SOURCE: "James Douglas and Barbour's Ideal of Knighthood," Forum for Modern Language Studies, Vol. XVII, No. 2, April, 1981, pp. 167-80.

[In the following essay, McKim concentrates on Barbour's portrayal of James Douglas as an ideal knight.]

The little critical attention which John Barbour's Bruce has received, has tended to concentrate on the figure of Robert Bruce, and on Barbour's treatment of him as the type of the ideal king, national hero and military leader.¹ The poem's other hero, James Douglas, has attracted little more than passing comment.² Yet Barbour himself pointed out that the poem has two heroes: "king Robert of Scotland, /… And gud Schyr Iames off douglas, /… Off thaim I thynk this buk to ma" (I, 27-33).³ In the course of the narrative the poet dwells on the exploits of other Scottish knights who ought to be "prisyt" or "lovyt", most notably Edward Bruce and Thomas Randolph, but it is Douglas who is singled out as the joint hero of his romance. This is because, in Barbour's view, he possesses qualities which these others do not, or to a degree which surpasses theirs. Specifically he possesses all the virtues which the poet regards as essential to an ideal knight and subject.

His conception and presentation of Douglas as an ideal knight is largely conveyed by the attention he gives to the education and qualities of the good knight, his statements revealing his ideal of knightly conduct, and the explicit and implicit criticism of vices opposed to this ideal.

In order to emphasise that his hero was trained for knighthood, Barbour traces his career from childhood and draws attention to the various stages of his education. He is first mentioned as "a litill page / Bot syne he wes off gret waslage" (I, 289-90) at the time of his father's death. The son of a nobleman received the title of page at the age of seven years, when he began his training in the pre-requisites of knighthood.⁴ Barbour suggests this state of preparation when he says that Douglas was later "off gret waslage", that is, not only prowess, but deeds performed in the context of vassalage. His education is interrupted and his prospects of becoming the future Lord of Douglasdale are dashed, for the imprisonment of his father, the seizure of his inherited lands, and the lack of friends to redress this situation, force him to leave Scotland.

However, Barbour presents this sudden change in the young Douglas's circumstances and the consequent interruption of his formal training as an enriching rather than a harmful experience. Douglas goes to Paris to "dre myscheiff quhar nane hym kend" (I, 327) and spends his time in low company in the pursuit of apparently profitless mirth. But Barbour regards this period of dissipation as an important part of the young man's education, for he argues that "knawlage off mony statis / May quhile awailye full mony gatis" (1, 337-338). He cites the example of Robert, Earl of Artois, as one who frequently benefited from feigning "rybbaldy" (339-340). He is no doubt referring to the third Robert of Artois (1287-1343)⁵ who was famous for "ses intrigues".⁶ He was educated at Paris, and had a long-running battle with his aunt Machaut over his inheritance. He subsequently displeased the French king Philippe VI, and was forced to quit France and his inheritance. He came to England in the disguise of a merchant⁷ and soon became one of Edward III's most valued counsellors, helping him to fight the French king for the throne of France. There are enough points of similarity in the careers of these two men—especially since Douglas will be lauded by Barbour as a master in the use of guile and disguise—for the allusion to be apt. That Douglas's experiences in Paris are regarded by Barbour as a useful, if unconventional, part of his education is communicated by the fact that one of Cato's apothegms suggested itself to the poet at this point (I, 343-344). The reference is to his Disticha which was used as a first Latin reader in medieval grammar schools.

When Douglas receives news of his father's death, he returns home, cherishing hopes of regaining his heritage. He joins the household of the Bishop of St Andrews. J. Saunders has pointed out that if a family was poor, a knight's son generally entered the house of some other nobleman or gentleman to receive the requisite training.⁸ Douglas's circumstances are of course greatly reduced, and since his father is now dead, he enters Bishop Lamberton's household to continue his education.⁹

It can be assumed that he is now fourteen years or older, since that was the age at which a page was raised to the dignity of a squire, and we learn that Douglas is fulfilling the duties¹⁰ of a carving squire to the Bishop: Lamberton "gert him wer / His knyvys, forouch him to scher" (I, 355-356), and when news comes of the murder of Comyn, Douglas "that ay-quhar / All-wayis befor the byschop schar" (II, 91-92), is carrying out his function as squire at the table. Furthermore, he is actually referred to as "This squyer lames of dowglas" in Book I, at line 414.

It was customary for a nobleman's son to remain a squire until he was twenty-one years of age, at which point he was eligible for knighthood. During this period he would have been trained for his future role of knight. He would have learned to read and perhaps to write, how to conduct himself socially, to sing and play music if he had talent, to handle horses and arms, and he may perhaps have picked up a knowledge of law, administration and management while in attendance on his lord.¹¹

When exactly Douglas was made a knight is unclear. Although Barbour mentions that he is among those knighted at Bannockburn (XII, 413), there is some evidence in the text to support I. M. Davies's theory that in the case of Douglas the ceremony was perhaps that of elevation to the rankof banneret, a higher rank than that of knight, which could only be conferred on the battlefield. He argues that Douglas may well have been a knight bachelor by 1308, since in the Argyll campaign of that year Bruce had placed under Douglas's command several knights who were not his feudal subordinates.¹² Notwithstanding the fact that Barbour's chronology is sometimes questionable, he refers to an episode in Douglas's career in the years following Bannockburn which can be dated to 1317. This is when Bruce goes to his brother's aid in Ireland, and Douglas is appointed one of the Wardens of Scotland in his absence. Sir Robert Neville issues a challenge: "giff I euir his Baneir / May se displayit apon wer" (XV, 419-420), indicating that he is prepared to engage Douglas in battle. In response Douglas "maid / Men to display his baner braid" (XV, 435-436). Since he clearly has his own banner,¹³ and the year is 1317, we can assume that he is a knightbanneret at this time.

By tracing his career from page to knight-banneret, Barbour could promote the idea that his hero was qualified for his station in life. As a knight he would be required to serve as a vassal to his king with the various duties that entailed, and to govern as a lord his own vassals with the various responsibilities such a rank necessarily incurred. There can be little doubt that Barbour was interested in knighthood in its particular aspect as part of the whole system of feudal relationships. One cannot fail to note the pervasive use of terms associated with feudalism throughout the poem—"bacheler", "barnage", "chewalry", "cheyff', "deuour", "enbandownyt (till hys lord)", "fay", "fewte", "feys", "homage", "knychtis", "laute", "lowtyt", "manrent", "relief', "retennew", "senyory", "taill", "vassalage", and "yemanry"—all of which characterise the various persons, duties, bonds and responsibilities involved in the feudal system. It may well be that the frequency of these terms reflects the strengthening of military feudalism under Robert Bruce. Certainly, Barbour succeeds in conveying the very real obligations attached to status. As Barrow points out, "for King Robert knight service was not purely ornamental or honorific but real and desirable"¹⁴ and was the means by which he could attract and maintain the support he needed to oust the English from Scotland.

More particularly, Douglas as a knight binds himself to Bruce in what emerges as the primary feudal relationship in the poem. The fact that it is a relationship based on a feudal contract is underlined in their first meeting. Douglas begins by recognising Bruce as his superior: he "lowtyt him Full curtasly" (II, 154), that is, he bowed in obeisance to him; he tells him that he has come "to mak homage / Till him as till his rychtwiss king" (158-9); and he announces that "he boune wes, in all thing, / To tak with him the gud and Ill" (160-1). Bruce then receives him as his vassal and confers arms and men on him (164). The relationship is based on Douglas's commitment and loyal service, and Bruce's remunerative recognition of services proffered.

The second most important relationship in the poem is also a feudal one, that between Douglas and his followers. On his first return to Douglasdale after Bruce's insurrection, he assumes, in name only at this stage, his position as his father's heir, that is, as a liege-lord, and the men of Douglasdale become his vassals. Thomas Dickson, a faithful servant, arranges:

That all the leill men of the land,
That with his fader wes duelland,
This gud man gert cum ane & ane,
And mak him manrent [euir] ilkane,
And he him-self first homage maid.
Douglas in hert gret blithnes had,
That the gud men of his cuntre
Wald swa-gat bundin till him be.
(V, 293-300)

The contract is the same as that made between Bruce and Douglas, but the latter is now seen in the role of a lord who will be expected to reward and protect his men in return for their loyal service.

By focusing on Douglas's early education, Barbour was able to convey something of his hero's personal suitability for his destined role. He achieves this by concentrating on his transition from youth to maturity. The young page, on learning of his father's imprisonment and realising the wretchedness of his friendless and impoverished situation, is at a loss as to what to do or say:

Than wes he wondir will off wane;
And sodanly in hart has tane,
That he wald trawaile our the se,
An A quhile in paryss be,
And dre myscheiff quhar nane hym kend,
Till god sum succouris till him send.
(I, 323-328)

In this confused state of mind, he impulsively sets off for a foreign country in an attempt to forget his troubles. He is not constructive, and is prepared to wait for divine intervention to remedy his plight. When he is informed of his father's death, he is once again forced to consider his unfortunate situation, and his reaction resembles that on the earlier occasion of William Douglas's imprisonment: "Then wes he wa and will of red" (I, 348). Once again his thoughts seem to run wild. However, Barbour suggests that Douglas's experiences in Paris have matured him, so that his decision to return to Scotland is of quite a different nature than the one which prompted him to leave. Whereas his earlier move was the result of an impetuous decision (he "sodanly in hart has tane"), that is, he had been guided by his emotions, now he "thocht that he wald hame agayne, / To luk gyff he, throw ony payn, / Mycht wyn agayn his heritage" (349-351, my italics), indicating that his decision follows sober calculation, and that he is governed by his head and not his heart. He has progressed to a state of maturity in which he realises that he has a goal and that he must try to find away of achieving it. Moreover, he begins to recognise and accept the obligations and responsibilities of his station in life.

But for Douglas knight service means fighting for his king as a soldier and officer, and the actual demonstration of his commitments as a lord and vassal. Hence Barbour's ideal of knightly conduct does not fit, and is not intended to fit, the courtly mould with its emphasis on personal ideals. The ideals of his knight are loyalty and responsibility towards others and reflect the importance not only of prowess but of relationships with their attached obligations. This explains his delineation of Douglas's education and the importance attached to his hero's realisation of the expectations of knighthood. The qualities required of such a knight and the standards of conduct which apply to him are different from the knight of the courtly romance who seeks personal glory through individualfeats of arms. In fact Barbour's ideal of knighthood is based on the rules governing the practice of real wars and the standards of conduct set forth in medieval handbooks on the art of war.¹⁵

He takes the first practical step when he resumes his conventional education under Bishop Lamberton, for, if he is to assume the position of Lord of Douglasdale, he must be suitably trained. The next stage is to present himself to Edward I, who has control over the fate of his father's lands. He goes with Bishop Lamberton to Edward's assembly at Stirling in order to pay homage to his liege-lord and to claim his inheritance, for he is now prepared to accept the responsibilities incumbent on him as vassal to Edward and Lord of Douglasdale. But Edward rebuffs him, and in terms which will be significant:

Ga purches land quhar euir he may;
For tharoff haffys he nane perfay.
(I, 433-434)

His first attempt to regain his heritage has failed, but a second way will soon present itself. When news that Bruce has killed Comyn and intends to claim the throne reaches the Bishop's household, Edward's words and Lamberton's favourable reaction to Bruce's letter deeply affect the young Douglas. Barbour suggests that he carefully weighs up the situation in his own mind before approaching the Bishop with the announcement that he intends to join Bruce (II, 93-95). He attaches himself to Bruce in the capacity for which he has been trained, vassal and knight-aspirant, thereby providing himself with the means to attain his rightful station in life: Lord of Douglasdale. It is in the role of simultaneous vassal and liege-lord that Douglas is presented throughout Barbour's narrative.

Barbour conceives of Douglas not only as a knight, but as an ideal knight who surpasses all his fellows. The main way in which he ensures that his readers will also see Douglas in this light is that, in addition to characterising him through his actions, he carefully shapes our view of these actions. He frequently comments on his hero's exploits, both before and after he relates them, in such a way as to underline the qualities therein displayed.

However, the most pervasive way in which he characterises Douglas is through the epithets he applies to him, and by considering these we can move closer to an estimation of the poet's own apparatus criticus. Following the medieval convention, Barbour provides a catalogue of his hero's virtues at a preliminary stage in his narrative. Although this rhetorical device rarely attempts to characterise an individual, since the qualities enumerated tend to be stereotyped, it seems to me that in Barbour's hands it becomes an instrument by which the poet controls our perception of Douglas's character and his subsequent actions. Indeed, what appears at first glance to be the attribution of conventional epithets suitable for the depiction of any courtly hero, reveals a pre-occupation and careful selection of terms which suggest a man in a state of preparation for the fulfilment of his feudal role.

Particular stress is placed on the military virtues, prowess, loyalty and generosity, on what have been called the three "primary" virtues of chivalry, that is, virtues derived from the original military character of the chivalric code.¹⁶ The portrait of Douglas is in fact drawn away from that of thecourtly hero who was conventionally "wyss, curtaiss, and deboner", towards that of the epic, feudal hero, and the emphasis on the military attributes colours our interpretation of these other epithets.

Barbour says of Douglas:

All men lufyt him for his bounte;
For he wes off full fayr effer,
Wyss, curtaiss, and deboner;
Larg and luffand als wes he,
And our all thing luffyt lawte.
(1, 360-364)

By describing his disposition and conduct, Barbour provides a comment on the success of Douglas's education as a knight, especially as this catalogue of his hero's attributes appears straight after the information that Douglas has become a squire in Lamberton's household. Given Barbour's conception of Douglas as a feudal knight, the qualification of his conduct ("he wes off full fayr effer") by the epithets "wyss, curtaiss, and deboner", indicates that he possesses qualities which will be useful to him in his future role. "Wyss" seems to imply that he has developed his critical faculties, an important factor, since as Walter Ullman has pointed out, the feudal arrangement presupposed and demanded the responsible exercise of individual judgement.¹⁷ He is also "curtaiss" and "deboner", two words deriving from Old French, which might superficially suggest conventional social attributes. However, H. Dupin, in his study of courtoisie in the Middle Ages,¹⁸ based on medieval French literature, has observed that when this word or its derivatives is found in conjunction with bonté, as it is here, it has particular feudal associations; it is "l'éloge que l'on fait de la personne qu'on honore et complimente".¹⁹ Furthermore, "deboner", from the Old French débonnaire, reinforces the presentation of an epic feudal warrior, for débonnaireté was a moral virtue in the original chivalric code by which one could conquer the world "sans félonie".²⁰ It was a virtue of the heart which could be acquired, in contrast to qualities of the body.

"Larg and luffand als wes he". Largesse, or liberality, was one of the chief virtues of the ideal feudal lord, and was the means by which he rewarded his followers' loyal service. Alexander the Great became renowned in the Middle Ages as "le type idéal du seigneur fdodal" on account of his reputed liberality.²¹ "Larg" is therefore a comment on Douglas's educational progress for, since he is being trained to undertake the responsibilities of a feudal lord, he must acquire the virtue of largesse.

But as we have noted, Douglas as a knight will be expected to fulfil two functions when he assumes his place in the feudal hierarchy: that of lord, but also that of vassal. Consequently Barbour adds: "And our all thing luffyt lawte". Loyalty was essential in a feudal warrior. One particularly notes the association of loyalty with love: all love Douglas; he is "luffand"; he loves loyalty. The emphasis is on "luff and its conjunction with loyalty in the person of Douglas. This association stresses that loyalty is the basis of a very personal relationship, and significantly feudalism operated by forging strong personal ties between lord and vassal.

Not only does Barbour include "lawte" in the catalogue of Douglas's virtues, he digresses at this point to consider the nature of this attribute (I, 365-374). This has the effect of stressing the virtueof loyalty above all the others ascribed to Douglas. Yet his other qualities are not diminished; on the contrary, some of the foregoing epithets are sharpened. For example, "curtaiss" takes on an extra layer of meaning when it is characteristic of a loyal man. Dupin has noted that when courtois occurs in conjunction with fidèle or loyal in medieval French authors "ce même mot de courtois s'oppose a ceux de traître et de félon".²² That Barbour is following a similar practice becomes clear, for he goes on:

He wes in all his dedis lele;
For him dedeynyeit nocht to dele
With trechery, na with falset.
(I, 375-377)

In possessing courtoisie and loyauté Douglas opposes himself to treachery and "felonie".

It is however interesting that although throughout The Bruce Douglas is consistently portrayed as loyal to the lord he serves and to his fellow knights, there are actually few occasions on which Barbour focuses on concrete examples of his loyalty. It is rather a stated, and accepted, part of Douglas's character. The two outstanding occasions on which he demonstrates loyalty are to his fellow knights: at Bannockburn when he requests permission to go to the aid of Randolph (XI, 630-642) and in Spain, when, in attempting to rescue Sir William Sinclair, he loses his life (XX, 441-469).

On the other hand, there are many instances of treachery and felony in the poem, directed particularly against the person of Bruce, so that Barbour implicitly reveals more about the value of Douglas's loyalty by offering so many examples of its opposite. Just as he conveys the nature of freedom through a detailed consideration of its opposite, "thrildome" (I, 179-27 4), so here too he proceeds from the principle that "contrar thingis euir-mar, / Discoweryngis off the tothir ar" (I, 241-242).

Like all heroic warriors, Douglas's "hart on hey honour wes set" (378). That he aspires to the military glory which attaches to feats of arms becomes clear when Barbour goes on to describe his physical build and combat in battle (385-392). It is for this that all men love him (380) and not, as Barbour quickly emphasises, for his beauty, since "he wes nocht sa fayr, that we / Suld spek gretly off his beaute" (381-382). This comment draws the portrait of Douglas away from the romance tradition in which the hero is usually possessed of beauty apart from strength towards that of the chanson de geste in which the hero is chiefly renowned for his physical strength.²³ In addition, Douglas has black hair whereas the romance hero's hair is usually golden. Barbour may simply be following the established tradition that Douglas had black hair, but of course mentioning this detail allowed him to make a comparison with Hector of Troy (397).

Indeed the epic rather than the courtly presentation of Douglas is further promoted by this comparison with Hector, since he was renowned as a valiant warrior and captain. The allusion is particularly apt as Hector was regarded in the Middle Ages as the model of the ideal loyal subject, just as Alexander was the type of the conqueror and ruler.

I have deliberately left a consideration of the word "bounte" until last, although it occurs in the firstline of the catalogue. It is a difficult word to define since in the course of The Bruce it seems to mean various things. As used here it appears to connote some kind of comprehensive summary of character, especially as all the other epithets seem to relate to it. The same usage is found in the catalogue of Thomas Randolph's qualities. Barbour enumerates his particular virtues and then adds:

For gif that I the suth sall say,
He wes fulfillit of all bwnte,
And off all vertwis maid wes he.
(X, 293-295)

However, it is frequently employed in a more particular sense to refer to deeds of valour. The earliest usage in Book I at line 31 may simply refer to Douglas's feats of arms, especially as he is described as "worthy" in the preceding line:

That in his tyme sa worthy was,
That off hys price & hys bounte
In fer landis renownyt wes he.
(1, 30-32)

"Bounte" is also used to denote quite a different quality. For example, Douglas thanks the dying Bruce "Of mony large and gret bounte / That yhe haf done till me feill siss" (XX, 224-5), where the meaning is clearly not that of valour, but of gifts which express the liberality, or largesse of a lord to his vassal. "Bounte" and largesse are again associated in connection with a feudal relationship; this time Douglas is distributing spoils to his followers after the encounter with Sir Robert Neville:

The pray soyne emang his menyhe,
Eftir thar meritis, delit he,
And held no thing till his behuf.
Sic dedis aucht till ger men luf
Thair lorde, and swa thai did, perfay.
He tretit thame so wissly ay,
And with so mekill luf alsua,
And sic a countenans vald ma
Of thair deid, that the mast coward
Stoutar he maid than a libard;
With cherising thusgat maid he
His men wicht and of gret bounte.
(XV, 515-526)

Once again "luff and reward are linked with largesse, which in turn produces loyalty and valour. These lines underline the fact that we do not have two completely different usages of the word "bounte", but a concept that stands at the centre of a web of meanings in the poem.

Indeed, "bounte" seems to refer as much to the undertaking of valorous deeds as to the nature of thedeeds themselves. Douglas, who is "prisit of sa gret bounte" (XX, 375) is also "Prisit for his enpriss" (XX, 243) and for his "vorschip and gret empriss" (XVI, 490); Thomas Randolph, who is "Of so souerane grete bounte" (X, 274), "hye Enpriss / Set ay apon Souerane bounte" (X, 507-508). The sense of enterprise seems particularly appropriate where a rendering of deeds of valour for "bounte" would result in tautology. For example, Barbour says of Edward and Robert Bruce that "thair gud deid and thar bounte" inspire their men at Loudon Hill (VIII, 313).²⁴

In its association with the seeking of glory and honour through the undertaking of great deeds, "bounte" represents Barbour's conception of true nobility. The admirable captain who inspires his men by his own prowess is described as "of sic will and sic bounte" when he puts himself "till assay" (IX, 70-71) and in the same passage lauded for "his gret nobillay" (95). But in a knight who is a leader of men this "bounte" must be tempered by "wit" or discretion. Barbour believes that "but vit, vorschip may not be" (VI, 358) and develops this argument in a passage which enunciates his concept of ideal knightly conduct. Following Aristotle²⁵ he argues that valour is the mean between foolhardiness and cowardice:

Vorschip Extremyteis has twa;
Fule-hardyment the formast is,
And the tothir is cowardiss,
And thai ar bath for to forsak.
Fule-hardyment will all vndirtak,
Als weill thingis to leiff as ta;
Bot cowardiss dois na thing sua,
Bot vterly forsak is all;
And that war voundir for to fall,
Na war falt of discrecione.
For-thi has vorschip sic renoune,
That it is [meme] betuix thai twa,
And takis that is till vndirta,
And levis that is to leif.
(VI, 336-349)

Gilbert Hay, in his translation of Bonet's L'Arbre des Batailles, also subscribes to this view when he says that it is the good knight's duty to follow the "mydlyn way" between "ful hardynes" and "reddour".²⁶

Hence Edward Bruce is criticised for his lack of "wit" which results in a tragic loss of life:

For had thair outrageouss bounte
Beyne led with wit and with mesure,
Bot gif the mair misaduenture
Befell thame, it suld richt hard thing
Be till leid thame till outraying.
(XVIII, 178-182)

For Barbour "wit" and "mesure" derive from skill or practical reason, and this is what Edward Bruce lacks:

Couth he haf gouemit hym throu skill,
And fallowit nocht to fast his will,
Bot with mesour haf led his deid,
It wes weill lik, withouten dreid,
That he mycht haff conquerit weill
The land of Irland euirilk deill.
(XVI, 321-326)

Barbour accuses Edward of "succudry" (XVI, 327), that is pride or presumption. We can deduce that he is also guilty of foolhardiness,²⁷ which is "falt of discrecione". Although he possesses "hardyment and souerane bounte" (XVI, 516) he lacks prudence and moderation.

On the other hand, we learn that Douglas "oft throu wit and throu bounte / His purposs to gud end brocht he" (IX, 678-9). Early in the poem we are told that he "thocht ay enerely / To do his deid awysily" (I, 301-2). He is also described as "wycht, wyss and awerty" (II, 489). "Awerty" in particular is frequently employed to describe Douglas to denote his prudence. It is a very practical quality, and derives from his "skill". In this respect it is akin to Aristotle's phronesis or practical wisdom which studies particular ways and means, as opposed to sophia or theoretical knowledge, which applies to universal truths.²⁸ In other words, it is concerned with conduct, and the prudent management of men and things.

Medieval handbooks on the art of war insist on prudence in leaders of men, particularly in the king's lieutenant or constable.²⁹ I have already noted Walter Ullman's remarks on the tendency of the feudal arrangement to foster the individual's own judgement. It also inculcated a sense of responsibility, a factor which would have been of paramount importance in the context of military feudalism. Carefully considered actions were necessary to safeguard the lives of the men in one's charge. Douglas is consistently portrayed as particularly diligent in this respect. He is reluctant to take unnecessary risks, and whether in attack or defence he seeks some advantage which will help redress the numerical inferiority usual with the Scots.³⁰ This kind of practical consideration and deliberation marks him out as a good captain, who is above all concerned to protect his men, and as a worthy delegate for Bruce in his adherence to sound judgement.

Edward Bruce is a less praiseworthy leader. His men are ambushed by Richard of Clare's army, largely because of a reprehensible oversight on Edward's part: "To the reirward na tent tuk he" (XVI, 98). The situation is only saved by his brother's perspicacity and prowess. Edward's folly places his men at unnecessary risk, and so he has failed as a good captain.

Douglas's "wit" is coupled to another quality, his resourcefulness. Like his prudence, this quality seems to have been developed during his Paris days, and it too is gradually adapted to the exigencies of military life. In his early career this resourcefulness takes the form of procuring provisions for the loyal wives of Bruce's small company after Methven (II, 570-573). However, it is in the military situation that Douglas excels, and his resourcefulness is such a valuable asset in confounding theenemy that he becomes renowned for his use of guile and "subtelte". Significantly, on Douglas's first independent venture when he sets about planning to take Douglas Castle by "slicht", his decision to use guile is presented as a direct result of his practical wisdom:

… bot he wes viss,
And saw he mycht, on nakyn wiss,
Warray his fais vith evyn mycht;
Tharfor he thoucht to virk with slicht.
(V, 267-270)

His prudence has led him to assess the situation and his resourcefulness helps him to form the appropriate decision.

Above all, Douglas is the master of the ambush, and it is in his guerrilla tactics that his "wit" and resourcefulness are fully operative. He takes Brodick Castle (IV, 349 ff.), Douglas Castle twice (VI, 396 ff., VIII, 440 ff.), defeats Mowbray's army in Kyle (VIII, 32-44), the Earl of Richmond (XVI, 377-392), three hundred of the English host at Melrose (XVIII, 294-299) and a huge English army at Weardale (XIX, 341-345), each time redressing the numerical inferiority of the Scots by an ambush.

He is fully aware of the countervailing advantages of surprise. This is the factor in his favour on many occasions. So well known do his tactics become that the very cry "Douglas! Douglas!" instils such terror in the enemy that they are virtually disarmed before a sword is raised.

Barbour is clearly captivated by his hero's artfulness, and he dwells with some relish on incidents which are designed to display his skill and cunning. Douglas's careful deliberation and pragmatic methods are presented as deriving from his "wit". He is not less chivalric on account of this,³¹ but rather the opposite, since for Barbour the truly heroic knight's "bounte" is always moderated by reason. Prudence is essential in a knight who is a leader of men.

Barbour draws attention to Douglas's qualities as a leader by pointing up the vices of others. Hence Edward Bruce clearly emerges as a foil for Douglas, and the contrast is particularly stressed by the arrangement of the narrative. Frequently passages describing or implying Edward's pride or rashness are immediately followed by passages alluding to or depicting Douglas's prudence and circumspection. Most notable is the occasion on which Edward's boldness is implicitly criticised in the comparison with his brother who always uses "mesure" and "wit" in his undertakings, and this criticism is further underlined in the following lines in which Douglas's "wit" and "bounte" are discussed (IX, 661-679). Later, after his very explicit comments on Edward's "succudry" and lack of "mesure" (XVI, 321 ff.), Barbour proceeds to "spek … of the lord douglass" (333) who, even when he is taking a respite, has spies out gathering intelligence about the enemy's movements (337-341, 366-7).

Randolph is used by Barbour not so much as a foil in the sense of pointing up Douglas's qualities by contrast, but as an example of one who possesses similar qualities to the hero, but not in the same measure. He is loyal, but not consistently to Bruce, since he joins the English side in exchange forhis life. He is wise and bold, but these qualities are not so neatly balanced in him as they are in Douglas. More precisely, he is not aware of the necessity of prudent and cautious methods in the kind of war Bruce is waging. Initially he wholly disapproves of the kind of tactics employed by Bruce and Douglas (IX, 742-745). He soon learns to appreciate the value of using stratagems, and indeed he takes his cue from Douglas. He is besieging Edinburgh Castle when news reaches him of the latter's success at Roxburgh:

The Erli thomas, that hye Enpriss
Set ay apon Souerane bounte,
At Edinburgh with his menye
War lyand at the Sege, as I
Tald yow befor all oppynly.
Bot fra he herd how roxburgh was
Tane with a trane, all his purchas,
With wit and besynes, I hicht,
He set to purches [him sum] slicht,
How he mycht help hym throu victory.
(X, 507-516)

Yet Randolph's concept of true chivalry remains that of "souerane bounte", which seems to constitute a belief that the honourable thing is to meet one's foe openly despite the odds. The dangers inherent in total commitment to such an ideal are expressed in the portrait of Edward Bruce. Randolph very nearly falls prey to this kind of error, but is humble and wise enough to accept advice. What might have resulted in a very rash move at Weardale is prevented by Randolph's submission to Douglas's personal influence (XIX, 300-306).

Edward Bruce's refusal to take the advice of his fellow knights (XVIII, 28-70) results in defeat and the unnecessary death of many good knights, including himself.

So although Edward Bruce and Thomas Randolph are presented as admirable knights who fulfil "bounte", they are not unreservedly heroic in Barbour's view. Edward's vice is that of vanity, for his achievements must be recognisably those of personal prowess. Randolph too cannot resist a challenge and is prepared to forego the advantage.

Although Douglas is clearly possessed of the personal daring essential to a war leader, his conduct is always governed by prudence. This makes him Barbour's ideal knight. Moreover, he is an ideal captain for he is not prepared to hazard the lives of the men in his charge by taking unnecessary risks. He rates the confounding of the enemy and concern for his men above his personal reputation. His circumspection is the greatest expression of his loyalty to Bruce. He not only safeguards lives but forges a formidable band of fighting men which is an invaluable asset to Bruce. In contrast, Edward Bruce's ambition conflicts with his loyalty to Bruce; his over-riding concern is to win the glory which attaches to deeds of individual valour, and in his single-mindedness he neglects his responsibility to the men in his charge.

It is significant that the only occasions on which Douglas fails to preserve his judgement are prompted by a friend's danger—at Bannockburn and in his final battle in Spain. In each case it is his"wit" and his loyalty which conflict, not his "wit" and his ambition. Since Barbour believes that "but leawte may nane haiff price, / Quhethir he be wycht or he be wyss" (I, 369-370) Douglas cannot be reproached. Throughout the poem he is presented as one who surpasses all his fellows in his commitment to, and practice of, the knightly virtues, so that he emerges as Barbour's ideal knight and a fitting hero of The Bruce.

Notes

¹ Lois A. Ebin, "John Barbour's Bruce: Poetry, History and Propaganda", Studies in Scottish Literature 9 (1971-72), 218-242, see especially pp. 221-224; A. M. Kinghorn, "Scottish Historiography in the 14th Century; a New Introduction to Barbour's Bruce", Studies in Scottish Literature 6 (1968-69), 131-145, especially pp. 141-144; Bernice W. Kliman, "Sapientia and Fortitudo in Barbour's Bruce", Medium Aevum 42 (1975), 151-161.

² B. Kliman in her article "The Idea of Chivalry in John Barbour's Bruce", Medieval Studies 35 (1973), 477-508, devotes more attention than most to Douglas, but still regards him as "only one of Barbour's ideal knights" (p. 479).

³ John Barbour, The Bruce, ed. by W. W. Skeat for the EETS, 2 vols (London, 1870, 1889). All subsequent quotations are taken from this edition. I have normalized 3 to y or g and â to ss.

⁴ J. Saunders, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (London, 1889, rev. ed. 1894), p. 39.

⁵ Skeat in his note on these lines (n. 339, p. 546) cites two famous Roberts who were earls of Artois, but suggests that the reference may be to Robert, count of Artois. In fact the third Robert of Artois was count of Beaumont-le-Roger and never became count of Artois. Robert I of Artois (1216-1250) is an unlikely candidate for Barbour's allusion since his fame derives from his passionate commitment to the Crusades. Robert II (1250-1302), his son, is also unlikely, for according to Froissart, at the battle of Courtrai he was responsible for the death of some of the most valiant French nobles "par l'orgeul" (Chroniques, ed. by George T. Diller [Geneva, 1972], Chap. I, p. 41).

⁶ M. Lancelot, "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de Robert d'Artois", Mémoires de Littérature, tirez des Registres de l'Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Tome 10 (Paris, 1736), 571-663 (quotation p. 573). On Robert of Artois see also M. Lancelot, "Justification de la conduite de Philippe de Valois, dans le procès de Robert d'Artois", Mémoires de Littérature, Tome 8 (Paris, 1733), 669-681. See also Froissart, Chroniques, Chaps. XLVII, XLVIII, LVII and passim.

⁷ Froissart, Chroniques, LI, p. 209.

⁸Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, p. 39.

⁹ I. M. Davies points out that Douglas "could hardly have been better placed than with Lamberton. Medieval bishops exercised in their temporalities all the powers of great lords, and the secular training of boys entrusted to them would have matched that to be had in an earl's household" (The Black Douglas [London & Boston, 1974], p. 10).

¹⁰ Cf. Chaucer's squire: he "carf biforn his fader at the table" (General Prologue, I (A) 100); other references to squires carving at the table are found in the Summoner's Tale, III, 2243-4, and in the Merchant's Tale, IV, 1772-73. All references are to The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. F. N. Robinson (second ed., London, 1957; reprint 1970). On the duties and training of a squire see Saunders, pp. 39-49, and F. J. C. Heamshaw, "Chivalry and its Place in History", in Chivalry, ed. E. Prestage (New York, 1928), pp. 22-24.

¹¹ Chaucer's squire is a very accomplished product of such an education:

Wel koude he sitte on hors and faire ryde.

He koude songes make and wel endite,
Juste and eek daunce, and weele purtreye and
 write.

(General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales, 94-97). Moreover, at the age of twenty he is skilled in arms, having fought in Flanders, Artois and Pieardy (86).

¹²The Black Douglas, p. 78. A banneret was entitled to have a flag bearing his own coat of arms carried before him and his followers when they were summoned to join the royal forces. A bachelor was a knight in the probationary stage of knighthood, who followed the banner of another.

¹³ Bruce's banner is always clearly identified as his own (XII, 88, XI, 347).

¹⁴ G. W. S. Barrow, Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1976), p. 405.

¹⁵ See for example Honoré Bonet, L'Arbre des Batailles (c. 1382-1387), ed. Ernest Nys (Brussels and Leipzig, 1883), translated by Sir Gilbert Hay (or "of the Haye") as The Buke of the Law of Armys (1456), published as Vol. 1 of Gilbert of the Haye's Prose Manuscript, ed. J. H. Stevenson for the STS (Edinburgh and London, 1901); Christine de Pisan, Le Livre des Faites d'Armes et de Chevalerie (1408-9), translated by William Caxton as The Book of Fayttes of Armes and of Chyualrye (1489), ed. A. T. P. Byles for the EETS (London, 1932).

¹⁶ F. J. C. Hearnshaw, "Chivalry and its Place in History", p. 32.

¹⁷The Individual and Society in the Middle Ages (Baltimore, 1966; London, 1967). See especially pp. 65-66.

¹⁸La Courtoisie au Moyen Age (Paris, 1931), p. 41.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 52.

²⁰ Ibid., p. 51.

²¹ P. Meyer, Alexandre le Grand dans la littérature française du moyen âge, 2 vols (Paris, 1886), II, 373.

²²La Courtoisie au Moyen Age, p. 41. Dupin also cites an instance where a troubadour equates courtoisie with fidelité. Barbour's own tendency to associate these two virtues is further emphasised when, comparing Douglas to Hector, he says that he too "wes fullfillyt of leawte, / & wes curtaiss and wyss and wycht" (I, 400-401).

²³ C. B. West, Courtoisie in Anglo-Norman Literature (Oxford, 1938), p. 13.

²⁴ Also X, 274; XV, 526.

²⁵Ethics, II, vii.

²⁶The Buke of the Law of Armys, IV, chap. xi.

²⁷ In the Book of Vices and Virtues (a fourteenth-century translation of the Somme le Roi) pride has seven principal branches of which the third is presumption, which in turn has seven "twigges", of which the third is "foole emprise" or foolish undertaking (ed. W. Nelson Francis for the EETS [London, 1942], p. 17).

²⁸Ethics, VI, v.

²⁹L'Arbre des Batailles, IV, chap. ix, The Book of Fayttes of Armes and of Chyualrye, I, chap. vii.

³⁰ E.g. VIII, 32-44, XV, 355-356, XIX, 300-306.

³¹ According to Bonet (IV, chap. xlix), Christine de Pisan (Caxton translation, III, chap. xiii) and Hay (IV, chap. xlix) the use of guile in warfare is permissible so long as faith is not broken. Thomas Aquinas argued that so long as the war was just it was no concern of justice whether it was carried on openly or by ambushes (The Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province [London, 1911-1932] II [Second Part] Q. XL, article 3).