Representation of freedom in the chivalric biographies “Bruce” by John Barbour and “The Book of Good Jean” by Guillaume de Saint-André

Lachugina Natalia Postgraduate student; Faculty of History; Lomonosov Moscow State University 119234, Russia, Moscow, Lomonosovsky ave., 27 building 4 natalia19lachugina98@gmail.com

Freedom is one of the most difficult concepts within the framework of philosophical reflection ^{[9, p. 4]}. It is impossible to name a system in philosophy that would include a single and clear concept of this phenomenon, since each philosophical trend offers its unique explanation. In Antiquity, freedom was perceived as an important component of self-awareness: for example, Aristotle believed that the Hellenes, by their inner nature, tended to be free, arguing for his idea of the absence of despotic power in the Greek polis ^[3]. Medieval philosophers interpreted freedom differently. For them, man, unlike animals and plants, subordinated to instinct, was free from predestination and able to independently determine his existence ^[2]. However, due to original sin, according to medieval thinkers, an individual cannot help but sin, as a result of which he becomes unfree ^[2]. According to the point of view of Christian philosophers, it is possible to return a free state only through a life without sin ^[2]. At the same time, obviously, any author defined freedom in his own way, depending on the historical and cultural development of his native region. "Medieval society is a society that knows a wide range of gradations of freedom and dependence," noted historian A. Ya. Gurevich in the monograph "Categories of medieval culture" ^{[10, p.205]}. The researcher believed that the degree of freedom was determined by the legal status of its bearer and had not only ideological, but also practical significance ^{[10, p.206]}. Understanding the heterogeneity of the perception of freedom by different estates and nationalities in the Middle Ages becomes for us the starting point in reasoning about how individual communities realized this phenomenon.

Chivalry, which represented a privileged stratum of the secular feudal lords of Western Europe, considered freedom as an important factor of self-identification. After all, only a free man could voluntarily swear an oath to the seigneur. Attention to the ideals of the knights can be justified by the fact that the worldview of the military class occupied an important place in the formation of the social structure in the Middle Ages. Thus, starting a book about English chivalry at the turn of the cultural epochs of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, historian Arthur Ferguson focuses on the importance of the ideas of this community for the "secular activities of the ruling class" until the reign of Elizabeth I (1558-1603), when chivalry from a practical guide is finally transformed into a memory of the past ^{[16, p.21]}.

Nevertheless, according to researcher N. I. Basovskaya, in the late Middle Ages there were changes in the self-consciousness of different communities (primarily citizens), and the process of "formation of nationalities" was also completed ^{[7, p. 51]}. In an article on the perception of war and peace, the scientist notes that due to such changes in attitudes towards society and the surrounding reality, the chroniclers of the XIV — XV centuries (the historian cites as examples of such sources the chronicle of Jean de Venette and the anonymous "Chronicle of the first four Valois"), telling about the military devastation, call them tragic for their country in as a whole, and not only for individual social groups ^{[7, p. 51]}.

A military conflict can act as one of the impulses for people to realize their involvement with a group with a certain national identity. The German philosopher Georg Friedrich Hegel, in his work The Phenomenology of the Spirit, called wars a necessary phenomenon by which those in power eliminate the isolation of individuals and individual families in order to subordinate them to the common interest ^{[13, p.651]}. Despite the pro-war nature of Hegel's ideas, it is worth noting that military actions really strengthen the negative attitude towards Another, which exists even in peacetime. During the war, in culture and political discourse, the opposition of "one's own" virtues to "someone else's" shortcomings is formulated ^{[12, p.104]}. The features of one's own and other communities, constructed and replicated during the military confrontation, remain in the minds of representatives of the community and turn into stereotypes that can subsequently provoke new conflicts ^{[12, p.104]}.

In the late Middle Ages, the event that formed the idea of "one's own" and "someone else's" was the largest series of military conflicts, which in historiography is commonly called the Hundred Years' War. The confrontation between the Capetian and Plantagenet dynasties somehow affected several generations of people, and also influenced the balance of power and the political map of Western Europe ^{[8, p.3]}. Noble families were often forced to fight among themselves in order to maintain or increase influence in their region. To further substantiate the correctness of their claims to power, the aristocrats turned to authors who created works of art that glorified the deeds of the applicants themselves and their supporters or the exploits of their ancestors.

The phenomenon of freedom in such works plays a special role, since for the medieval worldview, the free state is a sign of the nobility of a certain social group and the presence of a number of political rights. Among the works praising this phenomenon are chivalrous biographies compiled in the form of chanson de geste, "Bruce" by John Barbour and "The Book of the Good Jean" by Guillaume of Saint-Andre. Despite the remoteness from each other and the different historical and cultural development of the places where the poems were created, the circumstances of the writing of the two literary monuments of the last third of the XIV century are somewhat similar. The fact is that it was then that representatives of the aristocracy in both Scotland and Brittany faced the need to defend their own interests not only in front of opponents within the country, but also to resist foreign encroachment on their power.

The poem "Bruce" was composed by the archdeacon of the Aberdeen monastery, John Barbour, around 1375 ^{[25, p. 90]}. Shortly before that time, in 1371, Robert II Stuart ascended to the throne of Scotland. The new king wanted to strengthen his power not only legislatively (in 1373, the ruler of the kingdom asked parliament to draft an act of succession), but also ideologically, justifying the correctness of his rule in stories about the past of the Scots ^{[20, p.218]}. Robert II's fears were provoked by several reasons, and in particular by the situation that developed during the reign of his uncle David II. At that time, the Scottish nobility was dissatisfied with the king's policy related to the strengthening of central power and the distribution of finances, as well as the possible transfer of power after the death of the childless monarch not to Robert Stewart, but to Edward III's son John Gaunt ^{[22, p.359]}. As a result, Robert Stewart led a rebellion in 1363, which was unsuccessful, although he was supported by many Scottish barons, including the influential Douglas clan ^{[22, p.359]}.

The failures of the opposition since the late 1350s and throughout the 1360s were largely caused by the uncertainty and compliance of its leader Robert Stewart ^{[22, p.359]}. However, as the closest heir, he eventually gained power in the kingdom after the death of David II and became the first representative of the Stuart dynasty on the throne of Scotland ^{[22, p.360]}. In the first years after the coronation, Robert II's position was precarious: in 1371, Earl William I Douglas rebelled against the southern clans of Erskine and Dunbar, who enjoyed the king's favor ^{[22, p.360]}. Robert II managed to come to an agreement with the Scottish baron, giving his daughter to him and increasing his influence in the state, however, probably this case also demonstrated to the king the need to ideologically strengthen his power and rally the most influential people of the kingdom around him ^{[22, p.360]}.

The plot of John Barbour's work was based on the events of the First War of Independence, when Robert II's grandfather Robert I Bruce and his entourage sought to defend their right to rule Scotland ^{[20, p.218]}. However, like any chivalric biography, the work glorifies not only the deeds of the protagonists, but also Scottish chivalry in general. Since the audience of the chivalric biography were the descendants of those who participated in the First War of Independence, in the narrative of the exploits of their ancestors they looked for an example to follow and proof of their involvement with the culture of chivalry. The works of this genre described the actions of their relatives, which, according to the plot of the works, corresponded to the value system of chivalric culture and its virtues ^{[4, p.262]}. The knight's biography tells about the prehistory and the beginning of the Anglo-Scottish conflict (1295-1305), the first years of the reign of Robert the Bruce, a detailed description of the Battle of Bannockburn (1314), Edward Bruce's campaign in Ireland, the death of the king and the participation of David Douglas in the crusade ^{[20, p.218]}.

Despite the fact that the "Bruce" gesture was well known to contemporaries and subsequent generations, it is still unclear which of the supporters of the new king ordered the writing of the work by John Barbour. Among the main chivalrous properties, John Barbour pays special attention to freedom, and even devotes a lyrical digression to it at the beginning of the poem. Of the critical studies that have been created since the second half of the 19th century, some have focused on or touched on this phenomenon. It is worth mentioning the works of B. Tyallen ^[24], S. Foran ^[21], D. Watt ^[25], W. Barrow ^[19], L. Ebin ^[20], D. G. Fedosov ^[5,6,15].

Another source for our article was a poem about the struggle between the Counts of Blois and Montfort for the throne in Brittany by Guillaume of Saint-Andre, canon of the Cathedral of Dole and secretary of the Duke of Brittany Jean V. A chivalric biography containing three parts (prologue, narrative of the military conflict, French poetic version of the treatise by Jacobus de Cessoles "The Game of Chess"), was compiled in the period from 1381 to 1385 . Without taking into account the retelling of the "Game of Chess", the poem consists of 4,305 octosyllabic paired rhymed lines.

The author of gestures tells about the War of the Breton succession, proving the correctness of the claims to the throne of the Montfort dynasty, which enjoyed the support of the English king. The reasons for the conflict for power in Brittany are due to the fact that Duke Jean III of Brittany, the son of Arthur II de Dreux and Marie of Limoges, did not want to leave the throne to the descendants of his father from his second marriage with Yolande de Dreux ^{[14, p. 124]}. Initially, Jean III chose Jeanne of Penthievre, the daughter of his only brother Guy and the wife of the nephew of King Charles de Blois of France, as the heir to the Breton throne, but later the duke reconciled with his half-brother Jean de Montfort and made a will in his favor ^{[14, p. 124]}. Before his death, Jean III did not want to talk about the inheritance of the duchy, which aggravated the already existing uncertainty ^{[14, p. 124]}. As a result, Jean de Montfort insisted on the succession to the throne of Brittany, just as it happens in France (that is, women and heirs through the female line should not be able to obtain the throne), and Jeanne of Penthièvre and Charles de Blois wanted to get power by right of representation.

Despite the fact that both John Barbour and Guillaume of Saint-Andre talk about freedom within the framework of the Christian paradigm, both authors were clearly influenced by the texts of ancient thinkers. Freedom in the works of antiquity is inextricably linked with personal decisions of a person and responsibility for them, which is manifested not only in philosophical treatises, but also in legal monuments of that era. The conjugacy of the legality of the possession of freedom by the main protagonists, as well as the correctness of their claims, is noticeable in two poems.

So, John Barbour, who spent a long time at the royal court of Scotland, was educated and knew the history and laws of his country perfectly well, turns to documentary sources to argue for the rights to rule Scotland by Robert the Bruce. The narrative of how the applicants proved their right to hold power in the kingdom during the Great Litigation contains information that coincides with the arguments from the documents. For example, the justification for the correctness of Robert I's government partly echoes the declaration of his grandfather Robert V Bruce, which was created around 1292, or the Act of succession of 1373, drawn up by Parliament during the reign of his grandson Robert II. In the declaration of Robert V Bruce, the pretender to the Scottish throne tried to prove that it was he who should take possession of it by right of seniority ^[17]. "Since now, when the throne of the kingdom is empty, the said Sir Robert Bruce remains the closest heir to the collateral dynastic branch in terms of legality, there is an opinion that both by right and by law, which determines the rule of kings, he should have the most rights than anyone else from the petitioners. After all, the rest of the heirs, not by the legality of blood and not by collateral line, are not the sons of brothers and sisters, the last of whom, who owned the Kingdom of Scotland, have already died ^{[17, pp. 23-24]}" — in these words, the document explains the need to transfer power to Robert V Bruce. At the same time, John Barbour describes the litigation for the throne of Scotland in terms that support the correctness of the transfer of power to the eldest heir, and not by birthright: "The Barons have finally come together / The council and zealously undertook / To elect as ruler rather / That of the family of kings / Who, gifted with nobility, / Has more rights to the throne. / But evil envy is a disaster / It caused enmity between them. / Balliol was named by some, / Because it took place / From the eldest of the sisters. / Others entered into an argument / And predicted success for the one who was closest to the knee / And walked along the male line, / Although the branch was lateral. / In their opinion, the domain of the king / Is not at all like the lower flax; / His wife will inherit it / To the detriment of a man, she should not, / If he was a direct offspring, / They told others so / Otherwise the wife, as a husband, could take power in the family again" ^{[5, p.135]}.

If the documents on the succession to the throne only indirectly support our theses about the relationship of freedom, law and the depiction of the importance of gaining influence in the country by the main characters, then one of the most famous legislative monuments of the Middle Ages — the Arbroath Declaration — reveals aspects related, in addition to the direct possession of power, to the protection of other people's rights to a free state and restrictions caused by this function. According to this document, among the important conditions under which an aristocrat was given the opportunity to become king was to ensure freedom for the Scots. "Divine Providence, as well as our laws and customs, which we will defend to death, the right of inheritance and our due consent and approval have made him our sovereign and king, to whom, as a benefactor of the people, both by his rights and merits, we will remain faithful in everything for the protection of our freedom"— The compilers of the epistle to John XXII conclude ^{[15, p. 113]}.

To demonstrate that the struggle of Robert the Bruce and his supporters complies with the norms of the law, the authors of the Arbroath Declaration turn to comparing the main characters with the Old Testament plots popular at that time, setting out the history of defending sovereignty. Such stories can be called the stories of the Maccabean War (166-142 BC) against the Seleucid kingdom, during which Judea gained independence. In addition to Scottish chivalric literature, a comparison of medieval military leaders with the heroes of the Bible is found, for example, in the Chronicle of Lannercost ^{[11, p.303]}. Due to the different focus on the Anglo-Scottish confrontation, the distribution within the character system is completely different. Therefore, the anonymous author of the chronicle correlates the actions of the Scottish king David II with Ahab, who committed acts objectionable to God in the text, designates the army of the Scots as "sons of iniquity", and likens William Zouche and the English to the Old Testament character Mattathias ^{[11, p.303]}.

In discussing John Barbour's interpretation of the plot from the Old Testament, it is worth saying that the actions of the future King of Scotland, Robert I, who committed the murder of John Komnenos' political rival in the church in one of the episodes, are compared with the biblical characters Judas Maccabee, who led an uprising against the imposition of paganism, and Joshua, who waged an offensive war on divine conduct. In itself, the plot of the murder in the church, according to many modern researchers and, in particular, philologist S. Foran, is an allusion to the story of the murder on the altar of a Jew and his servant, which was committed by Mattathias, the father of Judas Maccabeus ^{[21, p.89]}.

In addition to interpreting and partly justifying the acts committed by Robert the Bruce and not fitting into the idea of "correct" Christian behavior, the fragment on the Maccabees is interesting for John Barbour's reflections on the slave state. According to B. Tyallen, although the writer most likely could not observe slavery, the author of the biography of the King of Scotland mentions this term much more often than freedom ^{[24, p. 154]}. John Barbour drew all information about this phenomenon from literature and was influenced by the works of Thomas Aquinas, who in turn was familiar with the work of Aristotle ^{[24, p. 154]}. This is probably why the construction of the opposition "freedom — slavery" in his work largely echoes the ideas of ancient philosophers, representing a factor determining a person's place in society. That is, the very possibility that the Scots may find themselves under someone else's yoke and lose their freedom of personality and community adds legitimacy to the struggle of Robert the Bruce and his supporters with their enemies inside and outside the kingdom.

Quite often in the English-language historiography of the second half of the 20th century (especially among researchers from Scotland), the historian of philosophical thought B. Tyallen notes, it was a popular opinion that the uniqueness of understanding the concept of "freedom" in the Scottish tradition was that the cultural and legal sources of the free state was not only a subject of concern exclusively to the nobility, chivalry or Christian thinkers, but also within the boundaries of political discourse, it was an important component of the identity of the Scots in the confrontation with England ^{[24, p. 154]}. Undoubtedly, in "Bruce" freedom is also considered as a necessary property for the status of representatives of certain estates (as we already wrote above when we discussed inheritance rights), but at the same time it is impossible to ignore the characteristic of the community of all Scots in the face of the enemy. To illustrate this thesis, we quote from the text of "Bruce": "They are like the Maccabees of the new, / Because the Bible knows the word: / Shining with great valor / They often went into fierce battle / In order to liberate their country / From the lawless who are in captivity / Both they and their people were being held."^[5] At the same time, John Barbour, in addition to the ability to unite against a common threat during military conflicts, mentions the common suffering endured by the Scots. "And they've become so cool / And so ferocious, greedy, malicious, / Arrogant and capable of harm / That the Scots, if they wanted to, / Did not have time to please them. / And they often swore at their wives / and at their daughters. And if someone was outraged, / he was followed for revenge" ^[5] — this is how John Barbour describes the policy of the British in Scotland.

Another episode that should be mentioned in connection with the expression of the self-identification of the Scots in John Barbour's poem touches on the situation before the Battle of Bannockburn. According to the text of the gesture, Robert the Bruce delivers a speech for his warriors: "And, of course, I believe that we should be fearless, valiant, and also possess incredible courage, because we have three significant advantages. First of all, the law is on our side, and every Christian fights for this law. Secondly, they come here, trusting in their great power to seek us in our own lands, and bring their countless riches right into our hands. So, the poorest of you will become rich and, at the same time, powerful if we win, which may well happen. Thirdly, we are forced to defend our lives, our children and wives, and the freedom of our country, while they are fighting only because of their strength and the fact that they disdain us and want to destroy us all. But, it may still happen that they will regret their struggle" (And certis me think weill that ye / Forout abasing aucht to be / Worthy and of gret vasselagis / For we haff thre gret avantagis / The fyrst is that we haf the rycht / And for the rycht ay God will fycht./ The other is that thai cummyn ar / For lyppynyng off thar gret powar / To sek us in our awne land,/ And has broken her rycht till our hand / Ryches into sa gret quantum / That the purest of you sall be / Bath rych and mychty tharwithall / Gif that we wyne, as weill may fall. / The thrid is that we for our lyvis / And for our childer and for our wyvis / And for our fredome and for our land / Ar strenyeit in bataill for to stand,/ And thai for thar mycht anerly / And for thai lat of us heychtly / And for thai wald destroy us all / Mais thaim to fycht, bot yeit may fall / That thai sall rew thar barganyng) ^[18] — this is how the Scottish military commander explains why the inhabitants of his country should continue to resist. Note that in this fragment, the compiler of the work in the replicas attributed to Robert the Bruce does not single out any community based on class or religion, but speaks of the Scots as a community of people with a common history, similar culture and living in the same territory. Researcher D. Watt, in the article "Nationalism in John Barbour's Bruce", based on the concept of Benedict Anderson ^[1], argued that the audience of the work can be called an "imaginary political community", to which the author wants to instill loyalty to Scotland ^{[25, p.106]}. Also, according to the scientist, contrary to B. Anderson's ideas that nations replaced the religious communities of the Middle Ages, in the case of the Scots, the Church "generated and nurtured" nationalist sentiments among Scots in that era ^{[25, p.106]}. Despite the ambiguity and controversy of D. Watt's hypothesis, it is worth noting that the poem "Bruce" traces the manifestations of self-awareness of the inhabitants of the kingdom as a single community in those arguments that are proclaimed by the protagonists to unite against a common threat.

However, is the "freedom—identity" relationship in John Barbour's poem so special? In the poem by Guillaume of Saint-Andre, we can find an argument for the legality of the inheritance of power by the Montforts. Since Christianity and the main texts of this religious movement played a decisive role for human consciousness in the Middle Ages, the canon of the Dolsky Cathedral, in order to support the thesis of the need to transfer power to Jean de Montfort, refers to the Book of Numbers, describing in detail the situation with inheritance in the duchy and noting that Jean III had no children at all. "If a man dies without having sons, the daughter gets an inheritance. However, if he died without having any sons or daughters, then it is right to pass [the inheritance] to his brothers" (Que si homme meurt sanz filz masle, / A la fille vait l'éritage, / Car elle est prouche de son linage; / Mais se il meurt sanz l'un ne l'autre, / Au frère va sanz nulle faulte) ^[23] — notes Guillaume of Saint-Andre.

Thoughts about slavery and freedom are presented in a poem praising the Montforts in a more concise form, but the main idea is in tune with the ideas of John Barbour. "After all, freedom is pleasant, beautiful, good and quite convenient. Therefore, by right, everyone would like to preserve it in the best way. Being in slavery is terrible when they [the Bretons] saw how it prevailed in France" (Car liberté est délectable, / Belle, bonne et bien profitable; / Pour ce chaicun la desiroit / Garder très bien, c'estoit leur droit. / De servitude avoint horror / Quant ilz véoint tretout entour / Comment en France elle régnoit) ^[23] — Guillaume of Saint-Andre characterizes this property. It is worth noting that both John Barbour and Guillaume of Saint-Andre draw their conclusions about freedom and slavery, focusing on the antagonism of "their own" to the image of the Other (in the case of John Barbour, this opposition is reconstructed by contrasting the Scots and the English, and Guillaume of Saint-Andre — the Bretons and the French).

Like the descriptions of the sufferings of the Scots in Bruce, Guillaume of Saint-Andre's poem contains information about the suffering of the Bretons: "The Bretons were broken, wounded, defeated and tortured. Some were blinded, others were limping. Their horses were also killed. The Bretons suffered such misfortunes defending themselves from the oppression, harm and power of the Kingdom of France" (Bretons estoint desfigurez, / Bléciez, rompuz et destranchiez; / Les uns borgnes, les autres torz; / Et si estoint leurs chevaulx morz. / Souffert avoint trop de meschance / En gardant le royaume de France / D'oppressions, de tort, de force; / Des vis sembloint à une escorsse) ^[23]. In addition to the suffering experienced by all Bretons, the author also mentions the oppression endured by Montfort's associates: "At his insistence, it was done, by judicial decision and sentence, that all people should die who were Montfort's friends" (Et fut donné à son instance, / Par jugement et par sentence, / Que tout homme recepvroit mort / Qui seroit amy de Montfort) ^[23]. The emphasis is on this particular group of people because the main audience of the work may have been representatives of the nobility supporting the Breton aristocrat.

In addition to describing the negative manifestations of slavery and the devastation of the Bretons, Guillaume of Saint-Andre describes how the "traitors" — the Bretons who stand on the side of France - are treated. Such, from the point of view of the Bretons, was the famous military commander Bertrand Dugueclin, who was of Breton origin. Guillaume of Saint-Andre demonstrates the unity of all Bretons against him: "At first Bertrand Dugueclin was surprised, because in any place where he came, the Bretons were against him" (Glequin forment se merveilloit, / Car par touz lieux où il aloit / Encontre lui Bretons trouvoit) ^[23]. Even people who have family ties with him (Ains ses cousins et ses parans) ^[23] avoid interacting with him because of his political position.

Thus, the content of freedom in two poems created in the late Middle Ages affects not only a specific class, professional association or religious group, but also a community of people who relate themselves to a certain "national" identity. Due to the features associated with the self-consciousness of a certain community, in addition to the influence of the Christian tradition, we can trace ideas from ancient philosophy.

Obviously, due to the fact that the audience of chivalric biographies were people who were passionate about chivalric ideas and often came from the same dynasty or region, the authors place considerable emphasis on the legal foundations of the free state of the protagonists. However, at the same time, both Bruce and The Book of Good Jean describe in detail the suffering endured by all the inhabitants of Scotland and Brittany. Also, the need to defend your country, expressed in the remarks of the protagonists, is addressed to all people in a particular region.