THE BRUCE
BY
JOHN BARBOUR
ARCHDEACON OF ABERDEEN
EDITED FROM THE BEST TEXTS
WITH LITERARY AND HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION,
NOTES AND APPENDICES, AND A GLOSSARY
BY
W. M. MACKENZIE, M.A., F.S.A. (SCOT.)
AUTHOR OF “AN OUTLINE OF SCOTTISH HISTORY,” ETC.
LONDON
ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK
1909
PREFACE
1. MSS. AND EDITIONS.
The poem _The Bruce_, by John Barbour, is preserved in only two
manuscripts, one in the library of St. John’s College, Cambridge,
and the other in the Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh. The former is
hereafter denoted by the letter C, the latter by E. Of these E alone
is complete in the sense of having both beginning and end; the first
three Books and Book IV. 1-56 are missing in C. On the other hand, C
bears to have been completed in 1487, E in 1489. Other things being
equal, the earlier MS. must, of course, be preferred. Here, however,
intervenes a series of extracts, numbering 280 lines from Books I.
and II., embedded in Wyntoun’s _Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland_, and
the two MSS. of the _Cronykil_ are actually older than those of _The
Bruce_. This raises a difficulty, as Wyntoun’s extracts show a goodly
proportion of variations in language from the corresponding passages
in E, the only other MS. which covers the same ground. Professor Skeat
considers that Wyntoun’s lines are “in a better form (in the main)”
than those of E;[1] but, on the other hand, we do not know Wyntoun’s
method of working in such a case--how far he transcribed verbatim, how
far “he modified the language of the MS. which he must have had before
him.”[2] Many lines he omits, and others he obviously paraphrases;
he incorporates matter from another source; and his version of _The
Bruce_ lines may quite well be due to memorial reproduction after a
hurried reading. It is not otherwise easy to account for scraps of
a few lines of the poem being here and there embedded in narrative
independently worded or derived. There is thus no warrant for erecting
this chopped-up, second-hand version of the lines in question into a
canon or standard for a purely scribal transcript made for its own
sake. It is needful to enter this plea in view of the separatist theory
of Mr. J. T. T. Brown, for whom the passages in Wyntoun represent so
much of the original or _ur_-Bruce, out of which our MS. and printed
versions have been elaborated by a fifteenth-century editor, who, to
do so, borrowed freely and with no great cunning from the works of
contemporary authors.[3]
[1] Preface, S.T.S. edition, p. lxxv.
[2] Skeat, p. xxxvii.
The earliest printed versions of _The Bruce_ raise yet another issue
bearing on the purity of the text. The first is apparently of the year
1571, and only one copy is known to exist.[4] It does not, however,
differ materially from that of “Andro Hart” (H), published at Edinburgh
in 1616. In this the language is modernized; still more so is it in the
edition of four years later from the same publisher. And these seem
to have been the basis of the gradually worsening issues so common in
the eighteenth century, until in 1790 Pinkerton reverted to the sound
critical method of having a transcript made directly from the Edinburgh
MS. This again was the origin of Jamieson’s more careful edition of
1820, reprinted with a few corrections in 1869. Meantime Cosmo Innes
had prepared for the Spalding Club (1856) a version which, for the
first time, introduced readings from the Cambridge MS., but which, in
being dressed up in a “consistent orthography,” so far reverted to the
evil example of Hart. Subsequently, for the Early English Text Society,
and later, for the Scottish Text Society, Professor Skeat, basing on
C, but also utilizing E and H with a few readings from Wyntoun and
Anderson’s issue of 1670, produced, for the first time, a full and in
all respects competent text. To Skeat’s edition the present one is
essentially indebted.
[3] _The Wallace and The Bruce Restudied_, p. 74 and _passim_. See also
Appendices E, F.
[4] For a detailed account of the different editions see Skeat’s
_Preface_ to the E.E.T.S. or S.T.S. issues.
The main point about Hart’s edition (H) is that it supplies 39 lines
not found in either MS., with an expansion of two others into eight,
45 new lines in all. The expanded portion Skeat perforce relegates to
the footnotes. Twelve lines from Hart in the last book he at first
accepted as genuine, but finally discarded as an interpolation.[5] He
might justifiably have gone further, for he seems to me to have erred
in attaching undue importance to Hart’s unsupported contributions.
[5] See Appendix D.
This is made clear by considering the question as between C and E. Each
MS. has portions not found in the other. The scribe of E furnishes
his own excuse; his copy was “hurriedly written” (_raptim scriptus_).
Consequently we are not surprised to find that he has dropped 81 lines
found in C. On the other hand, the more careful Cambridge scribe has
overlooked, as the best of copyists might, 39 lines preserved in the
Edinburgh version. Upon analysis of these two groups a satisfactory
test of character emerges. In one case only--C, Bk. VI. *85-*92, E,
Bk. VI. 101-106--do we find an unexplained confusion, traces of two
alternative accounts of one incident, a possibility to which Barbour
refers in several instances. One line from C Skeat rejects because it
results in a triple rhyme.[6] Having eliminated these, we find that of
the remaining omissions in E two lines are the result of the misplacing
of one;[7] eight lines are couplets which have been overlooked; four
lines are necessary to complete couplets, so that their loss is due
to sheer carelessness; while the bulk of the missing lines, 57 out of
80, is accounted for by the recurrence of the same word or words at
the beginning or end of the line, whereby the eye of the scribe has
run on from, _e.g._, “Toward the toun” in Bk. IX. *374 to “Toward the
toun” in 374, and from “thai fand” in Bk. XIII. 446 to “thai fand,”
in *450, missing all between. A parallel result is given by analysis
of the 39 lines wanting in C but present in E. Six are involved in
the mutual perplexity of Bk. VI.; one is merely a careless oversight,
and the remaining 32 come under the main category of omission through
recurrence, within a short space, of the same word or rhyme. On the
whole, then, with the reservation noted above, the condition of
things as between the two MSS. is quite normal; the omissions are
explicable on ordinary grounds, and as the missing lines, with but one
real exception, take their places again without disturbance of their
neighbours, we may conclude that C and E are individual versions of a
single original poem, and complementary to each other. But copyists
were only mortal; an author too might see cause to alter a MS.; and the
variations of reading, even with those of Wyntoun thrown in, after all
supply a less serious illustration of such possibilities than do the
MSS. of the _Canterbury Tales_ from the Ellesmere to the so disturbing
Harleian.
[6] XVIII. *537; and see note on p. 277.
[7] VIII. *493, *495.
As for the lines found only in Hart’s edition, their every feature
arouses distrust and suspicion. Skeat’s judgment of “almost certainly
genuine” he has had to retract for 18 out of the total of 45, including
the eight-line version of a couple in the MSS.[8] Those on the
heart-throwing episode, Bk. XX. *421-*432, have been referred to above.
Not a single example of the remaining accretions meets the test of
repetition operative in the case of the MSS., or suggests its own
explanation. The couplet in Bk. II., p. 25, is nothing either way;
that on p. 283 is awkward; the intrusive lines on p. 321 are neither
sense nor grammar; those on pp. 215, 216 can find a place only by an
unwarrantable alteration of the succeeding line in both MSS., a liberty
which Mr. Brown, on purely speculative grounds, lightly accepts from
the very passage in question.[9] On the untimeous harangue into which
Bruce is made to pass on p. 239 I have spoken in its place. In general
it may be said that Hart’s contributions are clear misfits. Moreover,
the circumstantial evidence seems to clinch the main conclusion.
Hart, or his editor, had a turn for rhyme: to him are due the rhyming
rubrics, and he added at the close of the poem a halting colophon of
six lines, which in the later corrupt editions was simply merged in the
poem, and is quoted as a specimen thereof in a critical historical work
of 1702.[10] In XX. 610 he has barefacedly substituted a line for that
of the MSS., which introduces a detail not found before the time of
Bower and no doubt taken from him.[11] This throws a strong light on the
origin of other lines in the same Book.[12] Thus we prove capability and
inclination. Hart “modernized” the language of _The Bruce_, and from
“modernization” to “improvement” is a tempting transition.
[8] XVII. 887, 888.
[9] _The Wallace and The Bruce_, pp. 133, 134.
[10] _The Scottish Historical Library_, by W. Nicholson, Archdeacon of
Carlisle, p. 147.
[11] See note on passage.
[12] See Appendix D.
2. THE SCRIBES.
The Cambridge MS. bears witness that it was completed on August 18,
1487, by the hand of “John de R., chaplain”; the Edinburgh MS. that
it was “hurriedly written” by “John Ramsay” in 1489, for a Fife
vicar; and the latter signature is attached to the only MS. of _The
Wallace_, which accompanies that of _The Bruce_ but was transcribed
two years earlier. Skeat immediately pronounces that the names signify
but one person, that “John de R.” is also “John Ramsay,” apparently
on the logic of Wonderland, because both surnames begin with the
same letter.[13] Mr. Brown, however, points out that this equation
of alternative forms was highly improbable for fifteenth-century
Scotland, and substitutes a reading of his own whereby the scribes are
still merged in one personality as “John Ramsay” otherwise “Sir John
the Ross,” one of Dunbar’s _makars_, the real author of _The Wallace_,
and the wholesale redactor of _The Bruce_. The details of Mr. Brown’s
argument and all that flows therefrom must be read in _The Wallace
and The Bruce Restudied_.[14] Mr. Brown (if I may say so) never fails
to be suggestive and interesting, and even the light which led him
astray was real critical illumination; but John Ramsay, who, “as a
chaplain”--which _he_ does not claim to have been--“was entitled to
the courtesy title of _Sir_,”[15] and took his alternative name from
his office as “Ross Herald or Ross Secretary”;[16] who lightened the
toil of transcribing Acts of Parliament by dropping into verse on the
margin--an unjustifiable accusation;[17] and who, from the seed of
Blind Harry’s “gests,” raised the prickly bloom of _The Wallace_, and
grafted enough borrowed material on to the rough stock of the original
Bruce to make it something substantially different, and did all this
without leaving even a cipher as a hint to posterity--of this complex
and composite personage Mr. Brown is the only begetter, and his brief
and inglorious career may be followed in _The Athenæum_, November
17-December 8, 1900, February 9, 1901. Mr. Brown, of course, can still
claim that the problem of late redaction remains, whoever the guilty
one may have been.[18] On this understanding I deal with it
elsewhere.[19]
[13] The Bibliography of the _Cambridge History of English Literature_,
vol. ii., recklessly says: “As the colophon informs us (!) all three
MSS. were written by John Ramsay” (p. 447).
[14] Bonn, 1900.
[15] Brown, p. 82.
[16] _Ibid._, p. 68.
[17] See _Athenæum_, November 17, 1900.
[18] _Athenæum_, December 8, 1900.
[19] Appendix F.
For the MSS., it needs but a slight examination to show that they
are from different hands. The fifteenth century had no “consistent
orthography,” but a scribe would probably have of himself; would
not, at the least, exhibit the systematic differences that mark the
MSS. in question. That the differences _are_ due to the scribes is
indicated by their occurrence even in proper names where E is, on the
whole, much more accurate than C.[20] Add that C offers more traces
of southern English influences; that it invariably gives the weak
form _I_ for the _Ic_ or _Ik_ of E, and substitutes _can_ for the
latter’s _gan_; that it regularly prefers _of_ to the _off_ which
distinguishes E and in certain positions _i_ for _y_--these with other
minor peculiarities, not being vital in character, are certainly due
to individual idiosyncrasies in spelling. Ramsay is an honest scribe,
who, at places, cannot read his original, and leaves a blank which
must be supplied from the copy of the chaplain.[21] There is thus not
the faintest reason for supposing but one scribe to have been at work.
At the same time the essential agreement of the two transcripts shows
that we are dealing with a single, complete, familiar poem which has
suffered in precision of copying from the usual mishaps incident to its
manner of publication and preservation.
[20] And Koeppel, while granting the general superiority of C, gives as
his opinion that in not a few cases E, nevertheless, where it differs
from C, preserves the genuine, original reading (_Englische Studien_,
x., p. 377, note).
[21] IX. 492, XIX. 459, XX. 396.
3. THE PRESENT EDITION.
The present edition of _The Bruce_ is based upon the printed text of
the Cambridge MS., collated throughout with that of E--that is, upon
the versions of Skeat and Jamieson. I have, however, adopted rather
more readings from E than does Skeat, also a few more from Wyntoun, and
offer some slight emendations--_e.g._, _luffys_ for _liffys_ in Bk. II.
527, _oft_ for _off_ in III. 194, _Fyn all_ for _Fyngall_ in II. 69,
etc. I have profited, too, by criticism of the published text as in the
adoption of Dr. Neilson’s _corn-but_ in Bk. II. 438. The question of
Hart’s version has been discussed above; it is valid only as a check
upon the MSS. Variants of any interest or importance are given in the
footnotes.
There has been no modernization of the language save in the case of the
rubrics, which are no part of the text proper and have been contributed
by the scribes or editors in order to facilitate the understanding
of the poem. I have thus adhered to the spirit while modifying the
letter of their work. But while avoiding any change in the language
of the poem or even any attempt at a uniform spelling, I have taken
a few harmless liberties with its alphabet and restricted certain of
the letters to their modern values, substituting for others a modern
equivalent. Skeat did this in the matter of the ancient “thorn” letter
= _th_. In consideration of the general reader, I have gone somewhat
farther, viz.:
1 The _s_ with the ornamental curl I read as merely _s_; Jamieson and
Skeat take it as, generally, = _ss_. But such alternative forms as
_Parys_,[22] _purches_,[23] and _purpos_,[24] on the one hand, and the
actual use of the tailed letter following the ordinary type in _dress_,
_press_,[25] fix the usage I have adopted.[26] There are a few
exceptions in which this letter is probably a contraction for
_is_--_e.g._, II. 366, 459.
[22] I. 345.
[23] II. 572.
[24] III. 287.
[25] XIV. 246; XVI. 253.
[26] _Cf._ also in Gregory Smith’s _Specimens of Middle Scots_, p. xxx.
2. I have distributed their modern values to _i_, _j_, _u_, _v_, _w_.
There is no advantage in preserving such forms as _iugis_, _Evrope_,
_wndyr_: the hedge of the language--to use Lowell’s simile--is prickly
enough without these accessories. Moreover, I have throughout written
_Edward_ for _Eduuard_ or _Eduard_ and _Inglis_ for _Ynglis_ (C).
3. As Skeat has substituted “_th_” for the “thorn” (þ), I have done
likewise with the ancient English _g_ (ȝ), the “yok” letter, resolving
it into the digraph _yh_. As ultimately, in almost every case,
significant of the consonantal _y_, I might have simply replaced it
by that letter. But alternative forms, nearly without exception, show
the digraph, both in _The Bruce_ and in Wyntoun, giving _yhe_, _yhet_,
_yharnit_, _fenyhe_, etc., and in Wyntoun’s extracts _feyhnnyng_,
_senyhoury_, _yhystir-day_, _bayhllys_, etc. Even with the original
letter the _h_ is added as often as not. Apparently the usage, which
had practically disappeared from the southern practice, was in a
transitional stage on its way to its full revival in later Scots, where
it became fixed, at the hands of the printers, as _z_, and survives in
such forms as _Cadzow_, _capercailzie_, etc.[27] In I. 16, however, it
has been read as _g_ in _forget_, though _foryhet_ is to be found in
_Ratis Raving_, and in XV. 75 it is obviously _z_ in _Fi(t)z-Waryne_.
[27] _Cf._ Murray’s _Dialect of the Southern Counties of Scotland_, p.
*92; and _New. Eng. Dict._, G.
4. The placing of the capital letters and the punctuation are, of
course, modern.
Further, the poem in MSS. is not divided into Books, but paragraphs
are denoted by the insertion of a large capital; these, as in C, are
similarly marked in the text. The division into twenty Books was first
made by Pinkerton, and, as the most convenient, has been adopted by
Skeat in his editions. From Pinkerton also Skeat adopts the numbering
of the lines. Jamieson, however, made a division into fourteen Books
with a numbering to suit. Cosmo Innes gave up the Books in favour of
Cantos, with a fresh renumbering. To avoid confusion I have adhered
to Skeat’s divisions and numbering, which are those of Pinkerton;
inconvenient though the duplicate numbers certainly are, a totally new
and fourth arrangement would be much more so. To break up and make more
accessible the matter, I have also introduced, where possible, the
paragraphs of Jamieson distinguished by spaces, some of these, however,
being found in C. They are merely for the convenience of the reader. I
may, perhaps, draw attention to the critical treatment of _The Bruce_
as an historic document without which we move greatly in the dark. The
historical notes of the early editors are few and superficial. Skeat
does not profess to deal with the work strictly on this line (_note_,
vol. ii., p. 224), though he does not fail to pass unnecessary censure
at several places. But some such examination as I have tried to make
seems necessary in the interests of Scottish historiography.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE v-xii
1. MSS. and Editions v
2. The Scribes viii
3. The Present Edition x
INTRODUCTION xv-xxiii
1. _The Bruce_ as Romance xv
2. John Barbour xvi
3. Historic value of _The Bruce_ xx
TEXT OF “THE BRUCE.” BOOKS I-XX. 1-377
NOTES TO TEXT 378
APPENDIX A.--The Site of the Battle of Bannockburn 496
„ B.--Bruce’s Speech at Bannockburn 497
„ C.--The Numbers at Bannockburn 498
„ D.--The Throwing of the Heart 502
„ E.--The _Alexander_ and _The Bruce_ 505
„ F.--Mr. Brown’s “Sources” for _The Bruce_ 506
„ G.--Language and Orthography 511
„ H.--Grammar 513
GLOSSARY 519
LIST OF PRINCIPAL WORKS 545
INTRODUCTION
1. “THE BRUCE” AS ROMANCE.
The literary relationships of _The Bruce_ may be briefly indicated. It
stands at the beginning of Scottish literature; of its predecessors
and contemporaries we have but the names, or possible versions whose
place of origin is in dispute. In form and technique, including the
octosyllabic couplet, it plainly depends on the French metrical
romance, the most fruitful branch of a literature which, for quite two
centuries, had been the mother of literatures in Western Europe. The
opening line of _The Bruce_ characterizes at once the poem itself,
and what was best and most abundant in the literature of the Middle
Ages. Barbour, too, it is never overlooked, announces his work as
a “romance,” but as such, we gather from what precedes, only in a
technical sense; and no mediæval writer would consider this popular
method of treatment incompatible with strict accuracy and reality of
subject: that is a modern refinement. Barbour certainly did not, nor
did those who followed and used him; his selection of the model is
simply the expression of his desire to do his work in “gud manere.”
He anticipated Macaulay’s ambition in that his history was to differ
from the most attractive literary matter only in being true. There were
already in French many examples of contemporary history presented in
this way as a succession of incidents on the lines of personal memoirs,
though history had in the end succeeded in widening its outlook, and
consequently found more fitting expression in prose. But that was of
Barbour’s own age, and indeed Froissart had made his first essay, as an
historian, in verse, which later he recast and continued in the form
we know. All the necessities of Barbour’s case, however, led him the
other way--the despised condition of the prose vernacular as a literary
medium, from which, indeed, it never fully emerged; the character of
his audience, which would be either learned or aristocratic; and the
nature and associations of his subject, for which only the literature
of romance could furnish a parallel or supply the appropriate setting.
The literary qualities of _The Bruce_ are, therefore, those of its
model; it is a clear, vivid, easy-flowing narrative, and if it is also,
as romances tended to be, loose in construction and discursive, it
is never tedious, for it deals with real persons and events of real
interest, depicted with an admiring fidelity.
2. JOHN BARBOUR.
The year of John Barbour’s birth we do not know, an item which is
lacking also for Chaucer: 1320 is a good round guess. Nor have we any
knowledge of his family. If, however, the _St. Ninian_ in the _Legends
of the Saints_ be of Barbour, a claim for which there is much to be
said,[28] it may give us a clue. The adventure of Jak. Trumpoure,
there told, connects with the fact that Jaq. (James) Trampour had
land in Aberdeen bordering on that of an Andrew Barbour.[29] It may be
conjectured that the latter was John Barbour’s father, or other near
relative, since the vivid personal details of the affair in the _St.
Ninian_ must have come from Trumpour himself, and the fact that he was
a neighbour of the Barbours would explain how.
The name Barbour (_Barbitonsoris_) is obviously plebeian. Some ancestor
followed the business of barber, as some one of Chaucer’s possibly
did that of “hose-making.” The established spelling, Barbour, shows
a French termination which takes also the form Barbier, whence Mr.
Henderson concludes that John Barbour “was of Norman origin.”[30] But
the spelling is merely an accident of transcription; the oldest form is
Barber(e) (1357, 1365),[31] which the scribe of the Edinburgh MS. also
uses, and which Wyntoun rhymes with _here_ and _matere_; in a few cases
it is Barbar. As we might expect, the name was common enough in the
English-speaking districts of Scotland.
[28] See Neilson in _Scottish Antiquary_, vol. xi., p. 102 ff., and
Buss, _ex adverso_, in _Anglia_, Band ix., p. 495.
[29] Jamieson’s _Memoir_, p. iv.
[30] _Scottish Vernacular Literature_, p. 41.
[31] For this reason Buss always gives the name as Barbere.
All our information about John Barbour, except the little to be
gleaned from the complimentary references of later authors, is drawn
from official sources,[32] and is thus, of course, perfectly precise,
but meagre and uncharacteristic. We learn something of what Barbour
did and got, but not what sort of man he was, or what he was like. By
1357, at the latest, he is Archdeacon of Aberdeen, the most important
official of the diocese after the bishop, having as his prebend the
parish of Rayne, in Garioch; and in the same year (August 13) he has
a safe-conduct to go with three scholars, for purposes of study, to
Oxford, where he may have seen John Wycliffe. There was, of course,
no University in Scotland as yet, and scholars desirous of academic
advantages had to seek them at least across the Border, a patronage
which Edward III., in his own interests, readily encouraged. Seven
years later he is again in England on a similar mission with four
horsemen,[33] and on October 16 of the year following he goes to St.
Denis, near Paris, this time with six companions on horseback; in
1368-69 he once more visits France “with two servants (_vallettis_)
and two horses.” The University of Paris had the highest reputation
for the study of philosophy and canon law, and Barbour, whose duty it
was to administer the jurisdiction of his bishop, would necessarily
be something of a lawyer, though his allusion to the clerkly
“disputations” in this field does not suggest much personal interest in
legal refinements.
[32] These have been brought together by Skeat in his first volume, pp.
xv-xxv.
[33] Skeat here takes _equitibus_ to be “knights,” but this is not a
military business. They were, we may judge, the attendants proper to
his rank.
His next appearance is in a different though related capacity. In 1372
he is clerk of the audit of the King’s household, that of Robert II.,
who had come to the throne in the previous year as the first of the
Stewart Kings. The year after he is also an auditor of exchequer. The
Stewarts were good friends to Barbour, and we see the result in his
kindly, almost affectionate, references to the family in his poem.
He wrote up their genealogy, but that piece of work is lost. After a
long interval he reappears as an auditor of exchequer in 1382, 1383,
1384. For some part, at least, of this interval he was engaged upon
_The Bruce_, and its completion in the course of 1376[34] suggestively
approximates to a grant of £10, by the King’s order, from the customs
of Aberdeen, first recorded in the accounts of March 14, 1377. So also
does a pension of twenty shillings sterling from certain revenues of
the same city, granted on August 29, 1378, to himself and his assignees
for ever.[35] Accordingly, two years later Barbour assigned his pension,
on his death, to the cathedral church of Aberdeen, as payment for a
yearly mass for his own soul and for the souls of his relatives and all
the faithful dead. The practice of these payments can be traced for a
considerable time afterwards, but the financial readjustments of the
Reformation sent Barbour’s legacy elsewhere.
[34] See on Bk. XIII. 702.
[35] The account of 1429 is the first to state expressly that this
perpetual pension was “for the composition of the book of the deeds of
the erstwhile King Robert the Bruce” (_Excheq. Rolls_, iv., p. 520).
But the royal bounty had not dried up. In 1386 the poet had gifts
of £10 and £6 13s. 4d., no doubt in recognition of further literary
labours. And on December 5, 1388, he had a fresh pension of £10 for
life “for faithful service,” to be paid in equal portions at Pentecost
and Martinmas. This he enjoyed for only a few years. On April 25, 1396,
the first payment of twenty shillings is made to the Dean and Chapter
of Aberdeen, so that Barbour must have been dead before April 5, 1395,
when the accounts for the year began. As his “anniversary” fell on
March 13, that date in 1395 was, in all probability, the day of his
death. Thus born under the great Bruce, he had lived through the reigns
of David II. and Robert II., and five years of Robert III.
Some stray notices of Barbour in other connections add nothing of
importance. One, however, lets us know that he was responsible for the
loss of a volume on law from the library of his cathedral.
We have really learned nothing as to the personality of the poet. That
he was a keen student and a great reader as well as a trustworthy
official, and stood high in the royal favour, may be inferred. The
respectful and admiring references of Wyntoun and Bower attest his
high reputation as a writer and authority on history. But _The Bruce_
of itself would suggest neither the cleric nor the accountant. His
pious reflections would be commonplaces even for a lay writer, and his
handling of figures is not in any way distinctive. Even of Scotland
in the background we get but casual, fleeting glimpses. Barbour is
occupied entirely with his heroes and their performances. It is these
he undertakes to celebrate, not, primarily, even the great cause which
called them forth; and personal loyalty is his master virtue.[36] That
he so conceived and developed his subject, his hurried passage from
incident to incident, his grim, practical humour, his impatience
of inaction or commonplace achievement, his actively descriptive
vocabulary, and his vivid realization of the details of movement
and conflict--all contribute to the impression of a man of lively,
energetic temperament, with a delight in action and the concrete,
and so, as his time and circumstances would make him, an amateur and
idealist of chivalry.
[36] “His theme was Freedom,” writes Mr. Cosmo Innes. Barbour gives out
his “theme” in the first thirty-six lines, and never once mentions it.
Besides _The Bruce_, Wyntoun credits Barbour with _The Stewartis
Oryginalle_, a metrical genealogy starting from “Sere Dardane, lord
de Frygya”(!), which has not survived.[37] Skeat has also suggested,
basing on certain references by Wyntoun, that Barbour wrote a _Brut_
on the mythical colonization of Britain by Brutus, but the inference
is disputed by Mr. Brown,[38] and Wyntoun’s language is too vague for a
definite opinion. On better grounds there has been attributed to him a
_Trojan War_ or _Troy Book_, portions of which have been used to fill
up gaps in a MS. of Lydgate’s _Siege_ with the rubric, “Here endis
Barbour and begynnis the monk,” and again conversely. An independent
MS. gives a larger number of lines in continuation. These fragments
have been subjected to close linguistic and metrical criticism by P.
Buss in _Anglia_, ix., pp. 493-514, and by E. Koeppel in _Englische
Studien_, x., pp. 373-382, and their reasoning on differences of verbal
and grammatical usages has been summarized by Skeat,[39] who concurs
with their conclusion against Barbour’s authorship. But there are other
elements of evidence, and the sceptical discussion of Medea’s alleged
astronomical powers with the affirmation,
Bot na gude Cristene mane her-to
Sulde gif credence--that I defend,[40]
is significantly similar to the argumentation on astrology in _The
Bruce_, Bk. IV. 706 to end.[41] Faced with the plain statement of the
fifteenth-century scribe, Skeat can only suggest that the poem was not
by our Barbour, but by another person of the same name--surely the
extremity of destructive literary criticism. And every argument of the
German scholars against the _Troy_ fragments would clinch the case
for Barbour’s claims on the _Alexander_, with which I deal elsewhere.
The garrulous and dreary _Legends of the Saints_ probably contain, at
least, contributions by Barbour; even Buss admits peculiar features in
the _St. Ninian_,[42] and _St. Machar_ is a purely Aberdeen worthy, in
whom the poet, too, professes a special interest; these may well have
come from Barbour’s pen as the uncongenial but meritorious labour of
his old age. Such, at any rate, was the normal progress of a poetic
clerk, from translation to original work, to decline at the close upon
versions of saintly biographies.
[37] The editor of _The Exchequer Rolls_, vol. ii. p. cv., says: “Bower
accuses Barbour of misrepresenting the origin of the Stewarts.” That
is not so. According to the summary in Bower, Barbour had it that they
came from Wales, and in fact the family was settled in Shropshire
on the Welsh March. It had its origin, he said, from one who was
called “Le Fleanc de Waran,” who may equate with Alan FitzFlaald,
who, however, apparently did not marry a daughter of Warine, the
sheriff of that county (Round, _Studies in the Peerage_, p. 116).
He affirms, rightly enough, that the first of them in Scotland was
Walter, in the days of King William (twelfth century). Where he goes
wrong genealogically, according to Bower, is in saying that Walter’s
son, Alan, was in the First Crusade, which was obviously impossible;
but Alan FitzAlan, uncle of Alan FitzFlaald, was in that expedition.
Barbour was dealing with remote personages through family tradition,
and whatever his errors as represented by Bower, he does not appear,
as is too lightly assumed, to have been the source of the myths of
later historians in this connection. Bower’s language does not admit of
a Banquo. See _Cupar and Perth MSS._, in _Scotichronicon_, Lib. IX.,
chap. xlviii.
[38] _The Wallace and The Bruce_, pp. 88-90.
[39] Preface I., xlix-lii.
[40] Edit. Horstmann, ii., p. 226.
[41] See further, Neilson’s _John Barbour_, p. 2.
[42] _Anglia_, as cited.
3. HISTORIC VALUE OF “THE BRUCE.”
A comparison of judgments on the value of _The Bruce_ as a contribution
to history plunges us into a thicket of contradictions. Green’s verdict
that it is “historically worthless”[43] is but a petulant aside.
It repeats itself, however, in the pronouncement of Mr. Brown that
“in no true sense is it an historical document,”[44] but Mr. Brown
selects, as illustrative of this, examples, such as the Simon Fraser
identification,[45] and the Stanhope Park inference,[46] which recoil
to the confusion of the critic.[47] Mr. Cosmo Innes has sought to
discriminate, unfortunately upon wrong lines. Of Barbour as historian,
he writes: “Satisfied to have real persons and events, and an outline
of history for his guide, and to preserve the true character of things,
he did not trouble himself about accuracy of detail.”[48] As it happens,
it is just in his outline--that is, in his dates and succession of
events--that Barbour may be adjudged most careless; his details contain
the most remarkable examples of his accuracy. The latest expression of
opinion on this head is not even self-consistent. In the _Cambridge
History of English Literature_ it is thus written of _The Bruce_:
first, that “it is in no real sense a history ... though, strange
to say, it has been regarded from his own time to this as, in all
details, a trustworthy source for the history of the period”--a clear
exaggeration;[49] and then a few pages farther on: “While Barbour’s
narrative contains a certain amount of anecdotal matter derived from
tradition, and, on some occasions, deviates from the truth of history,
it is, on the whole, moderate, truthful, and historical”[50]--which is
quite another pair of sleeves.
[43] _Short History_, p. 211.
[44] _The Wallace and The Bruce_, p. 93.
[45] See on II. 239.
[46] XIX. 486.
[47] An article on Barbour’s _Bruce_ in the _Saturday Review_, 1872,
vol. xxxiii., p. 90, has all the marks of the “belabouring” method
of Professor Freeman. Barbour’s “historical value,” it is affirmed,
“is as low as value can be,” and there are intermittent shrieks of
“shameless falsehood,” “conscious liar,” etc. The usual play is made
with the supposed identification of the two Bruces, and it is declared
that on this “the whole story hangs,” which, in its own way, is a
statement just as unwarranted and absurd. It is easy to fix on the
error as to Edward being in the Holy Land when the question arose as
to the succession, and the antedating of his death. But the critic,
with full opportunity for being correct, can sin as to dates quite as
egregiously. “In authentic history,” he says, “somewhat more than three
years passed between the death of Alexander III. in Lent, 1289, and the
coronation of John Balliol on St. Andrew’s Day, 1292.” Quite wrong.
In “authentic history” Alexander was killed on March 19, 1286 (1285
by old reckoning). This is a criticism of Barbour’s “six years” in I.
39! He objects to the statement that the Queen was put “in prison,”
because she was entertained in one of her husband’s manors. But she
is always officially spoken of as “in custody,” and the stone walls
of a manor even make a good enough prison. This is mere carping, and
most of the rest is of the same sort, where it does not depend on a
forcing or misunderstanding of the text. Barbour, he complains, makes
the difference between Bruce and Balliol “one between male and female
succession.” So, in a sense, it was (see on I. 54), but the critic has
not taken the trouble to understand how. Barbour, however, is certainly
confusing.
[48] _The Brus_, Spalding Club edition, 1856, p. ix.
[49] Vol. ii., p. 104.
[50] P. 108.
The fact is that these wayward judgments rest upon too narrow a
basis of induction, and that induction, too, usually irrelevant or
uncertain--considerations as to the nature of Romance, Barbour’s
literary awkwardness and literary dressing, with inadequate examination
of the external evidence. But if Barbour professes to write history,
as he does profess, and as he gives every evidence of honestly trying
to do, he can surely claim to be tried by the appropriate tests--those
of official records or other contemporary accounts, and, in the last
resource, by his performance so far as these carry us, and by an
estimate of the probable sources of what is peculiar to himself. Nor
must the quality of his critical equipment be overlooked; he frankly
lets us know that of certain incidents different versions were in
circulation--some said that the fatal quarrel between Bruce and Comyn
fell otherwise than as he has related, and he includes the divergent
accounts of how Bruce and his man escaped the hound; and there are
other matters for which, lacking certainty himself, he is content to
cite popular report. Towards prevailing and attractive superstitions,
necromancy, astrology, and the like, his attitude is bluntly sceptical;
yet an apparently well-attested case of prophecy--not one, it must
be owned, exhibiting any exceptional degree of penetration--he does
record, with very distinct reservation of judgment.[51] There is no
supernatural machinery in _The Bruce_, no visions, miraculous agencies,
or other such distractions: for these we must go to sober prose. But
such is not the manner of popular romance with which it has been
usual to class the manner of _The Bruce_. Barbour is not writing a
conventional romance with historic persons and incidents for his
material; he is writing history which has all the qualities of romance
in real life. Of the same type were the exploits of Edward Bruce, which
of themselves, he says, would furnish material for many romances.[52]
So comes it, then, that a careful and most competent investigator like
Joseph Bain can authoritatively pronounce _The Bruce_ to be “of the
highest value for the period,”[53] and affirm that “in these details
he is almost always correct, with occasional errors in names.”[54]
Barbour’s errors, indeed, lie on the surface, and are typical of his
time, not wilful perversions on his part--events are transposed, wrong
dates given, figures almost always exaggerated. On the other side a
study of the notes to the present volume will show how trustworthy he
is in the main, and, repeatedly, how strikingly and minutely accurate.
His profession to tell a truthful story, so far as his knowledge will
take him, must be accepted as fully borne out.
[51] Bk. IV. 767-774. Contempt for astrology, indeed, had already gone
pretty far--Chaucer’s _Franklin_ has it (_F.s’_ Tale); but the contrary
opinion still held most ground, and prophecy was in the enjoyment of
full respect. Theological authority was divided and uncertain on the
matter.
[52] IX. 492.
[53] _Calendar of Documents_, vol. iii., p. ix, note. Book I. is a
hasty introduction.
[54] _Ibid._
Moreover the reflection is forced upon us at many points that, in
addition to the oral accounts of which he makes use, those of actual
participators like Sir Allan of Cathcart, and John Thomson for the
Irish campaigns, besides relations and reminiscences otherwise derived,
Barbour had various contemporary writings at his command. Such was
certainly the case with Sir Thomas Gray, who wrote, a prisoner in
Edinburgh Castle, twenty years before. His _Scalacronica_ embodies
the results of research in the library of his prison where he found
Scottish chronicles in verse and prose, in Latin, French, and English,
and he expressly refers to such chronicles in his account of Bruce,
letting us know that there was in existence a description of the
Battle of Bannockburn, and, incidentally, that Barbour even has not
exhausted the fund of stories of adventure told of the fugitive King.
More curious and suggestive is the citation, in the bye-going, by Jean
le Bel, Canon of Liège, of a “history made by the said King Robert”
(_en hystoire faitte par le dit roy Robert_), that is the King Robert
whom, he tells us, Edward I. had chased by hounds in the forests.[55]
It is an allowable inference that these accessible materials were
known to the learned and inquiring Barbour, when he took to deal with
a subject familiar to him from his earliest years, and so congenial to
his instincts, literary and national.
It is worth noting that Sir Walter Scott, on the publication of the
_Lord of the Isles_, which draws so handsomely upon _The Bruce_,
was accused of a lack of proper patriotism, meaning the pungent and
rather aggressive patriotism of a long-irritated Scotland distinctive
of _The Wallace_ and certain subsequent productions, but not of _The
Bruce_, the spirit of which, too, was in harmony with that of the great
reviver of romance. There is no malice in _The Bruce_; the malice and
bitterness are in the contemporary war-literature of the other side.
And Barbour is no sentimentalist; his patriotism is not pretentious
or exclusive, nor such as leads him to depreciate an opponent, and
is therefore not a distorting influence on facts, as Mr. Henderson
postulates it must have been.[56] It is not possible to point to a
single error on Barbour’s part which is fairly traceable to this cause.
And his faults and errors, such as they are, may be paralleled over and
over again from the most reputable of that century’s historians, to say
nothing of those who, in later times, had to weave their web from less
tangled and broken material.
[55] _Chronique_, I, chap. xxii.
[56] _Scottish Vernacular Literature_, p. 43.
THE BRUCE
BOOK I.
Storys to rede ar delitabill,
Suppos that thai be nocht bot fabill:
Than suld storys that suthfast wer,
And thai war said on gud maner,
Have doubill plesance in heryng. 5
The fyrst plesance is the carpyng,
And the tothir the suthfastnes
That schawys the thing rycht as it wes:
And suth thyngis that ar likand
Tyll mannys heryng ar plesand. 10
Tharfor I wald fayne set my will,
Giff my wyt mycht suffice thartill,
To put in wryt a suthfast story,
That it lest ay furth in memory,
Swa that na tyme of lenth it let, 15
Na ger it haly be forget.
For aulde storys that men redys,
Representis to thaim the dedys
Of stalwart folk that lyvyt ar,
Rycht as thai than in presence war.
And certis, thai suld weill have prys 20
That in thar tyme war wycht and wys,
And led thar lyff in gret travaill,
And oft, in hard stour off bataill,
Wan richt gret price off chevalry, 25
And war voydyt off cowardy.
As wes King Robert off Scotland,
That hardy wes off hart and hand;
And gud Schyr James off Douglas,
That in his tyme sa worthy was, 30
That off hys price and hys bounte,
In fer landis renownyt wes he.
Off thaim I thynk this buk to ma:
Now God gyff grace that I may swa
Tret it, and bryng it till endyng, 35
That I say nocht bot suthfast thing!
[15: S following H reads _lenth of tyme_, characterising the
expression in E “an obvious error.” But _cf._ analogous phrase in line
531, and see note.]
How the Lords of Scotland took the King of England to be Arbiter at the
last.
[Sidenote: 1290] _Discord over the Succession_]
[Sidenote: 1291] _The Dispute is referred to Edward I_]
Quhen Alexander the King was deid,
That Scotland haid to steyr and leid,
The land sex yher, and mayr perfay,
Lay desolat eftyr hys day; 40
Till that the barnage at the last
Assemblyt thaim, and fayndyt fast
To cheys a king thar land to ster,
That, off awncestry, cummyn wer
Off kingis that aucht that reawte, 45
And mayst had rycht thair king to be.
Bot envy, that is sa feloune,
Maid amang thaim discencioun.
For sum wald haiff the Balleoll king;
For he wes cummyn off the offspryng 50
Off hyr that eldest systir was.
And othir sum nyt all that cas;
And said, that he thair king suld be
That wes in als nere degre,
And cummyn wes of the neist male, 55
And in branch collaterale.
Thai said, successioun of kyngrik
Was nocht to lawer feys lik;
For thar mycht succed na female,
Quhill foundyn mycht be ony male 60
That were in lyne evyn descendand;
Thai bar all othir wayis on hand,
For than the neyst cummyn off the seid,
Man or woman, suld succeid.
Be this resoun that part thocht hale, 65
That the lord off Anandyrdale,
Robert the Bruys Erle off Carryk,
Aucht to succeid to the kynryk.
The barownys thus war at discord,
That on na maner mycht accord; 70
Till at the last thai all concordyt,
That all thar spek suld be recordyt
Till Schyr Edward off Ingland King;
And he suld swer that, but fenyheyng,
He suld that arbytre disclar, 75
Off thir twa that I tauld off ar,
Quhilk sulde succeid to sic a hycht;
And lat him ryng that had the rycht.
This ordynance thaim thocht the best,
For at that tyme wes pes and rest 80
Betwyx Scotland and Ingland bath;
And thai couth nocht persave the skaith
That towart thaim wes apperand;
For that at the King off Ingland
Held swylk freyndschip and cumpany 85
To thar King, that wes swa worthy,
Thai trowyt that he, as gud nychtbur,
And as freyndsome compositur,
Wald have jugyt in lawte:
Bot othir wayis all yheid the gle. 90
A! blynd folk full off all foly!
Haid yhe umbethoucht yhow enkrely,
Quhat perell to yhow mycht apper,
Yhe had nocht wrocht on that maner:
Haid yhe tane keip how at that King 95
Alwayis, for-owtyn sojournyng,
Travayllyt for to wyn senyhory,
And, throw his mycht, till occupy
Landis that war till him marcheand,
As Walis was, and als Ireland; 100
That he put to swylk thrillage,
That thai that war off hey parage
Suld ryn on fute, as rebaldaill,
Quhen he wald ony folk assaill.
Durst nane of Walis in bataill ride; 105
Na yhet, fra evyn fell, abyd
Castell or wallyt toune with-in,
That he ne suld lyff and lymmys tyne.
In-to swilk thrillage thaim held he,
That he ourcome throw his powste. 110
Yhe mycht se he suld occupy
Throw slycht, that he ne mycht throw maistri.
Had yhe tane kep quhat was thrillag,
And had consideryt his usage,
That gryppyt ay, but gayne-gevyng, 115
Yhe suld, for-owtyn his demyng,
Haiff chosyn yhow a king, that mycht
Have haldyn weyle the land in rycht.
Walys ensample mycht have bene
To yhow, had yhe it forow sene. 120
And wys men sayis he is happy
That be othir will him chasty.
For unfayr thingis may fall, perfay,
Als weill to-morn as yhisterday.
Bot yhe traistyt in lawte, 125
As sympile folk, but mavyte;
And wyst nocht quhat suld eftir tyd.
For in this warld, that is sa wyde,
Is nane determynat that sall
Knaw thingis that ar for to fall: 130
But God, that is off maist poweste,
Reservyt till his majeste
For to knaw, in his prescience,
Off alkyn tyme the mowence.
[48: E inserts _gret_ before _discencioun_, but W and H omit.]
[54, 55: E gives _war_ and so in J: but _wes_ from W is preferable.
For _als nere_ (W) E has _alsner_.]
[61: From H. E has _How that in his evyn descendand_, which does
not make sense. W gives _That be lyne war dissendand_, which halts
metrically. See note.]
[77: _Sulde_ in W. E omits.]
[129: Skeat adopts _determynatly_ from H, with the meaning
“certainly.” But this reading cumbers the metre; and Barbour’s word to
this effect is “certis.”]
[130: _For_ is from W and H. E omits.]
On this maner assentyt war 135
The barownis, as I said yhow ar:
And throuch thar aller hale assent,
Messingeris till hym thai sent,
That was than in the haly land,
On Saracenys warryand. 140
And fra he wyst quhat charge thai had,
He buskyt hym, but mar abad,
And left purpos that he had tane;
And till Ingland agayne is gayne.
And syne till Scotland word send he, 145
That thai suld mak ane assemble;
And he in hy suld cum to do
In all thing, as thai wrayt him to.
But he thoucht weile, throuch thar debate,
That he suld slely fynd the gate 150
How that he all the senyhowry,
Throw his gret mycht, suld occupy.
And to Robert the Bruys said he;
“Gyff thow will hald in cheyff off me
“For evirmar, and thine ofspryng, 155
“I sall do swa thou sall be king.”
‘Schyr,’ said he, ‘sa God me save,
‘The kynryk yharn I nocht to have,
‘Bot gyff it fall off rycht to me:
‘And gyff God will that it sa be, 160
‘I sall als frely in all thing
‘Hald it, as it afferis to king;
‘Or as myn eldris forouch me
‘Held it in freyast rewate.’
The tothir wreythyt him, and swar 165
That he suld have it nevir mar:
And turnyt him in wreth away.
Bot Schyr Jhon the Balleoll, perfay,
Assentyt till him, in all his will;
Quhar-throuch fell eftir mekill ill. 170
He was king bot a litill quhile;
And throuch gret sutelte and ghyle,
For litill enchesone, or nane,
He was arestyt syne and tane,
And degradyt syne wes he 175
Off honour and off dignite.
Quhethir it wes throuch wrang or rycht,
God wat it, that is maist off mycht.
[Sidenote: 1292-1296] _Edward takes Possession of Scotland_]
Quhen Schyr Edward, the mychty king,
Had on this wys done his likyng 180
Off Jhone the Balleoll, that swa sone
Was all defawtyt and undone,
To Scotland went he than in hy,
And all the land gan occupy:
Sa hale, that bath castell and toune 185
War in-till his possessioune,
Fra Weik anent Orknay,
To Mullyr-snuk in Gallaway;
And stuffyt all with Inglis men.
Schyrreffys and bailyheys maid he then; 190
And alkyn othir officeris,
That for to govern land afferis,
He maid off Inglis nation;
That worthyt than sa ryth fellone,
And sa wykkyt and covatous, 195
And swa hawtane and dispitous,
That Scottis men mycht do na thing
That evir mycht pleys to thar liking.
Thar wyffis wald thai oft forly,
And thar dochtrys dispitusly: 200
And gyff ony thar-at war wrath,
Thai watyt hym wele with gret scaith;
For thai suld fynd sone enchesone
To put hym to destructione.
And gyff that ony man thaim by 205
Had ony thing that wes worthy,
As hors, or hund, or othir thing,
That plesand war to thar liking,
With rycht or wrang it have wald thai.
And gyf ony wald thaim withsay, 210
Thai suld swa do, that thai suld tyne
Othir land or lyff, or leyff in pyne.
For thai dempt thaim eftir thar will,
Takand na kep to rycht na skill.
A! quhat thai dempt thaim felonly! 215
For gud knychtis that war worthy,
For litill enchesoune or than nane,
Thai hangyt be the nekbane.
Alas that folk, that evir wes fre,
And in fredome wount for to be, 220
Throw thar gret myschance and foly,
War tretyt than sa wykkytly,
That thar fays thar jugis war:
Quhat wrechitnes may man have mar?
[218: S _nek[ke]bane_.]
A! fredome is a noble thing! 225
Fredome mays man to haiff liking;
Fredome all solace to man giffis:
He levys at es that frely levys.
A noble hart may haiff nane es,
Na ellys nocht that may him ples, 230
Gyff fredome failyhe: for fre liking
Is yharnyt our all othir thing.
Na he, that ay has levyt fre,
May nocht knaw weill the propyrte,
The angyr, na the wrechyt dome, 235
That is cowplyt to foule thyrldome.
Bot gyff he had assayit it,
Than all perquer he suld it wyt;
And suld think fredome mar to prys,
Than all the gold in warld that is. 240
Thus contrar thingis evir-mar,
Discoveryngis off the tothir ar.
And he that thryll is has nocht his;
All that he has enbandownyt is
Till hys lord, quhat-evir he be. 245
Yheyt has he nocht sa mekill fre
As fre liking to leyve, or do
That at hys hart hym drawis to.
Than mays clerkis questioun,
Quhen thai fall in disputacioun, 250
That gyff man bad his thryll owcht do,
And in the samyn tym come him to
His wyff, and askyt hym hyr det,
Quhethir he his lordis neid suld let,
And pay fryst that he awcht, and syne 255
Do furth his lordis commandyne;
Or leve onpayit his wyff, and do
It that commaundyt is him to?
I leve all the solucioun
Till thaim that ar off mar renoun. 260
Bot sen thai mek sic comperyng
Betwix the dettis off wedding,
And lordis bidding till his threll,
Yhe may weile se, thoucht nane yhow tell,
How hard a thing that threldome is. 265
For men may weile se, that ar wys,
That wedding is the hardest band,
That ony man may tak on hand:
And thryldome is weill wer than deid;
For quhill a thryll his lyff may leid, 270
It merrys him, body and banys;
And dede anoyis him bot anys.
Schortly to say, is nane can tell
The halle condicioun off a threll.
[247: _Liking_ from H. E has _wyll_, which leaves the line metrically
short of a syllable.]
[258: _It_ from H. E has _Thai thingis_, which turns the line into
prose.]
[Sidenote: 1298-1299] _Harsh Treatment of the Scots_]
Thus-gat levyt thai, and in sic thrillage; 275
Bath pur, and thai off hey parage.
For off the lordis sum thai slew,
And sum thai hangyt, and sum thai drew;
And sum thai put in hard presoune,
For-owtyn caus or enchesoun. 280
And, amang othir, off Dowglas
Put in presoun Sir Wilyham was,
That off Dowglas was lord and syr;
Off him thai makyt a martyr.
Fra thai in presoune him sleuch, 285
Hys landis, that war fayr inewch,
Thai to the lord off Clyffurd gave.
He had a sone, a litill knave,
That wes than bot a litill page,
Bot syne he wes off gret vaslage; 290
Hys fadyr dede he vengyt sua,
That in Ingland, I underta,
Wes nane off lyve that hym ne dred;
For he sa fele off harnys sched,
That nane that lyvys thaim can tell. 295
Bot wondirly hard thingis fell
Till him, or he till state wes brocht.
Thair wes nane aventur that mocht
Stunay hys hart, na ger him let
To do the thing he wes on set; 300
For he thocht ay encrely
To do his deid avysily.
He thocht weill he wes worth na seyle,
That mycht of nane anoyis feyle;
And als for till escheve gret thingis, 305
And hard travalyis, and barganyngis,
That suld ger his price dowblyt be.
Quharfor, in all hys lyve-tyme, he
Wes in gret payn, et gret travaill;
And nevir wald for myscheiff faill, 310
Bot dryve the thing rycht to the end,
And tak the ure that God wald send.
Hys name wes James of Douglas:
And quhen he heard his fadir was
Put in presoune sa fellounly, 315
And at his landis halyly
War gevyn to the Clyffurd, perfay
He wyst nocht quhat to do na say;
For he had na thing to dispend,
Na thar wes nane that evir him kend 320
Wald do sa mekill for him, that he
Mycht sufficiantly fundyn be.
Than wes he wondir will off wane;
And sodanly in hart has tane,
That he wald travaile our the se, 325
And a quhile in Parys be,
And dre myscheiff quhar nane hym kend,
Till God sum succouris till hym send.
And as he thocht he did rycht sua,
And sone to Parys can he ga; 330
And levyt thar full sympylly.
The-quhethir he glaid was and joly;
And till swylk thowlesnes he yheid,
As the cours askis off yhowtheid;
And umquhill in-to rybbaldaill: 335
And that may mony tyme availl.
For knawlage off mony statis
May quhile availyhe full mony gatis;
As to the gud Erle off Artayis
Robert, befell in-till his dayis. 340
For oft feynyheyng oft rybbaldy
Availyheit him, and that gretly.
And Catone sayis us, in his wryt,
That to fenyhe foly quhile is wyt.
In Parys ner thre yher duellyt he; 345
And then come tythandis our the se,
That his fadyr wes done to ded
Then wes he wa, and will of red;
And thocht that he wald hame agayne,
To luk gyff he, throw ony payn, 350
Mycht wyn agayn his heritage,
And his men out off all thryllage.
[279: _Hard_ from W improves the line. It is not given in E or H.]
[286: So Skeat reads, following H. E has _land that is_, which is
clearly wrong. _Cf._ line 316.]
[287: _To_ from H. E omits.]
[300: E has _thing that_, but H omits as here; the line then goes more
smoothly.]
[309: _Et_ or _ec_ is clearly a Latin rendering of ‘&’ = and: a
scribal error.]
[319: E has _for to_. H omits.]
[344: H omits _that_, and S follows.]
The First Rising of Lord Douglas.
[Sidenote: 1299-1303] _James Douglas returns from Paris_]
To Sanct Androws he come in hy,
Quhar the byschop full curtasly
Resavyt him, and gert him wer 355
His knyvys forouch him to scher;
And cled him rycht honorabilly,
And gert ordayn quhar he suld ly.
A weile gret quhile thar duellyt he;
All men lufyt him for his bounte; 360
For he wes off full fayr effer,
Wys, curtais, and deboner;
Larg and luffand als wes he,
And our all thing luffyt lawte.
Leaute to luff is gretumly; 365
Throuch leaute liffis men rychtwisly:
With a vertu of leaute
A man may yheit sufficyand be:
And but leawte may nane haiff price,
Quhethir he be wycht, or he be wys; 370
For quhar it failyheys, na vertu
May be off price, na off valu,
To mak a man sa gud that he
May symply callyt gud man be.
He wes in all his dedis lele; 375
For him dedeynyheit nocht to dele
With trechery, na with falset.
His hart on hey honour wes set:
And hym contenyt on sic maner,
That all him luffyt that war him ner. 380
Bot he wes nocht so fayr, that we
Suld spek gretly off his beaute:
In vysage wes he sumdeill gray,
And had blak har, as Ic hard say;
Bot off lymmys he wes weill maid, 385
With banys gret, and schuldrys braid.
His body wes weyll maid and lenye,
As thai that saw hym said to me.
Quhen he wes blyth he wes lufly,
And meyk and sweyt in cumpany: 390
Bot quha in battail mycht him se
All other contenance had he.
And in spek wlispyt he sum deill;
Bot that sat him rycht wondre weill.
Till gud Ector of Troy mycht he 395
In mony thingis liknyt be.
Ector had blak har, as he had,
And stark lymmys, and rycht weill maid;
And wlyspit alsua as did he,
And wes fulfillyt of leawte, 400
And wes curtais and wys and wycht.
Bot off manheid and mekill mycht,
Till Ector dar I nane comper
Off all that evir in warldys wer.
The-quhethyr in his tyme sa wrocht he, 405
That he suld gretly lovyt be.
[Sidenote: 1304-1305] _Edward refuses Douglas_]
He duellyt thar, quhill on a tid,
The King Edward, with mekill prid,
Come to Strevillyne with gret mengyhe,
For till hald thar ane assemble. 410
Thiddirwart went mony baroune;
Byschop Wylyhame off Lambyrtoun
Raid thiddyr als, and with him was
This squyer James of Dowglas.
The byschop led him to the King, 415
And said: “Schyr, heyr I to yhow bryng
“This child, that clemys yhour man to be;
“And prayis yhow par cheryte,
“That yhe resave her his homage,
“And grantis him his heritage.” 420
“Quhat landis clemys he?’ said the King.
“Schyr, giff that it be yhour liking,
“He clemys the lordschip off Douglas;
“For lord tharoff hys fadir was.”
The King then wrethyt him encrely, 425
And said; ‘Schyr byschop, sekyrly
‘Gyff thow wald kep thi fewte,
‘Thow maid nane sic speking to me.
‘Hys fadyr ay wes my fay feloune,
‘And deyt tharfor in my presoun; 430
‘And wes agayne my majeste:
‘Tharfor hys ayr I aucht to be.
‘Ga purches land quhar-evir he may,
‘For tharoff haffys he nane, perfay:
‘The Cliffurd sall thaim haiff, for he 435
‘Ay lely has servyt to me.’
The byschop hard him swa ansuer,
And durst than spek till him na mar;
Bot fra his presence went in hy,
For he dred sayr his felouny: 440
Swa that he na mar spak tharto.
The King did that he com to do;
And went till Ingland syn agayn,
With mony man off mekyll mayn.
[428: H _mak_, which seems more likely.]
The Scots are likened to the Holy Maccabees.
Lordingis, quha likis for till her, 445
The Romanys now begynnys her,
Off men that war in gret distres,
And assayit full gret hardynes,
Or thai mycht cum till thar entent:
Bot syne our Lord sic grace thaim sent, 450
That thai syne, throw thar gret valour,
Come till gret hycht, and till honour,
Magre thair fayis evirilkane,
That war sa fele, that ay for ane
Off thaim thai war weill a thowsand. 455
Bot quhar God helpys quhat may withstand?
Bot, and we say the suthfastnes,
Thai war sum tyme erar may then les.
Bot God that maist is of all mycht,
Preservyt thaim in his forsycht, 460
To veng the harme and the contrer,
At that fele folk and pautener
Dyd till sympill folk and worthy,
That couth nocht help thaim self: for-thi,
Thai war lik to the Machabeys, 465
That, as men in the Bibill seys,
Throw thair gret worschip and valour,
Fawcht in-to mony stalwart stour,
For to delyvir thar countre
Fra folk that, throw iniquite, 470
Held thaim and thairis in thrillage:
Thai wrocht sua throw thar vassalage,
That, with few folk, thai had victory
Off mychty kingis, as sayis the story,
And delyveryt thar land all fre; 475
Quharfor thar name suld lovyt be.
[Sidenote: 1305-1306] _Bruce accepts Comyn’s Proposal_]
Thys lord the Bruys, I spak of ayr,
Saw all the kynryk swa forfayr;
And swa trowblyt the folk saw he,
That he tharoff had gret pitte. 480
Bot quhat pite that evir he had,
Na contenance thar-off he maid;
Till, on a tym, Schyr Jhone Cumyn,
As thai come ridand fra Strevillyn,
Said till him; “Schir, will yhe nocht se, 485
“How that governyt is this countre?
“Thai sla our folk but enchesoune,
“And haldis this land agayne resoune,
“And yhe tharoff full suld lord be.
“And gyff that yhe will trow to me, 490
“Ye sall ger mak yhow tharoff king,
“And I sall be in yhour helping;
“With-thi yhe giff me all the land
“That he haiff now in till yhour hand:
“And gyff that yhe will nocht do sua, 495
“Na swylk a state upon yow ta,
“All hale my land sall yhouris be;
“And lat me ta the state on me,
“And bring this land out off thyrllage.
“For thar is nothir man na page, 500
“In all this land that ne sall be
“Fayn to mak thaim-selvyn fre.”
The lord the Bruis hard his carping,
And wend he spak bot suthfast thing.
And, for it likit till his will, 505
He gave sone his assent thartill:
And said, ‘Sen yhe will it be swa,
‘I will blythly apon me ta
‘The state, for I wate I have rycht;
‘And rycht mays oft the feble wycht.’ 510
[489: _Full_ is from Wyntoun. E omits.]
[501: E has _than thai_, which is obscure. Wyntoun gives _that thaiy
ne_ (S): _thaiy_ seems superfluous.]
[506: E and S have _his assent sone_: Wyntoun as above, which
preserves the correct accentuation of _assent_.]
[509: E reads and S adopts _wate that_.]
The barownys thus accordyt ar;
And that ilk nycht than writyn war
Thair endenturis, and aythis maid
To hald that thai forspokyn haid.
Bot off all thing wa worth tresoun! 515
For thar is nothir duk ne baroun,
Na erle, na prynce, na king off mycht,
Thocht he be nevir sa wys na wycht,
For wyt, worschip, price, na renoun,
That evir may wauch hym with tresoune. 520
Wes nocht all Troy with tresoune tane,
Quhen ten yheris of the wer wes gane?
Then slayn wes mone thowsand
Off thaim with-owt, throw strenth of hand;
As Dares in his buk he wrate, 525
And Dytis, that knew all thar state.
Thai mycht nocht haiff beyn tane throw mycht,
Bot tresoun tuk thaim throw hyr slycht.
And Alexander the Conqueroure,
That conqueryt Babilonys tour, 530
And all this warld off lenth and breid,
In twelf yher, throw his douchty deid,
Wes syne destroyit throw pusoune,
In his awyne hows, throw gret tresoune.
Bot, or he deit, his land delt he: 535
To se his dede wes gret pite.
Julius Cesar als, that wan
Bretane and Fraunce, as dowchty man,
Affryk, Arrabe, Egipt, Surry,
And all Europe halyly; 540
And for his worschip and valour
Off Rome wes fryst maid emperour;
Syne in hys capitole wes he,
Throw thaim of his consaill prive,
Slayne with punsoune, rycht to the ded: 545
And quhen he saw thair wes na rede,
Hys eyn with his hand closit he,
For to dey with mar honeste.
Als Arthur, that throw chevalry
Maid Bretane maistres and lady 550
Off twelf kinrykis that he wan;
And alsua, as a noble man,
He wan throw bataill Fraunce all fre;
And Lucius Yber vencusyt he,
That then of Rome was emperour: 555
Bot yheit, for all his gret valour,
Modreyt his systir son him slew;
And gud men als ma then inew,
Throw tresoune and throw wikkitnes;
The Broite beris tharoff wytnes. 560
Sa fell off this conand-making:
For the Cumyn raid to the King
Off Ingland, and tald all this cas;
Bot, I trow, nocht all as it was.
Bot the endentur till him gaf he, 565
That soune schawyt the iniquite:
Quharfor syne he tholyt ded;
Than he couth set tharfor na rede.
[511: Wyntoun has _Thus thir twa lordis_.]
[512: _Than_ is from Wyntoun. S following E omits.]
[Sidenote: 1306] _Edward sends for Bruce_]
Quhen the King saw the endentur,
He wes angry out of mesur, 570
And swour that he suld vengeance ta
Off that Bruys, that presumyt swa
Aganys him to brawle or rys,
Or to conspyr on sic a wys.
And to Schyr Jhon Cumyn said he, 575
That he suld, for his leawte,
Be rewardyt, and that hely:
And he him thankit humyly.
Than thocht he to have the leding
Off all Scotland, but gane-saying, 580
Fra at the Bruce to dede war brocht.
Bot oft failyheis the fulis thocht;
And wys mennys etling
Cummys nocht ay to that ending
That thai think it sall cum to; 585
For God wate weill quhat is to do.
Off hys etlyng rycht swa it fell,
As I sall efterwartis tell.
He tuk his leve, and hame is went;
And the King a parlyament 590
Gert set thareftir hastely;
And thidder somownys he in hy
The barownys of his reawte.
And to the lord the Bruce send he
Bydding to come to that gadryng. 595
And he that had na persavyng
Off the tresoun, na the falset,
Raid to the King but langir let;
And in Lundon hym herberyd he
The fyrst day off thar assemble; 600
Syn on the morn to court he went.
The Kyng sat into parleament;
And forouch hys consaile prive,
The lord the Bruce than callyt he,
And schawyt hym the endentur. 605
He wes in full gret aventur
To tyne his lyff; bot God of mycht
Preservyt him till hyer hycht,
That wald nocht that he swa war dede.
The King betaucht hym in that steid 610
The endentur, the seile to se,
The askyt, gyff it enselyt he?
He lukyit the seyle ententily,
And answeryt till hym humyly,
And sayd; “How that I sympill be, 615
“My seyle is nocht all tyme with me;
“Ik have ane othir it to ber.
“Tharfor giff that yhour willis wer,
“Ic ask yhow respyt for to se
“This lettir, and avysit be, 620
“Till to morn that yhe be set:
“And then, for-owtyn langir let,
“This lettir sall I entyr heyr,
“Befor all yhour consaill planer;
“And thair-till in-to bourch draw I 625
“Myn herytage all halily.”
The King thocht he wes traist inewch,
Sen he in bowrch hys landis drewch;
And let hym with the lettir passe,
Till entyr it, as for-spokin was. 630
[604: E and S _thar_: Wyntoun _than_.]
[620: E and S have _and tharwith_: Wyntoun omits _tharwith_.]
[625: E and S give _boruch_ (_borwch_), but Wyntoun has it as above,
and it so appears in line 628. Skeat’s Glossary is at variance with his
text: he refers _borwch_ to 628 also.]