LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

PLACE iN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

r__Q

 

 

 

“(L204

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1m com-mu

 

 

WOULD-BE CONQUERORS:
SCOTTISH HISTORICAL APPROACHES TO
ARTHUR, WILLIAM I, AND EDWARD I OF ENGLAND, 1380-1600
By

Christine Ellen Purpus

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1997

ABSTRACT
WOULD-BE CONQUERORS:
SCOTTISH HISTORICAL APPROACHES TO
ARTHUR, WILLIAM I, AND EDWARD I OF ENGLAND, 1380-1600
By

Christine Ellen Purpus

Six Scottish historians writing during a critical period (1385 - 1596) in Scottish
history, a period marked by political unrest, struggles for power, and a growth of
nationalism, are examined in order to determine why they wrote history. John Fordun,
Andrew Wyntoun, John Mair (also known as John Major), Hector Boece, George
Buchanan, and John Leslie wrote because they each felt a sense of mission, a need to
change the present by educating their readers about the past. lFordun, the first to write a
complete history of Scotland, is reacting directly against Edward I’s action in gathering up
and at times destroying valuable information. Wyntoun wants to ensure Scotland’s place
in world history. Putting Scotland’s history on an equal footing with England’s is one of
Mair’s primary goals. Boece wants to inspire Scotland’s leaders to unite and not simply
further their individual power struggles. Buchanan strives to strengthen the monarchy and
ensure that Scotland does not return to either Catholicism or the rule of Mary Queen of
Scots, which makes him directly opposed to Leslie who hopes to accomplish just that.

The reason for writing history is uncovered by a close examination of these six
historians’ presentations of the reigns of Arthur, William the Conqueror, and Edward I.
They each deal with these three English kings who had hopes of dominating Scotland, and

they select their materials and mold their histories to fit their particular aims. Fordun

discusses the nature of kingship. National independence is foremost in Wyntoun’s
discussion. Peace and the union of the crowns govern Mair’s writing. Boece stresses
strong leadership and the need for a united focus. Buchanan searches for moral
reformation as well as political unity. Finally, the reform of the religious life and the end
to factionalism are Leslie’s main focuses.

In spite of their different specific aims, these Scottish historians were united by
their desire to change Scotland’s fiJture by explaining its past. The passion and vision

which they convey through their histories lives on.

Copyright by
Christine Ellen Purpus
1997

To my son

Eric Scott Purpus

and the memory of my father

Eugene Robert Purpus

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the assistance and support

of my committee. Dr. Lister Matheson served not only as my chairman, but also my

mentor, and he was ably assisted by Dr. M. Teresa Tavorrnina, Dr. James Hill, and Dr.

Victor Paananen. My thanks to all of them for their assistance and guidance.

In addition, I would like to thank Jan, Jack, Barret, and Colby Ayres; Ruth, Dick,

Rick, Amy, Dayna, Keith, Michelle and Kevin Kassner; Ellen and Chris Kukla; Jerry and
Bev Love; Dorothy and Tom McCabe; Judy, Jerry, Blair and Blake Richards; Sue

Whittaker; and Marilyn Wurzburger for their unfailing support and encouragement during

the writing of this dissertation.
Finally, I want to say that this dissertation would not have been completed if it

Were not for my son, Eric, who has supported my efforts in countless ways, from his
i"'IIDIicit and unwavering faith in my ability to complete this dissertation to the performance

of the countless mundane tasks necessary to keep the household running. THANK YOU

ERIC!

vi

INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I: The Task and Role of the Historian

John F ordun
Andrew Wyntoun
John Mair

Hector Boece
George Buchanan
John Leslie
Conclusion

CHAPTER II: The Historians’ Views of Arthur

John Fordun
Andrew Wyntoun
John Mair

Hector Boece
George Buchanan
John Leslie
Conclusion

CHAPTER 111: Users and Uses of History: Social and Political Functions

John Fordun
Andrew Wyntoun
John Mair

Hector Boece
George Buchanan
John Leslie
Conclusion

CONCLUSION

WORKS CITED

vii

10
10
21
29
41
54
66
77

79
81
92
103
117
129
141
150

153
153
171
183
198
208
223
232

234

245

INTRODUCTION

In this dissertation I will examine the histories written by six Scottish historians
from approximately 1385 until 1596. I will look at each of these historians in turn to
analyze their views on the task and role of the historian, their treatment of Arthur, William
I, and Edward I in their works, and finally their views on the uses of history. Through this
analysis I hope to demonstrate that while each of these historians has written a unique
work from his own particular reference point, nevertheless they share a common reason

for writing their histories.

This dissertation begins with a brief overview of the medieval view of history in an
effort to understand how the subject was treated in the Middle Ages and to set the stage
for a detailed examination in future chapters of the six major Scottish historians from the
Middle Ages and Renaissance. In the twelfth century both England and France saw a
13" ge increase in Latin historical writing as well as verse histories and fiction in the
V‘31‘1'121csulars.l This trend reached Scotland a bit later, but beginning with John Fordun and
AnClrew Wyntoun in the fourteenth century there is a rise in the number of both Latin and
Vemacular histories which either deal exclusively with Scotland or which focus on
SC>01:1and in relationship to the rest of the world. The reasons for the appearance of these

histOl‘ies at this time probably lies in Scotland's political relationships, especially those with
\

1
Jean Blacker, Faces of Time (Austin: U Texas P, 1994) xi.

1

2

fingland. The reasons will be examined more closely when the social and political
finnctions of these histories is discussed in chapter 111 of this dissertation.

Medieval historians were writing what they believed to be true. Likewise, their
readers for the most part accepted what they read as factual. Medieval historians report
factual history, but their definition of history allows the inclusion of what must have
happened or what probably was said. The scope of what was believed to be true differed
from present day beliefs, and the historians' additions and choices of sources sometimes do
not conform to modern requirements for factual histories.2 The most obvious difference
may be seen in the way in which medieval historians use dialogue. They put words into
the mouths of historical characters either indicating what they probably said or could have
Said- Dialogue can also be used by the historian to express his own perspective. The use

Of created dialogue dates back at least as far as Thucydides, and the practice was not
abandoned until relatively recently.3 In spite of the differences between medieval and
mod em concepts of history, the use of the term historian for the medieval writers serves to
underscore their desire to portray their works as factual.4 It is the historians' attitude

to"Var-d their craft and their presentation of historical figures which defines them as

 

 

2 RUth Morse, Truth and Convention in the Middle Ages: Rhetoric, Representation, and
Reality (New York: Cambridge UP, 1991). See especially pages 89-101.

3
Ernest Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, 2"" ed. (Chicago: U
Chicago P, 1994) 17.

4F' J- Levy, Tudor Historical Thought (San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1967), finds
that the “chief criterion for historical truth was moral utility. If a ruler, or even an
0Fdinary citizen, could learn how to behave from a story, then it was in some sense
hlstory. The result of this view was that criticism, or even doubt, became difficult, largely
began se it was irrelevant” (l4).

3

historians, without any distinctions between them as chroniclers, romancers, etc.’

The Middle Ages did not have the same concept of specific genres which modern
readers use,‘ leading to fithher complications in our efforts to uncover medieval history.
Modern readers make clear distinctions between romance and history, between fiction and
fact, but this was not the case in the Middle Ages.7 As Paul Strohm states, "a romaunce
might indeed be explicitly historical" ("Storie" 355). Furthermore, fiction is composed
within history, such as the use of created dialogue, and these creations thus add historical
evidence of their own.8 History was not an academic discipline, and the medieval sense of
the past was found in legends, chronicles, and myths, all of which contained history for the
IVIiddle Ages.9 It is an inescapable fact that medieval historians viewed a wide variety of
materials as sources for their histories. I will examine the issue of source selection in

Chapter I with specific examples for each of the historians covered in this dissertation.

¥

5 Blacker 3. See also Roger Ray, “Medieval Historiography through the Twelfth Century:
Problems and Progress of Research,” Viator 5 (1974): 33-59.

6 A discussion of genre in the Middle Ages may be found in Mark Amsler, “Literary
Theory and the Genres of Middle English Literature,” Genre 13 (1980): 389-96 and Paul
Strohm’s articles, “Some Generic Distinctions in the Canterbury Tales, ” Modern
Philology 68 (1971): 321-28; “The Origin and Meaning of Middle English Romaunce,”
6.3hre 10 (1977): 1-28; and “Storie, Spelle, Geste, Romaunce, Tragedie: Generic
lstinctions in the Middle English Troy Narratives,” Speculum 46 (1971): 348-59.

7
Ray notes that “the medieval notion of history was quite suitable to a wide range of
forl‘ns, including both the chronicle and poetry” (37).

8
Pflul Strohm, Hochon's Arrow: The Social Imagination of the F ourteenth-Centwy Texts,
nnceton: Princeton UP, 1992) notes that "fictionality should not be considered an
embarrassment to a text's ultimate historicity" (4).

9 .
BllZabeth Pochoda, Arthurian Propaganda: "Le Morte Darthur" as an Historical Ideal
Of Life (Chapel Hill, NC: U North Carolina P, 1971) 30.

4

It is important to remember that no matter what period is studied, there is always a

d ifference between the past and the history written about that past. History, by necessity,
must represent what historians claim the past to have been. Their representations will
never give everything that happened, especially since much of the past has left no
surviving traces.lo Selection then becomes an inevitable tool, and each of the historians
reveals differing ideas about the suitability of the materials he chooses. One of the main
reasons that these Scottish historians wrote their histories was to present materials which
they felt had been neglected, overlooked, distorted, or slighted by various English
historians.

Each of the Scottish historians to be considered in this dissertation was writing
afier the major political event known as the Great Cause, whereby the succession to the
thl’one of Scotland was arbitrated by Edward I. The relationship between the king of
SCOts and the king of England was a subject of heated political debates during the Middle
Ages- As Scotland emerged from relative isolation near the end of the eleventh century,
Particularly because of the marriage of King Malcolm III to Edward the Confessor's great-
“iece Margaret in approximately 1070, the relationships between these two nations
became closer and at times much more problematic.” Political, ecclesiastical, economic,
and social issues were all at stake. Interrnarriages involving both the royal family and

many baronial houses resulted in an aristocracy whose members fiequently held lands on

\

10
F01- a fuller discussion of this topic see James Wilkinson, "A Choice of Fictions:
Storians, Memory, and Evidence" PMLA 111 (1996): 80-92.

11
E. L. G. Stones, Introduction, Anglo-Scottish Relations 11 74-1328: Some Selected
oClements, ed. and trans. by E. L. G. Stones (London: Nelson, 1965) xiii-xliv.

5
both sides of the border. Scottish power moved south until David I (1124-53) was able to

control Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland. This control did not continue
after his reign, but the Scottish claims to power in this region caused political disputes
until the claims were finally abandoned in 1237. The Scottish church was also trying to
determine where its loyalties lay, as it did not have an archbishop of its own. The see of
York attempted to claim authority over the church of Scotland, and in fact the papacy
supported York's claim during the first half of the twelfth century. However, later, when
the Scottish church was officially designated as a filia specialis of the Holy See, the
papacy no longer supported York's claim. The change in the relationship between the
church of Scotland and the papacy became vitally important during the hearing of the
Great Cause, an adjudication in Edward I’s court between claimants to the Scottish throne
cau sed by Alexander III’s premature death in 1286 and the subsequent death of his
granddaughter, the Maid of Norway, in 1290.

The debate at the end of the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries over the
Sc>01;tish succession, as well as the question of Scotland's independence fiom England,
cau Sed historians and politicians to search for historical evidence in order to decide the
issue of Scotland’s sovereignty. As Stones notes, the Middle Ages regarded the past as a
"Witness to unchanging inherent rights and obligations. Thus the records of the past
co‘~-11d, if studied with sufficient care, provide a definite answer to any question of title, and

one which was perpetually valid" (xix). Therefore, the role of historians and historical

6

documents became a very practical and political issue.12 One of the main issues debated in
the question of sovereignty was whether Scotland's king was in fact a vassal to the king of
fingland. It is here that the history of Arthur becomes relevant, especially after Edward I
uses Arthur's reign to support and indeed validate England's claim to an interest in the
Scottish throne. In reply to the Bull of Pope Boniface VIII (1299) in which the pope
insists that Edward I stop his war against Scotland because Scotland is "a land in which
the pope says that the right belongs to himself“ (Stones 81), Edward states in a "Letter
sent to the court of Rome concerning the king's rights in the realm of Scotland" (1301)
that
Arthur, king of the Britons, a prince most renowned, subjected to himself a
rebellious Scotland, destroyed almost the whole nation, and afterwards installed as
king of Scotland one Angusell3 by name. Afterwards, when King Arthur held a
most famous feast at Caerleon, there were present there all the kings subject to
him, and among them Angusel, king of Scotland, who manifested the service due

for the realm of Scotland by bearing the sword of King Arthur before him; and in

\

12 R- James Goldstein, The Matter of Scotland: Historical Narrative in Medieval Scotland
(Llncoln: U Nebraska P, 1993), notes that “historical writing played a constitutive role in
t. e development of national consciousness in medieval Scotland and constituted a distinct
htel‘ary tradition. Although a considerable body of historical writing survives fiom the
Scottish Middle Ages, the effects of centuries of England’s cultural and political
e’Semony have ensured that many important writers continue to suffer undue neglect” (6).

13

R- S. Loomis, “Scotland and the Arthurian Legend,” Proceedings of the Scottish
A"fiquarian Society 89 (1955-6): 1-21, notes that Angusel was “king of Albania, that is
Eliotland between Lothian and Moray” and that he was restored to his kingdom by Arthur

7

succession all the kings of Scotland have been subject to all the kings of the

Britons. (Stones 98)"
These claims concerning the homage owed by the Scottish kings to the English were
raised frequently thereafter, even through the reign of Henry VIII. The issue of homage
changed radically with the union of the crowns under James I, and eventually with the
formal union of the parliaments in the eighteenth century Scotland lost its independence.
However, Scotland’s drive for independence has existed in various stages of activity down
to the present. The issues which began with Edward I and his efforts to gather historical
documents to be used as proof in political issues caused several Scottish historians to
evaluate the existing histories and write their own. Scotland needed to have its own
history told.

In this dissertation I examine six Scottish historians. I look at the works of John

Fordun, Andrew Wyntoun, John Mair (also known as John Major), Hector Boece, George
BuChanan, and John Leslie. Chapter I examines the backgrounds of each of these

historians, looking at their choice of sources, their reasons for writing, and the historical

 

 

“R- S. Loomis, “Edward I, Arthurian Enthusiast,” Speculum 28: 114-27; Studies in
Medieval Literature: A Memorial Collection of Essays (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970):
275 ~88, notes that while Edward I did use Arthur for political reasons, that “sentiment too
Was involved, and that in his cult of Arthur Edward was influenced by a vogue not
e"(Clusively English but shared by most of the aristocracies of Christendom in his day”
(275). Michael Prestwich, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272-1377
ndon: Routledge, 1980), finds that Edward participated completely in the chivalric
cu 1ture of the age, including appearing in tournaments. “He was a devotee of Arthurian
legend, and had the reputed grave of Arthur and Guinevere at Glastonbury excavated. He
held round-tables for his knights, and at one of his feasts a squire appeared disguised as
the Loathly Damzel, a figure in Arthurian legend. Yet some of the king’s actions were

haI‘dly in accord with chivalrous concepts” (3 7).

8

rhethods they used. I show just how each of these men viewed his role as historian. No
matter how the field of historical theory may have changed over the centuries, and no
matter how these histories would be viewed today, the men writing them saw them as
history. It is important then to learn just how they viewed the task of an historian and
what this term meant to each of these writers.

Chapter II focuses on the treatment of Arthur by each of these historians, detailing
what information they give, what their probable sources were, what their attitudes are
toward Arthur, and in what context the Arthurian material is found. I have chosen to
focus on Arthur for this chapter in order to compare the treatment by the Scottish

historians to their English counterparts in an attempt to discover more about why each of
these historians wrote. The issue of selection and treatment of materials arises, and no
two of these historians chose the same perspective for Arthur. An analysis of the
treatment of Arthur will serve as a backdrop to the more recent portions of these histories
as I continue to search for the purpose behind them.

Chapter III discusses the various users and uses of history, namely the social and

D01 itical functions of these histories. Analysis of each of these historians will reveal
information about the intended audience, the historical/political context at the time of
Writing, comparisons of the treatment of Arthur with modern kings, and the purposes
whi ch their histories were designed to serve. Specifically, I compare the treatment of
Arthur and his period with the treatment of first William the Conqueror and then Edward

I - These three kings were selected as they were all major non-Scottish kings who played a

proInirlent part in both English and Scottish history. Further, William the Conqueror, like

9

Arthur, was a bastard who had to fight for the right to the crown. Edward I became king

easily enough, but he is the monarch who first uses Arthur as a defense for his right to rule

Scotland. He is also heavily involved in historical records, and in fact provides the

motivation for the first of the Scottish historians, namely Fordun.

The conclusion provides a summary of the tasks of the historian, the views on
Arthur, and the uses of history as seen by these six historians. I then argue that in spite of
their different approaches, they each had the same overriding purpose for writing their
history and that the fundamental reason for each of them was the same. They share a
conviction that history must teach and inspire its readers to learn from the past in order to
change the present and future. While this conviction on the part of these Scottish
hi storians is not the only possible reason for the writing of history nor even unique to
them, it does provide insight into just why these histories were written at this particular

mo ment in Scotland’s history, and why the Scottish historians felt so strongly that they

had to write histories independent of those already in existence.

CHAPTER I

The Task and Role of the Historian

This chapter considers the background, sources, reasons for writing, and historical
methods of six Scottish historians. John Fordun (ca. 1320 - ca. 1385), Andrew Wyntoun
(ca. 1350 - ca. 1420), John Mair (ca. 1467 - 1550), Hector Boece (1465? - 1536), George
Buchanan (1506 - 1582), and John Leslie (1526 - 1596) all wrote works designed to give
the history of Scotland a fitting position within the field of historical writing. The goal of

thi 5 chapter is to determine how each of these historians viewed his task and his role as

hi storian.

John Fordun
The first of the Scottish historians to be considered is John of Fordun (ca. 1320 -
ca- 1385). He was a cleric, possibly born in Fordun in Angus, and he wrote the first
c0 mplete history of Scotland, his Chronica gentis Scotorum (ca. 1385), at about the same

time that Barbour was writing the Bruce." Very little is known about F ordun, except

 

\
1 s‘Kt‘lne M. McKim, “‘Gret Price Off Chewalry’: Barbour’s Debt to Fordun,” Studies in
cottish Literature 24 (1989):7-29, discusses the possible relationship between these two
a1Jthors, noting that Fordun was a priest in the Cathedral of Aberdeen where Barbour was
arehdeacon from 1357-95. Also, as Roger Mason, “Kingship, Tyranny and the Right to
eSi st in Fifteenth Century Scotland,” Scottish Historical Review 66 (1987): 125-51,

10

11

what information he gives within his preface to the work. He traveled around Britain and
Ireland, searching for historical documents, talking with historians and chroniclers until he
was able to write his own history. He is the first writer to compile a complete history of
Scotland. Before his work was written, Scottish history consisted only of short chronicles
or lists of kings."5 His work covers the period from the origins of Scotland to the death of
David I in 1153. He had little evidence to draw upon, especially for the distant past, and
had to use fragmentary scraps, such as the story of Gaythelos and Scota, as well as
Geof’fi'ey of Monmouth, classical historians, Bede, and monastic chronicles compiled in
Sczotland.l7 Fordun wrote his history in order to defend the nation of Scotland," as

demonstrated by his uncovering the origins of the Scots, which he felt Edward I was

 

notes, the Chronica Gentis Scotorum was “designed to vindicate Scotland’s historic and
continuing independence. In this respect, it is a celebration of Scottish freedom not
dis similar to that found in John Barbour’s Bruce. Contemporaries as they were, Fordun
and Barbour were inspired by the same intensely patriotic motives.” Barbour had one man
as a focus for his work. Fordun’s hero is “the Scottish royal line as a whole, a line
stretching back into the mists of prehistory and by virtue of its very antiquity and
continuity, proving once and for all that the kingdom of the Scots was and always had

been a free and independent realm” (144-45).

16 Most of the early lists of kings as well as many of the chronicles may be found printed in
Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish
History, ed. W. F. Skene (Edinburgh: T. Constable, 1867). See also A. 0. Anderson,
Early Sources of Scottish History (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1922) and A. 0.
Anderson, Scottish A nnals from English Chroniclers A.D. 500 to 1286 (London: David

utt, 1908).

1178Bruce Webster, Scotland from the Eleventh Centu’y ’0 1603 (Ithaca: Cornell UP’ 1975)

l
8 Hans Utz, “Traces of Nationalism in Fordun’s ‘Chronicle’,” Scottish Studies (F rankfurt-
arush/Iain) 4 (1984): 139-49. Utz argues that Fordun’s history “was to provide the ‘gens
.Scotorum’, the peOple of the Scots, with a history all its own, the pre-requisite of national

Identity” (139).

12

trying to suppress, and by his emphasis on the ancient liberty of the Scots.19 It was
Edward I's removal or destruction of Scottish records which sent Fordun “on an
expedition into the meadows of Britain and the shrines of Ireland, through cities and
towns, universities and colleges, churches and monasteries, speaking with historians and
visiting chroniclers,” examining their books and annals, until he satisfied himself through
persistent investigation.20
Fordun's work consists of five books, as well as a series of annals which he
probably intended to work into further chapters, but he died before he could complete the
task. He had read Higden's Polychronicon and was familiar also with William of
M almesbury. In addition, he used the St. Andrews Register, which has since been lost. A
list of its contents does survive, however, in B.L. Harleian MS. 4628, and it apparently
co nsisted of 121 folios. Some of the documents which were to be found in this register
included Nomina regum Scotie et Pictorum; Genealogia regum Anglite ab Henrico 2do.,
ascendendo ad Noah per matrem; H istoria originis Scotorum ex Egypto ad Hispaniam, in
Hi bemiam, breviter inde in Britanniam; Et genealogia sancte Margarete uxoris

Malcolmi; and Historia.21 Fordun also makes use of Giraldus Cambrensis as well as the

e

19 Webster 44-45.

20 "in prato Britanniae et in oraculis Hiberniae, per civitates et oppida, per universitates et
c(>11egia, per ecclesias et coenobia, inter historicos conversans et inter chronographos
IDel‘erldinans, libros comm annales contrectans et cum eis sapienter conferens et disputans,
ac tabulis sive dipticiis quae sibi placuit intitulans, tali fatigabili investigatione" (Johannis

de Fordun, xlix-l). Translation from Goldstein (Matter 107).

2
1 William F. Skene, Preface, Johannis de F ordun Chronica gentis Scotorum (Edinburgh:
Edmonston and Douglas, 1871) xxxvi.

l3

chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon.
Fordun's history was later expanded by Walter Bower (1385 - 1449), author of the

huge Scotichronicon. Bower saw a need for a formal history written in Latin which would
complete and continue Fordun. The Scotichronicon is an extensive history of Scotland,
following Fordun closely for the first five books, but then expanding the briefer 'gesta
annalia' into a history on the same scale as the rest by using material from other sources.
Further, Bower adds non-Scottish history from the Speculum Historiale of Vincent of
Beauvais, a widely-read universal history . He increased the length of his narrative by a
great deal of moralizing as well as by the addition of details which are not found in Fordun
or any other obvious source.22 Bower’s work will not be discussed here since the
materials on Arthur, William the Conqueror, and Edward I come directly from Fordun.
Fordun wrote his Chronica gentis Scotorum, probably for a clerical audience, and
Val-ious manuscripts survive containing his history. It is important to differentiate between
Fo rdun's work, consisting of five books and part of a sixth written between 1384 and
1 3 85, and the continuation of his work, including the addition of eleven books, written by
SO rheone born in 1385 and compiled between 1441 and 1447. According to William F.
Skene's Preface to the Latin edition of Fordun, six of the extant manuscripts contain all
Si3"Eteen books of the Scotichronicon. Another eight manuscripts have this same text in
abridged or altered forms. Three manuscripts contain only the first five books. Three
l"note manuscripts consist of parts transcribed from other manuscripts. It is these last two

categories which seem to represent Fordun's original history most closely (xv-xxxi).

\
2
2 Webster 49.

14

However, the number of manuscripts which still survive attests to the popularity of
Fordun's work.

Fordun wrote his history of Scotland so that he could counter the information
about Scotland contained in or omitted from the histories already in existence.23 After all,
fiom at least one political perspective, Scotland has a longer history as an independent and
unconquered country than any other nation in Europe. Fordun felt that this history
deserved to be told. He also tried to counteract the effects of Edward I's seizure and
removal of valuable historical documents.” His history is designed to emphasize the
ancient liberty of the Scots, and Fordun plans to do for Scotland what Higden had done
for England. His emphasis on Scottish liberty is present from the beginning of the work.
When Gaythelos and his people leave Spain and sail to an island, they attack the
inhabitants, gaining victory. Gaythelos stresses the importance of taking the island,
exhorting his sons to "accept the gift the gods offer you, and go without delay to the
island prepared for you, where you shall be able to live noble and free" (14).25 Hyber,

Gaythelos's son, leads his people upon the death of his father, taking them to the island,

e

B Goldstein notes that when Fordun began his history “there had been no previous attempt
to chronicle in detail the entire history of the Scottish nation. Although Fordun died
before completing the task, his unfinished work nonetheless stands as one of the greatest
achievements of historical writing in medieval Scotland” (Matter 104).

2‘ Edward I not only seized documents, but also “ordered the monks to engage in a critical
reading of their chronicles to separate what was pertinent to his political project from
what was irrelevant. . .The king, in other words, had evidently assigned a specific meaning
to the chronicle texts in advance of their actual reading: only those passages that
established his ‘right’ in Scotland must be selected” (Goldstein, Matter 59).

2’ Fordun is cited by page number from Skene’s translation.

15

later named Hibernia after him. F ordun stresses that the Scots began in a place even better
than the Britons did, and he proves this by quoting Bede:

Hibernia is the largest island of all, next to Britain, and is situated to the west of it.

But as it is shorter than Britain towards the north, so, on the other hand, stretching

out far beyond its confines to the south, it reaches as far as opposite the north of

Spain, although a great sea lies between them. But this island much excels Britain,

both in being broader and in the wholesomeness and serenity of its climate. (15)
Thus, F ordun begins his work with a clear emphasis on the independence of the Scottish
people and their advantages over the Britons. The political implications of this emphasis
will be explored later.

The way in which Fordun uses his sources may be seen from the opening of his
work where he gives an account of Greece and Egypt, because "we gather from various
writings of old chroniclers that the nation of the Scots, one of most ancient descent,
sprang from the Greeks, and from the Egyptians who survived the overthrow of their
fellow-countrymen and king in the Red Sea" (1). Fordun is thus able to begin his history
of Scotland with an accounting of the origins of the world, of the Biblical division of the
continents between Noah's three sons, and the division of the time from the beginning of
the world to the birth of Christ into five ages. While this introductory material is short, it
does serve to set the history of Scotland firmly into ancient traditions. Once again,
Fordun's efforts to prove Scotland's pre-eminence are evident from the beginning of his
work. As he describes Europe, and comes to the details surrounding the largest of

Europe's islands, he says that "its northern portion, in like manner, being inhabited by

16

Scots from an early period, was called Scotia; and it is now, by the help of God, the chief
kingdom of the island" (5).

F ordun makes use of specific authorities by name, demonstrating his desire to
authenticate his information and inform his readers of his sources. Isidore is his source for
the origins of the earth, while for Europe he uses Ptolemy. Fordun demonstrates clearly
how he pulls together information from a variety of sources in his efforts to discover the
true history in his description of the origin of the Scots. First, he uses one chronicle which
tells how all Egypt was overrun by Ethiopians and how Gaythelos was sent to aid the
Pharaoh. Then, he reads in The Legend of St. Brandan that a certain Gaythelos was the
son of a Greek warrior, and that further he had married the daughter of the Egyptian
Pharaoh. Her name was Scota, from whom the Scots derived their name. Finally, Fordun
uses yet another chronicler who tells how Gaythelos was unwilling to reign by right of
succession and so left his country with a band of followers, arriving in Egypt and
eventually marrying the Pharaoh's only daughter Scota. Fordun dates these events in
chapter 10, as "three hundred and thirty years before the taking of Troy, seven hundred
and sixty years before the building of Rome, in the year 1510 BC." (8), placing the origin
of the Scots considerably earlier than the origin of the Britons.26 Fordun is able to weave
information from these three sources into a coherent account. When Fordun's sources

disagree, he presents the data from them and then uses a variety of approaches.

 

2‘ Goldstein notes that “Scottish clerics evidently developed the Scota legend in the early
medieval period to help unify the kingdom during the ascendancy of the house of Kenneth

mac Alpin, and to counter the Anglocentric interpretation of history introduced by Bede”
(Matter 118).

17

Sometimes he merely leaves it to the reader to decide which account or information to
follow. Other times, he concludes with remarks such as "such is Geoffrey's account" (19).
And finally, he lets the test of time prove the validity of an idea, as is seen when he says
"and this, as common belief asserts to this day, proved true" (24) Whenever possible,
Fordun tries to find a way to reconcile discrepancies, as may be seen when F ordun notes
that "divers ancient histories of the nation teach" that Scotia was inhabited by two nations
"whilst, however, some maintain" that the Scots reigned for many years before the Picts
arrived. Fordun continues by saying "but even in this, even if they had arrived in the island
simultaneously, do histories by no means so much disagree" (28) since in fact the Picts did
not have kings, but rather judges, for at least two hundred years. Fordun deals very
clearly with the problems of discrepancies among historical sources when he says:
Verily, they do differ. But histories do not hold consistent language, either one
way or the other; for, frequently, in the very same work, various passages are
intermingled with others of contrary import, so that clauses incompatible with each
other are sometimes inserted even in the same chapter. Although, however,
discrepancies of this sort are very often found in chronicles, they should by no
means be imputed to their skillful, nay, holy authors, who have taken care to
write their histories in strict conformity with truth, and with an unswerving regard
for their original authorities; but, rather, to transcribers of a rival nation, by whose
envy, lest the power of adjoining kingdoms should be strengthened, certain
chronicles are entirely perverted, corrupted, violated, and, very often, indiscreetly

so changed that the assertion of one chapter seems to annul the purport of the

18

next. But, in truth, whatever variations of this sort, in the definition of the

boundaries of Britannia, may be found in histories, through the fault of

transcribers, the common opinion of modern time is that the whole of Albion was

called Britannia, from Brutus, who only colonized its southern regions. (33-34)

This passage is very important in discovering Fordun's views of historical writing.
It demonstrates his views on the accuracy of his sources, and also reflects one of his prime
reasons for writing his own history of Scotland. He finds that the history of Scotland has
been perverted by transcribers of a "rival nation," and he corrects those errors. He
attempts to discern the truth, what existed in the chronicles before the transcribers
changed it. Another important point to notice from this passage is Fordun's belief in the
need for the historian to have a strict regard for truth. Fordun himself writes his account
of Scotland using the highest degree of accuracy possible, and he endeavors not to make
the errors of past transcribers. He tells his readers that he is writing the truth in as far as
he is able to find it, and he does not hesitate to let his readers know when he cannot find
his way through the discrepancies within his various sources.

In fact, Fordun does run into further difficulties with his sources, and this is most

evident in his accounts of the early history of Scotland.27 The early history, before 850, as

k

27 Information concerning these early sources is uncertain. Marjorie Ogilvie Anderson,
“The Lists of the Kings,” Scottish Historical Review 28 (1949): 108-18, concludes that
“most of our lists of kings of the Scots, including all the certain kings of the Scots earlier
than Kenneth Alpin’s son, are clearly derived from one common ancestor” (108).
Anderson then discusses these early kings and our sources of information concerning
them, including Fordun and Wyntoun’s probable sources in detail in Kings and Kingship
in Early Scotland (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1973). John L. Roberts, Lost
Kingdoms: Celtic Scotland and the Middle Ages (Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1997), notes
further that the information on the Picts and their kings is very difficult to locate. “Our

19

presented by the ancient authorities, tells of a Pictish monarchy in the eastern and northern
districts of Scotland, and a colony of Scots from Ireland forming in the sixth century the
small kingdom of Dalriada in the west. The Scottish clergy were expelled from the Pictish
territories in 717. Alpin, the last king of Dalriada, tried to mount the Pictish throne in
726, but Dalriada was conquered by the Picts in 736, and was ruled for a century by
princes partly of Pictish race. The final union of both kingdoms under a king of the
Scottish race occurred in the year 850. However, later chroniclers disagree with the most
ancient histories, and it is the later chroniclers whom Fordun uses in his effort to give a
complete history of Scotland from the earliest times, just as Higden had done for England.
He therefore runs into difficulties with the lists of kings, difficulties which he is unable to
solve. It is not known precisely what sources Fordun knew or how he selected the ones
he did use, but his frequent complaints about the lack of sources would seem to indicate
that he did not have a lot of choice. Not only were sources for medieval Scottish history
scarce, but they were not comprehensive or straightforward to use. More often than not

they have been placed directly into a reconstruction of the past." But these sources are

 

knowledge of the Picts is fragmentary in the extreme. They left no written records apart
fi'om a king-list in Latin, known rather grandly as the Pictish Chronicle, of which only very
late copies survive, dating from the tenth century at the earliest” (5).

2‘ See Lister M. Matheson, “A Great Divide: Historical Principles in Early and Middle
Scots Literature,” Celtic Connections, ed. David Lampe, Acta 16 (Binghamton: The
Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1993 [for 1989]): 73-97, for a
discussion of the effects of the scarcity of reliable sources on the writing of medieval
histories. When few sources were available, the result was two-fold, producing both “an
unusual respect for the written word and a willingness to accept hearsay evidence” and a
“tendency to be all-inclusive, to include all that one could find, no matter how reliable the

source” (82).

20

not direct accounts of the history of Scotland. Each one has a particular approach which
needs to be understood.29 Fordun may not have had access to the earliest sources, which
have been uncovered by later historians. Conversely, he would probably have known
sources which are now lost. He also would have lacked any tools for deciding which of
the conflicting sources was most accurate. In all likelihood, F ordun was forced to use one
or more of the later listings of kings, where names had been duplicated to fill in obvious
gaps.

In addition to the question of sources, it appears that Fordun always applies the
word Scotia to Scotland, resulting in the assimilation into his history of events which
sometimes belong to Ireland. This means that he has an early settlement for the Scots in
Scotland which should be in Ireland. While Fordun's early accounts have difficulties with
sources and accuracy, according to Skene, his work beginning with the reign of Kenneth
mac Alpin is very accurate and has served as an authoritative account for more modern
historians. In spite of his difficulties with sources, Fordun's efforts to be a reliable and
accurate historian are consistent throughout his work, and he tries hard to reconcile
various disparate accounts.

Therefore, it is possible to conclude that Fordun made every effort to write what
he felt to be a true and accurate history of Scotland. He felt the need for an honest

accounting of Scottish history, which he found to be lacking in any existing histories. He
places the Scots firmly within the ancient traditions, beginning his work with the account

of the founding of Scotland designed to balance the founding of Britain by Brutus. He

k

29 For the problematic nature of these narrative sources, see Webster 57.

21

stresses the longevity of the Scottish nation and its continued tradition of freedom and
independence from outside forces. He cites his sources freely, and often, and when he
comes upon discrepancies or differences among his sources, he does his best to
acknowledge the difficulties and guide his readers through them. If he can find no
solution, then he leaves the final determination to his readers, after presenting all his
available information. He continually reafflrms his own efforts to record the truth, and
stresses that the responsibility for reporting historical truth belongs not only to him, but to
his sources as well. While errors, either deliberate or accidental, may exist in
transcriptions, the original historians were acting in good faith, recording the past as

truthfully as he himself is doing.

Andrew Wyntoun

Andrew Wyntoun (ca. 1350 - ca. 1420) wrote the OlygInal Cronykil of Scotland
(ca. 1420), a verse chronicle tracing the history of Scotland from its origins to 1408. Very
little is known about Wyntoun. His own preface lets the reader know that he was a canon

of the Augustinian priory of St. Andrews, and that he became prior of St. Serf’s Inch
around 1393. Wyntoun's work differs from Fordun's, not only because it is a verse

chronicle written in the vernacular, but also because Wyntoun attempted to write a world
history, fitting Scotland's history into a larger chronology. However, especially from 1286
on, his Cronykil becomes a description of the Scottish wars against the English. Wyntoun

Specifically cites Barbour's Bruce as his reason for dealing lightly with the reign of Robert

22

1, since his readers could get that information directly from Barbour. From then on, he
writes a filll and exciting account of the wars of the fourteenth century, always stressing
the achievements of the Scots and glorifying their struggle against the English.

Wyntoun begins with the origins of the world, hence the use of Otygynal in his
title, and continues with various geographical and historical materials using such diverse
sources as Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Dares, Horatius, Guido, Barbour, and the Bible. His
readers learn of Noah and the flood, Daedalus, the foundation of Rome, Samson and
Delilah, Amazon women, the Spartans and Leonidas, and much more. Wyntoun puts
events in chronological perspective so that his readers discover that event A took place at
the same time as event B. Wyntoun, unlike Fordun, was not able to travel widely
searching for sources, and in fact, he complains about his scanty sources. Furthermore,
many of those that he did find are not recognizable to us now. Many medieval chroniclers
simply copied their Latin authorities, but Wyntoun was not content with just copying. He
is also a translator, and sometimes he abridges his sources, while at other times he expands
upon them.

Wyntoun uses the Origo Mundi of Honorius of Autun for his descriptions of Asia,
Afiica, and Europe, which are in book I of the Cronykil, and at the end of his descriptions
Wyntoun tells his readers that

Qwhat I haf mysdon in my spel

Ymago Mundi can weil tel. (1: 1413-14)30

Wyntoun never hesitates to refer his readers to his original sources, and he reminds them

e

3° Wyntoun is cited by book and line numbers.

23

in his prologue that he may not be the most skillfill of writers, but that he has been asked
to write this work by Sir John Wemyss of Leuchars,31 so he will do his best:

Suppose this treatise simpilly

I maid at the instance of a larde

That has my seruice in his warde,

Schir Iohne of Wemys be rycht name. (I: 54-57)

Wyntoun also used the St. Andrews Register, and his other sources include Martinus
Polonus, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Aelred of Rievaulx, Henry of Huntingdon, and
Barbour’s Brute, a work which is now lost.

Wyntoun, like Fordun, saw a real need to have Scottish history told and for
Wyntoun, it was necessary not only to give Scottish history, but to set it into the
framework of world history so that Scotland could be seen in the context of the rest of the
world. Wyntoun is doing this to justify and glorify Scotland, but he in no way sees that as
undermining his honesty as a historian. Rather, once his history has been written,
Scotland's true place in the course of events will be recognized. Wyntoun organizes his
work into nine books. He opens with creation and it is not until the second book that
there is any extensive mention of Scottish history, although the genealogy of ancient
Scottish kings beginning with the section from Noah to Gedil-Glays "that had weddit
Scota 3ynge,/ Pharoaos douchtir of Egipte kynge" appears in the first book (1: 1439-40).

Descriptions of Scottish geography do appear early in the work in the section on

 

3' Details concerning Sir John Wemyss may be found in Sir William Fraser, Memorials of
the Family of Wemyss of Wemyss, 3 vols. (Edinburgh, 1888) I: 47-55.

24

European geography, and there is reference to the language of the Picts and Scots as well,
but only in passing within a more general discussion (1: 1375-82). Because Wyntoun
chooses the approach of a world chronology, he ends up with the genealogy of Scottish
kings done in parts, fitting it into the overall chronology.

Wyntoun's organization effectively puts the history of Scotland in the middle of
other well-known events. For example, in book 11 Wyntoun begins with Ninius, King of
Babylon, followed by the stories of Abraham and Isaac, the inhabitants of Rhodes, back to
Joseph and then Moses in Egypt, before getting to the story of the origin of the Scots.
Once the origin of the Scots has been told, including their coming out of Ireland to
Scotland, Wyntoun returns to world history by narrating the events surrounding the King
of Persia. Again, in book IV Wyntoun begins with the founding of Rome by Romulus and
Remus. He then moves on to discuss Cyrus and Darius in Babylon, before discussing the
Scots and the Picts. Next come discussions of Alexander the Great followed by Hannibal
and the Carthaginians’ attack on Rome, in the middle of which Wyntoun goes back to
discuss the Picts in Scotland. More world history follows, until book VI again takes up
the matter of the war between the Scots and the Picts for one chapter before returning to
Charlemagne. However, beginning with book VI, the emphasis becomes more and more
focused on Scotland and England, with very little if any world history given in the last
books. This would seem to indicate that the reason for the early emphasis on the world
chronology was to ensure that early Scottish history was firmly set in the distant past,
bringing authenticity to the longevity of the Scottish nation and its independence from

England. The political motivation behind this desire to document Scottish early history

25

will be discussed below.

Wyntoun transcribes and translates his various sources, giving full and generous
credit to them. Sometimes his references are general, such as "accordand cronyclis sais"
(I: 30). Other times Wyntoun will give a precise source, mentioning the author or work
by name. When his sources differ, Wyntoun comments by saying:

Awtouris seyr in thar storice

Opponyonys haldis on syndry wyse (1: 1489-90),
indicating that there is some divergence in the sources he is using.

Wyntoun carefillly acknowledges his authorities, and in fact the impression which
Wyntoun leaves with his readers is that he is a faithfirl and ardent historian, solid,
thoroughly capable, and shrewd. Further, he is scrupulous in his own pursuit of accuracy,
showing few lapses, and yet he is a charitable critic of the historical errors of the authors
he followed.32 For example, when Wyntoun finds problems reconciling some of his
sources, he says that

I fynd ay sum discrepans,

That I am nocht of sufficians

For to ger thame all accord;

Bot sympilly for to record. (11: 901-904)

He then leaves it to his readers to cope with the problem. He does not criticize the

sources or find that some must be inaccurate. He concludes only that he himself does not

 

32 F. J. Amours, Introduction, The Original Chronicle of Andrew Wyntoun, 6 vols.
(Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1903-14) xl.

26

have suflicient knowledge or information to reconcile the discrepancies. When Wyntoun
finds difliculties with the accounts of the genealogies of the Scottish kings, he finally
decides the problem is too hard to decide, and after explaining the difficulties he concludes

Giff othir, of mare sufficians,

Can fynde bettyr accordance,

This buk at likyn thai may mende. (IV: 1147-49)

He does not seem to doubt the accuracy of the historical accounts, but nevertheless he
cannot resolve the discrepancies.”

Wyntoun has difiiculties again with the early history of Scotland, especially with
the time spent in Ireland and the exact moment when the Scots actually arrived in
Scotland. He narrates first what he finds in Barbour's Brute, a work referred to by Fordun
as well, but which no longer exists. Then, Wyntoun follows this account with the
statement that "other auctouris seyr" (II: 791) give different facts and that these authors
actually "tretis part of this mater" (II: 791). The differences are presented before

Wyntoun goes on to say:
I will nocht thir opinionis all
Contrare, for thai may weill fall;

Bot it is doutwise be the dait

 

 

33 See W. A. Craigie, “Wyntoun’s ‘Original Chronicle,’” The Scottish Review 30 (1897):
33‘54, for a detailed discussion of Wyntoun’s efforts to resolve the insurmountable
Pmblems he found in the lists of kings. Craigie notes that the problem began “long before
the days of either F ordun or Wyntoun, [when] it had been contrived that the Scottish
monarchy should begin some centuries before Christ, so as to out-distance the claims of

England” (35).

27

That cronyclaris befor me wrait,
And vthir incedentis seire
According part to this mater.
Bot quhether it be, or vthir wayis
Than all thir autouris befor me sayis,
For certane 3e sall vnderstand
That out of Spanse in till Irland
The Scottis come, that to this day
Has it and Scotland haldin ay. (11: 831-41)
This is another technique for dealing with discrepancies. Wyntoun finds variations within
his sources for early Scottish history, but he also discovers that overall, the story is the
same. Whatever the reader makes of the individual variations which Wyntoun presents,
the overall effect is still the same, and this is what Wyntoun urges his readers to focus on.
The effort which Wyntoun makes to account for discrepancies again demonstrates
that he takes his job as historian seriously, determined to present true accounts in as far as
he is able. Wyntoun cites his sources and uses the names of his authorities whenever he
can in order to prove his 'soothfastness.' The authenticity of Wyntoun's work would not
be doubted by his readers, since everything Wyntoun does demonstrates his desire to
sear Ch for the truth among the historical records, and place the history of Scotland within
the Context of a wider history.
Wyntoun, no doubt intended his history to be read by other clerics. However,

unlike his fellow cleric, Fordun, Wyntoun writes the Orygynal Cronykil of Scotland in the

28

vernacular, and so it is possible that he intended it to be read by a lay audience as well.
The fact that he has chosen to write in verse may also indicate that he intended for his
work to be recited by bards, thus reaching a potentially larger audience.34 His history
consists of about thirty thousand lines. In Spite of this length, it has survived in at least
nine manuscripts, attesting to its popularity.”

Therefore, it may be concluded that Wyntoun set out to write a complete history
of the world, focusing on Scotland, in an effort to place Scottish history within an overall
context and justify Scotland's right to a prominent place in world history."5 Furthermore,
as the history progresses, it is obvious that Wyntoun is really concerned with the
relationship between England and Scotland, and he wishes to be sure that early Scottish
history is set forth as clearly and completely as early English history. While Wyntoun
intends to glorify Scotland in his world history, he also works diligently at presenting a

true and honest accounting of his information. The truth of Scottish history will result in a

 

3" R. James Goldstein, “‘For he wald vsurpe na fame’: Andrew of Wyntoun’s Use of the
MOdesty T opos and Literary Culture in Early Fifteenth-century Scotland,” Scottish
Literary Journal 14 (1987): 5-18, discusses the reading of Wyntoun saying that
“Wyntoun’s chronicle would not have been restricted to those able to read Scots. It is
SfilUtary to remember that in the Middle Ages, even such long works as the Orygynale
Cronykil were often read aloud, as Andrew indicates in his occasional addresses to a

listening, as well as a reading, public” (5).

35 Craigie notes that “while the Legends exist in only one copy, and the Bruce in two,
there are at least eight of Wyntoun which have a respectable antiquity (15“ and 16'”
cefiuuries), besides several later transcripts. This is an almost unique supply of material for
fixn'lg the text of an old Scottish work” (34). Goldstein notes that “the popularity of his

Yntoun’s] 002gynale Cronykil of Scotland is well attested to by its survival in nine
manuscripts” (“‘For he wald vsurpe na fame’,” S).

36
See Grace G. Wilson, “Andrew of Wyntoun: More Than Just ‘That Dreich Clerk,’”
SCOtia 10 (1986): 1-14 for a discussion of Wyntoun as historian.

29

proper evaluation of Scotland. When Wyntoun runs into discrepancies which he cannot
resolve, he lets his readers know this. He has written his account in much the same spirit
as Fordun wrote his. Wyntoun's history is considerably longer and of wider scope than

Fordun's, but the aims and purposes are very similar.

John Mair

John Mair (ca. 1467 - 1550) was born near Berwick and studied at Cambridge and
Paris, where he received the degree of Doctor of Theology in 1505. He remained in Paris
for twelve or thirteen years after graduation, becoming one of the most famous professors
of theology, as well as logic and philosophy, of his time. Mair was in Paris during the
height of the French Renaissance, a period of an intense revival of learning. This was a
period when "France was both on political and educational grounds the natural resort of
the Scottish student ambitious of carrying his studies to the highest point and sure of a
hospitable reception from a nation which had never forgotten the ancient bonds that united
Scotland and France." 37 In 1518 Mair finally returned to Scotland, at the urging of Gavin
Douglas, among others. He became principal regent of the College and Paedagogium of
Glasgow [i.e., the University of Glasgow] as well as canon of the Chapel Royal at Stirling
and vicar of Dunlop, proving that he must have taken orders, although he devotes himself
to the educational side of his ministerial duties. He lectured on scholastic logic and

theology at Glasgow and St. Andrews from 1518 to 1525, when he returned to Paris.

 

37 Eneas J. G. Mackay, "Life of the Author," A History of Greater Britain as well
England as Scotland, by John Major, Archibald Constable, trans. (Edinburgh: University
P, 1892) XI.

30

Mair taught and published in Paris before returning to St. Andrews in 1531 to resume his
lectures on theology. However, the productive years of his academic life had ended with
his return to Scotland. This was possibly the result of an enfeebled old age, but also in
part because of the political climate in Scotland which was "not favourable to the calm
production or revision of philosophical or theological commentaries. The time for
contemplation had passed, the time for action had come. Major was not a man of
action."38
John Mair's Historia Majoris Britanniae tam Angliae quam Scotiae (1521),
written in Latin and probably intended primarily for clerics, presents an interrelated history
of Scotland and England with surprisingly little nationalistic bias. He clearly demonstrates
a critical and impartial spirit in his analysis of the histories of both Scotland and England.
He was a theologian writing history and by the time he published his History of Greater
Britain, he had become an advocate of the union between Scotland and England, assuming
that geographical units should be treated as historical units. He continually emphasized his
point that there could be no chance of a permanent peace between two neighboring
nations of such spirit as the Scots and English, except in the union of the crowns by way
of intermarriage. Mair's history also omitted many of the fables and even rejected the
story that the Scottish kings were descended from Scota. Instead, Mair follows the
information in Bede, stating that Britain was originally inhabited by Britons who had had

their origin in Arrnorica in Gaul. Mair says that this is evident from the fact that the early

Britons "speak the primitive tongue, and the Britons of Annorica in Gaul understand this

 

3‘ Mackay cvi.

hi

6)".

all

sin

31

tongue" (17). Then, the Picts "invaded the island, and made of it two kingdoms--of the
Picts, namely, and the Britons. Following the Pictish invasion came that of the Irish
Scots" (17). Throughout all of this analysis, based primarily on languages, Mair maintains
that in fact, everyone born on the island, whether descended from other foreign origins or
not, are Britons. "I say, therefore, that all men born in Britain are Britons, seeing that on
any other reasoning Britons could not be distinguished from other races; since it is
possible to pass fiom England to Wales, and from Scotland by way of England to Wales,
dryshod, there would otherwise be no distinction of races" (18). Therefore, Mair has set
up right fiom the beginning a basis for his belief in the union of the crowns, and he has
made no reference to either the Scottish or English origin stories, stories which would give
credence to separate identities, causing divisiveness.

Had Mair's History become more widely known, European historiography might
have been radically changed. He was the first Renaissance historian in Scotland and his
history demonstrates the critical spirit of the Renaissance. For example, he distrusts the
evidence from English chronicles for their prejudice against Scots and demonstrates doubt
about much of the remoter past as it appeared in Fordun.39 However, even though the
sixteenth century saw the beginnings of critical scholarship such as that demonstrated by
Mair, it also contained much of the fantastic, and Mair did not make much headway

against the more popular conceptions of history as written by Boece and later Buchanan.

 

3’ Webster comments that Mair’s “approach to history had a good deal of the critical spirit
of the Renaissance about it. His Historia Maioris Britanniae, published in Paris in 1521,
rightly distrusted the evidence of the English chronicles which he thought were often
prejudiced against the Scots; and he showed a very reasonable scepticism about much of
the remoter past as it appeared in Fordun” (19).

32

After all, the stories of descent from Trojans or Greeks were points of national honor.‘0

Mair uses a variety of sources, both historical and theological, which he is careful
to acknowledge. He obviously respects and has confidence in John Scotus Erigena, John
Duns Scotus, and especially Bede. He also uses Ninian as well as early chroniclers. He
refers to Geoffrey of Monmouth and he is highly critical of Caxton, whom he seems at
times to credit with having written the works which he printed.“l Mair had also read
Robert Gaguin's Compendium super F rarrcorum Gestis, which is written in much the same
spirit as Mair's history and may indeed have been a model for him.42 Mair uses many more
sources, but in each case he attempts to evaluate the accuracy of the source and to
establish the truth when accounts differ.

Mair opens his work by saying that:

in few words, and in the manner almost of the theologians, 1 am about to write an

account of Britain, by far the most famous of islands, and one which, in the opinion

 

‘0 A full discussion of these issues surrounding the beginnings of critical scholarship may
be found in Webster, pp. 18-19.

‘1 Archibald Constable, Editor’s Preface, A History of Greater Britain as Well England
as Scotland by John Major, ed. Archibald Constable (Edinburgh: U Edinburgh P, 1892)
xvii-xxvii, notes that it is not strange that Mair has nothing to say about the invention of
printing or Caxton as a printer, since the importance of printing was not fully recognized.
However, Mair’s dislike of Caxton seems to stem from the fact that he credited him with
being the author of the works which he printed. Mair’s using the terms “Anglus
Chronographus” and “historicus Anglus” indicate that Caxton “was believed by him to be
the original writer of that work, and not merely the printer, and perhaps the editor of
Trevisa’s translation of the old Chronicle of Brut” (xxiii). See Lister M. Matheson,
“Printer and Scribe: Caxton, the Polychronicon, and the Brut,” Speculum 60 (1985): 593-
614 for a complete analysis of Caxton’s printing of Trevisa and the prose Brut.

‘2 Mackay lxxv.

33

of illustrious writers, may be reckoned even by itself as a second world. I shall

treat first of the reason of its name, then in general terms of the kingdoms of which

it is composed, and last of all I shall deal at length with those kingdoms and their

special history. ( 1)

Mair dedicates his work to James the Fifth, King of Scots, offering "the homage that is
due to his King" (Preface cccciii). In his preface Mair addresses three areas of his history
which had been criticized, namely that he should seek a patron for his work, that a
theologian should write history, and that his style is more suited to a theologian than an
historian. In answering these criticisms Mair is able to articulate his reasons for writing
history as well as his views on the nature of history. He does not want to be a chronicler,
but rather he sees history as a source of practical lessons.

Mair discusses the precedents involved in dedicating an historical work to a
patron, in his case James V, saying that his critics claim that any such dedication puts the
historian in the position of a flatterer rather than a teller of truths. Further, these critics
note that none of the ancient historians, such as Sallust and Livy, dedicated their works,
and Mair admits that he has "never read any dedication made by them, whether because
they observed no such use, or because these have come to be lost in lapse of time, as has
befallen so many other things" (cxxxiii-cxxxiv). Here, Mair seems to recognize that
materials have been lost over time, and as an historian he may not have all the sources he
needs. Also, dedications may not have been appropriate for these historians. Sallust, for
instance, lived and wrote before the time of the Roman emperors. Mair is dedicating his

work to his own king, as an expression of his natural and just homage. However, Mair

ea

34

does note that almost all of the poets, who wrote histories as well, have dedicated their
poems to princes, and that theologians such as Jerome, Augustine, and even England’s
own Bede, had dedications. Indeed, Mair states that "almost all the rest of the
ecclesiastical historians" had dedications. He is obviously indicating his admiration for
these historians, especially Bede, whom he will cite frequently as a source, as well as his
intentions of following their examples.

Mair also notes that his critics are against the dedication of a work to a particular
person because "he who seeks for a patron must put on the mask of a flatterer rather than
that of a historian, whose first law it is to write the truth" (cxxxiii). In order to avoid any
charges of flattery, however, Mair says that he has "left untouched, to be dealt with by
other hands, matters of most recent date" (cxxxiv). Possibly this is an indication that an
historian needs to be able to distance himself from the materials he writes about, and that
it is not appropriate for him to comment or write about current events. Earlier historians,
such as Fordun and Wyntoun, had held similar views. There is also the assumption that the
historian's first duty is to write the truth. Mair will use all of his analytical powers to
determine the validity and accuracy of his sources. The new Renaissance spirit of learning
which he absorbed in France will enable him to write a history very different from the
earlier ones written by Fordun and Wyntoun."3

The second objection to Mair's history, namely that of criticizing a theologian for
writing history, Mair deals with by saying that "if it is the special province of a theologian

to lay down definitions in regard to faith, and religion, and morals, I will not believe that I

 

‘3 Levy discusses fully the changes in historical thinking at this time.

35

transgress when I narrate not only what has come to pass, or by whose counsel such and
such matters were carried, but if I also make distinct definition whether these matters were
carried rightly or wrongly" (cxxxiv). Mair feels that he is providing a real service in
writing his history so that his readers may "learn not only the thing that was done, but also
how it ought to have been done, and that you may by this means and at the cost of little
reading come to know what the experience of centuries, if were granted to you to live so
long, could scarcely teach" (cxxxiv-cxxxv). This view of history as moral theology not
only is used as justification for a theologian writing history, but it also will require that
Mair do more than merely presenting his sources. He will have to analyze the information
in his sources to determine if the decisions were right or wrong. In addition he will have
to find a way to justify the information which he presents. Mair's views on history are
very consistent with the methods he uses for examining and analyzing his materials, as will
be demonstrated later.
Mair then concludes his preface by addressing the criticisms dealing with his style,
which his critics state should have been more cultivated. However, Mair says that if
one should give what would be almost a Latin turn to the names of our own
people and places, scarcely would we that were born in Scotland understand what
was meant. And in as much as our princes have ever aimed rather to act nobly
than to speak elegantly, so with those who have given themselves to the pursuit of
knowledge it is of more moment to understand aright, and clearly to lay down the
truth of any matter, than to use elegant and highly-coloured language. (cxxxv)

He then cites the examples of his predecessors, namely Erigena, Duns Scotus, Bede,

be;
Onl

his

36

Alcuin, and "a hundred more, who, when they first learned Greek and Latin, chose rather
so to write that they needed not an interpreter than with a curious research of language"
(cxxxv). Clearly, Mair is indicating that the purpose of his history is to convey truth, so
that his readers may understand what happened in the past, and hopefully avoid such
mistakes in the fiJture. He is more interested in the pursuit of knowledge than in achieving
a "more cultivated style." It is true, however, that what Mair terms his use of an inelegant
or unfashionable Latin style did not help his popularity, anymore than did his omission of
the Scota story.

In answering these three objections to his history and the way in which it was
written, Mair clearly lays out his own guidelines. He determines that his history must deal
with truth, and that he has a responsibility to give his readers accounts of what actually
happened. He finds that he must write his history in a clear, straightforward language
which his readers will be able to understand, and which will not obscure the truth he is
narrating. Finally, he decides that he has a responsibility to comment upon the events of
the past so that he does more than the chronicler who recounts events only. Mair feels a
moral commitment to his readers to explain how things "ought to have been done." In this
way his history is designed to guide his readers so that they might learn from the mistakes
of the past in a way which otherwise would not have been possible.

After addressing the three objections which had been made about his history, Mair
begins with an accounting of the origin of the name Britain, and in so doing he begins not
only his history but also his evaluation of his sources. From the moment he commences

his history, Mair demonstrates his desire for the truth and his ability to evaluate his

ha

Ha:

37

sources. He begins by noting that "our ancestors call Britain by the name of Albion" (1).
He gives Caxton's account of the origin of this name, saying “of the origin of this name
Caxton, the English chronicler, gives the following visionary account” (1) and then
evaluates the "visionary" account. Mair concludes that Caxton's account seems "to me
partly fabulous--he found a handle for his fiction in the story of the children of Aegyptus
and Danae--partly ridiculous, and partly to have some connection with historical fact" (2).

Mair lets his readers know immediately why he finds this account fabulous and
ridiculous. He evaluates the information for his readers beginning with the fact that he
does not believe that one woman could have thirty-three daughters, "for where shall you
find three-and-thirty-daughters born of one woman," each of whom would slay her
husband, and then when set adrift would not perish. "How shall you believe that these
slew every one her husband; and that, set adrift, without so much as an oar, on a
boundless ocean, they did not utterly perish?" Mair also discounts the statement that "a
demon, whether succubus or incubus, should have been able to convey from foreign
shores any seed that should still retain its potency, when the ocean lay between" (2-3). He
concludes that the name of Albion can be more accurately accounted for by other writers
who attribute the name to the white headlands of the island.

However, Mair then goes on to say that "what Caxton says of Brutus, on the other
hand, has a historical foundation; for it is the opinion of most writers that Britain takes its
name from Brutus" (3). Mair then gives statements by Geoffrey of Monmouth as well as
Caxton to substantiate his account of the naming of Britain, but in the end, he concludes

that the truth of the name is probably best explained by Bede. Bede says that the name

38

came from "an Aremoric tribe of Gauls, which first of all inhabited the southern part of the
island; for which reason the island was called Britain by that Gallic tribe, and not
contrariwise" (4).“ Thus, Mair has presented all the evidence which he can gather
concerning an event, namely the origin of the island’s name. Further, he has evaluated the
evidence insofar as he is able, and then finally he gives his own conclusions, saying "let this
then suffice as to the name of the island. I follow the opinion of the Venerable Bede,
among British historians chief" (4). This Opening chapter, along with the arguments in the
preface, sets the tone for the entire history, and Mair lets his readers know that he will
present all the evidence he can concerning historical events, and that this evidence will be
carefully evaluated.

Mair begins his work in the same tradition as earlier historians, giving the
accounting of the name, followed by descriptions of the island along with geographical
details. He uses these opening chapters not only to tell about the nature of the island and
its geographic boundaries, but also to relate current information, such as the universities of
England, admitting that Cambridge where he himself studied is inferior slightly to Oxford.
He also praises the art of music in England, finding that it is "first in all Europe. For
though in France or in Scotlandyou may meet with some musicians of such absolute
accomplishment as in England, yet 'tis not in such numbers" (27). Mair is demonstrates

clearly his impartiality and ability to evaluate evidence honestly, without undue partiality

 

4‘ “In historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum apud venerabilem Bedam, lectorem
latissiimum, invenimus, Quod ab Aremorica Galliarum gente, Insula inditum est, quare a
gente illa Gallica Insula Britanniae dicta est, & non e contrario” (Historia Majoris
Britanniae, 3).

39

to either his own school or country. Mair goes on to give a general overview of Scotland,
including its resources as well as its culture. He is quick to point out that he will not be a
party to the mutual recriminations which abound between the English and the Scots. He
says that he has read
in histories written by Englishmen that the Scots are the worst of traitors, and that
this stain is with them inborn. Not otherwise, if we are to believe those writers,
did the Scots overthrow the kingdom and the warlike nation of the Picts. The
Scots, on the other hand, call the English the chief of traitors, and, denying that
their weapon is a brave man's sword, afflrm that all their victories are won by guile
and craft. (40)
The sensible man, according to Mair, will not let the love of his own country or the hatred
of his enemy cloud his thinking, and instead will set his mind "upon right reason, and
regulate his opinion accordingly" (40). Mair goes on to answer other charges which have
been leveled at the Scots, such as the habit of eating human flesh.
Mair then returns to the issue of the early history of both England and Scotland.
He gives the English chroniclers’ account of Brutus and his three sons, but concludes that
"this fable about Brutus we did not, in an earlier part of our work, accept; and whatever (if
indeed there were any such person) may be the fact about his sons, it is attested by a
multiplicity of proof that we trace our descent from the Irish" (50). It is at this point that
Mair confronts the legend of Scota directly. He says that all authorities do admit that the
Irish came fi'om Spain, but as for the legend of the Egyptian origins and Scota, with an

"original departure of theirs out of Greece and Egypt, I count it a fable, and for this

4O

reason: their English enemies had learned to boast of an origin from the Trojans, so the
Scots claimed an original descent from the Greeks who had subdued the Trojans, and then
bettered it with this about the illustrious kingdom of Egypt" (51-52)."s He goes on to
mention that frequently "some true statements are mixed up with statements that are
doubtful" and it is obviously his job as historian to help his readers sort out the truth fi'om
the fable. From this point, Mair moves into a discussion of the Romans and continues
with his history. His opening chapters have set the tone for his entire work. His readers
are able to conclude that he will give as honest and unbiased a history of "Greater Britain"
as possible.

In conclusion, then, it is apparent that Mair is writing a very different type of
history from that of Fordun or Wyntoun. His methodology depends a great deal on a new
type of critical thinking which developed during the Renaissance. More than this,
however, Mair's history must also be attributed to something within his personality which
causes him to be impartial and gives him the ability to evaluate information fairly. From
his opening remarks his readers realize that he will not either praise Scotland or denounce
England simply because of a spirit of nationalism or personal pride. He will be just in his
handling of his information and attempt to find the true facts behind his various sources.
However, as will be shown in chapter 111, Mair is not doing this without a reason. While
he may be a Scot and feel pride in that, he also has a more important agenda which

overrides and governs his entire history, and that is his conviction that it is in Scotland's

 

‘5 See John and Winifred MacQueen, “Latin Prose Literature,” The History of Scottish
Literature: Origins to 1660, ed. R. D. S. Jack (Aberdeen: Aberdeen UP, 1987) 236, for a
further discussion of Mair’s techniques for evaluating sources.

41

best interests to unite with England forming a new country of Britain, with a common
crown. This view will govern Mair's history in much the same way as Fordun’s and
Wyntoun's beliefs in the importance of a free and independent Scotland governed their

histories.

Hector Boece

Hector Boece (1465? - 1536), a devout Catholic and priest, was born in Dundee
and received his early schooling at Dundee Grammar School. Boece then went on and
studied at the University of Paris at the same time as both Erasmus and John Mair. Boece,
like Mair, became a professor in the College de Montaigu, University of Paris, where he
became familiar with both mysticism and humanism. He taught at the College de
Montaigu from 1492-98. Then he was appointed first principal of King's College,
University of Aberdeen in 1498, and was instrumental in organizing the first curriculum.
His own specialty was Scottish history. Boece also held the posts of canon of Aberdeen
Cathedral, rector of Tylie, vicar of Tullynessle, and chaplain of the altar of St. Ninian in
the town's kirk of Aberdeen.

Boece's Scotorum historiae a prima gentis origine (1527), published at his own
expense six years after Mair's, is a Latin history of Scotland up to the accession of James
111, and includes many narratives, including that of Macbeth and Duncan, which then
passed into Holinshed's chronicles where Shakespeare found them. Boece shared Mair's
interest in geography, but he was more interested in marvels than in economics and

sociology. He wrote without much analysis and interpretation, and his very influential

42

work became a model for those of George Buchanan and John Leslie.

Boece wrote his Scotorum historiae in Latin, apparently intending it for use by
scholarly and clerical audiences. According to W. Douglas Simpson, Boece wanted to
write a history of Scotland in the style of the classical Roman historian Livy. He wanted
to address a European audience, so that knowledge of Scottish history would become a
part of a larger cultural and intellectual society."6 His history was very popular and in fact
there are at least nine surviving manuscripts of the translation made by Bellenden. James
V was so taken with the history, which has a very strong nationalistic perspective, that he
requested translations by Bellenden in prose and Stewart in verse. Boece dedicates his
history to James V, and no doubt hoped it would influence James's rule when he reached
majority. His preface clearly states that he expects that James V will realize that Erasmus
was right in saying that there is "na thing in moir admiracioun to the pepill than werkis of
kingis, for thair lyvis has sa public sycht that euery pepill has the samyn in mouth, to thair
commendacioun or repreif; and thairfor na thing bene sa fructifull to repress the common
errouris of pepill as cleyn lyfe of princis" (15).

Boece uses a variety of sources for his history, including Livy, Orosius, Pliny, and

Bede. In fact, Boece's own copies of both Orosius's History and Pliny's Historia Naturalis

 

‘6 W. Douglas Simpson, "Hector Boece," Quatercentenary of the Death of Hector Boece,
First Principal of the University (Aberdeen: University P, 193 7) 7-29, maintains that
Boece’s history “was the first attempt to set forth a formal full-length history of Scotland,
addressed to a European audience. In style and method of treatment it is modeled largely
on Livy, and like Livy Boece accepted all the current legends about the origins of the
Scottish people and worked them into a picturesque, flowing narrative without undue
regard either for authenticity or consistency. For the later medieval period the work is a
trustworthy and valuable authority” (9).

43
appear on a list of the library holdings for King's College, University of Aberdeen."7

Boece also relied heavily on Fordun's history, and he supplements Fordun with details
about a number of Scotland's early kings which he says he found in Veremund's History of
Scotland. This history is lost now, and some scholars felt that Boece had fabricated it.
However, Veremund is given as a source by at least one later author, namely David
Chambers in his Histoire Abrégée de T ous les Rois de France, d'Angleterr, et D'Ecosse,
published in 1572.“ In addition, we have the testimony of Erasmus, who says of Boece
that "he knew not what it was to tell a lie.""9 Boece also says in his Preface that he has
used Archbishop Turgot's History of Scotland and Bishop William Elphinstone's’o History
of Scotland. Neither of these works is Still extant and nothing further is known ofthem.’l
Therefore, Boece's main sources remain unknown to the modern reader. While there are

occasional references within his text to specific sources, Boece usually does not interrupt

 

‘7 See Simpson, 23-24.

’8 J. B. Black, "Boece's Scotorum Historiae," Quatercentenary of the Death of Hector
Boece, First Principal of the University (Aberdeen: University P, 193 7) 47.

‘9 Quoted by Simpson 29.

’0 Ian B. Cowan, “Church and Society,” Scottish Society in the Fifteenth Century, ed.
Jennifer M. Brown (New York: St. Martin’s P, 1977), notes that William Elphinstone was
bishop of Aberdeen from 1483-1514, during which time he supervised the compilation of
the Aberdeen breviary (113). He also founded King’s College, Aberdeen University
(126).

’1 Black notes that “Elphinstone’s History has unaccountably vanished. For a time it was
thought to be in the Bodleian Library, among the Fairfax manuscripts; but the document
was apparently wrongly catalogued, and it is now known not to have been by Elphinstone.
As for Turgot’s History, it, too, canot be traced. We know that he wrote a Life of S.
Margaret, queen consort of Malcolm Canmore; but no record remains of any general
history of Scotland by his pen” (47).

44

his text with the acknowledgement of his sources, but rather allows his narration to flow
uninterrupted. This allows for easy reading but does not lend itself to critical evaluations.

Boece does not allow his readers to discover discrepancies or differences of
opinions within his sources. He has very few direct references to his sources, and refuses
to let his reader know of any problems which he himself may have in reconciling them.
Fordun and Wyntoun both present information from a variety of sources, and then when
they conflict, the authors either give their readers an opinion as to the true merit of the
sources, or else explain that they lack information to decide and give the reader the
responsibility for making a judgement. Mair goes even further, of course, and critically
examines his sources, openly doubting their veracity at times. Boece does not give any
indication of having wrestled with the issue of conflicting sources. Instead, his interest is
in writing an elegant history of Scotland which draws his readers right into the work. He
gives his readers all the facts and accounts which they need, and never offers any questions
as to their validity or accuracy.

Boece begins his history with two letters, one to King James V and one to James
Beaton, archbishop of St. Andrews. In these letters he sets forth the purpose of his book,
namely to

place the history of the Scottish people in a brighter light, by clothing it with

suitable eloquence, so that the learned will read it. Truthfulness and learning are

the qualities most to be sought for in an approved historian, leaming may be
lacking in me, but I am so sworn to truthfulness that I shall put nothing on record

that is not subscribed to by the most reliable authorities and the weightiest

45

testimonies.”

Boece says that history has many lessons for those who study it, and he is detemtined to
educate his readers to the truth history has to teach. James V would learn not only the
reasons for political successes and failures, but he would also learn of the bravery of the
Scots who defeated their enemies, such as the Romans, Saxons, and Danes. He will be
touched by the examples of William Wallace and Robert Bruce, and others who have
defended liberty against oppression. Boece hopes his readers will be inspired to similar
acts of courage. He also hopes that his readers will return to the basis of their former
greatness, namely simple and sober living. Boece is dismayed by the conditions of his own
time, "convinced that the fibre of the Scottish race was deteriorating through the
infiltration of luxurious manners and customs.”3 According to Boece, this deterioration
began in the time of Malcolm Canmore and is directly linked to Scotland's association with
Englishmen. Boece’s convictions combine and result in his producing a very moralistic,
strongly nationalistic history.

While modern historians have discovered evidence pointing to a line of kings in
Scotland dating back to the fourth century, at the time of Boece's writing, this information
was not available." Boece begins with the information in Fordun, but Fordun himself
admits that there was a period of about 700 years for which no detailed account of the

kings could be given. The gap between Fergus I and Fergus II consisted of approximately

 

’2 Quoted by Black 33.
’3 Black 33.

5‘ Black 36-37.

46

forty-five kings, but no one after Fordun had been able to fill in this gap. Boece manages
not only to provide the names of these kings, but also filll records for them, according to a
hitherto unknown source, namely Veremund. At the time when his history was written,

no one doubted Boece's information.” "All were prepared to accept the new version of
Scottish history at its face value; and the fame of Boece as one of the greatest historians of
his time was firmly established)“ Boece’s history filled a need within his readers for
information about the longevity of the Scottish nation, and they were willing and eager to
believe the authenticity of his information.

Boece begins his work with an explanation of the origin of the Scots, saying in the
opening lines: "Eftir the maner of vther pepill, the Scottis, desirande to schew the anciant
blude of thair lang begynnyng, schewis tham, be this present History, discendit of the
Grekis and the Egipcianys" (21).S7 Boece continues by giving the entire story of the origin

of the Scots in the tradition of Fordun and Wyntoun. No doubt or hesitancy is expressed

 

’5 Mason notes how the information concerning the ancient kings grew. “In a Scottish
context, the conventional belief in the king’s duty to defend the realm was more than
usually significant. The English claim to feudal superiority over Scotland, although acted
upon only intermittently, was an ever-present threat to the status of Scottish kings and
thus to the integrity of the Scottish kingdom. By definition, therefore, the defence of the
realm entailed a repudiation of English pretensions and an unqualified insistence that the
king of Scots owed allegiance to no superior but God alone. According to the
increasingly elaborate historical mythology developed by the chroniclers, the king was the
latest representative of a royal line stretching back in unbroken succession to the
foundation of the kingdom by Fergus I in the fourth century BC. He was, in short, the
most powerfill available symbol of the kingdom’s historical and continuing autonomy”

(“Kingship” 128).
5‘ Black 37.

’7 All quotes from Boece will be from Bellenden's translation.

47

by Boece as to the veracity of this story. Furthermore, Boece sees no need to begin his
work with any information about the world in general, either its creation or its geography.
Wyntoun, because of the nature of his history, has an extensive beginning detailing the
early biblical and classical histories before getting into the details of Scottish history. Even
Fordun, who is writing a history of Scotland, rather than the entire world, nevertheless
begins his work with a brief description of the creation of the world, and sets the events of
early Scottish history into the framework of biblical and classical history. Boece finds no
such need to set the stage for his history, possibly because the nature of historiography
had changed slightly to include less biblical background. His approach, in spite of his
strong church background, is to begin with the Greeks and the Egyptians. He does, of
course, mention that the reigning Egyptian pharaoh was "the scurge of the pepill of Israeli:
quhas son, followand his faderis iniquite, be the punicioun of God was eftir drownit in the
Rede seyis with all his army" (21). This places the events within the biblical tradition and
gives them an anchor within recognizable history, but Boece does not need to go any
firrther back into the beginnings of the world.

Boece's entire focus is on Scotland, and he moves very carefully and methodically
through the explanations of the early kings and the settlements first in Ireland and then
shortly thereafter in Scotland. The stage is quickly set for more modern events when
Boece explains that when the Scots first settled in Scotland, the Picts sent ambassadors to

“‘9‘“ and desired to make an alliance with the Scots, giving their daughters in marriage.
The Scots agreed to this alliance in order to strengthen themselves against the Britons.

However, the very next chapter demonstrates how quickly this alliance was dissolved.

48

The chapter is entitled "How the Britonis, be quent slichtis, dissoluit the band of amite
betuix Scottis and Pichtis, and of the displesouris and slauchter following thairupon" (33).
Boece is obviously taking great pains to ensure that his readers understand the fact that
the animosities of the present day between England and Scotland may be traced back to
the very origins of the country. The political implications of Boece's message will be
examined in chapter 111 of this dissertation. For now it is only necessary to note that
Boece is writing a highly nationalistic history of Scotland.

Boece continues his history in chronological order, with occasional digressions on
topics of interest to him. He spends a great deal of time on the Romans and their presence
in Britain, possibly reflecting his interest in and use of Livy, although Livy himself only
mentions Britain briefly, when Caesar invaded it twice and when Augustus returned fi'om
there. However, the Scots and Picts were victorious over the Romans and "thai gaif peace
to the Romanis" (179). Again, we see the constant emphasis on the strength and right of
the Scots.

There is very little doubt about the popularity of Boece's history, and proof of this
may be found in the fact that it was immediately translated at the request of James V, not
once, but twice." First, John Bellenden, at the request of James V of Scotland, translated
Boece's Scotorum historiae into Middle Scots prose in 1531. "Heir begynnis the

Cronikillis of Scotland, compylit be the richt reverend clerk, Maister Hectour Boece, and

 

’8 Both of these translations were freely done. Bellenden tended to offer explanations for
various characters’ actions and also to soften records of cruelty. Stewart’s inclination was
to condense the materials. See Robert Huntington Fletcher, Arthurian Material in the
Chronicles Especially Those of Great Britain and France (1905; New York: Haskell
House rpt., 1965), for a more complete discussion.

49

translatit in oure commoun langage be Maister Iohnne Bellantyne, Channon of Ross, at the
desyre of the richt hye, richt excellent, nobill and michty Prince, Iames the Fyft of that
name, King of Scottis." Thus Bellenden dedicates his work to James V, which he then
begins with his own preface, stressing the importance of relating the lives of public
persons, namely kings and princes, since
na thing is that the pepill followis with moir imitacioun, or kepis in moir recent
memoire, than werkis of nobill men, of reassoun thair besynes suld be moir
respondent to vertew than of ony vther estatis, quhen moir triumphant glorye and
preeminence bene randrit to publik than priuatt personis. (15)
Bellenden continues by saying that he finds "no thing moir fructuous, or moir respondent
to knychtly besynes, then reding of historijs" (15) and for this reason, he is going to
undertake the translation of Boece's history. He quotes Cicero who said that "he that is
ignorant of sik thingis as bene done afoir his tyme, for lak of experience, is bot ane barn"
(l6). Bellenden also makes mention of Seneca's discussion of kings and tyrants and
Aristotle's knowledge of the link between the profit of kings and the common good in
order to stress the importance of reading history, which offers examples worthy of
imitation as well as lessons concerning the fates of the vicious, whose "detestabill lyvis
bene abhominabill to thair posterite, site the deploracioun of thair miserie sall move the
redaris to imitacioun of vertew" (l9). Bellenden is intent on the value of history as a
source of examples which will cause its readers to strive for more virtuous lives, and to
this end he translates Boece into the vernacular so that more may profit. This educational

value of history is one felt very strongly by Boece himself as well. While Boece, especially

50

with his admiration for Livy, sought to write a history of Scotland which all of Europe
could read and profit by, Bellenden has a more immediate goal in translating Boece’s
Latin. He seeks to translate it into Middle Scots so that more of his own countrymen may
profit from the knowledge of their history.

Also at the request of James V, William Stewart translated Boece's history into
61,000 lines of Scottish verse in 1535. There is some confirsion as to the identity of
William Stewart since there were two men with the same name educated at St. Andrews
and connected with the Scottish court at nearly the same time. The most likely candidate
was probably born about 1481. There is very little poetry extant which bears the name
William Stewart, but since Lindsay mentions Stewart in 1530 as an important poet even
before Stewart had written his Metrical Chronicle, it is likely that many of his poems have
not been preserved. Both Stewart and Bellenden were, by royal command, engaged
simultaneously in translating Hector Boece's History, Stewart in verse and Bellenden in
prose. Sometimes Stewart adds information not found in Boece or Bellenden. He also
includes in his translation some minute points omitted by Bellenden while omitting some
things preserved by Bellenden. He was very familiar with, and makes reference to, the
works of John Mair, Blind Hary, and Froissart. He also was well acquainted with F ordun,
and realizing that Fordun was a major source of information for Boece, he had no
difficulty with inserting more information from Fordun into his own translation of Boece.
For example, the details which he gives in book xv of the drowning of the English soldiers,
who had been obliged to abandon Coupar Castle for want of provisions, in their passage

across the Forth, are taken directly from Fordun. The cause of the calamity is given by

51

neither Boece nor Bellenden. Stewart's contributions are firrther noted by W. Tumbull in
his preface to an edition of Stewart's translation, who finds that "as the chronicle
advances, passing from the more fabulous and traditional to the authenticated period of
history, the interest of course becomes greater; and no one--certainly no Scotsman--can
fail to derive both pleasure and satisfaction from a perusal of the last six of the seventeen
books, into which, following the division of Boece's original work, the translator has
apportioned his own" (xxvii). Tumbull further notes that the value of a translation must
necessarily be based on the value of the original and
the merits of Boece have been unsparingly assailed, not only by strangers, but by
his own countrymen, who have charged him with inventing what it is rather to be
presumed he found recorded,--as he expressly states he did,--in the writings of
earlier annalists. Credulity may, no doubt, be ascribed to him; yet it is to be
remembered that he lived in an age when legend was received as fact, and men had
not begun to apply critical sagacity to the investigating of long-current obscure
traditions, and the 'Art of Verifying Dates' was alike unthought of and
unpracticed.”
Stewart begins his translation with a prologue where he says that what he
undertakes at the request of the king
wilbe tedious, that dar I tak on hand,

To reid the thing he [James V] can nocht vnderstand.

 

’9 W. Tumbull, Preface, The Buik of the Cronicles of Scotland or a Metrical Version of
the History of Hector Boece, trans. William Stewart, ed. W. Tumbull, 3 vols. (London:
Longman, 1858) xxvii-xxviii.

52

War it translatit in our vulgar tung. (4: 114-16)60
He is doing this because

thair is nothing moir gudlie to avance

Na auld stories put in rememberance. (4: 120-21)
He then apologizes for his language which is "both gros and rude" (4: 125), but

neuirtheles the sentence is richt gude;

And thocht it be nocht filll of eloquence,

So that it be substantious of sentence

In plane termis, thairof haif thow now weir

Bot it wil be richt pleasand for to heir;

For plane langage is eith to vnderstand. (5: 149-154)
Therefore, Stewart, like Bellenden, finds that it is important for his readers to be able to
read and understand this history, and so while it will be difficult to translate it,
nevertheless, once done, his readers will derive pleasure and learning from reading the
history in "plane langage [that] is eith to vnderstand." Stewart believes he is recounting
true history which the present generation can study profitably. His motives behind his
translation echo the sentiments of earlier historians, especially Wyntoun, and Stewart finds

Boece’s history so important that it should be available to non-Latin readers as well. His

 

6" Tumbull notes that “the estimation in which his labour [Boece’s History] was held by
his Sovereign—who, although apparently ignorant of the language in which it was
composed, was the earliest regal fosterer of learning in Scotland—is proved by an entry in
the Register of the Privy Seal of the following year, conferring upon him a pension of £50
Scots yearly, and the royal commissions to Bellenden and Stewart, to make a double
translation of it for the special use of His Majesty” (xiv).

53

efforts in preparing this translation reflect the view that the work itself is valuable, well
worth the time and effort to prepare it for another audience.

Therefore, it is apparent that Hector Boece has written a history of Scotland which
was valued, even if he presents a very different view about the nature of writing history
from any of the historians examined so far. He is not concerned with giving his sources or
citing his evidence, as all of his predecessors have done. He gives his major sources in his
preface, and then has a few scattered references throughout his work, but overall, his
concern is centered on writing a masterful piece of Latin prose. In this effort he succeeds
extremely well, becoming so popular that his work is immediately translated into both
vernacular prose and poetry. Mair was criticized for his lack of style. That same criticism
was definitely not made of Boece. These two historians, writing within five years of each
other, coming from very similar educational backgrounds, could not be more different.
Boece has mixed traditional legend, folklore, and moral advice into his strongly
nationalistic history. Mair writes a heavily analytical history in which he attempts to
maintain impartiality and honesty. Boece takes Fordun and expands upon him, giving
evidence which Fordun lacked to fill in the gaps in Fordun's early chronology. Later I will
explore the possibilities of Boece having received this information from a forged history,
but the point now is that Boece did not challenge Fordun or question his information.
Mair obviously did. However, it was Boece who gained the vote of popular approval.

His influence would be felt by both Buchanan and Leslie. His literary influence would be
great as he becomes an indirect source for Shakespeare's Macbeth, thanks to Holinshed's

use of Boece as a source for his Chronicles.

54

Boece writes a highly nationalistic history in the same tradition as Fordun and
Wyntoun, but unlike them he does not give credit to his sources. Unlike Mair, Boece
demonstrates no interest in presenting his readers with the material to evaluate sources
and or examine the historical evidence critically. However, he does write a very enjoyable

work, which became both popular and influential.

George Buchanan

George Buchanan (1506 - 82) was born in Stirlingshire, and while his family was
poor, they also prided themselves on their ancestry, which traced their family back to the
son of Okyna, king of southern Ulster. Buchanan's family had Gaelic origins, and the
family still spoke Gaelic in Buchanan's time. He was sent by his uncle to study in Paris,
but the death of this uncle two years later caused Buchanan to return home in 1522. He
saw his first military action a year later in the battle of Wark against the English, and he
gives an eye-witness account of this battle in his history. Buchanan then resumed his
studies at the University of St. Andrews, where he was sent to study under John Mair.
After completing his degree at St. Andrews, Buchanan followed Mair to Paris, possibly
because he thought about an ecclesiastical career. Buchanan probably met Boece during
the period 1526-27 when Boece was in Paris completing the qualifications for his
doctorate and seeing his Historia published. Buchanan spent three years from 1528-31 as
regent at Sainte-Barbe College, one of the major centers of intellectual activity. He spent
the remainder of his time in Paris as the tutor to Gilbert Kennedy, third earl of Cassillis.

He returned home with his pupil between 1534 and 1535, continuing as his tutor until

55

1536. At this point, Buchanan became the tutor to James V's natural son, possibly as a
result of his successful tutoring of Gilbert Kennedy or possibly at the recommendation of
John Mair.61

Buchanan spent approximately four years in Scotland at this point in his life, but
little is known about his intellectual and humanist contacts. The only documented details
are the major satirical poems against the Franciscans and some information about his
religious development. Satirizing the Franciscans led to his imprisonment in St. Andrews,
from which he was able to escape to the Continent. Other charges leveled against him
included accusations of Judaism. These accusations apparently were based on evidence
that Buchanan and several other Scottish heretics were said to have eaten the paschal
Lamb. When Buchanan was questioned about this incident by James V, reports indicate
that Buchanan told James V that he too should eat the paschal Lamb. Mair testified as
well to the king that anyone who told the king that he should eat the paschal Lamb would
wish that he would become a Jew or live in the manner of Jews. If this incident is accurate
it would certainly explain Buchanan's later hostility toward Mair, who otherwise had been
a fiiend and teacher. In any case, Buchanan found it necessary to escape from Scotland,
and according to Buchanan himself, his escape was managed with the help of James V,

because "he sought information in England, thought me suitable for this task as one who

 

‘1 I. D. McFarlane, Buchanan (London: Duckworth, 1981) 18-50. P. Hume Brown,
Introduction, Vernacular Writings of George Buchanan (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1892),
notes filrther that Buchanan was “appointed by the king tutor to his natural son, Lord
James Stewart (not to be confounded with the Lord James Stewart better known as the
Regent Moray). This engagement is memorable in Buchanan’s life, as having brought him
into direct relation with the Court” (xviii).

56

could pass as a religious refugee."62

After six months in England, Buchanan returned to
France where he became a professor at Bordeaux. After several years spent in France
Buchanan accepted an offer to teach in Portugal, but eventually he was tried by the
Portuguese Inquisition and imprisoned from 1549-51. He finally returned to Scotland
some time in 1561 where he eventually declared himself to be a Protestant, becoming a
bitter enemy of Mary Queen of Scots.63 He was the tutor to James VI from 1570-78, and
his history was written at least in part to help teach the young king."4

Buchanan wrote his Rerum Scoticarum historia, intending it for a scholarly and
clerical audience. According to the Preface to Watkins's translation, there were no
English translations of this work because of "its free sentiments and strong facts" and it
was not until "the first year of the Revolution [1643], when an English version, apparently

by authority of government, was published at London" (3). Nevertheless, Buchanan's

history was popular in Scotland among those who could read the Latin. It was regarded

 

62 Quoted in McFarlane, Buchanan 73.

“Brown notes that Buchanan did act as a classical tutor to Mary, for which he received a
grant for his general services to Mary and the Government. During this period he
attended Mary daily, and made no attempt to conceal his opposition to her on questions of
religion. “Nevertheless, for the first few years after his return from the Continent, he
performed all those services about the Court which princes in that age required of their
scholars,” including writing Latin masques. However, the events following the baptism of
James VI, namely the murder of Darnley and Mary’s marriage to Bothwell, proved more
than Buchanan could countenance, and he became “one of the most formidable of her
adversaries” (xxxi-xxxii).

6" McFarlane, Buchanan 50-246, 320-54. Brown notes that this appointment as James
VI’s tutor was made by the Privy Council when James was 4 years old. In spite of
Buchanan’s age and infirmities, “from James’s fourth to his twelfth year, however,
Buchanan not only exercised a general superintendence over his education, but in certain
branches himself gave his pupil instruction” (xxxiii-xxxiv).

57

as a standard authority for many years. Buchanan worked on it primarily at the end of his
life, and it was published the year he died.

Buchanan has dedicated his history to James VI, and he wrote the history while
serving as tutor to James VI. He says that he is writing his history because his fiiends
"had conspired together, exhorting me to lay aside things of less weight, that rather delight
the ear than instruct the mind, and apply myself to write the history of our nation, as a
subject not only suitable to my age and sufficient to answer the expectation of my
countrymen; but deserving great commendation, and most likely to preserve one's memory
to succeeding ages." Buchanan states further that he is writing this history for James VI,
since he finds that "it would be extremely wrong if you, Sir, who in your tender years have
read the histories of all nations, and retain very many of them in your memory, should be a
stranger at home." Buchanan hopes that in reading his history, James VI will find
examples which will enable him to become "a pattern of all those excellencies which
mothers desire in their children," and that he will be able help "this government, which
seems to be hurried on to ruin and destruction" (4). Further, since illness has forced
Buchanan to relinquish his post as tutor, he "thought that sort of writing which tends to
the information of the mind, would best supply the want of my attendance; and therefore
resolved to send your Majesty faithfirl counsellors from history, that you might make use
of their advice in your deliberations and imitate their virtue in your actions" (Dedication).
Buchanan therefore finds that at least one of the main reasons for studying history is for
the educational value and the moral instruction which it will provide.

Buchanan opens his history by stating his "determination to record the

58

achievements of our ancestors, and after purging them from vain fables, to rescue them
from oblivion" (1). He plans to trace his history from the beginning, in as far as possible,
and commences with an analysis of the origins of the name Britain. He uses traditional
sources such as Aristotle, Tacitus, Caesar, Bede, William of Malmesbury, Geoffrey of
Monmouth, and Fordun. He was no doubt influenced by Mair, but he makes little or no
mention of him, but instead chooses to rely heavily on Boece. He was certainly aware of
the controversies surrounding Boece's sources of information about the early kings of
Scotland. The information had been most dramatically questioned by Humphrey Llhwyd
in his Commentarioli Britanniae, Descriptionis Fragmentum published in 1572.
Buchanan's reaction is to devote four of the first five pages of his own work to a criticism
of Llhwyd's scholarship concerning the original name for Britain. According to Buchanan,
Llhwyd bases his theory that the original name was Prudania on the "authority of an old
paper fiagment, which nothing but mouldiness, and length of time have made sacred with
him" (2). Buchanan's attack also demonstrates his own methods for historical research. In
ascertaining the original name of the island, Buchanan makes use of ancient authorities.
He not only cites Caesar, whom Llhwyd says was the first to use the name Britain, but
also Lucretius, Aristotle, and Propertius, all of whom used the name long before Caesar.
Buchanan cites evidence of ancient maps as well to support his claim that the island was
originally called Britain. He comments that foreign authors tend to use the name Britannia
for the entire island, while the Britons and the English use it at times for the entire island
and at times for that portion which was the Roman province. He continues by saying that

William of Malmesbury, and Geoffrey of Monmouth, none of the obscurest writers

59

of British affairs, often use this kind of speech, calling that part only Britain, which

was contained within the wall of Severus. But though this matter be so clear in

these writers, that no man can be ignorant of it, yet great mistakes arose amongst
the historians of the next age, some of whom have affirmed in their works, that

Alured, Atheistan, and other Saxon kings, did sometimes reign over the whole

island; when it is clear, they never passed beyond the wall of Severus. (6)

Several points arise from the study of this passage. First, Buchanan is documenting his
evidence by naming actual sources, something which he does not find in Boece.
Furthermore, Buchanan demonstrates to his readers that he has carefully weighed and
analyzed the evidence at hand, a technique which he may have learned from Mair, among
others. However, Buchanan does not leave his readers with any doubt about his own
views in the question, and in fact, he manages to produce very harsh and personal criticism
of Llhwyd, for example, with whom Buchanan disagrees. Finally, this passage sets the
stage for later claims of Scotland's independence, because it demonstrates that some
historians give credit to early British kings for controlling more territory than they actually
did, simply by misusing a name.

Buchanan continues his exploration of the early names for the island by discussing
the use of the name Albion. Again, he demonstrates the thoroughness of his research,
going back to the use of the name by "Aristotle, or rather Theophyrastus, in the book
entitled, De Mundo" (8). Buchanan puts forth the theory which many have propounded
that the name comes from the "white rocks which first appear in approaching the coast

from France. But it seems very absurd to me, to fetch the origin of a British name from

60

the Latin, there being then so little commerce between strange nations" (8). Buchanan
presents the evidence from his sources and then does not hesitate to give his readers his
own evaluation of the sources. He makes clear distinctions between the information
which he has uncovered and his evaluation of that information. While the tone of his
opinions would make it difficult to disagree, his readers, nonetheless, have the option of
evaluating the information for themselves and agreeing or disagreeing with Buchanan's
assessments.

Buchanan also tries to appear reasonable and willing to change his opinion if the
information he has proves faulty. At the end of his discussion of the name Albion, he
concludes by giving his own opinion. All his evidence

adds strength to my opinion, that the name of the island, derived fi’om Album,

whether Albion or Albium, remains in Scotland to this very day, as in its native

soil; neither could it be extirpated there, notwithstanding so many changes of
inhabitants, kingdoms, languages, and the vicissitude of other things. These things
seem true, or at least probable, to me; yet if any man can inform me better, I will

easily be of his opinion (9).

The overall effect of the beginning of this work and its very extensive discussion of
the derivation of the name for Britain/Albion leaves his readers with confidence in
Buchanan as a researcher and evaluator of historical sources who is doing all he can to
write a clear and accurate history of Scotland. However, Buchanan still has to deal with
the matter of the information found in Boece about the early kings, especially since

Buchanan uses Boece so heavily. While Buchanan does not directly address the issue of

61

the information on the kings, he does make mention of Boece at the end of this section on

names, when he moves on to the
situation of the countries. The English writers have clearly enough described their
several counties; but Hector Boethius, in his description of Scotland, hath
delivered some things not so true, and he hath drawn others into mistakes, by
putting too much faith in those whom he employed, and so published their
opinions rather than facts. But I shall briefly touch upon those things of which I
am certain; and those which seem obscure, and less true, I will correct as well as I
can. (9)

Buchanan accomplishes a number of things with this paragraph. First, he tells his readers

to go to the English historians if they wish descriptions of English geography. While these

writers may be accurate sources for their own English geography, they would not be

considered factual on Scottish geography. Buchanan then addresses the problem of

Boece's sources rather gently, by simply saying that some of his statements might be "not

so true." This is not due to any deliberate falsehoods or deceptions on Boece's part, but

rather because he has been let down and drawn into mistakes by others on whom he relied.

Buchanan concludes by promising his readers that he personally will do his best to correct

any ambiguities or less factual statements. In fact, in his description of Scottish

geography, he comes to a discussion of the province of Caithness, where he mentions

"Berubium, (Dunsbay Head,) falsely called, by Hector Boetius, Dum" (15). Buchanan has

made direct mention of the error in Boece, correcting it in light of better information. This

would lead his readers to trust in Buchanan's own integrity as an historian as well as his

62

ability to discern the truth. Buchanan puts this statement into a fairly innocuous section
on Scottish geography which immediately follows the lively discussion on the origin of
names, a highly effective ploy to set the tone for his entire work, giving his readers faith in
the accuracy of his history and his ability to correct Boece's errors.

Buchanan writes his history to educate his readers, especially James VI to whom it
is dedicated, and to instruct them in proper conduct by providing examples from the past
to demonstrate what should and should not be repeated. He clearly is intent on providing
a history which demonstrates the reasons for his Scottish pride, pride which he obviously
feels very deeply in spite of the number of years he spent abroad. His second book opens
with a discussion of the founding mythologies for both England and Scotland. Before
dealing with specifics, Buchanan notes the hazards involved in trying to recreate this
earliest of histories. He affirms first that "all the nations which hitherto have seated
themselves in Britain, even to this day, came either from Gaul, Spain, or Germany" (26).
These countries did not have written records of their laws or religions. The ancient
writers who wrote about these lands, such as Pliny, Varro, and others, based their
opinions on conjecture rather than fact. Caesar and Tacitius did visit the lands they wrote
about, but they were able to find no certain answers about their origins. Gildas wrote, not
from "any monuments of antiquity, of which he could find none, but from foreign reports
gathered by him beyond the sea." Buchanan then addresses the issues of oral histories, to
say that chiefs and wealthy men would commission bards to tell of their ancestors in a way
which would glorify them. "But, as these had no learning, let any man judge what credit is

to be given to them, whose hopes and substance totally depended upon soothing and

63

flattering of others." Furthermore, mistakes are made even by the best of scholars, and so
how many more mistakes are to be expected "from persons, who being without learning,
(by which they who casually mistake may be better informed, and those who mistake on
purpose may be confronted) depend wholly upon their memory?" (27). Buchanan spends
quite a bit of time and effort in his analysis of the availability and reliability of sources for
the origin stories before he presents his opinions on them. This enables him to inform his
readers about the logic behind his refuting of these mythologies which have become so
ingrained in the national histories." Mair also refutes the origin stories, but he does not
set the stage for his readers as completely as Buchanan does nor is he as nationalistic,
which may explain in part why Buchanan's history was accepted where Mair's was not.
Buchanan demonstrates that, even though there is no substance or truth to either
the story of Brutus or of Scota, the Scots still fabricated a higher caliber of story than did
the English. Buchanan begins with his refuting of the English origins, mentioning, as had
Mair before him, the unlikelihood of thirty-three daughters having killed their husbands
on their wedding night, crowding together in one ship and sailing without any assistance
to Britain. He discusses the lack of credibility of each and every portion of the story.
Buchanan spends a great deal of time on this study and finds that he "cannot but stand

amazed at their design, " but he is confirsed as to why those who forged this story would

 

6’ Hugh MacDougall, Racial Myth in English History: Trojans, T eutons, and Anglo-
Saxons (Hanover: U P of New England, 1982), discusses the importance of myth for
national consciousness. He states that “myths of origin enable people to locate themselves
in time and space. They offer an explanation of the unknown and hallowed traditions by
linking them to heroic events and personages of the distant past. In addition, they form
the ground for belief systems or ideologies which, providing a moral validation for
attitudes and activities, bind men together into a society” (1).

64

rather chuse to forge an ancestry out of the refirse of mankind, whose very history
must be suspected, even by the vulgar; and the truth of which no ancient writer of
credit has confirmed. It would have been no disgrace to them to take an origin
which Athens, the noblest and wisest city in the world, esteemed as her chief glory,
particularly as the opinion could not have been refitted out of ancient documents,
and has had such great examples. . .I wonder what could induce them to make
choice of those, of whom all their posterity might justly be ashamed. (29)'56
Buchanan treats the story of Scotland's origins, but needless to say, while that story is just
as unfounded, just as fabricated, nevertheless, "those who have written of the Scottish
affairs, have delivered down to us a more creditable and noble origin, as they think, but
one no less fabulous than that of the Britons. For they have adopted progenitors for us,
taken not from the Trojan fugitives, but from those Greek heroes, whose posterity
conquered Troy" (32). Buchanan repeats the founding story of Scotland, as he had done
for England, but in less detail and with far less criticism as to its credibility.
Thus, Buchanan is following the example of Fordun, Wyntoun, and Boece in
giving a decidedly nationalistic approach to his history. He continues to cite his sources
and question the reasons for discrepancies. He relies heavily on Roman writers, such as

Caesar and Tacitus, for his early history of Britain. When he arrives at the point in

 

‘6 Penny Eley, “The Myth of Trojan Descent and Perceptions of National Identity: The
Case ofEneas and Roman de T roie,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 35 (1991): 27-40,
discusses the origins of the Trojan myth. “The myth of Trojan descent is first attested in
the seventh century for the Franks, in the tenth century for the British, and the early
eleventh century for the Normans.” It was then Henry II “who tried to legitimise his rule
by promoting the view that Normans and British were of one blood and should therefore
share allegiance to one leader” (28-29).

65

Scotland's early history where Boece had discovered so much missing information about
the kings between Fergus I and Fergus II, Buchanan uses Boece entirely, but with no
mention as to the source. The detailed information on the kings is just given, with firll
information about both good and bad kings. Buchanan also gives dates for the beginning
of each king's reign, lending a note of authenticity to his accounts. Occasionally in the
information on these kings between Fergus I and Fergus 11 there is a mention of a possible
reference by Tacitus or Bede to someone whose name had a similar spelling, but for the
most part these kings are included without any citations at all. However, there is no
mention of the controversy over the accuracy of this material derived from Boece. The
readers are left with the decided impression of factual accuracy. Earlier I showed how
Buchanan would comment on something from Boece but note that Boece was mistaken
and the true facts were different. That does not occur in this section of Scottish
genealogy, for reasons which I will address in chapter 111 below.

Buchanan's history was the most comprehensive history of Scotland yet to appear.
Buchanan did not have any significant additions to make until he came to his own period,
but he did produce a very literate history. He differs from Boece in that he makes stronger
use of citations and names of sources. He discounts the origin stories, as did Mair before
him, but he discredits them in such a way as to favor the Scottish story over the English
and also explain why it is not possible to have accurate information about those early
times. Buchanan was a highly respected scholar of his time, widely read and travelled, and
his history reflects this stature. The nature of his approach to the subject matter is one of

a learned professor teaching his students. He is providing a work designed to help his

66

readers learn from the examples of the past in order to cope with the situations of the
present. Unlike our previous authors, Buchanan is not a clergyman, but he still has a
strong feeling of moral philosophy and teaching behind his history.

His aim with this history is to strengthen Scotland, including the king, to enable the

country to withstand the trials of the present.

John Leslie

The last Scottish historian to be considered is John Leslie (1526 - 1596). Leslie
was born in 1526, educated at the University of Aberdeen, and finally received his Doctor
of Laws degree at Paris in 1553. He became professor of law at the University of
Aberdeen and took holy orders in 1558. He was appointed in 1560 to discuss points of
faith in Edinburgh against Knox and Willox. In 1561 he began his connection with Queen
Mary when he brought her home from France. He was appointed to the diocese of Ross
in 1565, upon the recommendation of the Queen, who had already appointed him to the
Privy Council. He was co-editor of the "Actis and Constitutionis of the Realme of
Scotland," published in 1566. This work was designed to revise and publish the laws of
Scotland. Eventually he became Queen Mary's commissioner and confidential agent, as
well as ambassador to the Queen of England. In 1572 he was imprisoned by Elizabeth for
his part in the attempt to bring about the marriage of Mary with the Duke of Norfolk. He
was released in 1573, but banished from the country and so he retired to the Netherlands.
After a year he visited the courts of France, Spain, and Germany at Mary's request,

arriving at Rome in 1575. He remained there for nearly four years until he become

67

nuncio, a papal legate of the highest rank permanently attached to the civil government,
to Emperor Maximilian in Prague. Finally, he came again to France where he was
appointed Archbishop of Rouen and Vicar-General of that diocese by Cardinal de
Bourbon. He retired completely from public life when he heard of the execution of Queen
Mary (1587), spending his last nine years in an Augustinian monastery in Brussels where
he died in 1596.67

Leslie's Historic of Scotland was first published in Latin in 1578, and then again, in
a Scottish translation by Father James Dalrymple, in 1596. Leslie wrote his history of
Scotland over a period of years, and although his work first appeared four years before
Buchanan’s, Leslie continued to edit and revise it up until his death fourteen years after
Buchanan’s. He himself describes the writing of this work. He began it, writing in Scots,
as a history of Scotland from the death of James I (1436) to the beginning of Queen
Mary's reign (1561). This portion of the work was completed "during the time of his
remaning as ambassadour for the Quene his soverane in Jngland, 1570." Leslie states in
the preface to this early version that while he was "awaiting only on your majesties
service" he thought to employ his time in

reiding the historeis written by Polidorus Vergilius, Beda, Sir John Fressard

Knight, Favian, Edward Halle, Lanquett, and Copperis Cronicles, with the

summary wrytten lately by John Stowe: In the quhilkis I consider mony and sundry

thingis sett forth by their aucthouris, of the deedis and proceedingis betuix

 

‘7 E. G. Cody, Introduction, The Historie of Scotland by Jhone Leslie (Edinburgh:
Blackwood, 1888, 1895, Rpt. New York: Johnson Rpt., 1968) xv-xvii.

68

Scotland and England, far contrar to our annales, registeris, and trew proceedingis
collectit in Scotland. And albeit the trew histories of our country be largely,
truely, and eloquently treated and wreattin be that cuning and eloquent
historiographe Hector Boecius, yit he wreittis only to the deathe of Kyng James
the first, quhilke was in the yere of our lorde god 1436 yeires, sen the quhilk time
nevir ane hes preassed to gif furthe any thing in wreitt."8

Leslie then began his history as a continuation of or supplement to Boece's history which

ended at the death of James 1.

He started writing “fra the court of J nland, quhair I was resident for a gryit space
of the tother yere, in 1568, at your Majesties command” (xviii), but had to suspend work
on his project in the summer of 1569 while he was again employed at the court of
Elizabeth. He was able to revise and finish his work in February 1570 while he was
"sequestrate in the Bishope of Londons house in the cite of London." He sent this work
to Queen Mary, but it was not published at that time. During Leslie's stay in Rome he
rewrote his history into Latin and also added seven other books about the history of
Scotland before James I. The title of this complete work reads

Of the origin, manners, and history of the Scots. Ten books. Of which seven treat

more summarily of the memorable deeds of the ancient Scots, and the remaining

three, more in detail, of the later kings down to our time, whose history was not
before written. To which is added a new and accurate description of the districts

and islands of Scotland, with a true topographical table of the same. By John

 

5’ Quoted in Cody xviii.

69

"69

Lesley, Bishop of Ross.
The entire work is dedicated to Pope Gregory XIII, and there is also a dedication,
complete with portrait, to Queen Mary.

In a long rhetorical address to the nobility and people of Scotland, Leslie explains
more of his reasons for writing his history. He states that he was asked by "many persons,
both in our own and foreign countries" to publish not only the current history, but "to add
a compendium of the previous history already written, correctly, though inelegantly, by
John Major, and elegantly enough, by Hector Boece, but, as many complained, with too
much diffuseness and prolixity."7O Again, it should be noted that the contrast between
Mair's work and Boece's is pronounced. Leslie gives Mair credit for an accurate history,
but notes that readers find it "inelegant." Mair himself had addressed this criticism of his
work, but apparently readers were not satisfied with his style. Boece’s style, according to
Leslie, is much more readable, but he has many diversions and is too wordy. Leslie hopes
that his work will combine the best of these former histories and produce a work which is
both correct and elegantly written.

Leslie has noted for his readers just what sources he has consulted in the
production of his work. He says that "in writing this work, I have not only confronted
previous histories with the annals kept in our public archives, and with the oldest codices
religiously preserved at Paisley, Scone, and our other monasteries, but I have also

consulted Tacitus, Suetonius, Ammianus, Marcellinus, Eutropius, Herodianus, and other

 

‘9 Cody xix.

7° Quoted in Cody xx.

70

writers of neighboring nations."71 Other sources include Mair and Boece, as well as the
histories which Leslie had mentioned reading.

Leslie opens his work with a statement letting his readers know exactly why he is
writing. He says that he is writing his work because of "a certane ernist or hett affectione
of the catholik religione, and a vehement constance in defendeng thairof" (I: 1).72 He also
wants to set down the many worthy and notable virtues in which our elders sometimes
flourished, so that present countrymen can compare their vices with previous virtues,
rising to former virtues and returning to "sincere catholic concorde, now at last mychte
begin to follow the way of true vertue sa deip imprented with the fiJtstepis of thair
foirbears; quhilke fructe, I hope our people abundantlie sal gather" (I: 1). He wants his
readers to "reid the historie quhilke I write to the vtilitie and proffite of the commone
weil" (I: 2). Once again a historian is writing to provide knowledge and virtuous examples
for his readers. Leslie obviously believes strongly in the power of virtuous examples and
he, like Mair, is writing history as moral theology.

Leslie wrote his Historie in Scotland in Latin, certainly for a scholarly and a
clerical audience. He intended that his work be known by the Scottish people, because he
says in his dedication that he is writing for the Scottish people "to induce them to keep to
the ways of their fathers in all good things, and especially in their ancestral religion.” His
work was read by Catholics, and Leslie's main purpose in writing was to fithher Mary’s

cause as well as that of the Catholic religion within Scotland.

 

7' Quoted in Cody xxi.

72 Leslie is cited by volume and page number.

 

71

A few copies of Leslie's original publication are found in Rome, possibly having
been put there during Leslie’s stay when much of his history was written, but, according
to E. G. Cody, a facsimile reprint was made in the year 1675, possibly by George Leslie,
the author's great-grandson. This edition was said to have been dedicated to the Earl of
Rothes, who had fought for the cause of Charles I against Parliament and after the
Restoration served Charles II in London. Dedicating Leslie's history in this way indicates
the emphasis of Leslie on the restoration of the rightful monarch to the throne
(“Introduction” xxii-xxv).

Leslie begins his work by conforming "to the exemple of the aunciant writeris,
descriue the quarteris and boundes of Scotland with the Iles" (I: 2), and the way in which
he handles this information reveals Leslie's use of authorities. After giving the information
that many say the land is called Britain because it was founded by Brutus, he adds that
"quhat vthiris lait writeris speik of this name perchance mair curious than true, I, haldeng
me content with the opinione of ancient Antiquitie, regarde nocht" (1: 2-3). He goes on to
discuss the name of Albion and its possible sources in his attempt to present all possible
information. He concludes with his own opinion as to the probable origin of the name, but
in presenting other information he does allow his readers to decide for themselves:

The maist ancient wryteris names Britannie Albion, but all controuersie. Bot

quhither that was frome Albine first mother of the geyantis, or frome Alvion son to

Neptune, quha rayneng, or frome Albanak sone to Brutus, or fiom alba the chief

citie, now called S. Androis, or finalie from Albis rupibus, that is, quhyte craigs, is

3it vncertane. Bot I take it to be frome quhyte craigs, as indeid I lykwyse beleiue,

72

nocht the Romanis bot the Greiks first to haue the Alpes named, evin sa this lie.
(I: 3)
Leslie's discussion of the origins of the names is certainly done with completeness in mind,
but he does not go into the same detail that Buchanan would use. Instead, Leslie
immediately continues with geographical information about the British Isles, including
topics such as the length of the day, the climate, and the fertility of the soil. His general
remarks are then followed with detailed particulars about Scotland itself, giving facts
about each area of the country. Leslie repeats much of the material found in Boece, and
he also adopts Boece's style of using very few citations or references to sources. In fact,
Leslie's approach is remarkably like Boece's. He too, once the opening discussion on the
origins of the names is completed, avoids any analysis of particular sources. He does not
provide his readers with any discrepancies within his sources, but merely narrates his
history as a coherent seamless account.
After Leslie's very lengthy description of Scotland, he commences with its actual
history, beginning with the origin story. Leslie opens this chapter with the comment that
the Scottis natione hitherto hes bene maist ancient, and to God and man hes bene
bathe grate and acceptable, testifies thair daylye habitatione in the land quhilke
presentlie thay inhabite, thair sure and constante libertie frome age til age, thair
lawfilll successione of kingis sa mony hundir 3eirs; thair quick receiueng of the
christne religione, and evin vnto this age sa constantlie in it perseueiring. (I: 70)
Leslie affirms the ancient and honorable history of his country. It is "most ancient" and

also it has a history of freedom, "sure and constant liberty from age to age." Again, the

73

issues of freedom and sovereignty are of utmost importance, and they serve as the main
reason for the persistence of the origin story. The entire story from the Greeks and
Egyptians through Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and finally to Scotland is detailed, just as it
had been in Boece, as well as Fordun and Wyntoun.

Once Leslie has given the history to the point of the settling of the Scots in
Scotland and the arrival of the Romans, he stops his historical chronology long enough to
insert a substantial description of ancient Scots culture and customs, including methods for
raising children, dress styles, sleeping habits, and even baking methods. Leslie concludes
by saying that in many areas of Scotland, where they "speik the aid scottis toung, planelie
haue the selfe sam maneris. for quha this day are, haue hithirto keipet the institutiounis of
thair elderis sa constantlie, that nocht onlie mair than 2 thowsand 3eirs thay haue keipet
the toung hail vncorrupte; bot lykwyse the maner of cleithing and leiueng, that ald fonne
thay vnchanget aluterlie haue keipet" (I: 95). This firm conviction on Leslie's part as to
the unchanging ways of the Gaelic Scot is contrasted immediately with that has happened
along the border with England. Leslie says that "throuch al the prouinces of Scotland,
quhilkes ar vpon the bordouris foranent Ingland takes to thame selfes the grettest libertie
and licence, quairthrouch thay reioyse that vnpuniste ay thay chaipe." In these areas it has
"cumis to passe that be steiling and reif, thay rather seik thair meit" (I: 97). Obviously
Leslie finds that living on the borders with England is not helping the morals of those
Scots, in large part because they "now vanelie fallin frome the faith of the Catholik Kirk"
(I: 101).

Leslie continues with a discussion of the customs and manners of the remainder of

74

the Scots, after which he gives great details about the division of the Scottish people into
"thrie ordouris; ane of thame, quhais pietie and hett studie of religione hes addicted thame
selfes planelie to serue the Kirke: The secunde of thame, quhais nobilities, and hines of
blude, hes placed in the secunde digrie of the commoune well; the thrid of thame, quhome
the tounes accnawleges amang thame to be frank and frie" (I: 105). Each of these three
orders, the ecclesiastical estate, the nobility, and the common people, are discussed in
turn. Then Leslie turns to a description of the laws of Scotland, giving their origins and
present state, including their magistrates. All of this material on the three estates and the
laws are additions to a traditional history which Leslie finds necessary in order to achieve
his goal of teaching and guiding his readers. This material will be analyzed in detail in
chapter HI of this dissertation. It is noted here in order to demonstrate the differences
between Leslie's history and the others discussed previously.

Leslie completes his first book with the election of Fergus I as King of Scots.
Book two begins with Fergus's reign, and continues through Boece's expanded
information concerning the kings between Fergus I and Fergus 11. Each king has his own
section, and these are numbered, but the dates of the reigns are not usually present.
Buchanan is the one who adds that information. While Leslie was born after Buchanan,
his history was actually published first since he wrote during his career years, whereas
Buchanan wrote in retirement when he was no longer able to teach. Leslie then made
changes until his own death fourteen years after Buchanan, but he did not choose to
incorporate Buchanan’s dates.

Leslie's history of these early kings normally is limited to information about

75

Scotland alone, but whenever possible, the king is set into a wider context. For instance,
the fifteenth king, Eder, is shown in relationship to Julius Caesar, as well as Cassibilan
King ofBlitannie [i.e., England] who received help "frome his nychtbouris the Scottis and
Pechtis" (I: 148). By using the known history of the Roman Empire, Leslie achieves a
higher degree of credence for his Scottish genealogy. Wherever possible, Leslie has notes
at the end of each king's description giving the names of the pOpes, Roman emperors, and
as time progresses, French and English kings, allowing his readers to set the history of
Scotland into a larger known historical perspective.

Leslie organizes his work from book two on by Scottish king. He also covers the
modern period, especially from James I onwards in much greater detail. Leslie is the first
historian who has written in such detail about current events, more so than even
Buchanan, and this aspect of his history will be discussed later. He does stop at the
accession of Queen Mary, but he wrote notes for the years of her reign which were ready
to add to his history, but never actually incorporated.

Therefore, it is evident that Leslie has not only followed some of the traditions of
past historians, but also added new ideas to his history of Scotland. He is the first
historian studied in this dissertation who began with the plan of writing a contemporary
history, covering the era since James I which had not been dealt with or covered in any
detail by previous historians. He did not plan originally to recount again the early history
of Scotland. However, after writing the three books of the modern era, he was easily
convinced to expand that with seven books dealing with the origins and early history of

Scotland. He gave as his reasons for this major addition the fact that there was still a need

76

for an eloquent, but accurate, readable history of this period. While praising Mair's
accuracy, Leslie nonetheless avoids most of his information and chooses instead to rewrite
Boece. He uses the origin stories without any hint that they lack authenticity. Mair had
discounted them as fables and not discussed them at all. Buchanan made use of the stories
in a nationalistic way by refuting them but pointing out that the Scots chose a better story
than the English. Leslie is still using them as fact until his death, fourteen years afier
Buchanan’s.

In addition, there is little of Mair's critical analysis in Leslie. It is apparent that he
preferred the more popular history of Boece and was not able to incorporate Mair's
positive aspects on historical writing. What Leslie does have in common with Mair,
however, is a strong theological perspective to the writing. Both Leslie and Mair write
with one aim in mind, namely to get their current generation to turn away from its moral
laxness and return to the higher values and standards of past ages.

Probably because of Leslie's interest in moral theology, he exhibits a less fervent
brand of nationalism than his contemporary Buchanan, or his predecessors Boece,
Wyntoun, and Fordun. Leslie does have strong nationalistic views, and his conviction that
the behavior of the border Scots was caused by the laxness and immoral behavior of the
English is certainly a case in point. However, it remains for Buchanan to carry this
nationalism to the greatest lengths when nearly every event is used to extol the Scots at
the expense of the English, resulting in the greater popular success for his history. Leslie’s
Catholicism also contributed to the fact that his history was less popular. Nevertheless,

Leslie has written a nationalistic historical work designed as moral theology, and he is

77

trying in this way to provide a cure for the evils of his own time by the use of relevant

examples.

Conclusion

This chapter has provided a brief overview of the six major medieval and sixteenth-
century Scottish historians. While each is unique in the way in which he conceived and
wrote his particular history, there are similarities among them. Fordun and Wyntoun
wrote over a century before the other four historians, and they were really the first to
attempt the compilation of a complete history, rather than the abbreviated chronicles
which had existed before. Wyntoun is unique in attempting a world history, but he ends
up concentrating primarily on Scotland and its relationship with England. However, he
accomplishes a great deal by setting Scottish history into the framework of a world
chronology. Fordun likewise attempts to ground his history within a larger frame of
reference, such as the papal chronology or the listing of Roman emperors.

Mair and Boece were contemporaries and their histories appeared within a space
of six years, and yet it is hard to imagine two more contrasting works. Mair is the only
one of our six historians who tries to write an unbiased history, rather than a strongly
nationalistic one. However, his bias is for the union of the crowns, so his evidence and
history is geared toward that end, demonstrating the connections between England and
Scotland, rather than emphasizing the conflicts. Boece, on the other hand, writes a very
rhetorical nationalistic history, and unlike most of our other historians, he makes very little

use of citations or names of sources.

78

Finally, Buchanan and Leslie follow in the traditions of Fordun, Wyntoun, and
Boece, with strong nationalistic histories. Buchanan had studied with Mair, and while he
refuted specific aspects of Mair's history, nonetheless, he follows Mair's example of
critically evaluating his materials, trying to analyze his sources. He, like Mair, refittes the
origin stories, but his methodology is very different than Mair's. Leslie, on the other hand,
states open admiration for Mair's accuracy, but then demonstrates a total disregard for
Mair's historical methodology. Instead, Leslie combines heavy use of Boece with his own
interests in the law.

This chapter has focused on discovering just how each of these six historians saw
his task and role as an historian. Chapter II focuses on the ways in which each of these
historians deals with the Arthur story. This analysis will serve to set the stage for chapter
HI where the focus is on the uses of history by these historians, noting whom they were

writing for and what social and political functions they hoped to achieve.

CHAPTER II

The Historians’ Views of Arthur

This chapter will look at the six Scottish historians' views on Arthur. Each of
these six historians treats Arthur slightly differently, and each selects carefully which
materials he will include. The treatment of Arthur by the Scottish chroniclers, reveals, as
Fletcher has noted, that “an altogether new phase in the history of the Arthurian tradition
appears in the Scottish chronicles, which, in extant forms, began to be composed toward
the end of the fourteenth century” (241).73 It was important for these historians to deal
with Arthur, especially since, as Matheson notes, “accounts of King Arthur and his reign
are included in the majority of historical chronicles dealing with the general history of
England that were written in England between the twelfth and the fifteenth centuries”
(“King Arthur” 248-49). The Scottish historians were writing in response to the English,
in order to correct erroneous information and add missing data. While there are a variety

of perspectives demonstrated in the Scottish histories, overall, the treatment has a new

 

73 Fletcher continues by noting that “in the Scots, we come to the traditional enemies of
the races among which the Arthurian story arose and chiefly flourished.” The Scots
shared with the Saxons the distinction of being mentioned primarily as contributors “by
their defeats to the glory of Arthur,” but unlike the Saxons, they “had not found the
opportunity or desire to forget that the defeats were theirs by going over to the side of the
victors.” The biggest difference in the accounts from the Scottish historians is the
adoption of Lot and his son Mordred as Scottish heroes (241).

79

80

emphasis, even though the main source for these historians remains Geoffrey of
Monmouth.74 Karl Heinz Goller notes the different emphasis given by the Scottish
historians by saying that “to Scottish nationalists Arthur was the embodiment of every
English ruler who had hoped to conquer Scotland; to the minority with British sympathies,
however, he was a symbol of the reconciliation and union of all races of the island”
(173).75 However, as shall be evident after the examination of each of these six historians,
the Scottish view of Arthur is certainly not uniform, either in the materials used or the
attitude towards him.“ Sometimes Arthur gets little mention and other times the
treatment is extensive. After the specific treatments of Arthur are examined, it will be

possible to analyze why the historians handled the Arthurian materials the way that they

 

"Matheson, “King Arthur and the Medieval English Chronicles,” King Arthur Through
the Ages, ed. Valerie M. Lagorio and Mildred Leake Day, 2 vols. (New York: Garland,
1990), 1: 248-74, finds that the story of Arthur, especially as found in the prose Brut had a
profound influence on English national consciousness. Further, “the immediate success of
Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of King Arthur and his reign gave rise to a self-
reinforcing progression of chronicles that presented this account as historically true. Both
then and through succeeding ages, the person and story of Arthur were eminently
adaptable to ideological purposes” (265). The Scottish historians will use the Arthur story
for similar purposes.

”Goller, “Konig Arthur in den Schottischen Chroniken,” Anglia 80 (1962): 390-404,
trans. Edward Donald Kennedy, King Arthur: A Casebook (New York: Garland, 1996):
173-84, states that the treatment of Arthur was frequently seen by the Scottish historians
as the “embodiment of the threat from the South” (173).

76Flora Alexander, “Late Medieval Scottish Attitudes to the Figure of King Arthur: A
Reassessment,” Anglia 93 (1975): 2-34, discusses the lack of uniformity in the treatments
of Arthur in Scottish writings. Alexander goes on to note that “Scottish chroniclers show
themselves to be aware of the idea that Arthur’s claim to kingship was a dubious one, but
this does not necessarily lead to disapproval and rejection” (19).

81

did." This will set the stage for chapter 111 which will look specifically at the social and

political implications of each of these historians.

John Fordun

Fordun demonstrates his interest in the nature of kingship and succession in his
treatment of Arthur. He discusses Arthur's ascent to the British throne, followed by
another chapter devoted to the reasons for selecting Arthur as king, including comments
about his character. Then, Fordun notes that Arthur fought a great battle and "fell
wounded to the death" (103). This is all the information which Fordun chooses to present
about Arthur.

Fordun does have some information concerning Merlin. He tells of several of
Merlin's prophecies, to which he returns when describing the conflicts between Henry III
and Alexander 11. In addition F ordun relates Gildas's prophecies, as well as the events of
Aurelius’s reign. However, this is the firll extent of the information on the Arthurian
materials which Fordun includes in his history.

Fordun’s sources for the Arthurian materials include Geoffrey of Monmouth as
well as Gildas, Bede, and William of Malmesbury. Since Fordun includes few details on

the Arthurian portion of his history, he does not show a great concern for his sources.

 

77 As Goldstein notes the Scots took advantage of Edward’s desire to base his arguments
on his sovereignty over Scotland on Geoffrey of Monmouth. “The Scots demonstrate
successfully that two can play the game of legendary history. The primary attack on
British legends rests not on the suggestion that they are false, but on the claim that they
contain half-truths at best. Scottish legendary history purports to remedy the significant
omissions of such authors as Geoffrey of Monmouth” (Matter 73).

82

However, he runs into variations in the material he presents, which he then has to find a
way to reconcile. For example, when Fordun uses Geoffrey of Monmouth as a source to
define Arthur's relationship to Mordred," he discovers conflicting accounts where first
Geoffrey says that "Mordred and Galwanus were the sons of Anna, sister of Aurelius,
Arthur's uncle" but later on Geoffrey calls Arthur the uncle of Gawain. Fordun is unable
to reconcile these conflicting statements, and so refers "this point to the sagacity of the
reader to deal with; for I do not see my way easily to bring these passages into harmony
with each other. But I believe it to be nearer the truth that Modred, as I have read
elsewhere, was Arthur's sister's son; and that is the drift of this chapter" (103). This
passage demonstrates again Fordun's historical methods. He is searching his available
sources, which he credits as valid, and then does his best to verify the information and
reconcile any differences. When he is unable to weave a consistent narrative, he tells his
readers, letting them know that they must use their own sagacity to decide the truth for
themselves. After saying this, he has no problem with offering his own conjectures as to
the truth of the situation. Thus, Fordun has dealt honestly with his readers and done his
best to present the truth as he finds it.79

Fordun gives more information about the events leading up to Arthur’s reign. First

 

7" I have adopted a uniform spelling of names, using Norris J. Lacy, ed., The New
Arthurian Encyclopedia (New York: Garland, 1991) as a source for the spelling of names
from the Arthurian materials. Within individual quotations the author’s spellings have
been maintained.

79 William Matthews, “The Egyptians in Scotland: The Political History of a Myth,” Viator
1 (1970): 289-306, notes that Fordun’s history is “generally a scholarly work, carefirl to
report its sources and any discrepancies and variations in the evidence, grave in style.”
However, “Fordun’s history is throroughly Scottish” (296).

83

he tells how the Britons under Vortigern, "being in constant fear of the onslaught of the
Scots, and no longer trusting to the protection of the Romans, by the advice of their king
invited over the nation of the Saxons, under two leaders, Hors and Hengist, to help in their
defence, in A.D. 447, or, rather, 449, the thirty-third year of King Eugenius" (89). Fordun
further explains that some chroniclers say that the Scots and Picts rose up against
Vortigern
with the most galling outrages and molestations. For, consuming everything with
fire and sword, pillage and rapine, they crushed that sinful nation, who abetted the
pride and extravagence of their king; so that the masses, as corrupt as their king,
were overthrown in a common vengeance; while those of that miserable people
whom the inroads of the enemy had not reached, were clean consumed by the
severe famine. (8990)
From Fordun's perspective, the Britons deserved everything they received from the Scots
and the Picts because they allowed themselves to be ruled by an extravagant king who was
known for the "wickedness and weakness" of his mind. F ordun cites Bede as his source
for the information that when the Britons were "desolate and worn-out by the inroads of
war, knew not what to do to oppose the irruptions of the enemy, and sank forlorn," they
then agreed to "call over the Saxon nation to their aid, from the parts beyond the sea--
which, as the issue of the matter more clearly proved, was surely contrived by the will of
God, that evil might come upon the wicked" (90).
Fordun continues his history by alternating information first from Geoffrey and

then from Bede, ending with a citation from William of Malmesbury. Fordun cites these

84

sources in his history, letting his readers know where he has received his information.
Fordun states that there was a period of two years without a major battle, but that the
"Saxons craftily suggested to Vortigem that if he could contrive to get some more
stipendiaries from their country, they would easily enable him to overcome his aforesaid
enemies. " Soon, "swarms of those before-mentioned nations poured eagerly into the
island; and the numbers of the strangers began to increase so much that they became a
terror to the natives themselves who had invited them." The Britons now realize that they
are in trouble, and they urge Vortigem to get rid of the foreigners. Vortigern would not
do this "as he loved the Saxons above all other nations, on account of Hengist's daughter
Rowen, whom he had taken to wife some time before." The Britons desert Vortigern, and
set up Vortimer, the king's son, as king in his place, because Vortimer perceived that "he

and his Britons were being undone by the craft of the Saxons." Vortimer then turns "his

thoughts to driving them out, seven years after their arrival" (91).

F ordun's narration of these events demonstrates several interesting points which

will become relevant in later Scottish history. First, it should be noted that the Britons
were suffering the horrors of war, pestilence, and famine, because they were a sinfirl
nation which had followed a foolish, greedy king. The Britons then found themselves in
firrther difficulties because they had invited outsiders to assist them in their battles. Finally
it should be noted that the Britons attempted to end their problems by deposing the
existing king and transferring their loyalties to his son, the heir to the throne. As we will
see in chapter 111 below, most of these same issues would become relevant for Scotland in

the time of Edward I, and Scotland would suffer, F ordun no doubt believed, for the same

85

reasons.
The stage has been set by Fordun for the next step in the development of the

events leading to Arthur's kingship. Vortimer decided that
it would be unsafe rashly and precipitately to come into collision with the Saxons,
before making fiiends with the Scots, for fear those two nations should combine
their strength, and make an onslaught together upon the Britons; so he despatched
messengers to King Dongardus, to induce him, in security of mind, to renew,
against the heathen Saxons, the wonted treaty they had formerly concluded against
the Romans, and to observe it faithfully in all respects. (92)
Vortimer was successful, and indeed managed to slay Hors and drive Hengist out of the
country. Unfortunately for the Britons, Vortimer died, he "who so loathed this father's
indolence that he would have governed the kingdom mightily, had God permitted it."
Vortigem resumed the throne and the Saxons returned in even greater numbers, laying
waste to everything. The Britons were either slaughtered or escaped to "Scotia, Wales,
and Cornwall." Some did submit to the Saxons "to get some relief in food; though
destined to undergo perpetual slavery, even if they were not murdered on the spot"(92-
93). The contrast which Fordun makes between the reigns of Vortigem and his son
Vortimer is extreme. The treacherous meeting between the British Chieftains and the
Saxons as told by Fordun is nearly identical to the later meeting in the time of William

Wallace between the Scottish Chieftains and the English, and such a parallel would

certainly have been noted by Fordun's readers.

Vorti gem dies a violent death, either being "struck by lightning, or, as Geofiroy

86

maintains, burnt to death in his own tower by Aurelius Ambrosius, this Aurelius was raised

to the throne, by the Britons." Fordun gives no background for Aurelius, saying just that

he was "a man of great moderation, who alone, probably, of the Roman nation, had

survived the storm described above, in which his parents, who bore a royal and

distinguished name, had been slaughtered." However, whatever his rights to the throne

were, the fact remains that the Britons gained strength under his leadership. In fact,

Aurelius sent "greeting to King Constantius [King of Scots], and earnestly besought him,

by means of messengers, to take up arms without delay against the heathen Saxons, the
restless foes of the true God and the Christian religion, and do his part in coming to the
assistance of his allies the Britons, in consideration of the former alliance between them."

F ordun states that Constantius was more than willing to do this, renewing and ratifying the
treaty "with the greatest solemnities, to last in perpetuity-4f, at least, Aurelius would do the
same" (94-95). The Britons and Scots then combine forces to fight together against the
Picts and Saxons. Fordun emphasizes the treaty between the Britons and the Scots many
times, making it very clear to his readers that the Britons were in great distress and would
have been totally destroyed if it were not for the peace between them and the Scots as well
as the military assistance which the Scots gave in protecting them. Fordun emphasizes the
implications of this information by recounting Merlin's prophecy about Vortigem. Fordun
begins by noting that "a certain seer from Cambria, named Merlin, chanted many so-called
prophecies, dark to the understanding, the meaning of which could never or seldom be
discerned by any one until they were fulfilled; but which, on being fulfilled, or after they

had come to pass, many very often believed they recognised" (95). Fordun tells his readers

87

that these prophecies may be found in Geoffrey's Chronicle. Fordun goes on to relate one

concerning Vortigern, as he was
sitting upon the bank of a drained pool, etc. He openly declares, however, among
other things, that the Britons were to be driven out of the country by the Saxons;
and that the Saxons were first to be overcome by the Danes, and then overthrown
by the Neustrians, that is, the Normans,—-which things, indeed, are, in our own
days, known to have been truly firlfilled in all respects. He likewise foretold that
the Britons, accompanied by the Armorican and Albanian nations, would wrest

back their kingdom of long ago, from the Normans, who now reign in Anglia, and

would thenceforth hold sway therein. (96)
Fordun is convinced that the end of this prophecy will one day be fulfilled, and by so
writing, he is urging his readers to learn from the lessons of history, so that they will be

ready for the firlfillment of Merlin's prophecy "which has still to come to pass."

F ordun relates that the "Britons maintained friendship with the Scottish tribes, and
these with the Britons in return," fighting side by side against the Picts and Saxons. This
fiiendship is continually emphasized, making the events surrounding Arthur's kingship
more treacherous by contrast. Fordun quotes Gildas, "a sound and elegant historian,"
since it is because of him that the Britons "as divers histories bear witness, . . .were of any

renown among the other nations" (98). Gildas tells of the friendship between the Britons

and the Scots, saying that

the friendly Scots shall see the Britons reign.

The land shall bear its ancient name again. (99)

88

Fordun also quotes Gildas's prophecies concerning misfortunes which were to befall the

Scots:

Scotia shall mourn her famous kings of old--
Her kings so just, rich, bountiful, and bold.
For an unkingly king--so Merlin sings--
Shall wield the sceptre of victorious kings. (99)
It is at this point, with all his main themes of friendships, good and evil kings, treachery,
and prophecy in place, that Fordun introduces Arthur:
Now, on the death of Uther, king of the Britons, by poison, through the perfidy of
the Saxons (like his brother Aurelius of happy memory), his son Arthur, by the
contrivance of certain men, succeeded to the kingdom; which nevertheless, was
not lawfully his due, but rather his sister Anna's, or her children's. For she was
begotten in lawful wedlock, and married to Loth, a Scottish consul, and lord of
Laudonia (Lothian), who came of the family of the leader Fulgentius; and of her he
begat two sons--the noble Galwanus and Modred--whom, on the other hand, some
relate, though without foundation, to have had another origin. (101)
F ordun then explains the confusion in Geoffrey which was discussed earlier in this chapter
about the exact relationships between Arthur, Anna, Mordred, Uther, and Aurelius.
However, F ordun never states that Arthur is illegitimate, although he does stress that
Anna’s children were begotten lawfully and that as a result Arthur did not have a legal
right to the throne. In fact, Fordun gives no specific details about Arthur at all. He is

using Geoffrey as his main source, so he certainly could have included more, had it been

89

important to his history to do so. In fact, all Fordun wishes his readers to know is that
Arthur became king while the "1an heirs were passed over" because, as Geoffrey says,
the Britons "were pressed by necessity" since the Saxons "were endeavouring to
exterminate the Britons" (101). Fordun addresses the legality of this move, saying that
"much depends on what and what manner of necessity that was." However, both Gawain
and Mordred were still boys, while "Arthur was then a youth of fifteen years, of singular
courage and bounteousness, to whom his innate goodness lent such a charm that he was
beloved by almost all men" (102). Fordun is willing to acknowledge Arthur's charms and
abilities, and he even mentions the many outbreaks of hostilities with the Saxons, but he
does not leave his readers convinced that the necessity of the situation was such that
Arthur's crowning was the only solution or that the accession of Arthur was in any way
legal.

Fordun spends no more time on Arthur, except to mention that in the eighth year
of the reign of Eugenius there "was fought in Britain a battle between the British king,
Arthur, and his nephew Modred, wherein both of them fell wounded to death, with a great
multitude of Britons as well as Scots" (103). Fordun has dealt with the only aspect about
Arthur which is significant to his history, namely that Arthur wrongfully assumed the
throne. Fordun has made excellent use of the background materials relating to the
situation which led to Arthur's accession, however. He has explained in detail how Britain
came to be in such dire straits, with the Saxons dominating them again and again. He has
made it clear to his readers that the problems began because of the weak and wicked

kingship of Vortigem. The situation improved radically under Vortimer, his son, who

9O

assumed the throne at the people’s request even though Vortigem was still living.
Vortimer resumed friendly relations with the Scots, reaffirming a previous treaty. His
untimely death led to a resumption of Vortigem's weak kingship and a more determined
return of the Saxons.

Britain succeeds again under Aurelius Ambrosius, because, according to Fordun,
he was a good king and he also resumes peacefirl relations with the Scots. When the
Britons have a good king and when they follow the terms of their treaty with the Scots,
then they prosper. However, when Aurelius dies, followed by Uther, and Britain chooses
Arthur to rule instead of the rightful heirs, then Britain is again in trouble."0 Fordun
repeats none of the information in Geoffrey concerning Arthur's actual reign, or his
conquests in battle. This is not information which Fordun finds necessary to provide his
readers with, because all that matters for Fordun is that Arthur's reign ends when he and
Mordred battle to death, causing the death of both Britons and Scots alike. The treaty has
been broken, in spite of the efforts of the Scottish king Eugenius who "passed the whole
time of his administration in ceaseless struggles with the Saxons and Picts, while fortune
yielded the victory sometimes to him, sometimes to them; and, doing his best to keep the

peace with the Britons, and the bond of their pristine alliance, he oftentimes, himself

present in person, tendered them his help against the heathens" (103).

Therefore, it may be concluded that Fordun has included only such information

 

3" Fletcher notes that Fordun repeats very little about Arthur’s actual reign, but explains
clearly that the Britons chose Arthur because of their fear of the Saxons, even though “the
succession to the kingdom belonged by right to Anna, the sister of Arthur and the wife of

Loth, and to her children, because of Arthur’s illegitimacy” (242).

91

about Arthur as he needs to support his claim that Arthur ruled without a proper legal
claim. Fordun has no interest in repeating the information from Geoffrey which would
further the Arthurian legends."l He gives many more details about Vortigern, Vortimer,
and Aurelius Ambrosius, because, as I will argue below, these details were more relevant
to Scotland's more recent history. Accounts such as that of the slaying of the British
Chieftains by the treachery of the Saxons would immediately capture the interest of
Fordun's readers as it is a direct parallel to events of more modern times. The conflicts
arising because of weak and wicked monarchs was likewise important to Fordun, as were
the methods for changing kings. He was very careful to note that even though Vortigem
was still alive, the people selected Vortimer as king. Again, the process for selecting kings
has tremendous relevance for Fordun's own time.

Therefore, F ordun’s choice of materials reflects the aims of his history.‘2 He has a

variety of sources, and even if they are not as complete or as abundant as he would like,

 

8' Alexander argues that there are “no grounds for regarding Fordun as hostile to Arthur:
indeed all the evidence points in the opposite direction” (20). I would agree that Fordun
uses Geoffrey’s very favorable estimation of Arthur, but while Fordun may not have been
hostile to Arthur’s personality, he certainly does present a strong case against the legality
of Arthur’s succession. In fact, Fordun’s emphasis on the Scottish claim to the English
throne was a direct response to Edward I’s use of Arthur. However, as Goller notes,

F ordun’s efforts were not as successful. “Edward I had, on similar grounds, claimed the
throne of Scotland. The Scottish claim was to remain politically insignificant; and this new
interpretation of the Arthurian story stood no chance of gaining acceptance outside of

Scotland” (176-77).

‘2 Goldstein states Fordun’s aim most succinctly when he says that “F ordun’s message to

his nation is clear. As in Barbour, the significance of the exemplum is double-edged. Not
only must Scotland retain its freedom from foreign rule at all costs, as it always has done,
but the Scottish people must also humbly obey their lawfirlly established king” (Matter

126)

m2

92

nonetheless, he includes materials based on their accuracy and their relevancy to the

narration of the history of Scotland. The aspects of the Arthurian materials which Fordun

includes demonstrate his focus on the nature of kingship and succession.

Andrew Wyntoun
Andrew Wyntoun devotes about the same amount of space to his discussion of
Arthur as Fordun had done, but he mentions very different events and gives a totally
distinct perspective. He has nothing but praise for Arthur and he is also concerned
primarily with issues of national sovereignty. He spends most of his time discussing
Arthur's conquests in response to the Roman demand for tribute. There is a brief mention

of the arrival of the Saxons, but nothing about the way in which Arthur attained the crown

of Britain. Wyntoun mentions the Round Table as well as Mordred's treason, but does not

give specific information regarding Arthur's death.83
Wyntoun refers frequently in his section on Arthur to various sources, including

Huchown and the Brute. Unfortunately neither of these sources, which are Wyntoun's

main references for the Arthurian materials, can be positively identified. Wyntoun himself

 

“3 Matthews notes that Wyntoun’s history is both less scholarly and also less political than
Fordun’s, raising no protest about Edward I’s seizure of the Stone of Scone. He presents
the two origin legends in a non-competitive way, “without the least indication of any
political rivalry between them. Still more surprising is the noncombativeness of its [i.e.,
Wyntoun’s] biography of King Arthur; it reports his mighty conquests without questioning
their actuality or their justification, shows no awareness of the problem of Arthur’s
legitimacy, and regards Mordred as a traitor—though it makes no mention of Mordred’s
being either Scot or Pict. This failure to apply the legends to national interests is striking
in a fifteenth-century Scottish historian who could scarcely have been ignorant of the

political implications” (297).

93

credits Huchown not only with his Gest Historyalle, the source which Wyntoun is using,
but also with "a gret Gest of Arthure," as well as "the Awntyr of Gawane," and "the Pistil
als of Suet Susane" (V: 4310-12). Other scholars have credited Huchown as at least the
possible author for Gawain and the Green Knight and Pearl. Whoever Huchown may

have been, he apparently was a significant source for Wyntoun.“ Possibly he was the

greatest Scots poet before Dunbar."

Wyntoun's other main acknowledged source for the Arthurian materials is simply
called the Brute, which generally refers to Geoffrey’s Historia, but Wyntoun does also
refer to Barbour's Brute, which no longer is extant, and probably if it did exist was limited
to a genealogical list.”6 Wyntoun also made use of various chronicles as well as Geoffrey

of Monmouth for the materials in this section.

Wyntoun begins his materials about Arthur with the arrival of the Saxons, just as

 

3‘ Henry Noble MacCracken, “Concerning Huchown,” PMIA 25 (1910): 507-34,

maintains that the Cambridge History of English Literature, as well as other works,
identifing Huchown of the Awle Ryale as the English statesman Sir Hew of Eglintoun, a

contemporary of Barbour, are overly hasty. MacCracken notes that much of the
information used in such an identification is based on a large amount of guesswork. While

Sir Hew traditionally has been identified as the only Hew living in the fourteenth or
fifteenth century who was a poet, and Huchown is a variation of the name Hew, still “Hew
was not an uncommon name in Scotland and there may well have been other Hews who
were poets in that time. Sir Hew is never called Huchown of the Awle Ryale in any
document of the period, but is always referred to as Sir Hew of Eglintoun.” Therefore, it
is just as reasonable to conclude that Huchown of the Awle Ryale was a Scot.

“5 Agnes Mure MacKenzie, An Historical Survey of Scottish Literature to 1714 (London
Maclehose, 1933; Norwood, 1977) 29-30.

8"See Matthew P. McDiarmid and James A. C. Stevenson, ed., “Barbour’s Othir Werk,”
Barbour ’s Bruce: A Fredome is a Noble Thing!, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Scottish Text

Society, 1985), 1: 17-22.

For

me

94

Fordun had done. However, Wyntoun gives very few historical details about the Saxon
invasion. There is no mention of Hors and Hengist, for example, or of Vortimer. The
entire period from the invasion of the Saxons through Aurelius is told in just a few lines,
most of which is given as an account of Merlin's prophecy:

The Saxonys of Duchelande

Arrywit that tyme in Inglande;

Merlyne alsua mystely

That tyme made his prophecy.

How Wertogerne withe his falsheide

Off Brittane made the kyngis dede,

How Vter and Aurelyus,

To sumayme callit Ambrosyus,

Off Inglande prewaly past than,

And eftyr bade in Les Brettan;

And the Saxonys withe thar slycht

In Inglande coyme, and al thar mycht

Was ekyt that in multitude

Thar war slayn doun the Brutis blude,

And Inglande thar eftyr ay

Thai haf shit haldyn to this day,

The Brute tellis opynly;

Tharfor I lef now that story. (V: 4219-32)

95

Merlin gives his prophecy mysteriously just as the Saxons are arriving in England.

Wyntoun relates the outline of the prophecy, but then he refers his readers to "the Brute"

for firller details. In as much as Wyntoun is undertaking a history of the world since
Creation, he cannot expand on every incident. Merlin's prophecy is obviously important to
Wyntoun, but he can deal with it briefly, confident that his readers would be able to fill in
the details. Wyntoun does not need to comment in depth about either Merlin or the nature
of his prophecies. Fordun had compared Merlin's prophecies with Gildas's, and he had
also demonstrated that the very nature of prophecy was such that it sometimes only

became clear after the events of the prophecy had actually come to pass. Wyntoun does

not debate the validity of Merlin's prophecies. Instead, he uses the prophecies to

summarize many years of history.

Wyntoun finds it unnecessary to give a detailed account of the arrival of the
Saxons in Britain. It is only important to Wyntoun that his readers be given a brief
summary of the events, in order that they will recall the complete story fiom the Brute.
Wyntoun emphasizes the points he considers most relevant. The falsehood of Vortigem
(W ertogeme) is stressed. Uther and Aurelius's arrival from “Less Britain” is noted, with

no account given as to their right to the throne. These events all occurred when

Theodosius the Younger was emperor.
Wyntoun ensures that his brief account reminds his readers that the Britons
suffered from the Saxons because of the falsehood of their own king, Vortigem. Also,

they were overwhelmed by the sheer multitudes of the incoming Saxons as well as by their

cunning and trickery. Any hope which they might have had for withstanding the Saxons

 

96

came from Uther and Aurelius, who had secretly waited in “Lesser Britain” before arriving
to fight the Saxons. The Britains obviously needed a strong king who was righteous and

truthful, the very opposite of Vortigem.

Wyntoun then continues by grounding British history in the framework of both the
papal chronology and the historical lists of Roman emperors. For example, using
information from Hi gden’s Polychronicon Wyntoun says that

quhen this Leo wes emperour

King of Brettane than wes Arthour. (V: 4279-80)

Earlier, Wyntoun had noted that
The Saxonys in Inglande war
Qwhen Theodosyus soungare

Off the impyre helde the state. (V: 4233-35)

The emperors are themselves placed within the papal chronology. Wyntoun's desire to
write a complete world history requires that he keep all the major events in some sort of

sequence, and he selects the framework of the popes and Roman emperors as the most

obvious and accurate way to order his history.

Wyntoun chooses to mention Arthur's conquests outside of Britain. Fordun had
omitted mentioning Arthur's European victories, possibly because they added nothing to
his main point about Arthur, namely that while he was no doubt a good and admired
leader, he had nevertheless obtained the crown of Britain fraudulently. Wyntoun never

discusses how Arthur became king. For Wyntoun, this is not important. What is

important is that Arthur made a name for himself as a warrior not only in Britain, but also

 

97

all through Europe. Arthur had won:

all Frawnsse and Lumbardy,

Gyan, Gaskoyn and Norrnanday,

[Burgon], Flanderis and Brabande,

Henaude, Holande and Goutlande,

Sweys, Swetheryk and Norway,

Denmark, Irland and Orknaye;

And all the Ilis in the se

Subiet war til his pouste. (V: 4259-66)

This list of conquered lands serves Wyntoun well. First, Scotland is noticeable by its

absence. Arthur is not listed as a ruler of Scotland. Second, this list of conquered lands

precedes Rome’s demand that Arthur pay tribute for his lands. Arthur has ruled all the

aforementioned lands:
And all thir landis euir ilkan
To the crowne of Brettane
He ekyt hail, and made thaim fre,
But subdit til his realte,
Withe out serwis or homage,
Or ony payment of [trewage]
Mad to Rome, as befor thai
Lange tyme oyssit for to pay. (V: 4267-74)

Arthur had conquered all these lands without having to pay any tribute to Rome and he

 

98
was not going to start paying any now.

Wyntoun gives his readers direct information about his sources. He is confronted
with differences among his sources as to who actually required the tribute from Arthur.
Just who was this Lucius? At this point Wyntoun must deal with discrepancies among his
authorities as to who the emperor was or what Lucius' title was, and Wyntoun excuses
some of the sources which might "[wauer] fra the suythfastnes" for the sake of eloquence.

Wyntoun comments on Huchown, for instance "that cunnande was in littratur" (V: 4309):

He was curyousse in his stille,

Fayr of facunde and subtile,

And ay to pleyssance hade delyte

Mad in metyr meit his dyte. (V: 4313-16)
However, Huchown never wanders from the truth for the sake of eloquence.

Hade he [Huchown] callyt Lucyus procuratoure,

Qwhar that he callit hym emperoure,

He had ma grewit the cadence

Than had relewit the sentence;

Ane emperoure, in propyrte

A commawndour sulde callit be;

Lucyus swylk micht hafbeyn kende

Be the message at he sende.

Heyr sufficiande excusacyonys

For wilful defamacionys;

 

99
He mon be war in mony thynge

That wil him kep fra mysdoynge. (V: 4319-30)

Wyntoun acknowledges that some latitude may be taken for the sake of the cadence, but
in so doing he also insists that one must avoid "mysdoynge" or wrong judgments. As
Breisach notes, medieval historians felt that the purpose of history was to teach, and so
they were concerned with being truthful as far as avoiding evil and choosing good. Minor
variances could then be tolerated, as long as the overall message was the same." The
needs of the poet for a good cadence, especially for someone of Huchown's reputation,
would allow for variations as long as the general truth was still the same. In this case, no
matter what Lucius's exact title was, he still obviously bore enough authority to make
effective demands on Arthur for tribute. Arthur took the demands seriously enough to
discuss them with his Round Table "Ducheperis" before setting out with an army to Rome
to answer those demands.

Wyntoun discusses Arthur's overall character next, saying that

Arthuris gret douchtynes,

His worschip and his with prowes,

His conquest and his ryall stait. (V: 4331-33)

He talks about the Round Table with its twelve peers, and describes the destruction of it

all because

of tresson til hym don

 

‘7 Breisach says that "truth sprang not from a detached establishing of neutral facts but
from a devout look at the past in the interest of faith" (127).

 

100

Be Modrede, his systyr son. (V: 4345-46)

Once again, treachery and false leadership have caused Britain's ruin. While Arthur is out
of the country, on his way to answer Lucius's demands, Mordred is able to destroy what

Arthur has left behind. Again, Wyntoun does not give any details, but merely refers his

readers to Huchown who
has tretyt curyously
In Gest of Brutis aulde story. (V: 4351-52)
No information is found in Wyntoun as to the last battle or Mordred's end. When
Wyntoun reaches the end of Arthur's life, he notes that
Bot of his ded and his last ende
I fande na wryt couythe mak me kende;
Sen I fande nane that thar of wrate,
I will say na mar than I wate.
Bot qwhen that he had fouchtyn fast,
Eftyr in til ane Ile he past,
Sare wondit, to be lechit thar,
And eftyr he was seyn na mare. (V: 4353-60)
Wyntoun will not give any evidence as to the end of Arthur's life, but he does repeat
enough to indicate the belief that Arthur went to an island and was seen no more.
Wyntoun's comments on the end of Arthur's life point out another of the
difficulties which he and our other historians confronted, namely the lack of sources or

information on certain subjects. Wyntoun handles this difficulty openly, telling his readers

 

101

that he cannot give the information when he lacks supporting authorities. He does manage
to hint, though, at the missing information about Arthur's end, leaving it to his readers to
decide if Arthur died or if he will return again.

This is all the information which Wyntoun presents about Arthur. He continually
refers his readers to other sources such as Huchown and the Brute if they wish to discover
more. However, for the purposes of Wyntoun's history, he needs only to remind his
readers of a few salient points. Wyntoun does wish to be sure his readers realize that
Britain is in trouble with Saxon domination because of poor leadership. While Wyntoun
does not discuss how Arthur came to the throne, he has nothing but praise for Arthur, and
is the first of the Scottish historians to mention Arthur's tremendous prowess in battle,
giving firll credit to Arthur for all of his victories. Wyntoun also emphasizes Arthur's
refusal to pay any tribute to the Romans, because he has achieved all his victories without

any Roman help and without owing any homage to Rome. Wyntoun finds that it is not

right for Rome to appear claiming sovereignty and the right to tribute over Arthur's Britain

simply because Arthur has demonstrated his ability to lead his people and bring some
measure of order to the chaos which had existed. Wyntoun's reasons for stressing this
aspect of the Arthurian material, namely Rome's demands and Arthur's refirsal to
acquiesce, will be discussed in depth in chapter III. For now, it is enough to note
Wyntoun's emphasis on Arthur's refirsal to submit to Rome.

Wyntoun also uses this section on Arthur to ground his history once more in the
overall world chronology, especially the history of the popes and Roman emperors. This

methodology of placing the one chronology within a wider, more established chronology

 

102

serves to legitimize the early history of Scotland and Britain. It is important for Wyntoun
to make this history accurate and real to his readers if he is going to be able to draw on it

later on in order to provide examples for present problems and give evidence about

appropriate courses of action.
Therefore, Wyntoun has placed his selection of Arthurian information within his

history, making use of the general world chronology. As Fordun did as well, Wyntoun has

selected those portions of the Arthur story which fit the overall thematic needs of his

work. While Fordun and Wyntoun choose very different aspects of the Arthurian

materials to present, they both make their selections from similar motives. Both have need

for proof about events which occurred during or just before the writing of their histories,

as shall be shown in chapter III of this dissertation. Both historians then select from the

various sources on hand the materials which they need to prove their point. Fordun's

emphasis is on the methods for selecting a king and on the importance of just and fair
rulers. Wyntoun is concerned with the necessity for just and fair rulers, but he also wants
to raise the issue of national sovereignty. He has picked from his Arthurian sources the
information concerning Arthur's refusal to submit to claims of sovereignty by Rome.
Wyntoun demonstrates the justice of Arthur's claims, and he firrther shows how Rome's
claims, which drew Arthur away from Britain and allowed Mordred to gain power, caused
the destruction of Arthur and his Round Table, and by extension, the safety and peace of

Britain. Wyntoun will be able to follow up on this knowledge of the evil caused by false

claims to sovereignty in more modern times, as will be shown below.

 

103
John Mair

John Mair deals more extensively with Arthur than either Fordun or Wyntoun. He
has a lengthy section dealing with Merlin's birth and his prophecies. These prophecies are
discussed again later in the history with reference to both Edward I and Edward II. Mair
then gives the details of Arthur's birth and his unlawful succession. He adds information
about Arthur's determination to destroy the Scots and subdue both Britain and parts of
Europe. Mair mentions Arthur's Round Table and his armor. He discusses Arthur's
position as one of the Nine Worthies, as well as Arthur's relationship with Angusel, King
of the Scots. Mair concludes with the final battle, as well as the proverb concerning
Arthur's return. He mentions that Arthur is buried in Glastonbury. Mair has included all
the information which was found in either Fordun or Wyntoun, as well as adding details
which the two other Scottish historians had decided not to mention.

Mair uses a variety of sources for his Arthurian materials, including Gerald
Cambrensis, Bede, and Fordun. However, most of his information comes fi'om Geoffrey
of Monmouth. Mair is the first Scottish historian to treat the Arthurian story in any great
detail. He needs a source which gives more than brief mention of Arthur, and for this
Geoffrey of Monmouth is crucial. Mair has already demonstrated that he is aware of
possible inaccuracies within Geoffrey's history, but nevertheless, overall, he accepts the
narrative about Arthur which Geoffrey has pulled together.

Like Fordun and Wyntoun, Mair begins his account of the Arthur story with a
detailed description of the coming of the Saxons. Wyntoun covers this period in history

briefly, but Fordun provides a detailed account. Mair follows Fordun's emphasis on this

 

104

phase in the history of Britain, but he adds more details as well as more analysis of the
events. He begins by relating how Vortigern, earl of Wessex, had Constantine, the king,
killed by making an alliance with the Picts. "These Picts, therefore, that they might do
Vortiger a pleasure, by a deed of daring rashness murdered king Constantius. Vortiger
thereupon orders his hundred Picts to be seized, and sends them to London, where, under
the sword of the avenger, they paid the penalty of their crime. This he did that, under a
cloak of deceit, he might hide his own guilt" (68). Mair has done more than merely relate
that Vortigem was a deceitful king; he has given precise particulars about how Vortigem
took hostages and used others to accomplish his own gains. Vortigem will use this
method again when he forms an alliance with the Saxons to gain assistance in defending
his territory. Mair makes it clear to his readers that Vortigem is in need of assistance as a
direct result of his own treachery. His treatment of the Picts, whom he had deceived and
then murdered, led directly to an alliance of the Picts with the Scots against the Britons.
"When the Picts heard of the slaughter of their own soldiers, they were filled with
indignation at a crime so foul, so dyed with treachery, and, with the Scots, their
confederates, they make for the northern part of the Briton's country, which they laid
waste, nothing sparing" (68-9).

Furthermore, Vortigem has more difficulties because of the actual murder of
Constantine. "Aurelius Ambrosius and Uther, the brothers of murdered Constantius, were
on their way with an armed force to attack Vortiger" (69). Vortigem then has to look to
the Saxons for assistance, and in fact Mair tells his readers that "Hengist makes Vortiger

king, on the understanding that he should have a place given him wherein to build a castle,

 

105

and land for his men--a condition that was readily granted" (69). Vortigem soon marries

Hengist's daughter after secretly yielding all of Kent to the Saxons.
Mair now discusses the repercussions of these actions.
But this thoughtless marriage of his with a heathen damsel, whose character was
all unknown to him, and the loss to his kingdom of large possessions, which
accompanied the union, were his destruction. It was this conduct that stirred up
some men of rank in the kingdom, who soon stripped Vortiger of the sovereign
power, and placed the crown on the head of his son Vortimer, born of a Christian
woman. (70)

Mair is following the information found in Fordun, but supplementing it with many more

details. He can analyze why Vortimer was made king over Vortigern, and further he

details just how Vortimer died. Vortimer's stepmother makes away with Vortimer by

poison (70). This results in Vortigem resuming the throne, as well as the invasion of

Britain by the Saxons. The Saxon treachery is recounted, as Fordun had also told,

whereby the Saxons had carried concealed daggers in their boots and when Hengist
gave the word--'The time is come to speak of peace and fiiendship'--they were to
make a sudden rush upon the Britons thus caught unarmed and unawares. To
Engist they gave heed, and there fell through Saxon treachery upon that hill ten
hundred and sixty noble men among the Britons. Vortiger, the king, was taken,
and that he might escape with his life, he handed over to the Saxons his strong
places, cities, and all munition of war, and with the Britons fled into Wales, --

where to this day may be found the true Britons and the British tongue. (70-71)

 

106

Mair recounts these events clearly and in firll detail so that his readers will understand the
dangers of treachery and deceit, especially in kings. Both Fordun and Mair spend
considerable time with this particular moment in history, but as we shall see below, they
do it for different reasons.

Mair continues the prelude to Arthur's rule by relating how Vortigern, now forced
to build in Wales, has problems getting defenses constructed for protection against the
Saxons. It is at this point that Mair provides a description of Merlin's birth and early
history. He narrates the account of Merlin's mother who admits that she has no idea who
Merlin's father was, but that "there came in to her once, when every door was closed, a
well-favoured man (such at least she thought him), and he had many times had to do with
her" (74). Mair then details three possible explanations for this claim. "This matter may
be explained in three ways; and, firstly, thus: The woman was ashamed to declare the
father of Ambrosius Merlinus . . . A second explanation is this: a succubus demon may
have had a fi'uitful seed from some man . . . I come now to the third fancy: a demon can
open a door without a key" (75). Mair then evaluates each of the three explanations,
concluding that he personally accepts the "first, therefore, or the third view as the more
probable, dismissing the second as in itself suspicious, and also as failing to prove the birth
of Merlin without a father" (76). Mair does not discount the fabulous aspects of
Geoffrey’s narrative," but rather spends a great deal of time working on the resolution of

the facts, and would seem to be using logic and reason to decide between the

 

8‘ Fletcher notes that Mair “comments on the more fabulous portions of Geoffrey’s
narrative. This learned scholar and divine does not reject the magic incidents, but tries
instead to explain them” (244).

107

explanations.89 Ultimately he allows his readers to form their own conclusions, just as
Fordun had done earlier. However, unlike Fordun, Mair has made a real effort to analyze
his sources and apply reason and logic to their information. Mair also makes it clear to his
readers which explanations seem plausible to him and which do not. This method of
analysis, as was discussed in chapter I of this dissertation, reflects Mair's absorption of the
Renaissance modes of inquiry.

Having dealt with Merlin's birth, Mair then discusses the dragons in the
underground lake and Merlin's prophecies regarding future British history. However,
Mair finds that some things cannot be foretold with certainty. Mair does not deny the
validity of the prophecies themselves, or of Merlin, but he expresses concern over just
how much these prophecies are able to foretell.

Many things of this sort the demon was able to reveal to Merlin--such as that of

the fighting dragons and the lake; but as to things firture and contingent, --for

example, that the Saxons should conquer the Britons, or that the brothers of

Constantius would slay king Vortiger,--the demon had not the power to foretell

with certainty. He can indeed read the signs of the times and forecast the future

more clearly than is possible to man; but the purely contingent he cannot with

certainty foretell. (77)

Mair will return to the matter of Merlin's prophecies when he discusses Edward I.

 

‘9 This method of evaluation matches at least partially that of the ancient Hellenistic
historians, who came to accept only those accounts which reason could approve. The
Renaissance historians were using these ancient historians as models for changes in their
own historical methodology. See Breisach p. 31.

108

He notes that in the matter of the right of succession in Scotland and the conflict with
Edward I, that "Caxton makes mention of a prophecy of Merlin's about this same Edward.
For the English Merlin, who was a seer, used to say that one day there should sit upon the
throne a dragon pitifirl and brave, who should open his mouth over Wales, and plant upon
Wyk his foot. All this they claim to have found fulfilment in Edward" (224). Mair goes
on to note that others have interpreted Merlin's prophecies differently, and some of these
interpretations, such as that naming Robert Bruce as the fox which the dragon would rear,
Mair questions, but nevertheless Mair presents the actual prophecies as valid. He decides,
however, that his treatment of the prophecies "shall be here, as elsewhere, dry and
meagre" (224). He presents the various interpretations of the prophecies, but does not
attempt to reconcile them or come to a definitive answer. The interpretation of prophecies
is one which was not easily answered.

Later on in his history Mair again deals with some prophecies of Merlin, noting
that "about this same Edward of Camarvon [Edward II] the English histories like to recall
certain pr0phecies of Merlin" (254). Mair gives the English historians' interpretations of
these prophecies, but then concludes that while these historians have spent time trying "to
disentangle many more of Merlin's knotty sayings," Mair himself confesses that "I lay no
great store by his misty dicta, for they are no more than mist in the clouds of the air"
(254). Does Mair discount the interpretation of these prophecies because they are
unfavorable to the Scots? This is one possible explanation, but it is also possible that Mair
finds the interpretation of prophecies to be problematic, and firrther decides that the

resolution of these discrepancies is not of primary importance to him.

109

Mair moves on to the events from the reign of Aurelius Ambrosius, detailing how
the Britons were eager to make Aurelius their king. The rights of Aurelius and Uther to
the kingship had been narrated earlier, when their relationship to the murdered
Constantine was given. Aurelius and Uther were Constantine’s younger brothers, who had
been hidden away in “Less Britain” after the assassination of their father Constantine by
the Picts. Constans, the eldest of Constantine’s sons, had become a monk, but he was
proclaimed king by Vortigem. In fact, Constans was only a puppet whom Vortigem
quickly disposed of. Once Aurelius has "made an end of Vortiger and his men" (78), he
appeals to the Picts and the Scots to assist him in driving out the Saxons. The Picts reply
that they are under treaty with the Saxons and therefore refirse to help. The Scots
however, agree to send some troops to help the Britons. Mair quotes Bede as saying that
"between the Saxons and the Picts, whom one and the same necessity had drawn to make
a common stand, the war is carried on with their joint forces against the Britons and the
Scots" (78). Hengist is defeated "by Aurelius Ambrosius and the Scots" (79). Mair
stresses the joint participation by the Britons and the Scots, as an indication of his overall
theme of the necessity for the unification of the crown of Britain. Aurelius is poisoned by
a Saxon and he is buried "in the monastery of Stonehenge, which Aurelius himself had
built in honour of the Britons that had been slain by Engist" (79). Mair accounts for the
building of Stonehenge as a tribute to the Britons, but makes no mention of how it was
built or whether Merlin assisted in the construction.

However, Mair does include the appearance of the comet which announced

Aurelius's death to Uther, Merlin, and others, and further includes Merlin's interpretation

110

of the comet.

Uther, Merlin, and many more, saw this comet, and Merlin declared to Uther its

hidden signification. Through this comet he knew Aurelius Ambrosius, though the

two were far distant from one another, to be dead. By the ray to the east, he
declared that Uther should have a son, who should gain possession of both Gauls
and many kingdoms in the east, and who should far excel in renown all the Britons.

(80)

Thus, Arthur's reign is foretold at the death of Aurelius.

Mair then summarizes Uther's reign primarily to include the way in which "he
changed himself by means of Merlin's incantations into the outward seeming of her
[Ygrene’s] husband, and so, the woman all ignorant of the crime, he had to do with her,
and by her he begat Arthur, afterwards king. Herein Merlin sinned, in cooperating with
the king, so that he should have carnal dealing with the wife of another, nor can he by any
means be cleared of blame in the matter" (81). Mair gives the details and then shows no
hesitation about judging the act, laying blame not only on Uther, but also Merlin for
improper use of his abilities. Again, the historian reserves the right to make his own
judgment on the events and actions of the past. Mair does not simply present the
evidence; he also frequently gives his evaluation of it.

It is at this point that Mair begins his accounting of the life of Arthur, noting that
"concerning the life of king Arthur, I find a great variety of statement" (81). Mair will
work at resolving any differences, just as he has done before, weighing the information

which he has and evaluating it to the best of his abilities, but allowing his readers the

111

freedom to do the same. He begins Arthur's succession to the throne, stating that
"inasmuch as he was a bastard, his origin is a more doubtful matter, and it is a question
how he came to his kingdom." Mair decides, like Fordun before him, that Anna, the sister
of Aurelius, had borne lawfirl children to Lot, the lord of the Lothians, "whence by right of
succession the kingdom of the Britons should have fallen to Modred. But here the Britons
say that Modred and Valvanus were under age, and as the need was urgent, and a hostile
invasion was imminent, they were held to be unfit to guide the affairs of the Britons.
Wherefore into the hands of Arthur, albeit he was a bastard, they gave the reins of
government" (82).

While the details are more complete than those found in Fordun, the conclusion is
the same. Both Mair and Fordun find that Arthur assumed the throne unlawfully. Mair,
however, differs from Fordun in that he presents an alternative plan which should have
been used and which would have solved the issue of the kingship lawfirlly while still
allowing for effective leadership. "Now I am not prepared to deny that, in case of
necessity, it is within the rights of the people to transfer from one race to another the
kingly power; but let that be always done after weighing carefiilly all the circumstances
and with deliberation. And they should rather have said that to Modred, inasmuch as he
was under age, a coadjutor should have been given" (82). Mair includes this information
here in the story of Arthur's succession, but it will be applicable in more modern history
later on, as will be demonstrated in chapter III of this dissertation.

Mair goes on to say that whatever the legality of the situation, the actual facts

remain. "However this matter should have been undertaken, what is certain is this: that

112

Arthur, youth as he was, was declared king of the Britons." As far as Arthur himself is
concerned, Mair readily concedes that "his natural endowment was of the noblest; he was
fair and beautiful to look on, of a most chivalrous spirit, and none was more ambitious of
warlike renown." According at least to the British chroniclers, Arthur was successful not
only in driving out the Saxons from the island, but "the Scots and the Picts likewise (if we
are to credit British chroniclers) he brought under subjection, and compelled to obedience.
At Edinburgh, in Scotland, was Arthur's kingly seat, and to this day that spot near
Edinburgh bears his name. He is said to have tarried some time in the castle of Stirling;
but the Scots were not then in possession of that region" (82). Mair has included
information from the British chroniclers which Fordun did not. This selection of materials
relates clearly to the reasons behind the two histories. Fordun is stressing Scottish
independence, so he would not include any indications of British domination, especially
when this information is not supported by information from his own Scottish chroniclers.
Mair, on the other hand, can include the information to his advantage. He notes that the
details are found in British chroniclers, who may or may not be believable on this
particular point. However, by including the possibility that there had been some sort of
early linking of the countries, he is preparing the way for substantiating his claim that both
nations would be served by a more equitable union of the crowns in present times.

As far as Arthur's dealings with the Scots themselves, Mair tells his readers that
"the king of the Scots (as they relate) went out to war with Arthur, and so became subject
to him, or was joined in a league of friendship or by necessity. He set before him to

destroy all the Scots once for all, and would have done this had they not come to him as

x/_]

113

suppliants" (82-83). Mair informs his readers that he takes this information from Geoffrey
of Monmouth, and Mair goes on to recount Geoffrey's accounts of Arthur’s conquests,
concluding that whatever else may be said about Arthur, he "was renowned in war" (84).
Mair recounts what he has read "in the histories of the Britons, that Anguischel, king of
the Scots, when he was about to lead a great force beyond sea to fight along with Arthur,
marched against the emperor of the Romans, with Arthur returned to Britain, and was
slain in his first conflict along with Gawain against Modred; and Arthur caused his body to
be carried with all honour into Scotland" (84). Mair says that "for albeit the king of the
Scots loved Arthur on account of his uprightness, among the Scots themselves he was
hated, perchance because they desired to serve under Modred for the pay that he would
give them" (84). Mair has placed the Scots and their king into the context of Arthur's
European victories, and also has them participating in the final battle. The conflict among
the Scots as to whether to follow Arthur, who is accounted a tnrly great leader, or
Mordred, who should legally have had the throne, is portrayed by Mair in an effort to keep
the Britons and the Scots within the same historical chronology.

Mair recounts the final battle between Mordred and Arthur, wherein both came to
their ends. This battle took place because "Modred was unlawfully intimate with his
queen Gaunora, and had proclaimed himself king of Britain." Arthur must return fiom his
wars with Rome in order to meet this threat to his kingdom. Mair makes it clear that this
war is a civil war brought on by treachery and deceit on one side, as well as a general
dissatisfaction on the part of some about Arthur. Arthur "returned to Britain, and Modred

met him with a great army; for Modred had with him various among the Britons, Saxons,

114

Picts, and Scots, and those who were ill-affected towards Arthur." He relates that when
Arthur "knew his wound was mortal," he set out "for a certain island that he might there
be cured, and that he would thereafter return to reign again" (84), but Mair concludes that
"however this may be, Arthur was buried in Glastonbury, and at his burying was sung a
verse in no way differing from the opinion of the vulgar, which verse runs thus: 'Here lies
Arthur, great king was he, and king will be'" (85). Again Mair weighs the evidence,
expressing his reservations, and helping the reader to arrive at a logical conclusion. He
selects information which will assist in the overall theme of his history, and his account of
the final battle is the first time that a Scottish historian has included the information about
Mordred and Guenevere. Mair may be including it to demonstrate that there were faults
on both sides of the issue. He would not want the Scots assuming that Mordred was the
injured party, bearing no guilt of his own. Mair is also the first to stress the fact that there
were Scots on both sides of the final battle, and that there had been a firm alliance between
the Scots and the Britons, with the Scots participating in Arthur's conquests in Europe.
After the retelling of these various accounts of the events surrounding Arthur,
Mair concludes that:
the extravagant laudation of Arthur by the Britons leads to a partial doubt of the
facts of his life. The prayers that were made to him from a bed of sickness, and
many other things that are related concerning Arthur and Valvanus, in respect to
events that are said to have come to pass in Britain at that time--all these I count as

fiction, unless indeed they were brought about by craft of demons. And for this

115

reason certain writers, like him of Bergamo in the Supplement to his Chronicles”,

hold Arthur himself to have been a magician. But to this belief, about a king of

such renown, I cannot give assent. (85)
Mair thus discounts the assertion that Arthur was a magician, but nevertheless, he does
call Arthur a "king of such renown" and again gives him credit for much of what is
attributed to him. He mentions that Arthur has been listed "among the Nine Just Men [the
Nine Worthies]," and while Mair continues with a discussion as to the validity of assigning
such prominence to those particular nine men, he nevertheless concedes Arthur's right to a
place of honor. He challenges Arthur's original accession to the throne, because the
nature of his birth makes him a bastard. He also discounts certain miraculous events, but
even there allows room for doubt as he says they are fiction "unless indeed they were
brought about by craft of demons." Overall, Mair presents a picture of Arthur which
shows him as a great warrior and leader, although without a legitimate right to his
throne.91

In conclusion, Mair has detailed much more of Arthur's story than either Fordun or

 

9° According to Constable’s note to this passage, this writer was “Jacques-Philippe de
Foresta, called Bergamensis after the town of Lombardy where he was born. He wrote a
chronicle from the creation of the world till the year 1505, to which he made a
Supplement,” before dying in 1515.

9‘ Goller maintains that because of Mair’s interest in the union and his definition of himself
as a Briton, meaning inhabitant of the island, he “perceived Arthur as a congenial, positive
figure, a model for the fiiture kings of the country, who, following in his footsteps, could
establish the unity of the nation in spite of popular opposition to it. He therefore extols
the king as the most powerfirl, bravest, noblest, and most chivalrous ruler of the world”
(180-81). Mair is also one of the only Scottish authors to associate Arthur with
Edinburgh.

116

Wyntoun had done. Overall, his emphasis is closer to that of F ordun's in as much as he
includes the complete history of the arrival of the Saxons. Mair also uses the information
which Wyntoun had chosen as well, concerning Arthur's victories, the Round Table, and
the final battle. However, Mair's entire approach to Arthur is different fi'om either
Fordun's or Wyntoun's. Mair, because of his knowledge of humanism and his Renaissance
approach to historiography as well as his unique political motivations, gives an analytical
approach to his sources. More than this, however, Mair attempts to provide the details as
fairly as possible, weighing all sides, and not giving a one-sided biased approach. To this
end, Mair selects his materials to emphasize the causes behind various events. It was
‘Vortigem's own treachery and deceit which led to the invasion by the Saxons. His false
dealing with the Picts was recounted as a parallel to the later deceit by the Saxons against
him. Arthur is shown to have obtained his crown illegitimately, but he is also credited
with deserving his honors. Mordred is far from blameless, although certainly he had been
wrongly denied the kingship in the first place. Mair always emphasizes how the victories
which restore peace are achieved as a result of combined efforts, especially between the
Britons and the Scots, and not by one group alone. Mair recounts the story of Arthur
clearly and concisely, giving exactly the information he needs to convey his primary point
that the nations of England and Scotland should be united. In chapter 111 of this
dissertation I will demonstrate how the story of Arthur was used by Mair as a point from

which to argue for this union.

117

Hector Boece

Hector Boece gives a more detailed account of the invasion of the Saxons and the
reign of Arthur than the previous historians. He relates Merlin's prophecies and also
discusses the peace treaty between King Lot, the Picts, and Conrannus, which was
confirmed by the marriage of Aurelius's daugher Anna to Lot. Boece continues with Lot's
claim to the British throne at the death of Uther. He discusses Arthur's adulterous birth,
as well as the agreement Lot makes with Arthur, agreeing to Arthur's rule in exchange for
the provision that his own sons would then succeed Arthur. Boece gives full details of the
various battles Arthur fought and tells of the Round Table as well. He goes on to narrate
Arthur's foreign victories but denies their validity. Boece then discusses the final battle in
which Arthur is slain, and relates how the nobles of Britain refirse to accept Arthur's treaty
with Lot. He ends this section of his history with the mention of Guinevere saying that
she was held by the Picts for the remainder of her life.

Boece gives a great deal of space in his history to the discussion of the Saxon
invasion and Arthur's rule. He has specifics not mentioned by previous Scottish historians,
and he gives a more detailed accounting of the entire period. He uses Fordun as a primary
source for this material, as well as Geoffrey of Monmouth. Boece adds as a source
Veremund's History of Scotland, a history which is now lost and which, as noted above,
some scholars feel Boece fabricated. Whatever the truth may be about Boece's sources, it
remains evident that Boece felt the need to write about the Arthurian materials in greater

detail than even Mair had done, devoting proportionately more space than his

118

predecessors had done.92

Boece begins this section of his history with information about Vortigem's
treachery in obtaining the throne of Britain. He gives full particulars, including how
Vortigem appeared to support Constantine as king, "be applauding of the nobillis to his
opinion." Next, he made peace with the Scots and Picts, bringing in "ane hundreth
personis of thair blude cum to London, to remane as ane garde aboute Constancius, and to
haif his body in keping." Vortigem promised a large reward to these bodyguards for
slaying Constantine. Soon though, he turned around and had the Scots and Picts slain,
assumed the throne himself, and stated that Aurelius, Constantine's son, was not "richtwis
air to the crovne" (317-19). Boece gives such a detailed account of the methods
Vortigem used to obtain the throne in order to explain to his readers how unlawful but
ambitious men could assume the throne. Vortigem had no rights to the crown, but
through treachery and murder he became king of the Britons, and was able to deny the
throne to the obvious heir, namely Constantine's own son.

Boece continues with an account of the tremendous suffering brought on by the
anival of Hengist and the Saxons, at Vortigem's request. Boece emphasizes the battles
between the Saxons and the Scots and Picts, particularly the destruction of the inhabitants
of the border region. Huge numbers of Scots and Picts were slain, according to Boece.

His readers would understand that the Saxon threat was not something endured by Britons

 

’2 Fletcher notes that Boece is “thoroughly patriotic, in medieval fashion, and on almost
all possible occasions makes it appear that it is the Scots who distinguish themselves and
the Britons who are cowardly and treacherous” (245). Goller calls Boece’s history the
“Scottish counterpart to Geoffrey’s Historia written almost exactly 400 years later” (177).

119

alone. Boece continues with the information about Aurelius and Uther, who had been sent
for safety to Brittany and who try to mount armed attacks on the Saxons. Hengist's
answer is to bring over even more Saxons, including his own son Occa, to marry his
daughter to Vortigern, and finally to assume the throne of Kent himself. This proves too
much for the Britons, who deprive Vortigem of his authority and make his son Vortimer
king instead.

According to Boece's account, Vortimer was able to ally himself with both the
Scots and the Picts in his fight against the Saxons. This information differs from that
given by the other Scottish historians who said that the Scots and Britons were fighting
against the Picts and Saxons. Boece gives a more unified picture of the people of
Scotland, with everyone fighting against the Saxon invasion, as "King Wortymer, richt
desirus to recover the liberte of his realme, rasit the banner of the Croce, and commandit
all Cristin pepill to follow the samyn" (338). The poisoning of Vortimer, restoration of
Vortigem to the throne, Vortigem's banishment to Wales, and the "grete cruelteis done be
Saxonis to Britonis" all are recounted in complete detail. The land became known as
"Hengest Land and the pepill Hengest men, bot now, be corrupcioun of langage, the
realme is callit England and the pepill Ingliss men." Boece gives details from Bede that
"baith the publicc and privaitt housis war bett doun to the soil] be iniure of Saxonis. And
site ane thing wes mair miserabill: na men durst berye the dede Cristin pepill, for cruelte of
Saxonis" (344). Some Britons were subjected to perpetual servitude, while others were
slain. Some fled out of the country and other hid in the mountains. They "laid strang

garesoun of armyt men on the bordouris in all partis of thair realme, and brocht ilk day

120

new pepill oute of Almany to expell the Scottis and Pichtis oute of the landis betuix
Humber and Tyne" (344). Boece has spent a great deal of time making sure that his
readers realize the full impact caused by the Saxons. The entire situation arose because of
Vortigem's unlawfirl seizure of the crown, and the atrocities committed by the Saxons
affected Scots and Picts as well as Britons. The political implications of Boece's emphasis
will be discussed below, but clearly Boece found it important to expand his coverage of
the Saxon invasion and to include more details.

Boece has now reached the point in the story at which the Arthurian materials first
appear, with the use of the prophecies of "ane prophete, namyt Merlyne" beginning in the
reign of Vortigern, and Boece concludes that "this prophecy of Merlyne was wele provin
in the end of his empyre" (345). In dealing with the mysteries surrounding Merlin's birth,
Boece concludes that

too declair quhat prophete this Merlyne wes, gottin be the devil], as the fayme wes

than, or gif sik gereracioun be possibill to nature, pertenis litill to purpos quhilk we

tuk on hand be this history. Nochtheles, becaus we ar falling in sik commonyng of
sik detestabill conuersacioun of devillis with the nature of man, we will nocht pass
dry firte, bot write sum thingis quhilkis happynnit noch lang afoir the making of

this buke. (346)

Boece is able to acknowledge that some materials and information lie outside the scope of
his work, and these items he will not treat. However, he does discuss his reasons for

including stories of devils and Merlin's prophecies, since such events are still happening in

121

his own days:93
And because thir illusionis of devillis war sene in oure dayis, we haif colleckit tham
in oure buke, that redaris may vnderstand sik illusionis of devillis may be. Forthir
twiching the prophecijs of Merlyne, houbeit mony of tham be verefijt in oure dayis,
we will leiff tham to be discussit be theologis, quhethir thai suld be abrogatt or haif
faith, for we will stand content to obey thair conclusionis, and write forth the
wailseant dedis of nobill men, as we haif begunnyn, and retume agane to oure
history, quhaire we left. (348)

Boece finds it necessary to make mention of Merlin’s prophesies because his readers know

of them and need to understand them. Also, many of the prophecies have been verified in

Boece's own times, which again adds validity to them. While Boece seems to have some

reservations about these prophecies, he presents the information and allows his readers to

 

certane marchandis war passand betuis Forth and Flandris, quhen haistelye come sik ane
thud of wynd that saill, mast & takillis war blawin in the brym seyis, throw quhilk the ship
belevit nocht bot sikker deth. The patrone perof astonyst with sa huge and vncouth
tempest aganis the sesoun of the 3ere, becaus it was aboute Sanct Bamabais Daye, quhen
the samyn erar cumin be vaching of the devil], the inymye of man, than be violence of
wedder. In the meyntyme the voice was hard of ane woman in the howie of the ship,
wareand hir self, for that samyn instant houre scho was conversit with ane devyll in ymage
of ane man, quhilk had vsit hir in that samyn maner mony 3eris afoir, and perfor besocht
the pepill to cast his in the seyis, that be the deth of hir the remanent pepill in the ship
mycht be sauffitt. Than, be commande of the patron, ane preist sent to hir in that hevy
commande of the patron, ane preist went to hir in that hevy chere, commanding hir to mak
confessioun of hir abhominabill lyfe, and to haif confidence in God, be quhais mercy all
synnys ar purgitt quhen the synnair has repentance and teeris. Quhen this woman wes
makand hir confessioun with grete repentance to the preist in sycht of all the pepill, ane
vgly cloude with ane crak of fyre and reyk flew out of the schip, and fell doun with ane
vennimois odoure in the seyis. Sone eftir the tempest cessit, and the merchandis come to
the port quhar thai desyrit, but ony forthar troubill” (346-47).

122

decide, urging them to look to the theologians for the final answers. It may be noted that
Boece seems to have fewer reservations about Merlin and his prophecies than Mair did.
Also, Boece does not find it necessary to give any details about Merlin's birth or
information about the specifics of Merlin's prophecies. General references to their
existence is all that Boece decides to include, although he does give the specific prophecy
concerning Vortigern, namely that he and his "childerin within schort tyme suld be
wyncust by Ambroiss & Vter, sonnys of Constantyne, and brynt with all his tresoure and
gudis" (345), a fitting end for his traitorous life.

Boece begins his account of Arthur's birth with the tale of the comet as "Merlyne
interprete this comette to King Ambrose, this crovnit dragoun to Vter his bruther" (357).
Even though Boece's work was written after Mair's, Boece demonstrates less doubt of
"fantastic" events, and does not hesitate to tell of such things as comets as harbingers of
future events. There was an appeal for this type of writing among medieval readers, and
in fact Boece's history was much more popular than Mair's. As Roderick Lyall notes,
"Boece's mixture of traditional legend, contemporary folklore and moral advice, all with a
strongly nationalist subtext, was evidently more acceptable to his fellow-countrymen than
Mair's thoughtfirl proto-Unionism, and his work was translated into Scots three times
within a generation of its first appearance, most notably in the version by John Bellenden
(1533)." The reasons for this popularity will be considered in chapter 111 below, but at
the moment it should be noted that Boece has written a very vivid and nationalistic
history.

Boece's account of Ambrose's reign discusses the alliance of both the Scots and the

123

Picts with the Britons against the Saxons in a successfirl effort to slay Hengist and remove
the Saxons from Britain. All of this resulted in a "new peace and mariage maid amang the
princes of Albion." Boece gives the details of this new peace as they will definitely have
ramifications for more modern history. Ambrose, to show his benevolence, brings both
Lot, whom Boece calls "King of Pichtis," and Conrannus, King of the Scots, to London
for feasting and celebration. A new peace was then made "vnder thir condicionis, that all
the landis liand beyond Humbir suld pas in perpetual] dominioun to Scottis & Pichtis, but
ony clame of Britonis in tymes cuming, and the Saxonis to be haldin as inymyis to thaim
baith, and gif thai enterit agane in ony part of Albion, the Albianis with vniuersale consent
suld concur to giddir to resist thame" (351-52). The conditions of this peace were to be
strengthened by the marriage of the eldest of Ambrose's daughters to Lot and the youngest
of his daughters to Conrannus. Lot's wife, Anna, bore him "thre sonnis, namyt Modredus,
Waluanus, & Thametes." Boece then remarks that the "Britonis, Scottis & Pichtis stude
mony 3eris thus in gude peace & concorde" (352). As will be shown below, Boece has
definite reasons for including such a lengthy discourse on this particular treaty. He is also
the first of the Scottish historians to included the Picts with the Scots in this way. This
becomes important later on for the claims to the unity and independence of Scotland as a
whole. Also, in giving the terms of this treaty Boece is letting his readers know of
Scotland's early independence from the Britons.

Boece continues his narration with the renewed aggression of the Saxons, the
poisoning of Aurelius, and Uther's succession as king. Boece tells his readers that Uther

"wes degeneratt fra vertew in amist shaymfull lust," and that he was guilty "nocht only of

124

adultry bot als of slauchter." He "finaly gatt this lady at his will, and had on hir ane son,
namyt Arthure, quhilk succedit to him, as we sall schaw . . . Sum men writis thatt Vter
was transfonnit be necromancy of Merlyne in Gothlois similitude, and be that waye he gat
Arthure. Nochwithstanding, in quhatsumeuer waye it was, Vter gatt him on ane vther
mannis wyiffe" (360). Boece does not say that Merlin transformed Uther, but he also does
not deny the possibility, thus allowing his readers to believe or not as they wish.

However, no matter how Arthur was conceived, Boece arrives at the inevitable conclusion
that Arthur's right to succeed to the throne of Britain was questionable, noting that
"Lothus, King of Pichtis, wes impacient and richt commovit that Arthour, gottin in
adultery, suld be preferrit to his childerin, quhilkis war iust hertouris of the crovne of
Britan, and gottin in lauchfull bed." Lot then "knawing thir weeris rysing betuix Saxonis
& Britonis" decides to take advantage of the situation and offers "to cum with all his pepill
in support of Occa aganis Britonis." He also tries to enlist the support of "Conrannus,
King of Scottis, to concur with him to that samyn effect. Conrannus refirsit, saying he
wald nocht violatt the peace maid afoir with Britonis" (3 62). There are several battles and
Occa ends up declaring himself king of Britain. Scots and Picts are again faced with
fighting the Saxons. Arthur "gaderit ane strang army of Britonis, and faucht aganis the
Saxonis." Boece gives details of Arthur's battles to conquer the Saxons, and when he
finds himself coming to the Humberto invade Saxon territory with his army that is "soft
and nocht abill to sustene siklike travail], laboure or besynes as thai war afoir" then Lot
becomes an ally of Arthur, helping him fight the Saxons. As a result of this assistance, Lot

is able to negotiate an agreement whereby

125

Lothus, King of Pichtis, was conflderatt with King Arthoure in this manner: thatt
Arthure sall reioise the crovn of Britan during his lyffe, and eftir his deth the
sonnys of Lothus sall succeid; and the Pichtis to concur with Britonis aganis the
Saxonis in tymes cuming, and all landis quhilkis the Pichtis mycht conquess on
Saxonis beyond Humbir to pas vnder thair dominioun; attoure, Modrede, King
Lothus son, sall mary the dochter of Gawolane, gretast prince vnder the King of
Britonis, and the childerin gottin betuix thame to be nureist with thaire gudeserr
Gawolane; and Gawyne, bruther to Modrede, to remane in continewall residence
with King Arthure, with rentis according to his estaitt. (369-70)
It should be noted that Boece is giving a much fuller account of the events and battles than
even Mair did. Certainly the account has grown dramatically since its treatment by Fordun
and Wyntoun. The possibility that this expanded treatment is related to political events
taking place at the time that Boece was writing will be examined in the next chapter. For
now it need only be noted that none of our other historians discuss the possibility of an
agreement to allow Lot's descendants to reign after Arthur. This is perhaps yet another
solution to the problem of crowning a king who is not too young, while still providing for
the proper hereditary succession. Every detail is given, making a full and complete
accounting with no loose ends. This may also reflect a changing sense of history where it
is necessary to explain everything and make it all fit. The use of more extended analysis
and detailed accounting among the Scottish historians begins with the writings of Mair and
Boece. These two historians differ, however, on what they find acceptable to include.

Mair usually does not include information which he cannot explain, whereas Boece

126

includes unexplainable accounts but distances himself from some of the details by the use
of the phrase "sum men writis." He is presenting what others have said, but qualifies the
information and forces the reader to decide on its value. Boece's lack of a definitive
statement on some of the events, especially the more miraculous happenings, may have
helped his popularity as well, because he allows his readers to continue believing in
whatever way they prefer.

Boece emphasizes the fact that the "Scottis and Pichtis war confideratt with King
Arthure againis the Saxonis." He goes on to mention more than once how "Modrede
come in support of King Arthure aganis the Saxonis.“ Meanwhile, while all of this
turmoil was engulfing Britain, Scotland was being well-govemed and was at peace. "Sic
thingis done in Britan be Arthure, the realme of Scottland was govemit in grete felicite
and iustice be King Conrannus" (373). The contrast between the two nations is noted as
is the amount of assistance which the Scots and Picts, under Mordred, gave to Arthur,

strengthening Mordred’s right to succeed Arthur according to the treaty between Arthur

 

9‘ According to Matthews, Boece emphasizes that the Scots and Picts often rescued the
Britons against invading Romans and Saxons, even though the “Britons persisted in
malevolence. Against the odds, however, the Scots always preserved the freedom that
had been theirs from the beginnings in Egypt. Matters came to a head in the reign of the
British king Arthur, whose story Boece relates from an unsypathetic Scottish point of
view. In those days, says he, Britain was thoroughly degenerate, given over to idleness,
pleasure, adultery, murder, Pelagian heresies, and Christmas gluttony. It was in this moral
sink that Arthur was born.” Arthur’s career began well, but moral decay set in and once
again “the bounty of northern compassion flowed.” It was the bravery of Mordred which
allowed Arthur to maintain his rule (292).

127

and Lot.”

Boece discusses the extent of Arthur's conquests as well as his Round Table,
noting that "sum autoris writis that Arthure in thir dayis dantit Scotland, Ireland, Island,
Orknaye, Denmark, Swedrik, Pruse, Zeland, Gothland, Holland, Brabant, Flandris,
Picardy, Normandy, Bertanze and all France, and maid the pepill of the samyn tributar to
him" (376). Boece notes, however, that there are discrepancies among the historians and
that some accounts of the Roman Empire, which relate the "horribill weris betuix Gotthis
& Franche men . . . makis na mencioun of Arthure. Nochtheles, sen we ar sett to
mynneiss na manis honouris, we fynd that Arthure wes in gloir of marciall dedis na les
wailseand than vther princes of Britan, and ekit his realme equalie in pollesy and riches"
(376-77). Boece is sure that Arthur was king and did perform many notable deeds, but
notes that there is trouble reconciling different accounts. Boece does not know which
accounts are most accurate, but allows for the possibility that maybe Arthur did not fight
in as many battles as some say.

Boece gives a different perspective on the final battle, which he says occurred
because the British nobles would not honor the treaty between Lot and Arthur once Lot
was dead. Mordred was understandably upset over this treachery and that led to the final
battle in which "Arthure is slayne with all nobilite of Britonis" and "on the syde aduersair,

Modreid, King of Pichtis, slayne with xx'" Scottis and Pichtis" (380).

 

9’ In fact, Goller notes that in Boece’s history, “all battles consequently are attributed to
Arthur’s conception and illegitimacy, factors that were treated as insignificant or positive
in the works produced outside of Scotland. Boece even interprets the Saxon wars
—originally the starting point and impetus for the Arthurian story—from this point of view
in order to give them a new meaning” (177).

128

In conclusion, it is evident that Boece attaches a great deal of importance to the
events surrounding the Saxon invasion and the rule of Arthur. He deals with this material
in detail, giving vivid accounts of battles, treaties, and treacheries. He has taken the basic
format given by Fordun, stressing the illegitimacy of Arthur's kingship, but he has
expanded the information to include more facts, especially about the relationships between
the Scots and Picts with the Britons. His approach is very favorable to the Scots and
Picts, and he demonstrates none of Mair's rational analysis. He wrote his account within
six years of Mair's and they are similar in giving many more details about the Arthurian
period than did either Fordun or Wyntoun. However, while both historians follow
Fordun’s basic outline, they each have a different perspective on the materials. Boece's
account is much more nationalistic and partisan. Mair seeks to stress the interdependence
of England and Scotland, but Boece wants to make it very clear that Scotland was
independent, and that it had acted to help the Britons against the Saxons. However, its
assistance was met by treachery and treason.

Boece’s account is fast-paced and highly emotional. He mentions the European
conquests as well as the Round Table, but unlike Wyntoun, Boece shows no willingness to
credit Arthur with either the victories or great prowess.96 While Boece stops short of
criticizing everything about Arthur, he does cast doubts as to the veracity of some of the

stories surrounding Arthur. He indicates that Arthur is not as honorable as might have

 

9‘ Goller finds that Boece portrays Arthur as “being treacherous and easily influenced by
others.” However, Boece does mention Arthur’s generosity as well as his strategic
capabilities. “That the British fail again and again is not the king’s fault but must be
ascribed to the weakness of his soldiers, who do not prove themselves worthy of Arthur”
(177-78).

129

been thought, since, among other things, he allows his nobles to renounce the treaty which
he made with Lot. Boece certainly gives a new and different view to the events
surrounding this period, especially with his exact particulars concerning first the treaty
with the Scots and Picts and Aurelius which gave Scotland freedom in perpetuity, and next
with the treaty between Arthur and Lot, giving the inheritance of the throne of England to
Lot's sons. Certainly the fact that England was not willing to recognize the rights of Lot
and his sons to the throne of England would be a very important point in more modern

history, as will be argued below.

George Buchanan

George Buchanan has arranged most of his history according to the Scottish kings,
and the accounts of other nations are set in the context of the Scottish regnal chronology.
Buchanan describes both Vortigem and Vortimer. He finds that Merlin is a fraud, but that
Gildas is reliable. He comments on the lawful marriage of Lot and Anna, as well as the
illegitimate birth of Arthur. Buchanan mentions Arthur's exploits in Gaul, but terms them
“forgeries” made by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Buchanan discusses Arthur's denial of his
treaty with Lot and his naming of Constantine, his cousin, as his successor. The final
battle is recounted in which Mordred is slain and Arthur mortally wounded. Guenevere is
instrumental in helping Mordred plan Arthur's downfall. Buchanan denies any validity to
the stories of fabulous and miraculous aspects of the Arthurian materials.

Buchanan uses a variety of sources for his Arthurian materials, including Bede,

130

Gildas, and Fordun. He also follows Boece's basic format and treatment.” Further, he
makes rather extensive statements concerning problems found in the use of Geoffrey of
Monmouth as a source, although he himself uses information from Geoffrey. However, as
far as Geoffrey's accounts of Arthur's exploits in Gaul, Buchanan says that he has "no
certainty of the exploits he performed in Gaul: for as to what Geoffrey of Monmouth
attributes to him there, it hath no shadow or semblance of truth in it; so that I pass it all by
as an impudent forgery, unworthy of belief" (105).

Buchanan begins his discussion of the Arthurian period with information about the
arrival of the Saxons, giving yet another perspective, beginning with the selection of
Constantine as king of the Britons. According to Buchanan, the Britons had been left
"weak, and quite forsaken by their foreign allies." In order that they "might have a leader
to resort to for public advice, " they "chose for their king, Constantine, their countryman, a
nobleman of high descent, and of great repute, whom they sent for out of Gallic Brittany."
Buchanan notes that Constantine managed to maintain peace with his neighbors
throughout his ten-year reign,

till at last he was murdered by the treachery of Vortigem, a potent and ambitious

man. Constantine left three sons, of whom two were under age; while the eldest,

being unfit for government, was sent to a monastery, and there confined.

 

97 Fletcher finds that Buchanan’s account of Arthur “chiefly follows Boece, but with great
condensation and some omissions and other changes of details due to the author’s
independence of judgment in comparing authorities and to his attempt to reason for
himself as to the causes of actions” (249). Goller notes that the “unbiased reader might
have expected an objective, scholarly presentation of the Arthurian story from the learned
humanist George Buchanan. However, his Rerum Scoticarum Historia (1582) also
basically follows Boece; his professed critical relation to his source is often illusory” (179).

131

However, he at last was elected king, by the assistance of Vortigern, who was

desirous of obtaining wealth and power under the title and influence of another

man. (98)

Buchanan has given his readers much more information about Constantine and his sons.
He is the first of the Scottish historians to give details of Constantine's reign, and he also
discusses the fact that of Constantine's three sons, two were underage. This fact will have
a bearing on the selection of Arthur later on. Buchanan has also let his readers know that
Constantine's kingship was based on an election and that he was brought over from Gallic
Brittany. Again, the ability to choose a king, as well as the fact that the selected king had
come from outside the country, will be important both in the remainder of the Arthurian
materials and later in the discussion of more modern Scottish history.

Buchanan gives fithher details which he has obtained from Bede and Gildas
relating to the relationship between the Britons and the Romans. He quotes from Bede
about letters which had been sent to Rome regarding complaints by the Britons: "'The
barbarians drive us to the sea, the sea beats us back again upon the barbarians; we have no
choice but one of these two kinds of death, either to be killed or drowned'" (98).
Buchanan adds this information to clarify the situation which the Britons find themselves
in and also to provide more insight into Vortigem's character. Buchanan goes on to note
that while

the rest of the Britons being driven to this desperate case, Vortigem alone rejoiced

at the public calamity; and in the general confirsion thought he might, with greater

impunity, perpetrate the wickedness which he had long before meditated. This

132

was, to cause the king to be slain by the guards whom he had placed about his

person; after which, to remove the suspicion of so foul a parricide, in a pretended

fit of anger, as if he were impatient of delay in executing revenge, he caused the
same soldiers to be put to death, without suffering them to speak for themselves.

Thus having obtained the kingdom by the highest degree of villainy, he maintained

it in no better a manner than he usurped it. (98)

Buchanan makes no mention of the fact that these soldiers who were to guard the king
and who were later slain were Picts. He finds no need to bolster the antagonism of the
Scots and Picts for the Britons by adding the national details about the bodyguard to the
account of Vortigem's treachery. Buchanan's focus is clearly on detailing Vortigem's
actions, making his deceit and treason very clear. The implications this emphasis has on
modern Scottish history will be discussed in chapter 111.

Buchanan then continues with the information about Vortigem's general
incompetence and his need for assistance from the Saxons, noting that Vortigem "engaged
the Saxons to take his part, who were then become great pirates at sea, and infested all the
shores far and near." He assigned Hengist his own lands in Britain "by which means
Hengist was induced to fight, not as for a strange country, but for his own demesne and
estate, and therefore was more likely to do it earnestly. When this was spread abroad,
such large numbers of the three nations, Jutes, Saxons, and Angles, are said to have
flocked out of Germany into Britain that they became formidable even to the inhabitants of
the island." It is at this point that Buchanan first mentions the wars which took place

between the Britons and the Scots and Picts, during the reign of Eugenius, King of the

133

Scots. Eugenius was either killed in battle or died a natural death, depending on which
source is consulted, but Buchanan makes it clear that all sources agree that "however he
came by his end, it is certain that he governed the Scots with such equity, as deservedly to
be reckoned amongst the best of their kings" (99). The contrast with Vortigem is left to
speak for itself. Eugenius is succeeded in A.D. 452 by his brother Dongardus, and "in the
second year of Dongardus, Vortigem was deposed , and his son Vortimer chosen king of
the Britons. He renewed the ancient league with the Scots and Picts, that so he might
more easily break the power of the Saxons, which was a triple alliance that the three
nations had entered into against the Romans in the days of Carausius" (99). Buchanan
again provides a different perspective with his account of this period. He focuses on the
longevity of the alliance which had been broken only by the treachery of Vortigem.
Buchanan narrates the events of the next Scottish king, during whose reign,
Vortimer is murdered "by the fraud of his step-mother, and Vortigem had made himself
king without authority or right." At this point, the two sons of Constantine, Aurelius and
Uther, who had been underage at the time of their father's murder, return from Gallic
Brittany to reclaim the throne, now that they are of an age to rule.
On their arrival, and before they would venture to alarm the foreign settlers, they
subdued Vortigem in Wales, and then sent messengers to the Scots and Picts,
desiring their alliance, and craving the assistance of their arms against the Saxons,
who were the most bitter enemies of the Christian name. This embassy was kindly
received by the Scots, who renewed the league that had been made with

Constantine; and from that day it remained almost inviolate, till the kingdom of

134
Britain was oppressed by the Angles, and the kingdom of the Picts by their

neighbours. But the Picts answered the British ambassadors, that, having already
made a league with the Saxons, they saw no cause to break it. (100)
Thus Buchanan has accounted for the alliance of the Scots and Britons against the Saxons
and Picts. He has not given many details concerning the Picts, and especially the reasons
for their willingness to side with the Saxons, but he has given more details about the
arrival of Aurelius and his brother. He has also provided an example of what happens
when rightful heirs, who are underage at the time they might have been chosen to rule,
come of age. This is yet another t0pic which will not only have relevance for the
Arthurian story, but also for more modern Scottish history.
Buchanan now brings in both Merlin and Gildas, who lived in the time of Aurelius.
He takes a very different view of Merlin from any seen so far. He places Merlin as a
contemporary of Gildas, saying that:
they were both Britons, and transmitted a great name to posterity, who conceived
a high opinion of their prophecies and divinations. Merlin was somewhat the elder
of the two, but a cheat and impostor, rather than a prophet. His vaticinations are
still scattered up and down; but they are obscure, and contain nothing of certainty,
either that could encourage hopes before their accomplishment, or indeed to satisfy
men when they are fulfilled; so that there is no truth in them on any account.
Besides, they are so framed, that you may accommodate or apply them to different
or contrary events, according to your fancy. (101)

Buchanan obviously discounts the reliability of prophecies, but he seems to have no

135

doubts as to the authenticity of Merlin himself. While Buchanan does not discount the
existence of prophets, acknowledging that Gildas "was a learned and good man, and one
held in great veneration both in his lifetime and after his death, because he was excellent in
learning, and eminent for sanctity, " he does note that "the prophecies which go under his
name, are such ridiculous sentences, so coarse and ill-constructed in the language, and
also in the whole series of their composure, that no wise man can believe them to have
proceeded fi'om him whose name they bear" (101). The prophecies are such that they are
either open to many interpretations, depending on the wishes of the audience, or
completely unbelievable. This view is even stronger than that taken by Mair, and
demonstrates a further development in the ability of the historian to evaluate and criticize
his sources. Historians may be developing the abilities to evaluate their sources because
politicians, especially since the time of Edward I, are using historical sources as evidence
to support their positions. Buchanan finds that he must warn his readers about the validity
of both Merlin's and Gildas's prophecies so that his readers will be able to separate the true
from the false.

When Buchanan sets forth the events leading to Arthur's birth, he notes that "Uther
might have been accounted one of the greatest kings of his age, had he not, by one foul
act, brought a cloud over all his eminent virtues" (102). Buchanan then recounts the
taking of Igeme, Gorlois's wife, by Uther, saying that "her chastity being a long time proof
against his desires, at last her continency was conquered by Merlin, a man audaciously
wicked; and in this adulterous commerce Uther had a son by her, named Arthur" (101).

Eventually, after the death of his own wife, Uther, "having invented an accusation against

136

Gorlois, he besieged his castle, took it, slew him, married Igeme, and owned Arthur for
his own son, educating him nobly, with the design of leaving him heir to the kingdom"
(102). Buchanan states that in order to make these events appear in a better light, "a tale
was forged, not much unlike that which had been often acted in theatres" (102).
According to this tale, "Uther, by the art of Merlin, was changed into the shape of Gorlois,
and so had his first night's lodging with Igeme; and indeed this Merlin was a man of such a
character, that he had rather be famous for a wicked deed, than none at all" (102).
Obviously, Buchanan puts no belief at all in the tale of Merlin's magic, but says that
the tale was made up in order to give a more favorable impression of the events leading to
Arthur's illegitimate birth. Buchanan does what Boece could not, namely tell his readers
outright that Merlin's magic was a story invented to give a more favorable opinion of
Uther.98 Buchanan does admit that "Arthur, the spurious offspring of an illicit amour, on
growing up, appeared so amiable in the lineaments of his person, and inclinations of his
mind, that the eyes of his parents, and of all the people too, were fixed upon him,
predicted his future greatness, and concurred in regarding him as their future king" (102).
However, when Uther finally died and Arthur became king,
Lothus, king of the Picts, strenuously opposed it, grievously complaining, that his
children, for he had two, by Anna, the aunt of Arthur, who were now of years,

should be deprived of the kingdom; and that a bastard, begotten in adultery, was

 

9' Goller notes that Buchanan likens the story of Merlin’s magic to “‘one that was often
performed in the theatres concerning Jupiter and Alcmena. That is to say, Uther was
through the art of Merlin changed into the likeness of Gorlois when he first cohabited with
Igeme.’ Thus Arthur is presented as a British Hercules” (179).

137

preferred before them. On the other side, all the Britons espoused the cause of
Arthur, and denied that he was spurious; because Uther having married his mother
at last, though after his birth, by that means treated him as his legitimate son, and
continued so to do. (102)
Buchanan does not cite any of the versions of the story which state that Uther married
Igeme before Arthur’s birth,99 since these versions would greatly weaken the rights of
Lot’s sons. Buchanan acknowledges again that all the questions regarding Arthur's right
to the throne would have had little meaning if it were not for the person of Arthur himself.
"Yet that which availed Arthur most, was his great ingenuity, and the proofs of virtue
which he often evinced" (102). Even Lot himself recognized virtues in Arthur, as
Buchanan tells us that
the liberal and promising disposition of Arthur, and the greatness of his mind, even
above his age, very much affected him; insomuch that the alliance made by former
kings, betwixt the Scots, Picts, and Britons, was again renewed, which produced
so great a familiarity, that Lothus promised to send Galvinus, the youngest of his
two sons, to the British court, as soon as he was old enough to bear the fatigue of
the journey. (102)
Thus, "Arthur assumed the regal government before he was quite eighteen; but as his

courage was above his age, so success was not wanting to his daring spirit" (102).

 

’9 Geoffrey and Mallory, for instance, both have Uther marrying immediately after Gorlois
is killed in battle the night Arthur was conceived. However, Buchanan stresses evidence
for a later marriage after Arthur’s birth when he had stated that Uther had to wait for the
death of his own wife.

138

Buchanan has interpreted everything, making all the details fit into a complete and
coherent narrative. He explains events using human, rather than divine or magical,
explanations, which is evidence of the new humanist Renaissance approach to history.100

Buchanan then deals with Arthur's victories and says that "some writers of English
antiquity say, that Arthur fought twelve pitched battles with the Saxons; but, as they give
only the names of the places where they were fought, and nothing else, I shall take no
farther notice of them" (105). As was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter,
Buchanan finds much in Geoffrey of Monmouth to convince him that Geoffrey is not
accurate, and he therefore decides not to include the information at all. This decision is a
change from earlier historians who might have expressed doubts about some of their
information, but who nevertheless included whatever their sources had mentioned.'01

Buchanan continues his account by narrating the final battle between Mordred and
Arthur, in which Mordred and his brother Gawain are slain and Arthur is mortally
wounded. Then Buchanan acknowledges that he knows

what fabulous matters are reported by many concerning the life and death of

Arthur, but they are not fit to be related, lest they spread a mist over his famous

 

"’0 See Breisach pgs. 154-60 for further discussion of this topic. Renaissance historians
were inspired by the ancients and so granted mankind a "greater measure of 'home rule,’
which in turn made them stress the importance of human deeds and motives in history"
(160). Buchanan’s discussion of the events leading up to Arthur's birth clearly
demonstrates the shift to explanations which use human, rather than magical or divine,
agents.

"’1 See Breisach's discussion on pgs. 154-55 of the Renaissance historians and their more
demanding standards of accuracy, forcing them to check one source against another,
instead of merely stringing them together.

139

actions; for when men confidently affirm lies, they cause the truth itself many times
to be called in question. This is certain, that he was a great man, and very valiant,
animated by a pure love of his country, which he freed from servitude, and that he
restored the true worship of God, which he also reformed when it was corrupted.
(106)
While fabulous tales have arisen concerning Arthur, Buchanan is still quick to point out
that Arthur himself was a great man. Buchanan admires Arthur because he loved his
country, and he was able to restore its freedom and reform its worship life. These two
single actions, freedom and reformation of church life, were of enormous importance to
contemporary Scottish history, and Buchanan's emphasis on them will be examined below.
Buchanan notes that he has spent more time with Arthur than might seem
appropriate for a history of Scotland, but he explains this by saying that he has
spoken of these things, concerning his lineage, life, and death, at a greater length
than the nature of my design required; for I never meant to record all the exploits
of the Britons, but to free and preserve the affairs of our own nation fi’om the
oblivion of time, and the fabulous tales of some loose and unprincipled writers. I
have insisted the longer on the exploits of Arthur, partly because some curtail them
out of envy, and others heighten them with ostentatious hyperboles. He died in the
year 542, after he had reigned twenty-four years. (106)
Buchanan tries to appear fair and consistent, giving a factual account of the history as he
has determined it to be, while at the same time warning his readers about what he sees as

obvious falsehoods. He does not want to be guilty of ignoring Arthur because of envy, or

140

exaggerating his deeds beyond all historical actuality. Also, since one of the primary
reasons for writing history is to teach and provide examples of proper behavior, Buchanan
can use Arthur as a model to help his readers see the importance of freedom, love of
country, and proper worship. Buchanan certainly demonstrates a good deal more
skepticism than most of our previous writers, and while he comments that he may have
devoted more space to Arthur than would seem necessary for a history of Scotland, still
proportionately, he does not deal with this period in as much detail as either Mair or
Boece.

In conclusion, Buchanan has followed the basic outline of Boece, who in turn
followed Fordun. However, there is a definite difference in tone and emphasis in
Buchanan. Unlike Boece, Buchanan does not play as openly upon his readers' nationalistic
sentiments. He is more apt to discuss the merits of various kings no matter which country
they come from. Vortigem's treachery is explained at a much greater length than had been
done by the previous Scottish historians, but Buchanan makes no effort to exploit the
emotions of his readers by discussing the slaughter of the guards as an issue of
nationalism. Buchanan's writing is more logical and explanatory than Boece, who tends to
portray events with much greater vividness and rhetoric. Buchanan demonstrates to his
readers a greater degree of critical evaluation with regard to his sources. He also refirses
to include information which he finds to be false. However, Buchanan has very definite
aims in writing his history, including the instruction of the current king of Scotland, as was
shown above. To that end, he stresses the nature of kingship in this section on the Saxon

invasion and Arthurian kingship. He capitalizes on the mistakes of earlier kings, whether

141

British or Scottish, as opportunities to instruct the present monarch. This use of his
history will be examined in detail in chapter 111. In the end, Buchanan has given a rational
explanation for the events of this period, emphasizing those issues which had current
relevance for his readers, and helping his readers to learn the facts while discounting the

fabulous.

John Leslie

John Leslie arranges his history, after the opening information on geography,
entirely by the reigns of the Scottish kings. Each chapter is devoted to a specific reign,
and the focus is heavily on Scotland, almost to the exclusion of other information. Leslie
does, however, use the Arthurian materials, and he discusses Merlin as a soothsayer. He
continues the affirmation of Boece and Buchanan as to the falseness of the claims of
Arthur's foreign victories, maintaining that Arthur did not subdue the Emperor Lucius. He
affirms the truth of the Round Table, noting that he himself had seen it.‘°2 Arthur's death
is recorded, with mention of Guinevere, but no direct mention of Mordred.

Leslie has based his brief mention of Arthur in terms compatible with Boece and
Buchanan, following Fordun's original plan. He also uses Mair as a source, and he refers

to Pliny and Bede. The amount of information he gives on Arthur is less than that given

 

“’2 Fletcher notes that Leslie follows Boece, but abbreviates the account greatly, but Leslie
does add his opinion that “Arthur was the builder of a stone house formerly existing not
far from the river Carron, which Boece, while mentioning a vulgar ascription of it to
Casar, was inclined to assign to Vespasian. He adds also a popular idea or two about
Arthur, saying that the number of his knights was twenty-four, and that he himself had
seen what, ‘unless our ancestors have erred,’ is the veritable Round Table at Winchester
(where we of the twentieth century may see it too if we choose)” (249).

142

by any of the other Scottish historians, for reasons we will consider later. For the
moment, it may be noted that Leslie's history has a much tighter focus on Scottish history,
and he gives few details about events outside of Scotland.

However, Leslie does describe the reign of Vortigem as a prelude to the Arthurian
monarchy. He recounts briefly that Vortigem had hired the "keipers of Constantine" to
betray him, and then to keep this fact from coming to light, "he comandes thir keiperis to
be taken, in prisone to be sett, in haist to be heidet." Then, as Leslie notes, "quhen he was
maid king, he buir him self w' sik Maiestie in authoritie, or after the opinione of sume, w‘
firlehardines and audacitie, that alluterlie he refirset to pay the ald vse and wont to the
confiderat kingism’, in tribut and custome." Again, the reader is given the details about
Vortigem's treachery and assumption of the throne, but the condemnation of Vortigem
does not seem as intense. However, because of his foolhardy actions, he soon has
incurred the wrath of the Scots and the Picts, and the Britons find themselves at war. "Of
this, betueine thame, rase hatred and Jnuie: of hatred & Jnuie cam Jniurie and wrang: of
Jniurie and wrang weiris are begun" (I: 215). Leslie informs his readers about the
progression of hostilities from ill-will and hatred to outright war. He intends his history to

be a learning experience for his readers and this statement helps educate his readers as to

 

“’3 Constantine, according to Leslie, “had maid peace, nathir w' concent of the Nobilitie,
nathir w' thair counsell, he delyuered thame frome the tribue and custome, quhilke xxx
aeris afor continuallie to the Scottis thay had payed: he mairouer delyuered sum castelis
quhilkes war situat vpon Humber, frank and frei, to the Britonis” (I: 213). This
arrangement did not please the Picts, who then attacked. Vortigem managed to make
himself king, but only with the assistance of Hengist and the Saxons. Once on the throne,
Vortigern, pleased with his new exhalted position, refused to pay his tribute to the Saxon
leaders, resulting in his ultimate downfall.

143

the outcome of Vortigem's actions.
Vortigern, according to Leslie, is now in a difficult position, due entirely to his
own ill-chosen actions. When he
saw him selfe sa sair opprest, that he was nocht able, him selfe alane, the hale
ennimies to resist, quha laitlie had wonn sa noble a victorie vpon the Scottis, he
callis the Saxonis, that cruel and wylde natione in Germanie, to helpe, albeit thay
war Ethnikis and supperstitious. The superstitious Saxounis cumis at flichte speid,
following the convoy of ane Hengistie and his brother Orsie, contumeliouslie w‘
weiris thay vex the confedrat kingis of Scottis and peychtes, and vehementlie
oppressis tham. (I: 215)
Thus Vortigern has had to call in the help of a heathen and superstitious people to aid him
in defending his realm against enemies which he himself has created. Vortigem manages
to get himself "delyuered frome the seruitude of the Scottis & Peychtes, obteyneng the
Victorie, quhilke felicitie followet this calamitie far bittirer, that quhais helpe in thair
delyuiring thay had vsed happilie, into thair seruitude nocht lang eftir thay cam
miserabillie." Leslie then relates how the Saxons invaded Briton, when Hengist broke his
bond and "callis his wyfe out of Saxoune, and with her a gret Nobilitie, and of men of weir
nocht a smal multitude" (I: 215). Hengist had his mind set on reigning himself, and
throuch many iniures and wranges he prouokes King Vortigeme to battell. The
gret parte of the Nobilitie of britannie he brings to nocht: the rest of the people
outher quyte he destroyes, or in prisone w' King Vortigeme he miserabillie thame

castes. Hengestie haueng athir put the Brionis to flicht, or brocht thame vnder

144

seruitude, occupies the cuntrey braid and wyd frome end til end, and commandes
in Londoune that crouned he be king, and that, gif war possible, he mycht cause a1
blude of the yle of Britane be in perpetual obliuione, and neuir thaireftir cum in
rememberance, the Ralme he commandet to cal home that further Hengestland and
the people Hengestmen frome his awne name, to wit, Hengestie: Thay
no'w'standeng, thinkeng the language sa hard, thought better to follow the style
that now thay follow, to cal the Realme England, and the people Englesmen. (I:
216)
Leslie succeeds in this description of Hengist's actions in explaining the attempted
genocide of the Britons as well as the loss of their own name in favor of the new and
ultimately permanent name of England. Vortigem not only was treacherous in his
attainment of the throne, but his actions ultimately changed the character of the country
permanently. Vortigem and the few remaining Britons were granted "the cunteried of
Cambrei, (quhilke now thay cal Wallis)," and it is in Wales that "this peple sticking maist
constantlie to the puritie of Christne religioune, suffrred na blek [stain] nathir of
paganisme, nor ony vthir secte, bot the religioune of Christe in that cuntrey to entir: for na
stonne of persecutione." As for the land dominated by Hengist, "the crueltie of the
Saxonis was sa gret, in destroyeng the kirkes, in muthiring the Preistes amang the altares,
in slayng the Prelat with the peple al throuch another, that ane Christiane, as witnessis
Beda, skairslie durst burie another Christiane." Leslie's final comment about Vortigem
leaves no doubt in his readers's minds that Vortigem "receiued thaireftir his rewarde surely

for his mischeif that he had wrocht." Leslie's only mention of Merlin appears at this point

145

in his text. Merlin is mentioned briefly when Leslie states that Vortigem‘s end had been
fortold by "Merlin the soothsayer or forteller of things to cum, borne of a noble woman,
gottin (as said is) be ane euil spirit, fortalde him, that sa sulde be his end" (I: 217). There
is no firrther mention of Merlin and no extended debate about the difficulties of prophecy
as is found in Mair, Boece, and Buchanan.

Leslie condemns Vortigem and he certainly gives strong examples of the hazards
involved in poor leadership, but he does not spend his energies in a pointed criticism of the
treachery and treason. His most vivid portrayals of the disaster faced by the Britons are
aimed at the religious persecution, and this aspect of Leslie's writing will be discussed
more firlly below. Leslie has taken some liberties with the story of Vortigem's reign, at
least as far as the chronology, because he does not mention Vortimer until after Vortigem
has been exiled into Wales. Also, while Vortimer gets brief mention and Leslie credits him
with being king in place of his father Vortigern, and "nevir was absent in mister, cheiflie to
the expelling out of the boundes of Britannie Hengestie, and his sone Occa," there is no
mention of Vortigem's poisoning of Vortimer before resuming the throne. Leslie includes
his brief mention of Vortimer's reign primarily as a way of detailing King Congall's
assistance to the British and his friendship with Vortimer.

Leslie gives more information than any of the other five historians concerning the
religious conversion of the Saxons. He notes that

about this tyme the twa Bishopes, Germane and Lupe, Jlluminat w‘ al vertues, as

w' stames, cam in Britannie, of y' mynd and intentione, to rute out be the rute the

Pelagian heeresie, and to informe the King Hengest w' the Saxons in the Catholik

146

doctrine dulie, and haly prazceptes thairof: quhilkes baith, verie happilie succeidet

with thame, quhill in the meane tyme, thay wanted nocht to helpe thame, in this

thair godly intentione, mony Princes weil confirrnet in the Catholick & Christne

faith, of Britannie selfe. (I: 218)

Brief mention of this conversion had been made by earlier Scottish historians, but Leslie's
entire emphasis is on the religious trauma caused by the Saxon invasion and the steps
which were taken to heal the breaches of faith. This emphasis is certainly in keeping with
Leslie's purposes in writing history, as discussed previously.

Leslie discusses next the reign of the Scottish king Conran and how, "receaueng in
mariage Ada the sister of Ambrose king of Britannie, cam in gret freindschip and
familiaritie with him. Mairattouer he helpet nocht litle, againste the Saxounis, thir tua
kingis of Britannie, Vteropendragon and Arthur." Aurelius, Uther, and Arthur are
mentioned primarily as a way of putting Conran's reign into a wider historical framework.
Leslie notes that during Conran's "tyme rang in france Childerik and Clodouie, in Britannie
Aurelius, Vteropendragon & Arthur." He then continues with a discussion of Conran,
including a detailed account of a miraculous hunting expedition. "To King Conran
chanced a meruellous thing and notable in tyme of hunting, for he mekle delyted in hunting
the wylde deir: quhen now with the hundes the Hart was hunted and at last ouircum and
slane, out of his mouth caist a meruellous multitude of serpentes, quhen, nochtw'standeng,
the Hart homes vses, as testifies Plinius, to remeid the Serpents bite" (I: 219). This
account is not found in any of our other histories and the positioning of the story right

after the brief mention of Aurelius, Uther, and Arthur, serves to minimize the reference to

147

the British kings and keep the focus firmly on the importance of the Scottish monarch and
the events surrounding him.

Leslie continues with a detailed discussion of the establishment of monasteries,
especially the Benedictine order. Then, Leslie moves on to the reign of Eugenie III, at
which time he returns to his discussion of Arthur. He does not devote a lot of space to
Arthur, and the events which he does relate are told in the context of the Scottish
historical background, but he, too, demonstrates a certain amount of doubt concerning
some of the Arthurian information, being by no means willing to accept everything he
presents.

Most of the information concerning Arthur is narrated within the section dealing
with the reign of Eugenie III, son of Congal. Leslie states that

thay wryt that about this tyme King Arthur subduet throuch battell Scotland,

Jrland, J sland, ffinmarshie, the Jles of Orknay, Denmark, sswadne, Sarrnatia,

Prussia, Pomerania, the landes of Gothe, Holland, Zeland, Brabante, flanders,

(F landirie) al Britane, and at last hail France, to haue maid the inhabitouris of thir

cuntreyes w' thair Princes, tributaries. thaireftir (that J pas ouer the kingis of

Grece, of the Meades, & Persianis be him ouircum) they wryte that the Romane

Emperour Lucius he subduet. (I: 223)

Leslie finds this rather hard to believe, as he says that "mony rasonis persuades me to
reakne sik speikingis rather among flett fables, than notable Histories” (I: 223). Leslie
evaluates his information to see if it is reasonable and if it fits with his known world.

Nevertheless, in spite of the lack of trust in the multitude of victories, Leslie concedes that

148

"how evir the mater be, the King Arthur was notable, of coragious spirit, a noble & balde
vertue, and honorable in actes." Leslie continues by telling of Arthur's "four and tuentie
kene knychtes, and because of thair honour and glore in weirfair, that he nobilitat thame
with armes, as in our langage we name thame, and for the knawlege thay had in weirfair,
and for the gretnes of that glore, he imbracet tham al alyk with alyk fauour." Leslie
always brings his accounts back to a focus on what is known to his readers, so that even in
his description of Arthur's knights, he refers to the terms found in "our langage" (I: 223).

Next Leslie describes the Round Table, stating that "the sam self table (gif our
countrey men throuch sum superstitioune of our forbearis haue no' erret) haue my selfe
seine; quhair it is solemnelie keiped, perpetuallie to be remembered of; in the castel of
Wintoune, and ouer al noted w' the names of his weirlie knychtes; quhilke I sawe nocht
lang syne" (I: 224). He even gives the reasons for the Round Table, which had appeared
in romances and other Arthurian materials, but not in the other Scottish historians. Leslie
states that "quhen thay al satt doune to the table, that na man war proud, or throuch vane
glore began to crak hich gif he war in the first place sett, or began to Jnvie gif he saw him
selfe set laicher than he walde; he caused a round table to the forme of a croune be maid"
(I: 223). Again, Leslie explains his information, judging it on the basis of such things as
common sense and eye-witness accounts.

Leslie concludes his information about Arthur by saying that "this Arthur at last, as
our Histories makes mentione, was slane be the Scottis and Peychtes" and that his wife
"Guanora, be the Peychtes eftir his deith was takne be weiris, and to the day of her deith,

in Angus vnder sure custodie, was keipet; quhais Sepulchre is 3it to sie" (I: 223-24).

149

There is no mention about the final battle particulars and nothing about Mordred. Leslie
does let his readers know that "wrytes nocht a few that Eugenie gat S. Mungwe104 of Anna
the Sister of Aurelie King of Britonnie, and lawful heir to the King of Peychtes" (I: 224).
This is as near as Leslie gets to mentioning the issue of lawful right to the throne. He
makes no reference to Arthur's birth, illegitimacy, age, or anything relating to his
ascendency. Leslie mentioned earlier in his discussion of Fergus I, the "Scottis wil haue na
Bastard or vnlawfirl birthe to succeid w' thame w' gude wil" (I: 132), but that is as close
as he comes to a discussion of Arthur's legitimacy. It is not of importance to Leslie. He is
much more interested in the religious history.

Therefore, Leslie's account of the Arthurian period is very different from any of the
previous Scottish historians. He agrees with Boece and Buchanan about the lack of
veracity in Arthur's European victories, and he also recounts his belief in the Round Table
and Arthur's knights. He gives Arthur credit for being a notable warrior, with a
courageous spirit and honorable actions. However, Leslie give far less information about
Arthur than the earlier Scottish historians. There is only the very briefest mention of
Merlin, but no account of Arthur's birth. There is a mention of the marriage of King
Conran to Aurelius's sister, but nothing of Lot or his marriage to Aurelius's other sister,
Anna, or the treaty these marriages were meant to ratify. Leslie does give passing mention

to Anna, in his comments about the evils which befell Britain, but he provides no details.

 

1°“ Also spelled by Leslie as Mongwe, Mungo, and Mungwe, this refers to St. Mungo also
known as St. Kentigern (518? - 603), who was said by some Scots to have been of royal
descent. After being driven out of Cumbria by King Morken, he found asylum in North
Wales before finally returning to Glasgow where he died.

150

Obviously, Leslie feels that Arthur deserves to be mentioned because of his courageous
spirit and the deeds he did, and Leslie also feels it is necessary for him to make it clear to
his readers that all the information about Arthur's vast conquests was not accurate.
However, Leslie finds no need to give anything more than the briefest accounts of the
Saxon invasion or Arthur's rule, since they do not bear on his overall aim of providing a

detailed and complete history of Scotland.

Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter has been to discuss how each of the six Scottish
historians handle the materials dealing with the Saxon invasion and the reign of Arthur. It
is evident that they each work with the materials a little differently. Fordun cares only for
the matter of Arthur's right to the throne, and so he covers issues relating to the selection
of kings. He gives firll and complete particulars about Vortigern, Vortimer, and Aurelius
as well as Arthur, always focusing on the reasons underlying their selections as kings.
Wyntoun spends the same amount of time on Arthur as Fordun did, but he gives a very
different perspective by emphasizing his conquests in response to the Roman demands for
tribute. Wyntoun is concerned with issues of national sovereignty.

Mair is the first of these six Scottish historians to give a really extensive treatment
of the materials surrounding Arthur. He expands Fordun's basic outline, and gives a
complete history of the arrival of the Saxons. However, he also includes Wyntoun's
emphasis on the Round Table, Arthur's victories, and the final battle. In addition, Mair

spends a great deal of time on Merlin and the issue of prophecy. Mair's emphasis is

151

different from either Fordun or Wyntoun, though, because he works hard at examining
underlying causes for various events. He also purports to portray an unbiased approach,
providing details fairly and weighing all sides. His approach may not be unbiased, but
instead of favoring Scottish nationalism, his bias is to extol the union of the crowns. His
approach may be contrasted with that of Boece, his contemporary. While Boece also
provides a wealth of information, his account is much more nationalistic, stressing the
injustices done to Scotland in spite of all the assistance it provided to Britain.

Both Buchanan and Leslie write histories which are more tightly focused on the
reigns of the Scottish kings. Buchanan still provides a great deal of information, basically
following Boece's framework. He does present the information less emotionally than
Boece, though, and he demonstrates a higher degree of critical evaluation. His emphasis
is on the nature of kingship. Leslie, on the other hand, gives the least amount of
information about this period of any of the six historians. His focus is clearly on Scotland,
and he covers other events only as they impinge on Scotland. He also gives more
attention to ecclesiastical matters, and so stresses the heathen nature of the Saxons and the
complete destruction of churches.

Each of these historians has made a conscious effort to use his sources in ways that
fit the general purpose of his history. Each has selected from the available materials in
order to emphasis the topics which he felt to be most important. Some of the historians
mention the Round Table, but others do not. Some go into details about treaties, but
others choose to emphasize battles or kingship. All six of these historians used basically

the same sources. There are questions surrounding Boece's use of Veremund, but Boece

152

himself is used as a source by both Buchanan and Leslie. Fordun is Boece's main source,
and he is also acknowledged as the primary source for Mair, Boece, Buchanan, and Leslie.
Both Wyntoun and Fordun used the records of St. Andrews, and yet their accounts of this
period are very dissimilar. Everyone is, of course, indebted to Geoffrey of Monmouth as
well as Bede and Gildas, among others. However, even with the same basic sources, our
historians have accomplished very different effects by the very nature of their selection and
use of the materials.

Now that I have examined just why each historian was writing and what each
thought the purpose of history was, as well as how they handled the materials concerning
Arthur, I will turn to examining exactly what each historian hoped to accomplish. An
examination of the possible uses and users of history and the social and political climates
existing at the time the histories were being written will then lead to the discovery of why
each historian made the selections he made and what he hoped to accomplish with his

history.

CHAPTER 111

Users and Uses of History: Social and Political Functions

The two previous chapters have investigated the task and role of the historian as
seen by each of the six Scottish historians, as well as each of these historians’ views about
Arthur. It is now time to examine whether the treatments of Arthur are indicative of the
ways in which these historians treat major historical figures, especially English kings with
an interest in controlling or conquering Scotland. Expanding the investigation to include
not only Arthur, but also William the Conqueror and Edward I, who also had visions of
conquering Scotland, will aid in revealing the social and political functions of these
histories, investigating in as far as possible, just who the intended audience was and what

purpose each historian felt his history would serve.

John Fordun
As was discussed in Chapter 1, little is known about F ordun's life or his reasons for
writing his history. However, his probable association with the Cathedral of St. Andrews
would have been influential. The Register of the Priory of St. Andrews, compiled between
1313 and 1332, contained many early annals and documents concerning Scotland. In

addition, the appearance from 1327 to 1363 of Ranulph Higden's popular history of

153

154

England could have served as another incentive for Fordun to write a comparable history
of Scotland.

Fordun wrote his history soon after the events known as the Great Cause, referred
to briefly in chapter 1. According to E. L. G. Stones and Grant Simpson, the events of
King Edward I's reign from May 1291 until November 1292 concerning the Scottish
succession have been known, since at least the eighteenth century, as 'The Great Cause'
because of the extraordinary nature involved in the determination of succession rights by a
king from another court. It was an event which was perhaps unique in medieval history,
and it contributed to the nature of medieval history, since the debate itself required the
presentation and evaluation of various documents, determining their relative values in
uncovering the true nature of the historical records (1:1). It certainly influenced Fordun in
his writing, and in fact, Fordun began his collection of materials relating to Scottish history

as a direct result of Edward I's seizure of historical records.105

 

"’5 Henry M. Paton, Yhe Scottish Records: Their History and Value (Edinburgh: Historical
Association of Scotland, 1933), outlines the difficulties in dealing with medieval Scotland,
noting that “public records of England are extant from about the middle of the twelfth
century; and had the coeval Scottish records survived (for they once existed), it might not
have to said that the history of Scotland in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries has still to
be written” (4) It is this loss of records that Fordun is reacting to and trying to combat.

On August 12'", 1291 Edward I had authorized a search of the archives at Edinburgh for
“all documents bearing, or supposed to bear, upon the merits of the claimants and upon his
alleged right of suzerainty” (5). By September nearly the entire collection was on its way
to London, and in spite of a “pretext of handing it all back to Balliol’s Chamberlain” there
is “no evidence that any part of the collection ever returned to its home”(5). There is no
doubt that “this great mass of Scottish record material has for the present vanished fi'om
our ken”(6). Of less importance to the study of the early Scottish historians, but indicative
of the continuing loss of Scottish records is the fact that “much of the material for the
succeeding period of Scottish history, 1306-1460, has also disappeared.” These records
apparently were still “extant in 1579 and also about 1630, when lists were made. For a
second time, as it would appear, the menace arose from over the Border” (8-9), thus

155

Fordun lived in a time when the government of Scotland was in a tumultuous state.
For example, the reign of David 11 (1329-71) saw a firtile attempt at war with England, the
capture of David 11, yet another regency, and finally the ultimate ransoming of David with
its resultant economic and political woes. David himself cared nothing for Scotland and
even made a private arrangement with Edward 111, whose sister Joan was David’s wife, to
have Edward's son declared his heir. This arrangement was repudiated by the Scottish
Parliament, and in fact, upon David's death in 1371, Robert Stewart, David's nephew and
former regent, became King Robert 11. Unfortunately for Scotland, Robert proved to be a
weak king, although he had been a good regent. Robert's efforts at restoring peace and
prosperity to Scotland were undermined by the weakened economy, still suffering from
the ransom payments to England for David 11's release. Furthermore, there was a great
deal of animosity between the great nobles of Scotland. It was in this climate of political
and economic unrest, lack of strong royal leadership, and difficulties with England that
Fordun composed his history.

Fordun's interest in the nature of the monarchy as well as the means for selecting
kings was evident in his treatment of Arthur and the related period. Fordun stressed the
spurious nature of Arthur's claim to the throne as well as the conflicts which arose because
of weak and wicked monarchs. This emphasis is especially understandable in the light of
the reigns of David II and Robert 11. Does this emphasis carry over to Fordun's treatment

of more nearly contemporary kings? To answer this, I shall now consider Fordun's

 

limiting our ability to identify sources for the later historians. See also Gordon Donaldson,
Scottish Historical Documents (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic P, 1970).

156

treatment of the reigns of first William the Conqueror and then Edward I in order to
ascertain whether or not Fordun’s treatment of Arthur truly reflects Fordun’s views on the
monarchy. Analyzing Fordun’s discussion of the sixth-century Arthur, the eleventh-
century William, and the thirteenth-century Edward, all of whom had designs of one sort
or another on Scotland, should provide an adequate basis for discovering what the role of
history was for Fordun.

Fordun treats the reign of William the Conqueror in some depth, using mainly the
works of William of Malmesbury as his source. Fordun’s first mention of William is in
book V chapter XII, a chapter that has a rather odd arrangement of materials. The first
portion of the chapter is related to the reasons for William's arrival in England. Fordun
writes that "William the Bastard, count of Normandy, hearing that Harold had usurped the
kingdom of his cousin Edward, was goaded on by various causes to come to England"
(198). Fordun gives three specific causes for William's actions. First, Harold had broken
the treaty which had been made between him and William. This treaty had provided that
Harold would give William Dover Castle at the time the treaty was signed and then would
support William’s claim to the kingdom of England after Edward's death. William, for his
part, had promised his daughter to Harold in marriage.

William was further angered because Harold's father, Godwine, "had treacherously
put to death his cousin Alfi'ed, together with many Englishmen and Normans at E1y--all his
comrades except every tenth man, being beheaded" (198). Alfred was Edward the
Confessor’s brother, and his murder in 1036 by Earl Godwine and other supporters of

Harold while on a visit from Normandy to England to see his mother Emma angered

157

William. The third specific cause which Fordun relates as reason for William's arrival in
England is that "Godwin had banished out of England the archbishop Robert and Earl
Odo, together with all the French." Therefore, being "irritated on account of these and
other matters, he gathered his forces together from all sides, and sailed over into England;
and, on the 14'" of October 1066--the tenth year of the emperor Henry and king Malcolrn-
-he deprived this same Harold of his kingdom and his life together, in a slight and ill-
contested battle at Hastings" (198).

At this point, without providing any transition, Fordun notes that "in the second
year of this emperor, Padbrunna (Paderborn), a city of Germany, was burnt down,
together with its cathedral." Fordun discusses the actions of a monk named Patemus, a
Scot residing in this German town, "shut up in a little cell hard by a monastery. To him it
was revealed that unless the people made haste to appease God by repentance, the whole
city would perish by fire within thirty days." The people did not repent. Saint Patemus
had the monks take away the valuables from the monastery so they might be saved, and
"at length a fire burst out suddenly in seven parts of the city, and burnt the whole city and
the monastery to ashes. But when the fire had reached the little cell of the man of God,
and he was asked to come forth, he would not; but intrusting all to the judgment of God,
he and his little cell were burnt up" (198-99).

This incident brings Fordun's chapter to a close except for the final sentence, which
once again takes the reader back to William the Conqueror. "In the year of William the
Bastard's arrival in England, a comet was seen; whence the rhymer says:--

‘In the year one thousand and six and sixty more,

158

A comet's tresses streamed o'er England's shore."' (199)
The juxtaposition of the account of William's arrival in England and the Battle of Hastings
with the story of Saint Patemus, the Scot who warned the German town to repent or be
burned, indicates the reasons for William's victory. The concluding statement about the
comet would seem to demonstrate that the English lost their kingdom as a form of divine
retribution. This logic is further reinforced in the opening of the following chapter, where
Fordun relates that he had included the information about the Battle of Hastings in his
chronicle as an example to "our Chieftains" because "the sad slaughter of the battle of
Hastings, wherein, through that cause, the English lost their kingdom" was directly due to
the fact that "they be burdened by besetting sins of such kind and so great--far be it fi'om
them!--that they be, like him, unable to withstand their foes in battle" (199). As Fordun
will shortly demonstrate, these “besetting sins” involved gluttony, wantonness, and a
turning away from the church.

Fordun's own period was one of strife, especially between the baronial families,
and Fordun is providing a pointed example of the results of such actions. It was because
of their sins, as well as the moral laxness of the church, that the English lost their kingdom
to William. Fordun's readers would certainly understand his warning that the same could
and was happening in Scotland. In order to support his claim that the English lost their
kingdom because of a change in their behavior, Fordun begins by briefly relating the
history of England, from the arrival of the Angles, noting that "in the first years of their
arrival, they were savage in look and manner, of warlike habits, heathen in their customs;

but afterwards, when they had embraced Christ's faith, little by little, as time went on, in

159

proportion to the ease in which they lived, did they put the use of arms in the second
place, and turned their thoughts entirely to religion" (199). However, this happy state of
affairs did not last. "Nevertheless, afterwards, in course of time, for a good many years
before the arrival of the Normans, the upper classes, given up to gluttony and wantonness,
went not to church in the morning after the manner of Christians, but, in their chambers,
and in the arms of their wives, barely listened to a priest who hurried through the rites of
matins or the mass." The common people left unprotected then "became the prey of the
most powerful--who amassed heaps of treasure, by either swallowing up their substance,
or selling their persons into far off lands." By far the worst sin, according to Fordun, was
the treatment of the maid-servants. "When their maid-servants were with child by them,
and [they] had glutted their lust, [they] were wont to sell them either to some common
brothel, or to service abroad." The clergy itself did nothing about these practices. In fact,
the clergy, contented with a smattering of letters, could scarcely stammer out the
words of the sacraments; and one who knew grammar was an object of wonder
and astonishment to the rest. The monks made a mockery of the rule of their order
by fine clothes and every kind of food without distinction. Drinking-bouts were
indulged in by all, who continued nights as well as days in that occupation. They
eat till they brought on surfeiting, and drank till they were sick; whence there
followed the vices which wait on drunkenness, and unman the minds of men. (200)
Fordun spends a great deal of time on the issues of the loss of morals among the nobles
and the decline in the education and discipline of the clergy because these were real issues

for him in present-day Scotland. While each generation usually finds that the present

160

society is becoming more morally corrupt, it is true that in Fordun’s time the clergy in
Scotland were beginning to experience a definite decline in morality which would continue
until the Scottish Reformation. "’6 The direct result of the English sinfirlness had been the
loss of their kingdom. "So it came to pass that, when they engaged William with more
rashness and headlong fury than military skill, they themselves and their country sank into
slavery by one, and that by no means a hard-fought battle." Fordun had made the same
point in his descriptions of Vortigem’s reign and in fact, as was shown earlier, Fordun
spent more time detailing the events, most notably the moral corruption leading up to
Arthur, than he did with Arthur himself. Fordun ends with the moral advice that "nothing
is more bootless than rashness; and what is begun with a rush, soon ends, or is checked.
But as God, in His mildness, often cherishes the bad with the good in quietness, so does
He in His stemness, sometimes fetter the good with the bad in bondage" (200).

Fordun's two chapters dealing with the Norman conquest of England then fit
together as a direct warning to his own contemporary Scotland concerning the dangers of
loose living and rivalries between Chieftains. Fordun gives very little information about
William himself or the battle. What reasons Fordun gives for William's invasion
demonstrate the moral laxness of England, with broken treaties, treacherous murders, and
unjust banishments. Fordun had used a similar approach when narrating Vortigem’s reign

and the reason for the Scots’ and Picts’ battles against him. There too, it was the case of a

 

1°" Cowan finds that in many cases churchmen had “integrated with society to such an
extent that their behaviour and standard of values corresponded with that of the laity
whom they were expected to inculcate with more charitable virtues.” In additions, the
spiritual role of many churchmen declined and “their increased rapacity came to threaten
many of the services which they had previously provided” (134-35).

161

“sinful nation, who abetted the pride and extravagence of their king; so that the masses, as
corrupt as their king, were overthrown in a common vengeance” (89). The consequences
of unrepented sin are firrther demonstrated in the brief example of the bunting of the city
in Germany, foretold in the prophecies and warnings of the Scottish saint, who himself
dies in the blaze. This information is followed by a detailed account of the loss of
discipline and moral fiber in the English church. The English loss is then an inevitable
result of their own behavior. It is probable that Fordun would expect his readers to heed
the warnings he provides concerning the loss of the English kingdom so that the same
does not befall Scotland, which in Fordun's time is suffering from similar declines in both
secular and sacred leadership.

Fordun also discusses issues surrounding the relationships between Scotland and
England, especially those reflecting on overlordship. He discusses at length and over
several chapters the reign of Scotland's King Malcolm, his wife, Saint Margaret, and the
wars with England's William. Fordun notes that Malcolm accepted the English refirgees
after the defeat of Harold, "affording to each such protection as was in his power. "
Malcolm had close ties to the English, having been brought up in England fiom the age of
nine. He took the English princess Margaret as his second wife in 1069. Margaret was
the granddaughter of Edmund “Ironside” King of England in 1016 and also Edgar the
Atheling’s sister. Malcolm was especially sensitive to the rights of Edgar, "whose sister he
made his consort, out of regard for her old and noble descent. On his behalf, Malcolm
harried the border provinces of England with fire and rapine" (202). Fordun adds that

many a time, however, did the king [Malcolm], from the earliest days of William

162

the Bastard's reign even until after his death, march into the northern provinces of
England, with a strong hand, wasting and destroying all things round about; taking
away, in a hostile manner, by spoiling and plunder, all that had breath; and
consuming with fire and sword, from off the face of the earth, all he did not take
away for the use of man. (203)
The end result of all this activity on Malcolm's side was that "the whole country, except
some castles, surrendered to him, and all the inhabitants submitted and swore fealty to
him" (204). Thus, most of the border provinces owed fealty to Scotland, not England.
Fordun then discloses that "though Malcolm was bound to do homage to William the
Bastard for twelve towns situated in England, he threw off his allegiance on some
provocation from certain Normans, and, in his fearfirl raids, heaped upon them these
unbearable disasters which they well deserved." It is not hard to see where Fordun's
allegiance lies. In addition, Fordun makes it very clear that most of the fealty was owed
by the border provinces to Scotland, and only twelve cities were bound to England.
Again, as was demonstrated earlier, from the beginning of Fordun’s work, he continually
emphasizes Scotland’s early pre-eminence and continuing independence from England.
Fordun continues with information about William's reaction to Malcolm's action,
but William was "unable to brook the never-tiring inroads of this outbreak." In response
he sent his son Robert "to Scotland, to make war upon King Malcolm. Robert, however
achieved nothing" (205). Finally, "in the thirty-first year of King Malcolm, William the
Bastard, king of England, died at Rouen." He was succeeded by his son, William Rufirs,

who was able to make peace with Malcolm. Fordun informs his readers that the terms of

163

this peace required that "the king of Scotland should obey King William; that William
should restore to Malcolm the twelve towns the latter had held under William's father; and
that Malcolm also should give twelve golden merks a year" (207). Temporarily, at least,
"a good understanding was brought about between Malcolm and William. Nevertheless
there were many disputes on both sides, and justice wavered by reason of the fierce enmity
of the two nations" (207).

Thus, Fordun has succeeded in explaining not only Harold's loss at the Battle of
Hastings, but the relationships between Scotland and England which developed during
William the Conqueror's reign, and the reasons for the long-standing enmity between the
two nations which would become more and more important as time went on. Fordun tries
to make it clear that Scotland only owes obedience to William Rufirs for the border towns
which William has agreed to give back to Scotland, and not for the nation as a whole.

This background information becomes more relevant when Fordun begins his discussion
of the relationship of Edward I to Scotland. As he had done with Arthur, Fordun spends
most of his time discussing the nature of the society within which William operated,
demonstrating that the political actions were a direct result of the social conditions. If
Fordun can continue with this emphasis when he discusses Edward I, then he will have
given his readers a solid case for understanding that Scotland must take responsibility for
what has happened to it by reforming its moral and religious conduct.

Fordun devotes a great deal of space to the period of Edward 1, since it is not only

164

of vital importance to Scottish history, but also to the contemporary political situation.107
He details the actions of Edward from the time he first becomes a political force, during
the reign of his father Henry 111. While Edward did not inherit any titles at a young age, as
both Arthur and William had, he did demonstrate an early aptitude for military leadership.
Fordun emphasizes especially the assistance offered by the Scots to Edward in his battles
against the Welsh. He then continues with an explanation of the relationship between
"Alexander, king of Scotland, and Edward, king of England, about the boundaries and
marches of the two kingdoms" (301).

The situation between Scotland and England changes rapidly when Alexander HI

dies in an accident in 1286.108 His first wife and both his sons and his daughter had died

 

"’7 Goldstein notes that the Scots had watched what Edward had done in Wales, where he
had “made it abundantly clear that his ambition was to exercise suzerainty or lordship over
all of Britain.” It was this English imperialism which alarmed the Scottish historians who
“sought to prevent Edward’s domination of Wales from being repeated in their own
kingdom” (Matter 31).

“’8 Matthew P. McDiarmid, “The Kingship of the Scots in their Writers,” Scottish Literary
Journal 6 (1979): 5-18, notes that Scotland at the time of Alexander III’s death was
“something more than a loose federation of regions; it was an established order, a more
relevant description; an order in which by now mainly ‘Inglis’ and/or Gaelic speaking lords
or lairds had their traditionary offices or loyalties, under a king whose interference with his
subjects, regions and their customs, was slight so long as his pre-eminence was recognised
and the various forms of service were performed. By the Anglo-Norrnan criterion of
unity—that the king’s law, the king’s justice, went everywhere—it was indeed much too
loose, under-centralised, and therefore surely easy to divide and conquer. So Edward I
may have thought. Where its surprising strength and will to resistance came from is best
understood by looking at another loose unity within, a church of equal-ranking
bishops—conceding only a historical precedence to the bishop of St. Andrews—which,
under threat from the English hierarchy, had secured papal recognition of its
independence. Naturally it gave its full support to the secular order. Under attack it could
rouse loyalties outside itself in every class. Edward’s agents report that everywhere
priests go among the pe0ple persuading them that war against the English is a holy war”

(5)-

165

before him. His second wife had not borne him any children. His only heir was his
granddaughter Margaret, Maid of Scotland and the infant daughter of the King of
Norway. Once the Maid of Scotland dies on the way to Scotland and a possible marriage
to Edward I’s infant son, and the succession to the throne of Scotland is in jeopardy,
Fordun makes a very clear statement about the relationship between Scotland and
England:
The kingdom of Scotland were as free and quit of all thraldom and subjection, as
ever it had been, at its best and freest, during the lifetime of Alexander III, the
illustrious king thereof;--according to what appears in a certain instrument drawn
up by them, a copy whereof is more fully contained in the book of the pleading of
Baldred. And in case the aforesaid marriage did not hold good, or either of the
contracting parties deceased without issue, while the other survived,--in any case
or event, the aforesaid kingdom was to be freely, entirely, and absolutely, without
any subjection, restored and returned to the next heirs. (306)
According to Fordun, when the dispute arose about the succession, between Robert Bruce
and John Balliol, the Scottish nobles decided to ask Edward I to be the "supreme judge in
this matter, and declare the right of each; and, by his might, duly coerce, according to the
requirements of the law, that party against whom he might pronounce his award."
However, Fordun goes on to make it clear that in spite of the request for Edward I to
judge the merits of the contenders for the thrones, "no right or superiority of dominion
should thereby accrue to Edward; as he was called thereto, not as lord paramount, or

judge by right, but as a friendly umpire, and the strongest neighbour, to settle a quarrel,

166

equally by his wisdom and his might, after the manner of a friendly peacemaker, and for
the sake of reciprocity" (307). Edward was not to assume any sovereignty over Scotland
as a result of his position as mediator during the crisis caused by the empty Scottish
throne. Fordun maintains his emphasis on Scotland’s independence.

Fordun continues his description of the events of the Great Cause by relating that
Edward I had asked both Robert Bruce and John Balliol individually if they would be
willing to be subject to him if he should rule in their favor. Fordun reports that Bruce
answered, "If I can get the aforesaid kingdom by means of my right and a faithful assize,
well and good; but if not, I shall never, in gaining that kingdom for myself, reduce it to
thraldom--a kingdom which all the kings thereof have hitherto, with great toil and trouble,
kept free from thraldom, in security of peace." Bruce reaffirms the independence of
Scotland in the past as well as his determination to maintain this independence. However,
F ordun reports that when John Balliol is questioned, he deliberated quickly with his
council and then "fell in with the aforesaid king's wishes, that he should hold the kingdom
of Scotland of him, and do him homage for the same." Immediately thereafter, "Edward
pronounced John Balliol to be the lawful heir in the succession to the throne." Fordun
leaves little doubt in the minds of his readers that Edward's decision was based solely on
his desire to have control over Scotland. Fordun ends the chapter with the withdrawal
from the scene of Robert Bruce, commenting that he never did "tender homage or fealty
to John of Balliol" (309). Further strife is thus inevitable.

Fordun continues with this section of Scottish history in full detail, never hesitating

to expose Edward's treachery as well as his desire to conquer Scotland. Fordun tells his

167

readers about Balliol's renouncing the "homage and fealty he had tendered to the king of
England, as wrung from him by force and fear" (316), and then Edward's efforts to woo
Robert Bruce with various pledges. "When, however, Edward got what he wished, he
nowise kept his pledges" (317). It is clear that Edward fits Fordun's concept of a wicked
monarch and both England and Scotland suffer as a result. Fordun had clarified his
concept of the evil ruler with his description of Vortigern, whose actions parallel
Edward’s. Fordun had earlier recounted how Vortigem also demonstrated his desire for
personal gain rather than his country’s welfare when he told how “King Vortigem invited
over the nation of the heathen Saxons, to provide for his own safety, and attack the
enemy.” Soon when the Saxons increased their population alarmingly, the Britons,
“fearing their treachery,” told Vortigem “to drive them out of the borders of his kingdom;
but Vortigern evaded acquiescence in their advice, as he loved the Saxons above all other
nations, on account of Hengist’s daughter Rowen, whom he had taken to wife some time
before” (91 ).

Fordun provides his readers with positive as well as negative examples of
leadership. Vortimer and Arthur had been given as contrasts to Vortigem. Now, as a
contrast with Edward I, Fordun relates the story of the heroic acts of William Wallace,
noting that there "flocked to him all who were in bitterness of spirit, and weighed down
beneath the burden of bondage under the unbearable domination of English despotism; and
he became their leader. He was wondrously brave and bold of goodly mien, and
boundless liberality" (321). In other words, Wallace has many of the characteristics which

earlier had been ascribed to Arthur. Wallace is a true leader, faithful to the nature of his

168

calling, and determined to free Scotland.109
The war with England becomes much more intense, but Fordun also informs his
readers that the defeat of the Scots, such as that occurring at the Battle of Falkirk, is due
in large measure to the discord and treachery among the Scottish nobles.“0 "It is
remarkable that we seldom, if ever, read of the Scots being overcome by the English,
unless through the envy of lords, or the treachery and deceit of the natives, taking them
over to the other side." Of course, at Falkirk, Fordun notes that
it is commonly said that Robert Bruce, --who was afterwards king of Scotland, but
then fought on the side of the king of England--was the means of bringing about
this victory. For, while the Scots stood invincible in their ranks, and could not be
broken by either force or stratagem, this Robert of Bruce went with one line, under
Anthony of Bek, by a long road round a hill, and attacked the Scots in the rear.
(323)
Over and over again Fordun makes his point that the proper management of Scotland
depends on unity of purpose and honorable leadership. He does not hesitate to condemn
Edward as treacherous and double-dealing, but he also makes it clear that Edward could

not have succeeded without the help of the Scots themselves. The Scots are defeated by

 

"’9 Goldstein asserts that there must be “no mistake about what Wallace himself aimed to
achieve, whatever his humble recruits may have understood: he fought to reactivate
Scottish government and restore the deposed king” (Matter 52).

"0 For a more complete discussion of the problems resulting from the divided loyalties of
the nobles in the border region see G. W. S. Barrow, The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish
History (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1980).

169

one of their own.”1 Fordun concludes his comments on Edward I by saying that
this king stirred up war as soon as he had become a knight, and lashed the English
with awful scourgings; he troubled the whole world by his wickedness, and roused
it by his cruelty; by his wiles, he hindered the passage to the Holy Land; he invaded
Wales; he treacherously subdued unto him the Scots and their kingdom; John of
Balliol, the king thereof, and his son, he cast into prison; he overthrew churches,
fettered prelates, and to some he put an end in filthy dungeons; he slew the people,
and committed other misdeeds without end. (336)

Fordun has given his readers a well-defined example of what a king should not be. He

emphasizes again, as he had with his discussions of both Arthur and William, that a

nation’s misfortunes may be attributed to the conduct not only of the ruler but also of

society as a whole. Fordun’s continuing emphasis would indicate his hope that his readers

will heed the warnings he puts forth so that his present—day Scotland will be able to turn

 

“1 Goldstein notes that the “emergence of national consciousness in Scotland is ultimately
inseparable from the history of racial consciousness—the perception (real or imagined) of
belonging to a common gens or blood group. When put to the test, the loyalties of Gaelic
speakers (and even of English- and French-speaking Scots) tended to be identified by
family ties rather than by feudal bonds and obligations. During the thirteenth century and
even later, consciousness of kin-based communities frequently predominated over what I
refer to as ‘national’ consciousness” (Matter 24). Goldstein notes further that “the
inherent contradiction between ties of kinship and obligations of personal service to a
sworn lord thus provides a persistent source of ideological conflict” which these histories
of Scotland try to resolve (Matter 25). G. W. S. Barrow, Robert Bruce and the
Community of the Realm of Scotland (Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1988), states that “more
important than any ‘clan system’, with all its picturesque accompaniment of slogans,
badges and tartans, was the indisputable fact that the family as a whole, rather than any
single father-to-son dynasty, was the dominant social unit in Scotland. Even allowing for
the small population, a remarkably small number of surnames sufficed for the landowning
class. The Scots, in short, were a kin-based society” (4).

170

back to the ways which will make it strong and independent.

It is clear that Fordun is writing a history which he feels will be an accurate
accounting of Scottish history, something which hitherto had been unavailable. He has
written the first complete Scottish history as a direct response to Edward I’s seizure of
historical records. Fordun seeks to correct the English accounts of Scotland's history in a
number of particulars, so that the Scots will have a full documentary account of their past
history. He spends most of his time on more recent events, especially those related to the
nature of the monarchy, in order to firlfill yet another aim of his history, namely to instruct
the current political leaders. He hopes that by demonstrating clearly where Scotland
succeeded and more importantly why it failed, he will be able to help modern kings and the
nobility learn from the past mistakes and take charge of the present. Fordun lived during
the reigns of two very weak Scottish kings, and he sees the necessity for strong leadership
with a united purpose. When F ordun had dealt with Arthur, he made it very clear that
Arthur had no right to the throne, but he also pointed out that Arthur attained the throne
because of the very nature of his personality and his ability to rule wisely and powerfully.
Scotland is in need of such a leader, and Fordun no doubt hopes that by writing his history
he will make it clear to his readers that they need to focus on living upright lives and
following strong leaders who are free from treachery and deceit. The Scots, after all, have
a long and honorable history as a free and independent people, a fact which Fordun opens
his history with and never loses sight of. They had even refused to submit to Julius Caesar
(44-45). They need now to be aware of this substantial heritage and demonstrate that they

are worthy successors to the past heroes.

171
Andrew Wyntoun

Wyntoun was born thirty years after Fordun, and he lived through the reigns of
David 11, Robert II, Robert 111, and James 1. Robert III, on the grounds of sickness,
virtually abdicated in favor of various regents, most notably his younger brother, the Duke
of Albany. Once again Scotland suffered from the fighting of the Scottish nobles amongst
themselves. Robert 111, fearing for the safety of his son James, the heir to the throne, sent
him to France, but the ship on which he was traveling was seized by English pirates, and
James was delivered to King Henry IV who held him as a hostage. The shock of these
events killed Robert 111, and James was proclaimed king of Scotland. However, he spent
the first eighteen years of his reign in the hands of the English. He did not return to
Scotland until 1424, after Wyntoun's death. His uncle, the Duke of Albany, ruled in his
stead and made very little effort to secure his release. When Albany died in 1420, the year
of Wyntoun's death as well, the regency was taken over by his son, Duke Murdoch. The
Scottish nobles took advantage of this period of interregnum to build their own private
armies and solidify their individual positions. Once again the climate in Scotland was
divisive and filled with strife. It was within this political climate that Wyntoun wrote his
world history.

Earlier in his history, Wyntoun had presented those aspects of Arthur's story which
dealt with Arthur's prowess in battle, his refirsal to pay any homage to Rome, and his
ability to lead his people and bring some measure of order to the chaos which had existed.
These emphases suggest that Wyntoun is concerned with the necessity for just and fair

rulers, and that issues of national sovereignty are vitally important as well. Considering

172

the political climate of Scotland at the time Wyntoun writes his world history, this
emphasis is certainly understandable. Do these same concerns carry over to his treatment
of William the Conqueror and Edward I?

Wyntoun tells very briefly of the defeat of Harold, merely noting that William

come on him with stalwart hand,

And slew that traytour in the fycht,

That had vsurpit agane the rycht

The kinrik, in disherisoun

Off thaim that suld with all resoun

Haif had the crovne of heretage,

Be lauchfull and be lele lynnage.

Thus William Bastard in Ingland

Enterit to be king regnand. (VI: 2472-80)
Wyntoun does not give the details of Harold's reign as Fordun had done. Wyntoun merely
mentions that Harold was treacherous and took the crown of England unlawfully. There
is no mention of the abuses of the church or the sinfirlness of the nobles. Also, in keeping
with the nature of the world chronicle, Wyntoun mentions that the events surrounding
William's assumption of the crown took place when Nicholas II was pope and Henry HI
was emperor.

Wyntoun then discusses the reign of Malcolm in Scotland, of whom Wyntoun says
that:

In the Cristyndome, I trow, than

173

Was nocht in deide a bettyr man,
Na liffande was a bettyr knycht,
Na mar manly, stowt and wicht. (VII: 17-20)
Once again, Malcolm is seen as exhibiting the qualities of character similar to Arthur,
whom Wyntoun had described as having
gret douchtynes,
His worschep and his prysse prowes. (V: 4331-32)
When Wyntoun returns to William, it is to explain the debt which he owed to the Scots
because of their assistance to him:
Off Ingland, as the story sais,
That William Bastard in thai dais
Throu fauour of the Scottis men,
"Thare help, thare will, thar counsall, then
The stait tuke of the ryalte
Off Ingland with aith of fewte,
That of det aucht homage to the crovne,
And sa ioisit he possessioun. (VII: 109-l6)
Then Wyntoun describes briefly the fate of the defeated English and notes, as Fordun had

also told, that Malcolm welcomed the English refugees to Scotland.”2 Eventually, this

 

”2 David C. Douglas, William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact on England
(Berkeley: U California P, 1964), discusses the impact which the arrival of the Normans
had on Scotland. He notes that “in 1070 it was Scotland that was most immediately
affected. Ever since 1066 Scotland had served as a refuge for disinherited English
magnates. Edgar Atheling remained an honoured guest at Malcolm’s court; and Malcolm

174

leads to war between William and Scotland, until William's death in 1087, when William
was succeeded by his son William 11. Malcolm, in his turn, died as a result of treason,
having been slain by a traitor.

Wyntoun thus describes William's reign, but in much less detail than Fordun had
done. He does comment on it as a source for uneasy relationships with England, and
while he acknowledges Malcolm's harboring of refirgees, Wyntoun makes it clear that it is
William who initiates the hostilities.

A thousand twa and sevinty 3eere,

William Bastard with his powere

In Scotland come, and waistit wyne

All the land till Abimethyne.

Bot, agane as he past hame,

Oure king him followit to Durehame,

And put him thare in sa gret dreid

That he fled forthwartis full gud speid. (VII: 291-98)

Wyntoun has also succeeded in raising the issue of sovereignty and homage, indicating
that under Malcolm, a righteous and just king, Scotland is free, independent, and strong.
Thus, Wyntoun holds Malcolm up as an example of what a king should be. Wyntoun's

focus is on Scotland, and details about William are given only as they relate to Scotland.

 

had married Edgar’s sister Margaret. In these circumstances, the victorious campaigns of
William through the north of England during the winter of 1069-1070 was bound to
provoke an immediate reaction from Scotland, which now could provide a new and most
formidable threat to the Anglo-Norman kingdom” (225).

175

As he had done with Arthur, Wyntoun emphasizes the importance of having just and fair
rulers.

Wyntoun spends much more time on Edward, but Edward had a greater impact on
Scotland and his history was also much closer to Wyntoun's own time. The lessons which
Scotland should have learned as a result of Edward's reign were also very relevant in
Wyntoun's own period. Other than an early note about Edward's birth (V11: 2942),
Wyntoun makes no mention of Edward until he is king. The first firll description of
Edward is far from flattering:

Al thus said the kynge Edwart,

Withe the lange schankys callit eftirwart,

Qwhen thar was of his nacion

Mony a famows gret person,

And of his legis gret gentil men

On the feylde ded lyande then,

Al on the erde, qwhit for3et,

To be gleddis or hunddis met.

The Kynge Edwarde lyklyly

His prynceheide changit in terandry,

And in lurdanes his ryolte,

That sulde hafbeyn of gret pete,

And til his legis of tendymes,

That swa slayne vndir his banere was. (VII: 3457-70)

176

Again, Wyntoun's emphasis is on tyranny and treachery. Edward stands in contrast to
Scotland's own Alexander 111, who is discussed in detail. Once the issue of the Scottish
succession arises, Wyntoun increases the depth of his coverage.

Wyntoun acknowledges that Edward was chosen to decide who should be
declared king of Scotland, and according to Wyntoun, there are only two contenders,
namely John Balliol and Robert Bruce. (These are also the only two contenders whom
Fordun considered really viable.) According to Wyntoun, Edward was in France at the
time he was asked to decide and as a result he put the case to experts at the University of
Paris. Wyntoun then gives the complete genealogical history of both contenders, and he
goes into the legal claims of each in great detail. Several French legal experts are quoted
by Wyntoun, giving their complete arguments as to whom should succeed. Valid
arguments can be made for both contenders, according to Wyntoun. As far as Edward
himself is concerned, Wyntoun makes the statement several times that:

The kynge of Inglande sulde of law

Al that debate, as ourlarde, knaw. (VIII: 621-22)

Thus, Wyntoun finds that Edward, especially since he claims to be Scotland’s overlord,
should understand the legality of the claims if he is going to render a just verdict. Most of
the experts from France seemed to support the claim of Robert Bruce as having the
greater weight. However, "Edwarde the kynge gaff sentens Contrare til al gud consciens"
(V: 209). As Fordun had noted as well, Edward's decision was based on the fact that
Robert Bruce declared that if he became king

I sall als frely in all thing

177

Hald it, as it efferis to a king,

Or as my elderis forouth me

Held it, in freast ryalte. (VIII: 849-52)

Balliol, on the other hand

Assentit till all his will,

Quhare of fell eftir mekly ill. (VIII: 859-60)

Edward declared in favor of John Balliol because he would grant Edward homage. The
legality of the claims, as illustrated by Wyntoun in his extensive citing of the French legal
experts, ended up having no influence on Edward's decision. He went with the claimant
whom he thought would be more malleable.

Wyntoun then gives just a few details as to the means by which Bruce became
king, and instead he refers his readers to Barbour's writings. At this point in his narrative,
Wyntoun takes time for a digression in which he gives firrther genealogical information,
including very detailed information concerning the origins and pedigree of the Comyn
family as this would become very relevant to firrther Scottish history, especially in the time
of Wallace. Wyntoun spends a great deal more time on matters of genealogy than Fordun
did. Wyntoun continues with a clear outline of the Bruce family genealogy as well before
proceeding with his narrative.

Wyntoun gives the details of the crowning of Balliol, noting that while Balliol
made homage to Edward, Bruce "gat neuir homage na fewte" to Balliol. Like Fordun,
Wyntoun also includes complete details concerning Balliol's refirsal to continue to pay

homage followed by Edward's wooing of Bruce and Edward's subsequent treachery and

178

falseness. Wyntoun stresses the divisiveness which caused such difficulties in Scotland at
this time:

This tyme was gret discension

In Scotlande, and gret dewisn;

For the kynrik was swa

Dewidit in to partis twa. (VIII: 1899-1902)

The recurring problem within Scotland's politics was the conflict and power struggles
between various nobles and their families. Wyntoun notes that the Comyns favored John
Balliol but that various clergymen favored Robert Bruce.113 This major division explains
why Wyntoun had gone to such lengths earlier to explain the genealogies of the families
involved so that his readers would understand the importance of various allegiances as
well as the difficulties caused by the assorted power struggles.

Wyntoun also uses the example of William Wallace to give an example of true
leadership. When Wyntoun had dealt with Arthur, there was no comparable example of
leadership on the Scottish side. When he had discussed William, he had the example of
Malcolm for his readers. Now, when he has to examine Edward 1’s actions, the
contenders for the throne of Scotland do not exemplify the strengths which Wyntoun
seeks. Therefore, he must turn to Wallace, the contemporary of Edward I who does
demonstrate the qualities which Wyntoun is searching for. He explains the role of Wallace

by saying that in 1297:

 

“3 A discussion of the role of the church in the Great Cause and the struggle for
Scotland’s independence may be found in Roberts, who notes that “open hostility to
England was perhaps fostered by the Church, fearing for its own independence” (119).

179
Wilsame Walas in Cliddisdaile,

That saw his kyn suppryssit haile

Withe Inglis men with gret dispyte,

Sum of thar harmys he thoucht to qwhite.

For he was cummyn of gentil men,

In sympil state set he was then;

His fadyr was a manly knycht;

His modyr was a lady bricht;

He gottyn and borne in [maryage].

His eldar brothir the [heretage]

Had, and ioyssit in his dayis. (VIII: 2013-23)
While Wyntoun notes that Wallace was "off stature he wes strang and stout," he stresses
the nobility of Wallace's ancestry. He emphasizes the dispute with the English, but makes
less mention of the distress of the common Scot than Fordun had done. There is only a
brief mention of Wallace's execution:

Schir Iohun of Menteythe in tha days

Tuk in Glasgow William Wallace,

And send him in till Ingland sone.

Thare he wes quarterit and vndone

Be gret dispite and fellony;

Thare tholit he that martery.

In all Ingland thare wes nocht than

180
As William Wallace a lelare man. (VIII: 2755-62)

Wyntoun, writing shortly after Barbour, omits many of the details about this period in
Scottish history, referring his readers to the more complete account to be found in
Barbour's Bruce.

Wyntoun writes his history at a time when Scotland is suffering from tremendous
political turmoil. He focuses on Scotland, emphasizing the events in Scottish history, even
though he is writing a world history. When dealing with Edward I and his relationship
with Scotland, Wyntoun includes only as much about Edward as is necessary to
demonstrate his treacherous and deceitful nature. Once Wyntoun has proven the
disastrous effects of Edward's monarchy on both Scotland and England, he shifts his focus
to deal directly with Scotland's persistent political problems.

Wyntoun uses genealogical history to demonstrate the influence of family loyalties
and the effect they have had on Scottish politics. He wants to be sure his readers
understand the problems which arise when the loyalties of Scots are divided. When
Wyntoun had discussed Arthur, his main emphasis had been on Arthur's abilities as a
leader to unite the Britains in their battles against the Saxons. The necessity for unified
leadership and united actions had been demonstrated in the story of Arthur. Wyntoun also
had emphasized with his description of Arthur the importance of fair and just leadership.
Wyntoun stressed that Arthur ruled wisely, enabling him to keep the Britons focused on
their central goal of defeating the Saxons. During the time of Edward I, the Scots could
not maintain a united focus. Their loyalties were divided, especially between John Balliol

and Robert Bruce. Once again, as Wyntoun had done with the Arthurian materials, he

181

emphasizes the dangers of false or multiple claims to the throne. Various nobles saw the
time of conflict as an opportunity to increase their own power at the expense of the nation
as a whole.

Wyntoun also used Arthur as an example of someone who refused to submit to the
claims of sovereignty put forth by Rome, an example which Wyntoun probably felt that
Scotland needed to follow. Time and again, Scottish leaders are tricked by Edward
because they are seeking their own glory rather than national independence. John Balliol
agreed to pay homage to Edward in order to gain the throne of Scotland. Wyntoun had
clearly demonstrated that the legal experts whom Edward had consulted felt that Robert
Bruce had a stronger claim. However, because Bruce refused to pay homage and Balliol
agreed, Edward awarded the throne to Balliol. Afterwards, Balliol realized that he had
erred, when Edward attempted to control Scotland. When Balliol refirsed to pay homage
any longer, then Edward made promises to Bruce, getting Bruce's promise to
acknowledge Edward as his overlord. As soon as Bruce had fought for Edward, Edward
demonstrated his falseness by refusing to honor the promises he had made. These self-
serving actions are clearly injurious to Scotland as a whole, and does not follow the
example set by Arthur in his dealings with the Romans and later by Wallace, who even

under torture held to his promise to try to guide his nation to freedom.”

 

1“ As Roberts states, “thus died arguably the greatest of all Scottish patriots, whose deep
attachment to his country lay quite outside the loyalties more typical of a feudal society
and whose actions were never tarnished by self-interest. Fiery and impetuous, and capable
of savage atrocities, he was a born leader who had inspired the common people of

Scotland with a fierce determination to resist the English occupation of their country”
(124).

182

Wyntoun has written his world history for several reasons. He wants to be sure
that Scotland's history is told fully and accurately, and in addition that it is set within the
context of the larger world chronology. This setting will allow his readers to understand
the history of Scotland in a wider context. Wyntoun wants to educate his readers so that
they can learn from the examples of the past. Scotland desperately needs a strong, just
monarch and a united nobility. The interregnum period brought about because of the
weak nature of the current monarchs, especially Robert 11 and Robert III, followed by the
regency of the underage James I, had been used by the nobles to build individual armies
and increase personal power. While Wyntoun does not give direct political advice, he
must have hoped that by writing his history of the world, focused primarily upon Scotland,
that he could help his readers see what glories Scotland had experienced in the past and
how to achieve national independence and prosperity again. To this end he discusses
Arthur as an example of a just and fair ruler who did not bow to the Roman pressures for
tribute. Wyntoun continues with a discussion of William as an example of a well-known
king who conquered the Anglo-Saxons and tried to lay claim to Scotland. However,
Wyntoun counters the example of William with that of Malcolm, a monarch who may not
be as well-known in the histories of the time as William, but who demonstrates the
attributes of a strong ruler. Finally, Wyntoun’s discussion of Edward I shows his readers
the dangers associated with not only a treacherous and self-centered ruler, but also with a
divided power base within Scotland. Therefore, this examination of Wyntoun’s treatment
of Arthur, William, and Edward serves to demonstrate his primary concern with the issues

of leadership and national sovereignty.

183
John Mair

Mair finished his Historia Majoris Britanniae tam Angliae quam Scotiae some
100 years after Wyntoun. Mair was born during the reign of James 111, just as James
came of age. James 111 proved to be an unpopular ruler,” more interested in such
subjects as architecture, astrology, and necromancy than politics. He was not socially
adept and preferred the companionship of a group of intelligent and gifted favorites to his
own nobles. His reign was marked by a number of plots and conspiracies, and the English,
in spite of the peace treaty of 1474 played on these Scottish feuds. James, fearful for his
throne, even imprisoned his two brothers, one of whom died mysteriously in his bath while
the other, Albany, killed his guards and escaped from Edinburgh Castle to London. Three
years later Albany joined with an English army determined to invade Scotland. James HI
attempted to meet this threat of invasion, but instead was overcome by his own nobles and
taken back to Edinburgh. Albany assumed the regency and the English took Berwick
before returning home to let the Scots defeat themselves.

In 1488 another group of conspirators captured James III's son, proclaiming him
king in place of his unpopular father. James fought the rebels, but was slain or murdered
in the end, and James IV became king at the age of 15. He proved to be a very different
king from his father and would not be ruled by his nobles. He himself led an army a year

later when civil war broke out, and defeated the rebels.

 

“5 As Mason notes, “even the most sympathetic of historians would be hard-pressed to
portray the first three Jameses as anything other than aggressive, ruthless and as often as
not vindictively hi gh-handed. Not only were they far from embodying the personal virtues
beloved of contemporary political moralists, but they were also frequently and manifestly
both unjust and uncounsellable” (“Kingship” 142).

184

The reign of James IV proved to be a period of peace and prosperity for Scotland.
It was also a period during which the Renaissance reached Scotland and learning as well
as the arts flowered. It was the age of Henryson, Dunbar, Douglas, and Blind Harry.
Scotland developed its third university, King's College, Aberdeen. The first printing press
arrived in 1507. James himself was very well educated, with a special gift for languages,
including Latin, French, German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Gaelic. He was interested
in music, playing the lute himself, and always traveling, bringing his court musicians with
him.”"

James IV even attempted to resolve the difficulties which still existed in the
Highlands, where the Church and State had very little influence and the area was ruled by
a strong clan system. He took a unique approach to the problem by actually visiting the
Islands and western Highlands, coming armed and escorted to be sure, but in the spirit of
fiiendship, hunting and feasting with the leaders and speaking to them in their own
language. He even tried to encourage fishing and shipbuilding industries. When these
efforts proved unsuccessful, James IV made the mistake of reverting to feudal policies,
revoking charters and establishing overlords, resulting in Highland uprisings.

Southern Scotland continued to enjoy relative peace and prosperity. However, the
conflicts in Europe were soon to result in a shifting of the balance of power. In 1501

James IV agreed to marry Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII’s sister, and a year later he signed

a treaty of perpetual peace with England. At the same time, James still attempted to

 

“6 See Gordon Donaldson, Scottish Kings (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1967) and
Fitzroy MacLean, Scotland: A Concise History (London: Thames and Hudson, 1993).

185

maintain the Auld Alliance with France, and tried to use these two alliances together to
keep France and England from fighting. However, when the Holy League was formed
against France in 1511, and the Emperor as well as Henry VIII joined against France,
Scotland proved to be the only ally France had. James IV was convinced that Europe's
peace depended on maintaining France and not letting it be divided up by the Holy
League. James IV attempted unsuccessfirlly to mediate and war broke out in Europe in
1513. When France found itself in deadly peril, it called for help from Scotland and James
IV tried to talk with Henry VIII. Henry replied that he was the 'verie owner of Scotland'
which James held by homage to him. The result was the disastrous Battle of Flodden,
where James and many of his nobles were killed in what became a massacre. James V
became King of Scotland, but he was just a baby. Queen Margaret Tudor became regent,
but her weakness and doubtful loyalty meant that once again Scotland was at the mercy of
both its own nobles, fighting for individual power, and the English. Eventually, the Duke
of Albany became regent in 1515, and he maintained the traditional French alliance, while
Henry VIII continued to interfere in Scottish politics.

Mair wrote his history during this turbulent period, and it differs from the other
Scottish historians considered in several ways. First, as was noted in an earlier chapter,
Mair is definitely a Renaissance historian, the first that Scotland produced. He
demonstrates a strong use of critical skills in the evaluation of his materials. He also is a
theologian and believes in history as a moral theology, hoping that the errors of the past
can serve as a warning. He therefore writes his history in order to point out the problems

which occurred in the past, explaining why they occurred, and giving solutions for the

186

future. Probably the aspect of Mair's history which separates him most clearly fiom all the
other historians discussed in this dissertation is his insistence that the only way for
Scotland to succeed is by forming an equal union with England so that the entire island is
ruled by one monarch. In light of the history which Mair himself had experienced, this
insistence is certainly understandable. Scotland was divided both within and without. Her
own nobles held so tightly to their family loyalties that they were unable to work together.
The fact that during this period Scotland frequently had monarchs who were under age
contributed to the instability of the Scottish government, and this condition would
continue with Mary Queen of Scots as well as James VI. England's attitude toward
Scotland was also a constant source of stress, taking its toll economically as well as
politically. It is no wonder that Mair felt that a lasting peace could only be attained
through a union. However, this attitude was in large measure responsible for the
unpopularity of his history.

As we saw in chapter 11 Mair deals with the Arthurian materials in much greater
detail than either Fordun or Wyntoun had done. His overall emphasis is similar to that of
Fordun, in that Mair also shows Arthur to have been a great warrior and leader, although
without a legitimate right to the throne. However, Mair demonstrates a much more
analytical approach to his sources than his predecessors did. He attempts to present an
unbiased approach, emphasizing for example that while Mordred may have been wrongly
denied the kingship, his behavior is far from blameless. Furthermore, Mair always
emphasizes how the victories which restore peace are achieved as a result of combined

efforts, especially between the Britons and the Scots. Mair also stresses the disasters

187

which result from treachery and deceit. It was Vortigem's own treachery and deceit which
led to the invasion by the Saxons, for instance. Mair has used the Arthurian material to set
up the framework for his emphasis on the need for cooperation, good leadership, and
above all, unity.

Mair discusses William the Conqueror several times in his work, beginning with his
becoming Duke of Normandy.”7 In his first mention of William, Mair states that in the
second year of Duncan’s reign

Knoth, the Danish king of the English, died, and was succeeded by his son Harold.

The same year Robert duke of Normandy went the way of all flesh, and in his

room was chosen William, called the Bastard, a boy of seven years; he had the

support of Henry king of the French, who was guardian to the boy. I make
mention of this William and his times, because he had no small dealings with the

Britons, as shall afterwards be told. (120)

Mair has included all the relevant particulars, even his description of the seven year old
William. He becomes Duke of Normandy, supported by the King of France, who becomes
his guardian. Mair then returns to the description of Macbeth's murder of Duncan and
accession to the throne of Scotland.

Mair recounts the history of Scotland up to the reign of Malcolm, at which point
he again mentions William. “In the time of this king Malcolm, William the Bastard took

possession of England. Leaving Malcolm, then, for a little, let our narrative turn to this

 

“7 The circumstances surrounding William’s accession are outlined by Douglas, who notes
that there is no “reason to suppose that during his infancy he was ever considered as a
possible successor to the Norman duchy” (31).

188

William" (126). There follows a chapter devoted to William's conquest of England, the
details of which Mair says he has obtained from the English chroniclers. William makes a
"threefold demand" of Harold, namely "that he shall have Harold's daughter in marriage;
or that he shall hold England of Harold; or that he shall try the fortune of war." Harold
chooses war, even though he has "but a small following of soldiers, for indeed he was
unpopular with the English." There is no mention of any conflicting claims to the throne
or any information about the battle itself. William is crowned king of England in London,
goes for a while to Normandy, and returns with his wife Maud who is crowned as queen in
the second year of his reign. These facts are given quickly with little elaboration. Not
surprisingly, the bulk of the chapter is devoted to William's dealings with the Scots. After
the crowning of Maud, Mair notes that:
next he marched against the Scots. But Malcolm the Scot and William made a
treaty, as Caxton asserts, on these terms: that Malcolm should hold Scotland of the
king of England, and William received homage of him therefore. That this
statement is untrue is plain from all the British writers who used the Latin tongue.
Homage was rendered indeed for the county of Cumberland, which is situated in
England, and which the kings of the Scots held of England, and granted always to
their eldest sons, who did homage for that county to the kings of the English.
(127)
The issue of whether or not Scotland owes homage to England is of vital concern to both
countries. This was one reason for the Scottish historians to deal with Arthur, for

instance. While Mair is in favor, and indeed strongly advocates, a union of the crowns of

189

Scotland and England, he in no way wants this to put Scotland at a disadvantage as a
lesser power.
Mair continues with a discussion of the treaty made between Malcolm and William
when he notes that
although Malcolm had made this treaty with William, he all the same often laid
waste Northumberland beyond the river Tees. Kings observe a treaty of peace
only when they will. After a great slaughter at Gateshead, Malcolm got possession
of all those parts, but not of the strong places, nor of the munitions of war.
William, king of England, had a brother who was bishop of Bayeux. Him he had
made earl of Kent, and he now sent him against the Scots with a great force of
Englishmen and Normans. These Malcolm put to rout, and pursued them even to
the river Humber. Thereafter duke William sent his son Robert against the Scots,
to make war on them. But he never attacked them; nor indeed did he do aught but
build a new castle on the Tyne, the better to resist an invasion. (127-28)
Mair spends time on the description of the battles between the English and the Scots
because this is of importance to him. In spite of the title of his work as the History of
Greater Britain, and in spite of his emphasis on impartiality between Scotland and
England and his desire for the union of the crowns, his use of details demonstrates his
primary interest lies with Scotland.
Mair finds it necessary to bring up the issue of homage once again in this chapter
and to deal with it firmly and in great detail. He notes that

Now it is a thing unheard of, and among the Scots simply inconceivable, that a

190

Scot at peace in his own kingdom ever recognised as his temporal superior either
the English king or any one else. This may be gathered from the whole past
history of the country, for the Scots at all times resisted the inroads in the island of
Romans and Britons, and more than once invaded them--witness their historian
and fellow-countryman Bede. Now king Malcolm after his accession to the crown
at no time had suffered from civil wars in his kingdom, but was held in great
veneration by nobles and common people. And the case, which I will now
propose, would be altogether parallel: that is, if the French king were to say that
the king or kingdom of the Spains was subject to him, simply because the earldom
of Flanders, which had its origin in the house of France, was so subject. I grant
indeed that king Malcolm was subject to the English king in respect of
Cumberland; whether this carries with it or does not carry with it the consequence
that therefore Malcolm was unconditionally subject to the Englishman matters not.
Yet the kingdom of Scotland was never subject to England, nor the Scot to the
Englishman, in respect of the kingdom of Scotland, just as Charles, count of
Flanders, is not subject to the Frenchman in respect of the kingdom of Spain. (128)
This is by far the longest discussion of the matter of homage by any of these historians to
date. Fordun and Wyntoun would agree with the statements, but they never went to such
effort to explain the rationale behind the issues. Mair wants to make the situation
extremely clear to his readers so that there can be no doubt as to the independence of
Scofland.

Mair concludes his chapter on William by noting that he had three sons and "some

191

fair daughters." His eldest son was awarded Normandy, the second received the crown of
England, and the third received "gold and much firmiture" at his death. Mair then notes
that William had counted the parish churches in England and found that there were 45,017
of them, since "every village has its parish church, though the village may count perhaps
but twenty hearths. In Scotland this is not so; and in this point, as in many others, I
reckon the ecclesiastical polity of the English to be preferable to the ecclesiastical polity of
the Scots" (129). Mair writes his history with the intention of being fair to all sides, and
he is forced here to note that England's ecclesiastical system is superior to Scotland's in
many areas. Mair's constant efforts to demonstrate that each country had strengths, as
well as weaknesses, will help support his argument that for the good of the island as a
whole, the countries need to be united under a common crown.

Mair's treatment of Edward I is much more extensive and detailed than his
treatment of William the Conqueror. With William, Mair has restricted his information
almost exclusively to William's relationship with Scotland. However, when Mair discusses
Edward I, he broadens his scope. In fact, Mair begins with a discussion of Edward's
actions in Wales, detailing his treatment of first Llewellyn and then his brother David, until
finally "all the Welsh submit to Edward. The Welsh, that is the Britons, had been already
conquered by Henry [Henry II] the son of the empress, but not so that they feared to
rebel, and indeed they enjoyed some measure of freedom; but under Edward they were
forced to make an absolute submission" (176). Edward's ruthless treatment of the Welsh
is certainly an indication of what he will try to do in Scotland. Mair goes on in this same

chapter to tell of Edward's removal of the Jews, which Mair portrays in a positive light.

192

He says that it "is plain that kings in their kingdoms, and in each aristocratic polity its
leading men, would do well to drive from their midst those obstinate Hebrews, if they
would escape the necessity of imposing heavy taxes" (176). According to Mair, the
English common people were so gratefirl to Edward for driving out the Jews that they
paid Edward "one penny out of every fifteen." Mair concludes by comparing the Jews to
harlots, saying that "I praise, therefore, the explusion from the kingdom of the Jews, for,
by the introduction of the undesirable conditions of which I have spoken, they place a
stumbling-block in the way of many who are weak in the faith; just as the chastity of other
women must run some risk in the neighbourhood of public women of ill renown and a
luxurious mode of life" (177).

Mair has then begun his discussion of Edward with the description of two major
efforts in his reign. The conquering of Wales serves as a warning to Scotland, while the
expulsion of the Jews is given as a positive event in Edward's reign. Mair now returns in
his narrative to the history of Scotland, specifically the reign of Alexander 11. He
concludes that Alexander was a man

worthy to be a king; piously disposed to churchmen and to the poor; good men he

befriended, bad men he had in abhorrence; with an equal balance he dealt justice to

all; wherefore it admits of no manner of doubt that at the hand of God, the
absolutely just, he received his great reward. Full of danger is the life of kings, and
when a king has followed after righteousness, his merit in the eyes of God is great
indeed. How difficult are virtue and art you shall see in the second book of the

Ethics, and what more difficult than to govern aright a great state, and most of all

193

a northern state, which has been used to no restraints? Indeed, this man is worthy
of all praise. With the English king he had no dealings that were not peaceable. It
is part of wisdom in Scottish kings to cherish peace with their neighbours. Of the
possessions bequeathed to him by his immediate ancestors he lost nothing, and his
reign was marked from first to last by the observance of a most scrupulous justice
toward his subjects. I may compare this man then, using no unfairness to others,

with the most illustrious kings. (181-82)

In this description of Alexander 11 Mair is able to make it very clear to his readers exactly
what it takes to be a good ruler. He spends more time with Alexander since he is the last
example before Mair's own time of a great king of Scotland. The current monarch needs
to read this analysis of a good ruler and follow it. The reference to peace with England
and the importance of good relations with one’s neighbors was of timely importance to
Mair's readers as well.

Mair continues with the reign of Alexander 111, and one of the most interesting
discussions he gives is that concerning the choice of husband for Alexander's daughter
Margaret. Mair says that

I cannot but greatly marvel why the Scots did not give the heiress of their kingdom

in marriage to the English king; but they preferred to the Englishman a king of

Norway, who lived outwith the island. I will state my Opinion in few words. The

Scots acted, I must hold, most unwisely in the matter of this marriage. And I lay

down this proposition: There was no king whom the Scots ought to have preferred

as a husband for the heiress to the king of England. And had the position been

194

reversed--had it been the heiress of England for whom a husband was being
sought--I hold that there could have been found no marriage for her more suitable
than with the king of Scotland. For thus, and thus only, could two intensely hostile
peoples, inhabitants of the same island, of which neither can conquer the other,
have been brought together under one and the same king. And what although the
name and kingdom of the Scots had disappeared-~50 too would the name and
kingdom of the English no more have had a place among men--for in the place of
both we should have had a king of Britain. (189)
Mair concedes that the nobles of both countries might not see the advantages to this plan,
but ultimately, according to Mair, "the result would have been pregnant with advantage to
them" (190). Mair finds that a union of the crowns would result in equal justice,
peaceable neighbors, and freedom from invasion by a foreign king. Unfortunately,
according to Mair, Margaret was wed to the king of Norway instead, and when Alexander
III died, who "in point of goodness, is worthy to be placed alongside his father" (191),
followed soon after by the death of Margaret's daughter, the Maid of Norway,
there arose no little uncertainty as to the rightfirl heir to the Scottish throne--a
condition fraught with dangers always to a kingdom, as shall be shown in the
sequel from the history of the Scots and English. But I will begin with the English
chroniclers; and afterward I will pass in review what the Scots chroniclers may
have to contribute, and declare what I have come to hold as the truth of the whole
matter. (191)

As always, Mair will present the information he has and analyze it carefully.

195

Mair begins by giving Caxton's information and then refuting it. Mair gives the
tale as told by Caxton of Edward's choice of Balliol for king, followed by the actions of
Wallace, and ending with Wallace's death. Mair then proceeds to discredit Caxton.

There then you have English Caxton's story, which we have turned from English

into Latin. It cannot be said that the man has spared his anvil, but, with all his

forging, the result is not improbabilities merely, but a mass of incoherencies as
well. For the assertion that the Scots chose, sought, or accepted two kings, one as
superior, the other as subject to him, is wanting in every element of likelihood. If
the Scots desired that Edward the First should be their king, to what purpose
summon him as judge among the three claimants of the crown? And firrther, it is
of all things the most improbable that well-born Scots should choose for their king

a man [Wallace] who was a plebeian and quite unknown; for sooner than that

would they have chosen one of the three claimants, or one of their own nobles.

(194)

Mair then continues his history by "leaving Caxton, then, and his silly fabrications out of
the question" and proceeding "to place the history of the Scots in its true light" (194). He
gives a great many details about the actions of William Wallace and the effect he had upon
Edward and the English. Mair uses Wallace as a starting point to explain Scotland's major
difficulties, both then and in his own time, namely the power struggle between the nobles.
Mair says that while Wallace was "of no illustrious house, he yet proved himself a better
ruler, in the simple armour of his integrity, than any of those nobles would have been."

Many of the nobles disliked Wallace, possibly because they "looked upon William as

196

aiming at the royal power, and that they preferred English rule to William's. That is a
feature of nobles generally--to prefer the yoke of a superior to that of an inferior. I fancy,
too, that they aimed thereby at weakening the power at once of Edward and of Willia --
which done, the government of the kingdom would revert to them" (199).

Mair continues with Scottish history and the reign of Robert Bruce. He describes
the events from the Scottish perspective, frequently criticizing the English chroniclers for
their inaccuracies. Edward is mentioned, but only in so far as he is unjustly attacking the
Scots. When Mair finally relates the circumstances surrounding Edward's death, he notes
that Scottish chroniclers have several things to say about Edward's death, namely that they
"saw the soul of king Edward being carried down to hell; and they have many evil things
to say of Edward. For myself, I do not place much trust in this sort of fabrication. It is
not of yesterday that I have observed how it is the custom of the vulgar Scot to say nasty
things about the English, and contrariwise." Mair then stresses the importance of judging
people and events independently, without love or hatred to blind one's judgement.
Nevertheless, Mair does

indeed find Edward worthy of censure, inasmuch as, when he had been chosen by

the Scots as their neighbour at once and umpire in an abstruse point of law

regarding the succession to the throne, he acted wrongly in using this occasion for
his own special advantage, in sowing amongst the Scots the seeds of civil war, nay,
in giving all care that these same seeds should come to maturity, to the end that
when the opposing parties had worn out each of them the strength of the other, or

perchance using for himself the support of one of them, he might obtain the

197
kingdom. (223)

Again, Mair notes, as Fordun and Wyntoun had as well, that Scotland was in a weakened
condition because of the lack of unity and the fighting between the nobles for individual
gain. Mair emphasizes just how Edward takes advantage of this situation, and he makes it
clear that Wallace's successes were directly attributable to his sense of purpose, his
commitment to Scotland rather than to his desire for personal gain. Mair has no desire to
turn Edward into a primary villain for his readers, because he is trying to heal the division
between Scotland and England. He wishes for intermarriage between the royal houses of
both countries, as would have occurred for example had the Maid of Norway lived, to
provide for the union of the crowns. This is the only way that Mair can see to achieve a
lasting peace for his own country, and he finds that peace is one of the most important
goals. He spends a good portion of his history in detailing the various evils of war, and he
finds no hope for the end to these evils outside of the union of the crowns.

Therefore, Mair uses Arthur, William the Conqueror, and Edward I, not as focal
points for Scottish hatred, but as examples of situations where division and quests for
individual power and glory led to weakness, chaos, and defeat. Mair’s treatment of
Arthur focused on presenting a fair treatment of both Arthur and Mordred, discussing the
faults and virtues of both. He had stressed that the victories which restored peace had
depended on a combined effort from both the Britons and the Scots. This approach to
Arthur is continued in the treatment of both William and Edward I. Mair is writing his
history not only as a more accurate account of Scottish history, and not only as a means

for justifying the union of the crowns of Scotland and England, but also, primarily, as

198

moral theology and a source of practical lessons. He hopes that his readers, especially
those in positions of power, will learn from the examples in his work and be able to turn
Scottish history around. As was mentioned earlier, during Mair's lifetime, Scotland was in
the hands of various noble factions, fighting amongst themselves to achieve personal gain.
The fact that during much of this period Scotland was ruled by various regents acting in
theory for underage monarchs contributed greatly to the abilities of the nobles to continue
their power struggles. Mair hopes that by reading his history and learning how disastrous
these political struggles have been in the past, that the present society might learn to work
together for the common good. However, Mair's attempt to show good and evil on both
the English and the Scottish sides as well as his constant emphasis on the need for the
union resulted in the lack of interest in his work. He did not succeed in getting his readers
to realize the lessons he wanted them to learn from his history. Instead, his readers were
much more attracted to the work of Hector Boece, Mair's contemporary, who shall be

considered next.

Hector Boece
Unlike Mair, Boece enjoyed a great popularity and his history served as the basis
for the subsequent histories of both Buchanan and Leslie. This popularity was no doubt
due to Boece's strong nationalistic perspective, as well as his use of traditional legends
along with moral advice. For example, when Boece details the events surrounding Arthur,
he gives a much firller account than that given by the historians previously considered in

this dissertation. His fast-paced and emotional account is very favorable to the Scots and

199

Picts. As was shown in chapter I, Boece does not actually criticize Arthur, but he does
leave his readers with the decided feeling that all the stories surrounding Arthur are not
necessarily valid. He also indicates that Arthur is perhaps not as honorable as might have
been thought, since, among other things, he allows his nobles to renounce the treaty which
he made with Lot. At a time when Scotland was once again experiencing difficulties with
England and Henry VIII claimed suzerainty over Scotland, a history which downplayed
Arthur and his glorious conquests would receive favorable readings in Scotland.

Boece was a contemporary of Mair, and so lived through the same political
situations. The Battle of Flodden and the resulting death of James IV and succession of an
underage James V would be firmly in Boece's mind. While his history only continues to
the reign of James 111, he was very aware of the current situations in Scotland and would
treat events in his history from the perspective of the modem situation. Certainly his two
translators, Bellenden and Stewart, felt that Boece intended his readers to learn from his
moral lessons and his historical information and thus possibly remedy the current
situations. Bellenden, in his Preface, states that the “life of princes impellis thair subdittis
to imitacioun of thair werkis, wourthy and vnworthy, quhilkis finalie cumis to licht be
impulsioun of fortoun, that na thing sufferis to be hid” (15).

Boece begins his discussion of William the Conqueror with a description of king
Harold, who "began to govern the realme in gude iustice, and cessit fi'a all slauchter, as
sendill is sene with tham that vsurpis the croun be wrangwis menis" (166-67). Harold
began his reign well, in spite of the fact that he had wrongly usurped the crown from

Edgar. He even sent his ambassadors to "Williame, Bastard of Normandy" asking that

200

William meet with him for the purpose of obtaining William's daughter in marriage, so that
"perpetual peace mycht succede betuix thair pepill." However, soon after the marriage
and his return to England, Harold changed his purpose and declared his domination over
Normandy and "causit his vicious rebaldis to fulse [defile] his new quene. And site he was
nocht saciatt with this cruelty, bott cuttit hir neyss and eeris, and sind hir agane with ane
fischar baitt in Normandy" (167). This resulted in William's arrival with a large army in
England where he slew Harold and assumed the crown. Certainly, Harold is not an
example of a king the people should admire. Meanwhile, Edgar, realizing that he would
not be crowned, sought sanctuary with King Malcolm in Scotland. William demanded
Edgar's return to England, which Malcolm refused, and war ensued. Boece makes it very
clear that William's request was unlawfirl and that Malcolm realized that if he acceded to
William's request he would find "perpetuall dishonour." As Mair, Wyntoun, and Fordun
had done as well, Boece notes that peace was finally established between the two kings,
and as a result of this peace "King Macolme sall haif that part of Northumberland quhilkis
lyis betuix Twede, Cumber and Stayne Mure, and sall make perpetual] obedience to all
Kingis of Ingland for the samyn" (170). The issue of homage has been raised again, and
Boece makes it clear that Malcolm is paying homage to the king of England only for that
portion of land which actually lies within England's boundaries, and not for his Scottish
crown. Boece does not give much more information about William or his dealings with
Scotland. He does note, however, that the

riottus and superflew maneris quhilkis war brocht in this realme by cuming of

Inglismen ar of litill comparasoun to sik thingis as ar vsit in our dayis. In thai dayis

201

the nature of man was nocht sa ouresett with superflewite as now, for than the

pepil eitt bot twyiss on the daye, havand bot twa coursis, bot now the auaricious

taist of manis wayme is sa desyrous that na froute growing vnder the hevin be land

or sey may be sufficient to satify the hungry appetite of men. (172-73)

Boece obviously is troubled by the modern situation and hopes that his readers will find
instruction in reading his history so that they may profit from past examples. Boece makes
no more mention of William, except to note that he died, leaving his son Robert as Duke
of Normandy, his son William as king of England, and his son Harry [Henry I] with great
riches and jewels.

Boece's treatment of the time of William leaves no doubt in his readers' minds as to
the importance of having just and fair rulers. Harold is given credit for beginning well,
even though his method for obtaining the throne is condemned. However, when Harold
becomes cruel and treacherous, it is only fitting that he should lose his crown and be
killed. William is likewise condemned when he asks Malcolm to act dishonorably and also
when he invades Scotland. The actions of the Scots in defeating William are praised, as is
the eventual peace, where Boece makes it apparent that Malcolm is not paying homage to
William for Scotland. Thus, Boece has covered all the areas which he is interested in as
lessons for his readers. He has stressed that leaders must act honorably and set proper
examples, and he has also emphasized Scotland's independence.

Boece's treatment of Edward I is very different from Mair's. Boece begins with the
marriage of the Maid of Norway, but he makes it clear that the Scots nobles only agreed

to this under the condition that the "realm of Scotland suld be als free in peace and quiete,

202

but ony subieccioun of seruitude, in his tyme as it wes afoir in the tyme of King Alexander,
and gif na successioun followitt betuix King Edward and this Madyn of Norrowaye, the
croun sall return to the nerrest airis of King Alexander last decessit" (246). Boece's
emphasis demonstrates that he certainly does not share Mair's interest in a union of the
crowns and is interested in clarifying the intent of the Scots nobles to keep Scotland free.
After all, earlier Boece had taken pains to detail the provisions of the treaty between
Arthur and Lot to demonstrate not only Scotland’s independence but its rights to the
English throne.

Unfortunately, the Maid of Norway dies and at that point, Boece discusses the
behavior of the contenders for the crown. "Sone eftir followit grete troubill in Scotland be
frendis of King Alexander contending for the croun, to the grete dammage & violacioun
baith of the law of God & man, specialie Iohnne Balliol] and Robert Bruse" (246). This
power struggle was so great that the nobles feared that "gif thai declarit the tane of thaim
king, the tothir suld vsurpe the croun be force" and for this reason "thai remittit the
decision of the richt therof to King Edward of Ingland, with powere to contreyne tham
baith to stand at his sentence" (247). Boece is clear on the point that Edward was only
brought into the discussion on the succession because the Scots nobles did not think they
could enforce their own decision. The desire for power was so strong and the lack of
respect between the nobles very evident, that no matter what the nobles decided, it would
not be enforceable. If the nobles had combined forces to decide the succession in the
country's best interest, Edward would not have gained the hold he did.

Boece again differs from Mair in that he spends a great deal of time going over the

203

actual selection process which Edward uses. The readers hear again about Edward's use
of the French legal experts and about the fact that according to Edward's best experts,
Bruce should have been chosen. Boece then tells of Edward's questioning first Bruce and
then Balliol about their willingness to be subject to him.
Nochtheless, Robert Bruse, havand mair respect to the liberte of the realme than to
ony singular proffitte to put the realme in seruitude, ansuer it that he wald nocht
randyr his native cuntre, sen it has bene fre to his dayis, to seruitude of Inglismen.
King Edward than assail3eitt the mynde of Iohne Balliol], quhilk had sa blynd
desyre to the croun that he curitt nocht, sa that he mycht reiose the samyn,
quhethir he held it in liberte or seruitude. Finalie, quhen Balliol] had gevin his faith
to King Edward to mak him homage, he gat the sentence gevin for him. (248)
This account not only discredits Balliol, but also Edward, who is clearly shown to have
rendered a false and corrupt judgment for personal gain. Edward went against all the legal
experts he had consulted in order to rule in favor of the candidate who was willing to be
subject to him. It is clearly in Boece's interests to relate this information to his readers,
just as it is obvious that Mair would not, as it would add further fuel to the discord
between the nations which Mair was attempting to stop.
Once Balliol became king, he attempted to break away from Edward by resuming

relations with France'” To this end, the daughter of King Philip's brother Charles was

 

”8 Prestwich recounts information showing that “an insertion was later made in the record
of the Great Cause, noting an alleged warning given to Balliol, that if he did not govern
satisfactorily the King of England had the right to intervene. The clumsy manipulation of
the evidence does Edward’s officials little credit, and seems unnecessary —the Franco-
Scottish alliance provided ample justification for war” (47).

204

wed to John Balliol's son. The immediate result of this action was the assault on Berwick
by Edward. Boece gives the details in all their horror. He notes that Edward knew he
could not take the town by force using honorable warfare, so

he thocht to assail3e the samyn be tresoun and slycht, and aid him to raiss his army

fra the sege, syne went abowte to ane noghir part, and retumit with fenseitt

ansen3eis, baneris and Sanctandrois croce all on thair hames on the Scottis maner,
and send certane lymmaris of Scotland afoir the toun, saying Iohnne Balliol] was
cumin with his army in defence of the toun, commanding to haif the portis oppin at
his cuming. The fuliche pepil] of the toun, reiosing of the cuming of the King, as
thai belevitt, oppynnit the portis, and come furth of the toun on all partis, traisting
nocht onlie to be deliuerit of the fere of inymyis, bot als to be of pissans to meitt

thame with playn bata], gif thair inymyis wald assail3e tham. (250)

Obviously, the English were able to take Berwick, but Boece gives firrther details proving
not only Edward’s deceit and treachery, but also his tyrannical cruelty. Boece tells that
"King Edward enterit in the toun with all his army, and slew nocht onlye the soidiouris and
weinnen, bot als bamis, wemen and agit personis, but ony reuth, mercy or ransoun, and
left na creature of Scottis blude on live within that toun" (250).

Boece continues with the account of Edward's assault on the Scots at Dunbar,
telling his readers that "thai war all slayne eftirwart by tyranny of King Edward,
nochtwithstanding his promyss" (251). Edward's word, according to Boece, is not to be
trusted. He is too desirous of obtaining all of Scotland to allow anything to stand in his

way. The stage is now set for Boece to introduce William Wallace, a knight "ofgrete

205

stature and corporal] strenth abone all vther men in his dayis, with sik prodence and craft
of chevelry that nane was firndin peregall to him" (253). Wallace has all the qualities
which have been missing from both Balliol and Edward. He is honest and true to the
cause of Scotland's freedom, which he puts above his own needs.

Boece continues the history, telling about the envoys Scotland sends to Pope
Boniface, as well as Edward's aim to ensure "that na memory suld remane of Scottland"
(262) by removing the Stone of Scone and all historical records he could find. Boece tells
of the betrayal and death of Wallace as well as the assumption of the Scottish crown by
Bruce. He concludes this section dealing with Edward by noting that

Edward the tyran of Ingland, dredand the Scottis be thir feliciteis to ryiss ilk daye

in mair insolence, come with ane mair aufirll ordinance in Scotland than evir he did

afoir. Nochtheles, at his cuming to the bordouris he fell in ane hevy malady, and

decessit suddanlye but ony confessioun or sacramentis of Haly Kirk. It is sayid
that in the houre of his deth ane nobill knycht, Schir Williame Banester, fell in ane
extasy, and saw King Edward skurgitt and with innovmerabill cumpany of devillis
convoyitt to hell. The knycht incontinent fell in ane hevy malady, and couth haifna
rest, quhill he was brocht to ane oppin place befoir all the pepill to schaw this
visioun as it fell on King Edward, and quhen he had schawin the samyn to the
pepill he conualescitt, and perseverit in gude lyfe and pennance to his deth. We
can nocht declair quhethir this nerracioun be ane trew history or ane fabill, howbeit
the samyn appere trew, for his vnmercifirll cruelte wes done aganis Cristin pepill

abone the rigour of armys. For quhen he was in his last extremis he commandit

206

fyfty bamis quhilkis war takin at Kildrymmy to be slayn, but ony compassioun of

thair innocence and aige. (268)

There is no doubt that Boece is using every talent he has to be sure his readers feel
nothing but hatred and loathing for Edward. He also wants his readers to realize the perils
of evil kings. He does put in a disclaimer that he cannot say for sure that this vision he
reports is actually true, but then he goes on to say that it does appear true since even in his
last moments Edward was busy ordering the massacre of innocent children. Boece had
dealt in the same manner with Arthur and William, putting forth stories whose accuracy
could not be substantiated.

The nature of Boece's history would ensure its popularity at Mair's expense. Mair
does not include information about the atrocities committed on either side of the
battlefield because he is interested in explaining the causes of the wars and doing his best
to prevent firrther battles and bring about a lasting peace which will be in everyone's best
interest. Boece has written his history, as was noted earlier, in the style of Livy, in order
to inform his readers, especially his European audience, about the real history of Scotland.
The continuing nature of European politics, with each nation trying to play off alliances to
maintain its own power and prevent any one nation from becoming overwhelmingly
powerful, would also have worked in Boece's favor. If he can discredit England, and raise
Scotland in the eyes of European nations, then the Scottish/French alliance will grow in
strength at England's expense. Given Boece’s dislike of England, this would have been
preferable in his eyes.

Boece also is determined to educate with his history. Time and again he provides

207

moral examples and sermons to explain to his readers the value of proper conduct. As
was noted in one of the quotations given earlier in this chapter, Boece was concerned that
his present day society was less moral than past societies. He has dedicated his work to
James V who was born in 1512 and ascended to the throne when he was little more than
one year old. He was nine years old when Boece's history appeared, and hence at an
appropriate age to begin learning the lessons which are found within the history. Boece
earnestly desired that James learn just how important it was for him to have a "cleyn lyfe"
as an example to his people. There is nothing that "pepill followis with moir imitacioun,
or kepis in moir recent memorie, than werkis of nobill men, of reassoun thair besynes suld
be moir respondent to vertew than of any vther estatis, quhen moir triumphant glorye and
preeminence bene randrit to publik than priuatt personis" (15). Boece intends that James
V learn the importance of setting a noble example for his people.

It is no wonder that Boece has written the history that he has, in light of the
political situation within Scotland especially since the death of Alexander 111. The power
struggles among the Scots-Norman aristocracy and its resulting factions, coupled with the
number of times there had been either no monarch or no monarch old enough to rule, had
produced a climate whereby the nobles were in a position to put their own interests ahead
of those of the country as a whole. This resulted in political chaos and weakness which
England was able to make use of over and over. Unfortunately the situation would
continue to worsen. While James V became king as an infant, he did manage to rule as an
adult, and in fact was the last adult male king of Scotland for almost fifty years. However,

when he died, his heir, Mary Queen of Scots, was only 6 days old, and again Scotland was

208

ruled by nobles fighting for personal political gains. The entire tone of Boece’s history is
highly nationalistic, and Boece no doubt hoped it could become a rallying point, focusing
Scottish energy on defeating the English and not themselves. All of his materials, from his
expanded account of the Saxons and the early emphasis on Scottish-English animosity
discussed above through his treatment of Edward, are focused on unifying Scotland in a

nationalistic fervor.

George Buchanan

Buchanan was born near the end of James IV's reign and he was seven years old
when James IV died and the infant James V succeeded to the throne in 1513. He then
lived through until the reign of James V1. He saw the devastating effects which the
succession of infants, James V, Mary, and James VI, had upon Scotland. As was noted in
chapter I, Buchanan had supported Mary Queen of Scots early in her reign, but then
became one of her biggest enemies. Eventually, he was appointed as tutor to James VI in
1566, a position which he held for at least fourteen years. Buchanan's history was
published in the year of his death, 1582.”9

Certainly, Buchanan wrote his history during a particularly turbulent period in

 

“9 I. D. McFarlane, “George Buchanan and European Humanism,” The Yearbook of
English Studies: Anglo-French Literary Relations Special Number 15 (1985): 33-47,
comments that the fact that Buchanan is mainly remembered as a “tumcoat opponent of
Mary Queen of Scots” is certainly unjustified. His other claims to fame have been
overlooked because of the decline in classical studies and comparative lack of interest in
Neo-Latin Renaissance literature. However, “Buchanan is in fact a fine example of the
Scotsman who goes abroad, returns home having put Scotland on the cultural map of
Europe, and, as a man in tune with cultural developments, remains a figure whose
achievements continue to impress long after his death” (33).

209

Scottish history. James VI had succeeded his mother Mary Queen of Scots, who was
actually still a force in Scotland's politics even from her confinement in England at the
hands of Elizabeth 1. Thus, there is not only the matter of a government of regents, but
also the continual threat or promise of the restoration of Mary. A1] of this political
maneuvering takes place within the context of the Scottish reformation,120 since Mary,
although willing to support Scotland's change to Protestantism, was herself a firm
Catholic. Her religion would remain a major issue in the political situation within
Scofland.

As explained earlier, Buchanan had followed the same overall outline which had
been used by both Boece and Fordun in the presentation of the Arthurian materials,
stressing the importance of freedom, love of country, and reformation of church life.
However, unlike Boece, Buchanan is less apt to play openly on his readers' nationalistic
sentiments. Instead, Buchanan spends more time discussing the merits of various kings no

matter what country they come from. Vortigem's treachery is discussed at length, because

 

12° The importance of the Reformation in Scotland’s political actions may be noted from
an earlier proposal made to Henry VIII in 1542 which proposed a union between England
and Scotland on religious grounds, in order to rid Scotland of the old faith. According to
“A Proposal for Uniting Scotland with England, Addressed to King Henry VIII., by John
Elder Clerke, a Reddshanke [1542],” eds. W. Scott, D. Laing, and T. Thomson, The
Bannatyne Miscellany (Edinburgh: Bannatyne, 1827), “we have in the following treatise,
the project of an union betwixt England and Scotland, addressed to Henry VIII., who is
therein counselled to invade his deceased nephew’s kingdom, and is assured of conquest
by aid of the disaffected Highland chiefs, who are represented as so many ‘true hearts,’
devoted to the King of England, from learning his beneficence towards the Irish, who
resembled them in language and manners.” John Elder, a clergyman who had studied at
St. Andrews, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh, and who at the time of writing, was an exile in
England “proposed to get rid of Popery by sacrificing the independence of his country” (3-
4).

210

Buchanan needs to make it clear that such actions are not fitting for a monarch, but as was
discussed earlier, he focuses on the issues of deceit and does not stress the nationalities
involved. Since he is writing his history at least in part to instruct the current king of
Scotland, he stresses the nature of kingship in his discussion of the Arthurian materials.
He capitalizes on the mistakes of earlier kings, whether British or Scottish, as
opportunities to instruct the present monarch. Buchanan also uses Arthur as a model to
help his readers see the importance of freedom, love of country, and proper worship.
These issues will remain central to Buchanan's entire history.

Buchanan repeats even more definitively the legends set forth by Boece, and his
account of the early kings of Scotland has a very practical point. He details numerous
rebellions against wicked rulers, describing as well their deposition and murder by their
own nobles. He wishes to emphasize the nature of kingship and the responsibility of the
monarch to rule well. If the monarch fails, then he or she is subject to removal. This is
exactly what happened during Buchanan's own lifetime.

Buchanan has arranged his history very tightly around the reigns of the Scottish
monarchs. Events outside of Scotland are discussed according to their impact on
particular monarchs. Buchanan's discussion of William the Conqueror takes place within
the context of the reign of Malcolm 111. Malcolm was closely connected to English
royalty, since he had married Margaret, Edgar’s sister. Buchanan actually has very little to
say about William's accession to the throne, noting that "on the death of Edward, Harold,
the son of Godwin, usurped the throne, who dealt favourably with Agatha the Hungarian,

and her children. When, however, he was overthrown by William the Norman, Edgar, to

211

avoid the cruelty of the latter, resolved to return with his mother and sisters, to Hungary"
(150). Buchanan has left the entire focus on Edgar, with the information about the
Norman conquest and succession of William given as a clause in a sentence where Edgar
is the main subject. This is natural, since Edgar is Malcolm’s brother-in-law.

Buchanan continues with the information about William's efforts to have Edgar
brought back to England from Scotland, where he was granted hospitality by Malcolm
after a shipwreck. Buchanan then gives his readers a description of William's personality.
"William, who then reigned in England, was, upon the lightest occasion, very cruel against
the nobles, whether of English or Danish extraction." William threatens war with Scotland
unless his demands for the return of Edgar to England are met. Malcolm "looking upon it
as a cruel and faithless thing to deliver a guest and kinsman, and one too against whom his
very enemies could allege no crime, to his capital foe to be put to death, steadily
determined to suffer any thing rather than so disgrace himself' (150). Of course, war
ensues and eventually peace is restored with Edgar going to England, but receiving a large
revenue from William. Scotland, likewise, is confirmed in its possession of Cumberland
"on the same terms as his [Malcolm’s] ancestors had done" (150). Buchanan makes
absolutely no mention of any homage owed by Scotland to England, either for the crown
of Scotland itself or for Cumberland.

Buchanan makes no firrther reference to William except to say that "whilst
Malcolm was thus busied in correcting the public manners, William, king of England,
died" (152). Buchanan keeps his focus firmly on the Scots and their actions. It is Scottish

monarchs who will provide the necessary examples to his readers. William died while

212

Malcolm was busy "correcting the public manners; for being devout and pious himself, he
invited others, by his example, to a modest, just, and sober life." That is all the
information that Buchanan's readers require. He gives no explanation for the succession
of William over Harold, refusing to tell of Harold's injustices and treachery which led to
William's conquest of England. Buchanan would much rather spend his time discussing
Malcolm's reign and the events therein. He only mentions William because of the war
which ensued as a result of Edgar's arrival in Scotland. Buchanan maintains a clear and
consistent focus on Scotland's history.

Buchanan's treatment of Edward I begins with his coronation during the reign of
Alexander 111. He notes that upon the death of Henry III, king of England, Edward I
succeeded him, "at whose coronation Alexander and his wife were present; but in
returning, she died soon after. David, the king's son, and also Alexander, who was but
lately married to the daughter of the earl of Flanders, followed her to the grave shortly
after, and thus made a continuation of mourning and firnerals. Margaret also, the king's
daughter, departed this life, who left behind her a daughter by Hangonan, king of Norway"
(169-70). Soon after this, Alexander himself died, and the people were able to see "what
great calamities would befall the kingdom upon his decease" (170).

Immediately, according to Buchanan, Edward seized the opportunity afforded him
by the tenuous state of the Scottish throne. Edward, "knowing that his sister's grandchild,
who was the daughter of the king of Norway, was the only surviving person of all the
posterity of Alexander, and that she was the lawful heiress of the kingdom of Scotland,

sent ambassadors thither, to desire her as a wife for his son" (170). It is at this point that

 

213

Buchanan comes as close as he ever would to Mair's position on the union of the crowns.
He notes that the Scots were not averse to this marriage. Relations between Scotland and
England were more cordial than ever under the reigns of Alexander and Edward.
Furthermore,

the ancient hatred seemed no way more likely to be abolished than by uniting both

nations, on just and equal terms, into one. For these reasons the marriage was

easily assented to; and, by the consent of both parties, it was agreed that the Scots
should have their own laws and magistrates, till the offspring of the marriage
should come to govern the kingdom; but that if there should be no such issue, or
they should die without coming to the crown, the kingdom of Scotland should go

to the next of kin to the blood-royal. (171)

Boece had also mentioned the marriage arrangements, but did not point out the
advantages of the union or the fact that it was the only hope for peace between the two
countries. In any case, the Maid of Norway was soon dead, with the resultant problems
over the Scottish succession.

Buchanan stresses the difficulties caused by the divisions between the nobles,
especially between the Balliol faction and the Bruce faction. The issue of the succession
could not be decided in Scotland because "there was not a sufficient party in the kingdom
to compel both sides to stand the award. On this account, Edward of England was almost
unanimously chosen to be the arbitrator of this important point." However, Buchanan lets
his readers know that while this choice looked good on the surface, since Edward was

thought to be a faithful arbitrator and his father had been such a loving father-in-law to

 

H"

214

Alexander, the reality of the situation was quite different. Buchanan writes that
the English king had a private design, which was that of bringing Scotland under
his dominion, though he managed it very covertly, and imparted his scheme only to
a chosen few. The thing was thought feasible enough, as the kingdom was divided
into two factions; but to make the way more intricate, and to cover the fi'aud the
deeper from every eye, he raised up eight other competitors, besides Bruce and
Balliol, that he might the more easily bring over one or more to his party, during
the contention of so great a number. (173)
This is the first mention by any of the Scottish historians that Edward was responsible for
bringing in more contenders for the crown,121 and while the accuracy of Buchanan’s claim
is open to question, it fits with his portrayal of Edward and his designs on Scotland.
Buchanan definitely shows Edward as more grasping and devious than any of the earlier
portrayals. He is not just taking advantage of the dissent and bickering among the Scots
nobles; he is actually adding fire] to the debate.
Buchanan mentions, as had several of our other historians, that Edward solicited
legal advice from France, but again Buchanan puts a different emphasis on this action. He
says that Edward consulted with the best French experts, knowing that, "as this class of

men are seldom, if ever, of one opinion, he should draw something out of their answers

 

‘2' Roberts notes that actually “thirteen ‘competitors now presented themselves as
contenders for the Scottish throne. Nearly all were descended from the great Anglo-
Norman families whose grandfathers or great-grandfathers had married daughters of the
Canmore dynasty and more especially the daughters of Earl David of Huntingdon,
younger brother of William the Lion. They agreed with the four surviving ‘Guardians’ of
Scotland that Edward I of England should act as the adjudicator of their claims” (116).

215

which might make for his purpose" (173). Buchanan credits Edward with soliciting the
opinions of various leading Scots as to their willingness to "put themselves under the
power and jurisdiction of the English, which, as was alleged, their ancestors had frequently
done." When this offer was refirsed, Edward went to Bruce, letting him know that the 24
judges were going to decide in favor of Balliol, and

promised him the crown of Scotland, if he would put himself under the patronage

of the king of England, and be subject to his authority. Bruce answered him

ingenuously, "That he was not so eager of a crown, as to accept of it by abridging
the liberty which his ancestors had left him." Upon this reply, he was dismissed,
and John Baliol sent for, who, being more desirous of a kingdom, than of honest
methods to come by it, greedily accepted the condition offered him by Edward.

(174)

Much of this same information is to be found in the other four historians already
discussed, but Buchanan intensifies the portrayal of Edward as devious and calculating. It
is difficult to say whether Buchanan has additional sources which allow him to make this
reading of Edward, or if he is attributing to Edward reasoning and deductive skills which
would become more prevalent in later politicians.

In any case, Buchanan continues with the next event, namely the renunciation of
the homage to England and the renewal of the treaty with France, including the marriage
of Balliol's son into the royal family of France. Again, the facts are the same as those
given by other historians. However, Buchanan does add interesting information, namely

that it was the decision of the Scottish council of the estates that the homage to England

216

had been extracted from Balliol against his will and that firrthermore, even if Balliol had
"been consenting thereto, yet it neither obliged him nor the kingdom, because the
covenant was made by the king alone, without the consent of the estates; whereas the king
could do no act relating to the rights of the nation, without, much less against, their
advice" (175). None of the other earlier historians discussed had indicated that the power
of the king was in any way limited by the need for the consent of the estates. Buchanan
seems to be adding additional weight to the decision to renounce the promise of fealty
made to Edward, and he also seems to be mentioning powers of the nobles which others
have not indicated were held during this period. Buchanan raises the issues of the power
of the nobility and the relationship between it and the monarchy because of the relevancy
to his own times and his desire to prevent the restoration of Mary Queen of Scots.
Buchanan’s concern for the nature of Scotland’s government may be seen not only in his
history, but also in his dialogue De iure regni apud Scotos which was originally written to
“justify the deprivation of the Queen’s authority on grounds that had their roots in Scots
history but also in natural law; and to support the steps that could be taken towards the
accession of the Regent Moray in her stead” (McFarlane, Buchanan 392). Roger A.
Mason states that
Buchanan wrote both his brief tract De Jure Regni apud Scotos Dialogus
(published in 1579) and his much longer historical work, the Rerum Scoticarum
Historia (published in 1582), to justify the revolutionary upheavals that occurred
in Scotland in the 1560's. Moreover, as an apologist for resistance and tyrannicide

and an advocate of elective, limited monarchy, Buchanan was a major contributor

217

to the development of a radical political ideology in sixteenth century Europe.

(“Rex Stoicus ” 9)122
Buchanan uses both his short dialogue and his lengthy history as vehicles to explain his
views on government. His Dialogue was written in response to the deposition of Mary
Queen of Scots, an act which also resulted in a great concern for the year-old James VI.
The education of this young king, as Mason notes, was “of serious import both at home
and abroad. It was, moreover, a task for which Buchanan seemed particularly well suited.
After all, not only was he (at least after 1560) an undoubted Calvinist, but he was also a
pedagogue of considerable repute and a humanist of international standing” (10). As was
noted in chapter I, Buchanan felt this responsibility very keenly, determined to teach the
young king by providing him with suitable examples from the past. His telling of the
history of Edward’s actions in Scotland would serve as an excellent example of a number
of ideas which Buchanan wished to teach his readers.

Buchanan continues by noting that now "Edward, who was of an impetuous and
irascible disposition, fired by this loss, breathed nothing but firry and revenge." Edward

attacks Berwick, and again his ruse of pretending to be Balliol's army is told, but this time

 

”2 Buchanan’s influence was more far reaching than the immediate politics of Scotland.
According to Eugene R. Purpus, “The Dialogue in English Literature, 1660-1725.” Diss.
University of California at Los Angeles, 1943, “from its [De iure regni apud Scotos]
publication in the middle of the sixteenth century on through the Restoration, George
Buchanan’s plea for recognition of the privileges of the government of Scotland was
frequently reprinted” (175), influencing English politics as well. Brown notes further that
“‘De Jure Regni apud Scotos,’ an exposition of his political creed, and of what he
understood to be the constitutional relations of prince and people in Scotland” has a
motive identical with that of Milton in his ‘Defence of the People of England’—the
justification of his countrymen in the eyes of Europe; and the sum of its political teaching
is simply that the prince exists by the will and for the good of the people” (xxxiii).

218

Buchanan adds another twist to the story, saying that Edward had the rumor of Balliol's
arrival spread by "some Scots of Bruce's party. " The ability of the English to play off the
Scottish factions against each other is again evident, with the result that "Edward followed
with his foot, and made a miserable slaughter among the people of all orders" (175).
Afterwards, when Robert Bruce asked for the crown, Edward went back on his promise,
saying, "What, have I nothing else to do, but to win kingdoms for you?" (176). Instead,
Edward left his own men in charge in Scotland while he headed back to France to make
war there.
Buchanan now announces the change in Scotland's fortunes when William Wallace
takes charge. Buchanan notes that
when the nobility had neither strength nor courage to undertake great matters,
there presently arose one William Wallace, a man of an ancient and noble family,
but who had lived poorly and meanly, as having little or no estate. The actions of
this man, however, during the present contest, not only surpassed the expectation,
but even the belief, of all the common people; for he was of a bold spirit, and
vigorous constitution. (176-77)
Buchanan finds that at last the Scots have someone they can rely upon, who is working for
the good of the nation and not for individual power. Soon the people, "observing that the
nobles, either out of fear or indolence, were tardy in the management of affairs,
proclaimed Wallace regent of the kingdom; and, in virtue of this election, he directed
things as a lawfirl magistrate, and the substitute of Balliol. He accepted this title not out

of any ambition, or desire to rule, but because it was given him by his countrymen out of

 

219

pure love and good-will" (177).

Wallace's successes were met by rumors spread by his enemies "that Wallace
openly affected a supreme or tyrannical power" (17 8). The nobles would easily believe
these rumors since they themselves were frequently interested only in grabbing personal
power. However, when Bruce meets with Wallace to determine just what Wallace is
fighting for before he agrees to join forces with Wallace, Buchanan portrays Wallace as
responding that

I never proposed any such end of my labours, as to obtain the kingdom, of which

my fortune is not capable; neither doth my mind aspire so high; but when I saw my

countrymen, by your slothfulness, to whom the kingdom doth rightfully appertain,
destitute of governors, and exposed, not to the slavery only, but even to the
butchery of a cruel enemy, I had pity on them, and undertook the cause which you
deserted; neither will I forsake the liberty, good, and safety of my countrymen, til]
life shall forsake me. You, who had rather choose base servitude with security,
than honest liberty with hazard, may follow and embrace the fortune which you so
highly esteem; as for me, I will die free in my country, which I have so often

defended, and my love to it shall remain as long as my life continues. (179)

In this one speech, Buchanan has validated his primary message about what type of ruler
Scotland needs and where a ruler's loyalty must remain. He also has portrayed Edward as
someone who not only put Scotland into slavery, but butchered the inhabitants as well,
and Bruce as a person who allowed Edward to attack Scotland when he deserted the

cause of Scotland’s freedom.

 

220

Buchanan continues in his attack on Edward by demonstrating that Edward was
interested in more than merely gaining a military victory over Scotland. According to
Buchanan, Edward wanted to

root out the very memory of the nation, by abrogating their old laws, and

modelling the ecclesiastical state and ceremonies, according to the manner of

England. He likewise caused all histories, leagues, and ancient monuments,

whether left by the Romans, or formed by the Scots, to be destroyed; and he

carried away all the books, together with the teachers of learning, into England.

Besides this, he sent also to London an unpolished marble-stone, wherein it was

vulgarly reported and believed, lay the fate of the kingdom; neither did he leave

any thing behind him, which on the account of its celebrity, might excite generous
minds to the remembrance of their ancient fortune and condition; or excite them to
any true greatness of mind. Thus, having broken their spirits as he thought, as well
as their forces, and cast them into a servile dejection, he promised himself

perpetual peace from Scotland. (181)

This is certainly the strongest statement by any of the Scottish historians concerning
Edward's actions in Scotland, but it was noted earlier that one of the reasons for Fordun's
history was his fear that Scottish history would be forgotten or only written by the English
once Edward had succeeded in removing all the historical documents. This is the reason
Fordun himself gives for scouring the entire countryside for historical evidence to use in
writing a true history of Scotland. Succeeding historians, namely Wyntoun, Mair, Boece,

Buchanan, and Leslie, also feel the need to be sure that Scotland's history is told

 

221

accurately and completely. Each of these historians had used major historical figures and
events to locate Scottish history in a wider historical context, thus legitimizing it. The
Arthurian material was especially important in this context, since it gave the current
conflicts with England an historical background. While each of these Scottish historians
has a different vantage point and each emphasizes different events, they are all interested
in making sure that Scotland's past will not be forgotten, as Edward, according to
Buchanan, had hoped.

Edward works again at playing the Scots nobles off against each other, but
eventually they come together long enough to make Bruce king. However, even this
agreement does not last as Comyn tries to betray Bruce, and Bruce ends up killing him.
Wallace himself is also betrayed and turned over to the English for his grisly execution.
Buchanan calls Wallace

the most famous man of the age in which he lived, and who deserved to be

compared with the most renowned captains of ancient times both for his greatness

of mind in undertaking dangers, and his wisdom and valour in overcoming them.

In love to his country he was second to none for, when others were slaves, he was

alone free; neither could he be induced by rewards, or moved by threats, to

abandon the public cause in which he had once embarked. His death was the more
to be lamented, because he was not conquered by his enemy, but betrayed by his

fiiend [Sir John Menteith],123 who had little reason to be guilty of so treacherous

 

‘23 Roberts notes that Wallace was “handed over to the English by Sir John Stewart of
Menteith, keeper of Dunbarton Castle, who despite later condemnation was honour bound
to do so” (124).

222

an action. (182)

Wallace exemplifies those characteristics which Scotland desperately needed in its leaders,
and he is betrayed by the same petty power politics that were to cripple Scotland and keep
it from finding the united leadership of its nobles. Buchanan may be hoping that in
detailing Wallace's story, he will help his readers realize the errors made in the past and
find a better way in the future.

Buchanan relates no specifics about Edward 1's death. He does not recount the
visions and prophecies which Boece had given so colorfully. Instead, Buchanan notes
only that “Edward, being busy in preparations for war against Scotland, died within a few
days at Lancaster, leaving the crown to his second son Edward” (184).

Buchanan has written his work in order to document Scotland's history and
provide moral and political lessons for James V] and other readers. Beginning with his
emphasis in the Arthurian materials on the subjects of kingship, freedom from homage,
and religious reform, Buchanan has constantly provided his readers with example after
example of good and bad kings. He has demonstrated the nature of rebellion and the part
it has played in ancient Scottish tradition. Buchanan's description of Edward I and his
well-thought out deceptions and deliberate use of power politics in order to gain
domination over Scotland are an attempt to make it abundantly clear to James VI and
other readers that this treachery is not to be condoned. Buchanan provides a stirring
nationalistic example of just what a model leader should be in his portrayal of William
Wallace. The contrasts between Wallace and Edward are given most dramatically.

Buchanan wrote his history with Scotland's present situation clearly in mind.

223

Scotland had been faced with a series of regents, which provided for the ruthless quest for
power on the part of the nobles. Betrayals, changes of allegiances, murders, and treachery
abound. Buchanan uses every aspect of his history, especially the portrayal of the times of
Arthur, William the Conqueror and Malcolm, and Edward I to demonstrate the dangers of
current court politics, no doubt with the hope that James VI especially will be able to turn

the situation around, so that the dreams of those such as Wallace may finally come to

fruition.

John Leslie

The last of the historians to be considered in this chapter is Leslie, who was very
closely associated with Mary Queen of Scots, serving her in a variety of capacities, always
as a trusted advisor. He wrote much of his history while accompanying her into her
confinement by Elizabeth 1. Leslie was active in several attempts to free Mary and restore
her to the throne of Scotland, and his history is definitely directed towards Mary's
restoration.

Earlier I demonstrated that Leslie's account of Arthur was very different from
those of the other five historians considered. Leslie does not mention Mordred and only
makes a passing reference to the issue of Arthur's right to the throne. He makes no
reference to Arthur's birth, illegitimacy, age, or anything relating to his ascendancy. He
does agree with Boece and Buchanan about the lack of veracity concerning Arthur's
European victories, but he gives credit to Arthur for being a notable warrior, with a

courageous spirit and honorable actions. His mention of the Round Table is probably due

 

224

to his having seen it in person, during his stay in England during Mary's imprisonment.
Obviously, Leslie feels that Arthur deserves to be mentioned because of his courageous
spirit and the deeds he did, and Leslie also finds it necessary to clarify the errors
surrounding the stories of Arthur's great conquests, but otherwise Arthur‘s story does not
bear on his overall theme. Like Fordun, Leslie actually spends much more time discussing
the reign of Vortigem, emphasizing his treachery, but Leslie also describes the religious
life of the Britons, condemning the action of turning to pagans for assistance. He turns his
focus on his vivid portrayals of the disaster faced by the Britons with the religious
persecution. This emphasis on the moral and religious behavior of society will continue as
Leslie deals with first William and then Edward.

Leslie first mentions William the Conqueror with a brief account of how he
obtained the throne. "In this meane tyme, Herald efter the deith of Edward, invadet the
scepter of Jngland, exludeng Edgar rychtuous heire, bot be William duke of Normandie
Herald is ouircum, and schott out of the Realme, and slane. Now Jngland is occupiet be
Wilseam of Normanie bastard" (I: 310). The important point for Leslie is that Harold had
obtained the throne unlawfully and so he in turn is overcome. William's possible rights to
the throne are never discussed. Instead the focus turns to Edgar, who seeks refuge in
Scotland, and whose sister then marries Malcolm. Leslie discusses William's reaction to
Edgar's welcome in Scotland. According to Leslie, when William heard the news of
Malcolm's marriage to Edgar's sister, "he commandet to pas out of Jngland all Edgar his
freindes and of his kin: of quhome sprang vp Lindsay, Vaus, Ramsay, Loual, Toures,

Prestoun, Sandelandis, Bissatt, ffoulis, Wardlaw, Maxwell, and mony vthiris of grett

225

nobilitie, that tyme cam first in Scotland: quhilkes houses all war decoret be king
Malcolme with large landes, as this day may be seine" (I: 311). Leslie even discusses the
rise of the house of Leslie at this time.

Leslie not only keeps his focus clearly on Scotland, but he includes information
which he may think is of more interest to his readers. In explaining Edgar's arrival in
Scotland, he includes more specifics about who else arrived with Edgar and what the fate
of these families was, thus giving a more personal focus to his history. In fact, Leslie
continues in this particular section of his work to include further genealogical history,
mentioning those families which came at the time from Hungary and France. He then
returns to William, who "is now grettlie offendet that Edgar is defendet be his nychtbour
of sik a maner, quhairfor he prepairis to invade Malcolm: Bot quhen he sies na prosperitie
in his enterprise, he makes a bande of peace with Malcolme: on this conditione, that
Edgar, freindes and fauourers, sulde retume to J ngland without iniure or harm.
Cumbirland and Westmuirland is granted to Malcolme on this conditione, that na Scott
craue ony thing to hurt the authoritie of Normandie" (I: 312). Leslie makes no mention of
homage of any kind, merely noting that the Scots are not to harm the authority of William
in Cumberland or Westmoreland. Furthermore, it is William who decides against the war
because it would not be likely to gain him anything.

Leslie returns to the events in the reign of Malcolm, with no further mention of
William except for his death notice. "Wilaeam of Norrnandie king of Jngland, now dies,
thrie fatt patrimonies he leiues in Testament to his thrie sones: to Robert, the Dukrie of

Normandie; to Wil3eam, the Kingdome of Jngland; to Henrie Beauclerk his hail] Thesaur,

226

quhilke was gret, and his houshald geir, quhilke was rich and illustre, out of mesour" (I:
315). Thus, Leslie devotes even less effort to an accounting of William than any of the
other five historians. Instead, he uses the events surrounding William and his relations
with Scotland as an opportunity to explain the rise of the prominent noble families which
would become increasingly important to Scottish history. Already some of the future
troubles can be foreseen when Leslie recounts the coming to Scotland of certain nobles
with Edgar, and then their subsequent return to England, with lands and loyalties in both
countries.

Leslie devotes more space to the account of Edward I, but that is only natural as
the events of Edward's reign had much more impact on Scotland's history, and, firrther,
these events are more recent. Leslie begins with the choosing of Edward as the mediator
in the dispute between Balliol and Bruce. Leslie notes that

xxiiii Scotis and Jnglis vpon this counsel] ar appoynted to meit in Beruik, quhair

the king cumis to decerne this cause. efter lang conferring, on baith handis, quhen

hame he retumes, he sendis to the men of law in ffrance, for thair counsel in this
controuersie: bot Langschankis craftilie of diuerse laweris collecteng diuerse
sentences, intendes to concent and gyue him the authoritie, quha ony maner to him
will submit him selfe. Quhairfor the king alluret with fair promises, and trett with
the sueit wordes of the Bailie, decernes that the Realme be committet to him: for

J hone Balie vndir thoume had promiset that gif the king walde croune him, he

soulde be all meines possible, conforme to his power, make ryche the realme of

J ngland, diminishe the libertied of Scotland, agment largelie the kingdome of

 

 

227

Jngland, and of his fidelitie make ane athe, to knawe him for his superiour evir and

ay. (1: 342-43)

Leslie deals with the entire selection process quickly and succinctly. He does not give
mention of Robert Bruce's speech saying that the crown of Scotland did not mean so much
to him that he would forfeit Scotland's freedom for it. Leslie does mention Edward's
underhanded craftiness in asking enough French lawyers for an opinion that he was bound
to get sufficient different ideas to allow him to choose whomever he wanted. Boece and
even Buchanan had indicated that the French lawyers had decided in favor of Robert
Bruce, but Leslie gives no such indication. Certainly this account is much less emotional
than Boece's or even Buchanan's.

Leslie continues with the recanting of Balliol's oath of fealty to Edward, followed
by England’s attempt to woo France away from Scotland. However, Balliol succeeds in
reaffirming the French alliance and even marries his son into the French royal family. At
this point, Leslie notes that

quhen Edward of J ng]. vndirstude that the Balie had stopet the way of freindschip

betueine him and ffrance, his harte was hetlier inflamet to reuenge, than afor, and

with a grett armie, in haist he invades Beruik, and takes it throuch a trayne. Jn
quhilk Victorie thay war sa cruel], ferce, Wod, and Wilde, that thair handes with
the blude of all in that toune thay littid, spairing nather women or babs. Of this
happie success thinking him selfe sa proud King Edward he wald cum farther benn,

as we speik, or farther in Scotland. (I: 344)

Each of the historians has dealt with Edward's capture of Berwick, but Leslie's account is

 

228

more ordered than either Boece's or Buchanan's. He recounts Edward’s killing women
and children, and his taking the town by a definite strategy, but there is no mention of the
treachery told of by Boece and Buchanan, the pretending to be John Balliol, or the use of
Bruce's men to help in the deception. Leslie wants to be sure that his readers know that
Edward had attacked Berwick out of anger stemming from Balliol's success with France,
and he also wants to be sure his readers remember Edward's cruelty. However, at a time
when Mary Queen of Scots was in the custody of the English and when diplomatic efforts
were still actively trying to secure Elizabeth 1's willingness to release Mary, Leslie would
not want to write a highly inflammatory history against the English. He has to be content
with giving a few details which he can be reasonably confident will bring the entire event
to his readers' minds.

Leslie discusses the Battle of Falkirk, and in so doing introduces William Wallace
with no background information given at all. Leslie then mentions that

eftir lang weiris and sair slauchtir on baith sydes, Scotland began to dekay: and

suirlie had vttirlie dekayet and cum to nocht, gif Wallase selfe, of quhome we now

spak, had nocht with a meruellous fortitude, a worthie Wichtnes and Woundirful],

restored the scotis to libertie, quhilke sa far was brocht vndir; and ouirthrawne

with grett force the Jnglise power, sa hich vprisen throuch our humilitie. (I: 345-

46)

Leslie continues to narrate how Wallace freed the Scottish towns which had been captured

by the English. He then mentions that Wallace achieved all this even though he was

bot of the mid ranck of nobles, a knichtis secund sone; nethir throuch stipend,

=:-I
La.“

 

229

quhen his ryches was bot small; Nethir throuch ony publick office, he being bot ane

priuat persone; bot only throuch his vertue, his mychtie spirit, his zele, and hett

feruour in him to defend his cuntrie, and throuch his meruellous maniris baith

Noble and Notable, he Wanted na men of Weir, in a schorte space. Quhairfor at

last with all consentis he is chosen chief capitane to defend his Natioune. (I: 347)
Leslie tells how some nobles were jealous of Wallace and unable to endure his successes.
In the end, Wallace is delivered by a traitor to Edward, after which he is executed. Leslie
notes that he will not write any more about Wallace, since "because, of his Worthie actes,
ar writne nocht smal] bot verie gret volumis" (I: 348), and so he returns to relating the
events surrounding Edward, beginning with the judgement of Pope Boniface against him
in favor of the Scots.

Leslie finishes his discussion of Edward with a recounting of the events leading to
the crowning of Robert Bruce after his assassination of the traitorous Comyn. Finally,
Edward attempts to conquer Scotland again only to die on its borders.

Bot oft followis, that quha intendes cruellie to gar all man die, deith grippis him

first be the back; for how sune he w' his oste cam ouer the Scotis bordour he dies,

quhen doubtles he wassted and wracket had Scotland throuch and throuch, gif

God of his gudnes had nocht vthirwyse preueinet his counsel, full of crueltie and

tyrannie. His hatred was sa hett bruning against the scotis Natioune, that in his

deith he appoynted the noble menis sones, quha with him war plages, all to be
hanget, quhilke sum of his cruel] counsellouris, with all expeditiounne did, and

diligence. (II: 2-3)

:92 4.

 

230

Leslie conveys to his readers the extent of Edward's cruelty as well as his lust for
dominion over Scotland. The execution of the hostages is yet another example of
Edward's tyrannical cruelties. However, Leslie keeps his descriptions short and avoids the
use of inflammatory or highly nationalistic rhetoric such as was used by Boece and even
Buchanan. Again, this can be accounted for not only as a difference in styles, but also as a
difference in purposes. Leslie had more to gain by keeping relations open with the English
as he was still hoping to negotiate Mary's freedom. Buchanan had no such desire, and in
fact opposed any attempt to put Mary back on the throne.

Leslie has slightly different reasons for writing his history than those of the
previous five historians. He does want to provide an accurate history of Scotland,
documenting all the events in its history, and he comes much closer to his own times than
any of the other historians, who deliberately stopped far short of their own eras. He also
continues the tradition of writing history as moral theology, hoping that he can instruct his
readers. He wants to provide both knowledge and virtuous examples so that his present
day readers may avoid the mistakes made in the past. However, his political agenda
differs from the other historians considered in this dissertation, and in fact, his insistence
on the restoration of Mary as well as a return to Catholicism was probably at least as
unpopular as Mair's insistence on the union of the crowns, which of course was seen in
Leslie and Buchanan's time as nearly accomplished. Both Leslie and Mair are writing from
minority positions, and this influenced their popularity as well as their effect upon their
readers.

Leslie stresses the importance of good leadership, and again he makes use of the

 

231

obvious contrast between Edward and Wallace, as well as the differences between William
the Conqueror and Malcolm. Arthur gets relatively little mention but serves as another
example of strong able leadership. Leslie also emphasizes the dangers of treachery and
individual power plays. He downplays the actions of Robert Bruce until he actually
becomes king, but does note that Bruce did not have Wallace's constancy of purpose or
sense of dedication.

Both Buchanan and Leslie emphasize the fact that their readers need to return to
the past for a stronger sense of morality. Certainly the political situation in Scotland had
deteriorated in the years during which these men were living, and the problems of factional
politics which were evident during the time of Edward I had only grown as a direct result
of the number of years when Scotland was ruled by regents. The abuses in the church had
also reached the point where Scotland finally underwent its own reformation, but the
resulting problems still remained to be dealt with. Buchanan and Leslie, from opposite
perspectives, try to address the civil and religious chaos prevalent in their own society, by
writing histories which they hope will help their readers see the errors of both the past and
present, and to search for examples from the past for models of right conduct. Leslie
devotes more space proportionately to the necessity for religious reforms, which fits with

his stated reason for writing.

 

232

Conclusion

This chapter has looked at all six historians in an effort to discern just what social
and political firnctions they thought their histories might serve. There are some striking
similarities in that each of these men felt the need to write a history of Scotland, either by
itself, or in the case of Wyntoun, in the larger context of world history, because they felt
that both Scotland itself, as well as the world at large, were ignorant on the subject of
Scottish history. Scotland's story had only been told by outsiders with little knowledge or
sympathy for Scotland. Therefore, each of these men sought to redress the balance and
provide solid documentary evidence concerning Scotland's past.

In addition, these six historians also hoped that their histories would prove to be of
educational value. Each hoped that the examples from the past, both good and bad,
would serve as models for their present societies. Sometimes these educational hopes
were more general, as in the case of Fordun, Wyntoun, and Mair. Sometimes these hopes
were directed very specifically at the Scottish monarch, such as the cases of Boece and
Buchanan. In fact, Buchanan was actually James VI's tutor and certainly expected his
history to be of educational value. His court position may have been a factor in making
his work so popular.

Finally, all of these historians firmly believed that their history would further the
political cause of Scotland, however they defined that cause. Again, sometimes these aims
were more obvious, as in the cases of Mair and Leslie, where definite political actions
were hoped for. Mair firmly expected Scotland to see the benefits of the union of the

crowns. Leslie never gave up hope for the restoration of both Mary and Catholicism.

 

233

However, the other four historians also had political reasons for writing, most obviously
the cause of Scottish independence as well as the desire to see Scotland united and not

fractured by the self-seeking nobles and their power struggles.

 

CONCLUSION

In this dissertation I have examined the works of six Scottish historians written
over a period of over two hundred years from approximately 1385 until 1596. These
historians wrote during a critical period in Scottish history, a period which was marked by
political unrest, struggles for power, and a growth of nationalism.

Chapter I of this dissertation examines the ways each of these six historians viewed
the task and role of the historian. The backgrounds of the six varied. Wyntoun never
traveled or had access to sources outside his own area. Fordun was able to travel around
Britain and Ireland, and hence found more sources and more perspectives. Mair, Boece,
Buchanan, and Leslie all studied abroad as well as at home. For Mair and Boece, the
European experience was restricted to France, but Buchanan added Spain to his travels as
well as the ordeal of his imprisonment by the Inquisition. Leslie traveled even more
widely and served as Queen Mary's ambassador to Queen Elizabeth. He was a
confidential agent for Mary, and visited the courts of France, Spain, and Germany. He
also spent considerable time in Rome as the nuncio to Emperor Maximilian.

In spite of the differences in background among these historians, they each felt
compelled to write a true and accurate history of Scotland. They found that such an
account was either missing or in need of revision. Fordun was the first to write, and he
was reacting directly to the actions of Edward I, especially the removal of historical

234

.5:

 

235

documents from Scotland. He therefore began by searching the British Isles for historical
information, and he obviously undertook his task as historian with the utmost seriousness.
He worked diligently at finding sources and presenting all the available information. He
does not possess the critical skills to evaluate the validity of these sources, but he does
make every effort to present information to his readers for their consideration. He is
honest with his readers, admitting when he is unable to reconcile his authorities, allowing
his readers to decide which to believe and which to discard.

Not surprisingly, Fordun’s near contemporary Wyntoun approaches the task of the
historian in much the same way as Fordun. He was unable to travel as Fordun had done,
but fortunately St. Andrews had a number of available sources for his use. Wyntoun is
unique among all these historians in that he wanted to write a world history and place
Scotland firmly in the time line of world chronology. It is ironic that the least traveled of
these historians is the one who chooses to write the world history. However, his task is
still the same in that he wants to put forth an accurate account of Scotland's history so that
his readers could see where Scotland fit in overall world chronology. Wyntoun uses the
same approach to disparate sources as Fordun, namely putting forth all the information he
can for his readers. When he runs into discrepancies which cannot be resolved, he states
this honestly for his readers and leaves the final determination up to them. Both Fordun
and Wyntoun use an approach to history which requires their readers to evaluate sources.

Mair's history is the only one which purports to be impartial and unbiased. Mair
finds that his task as an historian involves presenting the history of all of Britain as

impartially and honestly as possible. He is able to use critical thinking skills to evaluate his

 

"lad...

236

sources. Mair finds it important to place Scotland's history on the same footing as English
history. He does not wish to denounce England or unjustly praise Scotland, but he
realizes that there have been many more accounts written about English history than
Scottish. Those historians who have mentioned Scotland have not, for the most part,
given full or accurate accounts. Since Mair ultimately is hoping for a union of the two
crowns, he sees one of his tasks as putting Scotland's history before his readers so that
they will realize that it is every bit as ancient and vital as England's.

Boece, Mair's contemporary, was determined to write a history of Scotland which
would be read by Europeans so that they could realize the importance of Scotland's
history. Europe's view of Scotland, according to Boece, needed clarification. Boece is
not interested in giving citations for all of his sources, nor in demonstrating his ability to
evaluate those sources critically. Boece finds that his task as an historian is to write a
clear, concise, readable, and in the end highly nationalistic history of Scotland which will
capture the hearts and imaginations, as well as the minds, of his readers.

Buchanan and Leslie follow the pattern set by Boece. However, both Buchanan
and Leslie were much more active politically than any of our previous historians.
Buchanan spent many years as a tutor to several members of the Scottish royal family, and
in fact wrote his history to instruct James VI. Leslie served as an ambassador for Mary
Queen of Scots. Both historians found that the task of the historian was to set forth the
past history of Scotland clearly and honestly, so that this past history would provide
suitable examples to instruct present day readers.

After discussing the tasks and roles of the historian, chapter 11 of this dissertation

237

examines the ways in which each of these historians selects and views the Arthurian
materials which he presents. This particular t0pic was chosen because English historians,
especially since Geoffrey of Monmouth, had made so much of the Arthurian story, which
had grown in details and importance. The same trend may be noticed among the Scottish
historians, in that the amount of materials presented tended to grow with the later
historians. More than this, though, the study of the Arthurian period provides a
comparative case study of each historian's interests and focus.

Fordun stresses the nature of kingship, especially the lawful assumption of the
crown. He is interested in how monarchs are selected, especially when the circumstances
are unclear. He is also concerned with treachery and its effects upon history. His
emphasis on Arthur is that Arthur was not lawfully king.

Wyntoun chooses a very different focus for his retelling of the Arthurian period.
Wyntoun seems more concerned with national sovereignty, not just how kings are
selected. He discusses Arthur's refusal to submit to Rome's claims of sovereignty,
demonstrating the rightness of Arthur's actions and the ultimate destruction caused by
Rome's unjust claims.

Mair greatly increases the amount of space devoted to Arthur, but he attempts a
more analytical approach to the accounts of Arthur. Mair also attempts to show more
perspectives to the events, demonstrating that while Arthur had no right to the crown, he
did rule well, and that Mordred, although wrongly denied the kingship, was far from
blameless.

Boece builds still more information into his account of Arthur, and his emphasis is

238

strongly nationalistic and biased. He seeks to emphasize the fact that Scotland was fully
independent, possessing great strength. Boece also stresses that Scotland had tried to
assist the Britons against the Saxons, but that their assistance was met with treachery and
treason. The treaty between Arthur and Lot is discussed in great detail, and the treachery
involved in Arthur's breaking this treaty is of paramount importance for Boece.

Buchanan follows the basic outline given by Boece, but with less openly displayed
nationalism. He is concerned instead with discussing the nature of kingship and portraying
examples of both good and bad monarchs. Since Buchanan is interested in finding models
from the past to serve as examples for his readers to follow, he is able to use Arthur as
one such model to help his readers see the importance of freedom, love of country, and
proper worship. While Buchanan devotes more space to Arthur than might seem
necessary in a history of Scotland, he spends less time on Arthur than either Boece or
Mair, possibly because the story itself was lessening its hold on readers' imaginations.

Finally, Leslie has the briefest mention of Arthur. He discredits Arthur's European
victories, but he recounts information concerning the Round Table and Arthur's knights.
Leslie gives Arthur credit as a notable leader, with a courageous spirit and honorable
actions, but overall Leslie has little interest in telling his readers about Arthur, again
reflecting the decline in Arthur's popularity among historians in both Scotland and
England.

Using the information discovered about each of these six historians' approaches to
Arthur as a starting point, chapter 111 examines how each of these men felt history should

serve society as a whole. The emphasis of this chapter is on determining the social and

 

239

political functions of history as understood by each of the historians under study. The
historians’ views on Arthur is compared to the opinions expressed about both William the
Conqueror and Edward I to see if any conclusions can be drawn concerning the ideas
these historians had about the uses of history.

F ordun feels the primary use for his history is to provide his readers with a full and
accurate accounting of the history of Scotland, including details which had hitherto gone
unnoticed or misrepresented. He is determined to correct the English accounts of
Scotland's history in a number of particulars. F ordun also feels a strong responsibility to
instruct his readers, especially in matters relating to the nature of the monarchy. He hopes
that modern leaders can learn from past mistakes and hence improve conditions in
Scofland.

Wyntoun also finds that the primary use of his history is to provide a world
chronology which accurately reflects Scotland's history and importance in the overall
picture. In addition, Wyntoun is determined to explain Scotland's current political
difficulties by providing a detailed genealogical history designed to demonstrate the
influence of family loyalties and their effects on Scottish politics. Wyntoun hopes that his
readers will be able to see the importance of unified actions rather than divided loyalties.
He wants them to realize how the errors of the past led to present difficulties so that they
might work together to enable Scotland to achieve national independence and prosperity
again.

An accurate portrayal of Scotland's past is foremost in Mair’s need to write his

history. Too often the English accounts have overshadowed or neglected the Scottish

 

240

achievements. Mair wants to tell both sides so that his readers will realize Scotland's long
and honorable history. He has the firrther aim of writing his history to support the cause
of the union of the crowns. He hopes that one use of his history will be to enable his
readers to see the importance of a united Britain rather than separate nations. This union
is important to Mair because it is the only way he sees for achieving his primary goal,
namely peace. He hopes that his history will serve as a vehicle to guide the leaders of both
countries to a solution for the chronic political unrest which has existed for so long.

Boece finds that the most important use for his history is to educate his readers.
He provides moral examples and sermons to emphasize the value of proper conduct. His
work is dedicated to James V with the hopes that he will become the kind of king his
people can admire and look up to. Boece is determined to use his history to give James V
proper examples so he in turn may become a noble example for his people.

Buchanan has similar ideas about the uses of his history, which he dedicated to
James V1 with the hope that it would teach him the lessons to be learned fi'om history
about the importance of strong leadership. Buchanan feels that his history will provide the
necessary moral and political lessons so that Scotland's political and economic situation
may be turned around. He demonstrates the dangers of current court politics with the
hope that the dreams of those such as Wallace may finally be realized.

Finally, Leslie too writes a didactic history. He is primarily concerned with the
nature of religion in Scotland and is pushing for a return to Catholicism and an end to the
corruption within the church. Like Buchanan, Leslie feels that the past had a stronger

sense of morality, and if he can help his readers see where the errors were made, that the

241

situation in Scotland could be corrected. He emphasizes the importance of strong
leadership and the dangers of treachery.

It is evident then from this examination of the six major Scottish historians writing
from 1385 until 1596, that in spite of their differences, they were alike in thinking that
history could change the world. Each of them wrote with a strong sense of mission, the
sense that what they were writing was necessary and could make a difference. Each of
them felt that it was important to be honest and complete in his coverage of Scottish
history.

The sense of mission or importance is felt strongly in all six of these histories.
Fordun begins by saying that he is attempting to combat the biased nature of the
information currently available about Scotland, since it had been written primarily by
English historians. He is very concerned with preserving the historical records of the past
and is appalled by Edward 1's actions in gathering up and at times destroying valuable
information. Fordun feels so strongly about the importance of his work that he undertakes
his own personal mission to travel all over Britain in search of historical records. He then
writes his history with the certainty that once his readers understand what has gone on
before they will be able to improve present day conditions.

Each of the five succeeding historians likewise has a strong conviction about the
importance of his work and the positive effect it will have upon not only individual readers
but the nation at large. Wyntoun will ensure that Scotland takes its rightful place within
world history. What Scotland has done will become known to the world at large.

Similarly, his Scottish audience will learn just how the events in Scotland relate to and

 

242

indeed affect the events of the world.

Mair is determined that once his readers have fully understood his history they will
understand the importance of a unified government for the island. This union must be
accomplished between equals. Mair is certain that he can teach his readers that both
Scotland and England have long honorable histories and that they are equally strong and
independent. However, for the sake of peace, the two nations must come together under
one crown. This is to be a union, though, and not a submission of one nation to the other.
Mair must make Scotland's strengths as well as its long history of independence very clear
to his readers so that this union may be accomplished.

Boece is equally determined to change his world with his history. He is very
concerned with the way in which various noble leaders have taken advantage of the
numerous periods of regency or interregnum to further their own power. He is concerned
with the deterioration of moral values in his own time. He is convinced that he can stir up
feelings of nationalism and pride in his readers so that they will be able to work together to
build Scotland into the nation Boece envisions. He wants James V and indeed all the
nobles to profit from the reading of his history so that they can achieve a better present
and a glorious firture.

After spending much of his life as a teacher to royalty, Buchanan now writes his
history at the end of his life, determined to leave behind a legacy which will shape the
future. He has written his history specifically for James VI to provide the necessary
lessons which Buchanan is getting too old to teach personally. Buchanan also sees the

dangers plaguing Scotland from the vast number of regencies and the power politics of the

 

243

individual nobles in furthering their own ends. He feels compelled to write a history which
will teach his nation and his sovereign how to live. He will provide examples from the
past and show his readers where the dangers exist so that the firture will be better.

Leslie also is driven to write his history in order to change Scotland. He wants to
reform the religious life of the nation as well as the political, and in fact to renounce the
Scottish reformation and return the nation to Catholicism. He provides sermons and
examples of exactly how the situation has deteriorated and what his readers need to do to
turn the situation around. Leslie deals with the issue of factionalism as well, which he
personally witnessed first hand on numerous occasions as the Scottish nobles dealt with
Mary Queen of Scots. He exposes the errors of the past and provides examples of those
who have ruled wisely with the hope that these examples will change the course of events
in Scotland for the better.

Therefore, each of these men was driven to write a history which he felt would
make a difference. These histories were not written just to preserve information fi'om the
past, but rather to make a significant difference for the present and the future. This fact is
proven by the way in which each of these historians has dealt with the periods of Arthur,
William the Conqueror, and Edward I. Were these historians successful in their goals?
Certainly Leslie did not succeed in undoing the Reformation. The union of the crowns
did occur, but not the way Mair envisaged. The striving for personal gain in political
power at the expense of larger goals does not seem to have changed in the centuries since
these histories were written. These historians probably are not alone in saying that history

should change the present, but these six all seemed to feel the power of history very

 

244

strongly. They may not be alone, but it is noteworthy that Scotland’s six major historians
fi'om this period all had the same vision about the power of history. They were not
primarily interested complete and accurate representations of the past. In spite of their
differences concerning specific goals, they were united by their determination to change
Scotland’s firture by explaining its past. Overall, it would be difficult to say that these
historians succeeded in changing the present or the future on a grand scale, but there is no
way of telling how many individual lives they may have influenced. Certainly the examples
they have provided and the lessons they tried to teach have an enduring relevancy. The

passion and vision which they convey through their histories does live on.

 

 

WORKS CITED

 

WORKS CITED

Alexander, Flora. “Late Medieval Scottish Attitudes to the Figure of King Arthur: A
Reassessment.” Anglia 93 (1975): 2-34.

Amours, F. J. Introduction. The Original Chronicle of Andrew Wyntoun. Ed. F. J.
Amours. 6 vols. Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1903-14. xvii-cv.

Amsler, Mark E. “Literary Theory and the Genres of Middle English Literature.” Genre
13 (1980): 389-96.

Anderson, Alan Orr, trans. Early Sources of Scottish History A.D. 500 to 1286.
Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1922.

—. Scottish Annals from English Chroniclers A.D. 500 to 1286. London: David Nutt,
1908.

Anderson, Marjorie 0. Kings and Kingship in Early Scotland. Totowa, NJ: Rowman
and Littlefield, 1973.

—. “The Lists of the Kings.” The Scottish Historical Review 28 (1949): 108-18.

Andrew of Wyntoun. The Original Chronicle of A rrdrew of Wyntoun. Ed. F. J. Amours.
6 vols. Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1903-14.

Barrow, G. W. S. The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History. Oxford: Clarendon P,

1980.

245

 

fill

246
—. Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

UP, 1988.

Black, J. B. "Boece's Scotorum Historiae. " Quatercentenary of the Death of Hector
Boece First Principal of the University. Aberdeen: University P. 193 8. 30-53.

Blacker, Jean. The Faces of Time: Portrayal of the Past in Old French and Latin
Historical Narrative of the Anglo-Norman Regnum. Austin: U Texas P. 1994.

Boece, Hector. The Buik of the Cronicles of Scotland or a Metrical Version of the
History of Hector Boece. Trans. William Stewart. Ed. W. Tumbull. 3 vols.
London: Longman, 1858.

—. The Chronicle of Scotland Compiled by Hector Boece. Trans. John Bellenden. Ed. R.
W. Chambers, E.C. Batho, and H. W. Husbands. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Blackwood,
193 8, l 94 1 .

—. Scotorum Historiae. Paris: Ascensius, 1527.

Breisach, Ernst. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. 2nd ed. Chicago: U
Chicago P, 1994.

Brown, P. Hume. Introduction. Vernacular Writings of George Buchanan. Ed. P. Hume
Brown. Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1892. ix-xxxviii.

Buchanan, George. Rerum Scoticarum Historia. Edinburgh: Arbuthnet, 1582.

---. The History of Scotland. Trans. John Watkins. London: Fisher, Jackson, 1827.

Chronicles of the Picts, Chronicles of the Scots, and Other Early Memorials of Scottish

History. Ed. William F. Skene. Edinburgh: T. Constable, 1867.

 

i

247
Cody, E. G. Introduction. The Historie of Scotland by Jhone Leslie. Ed. E. G. Dody. 2

vols. Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1888, 1895. Rpt. New York: Johnson Rpt., 1968.
xi-xxvi.

Constable, Archibald. Editor's Preface. A History of Greater Britain as Well England as
Scotland by John Major. Ed. Archibald Constable. Edinburgh: U Edinburgh P,
1892. xvii-xxvii.

Cowan, Ian B. “Church and Society.” Scottish Society in the Fifteenth Century. Ed.
Jennifer M. Brown. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1977. 112-35.

Craigie, W. A. “Wyntoun’s ‘Original Chronicle.’” The Scottish Review 30 (1897): 33-54.

Donaldson, Gordon. Scottish Historical Documents. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic P,

 

1 970.

—. Scottish Kings. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1992.

Douglas, David C. William the Conqueror: The Norman Impact Upon England.
Berkeley: U California P, 1964.

Eley, Penny. “The Myth of Trojan Descent and Perceptions of National Identity: The
Case of Eneas and the Roman de Troie.” Nottingham Medieval Studies 35 (1991):
27-40.

Fletcher, Robert Huntington. The Arthurian Material in the Chronicles Especially Those
of Great Britain and France. 1905. Rpt. New York: Haskell House, 1965.

F ordun, John. See Johannis de Fordun.

Fraser, Sir William. Memorials of the Family of Wemyss of Wemyss. 3 vols.. Edinburgh,

1888.

248

Goldstein, R. James. “‘For he wald vsurpe na fame’: Andrew of Wyntoun’s Use of the
Modesty T opos and Literary Culture in Early Fifteenth-Century Scotland.”
Scottish Literary Journal 14 (1987): 5-18.

—. The Matter of Scotland: Historical Narrative in Medieval Scotland. Lincoln: U
Nebraska P, 1993.

Goller, Karl Heinz. “Konig Arthur in den Schottischen Chroniken.” Anglia 80 (1962):
390-404; Trans. Edward Donald Kennedy. King Arthur: A Casebook. Ed.
Edward Donald Kennedy. New York: Garland, 1996. 173-84.

Johannis de Fordun. Chronica Gen/is Scotorum. Ed. W. F. Skene. Edinburgh:
Edmonston and Douglas, 1871.

---. John of Fordun's Chronicle of the Scottish Nation. Trans. F. J. H. Skene. Ed. W. F.
Skene. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1872. Facsimile rpt. Llanerch
Publishers, 1993.

Lacy, Norris J ., ed. The New Arthurian Encyclopedia. New York: Garland, 1991.

Leslie, John. Historic of Scotland. Trans. James Dalrymple. Ed. E. G. Cody and William
Murison. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1888, 1895. Rpt. New York: Johnson
Rpt., 1968.

Levy, F. J. Tudor Historical Thought. San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1967.

Loomis, Roger Sherman. “Edward I, Arthurian Enthusiast” Speculum 28 (1953): 114-27;
Studies in Medieval Literature: A Memorial Collection of Essays. New York:

Burt Franklin, 1970. 275-88.

 

249

—. “Scotland and the Arthurian Legend.” Proceedings of the Scottish Antiquarian
Society 89 (1955-6): 1-21.

Lyall, Roderick J. "The Literature of Lowland Scotland, 1350-1700." Scotland: A

Concise Cultural History. Ed. Paul H. Scott. Edinburgh: Mainstream,1993. 77-98.

MacCracken, Henry Noble. “Concerning Huchown.” PMLA 25 (1910): 507-34.

MacDougall, Hugh A. Racial Myth in English History: Trojans, T eutons, and Anglo—
Saxons. Hanover: UP of New England, 1982.

MacKay, [Eneas J. G. “Life of the Author.” A History of Greater Britain as well
England as Scotland. Trans. Archibald Constable. Edinburgh: University P,
1892. xxix-cxv.

MacKenzie, Agnes Mure. An Historical Survey of Scottish Literature to 1 714. London:
Maclehose, 1933; Norwood, 1977.

MacLean, Fitzroy. Scotland: A Concise History. London: Thames and Hudson, 1993.

MacQueen, John and Winifred. “Latin Prose Literature.” The History of Scottish
Literature: Origins to 1660. Ed. R. D. S. Jack. Aberdeen: Aberdeen UP, 1987.
227-43.

Mair, John. See Major, John.

Major, John. Historia Majoris Britanniae tam Angliae quam Scotiae. Paris: Ascensius,
1521.

---. A History of Greater Britain as well England as Scotland. Trans. A. Constable.

Edinburgh: U Edinburgh P, 1892.

 

250

Mason, Roger. “Rex Stoicus: George Buchanan, James VI and Scottish Polity.” New
Perspectives on the Politics and Culture of Early Modern Scotland. Ed. John
Dwyer, Roger A. Mason, and Alexander Murdoch. Edinburgh: John Donald,
1982. 9-33.

—. “Kingship, Tyranny and the Right to Resist in Fifteenth Century Scotland.” Scottish
Historical Review 66 (1987): 125-51.

Matheson, Lister M. “A Great Divide: Historical Principles in Early and Middle Scots
Literature.” Celtic Connections. Ed. David Lampe. Acta 16 (Binghamton: The
Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1993 [for 1989]): 73-98.

—. “King Arthur and the Medieval English Chronicles.” King Arthur Through the Ages.
Ed. Valerie M. Lagorio and Mildred Leake Day. 2 vols. New York: Garland,
1990. I: 248-74.

—. “Printer and Scribe: Caxton, the Polychronicon, and the Brut.” Speculum 60 (1985):
593-614.

Matthews, William. “The Egyptians in Scotland: The Political History of a Myth.” Viator
1 (1970): 289-306.

McDiarmid, Matthew P. “The Kingship of the Scots in their Writers.” Scottish Literary
Journal 6 (1979): 5-47.

— and James A. C. Stevenson, ed. “Barbour’s Othir Werk.” Barbor ’s Bruce: A Fredome
is aNoble Thing! 2 vols. Edinburgh: Scottish Text Society:1985. I: 17-37.

McKim, Anne M. “‘Gret Price Off Chewalry’: Barbour’s Debt to Fordun.” Studies in

Scottish Literature 24 (l989):7-29

251
McFarlane, I. D. Buchanan. London: Duckworth, 1981.

—. “George Buchanan and European Humanism.” The Yearbook of English Studies:
Anglo-French Literary Relations Special Number 15 (1985): 33-47.

Morse, Ruth. Truth and Convention in the Middle Ages: Rhetoric, Representation, and
Reality. New York: Cambridge UP, 1991.

Paton, Henry M. The Scottish Records: Their History and Value. Edinburgh: Historical
Association of Scotland, 1933.

Pochoda, Elizabeth T. Arthurian Propaganda: "Le Morte Darthur" as an Historical
[deal of Life. Chapel Hill, NC: U North Carolina P, 1971.

Prestwich, Michael. The Three Edwards: War and State in England, 1272-1377.
London: Routledge, 1980.

“A Proposal for Uniting Scotland with England Addressed to Henry VIII by John Elder,
Clerke, A Reddshanke.” The Bannatyne Miscellany. Vol. 1. Edinburgh:
Bannatyne, 1827. 3-18.

Purpus, Eugene Robert. “The Dialogue in English Literature, l660-l725.” Diss.
University of California at Los Angeles, 1943.

Ray, Roger D. “Medieval Historiography through the Twelfth Century: Problems and
Progress of Research.” Viator 5 (1974): 33-59.

Roberts, John L. Lost Kingdoms: Celtic Scotland and the Middle Ages. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh UP, 1997.

Simpson, W. Douglas. "Hector Boece." Quatercentenary of the Death of Hector Boece

First Principal of the University. Aberdeen: University P, 1938. 7-29.

252

Skene, William F. Preface. Johannis de Fordun. Chronica Gentis Scotorum. Ed. W. F.
Skene. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1871. ix-vlviii.

Stones, E. L. G., ed. and trans. Anglo-Scottish Relations 1174-1328: Some Selected
Documents. London: Nelson, 1965.

— and Grant G. Simpson. Edward I and the Throne of Scotland, [290-1296. 2 vols.
Oxford: Oxford UP, 1978.

Strohm, Paul. Hochon's Arrow: The Social Imagination of Fourteenth-Century Texts.
Princeton: Princeton UP, 1992.

---. "The Origin and Meaning of Middle English Romaunce." Genre 10 (1977): 1-28.

—. “Some Generic Distinctions in the Canterbury Tales.” Modern Philology 68 (1971):
321-28.

---. "Storie, Spelle, Geste, Romaunce, Tragedie: Generic Distinctions in the Middle
English Troy Narratives." Speculum 46 (1971): 348-59.

Tumbull, W. Preface. The Buik of the Cronicles of Scotland or a Metrical Version of the
History of Hector Boece. Trans. William Stewart. Ed. W. Tumbull. 3 vols.
London: Longman, 1858.

Utz, Hans. “Traces of Nationalism in Fordun’s ‘Chronicle’.” Scottish Studies (Frankfort-
am-Main) 4 (1984): 139-49.

Webster, Bruce. Scotland from the Eleventh Century to 1603. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1975.

Wilkinson, James. "A Choice of Fictions: Historians, Memory, and Evidence." Pit/[IA

111 (1996): 80-92.

 

253
Wilson, Grace G. “Andrew of Wyntoun: More Than Just ‘That Dreich Clerk’.” Scotia 10

(1986): 1-14.

Wyntoun, Andrew. See Andrew of Wyntoun.