... and of you, Big Mick.

I have the utmost respect for John Moulden's scholarship and reputation; but was not aware that such a reputation, or such respect, rendered his views infallibly ex cathedra indisputable. I shouldn't imagine that he would expect such treatment, either ~~ not if he is truly scholarly.

FWIW, which appears to some to be not all that much, I stick to my view of the correct interpretation, which nobody has made any attempt to disprove, rather than presenting generally accepted alternatives which seem to me erroneous.

I don't know that it would be altogether out of place here to point out that, though I am now old and to a large extent a forgotten yesterday's man, there was a time, from about 60s-90s, when I was a very regular critic and feature writer on folk matters for such prestigious journals asThe Times, The Guardian, Folk Review, Plays & Players, Notes & Queries (OUP), The Glasgow Herald, The Irish Press..., when my own scholarship & views had a certain not entirely unfavourable reputation. Disagree with me all you will ~ that is what a forum like this is for: but I should prefer not to be patronised by such as I see no particular reason to kowtow to, if that is not too much to ask.

~MGM~