[xix_341]Cthat fair. Has E.
[xix_341]Cthat fair. Has E.
[xix_368]Che thaim(S). Hthen. E seems to give the more probable reading.
[xix_368]Che thaim(S). Hthen. E seems to give the more probable reading.
[xix_*375, *376]In C H. E omits.
[xix_*375, *376]In C H. E omits.
[xix_394]Enoveltyis.
[xix_394]Enoveltyis.
[xix_502]thatinserted by S for metre. Cforrouth(S).Cf.515.
[xix_502]thatinserted by S for metre. Cforrouth(S).Cf.515.
[xix_527]Esevynd. Hnynth.
[xix_527]Esevynd. Hnynth.
[xix_533]Cwes richt hardy(S). H as E.
[xix_533]Cwes richt hardy(S). H as E.
[xix_544]Efolowit thar.
[xix_544]Efolowit thar.
[xix_612]CI had(S). H as E.
[xix_612]CI had(S). H as E.
[xix_667]CTratour(S).
[xix_667]CTratour(S).
[xix_739]Etwa myle of. So, too, in H.
[xix_739]Etwa myle of. So, too, in H.
[xix_742-744]After line 742 H inserts:But flaikes in the wood they madeOf wands, and them with them had:And sykes therewith brigged they:And sa had well their horse away,On sik wise, that all that there were,Came through the mosse baith haill and feire.
[xix_742-744]After line 742 H inserts:
But flaikes in the wood they madeOf wands, and them with them had:And sykes therewith brigged they:And sa had well their horse away,On sik wise, that all that there were,Came through the mosse baith haill and feire.
But flaikes in the wood they madeOf wands, and them with them had:And sykes therewith brigged they:And sa had well their horse away,On sik wise, that all that there were,Came through the mosse baith haill and feire.
[xix_774]COf twenty thousand richt hardy(S). H like E.
[xix_774]COf twenty thousand richt hardy(S). H like E.
[xix_776]Ethe Merse.
[xix_776]Ethe Merse.
[xx_16]Ewar. Hwas. C omits line. S readswesas more usual form.
[xx_16]Ewar. Hwas. C omits line. S readswesas more usual form.
[xx_41]Eyhing.
[xx_41]Eyhing.
[xx_44-49]In E only. C H omit.
[xx_44-49]In E only. C H omit.
[xx_*127-*130]Found in C, E, H, but omitted by Pinkerton.
[xx_*127-*130]Found in C, E, H, but omitted by Pinkerton.
[xx_131]CRobert Stiward(S).
[xx_131]CRobert Stiward(S).
[xx_134]Ctale(S). Htailyie.
[xx_134]Ctale(S). Htailyie.
[xx_*206-*211]E omits, apparently on account of double terminationDouglas. In C H.
[xx_*206-*211]E omits, apparently on account of double terminationDouglas. In C H.
[xx_273]Eour nychtbowris. Hfaes.
[xx_273]Eour nychtbowris. Hfaes.
[xx_285-298]The arrangement here is from C H. E sets differently and illogically. The numbers in brackets follow Pinkerton.
[xx_285-298]The arrangement here is from C H. E sets differently and illogically. The numbers in brackets follow Pinkerton.
[xx_324]Cgrund(S).
[xx_324]Cgrund(S).
[xx_326]CSebell(S).
[xx_326]CSebell(S).
[xx_331]Cat Graunt Sebell. Hthe great Sebell.
[xx_331]Cat Graunt Sebell. Hthe great Sebell.
[xx_356]Csudiorne(S).
[xx_356]Csudiorne(S).
[xx_378-386]For these lines H gives:And said, “God lent me hands to beare,Wherewith I might my head weere.”Thus maid he courteous answering,With a right hie understanding:That for default of fence it was,That sa evill hewen was his fall.
[xx_378-386]For these lines H gives:
And said, “God lent me hands to beare,Wherewith I might my head weere.”Thus maid he courteous answering,With a right hie understanding:That for default of fence it was,That sa evill hewen was his fall.
And said, “God lent me hands to beare,Wherewith I might my head weere.”Thus maid he courteous answering,With a right hie understanding:That for default of fence it was,That sa evill hewen was his fall.
[xx_380]Etak kep.
[xx_380]Etak kep.
[xx_393]Heyfrom E. C H omit.
[xx_393]Heyfrom E. C H omit.
[xx_*421]But ere they joyned in battell,*421What Dowglas did, I sall you tell.The Bruce’s Heart, that on his brestWas hinging, in the field he kest,Upon a stane-cast and well more:*425And said, “Now passe thou foorth before,As thou wast wont in field to be,And I sall follow, or els die.”And sa he did withoutten ho,He faught even while he came it to,*430And tooke it up in great daintie;And ever in field this used he.*432*421-*432. In H only; not in C E. See Appendix D.
[xx_*421]
But ere they joyned in battell,*421What Dowglas did, I sall you tell.The Bruce’s Heart, that on his brestWas hinging, in the field he kest,Upon a stane-cast and well more:*425And said, “Now passe thou foorth before,As thou wast wont in field to be,And I sall follow, or els die.”And sa he did withoutten ho,He faught even while he came it to,*430And tooke it up in great daintie;And ever in field this used he.*432
But ere they joyned in battell,*421What Dowglas did, I sall you tell.The Bruce’s Heart, that on his brestWas hinging, in the field he kest,Upon a stane-cast and well more:*425And said, “Now passe thou foorth before,As thou wast wont in field to be,And I sall follow, or els die.”And sa he did withoutten ho,He faught even while he came it to,*430And tooke it up in great daintie;And ever in field this used he.*432
*421-*432. In H only; not in C E. See Appendix D.
[xx_438]C HAnd as he turnit, he can weill se(S). Text from E.
[xx_438]C HAnd as he turnit, he can weill se(S). Text from E.
[xx_440]CAnd thai(S).
[xx_440]CAnd thai(S).
[xx_476]Clicht(S). H as E.
[xx_476]Clicht(S). H as E.
[xx_496-501]From E H. Not in C, owing tochertwice.
[xx_496-501]From E H. Not in C, owing tochertwice.
[xx_610]In HBy a false Monk full traiterously.
[xx_610]In HBy a false Monk full traiterously.
[1]Preface, S.T.S. edition, p. lxxv.
[1]Preface, S.T.S. edition, p. lxxv.
[2]Skeat, p. xxxvii.
[2]Skeat, p. xxxvii.
[3]The Wallace and The Bruce Restudied, p. 74 andpassim. See also Appendices E, F.
[3]The Wallace and The Bruce Restudied, p. 74 andpassim. See also Appendices E, F.
[4]For a detailed account of the different editions see Skeat’sPrefaceto the E.E.T.S. or S.T.S. issues.
[4]For a detailed account of the different editions see Skeat’sPrefaceto the E.E.T.S. or S.T.S. issues.
[5]See Appendix D.
[5]See Appendix D.
[6]XVIII. *537; and see note on p. 277.
[6]XVIII. *537; and see note on p. 277.
[7]VIII. *493, *495.
[7]VIII. *493, *495.
[8]XVII. 887, 888.
[8]XVII. 887, 888.
[9]The Wallace and The Bruce, pp. 133, 134.
[9]The Wallace and The Bruce, pp. 133, 134.
[10]The Scottish Historical Library, by W. Nicholson, Archdeacon of Carlisle, p. 147.
[10]The Scottish Historical Library, by W. Nicholson, Archdeacon of Carlisle, p. 147.
[11]See note on passage.
[11]See note on passage.
[12]See Appendix D.
[12]See Appendix D.
[13]The Bibliography of theCambridge History of English Literature, vol. ii., recklessly says: “As the colophon informs us (!) all three MSS. were written by John Ramsay” (p. 447).
[13]The Bibliography of theCambridge History of English Literature, vol. ii., recklessly says: “As the colophon informs us (!) all three MSS. were written by John Ramsay” (p. 447).
[14]Bonn, 1900.
[14]Bonn, 1900.
[15]Brown, p. 82.
[15]Brown, p. 82.
[16]Ibid., p. 68.
[16]Ibid., p. 68.
[17]SeeAthenæum, November 17, 1900.
[17]SeeAthenæum, November 17, 1900.
[18]Athenæum, December 8, 1900.
[18]Athenæum, December 8, 1900.
[19]Appendix F.
[19]Appendix F.
[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).
[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.
[21]IX. 492, XIX. 459, XX. 396.
[22]I. 345.
[22]I. 345.
[23]II. 572.
[23]II. 572.
[24]III. 287.
[24]III. 287.
[25]XIV. 246; XVI. 253.
[25]XIV. 246; XVI. 253.
[26]Cf.also in Gregory Smith’sSpecimens of Middle Scots, p. xxx.
[26]Cf.also in Gregory Smith’sSpecimens of Middle Scots, p. xxx.
[27]Cf.Murray’sDialect of the Southern Counties of Scotland, p. *92; andNew. Eng. Dict., G.
[27]Cf.Murray’sDialect of the Southern Counties of Scotland, p. *92; andNew. Eng. Dict., G.
[28]See Neilson inScottish Antiquary, vol. xi., p. 102 ff., and Buss,ex adverso, inAnglia, Band ix., p. 495.
[28]See Neilson inScottish Antiquary, vol. xi., p. 102 ff., and Buss,ex adverso, inAnglia, Band ix., p. 495.
[29]Jamieson’sMemoir, p. iv.
[29]Jamieson’sMemoir, p. iv.
[30]Scottish Vernacular Literature, p. 41.
[30]Scottish Vernacular Literature, p. 41.
[31]For this reason Buss always gives the name as Barbere.
[31]For this reason Buss always gives the name as Barbere.
[32]These have been brought together by Skeat in his first volume, pp. xv-xxv.
[32]These have been brought together by Skeat in his first volume, pp. xv-xxv.
[33]Skeat here takesequitibusto be “knights,” but this is not a military business. They were, we may judge, the attendants proper to his rank.
[33]Skeat here takesequitibusto be “knights,” but this is not a military business. They were, we may judge, the attendants proper to his rank.
[34]See on Bk. XIII. 702.
[34]See on Bk. XIII. 702.
[35]The account of 1429 is the first to state expressly that this perpetual pension was “for the composition of the book of the deeds of the erstwhile King Robert the Bruce” (Excheq. Rolls, iv., p. 520).
[35]The account of 1429 is the first to state expressly that this perpetual pension was “for the composition of the book of the deeds of the erstwhile King Robert the Bruce” (Excheq. Rolls, iv., p. 520).
[36]“His theme was Freedom,” writes Mr. Cosmo Innes. Barbour gives out his “theme” in the first thirty-six lines, and never once mentions it.
[36]“His theme was Freedom,” writes Mr. Cosmo Innes. Barbour gives out his “theme” in the first thirty-six lines, and never once mentions it.
[37]The editor ofThe Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. p. cv., says: “Bower accuses Barbour of misrepresenting the origin of the Stewarts.” That is not so. According to the summary in Bower, Barbour had it that they came from Wales, and in fact the family was settled in Shropshire on the Welsh March. It had its origin, he said, from one who was called “Le Fleanc de Waran,” who may equate with Alan FitzFlaald, who, however, apparently did not marry a daughter of Warine, the sheriff of that county (Round,Studies in the Peerage, p. 116). He affirms, rightly enough, that the first of them in Scotland was Walter, in the days of King William (twelfth century). Where he goes wrong genealogically, according to Bower, is in saying that Walter’s son, Alan, was in the First Crusade, which was obviously impossible; but Alan FitzAlan, uncle of Alan FitzFlaald, was in that expedition. Barbour was dealing with remote personages through family tradition, and whatever his errors as represented by Bower, he does not appear, as is too lightly assumed, to have been the source of the myths of later historians in this connection. Bower’s language does not admit of a Banquo. SeeCupar and Perth MSS., inScotichronicon, Lib. IX., chap. xlviii.
[37]The editor ofThe Exchequer Rolls, vol. ii. p. cv., says: “Bower accuses Barbour of misrepresenting the origin of the Stewarts.” That is not so. According to the summary in Bower, Barbour had it that they came from Wales, and in fact the family was settled in Shropshire on the Welsh March. It had its origin, he said, from one who was called “Le Fleanc de Waran,” who may equate with Alan FitzFlaald, who, however, apparently did not marry a daughter of Warine, the sheriff of that county (Round,Studies in the Peerage, p. 116). He affirms, rightly enough, that the first of them in Scotland was Walter, in the days of King William (twelfth century). Where he goes wrong genealogically, according to Bower, is in saying that Walter’s son, Alan, was in the First Crusade, which was obviously impossible; but Alan FitzAlan, uncle of Alan FitzFlaald, was in that expedition. Barbour was dealing with remote personages through family tradition, and whatever his errors as represented by Bower, he does not appear, as is too lightly assumed, to have been the source of the myths of later historians in this connection. Bower’s language does not admit of a Banquo. SeeCupar and Perth MSS., inScotichronicon, Lib. IX., chap. xlviii.
[38]The Wallace and The Bruce, pp. 88-90.
[38]The Wallace and The Bruce, pp. 88-90.
[39]Preface I., xlix-lii.
[39]Preface I., xlix-lii.
[40]Edit. Horstmann, ii., p. 226.
[40]Edit. Horstmann, ii., p. 226.
[41]See further, Neilson’sJohn Barbour, p. 2.
[41]See further, Neilson’sJohn Barbour, p. 2.
[42]Anglia, as cited.
[42]Anglia, as cited.
[43]Short History, p. 211.
[43]Short History, p. 211.
[44]The Wallace and The Bruce, p. 93.
[44]The Wallace and The Bruce, p. 93.
[45]See on II. 239.
[45]See on II. 239.
[46]XIX. 486.
[46]XIX. 486.
[47]An article on Barbour’sBrucein theSaturday Review, 1872, vol. xxxiii., p. 90, has all the marks of the “belabouring” method 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.
[47]An article on Barbour’sBrucein theSaturday Review, 1872, vol. xxxiii., p. 90, has all the marks of the “belabouring” method 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.
[48]The Brus, Spalding Club edition, 1856, p. ix.
[49]Vol. ii., p. 104.
[49]Vol. ii., p. 104.
[50]P. 108.
[50]P. 108.
[51]Bk. IV. 767-774. Contempt for astrology, indeed, had already gone pretty far—Chaucer’sFranklinhas 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.
[51]Bk. IV. 767-774. Contempt for astrology, indeed, had already gone pretty far—Chaucer’sFranklinhas 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.
[52]IX. 492.
[53]Calendar of Documents, vol. iii., p. ix, note. Book I. is a hasty introduction.
[53]Calendar of Documents, vol. iii., p. ix, note. Book I. is a hasty introduction.
[54]Ibid.
[54]Ibid.
[55]Chronique, I, chap. xxii.
[55]Chronique, I, chap. xxii.
[56]Scottish Vernacular Literature, p. 43.
[56]Scottish Vernacular Literature, p. 43.
[57]Vol. ii., p. 140.
[57]Vol. ii., p. 140.
[58]Lib. xii., chap. xxi.
[58]Lib. xii., chap. xxi.
[59]See Appendix E.
[59]See Appendix E.
[60]P. 318.
[60]P. 318.
[61]P. 339.
[61]P. 339.
[62]P. 350, lines 12, 13.
[62]P. 350, lines 12, 13.
[63]Cf.also Neilson onThe Real “Scots Wha Hae”inScottish Antiquary, vol. xiv., No. 53, July, 1899.
[63]Cf.also Neilson onThe Real “Scots Wha Hae”inScottish Antiquary, vol. xiv., No. 53, July, 1899.
[64]II. p. 180.
[64]II. p. 180.
[65]Fœdera, iii., p. 464, etc.
[65]Fœdera, iii., p. 464, etc.
[66]P. 201.
[66]P. 201.
[67]Vita Edw., p. 201.
[67]Vita Edw., p. 201.
[68]Feudal England, p. 292.
[68]Feudal England, p. 292.
[69]The Welsh Wars of Edward I., p. 41.
[69]The Welsh Wars of Edward I., p. 41.
[70]Welsh Wars, p. 59.
[70]Welsh Wars, p. 59.
[71]Ibid., pp. 81, 82.
[71]Ibid., pp. 81, 82.
[72]II. p. 173.
[72]II. p. 173.
[73]Welsh Wars, p. 292.
[73]Welsh Wars, p. 292.
[74]Peditum turba copiosa, p. 201.
[74]Peditum turba copiosa, p. 201.
[75]Engl. Hist. Rev., vol. xiv., p. 133.Cf.Appendix A.
[75]Engl. Hist. Rev., vol. xiv., p. 133.Cf.Appendix A.
[76]BannockburninThe Commune of London, p. 298.
[76]BannockburninThe Commune of London, p. 298.
[77]Calendar, iii., p. xxi.
[77]Calendar, iii., p. xxi.
[78]Art of War, p. 575 note.
[78]Art of War, p. 575 note.
[79]Vol. iii., p. 482, etc.; also inRotuli Scotiæ, i., p. 127; andParliamentary Writs, book ii., div. 2, p. 117.
[79]Vol. iii., p. 482, etc.; also inRotuli Scotiæ, i., p. 127; andParliamentary Writs, book ii., div. 2, p. 117.
[80]Cf.Commune of London, p. 296;Engl. Hist. Rev., xiv., p. 133.
[80]Cf.Commune of London, p. 296;Engl. Hist. Rev., xiv., p. 133.
[81]Bain, ii., Nos. 956, 1202, 1092, 1136.
[81]Bain, ii., Nos. 956, 1202, 1092, 1136.
[82]Writs as cited, pp. 176, 177.
[82]Writs as cited, pp. 176, 177.
[83]Trokelowe, p. 102;Rot. Scot., i., p. 183.
[83]Trokelowe, p. 102;Rot. Scot., i., p. 183.
[84]Art of War, p. 573 and note.
[84]Art of War, p. 573 and note.
[85]Annals, ii., p. 48.
[85]Annals, ii., p. 48.
[86]Calendar, iii., p. xx.
[86]Calendar, iii., p. xx.
[87]See note on Book XVI., 285.
[87]See note on Book XVI., 285.
[88]Writs, ii., p. 185.
[88]Writs, ii., p. 185.
[89]Palgrave, cxxvii.;Welsh Wars, pp. 95, 98.
[89]Palgrave, cxxvii.;Welsh Wars, pp. 95, 98.
[90]Bain, ii., No. 1202.
[90]Bain, ii., No. 1202.
[91]Bain, ii., 1229.
[91]Bain, ii., 1229.
[92]Welsh Wars, p. 301.
[92]Welsh Wars, p. 301.
[93]III., p. xxi.
[93]III., p. xxi.
[94]Welsh Wars, p. 289.
[94]Welsh Wars, p. 289.
[95]Cf.Book XIX., 267 note.
[95]Cf.Book XIX., 267 note.
[96]Bain, ii., p. xxxix, note.
[96]Bain, ii., p. xxxix, note.
[97]Welsh Wars, p. 301.
[97]Welsh Wars, p. 301.
[98]See note on 46.
[98]See note on 46.
[99]Chronique de Jordan Fantosme, lines 328-9.
[99]Chronique de Jordan Fantosme, lines 328-9.
[100]Hemingburgh, ii., pp. 308-9.
[100]Hemingburgh, ii., pp. 308-9.
[101]Art of War, p. 575.
[101]Art of War, p. 575.
[102]XII. 159-164.
[102]XII. 159-164.
[103]See below.
[103]See below.
[104]First Series, vol. ix., 493-514.
[104]First Series, vol. ix., 493-514.
[105]But notebattell, two syllables, in xiii. 395, 418; xiv. 175; andbattell-stede(xiv. 301).
[105]But notebattell, two syllables, in xiii. 395, 418; xiv. 175; andbattell-stede(xiv. 301).
[106]V. 602; vi. 564; x. 226; xiv. 152.
[106]V. 602; vi. 564; x. 226; xiv. 152.
[107]Scottish Review, 1893, p. 192 note.
[107]Scottish Review, 1893, p. 192 note.
[108]P. 135.
[108]P. 135.
[109]P. 135.
[109]P. 135.
[110]Pref., liv.
[110]Pref., liv.
[111]John Barbour, p. 50.
[111]John Barbour, p. 50.
[112]The Scottish Antiquary, vol. xi., p. 107 note.
[112]The Scottish Antiquary, vol. xi., p. 107 note.
[113]Group A, 2533-2534.
[113]Group A, 2533-2534.
[114]P. 308; 26, 27.
[114]P. 308; 26, 27.
[115]Chambers’sCyclopædia of English Literature, i. 175.
[115]Chambers’sCyclopædia of English Literature, i. 175.
[116]Pref., pp. vi-viii.
[116]Pref., pp. vi-viii.
[117]Cf.notes on Book XX. 393, 431.
[117]Cf.notes on Book XX. 393, 431.
[118]In part; but see the reconciling passage in note on xx. 191-2.
[118]In part; but see the reconciling passage in note on xx. 191-2.
[119]Stanza xxxi.
[119]Stanza xxxi.
[120]Butcf.xx. 307, where this comes before.
[120]Butcf.xx. 307, where this comes before.
[121]Cf.also xlii.
[121]Cf.also xlii.