known as the Assaut de Tyr, and which was not, like the Fuerre and the Vaux, rendered into vigorous Scottish in The Buik of the most noble and vailzeand Conquerour Alexander the Great, written-according to the disputed colophon-in 1438, printed about 1580, and reprinted for the Bannatyne Club in 1831. Attention having at last been called to the quite phenomenal relation be-tween this poem and the Bruce, it is now contended that such overwhelming resemblances of so many lines through and through both poems-sometimes in matters of relative specialty, oftenest in mere commonplace phrases-are only explicable on the basis of the colophon being an error-perhaps for 1378-and of Barbour having himself written the translation. Possibly, according to this view, the Scottish Alexander was in hand before the Bruce was written, and when the latter work was undertaken the poet's mind was saturated with reminiscences of his other task. At any rate, the amount of material common to both poems is truly extraordinary. Historians as well as poets have ever exercised the right of making speeches for their kings and warriors, and Barbour did not go far amiss in heroically supplying for the Scottish monarch at Bannockburn a battle-speech equally poetical in its origin borrowed from Alexander the Great. The Scottish Alexander is a vivid, energetic, wellrounded poem in precisely the metre, style, and diction of the Bruce, using the same rhymes and the same mannerisms repeated again and again. Some of these have been found so characteristic as to admit of classification as idiosyncrasies of translation. The Alexander, however, although a capital and most interesting piece in itself, derives its chief importance from the unique character of its connection with the Bruce. The battle of Bannockburn as described in the latter is simply studded with lines identical with others in the Alexander. The reader will best appreciate this from a few examples, which may be compared with the Bannockburn lines in the Bruce printed above: also xii. 488 319 Now cum quhat euer God will send. 315 For dout of dede will nane the fale. 417 To disconfit the great battale. xi. 409 xii. 32 xii. 58 xii. 511 xii. 519 xii. 524 xii. 544 xii. 553-4 Thet had na power to ryse zit. 226 Quhare mony ane rummill rude was set. xii. 557 67. . . in blude 46 Armit in armouris gude and fyne. 390 And to the erd he gart him ga. 415 Dang on othir with wapnis seir. 353 Or hand ax that was schairp to schere. 227 Throw fors was fellit in the fecht. 98 Thare mycht men se that had bene by. 56 And mony knyghtes fell vnderfeit That stremand fra his woundis zude. xii. 559-60 the There are some hundreds of analogous parallels, and as the lines thus owned in common by the Bruce and the Alexander are seldom such as any author would be likely to plagiarise, although often far from being mere commonplaces of the period, the inference has been drawn that nobody but Barbour himself could have made Scottish translation. This conclusion has received ample corroboration from rhyme tests, and from comparison of methods of translation disclosed by Barbour's other works of that order. It assumes that the colophon date-1438-must have been merely scribal or an error of the press.1 No doubt this fact presents a slight difficulty, but it is the only one which exists; and scribal errors and intentional changes were far from uncommon. On the other hand, the date 1438 can only be accepted on the extravagant supposition that the translator was so imbued with Barbour's technique as to enable him to copy even his distinguishing error of rhyme, that of occasionally equating yng with yne. Not only so it would require us to believe that Barbour and the anonymous translator both had recourse to Huchown when they wished to describe the month of May. Huchown, translating Guido, had written in the Destruction of Troy (line 12,969): Hit was the moneth of May when mirthes begyn, mingled Groves brightwoods The Alexander has two descriptions of May especially noteworthy, because they differ from the rest of the poem in respect that seventeen lines out of twenty-three combine rhyme and alliteration. The Bruce also has two descriptions of May (that of Were or Ver being truly of the summer month) likewise remarkable for the quite exceptional and systematic alliterations they contain in thirteen lines out of twenty-two. Alexander, page 107. In mery May quhen medis springis And foullis in the forestis singis, 1 Dr Albert Herrmann, a German scholar, had in his Untersuchungen über das schottische Alexanderbuch (1893) suggested that the translator of the Alexander in 1438 had learned the Bruce by heart, and thus came to imitate it so frequently and closely. Mr J. T. T. Brown is, it is understood, publishing in Germany his view that the Bruce was rewritten towards the close of the fifteenth century by a scribe who 'edited' it by the insertion of romance embellishments, including the numerous passages from the Alexander. The ascription to Barbour of the Alexander was first made by the present writer in a paper on John Barbour, Poet and Translator,' read to the Philological Society in London on 22nd June 1900, when it was unanimously accepted as proved beyond doubt. And ynde with uther hewis ma Bruce, Book v. lines 1-12. That wikkit wynter had thame revede, And all greviss begouth to spryng. Bruce, Book xvi. lines 63-71. blossoms winsome robes various groves various indigo, blue hideous Began varied began covering robbed groves No inconsiderable proportion of the alliterations in those four May pieces occur in Huchown's May descriptions, one of which is above quoted: these are found in the Bruce as well as in the Alexander, and Huchown's own indubitable familiarity with the French Alexandre lends countenance to the suggestion that through these descriptions of May, which have a music of their own, we can hear the echo of the romance culture of the fourteenth century, and recognise in Barbour this evident trace of Huchown's intellectual ascendency over him. As we have seen, they were colleagues at the Exchequer, and it is pleasant to have grounds so solid for the belief that their leisure talk may have turned to the Nine Worthies, to Arthur, or to 'Sir Hector of Troy.' The last-named theme had probably enlisted Barbour's poetical sympathies early in his career, for no really tenable objection has been stated to the ascription to Barbour by a fifteenth-century scribe of portions of a rhymed translation of Guido. These Troy Fragments Bot twenty mene gud and ill. Na of the gret oste hyme thane socht, Trumpeter joker knowing host by chance foes then gait, road weened well he not knowing without delay Weened-betrayed The story of Jak (afterwards Carrick Herald) is told so much in the Archdeacon's manner as to form a remarkable connecting-link between the chivalry of the Bruce and the Alexander and the biographical piety of the Legends. GEO. NEILSON.] There are two principal MSS. of the Bruce, both 15th c. The poem, printed in 1571 and 1616, was edited by Jamieson (1820), Cosmo Innes (1856), and Skeat (E. E.T. Soc. 1870-77, and again for the Scottish Text Society, 1894). The Legends of the Saints and the Troy Fragments, discovered by Bradshaw in the Cambridge University Library (see Bradshaw's Life by Prothero, 1885), were edited as Barbour's by Horstmann in 1881-82. These attributions were at first accepted, but Köppel (Engl. Studien, x. 373) and Buss (Anglia, ix. 493) disputed them. Similarly Professor Skeat, followed by Dr Metcalfe (Scot. Text Soc. 1896), denied Barbour's claim. The renewed argument for Barbour by Geo. Neilson (Scot. Antiquary, 1897, and Athenæum, 27th Feb. 1897) has met with no reply. The critical views expressed in the present article are set forth in Geo. Neilson's 'John Barbour, Poet and Translator' (Proc. Philol. Soc., June 1900). J. T. T. Brown's The Wallace and The Bruce Restudied (Bonn, 1900) denied the genuineness of the text of Bruce, and ascribed many of its best passages to John Ramsay, a late 15th-century scribe, who was thus credited not only with collaborating in the composi tion of the Wallace of Blind Harry, but also with redacting and embroidering the Bruce, as written by Barbour. This bold study in sceptical and reconstructive literary criticism was at once attacked by Neilson from the historical base, and a keen controversy ensued in the Athenæum from 17th Nov. 1900 to 23rd Feb. 1901, on which a critic in that journal (9th Feb.), summing up, recorded the impression that in this problem historical criticism has proved much too powerful.' With critics generally the authorship of the Alexander remains an open question, and the discussion is not ended. Andrew of Wyntoun.-Androwe of Wyntowne, one of the canons regular of St Andrews, who became prior of the Inch in Lochleven, did 'at the instans of a larde,' Schyr Jhone of Wemis, resolve to draw up chronicles out 'off Latyne in tyll Ynglys sawe' (which he calls 'owre langage'). And inasmuch as his Chronicle is to expound the beginning of angels and men, he wills that it be called orygynale.' The angels are briefly dealt with, and he proceeds to ‘Adame owre orygynale,' the Creation, the Fall (without specifying Satan's share), the spate of Noe,' and the Scripture history briefly; followed by some account of Egypt, Assyria, Rome, emperors and popes, till he comes to Ynglis and Scottis story.' That he has little regard to the relative importance of events may be seen from the chief incident recorded under the papacy of Siricius (384–398), when-according to his authorities-St Jerome translated the Bible out of Hebrew, and St Austin received Christendom, and St Ambrose was making 'antemys and wersyklys & ymnys' (anthems, versicles, and hymns); at this time there was born a remarkable two-headed 'barne,' which, in addition to two heads (‘hevydys'), four eyes, four ears, two mouths, two noses, four hands, four feet, twenty fingers and twenty 'tays,' had an inconveniently 'dowbyll wyt'— For quhen the ta hevyd oysyd to slepe the one head used The Orygynale Cronykil is in general merely a rhyming chronicle without poetical merit save a certain rude vigour and homely simplicity, though at times it rises to the level of poetry, and as a piece of literature it is greatly inferior to Barbour. It contains the usual proportion of fables, but fewer than Fordun (see page 182), and makes no mention of the forty-four fabulous kings before Fergus, though the early chronology of Scotland is chaotic. The Cronykil is of no small historical value, especially for some periods of the national life; about the bishopric of St Andrews, for example, Wyntoun gives us more information than anybody else. Andrew, who must have known a good deal of law, and often uses legal phraseology, became prior of St Serf's island monastery about 1395, and brings down his record (written here, no doubt) to 1406. On doubtful grounds, he is sometimes said to have written the last lines in 1424. The date of his death is not known. In honowre of the ordrys nyne of haly angelys,' he divided his work into nine books, of which five deal with sacred and universal history, and only the last four with Scottish story. It is not known what Wyntoun gave Andrew birth -there is one on the Haddingtonshire Tyne-or to what family of Wintons he belonged. The Flood is described with some force: madly streams-rolled Ane hundyr dayis and fyfty gude In till a leysh had grewhundys twa : 'Of Morave yhondyre I se the Thayne!' most youth Duncan's uncle Gruoch All thus quhen his eme wes dede, And sevyntene wyntyr full rygnand Quhen Leo the tend was Pape off Rome, [Really Leo IX.J poor-need used At the siege of Berwick in 1296 the Scots defeated the first attacks of the English and burnt their ships; the 'mokkyshe ryme' made by the Scots on this occasion has been given above at page 171. Wyntoun describes with malicious joy the rage and disgust of Edward 'with the lang schankis' on hearing of the disaster, and tells how he writhed with wrath and led a new host in person against the troublesome town; how, foiled again in an open assault, he had recourse to 'dissymbelatyoun,' and pretended to withdraw his armies; and how, having disguised them as Scots, with falsepainted banners, he returned again to the gates: Wythin the town the Scottis wes All off the towne thai gert wp cast. And wmbeset the Scottis thare, The lyvys all thai tuk thaim fra. The carnage went on a whole day— Thus thai slayand ware sa fast rejoiced deceit supposed host Therefore-gates caused thronged beset Ere they slew whole Learned and lewd (vulgar)-nun all kind of old-wives sucking bairns -lost Yeomen till at last even the king was sickened, and 'Lasses, lasses,' than cryid he, 'Leve off, leve off' that word suld be. The last two lines show what was the language of this very 'English' King Edward I., and of his commanders and camp. But though Edward and his nobles and gentry habitually spoke French (lasses is, of course, laissez), as doubtless Bruce, Baliol, and the Scottish nobles also did, Edward knew English, and is recorded to have sometimes spoken English. The story of the defence by Black Agnes of her castle of Dunbar in 1339 against the English besiegers is told with spirit and with much detail, including a famous episode: Schyre Willame Mwntagw, that swa bicker, fight For qwhen thai bykkyre wald, or assayle, The part of Wyntoun's Chronicle concerning Scotland was printed by Macpherson in 1795; a complete edition was prepared by David Laing for the Historians of Scotland' series (3 vols. 1872-79). The historical importance of Wyntoun is recognised by the numerous early MSS. of the Cronykil still in existence. See Mr Craigie in the Scottish Review for 1897 and in Anglia for 1898. In 1900 the Scottish Text Society was preparing an edition from an unpublished text. And More than half a century before Wyntoun indited his Chronicle in the priory at Lochleven, a secular priest, John Fordun, canon of Aberdeen Cathedral, was gathering and recording the annals of Scotland in Latin. Fordun is represented as having travelled far and wide throughout Britain and Ireland, with his MS. in his breast, gathering materials; his labours having been vastly increased by the vandalism of the tyrant Edward, who had carried off the national records. Fordun gathered a good deal of the material that later, in Boece's hands, blossomed out into the mythical history of early Scotland, for which only recent research has substituted authentic fact. He brought his Scotichronicon down to the death of David I. in 1153, but had collected materials extending to the year 1385, about which time he is supposed to have died. His History was then taken up and continued (also in Latin) to the death of James I. (1437) by Walter Bower, or BowMAKER, abbot of the monastery of Austin Canons on Inchcolm, in the Firth of Forth, who died in 1449. Bower and others made interpolations throughout and alterations; but as it is, the Scotichronicon is the principal authority for the history of Scotland before the fifteenth century. On early Scottish history-writing Skene thus sums up: Before Fordun there were only short chronicles and lists of kings. The germs of much that was fabulous were to be found among them, intermingled with fragments of true history, but nothing like the spurious and fictitious history of after-times then existed. In the Scotichronicon these fables are found digested into something like a chronological system, which formed the basis of the fictitious superstructure invented by historians of the school of Hector Boece (see page 212); but the narrative of the Scotichronicon becomes more valuable during what may be called the historic period of Scottish history. In that of the twelfth and thirteenth it forms the indispensable groundwork of our annals; while in the fourteenth century it becomes a contemporary authority; but this is only true in so far as it is the work of John Fordun. The additions of his continuators are not of the same value' until they in turn become contemporary historians; Bower's account of his own time is certainly important. Skene's edition of Fordun (2 vols. 1871-72, with translation) does not contain Bower's continuation. The Scotichronicon as completed by Bower was edited by Goodall in 1759. The Kingis Quair and James I.-The lustre that surrounded the name of James I. of Scotland has of recent years been somewhat shorn of its brightness. With the real facts of his reign before us, it is now impossible to regard him as a king after the model of an Alfred or a St Louis, pursuing with undivided aim the happiness and well-being of all classes of his people. His claims also to be regarded as a poet have of late been debated. Yet, after every abatement has been made, James must ever remain one of the most interesting figures in the history of his country. His long exile and imprisonment, his undoubted personal accomplishments, and, above all, his early and tragic death, must continue to give him a place apart in the succession of Scottish kings. As the result of the latest research, much must be rejected or modified in the traditional accounts of James's life. Born in 1394, he was the third son of Robert III., that amiable though feeble king whose difficulties with his unruly barons are so vividly set forth in the Fair Maid of Perth. James's early education was entrusted to Bishop Wardlaw, one of the most enlightened Scots of his day, and subsequently the founder of the University of St Andrews. At this period it was to France that the studious youth of Scotland flocked for the completion of their studies; and as Scotland and France were then in the strictest bonds of political amity, there were at once public and private reasons for sending the heir of the Scottish crown to that friendly country. That James was sent to escape personal danger there is no evidence to show. In view of his future career it would be hard to say whether the miscarriage of his guardians' purpose was of good or evil fortune. In the spring of 1406 James sailed for France, but was captured by the English off Flamborough Head. For eighteen years he remained a prisoner, and, though strictly guarded throughout the whole period, he received an education which, alike for his future as a poet and as a king, was probably of greater value than what even France could have afforded him. He made that sympathetic study of Chaucer which he turned to such profit in the Kingis Quair, and he acquired that knowledge of the English constitution which enlarged his views of his function as a king of Scots. The traditional account which associates his exile so closely with Windsor Castle must now be set aside. If he is to be thought of in connection with one spot more than another, it is with the Tower of London rather than Windsor Castle; for it was in that prison and asylum of princes that his longest abodes were made. In point of fact, however, his changes of residence were frequent throughout the whole term of his detention; and there are on record at least two visits to France, each of some months' duration. The death of Henry V. in 1422 opened a way for the restoration of James to his native country; yet his return was delayed for other two years. At length, in 1424, on the pledge of a ransom of £40,000, to be paid in six instalments, the Scots received back their king. With him James took as his wife Lady Joan Beaufort, daughter of John, Earl of Somerset, grandson of Edward III. Of the relations of James and his wife before their marriage we cannot speak with certainty; for, whatever view we take of the authorship of the Kingis Quair-the 'King's Quire or Book'-the very nature of that poem precludes us from taking its statements as matters of fact. Yet their union may have been one of love as well as policy. Their married life was happy; and if we may measure Joan's attachment to her husband by the ferocity of her revenge on his assassins, that attachment must have been great indeed. During his actual reign of thirteen years it would seem as if James were pursued by a sense of the years he had lost in his long exile. His well-known saying, 'I will make the key keep the castle, and the bracken-bush the cow', expresses at least the general aim of his policy. Of his energy and capacity as a ruler even the meagre record of his actions that has been preserved affords conclusive proof. Yet the course and conclusion of his reign leave us in little doubt that his energy was not directed by tact and prudence, and that the aggrandisement of the Crown lay as near his heart as the general good of his people. By his violent and illegal confiscations he alienated the majority of his nobles, and by rash impositions he made himself unpopular with his subjects at large. His assassination (1437) in the Blackfriars' Convent at Perth was the issue of personal revenge; but even the circumstances of his end, so fitted to touch the heart of a people, gave him no place in the memory of his countrymen such as was held by his descendants James IV. and James V. It is strange to turn from the picture of the king, energetic, hard, and even unscrupulous, to that of the poet who idealised his love in such a poem as the Kingis Quair. Yet, independently of the evidence of his poetry, we know that James was keenly susceptible to the lighter graces of life. He was an adept in all manly sports, he sang and he played several instruments, and he took delight in drawing and painting and gardening. Of all the learning of the time, and specially of the art of poetry, he was an ardent student; and it was doubtless this reputation which led to his being accredited with the authorship of several poems now dissociated from his name. The Kingis Quair and A Ballad of Good Counsel-of all the poems that have been attributed to him these are the only two that his most competent editor, Professor Skeat, accepts as indisputably the work of James. The Song on Absence, Peblis to the Play, Chrystis Kirk of the Grene, cannot, according to Professor Skeat, be ascribed to him with any show of reason'-a conclusion contested by Mr Henderson in his Scottish Vernacular Literature (1898). But scepticism |