A Dictionary of English Folklore

A Dictionary of English Folklore JACQUELINE SIMPSON STEVE ROUD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS A Dictionary of English Folklore This page intentionally left blank A Dictionary of English Folklore jacqueline simpson & steve roud 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogotá Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris São Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw with associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Oxford University Press 2000 Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available ISBN 0–19–210019–X 10987654321 Typeset in Swift and Frutiger by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk Printed in Great Britain by T.J. International Ltd., Padstow, Cornwall Introduction The title of this book invites two challenges: What is ‘folklore’? And what is ‘English’ folklore? As regards the first, ‘folklore’ is notoriously difficult to define with rigour, and the term now covers a broader field than it did when invented in 1848, linking many aspects of cultural traditions past and present. It includes what- ever is voluntarily and informally communicated, created or done jointly by members of a group (of any size, age, or social and educational level); it can circulate through any media (oral, written, or visual); it generally has roots in the past, but is not necessarily very ancient; it has present relevance; it usually recurs in many places, in similar but not identical forms; it has both stable and variable features, and evolves through dynamic adaptation to new circum- stances. The essential criterion is the presence of a group whose joint sense of what is right and appropriate shapes the story, performance, or custom—not the rules and teachings of any official body (State or civic authority, Church, school, scientific or scholarly orthodoxy). It must be stressed that in most other respects this ‘group’ is likely to share in mainstream culture and to be diverse in socio-economic status, interests, etc.; the notion that folklore is found only or chiefly where an uneducated, homogeneous peasantry preserves ancient ways has no relevance to England today, and probably never had. We have included a broad range of oral genres, performance genres, calendar customs, life-cycle customs, supernatural, and ‘superstitious’ beliefs. Lack of space forced us regretfully to omit entries on traditional foods, sports, games, fairs, and most obsolete customs; we have also been selective in children’s lore, fairies, plants, and superstitions, since excellent books on these topics are available already. Material culture (such as traditional farming, crafts, vernacular buildings, etc.) has been left aside, this being an immense but separate topic. But modern everyday lore is well represented; the *Tooth Fairy counts as well as *Puck, the *Vanishing Hitchhiker as well as Lady *Godi- va. On some topics (e.g. *conception, *menstruation, *sex) data are scarce, as earlier scholars ignored these ‘unpleasant’ matters; we hope these entries will inspire others to fuller research. There are entries for past writers who have contributed significantly to the study of English folklore, but not for those still living (except in so far as it is impossible to separate Iona Opie’s work from that of her late husband Peter). There appears to be no precedent for taking ‘England’ as the basis for a book covering all folklore genres, although there have been books on, for instance, English calendar customs or dances. Folklorists have either studied a specific county, or have drawn material from all over the British Isles. Indeed, there has always been great stress on Scottish, Welsh, and Irish traditions as richer, more ancient, and more worth preserving than those of England. This became a self-fulfilling theory; the more scholars thronged to study them, the larger grew their archives, and the duller England seemed in comparison. Moreover, the English have never used folklore to assert their patriotic iden- tity, or even (until recent years) to attract tourists, though certain counties and regions have. Whereas Scotland, Wales, and Ireland have celebrated their Introduction vi traditions with pride, here folklore is seen as something quaint, appropriate to rural backwaters, but irrelevant to nationhood. Whereas virtually every other European country has university departments for folklore studies, with mas- sive archives, English academia has almost unanimously turned a blind eye. The paradoxical result is that the country which invented the word ‘folklore’ and whose scholars, a hundred years ago, were leaders in the field, is now a neglected area. We have long wished to redress the balance; the fact that our work appears now, at a time when there is some public debate on how ‘Englishness’ should be defined, is purely coincidental. Our second reason for excluding Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Isles, is that these areas have languages of their own; being unable to read their primary material, we could not have treated them adequately. We are fully aware that the traditions of the whole British Isles (plus Ireland) do have vast areas of overlap, in which separate treatment is unnecessary. How- ever, there are also great historical and cultural differences; any book attempt- ing to combine them would either be vastly longer than the present one, or, in our view, unacceptably shallow. We hope other ‘Dictionaries’ will be written, by those more qualified than ourselves, to cover those areas. Similarly, we reluctantly decided not to cover the many ethnic groups now forming part of English society. We could have described large-scale public events such as the Notting Hill Carnival or Chinese New Year dragon dances, but how could we, as outsiders, get access to the more intimate world of family custom and personal beliefs? How, for example, could we know where religious ritual ends and customary practice begins in a Muslim or Hindu wed- ding? Or distinguish between different types of Chinese medicine? Moreover, various families, generations, or individuals within each ethnic group guard, modify, or reject their traditions in different degrees in reaction to their Eng- lish environment; the situation is currently too fluid and complex for brief summary. Likewise, it is too early to say whether the policy in multicultural schools of encouraging all children to share one another’s festivals will spread into the community, and modify established traditions. Our intention is to provide a work of reference, not to build theories, of which there have been too many, based on too little evidence. The entries therefore emphasize established dates and facts; speculative interpretations are kept to a minimum. In particular, we view with scepticism theories that items of folklore are direct survivals of pre-Christian religion or magic, since the time-lag between their ascertainable dates and the suggested pagan origins is generally over a thousand years, and alternative explanations are often available. Similarly, although entries on folk medicine and superstitions sometimes refer to cognate ideas in classical writers, notably Pliny, we must state emphatically that we do not imply that the English items are orally transmitted from equally ancient times; classical medicine and ‘science’ was known to medieval and early modern compilers of bestiaries, lapidaries, and herbals, through whom it passed to ordinary people. The importance of Greek and Roman authors to English folklore is that their prestige among the educated supported various popular beliefs. The authority of the Bible and Church was even more powerful; it endorsed the reality of ghosts, witchcraft, and demons, while the pervasive influence of its ethics and imagery can be traced in very many legends, practices, and beliefs. In conclusion, we offer appreciation and thanks to our friends and vii Introduction colleagues whose writings, lectures, and conversation have taught us so much: Gillian Bennett, Julia Bishop, Marion Bowman, Georgina Boyes, Theresa Buck- land, E. C. Cawte, Jennifer Chandler, Keith Chandler, Hilda Ellis Davidson, George Frampton, Reg Hall, Gabrielle Hatfield, Michael Heaney, Roy Judge, Venetia Newall, Iona Opie, Roy Palmer, Tom Pettitt, Neil Philip, Doc Rowe, Leslie Shepard, Brian Shuel, Paul Smith, Roy Vickery, John Widdowson, Juliette Wood. Particular thanks to Caroline

Load more