This volume will come, I fancy, as a surprise both to my brother
folk-lorists and to the public in general. It might naturally have been
thought that my former volume (_English Fairy Tales_) had almost
exhausted the scanty remains of the traditional folk-tales of England.
Yet I shall be much disappointed if the present collection is not found
to surpass the former in interest and vivacity, while for the most part
it goes over hitherto untrodden ground, the majority of the tales in
this book have either never appeared before, or have never been brought
between the same boards.
In putting these tales together, I have acted on the same principles as
in the preceding volume, which has already, I am happy to say,
established itself as a kind of English Grimm. I have taken English
tales wherever I could find them, one from the United States, some from
the Lowland Scotch, and a few have been adapted from ballads, while I
have left a couple in their original metrical form. I have rewritten
most of them, and in doing so have adopted the traditional English style
of folk-telling, with its "Wells" and "Lawkamercy" and archaic touches,
which are known nowadays as vulgarisms. From former experience, I find
that each of these principles has met with some dissent from critics who
have written from the high and lofty standpoint of folk-lore, or from
the lowlier vantage of "mere literature." I take this occasion to soften
their ire, or perhaps give them further cause for reviling.
My folk-lore friends look on with sadness while they view me laying
profane hands on the sacred text of my originals. I have actually at
times introduced or deleted whole incidents, have given another turn to
a tale, or finished off one that was incomplete, while I have had no
scruple in prosing a ballad or softening down over-abundant dialect.
This is rank sacrilege in the eyes of the rigid orthodox in matters
folk-lorical. My defence might be that I had a cause at heart as sacred
as our science of folk-lore--the filling of our children's imaginations
with bright trains of images. But even on the lofty heights of folk-lore
science I am not entirely defenceless. Do my friendly critics believe
that even Campbell's materials had not been modified by the various
narrators before they reached the great J.F.? Why may I not have the
same privilege as any other story-teller, especially when I know the
ways of story-telling as she is told in English, at least as well as a
Devonshire or Lancashire peasant? And--conclusive argument--wilt thou,
oh orthodox brother folk-lorist, still continue to use Grimm and
Asbjörnsen? Well, they did the same as I.
Then as to using tales in Lowland Scotch, whereat a Saturday Reviewer,
whose identity and fatherland were not difficult to guess, was so
shocked. Scots a dialect of English! Scots tales the same as English!
Horror and Philistinism! was the Reviewer's outcry. Matter of fact is my
reply, which will only confirm him, I fear, in his convictions. Yet I
appeal to him, why make a difference between tales told on different
sides of the Border? A tale told in Durham or Cumberland in a dialect
which only Dr. Murray could distinguish from Lowland Scotch, would on
all hands be allowed to be "English." The same tale told a few miles
farther North, why should we refuse it the same qualification? A tale in
Henderson is English: why not a tale in Chambers, the majority of whose
tales are to be found also south of the Tweed?
The truth is, my folk-lore friends and my Saturday Reviewer differ with
me on the important problem of the origin of folk-tales. They think that
a tale probably originated where it was found. They therefore attribute
more importance than I to the exact form in which it is found and
restrict it to the locality of birth. I consider the probability to lie
in an origin elsewhere: I think it more likely than not that any tale
found in a place was rather brought there than born there. I have
discussed this matter elsewhere[1] with all the solemnity its
importance deserves, and cannot attempt further to defend my position
here. But even the reader innocent of folk-lore can see that, holding
these views, I do not attribute much anthropological value to tales
whose origin is probably foreign, and am certainly not likely to make a
hard-and-fast division between tales of the North Countrie and those
told across the Border.
As to how English folk-tales should be told authorities also differ. I
am inclined to follow the tradition of my old nurse, who was not bred at
Girton and who scorned at times the rules of Lindley Murray and the
diction of smart society. I have been recommended to adopt a diction not
too remote from that of the Authorised Version. Well, quite apart from
memories of my old nurse, we have a certain number of tales actually
taken down from the mouths of the people, and these are by no means in
Authorised form; they even trench on the "vulgar"--_i.e._, the archaic.
Now there is just a touch of snobbery in objecting to these archaisms
and calling them "vulgar." These tales have been told, if not from time
immemorial, at least for several generations, in a special form which
includes dialect and "vulgar" words. Why desert that form for one which
the children cannot so easily follow with "thous" and "werts" and all
the artificialities of pseudo-Elizabethan? Children are not likely to
say "darter" for "daughter," or to ejaculate "Lawkamercyme" because they
come across these forms in their folk-tales. They recognise the unusual
forms while enjoying the fun of them. I have accordingly retained the
archaisms and the old-world formulæ which go so well with the folk-tale.
In compiling the present collection I have drawn on the store of 140
tales with which I originally started; some of the best of these I
reserved for this when making up the former one. That had necessarily to
contain the old favourites _Jack the Giant Killer, Dick Whittington_,
and the rest, which are often not so interesting or so well told as the
less familiar ones buried in periodicals or folk-lore collections. But
since the publication of _English Fairy Tales_, I have been specially
fortunate in obtaining access to tales entirely new and exceptionally
well told, which have been either published during the past three years
or have been kindly placed at my disposal by folk-lore friends. Among
these, the tales reported by Mrs. Balfour, with a thorough knowledge of
the peasants' mind and mode of speech, are a veritable acquisition. I
only regret that I have had to tone down so much of dialect in her
versions. She has added to my indebtedness to her by sending me several
tales which are entirely new and inedited. Mrs. Gomme comes only second
in rank among my creditors for thanks which I can scarcely pay without
becoming bankrupt in gratitude. Other friends have been equally kind,
especially Mr. Alfred Nutt, who has helped by adapting some of the book
versions, and by reading the proofs, while to the Councils of the
American and English Folk-Lore Societies I have again to repeat my
thanks for permission to use materials which first appeared in their
publications. Finally, I have had Mr. Batten with me once again--what
should I or other English children do without him?