In coming to discuss the dialect, we find everywhere traces of considerable confusion; but it is not at all easy to assign a satisfactory reason for this.[P10] Certain errors of transcription soon shew that the scribe had before his eyes an older copy, which he mis-read. Thus, in l. 433, we find “set,” where the older copy must have had “fet,” and which he must have mis-read as “ſet;” and again, in lines 2865, 2883, he has, by a similar confusion between “f” and “ſ,” written “firſt” instead of “fift.” It is most probable that the older copy was written in the Lowland Scottish dialect (the whole tone of the poem going to prove this), as shewn by the use of _ch_ for _gh_, as in _bricht_ for _bright_, (unless this be wholly due to the scribe); by the occurrence of plurals in _-is_, of verbal preterites and passive participles in _-it_, and of words peculiarly Scottish, such as _syne_ (afterwards), _anerly_ (only), _laif_ (remainder), _oft-syss_ (oft-times), etc. Moreover, the Northern _r_ is clearly indicated by the occurrence of such dissyllables as _gar-t_, 2777, _lar-g_, 2845, _fir-st_, 2958, 3075; with which compare the significant spellings _harrmful_, 1945, and _furrde_, 2583. But, on the other hand, it would appear as if either the author or the copyist had no great regard for pure dialect, and continually introduces Southern and Midland forms, mixing them together in an indiscriminate and very unusual manner. We find, for example, in line 1765, “Be{ith} larg and iff{is} frely of thi thing,” the Scottish form _iffis_ (give) and the Southern _beith_ in close conjunction; and we find no less than six or seven forms of the plural of the past tense of the verb “to be;” as, for example, _war_ (3136), _veir_ (818), _ware_ (825), _waren_ (3301), _veryng_ (2971), _waryng_ (443), etc. If we could suppose that the scribe was not himself a Scotchman, we might in some measure account for such a result; but the supposition is altogether untenable, as the peculiar character of the handwriting (resembling that found, not in English, but in _French_ MSS.) decides it to be certainly Scottish; as is also evident from the occurrence, in the same hand-writing, of a Scotticised version of Chaucer’s “Flee from the press.” [Footnote P10: For many valuable remarks upon the dialect of the poem I am indebted to Mr R. Morris.] The best that can be done is to collect a few instances of peculiarities. 1. The broad Northumbrian forms _a_, _ane_, _baith_, _fra_, _ga_, _haill_, _hame_, _knaw_, _law_, _sa_, _wat_, although occasionally retained, are also at times changed into _o_, _one_, _boith_, _fro_, _go_, _holl_, _hom_, _know_, _low_, _so_, and _wot_. Thus, at the end of l. 3246, we find _haill_, which could not have been altered without destroying the rime; but in l. 3078, we find it changed, in the middle of the line, into _holl_. In l. 3406, we find _sa_, but only three lines further on we find _so_ twice.