Callum Watson - PhD History
Treachery was one of the most serious social taboos in the kingdoms of north-western Europe in the medieval period. Consequently, the harshest punishments were reserved for traitors and oath breakers. For Scottish writers in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, this problem grew all the more acute due to the nature of the conflict between the kingdom and its southern neighbour. As is often observed, Scotland had far fewer resources to draw upon than England, which meant that not only could Scotland not afford to lose assets to England, but also that serving English interests could offer more lucrative rewards than remaining loyal to the King of Scots. For instance, when Archibald ‘the Grim’ secured the earldom of Douglas in 1389, disaffected members of his predecessor’s affinity offered their services and local expertise to Richard II. Barely ten years later, George Dunbar, earl of March, who had been instrumental in the prosecution of the war in the 1380s, was incensed by the increasing political closeness of the duke of Rothesay and Dunbar’s local rival the earl of Douglas. He not only defected, but also led cross-border raids against his former adherents on behalf of Henry IV. The responses of late medieval Scottish writers to the problem of shifting aristocratic allegiance can thus be quite illuminating, as in the case of John Barbour – whose long narrative poem The Bruce, recounting the life and career of King Robert I and his chief lieutenants, was composed in the mid-1370s (Barbour 1997) – and Blind Hary – who borrowed heavily from Barbour when producing a poetic biography of William Wallace around a century after Barbour was writing (Blind Hary 1968-69).
A man may yeit sufficyand be,
And but leawté may nane haiff price
Quether he be wycht or he be wys,”
J. Barbour, The Bruce, Bk. 1, ll. 367-370
In The Bruce, villainous characters are frequently portrayed as traitors, and often the greatest disasters that the Scots suffer are the result of treachery. However, switching sides does not necessarily qualify as treasonous behaviour for Barbour, and this has to do with the concept of reciprocal lordship. Ideally speaking, a vassal was expected to subordinate his own ambitions in favour of those of his lord, and be willing to put himself through danger and hardship to accomplish his lord’s aims. In return, a lord was expected to generously reward his followers for their efforts with the fruits of their combined labour. However, if a lord failed to live up to his responsibilities in this regard, a vassal had cause to repudiate a previously sworn oath and seek a lord who would behave in a more proper manner. The key example of this principle at work in The Bruce is Thomas Randolph, earl of Moray. Moray is captured by the English at the Battle of Methven and is ‘made English’. When he is eventually recaptured by Sir James Douglas, he is brought before King Robert and rebukes the king for employing guerrilla tactics against the English, instead of meeting them in open battle. This challenge to Bruce’s preferred tactics – the promotion of which is another major theme of The Bruce – indicates Moray’s dissatisfaction with the king. While he is ultimately proven to be mistaken, this serves to justify Moray’s apparent willingness to switch sides without tarnishing his reputation for loyalty. In practical terms, the appeal of this principle is plain to see. If a powerful individual grew frustrated with a lack of patronage or apparent mistreatment by a social superior, they might legitimately seek redress in the service of another. Furthermore, to do so did not necessarily mean the complete abrogation of the previous arrangement and could serve as a tool to force a renegotiation of the former relationship to the benefit of the offended party. Certainly this principle could be used to defend the actions of the likes of Malcolm Drummond in 1389 or George Dunbar in 1400.
Hary’s Wallace is notable for, among other things, its vehemently anti-English sentiment. This has been used in support of the notion that The Wallace was written as a piece of anti-English propaganda in response to James III’s overtures for peace with England, possibly in support of the duke of Albany’s attempts to use this anti-English feeling to usurp his brother’s power. However, an alternative interpretation of the poem sees The Wallace as a more conservative work, which in fact encourages its readers to hold to the traditional values for which the Scottish monarchy is supposed to stand in times of crisis. For most of the poem, Bruce is in the service of the English king and is effectively an enemy of the kingdom he should rightfully rule. When Wallace and Bruce finally meet – standing on opposite sides of the River Carron after the Battle of Falkirk – Bruce asks Wallace why he resists the English and Wallace responds that he is only fulfilling the role that Bruce himself should take. This exchange is interesting because it is the most explicit summation of Wallace’s reasoning for his actions, and it seems that this is the attitude that Hary wishes to encourage in his audience. In times of uncertainty, when the king is not fulfilling the responsibilities associated with his role, his subjects should uphold the values for which the king should stand until the king (or his legitimate heir) accepts his proper responsibilities.
General bibliography:
J. Barbour, The Bruce, (A.A.M. Duncan ed. & trans.), (Edinburgh: Canongate, 1997)
Blind Hary, The Wallace, (M.P. McDiarmid ed.), (Edinburgh: Scottish Text Society, 1968-69), 2 volumes
S. Boardman, The Early Stewart Kings: Robert II and Robert III 1371-1406, (East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 1996)
R. J. Goldstein, The Matter of Scotland: Historical Narrative in Medieval Scotland (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993)
Treachery was one of the most serious social taboos in the kingdoms of north-western Europe in the medieval period. Consequently, the harshest punishments were reserved for traitors and oath breakers. For Scottish writers in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, this problem grew all the more acute due to the nature of the conflict between the kingdom and its southern neighbour. As is often observed, Scotland had far fewer resources to draw upon than England, which meant that not only could Scotland not afford to lose assets to England, but also that serving English interests could offer more lucrative rewards than remaining loyal to the King of Scots. For instance, when Archibald ‘the Grim’ secured the earldom of Douglas in 1389, disaffected members of his predecessor’s affinity offered their services and local expertise to Richard II. Barely ten years later, George Dunbar, earl of March, who had been instrumental in the prosecution of the war in the 1380s, was incensed by the increasing political closeness of the duke of Rothesay and Dunbar’s local rival the earl of Douglas. He not only defected, but also led cross-border raids against his former adherents on behalf of Henry IV. The responses of late medieval Scottish writers to the problem of shifting aristocratic allegiance can thus be quite illuminating, as in the case of John Barbour – whose long narrative poem The Bruce, recounting the life and career of King Robert I and his chief lieutenants, was composed in the mid-1370s (Barbour 1997) – and Blind Hary – who borrowed heavily from Barbour when producing a poetic biography of William Wallace around a century after Barbour was writing (Blind Hary 1968-69).
Execution by hanging, drawing and
quartering, a punishment commonly reserved for traitors
(Bibliotheque Nationale
MS Fr. 2643, folio 197v)
“With a vertu and
leawté
For Barbour, loyalty was the most
important virtue an individual could possess:
A man may yeit sufficyand be,
And but leawté may nane haiff price
Quether he be wycht or he be wys,”
J. Barbour, The Bruce, Bk. 1, ll. 367-370
In The Bruce, villainous characters are frequently portrayed as traitors, and often the greatest disasters that the Scots suffer are the result of treachery. However, switching sides does not necessarily qualify as treasonous behaviour for Barbour, and this has to do with the concept of reciprocal lordship. Ideally speaking, a vassal was expected to subordinate his own ambitions in favour of those of his lord, and be willing to put himself through danger and hardship to accomplish his lord’s aims. In return, a lord was expected to generously reward his followers for their efforts with the fruits of their combined labour. However, if a lord failed to live up to his responsibilities in this regard, a vassal had cause to repudiate a previously sworn oath and seek a lord who would behave in a more proper manner. The key example of this principle at work in The Bruce is Thomas Randolph, earl of Moray. Moray is captured by the English at the Battle of Methven and is ‘made English’. When he is eventually recaptured by Sir James Douglas, he is brought before King Robert and rebukes the king for employing guerrilla tactics against the English, instead of meeting them in open battle. This challenge to Bruce’s preferred tactics – the promotion of which is another major theme of The Bruce – indicates Moray’s dissatisfaction with the king. While he is ultimately proven to be mistaken, this serves to justify Moray’s apparent willingness to switch sides without tarnishing his reputation for loyalty. In practical terms, the appeal of this principle is plain to see. If a powerful individual grew frustrated with a lack of patronage or apparent mistreatment by a social superior, they might legitimately seek redress in the service of another. Furthermore, to do so did not necessarily mean the complete abrogation of the previous arrangement and could serve as a tool to force a renegotiation of the former relationship to the benefit of the offended party. Certainly this principle could be used to defend the actions of the likes of Malcolm Drummond in 1389 or George Dunbar in 1400.
19th-century representation of
some of the key
characters from Barbour’s Bruce and Hary’s Wallace
(http://www.rampantscotland.com/famous/blfamfrieze.htm)
Hary’s Wallace is notable for, among other things, its vehemently anti-English sentiment. This has been used in support of the notion that The Wallace was written as a piece of anti-English propaganda in response to James III’s overtures for peace with England, possibly in support of the duke of Albany’s attempts to use this anti-English feeling to usurp his brother’s power. However, an alternative interpretation of the poem sees The Wallace as a more conservative work, which in fact encourages its readers to hold to the traditional values for which the Scottish monarchy is supposed to stand in times of crisis. For most of the poem, Bruce is in the service of the English king and is effectively an enemy of the kingdom he should rightfully rule. When Wallace and Bruce finally meet – standing on opposite sides of the River Carron after the Battle of Falkirk – Bruce asks Wallace why he resists the English and Wallace responds that he is only fulfilling the role that Bruce himself should take. This exchange is interesting because it is the most explicit summation of Wallace’s reasoning for his actions, and it seems that this is the attitude that Hary wishes to encourage in his audience. In times of uncertainty, when the king is not fulfilling the responsibilities associated with his role, his subjects should uphold the values for which the king should stand until the king (or his legitimate heir) accepts his proper responsibilities.
Resistance to royal authority in
action!
General bibliography:
J. Barbour, The Bruce, (A.A.M. Duncan ed. & trans.), (Edinburgh: Canongate, 1997)
Blind Hary, The Wallace, (M.P. McDiarmid ed.), (Edinburgh: Scottish Text Society, 1968-69), 2 volumes
S. Boardman, The Early Stewart Kings: Robert II and Robert III 1371-1406, (East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 1996)
R. J. Goldstein, The Matter of Scotland: Historical Narrative in Medieval Scotland (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993)
No comments:
Post a Comment