FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241  
242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   >>   >|  
m to Barbour's accepted work in verse-length, dialect and style, and the facts that the lives of English saints are excluded and those of St Machar (the patron saint of Aberdeen) and St Ninian are inserted, made the ascription plausible. Later criticism, though divided, has tended in the contrary direction, and has based its strongest negative judgment on the consideration of rhymes, assonance and vocabulary (see bibliography). That the "district" of the author is the north-east of Scotland cannot be doubted in the face of a passage such as this, in the fortieth legend (St Ninian), 11, 1359 et seq. "A lytil tale [gh]et herd I tel, that in to my tyme befel, of a gudman, in murrefe [_Moray_] borne in elgyne [_Elgin_], and his kine beforne, and callit was a faithful man vith al thame that hyme knew than; & _this mare trastely I say,_ _for I kend hyme weile mony day._ _John balormy ves his name,_ a man of ful gud fame." But whether this north-east Scots author is Barbour is a question which we cannot answer by means of the data at present available. (5) If Barbour be the author of the _Legends_, then (so does one conclusion hang upon another) he is the author of a Gospel story with the later life of the Virgin, described in the prologue to the _Legends_ and in other passages as a book "of the birth of Jhesu criste" and one "quhare-in I recordit the genology of our lady sanct Mary." (6) In recent years an attempt has been made to name Barbour as the author of the _Buik of Alexander_ (a translation of the _Roman d'Alexandre_ and associated pieces, including the _Voeux du Paon_), as known in the unique edition, _c._ 1580, printed at the Edinburgh press of Alexander Arbuthnot. The "argument" as it stands is nothing more than an exaggerated inference from parallel-passages in the _Bruce_ and _Alexander_; and it makes no allowance for the tags, epithets and general vocabulary common to all writers of the period. Should the assumption be proved to be correct, and should it be found that the "_Troy fragments_ were written first of all, followed by _Alexander_ and _Bruce_ or _Bruce_ and _Alexander_, and that the _Legends_ end the chapter," it will be by "evidence" other than that which has been produced to this date. For Barbour's life see _Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_, ii. and iii.; _Registrum Episcopatus Aberdonensis_ (Spalding Club); Rymer's _Foedera_. WORKS.--(1)_The Brus_ MSS. and early edition
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241  
242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Barbour

 

author

 

Alexander

 

Legends

 
vocabulary
 
Scotland
 

edition

 

Ninian

 

passages

 

including


prologue

 
pieces
 

unique

 

Virgin

 
Alexandre
 

translation

 
attempt
 
recent
 
printed
 

criste


quhare

 

genology

 
recordit
 

produced

 

evidence

 
Exchequer
 

chapter

 

written

 
Foedera
 
Episcopatus

Registrum
 

Aberdonensis

 
Spalding
 
fragments
 

inference

 

parallel

 

Gospel

 

exaggerated

 
Arbuthnot
 

argument


stands

 
allowance
 

correct

 

proved

 

assumption

 

Should

 

general

 

epithets

 

common

 

writers