+The Text+ is another of the lively battle-pieces from the Percy Folio,
put into modern spelling, and no other version is known or needed. The
battle of Durham, which the minstrel says (27.1, 64.2) was fought on a
morning of May, and (64.3,4) within a month of Creçy and Poictiers,[1]
actually took place on October 17, 1346. Stanza 18 makes the king say to
Lord Hamilton that they are of 'kin full nigh'; and this provides an
upper limit for the date of the ballad, as James Hamilton was married to
Princess Mary, sister of James III., in 1474.
[Footnote 1: Creçy was fought on August 26, 1346; Poictiers on
September 19, 1356.]
+The Story.+--We have as authorities for the history of the battle both
Scottish and English chronicles, but the ballad, as might be expected,
follows neither very closely. Indeed it is not easy to reconcile the
Scottish account with the English. David Bruce, the young king of
Scotland, seized the opportunity afforded by Edward III.'s absence in
France at the siege of Calais to invade England with a large army. They
were met at Durham by an English force in three divisions, led
(according to the English chronicle) by (i) the Earl of Angus, Henry
Percy, Ralph Neville, and Henry Scrope, (ii) the Archbishop of York, and
(iii) Mowbray, Rokeby, and John of Copland. The Scots were also in three
divisions, which were led (says the Scottish version) by King David, the
Earl of Murray and William Douglas, and the Steward of Scotland and the
Earl of March respectively. The English chronicle puts John of Douglas
with the Earl of Murray, and the Earl of Buchan with King David.
The ballad, therefore, that calls Angus 'Anguish' (11.1) and puts him on
the side of the Scots, as well as Neville (17.1), and apparently
confuses the two Douglases (14 and 21), is not more at variance with
history than is to be expected, and in the present case is but little
more vague than the historical records themselves.
'Vaughan' (13.1) may be Baughan or Buchan, though it is doubtful whether
there was an Earl of Buchan in 1346. 'Fluwilliams' (41.3) is perhaps a
form of Llewellyn (Shakespeare spells it Fluellen), but this does not
help to identify that lord.