Julian Castro
2025 Scholarship Award Recipient
Garden School, Jackson Heights NY
Julian Castro’s essay examines Burns’ The Battle of Sheriffmuir as a satire on the ambiguity of historical narratives. Through the dialogue of two shepherds debating who truly won the 1715 Jacobite battle, Burns highlights how imagery, exaggeration, and conflicting testimony distort the truth. Castro points out how one shepherd’s vivid but secondhand descriptions clash with the other’s firsthand account, exposing the unreliability of even “authentic” sources. By contrasting exaggeration with lived experience, Burns critiques the way history is shaped by bias, memory, and storytelling rather than fact
The 1715 Jacobite rising, aiming to install James Stuart as King of England, culminated in the Battle of Sheriffmuir. The battle was brutal, and its conclusion was indecisive. The Scottish poet Robert Burns, wrote the poem “The Battle of Sheriffmuir" when he toured the Highlands in 1787. The poem consists of an argument between two shepherds concerning the outcome of the battle. Debating whether the Jacobites pursued the red-coats or vice versa, the shepherds’ use of imagery and testimony mocks the ambiguity present in historical storytelling.
Burns’ utilization of vivid imagery brings the shepherds' accounts to life, underscoring the brutality of the battle. The poem begins with a shepherd conversing with another about the Battle of Sheriffmuir asking if he saw it. The second shepherd responds to the question by overstating the viciousness and misrepresenting the outcome of the battle. The second shepherd states, “The red-coat lads wi’ black cockauds/ … rush’d and push’d and bluid outgush’d/ …. They hack’d and hash’d, while braid-swords clash’d, / And thro’ they dash’d, and hew’d and smash’d, / till fey men died awa, man”. This quote highlights Burn’s use of imagery. The exaggerated explanation the second shepherd brings is an attempt to establish the legitimacy of his testimony. With his breakdown of the battle, the second shepherd attempts to demonstrate the accuracy of his testimony, but he invites a contradiction because he is missing an essential point.
The second shepherd's testimony is strengthened by imagery but is contradicted by the original shepherd, who questions him, stating “'O, how Deil! Tam, can that be true?”. This question is significant because it transitions this simple dialogue into a debate, showcasing the ambiguity of the battle’s outcome and the clashing views of both testimonies. The first shepherd clarifies the outcome by stating “The chase gaed frae the north, man! I saw mysel,”. While the second shepherd summarizes the battle vividly, the first shepherd offers a firsthand account. The juxtaposition of both claims presents the ambiguity of historical sources. Even if a descriptive primary source seems legitimate, the contradicting views of both shepherds display the challenge of finding the truth. This challenge is highlighted when the second shepherd states, “''My sister Kate cam up the gate / Wi' crowdie unto me, man: / She swoor she saw some rebels run / To Perth and to Dundee, man!”. The shepherd’s use of his sister’s testimony damages his own. She was bringing oatmeal to the shepherd and saw the rebels retreating, indicating that her brother was likely not present at the battle but perhaps embellishing his sister’s story. Burns compares the exaggerated testimony with the first hand account, mimicking the battle’s unclear outcome and making a statement about historical storytelling overall.