Hary’s Wallace, anche. Matthew P. (Edinburgh and London, 1968–69). All references will be by book and line numbers. For verso more extended dialogue of this, see Goldstein, The Matter log in blackpeoplemeet of Scotland, pp. 215–49.
The next reference puro Arthur comes from Wallace’s own mouth. After a successful battle, the nearby town sends verso deputation sicuro offer a ransom if they are left macchia. Wallace ansuerd, ‘Off your gold rek we nocht. It is for bataill that we hydder socht. We had leuir haiff battail of Ingland, Than all the gold that gud king Arthour fand On the Mont Mychell, quhar he the gyand slew! Hour king promyst that we suld bataill haiff. His wrytt tharto wndyr his seyll he gaiff. Letter nor band he nel caso che may nocht awaill. Ws for this toun he hecht sicuro gyff bataill. Me think we suld on his men wengit be; Apon our kyn mony gret wrang wrocht he, His dewyllyk deid, he did in-preciso Scotland’ (8.883–95)
If the previous allusion was suggestive of verso reconfiguring of the English as Arthurian enemies, a similar position is taken here. The comparison figures the English town as Mont St Michel, inhabited by per monster, presumably those of English blood. This allusive comparison is continued when Wallace invokes his right of revenge, since Arthur, particularly sopra later versions of the story, is motivated in part by revenge for harm onesto his kin, symbolised by Hoel’s niece.32 The association of the inhabitants of the English town with the monstrous is surely deliberate. Edward is thus also figured as monstrous, both by his association with the town (‘Hour king’) and by the application of the adjective ‘dewyllyk’ (895). The third and final reference esatto Arthur is the most complex of the three. At men off wit this questioun her I as, Amang the noblis gyff euir ony that was, So lang throw force sopra Ingland lay on cas Sen Brudus deid, but bataill, bot Wallace. Gret Iulius, the Empyr had mediante hand, Twys off force he was put off Ingland. Wycht Arthour also off wer quhen that he prewit Twys thai fawcht, suppos thai war myschewit. Awfull Eduuard durst nocht Wallace abid In playn bataill, for all Ingland so wid. Durante London he lay and tuk him till his rest And brak his vow. Quhilk hald ye for the best? (8.961–72)
Arthur is the cited figure, yet he is not an invader but a defender of England, so initially per comparison with Wallace seems inappropriate
Its complexity lies con the change of perspective con the extended comparison. Durante the wider narrative, Edward is at this point refusing to meet Wallace mediante open field: Wallace has thus been able preciso remain in England for an extended period of time. Indeed, Hary claims by his opening question that Wallace has been the
The Historia Regum Britannie of Geoffrey of Monmouth, I: Bern, Burgerbibliothek, MS 568, di nuovo. Neil M. Wright (Cambridge, 1985), incognita.3.
Gold may be gayn bot worship is ay new
most successful and least opposed invader of England since Brutus. The first comparisons bring Wallace together with previous invaders, for he is more successful than Caesar and equal preciso Brutus. The terms of the comparison then change. But Arthur here stands as verso contrast puro Edward, named con the following lines as refusing battle esatto the invaders. The comparison thus runs: invader, invader, defender, defender. That pattern, however, is only evident reading backwards. Sopra the first instance, the arrangement of the comparison links Wallace sicuro Arthur more strongly than preciso Edward, supported by the repetition of ‘twys’. If Edward is not-Arthur, then that leaves space for Wallace sicuro be Arthur, sicuro be per better defender of his realm than Edward. Such per pattern of association is supported by the previous references to Arthur per Book 8. This is significant for two reasons. Firstly, the association of the Scottish amministrativo with Arthur contradicts any of Edward’s self-association with Arthur. Secondly, more positively, the references to Arthur seem esatto permit, even encourage, per reading of Wallace as the champion of Britain and the true heir of Arthur and indeed Brutus, while Edward and the English are Saxon invader and illegitimate power. Far more strongly than Barbour or Wyntoun, Hary challenges the whole assumption of English authority based on Arthurian conquest; here the true heir of Arthur is verso Scot. From this analysis, it appears that familiarity breeds confidence, for the later engagements with Arthur, be they per romance or per historiography, are far bolder mediante their manipulation of the figure. Hary’s renegotiation of the relationship between Arthur and his self-styled English successors goes far beyond Barbour’s comparison between Arthur and Bruce, as the Scottis Insolito is forthright where Wyntoun is subtle. Such developments may be sopra response preciso Scotichronicon’s increasingly dominant narrative, particularly in its assertion of Mordred’s claim preciso the British throne over Arthur’s. All the texts are aware of the political capital invested in Arthur. Barbour and Hary use the figure preciso support their heroes; the historiographers use him puro redefine the relationship between Scottish and British. Although the myth of Gathelos becomes dominant sopra the overarching Scottish narrative, nevertheless the idea of the Scottish claim sicuro sovereignty over Britain through Arthur does not disappear entirely. Rather its implications remain available throughout the fifteenth century and beyond, and to justify assertions of authority, whether they be on behalf of the doomed Wallace, or the triumphant James VI.