NOTES

For fuller details of the more important works referred to see Bibliographical List.

4on gud maner.The best expansion of this phrase as an expression of Barbour’s ideal of style is in theAlexander:

“To mak iton sa gud manere,Sa oppin sentence and sa clereAs is the Frenche”(p. 441).

15tyme 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 havethis warld of lenthfor “the length of this world,” which is a close enough parallel, and will not admit of alteration. InWyntoun, too, occur such phrases as, “a merke schot large of lenth” (Bk.ix. 27, 419).

37Quhen 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 fromThe Bruce, here readsoure. Alexander III. was killed by falling, with his horse, over the cliff at Kinghorn in Fife, on March 19, 1286.

39six 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.

40lay 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 femalecontrary 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).

49sum 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).

51eldest 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.

54in 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 hisDocuments and Records, vol. i.; the Latin version from theGreat Roll, printed in Rymer’sFœdera, 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.

58nocht 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).

61in lyne evyn descendand.The correct reading is fixed by the legal phrase,en la dreyte lyne descendant(Palgrave, p. 31, § 2).

62Thai 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, “Forhe bar hir on hondeof trecherye” (Complaynt of Faire Anelida, line 158); and inTroilus(1154-1155), “Shebar him on hondethat 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 inPrologue of the W. of B.’s Tale, 380, 575, etc.

67Erle 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).

88as 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’sScalacronicaputs 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).

100Walis ... 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).

103ryn 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. 419ff.

140on Saracenys warryand.Edward was in England. His crusading took place before he ascended the throne (1270-1272). TheScalacronicasays he was at Ghent (p. 112).

146ane 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’sCalendar, ii., No. 474):i.e., their meeting him on English ground.

151all 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 inBain, ii., No. 478, andPalgrave, pp. xcvii-cxv (see next note).

153to 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 theLaensmanof 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 thedominiumor ownership of Scotland, as contrasted with thesuzerainty, which would grant a power of control. Edward insisted on the former.

169Assentyt 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.

171He 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.

173For 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.

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

193He 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 inBainas above, and in Stevenson’sHistorical Documents, II., pp. 90, 91. Barbour overstates the case.

194That 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).

250in disputacioun.For the “disputations” of clerks,cf.Chaucer,Nun’s Priest’s TaleandFranklin’s Tale, 162.

259I 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 theRedditio Debiti Conjugaliin the volume by Thomas Sanchez, one of the Salamanca doctors (De Sto. Matrimonii Sacramento; Venice, 1625). Chaucer’sWife of Bathhas some characteristic remarks on the same subject:

“Why sholde men elles in hir bookes setteThat man shal yelde to hys wyf hire dette?”(ProloguetoTale, 129, 130.Cf.also 154, 155).

282Put 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).

293that hym ne dred.Cf.note onBk.XX. 514.

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

323will off wane.See glossary, and note onBk.II. 471.

339Erle 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).

343Catone 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 simulareloco prudentia summa est.Disticha de Moribus, Bk. ii. xviii; Ed. Amsterdam, 1754, p. 178).

346then come.See on 282.

354the 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; alsoBain, 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).

356forouth 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 theAlexander:

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

399And 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 theGest. Hystorialeof Hector, “a little he stotid” (stammered) (line 3881).

403Till Ector.In theAlexanderthat monarch is the incomparable hero:

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

406lovyt.“praised” (see Glossary).

412Byschop 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.

429my fay feloune.See on 282.

455thaim 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.

466in 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 centuryB.C.was, for the medieval writers, the prime example of a national uprising against foreign dominance. (See alsoBks.II. 330; XIV. 313.)

477I 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.

478swa forfayr.“Going to ruin.”Cf.Gest. Hystoriale, “Fele folkforfaren,” ready to perish (1438). Modern Scots in sense of “neglected,” as in Thom’sMitherless Bairn; “sairlyforfairn.”

485Said 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 onBk.II. 35.

525-6Dares ... 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, whoseDe Excidio Trojæis 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 originalPunic 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 hisRoman de Troie, which Guido delle Colonne turned into a LatinHistoria Trojanaand 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.

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

542fryst 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.

549Als 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.

554Lucius Yber.“Sir Lucius Iberius, the Emperor of Rome,” is a leading figure inMorte 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 simpleimperator. 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 theGest. Hystoriale, Agamemnon is “Emperor” of the Greeks. On conclusions from this passage, seeAppendixF.i.c.

611The 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 andIntrod., 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 onBk.II. 17).

625-6into 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.

17Thai raid.The account in Fordun is that one night, “when the wine was giving its colour in the cup” (cum merum splenderet in calice), Edward, on his way to bed, explained that on the morrow Bruce would lose his life. Thereupon the hint of his danger was conveyed to Bruce by the Earl of Gloucester (i.e., Randolph or Ralph de Monthermer), in the form of twelve silver pennies and a pair of spurs (Gesta Annalia, cxiv.). Gloucester was presently in the field against Bruce. Edward declared that up to the time of the rupture, Bruce had enjoyed his “full confidence” (Fœdera, ii., p. 988).

17on the fyften day.Bower says the seventh day (Scotich, Lib. xii., Cap. vii.). But the news of Comyn’s murder on February 10 seems to have reached Edward (at Winchester) not long before the 23rd, probably only a day or so (Bain, ii., No. 1746), and this would be carried quickly.

18Louchmaban.Bruce’s castle in Annandale.

32Schyr Jhone the Cumyn.According to both Gray and Hemingburgh, Bruce first sent his two brothers, Thomas and Neil, to ask Comyn to meet him at Dumfries; Gray says that they might kill him on the way, which, to Bruce’s disquiet, they failed to do; Hemingburgh that he might discuss with Bruce certain matters affecting themboth (Scala., p. 129;Chronicon, ii., p. 245). Sir John Comyn “the Red” was Balliol’s nephew, the son of his third sister (Scala., p. 121), and his wife was a sister of Aymer de Valence. He came to Dumfries from Dalswintion, not far away.

33In the Freris, at the hye awter.Edward informed the Pope that Comyn was murdered “in the church of the Friars Minor (Franciscans) of Dumfries, near the high altar” (Palgrave, i., pp. 335, 346). The “high altar” is part of the setting in all the accounts. The date is February 10, 1306.

34with lauchand cher.Hemingburgh says they embraced in the cloister (mutuo se receperunt in osculum, p. 245).

35The endentur.According to Fordun, Bruce, on his way home, had met a messenger of Comyn carrying to Edward letters advising the imprisonment or death of Bruce. He had killed the messenger and taken the letters, and it was with these he now confronted Comyn (Gesta Annal., cxv.). Gray relates that Bruce now made Comyn the proposal described in note onBk.I. 485, which Comyn refused to entertain, whereupon Bruce said: “I had other hopes of you from the promises of both you and your friends;you have betrayed me to the King by your letters, and, since you cannot live to accomplish my wish, take your reward” (pur quoi viaunt ne pusse eschever moun voloir, tu auras toun guerdon.—Scala., p. 130). Hemingburgh’s version is that Bruce accused Comyn of treason,in that he had denounced him to the King of England, and lowered his standing to his loss (p. 246). Edward’s account to the Pope is that Comyn would not assent to the treason which Bruce proposed—that is, to renew the war against him, and make himself, by force, King of Scotland (Palgrave, 335).

36hym reft the lyff.The other accounts are more detailed, and agree in stating that Bruce merely wounded Comyn, and that his followers completed the work: “In the middle of the church, before the altar,” says Gray; “on the steps of the high altar, which was stained with his blood,” according to Hemingburgh (as cited).

37-38Schyr Edmund Comyn ... And othir mony.Barbour is wrong in the name; it was Sir Robert Comyn, John’s uncle (Fordun,Lanercost,Gray,Hemingburgh,Palgrave, as cited). Sir Edmund fell at Bannockburn (Annal. London, p. 251). No other fatalities are mentioned. Hemingburgh adds that Bruce took the Castle and forced the English justices, then holding court, to surrender, but allowed them to depart in safety (p. 246).

40that debat fell othir wayis.“That the quarrel came about otherwise.” Barbour was familiar with, at least, another version.Cf.previous notes.

67drawyn and hangit.See note onBk.IV. 322.

81the byschop of Androws towne.On June 9 Lamberton writes to Aymer de Valence, Edward’s lieutenant in Scotland, that no blame attached to him in the matter of the death of John Comyn and his uncle, or for the beginning of this war (Palgrave, p. 322).

86Thomas prophecy.Thomas of “Hersildoune” is Thomas of Ercildoune (now Earlston), or Thomas Rhymer whose alleged prophecies had a great vogue in Scotland for hundreds of years, especially at a national crisis. One such was current with the Jacobites of the Forty-Five. A MS. of the first quarter of the fourteenth century gives a long prediction by Thomas in answer to the question when the Scottish War should end (Thomas of Ercildoune, E.E.T.S., pp. xviii, xix). It contains the line, “When Bambourne (? Bannockburn) is donged wyth dede men.”Cf.Bk.XIII. 336-340.

92befor the byschop schar.See note onBk.I. 356.

96the burdys down war laid.I.e., the boards which formed the table were removed from the trestles after dinner.

107wald disherys.Bruce’s lands had been immediately confiscated and distributed to others (Bain, ii.; s.v. Earl of Carrick).

112the Clyffurd.See note onBk.I. 282.

118Ferrand.Also the name of the horse of Emynedus, Alexander’s comrade, in theAlexander. “Ferrand” means “iron-grey,” as inMorte Arthure: “oneferantstedez” (2259, etc.). Like “Blanchard” (white) a common name for a horse.

148Aryk stane.At the head of Annandale.

179wes maid king.On the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25, 1306 (Lanercost, 203;Hemingburgh, 247;Scala., 130).

187went out our the land.Malise, Earl of Strathearn, presented a memorial to the King of England, explaining how Bruce, after his coronation, had summoned him to give homage, how he had refused at first, but was apprehended, and submitted in order to save his life (Palgrave, pp. 319-21). According to Hemingburgh, it was after Comyn’s murder that Bruce went round Scotland (circuivit terram Scociae), seizing and fortifying castles, etc. (II., p. 246). There was scarcely time at that stage.

200-1Schir Amer the Vallang.Sir Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, sent to put down Robert Bruce, etc., April 15, 1306 (Bain, ii., No. 1762). In Barbour’s spelling the “g” is soft. Valence had taken an active part in the Scots’ war since Falkirk, and figures, as before that date, in theWallace. He was now about twenty-six years of age and practically a professional soldier.

204in all hy.Valence was to enter Scotland at once; the Prince of Wales and then Edward himself were to follow.Edward, however, wished to hear of “some good exploit, if possible, before their arrival” (Bain, ii., No. 1773).

205And byrn, and slay, and rais dragoun.Edward, writing to Valence on June 12, is “well pleased to hear he has burned Sir Simon Fraser’s lands in Selkirk Forest.” He is “to do the same to all enemies on his march,” “to burn, destroy, and waste their houses, lands, and goods” (Bain, ii., No. 1782). In later letters these commands are repeated for specific instances. On June 28 he is “referring to his orders to put to death all enemies and rebels already or hereafter taken” (No. 1790). The expression “rais dragoun” has been fully explained and illustrated by Mr. Neilson in theScottish Antiquary, vol. xii., No. 48. His summary is as follows: “In the middle of the fourteenth century, and later, there was still prevalent the conception ... that the dragon banner was a token of hostility more deadly than the ordinary conditions of feudal and chivalric warfare countenanced. Its display in every example adduced was against subjects in revolt, however supposititious, as at Crecy, the claim of sovereignty might be” (p. 151). The origin and development of this association is the subject of Mr. Neilson’s article.Cf.also inMorte Arthure, “For thare es noghte bot dedethare the dragone es raissede!” (line 2057).

211Philip the Mowbray.He is among those with Valence given by Gray (Scala., p. 130). See on Mowbray,Bk.XIII. 363.

212Ingram the Umfravill.He had taken an active part in previous years on the national side. He is among the “Scotsmen and late rebels” who, on October 10, 1305, had their lands in Scotland and England restored on renewing their fealty to Edward (Bain, ii., No. 1696).

215off Scotland the maist party.It is not clear what Barbour precisely means. But, according to Gray, Valence had with him several Scottish barons, friends of Comyn, opposed to Bruce (Scala., p. 130); and a fortnight before the battle Edward was requesting Valence “to inform the King’s foresters of Selkirk how they have loyally and painfully served the King, and done well” (Bain, ii., No. 1782). Fordun says that Valence had in Perth “a great power of both English and Scots” (Gesta Annalia, cxix).

235Levynax.I.e., Lennox, otherwiseLevenauch. Malcolm “Comte de Levenaux” is onRagman Roll(Bain, ii., p. 209). He was the fifth in the line of Celtic Earls.Cf.on 482.

Atholl is John de Strathbogie, Earl of Atholl. He was among the first to join Bruce, and it was by his advice that the safe-conduct to Strathearn was broken and the Earl confined in Inchmacolm (see on 187). He wascaptured after Methven, and, as he was of royal blood, was spared torture, but was hanged “higher than the rest” (Hemingburgh, ii., p. 250): on a gallows thirty feet higher (Scala., p. 131). He was alleged to be the son of Edward’s aunt, but seeGenealogist, N.S. xxii., p. 105.

236Edward the Bruce.Robert’s brother.

237Thomas Randell.Thomas Randolph, the King’s nephew, afterwards Earl of Moray. For his change of side, see on 463.Hew de le Hayis on Ragman Roll, apparently of Fife (Bain, ii., p. 204); brother of Gilbert de la Hay, afterwards Constable of Scotland and ancestor of the Earls of Errol.

238David the Berclay.David de Berkele on Ragman Roll (Bain, ii., 209); of Cairns, in Fife (Hailes, ii., p. 2. Ed. 1797).Cf.onBk.XIX. 19.

239Fresale, Somerveile, and Inchmertyn.Fresaleis “Alexander Fraser” (see line 407). Jamieson identifies him as “the brother of Simon Fraser, of Oliver Castle, in Tweeddale,” which is Hailes’s statement (Annals, vol. ii., p. 2), and Skeat follows, whence arises a serious confusion inBk.VIII. 397. Sir Simon Fraser, “filius,” of Oliver, to distinguish him from his father (“pater”), and grandfather of the same name, the hero of the English defeat at Roslin in 1302, was captured and executed as a traitor in 1306. His brother was Thomas Fraser, and neither seems to have left any descendants (Lord Saltoun’sFrasers of Philorth, ii., p. 94). This Alexander Fraser was of the same stock, but was the elder son of Sir Andrew Fraser of Touch-Fraser, Stirlingshire, Sheriff of Stirling in 1293, and was afterwards Bruce’s Chamberlain of Scotland (ibid., p. 125). He was not “Sir” Alexander till after 1312 (ibid., i., pp. 49, 54). Bruce granted him “Tulch-fraser” afresh (Reg. Mag. Sig., p. 17, 86). He had a brother Simon, but a different Simon from the one Jamieson refers to (see note onBk.VIII. 397). “Fresale,” Jamieson adds, “is still the vulgar pronunciation of the name in Lothian.”John de Somervillewas second son of Sir Walter de Somerville of Linton and Carnwath (Memorie of the Somervills, i., 83, 86).Inchmertynis David de Inchmartyn, who was, according to Hailes, the ancestor of the Earls of Findlater and Airlie, and of Lord Banff (Annals, vol. ii., p. 3, note. Ed. 1797).John de SomervilleandDavid de Inchmartynare among the fifteen Scots captured at Methven and sentenced to death at Carlisle on August 4, without being allowed to plead, under the charge of “feloniously and wickedly slaying some of the King’s liegemen” at that battle. They were all hanged (Bain, ii., No. 1811).

*243Cristall of Setoun.See line 418 and note onBk.IV. 16. He was married to Cristina Bruce, Robert’s sister (Bain, ii., No. 1910): twenty-eight years of age.

*244Robert Boyd.Ancestor of the Viscounts of Kilmarnock (Robertson’sIndex of Charters, p. 6, No. 46). He was captured at Kildrummy (Bain, ii., No. 1829), but must either have escaped or been released, as he appears again. SeeBk.IV. 342; VIII. 415.

247Sanct Johnstoun.Perth. The church was dedicated to St. John.

248bad Schyr Amery isch to fycht.Hemingburgh writes that Bruce sent a message that the English should either come out to fight or surrender (ii., p. 248); Gray that Bruce offered battle to the Earl (of Pembroke), and remained before the town from the early morning till after noon (Scalacronica, p. 130). Noon would be dinner-time. Trivet briefly says that Bruce “invited” Valence to come out and fight (Annals, p. 409); similarly Rishanger (Chronica, p. 230).

252Schir Ingram.According to Gray, Pembroke acted on the advice of his Scottish lords, and lay low (se teint tot coy, p. 130).

279bot gyf thai faile.“If they do not fail on their part.”

301on the morn cum.The English, “seeing they were fewer in number, cautiously replied that they would not come out then, because it was a feast day (Sunday, June 26), but would gladly fight with him on the morrow” (Hemingburgh, ii., p. 249.Cf.also Trivet’sAnnals, p. 410; Rishanger,Chronica, p. 230).

305went to the forray.The English had calculated that the Scots would be occupied in preparing food (Hemingburgh).

310Ischyt in-forcely.At vespers (Hemingburgh:Trivet).

313wes unarmyt then.Had put off his armour. Hemingburgh says they found the Scots carelessly resting (recumbentes secure: as cited); Trivet that they came on the Scots suddenly, and slew many unarmed (p. 410). Bruce and some others speedily armed themselves and resisted (ibid.).

319on thair hors lap.According to Hemingburgh, the English attacked before all the Scots could mount. Gray says they formed up hastily, and all on horseback attacked the English (Scala., p. 131).

330For multitud mais na victory.“For the victory of battle standeth not in the multitude of an host” (I.Maccabees, Chap. iii., 19).

340-1Cf.inAlexander:

Back to Index Next