'Unionist Nationalism' in the Eighteenth Century: William Robertson and James Anderson (1662-1728)

Abstract

Unionist Nationalism in the Eighteenth Century:William Robertson and James Anderson (1662-1728) Alexander Du Toit With the exception of David Allan and Mary Fearnley-Sander, no authorities have seriously considered Robertson as heir to an earlier Scottish tradition of historiography.1 The usual views tend to emphasise either a strong English influence suitable for post-Union 'British' Scotland or a powerful connection with the ideas of philosophes like Voltaire or Montesquieu.2 In particular, the familial and historiographical link between Robertson and his great-uncle, the patriotic Scottish antiquary James Anderson (1662-1728) has gone largely unnoticed. However, Robertson's correspondence shows that he made enquiries into the Anderson link, and that he drew heavily on Anderson's Collections Relating to the History of Mary, Queen of Scotland (1727) in preparing his own History of Scotland.3 Both Robertson and Anderson were Whigs and Presbyterians, which conditioned their views on Mary and led to literary attacks being made on them by a later Scottish historian, the glutinously sentimental Tory Mariolater George Chalmers.4 Robertson also used the Historical Essay, Shewing that the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland is Imperial and Independent (1705), Anderson's contribution to the 'imperial crowns' controversy as to whether Scotland was subordinate to England. This work dealt chiefly with mediaeval history, while Robertson's focused largely on the sixteenth century, so that Anderson's relevance is not immediately apparent. Indeed, Robertson is frequently aligned with David Hume in showing a typically [End Page 305] 'Enlightened' contempt for the mediaeval period and pre-Union Scotland generally.5 Robertson certainly had little time for the 'Dark Ages'; he divided Scottish history before 1603 into four periods, and the first of these, 'to the reign of Kenneth II' in the mid-ninth century, he believed 'ought to be totally neglected'.6 However, the second of Robertson's divisions is that 'from Kenneth's conquest of the Picts to the death of Alexander III' in 1286, and, far from rejecting this age as worthless, Robertson states that 'from this period the history of Scotland would merit some attention, were it accompanied with any certainty'. It is lack of evidence, not 'enlightened' contempt, that explains Robertson's attitude, and he blames this lack on 'the malicious policy of Edward I' who 'called in question the independence of Scotland, pretending that the kingdom was held as a fief of the crown of England'. This policy led Edward to destroy archival evidence that 'tended to prove the antiquity or freedom of the kingdom' of Scotland.7 Robertson's patriotic condemnation recalls Anderson's anger regarding the 'miserable Fates, that most of our ancient Charters and Records have undergone … by the general Havock and designed Extirpation of our Memory, by Edward the first', and contrasts strongly with the genuine 'enlightened' disdain of Hume, who says that 'the Scots pretend that he [Edward] also destroyed all the annals preserved in their convents: But it is not probable that a nation, so rude and unpolished, should be possessed of any history'.8 Robertson's third division is the period from the death of Alexander III to that of James V. His insistence that 'every Scotsman should begin not to read only but to study the history of his country' from this age onwards again argues that Robertson's view of pre-Union Scotland was far from contemptuous. Significantly, this period begins with 'the famous controversy concerning the independence of Scotland', and it is here that Robertson cites Anderson's Essay.9 Anderson's work was a response to the English pamphleteer William Atwood's Superiority and Direct Dominion of the Imperial Crown of England over the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland of 1704, an effort which not only asserted Scotland's historical subordination but also based this assertion upon wildly indiscriminate and dubious evidence, such as spurious charters showing that early Scottish kings like Malcolm III had done homage to English monarchs for Scotland. Furthermore, as Anderson noticed, he trawled the depths of Britain's mythical 'history' and used [End Page 306] the 'lying and fabulous Tales of Jeffrey of Monmouth' to support his case.10 To make matters worse, Atwood suggested that some mediaeval...