The Laich o’ Menteith: reassessing the origins of the Lake of Menteith Nick Aitchison As the only lake1 in a land of lochs, the distinctive name of the Lake of Menteith (PER) is a source of enduring interest. Several attempts to explain why the Lake of Menteith is known as a lake rather than a loch have been made since the 1940s. Less understandable is the absence from this debate of historically- and toponymically-informed analysis. Seventy years ago, one commentator bemoaned that ‘This Place-name is probably one of the most outstanding examples of the neglect of the Place-names of Scotland’ (McDowall 1947, 407). Although the Lake of Menteith is now, belatedly, the subject of serious toponymic study, thanks to Dr Peter McNiven’s note in this journal (McNiven 2014; see also McNiven 2011, 64), many aspects of this name still remain obscure and controversial. Confirming that the name changed from the Loch of Menteith to the Lake of Menteith in the 19th century, McNiven attributes this to the growing influence of the English language within Menteith, specifically as a result of increased tourism after the publication of Sir Walter Scott’s The Lady of the Lake (1810). This is not a new interpretation: ‘The substitution of the English word lake for the more Scottish loch is ... of quite recent origin, and is due ... to literary influences’ (Hutchison 1899, 66). However, this interpretation has not been accepted universally. The attribution of the lake-name to ‘affectation’ and ‘refined anglicised usage’ (McCulloch 1960, 173) did not satisfy the editor of The Scots Magazine, who believed there was more to it than this and posed the (rhetorical) question ‘Why is the Lake of Menteith a lake and not a loch?’ (Scots Magazine 1960, 374). Previous attempts to explain why the Lake of Menteith is known as a lake lay beyond the scope of McNiven’s studies. Although most may be dismissed as, at best, unsupported by the evidence or, at worst, fanciful, these theories merit a brief discussion because they attest awareness of the unique status of the Lake of Menteith and a desire to explain how, why and when it became a lake. Moreover, they reflect the extent to which popular imagination has filled the void left by the absence of more convincing interpretations based on established principles of toponymy. These interpretations are an integral component of the culture and history of the Lake of Menteith, even if we cannot agree with either the methods employed or the conclusions reached. As such, these traditions deserve to be 1 Strictly speaking, the only natural body of inland water in Scotland known as a lake, because several man-made bodies of water also have lake-names. The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 10, 2016, 1–24 2 Nick Aitchison collected and studied in their own right. They comprise a richly imaginative and varied vein of what, from its poor representation in print, must have been a predominantly oral tradition that is probably unparalleled in Scottish toponymy. Reassessing earlier interpretations of the Lake of Menteith can also contribute to our understanding of this and, potentially, other place-names. Indeed, only by comparing and assessing these can we begin to distinguish between more and less plausible hypotheses. In addition, the critical assessment of these theories should help to discourage further baseless speculation concerning the lake-name, encourage the adoption of better-informed interpretations based on sound toponymic methodology and help to focus future debate on more productive areas of analysis. This paper reviews previous interpretations of how the Lake of Menteith became a lake with these objectives in mind, arriving at a very different conclusion from that reached by McNiven (2014) in the process. Previous interpretations of the Lake of Menteith comprise two main groups. While some claim that the lake-name was adopted deliberately, others attempt to explain it as an accidental anglicisation, based on a corruption of an earlier Gaelic or Scots name. Both categories are examined in turn. The popular opinion that the lake gained its name through a misinterpretation of Scots laich, laigh is then reconsidered in the light of additional evidence. Deliberate adoption One tradition maintains that the Lake of Menteith is known as a lake because of its alleged association with Sir John de Menteith (c. 1275–c. 1323), sheriff of Dumbarton and keeper of Dumbarton Castle. Sir John played a key role in handing over Sir William Wallace to the English in 1305, an event which led to Wallace’s trial and execution in London the same year. According to tradition, Sir John was reviled by Scots as ‘the fause [false] Menteith’ for his treachery and the Loch of Menteith became a lake because no loch could be named after such a traitor (Ross 1999, 116; MacDonald-Lewis 2009, 29). The implication is that, because Sir John allegedly betrayed Wallace to the English, then the body of water with which he was closely associated should be known by the English word lake. This claim is not only still referred to but is even repeated as fact: ‘Because of “Fause Menteith’s” treachery, Loch Menteith is known to this day as Lake Menteith [sic], the only lake in Scotland’ (Durie 2012, 21; see also Fraser 1997, 50). Another commentator claims that Lake Menteith (sic) is also known as Traitor’s lake and is named after Sir John (Lindsay 1981, 29), but cites no supporting evidence. Possibly in a confused reference to the same events, it is also alleged that the Lake of Menteith reflects the ‘English leanings’ of an unspecified earl of Menteith (Hannavy 2006). The ‘fause Menteith’ interpretation is not only contrived but is also The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 10, 2016, 1–24 The Laich o’ Menteith: reassessing the origins of the Lake of Menteith 3 contradicted by historical and toponymic evidence. Firstly, Sir John did not take his name from the Lake of Menteith, because both lake and earldom derive their name from an early territorial name which appears to be Brythonic in origin. The earliest of many variant forms recorded from the 1160s are Meneteth, Meneted (Watson 1926, 113; McNiven 2011, 51, 179–80). Secondly, Sir John did not even hold lands at the Lake of Menteith, which presumably belonged to his father, Earl Walter. According to local tradition, Sir John’s lands were at Ruskie, where his seat was a castle on an island in Loch Rusky, 4km north-east of the Lake of Menteith (MacGregor Stirling 1845, 1096; Dun 1866, 24–25; Fraser, W. 1880 I, 506; Hutchison 1899, 18–19). If a loch was to be known as a lake on account of Sir John’s actions, then the Lake of Menteith would appear to be a victim of mistaken identity. Thirdly, the Lake of Menteith is not recorded as a lake until the 19th century (McNiven 2014), 600 years after the events concerned. The earliest recorded references to the Lake of Menteith reveal that the attribution of its status as a lake to the ‘fause Menteith’ must also date to the 19th century or later. A possible historical context for this may be identified in the combined influences of Victorian historical romanticism and rising Scottish national consciousness associated with the movement to construct the National Wallace Monument, which began in 1856. The Monument, on the Abbey Craig at Stirling, opened in 1869 and stimulated a wave of national sentiment that continued until the commemoration of the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1897 (see Morton 1998; 2014, infra; Coleman 2007). But, despite numerous references to the ‘fause Menteith’ throughout the 19th century (e.g. Holford 1809, 224; Porter 1810 II, 362; Baillie 1851, 728), none attribute the name of the lake to its alleged association with Sir John. Significantly, references to the ‘fause Menteith’ hypothesis are also absent from 19th-century accounts of Menteith and the Lake of Menteith (e.g. MacGregor Stirling 1845; Dun 1866; Cunninghame Graham 1895; Hutchison 1899). This indicates that the ‘fause Menteith’ interpretation either existed only in oral tradition or is of more recent origin. That most published references to this theory date from as recently as the late 1990s is consistent with its resurgence during another wave of Scottish national awareness, associated with the release of the film Braveheart (1995), the return of the Stone of Destiny (1996), the 700th anniversary of the battle (1997) and the creation of the Scottish Parliament (1997–99). More recently, the ‘fause Menteith’ hypothesis has been dismissed on the grounds that it has no historical basis (Ayto and Crofton 2005, 636; Hannavy 2006; Crofton 2012, 285). The landscape setting of the Lake of Menteith features in several attempts to explain its name. Seton Gordon pondered whether ‘its placidity and its immediate surroundings, which are Lowland rather than Highland, have caused the word “lake” to be substituted for the earlier term “loch”?’ (Gordon 1948, 1). The Journal of Scottish Name Studies 10, 2016, 1–24 4 Nick Aitchison This seems unlikely, given that no other Lowland loch has become a lake. Other interpretations are based on what are claimed to be the lake’s English appearance or properties. The Lake of Menteith is said to be known as a lake from its ‘rather English parkland setting’ (Keay and Keay 2000, 724) and because it ‘looks English’ (Hannavy 2006). However, only the eastern shores of the lake are currently classed as ‘policies and parkland’, its other sides comprising a mixture of ‘improvement period fields’, rough pasture, managed woodland and commercial forestry (Boyle and Macinnes 2000, 28, Map 11).