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: