he loved the tall deer as if he had been their father.
His confessor remonstrated with him, but down he went from the Castle,
through the glades of the thick forest of Drumsheugh, whose memory is
still preserved in the name of Edinburgh’s most aristocratic street. He
lost his companions and was confronted by a fierce hart. He was in near
danger of his life, and as he prayed in his distress, a miraculous cross
was thrust into his hand, at sight whereof the beast turned tail and fled,
or was slain according to another version, and David returned to the
fortress. That night a celestial vision appeared in his dreams, and bade
him lay the foundalion of the Abbey on the place of his extremity, and
hence the beginning of a long story. James VI., centuries after, as he
stood by his grave, petulantly girded at him for ‘ane sair sanct for the
Crown." He was prodigal in precious gifts to the Church. The British
Solomon had the trick of words with a tang and point and force of their
own that fixed them in men’s minds and keeps them in ours to-day. But
David in sport and faith followed the ideal of his own time, and what can
even a King do more?
It seems scarce worth while to break
this butterfly of a fairy tale on the wheel of historical criticism. The
learned have pointed out that many years pass before the legend emerges,
though early in the fifteenth century the arms of the Abbey show a stag’s
head with a cross between the antlers. The Holy Rood in the new Abbey was
in truth the Black Rood of Scotland, which we hear of at St Margaret’s
death-bed. It had its own adventures but was finally lost to Scotland in
1346 at Neville’s Cross, where along with King David II. it fell to the
English by the fortune of war. They kept it in Durham Cathedral till the
Reformation. Then, as things are apt to do in time of trouble, it
disappeared and was never beard of again. It were not difficult to
rationalize this story. King David was fond of hunting, the wolf and the
wild boar were familiar on that savage soil; even the stag had a hard life
and was a ferocious brute, and the weapons of chase were far from perfect.
David must have been not once or twice only in no small peril. It was an
age of miracles, and he may well have put down his safety to the direct
agency of Heaven. At all times men have dreamed strange dreams; and there
was a confessor at his elbow to improve the occasion. Honestly enough he
found all miraculous and yet obvious. The sacred Rood of the pious mother
had worked for the life of her dear son. There you have the whole story.
A community of Augustinian canons
regular first had its house on the Castle Rock and they were established
and endowed in the Abbey. Power was given to those same canons to found a
borough between Holyrood and Edinburgh, and so the Canongate rose into
being. You must remember that "gate" is really "gait," Scots for a way,
just as the Lang Gate—or Gait—was once a road where Princes Street now
stands. Still here and there in this same Canongate, and now and again, as
trade-mark or sign, you see the cross between the antlers of the stag.
Those are the Canongate heraldic bearing, because they were the arms of
the foundation whence it had its being. For motto it had
Sic itur ad astra.
Carlyle spied this motto above the shop of a
breeches maker, and because he would not understand, or chose to ignore
the obvious explanation, made it the occasion of pungent, caustic and
scornful remarks.
Almost as matter of course Holyrood
had right of sanctuary. But here one must note a distinction clearly
explained by Sir Herbert Maxwell in his admirable little book on the
Abbey. The right still exists. If it be useless it is because you don’t,
since 1880, imprison for debt in Scotland. If you did—and many Scots
traders urge a restoration in modified form of the old law—the immunity
would revive unless specially excluded. The first right of sanctuary
belonged to the place as a Holy house; the doctrine was rooted fast in the
faith and practice of mediaval times. In Scotland it came to an end with
the Reformation. In England, eminently the land of lawyers, it was defined
with curious precision. There are hundreds of cases thereon in the old law
books. It lasted down into quite modern times. All the privileges of
Alsatia, whereof you read so much in the Fortunes of Nigel, were
founded on it, and under the first George law-makers were still striking
at its remnants. But there was another kind of sanctuary; because the
place was a Royal Palace and you could not be arrested for debt there. The
bounds of the two sanctuaries, to call them so, were not co-extensive; the
debtors’ refuge did not include the Canongate, which was within the
Monastery precincts; it did the whole of the King’s Park, because this
same Park was very plainly part of the Royal demesne attached to the
Palace. Scots literature of the last two centuries is full of reference to
this debtors’ sanctuary. Sir Walter, in his Introduction to the
Chronicles of the Canongate,
toys almost lovingly with the congenial topic. These
Lairds of the Abbey, as they were humorously called, were under the
jurisdiction of an Abbey Bailie (a part once filled by Lord Jeffrey’s
father. The Bailie is only now in evidence on the election of Scots
representative peers), who held a special court to settle their little
differences. These fortunate unfortunates had a privilege within a
privilege; o’ Sundays they could not be arrested anywhere, but an they
were not in bounds by midnight they were fair game for the catchpoll. You
grasp at once a hint of exciting adventures and tricks by one or the other
side, a whole library of quaint romance. Just before and after ‘80
entertaining anecdotes on the subject were rife in Edinburgh.
The first "sanctuary man" (to adopt
the ancient English phrase) was Fergus, Prince of Galloway, a leader of
the old Scots party, who plotted unsuccessfully against David I. Abbot
Alwyn received him, dressed him up as a monk and stuck him with the
others. Enter David, whom Alwyn implores for a kiss of peace to his monks
and a general act of indemnity for their transgressions. David graciously
acquiesces, the matter of form is duly ended, and, presto! Fergus throws
off his monkish dress, and, secure in his pardon proceeds to strut it with
the best. David accepted the pious fraud as legitimate and proper: to that
strange age the element of trick seemed irrelevant. Fergus, having escaped
this time, rose yet again, again failed, and again sought sanctuary, but
now he took the cowl in right earnest.
All the Scots Kings were more or
less connected with this great religious house, none more so than James
II., called James of the Fiery Face, from the red birth-mark on his cheek.
He was born, christened, crowned and buried here, and the place still
holds such scanty remains of his dust as have escaped neglect, and that
desecration which the intemperate zeal of old Scots life was ready in wild
excess to inflict even on what its inmost soul cherished, and here now his
Queen, Mary of Gueldres, sleeps with him.
Down to the Reformation thirty-one
abbots held sway, but the last of them were mere secular lords. The farce
of a "tulchan Bishop," whose name is preserved in a bitter jest of the
time (the jests that have come down to us from old Scots life are usually
bitter), was here acted on a large scale.
Holyrood inevitably drifted from
mere Abbey into Palace. These old religious houses were splendid places,
positively and still more relatively to anything else in Scotland.
Whatever of wealth or refinement or luxury existed in that rude time was
to be found in them. Their sacred character protected them, not always
successfully indeed, yet to some extent. It was the obvious place for a
Scots King to lodge as he travelled. Thus James I. was at a monastery at
Perth when he met with his end. And the castles? The monarch was often at
Edinburgh or Stirling, but a fortress was a mark for attack; comfortable
housing was not the purpose of its grim walls, and a King, like other
folk, loved a change. At Edinburgh, once out of the Castle, whither could
he go if not to that splendid foundation that lay close at hand in the
valley, and was so bound up with the very existence of his race?
But in time the Prince found that
the religious house did not altogether suit Scotland, spite of everything,
did progress a little in wealth and culture, and so James IV. was minded
to entrust a certain Master Leonard Logy with the building of a palace
here. He took some five years to do it, but it was finished in 1503, in
time to receive his master’s bride, Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII.
This marriage made the Scots monarchs exactly a century afterwards Kings
of Great Britain. Had the Scots clearly foreseen this they could not have
received the Princess more splendidly. The King met her at Dalkeith; he
was the pink of courtesy to her and her train, "and he in especial
welcomed the Earl of Surrey very heartily." in ten short years they were
to meet again at Flodden. The memory of their procession through Edinburgh
long lingered; the Grey Friars met them with relics which they devoutly
kissed, the chaplain of St Giles’ hugged himself in conscious superiority
as he produced the arm bone of that saint The Cross ran with wine whereof
all might drink that would, and no doubt the population, their taste as
yet unspoiled by usquebaugh, would and did. And then at the Netherbow
there was that strange jumble of classic mythology and sacred history in
which the age delighted. There was the Angel Gabriel and the Virgin Mary,
and Justice treading Nero underfoot, and Prudence triumphing over
Sardanapalus, and what not? And speedily on the 8th August there was a
splendid marriage. There were minstrels from Aberdeen—of all places in the
world—but James IV. was the central figure, and foreign envoys record his
handsome features, his long flowing hair, his sumptuous attire. Something
of a scholar too! He even spoke the "language of the savages"—an unkindly
reference to the Gaelic! The stranger has something to say of the
amiability of the Scots. The people were for once having a good time and
everybody was in good humour.
It was to Holyrood also that James
V. brought Magdalene, the May-day bride, the fair Princess of France. When
she landed she bent down and kissed the soil of her new country. And you
remember how another Scoto-French Princess kissed the sleeping poet, Alain
Chartier because his lips had uttered so many beautiful things. By such
trifles they still hold our thoughts— a faint, sweet memory! The poor
child withered in the cold northern air, and within eight weeks of her
arrival she was lying dead and buried in the Abbey Church. James had to
seek another bride, and in Mary of Guise found one not unworthy to cope
with the iron wills and iron wits of reforming and protestant lords.
In the next reign came those
desperate English attempts to possess the little Scots Queen, that "rough
wooing" which fared so ill. At Hereford’s invasion, in 1554, the Abbey and
Palace were destroyed. It is thought a part of the spoil is still at St
Albans. And then again after Pinkie, in 1547, Hertford, now Somerset,
picked the bones so to speak, stripped off the leaden roof and took away
the church bells. Yet when Mary landed at Leith, on 19th August 1551, in
that evil mist which seemed to Knox a sign from Heaven of the plagues that
were to blight a distracted land, the damage was already repaired;
Holyrood was rebuilt; the church had been pieced together from the
fragments of its ruins, and served as parish church of Holyrood parish,
with John Craig, the colleague of Knox, as the regular and properly-placed
parish minister. To welcome Mary’s arrival there was that strange serenade
of Psalm tunes "made by a company of the most honest," says Knox, more
concerned with the matter than the manner. Whilst Brantôme, who probably
believed with the modem critic that art and morals were two different
things, avers her teeth were set on edge at "the vilest fiddles and little
rebecs" as bad as they could be, and the psalms chanted "so unholily out
of tune." Ah, indeed, "what a lullaby for the night!" Mary’s diplomacy
rose to the occasion. "It liked her well," at least so "she alledged,"
records Knox, a little dubiously; not unnaturally he had his suspicion.
But even the critical Brantöme had praise for Holyrood. "It was a fine
building, like nothing else in the country." After this little comic
interlude, on the very first Sunday, the Mass was interrupted by a tumult.
The Master of Lindsay vowed the idolatrous priest should die the death,
and the Presence chamber was the scene of interview after interview with
John Knox; and she found a man she could not charm, and he found a woman
he could not quell, and you see that no issue but tragedy was possible in
this clash of contending passions, and creeds, and interests, and ideals.
And then came the fateful year 1565.
In February the Queen first saw Darnley, and conceived a sudden passion
for the handsome, foolish lad, and when they danced a galliard together a
choice couple they must have made. Presently, like birds of ill-omen,
Rizzio and Bothwell appear on the scene. On the 29th July of that year she
was married to Darnley, and soon the sky grows dark and the storm
threatens. But you like to think that Mary had pleasant days during those
four years, spite of the harangues of Knox, spite of the moth-like folly
of Chastelard, of the execution of young Gordon at Aberdeen, for those
folk scarce touched her life.
According to Knox himself there was
dancing and flinging of the Queen and her "French fillocks." She had the
pleasant company of the famous Queen’s Maries—those four high-bred,
handsome and spirited girls, whose history Mrs Maccunn so carefully traces
for us in her book on Mary
Stuart. As Mrs Maccunn
points out, these same "fillocks" occupy an inordinate amount of Knox’s
surely limited time. His second wife, by the way, was a "fillock," of the
Royal blood too! Martin Luther had never called him a fool, for he also
could take his glass of wine. Was there just a suspicion of truth, one
wonders, in the scandalous gossip of the priests anent their great
adversary? Yet we need not suppose with Swinburne that Knox was consumed
by a hopeless passion for the Queen; it was not an age of decadent or
complex emotions.
Mary played and sang and even
studied—is it not told that after dinner she read Livy with George
Buchanan? And she hunted and hawked, and loved to go forth in splendid
dress, and liked to hear the people’s "God save you, sweet face," and
recked not the bitter remarks of Knox as to the "stinkin’ pryde of women";
nay, it was whispered the Queen wandered in all manner of disguise,
sometimes even that of a man, through the streets of her capital at night,
and this made "men’s tongues to chatter faste." These were daring frolics.
Possibly she longed to get at close quarters with her people, to know at
first-hand the life of that little crowded capital of hers. If some
skilled observer had but set down for us a faithful record of those
wanderings! Alas! that none of the masters of romance has used so
profitable a theme. But we know the King and Queen agreed ill from the
first Rizzio was thought to have too much influence, and the lords, in
their violent, remorseless Scots way, determined to end him, and on the
9th March 1566 the tragedy, horrible in itself, the prelude to still
greater horrors, was enacted.
Rizzio was her secretary, her
confessor some thought, "an old, crabbed and deformed fellow," but a man
of artistic taste, pliant and useful, and Mary was kind to him, as she was
to all her servants. The conspirators meant to get him away to try him
with the quite certain result of death sentence, but a number of
causes—the cowardice of Rizzio, the courage of Mary, the passion of the
time—made up a horrible yet intensely dramatic situation. As we stand in
that little supper-room, off Mary’s bedchamber, and opening on the secret
staircase that leads up from Darnley’s apartments below, we picture it,
with its half-dozen inmates, the music, and the song, and the wine, and
the laughter and pleasant talk. Who listened then to the drear March wind
that wailed and raved on the near hill, or the unsteady step shuffling on
the stair? and then Darnley enters, half-tipsy, and a little fearful, with
all his bravado, as he kisses the Queen, and behind him is Ruthven,
ghastly pale from his sick-bed, but in full armour and with drawn sword.
There is no harm to anyone but David, they say, though presently, when
Mary tries to call for help, Lindsay threatens to "cut her into collops,"
and then the room is filled by wild men, with daggers and torches, and the
craven Italian crouches behind the Queen and seizes her skirts, and the
table is upset, and had not the Countess of Argyll seized the candle as it
fell all were darkness. Rizzio was dragged away near the door of the
Presence-chamber, and there his captors lost control over themselves. They
cut one another in their haste to be at him; fifty-six wounds were counted
in the body, and there was the King’s dagger driven up to the hilt, though
not by the King himself, that all might know Darnley for an accomplice.
"Rizzio is dead! I have seen his
body," so a lady took the news to the Queen. "I will study revenge," said
Mary, and then her husband staggered in and asked for a cup of wine, and
there were bitter words between the pair.
Rizzio’s body was not allowed to
rest; it was thrown downstairs, laid on a chest, and stripped by the
porter, who, after the true manner of the baser Scot, was malignantly
interested in the ruin of his betters. "This was his destiny," thus he
sourly moralized, "for upon this chest was his first bed when he came to
this place, and now he lieth a very niggard and unknown knave." Mary
almost immediately talked the silly Darnley over. They fled together from
the Palace. Fate led them right over Rizzio’s freshly-turned grave, and
Darnley was startled into a chance reference. The Queen foretold "that a
fatter than he should lie as low ere the year was out."
Damley was presently his companion
and neighbour in the grave, for on the 10th February next he lay murdered
at Kirk o’ Field.
By May there was another marriage in
Holyrood, and that was the Queen and Bothwell. Of what share Mary had in
the Kirk o’ Field business I do not here discuss. Of late years the
critical battle has gone against her. Mr Andrew Lang scarcely holds up a
wavering banner, the most at least think her a passive accomplice. They
find so much to say in palliation that her sin might seem almost venial.
The Edinburgh folk had no doubts and no excuses. In the deadest of the
night wild voices rang round Holyrood and pierced their way to Mary’s
ears; the strongest words in that bitter old Scots speech—words that
struck worse than stones—were hurled at her. And then someone with a trick
of classical quotation — perhaps her old tutor, George Buchanan himself—
fixed a particularly cruel line from Ovid on her gate one night, so that
when she fled from Holyrood on the 6th June 1567 she was, you fancy, glad
to be away. That same month, on the last night she spent in Edinburgh, she
was there for an hour or two, and never saw her capital or her palace
again.
James VI.’s connection with Holyrood
was intimate and familiar: when he grew up he became on close and friendly
terms with townsfolk and preachers. He hugely delighted both by describing
the service of the English Church as "an ill-mumbled Mass," a phrase the
stout Presbyterians of Edinburgh ne’er forgot, though James, whose
thoughts under the soothing influence of Episcopal flattery was soon to be
far other, had given much to be able to recall it. Like his grandson of
the famous epigram, he said wise things though he never did them, save
that he and grandson alike had the art of keeping their seats on the
throne and their heads on their shoulders; an art in which the Stuarts
were now and again singularly lacking. The thorn in King James’s flesh at
Holyrood was Francis, Earl of Bothwell, for the title had been re-created.
He was supposed to be high in favour with the Queen; he made the maddest
raids on Holyrood, to get either at the King or his ministers; alarming
enough, though nothing very particular ever came of them, and Bothwell at
length fled the country and died in exile. At one on a July morning, in
1593, the King rose in terror from his bed "with his breeks in his hand,"
so Birrel dryly reports. He adjured Bothwell to do him no harm. "No, my
good bairn," was the insolent reply. James was not reassured; he rushed to
the Queen’s chamber and found the door locked. Then he remembered he was
King, turned on his intruders, and told them to strike if they durst. And
of course they durst not, and help comes, and peace is patched up, not
before the citizens were pouring in to James’s rescue, for spite
occasional quarrels they had a particular though not respectful fondness
for Solomon, and King and Queen appear at the window all smiles and bows,
and the curtain falls on this roaring comedy—or sorry farce shall we call
it, when we think of James "with his breeks in his hand"?
Solomon’s predecessor and successor,
his mother and his son, had their fill of sorrow and evil. They knew well
every turn of Fortune’s wheel, and they were "sad, bad, glad, mad," and
anything else you like, only they were never ridiculous. Time brings on
the night of Saturday, 26th March 1603. James was roused and told he was
King of England, and in due course and in due state he proceeded south.
Once he came back ("like the saumon," as he quaintly phrased it) in May
1617 and was well received, and on the 28th June he departed not to
return. His son was not crowned till 1633. He craved the Scots to send the
Honours to London that he might be invested there, but they would not hear
of it, and Mahomet had to go to the mountain. There were the usual
feastings and splendour; Charles touched a hundred people for the King’s
evil. He made Edinburgh into a see, and endowed it with the old Abbey
lands; he appointed Hamilton, Hereditaiy Keeper of the Palace, and the
appointment is still in the family. And then Cromwell and his soldiers
came, and on 13th November 1650, by accident or design, the Palace was
fired, though by great good fortune James V.’s tower stood fast. Cromwell
rebuilt it, but his rebuilding was pulled down, and between 1671 and 1679
the Holyrood we know was constructed. Sir William Bruce of Balcaskie was
architect and Robert Mylne the builder, and the Abbey church was decorated
as the Chapel Royal, and spiritual provision was made elsewhere for the
good folk of the Canongate. On James II.’s succession, nowhere did he set
to work to Romanize more thoroughly than at Holyrood. He adapted the
chapel for the Catholic ritual; he revived the order of the Knights of the
Thistle, and allotted them stalls therein. When Dutch William invaded the
Edinburgh mob rose and sacked Holyrood, and in a few minutes spoiled the
chapel.
In 1707, the fated year of union,
for the last time there was a Riding of the Parliament in Edinburgh, and
then Holyrood became twice a place of shadows. The Commissioner comes no
longer to the Parliament but to the General Assembly, while that
Parliament is shrunk into a meeting of peers, held in the Gallery of Kings
to elect representative members. An attempt was made to re-roof the church
in 1758, but it was done stupidly; ten years after the whole thing came
crashing down. The mob rushed in to view the ruin, the royal tombs were
again rifled, and Holyrood entered on its very worst period.
I pass over Prince Charlie for the
moment.
The next King was George IV., with
Sir Walter Scott as Master of the Ceremonies. It was a wonderful success,
and it first brought the Highlands and Highland dress decidedly into
fashion. The abode of French exiled Royalties in this house of shadows has
a mournful interest. Queen Victoria showed a certain generous courage when
she pitched her tent even for a day or two among those possibly hostile
ghosts, but the kindly care which she and Prince Albert gave to Holyrood
is not the least of the many claims she has to the gratitude of the north.