himself bankrupt as often as possible. For his tropes of bodily self-
humiliation constitute“symbolic capital”in their very denial of power
and prestige; as we have seen, his identity enters a series of transactions
between author and patron, to circulate as the“fallen second term”which
points up by contrast the“authentic, originary perfection”of idealized
prince or noble.^52 This is the ultimate disruption of identification; the
poet does not, indeed cannot, coincide with his own elevated language.
Secondly, I wishfinally to offer, by way of contrast, an instance from a
different genre and nation. At the end of Hary’sWallace(c. 1476 – 78 ), that
generic hybrid which offers the most powerful offifteenth-century Scottish
historiographies, there is a moment that throws into sharp relief the shape of
literary patronage in one quarter of the Scottish polity. TheWallace, as has
long been recognized, responds to its looming predecessor, John Barbour’s
Bruce, by promoting thefigure of Sir William Wallace, who led resistance
against English occupation while Robert Bruce wasfighting on the oppos-
ing side. As R. James Goldstein has described in detail, Hary inherits from
his source, Walter Bower’sScotichronicon, an ideological double bind:“Bruce
represents the legitimate right [to the Scottish throne] but suffers from
effeminate idleness, while Wallace must presume on another’s right in
order to free his homeland by using his manly courage.”^53 The poem has to
negotiate this dilemma, in part by inventing a scene in which Wallace does
strategically adopt the crown for a day. At its very end, however, its compli-
cations are put into playful, if not quite untroubled, suspension. Hary has
flatly denied the receipt of any remuneration (“For my laubour na man hecht
me reward. / Na charge I had off king nor othir lord,”xii, 1432 – 33 ), insisting
that his motives for writing are purely patriotism and the wish that Wallace’s
name and memory not be“smord”( 1434 ).^54 Now, however, the poet draws
accomplices into thefiction:
Bot in a poynt I grant I said amys.
Thir twa knychtis suld blamyt be for this:
The knycht Wallas, of Cragge rychtwys lord,
And Liddaill als, gert me mak wrang record.
On Allyrtoun mur the croun he [Wallace] tuk a day
To get battaill, as myn autour will say.
Thir twa gert me say that ane othir wys;
Till mayster Blayr we did sumpart off dispys. ( 1441 – 48 )“Mayster Blayr”is Hary’s Lollius, and Hary’s imaginary fault against his
“autour”emphasizes the multiplicity of the authorities on which Hary’s
poem builds and to whom it answers. The“twa knychtis”are Sir William
Wallace of Craigie in Ayrshire, and Sir James Liddale of Halkerton, both
Introduction 11