This is an Anglish wending of the beginning of Catherine Bell's bookwork, "Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions". The book can be considered the bookwork of men on ritual and tells of what I call folkslore as well as mindlore, stear & forestear.
Outlined in Revived Case and Gender Inflections, it gives what may be if abying were astold.
The times have also been went to match a Twelvish reckoning of the years BCE & CE, with the staves '↊' & '↋' in turn spelling ten & eleven: ↊0 & ↋0 spells tenwise 120 & 132, ↊00 likewise spells 1440, and 100 & 1000 spell 144 & 1728.
The Deedsome: Outlooks & Metings
The bookworks thes ‘deedsome' began annen kneating—that was drawn out in time & belives worthy of acknowledging—ther upsprang of allen lief. It gave rise to annen fewen ways of thinking: firstly, unfoldsome; twithely, folkslorely; & thirdly, mindlorely and from there came newen fields of scholarship. The onefolden ask at the hardworking heart thisses strout was; whether lief & folkways were—from the beginning—rooted in what was said & written or, what was carried out. Folks took on thoughtful leanings awhile, which were more missly and clever than any onefold answer to this fraining would seem to be underlain, however their broad pleadings were nonetheless kirsome and straightforward. This part thes book will show us this flite 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 ‘folktale & deed’ school, who leaned towards seeing the deedsome as ordfrom thes lief & thes folkways; then, a loose set of scholars of lief who were given to harping on the folktale; and lastly, the <psychoanalytic> sty, which borrowed heavily from them all. Heralds of most theser crops of schoolmen have, over the last hundred years, offered their rechings ther fern Babylonish new year deed known as then Akitu fair. Hence, a quick writ ther fairen grounds lets us have hap to witness these bethoughten works.
Friedrich Max Müller 107↋—1124 was ahead of his time; having, in his withmeetsome speechlore bookwork thes weened Indo-Europish roots of Greekish folktaledom, onen thes most hefty, early understandings of folklore.¹ Müller claimed that what we know as folktales were, in their beginnings, shoppy sayings about alkind & the sun, made by fern Indo-Europers, a wanderlustful crop who carved out many paths from the steppes thes middle of Asey about ↊50ʙᴄᴇ. However, these shop's sayings were to be “misunderstood” by later kinfolk ther folks they took over.
Müller’s take was soon reckoned against by many, markworthily the folkloreman Andrew Lang 1098—1134 & the manloreman Edward B. Tylor 1088—1139.² Tylor withsook that the folktale should be reched as misunderstanding; it is an outhwittingly, wilful try to understand, & make stark knowledge of, the world. Although Tylor said that the sooth of folktalelorely tries at seething were, without a twee, 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 reckoning.³ Tylor called on annen unfoldsome look thes folksome trend of man from childlike “savages” to “civilised man”, in the course thereof some early rechings lingered on as “survivals” in some later, couth, lieflike folkways.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 rines of souls & ghosts, forthen reaping the alief 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.
“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 gainbuilds the ordeal annen early Shemerish deedsome bloot & eating of a “totem” deer. Such deer are held to be godly forebears by a sundry <exogamic lineage group>. The term totem comes from the late “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 reched the Shemerish blootsome deed as a merry “communion” between men & gods that has the rine of making holy the togetherness of folks. Hence, for Robertson Smith, the deedsome is the main bit of lief, and it, at bottom, leads the afold, folksome cost anent begetting & looking after oned folks. He moved the folktale to a twithsome rung, somewhat akin to its spot in Midler's thinking, by holding that folktale outfolded as an unriddling 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 underseekings 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 needful, in unlocking understanding, is to find out the deed wherewith it links. The twither was the folkslorely sty to lief thoughtfriendly with Emile Durkheim, for whom lief was begotten 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 rechwards sty, the <psychoanalytical> school founded by Sigmund Freud took on Robertson Smith's noting of totemlief, form bloot, and the folksome upsprangs of liefsome lordship, guilt, and rightness & wrongness. By heavily weighting the deedsome side of the shale, Robertson Smith, for the <psychoanalysts>, pointed, with sheer lutterness, 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 unrode, selfshrithing, wants and not afoldly reckoning in keeping with some early witcraft.
A student of Robertson Smith, Sir James George Frazer 10↊6—1159 also rought the undergoings & doings in which lief had upsprung. Whilst he was perhaps most gripped by underlying beliefs, Frazer, having undersought 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 lateful shapes of tilthly life.↋ One after another, adightings 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 manifold, new reckoning, namely, that the onalikeness 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 token thes growth & thes wellbeing, as well as being the one making sure that his folks were well & land, growthsome. For Frazer & his followers, the antimber thes deedsomely dying & gainrising god were the makings of all folktale & folklore. Frazer wrote down & dighted, without seemingly giving much thought to their frecked kind, the folkways ther “primitives” of his day (from the Frankish commoners to the more remote Pacific Islanders) that he thought brought out this antimber. Wherefore, the third wending of The Golden Bough 1137 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 & shinelock, within the “high” liefs of Judalief, Christendom, & Sarakenlief.¹⁰
The Folktale & Deed Schools
Robertson Smith & Frazer tended what has been called the “myth & ritual” school, an angling to the tilthly & stearly shape of the deedsome that arose in two branches which hinged upon one another: a crop of witwordly & Near Eastern bookmen on the one hand, and a crop of Cambridge University <classicists> on the other.¹¹ Among the first crop, the Old Witword scholar Samuel Henry Hooke threeped thes begrip that folktale & deed were unsunderendly in early boroughdom. The liefs of fern Egypt, Babylon, & Canaan were mainly showplayful, deedsome liefs; heartlike thes death & thes gainrising thes king as a god in whom the well-being of his undertheedlings rested. The pith thes deedsome doing was the spoken thread, which was deemed to have even "potency". As time went on, however, the deeds & the thread unmingled and gave rise to sundry liefsome & showplayful kinds.¹²
Bringing together the suttling 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 tilths 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 gainbuilt a set of deeds timed to fall within the yeartides of planting and harvesting in which the king was first heened and then leethily killed, after which he went down into the underworld. He arose afterhand to again astell endbird on earth through <formal combat> with the thrithe of dwolm. Upon winning against lawlessness, the king again rose to the throne, handfasted in a hallowed wedlock, and spoke the laws of the land. So says Hooke, these leethy goings-on went hand in hand with the spoken folktale as a thenned rake of shaft itself. Although bad-mouthers tried to call into seam the stearly deadonness and breadth of this rechwards gainbuilding, it became a mighty anlikeness of hallowed kingship that learned men tried to draw on in other tilthly spots as well.
The Cambridge school of <classicists> <systematically developed> this reching by wrangling that folklore & books derive from the deedsome goings-on of fern, hallowed kings, not from soothfast stear or folk make-believing, as leeds had long believed. In particular, Gilbert Murray, Francis M. Cornford, & Arthur B. Cooke tried to show how the bisen of the dying & rising Near Eastern god-king, also seen in the Dionysian growthsomeness deeds of fern Greece, gives the layout of Greek showplay.¹³ One of the most cloutsome bookmen among the Cambridge <classicists> was Jane Ellen Harrison, whose big bookworks, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1127) & Themis (1134), tried to root the upsprangs of Greek folktale, showplayful waverness, & even the Olympic games (in a capittle's yift to Themis by Cornford) in the fern deeds told by Frazer.¹⁴ Put most onefoldly, Harrison saw the deedsome as the headspring of folktale; folktales arose as spoken & somewhat twithesome fits to the goings-on done in the deed. Harrison's unfoldsome framework also tended that the ordfromlike deedsome goings-on, on the whole, died out, while the folktales in tow selfstandingly went on by sundry shapes. She kneated that once folktale lost its ordfromlike kinship to a deed, it might try to bid for its own being & grow its <intellectual coherence>. <For example, even though a myth might have arisen to accompany a ritual, if & when the rite died out, the story could attach itself to specific historical figures & events, or it could even be adopted as a pseudoscientific explanation of particular phenomena.>