525-6 Dares ... and Dytis. These two represented to the medieval mind the more trustworthy authorities on the Siege of Troy; Homer, whom they knew only through the Latin classics, being obviously biassed in favour of the Greeks, a strong objection to historians who loved to attribute the beginnings of their nation to a colony of Trojan fugitives—e.g., Brutus, who founded Albion or Britain. Dares Phrygius, whose De Excidio Trojæ is merely a good-sized pamphlet, here comes first as the favourite. Figuring as a priest of Hephæstus, he gives the Trojan side. The point of the present reference is that he makes Troy fall by the treachery of Æneas and others, who admit the Greeks by night at the Scæan gate on the outside of which “was painted the head of a horse” (ed. London, 1825, p. 336); thus rationalizing the story of the wooden horse as he does Homer’s other remarkable incidents. The book is in Latin, and is late—not much earlier than the twelfth century. It professes, however, to have been translated from a Greek manuscript found at Athens by the translator, Cornelius Nepos! Dictys Cretensis, styled companion of Idomeneus, stands for the Greek side, giving, however, a more impartial account than Homer. His MS. (Ephemeris Belli Trojani) was found, it is alleged, in Gnossus, Crete, in one of the tin (lead) coffers, examples of which have been found in the recent explorations of the great palace. It was translated from the original Punic into Greek in the time of Nero and again translated into Latin. It is the older production of the two by a few centuries; both, of course, are fabrications. On them Benoit de Sainte-More based his Roman de Troie, which Guido delle Colonne turned into a Latin Historia Trojana and successfully passed off on the Middle Ages as his own work. Scotland came under the spell of Guido, and it is from him Barbour takes his information.
533 throw pusoune. The account of the medieval romances of Alexander. He really died in 323 B.C., of a combination of malarial fever and hard drinking—which was much too tame an end for his admirers.
542 fryst maid emperour. A usual medieval error, but Julius Cæsar did not become Emperor. Chaucer says the same thing (Monk’s Tale). Geoffrey of Monmouth speaks of “Julius Cæsar and the rest of the Roman kings”—a double error (Edit. Giles, 1844, p. 176). See below on 554.
549 Als Arthur. Arthur’s European conquests are enumerated in the contemporary, Morte Arthure, p. 2. The Eastern ones, such as “Surry” (Syria), follow the triumph over Rome.
554 Lucius Yber. “Sir Lucius Iberius, the Emperor of Rome,” is a leading figure in Morte Arthure. Wyntoun observes that his correct title was Procurator, as the Emperor proper was Leo, but excuses the earlier author for calling him Emperor on that ground that,
“Ane empyroure in propyrté (in especial)
A comawndoure suld callyt be” (Bk. v., Chap. xii.):
i.e., Emperor is simple imperator. In fact, Geoffrey styles him “Lucius Respublicæ procurator” to begin, but in the account of his death, “Lucius imperator” (ed. cited, pp. 174, 198). In the Gest. Hystoriale, Agamemnon is “Emperor” of the Greeks. On conclusions from this passage, see Appendix F.i.c.
611 The endentur, the seile to se. Fordun, too, tells of “endentures” (indenturas) between the barons, and of Comyn’s disclosure to Edward, but gives a different account of Edward’s action and Bruce’s escape. Wyntoun adopts Barbour’s version in his own words, so that we may take it that, substantially, the story was the current explanation in Scotland. Gray, too, it must be remembered, drew upon a Scottish chronicle (see on 485 and Introd., ii.). It may just be that there was a confusion as to the origin of the indenture which caused the mischief. There actually was an indenture or bond between Bruce and Bishop Lamberton, drawn up, too, in 1304, the year to which Fordun attributes that between Bruce and Comyn. In this the parties bound themselves to act together, in matters affecting them, against all persons whatever, and provided that neither should attempt any “difficult business” without consulting the other, and that, in the case of any peril threatening, each should warn and shield the other to the utmost of his power. The implication is clear: a fresh rising was in contemplation, probably on the death of Edward I. (cf. Gray in note on 485). A copy of this document came into Edward’s hands—certainly not, however, through the agency of Comyn—and Lamberton was charged before witnesses at Newcastle on August 3, 1306. He was asked whether the seal was his (cf. line 612), and whether it had been affixed with his will and knowledge; to which he answered in the affirmative (Palgrave, 323-5). The story of this endenture may have got worked into what was known of Comyn’s refusal to co-operate with Bruce. The records give no hint of anything else of the kind in Edward’s possession, and the knowledge of it, had it existed, would not have been suppressed (see also note on Bk. II. 17).
625-6 into bourch, etc. I.e., Bruce pledges his lands as bail for his appearance. There is no record of such a Parliament, nor is any such procedure at all probable.