Mediante contrast, the Asloan version refutes this assertion of perpetual alliance:

Mediante contrast, the Asloan version refutes this assertion of perpetual alliance:

Sopra contrast, Asloan’s copy was apparently written after the heavy Scottish defeat by the English at Flodden

. . Arthur falsly agane his allya and band maid betuix ws and him maid weir on ws. For tra we had maid him per asfalto of his enemys he with ?e Brettanis raiss apon ws and wald haue put ws out of our cuntre with ?e suple ?at http://datingranking.net/it/meetville-review/ he had of Romanis. Bot throu helpe of God we and ?e Pictis resistit ?aim all in sic verso wyss ?at ?ai war fayne to cess and quhen ?ai had maide weir on ws three hundreth here ?ai saw ?ai couth not wyn at ws. 21

Thai was fayne till ally ?aim with ws, and the quhilk allia was lang tyme weile consseruit kepit vnto ?e tyme ?is Arthur brak it and sen syne onesto ?is hour quhatsumeuer band we had of ?aim it was never wele kepit

This discrepancy may be textual: each version may depend on verso different Latin recension. It is also tempting puro speculate that the political circumstances at the

the Dalhousie manuscript, while Cunningham and van Buuren refer puro it as the Panmure manuscript. The text can be found con The Bannatyne Miscellany III, di nuovo. T. Thomson, Bannatyne Ritrovo 19 (Edinburgh, 1855), pp. 35–42, under the title ‘The Chronycle of Scotland per per Part’. For the copy per the Royal manuscript, see Mapstone, p. 51, n. 67. Asloan Manuscript I, 190; Bannatyne Miscellany III, 39. Bannatyne Miscellany III, 39. Asloan Manuscript I, 191. The punctuation is mine.

time of copying may also have had an influence. The Dalhousie Manuscript has been dated roughly puro the second half of the fifteenth century.22 Although much of this was verso period of minority government for the Scots, it also saw a time of rapprochement with the English, as both Yorkists and Lancastrians sought alliances; hence perhaps verso more favourable attitude in Scotland onesto alliances within Great Britain. 23 From the Scots perspective, this battle occurred as verso result of Henry VIII’s failure onesto respect the Treaty of Perpetual Ton of 1503; his association with Arthur is perhaps strengthened by the Tudor self-styling as British kings.24 Mediante such circumstances, the hostility expressed in Asloan’s copy is hardly surprising. At the same time, though, the possibility of Scottish inheritance of the English throne was particularly strong during the early years of the sixteenth century, for James IV’s marriage to Margaret Tudor produced several peccato heirs, including one that survived, while Henry VIII’s puro Katherine of Aragon did not.25 For Asloan and his readers, therefore, Wyntoun’s prophecy of the Scots power following the Stone of Scone had real political potential. For that reason, the Scottis Originale’s insistence that Modrede and Gawain are Scots dependent on and subject onesto Scottish royal authority is striking. That they are Scots is the reason for their rejection by the Britons; this is not simply per matter of their foreignness, but also their alternate loyalties, whereby their duty onesto their king precedes that sicuro their subjects. Such fears were all too familiar sicuro the Scots, since throughout the Middle Ages, English monarchs had argued their feudal superiority onesto the Scottish monarchs, often using the British origin myth as one of their justifications. Here, obliquely, that fear is turned upside down: a man who owed loyalty onesto the Scots king had verso greater entitlement sicuro the British (read English) throne. Such entitlement, moreover, rests on the deposition of Arthur, the national hero. Throughout late medieval Scottish historiography and into its early modern successors, Arthur remains per contested figure, verso point at which the relationship between the Scots and the English is examined. Clearly, historiographers such as Wyntoun, Bower and the anonymous writers of the Scottis Tenero are concerned with per particular set of arguments around the origin myths. Yet similar care mediante handling Arthur is evident mediante other historiographical material. For Barbour and Hary, Scottish sovereignty is an essential theme; their eponymous heroes, Bruce and Wallace, are direct rivals preciso Arthur as national heroes. Rather than exclude such verso rival from their texts, however, each engages with the figure and deploys him esatto support their stars.