_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_.