The Deedsome

This is an Anglish of the beginning of Catherine Bell's, "Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions". The book can be considered the bookwork of men on and tells of what I call  as well as,  &. Outlined in Revived Case and Gender Inflections, it gives what may be if were as told. The times have also been to match a Twelvish reckoning of the years BCE & CE, with the  '↊' & '↋' in turn spelling ten & eleven:  &  spells tenwise 120 & 132,  likewise spells 1440, and  &  spell 144 & 1728.

Foreword
The  ‘' began  —that was drawn out in time &  worthy of acknowledging—ther upspringing of allen. It gave rise to annen fewen ways of thinking: firstly, ;, ; & thirdly, and from there came newen fields of scholarship. The ask at the hardworking heart   was; whether lief &  were—from the beginning—rooted in what was said & written or, what was carried out. Folks took on thoughtful leanings awhile, which were more and clever than any  answer to this  would seem to be underlain, however their broad pleadings were nonetheless  and straightforward. This part thes book will show us this insofar as it went thinking about lief. There are four main lines of thought: firstly, a few early thinkers that put their thoughts forward; next, the ‘’ school, who leaned towards seeing as  thes lief & thes folkways; then, a loose set of scholars of lief who were given to harping on the folktale; and lastly, the, which borrowed heavily from them all. Heralds of most crops of schoolmen have, over the last hundred years, offered their  ther  Babylonish new year  known as  Akitu fair. Hence, a quick writ fairen grounds lets us have  to witness these  works.

Early Thinkers
Friedrich Max Müller — was ahead of his time; having, in his   thes  Indo-Europish roots of Greekish, onen thes most , early understandings of .¹ Müller claimed that what we know as folktales were, in their beginnings,  sayings about  & the sun, made by fern Indo-Europers, a  crop who carved out many paths from the steppes thes middle of  about ʙᴄᴇ. However, their was to be “misunderstood” by later kinfolk ther folks they took over. Müller’s take was soon against by many, markworthily the folkloreman Andrew Lang — & the  Edward B. Tylor —.² Tylor  that the folktale should be reched as misunderstanding; it is an, wilful try to understand, & make stark knowledge of, the world. Although Tylor said that the of  tries at  were, without a, wrong, still the folktale couldn't be cast aside “as mere error & folly”. Rather, the folktale should be looked upon with great care “as an interesting product of the human mind” for insight into what Tylor & others saw as “primitive” ways of .³ Tylor called on annen unfoldsome look thes trend of man from childlike “savages” to “civilised man”, in the course thereof some early rechings lingered on as “survivals” in some later,,  .⁴ This sty towards folktale was tied to what Tylor saw as its hand in the upspringing of lief. Lief, he offers, came thes ordeal of seeing the dead in dreams. “Primitive” folks reched these ordeals through thinking about the of souls & ghosts,  reaping the  that part thes dead went on to live in some way after the rotting thes body. They also came to believe that alike ghostly weight or might lived in living-things-not-men, like deer & plants. Tylor used the word animism, from the Greekish anima (meaning soul), to hand down this earliest shape of lief. William Robertson Smith —, a gifted & Old  scholar, followed Tylor's unfoldsome framework but underscored  thes deedsome, above a  of souls, in the upspringings of lief &. Lief, he believed, didn’t arise ther whys & ther wherefores of animism but ther sorts of deeds that bound bonds ther folks in folkdom. In other words, Robertson Smith saw lief as rooted not in folktales thes  of things but in the deedsome that by kind, & perhaps unknowingly, worshipped godly likenesses thes folksly  itself:"“religion was made up of a series of acts & observances... [it] did not exist for the sake of saving souls but for the preservation & welfare of society.”⁵" Robertson Smith's most wellknown work the ordeal annen early  deedsome  & eating of a “totem”. Such deer are held to be godly forebears by a. The term totem comes from the “ototeman” in Ojibwaish, the tongue ther Algonquiners of Canada, and means “he is a relative of mine.”⁶ While Tylor's thoughts on deedsome killing mean a sort of “gift” model, wherewith men make offerings to forebears & ghosts to get blessings, Robertson Smith boldly  the   deed as a merry “communion” between men & gods that has the  of making holy the  of folks. Hence, for Robertson Smith, the deedsome is the main bit of lief, and it, at bottom, leads the, folksome  begetting & looking after. He moved the folktale to a rung, somewhat akin to its spot in Midler's thinking, by holding that folktale  as an  of what the deedsome was about when the upsprang meaning was forgotten or addled. In almost every mind, he said,"“the myth was derived from the ritual, and not the ritual from the myth; for the ritual was fixed and the myth was variable, the ritual was obligatory and faith in the myth was at the discretion of the worshipper.”⁷" Robertson Smith's into the deedsome laid the groundwork for the bottommost grounds of three mighty schools of reching of lief.⁸ The first was then “myth & ritual” school, thought to be alike Sir James Frazer's wellknown work, which says for the folktale that what is, in unlocking understanding, is to find out the deed wherewith it links. The was the folkslorely sty to lief  with Emile Durkheim, for whom lief was  by folks and is around, as Robertson Smith had noted, ”not... for the saving of souls but for the preservation & welfare of society.”⁹ As a third  sty, the school founded by Sigmund Freud took on Robertson Smith's  of,  bloot, and the folksome upspringing of  lordship, guilt, and rightness & wrongness. By heavily weighting the deedsome side of the, Robertson Smith, for the , pointed, with sheer , to ways of reckoning & reching that look beyond what folk themselves think about what they do or believe. In this way, Robertson Smith was first to point out what has been called an “antiintellectualist” understanding of man's doings, that is; doings rooted in, , wants and not reckoning in keeping with some early. A student of Robertson Smith, Sir James George Frazer — also the  & doings in which lief had upsprung. Whilst he was perhaps most gripped by underlying beliefs, Frazer, having deedsome folkways, was acknowledged: “the most illustrious ancestor in the pedigree of ritual.”↊ Frazer began by taking Tylor's thoughts about the folktale as how the folktale came to be, but, by rungs, came to see the folklore as another holdover or survival of deedsome doings. Hence, for Frazer, the deedsome is the upsprung spring of most of the  of  life.↋ One after another,  of Frazer's well-known work, The Golden Bough, take Robertson Smith's thinking thes deedsome bloot thes godly totem and folds this thought into a, new reckoning, namely, that the  common to & underlying all ther deedsome is a make-believe carrying out thes death & bringing back to life of a god or heavenly king who was living  thes growth & thes wellbeing, as well as being the one making sure that his folks were well & land,. For Frazer & his followers, the thes  dying & gainrising god were the makings of all folktale & folklore. Frazer wrote down &, without seemingly giving much thought to their kind, the folkways ther “primitives” of his day (from the  commoners to the more remote Pacific Islanders) that he thought brought out this antimber. Wherefore, the third of The Golden Bough  made up twelve books. Like Tylor & others before him, Frazer wanted to write down the whole “evolution of human thought from savagery to civilisation,” as well as the holdovers of early spells &, within the “high” liefs of , , & .¹⁰

The Folktale & Deed Schools
Robertson Smith & Frazer tended what has been called the “myth & ritual” school, an angling to the tilthly & shape of the deedsome that arose in two branches which hinged upon one another: a crop of witwordly & Near Eastern outhwits on the one hand, and a crop of Cambridge University on the other.¹¹ Among the first crop, the Old Witword scholar Samuel Henry Hooke  thes begrip that folktale & deed were  in early. The liefs of fern Egypt, Babylon, & Canaan were mainly, deedsome liefs; thes death & thes gainrising thes king as a god in whom the well-being of his  rested. The thes deedsome doing was the spoken, which was deemed to have even "potency". As time went on, however, the deeds & the thread unmingled and gave rise to sundry liefsome & beplayful kinds.¹² Bringing together the to back this way of thinking led the folktale and deed school to some great breakdowns harkening to the folktales and deeds of Near Eastern  of the Nile, Euphrates, and Indus River dales, together with the new year goings-on of the king in fern Israel. Hooke and his workfellows a set of deeds timed to fall within the  of planting and harvesting in which the king was first  and then  killed, after which he went down into the underworld. He arose afterhand to again endbird on earth through with the  of. Upon winning against lawlessness, the king again rose to the throne, in a hallowed wedlock, and spoke the laws of the land. So says Hooke, these goings-on went hand in hand with the spoken folktale as a   of  itself. Although challenged the stearly accuracy and scope of this interpretive reconstruction, it became a powerful model of sacred kingship that scholars attempted to use in other cultural areas as well.>