The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Gutcher
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 01:43 PM

So many questions so few answers.

   Another.
   At the time in question King James 11[1436-1460] passed a law
   against sorners & sturdy beggars, Why?
   Could this have been his response to the complaints from Gallowa.
   It is almost certain that the strangers were not called gypsies
   at that time. They may have been known as saracens,blackamoors,
   sorners or sturdy beggars.
   Earl Douglas was not in residence in Gallowa at the time in
   question,such was his power that I am sure he never would have
   clyped to the King but would have taken the necessary measures
   to clean up his ain midden.
   I have accessed the Ragmans Roll[c.1298]but as yet have been
   unable to get at the names contained in that document.This in
   my search for Faa,Faw or Fall.
   Joe.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:07 PM

Joe,
Why are you going as far back as 13thc? If there were Falls in the 16th century that's all we need.

   'At the time in question King James 11[1436-1460] passed a law
   against sorners & sturdy beggars, Why?'

At the risk of being accused of being racist, the answer must surely be, as with the 17th century laws passed by later Jameses, the gipsies, or whatever title they were given, were perceived as thieves and vagabonds. Their posing as pilgrims would tend to back this up.

Again guessing but could the term 'Gypsies' be derived from the fact that their dwelling place was known as 'Little Egypt' rather than the commonly perceived idea that it derives from 'Egyptians'? or both? I wonder where the earliest use of the name 'Gypsy' appears.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 18 Jan 10 - 04:21 PM

Re John O Hazelgreen.
Joe,
As I said before I have been through all the OS maps of southern Scotland and the only Hazley Green I found was a couple of miles SW of Newton Stewart so it may be connected to the Garlies Stewarts.
If there is any fact in the song I'd say it surely must be after the Union. Even a lord couldn't wander leisurely across the lowlands in such a way for very many periods before that. The very fact that the ballad contains no conflict of any sort goes against the grain of the ballad stories. There is an old pack road going almost direct from Newton Stewart to Biggar and then Edinburgh.

I conjectured that a younger son of a laird would have been given some land of his own and perhaps be expected to marry into a wealthy family, but the pressure wouldn't have been so great on the younger son as on the eldest. The fact that the father went off to find the son's sweetheart and test her fidelity is perhaps a bit far-fetched to be of a real event? What do you think?

Needless to say don't even look at the Peter Buchan version unless you want a laugh!

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Gutcher
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 06:23 AM

Steve,
    McKerlie has the following:--
    William Boyd,Laird of Myrtoun[2 miles west of Newton Stewart]
    minister of the parish of Penninghame had sassine[booked as
    owner] of the lands of HALSEGREEN Sept.1778.
    No other information given.

    The following with regards to the name FALL may be of interest.
    When I bought my first house in the early 60s the linear
    measure for the land in the title deeds was in old Scots
    measure as follows:--
    length-- so many Falls so many Ells & parts of an Ell
    breadth--do..    do..   do..    do....
    I knew what an Ell was but had no idea what a Fall was
    "Standard" Ell==39inches
    Scots weavers Ell==42inches
    English weavers Ell==45inches
    I measured the plot,reduced the measurement to inches &
    divided by these three measures----
    from the deed sizes--one Fall==5 Scots weavers Ells.
    In earlier times it seems a Fall was also an area of land.
    Could the surname have come from this?
    Joe.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Diva
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 11:11 AM

From Black's Surnames of Scotland…..
FAA, FAW, FALL Three spellings of one name. Faa is or was a common surname among the Border Gypsies (Groome, Gazetteer 1 p 408) and Faw was the spelling in Shetland. Sir David Faw was chaplin of Rosemarkie 1451 (OPS II p 582)
Dr Fae or Falle was principle of Glasgow University in later quarter of 17thC (RPC 3. serxii p522) Wm Fall burgess in Montrose 1672 Robert Faa was alte ballie ofMelrose 1692 (RRM iii p114) Robert Fall or Faa was member of Scots Parliament for Dunbar 1693 and Robert Fau feuaer in Coldstream 1830

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jan 10 - 12:43 PM

"Needless to say don't even look at the Peter Buchan version unless you want a laugh!"
Had a look but couldn't see anything funny - maybe I was distracted by the sound of axes being ground.
Used to think it strange that MacColl still had his detractors 20 years after his death - but a century and a half seem s a little excessive, based on no evidence whatever.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 06:19 AM

===Again guessing but could the term 'Gypsies' be derived from the fact that their dwelling place was known as 'Little Egypt' rather than the commonly perceived idea that it derives from 'Egyptians'? or both? I wonder where the earliest use of the name 'Gypsy' appears.===

Steve -
OED gives a 1514 ref to 'people calling themselves Egyptians' [tho the Dict unequivocally declares them to be of 'Hindu origin']. Variants of the term, e.g. 'gipcyans', gipsons', 'gipsen' {respectively Cromwell, Nashe, Spenser} appear from 1530s on. Seems to have been well-established by time Shax used 'gypsies' in AYLI [c 1600].

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:02 PM

Jim,
Buchan, Child, Sharp, MacColl were not gods, not perfect and there's absolutely nothing wrong with criticising any of them. They all did good things and they all made mistakes. We are also perfectly entitled, nay should be encouraged, to conjecture about what those mistakes were. I find the introduction of the 2 dream sequences in Buchan's overbaked version of JOH rather typical of the interference he makes in most of his versions of ballads. Child generally did the same although fell silent on them after a while. I could conjecture on why he fell silent, but I'll restrain myself, and only add what is certain is he didn't change his mind like William Walker did.

Jim, the only evidence I need is right there in the ballads themselves and a few interesting statistics which I haven't got time for here.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 03:15 PM

Joe,
Sorry about that little outburst! It's something that crept in from other threads. Very interesting stuff about Boyd and Halsegreen. If you can find who had it in the first half of the 17th century (guess) it could prove even more interesting.

Regarding 'Fall', from Diva's post it would seem that the surname was well established before the Gypsies arrived. That some of them would adopt an existing respectable surname seems like a reasonable gambit to me. Of course intermarriage is also a possibility.

Michael, I would have thought that immigrants like these would quickly adopt any name they were being called and repeat it but I'm not going to argue with the OED!

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Gutcher
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:12 PM

Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh published a book c.1660 that
    is mentioned as containing information on how the McLellands
    were granted their arms as mentioned in a previous post.
    I have been looking for a read at this book for some years now
    in connection with an old song from the early part of the 16th C.
    so it looks like I will have to make the effort & pay a visit
    to the N.L.S. in Edinburgh. An added incentive is that the same
    source mentions an old book on the gypsies in the time of the
    Stewarts.
    There is no doubt in my mind that the gypsies adopted names
    local to where they resided---Gordon,Johnston,Marshall Stewart
    etc. etc. {aa Stewarts are nae sib tae the King.}
    Joe.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Gutcher
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 05:21 PM

Sorry folks the end of the fifth line should read---17th C.
    Joe.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jan 10 - 09:20 PM

Michael, I would have thought that immigrants like these would quickly adopt any name they were being called and repeat it but I'm not going to argue with the OED!===

Quite, Steve. I was expressing no opinion as to origins, but just trying [via OED which usually trustworthy re first recorded usages] to answer yor previous ? as to when word actually first used.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 22 Jan 10 - 02:29 PM

Joe,
You're really making me envious now. I'd love to visit the NLS but time, distance and funds don't allow. I have to make do with what they've put online. I get to the BL on occasions as my sons live in London.

On another note do you have copies of any Transactions of The Dumfries & Galloway Natural Hist & Antiquarian Socy booklets? Or know of where I can obtain copies cheaply? They are online on JStor but not being an academic I don't have access. They contain some interesting articles on balladry and collections by Frank Miller who was one of the collectors who helped Child.

My most interesting visit to Edinburgh was about 5 years ago when in a bookshop I found Chappell's OWN copy of Popular Music, just vol 1, but inside were a load of manuscripts in his writing and correspondence between him and Ebsworth, a mss copy of William and Margaret, and a load of newspaper obits of Chappell. I think they had all belonged to his daughter then Edin Uni. How they found their way into the bookshop I don't know but going by the cheap price I paid the bookseller had no idea what they were.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 09:15 AM

Steve;
"Buchan, Child, Sharp, MacColl were not gods, not perfect"
No, they were not - but both of them have been dead for some time and both made considerable contributions to our understanding and enjoyment of traditional song.
There is certainly nothing wrong with critically evaluating their work, but repeatedly debunking it and treating it as just good for a laugh without additional information seems, to me at least, little more than stoning corpses.
As far as John O Hazelgreen is concerned, I've never found it a particularly inspiring ballad, but there is no evidence that the 'dream' references (hardly sequences) provide proof that they are "rather typical of the interference he makes in most of his versions of ballads". The 'love through dream' motif is a common one in balladry and folklore (Stith Thomson T11.3), and while it is not used particularly well here, like many of the accusations thrown at the late Peter Buchan, there is no evidence whatever that they were his own creations.
Bucan writes of the ballad "This appears to be the original ballad of the name"; it seems to be that accusing him of faking it is little better than saying he was a liar. Without substanting the accusation, it is neither fair nor productive.
I often think that Buchan got the flak that he did because his collectition deflated many pre/misconceptions about balladry, and is still doing so in some quarters.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 02:38 PM

And you are prefectly entitled to your opinion, Jim. Having studied all of PB's versions and compared all of them with the other extant versions and studied all of his manuscripts I have a rather different opinion which happily happens to coincide with Child's and William Walker's before Child died.
I happen to have as great a regard for all of these people as you have. I just happen to think that taking all of their work as coming from the mouths of the people is dangerous and misguided.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 03:14 PM

"I just happen to think that taking all of their work as coming from the mouths of the people is dangerous and misguided."
I don't Steve - I just say we don't know, and if we don't know we don't make definitive statements, especially when they belittle the work of others.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 05:45 PM

Good point, Jim.
I will try to make sure I add that these are only my own opinions, and the opinions of Child and others.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jan 10 - 09:07 PM

"I will try to make sure I add that these are only my own opinions, and the opinions of Child and others."
Fine, Steve - as long as you are prepared to present the full picture.

"Gruntvig
His published collections are, taken together, and compared with the contributions of any single collector, the richest source in this branch of folk-lore out of all that up to this day have appeared before the British public. . . .
That Mr. Buchan has not published his ballads with that scrupulous accuracy, that strict and verbal adherence to the popular tradition, as might be wished, and which may now be demanded, we are ready to confess ; but he certainly has done no worse in that respect than all the ballad editors of England and Scotland, with the exceptions of Mr. Ritson, Mr. Jamieson, and perhaps one or two more. His merits in preservation of the old Scottish folk-lore are so great, that he certainly ought to be treated in a less slighting manner than has been the case . . .
Arguing for the publication of Buchan's MSS., Gruntvig went on
There are reasons to suppose the published versions to be in some respects less authentic and genuine than are the MSS. from which they were taken ; these Mr. Buchan has kept close to the form in which they were taken down from oral tradition; but in publishing them himself he has no doubt taken some liberties with them to make them more suitable to the taste of the day."

"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 condemned 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."

We should not forget that Buchan's contemporaries in the field of ballad scolarship (far more in the position to judge than we are) supported his work absolutely.
Nor should we forget that Child was one of those 'foolish people' who differentiated between 'broadside dunghills' and the genuine songs of the people.
I am not claiming to be right on this question - I, like you, don't know the answer to the Buchan enigma, just as I don't know which, (if any) of our ballads and songs originated on the broadside presses.
What I am saying is that giving the impression that we DO know by delivering definative statements is neither helpful nor honest.
And I certainly believe that one of our most important ballad collections (see above) is worth far more than a bit of a larf!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 04:12 PM

Jim,
I certainly don't agree with your 2 main sources here.

I am very suspicious of Grundtvig's motives and knowledge of Scottish balladry. Whilst I envy the hundreds of Danish ballads he collected and published (many of them from broadsides but more than twice as many than child)he had already published in c1846 Engelske og Skotske Folkeviser which included a number of translations of Buchan's texts. He was hardly likely to admit he had been fooled.

'in some respects less authentic and genuine than are the MSS from which they were taken' The mss, which I have copies of, are just a publisher's proof of what was published. There are no Mss in the form of field notes or versions as collected. No wonder he couldn't sell them.

Keith is quite wrong when he states Child took up 'an intermediate attitude' Before Gruntvig has a go at him he absolutely slated Buchan, and it's worth reading Child Vol 5 p182 in the notes to Young Ronald if you want to know what his final thoughts on the matter were.
Child only included Buchan's stuff because he wanted to be totally inclusive and give everything available for later scholars to make up their own minds. The BL Mss is just a fair copy of ballads already published. The Harvard Mss is as I've said a publishers proof of the 1828 vols. Keith was in the pocket of William Walker who had turned coat completely when Child died. For what reason I don't know.

The 'bit of a larf' as you know was a piece of witless sarcasm which I regret, but there are many ballads and versions in Child that have come under suspicion over the last century. As I have already said Child was well aware that by using his inclusive policy he was including a lot of at worst bogus material, at best collated. Please read the statement referred to above.

And now I must apologise to Joe once again for hi-jacking his thread.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:10 PM

Re Macmath´s MSS.

I don´t know where the originals are, but Edinburgh University Library has a microfilm.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 05:47 PM

Thanks very much, Jack.
Harvard seems a pretty safe bet. I wonder if they've been published. I don't remember seeing anything.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Jan 10 - 08:06 PM

As I said Steve, neither of us know, and probably never will - so we don't make definitive statements - witless or otherwise.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 25 Jan 10 - 03:38 PM

Jim,
Apart from the controversial beliefs that I hold, I also enjoy stirring things up. If somebody who can doesn't do this from time to time the academics in their ivory towers plod blindly on accepting everything they're fed as gospel.
It's also an interesting way of learning and testing out your theories, getting somebody to argue them out with you (IMHO).

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Gutcher
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 06:51 AM

Restoration Homes--a programme to be shown on BBC2 Scotland tonight at 7pm. is about Cassillis Castle.
The new owner, a Ms. Armstrong, was not able to state which version of the story behind the "Gypsie Laddies" would be given in the programme, when I enquired some three weeks back.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: LadyJean
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 11:48 PM

I was named for my father's mother, Jean McFall. The McFalls came to the U.S from Londonderry. But I'd be rather amused to discover that my forbearers were Roma. That branch of the family was rather dour.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Gutcher
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 07:49 AM

Lady Jean--the Falls were around in Scotland before the gypsies arrived in Britain-- the Mcfalls in Ulster were probably from Scotland before their move West to the U.S.A.

In the event Ms. Armstrongs vagueness on the subject of the historical/legendary content of the television programme was justified as the programme made no mention of the ballads connection with the castle or with the roasting of the Abbot of Crossraguel etc..

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Gutcher
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 06:01 PM

No further developments on written confirmation of the above.

Reading has thrown further light on when the gypsies were first recorded in Scotland:---see my posts under Guest, 4/1/2015 and onwards, then Gutcher, in the thread, "Origins: Help with Gypsy Davy" 1439 date for a mention.

Reading has come up with a verse I have not encountered before, can anyone tell me if this verse is in any of the collected versions?.

[ex] There is a tradition extant, that Lord Cassilis' lady, who eloped with Johnnie Faa, the gipsie laddie, had so delicate and pure a skin, that the red wine could be seen through it while she was drinking. This is embodied in a verse of the ballad:---

         "Fu white, white was her bonny neck,
            Twist wi the satin twine;
          But ruddie, ruddie grew her hawse,
            While she supp'd the bluid--red
             wine.

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Lighter
Date: 31 Jan 16 - 07:30 PM

The new stanza is quite something, Gutcher. Personally I've not encountered anything like it. Where did you find it?

Subject: RE: The Gypsie Laddies 500th Anniversary ??
From: Gutcher
Date: 01 Feb 16 - 09:31 AM

hello Lighter.
The statement and verse are given in a mid 19th.C, Book of Scottish Anecdote at page 153. Unfortunately the editor does not give his source