“A. H.” defiantly inquires, how “can the prefix [in Portway] be of English origin, if it means ‘carry?’ ” But I never said it did, or indeed mentioned it at all. A far simpler explanation of the word would be the “way” that led from one “port” to another.
The solution of “A. H.’s” irritation is of course to be found in his eagerness to contend that “port” (in “port-reeve”) was “not introduced as a new English word, but preserved by Celto-Romans from Latin usage,” and that, consequently, “our Lord Mayor” can be traced through the Port-reeve to Roman times. This is the longed-for conclusion at which “A. H.” and Dr. Pring, though starting from opposite premisses, would arrive with equal confidence, the “dead certainty” on which “A. H.” so naturally dreads and so impatiently resents that discussion which it cannot stand.
J. H. Round.
A BIBLIOGRAPHIC CURIOSITY.
Sir,—In the N. B. Advertiser and Ladies’ Journal for Jan. 12 is published a long but interesting letter from a Dundee correspondent, signing himself C. R. R., in which the writer makes known his discovery of the long-lost “lewd sang,” which was appended to an early edition of the psalm-book known as the “Guid and Godlie Ballattes.” To those of your readers south of the Tweed who take an interest in Scottish bibliography the following somewhat lengthy quotation from the letter mentioned can scarcely fail to be acceptable. I may remark further that Dr. Laing’s reprint, therein referred to, was issued in 1868:—
About thirty-five years ago the late Mr. Alexander Langlands, clerk in the Dundee Bank, purchased at the sale of the lares et penates of a deceased teacher, for the sum of eightpence, a lot of literary scraps, among which the article about to be described was found, and which proved to be an imperfect copy of the “Guid and Godlie Ballattes.”
When Dr. Laing was engaged in the publication of his reprint, this was lent him, the price offered for its purchase being far below the rather extravagant value attached to it by its owner. It is evident the Doctor never examined it very carefully; he states in a biographical note attached to his reprint that he had once had a fragment of a smaller copy, but the leaves had fallen aside. The fact is, I think, pretty obvious that these leaves and the present copy were one and the same, as great difficulty was experienced by Mr. Langlands before it was returned, and it was only restored by the intervention of a personal friend of the Doctor’s after the lapse of many months; the gentleman’s name I do not feel at liberty to make public, but may say he has done good work in connection with Wedderburn’s memory, and holds a high position in a seat of learning. Mr. Langlands eventually parted with his valuable leaves to their present possessor for a sum which was considered an extremely liberal one. Mr. Langlands soon after passed from the scene, full of years, leaving many attached friends behind.
Herbert, in his edition of “Ames Typographical Antiquities,” part iii. p. 1491, states “that a ‘Psalm Buik’ was printed at Edinburgh by Thomas Bassendyne in 1568, at the end of which was printed ‘ane lewd sang,’ entitled ‘Welcum Fortoun.’ ” The book was ordered by the General Assembly to be called in, the title to be altered, that the “lewd sang be delete,” and the printer be subjected to penalties. No copy of the book or of the lewd song is now known to exist. (See also “Buik of the Universall Kirk.”) Dr. Laing adds his testimony to Herbert’s assertions.
The fragment referred to is printed in the black letter, the letterpress measures 4½ inches by 2½ inches. It commences on folio 4, the leaves, not the pages, being numbered, and by a printer’s error folio 112 is numbered 113. The signs run from A to O in eights, sign P having four leaves which are not numbered. The first three leaves of sign A are lost, and folio 4 commences with some short prayers. These missing leaves were doubtless occupied by the title, probably a short address to the reader, and the first portion of the above-mentioned prayers. Sign P 1 to 3 are occupied by a table, and on the obverse of P 4 is printed—“With The Haill hundredth and Fyftie Psalmis of David,” Sternhold and Hopkins’s Version. And beneath is the imprint thus—“Improntit at Edinburgh, be John Scot. Anno Do. 1567.” The reverse contains some doxologies, and, having no catch-word, has a finished appearance. Whether the above is to be considered as the title-page for the Psalms to follow, or as an advertisement for a separate book, I will not presume to decide, but at that time such advertisements were not common. On the reverse of O 8 the long-lost song, entitled “Welcum Fortoun,” is found, and is printed below. If ever the Scripture words, “Unto the pure all things are pure,” were applicable, it is in the present case, for it could only be by a far-fetched innuendo or a specious construing of words that the Assembly could have arrived at their decision and verdict. But I am rather inclined to think that the sin of the printer must have consisted more in the fact of his placing a secular song in conjunction with sacred hymns, and the more especially with the productions of the Divine Psalmist:—
WELCUM FORTOUN.