LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 14, 1855.

Notes.

BUCHAN'S SCOTTISH BALLADS: PERCY'S RELIQUES.

It is now just ten years since Mr. J. H. Dixon, then a member of the Council of the Percy Society, became the editor of a book published for that body, entitled Scottish traditional Versions of Ancient Ballads, London, 1845. From the pre

face we learn that the materials of this work are to be found in two MS. volumes, then in possession of the Percy Society, containing ballad versions taken from oral tradition in the North of Scotland by (? the late) Mr. Peter Buchan of Peterhead. In the same preface we are farther informed that

"Mr. Peter Buchan's manuscripts were compiled solely for his own amusement; but at one time, in consequence of the solicitations of several of his antiquarian and literary friends, it was certainly Mr. Buchan's intention to have published a portion, at least, of the matériel which he had so industriously collected. Causes, however, over which he had no control, compelled an abandonment of the design, and the volumes were laid aside till the establishment of the Percy Society, when they were handed over to a member of the council, who made a careful investigation of their contents. They were subsequently inspected by other members of the Society, and finally, by a vote of the Council, were placed in the hands of the editor and his friend W. Jerdan, Esq., for them to decide on the authenticity and general merit of the ballad portion of the volumes."

Now every reader of this preface, who does not know better, must necessarily get the impression, that Mr. Buchan himself never published any part of his ballad collection; while the reader who knows better must be strongly puzzled by the question, why it is not even mentioned, that this same Mr. Buchan has published three different collections of traditionary songs, and, in fact, is the man who has rescued, and for the first time published, more traditionary ballad versions than any other antiquary in Great Britain that we know of? His published collections are, taken together, and compared with the contributions of any other single collector, the richest source in this branch of folk lore out of all that up to this day have appeared before the British public. Neither Percy, nor Ritson, nor Herd, nor Scott, nor Jamieson, nor Motherwell, have brought so great a number of traditionary versions of old folk ballads before the public as Mr. Peter Buchan of Peterhead. His first and second publications (viz. Scarce Ancient Ballads, Peterhead, 1819; Gleanings of Scotch, English, and Irish scarce old Ballads, chiefly tragical and historical, Peterhead, 1825) were but small and of

a

more private nature; but his chief work, the Ancient Ballads and Songs of the North of Scotland, hitherto unpublished, two vols. 8vo., Edin

burgh, 1828, contains no less than 145 ballad texts, all of them from oral tradition, or from flysheets (stall copies, broadsides), and only a very few of them of doubtful antiquity.

That Mr. Buchan has not published his ballads with that scrupulous accuracy, that strict and verbal adherence to the popular tradition, as might be wished, and which may now be demanded, we are ready to confess; but he certainly has done no worse in that respect than all the ballad editors of England and Scotland, with the exceptions of Mr. Ritson, Mr. Jamieson, and perhaps one or two more. His merits in preservation of the old Scottish folk lore are so great, that he certainly ought to be treated in a less slighting manner than has been the case; and nobody had a better reason to point out his services than the gentleman who owed to him the whole of the collection which he brought before the public.

66

When we leave the preface and come to the inspection of the contents of Mr. Dixon's volume, which contains no more than seventeen ballad versions, we find that out of these two-thirds have been published already by Mr. Buchan himself. But this fact is not hinted at by Mr. Dixon, except in two instances, in the notes; the one when, in No. X., the editor says (p. 99.) that "Versions may be seen in the works of Herd, Scott, Jamieson, Buchan, and Chambers," but it is not stated that Mr. Dixon's version of this ballad is word for word the same with that published by Mr. Buchan in his last collection, vol. ii. p. 198. The other instance is when Mr. Dixon, in the note (p. 104.) on "The Waters of Gamery," informs us that there are many versions of this story, the most complete being the one called 'Willie's drowned in Gamery' see Buchan's Ballads of the North." And here the editor farther deigns to quote Mr. Buchan's notes on the occasion. In this last instance the version published by Mr. Dixon is another than that published by Mr. Buchan himself (vol. i. p. 245.). But in none of the other instances, even where Mr. Dixon only gives a reprint from the same text that has been printed once before in Mr. Buchan's large collection, is any mention made of this fact. We shall point out the rest of the communia bona of Mr. Buchan's published ballad books and Mr. Dixon's Ancient Ballads.

The first piece in the Dixon collection is "Young Bondwell." This is not in Mr. Buchan's Ballads of the North; but we are informed by Motherwell (Minstrelsy, Ancient and Modern, p. lxxxvi.) that a version of this ballad has appeared in Mr. Buchan's Scarce Ancient Ballads. Whether that is the same text as given by Mr. Dixon, we are unable to decide, because the Scarce Ballads are extremely scarce, and no copy of it within our reach. Of No. V. in the Dixon

Collection, another version, in some respects more perfect (though in others somewhat doubtful), has appeared in Mr. Buchan's Ballads of the North, vol. i. p. 91. (Some verses of it were previously printed in Motherwell's Minstrelsy, p. lxxxi.) But if we look to the notes of Mr. Dixon on this piece, we find no mention at all of its having ever appeared in print (though, in fact, "Proud Lady Margaret," in the Border Minstrelsy, is only another version of the same ballad, as already remarked by Motherwell). Nor is this the case with this song only, but

The Dixon Collection, No. VI., has previously been published by Mr. Buchan in Ballads of the North, vol. ii. p. 222.:

No. VII.

Vol. ii. p. 217.

Vol. ii. p. 194.

Vol. ii. p. 57. Vol. ii. p. 198. Vol. ii. p. 201.

Vol. i. p. 245.

Vol. ii. p. 206.

Several of those are verbatim the same in Mr. Dixon's and in Mr. Buchan's publications, simply because they have been printed from the same authority, the Buchan MSS. But with the exceptions of the two cases before mentioned (Nos. X. and XI.), no mention is made of their having been published seventeen years before in a work that is of so much greater consequence in this line, than is Mr. Dixon's publication.

Now this is not fair. Mr. Dixon shows in two instances that he knows the fact of Mr. Buchan's editorship, and that he even knows and has used his last edition; but why then not mention this in the preface? And why not tell in the other eight instances that the ballad, now edited from Mr. Buchan's MSS., has been published by the great collector himself seventeen or twenty-six years ago? All this does not look well. It certainly appears as if Mr. Dixon did not wish any comparison to be drawn between his fairy volume, with the seventeen ballad versions, and the great published Buchan Collection of 145 ballads, among which most of his seventeen are to be found, with little or no difference.

What now ought to be done is this, that the whole ballad portion of Mr. Buchan's MSS. should be published from the MSS., but with all the additions and varia lectiones of the published

collections of Mr. Buchan thrown into the notes.

There are reasons to suppose the published versions to be in some respects less authentic and genuine than are the MSS. from which they were taken; there Mr. Buchan has kept close to the form in which they were taken down from oral tradition; but in publishing them himself he has no doubt taken some liberties with them, to make them more suitable to the taste of the day. Therefore we must have the MSS. without any

alteration. But, on the other hand, many of the differences between the written and the printed copy may be derived from tradition, and therefore ought to be preserved. This would be a fine task for the Warton Society, and would be received by all friends of northern folk lore with a pleasure and gratitude only surpassed by that which would hail the appearance in print of the mysterious Percy Manuscript of Ballads, which now during just one hundred years has been partly expected, and partly suspected by the friends of folk lore all over the world. It was in the year 1755 that Bishop Percy, by his Reliques, gave the first impulse to that interest for popular poetry, which has since spread over the whole continent, and has called forth the lovely bloom of the popular poetry of all nations. Now it would no doubt be the most worthy manner of solemnizing the centennial of the British Reliques, if the Warton Society would also edit (verbatim et literatim) for the first time that inestimable relique, the chief source of the great Percy publication, and of the universal movement it has so happily occasioned. SVEND GRUNDTVIG.

Copenhagen.

JUNIUS, MR. george woODFALL, AND THE REV.

HARTWELL HORNE.

The one fact in your Note to the letter of VERTAUR (Vol. xi., p. 338.) is conclusive; otherwise many facts might be added. But any statement by Mr. George Woodfall, the son of H. S. Woodfall, vouched for by Mr. Hartwell Horne, will be thought by your readers entitled to especial consideration. It may be well, therefore, to examine that statement, as it may help us to conclusions as to the value of other statements made in the edition of 1812, which rest on the authority of Mr. George Woodfall,—a highly respectable man, but a man, be it remembered, not accustomed to weigh evidence not habitually to distinguish between what we believe and what we know, a refinement which is the result of a life of critical inquiry,— and yet a man who is considered by most persons as an oracle on the subject of Junius, a subject about which, in my opinion, he knew very little; nothing, indeed, but what he picked up hurriedly, when collecting materials for the edition of 1812.

On the authority, then, of Mr. George Woodfall, Mr. Horne informs us that an edition of Junius "without date," and having an "index,”"is the first edition of the letters of Junius in a collective form; that the proof-sheets were corrected by Junius himself; and in p. xx. of the preface, and in p. 25. of this volume, there are two manuscript corrections made by Junius."

The true history of the edition without date was, as I believe, given long since in "N. & Q."

--

Another fact equally conclusive is, that no edition which contains an "Index" could have been the edition referred to by Junius the edition first issued. This subject also was heretofore considered in "N. & Q." (Vol. vi., p. 383.), and may therefore be here briefly disposed of. Junius, in a private letter to the printer (No. 58.), expresses his anger that the book had been issued to the public before copies had been forwarded to him.

"I was impatient to see the book, and think I had a right to that attention a little before the general publication."

Copies were immediately sent, with a letter of explanation, to which Junius replies (No. 59.), · "Your letter, with the books, are come safe to hand. If the vellum books are not yet bound, I would wait for the Index."

This letter (No. 59.) contains the very errata above referred to, and is proof, therefore, that the copies issued to the public, and those subsequently sent to Junius and referred to by Junius, were without an index.

Here then, on the authority of Mr. Horne, is evidence that Mr. George Woodfall did not know which was the first collective edition - did not know the order and sequence, or contents of the editions printed in his father's office (subsequently his own office) and did not take the trouble to examine or inquire, yet spoke on the subject without hesitation or qualification.

66

Mr. Horne farther states, also on the authority of Mr. George Woodfall, that "the proof-sheets of the edition without date (or, to give him all possible licence, of the first collective edition) were corrected by Junius himself." Like statements have been made by others; the fact, indeed, assumed to be unquestionable; and certain corrected proof-sheets, as they are called, still in the possession of the Woodfall family, have been referred to as evidence. Under these circumstances, therefore, I must believe that at that time Mr. George Woodfall was himself of opinion that he possessed the proof-sheets corrected by Junius. His statements to Mr. Horne, and probably to others, gave currency to that opinion; and there is a vitality in error which cannot be trampled

out. Here we have it, reproduced from America, half a century or more after its first circulation; and long after it had been shown in "N. & Q." (Vol. vi., p. 261.), that what are called the corrected proofs of edit. 1772, are corrected sheets of one of Wheble's editions, sent as copy.

The statement, however, is so important, and opens so wide a field for speculation, that it may be well here to consider whether "the proofsheets" of the edition of 1772 were or were not that edition, given in the "Preliminary Essay" to "corrected by Junius himself." The history of the edition of 1812 (pp. 57. 60.), is, like so many other circumstantialities in that essay, purely speculative and imaginative. Where, for example, is authority to be found for the assertion that Junius "undertook to superintend it as far as his told the printer that he would not superintend it. invisibility might allow him?" Junius distinctly

"You must correct the press yourself, but I shd be glad to see corrected proofs of the 2 first sheets." (No. 40.) "In a few days more I shall have sent you all the copy. You must then take care of it yourself, except that I must see proof Sheets of Ded" & Pref., & these, if at all, I must see before the End of next week." (No. 45.)

Again, and in the next letter:

"The inclosed compleats all the materials that I can give. I have done my part. Take care you do yours." (No. 46.)

Nothing can be more clear, I think, than that Junius not only did not undertake to superintend that edition, but, from the outset, he distinctly told the printer that, with the exception of the first two sheets and the dedication and preface, the printer must do it himself. It farther appears from the correspondence that Junius did see proofs of the first two sheets-perhaps the first three- but too late for purposes of correction, as I judge from the "woeful mistake referred to (No. 44.) not having been corrected; and that he did not see proofs of the dedication and preface (No. 46.). Why need not be here considered.

- pro

Here the question might rest, but that the writer of the Essay-speaking, of course, on what he assumed to be the knowledge of Mr. George Woodfall, for he had no knowledge of his own ceeds, after his fashion, into details which startle by their circumstantiality. Thus we are told (p. 63.) that "the difficulties of sending proofs and revises forward and backward were so considerable as to delay the publication! Fortunately, in the very next page (64.) he shows that there could have been no such delay arising from such cause; for he tells us "the letters at large, excepting the first two sheets, which were revised by the author himself, were, from the difficulty of conveyance, entrusted to the correction of Mr. Woodfall;" so that, except the first two sheets, there was no sending proofs or revises either backward or forward. Therefore, not only on

the authority of Junius, but of the Preliminary Essay to Mr. George Woodfall's own edition, it is proved that Mr. George Woodfall was in error when he told Mr. Horne that "the proof-sheets were corrected by Junius himself."

As to the assertion about the two "corrections made by Junius," it is a mere mystification. They were made by Junius; but not, as the reader might suppose, made by Junius in that particular copy of the edition without date; but, as shown by your correspondent, in letters to the printer (Nos. 44. and 59.), and with reference to the edition of 1772; and, that the reader may not fall into error, I will add, they were made after the work was published-after "the books" had come to hand," and in the very letter of Junius which acknowledged their receipt.

66

I must, in conclusion, direct attention to a somewhat startling omission in this notice of the "manuscript corrections made by Junius." Mr. Horne, on the authority of Mr. George Woodfall, refers to "two." But, as the reader may already have noticed, there were three: (Priv. Let., No. 59.) "in the preface, p. 20. 1. 7.," unreasonable for unseasonable; "p. 26. 1. 18.," accurary for accuracy;' and (Priv. Let., No. 44.) the "woeful mistake," 'p. 25.," of your instead of thee. Now the error not referred to is that at p. 26. Why not, it may be asked? Because there is no such error in the edition without date, the edition which contains Mr. Horne's note, and which could not therefore be the edition referred to by Junius.

66

L. J.

CHURCH OF DURNESS, SUTHERLANDSHIRE. The old church of Durness, in the immediate vicinity of Cape Wrath, is one of the most interesting parish churches in Scotland. It bears on one of its doors the date of 1622, and the dust of by-past generations has so accumulated about it, that the churchyard is on the level of the windowsills, and you have to descend three steps to reach the floor of the church. I am not able to guess at the date of the older part of the church; but, as Cape Wrath is often visited by geologists and tourists in search of the picturesque, I do hope that in the course of this year there may be an antiquary among them who will bestow a passing look on Durness kirk, and may have influence enough to prevail on the Duke of Sutherland (the sole heritor of the parish) to preserve it from the fate of immediate destruction that has invariably befallen our old Scotch parish kirks, when, as has been the case in Durness, a new church has been erected.

The churchyard contains the tombs of many honourable men amongst the old, but now decayed, clan of Mackay. A plain slab covers the grave of Robert Mackay, better known as Rob

Don, the most popular of Gaelic poets; and at a little distance stands a more ambitious tribute to his memory in the shape of an obelisk, with inscriptions (of little merit) in Greek, Latin, Gaelic, and English. Within the church is the tomb of an earlier hero of the Clan, Donald Macmurrichov (as I believe, Donald the son of Murdoch), a noted caterane, or (as it is politely expressed by a Highland historian) "a gentleman of incoherent transactions." This tomb is sculptured with an effigy, which I take to be Donald's,-a “memento mori piece, of death's head and cross bones; and in the centre is a blank stone, at the west end of which there is an iron ring, apparently intended to raise the stone. The following is a transcript of the epitaph: "Donald Macmurrichov here lyis lo,

Vas il to his freind, Var to his fo,

True to his maister in veird and vo."

My communication, I dare say, will inform you, without my own confession, that I cannot pretend to call myself either an ecclesiologist or an antiquary. But I have some reverence for antiquity, and I dare say I am not the only one of your readers who thinks he may do some service to your better-informed contributors, by venturing, in all humility, an occasional Note. My object is gained, if I can get any person of influence to take an interest in Durness kirk, and be its advocate with the most liberal and excellent nobleman, in whose hands its fate lies.

If my Note is not already too long, you may perhaps add to your collection of eccentricities, the following epitaphs from a stone in Durness kirkyard. The dates, which I neglected" to make a Note of," are, I think, about 1780 and 1800: On Mr. A.'s First Wife.

"Ten years the genuine copy of a virtuous wife, Clear was the prospect of her landing safely from the storms of life."

The following elucidation of the history of this part of London may possibly interest some of your antiquarian readers. It appears scarcely consistent with what Cunningham says under that head in his Handbook of London. It was found in searching the Records of Chancery for another purpose, 21st June, 1855. J. P. O.

In Chancery. DUKE OF GRAFTON V. HILLIARD. (Reg. Lib. 1735. (A.) fol. 384.) Whereas by an Order bearing date the 4th instant, for the reasons therein contained, it was ordered that the

Defendants having notice thereof should show cause unto this Court the last day of the term, why they should not be restrained from burning bricks and lime in the places therein particularly mentioned. And whereas by a subsequent order of the 7th instant, for the reasons therein contained, it was ordered that the time for showing cause should be enlarged until this day, they submitting that all things should stay in the meantime. Now upon opening of the matter this present day unto the Right Honble. the Lord High Chancellor, &c., by Mr. Solicitor General, and Mr. Wilbraham, being of counsel with

the defendants Hilliard, Cock, and Whitaker, who came to show cause against the said order of the 4th instant, and alleged that the Right Honble. William Lord Berkley being seised of several fields in the parish of St. George, Hanover Square, part of a farm called Hay Hill Farm; they, the said Defendants, did on the 8th day of April last enter into articles of agreement with the said Lord Berkley, and with the Honble. John Berkley his son and heir apparent, for part of a certain field called Brickfield, parcel of the said Hay Hill Farm, to build upon at the yearly rent of 4201. for a term of ninety-four years. That there being some brick earth upon part of the said ground, thereby apprehending that they had good right by virtue

of the said articles to have the benefit thereof, to make the same into bricks, or to dispose thereof to any person so to do, they sold the same to the Defendant Whitaker, with liberty to make and burn the same into bricks upon the said ground, under the restriction in the said articles as to the time of burning the said bricks. That they are restrained by the said articles from setting fire to any bricks that shall be made on the said ground before the 1st day of July next, or to continue the said burning longer than the last day of August, at which time it was apprehended that the plaintiffs and others the inhabitants of the neighbouring houses would be gone to their respective country seats. That it hath been usual in all undertakings for buildings where fresh ground hath been broken up to make and burn bricks, or any part thereof

whereon brick earth hath been found, notwithstanding there hath been several houses near adjoining to such bricks, inhabited at the same time, and particularly in May Fair and Grosvenor Buildings, in the last of which there is at present bricks making and intended to be burnt on the ground belonging to the said defendants. That the time for burning the said bricks being so short, and the uncertain inconvenience of the same depending upon the wind; they apprehend that the same will be but little if any annoyance to the plaintiffs, and will not damage their furniture, and hope they shall not be restrained from burning the said bricks and making all the advantage they can of the said ground. That as to burning the lime on the said ground, they the said defendants are not concerned therein. Whereupon, and upon hearing of Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Brown, Mr. Welder, and Mr. Clarke of Counsel with the said Defendants, and an affidavit of the said Defendants Hilliard and Cock and Whitaker read, and what was alleged on both sides, his Lordship doth allow the cause now shown, and doth order that the said order of the 4th instant be discharged.

Minor Notes.

Worship." - In Sir D. Brewster's Life of Newton, just published, is Newton's creed, from the long-suppressed Portsmouth papers. This creed contains an exemplification of the old use of the word worship. According to Newton, Jesus

Christ is not, as matter of obligation, an object of prayer, but he is an object of worship. An illustration or two of this word may lead to others, and especially to the suggestion of the question, what changes it has undergone.

Theodore Hook, who often produced bits of reading in his novels, refers in one of them to a proclamation of James I., against dignitaries allowing the use of higher modes of address than were due to them. All I remember is, that complaint is made of your honour being used towards those who were only entitled to worship. We know that city magistrates are called "your worship," while to this day the squire is nothing less than "his honour."

The city companies are all worshipful. The worshipful Company of Skinners has the motto, "To God alone be all glory;" the Leathersellers read "Honor et gloria; " the Drapers, "Honour and glory;" but the worshipful company of Fishmongers read, "All worship be to God only." This company is one of the oldest; was it worshipful when it took this motto, which reads so strangely in connexion with its own style? Is the higher meaning of the word the oldest of all?

Works of the seventeenth century treat worship as applicable to men, and even to abstract ideas; wise men worship the sciences. In our day it means prayer. The gradual changes of meaning have introduced confusion into many phrases; the worship of images, for example. M.

In a Com

Cutting of Teeth in advanced Age. mon-place, written by one Thomas Rawlins of Pophills, between the years 1724 and 1734, occur the following entries:

"There lives in Mill Street, in Belfast, in Ireland, 1731, one Jane Hooks, of one hundred and twelve years of age, who has her memory and appetite as well as when she was but twenty years old, and has got a new sett of teeth, weh has drove out all ye old stumps."

"Robt. Lyon, of ye city of Glasgow, aged one hundred and nine years, who was in the service of King Charles I., and who has got a new set of teeth, and recovered his sight in a wonderfull manner."

"Mrs. Page, at ye Royal Oak in Barnaby Street, Southwark, aged ninety years and upwards, has lately bred six great teeth in ye upper jaw, in June, 1732, which is an extraordinary and preternatural instance; had not a tooth in her head these twenty years past."

"Margaret White, of Kirkaldy in Scotland, aged eighty-seven, who had been toothless for many years, has just got eight new and fresh teeth. April, 1732"

CL. HOPPER.