Necromancy and Astrology in John Barbour's The Brus.
- Kirsty Pattison
- Nov 19
- 7 min read
Scotland's earliest surviving discussion on Necromancy and Astrology.
The Brus (c.1372) is the earliest surviving example of Scottish literature composed in middle Scots. It tells the tale of the rise and reign of King Robert I of Scotland (r.1306-1329). The poem is comprised of close to 14,000 lines and survives in two 15th century manuscripts; the incomplete Cambridge MS dating to 1487 and the full version held at the National Library of Scotland (NLS), Adv, MS. 19.2.2 composed in 1489. While the surviving manuscripts are later in date than the original composition, scholars such as A.A.M. Duncan note that the work is referenced in several Scottish works which pre-date the surviving manuscripts (1997, 32). This suggests that The Brus was widely known throughout 15th century Scotland, particularly amongst the learned classes.
Knowledge around the life of John Barbour (c.1331-1395) is patchy at best. Donald E.R Watt suggests that Barbour was a student in France, although not a Scholar of Arts at Paris as his progress would have been recorded in the surviving records (1977, 28). Barbour was selected along with three other Scots in 1357 to receive safe-passage to travel from Scotland to Oxford and Watt notes by this point Barbour was likely 'a practised academic', although it is unclear when he might have made it to Oxford (1977, 28). Furthermore, Barbour had some contact with the Scottish royal household and acted as an auditor of exchequer at several points between the years 1373 and 1385 (Watt, 1977, 29). Thus, it is difficult to pin-point where Barbour may have come into contact with ideas around necromancy and astrology in the course of his studies.
So what does Barbour say about necromancy and astrology in The Brus? First, it should be noted that references to magical acts in the literature of this period are not unusual. Literature provides a way in which the concerns of the day could be explored, and magic was a trope often used to show moral guidance to its readers. It is in Book Four of The Brus that we encounter two instances of the use of familiar spirits by members of royal household.
Charges Against Edward I of England.
The first charge of the use of familiar spirits is levied by Barbour against Edward I (r.1272-1307) when Edward was on his death bed in Burgh by Sands. Barbour tells his readers that Edward believed he would die in a place called Burgh, which he believed to be Jerusalem (4:205-210), and that Edward held this to be true because he has 'a spyryt that him answer maid' (4:220). The reader is warned that interactions with such conjured creatures are unreliable as 'thai sa fals ar and feloun' [they say false and cruel] because 'thair mak ay thar answering into doubill understanding' [they make all their answers into double-speak], (4:234-236). Here we can see that Barbour is warning his audience that conjured spirits cannot be trusted.
Charges against Ferrand, the Count of Flanders.
To reiterate the dangers of conjuring familiar spirits Barbour introduces his second accusation of necromancy through the story of King Philip II of France (1165-1223) and Ferrand, the Count of Flanders (1188-1233). The story recounts the capture of Ferrand by Phillip II, presenting it as a cautionary take of the way in which predictions given by conjured spirits are often not what they seem (4:241-335). The story reports that it was Ferrand's mother who was a 'nygramansour' (4:242) who raised 'Sathanas [Satan] to enquire what would be the outcome 'betwix the Fraunce King and hyr son' (4:245). However, she was tricked with 'doubill spek' (4:272). Inspired by his mother’s message Ferrand to the ‘batell sped’ (4:276), but his campaign was not victorious and instead he was taken prisoner. The news came as a shock to his mother so ‘scho rasyt the ill spyryt als tyt, and askyt quhy he gabyt had, off the answer that he hyr mad’ [she swiftly raised the evil spirit and asked why he lied in the answer that her had made her] (4:289-291). The spirit explains to her that everything he said had come to pass, and that he told no lie. Barbour concludes the section noting the similarities between the two instances of demonic familiars and the perils of double-speak that led Edward to misunderstand the prediction of his own demise and Ferrand to assume that he would be victorious in battle (4:307-335). Thus, we can see the moral implications of such practices for those who choose to engage in them.
On Necromancy and Astrology
In the concluding section of Book Four Barbour provides a discourse on prophecy which describes the two ways people claim to know the future: ‘Ane of thaim is astrologi’ (4:695) and ‘Nygromancy the tother’ (4:748). The section comes after Bruce meets an un-named woman who reveals an aspect of his fortune. Barbour reports that ‘The king that heard all hyr carping / Thankit hyr in mekill thing’ [The king that heard all her speaking / Thanked her a great deal], (4:668-669) but warns the reader to be wary since ‘How ony mannys science may / knaw thingis that ar to cum’ [how any man’s perception can know for sure things that are to come] (4:675-676). This speaks to the heart of the issue of prophecy in the Medieval period. For instance, the Old Testament prophets David, Samuel, Joel, and Isaiah had received the gift of prophecy through God’s grace. In Barbour’s own time, however, prophets ‘sa thyn ar sawyn / That nane in erd now is knawin’ [are sown to thinly that none is now known on this earth] (4:686-687). He recognises, however, that although legitimate prophets are no longer found, this does not stop people from being curious about their future, either through ‘thar gret clergy’ (4:690) or ‘thair devilry’ (4:691), by utilising the practices of ‘astrologi’ and ‘nygromancy’. Barbour is clearly sceptical about the power and reliability of both.
On astrology, Barbour highlights the inaccuracy of astrological practices and maintains that those skilled in the reading of birth charts ‘suld fail to say / The thingis that thaim happyn may’ (4:728-729). In this context, we also find the earliest reference in Scots to the Pseudo-Aristotelian Alexander tradition and astrology. Lynn Thorndike explains that the Medieval pseudo-Aristotelian tradition which connects Aristotle to esoteric practices is closely intertwined with the Alexander literature of the time and by the 13th century, several works on astrology were attributed to Aristotle (1922, 238-242). Barbour notes that it was due to Aristotle’s virtue that he did not succumb to the false interpretations that astrology can lead men to believe, nor did he become blind with greed and use his knowledge for personal gain. Turning to necromancy, Barbour describes the practice as the use of conjurations and exorcisms which are intended ‘to ger spyritis to thaim apper’ [to cause spirits to appear] (4:752). He reminds his readers of the story of the ‘Phitones’ (The Pythoness, or Witch of Endor) but is careful to point out that without the help of the spirit ‘off hyr self rycht nocht wyst scho’ [by herself she knew nothing] (4:761). Thus, the Pythoness had no inherent power of her own. It was only through the act of conjuration that the prophecy could be offered. Barbour concludes, ‘Me think quha sayis he knawis thingis / To come he makys gret gabingis’ [I think that he who says he knows things to come, is telling great lies] (4: 4:768-769), showing his distrust of both astrology and necromancy.
Some Concluding Thoughts
The inclusion of these passages in book four indicate that the discourse of The Brus reflects the theological concerns of the fourteenth-century on necromancy and astrology, particularly around the reliability of communications with otherworldly powers. Given that Barbour spent time studying in France, it is likely that he was aware of the growing concerns around practices that could be deemed necromantic and the perils of the wrong type of astrology that were being discussed in universities at the time.
Furthermore Barbour's example of Ferrand's mother, Dulce of Aragon (1160-1198) as a necromancer is also interesting given her birth connection to Spain. Stephen Gordon notes that by the 14th century, Spain had garnered a 'reputation as a haunt for magicians and black magic', thanks in part to the chronicle of William of Malmesbury (d.1143) and the legend of pope Sylvester II (d.1003) who, according to Malmesbury, had learned to conjure demons while a student of the Saracens in Spain (2016, 78). The fact that Ferrand’s mother had familial connections to Aragon, supports the suggestion that Barbour was aware of the region’s supposed magical and esoteric practices and could draw on these connections to build his narrative. Moreover, the 1370s saw the completion of the Directorium Inquisitorum (c.1376) by the Dominican inquisitor general of the Crown of Aragon, Nicholas Eymerich (1320-1399). Michael A. Ryan explains that for Eymerich ‘the very act of ascertaining what the future held was a damnable one’ and several of his works condemned the acts of necromancy' (2011, 6). By including a section on the use and applications of the practice of necromancy in The Brus, and linking the historical example to the kingdom of Aragon, it suggests that Barbour was in part engaging with the issues being discussed on the continent regarding the efficacy and theological implications of practices believed to be occurring in the Iberian peninsula.
That Barbour chose to include these passages in his work suggests not only that he was at the very least familiar with these ideas, but also the Scots who would form the readership of his work, could also be expected to have knowledge of these ideas and be warned against the use of such harmful practices. However, more work needs to be done to uncover to what extent Scots in the Medieval period engaged with these practices of necromancy and astrology given the limited surviving materials we have from the period in question.
This article is drawn from the PhD thesis of Kirsty Pattison.
References
Barbour, John. The Bruce, ed. by A.A.M. Duncan (Edinburgh: Canongate, 1997).
Gordon, Stephen. “Necromancy and the Magical Reputation of Michael Scot: John Rylands Library, Latin MS 105”, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 92 (2016), 73-103.
Pattison, Kirsty. 'Certainly not a philosophy that was likely to appeal to the experience, morals, and beliefs, of the practical Scot': A Survey of Medieval-Renaissance Magic and Esotericism in Scotland prior to 1560 (Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow, 2025).
Ryan, Michael A. A Kingdom of Stargazers: Astrology and Authority in the Late Medieval Crown of Aragon (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2011).
Thorndike, Lynn. "The Latin Pseudo-Aristotle and Medieval Occult Science", Journal of English and German Philology 21 (1922), 229-258.
Watt, Donald E.R. A Biographical Dictionary of Scottish Graduates to AD 1410 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977).