Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)

Subject: Origins: Lord Lovel
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 13 - 02:13 AM

The following is the first physical proof of Child ballad 75: Lord Lovel. It is actually a comic version that was enclosed with a letter from Horace Walpole to Thomas Percy dated February 1765. It was first published in 1904 in a volume of Walpole's letters, soon after being obtained at auction by the British Museum. It had remained among Percy's papers until then. Not that Francis Child would have considered it as several comic versions of Lord Lovel had been brought to his attention and he chose to ignore them. He thought them vulgar. Instead, Percy received credit for the first published version of a "Northumbrian ballad" (c. 1770) which appears to be nothing more than a sanitized reissue of Walpole's text below:

I fare you well, Lady Hounsibelle , 
For I must needs be gone ; 
And this time two year I'll meet you again, 
To end the true love we begun. 

That's a long time, Lord Lovel, she said, 
To dwell in fair Scotland : 
And so it is, Lady Hounsibelle, 
And to leave a fair lady alone. 

He called unto his stable-groom 
To saddle his milk-white steed. 
Hey down, Hey down, Hey, hey dery down, 
I wish my Lord Lovel good speed

He had not been in fair Scotland 
Above half a year, 
But a longing mind came over his head 
Lady Hounsibelle he would go see her. 

He had not been in fair London 
Above half a day, 
But he heard the bells of the high chapel ring ; 
They rung with a Sesora. 

He asked of a gentleman 
That stood there all alone, 
What made the bells of the high chapel ring, 
And the ladies to make such a moan. 

The King's fair daughter is dead, he said, 
Whose name 's Lady Hounsibelle ; 
She died for love of a courteous young knight,
Whose name it is Lord Lovel. 

Lady Hounsibelle died on the Easter Day, 
Lord Lovel on the morrow ; 
Lady Hounsibelle died for pure true love,
Lord Lovel he died for sorrow. 

Lady Hounsibelle 's buried in the chancel, 
Lord Lovel in the choir; 
Lady Hounsibelle's breast sprung up a rose, 
Lord Level's a branch of sweetbriar. 

They grew till they grew to the top of the church, 
And when they could grow no higher
They grew till they grew to a true lover's knot, 
And they both were tied together.

Compare with the following, Percy's version, Child ballad 75A:

'AND I fare you well, Lady Ouncebell,
For I must needs be gone,         
And this time two year I'll meet you again,
To finish the loves we begun.'

'That is a long time, Lord Lovill,' said she,
'To live in fair Scotland;'
And so it is, Lady Ouncebell,
To leave a fair lady alone.'

He had not been in fair Scotland
Not half above half a year,         
But a longin mind came into his head,
Lady Ouncebell he woud go see her.

He called up his stable-groom,
To sadle his milk-white stead;
Dey down, dey down, dey down dery down,
I wish Lord Lovill good speed.

He had not been in fair London
Not half above half a day,
But he heard the bells of the high chapel ring,
They rang with a ceserera.

He asked of a gentleman,
That set there all alone,
What made the bells of the high chapel ring,
The ladys make all their moan.

'One of the king's daughters are dead,' said he,
Lady Ouncebell was her name;         
She died for love of a courtous young night,
Lord Lovill he was the same.'

He caused her corps to be set down,
And her winding sheet undone,
And he made a vow before them all
He'd never kiss wowman again.

Lady Ouncebell died on the yesterday,
Lord Lovill on the morrow;
Lady Ouncebell died for pure true love,
Lord Lovill died for sorrow.

Lady Ouncebell was buried in the high chancel,
Lord Lovill in the choir;
Lady Ouncebell's breast sprung out a sweet rose,
Lord Lovill's a bunch of sweet brier.

They grew till they grew to the top of the church,         
And then they could grow no higher;
They grew till they grew to a true-lover's not,
And then they tyed both together.

An old wowman coming by that way,
And a blessing she did crave,
To cut of a bunch of that true-lover's not,
And buried them both in one grave.

So my first question to any interested party would be:

Do you really believe that Reverend Percy's associate Reverend Parsons really took that "Northumbrian ballad" down from the singing of his poor parishioners as they sat at their spinning wheels in Wye, Kent?

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 13 - 09:30 AM

And to this I must add this third version which mirrors the other two in form and content. This is a version that was given to Child by John Francis Campbell, taken down from the singing of an Englishman around 1850:

75E: Lord Lovel

'NOW fare ye well, Lady Oonzabel,
For I must needs be gone,
To visit the king of fair Scotland,
Oh I must be up and ride.'

So he called unto him his little foot-page,
To saddle his milk-white steed;
Hey down, hey down, hey derry, hey down,
How I wish my Lord Lovel good speed!

He had not been in fair Scotland,
Not passing half a year,
When a lover-like thought came into his head,
Lady Oonzabel he would go see her.

So he called unto him his little foot-page,
So saddle his milk-white steed;
Hey down, hey down, hey derry, hey down,
How I wish my Lord Lovel good speed.

He had not been in fair England,         
Not passing half a day,
When the bells of the high chappel did ring,
And they made a loud sassaray.

He asked of an old gentleman
Who was sitting there all alone,
Why the bells of the high chappel did ring,
And the ladies were making a moan.

Oh, the king's fair daughter is dead,' said he;
Her name's Lady Oonzabel;
And she died for the love of a courteous young knight,
And his name it is Lord Lovel.'         

He caused the bier to be set down,
The winding sheet undone,
And drawing forth his rapier bright,
Through his own true heart did it run.

Lady Oonzabel lies in the high chappel,
Lord Lovel he lies in the quier;
And out of the one there grew up a white rose,
And out of the other a brier.

And they grew, and they grew, to the high chappel top;
They could not well grow any higher;
And they twined into a true lover's knot,         
So in death they are joined together.

There are some significant differences in this version::

1.) Lord Lovel has a specific mission that involves the king of Scotland.

2.) Lord Lovel's manner of death is a dramatic suicide rather than implied lovesickness.

3.) A white rose springs from one of the graves rather than a rose (color and gender unspecified) springing from hers (mention of gender being a difference that seems to parallel the difference between Scottish and English versions of the rose-briar motif).

4.) The high chappel is not the high chancel. A high chappel is located in a tower whereas the high chancel is at the eastern end of the church where the high altar is situated

5.) There is no epilogue. The true lover's knot is the finale.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 14 May 13 - 09:35 AM

Dear anonymous and scientifically-enquiring guest

Your version from the Walpole letter leaves out the last verse according to the Yale transcripts (p469 and p470 (and other copies of the correspondence). The Yale transcript also has a footnote:

  There came an old woman by,
  Their blessing she did crave;
  She cut her a branch of this true lover's knot,
  And buried 'em both in a grave[22]

[22] 'NB. Compare this song with Giles Collin, Fair Margaret and Sweet William, Lord Thomas and Fair Annet' (MS Note in Percy's hand). The ballad with many variations from HW's text, is printed as Lord Lovel in Child's Ballads ii, 207


The fact that they are so close doesn't preclude a common ancestor. Perhaps a look at Percy's papers at the Bodleian would shed some light?

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 14 May 13 - 09:55 AM

Come on, Mick. You know it's Susan.

Susan, the white rose, as I've said before also appears in at least 3 American versions. To people who don't give a toss what colour the rose is a swap from red to white would be trivial.

4) Some singers (me for instance) wouldn't give a toss if it were a high chapel or a chancel, or even a channel as is given on one broadside.

This is only an opinion, but the sort of additions in 75E are typical of the rewriter's 'improvements'.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 14 May 13 - 10:13 AM

Steve - That was my second time posting that - the first one got lost a couple of hours before and rushing to take the dog out I didn't wait (as I usually do) to see the post was OK (if not, I usually go back and save my post text for later). That version ended - Have you escaped from the Child Ballads 5?; I mistakenly thought it was a divergence from the authenticity posts at the end of that; I hadn't been following the Rose and Briar thread. Ah, poor innocent me! Must pay more attention.

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 14 May 13 - 10:29 AM

That's okay, what with all these anon postings I lose track meself!

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 13 - 12:00 PM

Oops Mick, you're right! The last verse was on the second page and I forgot to cut and paste it.

And you're right too Steve. The white rose does not necessarily mean anything in particular in the absence of memory. So the question becomes whether it was placed there intentionally or not.

And you're right again, I am Susan, but here I am GUEST and I knew you would know that. I think it is helpful to know one's place, don't you? It doesn't matter who is right but what is right. Can't remember who said that...

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 13 - 12:03 PM

Oh yeah, it was one of my professors. But you wouldn't know him. He's not famous.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 14 May 13 - 01:03 PM

Susan - you can put a name on the post From line even as a guest, as I demonstrate here; it's the preferred etiquette so we can follow who is posting, even guests. It doesn't even have to be your real name as long as it's consistent. (Of course as a guest anyone could pretend to be you. But before I was a member I was a guest for some time, posting consistently as MCP - my initials - that's why they're in my member name, to link my old guest posts with my member ones)

Your professor may not be famous, but if we knew the name we could look him/her up and see what other work he/she did and make up our own minds. That's the advantage of having a consistent name - you can follow someone's body of work.

The fame/lack of fame of your professors doesn't tell us anything. I had some very famous professors of maths and computer science (the two disciplines I trained in) and some not so famous. It didn't mean I was taught anything better by the more famous ones than by the less famous. (At least one very famous professor of complex mathematics was an awful teacher!). You have no evidence that we will take the fame of your authority into account when you proffer your aphorism. However since your professor appears to be have been Thomas Huxley, I would say that he's famous enough, though you must to be a lot older than other members of this forum. I therefore bow to your venerable wisdom.

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Lighter
Date: 14 May 13 - 02:06 PM

> Not that Francis Child would have considered it as several comic versions of Lord Lovel had been brought to his attention and he chose to ignore them.

Rather pretentious to speak for Child, who can't defend himself.

If I may play ballad-devil's advocate, a "comic version" from 1765 would have carried more weight with Child than one that looked like a mere parody of the earliest text known.

I don't see the "comedy" anyway, but cultural ideas of humor change. What did Walpole see as "comic"?

And what are the filthy parts that Percy "sanitized"?

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 14 May 13 - 05:18 PM

Jon,
Remember these are sophisticated literati we are talking about. What we see in a ballad as charming, the fast-moving plot with lots of action and pathos, they would see as something ridiculous, to laugh at, burlesque in other words.

In a similar way, but not quite the same, (still burlesque) the fledgling Music Hall artistes of the early 20th century took our ballads and put them on stage as something to make fun of. The burlesque was often in the performance without altering a word, in the form of ridiculous costume and gesture, funny voices etc. They were so popular that they were also often parodied.

Lord Lovell
George Collins
Cruel Ship's carpenter
William Taylor
Barbara Allen etc. all received the treatment.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Lighter
Date: 14 May 13 - 05:35 PM

Of course, Steve.

But you seem to be saying that we know "Lord Lovell" to have been written as a joke by a wiseguy. Do we know that?

I see nothing in the above texts that could not be taken as pathos, not bathos, by an unsophisticated 18th C. audience.

Some of the tearjerkers of the American Civil War seem to us to be obvious and maudlin beyond belief, and for all I know they too were written by sneering cynics. But even on Mudcat some have been praised as terribly moving - 150 years after they were written!

I wouldn't assume "Lord Lovell" to be a parody unless I had explicit contemporaneous evidence that it was intended to be one. I see nothing in Walpole's *text* (I don't know about any accompanying remarks) that bespeaks "parody." (And even if Walpole were laughing, his gardener might not have been.)

Of course, I may simply be uninformed.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 13 - 06:41 PM

MCP, had I known that mentioning an off hand comment from one of my professors would take you that far off track, I wouldn't have done it. Sorry. But if you think of it be sure to send me the names of all your professors along with every comment they ever made and I'll check them out for you. Then I'll let you know if they're any good or not. Whether or not my professor's lack of fame influences anyone doesn't concern me. I don't think I should drop his name over a relatively insignificant comment he once made, do you? I'm sure he's not the only person who ever said that. Do I really have to be that careful about every little thing I say to avoid being pounced on by someone who just wants to give me s**t and NOT say anything about the ballad?

For all I care, anybody can pretend to be me. I have no inclination to come up with an alternate name, although Unwelcome GUEST strikes as rather witty. Body of work? On here? You've got to be kidding me. That's pretty much why I stopped using my real name. Mostly what happens on here is I try to discuss this ballad and people who have no real interest in it show up to talk me out of it. They done a pretty good job too-the gatekeepers. You're not bad yourself. But I figured I'd give it one more shot.

Bow to me? Absoutely not. It is I who bow to your venerable wisdom. Can't you tell?

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 14 May 13 - 08:06 PM

Susan

Don't be so arch as to pretend the comment: Oh yeah, it was one of my professors. But you wouldn't know him. He's not famous. was off-hand. It has the clear meaning that your readers would only know him, and by implication have any regard for what he said, if he was famous. (The remark is attributed to Huxley).

My digression was not intended to give you shit, merely to point out that it's good manners to identify yourself consistently rather than as one of numerous anonymous guests. Unwelcome Guest would do fine if you use it consistently and don't want to use a member name. (I don't know why you think you're unwelcome, though as I also said above, I haven't been reading the Rose and Briar thread, but I promise I'll read all 300+ posts tomorrow. And that's a change to my usual policy - when a thread is that long I think it's usually not worth pursuing).

If you check my posts (click on my name in this post), you will find that I almost always only post information on songs and singers. If I have anything to add to a discussion on songs I post, if I don't have anything to add I don't post. I've never tried to talk anyone out of posting on any subject. (Nor do I believe in mysterious gate-keepers or folk-police on Mudcat. As far as I can tell - and I studiously avoid threads once these discussions start - they only get mentioned when someone disagrees with the opinions of the mentioner).

When I read your original post, I thought (as I said in my post to Steve above) that it was an offshoot of a discussion in the Child Ballads 5 thread, questioning the veracity of the early ballad publishers. I had nothing really to say about that, but I did take the time to look up the Walpole papers (hence my note on the missing last verse). In fact I'm still not sure quite what your point is. Are you suggesting that Percy made up the version from Walpole's? I would have thought that someone had probably checked the Percy papers for the two copies supposedly from Parsons and could tell if they were written by Percy or someone else. Walpole's letter says he learned the song some 25 years previously, so as I said above, it's not impossible the two versions have some common antecedent (although Walpole also says he may have remembered it imperfectly and if it was poorly remembered, then agreeing so closely with another version might suggest the two were more than distant cousins. But I wouldn't suggest that unless I knew the Parsons' copies didn't exist)

If you do want a piece of my venerable wisdom, don't let the discussions get you down. The posters here are probably quite nice in real life, but in general people seem to have trouble maintaining any lightness in online discussions (the lack of visual cues). Trust me - I'm really a fun guy (ask anyone who's heard my introductions to songs in folk clubs) and I don't want to give you (or anyone else for that matter) any grief. (Oh, and I've met Steve Gardham too - you'd laugh if you just saw him (sorry Steve!)). I promise from now on I'll stick to the point - no digressions!

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 13 - 08:58 PM

Lighter, I think I confused Child's one with Bronson's nine.

Waltz Notes 

See there, it's a good thing I have you to make my life miserable. But near the beginning of the other thread, before I realized that you're not supposed to post three pages of text, there is a lengthy excerpt from Cazden's book which goes into considerable detail on comic versions of Lord Lovel.

I've discovered that Child did have access to Percy's papers when he was writing his ballad book. He might have seen Walpole's version but it would not have mattered because he made his disapproval of such versions known.

"Lord Lovel' is peculiarly such a ballad as Orsino likes and praises: it is silly sooth, like the old age. Therefore a gross taste has taken pleasure in parodying it, and the same with 'Young Beichan.' But there are people in this world who are amused even with a burlesque of Othello."

I have been trying to pin down what the difference is between parody and burlesque. It's rather subtle. Both ridicule, however, a parody usually mocks something well known whereas a burlesque can stand on it's own. A burlesque has more emphasis on form or style. Parody puts more emphasis on content. I think. Correct me if I'm wrong because I know you love doing it. Anyway I can be of service.

Lord Lovel is probably more of a burlesque than a parody. Although burlesque is considered a form of parody. Thanks for pointing that out to me by jabbing me with a stick, going on all about how the words aren't very different or funny. Steve can obviously address it better. But there are indications of humor in text such as Walpole's "To end the true love we begun" (vs Percy's "To finish the loves we begun.") Also the refrain suggests a tavern sing along: Hey down, Hey down, Hey, hey dery down, Sounds like somebody's having a good time. And also "Buried 'em both in one grave." That 'em is very telling.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 13 - 09:42 PM

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 14 May 13 - 09:43 PM

On the subject of parody v. burlesque, I do have something non-digressive to say.

The OED definitions give:

parody
a composition in which the characteristic turns of thought and phrase of an author are mimicked and made to appear ridiculous, especially by applying them to ludicrously inappropriate subjects.

burlesque
that species of composition which excites laughter by caricature of serious works, or by ludicrous treatment of their subjects

which already indicates that they may not always be easy to distinguish.

In the context here, I take a parody to be an imitation of an existing work, possibly, but not necessarily, with the intention to ridicule, and reflecting, as the OED has it, the thought and phrase of the original. A burlesque on the other hand I take to be a ludicrous imitation of a serious work or style (cf Child's Othello reference), whose intent is humour, but which doesn't usually closely follow the form of the original. Your content versus style comparison seems quite close to the mark (though a burlesque should have as its target something originally serious).


Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Lighter
Date: 14 May 13 - 10:22 PM

> That 'em is very telling.

Not necessarily. As the OED shows, "'em" was once in formal or virtually formal use. It did not always have the semi-literate connotations it has today. It was "them" in an unstressed position.

Compare the usual 18th & 19th C. "don't" for modern "doesn't." The former (in the third-person singular) is now condemned illiterate.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 13 - 10:24 PM

Mick, did you see that? Someone just tried to impersonate me but I pushed them away from the keyboard just in time! Whew, that was close!

I think the serious work in question is 75E.

Another funny thing about Walpole's version is the name of the lady. Lovel, one of the original Yorkists, was the mentioned in a little verse attributed to William Collingbourne (who later paid dearly for it):

The catte, the ratte and Lovell our dogge
Rulyth all England under a hogge

This referred to the beasts on the coats of arms of Richard III and his 3 principle aides. It was a very popular rhyme. Shakespeare even used it. So the natural comedic counterpart to Lovell our dogge would be Lady Hounsibelle right?

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST
Date: 14 May 13 - 10:31 PM

Actually, it's more like this:

The hogge referred to King Richard, whose badge was a white boar, the "Lovell our dog" to Francis Viscount Lovell, who was Richard's closest associate and had a silver wolf as emblem. The "cat" and the "rat" made fun of the names of William Catesby, who furthermore had a white cat as his badge, and Richard Ratcliffe.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Unwelcome guest
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:09 AM

Damn! Not fast enough this time!

Although the rhyme was enough to get Collingbourne into trouble (and possibly with fatal consequences), recent historians point out that he was actually executed for consorting with Henry Tudor and encouraging him to go to England and lead an uprising.(See eg Richard III or Skelton in the Scope House).

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 15 May 13 - 06:36 AM

Yup. You're right :-)

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:23 PM

Right Susan, I'm willing to give you my answer to your original question.

Groom in The Making of Percy's Reliques states (f/n that page) that Parsons sent 18 songs to Percy and claimed that some were 'taken down from the mouth of the Spinning Wheel'. (your questioning quote). If Parsons didn't explicitly say that Lord Lovel was one of those, then you have no question to answer.

If he did, then I would say that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary that Occam's razor applies and we take him at his word. Further up the page I linked above Groom has: Suffice to say that in eighteenth-century England, the oral tradition of ballad-singing was alive and well, and is adequately represented by the broadsides that remain. If it was alive and well, then why shouldn't Parsons have got them as he said.

You stated in the Origins:Rose-Briar Motif thread that you had the originals from Harvard. Do you mean you have copies of the 3 packets that Parsons sent Percy? If so you can answer the question easily.

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 15 May 13 - 12:25 PM

PS - As promised I did read all 313 posts in the Rose-Briar thread. That's two hours of my life I won't get back.

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Lighter
Date: 15 May 13 - 01:31 PM

Mick, I accept my small share of the responsibility.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 15 May 13 - 02:53 PM

Mick,
Me too!
You will be tested on it later.

Jon,
I'm not suggesting that LL definitely originated as a burlesque. It could have been a burlesque on the ballad genre in general, or it could have been a burlesque on an older LL that is now lost.

I think one of the big give-aways with many of these burlesques is the jolly tune allied to a text with pathos.(But not always as 'Ah My love's dead' by Cowell was comic in its exaggerated pathos.)

And yes, the comedy is often in the ear of the listener or the intent of the performer, but that is so with some comic situations even today. One man's meat is another man's poison.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 15 May 13 - 05:35 PM

Mick,

Yes, he did say it in unbelievably horrible penmanship, in a letter dated May 22, 1770. Then a second copy in clearly legible handwriting, with text identical to 75A, was sent to Percy from Parsons five years later, without a letter. This is supposedly the "original." The story does not add up. And some of what he said in his letter makes no sense at all.

At the very least you should agree with me that since 1904, when Horace Walpole's letters were published, the earliest date for Lord Lovel should have been updated to 1765 (Walpole). It is the earliest material proof that Lord Lovel ever existed as a ballad. I don't think Walpole's version should be excluded because it's a funny one. We are not Victorians. Horace Walpole should have that important spot, not Percy. It's like 110 yrs overdue.

What I would like to do is to send you these papers and you can pass them around to get others opinions and then when and if you reach some sort of consensus, you can let me know about it. Or we can discuss it but I hate to take anymore time away from your life that you can't get back.

I am dog sitting until Friday AM and then I will be back at my own computer where I have them stored. If you message me your email address, I will send them as attachments.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 15 May 13 - 05:59 PM

Susan,
I agree with you, the earliest version extant should be acknowledged no matter what its status is.
And should you need it my email address is on the YG site.

Mick,
The Groom book looks fascinating but way beyond my pocket. I'll try to copy what I can of it online. It's not likely to turn up on Ebay or in a charity shop.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 15 May 13 - 06:26 PM

Susan - I agree wholeheartedly about the early date too. I would love a copy of the papers. I've sent you my email address via the SJL member name if that still works for you. (Let me know if it doesn't).

Steve - yes the book looks really interesting but at £115 new and about half that second-hand it's too rich for me too. As you say you can get some of it from the preview. (It was also quoted in Child's Unfinished Masterpiece, which was what made me check it out for the Parsons refs: footnote on p80 of CUM leading to Groom...demonstrates that the text was not the result of 'bad editing' (or even 'literary forgery'), but rather social and cultural processes, changing conceptions of authorship and composition, material interventions in correspondence and lent books, and a series of bibliographical accidents from the fireplace to the print shop, talking about Reliques of course. It makes you want to read more).

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 15 May 13 - 09:35 PM

In the meantime, this a link to a page in David Gregory's book "Victorian Songhunters." This gives some relevant background on Percy and Parsons. There is an important footnote on pg. 50 also:

Percy-Parsons

In Scottish and English Popular Ballads, Child included the following note on 75A:

A. The copy sent Percy in 1770 was slightly revised by Parsons; the original was communicated in 1775.
3*. along in. 4*. coud speed.
6*. make. 6*. their mourn.
10*. Parsons corrects bunch to branch. 7*. bell.

But you will see in the Percy papers, that in Parson's 1770 copy, names are spelled differently also.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 16 May 13 - 09:22 AM

On the difference between parody and burlesque as applied to the material we are discussing: Some thoughts.

Burlesque exists mainly to ridicule the original piece and is suggesting this is faulty in some way, is already an obvious target for ridicule. Often there is little obvious difference between the original and the burlesque. In fact, as one man's meat ...., burlesque can and does easily become a serious song again so that this and the burlesque can happily exist side by side in oral tradition though not in the same repertoire, but certainly in the same printer's stock and sometimes even printed together on the same sheet.

Parody uses the original as a vehicle and creates a new work, whilst acknowledging the original to some degree. It can take the form of satirising the original but this is not a necessary component. If the original disappears off the radar whilst the parody becomes popular, the parody aspect disappears eventually.

I might be wrong on this one but parody seems to require a single work as its target, whereas burlesque can be attacking a whole genre.

The following to me are pure burlesque
Oh Cruel were my parients (Oh Cruel)
Villikins (William and Dinah)
Billy Taylor (Bold William Taylor)
Lord Lovel
Botany Bay (Cockney)
Giles Collins
Two sisters (Child Vol 4, p448)
Barbara Allen The Cruel
Molly the Betrayed (Gosport Tragedy)
Georgy Barnwell
Sam Small(Sam Hall)
Ah(Oh) My Love's dead (The Lover's Lament for her Sailor)

Here are some obvious parodies of similar songs

Joe Muggins (Lord Lovell)
Giles Scroggins Ghost (Giles Collins)
The Vorkhouse Boy (Mistletoe Bough)

I'm not suggesting there is a hard and fast line to be drawn between the two and I'm sure there are cases which overlap. For instance it could be said that there are elements of parody in Billy Taylor.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 17 May 13 - 12:55 AM

Thanks Steve.I've been trying to stick with "comic version" to avoid making the distinction :-)

So would this be a parody?

75D 

Btw, this would be the first version of Lord Lovel in print (1827 Kinloch). Despite the fact that it is usually listed as c.1770 Percy. It should not be. To quote from the Percy-Parsons link in my last post:

If Parsons hoped to see some of this material appear in a later edition of the Reliques, he was disappointed; the manuscripts would gather dust among Percy's papers until Francis Childs retrieved them in the late 19th century."

That means Percy's text 75A was not in print until c.1884.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 17 May 13 - 04:49 AM

Susan,
No, it isn't either. To be a parody it would have to introduce a fresh element that was not part of the usual plot. The fact that it has fresh text is most probably down to Kinloch's interference with whatever the Roxburghshire lady sang him.

The fact that some of these versions concocted around 1800 closely resemble burlesque doesn't mean they are. To be burlesque there has to have been some deliberate attempt at ridicule or comedy.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 17 May 13 - 09:38 AM

I find it very interesting that an actual name is not given for the lady from Roxburghshire. But since Sir Walter's Douglas Tragedy caused such a lucrative sensation in that area, I do think that my theory of why the motif would be excluded on a version from that vicinity holds true. The people around Roxburgh and Selkirk, the supposed site of the Douglas Tragedy, felt it belonged on their ballad.

The Percy Papers and Kinloch's manuscripts were both auctioned off to Harvard in 1884. That means that 75A and 75B never reached print until about that time. They were first published by Child. That's important if you're trying to see where printed texts may have influenced subsequent versions.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 17 May 13 - 10:46 AM

Susan,
You may well be right regarding the Douglas Tragedy influence. It would be worth discussing this with a local expert if we could find one. Ronnie Clarke is not that far away in the Kircudbright area. The Hornel might be able to throw some light on this, perhaps in the Macmath papers.

I'll have another look at the chronology and see where broadsides come into it.

'That's important if you're trying to see where printed texts may have influenced subsequent versions.' True. Does that mean Kinloch's version published in 1827 was the earliest published? I can't find any broadside printings earlier than about the 1840s. The only one with a definite date on is Glasgow Poet's Box 1852. There is a broadside in Harvard printed in Glasgow (listed in Welsh and Tillinghast 1368) which could be Robertson which would take it back to about 1800. The broadsides all seem to have the 10 or 11 verses of the burlesque.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 17 May 13 - 06:22 PM

Have you seen a copy of this broadside? I searched for it and I only found an index that mentions it.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 18 May 13 - 12:08 AM

If you have studied Horace Walpole's version, and you compare it with Child texts 75A & 75E, you must admit that those three represent a tradition that, above and beyond ballad vs burlesque, says "period piece." It is related to the other texts of LL but at the same time it is a separate tradition. 

Campbell: Hey down, hey down, hey derry, hey down, (ballad)

Walpole: Hey down, Hey down, Hey, hey dery down, (burlesque)

Percy: Dey down, dey down, dey down dery down, (two bit ballad do-over)

It should be noted that Campbell is an extremely reputable folklore collector. 75A & 75 E went into publication at the same time. So Percy's 75A "Northumbrian ballad" could never have influenced 75E. Of course, it could have "drifted" to the Wye, Kent spinners but somehow, I don't think so.

I think history has left a fairly straight trajectory. It began as a Jacobite ballad, a period piece, which became fodder for rabidly anti-Jacobite Horace Walpole's burlesque. He sent it to Percy and the rest is herstory.

I've read up on Percy & Campbell, and I've read Horace Walpole's letters. I know I'm right.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 May 13 - 10:21 AM

Okay Susan,
Perhaps you could just once again list the proof for 'Jacobite ballad' so we can see what your starting point is clearly?

As I hope I've put forward, the dividing line (if any) between serious ballad and burlesque is a very fine one. Sometimes the performer on stage didn't need to alter a single word, the comedy was all in the vocalisation, gesture and costume. 'Ah my Love's dead' is a prime example. The picture of Cowell on the cover would leave you in no doubt as to what was intended but the text inside the sheet is no different from serious versions going back to the 17th century and forward to the modern day.

My opinion on both Lovel and G/Collins is that they existed as burlesque quite early on, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of an even earlier, longer serious ballad in either/both cases.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 May 13 - 10:41 AM

Hi Susan,
No, unfortunately I only have the reference in Welsh and Tillinghast. My reasons for thinking it might be earlier are that the Imprint is just given as 'Glasgow' as opposed to a specific printer, and most of the items in W&T are of the earlier type. Those that just say 'Printed in Glasgow' are usually those from around about 1800, but not certainly.

Okay, here's the full citation in W&T.

1368 The History of Donald and his Dog; to which is added a Collection of Songs. Glasgow. sm. 12. pp. 24. woodcut on t. p. 2 copies. (75.5, 85.2) The first piece, telling how Donald outwitted the English robber, is also appended to "Thrummy Cap" 75.7. Among the songs are several negro minstrel songs, "The Jolly Beggar" (Child 279, v. 109), and "Lord Lovell" in the form II as given by Child, no. 75, ii 211.

If the minstrel songs are proper minstrel troupe songs then the songster can't be any earlier than 1840 and in that case I have misled you, as this would make it contemporary with the other broadsides. Now I have that info at hand I'll see if I can find another copy of the songster somewhere and confirm the probable date.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 May 13 - 10:58 AM

Just had a look at all the broadside LLs and they all seem to be based on the later burlesque by the likes of J. W. Sharp.

Whilst searching Bodl for these I also came across a 1747 broadside on the execution of one of the Lovets. What a popular fellow he must have been! Check out Douce 3 (55b)

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 18 May 13 - 01:09 PM

Steve, that's the one I was telling you about!

I think the most influential of all the texts is H, put out by the short lived Percy Society. Also a London broadside, I believe, and widely distributed. 1846. This is the classic version. Pay attention to the intro:

"The ballad of Lord Lovel is from a broadside printed in the metropolis during the present year. A version may be seen in                     Kinloch's Ancient Scottish Ballads, where it is given as taken down from the recitation of a lady in Roxburghshire. Mr. M. A. Richardson, the editor of the Local Historian's Table Book, says that the ballad is ancient, and the hero is traditionally believed to have been one of the family of Lovele, or Delavalle, of Northumberland: the London printers say that their copy is very old. The two last verses are common to many ballads. From the tune being that to which the old ditty of Johnnie o' Cockelsmuir is sung, it is not improbable that the story is of Northumbrian or Border origin."

Really?

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 May 13 - 04:39 PM

Dixon is not always a trustworthy source. Have you got a date for 'Local Historian's Table Book'? That would be interesting even if it just takes us back to an earlier date on the ballad. One presumes he has spoken to the London printers, but we already know the ballad was around in the middle of the 18thc.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 18 May 13 - 04:52 PM

Vol1 seems to be 1841 Steve. (5 vols up to 1846 there)

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 18 May 13 - 05:07 PM

Check this one out:

Bell

I'd really like to see that black-letter copy about the date of Charles II. Hmmm...

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 18 May 13 - 06:17 PM

Remember you said a ballad and a burlesque can coexist? Definitely.

I'll return to my Lady Nancy hee hee-ee :-)))

I swear everytime I hear that happy little tune, I think of this:

Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo 

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 18 May 13 - 07:01 PM

Steve - The Dalton's of York copy is dated by the BL as 1805? in their catalogue. Is that reasonable, or do you think it's later than that?

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 19 May 13 - 08:49 AM

Mick,
I've got a copy. I'll have a look, but I'd have said later. I can also check trade directories when I get chance. If I remember rightly it's in 'York Publications' mainly Kendrew and Carrall sheets of about that date.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 19 May 13 - 09:07 AM

It looks about same period as the others to me c1840s. It's on the same sheet as 'Things I Don't Like to See' which I don't think goes back before 1840.

The imprint says: 'Sold Wholesale and Retail, at Dalton's Public Library, 96, Walmgate, York.

To be honest, flicking through the whole 'York Publications' I wouldn't have said any were earlier than 1840 including the Kendrew and Carrall ones. There are some Fortey in there as well so that gives you an idea of the period.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 19 May 13 - 09:14 AM

Susan,
I can't find your reference. I have Bell which is derived from Dixon anyway and it doesn't seem to mention anything about Black Letter.

Puzzled!

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 19 May 13 - 09:48 AM

I just tried the link "Bell" and it works. The following appeared in "Early Ballads Illustrative of History," pg. 134. It says:

                         LORD LOVEL

This popular ballad is believed to be ancient. Mr. J.H. Dixon informs me that he has seen a black-letter copy of it, of about the date of Charles II. Another version, taken down from recitation, is published in Kinloch's Ancient Scottish Ballads. It was reprinted in London, in 1846, from an old broadside; and included in a collection of Ancient Poems published by the Percy Society in the same year. The hero was, in all probability, one of the Loveles or Delavalles of Northumberland, celebrated in Chevy Chase; and the ballad may be presumed to be of Border origin. This conjecture is strengthened by the fact that it was written to the tune of Johnnie o'Cockelsmuir.

I think the above is all BS, a big joke by the Percy Society. LL is not a Northumbrian ballad. Looks to me like it was they who assigned the happy tune of of Johnnie o'Cockelsmuir. And this version is undoubtedly the classic one.

Charles II reigned from 1630-1685. I have stated before that I believe it was written in the aftermath of the Jacobite risings of 1689. Perhaps they know something, but they are not communicating it straightforwardly.