So far as subject-matter is concerned, we find in the Ballads the same conception of the relation of ballad and fact. Jane Shore “adheres to matter of fact with a fidelity very uncommon,”[386] and this is, perhaps, one reason why it does not find a place in the later collection.[387] We may contrast, on the other hand, the two statements in regard to the relation of Hind Horn and the romance: “Metrical romances ... are known in many cases to have been adapted for the entertainment of humbler hearers, by abridgment in the form of ballads.” He regards Hind Horn as a case of this sort.[388]
Style and plot, finally, are a test of genuineness: “I cannot assent to the praise bestowed by Scott on The Outlaw Murray. The story lacks point and the style is affected—not that of the unconscious poet of the real traditional ballad.”[389] Though there without comment, it is placed at the very end of the later collection.
From a comment like this it is obvious that Professor Child already had in mind the conception of “a real traditional ballad,” a “specimen of authentic minstrelsy.”[390] Although he admitted to the earlier collection lays, romances, songs, broadsides and sheet-ballads, as well as modern or modernized compositions, yet he was aware that all these differed from the true ballad. This true ballad, he conceived, was inimitable, in matter and manner. In transmission it might suffer, from the invention of a nursery-maid, from Buchan’s beggar, from a “hangman’s pen,” from the modern editors. It drew its subject-matter from fact (to which it was not loyal), from romances, from other ballads. In quality the subject-matter was not “horrible.” In style the true ballad was not feeble in execution, not prolix and vulgar, and not affected. The earlier conception was not as complete as the later, and it was by no means so rigorously enforced. In regard to specific compositions, there was, as is to be expected, some change of opinion. But the significant fact is that for at least forty years Professor Child retained without essential change his conception of the traditional ballad as a distinct literary type.
V.
We may now bring together the passages in which Professor Child declared certain ballads to be of the true “popular” or “traditional” type. The fewness of such passages is at first surprising, yet it clearly formed no part of a set purpose to include in his introductions estimates of this kind, and such “appreciations” seem to have been either spontaneous,—springing, as in the case of Johnie Cock, from his delight in the ballad with which he was concerned,—or intended, as in the case of Edward, as answer to his predecessors’ doubts of authenticity. On ballads like Lord Randal, Babylon, Hind Horn, Clerk Saunders, Fair Margaret and Sweet William, there is no such comment. It would seem, no doubt, in such cases obviously unnecessary. Nevertheless the list is fairly representative. We have examples of the Domestic Ballad,—tragic, in Earl Brand (7), Edward (13), Old Robin of Portingale (80), Little Musgrave (81), The Bonny Birdy (82); not tragic, in Child Waters (63), Young Beichan (53), Queen Eleanor’s Confession (156): we have examples of the Supernatural Ballad,—transformation, in The Laily Worm and the Machrel of the Sea (36); fairy, in Thomas Rymer (37); ghost, in The Wife of Usher’s Well (79): we have examples of the Border Ballad in Captain Car (178 F) and Jock o the Side (187): of the Outlaw Ballad in Johnie Cock (114), the Robin Hood ballads, 117-121: of the Heroic Ballad in King Estmere (60), Sir Aldingar (59), Sir Patrick Spens (58 A).
Johnie Cock (114): “This precious specimen of the unspoiled traditional ballad.” III, 1.
Edward (13): “The word ‘brand,’ in the first stanza, is possibly more literary than popular; further than this the language is entirely fit. The affectedly antique spelling in Percy’s copy has given rise to vague suspicions concerning the authenticity of the ballad, or of the language: but as spelling will not make an old ballad, so it will not unmake one. We have, but do not need, the later traditional copy to prove the other genuine. ‘Edward’ is not only unimpeachable, but has ever been regarded as one of the noblest and most sterling specimens of the popular ballad.” I, 167.
The Laily Worm and the Machrel of the Sea (36): “Somewhat mutilated, and also defaced, though it be, this ballad has certainly never been retouched by a pen, but is pure tradition. It has the first stanza in common with ‘Kemp Owyne,’ and shares more than that with ‘Allison Gross.’ But it is independent of ‘Allison Gross,’ and has a far more original sound.” I, 315.
Earl Brand (7): ... “has preserved most of the incidents of a very ancient story with a faithfulness unequalled by any ballad that has been recovered from English oral tradition.” I, 88.
The Wife of Usher’s Well (79): “A motive for the return of the wife’s three sons is not found in the fragments which remain to us.... But supplying a motive would add nothing to the impressiveness of these verses. Nothing that we have is more profoundly affecting.” II, 238.