The Bruce
are from different hands. The fifteenth century had no “consistent
orthography,” but a scribe would probably have of himself; would
not, at the least, exhibit the systematic differences that mark the
MSS. in question. That the differences _are_ due to the scribes is
indicated by their occurrence even in proper names where E is, on the
whole, much more accurate than C.[20] Add that C offers more traces
of southern English influences; that it invariably gives the weak
form _I_ for the _Ic_ or _Ik_ of E, and substitutes _can_ for the
latter’s _gan_; that it regularly prefers _of_ to the _off_ which
distinguishes E and in certain positions _i_ for _y_--these with other
minor peculiarities, not being vital in character, are certainly due
to individual idiosyncrasies in spelling. Ramsay is an honest scribe,
who, at places, cannot read his original, and leaves a blank which
must be supplied from the copy of the chaplain.[21] There is thus not
the faintest reason for supposing but one scribe to have been at work.
At the same time the essential agreement of the two transcripts shows
that we are dealing with a single, complete, familiar poem which has
suffered in precision of copying from the usual mishaps incident to its
manner of publication and preservation.
[20] And Koeppel, while granting the general superiority of C, gives as
his opinion that in not a few cases E, nevertheless, where it differs
from C, preserves the genuine, original reading (_Englische Studien_,
x., p. 377, note).
[21] IX. 492, XIX. 459, XX. 396.
3. THE PRESENT EDITION.
The present edition of _The Bruce_ is based upon the printed text of
the Cambridge MS., collated throughout with that of E--that is, upon
the versions of Skeat and Jamieson. I have, however, adopted rather
more readings from E than does Skeat, also a few more from Wyntoun, and
offer some slight emendations--_e.g._, _luffys_ for _liffys_ in Bk. II.
527, _oft_ for _off_ in III. 194, _Fyn all_ for _Fyngall_ in II. 69,
etc. I have profited, too, by criticism of the published text as in the
adoption of Dr. Neilson’s _corn-but_ in Bk. II. 438. The question of
Hart’s version has been discussed above; it is valid only as a check
upon the MSS. Variants of any interest or importance are given in the
footnotes.
There has been no modernization of the language save in the case of the
rubrics, which are no part of the text proper and have been contributed
by the scribes or editors in order to facilitate the understanding
of the poem. I have thus adhered to the spirit while modifying the
letter of their work. But while avoiding any change in the language
of the poem or even any attempt at a uniform spelling, I have taken
a few harmless liberties with its alphabet and restricted certain of
the letters to their modern values, substituting for others a modern
equivalent. Skeat did this in the matter of the ancient “thorn” letter
= _th_. In consideration of the general reader, I have gone somewhat
farther, viz.:
1 The _s_ with the ornamental curl I read as merely _s_; Jamieson and
Skeat take it as, generally, = _ss_. But such alternative forms as
_Parys_,[22] _purches_,[23] and _purpos_,[24] on the one hand, and the
actual use of the tailed letter following the ordinary type in _dress_,
_press_,[25] fix the usage I have adopted.[26] There are a few
exceptions in which this letter is probably a contraction for
_is_--_e.g._, II. 366, 459.
[22] I. 345.
[23] II. 572.
[24] III. 287.
[25] XIV. 246; XVI. 253.
[26] _Cf._ also in Gregory Smith’s _Specimens of Middle Scots_, p. xxx.
2. I have distributed their modern values to _i_, _j_, _u_, _v_, _w_.
There is no advantage in preserving such forms as _iugis_, _Evrope_,
_wndyr_: the hedge of the language--to use Lowell’s simile--is prickly
enough without these accessories. Moreover, I have throughout written
_Edward_ for _Eduuard_ or _Eduard_ and _Inglis_ for _Ynglis_ (C).
3. As Skeat has substituted “_th_” for the “thorn” (þ), I have done
likewise with the ancient English _g_ (ȝ), the “yok” letter, resolving
it into the digraph _yh_. As ultimately, in almost every case,
significant of the consonantal _y_, I might have simply replaced it
by that letter. But alternative forms, nearly without exception, show
the digraph, both in _The Bruce_ and in Wyntoun, giving _yhe_, _yhet_,
_yharnit_, _fenyhe_, etc., and in Wyntoun’s extracts _feyhnnyng_,
_senyhoury_, _yhystir-day_, _bayhllys_, etc. Even with the original
letter the _h_ is added as often as not. Apparently the usage, which
had practically disappeared from the southern practice, was in a
transitional stage on its way to its full revival in later Scots, where
it became fixed, at the hands of the printers, as _z_, and survives in
such forms as _Cadzow_, _capercailzie_, etc.[27] In I. 16, however, it
has been read as _g_ in _forget_, though _foryhet_ is to be found in
_Ratis Raving_, and in XV. 75 it is obviously _z_ in _Fi(t)z-Waryne_.
[27] _Cf._ Murray’s _Dialect of the Southern Counties of Scotland_, p.
*92; and _New. Eng. Dict._, G.
4. The placing of the capital letters and the punctuation are, of
course, modern.
Further, the poem in MSS. is not divided into Books, but paragraphs
are denoted by the insertion of a large capital; these, as in C, are
similarly marked in the text. The division into twenty Books was first
made by Pinkerton, and, as the most convenient, has been adopted by
Skeat in his editions. From Pinkerton also Skeat adopts the numbering
of the lines. Jamieson, however, made a division into fourteen Books
with a numbering to suit. Cosmo Innes gave up the Books in favour of
Cantos, with a fresh renumbering. To avoid confusion I have adhered
to Skeat’s divisions and numbering, which are those of Pinkerton;
inconvenient though the duplicate numbers certainly are, a totally new
and fourth arrangement would be much more so. To break up and make more
accessible the matter, I have also introduced, where possible, the
paragraphs of Jamieson distinguished by spaces, some of these, however,
being found in C. They are merely for the convenience of the reader. I
may, perhaps, draw attention to the critical treatment of _The Bruce_
as an historic document without which we move greatly in the dark. The
historical notes of the early editors are few and superficial. Skeat
does not profess to deal with the work strictly on this line (_note_,
vol. ii., p. 224), though he does not fail to pass unnecessary censure
at several places. But some such examination as I have tried to make
seems necessary in the interests of Scottish historiography.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE v-xii
1. MSS. and Editions v
2. The Scribes viii
3. The Present Edition x
INTRODUCTION xv-xxiii
1. _The Bruce_ as Romance xv
2. John Barbour xvi
3. Historic value of _The Bruce_ xx
TEXT OF “THE BRUCE.” BOOKS I-XX. 1-377
NOTES TO TEXT 378
APPENDIX A.--The Site of the Battle of Bannockburn 496
„ B.--Bruce’s Speech at Bannockburn 497
„ C.--The Numbers at Bannockburn 498
„ D.--The Throwing of the Heart 502
„ E.--The _Alexander_ and _The Bruce_ 505
„ F.--Mr. Brown’s “Sources” for _The Bruce_ 506
„ G.--Language and Orthography 511
„ H.--Grammar 513
GLOSSARY 519
LIST OF PRINCIPAL WORKS 545
INTRODUCTION
1. “THE BRUCE” AS ROMANCE.
The literary relationships of _The Bruce_ may be briefly indicated. It
stands at the beginning of Scottish literature; of its predecessors
and contemporaries we have but the names, or possible versions whose
place of origin is in dispute. In form and technique, including the
octosyllabic couplet, it plainly depends on the French metrical
romance, the most fruitful branch of a literature which, for quite two
centuries, had been the mother of literatures in Western Europe. The
opening line of _The Bruce_ characterizes at once the poem itself,
and what was best and most abundant in the literature of the Middle
Ages. Barbour, too, it is never overlooked, announces his work as
a “romance,” but as such, we gather from what precedes, only in a
technical sense; and no mediæval writer would consider this popular
method of treatment incompatible with strict accuracy and reality of
subject: that is a modern refinement. Barbour certainly did not, nor
did those who followed and used him; his selection of the model is
simply the expression of his desire to do his work in “gud manere.”
He anticipated Macaulay’s ambition in that his history was to differ
from the most attractive literary matter only in being true. There were
already in French many examples of contemporary history presented in
this way as a succession of incidents on the lines of personal memoirs,
though history had in the end succeeded in widening its outlook, and
consequently found more fitting expression in prose. But that was of
Barbour’s own age, and indeed Froissart had made his first essay, as an
historian, in verse, which later he recast and continued in the form
we know. All the necessities of Barbour’s case, however, led him the
other way--the despised condition of the prose vernacular as a literary
medium, from which, indeed, it never fully emerged; the character of
his audience, which would be either learned or aristocratic; and the
nature and associations of his subject, for which only the literature
of romance could furnish a parallel or supply the appropriate setting.
The literary qualities of _The Bruce_ are, therefore, those of its
model; it is a clear, vivid, easy-flowing narrative, and if it is also,
as romances tended to be, loose in construction and discursive, it
is never tedious, for it deals with real persons and events of real
interest, depicted with an admiring fidelity.
2. JOHN BARBOUR.
The year of John Barbour’s birth we do not know, an item which is
lacking also for Chaucer: 1320 is a good round guess. Nor have we any
knowledge of his family. If, however, the _St. Ninian_ in the _Legends
of the Saints_ be of Barbour, a claim for which there is much to be
said,[28] it may give us a clue. The adventure of Jak. Trumpoure,
there told, connects with the fact that Jaq. (James) Trampour had
land in Aberdeen bordering on that of an Andrew Barbour.[29] It may be
conjectured that the latter was John Barbour’s father, or other near
relative, since the vivid personal details of the affair in the _St.
Ninian_ must have come from Trumpour himself, and the fact that he was
a neighbour of the Barbours would explain how.
The name Barbour (_Barbitonsoris_) is obviously plebeian. Some ancestor
followed the business of barber, as some one of Chaucer’s possibly
did that of “hose-making.” The established spelling, Barbour, shows
a French termination which takes also the form Barbier, whence Mr.
Henderson concludes that John Barbour “was of Norman origin.”[30] But
the spelling is merely an accident of transcription; the oldest form is
Barber(e) (1357, 1365),[31] which the scribe of the Edinburgh MS. also
uses, and which Wyntoun rhymes with _here_ and _matere_; in a few cases
it is Barbar. As we might expect, the name was common enough in the
English-speaking districts of Scotland.