'The Dreadful Death of the Bonny Earl of Murray' Review
'The Dreadful Death of the Bonny Earl of Murray', by Ian A. Olson, in Journal 7.3 (1997),
281-310
Review by John Fry
Folk Music Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2 (2002), pp. 230-231
'The Dreadful Death of the Bonny Earl of Murray', by Ian A. Olson, in Journal 7.3 (1997), 281-310
John Fry writes:
I have finally found the time to read both Ian A. Olson's 'The dreadful death of the Bonny Earl of Murray' and Edward D. Ives's The Bonny Earl of Murray: The Man, the Murder, and the Ballad (Edinburgh: Tuckwell Press, 1997). It is unfortunate that these two well-researched, erudite and informative theses should have been published (apparently accidentally) without reference to each other - since they tell complementary stories. Reading them together suggests possible further avenues of research for three unresolved questions, namely the historical relationship of the distinctive 'A' and 'B' texts, the validity of the 'B' text allusion to Murray and his murderer Huntly being brothers-in-law, and the date of composition of the ballad(s).
First, whether the 'A' and 'B' texts of the ballad shared a common origin prior to the first publication of the 'A' in the second edition of William Thompson's Orpheus Caledonius in 1733. Sandy Ives argues against this, and his case is strengthened by evidence from both authors for the publishing history of the ballad, which shows independence of the two texts. Olson feels otherwise, and he cites an apparent hybrid text collected by James Madison Carpenter from Mrs Watson Gray of Fochabers as possible evidence for oral memory of a lost archetype. Mrs Gray's text had been collected in 1931, but she had apparently learnt it over fifty years before in Glenlivet. Ironically, Olson's argument is strengthened by Ives's references to three composite texts with probable British origins collected in North America: in 1906 from Mrs McLeod of Dumfries then visiting the USA, who had learnt it from her parents; before 1929 from Capt. Charles L. Donovan, Jonesport, Maine, who remembered it from the repertoire of his crewmen; and in 1934 from George Edwards, of Burlington, Vermont who had learnt it as child in Yorkshire.
However, it must be noted that when John Finlay first published the 'B' text in 1808, he then hypothesised that this might originally have been linked to the 'A'. This suggestion might, in itself, have spurred an 'educated' reader to marry to two texts for performance purposes. Ives prefers this concept of an artistic consolidated 'A+B' text to that of an archetype which subsequently fragmented, and his interpretation gains some support from arguments (including those from Olson) that, on both linguistic and melodic grounds, the ballad is a product of 'art', rather than 'folk' composition. The idea that a consolidated text could have initiated a new tradition spawning the Carpenter and North American variants has chronological attractions, since the missing fossil record is thus reduced to the time interval post- 1808 to c.1870.
The second and third points do not depend upon there having been a single original text, although the arguments might be strengthened if that were the case. These hinge on the allusion in the first verse of the 'B' text to Huntly being Murray's brother-in-law: 'Open the gates, and let him come in; / He's my brother Huntly, he'll do him nae harm'. Both Ives and Olson point out that Murray and Huntly were not directly related, but neither has a convincing explanation for the inclusion of this historical inaccuracy. However, in one sense the verse is wholly accurate. Both authors provide evidence that Murray's son (the 3rd Earl) eventually married Huntly's daughter, and so (Ives) became brother-in-law to Huntly's heir, who was also married-off to Argyle's daughter in an attempt to resolve the feud. This historical event may provide a context for determining the composition date. Both authors note the surprising fact that Thompson's publication of the 'A' text did not occur until 1733. This was 142 years after the scandalous event which, as Ives suggests, should have been hot press for contemporary ballad sellers. However, Ives also suggests that the text(s) may have originally been composed or commissioned by Murray's family or political allies in an attempt to maintain a blood feud with Huntly. If so, the period immediately after the murder was not the only window of opportunity to keep Murray's memory alive. Composition of the 'B' text (at the very least) on the occasion of, or possibly some time after, the marriage alliance would be consistent with this argument. Once again it has the attraction of slightly closing the gap between the dates of alleged composition and eventual publication. It also gives the 'brother-in-law' verse historical accuracy - albeit in a metaphorical sense.
Ian Olson replies:
This thoughtful (and generous) letter raises a number of interesting questions (although I can reassure John Fry there is nothing 'apparent'). Space constraints, however, do not permit me to do other than heartily endorse his recommendation to obtain Sandy Ives's excellent book, although in the interval it has, annoyingly, been remaindered.
By the way, readers wondering which, if any, of the ballads is an 'art' product may have their thoughts clarified by last year's spectacular recording of the octave-and-asixth 1733 version by Isla St Clair (Royal Lovers & Scandals, CD, REHCD532, Highland Classics, 2000).