Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 2, 1891.djvu/457



Rh

HE following three tales require, I think, a short explanation. They differ, in almost every way, from the stories I have already given. They are, in the first place, less legends than drolls, though their subjects are grim enough. They are, besides, less effective as stones. It was probably for this reason that I did not write them out fully from my short notes taken at the time. In the case of all the other tales I did this on arriving home within a day of hearing the stories; but in the case of the following three I had only the rough notes, and have had to write them out from these. At the suggestion of the Editor of, I have appended in each case the rough notes, so that those who may use them for scientific folk-lore purposes may know exactly the character of the material they are using. I have endeavoured to keep strictly to what I heard, and I have tried to truly present them in all their inconsequence, and even incoherency. All three resemble, at least in parts, those tales which are called "drolls"; and none of them can be said to be looked on by the narrators as in any sense true. The two latter are, I imagine, portions of the same tale, although told me at different times and by different people, I have given titles to these, as the narrators gave none, but otherwise I have added and altered nothing. VOL. II.