[In the following essay, Mainster asserts that Barbour's account of Scottish history is intended to serve his political purpose, for he suppresses any aspects of character or situation that would reflectnegatively on the House of Stewart.]

John Barbour's fourteenth-century narrative recounts a series of historical events surrounding the Scottish Wars of Independence. Imposing a specific pattern on the historical events, The Bruce cultivates an impression of lasting political unity, dynastic continuity, and heroic fulfillment. Barbour manipulates historical data, events, and behavioral characteristics as he reshapes historical persons into literary personas. Shaped to comment positively on the state of the monarchy, The Bruce is the literary vehicle Barbour uses to present his version of history. The verse narrative portrays Robert I as a Scottish hero distinguished primarily in his fight against England for Scottish independence, and secondly, for his military leadership, political astuteness, and concern for the orderly succession to the Scottish throne. The Bruce reflects favorably on the Royal House and several noble families at the center of power. Reinforcing the continuity between the House of Bruce and the House of Stewart, The Bruce is an attempt to affirm the legitimacy of the Bruce/Stewart line by recounting the origins of the House of Stewart.

The controversial issue of Scottish succession did not begin in the fourteenth century with the ascension of the Bruce/Stewart line. From the earliest times in the life of the nation the issues of rightful succession of kings, the problems of guardianship, and the ideals of kingship had been a constant source of anxiety.¹ From the tenth through the thirteenth centuries, claims made by English kings complicated the issue of Scottish succession. The successors of King Alfred claimed that there was a precedent for the English king as "overlord" to interfere in Scottish politics. The claim of overlordship by Edgar, King of England, in 973, was produced as one of the pieces of evidence for Edward I's claim in 1291 during the political struggle known as the Great Cause of the Scottish Succession.²

During the early thirteenth century, the issue of succession concerned Scotland's Alexander II who still was childless and about to make an expedition to the Isles. The magnates, at the request of the king, had Robert Bruce of Annandale, grandfather of Robert I, named as heir to the throne. In this decision the magnates preferred Bruce, the son of the second daughter of the king's uncle, David, Earl of Huntingdon, rather than Devorgilla, the daughter of the eldest daughter.³ At the end of the thirteenth century, after the death of Alexander III in 1286, the issue of succession brought an end to an era of political stability.

The historical events that bear upon the controversy over succession began on March 19, 1286 when Alexander III, on his way to visit his second wife, was thrown from his horse near Kinghorn and died without a male heir. Alexander III's daughter Margaret, by his first wife, who had married Eric II of Norway, had died in 1283, leaving an infant known as Margaret, the Maid of Norway.⁴ In order to regulate royal succession, a council of magnates then stated that because Alexander III died leaving no son, the magnates would receive the Maid of Norway as rightful heir of the kingdom of Scotland. Robert Bruce, however, the now aged Lord of Annandale, at first denied the right of any female to inherit the kingdom and advanced his won claim as a descendant of David I. Bruce considered his claim to the throne better than all others save that of a son of Alexander III. Later on, just prior to the Maid's death in 1290, Robert Bruce agreed to allow the Maid of Norway to proceed as rightful heir to the throne. But after her death in 1290, Bruce and his supporters, the earls of Mar and Atholl, collected their forces and were preparing for a war against those who opposed his claim. In the pactof Turnberry in September 1286, Bruce had aligned his supporters against those partisan groups supporting John Balliol, son of Bruce's cousin Devorgilla, and great-grandson of David I. Balliol was in line for the succession to the Scottish throne through his mother.⁵ In short, the claimants to the royal house ere two descendants of David I, both in the female line: John Balliol and Robert Bruce (grandfather of his namesake who eventually became king).

On August 2, 1291 at Berwick, Edward I opened the first session of the lawsuit known as The Great Cause of the Scottish Succession. After several months of long and involved proceedings, Edward I decided in favor of John Balliol. Balliol was willing to do homage as a vassal king, but Edward I wanted to dominate the king of Scotland. Because Scottish soldiers were inept at warfare compared to England's well-trained, larger forces, Balliol's rebellion was brief and disastrous. After Balliol's defeat in 1296, Edward I took back with him to England the Crown of Scots and the Stone of Destiny from Scone and displayed the trophies of war in Westminster. From the deposition of John Balliol to the coronation of Robert I, a period of ten years, Scotland was without a king. By then most of the other Scottish leaders had given up in their efforts to resist Edward I. The exception was William Wallace, the Scottish patriot, who refused to swear allegiance to Edward and continued his skirmishes until August 3, 1305 when he was handed over to the English by Sir John Stewart of Menteith and, at Westminster, was judged and executed.

During the period of skirmishes between Wallace and the English armies, Robert Bruce, who was to become Robert I, was sometimes a loyal subject of Edward I and sometimes an outspoken Scottish patriot. The vacillations of Robert I may have been the result of a conflict of interest over the lands held in England as well as the oaths of loyalty that had been sworn to Edward by Robert Bruce of Carrick, father of Robert I, and other members of the Bruce family.⁶ Because his family represented the rival claim, and he did not support John Balliol either, Robert I might never have made a strong stand against Edward if on February 10, 1306 he had not murdered John, the Red Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, nephew and supporter of Balliol, who had also sworn allegiance to Edward 1.⁷ The significance of Comyn's death is that it not only gave Edward I another excuse to interfere in the administration of Scotland's government, but there was now potentially a civil war between the Bruce family and the Comyns, whose kinsmen and allies were a powerful faction in Scotland. After Comyn's death, Bruce claimed the Scottish crown. The coronation took place on March 25, 1306 at Scone.

Scottish records and chronicles preserve the problems Robert I had with the clergy, the nobles, and the community as a whole, as well as his military defeats; but his fame and political power were established at the Battle of Bannockburn, June 1314.⁸ With that victory, he went on to defy England, to overcome insurmountable political difficulties, and to make loyal supporters out of his rivals. Following the Wars of Independence, he undertook social, political, and economic reconstruction, but at the same time, he tried to prevent the fragmentation of power he hoped to entrust to the successors of the Bruce line.

Robert I had no sons by his first wife, Isabella of Mar. Their only daughter Marjorie married Walter Stewart, the sixth hereditary High Steward of Scotland.⁹ Despite the prominent position of the family, there is little information concerning any individual earlier than Walter the sixth High Steward, born in 1292.¹⁰

Walter Stewart, according to Barbour's account, reputedly was knighted on the morning of the Battle of Bannockburn by Robert I (XII, 415-418). In that battle Walter Stewart and James Douglas shared command of one of the four Scottish divisions. After Bannockbum, Walter married Marjorie Bruce, who, within a year, died as the result of being thrown from her horse while in the later stage of a pregnancy, though her son, Robert, survived.¹¹

Walter Stewart also fought during the defense of Berwick against the English in 1319. Shortly after Robert I's death in 1326, Walter Stewart died at the age of 34. His son Robert, who had been named heir presumptive in 1318, by then had lost his position in the succession to the Scottish throne to Robert I's infant son David. Robert I had married his second wife, Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter of the earl of Ulster, and their son David II succeeded to the throne at the age of 5.¹² In Edinburgh on February 22, 1371, David unexpectedly died without leaving an heir. Robert. Stewart, at last, was king of Scotland.

In reviewing the complexities of succession, the line could pass through Marjorie, who, according the Eric Linklater, "was not declared heir-apparent but only heireventual."¹³ If there were no heirs other than Marjorie, then Robert I's brother Edward Bruce would be assigned the crown in the succession. As it turned out, Edward Bruce tried to conquer Ireland, which conceivably could have formed a union between Scotland and Ireland, but he was defeated and, subsequently, died in Ireland in 1318.¹⁴

According to the laws of Scottish succession in the fourteenth century, Marjorie could only succeed if both Robert I and Edward Bruce died without male heirs. Had she died before marriage, then the line would pass to the king's nearest heir by lineal descent. In addition, the appointment of a guardian was another provision for peaceful succession. If, on the death of Robert 1, the heir to the throne was a minor, then Thomas Randolph, Earl of Moray, would be guardian of both the child and the kingdom until such time as the community of the realm deemed the heir fit to rule. Randolph was also to be guardian if Marjorie died a widow, leaving an heir under age. Finally, if Robert I, Edward Bruce, and Marjorie were all to die without leaving any heirs, Randolph was to be the guardian until the leaders of the kingdom could choose a king.¹⁵

The death of Robert I marked the end of a strong reign, and it also marked the beginning of a struggle between the Scottish kings of the House of Stewart and their powerful subjects. The struggle was prolonged partly because of the power and the integrity of the clans and baronial families in their own localities, such as the House of Douglas, and partly because of the unfortunate sequence of royal minorities, as true of the reign of David II as of the Stewart kings that followed.

As Scottish history in The Bruce unfolds, Barbour's late fourteenth-century version conflates the three Robert Bruces into one heroic king, aggrandizes King Robert, deflates the heroics of Edward Bruce, and inflates the importance of Walter Stewart, the father of Robert Stewart. Consequently, devising his own recipe and incorporating a variety of literary ingredients, Barbour effectively politicizes Scottish history.

Although Barbour promises to write "A suthfast [truthful] story," (I, 13) the work is not offered as truth. Barbour does not call his work a chronicle; instead, he calls it a romance.¹⁶

The Romanys now begynnys her,
Off men that war in gret distress,
And assayit full gret hardynes,
Or thai mycht cum till thar entent.
(1,446-449)

Barbour declares that his romance will be a story of men who fought for freedom, experiencing but overcoming great distress through the grace that God sent our heroes. The abundance of Middle English romances flourishing in England furnished Barbour with a literary language that could be used to describe a hero whose lifetime was still relatively current in men's memories. By incorporating the characteristics of Middle-English romance heroes, Barbour could color his story and make the figures of Robert Bruce, Edward Bruce, James Douglas, Walter Stewart, and others, even more inspiring than an unadorned historical account would permit.

In telling his romance, Barbour avoids references to events or activities that could be interpreted as a blemish on the Bruce/Stewart dynasty. Barbour also suppresses politically damaging material, accomplished in large part by concentrating on a relatively limited chronological period. In fact, the narrative begins with a telescoping of the time interval between the death of Alexander III and the emergence of the young Robert Bruce as a political force. In the narrative, The Great Cause and the conflict between Robert Bruce The Competitor, John Balliol, and Edward I are summarily recited.

Although The Bruce provides an acceptable version of Scottish history, Barbour reshapes the historical data by combining the three Bruces, the Competitor, his son Robert Bruce of Carrick, and the grandson, Robert I, into one fully admirable hero. Barbour's characterization of Robert I is that of a Bruce who had been unjustly dealt with by Edward I and the one who takes vengeance for the injustice of Bannockburn. In order not to degrade Robert I by the fact that he had once sworn fealty to Edward, had once done homage to Balliol, or had even joined any party but that of his country and freedom, Barbour omits the series of changing alliances.

Specific evidence of the conflation in the text relating to the Bruce family at first appears to be an odd mistake: "Thys lord the brwys, I spak of ayr" (I, 477). The word "ayr" is usually translated "before," yet the Bruce in Barbour's story is King Robert I and not Robert I's grandfather. In essence, Barbour does not draw a distinction between Robert Bruce the Competitor, or his son Robert Bruce who died in 1305, and Robert Bruce, born in 1274 who ultimately became King Robert I.

Barbour also ignores or glosses over aspects which might have marred the portrait of his hero and which occurred during the time prior to the events recorded in The Bruce. For example, throughout the reign of John Balliol, Robert I aligned himself with the English, and even after succeeding to his earldom of Annandale, he continued to spend time at the English court. In Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm, G. W. S. Barrow attributes the best possible intentions to the sometimes dubious conduct of the future Robert I in the years between 1286 and 1306."¹⁷ Barbour, on the other hand, avoids the need to find mitigating circumstances for any of the Bruce family's questionable conduct during that period, 1286-1306, by telescoping the events of that period and aiming his narrative at the heroic years of military adventure, 1306-1318.

Other pertinent omissions relate to Robert I's brother Edward Bruce. Although the narrative contains a great deal of material relating to the heroic deeds of Edward Bruce and his ultimate death, by Book XVIII the chivalric deeds of Edward Bruce are of no political importance. Initially, Edward Bruce is a hero equivalent to Robert I and James Douglas. Beginning with Book IX Barbour recounts many adventures about Edward Bruce, such as the one he claims to have been told by Sir Allan Cathcart (IX, 572-576). Edward Bruce wins all Galloway, capturing thirteen castles (IX, 658). But in Book X Edward Bruce commits the error of heroes who have reached the height of their glory, an error that audiences of the Middle Ages could identify with the Wheel of Fortune, the sin of pride. Edward Bruce agrees to allow the English an entire year for the rescue of Stirling Castle. When Sir Philip Mowbray reports the covenant between the Scots and the English, Edward of England claims that he thinks the Scots are very proud and foolish (XI, 11-16). When Robert I hears of the treaty, he is distressed by Edward Bruce's impulsiveness and tells him that "that wes vnwisly done" (XI, 38). Then in Robert I's response, we hear the echo of Joshua, one of the Nine Worthies, in a phrase that is often repeated in The Bruce, "and we ar qwheyn (few) agane so fele (many)" (XI, 49). Robert I resolves that the Scots must at any rate try and fight it out at the Battle of Bannockbum.

Edward Bruce continues to be a major figure in the poem. He leads the second of the four divisions at the Battle of Bannockbum. Yet his victories end in his defeat and death in Ireland. Uniike James Douglas' and Robert I's successful raids into northern England, Edward Bruce's daring and reckless behavior in Ireland does not add anything to Scotland's political and economic well-being. In the context of the poem, Edward Bruce's death in no way affects Robert Stewart. There is nothing in The Bruce that says that Robert Stewart's accession as the legitimate heir through Marjorie, Robert I's daughter, could only stem from Edward Bruce's death:

The king gert ordane thar,
Gif it fell that his sone davy
Deit but air male of his body
Gottyn, robert stiward suld be
Kyng, and brwk all the Rialte,
That his douchter bar, mariory.
(XX, 128-133)

Thus, besides omissions, Barbour suppresses and manipulates data to reinforce the contiguity and the continuity of the Robert Bruce/Stewart line.

But Barbour does not just omit Edward Bruce's position in the line of succession. Instead, Barbour presents a complex interplay of heroic models. By demonstrating the differences between Robert I and Edward Bruce and emphasizing the superior attributes of Robert I, metaphysically transferred to Robert Stewart as Robert II, Barbour persuasively underlines the appropriateness of the ascension of the House of Stewart. For example, there is Barbour's interpretation of the relationship between Robert I and Edward Bruce and the underlying conflict between the brothers. Barbour specifically states that Edward Bruce feels that Scotland is too small a place for both of them:

The erli of carrik, schir Eduard,
That stowtar wes than ane libbard,
And had no will till be in pes,
Thoucht that scotland to litill wes
Till his brothir and him alsua.
(XIV, 1-5)

Barbour foregrounds the conflict by portraying the contrasts in military skill and political astuteness between the brothers in the events that lead up to the major occurrence in the poem, the Battle of Bannockbum. In episodes that highlight the tension between the brothers, Barbour sets up the situation so that in the pattern of resolved stresses, Edward Bruce represents serious actions which turn out disastrously. In other words, Edward Bruce and his errors are the foil for Robert Bruce's successes.

The selection, treatment, and ordering of events in the narrative determine and emphasize the distinct differences between their diverse kinds of leadership. For example, in Book XIV, in the Irish campaigns, we gain further insight into the character of Edward Bruce and the underlying conflict between him and his brother Robert Bruce. At first, nearly all of Ireland submits to Edward Bruce, who wins nineteen battles in three years (XVI, 180-82). Yet Edward Bruce is angry to learn of Robert's success at Dublin (XVI, 242-255). Edward does not agree with Robert's non-chivalric strategies. Edward prefers to rely on large numbers of knights and soldiers rather than the careful use of the small but well-trained squadrons that Douglas and Robert Bruce have used to good advantage. Barbour states that Edward Bruce could have conquered all Ireland if he had been willing to use some alternate tactics, but his pride prevented that (XVI, 309-330). Edward Bruce is portrayed so that his noble deeds are admirable and of importance to those who love chivalry but are of no real importance to the survival of Scotland. Ultimately, the less admirable, non-chivalric but successful strategies of Robert Bruce and James Douglas prove who the best knights really are.

Unlike his brother Robert Bruce, who many times throughout The Bruce is recorded as responsive to the advice and counsel of his peers (III, 313 ff., IX, 12 ff., XI, 240 ff., XIII, 120 ff., XIX, 88-115), Edward Bruce will listen to no one (XVIII, 33 ff.) The temperament of the two brothers nowhere is more clearly portrayed than in their roles of leadership and in their ability to make the right choices at the right times. After Edward Bruce's death, Barbour states that because of Edward's willfulness, his need to have his own way, his pride, "gret outrageouss Succudry," all was lost; but had his men been led "with wit and with mesure," they would not have been so easily conquered (XVIII, 175-184). On the other hand, according to Barbour, Robert I combines manhood with wit, seeing what deeds of valor can be done and then doing them (VI, 359-372). Thus Robert I's courage leads to acts of valor and victory, and his "wit and mesure" make him a worthy knight:

For he led hym with mesur ay,
And vith gret vit his cheuelry
He gouemit ay so worthely
That he oft full unlikly thing
Brocht [rycht] weill to full gud ending.
(IX, 667-671)

Barbour's emphasis on "wit" and "mesure" is significant in this context as he uses these termsto characterize the differences between Robert and Edward Bruce. "Wit" used in many Middle-English romances has several meanings: usually it is to know, know of, or understand. But in The Bruce, in addition to using "wit" in its capacity as the verb "to know," etc., it is used as the noun "wisdom":

Bot his vit maid him virtuouss.
(IV, 742)

This nobill kyng that we of reid,
Mengit all tyme with vit manheid.
(VI, 359-360)

 Thus hardyment, gouernit vith vit,
That he all tym vald sammyn knyt.
(VI, 369-370)

The first reference is to Aristotle, the second two references are to Robert Bruce.

For Barbour, "measure" is an essentially political virtue; therefore, he attributes defeat to the lack of "mesure," for example, as it is applied to Edward Bruce:

Had he had mesur in his deid,
I trow that worthyar than he
Micht nocht in his tyme fundyn be.
(IX, 661-663)

That is, had Edward Bruce done things in moderation, no one could have been a worthier knight. In general, brave but impetuous is Barbour's characterization of Edward Bruce. In contrast to Edward Bruce, Barbour's characterization of Robert I is that of a good king and a good leader, possessed of both wit and mesure. By contrasting Robert I with Edward Bruce, Barbour achieves a much clearer and better defined picture of Robert I than he could have done otherwise.

In addition to contrasting Robert I to Edward Bruce, Barbour portrays Robert I's relationship with his men as evidence of his leadership qualities. For instance, examples of Robert I as the good king and leader occur during the time before battle when Robert I speaks to his men, sometimes those of his privy council and sometimes the soldiers in the field. Prior to the Battle of Bannockburn, Robert I comes before his men to welcome them, to encourage them, and to instill in them a fighting and winning spirit:

Ay as he met thame in the way,
He wecummyt thame vith gladsum fair,
Spekand gud vordis heir and thair.
And thai, that thar lord so mekly
[Saw welcum] thame and so myldly,
loyfull thai war, and thoucht at thai
Micht weill put thame in-till assay
Of hard fechting in stalwart stour,
For till maynteym weill his honour.
(XI, 255-263)

Concern for the individual soldier in the fourteenth century is unusual. It is not credited to the leaders of the English forces or to Edward Bruce, but it is a quality attributed to Robert I, James Douglas, and Walter Stewart. Barbour uses the qualities of leadership and personal concern for the well-being of the troops to frame these three heroes with identifiable characteristics within the narrative.

To identify and expand the ideological significance of the admirable attributes of Barbour's major characters, Barbour uses epithets to emphasize the principles of good leadership, courage, and chivalry. The primary epithets that Barbour uses to describe Robert I are (1) the good king (VIII, 334, 352, IX, 12, 411, XX, 299); (2) the noble king (VI, 359, VIII, 404, IX, 5, 254, 291, 436, XII, 50; (3) the "douchty" or valiant king (IV, 597, XVII, 494, XIX, 7); (4) and a variety of other terms such as worthy or hardy (VIII, 372). Within the context of the work, the epithets create a continuous aura and a special environment around the king. The cultural myth that had grown up surrounding the rise and reign of Robert I is sustained and is exploited fully in The Bruce. Barbour is tireless in his praise of Robert I, as in the sermon on valor in which the "noble king" is the outstanding example (VI, 359)¹⁸ Barbour's commentary on valor is an explication of leadership (VI, 325-358). He states that valor lies between foolhardiness and cowardice, that is, between the fool-hardy who attempt to do everything, even those things that should be left undone, and the coward who does nothing but foresakes all. Therefore, the treatise concludes, Robert I exhibits the qualities of leadership and valor because he knows what to do and then does it (VI, 369-372).

Barbour's characterization of Robert I's political astuteness, that is, his control of the political situation, his men, his allies, and his enemies, has many facets. Historically, Robert I was a fierce and brutal general and sometimes a harsh and demanding king. Barbour does not overlook this aspect of his personality, but instead he uses the alternate, stem side of Robert I to portray a leader who is firm, aggressive, and committed to justice, in particular, his harsh treatment of conspirators (XIX, 5-68).

Barbour announces that his romance will tell tales of heroes from Scottish history, but because of the importance of the theme of succession, Barbour highlights certain military deeds and heroic attributes for political purposes and thematic development, specifically Walter Stewart as the underlying agent responsible for the ultimate ascent of the House of Stewart. The praise for worthy deeds, courage, and concern for his men given to Walter Stewart, Robert II's father, are comparable terms used to describe the paragon of Scottish guerilla warfare, James Douglas, his cousin in near degree (XI, 324), as well as to describe Robert I:

Walter steward, with a menye,
Raid ay about, for to se quhar
That for till help mast myster war;
And quhar men pressit mast, he maid
Succoure till his that myster had.
(XVII, 384-388)

And quhen the dowglass wist that thair veir
               Armand thame all comonly,
             He blew his horne for till rely
    His men, and bad thame hald thar vay
      Toward the wattir, and swa did thai
            And he abaid henmast, to se
           That nane of his suld lefit be.
(XIX, 578-584)

Barbour consistently attaches admirable leadership qualities to persons identified with the House of Stewart.

Instead of recounting the origins of the historical Stewarts, Barbour emphasizes the origin of the House of Stewart as it begins with Walter Stewart, the father of Robert II. In Barbour's story, Walter Stewart is a young man who has the opportunity to prove his valor and his importance to the Scottish cause at the Battle Bannockbum. James Douglas and he are the co-leaders of the third division of the Scottish army. Barbour reports that Stewart, the younger cousin, is to be under the care and tutelage of the more experienced Douglas. At daybreak on the morning of the battle, Robert I knights Walter Stewart and James Douglas (XII, 415-418). Walter Stewart and James Douglas prove their courage and quality of leadership at Bannockburn, and then later, at Berwick.

Historically, Walter Stewart was not a major figure in the Wars of Independence, but in The Bruce he assumes the role of a hero, even though it is a relatively limited role. In order to associate the heroic deeds of Walter Stewart with the other heroes of The Bruce so that he shares in their glory, Barbour recounts episodes in which he participates. For example, in preparation for the Battle of Bannockburn, the Scottish army is divided into four battle divisions: Thomas Randolph leads the van; the second division is led by Edward Bruce; the third has co-leaders, Walter Stewart and James Douglas; and the fourth division is under the command of Robert Bruce. In that episode, there is a skirmish before the battle begins and Thomas Randolph forms his men into a schiltrum, a close, compact squadron, to resist the advancing English army. Then a severe struggle between the opposing troops stirs Douglas to obtain leave from Robert Bruce to assist Randolph. Leaving Stewart in charge, Douglas goes to assist Randolph but finds that he needs no help. Douglas quickly returns to his own division so that Randolph will get the full honor of the early victory (XII, 99-129). By association, Walter Stewart is a hero of that battle. Later the newly knighted Walter Stewart and James Douglas share Barbour's praise for valor:

A! a mychty god! quha than mycht se
The stewart Walter and his rout
And the gud dowglas that wes stout
Fechtand in-to the stalward stour,

He suld say that till all honour
Thai war worthy, that in that ficht
Sa fast presit thair fais mycht,
That thai tham ruschit quhar thai yeid.
(XIII, 186-193)

By closely associating Walter Stewart with the second major hero of The Bruce, James Douglas, Barbour elevates in status the historical character of Walter Stewart. Barbour then sets the stage for Walter Stewart's next important contribution to Scottish history, his marriage to Robert I's daughter Marjorie, who Barbour calls the "apperand air" (XIII, 690). Shortly after Bruce's queen and daughter Marjorie are rescued from Stirling, Marjorie marries Walter Stewart (XIII, 684-691). Their son Robert, who afterwards rules Scotland as Robert II, is the patron of The Bruce (XIII, 684-696).

Barbour continues to highlight Walter Stewart's role as an important member of Robert I's army. In an extended episode, Barbour accentuates Walter Stewart's contribution to the peace and stability in Scotland. Book XVI ends recounting a series of battles against the English. Book XVII takes place in 1318 at the time that Sim of Spalding tells the Scots how they may take Berwick from the English. Douglas and Thomas Randolph adopt the plan with success and occupy the town. Robert I comes to the castle and provides it with a strong garrison, assigning the defense of Berwick to Walter Stewart. The English return on September 7, 1319, and the town is attacked at all points, but the English are ultimately defeated. When Robert I returns to Berwick after the siege, he praises Walter Stewart's leadership (XVII, 916-923). Barbour adds his own praise of Walter Stewart and projects into the future stating that had Walter Stewart lived a long life, he would have been famous, but "in the flour of his youtheid/Scho [death] endit all his douchty deid" (XVII, 933-934). On April 9, 1326, Walter Stewart died and was buried at Paisley with honors (XIX, 205-224). Barbour tells how his death was greatly lamented by nobles and commoners alike. Barbour's final reference to Walter Stewart states that his death was a great loss because he was "a worthy" man for his age (XIX, 200). In essence, Barbour's use of conventional language, such as "worthy" and "flour of his youtheid," recreates the traditional literary symbol, a chivalric knight. As he is portrayed in The Bruce, Walter Stewart is now a legendary figure, that is, a Scottish hero and the ideal fountainhead of the Stewart line.

The Bruce, a political vehicle that uses language to encourage its audience to accept a particular version of historical events, is a powerful narrative of patriotic champions who fight and defeat a threatening nation of invaders. The Scottish heroes of The Bruce move through complex episodes involving strenuous and potentially disastrous circumstances, ultimately succeeding in transforming their hardships into victories. Thus the audience has the satisfaction of experiencing exciting and inspiring exploits. Barbour's narrative encourages his audience to view the war between Scotland and England as a conflict of freedom against thraldom, and right against might, in a struggle in which the Scots are victorious because of their righteous principles. Barbour stresses the role of the hero implying that the king is critical for the survival and well-being of a nation, that is, a worthy king inspires his subjects to noble deeds, a villainous one prompts their destruction. Thus, a virtuous ruler commands the uncompromising loyalty of his subjects and their dedication to the principles of sovereignty. Barbour's selection and arrangement of the source materials, historical and fictional, invigorated with the language of the romance, provides an idealized history of a heroic past and an era of political stability that transcends metaphysically to the House of Stewart.

Succession, stability, loyalty, and unity make up the elements that Robert I fought for and hoped would be the legacy for his heirs. That hope almost died with him. On the other hand, Robert II was not a hero of the Scottish Wars of Independence, but in commissioning The Bruce he succeeded in providing an account of history that became a national legacy. Barbour's version of the events surrounding the Scottish Wars of Independence is a persuasive claim for the legitimate succession of the House of Stewart.

Notes

¹ John D. Mackie, A History of Scotland, eds. Bruce Lenman and Geoffrey Parker, 2nd ed. (London: Allan Lane, 1978), pp. 32-48; Rosalind Mitchison, History of Scotland (London: Methuen, 1970), pp. 13-34.

² Edward L. G. Stones, "The Records of the Great Cause of 1291-2," SHR, 35 (1956), 89-109.

³ William C. Dickinson, Scotland from the Earliest Times to 1603, ed. Archibald A. M. Duncan, 3^rd. ed. (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1977), p. 140.

⁴ Caroline Bingham, The Stewart Kingdom of Scotland 1371-1603 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974), p. 10; William Furguson, Scotland's Relations with England, A Survey to 1707, (Edinburgh: John Donaldson Publishers, Ltd. 1977), p. 23-24; Gordon Donaldson and Robert S. Morpeth, Who's Who in Scottish History (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1973), pp. 17-18.

⁵ Dickinson, pp. 141-45; Edward L. G. Stone, ed., "Appeals of the Seven Earls," Anglo-Scottish Relations, 1174-1328 (Edinburgh: Nelson, 1965), pp. 44-50.

⁶ Edward L. G. Stones, "The Submission of Robert Bruce to Edward I, c. 1301-2," SHR, 34 (1955), 122-31.

⁷ T. M. Smallwood, "An Unpublished Early Account of Bruce's Murder of Comyn," SHR, 54 (1975), 1-10.

⁸ Archibald A. M. Duncan, "The Acta of Robert I," SHR, 32 (1953), 1-39.

⁹ John Barbour, The Bruce, A.D. 1375, ed. Walter W. Skeat, 2 vols. (London, 1870; 1889; The Early English Text Society, Extra Series, Nos. 11 and 55; rpt. London: Oxford University Press, 1968). In this study all references to The Bruce are to Skeat's 1968 edition. In the Preface to the 1889 edition, Skeat notes, "as there is no earlier trace of this pedigree, Barbour may have invented it himself.… The true pedigree of the family and their relationship to the English FitzAlans was perfectly well known in Barbour's time; but the Archdeacon was too much of a courtier to assign to his sovereign a common descent with any English family." p.xlii.

¹⁰ Bingham, pp. 22-23.

¹¹ Eric Linklater, The Royal House (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1970), p. 4.

¹² Herbert Maxwell, Robert Bruce and the Struggle for Independence (New York: Putnam's Sons, 1897), pp. 354-5. Robert I had five legitimate children and possibly three or four illegitimate children: Marjorie, by his first wife, Isabel of Mar, then with his second wife, Elizabeth de Burgh, Matilda, Margaret, David, and another son John who died in infancy.

¹³ Linklater, p. 4.

¹⁴ Ranald Nicholson, "A Sequel to Edward Bruce's Invasion of Ireland," SHR, 42 (1963), 30-38.

¹⁵ Dickinson, p. 167 ff.

¹⁶ The "carpyng," (1, 6) that is the delivery, and the style of the narrative itself, the four-stress couplet, indicate that Barbour was writing a romance: see, Derek A. Pearsall, "The Development of Middle English Romance," Medieval Studies, 27 (1965), 91-110.

¹⁷ G. W. S. Barrow, Robert Bruce and The Community of the Realm (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1965), pp. 378 ff.

¹⁸ Barrow notes that the epithet "Good King Robert has been most sparingly distributed among Scottish sovereigns." Barrow's opinion of that historical era is that "the rapport within the community of the realm" that Robert I achieved and the popularity that he e-joyed cannot be adequately measured, and that whatever his defects or shortcomings were, his countrymen, and in this case, Barbour, were willing to suppress them, p. 378.