Chronica De Mailros, E Codice Unico in Bibliotheca Cottoniana Servato, Nunc Iterum in Lucem Edita. Notulis Indiceque Aucta
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
V C<^. C^^i^n''. cy^oMd^ 'lJc).1X- xMtn <\A>vocpSr tcbem arnio A^cUr^uCr^ ^«ft%fomim a|Xun-4nmfttgrnAfller^efiinf cuCft^df tt^auicjp co cuit^ttf OI5 iTc Crlrara l)^^lietiftC oii (uadGc ^ fre^db^epc iXntio.^a.J:tvttiotUiflnMJnmAot^<haatCttmr^.^t^^ ^tno.cttrotte fftttano t-cffiC cdtnuttii/^hoC eulem ti^;iC edmuniu/ •a^^^^fsoc^mxi' adtc^C^^iuM^ ocodciidoCmifo. (WtiotcnCpu^^CttinocenicC^tttie^/eor-axltTe^ J rton"i| lccme ittrc^p^Tmm.t^Mnaurmi^^^n^tt.attmJ. (Ajino du^ i\.tma\- c.\x(ii\>oxa£ui!adiRm\dhvrxn&e[av, in^ Ua^caniuav^cluof cardi' ^^ ttiJletxnfKinaamtmttjftiecDiidbata eftripan tK^bna-^utiOTt dccfaif dSrV^utmacwtfeaaronif tnunut a^ub ^oti ^uAtam m soona .jkr-m fe£ry'fttl^'i^« • Kttmtmttd.ip-i^p^-lt^^^airsdede^ /apiMiiFt^cdt^matic.^ttt.^l-S.^qjr^-^JTnTedim cmtn ^ et^ xtttib^ ittduic-itidie.pcmccoftes iti cafbdlo^beKolstfbuix- iT^'t/. NefAercli/t ZHAaa • w CHRONICA DE MAILROS, E CODICE UNICO IN BIBLIOTHECA COTTONIANA SERVATO, NUNC ITERUM IN LUCEM EDITA. NOTULIS INDICEQUE AUCTA. EDINBURGI: TYPIS SOCIETATIS EDINBURGENSIS. MDCCCXXXV. TUE EDINBURGH PKINTING COMPANV, SHAKSPfAItl. ycilWHJl. P R E S E N T E D l^rmlxt^ of tl)( i$annat|>nr Clul)^ SIR JOHN HAY AND ALEXANDER PRINGLE. THE BANNATYNE CLUB. M.DCCC.XXXV. THOMAS THOMSON, ESQ. PHESIDENT. RIGHT HON. JAMES ABERCROMBY, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COM.MONS. THE EARL OF ABERDEEN, K.T. RIGHT HON. WILLIAM ADAM, LORD CHIEF COMMIS- SIONER OF THE JURY COURT. THE DUKE OF BEDFORD, K.G. LORD BELHAVEN AND HAMILTON. ROBERT BELL, ESQ. WILLIAM BELL, ESQ. JOHN BORTHWICK, ESQ. WILLIAM BLAIR, ESQ. THE REV. PHILIP BLISS, D.C.L. THE MARQUIS OF BREADALBANE. GEORGE BRODIE, ESQ. CHARLES DASHWOOD BRUCE, ESQ. O. TYNDALL BRUCE, ESQ. THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY, K.G. JAMES CAMPBELL, ESQ. WILLIAM CLERK, ESQ. THE BANNATYNE CLUB. HON. HENRY COCKBURN, LORD COCKBURN. yitK PRESlDENJ-. DAVID CONSTABLE, ESQ. ANDREW COVENTRY, ESQ. JAMES T. GIBSON CRAIG, ESQ. TREASUREK. WILLIAM GIBSON CRAIG, ESQ. HON. GEORGB CRANSTOUN, LORD COREHOUSE. THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE. JAMES DENNISTOUN, ESQ. GEORGE DUNDAS, ESQ. ROBERT DUNDAS, ESQ. RIGHT HON. W. DUNDAS, LORD CLERK REGISTER. CHARLES FERGUSSON, ESQ. ROBERT FERGUSON, ESQ. GENERAL SIR RONALD C. FERGUSON. COUNT MERCER DE FLAHAULT. HON. JOHN FULLERTON, LORD FULLERTON. THE DUKE OF GORDON. WILLIAM GOTT, ESQ. ROBERT GRAHAAI, ESQ. LORD GRAY. RIGHT HON. THOMAS GRENVILLE. LORD HOLLAND. THE EARL OF HADDINGTON. THE DUKE OF HAMILTON AND BRANDON. EDW. W. A. DRUMMOND HAY, ESQ. SIR JOHN HAY, BARt JAMES MAITLAND HOG, ESQ. THE BANNATYNE eLUB. JOHN HOPE, ESQ., DEAN OF FACULTY. COSMO INNES, ESQ. DAVID IRVING, LL.D. JAMES IVORY, ESQ. THE REV. JOHN JAMIESON, D.D. SIR HENRY JARDINE. HON. FRANCIS JEFFREY, LORD JEFFREY. JAMES KEAY, ESQ. THOMAS FRANCIS KENNEDY, ESQ. JOHN GARDINER KINNEAR, ESQ. THE EARL OF KINNOULL. DAVID LAING, ESQ. ^ecRETAHY THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE, K.T. THE REV. JOHN LEE, D.D. ALEXANDER WELLESLEY LEITH, ESQ. LORD LINDSAY. JAMES LOCH, ESQ. THE MARQUIS OF LOTHIAN. WILLIAM MACDOWALL, ESQ. HON. J. H. MACKENZIE, LORD MACKENZIE. JAMES MACKENZIE, ESQ. JOHN WHITEFOORD MACKENZIE, ESQ. SIR FREDERICK MADDEN. JAMES MAIDMENT, ESQ. THOMAS MAITLAND, ESQ. VISCOUNT MELVILLE, K.T. WILLIAM HENRY MILLER, ESQ. THE EARL OF MINTO. THE BANNATYNE CLUB. HON. SIR J. W. MONCREIFF, LORD MONCREIFF. RIGHT HON. JOHN A. MURRAY, LORD-ADVOCATE. WILLIAM MURRAY, ESQ. MACVEY NAPIER, ESQ. SIR FRANCIS PALGRAVE. LORD PANMURE. HENRY PETRIE, ESQ. ROBERT PITCAIRN, ESQ. ALEXANDER PRINGLE, ESQ. JOHN RICHARDSON, ESQ. THE EARL OF ROSSLYN. AJSTDREW RUTHERFURD, ESQ. THB EARL OF SELKIRK. RIGHT HON. SIR SAMUEL SHEPHERD. JAMES SKENE, ESQ. EARL SPENCER. JOHN SPOTTISWOODE, ESQ. MAJOR-GENERAL SIR JOSEPH STRATON. siR JOHN drum:mond STEWART, bart- THE HON. CHARLES FRANCIS STUART. THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND. ALEXANDER THOMSON, ESQ. WALTER C. TREVELYAN, ESQ. PATRICK FRASER TYTLER, ESQ. ADAM URQUHART, ESQ. RIGHT HON. SIR GEORGE WARRENDER, BARt THE VEN. ARCHDEACON WRANGHAM. PREFACE. Amoxgst the scanty documents illustrative of the early history of Scotland which have reached us, a distinguished rank is to be assigned to the Chronicle of Melrose. The Chronicon Sanctae Crucis, which alone can compcte with it in antiquity, is inferior in detail as well as in extent; and its age gives it an undisputed advantage over the writings of Fordun, Wyntoun, Barbour, and Bower. The era, as well as the locahty, of its composition places it above the chronicles of Hemingford, Gray, and that of the monks of Lanercost, how vahiable soever these annals may be in the illustration of the later periods of our history. It is to the pages of this chronicle alone that we must advert for the general history of Scotland during several reigns, as narrated by Scotch- men ; and, excepting the brief notices of the Chronicle of Holy- rood, we have no other contemporaneous annalist until we arrive at Barbour and Fordun, both of whom wrote about a cen- tury after the abrupt termination of the Chronicle of Meh-ose. The present edition, hke the former, is founded solely upon the authority of the Cottonian manuscript, Faustina, B. ix. It is a question of extreme importance whether that manuscript be au unique copy, or whether the text which it supphes might not be corrected or augmented by other manuscripts of equal value. As far as the researches of the Editor enable him to judge, he is decidedly of opinioa that no other early copy has been pre- 00 ii PREFACE. served. There is none in the British Museum, nor is any indi- cated in the extensive Catalogus Manuscriptorum Anghse et Hi- bernise, nor in the more recent hsts of the Hbraries at Lambeth, Stow, or Durham, or in the general catalogues of manuscripts compiled by Montfaucon and Haenel. And yet, on the other hand, the writers at the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth century, would induce us to suppose that manu- scripts existed in Scotland which exhibited considerable and important variations from the text pubhshed by Gale and Fell from the Cottonian copy. It is asserted by Sir George Mac- kenzie,* that "certainly that Enghsh manuscript is very unfaith- ful, for most of the things relating to our nation are omitted, as particularly about the beginniag, in the year 844. Our manu- script observes (which the Enghsh has not), that Alpin king of the Scots died, to whom succeeded liis son Kenneth, who beat the Picts and was declared first king of all Scotland, to the water of Tine; and after it expresses in his epitaph. Primus in Albania fertur regnasse Kenedhus, Filius Alpini, proelia multa gerens.f And it ob.serves that he was called the first king of Albany, not because he was the first wlio made the Scottish laws, but be- cause he was the first king of all Scotland." In a subsequent page of the same work, he says, " I reflect not on the publish- ers of the manuscript of the abbacy of Meh-os, printed at Ox- ford, for I honour every thing that comes from that learned society in a special manner; but it is no reflection on them to say that we have another much fuller in what makes for Scot- * Defence of tlie Antiquity of the Royal Line of Scotland, p. 24, edit. 1685. t Sir James Dalrjnnple, who cites the same lines, refers for them to a manuscript at Edinburgh. Collections, p. 90. PREFACE. iii land, although it could not be so exact as the other monasteries, since it was oft-timcs of old under the Saxons, who would cer- tainly lessen wliat relates to us. And thus the fault lay in the copy, and not in the pubhsliers, for the author of that manu- script calls Bede our counteri/man, so he must have been then our enemy; but, liowever, it begins not with Alpin, as the Doctor alleges, though I mention that because he is not men- tioned in the Oxford cdition. It declares that it is to continue where the reverend Bede left, and so it is a proof of our nation and history for that time, and the difFerences of that shall be printed."* Sir James Dah-ymple tells us that he will not be at the pains to compare the Oxford edition with the manuscript copies to be found in Scotland or England, but that lie will content him- self with the printed one.f Nicolson, in his Scottisli Historical Library, had done much to perpetuate this behef, and has in other respects clouded the subject by the unguarded, erroneous, and contradictory manner in which he speaks of our Chronicle. The authority which is gen- erally attached to his work, somewhat undeservedly, renders it necessary to examine his statements, without reverting to those advanced by Mackenzie and Dabymple, which he incorporates with his own. He agrees with the former of these writers that Gale's text is imperfect; and after quoting the following sen- tence—Rex ^lalcolmus Scotorum, veniens ad regem Angliae Henricum apud Cestriam, devenit homo suus, eo modo quo avus suus fuerat homo veteris regis Henrici, salvis omnibus dignita- tibus suis—he adds, " nor is this matter taken notice of in the Oxford edition, but only in the manuscript copy which they * Mackenzie's Defence, p. 9G. j Collectioiis, p. 205. iv PREFACE. have in Scotland." Strange to say, these very words are to be found in the Oxford edition.* Yet one of his subsequent ob- servations seems intended to prove that the Scottish copies are less copious than the decried Enghsh edition, for he tells us that all " these manuscript copies in Scotlandf end with the words ' Kilcontath Kilconcath] comes de Karryc in Obiit Adam de \J.. Actonia [/. Acconia], cujusuxorem [DiuamnomineJ] comitissam de Karryc, postea junior Robertus de Bruys accepit in spon- sam;'" which demonstrates that they contain about two pages less than is given by the Oxford edition.