[47] An article on Barbour’s _Bruce_ in the _Saturday Review_, 1872, vol. xxxiii., p. 90, has all the marks of the “belabouring” method of Professor Freeman. Barbour’s “historical value,” it is affirmed, “is as low as value can be,” and there are intermittent shrieks of “shameless falsehood,” “conscious liar,” etc. The usual play is made with the supposed identification of the two Bruces, and it is declared that on this “the whole story hangs,” which, in its own way, is a statement just as unwarranted and absurd. It is easy to fix on the error as to Edward being in the Holy Land when the question arose as to the succession, and the antedating of his death. But the critic, with full opportunity for being correct, can sin as to dates quite as egregiously. “In authentic history,” he says, “somewhat more than three years passed between the death of Alexander III. in Lent, 1289, and the coronation of John Balliol on St. Andrew’s Day, 1292.” Quite wrong. In “authentic history” Alexander was killed on March 19, 1286 (1285 by old reckoning). This is a criticism of Barbour’s “six years” in I. 39! He objects to the statement that the Queen was put “in prison,” because she was entertained in one of her husband’s manors. But she is always officially spoken of as “in custody,” and the stone walls of a manor even make a good enough prison. This is mere carping, and most of the rest is of the same sort, where it does not depend on a forcing or misunderstanding of the text. Barbour, he complains, makes the difference between Bruce and Balliol “one between male and female succession.” So, in a sense, it was (see on I. 54), but the critic has not taken the trouble to understand how. Barbour, however, is certainly confusing. [48] _The Brus_, Spalding Club edition, 1856, p. ix. [49] Vol. ii., p. 104. [50] P. 108.