"AULD LANG SYNE."

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11484, 17 January 1903, Page 9

"AULD LANG SYNE."

jj; ■■: TO THE EDITOR OF THE TRFS3. ;, * j; Sir, —The intelligence of your anonymous ['.' coiTcspondcnt ''Kotomani" is upparent/.y not I.' to grasping that the words ho coins, . jhikins of are a quotation from the '"Book of \.' Scottish Songs," by Join L. McKay. It is true that in order to save your space I only ; cpu>t«l a portion of the comments on "Auld ■ . Lang SyiK," which were published in tho ' book to which lam reft ning- Furthermore, Jou incorrectly printed the line, "And we'll tok' a right quid willit-wiurght," instead of ■ "And Tirv'il tuk* ;v right guid-willia waught." ; I wiHi, thtrefore, a.<k you to publish the extract in fu.l as it appears iii die second ; edition of the "Bock of Scottish. Songs," by John L. McKay, published in 1854, which . leads as follows: — "Thij warld-renowii«d song is always indsded among the songs of Robert Burcs. He did not hiniseif dahn the authorship of it. In a letter to Thomson, lie says: 'One •ong mare, and I have done. ''Auld Lang Syne." The air i-s bat mediiooNJ; but the following sang, the old scog of the oldien times, and wWch has newr be«n in print, Bor even in manuscript, until I took it down . from an old man's singing, is enough to recommt'nd any air." 'Light lie the turf,' he

**vs in another letter, 'on the heuven-in-epwed poet who composed this giorious : " fragment!' It appears that the air to wlkich the song is now universally (rung was feot tlie one which Bunw thought so little ■ of, but another, of which the author is quit* Unknown, but which appears to have be- <» longed to the Roman Catholic Church, and to England quite &3 much as to Scotland. Several other"Catihtdrai chants, of which the authorship is claimed for English music, Sl*y be mention**!; more especially the air known as 'John, ixune 'We're all noddin',' both of which are unttusbakeably English. It is curious to retwst that the rcwet popular song «ver writtea in thesse islands, that wf *Aald Lang Byne,' =4) anonymious: and that we know no taore of tlie author of the music than we do *t the author of the> words. It is equally cilrious to reflect that s»o mucli of Burns's IKOlt fame rests upon this song, in which ais share amounts onlr tv a few emuidatkffli." ''KoKanani' , writ«s, "Th« poet pnetendied •otb to Mrs Dunlop and Geo. Thomson that the »oag is tlie work of some h«tven-inspired Biißstrei of the olden times." yet *c ia horrified at anyone suggesting •oat Burns not the author of song in question. I presume "Koto- ; XDani'' is aware that Gvo- Thonison, of Edin- [ !>ttrgfa, published aix volumes of Scottish •ongs, the first of which appeared in 1799, I end, furtliennore, that these volumes contained .something lihs 120 of Burns'* songs. As Buraa is the admitted author of 120 songs •o publMicd, way should he deny the author-

ship of the «na song "Auld Lang Syne," if it was actually written by him? If "Kotoroaini" will refer to the first number of Johnson's "Mnsical Museum," published in 1787, and Bums's lrfe. by Citrrie, published in 1800, ho may alter" his views somewhat. McKay states that, '•Burns wrote some songs for Jounson'.s 'Musical Museum, , and brought from obscurity, by the easy light of his genius, ;•. still greater number that in their old shape wnv either too uncouth or too indecent for introduction into refined and moral company." It would appear from this that Burns, so u> sp«uk, <.dittd songs written by other*. Is it not possible that he edited "Auld Ling Syne?"— Yours, etc., GEO. G. STEAD. TO THE EDITOR OF TIIK PRESS. Sir, —Your correspondent '"Kotomani" admits that Burns told lliom-son. t:ie editor of the "Collection," that he "took down" '"Auld Lang .->yne" "from an old man singing. But "Kotomani" ma'irUir.s that- in joying this Bums did not tell "the truth, and that Mr S'eud has cwnml'tted the "egregious error" of believing him. And lir quotes th«> iwuullel case of another Scotch author, ',-.lr Walter Scott, who denied his authoishlp of '"Waverley." Ido not wish ti> condemn the practice of molest man-d.-.'.ity (in the patt of these two Scotch authors for a. moment, but yet I am rather inrliiN-.'J to think that on- this occasion Burns luvh.'e-l into the truth, and tbat Mr S'.ead is j,r:ti-tirally right. For Mr George Graham 1 , in h;s "Songs of Scotland," says that

■'Burns admitted to Johnson (not Thomson, that, is another story) the author of the 'Museum,' that three of the stanzas of 'Lang Syne' only ivere old, the otlu>r two having beoyi "written by himself. The three stanzas relate to the 'cup,' the "pintKtoup,' and a '.gude-willie waught.'" Jf Hums Teally wrote the whole poem, it i<? not easy to see why he disclaimed threefifths of it, and laid claim to the other two-fifths. In -writing to Mrs Dunlop on thirs subject, Burns says: "Ligbt l>e the turf on the breast of the heaven-inspired pott who composed this glorious fragment! There is more of the fire of native genius in it than in half a dozen of modern Bacchanalians." Of course, it may be argued that ithis "was only Burns's way of saying in v "'playful humour" that he wrote the poem himself in a "heaven-inspired" moment, and that 'he thought it was a very good one. His literary conscience obliged him to praidfc his own work, but, with characteristic modesty he declined to claim it publicly for himself. Your correspondent recommends Mr Stead "to give more study to the subject before committing himself to such egregious errors." Does this mean that the more you study Scotch authors the less likely you are to make the "egregious error" of 'believing their rtabements? Nobody in the world—least of all an Englishman—would wish to make out that the author of the song was anybody but a Scotchman, but Burns persisted in ihis denial of his own authorship of threefifths of the song. If Sir Walter had persisted in His denial of the authorship of three-fifths of the "Waverley" novels, and admitted that lie wrote two-fifths, would it be fair to accuse Mr Stead of "egregious error" in believing him? Would it not be rather a compliment to the Englishman's courtesy at the expense of the Scotch author's honesty?—l am, etc., F. W, HASLAM. P.S.—Mr Graham, iiko says that the air to which "Auld Lang Syne" is now sung is not the original air which Burns described as "mediocre," but another, which was known as "I feed a Lad 1 at Michaelmas." TO THK EDITO* OF THB PRESS. Sir, —Being a lover of music, it .is only natural that the music of my own country, more especially its origin, should be of interest to me. Consequently the references to " Auld Lang Syne," which have appeared in your paper, first in a " Topic," and then in a letter by Mr Stead, have caused me to take up my pen to writ* ol the king of songs, a song that is sung in all lands, a song that will appeal to all nations, a song that will be sung while the world wags. Whence came this song which has often been termed the Scotch National Anthem, but which, might be more appropriately termed the universal Social Anthem? Had it or multiple authorship? This is which has caused a good deal of controversy, as also lias the meaning of a certain line indicated in your "Topic." Thanks, however, to the painstaking investigations of students of Scottish eong and story, there is now little about the song that is not known. Generally speaking it would be considered -heresy for one to doubt that Robert Burns was the author, just as it was •heresy to say at one time that he wae not the author of the " Land o' the Leal." But, as your readers will liave seen by Mr Stead's letter, Burns (himself did , not even claim the authorship. But before seeing what share Burns had in it we will go back before the days of the ploughman poet for tlie embryo' of the song. Thie is found in an anonymous poem which is preserved in the Baiinatyne MSS of 1568. The title tlisre is "Auld Kyndness Forgo*-" In the time of Charles I. a song called "OM Long Syne" was known to exist. It was first published in James Watson's collection, 1711. The author was thought to be either Robert Ayton, of Kinaldie, in Fifeshire, or Francis Sempill, of Belltreee, author of "Maggie Lauder," etc. It is a very long song. The first stanza runs: — " Should old acquaintance be forgot, And never thought upon. The flames of love extinguished, And fre*ly t past and gone! Is thy kind heart now grown so cold In that loving heart of thine, That thou canst never once reflect On old long syne?" And so on, there being ten stanzas, chiefly the vapourings of a lover to his mistivss. A.lan Ramsay took up the hint and wrote an " Auld ■ Lang Syne," which was first printed in the " Tea-table Metcellany" in 1724. This song of Ranisny's had only four stanzas, and had he never written nnything better he would npver have- ranked among Scottish bards. Tlie first verse of Ramsay's ran as fol.ows: — "Should Mild acquaintance be forgot, Tho' they return with scars. These are the nobJer hero's lot, Obtained in glorious wars. Welcome, my Vara, to my breast, Thy amis about me twine, And mike me once again as blest As Aujl Long Syne." The next effort in the evolution of the song is by the Rev. John Skinner, author of the famous "Tullochgoruin." The pick of Skinner's lines is perhaps the following: — "Should auf.d acquaintance be forgot. Or friendship e'er grow eauld. Should we nae tighter draw the knot, Aye as we're growing auld. How comes it, then, my worthy friend, Wha used to be sac kin, We dinna for ilk ither speir, As we did long syne?" And now we come to the first mention o' the immortal gem so universally known. This appeared in a letter Burns wrote to Mrs Dunlop. The letter is dated 17th December, 1788, and in the course of it Burns says, " Is not the phrase ' Auld Lang Syne' exceeding expressive? There is an old song and tune which have often thrilled my soul. You know that lam an enthusiast in old Scotch songs. I shall give you the verses on the other sheet. Light lie the turf on the heart, of the heaven-inspired poet who composed this glorious fragment. There is more of the fire of native geniu3 in it than in half a dozen modern English bacehan&Lians." Again, we have the letter which Mr Stead has already quoted. The words of the song Burns wrote to Mrs Dunlop and to Thomson, and those so well known, are tlie same. So it will be seen that Burns lay 3no claims in the letters to being the author. On the contrary, he indicates in plain language he is not. Many of his admirers consider that Burns was "onlr pretending when he wrote the letter, and" that he wished to see if Thomson would recognise the value of the song. Others again consider that Burns pretended in both letters because he was too modest. Neither letter displays modesty or indicates that Burns was joking, and mere assumption cannot, be taken a* evidence a£ainat two IctUn.

For reasons which need not be dttailed here Burns, howe'rer. is credited by most authorities with writing the second and third verses of the song, but of this we have no black-and-white on .the subject, as we have to the contrary. But there is cne thing we can all agree on. Even if Bums did not gompose the song or begot the idea, he gave it to us, and that through him we have a song which more than any other has its divine touch of nature. As to the music, the melody is an old Lowland air called "I fee"d a lass"at Martinmas." This tunt- was iirst. published with the familiar words in Mr George Thomson's collection of Scottish song's, 1799, but the composer is not known, except that of the choius, which was arranged 'by Mr A. Hume, who wrote music for "Afton Water" and other rungs. Very often the lust two lines of the chorus are left out, and the following substituted:—> "And we'll meet again some ither night For Auld Lanjr Syne. - ' And very ofton the last line ol the chorus is rendered: "For the days of Auld Lang Syne." The word days is not in the song, and instead of "'a cup of kindntiss." it is quite a common thing fjr "a kiss «f kiiidues's" to be sung. Toichinsr the rontroversy over the third !:n? of tho ftiurth stanza, I think that any tff the w.iy.s it has Ixtn rtndei'cd wuuld ■ df». But. of course, there is the right und wrong way. aiul tlw right way is that given tv us by liurnsJ, and it is as ful'.ows: — "And we'll take a licht quid willie waught.' Perhaps it would be btiter Scotch if "quid" witifl rendered "gudi," "willie" Npe.t '"wullie," and "waught" sp=lt with a "c," instead of a "g." But the meaning would bo the same, namely, take a draught with right good will. Sometimes the Ane is : "And we'll tak' a riolit quid wail is waught." As will be seen, the term "wallie' 1 is_.substituted for "willie." Tlie argument in favour of this i.<j that ''wallie" moans large, big, or jolly, and is often used, while ths term "williie" lias no meaning in the seng. Thia may appear to be the case at first sight, but take away the terminal "ie," and wa have "right good will." And any Scotchman should be able to understand the superfluity of the "ie." It is not only an unnecessary addition, often used by poets, but it is a common addition to words used by Scotchmen generally, especially in Aberdeen Awa. Thus we h«ar a man and woman spoken of as a mannie and womanie, a dog and cat as doggie and ca,ttie, a flower called flowerie. In fact, I have often wondered if there was a word in any language that "ie" wouM not be added to in some parts of Scotland. What wonder, therefore, that a poet who is allowed to take liberties and coin words should follow a hatfct, and: write "quid willie," in<toad of "quid will?" The wonder is that a Scotchman should fail to grasp the meaning.—Yours, etc., J. M. McLEAN.