“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.”
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.