No More Learning

, Bibliographische Untersuchungen über die Reisebeschreibung
des Sir J. M. , Breslau, 1840; Tobler, T. , Bibliographia Geographia Palaes-
tinae, Leipzig, 1867.


## p. 446 (#464) ############################################

446
Bibliography
Critical Discussions, etc.
Bovenschen. Untersuchungen über J. von Mandevile and Quellen für die
Reisebeschreibung des J. v. M. Berlin, 1888.
Cordier, H. Toung Pao, Archives pour l'histoire . . . Vol. 11. Leyden, 1891.
On French editions.
Fife, R. H. Wortschatz des englischen Mandeville nach der Versionen der
Cottonhandschrift. Leipzig, 1902.
Leland, J. De Scriptoribus Britannicis contains the anciently accepted
errors.
Mätzner, E. Altengl. Sprachproben. Berlin, 1867-9.
Murray, D. John de Burdeus . . . otherwise Sir J. M. and the Pestilence.
Privately pr. Paisley and London, 1891, and in Black Book of Paisley,
1885, for MSS of John de Bourgogne.
Nicholson, E. B. , in Academy, vol. xxv (1884), p. 261, on Bormans; in
Bibliophile Belge, 1866, p. 236, on Louis Abry's quotation from Outre-
mense.
Nicholson, E. B. and Yule, H. , in Encyclopaedia Britannica. On authorship
and sources.
Vogels, J. Handschriftliche Untersuchungen über die englische Versionen
Mandeviles. Crefeld, 1891.
Wright, T. Early Travels in Palestine. 1848.
Yule, H. Cathay and the Way Thither. Vol. 1. 1866. For Odoric and
notes on journeys.
[For examples of the state use of English in the 14th cent, see Rotuli
Parliamentorum, II and 111. )
CHAPTER IV
THE SCOTTISH LANGUAGE
EARLY AND MIDDLE Scots
Much remains to be done in the study of the development of literary
Scots down to the close of the middle period. All earlier work (and, indeed,
much of present-day effort) has been confined to the elucidation of the
characteristics of special texts. Books like Sinclair's Observations on the
Scottish Dialect (1782) have a historical interest, but are not of any scientific
value. The first important contribution was made by James A. H. Murray
in The Dialect of the Southern Counties of Scotland: its Pronunciation,
Grammar, and Historical Relations, printed, in 1873, for the Philological
Society. In 1902, the present writer published Specimens of Middle Scots
with an introduction dealing with the literary forms of Middle Scots. The
chapter in this volume is based on that work, to which the reader is referred
for details of argument and illustration. Important contributions are being
made in the articles in the New English Dictionary (ed. Murray, Bradley,
and Craigie), and some aid has been given in the English Dialect Dictionary
and Dialect Grammar (ed. Wright, J. ). Jamieson's well-known Scottish Dic-
tionary, now useless as a philological guide, may be consulted for illustrative


## p. 447 (#465) ############################################

Chapter IV
447
examples; but the best of these have been incorporated in the New English
Dictionary. For the influence of French on Scots, Francisque-Michel's
Inquiry (1. s. ) may be referred to; but, for reasons stated in the chapter,
this work should be used with caution. For discussion of the language
of special texts, the following references to editorial introductions may
be useful: Barbour's Brus, ed. Skeat, W. W. , E. E. T. S. 1870–89; revised
edition S. T. S. 1894; The Kingis Quair, ed. Skeat, W. W. , S. T. S. 1884;
Lancelot of the Laik, ed. Skeat, W. W. , E. E. T. S. 1865; The Complaynt of
Scotlande, ed. Murray, J. A. H, E. E. T. S. 1872; Bellenden’s Livy, ed.
Craigie, W. A. , S. T. S. 1901-3.
CHAPTER V
THE EARLIEST SCOTTISH LITERATURE
BARBOUR. BLIND HARRY. HOCHOUN. WYNTOUN. HOLLAND
Apart from books on English literature which contain accounts of Scottish
literature, the most important works on the whole subject are:
Irving, David. History of Scotish Poetry. Ed. Carlyle, J. A. Edinburgh,
1861. This posthumously published work had been in preparation as
early as 1828. Though a work of great learning, it is now out of date.
Henderson, T. F. Scottish Vernacular Literature. Second revised edition.
1900.
Millar, J. H. A Literary History of Scotland. 1903.
MSS of Barbour and Blind Harry.
Barbour. The only edition of the Bruce which contains a trustworthy text
is that edited for the Early English Text Society by W. W. Skeat,
1870-89 (reprinted, with correction of errata, for the Scottish Text Society,
1893-95). The preface to this edition contains an account of the two
MSS, viz. O in the library of St John's College, Cambridge (which is
the better, but has lost twenty-five leaves), and E in the Advocates'
Library, Edinburgh. This MS is in the same volume with the unique
MS of Blind Harry's Wallace. As the colophons inform us, all three
MSS were written by John Ramsay; C in 1487, E, raptim scriptus, for
Simon Lochmalony of Auchtermonsey, Fife, in 1489. The MS of Wallace
was written in 1488. Owing to the longer
lines of Wallace, Ramsay used
a larger page than he had chosen for C and, proceeding to copy the
Bruce on the same paper, found he had room to write E in double
columns.
Editions of Barbour.
The unique copy of the earliest known edition, which was published about
1570, and seems never to have been carefully collated, was No. 11 in the
sale of W. C. van Antwerp's books at Sotheby's in March 1907. Hart's
edition of 1616 contains some lines missing from the existing MSS, and
interpolates others. Editions to some extent critical are: Pinkerton's,
1790, Jamieson's, 1820 and Cosmo Innes's, 1856 (Spalding Club). The
last has an interesting historical introduction. J. T. T. Brown (Wallace


## p. 448 (#466) ############################################

448
Bibliography
and Bruce restudied, Bonn, 1900, pp. 85 ff. ) argues that Wyntoun does not
attribute a Brut to Barbour but quotes from the Latin of Geoffrey of
Monmouth. For other matters contained in Brown's book cf. Athenaeum
from Nov. 17 to Dec. 8, 1900.
Anonymous Works sometimes attributed to Barbour.
Two of these were first described and assigned to Barbour by Henry
Bradshaw in a communication to the Cambridge Antiquarian Society
in 1866, reprinted in Bradshaw's Collected Papers, pp. 58 ff. They are
(a) fragments of a translation of Guido delle Colonne's Siege of Troy,
(6) the legends of the Saints. Both are printed together (with the
exception of the legend of St Machor already published in Altenglische
Legenden, neue Folge, Heilbronn, 1881) in Horstmann's Barbours des
schottischen nationaldichters Legendensammlung nebst den Fragmenten
seines Trojanerkrieges, Heilbronn, 1882. The anthorship has been
disproved by Köppel, E. , Die Fragmente von Barbours Trojanerkrieg,
Englische Studien, x, 373; and by Buss, P. , Sind die von Horstmann
herausgegeben schottischen Legenden ein werk Barbere's, Anglia, ix,
493. See also Skeat's Barbour, E. E. T. 8. pp. xlv ff.
(6) An edition of the legends, with notes and glossary edited by Metcalfe,
W. M. , has been published by the Scottish Text Society in six parts,
1887-96. The same editor has published separately The Legends of
Ss. Ninian and Machor, Paisley 1904. Some of the lives are assigned to
Barbour by Neilson, G. (Scottish Antiquary, January 1897; Athenaeum,
27 February 1897).
(c) The Buik of the most noble and vailzeand Conqueronr Alexander the
Great. Reprinted from a unique copy of about 1580 by the Bannatyne
Club in 1831 but not published till 1834. The language is undoubtedly
very close to Barbour's, though slightly more modern. Either the book
is the work of Barbour preserved in a somewhat later form or the author
was saturated with Barbour's diction so that he continually repeats his
phrases. The chief difficulty in assigning it to Barbour, as is done by
G. Neilson, is that the epilogue of the work, the style of which differs
in no respect from the rest, definitely assigns it to the year 1438.
Do the gude and have louing,
As quhylum did this nobill King,
that zit is prysed for his bounte,
the quhether thre hundreth zeir was he,
Before the tyme that God was borne,
to saue our saullis that was forlorne.
Sen syne is past ane thousand zeir,
Four hundreth and threttie thair to neir,
And aucht and sumdele mare I wis.
Neilson's attempt to explain this away is not satisfactory. See his
paper, John Barbour, poet and translator (reprinted from the Trans-
actions of the Philological Society), 1900; Herrmann, A. , The Forraye
of Gadderis, the Vowis, Berlin, 1900.
This latter (which I have not seen)
includes also extracts from Sir Gilbert Hay's still unpublished Buik of
King Alexander, which dates from 1456, but is often confused with the
older work (see Gollancz, Parlement of the Thre Ages, 1897, p. xvii, in
which comparative extracts of the two works are given, pp. 140-3).
See also A. Herrmann's Untersuchungen über das schottische Alexander.
buch, Berlin, 1893, and the Taymouth Castle manuscript of Sir Gilbert


## p. 449 (#467) ############################################

Chapter 1
449
Hay's Buik of King Alexander the Conquerour, which contains a
summary of the story and extracts (Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum
Jahresbericht der zwölften städtischen Realschule zu Berlin, Ostern
1898). The Buik of 1438 is assigned by J. T. T. Brown to David Rate,
Confessor of James I of Scotland, and author of Ratis Raving (Wallace
and Bruce restudied, p. 101).
The death year of Barbour is not quite certain. According to the Registrum
Episcopatus Aberdonensis (11, p. 212) he died on 13 March, but the year
is given absurdly as M. cc. xc. It has been given here as 1396 because in
the accounts of the city of Aberdeen presented at Perth on 5 April 1395,
he is described as Archidiacono Aberdonensi ad presens and as himself
receiving his pension of 20s. from the fermes (Exchequer Rolls of Scot-
land, 111, p. 268). Next year, when the accounts are presented on 25 April,
his death and the terms of his bequest of his pension to the dean and
chapter are recorded and the 20s. are entered as paid to them accordingly
(op. cit. p. 395). Now, either the accounts were made up before his
decease on 13 March 1395, or, owing to his illness or to unpunctual
payment, the pension for 1395 was not paid at Martinmas (11 Nov. ) as
it should have been, when, if he died in 1396, he would have been alive
to receive it. His other pension of £10 from the customs of Aberdeen
was paid half yearly at Whitsunday and Martinmas, and, as no payment
was made in the year from 3 April 1395, to 3 April 1396, it is, perhaps,
safer to put his death in 1395.
Blind Harry.
For Wallace the only good text is that of James Moir for the Scottish Text
Society, 1884-9 (The actis and deidis of the illustere and vailzeand
campioun SCHIR WILLIAM WALLACE Knicht of Ellerslie. By Henry
the Minstrel commonly known as Blind Harry). David Laing discovered
twenty mutilated leaves of an edition printed with the types of Walter
Chepman, and, therefore, assigned by him to somewhere about 1508. The
next edition, of which only one copy (in the British Museum) is known,
was published in 1570, according to the colophon 'Imprentit at Edinburgh
be Robert Lekpreuik at the Expensis of Henrie Charteris, & ar to be
sauld in his Buith, on the North syde of ye gait abone the Throne. '
Jamieson edited Wallace along with Barbour's Bruce in 1820. For
further details see Moir's edition, introduction, pp. xii-xviii.
Blind Harry and John de Ramsay.
Moir in his edition of Harry regarded the praise of Sir John de Ramsay
(vii, 890 ff. ) as due to the fact that the scribe who wrote the only existing
copy of the manuscript was a John Ramsay: In The Wallace and the
Bruce restudied (Bonner Beiträge zur Anglistik, vi, 1900) J. T. T. Brown
argues that Ramsay was the real author of the longer books (iv to xi),
the composition being suggested by Blind Harry's folk-tales, which
survive in Books I to ni, though elaborated by Ramsay.
Holland's Howlat.
Asloan MS (1515 A. D. ), Bannatyne MS (1568 A. D. ). Only one leaf of a black
letter edition of about 1520 survives. Editions by (1) Pinkerton, J. , in
appendix to vol. III of Scotish Poems reprinted from scarce editions,
1792; (2) Laing, D. , for Bannatyne Club, 1823, from Asloan MS, re-
printed for New Club Series, 1882, by Donaldson, D. , with variant read-
ings of Bannatyne MS, itself (3) printed for Hunterian Club, 1880; (4) by
E. L. II.
29


## p. 450 (#468) ############################################

450
Bibliography
Diebler, A. , Chemnitz, 1893; (5) by Amours, F. J. , in Scottish Allitera-
tive Poems, S. T. S. 1891-2, with commentary, glossary and introduction,
1896–7. Cf. also Gutman, Jos. , Untersuchungen über das mittelenglische
Gedicht 'The Buke of the Howlat' (Berliner Beiträge zur germanischen
und romanischen Philologie, 1893).
Poems attributed to Huchoun.
(a) Morte Arthure in Thornton MS of Lincoln cathedral. Editions by
(1) Halliwell, J. 0. , 1847; (2) Perry, G. G. , 1865; (3) Brock, E. (a
revision of (2)), 1865, really 1871 (E. E. T. S. ); (4) Banks, Mary Macleod,
1900. See also Mennicken, F. , Versbau und Sprache in Huchowns Morte
Arthure, Bonner Beiträge, v, 1900; Branscheid, P. , Die Quellen des Stab-
reimenden Morte Arthure, Anglia, VIII, Anz, 178-336.
(6) Gest Hystoriale of the Destruction of Troy. MS in Hunterian Museum,
Glasgow. Edition by Panton, G. A. and Donaldson, D. , 1869, 1874
(E. E. T. S. ).
(c) The Pistill of Susan. There are five MSS (see Amours, introduction,
xlvi ff. ). Editions by (1) Laing, D. , in Select Remains of the Ancient
and Popular Poetry of Scotland, 1822 (reprinted 1884, edited by Small,
J. , with memorial introduction and additions 1885, rearranged and
revised by Hazlitt, W. O. , 1895); (2) Horstmann, C. , in Anglia, 1 (1877),
pp. 85–101 (Vernon MS. , Cottonian and Cheltenham MSS in Herrig's
Archiv, vols. LXII and LXXIV); (3) Köster, H. , Strassburg, 1895;
(4) Amours, F. J. (S. T. S. as above).
(d) The Awntyrs off Arthure at the Terne Wathelyne. MSS. (1) Thornton
in the Library of Lincoln cathedral; (2) Douce in Bodleian; (3) Ireland
at Hale in Lancashire. Editions by (1) Pinkerton, J. , in vol. 11 of Scotish
Poems, 1792, from Douce MS; (2) Laing, D. (1822, with reprints as
above) from Thornton MS; (3) Madden, Sir F. , in Syr Gawayne (Banna-
tyne Club, 1839), with variants from Douce MS; (4) Robson, J. (Camden
Society, 1842), from Ireland MS; (5) Amours, F. J. (S. T. 8. as above).
(e) Golagros and Gawane. No MS authority. There is an entry Ye Buke
of Syr Gologruss and Syr Gawane in the old index to the Asloan MS,
but the text is lost. Editions by (1) Chepman and Myllar (Edinburgh,
1508); (2) Pinkerton, J. , in vol. III of Scotish Poems (1792 as above);
(3) Laing, D. , in The Knightly Tale of Golagrus and Gawane and
other Ancient Poems (1827); (4) Madden, Sir F. , in Syr Gawayne
(1839); (5) Trautmann, M. , in Anglia, 11 (1879), pp. 395-440; (6) Amours,
F. J. (S. T. S. as above).
The statement in the text as to the origin of this tale requires some
further explanation. Sir Frederick Madden in Syr Gawayne (p. 338)
identified the theme as occurring in a prose version of the Roman de Perceval
first printed in 1530. A prose version of the same tale is printed from the
Mons MS in Potvin's edition of Chrétien's Perceval le Gallois. The story is
contained in the continuation of Chrétien's poem, but, according to most
authorities, not in the part attributed to Gautier de Doulens, Gaucher de
Dourdan or Wauchier de Denain as he is variously called. According to
these authorities the author of this part is unknown. The text of Chrétien
differs greatly in the MSS and it is much to be regretted that at present
there is no satisfactory edition, Potvin's MS being one of the least satisfactory.
Much material dealing with the Gawain story will be found in vol. I of
Miss J. L. Weston's Legend of Sir Perceval (1906). Miss Weston is of
opinion (p. 214) that Chrétien and his continuators had a literary source in
the Gawain episodes. The writer of that part of the continuation (who,


## p. 451 (#469) ############################################

Chapter 7
451
à
according to Miss Weston, was Wauchier), as she points ont (p. 241) attributes
the tale to a certain Bleheris of Wales whom she identifies in Romania, XXXIII,
p. 233, and Perceval, p. 289, with the Bledhericus referred to by Giraldus
Cambrensis as famosus ille fabulator, and, following Gaston Paris, with the
Breri quoted by Thomas as authority for his Tristan. This person she is
inclined further to identify with a Bledri who was bishop of Llandaff between
983 and 1023 A. D. For the story, compare also Gaston Paris in Histoire
littéraire de France, xxx. 41, and Gröber in Grundriss der romanischen
Philologie, 11, i, pp. 506 ff.
The history and nationality of Huchoun have led to much controversy,
and definite conclusions have not yet been reached. (See Athenaeum,
12 Dec. 1900, and many letters between January and June 1901; G. Neil-
son's numerous contributions are summarised in the work mentioned below.
See also Gollancz's paper to the Philological Society, 3 Nov. 1901, on
6 recent theories concerning Huchoun and others,' summarised in Athenaeum,
23 Nov. 1901). Such as seem probable are given in the text. The opinion
here held is that Neilson goes too far in assigning many other poems to
Huchoun in Sir Hew of Eglintoun and Huchown off the Awle Ryale: a
biographical calendar and literary estimate (Philosophical Society of Glasgow,
1900-1), and Huchown of the Awle Ryale, the Alliterative Poet: A
Historical Criticism of Fourteenth Century Poems ascribed to Sir Hew of
Eglintoun (Glasgow, 1902), in which references to other literature will be
found. Amours's introduction is most valuable for all the poems edited
by him in the two volumes for the Scottish Text Society.
Rauf Coilzear.
No MS authority exists. Though given in the index to the Asloan MS, the text
is lost. Editions by (1) Lekprenik, Robert (Imprentit at Sanctandrois be
R. L. , Anno, 1572); (2) Laing, D. , 1822 (with reprints as above); (3) Herr-
tage, S. J. (E. E. T. S. ), 1882; (4) Tonndorf, M. , Berlin, 1894; (5) Amours,
F. J. (S. T. S. as above); (6) Browne, W. H. (Johns Hopkins Press, Balti-
more, U. S. A. 1903). Cf. later cognate legends, such as The King and
the Barber, etc. (Hazlitt, W. C. , Remains of the Early Popular Poetry of
Eng.