|
(A)
MALCOLM CANMORE’S
FOUNDATION CHARTER OF DUNFERMLINE ABBEY.
This Charter was printed in Dugdale’s “Monasticon
Anglicanum” (vol. ii. part ii. p. 1054), London, 1661, from the manuscript
of Sir James Balfour, Lyon King-at-Arms for Scotland, who, in his copy,
attests that it agreed with the original in every respect. This
manuscript copy is now in the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh. It would
appear that it had been sent by a friend of Sir James to Mr. Roger
Dodsworth, an antiquarian, and one of the compilers of the early part of
the “Monasticon.” It was afterwards copied by Hay in his “Diplomata Varia,”
written about the years 1690-1700. (MS in Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh,
lib. i. 373.) It is also to be found, printed in black letter, in
“Registrum de Dunfermelyn,” p. 417, and in Chalmers’s History of
Dunfermline,” vol. i. p. 499.
Some antiquarians assert that this Charter is
apocryphal. Dalrymple, in his “Collections,” pp. 228, and 401-2, does not
positively affirm that it is spurious, but says that it would have been
more to the credit of Sir James had he told where he had seen it; or if it
was to be found in the “Register of Dunfermline,” from the discrepancies
in it, he “would rather take it to be a Charter by King Malcolm IV.”
Chalmers, in his “Caledonia,” vol. i. p. 754, notifies that “it is
convicted of forgery by its own context.” Mr. Innes, in his preface to
the printed “Chartulary of Dunfermline,”expresses a similar opinion, and
gives his reasons for coming to such a conclusion. His reasons (or
objections) are eleven in number; many of them have little force, while
some of them appear frivolous. They are as follow, with our answers
appended to each;--
Objection I.—“THE ORIGINAL CHARTER,” Mr. Innes says,
“has never been seen; it is not mentioned in the “Register of Dunfermline
Abbey.’”
It appears to us that this is not much of an objection.
It the holding of property depended upon the sight of original charters,
the whole of the holders of property in this country would be likely to
“lose suit.” Again, the “Register of Dunfermline” is not complete, as a
few of the early charters are awanting, viz., those of Malcolm III.,
Ethelred, Duncan, Edgar, and Alexander I. “Dunfermline Register” begins
in or about 1127, with a charter of David I. All of the charters
proceeding the reign of David I. have also “never been seen,” but still
the gifts of each year in the preceding reigns are mentioned in David’s
charter. Objection 1st may be passed over.
Obj. 2.—“THE STYLE OF BASILEUS, though adopted in a
charter by a succeeding King, is a Saxon affectation, not likely to have
occurred to Malcolm Canmore, and very likely to have been invented by some
Scotch defender of the independence, when that came into dispute.”
After the Battle of Hasting (Oct. 1066) Scotland became
flooded with exiles, fugitives flying from the tyranny rule of William the
Conqueror. These, uniting with the original mixed population, made up a
people of many languages, viz., Scots, Galwegains, Saxons, Celts, Danes,
French, English, &c., all of whom “were under allegiance to the King of
Scots. Many of the early charters begin with the King declaring himself
“King of Scots, English, French, and Galwegians,” may not Basileus have
been considered in Malcolm Canmore’s time (when the Saxons and the French
covered the land) a higher designation to cover so many peoples of
different nations? If not, the, seeing that Malcolm had long resided at a
Saxon Court, and the Margaret, his consort the Queen, and her retinue were
Saxons, what was to prevent Malcolm from adopting the Saxon style of
Basileus? Mr. Innes appears to have entertained the idea that Basileus
was invented during the Wars of Independence (1285-1314)! King Edgar, son
of Malcolm Canmore, who began his reign in 1097, four years after his
father’s death used a national seal which had engraven on it “Basileus.”
Had King Edgar taken his father’s documents for the legend on his seal?
It may be farther noticed, that Mr. Innes, long after he made his
objections to this charter, wrote his excellent work, “Scotland in the
Middle Ages.” At page 51 of this work, regarding “Basileus,” he says—“An
affectation prevailed among the later Saxons of copying the high sounding
titles of the Emperors of the East and West, as Augustus Basileus,” and,
in a foot note, adds “So King Edgar styles himself on his seal, ‘Scotorum
Basileus.’” There are still in preservation several charters of Edgar
(1097-1107), to which are affixed wax impressions of Edgar’s Seal, having
on them “the barbaric style of Basileus.” If the son could adopt the high
sounding phrase of “Basileus” a few years after the father’s death, we do
not see what could prevent the father from using such a style in his
Charters. Therefore, this objection (No. 2) appears to be of no force; to
refer it to the War of Independence is also out of place.
Obj. 3.—EARLS AND BARONS.—“The Earls and Barons,” Mr.
Innes thinks, “are too ostentatiously put forward at a time when it may be
doubted if their respective ranks were quite ascertained.”
It is understood that Malcolm Canmore, shortly after
ascending the Scottish throne in 1056-1057 began to create Earls and
Barons, conferring such marks of distinction on those who had assisted him
to overthrow Macbeth, and gain the crown; thus he was both generous and
politic. If we suppose that such creations were made in 1057, we do not
see why their respective ranks could not be perfectly understood and
ascertained by 1075—the supposed date of the Foundation Charter. Surely a
period of 18 years was quite sufficient for such a purpose.
Obj. 4.—THE PHRASE, “ACQUIESCENCE OF THE PEOPLE”—Mr.
Innes objects to this phrase, and supposes that it had been adopted from
the Charters of David I.
Was David the inventor of the phrase? or had he taken it
from phrases in writings previous to his reign? There is not much in this
objection.
Obj. 5.-“MONS,”-“IN MONTE INFIRMORUM.—“The punning
translation, ‘Mons Infirmortum,” of the Celtic descriptive appellation of
Dunfermline is like the trick [says Mr. Innes] of a more artificial age.”
Charter scholars, and other readers of old documents, are
aware that old scribes too frequently make use of the letters e and I as
interchangeable—they are used indiscriminately even in a single Charter,
and it is therefore not improbable that had “monte infirmorum” been
repeated in this disputed charter, it would have assumed the form of
“Monte Infermorum, with as e instead of an i. About thirty years ago the
writer of the Annals had his attention drawn to a phrase in Charter 443 of
the Register de Dunfermelyn, viz., “aqua de ferm.” Had the ferm been
repeated in this 443rd Charter, very likely it would have been
as firm—“aqua de firm, instead of “aqua de ferm,” as it chances to stand.
It at once occurred to us that this ferm in the 443rd Charter
was the firm in Malcolm Canmore’s Foundation Charter, and hence they both
referred to the middle syllable of Dunfermline. Therefore, instead of
reading “Monte infirmorum,” as in the Foundation Charter, read “Monte
infermorum,” as previously noticed. Mons in Latin is just Dun in Celtic;
therefore Mons inferm is equivalent to Dun ferm in the Celtic language.
The affixes line, lyne, and ling appear to have been added to the name
Dunferm after the time of Malcolm Canmore. The Ferm Water, or Tower Burn,
runs through the heart of Dunfermline, and makes a graceful horseshoe
sweep round the base of the hill on which Malcolm Canmore’s Tower stood.
Thus we have the Dun and the ferm. About 200 yards south east of the
Tower-hill there is a little waterfall of lyn, of a 16 feet fall; and,
undoubtedly, this fall was adopted as the lyn for the last syllable of
Dunfermlyn or Dunfermline. a great many historians, topographers, &c.,
have translated infirmerum as equivalent to infirmary. (See Appendix on
the “mons Infermorum” of such, writers.) Had Mr. Innes applied the firm
in Charter 443 of Regist. Dunf., as we have done, very likely he would not
have made it one of his objections, by writing it down as being probably
“the trick of a more artificial age.” (See “Introductory Remarks,” An.
Dunf.)
Obj. 6.—FOTHRIF.—It is probable that Fothrif, or
Forthrif, may have been of small extent when this gift of it was made to
the Church of the Holy Trinity, Dunfermline.
Perhaps it was a farm; and afterwards the name may have
been extended to take in a wide area of country, which enlargement would
not in whole be under the jurisdiction of said church, just as small towns
or clusters of houses give names to counties.
Obj. 7.—MUSELBURGE.—Mr. Innes says:--“There is reason
to suspect that Muselburge was not a name in the days of Canmore.
David I by charter, in 1127, bequeathed Great Inveresk to
the Abbey, which included the Burgh and Port of Musselburgh. The
following rhyming tradition is very old:--
“Musselbrogh was a brogh
When Edinbrogh was name;
And Musselbrogh will be a brogh
When Edinbrogh is gane.”
The “Statistical Account of Inveresk,” published November,
1840, mentions, that when the Lothians were ceded to the King of Scotland,
in 1020 A. D. “the Ecclesia de Muskilburge” came under the jurisdiction of
the Bishop of St. Andrews. But still, the original document intimating
this may not be so old as 1020, but written after this year, when the name
Muselburge came to be known by another name than that of Inveresk, and
there fore no definite conclusion can be given regarding this obscure
point. Still, Musselburgh may be a name as old as 1056-1093 A. D. (See
Chambers’ Rhymes of Scotland, p. 46.)
Obj. 8.—THE NAMES OF THE WITNESSES ADHIBITED TO THIS
CHARTER.—Mr. Innes says—“The witnesses to the charter are remarkable. The
deed bears to be testimonies Episcoporum, and in subsequent charters the
Bishops seem alone to have affixed their cross of subscription.”
If we adopt the year 1075 A. D. as the date of this
charter, then it may be met in the same way that Mr. Innes does the
existence of the earls and barons, and that too with a probably greater
degree of certainty, viz., “It may be doubted if their respective ranks,
&c., were quite ascertained in 1075. When did bishops first adhibit their
initials and cross marks to charters?”
Obj. 9.-IVO AND EARLS M’DUFF AND DUNCAN.—Mr. Innes goes
on to say, “Then without dwelling on Ivo, the Culdee Abbot, and Earls
M’Duff and Duncan—names which might be guessed at,” &c.
It is difficult, sometimes impossible, to give “place and
position” to many early names, except when brought to the surface by some
remarkable circumstance in reference to them. There may have been in Ivo,
an Abbot of the Culdees, in Scotland in 1075. Many names appear in remote
history only once, apparently because there was nothing connected with
them which required to be mentioned a second time. Probably this Ivo may
be added to the number. Hales, in his An. Scot. vol. i. p. 86, notices an
Ivo as being Abbot of Furness, before 1134. There are no fewer than four
St. Ivo’s in the St. Ivo’s in the “Saints Calendar.” (See Lardners
Cabinet Cyclopedia, “Chronology of History,” p. 145.) Might not one of
the four have been our Ivo? M’Duff, probably the “Thane of Fife,” who had
so materially aided Malcolm Canmore to gain his crown, was likely elevated
to the dignity of an earl, along with others, in 1057. Earl Duncan may
have been a relation of the Thane, and at the same time created as earl on
account of his valour.
Obj. 10.—EARL ARALDUS.—Mr. Innes says this Earl is not
known ever to have existed, &c.
If he was not one of the then recently created earls (in
1057), perhaps he may have been either an English or a Norman earl, who
had “retired into Scotland from the rule and sway” of the Conqueror.
Between 1066 and 1090, it is well known, many of the foreign nobility
emigrated to Scotland; and, if he was not a Scotch earl, he might have
been an immigrant earl. Be this as it may, it does not disturb the
validity of the charter. It may be noted here, that it has been suggested
“that this Araldus is simply a contracted form of writing Ethraldus, one
of the sons of Malcolm Canmore, who was an ecclesiastic and Earl of Fife.
Obj. 11.—NEIS, THE SON OF WILLIAM.—Referring to this
name, Mr. Innes says again, “There is a person of the peculiar name of
Ness, the son of William (Nes Fitzwilliam), of whom we know nothing, in
Canmore’s time, but who is a frequent witness about a century later,” &c.
There is a person named Ness, mentioned in a charter by
Ethelrede, son of Malcolm Canmore, regarding the possession of Admore,
circa 1100-1110. If this Ness was, say 30 years old I 1075, in the year
1110 he would be about 65, and may therefore have been the Ness of this
charter. In these early times, the people had a peculiar way of dealing
with their genealogy. It would be difficult, by following their method,
to determine the name of the Ness’s father or grandfather. In charters of
this period, “the son” on so and so is continued through a series of
generations. In the time of Malcolm IV (115-1165) there is a Ness who
adhibits his name to charters. He, too, is also the son of some William.
Sibbald, in his history, notices “Nesso filio Comtissæ”—i.e.Ness, the son
of the Countess; (Sibbald’s History of Fife, p. 168.) Who was he? The
name Ness has, from the times of unwritten history, been associated with
the east of Fife, and at the present day many persons of that singular
name are still to be found. In short, were the genineness of early
charters to depend on the signatures of witnesses appended to them being
known, or proven to be genuine, how few of our prized early charters would
stand the test. For example, there are appended to some charters of David
I. (1124-1153) witnesses having the following names, viz., Earl Fereth,
Earl Melcolmess, Earl Gillemichel, Earl Morgund, Robert Corbet, Thoro,
vice commita, the son of Swani, MacChimpethin, &c. Who were they? Where
did they reside?
MERLESWAIN (MAERLESWEGEN).—Professor Innes takes no
notice of Merleswain. But it is presumed that he is the same person who
formed one of the retinue of St. Margaret, &c., on their arrival in the
Firth of Forth I 1069. Long afterwards this name is to be found in
connection with an estate of central Fifeshire.
(B)
PRE-HISTORIC DUNFERMLINE
“MONS INFERMORUM.”—This Latin designation of Dunfermline is
nowhere to be found excepting in the suspected foundation charter of
Malcolm III. It is impossible to say definitely how and when such a
designation arose. If it comes from the Roman period, then it must belong
to A. D. 83-440; on the other hand, if it was unknown to the inhabitants
of the country by this name, then the name known to the inhabitants may
have been so Latinized by them to suit their tongue, and it may have been
thus carried down to the time of Malcolm III. as the most suitable
designation for his residence on the tower hill, in the locality. If not,
then it may have been first suggested by some Latinist in the court of
Malcolm, on the instant, as the most suitable form of the name for his
foundation charter. Thus, if Mons infermorum was the first and the last
attempt at giving a Latin name to Dunfermline, no discredit whatever would
fall on the form of it given in the suspected charter.
For some time before, during, and after the reign of
Malcolm III., a great many of the original names of places in the locality
began to wear out, and others were, in part, very much mutilated. For
instance, Scotwater came to be known as the Phorth—Forth; the name
Ardehinnechenam began to call Portus Reginæ, and afterwards, in
the vernacular, the Queen’s Ferry. During these transformations of
names, the Mons of “Mons infermorum,: may have been changed
into DUN, the Celtic for a hill, being the equivalent for Mons,
a hill: Mons inferm and Dun inferm having precisely the
same meaning in the Latin and Celtic languages. So far, this change of
name for Dunferm is a simple process, but where does the affix
lyn or lyne burn, come from? Some authors, apparently, without
having investigated this point, have contented themselves by referring to
the lyn or lyn burn, which flows from east to west on the
south side of the burgh; but, it must be observed, that the name “lyn” was
not given to this burn until about the year 1450, and could not be used
before 1126 as an affix. In a charter in “Registrum de Dunfermlyn” dated
about the year 1311, this lyn is designated as the rivulet of
Garvock, or Garvock Burn. In a charter of 1496, a change in the name
had begun to be used; at this date it is designated as being vulgarly
(commonly) called the lyn; from these notes it will be seen that
the burn now commonly called the lyn has nothing whatever to do with the
affix, lyn of Dunferm; from these notes it will be seen that the burn now
commonly called the lyn has nothing whatever to do with the affix, lyn of
Dunfermlyn. We are therefore forced to conclude that the lyn
in connection with the name Dunfermlyn has been taken from the
lyn—a fall in the ferm burn, about 200 yards south east from
the tower on the Dun or Mons; and immediately to the south
end of the palace wall the Ferm water has a fall of about sixteen feet,
and is of sufficient importance to give to Dunfermlyn it affix. The
syllable lyn in Celtic is either a fall or the pool into which the fall is
received; hence from these derivations comes the word Dunfermline. DUN, a
hill in Celtic, MONS, a hill in Latin; ferm, applicable to both the
Latin and Celtic definitions, indicative of the bend of the burn at
Tower-hill, and lyn, afterwards written line, the cascade or water
fall in the Ferm water to the south of the dun or hill. We may append a
note to this illustrative of pool or lyn. Fordun informs us that tin the
time of Malcolm III the tower or tower hill was so strongly fortified by
nature that it was almost inaccessible to man and beast. What were the
appliances used to make this tower a place of such strength? May not the
Roman army when they had possession of the place have done as they did in
so many well known instances, viz., thrown an earthen rampart or wall of
great strength across the Ferm water on the south side of Tower-hill and
to such a height, that it would throw the greater part of the base of the
hill into broad and deep water, especially on the south and west sides,
the water overflowing by a weir or sluice in the earthen wall? Had such
been done, all north of Tower-hill would have been covered from bank to
brae, of great breadth and depth. This expanse of water on the north
would be a lake or large pool, or lyn. Be this as it may, we cannot
suppose that the tower would be invulnerable without the burn being
brought into play in the defense. We have exceeded our limits especially
to all natives, we have given a full account of what we hold on the
subject. It may also be noted, however, that there is a place called
Feorline in the island of Arran; it only wants the prefix Dun
to make it Dunfermline.
We may again note, that it was during our readings in the
“Registrum de Dunfermlyn” in 1854 that we came upon Charter 443,
page 335; in it we found the words agua de ferm; we at once saw
that this ferm was the middle syllable of the name Dun-ferm-line.
(See also our remarks on Professor Innes’s objections to The Foundation
Charter, Appendix A, and Annals of Dunfermline, date 1496.)
(C)
MONS-INFIRMORUM.
(DUNFERMLINE
INFIRMARY!)
A GREAT many authors during the last, and even in the
present century, have perpetuated the “infirmary hypothesis” without any
investigation of these points. They affirm that the name Mons-infirmorum
is found in several old manuscripts, but this is not the case, it is only
to be found in the “suspected foundation charter of Malcolm III.” We lay
before the reader a few of “the elegant extracts” to show how careless
book-markers copy each other, almost word for word, and thus circulate
errors. The Mons-infirmorum title will be found in our preliminary
remarks.
1. In some old manuscripts it is called
Monasterium de monte infirmorum, hence some have conjectured that it was
originally intended for an hospital or infirmary. (Sibbald’s Hist. of
Fife et Kin. p. 294, first edition; published 1710.)
2. Perhaps it was an hospital, for it is
designated in some old manuscripts Monasterium de monte infirmorum.
(Hope’s Minor Practicks, App. p. 426; published 1734.)
3. It was probably first intended for the pious
and more useful purpose of a religious infirmary, being styled in some old
manuscripts as Monasterium ab monte infirmorum. (Pennant’s Tour in Scot.
pp. 214, 215; published 1776.)
4. It was probably first intended for the pious
and more useful purpose of a religious infirmary, being styled in some old
manuscripts Monasterium de monte infirmorum. (Caley’s Views in Scot. p.
2; published 1791.)
5. In some old manuscripts it is called
Monasterium de monte infirmorum, from whence it is supposed to have
originally been intended as an hospital. (Cardonnel’s Picturesque Antiq.
Scot., published 1793.)
6. It is by some thought to have been
originally intended for an hospital or infirmary, being styled in some old
manuscripts Monasterium ab monte infirmorum. (Grose’s Antiq. Scot. vol.
ii. p. 285; published 1797.)
7. It is by some thought to have been
originally intended for an hospital or infirmary, being styled in some old
manuscripts Monasterium ab monte infirmorum. (Forsyth’s Beauties of Scot.
vol. iv. p. 123: published. 1806.)
(See also Annals of Dunfermline Introduction,
pre-historic period.)
It is curious to observe how near the names of persons
come to that of places. Some years ago the newspapers announced the
following marriage:--“The Duc de Monteferme, lieutenant colonel of the
Hussards, is to be married on Saturday (to-day) to Mlle. Tann, an
Alsatian, who picked him up at Gravelotte, and nursed him as a Sister of
Charity.”—Dunf. Press, 10th Aug., 1872. Again, Dun Farlan
means Partholan’s Tower.—“M’Lauchlan’s Early Scottish Church,” page 333.
There is also a farm named Feorline on the south coast of Mull. It only
requires the prefix Dun to make it Dunfermline. A work lately published
gives the following as an etymology, viz.,--“Dunfermline, the port of the
alder-tree pool, or the winding pool.” When it can be shown that the
middle syllable ferm, firm, or fearm of Dunfermline had any connection
with alder trees, it may get a passing review, but this twisted fancy has
to be laid aside. (See “Blackie’s Etymological,” p. 58.)
(D.)
ST. MARGARET’S CAVE.
THIS CAVE is situated in the glen, about half way between
the upper end of Bruce Street and the middle of Chalmers Street, and 290
yards north-north-east of the ruins of Malcolm Canmore’s Tower on Tower
Hill. The entrance into the Cave is in the base of a free-stone rock
fronting the west. It is rather difficult of access; a road should be
made into it running from the north side of Chalmers Street Church down
the steep descent, and carried over the burn by a foot bridge direct up to
it. From the days of St. Margaret down to 1770, there was a road from
Tower Hill to the Cave, winding along the margin of the burn. On the
building of the bridge under Bridge Street in this year (1770) the access
in this direction was entirely cut off, and there is not now a trace of
this ancient regia via.
The Cave and the adjacent property on the east and west
of it was lately purchased by Thomas Walker, Esq., one of the magistrates
of the burgh, and since our notice of it was written in the Preliminary
Remarks, the Cave has been cleared of the accumulated debris of ages, as
also of the silt which lay at the entrance. This clearance has given a
difference to the mouth of the Cave and to the inside height, so much so,
that we resolved on getting the woodcut slightly altered, by giving a
greater depth to the entrance; it is nearly two feet deeper now than
formerly, and the cut now represents the Cave as it now is and which,
undoubtedly, would be its aspect in the days of Malcolm III. and of
Margaret his Queen.
During the process of clearing out the Cave, December,
1877, two stone seats or benches were discovered along the base of the
north and south sides, which appear to be those mentioned by the “old man
of 1700” (see “Preliminary Remarks”) but there were no carvings or devices
seen on them. Near the back of the Cave a small sunk well was found, but
it is now covered over with a stone flag.
A stone or cast-iron plate should be inserted somewhere
in front of the Cave, with a suitable inscription notifying in few words
how the Cave became of historical interest. The tradition regarding the
Cave is as follows—
“Margaret, the Queen, who was of a very pious
frame of mind, and who often became indisposed in consequence of her long
vigils, fastings, and mortifications, was wont frequently to retire
privately to this cave for secret devotion. Malcolm, her husband,
doubting the object of her many visits to it, on one occasion followed
her, or lay in wait for her near the cave, unobserved, where he had a view
of the interior. He saw her enter it, and according to the usages of
those times, was prepared to deal immediate justice should his suspicions
be realized. To his great surprise and heart felt emotions he beheld her
kneel down and engage in her pious devotions. Quite overjoyed, he ran to
her, and in testimony of his great satisfaction had the cave suitably
fitted up for her as an oratory or place of devotion.” (Taken from her
Life by Turgot, the Confessor of Margaret, consort of Malcolm III.)
(E)
CHARTULARY OF DUNFERMLINE
ABBEY.
THE Chartulary of the Abbey is a large folio volume,
consisting of 169 leaves of vellum. The pages are 12 7/8 inches long, 9
1/8 inches broad, and when the volume is closed, 1 5/8 inches thick. It
is now bound in brown ornamental leather. It is, and has been for these
200 years past, preserved in the Advocates’ Library at Edinburgh. It
contains about 600 deeds, writs, and charters relative to the possessions,
&c of the Abbey. “apparently arranged according to a certain order, but
which has not been strictly adhered to, later deeds, &c being sometimes
found interpolated among earlier writs and vice versa, just as a vacant
space seemed to have afforded a place convenient for their insertion.”
From this occasional irregularity in the chronological
registration of the writing, as well as from the great variety of styles
of writing which appear in it, from the early part of the Thirteenth, down
to a little past the middle of the Sixteenth Century, the volume has a
rather singular appearance.
The principal or earlier part of the Chartulary is a
record of Crown charters, and is the most ancient part of the volume.
This portion appears uniform and has apparently been written, by one
person (a scribe) before the year 1250. Probably it might have been
commence when the New Eastern Church or Abbey Choir was opened, about the
year 1226. A different form of writing, and less careful and regular mode
of registering, began about 1250. At this time the embellishing of the
initials ceased.
The classification of the older part of the volume is,
with few exceptions, under the following heads:--
Charter of the Kings, from David I to about
1250 A. D.
“ of the Bishops of St. Andrews and
Dunkeld.
“ of Chapter of St. Andrews.
“ of the Earls of Fife and Athol.
“ of the Countesses Ada and Ela.
“ of Laymen.
“ regarding disputed Territories.
Bulls from Popes, from about 1164 till about
the year 1450.
After these follow—
Charters of the Abbots, &c of Dunfermline Abbey
“ of the other Kings, from Robert I to James V.
“ of other Writs regarding Sundries.
the most ancient charter, as previously mentioned, under
date 1128 is the first Confirmation Charter of David I of that date.
Before the reign of David I Malcolm and Margaret, Duncan, Edgar, and
Alexander I had given valuable possessions to the Abbey; whether orally or
by charter is now not known; at least there is no notice of them in the
Chartulary, although their gifts are in all the Confirmation Charters of
succeeding sovereigns. (Regarding a charter attributed to Malcolm III,
see our remarks under date 1115 A. D.)
The celebrated antiquary, Walter Macfarlane (of that ilk)
made a transcript of the Chartulary in 1738; in 1809 Sir John Graham
Dalzell popularized the volume in his “Monastic Antiquities,’ by the many
curious condensed extracts he published; and lastly, in 1842, the
Bannatyne Club published the Chartulary in quarto, edited by Prof. Cosmo
Innes, and under the designation of “REGISTRUM DE DUNFERMELYN: Liber
Cartarum, Abbatie Benedictine S. S. Trinitatis et B. Margarete Regine de
Dunfermelyn.” The original volume has the following superscription:--“EST
* MARGARETE * DE * DUNFERMELYN * LIBER * ISTE.” The printed Registrum de
Dunfermelyn by the Bannatyne Club, has the same preceding the 1st
Charter of David I.
The Chartulary, now known as the printed Register of
Dunfermline, is a thick quarto volume, printed on very strong paper, and
occupies 562 pages. It is understood that only 100 copies were published
for the Club. It is, therefore, a scarce quarto. In one of Mr. T. G.
Stevenson’s catalogues—the Antiquarian Bookseller, Edinburgh—for 1853, it
is priced at four guineas.
Although very little of the history of the Abbey is to be
found in the chartulary, yet, in other details—in rights, privileges,
possessions, &c—it is full. To this document the Annals of Dunfermline is
much indebted. (Vide Dalzell’s Monastic Antiquities; Fernie’s Hist. Dunf.
p. 75; Mercer’s Hist. Dunf. pp. 54-86; Chal. Hist. Dunf. vol. i. pp. 71-77
&c.)
(F)
HARDICANUTE (2nd
October, 1263)
IT is generally understood that the heroic ballad,
entitled, “Hardicanute” refers to the Battle of Largs, fought on 2nd
October, 1263, between the forces of Alexander III of Scotland and those
of Haco, King of Norway, and that it was composed about the year 1716 by
Elizabeth Halket, spouse of Henry Wardlaw, of Pitreavie, near
Dunfermline. The composition has also been ascribed to her brother in
law, Sir John Hope Bruce, of Kinross; but this idea has long ago been
abandoned. When questioned on the subject, “the lady pretended she had
found the poem, written on shreds of paper, in a vault of the Abbey.” The
ballad was first published in folio by James Watson, Edinburgh, in the
year 1719; a second edition, in quarto, was published by R. Dodsley,
London, in 1740 (36 pages). The following is a copy of its title page:--
“Hardicanute—a Fragment: being the First Canto
of an Epic Poem, with General Remarks and Notes. ‘Animos in martia bella
versibus exacuit’ (Horace). London: Printed for R. Dodsley, at Tully’s
Head, in Pall Mall, MDCCXL.” [36 pages 4to; 42 stanzas.]
A copy of this edition is in our possession. This ballad
has been referred to and quoted by historians and others. The following
are a few extracts taken from the second edition:--
“Stately stept he East
the Wall Full thirteen sons to him she bore
And stately stept he West; All men of
valour stout;
Full seventy years he now had seen In Bloody fight with
sword in hand
With scarce sev’n years of rest Nine lost their
lives bot doubt.
He liv’d when Britons’ breach of faith Four yet remain;
long may they live
Wrought Scotland meikle woe; To stand by Liege
and Land
But aye his sword told to their cost High was their
fame, high was their might
He was their deadly foe. And high was
their command.
High on a hill his
castle stood, Great love they bore to Fairly
Fair,
With halls and Tow’rs a-height, their sister,
soft and dear.
And goodly chambers, fair to see, Her girdle shew’d
her middle jimp,
Where he lodg’d many a Knight And gowden glist
her hair.
His Dame, so peerless once, and fair What woeful woe her
beauty bred!
For chaste and beauty deem’d, Woeful to young
and old;
No marrow had in all the land, Woeful, I trow,
to Kyth and Kin
Save Eleoner the Queen. As story ever
told!
The King of Norse in
Summer Tide And soon they hy’d them up the hill,
Puff’d up with Pow’r and Might And soon were
by his side.”
Landed in fair Scotland, the Isle,
With many a hardy Knight. * *
* * * * *
The tidings to our good Scots king [The battle is
fought, the Noresemen are
Came as he sat at dine,
vanquished.]
With Noble Chiefs in brave Array,
Drinking the bluid-red
wine. “There on a plain, where stands a
cross
Set up for Monument,
To Horse, to Horse! my royal Liege, Thousands full
fierce that Summer’s Day
Your foes stand on the Strand; Fill’d Keen
War’s black Intent.
Full twenty thousand glittering Spears Let Scots, while
Scots, praise Hardyknute,
The King of Norse commands. Let Norse his name
ay dread.
Bring me my steed Mage, dapple gray, And how he fought, oft
how he spar’d
The good King rose and cry’d, Shall latest
Ages read.
A trustier Beast in all the Land
A Scots King never
sey’d. Loud and chill blew the Westlin
Wind,
Sare beat the heavy show’r;
Go, little Page, tell Hardyknute, Mirk grew the
night ere Hardyknute
That lives on hill so high, Won near
his stately Tow’r.
To draw his sword, the
Dread of Foes His tow’r that us’d with Torches blaze,
And haste and follow me. To shine so
far at night,
The little Page, flew swift as dart, Seem’d now as
black as mourning Weed;
Flung by his Master’s arm. No marvel sore
he sighed.
Come down, come down
Lord Hardyknute,
And rid your King from Harm. ‘There’s no
light in my Lady’s Bow’r,
There’s no light in my hall;
Then red, red grew his dark brown cheeks; No blink shines round
my Fairly Fair,
So did his dark brown brow: Nor ward stands
on my wall.’
His looks grew keen, as they were wont ‘What bode it?
Robert Thomas, say;’
In dangers great to do. No answer
sits their dread.
He has ta’en a horn as green as grass, ‘Stand back, my
sons; I’ll be your guide;’
And giv’n five sounds so shrill, But by they
past with speed.
That trees in greenwood shook thereat;
So loud rang every
hill. ‘As fast I’ve sped o’er
Scotland’s foes;’
There ceased his Brag of Weir;
His sons in manly sport and glee
Sore ‘shamed to mind ought but his Dame,
Had past that Summer’s Morn And Maiden,
Fairley Fair.
When lo! down in a grassy dale, Black fear he
felt, but what to fear
They heard their Father’s horn. He will not yet
with Dread;
That horn, said they, ne’er sounds in Peace; Sore shook his body,
sore his limbs,
We’ve other sport to bide: And all the
Warriors’ fled.”
(See Also Fernie’s Hist. Dunf. pp. 98-105 and Chal.
Hist Dunf.)
(G)
THE LAST DAYS OF KING
ROBERT THE BRUCE
DURING the truce between England and Scotland, it happened
that King Robert of Scotland, who had been a very valiant knight, waxed
old, and was attacked with so severe an illness (the leprosy) that he saw
his end was approaching. He therefore summoned together all his chiefs
and barons, in whom he most confided, and after having told them that he
should never get better of this sickness, commanded them, upon heir honour
and loyalty, to keep and preserve faithfully and entire the kingdom for
his son David, and obey him, and crown him King when he was of proper age,
and to marry him with a lady suitable to his station. He after that
called to him the gallant Lord James Douglas, and said to him, in presence
of the others—
My dear friend, Lord James Douglas, you know
that I have had much to do, and have suffered many troubles during the
time I have lived to support the rights of my crown. At the time I was
most occupied I made a vow, the non-accomplishment of which gives me much
uneasiness. I vowed that if I could finish my wars in such a manner that
I might have quiet to govern peaceably, I would go and make war against
the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the adversaries of the Christian
faith. To this point my heart has always leaned; but our Lord was not
willing, and gave me so much to do in my lifetime, and this last
expedition has lasted so long, followed by this heavy sickness, that,
since my body cannot accomplish what my heart wishes, I will send my heart
instead of my body to fulfil my vow; and as I do not know any one knight
so gallant or enterprising, or better formed to complete my intentions
than yourself, I beg and entreat of you, dear and special friend, as
earnestly as I can, that you would have the goodness to undertake this
expedition for the love of me, and to acquit my soul to our Lord and
Saviour; for I have that opinion of your nobleness and loyalty, that if
you undertake it, it cannot fail of success, and I shall die more
contented; but it must be executed as follows:--I will, that, as soon as I
shall be dead, you take my heart from my body, and have it well embalmed;
you will also take as much money from my treasury as will appear to you
sufficient to perform your journey as well as for all those whom you may
choose to take with you in your train; and you will then deposit your
charge at the holy sepulcher of our Lord, where he was buried, since my
body cannot go there. You will not be sparing of expense, and provide
yourself and such company and such things as may be suitable to your rank;
and wherever you pass you will let it be known that you bear the heart of
King Robert of Scotland, which you are carrying beyond seas, by his
command, since his body cannot go thither!”
All those persons began bewailing bitterly; and, when the
Lord James could speak, he said, “Gallant and noble King, I return you a
hundred thousand thanks for the high honour you do me, and for the
valuable and dear treasure which you entrust to me; and I will most
willingly do all you command me with the utmost loyalty in my power; never
doubt it, however I may feel myself unworthy of such a high distinction.”
The King replied—“Gallant knight, I thank you;--you
promise it, then?”
Certainly, sir, most willingly,” answered the knight.”
He then gave his promise upon his knighthood.
The King said, “Thanks be to God, for I now shall die in
grace, since I know that the most valiant and accomplished knight of my
kingdom will perform that for me, which I am unable to do for myself.”
Soon afterwards the valiant Robert Bruce, King of
Scotland, departed this life on the 7th of June, 1329. His
heart was embalmed, and his body buried in the Abbey of Dunfermline. (See
Froissart’s Chronicles, Translated by J. Johnes, vol. i. pp. 72, 73.)
(H)
LIST OF ROYAL INTERMENT IN
DUNFERMLINE ABBEY
PREVIOUS to A. D. 1093 the remains of the kings of
Scotland were interred in the Cemetery of Iona (Icolmkill) one of the
Western Isles. After the founding of his Church of Dunfermline, Malcolm
III, as previously noticed, ordained that the Iona Cemetery should no
longer be the place of royal sepulture, and that in future Dunfermline
should be the locus sepulturæ regius (the place of royal sepulture).
The locus set apart for this purpose was a large area of
Dunfermline Church, near its east end, contiguous to the sites of the high
and the rood altars. The first royal interments that took place were in
1093, being those of Queen Margaret and her son Prince Edward, the heir
apparent to the throne of Scotland. (Annals of Dunfermline, date 1093.)
Between A. D. 1093 and 1165 the following royal remains were interred in
this locality, below the pavement, near the east end of the original
church, now known as the Auld Kirk of Dunfermline, viz.:--
MARGARET (Queen, Consort of Malcolm
III) 1093
EDWARD (Prince, heir
apparent) 1093
DUNCAN
II 1094
ETHELREDE (Prince, son of Malcolm & Margaret circa)
1096
EDGAR (the
King) 1107
MALCOLM III exhumed at Tynemouth, reentered at
Dunfermline 1115
ALEXANDER I (the
King) 1124
DAVID I
(King) 1154
MALCOLM IV
(King) 1165
Thus in the original church, the present Auld Kirk, there
were interred 6 Kings, 1 Queen and 2 Princes.
Between the years 1215 and 1226, a large eastern addition
was made to the original church of about 170 feet in length, consisting of
a choir, transepts, Ladye Chapel, and tall lantern tower. When this new
addition was completer, about 1226, the high altar in the old building was
removed and erected near the east end of the new church, and before it the
daily church services were conducted; immediately in front of it a large
space was consecrated as the new locus sepulturæ regius. Thus
there were two places of royal sepulture in Dunfermline Abbey, viz., in
the original church (Auld Kirk) from 1093 to 1250, and from 1280 to 1403
in the then great Eastern Church or Choir.
LIST OF ROYAL INTERMENTS IN THE CHOIR OF THE
ABBEY A. D. 1250-1602
MALCOLM III the King and
MARGARET the Queen, his Consort, translated from their old resting place
in the Auld Kirk to the Ladye Chapel at the extreme east end of the new
Eastern Church or Choir, 1250
MARGARET (the Queen,
Consort of Alexander III 1274
DAVID & ALEXANDER (Princes) sons of Alexander III
1280
ALEXANDER III (the
King) 1284
ELIZABETH (Queen, Consort of King Robert the Bruce)
1327
ROBERT I (King Robert the
Bruce) 1329
MATILDA (Princess, daughter of King Robert the Bruce)
1356
CHRISTIAN (princess,
sister) 1366
ANNABELLA (Queen, Consort of Robert III)
1403
ROBERT (Prince, the infant son of James VI and Anne)
1602
In this Eastern Church or Choir there were interred, so far
as hath been authentically ascertained, the remains of 2 Kings, 3 Queens,
3 Princes, and 2 Princesses. In the Auld Kirk, 6 Kings, 1 Queen and 2
Princes; total, in both place, between A. D. 1093 and 1602, 19 royal
interments. (See also Annals of Dunfermline under dates 1115 and 1226 for
sites of the two places of royal sepulture.) Some authors state that
Margaret, in 1274 was interred in the Nave; we think she would be interred
in the Choir. Her husband Alexander III is buried there, and it is
probable he selected the Choir before his death as the place of sepulture
of his family.
(I)
ROBERT HENRYSON, “THE GUID
SCHUILMASTER OF DUMFERMLINE” (1460-1499)
THE following are specimens of Henryson’s compositions,
extracted from the last complete edition, published in 1865, 8vo and
entitled “The Poems and Fables of Robert Henryson, now first collected,
with notes and a memoir of his life, by David Laing, LL.D.” to which an
excellent glossary of the hard words to be found in the volume are
appended:--
THE CHAPEL OR ABBEY WALK
Alone as I went up and
doun
In ane Abbay was fair to se
Thinkand quhat consolatioun
Was best in to adversitie
On caiss I kest on syd myne e
And saw this written upoun a wall,
Of quhat estait, Man, that thou be,
Obey, and thank thy God of all.
Thy Kindome and thy grit
empire,
Thy ryaltie, nor riche array,
Sall nocht endeur ata thy desire,
Bot, as the wind, will wend away;
Thy gold, and all they gudis gay,
Quhen fortoun list will frae the fall;
Sen thou sic sampillis seis ilk day,
Obey, and thank thy God of all.
Job was moist riche, in
Writ we find,
Thobe moist full of cheritie;
Job wouc pure, and Thobe blynd,
Baith Tempit with adversitie.
Sen blindness wes infirmitie,
And Poverty wes naturall;
Rhairfoir rycht patientilie hath he
Obeyit, and thankit God of all.
Thocht thou be blind, or
haif ane halt,
Or in thy face deformit ill,
Sa it cum nocht throu thy defalt,
Na mansuld thee repreif by skill.
Blame nocht thy Lord, sa is his will;
Spurn nocht thy fute aganis the wall;
Bot with meik hairt, and prayer still,
Obey, and thank thy God of all.
God of his justice mon
correct,
And of his mercie pitie haif;
He is ane Juge, to nane suspect,
To puneiss synfull man and saif.
Thoucht thou be lord attour the laif,
And efterwart mind bound and thrall,
And puire begger, with skrip and staiff,
Obey, and thank thy God of all.
This changing, and grit
variance,
Of erdly staitis up and doun,
Is nocht but6 casualtie and chance,
As sum men sayis without ressoun.
Bot be the grit provisioun
Of God aboif that rewll thee sall;
Thairfoir evir thou mak thee boun,
To obey and thank thy God of all.
In welth be meik, heich
not thyself;
Be glaid in wilfull povertie;
Thy power, and thy warldis pelf
Is nocht bot verra vanitie.
Remember him that deit on tre,
For thy saik taistit the bittir gall;
Quha heis law hairtis, and lawis he,
Obey, and thank thy God of all.
This moral poem has been entitled The Chapel Walk, as
also The Abbey Walk; in either designation, it appears to refer to
Dunfermline Abbey, where Henryson resided. “The Walk” may either refer to
the walk along both sides of the interior of the Abbey, where, in the
olden time, altars and chapels abounded on each side, or to the
cloister-walk, on the would side of the exterior of the save, in front of
the old chapter house, along the north front of the Frater Hall, and under
the dormitory. This range of walk called the cloisters walk was probably
the walk where Henryson “went up and doun in ane abbey fair to se.”
Should this have been the case, the poem must be especially interesting to
natives of Dunfermline. (Vide Percy’s “Reliques of Ancient English
Poetry;” Finlay’s “Scottish Historical and Romantic Ballads;” Thomson’s
“Orpheus Caledonius;” Fernie’s Hist. Dunf. pp. 89-105; Chal. Hist. Dunf.
vol. i. and ii. &c.)
(J)
LISTS OF ABBOTS OF
DUNFERMLINE
THE following is a list of the Abbots of Dunfermline,
from Gaufrid (the first Abbot) in 1124 A. D. to George Durie (the last) in
1560 A. D. and of the four Commendators who succeeded them, inter
1560-1587:--
1. Gaufrid or Galfridus I (de
Canterbury) 1124
2. Gaufrid
II 1154
3. Archibald (Erkenbaldus)
1178
4. Robert I (de
Berwick) 1198
5. Patrick
I 1202
6. William
I 1223
7. William
II 1223
8. Gaufrid
III 1238
9. Robert II (de Keldelecht)
1240
10. John
I 1251
11.
Matthew 1256
12. Simeon
1269-1270
13. Ralph (Radolphus de Greenlaw) 1275
14.
Hugh
1303-1306
15. Robert III (de Crail)
1313-1316
16. Alexander I (de Berwick)
1327-1331
17. John II
(Black) 1353
18. John
III 1353
19. John IV (Balygernach) 1362
20. JohnV
1379-1380
21. John VI (de Torry) 1399
22. William (of St Andrews)
1409-1413
23. Andrew
I 1427
24. Richard (de Bothwell) 1445
25. Alexander
Thomson 1472
26. Henry
Crichton 1472
27.
Adam 1483
28. George Crichton
1499
29. Raffaelle
(Italian)
1593
30. Robert IV (Blackadder)
1409-1413
31. James I (Prince of
Scotland) 1500
32. James
II 1504
33. Alexander
II 1511
34. James III
(Hepburn) 1513
35. Andrew II
(Foreman) 1516
36. James IV (Beton) 2nd
election 1522
37. George II (Durie)
1539-1560
COMMENDATORS
1. Robert
Pitcairn 1560
2. Patrick (Master of
Gray) 1584
3. George Gordon (Earl of Huntly)
1587
4. Henry
Pitcairn
1587-1592
Thus, between 1124 A. D. and 1560 there were 37 Abbots of
Dunfermline Abbey, and 4 Commendators between 1560 and 1592. It may here
be noted that the number of Abbots has sometimes been disputed. Some
authorities state that there were 34 Abbots only, while others give 36 and
37 as the number. Some dispute the existence of the 20th
Abbots, John V and also John VI. (See Chal Hist. Dunf. vol. i. p. 179.)
This hypothetical Abbot the writer has deleted in the Annals. Again,
there is John Black, the 17th Abbot, and Alexander Thomson, the
25th, who appear never to have been consecrated Abbots, while
there has been a diversity of opinion regarding the tenor of Abbotship of
Raffaelle Sansoni. He never appeared in Dunfermline. George, the 28th
Abbot, undoubtedly exercised all the functions of an Abbot from about 1490
to 1499. Abbot George may have acted, for two years or so, for Raffaelle,
viz., from 1491 to 1493. The writer has stated, at page 204, that there
were “34 Abbots of Dunfermline between 1124 and 1560.” It should have
read “34 consecrated Abbots.” The 3 unconsecrated Abbots we have put on
record, thus making the number previously mentioned, viz., 37, as the
total consecrated and unconsecrated Abbots. It may be added, that
Raffaelle Sansoni de Riari, Cardinal Deacon of the Romish Church, was
appointed Abbot commendatory of the Monastery of Dunfermline, by the Bull
of Pope Innocent VIII on 12th August, 1491—an Abbot unknown
until our friend, General Allan, discovered the fact.
There exists considerable uncertainty as to the dates of
election of Abbots 12, 14, 15, 16, 20 and 22. the nearest dates have been
given of their election. The several dates are those of the election of
the 37 Abbots. The first 21 Abbots exercised the functions of chief
magistrate of the Burgh of Dunfermline, the King reigning at the time
acting as their superior.
The Dunfermline “Religious House” was at first a Priory
(from about 1115 to 1124) and in this latter year was raised to the
dignity of an Abbey, though it did not then cease to have Priors. (See
An. Dunf. pp. 38-63.)
PETER THE PRIOR.—There is on record only one Prior of
Dunfermline previous to the date of the first Abbot, viz., that of Peter.
We refer to him at p. 38. The Latin quotation there given may be
read—“One of these, a certain monk and Prior of Dunfermline, Peter by
name.”
(K)
THE OFFICIALS OF THE ABBEY
THE following is a description of the officials of the
Abbey, and also their designations:--
1. ABBOT—This designation is derived from the
syriac, which signifies “Father,” the Abbot being the father or superior
of the monks. At first they were secular functionaries, and were
distinguished by the designation of “Earl-Abbots,” “Arch-Abbots,”
“Military Abbots,” &c. Abbots soon rose into consequence and power,
spiritual and temporal, and were dignified with the title of Lord, and
were distinguished into several classes according to their pre-eminence,
such a Mitred and non-Mitred Abbots, Crosiered, and non-Crosiered Abbots,
Cardinal and non-Cardinal Abbots, &c. Mitred Abbots were endowed with
Episcopal authority within the limits of their jurisdiction and were free
“from the law and rule of their diocesan.” The other Abbots were subject
to the diocesan in spiritual affairs and duties. The Mitred Abbots were
Lords of Parliament, and lived in great pomp in private apartments in the
Monastery, or in a house adjacent thereto. He wore red shoes, had a short
cloak, and carried a pastoral staff, with crooked head when in dress. He
had a large retinue of servants; had horses, hawks and hounds; and
entertained guests and members of the Convent at his private table. His
chaplain, besides attending to his spiritual duties, had the charge of his
household affairs.
2. PRIOR—The Prior of a Monastery was next in
dignity to an Abbot. He was chosen by the Abbot and acted for him at
conventual meetings in the Choir, Chapter house, Refectory &c in his
absence. He lived “in considerable state and pomp” in his apartments in
the Monastery. Besides a common Prior there were also Lord-Priors, who
had special jurisdictions, and were Lords of Parliament. In Dunfermline
abbey there was at least one Prior before the Abbots were introduced (see
An. Dunf. dates 1104-1120); and although they are not always specially
mentioned in the Register of the Abbey, still every Abbot would have his
Prior; and thus there would be at least 37 Priors of Dunfermline between
A. D. 1100 and 1560.
3. SUB-PRIOR—This functionary was the Prior’s
assistant and sometimes acted as his substitute. His special duties
appear to have been to take notice of any of the conventual brethren who
neglected their duties or were absent without leave. He took care that
the doors were dept locked from five o’clock in the evening till five
o’clock in the morning and when at the dormitories at night, to read or
call over the names of the monks who were bound to answer him.
4. THE SENESCHAL BAILIE OR STEWARD was the
Abbot’s deputy, in his character of temporal lord of the Abbey property.
This office was usually held by a layman of distinction in the locality.
Latterly, the office became in a great measure hereditary in families.
5. THE SACRIST, SACRISTAN OR SECRETARUIS took
charge of the vessels and ornaments of the altar and church and of the
robes, chalices, candles, sacramental elements, &c.
6. THE PRECENTOR OR CHANTER led the service of
the choir, taught the boys music, and was keeper of the Abbey seals,
missals, breviaries, festival robes, all the records, and frequently the
library of the monastery. He was sometimes assisted by a sub-chanter.
Two singing boys usually attended each mass-priest or canon daily in
singing mass at the side altars, ringing the small bell, and holding up
the priest’s train, &c; they had their own particular dress and daily
allowance. In Dunfermline Abbey there were at least 20 alters.
7. LIBRARIAN—He occupied apartments near to the
room where the Abbey records, books, &c were kept, which was called the
Scriptorium or writing room, where some of the monks were always engaged
during set hours daily in transcribing books.
8. THESAURARIUS OR TREASURER—He had the charge
of collecting the revenues and settling all the Abbey accounts, wages, &c.
9. CAMERARIUS OR CHAMBERLAIN—He had the charge
of the wardrobes and the dormitory and provided whatever was required by
the abbot or the prior when they set out on a journey.
10. CELLARARIUS OR CELLARER-- He superintended
the Abbey store house and provided victuals, wine &c for the monastery
tables.
11. THE REFECTIONER OR DAPIFER took care of the
plate, dishes, &c and ordered the arrangement of the viands upon the table
in the Refectory or Eating room. The south wall of Dunfermline Refectory
still exists, often called the Frater Hall i.e. Brothers Hall. It was
about 120 feet long, 34 feet broad and was lighted on the south by nine
Gothic windows two of which were almost united and formed the oriel.
12. ELEEMOSYNARIUS OR ALMONER distributed food,
clothing and money to the poor, especially the fragments or left meals on
certain days, when they assembled at the Convent gates. He also
frequently visited them at their own dwellings and supplied their wants.
At the lower end of the New Row, Dunfermline, near the angle of Woodmill
Street, there were “almonry acres, or lands” probably somehow connected
either with this officer individually or with his gifts.
13. THE HOSTIARIUS OR HOSPITALLER superintended
the Hospice or Guest Chamber and provided for “the accommodation of
strangers and wondering poor.” Strangers of rank were entertained by the
Abbot.
14. INFIRMARARIUS OR INFIRMARAR had the charge
of the sick of the Convent and administered the medicines prescribed by
the Medicus or physician of the Monastery and on urgent occasions, acted
as confessor “to the dying sick.”
15. THE MASTER OF THE NOVICES had the
superintendence of the training of the young persons who were on trial in
the Abbey for admission into their Order. Sometimes he was designated
Master of the Converts.
16. THE MARESCALLUS OR STABLE MASTER had the
charge of the Convent stables.
17. HEBDOMADARII OR WEEKLY OFFICERS was a name
applied to monks while employed in waiting at table or in other services
which they performed by weekly turns. “Of this class were the Readers,
who stood at a desk, or near the head of the table in the Refectory or
dining hall and read a portion of the Scriptures while the rest of the
monks were at their meal. Tradition informs us that this functionary read
his Scripture lesson from the Mural Chamber (within the double windows) in
the south east end of the south wall of Dunfermline Frater Hall. (See
“Refectioner” previously noticed at No. 11.)
18. THE LAY BRETHREN who were sometimes called
converts, acted as servants and were generally employed in agricultural
pursuits; they wore the dress of monks &c.
19. THE MAGISTER OPERIS or master of the works,
who kept the Abbey and monastic building in repair. &c.
20. THE PORTER kept the convent gates, and had
a small place adjoining to them where he resided, and had the power to
admit pilgrims, strangers &c and to exclude all improper persons.
“There were also a refectioner or chief cook, brewer,
carpenter, forester, huntsman &c with their numerous trains of
subordinates, who were generally laymen; those of them who were married
lived with the monastic wall,” such as the Abbey masons, horticulturers,
agriculturers,” &c. (See Morton’s Monastic Annals Teviotdale, App. pp.
325, 326; Carr’s Hist. Coldingham Priory; Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal, No
74; Old MS An. of Dunf. by E. H. 1830; Dart’s Hist. of Antiq. Canterb.
fol. 1726.)
(L)
MONASTIC DEVOTIONS AND
DEVOTIONAL HOURS
THE monastic brethren performed their devotions seven
times in the twenty four hours and they began at a very early hour with
matins. According to “Morton’s Annals” “they were awaked by the bell of
the dormitory, which was rung as long a time as would be required to say
the seven penitential psalms; during which they dressed themselves, and
said their private prayers, till, upon a sign from the prior, they
proceeded regularly into the church, each individual kneeling in the
middle of the choir and bowing reverently toward the altar before he went
to his seat. The matutinal service being finished, they went to bed again
and reposed till the hour of prime, or six o’clock, when they were
summoned to attend during the celebration of the ordinary mass and the
private masses, which, on particular days, might happen to be said at any
of the side altars at the same hour. After this, they were accustomed to
remain some time in private prayer in the church; and some of them went to
confession in the chapter house. Such exercises occupied the time until
the bell rang for holding the daily meeting of the chapter, when they
assembled in the cloister before proceeding into the chapter house; the
copiers of books and those at work out of doors, hastening in to be
present with the rest. Every one, as he entered, bowed towards the place
of dignity, the high alter, and the abbot, when they were all assembled,
invoked a blessing upon them. Suitable prayers having been said, a lesson
was then read from the rules of the order, and the names of those
appointed to any particular services were read from the register; every
one, on his name being pronounced, bowed reverently in token of
obedience. Next, the deaths and other events to be commemorated were
given out from the calendar; then the abbot, standing in his place,
pronounced the absolution of the souls of the dead. Those who had been
convicted of any fault were accustomed at this time to prostrate
themselves on the ground, make a humble confession, and entreat
forgiveness; penance was enjoined and, if it was judged fit, punishment
was sometimes inflicted on the spot by the prior or his deputy;
accusations were likewise heard by the abbot openly in the chapter against
any one under his jurisdiction or authority. The business being
concluded, they united in singing Psalm cxxx. (De profundis) viz.—
1. Out of the deepe places
haue I called unto thee, O Lord.
2. Lord, heare my voice;
let thine eares attend to the voice of my prayers, &c.
When it happened to be a high festival, then the abbot or
president said—“Our helpe is in ye name of the Lord” and the rest of the
brethren added—“Who made heaven and earth.” In winter, the hour of
tierce, or nine o’clock, immediately followed the chapter; and the Salve
Regina having been given out by the precentor, they proceeded into the
church tow by tow, singing this hymn. In summer there was an interval
before tierce, during which they went about their usual employments. High
mass was sung at tierce in summer, but at sextet, or twelve o’clock in
winter.
“The community dined in the great hall or refectory
(Fraters Hall) at one o’clock and the abbot, if present, said the
blessing. During this and their other meals, one standing at a desk, at
the side of the hall, read to them out of the Holy Scriptures or some
edifying book and the brethren took this office by weekly turns. (See
foregoing, Hebdonadarii) They also waited on each other at table in the
same rotation, having taken their meal previously along with the reader.
They all stood in their places till blessing was pronounced, after which,
the reader having mounted to his desk, began to read and the rest to eat.
Only two dishes were allowed, except on particular occasions, when
another, called a pittance—usually consisting of some meat or more
delicate food—was added. It was brought in after the second dish and
presented to the abbot, or to him who presided in the abbot’s place, who
caused it to be distributed. Much civility and politeness was practiced;
they were attentive to each other’s wants and informed the cellarer of
them, or the serving brother. They bowed to each other on presenting or
receiving anything; the person to whom the abbot or president sent
anything first bowed to the servant who brought it, and then, rising up a
little, bowed to the superior who sent it. They who came into the hall
too late and without any good excuse for their delay, said a Paternoster
and an Ave Maria by way of penance and had to sit down at the bottom of
the least frequented table and were not entitled to any ale or wine
without the special permission of the abbot or president. After dinner
some went to repose, others kept up a conversation till the hour of nones,
or three o’clock, when there was another service in the church, at the end
of which they washed their hands and sat down together in the cloister,
till a signal being given, they entered the refectory for a few minutes to
drink. At six o’clock they attended at vespers or evening service. The
completorium or compline, was said or sung in the church after seven and
then taking a light supper, called collation, they went to bed. Sheets
were not allowed, nor any linen, except in sickness and they all slept in
the same room called the dormitory, but in separate beds and in their
usual clothes.” (Vide Morton’s Mon. An. of Teviotd. pp. 292-294.)
ABBEY ADJUNCT BUILDINGS—In Abbeys and Monasteries there
were usually the following adjunct building or apartments, &c—
1. The Cloisters or the place for burial and in
which the monks walked and studied.
2. The Navis Ecclesis: The Nave or body of the
Church.
3. The Rood Loft, which contained the crucifix
and the music.
4. The Graditorium: A space containing the
ascent out of the Nave into the Choir.
5. The Presbyterium or the Choir, on the right
side of which was the Abbot’s Stall and that of the Prior on the left; the
monks were on each side and chanted the service alternately.
6. The Vestiarium: The Vestry, where the monks’
copes, &c were deposited.
7. The Vaulta or Vault, being an arched room
over part of the Church, which, in some Abbeys, was used to enlarge their
Dormitory, where monks had beds on which they took repose.
8. The Concameratio was an arched chamber,
between the east end of the Church and the High Altar.
The remaining rooms &c of the Monastery stood at a
distance from the main structure, such as—
1. Eleemosynaria or Almonry: where the monks
attended to the poor.
2. The Sanctuary, where debtors and malefactors
obtained refuge.
3. The Infirmary, in which the sick were
attended to.
4. The Stables stood at a distance, over which
the Stallarius, or the Master of the Horse presided, and under him the
Provendarius, who as his name imports, provided provender for the horses,
&c. These were divided into four ranks.
5. The Teter et Fortis Carcer, being the
Abbot’s hideous and strong prison, where the obstinacy of the monks was
corrected and general delinquents dealt with.
6. The Grange: Dunfermline Abbey Grange was
situated at the distance of one mile due south of the Abbey. The site
still retains the name of “The Grange.”
The cloisters of Dunfermline Abbey were constructed along
the south outside wall of the Church, along the front of the Chapter
house, on the east, along the outside of the north wall of the Monastery,
and the east wall of the Dormitory (between the Monastery and the abbey on
the east), thus forming a covered walk of about 420 feet in circuit.
The Auld Kirk is again the Nave for the second time: the
Choir is in front of the present pulpit; the site of the Vestry is
unknown; the Vaulta, somewhere about the south west corner of the Nave.
The Concameratio: This apartment was probably on the
north side of the interior of the Abbey, likely the locus where the “six
large flat through stones”—once thought to be the place of royal
interment—on which the north transept of the present Church stands.
The Eleemosynaria: The site is unknown—probably somewhere
about the gate of the Monastery. The Almonry lands consisted of a few
acres which lay at the foot of the New Row, on the east, near the junction
of the New Row with Woodmill Road.
The Sanctuary: There were two sanctuaries, or places of
refuge, in the locality of the Abbey, viz., at the Girth Bow, near the
Tower Bridge; and a refuge house in the Maygate, on the north side of the
street, and which stood nearly opposite the Maygate Chapel. It was
removed in 1819.
The sites of the Abbey Stables, Infirmary, &c are
unknown. The Grange was situated one mile due south from the Abbey. The
name of “The Grange” is still given to the farm house and offices which
stand on the site. An old drawing in our possession show the Grange from
the north. In the view there is an old house with a large bow, or pended
arch—probably the last fragment of the ancient grain house of Dunfermline
Abbey.
Dunfermline Abbey and Monastery, and a few of the
adjacent houses, were surrounded by a massive wall, 12 feet in height and
4 feet thick, and about 3.600 feet in circumference, or nearly two thirds
of a mile.
(M)
JOHNE HENRYSOUN OF
DUNFERMLINE—B. OF SANCT ANDROS
APUD HALYRUDEHOUS, 13TH
October, 1573
ANENT our Souerane Lordis letters raisit at the instance
of Johne Henrysoun Mr. of the Grammer Schole with the Abbay of Dunfermling
Makand mentioun that quhair he and his predecessouris has continewit
maisteris and teachearis of the youth in letters and doctrine to thair
grit commoditie within the said Schole past memor of man admittit thairto
be the Abbottis of Dunfermling for the tyme as havand the vndoubtit richt
and privilege to that effect be virtue of the foundatioun of the said
Abbay.—Like as he is willing to continue and tak pains to the instructioun
and learning nof the youth to the vttermaist of his power.
Notwithstanding, David Fergusoun, Minister of Dunfermling, alleging him to
have command of Maister Johne Dowglas Archbischope of Saintandros, hes
charget the said Johne Henderssoun to abstane fra all forder teaching
within the said schole in tyme cuming vnder the pane of pronounceing of
the sentence of excommunicatioun aganis him intending gif he do in the
contrair to proceed to the said sentence wranguslie considering it is of
veritie. That he and his predecessouris hes continuity Maisteris of the
said schole in tymes past without interruptioun admittit thairto, as said
is, of the said Abbot, sua that gif ony sic charge suld have bene maid,
the same suld have bene extendit toward him, and the same place incais the
present possessour had not bene qualifyt to vse the charge or vtherwyis of
evill conversatioun or lyfe. Bot trew it is that not only has the said
Johne Henrysoun giving confessioun of his faith and professioun of the
trew kirk, bot alsua has behavit himself honestlie in converatioun and
lyff never techeing or vtherwyis moving ony thing to the sklander of the
Evangell. Lykeas he is content to submit him to the judgement of sic as
hes understand and leirnit of his doctrine or ony otheris honest and
famous personis, and in cais ony offence had bene ministrant be him worthy
depriviations of the sad charge (as there is nane)—yet be the lawis and
practique of this realm can not nor aucht not, ony sic chargeis or
sentence be led aganis him, the actioun being mair civile and professone
and thairfor the said bischope and minister ar na judgeis competent
thereto. And no law yet establishit or approvit that gevis thame sic
power. Bot the samyn sentence being only ordanit to be pronuncit vpoun
sic as had not nor wald not acknawlege the trew Kirk quilk on na wyis can
be imputt to the said Johne Hendersoun ffor vtherwyis the said sentence of
excommunicatioun suld be extendit to all vther maner of actiois of
quhatsumeur qualitie they wer and be that way the ministeris sof the kirk
suld mak thameselffs judgeis in all causs vuther be direct or indirect
means quhilk ewer ane grit absurditie, and thairfore the saidis chargies
gevin to the said Johne to the effect foirsaid tiwht all that has followit
or may follow thairvpoun aucht and suld be suspendit simpliciter and to
have na fordee strength in tyme cuming.—And anent the charge gevin to the
saidis Archbischope and David Fergusoun, minister, to compeer befoir my
Lord Regentis grace and lorids of Secreit Counsall at ane certaine day by
–past to heir and se thame dischergeit of all forder pronuncing or vsing
of the said sentence againis the said dJohne or impediment making to him
in vsing of the said charge in tyme cuming or ellis to schwa ane
ressonable caus quhy the samyn suld not be done, with certificatioun to
thame, and thair failzie my Lord Regentis Grace wald discharge in manner
aboue written likeas at mair length is contanit in the saidis letters
execution and indorsatioun thairoff: Quhilks being callit at sundrie diets
the said Johne Hendersoun comperand personalie and the saidis Archbischope
and David fergusoun, minister (oftymes callit) neither be thame selffs nor
na vtheris in thair names not comperand, my Lord Regentis Grace with auise
of the Lordis of Secreit Counsall ffyndis that na sic forme or ordour of
sentence of excommunicatioun suld be gevin or pronuncit againis the said
Johne, in maner aboue mentionat, in tyme cuming, and of thair offices in
that part without prejudice alwayis to thame to persew him vtherwyis for
removing fra the said charge or zit to him defend conform to this lawis
and practique of this realme. (Vide Privy Council Register; also Laing’s
and Hendryson’s Poems, &c., Appendix, pages 55, 56, 57.)
(N)
THE AULD KIRK STEEPLE AND
THE PORCH
IT has been supposed by some parties that the Auld Kirk
Steeple and the Porch were erected about the beginning of the 15th
century. There are others and they are in the majority, who are of
opinion that the Steeple and the Porch, as also a portion of the interior
north west end of the Nave, and a few of the buttresses, were erected
after the period of the Reformation in 1560.
As already mentioned, like other great abbey churches
built during the 11th and 12th centuries, Dunfermline Abbey was
flanked by two massive towers. (See Annals, p. 31) The south west tower
stood until 1807, when it was thrown down during a thunderstorm. Why
should that tower come down almost entire to the year 1807 and its
neighbour tower, which stood on the site of the steeple, disappear before
the year, say 1420? Why should the one tower stand about 400 years longer
than the other? The only reasonable answer to such an inquiry is, that
the tower which occupied the site of the steeple was thrown down by
violence, and the only “violence period” on record is the period of the
Reformation. On march 28th, Dunfermline Abbey was destroyed by
the Reformers. After the Choir had been destroyed, the Bell tower, with
its baptized bell, would be attacked and overthrown. this was the opinion
of the late eminent ecclesiastical architect, Sir Gilbert Scott, conveyed
by note to the writer. Sir Gilbert was well acquainted with al the
details of Dunfermline Abbey Church and Nave. In one of his remarks, he
states that had the north west tower, or bell tower, been destroyed
between the years 1380 and 1405, the tower would have been rebuilt in its
original form, so as to harmonise with the nieghbour tower in the south
west angle. The Abbey authorities were particular in adhering to sympathy
and harmony of details, and that it was not until after the Reformation
period that “incongruities of ill matched steeples and pillars were added
to decayed abbey buildings.” We are of the same opinion; and also, that
the Steeple at Dunfermline, the Porch and a portion of the north west end
of the Nave, were erected between the years 1593 and 1607. (See these
dates in An. Dunf.) The Porch has been built right against the fine old
Norman north door. This would not have been perpetrated in the days of
the Abbey. The tall reeded column inside the north door would also be
built at this time, for the building appears to have been much “riven”
asunder in the parts where the Steeple now stands. (See General Hutton’s
Papers” and other papers in the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh, referring
to expenses incurred in repairing and renovating churches and religious
houses after the Reformation; also consult the Article on the “Reparation
of the Kirk” in An. Dunf. pp. 211, 212, and pp. 244, 245, 264.)
(O)
THE PRINCESS ELIZABETH AND
DUNFERMLINE
IT is singular that there should be discrepancies
regarding the birth place of Elizabeth, first and eldest daughter of James
VI particularly so when she was born at so recent a period as 1596. We
shall give extracts from works which state that she was born at
Dunfermline, and also from those which state that Falkland was the place
of her nativity, concluding with remarks deduced therefrom
Extracts from Works in
favour of Dunfermline:--
1st “Upon the xix day of September,
1596, the Queinis Majestie was deliveritt at Dunfermling of the Princess
Elizabeth.” (Moyse’s Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland; Bannatyne Club,
1830; Maitland Club, 1830.)
2nd “Elizabeth, Princess of
Scotland, borne in Dunfermling the 19th August, 1596 zeirs.”
(Chronicles of Perth, p. 6; Maitland Club.)
3rd “The queene was delivered of a
maid childe at Dunfermling upon the 19 day of….1596.” (Calderwood’s Hist.
Kirk Scot. fol. 1704, p. 330; Wodrow Society, vol. v. p. 438.)
4th “In the Palace of Dunfermline
were born King Charles I with his sister Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia.”
(Macfarlane’s Geograph. Coll. MS vol; Advo. Lib. Edin.)
5th “The Princess Elizabeth, from
whom his present Majesty is descended, was born in the Palace of
Dunfermline.” (Stat. Vcc. Scot., vol. xili. p. 448; Campbell’s Journey
through Scotland; De Foe’s Journey through Scotland, 1728, p. 173.)
Extracts from Works in
favour of Falkland:--
1st “The 15th day of
August (1596) the Queyne was delyverit of a ladie in Falkland, and
baptesit be the nayme of Elizabeth.” (The Historie and Life of King James
the Sext; Bannatyne Club, 1825.)
2nd “The 15th day of
August (1596) the Queyne was delyverit of a ladie in Falkland, and
baptesit be the nayme of Elizabeth.” (Vide Letters to King James the
sixth, p. 26, Maitland Club, 1835.)
These two extracts are identically the same in every
respect.
3rd “The Princess Elizabeth was born
at Falkland Palace on the 16th August, 1596.” (Vide Miss Anne
Everett’s Lives of the Princesses of England, p. 146.) (Miss Everett
refers to a Harleian MS., 1368.)
Referring to the extracts in favour of Dunfermline as
being the birth place of Elizabeth Stuart, we may observe that extract No.
1 is from Moyse’s work. Moyse in the dedication of his book—“To the
King’s Most Excellent Majesty”—says, “Having followed and served your
highness in a place of credit in Scotland above thirty years, where I was
a eye witness to many of the incidents falling out in your Majesty’s
minority and tender years, when factions overruled the land, and were a
great hindrance to your Majesty’s honourable and most gracious
inclination; which having collected and set down in this little volume,
for memory, lest the same should be buried with me, now at the point of
death, I have presumed to bestow the same upon your Majesty, as a thing
your Majesty can best censure and reserve in your Majesty’s private
memory. And so, expecting your Majesty’s acception thereof in good part,
my meaning being always loyal and dutiful towards your Majesty, I pray to
the King of all kings for your Majesty’s well and long government and
rest. Your Majesty’s own old man and humble servant, David Moyses.”
It is not to be supposed that his Majesty’s “own old
man,” who had “served him thirty seven years” and was an “eye witness” to
may of the incidents in his Majesty’s life, would make a mistake as to the
place of birth of his first and oldest daughter. He gives 19th
Sept., 1596, as the date of the birth of this princess, and Dunfermline as
that of her nativity, which date and place would be read by his Majesty.
This announcement by Moyse is worth a score of hearsay notices and it
cannot be set aside.
Besides this indisputable evidence, there are the
following other indirect notices relative to the birth place,
viz.:--“1596. Vpon the 17 Juli the Queene went over from Edinburgh to
Dunfermline, convoyed with a number of noblemen and weomen.” (Calderwood’s
Hist. Kirk. Scot.; Wodrow So. vol. v. p. 99.) It will be observed that 17th
July, 1596 was about two months before the Queen’s accouchement, and as
her dowry house was in Dunfermline, no doubt she went to Dunfermline to
prepare for “the auspicious event.”
1596. in another convention of the Estates at
Dunfermline, the penult of September, the baptism of the princess, who was
born on the nineteenth of August—appointed to be at Halyrud hous, the
twenty eight of November next.” (Spottiswood’s Hist. Ch. Scot. Edin.
1850.) Here, it will be observed that this account makes the birth of
Elizabeth a month earlier than Moyse does—some misprint, probably; but, be
that as it may, the date is of less consequence than the place. A
convention of the Estates was held at Dunfermline on 30th
Sept., 1596, when, after, no doubt, consulting with the Queen, who was in
her house adjacent to the palace, they determine on the day and place of
baptism of the princess.
Again, “1596, the 2nd of November the Princess
came out of Dunfermling to the Abbey of Halyruid house.” (Birrei’s
Diary.)
From these collateral notes, it is evident that Queen Ann
went from Edinburgh to Dunfermline on the 17th day of July,
1596; that she gave birth to the princess in her dowry house there on 19th
August; and that she left Dunfermline for Holyrood house on Nov. 2 of the
same year to prepare for the baptism of her daughter. (See also An. Dunf.,
date 1663.)
There are several notices in old works which go to show
that the king resided much in Falkland between 13th August and
25th September, 1596. He was, with many of his courtiers,
assiduously engaged in hunting and may he not have gone there in order
that the domestic quiet needed for the queen might not be disturbed, and
in consequence given rise to the rumour that because the king was then in
Falkland, that the princess was born there? A few Falkland notices may be
given here:--“Elizabeth Stuart, the eldest daughter of the marriage of
James, King of Scotland and Ann of Denmark, was born in the Palace of
Falklana on 19th August, 1669”—(1596). (Miss Benger’s Memoirs
of Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, vol. i. p. 64.) The authoress
appears to have taken her Falkland from “the Life of King James the
Sixth,” which was continued by another author till past date, 1506. (See
No. 1, Falkland Extracts.) Since then, a number of topographical and
other writers, without further investigation produces, of course, a notice
somewhat similar, but with the word “beautiful” palace thrown into it,
viz.—“Elizabeth Stuart, the eldest daughter of the marriage of King James
VI., King of Scotland, and Ann of Denmark, was born at the beautiful
palace of Falkland, 19th August, 1596.” (Vide Miss
Strickland’s Lives of the Queens and Princesses of Scotland, vol. viii. p.
2.)
It would therefore appear after carefully comparing and
weighing these matters, that Queen Ann resided in her dowry house at
Dunfermline from 17th July until the 2nd November,
1596 and that she gave birth to her first and eldest daughter there on the
19th of August, 1596, while the king was enjoying the sport of
hunting at the time with his courtiers at Falkland, and that from this
circumstance some careless writers, dealers, in hearsay, had jumped to the
conclusion that because the king was hunting at Falkland about the time of
the birth, that the princess was born at Falkland. There are,
unfortunately, too many such instances of false logic in the history of
Scotland.
(P)
THE DESCENT OF VICTORIA I.
FROM ELIZABETH, ELDEST DAUGHTER OF JAMES VI. OF SCOTLAND.
THE following is the line of descent of Queen Victoria
from the Princess Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of James VI of Scotland,
who was born in the Royal Palace of Dunfermline in 1596:--
1. JAMES VI of Scotland, born 1566; married, in
1590, Ann, daughter of the King of Denmark. James succeeded to the
English throne in 1603 and died in 1625. His Queen died in 1617.
2. ELIZABETH, daughter of James VI born at
Dunfermline in 1596; married, in 1613, Frederick, Elector Palatine of the
Rhine, afterwards King of Bohemia. She died in 1662.
3. SOPHIA, daughter of Elizabeth and
Frederick, born in 1630; married, in 1658, Ernest Augustus, Elector of
Hanover. She died in 1714. (Had she lived six weeks longer, she would
have been Queen of England at the age of 84.)
4. GEORGE I, son of Sophia and Ernest Augustus,
born in 1660; married, in 1682, Sophia Dorothea, daughter of George
William, Duke of Zell; succeeded to the English throne on the death of
Queen Anne, in 1714. He died in 1727 and his Queen in 1728.
5. GEORGE II, son of George I, born in 1683;
married in 1705, Wilhelmina Carolina Dorothea, daughter of John Frederick,
Margrave of Bradenburg. He succeeded his father, George I in 1727, died
in 1760, and his Queen in 1737.
6. FREDERICK LOUIS, son of George II, born in
1706; created Prince of Wales in 1729; married, in 1736, Augusta, daughter
and fifteenth child of Frederick II, Duke of Saxe Gotha. Prince Frederick
died in 1751, and the Princess Augusta in 1772.
7. EDWARD, fourth son of George III born in
1767; created Duke of Kent in 1799; married in 1818, Victoria Maria
Louisa, daughter of Francis, Duke of Saxe Coburg Saalfield. He died in
1820 (just a week after his father.) The Duchess of Kent died in 1861.
9. VICTORIA, daughter of the preceding, born 24th
May, 1819; succeeded her uncle, William IV, on the 20th June,
1837; married, on 10th February, 1840, her cousin, Francis
Albert Augustus Charles Emanuel, Duke of Saxe, Prince of Coburg and Gotha,
born in August, 1819, and died 14th December, 1861.
To this “line of descent” we add that from Malcolm III to
James VI so that the links in the royal chain may be traced to an unbroken
line from A. D. 1056 to 1877.
(Q)
LIST OF THE KINGS OF
SCOTLAND
THE following is a list of the Kings of Scotland from
Malcolm III A. D. 1056-1093 to James VI A. D. 1567-1625:--
MALCOLM III reigned from
1056-1093
DONALD from 1093 to 1094; again from 1095 to
1097; Usurper (brother to Malcolm III.)
DUNCAN natural son of Malcolm
III 1094-1095
EDGAR son of Malcolm III
1098-1107
ALEXANDER
I
1107-1124
DAVID I
1124-1153
MALCOLM IV grandson of David
I 1153-1165
WILLIAM (The Lion) brother of Malcolm
IV 1165-1214
ALEXANDER II son of William The Lion
1214-1249
ALEXANDER III son of Alexander
II 1249-1285
MARGARET grand-daughter of Alexander
III 1285-1290
(Interregnum—Plottings of Edward I of
England)
JOHN BALIOL elected King of Scotland by Edward
I 1292-1296
(Interregnum—Baliol deposed by “plottings
of
Edward
I)
1296-1306
ROBERT I* (through David, Earl of Huntingdon,
2nd son of Prince
Henry 1306-1329
DAVID II son of King Robert the
Bruce 1329-1371
ROBERT II grandson of
do. 1371-1390
ROBERT III (originally called John) eldest son
of
Robert
II
1390-1406
JAMES I son of Robert
III 1406-1437
JAMES II son of James
I 1437-1460
JAMES III son of James
II 1460-1488
JAMES IV son of James
III 1488-1513
JAMES V son of James
IV 1513-1542
MARY STUART, daughter of James
V 1542-1567
JAMES VI son of Mary
Stuart 1567-1625
*The line of Robert I the Bruce descends from the Princess
Isabella, the 2nd daughter of David Earl of Huntingdon, 2nd
son of Prince Henry, son of David I. The son of this princess was the
Robert Bruce who competed with John Baliol for the Crown in 1290; this
Robert was the grandfather of Robert the Bruce of “glorious memory”
recorded above.
(R)
COPY OF LETTER FROM
PRINCESS ELIZABETH
THE following is a copy of a letter from the Princess
Elizabeth to Mr. Maule of Panmure, dated 1628, preserved in the muniment
chest, Panmure Castle, Forfarshire. (Vide Fervis’ Memorials of Angus and
Mearns, pp. 241, 242.) There are now very few relics of this unfortunate
Princess extant, we therefore give insertion to the following short
note:--
“Good Mr. Maul.
Those whom the King, my Father,
held worthy of his Service, I always Esteemed as most deserving of my
Love, Especially, to me wards as you have done. Wherefor, with Thanks for
yours, I return you this in earnest of my Kind Acceptance, and Assurance
of my ready will to perform any thing that God shall enable me, whereby I
may express myself your most assured Friend.
The Hague, 26th Sept.
1628 Elizabeth
--(See Ann. Dunf. date 1663.)
(S)
THE WARDLAW BARONETCY
THE first Baronet—Sir Henry Wardlaw—was created by King
Charles I in 1631, nearly 250 years ago. Playfair in his History of
Family Antiquity, published in 1811, narrates that the first ancestor of
the family sprang, according to Nisbet, from the race of MacDonald and
according to others, from Robertson of Struan, and that, under
circumstances of peculiar bravery, he killed a wolf with his skene-dhu, or
dagger, in the presence of one of the early Scottish monarchs, from whence
he took his surname of Skene, and called his lands by that name. The
family of Skene of Halliards, in Aberdeenshire, is a younger branch of the
family. Sir Henry Wardlaw, the second Baronet, intermarried with a
daughter of Skene of Halliards. The present holder of the title, Sir
Henry Wardlaw, Tillicoultry, is the grand nephew of Sir William, the 11th
Baronet, whose sons, Alexander, William, and Archibald, in succession
enjoyed the title. Sir Archibald died, unmarried, on 20th
January, 1874 and thereupon Sir Henry acquired right to the Baronetcy.
The ancient family town house, of quaint interior, and some historical
interest, is situated in Chessels Court, Canongate and the old residenters
still remember its have been occupied by the baronets. (Alloa Journal,
April 6, 1878; An. Dunf., dates 1602, 1612, 11615, 1616, 1631, &c.)
(T)
DISCOVERY OF THE REMAINS
OF KING CHARLES I—1813
KING CHARLES I being a native of Dunfermline, the
following account of the discovery of his remains in 1813 (as related by
Dr. Villiers) will be highly interesting, at least to the indwellers of
the ancient city of Dunfermline:--
“The mausoleums of mortality of most of the
kings of England, in ages more remote that that of Charles I, have been
discovered, but how the burial place of that unfortunate monarch has so
long been enveloped in obscurity, without a decided knowledge of the place
of his interment, is a matter of much surprise. Wood in his Athenæ
mentions Windsor, but upon this point of supposition, until the year 1813,
we have no direct proof. However, the investigation which took place this
year in the vault of King Henry the Eighth at Windsor, immediately after
the funeral of the Duchess of Brunswick (March 1813) in the presence of
George Prince of Wales, his physicians, and several persons of
distinction, confirmed this opinion. In this vault, amongst other
coffins, was discovered one bearing the inscription, “KING CHARLES, 1648”
in large legible characters, on a scroll of lead, and which after a pause
was opened, and found to contain the body of that unfortunate king; for
such was the impression made upon the observer from the striking
resemblance to the picture of that monarch by Vandyke. The head certainly
did present sufficient criterion to observe the fixing and adjustment of
it by a cement to the shoulders; the forehead and temples had lost little
of their muscular substance; the nose had fallen from the loss of the
cartilage, but the left eye, at the first moment of exposure was open and
full to view, thought it vanished almost instantly be being exposed to the
air; the shape of the face was oval, and several of the teeth perfect; the
left ear, in consequence of the interposition of the preparation used in
those times for the preservation of the dead, was found entire. The head
being examined, the back part of the scalp was in a perfect state, and had
a fresh appearance; the tendons and ligaments of the neck were of
considerable substance and firm; the hair was thick and black, the beard
brown, and the complexion of the skin was dark and discoloured, very
similar to an Egyptian mummy. The hair on the head was not more than an
inch in length and had, probably been cut off for the better convenience
of the executioner.
“Even under these circumstances, the countenance
certainly had a strong marked resemblance to his likeness on the then
current coins and to the several portraits of King Charles the First by
Vandyke and other painters, by which it was familiar to many; and it
cannot be denied but that the shape of the face, the forehead, the eye,
and the pointed beard, so characteristic of the period in which he lived,
are most striking and important features by which the resemblance is
determined; on further examining the separation of the head from the neck,
the muscles had evidently contracted and the fourth cervical vertebræ of
the continuation of the backbone to the head was found cut through
transversely, leaving the surfaces of the divided portion of bones smooth
and which certainly could have been produced only by the blow of a sharp
axe, which circumstances furnish us with sufficient proof to identify the
body of King Charles the First.
“After passing through the ceremony described, the head
and other parts were restored to their place, when the coffin was closed
upon the remains of the unfortunate monarch. Among the other coffins
which were presented to view were those of King Henry the Eighth and Queen
Jane Seymour.” (The Mirror, by Lombard, vol. i. p. 333; see also An. Dunf.
dates 1600, 1648, and 1649, &c.)
(U)
RE-ERECTION OF THE MARKET
CROSS
early IN 1868, WE FELT DESIROUS TO HAVE THE Pillar or
Column of the Old Market Cross, with its Unicorn, removed from the corner
of the house, is the north west angle of Guildhall Street, to a more
conspicuous and isolated site, within the railings of the County
Buildings. In order to carry our object into effect, we applied to the
Provost, Magistrates and Town Council, to whom the property belonged, for
permission to remove it. This was kindly granted. We then, through Mr.
Landel, Town clerk, applied to the County authorities at Cupar, to allow
it to be placed within the iron railing, north west corner of County
Building. This liberty was also readily granted. We, then, in connection
with Joseph N. Paton, sent out subscription papers for subscriptions to
defray costs. The sum of £27 5s. 6d. was collected. For this sum Mr.
Thomas Chalmers, builder, agreed to erect the old Pillar, furnish the
finely sculptured stone on which the unicorn rests (which was designed by
Mr. Paton), the wall on the sunk area, and the octagonal steps on which
the pillar is place. The re-erection was accomplished on the 15th
August, 1868, in presence of a large assembly of people. (See An. Dunf.
p. 461.)
(V)
THE NEW TOWN HOUSE
(From the Dunfermline
Press of 23rd October, 1875)
THE New Corporation Building, which, architecturally
speaking, will exhibit a combination of the French and Scotch Gothic
styles, will have a frontage towards Bridge Street of 66 feet, and to
Kirkgate of 144 feet. The principal feature of the design is a tower 23
feet square and 117 feet high, surmounted by a flag staff 20 feet high at
the corner of the two thoroughfares. At the base of the tower, fronting
Kirkgate, is a main entrance, in the form of an arched doorway, with
buttresses on each side, bearing granite pillars, which support a balcony
and square projecting window above. The Bridge Street front of the tower
shows a projecting oriel window, supported on an ornamental shaft and
corbels and finished with a stone crocketed roof. Above this window, as
also over the doorway, are dials for illuminated clocks. The upper
portion of the tower is flanked at the angles with circular turrets, and
the slated roof is finished atop with ornamental ironwork. The Bridge
Street front is two storeys in height, the elevation being broken up by a
central crow-stepped gable, on which is a tablet with the burgh arms, and
a projecting oriel finished as a turret at the end. The main feature of
the Kirkgate front is an octagonal turret in the centre. Between these
are the windows of the Burgh Court, circular headed, and finished with
rockets and spires; whole between the main tower and the central turret
diversity of outline is given by gablets over the windows, and a
projecting balcony, supported on trusses and granite pillars. The roof is
finished with an ornamental iron railing. As to the interior, the street
floor of the Bridge Street front has been appropriated as a branch office
of the City of Glasgow Bank; but the whole remainder of the building is
devoted to municipal purposes. The main entrance from Kirkgate leads into
a vestibule 16 feet 6 inches square and this to a hall 38 feet by 20.
From the inner hall a passage leads to the rooms of the Town Clerk, the
Master of Works, the Collector and Bookkeeper, all of which are towards
Kirkgate. An ornamental stone staircase with carved oak pedestals for the
failings, gives access from the inner hall to the first floor. Here is a
hall corresponding with that on the street floor, from which the Council
Chamber is entered on the right, or Bridge Street front. The room is 39
feet long, 25 feet broad and 26 feet in height, with an open timber roof,
having circular principals and ribs, supported on carved brackets.
Opening from the Council Chamber is a committee room, formed in the tower,
with square projecting window, and balcony towards the Kirkgate, and oriel
windows towards Bridge Street. From the upper hall, towards Kirkgate, a
corridor, with witness rooms and lavatories on either side, leads to the
Burgh Court room, 32 feet wide by 50 feet long and 27 feet high. This
room has an open timber roof supported on carved stone brackets, and is
reached from Kirkgate by two staircases—that at the south end being for
the public and at the north for officials and witnesses. In consequence
of the fall of the ground towards Kirkgate, there are on that side storeys
below the Bridge Street level, and these are set apart for police cells,
police officers and superintendent’s room, keeper’s house, and
miscellaneous offices. The whole buildings will be heated by Perkins’ hot
water apparatus, to be fitted up in the basement floor.
The buildings are from a design by Mr. J. C. Walker,
Edinburgh and do the highest credit to his taste and professional
ability. The whole exterior will be of the most ornate character, nothing
having been omitted which might be calculated to heighten the general
effect. The two styles of architecture will be pleasingly blended, and
the details will be carried out with the utmost care, so as not to mar the
general harmony of the work. The interior arrangements will be all that
could be desired to meet the requirements of the respective departments in
connection with the Corporation. the entire structure will be an ornament
not only to the street but to the city; and it will complete the greatest
public improvement which has been effected since Provost Mathieson took
the lead in civic affairs in Dunfermline. To Provost Mathieson is due (in
a very large measure) the credit of proposing and carrying out the scheme,
and with his name it will be closely identified in the future.
NEW TOWN HOUSE—DETAILS OF
EXPENSE
Mason Work, W
& J Hutchison, Dunfermline £8,306 0 0
Joiner Work, H
& J Philp
2,995 0 0
Slater Work,
John
Beveridge
296 0 0
Plumber Work,
Malcolm Williamson
464 0 0
Plaster Work,
H & J
Ramsay
276 15 0
Carving Work,
William Wilson, Edinburgh 485
0 0
Furnishings,
Gas Fittings,
&c 1,325 0
0
Architect’s
Fee
950 0 0
Cost of Site
and Old House in Kirkgate
3,450 0 0
Cost of the
Old Town House and its Site (?)
--------------
The total cost
of the New Town House, omitting
Old Town
House and its Site £18,548
5 0
A correspondent informs
us, that the New Town House will be completed in all its interior details,
and opened for municipal business, about the month of April or May, 1879.
(W)
ST. MARGARET’S HALL
the FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION OF St. Margaret’s Hall is taken
from the Dunfermline Press of 20th April, 1878:--
“In fixing the design of the Hall, Mr.
Starforth, the architect, had grave difficulties to contend with. He had
not only to keep in view the necessity of adopting a style of architecture
which would be perfectly suited to the objects of the building and
consonant with the means at his disposal, but which would not in any way
interfere with the amenity of the Abbey Church. We have no hesitation in
saying that Mr. Starforth has been eminently successful in meeting the
requirements of the case. The structure, which is now to be seen in St.
Margaret’s Street, is not only in perfect harmony with the
surroundings—even in the most minute details—but it is at once graceful
and dignified and it is only just to say that it has elicited the
unqualified approbation of the Company and the public. The style chosen
is the early English, with closer adaptation to domestic use; and
throughout the entire design ample evidence is given of the great care
which has been taken to work out truly harmonious and artistic effects.
“The main frontage—which looks to the east and
measures 92 feet in length and 40 feet in height—presents a strikingly
simple, yet massive and picturesque appearance. All the windows are
mullioned—those in the ground floor having double arch mouldings, over
which a graceful continuous string course is carried. The chief entrance
and all the doorways, are furnished with joint mouldings and pillars, with
chastely foliaged capitals—the upper portions beneath the arches being
filled in with quatrefoil moulded sinkings. The upper windows have a
continuous hood moulding, which is carried over the arches throughout;
while above the centre of each window a very richly foliated patera is
fittingly introduced. The south eastern part of the building rises higher
than the rest, the wall heads being surmounted by beautifully cut
balustrades and cornices, which, taken in combination with the roofs, form
a very effective arrangement.
“The plan of the interior—which embraces an
area nearly forming a square—displays a great amount of architectural
skill, while it is in every way calculated to answer the purposes for
which the building is intended. The large hall—which is situated on the
north side of the area—is 80 feet in length by 60 feet in breadth, and 43
feet in height. Access to the vestibule and staircases of the room is
obtained from St. Margaret’s Street. It will afford ample and comfortable
sitting accommodation for 1,320 people—770 on the ground floor and 550 in
the gallery. The eastern portion of the gallery assumes a circular form
and is supported by ornamental cast iron pillars with brackets (of a
handsome design) for sustaining the front of the gallery. The horizontal
beams by which the framework of the gallery is supported are laminated and
curved (so as to suit the circular lines of the gallery and the effect
thus produced cannot but be highly pleasing. The gallery columns (which
are in complete uniformity with this design) are carried up so as to form
supports to the roof. From the capitals of these columns a number
arches—with punelled sofits and elaborate moulding—are disposed in
longitudinal order and above the arches so arranged there is a ornamental
cornice, from which there diverges (directly over each pillar) beautifully
moulded raise ribs, by which the roof of the hall is divided transversely
into eight portions; while by ribs of a similar character the central part
of the roof is divided into three parts longitudinally. The side portions
of the roof between the pillars and walls are horizontal and divided into
panels in the manner already indicated. The lighting of the hall is
excellent—consisting of three 2 light windows in the west end and tow 3
light windows in the west end and fourteen roof lights. Sufficient
provision has been made for the construction of two additional side
galleries, should such be required at any future time. The orchestra and
organ gallery occupy a space of about 42 feet by 21 feet; while the
refreshment room, which also measures 42 feet by 21 feet, is placed
beneath the orchestra, and at a little lower level than the floor of the
hall, being lighted from the west. The stage arrangements are in all
respects adequate, due care being taken to provide for the comfort of
performers. On the southern side of the large hall, facing St. Margaret’s
Place, the ground floor is occupied by a suite of rooms—capacious and well
arranged 0ppfor a variety of purposes. In the south eastern angle of the
building referred to, there is a ‘business room’ of considerable
dimensions; and to the westward of it, are committee and retiring rooms,
together with lavatory and other requisite conveniences—all of which are
constructed on the most improved principles.
“On the second floor of the southern front is
the lesser hall, which measures 56 feet in length, 28 feet in breadth and
26 feet 6 inches in height. The room is provided with a platform and all
the other necessary appliances and the ceiling is divided into sections by
moulded ribes. Access to this hall is obtained both from the east and
south fronts of the building and the vestibule and stair accommodation is
ample. Reading and committee rooms (of good proportions) are also
situated on the second floor of the southern front. On the third floor
there are two large billiard rooms, to which entrance is got by the
principal stair leading from the St. Margaret’s Street entrance.
“The two halls, as well as the vestibule on the
east front and the large corridors on the south front, are heated by means
of hot water pipes. In regard to the ventilation (which is one of the
most important features in the design of such a building), Mr. Starforth
has evidently endeavoured to make it as complete as possible, while at the
same time he has exercised a due amount of care toward the prevention of
accidents by fir. The total cost of the Hall amounts to about £9,
000—including the price of the site and other expenses. The contractors
were as follows:--Mr. Thomas Chalmers, mason; Mr. Robert Walls, joiner;
Messrs. Smith & Inglis, plumbers; Messrs. M’Gregor & Anderson, plasterers;
and Mr. Charles Stalker, slater.”
(X)
GLENSHERUP WATER SCHEME
THE Act of Parliament for the Glensherup Water Scheme
passed on 24th July, 1876. Including the preliminary
engineering and other expenses, the Act cost £ 1, 917, 10s. The pipe
track works were commenced on the 16th April, 1877, but the
reservoir works at Glensherup were not commenced till June following. The
pipe track works were completed early in May, 1878, as far as Craigluscar,
and on 11th May, the Glensherup water ran into Craigluscar
Store Ponds, and continued to do so till 8th June. On the 8th
July Glensherup water commenced to flow direct (that is, without going
through Craigluscar Ponds) to Milesmark, or north west district of the
Burgh. On 26th August, Glensherup water commenced to flow into
Craigluscar Ponds, and has since continued to do so. On 6th
September, 1878, the city was, for the first time, supplied with water
direct for Glensherup. It cannot be said however, that the works are
finished till the reservoir at Craigluscar is completed. (Burgh Records.)
|
