CHAPTER VIII.

=Bride of Lammermoor.=

(_The Plot, and Chief Characters of the Tale._)[36]

John Hamilton, second son of Sir Walter Hambledon of Cadzow, ancestor of the Dukes of Hamilton, married the heiress of Innerwick,[37] in East Lothian, in the reign of King Robert Bruce, and was the progenitor of “a race of powerful barons,” who flourished for about three hundred years, and “intermarried with the Douglasses, Homes,” etc. They possessed a great many lands on the coast of East Lothian, betwixt Dunbar and the borders of Berwickshire, and also about Dirleton and North Berwick. They had their residence at the Castle of Innerwick, now in ruins. Wolff’s Crag is supposed to be the Castle of Dunglas; and this supposition is strengthened by the retour[38] of a person of the name of Wolff, in the year 1647, of some parts of the Barony of Innerwick, being on record, and the castle having been blown up by gunpowder in 1640, a circumstance slightly noticed in the Tale, but too obvious to be mistaken.[39] Of this family the Earls of Haddington are descended. They began to decline about the beginning of the 17th century, when they seem to have lost the title of Innerwick[40] and began to take their designation from other parts of the family inheritance, such as Fenton, Lawfield, etc. The last of them was a Colonel Alexander Hamilton, who was in life in 1670, and had been _abroad_ for some time—thus agreeing with the Story in one particular which had a material influence on the fortunes of the family. In him the direct male line became extinct, and, according to the prophecy, his name was “lost for evermore.” The circumstances of this family, and the period of their decline, agree so exactly with the Tale, that, unless the _local_ scene of it be altogether a fiction, it appears, at first view, scarcely possible to doubt that the Lords of Ravenswood and the Hamiltons of Innerwick were the same.

Taking this supposition to be correct, a conjecture might be hazarded, in the absence of any authentic information on the subject, from the present possessors of the domains of the family of Innerwick, who Sir William Ashton was. Sir John Nisbet of Dirleton was Lord Advocate in the reign of King Charles II., and afterwards a Lord of Session, at the very time when Colonel Hamilton above mentioned was abroad. He seems to have been the founder of his family; and in this respect, as well as his having been a great lawyer, bears a remarkable resemblance to Sir William Ashton. He died without male issue, (another coincidence,) and in possession of the very estate which belonged to the Hamiltons of Innerwick, which his posterity still enjoy. From the want, however, of written memoirs of the family at Dirleton, or a knowledge of the manner in which they acquired their estates, any conjecture which can be founded on these circumstances must be entirely hypothetical.

Though silent regarding the house of Ravenswood, the subject of the story has received considerable elucidation from a note[41] annexed to the Review of it in the _Edinburgh Monthly Review_ for August, 1819, wherein it is stated, that Lucy Ashton was one of the daughters of the first Lord Stair. This nobleman was certainly the only lawyer at that period who enjoyed the power and influence said to have been possessed by Sir William Ashton; and the circumstances mentioned in the above note, as related in Mr. Kirkpatrick Sharpe’s edition of “Law’s Memorialls,” particularly the expression made use of by the bride, of “Take up your bonnie bridegroom,” may, if well authenticated, be considered as decisive of the question. It is difficult, however, to trace any connection between Lord Stair and the family of Innerwick, or that he ever was in possession of their property. In this view of the case, the parallel between Ravenswood and Hamilton of Innerwick does not hold so well. But if the identity of Sir William Ashton with Lord Stair be considered as established, there was another family in more immediate contact with him, in the history of which there are several events which seem to indicate that the Author had it in his eye in the representation he has given of the Ravenswoods; unless, as is very probable, he has blended the history of both together in the manner that best suited his purpose. He indeed admits that he has disguised facts and incidents, for the obvious purpose of making the application less pointed to the real personages of the tale. The family here alluded to is that of Gordon, Viscount Kenmure, in Galloway, between which and the Lords of Ravenswood there are several points of resemblance. For instance, the barony of Gordon, in Berwickshire, where the Gordons had their first settlement in Scotland, and which continued for a long time in this branch of the name, is in the immediate vicinity of Lammermoor, and probably suggested the idea of laying the scene in that neighbourhood. The names of the Castle (or Barony) and of the Barons themselves, were the same. Their history was “interwoven with that of the kingdom itself,” a well-known fact. The Viscount of Kenmure[42] was engaged in the civil wars in the reign of King Charles I.,[43] and was forfeited by Cromwell for his steady adherence to that monarch. In him also the direct line of the family suffered an interruption, the title having at his death devolved on Gordon of Penninghame, who appears to have been much involved in debt, and harassed with judicial proceedings against his estate. This latter again espoused the sinking side in the Revolution of 1688, and commanded a regiment at the battle of Killiecrankie. These coincidences are too remarkable to be overlooked. And it may be added, in further illustration, that Lord Stair, on being advanced to an earldom about this period, took one of his titles from the barony of Glenluce, which once belonged to a branch of the house of Kenmure.

It was formerly mentioned, that the Author admits his having disguised dates and events, in order to take off the application to the real personages of the story, which they must otherwise have pointed out. Of this sort are several anachronisms which appear in the work, such as a _Marquis_ of A. (evidently Athol, from the letter to Ravenswood dated at B. or Blair), when the Tory Ministry of Queen Anne got into power, which was only in 1710, when M. Harley succeeded Lord Godolphin as Treasurer; whereas the nobleman here alluded to was a _Duke_ so far back as 1703. The time at which the events really took place must also have been long prior to this period, for Lord Stair died in 1695; and the change in administration by which Sir William Ashton lost his influence probably refers to Lord Stair’s removal from his office in 1682.

It may here be remarked, that the family of Stair was by no means so obscure and insignificant as that of Sir William Ashton is represented to have been. They possessed the barony of Dalrymple[44] in the reign of King Alexander III.; they acquired the barony of Stair by marriage in 1450. They made a considerable figure during the reign of Queen Mary; and took an active part in the Reformation along with the confederate lords who had associated in defence of the Protestant religion. It must be admitted, however, that they made a greater figure at this time, and during a subsequent period, than they ever did before.

_Note annexed to the Review of the Bride of Lammermoor, in the Edinburgh Monthly Review for August, 1819—referred to in the foregoing Conjectures._

“The reader will probably feel the interest of this affecting story considerably increased, by his being informed that it is founded on facts. The particulars, which have been variously reported, are given in a foot-note to Mr. Sharpe’s edition of ‘Law’s Memorialls,’ p. 226; but are understood to have been sometimes told in conversation by the celebrated Poet to whom public opinion assigns these Tales. The ingenious author, whoever he is, has adopted that account of the circumstances which Mr. Sharpe deems less probable. The prototype of Lucy Ashton was one of the daughters of James, first Lord Stair, by his wife Margaret, daughter of Ross of Balneil, County of Wigton, a lady long reputed a witch by the country people in her neighbourhood, and considered as the cause, _per fas et nefas_, of the prosperous fortunes of the Dalrymple family. However this may have been, there was also ascribed to her supposed league with Satan, or her extreme obduracy, the miserable catastrophe now alluded to. The first version of the story in Mr. Sharpe’s note decidedly and directly implicates the old lady and her potent ally in the murder of her daughter on the night of her marriage, which had been contracted against the mother’s will; and, according to this account, it is the bridegroom who is found in the chimney in a state of idiocy. The other edition, which is that of the Tale, seems to require nothing beyond the agency of human passions wrought up to derangement. According to it, the young lady, as in the case of Lucy, was compelled to marry contrary to her inclination, her heart having been previously engaged elsewhere. After she had retired with her husband into the nuptial chamber, and the door, as was customary, had been locked, she attacked him furiously with a knife, and wounded him severely, before any assistance could be rendered. When the door was broken open, the youth was found half dead upon the floor, and his wife in a state of the wildest madness, exclaiming, ‘Take up your bonnie bridegroom.’ It is added, that she never regained her senses; and that her husband, who recovered of his wound, would bear no questions on the subject of his marriage, taking even a hint of that nature as a mortal affront to his honour. The coincidence of circumstances, and the identity of expression used by the bride, are much too striking to be purely accidental, and altogether deserved to be noticed, though at the hazard of making a long note. Lady Stair, it may not be irrelevant to state, was conspicuous in her time for what Mr. Sharpe denominates, ‘her violent turn towards Conventicles, and the fostering of silenced preachers in her house,’—peculiarities quite of a piece with the attachments and habits of Lady Ashton. Of the prejudices and malignity of her enemies, we may form some opinion from the satiric lines upon her long-wished-for and timely death, which Mr. Sharpe very justly denominates most unchristian. Let the _epitaph_ contrived for her bear testimony:—

‘Here lyes our Auntie’s coffin, I am sure, But where her bodie is I cannot tell, Most men affirm they cannot well tell where, Unless both soul and body be in h——. It is just if all be true that’s said, The witch of Endor[45] was a wretched sinner, And if her coffin in the grave be laid, Her bodie’s roasted to the D——l’s dinner.’

“The author of the ‘Tales of my Landlord,’ it must be allowed, has never showed any backwardness to join in the cry against people of her principles, but he has never been so summary in his conclusions as to their fate.”

LUCY ASHTON AND BUCKLAW.

We derive the following curious notices respecting the Lucy Ashton and Bucklaw of real life, from a rare volume, entitled “Tripatriarchicon; or, the Lives of the Three Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Digested into English Verse, by Mr. Andrew Symson, M.A., late Minister of Kinkinner. Edinburgh: Printed for the Author. 1705.” The following Poem is one of thirteen elegies found appended to some rare copies of the book, which were withdrawn from the greater part of the edition, on account of the offence taken against them by the Whigs. Symson seems to have been a sincere and zealous partizan of High Church, and does not seem to have permitted any great man of his own party to die without an appropriate elegy, accompanied by a cutting tirade upon his enemies.

“_On the unexpected death of the vertuous Lady_, Mrs. Janet Dalrymple, _Lady_ Baldone, _Younger_. Nupta, _Aug. 12_; Domum ducta, _Aug. 24_; Obiit, _Sept. 12_; Sepult. _Sept. 30, 1669_.

_Dialogus inter advenam et servum domesticum._

‘What means this sudden unexpected change, This mourning Company? Sure, sure some strange And uncouth thing hath happen’d. _Phœbus’s_ Head Hath not been resting on the wat’ry bed Of _Sea-green Thetis_ fourty times, since I _In transitu_ did cast my tender Eye Upon this very place, and here did view A Troop of Gallants: _Iris_ never knew The various colours which they did employ To manifest and represent their Joy. Yea more; Methinks I saw this very wall Adorn’d with Emblems Hieroglyphicall. At first; The glorious _Sun_ in lustre shine: Next unto it, A young and tender _Vine_ Surround a stately _Elm_, whose tops were crown’d With wreaths of _Bay-tree_ reaching to the ground: And, to be short, methinks I did espy A pleasant, harmless, joyful Comedy. But now (sad change, I’m sure,) they all are clad In deepest Sable, and their Faces sad. The _Sun’s_ o’erclouded and the _Vine’s_ away, _The Elm_ is drooping, and the wreaths of Bay Are chang’d to Cypress, and the Comedie Is metamorphos’d to a Tragedie. I do desire you, Friend, for to unfold This matter to me.’ ‘Sir, ’tis truth you’ve told. We did enjoy great mirth, but now, ah me! Our joyful Song’s turned to an Elegie. A vertuous Lady, not long since a Bride, Was to a hopeful plant by marriage ty’d, And brought home hither. We did all rejoyce, Even for her sake. But presently our voice Was turned to mourning, for that little time That she’d enjoy: She wained in her prime For Atropus, with her impartial knife, Soon cut her Thread, and therewithall her Life. And for the time, we may it well remember, It being in unfortunate September, Just at the _Æquinox_: She was cut down In th’ harvest, and this day she’s to be sown, Where we must leave her till the Resurrection; ’Tis then the Saints enjoy their full perfection.’”

One of these curious pieces is “A Funeral Elegie occasioned by the sad and much lamented Death of that worthily respected and very much accomplished Gentleman, David Dunbar, Younger of Baldone. He departed this life on March 21, 1682, having received a bruise by a fall, as he was ryding the day preceding betwixt Leith and Holyroodhouse; and was honourably interred, in the Abbey Church of Holyroodhouse, on April 4, 1682.” Symson, though a printer in 1705, had been an episcopal clergyman: and it is amusing to observe how much of the panegyric which he bestows upon Dunbar is to be traced to the circumstance of that gentleman having been almost his only hearer, when, in a Whiggish parish, his curacy had like to be a perfect sinecure, so far as regarded that important particular—a congregation. He thus speaks of him:—

“He was no Schismatick, he ne’er withdrew Himself from th’ House of God; he with a few (Some two or three) came constantly to pray For such as had withdrawn themselves away, Nor did he come by fits,—foul day or fair, I, being in the church, was sure to see him there. Had he withdrawn, ’tis like these two or three, Being thus discouraged, had deserted me; So that my Muse, ’gainst Priscian, avers, _He_, HE alone, WERE my Parishioners, Yea, and my constant Hearers. O that I Had pow’r to eternize his Memory; Then (though my joy, my glory, and my crown, By this unhappy fall be thus cast down,) I’d rear an everlasting monument, A curious structure, of a large extent,— A brave and stately pile, that should outbid Ægyptian Cheops’ costly Pyramid,— A monument that should outlive the blast Of Time, and Malice too,—a pile should last Longer than hardest marble, and surpass The bright and durable Corinthian brass!”[46]

A COUNTRY INNKEEPER.

(_Caleb Balderston._)

The prototype of Caleb Balderstone was perhaps _Laird Bour_, a servant of the Logans of Restalrig, in 1600. It is evident that the _character_ is just a Scottish edition of “Garrick’s Lying Valet.” We have discovered, however, a solitary trait of Caleb, in a Scotch innkeeper of real existence, who lived long in the south country,[47] and died only a few years ago. We subjoin a very brief notice of this person, whose name was Andrew Davidson.

A literary gentleman, who supplies us with information respecting him, states that he was once possessed of a considerable estate,—that of Green-house, in the county of Roxburgh. But being a man of great wit and humour, his society was courted by young men of idle and dissipated habits, who led him into such expenses as shortly proved prejudicial to his fortunes. He was then obliged to sell off his estate and betake himself to a humbler line of life. Keeping a small grocery and spirit shop always presents itself to men in such circumstances as a means of subsistence requiring the least instruction and most easily set afloat. He accordingly commenced that line of business in Jedburgh; but, being considered as an intruder into the burgh, and opposing certain ancient residenters, who were supposed to be more lawfully, justly, and canonically entitled to trade in the town than any new upstart, he did not meet with that success which he expected. In consequence of this illiberal treatment, he conceived the most rancorous hatred for the inhabitants of Jedburgh, and ever after spoke of them in the most violent terms of hatred and contempt. His common language was, “that not an individual in the town would be judged at the last day,—Jedburgh would be at once damned _by the slump!_”

He again resolved to commence the profession of agriculture, and took the farm of Habton, in the neighbouring parish of Crailing. This speculation, however, succeeded no better than the shop. By associating himself with the opulent farmers and gentlemen of the vicinity, by whom his company, as a man of wit and jollity, was always much sought after, his ancient habits of extravagance returned; and, though in poorer circumstances, being obliged to spend in equal style with these ruinous friends, the surviving wrecks of his fortune were soon dissipated, and he was obliged to become a bankrupt.

When a man who has freely lavished his fortune and his humour in the entertainment of friends above his own rank becomes incapable of further sacrifice, it is most natural for such friends to forsake and neglect him. He is considered as no more entitled to their gratitude than the superannuated player, after he has ceased to be supported by the immediate exhibition of his powers. There is no Chelsea provided for the cripples in the cause of the gay.

Mr. Davidson was, however, more fortunate in his companions. After his misfortune, they induced him to open a house of entertainment at Ancrum Bridge; laid in for him a stock of wines, spirits, etc.; made parties at his house; and set him fairly a-going. This was a line in which he was calculated both to shine and to realize profit. His company was still as attractive as ever; and it was no longer disgraceful to receive a solid reward for the entertainment which his facetiousness could afford. Having also learned a little wisdom from his former miscarriages, he proceeded with more caution, kept up the respectability of his house, was polite and amusing to his guests, and, above all, paid infinite attention to his business.

The peculiarity of character, for which we have placed his name against that of Caleb Balderstone, here occurs. Whenever there alighted any stranger of a more splendid appearance than ordinary, he was suddenly seized with a fit of magniloquency, and, in the identical manner of Caleb Balderstone, would call _Hostler No. 10_ down from _Hay-loft No. 15_, to conduct the gentleman’s “beast” to one of the best stalls in the _Stable No. 20_! He would then, with a superabundance of ceremony, show the stranger into a chamber which he would declare with the greatest assurance to be _No. 40_; and on his guest asking perhaps for a glass of rum, would order a waiter, whom he baptized (_nolens volens_) _No. 15_ for the occasion, to draw it from the cask in the bar marked 95. Then was the _twelfth_ hen-roost to be ransacked, and a glorious fowl, the best that could be selected from a stock of about _one thousand or so_, to be consigned to the hands of the _Head Cook_ herself, (God knows his house boasted only one, who was _Scullion_ and _Boots_ besides.) All this rhodomontade was enacted in a style of such serious effrontery, and was accompanied by such a volubility of talk, and flights of humour, and bustling activity, that any one not previously acquainted with his devices, would have given him and his house credit for ten times the size and respectability they could actually boast of.

Mr. Davidson afterwards removed to the inn at Middleton, where he died, in good circumstances, about sixteen years ago. He was a man of very brilliant talents, distinguished much by that faculty entitled by the country people _ready wit_. He had a strong memory, a lively and fertile imagination, and possessed powers of discourse truly astonishing. The prevailing tone of his mind was disposed to ridicule. He had a singularly felicitous knack of giving anything improper in his own conduct or appearance a bias in his favour, and could at all times, as we have seen, set off his own circumstances in such a light as made them splendid and respectable, though in reality they were vulgar and undignified.

FOOTNOTES:

[36] We are indebted for the following ingenious and elaborate article to the gentleman who supplied the notice respecting the “Bodach Glas,” at page 25.

[37] Douglas’s Baronage,—Hamilton of Innerwick.

[38] A retour is a law term, signifying the report of the verdict of a jury, which, by the law of Scotland, is the mode of proving the propinquity of an heir, so as to entitle him to be invested in his predecessor’s estate.

[39] Douglas’s Peerage,—Earl of Haddington.

[40] Douglas’s Baronage,—Hamilton of Innerwick.

[41] See page 6.

[42] Douglas’s Peerage,—Viscount Kenmure.

[43] A principal and conspicuous part of Lord Kenmure’s camp equipage was a barrel of brandy, which was carried at the head of the regiment. This was called Kenmure’s Drum.

[44] Douglas’s Peerage,—Earl of Stair.

[45] So she was styled.

[46] We are indebted to the kindness of Mr. Kirkpatrick Sharpe for this unique copy of the “Tripatriarchicon,” from which the above extracts were made.

[47] It is exceedingly remarkable that the greater part of the Author of “Waverley’s” prototypes were natives of this district.