dly, observe that this speech, in the religious passion of it, such
as there may be, is entirely sincere. Andrew is a thief, a liar, a
coward, and, in the Fair service from which he takes his name, a
hypocrite; but in the form of prejudice, which is all that his mind is
capable of in the place of religion, he is entirely sincere. He does not
in the least pretend detestation of image worship to please his master,
or anyone else; he honestly scorns the "carnal morality[58] as dowd and
fusionless as rue-leaves at Yule" of the sermon in the upper cathedral;
and when wrapt in critical attention to the "real savor o' doctrine" in
the crypt, so completely forgets the hypocrisy of his fair service as
to return his master's attempt to disturb him with hard punches of the
elbow.

Thirdly. He is a man of no mean sagacity, quite up to the average
standard of Scottish common sense, not a low one; and, though incapable
of understanding any manner of lofty thought or passion, is a shrewd
measurer of weaknesses, and not without a spark or two of kindly
feeling. See first his sketch of his master's character to Mr.
Hammorgaw, beginning: "He's no a'thegither sae void o' sense, neither";
and then the close of the dialogue: "But the lad's no a bad lad after
a', and he needs some careful body to look after him."

Fourthly. He is a good workman; knows his own business well, and can
judge of other craft, if sound, or otherwise.

All these four qualities of him must be known before we can understand
this single speech. Keeping them in mind, I take it up, word by word.

32. You observe, in the outset, Scott makes no attempt whatever to
indicate accents or modes of pronunciation by changed spelling, unless
the word becomes a quite definitely new, and securely writable one. The
Scottish way of pronouncing "James," for instance, is entirely peculiar,
and extremely pleasant to the ear. But it is so, just because it does
_not_ change the word into Jeems, nor into Jims, nor into Jawms. A
modern writer of dialects would think it amusing to use one or other of
these ugly spellings. But Scott writes the name in pure English, knowing
that a Scots reader will speak it rightly, and an English one be wise in
letting it alone. On the other hand he writes "weel" for "well," because
that word is complete in its change, and may be very closely expressed
by the double _e_. The ambiguous _u_'s in "gude" and "sune" are
admitted, because far liker the sound than