BRUCE, THE (THE BRUS) JOHN BARBOUR (ca.
1376) The Bruce, JOHN BARBOUR’s only surviving text,
stands as the fi rst preserved literary work in Scots lit-
erature. Its importance is twofold, both as a literary
work of art and as a historical account of the life and
deeds of ROBERT I THE BRUCE. Containing about 12,000
verses, the poem was originally divided into 150 long
paragraphs or sections; it subsequently was divided
intto 20 books.
Historical evidence places Barbour’s lifetime some-
time around 1320–1395. When King Robert II, grand-
son of Robert I, commissioned him to write The Bruce,
Barbour was archdeacon of Aberdeen. Through the
example of Robert Bruce as a speculum principis (MIRROR
OF PRINCES genre), it was the main political intention of
this ROMANCE to encourage the nobles at Robert II’s
court to support their monarch at a time when royal
authority was frail. As opposed to the other late medi-
eval makars (poets), the Scottish Chaucerian tradition
did not exert any infl uence on Barbour’s narrative.
Ideologically, the exercise of good kingship and
Scotland’s national freedom are at the core of The Bruce.
Robert the Bruce’s fi rst intervention expounds the con-
ceptualizations of kingship and nation: “ ‘Sir,’ said he
[Robert the Bruce], ‘I do not wish to have this King-
dom unless it falls to me by right” (1.157–159). God is
the only one with the authority to determine who the
rightful king of Scots should be. The Bruce implicitly
refuses Edward’s role as an arbiter for the Scottish suc-
cession and advocates the autonomy of the realm and
its sovereign against any foreign threat such as of
Edward I. Continuing on, the Bruce alludes to the old
ancestry of rulers in Scotland, which legitimizes the
above-mentioned autonomy: “... I shall hold at [my
Kingdom] free... as my ancestors did before me”
(1.61, 63). Thus, his fi rst words establish the hero’s
principles for the adequate government of the country,
based on divine, legal, and ethnic premises.
National freedom has been traditionally considered
to be central to Barbour’s general tenets. He introduces
this issue through a debate on the relativity of freedom
(1. 223–274) and the need to have a king who guaran-
tees both national and personal liberties within the
constraints of the feudal system. The author also dis-
credits Bruce’s rivals to the Scottish throne, Edward de
Balliol and John Comyn, since they are willing to sub-
mit to Edward I in exchange for personal promotion
(1. 168–178 and 1. 557–581, respectively). In The
Bruce’s ideological project, there is room for individual
ambitions, but the collective national good must always
be prioritized.
Balliol’s treason relates to the betrayals of the Nine
Worthies (nine historical fi gures seen as the embodi-
ment of CHIVALRY: Hector, Alexander the Great, Julius
Caesar, Joshua, David, Judas, Macabeus, King ARTHUR,
Charlemagne, and Godfrey of Bullion). First, Barbour
alludes to Troy (1.521–526), then to “Alexander ye
conqueroure,” who was “dystroyit throw pwsoune”
(1.529–535), followed by Julius Caesar (1.537–548)
and Arthur (1.549–560). This serves to match Bruce’s
prowess with that of the heroes mentioned, marking
him the Tenth Worthy. Barbour’s construction of his
hero emanates from both medieval and classical tradi-
tions, creating not only a unique hero different from
other medieval warriors, but also a new and distinctive
way of composing heroic literature in the VERNACULAR.
James Douglas, the second most important hero in
the narrative, is also constructed as an ideal knight.
Barbour projects an image of Douglas defi ned both by
EPIC virtues and romance traits. The amalgamation of
both traditions is devised to accomplish a paramount
objective: A deed of chivalry no longer serves personal
ambitions but also must contribute to the epic—and
national—cause.
Consistent with this idea, Barbour openly criticizes
Edward Bruce, Robert’s brother, for his excessively
knightly conduct. Before Bannockburn, Edward’s con-
duct is exemplary. Afterward, however, his chivalrous
ambitions increase disproportionately until his death
in battle against Ireland. His foolhardiness prompts
both his death and the collapse of Scottish aspirations
to liberate—or simply conquer—Ireland. This helps
Barbour to justify those instances where patriotic prag-
matism leads the Scots into unchivalric behavior. The
authorial control of the narrative anticipates a possible
negative response on the audience’s part and, at the
same time, manipulates their reaction.
Another similar, later passage involves Randolph,
Robert the Bruce’s nephew. Randolph complains about
the use of guerrilla warfare, believing the Scots shouldBRUCE, THE 93