BOOK I.

4 _on gud maner._ The best expansion of this phrase as an expression of Barbour’s ideal of style is in the _Alexander_:

“To mak it _on sa gud manere, Sa oppin sentence and sa clere As is the Frenche_” (p. 441).

15 _tyme of lenth._ In modern phrase, “length of time,” and Skeat accordingly follows Hart’s edition in so reading it. But “of lenth” is a common attributive phrase and may quite well stand here, though awkward to modern ears. In line 531 we have _this warld of lenth_ for “the length of this world,” which is a close enough parallel, and will not admit of alteration. In _Wyntoun_, too, occur such phrases as, “a merke schot large of lenth” (_Bk._ ix. 27, 419).

37 _Quhen Alexander the King was deid._ As in the first line of the well-known double verse given by Wyntoun as a fragment of the time; “Quhen Alexander our Kinge was dede.” Wyntoun, in his extract from _The Bruce_, here reads _oure_. Alexander III. was killed by falling, with his horse, over the cliff at Kinghorn in Fife, on March 19, 1286.

39 _six yher._ Rather less. Alexander “was dead” on March 19, 1286, which Barbour would reckon as 1285. The dispute over the succession began on the death of Queen Margaret on September 26, 1290.

40 _lay desolat._ Barbour, it may be from considerations of space or symmetry, or as a Bruce partisan, omits all mention of the child-Queen Margaret (1286-1290); Bruce “the Competitor,” indeed, held that his claim was superior to hers, and on Alexander’s death started a rising apparently against the succession of a female contrary to the ancient customs of the country. In his pleadings before Edward he claims to be “higher in degree and more worthy in blood” even than she (_Palgrave_, pp. 30-31). To the reign of Balliol (1292-1296) there is reference later; but no notice is taken of the rising under Wallace (1297-1298) nor of the Barons’ War (1299-1304); the former was carried on in the name of King John, and the latter was mainly a Comyn affair. Robert Bruce (King) took a fitful share in both operations on the national side, but ended as an active partisan of Edward I. (but see note on 611).

49 _sum wald haiff the Balleol king._ The active heads of his party were Sir John Comyn of Badenoch and William Fraser, Bishop of St. Andrews, two of the Guardians (_Palgrave_, p. 18). These two had assumed the control of the government (p. 16).

51 _eldest systir was._ The direct line of William the Lyon having failed, recourse was had to that of his brother, David Earl of Huntingdon. David’s only son died without issue. His eldest daughter, Margaret, was the mother of Devorgoil, or Devorgilla, mother of John Balliol who was thus the great-grandson of the Earl, and of the senior female branch. David’s second daughter, Isabella, had married Robert Bruce of Annandale father of the Competitor, who was thus the son of the second daughter, as Devorgilla was the daughter of the first.

54 _in als nere degree._ The legal phraseology used throughout by Barbour corresponds with the pleadings submitted by Bruce. These (Anglo-French) are given in full by Palgrave in his _Documents and Records_, vol. i.; the Latin version from the _Great Roll_, printed in Rymer’s _Fœdera_, vol. i., is only a notarial summary. Barbour, however, does not put the issue clearly. In the “branch collaterale” (_en lyne collateral_) of Earl David, Bruce was “in als nere degre” (_aussi pres en degre_) as Devorgilla. But Devorgilla was dead before the vacancy in the throne occurred; she had never been vested in the succession, and thus had no rights to transmit to her son (_cf._ 59, 60). The heritage, therefore, on the death of its possessor, came by law to him who was then nearest in blood--that is, to Bruce, as grandson of Earl David; for John Balliol, as great-grandson, was a degree further away (_qe en Sire Roberd de Brus meilleur dreyt deit reposer qe est plus procheyn du saunk qe en Sire Johan de Balliol qe est en plus loyngteyn degree._--_Palgrave_, p. 34, § 8). Though modern historians have scouted Bruce’s plea, it was quite sound for the Middle Ages. Bruce himself cites a contemporary case in Castile, where a younger brother was, by the law of the Visigoths--_i.e._, their version of Roman law--preferred to the son of the elder.

58 _nocht to lawer feys lik._ Balliol urged that the same law applied to kingdoms as to earldoms, and that thus a kingdom should pass to the next heir by seniority, “without any regard to nearness of degree” (_Palgrave_, 27, § 3). To this Bruce replies that kings are above the laws, and that the right to a kingdom should not be judged by common law, nor by laws applying to subjects and subject fiefs (29, § 5; 27, § 3), but by “the laws by which kings reign,” the “law of nations” (_dreit naturel_, 25, § 5); and he therefore appeals to Edward as “his Emperor” to judge accordingly (29, § 6), on the analogy of the German or Holy Roman Emperor, who was, in theory, the superior of Christian kings in temporal matters (_cf._ on 153). Balliol rebuts this with the further contention that the issue is not one of “imperial law,” since “the kingdom of Scotland is held of the Crown of England and of no Empire”; and that it would be to the prejudice of Edward’s Crown rights (_en prejudice de la coroune notre Seigneur le Roi_) if he judged the matter in his Court by imperial law (p. 43). Bruce, it will be observed, takes higher ground than Balliol, and presents a special interpretation of the (alleged) overlordship, on which see further note on 153. The distinction may seem over-refined to modern minds, but to the medieval mind, with its own “imperial” idea, it was both real and important. Bruce had other pleas in support of his main position, but on these Barbour does not touch (_cf._ on 153).

61 _in lyne evyn descendand._ The correct reading is fixed by the legal phrase, _en la dreyte lyne descendant_ (_Palgrave_, p. 31, § 2).

62 _Thai bar ... on hand._ Skeat says that “to bear on hand often signified to ‘assert strongly,’” and interprets it here as, “They asserted.” But this is meaningless in the present context, and the correct significance is as in Chaucer, “For _he bar hir on honde_ of trecherye” (_Complaynt of Faire Anelida_, line 158); and in _Troilus_ (1154-1155), “She _bar him on honde_ that this was don for malice”: hence, here “accused” in the sense of “controverted,” on the lines laid down in 59-64. The weaker sense is probably seen in _Prologue of the W. of B.’s Tale_, 380, 575, etc.

67 _Erle off Carryk._ The Competitor was not Earl; it was his son, father of King Robert, who married the widowed Countess of Carrick.

71-5. _thai all concordyt._ “The nobles, by unanimous consent, decreed among themselves to send serious (_solemnes_) messages to Edward King of England that in this cause he should be their higher judge” (Fordun, _Gesta Annalia_, lxx.). The parties were at bitter variance, and there was no other authority strong enough to enforce a decision (_ibid._). In fact, civil war was impending. On this account, Bishop Fraser of St. Andrews had already written to Edward on the matter (October, 1290). From this letter we gather that Balliol was about to approach Edward on his own behalf. The “Seven Earls” appealed in support of their own rights to elect a king (_Palgrave_, p. 14). Bruce submitted his claim to Edward, as against the guardians, who favoured Balliol (_ibid._, pp. 17, 18). Hemingburgh says that the Guardians of Scotland, fearing a popular outbreak, by the advice of the magnates sent to the King of England, that in a matter of such great doubt they might have the benefit of his advice (_ejus consilio fruerentur_, ii., p. 31).

88 _as freyndsome compositur_--_i.e._, “as a friendly arbiter” (_cf._ Hemingburgh in previous note). Fordun urges that the appeal did not imply any confession of overlordship, but Edward was appealed to as a “friendly and distinguished neighbour” (_amicabilis et vicinus præstantior_), to settle the difference “in the manner of a friendly compositor and for the sake of neighbourliness” (_Gesta Annalia_, lxx.). The first notice in Sir Thomas Gray’s _Scalacronica_ puts it that the Scots asked Edward to interfere in the interests of peace, and that he replied that he would consider the matter. At Norham the Scottish magnates are said to have asked him to try the case as sovereign lord (pp. 112, 119).

100 _Walis ... Ireland._ Edward I. crushed the main Welsh rising in 1282, and in 1284 annexed the principality. He took no special part in the conquest of Ireland, which belongs to the reign of Henry II. (1171).

103 _ryn on fute._ This, I take it, reflects the fact that Edward usually drew upon Wales and Ireland for the foot in his army. At Falkirk, indeed, Hemingburgh says that nearly all the English foot were Welsh. _Cf._ also XIII. 419 _ff._

140 _on Saracenys warryand._ Edward was in England. His crusading took place before he ascended the throne (1270-1272). The _Scalacronica_ says he was at Ghent (p. 112).

146 _ane assemble._ Edward met the prelates and barons of Scotland at Norham, May 10, 1291. In his safe-conduct granted to these, Edward declares “that this shall not be a precedent to the prejudice of Scotland” (Bain’s _Calendar_, ii., No. 474): _i.e._, their meeting him on English ground.

151 _all the senyhowry._ Edward had meanwhile (March 8, 23) sent writs to the cathedrals and chief monasteries of England, requesting to be furnished with extracts from histories and chronicles respecting the relations between England and Scotland. The responses are given in _Bain_, ii., No. 478, and _Palgrave_, pp. xcvii-cxv (see next note).

153 _to Robert the Bruys said he._ Palgrave points out that Bruce was the first to appeal to Edward as overlord, in conjunction with the “Seven Earls” with whom he was acting; all submitting themselves--relatives, friends, adherents, lands and goods--to the protection of the King and Crown of England (pp. xlviii, 15, 18). In this he finds nothing inconsistent with the speech here attributed to Bruce, which he takes, not from Barbour, but from Fordun, who gives the same account as Barbour of Edward’s offer and Bruce’s reply (_Gesta_, lxxii.). For Palgrave regards the original historic supremacy as a vague imperial relation, to which Edward tried to give a narrow feudal precision (p. xliii). Bruce, he says, could properly regard himself “as the _Laensman_ of the Monarch who represented the Bretwald, the Emperor or Basileus of Albion, or of Britain, and not the vassal of the King of England and Duke of Normandy” (p. xlix). Bruce, indeed, in one section of his pleadings addresses Edward as “his Sovereign Lord and his Emperor” (p. 29, § 6), but his pleading was against the purely feudal relationship (see on 58), the holding “_in cheyff_” (154), which would allow Edward the _dominium_ or ownership of Scotland, as contrasted with the _suzerainty_, which would grant a power of control. Edward insisted on the former.

169 _Assentyt till him._ After a delay of three weeks (June 2-3, 1292), nine of the Competitors made full acknowledgment of the supremacy of the King of England; the others acquiesced on August 3 (_Bain_, ii. 483, 507). The issue was finally narrowed down to a consideration of the respective claims of Balliol and Bruce. Barbour is misleading.

171 _He was king._ Judgment in favour of Balliol was given on November 17, 1292, at Berwick. Balliol resigned “his kingdom and people to” the King of England on July 7, 1296, “a litill quhile,” three years and seven months after.

173 _For litill enchesone._ Balliol was treated as an ordinary vassal, and finally summoned, with the Scottish magnates, to attend Edward on an expedition into France (June 29, 1294). Balliol, however, made a treaty with King Philip IV. In October he wrote Edward renouncing “the homage extorted from him by violence” (_Bain_, ii., No. 722). This was followed up by a raid into England in the spring of 1296. Meantime the government had been taken out of Balliol’s hands, and was administered by twelve Scottish barons and prelates.

189 _And stuffyt all._ The list of castles and towns committed to Englishmen and Scottish supporters of Edward is given in _Bain_, ii., No. 853. Gray says Edward took possession of all the castles of Scotland (_Scala._, p. 123).

193 _He maid off Inglis nation._ The offices of Governor, Treasurer, and Justiciar, as well as minor ones, were filled by Englishmen. Some of the appointments of Sheriffs, etc., are given in _Bain_ as above, and in Stevenson’s _Historical Documents_, II., pp. 90, 91. Barbour overstates the case.

194 _That worthyt than sa ryth felloune._ Gray says that the revolt of the conquered territories in Scotland under Robert Bruce was in great measure due to “the bad government of the ministers of the King, who governed them with too great harshness for their own personal gain” (_qi trop asprement lez governoient pur singuler profit._--_Scala._, p. 140).

250 _in disputacioun._ For the “disputations” of clerks, _cf._ Chaucer, _Nun’s Priest’s Tale_ and _Franklin’s Tale_, 162.

259 _I leve all the solucioun._ As Mr. Neilson has pointed out (_An English Miscellany_, p. 383), this is a quite serious reference to a class of questions discussed by ecclesiastical lawyers. A whole book (ix.) is devoted to the _Redditio Debiti Conjugali_ in the volume by Thomas Sanchez, one of the Salamanca doctors (_De Sto. Matrimonii Sacramento_; Venice, 1625). Chaucer’s _Wife of Bath_ has some characteristic remarks on the same subject:

“Why sholde men elles in hir bookes sette That man shal yelde to hys wyf hire dette?”

(_Prologue_ to _Tale_, 129, 130. _Cf._ also 154, 155).

282 _Put in presoun Sir Wilyham was._ Sir William Douglas, “the bold” (_le Hardi_), joined Bruce and the other lords who followed Wallace in rising, and formed a camp at Irvine in July, 1297. When these submitted and surrendered, Douglas, for not fulfilling his terms of surrender, was confined in Berwick Castle. Thence he was taken to the Tower, where he died before January, 1299. His Scottish lands were given to Sir Robert de Clifford (_cf._ lines 285-7).

293 _that hym ne dred._ _Cf._ note on _Bk._ XX. 514.

313 _James of Douglas._ “James is, in general, dissyllabic in Barbour” (Skeat).

323 _will off wane._ See glossary, and note on _Bk._ II. 471.

339 _Erle off Artayis._ This is probably the Count Robert of Artois, who was a friend of Queen Isabella and her son Edward III. He was driven from France (_Le Bel_, i., chap. xix., and notes in ed. 1904). He wandered from place to place, after quarrelling with King Philip, for three years; then crossed to England, disguised as a merchant (1334), which fact Barbour probably has here in his mind (_Mémoires de l’Académie Royale_, vol. x., p. 635. Paris, 1733).

343 _Catone sayis._ Dionysius Cato, a writer of the fourth century. The reference is to his line, “To pretend foolishness is, at times, the highest wisdom” (_Stultitiam simulare loco prudentia summa est._ _Disticha de Moribus_, Bk. ii. xviii; Ed. Amsterdam, 1754, p. 178).

346 _then come._ See on 282.

354 _the byschop._ William Lamberton. Edward sent to the Pope a lengthy list of charges against Lamberton, who had broken his most solemn oaths of fealty and shared in the “rebellions” against him. He had, when Chancellor of Glasgow, supported Wallace, and had himself chosen Bishop of St. Andrews, on Fraser’s death, without Edward’s consent. Then, with other lords, he went to France to do all the mischief he could there against Edward, and sent letters of encouragement to Wallace. After the suppression of the rising, he again submitted and took the oaths (see on 412), and was made chief of the Guardians of Scotland. He was suspected of complicity in the murder of Comyn (see on 611), and immediately supported Bruce. Arrested after Methven, he was imprisoned with Bishop Wishart of Glasgow, though not guilty of so many perjuries as he. These two bishops (with the other Scottish clergy), were the principal “abettors and maintainers” of Bruce’s rising (_Palgrave_, pp. 331-340; also _Bain_, ii., as indexed). Lamberton was released in 1308, on giving securities for good behaviour and swearing fealty to Edward II. (_Bain_, iii., No. 50). Thereafter he acted as a negotiator between England and Scotland (_Bain_, iii.). He was excommunicated, and was one of the four bishops (St. Andrews, Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Moray) summoned by the Pope in 1319 to answer for their support of Bruce (_Lanercost_, p. 423). He died some time before June, 1329 (_Bain_, iii., p. 316).

356 _forouth him to scher._ So did Chaucer’s Squire: “And carf biforn his fader at the table” (_Prologue_, 100).

381-2. _But he wes nocht so fayr, etc._ _Cf._ of Porrus, in the _Alexander_:

“Bot he was nocht so fare suthly, That men _need_ speke of him gretly, For he was broun red in visage” (p. 176).

399 _And wlyspit alsua._ Guido delle Colonne says that Hector “stammered a little in his speech” (_parum vero erat balbutiens in loquela._ See on 525): and so in the _Gest. Hystoriale_ of Hector, “a little he stotid” (stammered) (line 3881).

403 _Till Ector._ In the _Alexander_ that monarch is the incomparable hero:

“Bot Alexander I tak beforne, To him I mak na man compeir” (p. 110).

406 _lovyt._ “praised” (see Glossary).

412 _Byschop Wylyhame._ Lamberton, as Edward says, went to him at Stirling on May 4, 1304, and again took the oath of fealty, receiving from Edward’s hands the temporality of his bishopric (_Palgrave_, p. 334). “Strevellyne,” with several variations of spelling, is the usual form in contemporary records.

429 _my fay feloune._ See on 282.

455 _thaim thai._ “Thaim” refers to the Scots; “thai” to the English. Barbour is particularly careless in the use of this pronoun. In 458 “thai” is again the English, who were sometimes rather more (“erar may”) in proportion; in 460 “thaim” is the Scots.

466 _in the Bibill._ The deeds of the Jewish patriots, as recorded in the apocryphal Books of the Maccabees, were, of course, included in the Vulgate Bible of the Church. The rising of the Maccabees and their supporters against the over-rule of the Seleucids in the latter half of the second century B.C. was, for the medieval writers, the prime example of a national uprising against foreign dominance. (See also _Bks._ II. 330; XIV. 313.)

477 _I spak of ayr._ Here Barbour appears to refer to the Competitor, last mentioned in line 153, thereby confusing him with his grandson Robert the King. Much grave reproof has accordingly been wasted upon the poet. According to Maxwell, the poem “has been almost irretrievably discredited as a chronicle by a monstrous liberty which the author takes in rolling three personages” (Competitor, Robert “the elder,” and the King) “into one ideal hero” (_Robert the Bruce_, p. 6). Mr. Brown accuses Barbour of having “deliberately and consciously perpetrated the fabrication” of making his hero a trinity of these three (_The Wallace and Bruce Restudied_, p. 93). Barbour, it is to be observed, at worst only combines two, grandson and grandfather--he says nothing of the intermediate Robert; unless we force what is said in line 67 to this sense. One chronicler alone distinctly achieves the feat of making the three one person--Geoffrey Baker of Swinbroke (pp. 100-1)--but so far he has escaped censure, and no one rejects his work on that account. Surely in Barbour’s case it is but a striking case of his frequent carelessness of reference (see on 445). He started with King Robert, his subject, in line 25, and it is not too much to ask that “I spak of ayr” goes back to that point. This is a simpler way out than that inconsistently taken by Mr. Brown, who argues that, after all, the reading is probably wrong, and proposes to restore “the original” from Wyntoun’s lines, a paraphrase of Barbour (p. 95). Wyntoun was not deceived, nor was anyone likely to be. Barbour had nothing to gain by purposeless perversity, not even a literary point as has been suggested, for the “Romance” proper begins at line 445, and for it there is but one Robert.

478 _swa forfayr._ “Going to ruin.” _Cf._ _Gest. Hystoriale_, “Fele folk _forfaren_,” ready to perish (1438). Modern Scots in sense of “neglected,” as in Thom’s _Mitherless Bairn_; “sairly _forfairn_.”

485 _Said till him._ Gray gives a similar account of the alternative proposals here made, putting them, however, into the mouth of Robert Bruce, who, with him, takes the initiative, and stating that they were made upon the occasion of the meeting in the Greyfriars Church, where Comyn refused to listen to them. It must be remembered that Barbour admits the existence of various accounts. Gray supplies also the significant motive: “for now is the old age of the present English King” (_qar ore est temps en veillesce de cesty roy Engles_, p. 130). Bruce, in this account, speaks of the land being in servitude to the English by fault of Balliol, “who suffered his right and his freedom of the kingdom to be lost” (_qe son droit et la fraunchise du realme ad lesse perdre_, p. 129). The account in Fordun gives Bruce the initiative in making the offer on the ride from Stirling, and dates it 1304 (_Gesta Annalia_, cxiii.). See note on _Bk._ II. 35.

525-6 _Dares ... and Dytis._ These two represented to the medieval mind the more trustworthy authorities on the Siege of Troy; Homer, whom they knew only through the Latin classics, being obviously biassed in favour of the Greeks, a strong objection to historians who loved to attribute the beginnings of their nation to a colony of Trojan fugitives--_e.g._, Brutus, who founded Albion or Britain. Dares Phrygius, whose _De Excidio Trojæ_ is merely a good-sized pamphlet, here comes first as the favourite. Figuring as a priest of Hephæstus, he gives the Trojan side. The point of the present reference is that he makes Troy fall by the treachery of Æneas and others, who admit the Greeks by night at the Scæan gate on the outside of which “was painted the head of a horse” (ed. London, 1825, p. 336); thus rationalizing the story of the wooden horse as he does Homer’s other remarkable incidents. The book is in Latin, and is late--not much earlier than the twelfth century. It professes, however, to have been translated from a Greek manuscript found at Athens by the translator, Cornelius Nepos! Dictys Cretensis, styled companion of Idomeneus, stands for the Greek side, giving, however, a more impartial account than Homer. His MS. (_Ephemeris Belli Trojani_) was found, it is alleged, in Gnossus, Crete, in one of the tin (lead) coffers, examples of which have been found in the recent explorations of the great palace. It was translated from the original Punic into Greek in the time of Nero and again translated into Latin. It is the older production of the two by a few centuries; both, of course, are fabrications. On them Benoit de Sainte-More based his _Roman de Troie_, which Guido delle Colonne turned into a Latin _Historia Trojana_ and successfully passed off on the Middle Ages as his own work. Scotland came under the spell of Guido, and it is from him Barbour takes his information.

533 _throw pusoune._ The account of the medieval romances of Alexander. He really died in 323 B.C., of a combination of malarial fever and hard drinking--which was much too tame an end for his admirers.

542 _fryst maid emperour._ A usual medieval error, but Julius Cæsar did not become Emperor. Chaucer says the same thing (_Monk’s Tale_). Geoffrey of Monmouth speaks of “Julius Cæsar and the rest of the Roman kings”--a double error (_Edit. Giles_, 1844, p. 176). See below on 554.

549 _Als Arthur._ Arthur’s European conquests are enumerated in the contemporary, _Morte Arthure_, p. 2. The Eastern ones, such as “Surry” (Syria), follow the triumph over Rome.

554 _Lucius Yber._ “Sir Lucius Iberius, the Emperor of Rome,” is a leading figure in _Morte Arthure_. Wyntoun observes that his correct title was Procurator, as the Emperor proper was Leo, but excuses the earlier author for calling him Emperor on that ground that,

“Ane empyroure in propyrté (in especial) A comawndoure suld callyt be” (_Bk._ v., Chap. xii.):

_i.e._, Emperor is simple _imperator_. In fact, Geoffrey styles him “Lucius Respublicæ procurator” to begin, but in the account of his death, “Lucius imperator” (ed. cited, pp. 174, 198). In the _Gest. Hystoriale_, Agamemnon is “Emperor” of the Greeks. On conclusions from this passage, see _Appendix_ F.i.c.

611 _The endentur, the seile to se._ Fordun, too, tells of “endentures” (_indenturas_) between the barons, and of Comyn’s disclosure to Edward, but gives a different account of Edward’s action and Bruce’s escape. Wyntoun adopts Barbour’s version in his own words, so that we may take it that, substantially, the story was the current explanation in Scotland. Gray, too, it must be remembered, drew upon a Scottish chronicle (see on 485 and _Introd._, ii.). It may just be that there was a confusion as to the origin of the indenture which caused the mischief. There actually was an indenture or bond between Bruce and Bishop Lamberton, drawn up, too, in 1304, the year to which Fordun attributes that between Bruce and Comyn. In this the parties bound themselves to act together, in matters affecting them, against all persons whatever, and provided that neither should attempt any “difficult business” without consulting the other, and that, in the case of any peril threatening, each should warn and shield the other to the utmost of his power. The implication is clear: a fresh rising was in contemplation, probably on the death of Edward I. (_cf._ Gray in note on 485). A copy of this document came into Edward’s hands--certainly not, however, through the agency of Comyn--and Lamberton was charged before witnesses at Newcastle on August 3, 1306. He was asked whether the seal was his (_cf._ line 612), and whether it had been affixed with his will and knowledge; to which he answered in the affirmative (_Palgrave_, 323-5). The story of this endenture may have got worked into what was known of Comyn’s refusal to co-operate with Bruce. The records give no hint of anything else of the kind in Edward’s possession, and the knowledge of it, had it existed, would not have been suppressed (see also note on _Bk._ II. 17).

625-6 _into bourch, etc._ _I.e._, Bruce pledges his lands as bail for his appearance. There is no record of such a Parliament, nor is any such procedure at all probable.