Editing David I of Scotland (section)

== Historiography ==
=== Medieval reputation ===
The earliest English assessments of David portray him as a pious king, a reformer and a civilising agent in a barbarian nation. For [[William of Newburgh]], David was a "King not barbarous of a barbarous nation", who "wisely tempered the fierceness of his barbarous nation". William praises David for his piety, noting that, among other saintly activities, "he was frequent in washing the feet of the poor" (this can be read literally: his mother, who is now patron saint of Scotland, was widely known and lauded for the same practice).<ref>A. O. Anderson, ''Early Sources'', p. 231.</ref> Another of David's eulogists, his former courtier [[Aelred of Rievaulx]], echoes Newburgh's assertions and praises David for his justice as well as his piety, commenting that David's rule of the Scots meant that "the whole barbarity of that nation was softened ... as if forgetting their natural fierceness they submitted their necks to the laws which the royal gentleness dictated".<ref>A. O. Anderson, ''Early Sources'', pp. 232–233</ref>

Although avoiding stress on 12th-century Scottish "barbarity", the Lowland Scottish historians of the [[Late Middle Ages]] tend to repeat the accounts of earlier chronicle tradition. Much that was written was either directly transcribed from the earlier medieval chronicles themselves or was modelled closely upon them, even in the significant works of [[John of Fordun]], [[Andrew Wyntoun]] and [[Walter Bower]].<ref>Felix J. H. Skene & William Forbes Skene (ed.), ''John of Fordun's Chronicle of the Scottish Nation'', (Edinburgh, 1872), p. 200ff; Donaldson, ''The Sources of Scottish History'', p. 34: "... at what point its information about Scotland should receive credence is far from clear". Though Wyntoun, Fordun and Bower may have had access to documents which are no longer extant, much of their information is either duplicated in other records or cannot be corroborated; for a survey of David's historical reputation, see Oram, ''David'', pp. 203–225.</ref> For example, Bower includes in his text the eulogy written for David by Aelred of Rievaulx. This quotation extends to over twenty pages in the modern edition and exerted a great deal of influence over what became the traditional view of David in later works about Scottish history.<ref>John MacQueen, Winnifred MacQueen and D. E. R. Watt (eds.), ''Scotichronicon by Walter Bower'', vol. 3, (Aberdeen, 1995), p. 139ff.</ref> Historical treatment of David developed in the writings of later Scottish historians, and the writings of men like [[John Major (philosopher)|John Mair]], [[George Buchanan]], [[Hector Boece]], and Bishop [[John Lesley|John Leslie]] ensured that by the 18th century, a picture of David as a pious, justice-loving state-builder and vigorous maintainer of Scottish independence had emerged.<ref>Oram, ''David'', pp. 213–217.</ref>

Moreover, Bower stated in his eulogy that David always had the ambition to join a [[crusade]], which was prevented eventually by his death.{{sfn|Macquarrie|1997|p=81}} In addition, Aelred of Rievaulx hinted that David expressed his desire to be part of the [[Second Crusade]] himself, but he was dissuaded by his subjects.{{sfn|Cowan|Mackay|Macquarrie|1983|p=18}} However, David had already met [[Hugues de Payens]], the [[List of grand masters of the Knights Templar|first Grand Master]] of the [[Knights Templar]], in 1128 in Scotland.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.eyeofthepsychic.com/rosslyn_excursions/ |title=The Stone Puzzle of Rosslyn Chapel |website=eyeofthepsychic.com |access-date=9 May 2018}}</ref> In the meantime, the [[Knights Templar in Scotland|Order]] established a seat at [[Balantrodoch]], now [[Temple, Midlothian]] on the South Esk ([[River Esk, Lothian]]).<ref>Ferduson, ''The Knights Templar and Scotland'', pp. 46–47.</ref>

=== Modern treatment ===
[[File:Statue of David I on the West Door of St. Giles High Kirk, Edinburgh.jpg|thumb|180px|Statue of David I on the [[St Giles' Cathedral|West Door of St. Giles High Kirk]], [[Edinburgh]]]]

In the modern period, there has been more of an emphasis on David's state-building and the effects of his changes on Scottish cultural development. Lowland Scots tended to trace the origins of their culture to the marriage of David's father Máel Coluim III to [[Saint Margaret of Scotland]], a myth which had its origins in the medieval period.<ref>See, for instance, Steve Boardman, "Late Medieval Scotland and the Matter of Britain", in Edward J. Cowan and Richard J. Finlay (eds.), ''Scottish History: The Power of the Past'', (Edinburgh, 2002), pp. 65–71.</ref> With the development of modern historical techniques in the mid-19th century, responsibility for these developments appeared to lie more with David than his father. David assumed a principal place in the alleged destruction of the [[Kingdom of Alba|Celtic Kingdom of Scotland]], Andrew Lang, in 1900, wrote that "with Alexander [I], Celtic domination ends; with David, Norman and English dominance is established".<ref>Quoted in Oram, ''David'', p. 219, citing Lang, ''A History of Scotland'', vol. 1, pp. 102–109; Lang did not neglect the old myth about Margaret, writing of the Northumbrian refugees arriving in Scotland "where they became the sires of the sturdy Lowland race", Lang, ''A History of Scotland'', vol. 1, p. 91.</ref>

The ages of [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] and [[Romanticism]] had elevated the role of races and "ethnic packages" into mainstream history, and in this context David was portrayed as hostile to the native Scots, and his reforms were seen in the light of natural, perhaps even justified, civilised Teutonic aggression towards the backward Celts.<ref>See Matthew H. Hammond, "Ethnicity and the Writing of Medieval Scottish history", pp. 1–27.; see also, Murray G. H. Pittock's work, ''Celtic Identity and the British Image'', (Manchester, 1999), and Oram, ''David'', pp. 219–220.</ref>

In the 20th century, several studies were devoted to Normanisation in 12th century Scotland, focusing upon and thereby emphasising the changes brought about by the reign of David I. Græme Ritchie's ''The Normans in Scotland'' (1954), [[Archie Duncan (historian)|Archie Duncan]]'s ''Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom'' (1974) and the many articles of [[G. W. S. Barrow]] all formed part of this historiographical trend.<ref>Græme Ritchie, ''The Normans in Scotland'', (Edinburgh, 1954); Duncan, ''Scotland: The Making of the Kingdom'', pp. 133–173; most of Barrow's most important essays have been collected in two volumes, ''Scotland and Its Neighbours In the Middle Ages'', (London, 1992) and ''The Kingdom of the Scots: Government, Church and Society from the eleventh century to the fourteenth century'', 2nd edn. (Edinburgh, 2003).</ref>

In the 1980s, Barrow sought a compromise between change and continuity, and argued that the reign of King David was, in fact, a "Balance of New and Old".<ref>Barrow, "The Balance of New and Old", ''passim''.</ref> Such a conclusion was a natural incorporation of an underlying current in Scottish historiography which, since [[William F. Skene]]'s monumental and revolutionary three-volume ''Celtic Scotland: A History of Ancient Alban'' (1876–1880), had been forced to acknowledge that "Celtic Scotland" was alive and healthy for a long time after the reign of David I.<ref>William Forbes Skene, ''Celtic Scotland: A History of Ancient Alban'', 3 vols. (Edinburgh, 1876–1880); see also, Edward J. Cowan, "The Invention of Celtic Scotland", pp. 1–23.</ref> Michael Lynch followed and built upon Barrow's compromise solution, arguing that as David's reign progressed, his kingship became more Celtic.<ref>Lynch, ''Scotland: A New History'', pp. 82–83.</ref> Despite its subtitle, in 2004 in the only full-volume study of David I's reign yet produced, ''David I: The King Who Made Scotland'', its author [[Richard Oram]] further builds upon Lynch's picture, stressing continuity while placing the changes of David's reign in their context.<ref>Oram, ''David I'', (Stroud, 2004).</ref>