ted the traditional English style
of folk-telling, with its "Wells" and "Lawkamercy" and archaic touches,
which are known nowadays as vulgarisms. From former experience, I find
that each of these principles has met with some dissent from critics who
have written from the high and lofty standpoint of folk-lore, or from
the lowlier vantage of "mere literature." I take this occasion to soften
their ire, or perhaps give them further cause for reviling.

My folk-lore friends look on with sadness while they view me laying
profane hands on the sacred text of my originals. I have actually at
times introduced or deleted whole incidents, have given another turn to
a tale, or finished off one that was incomplete, while I have had no
scruple in prosing a ballad or softening down over-abundant dialect.
This is rank sacrilege in the eyes of the rigid orthodox in matters
folk-lorical. My defence might be that I had a cause at heart as sacred
as our science of folk-lore--the filling of our children's imaginations
with bright trains of images. But even on the lofty heights of folk-lore
science I am not entirely defenceless. Do my friendly critics believe
that even Campbell's materials had not been modified by the various
narrators before they reached the great J.F.? Why may I not have the
same privilege as any other story-teller, especially when I know the
ways of story-telling as she is told in English, at least as well as a
Devonshire or Lancashire peasant? And--conclusive argument--wilt thou,
oh orthodox brother folk-lorist, still continue to use Grimm and
Asbjoernsen? Well, they did the same as I.

Then as to using tales in Lowland Scotch, whereat a Saturday Reviewer,
whose identity and fatherland were not difficult to guess, was so
shocked. Scots a dialect of English! Scots tales the same as English!
Horror and Philistinism! was the Reviewer's outcry. Matter of fact is my
reply, which will only confirm him, I fear, in his convictions. Yet I
appeal to him, why make a difference between tales told on different
sides of the Border? A tale told in Durham or Cumberland in a dialect
which only Dr. Murray could distinguish from Lowland Scotch, would on
all hands be allowed to be "English." The same tale told a few miles
farther North, why should we refuse it the same qualification? A tale in
Henderson is English: why not a tale in Chambers, the majority of whose
tales are to be found also south of the Tweed?

The truth is, my folk-lore