to the contrary. In so far as the Gaelic was written at this early
period, the dialect used was common to Ireland and Scotland. To say
that a work is Irish because written in what is called the Irish
dialect is absurd. There was no such thing as an Irish dialect.
The written language of the whole Gaelic race was long the same
throughout, and it would have been impossible for any man to have
said to which of the sections into which that race was divided any
piece of writing belonged. This has long been evident to men who
have made a study of the question, but recent relics of Scottish
Gaelic which have come to light, and have been published, put the
matter beyond a doubt. Mr Whitley Stokes, than whom there is no
better authority, has said of a passage in the “Book of Deer” that
the language of it is identical with that of the MSS. which form the
basis of the learned grammar of Zeuss: and there can be no doubt
that the “Book of Deer” is of Scottish authorship. It is difficult
to convince Irish scholars of this, but it is no less true on that
account. Indeed, what is called the Irish dialect has been employed
for literary purposes in Scotland down to a recent period, the first
book in the vernacular of the Scottish Highlands having been printed
so lately as the middle of last century. And it is important to
observe that this literary dialect, said to be Irish, is nearly as
far apart from the ordinary Gaelic vernacular of Ireland as it is
from that of Scotland.
But besides this possibility of having writings that are really
Scottish counted as Irish from their being written in the same
dialect, the Gaelic literature of Scotland has suffered from other
causes. Among these were the changes in the ecclesiastical condition
of the country which took place from time to time. First of all there
was the change which took place under the government of Malcolm
III. (Ceann-mor) and his sons, which led to the downfall of the
ancient Scottish Church, and the supplanting of it by the Roman
Hierarchy. Any literature existing in the 12th century would have
been of the older church, and would have little interest for the
institution which took its place. That there was such a literature
is obvious from the “Book of Deer,” and that it existed among all
the institutions of a like kind in Scotland is a fair and reasonable
inference from the existence and character of that book. Why this
is the only fragment of such a literature remaining is a question
of much interest, which may perhaps be solved by the fact that
the clergy of the later church could have felt little interest in
preserving the memorials of a period which they must have been glad
to have seen passed away. Then the Scottish Reformation and the rise
of the Protestant Church, however favourable to literature, would
not have been favourable to the preservation of such literature. The
old receptacles of such writings were broken up, and their contents
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account