Sir Walter Scott, Robert Jamieson and the New 'Minstrelsy'
by Charles G. Zug
Music & Letters, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Oct., 1976), pp. 398-403
SIR WALTER SCOTT, ROBERT JAMIESON AND THE NEW 'MINSTRELSY'
BY CHARLES G. ZUG
SIR WALTER SCOTT'S Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, first published in 1802, occupies a prominent niche in British ballad scholarship. One contemporary reviewer, evaluating the enlarged second edition of I803, declared that 'these three interesting volumes . . . perform for Scotland that task which the Bishop of Dromore performed for England, by publishing The Reliques of Ancient English Poetry[1], This was a perceptive comparison, and subsequent critics have continued to debate which of the two great collections deserves the pre-eminent position. To be sure, Percy's Reliques came first by some 37 years and made the study of the traditional ballad a respectable occupation. But the Minstrelsy was no less a pioneering effort. No mere library scholar, Scott pursued the ballad among the folk and provided a wealth of contextual information that was beyond the ken or interest of Bishop Percy. Moreover, in its deliber- ate focus on the history and culture of the Border country, the Minstrelsy possesses a thematic unity clearly lacking in the Reliques. it is perhaps the archetype of what D. K. Wilgus has termed the 'local-enthusiastic tradition' in ballad collecting.[2] Both collections, in short, are of major importance, and their differences make any arguments concerning supremacy ultimately unanswerable.
Given the significance of the Minstrelsey, it is curious how little attention has been paid to the fact Scott seriously contemplated a second 'Minstrelsy' to supplement the first. Apparently this new project began to take form in early 1802, while he and his co-worker John Leyden were preparing the third volume to the second edition of the Minstrelsy. On 27 March I802 Leyden informed their friend Richard Heber of the progress of their work and added:
I think I told you that he is immediately afterwards to proceed with the Minstrelsy of the East Coast. This will interfere a little with Jamieson, and that doleful wight had better therefore throw off his volumes.[3]
The evidence here is admittedly tenuous-this is the only reference I have ever found to a new 'Minstrelsy'. But the specific mention of Robert Jamieson provides considerable insight into what Scott envisaged concerning the new collection. It was some two years earlier, probably during the spring of I8oo, that Scott abruptly heard that a fellow countryman was also assembling a collection of ballads. He was naturally apprehensive about this competitor, and on 13 August wrote to a mutual acquaintance named Robert Anderson to invite both men to Lasswade 'to spend a day with me here to talk over the proposed publications & as far as possible prevent the possibility of interference'. [4] Thus, Scott and Jamieson met for the first time during the late summer of 1800 to compare their collections. As Jamieson later recalled in his Popular Ballads and Songs: [5]
Of the pieces, that were common property at the time of comparing notes in 1800, the following will be found in the second volume of the Border Minstrelsy: The Gay Goss Hawk, Brown Adam, Jellon Grame, Willie's Ladye, Rose the Red and White Lilly, Fause Foodrage, Kempion, Cospatrick, under the title of Gil Brenton; and a parcel of raid ballads of the Border.
Since 'the greater part of the materials collected for both works was the same', the two men decided to divide their materials according to category. Jamieson adds, 'as Mr. Scott, at that time, intended to confine his work, with very few exceptions, to the Border Raid ballads, it was hoped, that the two publications would interfere very little with each other'[6] Jamieson was to have the less localized romantic ballads, the ones he enumerated, while Scott was to concentrate on the Border raiding ballads, as they were most pertinent to the history and culture of the Border country.
In retrospect, this agreement appears a very logical one, par- ticularly as the two men possessed numerous nearly identical texts from the same source, Mrs. Anna Brown of Falkland, in Fife. During the spring of I8oo Scott had received two sizeable manu- scripts from Alexander Fraser Tytler containing 24 romantic ballads as sung by Mrs. Brown: the so-called William Tytler- Brown manuscript (1783) and the Alexander Fraser Tytler-Brown manuscript (i 8oo). Jamieson, for his part, had the Jamieson-Brown manuscript which contained twenty ballads taken down from Mrs. Brown's singing in 1783, as well as several more recent pieces.[7] Without question, Jamieson was completely satisfied that he and Scott had reached a firm understanding. As Mrs. Brown later informed Alexander Fraser Tytler:
I heard lately from Mr. Jamieson who informs me that he had an interview with your Friend while in Scotland & that they had settled matters in the most amicable manner which I am very happy to hear indeed he writes in the highest terms of acknowledgement of the handsome & candid manner in which your Friend had conducted himself. [8]
But Scott did not hold to his end of the bargain. However 'handsome & candid' he may have appeared to Jamieson, by 6 October he was advising Bishop Percy that the Mlinstrelsy would be 'divided into two classes namely the Raiding Ballads (as they are calld) relating to the forrays & predatory incursions made upon the Borders & the Romantic or popular Ballads founded upon circumstances entirely imaginary'. [9] Scott's decision clearly surprised and dismayed Jamieson; in 1804 he admitted to Scott that 'after reading the first two volumes of your excellent Work, I was so disheartened (especially as you promised a third,) that for a considerable time I laid my papers aside altogether'. [10] Jamieson's characteristic feelings of inferiority are evident enough here, but the real issue is Scott's violation of their agreement. There is no way to exonerate Scott- he clearly infringed on his competitor's territory. The specific motives behind his sudden reversal, however, are thoroughly understandable.
To begin with, the original plan for the Minstrelsy was extremely modest. To the Duke of Buccleugh Scott had written that his collection would be a 'small work' and include 'such Border Ballads as may tend to illustrate the ancient state of the Southern Counties of Scotland'. [11] Mrs. Brown's extensive contributions thus posed a substantial problem. As Scott well knew, such romantic ballads possessed 'a general, and not merely a local, interest', and concerned largely 'fictitious and marvellous adventures'. 12 Not only did they contain few local references; most of them were from the north-east of Scotland, not the Border country. Still Scott found them extremely appealing. In April he wrote to Heber that he had even bought 'a superb horse called Brown Adam in honour of the Ballad heroe of that name'.[13] Thus, the discovery of a serious competitor served as the catalyst which induced Scott to abandon his original concept of a small, local collection in order to enlarge the scope and appeal of the Minstrelsy. A young and aspiring writer at the time, Scott simply feared being outdone by Jamieson. The decision cost Scott and Leyden considerable editorial labour, but the additions proved most valuable. Ultimately, the Romantic Ballads section of the Minstrelsy tripled the number of traditional ballads that Scott published and contributed heavily to the success of the work. In purely pragmatic terms, then, Scott's choice was the correct one. And, it appears, one Minstrelsy was not enough. The projected title of the new work, 'The Minstrelsy of the East Coast', and the specific association with Jamieson, make it clear that Scott and Leyden also planned a collection of ballads from the Aberdeenshire region of Scotland. As the core they could publish the twelve ballads from Mrs. Brown's manuscripts that they had not used in the Minstrelsy. This supposition is supported by Scott's observations on Mrs. Brown's ballads in the introduction to the second edition:
From this curious and valuable collection, the editor has procured very material assistance. At the same time, it contains many beautiful legendary poems, of which he could not avail himself, as they seemed to be the exclusive property of the bards of Angus and Aberdeenshire. But the copies of such, as were known on the borders, have furnished him with various readings.[14]
Scott, in short, desired to make use of all those romantic ballads that he could not relate in some way to the Border and thereby fit into the Minstrelsy.
Moreover, Scott knew well that Mrs. Brown could remember still others. As early as 23 December 1800 she had informed Tytler:
Mr. Jamieson likewise solicits me very earnestly for further communications. This sir I shall defere giving him till I hear from you: who I still look up on as intitled to the first offer of whatever I can yet recollect. I have lately upon rummaging a by corner of my memmory found out some AberdeenShire Ballads which totally escaped me before. They are of a different class from those I sent you not near so ancient but may be about a century ago. [15]
Scott was fully aware that he held the advantage over Jamieson because of his friendship with Tytler. Whatever Mrs. Brown was able to dredge up from her fertile memory would come first to him. Finally, Scott may have possessed still other relevant materials from the north-east. There is firm evidence that he was collecting folklore in this region in 1796 while attending the Court of Justiciary at Aberdeen. In the words of his old tutor, James Mitchell:
Nor was his attendance in court his sole object; another, and perhaps the principal, was, as he stated to me, to collect, in his excursion, ancient ballads and traditional stories about fairies, witches, and ghosts. Such intelligence proved to me as an electrical shock; and as I then sincerely regretted, so do I still, that Sir Walter's precious time was so much devoted to the dulce, rather than the utile of composition. [16]
Mitchell's rather strict Presbyterian judgements notwithstanding, there is ample indication that Scott was well prepared to produce a minstrelsy of the East Coast. From Mrs. Brown and his own collect- ing he possessed numerous traditional texts as well as the first-hand contextual information that he always deemed so important. Happily for Robert Jamieson, the collection never advanced beyond the planning stage.
Perhaps the primary reason the new 'Minstrelsy' failed to materialize was the departure of John Leyden for the Orient. Leyden was a major force behind the evolution of the Minstrelsy. In fact, his contributions to the design and scope of the work were so extensive that he should have been designated the co-author along with Scott. The existing evidence leaves no doubt that Leyden disliked Jamieson, and, as M. R. Dobie has suggested, he may well have been the one who persuaded Scott to break his gentleman's agreement on the division of the ballads[17] Leyden was by nature an agressive, temperamental individual, and he approached the publication of the Minstrelsy with almost religious fervor. As the publisher James Ballantyne later recalled:
John Leyden . . . entered into [Scott's] plan with all the vehemence of his character. To say that it was a labour of love to the young Borderer, would but faintly describe its effects upon his mind. His transports at the prospect of seeing preserved, & of being self instrumental in preserving, a set of productions so early & closely interwoven with his feelings, were, as I have often heard Mr Scott describe them, very nearly bordering upon the ludicrous, & not the less so, that he himself regarded them as not a whit inferior to the most spirit-stirring lyrics of Homer. [18]
Clearly Leyden was not the sort to make concessions or accept any restrictions on this 'labour of love'. Moreover, it is well known that he enjoyed teasing or even provoking others who stood in the way of the Minstrelsy. The most conspicuous example is that of Joseph Ritson, the ill-tempered and vitriolic English antiquary who had spent a lifetime attacking the works of Bishop Percy. When Ritson came to dinner at Lasswade, Leyden perversely consumed a large quantity of raw beef before the eyes of the horrified vegetarian. In J. G. Lockhart's words, 'Leyden met Ritson at the cottage, and far from imitating his host's forbearance, took a pleasure in torment- ing the half-mad pedant by every means in his power."[19] Later, when Ritson had returned to England, Leyden even boasted to Heber that 'you sent down to Scotland your old Lion-Walter Scntt and T nared his claws and drew his teeth'.[20] If Levden was prepared to handle the formidable Ritson in this rough manner, it is reasonable to assume he had even worse in store for an insecure, 'doleful wight' like Jamieson. In many respects, Leyden appears as an alter ego to Scott, invariably outspoken and often rude in his dealings with others where Scott was by nature more tactful and conciliatory. For all their differences in personality, however, both men were determined to ensure the success of the Minstrelsy.
Ultimately, Jamieson was much more fortunate than he ever imagined. Leyden left Scotland in the spring of 1803, never to return, and Scott became engrossed in his work on Sir Tristrem and The Lay of the Last Minstrel. Thus, the 'Minstrelsy of the East Coast' never materialized. Without question Scott had access to enough texts to produce another major collection, and with sufficient prodding from Leyden he might have done so. The results to Jamieson remain a matter of speculation, but it is likely that a new 'Minstrelsy' would have permanently crushed his spirits. As it was, he overcame his initial disappointment and published his collection in 1806. Scott, in fact, contributed valuable materials to the Popular Ballads and Songs and played an essential role in getting the work through the press. Perhaps he did so to assuage hiis guilt- but then there is no evidence that he ever felt any. If the breach of agreement with Jamieson was immoral, it was also one of the wisest decisions of Scott's career, for it ensured the success of the 'old' Minstrelsy and thereby set the course of his future career in literature.
Footnotes:
1 The Critical Review, xxxix (1803), 250.
2 Anglo-American Folksong Scholarship since 1898, New Brunswick, I959, pp. I56-8.
3 National Library of Scotland, MS 939, f. 28. 398
4 The Letters of Sir Walter Scott, ed. H. J. C. Grierson, London, 1932-7, i. I O I 0 .
5 Edinburgh, i8o6, i, pp. vi-vii.
6 Popular Ballads and Songs, i, pp. v-vi.
7 For detailed information on all three manuscripts, as well as their eventual use by Scott and Jamieson, see William Montgomerie, 'A Bibliography of the Scottish Ballad Manuscripts I730-I825', Studies in Scottish Literature, vii (i969-70), 6o-75, 238-54. 399
8 Letter of 23 December I800; National Library of Scotland, Accession 639, f.279.
9 Letters, xii. 168.
10 Letter of I9 October 1804; National Library of Scotland, MS 3875, f. 20.
11 Letters, I. 99-100.
12 Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, Kelso, 1802, i, p. Ciii.
13 Letters, xii. 158. 400
14 Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, 2nd edn., Edinburgh, 1803, i, p. cxxviii.
15 National Library of Scotland, Accession 3639, f. 279.
16 J. G. Lockhart, Memoirs of the Life of Sir Walter Scott, Bart., Philadelphia, 1838, i. 89. 40I
17 'The Development of Scott's "Minstrelsy" ', Transactions of the Edinburgh Bibliographical Society, ii (1940), 75. 18 Recollections of James Ballantyne, National Library of Scotland, MS 92I, ff. I 67-8.
19 Lockhart, Memoirs, i. 282.
20 Letter of I4 February 1802; National Library of Scotland, MS 939, f. I8. 402