BURNS'S FIRST VOLUME

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 32, 7 February 1931, Page 21

BURNS'S FIRST VOLUME

PRAISED IN LONDON

THE RHYMER'S PARADISE

(By "Ajax.")

In the bibliography of his "Primer of Burns," Sir William Craigie notes that a volume of "Poems, Chiefly in the Scottish Dialect," was reviewed in the "Monthly Review" of December, 1756; which was surely very creditable to a London magazine, seeing that the book was by an entirely unknown writer, contained many unintelligible passages, and had only been published in Kilmarnock in the previous July. It was also to the credit of the "Monthly Review" that its contributor had obviously read the book which he had to criticise —a practice which Johnson had a few years previously declared to be habitual with this review;—and that he wrote, with, good sense, good taste, and genuine appreciation.

Btrt there is a small bibliographical puzzle in the description of the book at the head of the article, which is as follows:—

Poems, Chiefly in the Scottish Dialect. By Robert Burns. Bvo. Kilmarnock. No imprint. 1786.

As Sir William Craigie, Dr. M'Naught, and such other authorities as I have seen all credit the title page with adding the words "Printed by John Wilson" after "Kilmarnock," how is it that they were, missing from the reviewer's copy? Could advance copies have been sent to the Press before the imprint had been added? Everything relating to Burns has been so microscopically examined that this point has doubtless '■ not escaped notice.

It is surprising to find that a Scotch peasant poet was not treated by this English organ of 18th century' literary orthodoxy with 'the contempt which afterwards assured Wordsworth that "this will never d 0.," and told Keats to go back to gallipots. On the contrary, in spite of the difficulty of the language, Burns's first volume was received by the "Monthly Beviewer" with sympathy and understanding, and the criticism when adverse was neither scornful nor unjust, as the following sample will show: — The humble bard, whose work now demands our attention, cannot claim a place • among .those polished versifiers. His simple strains, artless and unadorned, seem to flow without effort from the active feelings of the heart. They are always nervous, sometimes inelegant, often refined, simple, and sublime. The objects that have obtained the attention of the author are humble; for he himself, born in a low station, and following a laborious employment, has had no opportunity of observing scenes in the higher walks of life; yet his verses are sometimes struck off with; a delicacy and artless simplicity that charms like the bewitching, though irregular, touches of a Shakespeare. * * * The tenderness and the humour of Burns are also noted by this discerning critic, Regarding the former he writes:— Sometimes the poems are in the elegiac strain, among which the reader will find much of nature in the "Lines to a Mouse" on turning up her nest with the plough in November, 1785, and those "To a Mountain Daisy," on turning one down with the plough in April, 1786. In these vfc meet with a strain of that delicate tenderness which renders the Idylls of Madame Deshouliers so peculiarly interesting. # i * * ■ ■' . Referring to some of the more serious poems of Burns the "Monthly Beviewer" notes that they contain fewer words that are not pure English than the others, and on that account he selects one for quotation. The poem selected .exhibits, he says, a beautiful picture of that simplicity of manners which still, we are assured on the best authority, prevails in those parts of the country where the author dwells. But even though "a friend who thoroughly understands the language" has supplied a glossary and notes for the interpretation of the poem, the conscientious reviewer is not fully satisfied. He accordingly provides an additional aid as he naively explains. We have used the freedom, he says, to modernise the orthography a little, whenever thg measure would permit, to render it less disgusting to our readers south of the Tweed. # * * .It was an admirable idea to render Burns "less disgusting" by translating him "wherever the measure would permit". into plain English. The protection of the literary standards of tho young from contamination Was another advantage of this process which might have been mentioned. As A. D. Godley said in dealing with a professor who had hoped that schoolboys would not be taught Homer for fear it might corrupt their Greek,; Parents and guardians may surely expect Books where! the student orthography learns, Language grammatical, spelling correct, Not the vagaries of Chaucer or Burns. But to what extent the "Monthly. Be-, view" of 1786 was able to protect old or young lam unablo to say. Mr. Stevenson's "Early Reviews of Groat Writers (1786 to 1832)", on Which I rely for the text, stops short., at the critical-point, and leaves a '"-hiatus .valde deflendus" with the footnote,:— Here follows an Anglified (sic) version pi the "Cottar's Saturday Night." .':■#■ * « To the faithful au Anglicised version of Burns-would appear as barbarous as the doggerel version of "The Psalms of David •in Metre " which finds so much favour in Scotland appears to outsiders. And the Philistine is as; much concerned as tho faithful to know how the difficulty of tho rhymes ■would be overcome. Rhyming, which appears to be almost a sinecure in Scotland, is, except, for those unehartered libertines who cut their proso into strips of unequal length and call it verse, a very laborious job for the English practitioner. Mr. St. John Hankin, who has wrestled not ingloriously with the English system, has written with envy of the happy lot of the poet in the freer air of Scotland. As envy is notoriously not a safe guide, it is possible that Mr. Hankin may have exaggerated a little, but with this warning and strictly "without prejudice," as the lawyers say, I submit his very interesting remarks on the subject to the consideration of tho judicious reader. * •» * The English lyrist, writes Mr. Hankin in his "Lost Masterpieces," has to bother himself with rhymes and ideas and all manner of tedious paraphernalia. But in happy Scotland, all labour of this kind is reduced to a minimum. No rliyiries whatever are required. A single line with jndicioTis repetitions or variations^will do the work of three, and the meresf ghost

of an idea suffices to provide a whole poem. But the absence of rhymes, in Scotland at least, is a negligible matter. For in a country where all vowels apparently sound alike, and. whore consonants seem to have no sound at all, the shackles of rhyme can scarcely be said to exist. Indeed, a land where "'from" and "snow" and "away" all rhyme together must be admitted to be the very paradise oi! poets. * « * This peculiarity of tho poetry of Scotland is said by Mr. Hankin to be illustrated "in its most poignant degree" by "an exquisite lyric" which he declares to be "attributed by the ■best judges to Burns." The poem, which is at any rate'steeped in what was described a fortnight ago as_ one of the essentials.of Burns-worship, is as follows: — WHEN WINTER.AIRS.. When winter airs are cauld an' raw, Wi' mickle rain an' muckle snaw, At hame, before I gang awa'; I fill my .flaskie. There's naught sae.gude. when winds do blaw , ' As Hielan' whisky. . The sodger %vi' his murtherin' steel, The canny folk that buy an' sell, The pawky clerk wha drives a quill Upon his desky, .: They're a' sac peacefu' when they're full , Q' Hielan' whisky! As doon the road I gang agley, ' An' often canna find my way, A sympathetic hiccough frae My friend McCloskie Will guide me safe, athort the brae, To hame an' whisky. * * * In rescuing this masterpiece—from the pages of "Punch," I believe—Mr.Hankin has earned the public gratitude. But as his proof that "all vowels apparently sound alike" in this "paradise of poets''" has omitted one of them in his rhymes to "whisky," I venture to supply the missing link: — And' whaursae'er ayont the foam The cantie sons of Scotia roam They'll a' be singin' o' this pome Till throats are husky; But they'll be watter when they've nome Their stoup o' whisky. . * ■■• * * '; ■, Another of Mr. Hankin '3 masterpieces, which he says some people have suspected to be a forgery, and of- which he candidly admits that "there is no particular reason why Burns rather than another should have written it," is so simple, so pathetic, and so complete that I submit it without addition or comment: — ' OH WHAUR BE A. Oh whaur be a' the clouts an' geai", Clouts an' gear, clouts an' gear, Oh whaur b Ke a' the clouts an' gear That Jamie used to hae? Ye winna see them ony mair, Ony mair, ony mair, Ye winna see them ony mair, ■ For Jamie lad hath, poppit them!