BOOK I.

I never heard the olde song of Percy and Duglas, that I found not my heart mooved more then with a trumpet: and yet is it sung but by some blinde crouder, with no rougher voyce, then rude stile; which being so evill apparelled in the dust and cobwebbes of that uncivill age, what would it worke, trymmed in the gorgeous eloquence of Pindar!—Sir Philip Sidney's Apologie for Poetrie, 1595.

I. THE ANCIENT BALLAD OF CHEVY CHASE.

The fine heroic song of Chevy-Chase has ever been admired by competent judges. Those genuine strokes of nature and artless passion, which have endeared it to the most simple readers, have recommended it to the most refined; and it has equally been the amusement of our childhood, and the favourite of our riper years.

Mr. Addison has given an excellent critique[71] on this very popular ballad, but is mistaken with regard to the antiquity of the common-received copy; for this, if one may judge from the style, cannot be older than the time of Elizabeth, and was probably written after the elogium of Sir Philip Sidney: perhaps in consequence of it. I flatter myself, I have here recovered the genuine antique poem; the true original song, which appeared rude even in the time of Sir Philip, and caused him to lament, that it was so evil-apparelled in the rugged garb of antiquity.

This curiosity is printed, from an old manuscript,[72] at the end of Hearne's preface to Gul. Newbrigiensis Hist. 1719, 8vo. vol. i. To the MS. copy is subjoined the name of the author, Rychard Sheale;[73] whom Hearne had so little judgement as to suppose to be the same with a R. Sheale, who was living in 1588. But whoever examines the gradation of language and idiom in the following volumes, will be convinced that this is the production of an earlier poet. It is indeed expressly mentioned among some very ancient songs in an old book intituled, The Complaint of Scotland[74] (fol. 42), under the title of the Huntis of Chevet, where the two following lines are also quoted:—

which, tho' not quite the same as they stand in the ballad, yet differ not more than might be owing to the author's quoting from memory. Indeed whoever considers the style and orthography of this old poem will not be inclined to place it lower than the time of Henry VI.: as on the other hand the mention of James the Scottish King,[77] with one or two anachronisms, forbids us to assign it an earlier date. King James I. who was prisoner in this kingdom at the death of his father,[78] did not wear the crown of Scotland till the second year of our Henry VI.,[79] but before the end of that long reign a third James had mounted the throne.[80] A succession of two or three Jameses, and the long detention of one of them in England, would render the name familiar to the English, and dispose a poet in those rude times to give it to any Scottish king he happened to mention.

So much for the date of this old ballad: with regard to its subject, altho' it has no countenance from history, there is room to think it had originally some foundation in fact. It was one of the Laws of the Marches frequently renewed between the two nations, that neither party should hunt in the other's borders, without leave from the proprietors or their deputies.[81] There had long been a rivalship between the two martial families of Percy and Douglas, which heightened by the national quarrel, must have produced frequent challenges and struggles for superiority, petty invasions of their respective domains, and sharp contests for the point of honour; which would not always be recorded in history. Something of this kind, we may suppose, gave rise to the ancient ballad of the Hunting a' the Cheviat.[82] Percy earl of Northumberland had vowed to hunt for three days in the Scottish border without condescending to ask leave from earl Douglas, who was either lord of the soil, or lord warden of the marches. Douglas would not fail to resent the insult, and endeavour to repel the intruders by force; this would naturally produce a sharp conflict between the two parties: something of which, it is probable, did really happen, tho' not attended with the tragical circumstances recorded in the ballad: for these are evidently borrowed from the Battle of Otterbourn,[83] a very different event, but which after-times would easily confound with it. That battle might be owing to some such previous affront as this of Chevy Chase, though it has escaped the notice of historians. Our poet has evidently jumbled the two subjects together: if indeed the lines,[84] in which this mistake is made, are not rather spurious, and the after-insertion of some person, who did not distinguish between the two stories.

Hearne has printed this ballad without any division of stanzas, in long lines, as he found it in the old written copy; but it is usual to find the distinction of stanzas neglected in ancient MSS.; where, to save room, two or three verses are frequently given in one line undivided. See flagrant instances in the Harleian Catalogue, No. 2253, s. 29, 34, 61, 70, et passim.

[Bishop Percy did well to open his book with Chevy Chase and the Battle of Otterburn, as these two are by far the most remarkable of the old historical ballads still left to us, and all Englishmen must feel peculiar interest in Chevy Chase, as it is one of the few northern ballads that are the exclusive growth of the south side of the Border. The partizanship of the Englishman is very amusingly brought out in verses 145-154, where we learn that the Scotch king had no captain in his realm equal to the dead Douglas, but that the English king had a hundred captains as good as Percy. A ballad which stirred the soul of Sidney and caused Ben Jonson to wish that he had been the author of it rather than of all his own works cannot but be dear to all readers of taste and feeling. The old version is so far superior to the modern one (see Book iii. No. 1) that it must ever be a source of regret that Addison, who elegantly analyzed the modern version, did not know of the original.

It will be well to arrange under three heads the subjects on which a few words require to be added to Percy's preface, viz. 1. the title, 2. the occasion, 3. the author. 1. In the old version the title given in the ballad itself is the hunting of the Cheviat, and in the Complaynt of Scotlande it is referred to as The Huntis of Chevot. The title of the modern version is changed to Chevy Chase, which Dr. E. B. Nicholson has suggested to be derived from the old French word chevauchée, a foray or expedition (see Notes and Queries, 3rd series, vol. xii. p. 124); but this explanation is not needed, as the original of the modern title is found in ver. 62 as Chyviat Chays, which naturally became contracted into Chevy Chase, as Teviotdale into Tevidale (ver. 50).

2. The ballad is so completely unhistorical that it is difficult to give any opinion as to the occasion to which it refers, but apparently it was written, as Bishop Percy remarks, to commemorate a defiant expedition of one of the Lords of the Marches upon the domain of another, but that the names of Percy and Douglas led the writer into a confusion with the battle of Otterburn, which was fresh in the people's memory owing to the ballad of the Battle of Otterburn. In fact Professor Child throws out the hint that possibly Sidney referred to the Battle of Otterburn and not to the Hunting of the Cheviat, as he only mentions the old song of Percie and Douglas, but it has so long been believed that Sidney spoke of Chevy Chase that we should be sorry to think otherwise now. In the note immediately following the modern version (see Book iii. No. 1.) Bishop Percy suggests the possibility that the ballad may refer to the battle of Pepperden fought in 1436, but this view is highly improbable for the following reason. In both the ancient and modern versions the battle of Humbledown is alluded to as a future event caused by the death of Percy at Chevy Chase. Now as Humbledown was fought in the year 1402, and as the battle of Otterburn was the only conflict of importance on the Borders which preceded it, and as, moreover, Otterburn is mentioned in the ballad, there cannot well be any reference to a battle fought so many years afterwards.

3. Bishop Percy is unnecessarily severe in his remark upon Hearne, as that learned antiquary was probably correct in identifying the Richard Sheale of the old ballad with Richard Sheale the minstrel. Whether, however, the latter was the author, as is argued by C. in Brydges' British Bibliographer (vol. 4, pp. 95-105), is another matter. The other examples of the minstrel's muse are so inferior to this ballad that it is impossible to believe him to be the author. Doubtless it was recited by him, and being associated with his name the transcriber may naturally have supposed him to be its maker. Sheale really flourished (or withered, as Mr. Hales has it) at a rather earlier period than the date 1588 mentioned by Percy would lead us to imagine, for he appears to have been writing before 1560, nevertheless the language is of a much earlier date than this, and, moreover, a ballad of the Borders is not likely to have been invented at Tamworth, where Sheale lived.

Chevy Chase was long a highly popular song, and Bishop Corbet, in his Journey into France, speaks of having sung it in his youth. The antiquated beau in Davenant's play of the Wits also prides himself on being able to sing it, and in Wit's Intepreter, 1671, a man when enumerating the good qualities of his wife, cites after the beauties of her mind and her patience "her curious voice wherewith she useth to sing Chevy Chace." Many other ballads were sung to the same tune, so that we are not always sure as to whether the original is referred to or some more modern song. The philosopher Locke, when Secretary to the Embassy sent by Charles II. to the Elector of Brandenburg, wrote home a description of the Brandenburg church singing, in which he says, "He that could not though he had a cold make better music with a chevy chace over a pot of smooth ale, deserved well to pay the reckoning and to go away athirst."[85] The writer here probably referred to any song sung to this tune.]

THE FIRST FIT.[86]

THE SECOND FIT.

⁂ The style of this and the following ballad is uncommonly rugged and uncouth, owing to their being writ in the very coarsest and broadest northern dialect.

The battle of Hombyll-down, or Humbledon, was fought Sept. 14, 1402 (anno 3 Hen. IV.), wherein the English, under the command of the Earl of Northumberland and his son Hotspur, gained a complete victory over the Scots. The village of Humbledon is one mile northwest from Wooler, in Northumberland. The battle was fought in the field below the village, near the present Turnpike Road, in a spot called ever since Red-Riggs. Humbledon is in Glendale Ward, a district so named in this county, and mentioned above in ver. 163.

FOOTNOTES:

II. THE BATTLE OF OTTERBOURNE.

The only battle wherein an Earl of Douglas was slain fighting with a Percy was that of Otterbourne, which is the subject of this ballad. It is here related with the allowable partiality of an English poet, and much in the same manner as it is recorded in the English Chronicles. The Scottish writers have, with a partiality at least as excusable, related it no less in their own favour. Luckily we have a very circumstantial narrative of the whole affair from Froissart, a French historian, who appears to be unbiassed. Froissart's relation is prolix; I shall therefore give it, with a few corrections, as abridged by Carte, who has, however, had recourse to other authorities, and differs from Froissart in some things, which I shall note in the margin.

In the twelfth year of Richard II., 1388, "The Scots taking advantage of the confusions of this nation, and falling with a party into the West-marches, ravaged the country about Carlisle, and carried off 300 prisoners. It was with a much greater force, headed by some of the principal nobility, that, in the beginning of August,[212] they invaded Northumberland; and, having wasted part of the county of Durham,[213] advanced to the gates of Newcastle; where, in a skirmish, they took a 'penon' or colours[214] belonging to Henry lord Percy, surnamed Hotspur, son to the Earl of Northumberland. In their retreat home, they attacked a castle near Otterbourn: and, in the evening of Aug. 9 (as the English writers say, or rather, according to Froissart, Aug. 15), after an unsuccessful assault were surprised in their camp, which was very strong, by Henry, who at the first onset put them into a good deal of confusion. But James Earl of Douglas rallying his men, there ensued one of the best-fought actions that happened in that age; both armies showing the utmost bravery:[215] the earl Douglas himself being slain on the spot;[216] the Earl of Murrey mortally wounded; and Hotspur,[217] with his brother Ralph Percy, taken prisoners. These disasters on both sides have given occasion to the event of the engagement's being disputed. Froissart (who derives his relation from a Scotch knight, two gentlemen of the same country, and as many of Foix)[218] affirming that the Scots remained masters of the field; and the English writers insinuating the contrary. These last maintain that the English had the better of the day: but night coming on, some of the northern lords, coming with the Bishop of Durham to their assistance, killed many of them by mistake, supposing them to be Scots; and the Earl of Dunbar, at the same time falling on another side upon Hotspur, took him and his brother prisoners, and carried them off while both parties were fighting. It is at least certain, that immediately after this battle the Scots engaged in it made the best of their way home: and the same party was taken by the other corps about Carlisle."

Such is the account collected by Carte, in which he seems not to be free from partiality: for prejudice must own that Froissart's circumstantial account carries a great appearance of truth, and he gives the victory to the Scots. He, however, does justice to the courage of both parties; and represents their mutual generosity in such a light, that the present age might edify by the example. "The Englyshmen on the one partye, and Scottes on the other party, are good men of warre, for whan they mete, there is a hard fighte without sparynge. There is no hoo[219] betwene them as long as speares, swordes, axes, or dagers wyll endure; but lay on eche upon other: and whan they be well beaten, and that the one party hath obtayned the victory, they than glorifye so in their dedes of armes, and are so joyfull, that suche as be taken, they shall be ransomed or they go out of the felde;[220] so that shortely eche of them is so contente with other, that at their departynge curtoysly they will saye, God thanke you. But in fyghtynge one with another there is no playe, nor sparynge." Froissart's Chronicle (as translated by Sir Johan Bourchier Lord Berners), cap. cxlii.

The following Ballad is (in this present edition) printed from an old MS. in the Cotton Library[221] (Cleopatra, c. iv.), and contains many stanzas more than were in the former copy, which was transcribed from a MS. in the Harleian Collection [No. 293, fol. 52.] In the Cotton MS. this poem has no title, but in the Harleian copy it is thus inscribed, A songe made in R. 2. his tyme of the battele of Otterburne, betweene Lord Henry Percye earle of Northomberlande and the earle Douglas of Scotlande, Anno 1388.

But this title is erroneous, and added by some ignorant transcriber of after-times: for, 1. The battle was not fought by the Earl of Northumberland, who was absent, but by his son, Sir Henry Percy, Knt., surnamed Hotspur (in those times they did not usually give the title of Lord to an Earl's eldest son). 2. Altho' the battle was fought in Richard II.'s time, the song is evidently of later date, as appears from the poet's quoting the chronicles in Pt. II., ver. 26; and speaking of Percy in the last stanza as dead. It was, however, written in all likelihood as early as the foregoing song, if not earlier. This, perhaps, may be inferred from the minute circumstances with which the story is related, many of which are recorded in no chronicle, and were probably preserved in the memory of old people. It will be observed that the authors of these two poems have some lines in common; but which of them was the original proprietor must depend upon their priority; and this the sagacity of the reader must determine.

[We have here a ballad founded upon a true historical event, in which the writer attempts to be as truthful as his national bias will allow him. In Chevy Chase, Percy is the aggressor, but in the "Battle of Otterburn," Douglas commences the encounter by his action. At the period under notice the king of England (Richard II.) was occupied in dissension with his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, and the Parliament, while Robert II., King of Scotland, was very old, and his eldest son lame and inactive, so that the Border chieftains were pretty much left to their own devices. The Earl of Fife, a younger son of King Robert, and certain of the great nobles, arranged among themselves that an inroad should be made into England as a reprisal for the injuries the Scotch had at various times sustained from the English, and the expedition was placed under the command of James, Earl of Douglas.

Besides the ballad we are now considering there are metrical accounts of the battle in John Hardyng's Chronicle, Joannes de Fordun's Scoti-Chronicon, and Wyntoun's Orygynal Cronykil of Scotland. In 1857, Robert White published an interesting History of the Battle of Otterburn, fought in 1388, with Memoirs of the Warriors who engaged in that memorable conflict. This book is written in an enthusiastic spirit by one who was born and bred on the Borders, and who kept alive in his soul the true old Border spirit. He listened on his mother's knee to the stanzas of the modern ballad of Chevy Chase, which she chanted to him, and he grew up with a feeling which he retained through life, that Percy and Douglas were far greater men than Napoleon and Wellington.

The exact date of the battle is an open question, for the authorities disagree as to this particular; thus Buchanan fixes it on July 21st, and other writers name, respectively, August 5th, 9th, 10th, 15th, and 19th. White thinks that the battle was fought on the evening of Wednesday and morning of Thursday, 19th and 20th of August, immediately before the full moon. In the year 1388 the new moon fell on the 6th of August, and Douglas is not likely to have chosen a period of dark evenings for his expedition. Another disputed point is the number of men in the Scottish army, under Douglas. Froissart gives the numbers at three or four hundred men-at-arms, and two thousand infantry; Wyntoun, at near seven thousand men; Buchanan, at three hundred horse and two thousand foot, besides servants and attendants; Godscroft, at four thousand horsemen; Ridpath, at three thousand men; and Scott, at three hundred men-at-arms, who, with their followers, made up from a thousand to fifteen hundred men, with two thousand chosen infantry. White makes the following statement as the result of his sifting of the conflicting accounts:—

Men-at-arms 400

Attendants on ditto, footmen, lackeys, and grooms 1,200

Infantry mounted 2,000

Attendants on ditto, boys to take care of horses, sutlers, &c. 3,000

6,600

It has been supposed that the first part of this ballad down to verse 112 was originally of Scottish manufacture, for two reasons: 1st, because Hume, of Godscroft, refers to "a Scots song," which begins as this does; and 2nd, because haymaking has been over at least a month in England at Lammas, when Scotch husbandmen are still busy "winning their hay." This last reason, however, cannot be considered a very conclusive one, as the seasons must be much alike on the two sides of the Border. The second part is written from a thoroughly English stand-point. The two Scottish versions, viz. the one given by Scott in his Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, and the one in Herd's Collection, are very different from the English ballad.]

A FYTTE.

⁂ Most of the names in the two preceding ballads are found to have belonged to families of distinction in the North, as may be made appear from authentic records. Thus in

THE ANCIENT BALLAD OF CHEVY CHASE.

[Second Fit, ver. 112. Agerstone.] The family of Haggerston of Haggerston, near Berwick, has been seated there for many centuries, and still remains. Thomas Haggerston was among the commissioners returned for Northumberland in 12 Hen. 6, 1433. (Fuller's Worthies, p. 310.) The head of this family at present is Sir Thomas Haggerston, Bart., of Haggerston above-mentioned.

N.B. The name is spelt Agerstone, as in the text, in Leland's Itinerary, vol. vii. p. 54.[318]

[Ver. 113. Hartly.] Hartley is a village near the sea in the barony of Tinemouth, about 7 m. from North-Shields. It probably gave name to a family of note at that time.

[Ver. 114. Hearone.] This family, one of the most ancient, was long of great consideration in Northumberland. Haddeston, the Caput Baroniæ of Heron, was their ancient residence. It descended 25 Edw. I. to the heir general Emiline Heron, afterwards Baroness Darcy.—Ford, &c., and Bockenfield (in com. eodem) went at the same time to Roger Heron, the heir male; whose descendants were summoned to Parliament: Sir William Heron of Ford Castle being summoned 44 Edw. III.—Ford Castle hath descended by heirs general to the family of Delaval (mentioned in the next article).—Robert Heron, Esq., who died at Newark in 1753, (father of the Right Hon. Sir Richard Heron, Bart.) was heir male of the Herons of Bockenfield, a younger branch of this family.—Sir Thomas Heron Middleton, Bart., is heir male of the Herons of Chip-Chase, another branch of the Herons of Ford Castle.

[Ver. 115. Lovele.] Joh. de Lavale, miles, was sheriff of Northumberland 34 Hen. VIII. Joh. de Lavele, mil. in the 1 Edw. VI. and afterwards. (Fuller, 313.) In Nicholson this name is spelt Da Lovel, p. 304. This seems to be the ancient family of Delaval, of Seaton Delaval, in Northumberland, whose ancestor was one of the 25 Barons appointed to be guardians of Magna Charta.[319]

[Ver. 117. Rugbè.] The ancient family of Rokeby, in Yorkshire, seems to be here intended. In Thoresby's Ducat. Leod., p. 253, fol., is a genealogy of this house, by which it appears that the head of the family, about the time when this ballad was written, was Sir Ralph Rokeby, Knt., Ralph being a common name of the Rokebys.[320]

[Ver. 119. Wetharrington.] Rog. de Widrington was sheriff of Northumberland in 36 of Edw. III. (Fuller, p. 311.)—Joh. de Widrington in 11 of Hen. IV. and many others of the same name afterwards.—See also Nicholson, p. 331.—Of this family was the late Lord Witherington.

[Ver. 124. Mongonberry.] Sir Hugh Montgomery was son of John Lord Montgomery, the lineal ancestor of the present Earl of Eglington.

[Ver. 125. Lwdale.] The ancient family of the Liddels were originally from Scotland, where they were lords of Liddel Castle, and of the Barony of Buff. (Vid. Collins's Peerage.) The head of this family is the present Lord Ravensworth, of Ravensworth Castle, in the county of Durham.[321]

IN THE BATTLE OF OTTERBOURNE.

[Ver. 101. Mentaye.] At the time of this battle the Earldom of Menteith was possessed by Robert Stewart, Earl of Fife, third son of K. Robert II., who, according to Buchanan, commanded the Scots that entered by Carlisle. But our minstrel had probably an eye to the family of Graham, who had this earldom when the ballad was written. See Douglas's Peerage of Scotland, 1764, fol.

[Ver. 103. Huntleye.] This shews this ballad was not composed before 1449; for in that year Alexander Lord of Gordon and Huntley, was created Earl of Huntley, by K. James II.

[Ver. 105. Bowghan.] The Earl of Buchan at that time was Alexander Stewart, fourth son of K. Robert II.

[Ver. 107. Jhonstone—Maxwell.] These two families of Johnstone Lord of Johnston, and Maxwell Lord of Maxwell, were always very powerful on the borders. Of the former family was Johnston Marquis of Annandale: of the latter was Maxwell Earl of Nithsdale. I cannot find that any chief of this family was named Sir Hugh; but Sir Herbert Maxwell was about this time much distinguished. (See Doug.) This might have been originally written Sir H. Maxwell, and by transcribers converted into Sir Hugh. So above, in No. I. v. 90. Richard is contracted into Ric.

[Ver. 109. Swintone.] i. e. The Laird of Swintone; a small village within the Scottish border, 3 miles from Norham. This family still subsists, and is very ancient.

[Ver. 111. Scotte.] The illustrious family of Scot, ancestors of the Duke of Buccleugh, always made a great figure on the borders. Sir Walter Scot was at the head of this family when the battle was fought; but his great-grandson, Sir David Scot, was the hero of that house when the ballad was written.

[Ibid. Stewarde.] The person here designed was probably Sir Walter Stewart, Lord of Dalswinton and Gairlies, who was eminent at that time. (See Doug.) From him is descended the present Earl of Galloway.

[Ver. 112. Agurstonne.] The seat of this family was sometimes subject to the kings of Scotland. Thus Richardus Haggerstoun, miles, is one of the Scottish knights who signed a treaty with the English in 1249, temp. Hen. III. (Nicholson, p. 2, note).—It was the fate of many parts of Northumberland often to change their masters, according as the Scottish or English arms prevailed.

[Ver. 129. Murrey.] The person here meant was probably Sir Charles Murray of Cockpoole, who flourished at that time, and was ancestor of the Murrays sometime Earls of Annandale. See Doug. Peerage.

[Ver. 139. Fitz-hughe.] Dugdale (in his Baron. v. i. p. 403) informs us that John, son of Henry Lord Fitzhugh, was killed at the battle of Otterbourne. This was a Northumberland family. Vid. Dugd. p. 403, col. 1, and Nicholson, pp. 33, 60.

[Ver. 141. Harbotle.] Harbottle is a village upon the river Coquet, about 10 m. west of Rothbury. The family of Harbottle was once considerable in Northumberland. (See Fuller, pp. 312, 313.) A daughter of Guischard Harbottle, Esq., married Sir Thomas Percy, Knt., son of Henry the fifth,—and father of Thomas seventh, Earls of Northumberland.

FOOTNOTES:

III. THE JEW'S DAUGHTER,

A Scottish Ballad,

Is founded upon the supposed practice of the Jews in crucifying or otherwise murdering Christian children, out of hatred to the religion of their parents: a practice which has been always alledged in excuse for the cruelties exercised upon that wretched people, but which probably never happened in a single instance. For, if we consider, on the one hand, the ignorance and superstition of the times when such stories took their rise, the virulent prejudices of the monks who record them, and the eagerness with which they would be catched up by the barbarous populace as a pretence for plunder; on the other hand, the great danger incurred by the perpetrators, and the inadequate motives they could have to excite them to a crime of so much horror; we may reasonably conclude the whole charge to be groundless and malicious.

The following ballad is probably built upon some Italian legend, and bears a great resemblance to the Prioresse's Tale in Chaucer: the poet seems also to have had an eye to the known story of Hugh of Lincoln, a child said to have been there murdered by the Jews in the reign of Henry III. The conclusion of this ballad appears to be wanting: what it probably contained may be seen in Chaucer. As for Mirry-land Toun, it is probably a corruption of Milan (called by the Dutch Meylandt) Town: the Pa is evidently the river Po; although the Adige, not the Po, runs through Milan.

Printed from a MS. copy sent from Scotland.

[This ballad, which is also known under the title of Sir Hugh of Lincoln, was at one time so widely popular that it is preserved in six different versions, besides fragments, and has originated a literature of its own. Mons. Francisque Michel discovered a Norman-French version in the Royal Library at Paris, which is supposed to date back to the period when the murder of Sir Hugh was to have been committed. This was first published in the year 1834 under the title, "Hugues de Lincoln: Recueil de Ballades Anglo-Normande et Ecossoises relatives au meurtre de cet enfant commis par les Juifs en MCCLV." The Rev. Dr. A. Hume communicated a very full paper on the subject of the tradition to the Literary and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, on November 13, 1848, which is published in the Proceedings (No. 5), and Mr. J. O. Halliwell printed, in 1849, a small volume containing "Ballads and Poems respecting Hugh of Lincoln." In the Athenæum for Dec. 15, 1849, there is a condemnatory review of Dr. Hume's work, to which the reviewer has added some valuable information of his own. Percy's remark that Mirry-land town is a corruption of Milan town, and Pa of the river Po, seems far-fetched, as there is no reason for supposing that the ballad was in any way connected with Italy. Jamieson's version reads Merry Lincoln, and in Motherwell's the scene is changed to Maitland town. In some parts of England the ballad has degenerated into a sort of nursery rhyme, the Northamptonshire version reading "Merry Scotland," and the Shropshire one, "Merry-cock land." Mr. J. H. Dixon suggests mere-land town, from the mere or fen lakes, and reads wa' for Pa'. (Notes and Queries, 3rd Series, vol. ix. p. 30, note.)

Miss Agnes Strickland communicated the following lines obtained from oral tradition at Godalming, in Surrey, to Mr. Halliwell, who printed them in his tract:—

The tradition upon which this ballad is founded—that the Jews use human blood in their preparation for the Passover, and are in the habit of kidnapping and butchering Christian children for the purpose—is very widely spread and of great antiquity. Eisenmenger[322] refers to a case which occurred at Inmestar, in Syria, so early as the year 419, but the earliest case recorded as having occurred in Europe is that of William of Norwich, in 1137. The following is a translation from a passage in the Peterborough Chronicle (which ends with the death of Stephen and the accession of Henry the Second), relating to this remarkable superstition:—"Now we will say something of what happened in King Stephen's time. In his time the Jews of Norwich bought a Christian child before Easter, and tortured him with all the same torturing that our Lord was tortured. And on Good Friday (lang fridæi) they hanged him on a cross, for our Lord's love; and afterwards buried him. They thought (wenden) that it should be concealed, but our Lord showed that he was a holy martyr (m̃r), and the monks took him and buried him solemnly in the monastery (minst). And he maketh through our Lord wonderful and manifold miracles. And he was called Saint William." Mr. Earle, in his note to this passage,[323] says that "S. William seems to have retained his celebrity down to the time of the Reformation, at least in Norfolk. In Loddon church, which is advanced perpendicular of about 1500, there is a painting of his crucifixion on a panel of the rood-screen, still in fair preservation."

St. William's fame, however, was eclipsed in other parts of England by that of Sir Hugh of Lincoln, whose death was celebrated by historians and poets. Henry III. being often in want of money, was glad to take any opportunity of extorting it from the unfortunate Jews, and in 1255 his exchequer particularly required replenishing on account of the expected arrival in England of his son Edward's newly married wife, Eleanor of Castile. In this year a young boy was murdered, and, opportunely for the king, the crime was charged to the Jews. It was asserted that the child had been stolen, fattened on bread and milk for ten days, and crucified with all the cruelties and insults of Christ's passion, in the presence of all the Jews in England, who had been summoned to Lincoln for the purpose. The supposed criminals were brought to justice, and the king's commission for the trial, and the warrant to sell the goods of the several Jews who were found guilty, are still preserved. The Jew into whose house the child had gone to play, tempted by the promise of his life, made a full confession, and threw the guilt upon his brethren. Ninety-one Jews of Lincoln were sent to London as accomplices, and thrown into dungeons. Eighteen of the richest were hanged on a gallows, and twenty more imprisoned in the Tower of London. The king was enriched by the spoils, and the clergy of Lincoln did not lose their opportunity, for the minster was made famous by the possession of the martyr's tomb. Dean Milman, in relating these circumstances, says: "Great part of the story refutes itself, but I have already admitted the possibility that among the ignorant and fanatic Jews there might be some who, exasperated by the constant repetition of the charge, might brood over it so long, as at length to be tempted to its perpetration."[324] Any such explanation as this, however, does not seem necessary, for the wide-spread existence of the superstition goes far to prove the entire falsehood at least of the later cases, and the story of Sir Hugh was but a revival of that of St. William. It is worth mentioning, in passing, that this calumny was in fact a recoil upon the Jews themselves of a weapon they had used against the Christians. As early as the third century they affirmed that Christians in celebrating their mysteries used to kill a child and eat its flesh. Pagans probably learnt the calumny from the Jews, and also charged the Christians with eating children.

The whole proceedings in the case of Sir Hugh are chronicled by Matthew Paris, who was in high favour with Henry III., and from his pages the account is transferred to the Chronicles of Grafton, Fabyan, and Holinshed. Chaucer most probably consulted the same source when he included the story in his Canterbury Tales, although he shifts the scene to Asia, and makes his Prioress say, when ending her tale with a reference to Sir Hugh:—

Tyrwhitt, in his edition of Chaucer, notes that he found in the first four months of the Acta Sanctorum of Bollandus the names of five children canonized as having been murdered by the Jews, and he supposes that the remaining eight months would furnish at least as many more. Tyrwhitt accepts Percy's interpretation of Mirry-land as a corruption of the name of Milan, and under this erroneous impression he suggests that the real occasion of the ballad may have been the murder of the boy Simon, at Trent, in 1475.[325]

The superstition upon which all these stories are founded is said still to prevail among the ignorant members of the Greek Church, and it was revived at Damascus in 1840 in consequence of the disappearance of a priest named Thomaso. Two or three Jews were put to death before a proper judicial examination could be made, and the popular fury was so excited that severe persecution extended through a large part of the Turkish empire. Sir Moses Montefiore visited the various localities with the object of obtaining redress for his people, and he was successful. On November 6, 1840, a firman for the protection of the Jews was given at Constantinople, which contained the following passage:—"An ancient prejudice prevailed against the Jews. The ignorant believed that the Jews were accustomed to sacrifice a human being, to make use of his blood at the Passover. In consequence of this opinion the Jews of Damascus and Rhodes, who are subjects of our empire, have been persecuted by other nations.... But a short time has elapsed since some Jews dwelling in the isle of Rhodes were brought from thence to Constantinople, where they had been tried and judged according to the new regulations, and their innocence of the accusations made against them fully proved." The calumny, however, was again raised in October, 1847, and the Jews were in imminent peril when the missing boy, who had been staying at Baalbec, reappeared in good health.

Within the last few years the Greek Patriarch at Constantinople has issued a pastoral letter, in which he points out the wickedness of the Christian persecution of the Jews. He says: "Superstition is a detestable thing. Almost all the Christian nations of the East have taken up the extravagant idea that the Israelites enjoy shedding Christian blood, either to obtain thereby a blessing from heaven, or to gratify their national rancour against Christ. Hence conflicts and disturbances break out, by which the social harmony between the dwellers in the same land, yea, the same fatherland, is disturbed. Thus a report was lately spread of the abduction of little Christian children in order to give a pretext for suspicion. We on our side abhor such lying fancies; we regard them as the superstitions of men of weak faith and narrow minds; and we disavow them officially."

The superstition, however, still lives on, and according to the Levant Herald (1874), the Mahometans are beginning to fall into the delusion that the sacrificial knife is applied by the Jews to young Turks as well as to young Christians.]

FOOTNOTES:

IV. SIR CAULINE.

This old romantic tale was preserved in the Editor's folio MS. but in so very defective and mutilated a condition (not from any chasm in the MS. but from great omission in the transcript, probably copied from the faulty recitation of some illiterate minstrell), and the whole appeared so far short of the perfection it seemed to deserve, that the Editor was tempted to add several stanzas in the first part, and still more in the second, to connect and compleat the story in the manner which appeared to him most interesting and affecting.

There is something peculiar in the metre of this old ballad: it is not unusual to meet with redundant stanzas of six lines; but the occasional insertion of a double third or fourth line, as ver. 31, &c. is an irregularity I do not remember to have seen elsewhere.

It may be proper to inform the reader before he comes to Pt. ii. v. 110, 111, that the Round Table was not peculiar to the reign of K. Arthur, but was common in all the ages of chivalry. The proclaiming a great turnament (probably with some peculiar solemnities) was called "holding a Round Table." Dugdale tells us, that the great baron Roger de Mortimer "having procured the honour of knighthood to be conferred 'on his three sons' by K. Edw. I. he, at his own costs, caused a tourneament to be held at Kenilworth; where he sumptuously entertained an hundred knights, and as many ladies, for three days; the like whereof was never before in England; and there began the Round Table, (so called by reason that the place wherein they practised those feats was environed with a strong wall made in a round form:) And upon the fourth day, the golden lion, in sign of triumph, being yielded to him; he carried it (with all the company) to Warwick."—It may further be added, that Matthew Paris frequently calls justs and turnaments Hastiludia Mensæ Rotundæ.

As to what will be observed in this ballad of the art of healing being practised by a young princess; it is no more than what is usual in all the old romances, and was conformable to real manners: it being a practice derived from the earliest times among all the Gothic and Celtic nations, for women, even of the highest rank, to exercise the art of surgery. In the Northern Chronicles we always find the young damsels stanching the wounds of their lovers, and the wives those of their husbands.[336] And even so late as the time of Q. Elizabeth, it is mentioned among the accomplishments of the ladies of her court, that the "eldest of them are skilful in surgery." See Harrison's Description of England, prefixed to Hollinshed's Chronicle, &c.

[This story of Sir Cauline furnishes one of the most flagrant instances of Percy's manipulation of his authorities. In the following poem all the verses which are due to Percy's invention are placed between brackets, but the whole has been so much altered by him that it has been found necessary to reprint the original from the folio MS. at the end in order that readers may compare the two. Percy put into his version several new incidents and altered the ending, by which means he was able to dilute the 201 lines of the MS. copy into 392 of his own. There was no necessity for this perversion of the original, because the story is there complete, and moreover Percy did not sufficiently indicate the great changes he had made, for although nearly every verse is altered he only noted one trivial difference of reading, viz. aukeward for backward (v. 109).

Motherwell reprinted this ballad in his Minstrelsy, and in his prefatory note he made the following shrewd guess, which we now know to be a correct one:—"We suspect too that the ancient ballad had a less melancholy catastrophe, and that the brave Syr Cauline, after his combat with the 'hend Soldan' derived as much benefit from the leechcraft of fair Cristabelle as he did after winning the Eldridge sword." Professor Child has expressed the same view in his note to the ballad.

Buchan printed a ballad entitled King Malcolm and Sir Colvin, which is more like the original than Percy's version, but Mr. Hales is of opinion that this was one of that collector's fabrications.]

THE FIRST PART.

⁂ In this conclusion of the First Part, and at the beginning of the Second, the reader will observe a resemblance to the story of Sigismunda and Guiscard, as told by Boccace and Dryden. See the latter's description of the lovers meeting in the cave; and those beautiful lines, which contain a reflection so like this of our poet, "everye white," &c., viz.:

PART THE SECOND.

⁂

[The following is the original ballad from which Percy concocted his own. It is reprinted from Bishop Percy's Folio MS., ed. Hales and Furnivall, vol. iii. p. 1.

ffins.]

FOOTNOTES:

V. EDWARD, EDWARD.

A Scottish Ballad.

From a MS. copy transmitted from Scotland.

[The affectedly antique orthography of this ballad has caused some to suppose that it was a modern invention, probably by Lady Wardlaw, the author of Hardyknute, but Motherwell obtained another version from the recitation of an old woman, which he printed in his Minstrelsy under the title of "Son Davie, son Davie." He there says that there is reason to believe that Lord Hailes "made a few slight verbal improvements in the copy he transmitted, and altered the hero's name to Edward, a name which, by the bye, never occurs in a Scottish ballad except where allusion is made to an English king."

There is a Swedish ballad of the same character entitled The Fratricide's Lament and Dialogue with his Mother before he wanders away from home for ever.

The form of a dialogue between a mother and her son is a favourite one in the old ballads, and "Lord Donald" in Kinloch's Scottish Ballads and "Lord Randal" in Scott's Minstrelsy bear some likeness to the ballad of "Edward." The hero is supposed to have been poisoned by eating toads prepared as a dish of fishes, and the last stanza of Kinloch's ballad is as follows:—

This curious song was transmitted to the editor by Sir David Dalrymple, Bart., late Lord Hailes.

FOOTNOTES:

VI. KING ESTMERE.

This old Romantic Legend (which is given from two copies, one of them in the editor's folio MS., but which contained very great variations), bears marks of considerable antiquity, and, perhaps, ought to have taken place of any in this volume. It would seem to have been written while part of Spain was in the hands of the Saracens or Moors: whose empire there was not fully extinguished before the year 1491. The Mahometans are spoken of in v. 49, &c., just in the same terms as in all other old romances. The author of the ancient Legend of Sir Bevis represents his hero, upon all occasions, breathing out defiance against

and so full of zeal for his religion, as to return the following polite message to a Paynim king's fair daughter, who had fallen in love with him, and sent two Saracen knights to invite him to her bower,

Indeed they return the compliment by calling him elsewhere "A christen hounde."[422]

This was conformable to the real manners of the barbarous ages: perhaps the same excuse will hardly serve our bard, for that Adland should be found lolling or leaning at his gate (v. 35) may be thought, perchance, a little out of character. And yet the great painter of manners, Homer, did not think it inconsistent with decorum to represent a king of the Taphians leaning at the gate of Ulysses to inquire for that monarch, when he touched at Ithaca as he was taking a voyage with a ship's cargo of iron to dispose in traffic.[423] So little ought we to judge of ancient manners by our own.