The birth of nationalism in Scotland

Rating: 10/10 (14 October 2009)

William Wallace, a commoner, is a legend, a myth, a hero for sure in Scotland. In his thirteen century he opposed the rule of the king of England over Scotland and the ruthless colonial attitude of that king and his soldiers. Why a commoner and not a noble? Because the nobles accepted to be paid prisoners, salaried slaves of the king of England. As a commoner he only suffered the ruthless violence from these soldiers and the indifference of these nobles. He started a rebellion against the English and that rebellion actually swept the whole Scotland and climaxed in the battle of Stirling. He had managed to bring the nobles behind the commoners and he got a full victory. He was knighted at once but did not change his logic. So in order to force the king of England to grant Scotland full independence he crossed the border and attacked the English at home. He took and ransacked the city of York, and killed the duke of York, the very nephew of the king of England. But in the next confrontation the nobles betray him and he is defeated after the nobles leave the battlefield. The Bruce gets him off that battlefield in due time. But later on the nobles again will betray him again, attract him in a trap and deliver him to the king of England. He will be duly executed as a traitor. The film evokes that treatment though it remains rather far from the real stuff and the fact that he was executed on the day before the Bartholomew Fair on the Fair ground itself as a festive entertainment added to all the others by the king himself. The point is historical and the film is valuable because of that historical dimension. A commoner could easily bring commoners together and make them fight for their freedom, even their national freedom. That is the birth of popular nationalism, of nationalism as such, the only nationalism that represents some historical progress, that of the people, of simple people. That nationalism is going to develop in Europe over the coming centuries, but we can witness its birth in Scotland here. At the same time the film shows very well that nationalism is in absolute contradiction with feudalism. That nationalism is based on self-pride and individual freedom, and the protection and guarantee of that individual freedom. The right of the first night (the local esquire or noble has the right to make love to the newly wed woman, before her newly wed husband on the evening of their marriage) is one of these unbearable privileges of the nobles. Furthermore, the nobles satisfy themselves very well with the financial dependence on the king of England, as long as it does not question their local dominance in Scotland over the local Scots. They have no real national spirit, and the freedom of the people is not their problem. They have sworn allegiance to the King of England and that guarantees their privileged position and they are quite satiated with that. At the same time we must understand a different approach of feudalism that is no longer very active in our minds. The king was the very secular representative of God due to his appointment by God himself, under the only authority of the Pope who is the direct spiritual representative of God on earth. If such is the reality of feudalism, then no one can question the decisions and acts of the king, certainly not the nobles who are under allegiance towards that king. A duke can fight against a count or another duke, because they are of the level but they cannot fight against the king who is over them. But the surprising element is that the battle of Stirling took place on September 11, 1297 some 80 years after the first signing of the Magna Carta and 30 years after the final acceptance of this Magna Carta that shows how the English nobles and the English Church actually joined against the king to impose onto him some freedoms that were unheard of before. I tend to believe William Wallace was the development of this Magna Carta and that it brought the third social element into the picture, the third estate, the commoners. The defeat is all the more significant, and the execution is also all the more significant. It was more a martyrdom than anything else. We know that a poet, Blind Harry, will turn the oral legend into a myth with his epic poem written at the end of the fifteen century. This film is just the adaptation of this myth.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Vincennes Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Val de Marne Creteil, CEGID Boulogne Billancourt