SOURCE: "Barbour's Bruce and Harry's Wallace: The Question of Influence," Tennessee Studies in Literature, Vol. XVII, 1972, pp. 190-24.

[In the following essay, Scheps argues that Blind Harry's indebtedness to Barbour has been exaggerated and that one purpose of the Wallace is to discredit Bruce.]

John Barbour's Bruce (1375) has often been cited as the most important source of Blind Harry's Wallace (ante 1488). George Neilson, for example, calls the Wallace "a rib out of Bruce's side,"¹ and J. T. T. Brown suggests that the scribe of the fifteenth-century manuscript containing both poems has taken elements from the Bruce and added them to the Wallace.² That such views should come to be accepted is not surprising. Both Harry and Barbour deal with the same period in Scottish history. Also, Harry directly cites Barbour's poem (e.g., VII.757-58).³ That Harry knew the Bruce cannot be questioned, but the extent to which he used incidents from it in the Wallace and, equally important, the nature of Barbour's influence upon him have yet to be ascertained. It is with these problems that this study will be concerned.

We might begin by summarizing the major points of contact between the Bruce and the Wallace as given by Brown and Neilson. If they are correct, Harry has taken a passing allusion to the Barns of Ayr in the Bruce (IV.36-38)⁴ and has expanded it into a wholly fabulous episode in the Wallace (VII.25ff., 205ff.). Longueville (Wallace, IX.86ff.; Bruce, IX.391) and Boyd (Wallace, III.52; Bruce, 11.244), companions of Bruce, become followers of Wallace. Bruce's battle of Loudon Hill is a victory for Wallace (Wallace, III.99ff.; Bruce, VIII.207). Crystal of Seton, an adherent of Bruce, becomes a supporter of Wallace (Wallace, VII. 1276; Bruce, 11.243). Malcolm, Earl of Lennox, an opportunist at best, according to the historians, is praised effusively in the Bruce (II.482ff.); he is treated in the same way in the Wallace (IV.156ff.). Aymer Walling, who was English, not Scottish, and who had no land in Scotland until Edward I gave him Bothwell,⁵ is one of Bruce's adversaries in Barbour's poem; in the Wallace he is called a "fals traytour strange" (III.261) and a "suttell terand knycht" (VI.273). Bruce's bishop, Sinclair of Dunkeld, is appropriated by Harry (Wallace, XI. 1417; Bruce, XVI.575). The use of a sleuth-hound is described similarly in the Bruce (VI.36ff., 475ff.) and in the Wallace (V.23ff.). Furthermore, Harry attributes to Wallace an invasion of England which reached York, when in fact the only Scottish invasion to penetrate so deeply was led by Bruce in 1322, during the reign of Edward 11.⁶

What should be noted first of all is that many of these "borrowings" cannot be proven. It is not unlikely that sources of information available to Barbour and Harry have since been lost; conversely, many of the documents at our disposal, especially those written by the English, were unknown to the Scottish poets. It is unreasonable to accuse Harry of "borrowing" or of deliberate historical tampering simply because his account of an event (e.g., the Barns of Ayr) is fuller than Barbour's. The appropriation of Bruce's bishop and of his victory of Loudon Hill is perhaps the result of confusion on Harry's part. As for those supporters of Bruce who become part of Wallace's force in Harry's poem, we know so little about their activities that it is inadvisable to claim that because they served Bruce they cannot have served Wallace earlier. In the depictions of Lennox and Walling, however, Harry seems to be influenced by Barbour; the sleuth-hound incidents are very similar and also seem to indicate Barbour's influence on Harry.

In order to ascertain the extent of Harry's indebtedness to Barbour, we might begin by examining the personal names and poetic allusions in the respective poems. Such an examination reveals several significant facts. Although, as might be expected, several of the more important characters, like Percy and Comyn, appear in both poems, Wallace is never mentioned by Barbour. Furthermore, those characters who are among Wallace's closest compatriots—John Blair, Thomas Gray, John Graham, Grimsby, Tom Halliday, Kneland, Edward Little, Andrew de Moray, and Steven of Ireland—are likewise ignored by Barbour, as are Wallace's personal enemies—Corspatrik, Hesilrig, Hugh de Cressingham, and John Menteith. Since Barbour fails to mention Wallace, he need not mention Wallace's beloved, Marion Bradfute. These characters are the chief personages in Harry's poem; it is difficult to find twenty consecutive lines in which none of them is mentioned. Thus it would appear that in regard to the characters upon whom Harry is to concentrate most of his attention, he is not very much indebted to Barbour.

But what of Harry's manner? Is he influenced by Barbour stylistically? The answer again seems to be negative. Barbour, the Archdeacon of Aberdeen, fills his narrative with Biblical allusions (David, Jeremiah, Joel, Laban, Philistines, Babylon, Judas, Judas Machabeus, Samuel, Satan, Isaiah); Harry mentions only Samson and Herod. Similarly, Barbour's poem contains many learned references to medieval and classical authors and to characters both real and fictive from antiquity (Adrastus, Aristotle, Fabricius, Hannibal, Eteocles and Polynices, Aristaeus, Dionysius, Cato, Dares, Dictes, Pyrrhus, Scipio the Younger, Tydeus, Ptolemy) but only one allusion to a pagan god or goddess (i.e., Minerva, IV.263).⁷ In all of Barbour's poem there is not a single astrological allusion.⁸

In the Wallace, on the other hand, references to antiquity are of the vaguest and most general nature imaginable. Harry mentions Achilles, Hector, Thebes, Troy, Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar; these names hardly suggest any specialized knowledge on Harry's part. His pantheon, however, is more nearly complete than is Barbour's. Harry refers to Bacchus, Juno, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn, both as deities and as astrological powers. He also speaks of Aries, the Bull (Taurus), Cancer, Capricorn, Luna, Pisces, and Titan. If these astrological allusions can be thought of as being part of the medieval poet's stock of commonplaces, even more so are names like Flora, Zephirus, and Phoebus. None of these is used by Barbour, but all appear in the Wallace (e.g., VIII.1187; V.8; IX.23).

It should be clear by now that whatever substantive influence Barbour exerted on Harry is limited to specific incidents and character portrayals and does not permeate the Wallace as a whole. Part of the difference between the two poems may be accounted for by Barbour's vocation, although it has sometimes been suggested that Harry, too, was a cleric.⁹ As an archdeacon, Barbour would be expected to eschew all references to pagan deities (including Phoebus, Zephirus, and Flora) and to originally pagan systems of divination, like astrology. Unlike Harry,¹⁰ Barbour cannot possibly be subject to Chaucerian influence. His poem is therefore less consciously poetical and much less stylized than Harry's.

The relationship between the two poems is, I believe, clarified if we examine Harry's portrayal of Robert Bruce in the Wallace." In the Bruce, Barbour had depicted his hero as a model of chivalry, courage, and wisdom. In the Wallace, Bruce is a totally different character.

There are several references to King Robert and the Bruce throughout the Wallace, but it is not until Book VII that these references begin to form a recognizable pattern. In line 755 Harry speaks of "Brucis wer" (this, as the context indicates, refers to Edward I's invasion of Scotland, in which Bruce and his father fought on the side of the English king against Wallace) and says, in lines 757-58,

Mencione off Bruce is oft in Wallace buk;
To fend his rycht full mekill payne he tuk.

It is difficult to interpret these lines as anything but ironic. There is no mention of Wallace in "Brucis buk," but the "rycht" Harry speaks of, which could refer either to Bruce's claim to the Scottish throne or to his lands in England, makes the comparison to Wallace invidious. In a previous passage Harry had said,

All worthi men, that has gud witt to waille,
Be war that yhe with myss deyme nocht my
 taille.
Perchance ye say, that Bruce he was none sik.
He was als gud, quhat deid was to assaill,
As off his handis, and baulder in battaill.
Bot Bruce was knawin weyll ayr off this
 kynrik;
For he had rycht, we call no man him lik.
Bot Wallace thriss this kynrik conquest haile,
In Ingland fer socht battaill on that rik.
(11.351-59)

W. H. Schofield, who sees this passage as posing a question similar to that asked by Chaucer's Franklin, says, "Bruce was indeed the 'heir' of the kingdom and had the 'right' but Wallace was 'baulder in battaill' and thrice saved the realm by his might…¹²

When Harry next speaks of Bruce and Wallace, he says that Wallace has "lawta and trouth" and implies that Bruce is lacking in these qualities.

Thai [the English] gert him [Bruce] trow
         that Wallace was rabell,
And thocht to tak the kynryk to hym sel.
Ful fals thai war, and evir ɜeit has beyn;
Lawta and trouth was ay in Wallace seyn;
To fend the rycht all that he tuk on hand,
And thocht to bryng the Bruce fre till his
 land.
(VIII.141-46)

The difference between Bruce's "rycht" and Wallace's is obvious.

Harry tells us that Bruce fought "contrai his natiff men" (VIII. 341), and he gives Wallace's reaction:

Off Brucis deid he was agrewit far mar
Than all the laiff that day at semblit thar.
(VIII.243-44)

Instead of leading his countrymen against the English invaders, Bruce "sa cruelly wrocht [that] … throuch strenth offhand feill Scottis he gert de" (VIII.259-60). Throughout the remainder of the poem (VIII.639-44, 1611-13; IX.1872-73; X.205-16, 252-53, 357-60, 405-407), Bruce is presented in the worst possible light, until finally Wallace, in a face to face meeting with Bruce on the banks of the Carron (X.442ff.), points out to him the tragic consequences of his defection. Bruce is converted to Scotland's cause and breaks his bond with Edward, whereupon Wallace transfers his allegiance from John Baliol to Bruce (X.595ff.) in the hope that Scotland can yet be saved.

Schofield says, "The spirit of hate animates the Wallace throughout, and no power on earth can cast it out, so as to make its body wholly clean."'¹³ Schofield here is speaking of Harry's hatred of the English which is reflected in his characterization of Wallace. I believe that this hatred extends either to Barbour, to the Bruce, or to both. Harry does everything in his power to discredit Bruce; whether his animosity is personal or is representative of a desire on Harry's part to supplant Bruce with Wallace and the Bruce with the Wallace, in public esteem, is conjectural. That this hatred exists, however, is apparent, as when Harry acidly remarks,

For my labour na man hecht me reward;
Na charge I had off king nor othir lord[.]
(XI.1434-35)

Although Harry had no reward for the Wallace, Barbour was paid handsomely for the Bruce.¹⁴

If there is yet some doubt concerning Harry's attitude towards Barbour, there is no ambivalence whatever in his portrayal of Bruce. In the Wallace we see Bruce as a vacillating, opportunistic individual whose immaturity and insouciance are shocking; with the very fate of Scotland in the balance, Bruce laughs at Wallace's "emystfulnas" (X.497). Harry's attempts to establish the "suthfastnes" (e.g., VII. 917) of his narrative take on additional significance when we consider his depiction of Bruce.

There are no extant historical authorities who substantiate Harry's portrayal of Bruce. History tells us only that Bruce fought for Edward I against Wallace. If Harry's poem were accepted as fact—and he constantly asks for just such acceptance—the inevitable result would be the removal of Barbour and Bruce from national esteem and their replacement with Harry and Wallace.

Harry's virulent hatred for the English cannot be denied. That he considered Bruce's defection to Edward an act of treason is likely. By making Wallace instrumental in persuading Bruce to join the Scottish patriots, Harry gives Wallace a share in Bruce's later greatness. Apparently Harry's disdain for Bruce included King Robert's biographer, John Barbour, as the ironic references to Barbour inthe Wallace indicate. The comparison of Bruce and Wallace is inevitable, but in his poem Harry heavily weights the scales. We must remember that when Wallace berates Bruce (X.442ff.) it is with Harry's words, and, if the author of the Wallace has not succeeded in completely discrediting the hero of Brannockburn, it is not for want of effort.

Notes

¹ "Blind Harry's Wallace," E&S, 1 (1910), 98.

²The "Wallace" and the "Bruce" Restudied(Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1900).

³ This and all future references to the Wallace are to The Actis and Deidis of… Schir William Wallace …, ed. James Moir, STS, OS 6, 7, 17 (Edinburgh and London: Blackwood & Sons, 1889); hereafter cited as Wallace.

⁴ This and all future references to the Bruce are to The Bruce …, ed. W. W. Skeat, STS, OS 31, 32, 33 (Edinburgh and London: Blackwood & Sons, 1895); hereafter cited as Bruce.

⁵Wallace, p. 395n.

⁶ Neilson, p. 104.

⁷ See Bruce, pp. lxvi-vii.

⁸ Barbour inveighs against astrology (IV.674) and necromancy (IV.747), yet he seems to believe in the fulfillment of old prophecies (IV.639, 772; X.740; XV.292).

⁹ See especially James Paterson, Wallace, the Hero of Scotland (London: W. P. Nimmo, 1876). Harry himself seems to deny this (V.233-34).

¹⁰ See W. W. Skeat, "Chaucer and Blind Harry," The Modern Language Quarterly, 1, 2 (1897), 49-50. (This journal, printed in London from 1897 to 1904, should not be confused with the American journal published at the University of Washington.)

¹¹ It is probable that during his career Wallace found arrayed against him three men all named Robert Bruce. The youngest of these, the future king of Scotland, assisted his father in the service of Edward I; King Robert's grandfather had made his claim to the Scottish throne in 1290. From the nature of the references to Bruce in the Wallace, it seems that Harry is unaware of these distinctions.

¹²Mythical Bards and "The Life of William Wallace" (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1920), pp. 130-31.

¹³ Ibid., p. 167.

¹⁴ See Bruce, pp. xxxi-vi.