tongue was, until very near the end of this period, used in versified compositions only. Scottish prose does not appear, in any literary shape, till the first decade of the sixteenth century: and its earliest specimens were nothing more than translations. Nor did Scottish learning take, in that age, more than its very first steps. The necessity of a systematic cultivation of philosophy and classical literature had, indeed, begun to be acknowledged. The university of Saint Andrews was founded in the year 1411, and that of Glasgow in 1450. But hardly any immediate effect was produced except this; that the style of most of the poets, especially Douglas, was deformed by a fondness for words formed from the Latin, which were introduced in as great numbers as French terms had been by Chaucer and his followers. The art of printing was not practised in Scotland till the very close of our period, when it was introduced in Edinburgh. The oldest of the extant books, which is a miscellaneous volume, chiefly filled with ballads and metrical romances, bears the date of 1508. PART SECOND. THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. CHAPTER I. THE ANGLO-SAXON PERIOD. A. D. 449-A. D. 1066. INTRODUCTION OF THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE 1. The Families of European Tongues-The Celtic, Gothic, and ClassicalThe Anglo-Saxon a Germanic Tongue of the Gothic Stock.-2. Founders of the Anglo-Saxon Race in England-Jutes, Saxons, Angles-The Old Frisic Dialect.-3. History of the Anglo-Saxon Tongue-Prevalence of the Dialect of the West Saxons-Two Leading Dialects-The SaxonThe Anglian or Northumbrian.-4. What Dialect of Anglo-Saxon passed into the Standard English Tongue?-5. Close Resemblance of the AngloSaxon Tongue to the English-Illustrated by Examples.-6. 7. Alfred's Tale of Orpheus and Eurydice-Literal Translation and Notes.-8. Cædmon's Destruction of Pharaoh-Translated with Notes. [IT is hoped that this slight sketch has been so framed as to be available, not only for private study, but also for use in teaching; although, by reason of the nature of the matter, lessons cannot be given from it with the same smoothness and ease as from the Literary Chapters. It may be used in any of several ways. On the one hand, an attempt has been made, through the Translations and Notes appended to the Extracts, to include within the four corners of the book every explanation that could absolutely be required, although the student were not to have the aid of an instructor. The Text, on the other hand, if read without the Extracts and their apparatus, furnishes a plain summary, from which all the leading facts and doctrines may be learned, in cases where it seems unadvisable to undertake a closer scrutiny. Indeed a great deal of knowledge might be gained from the Fourth Chapter alone, the study of which cannot be difficult for any one. Or, again, these Chapters may furnish three successive courses of study, progressively increasing in difficulty. The first would embrace the Fourth Chapter, in which the results of the historical survey are summed up. The second would carry the student through the Text of the First, Second, and Third Chapters, the Extracts being passed over. In the third course, the Extracts would be studied carefully, with such re-perusal of the Text as might be found convenient. All that is here given, however, barely deserves to be called so much as an Introduction to the Study of the English Tongue. Nothing more is aimed at than pointing out a method of investigation, and showing that the method is not only easy, but productive of interesting and valuable conclusions. Exact and systematic acquaintance with the history and structure of our noble language must be gained in riper studies, guided by manuals more learned and copious. The inquiry has been prosecuted with great acuteness and ingenuity in Dr Latham's "English Language" and Grammars; and, to say nothing of other meritorious works, the chief results of recent philological speculations are perspicuously summed up and ably commented on in Professor Craik's "Outlines of the History of the English Language." From these books it will appear, how incalculably important the AngloSaxon Tongue is, both to our vocabulary and to our grammar. We may see the same thing at a glance, by opening the English, Scottish, and AngloSaxon Dictionaries of Richardson, Jamieson, and Bosworth. It is a fact not to be concealed, that every one who would learn to understand English as thoroughly as an accomplished scholar ought to understand it, must be content to begin by mastering Rask's excellent "Anglo-Saxon Grammar," (in Thorpe's translation,) or at least the useful epitome given in Bosworth's "Essentials." For practice in reading this, our mother-tongue, full and well-explained specimens are now accessible, especially in Mr Thorpe's "Analecta," and other works of the same distinguished philologer; as well as in the publications of Mr Kemble, and other eminent Anglo-Saxon scholars. Mr. Guest's "History of English Rhythms" should be consulted particularly. To the books now named, with some others, these chapters are indebted for all their principal facts and opinions; and they communicate, it is believed, as much of the fruits of our improved philology as the limits and purpose of the volume would allow. In the few instances where the teachers are dissented from, or their reasonings pressed a step or two beyond their own inferences, the deviation is not made without the hesitating deference justly due to critics, who have, for the first time, laid down a firm foundation for English Grammar to stand on.] It is, as 1. THE pedigree of the English language is very clear. we have seen, directly descended from the Anglo-Saxon, but derives much from the Norman-French, and much also from the Latin. We must now learn more exactly the position which these three hold among the European tongues. The Languages spoken in modern Europe are usually distributed into four or five groups. All the tongues that have ever been used by nations inhabiting our islands, are comprehended in three of these. The first of the three, the Celtic, was introduced before either of the others, in both of its branches, the Cymric and the Gaelic, and continues to be the speech of considerable sections of our people but it has not exercised on the language of the mass of the nation any appreciable influence. The tongues with which we are at present concerned are embraced in two other European groups; the Gothic, and the Classical or Græco-Roman. The Gothic Languages of the continent are distributable into two stocks or main branches, the Germanic or Teutonic, and the Scandinavian. Those of the former branch presenting two distinct types, all the Gothic Languages may be said to fall into three great families; and these are distinguished from each other by well-marked characteristics. The First family comprehends those tongues which were used by the tribes occupying the hilly regions of Southern Germany, and which thence have been called HighGerman. It is one of these that has been developed into the standard German: but our mother-tongue was not among them. The Second family was the Scandinavian, the farthest north of the three. Its principal member still exists with little change in the Icelandic, out of which have grown up the modern Swedish and Danish. The Norwegians and Danes, by whom our blood and speech have been to a small degree affected, were Scandinavians. Thirdly, the name of Low-German has been given to the Gothic languages which were spoken in the plains of Northern Germany, and of which, in modern times, the leading example is the Dutch. The Anglo-Saxon, in all its varieties, was essentially a Low-German tongue. As being such, it is more nearly allied to the HighGerman than it is to the Scandinavian. The Classical group of European Tongues embraced, in ancient times, the Greek and the Latin. From the latter of these have flowed three modern languages: the Italian; the Spanish, with its variety the Portuguese; and the French, which, as we learned in our literary survey, was long broken up provincially into two dialects. The French elements of our speech come from the dialect of Northern France, which has since passed into the standard French language. 2. According to the old traditions reported by our historians, the settlers who founded the Anglo-Saxon race in England belonged to three Gothic tribes, whose continental seats had lain along the North Sea and on the southern shores of the Baltic. The Jutes or South Jutlanders were the first invaders, but by far the least numerous. They are said to have hardly occupied more than the county of Kent, and were speedily lost among the more powerful colonies that followed. Accordingly, their history is in every view unimportant. They Next came, in succession, several large bodies of Saxons. gradually filled the southern districts of England, between Cornwall or Devonshire on the south, Kent on the east, and the course of the rivers Thames and Severn to the north and north-west; passing northward also, in their latest migrations, considerably beyond the valley of the Thames. Both the lineage of our Saxons, and their place on the continent, have always been matters of dispute: indeed the name was given, in the Dark Ages, to several tribes, who spread themselves widely through Germany, and would seem to have been, in part at least, united by confederacy only, not closely by blood. The utmost assertion we can safely make is this; that our Saxon immigrants must have come from some part of the seacoast between the mouth of the Eyder and that of the Rhine. The third tribe of invaders were the Angles or Engle, who are described as having been very numerous, and who, in the end, gave their name to the whole country. The territory which they seized extended northward from the north border of the Saxons to the Frith of Forth; and it embraced within that range all the provinces, both English and Scottish, to the east of those which were still for a time held by the Cymric Celts. They are usually said to have emigrated from the small district of Anglen, which lies in the west of the modern duchy of Schleswig. Some recent antiquaries have endeavoured to throw discredit on all the particulars of this ancient story. It does bear one difficulty on the face of it. So narrow a tract as Anglen cannot well have furnished the large body of emigrants which it is said to have poured into England; hardly even if it was left unpeopled, as Bede asserts it to have been for generations afterwards. But, although the doubts thus raised were to be confirmed, our real knowledge of our ancestors would remain as it was, neither diminished nor increased. The truth is, that very little light is thrown on the origin or character of the Anglo-Saxon tongue, by the venerable history which is perpetuated in its name. When we search for points of comparison among the old Gothic tongues of the continent, we find none such that is attributed to any nation called Angles. As to those, again, that were spoken by the continental Saxons in their extensive wanderings, none has been preserved that comes very close to our insular mother tongue; excepting only that which our |