|
Editor's Preface
IT is somewhat singular
that the chronicler, who, in these “Memorialist" has preserved so much
curious information regarding the manners and fortunes of his
contemporaries, has given us such scanty references to the events of his
own and it unfortunately has occurred, that any information on the
subject, which might have been expected elsewhere, has long ago been
lost, through an accidental destruction of records, to which research
would naturally have been directed.
John Spalding, with whose name the work now printed has long been
associated, is generally supposed to have been clerk of the Consistorial
Court of the Diocese of Aberdeen. At the time when he lived, the
business of the commissariot was transacted in chambers within the
Cathedral at Old Aberdeen; but when the civil jurisdiction, which had
formerly been vested in the bishops, had passed into other hands, the
duties of the commissary were no longer performed in the Cathedral, and
his office was ultimately settled in a house in the Castle Street of the
Burgh of Aberdeen. Here, on the 30th of October, 1721, the records of
the commissariot were destroyed by an accidental fire, and with them the
means of ascertaining any particulars as to the period of Spalding’s
official services as clerk of the establishment. We are almost equally
ignorant of all other circumstances relating to Spalding’s life, nor do
the works of those who wrote on the subject upwards of a century ago,
supply much beyond mere conjecture.
Of the work in question three editions have already been printed.
The earliest notice of it occurs in an introduction by James Man to his
projected “Memoirs of Scottish affairs from 1624 to 1651,” which
appeared in 1741. Man was Master of the Poor’s Hospital at Aberdeen, and
will be remembered as the editor of Buchanan’s history, and the literary
antagonist of Ruddiman? He had made an extensive collection of
manuscript authorities for his work, and among others, he proposed to
make use of that of Spalding. It does not appear, however, that any part
of the “Memoirs” beyond the first number ever appeared. Proposals were
made in 1765 for printing Spalding’s history by subscription, but it was
not till 1792 that an edition of it was published. The circumstances
attending the production of that edition have been stated to be as
follows, and will readily account for its worthlessness :—
“A manuscript copy, belonging to Sir James Reid of Barra, in
Aberdeenshire, was, at his death, purchased for £5 by a bookseller of
Aberdeen, with a view to publication. This design was accordingly
commenced; but, without taking the trouble of comparing the manuscript
with any of the other existing copies, and without submitting it to any
examination whatever, it was placed sheet by sheet in the printer’s
hands; and, so far as the workmen were able to dccypher the manuscript,
forthwith printed, with no alteration except in the orthography. Neither
did any correction of the press take place but what the printer himself
chose to exercise. The manuscript was never returned from the workshop,
but suffered to be destroyed piecemeal as waste paper. These facts seem
abundantly sufficient to account for many of the errors and defects
which characterise that publication. But the manuscript itself must have
been defective, as a great proportion of the narrative not immediately
connected with Aberdeenshire is omitted. It seems to have been merely a
garbled copy of the Forbes Manuscript, as the same blanks which appear
in that manuscript occur in the printed copy. The termination also is
the same; which seems to evince that the transcriber was ignorant of the
additional matter contained in the Troup Manuscript.”
In 1829 a reprint of this edition appeared at Aberdeen in one volume
octavo.
During the same year there was printed for the members of the Bannatyne
Club an edition of Spalding’s work, in two volumes quarto, under the
superintendence of James Skene, Esq., of Rubislaw, and David Laing,
Esq., enhanced in its value and interest by architectural illustrations
from the well known pencil of Mr Skene. It would be superfluous to say
that the edition of Spalding now referred to, was in every respect
worthy of the literary ability for which its learned editors are known
to all who are engaged in pursuits connected with the History of
Scotland.
It appears, however, that it was only after the first volume of that
edition had been printed from more modern versions of the manuscript/
that the editors were so fortunate as to obtain the use of a more
ancient and genuine copy than either of the others, from the collection
of the Earl of Fife at Skene House.
It thus happened that the first volume of the Bannatyne Club edition was
printed from a collation of the Forbes and Troup manuscripts, while the
second volume was printed from the Skene Manuscript; the discrepancies
between the more modern copies and the Skene Manuscript, being added at
the end of the first volume as “ various readings.”
The Council of the Spalding Club having, some time ago, resolved that
the members should be possessed of an edition of that work, from whose
author the Society has received its name, it was considered advisable to
adhere exclusively to the text of the Skene Manuscript, for the use of
which they have to acknowledge the liberality of its owner the Earl of
Fife.
Accordingly, in the present edition, this manuscript has been followed
throughout, in all its fluctuating orthography and arrangements, as
being, in every respect, the most authentic version, if not the original
manuscript of Spalding; and the marginal index of the Compiler has been,
for the first time, printed opposite to the text, as it appears in the
manuscript.
The question as to the originality of the Skene Manuscript cannot be
more satisfactorily stated than in the words of the Editors of the
Bannatyne Club edition:—
The question of originality, as affecting this manuscript, is not
without difficulty. There is much which would lead to the inference of
its being from the pen of the author himself, while, at the same time,
passages do occur of a somewhat doubtful character. Of these indications
a few specimens will suffice. The work presents blanks of various
lengths, obviously left for the subsequent insertion of facts, names,
and dates, regarding which the author’s information at the time of
writing was probably inadequate. These accordingly, in many instances,
are supplied by the same hand, but with different ink ; and it seldom
occurs that the new matter is at all commensurate with the blank that
had been left for its insertion, a great portion of the space generally
remaining unoccupied, such as no copyist would ever have left, had it
been occasioned by his inability to decypher any particular passage.
Judging from the difference in the ink, the marginal notes for a few
pages back appear to have been brought up simultaneously with the
insertion of these corrections, the proceeding to be naturally expected
from a compiler, but not from a copyist. At page 3”2 of the Skene
Manuscript, after enumerating a few of the persons concerned with a
certain circumstance, a blank of two lines is left for the insertion of
other names to be afterwards ascertained, and then the subject is
resumed with the words, “ and others.” This blank, however, remains
unsupplied, from the author having either failed to obtain the requisite
information, or probably neglected to insert it. No copyist would have
left this unnecessary blank, which does not appear in the other
manuscripts.
In that portion of the manuscript, corresponding to the last line of the
page 211, vol. ii., it is “Kirks of Scotland, Edinburgh,” with the word
“Scotland" erased, which could scarcely occur in a copy.
In pages 428, 429, of the manuscript, various additions and corrections
occur in the same hand in which the text is written, but with
differently coloured ink, and of a character which strongly implies the
writer of that manuscript to have actually been the author.
On the other hand, in page 10, vol. ii., line 6 from the top, the words
“out of their purses,” as taken from the Troup Manuscript, is in the
Skene volume, “out of their purpose,” which, if written by the author,
seems an unaccountable mistake. And, in folio 430 of the manuscript,
corresponding to page 57, vol. ii. of the present edition, where the
destruction of the high altar of the cathedral is mentioned, the
marginal note referring to the passage, bears “ No sic thing true, as ye
may heirefter see,” which the text itself soon after confirms. The
author cannot be supposed thus flatly to contradict himself.”
An explanation of the matter, to some extent, may be gathered from the
following statement of James Man, which at the same time deprives
Spalding of some share of the work, which has generally been wholly
attributed to him. Among the manuscripts in the possession of Man, of
which he proposed to make use in his “Memoirs,” he refers to one by
William Gordon of Dalmoir, entitled a Genealogical Account of the Family
of Gordon and their cadets, with a note of their lives and fortunes.
Of this work, Man adds, “there is little in it but mere genealogy, till
we come to 1630, and the rest of it has been engrossed, almost word for
word, by Spalding in his memoirs.”
If, therefore, we suppose that Spalding arranged his “ Memorialls” from
this work of William Gordon, as well as the materials which he had
himself prepared, we may be able to discover some explanation of the
difficulties above stated. On this supposition, it would of course be
natural that the compiler should at a subse-quent period correct or
alter statements which he had copied from another author, if
circumstances occurred to require it, and also, William Gordon of
Dalmoir was one of two natural sons of Alexander Goidon of Strathawin, a
cadet of the house of Cluny, and was slain by some of the clan Chattan
in Dalmoir, leaving by his wife Isobel Gr int four sons, Alexander iu
Cruchles, Thomas in Neve, John in Inverurie, aud Adam in Achnascra.
(Fragment of a Genealogical History of the Gordons, MS. in the editor’s
possession).
Gurdon's Sco*s Affairs, Vol. I., Appendix to Pref. pp. xxxii., xxxiit.
that he should amplify parts of the narrative where additional
information, subsequently coming to his hands, enabled him to supply
existing defects. That the work was prepared at a subsequent period,
from notes previously made, seems obvious from the statement at page 11,
“There is nothing noted in the yeirs of God 162G and 1G27 worthie of
memorie, and therefore goes to 1G28 for the notes of that yeir.”
It will be observed also, that the writer frequently refers to the
subject in a way which shows that he was merely arranging notes of
events which were past, as when he says, “ as to this, see afterwards
“as to this, ye shall hear more heirafter,” implying obviously that
these notices were already in existence.
He also, at times, in his narrative, anticipates the order of events,
“as it so fell out, and be thir nottis do appeir.” Thus, under the year
1632, while describing the apoplexy by which the Bishop of Aberdeen was
attacked in that year, he, at the same time, narrates his death, which
did not occur till 1635, and which is described at greater length when
he comes down to that year. The same anticipation occurs on another
occasion, when the writer is describing the capture of James Grant, in
December, 1G30. His imprisonment at Elgin, which occurred in that month,
his removal to Edinburgh in the succeeding spring, and his escape from
the castle of Edinburgh, are told at the same time. On the next folio,
the story is repeated, with some trifling additions, as if the writer
had thought it necessary to give a connected view of the whole
circumstances when the first notice of them occurs, and yet finding them
occur in his notes, under the subsequent dates, he repeats the narrative
again. And these repetitions occur throughout the whole book, either
arising from the above cause, or from the unskilful incorporation of two
contemporaneous and distinct accounts into one narrative.
It may be thought that the style of the narrative occasionally indicates
the work of two authors, although the compiler has invested the whole
with a grotesque unity peculiar to himself. Thus, the pervading
homeliness of the work, which seems to have disgusted the niceness of
James Man, occasionally rises into a style of dignity and force which we
should hardly expect from the simple chronicler of every-day
occurrences. As specimens of this style, we may point to the summary of
the character of George, Marquis of Huntly, and to the account given of
the execution of Sir John Gordon of Haddo?
There is also, at times, a fulness of information as to the proceedings
of the Marquis of Huntly and of his friends in the north country, beyond
what we should expect from a citizen of Old Aberdeen, but which might
more naturally be expected from a kinsman, and an actor in the events
narrated, while, elsewhere, there appears an ignorance of subjects more
particularly connected with the burgh, which we should hardly anticipate
in Spalding, and which it is difficult to account for, except on the
supposition of the confusion resulting from the mixing up of two
narratives into one.
Thus, it is stated that Patrick Leslie was elected Provost of Aberdeen
at Michaelmas, 1634, and that being discharged from his office by virtue
of a warrant from the King, Sir Paull Menzeis was re-elected in his
place. But when the writer comes down to the year 1636, he says, “Ye
hard befoir, folio 30, how Robert Gordon’s Scots Affairs, Appendix to
the Preface, p. xxxii.
Johnstoun wes cliosin pronest of Abirdein, in place of the deposit
Patrik Lesliewhereas, as is explained in the note at page 67, Robert
Johnston was elected, under very singular circumstances, as successor to
Sir Paull Menzeis, and in October, 1635. On comparing the account of the
election of Mr. Alexander Jaffray as provost, given in the text, at page
68, with the correct statement from the Burgh Records, appended in the
note at that page, it will be seen, either that the writer had only got
some general information of the facts, or was writing from indistinct
recollection.
In giving an account of the election of Dr. William Guild to be
principal of King’s College, the writer of the text has been led into
the strange mistake of supposing that, by the original deed of
foundation, a certain voice was conferred on the Earls of Lothian,
Angus, Mar, and Moray, as representing the “four narrest countries about
this colledge,” in the election of a principal; and that the right thus
created was, on this occasion, exercised by the procurators of these
noblemen. This mistake is thus corrected on the margin. “Nota. The
foundation beiris to four natiouis, and not to four countreis, and thair
procuratoris, with the foundit memberis to be at this election of
principal!, regent, or vther member. The king is no wayes patroun.” The
correct account of the proceedings of Dr. Guild’s election will be found
in the note at page 318.
The following are two of the notices where the writer introduces any
mention of himself. The first occurs in his description of the battle at
the Justice Mills in 1644: “And mony renegat Irishis baid behind,
rifling and spoylling both Old toun and New toun piti-fullie. And none
durst bury the deid; yea, and I saw tua corpis careit to the buriall
throw the Old toun with wemen onlie, and not ane man amongst them, (so
that the naikit corpis lay onbureit so long as thir lymmaris war ongone
to the camp, albeit the livctennand himself, upone the same Mononday
befoir lie went out of the toune, gave ordouris to both Aberdenis to
bury thair deid), quhilk thay did with feir of thair lives.”
In narrating the subscription of the covenant in May, 1640, in the
Church of Old Aberdeen, he says “and myself first subscrivit the Kingis
covenant presentit by the Marques of Huntlie, glaidlie, in Old Abirdein.
I subscrivit, in the same place, ane vthcr covenant, presentit be the
lairdis of Benholme and Auldbar; and thridlie, now this covenant not
willinglie. Sie moir covenantis subscrivit.”
No separate version of the manuscript of Gordon of Dalinoir is now known
to exist, although it seems obvious that James Alan was in possession
both of Gordon’s work and that of Spalding separately, at the time when
he wrote. We are therefore unable to indicate Gordon’s share in the
“Memorialist" But from Man’s account of his work, it seems to have been
mostly confined to a narrative of the fortunes of the family of Gordon,
and although these certainly occupy a conspicuous position in the pages
of the present work, yet apart from them, there will remain a mass of
quaint and picturesque description of men and events, which would alone
secure for Spalding’s work, a high degree of appreciation.
It has been conjectured from certain passages of the work, that the
writer had for a time been resident in Moray. Thus, speaking of the
weather in 1634, he says: “The goiss symmer matchles fair in Moray, but
wyndis, wcitis, or ony storm; the cornes wes weill win, the gardyne
herbis revivit, joneta flowris and roissis springing at Martimes, quhilk
myself pullit.”b But, however this may be, it seems plain,
notwithstanding of any temporary residence elsewhere, that the
compiler’s head quarters were in Old Aberdeen, and that he writes on all
occasions with the feelings of a citizen of “glorious Aberdeen.”
The running marginal index, or commentary already referred to,
occasionally surpasses the text in grotesqueness of description, and
even supplies us with information more specific than the text itself.
Thus, at page 94, where the author is describing the outrages of John
Dugar, he says in the text “ he took out of the laird of Corss boundis
also ane brave gentilman tennant, and duelling thair, and careit him
with thamewhereas the marginal notes show that it was Mr. George Forbes
who was thus seized. And again, when he describes a visit of the Marquis
of Huntly to Old Aberdeen to obtain signatures to the Confession of
Faith of 1580, it is stated in the text (p. 114,) that “the bischop, the
principall, the regentis, gentrie, and haill commonis of the toun
willinglie obeyit and subscrivit the samen while on the margin, it is
recorded “the bischop, principall, regentis, gentrie, and commonis
subscrives, except Mr. John Lundie grammarier"
Occasionally the marginal notes have the appearance of a sarcastic
commentary on the text. Thus, while the latter informs us (p. 274,)
that, “ vpon the 26th of Maii, being Sonday, the Erll of Montroiss, now
callit lykuaies Generali, with the rest of the nobles, hard deuotioun ;
bot the renegate soldiouris, in tyme of both prcichingcs, is abuscing
and plundering New Abirdein pitifullie, without regaird to God or manthe
marginal remarks record that “ General Montroiss and nobles heiris
devotioun,” and then refer to the proceedings of the soldiers as “Thair
soldiouris deuotioun." And the “Articles of Bon-Accord,” which General
Monro required the magistrates to subscribe, arc noticed on the margin
as “scornfull, prydfull, and skaithfull articles for Aberdeen.”
Spalding lived in eventful times, and his pages furnish us with an
account, at once minute and forcible, of the miserable disorganization
of society which inevitably attends all great national divisions. In the
picture which he has drawn, we are enabled to follow the consequences of
events much deeper in the current of society, than the general
statements of national historians will carry us, and we can realize to
our minds the position and the feelings of the various actors, as they
are presented to us in these familiar and gossiping pages, in reading
which we rather seem to be listening to the oral descriptions of a
contemporary witness of events, than to be contemplating them in the
page of history at a distance of two centuries.
The same facts and occurrences have, in all ages, presented themselves
to different minds in various lights, and have led them to opposite
conclusions; and it is not to be supposed that a person living in the
midst of events so exciting and tragical, should speak of them with the
calmness and impartiality, which even writers of our own day find it so
difficult to attain in their histories of that period. Spalding
accordingly, on all occasions, gives us his impressions of men and
events, and these we must believe to have received a colouring from his
prepossessions or his prejudices ; but as to his narrative of the facts
and circumstances themselves, there seems no reason to question his
candour or veracity, and, in reality, the work does not derive its value
from the opinions of its compiler, but rather from the homely detail of
minute facts, which are generally overlooked, and deemed unworthy of
notice by those who write for posterity.
The illustrations in the Notes and in the Appendix to the Volume, have
been selected, with the view not only of illustrating events which are
noticed in the text, but for their separate value, as materials in
filling up a picture of Scotch society in the northern districts, at a
most interesting period of national history.
The manuscript sources from which these illustrations have been
principally selected, are the Records of the Burgh of Aberdeen, the
Minute Books of the King’s College of Aberdeen, the Diary of Dr. John
Forbes of Corse, and the Biographical Collections of the industrious
Wodrow, in the Library of the University of Glasgow. But the most
valuable and extensive illustrations have been obtained from the Records
of the Privy Council, and the Records of Justiciary in the General
Register House at Edinburgh. These records have furnished the materials
for those articles in the Appendix to the First Volume, entitled
“Burning of the Tower of Frendraught,” “Broken Men,” “Trial of Dame
Katherine Forbes, Lady Rothiemay,” and “Trial of Gilderoy and his
Complices”.
It is remarked by the Editors of the Bannatyne Club edition, that all
the manuscripts are defective at the close, and to an uncertain extent.
The Skene Manuscript terminates with folio 689, but, having previously
referred to folio 725, shows a deficiency of at least 36 pages. The
deficiency existed upwards of a century ago, when James Man thus writes
of the work:—“ There’s cer-tainly a part of it lost, and I have heard of
an abstract of that part continued to the year 1650. But after all the
search I could possibly make, cannot find it out.”
Various copies of Spalding’s Work are in existence. One is in the
Library of Lord Forbes at Castle Forbes, and another, formerly in the
Library at Troup House, is now the property of the Bannatyne Club. Dr.
William Henderson of Aberdeen has a copy of the MS. in his Library, and
there is one in the Library of King’s College: but the whole of these
are transcripts, more or less correct, made in the course of last
century. There is no title page to the Skene Manuscript, and the title
of “Memorialls,” given to the work in the present edition, has been
assumed, as more closely defining its nature than that of a “History,”
which has hitherto been applied to it.
The Members will readily appreciate the munificent liberality of Lord
Saltoun, one of the Vice-Presidents of the Club, who, out of a desire to
promote its interests, has contributed this work to the Society at his
own expense.
JOHN STUART.
Aberdeen, September, 1850.
Volume 1 |
Volume 2 |
