John Mair, who wrote his history De Gestis Scotorum in 1518, states that James I., among his other compositions, wrote a pleasant and skilful song, “At Beltayn,” which, since the original was inaccessible, certain persons had sought to counterfeit. It happens that the opening stanza of “Peblis to the Play” begins with “At Beltane.” This, with the fact of the poem’s mention in “Christis Kirk,” forms the chief plea for attributing “Peblis to the Play” to James I. Next, the earliest known copy of “Christis Kirk,” that in the Bannatyne MS. (1568), is subscribed “Quod K. James the First.” This is the only external evidence for ascribing the poem to that monarch. On the other hand, by those who dispute the authorship of James I., the slightness of Mair’s evidence regarding “Peblis to the Play,” and the presumption of Bannatyne’s blundering regarding “Christis Kirk,” have been dwelt upon. “At Beltayn,” it is remarked, was in the sixteenth century, by Mair’s own statement, a hackneyed opening to a poem; while, as for Bannatyne’s colophon, it is pointed out that in the title of the next poem but one in his collection he writes “James the Fyift,” or as some read it, “the Fyrst,” in mistake for James the Fourth, and he may have made a similar error in regard to “Christis Kirk.” In support of this view it is asserted[746] that by common tradition, previous to the discovery of the Bannatyne MS., these poems were invariably attributed to James V.; and this assertion is supported by the usage of the early writers, Dempster in the beginning of the seventeenth century, Bishop Gibson in 1691, and James Watson in 1706. The authority of these writers, however, no less than that of common tradition, has in turn been questioned by the supporters of the claim of James I.,[747] and it has been pointed out that in Maitland’s MS. (1585) no name is appended to “Peblis to the Play,” an omission which, it is suggested, could hardly have occurred had Maitland known James V. to be the author. But again, in support of James V. it may reasonably be urged that the important poem of “Christis Kirk” is mentioned in their histories neither by Mair nor by Bellenden when dealing with James I.; that that king is not even mentioned among the makars by Dunbar in his famous “Lament”; that none of the four poems is to be found in the MS. of John Asloan, written before James V.’s time, in 1515; and that while Lyndsay in his earlier composition, the prologue to the “Papyngo,” in 1530,[748] makes no mention of James I. as a reputed author, in 1538, in his “Justyng betuix Watsoun and Barbour,” he pays “Christis Kirk” the compliment of copying several conspicuous expressions,[749] the natural inference being that “Christis Kirk” was not composed before the former year. On the whole, therefore, the external evidence may be considered almost evenly balanced. The internal evidence is somewhat more delicate.
The familiarity with peasant manners and character which both poems display had been made much of as an argument. This, however, can be held to prove nothing, since both James I. and James V. are said to have had the habit of wandering among their subjects in disguise. Neither can the language of the compositions be taken as of much account. The more antique words, as in the expressions, “Ye sall pay at ye aucht,” “He hydis tyt,” and “On thame swyth,” are paralleled by James V.’s contemporaries, Douglas and Lyndsay, and probably lingered late in the use of the common people whom the poems describe; while, on the other hand, more modern words, like “ane,” “quha” (in the sense of “who”),[750] “began,” and “happenis” (halfpence), which might be used to support the claims of James V., may be accounted for by changes introduced in transcription. An ingenious argument has been adduced from the use, or rather misuse of archery in “Christis Kirk.”[751] James I., it appears, upon his return from captivity, made a law compelling the constant practice of the bow; and it has been suggested that that king, wishing to fortify the statutes of law by the aid of ridicule, wrote the poem as a satire upon the clumsiness of the Scottish peasantry in the use of the weapon. The same critics aver further that archery had become obsolete in the time of James V., hagbut and arquebus having taken its place. The argument, however, appears somewhat conjectural. According to Barbour’s Bruce the bow was one of the chief Scottish weapons of war from the earliest times, and an island in Loch Lomond still bears the yew-trees said to have been planted by King Robert for its supply; while so late as the time of Queen Mary the bow remained a favourite weapon in the field of sport, if not in the field of battle.[752] A serious obstacle in the way of attributing these poems to James I. has been pointed out by Professor Skeat in the lateness of their style and metre. He remarks, as an instance, that in stanza 19 of “Peblis to the Play” we find stokks rhymed with ox, whereas in the time of James I. the plural of stok was stokkis.[753] Further, he remarks, “It will be found by no means easy to point out any undoubted example of the use of the rollicking metre (of these poems) anterior to the year 1450; whereas James I. died in 1437.” Another point might be made of the fact that poems of this burlesque description seem to have been greatly in vogue about James V.’s time. It is enough to cite “The Tournament of Tottenham” printed by Percy, Dunbar’s “Justis betuix the Tailyour and the Sowtar,” Lyndsay’s “Justing betuix James Watsoun and Jhone Barbour,” and Scot’s “Justing at the Drum.” The most cogent argument, however, should naturally be one derived from the general tone of the poems. On this point one writer, Guest, in his English Rhythms, has said, “One can hardly suppose those critics serious who attribute this song (‘Christis Kirk’) to the moral and sententious James I.”; and Professor Skeat has added that “while there is no resemblance to ‘The Kingis Quair’ discoverable (in these poems), there is a marked dissimilarity in the tone, in the vocabulary, and in the metre.” On the other hand, it is to be observed that the style and strain of humour, both of “Peblis to the Play” and of “Christis Kirk,” resemble as closely as possible those of “The Gaberlunzieman” and “The Jolly Beggar,” which have always been attributed to James V., while they are also in entire keeping with what is known of the actual humour and temper of that king.
Absolute proof of the authorship, it must be admitted, is wanting, but upon the whole the available evidence appears to favour James V.; the majority of the critics, from Warton and Ritson to Stopford Brooke, have favoured this view; and, to quote Sibbald, “it appears safer in this instance to trust to vulgar tradition than to the ipse dixit of Bannatyne, who seems to have had but an indistinct notion of our different kings of the name of James.”
The earliest and best copy of “Christis Kirk on the Grene” is that contained in Bannatyne’s MS., now made available by the Hunterian Club. The poem is also contained in the Maitland MS., from which it was printed by Pinkerton in his Ancient Scottish Poems (Appendix II., 444). “Peblis to the Play” is also contained in the Maitland folio, and was printed from it by Pinkerton in his Select Scottish Ballads in 1783. Of both poems there have been many other editions. Most of these, however, contain texts very much corrupted, and none of the editors except Pinkerton appears to have seen the Maitland MS. “The Gaberlunzieman” and “The Jolly Beggar” have shared the haphazard fortune of their sister compositions, and in their case it is more difficult to ascertain a standard text. All four pieces are printed in the Perth edition of “The Works of James I.”, 1786, though the editor mentions that “The Gaberlunzieman” and “The Jolly Beggar” are commonly ascribed to James V. In the present volume “The Gaberlunzieman” follows the text given in Percy’s Reliques of Ancient English Poetry, while “The Jolly Beggar” follows that in Ritson’s Scottish Songs.
“Christis Kirk” has for several hundred years been one of the most popular of Scottish poems. Dr. Irving cites as a proof of its fame and popularity in the eighteenth century the lines of Pope:
One likes no language but the Faery Queen;
A Scot will fight for Christ’s Kirk o’ the Green.
As an illustration of ancient rustic humour and a description of low manners in its time it remains perhaps the best thing in the language. The only composition which competes with it for the first place in its class is the “Jolly Beggars” of Robert Burns. The two additional cantos which Allan Ramsay wrote for it in no way approach the spontaneity and boisterous energy of the original poem.
“Peblis to the Play” deals with a similar subject in similar manner, and has generally been considered to possess less merit than “Christis Kirk.” It certainly falls short of the riotous uproar of its companion piece, and beats the air throughout with a gentler wing; but its touches describing traits of rustic character are not less deft, the humour is here and there of a tenderer sort, and the subject displays more variety. The poem presents an admirable picture of the day’s enjoyment of rustic lads and lasses at a country fair, and is not the less artistic for its touch of rustic pathos near the end.
“The Gaberlunzieman” and “The Jolly Beggar” are said by tradition to celebrate two of James V.’s own adventures with country girls. It must be acknowledged that they are quite in keeping with the legends current regarding the too gallant monarch. One such tradition, recorded by Percy, narrates how the king used to visit a smith’s daughter at Niddry, near Edinburgh; but it is not known whether the intrigue with her had any connection with either of the poems. Whatever the facts of the case, the two compositions remain unsurpassed examples of a certain typical, pawky vein of Scottish humour. “The Jolly Beggar,” besides, contains in burlesque miniature all the essentials of a romantic drama.