CLASSIFICATION OF FOLK-LORE.
I AM glad to see that the subject of the Classification of Folk-lore is not to be allowed to drop. It is one in which, as a collector myself, I cannot but be deeply interested; and a little fearful withal, lest, among so many "great scholars," the needs of the humble fraternity of collectors should be somewhat overlooked.
I see with pleasure that Mr. J. S. Stuart-Glennie perceives with me that the word Folk-lore has lately been very inconveniently made to do double duty: to signify both a science and a subject of scientific study. But I must join issue with him when he applies the word to the science and not to the subject, and takes Folk-lore to be the learning of the cultured about the folk, and not the learning of the folk themselves. He says that the folk have no learning properly so-called, that they do not learn, but imbibe knowledge; apparently restricting the term learning to lessons given of set purpose by a teacher and consciously acquired by the pupil. But this is surely an entirely arbitrary and unauthorised use of the word learning. One may learn insensibly, learn from experience, learn by example, and So forth. We must not begin by wresting the English language to suit our theories. Moreover, supposing Mr. Stuart-Glennie to be right in his restricted use of the words learn and learning, yet he is mistaken in saying that the folk have no learning of the kind he means. People taught their children what they knew themselves long before books and national schools were invented. Magic rites, songs, tunes, dances, plays, are transmitted from generation to generation by direct oral teaching of the young to bear their part in the time-honoured practices or ceremonies. Every peasant-mother who teaches her child (as some English mothers do even now) to say,—
"Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
Bless the bed that I lie on," etc.
