The two studies-—of Scotch Language and Literature, and of Scottish History and Antiquities-might very fitly, I consider, be united under one lectureship. Scottish poetry in particular, in each of its eras, forms an exact reflection of the national history of its period, and cannot properly be studied without a knowledge of that history. Scottish History, on the other hand, again and again finds its most pregnant records and illustratrations in the national poetry. And the development of the language was, of course, linked at every step with the historic relations and development of the country.

The point as to whether a lectureship, if founded, should be entrusted to one man for life, or should be a yearly or biennial appointment, is, I should say, a matter of practical utility, to be decided according to the experience of the particular University Court under which the foundation was placed.

To the Editor of the Dunaee Advertiser.

13th February, 1901.

SIR, --I have observed, with much interest, the discussion in your columns of the question of the institution of a Chair, or Lectureship, of Scottish Language and Literature in the Scottish Universities. The editors of the various collections of the Scottish Clubs-the Maitland, Bannatyne, Wodrow, &c.—and the more recent Text Society, have done much towards the preservation of valuable historical and literary remains; but the Universities cannot be said to have done anything worth mentioning in the way of a scientific study of a subject which, as the national custodiers of history and guardians of literature, should be their special care. We have, annually, exuberant demonstrations of perfervid nationality in Saint Andrew's dinners and "nichts wi' Burns"; but we see little corresponding enthusiasm for saving from oblivion the language which Burns made the vehicle of some of the finest lyrics in the world, and for assigning their proper place in the history of literature to the men who used it—such as Barbour, James I., Henryson, Dunbar, Lyndsay, Knox, and others who might be named. Professor Skeat, in a letter to your paper, states that "there is no Scottish language in the strict geographical sense"; but whether we call it "Scottish," or, as Professor Skeat seems to prefer, "Northumbrian English," the mere geographical limits of the region in which the language has been spoken and written do not affect the fact that such a language has existed from the dawn of literature in Britain, and had a literature of its own - rich, varied, expressive- and has been associated specially with Scottish writers and the events of Scottish history. There can be no doubt that this language affords an ample field for the study and research of Professors, or lecturers, chosen to trace its developments, to expound its characteristics, and illustrate its literature. The share of their attention given to it by certain of the Professors of English Language and Literature (notably, I believe, in Edinburgh and Aberdeen), while showing their just sense of its importance, is not-cannot be commensurate with

the amount of time and study necessary for the treatment it should receive as a special branch of education in every Scottish University. It would be a mistake to entrust to one man the two departments of "Language and Literature" and of 66 History and Antiquities." Each of these is enough to occupy the whole attention and teaching time of a single professor or lecturer. To found a new Professorship involves difficulties--financial and academic--which are obstructive; but a Lectureship, tenable for, say, five years, with a salary of £300, need not be unattainable in Glasgow or Edinburgh at least, if all the diners out on the 30th November and the 25th January would combine their resources for this patriotic end. The subject might be worked into an "option" for graduation; but even if it could not, a University exists for other ends than graduation, and is bound to meet the wants and foster the taste of those who love learning and letters for their own sake, apart from all calculations of their material value.— Yours, &c., R. HERBERT STORY.

SIR,-Principal Story's excellent letter suggests to me that I might now make the more definite proposals to which I referred before. Dr. Story's estimate of £300 a year, as the sum to be provided, will, I think, be pretty generally approved; and this means, roughly (for it will not do to expect more from fees than the covering of class expenses, &c.), a capital sum of £10,000. If we are to quadruple this for the four Universities, we are not very likely to get it-not to mention certain other difficulties which will occur to the ingenious. To establish the Lectureship in one University only would be invidious, and, I would suppose, unpopular.

But £10,000 for one Lectureship would not be very difficult to raise ; and I think that the requirements of the case would, at anyrate for a time, be perfectly well met by the establishment of an "itinerant" Lecturer, who would visit each University during one year of his four years' term. The Honours Course-and it would be an Honours subject-is practically now less than four years, so that each Honours student would be enabled to take it during his residence, while others would have their choice at short intervals. The appointments would be made either by an InterUniversity Committee or by each University Court in turn over a cycle of sixteen years.

I have not overlooked some objections which may be made, but I will not anticipate them.—I am, &c.,

2 Eton Terrace, Edinburgh,

Feb. 19, 1901.

GEORGE SAINTSBURY.

THE DISPUTED ODE.

IF this enquiry is of comparatively little intrinsic importance, it derives value from incidental questions, such as the composition of "Scots wha hae," touched upon en passant, and also for the light it throws upon editorial methods. -[ED.]

IN

N the course of a paper upon "Burns's Ode for Washington's Birthday" in the Burns Chronicle for 1900, one of the minor issues raised was the identity of the poem referred to by Burns as "my Ode" in one of his letters to Capt. Patrick Miller, yr. of Dalswinton. Only two of these letters concern the present enquiry. The first in order of publication is the Poet's reply to an offer of an engagement to contribute to The Morning Chronicle. On Miller's representation, Mr. Perry, proprietor of that journal, "very spiritedly made the Poet a handsome offer of an annual stipend for the exercise of his talents in his newspaper." Burns replied to Perry's offer in the above-mentioned letter to Miller. The sentence just quoted is from a note by Cromek, who first published the letter (hereafter called the Cromek letter) as follows:

"DUMFRIES, Nov. 1794.

"DEAR SIR,-Your offer is indeed truly generous, and most sincerely do I thank you for it; but in my present situation, I find that I dare not accept it. You well know my political sentiments; and were I an insular individual, unconnected with a wife and a family of children, with the most fervid enthusiasm I would have volunteered my services. I then could and would have despised all consequences that might have ensued.

66

My prospect in the Excise is something; at least, it is, encumbered as I am with the welfare, the very existence, of near half-a-score of helpless individuals, what I dare not sport with.

"In the mean time, they are most welcome to my Ode; only, let them insert it as a thing they have met with by accident and unknown to me. Nay, if Mr. Perry, whose honor, after your character of him I cannot doubt; if he will give me an address and channel by which anything will come safe from those spies with which he may be certain that his correspondence is beset, I will now and then send him any bagatelle that I may write. In the present hurry of Europe, nothing but news and politics will be regarded; but against the days of peace, which Heaven send soon, my little assistance may perhaps fill up an idle column of

a newspaper. I have long had it in my head to try my hand in the way of little prose essays, which I propose sending into the world through the medium of some newspaper; and should these be worth his while, to these Mr. Perry shall be welcome; and all my reward shall be, his treating me with his paper, which, by the bye, to any body who has the least relish for wit, is a high treat indeed.-With the most grateful esteem, I am ever, Dear Sir, &c."

The above contains every word given by Cromek. The whole letter is quoted for a purpose, although the latter part of it is not strictly pertinent to the subject now in hand-viz., the Ode to which Burns alluded as "my Ode" near the beginning of the third paragraph. Reading the letter carefully over, it seems compact, perfectly coherent, and to come to a natural close. Although without explanation or hesitation Cromek ascribes the letter to November, 1794, a question has arisen as to his authority for so doing. He gives no information upon the point, upon the manner in which the letter came into his possession for publication, or in which he procured a copy of it, and he makes neither statement nor guess regarding the ode Burns had in view. He merely prints the letter with the place and date of its writing set down in the most absolute manner. Whatever it may be now, the date was not a matter of speculation and argument to Cromek. In the article in the Burns Chronicle for 1900, accordingly, the position was taken up that “ my Ode" was not, as had generally been supposed, "Scots wha hae," but the "Ode for Washington's Birthday."

The second letter to Captain Miller, in the order of publication (hereafter called the Cunningham letter), was first printed, in 1834, by Cunningham. It is as follows:

"DEAR SIR,-The following Ode is on a subject which I know you by no means regard with indifference.

'O Liberty,

Thou mak'st the gloomy face of Nature gay,

Giv'st beauty to the sun, and pleasure to the day.'

"It does me so much good to meet with a man whose honest bosom glows with the generous enthusiasm, the heroic daring of liberty, that I could not forbear sending you a composition of my own on the subject, which I really think is in my best manner.—I have the honour to be," &c.

He

Cunningham moved in a queerly mysterious manner. enters the letter (vii. 210) as No. ccxxvii., but makes no mention of "Scots wha hae" either in connection with it or in the

appended note. The letter is undated, and no explanation is offered for placing it immediately after one to the Earl of Buchan, dated "Dumfries, 12 January, 1794." Only in the index is a date suggested and the precious Ode indicated. The entry reads :—

"To Captain Miller, 1794, with Bruce's address to his troops.'

6

In his edition of 1840 Cunningham is yet more mysterious, and he hides plain facts in the loosest of English. At the head of a facsimile reproduction of the letter, these words are printed "Fac Simile of the original letter to Captain Miller of Dalswinton, accompanying the Ode of Scots wha hae wi' Wallace bled.'" No date is given. On a separate sheet, these : "Fac Simile of Scots wha hae wi' Wallace bled' taken from the original in the possession of Robert Wallace of Kelly, Esq., M.P." Thereupon follows in the handwriting of Burns:"Ode-Bruce's address to his troops at Bannockburn-Tune Lewis Gordon-." Notwithstanding this, Cunningham speaks in one passage of an "exact fac-simile of the improved ' version of this immortal ode," although he had previously (108) said "The simplicity and vigour of this most heroic of modern lyrics were injured by lengthening the fourth line of each verse to suit the air of Lewie Gordon."

Even the index is

At p. 477, away from the facsimilia, Cunningham says:— "The original ode in question is now where it ought to be, in the hands of Robert Wallace, Esq. of Kelly, M. P. for Greenock," and adds "The original ode is accompanied by the following letter of the Poet," which is again given undated. It is, moreover, printed away from the dated letter to the Earl of Buchan which is given at p. 730. blundered. Cunningham there places the letter between ccxlii. and ccxliii. and yet numbers it "ccxlii.-Dalswinton— To Captain Miller, Enclosing 'Scots wha hae wi' Wallace bled." The above passage, in which Cunningham says that the ode is accompanied by the letter, is the only veiled hint he gives that the letter and the ode form one manuscript.

It is doubtful if a more muddled specimen of editing exists throughout the whole range of Burns literature-and that is saying much. In one passage the letter accompanies the ode; in another it encloses the ode; we turn to the facsimilia and get no light. Letter and ode might, so far as appearances go,