Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-11-18
From the Toronto Globe, Nov. 9.
The 'Vpua Suro,J Of Vga,luca

SIR-ln your paper of yesterday You stated
that the sword of Wallace preserved at Dunbar
ton was examined in 1925, by order Of the Duke
of Wellington, and it was then found to be ong
to the time of Edward w.
Every true Scot however, will be happy 10
learn that the dukes advisers were at fault, an
error they were undoubtedly led into by Mey-
rick, who says it viii be evident to any one who
compares the Dumbarton sword with the sword
of state of the eardom of Chester that they were
both of the time Of Edward ".
There is undoubtedly a resemblance, and
Meyrick was correct thus far; bur, since his
death, a charge has been discovered in the books
OF the lord treasurer of Scotland, dated zoos,
when James " visited Dumbarton, for re-
mounting the Wallace S1cord
The words are: For binding of Walass
sword with cords Of silk, and new hlt and
plomet, new sEabbard and new belt to the said
sword. This was only twenty-five years after
the death Of Edward w., and Meyrick was
right with regard TO the ht and pommel only,
but not to the blade, " hich the above clearly
proves was believed in 1906 to have been the
sword of Wallace, who died exactly two CEN
turtles previous and at the time of King james
visit the sword was then such an old-iaShloned
one that the GOthS considered it necessary 70
modernize it. This sword now measures four
feet eleven and half inches the blade alone
being three feet nine inches, and weighs six
pounds, but it has been broken and welded to-
geiher again in two places, and is believed TO
have lost each time from six to eight inches in
length.
Meyrick seems to have considered many of
the larger twO-handed swords TO have been
swords of state land some later writers have fol-
lowed in his train), but he was certainly mis-
taken. Iwo-handed swords were generally be-
tween five and six feet long, but have one in
my cabinet measuring seven feet the blade alone
being five feet two inches, and weighing fifteen
pounds, which is evidently fighting Sword
and in the Dresden armOry IS preserved a thir-
leenth century sword of knight who died in
1910, and whose name, kOnrad Schenck Won
WnterStettcn, is inscribed on the blade. This
measures eight feet two inches, the hilt being
ten inches, which is not so long as the hits OF
later date.
troiSsart, however, mentions q still longer
sword, and Meyrick must have overlooked it or
be would not have made the mistake of class
Ing the larger swords as only for purposes Of
state. Under tue year 1918, Froissart says of
Sir Archibald Douglas "when near to the Eng
lsh he dsmOunted, and welded before him an
immense sword, whose blade alone was two ellis
long tqi8 aU0a a. dlUnleNe deUr dHneS), which
scarcely another could have lifted from the
ground, but he found no difficulty IN handling
whom they fell were struck TO the ground"
TINS sword OF seven aud half feet in the blade
must have been from eight and half to nine
feet long!
Hewett (of the tower of London), in his wall
liable work on Ancient Arms and Armour,
quotes the above, but strangely enough omits
the important words, in the blade.
Nov. s, 1872. i. H. DIXON.