probably those referred to here, we have precise details in Bain’s
_Calendar_, vol. iii. On September 7, 1326, an inquiry is ordered by
Edward II. into the case of certain Scottish merchants who, on their
way to Flanders, took refuge in an English ship from fear of pirates,
and were brought to Scarborough, where they were all arrested by the
Sheriff of York and the magistrates of Scarborough, and put in prison
(No. 887). On September 28 three justices are commissioned to inquire
into the seizure of a Flemish vessel at Whitby, when nine Scottish
merchants, sixteen Scottish pilgrims, and thirteen women were murdered
(lines 195, 234), and the cargo and goods to the value of £2,000
carried off (line 196); the vessel being cast adrift, and afterwards
captured by others, when the rest of the cargo was appropriated.
Apparently this inquiry was fruitless, for another is ordered at
Yarmouth on October 15 (No. 889). Then, on October 12, there was the
case of a Scottish clerk arrested on the high seas, brought with his
two servants and goods to Scarborough, and imprisoned by the Sheriff of
York, to be discharged later by the King’s order (No. 889). And Adam
Rolok and other Scots had been taken from a ship touching at Brunham
and lodged in Norwich prison, from which they were not released till
September 24, 1328 (No. 965). Neglecting Barbour’s full explanation,
confirmed as it is by Bain’s _Calendar_, historians profess to find the
origins of this campaign obscure, or lay all the blame upon the Scots
(Hume Brown, _History_, i., p. 166; Lang, _History_ i. 232; Le Bel,
_Chronique_, ed. 1904, i., p. 37, editorial note).
205 _Walter Steward._ Died April 9, 1326.
230-1 _twa yheir ... and ane half._ Nearly four years after; _cf._ note
on 188.
238 _gaf the trewis up._ Le Bel, the Flemish chronicler, says he
“defied” Edward about Easter because he saw Edward II. deposed, his
Government upset, and that the new King was but a boy; and therefore
hoped to conquer a part of England (_Les Vrayes Chroniques_, i., p. 34,
edit. 1863; _Froissart_, trans. Johnes, i. 15).
241 _Donald Erll of Mar._ _Cf._ note on _Bk._ XIII. 687. He had been
brought up at the Court of Edward II., and had served for him against
the Scots, but, on his deposition, returned to his native land. The
Scots readily received him and restored him to his earldom (_Gesta
Edw. Tertii_, p. 96; _Bain_, iii. 744; _Scala._, p. 151). He hoped
to get Scottish aid in restoring Edward II. (_Chron. de Lanercost_,
p. 259). The leaders of this expedition are given as in Barbour in
_Scalacronica_, _Chron. de Lanercost_, and _Gesta Edwardi Tertii_,
with the exception of the Steward, who is not mentioned. Le Bel, who
was present with the troops of John of Hainault, names only Moray and
Douglas, whom he erroneously styles William, here as elsewhere (i., p.
48).
248 _In England._ June 15; and a second raid to Weardale in August
(_Fordun._ _Skene_, i. 351-2). Before July 20 (_Lanercost_, p. 259).
By the West March, says Hailes, citing Froissart (_i.e._, le Bel), but
this is certainly not clear. No one seems to have known how they came:
“They had passed the river (? Tyne, Eden) so quietly that neither they
of Carlisle nor they of Newcastle knew anything of it” (_Le Bel_, i.,
p. 46, edit. 1863).
250 _ten thousand._ Le Bel says there were three thousand men-at-arms,
knights, and squires, and about twenty thousand variously armed upon
little hackneys (p. 48). These numbers are clearly in excess. It is
from Jehan le Bel in this connection that Froissart has taken his
famous and familiar description of a Scots Border raid (_Johnes_, ch.
xvii.).
254 _Wardill._ Weardale, in Durham (_Fordun_, _Gesta Annalia_, cxl.).
256 _The King wes ded._ Edward II. was in ward since January 7, but did
not die till September 21.
257 _that wes yhing._ Edward III. was fifteen.
261 _Isabel._ Daughter of Philip IV. of France.
262 _wes weddid._ Not till January 28, 1328, to the second daughter
(Philippa) of Count or Earl William of Holland and Hainault. Barbour,
of course, writes about fifty years after.
267 _Schir Johne of Hennaut._ John of Hainault, lord of Beaumont,
brother of the Count, then “in the flower of his age” (_Le Bel_, i., p.
12). He came at Edward’s request, and brought five hundred well-mounted
men-at-arms from Hainault, Flanders, Bohemia, Cambresis, and Artois:
later he was joined by fifty more (_Le Bel_, i. 36, 37). Jehan le Bel
and his brother were in the company.
271 _In-to York._ The English army assembled at York, and there awaited
the arrival of the Hainaulters (_Le Bel_, p. 36); or of the chief lords
(_Gesta Edw._, p. 96). There was a wait at York of more than six weeks
until news should come about the Scots (_Le Bel_, p. 45). The English
preparations seem to have anticipated the Scottish raid, though Barbour
puts it otherwise.
275 _neir fifty thousand._ According to _Le Bel_, it was said the
English had seven thousand knights and squires, thirty thousand armed
men, half of whom were mounted on little hackneys, and twenty-four
thousand archers on foot--sixty-one thousand men (i., p. 49). The
English were three times the number of the Scots (_Murimuth_, p. 53;
_Baker_, 97). Froissart, modifying _Le Bel_, gives in another place
more than forty thousand men-at-arms (i., p. 17).
278 _Xviii yheir._ Edward, born November, 1312, was only fifteen.
279 _Cokdaill._ The Cock flows into the Wharfe, a tributary of the
Yorkshire Ouse. Sir Herbert Maxwell says Coquetdale (_Robert the
Bruce_, p. 311).
287 _sevyn battellis._ According to Le Bel, the English were in three
battles of infantry, each battle having two wings of five hundred
men-at-arms (p. 49).
316 _north half Wer, toward Scotland._ Maxwell insists that the Scots
were on the south bank, on account of an order from Edward on August
3, located at Stanhope, to which may be added a later reference to his
having been there (_Robert the Bruce_, p. 312 and note; _Bain_, iii.,
Nos. 929, 933). But the Scots were certainly at Stanhope Park, on the
north bank (see below on 490 and 513). Mr. J. T. T. Brown, also on the
strength of the first citation from _Bain_, says that “Froissart and
the Scottish poet are both alike in error in placing the Scottish army
on the north bank and the English on the opposite of the Wear” (_The
Wallace and Bruce Restudied_, p. 144). In what he writes, Froissart
simply follows _Le Bel_, who was present. Neither expressly says that
the Scots were on the north bank, but it is made clear in both that
the river separated the forces. Nothing is said by Barbour of how the
English hunted for the Scots, but could not find them; of their rough
and hurried ride to the Tyne at Hexham to cut off the expected Scottish
retreat; or of their rush south when it was discovered by a squire that
the Scots were on the Wear--all of which is graphically described by
Le Bel and transferred to his own work by Froissart (_Le Bel_, i., ch.
xii.; _Froissart_, ch. xvii.).
322 _Stude in a strynth._ They were drawn up in three battles on the
slope of the mountain on which they were encamped (_Le Bel_, p. 62).
Gray says the Scots were in three divisions on a fine plain, and calls
this first position also Stanhope (_Scala._, p. 154). But it is clear
from the detailed accounts of Barbour and Le Bel that the Scots were on
a hill.
328 _Weris wattir._ “Below this mountain was a strong, swift river”
(_Le Bel_, p. 62). “The King took up a position before them on the Wear
wattir for three days” (_Scala._, p. 154).
350 _Archibald ... of Douglas._ Youngest brother of Sir James, “the
Tineman” (_i.e._, the Loser), afterwards Regent of Scotland; killed at
Halidon Hill, 1333. His especial share in this raid was to plunder the
bishopric of Durham (_Scala._, p. 154; Maxwell’s _History of the House
of Douglas_, vol. i., pp. 70, 71, 75).
353-4 These lines appear to mean that Douglas alternately advanced
and retired so as to draw the English on. The Scots on the next day,
according to Le Bel, “ran forwards and backwards in skirmishing”
(_couroient et racouroient tout en eshcarmuchant_, p. 64).
374 _Schir Williame of Erskyn._ It is noted that Bruce died in debt to
Erskine (_Excheq. Rolls_, i., p. 404).
396 _Tymbrys for helmys._ Wooden crests on helmets, common in the
fourteenth century. Apparently the novelty was not in the crests, but
in the material; hitherto they would have been made of _cuir-bouilli_
(see _Bk._ XII., 23, note). Edward III. bore an eagle: “Tymbre de legle
(? l’aigle)” (_Bain_, iii., p. lxviii.).
399 _crakkis of war._ Early cannon (_cf._ on _Bk._ XVII., line 250). It
is not easy to understand how the English carried these with them in
their forced marches over hill and dale. Le Bel does not mention them.
They do not appear again in warfare till Creçy (1346), if then (Oman,
_Art of War_, p. 611).
402 _That nycht._ “The night of St. Peter in August” (_la nuit
Saint-Pierre d’aoust_, _Le Bel_, 64). St. Peter’s Day was August 1, but
as Mass was heard on the morrow, the “night” was probably that of July
31, St. Peter’s Eve.
405 _The Inglis men._ Le Bel (_Froissart_) does not relate the
incidents given by Barbour, or these operations, except in general
terms. Many “companions,” he says, with the assistance of their horses,
crossed the river, and some on foot; prisoners were taken, and others
wounded or killed on both sides; and this went on continuously for
three days (p. 64). The English learned from their prisoners that the
Scots had neither bread, salt, nor wine, and so they hoped to starve
them out; but they had plenty of beef, and were not particular about
how they ate it, without salt or bread, “boiled or roasted as it liked
them;” as well as some oatmeal, of which they made cakes (i., p. 65).
431 _all arayit._ Each of the first two days, Le Bel tells us, the
English were drawn up in order of battle, though it came only to
fruitless skirmishing.
482 _Fyres in gret foysoun._ The Scots, writes Le Bel, always made a
wonderful number of fyres between night and morning; and by this and
their blowing of horns and shouting together it seemed as if all the
devils of hell were assembled there (pp. 64, 65; _Johnes_, i., ch.
xviii.).
486 _Twa myle._ “Two small leagues” (_Le Bel_). “A short league”
(_Scala._). “League,” as usual, signifies just a mile, as when Le
Bel credits the Scots with an average day’s march of from twenty to
thirty-two “leagues” (p. 4).
488 _defend thame bettir._ “A much stronger place than before” (_Le
Bel_, 65).
490 _a park._ Stanhope Park, a hunting-ground of the Bishop of Durham,
on the north bank of the Wear. “The Scots entered the park of Stanhope
and there lodged; likewise also the English on the other side of a
certain stream pitched camp and rested” (_Gesta Edw._, p. 96). The
Scots moved to “within the park of Stanhope” (_dedenz le park de
Stanhope_, _Scala._, p. 154). “The Scots betook themselves to the
park of Stanhope” (_Lanercost_, p. 259). The Scottish army was “at
Stanhope Park” (_apud Stanhop park_, _Contin. Chron._, _Murimuth_, p.
53; _Chron._, _Knighton_, i., p. 445; _Baker_, p. 97; _Hemingburgh_,
ii., p. 298). And those who have rejected Barbour’s statement as to
the northward position of the Scots, resting on a single citation
from Bain (see on 316), would have found, a few pages farther on, an
express reference to the time when the Scots were surrounded and beset
(_circumdati et obsessi_) _in the park of Stanhope_ by the King’s army
(_Bain_, No. 957, June 29, 1328). Edward, being so near, could very
well speak of himself as “at Stanhope.” Bain later admits the Scots
were at Stanhope (_Edwards in Scotland_, p. 77).
492 _full of treis._ At Stanhope Park “they were lodged in a wood” (_Le
Bel_, 65). “In the woddys of Stanhop park in dyverse busshementis”
(_Fabyan_, p. 439).
495 _Be nychtyrtale._ _I.e._, by night-time, as in Chaucer:
“by _nightertale_
He sleep namore than doth a nightingale.”
(_Prologue_, 97, 98).
501 _Upon the wattir._ “On another mountain ... also on the river” (_Le
Bel_, i. 65).
503 _on the morn._ Barbour gives the Scots only two days in the first
position opposite the English, not saying how long they had been
already “liand” there, which Le Bel says was eight days. Le Bel says,
further, that they left on the third, not the second, night, and that
their departure was discovered on the morning of the fourth day (p.
65). If the English arrived on July 31 (_cf._ on 402), and Edward was
at Stanhope on August 3 (_cf._ on 316), this would be right. Gray says
the Scots shifted camp on the fourth night (_Scala._, p. 154). Fordun
suggests only one position, the second (_Gesta Annalia_, cxl.).
513 _on othir half the wattir of Wer._ _Cf._ _Gesta Edwardi_ in note on
490. In Le Bel the river is still between the armies, (pp. 65, 66).
516 _Aucht dayis._ Maxwell affirms that, in saying this, Barbour
“either draws on his imagination, or has been misled by his informants”
(_Robert the Bruce_, p. 314); and the chronology of the various
writers is hard to reconcile. Gray gives six days for the second
position (p. 154); Le Bel (Froissart) eighteen (68); Knighton fifteen
(_Leycestrensis Chron._, i. 445); Hemingburgh says the Scots were
besieged for fifteen days in Stanhope Park (ii., p. 298). But the
author of _Gesta Edwardi_ agrees with Barbour in assigning eight days
(_octo diebus dicursis_, p. 97), and so does the _Lanercost_ writer (p.
259) and Fordun (_Gesta Annalia_, cxl.). Yet Mr. Brown accuses Barbour,
in fixing that term, of “always lauding his own side,” though these
English chroniclers support him (_The Wallace and The Bruce_, p. 145).
One document suggests that Edward was at Durham on August 5 (_Bain_,
iii., No. 930), but dates and places on legal documents do not always
signify what they suggest. The order from Durham was issued in the
King’s name. Edward was still at Stanhope on August 7 (_Calendar of
Patent Rolls_, Edward III. _s. d._).
520-1 _ilk day justyng of Wer. And scrymming._ “Every day skirmishing
by those who wished to skirmish” (_Le Bel_, 67). _Cf._ throughout
Froissart, ch. xviii.
527 _on the nynt day._ “The _first_ night that our lords were lodged
upon this (second) mountain” (_Le Bel_, p. 67). In _Scala._ apparently
the third night (p. 155).
533 _V. hundreth._ “Two hundred men-at-arms” (_Le Bel_, p. 67). “A few”
(_Lanercost_, 260; _Gesta Edw._, 96).
534 _in the night._ “About midnight” (_Le Bel_).
535 _so fer he raid._ “He passed this river a good distance (_bien
loin_) from our host” (_Le Bel_).
538 _slely can he ryd._ “Wherefore no one perceived him” (_Le Bel_).
541 _hew rapys._ See below on 561.
550 _no vachis._ “He suddenly passed through the sentinels of the
English” (_Gesta Edw._, pp. 96-7).
560 _He ruschit on thame hardely._ He fell on the English host most
boldly, crying: “Douglas! Douglas! you shall die all, lords of England”
(_Le Bel_, _ibid._). In _Froissart_ it becomes “thieves of England”
(_Berners_, _Johnes_), a version due, apparently, to Froissart’s later
re-editing of his own work. In Lettenhove’s edition (1863) it is
“_’Glas, ’Glas_” (i., p. 102). Knighton says that when Douglas was seen
by some English he began to cry in English (_Anglica voce_), “‘No warde
a seynt Jorge!’ as if he were an Englishman” (i. 445).
561 _doune he bare._ Le Bel (Froissart) says Douglas got so far
that “he cut two or three cords of the King’s tent.” “He penetrated
(_intravit_) a great part of the army of the King, and came nearly to
the King’s tent” (_Lanercost_, 260). “He passed through the midst of
the English army” (_Gesta Edwardi_, 97).
565 _Thai stabbit, stekit, and thai slew._ “They began, he and his
company, to make a great attack. (À faire une grand envaïe et à coper
et mehagnier gens et à abatre (car ce fus sus le point dou premier
somme) et porterent grand damage a l’oost” (_Froissart_ in Vatican MS.,
ed. Lettenhove, i., chap, xxxiii., p. 102. 1863).
567 _A felloun slauchtir._ “Douglas and his company slew more than
three hundred” (_Le Bel_). “Some he slew, some took captive” (_Gesta
Edw._, p. 97). They “slew a great part of the people of the Earls”
(_Scala._, p. 155).
568 _liand nakit._ _I.e._, unarmoured. “And he slew or he seased
ccc. men, some in their beddes, and some skant redy” (from Berner’s
_Froissart_, but not in Johnes nor in any of the known editions of
_Froissart_ nor in _Le Bel_; not, however, a very unusual exercise
of the imagination). Barbour’s descriptive detail is evidently due
to his information. “He gave very many a rude awakening” (_plurimos
terribiliter evigilavit._ _Gesta Edw._, p. 97). “On his return he slew
many in their amazement” (_attonitos._ _Lanercost_, 260).
577 _That lord, etc._ _I.e._, “First one lord and then another was
aroused.”
614 _cummyn ar thai._ “He himself (Douglas) returned unhurt to his own
army” (_Gesta Edw._, 97); “with very great difficulty” (_Knighton_, i.
445).
638 _ilk day growis._ Edward was still summoning men to his host. Such
a summons is dated at Stanhope, August 3 (_Bain_, No. 929).
639 _vattale has._ Le Bel, on the contrary, says the English army was
suffering severely from want of food, and that provisions were at a
famine price (_toudis avions nous paour de plus grand famine_, pp.
66-68). The final Froissart does not have these passages, but suggests
the same thing (p. 24). The _Lanercost_ chronicler speaks of their
failing victuals (p. 259).
644 _Sic as we haf._ See notes on 405 and 735. Le Bel says the English
expected the Scots would be forced by famine to make a night attack (p.
68; _Froissart_, Johnes, p. 24).
657 _A nycht._ “One night.”
667 _thou mon heir out._ “You can get out only here.”
712 _thai sall let thame trumpit ill._ Evidently in allusion to line
680. “Trumpeting” seems to have been the prelude to any operation. Or
the phrase may be in French idiom, introducing the verb _tromper_, to
deceive, which, however, would be unusual for Barbour.
731 _blew hornys and fyres maid._ _Cf._ note on 482.
735 _the nycht wes fallyn._ According to Le Bel, a Scottish knight was
that day captured, who, much against his will, informed them that in
the morning the Scots lords had arranged that every man was to be armed
at vespers (68), and that each was to follow the banner of Douglas
wherever he should go, and that every man was to keep it secret; but
the Scots knight did not know for certain what their purpose was. The
English judged that the Scots, forced by unendurable famine, were about
to make an attack on their host (p. 68). Next day it was found that
the Scots had departed “before midnight” (p. 69), “leaving the park
by night” (_Gesta Edw._, p. 97). Certain allusions would lead us to
infer that the English had, to some extent, got round the Scots. Le Bel
declares that the Scots were thought to be planning an attempt to break
through the English on two sides (_brisier nostre ost à deux costés_,
pp. 68-9). The _Lanercost_ writer says the Scots got away to their
own country “by moving round the army of the King” (_circueundo regis
exercitum versus Scotiam pertransirent_, p. 259). They were surrounded,
according to Knighton (i., 445). _Cf._ also extract 957 from _Bain_
in note on 490, and lines 800, 801. Le Bel says that he and some
“companions” had to cross the river next day to get to the Scottish
encampment, where they found abundance of beef in various forms. The
account in the _Scalacronica_ is simply that, the third night after
the Douglas affair, the Scots broke camp and marched to their own
country (_Scala._, p. 155). Several English chroniclers attribute the
escape of the Scots to treachery on their own side (_Murimuth_, 53, 64;
_Knighton_, i. 445; _Gesta Edw._, 97, etc.).
746 _summer._ “Sumpter-horse,” as, with a different spelling, in
_Wallace_, iv. 53; “Thar tyryt _sowmir_ so left thai in-to playne.”
766-7 _till consale, etc._ “When the lords heard this they took counsel
... and said that to chase after the Scots would profit them nothing,
for they could not be overtaken” (_Le Bel_, p. 69).
770 _Kyng Robert than._ If so, Bruce must have hurried back from
Ireland, for on July 12 he granted a truce of one year to the people
of Ulster (_Bain_, iii. 922). This Irish campaign appears to have been
a failure (_ibid._, 1191). These are our only allusions to it. In
_Scala._ it is said that it was the Earls who heard they were besieged
(p. 155).
774 _tuenty thousand._ “Five thousand” (_Scala._, p. 155).
776 _Marche and Angous._ “Patrick, Earl of March, and John the Steward,
who styled himself Earl of Angous” (_Scala._, p. 155). March (_cf._
note on _Bk._ XI. 46) had joined the Scots some time before February,
1317 (_Bain_, iii. 536). Sir John Stewart of Boncle, or Bonkill, son
of Sir Alexander (see on _Bk._ IX. 692), was created Earl of Angus by
Bruce (_Scots Peerage_, i. 169).
781 _the sammyn day._ “The very day of their departure” (_Scala._, 155).
798 _Had vittale with thame._ On the contrary, Gray declares that if
they had had enough provisions they would have gone back; they were
such fierce warriors (p. 155).
BOOK XX.
1 _Soyne eftir._ “Not long after” (_nec multum post._ _Gesta Edw._, p.
97). It was “lately,” on September 22, 1327 (_Northern Registers_, p.
344).
5 _A gret host._ “With a great army” (_North. Reg._, p. 344).
7 _to Norhame._ Besieged Norham Castle (_ibid._; also _Fœdera_, iii.,
p. 975; and _Scala._, p. 155). Robert himself was at Norham (_Scala._).
For this and next note, _cf._ _Scotichronicon_, ii., p. 288.
10 _Awnwyk._ Alnwick. “Besieged the castle of Alnwick for more than
fifteen days” (_Gesta Edw._, p. 97). Alnwick besieged by Moray and
Douglas (_Scala._, 155).
15 _mony fair gud chevelry._ At Alnwick “there were great jousts of war
by formal agreement” (_estoient grantz joustes de guere par covenaunt
taille._ _Scala._, p. 155).
23-25 _The landis of Northumberland ... gaf he._ “And lands, it is
claimed, within the kingdom of England, the said King Robert confers
on certain of his followers, and causes charters to be prepared for
the grantees” (_North. Reg._, p. 344; _cf._ “thai payit for the seliys
fee”).
27 _raid he destroyand._ The Scots “destroyed Northumberland almost
entirely, except the castles, and remained there a long time”
(_Lanercost_, p. 260).
31 _Ledaris of hym._ “The Queen and Mortimer arranged everything” (_la
royne et le Mortimer le firent tout_, _Scala._, 156). “By the evil
advice of his mother and Roger, Lord of Mortimer” (_Lanercost_, p.
261); “his mother then ruled the whole kingdom” (_ibid._).
33 _Send messyngers._ The “messengers” (_nuntios_; in _Acts._,
messages) and procurators of the King of England were the Bishops
of Lincoln and Norwich, Henry Percy, William of Ashby-de-la-Zouch
(a Mortimer), and Geoffrey Scrope. The negotiations took place at
Edinburgh, and were concluded March 17, 1328 (_Gesta Edw._, p. 98;
_Acts Parl. Scot._, i., p. 124). A parliament at Northampton finally
agreed to the treaty, May 4, 1328 (_Exchequer Rolls_, i. ciii.).
38 _fiff yheir ... scarsly._ David Bruce was born on March 5, 1324.
39 _Johane ... of the Tour._ Having been born in the Tower of London.
“Johanam de Turre” (_Lanercost_, p. 261); “Johannam de Turribus”
(_Scotich._, ii., p. 290).
43 _sevin yher._ Born 1321.
44 _monymentis and lettrys ser._ Especially the _Ragman Roll_
(Icelandic, _ragmanr_, a coward?), containing a list of the homages
to Edward on August 28, 1296, at Berwick, by the churchmen, earls,
barons, knights, burgesses, and whole community of Scotland, as well
as earlier submissions (_Bain_, ii. xxv., pp. 193-214; _cf._ also
_Lanercost_, p. 261; _Knighton_, i. 448-9; _Scotichr._, ii., p. 289;
_Baker_, p. 103). Baker says the Roll was publicly burned at the
marriage at Berwick (_ibid._). The only copies of it that exist are
in the _Tower Rolls_ (_Bain_, _ibid._), with portions of the original
instruments of homage; so that this stipulation was never carried out
(_Acts Parl. Scot._, i., p. 19).
48 _all the clame._ “Omnem clameum (_sic_) seu demandam” (_Lanercost_,
p. 261). _Cf._ for terms of the “Relaxation of Superiority.” _Fœdera_,
iv., p. 338; York, May 1, 1328.
53 _Fully xx thousand pund._ Twenty thousand pounds sterling to be paid
in three years (_Acts Parl. Scot._, i., p. 125). Fordun says 30,000
marks out of King Robert’s “mere goodwill,” in compensation for English
losses (_Gesta Annalia_, cxli.). The last payment was in 1331 (_Excheq.
Rolls_, cx.).
67 _for the mangery._ The _Exchequer Rolls_, I, cxiv.-cxvii., contain
a long list of purchases in the Low Countries for the household of the
young people--food, furniture, utensils, etc.
73 _male es._ Fr. _mal aise_, illness. According to Le Bel, Bruce was
suffering from the “great sickness” (_la grosse maladie_) in 1327
(p. 48; see also 79). The _Lanercost_ chronicler says it was leprosy
(_factus fuerat leprosus_, p. 259). Johnes translates Froissart’s
“grosse maladie” as leprosy (i. 18, 26).
79 _Cardross._ On the Clyde, half way between Dumbarton and
Helensburgh, acquired by the King in 1326 in exchange for other lands
(_Exchequer Rolls_, I., cxix.).
83 _To Berwik._ The marriage took place on Sunday, July 19, 1328
(_Lanercost_, p. 261); July 17 (_Gesta Annalia_, cxlii.).
85 _the Queyne and Mortymer._ Edward III. himself was not present
(_Lanercost_, p. 261).
125 _At that parliament._ The arrangement as to the succession of the
Steward and a possible regency were made in a parliament of 1318.
Randolph was to be regent, and, failing him, Douglas (_Acts Parl._,
i. 105). Barbour divides the regency; Fordun makes no mention of this
(_Gesta Annalia_, cxxxix.).
*129 _Maid hym manrent and fewte._ Some such ceremony in all likelihood
did take place; Barbour’s statement is not to be rejected lightly. Le
Bel (_Froissart_) says that when the King felt the approach of death he
summoned his barons (see below), and charged them, on their fealty, to
guard loyally the kingdom for his own David, and when he came of age
obey him, and crown him King, and marry him suitably--in which last
detail Le Bel is, of course, astray (p. 79; _Johnes_, i. 27).
151 _Till Cardross went._ He had paid a visit to Galloway, and was at
Glenluce on March 29, 1329.
158 _For the lordis._ See note on 129.
167 _Lordingis._ An alternative account of this speech and of the whole
circumstances up to the death of Douglas is given by Le Bel (ch. xxv.),
and adapted from him by Froissart (_Johnes_, i., ch. xx.). Divergencies
or close parallels are noted as they occur. See on these Appendix, F.
vi. Baker also has a brief account, citing, as a witness of the doings
of Douglas in Spain, Thomas Livingstone, a Carmelite friar, at that
time a civilian serving under his command in the Christian army (p.
104).
177 _my trespass._ This sounds like a clerical interpretation; _cf._
_Bk._ II. 43-5 for a similar comment. In _Le Bel_ Bruce opens with
the remark that all knew that he had much to do in his time, and had
suffered much to maintain the rights of this kingdom (as cited).
178 _my hert fyschit firmly was._ “I made a vow which I have not
accomplished and which weighs upon me” (_Le Bel_). “I vowed,” etc.
(_Baker_, p. 105).
181 _to travell apon Goddis fayis._ “To make war upon the enemies of
our Lord and the adversaries of the Christian faith beyond the sea”
(_Le Bel_). Froissart does not have the closing phrase. “That I would
fight with my body against the enemies of Christ” (_Baker_, p. 105).
183-5 _the body may on na wis, etc._ “Since my body is not able to go
or accomplish that which the heart has so long desired, I wish to send
the heart for the body to make satisfaction for me and my wish” (_pour
moy et pour mon vueil acquittier._ _Le Bel_, 1904, I., chap. xv.); “to
fulfil my vow” (_pour mon voeu achever._ _Froissart_); “Because alive I
shall not be able”--_i.e._, to go (_Baker_, 105).
188 _cheis me ane._ Le Bel and Baker represent Bruce as himself
choosing Douglas for the mission; so, too, does Bower (_Scotichr._,
ii., p. 300).
191-2 _On Goddis fayis, etc._ _Cf._ above on line 181. Le Bel gives
the commission differently and in fuller detail: “That you take my
heart and have it embalmed, and take as much of my treasure as will
seem good to you for performing the journey, for yourself and all
those whom you will wish to bring with you; and that you will carry my
heart to the Holy Sepulchre, where our Lord was buried, since the body
is not able to go thither; and that you do it as magnificently (_si
grandement_) and as well provided with all things and with attendance
sufficient, as belongs to your estate; and wherever you come let it be
known that you carry as a commission (_comme message_) the heart of
the King of Scotland for the reason that his body cannot go thither.”
In Johnes it is, from _Froissart_, “you will deposit your charge at
the Holy Sepulchre”; in Berners, “present my heart to the H.S.” The
Vatican (final) MS. of _Froissart_, however, has “that you carry (the
heart) beyond the sea against the heathen (_mescreans_) _and as far as
to the Holy Sepulchre and leave it there, if you have the fortune to
go so far_” (_si l’aventure poes avoir d’aler si avant_, Lettenhove,
I., chap. xxxviii., p. 119). Bain summarizes a Protection “for seven
years,” given by Edward III. on September 1, 1329, for James Douglas,
“on his way to the Holy Land with the heart of the late Robert K. of
Scotland, in aid of the Christians against the Saracens” (No. 991);
who also, on the same date, commends Douglas, on this mission, to
Alfonso K. of Castile, Leon, etc. (990). In the Pope’s absolution
for the ecclesiastical offence of mutilating a dead body, dated at
Avignon, August 6, 1331, which, of course, proceeds on a narrative
furnished from Scotland, it is explained that King Robert had expressly
commanded that “his heart should be carried in battle against the
Saracens” (_in bello contra Saracenos portaretur_), and that, in
accordance with the wish of the King himself, it was carried by Douglas
into Spain in battle against the said Saracens (Theiner, _Vetera
Monumenta_, No. 498). Baker has it, “that you carry my heart against
the enemies of the name of Christ to Gardiavia on the frontier” (_ad
fronterii Gardiaviam_, p. 105). Later chroniclers distort the details
somewhat, Bower alleging that the heart was to be buried in Jerusalem,
and sending both Alfonso and Douglas to the Holy Land; referring the
reader, nevertheless, to “Barbour’s Bruce” (“Barbarii Broisacus,”
_Scotichr._, ii., p. 301); while the _Book of Pluscarden_ simply
paraphrases Bower, expanding the reference to the Bruce (_legendam
dicti excellentissimi principis in nostro vulgari compositam_). _Cf._
also note in Brown’s _Wallace and Bruce_, pp. 136-7, where, however,
Mr. Brown’s hand is being forced by his theory. Doubtless Bruce’s words
might be alternatively interpreted; but, from what we know of Douglas,
we may conclude that he fulfilled his commission to the letter, and
that Barbour is, so far, right. The Vatican _Froissart_ shows us how,
also, the confusion arose. Scott, in his final note on _The Abbot_,
prints a commendation (May 19, 1329) of Melrose Abbey by Bruce to his
son David and his successors, in which he says that he has arranged
that his heart should be buried there, but makes no mention of a prior
destination. Edward I. also had “bequeathed” his heart to the Holy
Sepulchre (_Trivet_, p. 413; Wright’s _Political Songs_, p. 247).
197 _greting._ “All those who were there began to weep with much
compassion” (_Le Bel_).
212 _his bounty._ “I shall now die in peace, when I know that the most
suitable man in my kingdom and the most worthy will perform that which
I have not been able to perform” (_Le Bel_).
223-231 “Noble sire, a hundred thousand thanks for the great honour you
do me, when you charge and entrust to me so noble and so great a thing
and such a treasure; and I shall do very willingly what you command
concerning your heart, doubt it not, to the best of my power” (_Le
Bel_). In Baker, “I swear by the heart of Jesus Christ that I shall
carry your heart as you have asked me and die fighting with the cursed
enemies” (_contra prædamnatos hostes moriturum_, p. 105).
253 _he wes ded._ June 7, 1339, aged fifty-four years and eleven months.
276 _all for his persoune._ This, as may be gathered from all that here
precedes, was fully the case. Le Bel, in his earliest reference (ch.
i.), refers to him as “the noble King Robert the Bruce, who was King
of Scots, and had given often so much trouble to the good King Edward,
spoken of above” (Edward I.); and later says that from their exploits
these two Kings were reputed “the two most worthy in the world” (p.
107). On the English side: “Indeed, I would speak of Lord Robert the
Bruce with the greatest praise, did not the guilt of his homicide and
the knowledge of his treason compel me to be silent,” and the writer
drops into a couplet to the same effect (_Vita Edw. Sec._, p. 166).
Baker is of the same mind; Bruce was “every inch a soldier” (_per omnia
militarem_), save that he was disloyal to his natural lord, which no
knight should be (p. 101).
286 _bawlmyt syne._ According to Le Bel, the heart was taken out and
embalmed (p. 81).
292 _solempnly erdit syne._ “He was buried in the honourable manner
that became him, according to the usage of the country” (_Le Bel_,
_ibid._). Froissart adds that “he lies in Dunfermline Abbey.” His
skeleton was brought to light in digging in the Abbey in 1819, showing
the breastbone sawn up to get at the heart. It is that of a man about
six feet high. The mass of the wide, capacious head is to the rear,
and the forehead is rather low; the marks of the muscles on the head
and neck are very pronounced, and the cheekbones particularly strong
and prominent. Four front teeth in the upper jaw are missing, three,
apparently, as the result of a blow, the socket being much fractured.
The lower jaw is exceptionally strong and deep. For full details see
_Archæol. Scot._, vol. ii., pp. 435-453. The _fair toume_ was brought
from Paris to Bruges, and thence, by England, to Dunfermline; the
expense of this conveyance and of many other items in connection with
the interment are to be found in the _Exchequer Rolls_, vol. i.
318 _To schip till Berwik._ “En Escoce” (_Le Bel_, i., p. 83);
“Montrose,” adds Froissart (_Lettenhove_, I., chap. xxxix.)
324 _the Grunye of Spanyhe._ Bain makes this comment, reading _Grunye_
from E. “The ‘Grunye’ is probably Coruna, called by sailors the
‘Groyne.’ Mr. Skeat’s text makes the word ‘grund,’ taking no notice of
the other reading” (iii., p. xxxvii, note). Le Bel takes Douglas first
to Sluys in Flanders, making him hear in that port of the operations in
Spain (p. 84). In Sluys, he says, he hoped to meet with some going to
Jerusalem (p. 83).
326 _Sebell the Graunt._ Seville the Grand, on the Guadalquiver. “First
at the port of Valence (Valentia) la Grande” (_Le Bel_, 84). Seville
was then the base of operations against the Moors.
336-7 _a fair company, And gold eneuch._ According to Le Bel,
Douglas had with him the knight-banneret and six others of the most
distinguished men of his country. His plate was of silver (and gold,
adds Froissart), and all of his own rank who visited him at Sluys
were treated to two kinds of wine and two kinds of spices (ch. xvi.;
_Johnes_, i., ch. xx.).
338 _The Kyng._ Alphonso XI. of Castile and Leon, to whom Douglas had
been commended by Edward III.; see note on 190. There was another
Alphonso, IV. of Arragon, but he gave no assistance on this occasion
(_Mariana_, _Bk._ xv., ch. x., p. 255).
361 _The Inglis knychtis._ Prussia and Spain were the favourite resorts
of English knights anxious to war against the infidels. Chaucer’s
knight had been in both countries on this errand (_Prologue_, 53-56).
393 _Balmeryne._ A Moorish kingdom in Africa; or, more correctly, of
the reigning dynasty, the Banu-Marin. In Chaucer’s _Prologue_ it is
“Belmarye” (line 57); in _Froissart_ the name appears more correctly as
Bellemarie (_Johnes_, ii., p. 484; _Letten._, I., p. 121, chap. xxxix.).
401 _The vaward._ In Le Bel (_Froissart_) Douglas betakes himself to
one of the wings “the better to do his business and display his power”
(_son effort_, p. 84).
402 _the strangeris with him weir._ So we gather also from Baker, whose
informant served under Douglas. _Cf._ note on 167.
403 _mastir of Saint Jak._ The Master, or head, of the Order of St.
James.
407 _To mete their fayis._ On March 25, 1330, at _Tebas de Hardales_, a
strong town in Granada (_Mariana_, _Bk._ xv., ch. x., p. 255). Fordun,
however, dates the battle August 25 (cxliv.).
*421-32 _Bot ere they joyned, etc._ See on these lines _Appendix_ D.
431 _So fer chassit._ The account in _Le Bel_ is to the effect that
Douglas attacked prematurely, thinking that Alphonso was about to
do so, and that he was being followed up. But Alphonso did not move
for the reason, we learn from _Mariana_, that the frontal attack of
Moorish cavalry was but a feint, and that the real attack, as the King
said, was to be in the rear on the Christian camp (_Le Bel_, p. 84;
_Mariana_, as cited). Alphonso was better acquainted than Douglas with
the Moorish methods of fighting. Fordun’s narrative is that Douglas
and his company were cut off by an ambuscade which, though superior in
numbers, they readily attacked (_Gesta Annalia_, cxliv.).
440 _That relyit._ _I.e._, the Moors rallied. It was their usual
tactics to attempt to draw after them a body of the enemy in pursuit,
and then surround the pursuers.
467 _ilkane war slayn thar._ “Not a single one of them escaped, but
they were all slain” (_Le Bel_, p. 84).
521 _the leill Fabricius._ Roman consul, 278 B.C. A traitor offered
to poison Pyrrhus, but the Roman refused the proposal, and sent
information to Pyrrhus (_Plutarch_).
585 _the kirk of Dowglas._ St. Brides, Douglas.
587 _Schir Archibald his sone._ Skeat, in his note on this passage, is
all astray. He says that Douglas was never married, that he left only a
natural son William, and that this Archibald was his third or youngest
brother. But Sir William Fraser is of opinion that Sir James was
married, though Sir Herbert Maxwell doubts, and certainly no record of
it survives; but he was succeeded in the estates by William, while his
brother Archibald “Tineman” (Loser) was killed at Halidon Hill in 1333.
He, however, had another son, certainly illegitimate, the Archibald
referred to here, who succeeded in 1388 as third Earl of Douglas, and
died, after a varied career, in 1400 (Fraser’s _Douglas Book_, I.,
188-9; _Scalacronica_; Maxwell’s _History of the House of Douglas_, i.,
p. 67 and 114-124; _Acts Parl._, i. 193-4; _Reg. Mag. Sig._, i., p.
177). Archibald was known as “the Grim.” Mr. Brown cites Fraser to the
effect that Archibald erected the tomb “probably about the year 1390,
after his succession as third Earl of Douglas” (_Douglas Book_, I., p.
181); and adds the proposition that he could not have done so before
his succession, because, according to the _Book of Pluscarden_ (1462),
his friends “held him in small account because he was a bastard,”
and because his succession to the estates was disputed (_Acts Parl.
Scot._, i., p. 194; _The Wallace and Bruce_, pp. 154-5). Mr. Brown’s
contention, therefore, is that the statement in the text could not
have been penned by Barbour in 1375, and that it is not due to him,
but to his redactor. The reasoning is not all conclusive; against the
plain statement of Barbour there is only an assumption on Fraser’s
part, and inferences on the part of Mr. Brown which are not necessarily
contained in his premisses. Archibald was, no doubt, only a child when
his father was killed; but he became Lord of Galloway in 1369, and Earl
of Wigtown in 1372. What was there to prevent his erecting a tomb for
his distinguished father, except a delicacy of feeling on the side of
the “legitimates,” which is rather modern than late mediæval? Archibald
bought his earldom, built and endowed a hospital near Dumfries, erected
Thrieve Castle, and had extensive lands in various parts of Scotland,
so that he must have been a man of considerable wealth, besides being,
as Warden, the most important figure on the Border. Who or what was
then to prevent him honouring the congenial memory of his great father
before 1375-6?
600 _Melros._ _Cf._ note on 191-2.
604 _And held the pure weill to warrand._ _I.e._, “And carefully
guarded or looked after the interests of the poor.”
609 _poysonyt was he._ Moray died at Musselburgh, July 20, 1332. Fordun
says nothing of poisoning (_Gesta Annalia_, cxlvi.). But there appears
to have been a popular story to this effect, to which, later, was added
the detail that his poisoner was an English monk (_Scotichr._, ii.,
lib. xiii., ch. xix.). Moray died of the stone from which he suffered
towards the close of his life; the rest Hailes considered “a silly
popular tale” (_Annals_, vol. iii., App. 2).
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
THE SITE OF THE BATTLE OF BANNOCKBURN
It will be noticed that the conception of this battle, alike as to
position and tactics, elaborated in the notes in strict conformity
with Barbour, differs entirely from that now universally accepted. The
engagements of the first day (Sunday) were the outcome of attempts
to clear the two paths of approach to Stirling--that through the New
Park, and the other on the level below St. Ninians. Both failed,
and the means by which their failure was brought about determined
the operations of the following day (Monday). This main engagement,
however, it has been hitherto held, took place on the banks of the
Burn, below or in the neighbourhood of Brock’s Brae, with the Burn
separating the forces. This is pure misconception. There can be no
doubt that the battle was fought on a position roughly at right angles
to this--on “the playne,” “the hard feld,” or level ground east of
St. Ninians, reaching back into the angle formed by the Forth and the
Bannock. The main data for such a conclusion are these: (1) The English
passed the night on the Carse, having crossed the Bannock; (2) the
Scots _attacked_ early next morning, and to do this “tuk the playne,”
leaving their camp-followers in the Park, so that they astonished the
English by their audacity; (3) in the rout many English were drowned
in the Forth and in the Bannock; (4) Edward II., unable to get away,
fled to the castle; (5) so did many of his men, as the castle “_wes
ner_.” These facts, fully substantiated from both sides, are wholly
inconsistent with a site of battle south of St. Ninians, and fix its
position between the Forth and the Bannock. Barbour’s “pools” are the
“polles” in which, according to Hemingburgh,[57] the English baggage was
bogged and captured after the battle of Stirling Bridge. The English
and French (and Irish) chroniclers invariably speak of the battle as
that of “Stirling,” and Trokelowe calls it the Battle of _Bannockmoor_.
For a full discussion of the matter, see my paper on “The Real
Bannockburn” in _Proceedings of the Glasgow Archæological Society_,
1908-1909.
[57] Vol. ii., p. 140.
APPENDIX B
BRUCE’S SPEECH AT BANNOCKBURN
BOOK XII. 210-327
It is the privilege of early historians to equip their leading
personages with speeches, and in its pertinent, practical character
the speech here provided for King Robert is a good example of such--so
good, indeed, as to suggest the probability that Barbour is working up
some transmitted material. There is on record another speech attributed
to Bruce, which formed part of a Latin poem on Bannockburn by Abbot
Bernard of Arbroath, Bruce’s Chancellor, portions of which are quoted
in the _Scotichronicon_.[58] This speech consists of twenty-five
hexameter lines, and is a rhetorical flourish on Scottish liberty,
the miseries inflicted by the English on the country, and the hapless
condition of “mother Church,” closing in strains of ecclesiastical
exhortation. Moreover, it immediately precedes the opening of the
battle, while Barbour’s version is of the evening before. In the latter
a special interest attaches to lines 263-268 and 303-317, which may
be compared with the following extracts from a speech by Alexander
the Great in _The Vowes_, one of the three romances which make up the
Scottish _Buik of Alexander_, the translation of which from the French
was probably the work of Barbour himself.[59] Alexander says:
“Be thay assailyeit hardely,
And encountered egerly,
The formest cumis ye sall se,
The hindmest sall abased be.
* * * * *
Forthy I pray ilk man that he
Nocht covetous na yarnand be,
To tak na ryches that thay wald,
Bot wyn of deidly fais the fald;
Fra thay be winnin all wit ye weill
The gudis are ouris ever ilk deill;
And I quyteclame yow utrely
Baith gold and silver halely,
And all the riches that thaires is,
The honour will I have I wis.”[60]
[58] Lib. xii., chap. xxi.
[59] See Appendix E.
[60] P. 318.
To the same purport as these latter lines is a portion of a subsequent
address;[61] and lines 325, 334 find a similar parallel in:
“Thus armit all the nicht thay lay,
Quhile on the morne that it was day.”[62]
Of the cardinal sentiment in the speech, the origin is probably to be
found in the familiar story of the Maccabees, referred to more than
once in _The Bruce_. Judas Maccabeus was one of the typical heroes of
French romance, and had one metrical romance, at least, devoted to his
career. And in 1 Maccabees, chap. iv., we have:
“17. (Judas) said to the people, Be not greedy of the spoils, inasmuch
as there is a battle before us.
“18. And Gorgias and his host are here by us in the mountain; but stand
ye now against our enemies, and overcome them, and after this ye may
boldly take the spoils.”[63]
[61] P. 339.
[62] P. 350, lines 12, 13.
[63] _Cf._ also Neilson on _The Real “Scots Wha Hae”_ in _Scottish
Antiquary_, vol. xiv., No. 53, July, 1899.
APPENDIX C
THE NUMBERS AT BANNOCKBURN
ENGLISH: _One hundred thousand men and ma._
SCOTS: _Thretty thousand, and sum deill mare._
These figures have given rise to much discussion, without any very
certain result. Yet official data are not wanting--sufficient, at
least, to check what is only another example of the wild conjectures
of mediæval chroniclers when dealing with numbers. Hemingburgh gives
Wallace at Falkirk “about three hundred thousand men”[64]--rather more,
probably, than the whole male population of Scotland. We need not be
surprised, then, at how all such estimates shrink in the cold light of
Exchequer figures.
[64] II. p. 180.
Edward II. summoned all owing him military service,[65] which
corroborates the statement of the author of the _Vita Edw. Sec._ that
“the King exacted from all the service due,”[66] as well as that of
Barbour--“of England hale the chivalry.” The Earls of Lancaster,
Warenne, Arundel, and Warwick did not attend, for a particular reason,
but sent their contingents.[67] Now, by Mr. Round’s calculations, the
whole number of knights’ fees in England did not exceed 5,000;[68] Mr.
Morris raises the figure to something short of 7,000.[69] The important
point is, however, that in practice the assessment was only a nominal
or conventional one. Thus Gloucester, with 455 fees, was assessed at
ten knights.[70] Including all grades of horsemen, Mr. Morris puts
“the maximum of the cavalry arm” at “about 8,000”; but, all things
considered, no such number could ever take the field.[71] Edward I. had
summoned his full feudal array (_omnes sui fideles_) for the Falkirk
campaign, and Hemingburgh says that, when counted, it came to 3,000 men
on armoured horses (Barbour’s “helit hors”), and more than 4,000 on
unarmoured horses--say, roughly, 7,000 in all.[72] Mr. Morris, however,
by a generous calculation from the rolls, arrives at 2,400 as the
highest possible figure.[73] Now, it is to be noted that the author of
the _Vita Edw. Sec._, while lauding the size and magnificence of the
host that went to Bannockburn, gives 2,000 men-at-arms as apparently
the total of the cavalry, since he simply adds “a considerable body
of footmen.”[74] On the whole, 3,000 to 4,000 English horse is a
higher limit for Bannockburn, when we consider all the difficulties
of sufficient armour, remounts, and forage. Mr. Morris thinks 10,000
“impossible,” though he is here calculating on yards of frontage on a
site where the battle was not fought.[75] About 7,000 is Mr. Round’s
free estimate, adopting Hemingburgh’s figure for Falkirk.[76] Bain
accepts Barbour’s 3,000 heavy horsemen, and suggests 10,000 light
horse, but proceeds on no data.[77] Mr. Oman calculates that “three
thousand ‘equites coperti,’ men-at-arms on barded horses,” means,
probably, 10,000 for the whole cavalry,[78] but this traverses his
Falkirk figures. England never put, nor could maintain, on the field
such a mounted force, to say nothing of the difficulty of handling and
manœuvring it.
[65] _Fœdera_, iii., p. 464, etc.
[66] P. 201.
[67] _Vita Edw._, p. 201.
[68] _Feudal England_, p. 292.
[69] _The Welsh Wars of Edward I._, p. 41.
[70] _Welsh Wars_, p. 59.
[71] _Ibid._, pp. 81, 82.
[72] II. p. 173.
[73] _Welsh Wars_, p. 292.
[74] _Peditum turba copiosa_, p. 201.
[75] _Engl. Hist. Rev._, vol. xiv., p. 133. _Cf._ Appendix A.
[76] _Bannockburn_ in _The Commune of London_, p. 298.
[77] _Calendar_, iii., p. xxi.
[78] _Art of War_, p. 575 note.
For the foot we have, fortunately, exact figures in the
_Fœdera_[79]--21,540 men all told, which would include the archers.
Only the northern counties--but not all--and Wales are drawn upon, as
those of the south would be for a French campaign.[80] Such had been
the practice of Edward I., whose levies from the northern counties
and Wales ranged from 29,400 foot in 1297 to 12,000 in 1301.[81] Mr.
Morris contends that not till 1322 were infantry drawn from all England
for a Scottish campaign (_as cited_), but in this he is wrong. It was
done by a special vote of Parliament, and according to a prescribed
form, as early as March, 1316, when every township, with some special
exceptions, furnished one soldier,[82] and again in 1318.[83] These are
clearly new and special arrangements, and there is thus no reason to
believe that the list in _Fœdera_, etc., is not complete, as Mr. Oman
suggests, adding, accordingly, a southern contingent of about 30,000
men, though he doubts if “the extreme South” sent its full muster.[84]
This is quite gratuitous. Lord Hailes, too, contended that the official
records are imperfect, and that the numbers given by Barbour “are
within the limits of probability.”[85] Bain’s authoritative reply is
that, “as a rule, the writs were always enrolled, and the Patent Rolls
of the time are not defective.”[86] This, however, is not always true,
and Bain, applying this principle absolutely, is once, at least, led to
a wrong conclusion.[87]
[79] Vol. iii., p. 482, etc.; also in _Rotuli Scotiæ_, i., p. 127; and
_Parliamentary Writs_, book ii., div. 2, p. 117.
[80] _Cf._ _Commune of London_, p. 296; _Engl. Hist. Rev._, xiv., p.
133.
[81] _Bain_, ii., Nos. 956, 1202, 1092, 1136.
[82] _Writs as cited_, pp. 176, 177.
[83] _Trokelowe_, p. 102; _Rot. Scot._, i., p. 183.
[84] _Art of War_, p. 573 and note.
[85] _Annals_, ii., p. 48.
[86] _Calendar_, iii., p. xx.
[87] See note on Book XVI., 285.
An important question now suggests itself, but no one has so far raised
it: did the levies in these full numbers turn up? They are allotted
in round figures: what proportion was actually furnished? That there
would be some trouble in securing the conscripts is anticipated and
provided for in severe measures for the contumacious.[88] This was
usual, and even the strong hand of Edward I. could not prevent men
from deserting after they had received their wages.[89] Here we have,
also, a sufficient basis for an estimate. On May 12, 1301, Edward I.
summoned for midsummer 12,000 men from nine of the counties included
in the Bannockburn levy--York, as in that case, being assessed at
4,000.[90] On July 12 we have the numbers from these counties as they
appear on the pay-roll, when it is stated that they had contributed
in proportions which give only 5,501 all told; York having sent only
1,193, and Northumberland, assessed at 2,700, providing the largest
proportion--2,019.[91] The numbers vary slightly on other days, but
seem never to have exceeded, if they reached, 50 per cent. of the
nominal levy. Mr. Morris works out the same result for the Caerlaverock
Campaign of 1300.[92] There are no grounds for assuming that things
went differently in 1314, and thus over 21,540 men are reduced by
about half. It is quite a fair conclusion that not more than 12,000
English foot--which exceeds the proportion above--were actually present
at Bannockburn.
[88] _Writs_, ii., p. 185.
[89] _Palgrave_, cxxvii.; _Welsh Wars_, pp. 95, 98.
[90] _Bain_, ii., No. 1202.
[91] _Bain_, ii., 1229.
[92] _Welsh Wars_, p. 301.
For the foreign contingents no figures exist. Bain thinks they were
not “more than a few thousands.”[93] The Gascon corps in the Falkirk
army should have been 106 mounted men.[94] The Hainault and Flanders
auxiliaries who shared in the campaign of 1327 amounted to 550
men-at-arms, and were an expensive item.[95] The Irish contingent which
came to Edward I. in 1304 amounted at most, for a few weeks only, to
3,500 men,[96] but to merely 361 in the army of 1300.[97]
[93] III., p. xxi.
[94] _Welsh Wars_, p. 289.
[95] _Cf._ Book XIX., 267 note.
[96] _Bain_, ii., p. xxxix, note.
[97] _Welsh Wars_, p. 301.
I would suggest, therefore, for the English army the following
round numbers: 3,000 to 4,000 horse of all sorts, 12,000 English
and Welsh foot, 3,000 (?) Irish, 1,500 (?) foreigners, or, in a
lump sum, 20,000 men of all arms, to which must be added a crowd of
non-combatants--servants, traders, and camp-followers generally. Bain
(as cited) proposes 50,000; Round, 30,000; Oman, 60,000 to 70,000.
I consider 18,000 to 20,000 the most probable range. With even the
lower of these numbers, the English commanders in organization and
commissariat would have rather more than they could manage.
Barbour’s figure for the Scottish army must be similarly reduced. More
than 30,000 would be a huge proportion of the Scottish population
of that time, especially as the whole does not seem to have been
drawn upon, and of that, as Barbour insists, a good many were still
hostile.[98] William the Lion was credited in 1173 with a national
host of 1,000 armoured horsemen, and 30,000 unarmoured footmen,[99]
and the latter unit is surely over the score. At Halidon Hill, 1333,
the Scots are said to have had 1,174 knights and men-at-arms and
13,500 light-armed men or foot;[100] and this chronicler consistently
exaggerates. Yet these figures represent a united kingdom. Forty
thousand at Bannockburn is the estimate for the Scots of the _Vita
Edw._ writer, but the English writers, on their side, grossly overstate
the numbers of the enemy, as witness what is said of Hemingburgh above.
Bain’s figure of 15,000 to 16,000 is no doubt nearer the mark; “perhaps
twenty-five thousand men in all” is Mr. Oman’s conjecture.[101] Possibly
6,000 to 7,000 is as near as we can go, adopting Barbour’s ratio, which
gives a proportion of 1 to 3 of the English army. The non-combatants
here, too, would be numerous. Up to this time Bruce’s men in the field
could be numbered only in hundreds, so that as many thousands would
represent a very special effort. And note that after Murray’s success
over Clifford nearly the whole Scots army gathered round him to see him
and do him honour--a fact which is suggestive[102] as to its size.
[98] See note on 46.
[99] _Chronique de Jordan Fantosme_, lines 328-9.
[100] _Hemingburgh_, ii., pp. 308-9.
[101] _Art of War_, p. 575.
[102] XII. 159-164.
APPENDIX D
THE THROWING OF THE HEART
BOOK XX. *421-*432
These lines are found only in Hart’s printed edition. Pinkerton
thought there was “no reason to view them as an interpolation,” and
Jamieson regarded their agreement with the account in the _Howlat_[103]
“a strong presumption of authenticity.” By Skeat they were at first
accepted as genuine, but afterwards, influenced by the reasoning on
Barbour’s rhymes of P. Buss in _Anglia_,[104] he surrendered them as an
interpolation. In the passage of twelve lines three rhymes occur, which
are unusual--more strongly, impossible--for Barbour on the basis of
his admitted work. These are _battell--tell_, _to be--de_, _ho--to_.
In the first case, Barbour, it is claimed, elsewhere always uses the
“liquid” form _bataill_ (_battalyhe_) to rhyme with another word of
the same character as _assaile_ or _travaill_ (_travailyhe_).[105] In
the second, he “never rhymes _be_ with _de_ (correctly _dey_),” as
Skeat puts it, for _de_ (Icel. _deyja_) was still influenced by the
terminal semi-guttural, giving it an “impure” sound, whereas “be,”
with no ghostly after-sound, is quite “pure.” The final example brings
together two different values of “o,” and, it may be added, in the four
cases in which Barbour uses the word, it is in the form _hoyne_.[106]
These rhyme-tests had also been applied to the same result by Mr. W. A.
Craigie.[107]
[103] See below.
[104] First Series, vol. ix., 493-514.
[105] But note _battell_, two syllables, in xiii. 395, 418; xiv. 175;
and _battell-stede_ (xiv. 301).
[106] V. 602; vi. 564; x. 226; xiv. 152.
[107] _Scottish Review_, 1893, p. 192 note.
With this conclusion Mr. Brown agrees, “although on slightly different
grounds.”[108] Hart’s edition, of course, takes a place in his general
scheme of redaction. But he would “hesitate to reject the lines
on the rimes alone,” and “The _be, de_ test” seems to him “quite
untrustworthy.”[109] Skeat thinks it unanswerable.[110] Mr. Neilson
pleads “that this canon begs the whole question of the text of the
Bruce ... first you find your canon; then you edit out of your text
all that is disconform.”[111] Arguing specially on its application to
_The Legends of the Saints_, he points out that “There are not a few
metrical and other solecisms in the Bruce,” and that the “exceptional
_e_-rhyme” is the stamp of transition.[112] It is to be observed
also that Chaucer, Barbour’s contemporary, and more careful in such
matters than he, rhymes _ho, y-do_ in the _Knight’s Tale_.[113] In the
_Alexander_ occurs the _tell--battell_ rhyme.[114] On the whole, the
test is perhaps not so conclusive--out of Germany--as Skeat imagines.
Further, from the indubitable reference in the _Howlat_ to the _Bruce_,
Neilson accepts the latter as the sole source of its digression, and
the lines as therefore authentic.[115]
[108] P. 135.
[109] P. 135.
[110] _Pref._, liv.
[111] _John Barbour_, p. 50.
[112] _The Scottish Antiquary_, vol. xi., p. 107 note.
[113] Group A, 2533-2534.
[114] P. 308; 26, 27.
[115] Chambers’s _Cyclopædia of English Literature_, i. 175.
If, however, what has already been said of the passages from Hart
hold good,[116] then this one must go with the rest. Fortunately, in
this specific case that argument can be greatly strengthened, for the
lines have never been tried by their relation to the context and their
historic implications, and that obvious and indisputable test puts the
question beyond doubt. They have but an outside connection with the
narrative of Barbour, and otherwise are in flat contradiction thereto.
So much is at once evident from the closing couplet:
“And took it up in gret daintie;
And _ever in field_ this used he.”
[116] _Pref._, pp. vi-viii.
It is a series of performances of this kind that is contemplated, not
a single example, which is all that Barbour’s account gives room for.
Douglas is credited with a habit of this sort, “ever in field”; while
Barbour, like Froissart, knows of only one battle in which Douglas
fought while bearing the heart of Bruce.[117] Nor is Barbour likely to
have omitted such a “point of chivalry” on the part of his twin hero,
had a valid tradition of it existed in his day.
[117] _Cf._ notes on Book XX. 393, 431.
The problem becomes clearer when we consider alternative and later
accounts of the expedition of Douglas, for which see note on Book
XX. 191, 192. Evidently the idea of his going to the Holy Land, as
Froissart explains the commission,[118] and as it occurs in Bower, gave
an opening for embellishment, which expands in the hands of Boece to
the extent of thirteen victories achieved by Douglas over the Turks!
This, however, is only to give more precision to a composite account
contained in the _Buke of the Howlat_ of the middle of the fifteenth
century, a poem written in glorification of the Douglases. The author,
supposed to be Richard Holland, speaks of the great friendship Bruce
had for Douglas: “Reid the writ of thar work to your witness”[119]--a
clear reference to the _Bruce_, especially as in xxxv. and xxxvi. he
paraphrases the reply of Douglas to the King in Book XX. 223, 234.
Thereafter, however, he strikes off from Barbour. Douglas goes to “the
haly graif,” where--
[118] In part; but see the reconciling passage in note on xx. 191-2.
[119] Stanza xxxi.
“XXXVII.
“He gart hallowe the hart, and syne couth it hyng
About his hals[120] (neck) full hende (respectfully), and on his
awne hart.”
[120] But _cf._ xx. 307, where this comes before.
The story then proceeds:
“XXXVIII.
“Now bot I semble for thi saull with Sarasenis mycht,
Sall I never sene be into Scotland!”
An extension of the original commission, be it noted, and a motive for
what follows:
“Thus in defence of the faith he fure to the fecht
With knychtis of Cristindome to kepe his command.
And quhen _the batallis_ so brym, brathly and bricht,
War _joyned_ thraly in thrang, mony thousand,
Amang the hethin men the hert hardely he slang,
Said: ‘Wend on as thou was wont,
Throw the _batell_ in bront,
Ay formast in the front,
Thy fays amang;’
“XXXIX.
“‘And I sall followe the in faith, or feye to be fellit,--
As thi lege man leill, my lyking thow art.’
* * * * *
Thus frayis he the fals folk, trewly to tell it,
_Aye quhile he coverit_ (recovered) _and come to the Kingis hart,
Thus feile feildis he wan, aye worschipand it_,
Throwout Cristindome kid (known)
War the dedis that he did,
Till on a time it betid
As tellis the writ.”[121]
[121] _Cf._ also xlii.
So we go back to Barbour (“the writ”), but in the final scene there is
no mention of throwing the heart, any more than in the genuine _Bruce_,
though it is stated that “His hardy men tuk the hart syne upon
hand.”[122]
[122] XLI. _Cf._ _Bruce_, xx. 486, 487.
Obviously we have in these stanzas, and especially in the words
underlined, the source of the lines in the _Bruce_, which are further
in express contradiction to Barbour’s narrative, and have no place
in it. The threefold argument leads inevitably to the one conclusion
that these lines are an interpolation, and, as a corollary, that their
source is the _Howlat_. Mr. Amours, in editing that poem,[123] has gone
so far as to say that this is “almost certain.” I would remove the
qualification.[124]
[123] Ed. S.T.S.
[124] _Cf._ also _Preface_, pp. vii-viii.
APPENDIX E
THE “ALEXANDER” AND THE “BRUCE”
_The Buik of the Most Noble and Vailyeand Conquerour, Alexander the
Great_ is an anonymous Scots translation of three French romances in
the Alexander cycle, dated, in a rhyming colophon, 1438, and published
for the Bannatyne Club in 1831. Between this translation and the
_Bruce_ there is a remarkably intimate and undisguised connection, not
only in spirit and method, but in “the diction as a whole, the choice
of words and the arrangement of the sentences, (and) the abundant
use of alliteration,” to such an extent that “in reading the _Buik
of Alexander_ one would often think that he discerned the singer of
the _Bruce_.”[125] A few examples have been given in the notes, but for
a full survey of this literary phenomenon the reader must go to the
dissertation quoted from above, or to Mr. J. T. T. Brown’s _The Wallace
and the Bruce Restudied_, pp. 100-112 (Bonn, 1900), or Mr. Neilson’s
_John Barbour, Poet and Translator_ (London, 1900), which is devoted
to the subject; or, for the parallels in the Bannockburn account, to
Mr. Neilson’s article on Barbour in Chambers’s _Cyclopædia of English
Literature_, vol. i.
[125] _Untersuchungen über das schottische Alexanderbuch._ Albert
Hermann, Halle, 1893, pp. 26, 27.
On the facts there is no dispute; for explanation three hypotheses
have been put forward. Hermann, accepting the 1438 date, concludes
that the translator of the _Alexander_ was so familiar with the
language of the _Bruce_--“here and there, indeed, knew it by heart”
(_stellenweise es wohl auswendig wusste_)--that his translation was
necessarily strongly influenced thereby.[126] This is inadmissible; the
French poems are earlier than the _Bruce_, and to these the links of
connection ultimately go back. The relationship is really deeper than
the mere language of the translation, as Hermann himself indicates.
Mr. Neilson, accordingly, in a detailed and forcible argument, claims
Barbour himself as the translator of the _Alexander_, arguing that,
the literary proofs being so conclusive, the date given must be an
error, “scribal or printer’s.”[127] Given Roman numerals to begin with,
such a slip is not in the least unlikely; variations of this sort
occur in the _Bruce_ itself,[128] and 1438 may have been a misreading of
1338, or the date may be that of the scribe’s copy, not of the actual
work. Mr. Neilson has an ingenious section on the wayward fortunes of
dates.[129] Thus, reversing Hermann’s thesis, he holds that “Barbour’s
mind and memory had been steeped in the _Alexander_ when he wrote the
_Bruce_.”[130] Mr. Neilson’s argument and conclusion are vigorously
contested by Mr. Brown in a _Postscript_ to the work cited. His more
elaborate hypothesis is that David Rate translated the _Alexander_ in
1437, and that “John Ramsay, Sir John the Ross, wishful to improve the
plain song of John Barbour, used the translation of the _Alexander_
extensively, taking freely whatever he required.”[131] Mr. Brown’s
negative criticism is independent of this proposition which is involved
in his wider theory regarding the construction of the _Bruce_. The
eclectic conclusion of the writer in the _Cambridge History of English
Literature_, vol. ii., is: “Either the book (_i.e._, the _Alexander_)
is the work of Barbour preserved in a somewhat later form, or the
author was saturated with Barbour’s diction, so that he continually
repeats his phrases.”[132]
[126] As cited, p. 35.
[127] As cited, p. 45.
[128] _Cf._ p. 292.
[129] Pp. 43-47.
[130] P. 56.
[131] P. 162.
[132] P. 448.
In the dust of the conflict a crucial fact has gone unobserved--namely,
that one of the parallel lines enumerated by Brown and Hermann
appears in the portion of the _Bruce_ incorporated in his own work by
Wyntoun.[133] _Here, then, we have a line of the alleged translation of
1438 occurring in the “Bruce” as it existed before 1420._ Thus the only
outstanding difficulty of Mr. Neilson’s proposition disappears. The
effect on the rival propositions is obvious.
[133] The _Bruce_, I. 160; _Alexander_, 8, 8; _Wyntoun_, Book viii.
chap. ii. 246; _Brown_, p. 110.
APPENDIX F
MR. BROWN’S “SOURCES” FOR THE “BRUCE.”
In pursuance of his “hypothesis of fifteenth-century redaction” of the
_Bruce_, Mr. Brown applies what he claims to be “fair and ordinary
tests” to six “selected examples,” in order to show that his hypothesis
“has a basis in demonstrable fact.”[134] I shall notice such of these
very briefly, premising that I do not consider Mr. Brown’s use of his
tests either “fair” or “ordinary.” So much, I think, will appear.
[134] _The Wallace and The Bruce Restudied_, p. 92.
1. _The Trojan War_, _Alexander the Great_, _Julius Cæsar_, and _King
Arthur_.
(_a_) The only thing urged against the _Trojan War_ passage[135] is
that it is in the suspicious company of the others, and these, Mr.
Brown suggests, are derived from Chaucer’s _Monk’s Tale_, from which
he produces a selection of lines to parallel those in the _Bruce_. It
may be urged,[136] at the outset, that two contemporary poets dealing
with the same set of historical events are very likely to display
similarities. As Chaucer himself begins by saying--
“The storie of Alisaundre is so commune,
That every wight that hath discrecioune
Hath herd somwhat or al of his fortune.”
[135] I. 521-8.
[136] _Bruce_, I. 529-548; _Monk’s Tale_, Group B., 3821-3908.
But even in Mr. Brown’s “selected” lines it is the divergencies
rather than the similarities that stand out. Chaucer says nothing
of “Babilony’s tour”; “his awyne hows” is no parallel to “of thyne
owne folk”; and “Bot, ar he deit, his land delt he” has no equivalent
whatsoever in the _Monk’s Tale_. Yet Chaucer has forty lines to
Barbour’s eight. In fact, the “example” is a stock one, even to its
phraseology, as witness these excerpts from sources half a century and
more earlier than either poet: _Commendatio Lamentabilis_ on Edward I.
in 1307, “magnus Alexander ... Nam ille annos regnans duodecim veneno
hausto vita defungitur (15); _Vita Edwardi Sec._ (c. 1326). Sed ille
magnus Græcorum imperator Alexander, _totius orbis domitor, cum cunctas
nationes orbis subicit, per familiares proditores toxicatus occubuit_.”
Do such close parallels prove that either Barbour or Chaucer borrowed
from chronicles which they never saw?
(_b_) Mr. Brown argues that the _Julius Cæsar_ parallels are “not
less remarkable for significant agreement, as regards the sequence of
the narrative,”[137] and that “so far as concerns the diction it (the
_Bruce_ passage) approaches even nearer the Chaucerian original.”[138]
But where Chaucer speaks of Cæsar conquering “thoccident” and “the
orient,” Barbour enumerates the countries. Is this similarity of
diction? According to Mr. Brown, he is giving “simply an expansion
of the Chaucerian phrases.”[139] Elsewhere, in such a case, Barbour is
convicted of “summarising” or “assimilating,” here of “expanding.” This
is Mr. Brown’s “fork” from which no author could escape. In twelve
lines Barbour comments on Cæsar’s conquests, his imperial position,
and his death, and in forty-eight Chaucer gives a detailed biography
introducing Pompey, of whom Barbour says nothing, and Barbour is
thereupon charged with following “the sequence of the narrative”--as if
he could avoid doing so! That Cæsar by both poets is styled “Emperor”
goes for nothing; that was the medieval way; as also was the statement
that he was killed in “the Capitol,” as Shakespeare, too, believed. But
the most striking note of difference remains. Barbour says of Cæsar--
“Hys eyn with his hand closit he,
For to dey with mar honeste.”[140]
[137] P. 98.
[138] P. 99.
[139] P. 97, note.
[140] I. 548, 549.
Now Chaucer remarks: “Of honestee yet had he remembrance,”[141] and Mr.
Brown enrols the word “honestee” among the things “not to be explained
either as commonplaces or as mere coincidences.”[142] We see Barbour’s
idea of his “honeste”; this is Chaucer’s:
“His mantel over his hypes casteth he
For no man sholde seen his privetee.”[143]
[141] 3908.
[142] P. 99.
[143] 3904-5.
Mr. Brown here seems to have followed Cæsar’s example and “closit hys
eyn”!
(_c_) The only point made with regard to the _Arthur_ lines[144] is the
calling of Lucius “Emperor,” and regarding this see my note on the
passage. Geoffrey of Monmouth does the same. That Wyntoun corrects
Huchown, and not Barbour, in this usage--well, Mr. Brown can make all
he can of that. Barbour’s dozen lines on the familiar _Arthur_ story is
charged with being “an excellent summary of the _Morte Arthure_,”[145] a
poem of 4,364 lines! No “expansion” here!
[144] I. 549-561.
[145] P. 99.
2. The _Alexander_ allusions in Bks. III., X. With reference to these
see Appendix E. But why should Mr. Brown speak of “the famous grey
palfrey of Lord Douglas” on the strength of one notice in Bk. II. 118?
There is nothing to justify the epithet “famous”; and _Ferrand_ was no
more an unusual name for a “grey” horse than _Blanchard_ for a white
one. Bishop Lamberton might have had “a grey” as well as Eumynedus.[146]
[146] See note on passage.
3. _The Ferumbras Romance._ I have analyzed this passage in my notes
to Bk. III., 435-462. Mr. Brown contends that the adoption of the
form _Ferumbras_ for the French _Fierabras_ “points to a knowledge
on the part of the Scottish poet” of either the _Syr Ferumbras_ or
the _Sowdone of Babylone_, in both of which this form occurs. It is
possibly an adaptation of the spelling _Fierenbras_, which occurs in
_The Destruction of Rome_ and also in a fragment of the romance.[147]
But there is nothing more remarkable in Barbour’s intrusion of the
“m” here than in his calling Lubaut or Lybaut, _Lumbard_ in Bk. X.
324,[148] or Capaneus, _Campaneus_.[149] More significant is the name
_Lavyne_ for _Balan_, which is the normal form for all the existing
texts, French and English, save the _Sowdone_, where we have _Laban_,
_Lavane_ and _Lavyne_, and _The Destruction of Rome_ (French), which
has _Balan_ and _Laban_, the latter of which has given the spelling
in “v.” Mr. Brown, however, rules out the _Destruction_ for Barbour,
as being “merely related to the Charlemagne cycle,”[150] though
Dr. Hausknecht accepts it as the original of the first part of the
_Sowdone_.[151] Why, then, should Barbour, too, not have known it?
Mr. Brown’s conclusion is that the name, with other material, points
to the whole passage being based on the _Sowdone_, and the _Sowdone_
being post-Chaucerian--in which opinion he follows, and even goes
beyond, Hausknecht--of the beginning of the fifteenth century, after
Barbour’s death, it obviously follows that the lines cannot have been
his work.[152] Against this may be put Hausknecht’s own conclusion,
to which Mr. Brown makes no reference: “It is worthy of notice that
the account of the Fierabras romance, as given by Barbour, may be
considered, on the whole, as identical with the subject of the French
_Fierabras_ or the English _Syr Ferumbras_, _but not with the_
_Sowdan_, as there is no mention made of the combat before Rome, nor
any trace of what makes up the first part of the _Sowdan_.”[153] A few
additional facts will substantiate Hausknecht’s statement.
[147] E.E.T.S. _The Sowdone of Babylone_, _Introd._, pp. xxxi, xxxii.
[148] See note.
[149] II. 534.
[150] P. 114.
[151] As cited, p. xxv.
[152] Pp. 115, 116.
[153] P. ix, note. The italics are mine.
In the _Sowdone_ the twelve peers are shut up in “Egrymor”; Barbour
gives “bot eleven.”[154] Mr. Brown says of the _Bruce_ account that,
“Every line is traceable in the _Sowdone_.”[155] There is no trace of
line 452, or of Lavyne’s “flot” in 456; Charlemagne, instead of “being
joyful” at the news that his peers were alive, there bursts out in
anger against the traitor Ganelon.[156] Conclusive, on Mr. Brown’s own
case, is the fact, noted by Hausknecht, that the relics mentioned
by Barbour “differ from all other versions.”[157] It is not “off the
croice a gret party”[158] in the _Sowdone_, but simply “the crosse,
the crown, the nailes bente”;[159] and there is no mention of “the
sper.”[160] Nothing is said of the cross in the _Fierabras_ or the _Syr
Ferumbras_, and the _Destruction_ has the crown of thorns, the cross,
the nails, and the “signe”[161] or shroud. Nor did Barbour invent “the
sper,” for it is spoken of in this connection, though not in the final
distribution, in the Provençal version of the _Fierabras_: “_e del fer
d’una lansa_,” the spear-head.[162] It would seem, then, that Barbour
was using a version of the romance different, in certain particulars,
from any we now possess. At any rate, Mr. Brown has to get round these
awkward corners before he can transfix Barbour on _Lavyne_.
[154] 444.
[155] P. 115, note.
[156] “_Genelyn_,” 2843-6.
[157] P. ix, note.
[158] P. 461.
[159] 665.
[160] _Bruce_, iii. 459.
[161] Hausknecht, note to line 665.
[162] _Der Roman von Fierabras, Provensalisch_, p. 5, line 15; Immanuel
Bekker, Berlin, 1829.
4. _The Tydeus Episode_, Bk. VI. 179-268. It may be granted that
Barbour here is not, as Skeat supposed, drawing directly on the
_Thebaid_ of Statius, even in memory. But then no more is Lydgate in
his _Story of Thebes_;[163] having used, according to Dr. Koeppel,
some French prose epic based on the classical story,[164] now lost,
or giving in his poem “a transcript from a French rendering of
Statius.”[165] There was ample material, including even, as Gaston
Paris has suggested, an abridgment of Statius in Latin prose. Mr.
Brown contends that Barbour’s “redactor” borrowed from Lydgate. But
here, again, the differences are sufficiently vital to thwart such a
conclusion. “Betwix ane hye crag and the se”[166] has no equivalent
either in Statius or Lydgate, as is clear from Mr. Brown’s own
citations;[167] nor has the detail that the “gret stane ... throu the
gret anciente, Wes lowsyt reddy for to fall,”[168] for which Lydgate
has:
“Beside he saw with water turned down
An huge stone, large, round, and square.”[169]
[163] c. 1420.
[164] _Brown_, p. 117.
[165] Gregory Smith, _The Transition Period_, p. 8.
[166] P. 211.
[167] P. 118.
[168] Pp. 252-3.
[169] Ed. 1598, fol. 381.
In an inductive literary argument differences must be accounted for
as well as similarities, and any other possible sources must be
satisfactorily eliminated. Opinions as to “the classical parsimony of
independent translators”[170] are purely speculative.
[170] P. 119.
5. _The Hannibal lines_, Bk. III. 207-248.--Here Mr. Brown’s argument
needs only to be summarily stated to show its inadequacy. Wyntoun
borrowed from Barbour in some instances, but not in this; therefore,
since there are similarities in the way the same story is told, the
_Bruce_ lines are drawn from the _Cronykil_.[171] Wyntoun confesses
to having translated from Orosius, Mr. Brown says through Martinus
Polonus, and he follows his author closely. Barbour’s narrative is
brief and, in several details, faulty, in which he diverges from both
the Latin author and his Scots translator.[172] The startling error
in chronology, especially, “would not be readily made by one using
Martinus at first hand,” but with the _Cronikyl_ before him the writer
was quite likely to do so![173] The peculiar “touches” in the _Bruce_
passage are noted, but unexplained. It is assumed that “The agreement
with Martinus is much too close for it to be considered to be written
from memory;”[174] and “there is nothing in Martinus that should lead us
to expect independent translators to ascribe such a victory to God and
in terms so similar:
“Bot throw Goddis gret powste.”[175]
“Bot throw the mycht of Goddis grace.”[176]
[171] P. 125.
[172] P. 126. See notes on passage.
[173] P. 127.
[174] P. 126.
[175] _Wyntoun._
[176] _The Bruce, &c._, p. 126.
But the terms are not “similar,” and both are a mediæval rendering of
_divina miseratio_ in Orosius and Polonus. The whole argument in this
connection is involved and haphazard. What is there illegitimate in
the simple hypothesis that Barbour wrote from a well-stored but not
perfectly accurate memory, and that Wyntoun preferred the first-hand
to the second-hand source? So we explain both similarities and
differences. Wyntoun’s lines are a plain following of his Latin author;
Barbour’s a brief summary, with expansions and comments of his own
leading up to the moral he wishes to enforce; and in this case Mr.
Brown cannot point to a single line in common.
6. _Froissart and the Bruce._--Here Mr. Brown prints his parallels
in full, and the matter can be safely left to the judgment of the
unprejudiced reader. It need only be remarked that Froissart (1)
calls Douglas William instead of James; (2) sends the heart to the
Holy Sepulchre[177]; (3) makes Bruce choose Douglas; (4) embarks him
at Montrose; (5) takes him to Sluys; (6) lands him at Seville: while
Barbour (1) is right as to Douglas; (2) sends the heart against
“Goddis fayis”; (3) makes the barons choose Douglas; (4) embarks him
at Berwick; (5) says nothing of Sluys; and (6) lands him at Valentia.
Of Barbour’s “motive” lines, of the repentance for blood-spilling and
the saving of his sins,[178] Froissart (or Le Bel) has no trace. The two
narratives are independent, though, in their trend, alike.
[177] _Cf._, however, on XX. 181.
[178] 171-177.
APPENDIX G
LANGUAGE AND ORTHOGRAPHY
The language of the _Bruce_ is Northern English, the dialect spoken
north of the Humber. Barbour himself calls it “Inglis” (Bk. IV. 253),
and Scottish writers down to the sixteenth century do the same. The
name “Scots” is therefore a term of pure convenience, signifying
the English spoken within the political borders of Scotland, which
continued to be an independent literary medium after the Northern
English of England had ceased to be such, and had yielded place to the
standard dialect of Chaucer and his successors. But the language of the
Aberdeen Barbour is substantially that of the Yorkshire Richard Rolle.
The most obvious characteristic of the northern tongue is that in
development it was far ahead of its southern contemporary, in so far as
it had absolutely got rid of inflections, not even retaining the final
_e_ which casts its shadow over Chaucer. Where the final _e_ occurs
in the _Bruce_ it is non-significant and unsounded. Like the variable
spelling, it is the result of the writing of English by scribes
accustomed to the sounds and orthography of contemporary French, which
was rich in final _e’s_[179]--a process which had seriously complicated
the straightforward phonetic spelling of Old English. A peculiar
Scots fashion, however, was the representation of the long vowels by
a combination with _y_ or _i_, sometimes in addition to a final _e_,
which came to be regarded as the sign of a long vowel. Thus we have
such groups as _mar_, _mair_, _mayr_: _done_, _doyn_, _doyne_. In these
and similar cases _y_ is simply an alternative form of _i_; at first it
would be written before letters like _m_, _n_, _u_, where _i_, having
no dot, might be mistaken for a part of the succeeding letter; then in
practice the two would become interchangeable according to the caprice
of the writer. In this matter the scribe of C is rather more regular
than that of E. Now, such a diphthong as _ai_ was in time reduced to a
simple sound, when the _i_ became superfluous, and came to be looked
upon as a sign of length. With this function it was afterwards, at the
pleasure of the writer, transferred to the company of other long vowels
where there was no original diphthong. Thus we have the long vowel
sound represented in three ways--simple, with following _i_ (_y_), or
with terminal _e_. In cases like _tais_, _gais_, however, the _i_ is
part of the termination of the present tense of the verb, of which
Barbour is particularly fond.[180]
[179] Sounded as yet, like those of M.E., but in time to become silent.
Anglo-French is Norman-French developed in England; it was closely
related to Old French, familiar to the scribes through the romances.
[180] Buss, _Anglia IX._, pp. 505-507. _Cf._ also Murray, _Dialect of
the Southern Counties_, p. 53.
But while Scots--in the sense indicated above--had thus early parted
with its inflections, it was, on the other hand, more conservative
than the southern dialects in its treatment of the vowel sounds. It
retained, for example, the Old English _ā_, which in Southern English
was rounded into broad _o_ (_oa_)--_cf._ _ga_, _stane_ (O.E. or A.S.
_gan_, _stan_) for _go_, _stone_. In the _Bruce_ (X. 199; XII. 299)
the rhyme _more_, _before_ may show the rounding influence of _r_.[181]
Vowels in words of French origin show slight modification. Anglo-French
nasal _a_ before _m_, _n_ tends to become _au_, whence _daunger_, etc.,
and _o_ or _u_ to become _ou_ as in _baroun_, _felloun_. _Ai_ and _ei_
incline to merge in long _e_ as _feble_ (O.F. _faible_), and _sesyt_
(O.F. _seisir_); but _ai_ may also become _a_--_e.g._, _tratour_ for
O.F. _traitor_.
[181] Buss, p. 509.
Aphæresis occurs in such shortened forms as _stroy_ (destroy), _semble_
(assemble), etc.
The following peculiarities may be noticed among the consonants:
_ch_ sometimes = “tch” in middle and end of word--_e.g._, _fech_ =
fetch (II. 532).
_h_ is silent in _hoost_, as in all Anglo-French words of Latin origin,
and sometimes drops out--_e.g._, _ost_ (II. 559, etc., O.F. _ost_),
also in _ayris_ (heirs, V. 520).
_b_ in combination with _m_ is dropped both in pronunciation and
spelling. _Cf._ _chamyr_ (II. 97), _tumlit_ (IV. 182, etc.). C _Hummyr_
for Humber; E _Humbre_ (XV. 538).
_d_ usually dropped after _n_--_e.g._, _henmast_ = hindmost (XII.
268, etc.); sometimes intrusive--_e.g._, _suddandly_ (VI. 11), but
_suddanly_ (VI. 220). In _avantage_, _aventure_ from French the English
_d_ is intrusive.
_f_ represents final _ve_ in _pruf_ or _preif_, _leiff_, _driff_,
_knaf_, _haf_, etc., retaining the voiced sound (_v_) which it had in
A.S. between vowels, and _r_ _l_ and vowels.
_g_ in words of French origin has before _e_, _i_, the English sound =
_da(j)_, which was also then the French one--_e.g._, _liege_, _jugis_.
_l_ as indicating merely a long vowel is unsounded in _walknyt_ (VI.
296), _walk_ (wake, VII. 179, etc.). So we have also _falt_ (VI. 345,
etc.) and _fawt_ (III. 298); _realte_ and _reawte_, etc. Skeat holds
that the _l_ in the first case represents but a way of writing the
first _k_, so that the words should be _wakk_, etc., but this does not
cover the second case.[182]
[182] S.T.S., I. lxxxix., and Glossary.
_m_ and _n_ are often interchanged, as in _confort_, _manteme_, etc.
_ng_ becomes _n_ before _th_ as _lenth_, _strenth_, etc. _Cf._ also
Grammar. The nasal _ng_ may take the place of the liquid _n_, as in
_ryng_ (I. 78, etc.) for “reign” (Fr. _regner_). The French nasal
_nce_ is represented by _ng_ or _nch_--_e.g._, _Vallang_ (II. 201) or
_Vallanch_ (V. 472) for “Valence.”
_r._ Metathesis of _r_ is very characteristic of the Northern
dialect--_e.g._, _fryst_ (first), _brist_ (burst, A.S. _berstan_),
_tursit_ (O.F. _trusser_), etc.
_s_ is changed to _sch_ in _schir_, _isch_ (issue), etc.; but on the
other side we have _sall_, _suld_ (shall, should) and _Inglis_.
_z_ has in _Fiz_ the Anglo-French sound _ts_, as in _rats_.
APPENDIX H
GRAMMAR
NOUNS
_Singular--Possessive Case._--1. The inflected genitive or possessive
is formed by adding _ys_ or _is_; MS. E, on the whole, shows a
preference for the former. Sometimes the final consonant is doubled.
_Cf._ _a manis hand_ (VII. 580), to _mannys fude_ (X. 189).
2. Nouns denoting relationship are uninflected, as in Anglo-Saxon:
_Mordreyt his sistir son_ (I. 557). _Till his brothiris pes_ (XI. 652)
is an exception found in both MSS. For _And sperit of his brotheris
fair_ (XVI. 21) in C, E has _brodyr_.
NOTE.--_Wode-syde_ (E _woddis sid_, IX. 139), _sonne-rising_, _hous
end_ (VII. 163), all common combinations. Editors, however, usually
read the termination of the last as _housis_, though it seems to fall
under the same category.
_Plural._--1. The plural also is in _ys_ or _is_, more seldom _es_,
representing A.S. _as_. It “formed a distinct syllable in monosyllables
and words accented on the final syllable.”[183] The latter part of the
statement is not, however, uniformly true. _Cf._ _battalis_ (XI. 122),
_bischoppes and prelatis_ (XX. 294), etc., which are dissyllables.
2. Simple _s_ occurs only after _r_ and _y_ (_i_)--_galays_,
_werriours_, etc.--but _spurys_, _baneris_, _towris_ also occur. _Feys_
(I. 58) and _fays_ (I. 223) are to be read as two syllables.
3. Final _f_ (_ff_) is generally changed to _v_, as _theif_, _thevis_;
but _wif_ preserves the _f_ throughout, as _wifis_, _wiffys_, etc. (E,
however, in XII. 246, has _wyvis_); and _lif_ has _lyvis_ (XI. 590), or
_livis_ and _lyffis_ (X. 106), or _liffis_ (IV. 137).
4. Words ending in _er_, _ir_, _yr_, _yn_, _ill_ for the most part
reject the final vowel before the ending of the plural: _dochtrys_,
_lettres_ or _lettrys_, _wapnys_, etc. Where the vowel is retained, it
is silent, as in _schulderis_ (IX. 356), _letteris_ (XVII. 31, 39), etc.
NOTE.--_Burges_ in XVI. 80, XVII. 236, is clearly unaltered in the
plural, and this would seem to apply also to _marras_ (VIII. 35),
_hous_ (VIII. 514, etc.), and _mos_ (VIII. 173), which are usually read
as three and two syllables respectively. _Cf._ on _Singular_ (2).
5. Of strong plurals, besides _men_ and its compounds, _ky_ and
_brethir_ by change of vowel (_Umlaut_), we have _eyn(e)_ (A.S.
_eagan_), with singular _e_ or _ey_ (VI. 523), _oxin_ or _oxyne_ (X.
381, 388), _schoyne_ (II. 510). These (with _hosen_ and _fan_ (_faes_))
are the only plurals in _n_ preserved in Northern English.
6. Some old neuters (A.S.) take no inflection in the plural: _deir_,
_hors_, etc.; _hous_ has _hous_ and _housis_ (X. 60, etc.), but _cf._
on (4) (note); _thing_ has _thing_ (XI. 27, etc.) and _thingis_. _Cf._
also _gudis_ and _gude_ (XVII. 517, 521). One form is in _er_ or _ir_,
_childer_ (XII. 246) or _childir_ (XVII. 515), A.S. _cildru_.
7. Nouns indicating time, space, quantity, weight, and number are
unchanged in the plural: _fifty yheir_ (in I. 522 occurs _ten yheris_,
quite an exceptional case), _tuelf moneth_, _six and fourty wyntir_
(A.S. plural also _winter_), _twa myle_, _tuenty thousand pund_, etc.
For _paris_ in C (XIII. 463), E reads _payr_. In XII. 234 C has _thre
gret avantage_, where E gives _avantagis_, but reads _vasselagis_ (!)
to rhyme.
8. Only _men_ suffers inflection in the plural possessive: _the Inglis
menis fewte_ (VIII. 19), _of othir mennis landis_ (XI. 148). In
_till Scottis men possessioune_ (XVII. 202) we may have, as Henschel
suggests,[184] a piece of “scribal carelessness;” but Hampole
undoubtedly uses this as a valid form:
“Sal dede _men_ banes be set togyder
Thurgh messes, and rightwis _men_ prayers.”
[183] Murray, _Dialect of the Southern Counties_, p. 153.
[184] _Darstellung der Flexionslehre in John Barbour’s Bruce_, p. 12.
PROPER NOUNS.
In general, these follow the common nouns in their forms, but note:
1. Two names ending in _s_ have no inflection for the genitive: _King
Adrastus men_ (II. 529), _Thomas prophecy_ (II. 86). This occurs also
in Chaucer.
2. _Douglas_ has both flectionless and inflected forms: _the Douglas
men_ (X. 398), _the Lord Douglassis men_ (XX. 481).
3. Possessive or genitive formed by _his_: _Hannyball his mekill mycht_
(III. 232). _Cf._ also VI. 435, 446. Originally, as here, confined to
proper names. A special example is in the reading of C (XVII. 940):
_Berwyk his toune_; E _Berwykis_.
ADJECTIVES.
1. There is no distinction in the _Bruce_ between strong and weak
adjectives, the latter in Chaucer being indicated by a final _e_, and
used after the definite article, demonstrative and possessive pronouns,
etc., nor is the plural similarly distinguished from the singular. In
all these cases the Scots adjective is invariable; the final _e_, which
often occurs, is of no grammatical significance. There is no difference
between _the gud Erll_ (X. 686) and _the gude Erll_ (XX. 603), while
the plural is _gud werriours_ (XX. 416).
2. The only example of inflection is the form _aller_, genitive plural
(_er_ = _-ra_, A.S. _eal-ra_). It occurs once: _throuch thar aller hale
assent_ (I. 137).
3. The comparative and superlative are formed by adding _ar_ or _er_
(seldom _ir_) and _est_ or _ast_. In words of two and more syllables
_mar_ (_mair_) and _mast_ (_maist_) also occur. The same rule applies
to adverbs. The final consonant of a monosyllable may be doubled:
_thikkest_ (VIII. 81), but also _thikast_ (XVII. 156).
4. Change of vowel (_Umlaut_) appears in two cases--_sterkar_ (E
_starkar_) (XV. 491) and _eldest_ (I. 51, IV. 71). _Ill_ or _evill_
is the Northern form for _bad_, compared with _wer_ or _war_, _werst_
(III. 192). _Mor_, for _mar_, occurs twice to rhyme with _befor_ (X.
199, XII. 299). _Er_ gives _erar_.
5. After the comparative comes usually _than_, which is always used by
Rolle, but there are four examples of _na_--_wes starkar fer na he_
(VI. 538), also III. 229, II. 519, X. 637.
NUMERALS.
1. _Ane_ before a consonant sometimes becomes _a_: _in a nycht and a
day_ (III. 429). _The tane_ and _the ta_ are compounds of this numeral,
with the old neuter _thaet_ (_thet_) of the definite article, really
_thet-ane_, _thet-a_. The former is a substantive, the latter an
adjective: _the tane suld be kyng_ (VI. 186), _the ta part_ (III. 239).
Similarly _the tothir_ = _thet othir_ (I. 7, etc.), which is throughout
used for the ordinal “the second,” as _formast_ is sometimes used
for “the first”: _Fule-hardyment the formast is, And the tothir is
cowardis_ (VI. 337, 338).
2. Note _thresum_, _fiffsum_, _sex sum_, where “sum denotes
conjunction” (Jamieson’s _Dictionary_), three, etc., together; _half
deill_ (A.S. _dæl_, a part); _twa part_ = two parts; _yneuch_, singular
(usually adverb), used for quantity, and _ynew_ (_enew_), plural, for
number. _Cf._ XX. 337, and I. 558.
N.B.--For demonstrative, etc., adjectives, see also Pronouns,
Demonstrative, etc. Note _sam(m)yn_ (same) as adjective and adverb (V.
72, XII. 49, etc.). Distinguish _ilk(e)_ = same (A.S. _ylc_) from the
distributive _ilk_ (A.S. _ æle_) = each. Others are _sik_ (_syk_),
_swilc_, etc.
PRONOUNS.
_Personal._--1. In MS. E besides _I_ is found the strong form _Ik_
or _Ic_ (A.S. _Ic_). The latter is entirely wanting in C, which has
everywhere _I_.
2. The third person feminine is _scho_ (A.S. _sēo_), once spelled
_sche_ (XIII. 635), a Southern effect, where, however, E has _scho_.
3. Note the gen. sing. mas. and gen. plur. in _magre his_, in spite of
him, and _magre thairis_, in spite of them.
_Possessive._--1. The genitive cases of the personal pronouns are most
often adjectives. Before words beginning with a vowel they are _mine_,
_thine_; before words beginning with a consonant they become _my_,
_thi_; words beginning with _h_ may have either form.
2. The forms used absolutely are _myn_, _his_, _ours_, _yhouris_,
_thaires_: _That suld be myn_ (V. 223), etc.
_Reflexive._--1. The personal pronouns serve as reflexives: _I will me
spied_ (XI. 638); _And went hyr hame_ (V. 177).
2. There is also the form in _self_, more seldom _selvyn_, _selvin_.
When the subject is a personal pronoun this may drop out: _that himself
suld wele Kepe the entre_ (XI. 445).
3. _Self_ is both singular and plural: _That thai mycht help thameself_
(X. 619).
_Demonstrative._--1. The Northern plural of _this_ is _thir_, which
supplanted _thas_ as _thise_ did in the Midland. Its origin is
obscure.[185]
[185] _Murray_, p. 185.
2. The plural of _that_ is _tha(i)_. Distinguish from _thai_ (they),
3rd pers. plur.
3. _Yhon(e)_, more often an adjective, has also a substantive use in
three cases only (IV. 502, 506; XIV. 280).
_Relative and Interrogative._--1. The relative pronoun is _that_ or
_at_, never _quha_. _At_ is a purely Northern form. _Quhais_ and
_quham_ occur occasionally as oblique cases. In _quhom_, as in words
like _so_, _mor_, etc., there is evidence of Southern influence. _Quha_
is used as an interrogative. The simple _quhilk_ occurs but once
(XVIII. 225, see note), where E has a different reading; otherwise it
is in the form _the quilk that_.
2. The relative in the oblique cases is often omitted: _the small folk
thai had thar_ (IX. 261). This is a marked feature of the _Wallace_.
_Indefinite._--1. _None_ for _nane_ occurs only once (IX. 485); and
so, too, _ilkone_ for _ilkane_, rhyming with a proper name (XI. 303).
_Nane_ is used both as substantive and as adjective. As adjective it
comes before a word beginning with a vowel. Before consonants and _h_,
_na_ or _no_ is used. In two cases _no_ precedes a vowel: XIII. 145;
XVI. 249.
2. _Othir_, often = “each other,” as _Thai dang on othir_ (X. 680).
3. The plural of _man_ has a pronominal use = _one_, German “man”: _as
men in the Bibill seys_ (I. 466); _men mycht se_ (X. 678), etc.
VERBS.
1. Note the periphrastic form with _gan_ in E (_can_ in a few cases),
_can_ always in C: _all the land gan occupy_ (I. 184); _all can thai
cry_ (XII. 200). The past tense of _can_ is _couth_: _thar vittale
all fast couth fale_ (VIII. 460): whence, by analogy, the false form
_begouth_ for past of _gan_, itself the past of _ginnen_, to begin.
2. Weak verbs form their past tense and past participle in _it_ or
_yt_, the latter being more common in E. In certain cases the vowel
drops out, as in _dwelt_. After _r_, _l_ (_ll_), _n_, the ending is
often in _d_, as _herd_, _ansuerd_, etc.
NOTE.--_Felt_ for the ordinary _feld_ occurs once, in III. 119. _Cald_,
too, for _callit_, is forced to a rhyme (XIII. 61). The proper past of
_send_ is _send_.
3. The present tense indicative is, _I spek_, _thou spekis_, _he
spekis_, _we spek_, etc. But when the personal pronoun is separated
from the verb, or when the subject is a noun or relative pronoun or
other form, the ending is in _is_ or _ys_ throughout. _Cf._ _yhow that
takis_ (XVI. 592); _yhe that this redis_ (VI. 269); _all men fleis the
did_ (IX. 90), etc.
4. The imperative plural is in _is_ (_ys_): _departis us_ (VI. 543). It
is more rare without the ending (XI 309; XII. 227, etc). This, however,
is the rule when the imperative is followed by its pronoun: _luk yhe_
(XII. 217).
5. The present participle ends in _and_. Doubling of the consonant may
occur after a short vowel--_e.g._, _wonnand_ (X. 160).
6. The verbal noun (so-called) ends in _yng_ or _ing_. In many examples
the _g_ is dropped, as the tendency was and is in Scots, and we have a
form in _yn(e)_. _Cf._ _fechting_ (XII. 119) and _fechtyn_ (III. 241).
And these may rhyme, which shows that in sound the difference was not
apparent (_cf._ IX. 120). Sometimes the particular form depends on the
MS.--_e.g._, VI. 520, C _supposing_: E _supposyn_. The same thing is
found in proper names with a similar termination.
7. The past participle of strong verbs has ending _yn_ or _in_, seldom
_en_. _Clymen_ in X. 648, where the correct form, _clummyn_, is given
in 606, is either really a surviving or intruded infinitive, or has
been assimilated to it.
N.B.--VII. 524, C _cum_: E _cummyn_; X. 506, C _won_: E _wonnyn_.
8. The infinitive has dropped all trace of an ending. The _e_ which
sometimes appears is silent. It is formed by prefixing _to_ or _till_,
in certain cases with _for_ in addition. For one case we have a reduced
infinitive with _at_: _a-do_ (X. 348).
ADVERBS.
1. _him allane_ is a strengthened form of _him ane_ (VI. 272, 320),
and is the more frequent of the two; equivalent to German “allein” and
analogous in construction to the pronoun with _self_. In Early Scots
_alane_ is attached to the dative, in later and modern Scots to the
possessive, _his ane_, etc.: the fuller form, from a confusion with
_lone_, is now _his lane_, etc.
2. The surviving phrase, _the morn_ (XIV. 478) occurs once for the
older _to-morn_. Mr. Gregory Smith says that the former “begins to
appear in M. Sc.” (Middle Scots, 1450-1600),[186] and MS. E indeed reads
_to-morn_ in the passage above.
3. Note the compounds with _gat_ (a way), _thusgat_, _swagat_, etc.: in
XIX. 253; C _swagatis_; E _swagat_: also _howgatis_, etc., preserving
Genitive ending.
4. The forms _on liff_ (XVIII. 154), _on slepe_ (VII. 192), _on stray_
(XIII. 195), etc., are peculiarly Northern forms for “alive,” “asleep,”
etc. _Cf._ also _on fer_, _on flot_.
PREPOSITIONS.
1. _Till_ = _to_, the former being a Northern fashion. C frequently
extends to _on-to_, _on-till_, as in VI. 622, XVII. 29, etc.
2. Note the verbal preposition _that I of tell_, etc.
3. _Be_ and _by_ are common to both MSS., C more frequently the latter,
probably a Southern influence. Strictly in Scots _be_ alone denotes
agency; _by_ usually = beyond, as in _by ordinar_, etc.
CONJUNCTIONS.
1. The verb _suppos_ is several times used as a conjunction.
2. _the-quhethir_ = _thohquhether_ = _thohquether_, “nevertheless,”
unknown to the Southern dialects.[187]
[186] _Specimens of Middle Scots_, p. xxxviii.
[187] _Specimens of Early English_, Morris and Skeat, vol. ii.
GLOSSARY
1. Familiar words slightly disguised by spelling are not included.
2. C = Cambridge MS. of _The Bruce_; E = Edinburgh MS.; H = Hart’s
printed edition; S = Skeat’s edition for Scottish Text Society
(S.T.S.); N.E.D. = New English Dictionary; A.S. = Anglo-Saxon;
A.F. = Anglo-French; O.F. = Old French; O.N. = Old Norse; N.E.
= Northern English; v. = verb; p.t. = past tense; p.p. = past
participle; s. = substantive.
3. _i_ and _y_ are completely interchangeable. In such cases as
_ar_, _air_, _ayr_ (_ere_), consult under first or earlier form.
4. Only the more significant or interesting references have been
given, or those of single occurrence.
A, one, a single: _A gatis_, in one way, uniformly, IV. 702
Abaid, _s._, delay: _v._, waited = abode
Abais, _v._, to abash, dismay, discourage;
_p.p._ Abaysit, dismayed
Abasing, Abaysyng, etc., _s._, dismay, discouragement
Abandoune, Abaundoune, give up;
make subject, IV. 655, etc.;
behave boldly: _at abandoune_, recklessly;
_in abandoune_, loosely
Abovin, _prep._ and _adv._, above (A.S. _ábúfan_);
also Abuf
Acquyt, _v._, free
Ado, to do = _at do_ (N.E. infin.), X. 348
Afald, “one fold,” single, XX. 618
Affeir, Affer, _s._, bearing, pomp
Afferis, belongs to, becomes (Anglo-Fr. _afferir_, to belong). See Effeir
Affermit, confirmed
Affy, trust
Agane, Aganis, against
Air, Ayr, _s._, heir
Air, Ayr, _adv._, ere, formerly (A.S. _ǣr_). See Eir
Air, _v._, are, IV. 704
Alabast, alabaster
Alkyn, _adj._, every kind
Aller, _gen. pl._ of all: _thar aller_, of them all, I. 137. See
_Grammar_
All-gat, Allgait, always;
every way, XVIII. 451
All-weldand, “all-wielding,” omnipotent
Alsone, Alsoyn(e), as soon, very soon
Als-tit, very soon
Alsua, also
Alswith, very quickly
Ameyssyt, appeased, XVI. 134 (O.F. _amesir_)
Amonist, _v._, to admonish, exhort, VIII. 348
Amonestyng, Amonystyng, _s._, advice, exhortation
Amorus, _adj._, amorous
Amouris, _s._, love
Amovis, _v._, moves;
_p.p._, Amovyt
Anamalyt, _p.p._, enamelled, XX. 305
Anciente, antiquity, VI. 252 (A.F. _ancienté_)
Anent, _prep._, near;
towards;
opposite to, XIX. 512
Anerly, only, merely, alone
Angyr, anger, affliction, suffering, I. 235, II. 519;
also _adj._, Angry, difficult, unfavourable, V. 70;
pained, III. 530;
annoying, XVIII. 515
Anis, Anys, once: _at anys_, at once
A-pane, for all that, nevertheless;
really a mere expletive: “at a pinch” (Skeat)
Apert, _adj._, open: _in apert_, openly, XIX. 217
Appurvait, provided
Aquynt, acquainted
Ar, Air, Ayr, _adv._, before, formerly (A.S. _ǣr_)
Ar, an oar;
_pl._ aris
Arbytre, judgment, decision, I. 75 (O.F. _arbitre_ or _arbitrie_)
Arest, _s._ and _v._, arrest, stop
Arettit, _v._, _p.p._, accused, XIX., 20 (O.F. _aretter_, to accuse)
Arsoune, saddle-bow, XVI. 131
Assay, _v._, “essay,” try, attempt, attack;
also _p.t._, underwent, I. 448
Assege, _s._, siege;
also _v._, Assegit, besieged
Assenyhe, war-cry;
also, ensenyhe
Assentit, “assented,” agreed
Assignit, _p.p._, assigned
Assis, assize, court of law, XIX. 55
Assolyheit, _v._, _p.t._, absolved, set free
Assonyheit, _p.p._, excused (O.F. _essoigner_)
Assouerans, _s._, assurance
Assouerit, _v._, “assured,” give confidence to, encourage, VI. 225;
also _intrans._, to have confidence in, rely upon, XI. 309
Ath, Ayth, oath
Atour, _prep._, over, above
Atour, _s._, gear, equipment (O.F. _atour_, _ator_, furniture, gear)
Aucht, _v._, ought;
_p.p._, possessed, I. 45
Auchty, eighty
Aulde, old
Availyhe, Availl, to be of use
Avalyhe, in phrase IX. 147, “avail what may avail,” come what will.
Availl, _v._, lower
Avaward, vanguard
Avenand, handsome, graceful (O.F. _avenant_, well-proportioned)
Avent, _v._, to give air to, cool, XII. 145
Aventurous, “adventurous,” dangerous, risky
Averty, shrewd, prudent
Avisè, skilful, II. 271, prudent
Avisment, Avisement, advice, consideration
Avis, advice, opinion;
sound judgment, X. 269
Awayward, in their going away, XVI. 584
Awblasteris, arbalisters, crossbow-men, XVII. 236 (E). See Oblesteris
Awmener, a purse (O.F. _aumosniere_, a bag for alms)
Awter, altar, II. 33, 34
Aynd, _s._, breath (O.N. _andi_)
Aynding, _s._, breathing
Ay-quhar, everywhere
Ayr, oar;
_pl._ Ayris
Ayth, oath
Bacheler, Bachiller, a young knight, not displaying his own banner but
following that of another
Baid. See Abaid
Baill, burning mass (A.S. _bǣl_, great fire)
Bailyheys, bailiffs
Bair, _v._, _p.t._, bore
Bait, Bate, a boat (A.S. _bāt_)
Baitit, _v._, _p.t._, baited, fed. See Bayt
Baneour, a banner-bearer
Banys, bones
Banyst, _v._, _p.p._, banished
Banrentis, bannerets, XI. 259: knights bringing vassals under their own
banner. _Cf._ Bacheler
Bar, _v._, _p.t._, bore: _bar on hand_, maintained against, hence
condemned, excluded, I. 62. See note
Barblyt, barbed
Barell-ferraris, vessels for carrying liquid, XV. 39. See note
Bargane, _s._ and _v._, fight, encounter
Barganyng, _s._, fighting, combat
Barnage, baronage (O.F. _barnaige_, gathering of barons)
Barnè = barnage (word of two syllables)
Barras, barriers, outwork (O.F. _barres_; _pl._ of _barre_, a stake)
Barrit, _p.t._, barred
Basnet, a helmet of conical shape (O.F. _bacin_, a basin, giving dimin.
_bacinet_)
Bat(e), boat. See Bait
Bath, both
Battaillyt, Battalit, furnished with battlements
Battale, battell, a battalion, division of the army
Battel-sted, a battlefield, XV. 74
Bauld, _adj._, bold;
also _adv._, Bauldly
Bayt, to feed
Bawlmyt, embalmed
Be, _prep._, by
Bedene, Bedeyn, straightway, quickly;
in XV. 108 as an expletive, or with no particular force
Beforn, _prep._ and _adv._, before
Begouth, _v._, _p.t._ of began. See _Grammar_.
Begunnyn, Begonnyn, _v._, _p.p._, begun
Behaldand, _v._, _pr. p._, beholding
Behufis, _v. impers._, it behoves: _behufit away_, had to go, VI. 210
Bekand, warming, XIX. 552
Belif(f), speedily, soon
Bemys, beams
Benk, bench
Berdlass, beardless
Berfrois, a tower, modern _belfry_. See note X. 708
Berne, a barn
Berynes, _s._, burial, variant of “buriness” (A.S. _byrignes_, a burial)
Bet, _v._, beat, XIII. 158
Bet, _v._, _p.t._, improved, mended, XIX. 497 (A.S. _betan_, to better,
repair)
Betane, pursued, _p.p._ (Northern) of _betake_, III. 159
Betaucht. See Beteche
Betraiss, to betray;
_p.p._ Betrasyt, Betresyt
Beteche, to commit, hand over;
_part._, betaucht
Betyd, _v._;
_pr. sub._, happen
Biggit, built and so, inhabited, XIV. 383
Bikkyr, Bykkir, to skirmish;
_pr. part._, Bikkyrring;
_p.t._, Bykkerit
Blenknyt, _v._;
_p.t._, blinked, glanced;
variant of next form
Blenkyt, looked to the side, glanced, shone (A.S. _blīcan_, to shine)
Bodword, a message, XV. 423 (N.E. only)
Bodyn, _p.p._ (obs.), of Bid, bidden, challenged to fight;
armed, VII. 103
Bollis, bushels
Boruch, pledge (A.S. _borh_, a pledge)
Bot, but
Boune, Bown, Bowne, prepared, ready;
_adj._ and _p.p._;
_v._, bown, to make ready
Bow-draucht, bow-shot
Bourdand, jesting, humorous, VIII. 383 (O.F. _bourder_, to jest)
Boyis, fetters, X. 763 (O.F. _boie_, _buie_)
Brad, Braid, broad
Bra-syd, brae--_i.e._, hill-side
Brast, _v._, to break, “burst,” XV. 479;
_p.t._, Brest, Brist.
See _Language_, “r”
Bredis, _v._, expand, spread out, XVI. 68 (A.S. _brædan_, to spread)
Breid, breadth: _on breid_, in breadth (A.S. _brædu_, breadth)
Brig, Bryg, _s._, bridge: as _v._, Briggit, bridged
Brocht, broucht, brought
Browdyn, _p.p._, embroidered
Bruk(e), _v._, enjoy
Brulyheit, broiled, burned
Brym, shore;
originally “the line which separates the land from the sea”
(Max Müller)
Bryn, to burn. See _Language_, “r”
Brynstane, brimstone
Bundin, Bundyn, _p.p._, bound
Burchis, _s. pl._, burghs, towns
Burd, board: Burdys, Burdis (II. 96, V. 388), the boards of a
temporary table
Burgeonys, leaves, fresh shoots, V. 10
Buschement, an ambush
Busk, to prepare oneself, get ready;
_past_, buskit
But, _prep._, without: _but persaving_, without being seen, XVII. 92
Bynk. See Benk
Byrd, it behoved;
_past of reflexive verb_: VI. 316
Byrkis, birches
Byrnys, “birnies,” shirts of mail
Cald, Cauld, cold
Call, to drive. See note on X. 227;
labour, XIX. 174
Can, did (_auxiliary_). _Cf._ Gan
Cant, active, brisk
Car, “care” in sense of grief, regret
Cariage, Caryage, _s._, baggage
Carle, Carll, churl, peasant
Carpand, _v._, _pr. p._, talking
Carpi(y)ng, _s._, speaking, narrative
Cataill, Catell, property, III. 735, V. 275. See Fe. Chaucer has it in
this sense
Cause, Cawse (two syllables), causeway, highroad (O.Nor.F. _caucie_ =
_chaussée_)
Certis, certainly, I. 21, XVII. 812
Chak-wachis, _s._, “check-watches,” inspectors of the guard
Challans, _s._, challenge
Challans, _v._, accuse, XIX. 60 (O.F. _chalonger_)
Chalmer, Chamur, Chamyr, Chawmer, chamber. See on _Language_, “m”
Chapyt, _p.p._, escaped
Charge, business on hand, I. 141
Chargeand, _pr. p._ of charge, load, XVI. 458;
_p.p._, chargit, IV. 401, etc.
Charre (two syllables), _s._, a collection of chariots or waggons
Chasty, _v._, to chasten;
check, I. 122;
reprove, IX. 742, 743, 751
Cheis, Cheys, choose. See Ches
Chekys, gate-posts, X. 229
Chemyr, “Chimer,” a loose gown, specially that of a bishop, to which
the lawn sleeves are attached, XVI. 580
Ches, _v._, to choose;
_p.t._, Chesi(y)t;
_p.p._, Chosyn
Chevisance, provision, III. 402 (O.F. _chevir_, to furnish)
Cheyff, in: directly from the Lord Paramount
Childer, _s. pl._, children. See _Grammar_
Childyne, _s._--_i.e._, childing, travail with a child
Chos, _s._, choice, III. 264
Claif, Clafe, Claff, _v._, _p.t._, clove, cleft
Clap, knock, noise, X. 401
Cled, _v._, _p.t._, clad
Cleket, catch, trigger (F. _cliquet_, a catch), X. 401;
XVII. 674
Clengit, cleared, emptied
Clergy, learning, IV. 689
Clerkis, men of learning, I. 249
Clething, clothing
Cleuch, a gorge, hollow
Clummyn, _p.p._ of Clym, climb
Cole (two syllables), a buffet. See note on VII. 623
Com, _s._, coming
Compering, _s._, comparison, I. 261
Compositur, arbiter, I. 883
Conabill, _adj._, proper, fitting, III. 290, V. 266 (O.F. _covenable_,
suitable)
Confort, comfort
Conand. See Cunnand
Consaf, _v._, conceive;
_p.p._, consavit, XX. 186
Conteyning, Contynyng = containing, _s._, demeanour, behaviour
Conteyn, _v._, demean or carry oneself;
_past_, Contenyt
Contrar, _adj._, contrary;
also Contrar, _s._, oppression, I. 461
Contraryit, _v._, _p.t._, countered, opposed
Convyn, Convyne. See Covyne
Cosynage, relationship, V. 135
Cosyne, cousin, near relative
Coupillyt, “coupled,” united
Couth, (1) could, (2) did _auxiliary_, III. 460, XX. 250;
past of _can_.
See _Grammar_ (_Verb_)
Covatis, covetousness
Cover, _v._, to recover;
_p.t._, Coverit
Coveryng, recovery, IX. 113
Covyne, _s._, counsel, XIII. 122;
agreement, mental power, IX. 77;
secret design or contrivance;
condition, XIII. 219 (O.F. _covine_, _couvine_, _convine_, manner of
being, contrivance)
Crakkis (“cracks”), explosions;
_gynis for crakkis_, engines for explosions, guns, XVII. 250;
so also _crakkis of wer_, XIX. 399
Croice, _s._, cross, III. 461
Cruk, _s._, a “crook,” a large hook, X. 363
Crykis, crevices, X. 602, 605 (O.F. _crique_)
Cuke, a cook
Culter, a coulter, IV. 113
Cummyrsum, “cumbersome,” difficult to cross
Cun, _v._, to know, XIX. 182 (A.S. _cunnan_, to know)
Cunnand, _s._, covenant, agreement
Cunnannes, _s._, cunning, III. 712
Cuntyrnans = Countynans, Contenance, face, manner, IX. 273
Cunyhe, a coign, corner
Custumabilly, customarily, XV. 236
Dang. See Dyng
Dantè, Daynte, _s._, pleasure, eagerness, honour, affection
Daw, of, “of day”--_i.e._, out of life: _doyn out of dawis_,
killed, VI. 650
Dawing, Dawyng, _s._, dawning
Dawit, _p.t._, dawned;
_p.pt._, Dawyn
De, _v._, to die;
_p.t._, Deit
Debowalit, Debowellit, _v._, _p.p._, disembowelled. XX. 285, 570
Ded, Deid, _s._, death;
_pl._, Dedis, XVII. 115: _done to ded_, slain
Dedeynyheit, him, _v._, _p.t. impers._, he deigned
Defawtyt, “defaulted,” put in fault, I. 182
Defoull, defile
Degyse (three syllables), feigned, XIX. 459 (F. _déguisé_, disguised)
Deill, _s._, part, bit: _nocht a deill_, not a bit
Delitabill, pleasant
Deli(y)ver, _adj._, nimble, quick;
also _adv._, Deliverly, Delyverly
Demanyne, to waste, spoil, ill-treat;
to rule, manage;
to be behaved, to conduct oneself, V. 229: _p.t._, Demane(y)t
(O.F. _demener_, to treat, exercise, etc.)
Dempt, doomed
Demyng, judgment, doom
Demys, judges, decides (A.S. _dēman_, to judge)
Den, _v._, to dam, XIV. 354
Depart, to part, depart, VI. 552
Der, _v._, dare, risk. III. 382
Deray, disorder, injury (O.F. _desrai_, disorder, harm)
Derenyhe, _v._, prove, vindicate (O.F. _desraisnier_, to render
a reason, defend);
_s._, single combat or duel, XIII. 324, 325
Derff, strong, daring
Deris, _v._, harms (A.S. _derian_, to harm)
Det, _s._, debt
Devis, _v._, narrate;
determine, propose, plan (F. _deviser_, speak, decide, etc.);
also _noun_, _at all devis_, in every way, IV. 264, etc.;
_at thair devis_, to their liking, according to their plan, X. 363
Devour, duty (O.F. _deveir_)
Dey, _v._, to die;
_p.t._, Deyt.
See De
Dicht, _v._, dress, prepare (A.S. _dihtan_, to prepare);
_p.p._, Dycht
Digne, worthy
Dik, ditch, entrenchment;
as _v._, _Dik thame_, entrench themselves, XVII. 271
Disclar, _v._, declare, I. 75
Discrif, Discryre, _v._, describe;
_p.p._, Discrivit
Discure, _v._, discover
Discurrouris, “discoverers,” scouts, spies
Disese, _s._, discomfort
Disherys, Dysherysys, _v._, disinherit
Dispari(y)t, _v._, _p.p._, in despair
Dispend, _v._, to spend
Dispending, _s._, what they might spend--_i.e._, money--VIII. 509
Dispitous, _adj._, spiteful, cruel;
also _adv._, spitefully, severely, angrily
Disponis, _v._, disposes
Dispulyheit, _p.p._, despoiled
Dissaf, _v._, deceive
Dissat, _s._, deceit
Distrenyhit, compelled
Distrowbilling, _s._, disturbance, annoyance, V. 216
Dittit, closed up (A.S., _dyttan_, to close up)
Do, thrive, succeed, II. 128
Dochtrys, daughters, I. 200
Dongen, Dungin. See Dyng
Dosnyt, Doysnyt, stunned, dazed
Dour, determined, stubborn, severe
Dowtyne, _s._, doubting, XIV. 230
Doyne, _p.p._ of do, done
Dre, Drey, _v._, endure (A.S. _drëogan_, to suffer)
Dreid, _s._, dread, fear: _but drede_, doubtless, IV. 277;
_withouten dreid_, without doubt, V. 579
Dreuch, Drewch, drew, dragged
Drif, Dryf, Dryve, _v._, to drive;
continue, X. 699;
pull, X. 255;
Drafe, Drivin
Drouery, Drowry, love. See note on VIII. 492
Dule, sadness, grief (O.F. _duel_, _dueil_, sorrow, suffering)
Dulfull, “doleful,” sad
Dusche, a heavy blow
Duschit, fell heavily, XVII. 693
Dyng, _v._, strike;
_past_, Dang;
_p.p._, Dungin, Doungyn
Dynnyt, made a sound, XVI. 131
Dyspitit, _v._, _p.t._, treated spitefully, hated, IV. 596
E, Ey, _s._, eye. See Eyn
Effer, Effeir(e), Effere (also Affeir), _s._, bearing, demeanour,
I. 361, V. 608, VII. 126, etc.;
stature, XX. 515;
equipment, belongings, XI. 196;
business, X. 305 (O.F. _afaire_, thing, business, etc.)
Efferis. See Afferis
Effray, fear;
also Effraying
Effrait, Effrayit, _p.p._, terrified;
also _adv._, Effrayitly
Eft, again, VI. 378
Eftir, _adv._, afterwards;
_prep._, after;
also Eftirward, Efterwartis
Eftsonis, soon after
Egging, _s._, urging, pressing
Eild, Elde, _s._, age
Eir, Er(e), _adv._, “ere,” before
Eisfull, easy, V. 70
Ek, _v._, add to
Ek, _adv._, also (A.S. _ēac_)
Eld-fadir, grandfather
Eldris, Eldrys, elders, forefathers
Elys, eels, II. 577
Emang, among
Embandownyt, _v._, _p.p._, subjected. See Abandoune
Enchawfyt, _v._, _p.p._, heated, incensed
Enchesoun(e), Enchesone, occasion, reason, cause (O.F. _enchaison_;
Lat. _occasionem_)
Enclynit, _v._, _p.t._, inclined
Endentur, _s._, indenture
Endlang, _prep._ and _adv._, along;
forward, XIX. 356: _endlang furth_, right along forward, XVI. 548
Eneuch, enough
Enew, _adj. pl._, enough
Enfors, _s._, force, XVII. 448
Enforsaly, Enforcely, forcibly
Enforsit, “enforced,” strengthened
Engreif, Engreiff, grieve, annoy
Engynour, engineer, XVII. 434, 663
Enkrely, Encrely, especially;
really, III. 529;
earnestly, heartily
Enpres, Enpris, Empris, enterprise;
price, value, X. 507