> Renwick suggests that the kind of explicit moralising that makes its way
> into later ballad texts comes from a society which expects the need for
> a kind of Basil Bernstein elaborated code; in a non face-to-face society,
> you can't expect everyone to understand what you're on about--you have to
> tell them. The folktale literature on Bluebeard, Fitcher's Bird, Mr.
> Fox, et al, also suggests that the morals on those stories are _literary_
> add ons, usually from the collector (and usually the moral there is that
> women should not be curious--a moral that is in some ways nonsensical,
> because after all it would be a good idea to know that your husband was a
> mass murderer, no?).
>
> So, I'm kind of wondering if the "shun bad company" thing isn't also a
> bit, er, specious? I take Don Duncan's point that the actual moral if any
> may, no, WILL depend very much on the historic context, but there are a
> lot of historic contexts, from British broadside versions to at least two
> from Nova Scotia, not to mention the North American revival....
I want to do more on this as soon as I can get some time, but you have a
good start here. Willa Muir suggests that the use of metaphor comes
from a depersonalization of society, *and* corresponded to a similar
shift in literature.
The "add-on" moralizing verse is a "later" development, in some way
associated with this, and with the influence of the church - you can see
some shift in the 18th century to religious references in songs, and
occasional addition of of or modifications of the final moralizing
verse. For instance, The Three Ravens - a song with anthropomorphic
animals, shape-shifting humans, then suddenly there's a verse "God grant
every gentleman / Such hawks, such hounds, such a leman"??? This is
completely out of the context of the song, and has nothing to do with
the story; I leave that verse off when I sing it, and it's much more powerful.
There's another question on the table as well (quoted below), which is
interesting (the message bounced when Ed sent it). Hopefully, I'll get
to these in more detail.
-Don Duncan
Ed Cray wrote:
>
> Donald, and Others:
>
> Interesting theory: you seem to be suggesting that metaphor segueways
> naturally (?) into euphemism.
>
> I would urge you to expand on this.
>
> Ed
>
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Donald A. Duncan wrote:
>
> > Pauline Greenhill wrote:
> > >
> > > This was sent last week and rejected (boo hoo). Trying again:
> > >
> > > On this line (if I dare enter, since I started it all), it is the
> > > whole question of WHY maids should shun bad company, and
> > > what is said
> > > (and mainly unsaid) in the song texts that interests me.
> >
> > This is quite a question, since the contents of the songs undoubtedly
> > changed according to the sensibilities of the day, the cultural segment
> > singing it and, in the case of broadsides, the current political
> > influence of the church and the target market. The 18th century was a
> > period of disenfranchisement and commodification of women, and sexual
> > dallying could significantly affect market value. I believe this is
> > also the period in which Willa Muir speaks of the entry of metaphor into
> > song texts. By the Victorian era all was wrapped up in euphemism. I
> > think any approach to this question should start with a review of the
> > cultural evolution of the society, and must deal with impeccably dated texts.
> >
> > -Don Duncan
> >
|