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
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.
“[…]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.
Top Related