_A mow off corn he_ bygit _thaim about._--V. 339.
This is given according to Edit. 1594, &c. In MS. it is _gyhyt_. But
this must certainly be an error; unless we should suppose it to be from
AS. _gehyd_, “tectus, abditus, absconditus, hid, hidden, covered.”
Somner.
_Fra Butler had_ apon _gud Wallace_ seyn,
_Throuch auld malice he wox ner wod for teyn._--V. 401.
We have here one proof, among many in our old national works, of the
danger of editors rashly venturing to change the language. In Edit.
1594, it is;--
Fra Butteller had _on feild_ gude Wallace seyne, &c.
The editor had supposed that _seyn apon_, being an obsolete phrase in
his time, must of necessity be improper. He had not known that it is
very ancient, being pure Anglo-Saxon. The verb is used in a neuter
sense; and _seyn apon_ signifies beheld, looked upon. Thus _on se-on_
is, intueri, aspicere in. _On_ that wundor _seon_; Istud miraculum
intueri.
_Quhen thai com ner, a nobill knycht it was,_
_The quhilk to name hecht_ Elyss _off_ Dundass.--V. 533.
This is the ancestor of the ancient house of Dundas of that ilk.
Helias, or as here written _Elyss_, seems to have been a common name
in this family. The first on record is Helias, son of Uchtred, who got
the lands of Dundas, A. 1124, in the reign of Alexander I. One of the
same christian name appears as witness to a charter in the reign of
Alexander II. _Serle_ de Dundas, probably the father of our Elyss, is
mentioned in Ragman Roll. V. Nisbet’s Remarks, p. 34, 35, and Heraldry,
I. 275.
_And_ Schyr Jhon Scot _ek, a worthi knycht,_
_In to Straithern a man off mekill mycht._--V. 535.
“He was probably a descendant of the family of Scott of Balweary in
Fife.” This “family continued till the reign of Charles I.,” and “is
now represented by the Scotts of Ancrum, in Roxburghshire.” Notes to
Edit. Perth, p. 49.
Schyr Jhon Menteth _in till his wit has fund,_
_How he suld best his purpos to fullfill_, &c.--V. 948.
The account given of the treachery of MENTETH is one of these points on
which Sir D. Dalrymple shews his historical scepticism. He introduces
it in language calculated to inspire doubt into the mind of the reader;
observing that “the popular tradition is, that his _friend_ Sir John
Menteth betrayed him to the English.” Annals, I. 281. It is rather
strange that he should express himself in this manner, at the very
moment that he quotes the Scotichronicon on the margent; as if this
venerable record, when a modern should be disposed to adopt a theory
irreconcileable with its testimony, were entitled to no higher regard
than is due to “popular tradition.”
He adds; “Sir John Menteth was of high birth, a son of Walter Stewart
Earl of Menteth.” I can perceive no force in this remark, unless it
be meant to imply that there never has been an instance of a man of
noble blood acting the part of a traitor. On the same ground we might
quarrel with all the evidence given of the conspiracies formed against
Robert Bruce; and even call in question the murder of that amiable and
accomplished prince James I.
But “at this time,” we are told, “the important fortress of Dumbarton
was committed to his [Menteth’s] charge by Edward.” Here, it would
seem, the learned writer fights the poor Minstrel with his own weapons.
For I find no evidence of this fact in the Fœdera, Hemingford, or
the Decem Scriptores; and Lord Hailes has referred to no authority;
so that there is reason to suspect, to use his own language, that he
here “copies” what “is said by _Blind Harry_, whom no historian but
Sir Robert Sibbald will venture to _quote_.” If Harry’s narrative be
received as authority, it is but justice to receive his testimony as
he gives it. Now, in the preceding part of his work, he represents
Menteth as holding the castle of Dunbarton at least with the consent of
Wallace, while acknowledged as governor of Scotland. It would appear,
indeed, that the whole district of the Lennox had been entrusted to him.
In the Leynhouss a quhill he maid repayr;
Schyr Jhon Menteth that tym was captane thar.--B. VIII. 1595.
But even at this time there was something dubious in the conduct of
Menteth. While he retained the castle, the English held the town under
Edward.
In peess thai duelt, in trubyll that had beyn,
And trewbut payit till Ingliss capdanis keyn.
Schir Jhon Menteth the castell had in hand:
Bot sum men said, thar was a prewa band
Till Sotheroun maid, be menys off that knycht,
In thar supple to be in all his mycht.--B. IX. 1393.
It is perfectly conceivable, that, although it was known to Wallace
that Menteth had some secret understanding with the English, this
artful man might persuade him that he only wished an opportunity
of wreaking the national vengeance on them, or at least of more
effectively serving the interest of Wallace when he saw the proper
time. Although Wallace had been assured that Menteth had taken an oath
of fealty to Edward, he would have had no more reason for distrusting
him than for distrusting by far the greatest part of the nobility and
landholders of Scotland, who, as they believed, from the necessity of
despair had submitted to the usurper.
John de Menteth is designed by Arnold Blair _immanis proditor_; and
the writer proceeds to curse him as if with bell, book, and candle.
Relationes, p. 8.
Sir David aims another blow at this account in the following words:
“That he had ever any intercourse of friendship or familiarity with
Wallace, I have yet to learn.” But the truth is, the worthy judge does
not seem disposed to _learn_ this. It is difficult to say what evidence
will satisfy him. The incidental hints, in the preceding part of the
poem, in regard to Wallace’s connection with Menteth, all perfectly
agree with the mournful termination. Such confidence had he in him,
according to the Minstrel, that he not only resided in Dunbarton castle
for two months, while Menteth had the charge of it, but gave orders for
building “a house of stone” there, apparently that he might enjoy his
society.
Twa monethis still he duelt in Dunbertane;
A houss he foundyt apon the roch off stayne;
Men left he thar till bygg it to the hycht.--B. VIII. 1599.
But independently of the testimony of Blind Harry, Bower expressly
asserts the co-operation of Menteth with Wallace, Graham, and
Scrymgeour, in the suppression of the rebellious men of Galloway.
In hoc ipso anno [1298], viz., xxviii die mensis Augusti, dominus
Wallas Scotiæ custos, cum Johanne Grhame, et _Johanne de Menteith_,
militibus, necnon Alexandro Scrimzeour constabulario villæ de Dundee,
et vexillario Scotiæ, cum quinquagentis militibus armatis, rebelles
Gallovidiensis punierunt, qui regis Angliæ et Cuminorum partibus sine
aliquo jure steterunt. These words, which seem to be a quotation in the
Relationes of Blair from the Scotichronicon, are not found in the MSS.
from which Goodall gave his edition. They appear to have formed the
commencement of the xxxii. chapter of the eleventh book, one of the two
chapters here said to be wanting. Now this, whether it be the language
of Bower, or of Blair, could not have been borrowed from the Minstrel,
for the circumstance is overlooked by him. It seems to refer to that
period of the history of Wallace, in which he is said to have made a
circuit through Galloway and Carrick.
Fra Gamlis peth the land obeyt him haill
Till Ur wattir, bath strenth, forest, and daill.
Agaynis him in _Galloway_ hous was nayne, &c.--B. VI. 793.
It is to be observed, that John Major expressly affirms the treachery
of Menteth, as acting in concert with Aymer de Valloins, Earl of
Pembroke. He says that Menteth was considered as his most intimate
friend;--ipsi Vallaceo putatus amicissimus. Hist. Fol. LXXIII. Now,
although he rejects many of the transactions recited by Blind Harry
“as false,” so far is he from insinuating the slightest hesitation
as to this business, that he formally starts an objection as to the
imprudence of Wallace in not being more careful of his person, and
answers it by remarking, that “no enemy is more dangerous than a
domestic one.” He differs from the Minstrel, in saying that Wallace was
“captured _in_ the city of Glasgow.”
It may be added, that Bower expressly asserts that Wallace, “suspecting
no evil, was fraudulently and treacherously seized _at_ Glasgow by
Lord John de Menteth.” Scotichron. XII. 8. Bower again refers to the
treacherous conduct of Menteth towards Wallace when afterwards relating
a similar plan which he had laid for taking King Robert Bruce prisoner,
under pretence of delivering up to him the castle of Dunbarton, on
condition of his receiving a hereditary right to the lieutenancy of
the Lennox. V. Lib. xii. c. 16. 17. Vol. II. 243. These two chapters
are not in all the MSS., but are found in those of Cupar, Perth,
and Dunblane. Now, Bower was born A. 1385. Ibid. II. 401. The date
assigned to the Scotichronicon, as published with his continuation, is
1447, and that to the Minstrel’s poem 1470. V. Pinkerton’s Maitland
Poems, Intr. LXXXVI. LXXXIX. It is therefore impossible that Bower
could have borrowed the account given of Menteth from Blind Harry.
Bower was born, indeed, only eighty or eighty-one years after the
fact referred to; and, considering the elevation of the character of
Wallace, and the great attachment of his countrymen even to this day,
as well as the multitude of his enemies, it is totally inconceivable
that a whole nation, learned and unlearned, should concur in imputing
this crime to one man _without_ the most valid reasons.
Wyntown finished his _Cronykil_ A. 1418. He, it is generally believed,
was born little more than fifty years after the butchery of our
magnanimous patriot. Sir D. Dalrymple could not, one would suppose,
reasonably object to his testimony. Let us hear it.
A thousand thre hundyr and the fyft yhere
Eftyr the byrth of oure Lord dere,
Schyre Jhon of Menteth in tha days
Tuk in Glasgw Willame Walays,
And send hym in-til Ingland swne,
Thare wes he quartaryd and wndwne
Be dyspyte and hat inwy:
Thare he tholyd this martyry.
CRON. VIII. c. 20.
I shall only add an important proof from the Lanercost MS., referred
to in the _Preliminary Remarks_. “_Captus_ fuit Willelmus Waleis per
unum Scottum, scilicet per dominum Johannem de Mentiphe, et usque
London ad Regem adductus, et adjudicatum fuit quod traheretur, et
suspenderetur, et decollaretur, et membratim divideretur, et quod
viscera ejus comburentur, quod factum est; et suspensum est caput ejus
super pontem London, armus autem dexter super pontem Novi Castri super
Tynam, et armus sinister apud Berwicum, pes autem dexter apud Villam
Sanctis Johannis, et pes sinister apud Aberden.” Fol. 211. _Mentiphe_
is obviously an _erratum_ for _Mentithe_.
_A spy thai maid, and folowed him but let_
_Till_ Robrastoun, _was ner be the way syd,_
_And bot a howss quhar Wallace oysyt to byd._--V. 996.
i. e. Only _one_ house, where he was wont to conceal himself, while
waiting for Bruce.
“At Robroystone, in this parish, [Cadder, Lanarkshire] on the 11th
September 1305, Sir William Wallace was betrayed and apprehended by Sir
John Monteath, a favourite of King Edward I. of England. After he was
overpowered, and before his hands were bound, it is said he threw his
sword into Robroystone Loch. An oaken _couple_ or joist, which made
part of the barn in which the Scottish hero was taken, is still to be
seen in this neighbourhood, and may yet last for ages.” Stat. Acc.
VIII. 481, 482.
_Rycht suth it is, a martyr was Wallace,_
_Als_ Osauold, Edmunt, Eduuard, _and_ Thomas.--V. 1307.