Old and rare Scottish tartans

by Donald William Stewart

Here closes this remarkable correspondence, and we hear no more of the Vestiarium until its publication by Tait in 1842, with the name of John Sobieski Stuart on the title-page as editor. So remarkable a work could not fail to attract attention. The most striking criticism on the book, so far as ability and bitterness went, and the only one to which any reply was vouchsafed, is that contained in the Quarterly Review for June 1847.[92] This criticism the brothers Stuart believed to have been written by the late Mr Dennistoun, but it was in reality the work of the late Professor George Skene, of Glasgow University, brother of the late Dr. William Forbes Skene, from materials furnished chiefly by the late Dr. Mackintosh Mackay. One half of the criticism consists of an unsparing attack on the alleged claims of the brothers to Royal descent, and the other of an attack upon the authenticity of the Vestiarium. Professor Skene first proposed to discuss the printed text for indications of its genuineness, or the reverse. Had he done so, the result could hardly have failed to be interesting, the language of the work offering a fair field for criticism. He not only did not do so, but fell into a series of very extraordinary errors regarding facts. He wrote:—

We cannot find that the actual MS., “which belonged to the Douay College,” and “contains the signature of the Bishop of Ross,” has ever been exhibited to any learned society in the north, or even to any individual scholar or antiquary unconnected with the present publication; but about twenty years ago, a description of the MS., with a transcript of part, at least, if not the whole of it, was sent to the Society of Scottish Antiquaries, with a request that they would patronise its publication; and by their secretary the specimen was placed in the hands of Sir Walter Scott, who kindly undertook to examine it, and give the society the benefit of his opinion as to its authenticity. The secretary, accompanied by our informant, a reverend friend deeply versed in Highland lore, waited upon him shortly afterwards to ascertain the result of the scrutiny. Sir Walter assured them that the style and dialect of the specimen shewn him were utterly false, a most feeble and clumsy imitation of the genuine writing of the period, and indignantly declared his conviction that the manuscript itself must be an absolute fabrication.[93]

To this attack the editor of the Vestiarium made the following reply:—

The reviewer proceeds to proclaim an opinion asserted to have been delivered by Sir Walter Scott, that the MS. was a clumsy imitation of the genuine writing of its professed period, “and unentitled to any credit.” The reviewer, however, has concealed that Sir Walter Scott never saw the original MS., and that he died some years before the publication of the printed edition—consequently that he never had any opportunity of forming a judgment even from a careful and formal copy. According to the acknowledgment of the reviewer himself, the asserted opinion of Sir Walter was founded upon a “description of the MS., with a transcript of a part, if not the whole.” How far any critic could presume to form a judgment upon any “transcript,” especially an imperfect “part,” of a work, we leave to the experience of those accustomed to the criticism of old writings. But the reviewer has farther concealed the nature of the “transcript” said to have been exhibited to Sir Walter Scott. After the originals of the Vestiarium were in the possession of its editor, there never was made more than one “transcript,” that alluded to by the reviewer as “a transcript obtained by a gentleman in the north.” This copy, or, as admitted by the reviewer, “a part,” was transmitted by the transcriber to some of his friends in Edinburgh, at which time we believe, as asserted by the reviewer, it was casually shewn to Sir Walter Scott. The reviewer, however, has concealed the nature of this transcript, upon which Sir Walter’s asserted opinion is so maliciously quoted. Far from being, as might have been expected, a critical facsimile, or even matter-of-fact copy from the original, it was a sort of “Hood’s Comic Almanack” of tartans, neatly written, not in “clerks’,” “scriveners’,” or any other MS. text of the sixteenth century, but in ordinary Roman letter, consequently, exhibiting no “imitation” of the “genuine writing” of the period, said to have been contra-distinguished in Sir Walter’s observation, and still farther at variance with the original, or any object of serious criticism, by being illustrated in vermilion, with bizarre caricatures in the form of burlesque head and tail pieces, generally graphic puns and hieroglyphics for the name of each family whose title they adorned. Of their description, consequently, of the serious character of the MS. of which Sir Walter Scott’s criticism is so gravely reported, a conclusion may be formed by a few examples, such as, for “Dundas” the sketch of a small “Dun,” and on its summit an “ass.” For Brodie (pronounced in Scots Broadie), a large, i.e., a “Broad” “eye.” And for Montgomery the view of a mount, enlivened by several dancing figures, intended to associate the idea of “go-merry,” and the like. Such is the manuscript said to have been exhibited to and condemned by Sir Walter Scott as “of no authority whatever.” Its removal from authority, however, was farther extended by the fact that it was not even a transcript of the oldest MS. on which the reviewer sits in judgment, but of an inferior, tattered, and inaccurate copy, no older than the year 1721, and which was the only one “in the north” when the amiable and distinguished friend[94] of the possessor, designated by the reviewer after that borealian locality, made the transcript, with which he amused some idle winter days, with the conceits which, it was then predicted, would extend to the original a connection of misconception and ridicule.

According to this expectation, all those who became acquainted with the tract only through the medium of the copy supposed that the illustrations, as well as the text, were equally facsimiles of the original MS.; and if Sir Walter Scott had no explanation to the contrary, he, of course, entertained the same conclusion, and thus must have supposed the tract a greater enormity of absurdity than has even been assumed by the reviewer.[95]

Professor Skene, writing of what happened “about twenty years ago” concerning an affair in which he took no part, may well have fallen into casual error, but his “reverend friend deeply versed in Highland lore” ought to have had some memory. The correspondence between Sir Thomas Dick Lauder and Sir Walter Scott clearly shows that John Ross’s MS. was first brought under Sir Walter’s notice in June 1829, a period fairly enough corresponding in 1847 to “twenty years ago.” But the only “description,” or “transcript,” of the part or whole he ever saw was that contained in Sir Thomas’s letter of 1st June 1829, and how far the materials there given enabled Sir Walter to form a judgment of the style, dialect, or writing of the original may be gathered from the fact that he made no attempt to do so. There are Sir Walter’s own letters of 7th June and 19th November 1829 on the subject, in which his unfavourable opinion of the authenticity of the Vestiarium is based, not upon the appearance or language of the manuscript, which he had no opportunity of examining, but upon its ascription of tartans to the Lowlanders, to the lack of express notices on the subject by early writers, and to the use of the tartans as distinguishing the clans. Sir Walter wrote with the knowledge of his period, and how far his views are borne out by later investigation may be gathered by a study of the contents of the preceding pages.

Professor Skene’s statements—first, that a description of the manuscript, with a transcript of part, if not the whole of it, was sent to the Society of Scottish Antiquaries, with a request that they would patronise its publication; second, that the specimen was placed by their secretary in the hands of Sir Walter Scott, who undertook to express an opinion upon it; and, third, that the secretary and “our informant” afterwards waited upon Sir Walter to ascertain what his opinion was—are unverified. All that has yet been discovered, indeed, goes to show that nothing of the kind ever took place, and that the “facts” stated in the Quarterly Review had their origin only in the imagination of the learned professor’s “reverend friend.” The minutes of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland for that period are yet in existence. They are kept with a careful, even a tedious minuteness; and is it possible to suppose that the series of events detailed in the Quarterly Review of June 1847 as having taken place “about twenty years ago,” involving questions of such importance to antiquaries, especially to Scottish antiquaries, could have been entirely omitted from them? Yet they are. No mention whatever of the circumstances stated by Professor Skene to have occurred “about twenty years ago” appears.

John Sobieski Stuart’s position in the affair is quite plain. We find from the correspondence that all Sir Walter really saw was the description and extracts contained in Sir Thomas’s letter of 1st June 1829; but the editor of the Vestiarium, aware of the fact that Sir Thomas had a transcript of the work, which he had expressly offered to show Sir Walter, and confronted with the absolute statement by Professor Skene, on the authority of his “reverend friend,” that Sir Walter had seen a transcript, arrived naturally at the conclusion that the transcript Sir Walter was asserted to have seen was the only one in existence, that made by Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, and directed his reply accordingly. Had he been aware of the real facts of the case, his reply to Professor Skene might have been even more crushing than it was.

Professor Skene made an attack in another quarter. He questioned the authenticity of the work on the ground that there were several and serious errors in the genealogies of the clans whose tartans are described, and he specified particularly M’Nab, Farquharson, Clan Gun, Cluny Macpherson, and Mackintosh, the occurrence of errors in regard to whose genealogies, he urged, demonstrated that the Vestiarium was a forgery. To reply to these criticisms John Sobieski Stuart seriously set himself, and with remarkable ability and success.[96]