[13] The Bibliography of the Cambridge History of English Literature, vol. ii., recklessly says: “As the colophon informs us (!) all three MSS. were written by John Ramsay” (p. 447).
[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).
[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.
[37] The editor of The 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. See Cupar and Perth MSS., in Scotichronicon, Lib. IX., chap. xlviii.
[47] An article on Barbour’s Bruce in the Saturday 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.
[51] Bk. IV. 767-774. Contempt for astrology, indeed, had already gone pretty far—Chaucer’s Franklin has 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.
[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.
