There seems to be some considerable reason for believing that the hero of this story was a reality. The story tells us that he lived in the marsh of the Isle of Ely, and that he became “a brewer’s man” at Lyn, and traded to Wisbeach. This little piece of geographical evidence enables us to fix the story as belonging to the great Fen District, which occupied the north of Cambridgeshire and Norfolk.

The antiquary Thomas Hearne has gone so far as to identify the hero of tradition with a doughty knight of the Crusaders. Writing in the Quarterly Review (vol. xxi. p. 102), Sir Francis Palgrave says:—

“Mr. Thomas Hickathrift, afterwards Sir Thomas Hickathrift, Knight, is praised by Mr. Thomas Hearne as a ‘famous champion.’ The honest antiquary has identified this well-known knight with the far less celebrated Sir Frederick de Tylney, Baron of Tylney in Norfolk, the ancestor of the Tylney family, who was killed at Acon, in Syria, in the reign of Richard Coeur de Lion. Hycophric, or Hycothrift, as the mister-wight observes, being probably a corruption of Frederick. This happy exertion of etymological acumen is not wholly due to Hearne, who only adopted a hint given by Mr. Philip le Neve, whilome of the College of Arms.”

There does not seem to be the slightest evidence for Hearne’s identification any more than there is for his philological conclusions, and we may pass over this for other and more reliable information.

We must first of all turn to the story itself, as it has come down to us in its chapbook form. It is divided into two parts. The first part of the story is the earliest; the second part being evidently a printer’s or a chapman’s addition. Our reprint of the former is taken from the copy in the Pepysian Library at Magdalene College, Cambridge, and which was printed probably about 1660-1690; the latter is taken from the British Museum copy, the date of which, according to the Museum authorities, is 1780.

In trying to ascertain something as to the date of the story apart from that of its printed version, it will therefore be necessary to put out of consideration the second portion. This has been written by some one well acquainted with the original first part, and with the spirit of the story; but in spite of this there is undoubted evidence of its literary origin at a date later than the first part. But turning to the first part there are two expressions in this early Pepysian version which have not been repeated in the later editions—those of the eighteenth century; and these two expressions appear to me to indicate a date after which the story could not have been originated. On page 1 we read that Tom Hickathrift dwelt “in the marsh of the Isle of Ely.” In the earliest British Museum copy this appears as “in the parish of the Isle of Ely.” Again, on page 11 Tom is described as laying out the giant’s estate, “some of which he gave to the poor for their common, and the rest he made pastures of and divided the most part into good ground, to maintain him and his old mother Jane Hickathrift.” In the earliest British Museum copy the expression “good ground” is displaced by “tillage.” Now it is clear from these curious transposition of words in the earliest and latest editions that something had been going on to change the nature of the country. The eighteenth-century people did not know the “marsh” of Ely, so they read “parish”: they did not know the meaning of “good ground” so they read “tillage.” And hence it is clear that at the printing of this earliest version the fen lands of Cambridge and Norfolk had not yet been drained; there was still “marsh land” which was being made into “good land.”

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:

“A Norfolk antiquary has had the goodness to procure for us an authentic report of the present state of Tom’s sepulchre. It is a stone soros, of the usual shape and dimensions; the sculptured lid or cover no longer exists. It must have been entire about fifty years ago, for when we were good Gaffer Crane would rehearse Tom’s achievements, and tell us that he had cut out the moss which filled up the inscription with his penknife, but he could not read the letters.”[C]

And Clare, in his Village Minstrel, tells us that:—

And this view as to the existence still of a traditional form of the story is almost borne out by what the country people only recently had to say relative to a monument in that part of the country over which Sir William Dugdale travelled, and of which he has left us such a valuable memorial in his History of Imbanking. A writer in the Journal of the Archaeological Association (vol. xxv. p. 11) says:—“A mound close to the Smeeth Road Station, between Lynn and Wisbech, is called the Giant’s Grave, and the inhabitants relate that there lie the remains of the great giant slain by Hickathrift with the cart wheel and axletree. A cross was erected upon it, and is to be seen in the neighbouring churchyard of Torrington St. John’s, bearing the singular name of Hickathrift’s Candlestick.”

It appears, then, that the following may be considered the chief evidence which we have obtained about the existence of the story:—

And knowing what folk-lore has to say about the long life of traditions, about their constant repetition age after age, it is not, I venture to think, too much to conclude that a story which can be shown by evidence to have lived on from mouth to mouth for two centuries is capable of going back to an almost endless antiquity for its true original.

Let us now consider what may be the origin of this story. There is one theory as to this which has gained the authority of Sir Francis Palgrave. The pranks which Tom performed “must be noticed,” says Sir Francis, “as being correctly Scandinavian.” He then goes on to say, “Similar were the achievements of the great Northern champion Grettir, when he kept geese upon the common, as told in his Saga. Tom’s youth retraces the tales of the prowess of the youthful Siegfried detailed in the Niblunga Saga and in the book of Heroes. It appears from Hearne that the supposed axle-tree, with the superincumbent wheel, was represented on ‘Hycothrift’s’ grave-stone in Tylney churchyard in the shape of a cross. This is the form in which all the Runic monuments represent the celebrated hammer or thunderbolt of the son of Odin, which shattered the skulls and scattered the brains of so many luckless giants. How far this surmise may be supported by Tom’s skill and strength in throwing the hammer we will not pretend to decide.”[D]

Now this takes the story entirely out of the simple category of local English tradition, and places it at once among those grand mythic tales which belong to the study of comparative mythology and which take us back to the earliest of man’s thought and belief. In order to test this theory let us have before us the passages in Tom Hickathrift’s history which might be said to bear it out, and then let us compare them with the stories of Grettir.

The analysis of the story based upon the plan laid down by the Folk-Lore Society is as follows:—

It will not be necessary to analyse the whole of the stories to which we are referred for the mythic parallels of Tom Hickathrift; but I will take out the items corresponding to those tabulated above. In the story of “Grettir the Strong” we have the following incidents:—

Now it cannot be denied that there is a great similarity in the thread of these two stories. Norfolk, the colony of the Northmen of old, may well have retained its ancient tradition until the moving incidents of English economic history brought about the weaving of it into the actual life that was pressing round men’s thoughts. It would thus leave out the great mass of detail in the old northern tradition, and retain just sufficient to fit in with the new requirements; and in this way it appears to me we have the present form of the story of Tom Hickathrift, its ancient Scandinavian outline, its more modern English application. Now it is curious to note that the cart-wheel plays a not unimportant part in English folk-lore as a representative of old runic faith. Sir Henry Ellis, in his edition of Brand’s Popular Antiquities (vol. i. p. 298), has collected together some instances of this; and whatever causes may have led to this survival there is nothing to prevent us from looking upon the wheel and axle in the story of Tom Hickathrift as a part and parcel of the same survival.

There now remains to notice one or two points of interest outside the narrative of the story itself. Of curious expressions we have—

It will be observed that the spelling of the name in the Pepysian copy is specially divided thus—Hic-ka-thrift; and though it seems probable that some good reason must be assigned to this, I cannot find out points of importance. But about the dubbing him Mr. (p. 7) or Master, as it would be in full, there is something of great interest to point out. This was formerly a distinct title. In Harrison’s Description of England we read, “Who soeuer studieth the lawes of the realme, who so abideth in the vniuersitie, or prefesseth physicke and the liberall sciences, or beside his seruice in the roome of a capteine in the warres can liue without manuell labour, and thereto is able and will beare the post, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, which is the title that men giue to esquiers and gentlemen and reputed for gentlemen.”—Harrison’s Description of England, 1577 (edited by F. J. Furnivall for the New Shakspere Society, 1877), p. 129.

Of yeomen he says, “And albeit they be not called master as gentlemen are, or sir as to knights apperteineth, but onelie John and Thomas,” &c. (p. 134): and of “the third and last sort,” “named the yeomanrie,” he adds, “that they be not called masters and gentlemen, but goodmen, as goodman Smith, goodman Coot, goodman Cornell, goodman Mascall, goodman Cockswet,” &c. (p. 137).

Mr. Furnivall’s note (p. 123) is as follows:—“Every Begger almost is called Maister.—See Lancelot’s ‘Maister Launcelet’ in the Merchant of Venice, II. ii. 51, and the extract illustrating it from Sir Thomas Smith’s Commonwealth of England, bk. I. ch. 20 (founded on Harrison, i. 133, 137), which I printed in New Sh. Soc.’s Trans. 1877-9, p. 103-4. Also Shakspere getting his ‘yeoman’ father arms, and making him a ‘gentleman’ in 1596.—(Leopold Shakspere, Introduction, p. ciii.).” We thus get still further indication of the early date of the story, the significance of the title “Master” having died out during the seventeenth century.

The following is a bibliographical list of some of the editions, many others having been printed from the beginning of this century:—