Experimental and Expanded Animation:

New Perspectives and Practices 1st ed.

Edition Vicky Smith
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/experimental-and-expanded-animation-new-perspecti
ves-and-practices-1st-ed-edition-vicky-smith/
Experimental Film and Artists’ Moving Image

Experimental and Expanded Animation

New Perspectives and Practices

Edited by Vicky Smith & Nicky Hamlyn

Experimental Film and Artists’ Moving Image

Series Editors
Kim Knowles
Aberystwyth University
Aberystwyth, UK

Jonathan Walley
Department of Cinema
Denison University
Granville, OH, USA
Existing outside the boundaries of mainstream cinema, the field of
experimental film and artists’ moving image presents a radical challenge
not only to the conventions of that cinema but also to the social and cul-
tural norms it represents. In offering alternative ways of seeing and expe-
riencing the world, it brings to the fore different visions and dissenting
voices. In recent years, scholarship in this area has moved from a marginal
to a more central position as it comes to bear upon critical topics such as
medium specificity, ontology, the future of cinema, changes in cinematic
exhibition and the complex interrelationships between moving image
technology, aesthetics, discourses, and institutions. This book series stakes
out exciting new directions for the study of alternative film practice—from
the black box to the white cube, from film to digital, crossing continents
and disciplines, and developing fresh theoretical insights and revised his-
tories. Although employing the terms ‘experimental film’ and ‘artists
moving image’, we see these as interconnected practices and seek to inter-
rogate the crossovers and spaces between different kinds of oppositional
filmmaking.
We invite proposals on any aspect of non-mainstream moving image
practice, which may take the form of monographs, edited collections,
and artists’ writings both historical and contemporary. We are interested
in expanding the scope of scholarship in this area, and therefore welcome
proposals with an interdisciplinary and intermedial focus, as well as stud-
ies of female and minority voices. We also particularly welcome proposals
that move beyond the West, opening up space for the discussion of Latin
American, African and Asian perspectives.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15817
 Vicky Smith · Nicky Hamlyn
Editors

Experimental and
Expanded Animation
New Perspectives and Practices
Editors
Vicky Smith Nicky Hamlyn
University for the Creative Arts University for the Creative Arts
Farnham, Canterbury, UK Canterbury, UK

and

School of Communication
Royal College of Art
London, UK

ISSN 2523-7527 ISSN 2523-7535 (electronic)

Experimental Film and Artists’ Moving Image
ISBN 978-3-319-73872-7 ISBN 978-3-319-73873-4 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73873-4

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018937877

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: ‘33 Frames Per Foot’ (2013) by Vicky Smith

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer International
Publishing AG part of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Foreword

On Animation
This book makes its appearance at a time when, more than ever before,
it is possible to question what exactly is animation? The employment
of CGI in many Hollywood feature films has irrevocably blurred the
boundary between animation and live action. This, in a way, returns us
to cinema’s first decades, when there were no definitions to concern
us; the attraction of the medium was ‘things in motion’, be it Louis
Lumière’s wall being demolished and rebuilding itself, or Georges
Méliès’s multiple self-portraits singing on a musical stave, or Émil Cohl’s
Fantasmagorie (1908) of white-lines-on-black seamlessly morphing from
one image to another. In the following decades, animation largely took
its own path, and became a branch of cinema generally subservient to
the live-action mainstream, no longer ‘the main attraction’, but with the
compensation of being more open to individual expression.
The early animators (Cohl and Winsor McKay) would have appre-
ciated the French term for animation, Le Dessin Animé, the animated
drawing. Better than bald ‘animation’, it captures the sense that the
drawn-image should be totally and constantly in motion; no ‘dead’ inan-
imate parts. After his first fully animated Gertie the Dinosaur (1914),
McKay himself struggled to maintain this dynamic, and invented many
of the tricks that would be used by later animators to minimize the
labour involved, (cels, cycles of drawings, etc.)—in effect, accepting the
‘killing’ of part of the image. Hollywood animators largely accepted

v
vi    Foreword

these compromises; the story’s the thing, although there are moments in
early Disney and Fleischer where gloriously the whole image is involved
in motion. But these are rare. To see the ‘struggle for full animation’ (for
‘life’) continued, one turns to the parallel history of experimental anima-
tion and the work of artist animators Walter Ruttmann, Len Lye, Lotte
Reiniger, Alexandre Alexeieff and Claire Parker, Robert Breer, Caroline
Leaf, et al. These animators demonstrated that anything material could
be animated—wet paint, the filmstrip, silhouettes, a screen of pins, post-
cards, sand; and so began the process of medium-expansion.
Such animation is labour intensive. It takes time, but ‘time’ can add
its own enrichments. The tortuously long process of Yuriy Norshteyn
making his (unfinished) The Overcoat (1981–) comes to mind, or the
digressive reverie of Susan Pitt’s Asparagus (1979), which must have
taken years of labour, or Fischli and Weiss’s live-action-as-animation Der
Lauf der Dinge (1987), the latter two of which are discussed here. All
benefit from ideas developed en route … originating in the intellectual
curiosity that is every artist’s starting-point. Once questions are asked,
boundaries fall away and the imagination expands. So, as this anthology
put together by two outstanding practitioners clearly demonstrates, ani-
mation continues to sustain the excitement of cinema’s first decades.

London, UK David Curtis

David Curtis was Film Officer at the Arts Council of Great Britain, then
established the British Artists Film & Video Study Collection at Central
St Martins. He founded the ANIMATE funding programme. He is
author of Experimental Cinema (1970) and A History of Artists Film &
Video in Britain (2007).
 Contents

Introduction 1
Vicky Smith and Nicky Hamlyn

Lines and Interruptions in Experimental Film and Video 19

Simon Payne

Performing the Margins of the New 37

Dirk de Bruyn

Twenty-First Century Flicker: Jodie Mack, Benedict Drew

and Sebastian Buerkner 61
Barnaby Dicker

Experimental Time-Lapse Animation and the Manifestation

of Change and Agency in Objects 79
Vicky Smith

Analogon: Of a World Already Animated 103

Sean Cubitt

Emptiness Is Not ‘Nothing’: Space and Experimental

3D CGI Animation 119
Alex Jukes

vii
viii    Contents

Inanimation: The Film Loop Performances of Bruce McClure 145

Nicky Hamlyn

Re-splitting, De-synchronizing, Re-animating: (E)motion,

Neo-spectacle and Innocence in the Film Works of John
Stezaker 163
Paul Wells

Cut to Cute: Fact, Form, and Feeling in Digital Animation 183

Johanna Gosse

The Animated Female Body, Feminism(s) and ‘Mushi’ 203

Suzanne Buchan

“Coming to Life” and Intermediality in the Tableaux

Vivants in Magic Mirror (Pucill, 2013) and Confessions
to the Mirror (Pucill, 2016) 231
Sarah Pucill

Siting Animation: The Affect of Place 257

Birgitta Hosea

Index 279
 Notes on Contributors

Prof. Dr. Suzanne Buchan is Professor of Animation Aesthetics at

Middlesex University London in the Faculty of Arts and Creative Media.
Her research addresses a notably wide concept of ‘pure’ and digital ani-
mation as a pervasive moving image form across a range of platforms,
media and disciplines. Editor of animation: an interdisciplinary jour-
nal (Sage), her publications include many chapters and essays, Pervasive
Animation (ed, 2013) and The Quay Brothers: Into a Metaphysical
Playroom (2011). Also active as a curator, most recently ‘Animated
Wonderworlds/Animierte Wunderwelten’ (Museum of Design Zurich
2015–16).
Prof. Sean Cubitt is Professor of Film and Television at Goldsmiths,
University of London and Honorary Professorial Fellow of the
University of Melbourne. His publications include The Cinema Effect,
Ecomedia, The Practice of Light: Genealogies of Visual Media and Finite
Media: Environmental Implications of Digital Technology.
Dr. Dirk de Bruyn is Associate Professor of Screen and Design at
Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. He has made numerous exper-
imental, documentary and animation films, videos and performance and
installation work over the last 45 years and written and curated exten-
sively in these areas of practice. His experimental film work and per-
formances have screened internationally, with retrospectives at Punto
Y Raya and Melbourne International Animation Festivals in 2016.

ix
x    Notes on Contributors

Dr. Barnaby Dicker is a researcher, lecturer, artist-filmmaker and cura-

tor. His research revolves around conceptual and material innovations
in and through graphic technologies and arts, including cinematog-
raphy and photography, with particular emphasis on avant-guard prac-
tices. He sits on the editorial board of Animation: An Interdisciplinary
Journal and is a member of the UK Arts and Humanities Research
Council-funded International Research Network ‘Film and the Other
Arts: Intermediality, Medium Specificity, Creativity.’ Barnaby has taught
at the Royal College of Art, University of South Wales, University for the
Creative Arts, Royal Holloway, University of London, Kingston School
of Art, and Cardiff School of Art and Design. He is currently a Visiting
Research Fellow at King’s College, London.
Dr. Johanna Gosse is a historian of modern & contemporary art spe-
cializing in experimental film and media. She is a Visiting Assistant
Professor in the Department of Art & Art History at the University
of Colorado, Boulder. In 2016, she received an Arts Writers Grant for
her book project on the artist Ray Johnson. Her writing has been pub-
lished in journals such as Camera Obscura, Radical History Review,
Art Journal, Art and the Public Sphere, Moving Image Review & Art
Journal, and the Journal of Black Mountain College Studies, exhibition
catalogues such as Bruce Conner: It’s All True (SFMoMA and MoMA,
2016), and edited collections including Abstract Video: The Moving
Image in Contemporary Art (Berkeley: University of California Press,
2015) and Artists’ Moving Image in Britain since 1989 (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2018).
Prof. Nicky Hamlyn is professor of Experimental Film at University for
the Creative Arts, Canterbury, UK, and lecturer in Communication at
the RCA, London. His film and video work is available on three DVD
compilations from LUX, RGB and Film Gallery, Paris. His books include
Film Art Phenomena (BFI, 2003) and Kurt Kren: Structural Films
(Intellect, 2016), co-edited with Al Rees and Simon Payne.
Dr. Birgitta Hosea is a London-based artist and Reader in Moving
Image at the University for the Creative Arts. Her work, which has
been collected for the Tate Britain’s archive (2012) and Centre d’Art
Contemporain, Paris (2014), explores presence, time, affect and digital
materiality and ranges from short film to video installation and animated
performance art through to drawing on paper. Most recently (2017), her
 Notes on Contributors    xi

projects have been shown in the Venice Biennale, the Karachi Biennale
and the Chengdu Museum of Contemporary Art. She has also taught
in Azerbaijan, USA, China, Romania, Austria and Sweden, was Head of
Animation at the Royal College of Art and MA Character Animation at
Central Saint Martins.
Dr. Alex Jukes’ animation concerns fine art and experimental image
making. His practice research challenges what might be considered
a dominant, largely commercial aesthetic relating to the field of 3D
computer generated (CG) animation and seeks to develop alternative
approaches to its creation and presentation. His Ph.D. at the Royal
College of Art concerned the study of ‘space’ as material within the pro-
duction of 3-D CGI. Alex is Programme Leader for BA Animation at
Edge Hill University.
Dr. Simon Payne is an artist and Senior Lecturer in Film and Media
Studies at Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge. His video work has
been shown at Tate Modern, Tate Britain, The Hermitage Museum,
St Petersburg, the Serpentine and Whitechapel Galleries, Anthology
Film Archives and various film festivals including Edinburgh, London
and Rotterdam. He also programmes films and has written widely on
experimental film and video, most recently editing the book Kurt Kren:
Structural Films with Al Rees and Nicky Hamlyn.
Dr. Sarah Pucill’s 16mm films, which stretch nearly three decades, have
received public funding, have shown in galleries, museums and cinemas
world-wide and won awards at Festivals internationally. Her first feature
length film Magic Mirror (2013), premiered at Tate Modern, toured
internationally with LUX and was exhibited with photographs from
the film at The Nunnery Gallery 2014. The sequel film Confessions To
the Mirror (2016) premiered at London Film Festival and has screened
at leading museum and gallery venues in London (National Portrait
Gallery, White Cube Gallery) and internationally (Creteil International
Film Festival, Alchemy Film Festival). Her work is archived and distrib-
uted through leading international distributors including LUX, The
British Film Institute (BFI), and Light Cone Paris. She is a Reader in
Fine Art Film at University of Westminster and is an active member of
the Research Centre CREAM.
Dr. Vicky Smith is an experimental animator and writer. Her films have
screened at international festivals and galleries including Antimatter,
xii    Notes on Contributors

Canada; SF MoMA; Anthology, NY; Tates’ Britain and Modern; The

Nunnery Gallery, London; Animate! Parts and Labour touring and on
C4 TV. Smith co-edited ‘boiling’: journal of experimental animation
(1996), and has written widely on animation, including in Animation:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, Sequence, Artist Film and Video Studies
2.0. online. She lectures in the School of Fine Art & Photography at the
University for the Creative Arts, Farnham.
Prof. Paul Wells is Director of the Animation Academy, Loughborough
University, and Chair of the Association of British Animation
Collections. He has published widely in Animation Studies and is an
established screenwriter and director in Film, TV, Radio and Theatre. He
is completing a book on Screenwriting For Animation and has curated a
major exhibition of film and art, The Beautiful Frame: Animation and
Sport, opening at the National Football Museum, Manchester UK, and
touring.
 List of Figures

Lines and Interruptions in Experimental Film and Video

Fig. 1 LIA, Fly Us to the Moons (2017) 24
Fig. 2 Anthony McCall, Between You and I (2006). Commissioned by
PEER. Installation at the Round Chapel, London (Photo Hugo
Glendenning) 26
Fig. 3 Documentation of Jennifer Nightingale making
Crocheting a Line (2017) (Photo Simon Payne) 32
Fig. 4 Juliana Borinski and Pierre-Laurent Cassière,
Sine (digital/analog converter) (2006) 35
Performing the Margins of the New
Fig. 1 AFW Members Group, Film Baton (2013) 41
Fig. 2 Richard Tuohy, Dot Matrix (2013) 41
Fig. 3 Paul Rodgers, Dome (2001) 55
Twenty-First Century Flicker: Jodie Mack, Benedict Drew
and Sebastian Buerkner
Fig. 1 Jodie Mack, Phenakistoscopes for Round and Round—
Phenakistoscope Phun (2012) 68
Fig. 2 Benedict Drew, a sequence of consecutive frames from NOT
HAPPY (2014) 70
Fig. 3 Sebastian Buerkner, frames from Album Matter (2010) 70
Experimental Time-Lapse Animation and the Manifestation
of Change and Agency in Objects
Fig. 1 The ground warps and seems to touch the lens (Inger Lise
Hansen, Proximity (2006). Photo Inger Lise Hansen) 88

xiii
xiv    List of Figures

Fig. 2 The camera tracking device that controls the division of space
and time in Proximity (Production still. Photo Morten Barker) 90
Fig. 3 Lens flare and rain produce a sequin effect (Nicky Hamlyn,
Gasometers 3 (2015). Photo Nicky Hamlyn) 96
Fig. 4 From a close view the structure fills the frame, appearing to be
flattened against the lens (Gasometers 3. Photo Nicky Hamlyn) 97
Emptiness Is Not ‘Nothing’: Space and Experimental 3D CGI
Animation
Fig. 1 Ryoichi Kurokawa, unfold (2016) 129
Fig. 2 Alex Jukes, Thelwall-1 (2016): The film introduces ideas
relating to the diffuse edge and indistinct boundaries—The
stills here show a transition within the film from defined
detail with clear spatial cues to an image with dissolved
spatial references 135
Fig. 3 Alex Jukes, Thelwall-2 (2016) 136
Inanimation: The Film Loop Performances of Bruce McClure
Fig. 1 Guy Sherwin, Cycles #3 (1972–2003) (Photo Guy Sherwin) 148
Fig. 2 Bruce McClure, Effects pedals and rheostats set-up
(Photo Robin Martin) 153
Fig. 3 Filmstrips and projector gate inserts (Photo Bruce McClure) 158
Fig. 4 Superimposed gate projection. Bruce McClure, Unnamed
Complement (2007) (Photo Robin Martin) 159
Cut to Cute: Fact, Form, and Feeling in Digital Animation
Fig. 1 Peggy Ahwesh, The Lessons of War (2015) 192
Fig. 2 Peggy Ahwesh, The Lessons of War (2015) 196
The Animated Female Body, Feminism(s) and ‘Mushi’
Fig. 1 Installation view displaying intimacy of human scale
and proximity of a gallery visitor in the space. Tabaimo,
Public ConVENience (2006). The Parasol Unit, London,
2010. Courtesy of the artist and James Cohan, New York 214
Fig. 2 Composite image of installation view with a passer-by watching
and detail of one of the projections (lower right). Rose Bond,
Intra Muros (2008), Utrecht Stadhuis, Holland. Courtesy
of Rose Bond 217
Fig. 3 Apocalyptic flow of rubbish, destruction and human
and animal forms. Marina Zurkow, Slurb (2009). Courtesy
of bitforms gallery and the artist 220
Fig. 4 Miwa Matreyek in silhouette interacting with projected
animation as she performs Dreaming of Lucid Living (2007)
on a stage in front of a seated audience. Image provided by artist 224
 List of Figures    xv

“Coming to Life” and Intermediality in the Tableaux

Vivants in Magic Mirror (Pucill, 2013) and Confessions
to the Mirror (Pucill, 2016)
Fig. 1 ‘Still Life: Twigs and Snow’, film still from Sarah Pucill,
Confessions to the Mirror (2016) 240
Fig. 2 ‘Two Bald Heads’, film still from Sarah Pucill, Magic Mirror
(2013) 241
Fig. 3 ‘Bluebeard’s Wife’, film still from Magic Mirror 245
Fig. 4 ‘Multi-Masked Magician’, film still from Magic Mirror 248
Siting Animation: The Affect of Place
Fig. 1 Rose Bond, CCBA (2016). Chinese Consolidated Benevolent
Association, Portland, OR. Private collection: Rose Bond 261
Fig. 2 Xue Yuwen, Mountain Daily (2015). Itoshima village, Japan.
Private collection: Xue Yuwen 264
Fig. 3 Birgitta Hosea, Out There in the Dark (2008). Lethaby Gallery,
London. Private collection: Birgitta Hosea 268
 Introduction

Vicky Smith and Nicky Hamlyn

This project began partly with the realization that although the field of
experimental animation has received attention through exhibitions, festi-
vals, symposia, funding schemes, projects and journals, there hadn’t been
a book devoted to the area since Robert Russett and Cecile Starr’s 1976
Experimental Animation: Origins of a New Art. Solely dedicated to the
subject, their publication provided a starting point for our own project.
Where a catalyst for Russett and Starr was their perception that the field
of experimental animation had widened during the late twentieth century
(Russett and Starr 1976, 17), we discovered that a growth area of twen-
ty-first century experimental animation is one which crosses over into the
domain of Expanded Cinema, hence the title and focus of our project.

V. Smith (*)
School of Fine Art and Photography, University for the Creative Arts,
Farnham, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
N. Hamlyn
University for the Creative Arts, Canterbury, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
N. Hamlyn
School of Communication, Royal College of Art, London, UK

© The Author(s) 2018 1

V. Smith and N. Hamlyn (eds.), Experimental and Expanded
Animation, Experimental Film and Artists’ Moving Image,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73873-4_1
2 V. SMITH AND N. HAMLYN

We define experimental animation as forms of animation that are as

far from conventional cartoons as possible. While elliptical narrative and
figurative animation might also be highly experimental, our emphasis is
on non-generic, non-narrative animation. Our enquiry is concerned with
practice that relates to the single frame and the single screen, alongside
the expanding potential of animation practices no longer confined either
to the screen or the frame. Much of the expanded animation discussed
here dispenses entirely with the frame, and that leads to the question—
what of animation remains? Perhaps at this level, animation refers more
strongly to a making process such as that used by Bruce McClure, whose
work is discussed in this volume and whose filmstrips are made simply
by bleaching away the emulsion from selected frames to create rhythmic
patterns of black and white. In this sense, his work is far from generic,
mostly narrative forms of animation, even though his making processes
overlap with the frame-by-frame procedures of conventional animation.
The notion of expanded animation applies in numerous further ways,
from the combination of animation with installation and multi-screen
live ‘making’, sound-generating visuals for instance, to the work of art-
ists who combine animation techniques with performance, using both
the body and/or multi-projector set-ups. This work is often exhibited
as installation, in locations such as music venues, project and artist-run
spaces, temporarily vacant buildings, etc., which can give the site of the
work greater significance. Our project asks how animation can be re-
defined when it is no longer articulated through the single screen alone,
and what quality of perceptual engagement is called for. Finally, anima-
tion is understood to be expanded when traditional or commercial prac-
tices are exposed to new critical methodologies and re-workings—ones
that are with increasing frequency referring to broader questions around
performance, the social, political-documentary and so on.
We editors are ourselves practitioners of forms of expanded experi-
mental practice: Vicky Smith in her scratched rotoscoped films, and per-
formances in which she creates animated filmstrips that are immediately
projected for their audience, and in which the sound is synaesthetic or
live; and Nicky Hamlyn in his ongoing series of four-projector 16 mm
loop performance works and his use of stop-motion techniques. We
both work in arts universities (UCA Canterbury and Farnham) and to
some extent this book is an extension of our respective PhD research
and practice, and teaching work. Possibly a category that was not rec-
ognized prior to 1976, this volume includes contributions from sev-
eral research-active animator pedagogues, who theorize their own and
 INTRODUCTION 3

others’ practices, employing new methodological frameworks and offer-

ing insider perspectives on the subject.
It had been our intention to bring matters up to date, to trace devel-
opments and continuities since the 1970s and provide some kind of
survey. Things have turned out rather differently in the end, and per-
haps inevitably, given the incalculable explosion of all kinds of animation
everywhere. While this proliferation of practice has not been matched
by theory, a few titles do exist, including: Undercut: Animation, Issue
13 (LFMC 1984–1985); Smith’s Boiling: Experimental Animation
journal (LFMC 1996) and The Animate! Book: Rethinking Animation
(Lux 2006). Since 2007, the UK agency Animate Projects has contin-
ued to nurture practice and discourse in the field, and includes many
essays on the subject on its website and in exhibition catalogues, such as
Animate OPEN: Parts and Labour, Experiments in Animation (2015).
Lily Husbands’ essay in this catalogue is important in developing an
understanding of current directions of experimental animation as form-
ing common ground between experimental animation and craft, in that
both pursue a fiercely independent enquiry that is not compromised by
the industrial practices of mainstream production, but where the visi-
bility of labour testifies to the close authorial connection between artist
and artefact (Husbands 2015, 66–67).
Edwin Rostron began Edge of Frame in 2013 as an online blog,
addressing his concern that experimental animation is typically seen
or discussed within the context of industrial animation. This enquiry
developed into an eclectic screening series, extending to a London-
based seminar and screening weekend, Edges: An Animation Seminar
(2016). The problem raised by Rostron is indicative of divisions exist-
ing not merely between art and commerce (an ever-changing sit-
uation, with animation as an increasing presence in the gallery) but
also between art and academia. This deficit of discussion on the sub-
ject at an academic level is evident in an examination of the papers and
themes at the main international scholarly forum for animation: the
Society for Animation Studies. In 2015, the SAS annual conference
theme Beyond the Frame suggested a high level of analysis of expanded
models of animation. Yet only one out of the thirty-six panels focused
solely around experimental, abstract or expanded animation, a pau-
city that does not indicate a bias on the part of conference organiz-
ers, but rather reflects the sense that scholars are not encouraged to
research this topic.
4 V. SMITH AND N. HAMLYN

In the USA, Chris Gehman and Steve Reinke’s The Sharpest Point:
Animation at the End of Cinema (2005), an anthology of perspectives
from artists using animation, had less of a focus on expanded experi-
mental forms. The USA also hosts the Eyeworks Festival of Experimental
Animation, run by Alexander Stewart and Lilli Carré, the only festival
devoted exclusively to the area. The pervasiveness of animated phenom-
ena, and the impossibility of capturing or summarizing its multifarious
forms and manifestations were addressed in Suzanne Buchan’s impor-
tant conference (Tate Modern, 2004) and subsequent book Pervasive
Animation (2013). This volume contains a similarly wide-ranging set of
essays—indeed, some of the authors are common to Buchan’s project
and our own—but this new anthology, while similarly not attempting
to be a chronological or otherwise systematic approach to developments
over the last forty years, is different in that the focus is more on specific
aspects of practice, in which philosophical and aesthetic issues are teased
out and considered.
Our method was to invite a number of authors—current key inter-
national researchers, scholars, practitioners, curators and animation
advocates—who we felt could contribute something interesting, to
write about who or what they wanted, but with the brief to address
expanded forms of experimental animation. This is a niche area, but
diverse in its range of practices, and so the scope of the book reflects this
in terms of its historical and critical perspectives and the inter-discipli-
nary approaches that are employed. Fundamental questions concerning
drawing and the line are addressed, broadening out to topics such as the
inter-medial, post-humanism, the real, fakeness and fabrication, causa-
tion, new forms of synthetic space, ecology, critical re-workings of car-
toons, process as narrative and how experimental, expanded animation
speaks to and is informed by other disciplines such as aesthetics, phe-
nomenology, feminism and critical theory.

A Context for Experimental Animation

Russett and Starr’s project was catalysed by what they considered to
be a proliferation of experimental animation during the 1970s and
their intention to foster greater understanding and appreciation of this
field. As they found, several conditions led to this burgeoning, includ-
ing wider socio-cultural developments such as the women’s liberation
movement, the inclusion of animation in the art school curriculum and
 INTRODUCTION 5

the flourishing of conditions for exhibiting such work in small art ven-
ues, such as Cinema 16 (Russett and Starr 1976, 100). Animated film
is ‘experimental’ when it pursues aesthetic enquiry, is creatively daring,
innovative and original and where artists are dedicated to their practice
or have personalized and customized their equipment and techniques
(9). Russett finds that the possibility to manipulate time and space in
animation has particular relevance in 1976 because of the multi-faceted
character of reality of this period (24). Throughout, experimental anima-
tion is identified as a single-frame practice; that aspects of film material
and cinema technology are privileged over discussion of narrative aspects
of animation points to the commonality of enquiry between experimen-
tal animation and experimental film.
Russett and Starr propose the 1920s pioneering European abstract
animators, and their shared concerns with the abstract art forms of
music, poetry and painting, to be a major historical precedent of 1970s
experimental animation. In works such as these, concerns with rhythm,
motion and form are common to those found in the wider arts, and
these formal concerns are discussed in relation to contemporary anima-
tors in this volume (Dicker, Payne). Russett observes that work of this
latter period ranges from the basic and minimal, manually made ani-
mated imagery by, for example, Robert Breer and Larry Jordan, through
to that being influenced by highly complex devices and new computer
imaging, such as work by the Whitney brothers and Lillian Schwartz
(Russett and Starr 1976, 31). It is also the case in our book, forty years
on, that experimental animation practice ranges from a minimal use of
technology through to high-end 3D CG and internet animation. As an
example of these extremes of technological engagement, the method of
montaging and collaging of found materials appears as part of the dis-
cussion of two artists in our book, yet while the method is shared, one
works with old found films (John Stezaker, whose works are analysed
by Paul Wells), while the other (Peggy Ahwesh, who is interviewed by
Johanna Gosse) rips and collages from 3D CG popular imaging.
Russett also speculates on directions that future experimental ani-
mation will take and how new technologies such as 3D, high defini-
tion and holograms will emerge and shape the creative process. With
the ‘long term interest in simulation of real space and volumetric phe-
nomena, it is reasonable to assume that some kind of artistic three-
dimensional medium will eventually be developed’ (Russett and Starr
1976, 30). Russett is prescient in identifying the drive to realism that
6 V. SMITH AND N. HAMLYN

has determined the direction of the animation industry and in which he

anticipates the construction of 3D CG volume as creating more realis-
tic digital renderings of the world. He forecasts many technologies that
are commonplace in animation production today, and that are discussed
in our book. But where Russett focuses on what is technically possible
with digital animation, contributors here, including Alex Jukes, shift the
enquiry in a philosophical direction by questioning how our encounter
with the non-naturalistic spaces fabricated with 3D CGI programmes,
by artists such as Chris Cornish and Ryoichi Kurokawa, prompts us to
reconsider our apprehension of the actual world.

A Context for Expanded Cinema

Some claim that the Expanded Cinema movement originated with Gene
Youngblood’s eponymously titled book, a vision that has been inter-
preted across time frames of 1967 to 2007 as embracing two core sen-
sibilities. Both invested in a utopian vision, that of a global public and
collective ownership of the earth (Marchessault and Lord 2007) and the
notion that an expansion of consciousness would be reached through the
broadening of cinematic technologies (Renan 1967, 227). Youngblood’s
objective was to raise the motion picture to the stature of the wider arts,
using film in expanded ways as a means to reject the fixities of indus-
try standardization. Through the use of multiple projectors, films made
in the live event and/or in combination with other media, Expanded
Cinema made it possible to overthrow the manner of serial production
typical of single-screen cinema, such that artwork differed with every
exhibition (Renan 1967). In our book, the promise that art can deliver
a utopian ideal is raised in Sean Cubitt’s analysis of Fischli and Weiss’s
Der Lauf der Dinge (1987) and Blu’s Muto (2008), which he reads as
animated analogies of a longing to reunite with nature and to copy its
agencies. In these films, objects exist in an absurd and unpredictable rela-
tionship with one another, seemingly ungoverned by human intervention
and indifferent to human witness. Youngblood sought to balance tech-
nology, mind and nature at the level of the cosmic, and in this respect
indicated a key difference between the utopian expectations of Expanded
Cinema in the 1960s and the more recent hopes invested in technol-
ogy. For Cubitt and others writing in our book, problems of human/
nature/technology relations are brought to the terrestrial level, as
expression of a yearning to achieve ecology on the material plane, while
 INTRODUCTION 7

Simon Payne’s discussion of a forward-looking momentum in the lines

of vector graphics cautions against what he sees as its idealistic trajectory.
Renan identifies the gravitation towards inter-media practice, whereby
art crosses different media, as a response to image proliferation (Renan
1967, 228) and in which mixed-media versions of onstage actions with
their filmed counterparts might be ‘interlocked’ (236). Andrew V.
Uroskie illuminates this aesthetic as one in which discrete media forms
are enhanced through their operation with others. With reference
to Stan VanDerBeek’s 1965 Movie Mural and Move Movies, Uroskie
recounts how slowed down, close-up filmic imagery of dancers’ feet
and hands projected across the stage crosses the paths of the onstage
performers, creating an ‘interpenetration’ of live and mediated activity
(Uroskie 2014, 165–168). It seems that the radical breakthrough that
VanDerBeek’s conjoining of different media achieved is the disruption
of a hierarchy. Whereas film was previously seen as a mere backdrop to
the main dance event, in Move Movies it gains equal stature to accompa-
nying art forms. Uroskie suggests that what drew VanDerBeek to work
across forms of animation and Expanded Cinema was his fascination with
movement generally (as is also the case for Len Lye’s preoccupation with
kinetics). Indeed, VanDerBeek’s techniques in single-screen animation
are particularly fluid, employing free-form drawing directly under the
camera and collaging of found imagery to describe themes of acceler-
ation—the arms race, the cold war and ‘media saturation as bombard-
ment’ (Bartlett 2011)—and these concerns with movement carry across
to his work in Expanded Cinema. In this respect, VanDerBeek bridges
experimental animation and Expanded Cinema, and to some he is its
founder with his work in ‘intermedia’, ‘stressing rather than subverting
the specific differential qualities of the media combined’ (Bartlett 2011,
50).
Intermedia practice and theory continue to be a central facet of
Expanded Cinema and experimental animation. Where VanDerBeek’s
methods are thought to be groundbreaking in the interlocking of differ-
ential qualities of film/dance and film/theatre (Renan 1967; Bartlett
2011), in our book Sarah Pucill elaborates on the aesthetic possibili-
ties for the inter-medial. She argues that, counter to the tendencies of
the post-medium digital era whereby medium specificities are subsumed
into one, inter-media theory and practice emphasize the relationship
between media, stressing the individual qualities of each. Pucill discusses
her inter-medial approach to re-staging and re-animating Claude Cahun’s
8 V. SMITH AND N. HAMLYN

portrait photography in her films Confessions to the Mirror (2016) and

Magic Mirror (2013), arguing that the interlocking of media in the tab-
leau vivant effects a crossing between live action and animation, between
the media of photography and film, and also between time zones of past
and present. As with VanDerBeek’s projection of the past of the filmed
dance movement onto the present of the live event, the collapsing of
the past of the static photographic space with the present of its live re-
enactment is a metaphor for the coming to movement and into life that is
animation: the tableau vivant enhances the distinction between these states.
Uroskie explains that Youngblood’s publication on Expanded Cinema
also coincided with the novelty of early computer imaging and because
Youngblood’s notion of expansion was poorly defined, a misconception
that Expanded Cinema was primarily one of technological innovation
developed (Uroskie 2014). With reference to Jonas Mekas’s 1965 Movie
Journal reviews, Al Rees (2011) casts a wider net on our understand-
ing of Expanded Cinema as a practice that is often technically quite rudi-
mentary. As Rees observes, by including direct-on-filmstrip works such as
Mothlight, Mekas posits Expanded Cinema actually as one of reduction,
in the sense that by removing components of the cine apparatus, film is
freed from its condition of reproduction and brought closer to the sin-
gularity of painting. With this, a further understanding of the embrace of
Expanded Cinema comes into view: with the handmade film original, the
projected film is never the same twice—it changes with each screening,
especially in examples where original material is projected, as in the case
of Emma Hart’s Skin Film (three versions, 2005–2007), in which skin,
which was transferred to clear celluloid using adhesive tape, is gradually
eaten by the microbes contained within it, so that the image eventually
disappears, and James Holcombe’s Hair in the Gate (n.d.), briefly dis-
cussed in this volume by Nicky Hamlyn.
Such variation with each exhibition overthrows serial production in
ways that Renan (1967) characterized as Expanded Cinema. Furthermore,
the cultivation of live matter on the filmstrip constitutes an extremely
direct, Povera-like and technically minimalist approach to cinema. Elwes
elaborates on Expanded Cinema’s ‘minimalist aesthetic’, citing a con-
tradiction pointed out by Chrissie Iles, that cinema is expanded through
its contraction (Elwes 2015). One further understanding of Expanded
Cinema as a technically contracted practice is manifested in the rapid
single-frame experiments of Gregory Markopolous and Robert Breer,
in which flicker and motion are located in the physiology of the viewer,
 INTRODUCTION 9

produced through the act of spectatorship (Rees 2011, 12). In this

regard, Mekas’s understanding of a contracted Expanded Cinema reso-
nates with sensibilities articulated in our book whereby the phenomenon
of flicker is foregrounded in much contemporary practice. Flicker is intan-
gible, existing therefore only in the present moment of its apprehension,
and specific to a time and place: in this regard, it is a prime example of the
locatable historical context that is central to the experience of Expanded
Cinema. Reading contemporary experimental flicker animation through
Rosalind Krauss’s argument that throbbing movement exists outside of
and destabilizes form, posing a threat to the modernist art canon, Barnaby
Dicker relates the flicker’s perceptual limits to a libidinal economy and
links it to other cinematic phenomena that work on the nervous symp-
tom, such as the pulse that is generated by early optical toys. Through the
analysis of manifestations of flicker as it is occurring today in experimental
single-screen films by Jodie Mack, Benedict Drew and Sebastian Buerkner,
Dicker is able to claim that proto-cinematography endures in the cine-
matic forms of the present day.

Bridging Experimental Animation and Expanded Cinema

We have roughly mapped the situation of early Expanded Cinema in the
USA. In the meantime, a great deal of 1970s UK Expanded Cinema
had different priorities, employing relatively low technology and veering
away from the notion of an altered consciousness that might be brought
about through new and multiple technologies, aiming instead towards
Expanded Cinema as an analytic event. The collective Filmaktion (Lis
Rhodes, Malcolm Le Grice, Gill Eatherley, Annabel Nicolson, William
Raban), for example, worked with the film projector in relation to sim-
ple actions and commonplace tools to provoke questions about time,
space, distance, duration, materials, arbitrary systems (film stock) and
givens (concrete space). The differently nuanced Expanded Cinema of
the UK is acknowledged by Mekas, who suggests that VanDerBeek’s
use of multi-screen collage imagery is gratuitous in contrast to the two
screen works of Gill Eatherley, whose use of both screens to compare
different stages in film production is essential in bringing the act of
making into the present of the viewing (Mekas 2011, 72). Further out-
lining core differences between the psychedelically orientated Expanded
Cinema of the USA and the analytic method of the UK version, Malcolm
Le Grice discusses the significance of projection as the primary area of
10 V. SMITH AND N. HAMLYN

film reality. Where commercial film presents illusions of time and space
that do not relate to the one that the audience occupy while watching it,
Expanded Cinema seeks to collapse that distance by combining produc-
tion and exhibition into one event (Le Grice 1977, 143). What is appar-
ent through works by Filmaktion and Le Grice is that Expanded Cinema
is an extension of the broader materialist aims pursued by experimental
filmmakers, only taking expanded forms (Elwes 2015).
A further area of common ground that unites Expanded Cinema and
experimental animation is that of abstraction. In the same overall con-
text of abstract film, Le Grice analyses tendencies in works by those who
are primarily animators (Oskar Fischinger, Len Lye) and those work-
ing primarily with live action, such as Stan Brakhage. Film is abstract in
the sense that the imagery might carry no real-world referent (Viking
Eggeling through to US West Coast computer-generated work by
Jordan Belson and the Whitneys) but also extends to imagery that does
capture the trace of the concrete, albeit in ways that obliterate or set at
a remove the plastic referent through processes of, for example, repro-
duction. This abstracting process is evident in films such as his own Little
Dog for Roger (1967), a film that explores the possibilities for image
transformation through printing techniques (Le Grice 1977). Overall
then, many crossover areas exist between Expanded Cinema, experimen-
tal animation and film and the wider arts. These form the foundations of
our own project.

The Growth in Expanded Cinema and the Themes

Explored Here
Possibly one of the most significant developments in experimental ani-
mation from 1976 to the present is Russett and Starr’s ambition that
animation be ranked alongside the visual arts. Today, this has been real-
ized, with animation installation proliferating in the context of Expanded
Cinema, performance and live ‘making’, exhibited in galleries, pub-
lic sites and online. Al Rees provides some explanation for the growth
of Expanded Cinema during the twenty-first century. The structurally
informed expanded film by Filmaktion and others during the 1970s
was followed by a resurgence in expanded work in the late 1990s by the
Young British Artists, whose work often engaged with narrative cinema,
differing therefore from the Expanded Cinema of the 1970s. Relocated
 INTRODUCTION 11

to the space of the more popular galleries, this new work came to dom-
inate the perception of Expanded Cinema (Rees 2011). The move away
from the confines of cinema and the increased exposure of Expanded
Cinema to a wider audience, including what would be the next genera-
tion of experimental filmmakers, mobilized younger makers of structural
film to rediscover the continuing Expanded Cinema practices of art-
ists such as Bruce McClure, Sylvie Simon, Guy Sherwin and Lyn Loo.
This has included the recent practice of re-performing original works by
Sherwin and others by the Australian filmmaking group Teaching and
Learning Cinema.
In this volume, Dirk de Bruyn, also based in Australia, draws on
a wide range of ideas, including colour theories and the writings of
P. Adams Sitney, to consider questions of the specificity of a medium that
was and continues to be important to the expanded live cinema of Sally
Golding, Guy Sherwin, Ken Jacobs and others. With reference to Vilem
Flusser’s ‘technical’ image, in which digital forms have lost all historical
context, de Bruyn proposes that the Expanded Cinema of Sherwin et al.
restores the specificity of the origins of the imagery they use.
Hamlyn also references Expanded Cinema that has carried across ear-
lier and more recent times in his study of the performances of Bruce
McClure. He finds that, through paring it down to its barest essentials,
McClure is able to question cinema’s foundations with an analytic rigour
that is distinctive amidst the current proliferation of work where arsenals
of projectors are used to quite sensational effect. McClure’s minimalist
practice is one instance of the so-called contracted cinema that Elwes
remarked upon (Elwes 2015). Theodor Adorno observed that the tech-
nological basis of cinema condemns it to a mere mute recording func-
tion, thereby ruling it out as an art medium. Hamlyn suggests that it is
through actually adapting and in some respects extending cinema’s tech-
nical capacity that McClure is able to build a meta-cinematic language,
so transforming the status of film into one that is also art, thereby com-
plicating Adorno’s position.
Our current period is yet more technologically divergent than it was
in 1976, when Russett and Starr remarked upon the then breadth of
means for creating experimental animation. It is worth referring briefly
once more to Russett’s understanding that in 1976, experimental sin-
gle-frame practice is ideally suited for communicating the multi-fac-
eted character of reality of this period. His view is usefully paralleled by
those who point to the diversification of political and media landscapes
12 V. SMITH AND N. HAMLYN

as drivers of Expanded Cinema today. Marchessault observes that, cur-

rently, media are becoming more ubiquitous, yet are owned by fewer and
fewer proprietors, pressing a greater urgency to situate such ‘fluid’ media
in histories and political economies (Marchessault and Lord 2007).
The impact of media diversification as a growth factor of animation is
reflected upon in this volume. Johanna Gosse’s interview with Peggy
Ahwesh opens up precisely this area, as to how animation engages in the
politics of fluid media. Ahwesh is a filmmaker who has recently taken up
animation because of the capacities it offers to invent and manipulate the
extant world in ways that resonate with our current political landscape
and its post-truth agenda. Gosse delivers insights into the artist’s ration-
ale for using 3D CG animation material drawn from Taiwanese news
agencies, in an attempt to tackle how such footage can deal adequately
with complex political events. Ahwesh is one among several filmmak-
er-artists turning towards appropriation of industry cartoons (another
example is The Pure Necessity [2016] by David Claerbout, who has fre-
quently used found photographs in his work) and indicating a trend that
paradoxically inverts the common practice whereby commerce has raided
the avant-garde. Gosse locates in Ahwesh’s work several issues that have
long been pertinent to animation, chiefly how its association with ‘cute-
ness’ and its failure to point to a trace has given it less authority as an
index and less credibility than live-action film. Yet, as Gosse and Ahwesh
point out, CGI seems uniquely suited for the purposes of propaganda
and misinformation. It is becoming less improbable in this climate of
so-called fake news that animation as an art of invention is recruited to
the service of reporting facts.
Alex Jukes also engages with the implication of media proliferation
in terms of how VR and CG shape our experience and expectations of
space. Ultimately, animated images have always been fantasized and fab-
ricated, yet have often related to objects that exist within the world more
than the space that surrounds them. The particular conundrum of how
space itself must become objectified by the 3D CG animator pertains to
Jukes’s enquiry into the way CGI software has been used by Karl Sims,
Chris Cornish and others to create new kinds of animated environments,
in which space is not a neutral setting or background, but is actively
shaped as a palpable material component of the film.
Duncan White reiterates the idea that Expanded Cinema has devel-
oped in response to the diversification of media and its increased role in
everyday life (White 2011). White and others delineate two main tracks
 INTRODUCTION 13

along which media diversify and proliferate—the more recent creative

engagement with interactive technologies and the ongoing practice with
analogue film. Such tendencies also divide debate in our book, as evi-
denced in the Jukes and Gosse chapters on digital media and the debate
on matters relating to the analogical, as discussed by Payne and Smith.
Scholars have sought explanations as to why artists continue to
work with film during this period, when digital is easy to use and offers
high-definition imagery (Elwes 2015). Several chapters here analyse how
analogue media continue to best meet the ‘requirements of the project’,
most suited to represent the ideas that are under investigation. The spe-
cific use of analogue media is crucial to the aesthetic—for example, in
Hamlyn’s Gasometers, where the interaction between grain movement
and the liveness generated by the physical movement of film through the
projector, juxtaposed with areas of stillness and movement within the
image, are crucial to the experience. Smith engages a ‘New Materialist’
methodology to reflect upon analogue and animation’s capacity to
make visible the energies in objects that otherwise appear to be inert.
She finds that through his hand processing of celluloid, Hamlyn draws
analogies between analogue media and nineteenth and twentieth-century
sources of fuel, in that both possess great mass and bulk and both are
now being replaced with less visible technologies of storage and distri-
bution. Hamlyn’s time-lapse film itself refuses to conceal and bears on its
surface the once common industrial processes of wetness and chemical
traces entailed in its own production: the filmic plasticity makes this con-
tact with matter possible in ways that the digital does not.
The cutting and joining together of pieces of celluloid in editing uses
the same tools—a blade and glue—as are required for the technique of
collage assembled from paper. Mekas found that while VanDerBeek col-
laged materials across a number of screens, it would have been equally
effective had he combined all these fragments into one (Mekas 2011,
72). Paul Wells considers the process of the artist John Stezaker, who is
mostly well known for his disturbing photographic collages made from
found postcards. Stezaker has made a number of short films using the
collage method of combining images from different sources, but instead
of joining these parts into one whole single image, he uses the speed of
the projected single frame to simulate a collage effect. The rapid cut-
ting together of single frames, each bearing different images, creates the
impression that they are collaged together. Yet this impression is actu-
ally occurring merely at the optical and not the physical level, the quick
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
the center, which the 2d line was ordered to fill up. We were now
discovered by the enemy, who played their artillery furiously upon
our left; yet only one private man was killed, and one officer
wounded. The highlanders ran on with such eagerness that they
immediately seized the canon. The dragoons on right and left made
a very regular fire, which was followed by close platoons of all their
infantry, which our men received with great intrepidity. But what by
the huzzas of the highlanders, and their fire which was very brisk,
the dragoons were immediately thrown into disorder, which
occasioned some confusion among their foot. The highlanders threw
down their muskets, drew their swords, and carried all before them
like a torrent: so that in seven or eight minutes both horse and foot
were totally routed, and drove from the field of battle.
The Prince during the action was on foot in the 2d line. He was
with great difficulty prevailed on not to attack with the first line in so
much that the officers refused to march if he insisted on it. As soon
as the victory declared for him, he mounted his horse and put a stop
to the slaughter, calling out,—‘make prisoners: spare them, spare
them, they are my father’s subjects.’
When General Cope saw how things were going, and that he
could not rally his forces, he, with about 350 dragoons, and some
volunteer officers, gained Carberryhill, by a road that led to it from
Preston, and, as we had not time, nor horse to pursue, got away
undisturbed to Lauder, and from thence to Berwick.
As our 2d line had no occasion to engage, it may with justice be
said, that 1400 highlanders, unsupported by horse or canon, routed
a regular army of 2000 foot and 700 dragoons, defended by a fine
train of artillery, and obtained a most compleat victory. Such is the
impetuosity of a highland attack!
We took all the enemys canon, coehorns, small arms, colours,
standards, drums, tents, baggage and military chest, in which was
about 3000l. 11s.
Of the enemy were killed about 500, wounded 400, and taken
prisoners 1400. Among the prisoners were about 80 officers.
 Our loss was very inconsiderable, viz. killed 2 captains, 1
Lieutenant, 1 ensign, and about 30 private men; and wounded 6
officers, and 70 private men.
All care immaginable was taken of the wounded, plenty of able
surgeons having been provided for that purpose.
The Prince lay this night at Pinkie, and next day the 22d returned
to the palace of Holyroodhouse, and the army encamped again at
Duddingston.

OF THE BATTLE OF FALKIRK,

fought January 17th, 1746
Lieutenant General Hawley, having been declared commander in
chief in place of Sir John Cope, marched from Edinburgh to raise the
siege of Stirling Castle, with about 10000 foot and 3 regiments of
dragoons, and encamped a little to the westward of Falkirk.
On the 16th the Prince drew up his army in line of battle, on a
muir or plain, a mile south east of the house of Bannockburn, then
his head quarters, and made all the necessary dispositions, in case
the enemy should have advanced to attack him. But Hawley
continued all day in his camp, and in the evening the Prince ordered
his men to their quarters.
Early next morning, the 17th, the Prince ordered his men to draw
up on the same plain. The right wing, commanded by Lord George
Murray, consisted of the Macgregors, Macdonalds of Keppoch,
Clanronald, Glengary, and Glenco, Mackintoshes and Farquharsons.
The left, commanded by Lord John Drummond, consisted of the
Camerons of Lochiel, Stuarts of Appin, Macphersons of Cluny,
Frazers of Lovat, and Macleods of Raza and Bernera. The 2d line,
commanded by Brigadier-General Stappleton, consisted of the
regiments of the Duke of Athole, Earl of Cromarty, Lord Lewis
Gordon, and Lord Ogilvy. Lords Elcho and Balmerino with the
Prince’s horse-guards, consisting of about 80 gentlemen and their
servants, were placed on the right wing, between the first and
second lines. Lords Pitsligo and Strathallan with the Aberdeen and
Perth-shire squadrons of horse, and a few hussars, making about
the same number, were placed in like manner on the left. The Irish
pickets were placed immediately behind the 2d line as a corps de
reserve. The whole making about 7000 foot, and 160 horse.
The regiments of the Duke of Perth, Lord John Drummond,
Gordon of Glenbucket, and John Roy Stuart were left at Stirling to
guard the trenches and push on the siege, being about 1000 men.
The Duke of Perth, who commanded the siege, and John Roy Stuart
were allowed to join the army to assist in the action: and the care of
the siege was left to Major-General Gordon of Glenbucket.
About midday the Prince, finding that Hawley did not advance,
resolved in a council of war to march and attack him. The army
therefore marched in order of battle, in two columns, keeping always
an equal distance of about 200 yards. This saved a great deal of
time, and prevented confusion, when we came within sight of the
enemy. Lord George Murray took the road to the south of the
Torwood, as the highway leading from Stirling to Falkirk was too
narrow. At the same time Lord John Drummond went with most of
the horse to reconnoitre the enemy; and made a movement as
intending to march the highway through the Torwood.
The army crossed the water of Carron at Dunipace. By this time
the enemy were perceived to be in motion. We therefore quickened
our march to gain the top of the hill, about a mile south of the town of
Falkirk, and a little more from Hawley’s camp.
General Hawley’s disposition seems to have been thus. On his
right were the Argyleshire militia, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel
Campbell, the regiments of foot of Ligonier, Price and Sinclair: on his
left Ligonier, Cobham and Hamilton’s dragoons; the regiments of foot
of Wolfe, Cholmondly and Pulteney. The 2d line was made up of the
regiments of foot of Blackney, Monro, Flemming, Barret and
Battereau. The Glasgow and some other militia, and Howard’s
regiment of foot formed a corps de reserve.
Mr. Hawley, afraid lest the Prince intended to march south, and
not come to an action, ordered the dragoons to advance with all
expedition, to take possession of the hill, and to keep us in play till
the infantry should come up. When they came within canon shot,
they made a motion to attack our right in flank, which Lord George
Murray perceiving he, with the assistance of Colonel John Roy
Stuart, made a very quick motion till he gained a morass, by which
he saved being flanked. So our right was to the east, our left west,
and front north. The dragoons seeing their scheme thus
disappointed, advanced on a full trot, in order to break us; but the
Macgregors and Macdonalds, keeping up their fire till they were
within pistol shot, received them so briskly, that they were
immediately broken, and thrown into the utmost confusion. As the
enemy’s foot were now very near, the dragoons could not easily
retreat back, without breaking their own line: they therefore
gallopped along our line, whereby a vast number of them were killed.
This beginning greatly inspirited our men, as it had a contrary effect
on the enemy.
Scarcely had the dragoons got off when their infantry advanced
to make the attack. They greatly out-lined us on the left, as we out-
lined them on the right. Our left extended little farther than to their
center. But from the unequality of the ground, being interspersed
with risings and hollows, whereby there was no seeing from right to
left what was doing, neither of the parties reaped advantage from
that circumstance. The enemy’s right therefore attacked our left with
a very close fire, which the Camerons and Stuarts received with
great fortitude, drew their swords, broke and pursued them out of the
field. Then our left made a halt in order to be joined by the right; but
were again attacked by other two regiments in flank, whom they also
immediately broke. Our right, marching down the hill, fell in with the
Glasgow militia, whom they severely chastised.
The Prince, who was mostly in the center, and whose attention
was turned to all parts, observing some regiments of the enemys
foot, and the remainder of the dragoons, marching up the hill, put
himself at the head of the Irish pickets, and such of the scattered
highlanders as were nearest to him, with a few gentlemen a horse-
back, and advanced to attack them. But seeing the order of the
pickets, and having a great storm of wind and rain in their faces, they
fled precipitantly to their camp, as did all the rest of their troops.
As the action began late in the afternoon, it was now dark, the
storm still continuing. However, the Prince made all the dispatch
immaginable to put his troops in order, as he intended to beat the
enemy from their camp. But hardly were the half of our men drawn
together, when we observed many fires in Hawley’s camp, and his
men at the same time marching, with great hurry, between the camp
and town of Falkirk. We immediately conjectured that they were
burning their camp (which they indeed endeavoured, but were
prevented by the rain) and were to take possession of the town of
Falkirk. Had they taken this course, a few men properly posted could
have hindered the highlanders from entering that night, and obliged
us either to have abandoned the field of battle, or to have stood all
night under arms, wet and fatigued as we were, and exposed to the
inclemency of the weather, a thing impossible.
Mr. Drummond, now Lord Strathallan, and Mr. Oliphant younger
of Gask, disguised in peasants dress, went into the town to
reconnoitre, and to get intelligence of the enemy. They soon returned
with information, that they were flying in confusion to Linlithgow. The
Prince immediately ordered his men to march, and attack them in the
rear. As we marched we fell on the enemy’s canon, which they had
left between the field of battle and the town: they could not draw
them up the hill, on account of the badness of the roads; so they
were of no use to them in the action.
The enemy’s rear were just got to the east end of the town, when
Lord John Drummond entered it on that side: he was shot throw the
arm by a soldier, whom he was taking prisoner. Lord George Murray
entered at the middle, and Lochiel at the west end of the town.
Our men had no sooner entered the town than they disappeared
on all sides; every one putting himself under cover to dry his cloaths;
and refresh himself after the fatigue of the day: and altho a
detachment of 1000 men were ordered to pursue the enemy, yet,
such is the misfortune of an irregular army! not 50 could be brought
together, besides those absolutely necessary to mount the guards
for the Prince and their own safeties. So the enemy never stopped till
they got to Linlithgow, and some of their volunteers and dragoons to
Edinburgh.
The Prince’s first care next morning was to send to reconnoitre
the field of battle, and cause bury the dead, as well those of the
enemy as his own men. Some of their officers that could be
distinguished, of whom were Sir Robert Monroe and Colonel
Whitney, were brought down to the town, and interred in the same
manner as our own officers were.
It now appeared that about 600 of the enemy were killed on the
field of battle, and that we had made about 700 prisoners.
We got all their artillery consisting of 7 large pieces of brass
canon, and 3 iron ones, several mortars and coehorns, with a great
many shells, all their ammunition, waggons, tents, 3 standards, 2
stand of colours, a kettle drum, many small arms, baggage, and
generally every thing that the rain prevented them from burning.
On our side were killed 3 captains, 4 subaltern officers, and about
40 private men: and we had wounded near double that number.

OF THE BATTLE OF CULLODEN,

fought April 16TH, 1746
As soon as certain intelligence was brought that the Duke of
Cumberland had begun his march from Aberdeen northwards, the
Prince sent orders to Ross, Sutherland, Lochaber, and Badenoch,
that all the detachments of his army, in these places, should join him
immediately at Inverness.
The Duke of Cumberland passed the Spey on the 13th, and on
the 14th encamped at Nairn, about 10 miles from Culloden. On this
the Prince assembled his men in and about Inverness, and marched
at their head to Culloden-house, where he lay that night, and the
troops encamped in the Parks.
Early next morning, the Prince drew up his army in line of battle,
upon Drummossie muir, south of the house and parks of Culloden,
as he expected that the Duke of Cumberland would have attacked
him that day, being his birth-day.
About noon, when we were informed that he had not moved, it
was proposed to the Prince to make a night attack upon him, in his
camp at Nairn. Various were the reasons for and against this
proposal. And after considering them fully, the Prince approved of
the project, as the most probable chance he had of beating the
enemy; provided they could be surprised by one o’clock of the
morning.
We must here observe, that the Duke of Cumberland’s army was
double the number of ours, plentifully provided with money and
provisions of all kinds; having a squadron of ships, loaded with
stores, that coasted along, from Aberdeen to Inverness, in sight of
his army, to supply him with whatever was necessary. Whereas our
military chest was spent; the men had not received pay for some
time, had got no provisions this day but a single bisket each, and
were much fatigued by severe duty.
In this situation the Prince could not propose to keep his army
together. He was obliged either to fight or starve. And altho above
3000 men, under the command of the Earl of Cromarty, Macdonald
of Barisdale, Macgregor of Glengyle, Cluny Macpherson, and others,
who were expected every hour, had not yet joined, he resolved to
risk the event of an engagement.
The night attack being therefore agreed to, was to have been
executed thus. One third of the army, commanded by Lord George
Murray, were to have passed the water of Nairn, two miles below
Culraick, and two from Nairn, to have attacked the enemy on the
south east near to the sea; whilst the other two thirds, under the
command of the Duke of Perth and his brother Lord John
Drummond, were to have attacked them on the plain, from the north
east and all the way to the sea, so as to have joined those who were
to have attacked on the other side.
That our design might not be discovered by the enemy, the
march began about eight o’clock at night. Lord George Murray led
the van. He had along with him, besides several gentlemen
volunteers and officers, 30 men of the Mackintoshes, who lived in
that very country, as guides. They conducted him the moor road, that
he might not fall in with the enemy’s patrolls; and small parties were
stationed at proper distances to prevent the enemy from receiving
any intelligence.
As the highlanders had often marched more than two miles in an
hour, it was hoped that they could have reached Nairn before two
o’clock. But before Lord George had marched a mile, he received a
message that the half of the line was at a considerable distance, and
orders to halt, or march slower, till the line should join. He received
many messages by aides-de-camps and other officers, sent for the
same purpose, by the time he had reached six miles. Altho he did
not halt, he marched always slower, hoping that would do: For he
knew that a halt in the van occasions a greater one in the rear, when
the march begins again; whereas by marching slow, the rear might
have joined without that inconveniency.
It was already near two o’clock in the morning, and the van near
four miles from the enemy. Most of the officers of distinction were
now come up to the front; particularly the Duke of Perth, Lord John
Drummond, Lochiel and his brother, and M. oSulivan. The Duke of
Perth told Lord George Murray that unless he made a halt the center
and rear columns could not join. We halted. Here the officers began
to examine their present situation. They were of opinion, that by the
time the line had joined, and the army advanced two miles farther, it
would be day light, and consequently the enemy would have time to
point their canon, draw up their men, and place their horse so as to
act in the most advantagious manner. Besides, a great number of
our men had left their ranks and lain down in the wood of Culraick,
which must have proceeded from faintness for want of food, and not
from the fatigue of a six miles march. In these circumstances the
attack was judged impracticable. To get back to Culloden, so as the
men could have some hours refreshment, in case they should be
obliged to fight that day, was what they agreed to.
As the Prince was about a mile behind in the rear, and the road
through the wood very difficult to pass, they thought it would
consume too much time to send back for orders, Lord George
Murray therefore ordered the retreat. The Duke of Perth went back to
acquaint the Prince with this resolution. At first he seemed much
surprised, on which the Duke offered to march back the men; but
after some reflection, he saw it was then too late.
We marched back the shortest way, as we had not the same
reason for shuning houses in returning as we had in advancing.
The van had only got to the Church of Cray, that is two miles from
where the halt was made, when it was broad day light. This showed
that the enemy could not have been surprised as was intended.
However, had the center and rear marched as quick as the van, it
might certainly have been done.
Between 5 and 6 o’clock, all the army reached Culloden: But
many, as well officers as soldiers went to Inverness and places
adjacent, in quest of provisions, which were difficult to find.
The Prince had scarcely reposed himself an hour, when accounts
were brought, that the enemy was in full march to attack him. He
immediately sent aid-de-camps to bring up the men, who were at
Inverness. In the mean time he marched up the troops that were
about Culloden to Drummossie muir; but half a mile nearer than
where they were formed the preceeding day.
This was our order of battle. The right wing, commanded by Lord
George Murray, consisted of his own regiment of Athol, Camerons of
Lochiel, Stuarts of Appin, one battallion of the Frazers of Lovat, and
the Mackintoshes. The left wing, commanded by the Duke of Perth,
consisted of the Macdonalds of Glengary, Keppoch and Clanranald,
two companies of Macleans, two companies of Macleods, and the
Farquharsons. The 2d line, commanded by Lord John Drummond
and Major General Stappleton, consisted of the Irish piquets, the
regiments of Lord Ogilvy, Lord Lewis Gordon, Duke of Perth, and
Lord John Drummond. On the right wing, behind the 2d line, was a
troop of Fitz-james’s horse; and on the left the horse guards, Perth-
shire squadron and Hussards. The regiments of the Earl of
Kilmarnock’s foot guards, and Colonel John Roy Stuart, with such of
our men as had no guns formed a sort of reserve.
 The whole did not exceed 6000 foot and 150 horse. We had six
pieces of canon, two placed on the right, two on the left, and two in
the center of the front line. Our front was to the east.
The Duke of Cumberland drew up his army in three lines. The
first, commanded by Lieutenant-General the Earl of Albemarle,
consisted of the regiments of Barrel, Monro, Scot’s Fusileers, Price,
Cholmondley and Sinclair. The 2d, commanded by Major General
Huske, consisted of the regiments of Wolfe, Ligonier, Sempil, Bligh,
and Flemming. The 3d line, commanded by Brigadier Mordant,
consisted of the regiments of Blackeney, Battereau, Pulteney and
Howard. On the right wing were placed Cobham’s dragoons, and the
half of Kingston’s horse, with the Campbells of Argyle.
Had these regiments been all compleat, they should have
amounted to 15000 men, but as they were they surely amounted to
near 12000 foot and 1200 horse. Ten pieces of canon were placed in
the first line, two between each regiment; and six pieces in the 2d
line.
The enemy formed at a considerable distance, and marched in
order of battle. About two o’clock afternoon the canonading began.
The Prince, after riding along the lines to animate the men,
placed himself about the center, that he might the more conveniently
give his orders. The enemy’s canon galled us much. One of the
Prince’s servants, who led a sumpter horse, was killed at his side.
We were greatly out-lined both on right and left. Some alterations
were made in our disposition in order to remedy this. Our right was
covered by some old park walls, that led towards the water of Nairn.
The Campbells got behind these walls, pulled them down, and
placed a battery of canon, which did great execution on our right.
The Prince ordered to begin the attack. Our men attacked with all
the fury imaginable, and made several impressions on the enemys
line; particularly the Athol-men broke entirely the regiments of Barret
and Monro, and took possession of two pieces of canon. But the
enemy keeping a close hedge fire, overpowering us with numbers,
and attacking us on both flanks, threw our lines into great confusion,
and at last obliged us to quit the field. The Duke of Cumberland was
likewise assisted by a great storm of hail and rain that blew in our
faces.
The Prince did all he could to rally his men, but to no purpose. He
was therefore obliged to retire. He crossed the water of Nairn at the
ford on the high way between Inverness and Corryburgh, and then
went to Lord Lovats. The greatest part of the army went to Ruthven
in Badennoch.
As we had not afterwards an opportunity of reviewing our men,
we cannot exactly say what loss we sustained in the action. By the
enemy’s account we lost 2000 men, and they 300. But there is
reason to think, that on the one side they magnify, and on the other
diminish the numbers.
‘Cum rectè factorum sibi quisque gratiam trahat, unius
invidiâ ab omnibus peccatur.’ Tac. Ann. 1. 3 c. 53.
 APPENDIX I
THE JACOBITE LORD SEMPILL

Mr. Fitzroy Bell, in a note to Murray’s Memorials (p. 42), relates

that he had been unable to discover who this Jacobite Lord Sempill
was. The researches of the Marquis de Ruvigny among the Stuart
Papers, published in the Jacobite Peerage, make his identity quite
clear. Francis Sempill was the son and heir of Robert Sempill, an
officer in the French army. In 1712 this Robert Sempill received from
the court of St. Germains a ‘Declaration of Noblesse,’ which stated
that he ‘is grandson of the late Hugh, Lord Sempill, Peer of Scotland
and sole heir-male of the property and the ancient title of the said
lord, whose fourth son, Archibald, father of the said Robert, is the
only one who left any living male child.’ On the 16th of July 1723 he
appears as Mr. Robert Sempill, Captain of the Regiment of Dillon. He
died at Paris intestate. In the documents of probate he is termed
‘Robert, Lord Sempill, alias Robert Sempill.’ On the strength of the
title given to him in this reference, the Marquis de Ruvigny states
that after 1723, when he was termed simply ‘Mr. Robert Sempill,’ he
‘seems after that date to have been created by James iii. and viii. a
lord and peer of Parliament.’ This assumption has also been made
by Mr. Fitzroy Bell, Mr. Andrew Lang, and other recent writers, but
there is no evidence of any new creation, nor indeed was there any
necessity for it. Robert Sempill the soldier had received in 1712 the
declaration that he was entitled to the ancient title, but apparently
had not used it. It seems natural to believe that his son Francis, who
on the death of the father would prepare the probate papers,
inserted in them the title of lord, to which the Declaration of 1712
said his father was entitled, and that on succeeding he assumed the
title which his father had not used.
The following table shows the relationship of the Jacobite Lord
Sempill with the nobleman who bore the same title in Scotland. He
fought at Culloden and died the same year at Aberdeen (see p. 164).
 APPENDIX II
MURRAY OF BROUGHTON AND THE BISHOPRIC
OF EDINBURGH

At the Revolution there were eight hundred and seven parishes in

Scotland filled by ministers of the Episcopal Church. On the
accession of William and Mary and the Abolition of Episcopacy and
the Establishment of the Presbyterian Church, all the bishops
refused the Oath to the new Sovereigns, and a large number of the
clergy left their parishes for the same reason.
At first there was much toleration, but as the bishops and the
Episcopal clergy were all Non-jurors and maintained their allegiance
to the exiled Stuart kings, they gradually became a Jacobite
institution. Although very feeble, they were torn with internal
dissension both doctrinal and ecclesiastical. As the pre-Revolution
bishops died out, it was thought necessary in order to keep up the
succession to consecrate new bishops, but this had to be done with
utmost secrecy.
At first these bishops were appointed bishops at large without
any diocese or territorial jurisdiction, and were known as the College
of Bishops, but gradually the clergy demanded some sort of
superintendence. Bishops were consecrated by one party and by
others, but all on the understanding that they owed allegiance to the
Stuart king. To avoid scandal the Jacobite managers and the
Jacobite Court insisted that when bishops were elected the king
should be informed so as to give congé d’élire before consecration.
This power was afterwards compromised by the exiled king
permitting the clergy to select all the bishops except the
metropolitans of St. Andrews and Glasgow, and a Bishop of
Edinburgh who might have to act as metropolitan under the title of
Vicar-General of St. Andrews.
 In the year 1741 John Murray, as Agent in Scotland for the
Jacobite Court, sent up the name of William Harper, who was
incumbent of St. Paul’s Non-juring Episcopal Church in Carrubber’s
Close. He was well connected, being married to a daughter of Sir
David Thriepland of Fingask, and he was also principal adviser to
most of the prominent Jacobites of the time.
Some of the bishops did not want him, and Bishop Keith
represented to the Chevalier through Murray that Harper was an
objectionable person, and implored the king to withdraw his congé
d’élire. Mr. Harper retired from the contest.
After much negotiation John Murray, apparently with the
concurrence of the majority of the bishops, fixed upon Bishop
Rattray as a man likely from his age and rank to put an end to the
dissensions; and James sent from Rome a congé de lire to elect him
Bishop of Edinburgh, apparently with certain metropolitan powers.
Rattray, however, died a few days after this permission was
received, and the see was not filled until 1776.
Bishop Rattray was a Perthshire laird, the head of the ancient
family of Rattray of Craighall. His son John acted as surgeon to
Prince Charles throughout the campaign of 1745-46. A volume
recently published, A Jacobite Stronghold of the Church, by Mary E.
Ingram (Edinburgh, 1907), gives much information about William
Harper and the Episcopal Church in Jacobite times.
 APPENDIX III
SIR JAMES STEUART

Sir James Steuart (afterwards Steuart Denham) of Goodtrees

and Coltness, second baronet. His father had been Solicitor-
General, and his grandfather Lord Advocate, and both belonged to
the party of the Covenanters. Sir James was born in 1712, and in
1743 he married Lady Frances, daughter of the fourth Earl of
Wemyss, and sister of Lord Elcho, one of the Jacobite leaders of the
’Forty-five. When Prince Charles came to Edinburgh, Sir James
joined his Court, and he is the reputed author of some of the Prince’s
manifestos. In the autumn of 1745 he was sent to France as the
Prince’s agent.
In the Stuart Papers there is a document headed ‘A Copy of Sir
James Stewart’s powers, Dec. 29, 1746.’
‘Nous Charles Prince de Galles Regent des Royaumes
d’Angleterre, d’Ecosse, etc. jugeant qu’il est notre service
dans la conjouncture presente de charger de nos affaires
auprès de Sa Majesté très-chretienne une personne
instruite de nos intentions nous avons choisi le Chevalier
Baronet Stuart auquel nous avons donné et donnons
pouvoir, commission, et mandement special de traitter et
negotier avec les ministres de Sa Majesté [très-
chrètienne] arrester, conclure et signer avec eux tous les
articles ou conventions qu’il avisera bon être.... Fait a
Paris ce 29 Decembre 1746.’
This seems to be a copy of the credential which he received in
Edinburgh, and which, probably for precautionary reasons, he did
not carry with him in case of being captured and searched. The
whole commission is printed among the Stuart Papers in Browne’s
History of the Highlands, vol. iii. p. 472.
 Sir James was specially excepted from the Act of Indemnity of
1747. He wandered on the Continent until 1763, when he was
permitted to return to Scotland. He received a pardon in 1771, and
died in 1780. He was author of Inquiry into the Principles of Political
Economy (1767), and other works. There is information about his
Jacobite career in the narratives of his brother-in-law, Lord Elcho,
recently published, also a long biography in The Coltness
Collections, in which every effort is made to ignore or minimise his
Jacobitism.
There was something mysterious both about his joining the
Jacobite Court and about his departure from Scotland. Robert
Chambers, in his History of the Rebellion, chap. xxiv., relates, upon
the authority of Sir Henry Steuart of Allanton, Sir James’s near
relative, the story of his joining the Prince at Holyrood, which may be
told in Chambers’s own words.
‘Descended of a whig family, Sir James had,
nevertheless, allowed himself, in the course of his travels,
to form an intimacy with the Stuart princes and some of
their principal adherents. He had more lately been piqued
at the treatment he had received at an election from one
of the officers of the government. He was disposed to join
the enterprise of the Prince, but wished that, in doing so,
he should not appear quite a free agent. His sister’s
husband, the Earl of Buchan, a good man, of moderate
understanding, was brought by him to the same views,
and they agreed with Lady Steuart’s brother, Lord Elcho,
that they should be seized in a public place, and carried to
Holyrood House, as if against their will. Walking next day
at the cross of Edinburgh, Sir James and the earl were
seized accordingly, and conducted to the palace. There a
message was sent from an anteroom to the Chevalier,
mentioning their presence. The Prince, who in the
meanwhile had heard of the manner of their visit, returned
for answer, that if the Earl of Buchan and Sir James
Steuart came as willing partisans to befriend his cause, he
should be proud and happy to see them, but not
 otherwise. This bluntness, though honourable to the
Prince’s candour, displeased Buchan, whose resolution,
perhaps, had already begun to give way. He therefore
made a low bow to the officer, and said: “Please inform his
royal highness that I have the honour to be his most
obedient humble servant”; after which he instantly left the
palace. Sir James, too much offended with the
government to retrace his steps, remained to see the
Prince upon the terms prescribed.’
There was something still more mysterious about his departure.
The following depositions were found in the Records of the Sheriff
Court of Kincardineshire by Dr. W. A. Macnaughton of Stonehaven,
[639] who kindly sent them to me. The depositions were taken from
witnesses in a civil action of false imprisonment by James Grant
against Alexander Garioch of Mergie. Garioch acted as deputy
governor of Stonehaven for Prince Charles. Apparently the
authorities took the opportunity of interrogating the Jacobite
witnesses about Sir James. The portions of the depositions that refer
to Sir James Steuart only are here given.
1. Peter Barclay of Johnstoun[640] ... Being
Interrogate concerning Sir James Stewart Depones that
some time about the middle of November or a little before
it, the Deponent had occasion to be at Stonhyve in a
Tavern with Mr. Garioch, that he saw a person who
passed under the Name of Brown, and who was called by
Mergie to the Deponent a Prisoner, but that there was no
guard sett upon him and the Deponent saw him at liberty
to go out and in under no confinement that the Deponent
could observe, That the Deponent had had occasion about
sixteen years before to be in company with Sir James
Stewart That when the Deponent saw this person who
was called Brown he thought he had seen him before, but
could not then recollect who he was That the day after the
Deponent had seen this person he was conversing with
one Menzies in the French service was enquiring who this
person might be and was positive he had seen him before,
That Menzies said he did not know who he was, but that
some days before Lord Lewis Gordon had been dining
with him, and he observed that Lord Lewis was Drinking to
this person his health That upon this the Deponent
recollected and said he imagined him to be Sir James
Stuart, Depones that when that person was ordered to be
taken on board of a ffrench ship by Mergie’s command he
took a formal protest in waiting against Mergie for forcing
him out of the Kingdom against his will, Being interrogate
if he thought it was a serious protest Depones that he did
not know what to think of it but was very much surprised at
the whole proceeding and that when the Deponent said to
Mergie that he judged this person to be Sir James Stuart,
Mergie absolutely refused that it was, that this person
went down to the Boat in order to embark aboard of the
ship which lay at anchor without any guard attending him,
Mergie and the Deponent and several others went along
with him to the Boat.
4. John Maule[641] Depones that some time in
October 1745 a ffrench ship arrived in the Harbour of
Stonhyve with some chests of Arms, six pieces of cannon,
and other warlike stores, That Mergie received from the
Hands of one Black, who called himself Supercargo of the
said Ship all these Warlike Instruments, and called in the
country to assist in carrying them southwards, Depones
that the above mentioned Black went south along with the
cargo of Arms etc. which were brought from on board the
above mentioned vessel, and returned again in about 2
weeks after he arrived at the Publick House keeped by
John Falconer and that there was in his company as the
Deponent had occasion to see immediately after his
arrival a Gentleman unknown to the Deponent, that when
the Deponent enquired at Black who this Person was
Black told him he had met with him at Montrose, and
believed him to be one of the officers who had been taken
Prisoner at the Battle of Prestonpans and had made his
Escape That Black desired the Deponent to go to Mergie
and inform him that there was such a Gentleman at Mr.
Falconer’s house whom he suspected to be an officer of
General Cope’s Army who had made his escape, That the
deponent delivered this message to Mergie, upon which
Mergie came directly up to the Mill of Stonhyve That the
Deponent accompanied Mergie with a Guard, That Mergie
and Black took the said Person unknown to the Deponent
into an Apartment by themselves, and after staying about
an Hour returned again and showed to the Deponent a
Black Cockade and about sixty or seventy Pistoll shot,
which he said he had found upon searching about this
unknown Person, and ordered him to be keeped Prisoner,
and accordingly a Guard was placed upon the House all
that night That next day the Deponent was sent for by
Mergie and received orders from him to Remove the
Guard which was upon the said unknown person, and to
take the Custody and care of him himself, and desired him
to keep sight of him and not suffer him to make his
Escape, That for two or three days the Deponent keept a
pritty watchful eye over the said unknown Gentleman
during the daytime and at night there was always a Guard
of three or four men placed on the House But after that
during his stay in Stonhyve the Deponent sometimes
attended the said Gentleman when he walked for his
Recreation any distance from the Town but he was left for
most part without any guard or attendance That during the
time of the said person’s stay at Stonhyve Mergie was
frequently in company with him at Dinner and Supper and
frequently they were alone together Depones that one day
when the deponent was in the laigh Room of the Mill of
Stonhyve he heard this unknown Gentleman and the first
and second Master of the abovementioned French ship in
company in the Room immediately above, That the
Deponent heard them laughing and very merry together,
that they were speaking ffrench and so loud that if the
deponent had understood it, he might have heard what