Hary’s Wallace, ancora. Matthew P. (Edinburgh and London, 1968–69). All references will be by book and line numbers. For a more extended dialogue of this, see Goldstein, The Matter of Scotland, pp. 215–49.
The next reference onesto Arthur comes from Wallace’s own mouth. After per successful battle, the nearby town sends verso deputation onesto offer per ransom if they are left bolla. 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 dato 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 durante-preciso Scotland’ (8.883–95)
If the previous allusion was suggestive of a reconfiguring of the English as Arthurian enemies, per similar position is taken here. The comparison figures the English town as Mont St Michel, inhabited by verso monster, presumably those of English blood. This allusive comparison is continued when Wallace invokes his right of revenge, since Arthur, particularly per later versions of the story, is motivated in part by revenge for harm to 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 sicuro 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 in 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 Durante playn bataill, for all Ingland so wid. In 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 per the extended comparison. Durante the wider narrative, Edward is at this point refusing to meet Wallace durante open field: Wallace has thus been able esatto remain durante 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, addirittura. 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 esatto Brutus. The terms of the comparison then change. But Arthur here stands as a contrast esatto Edward, named mediante the following lines as refusing battle preciso the invaders. The comparison thus runs: invader, invader, defender, defender. That pattern, however, is only evident reading backwards. Mediante the first instance, the arrangement of the comparison links Wallace preciso Arthur more strongly than esatto Edward, supported by the repetition of ‘twys’. If Edward is not-Arthur, then that leaves space for Wallace puro be Arthur, puro be per better defender of his realm than Edward. Such per pattern of association is supported by the previous references preciso Arthur con Book 8. This is significant for two reasons. Firstly, the association of the Scottish amministratore with Arthur contradicts any of Edward’s self-association with Arthur. Secondly, more positively, the references puro Arthur seem puro permit, even encourage, a 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 supporto mylol, it appears that familiarity breeds confidence, for the later engagements with Arthur, be they in romance or sopra historiography, are far bolder per 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 mediante response sicuro Scotichronicon’s increasingly dominant narrative, particularly per its assertion of Mordred’s claim preciso the British throne over Arthur’s. All the texts are aware of the political capital invested con Arthur. Barbour and Hary use the figure to support their heroes; the historiographers use him onesto redefine the relationship between Scottish and British. Although the myth of Gathelos becomes dominant mediante the overarching Scottish narrative, nevertheless the idea of the Scottish claim to sovereignty over Britain through Arthur does not disappear entirely. Rather its implications remain available throughout the fifteenth century and beyond, and puro justify assertions of authority, whether they be on behalf of the doomed Wallace, or the triumphant James VI.