Vol. ii. p. 306.
[23] Langtoft, vol. ii. p. 305, 306.
[24] This warrior is thus described by Langtoft, who claims him as an Englishman:—
“Was no man Inglis maynhed no dede that day,
Bot a templer of pris, Sir Brian the geay
Maister templere he was on this half the se,
He folowed the Scottis pas, whan the bigan to fle
Fer in tille a wod; men calle it Kalenters,
Ther in a mire a mod, withouten help of pers,
Slank thei Sir Brian alone withouten mo.”
Vol. ii. p. 305, 6.
By Rymer, however, he is noticed as swearing fealty to Edward in Edinburgh Castle, July 1291, after the convocation of Brigham, and designated as preceptor templi in Scotia; and, by the same authority, it appears his example was followed by John de Sautre, and those under his control.
[25] Among the various documents which his Lordship appears to consider authentic, is the following, which he thus introduces:—“I have seen the title of a public instrument, which runs thus:—‘Acte contenant les responses faites par Pierre Flotte, Seigneur de Revel, commis par le Roy (de France) pour traitter et conferer avec les Ambassadeurs Anglois, touchant l’execution du traité de treve, et reparation des infractions d’icelle. Simon de Meleun l’arbitre nommé par le Roy, offrit au Roy d’Angleterre de delivrer tous les prisonniers Anglois en rendant par lui le Roy de Escosse et son fils, et les Escossois detenus en Angleterre et ailleurs, ou les mettant en la garde d’un prelat Francois qui les gardera soubs le nom du Pape pendant que le Pape jugera de leur differend.’ The original, if extant, says Lord Hailes, might serve to explain several circumstances respecting this treaty; particularly, that Edward Baliol was in captivity, together with his father, and that the Pope proposed himself as umpire between Edward I. and his disobedient vassal.”
Now, the above is all good modern French, and the orthography exactly as at present, with the exception of the following words, responses, traitter, Escosse, soubs, which appear to have had their spelling antiquated a little, to give the document a venerable air;—it has, on the whole, a very clumsy appearance, and shows that it cannot be older than the 17th century. If the “full evidence” referred to be liable to similar objections, it will not appear very surprising, that our early writers should have been so much in the dark respecting it.
[26] Vol. i. 311, 312.
[27] The son of Sir Chrytell, slain at Blackironside.