Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 23 May 13 - 05:24 PM

Hope this works for you, otherwise I'll write it out.

Niles 

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 23 May 13 - 03:59 PM

Interesting, Susan. It goes to show that just because someone is a known fabricator they needn't be bereft of useful contributions. Save me checking, please, what were his first and second parts? Wonder if George Collins is in there.

I'm not so sure it was the most-printed in the songsters. I'm sure there were other more-printed ones, Barbara Allen, Cruel Ship's Carpenter. It was printed on New York broadsides c1860 but it's not in any of the American songsters I have.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 23 May 13 - 03:44 PM

Thanks for sorting that out Mick.

Btw, have you ever read what Niles had to say about this ballad?

The ballad of "Lord Lovel," the third in the tragic trilogy, presents the legend of a weakling member if the nobility who suffered from an Englishman's usual desire to see far places...We may safely say that Lord Lovel died a laggard's death. In my family, the ballad of "Lord Lovel" was thought to be slightly ridiculous, and was sung for humor's sake, if at all... Lord Lovel has been printed more often in American songbooks and broadsides than any other Anglo-American ballad.

Ouch!

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 23 May 13 - 12:38 PM

The online version from that home page seems slightly differently numbered from the version I found earlier. Here's a link to the start of the letter at Yale: To the Rev.Thomas Percy, Tuesday 5 February 1765. That's page 372 there, and the ballad is on pp375-376 here (not 369/370 in my earlier version).

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 23 May 13 - 12:32 PM

Richie - that's the Yale transcripts. See the 3rd post in the thread - links to p460 and p470. I think this is the home page: The Lewis Walpole Library. I think the editor is W.S.Lewis.

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Richie
Date: 23 May 13 - 12:12 PM

The editorial version (you sent me) I put on my site has 20 footnotes. In Helen Wrigley Toynbee & Paget Jackson Toynbee, published 1904, there are 5 footnotes.

So this is a different edition- just like to put the correct source.

Richie

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 23 May 13 - 10:19 AM

Awesome Ritchie!

Do you mean the editors of the edition of Walpole's letters in which this version of LL first appeared? That would be Helen Wrigley Toynbee & Paget Jackson Toynbee, published 1904, Clarendon Press, pp.180-184.

Here's a link;

Horace Walpole

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Richie
Date: 23 May 13 - 09:46 AM

Hi,

I've put the letter and the ballad wiht footnotes on my site:

http://bluegrassmessengers.com.temp.realssl.com/the-ballad-of-lady-hounsibelle-and-lord-lovel-1765.aspx

Does anyone know the editor?

Richie

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 22 May 13 - 04:40 PM

Hi Gutcher,
Absolutely, but I believe the name Grissels was a much used name in the family. I can only find Grizey Sinclair in Herd's version. Does it occur in any other versions?

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 22 May 13 - 03:59 PM

Keep us posted please on what Andersen has to say. I have his 'Commonplace and Creativity' and I'll check it out for anything on LL. It will at least get a mention for the commonplace rose & briar ending. I'd like to know what Andersen's interpretation of 'genuine' is. In the case of Jeannie's version I think 'rescue' is the operative word. I don't think LL is a pastiche of commonplaces, but it is possible it was an imitation. Structurally and even in plot it has a lot in common with George Collins and I believe there may be some similarity in the way they originated.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 22 May 13 - 03:45 PM

And this is for you Steve because you have referred to the possibility of some earlier lost ballad more than once. This is the whole excerpt from "Christopher" which deals with LL:

And she would sing to him. Yes, first " A little ship was on the sea, it was a pretty sight," and then " Lord Lovel and Lady Ancebel." Yes, the whole of it — even if he was asleep before the last verse. . . . A voice singing softly — singing, as it were, under its breath, and for Christopher alone — was heard then in the night nursery, chasing fears away, and spreading a gentle calm that lapped him round like tiny waves of the sea. *'

' Oh, that's a long time, Lord Lovel,' she said,
To leave a fair lady alone ' "

The voice faltered. Christopher felt the hand removed from his head for a moment. " Mummy ? " " Yes, darling."

"I'm not asleep — quite."

The hand went back. It held something then which had been fumbled for without any actual break in the singing. Christopher, with eyes tight closed, wondered why. But the handkerchief seemed like part of the hand, and he felt quite safe and sighed contentedly.

And so it is Lady Ancebel,
But I must needs be going.'"

The voice, threading the verses on a slender string of melody, grew further and further off. Christopher heard about the milk-white steed, and "Adown, adown, adown, adown," and was conscious of the approach of the line which to Mrs. Herrick always seemed to have too many feet. At " a branch of sweetbriar," he tried, with a vague intention of announcing that he was still awake, to say Mummy once more, but the word would not come, and the last verse of all mingled itself with new and happy dreams :

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

Collecting songs is like fishing. Certain ones are caught but there's more in the sea as they say. Maybe this passage represents a version that was never collected.

Adown, adown, adown, adown.

Obviously the refrain. It's different from other versions we know of. How interesting. Note all the references to the sea also. And don't forget the true lover's knot is a sailor thing to begin with. Maybe LL is just seafaring ballad that eventually became a lullaby in each harbor town that embraced it. This novel begins with Christopher's birth on a ship rocking away in the sea :-)

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 22 May 13 - 02:26 PM

I will also see if I can get it from the library. In the meantime, I found a link to Matt Schwarz's version of Lord Lovel, the one that is accompanied by the tune "Lord Lovel," usually played on the dulcimer (except Matt plays the harp on this version).

Matt Schwarz 

I actually emailed Matt and suggested he use Child 75E instead of H and after reviewing the text, he decided that he did in fact prefer 75E to H and also the name Ancebel to Nancybell. Eventhough he recorded the ballad using text H as his set of lyrics, he did so mainly because H is the "classic" or standard version. He wasn't really aware of other versions.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 22 May 13 - 01:03 PM

Thanks Susan - I've seen that (and others like it), but I was wondering if anyone had the actual article. The article is cited often, both in reference works and ballad course reading. (The book is out of print and massively expensive now. I might try and get it through interlibrary loan).

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 22 May 13 - 12:23 PM

I just have this which I found on the web awhile back. It's like a blurb:

Oral Tradition in England in the Eighteenth Century: 'Lord Lovel.'."  Because In comparison with Scotland, little is known of early English ballad tradition. This chapter begins by rehearsing the numbers: "Of Child's 305 ballads 158 are printed in Scottish versions only, whereas only 61 ballads lack Scottish versions, and 39 of these are the so-called Outlaw Ballads, whose ballad status is questioned by Child himself." The greatest period of song collecting in England occurred just after Child published, so the heavily Scottish character of his collection is partly a matter of chance. But it is also true that 18th c. ballad collectors found less material in England. After the publication of Thomas Percy's (rather adulterated) Reliques, he received more than 30 additional ballads from correspondents, only 7 of which were from England. However, several of these are excellent texts that appear to come from a genuinely oral tradition. Andersen here discusses one of them, "Lord Lovel," a ballad which has been often maligned for a lack of story and an excess of sentimentality. Andersen argues that despite these flaws the ballad is "genuine," not a hack-job of pasted together commonplaces, as has been suggested. (Others have argued for its rescue on the basis of Jeannie Robertson's grand recording, which lends it a dignity hard to discover in text alone.) 

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 22 May 13 - 10:44 AM

If we're talking about the Hebrew "Ance," it's ancient. But maybe we're not. There is a French "Ance" as well. Middle Ages. Pretty old.

Here is more info:

"The origin of "Nancy" seems surely to be "Agnes", though many have supposed it to be "Anne", and such a derivation is certainly possible for "Nan" We can start with "Annes", the common spelling of "Agnes"in the sixteenth century. From "Annes" we can have a short form "Ance." These forms would inevitably have developed n-forms "Nance" and "Nancy."

Another entry says:

It probably first came into use as a medieval diminutive of Annis (there is a Lady Annis in one variant of Lady Alice) although it has since the 18th century been used as a diminutive of Anna and subsequently as an independent name.

So what all this means is that while Nancy has been regarded as a derivative of Anne since the 18th century, prior to that it was a diminutive of the Medieval form of Agnes (Annes). Now that makes sense.

Now this I love:

Unah \u-nah\ as a girl's name is an IRISH variant of Agnes (Greek), and the meaning of Unah is "pure, holy". Phonetic spelling would be Oonah.

See? Oonzabel and Ancebel are perhaps pronounced differently but mean the same thing. The vowel sound OW as in Hounsibelle and Ouncebell- not likely.

But one thing's for sure, it didn't start out as Nancybell!

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 22 May 13 - 10:10 AM

Aristocrat pet names can be very peculiar. Horace Walpole's pet name for his friend George Montague's sister Henrietta (d.1755) was "Hounsibella." In fact, from his letters, we know Horace had already dubbed her that by 1746 which is right around the time he claimed he first heard the song he sent to Percy. This is further confirmation that "Lady Hounsibelle and Lord Lovel" was indeed around in the early 1700's. The burlesque LL seems to have been a special favorite of HW.

While, aristocrats have certainly used nicknames. I think it is more of a class connotation that goes with Nancy, a commoness or even a certain bawdiness. There are those who would agree:

Nancy 

I think authors generally put thought into the names of their characters. Why did Dickens chose Nancy?

I'm sure you know what a "Nancy boy" is right? Why Nancy? Why not some other name? There seems to be some suggestion of lewdness attached to it.

And then there's that line from "Rocky Racoon":

"Her name was McGill, she called herself Lill, but everyone knew her as Nancy."

Something about that name puts it on the lower end of the social spectrum, more so in yesteryear than nowadays (because we are so caught up now in token egalitarianism I suppose).

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 22 May 13 - 08:44 AM

Has anyone got the section on Lord Lovel from The Ballad as Narrative (Andersen, Holzapfel and Pettitt)? The chapter is by Andersen and is called Oral Tradition in England in the Eighteenth Century: "Lord Lovel" (Child 75A). It a reference that's cited often and has some discussion of the text.

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Gutcher
Date: 22 May 13 - 04:40 AM

I do not quite agree that Nancybell would not be used by a lady when we have a good example of an earls daughter being referred to as Grizzie---see The Laird o Roslins Dochter. The laird in this case being an earl who would be referred to by all in his ken as The Laird.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 22 May 13 - 03:17 AM

Where's your authority for 7), Susan? Of course there's always 'Annabelle'.

You may well be right but if the ballad was, as is possible, written as a burlesque of something else, a daft sounding derivative might have been there from the start. Generally speaking in romantic ballads in English first names are usually quite generic and simple, William, John, Thomas, Maisry, Janet, Margaret.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 May 13 - 10:39 PM

The correct pronounciation for Ance:

Ance 

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 May 13 - 10:22 PM

I think Oonzabel in 75E should be Ancebel. There are some good reasons for thinking this:

1.) In 75J, the lady's name is Anzibel, a phonetic match.

2.) It would explain "Anne Sweet Belle" in Irish variants; a mondegreen for Ancebel?

3.) Nancybell is not an appropriate name for a lady; a serving wench perhaps, but not a lady.

4.) Today I found a reference to the LL in a 1911 novel called "Christopher" by Richard Pryce. It was called, "Lord Lovel and Lady Ancebel."

5.) As I've explained before, Nan or Nancy is derived from Anne. Ancebel easily becomes Nancybell but not the reverse.

6.) Ouncebell is derived from Hounsibelle. Both are nonsense names.

7.) Ancebel is a very old and rather unusual name. Ance comes from the Hebrew meaning Grace. It is sometimes written Ance Belle.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 21 May 13 - 04:14 PM

Okay, Jim, no need. I've seen the very little Wilgus has to say on the matter and all he seems to be doing is repeating what Walker and Keith said.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 21 May 13 - 04:02 PM

Jim,
It might seem a bit laborious but if I send you a list of all the headnotes where Child was scathing would this help? Don't forget Child's parting shot which I've already pointed out to you twice.

William Walker to Child in 1894.
'Peter Buchan seems to me to have coined words, and written nonsense without the least hesitation when the necessities of rhyme pressed him.--He is a clumsy cobbler however, and his work is noted at a glance by any one with an ear for ballad poetry.' Pretty conclusive I'd say. I can add more on individual ballads if you wish.

This is a quote from 'Bedesman and Hodbearer' by the way.

Perhaps you could quote the appropriate statement from Wilgus for us, Jim.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 May 13 - 03:25 PM

And cookies :-)

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 13 - 03:05 PM

"Why pick on me, Jim?"
Because you insist on speaking in such definitive and often disparaging terms - just been trawling back through some of our past arguments - not a lot of rom for maneuver there.
Wonder can you help.
"when Child was alive, was equally scathing of PB's efforts"
I though it a bit odd that researchers with Greig's and Keith's track records should be "heavily under the influence" of someone who did a screeching U-turn on the subject of Buchan.
Can you supply a link to this 'Road to Damascus' conversion - can't find it anywhere?
Everything I have read on Child's attitude lately has him undecided but half-way there on the validity of what was published - which makes the "had Child lived..." statement perfectly feasible.
What do you make of Wilgus's statement on the matter in 'Folksong Scholarship.." - was he wrong too?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST
Date: 21 May 13 - 01:45 PM

So nice to have you both back. Will you be staying for tea?

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 21 May 13 - 12:38 PM

Absolutely right, Jim, on what Bell said here.
You must have missed the bit where I said I agreed with most of what Greig said! Why pick on me, Jim? I'm just one in a long line of illustrious critics (Not that I'm illustrious!)

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 13 - 11:14 AM

It seems they all got it wrong apart from your good self, doesn't it Steve?
Pity you weren't around at the time, then we'd all know everything!
Wasn't it Belle Robertson who said that Jamie Rankin wasn't capable of making up songs?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 21 May 13 - 09:47 AM

Sorry Jim,
I meant to add in that no-one has ever suggested, including me, that every ballad that PB published was written by him or heavily overworked by him. The only difference between the 2 schools of thought is the extent to which he interfered with the material. I just happen to be at Child's end of the spectrum, but not for what I have read in Child, from my own extensive studies of all of PB's published works, the manuscripts, and correspondence between his contemporaries.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 21 May 13 - 09:34 AM

Susan, if I'd have spoken it, or left the capital off that would have been a very funny pun!

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 21 May 13 - 09:12 AM

Thanks, Jim,
I'm well aware of what Greig and Keith had to say on PB. I actually agree with a lot of what Greig says. Both of them were heavily under the influence of William Walker, who, when Child was alive, was equally scathing of PB's efforts, but rather strangely as soon as Child died seemed to jump completely to PB's defence. Being 'as reliable as Hogg or Cunningham' is hardly any recommendation, in fact, I'd say it was more of an indictment.

'But he does not appear to have been a sinner above and beyond other collectors and editors of his own day and generation.' I defy anyone who has studied closely his ballads in great detail to agree with this statement.

As for the ballads in Keith, many come from the indefatigable, non-singing Bell Robertson and having also studied these very closely, quite a number are almost verbatim the texts published by PB himself.

Christie has long been known as a very unreliable source. Much of the texts he published, as stated in Child, are taken direct from PB's publications.

'critic like Child pause before he rejected Buchan's contributions. Child did more than pause. By inference at least he accepted Buchan as substantially reliable, and gave him the place of honour with a frequency denied to most of the other great collectors.' This is not just inaccurate. it is grossly untrue. PB's texts, where others are available, are given at the end of the list just before the fragments in the vast majority of cases. We've been over this before.

'Had he been able to compare the Ballads with their MS. originals, and had he been spared to see the collection made by Greig, it may be confidently asserted that the prince of ballad-editors would have been on the side of Peter Buchan." '
Again this is totally untrue. As I said earlier, the Harvard Ms is a publisher's proof, a finished product. It is almost verbatim what was published. I have a copy. I doubt if Keith had seen it! Child knew exactly what was in it which is why he delayed over buying it. Also Walker copied out for him any bits that weren't already published.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 May 13 - 08:56 AM

Steve, are you really with Child? How did THAT happen?

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 May 13 - 08:52 AM

Mick, you may well be ethical, but I said Michael. That's the only person who gave me anything in that last thread that I could actually cite :-) If I knew where that thing was going, I would have stopped it right there!

Not really. Live and learn...

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 May 13 - 08:38 AM

I like this tune a lot, however, the words ditty and jig apply:

Johny Cock Thy Beaver 

Johnny Cock Up Thy Beaver 

I think this is a tune that would work well in a burlesque of LL, particularly if the point were to ridicule Jacobites, but it might work for a ballad as well. I have heard a Medieval Scandinavian variant with a similiar tempo. Bronson said, "The folk mind- if the term be allowed- has never distinguished ballad tunes from any other good singing tunes."

But I still wonder why there is no listed variant Johnny O'Cockelsmuir. The only place that name ever appears in a search is in Percy Society publications. Since it is common in Scotland, this surprises me. The fact that it does exist does not change my opinion that the tune was deliberately assigned to LL by the Northumbrian balladeers, Dixon et al.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Gutcher
Date: 21 May 13 - 07:34 AM

Someone trying their hand at composing a ballad??--printed in 1835.

LORD LOVAT.-- The Frazers, lords Lovat in the Ross/Inverness area of Scotland and referring to the Crusades.

[1] Lord Lovat left the wars,
    Beneath the halie cross,
    To seek the weel-kent braes and scaurs,
    And the bonnie woods o" Ross.
    ---------------------------------------
[5] Lord Lovat"s step was first
    When Ascalon was won;
    Lord Lovat"s lance, the foremost burst
    Jerusalem"s wa"s upon.
    ---------------------------------------
[36] But nae Lord Lovat cam",
    Though twice the gathering cry
    From thousands rose the hills amang,
    In thunder to the sky.
    ---------------------------------------
[39] Stretched on the altar steps, below
    The cross, as if to pray,
    And white upon his sunburnt brow,
    The drifted cranreuch lay.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 21 May 13 - 06:55 AM

Yesterday I had a quick look at the sets of tunes in Bronson for these two songs. The Johnny Cock tunes are all in duple time. The Lord Lovel tunes are mostly in 6/8 (including the earliest ca 1840 and Sam Cowell's tune). There are however a small group (mostly US, but one from Lincolnshire collected by Grainger) of Lord Lovel's in 4/4.

I would hazard a guess that the 6/8 tunes may stem from the lighter side of the tradition - jigs being generally more sprightly and suitable from less serious songs. The reference to the Johnny Cocklesmuir tune for Lord Lovel and the fact that Johnny Cock has only been collected in 4/4 may mean that Lovel was originally more generally sung to a more serious 4/4 tune. This is purely speculative of course. When I've got a bit more time I'll go through the tunes more closely (there are a lot of them!).

Susan - I'm not sure if I've got an ethical disposition! I do have a scientific one though (it's that maths training) and that probably leans more in Steve's direction. It's like the Venerable Bede's story of the sparrow flying through a hall in Winter. He says something along the lines of the life of man is like the sparrow flying through the hall, we know what happens as it flies through, but what of happened before or after he flies through we have no knowledge. My scientific disposition says that we can only say definitely something about the ballad where we have evidence for it. We can speculate (as I did above about the tunes), but without evidence to back it up we can't say anything definite. (My statistical background also suggest that some things are more likely than others: Lord Lovel may have sprung fully formed into life in 1760 because it was brought to earth by aliens, but the balance of probability suggests that is not likely). What I do ethically believe is that we can discuss things without getting into a personal fight - dispute the facts and opinions but not the person making them.

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 May 13 - 06:04 AM

Thanks Jim. I found it.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 May 13 - 03:50 AM

"Meanwhile, there's no record anywhere of a ditty called Johnnie O'Cockelsmuir. Doesn't exist."
Sorry Susan - it does - it's usually known as Johnny O' Braidislie or Johnny Cock (Child 114)
Bronson has a version entitled Johnny Cockalie, but Cockelsmuir is fairly common in Scotland.
"but as you know I'm with Child when it comes to Buchan."
And I have heard nothing here to change my mind on the case - but at least you are no longer declaring your theories as definitive statements, a move in the right direction I suppose.
Personally I would prefer to accept what the opinions of Gavin Greig whose findings in the field went a long way towards verifying Buchan's texts - a voices from someone far nearer the source of the question than we are.
Jim Carroll
Gavin Greig:
"The redoubtable Peter remains the prince of ballad collectors. His Gleanings of Scarce Old Ballads (1825), his Ancient Ballads and Songs of the North of Scotland (1828), together with the Chap Books which he issued from time to time, represent an amount of work in the way of collecting, editing, and printing our old ballads, that gives him a place and reputation in this particular field quite beyond serious challenge, Some recent critics like Mr T. F. Henderson are pretty hard on Peter Buchan. They have scant faith in his work. Buchan we know was himself misled at times; and he in turn doubtless misleads us now and again. The ethics of collecting and editing was pretty elastic in those days, and Peter could hardly be expected to anticipate the severer standard of a later generation. But he does not appear to have been a sinner above and beyond other collectors and editors of his own day and generation. He seems to be at least as reliable as Hogg, and much more so than Allan Cunningham. In any case only those who have themselves worked in the area which he explored are in a position to judge of the value of the results of his research; and those who possess this qualification are very far from endorsing the criticism which characterises Peter's collection as in considerable measure " a mere farrago of unauthentic doggerel."
Folk-Song of the Northeast.

Alexander Keith:
"The late Professor Child, who has been cited by some of the accusers of Buchan as their most redoubtable ally, took up, in reality, an intermediate attitude. Careful examination of Child's work reveals that he never committed himself to a condemnation of Buchan, although he constantly con¬demned passages in Buchan's ballads which he considered modern importations or examples of decadence and vulgar fancy.
Gruntvig's attitude, and the testimony of independent Aberdeenshire ballad versions procured from unpublished MSS., were sufficient to make a discerning and cautious critic like Child pause before he rejected Buchan's contributions. Child did more than pause. By inference at least he accepted Buchan as substantially reliable, and gave him the place of honour with a frequency denied to most of the other great collectors. Child, however, as late as 1891 was under the impression that the British Museum MSS. were all in Buchan's handwriting, and he did not live to see the MS. from which the 1828 Ballads were selected. Had he been able to compare the Ballads with their MS. originals, and had he been spared to see the collection made by Greig, it may be confidently asserted that the prince of ballad-editors would have been on the side of Peter Buchan."
Last Leaves of Traditional Ballads and Ballad Airs.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 May 13 - 12:20 AM

The tune that has become "traditional" for LL, however, does not sound like the links in my last post. Rather it has been described as incongruously upbeat for a tragic ballad. Examples below:

Lord Lovel III 

Lively finger picking in many versions:

Lord Lovel IV 

Meanwhile, there's no record anywhere of a ditty called Johnnie O'Cockelsmuir. Doesn't exist.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 20 May 13 - 09:21 PM

I think this tune (links below) is lovely. I have heard it paired with one of Childs texts for LL only once. Matt Schwartz recorded it using this tune and text 75H (the text that ultimately became standard).

Lord Lovel I 

Lord Lovel II 

Does anyone know anything about the origin of this tune or why it is called Lord Lovel? It seems strange that there would be a tune called Lord Lovel over here and a set of texts that purport to be a ballad over there. Does anyone think they were once in sync and were somehow separated?

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 20 May 13 - 02:46 PM

I'm very happy with Jim's and Mick's ethical disposition, but as you know I'm with Child when it comes to Buchan.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 20 May 13 - 05:52 AM

Dear Guest,

I've always thought Lord Lovel was a reference to Viscount Francis Lovell despite being cautioned against arriving at such conclusions. What you're telling me is the gothic legend that persisted for over five centuries. Here's what historians now know about Lovell's fate after Boswell:

After the battle, Lovell fled to sanctuary at Colchester and from there escaped the following year to organise a revolt in Yorkshire that attempted to seize Henry VII. After the failure of this plot, Lovell first joined fellow rebels at Furness Falls and later fled to Margaret of York in Flanders.

As a chief leader of the Yorkist party, Lovell took a prominent part in Lambert Simnel's enterprise. With John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, he accompanied the pretender to Ireland and fought for him at the Battle of Stoke Field on 16 June 1487. He was seen escaping from the battle and seems to have eventually fled to Scotland, where on 19 June 1488 James IV issued a safe conduct to him.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,guest
Date: 19 May 13 - 10:19 PM

If you look at the history of Minster Lovell in Oxfordshire Lord Lovell was a henchman of King Richard(of the car park fame!) who was at one time supposed to go on a mission to far Scotland! He dissappeared at the battle of Bosworth. When one of the subsequent ladies of the house of Minster Lovel( some 300 years later) decided to extend the grand fire place a secret room was found with the skeleton of a man sitting at a table.This was believed to be the remains of Lord lovell who had returned home after his wife and family had gone into hiding only to be left locked in when all of his retainers were murdered by the victorious soldiers of the other side. Lord Lovell as a Privy councillor would have been entitled to a burial in the choir of St.Pancres but his wife only a burial in the kirk yard. The Victorian Missletoe Bough was written after the author's Grand tour visit to Modena where it's story is well documented and no doubt the use of the name Lord Lovell was suggested by a knowlege fo the above information.
I hope some of this makes sense as it is very late and that is not improving my spelling or typing.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 19 May 13 - 07:03 PM

And most of all, Michael.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 19 May 13 - 06:58 PM

And maybe you won't like me saying this because you don't seem to like him, but someone with the ethical disposition of Jim Carroll :-)

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 19 May 13 - 06:51 PM

Ethical disposition. Collecting what was there to collect. Not making things up to further one's status. If you don't believe this person was this kind of person, why would follow him?

I am very comfortable putting my confidence in Campbell. He was not exactly a leading figure in the Child ballad collecting endeavor. He was more a person who recorded the Highlanders in the period when Britain was subduing them, after the Jacobite defeat when their culture was under siege- retribution for rebellion against the Hanoverian regime.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 19 May 13 - 06:25 PM

same ethical disposition
In what ways? We don't have much evidence about how Buchan went about his work because he left behind no field notes. We know he employed Rankin to find material and we know the names of a few other editors who sent him material but that's about it.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 19 May 13 - 05:31 PM

Oops. That was me.

I looked up Buchan and it seems to me that he and Campbell have in common the same ethical disposition, a similar philosophy that showed in the manner in which they went about their work.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 13 - 05:18 PM

Actually, Percy styled himself as a descendant of the noble family of Percy. He had drawn up a geneaology to prove it. His name was originally Piercy, but he changed it.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 19 May 13 - 05:11 PM

There's loads of Lovell history online. No link to De laval as far as I can see. Plenty of Lords. Seems to derive from French for wolf, lupus.