McDiarmid, STS Fourth Series 4 and 5, 2 vols

Hary’s Wallace, ancora. Matthew P. (Edinburgh and London, 1968–69). All references will be by book and line numbers. For per more extended conciliabule of this, see Goldstein, The Matter of Scotland, pp. 215–49.

The next reference preciso Arthur comes from Wallace’s own mouth. After verso successful battle, the nearby town sends verso deputation esatto 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 https://datingranking.net/it/jackd-review/ 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 mediante-to Scotland’ (8.883–95)

If the previous allusion was suggestive of a 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 verso monster, presumably those of English blood. This allusive comparison is continued when Wallace invokes his right of revenge, since Arthur, particularly in later versions of the story, is motivated mediante 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 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 con 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 Sopra playn bataill, for all Ingland so wid. Con 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 per defender of England, so initially verso comparison with Wallace seems inappropriate

Its complexity lies sopra the change of perspective per the extended comparison. In the wider narrative, Edward is at this point refusing sicuro meet Wallace durante open field: Wallace has thus been able preciso remain per 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), quantita.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 a contrast onesto Edward, named con the following lines as refusing battle puro the invaders. The comparison thus runs: invader, invader, defender, defender. That pattern, however, is only evident reading backwards. Con the first instance, the arrangement of the comparison links Wallace esatto Arthur more strongly than preciso Edward, supported by the repetition of ‘twys’. If Edward is not-Arthur, then that leaves space for Wallace esatto be Arthur, esatto be a better defender of his realm than Edward. Such per pattern of association is supported by the previous references onesto Arthur mediante Book 8. This is significant for two reasons. Firstly, the association of the Scottish leader with Arthur contradicts any of Edward’s self-association with Arthur. Secondly, more positively, the references onesto Arthur seem onesto 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 per Scot. From this analysis, it appears that familiarity breeds confidence, for the later engagements with Arthur, be they per romance or durante historiography, are far bolder durante 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 Originale is forthright where Wyntoun is subtle. Such developments may be durante response to Scotichronicon’s increasingly dominant narrative, particularly sopra its assertion of Mordred’s claim sicuro the British throne over Arthur’s. All the texts are aware of the political capital invested sopra Arthur. Barbour and Hary use the figure preciso support their heroes; the historiographers use him esatto redefine the relationship between Scottish and British. Although the myth of Gathelos becomes dominant con the overarching Scottish narrative, nevertheless the ispirazione of the Scottish claim preciso sovereignty over Britain through Arthur does not disappear entirely. Rather its implications remain available throughout the fifteenth century and beyond, and onesto justify assertions of authority, whether they be on behalf of the doomed Wallace, or the triumphant James VI.