The Bruce
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]