The thing is, Jim, you keep referring to the work of Child, but it seems plain to me, and this is just my opinion, that you yourself radically disagree with him. He was utterly plain that the lower orders did not write the ballads, you are convinced that they did.

Similarly, those people who you cite did not always agree with eachother, so the idea that over 100 years some monolithic body of 'knowledge' was built up seems to me simply to radically misrepresent what was done, to misrepresent the contents of this literature about 'folk' and 'ballads'.

I have pointed out to you how racist much of the early 'folklorists' were, and still you are pointing to a century of research that should not be overturned. Surely you of all people would take issue with their view of 'primitive races' ie Native Americans? Instead I get told I am trying to overturn the work of 'giants'.

Many of the questions I am asking are basic ones that 16 year old students of history should be able to ask: Is this a primary source or a secondary source? What bias may be present? How likely is it to be reliable. And in the works of the hundred years that you refer to in the above posts, such questions have been asked. So Percy fiddled with some of his songs. Dixon, one source on Lord Lovel, has been questioned in terms of reliability by others within that same 100 year tradition.

Go read a book I was told. Physician, heal thyself, I am tempted to suggest, at the risk of appearing unmannerly!

Steve, I guess you are right.