=Bride of Lammermoor.=
(_The Plot, and Chief Characters of the Tale._)[36]
John Hamilton, second son of Sir Walter Hambledon of Cadzow, ancestor
of the Dukes of Hamilton, married the heiress of Innerwick,[37] in East
Lothian, in the reign of King Robert Bruce, and was the progenitor of
“a race of powerful barons,” who flourished for about three hundred
years, and “intermarried with the Douglasses, Homes,” etc. They
possessed a great many lands on the coast of East Lothian, betwixt
Dunbar and the borders of Berwickshire, and also about Dirleton and
North Berwick. They had their residence at the Castle of Innerwick,
now in ruins. Wolff’s Crag is supposed to be the Castle of Dunglas;
and this supposition is strengthened by the retour[38] of a person of
the name of Wolff, in the year 1647, of some parts of the Barony of
Innerwick, being on record, and the castle having been blown up by
gunpowder in 1640, a circumstance slightly noticed in the Tale, but
too obvious to be mistaken.[39] Of this family the Earls of Haddington
are descended. They began to decline about the beginning of the 17th
century, when they seem to have lost the title of Innerwick[40] and
began to take their designation from other parts of the family
inheritance, such as Fenton, Lawfield, etc. The last of them was a
Colonel Alexander Hamilton, who was in life in 1670, and had been
_abroad_ for some time—thus agreeing with the Story in one particular
which had a material influence on the fortunes of the family. In him
the direct male line became extinct, and, according to the prophecy,
his name was “lost for evermore.” The circumstances of this family,
and the period of their decline, agree so exactly with the Tale, that,
unless the _local_ scene of it be altogether a fiction, it appears, at
first view, scarcely possible to doubt that the Lords of Ravenswood and
the Hamiltons of Innerwick were the same.
Taking this supposition to be correct, a conjecture might be hazarded,
in the absence of any authentic information on the subject, from the
present possessors of the domains of the family of Innerwick, who Sir
William Ashton was. Sir John Nisbet of Dirleton was Lord Advocate in
the reign of King Charles II., and afterwards a Lord of Session, at the
very time when Colonel Hamilton above mentioned was abroad. He seems
to have been the founder of his family; and in this respect, as well
as his having been a great lawyer, bears a remarkable resemblance to
Sir William Ashton. He died without male issue, (another coincidence,)
and in possession of the very estate which belonged to the Hamiltons
of Innerwick, which his posterity still enjoy. From the want, however,
of written memoirs of the family at Dirleton, or a knowledge of the
manner in which they acquired their estates, any conjecture which can
be founded on these circumstances must be entirely hypothetical.
Though silent regarding the house of Ravenswood, the subject of the
story has received considerable elucidation from a note[41] annexed
to the Review of it in the _Edinburgh Monthly Review_ for August,
1819, wherein it is stated, that Lucy Ashton was one of the daughters
of the first Lord Stair. This nobleman was certainly the only lawyer
at that period who enjoyed the power and influence said to have been
possessed by Sir William Ashton; and the circumstances mentioned in the
above note, as related in Mr. Kirkpatrick Sharpe’s edition of “Law’s
Memorialls,” particularly the expression made use of by the bride,
of “Take up your bonnie bridegroom,” may, if well authenticated, be
considered as decisive of the question. It is difficult, however, to
trace any connection between Lord Stair and the family of Innerwick,
or that he ever was in possession of their property. In this view of
the case, the parallel between Ravenswood and Hamilton of Innerwick
does not hold so well. But if the identity of Sir William Ashton with
Lord Stair be considered as established, there was another family in
more immediate contact with him, in the history of which there are
several events which seem to indicate that the Author had it in his
eye in the representation he has given of the Ravenswoods; unless,
as is very probable, he has blended the history of both together in
the manner that best suited his purpose. He indeed admits that he has
disguised facts and incidents, for the obvious purpose of making the
application less pointed to the real personages of the tale. The family
here alluded to is that of Gordon, Viscount Kenmure, in Galloway,
between which and the Lords of Ravenswood there are several points
of resemblance. For instance, the barony of Gordon, in Berwickshire,
where the Gordons had their first settlement in Scotland, and which
continued for a long time in this branch of the name, is in the
immediate vicinity of Lammermoor, and probably suggested the idea of
laying the scene in that neighbourhood. The names of the Castle (or
Barony) and of the Barons themselves, were the same. Their history was
“interwoven with that of the kingdom itself,” a well-known fact. The
Viscount of Kenmure[42] was engaged in the civil wars in the reign
of King Charles I.,[43] and was forfeited by Cromwell for his steady
adherence to that monarch. In him also the direct line of the family
suffered an interruption, the title having at his death devolved on
Gordon of Penninghame, who appears to have been much involved in
debt, and harassed with judicial proceedings against his estate. This
latter again espoused the sinking side in the Revolution of 1688, and
commanded a regiment at the battle of Killiecrankie. These coincidences
are too remarkable to be overlooked. And it may be added, in further
illustration, that Lord Stair, on being advanced to an earldom about
this period, took one of his titles from the barony of Glenluce, which
once belonged to a branch of the house of Kenmure.
It was formerly mentioned, that the Author admits his having disguised
dates and events, in order to take off the application to the real
personages of the story, which they must otherwise have pointed out.
Of this sort are several anachronisms which appear in the work, such
as a _Marquis_ of A. (evidently Athol, from the letter to Ravenswood
dated at B. or Blair), when the Tory Ministry of Queen Anne got into
power, which was only in 1710, when M. Harley succeeded Lord Godolphin
as Treasurer; whereas the nobleman here alluded to was a _Duke_ so
far back as 1703. The time at which the events really took place must
also have been long prior to this period, for Lord Stair died in 1695;
and the change in administration by which Sir William Ashton lost his
influence probably refers to Lord Stair’s removal from his office in
1682.
It may here be remarked, that the family of Stair was by no means so
obscure and insignificant as that of Sir William Ashton is represented
to have been. They possessed the barony of Dalrymple[44] in the
reign of King Alexander III.; they acquired the barony of Stair by
marriage in 1450. They made a considerable figure during the reign
of Queen Mary; and took an active part in the Reformation along with
the confederate lords who had associated in defence of the Protestant
religion. It must be admitted, however, that they made a greater figure
at this time, and during a subsequent period, than they ever did before.
_Note annexed to the Review of the Bride of Lammermoor, in the
Edinburgh Monthly Review for August, 1819—referred to in the
foregoing Conjectures._
“The reader will probably feel the interest of this affecting story
considerably increased, by his being informed that it is founded on
facts. The particulars, which have been variously reported, are given
in a foot-note to Mr. Sharpe’s edition of ‘Law’s Memorialls,’ p.
226; but are understood to have been sometimes told in conversation
by the celebrated Poet to whom public opinion assigns these Tales.
The ingenious author, whoever he is, has adopted that account of the
circumstances which Mr. Sharpe deems less probable. The prototype of
Lucy Ashton was one of the daughters of James, first Lord Stair, by his
wife Margaret, daughter of Ross of Balneil, County of Wigton, a lady
long reputed a witch by the country people in her neighbourhood, and
considered as the cause, _per fas et nefas_, of the prosperous fortunes
of the Dalrymple family. However this may have been, there was also
ascribed to her supposed league with Satan, or her extreme obduracy,
the miserable catastrophe now alluded to. The first version of the
story in Mr. Sharpe’s note decidedly and directly implicates the old
lady and her potent ally in the murder of her daughter on the night
of her marriage, which had been contracted against the mother’s will;
and, according to this account, it is the bridegroom who is found in
the chimney in a state of idiocy. The other edition, which is that of
the Tale, seems to require nothing beyond the agency of human passions
wrought up to derangement. According to it, the young lady, as in the
case of Lucy, was compelled to marry contrary to her inclination, her
heart having been previously engaged elsewhere. After she had retired
with her husband into the nuptial chamber, and the door, as was
customary, had been locked, she attacked him furiously with a knife,
and wounded him severely, before any assistance could be rendered.
When the door was broken open, the youth was found half dead upon the
floor, and his wife in a state of the wildest madness, exclaiming,
‘Take up your bonnie bridegroom.’ It is added, that she never regained
her senses; and that her husband, who recovered of his wound, would
bear no questions on the subject of his marriage, taking even a hint
of that nature as a mortal affront to his honour. The coincidence of
circumstances, and the identity of expression used by the bride, are
much too striking to be purely accidental, and altogether deserved to
be noticed, though at the hazard of making a long note. Lady Stair,
it may not be irrelevant to state, was conspicuous in her time for
what Mr. Sharpe denominates, ‘her violent turn towards Conventicles,
and the fostering of silenced preachers in her house,’—peculiarities
quite of a piece with the attachments and habits of Lady Ashton. Of
the prejudices and malignity of her enemies, we may form some opinion
from the satiric lines upon her long-wished-for and timely death, which
Mr. Sharpe very justly denominates most unchristian. Let the _epitaph_
contrived for her bear testimony:—
‘Here lyes our Auntie’s coffin, I am sure,
But where her bodie is I cannot tell,
Most men affirm they cannot well tell where,
Unless both soul and body be in h——.
It is just if all be true that’s said,
The witch of Endor[45] was a wretched sinner,
And if her coffin in the grave be laid,
Her bodie’s roasted to the D——l’s dinner.’
“The author of the ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ it must be allowed, has
never showed any backwardness to join in the cry against people of her
principles, but he has never been so summary in his conclusions as to
their fate.”
LUCY ASHTON AND BUCKLAW.
We derive the following curious notices respecting the Lucy Ashton and
Bucklaw of real life, from a rare volume, entitled “Tripatriarchicon;
or, the Lives of the Three Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Digested into English Verse, by Mr. Andrew Symson, M.A., late Minister
of Kinkinner. Edinburgh: Printed for the Author. 1705.” The following
Poem is one of thirteen elegies found appended to some rare copies of
the book, which were withdrawn from the greater part of the edition, on
account of the offence taken against them by the Whigs. Symson seems to
have been a sincere and zealous partizan of High Church, and does not
seem to have permitted any great man of his own party to die without an
appropriate elegy, accompanied by a cutting tirade upon his enemies.
“_On the unexpected death of the vertuous Lady_, Mrs. Janet
Dalrymple, _Lady_ Baldone, _Younger_.
Nupta, _Aug. 12_; Domum ducta, _Aug. 24_; Obiit, _Sept. 12_;
Sepult. _Sept. 30, 1669_.
_Dialogus inter advenam et servum domesticum._
‘What means this sudden unexpected change,
This mourning Company? Sure, sure some strange
And uncouth thing hath happen’d. _Phœbus’s_ Head
Hath not been resting on the wat’ry bed
Of _Sea-green Thetis_ fourty times, since I
_In transitu_ did cast my tender Eye
Upon this very place, and here did view
A Troop of Gallants: _Iris_ never knew
The various colours which they did employ
To manifest and represent their Joy.
Yea more; Methinks I saw this very wall
Adorn’d with Emblems Hieroglyphicall.
At first; The glorious _Sun_ in lustre shine:
Next unto it, A young and tender _Vine_
Surround a stately _Elm_, whose tops were crown’d
With wreaths of _Bay-tree_ reaching to the ground:
And, to be short, methinks I did espy
A pleasant, harmless, joyful Comedy.
But now (sad change, I’m sure,) they all are clad
In deepest Sable, and their Faces sad.
The _Sun’s_ o’erclouded and the _Vine’s_ away,
_The Elm_ is drooping, and the wreaths of Bay
Are chang’d to Cypress, and the Comedie
Is metamorphos’d to a Tragedie.
I do desire you, Friend, for to unfold
This matter to me.’ ‘Sir, ’tis truth you’ve told.
We did enjoy great mirth, but now, ah me!
Our joyful Song’s turned to an Elegie.
A vertuous Lady, not long since a Bride,
Was to a hopeful plant by marriage ty’d,
And brought home hither. We did all rejoyce,
Even for her sake. But presently our voice
Was turned to mourning, for that little time
That she’d enjoy: She wained in her prime
For Atropus, with her impartial knife,
Soon cut her Thread, and therewithall her Life.
And for the time, we may it well remember,
It being in unfortunate September,
Just at the _Æquinox_: She was cut down
In th’ harvest, and this day she’s to be sown,
Where we must leave her till the Resurrection;
’Tis then the Saints enjoy their full perfection.’”
One of these curious pieces is “A Funeral Elegie occasioned by the
sad and much lamented Death of that worthily respected and very much
accomplished Gentleman, David Dunbar, Younger of Baldone. He departed
this life on March 21, 1682, having received a bruise by a fall, as he
was ryding the day preceding betwixt Leith and Holyroodhouse; and was
honourably interred, in the Abbey Church of Holyroodhouse, on April
4, 1682.” Symson, though a printer in 1705, had been an episcopal
clergyman: and it is amusing to observe how much of the panegyric
which he bestows upon Dunbar is to be traced to the circumstance of
that gentleman having been almost his only hearer, when, in a Whiggish
parish, his curacy had like to be a perfect sinecure, so far as
regarded that important particular—a congregation. He thus speaks of
him:—
“He was no Schismatick, he ne’er withdrew
Himself from th’ House of God; he with a few
(Some two or three) came constantly to pray
For such as had withdrawn themselves away,
Nor did he come by fits,—foul day or fair,
I, being in the church, was sure to see him there.
Had he withdrawn, ’tis like these two or three,
Being thus discouraged, had deserted me;
So that my Muse, ’gainst Priscian, avers,
_He_, HE alone, WERE my Parishioners,
Yea, and my constant Hearers. O that I
Had pow’r to eternize his Memory;
Then (though my joy, my glory, and my crown,
By this unhappy fall be thus cast down,)
I’d rear an everlasting monument,
A curious structure, of a large extent,—
A brave and stately pile, that should outbid
Ægyptian Cheops’ costly Pyramid,—
A monument that should outlive the blast
Of Time, and Malice too,—a pile should last
Longer than hardest marble, and surpass
The bright and durable Corinthian brass!”[46]
A COUNTRY INNKEEPER.
(_Caleb Balderston._)
The prototype of Caleb Balderstone was perhaps _Laird Bour_, a servant
of the Logans of Restalrig, in 1600. It is evident that the _character_
is just a Scottish edition of “Garrick’s Lying Valet.” We have
discovered, however, a solitary trait of Caleb, in a Scotch innkeeper
of real existence, who lived long in the south country,[47] and died
only a few years ago. We subjoin a very brief notice of this person,
whose name was Andrew Davidson.
A literary gentleman, who supplies us with information respecting him,
states that he was once possessed of a considerable estate,—that of
Green-house, in the county of Roxburgh. But being a man of great wit
and humour, his society was courted by young men of idle and dissipated
habits, who led him into such expenses as shortly proved prejudicial
to his fortunes. He was then obliged to sell off his estate and betake
himself to a humbler line of life. Keeping a small grocery and spirit
shop always presents itself to men in such circumstances as a means of
subsistence requiring the least instruction and most easily set afloat.
He accordingly commenced that line of business in Jedburgh; but,
being considered as an intruder into the burgh, and opposing certain
ancient residenters, who were supposed to be more lawfully, justly,
and canonically entitled to trade in the town than any new upstart,
he did not meet with that success which he expected. In consequence
of this illiberal treatment, he conceived the most rancorous hatred
for the inhabitants of Jedburgh, and ever after spoke of them in
the most violent terms of hatred and contempt. His common language
was, “that not an individual in the town would be judged at the last
day,—Jedburgh would be at once damned _by the slump!_”
He again resolved to commence the profession of agriculture, and took
the farm of Habton, in the neighbouring parish of Crailing. This
speculation, however, succeeded no better than the shop. By associating
himself with the opulent farmers and gentlemen of the vicinity, by whom
his company, as a man of wit and jollity, was always much sought after,
his ancient habits of extravagance returned; and, though in poorer
circumstances, being obliged to spend in equal style with these ruinous
friends, the surviving wrecks of his fortune were soon dissipated, and
he was obliged to become a bankrupt.
When a man who has freely lavished his fortune and his humour in the
entertainment of friends above his own rank becomes incapable of
further sacrifice, it is most natural for such friends to forsake and
neglect him. He is considered as no more entitled to their gratitude
than the superannuated player, after he has ceased to be supported by
the immediate exhibition of his powers. There is no Chelsea provided
for the cripples in the cause of the gay.
Mr. Davidson was, however, more fortunate in his companions. After
his misfortune, they induced him to open a house of entertainment
at Ancrum Bridge; laid in for him a stock of wines, spirits, etc.;
made parties at his house; and set him fairly a-going. This was a
line in which he was calculated both to shine and to realize profit.
His company was still as attractive as ever; and it was no longer
disgraceful to receive a solid reward for the entertainment which his
facetiousness could afford. Having also learned a little wisdom from
his former miscarriages, he proceeded with more caution, kept up the
respectability of his house, was polite and amusing to his guests, and,
above all, paid infinite attention to his business.
The peculiarity of character, for which we have placed his name against
that of Caleb Balderstone, here occurs. Whenever there alighted any
stranger of a more splendid appearance than ordinary, he was suddenly
seized with a fit of magniloquency, and, in the identical manner of
Caleb Balderstone, would call _Hostler No. 10_ down from _Hay-loft No.
15_, to conduct the gentleman’s “beast” to one of the best stalls in
the _Stable No. 20_! He would then, with a superabundance of ceremony,
show the stranger into a chamber which he would declare with the
greatest assurance to be _No. 40_; and on his guest asking perhaps
for a glass of rum, would order a waiter, whom he baptized (_nolens
volens_) _No. 15_ for the occasion, to draw it from the cask in the
bar marked 95. Then was the _twelfth_ hen-roost to be ransacked, and a
glorious fowl, the best that could be selected from a stock of about
_one thousand or so_, to be consigned to the hands of the _Head Cook_
herself, (God knows his house boasted only one, who was _Scullion_
and _Boots_ besides.) All this rhodomontade was enacted in a style
of such serious effrontery, and was accompanied by such a volubility
of talk, and flights of humour, and bustling activity, that any one
not previously acquainted with his devices, would have given him and
his house credit for ten times the size and respectability they could
actually boast of.
Mr. Davidson afterwards removed to the inn at Middleton, where he
died, in good circumstances, about sixteen years ago. He was a man of
very brilliant talents, distinguished much by that faculty entitled
by the country people _ready wit_. He had a strong memory, a lively
and fertile imagination, and possessed powers of discourse truly
astonishing. The prevailing tone of his mind was disposed to ridicule.
He had a singularly felicitous knack of giving anything improper in his
own conduct or appearance a bias in his favour, and could at all times,
as we have seen, set off his own circumstances in such a light as made
them splendid and respectable, though in reality they were vulgar and
undignified.
FOOTNOTES:
[36] We are indebted for the following ingenious and elaborate article
to the gentleman who supplied the notice respecting the “Bodach Glas,”
at page 25.
[37] Douglas’s Baronage,—Hamilton of Innerwick.
[38] A retour is a law term, signifying the report of the verdict of
a jury, which, by the law of Scotland, is the mode of proving the
propinquity of an heir, so as to entitle him to be invested in his
predecessor’s estate.
[39] Douglas’s Peerage,—Earl of Haddington.
[40] Douglas’s Baronage,—Hamilton of Innerwick.
[41] See page 6.
[42] Douglas’s Peerage,—Viscount Kenmure.
[43] A principal and conspicuous part of Lord Kenmure’s camp equipage
was a barrel of brandy, which was carried at the head of the regiment.
This was called Kenmure’s Drum.
[44] Douglas’s Peerage,—Earl of Stair.
[45] So she was styled.
[46] We are indebted to the kindness of Mr. Kirkpatrick Sharpe for this
unique copy of the “Tripatriarchicon,” from which the above extracts
were made.
[47] It is exceedingly remarkable that the greater part of the Author
of “Waverley’s” prototypes were natives of this district.