Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1985, Page 80

72
ASLO AN
In to [sic] pe first
it is to be wittin
3 Jjat f>e nacioun
of Scottis begouth
in f>e tyme of Moyses
6 quhilk is contenit
in pe bibill,
and in pat tyme
9 pe Ethiopis held weir
apon all Egipte
with cruell force:
12 for f>e quhilk
pe Egipcianis socht
suple at pe Grekis,
15 with quham pai
war allyit and in
siclyk forme and
18 manere as Scotland
and Fraunce...
ROYAL
In pe fyrst
it is to be wryttynn
Jsat pe natiounn
of Scottis begowthe
in {5e tymm of Moises,
as is contenyt
in pe Bibill;
and in pat tymm
pe Ethiops warrayt
all Egipte
wyt cruell weris,
for pe quhilk
Joe Egiptiance callit
pair alaye in helpe
pe Grekis, pat was
alyite pan wyt pamme
as now is in [sic]
France alyite with as
Scoctis [sic]...
DALHOUSIE
In primis
nota,
That the nacioun
of Scottis begouth
in the tyme of Moyses:
For in his tyme, like
as is contenyt in the
Bibil, Gennesis, Joat
thai dais the Ethiopes
infeckit all Egipt
with cruell were:
for the quhilk
the Egipcianis callit
in thair help thair
allye the Grekis,
quhilkis than war
allyit to tham than [sic]
as now is allyit
Fraunce to vs...
In the absence of an exhaustive collation it would be hazardous to
draw any definite conclusions about the family relationship between
the three texts, but it seems unnecessary to assume with Craigie that
there was more than one archetype. On the other hånd, that Craigie
was correct in postulating translation from a lost Latin source seems to
be confirmed by the Dalhousie variant at lines 1-2: there is no good
reason to believe that this reading arose by translation into Latin. The
most natural hypothesis would seem to be that all three texts are more
or less unfaithful witnesses to a common original, and that they
perhaps are the (indirect) products of dictation to a team of scribes.
The Asloan and Royal copies both belong to the reign of James V; the
question then remains whether the original can be dated, for this
would provide an upper limit for the otherwise undated Dalhousie
copy.
It seems to me that internal evidence points to the Latin source from
which the common original was translated having been composed
between 1490 and 1500. The chronicle is, in essence, a polemic epistle
urging the historie priority of the Scots over the English; and if eviden-
tial weight can be placed on the reference to the ‘Auld Alliance’