Types of personality in the study of folklore. In her research, Eleanor Long described four basic types of folk lore performers: the preseverators, the confabulators, the recreators, and the integraters.
Eleanor Long, in her research on performers of folklore, found that there were patterns in narrators' attitudes towards their material. She labeled these attitudes 'personality types' and determined that there were four major classifications: perseverators, who seek to hang on to an inviolable tradition; confabulators, who idiosyncratically alter texts to fit their own personal tastes; integrators, who find a middle ground between the first two; and recreators, who form new texts from traditional materials. Long found that while some performers could be limited to one or another type, others merged characteristics of two or more 'personalities.' The different characteristics of the performers can be seen and explained through the use of the folk song, 'Gypsie Laddie.' The basic song consists of a husband searching after his wife, who has forsaken him for one or more gypsies. When he finds her, she refuses to come home with him.
The perseverator is most easily seen in a text, which lacks essential details. Because the performer does not wish to add is own ideas to the song, as he knows it, any loss of materials will result in a fragmented story. Some versions provide us with an opportunity to see how performances become unfinished or unclear in the hands of a perseverator. In Becky Mitchell's performance, the song suffers from a clear fragmentation-it has no real conclusion. The song ends with the husband offering to take his wife away from the gypsum Davy; oddly enough, she makes no reply. Her stereotypical refusal to return with him is completely left out. This is probably because Mrs. Mitchell forgot the ending, which the song had in its previous telling, but was unable to provide her listeners with a new conclusion. The song ought to have had a refusal from the lady and could have continued with the punishment of the gypsies; but instead, it cuts off abruptly.
When sung by Geneivieve Ingersoll, the storyline gets even more confused. Not only does her version lack the proper ending, but it reorganizes and loses verses-leaving the song a confused jumble. The husband usually sings the second verse when he finds his lady, not when he discovers that she is missing. He is, presumably, speaking to her, so it makes little sense in the context of her absence. Mrs. Ingersoll evidently remembers the verse, so she feels the strict need to include it; but she doesn't recall where it goes. A more fluid folk singer would improvise and put it somewhere sensible. Her version is also plagued by a vague and unclear conclusion. Because she has lost its original format, Mrs. Ingersoll rushes to the end without explaining it. She ends the tale with a moralization, which lacks force. Somehow, the wife and Davey have reached an unpleasant end as a direct result of the Lord's comparatively slow horse. Mrs. Ingersoll has lost the verse, which reflects upon the Lords' two horses, one of which is slower than the other, but still jams the concept of slowness into the song. As a result, the horse is non-sensically compared to Davey's horse. The presence of moralization is probably not an example of her integration, but rather the work of a previous singer. Both of these versions of the 'Gypsie Laddie' contain basic elements of the story, but they have become confused and fragmented over time. Their performers' insistence upon maintaining every passage remembered and excluding explanatory sections leaves the listener unaware of the full story; instead, we get a baffling perseveration.
Other folk performers have an exactly opposite reaction to their material. Instead of preserving them in inviolable form, they add whatever stylistic adaptations they desire. Often, these alterations are so personalized that they will not continue to exist beyond their inventor. These confabulations are generally unnecessary additions of new material or alterations of the original text.
Mary Bird McAllister added a new verse to the song, which unnecessarily explains that while with the gypsies, the lady spent all of her money. Apparently, Ms. McAllister wishes to point out the poverty to which the lady has sunk by leaving her husband, but the passage simply is not needed. It is clear enough that when she leaves 'house and land' that she will no longer have wealth; to state that she pawned off her jewelry is inane. This motif's isolation amongst the texts shows that it is not an accepted variation-none of the other 12 singers show any inclination to this sort of specification.
While Mary Bird McAllister made only one major addition to the text, Margaret Gillespie got very creative indeed. She re-contextualized the song, changed personnel, added personnel, added new scenes, and moralized the song. While none of these is necessarily an indication of confabulation by itself, combined they make a clear case for idiosyncratic alteration of the tale. Ms. Gillespie placed the song in her own region and gave the characters positions and names which to do not appear in any of the other versions of the song. The husband becomes a brewer named Johnie, who is courting the unfaithful woman; the woman's father takes a role for the first time, replacing the lady's maids who appear in the upper class version; and the brewer marries someone else after losing his first girl. The naming of the cuckolded brewer may be explained as necessary for the rhyme scheme and the change of social position is likely indicative of a different audience and performer, but the marriage bears no particular significance to the story. Its sole purpose is to heighten the listeners' awareness of the first woman's folly. Like the passage in Ms. McAllister's song, this new passage is completely unnecessary. The listeners will already sympathize with the brewer and suspect that the woman is at fault. To situate the woman in abject poverty and regret while providing the brewer with satisfaction is completely unnecessary. This kind of change is not mirrored in the other texts either. These additions to the tale are not considered useful by other performers, as they are not born up by tradition. Only isolated storytellers related these alterations.
Other singers do make alterations, which become traditional aspects of the song. These integrators maintain the essential material, but add small changes to make their material more accessible t5o their listeners. These kinds of alterations do not reflect their own personal ideas or desires; but rather, they provide a strengthening of the text, which continues to be stereotypical in its portrayal of the story's motifs.
The addition of an explanatory beginning is the clearest example of integration in the 'Gypsie Laddie' song. Rather than beginning with the husband's discovery of his wife's infidelity or with a preparation for his search after her, Harry Cox begins the song with the wife's seduction by the gypsies. In this version, they come to her while she is at home. With their beautiful singing, they enchant her into giving them her possessions and eventually into accompanying them on their wanderings. It is not until the fifth verse that the husband comes home to discover that his wife has left him. Louise Southall's version of the song mirrors this beginning, even down to the number of preliminary verses. Though the actual interchange between wife and gypsy has changed, the same basic element remains. This rationalization makes sense: it provides the listener with understanding of the lady's actions. Because it makes sense and because it doesn't really have anything to do with the personal tastes of any particular singer, the introduction didn't disappear, as did the marriage of Ms. Gillespie's brewer. It was passed on to differing singers and into their traditions. Harry Cox's version was sung in England, while Louise Southall's was sung in Illinois. Clearly, this kind of addition is widespread because it is the kind of addition, which 'works' for multiple singers.
Mr. Cox also finishes the song with an addition. The gypsies are punished for their transgressions. This alteration also exists in other versions of the song, sung 100 years prior to Mr. Cox. The longevity of the motif demonstrates how it, too, is acceptable to any number of different singers and not just idiosyncratically identified with its inventor.
Eleanor Long's final personality type is that of the recreator. The recreator alters the story to fit a new context. In our example, 'Gypsie Laddie' becomes a song about a ploughboy. John MacDonald sings a first person narrative by the woman involved. Instead of telling the tale of a woman deserting her husband, who then follows after her, he sings a monologue for her. She desires to leave her 'fine feather bed' for a 'cauld barn shed' with the ploughboy. She demonstrates the typical lack of remorse, but doesn't even need to justify herself, as there is no narration of the husband's search. In Mr. MacDonald's version, the song has completely altered, but in such a way that it could be passed down as a separate tradition. The song has lots it meaning as a tale of a cuckolded husband and has become an entirely next ext. 'Ploughboy, O' is a tale of a woman in love with a fabulous ploughboy. While certain elements remain (like the saddling of a mare, the leaving of a fine home, the following a roving male), which enable us to identify this story with 'Gypsie Laddie,' this new song tells a different story. Mr. MacDonald, or whoever originated this particular version, has taken a traditional sequence of events and made from them a new tale. This new tale has a different narrative, a different set of characters and a different purpose. The fact that it comes from the 'Gypsie Laddie' story line yet has these new features, is what makes it a recreation.
Eleanor Long's analytical apparatus makes an effective system of generalizing different types of storytelling. As long as one keeps in mind the fact that no particular performer must, in all respects, remain true to his 'type,' it is possible to see patters emerge in the way folklore is passed on from generation to generation. No particular method is 'better' than another, but the latter two contain the possibility of continued, sensible traditional lore. By applying her personality types to the performers of folklore, we can gain understanding of, and appreciation for the origins of any particular example of a story's tradition.
