Robert II., (1370-1390), First King of the Stuarts, Nephew to King Robert I., Updated, pp.124-133.

1370.

AFTER the death of King David, in this same year, the estates of the kingdom met at Linlithgow, [about] the succession of a new king. Robert Stuart, the deceased King’s nephew, was the man, both by blood and act of parliament, ordained to reign. Yet William [Douglas], Earl of Douglas, opposed the same, with diverse of the nobility of his faction, who studied war more than peace, and their own particular[s], before the public good. Yet Patrick Dunbar, Earl of March, and John [Dunbar] his son, Earl of Moray, with Sir Robert Erskine, captain of the castles of Dumbarton, Edinburgh, and Stirling, composed the matter so, that James Douglas, Earl William’s eldest son, should marry King Robert’s eldest daughter [Isabella], begotten in lawful marriage; and so, without any more business, King Robert was solemnly crowned at Scone, with all requisite ceremony.

 

1371.

In the year 1371, Euphemia [de Ross], daughter to Hugh, Earl of Ross, King Robert’s wife, was crowned Queen of Scotland, with great solemnity, at Scone; by the Bishop of Aberdeen [Alexander de Kininmund] she was anointed.

This same year, came John Wycliffe [Roman Catholic priest. A proponent of common translations of the bible and Protestantism] out of England, and preached the gospel, both in Germany and France.

 

1372.

The year 1372, Peter [I.], King of Cyprus, being killed [by 3 of his knights], the affairs of that kingdom [grew] daily worse and worse.

Bertrand de Guesclin [the Eagle of Brittany], one of the bravest warriors France had, this year obtained many notable victories of the English, until that [John] the [Count] of Montford [and Duke of Brittany] made defection to the English; by doing whereof, he procured himself to be declared a traitor by the court of parliament of Paris, not only, but likewise stopped the current of the French good fortune against the English.

 

1373.

In the year 1373, dies Amadeus VI., Count or Earl of Savoy, to whom succeeded his son Amadeus VII.

This year, also there arose a sect of heretics, called Turlupins,^* resembling the Cynics, who went all naked; their wives and women in common they used. They were, by the Pope, condemned; and such of them as could be apprehended were burned.

 

1374.

About the end of the month of March, 1374, Walter [de] Wardlaw, Bishop and Cardinal of Glasgow, is sent [as] ambassador to France, where he renews the ancient league and amity between the said crown and that of Scotland.

This same year, Manuel Palaiologos, Prince of Thessaloniki, one of the sons of John [V.] Palaiologos, is accused by [Murad I.], the Turkish King for a conspiracy against him, and deprived of his principality; at which time Macarius Caloyerus is made [Ecumenical] Patriarch of Constantinople, in place of Philotheus, lately deceased.

The 19th day of July, this year, died that famous poet, Francesco Petrarca [Petrarch], the restorer of the Latin tongue from barbarism, and the glory of the Italian and Etruscan language, aged 70 years.

 

1375.

The year 1375, there was a law made by Charles [V.] the Wise, the French King, [about] the coronation of the Dauphins of France, their father’s being dead, at the age of 14 years; which was ratified by the whole courts of parliament in France, 12th day of June.

This same year, likewise, dies that learned and jocund Florentine poet and philosopher, [Giovanni] Boccaccio, about the 62nd year of his age; to the no small regret of all philosophers, poets, and astronomers.

 

1376.

In the year 1376, John [V.] Palaiologos, the Greek Emperor, being overthrown by his [bastard] son Andronikos [IV], aided by the Genoese, is again restored to his empire, by help and aid of the Venetians, whom he thankfully rewarded for their good service with the Isle of Tenedos, [Turkey], which he took from the Genoese.

This year, also, died that valiant and noble warrior, Edward, Prince of Wales, (called the Black Prince,) the 10th day of July, leaving issue [of] a son, Richard, who thereafter succeeded to his grandfather Edward III. after whose death he was King of England.

 

1377.

The year of God 1377, died that cruel tyrant, King Edward III., of England; to whom succeeded his grandchild Richard [II.], son to Edward, the Black Prince; no opposition being made [to] his entry by his uncles.

This year, also, [Murad I.], King of the Turks, after he had subdued the Serbians and Bulgarians, was by a private soldier, that had hid himself amongst the dead, while that [Murad], in a bloodthirsty [mood], viewed the slaughtered Christians, he arises as to sue to him for pardon, and kills him stark dead; to whom succeeds his son Bayezid [I.].

 

1379.

The year 1379, Joanna [I.], the lascivious Queen of Naples, having conveyed Pope Clement [VI.] to Avignon, finding herself to be wearing to age, and despairing to have any [child] of her own body, adopts Louis, [Count] of Anjou, brother to Charles [V.], the French King, her heir, son, and successor in the kingdom of Naples.

This same year [Ambrosio Doria],^** general of the Genoese, by sea, defeat[s] the Venetians; and from them (having followed their victory with good success,) took the town of Fossa Clodia [Chioggia], and some other pieces of smaller importance.

 

1380.

The year 1380, Walter [de] Wardlaw, Bishop of Glasgow, was, by Pope Gregory XI., created Cardinal [of the Red Chapel], at Rome; and with many recommendatory bulls, was sent home to Scotland, in August.

 

1381.

The year 1381, King Robert sent Cardinal Walter Wardlaw, Bishop of Glasgow, Sir Archibald Douglas [3rd Earl of Douglas], his cousin, and Sir James Douglas [of Dalkeith], ambassadors to France, to renew the ancient amity and league between the crowns of both realms.

 

1382.

The year 1382, John Lyon, [Thane of] Glamis, Lord Chancellor of Scotland, the King’s son-in-law, was killed by James [Lindsay], Earl of Crawford.

This year, also, died that noble knight, Sir Alexander Lindsay [of Glenesk], in his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, in the Isle of [Crete].

This year, likewise, Joanna [I.], Queen of Naples, by the persuasion of Louis [I.], King of Hungary, is strangled, and her sister Maria [of Calabria] beheaded; and Charles of Anjou, by Pope Urban [VI.], is anointed and crowned King of Naples. After the death of Michele Morosini, [Doge] of Venice, succeeded, by election, this year, Antonio Venier.

 

1383.

To begin this year, 1383, dies Ferdinand [I.], King of Portugal, at Lisbon; leaving for heir, one only daughter [Beatriz], married to John [I.], King of Castile, whom the Portuguese altogether refused to be their king; but sought after John [I. of Portugal], (some call him Dynis) their deceased king’s brother to be their king.

[Louis], Duke of Anjou the French King’s brother, adopted by Joanna [I.], Queen of Naples, and crowned by the Pope, raises an army, and wars this year, for his kingdom, against Charles, Prince of Durazzo, whom Gandulphus in his History says was overthrown by the Duke of Anjou, and died in displeasure the following year.

 

1384.

This year John [V.] Palaiologos (called Kaloïōannēs) the Greek Emperor, and his son Andronikos, contend for the imperial throne, but unhappy Andronikos, by the aid of Bayezid [I.], the Turkish King, possesses himself of Constantinople and the imperial throne, and commits his father to prison, after he had sworn himself [as] vassal to the enemy of Christ.

This year dies Louis [II.], [Count] of Flanders, to whom succeeds his only daughter, Margaret, wife to Philip [the Bold] of Valois (called Audax), Duke of Burgundy. She was called Margaret III.

 

1385.

In the year 1385, William, [1st] Earl of Douglas, departed this life at his castle of Douglas, and was solemnly interred at Melrose Abbey; to him succeeded Sir James Douglas, knight.

 

1386.

This year, 1386, Robert Stewart, Earl of Fife, with the Earls of Douglas and March, levied a great army of 40000 men, and besieged the castle of Roxburgh.

 

1387.

This year, 1387, died the Pope’s Legate, Walter [Wardlaw], Cardinal of Glasgow.

This year, also, died Euphemia, Queen of Scotland, King Robert II.’s wife, the daughter of Hugh, [Mormaer] of Ross.

This same year, likewise, William, [bastard] son to Archibald [the Grim] Douglas, Lord of Galloway, for his singular valour, and [repeated] victories against the English this year, both by sea and land, King Robert did give him his daughter Egidia, (a very beautiful lady) in marriage, with the Lordship of Nithsdale to him and his heirs forever, with the title and dignity of a Lord and Baron of Parliament.

 

1388.

In the year 1388, was fought the battle of Otterburn, between the Scottish and English: James, [2nd] Earl of Douglas, being there killed, died [childless], leaving the earldom to Archibald Douglas, Lord of Galloway. The English quite overthrown in this battle, and above 3000 left dead of them on the place: the general of the Scottish army returned home with great triumph and spoil of his enemies, viz. George, Earl of March, and John Dunbar, Earl of Murray, his brother. In this battle, of the Scots were killed, in effect, none of quality, the Earl of Douglas except[ing], but only Sir Robert Hart, Sir John Towers, and Sir William Lundy, who died of his wounds some three of four days after the battle.

 

1389.

The year 1389, King Robert II, being now broken with age, and his eldest son, John [Stewart], Earl of Carrick, being with a stroke of Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith’s horse, quite lamed, and not able to travel, made his 2nd son, Robert [Stewart], Earl of Fife [& Duke of Albany], by Sir Adam Mure [of Rowallan]‘s daughter [Elizabeth], Governor of the kingdom.

 

1390.

The 13th day of May, 1390, King Robert II. departed this mortal life, at his castle of Dundonald, after he had reigned [as] King 19 years and 23 days; and was solemnly interred at the monastery of Scone.

This year, also, Alexander Stewart, Earl of Buchan, King Robert II.’s 3rd son, by Sir Adam Mure’s daughter, burned the cathedral church of Elgin.

This year, also, William Douglas, the noble Lord of Nithsdale, was traitorously killed by the English, on Danzig [Gdańsk] bridge [thereafter known as the Douglas Port], in [Prussia (now in Poland)].

 

^* “TURLUPINS, A sect of impudent and scandalous heretics of the XIVth century, who taught that when man was arrived at a certain degree of perfection, he was freed from the yoke of the divine law: and contrary to the doctrine of the Stoics, who made the liberty of their wife man consist in being free from passions, they placed this liberty in being no longer subject to the precepts of eternal wisdom. They did not believe they ought to pray to God any otherwise than mentally; but what was yet more shocking in their sect, was that they went naked,¹ and according to the example of the Cynics, or rather of brutes, they performed the work of the flesh at noon-day, in view of all the world. They pretended that we ought not to be ashamed of any part which nature has bestowed on us. Notwithstanding these profane extravagancies they affected a very spiritual and devout air, the better to insinuate themselves into the women’s favour, and allure them into the snare of their unchaste desires. For this is the rock of all those sects who aim at distinguishing themselves by paradoxes in morality: examine to the bottom the visions of the pretenders to new light, and of the Quietists, &c., you will find if anything can unmask them, it is somewhat relating to venereal pleasure; this is the weak part of the place, where the enemy makes the affault; it is a worm which never dies, and a fire which never goes out. These Heretics appeared in France, in the reign of Charles V.² They chiefly appeared in Savoy and Dauphiné. Great care was taken to purge the world of them. It is not easy to discover the true cause of their name. Vignier derives it from their living in places exposed to the wolves. They affected to call themselves the FRATERNITY OF THE POOR, as du Tillet and Gaguin have observed.

¹ [They went naked.] We cannot sufficiently wonder that such a whimsical fancy should be so often renewed amongst Christians. Paganism affords us only the sect of Cynics, who fell into this impudent practice; and it must also be observed that this sect was not numerous, and that the greatest part of the Cynics did not discover their nudity, or do what is consequent upon it, as it was said of Diogenes. The Indian Gymnosophists were not naked in those parts which the Amanites, Turlupins, Picards, and several Anabaptists discovered. We ought then to grant, that in that respect the Christians have been more irregular than the Pagans. We shall not be surprized at this, when we observe that a gospel principle, of which the Pagans were ignorant, is liable to this abuse: I mean, that the second Adam came to repair the evil which the first had introduced into the world. From hence a Fanatic ventures to conclude, that those who are once partakers of the benefits of the covenant of grace, are perfectly restored to the state of Adam and Eve. I own that Fanatiscism must be carried to an high pitch, and the dose must be very large, which is able to overcome the impressions of modesty which nature and a Christian education have stamped on us; but what is not the infinite combination of our passions, imaginations, animal spirits, &c. capable of doing? I have, in another place, spoken of some ancient Anchorets, who scrupled to see their own nudity. The Pagans afford us no such example that I know of; they were only very careful of hiding it from the eyes of others. This was observed not only amongst the women, but also amongst some very debauched men. And therefore Petronius did not stretch too far when he said, [Latin text], ‘To which knowledge they do not admit men even of a grave disposition.’

² [Great care was taken to purge the world of them.] The following words afford us a specimen of that diligence: ‘To Brother James de More, of the Preaching Order, Inquisitor of the Sodomites in the province of France, as a gift bestowed on him by the King’s Letters-Patents, the second of February 1373, for and in compensation of several pains, missions, and expences which he had been at, suffered and sustained in pursuit of the male and female Turlupins, whom he found and took in the said province, and who, by his diligence, have been punished for their errors and falsities, the sum of fifty francs, which are worth ten Paris livres.’ Gaguin observes, in his Life of Charles V., that ‘the books and cloaths of the Turlupins were burnt in the hog-market at Paris, without the gate of St Honoré; that Joan Dabentonne, and another person with her, being the chief preachers of that seat, were also burnt; but the latter’, says he, ‘whom I do not name, dying in prison, before sentence, his corpse was kept fifteen days in a heap of lime, to keep it from putrifying, after which it was burnt at the time appointed for execution.’ Du Tillet says also, that under Charles V., ‘the superstitious religion of the Turlupins, who had called their sect the Fraternity of the Poor, was condemned and abolished, and their ceremonies, books, and cloaths, condemned and burnt.’ But how do these cloaths which were burnt agree with the report of those, who tell us that they went naked? We must suppose the nakedness of all these sorts of Fanatics to have been limited with regard to times, or places, or with regard to certain members. We have seen that the Adamites did not strip themselves anywhere but in the stoves where they met, and that the Picards condemned above all, those who did not shew their privy-parts. The cold and rain would not permit them to go always naked: it is not at all probable that they durst regularly and continually appear naked in those cities in which they were not the most powerful; and it seems that the Turlupins in particular discovered only the parts which distinguish the sexes. [Latin text], ‘The Turlupins revived the sect of the Cynics as to the nakedness of the privy-parts, and coition in public.’ My citations out of Gerson amounts to the same thing. Therefore they had cloaths notwithstanding their impudence; and probably before persons not yet initiated, or those godly women whom they intended to draw into their nets, they did not immediately shew their privy-parts.”

– ‘The Dictionary Historical and Critical’, Peter Bayle (1738), vol.5, p.415.

^** The original text has “Pandulphus Collenutius” [Pandolphus Colonucius] as the victorious Genoese general but I can only find him as a 13th century writer and critic of Frederick II. Holy Roman Emperor who died in 1250, 129 years before the Battle of Chioggia.