A Dictionary of Folklore

by David Pickering

More than 1,000 A-to-Z entries emphasize the central themes and traditions of world folklore from ancient times to the present day.

Entries include:
-- Folkloric associations of superstitions, dreams, and myths
-- Beliefs and remedies linked with herbs, birds, and animals
-- Popular heroes and folkloric characters, including Charlemagne, Paul Bunyan, Don Juan, Hiawatha, and Merlin
-- Fabulous beasts and beings, including dragons, elves, fairies, giants, and mermaids
-- Customs, rituals, and festivals surrounding such events as birth, marriage, and death
-- Folkloric origins of nursery rhymes, proverbs, and sayings.

Genres: Nonfiction, Reference

324 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1999

Reviews

[Manybooks · Rating 2 out of 5]

So yes, David Pickering's The Cassell Dictionary of Folklore could have been a good, perhaps even a great general reference tome on world folklore if the author had decided to include a bibliography, or if he had provided even some bibliographical sources and references, some citations for the sections, the diverse articles presented. For the manner in which The Cassell Dictionary of Folklore is set up, with no foot or endnotes, no bibliography, no suggestions for further reading, there is really also and equally no way for a reader, especially for a reader with only a casual interest in and general knowledge of folklore to check, to verify whether the information included is correct, is acceptable. And as an example, I know from pervious research that some of the information presented by David Pickering in the section concerning the German celebration of Fastnacht is likely somewhat incorrect, but other readers might not be aware of that fact, and frustratingly, there is no way to check or monitor the author's sources if he does not list them, if he does not provide a acknowledge and show his sources.

But that all being said, The Cassell Dictionary of Folklore is still and nevertheless interesting and informative (and as such fun to browse through), and I do in fact on occasion make use of it. However, from a study and research perspective, the lack of any type of bibliography or secondary sources make this so-called dictionary at best academically suspect (and even potentially academically dishonest), as well as being patently useless, and in my opinion, even woefully unacceptable for further or extended folklore research (and yes, if I were a professor of anthropology or folklore, I would have major issues with The Cassell Dictionary of Folklore being used for any term or research papers, especially as a primary source, and even worse than wikipedia, in my humble opinion).