PREFACE
Persons
not much interested in, or cognisant of, “antiquarian old
womanries,” as Sir Walter called them, may ask “what all the
pother is about,” in this little tractate. On my side it is
“about” the veracity of Sir Walter Scott. He has been
suspected of helping to compose, and of issuing as a genuine antique,
a ballad, Auld
Maitland. He
also wrote about the ballad, as a thing obtained from recitation, to
two friends and fellow-antiquaries. If to Scott’s knowledge
it was a modern imitation, Sir Walter deliberately lied.He
did not: he did obtain the whole ballad from Hogg, who got it from
recitation—as I believe, and try to prove, and as Scott certainly
believed. The facts in the case exist in published works, and
in manuscript letters of Ritson to Scott, and Hogg to Scott, and in
the original copy of the song, with a note by Hogg to Laidlaw.
If we are interested in the truth about the matter, we ought at least
to read the very accessible material before bringing charges against
the Sheriff and the Shepherd of Ettrick.Whether
Auld Maitland be a
good or a bad ballad is not part of the question. It was a
favourite of mine in childhood, and I agree with Scott in thinking
that it has strong dramatic situations. If it is a bad ballad,
such as many people could compose, then it is not by Sir Walter.The
Ballad of Otterburne
is said to have been constructed from Herd’s version, tempered by
Percy’s version, with additions from a modern imagination. We
have merely to read Professor Child’s edition of
Otterburne, with
Hogg’s letter covering his MS. copy of
Otterburne from
recitation, to see that this is a wholly erroneous view of the
matter. We have all the materials for forming a judgment
accessible to us in print, and have no excuse for preferring our own
conjectures.
“No
one now believes,” it may be said, “in the aged persons who lived
at the head of Ettrick,” and recited
Otterburne to
Hogg. Colonel Elliot disbelieves, but he shows no signs of
having read Hogg’s curious letter, in two parts, about these “old
parties”; a letter written on the day when Hogg, he says, twice
“pumped their memories.”I
print this letter, and, if any one chooses to think that it is a
crafty fabrication, I can only say that its craft would have beguiled
myself as it beguiled Scott.It
is a common, cheap, and ignorant scepticism that disbelieves in the
existence, in Scott’s day, or in ours, of persons who know and can
recite variants of our traditional ballads. The strange song of
The Bitter Withy,
unknown to Professor Child, was recovered from recitation but lately,
in several English counties. The ignoble lay of
Johnny Johnston has
also been recovered: it is widely diffused. I myself obtained a
genuine version of
Where Goudie rins,
through the kindness of Lady Mary Glyn; and a friend of Lady Rosalind
Northcote procured the low English version of
Young Beichan, or
Lord Bateman, from
an old woman in a rural workhouse. In Shropshire my friend Miss
Burne, the president of the Folk-Lore Society, received from Mr.
Hubert Smith, in 1883, a very remarkable variant, undoubtedly
antique, of The Wife
of Usher’s Well.
[0a]
In 1896 Miss Backus found, in the hills of Polk County, North
Carolina, another variant, intermediate between the Shropshire and
the ordinary version.
[0b]There
are many other examples of this persistence of ballads in the popular
memory, even in our day, and only persons ignorant of the facts can
suppose that, a century ago, there were no reciters at the head of
Ettrick, and elsewhere in Scotland. Not even now has the
halfpenny newspaper wholly destroyed the memories of traditional
poetry and of traditional tales even in the English-speaking parts of
our islands, while in the Highlands a rich harvest awaits the
reapers.I
could not have produced the facts, about
Auld Maitland
especially, and in some other cases, without the kind and ungrudging
aid, freely given to a stranger, of Mr. William Macmath, whose
knowledge of ballad-lore, and especially of the ballad manuscripts at
Abbotsford, is unrivalled. As to
Auld Maitland, Mr.
T. F. Henderson, in his edition of the
Minstrelsy
(Blackwood, 1892), also made due use of Hogg’s MS., and his edition
is most valuable to every student of Scott’s method of editing,
being based on the Abbotsford MSS. Mr. Henderson suspects, more
than I do, the veracity of the Shepherd.I
am under obligations to Colonel Elliot’s book, as it has drawn my
attention anew to
Auld Maitland, a
topic which I had studied “somewhat lazily,” like Quintus
Smyrnæus. I supposed that there was an inconsistency in two of
Scott’s accounts as to how he obtained the ballad. As Colonel
Elliot points out, there was no inconsistency. Scott had two
copies. One was Hogg’s MS.: the other was derived from the
recitation of Hogg’s mother.This
trifle is addressed to lovers of Scott, of the Border, and of
ballads, et non
aultres.It
is curious to see how facts make havoc of the conjectures of the
Higher Criticism in the case of
Auld Maitland.
If Hogg was the forger of that ballad, I asked, how did he know the
traditions about Maitland and his three sons, which we only know from
poems of about 1576 in the manuscripts of Sir Richard Maitland?
These poems in 1802 were, as far as I am aware, still unpublished.Colonel
Elliot urged that Leyden would know the poems, and must have known
Hogg. From Leyden, then, Hogg would get the information.
In the text I have urged that Leyden did not know Hogg. I am
able now to prove that Hogg and Leyden never met till after Laidlaw
gave the manuscript of
Auld Maitland to
Hogg.The
fact is given in the original manuscript of Laidlaw’s
Recollections of Sir Walter Scott
(among the Laing MSS. in the library of the University of
Edinburgh). Carruthers, in publishing Laidlaw’s
reminiscences, omitted the following passage. After Scott had
read Auld Maitland
aloud to Leyden and Laird Laidlaw, the three rode together to dine at
Whitehope.
“Near
the Craigbents,” says Laidlaw, “Mr. Scott and Leyden drew
together in a close and seemingly private conversation. I, of
course, fell back. After a minute or two, Leyden reined in his
horse (a black horse that Mr. Scott’s servant used to ride) and let
me come up. ‘This Hogg,’ said he, ‘writes verses, I
understand.’ I assured him that he wrote very beautiful
verses, and with great facility. ‘But I trust,’ he replied,
‘that there is no fear of his passing off any of his own upon Scott
for old ballads.’ I again assured him that he would never
think of such a thing; and neither would he at that period of his
life.
“‘Let
him beware of forgery,’ cried Leyden with great force and energy,
and in, I suppose, what Mr. Scott used afterwards to call the
saw tones of his voice.”This
proves that Leyden had no personal knowledge of “this Hogg,” and
did not supply the shepherd with the traditions about Auld Maitland.Mr.
W. J. Kennedy, of Hawick, pointed out to me this passage in Laidlaw’s
Recollections,
edited from the MS. by Mr. James Sinton, as reprinted from the
Transactions of the
Hawick Archæological Society, 1905.