a conclusion quite different from what is given in the edition of 1781, for in it Maggy, Janet’s gossip, dies ‘keeping her purse in her hand.’ An edition was published in Glasgow, in 1807, by J. & J. Robertson. This is the first in which we have seen the two chap-books printed together, and it is also the earliest copy of Janet Clinker’s Oration that has come under our notice. The Haverel Wives, in this case, is reprinted from the 1781 edition, and only in one or two slight matters, apparently typographical, differs from it. The Oration was printed alone in 1824, with the title—‘Grannie M‘Nab’s Lecture in the Society of Clashing Wives, Glasgow, on Witless Mothers and their Dandy Daughters, who bring them up to hood-wink the men, and deceive them with their braw dresses, when they can neither wash a sark, mak’ parritch, or gang to the well. Printed for the Booksellers.’ A chap-book bearing the title of The Art of Courtship,[25] an Undated edition of which was published by M. Randall, of Stirling, contains matter somewhat similar to much that is contained in Janet Clinker’s Oration, and the part that relates to the choosing of a wife is quoted almost verbatim et literatim. It is somewhat remarkable that no editions of these works were, so far as we have been able to discover, issued subsequent to 1824.

The Comical and Witty Jokes of John Falkirk, the Merry Piper, one of the least known of Graham’s chap-books, is, as its name indicates, merely a collection of facetiæ. Many of the tales in it are cleverly told, while a few have nothing to recommend them to the reader. Motherwell, on the authority of Caldwell, attributes the work to Graham, and all other writers on the subject have concurred with him. We have only seen one edition of John Falkirk, and it was published in Edinburgh in 1777; but Motherwell notes one issued in Glasgow two years later. No modern edition of it has been published. The Scots Piper’s Queries, or John Falkirk’s Cariches, is regarded as a sequel to the Jokes of the same worthy. The Cariches are well known, and have long been popular, though it cannot be said there is anything particularly original about them. Many of the jokes in them were venerable in Graham’s time, but he has touched them up to suit the tastes of the age in which he wrote. Not a few of the questions and answers have a distinct flavour of the proverbs of Solomon; and while the expressions used are sometimes far from delicate, a good deal of worldly wisdom is to be found in them. The intention of the author, however, seems to have been amusement purely and simply, for in the title-page of an undated edition, published by C. Randall, of Stirling, there are these lines, which, it may be assumed belong to the original work:—

‘John Falkirk,’ it has already been mentioned, was a cognomen used by Graham; and Motherwell has noted that, in an edition of the Cariches published after Graham’s death, there was prefixed an ‘Account of John Falkirk, the Scots Piper.’ The only early edition we have seen is one printed by C. Randall, Stirling. It is undated, but was probably printed about 1807, and consists of eight pages. So far as it goes it does not materially differ from the modern editions, but it is without forty questions and answers which appear in them. It is probable that, out of the general rule, the modern editions are more complete than the one published by Randall. On the title-page of the Stirling chap-book is a rough wood-cut of a blind beggar led by a dog, presumably designed as a frontispiece for an English chap, entitled, ‘The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green,’ very popular south of the Tweed, and occasionally printed in Scotland. Motherwell’s edition of John Falkirk was published in Glasgow in 1779, but his copy of the Cariches was undated.

The Comical Sayings of Pady from Cork is the title of a chap-book attributed to Graham by Motherwell and all his successors. Unlike the bellman’s other works it does not deal with any phase of Scottish life, but rather with the vagaries popularly believed for many generations to be characteristic of the Irish mind. It is, in fact, a collection of the proverbial Irish ‘bulls,’ some of them ‘comical’ and spontaneous, but others studied and consequently stupid. In many respects the dialogue between Pady and his English interlocutor, Tom, is clever, but frequently it is evident that the author was out of his element. It must be confessed that there is a good deal of force in Professor Fraser’s argument, so far as Pady from Cork is concerned, that there was not a single sentence in it which might not have been written by any one other than Graham, and that most of the incidents narrated in it were to be found in the facetiæ of almost every country in Europe long before Graham carried a pack or rang the skellat bell of Glasgow.[26] Mr. Fraser refers in these remarks in the first instance to George Buchanan and The History of Buckhaven, but he applies them to Pady from Cork, with the modification that it was less of a compilation and had more local colouring than the chap-books he had been discussing. But while all that may be true enough, Motherwell’s authority in attributing the authorship of Pady from Cork to Dougal Graham cannot well be impugned, for on this point he apparently writes under the inspiration of his friend Mr. Caldwell; and it is notable that the copy in the possession of Motherwell was published by Caldwell in 1784. The edition reprinted from in this collection was published in Glasgow by J. & M. Robertson in 1807, and on the title-page there is a wood-cut showing a military looking gentleman standing beside a small cannon. The modern editions are considerably mutilated, and, among other things, want the ‘Creed for Romish Believers,’ to be found in earlier copies. ‘Pady’s New Catechism’ and his ‘Creed’ have been mentioned in a preceding page as being in the third number of a very rare edition of Lothian Tom, to all appearance only as padding.

Motherwell and M‘Vean both attributed the authorship of Simple John and his Twelve Misfortunes to Dougal Graham; but Professor Fraser, on the other hand, has brought a distinct charge of plagiarism against the poetical bellman. ‘The original hero of the “Misfortunes,”’ he says, ‘is Simple Simon; a history of whose life and misadventures was common in England in the seventeenth century. This, or a similar version—most likely one of the many editions issued from Newcastle—Graham most certainly stole, and, having changed the hero’s name to John, and written a racy introduction to the work in broad Scotch, gave it to the world as an original production. The prefatory matter is quite in Graham’s style, and could not have been written by an Englishman. It is frequently to be found published separately under the title of Silly Tam.’[27] But before going into the question here raised, it may be as well to state that the edition from which Simple John has been reprinted in this collection, is one published in Glasgow in 1780, and ‘Printed for the Company of Flying Stationers in Town and Country.’ The original is a duodecimo, and consists of eight closely printed pages, with a wood-cut on the title-page, representing the unfortunate husband running from his wife, who pursues him with outstretched arms, while his haste is emphasised by his hat and wig being shown as falling from his head to the ground. The other editions now lying before the editor are—1st, one printed in Edinburgh, in 1821, ‘for the booksellers,’ of twenty-four pages duodecimo; and another almost identical in every way, the print being nearly line for line the same, bearing the imprint—‘Edinburgh: Printed for the Booksellers, 1823.’ Both these editions have, as a frontispiece, the picture of a hook-nosed termagant, giving a simple looking fellow, with a beer-mug in his hand, a severe shaking. The matter in the modern undated edition, ‘printed for the booksellers’ in Glasgow, is the same, with one or two slight differences, as what is to be found in the older ones already enumerated. But, in addition to these, there also lies before us a copy of The Miseries of Poor Simple Innocent Tam, which, like one mentioned by Professor Fraser, is of eight pages duodecimo, without covers, and gives no indication of date or place of issue. With the exception of the alteration of the name of the hero from ‘John’ to ‘Tam,’ the text is exactly the same as that contained in the introduction to Simple John. An undated edition, of eight pages, of Simple John was printed by William Cameron, in Edinburgh. It only contains the introductory matter, and concludes with the addition of John’s lament on the death of his mother, without making further reference to his misfortunes. Having thus detailed the several editions of what has generally been regarded as Graham’s chap-book, in its two-fold form of Simple John and Simple Tam, some attention may now be paid to Professor Fraser’s allegations against the literary morality of the reputed author. After a careful comparison of the English chap-book, Simple Simon, with Simple John, we cannot but admit the statement that ‘the prefatory matter is quite in Graham’s style, and could not have been written by an Englishman;’ but we are not prepared to admit that Graham ‘most certainly stole’ the main body of the work. What Professor Fraser assumes to have been stolen must have been, though he does not explicitly say so, the ‘Twelve Misfortunes,’ for he admits that the preface is original and Scotch. This conclusion seems to have been come to without careful collation. Any one who has the opportunity, and will take the trouble to collate the two works, will find that only in two instances do the misfortunes in the Scotch chap-book bear any resemblance to those described in its English counterpart. These two instances are the fourth and seventh misfortunes in Simple John; but though the general features are the same, there is a great difference in the mode of treatment. As for the other misfortunes that befell Simple John, they have not even counterparts in Simple Simon, and, indeed, they could not well have, for they are almost entirely Scotch in their nature. Again, the conclusions arrived at in the two books are different. Simple Simon endeavours to poison himself, but by mistake he takes a draught from his wife’s bottle of sack, becomes drunk, and is cudgelled in consequence, but he and his wife afterwards lead a happy life. No such good fortune attends Simple John, for he laments his unhappy fate, and ‘appeals to a Jedburgh jury, if it be not easier to deal wi’ fools than headstrong, fashious fouks; owns he has but an empty scull, but his wicked wife wants wit to pour judgment into it, never tells him o’ danger till it comes upon him, for his mither said he was a bidable bairn, if onybody had been to learn him wit.’ We cannot, therefore, concur in Mr. Fraser’s statement that Graham ‘stole’ this chap-book, ‘and gave it to the world as an original production.’ For the reasons shown, we believe Graham only took the idea—and it may be gravely questioned if he did so much, for it has yet to be proved that Simple Simon was ‘common in England in the seventeenth century,’[28]—from the English chap-book, and worked it out in a manner peculiarly his own, and, it must also be added, distinctively Scotch.

In the case of another chap-book usually believed to owe its existence to Dougal Graham, Professor Fraser has seen fit to go against the general verdict, without, as it seems to us, giving a sufficient reason for the position he has taken up. He considers it extremely improbable, judging from internal evidence, that Graham ever composed the History of Buckhaven; and, further on, referring to it and The Witty Exploits of George Buchanan, he says, ‘There is not a single sentence in either of them that might not have been written by any one else.’ The latter remark may be all very true, but the former one must involve a serious difference of opinion. It would indeed be difficult to say what internal evidence is to be found in the History of Buckhaven that gave good reason for the assumption that Graham was not its author. Motherwell, judging apparently on this ‘internal evidence,’ says that, although he had not authority for ascribing any popular chap-books to Graham other than those he had mentioned, he would not be surprised to find that Graham was also the author of this history. M‘Vean, without comment, gives the work a place in his bibliography of Graham’s works, and it is to be presumed that a man of his undoubted attainments as a literary antiquary would not have done so without some reason satisfactory at least to himself. For our own part, we see nothing in the work itself at all inconsistent with the idea that Graham may have been the author of it. On the contrary, there seem to be some points in the course of the narrative which strongly support the commonly accepted tradition. That Graham possessed an undoubted acquaintance with the western district of Fifeshire, in which the respectable town of Buckhaven is situated, is evident from Jockey and Maggy’s Courtship, the scene of which is laid in the vicinity of Torryburn; and his intimate knowledge of Fifeshire modes of speech is further shown by an amusing character he introduced into The Coalman’s Courtship—‘auld Mattie, the Fife wife ... the wife it says, Be-go laddie.’ The language used in the History of Buckhaven, the style of treatment, and the burlesque humour, all bespeak Dougal as its author, for they are similar in all important points to what are to be found in works which even Mr. Fraser has without hesitation assented to being ascribed to Graham. The history, of course, is a burlesque, after the style of a well-known English chap-book, The Wise Men of Gotham, which it far outstrips for cleverness and racy humour. It has, however, the taint common to so many of Dougal’s works. The whole motive may be summed up in a short quotation from one of the many defunct Glasgow magazines:—‘The Buckhaven people, originally foreign colonists, were a people on the Fife side of the Forth, who lived much by themselves, had singular manners, and were of uncouth speech. All kinds of absurdities could thus be safely palmed upon them.’[29] Messrs. J. & M. Robertson, Saltmarket, issued a 24 pp. edition of the History of Buckhaven in 1806, illustrated by some very rude woodcuts, most of them having done duty in other chap-books. This edition is in three parts; and the title-page bears that the work was written by ‘Merry Andrew at Tamtallon.’ The more modern issues only contain the first two parts, and even these are considerably abridged.

The last work attributed to Dougal Graham, and calling for any detailed notice in this place, is the one entitled The History and Entertaining Exploits of George Buchanan, who was commonly called the King’s Fool. It is a chap-book which has been long popular, and one which has given rise to a variety of speculations, not only as to its authorship but also as to who was really the person whose ‘exploits’ are professedly recorded in its pages. As to the first of these points, Motherwell said he would not be surprised if Graham were its author; and M‘Vean heads his list of Dougal’s works with it. Fraser, on the other hand, argues against it being the composition of Graham, the ground he takes up being the same as that already quoted in relation to The History of Buckhaven and Simple John. In this instance, however, we think he has a stronger case than he had against Graham’s authorship of the two other publications. The internal evidence of the work itself—the time at which George Buchanan is shown to have lived—is sufficient proof that in it Graham could not in any sense lay claim to originality. But at the same time it is more than probable that he brought together the stories told about the country regarding his hero, and for the first time gave them forth to the world in a collected form. Until some additional light can be shed upon this matter, dogmatism either on the one side or the other would be imprudent; but, while sympathising to some extent with the position taken up by Professor Fraser, we do not see our way clear to dissent from the tradition of Graham’s connection with the chap-book. The idea that he may have been its editor, or compiler, appears to be quite reasonable.

The next question, as to the identity of the hero of The Merry Exploits of George Buchanan, is one upon which a more definite opinion can be expressed, though it has given rise to several curious notions. The idea most common at the present day among the mass of the Scottish people is that there were two Scotsmen who bore the name of George Buchanan, one of them being the King’s fool, and the other the eminent Latinist, historian, and poet. This theory, it must be confessed, is the one which does the most credit to the scholar, but we are afraid it does not do justice to the fact. There can be no doubt, from many of the stories given in the chap-book, that George Buchanan, the scholar, is the person pointed at; and a careful consideration of his life and opinions, viewed in the light in which these were regarded by many of his contemporaries and immediate successors, will readily furnish the origin of the extraordinary actions attributed to him. We must not, however, be understood to give countenance to another impression, by no means uncommon among a certain class, that George Buchanan acted as the King’s buffoon or fool. The life of the historian of Scotland was cast in a troublous age. Born in the year 1506, he was an active participant in the turmoil of the Reformation period, and had a large share in the proceedings against the unfortunate Queen Mary. Like most of the reformers his nature was stiff and unbending, but he possessed a dry and caustic wit which made him valuable to his friends and more and more hated by his enemies. His opponents took every opportunity to vilify his character, and spread abroad by means of books and conversations, after his death, even by Acts of the Scottish Estates, aspersions on his life and opinions. To show how this was done, one or two instances may be given. A French priest named Garasse, in a work entitled Doctrine Curieuse,—an edition of which was published in 1590, a few years after Buchanan’s death—speaks of that illustrious man as a ‘hard drinker.’ After endeavouring to show how his whole life had been one of continual debauchery, Garasse proceeds with his shameless libel, and makes Buchanan say on his death-bed, in answer to the remonstrances of his doctors:—‘“Go along with you, you and your prescriptions and dietaries! I would far rather live only three jolly weeks, getting comfortably drunk every day, than live six dreary wineless years.” ... He died in brief space, however; his chamber being then rarely littered with glasses and wine-measures.’ In his native country, also, his memory was abused. His death in 1582 was little noticed, but it was soon followed by an outburst against his writings. His works have long been regarded as valuable in spite of the many defects they admittedly have; but the Scottish Estates, in 1584, issued an order for their purgation because they contained ‘sundrie offensive matters, worthie to be detecte,’ because of their ‘steiring up his hienes subjectes theirby to misliking sedition unquietness, and to cast off their due obedience to his Majestie.’ Heylin, in his Cosmographie, said Buchanan’s History of Scotland and De Jure Regni had ‘wrought more mischief in the world than all Machiavel’s works’; and the authorities of the University of Oxford, in 1683, publicly burned the political works of George Buchanan, along with others equally obnoxious to them. These few incidents, among many, are sufficient to indicate how the extraordinary stories told in the chap-book came to be attached to George Buchanan, one of the most learned and cultured men of his time. There is good ground for the remark that the Merry Exploits of George Buchanan ‘is a terrible libel on an eminent man; never was mental greatness so “let down” in the popular estimation as by this vulgar performance; by and through which Buchanan’s humble countrymen were taught, not to look up to him, but down upon him as a coarse buffoon.’[30] It must be admitted, however, that there is strong reason to suspect that many of the stories were current before the issue of the chap-book, but it, of course, would help to perpetuate the libels. The conclusion from what has been said may be thus briefly summarised. Dougal Graham seems to have been the collector of ridiculous stories about George Buchanan, the scholar and historian, these stories being, for the most part, manifestly untrue, but the natural offspring of the more elaborate libels written and spoken against him immediately after his death.

Many editions of this chap-book have been published, and it promises to have the longest life of any of its race, for it is still being issued. The copy reprinted in this work was published in Falkirk in 1799. Among the other editions we have seen are the following:—One issued in Edinburgh bears ‘to be printed in this present year,’ a somewhat indefinite intimation, consisting of 47 duodecimo pages; and one in two numbers of 24 pp. each, printed in Newcastle by G. Angus, without date, and apparently complete. The earliest edition mentioned is one published by A. Robertson, Coalhill, Leith, in 1765. It was an octavo, in six parts of eight pages each, with a title-page to each part. Another was printed by W. R. Walker, Royal Arcade, Newcastle-on-Tyne, but it bears no date. The Robertsons, of the Saltmarket, Glasgow, also issued several editions of this chap-book, among the rest of their ‘Standards.’

Having thus gone over, with as much detail as possible, the various works attributed to Dougal Graham, it will be proper to give the list of them, with the dates of the editions reprinted in these volumes:—

Such is the catalogue of Graham’s works—works with which it is believed he had something more or less to do—and which we have been able to find. Of the others attributed to him, but unfound, are:—

There are probably others of which even the names have been lost; but it seems likely that very few, if any, of those classified as not found, will ever be traced. It is a pity that this should be so; and every lover of the literary antiquities of Scotland must fondly hope that in the course of time, by some happy accident, the lost chap-books of Dougal Graham may again see the light of day.

By way of conclusion, it will be appropriate to discuss the general character of these works. Such an inquiry involves the weighing of opinions of several writers who, it must be admitted on all hands, were in every way qualified to give a judgment in the matter.

The leading opinion must, of course, be that of Sir Walter Scott. This is the record Strang[32] gives of it:—‘A history of the vulgar literature of Scotland has been long and is unquestionably still a desideratum, for certainly nothing could tend to throw so much light on the manners and tastes of the great body of the people as such a work. In 1830 it was hoped that Sir Walter Scott—than whom no man could have so well and so heartily performed the task—would have undertaken it as a preface to Dougal Graham’s History of the Rebellion, which, as we have hinted, he proposed giving to the Maitland Club, but unfortunately he abandoned the idea; yet, in doing so, Sir Walter, in a letter dated 10th May, 1830, to the writer of this volume, among other things of Dougal, said—“Neither had I the least idea of his being the author of so much of our Bibliotheque Bleue as you ascribe to him, embracing unquestionably several coarse but excessively meritorious pieces of popular humour. The Turnamspike alone was sufficient to entitle him to immortality. I had, in my early life, a great collection of these chap-books, and had six volumes of them bought before I was ten years old, comprehending most of the more rare and curious of our popular tracts.”’

Motherwell, again, says that he himself projected—but was unable, through want of leisure, and the difficulty of obtaining materials, to carry his intention into effect—a history of vulgar literature, in which, as a matter of course, Graham must have occupied a prominent place. Referring to the History of the Rebellion, he says:—‘However slightingly we esteem his metrical powers, we really believe he has conscientiously and honestly detailed the events which came under his observation. It is not, however, on the merits of this work, that Graham’s fame rests. Had he only written it, we believe he never would have occupied our thoughts for a moment; but as one who subsequently contributed largely to the amusement of the lower classes of his countrymen, we love to think of the facetious bellman. To his rich vein of gross comic humour, laughable and vulgar description, great shrewdness of observation, and strong, though immeasurably coarse sense, every one of us, after getting out of toy books and fairy tales, has owed much. In truth, it is no exaggeration when we state, that he who desires to acquire a thorough knowledge of low Scottish life, vulgar manners, national characteristics, and popular jokes, must devote his days and nights to the study of John Cheap the Chapman—Leper the Taylor—Paddy from Cork—The whole proceedings of Jockie and Maggie’s Courtship—Janet Clinker’s Orations—Simple John, &c., all productions of Dougald’s fertile brain, and his unwearied application to the cultivation of vulgar literature. To refined taste Dougald had no pretensions. His indelicacy is notorious—his coarseness an abomination—but they are characteristic of the class for whom he wrote. He is thoroughly imbued with the national humours and peculiarities of his countrymen of the humblest classes, and his pictures of their manners, modes of thinking and conversation, are always sketched with a strong and faithful pencil. Indeed, the uncommon popularity the chap-books above noted have acquired, entitles them, in many a point of view, to the regard of the moralist, and the literary historian. We meet with them on every stall, and in every cottage. They are essentially the Library of Entertaining Knowledge to our peasantry, and have maintained their ground in the affections of the people, notwithstanding the attempt of religious, political, or learned associations, to displace them, by substituting more elegant and wholesome literature in their stead.’[33]

Dr. Strang’s judgment is similar:—‘Of the vulgar literature to which we have referred, and of so much of which Dougal Graham was the author, it is enough to say that it really contributed the chief literary pabulum enjoyed by the bulk of our countrymen in the humbler walks of life; and though the jokes therein promulgated certainly were broad, and sometimes even grossly indecent, they were not untrue portraitures of Scottish life and Scottish manners.’[34]

Professor Fraser thus discusses the same matter:—‘He [Graham] possessed this advantage over the ordinary historian; that the latter from his superior height and position seldom condescended to enter the huts of the poor, and when he did enter, the inmates were frightened into their “Sunday clothes and manners” by his stately and majestic presence. But Dougal, being himself one of the poorest, introduces us into the most secret, domestic, and every-day life and thoughts of the lower classes of last century. Nothing is hidden from him. He is treated with a familiarity which shows that his hosts have no wish to hide anything. Then, too, he made his reader familiar not only with their mode of life, but with the peculiarities of their dialect, and in this way shed a not unfrequent light on philology. Add to these virtues that Dougal is never out of humour, always laughing and gossiping, drinking and telling old tales. His laughter, also, is contagious; we cannot contain ourselves. All his stories are full of people who laugh “like to burst,” and one cannot help but join them in their cacchinations. Nor are his sketches wanting in dramatic power. The characters are full of individuality and life, rendered more significant by a local flavour of demeanor and dialect. More than one of them might have afforded models for some of the raciest of Scott’s creations, and all of them are instinct with genuine humour and vitality.’[35]

Such were the opinions regarding the writings of Dougal Graham, given expression to by four men who had studied them, and saw their value. It is difficult, and almost unnecessary, to add anything further to what they have said; but in bringing this account of Graham’s works to a close, we may be permitted to supplement the judgments quoted, by a few additional speculations.

Much has been said about the value these writings possess, because they are, for the most part, truthful descriptions of the life of the Scottish people of last century. In what other works, or series of works—even those professedly dealing with the subject—can there be obtained such a knowledge of how the common people lived a century or two ago? We venture to affirm that such cannot be found. The life of the people is the life of the nation; and if it be a virtue to write personal biography like Boswell, it is surely more so to record the inner life of a nation, like Graham. Both, differing widely in many and important respects, have attained success by the same means—by placing before their readers sketches of private life, of the life which is most natural and least artificial, and which gives the best notion of the feelings and motives that guided either individuals or nations to success or failure. To understand thoroughly the history of Scotland in the eighteenth century, the ordinary historical works, dealing principally with great movements and events, must be read in the light, and by the aid, of the popular literature of that period; in the same way as the resident of the twentieth century, desiring to know the true history of the present age must, while looking to its great religious, philanthropic, scientific, commercial, political, and military achievements, also take into account the criminal records, the proceedings of the courts, the annals of the poor, and the ephemeral literature of all kinds.

Another line of thought is suggested by the indelicacy of expression so frequently to be found in Graham’s works. That such indelicacy exists in his works must be admitted; but in this respect they are no worse than, and will compare favourably with, the writings of many of the most prominent Scottish authors, such as Sir David Lindsay, and others. Indeed, it is worthy of notice, that men such as Fielding, Sterne, Swift, and Smollet, highly educated, and moving in a better circle of society in the same age with Dougal Graham, have tainted their writings with the grossness which has been noticed, and which, in their case, is less easily excused. The fault was in the time when plain speaking took the place now occupied by inuendo. Notwithstanding this, it cannot but be noticed that in his writings there is a native manliness not often discovered in works having greater pretensions; that there is no mawkish sentiment or sickly prudishness; and that in the presentation of pictures of life, they have no artificial draperies more suggestive than nature itself. There is a tendency on the part of those who have written upon this subject, to deplore the indelicacy of many passages of Graham’s works. We do not feel ourselves under any obligation to do so, for had the author toned down the colouring of some of his chap-books, they would have been untrue to nature to the extent of the suppression. What should be regretted was the immorality and coarseness so prevalent among the lower classes in Scotland during last century; and he who wishes to further the improvement and condition of the people will welcome Graham’s chap-books as showing distinctly what required reformation a century ago. It would hardly be too much to say, that in some parts of Scotland a state of matters very little different from what Graham frequently describes, may still be found. Any one who is at all acquainted with life among the lower classes, must admit that these descriptions are true to nature, and that a study of them is necessary before we can know thoroughly upon what the present superstructure of Scottish civilisation has been built. Graham, perhaps unintentionally, has held ‘the mirror up to nature,’ has shown ‘virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure.’

It would be difficult, again, to over-estimate the value of Dougal Graham’s works as affording illustrations of the folk-lore of Scotland. Almost all the superstitions that obtained among the common people of his time he has touched upon either directly or indirectly; and in many instances he has given information upon this and kindred subjects which it would be difficult to find anywhere else. While all his chap-books may be found useful in this direction, a few of them stand out as perfect storehouses of folk-lore. Among the most notable of these are The History of Buckhaven, The History of the Haveral Wives, Jockey and Maggy’s Courtship, the three parts of Leper the Taylor, and even Pady from Cork. In the first-mentioned chap-book there are some particularly valuable notes about the opinions current regarding the Arch-enemy and all his supposed representatives on earth, such as witches, kelpies, fairies, and ‘bogles’ of all kinds. The folk-lore of the hare, or ‘mauken,’ in this work is also very full, and has given Mr. William George Black, F.S.A., Scot., a valuable illustration for his able article on ‘The Hare in Folk-Lore,’ in a recent issue of The Folk-Lore Journal. Similar remarks could be made about the other chap-books specially named, but enough has been said in a general way to indicate their value in this direction. In the notes to the chap-books themselves some attempt may be made to show, in a manner more detailed than is possible here, their worth as throwing light upon the superstitions prevalent during the eighteenth century.

How far the genius of Dougal Graham would have been affected by an education superior to that which he obtained, it would be difficult to say. Possibly greater culture might have raised him to the rank of a Scott; perhaps it might only have left him in the ranks of mediocrity. In the one case he would have produced works of greater literary value; in the other, possibly, none at all. One thing is evident, however, that a series of writings which discover the under-currents of Scottish life in a busy century, would have been lost to literature, and that whatever gain there may have in one direction, it could hardly counter-balance the loss another way. Taking Dougal Graham all in all, his uncultured energy, his ‘hameliness,’ and his ready wit, have won for him a place in Scottish literature it would be difficult to supply, and which no one but himself was qualified to occupy. What that place was we shall endeavour to show in the following pages, when dealing with the chap-literature of Scotland.