08/14/2023
I will be reviewing Heaney’s book alongside John Forrest’s hardback devoted to the same topic because they cover the same historical ground and interestingly, come to many of the same conclusions. But their differences are so diverse that in the end, each book illuminates topics not covered by the other.
Their differences of approach are stated up front in the first few pages of their books. Forrest makes a case for a modern socio-cultural point of view; he champions the cultural evolution theory as opposed to the genesis model. The latter suggests that the original form of a cultural movement was in its purist form which then became diluted and misunderstood (and polluted!?) by several succeeding generations of followers. More often than not, the first stage was even forgotten in its original form. It became “lost in the mists of time…” The former model favours evolution where change is the only constant as morris dance adapts to new sociological conditions, each one as optimal as the last because of its new cultural context. The mechanisms of change become the point of interest, rather than the untainted beginnings of morris dance.
Heaney takes an entirely different point of view. He says, “(The history of morris dance) is primarily a narrative history without an overarching framework of socio-cultural theory”. Still, he occasionally makes a socio-cultural observation, such as the thought that morris dance “renews itself in each generation”. He also describes “the taming of morris” in light of its past unruly behaviour, which I referred to as misrule in my dissertation: Rough Music, Rough Dance, Rough Play: Misrule and Morris Dance (2008).