[Notes on the Black Book Contents]
Without pretending to give anything like a collation of the MSS., it may be interesting to compare, in a general way, the text of the Black Book with that printed by Goodall.
PREFACIUNCULA OPERIS. – The Black Book and the Schevez MS. correspond with the Edinburgh MS., and read “condonentur” as the last word.
I. C. 2. The passage in English in Goodall at the end of the chapter, “Oriens,” &c., is awanting in the Black Book. In the Schevez MS. it is in the lower margin, below the text. In the Black Book the Latin lines, “Sunt subsolanus,” &c., have been inserted between the title of the chapter and the commencement of the text.
I. C. 7. The Black Book and Schevez MS. omit “XL,” in the date ixc. In the latter there is a blank after ixc.; in the former there is none. The same omission apparently occurs in the Edinburgh MS.
I. C. 12. The Black Book and Schevez MS. read “seviencium” as in Goodall’s text, and in the MSS. of Fordun’s own work, not “sequentium” as in the Edinburgh MS.
I. C. 19. The Black Book and Schevez MS. end the chapter with “venenosa,” as in the Edinburgh MS. The MSS. of Fordun’s work have the concluding sentence, “Lana etiam,” &c.
I. C. 33. The Black Book omits the words “In Elucidario quoque,” as the Edinburgh MS. likewise does. In the Schevez MS. they are inserted in the margin. They are in Fordun’s own work.
I. C. 36. The Black Book reads “Feraghad sive Ferardi.”
I. C. 37. The Black Book and Schevez MS. omit the section taken by Goodall from the Book of Cupar.
II. C. 1. The Black Book and the Schevez MS. omit the seven words noted by Goodall. The omission looks like an error in transcription, but strangely it also occurs in the Book of Cupar, which, taken with the fact that the passage is correctly given in all the MSS. of Fordun’s original work, would lead to the inference that the words had dropped out of the copy which Bower was using.
II. C. 59. The Black Book reads “vultum seriose:” the Abridgement, “vultu seriose.” The Schevez MS. “multum seriose” with the Edinburgh MS.
II. C. 64. The Black Book and the Schevez MS. insert the verses here and in c. 15, as the Edinburgh MS. does.
III. C. 32. The words given by Goodall from the Abridgement of the Black Book are not in the Black Book itself.
IV. C. 35. The paragraphs thrust into the text of the Edinburgh MS. as noted by Goodall, likewise occur in the same place in the Schevez MS., but not in the Black Book of Paisley. These two MSS. read “Donsithy,” not “Dounsynnane.” Magnus Makculloch was evidently transcribing from a manuscript on which there was a marginal note which he incorporated in his text without consideration: and the Edinburgh Scribe did the same.
IV. C. 40. Both the Black Book and Schevez MS. have the additional verses which Goodall mentions as being in the MS. of Dr. George Mackenzie, a copy of the Liber Pluscardensis now in the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh, 35, 5, 2. This tends to suggest that the writer of the latter had the Black Book before him.
IV. C. 47. The Black Book and Schevez MS. omit the sentence, “Abhorrerent utique dominus,” &c.
V. C. 23. The Black Book and Schevez read “illius” as the second word of the chapter, and omit “celebris.”
V. C. 35. The Black Book and Schevez omit the year of Malcolm’s death; the sentence ending “obiit die Sancti Bricii.” The sentence “Vulgariter dictum est,” &c., is omitted in these as in the Edinburgh MS.
V. CC. 27, 26, 28. The Black Book and Schevez omit “Turgotus” at the beginning of these chapters. Goodall remarks that in C. 27, some MSS. read “de genere” and not “degener.” The Black Book has the latter, but a final “e” has been erased. The following word is however “Anglicus.”
V. C. 33. This chapter, in the Edinburgh and Schevez MSS. ends with the words “Hugo Scorisberiensis.” The Black Book goes on with a passage “Anno Domini Mo. Cto. ixo. rex Henricus,” &c., down to “fundavit ecclesiam de Kalco,” which is inserted in the two others in the middle of c. 36.
V. C. 36. The parenthetical passage noted by Goodall is in both the Black Book and in Schevez. The passage in this chapter as printed by Goodall, “An. Dom. M. C. ix.,” and down to “fundavit ecclesiam de Kalco” is placed in the Black Book as above noted, at the end of c. 33. The words “Et dedicatur per Turgotum,” noted in Goodall’s margin as occurring in the text of the Edinburgh MS., are inserted in Schevez, but are omitted in the Black Book.
V. C. 37. The title of this chapter in the Black Book is “De fundacioune Emonie.” In the Schevez MS. it is “De fundacioune monasterii Sancti Columbi in Emonia.” The words “Et dedicatur,” &c., as above which Goodall notes as occurring in the Edinburgh MS. in c. 36, are rightly inserted in the Black Book immediately after the word “Scona” in the first sentence. The Black Book, Schevez and Edinburgh MS. all read “juxta Edynburgh,” instead of “juxta Inverkeithin,” which was Fordun’s expression.1 Goodall remarks that, in the margin of the Edinburgh MS., at the end of c. 36, are some words, “De fundatione Sconae.” This note is in the Black Book, placed in the margin against the commencement of c. 37, and is more specific. “Scriptor de fundacione Scone ulterius in fine hujus Vti. libri ad tale signum [?]” The passage so referred to is in the Black Book and Edinburgh MS., to be found at the beginning of Book VI. There is no note of any kind on the margin of the Schevez MS., and the passage in question is not inserted at the beginning of Book VI.
V. C. 38. The Black Book and Schevez have the first part of the portion of the sentence which is awanting in the Edinburgh MS. They stop at “Cisterciensis xvto.”
V. C. 39. The date of the institution of Canons Regular at Carlisle is wrongly given in the Black Book, as “Anno Mo. C. xviio. iio.” instead of “M. C. iio.” The Scribe was evidently mislead by the “M. C. xvii.” immediately before. The reference to Queen Matilda’s letter is differently given in the Black Book and in the Edinburgh MS. In the former it is “Cujus copiam vide post folio viijo. prius titulos sequentis libri.” In reality it is on the tenth folio, immediately after the titles of the chapters of book vi. In the Schevez MS. the title is inserted here, c. 39.
V. C. 59. In the Black Book and Schevez, this chapter ends with “immolatur,” and omits the remaining part of last two lines given by Goodall.
V. C. 60. On the margin of the Black Book the words “Scriptor,” “Vacat,” “Auctor,” are noted, by means of which the chapter can be read to correspond with Fordun’s original as given by Skene.2
VI. In the table to Book VI., chapter 47 has not been numbered, the figures having been given to c. 48. The Book, therefore, contains apparently only fifty-six chapters instead of fifty-seven. The numbering of the chapters in the text is also wrong. Two chapters are numbered 37, and the copyist goes on till c. 47, which should be c. 48. this he omits to number altogether, and the next he makes c. 49, which is right. In the Schevez MS. the numbering of the chapters in the table is also wrong.
VI. C. X. The Black Book and Schevez MS. read xlvii, which is correct, and not xvii. as in the Edinburgh MS.
VI. C. 23. The date of Harold’s coronation is in the Black Book 1067, in the Edinburgh MS. 1066, and in Schevez 1047. This chapter ends in the Black Book, – “Hucusque scriba clare; cetera sunt Scriptoris Ao. Do. Mo. C.,” and the Edinburgh and Schevez MSS. correspond, but with the addition of “&c.” Apparently Bower had left a blank to fill in the date, which the transcriber did not notice. In the Black Book there is no room to insert anything after the Mo. C., and the title of the next chapter immediately follows, “De episcopis Kilreymonth,” etc.
In the Schevez and Edinburgh MSS. the following verses are appended to the chapter:-
Hactenus auctorem de Fordon sume Joannem
Hinc opus auctoris et scriptoris superextat.
Alternative scriptor nonnulla priori
Immiscit parti, protractu maginis apte
Intitulata tamen, quos Christus protegat. Amen.
And in the Schevez MS.,
Ulterius non fiant liniares protreciones.
Cetera sunt Scriptoris primevi non ultimi.
These verses are not given in the Black Book, but on the margin opposite the “Mo. C” is inserted the line –
“Ulterius non fiant liniares protreciones.”
On its margin likewise, against the commencement of chapter 24 is the word “Scriptor.”
VI. C. 24. The Black Book reads “Fothad” in accordance with the other two MSS. Goodall mentions in a note that the proper name “Kellach” had already been given iv. c. 17. The sentence there, however, “Hujus tempore Kellach fuit episcopus de Kilreymonth” is not in the Black Book, and it may be observed that the clause is one of Bower’s interpolations, not being found in the corresponding passage of the original work.3
VI. C. 46. There is a blank in the Black Book, as in the Edinburgh MS., for the day and month of Bishop Trail’s death.
VI. C. 48. The Black Book omits the last sentence in the Edinburgh MS., “Hic dominus Jacobus Kenedi,” etc. It is in the Schevez MS. There is a blank of more than a page here in the latter.
VII. This book commences in the Paisley MS. “De libro extravagante et de titulis vii. libri capitulorum,” and ends, “Explicit liber extravagans unus.” Bower explains at the beginning that this is a supplementary book of his own, and in the opening of the next he mentions that he takes up the historical narrative. It is difficult to see why it has been thrust in, as it is of a most miscellaneous character, but it reflects Bower’s character in his love of the marvellous, and shows what the style of literature was which was in vogue in a Scotch monastery in the 15th century.
VIII. C. 15. The Black Book gives the reading noted by Goodall, i., p. 462.
VIII. C. 22. Goodall introduces into his text some words taken from the Book of Cupar. In the Black Book there is a side note of the same date as the text –
“Dicitur quod David erat senior
Willelmo ut supra lio. Vo. c. xliijo.”
which is to the same effect as Goodall’s interpretation. It is not in the Schevez MS. There is a corresponding note on the margin of the Black Book at v. c. 43. Such notes occur in many places in the Black Book, e.g., ix. c. 48; x. c. 8; xi. c. 13; xi. c. 51.
VIII. c. 66. The words which Goodall notes as being only in the Edinburgh MS. are in the other two MSS., being written in full in Schevez, “receptus et electus est Stephanus de Langton et confirmatus.” The words, as given by Goodall, are nonsense. The Black Book has the contraction “Ll.” as in the Edinburgh MS.
VIII. C. 67. The Black Book omits the concluding words of the chapter, “Et beatorum Petri et Pauli,” etc. They are in Schevez.
IX. C. 1. The Black Book reads:- “Monasterium Paiocēn, i.e., Aberbroth.”
IX. C. 41. The words “De hoc vide lio. viijo. c. lv. quia non scripsi,” which are in Goodall’s text, are awanting in Schevez. In the Black Book, they form a side note in a hand different from that of the text.
IX. C. 48. The Schevez MS. ends as the Edinburgh does, but the Black Book has a considerable addition, a small part of which is the same as what Goodall prints from the Book of Cupar. On the margin at the beginning of the Chapter is the note:- “Hic Walterus fuit primus qui dicebatur Stewart dapifer Regis et constabularius qui fundavit Pasletum.”
IX. C. 53. The Black Book and Schevez commence this chapter, “Anno Domini Mo. CCo. xxxvii., Henricus et Alexander reges cum suis reginis et utriusque regni proceribus convenerunt apud Eboracum,” which varies somewhat from the text of the Edinburgh MS. In mentioning the war between Pope Gregory IX. and the Emperor Frederick, there is a blank in the Black Book, thus:- “Hoc anno oritur lamentabile bellum inter papam G et Fredericum imperatorem.”
IX. C. 59. Instead of “Secedente rege” as in Goodall, the Black Book reads: “Sedente rege cum suis baronibus in illo consilio seorsim apud se conquesti sunt.” The Schevez reading is the same except “secedente” for “sedente.”
X. C. 1. A portion of this chapter, from the MS. in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, is given in the National MSS. of Scotland, Part II., No. 84.
The preliminary sentence in the Edinburgh MS., “Filius istius,” etc., is awanting in the Black Book and in Schevez. They, and the Cambridge MS., begin, “Mortuus est sicut scriptum est pater illius et quasi non est mortuus; similem enim reliquit sibi post se.”
The Black Book reads “constipatus”4 as in Goodall’s text, Schevez and the Edinburgh MS. “constitutus.” In the Corpus MS. it is “constitutus,” but it has been differently written at first. The word is omitted in Fordun’s Collections,5 while the Liber Pluscardensis6 reads, “in cathedra regali positus.”
The Black Book reads “Alanus Dorward,” the Schevez MS. “Durwart,” the Edinburgh MS. “Durward;” the Corpus MS., and all the MSS. of Fordun’s materials, “Dorwart.”
Of Walter Comyn, the Black Book says, “Vir providus consilio et miles Walterus Comyn fortis satis.”
The Schevez MS. omits “et,” and spells Comyn with “u.”
The Edinburgh MS. inserts “strenuus” after “et.” The Corpus MS. shows that something should go in, but as altered it does not read correctly. Magnus Macculloch, seeing the difficulty, drops the “et” altogether. The MSS. of Fordun’s materials have “Vir providus in consilio et perspicuus dominus Walterus Comyn comes de Menteth.”
X. CC. 45, 46, 47. The Black Book has two chapters and part of a third additional, but they are misplaced, and are repeated, Book XII., c. 26, Goodall, ii. 259. They are not in Schevez or Goodall at this place.
XI. C. 13. This chapter mentions the marriage of Robert II. with Elizabeth More, which has been a crux to our historians and genealogists, and has produced a large and somewhat intemperate literature. Robert III. was the son of this marriage, and the question at issue is that of his legitimacy. The parents were within prohibited degrees, and a Papal dispensation for their marriage was necessary and was obtained, but it would appear that Robert, or, as he was then named, John, was born long before it arrived or had been applied for, and while they were living in concubinage. By some it has further been maintained that in the meanwhile Robert married Eupheme Ross, by whom he had several children, and that it was only after her death that he married Elizabeth More. But whether this be so or not, – and that it was not seems to be the case, – it is argued that subsequens matrimonium could not legitimize Robert III., as being the issue of an incestuous union. “This scandalous aspersion,” says George Crawfurd,7 “that’s not only injurious to the succeeding Kings of Scotland, but to many other foreign Princes who have intermarried with our Royal family, is absolutely false in itself, as will appear from many original Charters and other authentick records.” The advocates of this view of the case traverse the whole statements of the other side, and take the position that the marriage with Elizabeth More was long prior to that with Eupheme Ross. This seems to be the fact, but does not dispose of the question of the effect of the marriage. To get over the mid-impediment of concubinage betwixt persons within the prohibited degrees, which would prevent the retroaction of the marriage in legitimating children born before its date, a prior marriage, entered into on the faith of the dispensation being obtained, has been assumed, but there is no evidence of it whatever; and if it had it would only have made matters worse. The dispensation proceeds on the ground of ignorantia, and this seems to be the strongest point in favour of the legitimacy of the Stewarts.8 All parties appealed to Charters and other ancient records, and if the controversy was productive of no other good, it first directed the attention of our historical writers to diplomatics, and showed that valuable information was to be gleaned from Charters and the Monastic and Episcopal Registers.9
In the MSS. of Firdun’s own work the passage in question runs thus:
“Iste Robertus copulavit sibi de facto unam de filiabus Adæ more militis, de qua genuit filios et filias extra matrtimonium; quam postea, impetrata dispensatione sedis apostolicae et optenta, desponsavit canonice in forma ecclesiæ, anno scilicet Domini MCCCXLIX.”10
The Black Book of Paisley, the Edinburgh MS., the Book of Cupar,11 and the Carthusian MS. all give a different version, reading: The former runs thus:-
“Iste Robertus copulatavit sibi de facto unam de filiabus Ade de More, militis, de qua genuit proles; quam postea, impetrata dispensatione, in matrimonium desponsavit, ut postea dicetur; ex qua genuit Robertum III. regem; Robertus III., Jacobum regem primum; Jacobus Jacobum secundum regem qui nunc est.”
The Schevez MS. gives the same version, interjecting at the end, “Et Jacobus secundus Jacobum tercium qui nunc est.”
In a later portion of Bower’s narrative12 he makes a statement apparently quite at variance with this, which is followed by the Liber Pluscardensis13 and the Extracta e variis Cronicis, and is the foundation of those who attack the legitimacy.
The first portion of this chapter (down to the foot of p. 149 of Goodall) is substantially the same in the Black Book and the Edinburgh MS. There are several variants, however, upon p. 150 of the printed text. The Black Book omits l. 3 from “qui paulo” to l. 7 “procuravit,” and simply reads, after “Duplyn,” “et Donaldus genuit Thomam,” etc., and then goes on “De alia filia,” etc. The omitted passage is in Fordun’s original work.
The Black Book omits, l. 24, the words “qui obses fuit in Anglia cum pro patre suo pro deliberatione regis Scotiæ David II.” These words are likewise in Fordun’s original. In l. 25, for “statim ex hae luce migravit,” the Black Book reads “obiit statim.”
XI. C. 14. A good many explanatory notes have been woven into the narrative of the Edinburgh MS., which are awanting in the Black Book and Schevez MSS., and therre are a great many small variations in the text. Thus: the latter omit
1. “Sub quo passus est martyrium Sanctus Thomas Canturiæ Archiepiscopus.”
2. “Eadwardus princeps genuit Richardum II., arrestatum,” &c., and read – “Qui genuit Eadwardum de Wyndesor qui genuit Eadwardum principem Walliae vocatum praemortuum patri patrem regis Richardi II., arrestatum,” &c.
3. “Et de praesenti anno sciz. Dom. millesimo quadringentesimo quadragesimo quarto.”
4. Also the numerical titles of the Kings, as Edward I., II., &c.
The variations will be best seen by comparison:-
| GOODALL, II. p. 151., l. 17. Iste Johannes genuit Henricum pacificum; Henricus Eadwardum Langshankis dictum tyrannum; iste Eadwardus genuit Eadwardum II. dictum de Carnarvan; Eadwardus vero secundus genuit Eadwardum III. de Windesor, qui genuit Eadwwardum principem Walliae praemortuum patri: Eadwardus princeps genuit Richardum II. arrestatum et exiliatum per Henricum de Longcastello filium Johannis de Gaunt ducis Langcastriae, fratrem dicti Eadwardi principis Walliae. Qui quidem Henricus de Longcastell invasor [Edr. MS. conquaestor], et sic rex Angliae, genuit Henricum Franciam invadentem, et ibidem guerrando mortuum. Qui Henricus de sorore regis Caroli septimi Franciae, rapta sanctimoniali, genuit Henricum sextum nune et de praesenti anno sciz. Dom. millesimo quadragentesimo quadragesimo quarto, in Angliam regnantem. Maria, secunda filia Malcolmi regis et Sanctae Margaritae, desponsata fuit, &c. | BLACK BOOK OF PAISLEY. Iste Johannes genuit Henricum pacificum. Henricus Eadwardum Lankshanks dictum tirannum. Iste Eadwardus Eadwardum de Carnarvan, qui genuit Eadwardum de Wyndesor, qui genuit Eadwardum, principem Wallie vocatum, premortuum patri patrem Ricardi secundi arestatum et exiliatum per Henricum de Loncastel filium Johannis de Gaunt ducis Loncastre fratrem dicti Eadwardi principis Wallie. Qui quidem Henricus conquestor genuit Henricum Franciam invadentem et ibidem guerrando mortuum. Qui Henricus genuit Henricum de sorore regis Franciae rapta moniali nunc Anglie regnantem. Maria secunda filia Malcolmi regis et Sancte Margarite desponsata fuit, &c. |
XI. C. 25. In both the Black Book and in the Schevez MS. there are awanting the last six of the verse given in Goodall. In both MSS. there is a blank space at the end of the chapter, but larger than that required for the lines omitted, which shows that the transcriber did not know how much was wanting.
XI. 32, 33. There is a blank in the Black Book on folios 185, 186, space being left for these two chapters, which are likewise awanting in the Edinburgh MS. In the Schevez MS. there is a similar blank.
XI. C. 41, 47, 52, 53, 54. The Black Book and Schevez MS. want the paragraph as to “ligius,” in c. 41, which is in the Edinburgh MS., mentioned in Goodall’s foot note; and in cc. 47, 52, 53, 54, read with the latter, as noted by Goodall.
XII. C. 18. The passages which Goodall quotes from the Cupar MS. are awanting in the Black Book, as in the Edinburgh MS.
XII. C. 21. The Black Book and Schevez give the enormous figures commented on by Goodall, just as in his text.
XII. C. 23. The verses with which the chapter begins are misplaced in the Black Book, coming in immediately after c. 21; but in an old hand on the margin the mistake is pointed out, and a reference made to the next folio where they should be read.
As written, the Schevez MS. corresponds with Goodall, but there must have been some confusion in the autograph, as although the “De quodam Metro” is placed, as in Goodall, before c. 24, it is numbered c. 20, – the chapter “De nobili metrista” being c. 23 both in this MS. and in the Black Book. There is a blank in the Black Book before c. 24, which also shows that there was some uncertainty, and that probably a large blank had been left to be filled up afterwards.14
XIII. In the table of Titles the three MSS. note that the second tailzie of Robert Bruce (c. 14) should follow c. 23 of Book XI. according to the Black Book and Schevez, and Book XII. according to the Edinburgh MS. The latter is correct. All, however, place it at the end of c. 13 of Book XIII., – the Black Book and Schevez as a simple appendix, the Edinburgh MS. as an independent chapter, making it c. 13, which corresponds with c. 14 in the others, and its c. 15 with their 14. In the latter the short epitaph is placed last, and the longer has no separate title as in Goodall. In the Black Book, however, there is a mark which may be intended to show that the order is to be reversed.
XIII. C. 12. The Black Book and Schevez give Edward’s resignation of his claim of superiority, as in Goodall, (II., p. 289), ending “valoris vel momenti.”
XIII. C. 20. The Black Book and the Schevez MS. mention merely the “Liber Brozaicus,” and do not add “Barbarii” as in Goodall; and both give the second line which is awanting in the Edinburgh MS.
Jure Juventutis Jacobus iota justificavit.15
Actibus astutis aras almas adamavit.
They omit the words which occur in Goodall at the end of the verses “Hic Jacobus in conflictibus xiii. vicibus succubuit et devictus est; et victorias de Anglis habuit lvii.”
XIII. C. 30. The paragraph which Goodall puts in brackets does not occur in the Black Book and Schevez MS.
XII. C. 34. The words taken by Goodall from Hearne’s edition are not in the Paisley MS.
XIV. C. 7. In the Black Book there is a blank of six lines at the end of the chapter, as if something more were to be filled in. In the Cotton MS. and Trinity College MS. of the Gesta Annalia there is an additional paragraph.16 There is no such blank in the Schevez MS.
XIV. C. 22. The last paragraph, – Nullum jus, etc., – to the end exactly corresponds with the Black Book. It is the passage which most resembles that in the Extracta e variis Cronicis, p. 247, to be afterwards adverted to.
XIV. C. 39 et seq. The arrangement of the first thirty-nine chapters is the same in the Black Book as in Goodall, but thereafter there is a considerable difference.
Black Book. Goodall.
c. 40 corresponds with 43
41 “ 44
42 “ 45
43 “ 46
44 “ 47
45 “ 48
46 “ 49
47 “ 50
48 “ 51
49 “ 52
50 “ 53
51 “ 54
52 “ 55
53 “ 56
54 “ 57
55 “ 40
The text of Book XIV. in the Black Book ends with c. 55, and then follows the Table of Titles of Book XV., but the Table of the Chapters of Book XIV. contains c. 56, which corresponds with Goodall’s XIV. c. 41, and at the close of the table the reader is requested to look after the Table of the next book, where it is found along with what forms c. 42 of Goodall.
The Schevez MS. corresponds with the Black Book in arrangement, but the last two chapters are in their place at the end of Book XIV.
The paragraph at the end of Goodall, XIV. c. 50, mentioning the death of Cardinal Wardlaw, as has already been noticed, is omitted in the Black Book, while in the Schevez MS. it is found in the middle of the next chapter, XIV. c. 48.17
XV. 4. Begins “Anno Domini Mo. CCCo. xcviij hastiludium grande xii. militum,” and then follows a blank of nearly two lines, when the text proceeds as in Goodall “Anno sequenti,” &c. The same reading is found in the Schevez MS., but there is no blank. The sentence has been left for completion, which has been done in the Edinburgh MS.
XV. C. 20. The three MSS. have all a blank for the day of the month at the beginning.
XV. C. 21. The words at the beginning in the Edinburgh MS., “quod remansit in manubus Anglicorum a bello de Durham,” are not in either the Black Book or Schevez MS. The names of the persons on the Earl of Mar’s side who were slain at the battle of Harlaw are given differently in each of the three MSS.18
XV. C. 33. There is a blank towards the end for the name of the person who captured the brother of Queen Johanna at the battle of Beaugé, which is filled up in the Edinburgh MS. In the latter, the name of this place is so spelt, but in the Black Book is it phonetically rendered “Bawgy,” or “Bawgi.”
XVI. At the beginning of this book there are two letters with a memorandum that they should be inserted in c. 30, and they are so in Goodall’s text. After the words in that chapter “servituti eius subicere sicut patet per easdem,” follow in the Black Book, “patentes ante prologum huius libri xvi. discriptas quarum tenor talis est Henricus sicut ubi.” Hearne prints from Schevez.
XVI. c. 8. The second column of the verso of folio 256 is blank, as if it had been intended to add something to this chapter. There is a like blank in the Schevez MS.
XVI. c. 23. The Black Book has a blank before “Scrope,” where in Schevez and the Edinburgh MS. fill in the words “dominus de.”
XVI. C. 26. The Black Book has a blank of four lines at the end of the chapter. there is not a corresponding blank in the Schevez MS. In it there is a long passage at the beginning of this chapter which is not in the Black Book or Edinburgh MS.
XVI. C. 33. There is a blank toward the commencement of this chapter in the Black Book. It is filled up in the Edinburgh MS., “centum librarum Sterlingorum.”
XVI. C. 39. The additional passage in the Black Book has already been referred to.
–
1 Cronica Gentis Scotorum, v. c. 28. Skene’s Fordun, I., p. 297.
2 V. c. 50. Vol. i. p. 251.
3 Skene’s Fordun, I., p. 160; Hearne, II., p. 311.
4 Constipatus occurs in a somewhat similar passage in the Chronica Jocelini de Brakelonds. (Camden Society.)
5 Hearne, p. 757. Skene’s Fordun, p. 293.
6 VII., c. 12, Vol. I., p. 77.
7 Description of the Shire of Renfrew, p. 150 (Ed. 1818).
8 Riddell, Stewartians, p. 31, et seq.
9 Registrum Episcop. Glasg., i., p. 2.
10 Skene’s Fordun, i., p. 317.
11 The Book of Cupar is quoted by Father Hay, Vindication of Elizabeth More, p. 126, (Ed. 1828.)
12 Black Book, xiv. c. 53; Goodall, xiv. c. 56; Book of Cupar, 34, c. 28. (Father Hay’s Vindication, p. 127.)
13 X. 10, vol. i., p. 329. (Ed. Skene.)
14 It may perhaps be mentioned that Burton’s verses upon Bannockburn were printed at Glasgow from the Edinburgh MS. as early as 1673 in Thomas Bell’s, Roma Restituta, p. 231. (Glasguæ, Sanders, 1673.)
15 Not “justificatur,” as in Goodall.
16 Skene’s Fordun, i., p. 369 n.
17 See Hearne, iv., p. 1071.
18 Cf. Hearne, p. 1176, and Goodall, ii., p. 445.
One thought on “III. – The Text of the Black Book, pp.29-43.”