The Bruce
[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