IN AN ARTICLE published in 1991, Peter Burke posed the question of what a historical narrative would be like that dealt ‘not only with the sequence of events and the conscious intentions of the actors in these events, but also with structures – institutions, modes of thought, and so on – whether these structures act as a brake on events or as an accelerator’. In Barbour's Bruce we have such a story.

John Barbour's task, whether commissioned or self-appointed and later rewarded, was not an easy one. Writing c. 1375 for Robert II, king since 1371, and his court, Barbour might have confidently expected a lively interest in his poem, particularly as the early 1370s had been a time of renewed hostilities between Scotland and England as well as of friction within Scotland itself. A poem celebrating the king through whose efforts unity and independence had been secured must, therefore, have been of great topical interest. However, Barbour's chosen subject, King Robert Bruce (who reigned 1306–1329), was not only a man of legendary fame, to which songs and stories testified, but also a controversial figure, especially with regard to his political choices and manner of warfare. Had not the chronicler Langtoft earlier in the century ridiculed the king for skulking about in the woods naked, eating herbs and roots?

The scribes who recorded payment of the perpetual annuity awarded to Barbour in 1499 stated that such payment was due to Barbour pro compilatione liber de gestis quondam Roberti de Brus.