The Bruce
of Professor Freeman. Barbour’s “historical value,” it is affirmed,
“is as low as value can be,” and there are intermittent shrieks of
“shameless falsehood,” “conscious liar,” etc. The usual play is made
with the supposed identification of the two Bruces, and it is declared
that on this “the whole story hangs,” which, in its own way, is a
statement just as unwarranted and absurd. It is easy to fix on the
error as to Edward being in the Holy Land when the question arose as
to the succession, and the antedating of his death. But the critic,
with full opportunity for being correct, can sin as to dates quite as
egregiously. “In authentic history,” he says, “somewhat more than three
years passed between the death of Alexander III. in Lent, 1289, and the
coronation of John Balliol on St. Andrew’s Day, 1292.” Quite wrong.
In “authentic history” Alexander was killed on March 19, 1286 (1285
by old reckoning). This is a criticism of Barbour’s “six years” in I.
39! He objects to the statement that the Queen was put “in prison,”
because she was entertained in one of her husband’s manors. But she
is always officially spoken of as “in custody,” and the stone walls
of a manor even make a good enough prison. This is mere carping, and
most of the rest is of the same sort, where it does not depend on a
forcing or misunderstanding of the text. Barbour, he complains, makes
the difference between Bruce and Balliol “one between male and female
succession.” So, in a sense, it was (see on I. 54), but the critic has
not taken the trouble to understand how. Barbour, however, is certainly
confusing.
[48] _The Brus_, Spalding Club edition, 1856, p. ix.
[49] Vol. ii., p. 104.
[50] P. 108.
The fact is that these wayward judgments rest upon too narrow a
basis of induction, and that induction, too, usually irrelevant or
uncertain--considerations as to the nature of Romance, Barbour’s
literary awkwardness and literary dressing, with inadequate examination
of the external evidence. But if Barbour professes to write history,
as he does profess, and as he gives every evidence of honestly trying
to do, he can surely claim to be tried by the appropriate tests--those
of official records or other contemporary accounts, and, in the last
resource, by his performance so far as these carry us, and by an
estimate of the probable sources of what is peculiar to himself. Nor
must the quality of his critical equipment be overlooked; he frankly
lets us know that of certain incidents different versions were in
circulation--some said that the fatal quarrel between Bruce and Comyn
fell otherwise than as he has related, and he includes the divergent
accounts of how Bruce and his man escaped the hound; and there are
other matters for which, lacking certainty himself, he is content to
cite popular report. Towards prevailing and attractive superstitions,
necromancy, astrology, and the like, his attitude is bluntly sceptical;
yet an apparently well-attested case of prophecy--not one, it must
be owned, exhibiting any exceptional degree of penetration--he does
record, with very distinct reservation of judgment.[51] There is no
supernatural machinery in _The Bruce_, no visions, miraculous agencies,
or other such distractions: for these we must go to sober prose. But
such is not the manner of popular romance with which it has been
usual to class the manner of _The Bruce_. Barbour is not writing a
conventional romance with historic persons and incidents for his
material; he is writing history which has all the qualities of romance
in real life. Of the same type were the exploits of Edward Bruce, which
of themselves, he says, would furnish material for many romances.[52]
So comes it, then, that a careful and most competent investigator like
Joseph Bain can authoritatively pronounce _The Bruce_ to be “of the
highest value for the period,”[53] and affirm that “in these details
he is almost always correct, with occasional errors in names.”[54]
Barbour’s errors, indeed, lie on the surface, and are typical of his
time, not wilful perversions on his part--events are transposed, wrong
dates given, figures almost always exaggerated. On the other side a
study of the notes to the present volume will show how trustworthy he
is in the main, and, repeatedly, how strikingly and minutely accurate.
His profession to tell a truthful story, so far as his knowledge will
take him, must be accepted as fully borne out.
[51] Bk. IV. 767-774. Contempt for astrology, indeed, had already gone
pretty far--Chaucer’s _Franklin_ has it (_F.s’_ Tale); but the contrary
opinion still held most ground, and prophecy was in the enjoyment of
full respect. Theological authority was divided and uncertain on the
matter.
[52] IX. 492.
[53] _Calendar of Documents_, vol. iii., p. ix, note. Book I. is a
hasty introduction.
[54] _Ibid._
Moreover the reflection is forced upon us at many points that, in
addition to the oral accounts of which he makes use, those of actual
participators like Sir Allan of Cathcart, and John Thomson for the
Irish campaigns, besides relations and reminiscences otherwise derived,
Barbour had various contemporary writings at his command. Such was
certainly the case with Sir Thomas Gray, who wrote, a prisoner in
Edinburgh Castle, twenty years before. His _Scalacronica_ embodies
the results of research in the library of his prison where he found
Scottish chronicles in verse and prose, in Latin, French, and English,
and he expressly refers to such chronicles in his account of Bruce,
letting us know that there was in existence a description of the
Battle of Bannockburn, and, incidentally, that Barbour even has not
exhausted the fund of stories of adventure told of the fugitive King.
More curious and suggestive is the citation, in the bye-going, by Jean
le Bel, Canon of Liège, of a “history made by the said King Robert”
(_en hystoire faitte par le dit roy Robert_), that is the King Robert
whom, he tells us, Edward I. had chased by hounds in the forests.[55]
It is an allowable inference that these accessible materials were
known to the learned and inquiring Barbour, when he took to deal with
a subject familiar to him from his earliest years, and so congenial to
his instincts, literary and national.
It is worth noting that Sir Walter Scott, on the publication of the
_Lord of the Isles_, which draws so handsomely upon _The Bruce_,
was accused of a lack of proper patriotism, meaning the pungent and
rather aggressive patriotism of a long-irritated Scotland distinctive
of _The Wallace_ and certain subsequent productions, but not of _The
Bruce_, the spirit of which, too, was in harmony with that of the great
reviver of romance. There is no malice in _The Bruce_; the malice and
bitterness are in the contemporary war-literature of the other side.
And Barbour is no sentimentalist; his patriotism is not pretentious
or exclusive, nor such as leads him to depreciate an opponent, and
is therefore not a distorting influence on facts, as Mr. Henderson
postulates it must have been.[56] It is not possible to point to a
single error on Barbour’s part which is fairly traceable to this cause.
And his faults and errors, such as they are, may be paralleled over and
over again from the most reputable of that century’s historians, to say
nothing of those who, in later times, had to weave their web from less
tangled and broken material.
[55] _Chronique_, I, chap. xxii.
[56] _Scottish Vernacular Literature_, p. 43.
THE BRUCE
BOOK I.
Storys to rede ar delitabill,
Suppos that thai be nocht bot fabill:
Than suld storys that suthfast wer,
And thai war said on gud maner,
Have doubill plesance in heryng. 5
The fyrst plesance is the carpyng,
And the tothir the suthfastnes
That schawys the thing rycht as it wes:
And suth thyngis that ar likand
Tyll mannys heryng ar plesand. 10
Tharfor I wald fayne set my will,
Giff my wyt mycht suffice thartill,
To put in wryt a suthfast story,
That it lest ay furth in memory,
Swa that na tyme of lenth it let, 15
Na ger it haly be forget.
For aulde storys that men redys,
Representis to thaim the dedys
Of stalwart folk that lyvyt ar,
Rycht as thai than in presence war.
And certis, thai suld weill have prys 20
That in thar tyme war wycht and wys,
And led thar lyff in gret travaill,
And oft, in hard stour off bataill,
Wan richt gret price off chevalry, 25
And war voydyt off cowardy.
As wes King Robert off Scotland,
That hardy wes off hart and hand;
And gud Schyr James off Douglas,
That in his tyme sa worthy was, 30
That off hys price and hys bounte,
In fer landis renownyt wes he.
Off thaim I thynk this buk to ma:
Now God gyff grace that I may swa
Tret it, and bryng it till endyng, 35
That I say nocht bot suthfast thing!
[15: S following H reads _lenth of tyme_, characterising the
expression in E “an obvious error.” But _cf._ analogous phrase in line
531, and see note.]
How the Lords of Scotland took the King of England to be Arbiter at the
last.
[Sidenote: 1290] _Discord over the Succession_]
[Sidenote: 1291] _The Dispute is referred to Edward I_]
Quhen Alexander the King was deid,
That Scotland haid to steyr and leid,
The land sex yher, and mayr perfay,
Lay desolat eftyr hys day; 40
Till that the barnage at the last
Assemblyt thaim, and fayndyt fast
To cheys a king thar land to ster,
That, off awncestry, cummyn wer
Off kingis that aucht that reawte, 45
And mayst had rycht thair king to be.
Bot envy, that is sa feloune,
Maid amang thaim discencioun.
For sum wald haiff the Balleoll king;
For he wes cummyn off the offspryng 50
Off hyr that eldest systir was.
And othir sum nyt all that cas;
And said, that he thair king suld be
That wes in als nere degre,
And cummyn wes of the neist male, 55
And in branch collaterale.
Thai said, successioun of kyngrik
Was nocht to lawer feys lik;
For thar mycht succed na female,
Quhill foundyn mycht be ony male 60
That were in lyne evyn descendand;
Thai bar all othir wayis on hand,
For than the neyst cummyn off the seid,
Man or woman, suld succeid.
Be this resoun that part thocht hale, 65
That the lord off Anandyrdale,
Robert the Bruys Erle off Carryk,
Aucht to succeid to the kynryk.
The barownys thus war at discord,
That on na maner mycht accord; 70
Till at the last thai all concordyt,
That all thar spek suld be recordyt
Till Schyr Edward off Ingland King;
And he suld swer that, but fenyheyng,
He suld that arbytre disclar, 75
Off thir twa that I tauld off ar,
Quhilk sulde succeid to sic a hycht;
And lat him ryng that had the rycht.
This ordynance thaim thocht the best,
For at that tyme wes pes and rest 80
Betwyx Scotland and Ingland bath;
And thai couth nocht persave the skaith
That towart thaim wes apperand;
For that at the King off Ingland
Held swylk freyndschip and cumpany 85
To thar King, that wes swa worthy,
Thai trowyt that he, as gud nychtbur,
And as freyndsome compositur,
Wald have jugyt in lawte:
Bot othir wayis all yheid the gle. 90
A! blynd folk full off all foly!
Haid yhe umbethoucht yhow enkrely,
Quhat perell to yhow mycht apper,
Yhe had nocht wrocht on that maner: