A common objection one often hears while discussing libertarian ideas in Scotland is that “this isn’t America” as if the notion of individual liberty and sovereignty are somehow a foreign American import without place or context within the history and culture of Scotland. Nothing could be further from the truth. While it is true that much political discourse regarding libertarian ideas today is overshadowed by the American political context this would be putting the cart before the horse. From the declaration of Arbroath to the Scottish Enlightenment, Scotland’s historical influence upon the ideological origins of classical liberalism, economics, the American revolution of 1776 as well as more radical libertarian ideals are undeniable. In a series of articles I will aim to look at Scotland’s contribution to the development of libertarianism. In today’s article we will look at the declaration of Arbroath of 1320 which widely believed to have influenced the American declaration of independence.
In 1320 Scotland’s sovereignty and future as a nation were both uncertain in the face of continued English aggression from Kings Edward I & II. It was in this year that Scotland arguably made an important contributions to the development of the idea of popular sovereignty; the idea that a ruler (even a King) is accountable to his people and requires a mandate to rule beyond the crown on his head, the blood in his veins or divine right. It seems counter intuitive that what has often been called a masterpiece of medieval propaganda would contain a conditional clause to revoke the very king it was throwing its support behind:
“…if he (Robert the Bruce) should cease from these beginnings, wishing to give us or our kingdom to the English or the king of the English, we would immediately take steps to drive him out as the enemy and the subverter of his own rights and ours, and install another King who would make good our defence. Because, while a hundred of us remain alive, we will not submit in the slightest measure, to the domination of the English. We do not fight for honour, riches, or glory, but solely for freedom which no true man gives up but with his life.”
The most commonly quoted and popular line of the document is akin to a more erudite medieval version of the axiom: “give me liberty or give me death” famously uttered by the founding father Patrick Henry in 1775. (Who incidentally was the son of a university educated Aberdonian migrant) However the section regarding the right to revoke the mandate of Robert the Bruce, should he not fulfill his obligations to safeguard the liberty and sovereignty of the nation, is equally if not more important. It clearly justifies the right of the wider community to take action against an unjust ruler should he act in a way contrary to the interests of his people. Whether this is a sign of the fractured political situation in Scotland at the time or a (developing) culture of political accountability of rulers is debatable. It is nonetheless interesting to see the tentative beginnings of ideas which would later become more developed and go on to shape political events such as the French and American revolutions of the 18th century. It may be vogue in academic circles to meander upon what was truly meant by “freedom” or “nation” within the medieval context and to point out the privileged position of the land owning nobility in medieval society this misses the wider historical context in favour of semantic games.
The text was clearly written at least in part by an author with a classical education as evidence by the popular prosaic Latin form used which was popular in the Papal court (Ars Dictaminus) The famous line: “We do not fight for honour, riches, or glory, but solely for freedom which no true man gives up but with his life” has been shown to have been adapted from the Roman writer Sallust’s Jugurthine Conspiracy where a military commander is apologetically justifying the use of arms against fellow Romans citizens and rulers during a turbulent period of civil war and political turmoil. While it is probably anachronistic to argue that the declaration of Arbroath is a document espousing democratic liberal ideals it worth noting that if one of the authors of the declaration had access to Sallust he would most likely have also had access to Aristotle, Cicero, Ovid, Seneca, and Virgil who were the most common Classical authors available to medieval church scholars in Britain. This may be conjecture but I do not believe it is beyond the realms of possibility that at least one of the authors of the declaration was dimly aware of the political discourse of classical antiquity. Classical philosophy clearly did influence ecclesiastic debate, philosophy and theory. In saying that though, I feel they would have seen more similarity between Roman patrician rule and their own system of Barons and landowners than with any conception of Athenian democracy.
While “nation” may not have the same context as the modern nation state today, the declaration of Arbroath clearly defines a community of “Scots” as a distinct community of people (populus) beyond the limits of the King’s court with a shared culture, language and ancestry (albeit a semi-mythical one based on classical ideas that the people of Scotland originated from Scythians). The concept of freedom (libertatem) would not have been understood in the sense of modern constitutional rights. However within the context of the subjugation of the people of Scotland and popular uprisings, “freedom” would have a relatively clear meaning. As the Scottish Historian J.R Phillips put it “freedom from unfreedom.”
Whilst not wanting to overstate the case it cannot be denied that the notion that a ruler was subject to popular sovereignty, had a responsibility to safeguard the rights of his people and needed a mandate beyond that of God was a very radical idea in the medieval and feudal world view. Not to mention that the declaration of Arbroath also challenged Papal infallibility and interference in Scottish affairs:
“If your Holiness, trusting too much in the English version of these events, does not truly believe us, or does not stop supporting them to our disadvantage, then, we believe that the slaughter of bodies, the loss of souls, and all the other things that will follow, the injuries that they will do to us and we to them, will be blamed by the Most High on you. “
To summarise, the declaration of Arbroath can be seen as a political and moral justification of the right of people to take up arms against unjust rule and resist it by any means necessary. The declaration of 1776 was also a political and moral justification for armed rebellion against British rule. This is interesting when one considers that half of the founding fathers were of Scottish descent and many had been educated either in Scotland or by Scottish model universities. The declaration of Arbroath had in fact remained a relatively obscure medieval document until it was translated from Latin into English in the 1680s after which it received much scholarly interest during the Scottish Enlightenment. George Washington was even reputed to own a prized snuff box made from an Oak tree which had sheltered William Wallace during the battle of Falkirk. One such similar box currently on sale at Bonham’s is inscribed as follows:
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/16326/lot/152/
True Son of Freedom, take & give, and may thy fame forever live, While traitors fame is sure to rott, Thy name shall never be forgot‘.
Scotland’s influence on the development of liberal social and economic ideas during the Enlightenment speaks for itself and I aim to write subsequent articles examining the influence of important Scottish thinkers. However Scotland’s cultural influence on liberal ideas goes deeper. If Scots didn’t at least invent the modern world one can certainly say that they at least laid the foundation for much of it.
Amagi 