The book takes the form of two separate parts written by different authors at different times. First, an account of the ‘facts’ surrounding the case by an anonymous ‘editor’ looking back on them from a point in the future. Secondly, the confessions of the ‘justified sinner’ himself, observed more or less concurrently. The book was published in 1824 but the majority of the action takes place around the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries. The ‘editor’s narrative’ that precedes and follows the central document appear to be roughly contemporary to the book’s publication, i.e. early 19th century.
The story conveyed by the editor at the beginning of the book tells of a pious woman who is married to an elderly laird of more secular tastes. The couple are not at all well suited, quarrell and arrange their affairs so they live separately in the same house and never see each other. In spite of this, they have two sons. However, the laird will only recognise one of them and sends the other to live with his, now departed, mother in Glasgow. It is strongly implied that the second son, Robert, was fathered by a Reverend Wringhim who is the spiritual adviser and confidante of the pious wife. The spurned son grows up inculcated with his mother’s religion, reinforced by the instruction of Reverend Wringhim who he adopts as his father. This religion takes the form of a radical antinomian type of Calvinism that maintains that salvation is preordained and proceeds from faith and divine grace rather than adherence to laws. The term antinomian comes from the Greek words meaning, ‘against’ and ‘law’. The narrative, which the editor claims to be reconstructing from facts and local traditions, goes on to follow the two brothers to Edinburgh where a divisive debate relating to Covenanting is taking place. The two brothers are on opposite sides of the debate but do happen to meet for the first time and have a fight. Later, George, the first son, is murdered in suspicious circumstances outside a brothel. The prime suspect for his murder, which is not Robert, flees the country. Shortly after learning the news of his son’s death, George’s father the laird also dies. The laird’s heartbroken housekeeper / mistress continues to search for clues relating to the death of her adopted son. She finds there were eye witnesses to his murder who could identifiy Robert as one of the culprits but they have kept quiet because of their own criminality. She travels to the castle Robert has inherited from his biological father with one of the witnesses to identify Robert as the murderer. During their trip, Robert reveals his part in George’s murder and discusses a plot to kill his mother in conversation with his friend Gil-Martin before he goes on the run to escape the various authorities that suspect him of previous murders.
The ‘confessions’ essentially cover the same narrative but from Robert’s perspective. In this sense, the book isn’t driven by the narrative in the same way as, for example, a whodunnit. Most people reading the book today would probably be aware of the fact that it details the exploits of a murderous sinner aided and abetted by the Devil and, in this sense, the culprit is presupposed. Of course, some of the niceties are covered in greater detail than they are in the ‘Editor’s Narrative’ but the facts are broadly the same as those discovered by the laird’s housekeeper during her enquiries. Indeed, from a purely chronological perspective the ‘Editor’s narrative’ contains far more material as it contains the family history and the actions of several different characters not mentioned in the confession. However, the autobiographical confessions are full of interest for the reader because of their unique perspective and the insight they give into the psychology of the perpetrator. Both sources agree that Robert committed fratricide but differ in their assessments of it. The editor makes far scacer mention of Gil-Martin, the Devil to which Robert ascribes a good deal of the blame in his confession. Nonetheless, even the editor lends credence to his existence sighting various eyewitnesses to his close companionship with Robert, his ability to assume the form of other people and the incriminating conversation between the two observed by George’s mother (de facto) and the eyewitness to his murder. As such, it is not simply a question of the rational, factual account of the editor against the supernatural ravings of a murder; both documents allow for occult occurances. While the confessions are more explicitly paranormal it is hard to say that either source is particularly reliable and so, as a reader, you’re left wondering what to believe. Robert clearly wants to exculpate himself or, at least, record his experience but, by the same token, the editor seems eager to incriminate him and seems opposed to his antinomian religious views. It’s hard to see either as a disinterested record of facts especially as there is no hint about the editor’s identity.
The two authors adopt very different tones in describing events, perhaps as one would expect, but the juxtaposition of styles is still jarring. The editor narrates events as an interested outsider and much of the material is light hearted and jocular. The edition of the book I read contained two short stories by Hogg as well, ‘Marion’s Jock’ and ‘John Gray o’ Middleholm’, which shared this amused tone. With the exception of some mild chiding of religious zealotry and stock revulsion at blackguardly behaviour, the editor’s narrative has the feel of a fairy story or folk tale. It is designed to pique the reader’s interest but not to scare or disturb them in any fundamental way. The confession itself, however, is quite different in character. Robert’s confession is chilling in its aloof statement of predestined superiority and salvation, saddening as he falls more and more enthrall to the devil and, finally, discombobulating and frightening as he loses his sanity on the run and eventually dies in suspicious circumstances. It is an altogether more grave and serious document than the editor’s and paints a far darker picture of psychological turmoil and deterioration. The only times I found myself smiling ryely were the boastful passages where Robert ascribes to himself far more bravery and skill in fights than the editor’s version.
Given the unusual structure and content described, almost any reader would ask - what kind of book is this? It could be the ravings of a lunatic but these ravings seem to be just about substantiated by the research of the apparently impartial editor. For instance, there is no reason for the reader to suppose that George was not murdered or Robert not discovered dead some time later. Under this kind of reading, the devil is either a figment of Robert’s imagination or serves a symbolic or metaphorical role. However, there is enough in the account given by the editor to suggest that the Devil has some external reality. In this way, the reader is kept on the verge of dismissing the whole thing as fantasy or mental illness while still reserving some credence, however doubtful, for Robert’s account. The editor comments on his beliefs about the book quite extensively in the postscript (pp209-10) saying, ‘it is certainly impossible that these scenes could ever have occured’ and that he greatly doubts whether Robert had any hand in his brother’s murder and calls the account ‘either dreaming or madness’. The editor also puts forward the idea that the confession might be a parable, as Robert himself says when he is printing it. However, Robert is attempting to hide the documents true nature from the owner of the printing press when he does this so this explanation does not seem in earnest. If it is a parable, the editor says its purpose is ‘scarcely tangible’ and resolves to pity the author as criminally insane.
In spite of this dismissal by the editor, I am inclined to see the book as a parable with the purpose of demonstrating the danger of unquestionable ideas and dogmatic philosophies. In the same way as Stalinist Russia allowed all manner of immoral means to be justified in pursuit of the unquestionable, infallible end of Communism so Robert is tempted into committing and justifying his sins on the basis of his unassailable membership of the elect. Some of this understanding comes from the way the editor frames the document itself. The Wringhim family are portrayed as distorting Christian teaching with their extreme beliefs long before Robert meets Gil-Martin and there is a general and persistent objection from the editor to their draconian, ascetic brand of Calvinism. However, there are also hints in this direction in the confessions themselves. For example, when Robert and Gil-Martin meet Mr Blanchard he warns Robert about Gil-Martin and the dangers of absolutism, which Robert duly records:
“There is not an error into which a man can fall, which he may not press Scripture into his service as proof of the probity of, and though your boasted theologian [Gil-Martin] shunned the full discussion of the subject before me, while you pressed it, I can easily see that both you and he are carrying your ideas of absolute predestination, and its concomitant appendages, to an extent that overthrows all religion and revelation together; or, at least, jumbles them into a chaos, out of which human capacity can never select what is good. Believe me, Mr Robert, the less you associate with that illustrious stranger the better, for it appears to me that your creed and his carries damnation on the very front of it” (p109)
By the same token, a few pages later, when Robert asks Gil-Martin, who he incorrectly assumes to be an exiled Russian tsar, “Are all your subjects Christian, prince?” He replies by saying, “All my European subjects are, or deem themselves so, and they are the most faithful and true subjects I have.” (p112) Later still, when Robert is installed at Dalcastle and seems to be losing touch with reality he asks his servant what the “wives of clachan” say about him. The servant replies that they say he is in cahoots with the devil or possessed by him but that he refuted this by saying that his master is a ‘strick believer’ and ‘fervent a prayer’ (p162-3). The auld wife dispatches a fantastic dressing down as a reply:
“Ye silly, sauchless, Cameronian cuif! Is that a’ that ye ken about the wiles and doings o’ the prince o’ the air, that rules and works in the bairns of disobedience? Gin ever he observes a proud professor, wha has mae than ordinary pretensions to a divine calling, and that reards and prays till the very howlets learn his preambles, THAT’S the man Auld Simmie fixes on to mak a dishclout o’” (p163)
This passage is central to my understanding of this book. Extreme pretension and totalitarian beliefs leave one especially open to corruption. The line between religious and moral ambition and evil actions is incredibly thin or even blurred. This passage also reminded me of an earlier section where Robert’s father, Rev Wringhim, argues with his servant John Barnet (pp87-89) who skillfully exposes the hypocrisy and sophistry of his character and religion. Throughout the book, those from criminal or lower class backgrounds are portrayed as the more honest and truly faithful to Christian principles and it is in their words and warnings to Robert that I find the central theme of the book. They tell us that it is those Christians who consider themselves better than others, who long to be raised up and recognised as superior to their fellow people and employ clever, complicated arguments and philosophies in support of their beliefs that are most at risk of committing evil.
As a slightly more speculative aside, it seems that Hogg may also attribute Robert’s especial susceptibility to the Devil to his breeding as well as his theology. When his brother George is complaining to his father about Robert harassing him in Edinburgh, his father replies that he is, ‘the third in a direct line who had all been the children of adultery; and it is well known that all such were born half deils themselves, and nothing was more likely than that they should hold intercourse with their fellows’ (p40). In the footnote to this sentence it is noted that Hogg had superstitious beliefs about the children of adultery and may have fathered two himself. While such an approach might strike a modern reader as irrational, it could broadly be seen as a contributing factor to Robert’s demise. In the same way as his totalitarian beliefs and ascetic practices are shown to be an unnatural corruption of Christian teaching, so Robert’s ‘unnatural’ status as an outsider in 18th century society may lead him into cruel thoughts and evil deeds. It is often mentioned that he is Rev Wringhim’s son, although never explicitly stated, and this fact could certainly foment a huge amount of resentment towards his brother and mother, both of whom end up murdered. This is never explicitly stated in the book but could be seen as a factor contributing to Robert’s susceptibility to the devil’s advances alongside his intellectual and religious pretensions and insecurities.
I also very much enjoyed the Scottish dialect used throughout the book. A few reveiws ago, I wrote that it was nice and unusual to find Scottish slang in the book ‘Hings’. I now realise that there is probably plenty of scottish slang in literature if I read Hogg and Scott and other famous 19th century Scots so it was more my ignorance that made it seem unusual than anything else!
I really loved the way this book played with the nature of testimony and the connection of documents to their surrounding reality. It reminded me a bit of Nabokov in this way (Pale Fire, The Real Life Of Sebastian Knight) as you’re never quite sure who or what to believe. The huge, uninterrupted blocks of dense text where sometimes a bit overwhelming as Hogg doesn’t use any chapter breaks. However, I overwhelmingly enjoyed this book and thought it was very interestingly and creatively conceived.
