ur. SCS. S7~££f _ fa/ 0 7- ■ '-7 \ ,o' VOCis -1 £be Scottish Geyt Society A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MIDDLE SCOTS POETS A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MIDDLE SCOTS POETS With an Introduction on the History of their Reputations BY WILLIAM GEDDIE, M.A. •prmtelf for tfje Socutg ig WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS EDINBURGH AND LONDON 1912 All Rights reserved PREFACE. This bibliography was planned with the object of ex- hibiting the varying attitude of scholars and others to- wards Scottish poets of the sixteenth and earlier centuries. It is not bibliography for bibliography’s sake ; and for that and other reasons does not offer bibliographers all that they will look for. Editions not seen are marked with an asterisk. When short titles are given, to avoid repetition, there should seldom be difficulty in judging where in the volume the full title is most likely to occur. Thanks are due to the Carnegie Trust, though its guar- antee against loss by publication has become unnecessary ; to Professor Gregory Smith, who suggested the under- taking ; to Mr J. A. Fairley and the Rev. J. F. Miller for information ; and to Mr Oliphant Smeaton for help of all kinds and at all stages. CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION ...... vii GENERAL WORKS COLLECTIONS OF POETRY .... I HISTORICAL, BIOGRAPHICAL, CRITICAL, LINGUISTIC, ETC. 13 HUCHOWN, SIR HEW OF EGLINTOUN, AND CLERK OF TRANENT ...... 40 JOHN BARBOUR . 6l ANDREW OF WYNTOUN . .86 JAMES I. -95 BLIND HARRY ...... I33 SIR RICHARD HOLLAND . 160 ROBERT HENRYSON (WITH PATRICK JOHNISTOUN) . 166 WILLIAM DUNBAR AND WALTER KENNEDY . 187 GAWIN DOUGLAS . .223 JOHN BELLENDEN...... 256 SIR DAVID LYNDSAY . .268 ALEXANDER SCOTT. .318 ALEXANDER MONTGOMERIE (WITH SIR PATRICK HUME) . 329 ALEXANDER HUME . -357 ADDENDA ....... 363 INTRODUCTION. I. Early Notices. (a) The Conditions. When the older Scottish poets began, about the beginning of the eighteenth century, to emerge from the oblivion of the seventeenth, it was inevitable that men should wish to know something of their lives, and of their reputation among contemporaries. Of biography in the modern sense, however, the old literature had virtually none, and its criticism was rudimentary. The scholars of the Scottish Revival had to construct the poets’ lives for themselves. Henrie Charteris, in the address “ Unto the Godlie and Christiane Reidar,” prefixed to his editions of Lyndsay’s Works from 1568 onwards, says, “ It is the commoun and accustomit maner (gentill Reidar) of all them quhilk dois pro- hemiate upon ony uther menis wark, cheiflie to travel about two pointis. The ane is, to declair the properteis of the Authour, nocht onlie externall, as his originall, birth, vocatioun, estait, strenth, giftis of the bodie, substance, and maner of leving: bot alswa internall: as the qualiteis, habites, and dispositiones of the mynde, Vlll INTRODUCTION. his ingyne, knawledge, wisdome, giftis of the Spirit, and all uther vertewis quhilk culd justlie be knawin to have bene in him.” Unfortunately the Scottish poets were not accustomed to have anybody prohemiate upon them until long after their own day. Barbour and Blind Harry, indeed, had prefaces, but they dealt with the heroes, Bruce and Wallace, not with the writers. And even Lyndsay owes little to his prohemiator. There is something on the second of the “two pointis ”—“his maner of wryting, the utilitie of his warkis, and quhat frute, profite, and commoditie may ensue and follow to the diligent reidar and revolvar of the samin ”—but it is not properly literary criticism. A single anecdote illustrates his character. “ Bot seing it is nocht monie yeiris past, sen it hes pleisit the Eternall God, to call our Authour, out of the miserabill and trubilsum calamiteis of this transitorie lyfe, untill his celestiall joy, and hevinlie habitatioun, swa the memorie of him is bot as yit recent, and not out of the hartis of mony yit levand, to quhome his haill maner of lyfe was better knawin than unto me, I think it not greitlie neidfull to tary thee thairon, bot will remit thee to lerne it at thir mouthis.” Strangely perverted as it must appear to us who can no longer learn from the mouths of contemporaries, such reasoning may often have stayed those who might have left valuable records. Oftener the reasoning was un- necessary : nobody thought an author’s life matter for curiosity at all. Such notices as do occur are nearly always due to accident. Perhaps the only exceptions are the entries in public records that relate to royal patronage of poets. But for such entries the very period at which Blind Harry lived would have been INTRODUCTION. ix known to us only from the vague statement of Major. There is no other documentary evidence by which Dempster’s error of a century could have been detected. That error, by the way, is no misprint, for it occurs in three of his works. Other entries in the records may be classed along with the testimony of historians as accidental. They found a place because those they celebrated were men who had important parts to play in the State, not because they were poets. The deeds of James I., Gawin Douglas, and David Lyndsay fell to be recorded in political history, and if they wrote poems that was one more accomplishment to note in their eulogies. The mediaeval mind could pass readily from the man to the poem as an interesting fact con- cerning him. It did not pass readily from the poem to the man: literature was communal. A man’s writings could hardly be considered his own when there was so much recasting of old work, so much imitation of old forms, as among the poets of the Middle Ages: when a translation was as little like its original as the devil and St Austin, and curses were necessary to restrain the copyist from altering at will. Recent criticism has sought to show that some chief works of our early litera- ture owe their present shape as much to the later scribe as to him that told the tale in older times. However this may be, it is clear that to the reader of poetry the poet, if thought of at all, was but a name, vaguely associated with excellence in versifying. If it should happen that his life for some reason was of interest, the historian when he came to mention his poetic skill might cite some of his works by name. Sometimes the historian’s eye is partly upon the poem, and he is X INTRODUCTION. interested in the fact of authorship as a fact concerning the poem. Oftener he is thinking of the man : the poem touches only the outside of his consciousness ; and it is named only as a testimony to the truth of his com- mendation. Even as late as Drummond of Haw- thornden this part of a historian’s task is performed with a perfunctoriness which, in one himself a poet, sets the reader inquiring after an explanation. Of James I. Hawthornden says: “He wrote Verses both Latins and English, of which many yet are extant.” James V. “ was studious of all good arts, naturally given to Poesie, as many of his verses yet extant testifie.” Douglas was “ a man noble, valiant, learned, and an excellent Poet, as his works yet extant testifie.” (b) The Historians. Earlier historians are commonly as vague as Haw- thornden ; but not always. The earliest who had any poetical predecessors to celebrate is one of the most satisfactory of all. Andrew of Wyntoun mentions two poets, without requiring the usual excuse for their introduction. He has another, however. The office of historian had not yet been disjoined from that of poet, and of their authority as historians he has something to say. Wyntoun repeatedly cites Barbour’s work, the lost Stewarts’ Original and Brut as well as the Bruce.1 In these references there is little that can be called criticism. Wyntoun merely expresses his reverence for his predecessor who could 1 n. 131-8, 769 ff. ; in. 631-6 (Cotton, 621-6); VIII. 177 ff. (Cotton), 934-46 (Cotton, 972-84), ed. Amours (Wemyss text). INTRODUCTION. xi tell the tale better than he, and proves both the sincerity and the truth of his opinion by his long extracts. The famous passage on Huchown of the Awle Ryale is an insertion due to the carefulness of the historian, so far as its occasion is concerned; but the author’s delight in Huchown’s poetry soon takes advantage of the opportunity, if indeed it was not the true impelling motive. Having excused his own recklessness in differ- ing from Huchown, and calling Lucius Iberius Pro- curator instead of Emperor, he proceeds to excuse Huchown and to praise him. “ Fra blame ban is ]>e auctour quyte, As he befor him fand to write ; And men of gud discretioun Suld excufi and loif Huchoun, That cunnand wes in litterature. He maid Ipe gret Gest of Arthure, And ]>e Anteris of Gawane, The Epistill als of Suete Susane. He wes curyoufi in his stile, Faire and facund and subtile, And ay to plesance and delite, Maid in meit metyre his dite, Litill or ellis nocht be geft Wauerand fra Ipe suthfastnes. “Had he callit Lucyus procuratour, Quhare he callit him emperour, It had mare grevit the cadens Than had relevit the sentens.”1 This passage has a double importance. It is the , starting-point of the controversy about Huchown and his works; and it is the first specimen in Scots of a critical and bibliographical notice of a Scottish poet— if we may assume that the shadowy Huchown was a 1 Book v. lines 4327-4344 (Wemyss), 4305-4322 (Cotton), ed.