>>Is she saying that fairies are just a human metaphor for the dead? Or is
>>she saying they are the dead in folklore?
What's the difference? Can you clarify for me? Purkiss is certainly saying
that fairies are a human metaphor for the general dead, as well as for
things people don't want to know about or admit like neonatal death, women
dying in childbed, infanticide, incest, disabled children. This is also
explored in "The Good People" by Peter Narvaez (ed) (Kentucky University
Press 1991). In Angela Bourke's "The Burning of Bridget Cleary" fairies are
also the dead (in Ireland in the late 19th century). So whether that's
'folklore' or 'human metaphors' I'm not quite sure I understand the
difference. Is it the difference between beliveing something (from the
inside) and analysing that belief, from the outisde?
> Caroline Tully wrote:
>>Dianne Purkiss in "At the Bottom of the Garden: A Dark History of Fairies,
>>Hobgoblins and Other Troublesome Things" (New York University Press. 2000)
>>would say that fairies *were* the dead. Do you agree with that?