TOPICS OF THE DAY.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11480, 13 January 1903, Page 4

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

Dunedin folk, and A Burns-lovers in par-'•Willie-Waught." ticular, liave been enjoying a newspaper correspondence as to the meaning of a phrase in the .song which, of all Burns s productions, is the most, widely known. The Sa.sue.nach may subscribe to every argument in Mr Crosland's diatribe against the so-called "unspeakable Scot," but the odds are a hundred to one that at the end of every convivial gathering he attends he declares his intention, vocally and more or less melodiously, to "tafc a richt quid willie-waught, For auld lang syne." It is the one Scottish song, in some cases probably the only song in any tongu<». that every (Englishman knows. But he would flounder most .terribly if asked for an etymological explanation of a '•williewaught," though all his life he haa fully understood the spirit, not to say the spirits, of the sentiment. But ,it is rather surprising to find Scots of the most patriotic kind, high priests at the altar of Bums, dieputing as to the meaning of this wellknown term. They liave apparently been content to assume, with Englishmen, that a "willie-waught," especially a. "rieht quid ane," is a ,parting glass of more than ordinary size, a '"doch-an-dorras" —we commit ourselves to this spelling with some trepidation—of unusual potency. But if challenged to give an accurate definition of the phrase, they would probably have to admit, with a correspondent of vhe "Otago Daily Times," "what kind of long drink a wiliie-waught may be, 1 don"t pretend to guess." Forthwith brother Scots rushed into ,print with explanations of confusing diversity. A member of the Burns Club assures the first writer that "he may take a 'wiilie-waught , of anything he fancies, but he may conclude that Burns nwant a full dvink of something strong. Perhaps it is the quantity that puzzk-s him. Now, in Scotland a. waught is well known to be a big drink, but. the "willie* lias caused some speculation even among Scc:simc. I aonveiiraes think that Burns wrote it -Waly-waugiht, , and that his editors have been in error ever since. It would be quite intelligible (at least to Scotsmen) ihat way, as Waly means large, jolly." Whereupon another correspondent remarks, is «2wt, that this ie ail robbisiu Time

i». it appears, no such thing a* a. "willtewnught, " bui there is a ".guid-willie wanght," otherwise a drink taken with right good-will. "Burns," says ihis expounder of dirk phrases, "did writ* 'williew&ughv' in his copy of the amended old song, when writing to Mi's Dunlop in 1768 (v. vol. II.; p. 305); but, when writing u> 'Mr Thomson, nearly five years later, hr wrote in his copy 'guid-willie waught.'" In Wood's "Songs of Scotland," he adds, the line is printed "To Uk a richt-gui<l-willie waught." In Jamieson's Scottish Dictionary there is no such woid as "williewaught." Ttio explanation sounds the more probable of the two. Let us hear no more in future of "willie-waug'hta," but of "guid-willie-waughts,"' with the accent on the "iguid,' , a word, by the way. which not one Southern in ten tan pronounce properly. "Civis," of course, has Who Wrote something to say about the burnsV "willie - waught" controversy. It is strange, he thinks, that fv'ots h:tve so much difficulty in understanding- their own language. "Strange, i.isu, that the national poet's authority should be accepted on subjects he knew little about—'waling a portion :\ i'-li judicious tare,' for example—and qiu-stiuned on subjects 'he understood thor<.ugii!y, jiairuly, We and liquor. The iiiuito of Luther, "Wine, women, and song,' luluht equally be the motto of Bums, a fact apparent on every pivge of his writing*. That is, if Burns ever wrote anything at ah.' . The heretical doubt expressed in Uiei List sentence is enougii u> make the hair of even - loyal Scot rise ju horror. It is bad enough fur Englishmen to hear men of their own race rant doubts upon Shakespeare's claim to the authorship of t!it works that have borne hi» name for lii'ei; centuries, but rashness faintly describee the conduct of the man wlio would. impugn, to Scuts, the authenticity of Burns's ■poems. Nevertheless, the "Westminster Gazette" quotes a Scottish newspaper as raying: —"The name reasoning which led us to suspect that iShaiespeare never wrote the plays ascribed to> him Iβ applicable to Bums. Shakespeare had never been to college ; neither had Burns. Shakespeaie .had never manifested his in any other field than poetry ; neither had Burns. Shakespeare was sumvwhat disreputable (as witoiess the deerstealing incident) ;so was Burns. These are quite sufficient to arouse suspicion." The question then arises, if Burns aid not write the poems attributed to him, who did? A solution of the problem is .supplied by the same paper which so impudently casts doubt ou the plough-nuvn-guirger's ability-. Hβ had as one, of his contemporaries, we are reminded, Adam Smith, the author of "Th* Wealth of Nationn." The resemblance between tnat classic and, say, "Holy Willies Prayer," oi some of the more, amorous effusions of th\i poet whose identify in in doubt, is not so strong as to make the casual reader attribute them to the same author. But this unnamed "Scottish, newspaper" thinks otherwise. "Any one who takes the trouble," it remarks, "to read 'The Theory of Moral tSentiments,' the 'Jvesay ou<the Origin of Language)*, , and 'The Wealth of Nations,' will find there the same elegance and acutenesg that distinguish the 'Poeme of Burns.'.Can there be any doubt that the poe-ms were produced by Adam Smith in the period of his retirement in Kirkualdy, and that for political and other reasons he ingeniously concealed the fact?" At whjcli point one begins to Jiove a suspicion that the ".Scottish newspaper" is poking fun at the iShakeiJpeare-Bacon controv«reiali*ti. A writer in the London "Misconceptions "Daily Mail" uuderof Russia." takes to correct a number of erroneous ijnvery generally held witli regaa-d to Bu«sia. He complains that British travellers seldom take the trouble to see more than one side of Russian life. Either they jnix with the upper classes, and come back charmed with the hospitality of the Russian people, or else they see only the lower middle claee, and consequently "they merely know the jniuery, the subjection of the ipeasants and working people, and henceforth they become embittered against the tyranny wWch produces all tine." Contrary to what one gemarully 3jea«, th« "Daily Mail' , writer <ji<l not find the Ruseian women strikingly beautiful. "The women of the aris.tocracy," he aays, "are fajtoinatmg, extremely elegant, and very chic, caieful copyists of the French in matters of dress. The women of the masses have muddy complexions, dull eyes, and atrocious taste." Russian society men are jpronounoed to foe the best, dancers in the world, but "not adapted to the role of the good hujfband." As for the Russians' reputation for extraordinary facility in acquiring foreign languages, he attributes this to the care with which Russian children of the upper classes are taught, rather than to any abnormal aptitude for languages. "English children." Jie observes, "who have tire same education with foreign governesses speak the languages as corlectly and as fluently." The reputation for diplomacy which Russian statesmen enjoy he is inclined to discount largely, because the Russian diplomat, unlike the English, "has no Opposition to demand information in Parliament, no strenuous Press to call for investigations, no general elections to make him tremble in Mβ might." In other words, he never has to show- -his hand before 'his cards are ,play<?d. Russian wouitn, again, are generally supposed to be far behind English women in economic independence, yet the medical colleges for women in St. Petersburg are among the finest in the world, and there are quite as many women doctors there as in London. His owe impression of Ruesum politics the writer sums up thus: "You are sm prised to iind that the people have as many political rights as they have, but if you go deeper down you karn that they have no human rights in reality, because the Czar can, at any moment, deny all their rights. There is trial by jury, but the Czar can always interfere. Over the deliberations of the village ' niir' (council) there hangs always the contradiction of the Czar's prerogative."