Claude Debussy A Critical Biography

Eastman Studies in Music 159 Second

Revised Edition François Lesure
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/claude-debussy-a-critical-biography-eastman-studies-
in-music-159-second-revised-edition-francois-lesure/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Debussy s Resonance Eastman studies in music 150 1st

Edition Matthew Brown

https://textbookfull.com/product/debussy-s-resonance-eastman-
studies-in-music-150-1st-edition-matthew-brown/

Brahms and the Shaping of Time Eastman Studies in Music

144 1st Edition Scott Murphy

https://textbookfull.com/product/brahms-and-the-shaping-of-time-
eastman-studies-in-music-144-1st-edition-scott-murphy/

Wrong A Critical Biography of Dennis Cooper 1st Edition

Diarmuid Hester

https://textbookfull.com/product/wrong-a-critical-biography-of-
dennis-cooper-1st-edition-diarmuid-hester/

A History of Musical Style Dover Books On Music History

Second Revised Edition Richard L. Crocker

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-history-of-musical-style-
dover-books-on-music-history-second-revised-edition-richard-l-
crocker/
A History of Musical Style Dover Books On Music History
Second Revised Edition Richard L. Crocker

https://textbookfull.com/product/a-history-of-musical-style-
dover-books-on-music-history-second-revised-edition-richard-l-
crocker-2/

Encyclopedia of policy studies Second Edition, Revised

And Expanded Edition Nagel

https://textbookfull.com/product/encyclopedia-of-policy-studies-
second-edition-revised-and-expanded-edition-nagel/

Bel Canto A Theoretical and Practical Vocal Method

Second Revised Edition Dover Books on Music Mathilde
Marchesi

https://textbookfull.com/product/bel-canto-a-theoretical-and-
practical-vocal-method-second-revised-edition-dover-books-on-
music-mathilde-marchesi/

Music a social experience Second Edition Cornelius

https://textbookfull.com/product/music-a-social-experience-
second-edition-cornelius/

Critical Historical Studies Vol 7 Num 1 1st Edition

Critical Historical Studies

https://textbookfull.com/product/critical-historical-studies-
vol-7-num-1-1st-edition-critical-historical-studies/
CLAUDE
DEBUSSY
François Lesure
Translation and Revised Edition
by Marie Rolf
Claude Debussy
 Claude Debussy

A Critical Biography
François Lesure

English Translation and Revised Edition

by Marie Rolf
The University of Rochester Press gratefully acknowledges generous support from
the Eastman School of Music, University of Rochester; and the James R. Anthony
Endowment of the American Musicological Society, funded in part by the National
Endowment for the Humanities and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Translation copyright © 2019 Marie Rolf

All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation, no part of this
work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed
in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded, or reproduced in any
form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

First published 2019

Original French-language edition: Claude Debussy: Biographie critique by François

Lesure. World copyright © Librairie Artheme Fayard, 2003

University of Rochester Press

668 Mt. Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA
www.urpress.com
and Boydell & Brewer Limited
PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK
www.boydellandbrewer.com

ISBN-13: 978-1-58046-903-6
ISSN: 1071-9989

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Lesure, François. author.

Title: Claude Debussy : a critical biography / François Lesure ; English translation
and revised edition by Marie Rolf.
Other titles: Eastman studies in music ; v. 159.
Description: Rochester : University of Rochester Press, 2019. | Series: Eastman
studies in music ; v. 159 | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019005306 | ISBN 9781580469036 (hardcover : alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Debussy, Claude, 1862–1918. | Composers—France—Biography.
Classification: LCC ML410.D28 L4313 2019 | DDC 780.92 [B] —dc23 LC record
available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019005306

This publication is printed on acid-free paper.

Printed in the United States of America.
 Contents
Preface to the Translation and Revised Edition xi

Introduction 1

1 An Unsettled Childhood: 1862–72 3

The Parents 4
Cannes 5
The Commune 7
Antoinette Mauté 9
Genealogy 12

2 Failure of a Pianist: 1872–79 13

A Ten-Year-Old Child at the Conservatoire 14
Marmontel’s Class 14
First Concerts at Chauny 18
A Second Prize in Piano 21
Durand’s Class 23
First Friends at School 24
Stay in Chenonceaux 26

3 Birth of a Composer: 1880–82 28

First Prize in Accompanying 28
The Villa Oppenheim in Florence 32
Guiraud’s Class 33
Accompanist for Mme Moreau-Sainti 34
Marie Vasnier 35
First Visit to Russia 38
Songs for Marie 40

4 The Path to the Prix de Rome: 1882–84 42

Second Visit to Russia 43
A Second Prize in the Prix de Rome 45
The Concordia 47
A Rebel at the Conservatoire 50
L’enfant prodigue and the Prodigal Son 52
Farewell to Marie 54
vi ❧ contents

5 The Villa Medici: 1885–87 58

Ernest and Gabrielle Hébert 60
The “Begging Dog” 61
Visitors at the Villa 64
The Second Year 65
The End of the Residency in Rome 67

6 Beginning of the Bohemian Period: 1887–89 71

Achille and His Family 72
Classmates and Friends 73
The Ariettes and Bayreuth 74
La damoiselle élue 75
A Life in the Cafés 76
The Pousset Tavern 78
Chez Thommen 79
From the Ariettes to the Cinq poèmes 80
The 1889 World’s Fair 82
Conversations with Guiraud 84

7 From Baudelaire to Mallarmé: 1890–91 85

The Fantaisie for Piano 86
Rodrigue et Chimène 87
Gaby Dupont 89
The Librairie de l’art indépendant 90
The Chat Noir 92
Mallarmé 93
Several Publications and a Commission 95
Discovery of Maeterlinck 97

8 Esotericism and Symbolism: 1892 99

Occultist Circles 100
A Home: The Rue de Londres 103
American Project 104

9 The Chausson Year: 1893 107

Premiere of La damoiselle élue 108
Performances of Wagner 108
Visits to Luzancy 110
Boris Godunov 112
Pelléas at the Bouffes-Parisiens 113
The Beginnings of Debussy’s Pelléas 114
The String Quartet 116
 contents ❧ vii

10 A “Fairy Tale” Gone Awry: 1894 118

Bourgeois Interactions 118
Concert in Brussels 120
Engagement to Thérèse Roger 121
The Breakup and Its Ripple Effects 123
Return to Pelléas and the Marche écossaise 125
Georges Hartmann 127
Premiere of the Prélude à l’après-midi d’un faune 128

11 Pierre Louÿs; The Lean Years: 1895–96 130

The Limits of a Friendship 131
New Performance of the Prélude 133
Collaborative Projects with Louÿs—Œdipe à Colone 135
Cendrelune 135
Daphnis et Chloë 136
Aphrodite 137
La saulaie 137

12 Pelléas —The Long Wait: 1895–98 140

The Fontaines 140
Life with Gaby 142
Works in Progress 144
A Plan to Get the Opera Performed (1895) 146
Other Plans for Pelléas 148

13 From Bachelorhood to Marriage: 1897–99 150

Some Publications 150
Frères en art 152
Nuits blanches 153
A Year of Change: 1899 154
Lilly Texier 155
A Love Slowly Shared 157
Marriage to Lilly 160

14 Nocturnes: 1900–1901 162

Genesis of the Nocturnes 162
Hope for Pelléas 163
La damoiselle élue at the World’s Fair 165
Premiere of the First Two Nocturnes 166
The Programming of Pelléas 167
Premiere of the Three Nocturnes 168
viii ❧ contents

15 The Composer as Critic: 1901–3 170

Compositional Activities at the Beginning of 1901 170
Critic at La revue blanche 171
Monsieur Croche 173
Critic for Gil Blas 175
Emergence of the “National Tradition” 176

16 Pelléas et Mélisande : 1902 179

Albert Carré and the Opéra-Comique 180
Rehearsals for Pelléas 181
Conflict with Maeterlinck 182
The Birth of Pelléas 184
Critical Reception of Pelléas 187
The “Bataillon sacré” 188
Visit to London 190
A Summer in Bichain 191
The Revival of Pelléas 192

17 From the Fêtes galantes to La mer : 1903 195

First Consequences of Fame 195
Concerts in Paris and in the Provinces 197
New Works: The Images 199
A Very Productive Summer: La mer 202
Return to Paris and Initial Encounters with Emma Bardac 205

18 Debussyism; A New Life: 1904 207

Debussy’s Increasing Visibility and Influence 207
The “Pelléastres” 210
Emma Bardac 212
The Lovers Escape to Jersey 215
The Drama of the Breakup 218

19 La mer : 1905 221

The Divorce and Its Consequences 221
Concerts and Critics 224
The Premiere of La mer 226
Settling into the Avenue du Bois de Boulogne 229

20 Projects and Skirmishes: 1906–7 230

New Relationships 230
The Growing Fame of Pelléas 233
New Controversies 235
Debussy–Ravel 237
The Roman de Tristan 239
 contents ❧ ix

21 Orchestra Conductor: 1908 241

Taking the Plunge: Marrying Emma and Conducting La mer 241
Pelléas Abroad 242
Images for Piano (Second Series) and Further Dissemination
of Pelléas 244
Projects and Interviews 247

22 “The Procrastination Syndrome”: 1909 250

Concert in London 251
Operatic Projects 252
La chute de la maison Usher 255
Laloy’s Book and Le cas Debussy 256
Works for Piano 258

23 Orchestral Images and Piano Préludes : 1910 260

Premieres of “Ibéria” and “Rondes de printemps” 260
Préludes, Book One, for Piano 262
Foreign Composers in Paris 264
Relationship with Emma in Crisis 266
Maud Allan and Khamma 268
Trip to Vienna and Budapest 269
Proliferation of Concerts in Paris and Beyond 271

24 Le martyre de saint Sébastien : 1911 273

Origins of Le martyre 273
Concerts and Performers 275
Rehearsals and the Premiere of Le martyre 277
Trip to Turin 280
Stay in Houlgate 281

25 The Year of the Ballets: 1912 284

L’après-midi d’un faune 286
Igor Stravinsky 288
The Origins of Jeux 289
Critic for the S. I. M. Journal 291

26 Jeux ; Travel to Russia: 1913 294

Completion and Premiere of the Images for Orchestra 295
Préludes, Book Two, and La boîte à joujoux 297
Premiere of Jeux 298
Financial Distress 301
Trip to Russia 304
x ❧ contents

27 The Final Trips: 1914 309

From One Project to Another 309
Trip to Rome 311
Trip to the Netherlands 312
Debussy the Pianist 314
An American Interview 316

28 The War; Pourville: 1914–15 319

Stay in Angers 319
An Unexpectedly Productive Summer 322
An Operation 324

29 “The Factories of Nothingness”: 1916–18 327

Visits and an Invalid’s Torments 328
Stay in Le Moulleau 330
Satie: Parade 332
The Chalet Habas 334
The Last Months 335
Postlude 338

Notes 341

Index of Works 507

Subject Index 511

 Preface to the Translation
and Revised Edition
François Lesure’s legacy of Debussy scholarship is breathtaking in its scope
and impact. His lifelong passion for Debussy’s music and creative develop-
ment manifested itself in numerous activities and publications, including his
painstaking assemblage of thousands of letters written by and to the composer;
his founding and oversight of a complete and critical edition of Debussy’s
works; his publication of Debussy’s music criticism; his organization of exhibi-
tions devoted to the composer; and his launch of the Cahiers Debussy, a journal
devoted to Debussy scholarship.
Claude Debussy: A Critical Biography is Lesure’s magnum opus. As director of
the département de la Musique at the Bibliothèque nationale de France for
nearly twenty years, he was in a unique position to study primary materials
that were often unavailable to other scholars. Situated at the hub of Debussy
research, he fostered and absorbed the pathbreaking work of many other
experts in the field. His critical biography of Debussy thus consolidates sources
and scholarship that advance our knowledge and understanding of the com-
poser and his works far beyond any other biography to date. At last, the pres-
ent English translation makes this seminal work accessible to the wide audience
it deserves.
Lesure himself acknowledges his debt to earlier biographers of Debussy,
including Léon Vallas, Marcel Dietschy, and Edward Lockspeiser. Nonetheless,
his access to primary source materials—items such as the journals of Madame
Hébert and Marguerite de Saint-Marceaux, and especially letters, such as those
to and from Debussy’s first wife Lilly as well as to his early publisher Georges
Hartmann—that were unknown by these biographers enabled Lesure to
explode a number of long-held beliefs and myths about the composer. The
reader can almost imagine the author methodically working through Debussy’s
life experiences, day by day, following Debussy’s copious correspondence.
Unlike previous biographers, who tiptoed over some of the more unsavory
aspects of Debussy’s life, Lesure objectively chronicles the composer’s activities
and his opinions of other composers and performers. Lesure’s account, like
that of Vallas, documents the critical reception of Debussy’s works, and, more
xii ❧ preface to the translation and revised edition

than most biographies, fleshes out the cultural context in which the composer
developed.
The present revised edition builds on the remarkable foundation established
by Lesure. It includes new or updated information regarding, for example, the
circumstances surrounding the composition of Debussy’s Marche écossaise and
Suite bergamasque, the completion of L’isle joyeuse, and his relationship with Alice
Peter. It provides chronological details of the dissolution of his marriage to
Lilly and his conflict with Maeterlinck over Pelléas, and newly discovered anno-
tated sources for the text of Crimen amoris. Nearly 2,000 new endnotes furnish
or complete bibliographic details and often provide crucial contextual infor-
mation for readers beyond the French-speaking world, resulting in a book that
is more than a third larger than Lesure’s original French text. This work could
not have been achieved without access to Lesure’s personal research library
and notes, kindly granted to me by Anik Devriès-Lesure, who donated them
to the Centre de documentation Claude Debussy. While these documents are
not yet catalogued, they are now conserved in the département de la Musique
at the Bibliothèque nationale de France. The Dietschy materials are similarly
housed in the same repository; also formerly among the holdings of the Centre
de documentation Claude Debussy, they currently retain call numbers from
the latter archive.
It has been a distinct honor for me to translate and revise Lesure’s biography
of Debussy, especially since I was privileged to work closely with him as a member
of the editorial board for the Œuvres complètes de Claude Debussy. Over the nine-
teen years that I knew François Lesure, I grew to admire him as a musicologist
who relentlessly pursued accurate and complete explanations (to the extent pos-
sible) for whatever musical issues or problems he was exploring. His insistence
on backing up any point he made or any conclusion he drew with hard evidence
and documentation (even though he did not always bother to note it down)
reflected his consummate training and professionalism as a librarian. But such
serious research was invariably carried out with his characteristic wit, humor, and
frequent touches of irony—qualities, incidentally, that he shared with Debussy.
And, again like our composer, while M. Lesure did not suffer fools gladly, once a
fellow scholar earned his trust and respect by proving one’s scholarly and musi-
cal abilities, he was exceedingly generous; in Lesure’s case, that meant sharing
his vast knowledge of source material, both primary and secondary, catalogued
and uncatalogued. One small example of these qualities still brings a smile to my
face: in the 1990s, as my editorial work on a volume for the critical edition was
already well advanced, Lesure sent me a photocopy of some corrected proofs,
a hitherto completely unknown source, for the work in question; knowing that
this new source, while important and most welcome, would slow my progress on
the edition, he attempted to soften the blow by adding a charming little poem,
allegedly composed by “Claude Debussy”:
 preface to the translation and revised edition ❧ xiii

Pour Marie Rolf, petite mienne1

qui me corrige si bien
C. D.

I can only hope that M. Lesure would have been pleased with the additions
and corrections that I have made to his own work in the present translation
and revised edition.
Readers who study the table of contents in the present edition will notice
some changes in the organization of the book. Lesure’s original thirty chapters
have been consolidated into twenty-nine; several chapters have been reordered
and, in some cases, given new titles and/or subtitles of sections. The main rea-
son for these changes is to preserve the chronological approach that Lesure
himself established from the outset, but that he abandoned after his chapter
12 (covering 1897–98); at that point, he inserted a chapter on The Long Wait
for Pelléas, then a chapter covering 1899–1900, followed by three chapters—
on the topics of M. Croche, the Frères en art play, and Pelléas—before jumping
to 1903 for his chapter 18. This chronological interruption in Lesure’s book
likely occurred because the first sixteen chapters were taken over from his
first biography of Debussy, Claude Debussy avant “Pelléas” ou les années symbolistes
(Klincksieck, 1992). Because Lesure’s 1992 biography ended with the compo-
sition of Pelléas, his abandonment of a chronological approach was scarcely
noticeable; however, it becomes an issue in his fully developed critical biog-
raphy of 2003. In the present revised edition, chapters 12–17 (covering, with
some overlap, the years from 1895 to 1903) are recast to follow a chronological
order but also to limit the amount of switching back and forth from one topic
to another that lends a disjunct quality to Lesure’s original French edition.
When appropriate, material in other chapters is reordered, usually reflect-
ing newly ascribed dates for the letters cited (Lesure and Herlin’s edition of
Claude Debussy, Correspondance, 1872–1918 [Paris: Gallimard, 2005] appeared
after Lesure’s 2003 biography of Debussy was published). Lastly, for reasons of
space limitations, the final reflective sections in the original publication (titled
“The Man in His Time” and “Conclusion”) are omitted from the present vol-
ume; plans are underway to publish a translation of these sections separately.
Similarly, the catalog of works is not included.
With respect to the translation, whenever possible I have tried to preserve
Lesure’s authorial voice, infused with its slightly ironic tone. His assump-
tion that the reader would possess something equivalent to his own musi-
cal and historical knowledge often calls for expanded commentary, as does
his laconic writing style. Indeed, some passages are so terse and obtuse that
they might elude even a professional translator (which I make no claim to
being) but that might well be surmised by a Debussy specialist who is inti-
mately familiar with the topic. In addition, Lesure’s tendency to pack mul-
tiple ideas within a single sentence necessitated some editorial license that
xiv ❧ preface to the translation and revised edition

involved breaking up long constructions and at times reordering the material

to render the meaning more clearly. French institutions are referred to by
their original names (such as the Conservatoire, the Académie des beaux-
arts, the Institut de France, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, or the
Théâtre des Champs-Élysées) rather than in translation. Similarly, titles of
nobility are often kept in some French form (for example, the Princesse de
Polignac or the Marquise de Clermont-Tonnerre), as are certain terms (such
as the concours at the Conservatoire or the envois submitted by the winners
of the Prix de Rome) because their usage is so common in both French and
English. Titles of musical compositions and other works are generally given
in their original language (e.g., Das Rheingold rather than L’or du Rhin) and
French titles of works that are well known (e.g., La mer) are not translated
into English.
The following editorial principles have been observed with respect to the
text, the sources and their bibliographic references, as well as contextual infor-
mation that is editorially added. Minimal editorial additions and emendations
are made tacitly in Lesure’s text, although major new sections are identified
within brackets. In general, primary sources are privileged over the secondary
literature, regardless of how they were cited in Lesure’s original French edi-
tion. Whenever possible, updated sources are referenced; this principle applies
most often to Debussy’s complete correspondence, published after Lesure’s
death. While his 2003 biography (abbreviated as FL 2003 in the endnotes)
cites many disparate sources in which Debussy’s letters were formerly acces-
sible, the present English translation and revised edition refers the reader to
the comprehensive Claude Debussy Correspondance, 1872–1918 (cited above),
abbreviated as C throughout the endnotes. In instances where Lesure offers
incomplete bibliographic information (e.g., lacking date, journal name, title,
and/or author), I tacitly complete the citation. If Lesure gives no citation, I
add one, signaling that the information is provided by “MR.” When contextual
or bibliographic information is editorially added either at the beginning or
in the middle of an endnote, it is printed within square brackets. Similarly,
square brackets are used for editorial additions within quoted passages. All
bona fide ellipses, whether added editorially or in Lesure’s original publica-
tion, are indicated by three spaced dots within square brackets: [. . .]. They
are distinct from the French convention of suspension points, which do not
indicate any missing material but rather a trailing off or a punctuation of the
writer’s thought. Suspension points appear in this book as three spaced dots
without square brackets. Due to the enormous number of endnotes, many of
which cite sources (such as reviews) only once, I give full references for the
first mention of the source and shortened citations thereafter, within each
chapter. Following this editorial procedure in lieu of adding a bibliography will
limit the reader’s need to flip through different sections of the book.
 preface to the translation and revised edition ❧ xv

Rendering François Lesure’s monumental biography of Claude Debussy

into idiomatic English, updating its contents, and completing its bibliographic
apparatus would not have been possible without the considerable cooperation
and assistance of many individuals. Anik Devriès-Lesure, herself an accom-
plished musicologist, enthusiastically endorsed the project from its inception,
not only giving me “carte blanche” in my work but also opening up François
Lesure’s research library to me. Anik personally spent a great deal of time
assisting the librarians at the département de la Musique of the Bibliothèque
nationale de France in identifying the documents within numerous boxes that
comprise the Fonds Lesure.
Debussy colleagues around the world have generously proofread chapters,
tweaking the translation and sharing their expertise on specific compositions
or periods of Debussy’s creative development. Denis Herlin took many hours
and days out of his busy life to share his consummate bibliographic knowledge
and to track down obscure sources that more often than not were available
only in France. He also patiently clarified thorny passages in the translation,
as did Mylène Dubiau, with whom I had many long and productive Skype ses-
sions. Marianne Wheeldon graciously offered to read the chapters covering
the last ten years of Debussy’s life, and enthusiastically shared discoveries made
when we were both working at the département de la Musique in summer
2018. David Grayson painstakingly sifted through the chapters surrounding
Pelléas, with respect to both the translation and the accuracy of information
conveyed, and helped identify obscure references. Helen Abbott, Jonathan
Dunsby, Sylvia Kahan, and Richard Langham Smith each read specific chap-
ters, offering alternative idiomatic translations for certain passages. And Peter
Bloom fielded the occasional query from me, often sent late at night as I found
myself stumped by a particular passage in French; invariably, a reply would be
awaiting me by the next morning.
In similar fashion, many other colleagues responded to specific questions
involving sources. I am grateful to John Clevenger, who reviewed the citations
in the first four chapters that concerned documents in the Archives nationales,
and to Jacek Blaszkiewicz, who ferreted out details of some of the reports made
by Debussy’s professors at the Conservatoire. Numerous other research ques-
tions were ably fielded by Myriam Chimènes, Chris Collins, Manuel Cornejo,
Pauline Girard, D. Kern Holoman, Roy Howat, Barbara Kelly, François Le
Roux, Kerry Murphy, Jean-Michel Nectoux, and Robert Orledge. Simon
Morrison and Olga Shupyatskaya lent their expertise with respect to Russian
translation and sources, especially concerning Debussy’s experiences with
Madame von Meck while a student at the Conservatoire and his trip to Saint
Petersburg and Moscow in 1913.
At some point, every researcher experiences the sensation of looking for a
needle in a haystack, and this project provided ample such episodes for me.
xvi ❧ preface to the translation and revised edition

No reference was too daunting, however, for the professional librarians who
assisted in my quest. I am indebted to Mathias Auclair, Benoit Cote-Colisson,
Laurence Decobert, Séverine Forlani, Elizabeth Giuliani, and Catherine Vallet-
Collot at the département de la Musique of the Bibliothèque nationale de
France (Paris), Fran Barulich at the Morgan Library & Museum (New York),
James Farrington and Robert Iannapollo at the Sibley Music Library (at the
University of Rochester’s Eastman School of Music, Rochester, New York), and
Kimberly Tully at the Paley Library (Temple University, Philadelphia) for ris-
ing to every bibliographic challenge posed to them. Individual documents
were located and shared or scanned by Thierry Bodin, Manuel Erviti, Simon
Maguire, Jann Pasler, and Ross Wood; and Alexandra Laederich (former cura-
tor of the Centre de documentation Claude Debussy) facilitated introductions
to the librarians who could help retrieve items from the Fonds Lesure for me.
A number of individuals helped bring this project from its inception to its
final realization. Louise Goldberg (former managing editor for the University
of Rochester Press) and Joan Campbell Huguet assisted with the translation
through its early stages, Gilad Rabinovitch helped locate many sources, and
Samuel Reenan provided both translation and research assistance throughout,
in addition to proofreading the manuscript and indexing the volume. I am
especially indebted to Ralph P. Locke, whose combined expertise as an editor,
musicologist, and translator was perfectly pitched to this project. His constant
(often daily) encouragement, enthusiasm, and objective assessment of my
work sustained me over several years. Thanks also go to Sonia Kane and Julia
Cook, editorial director and managing editor, respectively, at the University of
Rochester Press, for their support and expert advice, and to Carrie Crompton,
copyeditor extraordinaire.
Family and friends with French language fluency contributed much to this
project as well. I am thankful to Karin Demorest, Alex Haas, Kate Lehman,
and Phillip Lehman for helping to decode particularly difficult passages and
for explaining various nuances of French language and culture. My husband
Robin Lehman demonstrated his devotion and fortitude by listening to me
read the entire book aloud, identifying awkward passages and suggesting
improvements. No words can adequately express my immense gratitude to him
and my profound joy in sharing our lives and work with each other. Each in
their own way, our beloved children have also supported our various artistic
endeavors, and continue to enrich our lives beyond measure.
Last but not least, the Eastman School of Music of the University of
Rochester provided financial subventions for this publication. I am grateful for
a Professional Development grant as well as Music Theory Research funds that
have facilitated this project.
Marie Rolf
 Introduction
Debussy’s life was hardly the stuff of storybooks. Rather, it was the life of an
artist who sacrificed nearly everything for his work. While it is commonly
accepted that his compositions opened the path to the music of the twenti-
eth century, Debussy’s personality, as described in the writings that have been
devoted to him, remains enshrouded in grey areas, due in particular to his
relatively unstable private life.
Productive periods alternated with moments of uncontrolled uncertainty in
his life, which can be understood only by establishing a rigorous chronology of
the known facts. We have thus attempted to present Debussy on a day-by-day
basis, somewhat in the style of a chronicle, based on his letters as well as on the
catalog of his works. There is a great disparity between the years of his youth
and those following Pelléas. During the former, although living a very difficult
life, he continued to strive for a rigorous artistic ideal and fiercely sought the
paths that would allow him to attain it. After 1904, he appears to be a victim of
his success as well as of the new social status that was imposed upon him and
that hindered his creative development. Most of his contemporaries thought
that he was simply becoming gentrified and that he had opted for material ease
and conjugal bliss. In reality, in spite of the satisfaction he felt in having suc-
cessfully completed the Images for orchestra or the Préludes and the Études for
piano, he often regretted not having maintained “that calm self-confidence,
which is an admirable strength,”1 and not having succeeded in eliminating, as
he expressed it, “all that consumes the best parts of my thought.”2 If we add to
this the slow progression of a terrible illness, his fate seems rather tragic, and
we are not surprised to read, over the years, on his face as well as in his words,
his sadness at no longer being able to satisfy a “desire always to go further,
which took the place of bread and wine for me.”3
No full-scale biography of Debussy has been attempted for more than thirty
years. Since that time, scholarly studies have proliferated and numerous docu-
ments have come to light concerning the composer, his circle, and the context
in which he developed artistically. Enough time has passed following his death
that any reasons for discretion, which for too long have made it difficult to
learn about important events in his life, no longer exist. At the same time, many
oft-implied innuendos concerning the man can be cleared up, allowing us to
2 ❧ introduction

understand better his complex and fragile nature. In this quest, the systematic
expansion of his correspondence has proved to be fruitful, restoring many cuts
in those letters already published and especially revealing new sources, such as
his letters to the publisher Hartmann and to his first wife, to which his three
primary biographers—Vallas, Lockspeiser, and Dietschy—could not have had
access; even short notes he jotted down can prove to be valuable in confirming
a contact or establishing a date.
In subtitling this book a “critical biography,” we have endeavored to draw
attention to this documentary effort and to emphasize that the firsthand evi-
dence has been reexamined. Debussy’s works, their genesis, and their dis-
semination are repositioned in the context of the composer’s life, with special
attention to the musicians who performed his works and to the inferences
that can be made from how these compositions were interpreted, for better or
worse. The numerous unfinished projects on which he worked have also been
considered, so that we can better grasp the progression of his plans and hopes,
as well as understand how these projects impeded his progress on other scores.
In addition, we have considered the reception of his compositions, which
allows us to follow the slow acceptance of his latest works and the reasons why
they were rejected or misunderstood in much of the criticism published in
France and abroad (at least, to the extent that we were able to ascertain). Our
scrutiny of the press also enables us to give a sense of how involved Debussy
was—voluntarily or not—in the artistic disputes of his time.
Our account most often focuses on the firsthand remarks of the persons
concerned—remarks whose full meaning is revealed only when they are jux-
taposed with intersecting events and opinions. To that end, this study includes
numerous citations from Debussy’s correspondence as well as his music criti-
cism (Monsieur Croche et autres écrits).4 The first twelve chapters of this book
are essentially adapted from François Lesure, Claude Debussy avant “Pelléas” ou
les années symbolistes (Klincksieck, 1992), with various additions and corrections
(and with the omission of the text of the play Frères en art).5
Finally, after nearly thirty years of Debussy research, I am happy to remem-
ber the friendly working relationship that I shared with three of my predeces-
sors: Stefan Jarociński, André Schaeffner, and Edward Lockspeiser. Although
they are now deceased, I am indebted to each of them for various reasons.

François Lesure
 Chapter One

An Unsettled Childhood
1862–72
For more than two centuries, many members of the Debussy—or de Bussy—
clan lived within a rather narrow triangle of Burgundy, circumscribed by
Benoisey, Semur, and Montbard. This was in the Auxois, a highly distinc-
tive region of Burgundy, where the peasants had the reputation of being
“reserved, stubborn, inherently individualistic, rather xenophobic,” readily
anticlerical while remaining attached to religious traditions, and having a
proclivity for jokes and banter.1 From the beginning of the seventeenth cen-
tury, the Debussys had settled there, as farmers or winegrowers, but the far-
thest back we can trace the direct lineage of Achille-Claude is to Benoisey,
that is, to the sixth generation (see the family tree on p. 12). The first family
member to give up the plow was Pierre (identified as Pierre I on the fam-
ily tree), who left his birthplace around 1760 to settle down as a farrier at
Semur-en-Auxois.2 Just before 1800, his son, who had the same first name,
took the decisive step of leaving the Burgundian region and settling in Paris
as a locksmith.
Claude-Alexandre, the grandfather of our composer, was born in 1812. He
practiced his trade as a carpenter in the capital, after having been a wine mer-
chant for a few years in Montrouge, where Manuel-Achille, who would become
Claude’s father, was born in 1836.3 It is rather by chance that Achille-Claude
Debussy was born in Saint-Germain-en-Laye. His parents had settled in that
town shortly after they were wed on 30 November 1861, and they were to leave
it two years later. Among such ancestors, the presence of a musician is difficult
to explain.
There is no mystery about the family’s origins. As they stemmed from
the purest peasant stock, their becoming modest craftsmen or small shop-
keepers could hardly be described as moving up in society. In any case,
there was not even the faintest glimmer of a family member awakening to
an artistic calling, even taking into account the fact that Manuel-Achille
4 ❧ chapter one

enjoyed going to see Ferdinand Herold’s Le pré aux clercs or Gaetano

Donizetti’s La fille du régiment and that he had a “natural penchant” for
music.4 We should mention, however, that one of the paternal uncles
of the composer, Jules-Alexandre (1849–1907), emigrated to England
after the war of 1870 and practiced the profession of “artist musician” in
Manchester.

The Parents

Hardly anxious to follow the traditional trade of his father’s family, Manuel-
Achille, at eighteen years of age, enlisted for seven years in the second
infantry regiment of the marines. Only a marked taste for adventure could
have set him on that path; he brought back many memories of an expe-
dition “overseas,” but we do not know precisely which faraway seas they
were. In 1861, he returned to civilian life and reunited, at Levallois, with
Victorine Manoury, the daughter of a wheelwright and a cook, whom he
would marry several months later at Clichy.5 Very soon thereafter, the
young couple settled in Saint-Germain-en-Laye, at 38 rue au Pain, where
they sold faience. There, on 22 August 1862 at 4:30 a.m., Achille-Claude
was born. The father went out right away, at 11:00 a.m., to register his son
at the town hall. As the couple had no actual relatives in town, Manuel
asked two of the neighboring shopkeepers to serve as witnesses: André
François Mallet, a carpenter, and Ambroise Fabre, an umbrella seller.6 The
mayor, J.-X. Saguez de Breuvery, declared in the register that “the infant
was presented to us.”7
Achille-Claude was baptized in Saint-Germain on 31 July 1864, nearly
two years after his birth and even after the baptism of his sister Adèle,
who was born eleven months after him. This oft-questioned delay can
perhaps be explained by the couple’s lack of religious convictions. They
took care to correct this oversight at the insistence of the young child’s
aunt.8
In any event, this matter was the source of an unusual controversy. The bap-
tismal certificate bears the name of Achille Arosa (thirty-five years old) as god-
father and that of a certain Octavie de la Ferronnière as the godmother. The
latter was none other than the child’s aunt—Clémentine de Bussy, twenty-nine
years of age, and a seamstress. If in this particular case she took a pseudonym,
it was no doubt because the godfather did not wish to draw attention to the
liaison that he had with her. From there it was only one step further to imag-
ine that there was some secret surrounding the birth of the composer, that
someone had wanted to hide the fact that Arosa was in fact his father. There
is nothing to this hushed controversy, one that was somewhat encouraged by
 an unsettled childhood ❧ 5

Debussy’s lifelong silence, with members of his circle, on the subject of his
origins.9
Achille Arosa, whose father was Spanish, was an agent of transferable
shares—called a coulissier (outside broker) at the time. He lived comfortably,
in contrast to the very modest lifestyle of the Debussys. He surely helped them
and offered his godchild presents that his parents were unable to give him—
perhaps the tricycle, memorialized for us in a photograph, or the painter’s
palette that Debussy kept until his first marriage. Arosa possessed a taste for
painting that led him to become a genuine collector. This inclination ran in
the family: his older brother Gustave, a stockbroker, would assume the guard-
ianship of Paul Gauguin in 1871. Be that as it may, the liaison between Arosa
and Clémentine scarcely lasted beyond 1868—Debussy was, after all, only
six years old at the time—because she soon became involved with a maître
d’hôtel in Cannes, Alfred Roustan, whom she married two years later. Arosa’s
“education” of Achille, as well as the bourgeois and elegant atmosphere
in which it would have unfolded, is therefore surely a myth, as is Achille’s
“discovery” of Arosa’s collection of paintings at Saint-Cloud or in Cannes,
where the latter never lived. In any case, Achille must not have heard any-
thing further about his godfather, who, according to his son, was put off by
Achille’s “distant manner” and was said to have nicknamed him “l’arsouille”
(the rascal).10
Business in Saint-Germain having proved to be mediocre at best, the
Debussys gave their faience shop back to their predecessor at the end of 1864
and lodged with Madame Manoury in Clichy. We subsequently find them, on
19 September 1867, at 11 rue de Vintimille, where Emmanuel, their third
child, was born.11 Manuel then found employment as a salesman of kitchen
supplies, while his wife worked as a seamstress just to make ends meet. Finally,
in 1868 he began working at the print shop of Paul Dupont,12 one of the first
print shops in France to be conceived on a capitalist model and which had
obtained a virtual monopoly for official publication. Manuel took up residence
at 69 rue Saint-Honoré, not far from his place of work. This would be the high-
point of his “career,” for it was the only stable job that he would have during
his lifetime.

Cannes

Sometime before 1870, Victorine had entrusted her daughter Adèle to

her sister-in-law Clémentine. No doubt, the latter had offered to help her
out. Settled in Cannes, where she was already living with Alfred Roustan,
Clémentine led a grander lifestyle than that of her Parisian family. In addi-
tion, she was generous by nature and loved children much more freely than
6 ❧ chapter one

did her sister-in-law Victorine, who kept Achille and Emmanuel (her favor-
ite children) under her wing. At the very beginning of 1870, leaving her
husband in Paris, Victorine departed with her children to join Clémentine
on the French Riviera, where she brought into the world her fourth child,
Alfred, on 16 February.
During this time, Manuel remained in Paris, where he had chosen to
live with his father. The Franco-Prussian war broke out in July; soon thereaf-
ter, in September 1870, came the battle of Sedan,13 the proclamation of the
Republic, and the beginning of the siege of Paris. The Dupont print shop
laid off its employees on 15 November. Finding himself without a job, Manuel
accepted a modest post in the army, supplying provisions at the town hall of
the first arrondissement, which would become one of the strongholds of the
Commune.
Did Achille make one or two sojourns to Cannes during this period?
Some have maintained that the absence of his signature at the bottom of
his brother Alfred’s baptismal certificate, dated 24 April 1870, implies that
he had returned to Paris at that point in time.14 This argument is not very
convincing when we consider the following incontrovertible remark made by
Debussy in 1909: “It was at the age of eight that I made my first and only visit
to Cannes, in the South of France.”15 It is highly probable that, at this time
when Manuel had almost no means of support, there was practically no other
solution for the rest of the family but to remain in Cannes with the child’s
aunt, while, with the siege scarcely over, the Prussian army was preparing to
occupy the capital.
Young Achille’s most striking memories date from this visit. Forty years later,
he mentioned them to his publisher Jacques Durand:

I remember the railroad passing in front of the house and the sea on
the distant horizon, which at times gave the impression that the railroad
emerged from or entered into the sea (depending on your point of
view).
Then there was also the road to Antibes, with so many roses that, in my
entire life, I’ve never seen so many of them at once—the fragrance along
that road was always “intoxicating.”
[. . . And there was] a Norwegian carpenter who sang from evening till
morning.16

Astonishing memories, in which one detects the sense of seeing, the sense of
hearing, and the sense of smell all at the same time.
It was also Aunt Clémentine who sought out, if not discovered, Achille’s
musical aptitude.17 While we do not know how this innate ability could have
been detected in a rather sullen child, Achille himself memorialized the
name of the unknown musician who had taught him the basic rudiments.
 an unsettled childhood ❧ 7

Around 1908, when Louis Laloy asked him several questions about his
childhood years for the biography that he was preparing, Debussy remem-
bered perfectly well an “old Italian teacher named Cerutti.”18 Jean Cerutti
was in fact only forty-two years old; a violinist, he had married a young
German woman and lived in Cannes in a house with a painter and two “art-
ists.”19 This modest musician—still according to Debussy’s confessions to
Laloy—found “nothing remarkable” in the child.20 This is hardly a surprise;
though he had some musical facility, Achille was by no means a child prod-
igy, and his years at the Conservatoire would confirm this.21 Other than
pursuing a career as a sailor, essentially an extension of Manuel’s youthful
adventures, the only option for Debussy’s life that suited both him and his
parents was a career as a musician.22 Later, he asserted that he regretted
not having pursued painting.23 To an interviewer from the New York Times,
who in 1910 questioned him on his childhood, he replied: “I was quite an
ordinary child in every way, very disobedient and very confident that my
ideas were right.”24

The Commune

In Paris, the situation had quickly become dangerous for Manuel. The insur-
rection of the Commune broke out several days after his boss at the town
hall in the first arrondissement issued him a certificate, taking note “of his
work, integrity, and productivity” on 15 March 1871 (referenced by Victorine
Debussy in her letter to the military authorities, cited below). The former sol-
dier joined the National Guard, at the very moment when Thiers25 was trying
to disarm it, thus triggering the outbreak of the Commune. Did Manuel act
out of conviction, or was he simply taking a chance on finding a path to suc-
cess? The former assumption seems more likely, in light of his swift promotion
to second lieutenant and, on 3 May, to captain of the second company of the
thirteenth federated battalion.
The newly appointed Captain Debussy very quickly found himself on the
front line. On 8 May, he was sent to Issy with the battalion that received the
order to occupy the fort. His commanding officer, Corcelle, who had been
accidentally wounded, ordered Debussy to replace him at the head of the
battalion. But scarcely had he approached the checkpoints at the Porte de
Versailles when he was abandoned by his soldiers and arrested. Released
two days later, he returned to Paris. On 22 May, MacMahon’s troops hav-
ing succeeded in penetrating the capital,26 Manuel was taken prisoner at
the fort at La Muette and soon ended up with thousands of other commu-
nards in the grim camp at Satory. It was not until August and September
that he was subjected to two interrogations. Finally, on 11 December, he
8 ❧ chapter one

was tried and sentenced by the war council to four years in prison. After
spending a long winter at Satory, he was issued a pardon on 11 May 1872.
Victorine had inquired about the procedures for pleading extenuating cir-
cumstances, and had written the following letter to the military authorities
on 8 June 1871:

Commander, Sir,
I am sending you herewith the documents that I think might be use-
ful for M. Achille de Bussy, my husband, the ex-captain of the thirteenth
battalion of the National Guard, who was taken prisoner at the fort at
La Muette this past 22 May. I will add a few words to explain his par-
ticipation in these recent events. Having lost his job last 15 November
due to a downturn in business, as the postmark on the letter from M.
Paul Dupont that I am sending to you shows, he was employed from 15
December to 15 March at the town hall in the first arrondissement, as
the attached certificate also proves. (The head of food provisions certi-
fies that M. Debussy was employed from 15 December to 15 March and
congratulated him on his work, integrity, and productivity.)27 Since that
time, my husband has been unemployed, as have I since the beginning
of the war. We have four children; the financial needs in our household
have been enormous. In order to lessen them, my husband decided dur-
ing the month of April to accept the position of captain in the National
Guard so that his wife and children might be able to eat. That is the
sole motive for his behavior. I dare to hope, Commander, Sir, that your
big heart will acknowledge these extenuating circumstances, and that
you will want to return my husband soon to the love of his children, for
whom he is the sole provider.
Kindly accept, Commander, Sir, my profound respect,
Your humble servant
V. de Bussy28

This petition was not taken into account by the military authority, who
believed that Manuel’s acceptance of the rank of captain and his position at
the head of his troops spoke for themselves. It was only after a year of actual
incarceration that Manuel’s sentence was converted to four years of suspension
of his civil and family rights.29 We can imagine his wife’s distress, denied of all
resources with her four children during this time and renting, perhaps thanks
to Clémentine’s financial assistance, a very modest two-room attic apartment
on the rue Pigalle. The ten-year-old Achille must have vowed to get even with
life some day!
 an unsettled childhood ❧ 9

Antoinette Mauté

These fateful events, however, would indirectly facilitate the beginning of

Achille’s musical career. In the Commune’s jails, Manuel met another pris-
oner, Charles de Sivry, a self-taught and self-employed musician,30 who per-
suaded him to seek advice from Charles’s mother, Madame Mauté, about his
son’s musical gifts.
The police reports on Charles de Sivry and his mother Antoinette
Mauté are available to us; they are difficult to decipher, as they were
drafted in 1871, at the worst time of the anti-Communard reaction. Most
troubling, in light of these extreme and partisan judgments, is the fact
that the memoirs of Mathilde Verlaine (Antoinette’s daughter) present an
opposite perspective,31 an almost too idyllic view of her family.32 We can
only try to read between the lines of these two sources, as we cannot rec-
oncile them.
Antoinette-Flore Mauté (née Chariat) was forty-eight years old when she
and Achille crossed paths. Widowed at age twenty-six, she was remarried to
Théodore-Jean Mauté, the son of a grocer who had become independently
wealthy. Already a fine pianist by the age of fifteen, she was said to have been
a pupil of Frédéric Chopin. In any case, this is what she herself claimed, for
Debussy recalled, at the end of his life, certain details that she had recounted
about the Polish pianist’s playing.33 This is also what Mathilde wrote in her
memoirs, where, however, she tended to embroider the facts. If there is one
opinion of Madame Mauté that cannot be disputed, it is surely that of Verlaine
himself: “She was a charming soul, an instinctive and talented artist, an excel-
lent musician with exquisite taste, intelligent, and devoted to those whom she
loved.”34 What a contrast to the police report, drawn up probably in June 1871,
which offers an example of the hostility displayed by the Versailles powers with
regard to artists or to people living on the margins and suspected of collusion
with the Communards:

Mme Mauté (de Fleurville)—whose last name, in her first marriage, was
Sivry—is a woman of about 45 years of age, with loose morals, especially in
the past, giving piano lessons, in spite of the 10,000–15,000 [franc] annual
income of her husband. Free thinker, anti-religious, sometimes pretending to
be a respectable woman when she is in the noble company that her piano
connections procure for her. She is often friendly with the Rohans and
the Beurges. A fervent apostle of Rochefort35 and of the Hugos, she had
hoped to marry her daughter to the former. A mediocre writer, she worked
for music serial publications and wrote articles for Le rappel,36 and regularly
received all of her son’s friends and also M. Henry de Rochefort in her
home. She owns a small house at 14 rue Nicolet, in Montmartre, Chaussée
Clignancourt.37
10 ❧ chapter one

The report concerning Charles de Sivry is no more charitable, but its most
serious allegations clearly could not be proved at the time of the trial, since the
musician was acquitted:

Charles-Erhard de Sivry, 22–23 years old, with virtually no money, is a dis-

tinguished musician, affiliated with all the secret societies in which he is
something of an agitator. A bad poet, a member of the so-called Society
of Parnassus. Formerly confined to or possibly a student at Mettray.38
Assistant in a chemistry lab. As such, he has worked for at least two years
on experiments with explosive materials and on weapons of destruction.
He was very close to Rochefort, Vermorel,39 and the main leaders of the
Internationale,40 for which he wrote some articles. It is with his music that
he makes his living; M. Mauté, his stepfather, considers him the worst sort of per-
son. He was secretary for several members of the Commune in succession,
and for the Committee of Montmartre.41 With his care and intelligence,
which is great and dangerous, he helped to prepare for the burning of
Paris. When the troops entered, he discreetly began to pack up and left
toward the end of the week, taking quite a bit of money that he must have
embezzled from several public funds. At the moment, he is an orchestra
conductor in Néris, the place to which he escaped with a so-called lady
to whom he says he’s married, but who is believed to be an accomplice of
the Commune. Among the other people who saw M. de Sivry most often
is a certain woman of Callias,42 at whose home Rochefort’s portrait held
the place of honor, surrounded by flowers. Ch. de Sivry is a very dangerous
person.43

It is more likely that Manuel Debussy met Charles de Sivry in the

camp at Satory than at the town hall, where they worked at the begin-
ning of the Commune. Transferred from Néris, Sivry arrived at the camp
on 20 July 1871. He did not stay there as long as Captain Debussy, and
he was more fortunate than the captain: after two interrogations, he
was dismissed on 18 October. However, during three months together
at the camp, they had plenty of time to get to know each other and to
exchange stories about their respective personal and professional prob-
lems. Sivry quickly persuaded Manuel to entrust his son to Antoinette
Mauté, Sivry’s mother, whom he knew to be a good teacher. “She looked
out for me with the kindness of a grandmother,” Debussy later recalled
when Laloy questioned him about his childhood.44 And to Victor Segalen
he added: “My old piano teacher was a short and stout woman who
pushed me into Bach and who played his music like no one does nowa-
days, bringing it to life.”45 We do not know if the lessons took place
before or after Sivry’s release, but what is certain is that Antoinette was
quickly convinced of the child’s musical gifts, that she took her work very
much to heart, and that she generously offered him regular, high-quality
 an unsettled childhood ❧ 11

lessons—enough that, after one year, he could conceivably be accepted

into the Conservatoire.
At the time, the Debussy family was living on the rue Pigalle, not far
from the rue Nicolet, where the Mautés resided; soon—at least beginning
in September—they would be joined by Mathilde Mauté’s husband, Paul
Verlaine, who, while there, put the finishing touches to his one-act play in
verse, Les uns et les autres.46 One naturally wonders about the possible contacts
between young Achille and the poet—even though after the birth of his son,
the latter was often away from the house, to which he sometimes returned in
a drunken state. And did Achille witness the chaos created by the presence
of Arthur Rimbaud, which completely destroyed the fragile household?47
Achille never alluded to whether he had known Verlaine or not.48 On the
other hand, when the composer was solicited in 1901 to participate in a festi-
val devoted to Rimbaud, he replied enthusiastically, adding: “I like him much
too much to have ever thought of the useless ornament my music would be
to his text.”49
It was a painful childhood, in which Achille, unlike his brothers and sister,
did not attend school. During this time, his mother fanatically took it upon
herself alone to teach him—an education whose inadequacy he would feel for
a long time to come.50
Antoinette Mauté thus advised Achille’s parents to apply for his admission
to the Conservatoire. Manuel sought someone among his acquaintances who
could support his son’s application. We do not know how he succeeded in con-
tacting Félicien David, who was not only a member of the Institut de France
but also a member of the examination committees in voice, operatic decla-
mation, and organ at the Conservatoire. Thus the former Saint-Simonian and
renowned composer of Le désert was the person who in a sense carried Achille
to the baptismal font of the institution, sending the following note to Charles
Réty, the secretary of the Conservatoire:

Dear Monsieur Réty, I am referring to you a child whose father would like
to enroll him in piano study. The child has a good start. You will see for
yourself; I would be pleased if you can admit him. Best wishes, Félicien
David.51

On 22 October 1872, after auditioning with the opus 65 of Ignaz Moscheles,

Achille was admitted to the Conservatoire, when only thirty-three of the 157
applicants had been accepted. It was an unexpected success for the parents,
who really needed good fortune to smile on them at last!
Genealogy
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
to say, while thus setting the law at defiance, he obtained a certain
steady amount of countenance and protection from both of the great
Campbell chiefs, Argyle and Breadalbane. The government made an
effort to impose a check upon his career by planting a little fort at
Inversnaid;[450] but Rob Roy, nevertheless, continued in his lawless
course of life. On the side of Loch Lomond, 1712.
near Inversnaid, there is a cave formed by a
flexure in the stratification of the mountain: here Rob occasionally
took refuge when hard pressed. It is curious to reflect that this
strange exemplification of predatory life was realised in a not very
remote part of our island, in the days when Addison and Pope were
regaling the refined people of London with the productions of their
genius. Rob is described as a short, robust man, with bushy hair and
beard, and legs covered so thickly with red hair as to resemble those
of a Highland bull. His cognomen ‘Roy’ expresses his ruddy
complexion. It is admitted that, amidst his wild life, he was not
without humanity or feeling for the unfortunate, and, what is
perhaps more strange, that he was a sagacious and politic sort of
person, who never would go into any quarrel or contention which
was not likely to result in some practical benefit or advantage. It was
probably owing to this cool temperament, that, though he mustered
a body of clansmen for the Stuart cause in 1715, he yet stood neutral
at the battle of Sheriffmuir, alike afraid to offend King James, on the
one hand, and his patron, the Duke of Argyle, on the other.

A singular and not very decent lawsuit June.

took place at this time between the Earl of
Bute and his stepmother, the Dowager Countess, widow of the first
earl, by whom this family was first raised to any considerable
distinction. When the deceased peer went to Bath in the spring of
1710, a few months before his death, he granted a liferent of 3300
merks (£183, 6s. 8d. sterling) to his lady. The present peer—father,
by the way, of George III.’s celebrated minister—refused to pay this
annuity, and the countess raised an action against him for it, and
also for the annual rents of her own son’s patrimony. The only
objection presented by the earl in his defence was, that the lady had
profited unduly already out of her husband’s property, having at his
death appropriated large sums of ‘lying money.’ The matter being
referred to her oath, she acknowledged having had in hand at her
lord’s death forty pounds, with a purse containing ‘sundry medals
and purse-pennies given by the earl and others to her and her son, in
which number there were some guineas; and the whole might be
about £60 sterling.’ She averred that ‘she had nothing as the product
of any trade she drove, except two or three ells of alamode;’[451] she
had made nothing in her husband’s lifetime 1712.
by lending money; there had been presents
from the tenants in kind and in money, and her husband had given
them to her. The peer seems to have gained nothing by challenging
the claims of his stepmother beyond the forty pounds of ‘lying
money.’[452]

The stricter Presbyterians, commonly July 23.

called Cameronians—the people chiefly
involved in the persecutions of the Stuart reigns—had been left
unsatisfied by the Revolution, and were now as antagonistic to the
presbyterian church as they had ever been to the late episcopacy. For
years they held together, without ministers, or the means of getting
any trained in their peculiar walk of doctrine; but at length one or
two schismatics cast off by the church put themselves at their head,
the chief being Mr John Macmillan, formerly minister of Balmaghie
in Galloway. Oaths to the state, neglect of the Covenant, and general
compliances with the spirit of the times, were the stumbling-blocks
which these people regarded as disqualifying the national
establishment for their allegiance.
The Cameronians chiefly abounded in the counties of Lanark,
Dumfries, and Kirkcudbright, and their Canterbury was the small
burgh of Sanquhar in Nithsdale. Whenever any remarkable political
movement was going on in the country, these peculiar people were
pretty sure to come to the cross of Sanquhar and utter a testimony on
the subject. The last occasion when this was done was at the Union, a
measure which it pleased ‘the Antipopish, Antiprelatic, Antierastian,
Antisectarian, True Presbyterian Church of Scotland’ (for so they
styled themselves), to regard as ‘sinful,’ because it involved a
sanction to that English prelatic system which the Solemn League
and Covenant had bound the Scottish nation to extirpate.
 While still brooding over the ‘land-ruining, God-provoking, soul-
destroying, and posterity-ensnaring-and-enslaving Union,’ the act of
toleration, so manifestly designed for a relief to the prelatists, came
like a bellows to blow up the fire. Sundry meetings were held, and at
length a general one at the upland village of Crawford-John (26th of
May 1712), where it was finally decided on that the faithful and true
church should renew the Solemn League and Covenant.
It was at a place called Auchensaugh, on the top of a broad
mountain behind the village of Douglas, 1712.
that the meeting was held for this purpose.
The transaction occupied several days. On the first, there was a
prayer for a proper frame of spirit, followed by a sermon, as this was
again by an engagement to duties, amongst which the uprooting of
all opinions different from their own was the most conspicuous. The
people were dismissed with an exhortation from Mr Macmillan upon
their ‘unconcerned carriage and behaviour.’ On the second day, it
was reckoned that about seventeen hundred were present, including,
however, many onlookers brought by curiosity. There was now read
an acknowledgment of sins, and the people were invited to clear their
consciences by declaring any of which they had been guilty. One
confessed having made a rash oath; another that he had attended the
Established Church; several that they had been married by the
Erastian clergy. One, hearing of the sinfulness of tests and oaths,
rather unluckily confessed his having sworn the Covenant at
Lesmahago. A number had to deplore their having owned William
and Mary as their lawful sovereigns. Mr Macmillan seems to have
been a little perplexed by the innocent nature of their sins. After all
this was at an end, the Solemn League was read and sworn to, article
by article, with uplifted hands. A day of interval being allowed, there
was a third of devotion. On the fourth, a Sunday, there was an
administration of the communion, which must have been a striking
sight, as eight tables were set out upon the moor, each capable of
accommodating sixty persons. ‘It was a very extraordinary rain the
whole time of the action.’
Even Wodrow, who has taken such pains to commemorate the
sufferings of these people under prelacy, seems to have been unable
to look with patience on their making such demonstrations against
the church now established.[453] Such earnestness in intolerance,
such self-confidence in opinion, cannot be read of in our age without
strange feelings. After all, the Covenanters of Auchensaugh were
good enough to invite the rest of the community to join them, ‘being
anxious to get the divisions which have long wrecked this church
removed and remedied;’ nay, they were ‘willing, for peace and unity,
to acknowledge and forsake whatever we can rationally be convinced
to be bad in our conduct and management,’[454] though it would have
probably been a serious task for a General 1712.
Assembly of angels to produce such a
conviction.
About this time, and for long after, there flourished an enthusiast
named John Halden, who considered himself, and a friend of his
named James Leslie, as above all and peculiarly the proper
representatives of the martyrs Cameron, Cargill, Hackston, Hall,
Skeen, Balfour, &c., according to the tenor of the Rutherglen,
Sanquhar, and Lanark Declarations. John, like his predecessors,
declared not merely spiritual but temporal war against all the
existing powers, seeing they had declined from the Covenant,
exercised an Erastian power in the church, and were tyrants over the
state. Nay, he declared war against ‘the enemies of Christ’ all over the
world, denouncing the curse of Meroz against all who would not join
him. Halden and Leslie, since there was no government they could
submit to, professed their desire and endeavour to ‘set up a godly
magistracy, and form a civil state’ themselves; and it is to be feared
that the community remained grievously insensible to the offered
blessing. The Lord Advocate did not even do them the honour to
consider them dangerous. The only active step we hear of John
Halden taking was to burn the Abjuration Oath at the Cross of
Edinburgh, on the point of a dagger (October 28, 1712), proclaiming
with a loud voice, as he went off up the High Street: ‘Let King Jesus
reign, and let his enemies be scattered!’

Dr Pitcairn, the prince of wits and July.

physicians in his day, being an Episcopalian
and a Jacobite, moreover a man of gay and convivial habits, did not
stand in good repute among the severer of the Presbyterian clergy.
Regarding many things connected with religion from a peculiar point
of view, which was not theirs, he sometimes appeared to them, by the
freedom of speech he assumed on such points, and by the cast of
comicality which he gave them, to be little better than an unbeliever.
Wodrow in his Renfrewshire parish heard of him and his associates
with serious concern. It was reported, he tells us, that ‘Dr Pitcairn
and others do meet very regularly every Lord’s Day, and read the
Scriptures, in order to lampoon and ridicule it. It’s such wickedness
that, though we had no outward evidences, might make us
apprehensive of some heavy rod.’[455]
The Rev. James Webster, one of the Edinburgh clergy of that day,
was distinguished by the highest graces as 1712.
an evangelical preacher. He had been a
sufferer under the ante-Revolution government, and hated a Jacobite
with a perfect hatred. To the Jacobites, on the other hand, his high
Calvinism and general severity of style were a subject of continual
sarcasm and epigram; and it is not unlikely that Pitcairn had
launched at him a few jokes which he did not feel over meekly. In a
poem of Pitcairn’s, Ad Adenas, there is, indeed, a passage in which
Mr Webster, as minister of the Tolbooth kirk, a part of St Giles’s, is
certainly glanced at:
‘Protinus Ægidii triplicem te confer in ædem,
Tres ubi Cyclopes fanda nefanda boant.’

Perhaps this very remark gave rise to all that followed.

One day, in a company where the magistrates of Edinburgh were
present, Mr Webster fell into conversation with Mr Robert
Freebairn, the bookseller. The minister complained that, in his
auctions, Freebairn sold wicked and prohibited books; in particular,
he had lately sold a copy of Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius
Tyanæus, which deists and atheists were eager to purchase, because
it set forth the doings of that impostor as on a level with the miracles
of Jesus. It being insinuated that these auctions ministered to an
infamous taste, Mr Freebairn asked Mr Webster to ‘condescend upon
persons;’ whereupon the latter unguardedly said: ‘Such persons, for
example, as Dr Pitcairn, who is known to be a professed deist. As a
proof of what I say, at that very sale where you found so many eager
to purchase the Life of Apollonius, when some one remarked that a
copy of the Bible hung heavy in comparison on your hands, Pitcairn
remarked: “No wonder, for, you know, Verbum Dei manet in
æternum,” which was a direct scoffing at the sacred volume.’
Pitcairn, having this conversation reported to him by Freebairn,
took it with lamentable thin-skinnedness, and immediately raised an
action against Webster before the sheriffs for defamation. Webster
advocated the case to the Lords, on the ground that the sheriffs were
not the proper judges in such a matter; and, after a good deal of
debating, the Lords, considering that the pursuer shewed too much
keenness, while the defender appeared willing to give reasonable
satisfaction, recommended the Lord-justice Clerk ‘to endeavour to
settle the parties amicably;’ and so the affair seems to have ended.
[456]

In the early part of this month, the Rev. 1712. Sep.

Mr Wodrow made an excursion into
Galloway, and noted on the way several characteristic circumstances.
‘I find,’ he says, ‘they have no great quantity of straw, and necessity
has learned them to make thrift of fern or breckans, which grow
there very throng [close]. They thatch their houses with them ...
stript of the leaves ... and say it lasts six or eight years in their great
storms.’ He adverts to the moat-hills near some of the parish
churches, and great cairns of stones scattered over the moors. Of a
loch near Partan, he says: ‘There seem to be tracks of roads into it
upon all hands;’ a description reminding us of the glacial grooves
and scratches seen on rocks dipping into several of the Scottish lakes.
‘I notice,’ he says, ‘all through the stewartry [of Kirkcudbright] the
houses very little and low, and but a foot or two of them of stone, and
the rest earth and thatch. I observe all the country moorish. I noticed
the stones through many places of far more regular shapes than in
this country [Renfrewshire]. On the water of Ken they are generally
spherical [boulders]. Through much of the moorish road to Crogo,
they are square and long. The strata that with us lie generally
horizontally, there in many places lie vertical.’
The worthy martyrologist received from a Galloway minister, on
this tour, an account of the witches who were rife in the parish of
Balmaclellan immediately after the Revolution. ‘One of them he got
discovered and very clear probation of persons that saw her in the
shape of a hare; and when taken she started up in her own shape.
When before the judge, he observed her inclinable to confess, when
of a sudden, her eyes being fixed upon a particular part of the room,
she sank down in the place. He lifted her up and challenged her,
whether her master had not appeared in that place. She owned it was
so, confessed, and was execute. All this process is in the records of
the presbytery, of which I am promised ane abstract.’[457]
Wodrow seems to have had a taste for geology, though the word
did not then exist. He thus wrote to Edward Lluyd, August 26, 1709:
‘My house [is] within a quarter of a mile of the Aldhouse Burn, where
you and I were lithoscoping. My pastoral charge does not allow me
that time I once had, to follow out these subterranean studies, but
my inclination is just the same as when I saw you, or rather greater,
and I take it to be one of the best diversions 1712.
from more serious work, and in itself a
great duty, to view and admire my Maker in his works, as well as his
word. I have got together some stone of our fossils hereabout, from
our marl, our limestone, &c.’[458]

The Edinburgh Courant newspaper Sep. 24.

contains several notices of a flood which
happened this day in the west of Scotland, generally admitted to be
the greatest in memory. Wodrow, who calls it ‘the greatest for ane
age,’ says it prevented all travelling for the time between Glasgow
and Edinburgh. The lower parts of the western city were, as usual on
such occasions, deep in water, to the ruin of much merchandise, and
the imprisonment of (it is said) twelve hundred families in the upper
parts of the houses. A boat sailed about in the Briggate. The house of
Sir Donald Macdonald—a gentleman regarded with great jealousy in
Glasgow on account of his unpopular religion—is described in one
account as immersed to the depth of three fathoms; which is
probably an exaggeration. But we may believe Wodrow when he tells
us that ‘the water came up to the well in the Saltmarket.’
Great anxiety was felt at Glasgow for the safety of the fine old
bridge, which had its arches ‘filled to the bree.’ Vast quantities of
country produce and of domestic articles of all descriptions were
brought down on the surface of the Clyde and other rivers of the
province involved by the flood. Several lives were lost. At Irvine and
other parts of Ayrshire, as well as in Renfrewshire, bridges were
carried away, and great general damage inflicted. ‘A man and a
woman were lost upon the water of Kelvin, and if the Laird of
Bardowie had not sent his boat from his loch, to the said water of
Kelvin, there had been a great many more people lost therein.’
If we are to believe the observant minister of Eastwood, the whole
air at this season seemed ‘infected.’ He notes the frequency of
madness in dogs, and that, owing to various epidemics, as ‘the
galloping fever,’ sore throat, and measles, scarce a third of the people
of Glasgow were able to appear in church.
‘I am told,’ he adds, ‘the Blantyre Doctor did presage this evil
harvest and the floods; and they talk, but whether true or false I
know not, that there is to be another and greater flood, wherein the
Clyde shall be three steps up the Tolbooth stair in Glasgow.’
Mr Robert Monteath was at this time 1712. Dec.
preparing his celebrated Theater of
Mortality, a collection of the sepulchral inscriptions existing
throughout Scotland. It had already cost him ‘eight years sore travel,
and vast charges and expenses.’ He now advertised for assistance in
his task, ‘desiring all persons who have any valuable epitaphs, Latin,
prose or verse, English verse only, or any historical, chronological, or
moral inscriptions,’ to send just and authentic copies of them to him
‘at his house in the College Wynd, Edinburgh.’ He took that
opportunity of stating his hope that ‘all generous persons will
cheerfully subscribe his proposals in a matter so pious, pleasant,
profitable, and national.’[459]

Died, Sir James Steuart, Lord Advocate 1713. May 1.

for Scotland, aged about seventy-eight,
greatly lamented by the Presbyterians, to whom he had ever been a
steadfast friend. The General Assembly, in session at the time, came
in a body to his funeral, which was the most numerously attended
ever known in Edinburgh, the company reaching from the head of
the close in which his lordship lived, in the Luckenbooths, to the
Greyfriars’ Churchyard. For several years, bodily infirmity confined
him to a chair; but his mind continued clear to the last. Sir James
had shewn some unsteadiness to his principles in the reign of James
II., but nevertheless was forced to fly his country, and he only
returned along with King William, whose manifesto for Scotland he
is understood to have written.
Great general learning, legal skill, and worldly policy, marked Sir
James Steuart; but the most remarkable characteristic of the man,
considering his position, was his deep piety. Wodrow, who speaks of
him from personal knowledge, says: ‘His death was truly Christian,
and a great instance of the reality of religion.... He had a great value
for religion and persons of piety. He was mighty in the Scriptures;
perfectly master of [them]; wonderful in prayer. That winter, 1706–
7, when he was so long ill, he was in strange raptures in his prayers
sometimes in his family. He used to speak much of his sense of the
advantage of the prayers of the church, and in a very dangerous
sickness he had about thirteen years ago, he alleged he found a
sensible turn of his body in the time of Mr George Meldrum’s prayer
for him. He never fell into any trouble but he gave up his name to be
prayed for in all the churches of the city of 1713.
Edinburgh. His temper was most sweet and
easy, and very pleasant. He was a kind and fast friend, very
compassionate and charitable.’[460]

The Lord Drummond, eldest son of the May 11.

exiled Earl of Perth, and his wife, Jean
Gordon, daughter of the Duke of Gordon, had a son and heir born to
them, the same who afterwards took a conspicuous part in the
rebellion of 1745, which he did not long outlive. Politics, long adverse
to the house of Drummond, smiled on the birth of this infant heir, for
never since the Revolution did the Whig interest seem more
depressed. Lord Drummond was encouraged by these circumstances
to take a step which would have been dangerous a few years before.
It is related as follows by Wodrow: ‘The baptism of my Lord
Drummond’s son [was performed in October] at his own house by a
popish bishop with great solemnity. The whole gentlemen and
several noblemen about, were gathered together; and when the mass
was said, there were very few of them went out. Several justices of
peace and others were there. This is a fearful reproach upon the
lenity of our government, to suffer such open insults from
papists.’[461]
 Two months later, Wodrow notes: ‘The papists are turning very
open at Edinburgh, and all over Scotland there is a terrible openness
in the popish party.’ It is alleged in a popular contemporary
publication, that there were fully forty Catholic priests living with
little effort at concealment in Scotland; some of them very successful
in winning over ignorant people to their ‘damnable errors;’ while
‘one Mr Bruce, a popish bishop, had his ordinary residence in
Perthshire, where he had his gardens, cooks, and other domestic
servants, and thither the priests and emissaries of inferior rank
resorted for their directions and orders.... Their peats and other fuel
were regularly furnished them ... [they had] also their mass-houses,
to which their blind votaries resorted almost as publicly as the
Protestants did to their parish churches.’[462]

Died Dr Archibald Pitcairn, a man in Oct. 20.

most respects so strongly contrasted with
his recently deceased countryman, Sir James Steuart, as to impress
very strongly the absurdity of trying to ascribe any particular line of
character to a nation or any other large 1713.
group of people. To nearly every idea
associated with the word Scotsman, Pitcairn, like Burns and many
other notable Caledonians, stands in direct antagonism: he was gay,
impulsive, unworldly, full of wit and geniality, a dissenter from
Calvinism, and a lover of the exiled house of Stuart. Conviviality
shortened his life down to the same measure which a worn-out brain
gave to Sir Walter Scott—sixty-one years. But he parted with the
world in great serenity and good-humour, studying to make his last
year useful for the future by writing out some of his best professional
observations, and penning cheerful verses to his friends on his
death-bed. In these, to the refutation of vulgar calumnies, he failed
not to express his trust in a future and brighter existence:
‘Animas morte carere cano:
Has ego, corporibus profugas, ad Sidera mitto,
Sideraque ingressis otia blanda dico.’

Adding, in the Horatian spirit which marked him all through life:
‘Sed fuerint nulli, forsan, quos spondeo, coeli,
 Nullaque sint Ditis numina, nulla Jovis;

· · · · ·

Attamen esse hilares, et inanes mittere curas

Proderit, ac vitæ commoditate frui,
Et festos agitâsse dies, ævique fugacis
Tempora perpetuis detinuisse jocis.’[463]

A few months before his death, Pitcairn had completed a volume of

his medical essays, to which he prefixed a page strongly significant of
his political predilections: it contained the following words in large
characters: ‘To God and his Prince this Work is humbly Dedicated
by Archibald Pitcairn,’ with the date, ‘June 10, 1713,’ being the
well-known birthday of the said prince— 1713.
namely, the Chevalier St George. Where
practical matters are concerned, one sees in this volume the
acuteness and good sense which gave the author his professional
eminence. In theoretical matters, we find the absurdities which may
be said to have been inseparable from medical science before either
physiology or organic chemistry was understood. The phenomena of
digestion are described by Pitcairn as wholly physical and
mechanical. It is also rather startling to find him patronising
poultices of ovine and bovine excreta, and powders made of the
human skull.
The volume was published posthumously, and in the friendly
biography prefixed to it, we find a charming professional portrait
—‘always ready to serve every one to the utmost of his power, and
even at the risk of his own life—never sacrificing the health of his
patients for any humour or caprice’—‘not concerned about
fees’—‘went with greater cheerfulness to those from whom he could
expect nothing but good-will, than to persons of the highest
condition’—often, where needful, left marks of his charity, as well as
his art, with the sick. ‘This virtue of charity was indeed quite his own
in its manner, for he usually conducted it in such a way that those
benefiting by it remained ignorant of his being their benefactor.’ It is
also stated of him that he was of ‘a pleasant engaging humour; that
life sat easy upon him in all circumstances; that he despised many,
but hated none.’
 In a country journey, Pitcairn discovered the learning and genius
of Thomas Ruddiman, and he succeeded in bringing this remarkable
man into a position which enabled him to exercise his talents.
Ruddiman afterwards repaid the favour by gathering the many clever
Latin poems of his patron, which he gave to the world in 1727. They
are chiefly complimentary to the famous men on the cavalier side, or
directly expressive of his political feelings; but some are general, and
include such happy turns of thought as make us regret their not
being in English. One of the most noted of his pieces was a brief elegy
on the death of Dundee, which was translated into English by
Dryden; and it must be acknowledged as something for a Scottish
writer of Latin verses in that age, to have had men like Dryden and
Prior for translators.
One cannot but reflect with pleasure on such connections amongst
men of genius as that between Pitcairn and Ruddiman; and the
association of ideas leads us to another anecdote connected with
Pitcairn and to a similar purport. When the learned physician acted
as professor at Leyden, he had amongst his 1713.
pupils two men of great eventual eminence,
Herman Boerhaave and Richard Mead, both of whom entertained a
high sense of the value of his instructions. A son of Pitcairn having
forfeited his life by appearing in the rebellion of 1715, Mead, then in
great favour in high places, went to Sir Robert Walpole to plead for
the young man’s pardon. ‘If I have been able,’ he said, ‘to save your
or any other man’s life, I owe the power to this young man’s father.’
The claim was too strong, and put in too antithetic terms, to be
resisted.
My old friend Alexander Campbell, editor of Albyn’s Anthology,
was intimately acquainted with a maiden daughter of Pitcairn, who
lived till the closing decade of the eighteenth century. He spoke of
having once asked her to accompany him to the theatre, to see Mrs
Siddons, when the old lady said gaily: ‘Aih, na, laddie; I have not
been at ony playhouse since I gaed to ane in the Canongate wi’ papa,
in the year ten.’

‘This month there was an incident at Nov.

Glasgow which made a very great noise in
the country. Mr Gray [one of the clergy] was visiting [his flock], and
in some house meets with one Andrew Watson, a journeyman
shoemaker, lately come into the town from Greenock.’ On inquiry, he
learned that this man did not attend his ministrations, and, asking
the reason, he was told it was because he, the minister, had taken the
oath of abjuration. He seemed a stiff, pragmatical fellow, and in the
course of an altercation which ensued, he called Mr Gray perjured. A
lay elder, accompanying Mr Gray, resented this expression of the
shoemaker, and reported it to Bailie Bowman, who, sending for
Watson, demanded if he called Mr Gray perjured. ‘Yes, and I will so
call every one who takes the oath of abjuration.’ ‘Do you own Mr
Gray as your minister?’ ‘I will own no one who took that oath.’ ‘Do
you own the magistrates?’ ‘No, if they have taken that oath.’ Here
was a rebel for the worthy magistrates and ministers of Glasgow to
be cherishing in their community. It was not to be borne. Bailie
Bowman clapped the man up in jail, till it should be determined what
was to be his ultimate fate. After a day or two, the magistrates sent
for him, and questioned him as he had been questioned before, when
he not only gave the same answers, but subscribed a paper disowning
both ministers and magistrates, on the ground of their having taken
the aforesaid oath. ‘They kept him in prison ten or twelve days, but
could make nothing of him. They offered to 1713.
let him out if he would confess he had given
offence to the magistrates; but that he would not do.’ There were
some who cried out against this procedure as ‘persecution,’ and they
took care that the man did not want for maintenance. The last we
hear of the matter is, that the magistrates ‘resolve to banish him the
town.’ Wodrow, who relates this occurrence,[464] soon after makes the
observation, that ‘the Presbyterians are ill termed bigot and narrow-
spirited:’ that character ‘does best agree to papists and prelatists.’

It was remarked that an unwholesome air Dec.

prevailed at this time, causing many hasty
deaths, and favouring small-pox, of which eighty children died
within a little time in Eglesham parish. ‘I hear it observed,’ says
Wodrow, ‘that in the summer-time never was known such a quantity
of flees [flies.]’
 Campbell of Lochnell having died about 1714. Jan. 10.
this day, his son, a Jacobite, kept the corpse
unburied till the 28th, in order that the burial might be turned to
account, or made use of, for political purposes. It was customary for
the obsequies of a Highland chief or gentleman to be attended by a
vast multitude of people, who usually received some entertainment
on the occasion. It seems to have been understood that those who
came to Lochnell’s funeral were making a masked demonstration in
favour of the exiled Stuart. Those of the opposite inclination deemed
it necessary to attend also, in order to be a check upon the Jacobites.
Hence it came to pass, that the inhumation of Lochnell was attended
by two thousand five hundred men, well armed and appointed, five
hundred being of Lochnell’s own lands, commanded by the famous
Rob Roy, carrying with them a pair of colours belonging to the Earl
of Breadalbane, and accompanied by the screams of thirteen
bagpipes. Such a subject for a picture![465]

Keeping in view the article under Feb.

September 1690, regarding the marriage of
Walter Scott of Kelso with Mary Campbell of Silvercraigs, we may
read with additional interest a letter by that person, written from
Glasgow to his wife in February 1714, giving 1714.
an account of the peculiar arrangements
regarding her father’s funeral:
‘Glasgow, Feb. 2, 1714.

‘My Dear—I left Edinr upon fryday the 29th of the last. Dean of [Guild] Allane
nor your sister either durst venture to travell to Glasgow with [me], on account of
the season, but said that Mr Bell, Lisis younge husband, was there, whom Dean of
Guild Allane had trusted with any business that could bee done for him. I called at
Lithkow and saw Lissie, who was very kinde, was at Kilsyth all that night, came to
Glasgow the next day, beeing Saturday, at twelve of the clock, and at two of the
clock that day went down to the chesting of your father. He was buried yesterday
att four a clock afternoon, beeing Monday the first instant, very devoutlie and
honourablie, for Blythswood had ordered all things proper and suitable to a nicety.
All the gentlemen in the place, the magistrates, and the citiezens of best esteem
and substance, accompanied the funerall in very good order. I carried his head,
Blythswood on my right, and Alex. Bell, Lissies husband, on my left hand; other
nerest relations and Sr James Campbell of Auchinbrook carried all the way. After
the funerall, there was prepared in the large room of the Coffee-house a very
handsome and genteele treat, to wh the Magistrates and Gentlemen and friends
were invited. The treat consisted of confections, sweet breads, and bisket of divers
sorts, very fine and well done, and wines. There were at it upwards of thirtie. Wee
are this day to look to his papers in presence of Bailie Bowman and town-clark,
wherof you shall have account of after this. I have sent a letter to Sir Robert Pollock
just now, whose answer I will wait. I am like to stay five days after this here, and
the time I may stay in Edir depends on my success from Sir Rot Pollock. In the
mean time let Robie[466] be making himself ready, for his master told Dean of
Guild that he thought he would bee readie to saill about the middle of this instant.
When I come to Edr I shall know whither it will be needfull to send for him before I
come home myselfe or not. I recommend you all to the protection of God, and am,

‘My dear, your

‘W. Scott.
 REIGN OF GEORGE I.: 1714–1727.

The Tory ministry of Anne, which had certainly meditated some

attempt at the restoration of the Stuart line, were paralysed, as we
have seen, by her death, and allowed the accession of George of
Hanover to take place without opposition. The new king had no
sooner settled himself in London, than he displaced the late queen’s
advisers, and surrounded himself with the Whigs, whom he knew to
be his only true friends. The sharpness of this proceeding, added to
the general discontent, produced an almost immediate insurrection.
Two of the ex-ministers—the Duke of Ormond and Lord Bolingbroke
—went to France, and attached themselves to the exiled court. The
Earl of Mar, after in vain attempting to obtain the favour of King
George, repaired to his native country, and, on the 6th of September
1715, set up the standard of rebellion in Aberdeenshire, although he
is said to have had no commission to that effect from the rival prince.
This nobleman, who had acted as Secretary of State under the late
government, was speedily surrounded with hundreds of armed men,
chiefly of the Highland clans, who were willing to be led by him to
battle.
The government had at this time only a few regiments in Scotland,
not exceeding in all fifteen hundred men, and these could not be
concentrated in one place, without leaving the rest of the country
exposed. They were, however, put under the command of the Duke of
Argyle, a young soldier who had served under Marlborough, and at
one time commanded the British troops in Spain. The government
could not well spare more men for service in Scotland, as England,
being threatened with a corresponding invasion from France,
required a large number of the disposable troops for its own defence,
and also for the purpose of preventing a rising among the native
Jacobites. An attempt was made to surprise Edinburgh Castle in
behalf of the Chevalier, and it would have in all likelihood succeeded,
but for the folly of one or two of the conspirators. By this enterprise,
if successful, the Duke of Argyle must have been disabled for keeping
together his small army, and the whole of the south of Scotland
would at once have fallen into the hands of the insurgent general, if
he had been gifted with common energy to take it into his
possession.
Mar entered Perth on the 28th of September, having with him
about five thousand horse and foot, fully armed. Among his
Highland adherents were the chieftains of Clanranald and Glengarry,
the Earl of Breadalbane, and the Marquis of Tullibardine (eldest son
of the Duke of Athole), all of whom brought their clansmen into the
field. Among the Lowland Jacobites who had already joined him
were the Earls of Panmure and Strathmore, with many of the
younger sons of considerable families. On the 2d of October, a party
of his troops performed the dexterous exploit of surprising a
government vessel on the Firth of Forth opposite to Burntisland, and
taking from it several hundred stand of arms, which it was about to
carry to the north, for the purpose of arming the Whig Earl of
Sutherland against his Jacobite neighbours. This gave a little éclat to
the enterprise.
The government, in order to encourage loyalty at this dangerous
crisis, obtained an act, adjudging the estates of the insurgents to such
vassals, holding of them, as should remain at peace. The state-
officers were also very active in apprehending suspected persons,
especially in England. Some gentlemen in the northern counties,
fearing that this would be their fate, met on the 6th of October at
Rothbury, and soon increased to a considerable party. Among them
were Mr Forster, member of parliament for Northumberland, and
Lord Widdrington. They made an advance to Newcastle, but were
deterred from attacking it. They then concentrated themselves at
Hexham, and opened a communication with Lord Mar. About the
same time, the Viscount Kenmure, and the Earls of Nithsdale,
Wintoun, and Carnwath appeared in arms in the south of Scotland,
with a considerable band of followers, and a junction was soon after
effected between the two parties.
As the Earl of Mar was loath to leave the Highlands, where
immense bands were mustering to join him, he resolved to make no
attempt upon the Duke of Argyle, who had now posted his small
force at Stirling Bridge, which forms the only free pass between the
north and south of Scotland. The earl, however, thought it expedient
to send a detachment of upwards of two thousand of his infantry
across the Firth of Forth, in order to co-operate with him, when the
proper time should arrive, by falling upon the duke in flank. This
party was placed under the command of Brigadier Mackintosh of
Borlum, an old officer, who had been regularly trained under
Marlborough. By making a feint at Burntisland, to which point they
attracted the war-vessels on the firth, about sixteen hundred got
safely over to East Lothian, and immediately marched upon
Edinburgh, which was then defenceless. The provost, however, had
time to call the Duke of Argyle to his aid, who entered the west gate
of the city with five hundred horse, at the same time that Mackintosh
was approaching its eastern limit. The insurgent chief turned aside to
Leith, and barricaded his men in the old dismantled citadel of
Cromwell. There he was called to surrender next day by the duke, but
returned a haughty defiance, and the assailing party had to retire to
wait for cannon. The brigadier took the opportunity that night to
march back to East Lothian, where for a day or two he garrisoned
Seton House, the princely seat of the Earl of Wintoun. The Duke of
Argyle was obliged to leave him unmolested, in order to return to
Stirling, upon which he learned that the Earl of Mar was marching
with his whole force. The insurgent general was in reality only
anxious to call him off from the party under Mackintosh. The capital
being now protected by volunteers, that officer, in obedience to the
commands of the Earl of Mar, marched to Kelso, where he formed a
junction with the English and Lowland cavaliers.
There were now two Jacobite armies in Scotland—one at Perth,
and another at Kelso. It was the obvious policy of both to have
attempted to break up the Duke of Argyle’s encampment, which was
the sole obstacle to their gaining possession of Scotland; but this the
Earl of Mar either found inconvenient or imprudent, and the party at
Kelso was soon diverted to another scene of action. After a delay of
some days, and much unhappy wrangling among themselves, it was
determined by the leaders of this body to march into the west of
England, where, as the country abounded with Jacobites, they
expected to raise a large reinforcement. They therefore moved along
the Border by Jedburgh, Hawick, and Langholm, followed by a
government force much inferior to themselves in numbers, under the
command of General Carpenter. On the 31st of October they entered
England, all except a few hundred Highlanders, who had determined
to go home, and who were mostly seized by the country people upon
the march.
Hitherto, the insurrection had been a spontaneous movement of
the friends of the Chevalier, under the self-assumed direction of the
Earl of Mar. It was now put into proper form by the earl receiving a
commission as generalissimo from the royal personage in whose
behalf he was acting. Henceforth the insurgent forces were
supported by a regular daily pay of threepence in money, with a
certain quantity of provisions, the necessary funds being raised by
virtue of the earl’s commission, in the shape of a land-tax, which was
rendered severer to the enemies than to the friends of the cause. The
army was now increased by two thousand five hundred men brought
by the Marquis of Huntly, eldest son of the Duke of Gordon, and
nearly four thousand who arrived, under the charge of the Earl of
Seaforth, from the North Highlands. Early in November, there could
not be fewer than sixteen thousand men in arms throughout the
country for the Stuarts, a force tripling that with which Prince
Charles penetrated into England at a later and less auspicious period.
Yet even with all, or nearly all this force at his command, the Earl of
Mar permitted the Duke of Argyle to protect the Lowlands and the
capital with about three thousand men.
At length, on the 10th of November, having gathered nearly all the
forces he could expect, he resolved to force the pass so well guarded
by his opponent. When the Duke of Argyle learned that Mar was
moving from Perth, he resolved to cross the Forth and meet his
enemy on as advantageous ground as possible on the other side,
being afraid that the superior numbers of the insurgents might
enable them to advance upon more points of the river than he had
troops to defend. He drew up his forces on the lower part of a
swelling waste called the Sheriffmuir, with the village of Dunblane in
his rear. His whole force amounted to three thousand three hundred
men, of whom twelve hundred were cavalry. Mar, reinforced on the
march by the West Highland clans under General Gordon, advanced
to battle with about nine thousand men, including some squadrons
of horse, which were composed, however, of only country gentlemen
and their retainers. Although the insurgents thus greatly
outnumbered their opponents, the balance was in some measure
restored by Mar’s total ignorance of the military art, and the
undisciplined character of his troops; while Argyle, on the other
hand, had conducted armies under the most critical circumstances,
and his men were not only perfectly trained, but possessed that
superiority which consists in the mechanical regularity and firmness
with which such troops must act. On the night of the 12th, the two
armies lay within four miles of each other. Next morning, they were
arranged by their respective commanders in two lines, the
extremities of which were protected by horse. On meeting, however,
at the top of the swelling eminence which had been interposed
between them, it was found that the right wing of each greatly
outflanked the left wing of the other army. The commanders, who
were stationed at this part of their various hosts, immediately
charged, and as in neither case there was much force opposed to
them, they were both to some extent successful. The Duke of Argyle
beat back the left wing of the insurgents, consisting of Highland foot
and Lowland cavalry, to the river Allan. The Earl of Mar, in like
manner, drove the left wing of the royal army, which was
commanded by General Whitham, to the Forth. Neither of these
triumphant parties knew of what was done elsewhere, but both
congratulated themselves upon their partial success. In the
afternoon, the Earl of Mar returned with the victorious part of his
army to an eminence in the centre of the field, whence he was
surprised, soon after, to observe the Duke of Argyle leading back the
victorious part of his army by the highway to Dunblane. The total
want of intelligence on each side, and the fear which ignorance
always engenders, prevented these troops mutually from attacking
each other. The duke retired to the village; the earl drew off towards
Perth, whither a large part of his army had already fled in the
character of defeated troops: and thus the action was altogether
indecisive. Several hundreds were slain on both sides; the Earl of
Strathmore and the chieftain of Clanranald fell on the side of the
insurgents; the Earl of Forfar on that of the royalists. The Duke of
Argyle reappeared next morning on the field, in order to renew the
action; but finding that Mar was in full retreat to Perth, he was
enabled to retire to Stirling with all the spoils of the field, and the
credit of having frustrated the design of the insurgent general to