"Eels Boiled in Broo" or What Killed Lord Randal?
"Eels Boiled in Broo" or What Killed Lord Randal?
by E. W. Baughman
The News Bulletin of the Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association, Vol. 10, No.3 (May, 1957), p. 3
"Eels Boiled in Broo" or What Killed Lord Randal?
Whenever a class of mine discusses "Lord Randal," I am amazed by their confusion about the poison fed to the unfortunate lord by his lady-love. I cannot blame them for their lack of knowledge, but some of their misunderstandingis astounding, especially that which they have acquired in high school or from students who have previously studied the song. They suggest everything from witchcraft to ptomaine poisoning, usually ignoring the clear implication of the poem that Lord Randal's sweetheart poisoned him deliberately (and possibly with good reason). These remarks are somewhat a way of apology for presenting material that is known to ballad specialists. Because many English teachers are not ballad specialists, I simply want to point out that what Lord Randal ate was snakes (or possibly newts) boiled in broth, not "eels boiled in broo."
Some years ago I examined all of the variants of "Lord Randal" that I could find. Fifty-seven contained mention of poisoning, forty-four by eels or fish. In the variants in the Child Collection ("Lord Randal" is No. 12), the questioner sometimes asks what the eels or fish looked like or where the poisoner got them. In Child Variant C, the victim replies: "They were spreckled on the back and white on the belly"; in Variant J, the victim has eaten a wee fishie taken "from a dub [puddle] before the door"; in Variant K, the fishie had been "catched in a gutter hole"; and in Variant M, the source was "a little four-footed fish." In his notes on this ballad Child also mentions a Wendish variant in which the victims were killed by a fish speared in the stable (of all places) by the dung fork. Five American variants published since the Child Collection appeared have striped eels fried in butter, and two have speckled eels fried in butter. These descriptions clearly indicate that these eels or fish are not ordinary eels or fish but creeping, crawling things from land or stagnant water.
But, the students often ask, "Would a boiled snake kill a person?" (They know that rattlesnake meat can be bought in delicatessens.) My answer is that it doesn't matter as long as Lord Randal's sweetheart thought one would-and besides, the greyhounds are dead and Lord Randal shortly will be. Child cites several Continental variants in which just the snake's head is used as a source of poison. The whole problem apparently bothered an unknown redactor of the ballad, for in this version we have a speckled eel fried in butter, and we are told that the "eel" had bitten itself before it died.
The answer to the whole problem is neatly summarized by Tristram P. Coffin in his very useful book, The British Traditional Ballad in North America (Philadelphia: The American Folklore Society, 1950, p. 44). [See Recording & Info] The poison used by the true-love is generally considered to be snakes, served as eels or fish, although frequently she may serve simply poison or some such corruption as "ale" (eel), or even the cold cakes and coffee of Cox, F-S- South, H .... Toads and reptiles or other sorts were also used, and Barry, Brit Bids Me, 61 points out that newts were, by many people, considered poisonous when eaten.
The University of New Mexico
E. W. Baughman