diff options
Diffstat (limited to '4088-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 4088-h/4088-h.htm | 5491 |
1 files changed, 5491 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/4088-h/4088-h.htm b/4088-h/4088-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e48c13c --- /dev/null +++ b/4088-h/4088-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,5491 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> +<title>Sir Walter Scott and the Border Minstrelsy, by Andrew Lang</title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + P.gutsumm { margin-left: 5%;} + P.poetry {margin-left: 3%; } + .GutSmall { font-size: 0.7em; } + H1, H2 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + } + H3, H4, H5 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + table { border-collapse: collapse; } +table {margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;} + td { vertical-align: top; border: 1px solid black;} + td p { margin: 0.2em; } + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-weight: normal; + color: gray; + } + img { border: none; } + img.dc { float: left; width: 50px; height: 50px; } + p.gutindent { margin-left: 2em; } + div.gapspace { height: 0.8em; } + div.gapline { height: 0.8em; width: 100%; border-top: 1px solid;} + div.gapmediumline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + div.gapmediumdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; + border-top: 1px solid; border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; + margin-left: 40%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid; } + div.gapdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 50%; + margin-left: 25%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; margin-left:40%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + .citation {vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: none;} + img.floatleft { float: left; + margin-right: 1em; + margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.floatright { float: right; + margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.clearcenter {display: block; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em} + --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> +</head> +<body> +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg eBook, Sir Walter Scott and the Border Minstrelsy, +by Andrew Lang + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most +other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions +whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of +the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at +www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have +to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. + + + + +Title: Sir Walter Scott and the Border Minstrelsy + + +Author: Andrew Lang + + + +Release Date: August 16, 2014 [eBook #4088] +[This file was first posted on 19 November 2001] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SIR WALTER SCOTT AND THE BORDER +MINSTRELSY*** +</pre> +<p>Transcribed from the 1910 Longmans, Green, and Co. edition by +David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org</p> +<h1>SIR WALTER SCOTT<br /> +<span class="GutSmall">AND THE</span><br /> +BORDER MINSTRELSY</h1> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">BY</span><br +/> +ANDREW LANG</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.<br /> +<span class="GutSmall">39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON</span><br /> +<span class="GutSmall">NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA</span><br +/> +<span class="GutSmall">1910</span></p> +<h2>PREFACE</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">Persons</span> not much interested in, or +cognisant of, “antiquarian old womanries,” as Sir +Walter called them, may ask “what all the pother is +about,” in this little tractate. On my side it is +“about” the veracity of Sir Walter Scott. He +has been suspected of helping to compose, and of issuing as a +genuine antique, a ballad, <i>Auld Maitland</i>. He also +wrote about the ballad, as a thing obtained from recitation, to +two friends and fellow-antiquaries. If to Scott’s +knowledge it was a modern imitation, Sir Walter deliberately +lied.</p> +<p>He did not: he did obtain the whole ballad from Hogg, who got +it from recitation—as I believe, and try to prove, and as +Scott certainly believed. The facts in the case exist in +published works, and in manuscript letters of Ritson to Scott, +and Hogg to Scott, and in the original MS. of the song, with a +note by Hogg to Laidlaw. If we are interested in the truth +about the matter, we ought at least to read the very accessible +material before bringing charges against the Sheriff and the +Shepherd of Ettrick.</p> +<p>Whether <i>Auld Maitland</i> be a good or a bad ballad is not +part of the question. It was a favourite of mine in +childhood, and I agree with Scott in thinking that it has strong +dramatic situations. If it is a bad ballad, such as many +people could compose, then it is not by Sir Walter.</p> +<p>The <i>Ballad of Otterburne</i> is said to have been +constructed from Herd’s version, tempered by Percy’s +version, with additions from a modern imagination. We have +merely to read Professor Child’s edition of +<i>Otterburne</i>, with Hogg’s letter covering his MS. copy +of <i>Otterburne</i> from recitation, to see that this is a +wholly erroneous view of the matter. We have all the +materials for forming a judgment accessible to us in print, and +have no excuse for preferring our own conjectures.</p> +<p>“No one now believes,” it may be said, “in +the aged persons who lived at the head of Ettrick,” and +recited <i>Otterburne</i> to Hogg. Colonel Elliot +disbelieves, but he shows no signs of having read Hogg’s +curious letter, in two parts, about these “old +parties”; a letter written on the day when Hogg, he says, +twice “pumped their memories.”</p> +<p>I print this letter, and, if any one chooses to think that it +is a crafty fabrication, I can only say that its craft would have +beguiled myself as it beguiled Scott.</p> +<p>It is a common, cheap, and ignorant scepticism that +disbelieves in the existence, in Scott’s day, or in ours, +of persons who know and can recite variants of our traditional +ballads. The strange song of <i>The Bitter Withy</i>, +unknown to Professor Child, was recovered from recitation but +lately, in several English counties. The ignoble lay of +<i>Johnny Johnston</i> has also been recovered: it is widely +diffused. I myself obtained a genuine version of <i>Where +Goudie rins</i>, through the kindness of Lady Mary Glyn; and a +friend of Lady Rosalind Northcote procured the low English +version of <i>Young Beichan</i>, or <i>Lord Bateman</i>, from an +old woman in a rural workhouse. In Shropshire my friend +Miss Burne, the president of the Folk-Lore Society, received from +Mr. Hubert Smith, in 1883, a very remarkable variant, undoubtedly +antique, of <i>The Wife of Usher’s Well</i>. <a +name="citation0a"></a><a href="#footnote0a" +class="citation">[0a]</a> In 1896 Miss Backus found, in the +hills of Polk County, North Carolina, another variant, +intermediate between the Shropshire and the ordinary version. <a +name="citation0b"></a><a href="#footnote0b" +class="citation">[0b]</a></p> +<p>There are many other examples of this persistence of ballads +in the popular memory, even in our day, and only persons ignorant +of the facts can suppose that, a century ago, there were no +reciters at the head of Ettrick, and elsewhere in Scotland. +Not even now has the halfpenny newspaper wholly destroyed the +memories of traditional poetry and of traditional tales even in +the English-speaking parts of our islands, while in the Highlands +a rich harvest awaits the reapers.</p> +<p>I could not have produced the facts, about <i>Auld +Maitland</i> especially, and in some other cases, without the +kind and ungrudging aid, freely given to a stranger, of Mr. +William Macmath, whose knowledge of ballad-lore, and especially +of the ballad manuscripts at Abbotsford, is unrivalled. As +to <i>Auld Maitland</i>, Mr. T. F. Henderson, in his edition of +the <i>Minstrelsy</i> (Blackwood, 1892), also made due use of +Hogg’s MS., and his edition is most valuable to every +student of Scott’s method of editing, being based on the +Abbotsford MSS. Mr. Henderson suspects, more than I do, the +veracity of the Shepherd.</p> +<p>I am under obligations to Colonel Elliot’s book, as it +has drawn my attention anew to <i>Auld Maitland</i>, a topic +which I had studied “somewhat lazily,” like Quintus +Smyrnæus. I supposed that there was an inconsistency +in two of Scott’s accounts as to how he obtained the +ballad. As Colonel Elliot points out, there was no +inconsistency. Scott had two copies. One was +Hogg’s MS.: the other was derived from the recitation of +Hogg’s mother.</p> +<p>This trifle is addressed to lovers of Scott, of the Border, +and of ballads, <i>et non aultres</i>.</p> +<p>It is curious to see how facts make havoc of the conjectures +of the Higher Criticism in the case of <i>Auld +Maitland</i>. If Hogg was the forger of that ballad, I +asked, how did he know the traditions about Maitland and his +three sons, which we only know from poems of about 1576 in the +manuscripts of Sir Richard Maitland? These poems in 1802 +were, as far as I am aware, still unpublished.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot urged that Leyden would know the poems, and +must have known Hogg. From Leyden, then, Hogg would get the +information. In the text I have urged that Leyden did not +know Hogg. I am able now to prove that Hogg and Leyden +never met till after Laidlaw gave the manuscript of <i>Auld +Maitland</i> to Hogg.</p> +<p>The fact is given in the original manuscript of +Laidlaw’s <i>Recollections of Sir Walter Scott</i> (among +the Laing MSS. in the library of the University of +Edinburgh). Carruthers, in publishing Laidlaw’s +reminiscences, omitted the following passage. After Scott +had read <i>Auld Maitland</i> aloud to Leyden and Laird Laidlaw, +the three rode together to dine at Whitehope.</p> +<p>“Near the Craigbents,” says Laidlaw, “Mr. +Scott and Leyden drew together in a close and seemingly private +conversation. I, of course, fell back. After a minute +or two, Leyden reined in his horse (a black horse that Mr. +Scott’s servant used to ride) and let me come up. +‘This Hogg,’ said he, ‘writes verses, I +understand.’ I assured him that he wrote very +beautiful verses, and with great facility. ‘But I +trust,’ he replied, ‘that there is no fear of his +passing off any of his own upon Scott for old +ballads.’ I again assured him that he would never +think of such a thing; and neither would he at that period of his +life.</p> +<p>“‘Let him beware of forgery,’ cried Leyden +with great force and energy, and in, I suppose, what Mr. Scott +used afterwards to call the <i>saw tones of his +voice</i>.”</p> +<p>This proves that Leyden had no personal knowledge of +“this Hogg,” and did not supply the shepherd with the +traditions about Auld Maitland.</p> +<p>Mr. W. J. Kennedy, of Hawick, pointed out to me this passage +in Laidlaw’s <i>Recollections</i>, edited from the MS. by +Mr. James Sinton, as reprinted from the <i>Transactions</i> of +the Hawick Archæological Society, 1905.</p> +<h2>CONTENTS</h2> +<table> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span +class="GutSmall">PAGE</span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Scott and the Ballads</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page1">1</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Auld Maitland</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page18">18</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Ballad of Otterburne</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page53">53</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Scott’s Traditional Copy and how +he edited it</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page67">67</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">The Mystery of the Ballad of Jamie +Telfer</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page87">87</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Kinmont Willie</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page126">126</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="smcap">Conclusions</span></p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page148">148</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<h2><a name="page1"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 1</span>SCOTT +AND THE BALLADS</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">It</span> was through his collecting and +editing of <i>The Border Minstrelsy</i> that Sir Walter Scott +glided from law into literature. The history of the +conception and completion of his task, “a labour of love +truly, if ever such there was,” says Lockhart, is well +known, but the tale must be briefly told if we are to understand +the following essays in defence of Scott’s literary +morality.</p> +<p>Late in 1799 Scott wrote to James Ballantyne, then a printer +in Kelso, “I have been for years collecting Border +ballads,” and he thought that he could put together +“such a selection as might make a neat little volume, to +sell for four or five shillings.” In December 1799 +Scott received the office of Sheriff of Selkirkshire, or, as he +preferred to say, of Ettrick Forest. In the Forest, as was +natural, he found much of his materials. The people at the +head of Ettrick were still, says Hogg, <a +name="citation1a"></a><a href="#footnote1a" +class="citation">[1a]</a> like many of the Highlanders even now, +in that they cheered the long winter nights with the telling of +old tales; and some aged people still remembered, no doubt in a +defective and corrupted state, many old ballads. Some of +these, especially the ballads of Border raids and rescues, may +never even have been written down by the original authors. +The Borderers, says Lesley, Bishop of Ross, writing in 1578, +“take much pleasure in their old music and chanted songs, +which they themselves compose, whether about the deeds of their +ancestors, or about ingenious raiding tricks and +stratagems.” <a name="citation2a"></a><a href="#footnote2a" +class="citation">[2a]</a></p> +<p>The historical ballads about the deeds of their ancestors +would be far more romantic than scientifically accurate. +The verses, as they passed from mouth to mouth and from +generation to generation, would be in a constant state of flux +and change. When a man forgot a verse, he would make +something to take its place. A more or less appropriate +stanza from another ballad would slip in; or the reciter would +tell in prose the matter of which he forgot the versified +form.</p> +<p>Again, in the towns, street ballads on remarkable events, as +early at least as the age of Henry VIII., were written or +printed. Knox speaks of ballads on Queen Mary’s four +Maries. Of these ballads only one is left, and it is a +libel. The hanging of a French apothecary of the Queen, and +a French waiting-maid, for child murder, has been transferred to +one of the Maries, or rather to an apocryphal Mary Hamilton, with +Darnley for her lover. Of this ballad twenty-eight +variants—and extremely various they are—were +collected by Professor Child in his <i>English and Scottish +Popular Ballads</i> (ten parts, 1882–1898). In one +mangled form or another such ballads would drift at last even to +Ettrick Forest.</p> +<p>A ballad may be found in a form which the first author could +scarcely recognise, dozens of hands, in various generations, +having been at work on it. At any period, especially in the +seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the cheap press might print +a sheet of the ballads, edited and interpolated by the very +lowest of printer’s hacks; that copy would circulate, be +lost, and become in turn a traditional source, though full of +modernisms. Or an educated person might make a written +copy, filling up gaps himself in late seventeenth or in +eighteenth century ballad style, and this might pass into the +memory of the children and servants of the house, and so to the +herds and to the farm lasses. I suspect that this process +may have occurred in the cases of <i>Auld Maitland</i> and of +<i>The Outlaw Murray</i>—“these two bores” Mr. +Child is said to have styled them.</p> +<p>When Allan Ramsay, about 1720, took up and printed a ballad, +he altered it if he pleased. More faithful to his texts +(wherever he got them), was David Herd, in his collection of +1776, but his version did not reach, as we shall see, old +reciters in Ettrick. If Scott found any traditional ballads +in Ettrick, as his collectors certainly did, they had passed +through the processes described. They needed re-editing of +some sort if they were to be intelligible, and readable with +pleasure.</p> +<p>In 1800, apparently, while Scott made only brief flying visits +from the little inn of Clovenfords, on Tweed, to his sheriffdom, +he found a coadjutor. Richard Heber, the wealthy and +luxurious antiquary and collector, looked into Constable’s +first little bookselling shop, and saw a strange, poor young +student prowling among the books. This was John Leyden, son +of a shepherd in Roxburghshire, a lad living in extreme +poverty.</p> +<p>Leyden, in 1800, was making himself a savant. Heber +spoke with him, found that he was rich in ballad-lore, and +carried him to Scott. He was presently introduced into the +best society in Edinburgh (which would not happen in our time), +and a casual note of Scott’s proves that he did not leave +Leyden in poverty. Early in 1802, Leyden got the promise of +an East Indian appointment, read medicine furiously, and sailed +for the East in the beginning of 1803. It does not appear +that Leyden went ballad-hunting in Ettrick before he rode thither +with Scott in the spring of 1802. He was busy with books, +with editorial work, and in aiding Scott in Edinburgh. It +was he who insisted that a small volume at five shillings was far +too narrow for the materials collected.</p> +<p>Scott also corresponded with the aged Percy, Bishop of +Dromore, editor of the <i>Reliques</i>, and with Joseph Ritson, +the precise collector, Percy’s bitter foe. +Unfortunately the correspondence on ballads with Ritson, who died +in 1803, is but scanty; nor has most of the correspondence with +another student, George Ellis, been published. Even in Mr. +Douglas’s edition of Scott’s <i>Familiar Letters</i>, +the portion of an important letter of Hogg’s which deals +with ballad-lore is omitted. I shall give the letter in +full.</p> +<p>In 1800–01, “<i>The Minstrelsy</i> formed the +editor’s chief occupation,” says Lockhart; but later, +up to April 1801, the Forest and Liddesdale had yielded little +material. In fact, I do not know that Scott ever procured +much in Liddesdale, where he had no Hogg or Laidlaw always on the +spot, and in touch with the old people. It was in spring, +1802, that Scott first met his lifelong friend, William Laidlaw, +farmer in Blackhouse, on Douglasburn, in Yarrow. Laidlaw, +as is later proved completely, introduced Scott to Hogg, then a +very unsophisticated shepherd. “Laidlaw,” says +Lockhart, “took care that Scott should see, without delay, +James Hogg.” <a name="citation4a"></a><a href="#footnote4a" +class="citation">[4a]</a> These two men, Hogg and Laidlaw, +knowing the country people well, were Scott’s chief sources +of recited balladry; and probably they sometimes improved, in +making their copies, the materials won from the failing memories +of the old. Thus Laidlaw, while tenant in Traquair Knowe, +obtained from recitation, <i>The Dæmon Lover</i>. +Scott does not tell us whether or not he knew the fact that +Laidlaw wrote in stanza 6 (half of it traditional), stanza 12 +(also a ballad formula), stanzas 17 and 18 (necessary to complete +the sense; the last two lines of 18 are purely and romantically +modern).</p> +<p>We shall later quote Hogg’s account of his own dealings +with his raw materials from recitation.</p> +<p>In January 1802 Scott published the two first volumes of +<i>The Minstrelsy</i>. Lockhart describes the enthusiasm of +dukes, fine ladies, and antiquarians. In the end of April +1803 the third volume appeared, including ballads obtained +through Hogg and Laidlaw in spring 1802. Scott, by his +store of historic anecdote in his introductions and notes, by his +way of vivifying the past, and by his method of editing, revived, +but did not create, the interest in the romance of ballad +poetry.</p> +<p>It had always existed. We all know Sidney’s words +on “The Douglas and the Percy”; Addison’s on +folk-poetry; Mr. Pepys’ ballad collection; the ballads in +Tom Durfey’s and other miscellanies; Allan Ramsay’s +<i>Evergreen</i>; Bishop Percy’s <i>Reliques of Ancient +Poetry</i>; Herd’s ballad volumes of 1776; Evans’ +collections; Burns’ remakings of old songs; Ritson’s +publications, and so forth. But the genius of Burns, while +it transfigured many old songs, was not often exercised on old +narrative ballads, and when Scott produced <i>The Minstrelsy</i>, +the taste for ballads was confined to amateurs of early +literature, and to country folk.</p> +<p>Sir Walter’s method of editing, of presenting his +traditional materials, was literary, and, usually, not +scientific. A modern collector would publish +things—legends, ballads, or folk-tales—exactly as he +found them in old broadsides, or in MS. copies, or received them +from oral recitation. He would give the names and +residences and circumstances of the reciters or narrators (Herd, +in 1776, gave no such information). He would fill up no +gaps with his own inventions, would add no stanzas of his own, +and the circulation of his work would arrive at some two or three +hundred copies given away!</p> +<p>As Lockhart says, “Scott’s diligent zeal had put +him in possession of a variety of copies in various stages of +preservation, and to the task of selecting a standard text among +such a diversity of materials he brought a knowledge of old +manners and phraseology, and a manly simplicity of taste, such as +had never before been united in the person of a poetical +antiquary.”</p> +<p>Lockhart speaks of “The editor’s conscientious +fidelity . . . which prevented the introduction of anything new, +and his pure taste in the balancing of discordant +recitations.” He had already written that +“Scott had, I firmly believe, interpolated hardly a line or +even an epithet of his own.” <a name="citation8a"></a><a +href="#footnote8a" class="citation">[8a]</a></p> +<p>It is clear that Lockhart had not compared the texts in <i>The +Minstrelsy</i> with the mass of manuscript materials which are +still at Abbotsford. These, copied by the accurate Mr. +Macmath, have been published in the monumental collection of +<i>English and Scottish Popular Ballads</i>, in ten parts, by the +late Professor Child of Harvard, the greatest of scholars in +ballad-lore. From his book we often know exactly what kinds +of copies of ballads Scott possessed, and what alterations he +made in his copies. The <i>Ballad of Otterburne</i> is +especially instructive, as we shall see later. But of the +most famous of Border historical ballads, <i>Kinmont Willie</i>, +and its companion, <i>Jamie Telfer of the Fair Dodhead</i>, Scott +has left no original manuscript texts. Now into each of +these ballads Scott has written (if internal evidence be worth +anything) verses of his own; stanzas unmistakably marked by his +own spirit, energy, sense of romance, and, occasionally, by a +somewhat inflated rhetoric. On this point doubt is not +easy. When he met the names of his chief, Buccleuch, and of +his favourite ancestor, Wat of Warden, Scott did, in two cases, +for those heroes what, by his own confession, he did for +anecdotes that came in his way—he decked them out +“with a cocked hat and a sword.”</p> +<p>Sir Walter knew perfectly well that he was not “playing +the game” in a truly scientific spirit. He explains +his ideas in his “Essay on Popular Poetry” as late as +1830. He mentions Joseph Ritson’s “extreme +attachment to the severity of truth,” and his attacks on +Bishop Percy’s purely literary treatment of the materials +of his <i>Reliques of Ancient Poetry</i> (1765).</p> +<p>As Scott says, “by Percy words were altered, phrases +improved, and whole verses were inserted or omitted at +pleasure.” Percy “accommodated” the +ballads “with such emendations as might recommend them to +the modern taste.” Ritson cried +“forgery,” but Percy, says Scott, had to win a +hearing from his age, and confessed (in general terms) to his +additions and decorations.</p> +<p>Scott then speaks reprovingly of Pinkerton’s wholesale +fabrication of <i>entire ballads</i> (1783), a crime acknowledged +later by the culprit (1786). Scott applauds Ritson’s +accuracy, but regrets his preference of the worst to the better +readings, as if their inferiority was a security for their being +genuine. Scott preferred the best, the most poetical +readings.</p> +<p>In 1830, Scott also wrote an essay on “Imitations of the +Ancient Ballads,” and spoke very leniently of imitations +passed off as authentic. “There is no small degree of +cant in the violent invectives with which impostors of this +nature have been assailed.” As to <i>Hardyknute</i>, +the favourite poem of his infancy, “the first that I ever +learned and the last that I shall forget,” he says, +“the public is surely more enriched by the contribution +than injured by the deception.” Besides, he says, the +deception almost never deceives.</p> +<p>His method in <i>The Minstrelsy</i>, he writes, was “to +imitate the plan and style of Bishop Percy, observing only more +strict fidelity concerning my originals.” That is to +say, he avowedly made up texts out of a variety of copies, when +he had more copies than one. This is frequently +acknowledged by Scott; what he does not acknowledge is his own +occasional interpolation of stanzas. A good example is +<i>The Gay Gosshawk</i>. He had a MS. of his own “of +some antiquity,” a MS. of Mrs. Brown, a famous reciter and +collector of the eighteenth century; and the Abbotsford MSS. show +isolated stanzas from Hogg, and a copy from Will Laidlaw. +Mr. T. F. Henderson’s notes <a name="citation10a"></a><a +href="#footnote10a" class="citation">[10a]</a> display the +methods of selection, combination, emendation, and possible +interpolation.</p> +<p>By these methods Scott composed “a standard text,” +now the classical text, of the ballads which he published. +Ballad lovers, who are not specialists, go to <i>The +Minstrelsy</i> for their favourite fare, and for historical +elucidation and anecdote.</p> +<p>Scott often mentions his sources of all kinds, such as MSS. of +Herd and Mrs. Brown; “an old person”; “an old +woman at Kirkhill, West Lothian”; “an ostler at +Carlisle”; Allan Ramsay’s <i>Tea-Table +Miscellany</i>; Surtees of Mainsforth (these ballads are by +Surtees himself: Scott never suspected him); Caw’s +<i>Hawick Museum</i> (1774); Ritson’s copies, others from +Leyden; the Glenriddell MSS. (collected by the friend of Burns); +on several occasions copies from recitations procured by James +Hogg or Will Laidlaw, and possibly or probably each of these men +emended the copy he obtained; while Scott combined and emended +all in his published text.</p> +<p>Sometimes Scott gives no source at all, and in these cases +research finds variants in old broadsides, or elsewhere.</p> +<p>In thirteen cases he gives no source, or “from +tradition,” which is the same thing; though +“tradition in Ettrick Forest” may sometimes imply, +once certainly does, the intermediary Hogg, or Will Laidlaw.</p> +<p>We now understand Scott’s methods as editor. They +are not scientific; they are literary. We also acknowledge +(on internal evidence) his interpolation of his own stanzas in +<i>Kinmont Willie</i> and <i>Jamie Telfer</i>, where he exalts +his chief and ancestor. We cannot do otherwise (as +scholars) than regret and condemn Scott’s interpolations, +never confessed. As lovers of poetry we acknowledge that, +without Scott’s interpolation, we could have no more of +<i>Kinmont Willie</i> than verses, “much mangled by +reciters,” as Scott says, of a ballad perhaps no more +poetical than <i>Jock o’ the Side</i>. Scott says +that “some conjectural emendations have been absolutely +necessary to render it intelligible.” As it is now +very intelligible, to say “conjectural emendations” +is a way of saying “interpolations.”</p> +<p>But while thus confessing Scott’s sins, I cannot believe +that he, like Pinkerton, palmed off on the world any ballad or +ballads of his own sole manufacture, or any ballad which he knew +to be forged.</p> +<p>The truth is that Scott was easily deceived by a modern +imitation, if he liked the poetry. Surtees hoaxed him not +only with <i>Barthram’s Dirge</i> and <i>Anthony +Featherstonhaugh</i>, but with a long prose excerpt from a +non-existent manuscript about a phantom knight. Scott made +the plot of <i>Marmion</i> hinge on this myth, in the encounter +of Marmion with Wilfred as the phantasmal cavalier. He +tells us that in <i>The Flowers of the Forest</i> “the +manner of the ancient minstrels is so happily imitated, that it +required the most positive evidence to convince the editor that +the song was of modern date.” Really the author was +Miss Jane Elliot (1747–1805), daughter of Sir Gilbert +Elliot of Minto. Herd published a made-up copy in +1776. The tune, Scott says, is old, and he has heard an +imperfect verse of the original ballad—</p> +<blockquote><p>“I ride single on my saddle,<br /> +For the flowers o’ the forest are a’ wede +awa’”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>The <i>constant</i> use of double rhymes within the +line—</p> +<blockquote><p>“At e’en, in the gloaming, nae +younkers are roaming,”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>an artifice rare in genuine ballads, might alone have proved +to Scott that the poem of Miss Elliot is not popular and +ancient.</p> +<p>I have cleared my conscience by confessing Scott’s +literary sins. His interpolations, elsewhere mere stopgaps, +are mainly to be found in <i>Kinmont Willie</i> and <i>Jamie +Telfer</i>. His duty was to say, in his preface to each +ballad, “The editor has interpolated stanza” so and +so; if he made up the last verses of <i>Kinmont Willie</i> from +the conclusion of a version of <i>Archie o’ +Ca’field</i>, he should have said so; as he does +acknowledge two stopgap interpolations by Hogg in <i>Auld +Maitland</i>. But as to the conclusion of <i>Kinmont +Willie</i>, he did, we shall see, make confession.</p> +<p>Professor Kittredge, who edited Child’s last part (X.), +says in his excellent abridged edition of Child (1905), “It +was no doubt the feeling that the popular ballad is a fluid and +unstable thing that has prompted so many editors—among them +Sir Walter Scott, whom it is impossible to assail, however much +the scholarly conscience may disapprove—to deal freely with +the versions that came into their hands.”</p> +<p>Twenty-five years after the appearance of <i>The Border +Minstrelsy</i>, in 1827, appeared Motherwell’s +<i>Minstrelsy</i>, <i>Ancient and Modern</i>. Motherwell +was in favour of scientific methods of editing. Given two +copies of a ballad, he says, “perhaps they may not have a +single stanza which is mutual property, except certain +commonplaces which seem an integral portion of the original +mechanism of all our ancient ballads . . . ” By +selecting the most beautiful and striking passages from each +copy, and making those cohere, an editor, he says, may produce a +more perfect and ornate version than any that exists in +tradition. Of the originals “the individuality +entirely disappears.”</p> +<p>Motherwell disapproved of this method, which, as a rule, is +Scott’s, and, scientifically, the method is not +defensible. Thus, having three ballads of rescues, in +similar circumstances, with a river to ford, Scott confessedly +places that incident where he thinks it most “poetically +appropriate”; and in all probability, by a single touch, he +gives poetry in place of rough humour. Of all this +Motherwell disapproved. (See <i>Kinmont Willie</i>, +<i>infra.</i>)</p> +<p>Aytoun, in <i>The Ballads of Scotland</i>, thought Motherwell +hypercritical; and also, in his practice inconsistent with his +preaching. Aytoun observed, “with much regret and not +a little indignation” (1859), “that later editors +insinuated a doubt as to the fidelity of Sir Walter’s +rendering. My firm belief, resting on documentary evidence, +is that Scott was most scrupulous in adhering to the very letter +of his transcripts, whenever copies of ballads, previously taken +down, were submitted to him.” As an example, Aytoun, +using a now lost MS. copy of about 1689–1702, of <i>The +Outlaw Murray</i>, says “Sir Walter has given it throughout +just as he received it.” Yet Scott’s copy, +mainly from a lost Cockburn MS., contains a humorous passage on +Buccleuch which Child half suspects to be by Sir Walter himself. +<a name="citation15a"></a><a href="#footnote15a" +class="citation">[15a]</a> It is impossible for me to know +whether Child’s hesitating conjecture is right or +wrong. Certainly we shall see, when Scott had but one MS. +copy, as of <i>Auld Maitland</i>, his editing left little or +nothing to be desired.</p> +<p>But now Scott is assailed, both where he deserves, and where, +in my opinion, he does not deserve censure.</p> +<p>Scott did no more than his confessed following of +Percy’s method implies, to his original text of the +<i>Ballad of Otterburne</i>. This I shall prove from his +original text, published by Child from the Abbotsford MSS., and +by a letter from the collector of the ballad, the Ettrick +Shepherd.</p> +<p>The facts, in this instance, apparently are utterly unknown to +Lieutenant-Colonel the Hon. Fitzwilliam Elliot, in his <i>Further +Essays on Border Ballads</i> (1910), pp. 1–45.</p> +<p>Again, I am absolutely certain, and can demonstrate, that +Scott did not (as Colonel Elliot believes) detect Hogg in forging +<i>Auld Maitland</i>, join with him in this fraud, and palm the +ballad off on the public. Nothing of the kind +occurred. Scott did not lie in this matter, both to the +world and to his intimate friends, in private letters.</p> +<p>Once more, without better evidence than we possess, I do not +believe that, in <i>Jamie Telfer</i>, Scott transferred the glory +from the Elliots to the Scotts, and the shame from Buccleuch to +Elliot of Stobs. The discussion leads us into very curious +matter. But here, with our present materials, neither +absolute proof nor disproof is possible.</p> +<p>Finally, as to <i>Kinmont Willie</i>, I merely give such +reasons as I can find for thinking that Scott <i>had</i> +“mangled” fragments of an old ballad before him, and +did not merely paraphrase the narrative of Walter Scott of +Satchells, in his doggerel <i>True History of the Name of +Scott</i> (1688).</p> +<p>The positions of Colonel Elliot are in each case the reverse +of mine. In the instance of <i>Auld Maitland</i> (where +Scott’s conduct would be unpardonable if Colonel +Elliot’s view were correct), I have absolute proof that he +is entirely mistaken. For <i>Otterburne</i> I am equally +fortunate; that is, I can show that Scott’s part went no +further than “the making of a standard text” on his +avowed principles. For <i>Jamie Telfer</i>, having no +original manuscript, I admit <i>decorative</i> interpolations, +and for the rest, argue on internal evidence, no other being +accessible. For <i>Kinmont Willie</i>, I confess that the +poem, as it stands, is Scott’s, but give reasons for +thinking that he had ballad fragments in his mind, if not on +paper.</p> +<p>It will be understood that Colonel Elliot does not, I +conceive, say that his charges are <i>proved</i>, but he thinks +that the evidence points to these conclusions. He +“hopes that I will give reasons for my disbelief” in +his theories; and “hopes, though he cannot expect that they +will completely dispose of” his views about <i>Jamie +Telfer</i>. <a name="citation17a"></a><a href="#footnote17a" +class="citation">[17a]</a></p> +<p>I give my reasons, though I entertain but slight hope of +convincing my courteous opponent. That is always a task +rather desperate. But the task leads me, in defence of a +great memory, into a countryside, and into old times on the +Border, which are so alluring that, like Socrates, I must follow +where the <i>logos</i> guides me. To one conclusion it +guides me, which startles myself, but I must follow the +<i>logos</i>, even against the verdict of Professor Child, +<i>notre maître à tous</i>. In some instances, +I repeat, positive proof of the correctness of my views is +impossible; all that I can do is to show that Colonel +Elliot’s contrary opinions also fall far short of +demonstration, or are demonstrably erroneous.</p> +<h2><a name="page18"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 18</span>AULD +MAITLAND</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> ballad of <i>Auld Maitland</i> +holds in <i>The Border Minstrelsy</i> a place like that of the +<i>Doloneia</i>, or Tenth Book, in the <i>Iliad</i>. Every +professor of the Higher Criticism throws his stone at the +<i>Doloneia</i> in passing, and every ballad-editor does as much +to <i>Auld Maitland</i>. Professor Child excluded it from +his monumental collection of “English and Scottish Popular +Ballads,” fragments, and variants, for which Mr. Child and +his friends and helpers ransacked every attainable collection of +ballads in manuscript, and ballads in print, as they listened to +the last murmurings of ballad tradition from the lips of old or +young.</p> +<p>Mr. Child, says his friend and pupil, Professor Kittredge, +“possessed a kind of instinct” for distinguishing +what is genuine and traditional, or modern, or manipulated, or, +if I may say so, “faked” in a ballad.</p> +<p>“This instinct, trained by thirty years of study, had +become wonderfully swift in its operations, and almost +infallible. A forged or retouched piece could not escape +him for a moment: he detected the slightest jar in the ballad +ring.” <a name="citation18a"></a><a href="#footnote18a" +class="citation">[18a]</a></p> +<p>But all old traditional ballads are masses of +“retouches,” made through centuries, by reciters, +copyists, editors, and so forth. Unluckily, Child never +gave in detail his reasons for rejecting that treasure of Sir +Walter’s, <i>Auld Maitland</i>. Child excluded the +poem <i>sans phrase</i>. If he did this, like Falstaff +“on instinct,” one can only say that antiquarian +instincts are never infallible. We must apply our reason to +the problem, “What is <i>Auld Maitland</i>?”</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot has taken this course. By far the most +blighting of the many charges made by Colonel Elliot against Sir +Walter Scott are concerned with the ballad of <i>Auld +Maitland</i>. <a name="citation19a"></a><a href="#footnote19a" +class="citation">[19a]</a> After stating that, in his +opinion, “several stanzas” of the ballad are by Sir +Walter himself, Colonel Elliot sums up his own ideas thus:</p> +<p>“My view is that Hogg, in the first instance, tried to +palm off the ballad on Scott, and failed; and then Scott palmed +it off on the public, and succeeded . . . let us, as gentlemen +and honest judges, admit that the responsibility of the deception +rests rather on the laird (Scott) than on the herd” (Hogg.) +<a name="citation19b"></a><a href="#footnote19b" +class="citation">[19b]</a></p> +<p>If Colonel Elliot’s “views” were correct +(and it is absolutely erroneous), the guilt of “the +laird” would be great. Scott conspires with a +shepherd, a stranger, to palm off a forgery on the public. +Scott issues the forgery, and, what is worse, in a private letter +to a learned friend, he utters what I must borrow words for: he +utters “cold and calculated falsehoods” about the +manner in which, and the person from whom, he obtained what he +calls “my first copy” of the song. If Hogg and +Scott forged the poem, then when Scott told his tale of its +acquisition by himself from Laidlaw, Scott lied.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot is ignorant of the facts in the case. He +gropes his way under the misleading light of a false date, and of +fragments torn from the context of a letter which, in its +complete form, has never till now been published. Where +positive and published information exists, it has not always come +within the range of the critic’s researches; had it done +so, he would have taken the information into account, but he does +not. Of the existence of Scott’s “first +copy” of the ballad in manuscript our critic seems never to +have heard; certainly he has not studied the MS. Had he +done so he would not assign (on grounds like those of Homeric +critics) this verse to Hogg and that to Scott. He would +know that Scott did not interpolate a single stanza; that +spelling, punctuation, and some slight verbal corrections, with +an admirable emendation, were the sum of his industry: that he +did not even excise two stanzas of, at earliest, eighteenth +century work.</p> +<p>I must now clear up misconceptions which have imposed +themselves on all critics of the ballad, on myself, for example, +no less than on Colonel Elliot: and must tell the whole story of +how the existence of the ballad first became known to +Scott’s collector and friend, William Laidlaw, how he +procured the copy which he presented to Sir Walter, and how Sir +Walter obtained, from recitation, his “second copy,” +that which he printed in <i>The Minstrelsy</i> in 1803.</p> +<p>In 1801 Scott, who was collecting ballads, gave a list of +songs which he wanted to Mr. Andrew Mercer, of Selkirk. +Mercer knew young Will Laidlaw, farmer in Blackhouse on Yarrow, +where Hogg had been a shepherd for ten years. Laidlaw +applied for two ballads, one of them <i>The Outlaw Murray</i>, to +Hogg, then shepherding at Ettrick House, at the head of Ettrick, +above Thirlestane. Hogg replied on 20th July 1801. He +could get but a few verses of <i>The Outlaw</i> from his maternal +uncle, Will Laidlaw of Phawhope. He said that, from +traditions known to him, he could make good songs, “but +without Mr. Scott’s permission this would be an imposition, +neither could I undertake it without an order from him in his own +handwriting . . . ” <a name="citation21a"></a><a +href="#footnote21a" class="citation">[21a]</a> Laidlaw went +on trying to collect songs for Scott. We now take his own +account of <i>Auld Maitland</i> from a manuscript left by him. <a +name="citation21b"></a><a href="#footnote21b" +class="citation">[21b]</a></p> +<p>“I heard from one of the servant girls, who had all the +turn and qualifications for a collector, of a ballad called +<i>Auld Maitland</i>, that a grandfather (maternal) of Hogg could +repeat, and she herself had several of the first stanzas, which I +took a note of, and have still the copy. This greatly +aroused my anxiety to procure the whole, for this was a ballad +not even hinted at by Mercer in his list of desiderata received +from Mr. Scott. I forthwith wrote to Hogg himself, +requesting him to endeavour to procure the whole ballad. In +a week or two I received his reply, containing <i>Auld +Maitland</i> exactly as he had received it from the recitation of +his uncle Will of Phawhope, corroborated by his mother, who both +said they learned it from their father, a still older Will of +Phawhope, and an old man called Andrew Muir, who had been servant +to the famous Mr. Boston, minister of Ettrick.” +Concerning Laidlaw’s evidence, Colonel Elliot says not a +word.</p> +<p>This copy of <i>Auld Maitland</i>, with the superscription +outside—</p> +<blockquote><p style="text-align: center"><span class="smcap">Mr. +William laidlaw</span>,<br /> +<span class="smcap">Blackhouse</span>,</p> +</blockquote> +<p>all in Hogg’s hand, is now at Abbotsford. We next +have, through Carruthers using Laidlaw’s manuscript, an +account of the arrival of Scott and Leyden at Blackhouse, of +Laidlaw’s presentation of Hogg’s manuscript, which +Scott read aloud, and of their surprise and delight. Scott +was excited, so that his <i>burr</i> became very perceptible. <a +name="citation23a"></a><a href="#footnote23a" +class="citation">[23a]</a></p> +<p>The time of year when Scott and Leyden visited Yarrow was not +the <i>autumn</i> vacation of 1802, as Lockhart erroneously +writes, <a name="citation23b"></a><a href="#footnote23b" +class="citation">[23b]</a> but the <i>spring</i> vacation of +1802. The spring vacation, Mr. Macmath informs me, ran from +11th March to 12th May in 1802. In May, apparently, Scott +having obtained the <i>Auld Maitland</i> MS. in the vernal +vacation of the Court of Session, gave his account of his +discovery to his friend Ellis (Lockhart does not date the letter, +but wrongly puts it after the return to Edinburgh in November +1802).</p> +<p>Scott wrote thus:—“We” (John Leyden and +himself) “have just concluded an excursion of two or three +weeks through my jurisdiction of Selkirkshire, where, in defiance +of mountains, rivers, and bogs, damp and dry, we have penetrated +the very recesses of Ettrick Forest . . . I have . . . returned +<i>loaded</i> with the treasures of oral tradition. The +principal result of our inquiries has been a complete and perfect +copy of “Maitland with his Auld Berd Graie,” referred +to by [Gawain] Douglas in his <i>Palice of Honour</i> (1503), +along with John the Reef and other popular characters, and +celebrated in the poems from the Maitland MS.” +(<i>circ.</i> 1575). You may guess the surprise of Leyden +and myself when this was presented to us, copied down from the +recitation of an old shepherd, by a country farmer . . . Many of +the old words are retained, which neither the reciter nor the +copyer understood. Such are the military engines, sowies, +<i>springwalls</i> (springalds), and many others . . . ” <a +name="citation24a"></a><a href="#footnote24a" +class="citation">[24a]</a></p> +<p>That Scott got the ballad in spring 1802 is easily +proved. On 10th April 1802, Joseph Ritson, the crabbed, +ill-tempered, but meticulously accurate scholar, who thought that +ballad-forging should be made a capital offence, wrote thus to +Scott:—</p> +<p>“I have the pleasure of enclosing my copy of a very +ancient poem, which appears to me to be the original of <i>The +Wee Wee Man</i>, and which I learn from Mr. Ellis you are +desirous to see.” In Scott’s letter to Ellis, +just quoted, he says: “I have lately had from him” +(Ritson) “<i>a copie</i> of ‘Ye litel wee man,’ +of which I think I can make some use. In return, I have +sent him a sight of <i>Auld Maitland</i>, the original MS . . . I +wish him to see it <i>in puris naturalibus</i>.” +“The precaution here taken was very natural,” says +Lockhart, considering Ritson’s temper and hatred of +literary forgeries. Scott, when he wrote to Ellis, had +received Ritson’s <i>The Wee Wee Man</i> +“lately”: it was sent to him by Ritson on 10th April +1802. Scott had already, when he wrote to Ellis, got +“the original MS. of <i>Auld Maitland</i>” (now in +Abbotsford Library). By 10th June 1802 Ritson wrote saying, +“You may depend on my taking the utmost care of <i>Old +Maitland</i>, and returning it in health and safety. I +would not use the liberty of transcribing it into my manuscript +copy of Mrs. Brown’s ballads, but if you will signify your +permission, I shall be highly gratified.” <a +name="citation25"></a><a href="#footnote25" +class="citation">[25]</a> “Your ancient and curious +ballad,” he styles the piece.</p> +<p>Thus Scott had <i>Auld Maitland</i> in May 1802; he sent the +original MS. to Ritson; Ritson received it graciously; he had, on +10th April 1802, sent Scott another MS., <i>The Wee Wee Man</i>: +and when Scott wrote to Ellis about his surprise at getting +“a complete and perfect copy of Maitland,” he had but +lately received <i>The Wee Wee Man</i>, sent by Ritson on 10th +April 1802. He had made a spring, not an autumn, raid into +the Forest.</p> +<p>We now know the external history of the ballad. Laidlaw, +hearing his servant repeat some stanzas, asks Hogg for the full +copy, which Hogg sends with a pedigree from which he never +wavered. Auld Andrew Muir taught the song to Hogg’s +mother and uncle. Hogg took it from his uncle’s +recitation, and sent it, directed outside,</p> +<blockquote><p style="text-align: center"><span class="smcap">To +Mr. William laidlaw</span>,<br /> +<span class="smcap">Blackhouse</span>,</p> +</blockquote> +<p>and Laidlaw gave it to Scott, in March 12–May 12, +1802. But Scott, publishing the ballad in <i>The +Minstrelsy</i> (1803), says it is given “as written down +from the recitation of the mother of Mr. James Hogg, who sings, +or rather chants, it with great animation” (manifestly he +had heard the recitation which he describes).</p> +<p>It seems that Scott, before he wrote to Ellis in May 1802, had +misgivings about the ballad. Says Carruthers, he +“made another visit to Blackhouse for the purpose of +getting Laidlaw as a guide to Ettrick,” being +“curious to see the poetical shepherd.”</p> +<p>Laidlaw’s MS., used by Carruthers, describes the wild +ride by the marshes at the head of the Loch of the Lowes, through +the bogs on the knees of the hills, down a footpath to +Ramseycleuch in Ettrick. They sent to Ettrick House for +Hogg; Scott was surprised and pleased with James’s +appearance. They had a delightful evening: “the +qualities of Hogg came out at every instant, and his unaffected +simplicity and fearless frankness both surprised and pleased the +Sheriff.” <a name="citation26a"></a><a href="#footnote26a" +class="citation">[26a]</a> Next morning they visited Hogg +and his mother at her cottage, and Hogg tells how the old lady +recited <i>Auld Maitland</i>. Hogg gave the story in prose, +with great vivacity and humour, in his <i>Domestic Manners of Sir +Walter Scott</i> (1834).</p> +<p>In an earlier poetical address to Scott, congratulating him on +his elevation to the baronetcy (1818), the Shepherd +says—</p> +<blockquote><p>When Maitland’s song first met your ear,<br +/> +How the furled visage up did clear.<br /> +Beaming delight! though now a shade<br /> +Of doubt would darken into dread,<br /> +That some unskilled presumptuous arm<br /> +Had marred tradition’s mighty charm.<br /> +Scarce grew thy lurking dread the less,<br /> +Till she, the ancient Minstreless,<br /> +With fervid voice and kindling eye,<br /> +And withered arms waving on high,<br /> +Sung forth these words in eldritch shriek,<br /> +While tears stood on thy nut-brown cheek:<br /> +“Na, we are nane o’ the lads o’ France,<br /> +Nor e’er pretend to be;<br /> +We be three lads of fair Scotland,<br /> +Auld Maitland’s sons a’ three.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>(Stanza xliii. as printed. In Hogg’s MS. copy, +given to Laidlaw there are two verbal differences, in lines 1 and +4.)</p> +<p>Then says Hogg—</p> +<blockquote><p>Thy fist made all the table ring,<br /> +By —, sir, but that is the thing!</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Hogg could not thus describe the scene in addressing Scott +himself, in 1818, if his story were not true. It thus +follows that his mother knew the sixty-five stanzas of the ballad +by heart. Does any one believe that, as a woman of +seventy-two, she learned the poem to back Hogg’s +hoax? That he wrote the poem, and caused her to learn it by +rote, so as to corroborate his imposture?</p> +<p>This is absurd.</p> +<p>But now comes the source of Colonel Elliot’s theory of a +conspiracy between Scott and Hogg, to forge a ballad and issue +the forgery. Colonel Elliot knows scraps of a letter to +Hogg of 30th June 1802. He has read parts, not bearing on +the question, in Mr. Douglas’s <i>Familiar Letters of Sir +Walter Scott</i> (vol. i. pp. 12–15), and another scrap, in +which Hogg says that “I am surprised to hear that <i>Auld +Maitland</i> is suspected by some to be a modern +forgery.” This part of Hogg’s letter of 30th +June 1802 was published by Scott himself in the third volume of +<i>The Minstrelsy</i> (April 1803).</p> +<p>Not having the context of the letter, Colonel Elliot seems to +argue, “Scott says he got his first copy in autumn +1802” (Lockhart’s mistake), “yet here are Hogg +and Scott corresponding about the ballad long before autumn, in +June 1802. This is very suspicious.” I give +what appears to be Colonel Elliot’s line of reflection in +my own words. He decides that, as early as June 1802, +“Hogg”(in the Colonel’s ‘view’), +“in the first instance, tried to palm off the ballad on +Scott, and failed; and that then Scott palmed it off on the +public, and succeeded.”</p> +<p>This is all a mare’s nest. Scott, in March-May +1802, had the whole of the ballad except one stanza, which Hogg +sent to him on 30th June.</p> +<p>I now print, for the first time, the whole of Hogg’s +letter of 30th June, with its shrewd criticism on ballads, +hitherto omitted, and I italicise the passage about <i>Auld +Maitland</i>:—</p> +<blockquote><p style="text-align: right"><span +class="smcap">Ettrick House</span>, <i>June</i> 30.</p> +<p><span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,—I have been +perusing your minstrelsy very diligently for a while past, and it +being the first book I ever perused which was written by a person +I had seen and conversed with, the consequence hath been to me a +most sensible pleasure; for in fact it is the remarks and modern +pieces that I have delighted most in, being as it were personally +acquainted with many of the modern pieces formerly. My +mother is actually a living miscellany of old songs. I +never believed that she had half so many until I came to a +trial. There are some (<i>sic</i>) in your collection of +which she hath not a part, and I should by this time had a great +number written for your amusement, thinking them all of great +antiquity and lost to posterity, had I not luckily lighted upon a +collection of songs in two volumes, published by I know not who, +in which I recognised about half-a-score of my mother’s +best songs, almost word for word. No doubt I was piqued, +but it saved me much trouble, paper, and ink; for I am carefully +avoiding anything which I have seen or heard of being in print, +although I have no doubt that I shall err, being acquainted with +almost no collections of that sort, but I am not afraid that you +too will mistake. I am still at a loss with respect to +some: such as the Battle of Flodden beginning, “From Spey +to the Border,” a long poetical piece on the battle of +Bannockburn, I fear modern: The Battle of the Boyne, Young +Bateman’s Ghost, all of which, and others which I cannot +mind, I could mostly recover for a few miles’ travel were I +certain they could be of any use concerning the above; and I +might have mentioned May Cohn and a duel between two friends, +Graham and Bewick, undoubtedly very old. You must give me +information in your answer. I have already scraped together +a considerable quantity—suspend your curiosity, Mr. Scott, +you will see them when I see you, of which I am as impatient as +you can be to see the songs for your life. But as I suppose +you have no personal acquaintance in this parish, it would be +presumption in me to expect that you will visit my cottage, but I +will attend you in any part of the Forest if you will send me +word. I am far from supposing that a person of your +discernment,—d—n it, I’ll blot out that, +’tis so like flattery. I say I don’t think you +would despise a shepherd’s “humble cot an’ +hamely fare,” as Burns hath it, yet though I would be +extremely proud of a visit, yet hang me if I would know what to +do wi’ ye. I am surprised to find that the songs in +your collection differ so widely from my mother’s. Is +Mr. Herd’s MS. genuine? I suspect it. Jamie +Telfer differs in many particulars. Johnny Armstrong of +Gilnockie is another song altogether. I have seen a verse +of my mother’s way called Johny Armstrong’s last +good-night cited in the <i>Spectator</i>, and another in +<i>Boswell’s Journal</i>. It begins, “Is there +ne’er a man in fair Scotland?” Do you know if +this is in print, Mr. Scott? In the Tale of Tomlin the +whole of the interlude about the horse and the hawk is a distinct +song altogether. <a name="citation30a"></a><a href="#footnote30a" +class="citation">[30a]</a> Clerk Saunders is nearly the +same with my mother’s, until that stanza [xvi.] which ends, +“was in the tower last night wi’ me,” then with +another verse or two which are not in yours, ends Clerk +Saunders. All the rest of the song in your edition is +another song altogether, which my mother hath mostly likewise, +and I am persuaded from the change in the stile that she is +right, for it is scarce consistent with the forepart of the +ballad. I have made several additions and variations out, +to the printed songs, for your inspection, but only when they +could be inserted without disjointing the songs as they are at +present; to have written all the variations would scarcely be +possible, and I thought would embarrass you exceedingly. +<i>I have recovered another half verse of Old Maitlan</i>, <i>and +have rhymed it thus</i>—</p> +<p><i>Remember Fiery of the Scot</i><br /> +<i>Hath cowr’d aneath thy hand</i>;<br /> +For ilka drap o’ Maitlen’s blood<br /> +I’ll gie <i>thee</i> rigs o’ land.—</p> +<p><i>The two last lines only are original</i>; <i>you will +easily perceive that they occur in the very place where we +suspected a want</i>. <i>I am surprised to hear that this +song is suspected by some to be a modern forgery</i>; <i>this +will be best proved by most of the old people hereabouts having a +great part of it by heart</i>; many, indeed, are not aware of the +manners of this place, it is but lately emerged from barbarity, +and till this present age the poor illiterate people in these +glens knew of no other entertainment in the long winter nights +than in repeating and listening to these feats of their +ancestors, which I believe to be handed down inviolate from +father to son, for many generations, although no doubt, had a +copy been taken of them at the end of every fifty years, there +must have been some difference, which the repeaters would have +insensibly fallen into merely by the change of terms in that +period. I believe that it is thus that many very ancient +songs have been modernised, which yet to a connoisseur will bear +visible marks of antiquity. The Maitlen, for instance, +exclusive of its mode of description, is all composed of words, +which would mostly every one spell and pronounce in the very same +dialect that was spoken some centuries ago.</p> +<p>Pardon, my dear Sir, the freedom I have taken in addressing +you—it is my nature; and I could not resist the impulse of +writing to you any longer. Let me hear from you as soon as +this comes to your hand, and tell me when you will be in Ettrick +Forest, and suffer me to subscribe myself, Sir, your most humble +and affectionate servant,</p> +<p style="text-align: right"><span class="smcap">James +Hogg</span>.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>In Scott’s printed text of the ballad, two +interpolations, of two lines each, are acknowledged in +notes. They occur in stanzas vii., xlvi., and are +attributed to Hogg. In fact, Hogg sent one of them (vii.) +to Laidlaw in his manuscript. The other he sent to Scott on +30th June 1802.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot, in the spirit of the Higher Criticism +(<i>chimæra bombinans in vacuo</i>), writes, <a +name="citation31a"></a><a href="#footnote31a" +class="citation">[31a]</a> “Few will doubt that the +footnotes” (on these interpolations) “were inserted +with the purpose of leading the public to think that Hogg made no +other interpolations; but I am afraid I must go further than this +and say that, since they were inserted on the editor’s +responsibility, the intention must have been to make it appear as +if no other interpolations by any other hand had been +inserted.”</p> +<p>But no other interpolations by another hand <i>were</i> +inserted! Some verbal emendations were made by Scott, but +he never put in a stanza or two lines of his own.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot provides us with six pages of the Higher +Criticism. He knows how to distinguish between verses by +Hogg, and verses by Scott! <a name="citation32a"></a><a +href="#footnote32a" class="citation">[32a]</a> But, save +when Scott puts one line, a ballad formula, where Hogg has +another line, Scott makes no interpolations, and the ballad +formula he probably took, with other things of no more +importance, from Mrs. Hogg’s recitation. Oh, Higher +Criticism!</p> +<p>I now print the ballad as Hogg sent it to Laidlaw, between +August 1801 and March 1802, in all probability.</p> +<p>[Back of Hogg’s MS.: Mr. William Laidlaw, +Blackhouse.]</p> +<h3>OLD MAITLAND<br /> +<span class="GutSmall">A VERY ANTIENT SONG</span></h3> +<p class="poetry"><span class="smcap">There</span> lived a king +in southern land<br /> + King Edward hecht his name<br /> +Unwordily he wore the crown<br /> + Till fifty years was gane.</p> +<p class="poetry">He had a sister’s son o’s ain<br /> + Was large o’ blood and bane<br /> +And afterwards when he came up,<br /> + Young Edward hecht his name.</p> +<p class="poetry">One day he came before the king,<br /> + And kneeld low on his knee<br /> +A boon a boon my good uncle,<br /> + I crave to ask of thee</p> +<p class="poetry">“At our lang wars i’ fair +Scotland<br /> + I lang hae lang’d to be<br /> +If fifteen hunder wale wight men<br /> + You’ll grant to ride wi’ me.”</p> +<p class="poetry">“Thou sal hae thae thou sal hae mae<br /> + I say it sickerly;<br /> +And I mysel an auld grey man<br /> + Arrayd your host sal see.”—</p> +<p class="poetry">King Edward rade King Edward ran—<br /> + I wish him dool and pain!<br /> +Till he had fifteen hundred men<br /> + Assembled on the Tyne.<br /> +And twice as many at North Berwick<br /> + Was a’ for battle bound</p> +<p class="poetry">They lighted on the banks of Tweed<br /> + And blew their coals sae het<br /> +And fired the Merce and Tevidale<br /> + All in an evening late</p> +<p class="poetry">As they far’d up o’er Lammermor<br +/> + They burn’d baith tower and town<br /> +Until they came to a derksome house,<br /> + Some call it Leaders Town</p> +<p class="poetry">Whae hauds this house young Edward crys,<br /> + Or whae gae’st ower to me<br /> +A grey haired knight set up his head<br /> + And cracked right crousely</p> +<p class="poetry">Of Scotlands King I haud my house<br /> + He pays me meat and fee<br /> +And I will keep my goud auld house<br /> + While my house will keep me</p> +<p class="poetry">They laid their sowies to the wall<br /> + Wi’ mony heavy peal<br /> +But he threw ower to them again<br /> + Baith piech and tar barille</p> +<p class="poetry">With springs: wall stanes, and good of ern,<br +/> + Among them fast he threw<br /> +Till mony of the Englishmen<br /> + About the wall he slew.</p> +<p class="poetry">Full fifteen days that braid host lay<br /> + Sieging old Maitlen keen<br /> +Then they hae left him safe and hale<br /> + Within his strength o’ stane</p> +<p class="poetry">Then fifteen barks, all gaily good,<br /> + Met themen on a day,<br /> +Which they did lade with as much spoil<br /> + As they could bear away.</p> +<p class="poetry">“England’s our ain by heritage;<br +/> + And whae can us gainstand,<br /> +When we hae conquerd fair Scotland<br /> + Wi’ bow, buckler, and brande”—</p> +<p class="poetry">Then they are on to th’ land o’ +france,<br /> + Where auld King Edward lay,<br /> +Burning each town and castle strong<br /> + That ance cam in his way.</p> +<p class="poetry">Untill he cam unto that town<br /> + Which some call Billop-Grace<br /> +There were old Maitlen’s sons a’ three<br /> + Learning at School alas</p> +<p class="poetry">The eldest to the others said,<br /> + O see ye what I see<br /> +If a’ be true yon standard says,<br /> + We’re fatherless a’ three</p> +<p class="poetry">For Scotland’s conquerd up and down<br /> + Landsmen we’ll never be:<br /> +Now will you go my brethren two,<br /> + And try some jeopardy</p> +<p class="poetry">Then they hae saddled two black horse,<br /> + Two black horse and a grey<br /> +And they are on to Edwardes host<br /> + Before the dawn of day</p> +<p class="poetry">When they arriv’d before the host<br /> + They hover’d on the ley<br /> +Will you lend me our King’s standard<br /> + To carry a little way</p> +<p class="poetry">Where was thou bred where was thou born<br /> + Wherein in what country—<br /> +In the north of England I was born<br /> + What needed him to lie.</p> +<p class="poetry">A knight me got a lady bare<br /> + I’m a squire of high renown<br /> +I well may bear’t to any king,<br /> + That ever yet wore crown.</p> +<p class="poetry">He ne’er came of an Englishman<br /> + Had sic an ee or bree<br /> +But thou art likest auld Maitlen<br /> + That ever I did see</p> +<p class="poetry">But sic a gloom inon ae browhead<br /> + Grant’s ne’er see again<br /> +For many of our men he slew<br /> + And many put to pain</p> +<p class="poetry">When Maitlan heard his father’s name,<br +/> + An angry man was he<br /> +Then lifting up a gilt dager<br /> + Hung low down by his kee</p> +<p class="poetry">He stab’d the knight the standard +bore,<br /> + He stabb’d him cruelly;<br /> +Then caught the standard by the neuk,<br /> + And fast away rade he.</p> +<p class="poetry">Now is’t na time brothers he +cry’d<br /> + Now, is’t na time to flee<br /> +Ay by my soothe they baith reply’d,<br /> + We’ll bear you company</p> +<p class="poetry">The youngest turn’d him in a path<br /> + And drew a burnish’d brand<br /> +And fifteen o’ the foremost slew<br /> + Till back the lave did stand</p> +<p class="poetry">He spurr’d the grey unto the path<br /> + Till baith her sides they bled<br /> +Grey! thou maun carry me away<br /> + Or my life lies in wed</p> +<p class="poetry">The captain lookit owr the wa’<br /> + Before the break o day<br /> +There he beheld the three Scots lads<br /> + Pursued alongst the way</p> +<p class="poetry">Pull up portculzies down draw briggs<br /> + My nephews are at hame<br /> +And they shall lodge wi’ me to-night,<br /> + In spite of all England</p> +<p class="poetry">Whene’er they came within the gate<br /> + They thrust their horse them frae<br /> +And took three lang spears in their hands,<br /> + Saying, here sal come nae mae</p> +<p class="poetry">And they shott out and they shott in,<br /> + Till it was fairly day<br /> +When many of the Englishmen<br /> + About the draw brigg lay.</p> +<p class="poetry">Then they hae yoked carts and wains<br /> + To ca’ their dead away<br /> +And shot auld dykes aboon the lave<br /> + In gutters where they lay</p> +<p class="poetry">The king in his pavilion door<br /> + Was heard aloud to say<br /> +Last night three o’ the lads o’ France<br /> + My standard stole away</p> +<p class="poetry">Wi’ a fause tale disguis’d they +came<br /> + And wi’ a fauser train<br /> +And to regain my gaye standard<br /> + These men were a’ down slaine</p> +<p class="poetry">It ill befits the youngest said<br /> + A crowned king to lie<br /> +But or that I taste meat and drink,<br /> + Reproved shall he be.</p> +<p class="poetry">He went before King Edward straight<br /> + And kneel’d low on his knee<br /> +I wad hae leave my liege he said,<br /> + To speak a word wi’ thee</p> +<p class="poetry">The king he turn’d him round about<br /> + And wistna what to say<br /> +Quo’ he, Man, thou’s hae leave to speak<br /> + Though thou should speak a day.</p> +<p class="poetry">You said that three young lads o’ +France,<br /> + Your standard stole away<br /> +Wi’ a fause tale and fauser train,<br /> + And mony men did slay</p> +<p class="poetry">But we are nane the lads o’ France<br /> + Nor e’er pretend to be<br /> +We are three lads o’ fair Scotland,<br /> + Auld Maitlen’s sons a’ three</p> +<p class="poetry">Nor is there men in a your host,<br /> + Dare fight us three to three<br /> +Now by my sooth young Edward cry’d,<br /> + Weel fitted sall ye be!</p> +<p class="poetry">Piercy sall with the eldest fight<br /> + And Ethert Lunn wi’ thee<br /> +William of Lancastar the third<br /> + And bring your fourth to me</p> +<p class="poetry">He clanked Piercy owr the head<br /> + A deep wound and a sair<br /> +Till the best blood o’ his body<br /> + Came rinnen owr his hair.</p> +<p class="poetry">Now I’ve slain one slay ye the two;<br /> + And that’s good company<br /> +And if the two should slay ye baith,<br /> + Ye’se get na help frae me</p> +<p class="poetry">But Ethert Lunn a baited bear<br /> + Had many battles seen<br /> +He set the youngest wonder sair,<br /> + Till the eldest he grew keen</p> +<p class="poetry">I am nae king nor nae sic thing<br /> + My word it sanna stand<br /> +For Ethert shall a buffet bide,<br /> + Come he aneath my brand.</p> +<p class="poetry">He clanked Ethert owr the head,<br /> + A deep wound and a sair<br /> +Till a’ the blood of his body<br /> + Came rinnen owr his hair</p> +<p class="poetry">Now I’ve slayne two slay ye the one;<br +/> + Isna that gude company<br /> +And tho’ the one should slay ye both<br /> + Ye’se get nae help o’ me.</p> +<p class="poetry">The twasome they hae slayn the one<br /> + They maul’d them cruelly<br /> +Then hang them owr the drawbridge,<br /> + That a’ the host might see</p> +<p class="poetry">They rade their horse they ran their horse,<br +/> + Then hover’d on the ley<br /> +We be three lads o’ fair Scotland,<br /> + We fain wad fighting see</p> +<p class="poetry">This boasting when young Edward heard,<br /> + To’s uncle thus said he,<br /> +I’ll take yon lad I’ll bind yon lad,<br /> + And bring him bound to thee</p> +<p class="poetry">But God forbid King Edward said<br /> + That ever thou should try<br /> +Three worthy leaders we hae lost,<br /> + And you the fourth shall be.</p> +<p class="poetry">If thou wert hung owr yon drawbrigg<br /> + Blythe wad I never be<br /> +But wi’ the pole-axe in his hand,<br /> + Outower the bridge sprang he</p> +<p class="poetry">The first stroke that young Edward gae<br /> + He struck wi might and main<br /> +He clove the Maitlen’s helmet stout,<br /> + And near had pierced his brain.</p> +<p class="poetry">When Matlen saw his ain blood fa,<br /> + An angry man was he<br /> +He let his weapon frae him fa’<br /> + And at his neck did flee</p> +<p class="poetry">And thrice about he did him swing,<br /> + Till on the ground he light<br /> +Where he has halden young Edward<br /> + Tho’ he was great in might</p> +<p class="poetry">Now let him up, King Edward cry’d,<br /> + And let him come to me<br /> +And for the deed that ye hae done<br /> + Ye shal hae earldoms three</p> +<p class="poetry">It’s ne’er be said in France nor +Ire<br /> + In Scotland when I’m hame<br /> +That Edward once was under me,<br /> + And yet wan up again</p> +<p class="poetry">He stabb’d him thro and thro the hear<br +/> + He maul’d him cruelly<br /> +Then hung him ower the drawbridge<br /> + Beside the other three</p> +<p class="poetry">Now take from me that feather bed<br /> + Make me a bed o’ strae<br /> +I wish I neer had seen this day<br /> + To mak my heart fu’ wae</p> +<p class="poetry">If I were once at London Tower,<br /> + Where I was wont to be<br /> +I never mair should gang frae hame,<br /> + Till borne on a bier-tree</p> +<p>At the end of his copy Hogg writes (probably of stanza +vii.)—“You may insert the two following lines +anywhere you think it needs them, or substitute two +better—</p> +<blockquote><p>And marching south with curst Dunbar<br /> + A ready welcome found.”</p> +</blockquote> +<h3>II<br /> +<i>WHAT IS AULD MAITLAND</i>?</h3> +<p>Is <i>Auld Maitland</i> a sheer forgery by Hogg, or is it in +any sense, and if so, in what sense, antique and +traditional? That Hogg made the whole of it is to me +incredible. He had told Laidlaw on 20th July 1801, that he +would make no ballads on traditions without Scott’s +permission, written in Scott’s hand. Moreover, how +could he have any traditions about “Auld Maitland, his +noble Sonnis three,” personages of the thirteenth and +fourteenth centuries? Scott had read about them in poems of +about 1580, but these poems then lay in crabbed +manuscripts. Again, Hogg wrote in words (“springs, +wall-stanes”) of whose meaning he had no idea; he took it +as he heard it in recitation. Finally, the style is not +that of Hogg when he attempts the ballad. Scott observed +that “this ballad, notwithstanding its present appearance, +has a claim to very high antiquity.” The language, +except for a few technical terms, is modern, but what else could +it be if handed down orally? The language of undoubted +ballads is often more modern than that which was spoken in my +boyhood in Ettrick Forest. As Sir Walter Scott remarked, a +poem of 1570–1580, which he quotes from the Maitland MSS., +“would run as smoothly, and appear as modern, as any verse +in the ballad (with a few exceptions) if divested of its antique +spelling.”</p> +<p>We now turn to the historical characters in the ballad.</p> +<p>Sir Richard Maitland of Lauder, or Thirlestane, says Scott, +was already in his lands, and making donations to the Church in +1249. If, in 1296, forty-seven years later, he held his +castle against Edward I., as in the ballad, he must have been a +man of, say, seventy-five. By about 1574 his descendant, +Sir Richard Maitland, was consoled for his family misfortunes +(his famous son, Lethington, having died after the long siege of +Edinburgh Castle, which he and Kirkcaldy of Grange held for Queen +Mary), by a poet who reminded him that his ancestor, in the +thirteenth century, lost all his sons—“peerless +pearls”—save one, “Burdallane.” The +Sir Richard of 1575 has also one son left (John, the minister of +James VI.). <a name="citation41a"></a><a href="#footnote41a" +class="citation">[41a]</a></p> +<p>From this evidence, in 1802 in MS. unpublished, and from other +Maitland MSS., we learn that, in the sixteenth century, the Auld +Maitland of the ballad was an eminent character in the legends of +that period, and in the ballads of the people. <a +name="citation41b"></a><a href="#footnote41b" +class="citation">[41b]</a> His</p> +<blockquote><p> Nobill sonnis three,<br /> +Ar sung in monie far countrie,<br /> +<i>Albeit in rural rhyme</i>.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Pinkerton published, in 1786, none of the pieces to which +Scott refers in his extracts from the Maitland MSS. How, +then, did Hogg, if Hogg forged the ballad, know of Maitland and +his “three noble sons”? Except Colonel Elliot, +to whose explanation we return, I am not aware that any critic +has tried to answer this question.</p> +<p>It seems to me that if the <i>Ballad of Otterburne</i>, extant +in 1550 in England, survived in Scottish memory till Herd’s +fragment appeared in 1776, a tradition of Maitland, who was +popular in the ballads of 1575, and known to Gawain Douglas +seventy years earlier, may also have persisted. There is no +impossibility.</p> +<p>Looking next at Scott’s <i>Auld Maitland</i> the story +is that King Edward I. reigned for fifty years. He had a +nephew Edward (an apocryphal person: such figures are common in +ballads), who wished to take part in the invasion of +Scotland. The English are repulsed by old Maitland from his +“darksome house” on the Leader. The English, +however, (stanza xv.) conquer Scotland, and join Edward I. in +France. They besiege that town,</p> +<blockquote><p>Which some call Billop-Grace (xviii.).</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Here Maitland’s three sons are learning at school, as +Scots often were educated in France. They see that +Edward’s standard quarters the arms of France, and infer +that he has conquered their country. They “will try +some jeopardy.” Persuading the English that they are +themselves Englishmen, they ask leave to carry the royal +flag. The eldest is told that he is singularly like Auld +Maitland. In anger he stabs the standard-bearer, seizes the +flag, and, with his brothers, spurs to Billop-Grace, where the +French captain receives them. There is fighting at the +gate. The King says that three disguised lads of France +have stolen his flag. The Maitlands apparently heard of +this; the youngest goes to Edward, and explains that they are +Maitland’s sons, and Scots; they challenge any three +Englishmen; a thing in the manner of the period. The three +Scots are victorious. Young Edward then challenges one of +the dauntless three, who slays him. Edward wishes himself +home at London Tower.</p> +<p>Such is the story. It is out of the regular line of +ballad narrative, but it does not follow that, in the sixteenth +century, some such tale was not told “in rural rhyme” +about Maitland’s “three noble sons.” That +it is not historically true is nothing, of course, and that it is +not in the Scots of the thirteenth century is nothing.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot asks, What in the ballad raised suspicion of +forgery (in 1802–03)? The historical inaccuracies are +common to all historical ballads. (In an English ballad +known to me of 1578, Henry Darnley is “hanged on a +tree”!)</p> +<p>Next, “there are occasional lines, and even stanzas, +which jar in style to such a degree that they must have been +written by two separate hands.”</p> +<p>But this, also, is a common feature. In “Professor +Child and the Ballad,” Mr. W. M. Hart gives a list of +Professor Child’s notes on the multiplicity of hands, which +he, and every critic, detect in some ballads with a genuinely +antique substratum. <a name="citation44a"></a><a +href="#footnote44a" class="citation">[44a]</a></p> +<p>Colonel Elliot quotes, as in his opinion the best, stanzas +viii., ix., x., xi., while he thinks xv., xviii. the worst. +I give these stanzas—</p> +<p style="text-align: center" class="poetry">VIII.</p> +<p class="poetry">They lighted on the banks o’ Tweed,<br /> + And blew their coals sae het,<br /> +And fired the Merse and Teviotdale,<br /> + All in an evening late.</p> +<p style="text-align: center" class="poetry">IX.</p> +<p class="poetry">As they fared up o’er Lammermoor,<br /> + They burned baith up and doun,<br /> +Until they came to a darksome house,<br /> + Some call it Leader Town.</p> +<p style="text-align: center" class="poetry">X.</p> +<p class="poetry">“Wha hauds this house?” young +Edward cried,<br /> + “Or wha gi’est ower to me?”<br /> +A grey-hair’d knight set up his head,<br /> + And crackit right crousely:</p> +<p style="text-align: center" class="poetry">XI.</p> +<p class="poetry">“Of Scotland’s king I haud my +house,<br /> + He pays me meat and fee;<br /> +And I will keep my guid auld house,<br /> + While my house will keep me.”</p> +<p><br /> +I cannot, I admit, find any fault with these stanzas: cannot see +any reason why they should not be traditional.</p> +<p>Then Colonel Elliot cites, as the worst—</p> +<p style="text-align: center" class="poetry"><br /> +XV.</p> +<p class="poetry">Then fifteen barks, all gaily good,<br /> + Met them upon a day,<br /> +Which they did lade with as much spoil<br /> + As they could take away.</p> +<p style="text-align: center" class="poetry">XVIII.</p> +<p class="poetry">Until we came unto that town<br /> + Which some call Billop-Grace;<br /> +There were Auld Maitland’s sons, a’ three,<br /> + Learning at school, alas!</p> +<p>Now, if I venture to differ from Colonel Elliot here, I may +plead that I am practised in the art of ballad-faking, and can +produce high testimonials of skill! To me stanzas xv., +xviii. seem to differ much from viii.–xi., but not in such +a way as Hogg would have differed, had he made them. +Hogg’s error would have lain, as Scott’s did, in +being, as Scott said of Mrs. Hemans, <i>too poetical</i>.</p> +<p>Neither Hogg nor Scott, I think, was crafty enough to imitate +the prosaic drawl of the printed broadside ballad, or the feeble +interpolations with which the “gangrel scrape-gut,” +or <i>bänkelsänger</i>, supplied gaps in his +memory. The modern complete ballad-faker <i>would</i> +introduce such abject verses, but Scott and Hogg desired to +decorate, not to debase, ballads with which they intermeddled, +and we track them by their modern romantic touch when they +interpolate. I take it, for this reason, that Hogg did not +write stanzas xv., xviii. It was hardly in nature for Hogg, +if he knew Ville de Grace in Normandy (a thing not very +probable), to invent “Billop-Grace” as a popular +corruption of the name—and a popular corruption it is, I +think. Probably the original maker of this stanza wrote, in +line 4, “alace,” an old spelling—not +“alas”—to rhyme with “grace.”</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot then assigns xv., xviii. as most likely of all +to be by Hogg. On that I have given my opinion, with my +reasons.</p> +<p>These verses, with xviii., lead us to France, and whereas +Scott here suspects that some verses have been lost (see his note +to stanza xviii.), Colonel Elliot suspects that the stanzas +relating to France have been interpolated. But the French +scenes occupy the whole poem from xvi. to lxv., the end.</p> +<p>What, if Hogg were the forger, were his sources? He +<i>may</i> have known Douglas’s <i>Palice of Honour</i>, +which, of course, existed in print, with its mention of +Maitland’s grey beard. But how did he know +Maitland’s “three noble sons,” in +1801–1802, lying unsunned in the Maitland MSS.?</p> +<p>This is a point which critics of <i>Auld Maitland</i> +studiously ignore, yet it is the essential point. How did +the Shepherd know about the three young Maitlands, whose +existence, in legend, is only revealed to us through a manuscript +unpublished in 1802? Colonel Elliot does not evade the +point. “We may be sure,” he says, that Leyden, +before 1802, knew Hogg, and Hogg might have obtained from him +sufficient information to enable him to compose the ballad. <a +name="citation47a"></a><a href="#footnote47a" +class="citation">[47a]</a> But it was from Laidlaw, not +from Leyden, that Scott, after receiving his first copy at +Blackhouse, in spring 1802, obtained Hogg’s address. <a +name="citation47b"></a><a href="#footnote47b" +class="citation">[47b]</a> There is no hint that before +spring 1802 Leyden ever saw Hogg. Had he known him, and his +ballad-lore, he would have brought him and Scott together. +In 1801–02, Leyden was very busy in Edinburgh helping Scott +to edit <i>Sir Tristram</i>, copying <i>Arthour</i>, seeking for +an East India appointment, and going into society. +Scott’s letters prove all this. <a +name="citation47c"></a><a href="#footnote47c" +class="citation">[47c]</a></p> +<p>That Hogg, in 1802, was very capable of writing a ballad, I +admit; also that, through Blind Harry’s <i>Wallace</i>, he +may have known all about “sowies,” and +“portculize,” and <i>springwalls</i>, or +<i>springald’s</i>, or <i>springalls</i>, mediæval +<i>balistas</i> for throwing heavy stones and darts. But +Hogg did not know or guess what a <i>springwall</i> was. In +his stanza xiii. (in the MS. given to Laidlaw), Hogg +wrote—</p> +<blockquote><p>With springs; wall stanes, and good o’ern<br +/> + Among them fast he threw.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Scott saw the real meaning of this nonsense, and +read—</p> +<blockquote><p>With springalds, stones, and gads o’ +airn.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>In his preface he says that many words in the ballad, +“which the reciters have retained without understanding +them, still preserve traces of their antiquity.” For +instance, <i>springalls</i>, corruptedly pronounced +<i>springwalls</i>. Hogg, hearing the pronunciation, and +not understanding, wrote, “with springs: wall +stanes.” A leader would not throw “wall +stanes” till he had exhausted his ammunition. Hogg +heard “with springwalls stones, he threw,” and wrote +it, “with springs: wall stones he threw.”</p> +<p>Hogg could not know of Auld Maitland “and his three +noble sons” except through an informant familiar with the +Maitland MSS. in Edinburgh University Library. On the +theory of a conspiracy to forge, Scott taught him, but that +theory is crushed.</p> +<p>Hogg says, in <i>Domestic Manners of Sir Walter Scott</i>, +that when his mother met Scott she told him that her brother and +she learned the ballad from auld Andrew Muir, and he from +“auld Babby Mettlin,” housekeeper of the first +(“Anderson”) laird of Tushielaw. This first +Anderson, laird of Tushielaw, reigned from 1688 to 1721 (?) or +1724. <a name="citation48a"></a><a href="#footnote48a" +class="citation">[48a]</a> Hogg’s mother was born in +1730, and was only one remove—filled up by Andrew +Muir—from Babby, who was “ither than a gude +yin,” and knew many songs. Does any one think Hogg +crafty enough to have invented Babby Maitland as the source of a +song about the Maitlands, and to have introduced her into his +narrative in 1834? I conjecture that this Maitland woman +knew a Maitland song, modernised in time, and perhaps copied out +and emended by one of the Maitland family, possibly one of the +descendants of Lethington. We know that, under James I., +about 1620, Lethington’s impoverished son, James, had +several children; and that Lauderdale was still supporting them +(or <i>their</i> children) during the Restoration. Only a +century before, ballads on the Maitlands had certainly been +popular, and there is nothing impossible in the suggestion that +one such ballad survived in the Lauderdale or Lethington family, +and came through Babby Maitland to Andrew Muir, then to +Hogg’s mother, to Hogg, and to Scott.</p> +<p>If a manuscript copy ever existed, and was Babby’s +ultimate source, it would be of the late seventeenth +century. That is the ascertained date of the oldest known +MS. of <i>The Outlaw Murray</i>, as is proved from an allusion in +a note appended to a copy, referring to a Judge of Session, Lord +Philiphaugh, as then alive. The copy was of +1689–1702. <a name="citation49a"></a><a href="#footnote49a" +class="citation">[49a]</a></p> +<p>Granting a MS. of <i>Auld Maitland</i> existing in any branch +of the Maitland family in 1680–1700, Babby Mettlin’s +knowledge of the ballad, and its few modernisms, are +explained.</p> +<p>As Lockhart truly says, Hogg “was the most extraordinary +man that ever wore the maud of a shepherd.” He had +none of Burns’ education. In 1802 he was young, and +ignorant of cities, and always was innocent of research in the +crabbed MSS. of the sixteenth century. Yet he gets at +legendary persons known to us only through these MSS. He +makes a ballad named <i>Auld Maitland</i> about them. +Through him a farm-lass at Blackhouse acquires some stanzas which +Laidlaw copies. In a fortnight Hogg sends Laidlaw the whole +ballad, with the pedigree—his uncle, his mother, their +father, and old Andrew Muir, servant to the famous Rev. Mr. +Boston of Ettrick. The copy takes in Scott and +Leyden. Later, Ritson makes no objection. Mrs. Hogg +recites it to Scott, and, according to Hogg, gives a casual +“auld Babby Maitland” as the original source.</p> +<p>Is the whole fraud conceivable? Hogg, we must believe, +puts in two stanzas (xv., xviii.), of the lowliest order of +printed stall-copy or “gangrel scrape-gut” style, and +the same with intent to deceive. He introduces +“Billop-Grace” as a deceptive popular corruption of +<i>Ville de Grace</i>. This is far beyond any craft that I +have found in the most artful modern “fakers.” +One stanza (xlix.)—</p> +<blockquote><p>But Ethert Lunn, a baited bear,<br /> +Had many battles seen—</p> +</blockquote> +<p>seems to me very recent, whoever made it. Scott, in +lxii., gives a variant of “some reciters,” for +“That Edward once lay under me,” they read +“That Englishman lay under me.” This, if a +false story, was an example of an art more delicate than Scott +elsewhere exhibits.</p> +<p>One does not know what Professor Child would have said to my +arguments. He never gave a criticism in detail of the +ballad and of the circumstances in which Scott acquired it. +A man most reasonable, most open to conviction, he would, I +think, have confessed his perplexity.</p> +<p>Scott did not interpolate a single stanza, even where, as Hogg +wrote, he suspected a lacuna in the text. He neither cut +out nor improved the cryingly modern stanzas. He kept them, +as he kept several stanzas in <i>Tamlane</i>, which, so he told +Laidlaw, were obviously recent, but were in a copy which he +procured through Lady Dalkeith. <a name="citation51a"></a><a +href="#footnote51a" class="citation">[51a]</a></p> +<p>By neither adding to nor subtracting from his MS. copy of +<i>Auld Maitland</i>, Scott proved, I think, his respect for a +poem which, in its primal form, he believed to be very +ancient. We know, at all events, that ballads on the +Maitland heroes were current about 1580. So, late in the +sixteenth century, were the ballads quoted by Hume of Godscroft, +on the murder of the Knight of Liddesdale (1354), the murder of +the young Earl of Douglas in Edinburgh Castle (1440), and the +battle of Otterburn. Of these three, only <i>Otterburne</i> +was recovered by Herd, published in 1776. The other two are +lost; and there is no <i>prima facie</i> reason why a Maitland +ballad, of the sort current in 1580, should not, in favourable +circumstances, have survived till 1802.</p> +<p>As regards the Shepherd’s ideas of honesty in +ballad-collecting at this early period, I have quoted his letter +to Laidlaw of 20th July 1802.</p> +<p>Again, in the case of his text from recitation of the +<i>Ballad of Otterburne</i> (published by Scott in <i>The +Minstrelsy</i> of 1806), he gave the Sheriff a full account of +his mode of handling his materials, and Scott could get more +minute details by questioning him.</p> +<p>To this text of <i>Otterburne</i>, freely attacked by Colonel +Elliot, in apparent ignorance, as before, of the published facts +of the case, and of the manuscript, we next turn our +attention. In the meantime, Scott no more conspired to +forge <i>Auld Maitland</i> than he conspired to forge the +Pentateuch. That Hogg did not forge <i>Auld Maitland</i> I +think I have made as nearly certain as anything in this region +can be. I think that the results are a lesson to professors +of the Higher Criticism of Homer.</p> +<h2><a name="page53"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 53</span>THE +BALLAD OF OTTERBURNE</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">Scott’s</span> version of the +<i>Ballad of Otterburne</i>, as given first in <i>The +Minstrelsy</i> of 1806, comes under Colonel Elliot’s most +severe censure. He concludes in favour of “the view +that it consists partly of stanzas from Percy’s +<i>Reliques</i>, which have undergone emendations calculated to +disguise the source from which they came, partly of stanzas of +modern fabrication, and partly of a very few stanzas and lines +from Herd’s version” (1776). <a +name="citation53a"></a><a href="#footnote53a" +class="citation">[53a]</a></p> +<p>As a matter of fact we know, though Colonel Elliot does not, +the whole process of construction of the <i>Otterburne</i> in +<i>The Minstrelsy</i> of 1806. Professor Child published +all the texts with a letter. <a name="citation53b"></a><a +href="#footnote53b" class="citation">[53b]</a> It is a pity +that Colonel Elliot overlooks facts in favour of +conjecture. Concerning historical facts he is not more +thorough in research. The story, in Percy’s +<i>Reliques</i>, of the slaying of Douglas by Percy, “is, +so far as I know, supported neither by history nor by +tradition.” <a name="citation53c"></a><a +href="#footnote53c" class="citation">[53c]</a> If +unfamiliar with the English chroniclers (in Latin) of the end of +the fourteenth century, Colonel Elliot could find them cited by +Professor Child. Knyghton, Walsingham, and the continuator +of Higden (Malverne), all assert that Percy killed Douglas with +his own hand. <a name="citation54a"></a><a href="#footnote54a" +class="citation">[54a]</a> The English ballad of +<i>Otterburne</i> (in MS. of about 1550) gives this version of +Douglas’s death. It is erroneous. Froissart, a +contemporary, had accounts of the battle from combatants, both +English and Scottish. Douglas, fighting in the front of the +van, on a moonlight night, was slain by three lance-wounds +received in the mellay. The English knew not whom they had +slain.</p> +<p>The interesting point is that, while the Scottish ballads give +either the English version of Percy’s death (in +<i>Minstrelsy</i>, 1806) or another account mentioned by Hume of +Godscroft (<i>circ.</i> 1610), that he was slain by one of his +own men, the Scottish versions are <i>all</i> deeply affected in +an important point by Froissart’s contemporary narrative, +which has not affected the English versions. <a +name="citation54b"></a><a href="#footnote54b" +class="citation">[54b]</a> The point is that the death of +Douglas was by his order concealed from both parties.</p> +<p>When both the English version in Percy’s <i>Reliques</i> +(from a MS. of about 1550), and Scott’s version of 1806, +mention a “challenge to battle” between Percy and +Douglas, Colonel Elliot calls this incident “probably +purely fanciful and imaginary,” and suspects Scott’s +version of being made up and altered from the English text. +But the challenge which resulted in the battle of Otterburn is +not fanciful and imaginary!</p> +<p>It is mentioned by Froissart. Douglas, he says, took +Percy’s pennon in an encounter under Newcastle. Percy +vowed that Douglas would never carry the pennon out of +Northumberland; Douglas challenged him to come and take it from +his tent door that night; but Percy was constrained not to accept +the challenge. The Scots then marched homewards, but +Douglas insisted on besieging Otterburn Castle; here he passed +some days on purpose to give Percy a chance of a fight; +Percy’s force surprised the Scots; they were warned, as in +the ballads, suddenly, by a man who galloped up; the fight began; +and so on.</p> +<p>Now Herd’s version says nothing of Douglas at Newcastle; +the whole scene is at Otterburn. On the other hand, Charles +Kirkpatrick Sharpe’s MS. text <i>did</i> bring Douglas to +Newcastle. Of this Colonel Elliot says nothing. The +English version says <i>nothing of Percy’s loss of his +pennon to Douglas</i> (nor does Sharpe’s), and gives the +challenge and tryst. Scott’s version says nothing of +Percy’s pennon, but Douglas takes Percy’s +<i>sword</i> and vows to carry it home. Percy’s +challenge, in the English version, is accompanied by a gross +absurdity. He bids Douglas wait at Otterburn, where, +<i>pour tout potage</i> to an army absurdly stated at 40,000 men, +Percy suggests venison and pheasants! In the Scottish +version Percy offers tryst at Otterburn. Douglas answers +that, though Otterburn has no supplies—nothing but deer and +wild birds—he will there tarry for Percy. This is +chivalrous, and, in Scott’s version, Douglas understands +war. In the English version Percy does not. (To these +facts I return, giving more details.) Colonel Elliot +supposes some one (Scott, I daresay) to have taken +Percy’s,—the English version,—altered it to +taste, concealed the alterations, as in this part of the +challenge, by inverting the speeches and writing new stanzas of +the fight at Otterburn, used a very little of Herd (which is +true), and inserted modern stanzas.</p> +<p>Now, first, as regards pilfering from the English version, +that version, and Herd’s undisputed version, have +undeniably a common source. Neither, as it stands, is +“original”; of an <i>original</i> contemporary +Otterburn ballad we have no trace. By 1550, when such +ballads were certainly current both in England and Scotland, they +were late, confused by tradition, and, of what we possess, say +Herd’s, and the English MS. of 1550, all were +interblended.</p> +<p>The Scots ballad version, known to Hume of Godscroft (1610), +may have been taken from the English, and altered, as Child +thought, or the English, as Motherwell maintained, may have been +borrowed from the Scots, and altered. One or the other +process undeniably occurred; the second poet, who made the +changes, introduced the events most favourable to his country, +and left out the less favourable. By Scott’s time, or +Herd’s, the versions were much degraded through decay of +memory, bad penny broadsides (lost), and uneducated +reciters. Herd’s version has forgotten the historic +affair of the capture of Percy’s pennon (and of the whole +movement on Newcastle, preserved in Sharpe’s and +Scott’s); Scott’s remembers the encounter at +Newcastle, forgets the pennon, and substitutes the capture by +Douglas of Percy’s sword. The Englishman deliberately +omits the capture of the pennon. The Scots version (here +altered by Sir Walter) makes Percy wound Douglas at +Otterburn—</p> +<blockquote><p>Till backward he did flee.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Now Colonel Elliot has no right, I conceive, to argue that +this Scots version, with the Newcastle incident, the captured +sword, the challenge, the “backward flight” of +Douglas, were introduced by a modern (Scott?) who was +deliberately “faking” the English version. +There is no reason why tradition should <i>not</i> have retained +historical incidents in the Scottish form; it is a mere +assumption that a modern borrowed and travestied these incidents +from Percy’s <i>Reliques</i>. We possess Hogg’s +<i>unedited</i> original of Scott’s version of 1806 (an +original MS. never hinted at by Colonel Elliot), and it retains +clear traces of being contaminated with a version of <i>The +Huntiss of Chevet</i>, popular in 1459, as we read in <i>The +Complaynte of Scotland</i> of that date. There is also an +old English version of <i>The Hunting of the Cheviot</i> (1550 or +later, Bodleian Library). The <i>unedited</i> text of +Scott’s <i>Otterburne</i> then contained traces of <i>The +Huntiss of Chevet</i>; the two were mixed in popular +memory. In short, Scott’s text, manipulated slightly +by him in a way which I shall describe, was <i>a thing surviving +in popular memory</i>: how confusedly will be explained.</p> +<p>The differences between the English version of 1550 and the +Scots (collected for Scott by Hogg), are of old standing. I +am not sure that there was not, before 1550, a Scottish ballad, +which the English ballad-monger of that date annexed and +altered. The English version of 1550 is not +“popular”; it is the work of a humble literary +man.</p> +<p>The English is a very long ballad, in seventy quatrains; it +greatly exaggerates the number of the Scots engaged (40,000), and +it is the work of a professional author who uses the stereotyped +prosaic stopgaps of the cheap hack—</p> +<blockquote><p>I tell you withouten dread,</p> +</blockquote> +<p>is his favourite phrase, and he cites historical +authority—</p> +<blockquote><p>The cronykle wyll not layne (lie).</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Scottish ballads do not appeal to chroniclers! A +patriotic and imbecile effort is made by the Englishman to +represent Percy as captured, indeed, but released without +ransom—</p> +<blockquote><p>There was then a Scottysh prisoner tayne,<br /> +Sir Hew Mongomery was his name;<br /> +For sooth as I yow saye,<br /> +He borrowed the Persey home agayne.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>This is obscure, and in any case false. Percy <i>was</i> +taken, and towards his ransom Richard II. paid £3000. <a +name="citation59a"></a><a href="#footnote59a" +class="citation">[59a]</a></p> +<p>It may be well to quote the openings of each ballad, English +and Scots.</p> +<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">ENGLISH (1550)</p> +<p style="text-align: center">I.</p> +<p>It fell about the Lammas tyde,<br /> + When husbands win their hay,<br /> +The doughty Douglas bound him to ride,<br /> + In England to take a prey.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">II.</p> +<p>The Earl of Fife, withouten strife,<br /> + He bound him over Solway;<br /> +The great would ever together ride<br /> + That race they may rue for aye.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">III.</p> +<p>Over Hoppertop hill they came in,<br /> + And so down by Rodcliff crag,<br /> +Upon Green Linton they lighted down,<br /> + Stirring many a stag.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">IV.</p> +<p>And boldly brent Northumberland,<br /> + And harried many a town,<br /> +They did our Englishmen great wrong,<br /> + To battle that were not boune.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">V.</p> +<p>Then spake a berne upon the bent . . .</p> +<p style="text-align: center">SCOTTISH, HERD (1776)</p> +<p style="text-align: center">I.</p> +<p>It fell and about the Lammas time,<br /> + When hushandmen do win their hay;<br /> +Earl Douglas is to the English woods,<br /> + And a’ with him to fetch a prey.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">II.</p> +<p>He has chosen the Lindsays light,<br /> + With them the gallant Gordons gay;<br /> +And the Earl of Fyfe, withouten strife,<br /> + And Hugh Montgomery upon a grey.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>(<i>The last line is obviously a reciter’s +stopgap</i>.)</p> +<blockquote><p style="text-align: center">III.</p> +<p>They have taken Northumberland,<br /> + And sae hae they <i>the north shire</i>,<br /> +And the Otterdale they hae burned hale,<br /> + And set it a’ into fire.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">IV.</p> +<p>Out then spak a bonny boy;</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Manifestly these copies, so far, are not independent. +But now Herd’s copy begins to vary much from the +English.</p> +<p>In both ballads a boy or “berne” speaks up. +In the English he recommends to the Scots an attack on Newcastle; +in the Scots he announces the approach of an English host. +Douglas promises to reward the boy if his tale be true, to hang +him if it be false. <i>The scene is Otterburn</i>. +The boy stabs Douglas, in a stanza which is a common ballad +formula of frequent occurrence—</p> +<blockquote><p>The boy’s taen out his little pen knife,<br +/> + That hanget low down by his gare,<br /> +And he gaed Earl Douglas a deadly wound,<br /> + Alack! a deep wound and a sare.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Douglas then says to Sir Hugh Montgomery—</p> +<blockquote><p> Take <i>thou</i> the vanguard of +the three,<br /> +And bury me at yon bracken bush,<br /> + That stands upon yon lilly lea. (Herd, +4–8.)</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Hume of Godscroft (about 1610), author of the <i>History of +the Douglases</i>, was fond of quoting ballads. He gives a +form of the first verse in <i>Otterburn</i> which is common to +Herd and the English copy. He says that, according to some, +Douglas was treacherously slain by one of his own men whom he had +offended. “But this narration is not so +probable,” and the fact is fairly meaningless in +Herd’s fragment (the boy has no motive for stabbing +Douglas, for if his report is true, he will be rewarded). +The deed is probably based on the tradition which Godscroft +thought “less probable,”—the treacherous murder +of the Earl.</p> +<p>In the English ballad, Douglas marches on Newcastle, where +Percy, without fighting, makes a tryst to meet and combat him at +Otterburn, on his way home from Newcastle to Scotland. +Thither Douglas goes, and is warned by a Scottish knight of +Percy’s approach: as in Herd, he is sceptical, but is +convinced by facts. (This warning of Douglas by a scout who +gallops up is narrated by Froissart, from witnesses engaged in +the battle.) After various incidents, Percy and Douglas +encounter each other, and Douglas is slain. After a +desperate fight, Sir Hugh Montgomery, a prisoner of the +English,</p> +<blockquote><p>Borrowed the Percy home again.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>This is absurd. The Scots fought on, took Percy, and won +the day. Walsingham, the contemporary English chronicler +(in Latin), says that Percy slew Douglas, so do Knyghton and the +continuator of Higden.</p> +<p>Meanwhile we observe that the English ballad says nothing of +Douglas’s chivalrous fortitude, and soldier-like desire to +have his death concealed. Here every Scottish version +follows Froissart. In Herd’s fragment, Montgomery now +attacks Percy, and bids him “yield thee to yon bracken +bush,” where the dead Douglas’s body lies +concealed. Percy does yield—to Sir Hugh +Montgomery. The fragment has but fourteen stanzas.</p> +<p>In 1802, Scott, correcting by another MS., published +Herd’s copy. In 1806 he gave another version, for +“fortunately two copies have since been obtained from the +recitation of old persons residing at the head of Ettrick +Forest.” <a name="citation62a"></a><a href="#footnote62a" +class="citation">[62a]</a></p> +<p>Colonel Elliot devotes a long digression to the trivial value +of recitations, so styled, <a name="citation62b"></a><a +href="#footnote62b" class="citation">[62b]</a> and gives his +suggestions about the copy being made up from the +<i>Reliques</i>. When Scott’s copy of 1806 agrees +with the English version, Colonel Elliot surmises that a modern +person, familiar with the English, has written the coincident +verses in <i>with differences</i>. Percy and Douglas, for +example, change speeches, each saying what, in the English, the +other said in substance, not in the actual words. When +Scott’s version touches on an incident known in history, +but not given in the English version, the encounter between +Douglas and Percy at Newcastle (Scott, vii., viii.), Colonel +Elliot suspects the interpolator (and well he may, for the verses +are mawkish and modern, not earlier than the eighteenth century +imitations or <i>remaniements</i> which occur in many ballads +traditional in essence).</p> +<p>So Colonel Elliot says, “We are not told, either in +<i>The Minstrelsy</i> or in any of Scott’s works or +writings, who the reciters were, and who the transcribers +were.” <a name="citation63a"></a><a href="#footnote63a" +class="citation">[63a]</a> We very seldom are told by Scott +who the reciters were and who the transcribers, but our +critic’s information is here mournfully limited—by +his own lack of study. Colonel Elliot goes on to criticise +a very curious feature in Scott’s version of 1806, and +finds certain lines “beautiful” but “without a +note of antiquity,” that he can detect, while the sentiment +“is hardly of the kind met with in old ballads.”</p> +<p>To understand the position we must remember that, <i>in the +English</i>, Percy and Douglas fight each other thus +(1.)—</p> +<blockquote><p>The Percy and the Douglas met,<br /> + That either of other was fain,<br /> +They swapped together while that they sweat,<br /> + With swords of fine Collayne. (Cologne +steel.)</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Douglas bids Percy yield, but Percy slays Douglas (as in +Walsingham’s and other contemporary chronicles, stanzas +li.–lvi.). The Scottish losses are then enumerated +(only eighteen Scots were left alive!), and stanza lix. +runs—</p> +<blockquote><p>This fray began at Otterburn<br /> + Between the night and the day.<br /> +There the Douglas lost his life,<br /> + And the Percy was led away.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Herd ends—</p> +<blockquote><p>This deed was done at Otterburn,<br /> + About the breaking of the day,<br /> +Earl Douglas was buried at the bracken bush,<br /> + And Percy led captive away.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Manifestly, either the maker of Herd’s version knew the +English, and altered at pleasure, or the Englishman knew a Scots +version, and altered at pleasure. The perversion is of +ancient standing, undeniably. But when Scott’s +original text exhibits the same phenomena of perversion, in a +part of the ballad missing in Herd’s brief lay, Colonel +Elliot supposes that <i>now</i> the exchanges are by a modern +ballad-forger, shall we say Sir Walter? By Sir Walter they +certainly are <i>not</i>! One tiny hint of Scots +originality is dubious. In the English, and in all Scots +versions, men “win their hay” at Lammastide. In +Scotland the hay harvest is often much later. But if the +English ballad be <i>Northumbrian</i>, little can be made out of +that proof of Scottish origin. If the English version be a +southern version (for the minstrel is a professional), then +Lammastide for hay-making is borrowed from the Scots.</p> +<p>The Scots version (Herd’s) insists on Douglas’s +burial “by the bracken bush,” to which Montgomery +bids Percy surrender. This is obviously done to hide his +body and keep his death secret from both parties, <i>as in +Froissart he bids his friends do</i>. The verse of the +English (l.) on the fight between Douglas and Percy, is borrowed +by, or is borrowed from, the Scottish stanza (ix.) in Herd, where +Sir Hugh Montgomery fights Percy.</p> +<blockquote><p>Then Percy and Montgomery met,<br /> + And weel a wot they warna fain;<br /> +They swaped swords, and they twa swat,<br /> + And ay the blood ran down between.</p> +<p> The Persses and the Mongomry met,</p> +</blockquote> +<p>as quoted, is already familiar in <i>The Complaynte of +Scotland</i> (about 1549), and this line is not in the English +ballad. So far it seems as if the English balladist +borrowed the scene from a Scots version, and perverted it into a +description of a fight, between Percy, who wins, and +Douglas—in place of the Scots version, the victory over +Percy of Sir Hugh Montgomery.</p> +<p>This transference of incidents in the English and Scottish +ballads is a phenomenon which we are to meet again in the ballad +of <i>Jamie Telfer of the Fair Dodhead</i>. One +“maker” or the other has, in old times, pirated and +perverted the ballad of another “maker.”</p> +<h2><a name="page67"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +67</span>SCOTT’S TRADITIONAL COPY AND HOW HE EDITED IT</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">As</span> early as December +1802–January 1803, Scott was “so anxious to have a +complete Scottish <i>Otterburn</i> that I will omit the ballad +entirely in the first volume (of 1803), hoping to recover it in +time for insertion in the third.” <a +name="citation67a"></a><a href="#footnote67a" +class="citation">[67a]</a></p> +<p>The letter is undated, but is determined by Scott’s +expressed interest “about the Tushielaw lines, which, from +what you mention, must be worth recovering.” In a +letter (Abbotsford MSS.) from Hogg to Scott (marked in copy, +“January 7, 1803”) Hogg encloses “the Tushielaw +lines,” which were popular in Ettrick, but were verses of +the eighteenth century. They were orally repeated, but +literary in origin.</p> +<p>Scott, who wanted “a complete Scottish Otterburn” +in winter 1802, did not sit down and make one. He waited +till he got a text from Hogg, in 1805, and published an edited +version in 1806.</p> +<p><i>Scott’s published</i> stanza i. is Herd’s +stanza i., with slight verbal changes taken from the Hogg MS. +text of 1805. (?) Hogg’s MS. and Scott, in stanza +ii., give Herd’s lines on the Lindsays and Gordons, adding +the Grahams, and, in place of Herd’s</p> +<blockquote><p> The Earl of +Fife,<br /> +And Sir Hugh Montgomery upon a grey,</p> +</blockquote> +<p>they end thus—</p> +<blockquote><p>But the Jardines wald not wi’ him ride,<br +/> + And they rue it to this day.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>This is from Hogg’s copy; it is a natural Border +variant. No Earl of Fife is named, but a reproach to a +Border clan is conveyed.</p> +<p>For Herd’s iii. (they take Northumberland, and burn +“the North shire,” and the Otter dale), Hogg’s +reciters gave—</p> +<blockquote><p>And he has burned the dales o’ Tyne,<br /> + And part o’ <i>Almonshire</i>,<br /> +And three good towers in Roxburgh fells,<br /> + He left them all on fire.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Hogg, in his letter accompanying his copy, says that +“Almonshire” may stand for the +“Bamborowshire” of the English vi., but that he +leaves in “Almonshire,” as both reciters insist on +it. Scott printed “Bambroughshire,” as in the +English version (vi.).</p> +<p>Now here is proof that Hogg had a copy, from reciters—a +copy which he could not understand. +“Almonshire” is “Alneshire,” or +“Alnwickshire,” where is the Percy’s Alnwick +Castle. In Froissart the Scots burn and waste the region of +Alneshire, all round Alnwick, but the Earl of Northumberland +holds out in the castle, unattacked, and sends his sons, Henry +and Ralph Percy, to Newcastle to gather forces, and take the +retreating Scots between two fires, Newcastle and Alnwick. +But the Scots were not such poor strategists as to return by the +way they had come. In a skirmish or joust at Newcastle, +says Froissart, Douglas captured Percy’s lance and pennon, +with his blazon of arms, and vowed that he would set it up over +his castle of Dalkeith. Percy replied that he would never +carry it out of England. To give Percy a chivalrous chance +of recovering his pennon and making good his word, Douglas +insists on waiting at Otterburn to besiege the castle there; and +he is taken by surprise (as in the ballads) when a mounted man +brings news of Percy’s approach. No tryst is made by +Percy and Douglas <i>at Otterburn</i> in Froissart; Douglas +merely tarried there by the courtesy of Scotland.</p> +<p>In Hogg’s version we have a reason why Douglas should +tarry at Otterburn; in the English ballad we have none very +definite. No captured pennon of Percy’s is mentioned, +no encounter of the heroes “at the barriers” of +Newcastle. Percy, from the castle wall, merely threatens +Douglas vaguely; Douglas says, “Where will you meet +me?” and Percy appoints Otterburn as we said. He +makes the absurd remark that, by way of supplies (for 40,000 +men), Douglas will find abundance of pheasants and red deer. <a +name="citation69a"></a><a href="#footnote69a" +class="citation">[69a]</a></p> +<p>We see that the English balladist is an unwarlike literary +hack. The author of the Ettrick version knew better the +nature of war, as we shall see, and his Douglas objects to +Otterburn as a place destitute of supplies; nothing is there but +wild beasts and birds. If the original poem is the sensible +poem, the Scott version is the original which the English hath +perverted.</p> +<p>In Hogg, Douglas jousts with Percy at Newcastle, and gives him +a fall. Then come two verses (viii.–ix.). The +second is especially modern and mawkish—</p> +<blockquote><p>But O how pale his lady look’d,<br /> + Frae off the castle wa’,<br /> +When down before the Scottish spear<br /> + She saw brave Percy fa’!<br /> +How pale and wan his lady look’d,<br /> + Frae off the castle hieght,<br /> +When she beheld her Percy yield<br /> + To doughty Douglas’ might.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Colonel Elliot asks, “Can any one believe that these +stanzas are really ancient and have come down orally through many +generations?” <a name="citation70a"></a><a +href="#footnote70a" class="citation">[70a]</a></p> +<p>Certainly not! But Colonel Elliot does not allow for the +fact, insisted on by Professor Child, that traditional ballads, +from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, were often +printed on broad-sheets as edited by the cheapest +broadside-vendors’ hacks; that the hacks interpolated and +messed their originals; and that, after the broadside was worn +out, lost, or burned, oral memory kept it alive in +tradition. For examples of this process we have only to +look at <i>William’s Ghost</i> in Herd’s copy of +1776. This is a traditional ballad; it is included in +Scott’s <i>Clerk Saunders</i>, but, as Hogg told him, is a +quite distinct song. In Herd’s copy it ends +thus—</p> +<blockquote><p>“Oh, stay, my only true love, +stay,”<br /> + The constant Marg’ret cry’d;<br /> +Wan grew her cheeks, she closed her eyes,<br /> + Stretched her soft limbs, and dy’d.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Let <i>this</i> get into tradition, and be taken down from +recitation, and the ballad will be denounced as modern. But +it is essentially ancient.</p> +<p>These two modern stanzas, in Hogg’s copy, are rather too +bad for Hogg’s making; and I do not know whether they are +his (he practically says they are not, we shall see), or whether +they are remembered by reciters from a stall-copy of the period +of Lady Wardlaw’s <i>Hardyknute</i>.</p> +<p>After that, Hogg’s copy becomes more natural. +Douglas says to the discomfited Percy (x.)—</p> +<blockquote><p>Had we twa been upon the green,<br /> + And never an eye to see,<br /> +I should hae had ye flesh and fell,<br /> + But your sword shall gae wi’ me.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>That rings true! Moreover, had either Hogg or Scott +tampered here (Scott excised), either would have made Douglas +carry off—not Percy’s <i>sword</i>, but the historic +captured <i>pennon</i> of Percy. Scott really could not +have resisted the temptation had he been interpolating +<i>à son dévis</i>.</p> +<blockquote><p>But your <i>pennon</i> shall gae wi’ me!</p> +</blockquote> +<p>It was easy to write in that!</p> +<p>Percy had challenged Douglas thus—</p> +<blockquote><p>But gae ye up to Otterburn,<br /> + And there wait days three (xi.),</p> +</blockquote> +<p>as in the English (xiii.). In the English, Percy, we +saw, promises game enough there; in Hogg, Douglas demurs (xii., +xiii., xiv.). There are no supplies at Otterburn, he +says—</p> +<blockquote><p> To feed my men and me.</p> +<p>The deer rins wild frae dale to dale,<br /> + The birds fly wild frae tree to tree,<br /> +And there is neither bread nor kale,<br /> + To fend my men and me.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>These seem to me sound true ballad lines, like—</p> +<blockquote><p>My hounds may a’ rin masterless<br /> + My hawks may fly frae tree to tree,</p> +</blockquote> +<p>in Child’s variant of <i>Young Beichan</i>. The +speakers, we see, are “inverted.” Percy, in the +English, promises Douglas’s men pheasants—absurd +provision for the army of 40,000 men of the English ballad. +In the Ettrick text Douglas says that there are no supplies, +merely <i>feræ naturæ</i>, but he will wait at +Otterburn to give Percy his chance.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot takes the inversion of parts as a proof of +modern pilfering and deliberate change to hide the theft; at +least he mentions them, and the “prettier verses,” +with a note of exclamation (!). <a name="citation73a"></a><a +href="#footnote73a" class="citation">[73a]</a> But there +are, we repeat, similar inversions in the English and in +Herd’s old copy, and nobody says that Scott or Hogg or any +modern faker made the inversions in Herd’s text. The +differences and inversions in the English and in Herd are very +ancient; by 1550 “the Percy and the Montgomery met,” +in the line quoted in <i>The Complaynte of Scotland</i>. At +about the same period (1550) it was the Percy and the Douglas who +met, in the English version. Manifestly there pre-existed, +by 1550, an old ballad, which either a Scot then perverted from +the English text, or an Englishman from the Scots. Thus the +inversions in the Ettrick and English version need not be due +(they are not due) to a <i>modern</i> “faker.”</p> +<p>In the Hogg MS. (xxiii.), Percy wounds Douglas “till +backwards he did flee.” Hogg was too good a Scot to +interpolate the flight of Douglas; and Scott was so good a Scot +that—what do you suppose he did?—he excised +“till backwards he did flee” from Hogg’s text, +and inserted “that he fell to the ground” <i>from the +English text</i>!</p> +<p>In the Hogg MS. (xviii., xix.), in Scott xvii., xviii., +Douglas, at Otterburn, is roused from sleep by his page with news +of Percy’s approach. Douglas says that the page lies +(compare Herd, where Douglas doubts the page)—</p> +<blockquote><p>For Percy hadna’ men yestreen<br /> +To dight my men and me.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>There is nothing in this to surprise any one who knows the +innumerable variants in traditional ballads. But now comes +in a very curious variation (Hogg MS. xx., Scott, xix.). +Douglas says (Hogg MS. xx.)—</p> +<blockquote><p>But I have seen a dreary dream<br /> + Beyond the Isle o’ Skye,<br /> +I saw a dead man won the fight,<br /> + And I think that man was I.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Here is something not in Herd, and as remote from the manner +of the English poet, with his</p> +<blockquote><p>The Chronicle will not lie,</p> +</blockquote> +<p>as Heine is remote from, say,—Milman. The verse is +magical, it has haunted my memory since I was ten years +old. Godscroft, who does not approve of the story of +Douglas’s murder by one of his men, writes that the dying +leader said:—</p> +<p>“First do yee keep my death both from our own folke and +from the enemy” (Froissart, “Let neither friend nor +foe know of my estate”); “then that ye suffer not my +standard to be lost or cast downe” (Froissart, “Up +with my standard and call <i>Douglas</i>!”;) “and +last, that ye avenge my death” (also in Froissart). +“Bury me at Melrose Abbey with my father. If I could +hope for these things I should die with the greater contentment; +for long since I <i>heard a prophesie that a dead man should +winne a field</i>, <i>and I hope in God it shall be I</i>.” +<a name="citation75a"></a><a href="#footnote75a" +class="citation">[75a]</a></p> +<blockquote><p>I saw a dead man won the fight,<br /> + And I think that man was I!</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Godscroft, up to the mention of Melrose and the prophecy, took +his tale direct from Froissart, or, if he took it from George +Buchanan’s Latin History, Buchanan’s source was +Froissart, but Froissart’s was evidence from Scots who were +in the battle.</p> +<p>But who changed the prophecy to a dream of Douglas, and who +versified Godscroft’s “a dead man shall winne a +field, and I hope in God it shall be I”? Did +Godscroft take that from the ballad current in his time and +quoted by him? Or did a <i>remanieur</i> of Godscroft turn +<i>his</i> words into</p> +<blockquote><p>I saw a dead man win the fight,<br /> + And I think that man was I?</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Scott did not make these two noble lines out of Godscroft, he +found them in Hogg’s copy from recitation, only altering +“I saw” into “I dreamed,” and the +ungrammatic “won” into “win”; and +“<i>the</i> fight” into “<i>a</i> +fight.”</p> +<p>The whole dream stanza occurs in a part of the ballad where +Hogg confesses to no alteration or interpolation, and I doubt if +the Shepherd of Ettrick had read a rare old book like +Godscroft. If he had not, this stanza is purely +traditional; if he had, he showed great genius in his use of +Godscroft.</p> +<p>In Hogg’s Ettrick copy, Douglas, after telling his +dream, rushes into battle, is wounded by Percy, and +“backward flees.” Scott (xx.), following a +historical version (Wyntoun’s <i>Cronykil</i>), makes</p> +<blockquote><p>Douglas forget the helmit good<br /> + That should have kept his brain.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Being wounded, in Hogg’s version, and “backward +fleeing,” Douglas sends his page to bring Montgomery +(Hogg), and from stanza xxiv. to xxxiv., in Hogg, all is made up +by himself, he says,—from facts given “in plain +prose” by his reciters, with here and there a line or two +given in verse. Scott omitted some verses here, amended +others slightly, by help of Herd’s version, <i>left out a +broken last stanza</i> (xl.) and put in Herd’s concluding +lines (stanza lxviii. in the English text).</p> +<blockquote><p>This deed was done at the Otterburn. (Herd.)</p> +<p>The fraye began at Otterburn. (English.)</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Now what was the broken Ettrick stanza that Scott omitted in +his published <i>Otterburne</i> (1806)? It referred to Sir +Hugh Montgomery, who, in Herd, captured Percy after a fight; in +the English version is a prisoner apparently exchanged for +Percy. In the Ettrick MS. the omitted verse is</p> +<blockquote><p>He left not an Englishman on the field<br /> +. . .<br /> +That he hadna either killed or taen<br /> + Ere his heart’s blood was cauld.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Scott ended with Herd’s last stanza; in the English +version the last but two.</p> +<p>Now the death, at Otterburn, of Sir Hugh, is recorded in an +English ballad styled <i>The Hunting of the Cheviot</i>. By +1540–50 it was among the popular songs north of +Tweed. <i>The Complaynte of Scotland</i> (1549) mentions +among “The Songis of Natural Music of the Antiquitie” +(<i>volkslieder</i>), <i>The Hunttis of Chevet</i>. Our +copy of the English version is in the Bodleian (MS. Ashmole, +48). It ends: “Expliceth, quod Rychard Sheale,” +a minstrel who recited ballads and tales at Tamworth +(<i>circ.</i> 1559). The text was part of his +stock-in-trade.</p> +<p>The Cheviot ballad, in a Scots form popular in 1549, is later +in many ways than the English <i>Battle of Otterburne</i>. +It begins with a brag of Percy, a vow that, despite Douglas, he +will hunt in the Cheviot hills. While Percy is hunting with +a strong force, Douglas arrives with another. Douglas +offers to decide the quarrel by single combat with Percy, who +accepts. Richard Witherington refuses to look on quietly, +and a general engagement ensues.</p> +<blockquote><p>At last the Duglas and the Perse met,<br /> +Lyk to Captayns of myght and of mayne,<br /> +They swapte together tylle they both swat<br /> +With swordes that wear of fyn myllan.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>We are back in stanza I. of the English <i>Otterburne</i>, in +stanza xxxv. (substituting Hugh Montgomery for Douglas) of the +Hogg MS. In <i>The Hunting</i>, Douglas is slain by an +English arrow (xxxvi.–xxxviii.).</p> +<p>Sir Hugh Montgomery now charges and slays Percy (who, of +course, was merely taken prisoner). An archer of +Northumberland sends an arrow through good Sir Hugh Montgomery +(xliii.–xlvi.). Stanza lxvi. has</p> +<blockquote><p>At Otterburn begane this spurne,<br /> + Upon a Monnynday;<br /> +There was the doughte Douglas slean,<br /> + The Perse never went away.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>This is a form of Herd’s stanza xiv. of the English +<i>Otterburn</i> (lxviii.), made soon after the battle. We +see that the <i>original</i> ballad has protean variants; in time +all is mixed in tradition.</p> +<p>Now the curious and interesting point is that Hogg, when he +collected the ballad from two reciters, himself noticed that the +<i>Cheviot</i> ballad had merged, in some way, into the +<i>Otterburn</i> ballad, and pointed this out to Scott. I +now publish Hogg’s letter to Scott, in which, as usual, he +does not give the year-date: I think it was 1805.</p> +<blockquote><p style="text-align: right"><span +class="smcap">Ettrick House</span>, <i>Sept.</i> 10, [?1805].</p> +<p><span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>,—Though I have used +all diligence in my power to recover the old song about which you +seemed anxious, I am afraid it will arrive too late to be of any +use. I cannot at this time have Grame and Bewick; the only +person who hath it being absent at a harvest; and as for the +scraps of Otterburn which you have got, <i>they seem to have been +some confused jumble made by some person who had learned both the +songs you have</i>, <a name="citation79a"></a><a +href="#footnote79a" class="citation">[79a]</a> <i>and in time had +been straitened to make one out of them both</i>. But you +shall have it as I had it, saving that, as usual, I have +sometimes helped the metre without altering one original +word.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Hogg here gives his version from recitation as far as stanza +xxiv.</p> +<p>Here Hogg stops and writes:—</p> +<blockquote><p>The ballad, which I have collected from two +different people, a crazy old man and a woman deranged in her +mind, seems hitherto considerably entire; but now, when it +becomes most interesting, they have both failed me, and I have +been obliged to take much of it in plain prose. However, as +none of them seemed to know anything of the history save what +they had learned from the song, I took it the more kindly. +Any few verses which follow are to me unintelligible.</p> +<p>He told Sir Hugh that he was dying, and ordered him to conceal +his body, and neither let his own men nor Piercy’s know; +which he did, and the battle went on headed by Sir Hugh +Montgomery, and at length—</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Here follow stanzas up to xxxviii.</p> +<p>Hogg then goes on thus:—</p> +<blockquote><p>Piercy seems to have been fighting devilishly in +the dark. Indeed my narrators added no more, but told me +that Sir Hugh died on the field, but that</p> +<p>He left not an Englishman on the field,<br /> +. . .<br /> +That he hadna either killed or ta’en<br /> + Ere his heart’s blood was cauld.</p> +<p>Almonshire (Stanza iii.) may probably be a corruption of +Bamburghshire, but as both my narrators called it so I thought +proper to preserve it. The towers in Roxburgh fells (Stanza +iii.) may not be so improper as we were thinking, there may have +been some [English] strength on the very borders.—I remain, +Dear Sir, your most faithful and affectionate servant, <span +class="smcap">James Hogg</span>.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Hogg adds a postscript:</p> +<blockquote><p>Not being able to get the letter away to the post, +I have taken the opportunity of again pumping my old +friend’s memory, and have recovered some more lines and +half lines of Otterburn, of which I am becoming somewhat +enamoured. These I have been obliged to arrange somewhat +myself, as you will see below, but so mixed are they with +original lines and sentences that I think, if you pleased, they +might pass without any acknowledgment. Sure no man will +like an old song the worse of being somewhat harmonious. +After stanza xxiv. you may read stanzas xxv. to xxxiv. Then +after xxxviii. read xxxix.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Now we know all that can be known about the copy of the ballad +which, in 1805, Scott received from Hogg. Up to stanza +xxiv. it is as given by the two old reciters. The crazy man +may be the daft man who recited to Hogg Burns’s <i>Tam +o’ Shanter</i>, and inspired him with the ambition to be a +poet. The deranged woman, like mad Madge Wildfire, was rich +in ballad scraps. From stanza xxv. to xxxiv., Hogg +confessedly “harmonises” what he got in plain prose +intermixed with verse. Stanza xxxix. is apparently +Hogg’s. The last broken stanza, as Hogg said, is a +reminiscence of the <i>Hunting of the Cheviot</i>, in a Scots +form, long lost.</p> +<p>Hogg was not a scientific collector: had he been, he would +have taken down “the plain prose” and the broken +lines and stanzas verbally. But Hogg has done his best.</p> +<p>We have next to ask, How did Scott treat the material thus +placed before him? He dropped five stanzas sent by Hogg, +mainly from the part made up from “plain prose”; he +placed in a stanza and a line or two from Herd’s text; he +remade a stanza and adopted a line from the English of 1550, and +inserted an incident from Wyntoun’s <i>Cronykil</i> (about +1430). He did these things in the effort to construct what +Lockhart calls “a standard text.”</p> +<p>1. In stanza i., for Hogg’s “Douglas +<i>went</i>,” Scott put “bound him to +ride.”</p> +<p>2. (<i>H.</i>) “With the +Lindsays.”</p> +<p> (<i>S.</i>) “With <i>them</i> +the Lindesays.”</p> +<p>3. (<i>H.</i>) “Almonshire.”</p> +<p> (<i>S.</i>) +“Bamboroughshire.”</p> +<p> (<i>H.</i>) +“Roxburgh.”</p> +<p> (<i>S.</i>) +“Reidswire.”</p> +<p>6. (<i>H.</i>) “The border again.”</p> +<p> (<i>S.</i>) “The border +fells.”</p> +<p>7. (<i>H.</i>) “<i>Most</i> +furiously.”</p> +<p> (<i>S.</i>) “<i>Right</i> +furiouslie.”</p> +<p>9. (<i>H.</i>) A modernised stanza.</p> +<p> (<i>S.</i>) Scott deletes it.</p> +<p>15. (<i>H.</i>) Scott rewrites the stanza thus,</p> +<p> (<i>H.</i>)</p> +<p class="poetry">But I will stay at Otterburn,<br /> + Where you shall welcome be;<br /> +And if ye come not at three days end,<br /> + A coward I’ll call thee.</p> +<p> (<i>S.</i>)</p> +<p class="poetry">“Thither will I come,” proud Percy +said,<br /> + “By the might of Our Ladye.”<br /> +“There will I bide thee,” said the Douglas,<br /> + “My troth I’ll plight to +thee.”</p> +<p>19. (<i>H.</i>) “I have <i>seen</i> a dreary +dream.”</p> +<p>20. (<i>S.</i>) “I have <i>dreamed</i> a +dreary dream.”</p> +<p>21. (<i>H.</i>)</p> +<p class="poetry">Where he met with the stout Percy<br /> + And a’ his goodly train.</p> +<p>21. (<i>S.</i>)</p> +<blockquote><p>But he forgot the helmet good<br /> +That should have kept his brain.</p> +<p style="text-align: right">(From Wyntoun.)</p> +</blockquote> +<p>22. (<i>H.</i>) Line 2. “Right +keen.”</p> +<p> (<i>S.</i>) Line 2. “Fu’ +fain.”</p> +<p>Line 4.</p> +<blockquote><p>The blood ran down like rain.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Line 4.</p> +<blockquote><p>The blood ran them between.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>23. (<i>H.</i>)</p> +<blockquote><p>But Piercy wi’ his good broadsword<br /> + Was made o’ the metal free,<br /> +Has wounded Douglas on the brow<br /> + Till backward did he flee.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>24. (<i>S.</i>)</p> +<blockquote><p>But Piercy wi’ his broadsword good<br /> + That could so sharply wound,<br /> +Has wounded Douglas on the brow,<br /> + Till he fell to the ground.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>25. (<i>H.</i>) Here Hogg has mixed prose and verse, and +does his best. Scott deletes Hogg’s 25.</p> +<p>27. (<i>H.</i>) Douglas repeats the story of his +dream. Scott deletes the stanza.</p> +<p>28. In Hogg’s second line,</p> +<blockquote><p>Nae mair I’ll fighting see.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Scott gives, from Herd,</p> +<blockquote><p>Take thou the vanguard of the three.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>29. Hogg’s verse is</p> +<blockquote><p>But tell na ane of my brave men<br /> + That I lie bleeding wan,<br /> +But let the name of Douglas still<br /> + Be shouted in the van.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>This is precisely what Douglas does say, in Froissart, but +Scott deletes the stanza. Probably Hogg got the fact from +his reciters, “in plain prose,” with a phrase or two +in verse.</p> +<p>31. (<i>H.</i>) Line 4.</p> +<blockquote><p>On yonder lily lee.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>27. (<i>S.</i>)</p> +<blockquote><p>That his merrie men might not see.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>33. (<i>H.</i>) Scott deletes the stanza.</p> +<p>35. (<i>H.</i>)</p> +<blockquote><p>When stout Sir Hugh wi’ Piercy met.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>30. (<i>S.</i>)</p> +<blockquote><p>The Percy and Montgomery met. <a +name="citation83a"></a><a href="#footnote83a" +class="citation">[83a]</a></p> +</blockquote> +<p>36. (<i>H.</i>)</p> +<blockquote><p>“O yield thee, Piercy,” said Sir +Hugh,<br /> + “O yield, or ye shall die!”<br /> +“Fain would I yield,” proud Percy said,<br /> + “But ne’er to loon like thee.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>31. (<i>S.</i>)</p> +<blockquote><p>“Now yield thee, yield thee, Percy,” +he said,<br /> + “Or else I vow I’ll lay thee +low,”<br /> +“To whom must I yield,” quoth Earl Percy,<br /> + “Now that I see it must be so?”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Scott took this from Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe’s MS. +copy. <a name="citation84a"></a><a href="#footnote84a" +class="citation">[84a]</a></p> +<p>38. (<i>H.</i>)</p> +<p>38. (<i>S.</i>) Scott makes a slight verbal +alteration.</p> +<p>39. (<i>H.</i>) Line 1.</p> +<p>34. (<i>S.</i>) Line 1.</p> +<p>Scott substitutes Herd’s</p> +<blockquote><p>As soon as he knew it was Montgomery.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>40. (<i>H.</i>) Hogg’s broken stanza on the death +of Montgomery, derived from a lost form of the <i>Huntiss of +Chevets</i>, named in <i>The Complaynte of Scotland</i>.</p> +<p>35. (<i>S.</i>) Scott omits giving the formula common to +the English of 1550 and to Herd. This was the whole of +Scott’s editorial alteration. Any one may discover +the facts from Professor Kittredge’s useful abbreviation of +Child’s collection into a single volume (Nutt. +London, 1905). Colonel Elliot quotes Professor +Kittredge’s book three or four times, but in place of +looking at the facts he abounds in the Higher Criticism. +Colonel Elliot says that Scott does not tell us of a single line +having been borrowed from Percy’s version. <a +name="citation84b"></a><a href="#footnote84b" +class="citation">[84b]</a> Scott has only “a single +line” to tell of, the fourth line in his stanza xxii., +“Till he fell to the ground.”</p> +<p>For the rest, the old English version and Herd’s have +many inter-borrowings of stanzas, but we do not know whether a +Scot borrowed from an Englishman, or <i>vice versa</i>. +Thus, in another and longer traditional +version—Hogg’s—more correspondence must be +expected than in Herd’s fourteen stanzas. It is, of +course, open to scepticism to allege that Hogg merely made his +text, invented the two crazy old reciters, and the whole story +about them, and his second “pumping of their +memories,” invented “Almonshire,” which he +could not understand, and invented his last broken stanza on the +death of Montgomery, to give the idea that <i>The Huntiss of +Chevets</i> was mingled in the recollections of the reciters with +<i>The Battle of Otterburn</i>. He also gave the sword in +place of the pennon of Percy as the trophy of Douglas, “and +the same with intent to deceive,” just as he pretended, in +<i>Auld Maitland</i>, not to know what “springwalls” +were, and wrote “springs: wall-stanes.” If this +probable theory be correct, then Scott was the dupe of Truthful +James. At all events, though for three years Scott was +moving heaven and earth and Ettrick Forest to find a copy of a +Scottish ballad of Otterburn, he did not sit down and make one, +as, in Colonel Elliot’s system, he easily could and +probably would have done.</p> +<p>Before studying his next ill deed, we must repeat that the +Otterburn ballads prove that in early times one nation certainly +pirated a ballad of a rival nation, and very ingeniously altered +it and inverted the parts of the heroes.</p> +<p>We have next to examine a case in a later generation, in which +a maker who was interested in one clan, pirated, perverted, and +introverted the <i>rôles</i> of the heroes in a ballad by a +maker interested in another clan. Either an Elliotophile +perverted a ballad by a Scottophile, or a Scottophile perverted a +ballad by an Elliotophile.</p> +<p>This might be done at the time when the ballad was made (say +1620–60). But Colonel Elliot believes that the +perversion was inflicted on an Elliotophile ballad by a +Scottophile impostor about 1800–1802. The name of +this desperate and unscrupulous character was Walter Scott, +Sheriff of Ettrick Forest, commonly called Selkirkshire.</p> +<p>In this instance I have no manuscript evidence. The name +of “Jamie of the Fair Dodhead,” the ballad, appears +in a list of twenty-two ballads in Sir Walter’s hand, +written in a commonplace book about 1800–1801. Eleven +are marked X. “Jamie” is one of that +eleven. <i>Kinmont Willie</i> is among the eleven not +marked X. We may conjecture that he had obtained the first +eleven, and was hunting for the second eleven,—some of +which he never got, or never published.</p> +<h2><a name="page87"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 87</span>THE +MYSTERY OF THE BALLAD OF JAMIE TELFER</h2> +<h3>I<br /> +A RIDING SONG</h3> +<p><i>The Ballad of Jamie Telfer of the Fair Dodhead</i> has many +charms for lovers of the Border. The swift and simple +stanzas carry us through a great tract of country, which remains +not unlike what it was in the days when Scotts, Armstrongs, and +Elliots rode the hills in jack and knapscap, with sword and +lance. The song leads us first, with a foraging party of +English riders, from Bewcastle, an English hold, east of the +Border stream of the Liddel; then through the Armstrong tribe, on +the north bank; then through more Armstrongs north across Tarras +water (“Tarras for the good bull trout”); then north +up Ewes water, that springs from the feet of the changeless green +hills and the <i>pastorum loca vasta</i>, where now only the +shepherd or the angler wakens the cry of the curlews, but where +then the Armstrongs were in force. We ride on, as it were, +and look down into the dale of the stripling Teviot, <i>electro +clarior</i> (then held by the Scotts); we descend and ford +“Borthwick’s roaring strand,” as Leyden sings, +though the burn is usually a purling brook even where it joins +Teviot, three miles above Hawick.</p> +<p>Next we pass across the green waves of moorlands that rise to +the heights over Ettrick (held by the Scotts), whence the +foragers of the song gallop down to “The Fair +Dodhead,” now a heap of grass-covered stones, but in their +day a peel tower, occupied, <i>according to the ballad</i>, by +one James Telfer. The English rob the peel tower, they +drive away ten cows, and urge them southwards over Borthwick +water, then across Teviot at Coultart Cleugh (say seven miles +above Hawick), then up the Frostily burn, and so down Ewes water +as before; but the Scottish pursuers meet them before they cross +the Liddel again into English bounds. The English are +defeated, their captain is shot through the head (which in no way +affects his power of making speeches); he is taken, twenty or +thirty of his men are killed or wounded, his own cattle are +seized, and his victim Telfer, returns rejoicing to Dodhead in +distant Ettrick.</p> +<p><i>C’est magnifique</i>, <i>mais ce n’est pas la +guerre</i>! These events never occurred, as we shall see +later, yet the poet has the old reiving spirit, the full sense of +the fierce manly times, and possesses a traditional knowledge of +the historical personages of the day, and knows the +country,—more or less.</p> +<p>The poem has raised as many difficulties as Nestor’s +long story about raided cattle in the eleventh book of the +<i>Iliad</i>. Historical Greece knew but dimly the places +which were familiar to Nestor, the towns that time had ruined, +the hill where Athene “turned the people +again.” We, too, have to seek in documents of the end +of the sixteenth century, or in an old map of 1654 (drawn about +1600), to find Dodhead, Catslack, or Catloch, or Catlock hill, +and Preakinhaugh, places essential to our inquiry.</p> +<p>I see the student who has ventured so far into my tract wax +wan! He does not,—she does not,—wish to hear +about dusty documents and ancient maps. For him or for her +the ballad is enough, and a very good ballad it is. I would +shake the faith of no man in the accuracy of the ballad tale, if +it were not necessary for me to defend the character of Sir +Walter Scott, which, on occasion of this and other ballads, is +impugned by Colonel the Hon. FitzWilliam Elliot. He +“hopes, though he cannot expect,” that I will give my +reasons for not sharing his belief that Sir Walter did a certain +thing which I could not easily palliate. <a +name="citation89"></a><a href="#footnote89" +class="citation">[89]</a></p> +<h3>II<br /> +THE BALLAD IMPOSSIBLE</h3> +<p>My attempts to relieve Colonel Elliot from his painful +convictions about Sir Walter’s unsportsmanlike behaviour +must begin with proof that the ballad, as it stands, cannot +conceivably be other than “a pack o’ +lees.” Here Colonel Elliot, to a great extent and on +an essential point, agrees with me. In sketching rapidly +the story of the ballad,—the raid from England into +Ettrick, the return of the raiders, the pursuit,—I omitted +the <i>clou</i>, the pivot, the central point of dramatic +interest. It is this: in one version of the +ballad,—call it A for the present,—the unfortunate +Telfer runs to ask aid from the laird of Buccleuch, at Branksome +Hall, some three and a half or four miles above Hawick, on the +Teviot. From the Dodhead it was a stiff run of eight miles, +through new-fallen snow. The farmer of Dodhead, in the +centre of the Scott country, naturally went for help to the +nearest of his neighbours, the greatest chief in the +mid-Border. In version A (which I shall call “the +Elliot version”), “auld Buccleuch” (who was a +man of about thirty in fact) was deaf to Telfer’s +prayer.</p> +<blockquote><p>Gae seek your succour frae Martin Elliot,<br /> + For succour ye’s get nane frae me,<br /> +Gae seek your succour where ye paid blackmail,<br /> + For, man, ye ne’er paid money to me.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>This is impossibly absurd! As Colonel Elliot writes, +“I pointed out in my book” (<i>The Trustworthiness of +Border Ballads</i>) “that the allegation that Buccleuch had +refused to strike a blow at a party of English raiders, who had +insolently ridden some twenty-five miles into Scottish ground and +into the very middle of his own territory, was too absurd to be +believed . . . ” <a name="citation91a"></a><a +href="#footnote91a" class="citation">[91a]</a></p> +<p>Certainly; and the story is the more ridiculous as Buccleuch +(who has taken Telfer’s protection-money, or +“blackmail”) pretends to believe that +Telfer—living in Ettrick, about nine miles from +Selkirk—pays protection-money to Martin Elliot, residing at +Preakinhaugh, high up the water of Liddel. Martin was too +small a potentate, and far too remote to be chosen as protector +by a man living near the farm of Singlee on Ettrick, and near the +bold Buccleuch.</p> +<p>All this is nonsense. Colonel Elliot sees that, and +suggests that all this is not by the original poet, but has been +“inserted at some later period.” <a +name="citation91b"></a><a href="#footnote91b" +class="citation">[91b]</a> But, if so, <i>what was the +original ballad before the insertion</i>? As it stands, all +hinges on this impossible refusal of Buccleuch to help his +neighbour and retainer, James Telfer. If Colonel Elliot +excises Buccleuch’s refusal of aid as a later +interpolation, and if he allows Telfer to reach Branksome and +receive the aid which Buccleuch would rejoice to give, then the +Elliot version of the ballad cannot take a further step. It +becomes a Scott ballad, Buccleuch sends out his Scotts to pursue +the English raiders, and the Elliots, if they come in at all, +must only be subordinates. But as the Elliot version +stands, it is Buccleuch’s refusal to do his duty that +compels poor Jamie to run to his brother-in-law, “auld Jock +Grieve” in Coultartcleugh, four miles higher on Teviot than +Branksome. Jock gives him a mount, and he rides to +“Martin’s Hab” at “Catlockhill,” a +place unknown to research thereabout. Thence they both ride +to Martin Elliot at Preakinhaugh, high up in Liddesdale, and the +Elliots under Martin rescue Jamie’s kye.</p> +<p>Now the original ballad, if it did not contain +Buccleuch’s refusal of aid to Telfer (which refusal is a +thing “too absurd to be believed”) must merely have +told about the rescue of Jamie’s kye by the Scotts, Wat of +Harden, and the rest. If Buccleuch did not refuse help he +gave it, and there was no ride by Telfer to Martin Elliot. +Therefore, without a passage “too absurd to be +believed” (Buccleuch’s refusal), <i>there could be no +Elliots in the story</i>. The alternative is, that Telfer +in Ettrick <i>did</i> pay blackmail to a man so remote as Elliot +of Preakinhaugh, though Buccleuch was his chief and his +neighbour. This is absurd. Yet Colonel Elliot firmly +maintains that the version, in which the Elliots have all the +glory and Buccleuch all the shame, is the original version, and +is true on essential points.</p> +<p>That is only possible if we cut out the verses about Buccleuch +and make an Ettrick man not appeal to him, but go direct to a +Liddesdale man for succour. He must run from Dodhead to +Coultartcleugh, get a horse from Jock Grieve (Buccleuch’s +man and tenant), and then ride into Liddesdale to Martin. +But an Ettrick man, in a country of Scotts, would inevitably go +to his chief and neighbour, Buccleuch: it is inconceivable that +he should choose the remote Martin Elliot as his protector, and +go to <i>him</i>.</p> +<p>Thus, as a corollary from Colonel Elliot’s own disbelief +in the Buccleuch incident, the Elliot version of the ballad must +be absolutely false and foolish.</p> +<p>If Colonel Elliot leaves in the verses on Buccleuch’s +refusal, he leaves in what he calls “too absurd to be +believed.” If he cuts out these verses as an +interpolation, then Buccleuch lent aid to Telfer, and there was +no occasion to approach Martin Elliot. Or, by a third +course, the Elliot ballad originally made an Ettrick man, a +neighbour of the great Buccleuch, never dream of appealing to +<i>him</i> for help, but run to Coultartcleugh, four miles above +Buccleuch’s house, and thence make his way over to distant +Liddesdale to Martin Elliot! Yet Colonel Elliot says that +in what I call “the Elliot version,” “the story +defies criticism.” <a name="citation93a"></a><a +href="#footnote93a" class="citation">[93a]</a> Now, however +you take it,—I give you three choices,—the story is +absolutely impossible.</p> +<p>This Elliot version was unknown to lovers of the ballads, till +the late Professor Child of Harvard, the greatest master of +British ballad-lore that ever lived, in his beautiful <i>English +and Scottish Popular Ballads</i>, printed it from a manuscript +belonging to Mr. Macmath, which had previously been the property +of a friend of Scott, Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe. This +version is entitled “Jamie Telfer <i>in</i> the Fair +Dodhead,” not “<i>of</i>”: Jamie was a tenant +(there was no Jamie Telfer tenant of Dodhead in 1570–1609, +but concerning that I have more to say). Jamie was no +laird.</p> +<p>Before Professor Child’s publication of the Elliot +version, we had only that given by Scott in <i>The Border +Minstrelsy</i> of 1802. Now Scott’s version is at +least as absurdly incredible as the Elliot version. In +Scott’s version the unhappy Jamie runs, not to Branksome +and Buccleuch, to meet a refusal; but to “the Stobs’s +Ha’”(on Slitterick above Hawick) and to “auld +Gibby Elliot,” the laird. Elliot bids him go to +Branksome and the laird of Buccleuch,</p> +<blockquote><p>For, man, ye never paid money to me!</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Naturally Telfer did not pay to Elliot: he paid to Buccleuch, +if to any one. More, till after the Union of 1603, and the +end of Border raids, Gilbert Elliot, a cousin and friend of +Buccleuch, <i>was not the owner of Stobs</i>. The Hon. +George Elliot pointed out this fact in his <i>Border Elliots and +the Family of Minto</i>: Colonel Elliot rightly insists on this +point.</p> +<p>The Scott version is therefore as hopelessly false as the +Elliot version. The Elliot version, with the Buccleuch +incident, is “too absurd to be believed,” and could +not have been written (except in banter of Buccleuch), while men +remembered the customs of the sixteenth century. The Scott +version, again, could not be composed before the tradition arose +that Gilbert Elliot <i>was</i> laird of Stobs before the Union of +the Crowns in 1603. Now that tradition was in full force on +the Border before 1688. We know that (see chapter on +<i>Kinmont Willie</i>, <i>infra</i>), for, in 1688, a man born in +1613, Captain Walter Scott of Satchells, in his <i>Metrical +History of the Honourable Families of the Names of Scott and +Elliot</i>, represents Gilbert Elliot of Stobs as riding with +Buccleuch in the rescue of Kinmont Willie, in 1596. <a +name="citation95a"></a><a href="#footnote95a" +class="citation">[95a]</a> Now Satchells’s own father +rode in that fray, he says, <a name="citation95b"></a><a +href="#footnote95b" class="citation">[95b]</a> and he gives a +minute genealogy of the Elliots of Stobs. <a +name="citation95c"></a><a href="#footnote95c" +class="citation">[95c]</a></p> +<p>Thus the belief that Gilbert Elliot was laird of Stobs by 1596 +was current in the traditions of a man born seventeen years after +1596. <i>The Scott version rests on that tradition</i>, and +is not earlier than the rise of that erroneous belief.</p> +<p>Neither the Scott nor Elliot version is other than +historically false. But the Scott version, if we cut out +the reference to auld Gibby Elliot, offers a conceivable, though +not an actual, course of events. The Elliot version, if we +excise the Buccleuch incident, does not. Cutting out the +Buccleuch incident, Telfer goes all the way from Ettrick to +Liddesdale, seeking help in that remote country, and never thinks +of asking aid from Buccleuch, his neighbour and chief. This +is idiotic. In the Scott version, if we cut out the refusal +of Gilbert Elliot of Stobs, Telfer goes straight to his +brother-in-law, auld Jock Grieve, within four miles of Buccleuch +at Branksome; thence to another friend, William’s Wat, at +Catslockhill (now Branksome-braes), and so to Buccleuch at +Branksome. This is absurd enough. Telfer would have +gone straight to Branksome and Buccleuch, unless he were a poor +shy small farmer, <i>who wanted sponsors</i>, known to +Buccleuch. Jock Grieve and William’s Wat, both of +them retainers and near neighbours of Buccleuch, were such +sponsors. Granting this, the Scott version runs smoothly, +Telfer goes to his sponsors, and with his sponsors to Buccleuch, +and Buccleuch’s men rescue his kye.</p> +<h3>III<br /> +COLONEL ELLIOT’S CHARGE AGAINST SIR WALTER SCOTT</h3> +<p>Colonel Elliot believes generally in the historical character +of the ballad as given in the Elliot version, but “is +inclined to think that” the original poet “never +wrote the stanza” (the stanza with Buccleuch’s +refusal) “at all, and that it has been inserted at some +later period.” <a name="citation97a"></a><a +href="#footnote97a" class="citation">[97a]</a> In that case +Colonel Elliot is “inclined to think” that an Ettrick +farmer, robbed by the English, never dreamed of going to his +neighbour and potent chief, but went all the way to Martin +Elliot, high up in Liddesdale, to seek redress! Surely few +can share the Colonel’s inclination. Why should a +farmer in Ettrick “choose to lord” a remote Elliot, +when he had the Cock of the Border, the heroic Buccleuch, within +eight miles of his home?</p> +<p>Holding these opinions, Colonel Elliot, with deep +regret—</p> +<blockquote><p>I wat the tear blinded his ee—</p> +</blockquote> +<p>accuses Sir Walter Scott of having taken the Elliot +version—till then the only version—and of having +altered stanzas vii.–xi. (in which Jamie goes to Branksome, +and is refused succour) into his own stanzas vii.–xi., in +which Jamie goes to Stobs and is refused succour. This evil +thing Scott did, thinks Colonel Elliot. Scott had no copy, +he thinks, of the ballad except an Elliot copy, which he +deliberately perverted.</p> +<p>We must look into the facts of the case. I know no older +published copy of the ballad than that of Scott, in <i>Border +Minstrelsy</i>, vol. i. p. 91 <i>et seqq.</i> (1802). +Professor Child quotes a letter from the Ettrick shepherd to +Scott of “June 30, 1802” thus: “I am surprised +to find that the songs in your collection differ so widely from +my mother’s; <i>Jamie Telfer</i> differs in many +particulars.” <a name="citation98a"></a><a +href="#footnote98a" class="citation">[98a]</a> (This is an +incomplete quotation. I give the MS. version later.)</p> +<p>Scott himself, before Hogg wrote thus, had said, in the +prefatory note to his <i>Jamie Telfer</i>: “There is +another ballad, under the same title as the following, in which +nearly the same incidents are narrated, with little difference, +except that the honour of rescuing the cattle is attributed to +the Liddesdale Elliots, headed by a chief there called Martin +Elliot of the Preakin Tower, whose son, Simm, is said to have +fallen in the action. It is very possible that both the +Teviotdale Scotts and the Elliots were engaged in the affair, and +that each claimed the honour of the victory.”</p> +<p>Old Mrs. Hogg’s version, “differing in many +particulars” from Scott’s, must have been the Elliot +version, published by Professor Child, as “A*,” +“Jamie Telfer <i>in</i>” (not +“<i>of</i>”) “the Fair Dodhead,” +“from a MS. written about the beginning of the nineteenth +century, and now in the possession of Mr. William Macmath”; +it had previously belonged to Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe. <a +name="citation98b"></a><a href="#footnote98b" +class="citation">[98b]</a></p> +<p>There is one great point of difference between the two +forms. In Sir Walter’s variant, verse 26 summons the +Scotts of Teviotdale, including Wat of Harden. In his 28 +the Scotts ride with the slogan “Rise for Branksome +readily.” Scott’s verses 34, 36, and the two +first lines of 38, are, if there be such a thing as internal +evidence, from his own pen. Such lines as</p> +<blockquote><p>The Dinlay snaw was ne’er mair white<br /> +Nor the lyart locks o’ Harden’s hair</p> +</blockquote> +<p>are cryingly modern and “Scottesque.”</p> +<p>That Sir Walter knew the other version, as in Mr. +Macmath’s MS. of the early nineteenth century, is certain; +he describes that version in his preface. That he effected +the whole transposition of Scotts for Elliots is Colonel +Elliot’s opinion. <a name="citation99a"></a><a +href="#footnote99a" class="citation">[99a]</a></p> +<p>If Scott did, I am not the man to defend his conduct; I regret +and condemn it; and shall try to prove that he found the matter +in his copy. I shall first prove, beyond possibility of +doubt, that the ballad is, from end to end, utterly unhistorical, +though based on certain real incidents of 1596–97. I +shall next show that the Elliot version is probably later than +the Scott version. Finally, I shall make it certain (or so +it seems to me) that Scott worked on an old copy which was +<i>not</i> the copy that belonged to Kirkpatrick Sharpe, but +contained points of difference, <i>not</i> those inserted by Sir +Walter Scott about “Dinlay snaw,” and so forth.</p> +<h3>IV<br /> +WHO WAS THE FARMER IN THE DODHEAD IN 1580–1609?</h3> +<p>Colonel Elliot has made no attempt to prove that one Telfer +was tenant of the Dodhead in 1580–1603, which must, we +shall see, include the years in which the alleged incidents +occur. On this question—was there a Telfer in the +Dodhead in 1580–1603?—I consulted my friend, Mr. T. +Craig Brown, author of an excellent <i>History of +Selkirkshire</i>. In that work (vol. i. p. 356) the author +writes: “Dodhead or Scotsbank; Dodhead was one of the four +stedes of Redefurd in 1455. In 1609 Robert Scot of +Satchells (ancestor of the poet-captain) obtained a Crown charter +of the lands of Dodbank.” For the statement that +Dodhead was one of the three stedes in 1455, Mr. Craig Brown +quotes “The Retoured Extent of 1628,” “an +unimpeachable authority.” For the Crown charter of +1609, we have only to look up “Dodbank” in the +Register of the Great Seal of 1609. The charter is of +November 24, 1609, and gratifies “Robert Scott of +Satscheillis” (father of the Captain Walter Scott who +composed the <i>Metrical History</i> of the Scotts in 1688) with +the lands, which have been occupied by him and his forefathers +“from a time past human memory.” Thus, writes +Mr. Craig Brown to me, “Scott of Satchells was undoubtedly +Scott of <i>Dodhead</i> also in 1609.”</p> +<p>In “The Retoured Extent of 1628,” +“<i>Dodhead</i> or Dodbank” appears as Harden’s +property. Thus in 1628 the place was “Dodhead or +Dodbank,” a farm that had been tenanted by Scotts +“from beyond human memory.” But Mr. Craig Brown +proves from record that one Simpson farmed it in 1510.</p> +<p>So where does Jamie Telfer come in?</p> +<p>The farmers were Scotts, it was to their chief, Buccleuch, +that they went when they needed aid. <a +name="citation101a"></a><a href="#footnote101a" +class="citation">[101a]</a></p> +<p>Thus vanishes the hero of the ballad, <i>Jamie Telfer in the +Fair Dodhead</i>, and thus the ballad is pure fiction from end to +end.</p> +<h3>V<br /> +MORE IMPOSSIBILITIES IN THE BALLAD</h3> +<p>This is only one of the impossibilities in the ballad. +That the Captain of Bewcastle, an English hold, stated in a +letter of the period to be distant three miles from the frontier, +the Liddel water, should seek “to drive a prey” from +the Ettrick, far through the bounds of his neighbours and foes, +Grahams, Armstrongs, Scotts, and Elliots, is a ridiculously +absurd circumstance.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot attempts to meet this difficulty by his theory +of the route taken by the Captain, which he illustrates by a map. +<a name="citation102a"></a><a href="#footnote102a" +class="citation">[102a]</a> The ballad gives no details +except that the Captain found his first guide “high up in +Hardhaughswire,” which Colonel Elliot cannot +identify. The second guide was “laigh down in +Borthwick water.” If this means on the lower course +of the Borthwick, the Captain was perilously near Branksome Hall +and Harden, and his ride was foolhardy. But “laigh +down,” I think, means merely “on lower ground than +Hardhaughswire.”</p> +<p>The Captain, as soon as he crossed the Ritterford after +leaving Bewcastle, was in hostile and very watchful Armstrong +country. This initial difficulty Colonel Elliot meets by +marking on his map, as Armstrong country, the north bank of the +Liddel down to Kershope burn; and the Captain crosses Liddel +below that burn at Ritterford. Thence he goes north by +west, across Tarras water, up Ewes water, up Mickledale burn, by +Merrylaw and Ramscleugh and so on to Howpasley, which is not on +the lower but the upper Borthwick.</p> +<p>Looking at Colonel Elliot’s chart of the Captain’s +route, all seems easy enough for the Captain. He does not +try to ride into Teviotdale, for which he is making, up the +Liddel water, and thence by the Hermitage tributary on his +left. Colonel Elliot studs that region with names of +Armstrong and Elliot strongholds. He makes the Captain, +crossing Liddel by the Ritterford, bear to his left, through a +space empty of hostile habitations, in his map. This seems +prudent, but the region thus left blank was full of the fiercest +and most warlike of the Armstrong name. That road was +closed to the Captain!</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot has failed to observe this fact, which I go on +to prove, from a memoir addressed in 1583 to Burleigh, by Thomas +Musgrave, the active son of the aged Captain of Bewcastle, Sir +Simon Musgrave. Thomas describes the topography of the +Middle Marches. He says that the Armstrongs hold both banks +of Liddel as far south as “Kershope foot” (the +junction of the Kershope with the Liddel), and hold the north +side of the Liddel as far as its junction with the Esk. <a +name="citation103a"></a><a href="#footnote103a" +class="citation">[103a]</a> Thus on crossing Liddel by the +Ritterford, the Captain had at once to pass through the hostile +Armstrongs. Thereby also were Grahams with whom the +Musgraves of Bewcastle were in deadly feud. Farther down +Esk, west of Esk, dwelt Kinmont Willie, an Armstrong, “at a +place called Morton.” If he did pass so far through +Armstrongs, the Captain met them again, farther north, on Tarras +side, where Runyen Armstrong lived at Thornythaite. Near +him was Armstrong of Hollhouse, Musgrave’s great +enemy. North of Tarras the Captain rode through Ewesdale; +there he had to deal with three hundred Armstrong men of the +spear. <a name="citation104a"></a><a href="#footnote104a" +class="citation">[104a]</a> When he reached Ramscleuch +(which he never could have done), the Colonel’s map makes +the Captain ride past Ramscleuch, then farmed by the Grieves, +retainers of Buccleuch, who would warn Branksome. When the +Captain reached Howpasley on Borthwick water, he would be +observed by the men of Scott of Howpasley, the Grieves, who could +send a rider some six miles to warn Branksome.</p> +<p>We get the same information as to the perils of the +Captain’s path from the places marked on Blaeu’s map +of 1600–54. There are Hollhouse and Thornythaite, +Armstrong towers, and the active John Armstrong of Langholm can +come at a summons.</p> +<p>It seems to be a great error to suppose that the route chosen +for the Captain by Colonel Elliot could lead him into anything +better than a death-trap. I must insist that it would have +been madness for a Captain of Bewcastle to ride far through +Armstrong country, deep into Buccleuch’s country, and +return on another line through Scott, and near Elliot, and +through Armstrong country—and all for no purpose but to +steal ten cows in remote Selkirkshire!</p> +<p>Here I may save the reader trouble, by omitting a great mass +of detail as to the deplorable condition of Bewcastle itself in +1580–96. Sir Simon, the Captain, declares himself old +and weary. The hold is “utterly decayed,” the +riders are only thirty-seven men fairly equipped. Soldiers +are asked for, sometimes fifty are sent from the garrison of +Berwick, then they are withdrawn. Bewcastle is forayed +almost daily; “March Bills” minutely describe the +cattle, horses, and personal property taken from the Captain and +the people by the Armstrongs and Elliots.</p> +<p>Once, in 1582, Thomas Musgrave slew Arthur Graham, a near +neighbour, and took one hundred and sixty kye, but this only +caused such a feud that the Musgraves could not stir safely from +home. From 1586 onwards, Thomas Musgrave, officially or +unofficially, was acting Captain of Bewcastle. He had no +strength to justify him in raiding to remote Ettrick, through +enemies who penned him in at Bewcastle.</p> +<p>I look on Musgrave as the Captain whose existence is known to +the ballad-maker, and I find the origin of the tale of his defeat +and capture in the ballad, in a distorted memory of his actual +capture.</p> +<p>On 3rd July 1596, Thomas (having got Scrope’s +permission, without which he dared not cross the Border on +affairs of war) attempted a retaliatory raid on Armstrongs within +seven miles of the Border, the Armstrongs of Hollace, or +Hollhouse. “He found only empty houses;” he +“sought a prey” in vain; he let his men straggle, and +returning homeward, with some fifteen companions, he was ambushed +by the Armstrongs near Bewcastle, was refused shelter by a +Graham, was taken prisoner, and was sent to Buccleuch at +Branksome. On 15th July he came home under a bond of +£200 for ransom. <a name="citation106a"></a><a +href="#footnote106a" class="citation">[106a]</a> As every +one did, in his circumstances, the Captain made out his Bill for +Damages. It was indented on 28th April 1597. We learn +that John (Armstrong) of Langholm, Will of Kinmont (not +Liddesdale men), and others, who took him, are in the +Captain’s debt for “24 horses and mares, himself +prisoner, and ransomed to £200, and 16 other prisoners, and +slaughter.” The charges are admitted by the accused; +the Captain is to get £400. <a name="citation106b"></a><a +href="#footnote106b" class="citation">[106b]</a></p> +<p>In my opinion this capture of the Captain of Bewcastle and +others, poetically handled, is, with other incidents, the basis +of the ballad. Colonel Elliot says that the incident +“is no proof that a Captain of Bewcastle was not also taken +or killed at some other place or at some other time.” +But <i>what</i> Captain, and when? Sir Simon, in 1586, had +been Captain, he says, for thirty years. Thenceforth till +near the Union of the Crowns, Thomas was Captain, or acting +Captain.</p> +<p>So considerable an event as the taking of a Captain of +Bewcastle, who, in the ballad, was shot through the head and +elsewhere, could not escape record in dispatches, and the +periodical “March Bills,” or statements of wrongs to +be redressed. Colonel Elliot’s reply takes the shape +of the argument that the ballad may speak of some other Captain, +at some other time; and that, in one way or another, the +sufferings and losses of <i>that</i> Captain may have escaped +mention in the English dispatches from the Border. These +dispatches are full of minute details, down to the theft of a +single mare. I am content to let historians familiar with +the dispatches decide as to whether the Captain’s mad ride +into Ettrick, with his dangerous wounds, loss of property, and +loss of seventeen men killed and wounded (as in the ballad), +could escape mention.</p> +<p>The capture of Thomas Musgrave, I think, and two other +incidents,—confused in course of tradition, and handled by +the poet with poetic freedom,—are the materials of <i>Jamie +Telfer</i>. One of the other incidents is of April 1597. <a +name="citation107a"></a><a href="#footnote107a" +class="citation">[107a]</a> Here Buccleuch in person, on +the Sabbath, burned twenty houses in Tynedale, and “slew +fourteen men who had been in Scotland and brought away their +booty.” Here we have Buccleuch “on the hot +trod,” pursuing English reivers, recovering the spoils +probably, and slaying as many of the raiders as the Captain lost, +in the ballad. Again, not a <i>son</i> of Elliot of +Preakinhaugh (as I had erroneously said), but a <i>nephew</i> +named Martin, was slain in a Tynedale raid into Liddesdale. <a +name="citation108a"></a><a href="#footnote108a" +class="citation">[108a]</a> Soldiers aided the English +raiders. A confused memory of this death of Elliot’s +nephew in 1597 may be the source of the story of the death of his +son, Simmy, in the ballad.</p> +<p>Our traditional ballads all arise out of some germs of +history, all handle the facts romantically, and all appear to +have been composed, in their extant shapes, at a considerable +time after the events. I may cite <i>Mary Hamilton</i>; +<i>The Laird of Logie</i> is another case in point; there are +many others.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot does not agree with me. So be it.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot writes that,—in place of my saying that +<i>Jamie Telfer</i> “is a mere mythical perversion of +carefully recorded facts,”—“it would surely be +more correct to say that it is a fairly true, though jumbled, +account of actual incidents, separated from each other by only +short periods of time . . . ” <a name="citation108b"></a><a +href="#footnote108b" class="citation">[108b]</a> If he +means, or thinks that I mean, that the actual facts were the +capture of Musgrave near Bewcastle in 1596 by the Armstrongs, +with Buccleuch’s hot-trod, and Martin Elliot’s +slaying in 1597, I entirely agree with him that the facts are +“jumbled.” But as to the opinion that the +ballad is “fairly true” about the raid to Ettrick +(the Captain could not ride a mile beyond the Border without the +Warden’s permission), about the non-existent Jamie Telfer, +about the shooting, taking, and plundering of the Captain, about +his loss of seventeen men wounded and slain (he lost about as +many prisoners),—I have given reasons for my disbelief.</p> +<h3>VI<br /> +IS THE SCOTT VERSION, WITH ELLIOTS AND SCOTTS TRANSPOSED, THE +LATER VERSION?</h3> +<p>We now come to the important question, Is the Scott version of +the ballad (apart from Sir Walter’s decorative stanzas) +necessarily <i>later</i> than the Elliot version in +Sharpe’s copy? The chief argument for the lateness of +the Scott version, the presence of a Gilbert Elliot of Stobs at a +date when this gentleman had not yet acquired Stobs, I have +already treated. If the ballad is no earlier than the date +when Elliot was believed (as by Satchells) to have obtained Stobs +before 1596, the argument falls to the ground.</p> +<p>Starting from that point, and granting that a minstrel fond of +the Scotts wants to banter the Elliots, he may make Telfer ask +aid at Stobs. After that, which version is better in its +topography? Bidden by Stobs to seek Buccleuch, Telfer runs +to Teviot, to Coultartcleugh, some four miles above +Branksome. Branksome was nearer, but Telfer was shy, let us +say, and did not know Buccleuch; while at Coultartcleugh, Jock +Grieve was his brother-in-law. Jock gives him a mount, and +takes him to “Catslockhill.”</p> +<p>Now, no Catslockhill is known anywhere, to me or to Colonel +Elliot. Mr. Henderson, in a note to the ballad, <a +name="citation110a"></a><a href="#footnote110a" +class="citation">[110a]</a> speaks of “Catslack in +Branxholm,” and cites the <i>Register of the Privy Seal</i> +for 4th June 1554, and the <i>Register of the Privy Council</i> +for 14th October 1592. The records are full of <i>that</i> +Catslack, but it is not in Branksome. Blaeu’s map +(1600–54) gives it, with its appurtenances, on the north +side of St. Mary’s Loch. There is a Catslack on the +north side of Yarrow, near Ladhope, on the southern side. +Neither Catslack is the Catslockhill of the Scott ballad. +But on evidence, “and it is good evidence,” says +Colonel Elliot, <a name="citation110b"></a><a +href="#footnote110b" class="citation">[110b]</a> I prove that, in +1802, a place called “Catlochill” existed between +Coultartcleugh and Branksome. The place (Mrs. Grieve, +Branksome Park, informs me) is now called Branksome-braes. +On his copy of <i>The Minstrelsy</i> of 1802, Mr. Grieve, then +tenant of Branksome Park, made a marginal note. Catlochill +was still known to him; it was in a commanding site, and had been +strengthened by the art of man. His note I have seen and +read.</p> +<p>Thus, on good evidence, there was a Catlochill, or +Catlockhill, between Coultartcleugh and Branksome. The +Scott version is right in its topography.</p> +<p>This fact was unknown to Colonel Elliot. Not knowing a +Catslackhill or Catslockhill in Teviot, he made Scott’s +Telfer go to an apocryphal Catlockhill in Liddesdale. +Professor Veitch had said that the Catslockhill of the ballad +“<i>is to be sought</i>” in some locality between +Coultartcleugh and Branxholm. Colonel Elliot calls this +“a really preposterously cool suggestion.” <a +name="citation111a"></a><a href="#footnote111a" +class="citation">[111a]</a> Why “really +preposterously cool”? Being sought, the place is +found where it had always been. Jamie Telfer found it, and +in it his friend “William’s Wat,” who took him +to the laird of Buccleuch at Branksome.</p> +<p>In the Elliot version, when refused aid by Buccleuch, Jamie +ran to Coultartcleugh,—as in Scott’s,—on his +way to Martin Elliot at Preakinhaugh on the Liddel. Jamie +next “takes the fray” to “the +Catlockhill,” and is there remounted by +“Martin’s Hab,” an Elliot (not by +William’s Wat), and <i>they</i> “take the fray” +to Martin Elliot at Preakinhaugh in Liddesdale. This is +very well, but where <i>is</i> this “Catlockhill” in +Liddesdale? Is it even a real place?</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot has found no such place; nor can I find it in +the <i>Registrum Magni Sigilli</i>, nor in Blaeu’s map of +1600–54.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot’s argument has been that the Elliot +version, the version of the Sharpe MS., is the earlier, for, +among other reasons, its topography is correct. <a +name="citation112a"></a><a href="#footnote112a" +class="citation">[112a]</a> It makes Telfer run from +Dodhead to Branksome for aid, because that was the comparatively +near residence of the powerful Buccleuch. Told by Buccleuch +to seek aid from Martin Elliot in Liddesdale, Telfer does +so. He runs up Teviot four miles to his brother-in-law, +Jock Grieve, who mounts him. He then rides off at a right +angle, from Teviot to Catlockhill, says the Elliot ballad, where +he is rehorsed by Martin’s Hab. The pair then take +the fray to Martin Elliot at Preakinhaugh on Liddel water, and +Martin summons and leads the pursuers of the Captain.</p> +<p>This, to Colonel Elliot’s mind, is all plain sailing, +all is feasible and natural. And so it <i>is</i> feasible +and natural, if Colonel Elliot can find a Catlockhill anywhere +between Coultartcleugh and Preakinhaugh. On that line, in +Mr. Veitch’s words, Catlockhill “is to be +sought.” But just as Mr. Veitch could find no +Catslockhill between Coultartcleugh and Branksome, so Colonel +Elliot can find no Catlockhill between Coultartcleugh and +Preakinhaugh. He tells us <a name="citation112b"></a><a +href="#footnote112b" class="citation">[112b]</a> indeed of +“Catlockhill on Hermitage water.” But there is +no such place known! Colonel Elliot’s method is to +take a place which, he says, is given as “Catlie” +Hill, “between Dinlay burn and Hermitage water, on +Blaeu’s map of 1654.” We may murmur that Catlie +Hill is one thing and Catlock another, but Colonel Elliot points +out that “lock” means “the meeting of +waters,” and that Catlie Hill is near the meeting of Dinlay +burn and the Hermitage water. But then why does Blaeu call +it, not Catlockhill, nor Catlie hill, nor “Catlie” +even, but “<i>Gatlie</i>,” for so it is distinctly +printed on my copy of the map? Really we cannot take a +place called “Gatlie Hill” and pronounce that we have +found “Catlockhill”! Would Colonel Elliot have +permitted Mr. Veitch—if Mr. Veitch had found “Gatlie +Hill” near Branksome, in Blaeu—to aver that he had +found Catslockhill near Branksome?</p> +<p>Thus, till Colonel Elliot produces on good evidence a +Catlockhill between Coultartcleugh and Preakinhaugh, the +topography of the Elliot ballad, of the Sharpe copy of the +ballad, is nowhere, for neither Catliehill nor Gatliehill is +Catlockhill. That does not look as if the Elliot were older +than the Scott version. (There was a Sim <i>Armstrong</i> +of the <i>Cathill</i>, slain by a Ridley of Hartswell in 1597. <a +name="citation113a"></a><a href="#footnote113a" +class="citation">[113a]</a>)</p> +<p>We now take the Scott version where Telfer has arrived at +Branksome. Scott’s stanza xxv. is Sharpe’s +xxiv. In Scott, Buccleuch; in Sharpe, Martin Elliot bids +his men “warn the waterside” (Sharpe), “warn +the water braid and wide” (Scott). Scott’s +stanza xxvi. is probably his own, or may be, for he bids them +warn Wat o’ Harden, Borthwick water, and the Teviot Scotts, +and Gilmanscleuch—which is remote. Then, in xxvii., +Buccleuch says—</p> +<blockquote><p>Ride by the gate of Priesthaughswire,<br /> + And warn the Currors o’ the Lee,<br /> +As ye come down the Hermitage slack<br /> + Warn doughty Wiliie o’ Gorrinberry.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>All this is plain sailing, by the pass of Priesthaughswire the +Scotts will ride from Teviot into Hermitage water, and, near the +Slack, they will pass Gorrinberry, will call Will, and gallop +down Hermitage water to the Liddel, where they will nick the +returning Captain at the Ritterford.</p> +<p>The Sharpe version makes Martin order the warning of the +waterside (xxiv.), and then Martin says (xxv.)—</p> +<blockquote><p>When ye come in at the Hermitage Slack,<br /> +Warn doughty Will o’ Gorranherry.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Colonel Elliot <a name="citation114a"></a><a +href="#footnote114a" class="citation">[114a]</a> supposes Martin +(if I follow his meaning) to send Simmy with his command, <i>back +over all the course that Telfer and Martin’s Hab have +already ridden</i>: back past Shaws, near Braidley (a house of +Martin’s), past “Catlockhill,” to Gorranberry, +to “warn the waterside.” But surely Telfer, who +passed Gorranberry gates, and with Hab passed the other places, +had “taken the fray,” and warned the water quite +sufficiently already. If this be granted, the Sharpe +version is taking from the Scott version the stanza, so natural +there, about the Hermitage Slack and Gorranberry. But +Colonel Elliot infers, from stanzas xxvi., xxx., xxxi., that +Simmy has warned the water as far as Gorranberry (<i>again</i>), +has come in touch with the Captain, “between the Frostily +and the Ritterford,” and that this is “consistent +only with his having moved up the Hermitage water.”</p> +<p>Meanwhile Martin, he thinks, rode with his men down Liddel +water. But here we get into a maze of topographical +conjecture, including the hypothesis that perhaps the Liddel came +down in flood, and caused the English to make for Kershope ford +instead of Ritterford, and here they were met by Martin’s +men on the Hermitage line of advance. I cannot find this +elegant combined movement in the ballad; all this seems to me +hypothesis upon hypothesis, even granting that Martin sent Simmy +back up Hermitage that he might thence cut sooner across the +enemy’s path. Colonel Elliot himself writes: +“It is certain that after the news of the raid reached +Catlockhill” (<i>and</i> Gorranberry, Telfer passed it), +“it must have spread rapidly through Hermitage water, and +it is most unlikely for the men of this district to have delayed +taking action until they received instructions from their +chief.” <a name="citation115"></a><a href="#footnote115" +class="citation">[115]</a></p> +<p>That is exactly what I say; but Martin says, “When ye +come in at the Hermitage Slack, warn doughty Will o’ +Gorranberry.” Why go to warn him, when, as Colonel +Elliot says, the news is running through Hermitage water, and the +men are most probably acting on it,—as they certainly would +do?</p> +<p>Martin’s orders, in Sharpe xxv., are taken, I think, +from Buccleuch’s, in Scott’s xxvii.</p> +<p>The point is that Martin had no need to warn men so far away +as Gorranberry,—they were roused already. Yet he +orders them to be warned, and about a combined movement of Martin +and Simmy on different lines the ballad says not a word. +All this is inference merely, inference not from historical +facts, but from what may be guessed to have been in the mind of +the poet.</p> +<p>Thus the Elliot or Sharpe version has topography that will not +hold water, while the Scott topography does hold water; and the +Elliot song seems to borrow the lines on the Hermitage Slack and +Gorranberry from a form of the Scott version. This being +the case, the original version on which Scott worked is earlier +than the Elliot version. In the Scott version the rescuers +must come down the Hermitage Slack: in the Elliot they have no +reason for riding <i>back</i> to that place.</p> +<h3>VII<br /> +SCOTT HAD A COPY OF THE BALLAD WHICH WAS NOT THE SHARPE COPY</h3> +<p>Did Scott know no other version than that of the Sharpe +MS.? In Scott’s version, stanza xlix., the last, is +absent from the Elliot version, which concludes triumphantly, +thus—</p> +<blockquote><p>Now on they came to the fair Dodhead,<br /> + They were a welcome sight to see,<br /> +And instead of his ain ten milk-kye<br /> + Jamie Telfer’s gotten thirty and three.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Scott too gives this, but ends with a verse not in +Sharpe—</p> +<blockquote><p>And he has paid the rescue shot<br /> + Baith wi’ goud and white money,<br /> +And at the burial o’ Willie Scott<br /> + I wat was mony a weeping ee.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Did Scott add this? Proof is impossible; but the verse +is so prosaic, and so injurious to the triumphant preceding +verse, that I think Scott found it in his copy: in which case he +had another copy than Sharpe’s.</p> +<p>Scott (stanza xviii.) reads “Catslockhill” where +the Sharpe MS. reads “Catlockhill.” In +Scott’s time it was a mound, but the name was then known to +Mr. Grieve, the tenant of Branksome Park. To-day I cannot +find the mound; is it likely that Scott, before making the +change, sought diligently for the mound and its name? If +so, he found “<i>Catlochill</i>,” for so Mr. Grieve +writes it, not Catslockhill.</p> +<p>Meanwhile Colonel Elliot, we know, has no Catlockhill where he +wants it; he has only Gatliehill, unless his Blaeu varies from my +copy, and Gatliehill is not Catlockhill.</p> +<p>Scott gives (xlviii.) the speech of the Captain after he is +shot through the head and in another dangerous part of his +frame—</p> +<blockquote><p>“Hae back thy kye!” the Captain +said,<br /> + “Dear kye, I trow, to some they be,<br /> +For gin I suld live a hundred years,<br /> + There will ne’er fair lady smile on +me.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>This is not in Sharpe’s MS., and I attribute this +redundant stanza to Scott’s copy. The Captain, +remember, has a shot “through his head,” and another +which must have caused excruciating torture. In these +circumstances would a poet like Scott put in his mouth a speech +which merely reiterates the previous verse? No! But +the verse was in Scott’s copy.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot has himself noted a more important point than +these: he quotes Scott’s stanza xii., which is absent from +the Sharpe MS.—</p> +<blockquote><p>My hounds may a’ rin masterless,<br /> + My hawks may fly frae tree to tree,<br /> +My lord may grip my vassal lands,<br /> + For there again maun I never be!</p> +</blockquote> +<p>“They are, doubtless, beautiful lines, but their very +beauty jars like a false note. One feels they were written +by another hand, by an artist of a higher stamp than a Border +‘ballad-maker.’ And not only is it their beauty +that jars, but so also does their inapplicability to Jamie Telfer +and to the circumstances in which he found himself—so much +so, indeed, that it may well occur to one that the stanza belongs +to some other ballad, and has accidentally been pitchforked into +this one. It would not have been out of place in the ballad +of <i>The Battle of Otterbourne</i>, and, indeed, it bears some +resemblance to a stanza in that ballad.” Here the +Colonel says that the lines “one feels were written by +another hand, by an artist of a higher stamp than a Border +ballad-maker.” But “it may also occur to one +that the stanza belongs to some other ballad, and has +<i>accidentally</i>” (my italics) “been pitchforked +into this”: a very sound inference.</p> +<p>Now if Scott had only the Sharpe version, he was the last man +to “pitchfork” into it, “accidentally,” a +stanza from “some other ballad,” that stanza being as +Colonel Elliot says “inapplicable” to Telfer and his +circumstances. Poor Jamie, a small tenant-farmer, with ten +cows, and, as far as we learn, not one horse, had no hawks and +hounds; no “vassal lands,” and no reason to say that +at the Dodhead he “maun never be again.” He +could return from his long run! Scott certainly did not +compose these lines; and he could not have pitchforked them into +<i>Jamie Telfer</i>, either by accident or design.</p> +<p>Professor Child remarked on all this: “Stanza xii. is +not only found elsewhere (compare <i>Young Beichan</i>, E vi.), +but could not be more inappropriately brought in than here; +Scott, however, is not responsible for that.” <a +name="citation120a"></a><a href="#footnote120a" +class="citation">[120a]</a></p> +<blockquote><p>The hawk that flies from tree to tree</p> +</blockquote> +<p>is a formula; it comes in the Kinloch MS. copy of the ballad +of <i>Jamie Douglas</i>, date about 1690.</p> +<p>I know no proof that Scott was acquainted with variant E of +<i>Young Beichan</i>. <a name="citation120b"></a><a +href="#footnote120b" class="citation">[120b]</a> If he had +been, he could not have introduced into <i>Jamie Telfer</i> lines +so utterly out of keeping with Telfer’s circumstances, as +Colonel Elliot himself says that stanza xii. is. It may be +argued, “if Scott <i>did</i> find stanza xii. in his copy, +it was in his power to cut it out; he treated his copies as he +pleased.” This is true, but my position is that, of +the two, Scott is more likely to have let the stanza abide where +he found it (as he did with his MS. of <i>Tamlane</i>, retaining +its absurdities) in his copy, than to “pitchfork it +in,” from an obscure variant of <i>Young Beichan</i>, which +we cannot prove that he had ever heard or read. But as we +can never tell that Scott did <i>not</i> know any rhyme, we ask, +why did he “pitchfork in” the stanza, where it was +quite out of place? Child absolves him from this +absurdity.</p> +<p>Thus Scott had before him another than the Sharpe copy; had a +copy containing stanza xii. That copy presented the +perversion—the transposition of Scott’s and +Elliot’s—and into that copy Scott wrote the stanzas +which bear his modern romantic mark. Colonel Elliot, we +saw, is uncertain whether to attribute stanza xii. to +“another hand, an artist of higher stamp than a Border +ballad-maker,” or to regard it as belonging “to some +other ballad,” and as having been “accidentally +pitchforked into this one.” The stanza is, in fact, +an old floating ballad stanza, attracted into the <i>cantefable +of Susie Pye</i>, and the ballad of <i>Young Beichan</i> (E), and +partly into <i>Jamie Douglas</i>. Thus Scott did not +<i>make</i> the stanza, and we cannot suppose that, if he knew +the stanza in any form, he either “accidentally +pitchforked” or wilfully inserted into <i>Jamie Telfer</i> +anything so absurdly inappropriate. The inference is that +Scott worked on another copy, not the Sharpe copy.</p> +<p>If Scott had not a copy other than Sharpe’s, why should +he alter Sharpe’s (vii.)</p> +<blockquote><p>The moon was up and the sun was down,</p> +</blockquote> +<p>into</p> +<blockquote><p>The sun wasna up but the moon was down?</p> +</blockquote> +<p>What did he gain by that? <i>Why did he make Jamie</i> +“<i>of</i>” <i>not</i> “<i>in</i>” <i>the +Dodhead</i>, <i>if he found</i> “<i>in</i>” <i>in his +copy</i>? “In” means “tenant in,” +“of” means “laird of,” as nobody knew +better than Scott. Jamie is evidently no laird, but +“of” was in Scott’s copy.</p> +<p>If the question were about two Greek texts, the learned would +admit that these points in A (Scott) are not derived from B +(Sharpe). Scott’s additions have an obvious motive, +they add picturesqueness to his clan. But the differences +which I have noticed do nothing of that kind. When they +affect the poetry they spoil the poetry, when they do not affect +the poetry they are quite motiveless, whence I conclude that +Scott followed his copy in these cases, and that his copy was not +the Sharpe MS.</p> +<p>If I have satisfied the reader on that point I need not touch +on Colonel Elliot’s long and intricate argument to prove, +or suggest, that Scott had before him no copy of the ballad +except one supposed by the Colonel to have been taken by James +Hogg from his mother’s recitation, while that copy, again, +is supposed to be the Sharpe MS.—all sheer conjecture. <a +name="citation122a"></a><a href="#footnote122a" +class="citation">[122a]</a> Not that I fear to encounter +Colonel Elliot on this ground, but argufying on it is dull, and +apt to be inconclusive.</p> +<p>In the letter of Hogg to Scott (June 30, 1803) as given by Mr. +Douglas in <i>Familiar Letters</i>, Hogg says, “I am +surprised to find that the songs in your collection differ so +widely from my mother’s . . . <i>Jamie Telfer</i> differs +in many particulars.” <a name="citation123a"></a><a +href="#footnote123a" class="citation">[123a]</a> The marks +of omission were all filled up in Hogg’s MS. letter thus: +“Is Mr. Herd’s MS. genuine? I suspect +it.” Then it runs on, “<i>Jamie Telfer</i> +differs in many particulars.”</p> +<p>I owe this information to the kindness of Mr. Macmath. +What does Hogg mean? Does “Is Mr. Herd’s MS. +genuine?” mean all Herd’s MS. copies used by +Scott? Or does it refer to <i>Jamie Telfer</i> in +especial?</p> +<p>Mr. Macmath, who possesses C. K. Sharpe’s MS. copy of +the Elliot version, believes that it is Herd’s hand as +affected by age. Mr. Macmath and I independently reached +the conclusion that by “Mr. Herd’s MS.” Hogg +meant all Herd’s MSS., which Scott quoted in <i>The +Minstrelsy</i> of 1803. Their readings varied from Mrs. +Hogg’s; therefore Hogg misdoubted them. He adds that +<i>Jamie Telfer</i> differs from his mother’s version, +without meaning that, for <i>Jamie</i>, Scott used a Herd MS.</p> +<h3><span class="smcap">Conclusion</span></h3> +<p>I have now proved, I hope, that the ballad of <i>Jamie +Telfer</i> is entirely mythical except for a few suggestions +derived from historical events of 1596–97. I have +shown, and Colonel Elliot agrees, that refusal of aid by +Buccleuch (or by Elliot of Stobs) is impossible, and that the +ballad, if it existed without this incident, must have been a +Scott, and could not be an Elliot ballad. No farmer in +Ettrick would pay protection-money to an Elliot on Liddel, while +he had a Scott at Branksome. I have also disproved the +existence of a <i>Jamie Telfer</i> as farmer at “Dodhead or +Dodbank” in the late sixteenth century.</p> +<p>As to the character of Sir Walter Scott, I have proved, I +hope, that he worked on a copy of the ballad which was not the +Elliot version, or the Sharpe copy; so that this copy may have +represented the Scotts as taking the leading part; while for the +reasons given, it is apparently earlier than the Elliot +version—cannot, at least, be proved to be later—and +is topographically the more correct of the two. I have +given antique examples of the same sort of perversions in +<i>Otterburn</i>. If I am right, Colonel Elliot’s +charge against Scott lacks its base—that Scott knew none +but the Sharpe copy, whence it is inferred that he not only +decorated the song (as is undeniable), but perverted it in a way +far from sportsmanlike.</p> +<p>I may have shaken Colonel Elliot’s belief in the +historicity of the ballad. His suspicions of Scott I cannot +hope to remove, and they are very natural suspicions, due to +Scott’s method of editing ballads and habit of +“giving them a cocked hat and a sword,” as he did to +stories which he heard; and repeated, much improved.</p> +<p>Absolute proof that Scott did, or did not, pervert the ballad, +and turn a false Elliot into a false Scott version, cannot be +obtained unless new documents bearing on the matter are +discovered.</p> +<p>But, I repeat, as may be read in the chapter on <i>The Ballad +of Otterburne</i>, such inversions and perversions of ballads +occurred freely in the sixteenth century, and, in the +seventeenth, the process may have been applied to <i>Jamie +Telfer</i>. <a name="citation125a"></a><a href="#footnote125a" +class="citation">[125a]</a></p> +<h2><a name="page126"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +126</span>KINMONT WILLIE</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">If</span> there be, in <i>The Border +Minstrelsy</i>, a ballad which is still popular, or, at least, is +still not forgotten, it is <i>Kinmont Willie</i>. This hero +was an Armstrong, and one of the most active of that unbridled +clan. He was taken prisoner, contrary to Border law, on a +day of “Warden’s Truce,” by Salkeld of Corby on +the Eden, deputy of Lord Scrope, the English Warden; and, despite +the written remonstrances of Buccleuch, he was shut up in +Carlisle Castle. Diplomacy failing, Buccleuch resorted to +force, and, by a sudden and daring march, he surprised Carlisle +Castle, rescued Willie, and returned to Branksome. The date +of the rescue is 13th April 1596. The dispatches of the +period are full of this event, and of the subsequent +negotiations, with which we are not concerned.</p> +<p>The ballad is worthy of the cool yet romantic gallantry of the +achievement. Kinmont Willie was a ruffian, but he had been +unlawfully seized. This was one of many studied insults +passed by Elizabeth’s officials on Scotland at that time, +when the English Government, leagued with the furious pulpiteers +of the Kirk, and with Francis Stewart, the wild Earl of Bothwell, +was persecuting and personally affronting James VI.</p> +<p>In Buccleuch, the Warden of the March, England insulted the +man who was least likely to pocket a wrong. Without causing +the loss of an English life, Buccleuch repaid the affront, +recovered the prisoner, broke the strong Castle of Carlisle, made +Scrope ridiculous and Elizabeth frantic.</p> +<p>In addition to <i>Kinmont Willie</i> there survive two other +ballads on rescues of prisoners in similar circumstances. +One is <i>Jock o’ the Side</i>, of which there is an +English version in the Percy MSS., <i>John a Side</i>. +Scott’s version, in <i>The Border Minstrelsy</i>, is from +Caw’s <i>Museum</i>, published at Hawick in 1784. +Scott leaves out Caw’s last stanza about a +punch-bowl. There are other variations. Four +Armstrongs break into Newcastle Tower. Jock, heavily +ironed, is carried downstairs on the back of one of them; they +ride a river in spait, where the English dare not follow.</p> +<p><i>Archie o’ Cafield</i>, another rescue, Scott printed +in 1802 from a MS. of Mr. Riddell of Glenriddell, a great +collector, the friend of Burns. He omitted six stanzas, and +“made many editorial improvements, besides Scotticising the +spelling.” In the edition published after his death +(1833) he “has been enabled to add several stanzas from +recitation.” Leyden appears to have collected the +copy whence the additional stanzas came; the MS., at Abbotsford, +is in his hand. In this ballad the Halls, noted +freebooters, rescue Archie o’ Cafield from prison in +Dumfries. As in <i>Jock o’ the Side</i> and +<i>Kinmont Willie</i>, they speak to their friend, asking how he +sleeps; they carry him downstairs, irons and all, and, as in the +two other ballads, they are pursued, cross a flooded river, +banter the English, and then, in a version in the Percy MSS., +“communicated to Percy by Miss Fisher, 1780,” the +English lieutenant says—</p> +<blockquote><p>I think some witch has bore thee, Dicky,<br /> + Or some devil in hell been thy daddy.<br /> +I would not swam that wan water, double-horsed,<br /> + For a’ the gold in Christenty.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Manifestly here was a form of Lord Scrope’s reply to +Buccleuch, in the last stanza of <i>Kinmont Willie</i>—</p> +<blockquote><p>He is either himself a devil frae hell,<br /> + Or else his mother a witch may be,<br /> +I wadna hae ridden that wan water<br /> + For a’ the gowd in Christentie.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Scott writes, in a preface to <i>Archie o’ Cafield</i> +and <i>Jock o’ the Side</i>, that there are, with +<i>Kinmont Willie</i>, three ballads of rescues, “the +incidents in which nearly resemble each other; though the +poetical description is so different, that the editor did not +feel himself at liberty to reject any one of them, as borrowed +from the others. As, however, there are several verses, +which, in recitation, are common to all these three songs, the +editor, to prevent unnecessary and disagreeable repetition, has +used the freedom of appropriating them to that in which they have +the best poetical effect.” <a name="citation129a"></a><a +href="#footnote129a" class="citation">[129a]</a></p> +<p>Consequently the verse quoted from the Percy MS. of <i>Archie +o’ Cafield</i> may be improved and placed in the lips of +Lord Scrope, in <i>Kinmont Willie</i>. But there is no +evidence that Scott ever saw or even heard of this Percy MS., and +probably he got the verse from recitation.</p> +<p>Now the affair of the rescue of Kinmont Willie was much more +important and resonant than the two other rescues, and was +certain to give rise to a ballad, which would contain much the +same formulæ as the other two. The ballad-maker, like +Homer, always uses a formula if he can find one. But +<i>Kinmont Willie</i> is so much superior to the two others, so +epic in its speed and concentration of incidents, that the +question rises, had Scott even fragments of an original ballad of +the Kinmont, “much mangled by reciters,” as he +admits, or did he compose the whole? No MS. copies exist at +Abbotsford. There is only one hint. In a list of +twenty-two ballads, pasted into a commonplace book, eleven are +marked X (as if he had obtained them), and eleven others are +unmarked, as if they were still to seek. Unmarked is +<i>Kinmount Willie</i>.</p> +<p>Did he find it, or did he make it all?</p> +<p>In 1888, in a note to <i>Kinmont Willie</i>, I wrote: +“There is a prose account very like the ballad in Scott of +Satchells’ <i>History of the Name of Scott</i>” +(1688). Satchells’ long-winded story is partly in +unrhymed and unmetrical lines, partly in rhymes of various +metres. The man, born in 1613, was old, had passed his life +as a soldier; certainly could not write, possibly could not +read.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot “believes that Sir Walter wrote the whole +from beginning to end, and that it is, in fact, a clever and +extremely beautiful paraphrase of Satchells’ rhymes.” +<a name="citation130a"></a><a href="#footnote130a" +class="citation">[130a]</a></p> +<p>This thorough scepticism is not a novelty, as Colonel Elliot +quotes me I had written years ago, “In <i>Kinmont +Willie</i>, Scott has been suspected of making the whole +ballad.” I did not, as the Colonel says, +“mention the names of the sceptics or the grounds of their +suspicions.” “The sceptics,” or one of +them, was myself: I had “suspected” on much the same +grounds as Colonel Elliot’s own, and I shall give my +reasons for adopting a more conservative opinion. One +reason is merely subjective. As a man, by long familiarity +with ancient works of art, Greek gems, for example, acquires a +sense of their authenticity, or the reverse, so he does in the +case of ballads—or thinks he does—but of course this +result of experience is no ground of argument: experts are often +gulled. The ballad varies in many points from +Satchells’, which Colonel Elliot explains thus: “I +think that the cause for the narrative at times diverging from +that recorded by the rhymes (of Satchells), is due, partly to +artistic considerations, partly to the author having wished to +bring it more or less into conformity with history.” <a +name="citation131a"></a><a href="#footnote131a" +class="citation">[131a]</a></p> +<p>Colonel Elliot quotes Scott’s preface to the ballad: +“In many things Satchells agrees with the ballads current +in his time” (1643–88), “from which in all +probability he derived most of his information as to past events, +and from which he occasionally pirates whole verses, as we +noticed in the annotations upon the <i>Raid of the +Reidswire</i>. In the present instance he mentions the +prisoner’s large spurs (alluding to fetters), and some +other little incidents noticed in the ballad, which therefore was +probably well known in his day.”</p> +<p>As Satchells was born in 1613, while the rescue of <i>Kinmont +Willie</i> by Buccleuch, out of Carlisle Castle, was in 1596, and +as Satchells’ father was in that adventure (or so Satchells +says) he probably knew much about the affair from fresh +tradition. Colonel Elliot notices this, and says: +“The probability of Satchells having obtained information +from a hypothetical ballad is really quite an inadmissible +argument.”</p> +<p>This comes near to begging the question. As contemporary +incidents much less striking and famous than the rescue of +<i>Kinmont Willie</i> were certainly recorded in ballads, the +opinion that there was a ballad of <i>Kinmont Willie</i> is a +legitimate hypothesis, which must be tested on its merits. +For example, we shall ask, Does Satchells’ version yield +any traces of ballad sources?</p> +<p>My own opinion has been anticipated by Mr. Frank Miller in his +<i>The Poets of Dumfriesshire</i> (p. 33, 1910), and in +ballad-lore Mr. Miller is well equipped. He says: +“The balance of probability seems to be in favour of the +originality of <i>Kinmont Willie</i>,” rather than of +Satchells (he means, not of our <i>Kinmont Willie</i> as Scott +gives it, but of a ballad concerning the Kinmont). +“Captain Walter Scott’s” (of Satchells) +“<i>True History</i> was certainly gathered out of the +ballads current in his day, as well as out of formal histories, +and his account of the assault on the Castle reads like a +narrative largely due to suggestions from some popular +lay.”</p> +<p>Does Satchells’ version, then, show traces of a memory +of such a lay? Undoubtedly it does.</p> +<p>Satchells’ prolix narrative occasionally drops or rises +into ballad lines, as in the opening about Kinmont +Willie—</p> +<blockquote><p>It fell about the Martinmas<br /> +When kine was in the prime</p> +</blockquote> +<p>that Willie “brought a prey out of +Northumberland.” The old ballad, disregarding dates, +may well have opened with this common formula. Lord Scrope +vowed vengence:—</p> +<blockquote><p>Took Kinmont the self-same night.</p> +<p>If he had had but ten men more,<br /> + That had been as stout as he,<br /> +Lord Scroup had not the Kinmont ta’en<br /> + With all his company.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Scott’s ballad (stanza i.) says that “fause +Sakelde” and Scrope took Willie (as in fact Salkeld of +Corby <i>did</i>), and</p> +<blockquote><p>Had Willie had but twenty men,<br /> + But twenty men as stout as he,<br /> +Fause Sakelde had never the Kinmont ta’en,<br /> + Wi’ eight score in his cumpanie.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Manifestly either Satchells is here “pirating” a +verse of a ballad (as Scott holds) or Scott, if he had <i>no</i> +ballad fragments before him, is “pirating” a verse +from Satchells, as Colonel Elliot must suppose.</p> +<p>In my opinion, Satchells had a memory of a Kinmont ballad +beginning like <i>Jamie Telfer</i>, “It fell about the +Martinmas tyde,” or, like <i>Otterburn</i>, “It fell +about the Lammas tide,” and he opened with this formula, +broke away from it, and came back to the ballad in the stanza, +“If he had had but ten men more,” which differs but +slightly from stanza ii. of Scott’s ballad. That this +is so, and that, later, Satchells is again reminiscent of a +ballad, is no improbable opinion.</p> +<p>In the ballad (iii.–viii.) we learn how Willie is +brought a prisoner across Liddel to Carlisle; we have his +altercation with Lord Scrope, and the arrival of the news at +Branksome, where Buccleuch is at table. Satchells also +gives the altercation. In both versions Willie promises to +“take his leave” of Scrope before he quits the +Castle.</p> +<p>In Scott’s ballad (Scrope speaks) (stanza vi.).</p> +<blockquote><p>Before ye cross my castle yate,<br /> +I trow ye shall take fareweel o’ me.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Willie replies—</p> +<blockquote><p>I never yet lodged in a hostelrie,<br /> +But I paid my lawing before I gaed.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>In Satchells, Lord Scrope says—</p> +<blockquote><p>“Before thou goest away thou must<br /> + Even take thy leave of me?”<br /> +“By the cross of my sword,” says Willie then,<br /> + “I’ll take my leave of thee.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Now, had Scott been pirating Satchells, I think he would have +kept “By the cross of my sword,” which is picturesque +and probable, Willie being no good Presbyterian. In +<i>Otterburne</i>, Scott, <i>altering Hogg’s copy</i>, +makes Douglas swear “By the might of Our Ladye.”</p> +<p>It is a question of opinion; but I do think that if Scott were +merely paraphrasing and pirating Satchells, he could not have +helped putting into his version the Catholic, “‘By +the cross of my sword,’ then Willy said,” as given by +Satchells. To do this was safe, as Scott had said that +Satchells does pirate ballads. On the other hand, +Satchells, composing in black 1688, when Catholicism had been +stamped out on the <i>Scottish Border</i>, was not apt to invent +“By the cross of my sword.” It <i>looks</i> +like Scott’s work, for he, of course, knew how Catholicism +lingered among the spears of Bothwell, himself a Catholic, in +1596. But it is <i>not</i> Scott’s work, it is in +Satchells. In both Satchells and the ballad, news comes to +Buccleuch. Here Satchells again balladises—</p> +<blockquote><p>“It is that way?” Buckcleugh did +say;<br /> + “Lord Scrope must understand<br /> +That he has not only done me wrong<br /> + But my Sovereign, James of Scotland.</p> +<p>“My Sovereign Lord, King of Scotland,<br /> + Thinks not his cousin Queen,<br /> +Will offer to invade his land<br /> + Without leave asked and gi’en.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>I do not see how Satchells could either invent or glean from +tradition the gist of Buccleuch’s diplomatic remonstrances, +first with Salkeld, for Scrope was absent at the time of +Willie’s capture, then with Scrope. Buccleuch, in +fact, wrote that the taking of Willie was “to the touch of +the King,” a stain on his honour, says a contemporary +manuscript. <a name="citation135a"></a><a href="#footnote135a" +class="citation">[135a]</a></p> +<p>In a <i>contemporary</i> ballad, a kind of rhymed news-sheet, +the facts would be known and reported. But at this point +(at Buccleuch’s reception of the news of Kinmont), Scott is +perhaps overmastered by his opportunity, and, I think, himself +composes stanzas ix., x., xi., xii.</p> +<blockquote><p>O is my basnet a widow’s curch?<br /> +Or my lance a wand o’ the willow tree?</p> +</blockquote> +<p>and so on. Child and Mr. Henderson are of the same +opinion; but it is only sense of style that guides us in such a +matter, nor can I give other grounds for supposing that the +original ballad appears again in stanza xiii.</p> +<blockquote><p>O were there war between the lands,<br /> + As well I wot that there is none,<br /> +I would slight Carlisle castle high,<br /> + Tho’ it were built o’ marble stone!</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Thence, I think, the original ballad (doubtless made +“harmonious,” as Hogg put it) ran into stanza xxxi., +where Scott probably introduced the Elliot tune (if it be +ancient)—</p> +<blockquote><p>O wha dare meddle wi’ me?</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Satchells next, through a hundred and forty lines, describes +Buccleuch’s correspondence with Scrope, his counsels with +his clansmen, and gives all their names and estates, with remarks +on their relationships. He thinks himself a historian and a +genealogist. The stuff is partly in prose lines, partly in +rhymed couplets of various lengths. There are two or three +more or less ballad-like stanzas at the beginning, but they are +too bad for any author but Satchells.</p> +<p>Scott’s ballad “cuts” all that, omits even +what Satchells gives—mentions of Harden, and goes on +(xv.)—</p> +<blockquote><p>He has called him forty marchmen bauld,<br /> + I trow they were of his own name.<br /> +Except Sir Gilbert Elliot called<br /> + The Laird of Stubs, I mean the same.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Now I would stake a large sum that Sir Walter never wrote that +“stall-copy” stanza! Colonel Elliot replies +that I have said the ballad-faker should avoid being too +poetical. The ballad-faker <i>should</i> shun being too +poetical, as he would shun kippered sturgeon; but Scott did not +know this, nor did Hogg. We can always track them by their +too decorative, too literary interpolations. On this I lay +much stress.</p> +<p>The ballad next gives (xvi.–xxv.) the spirited stanzas +on the ride to the Border—</p> +<blockquote><p>There were five and five before them a’,<br +/> + Wi’ hunting horns and bugles bright;<br /> +And five and five came wi’ Buccleuch,<br /> + Like Warden’s men arrayed for fight.</p> +<p>And five and five like a mason gang,<br /> + That carried the ladders lang and hie;<br /> +And five and five like broken men,<br /> + And so they reached the Woodhouselee.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>—a house in Scotland, within “a lang mile” +of Netherby, in England, the seat of the Grahams, who were +partial, for private reasons, to the Scottish cause. They +were at deadly feud with Thomas Musgrave, Captain of Bewcastle, +and Willie had married a Graham.</p> +<p>Now in my opinion, up to stanza xxvi., all the evasive answers +given to Salkeld by each gang, till Dicky o’ Dryhope (a +real person) replies with a spear-thrust—</p> +<blockquote><p>“For never a word o’ lear had +he,”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>are not an invention of Scott’s (who knew that Salkeld +was not met and slain), but a fantasy of the original +ballad. Here I have only familiarity with the romantic +perversion of facts that marks all ballads on historical themes +to guide me.</p> +<p>Salkeld is met—</p> +<blockquote><p>“As we crossed the Batable land,<br /> +When to the English side we held.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>The ballad does not specify the crossing of Esk, nor say that +Salkeld was on the English side; nor is there any blunder in the +reply of the “mason gang”—</p> +<blockquote><p>“We gang to harry a corbie’s nest,<br +/> +That wons not far frae Woodhouselee.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Whether on English or Scottish soil the masons say not, and +their pretence is derisive, bitterly ironical.</p> +<p>Colonel Elliot makes much of the absence of mention of the +Esk, and says “it is <i>after</i> they are in England that +the false reports are spread.” <a +name="citation139a"></a><a href="#footnote139a" +class="citation">[139a]</a> But the ballad does not say +so—read it! All passes with judicious vagueness.</p> +<blockquote><p>“As we crossed the Batable land,<br /> +When to the English side we held.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Satchells knows that the ladders were made at Woodhouselee; it +took till nightfall to finish them. The ballad, swift and +poetical, takes the ladders for granted—as a matter of +fact, chronicled in the dispatches, the Grahams of Netherby +harboured Buccleuch: Netherby was his base.</p> +<p>“I could nought have done that matter without great +friendship of the Grames of Eske,” wrote Buccleuch, in a +letter which Scrope intercepted. <a name="citation139b"></a><a +href="#footnote139b" class="citation">[139b]</a></p> +<p>In Satchells, Buccleuch leaves half his men at the +“Stonish bank” (Staneshaw bank) “<i>for fear +they had made noise or din</i>.” An old soldier +should have known better, and the ballad (his probable +half-remembered source here) <i>does</i> know better—</p> +<blockquote><p>“And there the laird garr’d leave our +<i>steeds</i>,<br /> + For fear that they should stamp and nie,”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>and alarm the castle garrison. Each man of the post on +the ford would hold two horses, and also keep the ford open for +the retreat of the advanced party. The ballad gives the +probable version; Satchells, when offering as a reason for +leaving half the force, lest they should make “noise or +din,” is maundering. Colonel Elliot does not seem to +perceive this obvious fact, though he does perceive +Buccleuch’s motive for dividing his force, +“presumably with the object of protecting his line of +retreat,” and also to keep the horses out of earshot, as +the ballad says. <a name="citation140a"></a><a +href="#footnote140a" class="citation">[140a]</a></p> +<p>In Satchells the river is “in no great +rage.” In the ballad it is “great and meikle +o’ spait.” And it really was so. The MS. +already cited, which Scott had not seen when he published the +song, says that Buccleuch arrived at the “Stoniebank +beneath Carleile brig, the water being at the tyme, through +raines that had fallen, weill thick.”</p> +<p>In Scott’s <i>original</i> this river, he says, was the +Esk, in Satchells it is the Eden, and Scott says he made this +necessary correction in the ballad. In Satchells the +storming party</p> +<blockquote><p>Broke a sheet of leid on the castle top.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>In the ballad they</p> +<blockquote><p>Cut a hole through a sheet o’ lead.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Both stories are erroneous; the ladders were too short; the +rescuers broke into a postern door. Scrope told this to his +Government on the day after the deed, 14th April. <a +name="citation140b"></a><a href="#footnote140b" +class="citation">[140b]</a></p> +<p>In xxxi. the ballad makes Buccleuch sound trumpets when the +castle-roof was scaled; in fact it was not scaled. The +ladders were too short, and the Scots broke in a postern +door. The Warden’s trumpet blew “O wha dare +meddle wi’ me,” and here, as has been said, I think +Scott is the author. Here Colonel Elliot enters into +learning about “Wha dare meddle wi’ me?” a +“Liddesdale tune,” and in the poem an adaptation, by +Scott, of Satchells’ “the trumpets sounded +‘Come if ye dare.’”</p> +<p>Satchells makes the trumpets sound when the rescuers bring +Kinmont Willie to the castle-top on the ladder (which they did +not), and again when the rescuers reach the ground by the +ladder. They made no use at all of the ladders, which were +too short, and Willie, says the ballad, lay “in the +<i>lower</i> prison.” They came in and went out by a +door; but the trumpets are not apocryphal. They, and the +shortness of the ladders, are mentioned in a MS. quoted by Scott, +and in Birrell’s contemporary <i>Diary</i>, i. p. 57. +In the MS. Buccleuch causes the trumpets to be sounded from +below, by a detachment “in the plain field,” securing +the retreat. His motive is to encourage his party, +“and to terrify both castle and town by imagination of a +greater force.” Buccleuch again “sounds up his +trumpet before taking the river,” in the MS. Colonel Elliot +may claim stanza xxxi. for Scott, and also the tune “Wha +dare meddle wi’ me?” he may even claim here a +suggestion from Satchells’ “Come if ye +dare.” Colonel Elliot says that no tune of this title +ever existed, a thing not easy to prove. <a +name="citation142a"></a><a href="#footnote142a" +class="citation">[142a]</a></p> +<p>In the conclusion, with differences, there are resemblances in +the ballad and Satchells. Colonel Elliot goes into them +very minutely. For example, he says that Kinmont is +“made to ride off; not on horseback, but on Red +Rowan’s back!”</p> +<p>The ballad says not a word to that effect. +Kinmont’s speech about Red Rowan as “a rough +beast” to ride, is made immediately after the stanza,</p> +<blockquote><p>“Then shoulder high, with shout and cry,<br +/> + We bore him down the ladder lang;<br /> +At every stride Red Rowan made,<br /> + I wot the Kinmont’s airns played clang.” +<a name="citation142b"></a><a href="#footnote142b" +class="citation">[142b]</a></p> +</blockquote> +<p>After this verse Kinmont makes his speech +(xl.–xli.). But if he <i>did</i> ride on Red +Rowan’s back to Staneshaw bank, it was the best thing that +a heavily ironed man could do. In the ballad (xxvii.) no +horses of the party were waiting at the castle, <i>all</i> horses +were left behind at Staneshaw bank (Satchells brings horses, or +at least a horse for Willie, to the castle). On what could +Willie “ride off,” except on Red Rowan? <a +name="citation142c"></a><a href="#footnote142c" +class="citation">[142c]</a></p> +<p>Stanzas xxxv., xxxvi. and xliv. are related, we have seen, to +passages in <i>Jock o’ the Side</i> and <i>Archie o’ +Cafield</i>, but ballads, like Homer, employ the same +formulæ to describe the same circumstances: a note of +archaism, as in Gaelic poetic passages in +<i>Märchen</i>.</p> +<p>I do not pretend always to know how far Scott kept and emended +old stanzas mangled by reciters: there are places in which I am +quite at a loss to tell whether he is “making” or +copying.</p> +<p>I incline to hold that Satchells was occasionally reminiscent +of a ballad for the reasons and traces given, and I think that +Scott when his and Satchells’ versions coincide, did not +borrow direct from Satchells, but that both men had a ballad +source.</p> +<p>That ballad was later than the popular belief, held by +Satchells, that Gilbert Elliot was at the time (1596) laird of +Stobs, which he did not acquire till after the Union (1603), and +that he (the only man not a Scot, says Satchells, wrongly) rode +with Buccleuch. Elliot is not accused of doing so in +Scrope’s dispatches, but he may have come as far as +Staneshaw bank, where half the company were left behind, says +Satchells, with the horses, which were also left, says the +ballad. In that case Elliot would not be observed in or +near the Castle. Yet it may have been known in Scotland +that he was of the party.</p> +<p>He was, as Satchells says, a cousin, he was also a friend of +Buccleuch’s, and he may conceivably have taken a part in +this glorious adventure, though he could not, <i>at the +moment</i>, be called laird of Stobs. Were I an Elliot, +this opinion would be welcome to me! Really, Salkeld was in +a good position to know whether Elliot rode with Buccleuch or +not.</p> +<p>The whole question is not one on which I can speak +dogmatically. A person who suspects Scott intensely may +believe that there were no ballad fragments of Kinmont in his +possession. The person who, like myself, thinks Satchells, +with his “It fell about the Martinmas,” knew a ballad +vaguely, believes that Satchells <i>had</i> some ballad sources +bemuddled in his old memory.</p> +<p>A person who cannot conceive that Scott wrote</p> +<blockquote><p>Except Sir Gilbert Elliot, called<br /> + The laird of Stobs, I mean the same,</p> +</blockquote> +<p>will hold that Scott knew some ballad fragments, <i>disjecta +membra</i>. But I quite agree with Colonel Elliot, that the +ballad, <i>as it stands</i> (with the exception, to my mind, of +some thirty stanzas, themselves emended), “belongs to the +early nineteenth century, not to the early +seventeenth.” The time for supposing the poem, <i>as +it stands</i>, to be “saturated with the folk-spirit” +all through is past; the poem is far too much contaminated by the +genius of Scott itself; like Burns’ transfiguration of +“the folk-spirit” at its best.</p> +<p>Near the beginning of this paper I said, in answer to a +question of Colonel Elliot’s, that I myself was the person +who had suspected Scott of composing the whole of <i>Kinmont +Willie</i>, and I have given my reasons for not remaining +constant to my suspicions. But in a work which Colonel +Elliot quotes, the abridged edition of Child’s great book +by Mrs. Child-Sargent and Professor Kittredge (1905), the learned +professor writes, “<i>Kinmont Willie</i> is under vehement +suspicion of being the work of Sir Walter Scott.” Mr. +Kittredge’s entire passage on the matter is worth +quoting. He first says—“The traditional ballad +appears to be inimitable by any person of literary +cultivation,” “the efforts of poets and +poetasters” end in “invariable failure.”</p> +<p>I do not think that they need end in failure except for one +reason. The poet or poetaster cannot, now, except by flat +lying and laborious forgery of old papers, produce any +documentary evidence to prove the <i>authenticity</i> of his +attempt at imitation. Without documentary evidence of +antiquity, no critic can approach the imitation except in a +spirit of determined scepticism. He knows, certainly, that +the ballad is modern, and, knowing that, he easily finds proofs +of modernism even where they do not really exist. I am +convinced that to imitate a ballad that would, except for the +lack of documentary evidence, beguile the expert, is perfectly +feasible. I even venture to offer examples of my own +manufacture at the close of this volume. I can find nothing +suspicious in them, except the deliberate insertion of +formulæ which occur in genuine ballads. Such +<i>wiederholungen</i> are not reasons for rejection, in my +opinion; but they are <i>suspect</i> with people who do not +understand that they are a natural and necessary feature of +archaic poetry, and this fact Mr. Kittredge does understand.</p> +<p>Mr. Kittredge speaks of Sir Walter’s unique success with +<i>Kinmont Willie</i>; but is Sir Walter successful? Some +of his stanzas I, for one, can hardly accept, even as emended +traditional verses.</p> +<p>Mr. Kittredge writes—“Sir Walter’s success, +however, in a special kind of balladry for which he was better +adapted by nature and habit of mind than for any other, would +only emphasise the universal failure. And it must not be +forgotten that <i>Kinmont Willie</i>, if it be Scott’s +work, is not made out of whole cloth; it is a working over of one +of the best traditional ballads known (<i>Jock o’ the +Side</i>), with the intention of fitting it to an historical +exploit of Buccleuch. Further, the subject itself was of +such a nature that it might well have been celebrated in a +ballad,—indeed, one is tempted to say, it must have been so +celebrated.”</p> +<p>Not a doubt of <i>that</i>!</p> +<p>“And, finally, Sir Walter Scott felt towards ‘the +Kinmont’ and ‘the bold Buccleuch’ precisely as +the moss-trooping author of such a ballad would have felt. +For once, then, the miraculous happened. . . . ” <a +name="citation146a"></a><a href="#footnote146a" +class="citation">[146a]</a> Or did not happen, for the +exception is “solitary though doubtful,” and +“under vehement suspicion.” But Mr. Kittredge +must remember that no known Scottish ballad “is made out of +whole cloth.” All have, in various degrees, the +successive modifications wrought by centuries of oral tradition, +itself, in some cases, modifying a much modified printed +“stall-copy” or “broadside.”</p> +<p>Take <i>Jock o’ the Side</i>. The oldest version +is in the Percy MS. <a name="citation147a"></a><a +href="#footnote147a" class="citation">[147a]</a> As Mr. +Henderson says, “it contains many evident +corruptions,”</p> +<blockquote><p>“Jock on his lively bay, Wat’s on his +white horse behind.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>There is an example of what the original author could not have +written!</p> +<p>We do not know how good <i>Jock</i> was when he left his +poet’s hands; and Scott has not touched him up. We +cannot estimate the original excellence of any traditional poem +by the state in which we find it,</p> +<blockquote><p>Corrupt by every beggar-man,<br /> +And soiled by all ignoble use.</p> +</blockquote> +<h2><a name="page148"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +148</span>CONCLUSIONS</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">We</span> have now examined critically the +four essentially <i>Border</i> ballads which Sir Walter is +suspected of having “edited” in an unrighteous +manner. Now he helps to forge, and issues <i>Auld +Maitland</i>. Now he, or somebody, makes up +<i>Otterburne</i>, “partly of stanzas from Percy’s +<i>Reliques</i>, which have undergone emendations calculated to +disguise the source from which they came, partly of stanzas of +modern fabrication, and partly of a few stanzas and lines from +Herd’s version.” <a name="citation148a"></a><a +href="#footnote148a" class="citation">[148a]</a> Thirdly, +Scott, it is suggested, knew only what I call “the Elliot +version” of <i>Jamie Telfer</i>, perverted that by +transposing the <i>rôles</i> of Buccleuch and Stobs, and +added picturesque stanzas in glorification of his ancestor, Wat +of Harden. Fourthly, he is suspected of “writing the +whole ballad” of <i>Kinmont Willie</i>, “from +beginning to end.”</p> +<p>Of these four charges the first, and most disastrous, we have +absolutely disproved. Scott did not write one verse of the +<i>Auld Maitland</i>; he edited it with unusual scrupulosity, for +he had but one copy, and an almost identical recitation. He +could not “eke and alter” by adding verses from other +texts, as he did in <i>Otterburne</i>.</p> +<p>Secondly, Scott did not make up <i>Otterburne</i> in the way +suggested by his critic. He took Hogg’s MS., and I +have shown minutely what that MS. was, and he edited it in +accordance with his professed principles. He made “a +standard text.” It is only to be regretted that Hogg +did not take down <i>verbatim</i> the words of his two reciters +and narrators, and that Scott did not publish Hogg’s +version, with his letter, in his notes; but that was not his +method, nor the method of his contemporaries.</p> +<p>Thirdly, as to <i>Jamie Telfer</i>, long ago I wrote, +opposite</p> +<blockquote><p>“The lyart locks of Harden’s +hair,”</p> +</blockquote> +<p><i>aut Jacobus aut Diabolus</i>, meaning that either James +Hogg or the devil composed that stanza. I was wrong. +Hogg had nothing to do with it; on internal evidence Scott was +the maker. But that he transposed the Scott and Elliot +<i>rôles</i> is incapable of proof; and I have shown that +such perversions were made in very early times, where national, +not clan prejudices were concerned. I have also shown that +Scott’s version contains matter not in the Elliot version, +matter injurious to the poem, as in one stanza, certainly not +composed by himself, the stanza being an inappropriate stray +formula from other ballads. But, in the absence of +manuscript materials I can only produce presumptions, not +proofs.</p> +<p>Lastly, <i>Kinmont Willie</i>, and Scott’s share in it, +is matter of presumption, not of proof. He had been in +quest of the ballad, as we know from his list of +<i>desiderata</i>; he says that what he got was +“mangled” by reciters, and that, in what he got, one +river was mentioned where topography requires another. He +also admits that, in the three ballads of rescues, he placed +passages where they had most poetical appropriateness. My +arguments to show that Satchells had memory of a Kinmont ballad +will doubtless appeal with more or less success, or with none, to +different students. That an indefinite quantity of the +ballad, and improvements on the rest, are Scott’s, I cannot +doubt, from evidence of style.</p> +<p>“Sir Walter Scott it is impossible to assail, however +much the scholarly conscience may disapprove,” says Mr. +Kittredge. <a name="citation150a"></a><a href="#footnote150a" +class="citation">[150a]</a> Not much is to be taken by +assailing him! “Business first, pleasure +afterwards,” as, according to Sam Weller, Richard III. +said, when he killed Henry VI. before smothering the princes in +the Tower. I proceed to pleasure in the way of presenting +imitations of “the traditional ballad” which +“appears to be inimitable by any person of literary +cultivation,” according to Mr. Kittredge.</p> +<h3><span class="smcap">Imitations of Ballads</span></h3> +<p>The three following ballads are exhibited in connection with +Mr. Kittredge’s opinion that neither poet nor poetaster can +imitate, to-day, the traditional ballad. Of course, not one +of my three could now take in an expert, for he would ask for +documentary evidence of their antiquity. But I doubt if Mr. +Kittredge can find any points in my three imitations which +infallibly betray their modernity.</p> +<p>The first, <i>Simmy o’ Whythaugh</i>, is based on facts +in the Border despatches. Historically the attempt to +escape from York Castle failed; after the prisoners had got out +they were recaptured.</p> +<p>The second ballad, <i>The Young Ruthven</i>, gives the +traditional view of the slaying of the Ruthvens in their own +house in Perth, on 5th August 1600.</p> +<p>The third, <i>The Dead Man’s Dance</i>, combines the +horror of the ballads of <i>Lizzy Wan</i> and <i>The Bonny +Hind</i>, with that of the Romaic ballad, in English, <i>The +Suffolk Miracle</i> (Child, No. 272).</p> +<h4>I—SIMMY O’ WHYTHAUGH</h4> +<p class="poetry">O, will ye hear o’ the Bishop o’ +York,<br /> + O, will ye hear o’ the Armstrongs true,<br /> +How they hae broken the Bishop’s castle,<br /> + And carried himsel’ to the bauld +Buccleuch?</p> +<p class="poetry">They were but four o’ the Lariston +kin,<br /> + They were but four o’ the Armstrong name,<br +/> +Wi’ stout Sim Armstrong to lead the band,<br /> + The Laird o’ Whythaugh, I mean the same.</p> +<p class="poetry">They had done nae man an injury,<br /> + They had na robbed, they had na slain,<br /> +In pledge were they laid for the Border peace,<br /> + In the Bishop’s castle to dree their pain.</p> +<p class="poetry">The Bishop he was a crafty carle,<br /> + He has ta’en their red and their white +monie,<br /> +But the muddy water was a’ their drink,<br /> + And dry was the bread their meat maun be.</p> +<p class="poetry">“Wi’ a ged o’ airn,” +did Simmy say,<br /> + “And ilka man wi’ a horse to ride,<br /> +We aucht wad break the Bishop’s castle,<br /> + And carry himsel’ to the Liddel side.</p> +<p class="poetry">“The banks o’ Whythaugh I sall na +see,<br /> + I never sall look upon wife and bairn;<br /> +I wad pawn my saul for my gude mear, Jean,<br /> + I wad pawn my saul for a ged o’ +airn.”</p> +<p class="poetry">There was ane that brocht them their water and +bread;<br /> + His gude sire, he was a kindly Scot,<br /> +Says “Your errand I’ll rin to the Laird o’ +Cessford,<br /> + If ye’ll swear to pay me the rescue +shot.”</p> +<p class="poetry">Then Simmy has gi’en him his seal and +ring,<br /> + To the Laird o’ Cessford has ridden +he—<br /> +I trow when Sir Robert had heard his word<br /> + The tear it stood in Sir Robert’s +e’e.</p> +<p class="poetry">“And sall they starve him, Simmy o’ +Whythaugh,<br /> + And sall his bed be the rotten strae?<br /> +I trow I’ll spare neither life nor gear,<br /> + Or ever I live to see that day!</p> +<p class="poetry">“Gar bring up my horses,” Sir +Robert he said,<br /> + “I bid ye bring them by three and three,<br /> +And ane by ane at St. George’s close,<br /> + At York gate gather your companie.”</p> +<p class="poetry">Oh, some rade like corn-cadger men,<br /> + And some like merchants o’ linen and hose;<br +/> +They slept by day and they rade by nicht,<br /> + Till they a’ convened at St. George’s +close.</p> +<p class="poetry">Ilka mounted man led a bridded mear,<br /> + I trow they had won on the English way;<br /> +Ilka belted man had a brace o’ swords,<br /> + To help their friends to fend the fray.</p> +<p class="poetry">Then Simmy he heard a hoolet cry<br /> + In the chamber strang wi’ never a licht;<br /> +“That’s a hoolet, I ken,” did Simmy say,<br /> + “And I trow that Teviotdale’s here the +nicht!”</p> +<p class="poetry">They hae grippit a bench was clamped wi’ +steel,<br /> + Wi’ micht and main hae they wrought, they +four,<br /> +They hae burst it free, and rammed wi’ the bench,<br /> + Till they brake a hole in the chamber door.</p> +<p class="poetry">“Lift strae frae the beds,” did +Simmy say;<br /> + To the gallery window Simmy sped,<br /> +He has set his strength to a window bar,<br /> + And bursten it out o’ the binding lead.</p> +<p class="poetry">He has bursten the bolts o’ the Elliot +men,<br /> + Out ower the window the strae cast he,<br /> +For they bid to loup frae the window high,<br /> + And licht on the strae their fa’ would be.</p> +<p class="poetry">To the Bishop’s chamber Simmy ran;<br /> + “Oh, sleep ye saft, my Lord!” says +he;<br /> +“Fu’ weary am I o’ your bread and water,<br /> + Ye’se hae wine and meat when ye dine wi’ +me.”</p> +<p class="poetry">He has lifted the loon across his shoulder;<br +/> + “We maun leave the hoose by the readiest +way!”<br /> +He has cast him doon frae the window high,<br /> + And a’ to hansel the new fa’n strae!</p> +<p class="poetry">Then twa by twa the Elliots louped,<br /> + The Armstrongs louped by twa and twa.<br /> +“I trow, if we licht on the auld fat Bishop,<br /> + That nane the harder will be the +fa’!”</p> +<p class="poetry">They rade by nicht and they slept by day;<br /> + I wot they rade by an unkenned track;<br /> +“The Bishop was licht as a flea,” said Sim,<br /> + “Or ever we cam’ to the Liddel +rack.”</p> +<p class="poetry">Then “Welcome, my Lord,” did Simmy +say,<br /> + “We’ll win to Whythaugh afore we +dine,<br /> +We hae drunk o’ your cauld and ate o’ your dry,<br /> + But ye’ll taste o’ our Liddesdale beef +and wine.”</p> +<h4>II—THE YOUNG RUTHVEN</h4> +<p class="poetry">The King has gi’en the Queen a gift,<br +/> + For her May-day’s propine,<br /> +He’s gi’en her a band o’ the diamond-stane,<br +/> + Set in the siller fine.</p> +<p class="poetry">The Queen she walked in Falkland yaird,<br /> + Beside the hollans green,<br /> +And there she saw the bonniest man<br /> + That ever her eyes had seen.</p> +<p class="poetry">His coat was the Ruthven white and red,<br /> + Sae sound asleep was he<br /> +The Queen she cried on May Beatrix,<br /> + That bonny lad to see.</p> +<p class="poetry">“Oh! wha sleeps here, May Beatnix,<br /> + Without the leave o’ me?”<br /> +“Oh! wha suld it be but my young brother<br /> + Frae Padua ower the sea!</p> +<p class="poetry">“My father was the Earl Gowrie,<br /> + An Earl o’ high degree,<br /> +But they hae slain him by fause treason,<br /> + And gar’d my brothers flee.</p> +<p class="poetry">“At Padua hae they learned their leir<br +/> + In the fields o’ Italie;<br /> +And they hae crossed the saut sea-faem.<br /> + And a’ for love o’ me!”</p> +<p style="text-align: center" class="poetry">* * * *</p> +<p class="poetry">The Queen has cuist her siller band<br /> + About his craig o’ snaw;<br /> +But still he slept and naething kenned,<br /> + Aneth the hollans shaw.</p> +<p class="poetry">The King was walking thro’ the yaird,<br +/> + He saw the siller shine;<br /> +“And wha,” quo’ he, “is this galliard<br +/> + That wears yon gift o’ mine?”</p> +<p class="poetry">The King has gane till the Queen’s ain +bower,<br /> + An angry man that day;<br /> +But bye there cam’ May Beatrix<br /> + And stole the band away.</p> +<p class="poetry">And she’s run in by the little black +yett,<br /> + Straight till the Queen ran she:<br /> +“Oh! tak ye back your siller band,<br /> + On it gar my brother dee!”</p> +<p class="poetry">The Queen has linked her siller band<br /> + About her middle sma’;<br /> +And then she heard her ain gudeman<br /> + Come sounding through the ha’.</p> +<p class="poetry">“Oh! whare,” he cried, “is +the siller band<br /> + I gied ye late yestreen?<br /> +The knops was a’ o’ the diamond-stane,<br /> + Set in the siller sheen.”</p> +<p class="poetry">“Ye hae camped birling at the wine,<br /> + A’ nicht till the day did daw;<br /> +Or ye wad ken your siller band<br /> + About my middle sma’!”</p> +<p class="poetry">The King he stude, the King he glowered,<br /> + Sae hard as a man micht stare:<br /> +“Deil hae me! Like is a richt ill mark,—<br /> + Or I saw it itherwhere!</p> +<p class="poetry">“I saw it round young Ruthven’s +neck<br /> + As he lay sleeping still;<br /> +And, faith, but the wine was wondrous guid,<br /> + Or my wife is wondrous ill!”</p> +<p class="poetry">There was na gane a week, a week,<br /> + A week but barely three;<br /> +The King has hounded John Ramsay out,<br /> + To gar young Ruthven dee!</p> +<p class="poetry">They took him in his brother’s house,<br +/> + Nae sword was in his hand,<br /> +And they hae slain him, young Ruthven,<br /> + The bonniest in the land!</p> +<p class="poetry">And they hae slain his fair brother,<br /> + And laid him on the green,<br /> +And a’ for a band o’ the siller fine<br /> + And a blink o’ the eye o’ the Queen!</p> +<p class="poetry">Oh! had they set him man to man,<br /> + Or even ae man to three,<br /> +There was na a knight o’ the Ramsay bluid<br /> + Had gar’d Earl Gowrie dee!</p> +<h4>III—THE DEAD MAN’S DANCE</h4> +<p class="poetry">“The dance is in the castle ha’,<br +/> + And wha will dance wi’ me?”<br /> +“There’s never a man o’ living men,<br /> + Will dance the nicht wi’ thee!”</p> +<p class="poetry">Then Margaret’s gane within her bower,<br +/> + Put ashes on her hair,<br /> +And ashes on her bonny breast<br /> + And on hen shoulders bare.</p> +<p class="poetry">There cam’ a knock to her bower-door,<br +/> + And blythe she let him in;<br /> +It was her brother frae the wars,<br /> + She lo’ed abune her kin.</p> +<p class="poetry">“Oh, Willie, is the battle won?<br /> + Or are you fled?” said she,<br /> +“This nicht the field was won and lost,<br /> + A’ in a far countrie.</p> +<p class="poetry">“This nicht the field was lost and +won,<br /> + A’ in a far countrie,<br /> +And here am I within your bower,<br /> + For nane will dance with thee.”</p> +<p class="poetry">“Put gold upon your head, Margaret,<br /> + Put gold upon your hair,<br /> +And gold upon your girdle-band,<br /> + And on your breast so fair!”</p> +<p class="poetry">“Nay, nae gold for my breast, Willie,<br +/> + Nay, nae gold for my hair,<br /> +It’s ashes o’ oak and dust o’ earth,<br /> + That you and I maun wear!</p> +<p class="poetry">“I canna dance, I mauna dance,<br /> + I daurna dance with thee.<br /> +To dance atween the quick and the deid,<br /> + Is nae good companie.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center" class="poetry">* * *</p> +<p class="poetry">The fire it took upon her cheek,<br /> + It took upon her chin,<br /> +Nae Mass was sung, nor bells was rung,<br /> + For they twa died in deidly sin.</p> +<h2>FOOTNOTES</h2> +<p><a name="footnote0a"></a><a href="#citation0a" +class="footnote">[0a]</a> Child, part vi. p. 513.</p> +<p><a name="footnote0b"></a><a href="#citation0b" +class="footnote">[0b]</a> Child, part x. p. 294.</p> +<p><a name="footnote1a"></a><a href="#citation1a" +class="footnote">[1a]</a> Hogg to Scott, 30th June 1802, +given later in full.</p> +<p><a name="footnote2a"></a><a href="#citation2a" +class="footnote">[2a]</a> See <i>De Origine</i>, +<i>Moribus</i>, <i>et Rebus Gestis Scotorum</i>, p. 60 +(1578).</p> +<p><a name="footnote4a"></a><a href="#citation4a" +class="footnote">[4a]</a> Lockhart, vol. ii. p. 60 +(1839).</p> +<p><a name="footnote8a"></a><a href="#citation8a" +class="footnote">[8a]</a> Lockhart, vol. ii. pp. +130–135 (1839).</p> +<p><a name="footnote10a"></a><a href="#citation10a" +class="footnote">[10a]</a> <i>Minstrelsy</i>, iii. +186–198.</p> +<p><a name="footnote15a"></a><a href="#citation15a" +class="footnote">[15a]</a> Child, part ix., 187.</p> +<p><a name="footnote17a"></a><a href="#citation17a" +class="footnote">[17a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +184.</p> +<p><a name="footnote18a"></a><a href="#citation18a" +class="footnote">[18a]</a> Child, vol. i. p. xxx.</p> +<p><a name="footnote19a"></a><a href="#citation19a" +class="footnote">[19a]</a> <i>Minstrelsy</i>, 2nd edition, +vol iii. (1803).</p> +<p><a name="footnote19b"></a><a href="#citation19b" +class="footnote">[19b]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, pp. 247, +248.</p> +<p><a name="footnote21a"></a><a href="#citation21a" +class="footnote">[21a]</a> Carruthers, “Abbotsford +Notanda,” in R. Chambers’s <i>Life of Scott</i>, pp. +115–117 (1891).</p> +<p><a name="footnote21b"></a><a href="#citation21b" +class="footnote">[21b]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, <i>p.</i> 118.</p> +<p><a name="footnote23a"></a><a href="#citation23a" +class="footnote">[23a]</a> Carruthers, “Abbotsford +Notanda,” in R. Chambers’s <i>Life of Scott</i>, pp. +115–117 (1891).</p> +<p><a name="footnote23b"></a><a href="#citation23b" +class="footnote">[23b]</a> Lockhart, vol. ii. p. 99.</p> +<p><a name="footnote24a"></a><a href="#citation24a" +class="footnote">[24a]</a> Lockhart, <i>Life of Sir Walter +Scott</i>, <i>Bart.</i>, vol. ii. pp. 99, 100 (1829).</p> +<p><a name="footnote25"></a><a href="#citation25" +class="footnote">[25]</a> Ritson of 10th April 1802, in his +<i>Letters of Joseph Ritson</i>, <i>Esq.</i>, vol. ii. p. +218. Letter of 10th June 1802, <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 207. +Ritson returned the original manuscript of <i>Auld Maitland</i> +on 28th February 1803, <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 230.</p> +<p><a name="footnote26a"></a><a href="#citation26a" +class="footnote">[26a]</a> Carruthers, pp. 128, 131.</p> +<p><a name="footnote30a"></a><a href="#citation30a" +class="footnote">[30a]</a> <i>Sweet William’s +Ghost</i>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote31a"></a><a href="#citation31a" +class="footnote">[31a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, pp. 225, +226.</p> +<p><a name="footnote32a"></a><a href="#citation32a" +class="footnote">[32a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, pp. +227–234.</p> +<p><a name="footnote41a"></a><a href="#citation41a" +class="footnote">[41a]</a> <i>Minstrelsy</i>, vol. iii. pp. +307–310 (1833).</p> +<p><a name="footnote41b"></a><a href="#citation41b" +class="footnote">[41b]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, vol. iii. p. +314.</p> +<p><a name="footnote44a"></a><a href="#citation44a" +class="footnote">[44a]</a> <i>Publications of the Modern +Language Association of America</i>, xxi. 4, pp. +804–806.</p> +<p><a name="footnote47a"></a><a href="#citation47a" +class="footnote">[47a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +237.</p> +<p><a name="footnote47b"></a><a href="#citation47b" +class="footnote">[47b]</a> Carruthers, p. 128.</p> +<p><a name="footnote47c"></a><a href="#citation47c" +class="footnote">[47c]</a> Lockhart, vol. ii. pp. 67, 70, +71, 72, 74, 75, 79.</p> +<p><a name="footnote48a"></a><a href="#citation48a" +class="footnote">[48a]</a> Craig Brown, <i>History of +Selkirkshire</i>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote49a"></a><a href="#citation49a" +class="footnote">[49a]</a> Child, part ix. p. 185.</p> +<p><a name="footnote51a"></a><a href="#citation51a" +class="footnote">[51a]</a> Scott to Laidlaw, 21st January +1803; Carruthers, pp. 121, 122.</p> +<p><a name="footnote53a"></a><a href="#citation53a" +class="footnote">[53a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +45.</p> +<p><a name="footnote53b"></a><a href="#citation53b" +class="footnote">[53b]</a> Child, part viii. pp. +499–502.</p> +<p><a name="footnote53c"></a><a href="#citation53c" +class="footnote">[53c]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. 10, +where only two references to sources are given.</p> +<p><a name="footnote54a"></a><a href="#citation54a" +class="footnote">[54a]</a> Child, part vi. p. 292.</p> +<p><a name="footnote54b"></a><a href="#citation54b" +class="footnote">[54b]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, part ix. p. +243. Herd, 1776; also C. K. Sharpe’s MS.</p> +<p><a name="footnote59a"></a><a href="#citation59a" +class="footnote">[59a]</a> Bain, <i>Calendar</i>, vol. iv. +pp. 87–93.</p> +<p><a name="footnote62a"></a><a href="#citation62a" +class="footnote">[62a]</a> This is scarcely accurate. +Hogg, in fact, made up one copy, in two parts, from the +recitation of two old persons, as we shall see.</p> +<p><a name="footnote62b"></a><a href="#citation62b" +class="footnote">[62b]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, pp. +12–27.</p> +<p><a name="footnote63a"></a><a href="#citation63a" +class="footnote">[63a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +37.</p> +<p><a name="footnote67a"></a><a href="#citation67a" +class="footnote">[67a]</a> Scott to Laidlaw, Carruthers, p. +129.</p> +<p><a name="footnote69a"></a><a href="#citation69a" +class="footnote">[69a]</a> English version, +xi.–xv.</p> +<p><a name="footnote70a"></a><a href="#citation70a" +class="footnote">[70a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +58.</p> +<p><a name="footnote73a"></a><a href="#citation73a" +class="footnote">[73a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +31.</p> +<p><a name="footnote75a"></a><a href="#citation75a" +class="footnote">[75a]</a> Godscroft, ed. 1644, p. 100; +Child, part vi. p. 295.</p> +<p><a name="footnote79a"></a><a href="#citation79a" +class="footnote">[79a]</a> <i>The Hunting of the +Cheviot</i>, and Herd’s <i>Otterburn</i>.</p> +<p><a name="footnote83a"></a><a href="#citation83a" +class="footnote">[83a]</a> Herd, and <i>Complaynte of +Scotland</i>, 1549.</p> +<p><a name="footnote84a"></a><a href="#citation84a" +class="footnote">[84a]</a> Child, part ix. p. 244, stanza +xiii.</p> +<p><a name="footnote84b"></a><a href="#citation84b" +class="footnote">[84b]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +27.</p> +<p><a name="footnote89"></a><a href="#citation89" +class="footnote">[89]</a> <i>Further Essays on Border +Ballads</i>, p. 184. Andrew Elliot, 1910. To be +quoted as <i>F. E. B. B.</i> The other work on the subject +is Colonel Elliot’s <i>The Trustworthiness of the Border +Ballads</i>. Blackwoods, 1906.</p> +<p><a name="footnote91a"></a><a href="#citation91a" +class="footnote">[91a]</a> <i>F. E. B. B.</i>, <i>p.</i> +199.</p> +<p><a name="footnote91b"></a><a href="#citation91b" +class="footnote">[91b]</a> <i>F. E. B. B.</i>, <i>p.</i> +200.</p> +<p><a name="footnote93a"></a><a href="#citation93a" +class="footnote">[93a]</a> <i>Trustworthiness of the Border +Ballads</i>, p. vi.</p> +<p><a name="footnote95a"></a><a href="#citation95a" +class="footnote">[95a]</a> Satchells, pp. 13, 14. +Edition of 1892.</p> +<p><a name="footnote95b"></a><a href="#citation95b" +class="footnote">[95b]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 14.</p> +<p><a name="footnote95c"></a><a href="#citation95c" +class="footnote">[95c]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, part ii. pp. 35, +36.</p> +<p><a name="footnote97a"></a><a href="#citation97a" +class="footnote">[97a]</a> <i>F. E. B. B.</i>, p. 200.</p> +<p><a name="footnote98a"></a><a href="#citation98a" +class="footnote">[98a]</a> Child, <i>English and Scottish +Popular Ballads</i>, part viii. p. 518. He refers to +“Letters I. No. 44” in MS.</p> +<p><a name="footnote98b"></a><a href="#citation98b" +class="footnote">[98b]</a> See Sargent and +Kittredge’s reduced edition of Child, p. 467, 1905. +They publish this Elliot version only. The version has +modern spelling. On this version and its minor variations +from Scott’s, I say more later; Colonel Elliot gives no +critical examination of the variations which seem to me +essential.</p> +<p><a name="footnote99a"></a><a href="#citation99a" +class="footnote">[99a]</a> <i>F. E. B. B.</i>, p. 184.</p> +<p><a name="footnote101a"></a><a href="#citation101a" +class="footnote">[101a]</a> Robert Scott (the poet +Satchells’s father) “had Southinrigg for his +service” to Buccleuch, says Sir William Fraser, in his +<i>Memoirs of the House of Buccleuch</i>. (See Satchells, +1892, pp. vii., viii.) But the “fathers” of +Satchells “having dilapidate and engaged their Estate by +Cautionary,” poor Satchells was brought up as a cowherd, +till he went to the wars, and never learned to write, or even, it +seems, to read; as he says in the Dedication of his book to Lord +Yester.</p> +<p><a name="footnote102a"></a><a href="#citation102a" +class="footnote">[102a]</a> <i>The Trustworthiness of the +Border Ballads</i>, opp. p. 36.</p> +<p><a name="footnote103a"></a><a href="#citation103a" +class="footnote">[103a]</a> <i>Border Papers</i>, vol. i. +pp. 120–127.</p> +<p><a name="footnote104a"></a><a href="#citation104a" +class="footnote">[104a]</a> <i>Border Papers</i>, vol. i. +p. 106.</p> +<p><a name="footnote106a"></a><a href="#citation106a" +class="footnote">[106a]</a> Scrope, in <i>Border +Papers</i>, vol. ii. pp. 148–152.</p> +<p><a name="footnote106b"></a><a href="#citation106b" +class="footnote">[106b]</a> <i>Border Papers</i>, vol. ii. +p. 307, No. 606.</p> +<p><a name="footnote107a"></a><a href="#citation107a" +class="footnote">[107a]</a> <i>Border Papers</i>, vol. ii. +pp. 299–303</p> +<p><a name="footnote108a"></a><a href="#citation108a" +class="footnote">[108a]</a> <i>Border Papers</i>, vol. ii. +p. 356.</p> +<p><a name="footnote108b"></a><a href="#citation108b" +class="footnote">[108b]</a> <i>F. E. B. B.</i>, p. 161.</p> +<p><a name="footnote110a"></a><a href="#citation110a" +class="footnote">[110a]</a> See his <i>Border +Minstrelsy</i>, vol. ii. p. 15.</p> +<p><a name="footnote110b"></a><a href="#citation110b" +class="footnote">[110b]</a> <i>F. E. B. B.</i>, p. 156.</p> +<p><a name="footnote111a"></a><a href="#citation111a" +class="footnote">[111a]</a> <i>T. B. B.</i>, p. 14.</p> +<p><a name="footnote112a"></a><a href="#citation112a" +class="footnote">[112a]</a> <i>T. B. B.</i>, p. 12.</p> +<p><a name="footnote112b"></a><a href="#citation112b" +class="footnote">[112b]</a> <i>T. B. B.</i>, p. 12.</p> +<p><a name="footnote113a"></a><a href="#citation113a" +class="footnote">[113a]</a> <i>Memoirs of Robert Carey</i>, +p. 98, 1808.</p> +<p><a name="footnote114a"></a><a href="#citation114a" +class="footnote">[114a]</a> <i>T. B. B.</i>, pp. 19, +20.</p> +<p><a name="footnote115"></a><a href="#citation115" +class="footnote">[115]</a> <i>T. B. B.</i>, p. 20.</p> +<p><a name="footnote120a"></a><a href="#citation120a" +class="footnote">[120a]</a> Child, part vii. p. 5.</p> +<p><a name="footnote120b"></a><a href="#citation120b" +class="footnote">[120b]</a> Variant E is a patched-up thing +from five or six MS. sources and a printed “stall +copy.” Jamieson published it in 1817. +Motherwell had heard a <i>cantefable</i>, or version in alternate +prose and verse, which contained the stanza. It is not +identical with stanza xxxii. in Scott’s <i>Jamie +Telfer</i>, but runs thus—</p> +<blockquote><p>My hounds they all go masterless,<br /> +My hawks they fly from tree to tree,<br /> +My younger brother will heir my lands,<br /> +Fair England again I’ll never see.</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Child, part ii. p. 454 <i>et seqq.</i> The speaker is +young Beichan, a prisoner in the dungeon of a professor of the +Moslem faith.</p> +<p><a name="footnote122a"></a><a href="#citation122a" +class="footnote">[122a]</a> <i>F. E. B. B.</i>, pp. +179–185.</p> +<p><a name="footnote123a"></a><a href="#citation123a" +class="footnote">[123a]</a> Child, part viii. p. 518.</p> +<p><a name="footnote125a"></a><a href="#citation125a" +class="footnote">[125a]</a> Aytoun, in <i>The Ballads of +Scotland</i> (vol. i. p. 211), says that his copy of <i>Jamie +Telfer</i> “is almost <i>verbatim</i> the same as that +given in the <i>Border Minstrelsy</i>.” He does not +tell us where he got his copy; or why the Captain’s +bride’s speech (Sharpe, stanza xxxvi.) differs from the +version in Scott and Sharpe. He gives the stanza which +comes last in Scott’s copy, and is too bad and enfeebling +to be attributed to Scott’s pen. He omits the stanza +which has strayed in from other ballads,</p> +<blockquote><p>“My hounds may a’ rin +masterless.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>But as Aytoun confessedly rejected such inappropriate stanzas, +he may have found it in his copy and excised it.</p> +<p><a name="footnote129a"></a><a href="#citation129a" +class="footnote">[129a]</a> <i>Minstrelsy</i>, vol. iii. p. +76, 1803.</p> +<p><a name="footnote130a"></a><a href="#citation130a" +class="footnote">[130a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +112.</p> +<p><a name="footnote131a"></a><a href="#citation131a" +class="footnote">[131a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +112.</p> +<p><a name="footnote135a"></a><a href="#citation135a" +class="footnote">[135a]</a> In <i>Minstrelsy</i>, vol. ii. +p. 35 (1833).</p> +<p><a name="footnote139a"></a><a href="#citation139a" +class="footnote">[139a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +124.</p> +<p><a name="footnote139b"></a><a href="#citation139b" +class="footnote">[139b]</a> <i>Border Papers</i>, vol. ii. +p. 367.</p> +<p><a name="footnote140a"></a><a href="#citation140a" +class="footnote">[140a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, pp. 123, +124.</p> +<p><a name="footnote140b"></a><a href="#citation140b" +class="footnote">[140b]</a> <i>Border Papers</i>, vol. ii. +p. 121.</p> +<p><a name="footnote142a"></a><a href="#citation142a" +class="footnote">[142a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +125.</p> +<p><a name="footnote142b"></a><a href="#citation142b" +class="footnote">[142b]</a> Birrell’s <i>Diary</i> +vouches for the irons.</p> +<p><a name="footnote142c"></a><a href="#citation142c" +class="footnote">[142c]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +128.</p> +<p><a name="footnote146a"></a><a href="#citation146a" +class="footnote">[146a]</a> Sargent and Kittredge, pp. +xxix., xxx.</p> +<p><a name="footnote147a"></a><a href="#citation147a" +class="footnote">[147a]</a> Hales and Furnivall, ii. pp. +205–207.</p> +<p><a name="footnote148a"></a><a href="#citation148a" +class="footnote">[148a]</a> <i>Further Essays</i>, p. +45.</p> +<p><a name="footnote150a"></a><a href="#citation150a" +class="footnote">[150a]</a> <i>Ballads</i>, p. xxix.</p> +<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SIR WALTER SCOTT AND THE BORDER +MINSTRELSY***</p> +<pre> + + +***** This file should be named 4088-h.htm or 4088-h.zip****** + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/0/8/4088 + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will +be renamed. + +Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright +law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, +so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United +States without permission and without paying copyright +royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part +of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, +and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive +specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this +eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook +for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, +performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given +away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks +not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the +trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. + +START: FULL LICENSE + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full +Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at +www.gutenberg.org/license. + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or +destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your +possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a +Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound +by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the +person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph +1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this +agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the +Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection +of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual +works in the collection are in the public domain in the United +States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the +United States and you are located in the United States, we do not +claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, +displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as +all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope +that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting +free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm +works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the +Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily +comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the +same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when +you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are +in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, +check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this +agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, +distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any +other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no +representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any +country outside the United States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other +immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear +prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work +on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, +performed, viewed, copied or distributed: + + This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and + most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no + restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it + under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this + eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the + United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you + are located before using this ebook. + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is +derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not +contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the +copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in +the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are +redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply +either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or +obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any +additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms +will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works +posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the +beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including +any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access +to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format +other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official +version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site +(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense +to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means +of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain +Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the +full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +provided that + +* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed + to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has + agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid + within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are + legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty + payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project + Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in + Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg + Literary Archive Foundation." + +* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all + copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue + all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm + works. + +* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of + any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of + receipt of the work. + +* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than +are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing +from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The +Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm +trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project +Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may +contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate +or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or +other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or +cannot be read by your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium +with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you +with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in +lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person +or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second +opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If +the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing +without further opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO +OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of +damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement +violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the +agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or +limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or +unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the +remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in +accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the +production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, +including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of +the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this +or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or +additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any +Defect you cause. + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of +computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It +exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations +from people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future +generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see +Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at +www.gutenberg.org Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by +U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the +mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its +volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous +locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt +Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to +date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and +official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact + +For additional contact information: + + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND +DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular +state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To +donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project +Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be +freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and +distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of +volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in +the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not +necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper +edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search +facility: www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +</pre></body> +</html> |