Journeys Through Bookland Volume X Part 29

"Braes" are hillsides or slopes. "Bonnie" is the Scotch way of spelling "bonny," which, here, means "beautiful."

"Fa's" is the Scotch spelling of "falls."

"Gie'd" is Scotch for "gave."

The last line of the first stanza rendered into English would read, "I'd lay me down and die."

"Snaw" is "snow."

"Ee" is "eye."

The "gowan" is the mountain daisy of Scotland.

"Fa'" is "fall."

Like many another simple lyric of love and devotion this owes much of its popularity to the sweet melody of the music to which it is usually sung.

_The Lost Child_

(Volume VII, page 409)

1. Where did the poet wander? Is the picture on page 409 a beautiful one? Is it your idea of a sunny glade? On what or on whom was the poet musing? Where his thoughts pleasant? To what does he liken his thoughts? What are guideless thoughts? Do you think his "love" is a person, or is it his work, his calling?

2. What chanced to go astray? Did Lowell sometimes fear for the future?

How does he express the fear? Who brought back the wandering thoughts?

Where did the thoughts rest? Who had the "snowy arms"? If Lowell feared the future at any time, what was it that brought calm to him again?

3. What is the "soft nest"? Who is the "happy one"? Whose hair "shone golden in the sun"? How could a thought of fear seem like a "heavenly child"? Was it Hope that thus transformed all his thoughts?

4. Upon what did Hope's eyes smile mildly down? What was blessed with so deep a love? What clasped the neck of Hope? What was it that fell asleep? What was the lost child?

_David Crockett in the Creek War_

(Volume VIII, Page 37)

Almost any child who is able to read for himself will know as soon as he has read a few sentences from David Crockett's Autobiography that the man was uneducated, and wrote in what could not be called "good English." However, when the reader has gone a little farther he will realize that Crockett shows his own character in his writings, and that his language is picturesque and entertaining. Moreover, it is language that was characteristic of the early settlers in the region where the frontiersman lived, and hence is of some historical interest to us.

No apology is needed for including the selection in these volumes, although it has no fine literary merit; for it is the plain, direct story of a strong man with a clear brain, who accomplished whatever he undertook, whether it was building a home, fighting the Indians, or writing a book.

The story will speak for itself, and as it is a truthful account of things that actually happened, it will appeal strongly to the imagination of all young readers. However, it is worth while to call specific attention to some of the faults in style and actual errors in grammar, in order that the reader may not be affected unfortunately by the language, or be led to approve it as a style to be followed in these modern days. This can be done by means of questions, and as an ill.u.s.tration of the method we will consider the first four paragraphs of the selection, beginning on page 37.

"There had been no war among us for so long that but few who were not too old to bear arms knew anything about the business." Does the phrase _among us_ mean that the settlers had not fought among themselves, or that they had not been in conflict with the Indians? What was Crockett's exact meaning? Does he convey it clearly? Does the word _business_ seem dignified enough to be applied to war?

"I couldn't fight at all." Does the abbreviation of the words _could not_ make Crockett's style dignified or familiar? Do you often see similar abbreviations in what is known as "good literature," except as they are found in conversation, where the tendency is always to use abbreviated forms and familiar terms? Does not the use of such abbreviations in this selection make it seem as though Crockett were talking to his readers in a free and easy manner, rather than as though he were writing a formal book?

"When I heard of the mischief." In the first sentence of this paragraph, Crockett speaks of a "most b.l.o.o.d.y butchery" at Fort Mimms. Now he refers to it as _the mischief_. Is the word _mischief_ strong enough?

"In a few days a general meeting of the militia was called." Who were the militia? Why could not the militia be sent out as a body instead of calling for volunteers? Does he mean the organized militia, or simply the able-bodied men in that vicinity?

"Began to beg me not to turn out." Is _turn out_ a slang phrase here, or is it a term commonly used in speaking of the a.s.semblage of the militia?

"It was mighty hard to go against her arguments." Does the word _mighty_ show refinement? What word would be better? Does the phrase _go against_ look well in a book?

"Told her that if every man would wait till his wife got willing to let him go to war, there would be no fighting done until we would all be killed in our houses." Is the word _would_ as it appears the first time used properly? Is _should_ the right word to use? Is _got willing_ correct English? Does the word _until_ express the meaning Crockett intends to convey? If "there would be no fighting done _until_ they were all killed in their houses," could there be any fighting done _afterward_? What words should be used in place of _until_? Is the word _would_ used properly the second time it appears in the sentence?

[Ill.u.s.tration: PHOEBE CARY ALICE CARY ELIZABETH BARRETT BROWNING LUCY LARCOM FELICIA HEMANS GEORGE ELIOT JEAN INGELOW]

"Seeing I was bent on it." Can you find authority for using the phrase _bent on it_ to mean _determined to do it_?

"The truth is my dander was up and nothing but war should bring it right again." What does the dictionary say about the use of the word _dander_?

Do you suppose it was a common word among Crockett's friends? Is the word _should_ properly used in this sentence? Is the proper word _would_? Is it a common mistake even now to use _would_ for _should_ and _should_ for _would_? How may we know which word to use?

"When the men were paraded, a lawyer by the name of Jones addressed us, informing us he wished to raise a company, and that then the men should meet and elect their officers." Who were the men that were paraded? Was Crockett among them? Whom did Jones address? When Crockett uses the word _men_ and the word _us_, twice in the same sentence is his meaning perfectly clear?

"I believe I was about the second or third man that stepped out, but on marching up and down the regiment a few times we found we had a large company." Who were marching up and down? Does this mean that they marched up and down in front of the regiment? What was this regiment before which they marched up and down? Does _regiment_ here mean the same as _militia_ in the paragraph before?

"We received orders to start on the next Monday week." What is the meaning of _next Monday week_? If they a.s.sembled on Wednesday, how many days would elapse before they were to start, and on what day would they start?

"Mounted my horse and set sail to join my company." How can a man _set sail_ when he is mounted on a _horse_? Is such a mixing of figures evidence of good writing?

"All mounted volunteers and all determined to fight, judging from myself, for I felt wolfish all over. I verily believe that the whole army was of the real grit." Is _felt wolfish all over_ a fine phrase? Is it an expressive phrase? What was to be judged from himself--that all were determined to fight, or that the whole army was of the real grit?

Does the fact that Crockett felt wolfish all over show that he was determined to fight, or that he had real grit? What is the literal meaning of _grit_? What does it mean as Crockett uses it here? Is it proper to use the word as Crockett uses it?

Probably it is not worth while to push this critical study any farther.

It will be seen by this time that Crockett wrote as he talked, and accordingly, his story lacks the polish and literary beauties that men trained to write could have given it.

_The Impeachment of Warren Hastings_

(Volume IX, page 32)

Words are interesting things, and people who have never tried the experiment will be surprised to learn how much pleasure there is to be found in the use of the dictionary. We consult the dictionary only when we wish to know the meaning of a word, or its p.r.o.nunciation, but there are numberless other facts in the volume that are more interesting, if not more valuable, than the definitions and marks of p.r.o.nunciation. In the history and derivation of words may be found many interesting and surprising facts which, if they are known, give increased force and meaning to the words.

There is a great difference among writers in the kinds of words they use. Some naturally use simple words of Anglo-Saxon origin, while others use longer and more sonorous words which come from the Latin and the Greek. It is interesting to take paragraphs from different writers, say, for instance, from Hawthorne, Lamb, Longfellow, Tennyson, Macaulay and Irving, make a list of the leading words in the paragraphs, and then look up their derivations and see how many Anglo-Saxon, how many Latin and how many Greek words are found in each paragraph.

It will be seen that it is a characteristic of Macaulay to use numerous many-syllabled words, most of which come directly from the Latin. His essay on the _Impeachment of Warren Hastings_ shows this trait.

Probably that furnishes as good an ill.u.s.tration as anything in the books of the kind of literature from which studies in words may best be made.

Taking two paragraphs at random, let us look them over and see what interesting facts may be gleaned from the dictionary concerning the words we find:

"The Opposition was loud and vehement against him. But the Opposition, though formidable from the wealth and influence of some of its members, and from the admirable talents and eloquence of others, was outnumbered in Parliament, and odious throughout the country. Nor, as far as we can judge, was the Opposition generally desirous to engage in so serious an undertaking as the impeachment of an Indian Governor. Such an impeachment must last for years. It must impose on the chiefs of the party an immense load of labor. Yet it could scarcely, in any manner, affect the event of the great political game. The followers of the coalition were therefore more inclined to revile Hastings than to prosecute him. But there were two men whose indignation was not to be so appeased, Philip Francis and Edmund Burke.

"Francis had recently entered the House of Commons, and had already established a character there for industry and ability. He labored indeed under one most unfortunate defect, want of fluency. But he occasionally expressed himself with a dignity and energy worthy of the greatest orators. Before he had been many days in Parliament, he incurred the bitter dislike of Pitt, who constantly treated him with as much asperity as the laws of debate would allow. Neither lapse of years nor change of scene had mitigated the enmities which Francis had brought back from the East. After his usual fashion, he mistook his malevolence for virtue, nursed it, as preachers tell us we ought to nurse our good dispositions, and paraded it, on all occasions, with Pharisaical ostentation."

In the two brief paragraphs given, there are, among others, the following words of more than pa.s.sing interest: