Alexander Hume.

EDITED FROM THE ORIGINAL MS. IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, BY

HENRY B. WHEATLEY.

LONDON: PUBLISHED FOR THE EARLY ENGLISH TEXT SOCIETY, BY TRÜBNER & CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW. MDCCCLXV.

HERTFORD: Printed by Stephen Austin.

PREFACE.

The following Tract is now printed for the first time from the original Manuscript in the old Royal Collection in the Library of the British Museum (Bibl. Reg. 17 A. xi). It is written on paper, and consists of forty-five leaves, the size of the pages being 5¾ in. by 3¾ in. The dedication, the titles, and the last two lines, are written with a different coloured ink from that employed in the body of the MS., and appear to be in a different handwriting. It is probable that the tract was copied for the author, but that he himself wrote the dedication to the King.

The Manuscript is undated, and we have no means of ascertaining the exact time when it was written; but from a passage in the dedication to James I. of England, it is fair to infer that it was written shortly after the visit of that monarch to Scotland, subsequent to his accession to the throne of the southern kingdom, that is, in the year 1617. This would make it contemporaneous with Ben Jonson’s researches on the English Grammar; for we find, in 1629, James Howell (Letters, Sec. V. 27) writing to Jonson that he had procured Davies’ Welch Grammar for him, “to add to those many you have.” The grammar that Jonson had prepared for the press was destroyed in the conflagration of his study; so that the posthumous vi work we now possess consists merely of materials, which were printed for the first time in 1640, three years after the author’s death.

The Dedication of this Tract is merely signed Alexander Hume, and contains no other clue to the authorship. Curiously enough there were four Alexander Humes living about the same time, and three of them were educated at St. Mary’s College, St. Andrew’s; only two, however, became authors, the first of whom was Minister of Logie, and wrote Hymnes or Sacred Songes. There can be little doubt, however, that the present grammar was written by the Alexander Hume who was at one time Head Master of the High School, Edinburgh, and author of Grammatica Nova.

From Dr. Steven’s History of the High School, Edinburgh, and from M’Crie’s Life of Melville, I have been enabled to extract and put together the following scanty particulars of our author’s life:—The time and place both of his birth and of his death are alike unknown; but he himself, on the title of one of his works, tells us that he was distantly connected with the ancient and noble family of Home, in the county of Berwick. He was educated at the school of Dunbar, under the celebrated Andrew Simson, and in due time was enrolled a student in St. Mary’s College, St. Andrew’s, and then took the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1574. He came to England, and was incorporated at Oxford January 26, 1580-81, as “M. of A. of St. Andrew’s, in Scotland.”1 He spent sixteen years in England, partly engaged in studying and partly in teaching. During the latter part of this term he was a schoolmaster at Bath, as appears from Dr. Hill’s answer to him, published in 1592; and vii

the fact of his residence in this city is corroborated at page 18 of the present treatise. He then returned to Scotland, having gained a reputation for the excellence of his learning and for the power he possessed of communicating it to others. On the dismissal of Hercules Rollock, Rector of the High School, Edinburgh, from his office, Hume was unanimously chosen to succeed him, and his appointment was dated 23rd April, 1596. During his incumbency the High School underwent many changes, and received the form which it retains to the present day. In March, 1606, Hume resigned his office to become principal master in the grammar school founded a short time previously, at Prestonpans, by the munificent John Davidson, minister of the parish. The following document gives an account of Hume’s admission to this school:—

“At hadintoun ye 25 of Junij 1606. The qlk day Mr Jon ker minister of ye panis producit ye prēntatone of Mr Alexr hoome to be schoolmr of ye schoole of ye panis foundit be Mr Jo Davedsone for instructioune of the youth in hebrew, greek and latine subscryvet be yais to quhome Mr Jon davedsone gave power to noiãt ye man qlk prēntatone ye prēbrie allowit and ordenit ye moderator & clerk to subscrive ye samine in yr names qlk yay ded. As also ordeanit yt ye said kirk of ye panis suld be visited upon ye eight day of Julij next to come for admissione of ye said Mr Alexr to ye said office. The visitors wer appoyntit Mr Ard oswald Mr Robert Wallace Mr George greir Mr andro blackhall & Mr andro Maghye to teach.”——“At Saltprestoun July 8, 1606. The haill parischoners being poisit how yay lyckit of ye said Mr Alexr wt vniforme consent being particularly inqwyrit schew yr guid lycking of him and yr willingnes to accept and receiv him to ye said office Qrupon ye said Mr Alexr wes admittit to ye said office & in token of ye approbaone both of visitors & of ye parischonēs

prnt both ye ane and ye vother tuik ye said Mr Alexr be ye hand & ye haill magistratis gentlemen and remanēt parischoners prnt faithfullie prmisit to cõcurre for ye furtherãce of ye work yt yit restis to be done viii to ye said schoole as also to keipt ye said Mr Alexr and his scholleris skaithlis finallie for farther authorizing of ye said (sic) it wes thought meitt yt ye haill visitors & parichonēs prnt suld enter ye said Mr Alexr into ye said schoole & yr heir him teache qlk also wes doone.” (Rec. of Presb. of Haddington).2

The school rapidly rose to distinction under Hume, but in 1615 he relinquished his position, and accepted the Mastership of the Grammar School of Dunbar, then in high repute, and the very same school in which he had commenced his own education. When occupied at Dunbar, Hume had the honour of being the first who, in a set speech, welcomed James VI. back to his Scottish dominions, after an absence of fourteen years. The King stopped on his way northward from Berwick on the 13th of May, 1617, at Dunglass Castle the residence of the Earl of Home, and Hume, as the orator of the day, delivered a Latin address.

The date of Hume’s death is not known; but he was witness to a deed on the 27th of November, 1627; and later still, in the records of the Privy Council of Scotland, 8th and 16th July, 1630, Mr. D. Laing tells me that there is a memorandum of the King’s letter anent the Grammar of Mr. Alexander Hume, “schoolmaster at Dunbar.” With regard to his private life, we know that he was married to Helen Rutherford, and had two sons and a daughter born to him in Edinburgh between the years 1601 and 1606. He was the father of three more children, also two sons and a daughter, between 1608 and 1610, in the county of East Lothian.

Hume was a master in controversy, and wrote on subjects of polemical divinity; but his mind was principally drawn ix towards language and the rules of its construction. He especially gave much of his time to the study of Latin grammar, and feeling dissatisfied with the elementary books which were then in use, he drew up one himself, which he submitted to the correction of Andrew Melville and other learned friends, and published in 1612 under the title of Grammatica Nova. The object he proposed to himself was to exclude from the schools the grammar of the Priscian of the Netherlands, the celebrated John Van Pauteren, but his work did not give the satisfaction which he had expected. He succeeded, however, in his wishes after many reverses, by the help of Alexander Seton, Earl of Dunfermline, Chancellor of Scotland, and by authority both of Parliament and of the Privy Council his grammar was enjoined to be used in all the schools of the kingdom. But through the interest of the bishops, and the steady opposition of Ray, his successor at

the High School, the injunction was rendered of no effect. He would not, however, be beaten, and we find that in 1623 he was again actively engaged in adopting measures to secure the introduction of his grammar into every school in North Britain where the Latin language was taught.

The following is a list of our author’s works:—

The following three works are inserted by Dr. Steven in his list of Hume’s writings, and have been supposed to be his by M’Crie and others; but Mr. D. Laing believes “there can be no doubt, from internal evidence, that the true author was Alexander Hume, the poet, who became minister of Logie, near Stirling, in 1597, and who died in December, 1609.” In Wood’s Athenæ Oxonienses, by Bliss, i., 624, it is stated that all three of them “were printed in London in 1594, in October,” but this must, I think, be a mistake.

In conclusion, my acknowledgments are due to David Laing, Esq., who has kindly suggested some corrections in the list of Hume’s works, in addition to what is noted above.

London, February, 1865.

May it please your maest excellent Majestie, I, your grace’s humble servant, seeing sik uncertentie in our men’s wryting, as if a man wald indyte one letter to tuentie of our best wryteres, nae tuae of the tuentie, without conference, wald agree; and that they quhae might perhapes agree, met rather be custom then knawlege, set my selfe, about a yeer syne, to seek a remedie for that maladie. Quhen I had done, refyning it, I fand in Barret’s Alvearie,3 quhilk is a dictionarie Anglico-latinum, that Sr. Thomas Smith,4 a man of nae less worth then learning, Secretarie to Queen Elizabeth, had left a learned and 2 judiciouse monument on the same subject. Heer consydering my aun weaknes, and meannes of my person, began to fear quhat might betyed my sillie boat in the same seas quhaer sik a man’s ship was sunck in the gulf of oblivion. For the printeres and wryteres of this age, caring for noe more arte then may win the pennie, wil not paen them selfes to knau whither it be orthographie or skuiographie that doeth the turne: and

schoolmasteres, quhae’s sillie braine will reach no farther then the compas of their cap, content them selfes with αὐτὸς ἔφη my master said it. Quhil I thus hovered betueen hope and despare, the same Barret, in the letter E, myndes me of a star and constellation to calm al the tydes of these seaes, if it wald please the supreme Majestie to command the universitie to censure and ratifie, and the schooles to teach the future age right and wrang, if the present will not rectius sapere. Heere my harte laggared on the hope of your Majesties judgement, quhom God hath indeued with light in a sorte supernatural, if the way might be found to draue your eie, set on high materes of state, to take a glim of a thing of so mean contemplation, and yet necessarie. Quhiles I stack in this claye, it pleased God to bring your Majestie hame to visit your aun Ida. Quher I hard that your Grace, in the disputes of al purposes quherwith, after the exemple of the wyse in former ages, you use to season your moat, ne quid tibi temporis sine fructu fluat, fel sundrie tymes on this subject

reproving your courteoures, quha on a new conceat of finnes sum tymes spilt (as they cal it) the king’s language. Quhilk thing it is reported that your Majestie not onlie refuted with impregnable reasones, but alsoe fel on Barret’s opinion that you wald cause the universities mak an Inglish grammar to repres the insolencies of sik green heades. This, quhen I hard it, soe secunded my hope, that in continent I maed moien hou to convoy this litle treates to your Majesties sight, to further (if perhapes it may please your Grace) that gud motion. In school materes, the least are not the least, because to erre in them is maest absurd. If the fundation be not sure, the maer gorgiouse the edifice the grosser the falt. Neither is it the least parte of a prince’s praise, curasse rem literariam, and be his auctoritie to mend the misses that ignorant custom hath bred. Julius Cæsar was noe less diligent to eternize his name be the pen then be the suord. Neither thought he it unworthie 3 of his paines to wryte a grammar in the heat of the civil weer, quhilk was

to them as the English grammar is to us; and, as it seemes noe less then necessarie, nor our’s is now. Manie kinges since that tyme have advanced letteres be erecting schooles, and doting revennues to their maintenance; but few have had the knaulege them selfes to mend, or be tuiched with, the defectes or faltes crept into the boueles of learning, among quhom James the first, ane of your Majesties worthie progenitoures, houbeit repressed be the iniquitie of the tyme, deserved noe smal praise; and your Majesties self noe less, commanding, at your first entrie to your Roial scepter, to reform the grammar, and to teach Aristotle in his aun tongue, quhilk hes maed the greek almaest as common in Scotland as the latine. In this alsoe, if it please your Majestie to put to your hand, you have al the windes of favour in your sail; account, that al doe follow; judgement, that al doe reverence; wisdom, that al admire; learning, that stupified our scholes hearing a king borne, from tuelfe yeeres ald alwayes occupyed in materes of state, moderat in theological and philosophical disputationes,

to the admiration of all that hard him, and speciallie them quha had spent al their dayes in those studies.

Accept, dred Soveragne, your pover servantes myte. If it can confer anie thing to the montan of your Majesties praise, and it wer but a clod, use it and the auctour as your’s. Thus beseeking your grace to accep my mint, and pardon my miss, commites your grace to the king of grace, to grace your grace with al graces spiritual and temporal.

Your Majesties

humble servant,

Alexander Hume.

OF THE ORTHOGRAPHIE OF THE BRITAN TONGUE; A TREATES, NOE SHORTER THEN NECESSARIE, FOR THE SCHOOLES.

OF THE GROUNDES OF ORTHOGRAPHIE. Cap. 1.

1. To wryte orthographicallie ther are to be considered the symbol, the thing symbolized, and their congruence. Geve me leave, gentle reader, in a new art, to borrow termes incident to the purpose, quhilk, being defyned, wil further understanding.

2. The symbol, then, I cal the written letter, quhilk representes to the eie the sound that the mouth sould utter.

3. The thing symbolized I cal the sound quhilk the mouth utteres quhen the eie sees the symbol.

4. The congruence between them I cal the instrument of the mouth, quhilk, when the eie sees the symbol, utteres the sound.

5. This is the ground of al orthographie, leading the wryter from the sound to the symbol, and the reader from the symbol to the sound. As, for exemple, if I wer to wryte God, the tuich of the midle of the tongue on the roofe of the mouth befoer the voual, and the top of the tongue on the teeth behind the voual, myndes me to wryte it g o d. The voual is judged be the sound, as shal be shaued hereafter. This is the hardest lesson in this treates, and may be called the key of orthographie.

OF THE LATINE VOUALES. Cap. 2.

1. We, as almaest al Europ, borrow our symboles from the Romanes. Quherforr, to rectefie our aun, first it behoves us to knaw their’s. Thei are in number 23: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, x, y, and z.

2. To omit the needless questiones of their order and formes; of them, five be vouales, ane a noat of aspiration, and all the rest consonantes.

3. A voual is the symbol of a sound maed without the tuiches of the mouth.

4. They are distinguished the ane from the other be delating and contracting the mouth, and are a, e, i, o, u.

8 5. Quhat was the right roman sound of them is hard to judge, seeing now we heer nae romanes; and other nationes sound them after their aun idiomes, and the latine as they sound them.

6. But seeing our earand is with our aun britan, we purpose to omit curiosities, et quæ nihil nostra intersunt. Our aun, hou-be it dialectes of ane tong, differing in the sound of them, differ alsoe in pronuncing the latine. Quherfoer, to make a conformitie baeth in latine and English, we man begin with the latine.

7. A, the first of them, the south soundes as beath thei and we sound it in bare, nudus; and we, as beath thei and we sound it in bar, obex.

8. But without partialitie (for in this earand I have set my compas to the loadstar of reason), we pronunce it better. If I am heer deceaved, reason sall deceave me.

9. For we geve it alwaies ane sound beath befoer and behind the consonant: thei heer ane and ther an other. As in amabant, in the first tuae syllabes they sound it as it soundes in bare, and in the last as it sounds in bar. Quherupon I ground this argument. That is the better sound, not onelie of this, but alsoe of al other letteres, quhilk is alwayes ane. But we sound it alwayes ane, and therfoer better. Ad that their sound of it is not far unlyke the sheepes bae, quhilk the greek symbolizes be η not α, βη not βα. See Eustat. in Homer.

10. Of this letter the latines themselfes had tuae other sounds differing the ane from the other, and beath from this, quhilk they symbolized be adding an other voual, æ and au. And these they called diphthonges.

11. The diphthong they defyne to be the sound of tuae vouales coalescing into ane sound, quhilk definition in au is plaen, in æ obscurer as now we pronunce it, for now we sound it generallie lyke the voual e, without sound of the a, quhilk, notwithstanding is the principal voual in this diphthong sound. Questionles at the first it semes to have had sum differing sound from a, sik as we pronunce in stean, or the south in stain. But this corruption is caryed with a stronger tyde then reason can resist, and we wil not stryve with the stream.

14. E followes, quhilk in reason sould have but ane sound, for 9 without doubt the first intent was to geve everie sound the awn symbol, and everie symbol the awn sound. But as now we sound it in quies and quiesco, the judiciouse ear may discern tuae soundes. But because heer we differ not, I wil acquiess. My purpose is not to deal with impossibilities, nor to mend al crookes, but to conform (if reason wil conform us) the south and north beath in latine and in English.

15. Af this voual ryseth tuae diphthonges, ei and eu, quhilk beath standes wel with the definition, sect. 11.

16. Of the next, i, we differ farder, and the knot harder to louse, for nether syde wantes sum reason. Thei in mihi, tibi, and sik otheres, pronunce it as it soundes in bide, manere; we as it soundes in bid, jubere.

17. Among the ancientes I fynd sum groundes for their sound. Cic. epist. fam. lib. 9, epis. 22, avoues that bini, in latin, and βίνει in Greek, had ane sound. And Varro, with sundrie ancientes, wrytes domineis and serveis, for dominis and servis, quhilk is more lyke the sound of bide then bid. If this argument reached as wel to i short as i lang, and if we wer sure how ει was pronunced in those dayes, this auctoritie wald over-weegh our reason; but seing i, in mihi, etc., in the first is short, and in the last common, and the sound of ei uncertan, I stand at my reason, sect. 9, quhilk is as powerful heer for i as ther for a. They pronunce not i in is and quis, id and quid, in and quin, as they pronunce it in mihi, tibi, sibi, ibi, etc., and therfoer not right.

18. As for o, in latin, we differ not; u, the south pronunces quhen the syllab beginnes or endes at it, as eu, teu for tu, and eunum meunus for unum munus, quhilk, because it is a diphthong sound, and because they them selfes, quhen a consonant followes it, pronunce it other wayes, I hoep I sal not need argumentes to prove it wrang, and not be a pure voual.

OF THE BRITAN VOUALES. Cap. 3.

1. Of a, in our tongue we have four soundes, al so differing ane from an other, that they distinguish the verie signification of wordes, as, a tal man, a gud tal, a horse tal.