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”—(ut ipsos armatos omnino penetrarent, cassides tenebrarent, gladios perforarent, lanceas funderent)—and another learned author,2 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,—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 annalist, may be viewed as complimentary to the candour 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 pre-occupied 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 quÆdam 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 connexion 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 endeavours to impress the reader with the fidelity of the translation, and the disinterestedness of his motives:—

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:3 “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 any thing 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 eyewitnesses who wrote the diary or history of Sir William Wallace in Latin, which is paraphrastically turned into English rhyme, the interpreter expressing the main body of the story very truly; howsomever, missing or mistaking some circumstances, he differeth therein from the Latin.”4 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 labouring 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 favour 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 eye-witness.

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 neighbouring grounds, coins of Edward I. 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 neighbourhood 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 earthen vessel, which mouldered 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.”5 Wyntown, who finished his history in 1424, being about 46 years before Henry, in alluding to those deeds of Wallace which he had left unrecorded, says,

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:

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 Wyntown’s 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:

Henry thus enters upon the same subject—

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

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,

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.

Henry narrates the anecdote with little variation.

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 marvellous, 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 “auctor,” 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 defence 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 endeavoured 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.