NOTE 29.—­ANDREA DE FERRARA

The name of Andrea de Ferrara is inscribed on all the Scottish broadswords which are accounted of peculiar excellence.  Who this artist was, what were his fortunes, and when he flourished, have hitherto defied the research of antiquaries; only it is in general believed that Andrea de Ferrara was a Spanish or Italian artificer, brought over by James IV or V to instruct the Scots in the manufacture of sword blades.  Most barbarous nations excel in the fabrication of arms; and the Scots had attained great proficiency in forging swords, so early as the field of Pinkie; at which period the historian Patten describes them as ’all notably broad and thin, universally made to slice, and of such exceeding good temper, that as I never saw any so good, so I think it hard to devise better.’  Account of SOMERSET’S expedition.

It may be observed, that the best and most genuine Andrea Ferraras have a crown marked on the blades.

NOTE 30.—­MISS NAIRNE

The incident here said to have happened to Flora, Mac-Ivor, actually befell Miss Nairne, a lady with whom the author had the pleasure of being acquainted.  As the Highland army rushed into Edinburgh, Miss Nairne, like other ladies who approved of their cause, stood waving her handkerchief from a balcony, when a ball from a Highlander’s musket, which was discharged by accident, grazed her forehead.  ‘Thank God’ said she, the instant she recovered, ’that the accident happened to me, whose principles are known.  Had it befallen a Whig, they would have said it was done on purpose.’

NOTE 31.—­PRINCE CHARLES EDWARD

The Author of Waverley has been charged with painting the young Adventurer in colours more amiable than his character deserved.  But having known many individuals who were near his person, he has been described according to the light in which those eye-witnesses saw his temper and qualifications.  Something must be allowed, no doubt, to the natural exaggerations of those who remembered him as the bold and adventurous Prince, in whose cause they had braved death and ruin; but is their evidence to give place entirely to that of a single malcontent?

I have already noticed the imputations thrown by the Chevalier Johnstone on the Prince’s courage.  But some part at least of that gentleman’s tale is purely romantic.  It would not, for instance, be supposed, that at the time he is favouring us with the highly-wrought account of his amour with the adorable Peggie, the Chevalier Johnstone was a married man, whose grandchild is now alive, or that the whole circumstantial story concerning the outrageous vengeance taken by Gordon of Abbachie on a Presbyterian clergyman, is entirely apocryphal.  At the same time it may be admitted, that the Prince, like others of his family, did not esteem the services done him by his adherents so highly as he ought.  Educated in high ideas of his hereditary right, he has been supposed to have held every exertion and sacrifice made in his cause as too much the duty of the person making it, to merit extravagant gratitude on his part.  Dr. King’s evidence (which his leaving the Jacobite interest renders somewhat doubtful) goes to strengthen this opinion.