So little is known, with respect to Henry the Minstrel, that I can
scarcely pretend to add any thing to the meagre account which has been
given of him by former writers. As we cannot certainly fix the time, we
can form no conjecture even as to the place, of his birth. Almost all
that can be viewed as an historical record concerning him, is that with
which we are supplied by Major. Integrum librum, he says, Guillelmi
Vallacei Henricus, a natiuitate luminibus captus, meae infantiae
tempore cudit; et quæ vulgo dicebantur, carmine vulgari, in quo peritus
erat, conscripsit; (ego autem talibus scriptis solum in parte fidem
impertior); qui historiarum recitatione coram principibus victum et
vestitum quo dignus erat nactus est. Hist. Lib. IV. c. 15. “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.”
This account, as it merely respects the recitation of his poem, is
not inconsistent with what Henry himself says, when he asserts his
independence in the composition of it, and declares that the motive by
which he was chiefly actuated, was a patriotic desire to preserve the
memory of the illustrious deeds of Wallace from oblivion.
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, &c.
_Wallace_, B. XI. v. 1432.
Mr. Pinkerton has given 1470 as the date when it may be supposed that
Henry appeared in the character of an author. It is generally admitted,
indeed, that Major was born in the year 1469. Henry, by reason of his
blindness, could not himself have written his poetical effusions; and
it may reasonably be supposed, from his dependent and ambulatory mode
of life, that he could not employ an amanuensis properly qualified
for the task. Hence may we account for the obscurity, and even for
the apparent absurdity, of some passages in his work. Bating these
imperfections, his descriptions are often so vivid, and his images so
just, that he undoubtedly ranks higher, as a poetical writer, than
either Barbour or Wyntown, who had all the advantages of a liberal
education, such, at least, as the times could afford.
Mr. Pinkerton has thus expressed his sentiments concerning this work:
“It has great merit for the age, and is eminently curious. The language
in a few places is not sense. When, by altering a word or two, the
sense may be restored, attention to this will not only be allowable,
but laudable in any proper editor; especially when we consider
the singularity of the case, and that the poem is very good sense
everywhere, save in perhaps a dozen lines at most.” List of Scotish
Poets, xc.
The late elegant author of _Specimens of Early English Poets_ has
remarked; “That a man _born blind_ should excel in any science is
extraordinary, though by no means without example; but that he should
become an excellent poet, is almost miraculous; because the soul of
poetry is description. Perhaps, therefore, it may be easily assumed,
that Henry was not inferior in point of genius either to Barbour or
Chaucer, nor indeed to any poet of any age or country.” Ellis’s Spec.
Vol. I. p. 354.
As the venerable Minstrel could not himself have written his poem,
succeeding ages have never had it in their power to view him in his
proper character. It is unquestionable, however, that he has not, in
any edition hitherto published, appeared to such advantage as he might
have done. Almost every editor, from the time of Andro Hart downward,
used the same unpardonable liberty with his work as with that of
Barbour, in attempting to render it more intelligible, by substituting
for terms, which had become obsolete, or were going into desuetude,
others more generally known. Thus, from gross misapprehension, the very
sense of the poet was often lost. Even the edition of Perth, A. 1790,
which professes to be an exact transcript from the MS., is still more
inaccurate than that of the year 1714.
Although, from his disastrous circumstances, the principal fountain
of knowledge was shut up to poor Henry, it is evident that he had
made trial of every other within his reach. Knowing the facts of
his blindness, itinerary life, and oral publication of his poetry,
the generality of readers, it may be presumed, have previously
formed a contemptuous idea of the author, as if he had been a common
ballad-singer, and have either read his book under the influence of
this prepossession, or thrown it aside as unworthy of their attention.
But it should be recollected, that the rank of a bard or minstrel
was once very high among our forefathers; and that, although it had
considerably fallen in repute by the time that Henry flourished, he did
nothing that was deemed unworthy of the character when at its highest
elevation. The language of Major has, it would appear, been understood
according to the prejudices of our own time, not according to the
sense which it must still have borne even in that age in which Henry
lived, notwithstanding the Act of James II. A. 1449, against “bardis,
or vthirs siclyke rinnaris about.” Acts, Parl. X. c. 21. “He procured
food and raiment by the recitation of his compositions.” Is this any
thing different from what was invariably accounted the privilege of
minstrels? Did Henry recite his poetry to the vulgar; did he stroll
through cities, towns, or villages with this view? Not a hint of this
kind is given; the very reverse is implied in the specification made by
the historian. He recited his compositions “in vulgar poetry” indeed,
but it was _coram principibus_, “in the presence of princes,” or “men
of the highest rank.” Major uses the most honourable term that he could
select, to show that even the most exalted in the kingdom did not deem
themselves degraded by admitting the Minstrel into their presence, or
by listening to his poetical narrative. He indeed says; Quæ _vulgo_
dicebantur, carmine _vulgari_, in quo peritus est, conscripsit; but he
does not mean by this to affix a stigma on Henry’s style of writing.
The use of the term _vulgari_, if not merely a _paronomasia_ on the
preceding one _vulgo_, can signify nothing more than that Henry did
not write, as he himself did, in the language of the learned, which
would have been lost even on men of the highest rank in that age. He
does not mean to say that the diction of the Minstrel was low, and
thus adapted merely to the _vulgar_; for then men of all ranks spoke
in the same manner: but that his work, as being a collection of what
was _commonly_ related in Scotland concerning Wallace, was composed in
the vernacular tongue. When he uses the phrase, _in quo peritus est_,
he is not to be understood as uttering so gross a solecism, as to say
that Henry was well skilled in the language of the lower classes,
but that he was an adept in Scottish poetry; for it is evident that
_in quo_ more immediately refers to _carmine_. He designs to throw
as little discredit on him by the phrase, _victum et vestitum nactus
est_. For all that he could mean to assert by it is, that as the tables
of the great were open to him, where, in former times at least, a
minstrel had the prerogative of an honourable seat, he had also, by
established custom from time immemorial, as good a right to claim the
raiment allotted to his vocation as the baron had to exact military
service from his vassals. Hence, when speaking of this procurement, he
qualifies his language by the following insertion,--_quo dignus erat_;
applicable not merely to the hereditary claim of minstrels, but to the
peculiar merit of Henry as sustaining this character.
I will not pretend to exculpate Henry from the charge of credulity.
Far more, however, has been said as to his ignorance than can be well
supported. We have no other standard of the measure of his knowledge
than his own work; and this, there is every reason to think, much
disfigured by unavoidable corruptions. But even judging from this, we
have sufficient evidence that, from his early years, he must diligently
have used all the means of information which were properly within his
reach. He seems to have been pretty well acquainted with that kind
of history which was commonly read in that period. He alludes to the
history of Hector, of Alexander the Great, of Julius Cæsar, Book VIII.
845, 886, 961, &c., and to that of Charlemagne, whose army, at Ronceval
in Navarre, being betrayed by Ganelon, was defeated by the Saracens,
Book VIII. 1256. XI. 837. V. Dict. de Trevoux, vo. _Rouncevaux_. With
the romances that were most popular in that age he was perhaps as well
acquainted as Barbour. He seems to have been familiar with that of
_Alexander_; as, like the latter, he refers to Gaudifer, Book X. 342.
V. Note on _The Bruce_, B. II. 468.
His acquaintance with the popular romances is perhaps still more
apparent from his style of writing. As it abounds, much more than that
of Barbour, with poetical allusions to the face of nature, which the
poor Minstrel had never beheld, to the change of the seasons, to the
supposed influence of the planets or of the constellations; it is more
richly strewed with the more peculiar phraseology of the writers of
romance; whence a stranger to our chronology might be induced to view
the Life of Wallace as of an older date than _The Bruce_, although
nearly a century later. We meet with a variety of terms or phrases in
_Wallace_, which, from the difference of his habits, do not seem to
have been familiar with the good Archdeacon of Aberdeen, as _frekis_,
_frekis on fold_; _bane and lyre_; _brycht_, and _frely of fassoun_,
for a fair maid, &c. &c.
It is necessary to observe, that the Minstrel’s mode of expression is
often very elliptical. In order to understand his meaning, the reader
must therefore recollect, that he very commonly omits the pronouns,
whether personal or relative. This, to those who are not familiar with
the ancient style, has given him an air of absurdity, and has induced
the idea of his being far more illiterate than we can reasonably
suppose him to have been. Let us take an example or two among many.
The defendouris, was off sa fell defens,
Kepyt thar toun with strenth and excellens.--B. VIII. 803.
The principal assertion is not, that the defenders were powerful in
defence; but that they, being so powerful in defence, guarded their
town well. The reader must supply _quha_, or _who_, after _defendouris_.
The mar, kepyt the port of that willage,
Wallace knew weill, and send him his message.--B. IV. 359.
“Wallace was well acquainted with the mayor, _who_ kept the port of
that village.”
The only means that occurred to me for rendering the sense of such
elliptical passages more obvious, was to throw in a comma; as, after
_The mar_, in the passage quoted.
It cannot be denied that the feelings of the reader are often harrowed
up by the coarse description which the Minstrel gives of the warlike
deeds of his hero, and by the delight which he seems to take in those
merciless scenes in which the English were the immediate sufferers. But
great allowance must be made for him, not merely from the barbarism of
the time in which he wrote, and from his want of such opportunities of
refinement as even Barbour enjoyed, but from the soreness which every
thorough Scotchman still felt, in consequence of the unpardonable
treachery, violence, and ferocity of Edward the First, and of those
employed under him, and the disgraceful stigma they had endeavoured to
fix on a nation that had been always independent and always extremely
jealous of its liberty. If the manners of the age do not form a
sufficient apology for the cruelty ascribed to Wallace himself; it
should be recollected that Scotland had no other chance of liberation
from the usurpation of Edward than by the diminution of the number of
the invaders, and that it was impossible for a few partisans to retain
prisoners. Old Wyntown honestly defends Wallace on the grounds of the
provocation given to him, and of his owing the English nothing.
In all Ingland thare wes noucht thane
As Willame Walays swa lele a mane.
Quhat he dyd agayne that natyown,
Thai made hym prowocatyown:
Na to thame oblyst nevyr wes he
In fayth, falowschype, na lawté:
For in hys tyme, I hard well say,
That fykkil thai ware all tyme of fay.
_Cronykil_, B. VIII. c. 20, v. 9.
There is a prayer at the beginning of the poem, which had been prefixed
by the transcriber. It is thus given in Perth edition, Notes, p. 1.
Jesu, salvator! ex Jussu mihi exponere, ad
Finem dignum, prædictum Librum, atque benign-um.
The first line has been injured in the binding of the MS.; but it would
seem that it should rather be read thus:
Jhesu saluator, tu sis michi auxiliator,
Ad finem dignum librum perduc atque benignum.
In all the editions of this work which I have seen, it is divided into
twelve books; which are subdivided into chapters or sections, with
rubrics prefixed, pointing out the principal matter of each division.
I have observed the plan of the MS., which confines the work to eleven
books, without any rubrics. Some, indeed, are marked on the margent;
but evidently in a different hand-writing, by some early proprietor of
the MS.
Mr Pinkerton has said; “The first and best edition I have yet seen
is, _imprentit at Edinburgh, be Robert Lekprevik, at the expensis of
Henrie Charteris; and ar to be sauld in his buith, on the north syde of
the gait abone the throne_ [_trone?_] _Anno Do_. MD. LXX. 4to. black
letter. A fine copy of this edition is in the British Museum among
Queen Elizabeth’s books: this has no title-page; but the second title
is, _The Actis and Deidis of the illuster and vailyeand Campioun Schir
William Wallace, Knicht of Ellerslie_.” List of Scotish Poets, XC, XCI.
This edition I have never had an opportunity of inspecting. The oldest
that I have seen, after every possible inquiry, is an imperfect one in
quarto, formerly the property of Mr George Paton, of the Customs here,
now in my possession. It wants the title-page, part of the first leaf,
and the last sheet, which must have contained about fifteen pages,
besides being imperfect in one or two other places. The title, printed
on page first, seems to have been the same with the second title of
Edit. 1570, with this difference, that in mine Wallace is denominated
“the _maist_ illuster,” &c. Besides that of 1570, Mr Pinkerton mentions
only another edition in 4to, Edin. 1594. I have therefore ventured to
quote this as the edition of that year.
Dr Mackenzie seems either to have been unacquainted with any prior
edition, or to have preferred this to that of 1570; although, from his
known character as a writer, it is most probable that he had never
compared the editions to which he refers. “This book,” he says, “being
highly esteem’d amongst the vulgar, has had many impressions; but the
best are these, viz. that printed in the year 1594, and Andrew Hart’s,
in the year 1620, both printed at Edinburgh, and that at Glasgow in the
year, 1699.” &c.
Besides the edition of 1594, I have compared the MS. with Hart’s,
1620; and with one printed by Gedeon Lithgow, Edinburgh, 1648, which
I have not seen mentioned by any writer. It is a neat edition, in
small 8vo, black letter, pp. 343, in the square form of our more
early publications. It has an introduction, entitled _The Printer to
the Reader_, considerably larger than that prefixed to Hart’s, as it
extends to nineteen pages. This contains an abridgment of the History
of Scotland from the portentous death of Alexander III. A. 1285, to
the year 1318. I have also consulted the Edinburgh edition of 1673,
printed by Andrew Anderson, in twelves, pp. 252. This is considerably
inferior in execution to the one last mentioned, although it seems to
have been taken from it, with some slight changes of the orthography.
The introduction to the former is reprinted _verbatim_; but there is
added, after the Table of Contents, a poetical address of “Scrimger
to Wallace, by reason of the false Menteith captive at London,” and
the reply of “Wallace to Scrimger, his Baner-man.” The following page
contains a curious wood-cut of Wallace in armour, with his bow and
quiver.
Mr Pinkerton mentions also editions at Edinburgh 1601, Aberdeen 1630,
and Glasgow 1665, in 8vo. He adds; “There are many editions of the
present [eighteenth] century, but bad. The very worst is that of
Edinburgh, 1758, 4to., which the printer very expertly reduced to
modern spelling, and printed in black letter, and in quarto; being
exactly, in every point, the very plan which he ought not to have
followed. The same sagacious personage gave Barbour’s Poem in the
same way; and neither selling, (how could they?) the booksellers
sometimes tear out the title, and palm them upon the ignorant as old
impressions.” List of Scot. Poets, _ut sup._
This is the edition which is here quoted in the Notes as that of 1714.
For I have been assured, on good authority, that this edition, as well
as that of _The Bruce_, was printed by Robert Freebairn, printer to
his Majesty, in the year 1714 or 1715; but that, as he engaged in the
rebellion in the year last mentioned, before the work was ready for
publication, they were suffered to lie in a bookseller’s ware-house
till A. 1758, when they were published, either without titles, or with
titles bearing the false date of this year. As to the merit of these
editions, I am under the necessity of differing from Mr Pinkerton. To
me, the editions printed by Freebairn appear more correct than any
of the preceding ones, and his Wallace even preferable to the Perth
edition, A. 1790; as, bating the liberty used with regard to the
orthography, they, in a great variety of instances, give the sense of
the original writers more accurately, having evidently been collated
with the MSS. of _The Bruce_ and _Wallace_ in the Advocates’ Library.
I flattered myself, that I might have had it in my power to have
enriched this work by some valuable communications from the British
Museum. Although, through the good offices of the Earl of Aberdeen,
one of the trustees of this national repository, search has been made,
nothing of importance has been discovered in regard to this period
of our history. Henry Ellis, Esq. of the Museum, who, in the most
obliging manner, offered every assistance in his power, has in a letter
addressed to his Lordship, furnished two extracts from MSS., which have
a claim to attention, at least as matters of curiosity. I shall take
the liberty of communicating them in his own language:--
“I find nothing in the King’s, the Cottonian, or the Harleian
Collections; but among the Donation Manuscripts, No. 4934, (in
the first volume of Francis Peck’s Collections for a Supplement
to Dugdale’s Monasticon), is a transcript of ‘Prioris Alnwicensis
de Bello Scotico apud Dumbarr, tempore Regis Edwardi I. Dictamen,
sive Rithmus Latinus quo de Willielmo Wallace, Scotico illo Robin
Whood, plura, sed invidiose, canit.’ It is somewhat in the manner
of Walter de Mapes, as your Lordship will perceive by the following
specimens; and consists of sixty stanzas.
1.
‘Ludere volentibus ludens paro Liram, }
De Mundi malitia Rem demonstro miram; } MORUS.
Nil quod nocet, refero; Rem gestam requiram: }
Scribo novam Satiram, set sic ne seminet Iram. }
46.
Falsus Dux Fallacie convocavit Cetum, }
(Sciensque abierit Rex noster trans Fretum) } OMER US.
Cremare Northumbriam statuit Decretum: }
Sepe videmus, ait, post Gaudia rumpere Fletum. }
47.
Luge nunc, Northumbria nimis desolata, }
Facta es ut vidua Filiis orbata! } OVID.
Vescy, Morley, Summerville, Bertram sunt in Fata! } OMER.
O quibus, O quantis, O qualibet es viduata! }
48.
In te, cum sis vidua, cunei Scotorum }
Redigunt in cinerea prædia proborum; } CART.
_Willelmus de Wallia_ dux est indoctorum, }
Gaudia stultorum cumulant augmenta dolorum. }
49.
Ad Augmenta Sceleris actenus patrati, }
Alnewyk dant ignibus viri scelerati; } VERITAS EVANGELICA.
Circumquaque cursitant velut insensati: }
_Electi pauci sunt, multi vero vocati_.’ }
“The above are the chief allusions in the poem to historical facts.
“There is another manuscript in the same collection, No. 1226,
without a title-page, but apparently a composition of the time
of King Charles the First, principally relating to the period of
Scottish history in question. The work is divided into two books,
and as it is possible that Dr Jamieson may know what it is from
its contents, I will trouble your Lordship with the heads of the
different chapters, the numbers of which are irregular.
‘Of the strif and debate that chanced betweine Robert de Bruce and
John Ballioll, and how Edward Longshanks inwadit Scotland.’ Chap. 1.
‘Of the walliant deadis of Williame Wallace, in the defence of his
Contrie.’ Chap. 2.
‘How Williame Wallace past to St Johnstone, and of the strange
Combattis he had withe Englismen in that Jornay.’ Chap. 3.
‘How William Wallace past in the sowthe Contrie and wone Lowmabane,
and of his ficht with Englis men in the way, and how he tuik the
Castell of Craford.’ Chap. 4.
‘How the Englismen mowrdrit the gentill woman his wife,’ &c. Chap. 5.
‘How the Englishemen bound trwis withe Wallace,’ &c. Chap. 6.
‘How William Wallace slew Mackfadyean and his hoill armye,’ &c. Chap.
7.
‘Of the most famous battell at Estirwilling Brige’ &c. Chap. 8.
‘Of the famous Jornay and Wictories that William Wallace had into
England,’ &c. Chap. 9.
‘How William Wallace past into France,’ &c. Chap. 10.
‘Of the great Wictories that S^r William Wallace had after he come
forthe of France.’ Chap. 11.
‘How the Lord Steward encowntred King Edward,’ &c. Chap. 12.
“The second part of the work begins,
‘Of the most famous Wictories that the Lord Fraser had against the
Englishmen.’ Chap. 1.
‘Of the great Wictorie S^r William Wallace obtained in France, and of
his returne againe into Scotland.’ Chap. 2.
‘How S^r William Wallace slew yong Botler,’ &c. Chap. 3.
‘How S^r William Wallace beseaged S^t Johnston.’ Chap. 4.
‘How S^r William Wallace was betrayed by the false Menteithe.’ Chap.
5.
‘Of the famos raigne of King Robert de Bruise.’ Chap. 6.
‘How King Edward 3 of England inwadit Scotland, and was expellet
again.’ Chap. 7.
“Several chapters follow, ‘Of Love,’ ‘The politick Law,’ &c.”
He also mentions a volume in the Cotton Library, marked Claud. D. VII.
in which the 13th article is a chronicle written, or rather compiled,
with additions, by a Canon of Lanercost priory, illustrative of the
ravages in Cumberland towards the latter end of the reign of Edward the
First. Several extracts having been made from this for the use of Mr
Lysons, he found them extremely valuable, and containing more for his
purpose than could be found in print.
Being anxious to bring forward every authentic information that I
could possibly collect concerning Wallace, I lately transmitted to Mr
Ellis a few queries, especially regarding the Lanercost MS., which had
occurred to me in consequence of his former obliging communication;
and, while I feel myself deeply indebted to him for the trouble he has
taken, and for the promptness of his reply, I cannot pretend to give
the substance of it in any language so appropriate as that which he has
himself used.
“I must tell you that the Chronicle of Lanercost is a manuscript of
peculiar intricacy in its contractions. The first mention which I find
in it of William Wallace is in 1297, fol. 208 b. ‘Vix sex mensium
tempus elapsum extitit a gravi sacramento supradicto quo se Albanacti
fidelitati ac subjectioni Regis Anglorum astrinxerant, cum rediviva
perfidorum malitia ad alias versutias ingenium acuit. Nam presul
Ecclesiæ Glascuensis proprio agnomine dictus Robertus Wyscardus, semper
in proditione primus, cum senescallo primæ’ (the word _primæ_ is dotted
under as if to be erased.) ‘terræ nomine Jacobo, novam sibi finxerunt
audaciam, quinimo novam proditionis famam, fidem Regi præstitam
manifeste infringere non audentes, _quendam virum sanguincum Wills.
Waleis_, qui prius fuerat in Scotia princeps latronum, contra Regem
insurgere fecerunt et Papam in sui adjutorium congregare.’
“Then follows the battle of Stirling, in which the notice of the slain
contains the following anecdote: ‘Inter quos cedidit thesaurarius
Angliæ Hugo de Kersyngham, de cujus corio ab occipite usque ad talum
Wills. Waleis latam corrigiam sum fecit, ut inde sibi faceret cingulum
ensis sui.’ The subsequent entrance of the Scots into Northumberland is
of course noticed, but generally, and without any mention of Wallace’s
name. The mention of the retreat of the English to Berwick opens the
account of transactions under the year 1298. It is there said, ‘_Wills.
Waleis non tenuit eis fidem_.’
“The Chronicle next mentions, that Edward having settled a truce with
the King of France returned, and collecting his army, marched towards
Scotland. ‘In festo autem beatæ Mariæ Magdalenæ occurrerunt ei Scoti
apud Faukirk cum toto robore suo, _duce eorum Willelmo Waleis superius
nominato_.’ The defeat is then detailed in few words. Some wretched
Latin verses follow, of which I give you the only specimen concerning
Wallace, viz.--
‘Sub duce de genere gens Scotia degeneravit,
Quæ famam temere foedusque fidem violavit.
Postquam Willelmus Wallen̄s nobilitavit,
Nobilitas prorsus Scottorum degeneravit.’
“Such are the scanty materials relating to Wallace’s history in the
Chronicle of Lanercost.
“In 1306, fol. 211 b, we read, ‘Dominus autem Symon Freser Scottus
adductus London, prius fuit tractus, postea suspensus, tertio
decapitatus, et caput ejus positum super pontem London juxta caput
Willelmi Waleis.’ In the same year the Earl of Athol’s head (Comes de
Athetel) was placed above that of William Wallace; and in 1307 it is
said, ‘In die autem sancto Paschæ Dungallus factus est miles, et infra
eandem septimanam captus est dominus _Johannes Waleis_ et ad Regem apud
Karl. adductus, qui misit eum London ut ubi caperet idem judicium quod
prius acceperat frater suus Willelmus.’” Fol. 212.
We have a similar account in the St Albans Chronicle.
“How Johne, that was Wyllyam Waleys brother, was put to dethe.
“As the gretteste masteyrs of Scotlonde were thus doon to euyll dethe,
and destroyed for theyr falsnesse, Johan. that was Wyllyam Waleys
brother, was take and doon vnto deth, as Syr Johan erle of Alethes
[Athol] was.” Sign. q. vi. b. Edit. 1502.
This account, as regarding _Johannes Waleis_, must certainly be viewed
as a mistake of the writers of these Chronicles. It has originated,
perhaps, from the circumstance of two _brothers_ of Robert Bruce,
Thomas and Alexander, being made prisoners by Macdowal at Lochrian in
Galloway, 9th February, 1306–7, and carried to Edward at Carlisle,
who ordered them to instant execution. Or it may respect Sir Reginald
Crawfurd, the _cousin_ of Wallace, who was made prisoner with them,
and subjected to the same fate. Matthew of Westminster says that their
heads were placed on the gates of Carlisle. V. Dalrymple’s Annals, II.
19.
The other queries were;--If, from any of the MSS. in the British
Museum, there is ground to suppose that Wallace had ever fought with
King Edward in England? If any thing occurs that might have given rise
to the story, told by Henry, of an interview with the English queen?
If there is any hint as to Wallace having opposed the English in
Guienne? If there is any proof that Sir John Menteith was concerned in
delivering up Wallace to the English? And if it appears that Menteith
acted in concert with Aymer de Valence? To these Mr Ellis gives the
following answer:--
“Except at the battle of Falkirk, I see no reason to think that Wallace
was ever personally opposed to Edward the First; certainly not during
his incursion in 1297, as Edward was then in France. The story of his
meeting the queen at St Albans must be a fiction. It is too singular
a circumstance, if it had happened, to remain totally unnoticed in
any of the English annals. I can find no mention of Wallace’s being
in Guienne. I think it was not likely that he should be found there.
Scotland and the Border gave him full employ for his short career. No
concert is at all noticed in the Lanercost MS. between Aymer de Valence
and Sir John Menteith.”
His important communication, in regard to the concern that Menteith
himself had in the base transactions referred to, will be found among
the proofs which I have collected on this subject, in the Note on Book
XI. ver. 948, p. 402.
Having made some inquiries as to the manuscript No. 1226, formerly
mentioned, and suggested that, from its orthography, it seems to claim
a date prior to the age of Charles the First; Mr Ellis has favoured me
with the following reply:--
“The manuscript in the same collection, Num. 1226, is entirely in
prose. It occupies about a hundred leaves in small quarto; but is not
paged. From the orthography, the manuscript may be somewhat older
than I had supposed. It certainly is not before the time of James the
First. I think you are correct in supposing it a copy from Henry the
Minstrel. In an address ‘To the moist cortews Reader,’ the author
says, ‘al thoche this famous historie hathe beine republished heir
to foir by hime which deserws great thankis for so worthie a work,
yit the gathering of the said historie in a smaller compass may gif
moir content vnto some readers,’ &c. From another passage it should
seem that additions are interspersed; but evidently without either
distinction or authorities.”
Mr Ellis also informs me, that the only old edition of Wallace, in the
Museum, besides that of 1570, is the one printed at Aberdeen, in 1630,
small octavo.