Part 4

How shrewd the remark, “Give me the songs of a nation, and I care not who gives them laws.” It has been stated that the poems of the great reformer, sung to the native melodies of Germany, had a greater effect in promoting the Reformation than all his writings. I have heard melodies, but any that come up to our native melodies, both Highland and Lowland, I have not heard. If the songs of our country, many of them, have such a bad effect, and the melodies so sweet and fascinating, why not regenerate the song? By so doing the instrument would be wrested from the hands of the enemy; the sword taken from the great Goliath to cut off his own head, and to destroy the Philistines. In this respect we are in advance of our neighbours; our songs to a considerable extent are regenerated already. Dugald Buchanan’s Poems I place first, being superior to any that has appeared yet, so far as poetry is concerned. Duncan M’Dougall, a native of Mull, but ultimately residing in Tiree, has a considerable number, I suppose, with the exception of Peter Grant, the largest collection we have. His poems are good, most of them sung to the airs most common in Tiree and Mull. Daniel Grant, a native of Strathspey, but residing in Athol, comes next to M’Dougall in point of number, and although he is not his superior either as a Gaelic scholar or as a poet, he is his superior for conveying real spiritual instruction to the mind. He has picked up some of the airs in Athol and Strathspey, and even some from the low country. Donald Henry, I believe, a native of Arran, has also left some very sweet poems, of which many are very fond. J. Morrison, Harris, was an extraordinary genius. His language is superior to Dugald Buchanan, and is not his inferior as a poet. He had more of the language of the Highland bards that puffs up. Dugald had nothing of that, but was powerful in his simplicity. The former resembles David clad in Saul’s armour, the latter David with the sling and the stones. In singing Morrison’s we cannot but think of the bard, but in singing Dugald’s he is not thought of at all, and almost every word tells. Dr M’Donald has left a considerable number of poems; some of them are elegies. He was certainly the most powerful preacher in the Highlands in his time, and anything said in his praise is superfluous, as it is all over the Highlands. Yet it strikes me that he did not shine so much as a poet as he did as a preacher. His poetry is certainly good, but there is nothing extraordinary about it, as there is about his preaching. “The Christian on the Banks of Jordan” is excellent, and very expressive; but there are some pieces of his containing his own views of disputed points of doctrine, with an evident intention to give a hit at those who differed from him, which are not suitable for being sung in the praises of God. Songs of praise should be for the whole church. No doubt he considered those opposed to him as holding error, but they consider that he holds error too, and how is the matter to be settled? Is it not possible to hold the doctrine of election, and at the same time to hold that, in a certain sense, Christ died for all men? Is it not possible to lay the blame at the sinner’s door, where it shall be left at the last day, without denying the necessity of Divine influence in his conversion?

I come now to my great favourite, M’Gregor. Buchanan was his superior as one of nature’s poets, and perhaps his superior in point of style. He did not show so much of the scholar. The scholar seen in lyric poetry, instead of adding to it, rather detracts from it. But, notwithstanding, M’Gregor was his superior by far as a theologian for bringing varied and important truths before the mind. I have seen many a book, but a book of its size which contains more important truth I have never seen. Every truth that is important for the Christian to know is systematically laid down; every poem is like a well-composed discourse, the subject experimentally handled in all its bearings; and all that in language excellent, in versification perfect, and suited to be sung to some of the most beautiful melodies of our country. I have never quarrelled with a single idea, a single word, a single line. There is not a book in existence, apart from the Bible, from which I have derived more benefit to my soul. Every one knows what a hold a truth sung takes of the mind. I am sorry for the tame manner in which these poems are recommended in their introduction, as if Dr M’Gregor was nothing but a mere imitator of the poets. How ridiculous! Did not these poets imitate those who went before them, taking the measure of their verses from them. I am also sorry to see some of his pieces sadly disfigured and maimed in the last edition, especially his poem on the judgment. He must indeed have had a very high opinion of himself, the man that would come after Dr M’Gregor and endeavour to improve his versification.

I come now to _Grant’s Poems_, which is the largest collection we have. His melodies are delicious; and no wonder, they are from the land of melody. The finest melodies in Scotland are called strathspeys. I believe that _Grant’s Poems_ and the _Pilgrim’s Progress_ have done as much good in the Highlands as any publications that have been circulated among them, apart from the Bible. They are extraordinary for their simplicity. There is not only milk for babes in abundance, but also strong meat for men. His “Glory of the Lamb” is splendid, and his “Love Song” is beautiful. Were these poems to pass through the hands of Archd. Sinclair, printer, 62 Argyle Street, Glasgow, they would be greatly improved. He is a good Gaelic scholar, and one of the best printers of that language in Scotland.

Let us now turn our attention to our neighbours. Is it to be credited that, in the year of our Lord, 1868, Christian Scotland, the land of creeds, bibles, ministers, churches, and Sabbath schools, has still nothing to play on their instruments of music but the old unregenerate songs of their country? They are so very orthodox, not only in their creeds, but also in their language and melodies, that they would look upon hymns composed in broad Scotch and sung to their native melodies as a kind of heresy not to be tolerated. Scotsmen have generally as much shrewdness, sagacity, and common sense as any people on the face of the earth. To call such blockheads would be considered the greatest falsehood that ever came from the lips of man. But consider what they have done. They have renounced their own language, which is a natural language, and the language of their nature, and their native melodies, which are the melodies of their nature. They have turned their backs on them. They have rejected their own; and what have they chosen in their place? An artificial language and artificial melodies quite foreign to their nature. Had Robert Burns as many hard consonants on his tongue as an Englishman has, he never would have set his country in a _lowe_ with his sweet melodies as he hath done. It has been remarked that England has no national melodies. Is that to be wondered at? England has no language for melody. The crows have no melody; and before they can have any, they would require either to get another language, or to send up a Scotchwoman amongst them to add her affectionate _ie_ to it, which would give it beautiful melody. _Gira-ie_, which would sound something like our _ghraidh_, the vocative of _gradh_ (love).

Let any person say, “My wee bonnie lammie;” let him continue doing so, placing the accent upon one word after another, and while he continues doing so, a sweet melody proceeds from his lips, which is the melody of nature, as if he held a tinkling bell in his hand. But let him say, “My little pretty lamb,” and the melody ceases, as if he struck the bell flat upon the table, and held nothing but a piece of cork in his hand. It is true that the English may be covered over with a tinsel of artificial melody, but what will be its effect? Will it affect the Scottish mind like its native melodies? These have seized the Scottish heart; have ingratiated themselves with the very feelings and nature of Scotsmen, which makes them their own natural melodies as much as the melody of larks and nightingales is their own.

I heard two females, beautiful singers, singing some revival hymns, one of them a very tame piece of lyric poetry; while singing it, they were in raptures about it. Now, I am certain it was the bursts of artificial melody that put them in raptures. It was the sound of their own voices, and not what they were singing, that affected them. They were puffed up with a puff of empty air, so that, in listening to them, I was led to put the question, What is all that noise about?

Now, I am convinced that were that masterpiece of lyric poetry, “Scots wha hae,” with the child’s simplicity, but the giant’s grasp in seizing the Scotch heart, to be sung to a regiment of Scotch warriors, or even played on the Highland Bagpipe in approaching the front of battle’s lower; the question, “What is all that noise about?” would be answered by their daring feats in the field of strife. And I put it to the good sense, and to the enlightened mind of Scottish Christianity—were there a piece composed in broad Scotch, as much calculated to fire the soul of the Christian warrior, as the other is calculated to fire the soul of the Scottish warrior, and sung to the same tune, what would be its blessed effect? Would it not put all their Anthems, their Old Hundreds, their artificial, their drawling slow march melodies entirely into the shade?

But our neighbours are so sensitive and have such fine and delicate feelings, that the vulgarity of the broad Scotch, and the associations connected with Scottish melodies, make them shrink back as the patient would shrink back from the surgeon’s knife. I was in a place of worship on one occasion, where a few individuals commenced to sing a Revival Hymn to the air of “Annie Laurie;” a grave Deacon rose from his seat and silenced them, stating that he could not bear the associations of that tune. I declare “Annie Laurie” was the most beautiful singer I heard amongst them; and as that was the first time I heard her voice, I would like to hear it again. If I could I would pick it up, and do with it as I have done with other pearls which as swine they are trampling under their feet. The late Mr Campbell, Oban, who had a fine ear for music, had a servant girl from Uist who was a beautiful singer; she was constantly singing a love song she had learned. The sweet melody of the piece caught the ear of the saint, and soon became his own; the words began to pour in also, and what could he do? The air he could not hate, but how to keep it without keeping the words along with it was the difficulty. He however fell on a plan; he went into his study, took his pen and wrote down some verses suited to the air. In his circumstances did he not do the best thing he could do? Let our neighbours follow his example. Sounds take a long time in coming. It is a long time since the sound was heard from Rowland Hill’s lips—“What a pity that the devil should have the prettiest tunes.” These words have at last found a response in the bosom of a Highlander, which he returns as from the rocky mountains of his country, saying—“The devil shall not have the prettiest tunes.” That again to find a response in rocky Wales, louder and louder still—“The devil shall not have the prettiest tunes,” and like the sound of thunder rolling and rolling over the United Kingdom, finding a response in all Churches and Chapels as it rolls along.

Have we not our associations in the Highlands as well as they? Two of the finest pieces we sing, Grant’s “Glory of the Lamb,” and M’Gregor’s “Righteousness of Christ,” we sing to the air of that song which Duncan Ban M’Intyre composed to his spouse (a piece of lyric poetry that the English can never imitate), and in singing them we never think that there was such a woman as Mhairi bhan òg in existence. The Scottish people prove that they find a sweetness in their native melodies, which they do not find in others. At their soirees do they not as it were cross over their fences in search of them? How ridiculous at the soirees of Christian Churches to hear “Scots wha hae,” “Ochone, Widow Machree,” and such like pieces sung. What vulgar beings they are to be sure!

I had a strong prejudice for the most part of my life against the broad Scotch. I looked upon it as I would from an eminence look down upon a number of tinkers and _donkeys_ below me. I saw a _Magazine_ several years ago, which contained two pieces of poetry on opposite columns. The one was composed with all the power of the mistress of arts in pure English, and the other in the artless simplicity of the broad Scotch. The title of the former, if I recollect well, was “The Houseless Children;” that of the latter “There’s nae room for twa.” I read the former, and it did not awaken a single emotion in my soul; I began to suspect I was not scholar enough to comprehend it: the title was the most moving of the whole. I read the other piece, and it almost set me a dancing, and perhaps, had I only been twenty-five years of age, I would have risen up and danced the Highland Fling. The piece gives an account of a Jamie, and of a Katie, and a Janet who were in love with him. When crossing over a very narrow bridge, Jamie said, “Janet must walk behind, there’s nae room for twa.” Jamie’s words, “There’s nae room for twa,” went to Janet’s heart. The result was that Katie was his bride, and while the sun shone upon her, poor Janet was left under the dark clouds. She, however, began to bethink herself, and said—

I’ll gi’e to God my lingrin’ time, And Jamie drive awa; For in this weary heart o’ mine There’s nae room for twa. There’s nae room for twa, ye ken, There’s nae room for twa; The heart that’s giv’n to God and Heav’n, Has nae room for twa.

Can the English language produce such a piece of artless simplicity, so natural, so touching, and so telling! No, never. The only fault that I could find with it, is, that there is some of it broader than the broad Scotch itself. I am not aware that “sheen” is ever used for “seen;” and I am not sure that it is strictly true, that there is nae room for twa in the grave to which we all must go. That’s a piece I would recommend to be sung at soirees; it will sing nicely to the air, “There’s nae luck aboot the house.” I was so delighted with the last verse, that I composed a poem in Gaelic on the same subject, suited to the same air.

Let us now bid _farewell_ to our neighbours, leaving them to bake their own cakes the best way they can, and let us retrace our steps to the land of our birth, and to the language of our nature; and in doing so, let me put a question to those who would wish to do away with our native language; can you supply us with a better language for our homes? I defy you. Is there a language upon earth by which our youth can attain the knowledge of God as the author of the great salvation, so readily and with so little trouble and expense, as through the medium of their own native Gaelic? What then shall we say to those parents and to those who have the management of our Schools in the Highlands, who do not teach our youth to read it and to understand it better? I have no hesitation in declaring that they were guilty of a very great crime—of an act of cruelty towards our youth, and of an act of rebellion against God. If God has given a revelation to men, he has appointed the Gaelic to the Highlanders, as the proper medium for obtaining the knowledge of that revelation; and how dare men in their shallow wisdom act towards Highlanders contrary to God’s appointed method of instructing them. The great stumbling-block with ministers, schoolmasters, and proprietors in the Highlands, is, that they do not consider the Gaelic genteel and fashionable, and do not put themselves to the trouble of studying it. I know no study that would repay better than the study of the Gaelic. It is not such a dry, such a complicated affair at all as the study of the English. In studying the Gaelic a man finds himself as among the living, but in studying the English as among the dead. In studying the former he finds himself as it were at home, in studying the latter as among foreigners. The more I study the Gaelic, the more I admire it, and the more am I astonished at the refined imagination which our forefathers had. I have no fears of the Gaelic because it has God for its author. I have no fears of it, because I believe that the spark is still alive in my countrymen which can be kindled into a flame.

When a boy, and at the end of our house (slated, substantially built, two-storey high) and raising my voice, every word that I spoke was repeated by the house. I had a younger brother, who was a great mimic, and thought he was mocking me; so I turned about and addressed the supposed brother: “If you’ll take my advice you’ll be quiet.” “If you’ll take my advice you’ll be quiet,” instantly replied the mimicking brother. “I tell you again to hold your tongue.” “I tell you again to hold your tongue,” as quickly replied. “If you’ll not be quiet I’ll thrash you,” was as quick as lightning repeated. So having spent all my threats, and becoming more and more furious, the mimicking brother becoming equally so, I had at last to desist, being fairly mastered; he on my top, in spite of me. Now I am certain that were I to cry “Shame, shame,” or the more expressive Gaelic, “_Mo naire, mo naire_” (my shame, my shame), it would with equal distinctness be repeated by the house. So I would have all the Highlanders, from John o’ Groat’s to the Mull of Kintyre, and from Dunkeld to the Butt of Lewes and Cape Wrath, to raise their voices, and, with the strength of their lungs, to cry out “_Mo naire, mo naire_,” to those parents, those native proprietors, and those ministers and schoolmasters who wish to do away with the Gaelic by not teaching them to read it, so as to make all their castles, palaces, mansions, manses, school-houses, and dwelling-houses to resound “_Mo naire, mo naire_,” with such a terrific rattling noise as to startle the whole of them out of their houses; and seeing them still standing, each to address the troublesome noise, “_Mo naire_”—“If you’ll take my advice you’ll be quiet.” “If you’ll take my advice you’ll be quiet,” quickly repeated. “I tell you again to hold your tongue.” “I tell you again to hold your tongue,” instantly repeated. “If you’ll not be quiet I’ll thrash you.” “If you’ll not be quiet I’ll thrash you,” still repeated; and becoming more and more furious, the mimicking something becoming equally so, one and all of them be forced to give way, being fairly mastered, with the hearty Highlanders on their top.

CATECHISM.

A Catechism on the first principles of Divine teaching both by nature and revelation:—

Who are the two great teachers of mankind?—Nature and Revelation.

Who is the author of both?—The great God.

Is the teaching of both unerring or inspired?—Yes; because God is their author.

Is the teaching of both in anything opposed the one to the other?—In nothing, and cannot be so, because they have the same God as their author.

How ought the teaching of both to be received?—With an humble, teachable disposition of mind.

Does God teach the animal species?—Yes; he teaches them by putting what is called natural instincts in them.

Seeing that the human species have not only an animal body but also a rational soul, how does God teach them?—He teaches them by nature and revelation.

How does God teach them by nature? He teaches them by nature, by putting natural instincts in them, though not to the same extent as in animals.

How does God teach them by revelation?—By putting spiritual instincts in them. The unconverted have no spiritual instincts, are entirely influenced by a depraved nature, under the power of sin and Satan. But when God teaches them, he destroys the power of sin, puts spiritual instincts in them; they get an unction from the Holy One. The spiritual instincts of the converted differ as much from those of the unconverted as the natural instincts of the sheep differ from those of the wolf.

The same God who by instinct taught the ewe and the moor-hen to love their young and to care for them; the same God by instinct has taught the mother to love her child and to care for it. And as the same God by instinct has taught the former a language to express their kindness which by instinct their young can comprehend; so in like manner he has taught a language to mothers to express their kindness, which the instinct and ultimately the reason of their offspring can comprehend. The native languages of the Highlands and Lowlands are as much the languages of nature, of what nature taught them, as the bleating of sheep or the lowing of cattle. God has given the best languages to beasts and birds that could be given to them. The Gaelic (and I say the same of the broad Scotch) is the best that could be given to Highlanders in all the relations of life, and for keeping them a united, a happy, and a contented people. Yes, and the best medium for conveying the knowledge of God our Saviour to their minds. This, then, is the language which a gracious God in great kindness gave unto them.

But there is another great being—man—who frequently sets himself up in opposition to the great God, as if he were wiser and disposed to be kinder than what he is. He also must give a language of his own making, which he has made up in a great measure from dead languages. He looks upon his own language as greatly superior to theirs—more learned, more refined, more respectable, and more genteel. Sets his extraordinary machinery agoing, gets schools and schoolmasters established all over the kingdom to teach, not one word of the languages which God taught the people, but his own; gives prizes to his scholars, and rewards the best of them by giving them honorary titles—Bachelor of Arts, and Master of Arts, &c.—puffing them up to the very skies. Thus the artificial English comes in direct opposition to the native languages of the country, calling them vulgar. God their author might as well be called so.