He urges the king frankly enough to alter his course. mentioning his claim to the allegiance and how he adds: Of clerke, of knight, of man of lawe, Under his honde all is forthdrawn, But though that he such power have, He shall upon his covenaunt So that there be no tirannise, That longeth to his regalie. The work is concluded with these Latin lines : Explicit iste liber, qui transeat obsecro liber, Qui sedet in scamnis celi det, ut ista Johannis After I X CHEVY CHASE (From The Gentleman's Magazine for April 1889) T is common to say that the ballads known as the 'Battle of Otterbourne' and the 'Hunting of the Cheviot' commemorate one and the same event. But it is quite certain that they commemorate two quite different events. The confusion of them is of early date; it is found in the earliest extant version of the latter ballad, which belongs to the time of Queen Elizabeth ; but a confusion it is so to correlate them. And if one would properly understand their historical value, and in other respects fully enjoy them, one should keep them separate and distinct. I propose in this paper to point out more completely than I think has yet been done, how separate and distinct they in fact are. They are connected with different localities, are based upon different incidents, and represent different features in the old Border life. Of course this diversity is not now suggested for the first time. It was recognised long ago in the early seventeenth century by Hume of Godscroft, when he wrote: "That which is commonly sung of the "Hunting of the Cheviot seemeth indeed poetical and a mere fiction, perhaps to stir up virtue; yet a fiction, whereof there is no mention either in Scottish or English chronicle.' That it has no immediate and particular historical basis is not so indubitable as this writer supposes; but he is right enough in not identifying the occasion of it with the famous battle of Otterbourne. And Bishop Percy saw that it was of different origin, and others have seen it. But commonly, as I said to begin with, in spite of these noticeable authorities, the two ballads are regarded as merely various accounts of one and the same action. Even so excellent a ballad-scholar as Professor Child remarks in his introduction to the 'Hunting,' in his English and Scottish Ballads, 1861, that the 'Hunting' ' is founded on the same event' as the 'Battle of Otterbourne.' I trust that no apology is needed for an attempt to clear up this matter. We profess to be proud of our ballad poetry, and the ballads now to be briefly discussed are amongst its masterpieces. Let us try to make our pride really intelligent by a careful study of its object. There is certainly much effusive praise of our poetry that is based on the slightest possible knowledge. If we wish to indulge in the boast Cives Romani sumus, let us understand what is denoted by the 'civitas' we claim and proclaim. If we would entitle ourselves to the right of lauding our literature, let us obtain some accurate familiarity with it. If we dislike the noisy raptures of the ignorant chauvinist, let us make sure that our appreciation of what we say we admire is really founded on fact—make sure that our zeal is without indiscretion, is well-informed and sensible, is the offspring of a cultivated intelligence. Thus, even a brief scrutiny of a few old ballads may be of service; it may improve our habits of accuracy, increase our powers of enjoyment, help us to be more truthful and sincere in our enthusiasms. Let us turn first to the ballads that undoubtedly have for their theme the Battle of Otterbourne.' Of these there are three-the one given in Percy's Reliques of Ancient English Poetry, the one in Scott's Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, the one in Herd's Scottish Songs. Of the battle itself we have many accounts. It was one of the most famous in the history of the Borders, and the chroniclers glory in its narration. Froissart describes it minutely, and, as he tells us, on good authority. I was made acquainted [he says, in Johnes' translation] with all the particulars of this battle by knights and squires, who had been actors in it on each side. There were also with the English two valiant knights from the country of Foix, whom I had the good fortune to meet at Orthès, the year after this battle had been fought [i.e. 1389]. Their names were Sir John de Châteauneuf and John de Cautiron. On my return from Foix, I met likewise at Avignon a knight and two squires of Scotland of the party of Earl Douglas. They knew me again from the recollections I brought to their minds of their own country; for in my youth I, the author of this history, travelled all through Scotland, and was full fifteen days resident with William, Earl of Douglas, father of Earl James of whom we are now speaking, at his castle of Dalkeith, five miles distant from Edinburgh. Earl James was then very young, but a promising youth, and he had a sister called Blanche [Isabel ?] I had my information, therefore, from both parties, who agree that it was the hardest and most obstinate battle that ever was fought. This I readily believe, for the English and Scots are excellent men-at-arms, and whenever they meet in battle, they do not spare each other; nor is there any check in their courage so long as their weapons endure. And the next paragraph must be quoted, because it gives the very spirit of these old Border wars, and enables us to understand how it was that poetry could flourish in the percincts of such incessant anarchy and bloodshed. One might have reasonably expected that the Muses would have been scared far away from a region that appears at the first glance merely turbulent and savage-to which Buchanan's words concerning the very expedition that was distinguished by the battle of Otterbourne so frequently apply; 'Quicquid ferro flammaque foedari potuit, corrumpunt ac diruunt'where more than once the invader boasted, as in 1532, there was not 'one peel, gentleman's house, nor grange unburnt and destroyed,' i.e., undestroyed-where at times, as in 1570, the 'riders were wont to harry, burn, and slay, and take prisoners, and use all misorder, and cruelty, not only used in war, but detestable to all barbar and wild Tartars.' The following are the words of the old French chronicler that go so far to solve this strange enigma :— When they [the English and the Scots] have well beaten each other and one party is victorious, they are so proud of their conquest that they ransom their prisoners instantly and in such courteous manner to those who have been taken that on their departure they return them their thanks. However, when in battle, there is no boy's play between them, nor do they shrink from the combat; and you will see in the further detail of this battle as excellent deeds as were ever performed. And with a quite Homeric delight he proceeds to describe so glorious an encounter of foemen so keen and fierce and yet so chivalrous ! But, indeed, even the dullest chronicler is thrilled with some emotion as he tells the story of this famous conflict. Border warfare never before or afterwards showed so glorious as on the field of Otterbourne. The 'Raid,' of which it formed so splendid an incident, was undertaken in revenge of the invasion of Scotland by King Richard the Second in 1387. It was made in two directions. The main body, under the command of the Earl of Fife, one of the King's-King Robert the Second -sons, advanced south-westward, and ravaged the western borders of England. The other division, under the command of the Earl of Douglas, marched swiftly over the Cheviots, through the south of Northumberland into Durham, where their presence was soon proclaimed by fire and flame. |