INTRODUCTION

THERE is no portion of the history of Scotland more embarrassing to modern writers, than the period which relates to the life and achievements of Wallace.

Having been long since anticipated in all the leading details respecting him by Henry the Minstrel, our historians in general seem nervous in approaching the subject; and have either contented themselves with such materials as the old English writers and certain monastic chronicles have furnished, or have deliberately borrowed, without the grace of acknowledgment, the facts recorded by an author they affected to despise, as one whom the learned were not agreed to admit within the pale of respectable authority. This treatment, however, we conceive to be not only unfair, but rather discourteous in those who may have extended their suffrages to writers guilty of much greater aberrations from historical veracity than any which are chargeable against him. It is true, that the works of those writers are in Latin; but still, we do not see that a great falsehood, told in the classical language of ancient Rome, should be entitled to a larger portion of public faith than a lesser one set forth in the more modern patois of Scotland.

When Walsingham, in describing the battle of Falkirk, tells us that the sharpness and strength of the English arrows were such, that "they thoroughly penetrated the men-at-arms, obscured the helmets, perforated the swords, and overwhelmed the lances", and another learned author, in narrating the same battle, makes the loss of the Scots in killed, wounded, and prisoners, amount to more in number than were disposed of in any one of the most sanguinary conflicts between the Roman and Barbaric worlds (Hemingford says, that there were fifty thousand slain, many drowned, and three hundred thousand foot taken prisoners, besides a thousand horsemen), we would naturally expect, that the indulgence which can readily attribute such outrages on our credulity, to the style of the age in which the writers lived, might also be extended to our Minstrel, even when he describes his hero "like a true knight-errant, cleaving his foes through brawn and bayne down to the shoulders."

It is said by Lord Hailes, in speaking of Henry, that "he is an author whom every historian copies, yet no historian but Sir Robert Sibbald will venture to quote". This, though intended as a sneer by the learned analyst, may be viewed as complimentary to the candor of Sir Robert, who, while he avails himself of the facts related by another, is not above acknowledging the obligation.

Considering the situation of this unfortunate but ingenious man, no author had ever a stronger claim on the indulgence of his readers. Blind from his birth, he was deprived of the advantage of correcting the manuscript of his work, while his poverty prevented him from procuring an amanuensis capable of doing justice to his talents. Hence we find a number of errors and omissions, that from the ease with which they can be rectified, appear evidently the faults of transcribers.

Succeeding historians, far from making the allowance which his case demanded, have acted towards him with a degree of peevish hostility exceedingly unbecoming. Because his dates do not always correspond with the transactions he records, he has been termed a "liar", a "fabulist", "a man blind in more respects than one"; with other appellations no less unworthy of themselves than unmerited by him.

When it is considered that there is no circumstance connected with Wallace mentioned by subsequent writers, but what had already found a place in the work of the Minstrel; that they had no other story to give than what he had previously given; and that they must either repeat what he had already stated, or remain silent: we are led to conclude, that he could not have so effectually preoccupied the ground, without having very complete information regarding the subject of his biography.

This information, he tells us himself, was derived from a memoir written in Latin by John Blair, assisted by Thomas Gray, the former chaplain to Wallace, and the latter parson of Liberton, both eye-witnesses of the transactions they relate. It follows, therefore, that Scottish authors, having obtained, in a great measure, their information respecting Wallace from the pages of Blind Harry, their characters, as historians, become seriously involved with the fate of him whom they have so unceremoniously vituperated.

Under these circumstances, it appears a very proper subject of inquiry, to ascertain whether he has, or has not executed his task with becoming fidelity. Were the memoir of Blair extant, this matter could very soon be determined; but having long since disappeared, doubts are now entertained of its ever having been in existence. Sir Robert Sibbald has published a few fragments, entitled Relationes quaedam Arnaldi Blair, Monachi de Dumfermelini, et Capellani D. Willielmi Wallas, Militis, 1327. Though these are merely transcripts from the Scotichronicon of Fordun, yet some have supposed them to have been the groundwork on which Blind Harry founded his poem.

This opinion, however, can scarcely be maintained save by those who have only seen the title; the most superficial inspection will be sufficient to induce a very different conclusion. Arnold Blair may have, on some occasion, officiated as chaplain to Wallace, and, proud of the distinction, in imitation of his namesake, may have made the ill-arranged excerpts from Fordun, for the purpose of handing down his own name in connection with that of the illustrious defender of his country: but the confident manner in which Henry refers to his author, as evidence of facts which are not alluded to, even in the most distant manner, in the work of Arnold, shows the impossibility of its being the foundation of his narrative; for we cannot suppose that an author, wishing to pass off a tissue of fables for a series of truths, would act with so much inconsistency, as to court detection by referring for authority to a quarter where he was sure of finding none.

When Henry introduced his translation to the public, the approbation with which it was received may very justly be viewed as the test of its correctness, there being no scarcity of men in the country capable of collating it with the original, and detecting the imposition, if any existed; and it may therefore reasonably be inferred, that the excellency of the translation was such as to supersede the original; being, from its language, more accessible to all classes than the other, which, on that account, was more likely to go into desuetude, and ultimately to disappear.

The character of Minstrel which has been attached to Henry, joined to the vulgar and disgusting translation of his work into modern Scotch, by Hamilton of Gilbertfield, has, it is presumed, injured his reputation as a historian, more than any deviation he has made from the authentic records of the country. No other work of his exists, or is known to have existed, which might entitle him to rank as a minstrel; but being called upon and possibly compelled by circumstances to recite his translation in the presence of the great, he received a minstrel's reward, and became, perhaps improperly, confounded with the profession.

Had Barbour, Wyntown, Langtoft, and other authors, who wrote their chronicles in rhyme, been quoted by subsequent writers as minstrels, it would no doubt have weakened their authority as historians. These men, however, professed to give, though in verse, a faithful register of the transactions of their country. Henry seems to have had only the same object in view; and thus endeavors to impress the reader with the fidelity of the translation, and the disinterestedness of his motives.

Off Wallace lyff quha has a forthar feill,

May schaw furth mair with wit and eloquence ;

For I to this haiff don my diligence,

Eftyr the pruff geyffyn fra the Latyn buk,

Quhilk Maister Blayr in his tym wndyrtuk,

In fayr Latyn compild il till ane end ;

"With thir witnes the mar is to commend.

Byschop Synclar than lord was off Dunkell^

He gat this buk, and confermd it him sell

For werray true; thar off he had no dreid,

Himselff had seyn gret part off Wallace deid.

His purpos was till haue send it to Rom,

Our fadyr off kyrk tharon to gyff his dom.

Bot Maister Blayr, and als Schir Thomas Gray,

Eftir Wallace thai lestit mony day,

Thir twa knew best of gud Schir Wilyhamys deid,

Fra sexteyn yer quhill nyne and twenty yeid.

Fourty and fyve off age, Wallace was cauld,

That tym that he was to [the] Southeroun sauld.

Thocht this mater be nocht till all plesance,

His suthfast deid was worthi till awance.

All worthi men at redys this rurall dyt,

Blaym nocht the buk, set I be wnperfyt.

I suld hawe thank, sen I nocht trawaill spard;

For my laubour na man hecht me reward;

Na charge I had off king nor othir lord;

Gret harm I thocht his gud deid suld be smord.

I haiff said her ner as the process gais;

And fenyeid nocht for frendschip nor for fais.

Costis herfor was no man bond to me;

In this sentence I had na will to be,

Bot in als mekill as I rahersit nocht

Sa worthely as nobill Wallace wrocht.

Bot in a poynt, I grant, I said amyss,

Thir twa knychtis suld blamyt be for this,

The knycht Wallas, off Cragge rychtwyss lord,

And Liddaill als, gert me mak [wrang] record.

On Allyrtoun mur the croun he tuk a day,

To get battaill, as myn autour will say.

Thir twa gert me say that ane othir wyss ;

Till Maister Blayr we did sumpart off dispyss."

Suke Eleuenth, v. 14101450.

What more can an author say to satisfy his reader of the purity of his intentions, as well as of the genuineness of the source from whence he has drawn his materials? Without reward, or promise of reward, he appears to have undertaken his task from the purest feelings of patriotism, and finished it before he experienced any of the fostering influence of patronage. That the transactions he relates are substantially correct, or at least such as were generally believed to be so at the time he wrote, we have the evidence of one nearly cotemporary. Major thus expresses himself: "Henry, who was blind from his birth, in the time of my infancy composed the whole Book of William Wallace; and committed to writing in vulgar poetry, in which he was well skilled, the things that were commonly related of him. For my own part, I give only partial credit to writings of this description. By the recitation of these however, in the presence of men of the highest rank, he procured, as he indeed deserved, food and raiment".

Though Major says nothing of Blair's Memoirs, yet he frees Henry from the charge of relating anything that was not previously believed by his countrymen.

Thomas Chambers, in his History of the House of Douglas, says, "These things fell out in the year 1298; which passages, as the most part of actions done in the time of Sir William Wallace, are either passed over, or slenderly touched by the writers of our chronicles, although the truth thereof be unquestionable, being related by those eye-witnesses who wrote the diary or history of Sir William Wallace in Latin, which is periphrastically turned into English rhyme, the interpreter expressing the main body of the story very truly; howsoever, missing or mistaking some circumstances, he dift'ereth therein from the Latin". From the manner in which this is expressed, it may be supposed that Chambers had seen the original. If this could be established, his testimony would be of considerable importance.

Nicholson, Archdeacon of Carlisle, in his Scottish Historical Library, says, that the names of the great northern Englishmen, whom Henry represents Wallace as having been engaged with, such as Sir Gerard Heron, Captain Thirlwall, Morland, Martindale, &c. are still well known on the borders of Cumberland and Northumberland. The reader may also find, by the Statistical Account of Scotland, that the localities mentioned in the poem, are given with a precision beyond the reach of one laboring under the infirmity of blindness.

The invasion of Lorn by MacFadyan and a horde of Irish, at the instigation of Edward, is a circumstance unnoticed by any historian, save the translator of Blair; and were it not for the undoubted evidence, arising from traditions still preserved among a people who never heard of the work of the Minstrel, it might be considered as the mere creation of his own fancy. But such decided testimony in favor of the correctness of his statement, when taken in connection with the accurate manner in which he has described the advance of Wallace through a country, respecting the intricacies of which he, of himself, could form no idea the near approach he has made to the Celtic names of the places, which can still be distinctly traced and the correct description he has given of the grand scene of action on the Awe, are sufficient to stamp the impress of truth on his narrative, and satisfy any one of the impossibility of a man, situated as he was, ever being able to accomplish it without the diary of an eyewitness.

After the defeat of MacFadyan, Wallace is represented as holding a council or meeting with the chieftains of the West Highlands, in the Priory of Ardchattan. The ruins of the Priory are still to be found on the banks of Loch Etive, a few miles from the scene of strife; and among the rubbish, as well as in the neighboring grounds, coins of Edward the First have at different times been dug up, in considerable quantities.

So late as March, 1829, the following paragraph appeared in the Glasgow Herald: "In digging a grave, a few days ago at Balvodan (or St. Modan's), a burial-place in the neighborhood of the Priory of Ardchattan, Argyllshire, a number of ancient silver coins were found, in a remarkably fine state of preservation. The place where they had been deposited was about four feet below the surface; and they seem to have been contained in an earthern vessel, which moldered into dust, on exposure to the atmosphere; they were turned up by the shovel, as those who were attending the interment were surrounding the grave, and each of the party present having picked up a few, the rest were, by the Highlanders, returned with the earth to the grave. The coins were struck in the reign of the First Edward, whose name can be distinctly traced on them; and they were probably placed there at the time, when that monarch had succeeded in getting temporary possession of the greater part of Scotland. In that case they must have lain where they were found for upwards of five hundred years".

The writer had an opportunity of examining a number of these coins on the spot; he found a great many of them to be struck in Dublin, and they seemed below the regular standard. Though numerous discoveries have been made of the coins of this ambitious monarch in other parts of Scotland, yet in the West Highlands they are extremely rare. Neither Edward, nor any of his English generals, ever penetrated so far in that direction. It is, therefore, highly probable, that the above money may have formed part of the contents of the military chest of MacFadyan, which, in that superstitious age, had found its way into the hands of the priesthood.

Although Henry cannot be collated with his original, the truth or falsehood of his narrative may, in part, be ascertained by comparing him with those who preceded him on the same subject. The most reputable of these writers, and those whose characters for veracity stand highest in the estimation of the learned, are John de Fordun, and Andro de Wyntown, both original historians; for, though Wyntown outlived Fordun, he had not an opportunity of seeing his history. With respect to Fordun's agreement with the Minstrel, the reader has the evidence of Nicholson, Archdeacon of Carlisle, who says, that "Hart's edition of Wallace contains a preface which confirms the whole of it out of the Scoti-Chronicon." Wyntown, who finished his history in 1424, being about forty-six years before Henry, in alluding to those deeds of Wallace which he had left unrecorded, says,

Of his gud Dedis and Manhad

Gret Gestis; I hard say, ar made;

Bot sa mony, I trow noucht,

As he in-till hys dayis wroucht.

Quha all hys Dedis of prys wald dyte,

Hym worthyd a gret Buk to wryte;

And all thai to wryte in here

I want bathe Wyt and gud Laysere."

B. VIII. c. xv. v. 79-86.

The first couplet may allude to Blair's Diary, or perhaps to Fordun's History, which he had no doubt heard of; and, in the succeeding lines, he doubts that however much may have been recorded, it must still fall very short of what was actually performed. This is so far satisfactory, from one who lived almost within a century of the time, and who no doubt often conversed with those whose fathers had fought under the banners of Wallace; it is a pity that his modesty, and his want of "gud laysere", prevented him from devoting more of his time to so meritorious a subject. The first transaction which he has narrated, is the affair at Lanark; but it is evident from what he says, that Wallace must have often before mingled in deadly feud with the English soldiers, and done them serious injury; otherwise, it would be difficult to account for their entertaining towards him the degree of animosity expressed in the following lines:

“Gret Dyspite thir Inglis men

Hat at this Willame Wallace then

Swá thai made thame on á day

Hym for to set in har assay”

B. VIII. c. XIII. V 19-22

Every particular that Wyntown gives of the conflict which ensues, in consequence of this preconcerted quarrel on the part of the English, is detailed in the account of the Minstrel with a degree of correctness, leaving no room to doubt that either the two authors must have drawn their materials from the same source, or that Henry, having heard Wystown version of the story, considered it so near the original as to leave little to be corrected. The language, as will be seen from the following examples, is nearly the same:

“Twelf hundyre nynty yhere abd sewyn

Frá Cryst wes borne the King of Hewyn”

B. VIII. c. XIII.

Henry thus enters upon the same subject:

Tuelff hundredth yer, tharto nynté and sewyn

Fra Cryst wes norne the rychtwiss king off hewyn

Buke sext, 107,108

Wyntown gives the following dialogue, as having taken places between Wallace and an athletic wag belonging to the English garrison of Lanark, who, when surrounding by his companions made “a Tyt at hys swords”:

W. "Hald stylle thi hand, and spek thi worde."

/. "Wyth thi Swerd thow mais gret bost."

W. "Tharefor thi Dame made lytil cost."

/. "Quhat caus has thow to were the Grene ?"

W. "Na caus, bot for to make the Tene."

J. "Thow suld noucht bere sa fare a Knyf."

W. "Swa sayd the Preyst, that, swywyd thi Wyf:

Swa lang he cald that Woman fayr,

Quhill that his Barne wes made thi Ayre."

/. "Me-thynk thow drywys me to scorne."

W. "Thi Dame wes swywyd or thow wes borne."

B. VIII. c. XIII. 28-38.

The similarity of Henry's version is too apparent to be the effect of chance. After a little badinage, which does not appear in Wyntown, he says,

“Ma Sotheroune men to thaime assemblit ner.

Wallace as than was laith to mak a ster.

Ane maid a scrip, and tyt at his lang suorde:

'Hald still thi hand,' quod he,

'and spek thi word.'

'With thi lang suerd thow makis mekill bost.'

Tharoff,' quod he, 'thi deme maid litill cost.'

'Quhat causs has thow to wer that gudlye greyne?

'My maist causs is bot for to mak the teyne.'

Quhat suld a Scot do with sa fair a knyff?

'Sa said the prest that last janglyt thi wyff;

'That woman lang has tillit him so fair,

'Quhill that his child, worthit to be thine ayr.'

'Me think,' quod he,

'thow drywys me to scorn.'

'Thi deme has beyne japyt or thow was born.'

Buke Sext," 141-154.

The parties soon come to blows; and, in the conflict, Wallace cut off the hand of one of his opponents. Wyntown thus takes notice of the circumstance.

"As he wes in that Stowre fechtand,

Frá ane he strak swne the rycht hand;

And frá that Carle mycht do ná mare,

The left hand held fast the Buklare,

And he swá mankyd, as brayne-wode,

Kest fast wyth the Stwmpe the Blode

In-til Willame Walays face:

Mare cumryd of that Blode he was,

Than he was a welle lang qwhile

Feychtand stad in that peryle."

B. VIII. c. XIII. 47-56.

Henry narrates the anecdote with little variation.

"Wallace in stour wes cruelly fechtand;

Fra a Sotheroune he smat off the rycht hand:

And quhen that carle off fechtyng mycht no mar,

With the left hand in ire held a buklar.

Than fra the stowmpe the blud out spurgyt fast,

In Wallace face aboundandlye can out cast;

In to great part it marryt him off his sicht."

Buke Sext" 163-169.

The escape of Wallace by means of his mistress -her murder by order of the sheriff- his return the ensuing night with the slaughter of the sheriff are particularly taken notice of by Wyntown. Henry's translation includes all these occurrences, and only differs by being more circumstantial. The account of the battle of Falkirk agrees in numerous instances. The covenant between Cumming and Bruce, which Henry states to have taken place near Stirling, is corroborated in place and circumstance by Fordun, Wyntown, and Barbour. The hanging of Sir Bryce Blair, and Sir Ronald Crawford in a barn at Ayr, is confirmed by the last mentioned writer, although he does not descend to particulars.

These, and many other instances may be adduced, to show, that, though Henry or his authority may have occasionally indulged in the marvelous, yet the general outline of his history, and even many of the particulars, are in strict accordance with truth; and the work itself necessarily becomes not only valuable as a depository of ancient manners, but as containing matter which, if properly investigated, may be useful to the historian. Whether the apocryphal part and which, it must be allowed, is considerable ought to be attributed to the fancy of the translator, or if it formed a portion of the original text, we have no means of ascertaining. From the frequent and apparent sincerity, however, with which Henry appeals to his "actor", and the value he seems to attach to a faithful discharge of his task, we might be led to infer, that if it were practicable to collate his performance with the memoir of Blair, the rendering of it would be found unexceptionable. Under these circumstances, the writer of the following narrative has not scrupled to avail himself of such statements as appeared entitled to credit; and, though he cannot consider the Minstrel as deserving the same degree of confidence as Wyntown or Barbour, yet, when he finds him consistent and characteristic, he conceives it would be unjust to suspect falsehood in every instance, where he does not happen to be supported by the respectable testimonies already enumerated. That he is more circumstantial than any of the Scottish historians, is easily accounted for, by his attention, or rather that of his author, being engrossed by the actions of one individual. A degree of minuteness is in this case adopted, which would be altogether incompatible with the plan of a general historian.

These remarks it has been deemed necessary to make in defense of one to whom we are indebted for the only original memoir of the greatest hero, and purest patriot, Scotland or any other country ever produced; an author, however, who, instead of having the merits of his work fairly appreciated, has been vilified and abused by those who, in their zeal for establishing new historical creeds, have found it a matter of less labour to sneer than to investigate.

The sources from whence the present writer has drawn his materials, will, it is hoped, be found such as are generally entitled to credit. Being of opinion that the authors who lived nearest the period under review ought to be best informed respecting the transactions connected with it, he has therefore endeavored to collate as many ancient Scottish and English authorities as possible. The biographical notices of such Englishmen as figured in the Scottish wars, are chiefly drawn from the historians of England; conceiving that it belongs to the writers of a country to be best acquainted with the details of its internal and domestic history; but to enumerate the authorities he has consulted, would here be superfluous, as they are duly noted at the proper stages of the narrative.