THE HEART OF THE BRUCE
King Robert the Bruce died at Cardross on the Clyde, on June 7, 1329, a
little more than a month before the completion of his fifty-fifth year.
The cause of his death is said to have been leprosy. Barbour says it
was the development of a severe cold, a benumbment contracted in the
hardships of his early wanderings. Apart from specific disease, the
strain of his laborious reign of nearly a quarter of a century would
have shaken the strongest constitution of man.
In the last three years he had been struck by two severe bereavements:
the death of his son-in-law, Sir Walter the Steward, a knight of great
promise, on April 9, 1326; and the death of the queen, at Cullen, on
October 26, 1327. In the latter year, indeed, in spite of increasing
illness, he had taken the field in Ireland and in Northumberland. But
he had been unable to attend the marriage of David and Joan at Berwick
in July 1328. Still he continued to move about quietly. When, however,
Douglas brought him back from a visit to Galloway in the end of March
1329, it was not to be concealed that 'there was no way for him but
death.' And, accordingly, he set his house in order.
On October 15, 1328, the Pope had at last granted absolution to Robert
from the excommunication pronounced by the cardinals, and, on November
5, authorised his confessor to give him plenary remission in the hour
of death.
At a parliament held on November 14, 1328, at Scone, it had been
settled that, in the event of David's dying without heir male of his
body begotten, Robert the Steward, son of Marjory, should succeed; and
that, if King Robert died during David's minority, Randolph should be
regent, and, failing Randolph, Douglas. David and Joan were crowned,
and David received homage and fealty.
On May 11, 1329, the King assembled his prelates and barons to
hear his last wishes. He gave directions for liberal largess to
religious houses, with special consideration for Melrose Abbey, where
he desired his heart to be buried. He declared his long-cherished
intention--Froissart says his 'solemn vow'--after bringing his realm to
peace, 'to go forth and war with the enemies of Christ, the adversaries
of our holy Christian faith.' As he had been unable to carry out his
fixed purpose, he wished his heart to be taken and borne against the
foes of God. On Douglas was laid this great and noble charge. Froissart
mentions a specific instruction: 'I wish that you convey my heart to
the Holy Sepulchre where our Lord lay, and present it there, seeing my
body cannot go thither. And wherever you come,' added the King, 'let it
be known that you carry with you the heart of King Robert of Scotland,
at his own instance and desire, to be presented at the Holy Sepulchre.'
Douglas solemnly pledged himself to this last faithful service.
On the death of King Robert, his heart was embalmed, and enclosed in a
silver casket 'cunningly enamelled,' which Douglas bore always about
his neck. Strangely enough, even in death, the King came in conflict
with Rome; for the excision of his heart was a breach of a Papal Bull
of 1299, involving excommunication of the mutilators, and excluding the
body from ecclesiastical burial. On August 13, 1331, the Pope, at the
prayer of Randolph, granted absolution to all that had taken part 'in
the inhuman and cruel treatment' of the King's body.
The body was embalmed, and carried through the Lennox, and by Dunipace
and Cambuskenneth, to repose with the body of the Queen in Dunfermline
Abbey--since Malcolm Canmore, the last resting-place of the Kings of
Scotland. Over the King's grave was erected a marble monument, which he
had ordered from Paris a twelvemonth before his death. It might have
been supposed that never in time would any Scotsman lay a rude hand
on the sepulchre of the greatest of Scottish kings; yet on March 28,
1560, an insensate rabble of 'Reformers' razed the abbey to the ground,
and broke in pieces the royal monument. In 1818, when foundations for
a new church were being cleared, there were found, in a grave in front
of the spot where the high altar of the Abbey Church had stood, the
bones of a man whose breast-bone had been sawn asunder, and who had
been buried in fine linen shot with gold thread. The probability that
these were the bones of Bruce was enhanced by the surrounding fragments
of black and white marble, well-polished, carved, and gilt. There lay
also a mouldering skull, which five centuries agone may have held the
powerful brain that dominated the field of Bannockburn.
Douglas set about his preparations. Now that peace with England was
established, and Randolph held the reins of State, there was no
national reason why Douglas could not be spared for a time. Nor would
warriors like Bruce and his paladins have ever weighed for a moment
the risks of the sacred mission. It seems a misapprehension to suggest
either selfishness or ingratitude on the part of the dying King. Nor
is there any substantial ground for imagining that Robert feared any
lack of harmony between his two great lieutenants. Barbour's casual
suggestion of petty rivalry between them cannot weigh for a moment
against their constant association in scores of enterprises. Their
rivalry was of noble quality. The King had made a knightly vow, and
that vow he must, as far as might be, perform; it was hardly less a
national than a personal obligation.
On September 1, Douglas obtained from Edward III. letters of protection
for seven years, and a letter of commendation to Alfonso XI., King of
Castile and Leon. On February 1, 1329-30, the day of the patron saint
of his house, St Bride, he bestowed lands on the Abbey of Newbattle to
secure her special intercession in his spiritual interests. Shortly
thereafter he set out on his mission, with 'a noble company'--one
knight banneret, seven other knights, twenty-six squires, and a large
retinue. According to Froissart, he sailed from Montrose to Sluys,
where he lay twelve days, thinking he might be joined by other knights
'going beyond the sea to Jerusalem'; and then to Valencia in Spain.
According to Barbour he sailed from Berwick direct to Seville. In any
case, he proceeded to the camp of Alfonso, then on his frontier warring
against Osmyn, the Moorish King of Granada, and was received with
honour befitting his fame and his mission. The knights with Alfonso
were eagerly curious to see the famous Scot; and one notable warrior
expressed his great surprise that Douglas's face was not seamed with
scars like his own. 'Praised be God!' said Douglas, 'I always had hands
to defend my head.'
On August 25, 1330, the Christian and Moorish armies faced each other
near Theba on the Andalusian frontier. Froissart states that Douglas
mistook a forward movement of the Spanish troops for the onset of
battle, and charged the Moors furiously; but the Spaniards had halted
and left him unsupported. The story seems little consonant with
Douglas's warlike intelligence. Barbour says that Alfonso assigned to
Douglas the command of the van--which is very unlikely, unless he also
assigned him an interpreter. He also asserts that Douglas hurled the
precious casket 'a stone-cast and well more' into the ranks of the
enemy, exclaiming--
'"Now pass thou forth before
As thou wast wont in field to be,
And I shall follow, or else dee"';
and that he fought his way to it and recovered it, 'taking it up with
great daintie.' This, too, is but a fantastic embellishment of the
cloister. Barbour, of course, proceeds to rout the Moors and to make
Douglas press on ahead of his company, attended by only ten men. Seeing
Sir William de St Clair surrounded, however, Douglas spurred to his
friend's rescue, but was overpowered by numbers and slain. Among those
that fell with him were Sir William de St Clair and Sir Robert and Sir
Walter Logan.
The bones of Douglas were brought home by Sir William de Keith, who
had been kept out of the battle by a broken arm, and were buried in
the church of St Bride of Douglas. The silver casket with the heart of
Bruce was buried by Randolph, 'with great worship,' in Melrose Abbey.
Douglas has been charged with breach of trust. It is argued that he
ought not to have gone to Spain, but to have crossed the continent to
Venice or the south of France, and made direct for Jerusalem. It is
hardly worth while to remark that this is just what Boece says he did,
his death taking place in Spain on his way home. It is more to the
purpose that the Holy Sepulchre was then in the hands of the Saracens,
and that Spain was the central point of opposition to the infidels.
But what Douglas ought or ought not to have done depends solely on the
precise terms of his trust; and it may be taken as certain that he
knew King Robert's mind better than either Barbour or Froissart, or
even their critics, and that he decided on his course in consultation
with Randolph and the other magnates, prelates as well as barons.
Edward's safe conduct and commendatory letter show by their terms that
his going to Spain was no afterthought, but his original intention. To
attribute to Douglas lack of 'strength of purpose' is to miss the whole
significance of his career.
* * * * *
King Robert must obviously have been a man of powerful physique and
iron constitution. The early hardships and continuous toils of his
reign could not have been sustained by any ordinary frame; and his
recorded feats of strength, such as in the case of Wallace have been
scouted as fabulous, have always been accepted without question. The
Merton MS. of the 'Flores Historiarum' calls him 'a very powerful man,'
on the occasion of his striking down Comyn. The killing of Sir Henry
de Bohun in face of both armies speaks convincingly of muscle as well
as of nerve. If the bones discovered in 1818 were his, they indicate
that he stood about six feet in height. 'In figure,' says Major, 'he
was graceful and athletic, with broad shoulders. His features were
handsome, and he had the yellow hair of the northern race, and blue and
sparkling eyes.'
Bruce's outstanding characteristic, in Barbour's analysis, was his
'hardiment:' he 'hardy was of head and hand.' That is to say, he was
a strong, bold, and resolute soldier. But with hardiment he joined
'wit'--judgment, prudence, measure; and the union of the two is
'worship.' This 'worship' was undoubtedly the fundamental cause of
Bruce's great career; and the most simple and conspicuous illustration
of it is seen in the dramatic episode of De Bohun's death. Fordun
pronounces that he 'was, beyond all living men of his day, a valiant
knight.' And Barbour sums up--
'To whom, into gude chevelry,
I dar peir nane, wes in his day.
For he led hym with mesure ay.'
It was this splendid hardiment controlled and directed by cool
judgment, and supported by untiring industry in details, that ranked
King Robert not merely as the second knight in Christendom, but as
one of the most renowned generals of the age. His patient drudgery of
preparation, his wary dispositions, his firmness of resolution, his
promptitude to mark and remedy a weakness of his own and to strike hard
at a weakness of the enemy, were superbly illustrated on the field of
Bannockburn. King Robert's military renown does not need the false
attribution of tactical discoveries that he certainly did not make.
It was not Bannockburn that showed him what infantry could do against
mailed cavalry; nor was it the example of the Flemings at Courtrai.
Sir William Wallace had proved the power of the schiltron before
Bannockburn and before Courtrai; and he is not to be deprived of the
honour by the imperfect historical knowledge of Sir Thomas Gray. If the
tactic was known in these islands before the time of Wallace, or if
Wallace gained the knowledge of it from elsewhere, the fact yet remains
to be historically demonstrated. King Robert and his generals simply
practised the lesson of Wallace with notable ability. Nor did they
advance beyond Wallace in the still more important principles of large
strategy. But, apart from this, the Bruce's capacity as a military
commander stands forth pre-eminent. And though many painful incidents
inevitably stain the records of his campaigns, they are attributable
more to the age than to the man. It is impossible to charge on his
memory any reckless or wanton cruelty. His mind with all its sternness
ever tended to clemency, and his constitutional prudence, or measure,
forbade purposeless excess.
The incessant demands of war left Robert but scant leisure for
internal administration, notwithstanding the diligent service of his
eminently capable lieutenants. Apart from necessary inference and from
incidental indications, his care for civil order and good government is
conspicuously manifested in the legislation of the Scone Parliament,
December 3, 1318; and there is abundant evidence of his fostering
watchfulness over the commercial traffic with Continental countries.
The Cambuskenneth Parliament, July 15, 1326, has a constitutional
interest, as the first great council where burgesses are known to have
sat with the baronage. The trading communities were worth consultation
when a heavy war tax was to be levied, and the country was so cruelly
impoverished. There can be no doubt that Robert's management of home
affairs was watchful, energetic, and liberal.
In the conduct of his foreign relations, the Bruce proved himself an
adept in diplomacy. His dealings with the Continental princes, mainly
in regard to shipping and commerce, were conciliatory and businesslike.
His political transactions with the English sovereign and with the
Pope were uniformly characterised by astute perception, reasonableness
to the point of generosity, courteous but rigid firmness on every
essential point, and fidelity to engagements.
The occupations of the King's late and brief leisure may be read
between the lines of the Exchequer Rolls: how he kept open house at
Cardross, dispensed gifts and charities, pottered (with Randolph) at
shipbuilding, sailed his great ship between Cardross and Tarbet, built
Tarbet Castle, added a wing to his mansion, tended his garden, and so
forth; and how he kept a pet lion at Perth, where he seems to have
spent parts of his last two years.
Bruce was twice married. First, to Isabel, daughter of the Earl of Mar,
the mother of Marjory. Second, to Elizabeth, eldest daughter of De
Burgh, Earl of Ulster, who bore him two sons and two daughters: Matilda
and Margaret, after 1316; David, March 5, 1324; and John, who died in
infancy. The most distinguished of his other children, Sir Robert de
Brus, fell at Dupplin in 1332.
Bruce has been called by Lord Hailes (after Rapin) the 'restorer of
Scottish monarchy.' The monarchy was a small matter; Bruce was the
restorer of Scottish independence. But the conditions of the case
are apt to be misconceived. The incalculable services of Sir William
Wallace, through nearly ten years of incomparably heroic struggle
against the great Edward in his full vigour, are too often forgotten,
or belittled. But for Wallace, it is more than probable that Bruce
would never have been King of Scotland. He built on Wallace's
foundations.
Comyn being dead, Bruce possessed the admitted right to the crown,
without even the semblance of competition--a powerful aid in his
enterprise. He started in the acquisitive spirit of an Anglo-Norman
baron, and was carried through largely by his personal gallantry,
his military capacity, his consummate prudence, and his indomitable
resolution. Though the mass of the people rallied to him but slowly
through many years, yet he at once gained the more ardent patriots;
and, in particular, he had the instant support of the leading prelates,
and, at the Dundee Parliament on February 24, 1308-9, the formal
adhesion of the clergy generally. Nor is it easy to overestimate the
aid of three such paladins as Edward de Brus, Randolph, and Douglas.
And not the least of the grounds of Bruce's success is to be sought in
the feebleness and foolishness of Edward II. and the stupid oppressions
practised by his local officers. Still, with full acknowledgment of
these supports, King Robert was and is the central figure in the final
establishment of the independence of Scotland.
One is strongly inclined to believe that the services of Sir Edward
de Brus, Lord of Galloway and Earl of Carrick, have been seriously
underrated, partly no doubt through his own besetting fault. When we
remember how boldly he is said to have counselled action on the return
from Rathlin, how vigorously he cleared the English out of his lordship
of Galloway, and how ably he bore the brunt of the heaviest fighting
at Bannockburn, we cannot but suspect that his glory has been unduly
dimmed by the splendour of his brother, and by the inappreciation of
his monkish critics. The main certainty about his hapless expedition
to Ireland is the certainty that he fought with the most chivalrous
ardour. He was not only 'hardy' but, according to Barbour, 'outrageous
hardy'--a prototype of Hotspur. His habitual exaltation of mind is well
expressed by the Archdeacon, when he describes him in face of vastly
superior numbers at Kilross:
'The more they be,
The more honoùr allout have we,
If that we bear us manfully.'
Undoubtedly his 'hardiment' overbore his 'wit'; yet one may safely
doubt whether the Archdeacon was the man to take his military measure.
At the very least, he must have been a powerful force in urging
unmitigated hostility against the English; and his dash in battle must
have proved a potent force on many a stricken field.
In the absence of Sir Edward, Randolph ranked as first lieutenant.
He was Bruce's nephew, son of Isabel de Brus and Thomas Randolph
of Strathdon.[2] From Lord of Nithsdale, he blossomed into Earl of
Moray, and Lord of Annandale and of Man. As soldier, diplomatist, and
statesman, he displayed pre-eminent ability. Barbour represents him as
of moderate stature, proportionably built, 'with broad visage, pleasing
and fair,' and a courteous manner. 'A man he was,' says Lord Hailes,
most justly, 'to be remembered while integrity, prudence, and valour
are held in esteem among men.' He survived King Robert a little over
three years.
The good Sir James of Douglas ranked second to Randolph only because
Randolph was the King's nephew. From his early teens he displayed a
gallant and chivalrous spirit, a mind set on honour, and withal a
conspicuous gift of strategic device. If we may rely on Barbour, he
was even more cautious than the well-balanced Randolph; yet, when
occasion served, he could display the adventurous dash of Sir Edward
de Brus; and he exhibited a splendid tenacity. According to Froissart,
he was 'esteemed the bravest and most enterprising knight in the two
kingdoms.' Like most great commanders, he rendered his men devoted to
him by a large generosity, not merely in division of the spoils, but
also in recognition of valiant deeds. Barbour tells us that
'He had intill custom allway,
Quhen euir he com till hard assay,
To press hym the chiftane to sla;'
a bold principle that often decided the fight--like Bruce's principle
of striking hard at the foremost line. After he slew Sir Robert de
Neville,
'The dreid of the Lorde Dowglass,
And his renoun swa scalit wass
Throu-out the marchis of Yngland
That all that war tharin duelland
Thai dred him as the deuill of hell.'
And Barbour had often heard tell that wives would frighten their
wayward children into obedience by threatening to deliver them to the
Black Douglas. The Leicester chronicler says 'the English feared him
more than all other Scotsmen'; for 'every archer he could take, either
his right hand he cut off or his right eye he plucked out,' and, for
the sake of the archers, he always took his vengeance on an Englishman
in the severest form he could devise. This view is not corroborated,
however, and it may be a generalisation from some particular case. But,
while terrible to the enemy--'a brave hammerer of the English,' as
Fordun says--Douglas is represented as charming to his friends.
'But he wes nocht sa fayr that we
Suld spek gretly off his beaute:
In wysage[3] wes he sumdeill gray,[4]
And had blak har,[5] as Ic hard say;
Bot off lymmys[6] he wes weill maid,
With banis[7] gret & schuldrys braid.[8]
His body wes weyll maid and lenye,[9]
As thai that saw hym said to me ...
And in spek wlispyt[10] he sum deill;
But that sat[11] him rycht wondre weill.'
Scott's picture of the Knight of the Tomb, while based on Barbour's
description, verges on caricature.
* * * * *
Was King Robert the Bruce a patriot? The question, startling as it may
be, especially to trustful readers of uncritical laudations, may no
longer be avoided.
It is not necessary to repeat the outlines of his political attitude
during the storm and stress of Wallace's memorable struggle. Can it be
supposed, then, that a man may become patriotic after his thirty-first
year? With his assumption of the kingly office, Bruce's baronial and
royal interests coincided with the interests of Scotland, and it may be
that some feeling of the nature of patriotism may have thus developed
in his breast. The manifesto of the barons and other laymen in 1320,
apart from its dramatic purpose, may be taken to indicate that the
external reasons for the King's profession of patriotism were not less
potent than his private reasons. Let us concede to him the benefit even
of grievous doubt. For, be his motives what they may, the practical
outcome was the decisive establishment of the independence of the
realm of Scotland, and he remains for ever the greatest of the line of
Scottish Kings.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Hemingburgh also gives February 10; Rishanger, Walsingham, and
others give January 29. It is the difference between iv. _Id._ Feb. and
iv. _Kal._ Feb. Probably both dates are wrong. The true date, it is
suggested, is January 27--'Thursday next before Carne-prevyum' (_Cal._
ii., p. 486, under August 4, 1306).
[2] So say the modern authorities. The chroniclers call him Bruce's
'nephew,' and Bruce himself calls him 'nepos'; and Boece calls him
David's 'cousin.' But is not 'nephew' used here, not in the present
strict sense, but in the wider sense of young relative? Bruce's father
and mother were married not before 1270 at earliest. Isabel was married
to the King of Norway on November 15, 1293; and probably the marriage
was in contemplation when her father and she went to Norway in autumn,
1292. Was she a widow, then, at 21? Randolph was present with his
father at proceedings in the Succession case at Berwick in August
1292. If, then, he was the son of Isabel, he must have been a mere
child--five or six at most. If there was another sister Isabel (Bain),
the age difficulty remains. Was Isabel--if Isabel _was_ Randolph's
mother's name--not the sister, but the aunt, of Bruce? And was Randolph
really Bruce's _cousin_?
[3] Visage.
[4] Somewhat gray (swarthy).
[5] Hair.
[6] Limbs.
[7] Bones.
[8] Shoulders broad.
[9] Lean.
[10] Lisped.
[11] Became.
Transcriber's Notes:
Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant
preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.
Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced
quotation marks retained.
Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.
Page 35: Unmatched closing single quotation mark after "is a traitor'".
Page 43: "David ap Griffith" means "son of" (Welch origin).