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.