,aScotsadventurerwhodepartedfromGreenockin1806toengageintradeontheSavannah

River,insistedontheoverarchinglinguisticbondbetweenBritainandherformercolonies.Inhis

1812accountofseveralyears’sojourningintheUnitedStates,Melishstressedashared“identityof

language–whichcanneverbedissolved.”163

However,Melishalsotracednoticeablelinguisticdifferences,commentinguponthe“Yankee

dialect”andatonepointrecountedthe“diverting”“dialoguebetweenthetwodrivers”ofa

Stanfordstagecoach,highlightingtheirAnglo-Americanoveruseoftheword“guess.”164Whenback

inBritain,theScotrecordedbeing“diverted”byLowlandformsinacuriouslysimilarcontext.

Moreover,uponreturningtoScotland,MelishperceiveddistinctiveScotsaccentsandphraseologyas

evenmorepoignantfollowinghisprolongedperiodofabsence.NearingthetownofHamilton,

passingthe“sourcesoftheClyde,andtheLeadhillstotheright,”heoverheardaconversation

betweenanotherpairof“drivers”:

IheardadialoguebetweenthetwodriversinbroadScots,beingthefirstIhadheardfor

14months;and,suchistheeffectofhabit,that,althoughIconsideredmyselfasortof

adeptattheScottishlanguage,andhadfrequentlypractisedit,thishadasurprisingeffect

161Ibid.162Ibid,p.362.163JohnMelish,TravelsistheUnitedStatesofAmerica,(Philadelphia,1812),2vols.,I,p.v.164Ibid,I,p.128.

|P a g e

147

uponmyear.ItappearedmorebroadthananythingIhadeverheardbefore.[Original

emphasis].165

MelishalsohintedattheburgeoningmanifestationofverbaltartanrywithintheUnited

States,describingasmalltownshipalongthebanksoftheAshtabulaRiverinOhio,whereheandhis

hostsspenttheeveningsingingsongs.Headmitted,“IcoulddonothingexceptinScottishsongs,”

butmuchtohissurprise,foundthattheAmericans“were,infact,enthusiasticadmirersofScottish

music;Burns’swerehighlyrelished,andoneofmycompanyanticipatedmebysingingmyfavourite

songofMuirlandWillie.”166

Melishdiscussedan“anticipated”mergenceofScotslanguageandmusic,observingthehigh

“estimation”“whereveritisknown.”167Suchmusic

[…]spreadthemantleofitscharmssoeffectuallyovertheScottishlanguage,thatithas

extendedfarandwide,andisnowinsuchastateofconservation,thatitwillprobably

enduretotheremotestages.IndeedtoanativeofScotland,thelanguageandthemusic

aresoassociatedtogether,thattheycannotbeseparated.168

Melish,a“sortofadeptattheScottishlanguage,”wasclearlykeentoemphasiseacorrelationof

Lowlandlinguisticandmusicalelements–asymbiosisseentohave“extendedfarandwide”and

viewedasintegraltothe“stateofconservation”ofScotstraits.Aswehaveseen,certaindomestic

commentatorsdidnotnecessarilysharethiseffusivediasporicconfidencein“enduring”Scottish

characteristics.

Alongsidesuchassertionsofculturaldistinction,certaincommentatorsalsonotedthe

capacityofScotsmigrantstoaccommodatethemselveswithintheUnitedStates.In1821,Frances

Wright,aDundee-borntraveller,celebratedtheseeminglynationalattributesthatsetScots

expatriatesinespeciallygoodstead.DiscussingthestateofVermontandthe“flourishingcondition”

ofone“Scotchsettlement,”Wrightsupposed,

[…]theScotchemigrantwouldprobablyfinditpeculiarlysuitedtohishabitsand

constitution.Ahealthyclimate,ahillycountry,[…]thefrugal,hardyandindustrious

Scotchfarmermightherefindhimselfathome,orratherinahomesomewhatimproved.

[…]OursonsofthemistmightseetheirGrampiansorCheviotsswellingoutofabetter

soil,andsmilingunderapurerheaven.Theywouldfindtooarace,ofindustryand

165Ibid,I,p.309.166Ibid,II,pp.284-5.167Ibid,II,p.285.168Ibid.

|P a g e

148

intelligenceequalorsuperiortotheirown,andanimatedwithaspiritofindependence

thattheymightimbibewithadvantage.169

WrightalsodrewScottishparallelswhendiscussingother“newworld”successstories.The

“citizensofNewEngland”were“theScotchofAmerica,”–“[s]trictlymoral,well-educated,

industrious,andintelligent,butshrewd,cautious,and[…]peculiarlylong-sightedintheir

interests.”170AswithScots,WrightnotedNewEnglandersas“inhabitantsofacomparativelypoor

country,”issuing“forthlegionsofhardyadventurerstopushtheirfortunesinforeignclimes.”171Yet,

Wrightalsoemphasisedparticularity,insisting,“theScotchmantraversestheworld,andgathers

storestospendthemafterwardsinhisownbarrenhills,whiletheNew-Englandercarrieshispenates

withhim.”172

ThetravelleralsoappearedkeentoassertAnglo-Americanlinguistic“propriety.”Drivento

testthetheory“commonlyreceivedinEngland,thattheAmericannationisasortofmiddlestate

betweenbarbarismandrefinement,”Wrightnotedthelinguisticaccomplishmentofherattendants

–perceivingthatateamofNewYorkrowers“allspokegoodEnglishwithagoodvoiceandaccent,”

andhaving“beforeobservedthesame”ofanothercrew.173

Twoyearslater,JamesHedderwick,aGlasgowprinter,offeredasimilarviewofthelanguage

spokenatNewYork–asitehereckoned“scarcely[…]morethananovergrownseaportvillage,in

thestateofprogressivetransmutationtowardstheorderandrankofacivilizedcity.”174Whilehe

dismissedthetownitself,supposingthelocation“willnot,ifweexceptitsnaturalsituation,its

commerce,anditsshipping,foronemoment,standincomparisonwithEdinburghorGlasgow,”the

Scotpraisedthelanguageoftheinhabitants:

[…]sofarasIamabletojudge,theEnglishlanguageisuniversallyspokeningreater

puritythanitisinBritain.Thereare,itistrue,anumberofAmericanisms,whichcannot

escapethenoticeofastrangeronhisfirstenteringthecountry;butneverhaveIheard

anythinginAmericaliketheunintelligiblejargonofanativeofLancashireorYorkshirein

England.175

169FrancesWright,ViewsofSocietyandMannersinAmerica,(London,1821),PaulR.Bakered.,(CambridgeMassachusetts,1963),pp.308-9.170Ibid,p.376.171Ibid.172Ibid.173Ibid,pp.311,10.174JamesHedderwick,‘ASummaryDigestofGleaningsinAmerica,’ReferenceBookofJamesHedderwick&Son,(Glasgow,1823),p.22.175Ibid,pp.22,26.

|P a g e

149

HedderwicklaudedanAmericanEnglishofgenerally“greaterpurity”thanvarietiesinBritain,

registeringatellingpreferencefor“Americanisms”over“unintelligible”Englishsub-versions.

Aroundthesameperiod,JamesFlint,a“Scotchman”commendedforhis“capacityfor

philosophicinsight”and“sodiscriminatingatemperament,”assumedamorebalancedstanceon

Anglo-Americanlanguage.176InhisLettersfromAmerica,printedatEdinburghin1822,Flint

discussedthephraseologyof“whomyouwouldcallthelowerorders”inOhio:

TheirdiscourseisusuallyintermixedwiththeprovincialismsofEnglandandIreland,anda

fewScotticisms.Thismightbeexpected,sinceAmericahasbeenpartlypeopledby

nativesofthesecountries.Theyalsousesomeexpressionstheoriginalappellationsof

whichIhavenotbeenabletodiscover.TheseImustcallAmericanisms,andwillsubjoin

someexamples.177

HighlightingcertainAmericanidiosyncrasies,including“Rooster”for“Cock,themaleofthehen,”

and“Tot”for“Carry[…]saidtobeofnegroorigin,”Flintofferedlittlereflection,neithercondemning

norapprovingsuchterminology.178

Yet,FlintkeptanopenearforthelinguisticdistinctionsofhisfellowScots,andincludeda

fascinatingdiscussionofa“ScotchfamilyaboutthirteenmilesfromChillicothe.”179Thetraveller

marvelledathowthefamilyhadadaptedtolifewithintheUnitedStates,having“settledhere

twelveyearsago,”regardinglanguageaclearmarkerofculturalacclimatisation:

Itisastonishingtoseehowmuchthefamilyhaveadoptedthemannersandcustomsof

theAmericans.Thefather,whoisseventy-fiveyearsofage,hasalmostentirelylaidaside

thepeculiaritiesofhisnativeprovincialdialect.Nothingbutthebroadpronunciationof

thevowelAremains.Thesonhasacquiredthedialectofthecountryperfectly;andhas

adoptedtheAmericanmodesoffarming[…]andisineveryrespectidentifiedwiththe

people.180

Conversely,theEdinburghstationerandbooksellerRichardWeston,journeyingthroughthe

U.S.andCanadatenyearslater,emphasisedadiasporicpreservationofScotsforms.Likeboth

WrightandHedderwick,WestonalsowroteapprovinglyofAnglo-Americanlanguage.Onrouteto

Trenton,Pennsylvaniain1833,Westonnoted,

176ReubenGoldThwaitesed.,EarlyWesternTravels,1748-1846,(Cleveland,1901),p.9.177JamesFlint,LettersfromAmerica,(Edinburgh,1822),p.263.178Ibid,pp.263-4.179Ibid,p.95.180Ibid,pp.95-6.

|P a g e

150

IhadheretheopportunityofobservingthecharacteristicfeaturesoftheAmericans.Their

cheekbonesareprominent,theireyessmallandsunken;andtheirvoiceinpronouncing

particularwordshasapeculiarnasalsound.TheyhoweverspeakverygoodEnglish.181

“RecognizedasanOldCountry-man,”theScotwasseenassomethingofacuriosity,insistingto

certainincredulousAmericans,“thatmostofthemwerebornBritons,thattheyspoketheBritish

language,andadoptedtheBritishlaw.”182

Laterinhisjourney,theScotwasmorediplomatic.VisitingrelativesatLucerne,hereported

withgoodhumourthatsome“wonderedthatIspokeasgoodEnglishasthemselves.”183Aswith

JohnMelishtwentyyearsearlier,WestonobservedanAnglo-Americanenthusiasmfortheword

“guess”–describingtheproceedingsofacourtcaseinCaldwellbyLakeGeorge,wherewitnesses

“gavetheirevidenceingoodEnglish,butinterlaidcontinuallywith‘Iguessitwasso.’”184

WestonalsocommenteduponthelanguageofScotsmigrants.Throughoutthenarrative–

intendedasawarningtoprospectiveemigrants–hereportedbeing“ill-treated”bydiasporicScots

withintheUnitedStates,“countrymen”hesaw“tobeassourasAmericanapples.”185The

booksellerprovidedaparticularlybittercaricatureoftheproprietorofa“Scotchhouse”inNew

York,reckoningthe“thelandlord[…]aproperSawney,”who“spoketheScotishdialectbroaderthan

IeverhearditinScotland.”186“Hefoundmuchfaultwithmeforcryingupmyowncountry,”Weston

reported,andthus“sethimdownforaswindlerandsharper,readytoway-layandspungehisless

knowingcountrymen.”187

OtherScotsacquaintancesreceivedarathermorecomplimentaryrendering.Inthe“Back

Woods”nearJessopsLanding,Westonencountered“MrsKennedy,”wifeofa“Highlandsmuggler,”

andclaimedthatshe“spokethebestEnglishofanyinthedistrict,andveryliketheInverness

pronunciation.”188Withinthesamecommunity,thetravellerwaspresentedtoone“MrsStewart,”

anelderlyblindwoman,andrecountedtheirmeetinginaffectingterms:

Uponmyfirstintroduction,Itooktheoldladybythehandandspoketoher.Shesaid,

‘Yourlanguageconvincesmethatyouarereallyfrommynativetown–itisalongtime

181RichardWeston,AVisittotheUnitedStatesandCanadain1833,(Edinburgh,1836),p.96.182Ibid.183Ibid,p.166.184Ibid,p.173.185Ibid,p.148.186Ibid,p.272.187Ibid,pp.272-3.188Ibid,p.227.

|P a g e

151

sinceIhearditspoken.OftenhaveIwishedtoreturn,butIcouldnevermakeitout.’She

keptholdofmyhandforalongtime,asifafraidIshouldleaveher.189

Scotsformsaddedalivelytincturetosuchcharacterisation,andwerebynomeansseenasentirely

positive.Nevertheless,Weston’sportrayalofasentimental,conspicuouslyfeminisedLowland

tongueistelling,harnessingcertainemotiveassociationstohisownnegativeprojectionof

migration.

Adecadelater,thejournalofJohnReilly,aself-proclaimed“wanderer,”offereda

comparableattempttobothfeminiseandromanticiseLowlandlanguagewithinNorthAmerica.190

LikeJamesBoswell,whofamouslyadmitted,“lovereconcilesmetotheScotsaccent,whichfromthe

mouthofaprettywomanissimplyandsweetlymelodious,”ReillyassociatedScotsformswithhis

ownamorousinclinations.191RecollectinghisjourneyacrossLakeEriein1844,hespied“ontheboat

anAmericanfamily,consistingofthefather,mother,threesons,andaprettydaughter,”and

somewhatpresumptuouslypressedtheyoungwoman“tofavourmewithasong.”192Reillyrecalled,

“shesangafavouriteScotchsong,“Yebanksandbraeso’bonnieDoon”:

WhenIlooked,aroundandsawtheMohawkriverwindingbeneath,andthemountainsof

theMohawktoweringabove,IrememberedIwasfarfromtheLandofCakes,andthe

wordsofthesongrecalledathousandpleasingrecollectionsofhome.193

These“pleasingrecollectionsofhome,”triggeredbythetonesofwoman’ssong,appearenhanced

amidtheunfamiliargrandeuroftheMohawkvalley,“farfromtheLandofCakes.”

ReillydescribedasimilarinstanceonLakeOntario,wherehe“metwithafamilyfrom

Edinburgh,consistingofabouttwenty-fivepersons,allrelatedtooneanothereitherbybloodor

marriage”:

Theyallseemedtoregretleavinghome,andwerequitedissatisfiedwiththeclimate,the

country,andthepeople.Itriedtocomfortthembytellingthemthattheywouldlikeit

betterwhentheybecameaccustomedtothechange;butitwouldnotdo.[…]Isawthey

wereallhome-sick,astoomanyoftheircountrymenarewhentheyfirstcomehere:–

‘TheysighforScotia’sshore,

Andtheygazeacrossthesea,

189Ibid,p.229.190JohnG.Reilly,JournalofaWanderer,(London,1844).191FrankBradyandFrederickA.Pottleeds.,BoswellinSearchofaWife,1766-1769,(London,1959),p.9.Tellingly,BoswellspeaksratherscathinglyofthespeechoftheScotswomenofwhomheislessenamoured.192Reilly,Journal,p.145.193Ibid.

|P a g e

152

Buttheycannagetablink

O’theiraincountrie.’194

FollowingthisimpromptuburstofScotspoetry,takenfromtheaptly-titled‘Emigrant’sComplaint,’

Reillyreflected,

[t]hisfeelingoflovefortheirnativecountryismorestronglyimplantedintheScotch,

thaneitherintheEnglishorIrish,and,consequently,theyfeelthepangofseparation

morekeenly.Itisatraitintheircharacterwhichdoesthemhonour;butitisthecauseof

muchunhappiness,andtoooftenparalyzestheirexertions,andevenbringsondisease.195

Again,LowlandlanguagepunctuatedapeculiarScotssensitivity.

Perhapsmostpoignantly,atLockportbytheErieCanal,Reillypairedmigrants’frustrations

withanappetiteforsentimentalLowlandstrains.Hedescribedanencounterwiththeproprietorofa

canal-sideinn,who“happenedtobefromEdinburgh”:

[…]akind-heartedman,forwhenItoldhimfromwhenceIcame,thefeelingsoftheScot

overcameallhiscoldnessforhisadoptedcountry,andheheldouthishand,exclaiming‘O

man,butIamgladtoseeyou!’196

TheinnkeeperinvitedRiley“totaketeawithhiswifeandfamily,”andtheguest“spentamost

agreeableevening.”197Thehost’sdaughteraddedtotheagreeability.Reillydescribedthewomanas

“abouttwentyyearsofage,amostamiablegood-lookinggirl,”andrecalled“[s]hehadasweet

musicalvoice,andsangScotchairswithmuchfeeling.”198Yetagain,theScottishtravellersoughtout

emotionally-loaded,feminisedrenderingsofScotsmusicandlanguage:

Aftershehadsungseveralsongs,Iaskedherifshewouldfavourmewith“Home,sweet

home;”shecomplied;butIwassorryafterwardsthatIhadaskedher,forwhenshecame

totheline“there’snoplacelikehome,”thetearsstartedintohereyes,andtrickleddown

hercheeks.Isawthatthepoorlassiefeltthatshewasfarfromhome.Iwasreallygrieved

forher,andbeingaBacheloratthetime,wasalmosttemptedtotakeherbackagainto

AuldReekie.

194Ibid,pp.156-7.195Ibid,p.157,R.Gilfillan,‘TheEmigrant’sComplaint,’AlexWhitelawed.,TheBookofScottishSong,(London,1844),p.59.196Reilly,Journal,pp.209-10.197Ibid,p.210.198Ibid.

|P a g e

153

Duringtheearlydecadesofthenineteenthcentury,then,thesocietyandcultureoftheyoung

Americannation–presentedin“progressivetransmutation”andimaginedina“sortofmiddlestate

betweenbarbarismandrefinement”–wasofclearinteresttoScotstravellers.Curiously,while

commentatorsanticipatedthe“progress”oftheUnitedStates,themanifestationofLowland

linguistictraitswithinsuchdiscoursesoftenreflectedanemotiveandnotablyfeminisedsenseof

“exile.”

SuchinterpretationswerenotlimitedtotheUnitedStates.Infact,JohnReillyexpressed

remarkable,near-identicalmusingsuponsweet-accented“lassies”duringhistimeinIndia.Priorto

hisNorth-Americanexpedition,ReillywasemployedasasuperintendentattheKolkata-basedindigo

factoryofMcIntosh&Co.Roughlytwentyyearsbeforethepublicationofhis“wanderings,”Reilly

lamentedhisapparentisolationathislodgingsatMunsitpore,nearCommercolly,around120miles

inlandfromKolkata:

IhavenowbeensixmonthswithoutseeingaEuropean.Myheartisyearningtobehold

mycountrymen,andtoheartheEnglishlanguageoncespoken.IoftendreamIamat

home,walkinginthegreenfieldswithoneofScotia’sfair-hairedmaidens,butsoonI

awokeagaintobeholdthesameeternalduskyfaces.Thestrengthoftheloveofcountry

canbeknownonlythosewhoareorhavebeensimilarlycircumstancedtomyself.What

wouldInotgivethismomenttobeholdabonnieScotchlassieandtohearthesweet

tones,anddearaccentsofmynativeland,proceedingfromherlips.Idobelieveitwould

almostdrivemefranticwithjoy.199

UnlikeReilly’slater,Americanexamples,projectingawistfulsensibilityontothelanguageof

actualcharacters,themanifestationofLowlandlanguageisinthisinstance,imagined.Fixingupon

thefantasy-accentofa“bonnieScotchlassie,”thesuperintendentplacedsuch“sweettones”within

abroadsocio-cultural,“racially”-chargedframework–demonstrativebothofhissupposedstatusas

a“European”andtheassured“Englishlanguage”ofhis“countrymen.”Amidthe“sameeternal

duskyfaces,”“dear”Scotssub-versionsweresupposedallthemoreevocative,suggestiveof“green

fields”and“fair-hairedmaidens.”These“racially”-infusedmusingsdirectlycontributedtothe

“strengthoftheloveofcountry,”andthroughthispre-emptivecombinationofdistanceand

difference,Reillyreckonedthis“yearning”comprehensibleonlytoScots“similarlycircumstanced.”

Aroundthesameperiod,ThomasMunroexpressedcomparablesentiments.200Yethedidso

withinScotland.InOctober1813,onfurloughinBritainafterhavingserved27yearsasasoldierand

199Ibid,p.38200ForMunro’sScottish“affectionsandaffectations”seeMarthaMcLarenBritishIndia&BritishScotland,1780-1830,(Akron,2001),p.6.

|P a g e

154

administratorfortheEastIndiaCompany,attainingtherankofLieutenantColonel,Munrowroteto

hisfriendandfellowGlaswegianGrahamMoore.201“Ihavebeenforthelastfortnightpayingvisitsat

GreenockandGlasgow,”MunroinformedMoore,whowashimselffrequentlyoverseas–recently

promotedtoCommander-in-ChiefoftheBritishnavalfleetintheBalticthepreviousyear.202

Munrodescribedhiswanderingsthroughchildhoodhaunts:

IfIhadnothingelsetothinkof,IfancythatIcouldforeverrambleoverthescenesofour

earlydaysforthepleasureIfeelindoingsoisnotatalldiminishedbythefrequentvisitsI

havemadetothemsincemyreturntothiscountry.203

Movedtohighlightthedivergenceina“presentandpaststate,”Munrofocussedbothuponthe

developmentofhisnativeGlasgow,andthegeneral,regrettablechangesin“Scotch”language:

MyfavouriteexcursionistoWoodside,andalongthebanksoftheKelvin,whereweused

tobatheinourformerdays;butIhavealsogreatenjoymenttraversingthestreetsand

closesofGlasgow,andcomparingtheirpresentandpaststate.AsIsaunteralong,I

imaginethatitisnow,oratleastthatitisdestinedtobe,thefinestcityinthekingdom;

thatthebuildingsarehandsomer,themerchantsmoreenterprising,andthe

manufacturersmoreskilful,andeventhecommonpeoplemorehonest,contented-

lookingfolks,thatoneseesanywhereelse.IliketotalkScotchwiththecountrypeople

andchildrenImeetwithinmywalks,butIamsorrytosaythatthelanguageismuch

corruptedbytheinfluxofEnglishwords.Manyofouroldidiomsandphrases,however,

arestillpreserved.Iheardonetheotherday,inallitsancientpurity,fromayounggirl.I

askedherwherehermotherwas.‘Whereisshe?’saidshe:–‘She’sinherskin,andwhen

shecomesoutloupyouin.’Ihadnotheardthisexpressionforabovethirtyyears,buton

hearingitIinstantlyrecognizeditasonethatIhadoftenmadeuseofmyself.Iwishyou

wereoncemoreathome,toenjoyallthesesimplepleasures,forwhichyouhavesohigh

arelish.204

Again,thesignificanceofScotsformswasnegotiatedthroughadiasporichazeofdistanceand

difference,anddiscussedalongsidecontemporarydomestic“enterprise.”ForMunro,Lowland

languagewas“muchcorrupted”yetalso“stillpreserved”;indicativeofanoccasional,“ancient

purity,”suggestiveofone’sownlostlanguage,andlinked,yetagain,withfeminisedexpressions.

201ForMunroandtheMoorefamily,seeJohnCleland,EnumerationoftheInhabitantsoftheCityofGlasgowandCountyofLanark,(Glasgow,1832),pp.265-71.202InG.R.Gleig,TheLifeofMajor-GeneralSirThomasMunro,(1830:London,1831),2vols.,I,p.484,RobertGardiner,MemoirofAdmiralSirGrahamMoore,(London,1844),p.35.203Gleig,Munro,I,p.484.204Ibid.

|P a g e

155

InIndiafiveyearslater,Munroofferedasimilarperspective.AtBangaloreinSeptember

1818,havingresignedhismilitarypositionandanticipatingareturntoBritain,hewrotetoKirkman

Finlay,ProvostofGlasgow:

Iamthinking,astheboysinScotlandsay,Iamthinking,Provost,thatIamwastingmy

timeveryidlyinthiscountry;andthatitwouldbe,oratleastwouldlookwiser,tobe

livingquietlyanddooslyathome.205

RespondingtoFinlay’sletters,“asightgudeforsaireen,”MunroemployedevermoreScots

phraseology:

WereInowthere,insteadofrunningaboutthecountrywithcamshere,Imightatthis

momentbepleasantlyandprofitablyemployedingatheringblackBoydswithyouamong

thebraesnearLargs.Thereisnoenjoymentinthiscountryequaltoit,andIheartilywish

thatIwereoncemorefairlyamongthebusheswithyou,evenattheriskofbeingstickit

byyondroveofwildknowtethatlookedsosharplyafterus.Hadtheyfoundusasleepin

thedyke,theywouldhavemadeusrepentbreakingthesabbath.206

Pastmemories,pastoralassociations,andawryPresbyterianhumouraremarkedbyMunro’s

distinctScotsregister,composedinIndia.

JusttwomonthsafterMunropennedthisletter,JohnDuncanattendedhisunderwhelming

StAndrew’sDaybanquetinNewYork,encounteringthefrustrating“imitationoftheScotish

dialect.”Ashasbeendiscussed,DuncanfrequentlydrewattentiontodistinctiveLowlandformswith

referencetoBurns’spoetry.Revealingly,inhislettertoFinlay,Munro’sreflectionsonScottish

sceneswerearousedwhencontemplatingtheworkofanother,emergingliteraryicon,WalterScott.

Immediatelybeforehisrecollections“amongthebraes,”Munrodiscussedthe

characterisationwithinScott’sRobRoy,publishedearlierthatyear.“BaillieJarvieisacredittoour

town,”heremarkedtotheGlasgowProvost,“IcouldalmostswearthatIhaveseenbothhimandhis

father,theDeaconaforehim,intheSalt-market”:“IfIamspared,andgetbackthereagainIshall

seesomeofhisworthydescendantswalkinginhissteps.”207

MunrotransplantedScott’sfictionstohisIndiansurroundings.“HadtheBailiebeenhere,”

hesupposed,“wecouldhaveshownhimmanygreaterthieves;butnonesorespectableasRob

205Ibid,II,p.77.ForMunro’sEICcareerduringthisperiod,seeBurtonStein,ThomasMunro.TheOriginsoftheColonialStateandHisVisionofEmpire,(Delhi,1989),pp.243-7.206Gleig,Munro,II,pp.76,77-8.207Ibid,II,p.77.

|P a g e

156

Roy.”208TheScotdrewdirectcomparisonswiththe“Mahratta”Hinducaste,depictinghisHighland

compatriotsratherfavourably:

ThedifferencebetweentheMahrattaandtheHighlandRobis,thattheonedoesfrom

choicewhattheotherdidfromnecessity;foraMahrattawouldrathergettenpoundsby

plunder,thanahundredbyanhonestcalling,whetherintheSalt-marketofthe

Gallowgate.209

MuchlikeDuncan’sperceptionofBurns’spoetry,echoesofScott’sfictionsaccentuatedMunro’s

musingsuponlifeinScotland,influencinghisinterpretationsbothofScotsandIndianscenes,and

suggestivelyprefacinghisownutterancesofLowlandlanguage.

ThroughtheremarkableinfluenceofBurnsandScottduringthenineteenthcentury,an

increasinglyglobal“English”readershipwasevermoreexposedto“reputable”Scotssub-versions.

Bothauthorswerecelebratedwithinawider“English”literarycanon,thoughalsorenownedfor

theircharacteristicemploymentofanovertlyScottishlexicon.210Suchformswereviewedto

exemplifycertainconceptionsofScotland,particularlywhenoutwiththenation–encapsulatingan

exilicallureofdifferenceanddistance.

Withinthisperiod,theanxietiesofpreviousgenerationsofLowlandScotswithregardto

accentandidiomappearstohavelargelydissipated.Ofcourse,likeallsuchlinguisticsub-versions,a

multiplicityofdomesticScotsvarietiesremainedhighlyliabletochargesof“vulgarity”and

“impropriety”intheirdissonancefromAnglo-centred“standards.”Yetinthefusionoftwo

interrelatedliteraryphenomenaoftheperiod,certainLowlandlinguisticformsbecamelionised

whilstScots’credentialsasspeakersof“English”weresolidified.Ontheonehand,popularBurnsian

poetrywasseentocodifyLowlandlanguage;presentingapseudo-“standard”ofdemonstrableScots

traitsfrequentlyseentobesynonymouswithacouthynationalculture–fadingintothepastor

disappearingbeyondthehorizon.YetScottish“authorities,”suchasthoseoftheEdinburghReview,

literallysettheterms,havingbecomebothacceptedandrespectedamongthe“lawgivers”ofa

global“English”language.

AsisdemonstratedthroughtheparallelconsiderationofAnglo-Americanliteraryanxieties

andlinguisticuncertainties,Scotsexamplescouldservetoinstructaneffective“provincial”

negotiationof“standards,”inwhich“English”differenceswereatonceregisteredandreconciled.

208Ibid.209Ibid.210Bythe1820s,thistropewassowell-establishedastobeitselfsubvertedinpastiche,perhapsmostfamouslyinSarahGreen’s,ScotchNovelReading;or,ModernQuackery,(London,1824),p.4-9.SeeTrumpener,BardicNationalism,pp.17-18.

|P a g e

157

Theconcludingsectionofthisinvestigation,offersasomewhatdifferentdiscussionofthe

manifestationofLowlandScotsformsduringtheearlynineteenthcentury,againoperatingin

dialoguewithgoverningassumptionsoflinguisticandcultural“standards.”

|P a g e

158

“Thoughfalsehistonesattimesmightbe.”ScotsinIndia.

Thoughfalsehistonesattimesmightbe,

Thoughwildnotesmarredthesymphony

Between,theglowingmeasurestole

Thatspokethebard’sinspiredsoul.

Sadwerethosestrains,whenhymnedafar,

OnthegreenvalesofMalabar:

O’erseasbeneaththegoldenmorn,

Theytravelled,onthemonsoonborne–.

Thrill ingtheheartofIndianmaid

Beneaththewildbanana’sshade.

Leyden!ashepherdwailsthyfate,

AndScotlandknowsherlosstoolate.

JamesHogg,(Edinburgh,1813).

“TheEnglishlanguage,anditalone , isfoundtosupplythenecessarymedium.Itis

accordinglyemployedastheonlyadequateinstrumentfortheconveyanceofevery

branchofusefulknowledge,andwiththeviewofraisingupahigherandmore

effectiveorderofmen,whoshallspreadahealthfulinfluenceoversocietyonevery

side.TheEnglishinIndiaholdsthesameplacenowwhichtheLatinandGreekheldin

EuropeattheperiodoftheReformation.”

AlexanderDuff , (Edinburgh,1835).

|P a g e

159

InearlyAugust1811,the“BardofTeviotdale”splashedontotheshoresofnorth-westJava,dressed

asanoveltybuccaneer.ThemanwasJohnLeyden–formerPresbyterianminister,celebratedballad-

collector,and“Orientalist”fromthevillageofDenholmintheScottishBorders.Outstrippingthe

militarylandingparty,theScotbecamethefirstmemberofaBritishforceofaround12,000troops

tosetfootupontheSoutheastAsianisland.1CaptainThomasTaylor,MilitarySecretarytoGilbert

ElliotLordMinto,Governor-generalofBengal,lookedoninscorn:

Leydenwholovedactingapart,wasdressedasapirateinaredtasseledcap,acutlass

roundhiswaistandapistolinhisbelt;hewasfirstashore,andborethebruntofthe

attack,whichcamefromaflockofbarn-doorfowlsheadedbyanaggressiverooster.2

ThoughTaylorderidedsuchchildishindiscipline,thecaptain’ssuperiorsgenerallyindulged

Leyden’seccentricity.TheScotwasanotedfavouriteofLordMinto–afellowBorderer–andviewed

assomethingofan“ornament”totheGovernor’s“Orientalistcourt”atKolkata.3Leydenandhis

closefriendThomasStamfordRaffleswerekeyadvocatesoftheinvasionofJava,andtheir

enthusiasticsupplyofintelligencewascentralinpiquingtheinterestoftheGovernor-general,who

resolvedtoleadtheexpeditionhimself.4BothLeydenandhisEnglishallyRaffleswereintendedto

playanessentialroleintheoccupationoftheisland,selectedtosmooththetransitionoftheformer

DutchcolonytoBritishrule,therebyedgingoutthethreatofNapoleon’sFrancewithinmaritime

SoutheastAsia.5

LeydenandRaffles’swide-rangingresearchintothemyriadlanguages,cultures,and

historiesofthe“MalayPeninsula”wasseenasavitalasset.Raffles,supportedbyhisfantastically

scandal-proofwifeOliviaMariamne,hadrepresentedEICinterestsintheregionsince1805,serving

withincreasingdistinctionastheirmaninPenangandthenMalacca.PriortotheJavaexpedition,he

wasdescribedbyMintoas“averyclever,able,activeandjudiciousman,perfectlyversedinthe

Malaylanguageandmanners,andconversantwiththeinterestsandaffairsoftheEasternStates.”6

Leyden,Mintonotedinthesameletter,was“aperfectMalay.”7

1WilliamThorn.MemoiroftheConquestofJava,(Edinburgh,1816),C.E.Wurtzburg,RafflesoftheEasternIsles,(1954:Singapore,1986),pp.157-83.2QuotedinWurtzburg,Raffles,p.162.SeealsoTimHannigan,RafflesandtheBritishInvasionofJava,(Singapore,2012),pp.5-6.3Fry,ScottishEmpire,pp.453,285,Wurtzburg,Raffles,pp.55-6.4Hannigan,Raffles,pp.18-24,EmilyHahn,RafflesofSingapore,(London,1948),pp.55,VictoriaGlendinning,RafflesandtheGoldenOpportunity,(London,2013),pp.56-7,ReginaldCoupland,Raffles,1781-1826,(Oxford,1926),p.23.5M.C.Ricklefs,AHistoryofModernIndonesia,c.1300tothepresent,(London,1981),pp.108-11,Coupland,Raffles,pp.17-22.6QuotedinJohnReith,LifeofDrJohnLeyden.PoetandLinguist,(Galashiels,1908),p.290.7Ibid.

|P a g e

160

TheGovernor-generalreservedhismosteffusivepraiseforhiscompatriot,“sodistinguished

aworthyofTeviotside,”whomheappointedtoseveraljudicialandadministrativepositionsin

Bengal.8“Dr.Leyden’slearningisstupendous,”MintoinformedhiswifeAnnaMariain1811,writing

enroutetoPenang,threemonthsbeforetheinvasionofJava:

Hisknowledge,extremeandminuteasitis,isalwaysinhispocketathisfinger’send,and

onthetipofhistongue.Hehasmadeitcompletelyhisown.[…]Imustsaytohishonour

thathehasasintimateandprofoundaknowledgeofthegeography,history,mutual

relations,religion,character,andmannersofeverytribeinAsiaashehasoftheir

language.Onthepresentoccasion,thereisnotanislandorpettystateinthemultitudes

ofislandsandnationsamongstwhichwearegoing,ofwhichhehasnotatolerably

minuteandcorrectknowledge.9

YetLeyden’swealthof“correctknowledge”wastobeoflittledirectaidintheBritishoccupationof

theisland.FollowingthecaptureofBatavia,nowtheIndonesiancapitalofJakarta,Leydensatfor

severalhoursinthepoorlyventilatedarchivesoftheformeradministration,fixatedinhissearchfor

“Javanesecuriosities.”10Heemergedwithafever,theresult,onebiographersupposed,ofhaving

inhaledthe“pestiferousparticles”withinthechamber.11Threedayslater,on28August1811,less

thanamonthsincehisspiritedrushtotheshore,JohnLeydendiedonJava,reportedbyRafflesto

have“expiredinmyarms.”12

AfterLeydenwaslaidtorestinthe“Europeancemetery”atTanahAbanginBatavia,Raffles

wasappointedLieutenant-governorofthenewcolony.Bytheendofthedecade,Raffleshad

securedthevitalentrepôtofSingapore,therebycementinghispositionwithinapantheonof

nineteenth-centuryBritishimperialicons.RafflesfrequentlyacknowledgedhisdebttoJohnLeyden;

supportingthepublicationoftheScot’sMalayAnnalsin1821,andcommemoratingthe“unceasing

activity,”“extensiveviews,”and“otherprodigiousacquirements”of“Dr.J.C.Leyden,thebardof

Tiviotdale,”“deartomeinprivatefriendshipandesteem,”withinhisownHistoryofJavaof1817.13

8Ibid,p.299.ForLeyden’scareerinIndia,seeWalterScott,‘BiographicalMemoirofDr.JohnLeyden,’EdinburghAnnualRegister(1812),WalterScotted.,PoemsandBalladsbyDr.JohnLeyden,(1858:Kelso,1875),pp.cvii-cviii.9Reith,Leyden,pp.297-8.10Anon.,‘No.IX,ThePoeticalremainsoftheLateDr.JOHNLEYDEN,withMemoirsofhisLife,bytheRev.JamesMorton,’TheAnnualBiographyandObituary,fortheyear1821.,VolV.,(London,1821),p.422.11ThomasBrowned.,ThePoeticalWorksofDrJohnLeyden,(London,1875),p.xc.Leydenhasbeensuggestedtohavecontractedeithermalariaorpneumonia,Wurtzburg,Raffles,pp.167-8.12ThomasStamfordRaffles,TheHistoryofJava,(1817:KualaLumpur,1965)2vols.,I,p.x.13Ibid.Seealso,Rafflesintroduction,JohnLeyden,MalayAnnals:translatedfromtheMalayLanguagebythelateDr.JohnLeyden,(London,1821).

|P a g e

161

YetforallRaffles’sendeavours,LeydenremainsarathershadowycharacterwithinBritish

imperialhistory,largelyobscuredbyhismorerenownedfriendsandassociates.Leyden’stiestoa

remarkablecollectionofbetter-celebratedcontemporariesaretestamenttothesignificanceofthe

Scottishscholar.BothproudBorders“bard”andpan-culturalpolyglot,theformerKirkminister

standsasanextraordinaryrepresentativeoftheporousboundsandboundariesofBritish

imperialismduringtheearlynineteenthcentury.TheScot’sliterary,linguistic,andsocio-cultural

interestsweresimultaneouslylocalandglobal–rootedinhisfascinationforcopiousand

interconnectingintellectualvariety.Followinghisdeath,twoofLeyden’sdistinguishedfriends

pennedheartfeltobituaries.Ratheraptly,onewasprintedinIndia,writtenbySirJohnMalcolm–

long-standingEICemissarytoPersiaandlaterGovernorofBombay.Theotherwaspublishedinthe

EdinburghAnnualRegister,itsauthor,Leyden’sfriendandcollaboratorontheMinstrelsyofthe

ScottishBorder,WalterScott.14

InMay1830,lessthanlessthantwentyyearsafterLeyden’sdeath,anotherScotmadeadramatic

landinguponSouthAsianshores.Thiswasthetwenty-four-year-oldAlexanderDuff,thefirst

formallyappointedmissionaryoftheChurchofScotland.TwiceshipwreckedsincedepartingLeith

thepreviousSeptember,DuffandhiswifeAnnwereunceremoniouslyoff-loadedontothemudflats

offSaguarIslandnearthemouthoftheHooghlyRiver,theirbaggageabandonedonboardtheir

vesseltheMoira,whichwaslistingperilouslyafterasuddenmonsoon.15FromSaguar,thecrewand

passengersawaitedtransportuprivertoKolkata,whereDuffwasduetomeetwithLordWilliam

Bentinck,Governor-generalofafamouslydifferentmind-setto“Orientalist”Minto.16

ComparedwiththatofLeyden,Duff’scareerinBengalappearstohavebeenamuchmore

familiarstory,andaclusterofsemi-hagiographicalrenderingsofthemissionary’slifeofferindication

ofhisenduringimperiallegacy.17Fromhisarrivalin1830,DuffaddedadistinctlyScottishtinctureto

anevermoreAnglo-centristoutlookinBritishIndia.Notedforhavingwieldeda“staggering”

14Malcolm’stextiscitedwithinScott’s,PoemsandBallads,pp.lix-lxii.ForafascinatingcollectionofcorrespondencebetweenScottandMalcolm,seeJohnMalcolm,‘SirWalterScottandSirJohnMalcom,’https://sirjohnmalcolm.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/sir-walter-scott-and-sir-john-malcolm/.15GeorgeSmith,TheLifeofAlexanderDuff,(London,1879),2vols.,I,pp.60-85.16DavidKopf,BritishOrientalismandtheBengalRenaissance,(Berkeley,1969),pp.4,232-3,SubrataDasgupta,TheBengalRenaissance,(Delhi,2007),pp.82-3.17See,LalBehariDay,RecollectionsofAlexanderDuff,(London,1879),W.PirieDuff,MemorialsofAlexanderDuff,(London,1890),ElizabethB.Vermilye,TheLifeofAlexanderDuff,(1890,NewYork),W.PakenhamWalsh,ModernHeroesoftheMissionField,(London,1882),pp.247-80,HelenH.Holcomb,MenofMightinIndianMissions,(London,1901),pp.213-29.Foracurious,latetwentieth-centuryexample,see,A.A.Millar,AlexanderDuffofIndia,(Edinburgh,1992).

|P a g e

162

practicalinfluenceinre-structuring“native”educationintheIndianterritoriesoftheEICalong

“Anglicist”lines,DuffpursuedanovertmissionaryagendaoflinguisticChristianization.18

Duff’sinsistenceupontheEnglishlanguageasthesolemeansofinstructioninIndia

reflectedaPresbyterianismparticulartohisnativeland.19Followinghisdeathin1878,hewashailed

“HeirtoKnoxandChalmers,”transplantingaspecificallyScottishbrandofreligiousenlightenmentto

theSouthAsiansubcontinent:“tobeginintheheartofHindooism”thatwhichhisreforming

forebears“hadcarriedoutinthemediaevalismofRomeandthemoderatismoftheKirkinthe

eighteenthcentury.”20Inessence,Duffassertedthe“grandidea”that“theEnglishlanguageshould

beemployedasthebestandmosteffectivemediumforthrowingopenthepurefountofEuropean

knowledgeandsciencetothenativesatlarge.”21Suchsentimentsmirroredthoseofhisfellow

“Anglicists”inIndia,mostobviouslytheassertionsofThomasBabingtonMacaulayinhisinfamous

MinuteonIndianEducationofJanuary1835.AlongwithofficialssuchasMacaulayandCharles

Trevelyan,servingontheGovernor’sCouncilforPublicInstruction,Duffwasapre-eminentfigurein

re-orientingBritishgovernmentfundingof“native”educationinBengal.Indeed,themissionary

standsastheforemostScottishexponentofEnglisheducationinIndia.Ashedeclaredtothe

GeneralAssemblyinEdinburghbarelyfourmonthsafterthesubmissionofMacaulay’sMinute,the

Scotenvisionedthe“Englishlanguage”asthe“lever,which,astheinstrumentofconveyingthe

entirerangeofknowledge,isdestinedtomoveallHindustan.”22

Aswithhisreligiousimpetus,therewassomethingdistinctlyScottishaboutDuff’sbrandof

linguisticAnglocentrism.WhileLeydenwasraisedwithinsightofonesetofScottishbordersat

Denholm,Duffgrewupeyeinganother:bornintoacross-cultural,bilingualScots-Gaeliccommunity

atMoulininnorthPerthshire,justpastPitlochrywithinthefringesoftheHighlandline.AsLeyden

madefrequentreferencetohisBordersheritage,Duffprovidedaparallelreflectionofhisown

experiencesasaHighlander,“Christianizedandcivilized”throughtheprovidentialimpactofthe

Englishlanguage.23Duffperceivedboththeworldlyandspiritual“progression”ofhisfellowGaelsas

testamenttothevirtuesofanevangelicalChristianityrootedinEnglishlinguisticinstruction.

Moreover,theHighlandmissionaryviewedtheEnglishlanguage,“atpresentthegreatstorehouseof

allknowledge,”asthekeymeansofchallengingexistingsocio-religiousstructuresinIndia,corroding

18GauriViswanathan,MasksofConquest,LiteraryStudyandBritishRuleinIndia,(London,1990),pp.49,65-7.19DuffservedasModeratoroftheFreeChurchofScotlandin1851and1873,Smith,Duff,II,pp.223-7,502-10.20Ibid,I,p.85.21AlexanderDuff,NewEraoftheEnglishLanguageandEnglishLiteratureinIndia,(1835:Edinburgh,1837),p.18.22AlexanderDuff,TheChurchofScotland’sIndiaMission,(London,1835),p.31.23AlexanderDuff,AVindicationoftheChurchofScotland’sIndiaMissions,(Edinburgh,1837),p.20.

|P a g e

163

thetriplepillarsof“falseliterature,falsescience,andfalsereligion.”24“AthoroughEnglisheducation

must,everywhere,provedestructivetothesystemsofHinduism,”DuffspecifiedtotheGeneral

Assemblyin1837,offeringtheexample“ofthepastandpresentconditionoftheHighlandsof

Scotland”inassertingthebeneficenceof“trueliteratureandtruescience”–“ourverybest

auxiliaries–whetherinScotlandorinIndia,orinanyotherquarterofthehabitableglobe.”25

ThisinvestigationconcludeswithadiscussionofDuffandLeydenandtheirattitudestowards

linguisticsub-versionsand“standards”withintheterritoriesoftheBritishEastIndiaCompanyinthe

SouthAsiansubcontinent.Thesetworemarkable,andremarkablydifferentScottishimperialists,

bornbarelyagenerationapart,offeranillustrationofthenuancestothesupposedschisminBritish

administrativepolicyandideologywithincolonialIndiaduringthefirstfewdecadesofthe

nineteenthcentury.26

Infact,itisrathertemptingtoviewLeydenandDuffasarchetypesofeithersideofa

pedagogicdivide,respectivelyexemplifyingthe“Orientalist”and“Anglicist”campsintheclashover

“native”Indianeducation.Suchaperspectiveisofcoursedangerouslyreductive,yetbothScotsdo

appeartolendthemselvestothatkindofcaricature.Leyden,multifariousscholar,voracious

consumerof“native”“knowledge,”andculturalcross-dresser“wholovedactingapart,”canbe

mouldedtofittheroleofthequintessential,turn-of-the-century“Orientalist.”Bythesametoken,

Duffmightbejustasaptlytypecastasthedefinitiveevangelical“Anglicist”ofalaterincarnationof

Britishimperialism,resoluteintherighteousnessofamoral,spiritual,andlinguisticunisonance.

Moreover,DuffandLeydencanalsobereckonedtoreflectacomparablecontrastwithregardto

theirown,specificallyScottishsocio-culturalandlinguisticcontexts,personifyingthegulfsplintering

theHighlandandLowland,andhintingatthefissuresexistingbetweenandwithinlanguagesinthe

nation.

Whiletheremaybesomesignificancetotheallureofthissymboliccontrast,theapparent

polarityofLeydenandDuffmustbereadwithscepticism.Ashasbeensuggested,theoriginsofthe

twoScotswereinfactsomewhatcomparable,withbothindividualsraisedfacinglinesofhistoric

culturaldemarcation.Essentially,bothwereborderers.Thepairsharedanotableconcernforthe

transferenceof“usefulknowledge”acrossperceivedsocial,religious,andlinguisticperimetersin

bothBritainandSouthAsia.WheninScotland,Dufffrequentlyattestedtotheutilityofthe

24Ibid,p.21,Duff,NewEra,p.40.25Duff,Vindication,pp.28,20.26Kopf,BritishOrientalism,JohnClive,ThomasBabingtonMacaulay,(London,1973),pp.289-423.

|P a g e

164

“Anglicist”outlookinIndiabyemphasisinghispositive,first-handexperiencesofEnglishinstruction

intheHighlands.Duff’sbiographerswouldlaterplayupontheromanticisedrelevanceofthis

imperialHighland-Anglicism,andthemissionarywasevenlionisedbyoneofhisIndianstudentsasa

scionof“thesolidrockofintellectualismintheHighlandsofScotland.”27

Leyden,ontheotherhand,wasfiercelydefensiveofthehistoric,linguistic,andliterary

specificity,whichspannedhisownlocal,Lowlandfault-lines.Indeed,inaidinginthecollationof

WalterScott’sMinstrelsy,LeydenwashimselfakeyfigureinrepackagingabuoyantBorders

consciousnesstoposterity.Moreover,Leyden’sliteraryofferingsthemselvescrossedborders,and

hisscholarshipwasrelativelywellknownwithinBritishadministrativecirclesinIndia.His

involvementinScott’sballad-collectingprojectwasamarkedfactorinendearingLeydentoMinto,

his“ardently”ScottishpatronatBengal.28PriortohisdisparagingaccountofthelandingatJava,

CaptainTaylorobservedLeydenandtheGovernor-generaltohave“gotonprettywell,”supposing

theformer“asortofclansmenintheElliotfamily.”29Thelong-sufferingsubalternnotedthe

enthusiasmofbothMintoandLeydenfortheMinstrelsy,wrylydescribinghowheandafellow

officerweresubjectedto“constantrecitals”:

StewartbeingaScothastofeigninterest,butIsuspecthepreferstheCaptain’ssherry;I

beingamereSassenachhavetogrinandbearit(theMinstrelsynotthesherry).30

InbothScotlandandIndia,Leydenmadeseveralsimilarlytheatricarticulationsofhis

Bordersprovenance.However,thissenseoflocalismwasgroundedinalegacyofsocialinterfusion

asmuchasaltercationbetweentheborder-crossingcommunitiesofsouthernScotlandandnorthern

England.AsScottfamouslyclaimed,the“inroadsofthemarchers”werecharacterisednotjustin

termsof“mutualhostility,”butalsotheir“habitsofintimacy”;perceivinga“naturalintercourse,”

andeven“union[…]betwixttheparties,”typifiedby“asimilarityoftheirmanners”that“maybe

inferredfromthatoftheirlanguage.”31AsDuff’s“Anglicist”standpointwasconnectedwiththe

socio-culturalandlinguisticinteractionswithinhisownHighlandhome,Leyden’squixotic“marcher”

patriotism,thoughoftenborderingonlocalchauvinism,wassimilarlylinkedtoaconsciousnessof

historicinfluencesspillingoverdividinglines.

27ThiswastheviewofHarishChandraMittra,quotedinPirieDuff,Duff,pp.68.ForfrequentreferencestoDuff’sHighlandroots,seeWalsh,ModernHeroes,pp.247-80,Millar,AlexanderDuff,pp.1-4.28Hahn,RafflesofSingapore,pp.61-2.29QuotedinI.M.Brown,‘JohnLeyden(1775-1811)hislifeandworks,’unpublishedPhDthesis,UniversityofEdinburgh(1955),p.536.30Ibid,pp.536-7.31WalterScotted.,MinstrelsyoftheScottishBorder,(Edinburgh,1803),3vols.,I,pp.lxvi-lxvii.

|P a g e

165

IfDuffappearedkeentocelebrateaprovidentialHighland-Anglicisminthe1830s,Leyden

light-heartedlydownplayedany“English”associations.Crucially,thiswasoftendoneby

accentuatingScottishlinguisticdifference.AtSeringapatamin1805–theyearbeforeDuffwasborn

–LeydenfirstmetJohnMalcolm,thenLieutenant-colonelintheMadrasarmyandResidentof

Mysore.32Coincidentally,thelong-servingofficerwasalsoaBorderer,hailingfromthetownof

Langholm–barelythirtymilessouthofDenholm.Leyden,whowasrecoveringfromaseriousbout

ofillnessatSeringapatam,recalledthatwhenMalcolm“heardthatIwasthere,andthatIwasa

Borderman,heinstantlycametoseemewithoutceremony.”33MalcolmremovedLeydento

Mysore,wheretheystruckupafirmfriendship.TheretheEICveteranofferedsomesage

professionaladvice,cautioningLeyden“tobecarefuloftheimpressionyoumakeonenteringthis

community;forGod’ssake,learnalittleEnglish,andbesilentuponliterarysubjects,exceptamong

literarymen.”34InhisobituarytoLeyden,Malcolmrecountedhisfriend’sspiritedresponse:

‘LearnEnglish!’heexclaimed–‘nonever;itwastryingtolearnthatlanguagethatspoilt

myScotch;andastobeingsilent,Iwillpromisetoholdmytongueifyouwillmakefools

holdtheirs.’35

Ashisretellingsuggests,MalcolmsawLeyden’sreplyastestamenttohisfriend’saffable

eccentricity.Suchacomicallystubbornadherencetohisownlocalmannerismsdoesappear

characteristicoftheBordersscholar.

FromhisearlydaysatEdinburghUniversity,Leydenwasreckonedtopossessa“rustic,yet

undauntedmanner,”distinguishedbya“harshtone”and“provincialaccent.”36TheBorderer’s

conspicuouslyjarringlanguagewasalsolinkedtohisunsuccessfulstintasaPresbyterianminister,

withonebiographerrecountingthatwhenpreaching,Leyden’s“mannerofdeliverywasnot

graceful,”andsupposing“thetonesofhisvoice,whenextendedsoastobeheardbyalarge

audience”tohavebeen“harshanddiscordant.”37

Leyden’slanguagewasnotedinIndia,whereitcaughttheattentionoftheGovernor-

general.Mintomarveledatwhathesaw“themostremarkableinsogreatalearneroflanguages”;

observingLeyden“hasneverlearnttospeakEnglish,eitherinpronunciationoridiom,”adding

almostapprovingly,thattheScot’sphraseology“isnotmerelyScotch,buttheproperdialectof32JohnMalcolm,Malcolm.Soldier,Diplomat,IdeologueofBritishIndia,(Edinburgh,2014),pp.206-8.ForMalcolm’scareer,seealsoMcLaren,BritishIndia&BritishScotland,1780-1830.33Reith,Leyden,p.225.34Scott,‘Memoir,’p.lxi.35Ibid.36Ibid,p.xv,Reith,Leyden,p.36.37JamesMorton,MemoirsofthelifeandwritingsofthecelebratedliterarycharacterthelateDr.JohnLeyden,(1819:Calcutta,1825),p.22.

|P a g e

166

Tweeddale.”38Moreover,MintosawLeyden’s“proper”Tweeddaletonguetoevinceacurious

linguisticblending.WritingtohiswifeinMay1811,theGovernor-generalhighlightedLeyden’shabit

ofinfusing“thewordsoflearnedconversationwithagoodmixtureindeedofnativephraseology

andformsofspeech.”39Inthesameletter,Mintohimselfdemonstratedadexterityininterleaving

linguisticformsandregister;describingLeyden’stendencyoftalking“asifhehadneverquitted

Te’otwater,orseenanythingmorelikeashipthanapairoftroughsinCocker’shaughpool.”40

MintoalsoreportedonLeyden’sfairlyinflexibleBorderspronunciation.Hereckonedit

“ratherinwrittenthanspokenlanguage”thatLeydenwas“soastonishinglylearned,”supposinghim

endowedwith“thegiftofpensratherthantongues.”41MintojokedthatifLeyden“hadbeenat

Babel,hewouldinfalliblyhavelearnedallthelanguagesthere,”andingood-naturedmockeryofthe

thickly-accented,notoriouslytalkativeScot,predicted“intheend”thebabbleoftongues“mustall

havemergedinthe‘Tiviotdale,’[…]fornotacreaturewouldhavegotspokenbuthimself.”42

ThissimultaneousrecognitionofLeyden’slinguistichybridityandhisunyieldingaccentis

highlysignificant,evenintheGovernor’stoneofteasingexaggeration.Minto’stestimonyindicates

thelinguist’speculiarblendofthenotional“native”and“learned,”mergingwith–andwithin–the

Scot’sown“Tiviotdale.”JohnMalcolmalsorecalledtheDenholmscholarbothteachingandtalking

Persian“inhisbroadaccent,”anddespitehisfriend’swarnings,itseemsdoubtfulthatLeyden’s

speechimposedanynotablerestrictionsuponhissuccessorstandinginBengal.43Infact,by

emphasisinghisBordersorigins,establishingavitalpointofcommonalitywiththeGovernor-

general,Leyden’slanguagemayhaveactuallyprovedanassetinadvancinghisEICcareer.

Nevertheless,severalcommentatorsmademuchofLeyden’saccentandstyleofspeech,

seenoftenasanobjectofderision.WalterScottobservedLeyden’s“voicewasnaturallyloudand

harsh,”occasionally“exaggeratedintowhathehimselfusedtocallhissaw-tones,whichwerenot

verypleasanttotheearofstrangers.”44CaptainTaylor,self-proclaimed“Sassenach,”foundsuch

“sawtones”tobeofparticularannoyance;complainingofLeyden’s“incessantclack”duringtheir

voyagefromMadrastoPenangin1811,andattestingtotheScothavingthe“shrillestvoicethatcan

38QuotedinMichaelFry,‘“TheKeytotheirHearts”:ScottishOrientalism,’Scotlandandthe19th-CenturyWorld,p.141.AlsoquotedbyMinto’sgrandson,WilliamHugh,ThirdEarlofMinto,InaugurationoftheLeydenMonumentatDenholm,(Hawick,1861),pp.16-17.39QuotedinBrown,‘Leyden,’p.467.40Ibid.41InaugurationoftheLeydenMonument,p.17.42Brown,‘Leyden,’p.541,p.542.SeealsoReith,Leyden,wherethe“mergedinTiviotdale”sectionisnotablyabsent,pp.297-8.Interestingly,Minto’sgrandsonoptedtoomitthefinal,“notacreaturewouldhavegotspokenbuthimself”comment,InaugurationoftheLeydenMonument,p.17.43QuotedinScott,‘Memoir,’p.lxi.44Ibid,p.xxviii.

|P a g e

167

wellbeimagined.”45Mintoconcurred,andaboardhisflagship,Modeste,reportedthat“afrigateis

notnearlargeenoughtoplacetheearattheproperplaceofhearing”fromLeyden’s“shrill,piercing,

and,atthesametime,gratingvoice.”46But,inspiteofsuchdetractions,thescholar’sconspicuous,

evenirritatingaccentdoesnotappeartohavebeenentirelyirredeemable.

InafinalpieceofintriguingtestimonywithinhisletterofMay1811,Mintohighlightedthe

beguilingeffectsofLeyden’slanguageinIndia,describingtheScot’s“audience”as“alwayssuffering

thesamesortofstrainwhichtheeyeexperiencestoonearanobjectwhichitistoexamine

attentively.”47ThishintsataconsciouscuriositypiquedbyLeyden’slanguage.JohnMalcolm

providesafurtherglimpseofthiswithinEICcircles,suggestingthatthescholar’sdeviationfrom

socio-linguistic“standards”didnotentirelydetractfromarecognitionofhis“qualities”:

ThemannersofDr.Leydenwereuncourtly,moreperhapsfromhisdetestationofthe

vicestoogenerallyattendantonrefinement,andawish(indulgedtoexcessfromhis

youth)tokeepatamarkeddistancefromthem,thanfromanyignoranceoftherulesof

goodbreeding.Hewasfondoftalking,hisvoicewasloud,andhadlittleorno

modulation,andhespoketheprovincialdialectofhisnativecountry;itcannotbe

surprising,therefore,thatevenhisinformationandknowledge,whensoconveyed,

shouldbefeltbyanumberofhishearersasunpleasant,ifnotoppressive.Butwithall

thesedisadvantages(andtheyweregreat),theadmirationandesteeminwhichhewas

alwaysheldbythosewhocouldappreciatehisqualitiesbecamegeneralwhereverhewas

known[…].48

Leyden’slanguage,“unpleasant,ifnotoppressive,”wasalsoseenasameansbywhichtheScotkept

himselfatawilfully“markeddistance."

Admittedly,Malcolm–Leyden’sfriend,andfellowBorderer–suppliedthisrathergenerous

interpretation.However,anearlybiographydrewsimilar,slightlymorecriticalconclusions.James

Morton,authorofanearlyaccountoftheScot’s“celebratedliterarycharacter”–printedinLondon

in1819andatKolkatasixyearslater–hintedatboththereluctanceandtheincapacityofLeydento

submitto“ceremonial”socialmores:

Hewasdistinguishedforthemanlysimplicityandindependenceofhischaracter.He

couldsuppress,butknewnottheartofdisguisinghisemotions.Hisfoiblesordefects

seemedtohaveadistantresemblanceofthesamegoodqualitiesill-regulatedandcarried

45QuotedinGlendinning,Raffles,p.79.46InaugurationoftheLeydenMonument,p.16.47Ibid.48Scott,‘Memoir,’p.lx.

|P a g e

168

toanunreasonableexcess.Perfectlyconsciousofretainingtheessenceofpoliteness,he

sometimeswantonlyneglectedtheceremonial.49

Onewondersattheothersideofthis“wantonneglect.”Anothertellingterm,notably

employedbybothMalcolmandMorton,isthatof“excess.”Recognisinghisfriend’sawarenessofhis

ownamplified“saw-tones,”WalterScottconjecturedthatLeydenwas“toomuchbentonattaining

personaldistinctioninsocietytochoosenicelythemodeofacquiringit.”50Scottrecalledagenteel

Scotssoiree“crowdedwithfashionablepeople,”atwhich“Leyden,whocouldnotsinganote,”was

movedto“screamforthaverseortwoofsomeBorderditty,”delivered“withallthedissonanceof

anIndianwar-whoop.”51Leyden’s“exaggerated”“sawtones,”jarringagainstthegrainof“polite”

discourse,resemblesomethingofaperformance;aneager,evendeliberate“dissonance”which

punctuatedhisdisregardforthe“ceremony”ofcertainsocialcircles.

HenryCockburn,anothercontemporaryofLeyden,providesacomparableview.Withinhis

memoirsof1856,CockburnoffersfurthercorroborationonthesubjectoftheScot’s“screechvoice,”

alsoclaimingLeydenwasawareoftheeffectsofhisbehaviour:“JohnLeydenhassaidofhimself,‘I

oftenvergesonearlyonabsurdity,thatIknowitisperfectlyeasytomisconceiveme,aswellas

misrepresentme.’”52SupportingthenotionoftheperformativeenergyofLeyden–himselfmindful

of“misconception”and“misrepresentation”–Cockburndiscussedthescholar’smost“conspicuous

defect”which“usedtobecalledaffectation,butinreality[…]waspretension.”53Again,Leyden’s

“excess”appearstotakecentrestage,andmuchlikeScott,Cockburnpresentsthescholaras

somewhatconsciousofthis.

IncludingdirectreferencestotheaccountsofbothScottandMalcolm,Cockburnrecalledhis

ownpersonalacquaintanceshipwithLeyden:

BythetimeIknewhim,hehadmadehimselfoneofoursocialshows,andcould,anddid,

saywhateverhechose.HisdelightlayinanargumentabouttheScottishChurch,or

Orientalliterature,orScotchpoetry,oroldcustoms,orscenery,alwaysconducted,onhis

part,inahighshrillvoice,withgreatintensity,andanutterunconsciousnessofthe

amazement,oreventheaversionofstrangers.Hisdailyextravagances,especiallymixed

49Morton,Memoirs,p.87.50Scott,‘Memoir,’p.xxviii.51Ibid.52HenryCockburn,MemorialsofHisTime,(NewYork,1856),p.173.53Ibid,pp.173-4.Thiswasactuallyseenasaratherendearingfactor,andCockburnsupposedsuch“pretension,”tobe“ofaveryinnocentkind.”

|P a g e

169

up,astheyalwayswere,withexhibitionsofhisownambitionandconfidence,madehim

tobemuchlaughedatevenbyhisfriends[...].54

Leyden’sdeportmentinScotland,saying“whateverhechose,”isshowninaremarkablysimilar

mannertohissubsequentbehaviourinIndia.Thislateraccountalsosuggeststheextenttowhich

theScot’sconversational“intensity”addedtohisnotoriety.ReckoningLeydentobethesubjectof

recurrent“socialshows”inScotland,Cockburn’saccountalsohighlightsthelinguist’sfavouredareas

ofargumentative“delight”–conspicuouslylinkingthe“ScottishChurch,”“Orientalliterature,”

“Scotchpoetry,”and“oldcustoms,orscenery.”

OnatleasttwosignificantoccasionsoutwithScotland,Leydenwasdriventocomparably

boisterousdisplaysofsocio-linguisticexhibitionism.Recountinghisownroleinrepellingamutinyon

hisvoyageouttoIndiain1803,theScotdepictedhimselfinaparticularlydramaticfashion–

wieldingatomahawkto“cutdownfourofthehardiestmutineers,”allthewhilebellowingouta

Bordersballad:“MynameisLittleJackElliot,andwhadaurmeddlewime!”55ThefusionofLeyden’s

tomahawkand“dissonant”Borders“war-whoop”providesaratherironicparalleltoScott’sdrawing-

roomanecdote.Yearslater,MalcolmprovidedanotheraccountofLeyden’senthusiasmforthevery

sameballadinIndia;describinghisfriendduringyetanotherboutofillness,rousingfromafever

afterhearingofthespiritedresponseofcontingentofHawickvolunteerstorumoursofaFrench

invasion:

Leyden’scountenancebecameanimatedasIproceededwiththisdetail,andatitsclose

hesprungfromhissick-bed,and,withastrangemelody,andstillstrangergesticulations,

sungaloud,“Whadaurmeddlewi’me,whadaurmeddlewi’me?”Severalofthosewho

witnessedthisscenelookedathimasonethatwasravinginthedeliriumofafever.56

SuchexuberanceclearlyraisedeyebrowsinIndia,undoubtedlyalsoraisingtheScot’sprofile,aiding

inhisquestfor“personaldistinction.”57

InIndiaasinScotland,Leyden’s“exaggerated”languageandbehaviourseemtohavebeen

indulged,ifnotslightlybettercelebrated.Inspeculatingupontherelative“success”ofLeyden’s

inflectioninBengal,itisimportanttorecognisethatmetropolitanEnglish“standards”areviewedto

havebeenverymuchinthe“minority”withintheterritoriesoftheEICattheturnofthenineteenth

54Ibid,pp.174-5.55Brown,‘Leyden,’pp.333-4,Reith,Leyden,p.207.56Scott,‘Memoir,’plxii.57Forthosefavourabletopost-mortempoppsychology,Leyden’scharacteristicshavebeenlikenedtothoseassociatedwithAsperger’ssyndrome,Glendinning,Raffles,p.33.

|P a g e

170

century.58ConsideringthedisproportionatenumbersofScotsandIrishofficersthenservingwithin

theCompany’smilitaryandadministrativeranks,apreponderanceofregionalandnationalsub-

versionsof–andwithin–“English”appearstohavebeenhighlylikely.AshisrelationshipwithMinto

suggests,Leyden’soutlandishspoken“sawtones”maywellhavesethimingoodsteadinhis

attemptsto“obtainpersonaldistinction”withinsuchapolyphoniccontext.

GleaningsofthiswereperceivedinScotlandfollowingLeyden’sdeath.AstheBorderspoet

JamesHoggmusedinhis1813epicTheQueens’sWake,theScot’s“tones”maywellhaveproved

“falseattimes”;inter-fusedwithoccasional“wildnotes”which“marred”ananticipatedliterary

“symphony.”59YetastheEttrickShepherdnotes,thisdidnotwhollydampenthe“glowingmeasure”

ofthebard’s“inspiredsoul.”Indeed,when“hymned”exotically“afar,”“thrillingtheheartofIndian

maid”amongst“monsoons”and“wild”bananatrees,theScot’slanguageappearsallthemore

pronouncedwithinHogg’stribute.

Leyden’s“wildnotes”werecommonlyconnectedtoalocalisedScottishpride.LikeMinto,

JohnMalcolmlinkedtheScot’sdistinctivelinguisticturnstohisBorderspatriotism;highlighting

Leyden’s“loveoftheplaceofhisnativity,”a“passioninwhichhehadalwaysapride,andwhichin

Indiahecherishedwiththefondestenthusiasm.”60Acomparableinterpretationoccurswithin

Cockburn’s1856Memorials,wherehesawLeyden’s“loveofScotland”tobe“delightful,”and

fanciedthatthisnownationalattachment,“breathesthroughallhiswritings[…]andimpartstohis

poetryitsmostattractivecharm.”61

Latercommentatorsweremoreexplicitintheirassessmentofthescholar’senthusiasmfor

Lowlandforms.AsCockburn’sinterpretationhints,Leyden’sBorderspatriotismwasseentoreflect

anexpandednotionof“nationalattachment.”Thesetwoelementscombinewithinabiography

attachedtoan1875editionofLeyden’spoetry,printedinassociationwiththeEdinburghBorderer’s

Union.TheScotwaspraisedforhaving“preservedthebroadaccent,”reflecting“therusticfree-born

bearingofhisnativeglens.”62ThomasBrown,authorofthis“NewMemoir,”supposed“[t]he

devotionofLeydentotheScottishdialect”as“anotherstrongelementinhischaracter,”and

celebratedthatthescholar“remainedthroughlifepartialtothebroadaccentofhisforefathers.”63

BrownsawLeydentoexemplify“muchofthatsoliditywhichcharacterisesatrueScotchman

58Ibid,pp.xvi,33,MaryEllisGibsoned.,AnglophonePoetryinColonialIndia,1790-1913,(Athens,2011),pp.4-6,16-18.59JamesHogg,TheQueen’sWake,DouglasS.Macked.,(Edinburgh,2005),pp.368-9.60Scott,‘Memoir,’plxii.61Cockburn,Memorials,p.17562Brown,PoeticalWorks,p.xv63Ibid,pp.xx,xxi.

|P a g e

171

everywhere,”noting“[f]rombeginningtoendhealwayspreservedhabitsofthestrictestintegrity,

temperance,andperseverance.”64Thebiographeralsoenvisioneda“spiritofindependence”which

droveLeyden“toclingsotenaciouslytothoseprovincialismswhichgratesoharshlyonthedelicate

earsofstarchedpedantry.”65However,BrownconcludedthatinkeepingwithLeyden’s“general

character,”itappeared“morereasonable[…]tothinkthatheadoptedhisnativedialectbecausehe

thoughtthatitrepresented,ingreatestpurity,EnglishasspokenbyourSaxonancestors.”66

Leyden’slanguagewaslinkedto“solidity,”suggestiveofthearchetypical,globe-spanning

“trueScotchmaneverywhere,”andalignedwithmythic“Saxonancestors.”TheScot’s“adoption”of

“nativedialect”waspresentedintermsofthe“free-bornbearing”and“racially”-tinted“purity”of

pan-Britanniclanguage.Leyden’sbiographerappearsratherproudinhisassertionthat“[n]o

circumstancescouldevermakehimabandon”Scotssub-versions“infavourofitsmorefashionable

sistertongue.”67Bythelatterhalfofthenineteenthcentury,Leyden’s“false,”“wild,”andeverso

anti-social“sawtones”werere-envisioned;seentosuggestaScottish“solidity”and“Saxon”

integrity,removedfromcontemporary“delicacy.”

MerelythreeyearsafterBrown’s“NewMemoir,”thefirstbiographiesofAlexanderDuffbeganto

appear.Withthemissionary’sdeathin1878,theseearlyprofilessetouttoenshrinethelegacyof

theiconicScot.ThecontrastwithLeydenisstriking.Comparedwiththeanecdotalperspectivesof

Scott,Malcolm,andCockburn,endowingLeydenwithanegocentric,disconcerting,butendearingly

daftidiosyncrasy,Duff’searlybiographers,workingtowardsverydifferentobjectives,offereda

muchmoreguardedinsightintothemissionary’spersona.Thisisparticularlyevidentindiscussions

ofDuff’slanguage,orrather,his“eloquence.”

GeorgeSmith’s1879LifeofAlexanderDuffoccasionallyhintsathissubject’sspokenstyle.

YetcomparedwithLeyden’s“sawtones”andoutlandish“socialshows,”Smithalmostexclusively

containedthemissionary’slanguagewithinadignified,oratoricalcontext.Interestingly,theviewsof

twomid-centuryAmericancommentators,assessingDuff’sperformancesduringhislecturetourof

theeasternUnitedStatesin1854,numberamongthemostdetaileddescriptionsoftheScot’s

rhetoricalflair.ThebiographerquotesaNewYorkreviewer,reflectingupontheexperienceof“[t]wo

hoursbeforeDR.DUFF”:

64Ibid,p.xciv.65Ibid,pp.xx.66Ibid.67Ibid,p.xxi.

|P a g e

172

[…]mostinstructivetheywere,notsoontobeforgotten[...]histallungainlyform

swayingtoandfro,hislongrightarmwavingagainsthisbreast,hisfullvoiceraisedtothe

toneofaWhitefield,andthefacekindledintoaglowofardourlikeoneunderinspiration,

–wethoughtwehadneverwitnessedahigherdisplayofthrillingmajesticoratory.‘Did

youeverhearsuchaspeech?’saidagenuineScotsmannearus,‘hecannotstop.Since

ChalmerswenthometoheavenScotlandhasheardnoeloquencelikeDuff’s.’68

Withflatteringcomparisonstorenownedmissionaryfigureheads,thereviewerpresentedDuffinthe

brightestpossiblelighttoanevangelicalChristianreadership,likeninghimtoGeorgeWhitefield–

thereveredeighteenth-centuryAnglo-Americanpreacherandabolitionist–andintroducinga

“genuineScotsman”todrawsimilarparallelstoThomasChalmers.Theconscriptionofthis

“genuine”ScottotestifytoDuff’s“eloquence”iscurious,likelyintendedtounderscorethe

“majesty”ofthemissionary’sdiscourse–“thrilling”eventocompatriotsfamiliarwithhisoratorical

power.

YetotheraccountsbetraytracesoftheunconventionalitywithinDuff’saddress.Thisismost

clearlyarticulatedwithinadiscussionoftheScot’sspeechatPhiladelphia,priortohistriptoNew

York.Duringhisvisit,Duffwasmetbyagatheringofwhathedescribedas“alltheevangelical

ministersofeverychurchinPhiladelphiaanditsneighbourhood!”notingthatwithinthiscollection

of“Episcopalians,Presbyteriansofeveryschool,Congregationalists,Methodists,Baptists,Dutch

Reformed,”“allwereanxioustohearthesoundofmyvoice.”69InPhiladelphia,theScotcelebrated

theloose,Protestantecumenismofaglobal“GreaterBritain”rangedagainst“legionsofEuropean

despotism,whethercivilorreligious”;foreseeing“AmericaandBritainshakinghandsacrossthe

AtlanticasthetwogreatpropsofevangelicProtestantChristianityintheworld.”70

DeliveringsuchsentimentsatthePhiladelphiaConcertHallinMarch1854,Duffwas

observedtobe“obviouslylabouringunderill-health,”and“hisvoice,atnotimeverystrong,”was

notedto“subside”into“almostawhisper.”71“Inadditiontothisdrawback,”theScotwasviewedto

possess“noneofthemereexternalgracesoforatory.”72ThePhiladelphiacriticjudgedDuff’s

“elocution”“unstudied”and“hisgesticulationuncouth,”supposing“butfortheintensefeeling,the

self-absorptionoutofwhichitmanifestlysprings,”theScot’sdelivery“mightevenbeconsidered

grotesque.”73Yetinspiteofallapparentshortcomings,Duffwasdeemed“fascinatinglyeloquent”:

68QuotedinSmith,Duff,II,p.277.69Ibid,II,p.264.70Ibid,II,p.268.SeeDuncanBell,TheIdeaofGreaterBritain,(Princeton,2007).71Smith,Duff,II,p.276.72Ibid.73Ibid.

|P a g e

173

Thoughhiswordsflowedoutinanunbroken,unpausingtorrent,everyeyeinthevast

congregationwasriveteduponhim,everyearwasstrainedtoheartheslightestsound;

anditwaseasytobeseenthathecommunicatedhisownfervourtoallhewas

addressing.Indeed,whileallhesaidwasimpressive,bothinmatterandmanner,many

passageswerereallygrand.74

RatherlikeLeyden,an“unstudied”enunciationandlackof“externalgraces”appeartohave

benefittedtheproselytisingScot,thoughachievinganentirelydifferenteffecttothelinguistic

“exhibitions”oftheDenholmscholar.

Thereis,admittedly,noexplicitrecognitionofScotsinflectionwithineitherofthese

Americanperspectives,andneitheraccountcomesclosetoreflectingcontemporarytropesofverbal

tartanry.However,there-assessmentofDuff’s“unstudied,”potentially“grotesque”deliveryat

Philadelphia,pairedwiththeinclusionofthe“genuineScotsman”intheNewYorkreview,pointsto

afaintlyfamiliar,favourablysub-versiveelement.Bythemidnineteenthcentury,thediscernible

“eloquence”ofreveredfiguressuchasDuffappearstohavebeenacknowledgedalongsidea

congruentacceptanceofcommendableScottish,“non-standard”aspectsseentobeatworkwithin

suchdiscourse.

ComparedwiththeseAnglo-Americanaccounts,Duff’s“native”Indianstudentssupplya

strikinglydifferentconceptionofhis“eloquence.”TherecollectionsofDuff’sdiscipleHarishChandra

Mittraareparticularlypoignant.Mittra,regardedall“themorevenerable”inhisattachmenttoDuff,

“asheremainedunconvincedofthetruthofChristianity,”providedanemotionaltribute,included

withinthe1890“memorial”compiledbythemissionary’ssonW.PirieDuff.75TheBengalipraised

“themasculineandmatchlesseloquence”ofDuffinIndia,reckoningtheScotthe“greatestofBritish

oratorsthatevercametothiscountry”:

AtthisdistanceandtimeIcanvividlyrecalltomymindthatnobleandcommanding

figurecastingacharmandaspelloverhisaudience,whetherstandingintheCalcutta

TownHall,theFreeChurch,ortheGeneralAssembly’sInstitution,intheFreeChurchof

Scotland,intheBethuneSociety,oranywhereelseinthemetropolisofBritishIndia.76

ForMittra,therewasclearlynothing“grotesque”or“uncouth”aboutDuff’sspellbinding

rhetoric,andattimes,thereverenceoftheHinduintellectualresemblesthatofaferventreligious

conversion:

74Ibid.75PirieDuff,Duff,p.32.76Ibid,pp.44-5.

|P a g e

174

ThosewhohadtheprivilegeandgoodfortunetohearDrDuffcouldalonehavefeltthe

powerthatagenuineoratorhasoverthepassionsandthefeelingsofthehumanheart.

Attimessoaring,asitwereoneagle’swings,herodetothehighestheightofthefinest

andnoblestdeclamationthattheEnglishlanguageiscapableof.Thiseloquencehasbeen

likenedtothecataractofNiagara.Butinourowncountry,theNerbuddaFall,thegreatest

inallIndiamightalsogiveyouanadequateconceptionoftheforceandgrandeurofthe

eloquenceofthegreatman.Whilststandingonthebrowofahillandwitnessingthe

statelyNerbuddadashingdownwithaforceandimpetuositythatwouldbaffleallpowers

ofdescription,Iwasliterallylostinwonderinthemidstofthelandofliquidsplendour.

ButthethunderingtongueofDuff–athundererinthebestsenseofthetermhe

decidedlywas–hisluxuriantimagination,inexhaustiblefundofwords,incomparable

commandoflanguage,profounderuditionandgorgeousintellect,andaboveallhis

unboundedlovetowardshisfellow-men,betheywhiteorbetheyblack,exercisedonme

agreaterspellthanthisgrandphenomenoninthematerialworld.77

Fittingly,Mittra’simagery,likeninga“liquidsplendour”tothatofDuff’slanguage,parallelsthe

“unpausing”rhetorical“torrent”perceivedinPhiladelphia.Farfromcoincidentally,thetropeof

water–diffusingand“enriching”–wasaparticularfavouriteofthemissionaryhimself,regularly

insistinguponEnglishlinguistic“channels”invigoratingtheIndiansubcontinent.

Withinhis1835addresstotheGeneralAssembly,Duffespousedthenecessityofthe

“Englishlanguage”in“raisingupabodyofeducatednativeagents”inIndia,“araceofenlightened

Christians[…]wateredbythedewofheavenlygrace.”78Throughsuchrhetoric,DuffechoedThomas

BabingtonMacaulay’sbetter-knowncallfortheformationofa“class”ofsecular“interpreters

betweenusandthemillionswhomwegovern”inhisMinuteonIndianEducationearlierthatyear–

identifyingtheEnglishlanguageaskeytoencouraginga“classofpersons,Indianinbloodand

colour,butEnglishintaste,inopinions,inmorals,andinintellect.”79Ascentralexponentsofthe

educational“Anglicism”favouredbyGovernor-generalWilliamBentinckintheearly1830s,both

DuffandMacaulaycelebratedwhatthelatterdecreedthe“intrinsicsuperiorityofWestern

literature,”proclaiming“theEnglishtongue”as“thatwhichwouldbethemostusefultoournative

subjects.”80

Bycomparison,theliterarylanguagesofSanskrit,Arabic,andPersian,championedbyearlier

generationsofEuropean“Oriental”scholarssuchasJohnLeyden,wereseenaslanguidand

77Ibid,pp.45-6.78Duff,ChurchofScotland’sIndiaMission,p.28.79G.M.Younged.,SpeechesbyLordMacaulay,(Oxford,1936),p.359.80Ibid,p.349.

|P a g e

175

worryingly“deficient.”Duff’sfavoured,water-basedimageryemphasisedthecloying,intellectual

mugginesshesawtosurround“Oriental”literaturesandlearning.“Ah!Long,toolonghasIndiabeen

madeathemeforthevisionsofpoetryandthedreamsofromance,”helamentedinhisGeneral

Assemblyaddress,“[t]oolonghasitbeenenshrinedinthesparklingbubblesofavapoury

sentimentalism.”81Inlightofthisvapid“Orientalist”haze,DuffmirroredMacaulay’s

recommendationforAnglo-Indian“interpreters,”equipped“torefinethevernaculardialectsofthe

country”and“toenrichthosedialectswithtermsofscienceborrowedfromtheWestern

nomenclature.”82Inthismanner,MacaulaychargedhisproposedcasteofIndianEnglish-speaking

interlocutorswiththetaskofrenderingthemanifold“vernacular”languages“fitvehiclesfor

conveyingknowledgetothegreatmassofthepopulation,”dismissingEuropean“Orientalist”

scholarshipalongwith“thewholenativeliteratureofIndiaandArabia.”83

Duffsimilarlyanticipatedthe“nativelanguages”ofBengaltoonedaybecome“sufficiently

enrichedbyacopiousinfusionandintermixtureofexpressivetermsdrainedfromothersources.”84

AswithMacaulay,Duffsawsuch“enrichment”“drained”fromtheonlytonguehesawasacapable

conduitof“usefulknowledge”:“Not,surely,inthenativelanguages,whichhaveitnot;butinthe

modernlanguagewhichhasitallinthehighestperfection,theEnglish.”85Onceagain,a“liquid

splendour”surgedwithintheScot’soratory.Duffsupposed“theEnglishlanguage,anditalone,”to

“supplythenecessarymedium”of“usefulknowledge,”filteringdownto“infuse”Indian

“vernaculars”:

Thus,forthepresent,musttheEnglishlanguageinIndiabeviewedasthemediumof

acquisitionofthethoroughlyeducatedfew;andthevernaculardialects,totheordinarily

educatedmany.Theoneformsthechannelofcontributiontothereservoirsofthose

mindsthataretobecultivated,soastodisseminateallknowledge;theotherwillform

thechannelsofdistributiontothosewhomustbesatisfiedwiththemereelementsof

knowledge.[…]Theformerunsealstheinexhaustiblefountainofallknowledge,thelatter

servesasductstodiffuseitsvivifyingwatersoverthewastesofadryandparchedland.

[Originalemphasis].86

DuffsupposedanEnglishliteraryandlinguistic“standard”asthe“necessarymedium”inIndia–the

keymeansofuncapping“theinexhaustiblefountain”ofa“higherknowledge.”87Inproclaiminga

81Duff,ChurchofScotland’sIndiaMission,p.37.82Young,Speeches,p.359.83Ibid,pp.359,349.84Duff,ChurchofScotland’sIndiaMission,pp.30-31.85Ibid,p.30.86Ibid,p.31.87Ibid,pp.30,31.

|P a g e

176

linguisticrelationshipbetweenEnglish“standards”andsub-versive“vernaculardialects”intermsof

therespective“channels”of“contribution”and“distribution”–aprocessof“cultivation”and

“dissemination”slowlyflowingfromthe“thoroughlyeducatedfew”tothe“ordinarilyeducated

many”–theScottishmissionarysoughttounsettleexistinghierarchiesoflanguage,“knowledge,”

andbeliefincolonialIndia.

InhisNewEraoftheEnglishLanguage,printedinsupportofthe1835IndianEducationAct

approvedbyBentinckandhis“Anglicist”council,Duffreassertedthe“Englishlanguage”as“thebest

andmosteffectivemediumforthrowingopenthepurefountofEuropeanknowledgeandscienceto

thenativesatlarge.”88TheScotinsistedthe“Englishlanguageshouldbeemployedastheuniversal

medium,forconveyingandnaturalizingEuropeanknowledgeintheEast,”callingforthe

displacementofthe“Orientalists’”“ownidolizedHinduandMahammadanmedia,–theSanskrit,

Arabic,andPersian.”89

ForDuff,desiringtocultivatean“enlightened”colonialpopulation“wateredbythedewof

heavenlygrace,”suchconceptionsofthe“Englishlanguage”and“thepurefountofEuropean

knowledge”wereofcoursesynonymouswiththoseofaProtestantChristianity.AsDuffhimself

acknowledged,thefundamentaltenetunderpinninghis“Anglicist”stance,“whereversuchan

educationisimparted,”wasthe“grandeffect”ofaccelerating“thedemolitionofthesuperstitions

andidolatriesofIndia”:

[…]theseeducationaryoperations,whichareofthenatureandforceofmorallaws,will

proceedonwardstilltheyterminateineffectingauniversalchangeinthenationalmind

ofIndia.Thesluicesofasuperiorandquickeningknowledgehavealreadybeenthrown

open;andwhoshalldaretoshutthemup?90

Duff’sbiographerlaudedsuchgoals,andSmithsawtheScot’sworkinopening“Anglicist”floodgates

tohavedirectlyinfluencedsubsequentBritishpolicyinIndia;reckoningtheEducationalDespatchof

1854tohavebeen“possibleonlybecauseofthemissionary’spracticaldemonstrationin1830-34.”91

Smithalsorecognisedthe“chiefend”ofDuff’s“demonstration”ofEnglisheducationinBengal,

whichheblithelysawtoliein“thedestructionofHindooism,andtheChristianizationofthehundred

andthirtymillionsofEasternandNorthernIndia.”92

88Duff,NewEra,p.18.89Ibid.90Ibid,pp.38,39-40.91Smith,Duff,II,p.245.92Ibid.

|P a g e

177

AddressingtheGeneralAssemblyin1854–theyeartheEducationalDespatchwas

implementedinIndiaunderLordDalhousie,anotherScotsGovernor-general–Duffstressedthe

benevolentinterconnectionoftheEnglishlanguageandProtestantChristianityoutwithan

exclusivelyIndiancontext.93Inaspeechbeforethenow“disrupted”Kirk,themissionaryrecounted

hisrecentexperienceswithintheUnitedStates.Duffhonoured“BibleChristianityandtheEnglish

language”as“therockandcitadelofthecohesiveunityandstrengthoftheAmerican

commonwealth,”assertingthe“racial”-religioustiesbindingtheScottishnationtotheirtransatlantic

brethren:“theyarejustlikeourselves,afterall–(applause)[...]thegreatandwondrousAnglo-Saxon

race,underthepredominantinfluenceofChristianity.”94

Predictably,thiswasa“BibleChristianity”loadedwithassumptionsofScottishProtestant

exceptionalism.Withinthespeech,Duffdescribedvisiting“anestablishmentforreallydestitute

emigrantsandtheirchildren”atNorthRiverIslandinNewYork,recallinghowhehad“naturally

inquiredhowmanyScotchwereinit.”95ThemissionaryindulgedhisaudienceatEdinburghin

reporting,“therewasjustonesinglerepresentativefromScotland.(Applause)”;a“littlegirl,who

hadbeenonlythreeweeksthere;andIbeggedthatshemightbepointedout[to]me,justasa

curiosity.(Laughter.).”96Inevitably,Duff’sparableofScotsProtestantsuccesswasunderscoredby

comparisonstolong-standingcultural,linguistic,andreligious“others”:

[…]who,Iasked,halfanticipatingtheanswer,giveyouthemosttroublehere?‘ohyou

needscarcelyask,’wastheanswer,–‘theIrish.’NotthePresbyteriansfromUlster,–

however(applause)–butthecrimeanddestitutioncomefromregionswherePoperyis

rampant:–thatisthetestimonyoftheUnitedStates.97

Givingvoicetoanti-Catholicprejudicethroughthe“half-anticipated”factorofIrish

“destitution,”DuffcelebratedtherelativeprosperityofProtestantScotsandtheir“Scots-Irish”kinat

NewYork.Duffnotablyenclosedthiscommentarywithinawiderdiscussionofhowthe“English

language,”weddedtoabroad-churchProtestantism,generallyservedto“moulddown”the

idiosyncrasiesofmigrantswithintheUnitedStates:

[…]itisperfectlyastonishingwithwhatpowerandrapiditythisprocessistelling;howitis

graduallymelding,andfusing,andmouldingdownthesestrangeheterogeneousmasses.

Generally,thegreatbulkofthemaremouldeddownbythesecondorthirdgeneration,

93SeeSureshChandraGhosh,‘Dalhousie,CharlesWoodandtheEducationDespatchof1854,’HistoryofEducation,4:2,(1975),pp.37-47.94AlexanderDuff,ForeignMissionsandAmerica,(Edinburgh,1854),pp.33,38.95Ibid,p.29.96Ibid.97Ibid.

|P a g e

178

andalltheBabeloftonguesdisappear;andifthoroughlychristianized,theyareundone

withregardtosectionalracesandnationalities.98

ThroughtheexpansionofacommonEnglishlinguistic“standard,”alongsideasuitably“thorough”

Christianization,Dufflookedtothedissolutionof“strangeheterogeneousmasses.”TheScot

celebratedtheascendancyofanEnglish-speaking,loose-fittingglobalProtestantism,undercutting

HinduisminIndia,IrishCatholicismintheU.S.,and“theBabeloftongues”everywhere.

ButwhatofDuff’sownparticular“eloquence”?Thiswasseentobe“inspired”but

“unstudied”byAnglo-Americancommentators,andyetreckonedbyaBengalistudentasthe

“noblestdeclamationthattheEnglishlanguageiscapableof.”TheScot’sownliquid-linguistic

allegorygoessomewaytoexplainingthereceptionofhis“thunderingtongue”inIndia;presentedas

descendingfromonhightoimpart“usefulknowledge”tothepopulation“ofadryandparched

land.”The“flow”ofDuff’swater-likened“eloquence,”mirroringhisstanceon“native”education,

wasessentiallytop-down–thelinguisticsourceof“forceandgrandeur”seenasuniquelyequipped

to“enrich”allothers.

In1849,fiveyearspriortohistriptotheUnitedStates,DuffleftIndia–havingbeenrecalled

toScotlandtoaidintheministryoftheFreeChurch,towhichhewouldeventuallyserveas

Moderatorin1851andagainin1873.InhisLifeofDuff,Smithreportedthathisscheduleddeparture

prompteda“SanskritremonstrancefromelevenlearnedBrahmins,”andprovidedatranslationof

theappealaddressed“tothemostintelligent,virtuous,impartial,gloriousandphilanthropicpeople

ofScotland.”99Thetoneofthe“remonstrance”resemblesthatofMittra,andsuppliesanother,

comparablyzealousassertionoftheScot’srhetoricalintensity.“TheillustriousDuff”wasobserved

bythesignatoriestobe“inthemouthofeveryHindoobecauseofhistranscendenteloquence,

learning,andphilanthropy.”100“Astohiseloquence,”theauthors’invokedafamiliarliquidimagery:

[…]fromhismouth,whichresemblesathickdarkrain-cloud,theredoissueforthbursts

ofincessantandunmeasuredoratory;sothathefillshisaudiencewithrillsofpersuasive

eloquence,justastherainofheavenfillsrivers,streams,brooks,valleys,canals,tanks,

andpools,and,dissipatingthedarkdelusionsoffalsereligion.101

ThevivifyingspiritofDuff’s“unmeasuredoratory”mirrorsthemissionary’sowngo-tometaphorin

supportofanencroaching,trickle-down“Anglicism,”sourcedfrom“therainofheaven.”

98Ibid,p.33.99Smith,Duff,II,p.119.100Ibid.101Ibid,II,pp.119-20.

|P a g e

179

ThecommentaryofDuff’sbiographerisperhapsevenmorerevealing.Smithattachesa

ratherstrangedisclaimertothe“Sanskrit”tribute,discussingthebombasticlanguageofthe

translation.Reflectingupon“theorientalismwhichsoundslikeapaeaninthetonguesoftheEast,”

Smithwarnedthatthe“remonstrance”“mayappearhyperboleintheprosaiccommonplacesof

Teutonicspeech.”102Commentinguponthetransformed“Sanskrit”text,intendedtoheappraise

uponDuff’sown“eloquence,”thebiographersupposesastolidtranslationin“Teutonicspeech”to

furtherdiscolourandembellishtheperspective.Ironically,the“English”liquidoratoryofDuffis

laudedas“incessantandunmeasured,”whilethe“orientalism”ofthisverytribute,apparently

typicalofthe“tonguesoftheEast,”istemperedthroughaninsistenceupona“prosaic,”measured,

andcomparativelydrylinguistic“Teutonism.”

Ononelevel,the“hyperbole”ofthe“English”translationisquestioned,andthe“Sanskrit”

approvalofDuff’srhetoricpresentedastranscendingthemere“commonplaces”of“Teutonic”

models.Yetonanother,theimagined“orientalism”andvarianceofthetextaredeeplyunderscored

bySmith’sinterpretation,whiletheSanskritofthe“remonstrance”is,ofcourse,silencedthrough

translation.Despitehintingatthe“hyperbole”within“Teutonic”translation,Duff’sbiographer

offersnoalternative.Assuch,Smith’scommentaryseemstoservelittlepurposeotherthantostress

anirreconcilablelinguisticandculturalgulfbetweenafunctionally“prosaic”“Teutonism”andan

“orientalismwhichsoundslikeapaean.”Thus,these“tonguesoftheEast”aredoublymuffled;

presentedasunknowableyetinherentlyoutspokenintheverysameinstanceastheyare

simultaneouslyspokenforandspokenover.103

Nevertheless,Duffclaimsthepraise.Bracketedbyboth“orientalism”and“Teutonic

speech,”theScot’slanguageandlegacyinIndiaemergeallthemorenoteworthy.Theverysubject

ofthe“remonstrance”isthemissionary’sbenevolentpresenceinIndia,typifiedbyhisenriching

“eloquence.”Thesesentimentsremain.“Aftermakingthelargestallowance”fortherhetorical

“contrast”ofthe“Sanskrit”transcription,Duff’sbiographerconcluded“allourexperiencesofIndian

life,ofHindoogratitude,orBengaleelovableness,warrantsusinquotingthistranslation.”104Smith

regardedthe“remonstrance”ascharminglyharmless–“adimreflectionoftheimpressionproduced

bythefervidpersonalityofAlexanderDuffonthepeopleofIndia.”105The“tonguesoftheEast,”

interpretedbothasirrevocablydifferentandoverlygrandiose,werealsoharnessedtoservethe

assertionofthesimple,indiscriminate“gratitude”and“loveableness”oftheBengalipopulation.

102Ibid,II,p.119.103Foranotheranalysisofthe“remonstrance”–perceivedtodemonstratethe“peculiaritiesoftheHindoomind”andacceptanceof“mutuallydestructivefactsatoneandthesametime”–seeVermilye,Duff,pp.73-5.104Smith,Duff,II,p.119.105Ibid.

|P a g e

180

ThisraisestheissueofEdwardSaid’s“Orientalism,”thegildedelephantintheroom.

Considerationsofpower,“knowledge,”andattitudestowardslanguageandlinguistic

scholarshipformasecond,keypointofcomparisonbetweenLeydenandDuff.Ashasbeen

proposed,thetwoScotswereculturalborderers.Ofequalimportwastheroleplayedbybothas

brokersof“usefulknowledge”withinScotlandandcolonialIndia.Theirapparentcontrast–Leyden

aninsatiablephilologistclaimingproficiencyinover45languages,Duffthesingle-mindedadvocate

of“Englisheducationalone”–offersavaluablemeanstocrossexaminethehistoricalconstruction

ofan“enlightened,”specifically“ScottishOrientalism.”106

Withinthisratherself-congratulatorycategory,acollectionofScots-educatedscholarsand

colonialadministratorshavebeenprojectedasexemplarsofanindigenous,intellectualtradition

chartingacourseof“mutualsympathyandcomprehension”betweenculturesofthenotional“East”

and“West.”107Thelinguisticproclivitiesoftheseindividualsareseenascentraltotheirparticular

brandof“Orientalist”enthusiasm.Indeed,inherpioneeringdiscussionof“ScottishOrientalism”

JaneRendallsuggeststhatthe“culturalinheritance”ofaloosegroupingofScotsintellectuals,from

WilliamRobertsontoJamesMill,leftthemparticularly“predisposed[…]towardsthestudyof

philology,seenasakeytotheunderstandingofthehumanmind,andtothehistoryoftheearly

stagesofsociety.”108

Whileacknowledgingthecredibilityofadistinctive“culturalinheritance”underpinninga

lateeighteenth-century“ScottishOrientalism,”thisdiscussionoffersacautionarynoteto

considerationsofthiscolonialcategory.Thedangerof“ScottishOrientalism”liesinthepotentialof

suchaclassificationtoappeardeceptivelyover-acceptingof“Eastern”cultures,therebyshirkingthe

negativeconnotationsassociatedwiththe“Orientalism”ofmore-recent“post-colonial”discourse.

Essentially,a“ScottishOrientalism”regardedasthepracticalincarnationofthesocialtheory

106Duff,NewEra,p.3.See,JohnBastin,‘JohnLeydenandthePublicationofthe“MalayAnnals”(1821),’JournaloftheMalaysianBranchoftheRoyalAsiaticSociety,75,2(283)(2002),pp.99-115,pp.103-4.For“ScottishOrientalism”seeJaneRendall,‘ScottishOrientalism:FromRobertsontoJamesMill,‘HistoricalJournal,25,1,(1982),pp.43-69,BruceLenman,‘TheScottishenlightenment,stagnationandempireinIndia,1792-1813,’Indo-BritishReview:aJournalofHistory,21,(1996),pp.53-62,Fry,‘“KeytotheirHearts,”’Scotlandandthe19th-CenturyWorld.Also,Fry,ScottishEmpire,pp.55-6,62,84-97,425-7,494-8,McLaren,BritishIndia&BritishScotland,StewartJ.Brown,‘WilliamRobertson,EarlyOrientalismandtheHistoricalDisquisitiononIndiaof1791,’ScottishHistoricalReview,88,2,226,(October2009),pp.289-312,AvrilA.Power,ScottishOrientalistsandIndia.TheMuirBrothers,Religion,EducationandEmpire,(Woodbridge,2010).107Fry,‘“KeytotheirHearts,”’Scotlandandthe19th-CenturyWorld,p.137.108Rendall,‘ScottishOrientalism,’p.58.

|P a g e

181

associatedwiththe“ScottishEnlightenment”109canstandasarather-too-tolerantfoiltothe

uncompromisingmonoculturalismseenwithinsubsequentgenerationsofBritishimperialism.

Ofcourse,itisvitaltorecognisethedramaticshiftsinBritishimperialtheoryandcolonial

governanceoccurringintheearlydecadesofthenineteenthcentury.110However,theespousalofa

historic“ScottishOrientalism”runstheriskofsanctioning(ifnotactuallycelebrating)aseemingly

benevolentstrandof“enlightened”colonialdiscourseinIndia,regrettablydisplacedbythecultural

chauvinismandauthoritarianismofthelater,nineteenth-centuryRaj.111Thisthesisconcludes,

seekingtore-connectconceptionsof“ScottishOrientalism”withthehypothesesofEdwardSaid,

highlightingthelinkbetweenthecolonial“orientalisms”ofLeydenandDuff.Thelinguisticconcerns

ofbothScotsprovideakeyindicationofsuchinterconnections.

SinceSaid’sredeploymentofthetermwithinhispath-breakingmonographof1978,the

notionof“Orientalism”hasbecomeintertwinedwiththeglobalstructuresof“Western”power

perceivedtodominatethoseofthe“East”or“Orient.”112Withinthissupposeddichotomy,Said

defined“Orientalism”asthederivative“systemofknowledgeabouttheOrient,anacceptedgridof

filteringthroughtheOrientintoWesternconsciousness”;aboveall,“arelationshipofpower,

domination,ofvaryingdegreesofacomplexhegemony.”113Inalaterdiscussion,Saidoffereda

furtherdelineation,outlining“Orientalism”as“acertainwillorintentiontounderstand,insome

casestocontrol,manipulate,eventoincorporate,whatisamanifestlydifferent(oralternativeand

novel)world.”114Saidprojectedthe“Orient”notas“Europe’sinterlocutor,butitssilencedOther,”

positing“Western”perspectivesofthe“Oriental”asapreconceived“paradigmofantiquityand

originality.”115Whilesuchsweepinghistoricalgeneralisationsarefarfromflawless–regularly

tailoringtextsandeventstosuittheoverbearingbinariesof“East”and“West,”“Orient”and

“Occident”–Said’sinsightcannotbeoverlooked.116Theoverlappingcollation,interpretation,

conscription,andconstrictionofculturaldifferenceand“usefulknowledge”aredesperatelyevident

109Ibid,p.59,JohnMarriot,TheOtherEmpire:Metropolis,Indiaandprogressinthecolonialimagination,(Manchester,2003),pp.1-2.110C.A.Bayly,ImperialMeridian:TheBritishEmpireandtheWorld,1780-1830,(London,1989).111ThisisperhapsevidentwithinWilliamDalrymple’sWhiteMughals,(London,2002),pp.xl-xliii,10.112GeoffreyNash,‘Orientalism,’JohnM.MacKenzieed.,TheEncyclopediaofEmpire,(Chichester,2016),4vols.,III,pp.1571-77.113EdwardW.Said,Orientalism,(London,1978),pp.6,5.114EdwardW.Said,‘OrientalismReconsidered,’CulturalCritique1,(1985),pp.89-107,p.93.115Ibid,pp.93,94,101-2.116Forakeycritiqueof“Orientalistessentialism”seeRichardKing,OrientalismandReligion.Postcolonialtheory,Indiaand‘themysticEast’,(London,1999),pp.3,33,84.AlsoJohnM.MacKenzie,‘EdwardSaidandthehistorians,’NineteenthCenturyContexts,18,1,(1994),pp.9-25,IbnWarraq,DefendingtheWest:acritiqueofEdwardSaid’sOrientalism,(Amherst,2007),DanielMartinVarisco,ReadingOrientalism:Saidandtheunsaid,(London,2007).

|P a g e

182

withinthecontextofLeydenandDuff,andareparticularlyexplicitwithinbothScots’discussionsof

language.

Ashasbeensuggested,thetwoindividualscanbepresentedasconvenientintellectual

opposites.WhileLeydencanstandastheembodimentofthephilologicalandsocio-cultural

comparativismunderpinningasupposed“ScottishOrientalism,”figuressuchasDuffhavebeen

identifiedasbringingaboutthedeclineofthisverymodeofimperialthought.117Despitebelonging

tointellectualtraditionsespousingremarkablydifferentmethodsandperspectives,bothScotswere

linkedinatleastoneessentialregard.ForthepolyglotLeydenasmuchastheoutspokenly

monolingualDuff,the“possession”oflanguageinthepursuitanddemonstrationofa“useful

knowledge”inIndiawasoftheutmostsignificance.

Duff’s“Anglicist”machinationsappearafairlytransparentattempttooverturnHinduism

andembedProtestantChristianityinBengal.Ofcourse,acommonthreadof“Anglicist”discourse

involvedchampioninganimportedontological“truth”and“sentimentsofliberalism”overIndian

“superstition.”InSeptember1831,theKolkataEnquirercelebrated“morethan2000boysreceiving

instructionsinEnglishliteratureinthemanyschoolsconductedhere,”supposing“[t]heirminds

freedfromtheshacklesofprejudice”as“undergoingacompletechange.”118“Superstitions,which

keptthemsolonginmoraldebasement”wereviewedtobe“vanishingfromtheirminds,”while

“knowledge”gleanedfrom“Western”educationandEnglishlinguisticinstruction“enlightensthem

andenablesthemtofeelthetruthandconformtoherdictates.”119TheEnquireranticipatedan

inevitablesocio-culturalshiftwithinthesepupils,predicting“[w]hentheirthoughtsandsentiments

arerefinedtheoccupationsthenativeswerehithertoemployedin,willnotbesuitabletothem.”120

Duffwasevenmoreexplicit,emphasisingtheChristiansourceofthe“truth”and

“knowledge”conveyedthrough“Anglicist”education.Thislinguistically-linkedzealotrysetthe

missionaryatoddswithGovernorBentinck,waryofattachinganyovertlyreligioussignificanceto

the1835EducationAct.Duffhimselftestifiedtothisdifferenceofopinion.“Ashighlyasweapprove

ofLordW.Bentinck’senactment,sofarasitgoes,”heconfessed,

117JohnM.MacKenzie,Orientalism.History,theoryandthearts,(Manchester,1995),p.29,Rendall,‘ScottishOrientalism,’p.44,TonyBallantyne,OrientalismandRace.AryanismintheBritishEmpire,(Basingstoke,2006),pp.33-5.118‘Education,’TheEnquirer,10September1831,BenoyGhoseed.,SelectionsfromEnglishPeriodicalsof19thCenturyBengal,(Calcutta,1978)p.38.119Ibid.120Ibid.

|P a g e

183

[…]wemustinjusticetoourownviews,andtothehighestandnoblestcauseonearth,

takethelibertyofstronglyexpressingourownhonestconvictionthatitdoesnotgofar

enough.[Originalemphasis.]121

Acknowledging“[t]ruthisbetterthanerrorinanydepartmentofknowledge,thehumblest

aswellasthemostexalted,”Duffacknowledgedthe“moralintrepidity”ofBentinck–“themanwho

decreedthat,intheGovernmentinstitutionsofIndia,trueliteratureandtruescienceshould

henceforthbesubstitutedinplaceoffalseliterature,falsescience,andfalsereligion.”122YetDuff

sawtheIndianEducationActtohaveworryinglyoverlookedthethirdandmostmalignantthreatof

“falsereligion,”concluding

[…]whilewerejoicethattrueliteratureandscienceistobesubstitutedinplaceofwhatis

demonstrablyfalse,wecannotbutlamentthatnoprovisionwhateverhasbeenmadefor

substitutingtheonlytruereligion–Christianity–inplaceofthefalsereligionwhichour

literatureandsciencewillinevitablydemolish.123

“IneffectingauniversalchangeinthenationalmindofIndia,”Duffadmitted“[w]edonotlook

forwardwithconfidencetoagreatultimaterevolution”;supposing“LordW.Bentinck’sAct”as

merely“layingthefoundation”fora“trainofcauses,”“whichmayforawhileoperatesoinsensibly

astopassunnoticedbycarelessorcasualobservers,butnotthelesssurelyasconcernsthegreat

andmomentousissue.”124

TheChristianevangelismofIndia,“thegreatandmomentousissue,”“thehighestand

noblestcauseonearth,”wastheforemostfactorgoverningDuff’sEnglishlinguisticinstruction.As

theScotprofessedinhisspeechtotheGeneralAssemblythatsameyear,hesawawhollysecular

“Anglicism”toruntheriskof“infidelizingtheHindusfirst,andthenChristianizingthem

afterwards.”125Duffsupposedany“schemewhichproposestocommunicateallusefulknowledge,

whileitexcludesallmoralsandreligion,mayjustlybechargeablewithmakingpeopleinfidels,”

insistingthatthroughhisown“determinationtocommunicateChristianknowledgefromthe

beginning,alongwiththegeneralelementsofliteratureandscience,”hisHindustudents,“aftera

periodoffouryears,”wererendered“perfectunbelieversintheirownsystems[…]and,atthesame

time,asperfectbelieversinChristianity,sofarastheunderstandingoftheheadisconcerned.”126

121Duff,NewEra,p.40.122Ibid.123Ibid.124Ibid,pp.40,39.125Duff,ChurchofScotland’sIndiaMission,p.26.126Ibid.

|P a g e

184

Bycomparison,themotivationsurroundingLeyden’s“Oriental”scholarshipisratherless

clear.Tobesure,withinmuchofhispublishedworkthescholarattestedtothevitalinsightsof

comparativephilologyintracingtherootsandinterconnectionswithinglobaltheoriesofsocial

history.Leydenmirroredapproachofthe“ScottishOrientalists,”prompted,asonehistorianhas

proposed,by“themixed-linguisticenvironmentoftheirhomeland.”127Inhis1807‘Planfor

investigatingthelanguages,literature,antiquities,andhistoriesoftheDekkan’–intendedtoaidin

hisprocurementofaprofessorshipattheEICCollegeofFortWilliam–Leydenstressedhewas

“particularinspecifyingthelanguagesordialectsofthoserudetribeswithwhomIhavehadan

opportunityofbecomingacquainted,”declaring

[…]ofallthemonumentsofrudeandsavagementhelanguageisthemostinteresting

andinstructiveascharacterizingbesttheirnaturalstateandhabitsaffordingasitwerea

naturalscaleoftheirfeelingandideas.128

InhisLanguagesandLiteraturesoftheIndo-ChineseNationsthefollowingyear,heofferedasimilar

viewofthis“naturalscale”:

Inthepaucityofexistingmonuments,relativetotheIndo-Chinesenations,nobetter

methodpresenteditself,eitherforclassingtheirtribes,orlayingafoundationofhistorical

researches,thanbyexaminingthemutualrelationoftheseverallanguageswhichare

currentamongthem.129

Leydeninsisted“[t]hismethod,whenappliedontheextensivescale,isalwaysthesurestcluefor

developingtheoriginofanation,”indicativeof“therevolutionstowhichitmayhavebeen

subjected,eitherbyforeignconquestorcolonization.”130

Leydenwasmindfuloftheanthropologicalpotentialoflinguisticcomparisonwhilstin

Scotland.Inhis1799“historicalandphilosophicalsketch”ofEuropeaninroadsintotheAfrican

continent,thescholarpaidcloseattentionto“provincialandnationalpeculiaritiesofsound”and

“diversityofpronunciation”whenspeculatingupon“theobscuritywhichstillhangsoverthehistory

127Ballantyne,Orientalism,p.33.128QuotedinRendall,‘ScottishOrientalism,’p.54.Seealso,Reith,Leyden,p.269,GeorgevanDriem,‘Tibeto-Burmanvs.Sino-Tibetan,’BrigitteL.M.BauerandGeorges-JeanPinaulteds.,LanguageinTimeandSpace,(Berlin,2003),105-6.129JohnLeyden,OntheLanguagesandLiteraturesoftheIndo-ChineseNations,(Calcutta,1808),p.6.130Ibid.

|P a g e

185

oftheAfricantribes.”131Leydenwasalsoquicktodrawculturalcomparisonswiththe“African

tribes”andthe“Celtic”peoplesofBritain–Irish,“Welch,”andScottishHighlanders.132

Thefollowingsummer,LeydenembarkedonatouroftheHighlands,actingasaguideand

tutortotwoteenageGermantravellers.Throughoutthetrip,reportedinregularletterstohisfriend

andfellowliteraryscholarRobertAnderson,LeydenmadefrequentreferencestoGaeliclanguage

andpoetry.TheversesofOssianwerestillahottopic,andprovidedaconstantsourceofinterest.

BeforebreachingtheHighlandline,Leydenandhiscompanionsspentanenjoyable,mid-July

afternoonattheestateofJohnRamsayofOchtertyre,wherethey“hadagooddealofconversation

concerningScotishsongsandliterature,Ossian’spoems,&c.”133

Throughoutthetour,LeydenseemstohavekeptanearoutfortheGaeliclanguageand

“English”pronunciationofthe“IndiansofScotland,asourfriendRamsaydenominatesthe

Highlanders.”134HewasalsodriventomakeanumberofratherdisparagingcomparisonstoLowland

language.InAugust1800,atanuproariousinnatOban,Leydensupposedhimself“inconsiderable

dangerofmistakingthishousewhereIwritefortheTowerofBabel,”irritablydescribingthismixed

linguisticdin:

[…]suchajargonofsoundsasthatproducedbyariotouscompanybawlingGaelicsongs

andchatteringsomethinglikeBillingsgate,blendingwithEnglishoathsandthehumstrum

ofabagpipeseldomassailsanyearsbutthoseofthedamned.135

ReachingInvernessinSeptember,Leydenquestionedthe“classicalEnglishidiom”

purportedlyspokenbythetownspeople,alsohighlightinghisownlikelybiasasaBorderer.“Iamnot

somuchdelightedwiththeInvernesspronunciationasacertainfemaletravellerofredoubted

intrepidity,”Leydencommented,alludingtoSarahMurray’sCompanionandUsefulGuidetothe

BeautiesofScotlandofthepreviousyear.136TheScotconsidered“bybepraisingthatofInverness,”

“perhapsMrsMurrayintendedtocompensateherinjusticetotheHawickpronunciation,”whichshe

hadreckonedtobe“unintelligible”andadmitted“tome,wasasArabic.”137“TheBorders,youknow,

131JohnLeyden,AHistoricalandPhilosophicalSketchoftheDiscoveries&SettlementsoftheEuropeansinNorthern&WesternAfrica,(Edinburgh,1799),pp.361,362-3.132Ibid,pp.41,293,376,389.133JohnLeyden,JournalofaTourintheHighlandsandWesternIslandsofScotland,JamesSintoned.,(1799:Edinburgh,1903),pp.8-9.134Ibid,p.252.135Ibid,pp.80-1.136Ibid,206.137Ibid,pp.206-7,Mrs[Sarah]Murray,ACompanionandUsefulGuidetotheBeautiesofScotland,(London,1799),p.107.Murraynotedthe“decencyintheappearance,mannersanddeportmentofthepeopleofInverness,”

|P a g e

186

neveradmittedtheHighlandsuperiorityinanyrespect,”Leydenconfessed,“Ishallcertainlydispute

theirpretensionstoamorecorrectEnglishpronunciation.”138AtAberdeentwoweekslater,he

reassertedthislight-heartedLowlandprejudiceagainstHighland“English,”judging“[t]hetown

dialectsofAberdeen,”“not,tomyear,inferiortothatofInverness,”butacknowledgingtohis

Edinburgh-basedcorrespondent,“[y]ouwillprobably,however,questionthetasteofaBordererin

pronunciation.”139

OutwithScotland,Leydenappearstohavebeensimilarlyinclinedtoseekoutcultural

parallelstohisLowlandhome.Rafflesrecalledhisfriend’sinterestin“thefeudalnotionsandhabits

ofthispeople,”which“hefoundsomuchinaccordancewithhisownfeelingsofhonourand

independence,andhewasatoncealivetotheirtruecharacterandinterests.”140ThoughLeyden’s

“powerfulmindwasengagedindeeperresearchesintotheirlanguagesandliterature,”Raffles

observedtheScot“neglectednoopportunityofbecomingacquainted”with“morepopulartalesand

traditions”oftheMalaypeoples.141SuchtestimonymirrorsWalterScott’sdescriptionofLeyden’s

fervourforthe“rudetraditionarytalesandballads”ofhisbirthplace–“theoncewarlikedistrictof

Teviotdale.”142

DoubtlesslyreflectinghisownpassionsforBordersballadryasmuchasthoseofhisfriend,

Scottsawsuch“traditionarytales”tohaveprovidedthe“readiestfoodwhichoffereditself”to

Leyden’s“awakenedappetiteforknowledge”:

Thesesongsandlegendsbecamerootedinhismemory,andhesoidentifiedhisfeelings

withthewild,adventurous,anddaringcharacterswhichtheycelebrated,thatthe

associationsthusformedinchildhood,andcherishedinyouth,gaveaneccentricand

romantictincturetohisownmind,andmany,ifnotallthepeculiaritiesofhismannerand

habitsofthinkingmaybetracedtohisimitatingthemannersandassumingthetoneofa

Bordererofformertimes.143

TheperspectivesofScottandRafflesshedlightbothonLeyden’sinterestsinphilologyandonhis

ownoutlandishdemeanour.Hisenthusiasmforthe“feudalnotions”and“populartales”ofthe

“[…]andtheaccentoftheirlanguagesosoft,itcharmstheear:itisnotintheleastliketheaccentoftheLowland,oranyotherpartoftheHighlandEnglishthatIheard;itbeingextremelyinsinuating,Icouldalmostsaybewitching:neitherhaditanyresemblancetotheLowlandScotchinidiom,beingverypureEnglish,accompaniedwithasortofforeigntone,whichisverypleasing;inshort,itislikebrokenEnglish,proceedingfromthesoftvoiceofabeautifulfemaleforeigner,taughtEnglishpurelyandgrammatically.”p.224

138Leyden,Journal,p.207139Ibid,p.238.140Leyden,MalayAnnals,p.v.141Ibid.142Scott,‘Memoir,’pxi.143Ibid,pp.xi-xii.

|P a g e

187

MalayswerelikelyconnectedwithhisfondnessforthoseoftheBorders–the“rudetraditionary

tales”whichhadkindledmuchofthescholar’sidiosyncraticlanguageandcharacter.

PerhapsmorepoignantthanLeyden’sownmotivations,arethelaterinterpretationsand

celebrationsofhis“Oriental”scholarship.Suchcommentaryiscrucialinfusingthedivisionsseen

betweenaninquisitive,culturallyaccommodating“ScottishOrientalism,”andthemoreloaded

intellectual“possession”characteristicofthe“Orientalism”ofEdwardSaid.Rafflesdiscussed

Leyden’spursuitoffaded,socio-linguistic“glimmerings”ofMalayculture,whichpredatedthe

spreadofIslam:

Theseglimmerings,hewasaccustomedtosay,wereveryfaint,but,intheabsenceofall

otherlights,theywereworthpursuing;theywould,atallevents,accountforandexplain

manyofthepeculiarinstitutionsandcustomsofthepeople,andservetomakehis

countrymenbetteracquaintedwitharacewhoappearedtohimtopossessthegreatest

claimsontheirconsiderationandattention.144

The“considerationandattention”of“hiscountrymen”wasdeemedakeyfactorbehindLeyden’s

investigationswithinmaritimeSouth-eastAsia.

TwoyearsafterthepublicationoftheMalayAnnals,theScottishphilologistAlexander

Murray,whohadco-editedtheScotsMagazinewithLeydenin1802,includedatributewithinhis

extensiveHistoryoftheEuropeanLanguages.LikeRaffles,MurraysawLeyden’sdeathtohavedealt

alamentableblowtothepursuitand“possession”of“usefulknowledge”:

Thehopesoncejustlyentertained,thattheliteraryworldwouldsoonpossessanaccurate

accountoftheIndo-Chinesedialects,arenowatanend.DrJOHNLEYDEN,perhapsthe

onlymanintheEastwhohadlearning,genius,andallaccomplishmentsofexecutingthat

task,diedinJava[…].Thekeenandindefatigablespiritwithwhichheprosecutedall

branchesofphilologicalandelegantliteratureinthiscountry,andwhichhecarriedintoa

new,unexplored,andimmensefieldofinvestigation,bysubsequentremovaltoIndia,

promisedmuchinthecauseofusefulknowledge.145

WritingtotheEdinburghprinterandbooksellerArchibaldConstableoveradecadelater,Murray

wasmoreexplicitinhisassessmentofthe“incalculableloss”ofLeyden:

Wemighthaveexpectedfromhimaclearandaccurateaccountofthenationsbetween

ChinaandIndia.Andaboveall,oftherelationsinwhichthetribesofthosepartsofAsia

havestoodtooneanother.Histalentforlanguagesmighthavelaidopenthewayto

144Leyden,MalayAnnals,p.vi.145AlexanderMurray,HistoryoftheEuropeanLanguages,I,pp.486-7.

|P a g e

188

futureadventurers,whoseeffortsmighthavebeenofgoodserviceinvariousrespects

[…].Withtheaidoflanguageamanofsenseisathomeinanyageofanycountry;

withoutitheislimitedentirelytowhathesees.146

Suchscholarshipisplacedwithinanunmistakablyimperialcontext.MurrayviewedLeyden’s

philologythroughtheprismoflinguisticaccumulation;a“possession”perceivedto“opentheway”

forlatergenerationsofintellectual“adventurers,”perhaps“aiding”inthepracticalitiesofBritish

expansion,where“amanofsenseisathomeinanyageofanycountry.”

AeulogyprintedatKolkatain1815,exhibitedsimilarlySaidian“Orientalist”assumptionsof

linguistic“possession.”ThepoetictributesupposedthatafterLeyden’sdeath“mostshouldAsia

mourn,”identifyingtheScot’schargeto“trace/Withpartialcarethesecretsofherrace.”147The

poetimaginedtheconsequencesofLeyden’s“partialcare,”heraldingtheeffectsofhisscholarship:

Toclearthecloudsofignoranceaway,

AndfilltheOrientwithreflectedday.

Vainwasthestrifeoftongues;forIndiaheard,

Fromhimthewidelyvariegatedword,

Andcountlesstribesuponhisaccentshung,

Tocatchthemusicoftheirnativetongue.148

Havingmediatedanapparent“strifeoftongues,”Leydenwasfurthercelebratedfor

achievingalinguisticmasterysurpassing“barrenmelodyalone,”andenvisagedtohavegainedan

almostmysticalcontroloverthetonguesof“countlesstribes.”149ThepoetlaudedLeyden’s

appropriationof“Oriental”languages,perceiving“hisaccents”asre-teachingthe“musicoftheir

nativetongue,”making“thespiritofthespell”ofsuchlanguage“hisown.”150TheScotispresented

asacustodianofawealthof“Oriental”discourse:

ThePersian’smysticrapture,andtheloves

ThatechosweetlythroughMalaya’sgroves.

TheglowingthoughtsthatrouseArabia’splains,

146ThomasConstableed.,ArchibaldConstableandhisLiteraryCorrespondents,(Edinburgh,1873),3vols.,I,pp.308-9.147‘TotheMemoryofDoctorJohnLeyden,whodiedatJavainthemonthofAugust,1811,’M.Derozarioed.,MonumentalRegister,(Calcutta,1815),p.210.Seealsothefairlydreadful‘LamentforDrJohnLeyden,whodiedinJava,’“Ofar,farawayfromthebanksoftheTe’iot,/Hesoughtthegrandscenesandloreofyoneast.”G.Barboured.,TributestoScottishGenius,(Dumfries,1827),p.85.148‘DoctorJohnLeyden,’p.210.149Ibid.150Ibid.

|P a g e

189

AndIndia’swildlysuperstitiousstrains.151

Moreover,Leydenisreveredforunveilingthe“dogmasofthedarklingsect,”commended

forhavingbrought“forthfairtruthfromancientbondsreleased,/Thereverendfraudsandfablesof

theEast.”152AninsistenceupontheguidinglightofLeyden’sresearchispalpable–possessing,

unfettering,andthendispellinga“dark”anddivergent“Eastern”“knowledge.”Unsubtlereflections

uponthefalsityof“Oriental”faithandbeliefarefusedtothesemusings,emphasising“dogmas”and

“sects,”“fraudsandfables,”and“India’swildlysuperstitiousstrains.”

Leyden’soutward-lookingthirstfor“knowledge,”anembodimentofthecomparative

philologyofa“ScottishOrientalism,”wascelebratedasademonstrationofbenevolentimperial

“possession”andintellectualsuperiorityincolonialIndia–unleashing“fairtruth”from“ancient”

bondage,andchallengingapparentlyerroneousbeliefsystemsofthe“East.”

Inthisregard,theresultsandperhapseventhemotivationunderpinningthecolonialcareersofboth

Scotscanbeviewedassomewhatcomparable.Ashasbeensuggestedbyanumberofimperial

historians,thechasmbetweenthe“Orientalist”and“Anglicist”approachtowardsBritishcolonial

governanceappearstohavebeensomewhatnarrowerinreality.153Conspicuoussimilarities

betweenbothcategorieshavebeenperceivedwithintheadministrativedebatesover“Orientalist”

educationinIndiaduringtheearly1830s,wherethe“Anglicist”redirectionofEICpolicyisarguedto

havebeenbrewingforthebestpartofageneration.154InherquintessentiallySaidiananalysisof

literaryeducationinIndiaunderBritishrule,GauriViswanathanposesthattheargumentsput

forwardby“Orientalists”and“Anglicists”wereperhapsnotsomuchthoseof“polaropposites”but

insteadfollowedanimplicit,connectedobjective“aspointsalongacontinuumofattitudestoward

themannerandformofnativegovernance.”155Viswanathanarguesthatbeneaththisset-piece

contestovertheparticularsof“mannerandform,”layahistorically-rootedconceptionof“native

151Ibid.152Ibid,p.211.153Viswanathan,MasksofConquest,pp.30,33-4,A.L.Macfie,Orientalism,(London,2002),pp.57-8,MichaelS.Dodson,Orientalism,Empire,andNationalCulture,(Basingstoke,2007),pp.55-62.Also,BernardS.Cohn,ColonialismanditsFormsofKnowledge,(Princeton,1996),pp.20-22,46,55,C.A.Bayly,EmpireandInformation,(Cambridge,1996),pp.224,246,313,JohnWillinsky,LearningtoDividetheWorld.EducationatEmpire’sEnd,(Minneapolis,1998),pp.30-4.154Clive,Macaulay,pp.342-3,367-8,LynnZastoupilandMartinMoireds.,TheGreatIndianEducationDebate,(Richmond,Surrey,1999),pp.1-5.155Viswanathan,MasksofConquest,p.30.AlsoStephenEvans,‘Macaulay’sMinuteRevisited:ColonialLanguagePolicyinNineteenth-centuryIndia,’JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment,23:4,(March2010),pp.260-281,pp.268,275,AlastairPennycook,‘Language,Ideology,andHindsight.LessonsfromColonialLanguagePolicies,’ThomasRicentoed.,Language,Politics,andLanguagePolicies,(Amsterdam,2000),pp.53,56-7.

|P a g e

190

governance”intentonrecruitingan“influentialclass”ofIndiansubjectsas“theconduitofWestern

thoughtandideas.”156Shepositsthatthiswasanunderlyingcolonialproject“ofremarkablylittle

disagreement”betweenbothadministrativesectsintermsof“necessityandjustification.”157

AsMacaulayfamouslyclaimedinhiseducationMinuteof1835,the“intrinsicsuperiorityof

theWesternliterature”waswidelyacknowledgedbyBentinck’sCommitteeforPublicInstruction,

“fullyadmitted”even“bythosemembers[…]whosupporttheOrientalplanofeducation.”158

Moreover,Macaulayregisteredanotherfundamentalconsensus,concerningtheapparentdeficiency

of“vernacular”Indianlanguages:

Allpartiesseemtobeagreedononepoint,thatthedialectscommonlyspokenamongthe

nativesofthispartofIndiacontainneitherliterarynorscientificinformation,andare,

moreover,sopoorandrudethat,untiltheyareenrichedfromsomeotherquarter,itwill

notbeeasytotranslateanyvaluableworkintothem.Itseemstobeadmittedonallsides,

thattheintellectualimprovementofthoseclassesofthepeoplewhohavethemeansof

pursuinghigherstudiescanatpresentbeeffectedonlybymeansofsomelanguagenot

vernacularamongstthem.159

Theseassertionssuggestthatbythemid-1830stheso-called“Anglicists”and“Orientalists”ofIndian

officialdomstoodinratherconvenientagreementontwocentralissues–thebeliefbothin“the

intrinsicsuperiority”ofa“Westernliterature,”andtheunfortunateshortcomingsofthe“dialects

commonlyspoken”inEICterritories.AsChrisBaylyhasproposed,thisapparenteducational

“controversy,”amplifiedthroughMacaulay’sprovocativeandmemorablerhetoric,canbereduced

to“asymbolicjoustbetweenadministrativegenerations,”wheretheactualdebatefocusedupon

themostappropriatemeanstodiffuseanacceptably“usefulknowledge.”160Assuch,onemay

wonderwhetherLeydenandDuff,soopposedinmethod,mighthaveactuallystoodinaccordancein

termsoftheiroutlookinIndia.

Indeed,bothScotseyedIndiawithacomparabledegreeofcontempt,andLeyden’s

remarkabledriveforcollating“Oriental”languagesshouldbeinnowaymistakenforarespect,or

eventolerationfor“native”socio-culturaldistinctions.Leyden,himselfaformerministerofthe

ChurchofScotland,issuedsentimentsremarkablysimilartothoseofDuff,mirroringhishostility

towardsHinduism.InNovember1804,justafewmonthsintohissecondyearinIndia,Leyden

expressedfrustrationwithsympatheticBritishprojectionsof“natives”as“theblameless,mild,

156Viswanathan,MasksofConquest,pp.34,30.157Ibid,p.30.158Young,Speeches,p.349.159Ibid,p.348.160Bayly,EmpireandInformation,p.224.

|P a g e

191

patientinnocentchildrenofnatureastheyareridiculouslytermedbygossipingignoramuseswho

neverseteyesonthem,”dismissingtheHindupopulationofMadrasaspossessingamorality“as

utterlyworthlessanddevoidofprobityastheirreligioniswickedshamelessimpudentand

obscene.”161

LeydenalsoindulgedinthefavouredcomplaintofDuffandthe“Anglicists”ofthe1830sin

railingagainstscholarsoftheHinduBrahmincaste,whomhesawtohave“arrogatedreligion

entirelytothemselves.”162“Therecanbelittledoubt,”Leydenprofessed,thatthebest“corrective”

tothissupposedspiritualtyrannywasthatwhich“theChristianreligionasprofessedbyProtestants

isperfectlyadequatetosupply.”163WritingtotheEICservantandsometimeversifierWilliamLinley,

discussinghispoeticmusingson“Superstition”and“Oppression,”LeydenenvisagedLinley’ssubjects

“infullbloomandexpansion”withinHinduism:

ItisverytruetheEnglishname&mannersareequallyodioustothem,butnotmoresoI

trustthannaturaljustice&equitywithwh.[ich]theirabominableirrationalmannersand

theirfilthy&obscene&impiousreligionaretotallyincapableofcoalescing.164

Clearly,the“Orientalist”sentimentsofJohnLeydenwereofacomparablyintolerantilktothoseof

later-generation“Anglicists”suchasDuff,atleastinregardstothepracticesofHinduismwithin

India.165

AsweshouldavoidcreditingLeyden’s“Orientalism”withanunduedegreeofsympathyfor

Indianculturesandreligions,wemustalsobewaryofcolouringDuff’s“Anglicism”asawholly

undesirable,alienforceimposeduponthecolonialpopulation,therebydismissinganysenseof

Indianagencyinissuesof“native”education.166TheestablishmentoftheHinduCollegeatKolkatain

1817iscommonlyregardedasavitalexpressionoftheenthusiasmofcertainelementswithinthe

BengalisocialelitetobecomebetterversedwithaEuropean“knowledge.”167Asnoted,Duff’sown

studentsattestedtothemeritsofEnglishlinguisticinstruction.Morecomplexandcompelling,

however,istherelationshipbetweenDuffandRajaRammohunRoy–theremarkablesocio-religious161QuotedinBrown,‘Leyden,’p.342.162Ibid,p.378163Ibid.164Ibid.165ThomasR.Trautmann,LanguagesandNations.TheDravidianProofinColonialMadras,(Berkeley,2006),p.95-6.166Akeyperspectiveisthenotionofthe“Indianecumene,”anindigenous,anddecidedlynon-Anglo-centredarenaofIndianpublicdiscourse,Bayly,EmpireandInformation,p.180-211.Foradiscussionofthe“necessarilydouble”practicesof“Orientalist”scholarshipand“knowledge”inIndia,focusingonthecentralityoftheroleplayedbyBengalipaṇḍits,seeDodson,Orientalism,pp.1-18.167Kopf,BritishOrientalism,pp.4,154-6,Dasgupta,BengalRenaissance,pp.9-10,83-5,A.F.SalahuddinAhmed,SocialIdeasandSocialChangeinBengal,1818-1835,(Leiden,1965),ZareerMasani,Macaulay.Britain’sLiberalImperialist,(London,2014),pp.91-7,Evans,‘Macaulay’sMinuteRevisited,’p,265.

|P a g e

192

reformer,centralfigureofthe“BengalRenaissance,”andkeyplayerinthefoundingofthetheistic

societytheBrahmaSabha.168TheBengalischolarwasessentialtotheestablishmentofDuff’sfirst

missionaryschoolatKolkatainJuly1830,actuallygrantingtheScotuseoftheformermeetinghouse

oftheBrahmaSabhaonChitporeRoad.169TheearlysupportofRammohun–aninfamousfigureof

highcasteandevenhigherrepute–wasessentialinlendinglegitimacytotheyoungScots

missionary.

RammohunwasalsoconspicuousforhisEnglishlinguisticfluencyandespousalof“Anglicist”

education.In1823,JamesSilkBuckingham,theeditoroftheCalcuttaJournal,condescendingly

acknowledgedthatdespitehis“Asiatickbirth”theBengalischolar’sfluencyand“finechoiceof

words”were“worthyofimitationevenofEnglishmen.”170Curiously,Rammohunacknowledgeda

notablesourceofsupportwhenrecountinghisearlyenthusiasmforEnglishlinguisticandcultural

studies,apursuitwhichalsocoincidedwithhiscriticismofHinduorthodoxy,recalling:

Thisraisedsuchafeelingagainstme,thatIwasatlastdesertedbyeverypersonexcept

twoorthreeScotchfriends,towhomandthenationtowhichtheybelongIalwaysfeel

grateful.171

Perhapsasaresultofsuchgratitude,Duffreceivedbothpracticalaidandideological

encouragementfromRammohuninthepursuitofhis“Anglicist”mission.Despitetheirrathershort-

livedpersonalacquaintance–withRammohundepartingforEnglandjustsixmonthsafterDuff’s

arrival–thetwoindividualsappeartohavebeenonasomewhatsimilarwavelength.Atanyrate,the

BengalischolardisplayedanimpressiveawarenessofDuff’spriorities–tellinglyblendingEnglish

linguisticinstructionandtheological“purity”onatleastoneoccasioninhiscorrespondencewiththe

Scot.“Asayouth,IacquiredsomeknowledgeoftheEnglishlanguage,”RammohunwrotetoDuff,

prefacinghisdeeperdiscussionoftheparallelsbetweenProtestantChristianityandanas-yet

“unreformed”IndianHinduism:

HavingreadabouttheriseandprogressofChristianityinapostolictimes,andits

corruptioninsucceedingages,andthenoftheChristianReformationwhichshookoff

thesecorruptionsandrestoredittoitsprimitivepurity,Ibegantothinkthatsomething

168RammohunRoyloomslargewithinIndianhistoriography.Foravaluableoverview,“TheLongShadowoftheBengalRenaissance,”seeTithiBhattacharya,TheSentinelsofCulture.Class,Education,andtheColonialIntellectualinBengal(1848-85),(Oxford,2005),pp.12-25.AlsoAndrewSartori,BengalinGlobalConcepthistory,(Chicago,2007),pp.68-89,JonE.Wilson,TheDominationofStrangers.ModernGovernanceinEasternIndia,1780-1835,(Basingstoke,2008),pp.165-81.169NoelA.Salmond,HinduIconoclasts,(Waterloo,2004),p.144,n.6,LynnZastoupil,RammohunRoyandtheMakingofVictorianBritain,(Basingstoke,2010),p.167.170Dasgupta,BengalRenaissance,p.60.171QuotedinF.MaxMüeller,BiographicalEssays,(London,1884),pp.47-8.

|P a g e

193

similarmighthavetakenplaceinIndia,andsimilarresultsmightfollowherefroma

reformationofthepopularidolatry.172

Suchallusionstothe“primitivepurity”ofProtestantismandacontemporaryIndian“idolatry”would

havelikelystruckachordwiththeScottishmissionary.

Itwouldberemisstooverlooktheinterconnectionsbetweentherising“Anglicism”ofthe

EICinthe1830sandthe“BengaliRenaissance”ofearlierdecades–anindigenousintellectual

traditiondefinedintermsofa“cross-culturalmentality”and“universalism”conspicuously

reminiscentof“ScottishOrientalism.”173Crucially,the“Anglicist”accommodationamongparticular

sectionsofthemaleBengalipopulationwouldlayfoundationsforthecolonialcaricatureofthe

“effeminate,”English-speaking“Babu”ofthemid-to-latenineteenthcentury.174AsMrinaliniSinha

suggests,thetropeofthe“Babu”–createdincontradistinctiontotheimagined“manlyEnglishmen”

–wascharacterisedby“stiltedmannerisms,”andperceivedas“artificial”and“unnatural”ina

supposedtransgressionoflinguistic,aswellasgendered,sexual,andsocio-culturalboundaries.175At

leastinpart,thearchetypeoftheBengali“Babu”wasaproductofanIndianenthusiasmforBritish

literatureandculture,andsubsequentlyderidedthroughshiftingnineteenth-centuryassumptionsof

colonial“standards.”176

Aslateas1853,intheaftermathoftheIrishFaminetowhichhisnameremainsdarkly

associated,GeorgeTrevelyanenthusedtotheHouseofLordsthat“educated”Indians“speakpurer

Englishaswespeakourselves.”177“Theytakeitfromthepurestmodels,”heattested,“theyspeak

thelanguageoftheSpectator,suchEnglishasisneverspokeninEngland.”178Clearly,Trevelyan–

outspokenallyofDuff–perceivedthe“purity”ofanAddisonianAnglo-Indiandiscoursetobeapoint

ofimperialprideandcelebration.Butbarelyadecadelater,andinthewakeoftheso-called“Indian

Mutiny,”hisownson,GeorgeOttoTrevelyan,offeredanotablydifferentperspective.

TheyoungerTrevelyancelebratedthediffusionof“[t]heworksofourgreatesthistorians

andphilosophers,”whichhesawto“havepenetratedtoeverycornerofourdominions,”projecting

“somewhatofthewisdom,thegoodsense,andthepuremoralitywhichstampapeculiarcharacter

172QuotedinSalmond,HinduIconoclasts,p.104.173Dasgupta,BengalRenaissance,p.19.174MrinaliniSinha,Colonialmasculinity.The“manlyEnglishman”andthe“effeminateBengali”inthelatenineteenthcentury,(Manchester,1995).175Ibid,pp.4-5,15-16,17.176Viswanathan,MasksofConquest,pp.159-60.177QuotedinPavanK.Varma,BecomingIndian.TheUnfinishedRevolutionofCultureandIdentity,(NewDelhi,2010),pp.61-3.178Ibid.

|P a g e

194

uponournobleliterature.”179Trevelyanalsodiscussedtheabilityofthe“youngHindoowhohas

madethemostofhistimeatcollege”to“writebythehourasomewhatfloridandstiltedEnglish

withperfecteaseandaccuracy.”180Thiswasbynomeansacompliment.“Thatinstinctfor

imitation,”Trevelyanremarked,“issodominantinthenative,hisdesiretopleasesoconstant,that

youneverknowwhetherhissentimentsarerealorartificial”:

Infact,itmaybedoubtedwhetherheknowshimself.Whenhespeaks,youcannotbe

surewhetheryouarelisteningtotherealman,orthemanwhomhethinksyouwould

likehimtobe.ThefeeblenessandtheservilitywhichrenderHindootestimonyso

singularlyuntrustworthyforbidustoputtoomuchconfidenceinHindoocivilization.181

Thus,adeceptiveblendofthe“real”andartificial”wasseentoliebehinda“stilted”Anglo-Indian

discourse,adisconcerting“imitation”lacedwith“perfecteaseandaccuracy”–thenewand

unsettlingsub-versionsofthe“Babu.”

Bycomparison,certainLowlandScotssub-versionsappeartohavebeenbroughtevermore

confidentlytotheforeduringpreciselythesameperiod.Asthisthesishasdemonstrated,Lowland

languagehadbecomeincreasinglyprevalentandmoreassertivelyexpressedbothwithinand

outwithScotlandbytheearlydecadesofthenineteenthcentury,eruptingintheself-congratulatory

platitudesofimperialverbaltartanry.Yetcrucially,itwasalsoduringtheturnofthenineteenth

centurythatthesub-versivestatusofLowlandformswasmoreconsciouslyrecognised,re-

interpreted,andrearticulated.

JohnLeydenoffersavitalindicationofthis.In1801,Leydenprintedaneditionofthe

sixteenth-centurypoemthe‘ComplayntofScotland,’towhichheattachedaprefacediscussingthe

difficultiesfacedbywritersof“vernacular”literature.Leydenaccorded“thepoets”–“first

vernacularauthorsineverylanguage”–“anadventitiousairanddignity”bywayoftheir“admission

offoreignwordsandidioms,andtheresumingofantiquatedtermsandphrases.”182Yethereckoned

thewritersofproseto“havegreaterdifficultiestoencounter.”183Inanobservationlikelytohave

resonatedwithlatergenerationsofEnglish-speakingIndians,andwhichmayhavedrawnthe

sympathiesofJamesBeattie’sstudentsatAberdeenandearlyexponentsofanAnglo-American

“dialect,”Leydenoutlinedtheparadoxicalchallengeto“vernacular”writers.“Iftheyattemptaplain

179GeorgeOttoTrevelyan,TheCompetitionWallah,(London,1864),p.425.180Ibid.181Ibid,pp.425-6.182JohnLeydened.,TheComplayntofScotland,(Edinburgh,1801),p.26.183Ibid.

|P a g e

195

andintelligiblestyle,”theScotobserved,“theyincurthehazardofmeannessandvulgarity;while,if

theyendeavourtoavoidaflatandtrivialone,theyriskthecensureofaffectation.”184Thenasnow,

navigatingapathbetweenperceived“meannessandvulgarity”andchargesof“affectation”remains

acentralconcernforself-consciousspeakersofanylanguagedeemed“vernacular.”

YetasishintedbyLeyden’sactionsinbothIndiaandScotland,analternativeroutelay

throughtheovertdemonstrationofsuchself-consciousness.In1803,theyearLeydenleftforIndia,

thescholar’seditedvolume‘ScotishDescriptivePoems’wasprintedatEdinburgh.Withinthe

collection,LeydenincludedadiscussionofthelifeandwritingoftheGreenock-basedschoolmaster-

poetJohnWilson,writtenbyalittle-knownclerkofthetownbythenameofJohnGalt.Galtwould

latergainfameforhisScots-inflectedsocio-historicalnovels,alsopursuingatempestuousimperial

careerasCommissioneroftheCanadaLandCompany.185Inhis1803essayonWilson,Galtfamously

defendedtheliteratureof“theScottishnation,”“generallyreckoneddeficientincomichumourby

theirsouthernneighbours.”186Hearguedthatthe“exquisiteeffects”ofaScotshumour,rootedin

the“nicediscriminationofminuteandlocalpeculiaritiesofmanners,andtheindividualformsof

expressionadaptedtothese”wereconsequently“lostonthosenotfamiliarwiththevariousshades

ofdialect.”187

MirroringLeyden’stwinsuppositionsof“vulgarity”and“affectation,”Galtpresentedthe

effectsofalinguisticallyrestrictive“speciesoftranslation”adoptedbyScotsin“polite”society:

[…]aScotsmanisprohibited,bytheimputationofvulgarity,fromusingthecommon

languageofthecountry,inwhichheexpresseshimselfwithmosteaseandvivacity,and,

cloathedinwhich,hisearliestandmostdistinctimpressionsalwaysarisetohisownmind.

Heusesaspeciesoftranslation,whichcheckstheversatilityoffancy,andrestrainsthe

genuineandspontaneousflowofhisconceptions.188

Ingeneralterms,Galtsawa“genuine”Scottishcreativitytobesomewhatstifledbythedriveto

“affect”English“standards.”However,withregardto“MrWilson’shumour,”Galtsawtheinverseto

bethecase.“Aswellashisdialect,”Wilson’s“humour”wasdeemed“nativeScotish,”which

“affordedthemostexquisitepleasuretohisScotishfriends”though“littlerelishedbyan

Englishman”189Galtalignedsuchcomiceffectswithlinguisticmixtureandjuxtaposition–the“nice

184Ibid.185Letley,GalttoDouglasBrown,pp.9,39-85,GerardCarruthers,‘RememberingJohnGalt,’ReginaHewitted.,JohnGalt.ObservationsandConjecturesonLiterature,History,andSociety,(Plymouth,2012).186JohnLeydened.,ScotishDescriptivePoems,(Edinburgh,1803),p13.187Ibid,pp.13-14.188Ibid,p.14189Ibid,pp.14-15.

|P a g e

196

indiscrimination”ofthe“minuteandlocalpeculiarities,”and“thevariousshades”ofdialectalsub-

versions.

Galtcelebrateda“facilityforminglingwitheveryformoflifeandmanners,fromthemost

simpleandrustictothemostpolishedandrefined,”supposingthishabittohave“affordedMr.

Wilsonscopeforobservation.”190TheGreenockclerkreiteratedthesignificanceofthepoet’ssocio-

linguistic“mingling”:

HewasaScotchmanofthatgenuineoldclass,whichseemsnowtobenearlyextinct;who

blendedwiththeircharacteristicplainnessofspeechandmanners,thetasteofthe

scholar,andtheinformationofthemenoftheworld;acombinationrenderedonlymore

interestingbytheveilofapparentrusticitybywhichitwasconcealed.[Emphasis

added.]191

Fusingthefrequently-employedtropeofnationalnostalgiatothatofscholarly“taste,”Galt’s

commentaryexemplifiestheturn-of-the-centuryreappraisalofcertainLowlandlinguisticattributes

–temperingthepolarthreatsofaScots“vulgarity”and“affectation,”andsuggestingthemeritof

“blending”thetwo.Indeed,throughthismergence,“vulgarity”and“affectation”weretransmuted

intotermswithdecidedlymorepositiveconnotations–reimaginedas“characteristicplainness”and

scholarly“taste.”

Yettheimageofthe“veil”isperhapsofthegreatestsignificance.Again,aScottish“taste”

andintellectareseentoberevealinglyconcealed–eversoslightlyobscuredbeneaththeveneerof

an“apparent,”likelyassumed,“rusticity.”This“combination”oflinguistic“taste”and“plainness,”

closecousinsto“affectation”and“vulgarity,”becomesbetterpunctuatedand“renderedonlymore

interesting.”

Almostfiftyyearslater,thethinly-veiled“rusticity”ofAlexanderDuffwassimilarly

envisioned.Asdiscussed,themissionary’s“unstudied,”potentially“uncouth”“eloquence”appears

tohavebeenratherwellreceivedduringhis1854U.S.speaking-tour.FollowingtheMissionary

ConventionheldatNewYorkinearlyMay1854,alocalminister,presentatoneofDuff’smany

appearancesattheBroadwayTabernacle,offeredanassessmentoftheScot’sperformance.The

“veilofapparentrusticity”isevidentthroughout.

TheNewYorkernotedDufftohave“afacedecidedlyScotch,”supposinghim“butplain,a

plainmanaltogether,withoutagraceinoutlineormotion.”192“Onethinghowever,”theminister

190Ibid,p.5.191Ibid,p.15.192QuotedinVermilye,Duff,p.99.

|P a g e

197

admitted,wasthatDuffwaspossessedof“theperfervidumingeniumScotorum[…]animagination

easilyfired,andasubjectwhichfilledeveryrecessofmindandheart.”193Inotherwords,”he

insisted,“underthisplain,rugged,evenungainlysurface”dwelt“materialforavolcano–aswesoon

found.”194This“perfervidumingeniumScotorum”–astormy,archetypicalScotsearnestness–was

seentopervadeDuff’srhetoric,everpresentbeneatha“plain,rugged,evenungainlysurface.”

Switchingslightlyfromhisvolcanicmetaphortothatofacorkscrewburrowingthroughanoutward

barriertounleashthe“pentup”sentimentsoftheaudience,theNewYorkministerofferedafurther

reflectiononDuff’sdelivery;

Hisvoice,althoughnotloud,hadapenetrating,metallictone,andashewouldgive

utterancetosomelongsentenceofespecialeloquence,itmightbecomparedtoa

corkscrewtwistingitswaythroughayieldingcork.Ateveryturnandtwistofthethought,

underthepressureofhiswonderfulimagination,itwouldgodeeperintotheveryheart

ofthesilentandexpectantaudience,tillatlastthecorkwasoutandthepentupfeelings

effervescedinloudandlongapplause.ExceptDoctorChalmers,hisowncountryman,it

wouldbedifficulttofindanoratorwithwhomtocomparehim.195

Withnotablecomparisonsto“countryman”Chalmers,Duff’s“eloquence”waspresentedthrough

regularallusionstoconcealedforce,depth,andpressure.The“plain,”“decidedlyScotch”

characteristicsofDuffwereviewedtoinitiallyobscureaphysicalandrhetorical“grace.”However,as

withGalt’sinterpretationofWilson’sdiscourse,an“apparentveilofrusticity”–theperceptionofa

“rugged,evenungainlysurface”–wasreckonedessentialinunderscoringDuff’s“eloquence.”

YetsuchinterpretationsofferlittleinsightintoDuff’sownusageandattitudetowards

LowlandScotsforms.UnlikeLeyden,thereisadearthofevidenceconcerningthemissionary’s

employmentofLowlandScotssub-versions.However,Duffmadeanumberoftellingreferencesto

Scottishlanguagesandliterarymatters,notablyofferingthecomparativeexamplesofbothGaelic

andLowlandScotsformswhenespousingtheBritishredirectionof“Oriental”literatureandIndian

“vernacular”languages.ReflectingonhisownexperienceasGaelic-speakingHighlander,the

missionarydismissedany“violentattempt”touprootIndianlanguages:

BywhatprocesshavetheHighlandsbeenChristianizedandcivilized?Hasitbeenbya

violentattempttoextirpatethelanguageofOssian,thatsangthetalesofotheryears,

withtheviewofsubstitutinguniversallyanotherandabetterinitsplace?No:thatwere

193Ibid.194Ibid.195Ibid,p.100.

|P a g e

198

impossible.Hasitbeenbyanexclusiveattempttotransfuseintothatlanguageallthe

vaststoresofmodernknowledge?No:that,too,wereimpracticable.196

Rather,Duffpresumedthatthe“naturalandsuccessful”expansionoftheEnglishlanguage,“at

presentthegreatstorehouseofallknowledge,”wouldinevitablywinout.197Again,thelanguageof

theHighlandsofferedinstruction:

Copioustooverflowing,theGaelicmustbeallowedtobe,indescriptiveimagery;–and

resistlessasthemountaintorrent,initsvocabularyofimpassionedaddress.Butletany

man,whoreallyunderstandsthesubject,conceivetohimselftheprojectoftranslating

intoGaelicsuchaworkasthe“EncyclopaediaBritannica,”andhewillsoonbecompelled

toassenttotheexistenceoftheimpracticabilitynowreferredto.198

LowlandlanguagewassimilarlydismissedbyDuffintermsoftheparallel“impracticability”

of“Orientalist”scholarship.InhiscritiqueofEICfundingpriortothe1835IndianEducationAct,Duff

contemplatedtheresultof“ourancientScottishliterature”holdingcomparable“claimsonthe

patronageofourhomeGovernment.”199RecommendingmeasuresbywhichbothGaelicand

Lowlandliteraturecouldbepreventedfrom“prematuredecay,”themissionarywasnevertheless

scepticalofamoresubstantiveallocationoffunds.MentioningWalterScott’s“volumesofborder

songsandballads”andJamesMacpherson’s“traditionaryremainsofCelticpoetry,”Duffridiculed

“theendowmentofseminariesontheTweedorontheTay”intendedfor“furnishinganeducation

tohundredsofyouths,inwhichthestaplearticleconsistedexclusivelyofborderlegendsand

Ossiannictales.”200

“SoinIndia,”theScotconcluded.201Thoughthemissionaryrecognisedthatsome

governmentfundingwas“expedient,toacertainextent,forspecificpurposes,topatronisenative

literature,”heargued“forvalidreasons”againstthewholesale“supportofinstitutionsforthe

exclusivecultivationofit,byhundredsofnativeyouth.”202Throughsuchreductiverhetoric,Scottish

and“Oriental”literaturesweredeemedtobecomparativelyoutmodedandsuperfluous.

Butaboveall,Duffexpressedamarkedawarenessoftheemotivepullofone’s“native”

language,highlightinglinguisticfluencyasacentralfactorineffectingtheProtestantevangelismof

India.Asinhisargumentsagainst“Orientalism”DuffofferedtheexampleoftheHighlands;attesting

196Duff,Vindication,p.20.197Ibid,p.21.198Ibid.199Duff,NewEra,p.30.200Ibid.201Ibid.202Ibid.

|P a g e

199

tothe“necessityofhavingrecoursetoNativeagents”toaidintheChurchofScotland’smission

uponthesubcontinent.203Envisioningabi-culturalandpolylingual“raceoflabourers[…]possessed

ofessentiallyEuropeanqualifications,andunencumberedbyEuropeandisadvantages,”Duffissued

an“appealtoourbrethrenfromtheHighlands”duringhisspeechtotheGeneralAssemblyinMay

1835.204Duffemphasisedthehistoricalroleplayedbysuch“nativeagents”intheHighlands,and

declaredtotheScottishKirkthat“ifanEnglishmanweretostudy[…]theGaeliclanguage,andwere

topreachinittoaGaeliccongregation,”thelocalpopulationwerelikelyto“look,andstare,and

wonder,”yet“goawaymortifiedanddisappointed.”205Duffdiscernedanalienstrain“inthetonesof

aforeigner’svoice,whichfallscoldandheavyontheearofanative,andseldomreachestheheart!”

insistingthat

[…]thereissomethinginthegenuinetonesofacountryman’svoice,whichoperatingasa

charm,fallspleasantlyontheear,andcomeshometothefeelings,andtouchesthe

heart,andcausesitstenderestchordstovibrate.206

InstressingthenecessityofrecruitingIndianmissionariescapableofproselytisingintheirown

“vernacular,”Duffdemonstratedakeenawarenessoftheemotionalpullofthe“genuinetones”of

familiarlanguage.ThemissionaryofferedanotablyScottishexample,employingarhetoricand

sentimentalityreminiscentofthatoftheexponentsofverbaltartanry.

Ononesignificantoccasion,DuffrecordedbeingmovedbytonesofLowlandlanguageinIndia.In

thisinstance,ScotsformswereseentobecomfortablyembeddedwithinanAnglo-centredliterary

discourse,andprojectedtoreflectaconspicuouslyevangelicalsentiment.Assertingtheimpactof

“English”literatureuponhisIndianstudents,Duffdescribedthe“indescribablynovelandeven

affecting”experienceofwitnessing“theseolive-complexionedandbronze-colouredchildrenofthe

East”engageinschool-roomdiscussions,“fortifiedbyoralquotationsfromEnglishauthors.”207Duff

describedthedebatesofhisstudents,“frequentlyinterspersedandenlivened”bycitationsfrom

“someofourmostpopularEnglishpoets,particularlyLordByronandSirWalterScott.”208“More

203Duff,ChurchofScotland’sIndiaMission,p.18.204Ibid,pp.17,18.205Ibid,p.18.206Ibid.207AlexanderDuff,IndiaandIndiaMissions,(Edinburgh,1839),pp.614-15.208Ibid,p.615.

|P a g e

200

thanonce,”themissionaryrecalled,“weremyearsgreetedwiththesoundofScotchrhymesfrom

thepoemsofRobertBurns.”209

Inamovecharacteristicofmanynineteenth-centuryScots,Duffpresentedtheemotionof

encounteringBurnsianlanguagewithinabroaderprojectionofhisownunderlyingcolonial

objectives;conscriptingamuch-celebrated,proto-radicalrefrainoftheAyrshirepoettoexpresshis

ownprejudiceagainst“unnatural”Hindupracticesandthe“transformingpower”of“knowledge”:

ItwouldnotbepossibletoportraytheeffectproducedonthemindofaScotsman,when,

onthebanksoftheGangees,oneofthesonsofBrahma,–inreviewingtheunnatural

institutionofcasteinalienatingmanfromman,andinlookingforwardtotheperiodin

whichknowledge,byitstransformingpower,wouldmakethelowesttypeofmanfeel

itselftobethesamespeciesasthehighest,–suddenlygaveutterance,inanapparent

ecstasyofdelight,tothesecharacteristiclines:-

‘Fora’that,anda’that,

It’scomin’yet,fora’that,

Thatmantoman,theworldo’er,

Shallbrothersbefora’that.’210

“Howwastheprayerfulaspirationraised,”Duffmarvelled,“thatsuchaconsummationmightbe

realizedinahigherandnoblersensethanthepoetorhisHinduadmirerwasprivilegedto

conceive!”211

ThoughJohnLeyden’sLowland“tones”wereseeneversoslightly“false,”bythe1830s“the

soundofScotchrhymes”werereckonedexpressiveofaparticularsocio-culturalandreligious

“truth”–suggestiveofthe“higherandnoblersense”Duffsawtotranscendpoetand“Hindu

admirer”alike.Assuch,certainlinguisticsub-versionsoftheScottishLowlandsrosetoever-greater

prominencewithinnineteenth-centurydiscourses–enmeshedwithinthe“veilofapparentrusticity”

envelopingtenetsofScottishimperialism.

209Ibid.210Ibid.211Ibid.

|P a g e

201

Conclusion.“MorecuriousthanaHindumarriage(laughter).”

Thisthesisaddressestwocentral,interrelatedissues.

Primarily,thisstudyhasdemonstratedtheparticularmannerinwhichcertainLowland

lingusitictraitswereconsciouslyandconfidentlyexpressedthroughouttheglobeduringthe

nineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies.Thisanalysisoftheceremonialandcelebratoryexhibition

ofScotsformsoverseashasbeenframedwithinabroaderdiscussion,lookingtohighlightthe

complexhistoricalinterconnectionsexistingbetweenLowlandScotslanguage(s)andconceptionsof

English“standards.”

Duringthenineteenthcentury,verbaltartanrywasarticulatedandrendered“appropriate”

throughtherecongitionofitsdeliberatedissonancewithinestablishedlinguistic“standards.”As

such,thispermissible,performativeincursionofaselectedScotslexiconwasusedtopunctuatea

wideralignmenttoanexpansive,global“English”language,stressingacommendableScottish

commitmenttothetenetsofBritishimperialism.“Overt”and“idealised”Lowlandlinguistictraits

assertedasenseofScottishdiasporicexceptionalismwhichwasatoncecelebratoryandsentimental,

andthehugelyinfluentialpoetryofRobertBurnsandnovelsofWalterScottofferedaccessible

templatesforinfusingEnglish“standards”withaScotslingusiticpresencebothforeignandfamiliar–

recognisableandyetrecognisablydistinctwithinanultimately“English”discourse.

Therootsofthisphenomenon,underpinnedbythesubtlemerginganddivergingofLowland

idiomswith,andcrucially,withinthe“English”language,canbetracedbackseveralcenturies.Asis

clearfromthemuch-discussedearlymedievalusageoftheterm“Inglis”todistinguishLowland

formsfromHighlandGaelicandthe“suddron”varietieswithinEngland,anydiscussionofScottish

linguisticissuesmustacknowledgetheinherentconnectionsandhistoricaldialogueexistingbetween

notionsofa“Scots”andan“English”language.1

Thislinguisticdialgoueisalltoooftenreducedtothatofaone-sideddominationor

distortionof“Scots”distinctionbyasingluarandever-encroaching“English”tongue.TheProtestant

Reformationsofthemidsixteenthcentury,alongwiththe1603UnionofCrownsandthe1707Union

ofPariaments,arecommonlyseentohaveinitatedadramaticAnglicisationoflanguagewithin

1Corbett,LanguageandScottishLiterature,p.5,McClure,WhyScotsMatters,pp.7-17,Muirson,GuidScotsTongue,pp.3-5,DonaldMacAulay,‘Canons,mythsandcannonfodder,’Scotlands,1,(1994),pp.35-55,pp.35-6,AgnesMureMacKenzie,‘TheRenaissancePoets,(I)ScotsandEnglish,’JamesKinsleyed.,ScottishPoetryACriticalSurvey,(Edinburgh,1955),pp.33-5.

|P a g e

202

LowlandScotland,effectingaparalleldisplacementofScotsfrom“official”and“literary”media.2To

besure,theseclimacticsocio-culturalandpoliticalshiftswithintheearlymodernScottishnationhad

aprofoundimpactuponlanguageintheLowlands,necessitatinganundeniabledrivetowards

southernEnglishmoreswithinmanysectionsofScottishsociety.3Nevertheless,simplenarrativesof

an“English”ascendencyanda“Scots”declineoverthisperiodmisguidinglystratfytheseentitiesinto

twohighly-questionablenationallingusiticcamps,assuminganunlikelydegreeof“standardisation”

andobscuringthesubtle,intimateinterconnectionsoperatingwithinandbetweenthesevarieties.

Aswithalllanguages,Scotsformswere,andare,fundamentallyhybrid.Thehistoric

complexityofScottishandEnglishlinguisticbonds,typifiedbyasteady,ifunevenrelationshipof

exchangeandinfusion,istestamenttothis.Ofcourse,thepredominatinginfluenceofEnglish

varietieswithinScotlandcannotbeignoredordownplayed.AsJeffreySkoblowrecognises,a

pervasiveawarenessofanEnglishlinguistic“presence,”issuchastorenderScots“neversimply

anotherlanguage,”butrather,alanguage“linkedtoanotherinitsbones.”4Yetdespitethe

extensive,undoubtedexpansionofEnglishinScotland,suchlinkagesworkedbothways.Nuanced

analysesofearlymodernScottishandEnglishlingusiticexchangehighlighttheextenttowhich

manifoldvarietiesoverlappedandinterfused–functioningwithinandalongsideoneanotherin

religious,socio-political,andliterarycontexts.5

ThisinvestigationdiscussesaratherdifferentminglingofScotsandEnglishvarieties

centurieslater,markingaScottishtincturetotheimperial,seeminglyprovidential“Anglo-world”

spreadingovermuchoftheglobebythemid1800s.Thus,themannerinwhichlanguageswere

projectedandperceivedisoftheutmostimportance.Whilethefirstsectionofthisstudyenvisionsan

imperialverbaltartanrywithindiasporicmanifestationsofLowlandScotsforms,thesubsequent

chapterslooktotheoriginsofthislinguisticexhibitionism,connectedateverystagewith

conceptionsofEnglish“standards.”Twodistinct,yetintertwiningstoriesunfold–linkingmid

eighteenth-centuryconcernsforlanguage“standards”inBritaintotransnationalprocessesof

“English”lingusiticstandardisationincolonialIndiaandtheUnitedStatesduringthefirsthalfofthe

nineteenthcentury.Fromthisperiod,certainScotsformsfunctionedbothwithinandoutwitha

“standardEnglish”language,bothwithinandoutwithScotland.

2Corbett,McClure,JaneStuart-Smith,‘ABriefHistoryofScots,’EdinburghCompaniontoScots,pp.14-15,Muirson,GuidScotsTongue,pp.5-6.3Seeforexample,Anderson,ImaginedCommunities,pp.89-90.4Skoblow,DoobleTongue,pp.125.5Meurman-Solin,VariationandChangeinEarlyScottishProse,pp.36-49,Tulloch,‘EnglishandScotsLanguagesinScottishReligiousLife,’Religion,ScottishLifeandSociety,pp.339-47.Also,Donaldson,PopularLiterature,p.35.

|P a g e

203

Bythelatterhalfoftheeighteenthcentury,anumberofsignificantScottishdiscourses

attestedtothefailedstandardisationofLowlandlanguagealongsidethecongruentexpansionofa

centralisedandcentralising“English.”ApotentialScottish“standard”wasthereforeconsignedtothe

past–aschismatic,warring,andtraumaticseventeeth-centurypastatthat–whilstanever-more

accessible“English”wasseentostandforaprovidential“NorthBritish”presentandfuture.Asa

consequence,andaddedtothecontemporaneous,well-documentedconcerntodemarcateso-

called“Scotticisms,”particularLowlandtropeswereprojectedasnotablydistincttoasingular

“standardEnglish.”

But,seenbothasmythicarchaismsandtheyet-livingeccentricitiesexistantbeneathawell-

polishedBritishlingusiticsurface,someScotssub-versionswereattributedwiththemystiqueof

havingbeennotionallyobscuredorremoved.Withironicparallelstothepracticeofseekingout

scorned“Scotticisms,”latergenerationsofantiquariansandphilologistsviedtouncoverconcealed

Scotsvarietiesimaginedtoembodyanunsulliedcultural“purity.”So,bytheturnofthenineteenth

century,certainScottishlinguisticshibbolethswereself-consciouslydisplayedwithinanominal

“English”language,andimbuedwithamystic,sub-versive,andever-threatedessencewhichthen

blendedwiththediasporicnostalgiaoftheBurnscult.

YettheseselectedScotsformsfunctionedverydifferentlywithindifferentcolonialand

“post-colonial”contexts.Inflectedwithmuchofthesocio-cultural,relgious,and“racial”

exceptionalsimseentobondtheBritishempireandthewideralignmentofa“GreaterBritain,”

LowlandScotssub-versionslargelychampionedaglobalProtestantand“Anglo-Saxon”imperium.

ThisisstarklyapparentinthecontrastbetweentheperceptionsandprojectionsofLowland

ScotslanguageintheUnitedStatesandIndiaduringtheearlynineteenthcentury.Asdiscussed,a

ScottishnavigationofEnglish“standards”offeredinstructionforAmericanauthorsseekingtoobtain

anAnglo-centredliteraryreputeandrespect.Ironically,someofthemostnotableopponentsof

theseemergentAnglo-AmericanvarietieswerealsoScots,andtheeditorsoftheEdinburghReview

voicedaconsistentconcernforsuch“adulterations”ofthelingusitic“standards”theyperceived

themselvestoembodyanduphold.Assuch,someScotsappearedtohavethingsbothways;setting

thetermsofanauthoritative,“English”literarysophistication,whilstalsocelebratingthewistful

significanceoftheirownLowlandScots“vernacular.”

SuchdoublestandardsarealsoevidentwithinanIndiancontext,butcompundedbythe

complexitiesofthe“racial,”religious,andsocio-culturalprejudicesinherentwithinBritish

colonialism.JohnLeyden’sjocularScotsidiosyncrasieswerecelebratedbyhisEICsuperiors,and

likelyaccentuatedhisownprodigiousaccomplishmentsasalinguistand“Orientalist.”Ageneration

|P a g e

204

later,therevered“eloquence”ofAlexanderDuffwaspointedlyrecognisedalongsidethe

missionary’shumbleHighlandorigins.YetthoughDuffhimselfdrewdirectcomparisonsbetweenthe

“native”languagesofScotlandandIndiaintermsoftheirsimilar“impractiblity”inviewofthe

“naturalandsuccessful”ascendancyofEnglish,certain“affecting”LowlandScotsshibboleths–

notablyenshrinedwithinBurns’spoetry–receivedsignificantattention.

Butcrucially,andcountertothelingusiticenvironmentoftheUnitedStates,LowlandScots

formsofferedfewsolutionstoIndianauthors.ThoughcertainacceptableScotsandNorthAmerican

sub-versionscouldinfusethelexiconofanineteenth-century“Anglo-world,”Indianadditionswere

ratherlesswelcome.Asdiscussed,throughthenotionsoflinguistic“possession”and“enrichment,”

typifiedbytheendeavoursofLeydenandthenDuff,thevastmajorityofIndianlanguageswereeyed

withmixtureofcolonialdisregard,disdain,andsuspiscion.

AnAnglo-Indianlinguisticexchangeandinfusionwasoftendismissedasmere“affectation.”

ThecolonialarchetypeoftheBengali“Babu”waswidelyderidedforbotha“stilted”andan

unsettlinglyfluentuseofEnglish.ABritishadoptionofIndianexpressionswasalsoridiculedduring

thisperiod.Indeed,anincreasingtoleranceofScottishlingusitictraitswasnotedalongsidethe

perceivedimproprietyofBritish“nabobs”flavouringtheirspeechwithIndianexpressions.

An1829textbookVulgaritiesofSpeechCorrecteddiscussedthe“glaringerrorofspeakingin

thevulgar-genteelstyle,”insistingonthe“verygreatdifferencebetweenaneasycorrectnessof

language,andamincingaffectationoffinewords,andfinepronunciation.”6Consequently,itwas

notedthat“[m]anywell-educatedScotchmen,whomoveinthemostpolitecirclesintheirown

country,takeaprideatspeakingtheScotsdialectblendedwithEnglish,”andtheauthorsupposed

“itcanscarcelybereckonedvulgar”when“notdonefromaffectation,andaloveofsingularity,”

thoughaddingthat“itmustrequiregreatattentiontoavoidlowandunseemlyexpressions.”7

Conversely,themuch-derided“nabobs”–“[t]hosewhohavebeentoIndia”–weredeemed

“extremelyapttoaffectaveryabsurdkindofpedantryintheirconversation,”andtheauthortook

particularissuewith“theirfrequentintroductionofHindooterms,whichtheyareatthesametime

obligedtotranslatetorenderthemselvesintelligible.”8Thetextdiscussedthefrustratinghabitsof

onesuchindividual,

6TheVulgaritiesofSpeechCorrectedwithElegantExpressionsforProvincialandVulgarEnglish,Scots,andIrishfortheuseofthosewhoareunacquaintedwithGrammar,(1826:London,1829),p.9.7Ibid,pp.222-3.8Ibid,p.142

|P a g e

205

[…]whoscornstouseplainEnglishwords,butcalls“lunch”tiffin–a“messenger”

hurkaruh;andinsteadofacommonEnglish“Howdoyoudo?”or“Goodbye,”always

saysSalaam.9

Thisbehaviourwasconcludedas“undoubtedlyoneofthemostsillyexhibitionsofthepedanticthat

canbemetwith”anditwassuggested,

[…]thatitisnotsoeveninIndiaitself,amongBritishresidents,atleastwhentheyare

speakingEnglish,whichneveroughttobeinterlardedwithforeigngibberishin

correctorelegantconversation.10

Aroundthirtyyearslater,JohnHeiton’saptly-titledCastesofEdinburgh,offeredasimilarview

fromadistinctlyScottishperspective.“WehaveinEdinburghagoodlynumberofretiredIndians,”

Heitonobserved,“attractedbythebeautyandsalubrityofthecity,orbyitsbeingthemetropolisof

theirnativeland.”11Theauthorreckonedthesereturningcolonials“peculiarlysituated”inScotland,

professingthat“theydon’tfitinamongussomehow.”12

Thediasporicnostalgiaofthesojournerswasviewedtobethecauseoftheirsocialalienation.

“Thepityis,”Heitonsupposed,

[…]thoughtheywereonceimbuedwithourgenialnature,afondloveofour

heath-cladhillsandourhealthyfare,theycannotseeanybeautiesinthemnow[…].

Therewasatime,ay,eveninIndia,whentheverynameof‘AuldScotland’wasin

theirearsholy;butoncehome,andrenderedsourbythateternalstrugglefor

caste,theywouldpreferthebaboonstrainof‘HillyMillyPunniah’tothedivine

pathosof‘TheFlowersoftheForest.’13

Havingreturned,theserestless“retiredIndians”weredeemed“unfittable”withinScottishsociety,

andtheauthorimaginedthelustreof“theirowndear,yetinconvenientnativeland”tohave

somewhatdimmed.14Heitonsawthattheformermigrants,whenstrippedofexilicsentiment,had

“cometoknow”their“inconvenient”homelandrather“toowell,”and“whenitistoolatetoreturn

totheoldparadiseinthebalmyEast.”15“Itisaltogetherastrangebusiness,”Heitonobserved,“and

themoremelancholywhenweknowthatthesepeoplewhenabroadluxuriateintherecollectionsof

home”:

9Ibid,p.143.10Ibid.11JohnHeiton,TheCastesofEdinburgh,(Edinburgh,1861),p.245.12Ibid.13Ibid,p.248.14Ibid,pp.250.15Ibid.

|P a g e

206

KeeptheminIndiaandtheywillmakethefragrantatmosphereoftheirbungalows

resonantwithourScottishsongs.‘AuldLangsyne’forcestearsfromtheireyesas

theyhugeachotherlikefondchildren.16

Pinpointingthediasporic“luxuriance”ofverbaltartanrywithremarkableaccuracy,the

authorcontinuedinamannerreminiscentofAlexanderDuff’sdiscussionofBurns’s“Scotchrhymes”

when“onthebanksoftheGangees”:

[…]hewhocanevencontrivetoroar‘AMan’saManfora’That,’inthehearingof

thesedarkenslavedsonsofShem,half-a-dozenofwhomwouldnotmakeupthe

unityof‘aman’contemplatedbyBurns,raisesacontrastsofavourableto‘thepale

faces,’thattheirveryheartsswellwithinthem,andsendupaflushamongthe

saffron.17

ButunlikeDuff,Heitonperceivedacontemptable“flush”and“swell”ofsuperiorismfromthese

“Indian”Scots;theunabashed“roaring”ofBurns’spoemevincing“acontrastsofavourable”withina

colonialcontext.ThisBurnsianverbaltartanrywasseentodrawaclearlineofsocio-cultural

demarcationbetweentheself-satisfiedScotsandthe“darkenslavedsonsofShem.”

Intriguingly,HeitonsawthesituationtobereversedwhentheScotsadventurersreturned

home.AsintheVulgaritiesofSpeechCorrected,theScottish“nabobs”werenotedfortheir

unseemlyattachmenttoIndianexperiencesandphraseology.“Iftheyeveropenupitistoletin

Indianchums,”Heitoncomplained,“andthentheyspeakofnothingbuttheiroldexploitsandpast

enjoyments,allinterspersedwithajargonofbastardSanscritnotatallagreeabletowesternears.”18

Evidentlythis“caste”ofreturningmigrantswasdriventoengageinaself-consciousexhibitionof

IndianshibbolethsinScotland,commemorativeof“oldexploitsandpastenjoyments”and

demonstrativeoftheirsocialstatusonthesubcontinent–anarticulationconspicuouslysimilarto

colonialexpressionsofverbaltartanry.

Heitonsawthatthroughsuchperformancesthis“caste”ofdiasporicScotswassunderedboth

fromthelandoftheirbirthandthatoftheircolonialresidence:

[…]strangeenough,thoughalwaysdotingonIndia,itisnotIndiaasanation,for

theyneveradoptedit,andcouldnotadoptit,foreignasitisinitscustoms,ignoble

initsmorality,anddegradedinitsreligion.19

16Ibid,pp.250-1.17Ibid,p.251.18Ibid,p.256.19Ibid.

|P a g e

207

“No,”theScotconcluded,

[…]theyonlyadoptedacasteformedthere,asacivilisedstratumoverdeep

degradation;andhavinginheartandfeelingrenouncedtheirnativeland,though

theyliveinit,theyhavenotanothercountryonthefaceoftheearth,evenof

adoption,andarethusoftenwithoutahomeandwithoutafriend.20

This“dotingonIndia”wasseenasthecontinuedprojectionofafactional,expatriate“caste”within

Scotland,aprolongationofa“civilisedstratum”bolsteredbynostalgicdistancefroman“old”

colonial“paradise”ofenvisagedsuperiority,andphrasedinadeliberate“jargonofbastardSanscrit.”

ThisconspicuousadoptionofIndiandiscourseinScotlandprovidesapoignantparalleltothe

verbaltartanryofthediasporic“castes”ofScotscolonistsoverseas.Infact,thejarringdispleasure

withwhichthis“affected”Indian-Englishappearstohavebeenreceived,hintsattheinherently

exculsivesocialpurposesforwhichverbaltartanrywasitselfintended.MuchlikeJohnHeitonand

othersuch“native”Englishspeakersalienatedbythe“foreigngibberish”ofBritish“nabobs,”many

other“natives”aroundtheglobeweredeliberatelyshutoutofthesocio-culturalexceptionalism

expressedthroughthetonesofLowlandlanguage.VerbaltartanrycommemoratedBritishcolonial

powerandprestige,andwasultimatelyaversetotheinclusionofother“indigenous”discourses.

Asthisthesishasdemonstrated,theinterconnectionsbetween“Scots”and“English”lingusitic

varieties,andintertwiningconceptionsof“standardisation,”enabledcertainLowlandformsto

operatewithinestablishednotionsof“theEnglishlanguage.”Scotstropeseffectedarecognisable

departurefromEnglish“standards,”butsuchidiomsandaccentswereyetreconcilableand

understandabletoreadersofthenineteenth-century“Anglo-world.”Some“Scotticisms”found

accommodationwithin“English,”asdidalaterselectionof“Americanisms.”Yet,theviewsofthose

perceivedtobeoutwiththesocio-cultural,“racial,”andlinguisticparametersofa“GreaterBritish”

imperialism,wereoftenleftunsaid.Andthelinguisticsub-versionsofLowlandScotlandofferedfew

solutionstoemerginggenerationsofEnglish-speakingIndians.

ThisinvestigationbeganwithanaccountofagentlemanattendingaScottishassociationaleventat

whichhewasdeprivedofhiseargerly-anticipatedhaggis.Itisperhapsfittingtoconcludethisstudy

withthetaleofanothergentlemanwhoalsowentwithoutahelpingofhaggisataStAndrewDay

dinner,albeitforremarkablydifferentreasons.

20Ibid.

|P a g e

208

In1938,exactly120yearsafterJohnDuncan’sinauspiciousencounterwiththeStAndrew’s

SoceityofNewYork,ChakravartiRajagopalachari–Indianpoliticianandnationalistleader–attended

aStAndrew’sDaydinnerinMadras,oneofthelastScottishassociationaleventsoftheBritishRaj.21

Rajagopalachari,recently-electedPremieroftheMadrasPresidency,wasobservedtohave“caused

quiteastir”byagreeingtoattendtheevent–hisbiographernotingthatthepolitician“brokethe

rules”oftheIndianCongress’spolicyofnon-involvementintheritualsofBritishrule.22

Speakingatthedinnerinresponsetothetoast,“TheLandWeLiveIn,”Rajagopalacharipaid

diplomaticlip-servicetothetenetsofBritishimperialism,whilstunsubtlyquestioningthelegitimacy

oftheRaj.TheIndiannationalistdeclaredtohisBritishaudiencethatthoughhedidnot“pretend”to

[…]believethatyoudonotwishtoservethislandtothebestofyourability;andif

sometimeswequarrelwiththatdesireofyours,andwantyoutoleaveitentirelytousto

serveourowncountry[…]donotunderstandourambitiontobeadenialofwhatyou

havedone.Youhavedoneverywellandyouwishtodowellinthiscountry.Butthereisa

pleasureinbeinglefttoserveone’sowncountry;thatisallthatweaskofyou.23

Butbeforeofferingthiscritique,Rajagopalacharihadlight-heartedlyindulgedtheScottish

association,offeringhishumorousperspectiveofthetrappingsofStAndrew’sDay:

Itisverypleasingtoseeastrangeceremonyofanotherpeople,withthevariousodd

namesofdishesandthestrangeunreadablepoetryyouhavewritten,andthefunny

spellingmistakesyoucommit,yourstrangeideaofcarryingtwowhiskybottleslikeSt

Andrew’scrossinfrontofaveryterrible-lookingdish,thecomponentsofwhichafter

enquiryfromtheSurgeon-Generaldidnotmuchencourageme(laughter)andalsothe

processionofthePipergoingroundthetableswithmusic.Iassureyouitismorecurious

thanaHindumarriage(laughter).24

InheranalysisofRajagopalachari’sperformance,ElizabethBuettnercorrectlyperceivedthe

politiciantohave“firmlyrejected–alongwiththehaggis!”anenvisionedimperialpartnershipin

India.25

Yetbyfirstengagingwiththe“strange”ritualsoftheevening,dwellingonthepeculiaritiesof

theverbalandnon-verbaliconsoftartanry–relicsofanincreasinglyquestionedandcontested

Britishimperialism,Rajagopalacharialsoassertedtheinherentequivalenceofallnationaland

21Buettner,‘HaggisintheRaj,’pp.238-239.22A.R.H.Copley,ThePoliticalCareerofC.Rajagopalachari,(Delhi,1978),p.53.23‘LeaveUstoServeOurOwnCountry,’MadrasMail,1December1938,p.5.24Ibid.25Buettner,‘HaggisintheRaj,’p.239.

|P a g e

209

culturalidiosyncrasies.Allcultureshavetheirsymbolsandsignificance.Allsocietiescelebrate

themselves.ByacknowledgingthetropesofScoto-Britishexceptionalism,andbyrecognisingthe

ridiculousinthevenerationofthe“oddnames,”“unreadablepoetry”and“funnyspellingmistakes”

ofverbaltartanry,Rajagopalachari,strippingawaylayersofcolonialsuperiorism,sawsimply“a

strangeceremonyofanotherpeople,”comparablewithamultiplicityof“strange”ceremoniesthe

worldover.

Yetsoestablishedweretheimperialiconsoftartanry,thatthesuggestionofcultural

equivalencewasconsideredcomical.Rajagopalachari’slight-heartedcomparisontoaHindu

marriageceremonywasreceived,andwaslikelyintendedtobereceived,with“(laughter).”The

chucklingoftheScottishassociationperhapsoffersafinal,wordlessutteranceofverbaltartanry–a

vocalisationasexplicitasthe“oddnames”and“unreadablepoetry”celebratingScottishimperialism.

|P a g e

210

Bibliography

NewspapersandPeriodicals.

- AmericanReviewofHistoryandPoliticsandGeneralRepositoryofLiteratureandState

Papers,(Philadelphia,Pennsylvania,USA).

- Anti-SlaveryBugle,(Lisbon,Ohio,USA).

- AnnualReviewandHistoryofLiterature,(London,England).

- BruceHerald,(Milton,BruceCountry,NZ).

- CalcuttaEnglishman,(Kolkata,Bengal,India).

- ClevelandDailyHerald,(Cleveland,Ohio,USA).

- CriticalReview,(London,England).

- DailyEveningBulletin(SanFrancisco,California,USA).

- DailySouthernCross,(Auckland,NZ).

- EdinburghAnnualRegister,(Edinburgh,Scotland).

- EdinburghReview,orCriticalJournal,(Edinburgh,Scotland).

- TheEnglishPresbyterianMinister,(London,England).

- TheEnquirer,(Kolkata,Bengal,India).

- GreencastleBanner,(PutnamCounty,Indiana,USA).

- GreyRiverArgus,(Greymouth,NZ).

- LancasterGazetteandGeneralAdvertiserforLancashire,Westmorland,(Lancaster,England).

- LiteraryPanorama,(London,England).

- Lounger,(Edinburgh,Scotland).

- MadrasMail,(Madras,India)

- MilwaukeeJournal,(Wisconsin,USA).

- MilwaukeeSentinel,(Wisconsin,USA).

- MonthlyReview,(London,England).

- MonumentalRegister,(Kolkata,Bengal,India).

- NationalIntelligencer,(Washington,DC,USA).

- NewYorkMagazine:or,LiteraryRepository,(NewYork,USA).

- NewZealander,(Auckland,NZ).

- NewZealandHerald,(Auckland,NZ).

- NorthAmericanandDailyAdvertiser,(Philadelphia,Pennsylvania,USA).

- NorthAmericanReviewandMiscellaneousJournal,(Boston,Massachusetts,USA).

|P a g e

211

- NorthOtagoTimes,(Otago,NZ).

- OtagoDailyTimes,(Otago,NZ).

- PennsylvaniaJournalandTheWeeklyAdvertiser,(Philadelphia,Pennsylvania,USA).

- PortFolio,(NewYork,USA).

- Press,(Canterbury,NZ).

- TheScot,AtHameandAbroad,(Melbourne,Australia).

- ScottishCanadian,(Toronto,Canada).

- Star,(Christchurch,NZ).

- SundayOregonian,(Portland,Oregon,USA).

- TimaruHerald,(Timaru,NZ).

- TuapekaTimes,(Lawrence,NZ).

- WheelingDailyIntelligencer,(WestVirginia,USA).

PrintedPrimaryMaterials

- Anon.,ADictionaryoftheScottishLanguage;foundeduponthatofJohnJamieson,D.D.

F.R.S.E.inwhichareshewnthevariousmeaningsandmodesofspellingthesameword,asit

isusedinthedifferentpartsofScotland;withotheradditionsandimprovements,(Edinburgh,

1827).

- Anon.,‘AScot’sDinner,’TimaruHerald,3December1898.

- Anon.,‘Burns’CentenaryCelebration,’NewZealandHerald,17August1886.

- Anon.,‘CaledonianGathering,’Press,1December1883.

- Anon.,‘CanterburyCaledonianSociety,’Press,1December1887.

- Anon.‘CriticismforthePortFolio.EnglishBardsandScotchReviewers,aSatirebyLord

Byron,’PortFolio,NewSeries,V,1,(NewYork,1811).

- Anon.,‘EtymologicalDictionaryoftheScottishLanguage,’LiteraryPanorama,5(November-

December,1808),pp.225-41.

- Anon.,‘GaelicSociety,’OtagoDailyTimes,5November1898.

- Anon.,‘HereandThere,’Star,9October1880.

- Anon.,InaugurationoftheLeydenMonumentatDenholm,on19thOctober1861.Reprinted

fromtheHawickAdvertiser,(Hawick,1861).

- Anon.,‘InvitationinScotchDialect,’MilwaukeeJournal,8November1895.

- Anon.,‘Jamieson’sDictionary,’AnnualReviewandHistoryofLiterature,7,(January1808),

pp.425-37.

|P a g e

212

- Anon.,‘Jamieson’sDictionaryoftheScottishLanguage,’CriticalReview,14,1,(May1808),

pp.72-84.

- Anon.,‘Jamieson’sEtymologicalScottishDictionary,’MonthlyReview,63,(September1810),

pp.11-31.

- Anon.,‘LeaveUstoServeOurOwnCountry,’MadrasMail,1December1938.

- Anon.,‘LettertotheEdinburghReviewers:by“AnAmerican,”’NationalIntelligencer,16

November1819.

- Anon.,‘MrBathgateon‘OldTimesinScotland’,’TuapekaTimes,24June1874.

- Anon.,‘OurScottishHeritage,’NewZealandHerald,5December1908.

- Anon.,‘Sanny’sBillo'Fare,’GreyRiverArgus,25March1882.

- Anon.,‘TheScotchDialect,’NorthAmericanandDailyAdvertiser,24May1844.

- Anon.,‘ScotchWords,’Anti-SlaveryBugle,29January1859.

- Anon.,‘ScotchWords,’GreencastleBanner,26January1859.

- Anon.,‘ScotchWords,’WheelingDailyIntelligencer,19January1859,p.2,

- Anon.,‘TheScotchTongue,’DailyEveningBulletin,10March1859,

- Anon.,‘Scotchmen,Attention,’BruceHerald,28January1890.

- Anon.,‘SelectedAnecdotes&c.,’LancasterGazetteandGeneralAdvertiserforLancashire,

Westmorland,6April1844.

- Anon.,‘Sprigso’Heather,’Star,24October1908.

- Anon.,‘St.Andrew’sBanquet,AnnualEventoftheScottishSociety,’MilwaukeeJournal,30

November1892.

- Anon.,‘St.Andrew'sDay,’NorthOtagoTimes,27October1898.

- Anon.,‘StAndrewsDay,’Press,1December1892.

- Anon.,‘StAndrew’sDay,’Star,1December1883.

- Anon.,‘StAndrew’sDinner,’CalcuttaEnglishman,1Dec.1893.

- Anon.,‘StAndrew’sDayDinner,’DailySouthernCross,30November1855.

- Anon.‘StAndrewsDay:TheAnnualBanquetoftheScottishSociety,’MilwaukeeSentinel,1

December1886.

- Anon.,‘StAndrew’sFestival,’ClevelandDailyHerald,1December1869.

- Anon.,‘StAndrew’sSociety,’NewZealander,13December1851.

- Anon.,‘TamO’Stirling’sPoeticAccountoftheVoyageoftheSymmetry,’Stewart,IainA.D.

ed.,FromCaledoniatothePampas:TwoAccountsbyEarlyScottishEmigrantstothe

Argentine,(EastLinton,2000).

|P a g e

213

- Anon.,‘VersesWritteninbroadScotch,andaddressedtoRobertBurns,theAir-shirePoet,’

NewYorkMagazine:or,LiteraryRepository,I,(November1790).

- Anon.TheVulgaritiesofSpeechCorrectedwithElegantExpressionsforProvincialandVulgar

English,Scots,andIrishfortheuseofthosewhoareunacquaintedwithGrammar,(1826:

London,1829).

- Anon.,Untitled,SundayOregonian,2January1898.

- Alexander,William,JohnnyGibbo’Gushetneuk,Mackie,Alexandered.,(1876:Edinburgh,

1908).

- Ballantine,Jamesed.,ChronicleoftheHundredthBirthdayofRobertBurns,(Edinburgh,

1859).

- Barbour,G.ed.,TributestoScottishGenius;containingthelifeoftheRev.WilliamGillespie,

LateMinisterofKells;andotherTributestoDepartedGenius,(Dumfries,1827).

- Beattie,James,AListofTwoHundredScotticisms.WithRemarks,(Aberdeen,1779).

- Scoticisms.ArrangedinAlphabeticalOrderDesignedtoCorrecttheImproprietiesof

SpeechandWriting,(Edinburgh,1787).

- Benger,Elizabeth,MemoirsoftheLateMrsElizabethHamiltonwithaselectionfromher

correspondence,andotherunpublishedwritings,(1818:Cambridge,2014),2vols.

- Bickley,Francised.,TheDiariesofSylvesterDouglas.LordGlenbervie,(London,1928),2vols.

- Brady,FrankandPottle,FrederickA.eds.,BoswellinSearchofaWife,1766-1769,(London,

1959).

- Bruce,David,PoemsChieflyintheScottishDialect,originallywrittenunderthesignatureof

theScots-Irishman,byanativeofScotland.WithnotesandIllustrations,(Washington,1801).

- Byron,GeorgeGordon[Lord],EnglishBardsandScotchReviewers;aSatire,(1809:London,

1810).

- Callander,John,PrefacetoTwoAncientScottishPoems;theGaberlunzie-man,andChrist’s

KirkontheGreen.WithNotesandObservations,(Edinburgh,1782).

- Carlyle,Alexander,TheAutobiographyofDr.AlexanderCarlyleofInveresk1722-1805,Hill

Burton,Johned.,(1860:London,1910).

- Chalmers,George,ThePoeticalWorksofSirDavidLyndsayoftheMount,LionKingofArms,

underJamesV.ANewEdition,correctedandenlarged:withaLifeoftheAuthor;Prefatory

Dissertations;andanappropriateGlossary,(Edinburgh,1806),3vols.

- Cleland,John,EnumerationoftheInhabitantsoftheCityofGlasgowandCountyofLanark.

FortheGovernmentCensusofMDCCCXXXI.WithPopulationandStatisticalTablesrelativeto

EnglandandScotland,(Glasgow,1832).

|P a g e

214

- Constable,Thomased.,ArchibaldConstableandhisLiteraryCorrespondents.AMemorialby

hissonThomasConstable,(Edinburgh,1873),3vols.

- Crawford,RobertandHerbert,W.N.,Sharawaggi,(Edinburgh,1990).

- Currie,Jamesed.,TheWorksofRobertBurns:withanaccountofhislife,andacriticismof

hiswritings.Towhichareprefixedsomeobservationsonthecharacterandconditionofthe

ScottishPeasantry.(1800:London,1806),4vols.

- Davenport-Hines,Richard,ed.,LettersfromOxford,HughTrevor-RopertoBernardBerenson,

(London,2006).

- Derozario,M.ed.,MonumentalRegister:containingalltheEpitaphs,Inscriptions,&c.&c.&c.

inthedifferentChurchesandBurialGrounds,inandaboutCalcutta;includingthoseofthe

BurialGroundsofHowrah,–Dum-Dum,–Barrasut,–Barrackpore,–Pultah,–Serampore,–

Chandernagore,–Chinsurah,andtheConventofBandel.Togetherwithseveralinscriptions

fromthePresidenciesofMadras,Bombay,IsleofFrance,&c.TowhichisaddedShort

Sketches,Anecdotes&c.&c.illustrativeofthepublicservices,generalcharacters,andvirtues

ofthedead...,(Calcutta,1815).

- DeWolfe,Barbara,ed.,DiscoveriesofAmerica:PersonalAccountsofBritishEmigrantsto

NorthAmericaduringtheRevolutionaryEra,(Cambridge,1997).

- Dinsmoor,Jamesed.,PoemsofRobertDinsmoor,“theRusticBard,”(Boston,Massachusetts,

1898).

- Dinsmoor,Robert,IncidentalPoemsaccompaniedwithletters,andafewselectpieces,

mostlyoriginal,fortheirillustration,togetherwithapreface,andasketchoftheauthor’s

life,(Haverhill,Massachusetts,1828).

- Dodds,James,RecordsoftheScottishSettlersontheRiverPlateandtheirChurches,(Buenos

Aires,1897).

- Douglas,Sylvester,ATreatiseontheProvincialDialectofScotland,(1779),Jones,Charles

ed.,(Edinburgh,1991).

- Duff,Alexander,NewEraoftheEnglishLanguageandEnglishLiteratureinIndia;or,an

expositionofthelateGovernor-GeneralofIndia’slatestact,relativetothepromotionof

Europeanliteratureandscience,throughthemediumoftheEnglishlanguage,amongstthe

nativeofthatpopulousandextensiveprovinceoftheBritishEmpire,(1835:Edinburgh,

1837).

- TheChurchofScotland’sIndiaMission;orabriefexpositionoftheprincipleswhichthat

missionhasbeenconductedinCalcutta,beingthesubstanceofanaddressdelivered

|P a g e

215

beforetheGeneralAssemblyoftheChurch,OnMonday,25thMay1835,(London,

1835).

- AVindicationoftheChurchofScotland’sIndiaMissions:beingasubstanceofan

addressdeliveredbeforetheGeneralAssemblyoftheChurchonWednesday,May24,

1837,(Edinburgh,1837).

- IndiaandIndiaMissions.IncludingSketchesofthegiganticsystemofHinduismbothin

TheoryandPractice;also,NoticesofsomeofthePrincipalAgenciesEmployedin

ConductingtheprocessofIndianEvangelization,&c.&c,(Edinburgh,1839).

- SpeechoftheRev.Dr.DuffonForeignMissionsandAmericadeliveredintheGeneral

AssemblyoftheChurchofScotland,ontheeveningofMay29,1854,(Edinburgh,1854).

- Duncan,JohnM.,TravelsThroughPartoftheUnitedStatesandCanadain1818and1819,

(Glasgow,1823),2vols.

- Elliot,ClaireandHook,Andreweds.,FrancisJeffrey’sAmericanJournal:NewYorkto

Washington1813,(Glasgow,2011).

- Ferguson,J.DeLancey,ed.,TheLettersofRobertBurns,(Oxford,1931),2vols.

- Ferguson,J.DeLanceyandRoy,G.Rosseds.,TheLettersofRobertBurns,(Oxford,1985),2

vols.

- Flint,James,LettersfromAmerica,ContainingObservationsontheClimateandAgriculture

oftheWesternStates,theMannersofthePeople,TheProspectsofEmigrants,&c.&c.,

(Edinburgh,1822).

- Foord,John,‘Foreword,’Black,GeorgeFraser,Scotland’sMarkonAmerica,(NewYork,

1921).

- Forbes,William,AnAccountoftheLifeandWritingsofJamesBeattie,LL.D.LateProfessorof

MoralPhilosophyandLogicintheMarischalCollegeandUniversityofAberdeen.Including

manyofhisoriginalletters,(1806:Bristol,1997).

- Ford,Robert,Thistledown.ABookofScotchhumourcharacterfolklorestory&anecdote,

(1891:Paisley,1913).

- Geddes,Alexander‘ThreeScottishPoems;withaPreviousDissertationontheScoto-Saxon

Dialect,’ArchaeologicaScotica:orTransactionsoftheSocietyofAntiquariesofScotland,

(Edinburgh,1792),4vols.

- ‘TheFirstEklogofVirgil,tránslâtitintoSkottisvers,’ArchaeologicaScotica:or

TransactionsoftheSocietyofAntiquariesofScotland,(Edinburgh,1792),4vols.

- ‘TheFirstIdillionofTheokritusm,traánslâtitintoSkottisvers,’ArchaeologicaScotica:or

TransactionsoftheSocietyofAntiquariesofScotland,(Edinburgh,1792),4vols.

|P a g e

216

- Anon.[Geddes,Alexander],AnApologyforSlavery;or,sixcogentargumentsagainst

theimmediateabolitionoftheslavetrade,(London,1792).

- Ghose,Benoyed.,SelectionsfromEnglishPeriodicalsof19thCenturyBengal.VolumeI:1815-

33,(Calcutta,1978).

- Green,Sarah,ScotchNovelReading;or,ModernQuackery.ANovelReallyFoundedonFacts.

InThreeVolumes.ByACockney,(London,1824).

- Greig,J.Y.T.ed.,TheLettersofDavidHume,(1932:Oxford,2011),2vols.

- Grierson,William,‘TheVoyageoftheSymmetry,’Stewart,IainA.D.ed.,FromCaledoniato

thePampas:TwoAccountsbyEarlyScottishEmigrantstotheArgentine,(EastLinton,2000).

- Hedderwick,James,ReferenceBookofJamesHedderwick&Son,Printers,Melville-Place,

Glasgow,ExhibitingtheVariousSizesofPrintingTypeswithwhichtheirOfficeisFurnished,

(Glasgow,1823).

- Heiton,John,TheCastesofEdinburgh,(Edinburgh,1861).

- Hill,GeorgeBirkbeckNormanandPowell,L.F.eds.,Boswell’sLifeofJohnsoninSixVolumes,

(1934:Oxford,2014),6vols.

- Hogg,JamesTheQueen’sWake.ALegendaryTale,Mack,DouglasS.ed.,(1813:Edinburgh,

2005).

- Imrie,John,TheScot–AtHomeandAbroad,(Toronto,1898).

- Inglis,James,OurNewZealandCousins,(London,1887).

- Innes,Cosmo,‘MemoirofDeanRamsay,’Ramsay,Dean[EdwardBannerman],

ReminiscencesofScottishLifeandCharacter,twenty-secondedition,enlargedwiththe

author’slatestcorrectionsandadditionsandamemoirofDeanRamsaybyCosmoInnes,

(Edinburgh,1874).

- Jamieson,John,AnEtymologicalDictionaryoftheScottishLanguage:illustratingthewords

intheirdifferentsignificationsbyexamplesfromancientandmodernwriters;shewingtheir

affinitytothoseofotherlanguages,andespeciallythenorthern;explainingmanyterms,

which,thoughnowobsoleteinEngland,wereformerlycommontobothcountries;and

elucidatingnationalrites,customs,andinstitutions,intheiranalogytothoseofother

nations:towhichisprefixedadissertationontheoriginsoftheScottishlanguage,

(Edinburgh,1808),2vols.

- Jefferson,Thomas,Writings,Peterson,MerrillD.ed.,(NewYork,1984).

- ReportoftheCommissionersfortheUniversityofVirginia,(1818),Yarbrough,JeanM.

ed.,TheEssentialJefferson,(Indianapolis,Indiana,2006).

|P a g e

217

- Jeffrey,Francis,‘RobertBurns,’EdinburghReview,XIII,(1808-9),Contributionstothe

EdinburghReviewbyFrancisJeffrey,(London,1853).

- Anon.,[Jeffrey,Francis],‘TheColumbiad:APoembyJoelBarlow,’EdinburghReview,

XV(Edinburgh,1809-10).

- ‘UnitedStatesofAmerica,’EdinburghReview,XXXIII,(1820),Contributionstothe

EdinburghReviewbyFrancisJeffrey,(London,1853).

- Johnson,Samuel,AJourneytotheWesternIslesofScotland,Levi,Petered.(1775:London,

1984).

- Kemp,AlexanderF.,TheBeneficialInfluenceofaWell-RegulatedNationality:asermon

deliveredbeforetheStAndrew’sSocietyofMontreal,onStAndrew’sDay,Nov.30th,1857.In

SaintGabrielStreetScotchChurch,bytheRev.AlexanderF.Kemp,Chaplain,(Montreal,

1857).

- Kennedy,David,KennedyattheCape,aprofessionaltourthroughCapeColony,theOrange

FreeState,theDiamondFieldsandNatal,(Edinburgh,1879).

- SingingRoundtheWorld,ANarrativeofhisColonialandIndianTours,(London,1887).

- Leyden,John,AHistoricalandPhilosophicalSketchoftheDiscoveries&Settlementsofthe

EuropeansinNorthern&WesternAfrica,atthecloseoftheEighteenthCentury,(Edinburgh,

1799).

- ed.,TheComplayntofScotland,writtenin1548withaPreliminaryDissertationand

Glossary,(Edinburgh,1801).

- ed.,ScotishDescriptivePoemswithSomeIllustrationsofScottishLiteraryAntiquities,

(Edinburgh,1803).

- OntheLanguagesandLiteraturesoftheIndo-ChineseNations,(Calcutta,1808).

- MalayAnnals:translatedfromtheMalayLanguagebythelateDr.JohnLeyden.With

anintroductionbySirThomasStamfordRaffles,F.R.S.,(London,1821).

- JournalofaTourintheHighlandsandWesternIslandsofScotlandbyJohnLeyden.

Editedwithabibliography,byJamesSinton,Sinton,Jamesed.,(1799:Edinburgh,

1903).

- Lloyd,Thomas,TheTrialofAlexanderAddison,Esq.PresidentoftheCourtsofCommonPleas

inthecircuitconsistingofthecountiesofWestmoreland,Fayette,Washingtonand

Allegheny,onanImpeachment,bythehouseofRepresentatives,beforetheStateofthe

CommonwealthofPennsylvania,(Lancaster,1803).

- Lockhart,JohnGibson,Peter’sLetterstohisKinsfolk,(Edinburgh,1819),3vols.

|P a g e

218

- Looney,J.Jeffersoned.,ThePapersofThomasJefferson,(Princeton,NewJersey,2010),12

vols.

- Low,DonaldA.ed.TheSongsofRobertBurns,(Abingdon,1993).

- MacDiarmid,Hugh,ADrunkManLooksattheThistle,Buthlay,Kennethed.,(Edinburgh,

1987).

- Mackie,Alexander.ed.,DinnerinHonourofCharlesMurray,PalaceHotel,Aberdeen,

Monday,December2,1912,(Aberdeen,1912-13).

- Mackenzie,Henry,‘RobertBurns,’Lounger,XCVII,9December1786.

- Melish,John,TravelsistheUnitedStatesofAmericaintheyears1806&1807,and1809,

1810&1811;includinganAccountofPassagesBetwixtAmericaandBritain;andTravels

throughVariousPartsofGreatBritain,IrelandandUpperCanada,(Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania,1812),2vols.

- Murray,Alexander,HistoryoftheEuropeanLanguages;orresearchesintotheaffinitiesof

theTeutonic,Greek,Celtic,Slavonic,andIndianNations,(Edinburgh,1823),2vols.

- Murray,[Sarah],ACompanionandUsefulGuidetotheBeautiesofScotland,totheLakesof

Westmoreland,Cumberland,andLancashire;andtothecuriositiesoftheDistrictofCraven,

intheWestRidingofYorkshire.Towhichisadded,amostparticularDescriptionofScotland,

especiallythatpartofitcalledtheHighlands,(London,1799).

- Okara,Gabriel,TheVoice,(London,1970).

- Pickering,John,AVocabularyorCollectionofWordsandPhraseswhichhavebeensupposed

tobepeculiartotheUnitedStatesofAmerica,(1816),Mathews,M.M.ed.,TheBeginningsof

AmericanEnglish.EssaysandComments,(Chicago,Illinois,1931).

- Pinkerton,John,AncientScotishPoems,neverbeforeinPrint.Butnowpublishedfromthe

MS.collectionsofSirRichardMaitland,ofLethington,Knight,LordPrivySealofScotland,and

aSenatoroftheCollegeofJustice.Comprisingpieceswrittenfromabout1420till1586.With

largenotes,andaglossary,(London,1786)2vols.

- AncientScotishPoems,neverbeforeinPrint…,(London,1786),2vols.,NationalLibrary

ofScotland,[Ai]5/1.7-8.

- ADissertationontheOriginandProgressoftheScythiansorGoths,beingan

introductiontotheancientandmodernHistoryofEurope,(London,1787).

- AnInquiryintotheHistoryofScotland,precedingthereignofMalcolmIII.ortheyear

1056.Includingtheauthentichistoryofthatperiod,(1789:Edinburgh,1814),2vols.

- Ramsay,Allan,Poems,(Edinburgh,1721),2vols.

|P a g e

219

- Ramsay,Dean[EdwardBannerman]ReminiscencesofScottishLifeandCharacter,(1858:

Edinburgh,1871).

- Reilly,JohnG.,JournalofaWanderer;beingaresidenceinIndia,andsixweeksinNorth

America,(London,1844).

- Robertson,William,TheHistoryofScotlandDuringtheReignsofQueenMaryandKing

JamesVI.TillHisAccessiontotheCrownofEngland.WithaReviewoftheScottishHistory

previoustothatPeriod;AndanAppendixcontainingOriginalPapers,(1759:London,1794),2

vols.

- Robinson,RogerJ.ed.,TheCorrespondenceofJamesBeattie,(Bristol,2004),4vols.

- Rosebery,ArchibaldPrimrose[Lord],MiscellaniesLiteraryandHistorical,(London,1921).

- Ross,Alexander,Helenore;or,theFortunateShepherdess.APastoralTale,(1768:Dundee,

1812).

- Said,EdwardW.,Orientalism,(London,1978).

- ‘OrientalismReconsidered,’CulturalCritique,1,(1985),pp.89-107.

- Scott,Waltered.,MinstrelsyoftheScottishBorder:consistingofHistoricalandRomantic

Ballads,collectedinthesoutherncountiesofScotland;withafewofmoderndate,founded

uponlocaltradition,(Edinburgh,1803),3vols.

- Sheridan,Thomas,BritishEducation:or,TheSourceoftheDisordersofGreatBritain,

(London,1756).

- ACourseofLecturesonElocution,(London,1762).

- ACourseofLecturesonElocutiontogetherwithtwoDissertationsonLanguageand

someotherTractsRelativetothoseSubjects,(London,1798).

- Sibbald,James,‘ObservationontheOriginsofthetermsPicti,Caledonii,andScotti,’

ChronicleofScottishPoetry;fromtheThirteenthCenturytotheUnionoftheCrowns:to

whichisaddedaGlossary,(Edinburgh,1802),4vols.

- Sinclair,John,ObservationsontheScottishDialect,(London,1782).

- Stewart,IanA.D.,ed.,FromCaledoniatothePampas:TwoAccountsbyEarlyScottish

EmigrantstotheArgentine,(EastLinton,2000).

- Thorn,William,MemoiroftheConquestofJava,(Edinburgh,1816).

- Thwaites,ReubenGolded.,EarlyWesternTravels,1748-1846.ASeriesofAnnotatedReprints

ofsomeofthebestandrarestcontemporaryvolumesoftravel,descriptiveoftheAborigines

andSocialandEconomicConditionsintheMiddleandFarWest,duringthePeriodofEarly

AmericanSettlement.VolumeIXFlint’sLettersfromAmerica1818-1820,(Cleveland,Ohio,

1901).

|P a g e

220

- Trevelyan,GeorgeOtto,TheCompetitionWallah,(London,1864).

- Twain,Mark,MoreTrampsAbroad,(London,1897).

- Tytler,JamesADissertationontheOriginandAntiquityoftheScottishNation,(London,

1795).

- Walsh,Robert,‘ForeignLiterature,’AmericanReviewofHistoryandPoliticsandGeneral

RepositoryofLiteratureandStatePapers,I,(Philadelphia,Pennsylvania,1811).

- AnAppealfromtheJudgementsofGreatBritainrespectingtheUnitedStatesof

America,(Philadelphia,Pennsylvania,1819).

- Webster,Noah,AGrammaticalInstitute,oftheEnglishLanguage,comprising,Aneasy,

consise,andsystematicMethodofEducation,DesignedfortheUseofEnglishSchoolsIn

America.InThreeParts.PartI.Containing,AnewandaccurateStandardofPronunciation,

(1783),Alston,R.C.ed.,EnglishLinguistics1500-1800,(Menston,1968)

- DissertationsontheEnglishLanguage:withNotes,HistoricalandCritical,Towhichis

addedbywayofAppendix,anEssayonaReformedModeofSpelling,withDr.

Franklin’sArgumentsonthatSubject,(1789),Alston,R.C.ed.,EnglishLinguistics1500-

1800,(Menston,1967).

- ALettertotheHonorableJohnPickering,ontheSubjectofhisVocabulary;or,

CollectionofWordsandPhrases,SupposedtobePeculiartotheUnitedStatesof

America.ByNoahWebster,(Boston,Massachusetts,1817).

- Weston,Richard,AVisittotheUnitedStatesandCanadain1833;withtheviewofsettlingin

America.IncludingaVoyagetoandfromNewYork,(Edinburgh,1836).

- Whitelaw,Alex,ed.,TheBookofScottishSong;collectedandillustratedwithhistoricaland

criticalnotes,(London,1844).

- Whittier,JohnGreenleaf,ProseWorksofJohnGreenleafWhittier,(Boston,Massachusetts,

1866),2vols.

- Wilson,DouglasL.ed.,Jefferson’sLiteraryCommonplaceBook,(Princeton,NewJersey,

1989).

- Willard,S.,‘AVocabulary,&c.,’NorthAmericanReviewandMiscellaneousJournal,III

(Boston,Massachusetts,1816).

- Witherspoon,John‘TheDruid,’V,PennsylvaniaJournalandTheWeeklyAdvertiser,’(May

1781),Mathews,M.M.ed.,TheBeginningsofAmericanEnglish.EssaysandComments,

(Chicago,Illinois,1931).

|P a g e

221

- Wright,Frances,ViewsofSocietyandMannersinAmerica;ASeriesofLettersfromthat

CountrytoaFriendinEngland,duringtheyears1818,1819,and1820.ByanEnglishwoman,

(1821),Baker,PaulR.ed.,(Cambridge,Massachusetts,1963).

- WyeSmith,Williamed.,TheNewTestamentinBraidScots.RenderedbyWilliamWyeSmith,

(1901:Paisley,1904).

- Young,G.M.ed.,SpeechesbyLordMacaulaywithhisMinuteonIndianEducation,(Oxford,

1936).

- Zastoupil,LynnandMoir,Martineds.,TheGreatIndianEducationDebate.Documents

RelatingtotheOrientalist-AnglicistControversy,1781-1843,(Richmond,Surrey,1999).

PrintedSecondaryMaterials

- Anon.,‘No.XVI.TheRightHon.SylvesterDouglas,’TheAnnualBiographyandObituaryfor

theYear1824,Vol.8,(London,1824).

- Aitken,AdamJackandMcArthur,Tomeds.,LanguagesofScotland,(Edinburgh,1979).

- Aitken,AdamJack,‘ScottishAccentsandDialects,’Trudgill,Petered.,LanguageintheBritish

Isles,(Cambridge,1984).

- ‘TheGoodOldScotsTongue:DoesScotshaveanIdentity?’Haugen,Einar,McClure,J.

Derrick,andThomson,Derickeds.,MinorityLanguagesToday,(Edinburgh,1990).

- Ahmed,A.F.SalahuddinSocialIdeasandSocialChangeinBengal,1818-1835,(Leiden,1965).

- Ahmed,Dohraed.RottenEnglish.ALiteraryAnthology,(NewYork,2007).

- Alker,Sharon,Davis,LeithandNelson,HollyFaith,‘Introduction,’Alker,Sharon,Davis,Leith

andNelson,HollyFaitheds.,RobertBurnsandTransatlanticCulture,(Farnham,2012).

- Anderson,Benedict,ImaginedCommunities:reflectionsontheoriginandspreadof

nationalism,(London,2006).

- Ahnert,Thomas,TheMoralCultureoftheScottishEnlightenment,1690-1805,(NewHaven,

Connecticut,2014).

- Anderson,Benedict,ImaginedCommunities.ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadof

Nationalism,(1983:London,2006).

- Ascherson,Neal,StoneVoices,TheSearchforScotland,(London,2002).

- Ash,Marinel,TheStrangeDeathofScottishHistory,(Edinburgh,1980).

- Aspinwall,Bernard,‘TheLastLaughofaHumaneFaith,DrAlexanderGeddes1737-1801,’

NewBlackfriars,58,(July1977),pp.333-40.

|P a g e

222

- Bakhtin,MikhailTheDialogicImagination,FourEssaysbyM.M.Bakhtin,Holquist,Michael

ed.,trans.,Emerson,CarylandHolquist,Michael,(Austin,1996).

- Ballantyne,Tony,OrientalismandRace.AryanismintheBritishEmpire,(Basingstoke,2006).

- Basker,JamesG.,‘ScottcismsandtheProblemofCulturalIdentityinEighteenth-Century

Britain,’Dwyer,JohnandSher,RichardB.eds.,SociabilityandSocietyinEighteenth-Century

Scotland,(Edinburgh,1993).

- Bastin,John,‘JohnLeydenandthePublicationofthe“MalayAnnals”(1821),’Journalofthe

MalaysianBranchoftheRoyalAsiaticSociety,75,2,283,(2002),pp.99-115.

- Basu,Paul,HighlandHomecomings,GenealogyandHeritageTourismintheScottish

Diaspora,(Abingdon,2007).

- Bayly,C.A.,ImperialMeridian:TheBritishEmpireandtheWorld,1780-1830,(London,

1989).

- EmpireandInformation.IntelligencegatheringandsocialcommunicationinIndia,

1780-1870,(Cambridge,1996).

- Belich,James,ReplenishingtheEarth,TheSettlerRevolutionandtheRiseoftheAnglo-

World,1783-1939,(Oxford,2009).

- Bell,Duncan,TheIdeaofGreaterBritain.EmpireandtheFutureofWorldOrder,1860–1900,

(Princeton,NewJersey,2007).

- Benchimol,Alex,IntellectualPoliticsandCulturalConflictintheRomanticPeriod.Scottish

Whigs,EnglishRadicalsandtheMakingoftheBritishPublicSphere,(Farnham,2010).

- Bhabha,HomiK.,TheLocationofCulture,(London,1994).

- Bhattacharya,Tithi,TheSentinelsofCulture.Class,Education,andtheColonialIntellectualin

Bengal(1848-85),(Oxford,2005).

- Blain,Jenny,‘Ancestral‘Scottishness’andHeritageTourism,’Leith,MurrayStewartandSim,

Duncaneds.,TheModernScottishDiaspora.ContemporaryDebatesandPerspectives,

(Edinburgh,2014).

- Bourdieu,Pierre,LanguageandSymbolicPower,Thompson,JohnB.ed.,trans.Raymond,

GinoandAdamson,Matthew,(Oxford,1991).

- Brah,Avtar,CartographiesofDiaspora,(Abingdon,1996).

- Broadhead,Alex,TheLanguageofRobertBurns.Style,Ideology,andIdentity,(Plymouth,

2014).

- Brock,WilliamR.ScotusAmericanus.AsurveyofsourcesforlinksbetweenScotlandand

Americaintheeighteenthcentury,(Edinburgh,1982).

|P a g e

223

- Brooking,Tom,‘SharingouttheHaggis:TheSpecialScottishContributiontoNewZealand

History,’Brooking,TomandColeman,Jennieeds.,TheHeatherandtheFern.Scottish

MigrationandNewZealand,(Otago,2003).

- Brown,IainGordon,‘ModernRomeandAncientCaledonia:theUnionandthePoliticsof

ScottishCulture,’Hook,Andrewed.,TheHistoryofScottishLiterature.Volume21660-1800,

(Aberdeen,1987).

- Brown,I.M.,‘JohnLeyden(1775-1811)hislifeandworks,’unpublishedPhDthesis,

UniversityofEdinburgh(1955).

- Brown,Rhona,‘“Guidblackprent”:RobertBurnsandtheContemporaryScottishand

AmericanPeriodicalPress,’Alker,Sharon,Davis,LeithandNelson,HollyFaitheds.,Robert

BurnsandTransatlanticCulture,(Farnham,2012).

- Brown,StewartJ.,‘WilliamRobertson,EarlyOrientalismandtheHistoricalDisquisitionon

Indiaof1791,’ScottishHistoricalReview,88,2,226,(October2009),pp.289-312.

- Brown,Thomas,ed.,ThePoeticalWorksofDrJohnLeyden.WithaMemoirbyThomas

Brown.AndaPortraitfromtheOriginalPencilSketchbyCaptainElliot,(London,1875).

- Buel,Richard,JoelBarlow.AmericanCitizeninaRevolutionaryWorld,(Baltimore,Maryland,

2011).

- Bueltmann,Tanja,‘EthnicIdentity,SportingCaledoniaandRespectability:Scottish

AssociationalLifeinNewZealand,’Bueltmann,Tanja,Hinson,AndrewandMorton,Graeme

eds.,TiesofBluid,KinandCountrie:ScottishAssociationalCultureandtheDiaspora,

(Guelph,2009).

- ScottishEthnicityandtheMakingofNewZealandSociety,1850-1930,(Edinburgh,

2011).

- Bueltmann,Tanja,Hinson,AndrewandMorton,Graeme,‘Introduction:Diaspora,

AssociationsandScottishIdentity,’Bueltmann,Tanja,Hinson,AndrewandMorton,Graeme

eds.,TiesofBluid,KinandCountrie:ScottishAssociationalCultureandtheDiaspora,

(Guelph,2009).

- TheScottishDiaspora,(Edinburgh,2013).

- BuettnerElizabeth,‘HaggisintheRaj:PrivateandPublicCelebrationsofScottishnessinLate

ImperialIndia,’ScottishHistoricalReview,Vol.LXXXI,2:No.212(October,2002),pp.212-

239.

- Burnstein,Andrew,TheInnerJefferson.PortraitofaGrievingOptimist,(Charlottesville,

Virginia,1996).

|P a g e

224

- Buzard,James,DisorientingFiction,TheAutoethnographicWorkofNineteenth-Century

BritishNovels,(Princeton,NewJersey,2005).

- Calhoon,RobertM.andBarnes,TimothyM.,‘MoralAllegiance.JohnWitherspoonand

LoyalistRecantation,’Calhoon,RobertM.,Barnes,TimothyM.,andDavis,RobertS.eds.,

ToryInsurgents.TheLoyalistPerceptionandotheressays,(Columbia,SouthCarolina,2010).

- Calloway,ColinG.,WhitePeople,Indians,andHighlanders.TribalPeoplesandColonial

EncountersinScotlandandAmerica,(Oxford,2010).

- Carruthers,Gerard,‘ScatteredRemains:TheLiteraryCareerofAlexanderGeddes,’

Johnstone,Williamed.TheBibleandtheEnlightenment.ACaseStudy:AlexanderGeddes

1737-1802,(London,2004).

- ScottishLiterature,(Edinburgh,2009).

- ‘Introduction,’Carruthers,Gerarded.,TheEdinburghCompaniontoRobertBurns,

(Edinburgh,2009).

- ‘Burns’sPoliticalReputationinNorthAmerica,’Alker,Sharon,Davis,LeithandNelson,

HollyFaitheds.,RobertBurnsandTransatlanticCulture,(Farnham,2012).

- ‘RememberingJohnGalt,’Hewitt,Reginaed.,JohnGalt.ObservationsandConjectures

onLiterature,History,andSociety,(Plymouth,2012).

- Cheape,Hugh,‘GheibhteBreacainCharnaid(“ScarletTartansWouldBeGot…”):The

ReinventionofTradition,’Brown,Ianed.,FromTartantoTartanry,ScottishCulture,History

andMyth,(Edinburgh,2012).

- Christie,Charles,SomememoriesofCharlesMurrayandafewfriends,(Pretoria,1943).

- Christie,William,TheEdinburghReviewintheLiteraryCultureofRomanticBritain:

MammothandMegalonyx,(London,2009).

- Clark,J.D.C.,TheLanguageofLiberty,1660-1832.Politicaldiscourseandsocialdynamicson

theAnglo-AmericanWorld,(Cambridge,1994).

- Clive,John,ScotchReviewers.TheEdinburghReview,1802-1815,(London,1957).

- ThomasBabingtonMacaulay.TheShapingoftheHistorian,(London,1973).

- Clive,JohnandBailyn,Bernard,‘England’sCulturalProvinces:ScotlandandAmerica,’

WilliamandMaryQuarterlyJournal,3,Vol.11,No.2,(April1954),pp.200-13.

- Cockburn,Henry,LifeofFrancisJeffrey,(1852:Edinburgh,1872).

- MemorialsofHisTime,(NewYork,1856).

- Cohen,Robin,‘Solid,DuctileandLiquid:ChangingNotionsofHomelandandHomein

DiasporaStudies,’Ben-Rafael,Eliezer,andSternberg,Tirzhakeds.,Transnationalism.

Diasporasandtheadventofanew(dis)order,(Boston,Massachusetts,2009).

|P a g e

225

- Globaldiasporas:anintroduction,(London,2000).

- Cohn,BernardS.,ColonialismanditsFormsofKnowledge,(Princeton,NewJersey,1996).

- Cooley,CharlesHorton,HumanNatureandtheSocialOrder,(NewYork,1902).

- Corbett,John,McClureJ.DerrickandStuart-Smith,Jane,‘ABriefHistoryofScots,’Corbett,

John,McClure,J.DerrickandStuart-Smith,Janeeds.,TheEdinburghCompaniontoScots,

(Edinburgh,2003).

- Corbett,John,LanguageandScottishLiterature,(Edinburgh,1997).

- Coupland,Reginald,Raffles,1781-1826,(Oxford,1926).

- Court,FranklinE.,‘ScottishliteraryteachinginNorthAmerica,’Crawford,Roberted.,The

ScottishInventionofEnglishLiterature,(Cambridge,1998).

- Cowan,EdwardJ.,‘ProphesyandProphylaxis:AParadigmfortheScotchIrish?’Blethen,H.

TylerandWood,CurtisW.,eds.,UlsterandNorthAmerica,TransatlanticPerspectivesonthe

Scotch-Irish,(Tuscaloosa,Alabama,1997).

- ‘TheMythofScotchCanada,’Harper,MarjoryandVance,MichaelE.eds.,Myth,

MigrationandtheMakingofMemory:ScotiaandNovaScotiac.1700-1900,

(Edinburgh,2000).

- Craig,Cairns,‘Mythsagainsthistory:tartanryandKailyardin19thcenturyScottishliterature,’

McArthur,Colined.ScotchReels:ScotlandinCinemaandTelevision,(London,1982).

- OutofHistory,NarrativeParadigmsinScottishandBritishCulture,(Edinburgh,1996)

- Craig,David,ScottishLiteratureandtheScottishPeople1680-1839,(London,1961).

- Crawford,Robert,DevolvingEnglishLiterature,(Edinburgh,1992).

- IdentifyingPoets.SelfandTerritoryinTwentieth-CenturyPoetry,(Edinburgh,1993).

- ‘BakhtinandScotland,’Scotlands,(1994),1,pp.55-65.

- ‘Introduction,’Crawford,Roberted.,TheScottishInventionofEnglishLiterature,

(Cambridge,1998).

- TheBard.RobertBurns,ABiography,(London,2009).

- Crowley,Tony,LanguageinHistory.TheoriesandTexts,(London,1996).

- Curley,ThomasM.,SamuelJohnson,TheOssianFraud,andtheCelticRevivalinGreatBritain

andIreland,(Cambridge,2009).

- Daiches,David,TheParadoxofScottishCulture,(London,1964).

- RobertBurns,(London,1966).

- Dalrymple,WilliamWhiteMughals.LoveandBetrayalinEighteenth-CenturyIndia,(London,

2002).

|P a g e

226

- Dasgupta,Subrata,TheBengalRenaissance.IdentityandCreativityfromRammohunRoyto

RabindranathTagore,(Delhi,2007).

- Davis,Leith,ActsofUnion.ScotlandandtheLiteraryNegotiationoftheBritishNation,1707-

1830,(Stanford,California,1998).

- ‘NegotiatingCulturalMemory:JamesCurrie’sWorksofRobertBurns,’International

JournalofScottishLiterature,6,(Spring/Summer2010),pp.1-16.

- Day,LalBehari,RecollectionsofAlexanderDuff,D.D.,LL.D.,andoftheMissionCollegewhich

hefoundedinCalcutta,(London,1879).

- Devine,T.M.,TotheEndsoftheEarth,Scotland’sGlobalDiaspora,1750-2010,(London,

2011).

- Dodson,MichaelS.,Orientalism,Empire,andNationalCulture,(Basingstoke,2007).

- Donaldson,William,PopularLiteratureinVictorianScotland:language,fictionandthepress,

(Aberdeen,1986).

- TheLanguageofthePeople,ScotsProsefromtheVictorianRevival,(Aberdeen,1989).

- DosPassos,John,TheHeartandHeadofThomasJefferson,(NewYork,1954).

- Dossena,Marina,ScotticismsinGrammarandVocabulary,(Edinburgh,2005).

- ‘PrintandScotticisms,’Brown,StephenW.andMcDougall,Warreneds.,TheEdinburgh

HistoryoftheBookinScotland.Volume2EnlightenmentandExpansion1707-1800,

(Edinburgh,2012).

- Driem,Georgevan,‘Tibeto-Burmanvs.Sino-Tibetan,’Bauer,BrigitteL.M.andPinault,

Georges-Jeaneds.,LanguageinTimeandSpace.AFestschriftforWernerWinteronthe

Occasionofhis80thBirthday,(Berlin,2003).

- Duff,W.Pirie,MemorialsofAlexanderDuff,(London,1890).

- Duncan,Ian,Scott’sShadow.TheNovelinRomanticEdinburgh,(Princeton,NewJersey,

2007).

- Dwyer,John,‘Introduction–A“PeculiarBlessing”:SocialConverseinScotlandfrom

HutchesontoBurns,’Dwyer,JohnandSher,RichardB.eds.,SociabilityandSocietyin

Eighteenth-CenturyScotland,(Edinburgh,1993).

- Eaton,Joseph,TheAnglo-AmericanPaperWar.DebatesabouttheNewRepublic,1800-1825,

(London,2012).

- Elliot,Emory,TheCambridgeIntroductiontoEarlyAmericanLiterature,(Cambridge,2002).

- Evans,Stephen,‘Macaulay’sMinuteRevisited:ColonialLanguagePolicyinNineteenth-

centuryIndia,’JournalofMultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment,23,4,(March2010),

pp.260-281.

|P a g e

227

- Ferguson,FrankandMcReynolds,Alistereds.,RobertDinsmoor’sScotch-IrishPoems,

(Belfast,2012).

- Finlay,RichardJ.,‘CaledoniaorNorthBritain?ScottishIdentityintheEighteenthCentury,’

Broun,Dauvit,Finlay,RichardJ.,andLynch,Michaeleds.,ImageandIdentity:TheMaking

andRe-makingofScotlandThroughtheAges,(Edinburgh,1998).

- Fielding,Penny,WritingandOrality,Nationality,Culture,andNineteenth-CenturyScottish

Fiction,(Oxford,1996).

- Flynn,Philip,FrancisJeffrey,(London,1978).

- Fontana,Biancamaria,Rethinkingthepoliticsofcommercialsociety:theEdinburghReview

1802-1832,(Cambridge,1985).

- Forbes,Margaret,BeattieandhisFriends,(London,1904).

- Forsyth,DavidandUgolini,Wendyeds.,AGlobalForce.War,IdentitiesandScotland’s

Diaspora,(Edinburgh,2016).

- Frank,Thomas,‘Languagestandardizationineighteenth-centuryScotland,’Stein,Dieterand

Tieken-BoonvanOstade,Ingrideds.,TowardsaStandardEnglish,1600-1800,(Berlin,1993),

- Fry,Michael,TheDundasDespotism,(Edinburgh,1992).

- TheScottishEmpire,(Edinburgh,2001).

- ‘“TheKeytotheirHearts”:ScottishOrientalism,’Carruthers,Gerard,Goldie,Davidand

Renfrew,Alasdaireds.,Scotlandandthe19th-CenturyWorld,(Amsterdam,2012),

- ‘TheScottishDiasporaandtheEmpire,’Leith,MurrayStewartandSim,Duncaneds.,

TheModernScottishDiaspora.ContemporaryDebatesandPerspectives,(Edinburgh,

2014).

- Fuller,ReginaldC.,AlexanderGeddes,1737-1802.PioneerofBiblicalCriticism,(1984:

London,2015).

- Gardiner,Michael,ModernScottishCulture,(Edinburgh,2005),

- ‘Introduction,’Gardiner,Michael,Macdonald,GraemeandO’Gallagher,Nialleds.,

ScottishLiteratureandPostcolonialLiterature,ComparativeTextsandCritical

Perspectives,(Edinburgh,2011).

- Gardiner,Robert,MemoirofAdmiralSirGrahamMoore,(London,1844).

- Gibson,MaryEllised.,AnglophonePoetryinColonialIndia,1790-1913.ACriticalAnthology,

(Athens,Ohio,2011).

- Ghosh,SureshChandra,‘Dalhousie,CharlesWoodandtheEducationDespatchof1854,’

HistoryofEducation,4,2,(1975),pp.37-47.

|P a g e

228

- Gleig,G.R.,TheLifeofMajor-GeneralSirThomasMunro,BARTandK.C.B.LateGovernorof

MadraswithExtractsfromhisCorrespondenceandPrivatePapers,(1830:London,1831),2

vols.

- Glendinning,Victoria,RafflesandtheGoldenOpportunity,(London,2013).

- Goldie,David,‘Don’ttaketheHighRoad:TartanryanditsCritics,’Brown,Ianed.,From

TartantoTartanry,ScottishCulture,HistoryandMyth,(Edinburgh,2012).

- Goldie,Mark,‘AlexanderGeddesattheLimitsoftheCatholicEnlightenment,’Historical

Journal,53.1,(March,2010).

- Good,JohnMasonMemoirsoftheLifeandWritingsoftheReverendAlexanderGeddes,

LL.D.,(London,1803).

- Goodfriend,Joyce,‘ScotsandSchism:theNewYorkCityPresbyterianChurchinthe1750s,’

Landsman,NedC.ed.,NationandProvinceintheFirstBritishEmpire.Scotlandandthe

Amercias,1600-1800,(London,2001).

- Görlach,Manfred,StillMoreEnglishes,(Amsterdam,2002).

- Graham,HenryGrey,TheSocialLifeofScotlandintheEighteenthCentury,(1899:London,

1937).

- Graham,IanCharlesCargill,ColonistsfromScotland:EmigrationtoNorthAmerica,1707-

1783,(NewYork,1956).

- Gravil,Richard,RomanticDialogues.Anglo-AmericanContinuities,1776-1862,(Penrith,

2015).

- GregorySmith,George,ScottishLiterature:CharacterandInfluence,(London,1919).

- Greig,JamesA.,FrancisJeffreyoftheEdinburghReview,(London,1948).

- Griffin,Patrick,ThePeoplewithNoName.Ireland’sUlsterScots,America’sScotsIrish,and

theCreationoftheBritishAtlanticWorld,1689-1764,(Princeton,NewJersey,2001).

- Hagan,AnetteI.,UrbanScotsDialectWriting,(Bern,2002).

- Hahn,Emily,RafflesofSingapore.Biography,(London,1948).

- Hanham,H.J.H.,ScottishNationalism,(Cambridge,Massachusetts,1969).

- Hannigan,Tim,RafflesandtheBritishInvasionofJava,(Singapore,2012).

- Harris,Bob,‘Communicating,’Foyster,ElizabethandWhatley,ChristopherA.eds.,AHistory

ofEverydayLifeinScotland,1600-1800,(Edinburgh,2010).

- Haws,CharlesH.,ScotsintheOldDominion1685-1800,(Edinburgh,1980).

- Hechter,Michael,InternalColonialism,theCelticFringeinBritishNationalDevelopment,

1536-1966,(London,1975).

|P a g e

229

- Hewitt,David,‘JamesBeattieandtheLanguagesofScotland,’Carter,JenniferJ.and.Pittock,

JoanHeds.,AberdeenandtheEnlightenment,(Aberdeen,1987).

- ‘ScoticismsandCulturalConflict,’Draper,RonaldP.ed.,TheLiteratureofRegionand

Nation,(NewYork,1989).

- Hirst,FrancisW.,LifeandLettersofThomasJefferson,(NewYork,1926).

- Holcomb,HelenH.,MenofMightinIndianMissions.TheLeadersandtheirEpochs,1706-

1899,(London,1901).

- Hook,Andrew,ScotlandandAmerica:AStudyofCulturalRelations,1750-1835,(Glasgow,

1975).

- FromGoosecreektoGandercleuch.StudiesinScottish-AmericanLiteraryandCultural

History,(EastLinton,1999).

- ‘Scotland,theUSA,andNationalLiteraturesintheNineteenthCentury,’Carruthers,

Gerard,Goldie,DavidandRenfrew,Alasdaireds.,Scotlandandthe19th-Century

World,(Amsterdam,2012).

- Hughes,Kyle,‘“Scots,StandFirm,andourEmpireisSafe”:ThePoliticisationofScottishClubs

andSocietiesinBelfastduringtheHomeRuleEra,c.1885-1914,’Bueltmann,Tanja,Hinson,

AndrewandMorton,Graemeeds.,TiesofBluid,KinandCountrie:ScottishAssociational

CultureandtheDiaspora,(Guelph,2009).

- Hunter,James,ADanceCalledAmerica:TheScottishHighlands,theUnitedStates,and

Canada,(Edinburgh,1995).

- ‘Foreword,’Ray,Celesteed.,TransatlanticScots,(Tuscaloosa,2005).

- Hyslop,Jonathon,‘MakingScotlandinSouthAfrica:CharlesMurray,theTransvaal’s

Aberdeenshirepoet,’Lambert,DavidandLester,Alaneds.,ColonialLivesAcrosstheBritish

Empire:ImperialCareeringintheLongNineteenthcentury,(Cambridge,2006).

- Johnstone,John‘MemoirofDr.Jamieson,’Jamieson,JohnADictionaryoftheScottish

Language.Inwhichthewordsareexplainedintheirdifferentsenses,authorizedbythe

namesofthewritersbywhomtheyareused,orthetitlesoftheworksinwhichtheyoccur,

andderivedfromtheiroriginals,(Edinburgh,1846).

- Johnstone,Williamed.,TheBibleandtheEnlightenment.ACaseStudy:AlexanderGeddes

1737-1802,(London,2004).

- Jones,Charles,‘ScottishStandardEnglishinthelateeighteenthcentury,’Transactionsofthe

PhilologicalSociety,Vol.,91,1,(1993),pp.95-131.

- ‘AlexanderGeddes:AnEighteenth-CenturyScottishOrthoepistandDialectologist,’

FoliaLinguisticaHistorica,Vol.15,1-2,(1994),pp.71-103

|P a g e

230

- ALanguageSuppressed:ThePronunciationoftheScotsLanguageintheEighteenth

Century,(Edinburgh,1995).

- ‘Phonology,’Jones,Charlesed.,TheEdinburghHistoryoftheScotsLanguage,

(Edinburgh,1997).

- EnglishPronunciationintheEighteenthandNineteenthCenturies,(Basingstoke,2006).

- Jones,KatherineW.,AccentonPrivilege,EnglishIdentitiesandAnglophiliaontheU.S.,

(Philadelphia,2001).

- Kay,Billy,TheMitherTongue,(Edinburgh,1986).

- TheScottishWorld,AJourneyintotheScottishDiaspora,(Edinburgh,2005).

- Keen,Pauled.,RevolutionsinRomanticLiterature.Ananthologyofprintculture,1780-1832,

(Plymouth,2004).

- Kidd,Colin,SubvertingScotland’sPast:ScottishWhigHistoriansandthecreationonan

Anglo-BritishIdentity1689-c.,1830,(Cambridge,1993).

- ‘TeutonistEthnologyandScottishNationalistInhibition,1780-1880,’ScottishHistorical

Review,74,(1995),pp.45-68.

- ‘NorthBritishnessandtheNatureofEighteenth-CenturyBritishPatriotisms,’Historical

Journal,Vol.39,2,(June,1996),pp.361-382

- ‘TheIdeologicalSignificanceofRobertson’sHistoryofScotland,’Brown,StewartJ.ed.,

WilliamRobertsonandtheExpansionofEmpire,(Cambridge,1997).

- BritishIdentitiesBeforeNationalism:EthnicityandNationhoodintheAtlanticWorld,

1600-1800,(Cambridge,1999).

- ‘TheIdeologicalUsesofthePicts,1707-c.1900,’Cowan,EdwardJ.andFinlay,Richard

J.,eds.ScottishHistoryandthePowerofthePast,(Edinburgh,2002).

- TheForgingoftheRaces.RaceandScriptureintheProtestantAtlanticWorld,1600-

2000,(Cambridge,2006).

- ‘Race,TheologyandRevival:ScotsPhilologyanditsContextsintheAgeofPinkerton

andJamieson,ScottishStudiesReview,3/2,(2002),pp.20-33.

- UnionandUnionisms,(Cambridge,2008).

- King,Richard,OrientalismandReligion.Postcolonialtheory,Indiaand‘themysticEast’,

(London,1999).

- Kopf,David,BritishOrientalismandtheBengalRenaissance.TheDynamicsofIndian

Modernization,1773-1835,(Berkeley,Californian,1969).

- Krapp,GeorgePhilip,TheEnglishLanguageinAmerica,(1925:NewYork,1960),2vols.

|P a g e

231

- Langford,Paul,‘MannersandCharacterinAnglo-AmericanPerceptions,1750-1850,’

Leventhal,FredM.andQuinault,Rolandeds.,Anglo-AmericanMinds.FromRevolutionto

Partnership,(Aldershot,2000).

- Leask,Nigel,‘“TheirGroveso’SweetMyrtles”:RobertBurnsandtheScottishColonial

Experience,’Pittock,MurrayH.,ed.,BurnsinGlobalCulture,(Plymouth,2011).

- Leith,MurrayStewart,andSim,Duncan,‘Introduction:TheScottishDiaspora,’Leith,Murray

StewartandSim,Duncaneds.,TheModernScottishDiaspora.ContemporaryDebatesand

Perspectives,(Edinburgh,2014).

- Lehmann,WilliamC.,HenryHome,LordKames,andtheScottishEnlightenment:aStudyin

NationalCharacterandintheHistoryofIdeas,(TheHague,1971).

- ScottishandScotch-IrishContributionstoEarlyAmericanLifeandCulture,(London,

1978).

- Leneman,Leah,‘Anewroleforalostcause:LowlandromanticisationoftheJacobite

Highlander,’Leneman,Leahed.,NewPerspectivesinScottishSocialHistory,(Aberdeen,

1988).

- Lenman,Bruce,‘TheScottishenlightenment,stagnationandempireinIndia,1792-1813,’

Indo-BritishReview:aJournalofHistory,21,(1996),pp.53-62.

- Letley,Emma,FromGalttoDouglasBrown:NineteenthCenturyFictionandScotsLanguage,

(Edinburgh,1988).

- Leyburn,JamesG.,TheScotch-Irish.ASocialHistory,(Durham,NorthCarolina,1962).

- Macafee,C.I.,‘OngoingChangeinModernScots:TheSocialDimension,’Jones,Charlesed.,

EdinburghHistoryoftheScotsLanguage,(Edinburgh,1997).

- MacDiarmid,Hugh,[ChristopherMurrayGrieve],AlbynorScotlandandtheFuture,(London,

1927).

- Macdonald,CatrionaM.M.,‘ImaginingtheScottishDiaspora:EmigrationandTransnational

LiteratureintheLateModernPeriod,’BritainandtheWorld,5,1(2012),pp.12-42.

- Macfie,A.L.,Orientalism,(London,2002),

- MacKenzie,JohnM.,‘EdwardSaidandthehistorians,’NineteenthCenturyContexts,18,1,

(1994),pp.9-25.

- Orientalism.History,theoryandthearts,(Manchester,1995).

- ‘EmpireandNationalIdentitiestheCaseofScotland,’TransactionsoftheRoyal

HistoricalSociety,Vol.8,(1998),pp.215-231.

|P a g e

232

- ‘AScottishEmpire?TheScottishdiasporaandinteractiveidentities,’Brooking,Tom,

andColeman,Jennieeds.,TheHeatherandtheFern:ScottishMigrationandNew

Zealand,(Otago,2003).

- withDalziel,Nigel,TheScotsinSouthAfrica,(Johannesburg,2007).

- MacKenzie,JohnM.andDevine,T.M.,‘Introduction,’Mackenzie,JohnM.andDevine,T.M.

eds.,ScotlandandtheBritishEmpire(Oxford,2011).

- Malcolm,John,Malcolm.Soldier,Diplomat,IdeologueofBritishIndia.LifeofSirJohn

Malcolm,(1769-1833),(Edinburgh,2014),

- Manning,SusanandCogliano,FrancisD.,eds.,TheAtlanticEnlightenment,(Aldershot,

2008).

- Manning,Susan,Thepuritan-provincialvision.ScottishandAmericanliteratureinthe

nineteenthcentury,(Cambridge,1990).

- FragmentsofUnion,MakingConnectionsinScottishandAmericanWriting,(NewYork,

2002).

- ‘Post-UnionScotlandandtheScottishIdiomofBritishness,’Brown,Ian,Owen,Thomas

Clancy,Manning,SusanandPittock,Murrayeds.,TheEdinburghHistoryofScottish

Literature,(Edinburgh,2007).

- PoeticsofCharacter.TransatlanticEncounters1700-1900,(Cambridge,2013).

- Marriot,John,TheOtherEmpire:Metropolis,Indiaandprogressinthecolonialimagination,

(Manchester,2003).

- Masani,Zareer,Macaulay.Britain’sLiberalImperialist,(London,2014).

- Matthews,Brander,AmericanismsandBriticismswithotheressaysonIsms,(NewYork,

1892).

- McArthur,Colin,‘TransatlanticScots,TheirInterlocutors,andtheScottishDiscursive

Unconscious,’Ray,Celesteed.,TransatlanticScots,(Tuscaloosa,Alabama,2005).

- McCarey,Peter,‘OccasionalPaper:ByeByeBakhtin,’InternationalJournalofScottish

Literature,2(Spring/Summer2007),pp.1-4.

- McCarthy,Angela,‘PersonalAccountsofLeavingScotland,1921-1954,’ScottishHistorical

Review,Vol.LXXXIII,2,216,(October2004),pp.196-215.

- ‘NationalIdentitiesandTwentieth-CenturyScottishMigrantsinEngland,’Miller,

WilliamL.ed.,Anglo-ScottishRelationsfrom1900toDevolutionandBeyond,(Oxford,

2005).

- McCarthyed.,AGlobalClan:ScottishMigrantNetworksandIdentitiesSincethe

EighteenthCentury,(London2006)

|P a g e

233

- PersonalnarrativesofIrishandScottishmigration,1921-65,(Manchester,2007).

- ScottishnessandIrishnessinNewZealandsince1840,(Manchester,2011).

- McClure,J.Derricked.,ScotlandandtheLowlandTongue,Studiesinthelanguageand

literatureofLowlandScotland,(Aberdeen,1983).

- WhyScotsMatters,(Edinburgh,2009).

- ‘ThedistinctivenessofScots:Perceptionsandreality,’Hickey,Raymonded.,Varieties

ofEnglishinWriting.Thewrittenwordaslinguisticevidence,(Amsterdam,2010).

- McCrone,David,‘WhoAreWe?UnderstandingScottishIdentity,’DiDomenico,Catherine,

Law,Alex,Skinner,Jonathan,Smith,Mickeds.,BoundariesandIdentities:Nation,Politics

andCultureinScotland,(Dundee,2001).

- UnderstandingScotland:TheSociologyofaNation,(London,2001).

- McCrone,David,Morris,Angela,andKiely,Richard,Scotland.TheBrand:TheMakingof

ScottishHeritage,(Edinburgh,1995).

- McGinn,Clark,‘VehementCelebrations:TheGlobalCelebrationoftheBurnsSuppersince

1801,’Pittock,MurrayG.ed.,BurnsinGlobalCulture,(Plymouth,2011).

- McGuirk,Carol,RobertBurnsandtheSentimentalEra,(Athens,Georgia,1985).

- ‘ThePoliticsofTheCollectedBurns,’Herbert,W.N.andPrice,Richardeds.,Gairfish

Discovery,(BridgeofWeir,1991),

- ‘HauntedbyAuthority:Nineteenth-centuryAmericanConstructionsofRobertBurns

andScotland,’Crawford,Roberted.,RobertBurnsandCulturalAuthority,(Edinburgh,

1997).

- McLaren,Martha,BritishIndia&BritishScotland,1780-1830:CareerBuilding,Empire

BuildingandaScottishSchoolofThoughtonIndianGovernance,(Akron,Ohio,2001).

- McNeil,Kenneth,Scotland,BritainandEmpire:WritingtheHighlands1760-1860,

(Columbus,Ohio,2007).

- Meurman-Solin,Anneli,VariationandChangeinEarlyScottishProse.StudiesBasedonthe

HelsinkiCorpusofOlderScots,(Helsinki,1993),

- ‘Changefromaboveorbelow?Mappingthelocioflinguisticchangeinthehistoryof

ScottishEnglish,’Wright,Lauraed.,TheDevelopmentofStandardEnglish,1300-1800,

(Cambridge,2000).

- Mickelthwait,David,NoahWebsterandtheAmericanDictionary,(Jefferson,NorthCarolina,

2005).

- Millar,A.A.,AlexanderDuffofIndia,(Edinburgh,1992).

|P a g e

234

- Millar,RobertMcColl,‘Gaelic-InfluencedScotsinpre-RevolutionaryMaryland,’Sture,

UrelandandClarkson,Iaineds.,LanguageContactAcrosstheNorthAtlantic,(Heidelberg,

1996).

- Language,Nation,andPower,(Basingstoke,2005).

- ‘Tobringbylanguageneartothelanguageofmen?DialectandDialectUseinthe

EighteenthandEarlyNineteenthCenturies:SomeObservations,’Kirk,JohnM.and

Macleod,Iseabaileds.Scots:StudiesinLanguageandLiterature,(Amsterdam,2013).

- Miller,KerbyA.,‘TheNewEnglandandFederalistoriginsof“Scotch-Irish”ethnicity,’Kelly,

WilliamandYoung,JohnR.eds.,UlsterandScotland,1600-2000:history,languageand

identity,(Dublin,2004).

- Miller,ThomasP.,‘Witherspoon,BlairandtheRhetoricofCivicHumanism,’Sher,RichardB.

andSmitten,JeffreyR.eds.,ScotlandandAmericaintheAgeofEnlightenment,(Edinburgh,

1990).

- Milroy,James,‘Historicaldescriptionandtheideologyofthestandardlanguage,’Wright,

Lauraed.,TheDevelopmentofStandardEnglish,1300-1800,(Cambridge,2000).

- Montgomery,MichaelB.,FromUlstertoAmerica.TheScotch-IrishHeritageofAmerican

English,(Belfast,2006).

- ‘TheLinguisticLandscapeofEighteenth-CenturySouthArgyll,asRevealedbyHighland

ScotEmigrantstoNorthCarolina’,Kirk,JohnM.andMacleod,Iseabaileds.,Scots:

StudiesinLanguageandLiterature,(Amsterdam,2013).

- Montgomery,MichaelB.andGregg,RobertJ.,‘TheScotsLanguageinUlster,’Jones,Charles

Morton,Graeme,UnionistNationalism,GoverningUrbanScotland,1830-1860,(EastLinton,

1999).

- ‘EthnicIdentityintheCivicWorldofScottishAssociationalCulture,’Bueltmann,Tanja,

Hinson,AndrewandMorton,Graemeeds.,TiesofBluid,KinandCountrie:Scottish

AssociationalCultureandtheDiaspora,(Guelph,2009).

- OurselvesandOthers,Scotland1832-1914,(Edinburgh,2012).

- Morton,James,‘No.IX,ThePoeticalremainsoftheLateDr.JOHNLEYDEN,withMemoirsof

hisLife,bytheRev.JamesMorton,’TheAnnualBiographyandObituary,fortheyear1821.,

VolV.,(London,1821).

- MemoirsofthelifeandwritingsofthecelebratedliterarycharacterthelateDr.John

Leyden,ofthehonourableEastIndiaCompany’sEstablishment,(1819:Calcutta,1825).

- Mossner,ErnestC.,TheForgottenHume(LeBonDavid),(Bristol,1990).

|P a g e

235

- Mowbray,PaulWheeler,AmericaThroughBritishEyes:AStudyoftheAttitudeofthe

EdinburghReviewtowardtheUnitedStatesofAmericafrom1802until1861,(AnnArbour,

Michigan,1935).

- Müeller,F.Max,BiographicalEssays,(London,1884).

- Muir,Edwin,ScottandScotland,(Edinburgh,1936).

- Muirson,David,TheGuidScotsTongue,(Edinburgh,1977).

- Mugglestone,Lynda,TalkingProper,TheRiseofAccentasaSocialSymbol,(Oxford,1995).

- MureMacKenzie,Agnes,‘TheRenaissancePoets,(I)ScotsandEnglish,’Kinsley,Jamesed.,

ScottishPoetryACriticalSurvey,(Edinburgh,1955).

- Murphy,Sean,‘Scotland,‘GreaterBritain,’andtheKailyardicContra(-)diction,’Scottish

LiteraryReview,Vol.8,1,(Spring/Summer2016),69-91.

- Nairn,Tom,TheBreak-UpofBritain,(London,1981).

- TheBreak-UpofBritain,(Edinburgh,2003).

- Nash,Geoffrey,‘Orientalism,’JohnM.MacKenzieed.,TheEncyclopediaofEmpire,

(Chichester,2016),4vols.,III,pp.1571-77.

- Newton,Michael,‘PayingforthePlaid:ScottishGaelicIdentityPoliticsinNineteenth-century

NorthAmerica,’Brown,Ianed.,FromTartantoTartanry,ScottishCulture,HistoryandMyth,

(Edinburgh,2012).

- O’Connor,Laura,HauntedEnglish,TheCelticFringe,theBritishEmpire,andDe-Anglicization,

(Baltimore,Maryland,2006).

- O’Flaherty,Patrick,Scotland’sPariah.TheLifeandWorkofJohnPinkerton,1758-1826,

(Toronto,2015).

- Painter,NeilIrvin,AHistoryofWhitePeople,(NewYork,2010).

- Paterson,Lindsay,‘“ScotchMyths”–2,’BulletinofScottishPolitics,(Edinburgh;Scottish

InternationalInstitute),2,(Spring1981),pp.67-71.

- Pennycook,Alastair,‘Language,Ideology,andHindsight.LessonsfromColonialLanguage

Policies,’Ricento,Thomased.,Language,Politics,andLanguagePolicies.FocusonEnglish,

(Amsterdam,2000).

- Percy,Carol,‘PoliticalperspectivesonlinguisticinnovationinindependentAmerica.Learning

fromthelibrariesofThomasJefferson(1743-1826),’Dossena,Marinaed.,Transatlantic

PerspectivesonLateModernEnglish,(Amsterdam,2015).

- Perkins,Pam,‘ReviewingAmerica:FrancisJeffrey,TheEdinburghReview,andtheUnited

States,’Carruthers,Gerard,Goldie,DavidandRenfrew,Alasdaireds.,Scotlandandthe19th-

CenturyWorld,(Amsterdam,2012).

|P a g e

236

- Pittock,MurrayG.,TheInventionofScotland:TheStuartMythandtheScottishIdentity,

1638tothePresent(London,1991).

- ‘StaffandStudents:TheTeachingofRhetoric’,ScottishLiteraryJournal,Vol.,23,1,

(May1996),pp.33-41.

- InventingandReinventingBritain:CulturalIdentitiesinBritainandIreland,1685-1789,

(Basingstoke,1997).

- CelticIdentityandtheBritishImage,(Manchester,1999).

- TheRoadtoIndependence,ScotlandSincetheSixties,(London,2008).

- ‘“ALongFarewelltoAllMyGreatness”:TheHistoryandReputationofRobertBurns,’

Pittock,MurrayG.ed.,BurnsinGlobalCulture,(Plymouth,2011),

- ‘PlaidingtheInventionofScotland,’Brown,Ianed.,FromTartantoTartanry,Scottish

Culture,HistoryandMyth,(Edinburgh,2012).

- Pottinger,George,HeirsoftheEnlightenment.Edinburghreviewersandwriters,1800-1830,

(Edinburgh,1992).

- Power,AvrilA.,ScottishOrientalistsandIndia.TheMuirBrothers,Religion,Educationand

Empire,(Woodbridge,2010).

- Pratt,MaryLouise,TravelWritingandTransculturation,(London,1992).

- Purdie,David,McCue,KirsteenandCarruthers,Gerard,MauriceLindsay’sTheBurns

Encyclopaedia,(London,2013).

- Ramsay,John,ScotlandandScotsmen,ScotlandandScotsmenintheEighteenthCentury,ed.

Allardyce,Alexander,(1888:Bristol,1996),2vols.

- Ray,Celeste,HighlandHeritage,ScottishAmericansintheAmericanSouth,(ChapelHill,

NorthCarolina,2001).

- ‘Introduction,’Ray,Celesteed.,TransatlanticScots,(Tuscaloosa,2005).

- ‘AncestralClanscapesandTransatlanticTartaneers,’PapergivenattheSymposiumon

ReturnMigration,ScottishCentreforDiasporaStudies,UniversityofEdinburgh,(May

2010).

- ‘Ancestralclanscapesandtransatlantictartaneers,’Varricchio,Marioed.,Backto

Caledonia.Scottishhomecomingsfromtheseventeenthcenturytothepresent,

(Edinburgh,2012).

- Reith,John,LifeofDrJohnLeyden.PoetandLinguist,(Galashiels,1908).

- Rendall,Jane,‘ScottishOrientalism:FromRobertsontoJamesMill,‘HistoricalJournal,25,1,

(1982),pp.43-69.

|P a g e

237

- Rennie,Susan,Jamieson’sDictionaryofScots:TheStoryoftheFirstHistoricalDictionaryof

theScotsLanguage,(Oxford,2012).

- ‘JamiesonandtheNineteenthCentury,’Macleod,IseabailandMcClure,J.Derrickeds.,

ScotlandinDefinition:AHistoryofScottishDictionaries,(Edinburgh,2012).

- Riach,Alan,‘HeatherandFern:TheBurnsEffectinNewZealandVerse,’Brooking,Tom,and

Coleman,Jennieeds.,TheHeatherandtheFern:ScottishMigrationandNewZealand,

(Otago,2003).

- RepresentingScotlandinLiterature,PopularCultureandIconography:TheMasksofa

Nation,(Basingstoke,2005).

- Richard,Jeffrey,Imperialismandmusic.Britain1876-1953,(Manchester,2001).

- Richards,Eric,‘TheLastoftheClanandOtherHighlandEmigrants,’Brooking,Tom,and

Coleman,Jennieeds.,TheHeatherandtheFern:ScottishMigrationandNewZealand,

(Otago,2003).

- ‘IroniesoftheHighlandExodus,1740-1900,’Prest,WilfredandTulloch,Grahameds.,

ScatterlingsofEmpire,(StLucia,2001).

- Ricklefs,M.C.,AHistoryofModernIndonesia,c.1300tothepresent,(London,1981).

- Robertson,IanC.,‘TheBardandtheMinstrel,’ScottishLiteraryReview,Vol.8,1,

(Spring/Summer,2016),pp.133-42.

- Romaine,SusanandDorian,Nancy,ScotlandasaLinguisticArea,(Glasgow,1981).

- Safran,William,‘Diasporasinmodernsocieties:mythsofhomelandandreturn,’Diaspora1,

1,(1991),pp.83-99.

- Salmond,NoelA.,HinduIconoclasts.RammohunRoy,DayanandaSarasvati,andNineteenth-

centuryPolemicsAgainstIdolatry,(Waterloo,Ontario,2004).

- Sartori,Andrew,BengalinGlobalConcepthistory.CulturalismintheAgeofCapital,

(Chicago,Illinois,2007).

- Sassi,Carla,WhyScottishLiteratureMatters,(Edinburgh,2005).

- Sassi,CarlaandvanHeijnsbergen,Theo,‘Introduction,’Sassi,CarlaandvanHeijnsbergen,

Theoeds.WithinandWithoutEmpire:ScotlandAcrossthe(Post)colonialBorderline,

(Newcastleupon-Tyne,2013),

- Schoene,Berthold,‘APassagetoScotland:ScottishLiteratureandtheBritishPostcolonial

Condition,’Scotlands,2.1,(1995),pp.107-122.

- Scott,AlexR.,OursistheHarvest,ALifeofCharlesMurray,(Aberdeen,2003).

- Scott,PaulHenderson,ScotlandResurgent.Commentsontheculturalandpoliticalrevivalof

Scotland,(Edinburgh,2003).

|P a g e

238

- Scott,Walter,ed.,PoemsandBalladsbyDr.JohnLeyden:withaMemoiroftheAuthorbySir

WalterScott,Bart.,andaSupplementaryMemoir,(1858:Kelso,1875).

- Shattock,Joanne,PoliticsandReviewers:theEdinburghReviewandtheQuarterlyinthe

earlyVictorianage,(Leicester,1989).

- Shepperson,George,‘WritingsinScottish-AmericanHistory:ABriefSurvey,’Williamand

MaryQuarterlyJournal,3,Vol.11,2(April1954),pp.163-78.

- Sher,RichardB.,‘Introduction,’Sher,RichardB.andSmitten,JeffreyR.eds.,Scotlandand

AmericaintheAgeofEnlightenment,(Edinburgh,1990).

- Simpson,Kenneth,TheProteanScot:TheCrisisofIdentityinEighteenthCenturyScottish

Literature,(Aberdeen,1988).

- Sinha,Mrinalini,Colonialmasculinity.The“manlyEnglishman”andthe“effeminateBengali”

inthelatenineteenthcentury,(Manchester,1995).

- Skoblow,Jeffrey,DoobleTongue:Scots,Burns,Contradiction,(London,2001).

- Smith,George,TheLifeofAlexanderDuff,(London,1879),2vols.

- Smith,JanetAdam,‘SomeEighteenth-CenturyIdeasofScotland,’Phillipson,N.T.and

Mitchison,Rosalindeds.,ScotlandintheAgeofImprovement,EssaysinScottishHistoryin

theEighteenthCentury,(Edinburgh,1970).

- Smith,SusanHarris,AmericanDrama,TheBastardArt,(Cambridge,1997).

- Smith,JeremyJ.,OlderScots.ALinguisticReader,(Edinburgh,2012).

- Sorensen,Janet,TheGrammarofEmpireinEighteenthCenturyBritishWriting,(Cambridge,

2000).

- ‘VulgarTongues:CantingDictionariesandtheLanguageofthePeopleinEighteenth-

CenturyBritain,’Eighteenth-CenturyStudies,Vol.37,3,(2004),pp.435-54.

- Spivak,GayatriChakravorty,NationalismandtheImagination,(Calcutta,2010).

- StClair,William,TheReadingNationintheRomanticPeriod,(Cambridge,2004).

- Stein,Burton,ThomasMunro.TheOriginsoftheColonialStateandHisVisionofEmpire,

(Delhi,1989).

- Stewart,GordonT.,JuteandEmpire,(Manchester1998).

- Streets,Heather,MartialRaces:TheMilitaryRaceandMasculinityinBritishImperialCulture,

1857-1914,(Manchester,2004).

- Strande-Sørensen,Pernille,‘AuthenticationofNationalidentity:MacphersonandBurnsas

EditorsofScottishBallads,’Østermark-Johansen,Leneed.,AnglesontheEnglish-speaking

World,Volume3.RomanticGenerations:Text,AuthorityandPosterityinBritish

Romanticism,(Copenhagen,2003).

|P a g e

239

- Swaim,Barton,ScottishMenofLettersandtheNewPublicSphere,1802-1834,(Cranbury,

NewJersey,2009).

- Tait,R.Gordon,ThePietyofJohnWitherspoon,Pew,Pulpit,andPublicForum,(Louisville,

Kentucky,2001).

- Thornton,RobertDonald,JamesCurrie.TheEntireStrangerandRobertBurns,(London,

1963).

- Trautmann,ThomasR.,LanguagesandNations.TheDravidianProofinColonialMadras,

(Berkeley,California,2006).

- Trevor-Roper,Hugh,‘TheInventionofTradition:TheHighlandTraditionofScotland,’

Hobsbawm,EricandRanger,Terrenceeds.,TheInventionofTradition,(Cambridge,1983).

- TheInventionofScotland.MythandHistory,(London,2009).

- Trudgill,Peter,Accent,DialectandtheSchool,(London,1975).

- Trumpener,Katie,BardicNationalism.TheRomanticNovelandtheBritishEmpire,

(Princeton,NewJersey,1997).

- Tulloch,GrahamTheLanguageofWalterScott,(London,1980).

- ‘TheScotsLanguageinAustralia,’Jones,Charlesed.,TheEdinburghHistoryoftheScots

Language,(Edinburgh,1997).

- ‘TheEnglishandScotsLanguagesinScottishReligiousLife,’MacLean,ColinandVeitch,

Kennetheds.,Religion,ScottishLifeandSociety,acompendiumofScottishethnology,

Vol.12,(Edinburgh,2006).

- ‘StylesofScotsinAustralianLiteraryTexts’,Kirk,JohnM.andMacleod,Iseabaileds.,

Scots:StudiesinLanguageandLiterature,(Amsterdam,2013).

- Varisco,DanielMartin,ReadingOrientalism:Saidandtheunsaid,(London,2007).

- Varma,PavanK.,BecomingIndian.TheUnfinishedRevolutionofCultureandIdentity,(New

Delhi,2010).

- Vermilye,ElizabethB.,TheLifeofAlexanderDuff,(1890,NewYork).

- Viswanathan,Gauri,MasksofConquest,LiteraryStudyandBritishRuleinIndia,(London,

1990).

- Warfel,HarryR.,‘DavidBruce,FederalistPoetofWesternPennsylvania,’Western

PennsylvaniaHistoricalMagazine,(July-October,1925).

- Walsh,W.Pakenham,ModernHeroesoftheMissionField,(London,1882).

- Warraq,Ibn,DefendingtheWest:acritiqueofEdwardSaid’sOrientalism,(Amherst,New

York,2007).

|P a g e

240

- Waterston,Elizabeth,RaptinPlaid:CanadianLiteratureandScottishTradition,(Toronto,

2001).

- Willinsky,John,LearningtoDividetheWorld.EducationatEmpire’sEnd,(Minneapolis,

Minnesota,1998).

- Wills,Elspeth,AbbotsfordtoZion.TheStoryofScottishPlaceNamesAroundtheWorld,

(Edinburgh,2016).

- Wilson,JonE.,TheDominationofStrangers.ModernGovernanceinEasternIndia,1780-

1835,(Basingstoke,2008).

- Withers,Charles,‘TheHistoricalCreationoftheScottishHighlands,’Donnachie,Ianand

Whatley,Christophereds.,TheManufactureofScottishHistory,(Edinburgh,1992).

- Wittig,Kurt,TheScottishTraditioninLiterature,(Edinburgh,1958).

- Womack,Peter,ImprovementandRomance:ConstructingtheMythoftheHighlands,

(London,1989).

- Wurtzburg,C.E.,RafflesoftheEasternIsles,(1954:Singapore,1986).

- Young,Douglas,‘PlasticScots’andtheScottishLiteraryTradition,(Glasgow,1948).

- Zastoupil,Lynn,RammohunRoyandtheMakingofVictorianBritain,(Basingstoke,2010).

- Zumkhawala-Cook,Richard,Scotland.AsWeKnowIt.RepresentationsofNationalIdentityin

Literature,FilmandPopularCulture,(Jefferson,NorthCarolina,2008).

OnlineResources

- Anon.,‘AbbotsfordtoZion.TheStoryofScottishPlace-namesAroundtheWorldbyElspeth

Wills,’http://www.birlinn.co.uk/Abbotsford-to-Zion.html.Accessed06/10/2016.

- Anon.,‘Glasgow2014:City‘buzzing’aheadofCommonwealthGames,’BBCNews,22July

2014,http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28419108.Accessed16/08/2016.

- Chambers,Charlotte,‘Edinburghseesthelargestevergatheringofclanchiefs,’Independent,

26July2009,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/edinburgh-sees-the-

largest-ever-gathering-of-clan-chiefs-1761486.html,http://www.tartanday.org/history.

Accessed08/03/2014.

- Jack,Ian,‘TheCommonwealthOpeningGamesCeremony:justtherightsideofkitsch,’

Guardian,25July2014,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/25/commonwealth-games-

opening-ceremony-right-side-of-kitsch.Accessed16/08/2016.

|P a g e

241

- JohnMalcolm,‘SirWalterScottandSirJohnMalcom,’

https://sirjohnmalcolm.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/sir-walter-scott-and-sir-john-malcolm/.

Accessed04/09/2016.

- McDowall,Julie,‘TVReview,’HeraldScotland,23July2014,

http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts_ents/13171459.TV_review__the_Games_opening_cer

emony/.Accessed16/08/2016.

- McLean,Iain,‘ScottishEnlightenmentinfluenceonThomasJefferson’sBook-Buying:

IntroducingJefferson’sLibraries,’OxfordUniversity,Nuffield’sWorkingPapersSeries,

(2011):

https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/2011/Iain%20McLean_working%20paper%20

2011_01.pdf.Accessed05/09/2016.

- O’Sullivan,Kevin,‘BBCgoingOTTincoveringCommonwealthGames,’Mirror,26July2014,

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-reviews/bbc-going-ott-covering-commonwealth-3918194.

Accessed16/08/2016.

- White,Jim,‘CommonwealthGames2014,’DailyTelegraph,23July2014,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/commonwealthgames/10987385/Common

wealth-Games-2014-Glasgow-is-first-winner-with-opening-ceremony.html.Accessed

17/08/2016.

Broadly speaking : Scots language and British imperialism

Documents

Transcript of Broadly speaking : Scots language and British imperialism