Perhaps the most interesting class of Knox’s writings is his letters,

of which upwards of a hundred are included in Dr. Laing’s edition of

his works. They chiefly relate to the Reformation and the historical

events of the time; and many of them are valuable. His letters also

show him in a more amiable light than that in which he is usually

represented. He had a warm and tender heart, and for all his reputed

harshness of demeanour and his inflexible firmness of purpose, he was

by no means a man of blood; indeed there is no evidence that he was

ever accessory to the death of any one for his religious opinions. In

his history of the Reformation there are passages full of comic humour.

The description of the scene that happened in Edinburgh, at the close

of the procession on St. Giles’ day, is a fair example of his wit――“The

people began to cry down with the idol, down with it; and so without

delay it was pulled down.... Then might have been seen so sudden a fray

as seldom has been seen among that sort of men within this realm; for

down goes the crosses, off goes the surplices, round caps corner with

the crowns. The Gray Friars gaped, the Black Friars blew, the priests

panted and fled, and happy was he that first got to the house; for such

a sudden fray never came among the generation of Antichrist within this

realm before.”¹

¹ Knox’s _Works_, Volume I., page 260.

The Literature of the Reformation in Scotland may be said to close

with George Buchanan, whose life was prolonged to a comparatively old

age. Buchanan was born on the lands of Moss, in Stirlingshire, in the

beginning of February, 1506. The spot of his birth was a few yards

from the river Blane, and about two miles to the south-east of the

village of Killearn. On his father’s side he was of Celtic descent,

and probably Gaelic was his mother tongue; and, at least, it is clear

that he was quite familiar with that language; as he had the feeling

and intuition of a Celt, which was manifested throughout his writings.

He probably received the elements of his education at the schools

of Killearn and Dumbarton. At the age of fourteen he was sent to the

University of Paris, in which he spent two years, mainly devoted to

Latin, and writing verse in that language. He returned to Scotland in

weak health in 1522, and it was nearly a year ere he recovered. In 1525,

Buchanan proceeded to St. Andrew’s University to complete his first

stage in the curriculum of Arts, and, as mentioned in a preceding page,

he was under the teaching of John Mair. In October, 1525, he graduated

as a Bachelor of Arts, so it appears that his studies in Paris must

have been recognised by the Faculty of St. Andrews. Buchanan returned

to Paris in the summer of 1526, and entered the Scots College; and in

March, 1528, he graduated Master of Arts. Shortly after, he commenced

his teaching career as a regent in the University of Paris. He returned

to Scotland in 1535, and immediately became closely connected with the

Court of James V. At this time he wrote the poem entitled “Somnium,”

which gave great offence to the order of the Franciscans, who

thenceforth in Scotland, England, France, Portugal, and Italy, pursued

him with every weapon at their command. Buchanan was engaged by James

V. as tutor to one of his natural sons――Lord James Stuart, then a

child, not the James who was afterwards known as the Regent Moray, but

another natural son of the King, of the same name, who died in 1558.

Thus Buchanan was brought into very close connection with the Court,

and then the King prompting him to write more satires against the

Franciscans, he produced two severe writings against them. But the

resentment of the friars and the clergy was roused, and Buchanan soon

realised that even the countenance of the King would not protect him

from their wrath; and, as mentioned in a preceding chapter, he escaped

and fled to England, and shortly after proceeded to France. From

this time (1539), for upwards of twenty years, Buchanan was mainly

engaged as a professor in the Universities of France and Portugal, and

occasionally acted as a private tutor to the sons of personages of high

rank. At this period thought, creeds, doctrines, and opinions, were

in a state of great agitation and transition throughout Europe, which

rendered the calling of a public teacher one of extreme difficulty

and danger. Buchanan did not escape the anxieties, the troubles and

dangers then associated with his mode of life; for he had often to

face privation, and to encounter extreme difficulties and perplexities

in his career abroad. In March, 1547, under an engagement to act as a

professor in the Faculty of Arts in the University of Coimbra, Buchanan

proceeded to Portugal, and left France. For a short time, under the

management of Gouvéa, the principal of the institution, everything

succeeded delightfully, but he suddenly died in the end of the year

1547.

The following year Buchanan and other humanists connected with the

college were assailed by the Jesuits, and public charges of heresy were

made against them. Buchanan and other two were seized and imprisoned

in a dungeon. After long confinement they were brought to trial, and

for several days subjected to the most cruel reproaches, although no

accusers were even named, and they were sent back to prison. Towards

Buchanan the Jesuits were especially bitter; they accused him of

writing a poem against the Franciscans, and of having eaten flesh

during Lent, and that in conversation with some young Portuguese, when

the subject of the Eucharist was mentioned, he had said that Augustine

was far more with the heretics than the Church in his teaching on

that subject. After the inquisitors for a year and a half had worn out

Buchanan’s patience and their own, they shut him up for some months in

a monastery, in order that he might be more accurately instructed by

the monks, who proved neither unkindly nor ill disposed, though they

were utterly ignorant of religious truth. It was mainly at this time

that Buchanan translated a number of the Psalms into various measures.

At length, being restored to liberty, he embarked at Lisbon in a Cretan

ship, and sailed for England, where he arrived towards the end of 1552;

but shortly after proceeded to France, where he was again engaged in

public and private teaching, sometimes in Italy and sometimes in France.

After having experienced many vicissitudes in foreign lands, in 1561

Buchanan returned to his native country, after an absence of twenty-two

years.

On his return to Scotland, Buchanan became allied with the Protestant

party. He was not, however, a reformer in the same sense as Knox or

Calvin; he had more of the characteristics of a humanist and a scholar,

a man of genius and of letters. Buchanan became connected with the

court, and in 1562 he was acting as classical tutor to Queen Mary;

and in February, 1563, he was appointed to interpret documents written

in foreign languages, “that the Queen and council might thereafter

understand the same.” He addressed several of his short poems to Mary

herself, and he wrote and addressed a remarkable poem to her on the

birth of James VI. in 1566. The Earl of Moray, as Commendator of the

Priory of St. Andrews, appointed Buchanan principal of St. Leonard’s

College in 1566, an office which he held till 1570. Afterwards Buchanan

became attached to the party opposed to the Queen, and was closely

associated with the Regents Moray, Lennox, Mar, and Morton. In 1570 he

was appointed tutor to the young King, and directed to devote attention

to his education; and, along with Peter Young, Buchanan was in 1572 and

1578 confirmed by acts of the Privy Council in his office as “Master”

to the King. When Lennox became Regent, Buchanan was made Director of

Chancery, and then Keeper of the Privy Seal, an office which he held

till 1578; and in virtue of this office, he had a seat in parliament.

He died on the 28th of September, 1582, in the seventy-seventh year of

his age.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., page 234; Volume

II., pages 181, 689, 702, 708. Very full information of the

life and of the writings of Buchanan will be found in Dr.

Irving’s _Memoirs_, published in 1807, the second edition in

1817. Buchanan kept up a literary correspondence with some

of the most learned and famous scholars of the age. A very

able, discriminative, and exceedingly interesting biography

of Buchanan, by Mr. P. H. Brown, was published in 1890;

it is the best account of the life and works of this great

Scotsman which has yet appeared.

Although Buchanan wrote very little in the language of the people, his

Latin works have had much influence, not only in Scotland but also on

the Continent. He was universally recognised as an elegant Latin poet,

and a very successful writer of classic prose.

A review of his Latin poems does not come within the scope of this work,

but his prose writings demand some notice. His largest and most popular

work is the History of Scotland in twenty books. Though the early

portion of it is unmistakably fabulous, it is written throughout with

great animation and force. For the part of it which relates to the

history of the sixteenth century, he is an original and contemporary

authority, and from his official position it may reasonably be assumed

that he had access to the most trustworthy sources of information for

the later portion of his history. Though an ardent party man, he had

a strong sense of justice, a good judgment, and a love of truth. His

narrative is enriched with wise and just political reflections, and his

sentiments are almost always liberal, and for the time even radical.

This feature of his History drew down upon it the vengeance of all

who were attached to Romanism, all the enemies of freedom and all

the lovers of despotism; even at this day, there are some who utterly

detest the political principles of George Buchanan. The personal

responsibility of kings for their conduct which he emphatically

asserted in his history, was the most unpalatable of all opinions,

and it met with virulent and bitter opposition.

But the work in which Buchanan most fully and logically developed the

principles of political freedom is the _De Jure Regni apud Scotos_,

published in 1579. This work was written in the form of a dialogue,

and is a masterly compend of political thought. It at once excited a

large degree of attention.¹ The principles which he enunciated were

clear and decisive; they were derived from reason and experience, and

unflinchingly directed against every form of tyranny. The argument

was put in the following form:――Men were naturally formed for society,

but in order to arrest the internal broils that sprang up among them,

they created kings, and in order to restrain the power of their kings,

they enacted laws. As the community is the source of legal power it is

greater than the king, and may therefore judge him; and since the laws

are intended to restrain the king in case of collision, it is for the

people, not for the ruler, to interpret them, as otherwise they could

have no assurance that their interests would be safe. It is the duty of

the king to associate himself with the law, and to govern exclusively

according to its decisions. A king is one that rules by law, and in

accordance with the interests of the people; but a tyrant is one that

rules by his own will, and contrary to the interests of the people. An

opinion has been promulgated that a king who is hampered by recognised

constitutional ties, may be resisted if he violates them, but that a

tyrant who reigns where no constitution exists must be always obeyed;

this view, however, is wholly false. The people may justly make war

against such a ruler, and may pursue him till he be slain. Buchanan

illustrated and sent home these political opinions by examples drawn

from history. He had also the merit of completely disentangling

politics from the puerile conceits and endless subtleties of the

Catholic theologians.

¹ There were several editions of the dialogue published in a

separate form, in 1580, 1581, one at Glasgow 1750; one at

London 1765; and it has been repeatedly translated into

English: besides it was printed with all the editions of

Buchanan’s works, except the first. As we have seen, it was

condemned by the Scottish parliament in 1584, but probably

this had little effect in retarding its circulation. At the

end of last century there was a manuscript version of the

dialogue in English, in the Lambeth Library. In 1680, a

translation was published, but the place of printing was

concealed: English translations of it appeared at Edinburgh,

1691; at London, 1689, 1721, 1799.

There have been many editions of Buchanan’s other works,

of the history there have been at least twenty editions.

His translation of the Psalms into Latin metre was long

and universally admired, and has passed through numerous

editions both in England and Scotland, and in other

countries. In the beginning of the present century Dr.

Irving wrote――“Buchanan’s paraphrase continues to be read

in the principal schools of Scotland, and perhaps in those

of some other countries. Lauder’s attempt to supersede it

by that of Johnston proved unsuccessful. During the lifetime

of Buchanan, it had begun to be introduced into the schools

of Germany; and its various measures had been accommodated

to appropriate melodies, for the purpose of being chanted by

academics. Pope Urban VII., himself a poet of no mean talent,

is said to have averred that it was a pity it was written by

so great a heretic, for otherwise it should have been sung

in all churches under his authority.”――_Memoirs of the Life

and Writings of Buchanan_, pages 130‒131.

Buchanan’s writings in the Scottish dialect are two political pamphlets,

which were written in support of the King’s party, one entitled “An

Admonitioun direct to the trew Lordis maintenaris of Justice and

Obedience to the King’s Grace,” and the other called the “♦Chamaeleon.”

They both originated from the critical state of the Kingdom immediately

after the murder of the Regent Moray, and show the keen and practical

interest which Buchanan took in the politics of his day; and also

his insight into the real position of the nation at the time. In the

_Admonitioun_ his chief contention is that the only hope for religion

and liberty in Scotland depended on the safety of the young King; and

the aim of the pamphlet was to show the King’s supporters the national

ruin that would issue from the defeat of their cause. He insisted

that the Hamiltons were the chief enemies of the King’s cause. The

_Chamaeleon_ was directed against Maitland of Lethington, who had

joined the Queen’s followers, and used his talents and energy to

subvert the King’s party; and he more than any one else was the moving

spirit of Mary’s party. Lethington was then in the Castle of Edinburgh,

and tidings having reached him that such a pamphlet was forthcoming, on

the night of the 14th of April, 1571, Captain Melvin was sent from the

Castle to Lekpreuik’s house to seize him, and if possible to obtain the

manuscript of the offensive pamphlet. The printer, however, having had

warning, made his escape; but the publication of the _Chamaeleon_ was

stopped, and it was not printed till 1710. Lekpreuik went to Stirling,

and there he printed in the summer of 1571 Buchanan’s _Admonitioun_

direct to the trew Lordis. These two pamphlets of Buchanan are very

good specimens of Scottish prose literature; although the form of his

sentences is in the Latin style, the expression is clear and effective.

The Scottish Text Society have recently published Buchanan’s two

Scottish pamphlets, edited by Mr. P. Hume Brown.

♦ “Chamaelon” replaced with “Chamaeleon”

The teaching of the reformed preachers has prepared the Scots for the

reception of the political opinions proclaimed by Buchanan: they were

in harmony with the spirit of the time, and had a great influence. They

offer a striking contrast to the slavish opinions then entertained by

the majority of the English clergy. The English Church for more than

a hundred and fifty years was the servile handmaid of monarchy, and

the steady enemy of political liberty and freedom,¹ while the body

of the English Puritans and the Scotch clergy struggled hard against

the despotism of the Crown, and the clergy of the Church of England.

They constantly taught the doctrine of the divine right of kings; and

insisted that passive obedience and absolute submission to the will of

the king was the first and highest duty of the people. The clergy of

Scotland taught and preached a very different doctrine; they, at least,

were not afraid of rebellion when it was necessary, and to maintain

that it was unlawful for the people to rise against their King, if he

proved an unworthy ruler or had encroached upon their freedom, would

have been the last thing that they would have thought of.

¹ Hallam’s _Constitutional History of England_, Volume I.,

page 415. Jeremy Taylor said: “Eternal damnation is prepared

for all impenitent rebels in hell with Satan the first

founder of rebellion. Heaven is the place of good, obedient

subjects, and hell the prison and dungeon of rebels against

God and their prince.”――Homily on Wilful rebellion. Quoted

in Lecky’s _History of Rationalism_, Volume II., page 149.

The Scottish poets of the later half of the sixteenth century were

not of high rank, and therefore need not detain us long. None of their

writings appear to have been very popular, and they did not exercise

much influence on the people. The name of Sir Richard Maitland, of

Lethington, a lawyer, a Lord of Session, and a Privy Councillor, in

the reign of Queen Mary, is associated with the history of Scottish

poetry more from the fact of his having been a collector of the verses

and poems of others, than for the importance of his own compositions.

He was born in 1494, and after a long, an active, and honourable life,

during the last twenty years of which he was deprived of his eyesight,

died in March 1586, at the great age of ninety. His poems were all

written after his sixtieth year, and they bear the impress of the

sober reflection of mature age. None of his verses are soaring or

glowing, but they contain some very pointed references to the state

of society and the events of the period. The subjects of most of his

poems are lamentations for the disturbed state of his country, such

as the feuds amongst the nobles, the discontent of the common people,

complaints against the courts for long delay in deciding cases, and

the depredations of the border thieves. Touching a remedy for the

delay of law suits, Maitland advised the King to increase the number of

judges, and to augment their salaries out of the funds of the abbacies,

parsonages, and provestries, which were then at the disposal of the

Crown. His poems were first printed in a separate and complete form in

1830 by the Maitland Club; some of them, however, had appeared before

in Pinkerton’s _Ancient Scottish Poems_, and in other collections of

early poetry.¹

¹ Pinkerton’s _Ancient Scottish Poems_, Volume II., page

275‒345, 349‒353. Sibbald’s _Chronicle of Scottish Poetry_,

Volume III., pages 76, 319.

Maitland’s collections of early Scottish poetry consists of two volumes,

containing two hundred and seventy-two pieces, and specimens of these

have long been before the public. He was the author of a book entitled

_The History and Chronicle of the House and Surname of Seytoun_, which

was printed for the Maitland Club in 1829.

George Bannatyne was a writer of verses, but was more remarkable as a

collector of early poetry, with the history of which department of our

vernacular literature his name is inseparably associated. He formed

his collection in the year 1568, when a young man, while the plague was

raging in Scotland. His manuscript is neatly transcribed, and extends

to eight hundred pages folio. He was engaged on it for three months.

In the beginning of the manuscript he states that he was forced to have

recourse to old and mutilated copies. There are only a few of his own

compositions in the collection, two of which deal with amatory subjects.

He concludes the manuscript with an address to the reader in the

following words:――

“Here ends this book, written in time of pest,

When I fra labour was compelled to rest,

Into the three last months of this year,

From our Redeemer’s birth, to know it here,

Ane thousand is, five hundred, threescore eight.

Of this purpose no more needs be taught.

So, till conclude, God send us all good end,

And after death eternal life us send.”¹

¹ Many particulars about the poems contained in this manuscript

may be seen in _Ancient Scottish Poems_, published by Lord

Hailes in 1770; in Pinkerton’s _Ancient Scottish Poems_; in

a volume printed by the Bannatyne Club, containing a memoir

of the worthy collector, Bannatyne; by Sir Walter Scott, and

in several of the writings of the late Dr. Laing, relating

to the early poetry of Scotland.

Only a few of Bannatyne’s own poems are preserved, and they have not

much poetical merit, though they are interesting as the effusions of

one that was so instrumental in transmitting to posterity the early

poetry of bygone generations.

Alexander Scott wrote poetry during this period, and his poems were

edited by the late Dr. Laing, but nothing has been definitely

ascertained concerning his parentage or profession. From his writings

it appears that he was married; but his wife deserted him, and fled

with some wanton man; however, after expressing his sorrow for this

mishap, he avowed his determination to choose another wife, and to

forget the faithless one. His poems are mostly founded on subjects of

an amatory character, and he often shows a considerable degree of fancy

and harmony. The longest of his productions is entitled “A New-Year’s

Gift to Queen Mary when she came first hame,” but it has little poetic

merit. His “Justing between Adamson and Sym” appears to be an imitation

of “Christ’s Kirk of the Green.”¹

¹ Alexander Scott’s _Poems_, 1821. Dr. Irving’s _History of

Scottish Poetry_, pages 417‒424. Eighteen of his pieces are

included in Sibbald’s _Chronicle of Scottish Poetry_, Volume

III., pages 115‒175.

Alexander Arbuthnot was born in 1538 at Pitearles, in Mearns, and

educated at the University of St. Andrews. In 1561 he passed to France,

and for five years prosecuted the study of the law under Cujacius,

in the University of Bruges. He returned to Scotland in 1566, with

the intention of following the profession of law, but was induced to

enter the ministry, and became an able adherent of the Reformation. He

was highly respected for his learning and knowledge, and in 1568 was

appointed Principal of the University of Aberdeen. He took an active

part in the proceedings of the Church Courts, and was twice elected

Moderator of the General Assembly. To the study of theology he joined

the study of letters, and was the author of an elegant Latin work

entitled “Orations on the Origin and Dignity of the Law,” which was

printed at Edinburgh in 1572. In his poems, which are in the Scottish

language, he mostly confines himself to subjects of a serious cast, and

some of his pieces are pervaded with a pleasing air of melancholy and

a warm benignity. He died in 1583, regretted by his contemporaries, who

united in recording his virtues.¹

¹ Spottiswood; _Delitiæ Poetarum Scotorum II._, page 120. Dr.

M‘Crie’s _Life of Melville_, Volume I., pages 114‒117, 283.

Only four or five of Arbuthnot’s poems are preserved. The most lively

of them is the one entitled “The Praise of Women,” which extends to 224

lines, and contains a very warm encomium of the fair sex. His effusion

entitled “The Miseries of a Poor Scholar,” is rather an interesting

composition, and shows that he had a vein of keen and glowing, though

somewhat carping, sentiment.¹

¹ These two poems are included in Pinkerton’s _Ancient Scottish

Poems_, Volume I., pages 138‒155; and quotations are given

in Dr. Irving’s _History of Scottish Poetry_, pages 432‒436.

Among the writers of rhyme of this period may be mentioned John

Davidson, who was born about the year 1549 at Dunfermline. He studied

at the University of St. Andrews from 1567 to 1570; and afterwards

became a Regent of St. Leonards College. He was a strong adherent

of the Reformation; and took a warm interest in promoting education

amongst the people. He wrote a metrical panegyric on John Knox,

entitled “A Brief Commendation of Uprightness,” which was printed at

St. Andrews in 1573. The aim of this rhymed production is to record in

popular language the memorable service that the Reformer rendered to

the nation. Every stanza of the poem closes with the word _uprightness_.

About the same time he composed a poem called “A Dialogue between a

Clerk and a Courtier,” which was printed in the beginning of the year

1574. It contains an exposure of a practice adopted by the Regent

Morton for the purpose of retaining at his own disposal a large part of

the thirds of benefices, by uniting two, three, or four churches under

the care of one minister, thus restoring the abuse of pluralities.

Morton was much offended at the outspoken style of the poem; and

its author was cited and convicted before a court at Haddington,

and banished from the country. Lekpreuik, the printer of the rhyme,

was also prosecuted, and imprisoned for some time in the Castle of

Edinburgh.¹ They were indicted on an Act of Parliament, of 1551,

“against blasphemous rhymes.” There is little in Davidson’s book that

could have given reasonable ground of alarm to any well regulated

government, as it merely describes a subject of public interest in a

comparatively sober manner. Davidson returned to Scotland after the

fall of Morton, and, as we have seen in preceding pages, took an active

part in the proceedings of the Church.

¹ _Poetical Remains of John Davidson_, 1829; Melville’s

_Diary_, pages 27, 28; _Life of Knox_, pages 447‒460; 1855.

_Annals of Scottish Printing_, by Dickson and Edmond, pages

205, 270‒71.

The literary merits of the piece, which offended the Regent, are

not great. The versification, however, is easy, and the conversation

is carried on in a natural and spirited style. Shortly after its

publication, Davidson composed a poem to the memory of Robert Campbell

of Kinyeancleugh, a man that had shown his attachment to the reformed

religion by his steadfast support of Knox. Campbell died while

endeavouring to shelter Davidson from the effects of persecution, and

the latter gratefully commemorated the virtues of his protector. The

poem was published in 1595. Having returned from exile, Davidson was

appointed minister of the parish of Liberton in 1579. Afterwards he

incurred the displeasure of the King, and had to leave his charge, and

retired to England. After his return he preached at various places in

and around Edinburgh; and in 1596 he became minister of Prestonpans.

But owing to his opposition to the King’s scheme of Church polity, he

was imprisoned for a time, and afterwards his action was restricted

to his own parish. After a life of activity and earnest work, he died

in 1604, leaving behind him a collection of papers relating to the

ecclesiastical history of Scotland.¹

¹ _Poetical Remains of J. Davidson_; Dr. M‘Crie’s _Life of

Melville_, Volume I., pages 131‒132, 449‒453. Davidson’s

other writings consisted of a letter in answer to Dr.

Bancroft’s attack on the Church of Scotland: an account of

Scottish Martyrs, written in Latin, but this work is now

lost; though Calderwood had the use of it when he compiled

his history: a Catechism entitled, “Some helps for young

scholars in Christianity,” Edinburgh, 1602, which was

reprinted in 1708. “A little before his death he penned a

treatise, De Hostibus Ecclesiæ Christi, wherein he affirms

the erecting of bishops in this Kirk is the most subtle

thing to destroy religion that ever could be devised.”

――Row’s _History._

There were several other minor versifiers in the latter

part of this century, but their productions are hardly of

sufficient importance to warrant any lengthy notice. Robert

Semple was a versifier of some repute in his day; he wrote

a poem on the siege of the Castle of Edinburgh, which was

printed in 1573. Another of his rhymes is entitled, “The

Legend of the Bishop of St. Andrews;” this was an attack

upon the character of Archbishop Adamson; but Semple’s

compositions are rather coarse. _Scottish Poems of the

Sixteenth Century_, Volume I.; Pinkerton’s _List of the

Scottish Poets_; Birrel’s _Diary_, page 14; Ramsay’s

_Evergreen_, Volume I., pages 67, 71.

There were also a number of anonymous poems and rhymes

relating to public events, published about this time.――“The

Testament and Tragedy of the late King Henry Stuart of

good memory;” another, “A declaration of the Lord’s just

Quarrel,” both were printed in 1569; and are very bitter

against Queen Mary. “A Tragedy in the form of a Dialogue, in

commemoration of the merits and fate of the regent Moray,”

was published in 1570. This performance has little or

no poetic value; many of the author’s expressions are in

extremely bad taste. Some parts however of the Regent’s

public service was clearly stated, and his subjection of

the borderers was narrated quite distinctly. This rhyme is

printed in _Scottish Poems of the Sixteenth Century_. “The

Lamintation of Lady Scotland,” which was published in 1572,

is a production of a similar description; but it contained

some important information regarding the state of the

people; and the oppressive character of the nobles was very

plainly stated. Lady Scotland concluded with a fling at the

practices of the dignitaries of the Roman Church. _Scottish

Poems of the Sixteenth Century._ There were several

rhymers who frequented the court of James VI., some of them

Englishmen, but their writings are of little interest.――Dr.

Irving’s _History of Scotish Poetry_, pages 461‒470.

Alexander Montgomery was one of the most eminent and popular of the

Scottish poets of the later half of the sixteenth century. Of his

life and character very few facts are known. He seems to have been for

sometime employed in the service of James VI.; while it also appears

that he experienced some of the vicissitudes of favour which so often

fall to the lot of the courtier. It is supposed that he died about 1609.

Several of his short poems occur in Bannatyne’s manuscript, and must

have been composed forty years before his death.¹ Montgomery’s poems

are numerous, embracing sonnets and short pieces of very varied degrees

of merit. It has been supposed that his taste was partly formed by

the study of the Italian poets, as some of his quaint turns of fancy

betray their Italian origin. He has written on many subjects, and tried

his ingenuity in a variety of measures, but his happiest efforts were

those of a lyric cast. To him amorous subjects afforded the most common

themes for the exercise and the display of his powers. He had a good

command of language, and, like some of his predecessors, especially of

words of abuse and scorn.²

¹ _Poems_ of Alexander Montgomery, by Dr. D. Laing;

_Biographical Notices_, pages 5‒16; 1821.

² The production entitled “The flyting between Montgomery

and Polwart” (Sir Patrick Hume of Polwarth) teems with

the coarsest and most abusive strings of terms to be found

in any language. It is equally as coarse and vulgar as

the performance between Dunbar and Kennedy, in the same

department. Montgomery began the sport with the following

lines:――

“Polwart, yee peip like a mouse amongst thornes;

Na cunning yee keipe. Polwart, yee peip;

Ye look like a sheipe, and yee had twa hornes.

Polwart, yee peip like a mouse amongst thornes.

Beware what thou speiks, little foule earth tade;

With thy Cannigate breiks, beware what thou speiks,

Or there sal be wat cheiks for the last that thou made.

Beware what thou speiks, little foule earth tade.”

――Page 103.

The quantity of low slang that occurs in this composition

is very great, and many of the words are still current among

the lowest class in Scotland.

His greatest effort is “The Cherrie and the Slae,” a poem of

considerable ingenuity, extending to one hundred and fourteen stanzas,

comprising one thousand five hundred and ninety-five lines. The poem

begins in an amatory mood, and ends with a moral. Though the allegory

is rather obscure, and the thought too dim, many of the stanzas

are rich in imagery and smooth in diction. It was very popular, and

continued to be printed till a recent period.¹

¹ As far as known, the first edition of _The Cherrie and

the Slae_ was published at Edinburgh in 1597; in that year

two editions were printed by Robert Waldegrave. Several

stanzas were afterwards added by the author to an impression

which appeared in 1615, from the press of Andrew Hart. The

subsequent editions were――one at Edinburgh, 1536; another

there, 1675; another, 1706; and one inserted in Ramsay’s

_Evergreen_, 1724; one at Aberdeen, 1645: and editions

printed at Glasgow in 1668, 1746, 1751, 1754, 1757, and 1768;

and a modernised edition printed at Edinburgh, 1779: The

Scottish Text Society issued a complete edition in 1886‒87,

edited by Dr. James Cranstoun, with numerous notes and a

very useful Glossary.

Montgomery’s sonnets were mostly all addressed to some of his

contemporaries or friends, to the King, the Lords of Session, and

to others, male and female. They have not much poetical merit, nor

much interest now; some of his miscellaneous poems, however, are more

valuable and interesting. The following lines are from his short piece

headed “The Opposition of the Court to Conscience”:――

“The court some qualities requires

Which conscience cannot but accuse;

And specially such as aspiris

Mon honest adulation use.

I dar not say, and doubly deill,

But court and conscience wallis not weill.

* * * * *

Sin every minioun thou must make

To gar them think that thou art theirs,

Howbeit thou be, behind their back,

No furtherer of their affairs,

But mett them moonshin ay for meill;

So court and conscience wallis not weill.”¹

¹ _Poems_, pages 136, 137; Dr. Laing’s Edition.

Montgomery also versified several of the Psalms, and wrote many

devotional verses.¹

¹ _Poems_, pages 247‒287.

We have already seen that James VI. was fond of displaying his learning

and his theological knowledge. He was equally anxious to show his

subjects and the world that he was a poet. In 1584, when only eighteen

years of age, he published his first work, entitled “Essays of a

Prentice in the Divine Art of Poesie.” This publication consists of

a mixture of poetry and prose: the poems are mostly a kind of sonnet.

None of them are of high merit, but, emanating from such an exalted

personage, they were greatly praised, and James was soon recognised

as a poet and a scholar. He appeared as a contributor to the Cambridge

collection of verses on the death of Sir Philip Sidney, published in

1587. In this book the king’s verses were placed first.¹ His subsequent

writings were numerous, but a review of them would not repay the

trouble and the space which it would occupy. It may at once be stated

that his books have contributed nothing to the advancement of an

enlightened and liberal policy of government, nor to the progress of

civilisation.²

¹ There is much information about the writings of James the VI.

in Dr. Harris’s account of his life, 1753.

² In the list of King James’s works the following may be

mentioned:――1. _Ane Fruitful Meditation_, containing a

plain and facile exposition of the seventh, eighth, ninth

and tenth verses of the twentieth chapter of Revelations,

in form of a sermon; set down by the most Christian king,

and sincere professor and chief defender of the truth, James

the Sixth, King of Scots. Edinburgh, 1588. 2. _Demonology_,

in form of a dialogue, divided into three books, Edinburgh,

1597; again, 1600; and at London, 1603. 3. _His Majesty’s

Poetical Exercises in vacant hours_, Edinburgh, 1591. 4.

_Instructions to his Son, Prince Henry. Basilicon Doron_,

1603. 5. _The True Law of Free Monarchies_, 1598. 6.

_Counterblast to Tobacco._ 7. _Mysteries of State._ 8. His

other writings chiefly consist of speeches, declarations,

and the like. There is an enumeration of them in Dr. Watt’s

_Bibliotheca Britannica_, Volume II., page 541.

Towards the end of the century, there is some indication of an

improvement in the moral sentiment and tone of the popular literature.

Alexander Hume, minister of Logie, who died in 1609, produced in the

later years of his life a number of hymns or sacred songs. A volume

which he printed at Edinburgh in 1599, contains eight hymns, a short

poem on the defeat of the Spanish Armada, and a prose Epistle in which

he records the experiences of his youth. In the Epistle he expresses

himself pretty freely respecting the corruption of the judges, and

animadverts boldly on the Scottish Court.¹ His hymns are very unequal,

but the versification is occasionally fluent and easy; and some of his

descriptions are natural and vigorous. The following lines are taken

from the hymn entitled “the Day Festival:”――

“O perfect light! which shed away

The darkness from the light,

And left one ruler o’er the day,

Another o’er the night.

Thy glory, when the day forth flies,

More vively does appear,

Nor at midnight unto our eyes,

The shining sun is clear;

The shadow of the earth anone,

Removes and drawis by;

Syne in the east when it is gone,

Appears a clearer sky:

Which soon perceives the little larks

The lapwing, and the snipe;

And tunes their songs, like nature’s clerks,

O’er meadow, moor, and stripe.

* * * * *

What pleasure ’twere to walk and see

Endlong a river clear,

The perfect form of every tree

Within the deep appear;

The salmon out of crooves and creels

Up hauled into skouts,

The bells and circles on the weills

Through louping of the trouts.

O then it were a seemly thing,

While all is still and calme,

The praise of God to play and sing

With cornet and with shalme.”

This is certainly a great advance from the rude and coarse rhymes of

the “Gude and Godlie Ballads.” There is an ease and artless vividness

of description in this beautiful hymn which renders it exceedingly

pleasing to read; and it must have been more touching when sung.

¹ “Hymns or sacred songs, wherein the right use of poetry

may be espied. By Alexander Hume. Whereunto are added,

the experience of the author’s youth and certain precepts,

serving to the practice of sanctification.” Edinburgh, 1599.

James Melville, the nephew of Andrew Melville, whose valuable and

interesting _Diary_ has been often referred to in the preceding pages

of this work, also indulged in writing Scottish poetry. In early life

he acted as a professor at Glasgow and at St. Andrews, and afterwards

as a parish minister. He was one of the ministers that were deprived of

their livings and liberty after the accession of the King to the throne

of England. He died at Newcastle in 1614. He was a mild and estimable

man, more remarkable for his piety than for any original poetic power.

In 1599 his work entitled a “Catechism” was published at Edinburgh. The

first part of it is in prose, and consists of prayers and meditations

for different occasions, directions for self-examination, a form of

examination for those seeking to be admitted to the communion, in the

order of question and answer. The second part is in verse, and has the

following title――“A Morning Vision, or Poem for the Practice of Piety,

in devotion, faith, and repentance: wherein the Lord’s Prayer, Belief,

and Commands, and so the whole Catechism, and right use thereof,

is largely expounded.” He composed many other religious pieces in

verse, but his poetry is very homely and tame; and it appears that

his Catechism was not popular. His writings are interesting, however,

as specimens of the native language, and for the curious and plain

statement of customs and notions which prevailed in Scotland in his

day.¹

¹ James Melville’s _Diary_, edition by Robert Pitcairn,

_Prefatory Notice_, pages 8‒31, 45. The editor gives a list

of his various works, pages 44‒48. But the _Diary_ itself is

by far the most valuable of his writings to the student of

history.

The fashion of the age led the learned to make attempts to write Latin

poetry and rhymes. The quantity of effort spent in learning to read

and compose in the Latin language was enormous; and although this had

a tendency to improve the standard of culture, it may be doubted if it

was not carried too far. We are also told that “in all the schools and

colleges, and from the age of six to sixteen, the youth spoke and heard

nothing but Latin;” also that in their correspondence and ordinary

conversation with each other, the learned used the Latin tongue.¹

Supposing this to be literally true, it can hardly be said to have

been the most effective way to develop the faculties of the mind, or

to advance the civilisation of the nation. This mode of culture tends

to separate men of letters from the general community, and prevents

them from exercising an influence over the mind of the people; and

thus deprives literature of the advantages to be derived from its

diffusion among all ranks of society. It may be said, indeed, that

the Scottish Latinists of this period exercised an indirect influence

upon the national mind, which in one sense may be granted; but after

the Reformation the spell of Latin Christianity was broken, and in

Protestant nations the Latin language as a formative power inevitably

became greatly circumscribed. This was a consequence of the Reformation,

whether learned men saw it or not, that did not effect its operation.

¹ Dr. M‘Crie’s _Life of Melville_, Volume II., pages 328,

330‒332. “But perhaps, the most extraordinary circumstance

in the history of our literature at this period was the

enthusiasm with which Latin poetry was cultivated by our

countrymen; divines, lawyers, physicians, country-gentlemen,

courtiers, and statesmen, devoted themselves to this

difficult species of composition, and contended with each

other in the various strains which the ancient masters

of Roman song had employed. The principal poems in the

collection entitled ‘Delitiæ Poetarum Scotorum’ were

originally published, or at least written, at this time.

They are of course possessed of very different degrees of

merit, but of the collection in general we may say that it

is equal to any of the collections of the same kind which

appeared in other countries, except that which contains

the Latin poems composed by natives of Italy. If this was

not the classic age of Scotland, it was at least the age of

classical literature in it, and at no subsequent period of

our history have the languages of Greece and Rome been so

successfully cultivated, or the beauties of their poetry so

deeply felt and so justly imitated. Besides Andrew Melville,

the individuals who attained the greatest excellence in this

branch of literature were Sir Thomas Craig, Sir Robert Ayton,

Hume of Godscroft, John Johnston, and Hercules Rollock.”

To these may be justly added――Archbishop Adamson, who wrote

sacred poetry, translations of various books of the Bible in

verse, a Catechism, and other treatises in Latin. He died in

extreme poverty in 1591. He also wrote several works which

have never been published.

Remembering the comparatively unsettled state of the nation, the

religious and theological literature produced in the later part of

the century was considerable. Before this period no commentary on

Scripture, nor any collection of sermons, had appeared in Scotland; for

the writings on the Four Gospels of the Scottish Scholastic, John Mair,

were published in Paris. But Robert Rollock, the first Principal of

the University of Edinburgh, was an earnest educationalist and a warm

promoter of literature, whose name is closely and honourably associated

with the history of education and religious literature in Scotland. In

connection with his profession, he composed commentaries on many parts

of the Bible, some of which were published at Edinburgh toward the

end of the century, and were shortly after reprinted at Geneva, and

commended by several foreign divines. He wrote in Latin, and though

his mode of exposition was not free from the fetters of the pedantic

logic of Scholasticism, and themes that involved the most momentous

moral issues were handled as mere abstractions. Having formed certain

premises, the intermediate conclusions to which the rules of their

method led, they treated these deductions as logical symbols, and

reasoned them out, utterly ignoring the difficulty and the doubt

which so often attends the steps of moral reasoning. Everything rested

on the truth of the definitions and the premises; and to change or

doubt any of these was fatal to the whole structure. Protestantism has

only gradually and with difficulty extricated itself from this purely

dogmatic method; and even yet we are not altogether clear of its meshes.

Rollock’s good sense and feeling of the practical often appears in his

commentaries on the Scripture in spite of the art of the dialectician,

though in some of his Latin writings he revels in dialectics. His

sermons in the Scottish dialect, published at Edinburgh in 1599, from

notes taken by some of his students, are pretty concise and practical

discourses, and exhibit him in a favourable light. His work entitled

“God’s Effectual Calling,” originally published in Latin at Edinburgh,

1597, is rather an elaborate performance. It formed a portion of the

system of theology which he taught. In this treatise Rollock touches

upon a variety of topics relating to the Scriptures; and like other

Protestant divines of the period, exhibits an unhesitating and firm

belief in revelation. He mentions various early translations of the

Old and New Testament, and briefly discusses the authorship and claims

of the Vulgate. Passing to the consideration of translations into the

modern tongues, he inquires whether it is lawful to translate the Bible

into every modern language, whether the common prayers should be in the

mother tongue, and whether the people should read the Scriptures. The

arguments of the Roman Catholics against the free communication of the

Bible to the people he minutely examines and effectively exposes.¹

¹ _Select Works of R. Rollock_: Wodrow Society, 1849, Volume

I., pages 127‒160. A list of his works is given at pages

eighty-nine and ninety-five of the introduction to this

volume. Some of his writings were popular for several

generations after his death.

Robert Bruce, whom we have seen in preceding pages, as a bold and

popular preacher, was a man of strong and vigorous mind, intensely

earnest, honest, and steadfast in principle. His sermons in the

Scottish dialect were published at Edinburgh in 1590 and 1591; and are

exceedingly interesting specimens of vernacular composition, shortly

before the period when it was generally superseded by modern English.

They are full of doctrinal points and arguments, remarkably regular in

style and clear in expression. He had a good sense of method, and the

faculty of making an intricate subject intelligible to the ordinary

understanding.¹

¹ His sermons were translated into English, and published at

London in 1617; they were reprinted for the Wodrow Society.

――_Fasti Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ_, Volume I., page 18.

Robert Pont was born about 1528. Educated in St. Leonard’s College

at St. Andrews, he early embraced the reformed opinions, and his name

appeared among the members of the first General Assembly. From this

time till his death in 1606, he took an active part in the affairs

of the Church. In 1572, with the consent of the General Assembly, he

accepted an appointment to act as a senator of the college of justice,

and he held a seat on the bench till 1584. He was chosen minister of St.

Cuthbert’s Church, Edinburgh, in 1574; the same year, he was appointed

to revise all the books that were printed and published.

Pont was one of the most learned of the early ministers of the Church

of Scotland. In 1566 he published _A Translation and Interpretation of

the Helvetian Confession_. At the request of the General Assembly, he

composed three sermons against sacrilege in 1594, which were published

in 1599. This is an interesting subject, and has been often touched

on, in preceding chapters; yet a short quotation from a well informed

contemporary cannot be out of character:――“From the year of our Lord

1560 to this present time, the greatest study of all men of power

of this land has been, by all kinds of inventions, to spoil the Kirk

of Christ of her patrimony, by chopping and changing, diminishing of

rentals, converting of victual in small sums of money, setting of feus

under the value, long tackes upon tackes, with two or three life-rents,

with many twenty years of a tack, annexations, erections of Kirk-rents

into temporal livings and heritage, pensions, simple donations,

erecting of new patronages, union of teinds, making new abbots,

commendators, priors, and other papistical titles, which ought to

have no place in a reformed Kirk and country, with many other corrupt

and fraudful ways, to the detriment and hurt of the Kirk, the schools,

and the poor, without any stay or gainsaying.”¹ His other writings

chiefly related to chronology. “A new treatise on the right reckoning

of the years and ages of the world and men’s lives, and of the state

of the last decaying age thereof, this year of Christ, containing

sundry singularities worthy of observation, concerning courses of

times and revolutions of the heavens, reformation of kalendars, and

prognostications,” etc., published at Edinburgh, 1599. His work,

entitled _Chronologiam de Sabbatis_, was published at London in 1626.

He also wrote a tract on the union of the kingdoms, in the form of

a dialogue, which was published in 1604. In this dialogue he gives a

deplorable description of the tyranny of the aristocracy, the weakness

of the law, and the terrors of the judges, who trembled before the

power of the nobles.²

¹ Pont’s _Sermons against Sacrilege_.

² _History of the Church and Parish of St. Cuthbert’s_, 1829;

Tytler’s _Life of Sir Thomas Craig_, page 218; Wodrow’s

_Biographical Collections_, Volume I.

The Reformation movement was admirably adapted to call forth any latent

talent that existed in the nation; as it tended to arouse the latent

powers of the mind, and to widen the range of ideas and the objects of

study. After the Revolution, the department of jurisprudence began to

receive more attention; and indeed, it may be said that in Scotland the

teaching of the civil law only commenced at this period. Previously,

the canons were the great object of study; those who delivered lectures

occasionally on the civil law were in priests’ orders. It was not

till the later part of the sixteenth century that the institutes and

pandects began to be substituted for the sacred canons and decretals.

Dr. Edward Henryson edited and wrote a preface to a collection of the

acts of parliament, from 1424 to 1564, which was published at Edinburgh

in 1566: this volume, however, is rather carelessly arranged.¹ Sir

John Skene, the clerk registrar, edited a collection of the Acts

of Parliament, from 1424 onwards to the later part of the sixteenth

century, which was published at Edinburgh in 1597. He also, for the

first time, published in 1609, in Latin and in English, a collection of

the laws and constitutions of Scotland, from the days of Malcolm II. to

the reign of James I.; to this he added a treatise on the explanation

of difficult words and terms.² Although modern investigators have found

many reasons for the rejection and modification of not a few of Skene’s

opinions and conclusions touching the early laws of Scotland, it must

be acknowledged that his labours were valuable and meritorious, and at

the time of their publication threw much light on the ancient customs

and laws of Scotland.

¹ Dr. Henryson is the author of a work, entitled _Commentatio

Title X. Libri Secundi Institutionum de Testamentis

Ordinandis_, published in 1555. It is a kind of running

commentary, and it was inserted in the great work of

Gerard Meerman, _Novus Thesaurus Juris Civilis et Canonici_.

Henryson is reported to have written some other books, which

are not now extant.

² Skene’s first edition of the _Regiam Majestatem_, was

published in 1613; and the origin and authorship of this

book has caused much disquisition.

Sir Thomas Craig was an eminent and successful lawyer in the reign of

James VI. His best known work is the learned treatise on the feudal

law, “Jus Feudale, Tribus Libris Comprehensum,” which he finished in

1603, but it was not published till 1655, forty-seven years after the

author’s death. It is written in a vigorous Latin style. It obtained a

wide and authoritative reputation; many translations and editions of it

were published. He was a vigorous thinker, and made the first regular

attempt to treat the feudalism of Scotland in a philosophic spirit.

It is not surprising, however, that he failed to explain the peculiar

form that feudalism had assumed in Scotland; when he wrote, feudalism

was full of life in the kingdom; and it may be questioned, if a

professional lawyer is the best qualified person to give a true

exposition of the system in operation around him. Every one that has

tried to grasp and comprehend the special form of feudalism which so

long prevailed in this country, is well aware of the difficulties of

the subject. As we have seen, Scotch feudalism was not a natural growth

of the clan organisation. In the days of Craig, the distinctive feature

of feudalism was connected with the holding of land――the customary

rights and claims of the superior, and the obligation of his vassals

to satisfy all his demands; but one by one, here and there, the feudal

burdens were gradually lightened and outgrown, till at last the tenants

of the land only paid a money rent.

William Welwood was for sometime Professor of Law in the University

of St. Andrews, and published several useful treatises on juridical

subjects. He wrote both in Latin and English. In one of his works, he

drew a parallel of the points of resemblance between the Jewish and

the Roman codes. His tract on ecclesiastical processes was intended to

distinguish the forms of procedure in the civil courts, from the forms

that should be used in the Church courts, touching citation, the mode

of trial, and appeals. His abridgment of sea laws――one of the most

useful of his productions――was the first systematic book on maritime

jurisprudence which appeared in Britain. But Welwood ventured into

other fields: he wrote a treatise on practical theology, which was

published at Middleburgh in 1594. He had an inquiring mind, and in all

his writings there is a worthy desire to turn his knowledge to the good

of mankind.¹

¹ This work has the following title: “Abridgment of all Sea

Laws; gathered forth of all Writings and Monuments, which

are to be found among any People or Nation upon the Coasts

of Great Britain and the Mediterranean Sea,” London, 1613.

Watts’ _Bibliotheca Britannica_, Volume II., page 957. The

learned Selden afterwards wrote on this subject, in the

seventeenth century, and even later various points of the

law relating to the sea were fiercely disputed.

This very industrious man was also connected with the progress of

physics and the arts. In 1577, while teaching at St. Andrews, he

obtained from the Government a patent for a new mode of raising

water with greater facility from coal pits, sinks, and low places. He

afterwards published an account of his plan, and of the principles upon

which he calculated that it would produce the intended effect: this

publication appeared in 1582. It is an interesting indication of the

state of hydraulic science at the time, and of the experiments which

gradually led to the discovery and to the application of its true

principles.¹ In 1594, Parliament granted to two men the exclusive right

of making certain pumps for raising and forcing water out of mines.²

¹ His plan of raising water has been thus summarised:――“If

Welwood had persevered in his experiments, he might have

accidentally made the discovery which afterwards occurred

to Galileo. He proposed to produce the effect by means of a

leaden pipe bent into a syphon, and extended on the exterior

so as to discharge the water at a point below the surface of

the well. Having shut up the two extremities of the pipe, he

introduces water into both legs by an aperture at the upper

point or elbow of the syphon, till they are completely full;

and then closing this aperture with great exactness, and

opening both ends of the syphon, he maintains that the water

will flow out of the exterior or lower leg, as long as there

is any in the well. It cannot, he argues, flow out of the

shorter leg, for it has no head or difference of level to

give it the power of issuing in that direction. It cannot

flow out of both legs at the same time; for then it behoved

to separate somewhere in the middle, which, according to him,

is impossible, as nature abhors a vacuum. Therefore, it must

flow out of the well by the longer leg. The well is supposed

to be 45 cubits deep (for our author was not possessed of

the important fact that water will not rise to a height

above 33 feet). In other respects the principles of his

demonstration are not more unscientifical than those which

Galileo would have employed sixty years after the time of

Welwood.” Dr. M‘Crie, _Life of Melville_, Volume II., pages

320‒321.

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV., page 176.

But the most celebrated name in connection with the history of science

in Scotland was John Napier of Merchiston. This remarkable man, who

contributed so much to extend the bounds of knowledge, was born in

the year 1550. He was educated at the University of St. Andrews, and

afterwards in France at the University of Paris. He had returned to

Scotland before 1571, and for many years took an active interest in

the affairs of the Church. He was twice married, and had a family of

sons and daughters. Although he was of a studious and inquiring turn of

mind, he was by no means a mere recluse, as he attended to his domestic

duties and the business of his father, who was connected with the mint

and mining operations of Scotland. In short, he interested himself in

many projects, and seems to have passed a comparatively happy life. He

died in the month of April, 1617.¹

¹ M. Napier’s _Memoirs of John Napier of Merchiston_, 1834,

pages 56, 91, 104‒107, 129‒131, 147‒173, 227‒234, 282, 415,

430; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III.,

page 559.

The dominant feelings and the belief of the age had taken a firm hold

upon Napier’s mind, as his earliest publication manifested. This was

an ingenious and extremely curious book, containing an exposition of

the whole Revelations of St. John. He prefaced this work with a short

poetical address to Antichrist; and to his interpretation, he annexed

certain oracles of Sibylla, which he conceived to agree with the

Revelations and other parts of Scripture.¹ The full title of this

work will perhaps give a better idea of its contents than any lengthy

description: “A Plain Discovery of the Revelations of St. John,

set down in two Treatises; the one searching and proving the true

interpretation thereof; the other applying the same paraphrastically

and historically to the text: by John Napier; with a resolution of

certain doubts, moved by some well affected brethren; whereunto are

annexed certain oracles of Sibylla, agreeing with the Revelations and

other places of Scripture; and also an epistle omitted in the last

edition, 1645. This was printed for Andrew Wilson, and sold at his shop

at the foot of the Ladie’s Steps.”

¹ _A Plain Discovery of the Revelations of St. John_, page 61;

edition 1645.

The conclusions which he draws from the introductory and expositive

treatise on the Revelations of St. John were thus stated in his own

words:――“Then for conclusion, by these interpretative propositions

followeth four things, marvellous and notable. First, that the

interpretation of every part of the Revelations is accessory or

consectory to another――that is to say, it is so chained and linked

together, that every mystery opens the other, to the discovery of

the whole. Secondly, that the first half of the book is orderly――that

is to say, it containeth in order of time the most notable accidents

that concerneth God’s Church, from the time of Christ’s baptism

successively to the latter day. Thirdly, that every history prophesied

is limited or dated with its own number of years. Fourthly, and last

of all, that whatsoever history is more orderly and summarily than

plainly set down in the first orderly part of the book, the same is

repeated, interpreted, or amplified in the last part of the book,

which therefore we call the amplicative part of the book, dividing the

whole Revelations according to the following table, before we proceed

to the principal matter.”¹ The table which Napier drew is ingenious

and elaborate, and his interpretation and exposition of the Book of

Revelations is fully as sensible as many others that have appeared

since his day. This treatise must have been comparatively popular, as

the first edition was published at Edinburgh in 1593, and the fifth,

corrected and amended, appeared in 1645.

In 1596, Napier published a letter, entitled “Secret Inventions,

profitable and necessary in those days for the defence of this Island,

and withstanding of strangers, enemies of God’s truth and religion.”

The inventions which he proposed do not appear to be very hopeful, and

at first sight they seem to hover between the possible and impossible;

yet some of his schemes were not incredible or beyond the limits of

realisation. The following are the words in which he announced the new

inventions:――

“First, the invention, proof, and perfect demonstration, geometrical

and algebraical, of a burning mirror, which receiving the dispersing

beams of the sun, doth reflect the same beams altogether united and

concurring precisely in one mathematical point, in the which point

most necessarily it engenders fire, with an evident demonstration of

their error who affirm this to be made a parabolic section. The use

of the invention serveth for burning the enemies’ ships at whatsoever

appointed distance.

“Secondly, the invention and sure demonstration of another mirror

which, receiving the dispersed beams of any material fire or flame,

yields also the former effect, and serveth for the like use.

“Thirdly, the invention and visible demonstration of a piece of

artillery, which shot passeth not linally through the enemy destroying

only those that stand on the random thereof, and from them flying idly

as others do; but passeth superficially, ranging abroad within the

whole appointed place, and not departing forth of the place till it

hath exhausted its whole strength, by destroying those that be within

the bounds of the said place. The use hereof not only serveth greatly

against the army of the enemy on land; but also by sea it serveth to

destroy and cut down, and one shot the whole masts and tackling of so

many ships as be within the appointed bounds, so long as any strength

at all remains.

“Fourthly, the invention of a round chariot made of metal of the

proof of double musket, which motion shall be by those that be within

the same, more easy, more light, and more speedy by much, than so

many armed men would be otherwise. The use hereof, as well in moving,

serveth to break the array of the enemy’s battle, and to make passage,

as also in staying and abiding within the enemy’s battle, it serveth to

destroy the environed enemy by continual charge and shot of harquebush

through small holes; the enemy in the meantime being abashed, and

altogether uncertain what defence to use against a moving mouth of

metal.

“These inventions, besides devices of slaying under the water, with

divers other devices and stratagems for harming of the enemies, by the

grace of God and work of expert craftsmen I hope to perform.”¹

¹ M. Napier’s _Memoirs of John Napier_, pages 247, 248.

They afford evidence of his speculative powers, and the scientific bent

of his mind struggling with the narrow resources within his reach to

produce practical results. Although the existing conditions――say the

requisite mechanical skill――may not admit of the immediate application

of a discovery or an invention, that is no evidence of the possible

value and ultimate practicability of such things. In the Introduction

of this history it was observed, that the lack of combined action and

organised means have always greatly retarded the realisation of many

things, even after the discovery, the invention, or the knowledge of

a principle, had been reached.¹ Most of the sciences began at a point

too remote from the real struggle of human life to be obviously useful,

and would have made no progress at all if they had waited to justify

their existence by their usefulness: their progress is mainly due to

their own internal, intellectual, and moral interest. If science had

always been absorbed in the search after obvious utilities, the highest

discoveries would never have been made, and the greatest utilities

would in all likelihood have been missed.²

¹ Volume I., pages 37, 65‒71, 157‒175.

² Joseph J. Murphy. _Habit and Intelligence_, Volume II.,

pages 225, 226. “All inorganic science, at least, depends on

measurement; and all other measurements ultimately depend on

the measurements of space. Now space is altogether external

to the mind; we think in time, and not in space; yet the

measurement of time depends on that of space, and not

the converse; and geometry, which is the science of the

properties of space, was the earliest of the sciences.”

――_Ibid._

In 1614, Napier published his _Mirifici Logarithmorum Canonis

Descriptio_. This work presented a mode of calculation which greatly

abridged the labour and facilitated the solution of all the vast

problems involving numbers. “The general idea which Napier formed was

that of two flowing points, generating magnitudes by infinitely small

degrees, so regulated in their respective motions, that in the one

case, the successive increments would be equal to each other; and in

the other case, would differ proportionately from each other in an

infinitely small degree.” He had a fine faculty of exposition, and he

developed his conception with unrivalled clearness. The invention was

soon known throughout Europe amongst men of science. The work was

speedily translated into English by Edward Wright and Henry Briggs:

the former set himself to translate it, and the latter became a warm

and able co-operator of Napier’s in computing improved tables. Wright

finished his translation and sent it to the author for revisal in

1615. He shortly after died, and the task then devolved upon his son,

Samuel Wright assisted by Briggs, and the translation was published in

London, in 1616. Edward Wright had specially directed his attention to

navigation, which stood greatly in need of the aid of exact science.

He published a treatise at London in 1559, entitled “Certain errors in

Navigation detected and corrected;” he also computed tables of latitude,

and is distinguished for his sea rings, his great quadrant, his sea

quadrant, and other ingenious astronomical contrivances.¹

¹ M. Napier’s _Memoirs of John Napier_, pages 328, 438‒444.

For comprehensive views of the theory of logarithms, see the

_Works of Bailly, Astronomie Moderne_, Tome II.; _Delambre

Histoire de l’Astronomie Moderne_; _Montucla Histoire des

Mathematiques_, Tome II., page 2, _et seq._; Dr. Minto’s

_Account of Napier’s Inventions and Writings_; Colin

Maclaurin’s _Treatise on Fluxions_, and several articles

in the eighth edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.

The only other work that Napier published in his lifetime was his short

treatise on the method of computing by figured rods, known by the name

of Napier’s bones, 1617: it contained the most important of his minor

inventions touching various numerical properties. The following is a

part of his own description of it, from the dedication to the Earl of

Dunfermline:――“Of which logarithms, indeed, I have found out another

species much superior to the former; and intend, if God shall grant

me longer life and the possession of health, to make known the method

of construction, as well as the manner of using them. But the actual

computation of this new canon I have left, on account of the infirmity

of my bodily health, to those conversant in such studies; and

especially to that truly and most learned man, Henry Briggs, public

professor of geometry in London, my most beloved friend. In the

meantime, however, for the sake of those who prefer to work with

the natural numbers as they stand, I have excogitated three other

compendious modes of calculation, of which the first is by means of

numerating rods, and these I have called ‘Rabdologia.’ Another, by

far the most expeditious of all for multiplication, and which on that

account I have not inaptly called the promptuary of multiplication,

is by means of little plates of metal disposed in a box. And lastly, a

third method, namely, local arithmetic performed upon a chess-board.”¹

¹ M. Napier’s _Memoirs of John Napier_, pages 413‒415. The

original edition of this little work is now extremely scarce.

In 1619 Napier’s son published the work which his father had left

incomplete――“Logarithmorum Canonis Constructio,” that is, the method

of their construction. The purpose of the work is to show the way

that he conquered the second difficulty in his path to the logarithms;

namely, how to calculate the numbers to be intercalculated between the

terms of his progressions, in order to reap the fruits of his original

conception. Though the author did not live to give it the final touches,

the book is teeming with profound thought, and exhibits a grasp of

the subject and a clearness of exposition which is rare even among

the efforts of the highest genius. Professor Playfair has well said,

“Napier’s view of the subject is as simple and profound as any which

after two hundred years has yet presented itself to mathematicians.

The mode of deducing the results has been simplified; but it can

hardly be said that the principle has been more clearly developed.”

Sir John ♦Lesly has said, “his sublime invention of Logarithms about

this epoch eclipsed every minor improvement, and as far transcended

the denary notation, as this had surpassed the numerical system of the

Greeks.” Robert Napier in the preface to his father’s posthumous work

said――“Some years ago, my father, of ever venerable memory, published

the use of the wonderful Canon of Logarithms; but the construction

and method of generating it, he, for certain reasons, was unwilling

to commit to types, as he mentions upon the seventh and the last pages

of the Logarithms; until he knew how it was judged of and criticised

by those who were versed in this department of letters. But since

his death, I have been assured from undoubted authority, that this

new invention is much thought of by the most able mathematicians; and

that nothing would delight them more than if the construction of his

wonderful Canon, or so much at least as might suffice to illustrate it,

were published for the benefit of the world.... I doubt, not, however,

that this posthumous work would have seen the light in a far more

perfect and finished state, if the author himself, who according to

the opinion of the best judges, possessed among other illustrious gifts

this one in particular, that he could explicate the most difficult

matter by some sure and easy method, and in the fewest words――if

God had granted a longer use of life. You have the doctrine of the

construction of Logarithms――which here, he calls artificial numbers,

for he had this treatise composed for several years before he invented

the word Logarithms, most copiously unfolded, their nature, accidences,

and various adaptations to their natural numbers, perspicuously

demonstrated. I have thought good to subjoin to the construction a

certain appendix, concerning the method of forming another and more

excellent species of Logarithms, to which the inventor himself alludes

in his epistle prefixed to the Rabdologia, and in which the Logarithm

of unity is 0.... I have also published some lucubrations upon the

new species of Logarithms, by that most excellent mathematician, Henry

Briggs, public professor in London, who undertook most willingly the

very severe labour of calculating this Canon, in consequence of the

singular affection that existed between him and my father, the method

of construction and explanation of its use being left to the inventor

himself.”¹

♦ “Leslie” replaced with “Lesly” for consistency

¹ M. Napier’s _Memoirs of John Napier_, pages 417‒418, 445,

_et seq._ This book contains a vast amount of information,

but its author is rather too laudatory of the inventor of

Logarithms.

Henry Briggs was the greatest mathematician of his day in

England; he was a man of remarkable powers of mind, and

of great industry. He is the author of several valuable

treatises on Logarithms, his greatest work appeared in 1624,

entitled “Arithmetica Logarithmica.” He died in 1630.

It was observed in the preceding volume, that there was little or no

medical science among the Scots at the end of the fifteenth century.¹

According to the statement of the elder Scaliger, who visited Scotland

about the middle of the sixteenth century, the kingdom did not contain

more than one regular practitioner. It is known, however, that this

learned man was rather fastidious in his taste and in his mode of

life.² It is possible that he might have exaggerated a little, or that

his information may have been incomplete. At least, this science had

made some progress in the country before the end of the century; though

as yet there was no medical school in the kingdom, as now understood;

and Scotsmen intending to follow this profession were trained abroad.

¹ MackMackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_,

Volume I., pages 414‒415.

² “At ♦Agen the elder Scaliger was now exercising the

profession of a physician. That city, when he there

fixed his residence, could not furnish him with a single

individual capable of supporting literary conversation,

and he was therefore led to cultivate an intimacy with some

of the more enlightened inhabitants of Bordeaux. Buchanan,

Tevius, and other accomplished scholars, who then belonged

to the College of Guienne, were accustomed to pay him an

annual visit during the vacation. They were hospitably

entertained at his house; and he declared that he forgot

the torture of his gout whenever he had an opportunity

of discussing topics of learning with his guests. For

the society of this singular man, who possessed some bad

and many good qualities, Buchanan has expressed a natural

relish” (in Latin verses).――Dr. Irving’s _Memoirs of

Buchanan_, pages 45‒46.

♦ “Ageu” replaced with “Agen”

The people suffered greatly from the frequent recurrence of pestilence;

and in 1568 Gilbert Skene, doctor in medicine, published at Edinburgh,

“A Brief Description of the Pest,” which was the first medical treatise

printed in Scotland. This treatise consists of forty-six small pages,

and may be supposed to give the views of the learned of those days

touching the pest. He described it as “a feverable infection, most

cruel, and in sundry ways striking down many in haste. It proceeded

from a corruption of the air, which has strength and wickedness above

all natural putrefaction, and springs from the wrath of the just God

at the sins of mankind.” He recognised, however, other causes, “as

stagnant waters, corrupting animal matters and filth, the eating of

unwholesome meat and decaying fruits, and the drinking of corrupt water.

Great humidity of the atmosphere, dearth of victual, whereby men are

forced to eat bad meat.” He adverts to the suspicious intermeddling of

the comets and the shooting stars. He observed that the poor were more

subject to this fearful disorder than the rich; indeed, his description

of the state of the former was deplorable――“Every one is become so

detestable to another, which is to be lamented, and especially the

poor in the sight of the rich, as if they were not equal with them

touching their creation, but rather without soul or spirit, as beasts

degenerated from mankind.” This worthy doctor’s regimen for the pest,

regarding both its prevention and its cure, consisted of a vast variety

of curious recipes and rules of treatment, written partly in Latin and

partly in English.

Dr. Peter Lowe had practised in various parts of the Continent, and

returned to his native country toward the end of this century. He

published a system of surgery in 1597, giving a popular view of the

healing art, along with some description of cases which had occurred in

his own practice. The title of Dr. Lowe’s work will give the best idea

of its character:――“The Whole Course of Surgery; wherein is briefly set

down the Causes, Signs, Prognostications, and Curations of all sorts

of Tumours, Wounds, Ulcers, Fractures, Dislocations, and all other

Diseases, usually practised by Surgeons, according to the opinion of

all our ancient Doctors in Surgery: Compiled by Peter Lowe, Scotsman,

Arellian Doctor in the Faculty of Surgery in Paris, and Surgeon

Ordinary to the King of France and Navarre. Whereunto is annexed the

Book of Presages of Hippocrates, divided into three parts; also the

Protestation which Hippocrates caused his Scholars to make. The whole

collected and translated. London, 1596.” Reprinted in 1597, 1612, 1634,

1654. It was regarded as a work of merit in its day, and was translated

into several languages. Dr. Lowe also wrote a book entitled, “An Easy,

Certain, and Perfect Method to Cure and to Prevent the Spanish Sickness.

Published at London in 1596.”

About this time he was appointed by the Government to examine the

persons that proposed to practise the art of surgery in the West of

Scotland. He resided in Glasgow, and was the founder of the faculty

of physicians and surgeons of that city.

Dr. Duncan Liddel was born in Aberdeen, 1561, and attained an eminent

position as a professor of mathematics and as a physician. In the later

part of the sixteenth, and the early part of the seventeenth centuries,

he was a professor of mathematics and of medicine in the University of

Helmstadt; he also acted as first physician to the court of Brunswick,

and had a large practice among the families in the neighbourhood. He

was elected to fill several posts of honour in connection with the

University of Helmstadt, and achieved much celebrity. About 1608 he

returned to Scotland, and directed his attention to the diffusion of

science among his countrymen. He died in December, 1613. Dr. Liddel was

the author of several works composed in Latin, which were well received

on the Continent. His work entitled, “Disputationes Medicinales,” in

four volumes, was published in 1605; and it was reprinted as late as

1720; it contained the theses maintained by himself and his pupils at

Helmstadt from 1592 to 1605. In 1607 his well known work, “Ars Medica,

succincte et perspicue explicata,” was published at Hamburg; a second

edition was published at Lyons, 1624, and a third at Hamburg in 1628.

This work was pretty highly esteemed during the seventeenth century.

Like other works of the period in this department it treated largely

on metaphysics as well as on medicine.¹

¹ A sketch of the life of Dr. Duncan Liddel, Aberdeen, 1730.

There is also an interesting article relating to Dr. Liddel

in the eleventh volume of the proceedings of the Society of

Antiquaries of Scotland, by the late Mr. A. Gibb, F.S.A.,

Scotland, pages 450, _et seq._

Having concluded the examination of the literature of the nation

in the sixteenth century; we may pause a little, and reflect on the

characteristics of the works, the opinions, the sentiments, and the

feelings, manifested in them. Looking backwards we find that there

had been some advance in physical knowledge amongst the Scots during

the century, but by no means a marked progress in this department.

Although Napier announced an important invention in the department

of mathematical science early in the seventeenth century, no one can

fail to see that the intellectual and scientific advancement of the

Scots was comparatively meagre as contrasted with the radical changes

of their religious belief, their sentiments and feelings. The great

intellectual revival in Europe, however, was beginning to be felt

in the sixteenth century. The Copernican system of the universe was

first printed in 1543, but it met with much opposition, even among

the learned its acceptance was extremely slow, probably not ten men in

Europe had adopted it in the sixteenth century; and there is not the

slightest reason to believe that any of the chief Reformers recognised

or comprehended it. Even Buchanan, though not ignorant of the

Copernican system, yet in his own philosophical poem, “The Sphere,” he

rejected it, and followed the Ptolemaic system. Long after their day,

the far famed Lord Bacon rejected the Copernican system to the last; he

also treated the valuable discoveries of Gilbert about the magnet with

the most arrogant contempt. When this great philosopher assumed such an

attitude to the greatest conception of his age, we can hardly suppose

that the mind of the Scots had as yet been in the least affected by

these scientific ideas; though it is possible that some individual

Scotsmen toward the end of the century might have been aware of them;

but the religious revolution was accomplished before this; and the

conclusion pointed to is that the Reformation depended more upon moral

causes than intellectual and scientific ones. Throughout the literature

of the period it will be found that there is more evidence of change

in the feelings and sentiments of the people, than of any display of

increasing intellectual power.

The writers in the Scottish dialect of the latter part of the century

are inferior to those of the first quarter of the century in point

of intellectual power. After the Reformation there is no Scottish

poet equal to Dunbar or even to Gavin Douglas, the versifiers of the

close of the century stand lower than those of its opening years; the

balance in conception, range of imagery, of ideas, and in appropriate

construction, is on the side of the earlier poets. If, however, we

look to the feelings and the sentiments which were expressed in the

compositions of both, the later writers appear in a more favourable

light; as the extremely coarse expressions which Dunbar and Sir David

Lyndsay frequently used, were gradually cast aside, and a better

moral tone observed. The improvement of the moral sentiments and

the broadening of the national sympathy were indicated in various

directions, as in the emphatic complaints touching the oppression of

the poor and the earnest efforts to relieve them.

Thus, the revolutionary waves of the sixteenth century were mainly

religious and moral, and considering the state of society, not merely

in Scotland, but throughout Europe, it was not surprising that the

Reformers were only partly successful. The reactionary spirit of Roman

Catholicism was great, and it long presented an undaunted opposition to

every form of liberal policy and moral freedom; and Rome still claims

a supremacy in all matters of morality and religion. The Pope is the

supreme and only visible head of this planet, appointed by God to

rule over the human mind, and if necessary, to spurn the accumulated

wisdom and knowledge of the race. Centuries roll on, revolutions

in governments, in knowledge, and in education, may be brought to

pass among the nations; but the Pope remains unchanged, the same

circumscribed views characterise the Popes of the sixteenth and the

nineteenth centuries.

CHAPTER XXII.

_Education and Art in the Sixteenth Century._

EDUCATION has long been a subject of interest; and there is nothing

more important in a civilised nation than its system of educational

establishments. An educational system, like all other human

institutions, must in some degree conform to the laws of social

organisation and progress, if it would maintain the complement of

its influence upon the mind of the nation. It is not enough that

an educational system should maintain its efficacy according to

a stereotyped standard, it should also take account of changing

circumstances, and accommodate itself to the requirements and the

wants of a highly artificial and progressive society. It was in

this that many of the knotty questions connected with national

education arose. The chief difficulty to a just and wise reform

sprang out of the conservative interests, class prejudice, hereditary

pride, and narrowness of sympathy; or on the part of some, a fear,

not unreasonable, that the ancient landmarks might be altogether

obliterated. In every nation where a comparative degree of civilisation

and freedom has been attained, there will always be persons and parties

who cling with extreme tenacity to whatever is old and established,

as if the least change or modification of an institution was certain

to derange the order of the universe; while other parties may be more

inclined to move onward and to improve the existing institutions,

to bring them more into harmony with circumstances and the realised

results of the age. The great revolution which we have been attempting

to explain in the preceding chapters, is a grand exemplification

of these conflicting tendencies of parties; and when the demand for

reasonable and necessary reform is obstinately resisted and withheld,

it requires no prophet to announce that the consequences must be

ruinously disastrous.

In the first volume some notices of the early schools of the country

were given;¹ and in this chapter it is proposed to present a brief

history of the origin of the parish schools, and other educational

institutions of the kingdom. Before the Reformation in Scotland,

there were at least two classes of schools, besides the universities:

one of these was called the “lecture-school,” in which the children

were taught to read the vernacular language; the other was the grammar

schools, in which the Latin language was taught, and these were

attached to the monasteries and to the burghs. Prior to the Reformation,

however, the first class of schools were not numerous. At the beginning

of the sixteenth century there were schools in Edinburgh for the

instruction of children, and in which there were female teachers; but

there were some early indications of a disposition to give the grammar

schools a monopoly of teaching. In 1520 the town council of Edinburgh,

on grounds which they deemed sufficient, enacted that no inhabitant

of the town should put their children to any particular school in

the burgh, but to the principal grammar school, “to be taught in any

science, except only grace-book, primar, and plain duty,” under a fine

of ten shillings.²

¹ Macintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume I.,

pages 148, 245, 465‒468.

² _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume I., pages 76, 193;

_Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages 97, 98, 107.

We have seen, that after the Reformation strenuous and worthy efforts

were made to extend the means of education to the people. Where regular

schools were not erected, the readers in the churches often supplied

the deficiency, by teaching the youth to read the catechism and the

Bible. The reformed clergy took a warm interest in the education of

the people, by exerting themselves to establish parish schools; and

the Church courts were untiring in their exertions to forward the cause

of popular education.¹ At the annual visitation of the parishes by

the presbyteries, the state of the schools always formed a subject of

inquiry; the qualifications of the teachers were examined; and where no

schools existed, means were employed to establish them. The parochial

schools of Scotland were not originated by the act of Council in 1616,

which was ratified by parliament in 1633. Long before that time the

Church courts had a “common order” touching the rate to be raised for

the salary of the teacher, the fees to be paid by the scholars, and

many other regulations for the organisation of the primary schools. In

this way many schools were erected before the close of the sixteenth

century. There was often reference to the trial and inspection of

schoolmasters in the register of the Church courts, and regulations

for providing means to educate the children of the poor. Although it

is undoubted that many schools were founded and in operation during the

later part of the century, it would be a mistake to suppose that every

parish had a school,² as there were many and great difficulties to be

overcome ere a popular system of education could be organised to such

a point of completeness.

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 17, 33, 60, 108, 279,

311, 415, 432, 693, 737, 965.

² _Records of the Presbytery of Haddington._

After the Reformation, in all the schools the children were learned to

read the catechism, the prayers, and parts of the Bible; and even to

rehearse the catechism and portions of Scripture from memory. It was

common to instruct the boys in manly exercises and sports, to develop

their bodies and limbs, by the practice of archery, fencing, running,

leaping, wrestling, swimming, and other games.¹

¹ “And by our master we were teached to handle the bow for

archery, the club for golf, the batons for fencing; also to

run, to leap, to swim, and to wrestle.” Melville’s _Diary_,

pages 16, 17, 21.

All the chief towns in the kingdom had grammar schools before the

Reformation; it is unnecessary, however, to give an account of each,

and only a general description of their character, and the aim of the

instruction afforded in them, and the changes which the Reformation

introduced, will be presented. With comparatively few exceptions,

the whole of the educational institutions of Scotland were under the

control of the Church, both before and after the Reformation; and it is

only recently that the control of the Church in education was limited

to special branches, and altogether excluded from others.

In the first half of the sixteenth century there were sometimes two

or more grammar schools in Edinburgh, as the Canongate had one from an

early period. The magistrates exercised authority over these schools,

although the abbot of Holyrood had the right of nominating the head

masters. The town council paid the master of the grammar school various

sums of money and fees annually; and they also attended to the building

and repairing of the schools. In 1555 there was a school for teaching

French in Edinburgh, and that year the town’s treasurer paid ten marks

to the master of the French school; and French seems to have been

occasionally taught as a branch of education in the grammar schools.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume II., pages 179, 271,

281, 292, 210, 241, 318; Melville’s _Diary_, page 17.

In 1521, John Marschall, master of the grammar school of Aberdeen,

asked the provost to tell him of whom he held the school, and the

answer was, that he held it under the appointment of the magistrates

of the burgh. This, however, was not exactly correct; for in 1537 the

Chancellor of the diocese of Aberdeen claimed the right of appointing

the master of the grammar school, and nominated Robert Skene to that

office, and requested the town council to accept him. The master of the

grammar school claimed a monopoly of teaching in the city, both before

and after the Reformation. In 1529, Mr. John Bisset, the master of the

grammar school, received from the town council the sum of ten pounds

Scots yearly to help to pay his board, till they promoted him to a

benefice. The council, in 1542, unanimously ordered that the master

of the grammar school should have forty shillings for his wages from

the humblest persons, who received him and the bishop on St. Nicholas

day, and every honest man to give him at their pleasure. Four years

later, Hugh Munro, the master of the grammar school, by the order

of the council, was to get ten pounds yearly; and, at the same time,

the citizens were requested to give him the accustomed wages on St.

Nicholas day. Hugh Munro had a wife and a family, and thus it seems, he

was not in priest’s orders. In 1550 he resigned, and the council then

nominated Mr. James Chalmer to the office of master of the school, and

presented him to the Chancellor to be admitted according to the usage

of bygone times. It is evident that the grammar schools of the burghs

were partly under the magistrates. But it seems to have been the policy

of the Church to allow the local authorities and the citizens to have

as much of the management of the schools as would cause them to take an

interest in these establishments.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_, Volume I., pages 97‒98, 107,

120, 122, 151, 186, 231, 272, 277; Volume II., pages 90, 154.

The grammar schools of Glasgow, Dunfermline, Perth, Stirling,

Linlithgow, Dundee, and others, had attained to some importance. Andrew

Simson was master of the grammar school of Perth from 1550 to 1560,

and it was reported that he had sometimes three hundred boys under his

charge. He was the author of a Latin grammar, which kept its ground

in the schools of Scotland till the eighteenth century, when it was

superseded by Ruddiman’s grammar. On the eve of the Reformation, Ninian

Winzet, the opponent of Knox, held the post of master of the grammar

school of Linlithgow; and in one of his works he complained bitterly

that “so little respect has ever been paid to the grammar schools.”

The chief subject taught in these schools was the Latin language. The

amount of information imparted to the scholars was very limited. It

consisted of the matters connected with the Roman Catholic religion,

and of portions of Latin authors, which were read and explained. After

the Reformation these institutions were taken under the charge of the

Protestants; but the teaching of grammar and the Latin language still

continued to be their distinguishing characteristic.

At the time of the Reformation, the grammar school of Edinburgh was

taught by William Robertson, who continued to adhere to the Roman

Catholic faith; and the magistrates had much difficulty in removing him

from office, as his appointment was vested in the abbot of Holyrood. In

the month of April, 1562, the town council requested Lord James Stuart

to deal with his brother, Lord Robert, abbot of Holyrood, for ejecting

Mr. Robertson from the school; and the council proposed to grant the

post of master to the most learned man that could be found. The council

also expressed a desire to have a college built within the burgh for

regents, and suggested that the Queen might be persuaded to grant

to the town the yards and rents of the friars and the altarages of

the kirk. The master of the grammar school, however, was not to be so

easily removed as had been supposed. He was then ordered to produce

his right, and a long process of disputes between him and the council

ensued. He insisted that his fee should be paid; and in 1565, owing to

the Queen interposing in his favour, the council was obliged to pay him

for the year 1566. Though at last, Robertson was superseded by another

master, yet as late as 1580 he interfered with the grammar school of

the Canongate, and interrupted the teaching for three months.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages 131‒132,

139, 141‒145, 149, 193, 196‒197, 215.

The council and the deacons of the crafts united in their endeavours

to find a qualified master for their grammar school. In July, 1568,

the council ordered their treasurer to ride to St. Andrews for Thomas

Buchanan. At a meeting of the council in August, after long reasoning

with this learned man, concerning the instruction of the youth of the

town, knowing him to be an able and qualified teacher, they resolved

to appoint him on the following terms:――“For the first year, in case it

be known to them that the said Thomas, with the fifty merks they have

granted him of yearly pension, with the fees of the bairns, which is

four shillings each, be not worth three hundred merks for the first

year or thereby, they shall cause their treasurer to give him other

fifty, which shall be one hundred merks for the first year, and each

year thereafter according to their appointment.” He entered on his

duties in February, 1569, but he left the situation in July, 1570.¹

The citizens of Edinburgh manifested a keen interest in education, and

their persistent efforts were at last rewarded.

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages 157, 250,

251‒252, 259.

In the year 1578, the High School of Edinburgh was erected on the

ground where the monastery of the Black Friars had stood. This school

soon took a high position among the educational establishments of the

kingdom. It was fortunate in having at its head two excellent teachers

in succession, who laid the foundation of its reputation. Hercules

Rollock was appointed Master of the High School of Edinburgh in 1584,

and filled this post for eleven years, and, by his energy and example,

and the success of his teaching, he contributed much to raise the

character of the school. Alexander Hume, the next head master, was

appointed in 1596. He was a good classical scholar, and proved to be

a very acceptable teacher. He was the author of a Latin grammar, which

the Privy Council, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, ordered to be

used in all the schools of the kingdom. This injunction, however, was

frustrated by the action of some of the bishops, and by the opposition

of Ray, who succeeded him in the High School.¹ In the year 1598, a set

of rules was framed for the High School by a committee of learned men,

and were intended to regulate the mode of teaching and the government

of the youth; but I will return to this matter when I come to describe

the method of teaching and the subjects taught.

¹ _Ibid._; _Crawfurd’s History of the University of Edinburgh_,

pages 19‒20, 64; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,

Volume IV., pages 157, 374; _Register of the Privy Council_.

After the Reformation, the Grammar School of Glasgow was taught by

Thomas Jack, who had the reputation of being well qualified for the

task. He was the author of a work entitled “Onomasticon Poeticum,”

published at Edinburgh in 1592. It contains an explanation of the

proper names which occur in the writings of the ancient poets, and

composed in Latin verse, with the view of being committed to memory by

the boys. He left the school of Glasgow in 1574, and became minister

of the parish of Eastwood. Jack was succeeded by Patrick Sharp, who

held the office of master of the Grammar School till 1582; and he was

afterwards appointed principal of the University of Glasgow. Sharp was

succeeded by John Blackwood, who held the post of master of this school

for thirty years.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Glasgow_, pages 99, 243, 246, 310, 311.

About the beginning of the seventeenth century the Town Council of

Glasgow was much occupied with the building of a new Grammar School.

In May, 1600, they ordered the master of work to go with two craftsmen,

a mason and a wright, to inspect the school and to ascertain what

repairs it required. But at a meeting of the council in August the same

year, it was “condescended that in respect that there was nothing more

profitable, first to the glory of God, next to the well of the town,

than to have a good grammar school;” and, seeing that it was altogether

ruinous and must be entirely rebuilt, they resolved to prosecute the

undertaking till it was finished.¹

¹ _Ibid._, pages 208, 210, 216, 217, _et seq._ There were

schools in Glasgow for teaching English, or reading in the

Scottish dialect.

Touching the method of teaching and the books used by the teachers,

some interesting information has been preserved. In 1575 the Lords of

the Privy Council deemed it expedient for the upbringing of the youth

of the kingdom, that there should be only one form of grammar taught

in all the schools; and that this important end might be attained by

common consent, the council ordered letters to be sent to the most

learned schoolmasters――“Mr. George Buchanan, or Peter Young, preceptors

to the King’s majesty, Mr. Thomas Buchanan, Mr. William Robertson,

Mr. Andrew Simson, Mr. James Carmichael, and Mr. Patrick Auchinlek

――schoolmasters of Stirling, Edinburgh, Dunbar, Haddington, and St.

Andrews, requesting them to appear personally before the Regent and

Council at Holyrood, on the 10th of January, to give their advice

concerning the form of Grammar that should be used in all the Schools

of the realm hereafter; thus at once to show their desire to promote so

necessary a work, and to manifest their loyalty.”¹ It does not appear

that this order directly led to the production of such a Latin grammar

as was desired; but in the latter half of the century there were at

least four different Latin grammars written by Scotsmen――Simson’s,

Duncan’s, Carmichael’s, and Hume’s; and several attempts were made by

Parliament and by the Privy Council, to cause the same grammar to be

used in all the schools of the kingdom.²

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume II., page 78.

² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV., pages 157,

371; _Register of the Privy Council_.

As before observed, the aim of these schools was to impart to the

pupils a knowledge of the Latin language, as it was then the medium

through which Greek, theology, and ancient literature was universally

taught. That this method involved an excessive degree of labour in

order to reach its end, is quite evident; nor was the result obtained

at all commensurate to the waste of energy; and that it was so long

followed, is only another illustration of the strength and power of

habit.

In the year 1598 the Town Council of Edinburgh adopted a set of rules

framed by one of the Senators of the College of Justice, six advocates,

the Principal of the university, and three of the ministers of the city,

for regulating the mode of teaching, and the management of the scholars

in the High School. The school was divided into four classes, each to

be taught by a separate master, one of whom was the rector. The boys

passed from master to master at the end of each year; the subjects and

the books to be taught, as well as the mode of teaching, were minutely

specified. No boy was to be admitted to the school till he had learned

to read English perfectly, and all the common schools were strictly

prohibited from teaching Latin. The following is a part of the rules:

――“They think it best and expedient that there be four learned and

godly men appointed regents to teach the grammar school of Edinburgh,

in all time coming by four several classes in the following manner:

――The first class, the regent thereof shall teach the first and second

rudiments of Dunbar, with the Colloquies of Corderius; and on Sunday

the catechism platatine. The second regent shall teach the rules of

the first part of Pelisso, with Cicerois familiar epistles; and to

make some version thrice in the week; and to teach them on Sunday the

foresaid catechism lately set out in Latin, with Ovid de tristibus.

The third regent shall teach the second part of Pelisso, with the

supplement of Erasmus Sintaxis Terence, the Methamorphoris of Ovide,

with Buchanan’s psalms on Sunday. The fourth regent shall teach the

third part of Pelisso, with Buchanan’s Prosodia, Taleus figures, and

rhetoric figure, constructions, Thome Linacri, Virgelius, Salustius,

Cesaris Commentaria, and florus Ovidij epistole, and the heroic psalms

of Buchanan on Sunday. Each of the foresaid regents shall teach their

class in separate apartments, and to this effect the High School shall

be divided into four houses.

“And that there may be the better harmony between the four regents in

their procedure and teaching, and that they may the better answer for

their duty, discharges simpliciter masters or other persons whatsoever

from teaching of any rudiments or any other book in Latin in any

of their lecture schools. So that the first regent may be the more

answerable in grounding, and instructing them in rudiments. It is

always provided in favour of lecture schools, that none shall be

received in the said first class but he who can read first perfectly

the English with some writ; and the first regent shall in no ways be

suffered to teach any one the first A. B. C.

“The fourth regent shall be Principal of the school and of the regents,

and have the oversight of them all, namely, he shall see and animadvert

that every one of the regents keep their own hours in the manner and

form of teaching presently set down, and that each of them continually

await all the day long upon the school in teaching and examining their

bairns. That all the regents, the Principal as well as the other three

inferiors, each of them teach their own class, and that each of them

use correction upon their own disciples, except in great and notorious

faults, then all the four to be assembled in a house and have the

Principal regent to punish the same.”

Regarding the fees――“It has been thought good to make the fees and

quarter payments of the regents in this manner――The first and second

regents shall have quarterly each thirteen shillings and fourpence, the

third fifteen shillings, and the fourth twenty shillings.”

“Their salaries, the first and second regents each twenty pounds; the

third forty merks; and the Principal two hundred merks. The same day

the provost, bailies, and council, discharged all masters, regents,

and teachers of bairns in their grammar schools of all creaving and

receiving of any bleyis silver of their bairns and scholars; as also

of any bent silver, except fourpence at a time only.”¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh._ For comparison it may be

noticed that the Town Council of Aberdeen, in 1579, resolved

to give the master of the grammar school a yearly pension

of fifty merks――“for bringing up, teaching, and instructing,

the bairns and scholars thereof, in virtue, learning,

letters and good manners.” _Burgh Records of Aberdeen_,

Volume II., page 24.

Passing to the universities, the next and the highest educational

institutions of the kingdom, we naturally begin with the earliest.

Additions were made to the University of St. Andrews early in the

century. Near the church of St. Leonards, within the precincts of the

Abbey, there was an hospital for the reception of pious strangers, who

came on pilgrimage to visit the relics of St. Andrews; and the patrons

resolved to convert it into a college, “for training up poor scholars

in learning and the arts, to the glory of God and the edification

of the people.” The foundation charter of St. Leonard’s college was

executed in 1512, by John Hepburn, prior of the abbey, and confirmed

by the Archbishop, and his father James IV. The prior and conventual

chapter were the patrons of this college, and retained the power of

visiting and correcting it; and the teachers were always taken from

the monastery. The college was intended for the support and education

of twenty poor scholars. The Principal was appointed to lecture twice

in the week on Scripture or theology to the priests, the regents, and

others who chose to attend.¹

¹ Dr. M‘Crie’s _Life of Melville_, Volume I., pages 219‒222.

The college of St. Mary was begun under the direction of Archbishop

Beaton, who obtained a papal bull in 1537 authorising him to erect the

buildings. The branches authorised to be taught in it were grammar,

logic, theology, medicine, canon and civil law; and within the

establishment divine offices were to be performed, and a common table

provided for the members from the rents and benefices annexed to the

institution. The building was begun by Archbishop Beaton, and carried

on by his successor the Cardinal; but the college was not completed

till 1554, when Archbishop Hamilton obtained a papal bull empowering

him to alter the arrangements made by his predecessors. According

to Hamilton’s foundation of the new college, there were to be four

principal teachers, called respectively, the provost, the licentiate,

the bachelor, and the canonist; eight students of theology, three

teachers of philosophy, and two of rhetoric and grammar. A pretty

full course of studies was prescribed; and there was to be lectures

on the Bible, the canon law, logic, ethics, physics, and mathematics;

and minute rules were laid down for the order and regulation of the

institution. The teachers, regents, and students, had to wear caps

after the Parisian fashion; and all the students, the nobles, as well

as the bursars, had to wear gowns bound round them with a girdle, but

the bursars were to add to this a black hood. There were then three

colleges at St. Andrews.¹

¹ _Records of St. Andrew’s University._

The defence of the Roman Catholic faith was a special end of the

erection of all the colleges in the kingdom; but how far they

contributed to this, it is not difficult to discover. There can be no

doubt that the Scottish Universities aided the revolutionary movement;

as the carefully calculated system of instruction yielded results

little suspected by those who originated it. During the heat of the

Reformation struggle, the number of students at the universities

diminished; but many of the masters and regents of the colleges

embraced the reformed opinions.

Everything relating to the Roman Catholic faith and worship, in any way

connected with the laws and practice of the universities, was removed

as soon as possible, after the establishment of the Reformation. Yet

the modes of teaching philosophy and the arts were little changed; and

even in the theological faculty some of the old forms of teaching were

retained.

At St. Andrews the regular length of the course was four years, though

it was usually finished in three and a half. The session began on the

1st of October, and continued throughout the year, except the months of

August and September. All the scholars who entered for the first time

were placed under the tuition of a regent, who carried them through

the whole curriculum. He assembled his class three hours every day, and

read and explained the books of Aristotle; beginning with dialectics,

then ethics and physics, concluding the course with arithmetic and

mathematics, and the highest branch of philosophy, to wit, metaphysics.

In the progress of the course, the students were often engaged in

disputations and declamations, both before their class, and publicly

before the university. The Principal occasionally read public lectures

on what was deemed the higher branches of philosophy, which were

attended by the advanced students.¹

¹ _Records of the University of St. Andrews_; Melville’s

_Diary_, pages 24‒28.

About the middle of the third year of the course, the students that

had obtained an attestation of regular attendance and good behaviour

from the regent and the Principal of the college, were then admitted

to enter on trials for the degree of bachelor. Every year the faculty

elected three of the regents as examiners; and in their presence the

candidates determined a question in logic or morals in a connected

discourse, and answered the questions proposed on any of the branches,

which they had studied under their regents. The examiners reported to

the faculty, and those who passed were confirmed by the dean, and the

rest sent to a lower class. At the end of the course they were examined

in all the subjects taught, and candidates for graduation had to defend

a thesis, which had before been affixed to the gates of the different

colleges. They were divided into circles, and their names arranged in

the order of merit, but with a ♦preference to persons of rank; then the

degree of Master of Arts was solemnly conferred by the Chancellor of

the university, in the name of the Trinity.¹

♦ “perference” replaced with “preference”

¹ _Statutes of St. Andrews University_, 1570, and previous

regulations. When receiving the degrees of bachelor and

master of arts, the graduates paid certain sums of money

to the purse of the university, to the dean, and to other

officials; those that were too poor, undertook to give what

was due to the public fund as soon as they were able. An old

law enacted that each student, including the bursars, was

bound to give his regent annually, for three years, a Scots

noble, which in later times was made to answer to a pound

Scots.――_Ibid._, 1561, 1579, 1583.

The _First Book of Discipline_ sketched a scheme for remodelling the

three universities, but it was not adopted. In vain the Reformers

recommended it to the aristocracy, and argued for its acceptance with

all their powers of persuasion; in vain they urged, “if God shall give

your wisdoms grace to set forward letters in the way prescribed, ye

shall leave wisdom and learning to your posterity――a treasure more to

be esteemed than any earthly treasure ye are able to amass for them,

which, without wisdom, are more likely to be their ruin and confusion

than help and comfort.”¹

¹ Knox’s _Works_, Volume II., pages 213‒221.

Naturally the Reformation had more or less affected the teaching

staff of all the universities, and to a much greater extent the funds

on which they were supported. The University of Glasgow was nearly

ruined by the change of religion. As several of its professors were

maintained by their livings in the Church, and, as they adhered to the

old religion, there were no salaries for the Protestant professors, its

small revenue was also partly alienated, and unjustly seized. If the

Principal of the college, John Davidson, had not embraced the reformed

opinions, and continued his academical labour, indeed the institution

might have been utterly extinguished. As it was, Queen Mary in 1563,

granted to the College of Glasgow some houses, lands, and annual rents,

which had formerly been held by the friars, to found bursaries for five

poor scholars. The same year a petition was presented to the Queen and

the Lords of the Articles, “in the name of all that within this realm

are desirous that learning and letters may flourish.” This petition

stated that the patrimony of some of the foundations in the colleges,

especially those of St. Andrews, were wasted; and the sciences that

were most necessary, the tongues and humanity, were very imperfectly

taught in them, which was equally injurious to the people, to their

children, and to posterity. The petitioners therefore earnestly

requested that measures should be taken to remedy these matters.

Parliament appointed a committee to visit the universities, and to

report their opinions, as to the best mode of improving the state of

education. No report from the committee is preserved. But there is a

scheme for the University of St. Andrews, which was drawn by Buchanan,

who was one of the Commissioners.¹ Buchanan took a very keen interest

in all matters connected with education; and he had a leading hand

in the many schemes proposed after the Reformation. But the unsettled

state of public affairs, divided aims, and especially the lack of

funds, made it impossible to carry into effect the national system

of education proposed in the Book of Discipline. Along with the other

Reformers and friends of education, Buchanan did all that he could in

the circumstances; and the very inspiration of his name as a scholar,

and his life-long devotion to learning, was itself a powerful influence

on education in Scotland. Although it does not appear, that he had high

administrative abilities, still his example was great, and produced a

marked effect. The civil war, however, put a stop for a time to these

educational reforms.

¹ _Records of the University of Glasgow_; _Report of the

University Commissioners, 1826‒27 and 1836‒7_, Volume II.,

pages 236, 237; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_,

Volume II., page 544. The plan of education proposed for

the University of St. Andrews was printed in Dr. Irving’s

_Memoirs of Buchanan_, appendix iii. It gave too exclusive

attention to the learned languages, though in some respects

it was a marked improvement on the existing mode of teaching.

But in 1572 the town council of Glasgow granted lands, houses, and

rents to their college, which was called a new foundation. It was,

however, only sufficient to support fifteen persons. Andrew Melville

was appointed Principal of the University of Glasgow in 1574, and by

his energy and talents contributed much to raise the institution.

He proceeded to work with great earnestness, and resolved to conduct

a class himself through what he deemed a complete course of study.¹

His method, and the subjects which he led the class through have been

minutely detailed by his nephew, James Melville. He began by teaching

his class the principles of Greek grammar, rhetoric, and logic,

using the dialects of Ramus. Once the students were engaged in these

fascinating subjects, he read with them the best classical authors,

pointing out their beauties, and thus illustrated the principles of

logic and rhetoric. He next treated geography and mathematics, using

the arithmetic and geometry of Ramus, the tables of Hunter, and the

astrology of Aratus. Moral philosophy followed; and he read the ethics

and politics of Aristotle; Cicero’s offices, paradoxes, and Tusculan

questions, and some of Plato’s dialogues: in physics, he commented

on some parts of the works of Aristotle and Plato. At last, entering

upon the subjects of his own special department, he taught the Hebrew

grammar; first cursorily, and then by a more searching examination

of its principles, accompanied with a praxis upon the Psalter and the

books of Solomon. Proceeding to the Chaldee and Syriac, he read the

parts of the Books of Ezra and Daniel which are written in Chaldee,

and the Epistle of the Galatians in the Syriac version. He also went

through the common heads of divinity, following the order of Calvin’s

Institutes; and gave lectures on the different books of the Bible. This

course was completed in six years. During all this time, Melville met

his class twice every day, including Sunday, besides holding occasional

discussions after dinner and supper with such as were present.²

¹ _Report of the University Commissioners_, Volume II., pages

237‒239; Melville’s _Diary_, pages 48, 49.

² Melville’s _Diary_, pages 48‒50.

Andrew Melville was a man of great energy and ability, and

enthusiastically attached to his profession. In 1575 his nephew, James

Melville, began a class in the College of Glasgow: and he states that

he was the first regent in Scotland, who read the Greek authors to his

class in the original. In 1577, Andrew Melville attempted to appoint

permanent teachers to the different departments of study; while the

revenue of the university was augmented, and its privileges anew

confirmed by a royal charter, called a new erection.¹

¹ _Ibid._, pages 53, 54; _Records of the University of Glasgow_.

The leaders of the Reformed Church were fully aware that the

universities greatly needed more reform. The General Assembly in

1576 appointed Commissioners to visit and examine the state of the

University of St. Andrews; and the following year parliament appointed

a committee to visit all the universities of the kingdom, but it

seems to have done nothing; and the General Assembly which met in

1579 presented a petition to the Government, urging the necessity of

reforming the University of St. Andrews, and nominated Commissioners

to act along with those whom the Council might appoint. The Council

at last named Commissioners, and gave them ample powers; they were

authorised to remove superstition, disqualified persons, and, if

necessary, to change the form of study, and the number of professors

and regents, to join or divide the faculties, and generally to make

such arrangements in the universities as should “tend to the glory of

God, the profit of the nation, and the upbringing of the youth in the

sciences which are needful for the continuance of religion.” They found

that all the colleges had departed from their original foundations, and

that the foundations themselves disagreed in many ways with the true

religion, and were not nearly up to “that perfection of teaching which

this learned age craves.”¹

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_; _Acts of the Parliaments of

Scotland_, Volume III., page 98.

The Commissioners introduced the following in St. Salvator’s College:

a Principal, and four ordinary regents of humanity and philosophy

were instituted. The first regent was to teach the Greek grammar; to

exercise the students in Latin composition during the first half year

of the course, and in Greek the second half. The second regent was to

teach rhetoric and elocution, illustrating them by examples from the

best Greek and Roman authors; this class had also an hour every day for

Latin composition, and during the last half of the session they had to

declaim an oration once every month in Latin and Greek alternately. The

third regent was to teach the most useful parts of Aristotle’s logic,

ethics, and politics, all in Greek, and the offices of Cicero in Latin.

The fourth regent was to teach as much of the physics as was necessary,

and the motions of the sphere. On Sunday a lesson on the Greek New

Testament had to be read in all the four classes. There were also to

be regents in mathematics, and law, who were to lecture on four days of

the week. The Principal of the college himself was to act as professor

of medicine. Similar arrangements were adopted in St. Leonards, except

that in it there was no classes for mathematics and law; and the

Principal, instead of teaching medicine, was to expound the philosophy

of Plato.

St. Mary’s, or the New College, was limited to the study of theology,

and the languages connected with it. It was to have five instructors,

and a course of study extending to four years. The chief subjects

embraced in the course were the Hebrew, the Chaldee, and the Syriac

languages, in connection with the books of the Old Testament. One

regent was to explicate the New Testament during the whole course. The

Principal himself, the fifth instructor, was to lecture on the system

of divinity during all the time of the course. Public disputations

were to be held every week, declamations once a month; and, at three

different times during the course, a solemn examination was to be held,

at which “every learned man should be free to dispute.” The regents

and masters then in office were ordered to remove without delay;

the Commissioners elected those whom they thought best qualified for

teaching. They enacted that when a vacancy occurred in the future, it

should be filled by an open competitive trial; and vacancies in the

other two colleges were to be filled up in the same way. Regulations

were made to prevent the revenue of the university from being diverted

to improper purposes. At the end of every four years, there was to be a

royal visitation of the university to inquire into the effects of this

reformation, and to see that the regulations were observed.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, VIII., pages 178‒182;

Dr. M‘Crie’s _Life of Melville_, Volume I., pages 241‒244.

This scheme of educational reform indicated, that its authors were

anxious to promote the study of the higher literature, and the various

branches of learning inseparably associated with Christian theology

and religion. The new plan, however, was not fully carried into effect.

In the College of St. Salvador and St. Leonards, the act of parliament

touching the number of regents was not carried out.

Andrew Melville was translated from Glasgow to St. Andrews, and

appointed Principal of St. Mary’s College in 1580. After being

installed, he delivered his inaugural oration, and began to lecture

on theology. He went through the course of lectures and teaching with

much energy and ability. His lectures excited unusual interest in

the university, and were attended by some of the regents of the other

colleges, as well as by the class of theological students. Yet Melville

met with many difficulties in carrying out the new regulations, and

his own ideas of educational reform.¹ It has always been proverbially

difficult to reform old corporations; owing to various well known

influences, and the wisest reforms are often rendered almost nugatory.

An outside and powerful agent often sought to control the teaching in

the universities; as so many political crisis occurred, each dominant

party at the head of the Government deemed it necessary to apply their

tests, and to purge the educational institutions, and thus the field

of culture and the forms of religious thought were narrowed within the

walls of the universities.

¹ Melville’s _Diary_, pages 83‒86, 122‒128; _Life of Archbishop

Adamson_.

The first attempt to purge the University of Aberdeen was made by the

General Assembly in January, 1561, when Knox and the leading Reformers

held a conference with Alexander Anderson, the Principal, John ♦Lesly,

the canonist, and others. This meeting produced no definite result,

and it seems that King’s College remained unreformed till 1569. In that

year the Commission of the General Assembly, led by Sir John Erskine

of Dun, Superintendent of Angus, and the Regent, accompanied by some

of the members of the Privy Council, proceeded to Aberdeen, and, having

called before them Mr. Alexander Anderson, Principal, Mr. Alexander

Galloway, sub-principal, and the three regents of the College, they

were then asked to subscribe this declaration:――“We whose names

are underwritten, do ratify and approve, from our very hearts, the

Confession of Faith, together with all other Acts concerning our

religion, given forth in the Parliaments held at Edinburgh, the 24th

day of August, 1560, and the 15th day of December, 1567, and join

ourselves as members of the true Kirk of Christ, whose visible face is

described in the said Acts; and shall, in time coming, be participant

of the sacraments, now most faithfully and publicly ministered in the

said Kirk, and submit us to the jurisdiction and discipline thereof.”

As they showed no signs of compliance with the requisition of the

Commission, they were then called before the Regent and Lords of

Council; but “they contemned his Grace’s admonitions, and declined to

subscribe the said articles.” Consequently the Principal, sub-principal,

and the three regents, were deprived of their offices, ordered to

remove from the College, and prohibited from teaching publicly or

privately in any quarter of Scotland.

♦ “Leslie” replaced with “Lesly” for consistency

Alexander Arbuthnot was immediately appointed Principal of the reformed

University, and James Lawson, sub-principal, and new regents were

introduced. The office of canonist was abolished. Arbuthnot introduced

the study of Greek into the College, and, following the views of his

associate, Andrew Melville, he made an effort to limit each regent or

professor to one department of study, instead as had been the practice

formerly for each regent to take his class through all the branches

taught during the four years of the curriculum. Unfortunately the

records of the University under Arbuthnot’s presidency have been lost,

and no lists of the number of students or graduates now exist for this

period. It appears, however, that the new system had either not been

completely established, or it had fallen into disuse, shortly after

Arbuthnot’s death, as the lists of intrants from 1601 onwards show that

a regent taught the same students from the first to the fourth year.¹

¹ _Fasti Aberdonenses_, page 27, _et seq._; _Book of the Kirk_,

page 142.

We have seen that the citizens of Edinburgh took a warm interest in

education, and they were exceedingly anxious to have a college in the

capital. In 1579, the Town Council resolved to commence the building on

the piece of ground where Darnley met his fate. Owing, however, to the

opposition of some parties, the undertaking was for a time suspended;

but in 1581 the work was pushed forward with energy. It was not a

new and regularly designed structure, as it was patched up partly by

repairing the old houses upon the spot, and partly by the erection of

others upon the most economical plan. A royal charter was granted in

1582, authorising the foundation of the college, and confirming the

rights of the Town Council, with the advice of the ministers of the

city, as the patrons of the institution, conferring on them “full

freedom to elect the best qualified persons that could be found for the

discharge of the duties of the institution, with power to instal and

remove them as should be deemed expedient; and prohibiting all other

persons from teaching these sciences within the burgh, unless with the

permission of the magistrates and council.”¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume II., pages 528‒529;

_Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., pages 105‒106,

132, 163; Crawfurd’s _History of the University of

Edinburgh_, page 1‒16.

The patrons intended the students to lodge within the college and to

reside there during the course of their study. This was the custom in

the other Scottish universities, and was continued till a much later

period. In King’s College at Aberdeen, by a regulation of the Senatus

in 1753, all the students had to live within the college gates. The

second section of the statutes enacted by the Senatus of King’s College,

touching the lodging of the students, after stating that the practice

of the students living and eating in private houses had been attended

with bad results, proceeded thus:――“Therefore, the masters have decreed

that for the future all the students shall lodge in rooms within the

college, and eat at the college table during the whole session, and

that no student whatsoever shall be exempted from obedience to this

statute without a dispensation from the Principal or sub-principal, who

are empowered to grant such dispensations, for weighty reasons to be

therein expressed.” At the same time we find the following interesting

statute:――“That students may have the benefit of those parts of

education which are not reckoned academical, such as dancing, writing,

book-keeping, French, etc., without losing time in attending Masters

at a distance from the college, the sub-principal and regents shall

appoint proper rooms in the college, and proper hours, when these

things may be taught, and shall bespeak masters of the best characters

and qualifications for instructing those who chose to attend them.” As

directly applicable to the later part of the sixteenth century, I may

transcribe what James Melville said about similar matters in connection

with his own education at St. Andrews, between 1569 and 1573. “Moreover,

in these years I learned my music, in which I took great delight, of

one Alexander Smith, a servant to the Principal of our college, who

had been trained up among the monks in the abbey. I learned of him the

gamut and plain song, and many of the trebles of the psalms.... I loved

singing and playing on instruments passing well, and would have gladly

spent time when the exercise thereof was within the college; for two or

three of our condisciples played tolerably well on the virginals, and

other instruments. Our regent also had the spinet in his chamber, and

learned something, and I after him.”¹

¹ _Diary_, page 29.