gance or taste in so ancient a Scottish classic would be highly disappointed. But if he expect ancient manners to be delineated with rough and impressive energy, if he expect the economy of civil polity to be characterized, and the state of factions and parties to be forcibly described, he will probably be disposed to class this work with those authentic monuments, which throw a certain and steady light upon history and manners."

In this generally correct estimate of the merits of the Complaynt, its ingenious editor has abandoned its pretensions to "elegance" and "taste," with a sweeping precipitancy for which there seems little occasion. A reader, I think, may look for both and not be highly disappointed." He will encounter a great deal of quaintness and affectation, faults which are common to all early productions, but he will be pleased with the love of nature which predominates through the work, and the gay imagery in which it abounds.

Of "the ballatis, farsis, and plesand playis," which Sir James Inglis wrote, not one is known to be extant. The "General Satire," published by Lord Hailes, is the only other relic of this author which time has left us.

E. B.

HENRY THE MINSTREL.

"HAD it not been for music and poetry," say the Welch," even the deeds of Arthur had inevitably perished." With equal truth, we may say, that had it not been for the voice and harp of Henry the Minstrel, the deeds of Wallace, the Champion of Scottish freedom, though they were probably in no danger of perishing, would never have been so familiar to the Scottish people as they are, nor the remembrance of his example have had such powerful influence in animating the flame of patriotism in their bosoms. The history, by Henry, of "Ye Actis and Deidis of ye Illuster and Vailzeand Championn Shyr William Wallace," has, for centuries past, shared with the BRUCE, a similar metrical history by Barbour, the honour of being the most treasured among the cottage classics of Scotland. Many individuals are to be found even at this day, who can repeat the greater part of them, and it is rare, indeed, to meet with one who, either from having read them or heard them recited, is not acquainted with their more remarkable and interesting passages.

The personal history of Henry is almost lost in obscurity. We are not even in possession of more than half his name; and have no means of telling whether Henry was a Christian or a surname, or, if

the former, what the latter was.* .* Dempster says, he was living in 1361; Major, who is supposed to have been born about 1446, that when he was in his infancy, Henry the Minstrel wrote his " Actis and Deidis" of Wallace. Major farther informs us, that he was blind from his birth, and that he gained his food and clothing by the recitation of histories or "gestes" before the nobles of the land. And here ends all that survives of "Blind Harry," as our Scottish peasants familiarly call him, beyond the work which they so much admire.

"That a man born blind," says Mr. Ellis, "should excel in any science is sufficiently 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 safely assumed, that Henry was not inferior, in point of genius, either to Barbour or Chaucer, nor, indeed, to any poet in any age or country."

Any estimate founded on the assumption of what a man might or would have been, in comparison with some other person, if he had had the advantages which that other person possessed, takes of course so

* It has been asked, why not Henry Minstrel, if Thomas Rhymer is to be admitted? See observations in Life of the latter, Part I. The reason is obvious: Minstrel is not known as a family name, though Rhymer is.

A. S.

much for granted, as to leave nothing to contend with; but as the fact stands, the praise of Mr. Ellis must be allowed greatly to exceed that which is due to Henry the Minstrel, deservedly popular as his effusions are. As to mere story-telling, he may possibly surpass even the author of the Canterbury Tales; but in all that constitutes true poetry, (for, with due deference to Mr. Ellis, "the soul of poetry" is not description,) in strength and vivacity of thought, in new perceptions, new combinations, new ideas, new imagery, Henry is inferior to Chaucer, and to many poets of many ages and countries. Contrasted with Barbour, as extant in his " Bruce," Henry will be found still lighter in the scale. The "Bruce," says a late critic," is evidently the work of a politician as well as poet. The characters of the king, of his brother, of Douglas, and of the Earl of Moray, are discriminated, and their separate talents always employed with judgment; so that every event is prepared and rendered probable by the means to which it is attributed; whereas, the Life of Wallace is a mere romance, in which the hero hews down whole squadrons with his single arm, and is indebted for every victory to his own muscular strength. Both poems are filled with descriptions of battles; but, in those of Barbour, our attention is successively directed to the cool intrepidity of King Robert, to the brilliant rashness of Edward Bruce, or to the enterprizing stratagems of Douglas; while, in Henry, we find little more than a disgusting picture of revenge, hatred, and blood."

But here, too, we may see the zeal of argument leading a just suggestion to excess. The effects of

66

individual prowess are underrated; and the causes of the "revenge, hatred, and blood," overlooked. If Henry has erred in ascribing too much to physical strength, the same observation will apply, with equal force, to Homer, the first and perhaps greatest of ancient poets, whose heroes are all giants in this respect; and to no Scotchman could it be necessary to state, why revenge, hatred, and blood," were the battle cries of the "Scots wha' had wi' Wallace bled." Henry is doubtless inferior to Barbour; not because moral are, at all times, superior to physical causes, but because, in the one case, these causes are exhibited for the edification of posterity, while, in the other, they are suppressed as unnecessary to the information of persons who knew and felt, and perhaps more than poetically felt, them all. Henry is inferior to Barbour, inasmuch as the praise of a day is an inferior prize to the praise of succeeding generations; but to say, that any part of Henry's Wallace disgusting," can only shew an ignorance of the work on which the criticism is passed.

The history of Wallace, which Henry has left us, undoubtedly partakes much of the marvellous; it is full of exaggerations, anachronisms, and absurdities. But, as a poem, it is simple, interesting, and exciting; and, as a narrative of facts, it must always be remembered, that we have it not through the medium of the author's own pen, but through oral recitation, to the corruptions of which there are no limits.

It appears from the work itself, that the author had acquired many particulars of it from the immediate descendants of Wallace's contemporaries; but be