These folklore posts are written from the point of view of a cultural
anthropologist. This means that I am not as interested in the particular
dynamics of a story as much as the implications that story might have in
explaining the culture of a people. That is my particular bias. So, I
tend to allow Moe and Larry to work out the linguistic and gramatical
problems and *I* get down to the brass tacks of trying to figure out what
it *MEANS*. (The proceeding was a well-intentioned tease to fellow
folklorists who might actually enjoy the Moe and Larry pursuits, with the
implication that my interest is the Curly Joe side of the question. Woop
woop wooop.) With that in mind, consider the following sentence (as poorly
as it may be constructed):
"I hated to badger the ol' polecat, but I needed to ferret out the truth
and he was weaseling his way out of every inquiry, otter slick and mink
smooth--I responded with wolverine vigor and skunked him at his own game."
Ok, so it isn't great literature and I probably could have done it better,
but there is a great point. The animal words have meaning we can all
understand. When I say words like "ferret," "weasel," or "polecat," the
words are symbolic for a particular attribute commonly understood. Few
people have actually watched a ferret chase a rabbit from a bury, yet we
all understand the phrase "ferreting out the truth." This has a very
important implication; the actions of various mustelids, including the
ferret, were so commonly known as to be capable of passing into a
particular language as more than just names of animals, but also as a
reference for a specific attribute or action. In other words, when you
say you are "ferreting out the truth," you are in effect saying, "I am
searching for the truth in a similar manner as ferrets, who will fearlessly
and relentlessly search every possible tunnel in a warren in the pursuit of
rabbits." Now here is the universal truth: the only time words for things
become words for actions is when the attributes of the thing is commonly
understood by the population as a whole. In other words, we can say "I
will ferret out the truth," because when the phrase was invented, people
had a clear understanding of what it meant and implied. A *COMMON*
understanding.
Why is this important in folklore and the understanding it might give us in
understanding our attitudes towards ferrets? Because it is evidence that
even though folktales may not exist for an animal, the knowledge of the
animal existed and its attributes were understood by the population as a
whole. This has several implications, the most important one being the
understanding of rarity. For example, is the lack of stories about purple
people eaters due to the fact that few purple people eaters were seen, OR
is it due to people just not telling stories about them? Well, if you can
find a common phrase ("she played a purple people eater horn"), you can be
sure that purple people eaters were common enough for their attributes to
be clearly understood enough to pass into the vernacular.
What this does is EXCLUDE rarity from the question. Whatever the reason
for a lack of folktales about ferrets (and mustelids in general), rarity is
probably not one of them because mustelid attributes are well known by all.
In real life, names for rare animals seldom enter the vernacular in terms
of becoming symbolic for their attributes. Sheep aren't rare, which is why
we can ram something. We can ferret out the enemy, or rabbit cowardly away
from them. Girls can catfight and guys can cockfight and both the rooster
and the cat have become symbols for other things as well. We can parrot
each other's words, or bull our way through the crowd. But we never
giraffe oranges from trees, nor mountain beaver a hillside. I've never
heard someone say "she binteronged the tree." As a general rule, rare
animals do not enter the vocabulary (except as nouns), so we *know*
ferrets, weasels, badgers, etc., were not as rare as the lack of folklore
indicates they might have been.
So, if ferrets made their way into the language, why not the folklore?
Folklore is the stories we tell each other and our children, usually for
entertainment, but also to transmit cultural events, beliefs and
traditions. That is why you can sometimes read a folktale from other
cultures and it makes no sense to you. Folktales are also conserved in
cultures. For example, the children's poem "Ring around the Rosy" (or
"Ring a ring of rosies") is today a nonsense verse; but 600 years ago, it
was about the black death (mid-1300s). Back then, it was thought noxious
"vapors" caused the disease, so fragrant flowers (roses, posies) were used
in garlands (rings) and cachets (pockets) to ward off the plague vapors.
Rings were thought to possess supernatural healing powers. The use of
"ashes" is problematical; most authorities think it is a corruption of
"aitchoo" (sneezing in the pneumonic form), some suggest it refers to the
use of fires to drive away the vapors (as tried by the pope) and others
think it is a corruption of "ache" (the plague is very painful). There is
no doubt to what "we all fall down" means; we all die.
What is wonderful about this poem is that it has been VERBALLY transmitted
for 600 years or more WITH VERY LITTLE CHANGE, and that transmission has
mostly been through children. That is a characteristic of folktales; they
tend to be culturally preserved. "Ring Around the Rosy" did not find it's
way into written literature for hundreds of years, and today, 6 centuries
later, it is almost perfectly preserved. Why is this important in terms of
ferret folklore? Because it is evidence that ferret folktales were not
simply "lost" or "forgotten." This verse, and many others, survived several
plagues of black death which killed at least 3/4ths of the people living at
the time, as well as war, other infectious plagues, cultural changes AND a
lack of being recorded on paper. The important thing is, "Ring Around the
Rosy" is not an isolated example, but rather, the normal occurence.
Bob C and 18 Mo' Fertfolk and their tails
[Posted in FML issue 2834]
|
