Blind Harry's Wallace [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

One of my first reactions was to value this volume as a corrective to "Braveheart" - to which it is certainly rather weakly linked. Harry's Wallace was not stupid; he did not use a wild Highland charge against thousands of Edward's men as did the celluloid creation - without armor. Thus I appreciated the poet's description of Wallace's defensive gear - not just an occasionally-worn helmet that falls off at the onset of battle (as in Hollywood's offering ) but a helmet, steel collar, coat of mail, and even steel-plated gauntlets. Viewers of "Braveheart" also tend to come away with the impression that Wallace was (essentially) a Highlander leading clansmen to battle - which certainly cannot be concluded from Harry's account (and naming of Wallace supporters). This Luath edition of the historic epic, moreover, contains a very interesting map of "Wallace Place names" (page 225) which suggests that Wallace's support was in the South (some in the North-East) of Scotland, and not the North and West where the great Highland clans were situated. There are numerous such (major) discrepancies in the popular movie but each reader may easily and instructively discover these for himself as comparisons are made. It is only fair to add, however, that the movie might also serve as 'corrective' to the poem since the film-script does warn us, on at least two occasions, of the hyperbole that results in passing on verbal anecdotes of legendary figures and the Harry version relies, at least in part, upon such anecdotes. Randall Wallace's script (understandably, since his is an audience of different sensibilities to Harry's ) is not so obviously 'racial' in its prejudices. I had the impression (reading the bard)that I was reading the Declaration of Independence one minute and Mein Kampf the next. The "blood untainted" of Harry's Scots (see page one)is, of course, nonsense, as is the demonisation of the "Picts, Danes and Saxons" that the 'Scots' historically fought. To the knowledgable, Harry's 'English' were simply a mixture of Gaelic and Germanic elements (quite like the Scots themselves) mustered by descendants of the Norman conquerors of England (Scotland was itself already somewhat dominated by such high-flying Normans, and would continue to be, especially in and through the person of Robert Bruce and his dynasty). The introduction to this edition of "Wallace" perhaps gives the key to Harry's racial preferences. Page xvii reveals that Harry's chief patron was the Scottish king himself - descendant of Bruce's Norman royal house. Obviously the poet could not have included Normans in his enumeration of Scotland's enemies (on page one) - but the 'English' (his and Scotland's historic rivals)were fair game. Burning thousands of 'English' alive in retaliation for the perfidy of her alien leaders (in "Wallace")seems a bit unfair (though Harry interestingly indicates that the nascent Commons of England actually acted as a restraint on Longshanks). It also takes away the impact of Wallace's own horrid death which Harry (at least consistently) does not dwell upon. In short I concluded that Randall Wallace and Blind Harry had both dramatic virtues and vices. "Wallace" was both better and worse than "Braveheart". Since there is a dearth of early historical sources for Wallace's life this is certainly worth a read. It may be at least as accurate a portrayal of Scottish history, at any rate, as Shakespeare's "Macbeth" and certainly illuminates the author and his audience. Personally I felt that much of it was likely to be authentic and I greedily devoured many of Harry's details.

For the person wanting to have a balanced view of Wallace, they need to include this text. Blind Harry or Blin Hary the Minstrel is believed to live from 1440-1493. Very little is really known about him. However, he is recalled for this major achievement of gathering and recording stories of Wallace. Supposedly the first written work about Wallace. He sang or recited these stories in verse form, and it is noted that he was well received at the Renaissance Court of James IV. One must recall these tales were collected well over 100 years after Wallace's death, giving plenty of time for the legend to already take root. Many of the details of Harry's epic are very accurate, some are not (but then he certainly is a lot closer than Randall Wallace!!).
William Hamilton(c1665-1751) brought Wallace back into the minds of everyone with the translation of Blind Harry's original poem.

One needs to understand this is written from a very pro Scots point of view, and tends to see Scots as the good guys and English as the bad ones, with few areas of grey. But taken on a whole, with most of the works on Wallace stemming from English records, it gives a balanced picture in studying Wallace.

One of my first reactions was to value this volume as a corrective to "Braveheart" on which it is certainly only very loosely based. For example, Harry's Wallace (unlike his celluloid counterpart) was clearly not stupid enough to lead a wild 'Highland' charge against Edward's men - at least without wearing armor. Thus I appreciated the poet's description of Wallace's defensive gear (see page 25 etc.) consisting of a helmet, coat of mail, steel collar, and even steel-plated gauntlets. In the movie Wallace, at his most prudent, wore an ill-fitting helmet that fell off in action.

Viewers of "Braveheart" also tend to come away with the impression that Wallace was a Highlander leading clansmen into battle - which certainly cannot be supported by Harry's references to Wallace's supporters. In fact in this edition of "Wallace" (on page 225) a very interesting map of 'Wallace place names' suggests that the hero's support was in the South and North-East (of Scotland)- not in the North and West where the great clans were located. There are often such (major) problems when books (like this) are 'adapted' to be popular movies, and these each reader may enjoyably discover for himself.

It is only fair to add, however, that the movie could also be seen as a corrective to the book. Randall Wallace's script does warn us (at least twice) of the hyperbole that results when verbal anecdotes of historical and legendary figures are passed on, and there is clearly a great deal of this reflected in Harry's epic (since he relied partly on just such anecdotal evidence). Moreover the film-script (understandably because of the sensibilities of a modern audience)is not so shockingly racially-prejudiced as "Wallace".

I had the impression (reading the bard) of alternating between the 'Declaration of Independence' and 'Mein Kampf'. The "blood untainted" of Harry's Scots (such references begin on page 1 of the book)is, of course, nonsense, as I think is his demonisation of the "Picts, Danes and Saxons" that the 'Scots' historically fought. To the knowledgable, Harry's 'English' were simply a combination of Gaelic and Germanic elements (quite like the Scots themselves) mustered by descendants of their Norman conquerors (Scotland itself was filled with many Norman aristocrats and was to be ruled by a largely Norman dynasty in the person of Bruce and his descendants).

The introduction to this edition of "Wallace" perhaps fittingly holds the key to Harry's racial preferences. Page xvii reveals that Harry's chief patron was the Scottish king himself - descendant of the Norman royal house of Scotland. Obviously the poet could not have included Normans in his enumeration of Scotland's enemies (as a Saxon might have done) - but the 'English' (his and Scotland's historic rivals) were fair game. Burning thousands of 'English' alive (see, for example, page 90) in retaliation for the perfidy of England's alien rulers seems not a little unfair (though Harry interestingly indicates that the nascent Commons of England actually acted as a restraint on 'Longshanks'). It also takes away the impact of Wallace's own horrible death which Harry (at least consistently) does not dwell upon.

Since there is a dearth of early historic sources for Wallace's life this is certainly worth a careful read. I devoured greedily many details that seemed to me to be authentic. It may be at least as accurate a portrayal of a part of early Scottish history as Shakespeare's Macbeth, and certainly illuminates the author and his audience. In short I concluded that Randall Wallace and Blind Harry had both dramatic virtues and vices; consequently "Wallace" was both better and worse than "Braveheart".