pg 185ESSAY ON THE TEXT
1. the genesis of a legend of the wars of montrose 2. the composition of a legend of the wars of montrose: the Manuscript; Proofs; changes between Manuscript and First Edition 3. the later editions: 'Second' and 'Third' Editions; octavo Novels and Tales; duodecimo Novels and Tales; eighteenmo Novels and Tales; the Interleaved Set and the Magnum 4. the present text: punctuation and capitalisation; verbal emendations [misreadings, wrong insertions and omissions, wrong substitutions, problems with names, miscellaneous].
The following conventions are used in transcriptions from Scott's manuscript and the proofs: deletions are enclosed 〈thus〉, insertions ↑thus↓, and editorial comments [thus]; superscript letters are lowered without comment. The same conventions are used as appropriate for indicating variants between the printed editions.
1. the genesis of a legend of the wars of montrose
A Legend of the Wars of Montrose was penned during the spring of 1819. Sometime after Scott had corrected his proofs it was retitled A Legend of Montrose, and was published along with The Bride of Lammermoor as Tales of my Landlord (Third Series) in June. The subject had been in Scott's mind during the summer of the previous year, as The Heart of Mid-Lothian was expanding to fill the fourth and final volume of the second series of the Tales, for on 15 June 1818 his publisher Archibald Constable wrote to Robert Cadell: 'There is to be only one Tale in the four Volumes—the Author has Montrose & sundry others besides The Regalia quite untouched'.1 The first reference to the third series of Tales of my Landlord occurs in a letter from Scott to Constable dated 3 September 1818: 'The 3d Series is commenced & will go regularly as I am now returned [to Abbotsford] from my tour [to visit the Duke of Buccleuch at Drumlanrig, Dumfriesshire and J. B. S. Morritt at Rokeby, Yorkshire] & propose working hard'.2 The project was clearly developing in his head. Only three days later, Cadell found him hard at work in his Abbotsford study on the first of the two tales, The Bride of Lammermoor, and anticipating publication as early as November.3
Rural distractions first, and then illness, slowed down and interrupted progress on the Bride.4 It is not until 4 April that we have evidence of a gradual improvement. On that day Scott wrote to James Ballantyne:
I am getting better but feel much weakness both of body & mind—a helplessness which is inexpressible, but what could be expected after such an hideous persecution. I will send you the cash tomorrow so soon as I can get stamps
- O Jedediah father dear
- When shall I get to thee
- When shall my sorrows have an end
- My tomes when shall I see.5
On 9 April 1819, however, Scott was able to inform John Ballantyne:
The novel is once more in progress & James will have copy by Mondays coach. I begin to gather strength slowly however & work at intervals. It will be out before Whit[sunda]y [15 May] certainly barring a relapse.6
As ever, Scott was over-optimistic, but work continued briskly for on the 11th, returning the transcript of Sir James Turner's manuscript memoirs (in a letter of the 8th he had taken up an offer of their loan), he wrote to Constable:
I return you with best thanks Turners Heraldry which referring chiefly to French and foreign ceremonies has no great degree of interest. Also four stitchd books of the transcript of his Memoirs which I think extremely curious. The conclusion was not sent to me. I can see it when I come to town.
John Ballantyne is here and returns with copy which my increasing strength permits me to hope I may now furnish regularly.7
If 'the novel' and 'copy' in these two letters do indeed refer to the Bride, as has been generally assumed, then Scott had made reasonable progress during the winter, and he was now tackling the final chapters. Turner's manuscript memoirs were a source for Montrose, however (see Historical Note, 220), and it is clear that by April Scott's thoughts were turning to that novel. On 10 April Constables had regretfully informed Hurst Robinson that the third volume of the series was not as far advanced at press as had been hoped '& we fear [the series] will not be published for two months to come', but on the 17th they asserted more confidently that the series was 'proceeding briskly',8 and on the 20th they wrote to order more foolscap paper (42.5 by 34.5 cm) from Longman and Dickinson of London.9 A letter from Scott to John Ballantyne convincingly dated by Frank McCombie to 15 April suggests that work on the Bride was approaching completion at that date: 'My next parcel finishes the Bride. All goes on capitally & yesterday a threat of my disorder was parried by the hot bath without anodynes which shows the disease grows weaker'.10 Also undated (except for the day of the week, Wednesday) is James Ballantyne's announcement to Cadell that Scott had completed the Bride and started Montrose:
All is right. The Bride is finished. It will run, I think, to about 80 or 90 pages of Vol. 3. So there are pretty nearly 2 vols. left for the next tale, the title of which is—
A Tale of Montrose.
I am getting copy more quickly than I ever got it before. I've no pg 187reason to doubt that the work will be ready for publication by the 1st of June.11
The third series was advertised in the Edinburgh Evening Courant of 6 May for publication 'in the first week of June'. The composition of Montrose and the printing of the volumes advanced during May, though still not without problems. On 9 May Scott wrote to John Ballantyne: 'Our tales get on rapidly but my health has got a shake from the Lisbon news [of the Duke of Buccleuch's death]';12 on the 14th Constables informed Hurst Robinson: 'The 3d Series gets on & hope will be ready here at least by the time announced';13 and on the 22nd they followed up their letter:
You will receive with this Vol 1. 2. 3 of the Tales for your foreign Correspondent which we need not add must not be seen by any one except yourselves—The printing of the 4th volume is well advanced, and we do not anticipate any delay now in its completion.—Indeed we hope to send you the 4th Volume, within ten days from this time We shall then send you duplicate Copy of the whole14
On 29 May the fourth volume was 'well advanced and we have every reason to hope that we shall keep the time fixed for the publication so far as having it at press at any rate';15 typesetting was completed on 3 June, and 5000 copies (of a probable run of 10,000) were shipped to London on the Wellington on 11 June.16 The third series of Tales of my Landlord achieved 'This day published' status in the Edinburgh Evening Courant on Monday 21 June, and in the Literary Gazette on Saturday 26 June which may be regarded as the London publication date. The price was £1.12s. On 13 August Constable regretted that the publication was 'certainly too late in the season', resulting in 'dull' sales.17
Scott's enfeebled state in the spring of 1819 had meant that he had had to resort to dictation. According to Lockhart, John Ballantyne shared duties as amanuensis for the Bride and Montrose with William Laidlaw. Lockhart exaggerates greatly the amount of the Bride which was dictated (the manuscript of that novel survives for all except the final chapters), but it is likely that Scott did indeed dictate much of Montrose. In a celebrated passage, we are given a vivid picture of Laidlaw's activities as coadjutor:
. . . his amanuenses were William Laidlaw and John Ballantyne; of whom he preferred the latter, when he could be at Abbotsford, on account of the superior rapidity of his pen; and also because John kept his pen to the paper without interruption, and though with many an arch twinkle in his eyes, and now and then an audible smack of his lips, had resolution to work on like a well-trained clerk; whereas good Laidlaw entered with such keen zest into the interest of the story as it flowed from the author's lips, that he could not suppress exclamations of surprise and delight—"Gude keep us a?!—the like o' that!—eh sirs! eh sirs!"—and so forth—which did pg 188not promote despatch. I have often, however, in the sequel, heard both these secretaries describe the astonishment with which they were equally affected when Scott began this experiment. The affectionate Laidlaw beseeching him to stop dictating, when his audible suffering filled every pause, "Nay, Willie," he answered, "only see that the doors are fast. I would fain keep all the cry as well as all the wool to ourselves; but as to giving over work, that can only be when I am in woollen." John Ballantyne told me that after the first day he always took care to have a dozen of pens made before he seated himself opposite to the sofa on which Scott lay, and that though he often turned himself on his pillow with a groan of torment, he usually continued the sentence in the same breath. But when dialogue of peculiar animation was in progress, spirit seemed to triumph altogether over matter—he arose from his couch and walked up and down the room, raising and lowering his voice, and as it were acting the parts.18
2. the composition of a legend of the wars of montrose
The Manuscript. The surviving portions of the manuscript of Montrose are in Edinburgh University Library (19 leaves) and the National Library of Scotland (the top half of a twentieth leaf). The EUL leaves are numbered by Scott 15 to 33. That in the NLS is damaged, but it probably bore the number 24.19 The extant manuscript runs from page 83 (without the motto) to 119.26 ('so like to be near my').
Scott followed his usual practice of covering each recto densely; there is no space at the top or at the bottom or at the right, and only the narrowest of margins at the left. The size of his writing varies according to his mood, but on average there are about 700 to 800 words per leaf. Scott used the verso of the previous leaf for corrections and for insertions varying from a single word to substantial passages. The evidence of pens and ink suggests that most of the alterations were made at the time of composition, but that some were introduced after the relevant portion of the main text had been penned, perhaps at the beginning of the following day's task. To preserve the author's anonymity, the manuscripts of all the novels to 1827 were transcribed for the press, and to judge from the folding of the manuscript, copy was sent to the transcriber frequently in small batches, so that the few manuscript revisions in different pens from the main text must have been made shortly after initial composition. Although the main text on the rectos may appear at first sight to be relatively free from corrections (and indeed these leaves of Montrose are written with overall confidence), a close examination shows that a typical folio contains around fifteen corrections or visible hesitations where Scott has begun a word and stumbled, or changed his mind.
With so many minute and sometimes undecipherable alterations it pg 189would be impossible to quantify or classify at all satisfactorily the different types of changes made on the rectos, or to describe them in detail, but many of them clearly anticipate the types of alteration which Scott, and in some cases his intermediaries, made at later stages, particularly clarifications. We find Scott adding helpful material: 'such was their activity and so numerous the impediments which the nature of the road opposed to the equestrian mode of travelling that ↑far from being retarded by the slowness of their pace↓ his difficulty was rather in keeping up with his guides' (88.41–89.2); 'the Highlanders of other septs some of whom he had ↑already↓ stripd of their possessions' (93.9–11); 'These were opend by a grim old highlander with a long white beard ↑and displayd a very steep and narrow flight of steps leading downward↓' (96.43–97.2). At 91.21 Scott substituted 'Dalgetty' for 'He' at the beginning of the paragraph.
Scott's stylistic concern is evident in the elimination of verbal repetition: 'The churchman . . . eyed him with a 〈look〉 ↑glance↓ of mingled dislike and curiosity. But the Captain well accustomd to worse looks . . .' (84.1–3). More worthy of note are a series of amplifications of Dalgetty's speeches, made on the verso but in the pen of the main text at each point: '↑for I would have you to know I have studied polite letters↓' (85.26–27); 'Gustavus Adolphus ↑my never to be forgotten master↓' (115.40–41); 'Bows and arrows! Why the sight has not been seen in civilized war for an hundred years ↑Bows & arrows and why not with weavers-beams as in the days of Goliah↓' (117.28–31). His anxiety to secure the mot juste is evident in the substitution of 'accompanied' for 'attended' at 84.37 and of 'unusual' for 'unaccustomed' at 90.30.
The narrative shows little sign of uncertainty, with only two or three momentary stumbles or second thoughts: '↑we have already noticed that↓ in displaying himself amidst his counsellors . . .' (93.13–14); MacEagh's accomplice 'served six 〈years〉 ↑months↓ in the castle' to facilitate their vengeance (99.37–38); '↑securing at the same time the Marquis's dagger and a silk cord from the hangings↓' Dalgetty again descended into the cavern (108.35–36); the outlaw lad 'crept out as a wild beast might have done from 〈under the 〈shade〉 ↑covering↓ of a quantity of〉 out a thicket of brambles & briars' (114.31–32). One or two narrative details are afterthoughts: 'he lingerd behind ↑at crossing a brook↓' (89.4); and at 110.27–28 'the gallery' becomes 'a latticed gallery', the alteration being in the new pen assumed a few lines below in the main text (all the other changes noted in this paragraph being in the same pen as the corresponding recto passage).
Of considerable interest are a number of occasions on which a deleted close quotation mark indicates that Scott had originally intended a speech to stop earlier than it finally did: at 86.30 Dalgetty's speech was to end with 'Soldados' and his speech at 98.9 was to end with 'ladder'; pg 190MacEagh's great outburst at 103.15 was to end at 'call us wolves'; Dalgetty's dramatic attack on Argyle was not originally to be part of the speech at 106.39, which was to end with 'the Marquis himself'; and his speech to the chaplain at 112.23 was to stop at 'his pains'.
Of the four mottoes at the heads of the chapters whose beginnings are covered by the manuscript, only one (Chapter 4) was composed currente calamo; one (Chapter 6) is added on the opposing verso, perhaps in the same pen as the main text, and the other two (Chapters 3 and 5) do not appear in the manuscript.
Proofs. As explained in the 'General Introduction', the practice was to have the manuscript transcribed (to preserve Scott's anonymity) and to send the transcript to the printers. The holograph portion of the manuscript of Montrose was transcribed for the press by George Huntly Gordon.20 Gordon's transcript passed in batches through the hands of the compositors and other staff of the Ballantyne firm. The compositors would have set the text and at the same time supplied punctuation, standardised spelling, and corrected minor errors, in conformity (theoretically) with a series of standing orders discussed below; the first proofs would have been read against Gordon's copy and the text as written by the amanuensis. A second set of proofs was then prepared.
The extant second proofs of Montrose, corrected by James Ballantyne and Scott, cover roughly half of the novel. Two substantial portions are missing: 22.18 ('side of the strath') to 120.26 ('grasp the end'), and 177.17 ('[uni-]form kind treatment') to 181.26 ('so well in health'). It is clear that the proofs derive, at least in part and possibly in their entirety, from an original manuscript written at Scott's dictation: as evidence one may cite the misreadings of 'recounted' for 'encountered' (7.5), 'paternally' for 'fraternally' (11.16), 'aloof' for 'aloft' (19.10), 'violent' for 'valiant' (146.38), 'feelings' for 'failings' (150.38), and 'Strow' for 'Strachan' (182.37). Of the 600-plus changes made to the text of the proofs, Scott was probably responsible for all but forty or so, though it is often difficult to tell whether punctuational changes were made by Scott or by Ballantyne: the alterations definitely attributable to Ballantyne are mostly routine corrections of small errors along with changes in punctuation mostly of a remedial nature.
Most of Scott's alterations fall into definable categories, headed in quantity by over 200 straightforward corrections of errors in the proof text. Many of these simply involve obvious errors of transcription, failures of eye and ear, along with grammatical and typographical errors and over sixty spelling mistakes. Ten or so of these corrections seem to have been made on historical grounds; for example: 'the Scottish Convent in Wurtzburg' was originally in Ratisbone (20.18); the nucleus of Montrose's army shrinks from 'three or four thousand' Highlanders to 'two or three thousand' (121.20), and the residue of his army before pg 191Inverlochy is marginally increased from 'not . . . above twelve hundred' to 'not . . . above twelve or fourteen hundred' (145.39); and the 'Scottish divines' assembled at Westminster become simply the 'divines' (121.33). One amusing correction, paralleled in The Black Dwarf,21 is made at 171.30–31, where MacEagh 'demanded to speak with his grandson'. Ballantyne commented 'He was called his son in the part sheets, which are worked off; so I fear he must continue to be so'. The problem arose because the intermediaries failed to follow Scott's proof instructions to change 'one child' to 'a grandchild' and 'father' to 'grand-father' (136.15 and 136.27). Scott responded to Ballatyne's comment by changing the passage to end 'with his grandchild whom he usually calld his son', the best he could do at that stage.
More than ninety changes were made to improve the style in very small ways, and these shade into another 35 or so local alterations in the sense. On the borderline between the two categories is the alteration of the description of Dalgetty's narrative to Montrose from 'the babbling account he was giving' to 'his own prolix narrative' (133.18). None of the changes in sense is extensive or crucial for wide-ranging interpretation, though their local significance is sometimes noteworthy: 'whether thrown into disorder by the fire of musketry, or deterred by 〈the〉 ↑a↓ disaffection to the service 〈which〉 ↑said to have↓ prevailed among the gentlemen, they made no impression whatever, 〈but〉 ↑and↓ recoiled in disorder' (124.36–38); 'The clans, perceiving this, rushed to close quarters, and succeeded on two points in throwing their enemies into 〈some〉 disorder. With regular troops this 〈might〉 ↑must↓ have achieved a victory' (152.7–9). Stylistic improvements also shade into twenty or so rhetorical enhancements of speeches: e.g. 'who . . . has followed the wars under the banner of the invincible Gustavus, the Lion of the North, and ↑under↓ many other heroic leaders' (15.20–22, a noteworthy introduction of a rhetorical repetition); 'but of 〈a〉 ↑his↓ line of a hundred sires, I know not one who would have retired while 〈his〉 ↑the↓ banner 〈was yet unfurled〉 ↑of Diarmid waved in the wind↓!' (151.2–3). On over eighty occasions Scott takes the opportunity to clarify his original, mostly in small ways, but occasionally on a more extended basis. Thus the first part of the paragraph at 143.24 is expanded in the following manner:
The sagacity of the generals opposed to Montrose, immediately conjectured, that it was the purpose of 〈this〉 ↑their↓ active antagonist to ↑fight with & if possible to↓ destroy Seaforth, ere they could come to his assistance. ↑This occasiond a corresponding change in their operations↓ 〈Leaving this chieftain to make the best defence he could,〉 Urrie and Baillie again separated their forces from those of Argyle, and having chiefly horse and Lowland troops ↑under their command↓, they kept the southern side of the Grampian ridge . . . .
pg 192There are over sixty eliminations of what struck Scott as ugly repetitions, though a handful of the repetitions might be thought to justify themselves on rhetorical grounds: e.g. 'the voice of M'Ilduy is ever pleasant in the ears of Montrose, and 〈ever〉 most pleasant when it speaks of some brave enterprize at hand' (145.34–36); 'prejudice this person no farther, in respect that he is here in my safe conduct, and in his Excellency's service; and in 〈respect〉 ↑regard↓ that no honourable cavalier is at liberty . . . to avenge his own private injuries' (154.28–32); 'He urged his own known and proved zeal for the royal cause . . . . He 〈urged〉 ↑pleaded↓ the dangerous state of Sir Duncan's wound' (174.36–39). On over twenty occasions Scott substitutes a more precise or effective word for a less suitable one: e.g. 'the anxious period which we have 〈described〉 ↑commemorated↓' (12.37–38); 'a man's head is safer in a steel-cap than in a 〈stone〉 ↑marble↓ palace' (16.1); 'the spoilers were busy 〈dragg〉 ↑tear↓ing the clothes from the victims' (163.8–9); 'I part with him . . . with 〈childish〉 ↑idle↓ reluctance' (183.7–8).
Scott was probably principally responsible for around seventy changes in punctuation, though some of them are likely to have been James Ballantyne's. Most of the changes are not susceptible of categorisation, but Scott has a tendency to introduce dashes in place of, or alongside, commas, semicolons, and full stops.
Among the most interesting of Scott's proof changes are some 35 expansions. Most of these are tiny, though they can be significant: 'It was a madness, of which even James Graham, in his height of ↑presumptuous↓ phrenzy, was incapable' (148.41–42); 'the clash of the swords and axes, as they encountered each other, ↑or rung upon the targets↓' (152.13–14); 'Better ↑so than be 〈chokd〉 smotherd↓ like a cadger's poney' (158.27); 'sufficient varieties have now been exhibited of the Scottish character, ↑to exhaust one individuals powers of observation↓ and that to persist would be useless and tedious' (183.10–12). A dozen of the expansions are on a larger scale, most notably those at 9.42–10.9 (↑"Our conscience . . . remedy."↓) and the last paragraph of the whole work. Other small groups of changes include the insertion of 'said so-and-so' tags and new paragraphs, and the substitution of nouns or proper names for pronouns.
Between corrected second proofs and the first edition a further 300-plus changes were made. Some 180 of these involved changes in punctuation, notably the insertion of over eighty commas and on nearly thirty occasions the changing of commas to semicolons. There were nearly eighty corrections (or simply changes) of spelling and sortings of typographical mistakes and a number of corrections of verbal errors, along with the elimination of several repetitions, some punctuational corrections (tending to the fussy at times), and the introduction of four new paragraph designations.
pg 193Changes between Manuscript and First Edition. The first edition shows some 270 verbal differences from the extant portion of the manuscript. Although some of the categories suggested below are fluid, an attempt to break down the majority of these verbal alterations may be helpful.
1] Over thirty alterations were made for the sake of clarity or precision, often substituting a name (or a noun) for a pronoun, especially after the creation of a new paragraph, or introducing an explanatory phrase. The most substantial clarificatory addition is to be found at 112.16–17, where Scott (no doubt) added at proof stage: '↑his desire to speak of the King of Sweden being for once overpowered by the necessity of his circumstances↓'.
2] Some thirty changes may be classed as generally stylistic, pruning tautologies, substituting more precisely appropriate words for vaguer ones, and generally tightening up sentences. After Dalgetty's quotation of the 'When the cannon are roaring' stanza, Scott originally wrote: 'Half singing half humming the end of this military song', but in proof he changed this to the more vigorous 'Thus silencing his apprehensions with the butt-end of a military ballad' (91.34–35); and an appropriate stylistic level is maintained by the substitution of 'the warlike Duke of Saxe-Weimar' for 'the Duke of Ludermania' (94.24). Among the substitution of mots justes for less effective words the most noteworthy is probably Argyle's 'superior' rather than 'great' power and magnificence (92.12).
3] Another 25 or so changes were made to avoid the repetition of words (or occasionally sounds) in close conjunction. Such changes continue the process begun in the course of composition noted above, but the word substituted is hardly ever an exact synonym: 'Sir Duncan presented his military guest to his lady, who received his 〈military〉 ↑technical↓ salutation with a stiff and silent reverence' (83.40–41); 'He then opened very gently the door, which 〈opend〉 ↑led↓ into a latticed gallery' (110.27–28).
4] Some twenty changes were made to correct obvious errors, most frequently clearly faulty grammar or sentence construction, and quite wrong words where Scott's attention slipped. On another sixteen occasions clear lacunae in the manuscript were plausibly mended.
5] Only a dozen changes fundamentally affected the sense of a passage, and usually with only local effect. Thus, Argyle's eye problem 'perhaps was 〈the〉 ↑one↓ cause' of his having adopted the habit of looking downwards (93.3–4). Scott had problems with the numbers of the Ardenvohr children: 'six' becomes 'four' at 99.26, and 100.31–34 undergoes the following recalculation: 'Sir Duncan of Ardenvohr had 〈five〉 ↑four↓ children. 〈Four〉 ↑Three↓ died under our dirks, but the 〈fifth〉 ↑fourth↓ survives; and more would he give to dandle on his knee the 〈fifth〉 ↑fourth↓ child . . .'.
pg 1946] On some dozen occasions 'said so-and-so', or a similar phrase, is added, occasionally with an indication of how the speech is delivered.
7] Other small categories include minor rhetorical embellishments in speeches, the addition of narrative details, and the stabilisation of proper names.
8] Finally, there are some 130 (verbal) occasions when the manuscript has been misread, or has generated mistakes, or where the standing orders have been imperfectly applied: these are discussed in the section 'The Present Text' below, and listed in the emendations to the base-text.22
3. the later editions
As shown (opposite) in the stemma, or family-tree of editions, the main line of development in the printed text of Tales of my Landlord (Third Series) runs from the first edition, through the 1819 octavo (8vo) Novels and Tales and the 1822 8vo Novels and Tales which was used as the basis for the Interleaved Set emended and annotated by Scott in 1829, then to a copy of the 1819 8vo Novels and Tales into which Robert Cadell transcribed Scott's emendations and in which he no doubt inserted many of his own, and finally to the Magnum Opus edition in which the two novels appeared (as Volumes 13–15) in June, July, and August 1830. The somewhat complex alternative line of transmission involving the 1823 18mo and the 1821 12mo leads to a dead end in the 1825 12mo.
The 'Second' and 'Third' Editions. A second edition was advertised in the Edinburgh Evening Courant for 11 November 1819, and a third edition followed, but both of these were simply the first edition sheets with new title pages.23
The Octavo Novels and Tales (1819, 1822). A Legend of Montrose occupies the final part of the twelfth and last volume of the handsome 1819 octavo Novels and Tales. Either 1500 or 2000 copies of the set were ordered from Ballantyne in Spring 1819.24 It was announced in the Edinburgh Evening Courant on 9 December 1819, priced £7 4s. (£7.20). There are some 500 variants in all between the first edition and the 1819 octavo text, some 85 of them being verbal and the rest non-verbal. The non-verbal changes are mostly of minor importance: some 110 commas added and thirty deleted; a slight increase in the use of semicolons and an extra fifty initial capital letters; another sixty or so varied changes in punctuation; nearly fifty additions or deletions of hyphens; and some eighty spelling changes. These non-verbal changes have a minimal effect on the sense.
Most of the verbal changes in the 1819 octavo are of a sort which could have been made by intermediaries. There are straightforward corrections: e.g. Kenneth becomes Ranald's 'grandchild' rather than his 'child' (136.15) and Ranald his 'parent' rather than his 'father' (136.27). Several changes are made for grammatical correctness, sometimes rather fussily. Repeated words are replaced. A few clear errors creep in. But several of the changes in the sense, along with some made in the interests of rhetorical and general stylistic enhancement, suggest the possibility of authorial intervention, and any or all of the more routine changes may have also come from Scott's pen. Rhetorical embellishments include the changing of Menteith's 'the ghostly father' to 'this same ghostly father' (20.20), Sir Duncan Campbell's 'Can this, . . . a creature so beautiful and ↑so↓ elegant' (73.42–43), and Dalgetty's 'I entreat you, ↑mine honest↓ Ranald' (115.38). General stylistic enhancements include Dalgetty's 'blowing and shaking 〈his hand〉 ↑the injured member↓' (62.16), and his observation that cannon, like sea-gulls, 'astonished more by their noise than they dismayed by the ↑skaith or↓ damage which they occasioned' (80.7–8).
A copy of the 1819 octavo Novels and Tales was apparently provided with manuscript corrections, probably by James Ballantyne, though Scott may have had a hand in them. This marked-up copy formed the basis of the 1821 duodecimo and the 1822 octavo Novels and Tales.
The existence of such a marked-up copy of the 1819 octavo text is suggested by a total of over 200 variants common to the 1821 12mo and 1822 octavo texts, and in particular by over twenty verbal variants. The pg 196clinching evidence is to be found in the substitution of 'toils' (1821) and 'trials' (1822) for the 1819 octavo's 'hardships' (60.40), to avoid the repetition immediately after: the hand-written substitution of either 'toils' or 'trials' has been misread by the 1821 or the 1822 compositor. The other verbal changes probably deriving from the marked-up 1819 octavo copy include further eliminations of repetitions and grammatical corrections, as well as factual, or would-be factual corrections ('seventeenth' for 'sixteenth' in the first sentence of the narrative, and 'westward' for 'eastward' at 147.32). Some of the non-verbal changes (of the usual sorts, particularly the addition of commas and spelling changes) may well have been arrived at by 1821 and 1822 independently, but it is likely that most of them were made in the marked-up 1819 octavo text.
The 1822 octavo was shipped to London in January 1822,25 and publication was announced in the Edinburgh Evening Courant on 2 February. Montrose follows the marked-up 1819 text very closely. Apart from the consistent changing of Argyle to the modern standard Argyll, there are only some 150 variants, a mere dozen of them verbal and those of little importance, and without any clear pattern emerging from the scattered changes in spelling and punctuation.
The Duodecimo Novels and Tales (1821). A Legend of Montrose occupies the last part of Volume 15 and all of the final volume of the 16-volume sets of Novels and Tales published in 1821 and 1825. The 1821 set was printed in a run of 1500 early in 182126 and announced in the Edinburgh Evening Courant on 31 March at £6 in boards. The 1821 12mo text of Montrose shows over 550 variants compared with the putative marked-up 1819 octavo. Less than twenty of these are verbal, and those tend to be routine corrections, errors, or very minor embellishments which do not amount to convincing evidence of authorial involvement: at 55.13–14 'who had the highest opinion each of the superiority of his own tribe' becomes 'who had each the highest opinion of the superiority of his own tribe'; and at 117.31 'That Dugald' becomes 'Ah! that Dugald'. The compositor punctuates the text heavily, introducing some 120 commas and deleting thirty, changing some thirty other commas to semicolons, increasing the weight of other punctuational marks by adding dashes, and introducing over 25 new paragraph designations. A large proportion of the 115 or so lower casings of initial capitals is accounted for by the frequently occuring 'captain' and 'major'.
The 18mo Novels and Tales (1823). A Legend of Montrose occupies most of the final volume of the 12-volume 18mo Novels and Tales. Hurst, Robinson & Co. contracted for 5000 copies in August 1821, with Constable forecasting a new market for Scott's fiction. Unusual care went into the production of the set, for which Ballantyne was instructed pg 197to use a new type. Work on preparing the edition had begun by April 1822; printing was completed and 'a considerable portion' shipped in mid-August 1823, and a last consignment went off to London by 5 September.27 It was advertised at £4 4s. (£4.20) in the Edinburgh Evening Courant on 20 September. The 18mo was mostly set from an uncorrected copy of the 1819 8vo. Compared with this, there are nearly fifty verbal changes, and nearly 700 non-verbal changes in Montrose. The verbal changes appear to have been made for a variety of reasons including grammatical propriety, easier readings, increased clarity, and the correction of typographical and other errors, including the correction of 'resumed' to 'assumed' at 11.22. A number of the verbal changes introduce fresh errors. The non-verbal changes involve most notably the insertion of some 250 commas (as against some 35 deleted), and some 200 changes in spelling. The collation record shows, however, that of these changes some 200 (eight of them verbal) are also to be found in the 1822 octavo. It is possible that these were made spontaneously, most of the verbal changes being what would have occurred to intermediaries as corrections, but it is more probable that a compositor sometimes used a copy of the 1822 Novels and Tales: the end of the third volume and the opening of the fourth volume are the most likely areas for this to have happened. It is possible that Scott was involved in the changes for the 18mo edition,28 but there are no unmistakable signs of his handiwork.
The Duodecimo Novels and Tales (1825). The 1825 12mo was published in Spring 1825.29 Either it was set from a copy of the 1821 12mo which had been (imperfectly) marked up against the 18mo, or it was set from an unmarked copy of the 1821 12mo and then imperfectly corrected by collation against the 18mo. Judging from the readings common to the 1825 12mo and the 18mo texts of Montrose, against the 1821 12mo, up to thirteen verbal changes were transcribed into the marked-up copy, or adopted as the result of collation, mostly in the interests of increased logic, clarity, easiness, or grammatical correctness. There are also some 175 non-verbal readings (half of them spelling changes) common to the 1825 12mo and the 18mo against the 1821 12mo, but it is impossible to say how many (if any) of these were transcribed into the marked-up copy, or derived from collation, and how many were made again spontaneously by the compositor or by the press corrector of the 1825 12mo. Between the marked-up or collated 1821 12mo and the 1825 12mo there were more than twenty verbal changes, and over 230 non-verbal changes. The reasons for the verbal changes are not always clear (some are probably mistakes), but they would appear to include the elimination of repetition, stylistic or grammatical improvement, and clear corrections ('captain' to 'Major' at 136.14, and 'Giles' to 'Miles' at 139.22). pg 198The non-verbal alterations principally involve the addition and deletion of commas (in rough balance) and changes in spelling.
The Interleaved Set and the Magnum. Of the changes after the first edition noted in the preceding paragraphs only some of those in the 1819 8vo have Scott's unmistakable imprint on them. He may have been involved at any stage, but if he was one would expect to find at least some creative revisions. The Interleaved Set is quite a different matter. The full story of the making of the Magnum Opus is told in Jane Millgate's Scott's Last Edition (Edinburgh, 1987), and the Interleaved Set of the Waverley Novels in which Scott wrote all his notes and textual revisions for the final edition to be published in his lifetime is described in Scott's Interleaved Waverley Novels, ed. Iain G. Brown (Aberdeen, 1987). A copy of the 1822 Novels and Tales was interleaved for Scott's use. In an undated letter to Cadell, of late December 1828, Scott indicates that he is sending 'all the remaining volumes of the Waverley Novels till the Legend of Montrose inclusive', so that Cadell can 'make your calculations clean and clear with all the volumes before you. Notes might be added if desired to make up any inequality of the volumes'.30 Cadell must have returned these volumes for annotation, and on 4 November 1829 Scott returned 'the copy of the bride of Lammermoor' and stated that 'The tales are almost finishd and will not stop'.31 Cadell began revising the Bride on 13 November and probably completed his work on 7 December, commencing Montrose the next day and finishing it on 29 December.32 In January and February Scott was still adding fresh information as a postscript to the new Introduction to Montrose,33 and the volumes of the Magnum containing the Bride (part of 13 and the whole of 14) and Montrose (15) were published in June, July, and August 1830.34 The textual history is complicated at this final stage by Cadell's use of an 1819 rather than an 1822 set of Novels and Tales to receive his transcription of Scott's emendations to the 1822 text and probably further emendations of his own. The variants noted above as characteristic of the octavo edition mostly persist from the Interleaved Set into the Magnum. Apart from an entirely new introduction and new notes (both footnotes and notes designed to appear at the end of chapters), Scott made over 160 alterations, mostly verbal, in the text of Montrose. (The Magnum introduction and notes will appear in the final two volumes of the present edition.) Between the Interleaved Set and the Magnum over 850 other alterations were made, some 150 of them verbal.
Of Scott's alterations in the Interleaved Set35 nearly half appear to have been made in the interests of greater clarity, accuracy, or logic: Sir Christopher Hall locates the abortive uprising more precisely in 'the north ↑of England↓' (35.30); the 'warden' becomes the 'Forester uncle to Allan' (43.5); Allan warns Menteith: 'I repeat to you, that this pg 199weapon ↑—that is such a weapon as this—↓ . . . carries your fate' (54.8–9); Montrose says to Sir Duncan Campbell: '↑Not↓ I have 〈not〉 troubled Israel, but thou and thy father's house' (63.35–36: not adopted in Magnum); Sir Duncan advises Dalgetty: 'The swamps and morasses ↑around my house↓ would scarce carry your horse and yourself', and in his reply the Captain says: 'where there is a sea-coast there is ↑always↓ a naked side' (80.31–36); Montrose says to Dalgetty: 'Let Ranald MacEagh . . . select one or two of his followers, men whom he can trust, and who are capable of keeping their own secret ↑and ours↓; these ↑with their Cheif for Scout Master General↓ shall serve for our guides' (136.8–10). The clarification includes several substitutions of nouns for pronouns. In addition Scott provided half-a-dozen 'said so-and-so's, eliminated a handful of repetitions and grammatical errors, and introduced over twenty stylistic and rhetorical enhancements. These last deserve some attention. They include the elimination of tautology: 'Thus having at their 〈own〉 command the whole west and south of Scotland . . .' (9.5–6); '〈In the morning, he〉 ↑He↓ was summoned by Lorimer at break of day' (88.20). Dalgetty's 'noble Scotch blades' become 'Scottish' (17.30–31). The narrative movement is enhanced simply but effectively by the addition of two words in the sentence, 'But it was the fate of this great commander always to gain the glory, but seldom ↑to reap↓ the fruits of victory' (126.23–24). A typical example of a slight strengthening of the syntax is provided by the following: 'scarce were they again united, ere Argyll and his associate generals were informed, that the royalists 〈had〉 ↑having↓ suddenly disappeared from Argyllshire, 〈and〉 ↑had↓ retreated northwards' (143.19–22). Among the most significant rhetorical enhancements are these two speeches by Allan and Dalgetty respectively: 'the hostile shot fell amongst them, ↑—they dropd like the dry leaves in autumn—↓ but you were not among their ranks' (53.25–26); 'I hope to 〈pull〉 ↑twitch↓ another handful from his beard myself' (135.22–23). Scott makes hardly any alterations in this novel to the actual sense of passages, but one of these is unfavourable to Argyle, who exercised 'that ↑severe and general↓ domination . . . over his Highland neighbours' and was consequently unpopular 'though possessed of 〈very〉 considerable abilities, and 〈very〉 great power' (55.31–34). This is matched by the ravages committed by Montrose on Argyllshire, which 'have been repeatedly ↑and justly↓ quoted as a blot on his actions and character' (142.34). A small but effective addition combined with a relocation adds vividness at 57.36–41:
He had only farther to add, that considerable funds, both of money and ammunition, had been provided for the army—(Here Dalgetty 〈drew himself up, and looked round〉 ↑prickd up his ears↓)—that officers of ability and experience in the foreign wars, one of whom was now present ↑(the Captain drew himself up and lookd pg 200round)↓, had engaged to train such levies as might require to be disciplined . . . .
Dalgetty's tendency to expand is exemplified in an addition at 135.3: 'for ↑Argyle's bread and water are yet stale and mouldy in my recollection, and though they did their best yet↓ the viands . . .'; and a more striking expansion involves the insertion of a whole new paragraph at 88.15/16, which acts as a peg on which to hang an end-of-chapter note:
↑It is very well thought the Ritt Master to him self He annuls my parole by putting guards upon me for as we use[d] to say at Mareschal fides et fiducia sunt relativa and if he does not trust my word I do not see how I am bound to keep [it] if any motive should occurr for my desiring to depart from it. Surely the moral obligation of the parole is relaxed in as far a[s] physical force is substituted in stead thereof."↓
Thus 〈disappointed by〉 ↑comforting himself in the metaphysical immunities which he deduced from↓ the vigilance of his centinel . . . .
An unusual feature of Scott's Interleaved Set alterations for Montrose is the presence of some twenty clear corrections, probably reflecting the unusually fraught circumstances of the novel's composition and printing. Thus, for example, 'Fliegendien Merceur' becomes 'Fliegenden Mercoeur' (16.18); 'ganz fortre flich' becomes 'ganz fortreflich' (112.2); 'Alpin' becomes 'Appin' (127.21); Montrose's castle of 'Murdoch' is corrected to 'Mugdoch', though Magnum does not pick this up, and the correction may be in Cadell's pen (133.14); the Gaelic 'spreittach' is (imperfectly) corrected to 's'breittach' (144.25), and 'Erorcht' to 'Eracht' (172.17), and the poet Alexander MacDonald is rightly named 'Andrew' (165.8). Perhaps most importantly a piece of nonsense at 124.27–29 is corrected. One of the clergy at Tippermuir 'hesitated not to say, that ↑if↓ eve〈n〉↑r↓ God spoke by his month〈; and〉 he promised them, in His name, that day, a great and assured victory'.
No proof sheets of the Magnum version of Montrose are known to have survived, but there are some 150 verbal variants in the Magnum as against the Interleaved Set. These alterations were probably made in the proofs. It is not known to what extent, if at all, Scott was involved in the processing and proof-reading of the Magnum, but it is almost certain that Robert Cadell did much tidying. Some forty alterations seem designed to add to the clarity, accuracy, or logic of the octavo text, including changes of the potentially confusing 'Low Country' to 'lowland'. There are nearly thirty stylistic improvements. Small groups of alterations have the following purposes: correction of grammatical solecisms, of the usual sorts; elimination of repetitions; making clear corrections; deleting Scots expressions from Dalgetty's speeches; and changing the forms of words (e.g. 'folks' to 'folk', and 'upon' to 'on'). None of these changes fundamentally affect the sense: the two that pg 201come closest to doing so are the substitution of 'dogging' for 'dodging' at 139.13 and 'lightly' for 'slightly' at 155.28.
Some 720 non-verbal variants were introduced in the Magnum. Nearly 300 of these were preferred spellings, notably 'choose', 'enquire', 'Gandercleugh', 'sentinel', 'sergeant', and 'show', the printing of words such as 'meantime' as single units, and the introduction of '-ise' endings. From signature P to the end of the Magnum the compositor uses the spelling 'Argyle' rather than 'Argyll'. Some 35 commas were deleted, but more than 100 were added, making the Magnum the most heavily punctuated edition of this novel, moving strongly in the direction of a more grammatical style of punctuation. Some 35 hard hyphens were added (notably in 'Mareschal-College'), and around sixty removed. Over twenty exclamation marks were introduced, mostly in place of full stops or commas. There was the usual bewildering variety of alterations involving punctuational combinations including dashes.
There is an evident line of transmission from the manuscript, through proof and first edition to the 1819 and 1822 Novels and Tales, then to the Interleaved Set, the Magnum proofs and the Magnum itself, the end-product of a decidedly haphazard collaborative process.
4. the present text
It seems likely that less than two months elapsed between Scott's beginning to pen A Legend of the Wars of Montrose and its publication as part of Tales of my Landlord (Third Series). Transcriber or transcribers, compositors and other printing house staff, as well as author and amanuenses, were working under considerable pressure. It was inevitable that many mistakes should occur, and since Scott was also working under pressure correcting proofs as well as continuing to write the novel (not to mention his numerous other activities) it was inevitable also that many of those mistakes should go uncorrected, or be corrected imperfectly. The aim of the present editorial process is to produce a text as close as possible to what Scott and his intermediaries would have achieved had they been able to devote the requisite time to the task.
Punctuation and Capitalisation. The most pervasive contribution of the intermediaries was the translation of Scott's manuscript punctuation, sentence structure, and orthography into an acceptable printed system. This was mainly the job of the compositors and proof-readers, and in the case of Montrose they executed their task with considerable skill. What they achieved in narrative is almost entirely acceptable, and it is only in direct speech that their punctuation at times distorts the rhetorical shaping suggested by Scott himself. In the main, the present edition accepts their work, which involved a host of tiny changes to Scott's holograph manuscript, and no doubt also to that of his amanuensis, most notably the insertion of punctuation marks. It gives a text which pg 202is very much of its time in its mixture of grammatical and rhetorical elements. It is more fluid and less rigid than the Magnum or, still more, the Victorian editions deriving from the Magnum, and thus may be held to be ultimately truer to Scott's minimally punctuated manuscript than the texts which have been generally read over the last century and a half. Readers of the present edition should follow contemporaneous practice and treat the punctuation as indicative rather than prescriptive.
Notwithstanding the Edinburgh Edition's policy of accepting first-edition punctuation in general, every punctuational sign and sentence division in the first-edition text has been examined to ascertain that it does not distort or unnecessarily restrict Scott's apparent intention as evidenced in the particulars of the manuscript. As a result over fifty changes have been made in that portion of the base-text which derives from the holograph. Although the intermediaries clearly had authority to lower or raise initial capital letters, on a handful of occasions one of Scott's numerous manuscript initial capital letters lowered in the first edition has been restored in the present text where it is clear that something has been lost: thus, Scott has his characters refer to 'the Invincible Gustavus Adolphus' (94.22–23) and to the English 'Malignants' (94.18; compare 105.37), and Professor Snufflegreek said firmly 'Speak that I may know thee' (102.4).
More importantly, the first edition sometimes altered sentence divisions or otherwise failed to follow clear manuscript punctuational directions. Its heavy 'Denmark.—And', for example, is over-zealous, and the present text introduces the minimum punctuation of a dash, which is entirely compatible with the first edition's acceptable handling of the rest of this speech (98.26). More elaborately, one may contrast the first edition's 'All crowded with soldiers, factionaries, and attendants?—that will never do for me, my lord;—have you no secret passage to the gate, as you have to your dungeons? I have seen such in Germany' with the rather different movement of the manuscript version (which forms the basis for the present text): 'All crouded with soldiers factionaries and attendants—that will never do for me my lord—have you no secret passage to the gate as you have to your dungeons?—I have seen such in Germany' (107.33–35).36
Verbal Emendations. It is clear that the intermediaries were expected to make many changes in addition to supplying punctuation. They were instructed to operate a set of standing orders involving the following procedures: changing words repeated in close proximity to each other; elimination of Scotticisms in narrative and in the speech of characters who are not Scots speakers, and the introduction of additional Scots forms in the speech of Scots speakers; correction of clear grammatical errors; substitution of nouns or proper names for pronouns (particularly at the beginning of paragraphs); insertion of speech indicators; and pg 203addition of appropriate (usually single) words to fill obvious lacunae left by Scott in his haste. When correcting proofs Scott continued these procedures as well as introducing substantial changes to the sense and some additional passages (he rarely deleted material), stylistic improvements, clarifications of narrative business, and additional 'said so-and-so's for unallocated speeches.
Author's proofs, when they survive, provide an invaluable basis for determining what the intermediaries did between receiving the parcels of manuscript and sending Scott the proofs incorporating in-house corrections, though in the case of A Legend of the Wars of Montrose the proofs do not overlap with the manuscript. The Montrose proofs enable one to see what Scott himself, and James Ballantyne, changed in those second proofs. For some novels occasional revises submitted to Scott survive, and these make it possible to follow his further corrections and revisions with some certainty. No revises survive for Montrose: in its case there is no evidence to suggest that Scott was involved after second proof stage.
In general the Edinburgh Edition accepts changes to the manuscript resulting from the application of standing orders, though in the not infrequent cases where the rules have been applied mechanically or pedantically, or where their use has created unforeseen problems (such as generating new repetitions), the manuscript reading is restored. Changes made by intermediaries which are not in accordance with the presumed standing orders are normally rejected. Scott's own changes in proof are of course accepted except where his intervention resulted in problems that he did not notice.
In the case of Montrose almost all of Scott's known proof changes have been accepted, including a number which were missed or ignored by the intermediaries (see Emendation List for 12.17, 15.39, 16.18 etc.). In particular, it has been possible to follow consistently his second thoughts about Kenneth MacEagh's relationship to his grandfather Ranald (see above, 191). On a handful of occasions where his changes are clearly in error the original text of the proof, or a later correction by intermediaries, has been accepted: thus at 152.29 he changes 'they sustained' to an impossible 'their sustained'. The 300-plus changes made by intermediaries almost certainly after Scott's involvement with the proofs was over have generally been accepted as being in accordance with the presumed standing orders. A number of such changes have however been rejected, where the original proof, or a change by Scott, is not evidently improved (in terms of Scott's known preferences) by the intermediaries' intervention (see Emendation List for e.g. 3.12, 7.21, 136.14, 141.40, 151.2, 151.25, 156.37, 158.42, 163.4, and 167.15).
The title A Legend of the Wars of Montrose is a restoration of Scott's original intention, which appears in the first batch of surviving proofs. On the half-title page James Ballantyne writes: 'We are all very zealous pg 204in preferring A Legend of Montrose or A Tale of Montrose. Mr. C. [Constable] says, the present title reminds him of the Wars of the Jews'. Scott replies: 'The only objection I have is that it [is] not a Tale of Montrose but of his wars perhaps this is not insurmountable'. The echo of Josephus's The Wars of the Jews is unlikely to trouble modern readers, and it is now possible to restore Scott's clearly preferred form.37
It is possible by examining the differences between manuscript and first edition in the relevant portion of the fourth volume to judge with a reasonable degree of assurance and confidence which changes are likely to have been made by Scott himself, or by intermediaries acting in accordance with standing orders, and which have been introduced without authority or simply as the result of error.
In addition to over fifty emendations to punctuation and capitalisation discussed above, and the verbal and punctuational changes (some seventy in number) derived from examination of the proofs, another 130 or so verbal emendations to the first-edition base-text have been made. Inevitably, some of these emendations will inadvertently restore manuscript readings changed by Scott in the lost proofs for this part of the novel; but the number will be small, they will tend to be undistinguished or even misguided, and the reader may be confident that the present text is much closer to Scott's ideal in 1819 than any hitherto achieved. The verbal emendations from the manuscript may be divided for convenience into five classes.
1] Misreadings. The most obvious reason for emendation is that the transcriber has (on over forty occasions) misread a word in the manuscript. The transcriber of Montrose not only confused certain small words which are difficult to distinguish from each other in Scott's hand (e.g. 'in'/'on', 'these'/'those', 'the'/'this', 'on'/'upon') but frequently tended to be approximate in his reading of small words in general. Usually little hangs on such variations in this particular manuscript, but twenty emendations have been made. More importantly, on another twenty occasions words of greater significance have been misread: Argyle looks 'slightly', not 'slightingly' at Dalgetty's paper (94.29); Dalgetty talks of the 'fluff', not the 'flap', of a white flag (95.3); he trusts that the assembled company will 'advert', not 'admit', that he has a gentleman's guarantee (95.27); and his escape requires more agility than he can 'muster', not 'master' (115.6). On a dozen occasions the transcriber confuses plurals and singulars, again sometimes with unfortunate consequences, as when the legal force of Dalgetty's paper is lost by its becoming 'these my full powers' rather than 'this my full power' (94.27).
2] Wrong insertions and omissions. Since Scott often inadvertently omitted single words and it was one of the functions of the intermediaries to fill the gaps, it is hardly surprising that they sometimes imagined gaps where none existed and unnecessarily inserted single words on pg 205fourteen occasions. Sometimes, it was a matter of failing to recognise an idiom: 'if anything but good happens ↑to↓ me' (91.25–26); 'a pretty camisade, I doubt ↑not↓' (99.43); 'put what face you will on ↑it↓' (101.37). Some insertions are fussily pedantic: 'If Sir Duncan be so ↑soon↓ expected' (96.13); 'the unlucky Captain, after having ↑had↓ his ↑offensive↓ weapons taken from him' (96.40–41); 'by communicating ↑to me↓ some [secrets] of yours' (101.40). An insertion can alter the sense or impair the style in a way unlikely to have been sanctioned by the author: 'I presume . . . that ↑the↓ three pretty fellows whom I saw yonder . . . claimed some interest in you?' (100.41–43).
Single words or short phrases were also omitted with damaging effect on a dozen occasions: 'a task which became 〈much more〉 difficult and even dangerous' (97.4–5); 'I have 〈a〉 faint remembrance' (100.9); 'and then seek out a mode of retreat 〈at leisure〉' (107.11).
3] Wrong substitutions. Also on a dozen occasions the intermediaries replaced a manuscript word or phrase with one more commonplace, less distinctively idiomatic, or just pointlessly different: '"To ride with this person to-morrow!" 〈interrupted〉 ↑replied↓ his lady' (85.38); '"Yet, surely, not that you should accompany him in person," 〈answerd〉 ↑enquired↓ the lady' (86.1–2); 'I am no 〈runagate〉 ↑renegade↓' (94.21); 'to 〈ex〉change the manner' (100.25); 'to 〈recognosce〉 ↑reconnoitre↓ the pass' (118.39). On nearly twenty occasions Scott's preferred form of a word is restored in the present text, e.g. 'Prithee' for 'Pri'thee' (98.12), 'fortreflick' for 'fortre flich' (112.2), and 'hollowed' for 'hallooed' (118.11).
4] Problems with names. Scott often has problems with naming his characters consistently. The first edition clears up some confusions. Ra/onald is standardised as Ranald (the manuscript form on all but three occasions); and Derlinvarach, Drumlinvarach, Drumlanverach, Darlinvarach, and Darnlinvarach are standardised as Darnlinvarach, except for the two inadvertent preservations of the manuscript Darlinvarach (166.42, 177.6). Dalgetty's new horse is called Loyalty's Reward on its first two occurrences in proof, Loyalty Rewarded on its three remaining appearances: Scott's second thoughts are preferred to the first edition's choice. The spellings Gandercleugh and Jedidiah are adopted in line with the decision made by the EEWN for the first series of Tales of My Landlord. The single occurrences of Glenorquhy and Glenurchy are allowed to stand (the usual modern form is Glenorchy). Since Scott almost always writes 'Mac' rather than 'Mc' or 'M'', the full spelling has been adopted in the present text. Subject to this proviso, the first edition's permutations of Alaster MacDonald's (or MacDonnell's) name, which has been subject to many variations and where Scott's preference is unknown, have been allowed to stand. On the other hand, Scott's clear preference for MacAulay over M'Auley has been respected. His sporadic attempts (which did not reach the Magnum) in pg 206the Interleaved Set to change M'Callum More to M'Callan More have been carried through in the present text: the resulting MacCallan More may be regarded as a gesture towards the preferred modern form Mac Cailein Mór.
5] Miscellaneous. Fifteen or so more miscellaneous emendations include the restoration from the manuscript of repeated words. The elimination of repetition was one of the standing orders, but occasionally this was done mechanically, so that effective rhetorical repetition disappeared. Thus the first edition sacrificed Dalgetty's characteristic sardonic repetition at 97.28–31, as well as making another couple of deleterious alterations:
"And what is he now, then," said Dalgetty, "that he thinks it fitting to lie 〈along〉 ↑upon↓ the lowest step of the stairs ↑, and↓ clew'd up like a hurchin, that honourable cavaliers, who chance to be in trouble, may 〈chance to〉 break their noses over him?"
In addition to the manuscript-derived emendations, a small number of editorial emendations have been introduced, especially to correct factual errors in the first-edition text. Where an error of fact is not part of the fiction and can be corrected in a straightforward manner, that correction is made in the present text. Thus, 'sixteenth' becomes 'seventeenth' in the opening sentence of the story (7.35) and in the footnote at 30.38; at 125.1 the relevant Covenanting flank is 'left' only if viewed from the royalist side, and so it is emended to 'right'; at 144.37 and 149.14 the dual date should be '1644–5' rather than '1645–6'; at 147.31 Montrose moves 'westward' rather than 'eastward'; and at 136.15, 136.27, and 171.31 simple emendations ensure that Kenneth is Ranald's grandson, not his son. There are a good many errors of fact in Dalgetty's speeches. Some of these will certainly be Scott's mistakes, but the present edition emends only when an error is known to be typical of Scott, so that Ferdinand of Bohemia becomes Frederick (98.25). On the other hand no attempt is made to sort out the multiple confusions surrounding Dunklespiel (18.7–9).
All manuscripts referred to are in the National Library of Scotland unless otherwise stated. For the shortened forms of reference employed see 227–28.
1 ms 319, f. 141v. For a time Scott envisaged that one of the 'Tales of my Landlord' should be based on the adventures of the Scottish crown jewels during the Civil War period (Letters, 5.55–56).
2 Letters, 5.181–82. Edgar Johnson has a good account of John Ballantyne's teasing of Constable with the prospect that the new work might be given to Blackwood or Murray before granting him fair terms: Sir Walter Scott: The Great Unknown (London, 1970), 625–26.
3 ms 322, f. 379r–v.
5 ms 21059, f. 116r.
6 ms 21059, f. 112r.
7 Letters, 5.343; compare 5.341.
8 ms 790, pp. 450, 460.
9 'We find the quantity of foolscap paper wanted for the Work now in progress will be about 540 reams altogether—we have already recd. 140—please forward as much more without any delay—and in a month after a similar quantity—we shall let you know further as to the final supply—we want the demy very much' (ms 790, p. 462).
10 Letters, 5.392.
11 ms 23230, f. 63r.
12 Letters, 5.379: date from Corson's Index. An undated note from Scott to James Ballantyne must be from around this time (ms 21059, f. 110r): 'Montrose does appear but scarce enough to name the work. However do as you please'. Scott was deeply devoted to Charles, fourth Duke of Buccleuch, as his own friend and patron, and as head of the Scott clan.
13 ms 790, p. 491.
14 ms 790, pp. 496–97. The foreign correspondent has not been identified, but he was apparently connected with the American publishing trade: compare ms 790, p. 377. The advance copy would facilitate the timeous printing of an edition for the fiercely competitive American market.
15 ms 790, p. 508.
16 ms 790, pp. 517, 527.10,000 copies had been printed of the first edition of the second series (ms 790, p. 119), and a sale of 5000 of the third series to the London trade was anticipated (ms 322, f. 449r). The next novel, Ivanhoe, was also to have a run of 10,000 (ms 742, f. 191r).
17 ms 790, p. 608.
18 Lockhart, 4.257–58. Scott confirms his having dictated part of Montrose to Laidlaw in a letter to Constable of 30 September 1821: Letters, 7.16.
19 EUL La.III.498, ff. 12–30. The watermarks are, for the first three leaves, the top of a crown device (compare Heawood 2755), for the next eleven the top of a countermark 'WATERFIELD' and for the last four the bottom of the countermark '1817'. The leaves are on average 26.5 cm high and 20.5 cm broad, with chain lines 2.5 cm apart. The fragmentary leaf in NLS ms 587, f. 197r has no visible watermark. The paper is from the same batch as that used for much of The Bride of Lammermoor.
20 Herbert Grierson, Sir Walter Scott, Bart.: A New Life, Supplementary to, and Corrective of, Lockhart's Biography (London, 1938), 174. One need not accept Gordon's blanket denial that Montrose was dictated.
22 No textual variations, apart from dropped characters, have been discovered within the first edition of the third series of Tales.
23 The title-pages are referred to in a letter from Constables to Hurst Robinson of 13 August 1819, though the exact import is unclear: 'We think your Warehouseman must have committed a mistake as to the titles of the Tales 3d Series.—Of the last thousand there were 800 with Second Edition—and 200 with third' (ms 790, p. 608).
24 Letters, 5.367. The size of the impression is given as 1500 in ms 319, ff. pg 208300r, 302r; but 2000 is cited in a later memorandum dated 26 February 1822 (ms 23232, f. 60r). For full details of the circumstances surrounding the publication of the 1819 8vo see the EEWN editions of The Antiquary and The Black Dwarf (3.373–75; 4a.151–52).
25 ms 326, f. 111r. The first two volumes of the 1822 8vo are dated 1821 in some copies.
26 ms 23232, f. 60r: compare ms 319, 300r, 302r.
27 ms 326, f. 42r: ms 323, ff. 238r, 245v; ms 792, p. 138; ms 320, f.160.
29 ms 323, f. 524r.
30 Letters, 11.80.
31 Letters, 11.258.
32 ms 21019, ff. 48r–54v.
33 Letters, 11.288–89, 301
34 Jane Millgate, Scott's Last Edition: A Study in Publishing History (Edinburgh, 1987), 23.
35 Interleaved Set additions are given in their original (ms 23012) rather than final Magnum form.
36 In narrative the first-edition punctuation is normally entirely satisfactory: it is only in speech that some of its changes can become distortions. On a handful of occasions EEWN has preferred to leave a slight distortion in the base-text rather than risk disrupting a carefully constructed first-edition hierarchy.
37 See also the undated note to James Ballantyne quoted in note 12 above. A translation by Sir Roger L'Estrange of De Bello Judaico (ad 75–79) by Flavius Josephus was first published in 1702 as part of a collected edition. In the following year it appeared separately with the title The Wars of the Jews.