307 I cheis heir to byde and de. In Vita Edw. Sec. it is said he hastened to assist the Earl of Gloucester when he saw him fall, and perished with him, “thinking it more honourable to perish with such a man than to escape death by flight” (p. 204). Cf. also Scala.: “I have never been accustomed to fly” (p. 143).
321 thrid best knycht. See note on Bk. XI. 174. He is highly spoken of by both Baston and the Vita Edw. writer. According to Bruce’s English eulogist in the Scotichronicon, the other two were Bruce himself and the Emperor Henry (lib. xiii., ch. xvi.).
328-9 fra ... the King Wes fled, wes nane that durst abyde. “When the King’s banner is seen to depart the whole army quickly disperses” (Vita Edw. Sec., p. 205).
335 Fled to the wattir of Forth. On no hypothesis other than that the battle was fought on the plain between the Forth and the Bannock can this fact be explained. Of the fact itself there is no question. The Lanercost chronicler, in his Versus, says: “Forth swallowed up many well furnished with arms and horses” (p. 227). They were probably seeking for a ford.
337 And Bannokburn. “The folk in the English rear fell back upon the ditch (fosse) of Bannockburn, one tumbling over the other” (Scala., p. 142). “Another unfortunate thing happened to the English, because, since a little before they had crossed a great ditch into which the tide flows—Bannockburn by name—and now in confusion wished to retire, many knights and others, on account of the pressure, fell into it with their horses (cf. Barbour, line 338), and some with great difficulty got out, and many were quite unable to clear themselves of the ditch; and on this account Bannockburn was on English lips for many years to come” (Lanercost, 226). In Vita Edw. also mention is made of a “certain ditch” (fovea) which “swallowed up (absorbuit) many,” and where a great part perished (p. 205). The Bannock turns sharply north near the English rear, but the description in Barbour and the reference above to the tide with the inclusion of the Forth, indicate the part nearer the mouth.
341 laddis, etc. I.e., the camp-followers.
352 Of slyk. In Chron. de Lanercost (p. 226) “Bannock’s mud” (Bannoke limus). Edmund de Malolacu (Mauley), Edward’s steward, met his death “in a certain slimy hollow” (in quodam antro lutoso. Flores Historiarum, iii., p. 159).
363 Philip the Mowbray said. Different interpretations were put upon Mowbray’s action, but the fact and the quite satisfactory reason given by Barbour are borne out by the English chroniclers. “When the King comes to the castle, thinking he will find refuge there, he is repulsed like an enemy; the bridge is drawn up and the gate closed. On this account the keeper of the castle was believed by many to be not unacquainted with treason, and yet he was seen that very day in his armour on the field, as it were ready to fight for the King. However, I neither acquit nor accuse the keeper of treason, but confess that in the providence of God the King of England did not enter the castle, because if he had then been admitted he could not have failed to be captured” (Vita Edw. Sec., p. 205). In Gesta Edw. de Carnarvon the Governor is wrongly called Alexander de Mowbray, and the account is: “The foresaid keeper, knowing that his supplies were not sufficient for himself and his men, and also fearing that Robert Bruce, having got the victory, would attack and capture the castle, did not wish to expose his King of England to such great danger, and, preferring to incur misunderstanding, refused on this account to open the castle of the King” (p. 47). The castle was surrendered, and Mowbray entered the service of Bruce.
379 the Rownde Tabill. Usually and quite wrongly identified with the King’s Knot—i.e., garden—a regular mound below the castle rock. It is mentioned by Sir David Lindsay in the sixteenth century. In 1302 Edward I. had a “Round Table” (la table rounde) ordained (ordinari) at Falkirk (Ann. Lond., p. 104). To “hold a Round Table” was a sporting function among knights; here some sort of building may be referred to, like that described by Murimuth (1344), intended to be built for the purpose at Windsor (Chronicle, p. 155). Probably, in that case, it was only of Barbour’s own time. I incline, however, to the belief, from its associations in Lindsay’s verse, that it was a natural feature—the circular crags enclosing the western division of the modern King’s Park. It would thus be a place-name, like “Arthur’s Seat.”