KING ROBERT THE BRUCE.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.") SIR,—Your reviewer of my " King Robert the Bruce " (" Famous Scots Series") says :—" Mr. Murison does not profess to throw any fresh light upon it [the murder' of Comyn]; but he would seem inclined to follow in the wake of the majority of previous investigators, and come to the conclusion that Bruce merely ' removed' an obstacle in the way of his ambition." I appeal to my book. Of course I "do not profess ; " I throw such light, as I have without "professing." As to " the conclusion" I am said to "seem inclined" to come to (following " in the wake of the majority of previous investigators," forsooth!), I must say your reviewer startles me. A reference to my book confirms my impression that I had demolished the very theory your reviewer attributes to me, and had stated plainly enough my "conclusion" that the tragedy was an accident of momentary temper.
Your reviewer says I am "not inclined to give Bruce sufficient credit for pure and self-sacrificing patriotism." He does not tell your readers that I explicitly concede to Bruce "the benefit even of grievous doubt." On what grounds— other than personal preconceptions—can your reviewer do more for him ? All he ventures is this : " On the other band, such a view as Dr. Hume Brown's seems alike charitable and sensible, that Bruce improved in character as he grew older, and that he became, on the whole, a good as well as a great man." Any reader of my book (except your reviewer) can see that I entirely agree with Dr. Hume Brown's view as here stated. But how does that view conflict with my opinion of Bruce's " patriotism "?
Your reviewer says my narrative is "based upon the familiar authorities, such as Barbour, but checked by the researches of modern investigators." This is a very singular statement, surely, when I distinctly indicate that I hold
Barbour's authority in much less esteem than other his- torical writers and critics appear to do. But what of the authorities that are not " familiar,"—if any ? And what of other checks than "the researches of modern investigators" (presumably excluding myself)? I said in my preface that my narrative "is based on the primary authorities "; and I meant the whole of them, " familiar," or otherwise. I say so again. Moreover, I assert that my book is, so far as space permits, thoroughgoing and original,—as " original" as is 111 reasonably practicable in the existing state of the materials.
Finally : How is the cause of historical criticism served by (1) inversion of an author's conclusions; (2) glaring logical fallacy (which has already glared elsewhere); and (3) dis- paraging innuendo elaborately evading an author's explicit statements P I still decline to pay any heed to your reviewer's opinions about my "Sir William Wallace," but the moment he condescends to tangible argument, expressed in unambiguous language, I am heartily at his service.—I am, Sir, &e.,
[If Mr. Murison will compare Dr. Hume Brown's cordial "As Bruce's work grew and prospered, he rose to the conception of a true patriot. King," with his own rather chilling " With his assumption of the kingly office, Bruce's baronial and royal interests coincided with the interests of Scotland, and it may be that some feeling of the nature of patriotism may have thus developed in his breast," he will see what was meant. There was no intention whatever of disparaging his work by innuendo or otherwise. We did not say or suggest that he had not gone to "the primary authorities." In the old days the " removal " of a rival or enemy was as often as not an act of " passion" in conjunction with the sudden emergence of an opportunity for performing it. Such was the murder of Archbishop Sharp; such may have been the attack on Comyn by Bruce. We admit that Professor Murison states his view that Bruce did not deliberately compass the murder of Comyn, with great clearness. His reasoning on this point is one of the best things in his monograph, and we are sorry if we have seemed to misrepresent him.—THE WRITER OP
THE REVIEW.1
Previous page
