I.

THE HISTORY

OF

THOMAS HICKATHRIFT.

PRINTED FROM

THE EARLIEST EXTANT COPIES,

AND EDITED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION,

BY

GEORGE LAURENCE GOMME, F.S.A.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR THE VILLON SOCIETY.

1885.

Introduction.

There seems to be some considerable reason for believing that the hero

of this story was a reality. The story tells us that he lived in the

marsh of the Isle of Ely, and that he became “a brewer’s man” at Lyn,

and traded to Wisbeach. This little piece of geographical evidence

enables us to fix the story as belonging to the great Fen District,

which occupied the north of Cambridgeshire and Norfolk.

The antiquary Thomas Hearne has gone so far as to identify the hero

of tradition with a doughty knight of the Crusaders. Writing in the

_Quarterly Review_ (vol. xxi. p. 102), Sir Francis Palgrave says:--

“Mr. Thomas Hickathrift, afterwards Sir Thomas Hickathrift, Knight,

is praised by Mr. Thomas Hearne as a ‘famous champion.’ The honest

antiquary has identified this well-known knight with the far less

celebrated Sir Frederick de Tylney, Baron of Tylney in Norfolk, the

ancestor of the Tylney family, who was killed at Acon, in Syria, in

the reign of Richard Coeur de Lion. Hycophric, or Hycothrift, as the

mister-wight observes, being probably a corruption of Frederick. This

happy exertion of etymological acumen is not wholly due to Hearne, who

only adopted a hint given by Mr. Philip le Neve, whilome of the College

of Arms.”

There does not seem to be the slightest evidence for Hearne’s

identification any more than there is for his philological conclusions,

and we may pass over this for other and more reliable information.

We must first of all turn to the story itself, as it has come down

to us in its chapbook form. It is divided into two parts. The first

part of the story is the earliest; the second part being evidently a

printer’s or a chapman’s addition. Our reprint of the former is taken

from the copy in the Pepysian Library at Magdalene College, Cambridge,

and which was printed probably about 1660-1690; the latter is taken

from the British Museum copy, the date of which, according to the

Museum authorities, is 1780.

In trying to ascertain something as to the date of the story apart from

that of its printed version, it will therefore be necessary to put out

of consideration the second portion. This has been written by some

one well acquainted with the original first part, and with the spirit

of the story; but in spite of this there is undoubted evidence of its

literary origin at a date later than the first part. But turning to the

first part there are two expressions in this early Pepysian version

which have not been repeated in the later editions--those of the

eighteenth century; and these two expressions appear to me to indicate

a date _after which_ the story could not have been originated. On

page 1 we read that Tom Hickathrift dwelt “in the _marsh_ of the Isle

of Ely.” In the earliest British Museum copy this appears as “in the

_parish_ of the Isle of Ely.” Again, on page 11 Tom is described as

laying out the giant’s estate, “some of which he gave to the poor

for their common, and the rest he made pastures of and divided the

most part into _good ground_, to maintain him and his old mother Jane

Hickathrift.” In the earliest British Museum copy the expression

“good ground” is displaced by “tillage.” Now it is clear from these

curious transposition of words in the earliest and latest editions that

something had been going on to change the nature of the country. The

eighteenth-century people did not know the “marsh” of Ely, so they read

“parish”: they did not know the meaning of “good ground” so they read

“tillage.” And hence it is clear that at the printing of this earliest

version the fen lands of Cambridge and Norfolk had not yet been

drained; there was still “marsh land” which was being made into “good

land.”

But I think there is evidence in this printed chap-book version of the

story which tells us that it was taken from a traditional version. Let

any one take the trouble to read aloud the first part, and he will at

once perceive that there is a ring and a cadence given to the voice by

the wording of the story, and particularly by the curious punctuation,

which at once reminds us of a narrative from word of mouth. And besides

this there is some little evidence of phonetic spelling, just such as

might have been expected from the first printer taking the story from

the lips of one of the Fen-country peasantry.

Now this internal evidence of the once _viva-voce_ existence of

the printed legend of Tom Hickathrift has a direct bearing upon

the question as to the date of the earliest printed version. The

colloquialisms are so few, and the rhythm, though marked and definite,

is occasionally so halting and approaches so nearly a literary form,

that we are forced to observe that the earliest printed edition now

known is certainly not the earliest version printed. There are too

few phoneticisms and dialect words to make it probable that the print

in the Pepysian collection is the one directly derived from popular

tradition. As the various printers in the eighteenth century altered

words and sentences here and there, as different editions were issued,

so did the seventeenth-century printers; and therefore it is necessary

to push the date of the printed version farther back than we can hope

to ascertain by direct evidence. There is no reason why there should

not have been a sixteenth-century printed version, and to this period I

am inclined to allocate the earliest appearance of the story in print.

And then prior to the printed version was the popular version with

its almost endless life, perhaps reaching back to that vague period

indicated in the opening words of the story, “in the reign before

William the Conqueror.” Already internal evidence has, it is suggested,

pointed to a popular unwritten tradition of Tom Hickathrift’s life

and exploits. But we must ask now, Is there, or was there, any

tradition among the peasantry of Lyn and its neighbourhood about Thomas

Hickathrift? And, if so, how far does this popular tradition reach

back, and how far does it tally with the chap-book version? Again,

is this popular tradition independent of the chap-book story, or has

it been generated from the printed book? To answer these questions

properly we must closely examine all the evidence available as to the

existence and form of this popular tradition.

Turning first of all to the historian of Norfolk, Blomefield,[A]

writing in 1808, gives us the following account:--

“The town of Tilney gives name to a famous common called Tilney Smeeth,

whereon 30,000 or more large Marshland sheep and the great cattle of

seven towns to which it belongs are constantly said to feed. Of this

plain of Smeeth there is a tradition, _which the common people retain_,

that in old time the inhabitants of these towns [Tilney, Terrington,

Clenchwarton, Islington, Walpole, West Walton, Walsoken, and Emneth]

had a contest with the lords of the manors about the bounds and limits

of it, when one _Hickifric_, a person of great stature and courage,

assisting the said inhabitants in their rights of common, took an

axle-tree from a cart-wheel, instead of a sword, and the wheel for a

shield or buckler, and thus armed soon repelled the invaders. And for

proof of this notable exploit they to this day show, says Sir William

Dugdale [Dugd. _Hist. of Imbanking_, &c. p. 244; Weever’s _Fun. Mon._

p. 866], a large grave-stone near the east end of the chancel in

Tilney churchyard, whereon the form of a cross is so cut or carved as

that the upper part thereof (wherewith the carver hath adorned it)

being circular, they will therefore needs have it to be the gravestone

of _Hickifric_, and to be as a memorial of his gallantry. The stone

coffin, which stands now out of the ground in Tilney churchyard, on

the north side of the church, will not receive a person above six

feet in length, and this is shown as belonging formerly to the giant

_Hickifric_. The cross said to be a representation of the cart-wheel

is a cross pattée, on the summit of a staff, which staff is styled an

axle-tree. Such crosses pattée on the head of a staff were emblems or

tokens that some Knight Templar was therein interred, and many such are

to be seen at this day in old churches.”

Now the reference to Sir William Dugdale is misleading, because, as

will be seen by the following quotation, the position of the hero is

altered in Dugdale’s version of the legend from that of a popular

leader to the tyrant lord himself:--“Of this plain I may not omit

a tradition which the common people thereabouts have, viz., that in

old time the inhabitants of the neighbouring villages had a fierce

contest with one Hickifric (the then owner of it) touching the bounds

thereof, which grew so hot that at length it came to blows; and that

Hickifric, being a person of extraordinary stature and courage, took an

axletree from a cart instead of a sword, and the wheel for his buckler,

and, being so armed, most stoutly repelled those bold invaders: for

further testimony of which notable exploit they to this day show a

large gravestone near the east end of the chancel in Tilney churchyard,

whereupon the form of a cross is so cut as that the upper part thereof

by reason of the flourishes (wherewith the carver hath adorned it)

sheweth to be somewhat circular, which they will, therefore, needs have

to be the wheel and the shaft the axletree.” This version, taken from

Dugdale’s _History of Imbanking_, 1772, p. 244, though differing in

form, at all events serves to carry us back to 1662, the date when Sir

William Dugdale’s _History_ was first published.

But the local tradition can be carried further back than 1662,

because the learned Sir Henry Spelman, in his _Icenia sive Norfolciae

Descriptio Topographica_, p. 138, and written about 1640, says, when

speaking of Tilney, in Marshland Hundred: “Hic se expandit insignis

area quæ à planicie nuncupatur Tylney-smelth, pinguis adeo et luxurians

ut Paduana pascua videatur superasse.... Tuentur eam indigenæ velut

Aras et Focos, fabellamque recitant longa petitam vetustate de

Hikifrico (nescio quo) Haii illius instar in Scotorum Chronicis, qui

Civium suorum dedignatus fuga, Aratrum quod agebat, solvit; arreptoque

Temone furibundus insiliit in hostes victoriamque ademit exultantibus.

Sic cum de agri istius finibus acriter olim dimicatum esset inter fundi

Dominun et Villarum Incolas, nec valerent hi ad versus eum consistere;

redeuntibus occurrit Hikifricus, axemque excutiens a curru quem agebat,

eo vice Gladii usus; Rotâ, Clypei; invasores repulit ad ipsos quibus

nunc funguntur terminos. Ostendunt in cæmeterio Tilniensi, Sepulcrum

sui pugilis, Axem cum Rota insculptum exhibens.”

A still earlier version is to be found recorded by Weever in 1631. The

full quotation is as follows: “Tylney Smeeth, so called of a smooth

plaine or common thereunto adioyning.... In the Churchyard is a ridg’d

Altar, Tombe, or sepulchre of a wondrous antique fashion, vpon which

an axell-tree and a cart wheele are insculped. Vnder this Funerall

Monument the Towne dwellers say that one Hikifricke lies interred; of

whom (_as it hath gone by tradition from father to the sonne_) they

thus likewise report: How that vpon a time (no man knowes how long

since) there happened a great quarrell betwixt the Lord of this land or

ground and the inhabitants of the foresaid seuen villages, about the

meere-marks, limits, or bondaries of this fruitfull feeding place; the

matter came to a battell or skirmish, in which the said Inhabitants

being not able to resist the landlord and his forces began to giue

backe; Hikifricke, driuing his cart along and perceiuing that his

neighbours were fainthearted, and ready to take flight, he shooke the

Axell tree from the cart which he vsed instead of a sword, and tooke

one of the cart-wheeles which he held as a buckler; with these weapons

he set vpon the Common aduersaries or aduersaries of the Common,

encouraged his neighbours to go forward, and fight valiantly in defence

of their liberties; who being animated by his manly prowesse, they

tooke heart to grasse, as the prouerbe is, insomuch that they chased

the Landlord and his companie to the vtmost verge of the said Common;

which from that time they haue quietly enioyed to this very day. The

Axell-tree and cart-wheele are cut and figured in diuers places of

the Church and Church windowes, which makes the story, you must needs

say, more probable. This relation doth in many parts parallell with

that of one Hay, a strong braue spirited Scottish Plowman, who vpon

a set battell of Scots against the Danes, being working at the same

time in the next field, and seeing some of his countreymen to flie

from that hote encounter, caught vp an oxe yoke (Boëthius saith, a

Plough-beame), with which (after some exhortation that they should

not bee faint-hearted) he beate the said straglers backe againe to

the maine Army, where he with his two sonnes (who tooke likewise such

weapons as came next to their hands) renewed the charge so furiously

that they quite discomfited the enemy, obtaining the glory of the day

and victory for their drad Lord and Soueraigne Kenneth the third,

King of Scotland; and this happened in the yeare 942, the second of

the King’s raigne. This you may reade at large in the _History of

Scotland_, thus abridged by Camden as followeth.”--Weever’s _Funerall

Monuments_, 1631, pp. 866-867.

And Sir Francis Palgrave, quoting the legend from Spelman,

observes,--“From the most remote antiquity the fables and achievements

of Hickifric have been obstinately credited by the inhabitants of the

township of Tylney. Hickifric is venerated by them as the assertor of

the rights and liberties of their ancestors. The ‘monstrous giant’

who guarded the marsh was in truth no other than the tyrannical lord

of the manor who attempted to keep his copyholders out of the common

field, Tylney Smeeth; but who was driven away with his retainers by the

prowess of Tom armed only with his axletree and cart-wheel.”[B] This

does not appear to me to put the case too strongly. A tradition told

so readily and believed so generally in the middle of the seventeenth

century must have had a strong vitality in it only to be obtained by

age.

Let us now turn to the other side, namely, the existence of a

traditional version in modern days, because it is important to note

that the printing of a chapbook version need not have disturbed the

full current of traditional thought. In a note Sir Francis Palgrave

seems to imply that the story was still extant without the aid of

printed literature. He writes:

“A Norfolk antiquary has had the goodness to procure for us an

authentic report of the present state of Tom’s sepulchre. It is a

stone soros, of the usual shape and dimensions; the sculptured lid or

cover no longer exists. It must have been entire about fifty years ago,

for when we were good _Gaffer Crane would rehearse Tom’s achievements_,

and tell us that he had cut out the moss which filled up the

inscription with his penknife, but he could not read the letters.”[C]