BIBLIOGRAPHICAL. A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST OF THE WORKS THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED, OR ARE KNOWN TO EXIST IN MS., ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE VARIOUS DIALECTS OF ENGLISH. COMPILED BY MEMBERS OF THE ENGLISH DIALECT SOCIETY, AND EDITED BY THE REV. WALTER W. SKEAT, M.A. PART I. LONDON: PUBLISHED FOR THE ENGLISH DIALECT SOCIETY, BY TRÜBNER & CO., 57 & 59, LUDGATE HILL. MDCCCLXXIII. INTRODUCTION. THE following Bibliographical List was one of the very first works undertaken for the use of the English Dialect Society, as it was evident from the beginning that the first step to be taken was to ascertain how much had been already accomplished towards the work which we hope one day to complete. It was at first intended to issue a rough list which might serve as a guide to workers, but so many additions were made from time to time by various contributors that it seemed possible to make such a list as, without pretension to be considered as exhaustive, should at any rate contain the names of all the more important publications. Even then it appeared as if it would still be possible to issue the first 48 pages of the list by the beginning of 1874; and, with this view, the few words of preface printed at pp. 1 and 2 were written. But various causes seriously delayed the work (as explained in the Report for 1874), and have afforded me an opportunity of prefixing a few further words by way of Introduction. The lamented death of Dr Bannister, author of the Glossary of Cornish Names, deprived us of such assistance as he would no doubt cheerfully have rendered in arranging the names of the numerous books relating to the English dialect spoken in Cornwall; and this was one of the first causes of delay. Deprived of his assistance, I attempted writing out the list myself, but did not feel very well satisfied with the result when it appeared in type. At this time the idea fortunately occurred to me of applying to Messrs Boase and Courtney, the authors of the Bibliotheca Cornubiensis, who, with great kindness, entirely re-wrote the list; and added, from their stores of knowledge, several interesting biographical notes concerning the authors of the various tales, pamphlets, &c.; and it is accordingly fitting that I should take this opportunity of expressing to them my acknowledgments. The history of the Cumberland Book-list is very similar. In this I had hoped for the assistance of Mr Alexander Craig Gibson, who had promised his support to an English Dialect Society (should one be formed) as far back as in the year 1870, although his name has not actually appeared in our List of Members. After his decease I was at a loss to whom to apply for help, but here again was fortunate in receiving an offer from Mr W. Jackson, of Fleatham House, St Bees, to write a new book-list, to be substituted for the one which was already in type, but was not so full as he knew how to make it. This offer was gladly accepted, and we are much obliged to him for his work, which occupies no less than fourteen pages, and tells us all that we can wish to know in the way of bibliography, as far as his county is concerned. It is hardly necessary to say much at present as to the use that may be made of the book-list. By carefully examining it from time to time, we may observe several tracts worthy of being reprinted; and we may, again, be able to compile a shorter list of sufficiently good authorities, whose works may be taken to be, to a certain extent, the best books of reference on the subject. It is, perhaps, necessary to add here just one word of caution, viz., that each author's work should be taken only for what it is intrinsically worth, and no more. We may say, for example, that Forby's Vocabulary of East Anglia is a standard work as relates to the East Anglian dialect. His collection of words is a good one, and the references which he gives to other glossaries are useful and interesting, as helping to shew the local distribution of the words collected. But his notes upon words used by our best authors, e. g. by Shakespeare, are of no greater value than those made by others; whilst he is continually branching off into etymological disquisitions, in which he very frequently loses his depth and exhibits himself at his worst. The stupidity of some of his remarks on etymology is almost appalling. When, for example, he cites the Norfolk word heifker, a heifer, hẹ actually ventures to suggest that it is a corruption of half-cow! After this he cites a passage from a document dated 1579, in which the word heckford or heckforth occurs, in the same sense of heifer. From this we might have suspected that he would have drawn the inference that heifker was corrupted from heckford, since the earlier form must, in the nature of things, have preceded the later one. But no! this would have interfered with the foregone conclusion about the half-cow, wherefore he boldly decides that heckford may have been a mispronunciation of heifker! There is not much real mystery about it. Just as the A.S. heah-deor, a roebuck, is literally a high deer, the A.S. heahfor seems to be for heah fear, lit. a high ox. The latter h in heah might either pass into k or be lost, so that the resulting forms would naturally be either heckfor or heifer; whilst the form heckfor would be corrupted, in course of time, into heckford or heifker easily enough, in accordance with known laws of our language. In this case, then, we are able, not merely to reject Forby's explanation, but to adduce the right one; but we cannot always do so. And this leads us on to a consideration of great importance; for many writers seem to assume that one is bound to acquiesce in the etymology which they suggest unless one is able to adduce a better one. Against this principle we shall do well to protest; for, on account of the extreme difficulty of English etymology, numberless cases constantly occur which we cannot always solve fully or even partially, whilst at the same time we are perfectly justified in rejecting all the various theories proposed as being wholly untenable, unless something like evidence can really be adduced in their favour. The one golden rule in English etymology, in the present juncture, is to suspend our judgment in all cases but those which are reasonably well supported. Whilst we thankfully accept such help as the facts furnished by our various provincial glossaries or pamphlets afford, we are free to reject all the speculations in which the writers of them have but too frequently and too freely indulged. One other consideration deserves mention in connection with the subject of dialects. Very numerous are the specimens of dialect which various authors, with very various ideas on the subject of spelling, have supplied; and the value of these specimens is of all degrees, from the ill-composed productions of ill-educated twaddlers, to the racy sketches of clever and skilful writers who know how to put the right word in the right place. Now the student of philology has to encounter one peculiar difficulty, viz., that the best writers have written, in general, not from a philological, but from an artistic point of view: and their object has been to illustrate, not word-lore, but character. In consequence of this, the student may not always find what he wants, and may occasionally be misled, especially as to the true locality of a word or as to grammatical details; he may, however, generally expect to find words used in the right sense. In connection with this aspect of the case, I would call attention to See Morris, Historical Outlines of English Accidence, p. 87. |