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.

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Mick Pearce (MCP)
Date: 19 May 13 - 10:41 AM

Steve

I had trouble with Susan's link last night too - it shows up with no ebook available; I find that often with links at google, I don't know if it's more restictive access in the UK. Here's the link at archive (which I generally find no problems with): Early Ballads...Lord Lovel

The Northumbrian attribution seems to rest in part on the assumtion that Lovel is related to Delaval (as in Seaton Delaval). My place names directory says that Delaval in this context is derived from the de la Val (or Valle) family of the area. I don't know if the Lovel name is derived from de la Val or not.

Mick

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: GUEST,Susan
Date: 19 May 13 - 11:39 AM

Don't think so. Percy made it to Bishop in large part because he ingratiated himself to a prominent Northumbrian family. He was a hardcore social climber. This idea that Lord Lovel is a Northumbrian ballad is pure myth in IMO. It's a myth that was inspired by Percy and Kinloch and ultimately constructed by the Percy Society. It's a joke that has stood the test of time.

I posted a link on the other thread that goes into detail on Percy's background. He had one successful poem which he plagarized and dedicated to his wife Anne whom he called "the Nancy of my muse." In regard to names, I pointed out before that Nancy is derived from Anne but it does not happen in the reverse. Something to think about.

Steve, you sounded earlier like you find fault with Kinloch. What can you tell me about him?

Subject: RE: Origins: Lord Lovel (Child #75)
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 19 May 13 - 04:43 PM

You might find this interesting, Susan. My 1856 copy of Bell has deleted 'Mr. J.H. Dixon informs me that he has seen a black-letter copy of it, of about the date of Charles II.'and replaced it with 'but there are no means of determining its date'. And its source, Dixon, doesn't have anything about it. Hmmm!

I'm afraid my specialism is in Peter Buchan, but as I said, at that time, following Percy>>Jamieson/Scott they were all mixing and matching/collating and composing from scratch to some extent. Motherwell is generally regarded as the most reliable but even he admitted to the whole range of interference in his early works, bragged about it even. Very little is said about George Kinloch but he was a definite member of the gang.

Regarding Percy, was he not one of the noble Northumberland Percy family then?

De Laval/Lovell. I think I have a copy of DeBrette's in the loft but surely it should be online somewhere.

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.

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 07:03 PM

And most of all, Michael.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:04 AM

Thanks Jim. I found it.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:56 AM

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

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: 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 - 09:47 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 May 13 - 03:25 PM

And cookies :-)

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: 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: 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: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 May 13 - 10:39 PM

The correct pronounciation for Ance:

Ance 

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:24 PM

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

Niles