NOTES ON THE SIXTH BOOK.
Than passit was wtass off Feuiryher.—V. 1.
In MS., wtast; Edit. 1594, &c. octaues of Februar; octaves, Edit. 1714.
—Nympheus, in beldyn off his bour,
With oyle and balm fullfillit off suet odour,
Faunis materis, as thai war wount to gang, &c.—V. 12.
In Edit. 1594, l. 14, it is thus given,—
Canettis in trace as they wer wont to gang.
In Edit. 1620,—Caneittis, &c.; in that of 1714, Famous. In MS. it may be read either Famus or Faunis. Although I cannot make sense of the line, there seems to be an allusion to the Fawns of heathen mythology; as the illiterate Minstrel might allude to the Nymphs in the term Nympheus.
Begynnyng band, with graith witnes besyd,
Myn auctor sais, scho was his rychtwyss wyff.—V. 47.
After ver. 72, a whole stanza is found in Edit. 1594 and 1620, which does not appear in MS.
This vther maid wedded ane Squyar wicht,
Quhilk was weill knawin cummin of Balliols blude,
And thair airis be lyne succeeded richt
To Lammintoun and vther landis gude.
Of this mater the richt quha vnderstude,
Heirof as now I will na mair proceid;
Of my sentence schortlie to conclude,
Of vther thing my purpois is to reid.
I hesitate very much as to the authenticity of this stanza. It would not of itself be a sufficient proof that it is wanting in MS., because we meet with similar deficiences; but it does not tally well with the stanza preceding, which speaks only of a child, that is, most probably, one to the exclusion of others. As little does it agree with the stanza immediately following in the copies which have adopted it; for it begins with these words;—
Rycht gudly men come of this lady ying, &c.
For this supposes either that there was but one young lady referred to, or that she, who is previously mentioned as having been married to Squire Shaw, had no family.
It has been said, that Wallace “left no legitimate issue; but had a natural daughter, who married Sir William Baillie of Hoprig, the progenitor of the Baillies of Lammington.” Caledonia, I. 579. From the reference here made in a foot-note to Crawfurd’s Hist. Renfrew, 61, and Ruddiman’s Index Dipl. Scotiæ, 121, one might have supposed that these writers had brought some proof of the illegitimacy of this daughter. But it does not appear that the idea of illegitimacy had once entered into the mind of Crawfurd. He merely says of Wallace: “He left issue only one daughter, who was married to Sir William Baillie of Hoprig,” &c.; adding, “the lands of Elderslee returned to the family of Craigie.” Ruddiman merely says; “Reliquisse unam filiam Willelmus dicitur, quam uxorem duxit D. Willelmus Baillie de Hoprig,” &c.
The only thing that has the semblance of a proof that Wallace was not married, is what follows in the same note. “The estate of Ellerslie went to the Wallaces of Ricardton, as his nearest male heirs.” But their being male heirs might be the reason of their inheriting this property. Besides, it does not seem fully ascertained, whether our illustrious champion was ever personally vested in these lands. It is admitted by the author of Caledonia, in a preceding note, p. 578, that “both Wyntoun and Harry concur in speaking of the great Wallace as the second son of Sir Malcolm.” Lord Hailes says: “He was the younger son of a gentleman in the neighbourhood of Paisley. Such is the opinion generally received.” Annals, I. 245. It must be admitted, however, that Bower, in his continuation of Fordun, says that “Andrew, the elder brother of William, and honoured with the order of knighthood, being guilefully slain by the English, William succeeded to a sufficient patrimony in lands for his state, which he left to be held by his posterity.” Scotichron. II. Lib. xi. c. 28.
Unless we should suppose the Minstrel determined to lie in the face of evidence, his appeal, in the passage quoted, to his auctor, shews the general belief of the country at the time of his writing, and even during the life of Mr. John Blair, to whom he seems to appeal, that Wallace was married. Now, it is well known that Blair was the bosom friend and the faithful associate of Wallace; and, being a priest, it may reasonably be conjectured that he was the person who celebrated the marriage.
Pinkerton remarks, “that the murder of Wallace’s wife, which seems the first cause which excited him to arms,” (he means, most probably, after remaining for several months in peace,) “was committed at Lanark by Heselrig or Hislop, governor of the castle” of Lanark, “whom Wallace after slew. See Fordun, XI. 28. Henry the Minstrel in this instance accords with history, and with tradition; a large cave in Cartland Craigs near Lanark, where Henry says that Wallace lurked, being called Wallace’s Cave to this day. It is remarkable that Sir D. Dalrymple should have omitted this important circumstance, for which Fordun [Bower, his continuator,] was surely good authority.” The Bruce, II. 20, N.
The “important circumstance” referred to must be that of Wallace having slain the governor of the castle of Lanark; for Bower does not say that the reason of this was the murder of the wife of Wallace. But undoubtedly this was a remarkable omission on the part of our learned and accurate annalist.
I do not say, that the account given by Bower of the slaughter of Hesilgir, or, as he calls him, Hesliope, amounts to a proof of the marriage of Wallace, or even certainly intimates the reason of the deed; but it authenticates the fact of Wallace having been at Lanark at this time, and renders it highly probable that he had met with some special excitement. According to the testimony of Bower, it was from this time forward that he openly appeared as the avenger of the wrongs of his country.
The memory of Wallace is still so fresh in the town of Lanark, that the inhabitants point out the place where he was wont to lodge.
“Tradition tells that the house where Wallace resided was at the head of the Castlegate, opposite the church, where a new house has lately been erected. It also acquaints us, that a private vaulted archway led from this house to Cartlane Craigs, but seemingly without the smallest probability.” P. Lanark, Stat. Acc. XV. 33.
And thai oft syss feill causis till him wrocht,
Fra that tyme furth, quhilk mowit [hym sa sar,
That neuir in warld out of his mind was brocht.]—V. 78.
In MS. ver. 79 is;
Fra that tyme furth, quhilk mouit hyr fer mar.
The following line, as printed in the text, which is the concluding one of the stanza, is totally omitted. Most probably it had been wanting in the MS. from which Ramsay copied; as he seems to have altered the three last words of ver. 79, so as apparently to complete the sense, by transferring the language, which obviously regards Wallace, to his wife. I have given the reading of Edit. 1594. It is the same in Hart’s, with a slight change of the orthography.
He salust thaim, as it war bot in scorn;
“Dewgar, gud day, bone Senyhour, and gud morn!”—V. 131.
It is thus given in Edit. 1594 and 1620;
Dew gaird, gude day bon Senyour, and gude morne.
Fr. Dieu garde, a salutation, God save you.
Gud deyn, dawch Lard, bach lowch banyoch a de.—V. 140.
Gud euin daucht Lord, Ballanch, Banyenochade.—Edit. 1594.
Good euin daucht Lord, Ballanch, Banyenochadie.—Edit. 1620.
As the former salutation consists of a ridiculous mixture of French and Scottish, this seems to be composed of Scottish and Gaelic. Gud deyn is evidently for “Good evening.” Dawch Lard may signify lazy laird. The latter words have been viewed as Gaelic, l’ail, luibh, beannach a De, “if you please, God bless you!” V. Etym. Dict. vo. Dawch.
Off gret statur, and sum part gray wes he;
The Inglissmen cald him bot Grymmysbé.—V. 311.
Bot Grymmysbé, i.e. by no other name; and this, it appears, was a nickname, from his gray or grim complexion.
The awfull ost, with Eduuard off Ingland,
To Beggar come, with sexté thousand men.—V. 342.
This is the mode in which Ramsay gives the name of Biggar, a village in Lanarkshire. “There is a tradition of a battle having been fought at the east end of the town, between the Scots, under the command of Sir William Wallace, and the English army, who were said to be 60,000 strong, wherein a great slaughter was made on both sides, especially among the latter.” Stat. Acc. P. Biggar, I. 336.
A yong squier was brothir to Fehew.—V. 363.
It is Schir Hew, Edit. 1594 and 1620; the same in that of 1714. But in Edit. 1648, it is, as here, Fehew. In MS. Schyr hew seems to have been first written, and afterwards deleted, the letter s or f being left singly, with a blank before hew. But in ver. 397, it is clearly Fehew; as also in B. VIII. 1010, 1067, 1081, where the fate of this squire is referred to. Whether such a person ever existed, I can find no trace in the Fœdera, or in any history of that period. For the honour of Wallace, it may well be supposed that the whole story is fabulous.
Off Anadderdaill he had thaim led that nycht.—V. 536.
This denotes Annandale. But it seems to be an error of the copier, for Ananderdaill, the more ancient designation of this district, watered by the river Annan.
—Haistit thaim nocht, bot sobyrly couth fair
Till Towrnbery; thar captane was at Ayr
With lord Persie, to tak his consaill haill.—V. 835.
In Edit. 1594, 1620, 1714, and Perth 1790;
To Turneburie that captaine was of Air.
This passage does not seem to have been hitherto given intelligibly, in any one edition. Towrnbery has still been viewed as the name of the person who was “captain of Ayr.” But this deprives the passage of any reasonable meaning. How could this supposed person be “captain of Ayr” with Lord Percy, who had the charge of the whole district? Thus, also, these words, “to tak his consaill haill,” according to the construction, apply equally well to Wallace and his troops, as to the supposed “captain of Ayr.” But Turnbery is the name of a place, particularly mentioned in The Bruce, V. Note, III. 829. The line must have been written as given in this edition. At Aire is the reading, Edit. 1648 and 1673; and what has been rendered that, in MS. may be read thar, i.e., their. This shews the reason why the Scots did not hurry on, but went sobyrly to Turnbery. They had learned that their captain, the captain of those who had the defence of “Turnbery castle,” as it is denominated by Barbour, was at Ayr with Lord Percy, to take his advice about the state of public matters.
Apon the morn in Cumno sone thai socht.—V. 846.
This is Cumnock, in Ayrshire, whence two parishes now take their name.
He will nocht bow to na part off your kyn.
Sufferyt ye ar, I trow yhe may spek weill.—V. 884.
In Edit. 1594 and 1648;—to na prince of your kin.
Instead of Sufferyt, it is Assouerit, i.e. assured, having security, Edit. 1594 and 1620; and ridiculously, All ordered, Edit. 1648 and 1673. Soueryt is adopted, Edit. 1714. This term is more adapted to the sense than that of MS., as illustrated by the words that follow, expressive of Wallace’s strict adherence to any safe conduct given by him.
Wallace said; “Schyr, we jangill bot in wayne.”—V. 920.
In MS. it is “nocht in wayne;” which contradicts the obvious design of the language of Wallace. In Edit. 1594 and 1620;
—— we jangill all in vaine.
It seems most probable, that in the more ancient MS. whence Ramsay took his copy, bot had been written indistinctly, and read by Ramsay as not, the contraction for nocht.