Sir Thomas Dick Lauder considered this refusal to be quixotic; but
it was absolute. He addresses himself at great length to the task of
proving the high character for veracity of the Messrs Hay, and he
adds:—
I cannot for a moment believe that the brothers Allan Hay could be
guilty of the fraud of attempting to foist a forged manuscript upon
me. And, indeed, for what purpose should they attempt so base a thing?
Not, certainly, from a thirst for publication, because they never
entertained the idea of printing it until repeatedly urged to do so by
myself and some other friends who happened to see it, not through any
ostentation of theirs, but more as matter of accident than anything
else, for they did not seem to set any great value on their old copy.
But although you may be very ready to acquit the Allan Hays of being
the impostors, yet it must be admitted that the MS. may nevertheless
be a forgery. But if the Allan Hays be acquitted and their story be
believed, we then establish that, if there be forgery at all, it must
be a forgery of some antiquity. Now, in trying this alternative I
confess I think it much more difficult to believe that any one could
have undertaken so tedious and fruitless a labour in times when MSS.
were much less cared about than they are now, than to believe that the
MS. in question really is what it pretends to be. And I do think that
the internal evidence of the manuscript itself is very strongly in
its favour, and that it is extremely unlikely that any one could have
constructed a cheat with so many genuine characters about it. With all
this, I must also own that the mere circumstance that Sir Walter Scott
doubts is enough to shake the firmest opinion.
To Sir Thomas Dick Lauder’s letter of 20th July Sir Walter Scott
replied on 19th November, and that portion of his reply which relates
to the _Vestiarium_ is in the following terms:—
As for the _Vestiarium_, without pretending to know how it may have
been got up, it is not, as Audrey says, a true thing, and, allowing
the ingenuity of your arguments, one is obliged to allow so many
extremely improbable circumstances and mere possibilities, that if
any single one of them is not so weighty as to break down the whole
system, their combined influence certainly will do so.
I cannot believe there is any copy of such a work among the Cardinal
Duke of York’s papers. I am one of the commissioners for examining
these papers, which are to a certain extent already catalogued. I
will, however, keep a look out for the work of Master Urquhart,
which I think his name is. To suppose Lowlanders to be Highlanders
we must suppose that they spoke the Gaelick, and held the system of
clanship. Without this there could be no occasion for wearing clan
tartans. Now, every law or regulation concerning clanship is limited
to the Highlands and to the Borders, who seem to have it as a tie of
communion calculated to bind a tribe strongly together. But we are
now required to believe that there was none of that distinction of
dress at all, and if not of dress, why should there have been any
difference of language or laws? A nation’s dress is much more easily
changed than its manners and language; but here the dress alone
remains, the manners and language that associated with it are totally
gone. The idea of distinguishing the clans by their tartans is but a
fashion of modern date in the Highlands themselves; much less could
it be supposed to be carried to such an extent in the Lowlands as the
manuscript pretends. Tartan itself is unquestionably a Lowland word,
and the stuff “tiretain” fetched from Flanders, and I suspect the
Highlander wore a frieze mantle like the Irish chief, without what we
now call the bracken.
To this letter Sir Thomas replied on 29th November 1829. By that time
the terrible calamity, of which he gives so vivid a picture in the
_Moray Floods_, had happened to Relugas, and he appears to have had
little heart to write about anything else. But he makes an allusion to
the _Vestiarium_; and a very striking one it is. With all deference
to the very distinct expressions of opinion by his distinguished
correspondent, he observes:—
I confess I am still a believer. What do you think of the facsimile of
old Leslie’s handwriting? By-the-bye, I will thank you to send it me
in Mr Hay’s parcel,[90] to save me from sending to London for another.
I have examined the old copy of the manuscript in my possession,[91]
and find the water-mark of the paper to be ante-Union, the supporters
to the arms being two unicorns.
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]
Finally, Professor Skene fell foul of the Bishop of Ross’s signature.
It matters little to the public who was the perpetrator of the present
forgery. It may have been “_the late_ Mr Robert Walker,”[97] who is
so ready with an entry from “the Bishop’s Diary” in its support—a
“Diary” which, like Mr Sobieski Stuart’s MS. itself, formed “part of
the Douay papers.”[98] It may have been the defunct porter of Auld
Reekie, John Ross, from whom one of the copies is said to have been
procured. And _apropos_ of this latter possibility we would recommend
Mr Sobieski Stuart to again look at his original MS., and consider
whether what he has taken for the signature of the well-known bishop,
John of Ross, be not in fact a quaint attempt of his friend the
sword-player to write his own name in an old hand, after practising
upon the fever and ague notice which accompanies it.[99]
To this taunt John Sobieski Stuart made no reply. Possibly it was
beyond his power to give any example of the bishop’s signature beyond
the one in his possession. And yet the propriety of comparing an
authoritative example of Leslie’s handwriting with that appearing in
the _Vestiarium_ obviously suggests itself, and did not escape Sir
Thomas Dick Lauder’s observation. He wrote on 20th July 1829,[100]
enclosing Sir Walter Scott a traced facsimile of the signature for
his satisfaction, and adding “it is not impossible you may know of or
hear of some signatures of John Leslie’s to be found in some of the
public collections in Edinburgh. If so, it would be curious to compare
this facsimile with it.” Of this request no notice appears to have
been taken by Sir Walter, and Sir Thomas again returns to the charge
on 29th November,[101] when he asked Sir Walter for his opinion of
the authenticity of the signature, and requesting him to return the
facsimile. But the day of Sir Walter’s own trouble had come, and he
contented himself with returning the facsimile to Sir Thomas without
any attempt at verification. One obvious explanation of Sir Walter’s
proceeding is that the public records were not then so accessible as
they are now, and a search must have proved both tedious and expensive.
Of Leslie’s signature as Bishop of Ross (Jo. Rossen.) not many examples
are available, but the Editor’s attention has been drawn to one in the
_Lord Treasurer’s Accounts_. It is submitted that the reader may be
able to form an opinion as to whether the facsimile in the _Vestiarium_
is more likely to represent the signature of the Bishop of Ross or the
scrawl of an Edinburgh street porter of 1819.