Из области балто-славянских фольклорных связей

LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, VI LIETUVOS TSR MOKSLŲ AKADEMIJA FROM THE FIELD OF BALTIC-SLAVIC FOLKLORE RELATIONS — V. N. TOPOROV At present, it is hardly possible to speak of any results from a systematic comparative study of Baltic and Slavic folklore, although the idea of comparing the relevant facts, as well as particular examples of Baltic-Slavic folklore parallels, was already present in a number of earlier studies1. Leaving aside certain more or less incidental reasons for ignoring the comparative study of the folk creativity of the Baltic and Slavic peoples, it seems that two circumstances should be noted as having long impeded (and in part still impede) the development of research in this field. First, there has been an insufficient amount of substantial, conveniently classified material of folklore texts (especially Baltic ones); second, there has been the bias of certain theoretical conceptions, which considered similar elements in Baltic and Slavic folklore only from a narrowly genetic perspective (including the determination of the direction of borrowing). The first of these obstacles can practically be considered eliminated as a result of the extensive work on the study and publication of 1 См. А. А. Потебня, Объяснение малорусских и сродных народных песен, Варшава, 1887, II, стр. 41—44, 65—67; его же, О мифическом значении некоторых обрядов и поверий, М., 1865, стр. 21 и след.; А. Н. Веселовский, Разыскания в области русского духовного стиха, Сб. ОРЯС, т. 32, 1883, стр. 110 и след.; Э. Вольтер, Материалы для этнографии латышского племени Витебской губернии, ч. I, Праздники и семейные песни латышей, СПб., 1890, стр. 19 и след.; П. В. Владимиров, Введение в историю русской словесности, Киев, 1896, стр. 83—84; ср. также некоторые замечания по этому поводу в статье: B. Sruoga, Lithuanian Folk Songs (Dainos), „Folk-Lore“, Vol. 43, Nr. 3, 1932, стр. 301—324 и др. 149 Latvian and Lithuanian folklore texts2. The other obstacle will gradually become less serious as structural methods take hold in folkloristics and are extended to the study of mutual relations between two (or several) folklore systems3. Removing this obstacle will not only make an objective comparison of the relevant Baltic and Slavic folklore texts possible, but also—given the right approach—will allow us to address genetic questions, involving, in particular, the differentiation of typological and genetic similarity among elementary folklore units and their configurations. As for the prospects for a comparative study of Baltic and Slavic folklore, these are determined above all by two characteristics: the considerable closeness of the Baltic and Slavic languages, an extremely important fact given that many folklore genres are oriented toward linguistic form as something self-sufficient; and the parallel development (at least in many respects) of a whole series of forms in Baltic and Slavic folklore, which creates highly favorable conditions for reconstructing lost forms in one folklore tradition on the basis of the totality 2 It is sufficient to mention such publications as K. Barons un H. Wissendorffs. Latvju dainas, I—VI, Jelgavā un Petrogradā, 1894—1915; P. Smits, Tautas dziesmas (papildinājums Kr. Barona „Latvju dainām“), I—IV, Rīgā, 1936—1939; L. Bērziņš, Latvju dainas, I—VI, Rīgā, 1928—1932; J. Endzelīns un R. Klaustiņš, Latvju tautas dainas, I—XII, Rīgā, 1928—1932; Latviešu tautas dziesmas, I—XI, København, 1952 (Red. A. Švābe, K. Straubergs, E. Hauzenberga-Sturma); Latviešu folkloras krātuves materiāli, I—X, Rīgā, P. Smits, Latviešu tautas pasakas un teikas, I—XV, Rīgā, 1925—1937; Latviešu tautas pasakas, Rīgā, 1956; Latviešu pasakas, I—IV, Rīgā, 1946—1950; Tautosakos darbai I—VII, Kaunas, 1935—1940; J. Balys, Lietuvių liaudies sakmės, I, Kaunas, 1940; not to mention a number of editions and re-editions of old texts (Rėza, Stanevičius, Slavocinskis, Smulkioji lietuvių tautosaka XVII—XVIII amžiuje, Daukantas, the works of Juškevičius) and editions of selected folklore texts such as J. Basanavičius, Rinktinės pasakos, Kaunas, 1948; Lietuvių tautosakos rinktinė, Vilnius, 1954; Lietuvių liaudies dainos, Vilnius, 1955; B. Sruoga, Lietuvių dainų rinktinė, Kaunas, 1949; J. Balys, Simtas liaudies baladžių, Kaunas, 1941; Patarlės ir priežodžiai, Vilnius, 1958. Among studies of Baltic folklore, the works of K. Straubergs, P. Šmits, J. Niedre, L. Bērziņš, A. Melnė, A. Bērzkalne, B. Sruoga, and J. Balys deserve particular attention (cf. Lietuvių tautosakos skaitymai, I—II. Tübingen, 1948, and others). 3 The essence of the structural method as applied to folklore comes down to describing a text through a limited set of basic differential units that characterize it, specifying the syntactic relations (in the broad semiotic sense of the word) among these units, and establishing rules for correlating formal structures with content. Clearly, with this approach the structure of a given class of texts can be described as the result of a more or less simple generative process. Another convenient way of representing a folklore text is to construct matrices, which in the simplest cases are one-dimensional, and in more complex cases (a folktale, epic, etc.) are multidimensional (a feature related, among other things, to the reversibility of time in these genres, the distinction between pure form and its concrete realization, etc.) and constitute a model of a structure defined by a group of transformations of a small number of basic elements. An attempt to apply structural methods to the analysis of Lithuanian folk ballads is contained in one of our articles, which will be published shortly. 150 …of traits preserved in another tradition (in this case, naturally, the researcher turns to a more powerful method of analysis than the genetic one—the typological method). One may suppose that the renewed interest in studying Balto-Slavic folklore connections (cf. the works of P. Arumaa and V. Rūķe-Draviņa)4marks only the beginning of a series of studies in this promising field. Let us consider just one example, which nevertheless clearly demonstrates the prospects for the comparative study of Baltic and Slavic folklore. (I). A stork flew in with a large crop. — Stork, stork, what is in your crop? — The priest’s money. — What is that money for? — To buy a scythe. — What is that scythe for? — To cut the hay. — What is the hay for? — For the cows to eat. — What are the cows for? — To milk them for milk. — What is the milk for? — For the little shepherds to drink. — What are those little shepherds for? — To herd pigs. — What are those pigs for? — To root up the slopes. — What are those slopes for? — To sow wheat. — What is that wheat for? — To bake pretzels. — What are those pretzels for? — For the women to eat. — What are those women for? — To grind gunpowder. — What is that gunpowder for? — To shoot hares. 4 See P. Arumaa, Zur Poetik der litauischen und ostslavischen Volksdichtung, “Festschrift für Dmytro Čyževs'kyj,” Berlin, 1954, pp. 51–58; V. Rūķe-Draviņa. Über einige altertümliche Konstruktionen in der slavischen und baltischen Volksdichtung, “Scando-Slavica,” VII, 1961, pp. 114–126; some valuable observations on the similarity of metrical structures were made by R. O. Jakobson; see R. Jakobson, Studies in Comparative Slavic Metrics, “Oxford Slavonic Papers,” vol. 3, 1952, pp. 65 ff. A detailed study of the language of Latvian folk songs (which makes it possible to identify a further set of common Balto-Slavic linguistic features in the language of folklore texts; the author, however, does not point them out) was provided by A. Ozols; see A. Ozols, Latviesu tautasdziesmu valoda, Rīga, 1961. 151 P. Cvirka’s “Nemuno šalies pasakos” includes a formally curious tale entitled “Klausimai”: — What are those hares for? — For the masters to eat. — What are those masters for? — To be hanged on the fence.5 This tale is known in several different versions from dialect recordings made in various parts of Lithuanian territory. In view of the differences from the text quoted above and the importance of folkloristic and geographical data, we shall give several more versions of this tale. (II). What are those masters for?6 A stork comes along with a large bundle. — What is that bundle for? — To put money in. — What is that money for? — To buy meadows. — What are those meadows for? — To graze cows. — What are those cows for? — To give milk. — What is that milk for? — To press cheese. — What is that cheese for? — For the shepherds to nibble. — What are those shepherds for? — To herd pigs. — What are those pigs for? — To root up the rooting places. — What are those rooting places for? — For the hares to lie in. — What are those hares for? — For the masters to shoot. — What are those masters for? — To bring lawsuits. — What are those lawsuits for? — To write on the dog’s tail. (III). Questions.7 A stork flew in with a large bundle. “Stork, stork, what is in your bundle?” — “The priest’s money.” — “What is that money for?” — “To buy scythes.” — “What are those scythes for?” — “To mow hay.” — “What is that hay for?” — “For the cows to eat.” — “What are those cows for?” — “To give milk.” — “What is that milk for?” — “For the little shepherds to eat.” — “What are those little shepherds for?” — “To herd pigs.” — “What are those pigs for?” — “To root up the slopes.” — “What are those slopes for?” — “To sow wheat.” — “What is that wheat for?” — “To bake ring-shaped loaves.” — “What are those loaves for?” — “For the old women to eat.” — “What are those old women for?” — “To grind gunpowder.” — “What is that gunpowder for?” — “To shoot hares.” — “What are those hares for?” — “For the masters to eat.” — “What are those masters for?” — “To be hanged on an iron hook.” (IV). Questions.8 “I weave, I weave a braid.” — “What is that braid for?” — “To pour money into.” — “What is that money for?” — “To buy cows.” — “What are those cows for?” — “To give milk— 5 See P. Cvirka, Raštai, V, Vilnius, 1949, pp. 97—98. 6 From Lithuanian folklore manuscripts held at the Institute of Language and Literature in Vilnius. Recorded in Naujamiestis, west of Panevėžys, in 1905. See Lietuvių tautosakos rinktinė, Vilnius, 1954, p. 396. 7 From recordings made in the Kabeliai area (Musteikos, Kabeliai); see Tautosakos darbai, IV, Vilniaus krašto lietuvių tautosaka, Kaunas, 1938, p. 274 (LTA 794/30/). 8 From recordings made in the Melagėnai area (Miečionys, Melagėnai), “Tautosakos darbai,” IV, p. 274 (LTA 948/62/). 152 “...dzyč.” — “What is that milk for?” — “For making cheese.” — “What are these cheeses for?” — “For feeding the little shepherds.” — “What are these little shepherds for?” — “For herding the piglets.” — “What are those piglets for?” — “For rooting in the mountains.” — “What is in those mountains?” — “An iron mortar.” — “What is in that mortar?” — “A tin bowl.” — “What is in that bowl?” — “A silver spoon.” — “What is on that spoon?” — “A grain of poppy seed.” — “Where is that poppy seed?” — “The rooster gulped it down.” — “Where is that rooster?” — “It flew over the sea.” — “Where is that sea?” — “It grew over with green plants.” — “Where are those little greens?” — “The girls picked them.” — “Where are those girls?” — “They married into the peasants’ homes.” — “Where are those peasants?” — “In the sheds they coo, while the little dogs kiss their muzzles.” The Lithuanian variants of the tale cited above are humorous texts whose effect is achieved through a familiar incongruity between the strict logic of an automatically operating compositional structure, which firmly binds the whole text together, and the unexpected semantic associations that follow one another along the compositional chain. In many cases, the connection between two neighboring parts, impeccable compositionally, proves no more natural on the semantic and logical levels than in the familiar saying there’s an elderberry in the garden and an uncle in Kyiv, in various forms of popular comedy such as coq-à-l'âne in old French literature9, and genres of the like. Compare: „Kam tos kiaulės?“ — „Slaitams knisti“ “What are those pigs for?” — “For rooting up embankments”; „Kam tos bobos?“ — „Parakui trinti“ “What are those women for?” — “For grinding gunpowder”; „Kam tie ponai?“ — „Ant tvoros pakarti“ “What are those gentlemen for?” — “For hanging on the fence”; and so on. The features of the tale’s morphological structure are determined by a sequence of identical constructions, constituting a kind of syntactic idiom: kam + Nom1→Dat2 + InfI →kam + Nom2→Dat3 + InfII →kam + Nom3→Dat4 + InfIII... (Kam tie pinigai? — Dalgui pirkti. – Kam tas dalgis? – Šieneliui pjauti. – Kam tas šienelis? – Karvėms ėsti...). It is natural that with such a construction, in which the answer to the previous question inevitably gives rise to a new question, whose connection with the next answer is more or less arbitrary, all that is needed is an alphabet of object names and a general generative schema10 to extend the tale by as many new links as desired, and in principle—to infinity. 9 Compare „Sottie des Menus propos“, in which the logical absurdity of the uttered phrases is explained by their being a conversation among three fools; or „Epître du Coq-à-l'âne, dédiée à Lyon Jamet“ (1535) by Clément Marot, in which the absence of regular connections between phrases is given some justification by their content (the chaos of Parisian news); or, finally, the speeches of Beskulius, Gūvinas, and others in Gargantua and Pantagruel, where, in M. Bakhtin’s view, there is “a kind of recreation of words and things,” releasing them “from the straitjacket of meaning, logic, and verbal hierarchy.” 10 It should be remembered, however, that although the general order in which the units of the alphabet enter the chain remains unchanged, new units may be inserted between two successive units. Compare IV: pinigai — karvės, but I: pinigai — dalgis — šienelis — karvės; or I: pienelis — piemeneliai, but IV: pienas — sūriai — piemenelei. 153 In this sense, a tale of the type in question can be viewed as the result of the creolization of two independent tale types, one characterized by a question-and-answer form and the other by the possibility of endless continuation (in this case, non-cyclic). In other words, the originality of the Lithuanian tale under consideration arises from a synthesis of the schema of tales of type 2018 in the classification of Aarne, in the form proposed by Thompson11, and the schema of tales of types 2030 and 2300. Apart from the tale described here, the first schema is also realized in Lithuanian folklore in a whole series of tales of the type: „Kur tas grūdas?“ — „Gaidys pagavo“. — „Kur tas gaidys?“ — „Mariose nuskendo“. — „Kur tos marios?“ — „Nendrėm užaugo“... or: „Kur tu buvai?“ — „Svečius lydėjau“. — „O kur tavo vaikai buvo?“ — „Paskui mane sekė“. — „Ko nemušei?“ — „Mušiau, mušiau, po akmeniu palindo“... and so on (cf. LTA 10 b (263), 102 (82), 544 (257), 612 (290), 687 (20); LMD I 627 (76), and others12). The second schema occurs in an even broader range of Lithuanian tales (the so-called pasakos be galo or nuobodinio pasakos13), not to mention other folklore traditions14 and reduced variants of this schema (one example of this kind will be discussed below)15. Nevertheless, splitting the morphological structure of the „Klausimai“ tale type into two substructures does not resolve the question of its original core and how that core relates to the world of realities (whether at present or at least in the past). A preliminary requirement for answering this question is to compare the variants of this tale and internally reconstruct the common part that unites the variants cited above. Let us present some results of a comparative analysis of the variants, noting at the outset that variant I is, in essence, a literary reworking of variant III, preserving virtually the entire set of object names and their sequence in the text (henceforth, as needed, we will refer to variant I/III)16. 11 See A. Aarne, The Types of the Folk-Tale. A. Classification and Bibliography, „Folklore Fellows Communications“, Vol. 25, Nr. 74, Helsinki, 1928 (translated and enlarged by S. Thompson). 12 See J. Balys, Lietuvių pasakojamosios tautosakos motyvų katalogas, „Tautosakos darbai“, II, Kaunas, 1936, pp. 167—168. 13 Ibid., II, p. 170. 14 See A. Aarne, op. cit. (2300); J. Bolte und G. Polivka, Anmerkungen zu den Kinder- und Hausmärchen der Brüder Grimm, Bd. II, 1915, p. 209. 15 Compare Lithuanian tales with a concluding formula of the type: eina velnias žydą smaugt, eina žydas jautį pjaut, eina jautis vandens gert, eina vanduo ugnies liet..., eina ožkelė iš lazdyno (Thompson 2030). 16 The differences between I and III are negligible and most often concern the choice of words for the same concept; compare atskirdo — atėkė, gandras — avalys, melžti — laidzys, gerti — valgyc, riestinainiai — baronkas, ant tvoros — ant geležinio kruko. 154 I/III17 II 1. Atskrido gandras su dideliu gurkliu Ateina garnys su dideliu gūželiu Gandre, gandre, kas tavo gurkly?18 2. Kam tas guželis? Kunigo pinigai 3. Pinigams dėti 4. Kam tie pinigai? Kam tie pinigai? 5. Dalg(i)ui pirkti Pievoms pirkti 6. Kam tas dalgis? Kam tos pievos? Šeneliui pjauti Karvėms ganyti What is that hay for? 7. For the cows to eat What are those cows for? 8. What are those cows for? What are those cows for? 9. To milk for the little one For milk to give 10. What is that milk for? What is that milk for? 11. To press cheeses 12. What are those cheeses for? 13. For the little shepherds to drink For the shepherds to gnaw 14. What are those little shepherds for? What are those shepherds for? 15. To herd the pigs For herding pigs 16. What are those pigs for? What are those pigs for? 17. To root up slopes. For digging holes to root around 18. What are those slopes for? What are those holes for? To sow wheat—what is that wheat for? To bake bagels—what are those bagels for? To eat beans—what are those beans for? To grind gunpowder—what is that gunpowder for? 19. To shoot hares19 For rabbits to lie down 20. What are those hares for? What are those rabbits for? 17The text is given in the form of variant I. Semantically similar (to a certain extent), but formally different parts of the compared texts are set in italics; parts that are completely similar (apart from word-formation and certain other details) are set in spaced italics. See below regarding the numbering. 18Kas tavo gurkly? (I) and Kam tas guželis (II) are different ways of moving on to the core of the narrative. The presence of a common element (an interrogative pronoun and the name for a crop) makes it possible to search for the original combination (for variants I/III and II). 19Attention is drawn to the different position of šaudyti in I/III and in II, and to the different distribution of this micro-motif (kiškiams šaudyti in I/III, but ponams šaudyti in II). 155 21. For the lords to eat 22. What are those lords for? 23. Hanging on the fence For the lords to shoot19 What are those lords for? To raise the cases What are those cases for? To write on the dog's tail Thus, the part common to variants I/III and II can be represented as follows: Semantic notation A stork with a large crop flew in. ................. What are this money for? ....... to buy. What are th-............? ................. To feed the cows. What are these cows for? To milk (get milk from) them. What is this milk for? ................. To give the herdsmen something to drink. What are these herdsmen for? To herd the pigs. What are these pigs for? To dig slopes (pits). What are these slopes (pits) for? ................. To 20.......... What are these hares for? So that the gentlemen21......... What are these gentlemen for? So that............. Phonomorphological notation ............. with a large........... ..................... What is the money for? ............. pirkti. Kam t-.....................? ...................... Karvėms................ What are those cows for? 20 I: to shoot hares, but II: so that the hares lie down. 21 I: so that the gentlemen eat, but II: to shoot the gentlemen. 156 Pien(eliui)ui.......... For whom is that milk (little milk)? ............. Piemen(ėliams)ims........ For whom are those shepherds (little shepherds)? For herding pigs. Whose pigs are those? ........... knisti. Kam t-....................? ............. Kam tie.....................? Ponams............. Who are those gentlemen for? ........................ I/III IV 1. A stork flew in with a large crop Stork, stork, what is in your crop? The priest's money I weave, I weave a braid What is that braid for?22 2. For money, for a penny 3. What is that money for? What is that money for? 5. For the scythe, to buy For the cows, to buy 6. What is that scythe for? To mow the hay What is that hay for? 7. For the cows to eat What are those cows for? What is that cow for? To milk the little cow To let the milk flow What is that little milk for? What is that milk for? 11. To put in the cheese 12. What are those cheeses for? For the little shepherds to drink For the little shepherds to chew What are those little shepherds for? What is that little shepherd for? To graze pigs To graze piglets What are those pigs for? What are those piglets for? 17. For the slopes, to dig For the mountain, to dig What are those slopes for? What is in those hills? etc.23 etc.23 22 The transition to the core is achieved by increasing the degree of sound organization in the part of the text preceding the core, in the direction determined by the first full-fledged element of the core—pinigai; cf. pinu, pinu pynį, (kam ta pynė) pinigam pilcie (kam cie) pinigai? 23 The subsequent parts are too dissimilar (the late origin of the ending in variant IV is beyond doubt; cf. kam... kas... kur). Therefore, comparing them is pointless from the perspective of the possibilities for reconstruction. 157 The part common to variants I/III and IV can be presented as follows: Semantic notation ........................ What is this money for? ........ купить. ........................ What are these cows for? For milking. What is this milk for? ........................ For giving the shepherds milk to drink (for the shepherds to gnaw). What are these shepherds for? For herding pigs. What are these pigs for? For digging a slope (hill). (Why/what) (on) these (slopes/hills)? Phonomorphological notation ........... Kam tie pinigai? ........ pirkti. ........... Kam tos karvės? Pien(eliu)i.......... Kam tas pien(elis)as? ............. Piemenėliams........ Kam tie piemenėliai? Kiau(le)lėms ganyti. Kam tos kiau(le)lės?.......... knisti. Ka-t-........? II 1. Ateina garnys su dideliu gūželiu 2. Kam tas gūželis? 3. Pinigams dėti 4. Kam tie pinigai? 5. Pievoms pirkti 6. Kam tos pievos? 7. Karvėms ganyti 8. Kam tos karvės? IV Pinu, pinų pynį Kam ta pynė? Pinigam pilcie Kam cie pinigai? Karvėm pirkcie24 Kam tas karvės? 24 Karvėm pirktcie (IV) may be correlated not only with pievoms pirkti (II), but also with karvėms ganyti (II). 158 9. Pienui duoti 10. Kam tas pienas? 11. Sūriams slėgti 12. Kam tie sūriai? 13. Piemenims graužti 14. Kam tie piemens? 15. Kiaulėms ganyti 16. Kam tos kiaulės? 17. Knisykloms knisti 18. Kam tos knisyklos? and so on. Pienui leidzyc Kam tas pienas? Sūriam decie Kam cie sūriai? Piemeneliam graušcie Kam cie piemene le? Kiaulelēm ganycie Kam tas kiauleles? Kalnam kniscie Kas tuos kalnuos? and so on. 25 The part common to variants II and IV can be represented as follows: Semantic notation · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Why these- · · · · · · · · · · ·? To put (pour) money in. Why this money? · · · · · · · · · buy. Why these cows? To give milk. Why this milk? To make cheese. Why this cheese? For the herdsmen to gnaw. Why these herdsmen? To herd pigs. Why these pigs? To dig pits (a hill). (Why/what) (on) these- (pits/hills)? To dig pits (a hill). (Why/what) (on) these- (pits/hills)? Phonomorphological notation ............................ Kam ta-................? Pinigams................. Kam tie pinigai?............... pirkti............................ Kam tos karvės? Pienui................. Kam tas pienas? Sūriams............... 25Next, variants II and IV diverge sharply and provide no basis for any positive conclusions. 159 Kam tie sūriai? Piemen(ėliam)ims graužti. Kam tie piemen(elei)s? Kiau(le)lėms ganyti. Kam tos kiau(le)lės?.............. knisti. Ka- t-..............? The pairwise comparison of the variants26 makes it possible to present their mutual relationship and the part common to them all in the following synoptic table. Варианты | I/III | II | IV Текст (в семантической записи) 1. Прилетел аист с большим зобом | + 2. Зачем эт-............? | + 3. Чтобы деньги положить (насыпать) | + 4. Зачем эти деньги? | + 5............. купить. | + 6. Зачем эт-............? | + 7. Чтобы коров кормить | + 8. Зачем эти коровы? | + 9. Чтобы молоко доить (дать) | + 10. Зачем это молоко? | + 11. Чтобы сыры сделать. | + 12. Зачем эти сыры? | + 13. Чтобы пастухов поить (пастухам грызть) | + 14. Зачем эти пастухи? | + 15. Чтобы свиней пасти | + 16. Зачем эти свиньи? | + 17. Чтобы откос (ямы, холм) рыть | + 18. (Зачем/что) (на) эт- (ямы/откосы/холмах) | + 19. Чтобы зайц- | + 20. Зачем эти зайцы? | + 21. Чтобы господ- | + 22. Зачем эти господа? | + 23. Чтобы............ | + Note: The table includes only those textual units that occur in the corresponding positions in at least two variants. The numbering of semantic-notation units reflects the fullest version of the text (excluding what is noted in only one variant) and is fixed. The sign + indicates the presence of the corresponding semantic-notation unit in the specified variants. 26Naturally, it would be desirable to take all variants into account or, at least, to know precisely the geographical distribution of each of the variants presented here. 160 The table shows that all variants27 of the tale realize the common schema as follows: Why this money? ......... buy. ........... Why these cows? To milk (give) milk. Why this milk? ........... To give the herdsmen drink (for the herdsmen to gnaw): Why these herdsmen? To herd pigs. Why these pigs? To dig a ditch (pits, a hill). (Why/what) (on) these- (pits/ditches/hills)? ........... Variants I/III and II also agree at the semantic level in eight further cases (1, 6, 7, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23). Variants II and IV, in addition to what has been noted, agree at the semantic level in four further cases (2, 3, 11, 12). Variants I/III and IV have no semantic-level units in common, except for those also present in variant II and therefore shared by all variants. The common schema realized by all variants of the tale at the phonomorphological level can be represented as follows: ........................ 4. Kam tie pinigai? 5.......... pirkti. 6. To whom..........? 8. To whom are those cows? 9. For the milk (little milk)......... 10. To whom is that milk (little milk)? ...................... 13. For the shepherds (little shepherds)....... 14. To whom are those shepherds (little shepherds)? 15. To graze the pigs (piglets). 16. To whom are those pigs (piglets)? 17........ to root. 18. To whom..........? Variants I/III and II also agree at the morphophonological level in several other cases (1. at-... with a large...; 19.... -ams... -ti; 20. to whom are those... -ai; 21. for the masters... -ti; 22. to whom are those masters; 27 Excluding the clearly degenerate examples, cf., for instance, the text from Lazūnai: — Dōu, dōu, dōu — kur aisī? — Dalgaitį kālt, šienaitį šienaut. — O kū tū šienaičiu ituoj džyrpsī? — Karvāitį penėsiu, vaikelus gīrdzysiu ir ugdysiu, kad any̆s auktų ir kad manīs senōs dazdairīt. J. Senkus, Lazūnų tarmės tekstai, LKK, II, 1959, p. 222. 11. Kalbotyros klausimai VI. 161 23. ant... -os... -ti). Variants II and IV, in addition to the point noted, agree at the phonological-morphological level in a number of other textual units (2. kam ta-...; 3. pinigams... -ti; 11. sūriams... -ti; 12. kam tie sūriai; 13. graužti). Variants I/III and IV, naturally, have no common units at the phonological-morphological level, apart from those found in all versions of the tale. A comparison of different versions of the tale „Klausimai“, if approached with a view to historical-cultural interpretation, of course has nothing to do with reconstruction. The same can be said of identifying the tale’s core at the semantic and phonological-morphological levels, and even of narrowing it further (for example, by excluding 4 and 5: kam tie pinigai?... pirkti, which are questionable if the tale is assigned to a sufficiently ancient period). At best, everything that can be done with the text subsequently amounts to simple extrapolation. As a result, the researcher is left with a certain text whose internal coherence and consistency seem (at least at this stage of the research) beyond doubt and to rule out any possibility of internal reconstruction. Nevertheless, doubts arise as to whether this text, or an earlier text genetically related to it, can be interpreted from a historical perspective in terms of the comic juxtaposition of the unexpected (at the semantic level) and the expected (at the formal-linguistic level), as it is interpreted synchronically with reference to the present. Unfortunately, situations of this kind are very common in folklore studies. There is hardly any universal means of resolving them. However, a certain class of problems can be solved by expanding the material (within the same tradition, or one genetically—and, accordingly, typologically—related to it). This applies above all to cases in which, among a number of possible interpretations of a given text, one becomes necessary because it alone explains the very structure of the text and, in a number of examples, also the situation that determines this structure. It seems reasonable to suppose that, in the case under consideration, we have grounds for further reconstructing the text—more precisely, for determining its place (with reference to an earlier period) within the folklore tradition and its connections with extra-folkloric realities. Expanding the material that might help interpret „Klausimai“ historically within the Lithuanian folklore tradition is unlikely to yield success. In practice, the task amounts to listing a number of forms of folk literature that reliably attest to the existence (usually separately) in Lithuanian folklore of certain structural elements synthesized in „Klausimai“, and to estimating how deeply they are rooted in the repertoire of structural devices in Lithuanian folklore and, in part, in the language. These include cases in which a successive interrogative 162 pronoun (in particular, kam)28 holds the text together or determines its continuation; compare, for example: Kam paėmei mano tėvą, Kam paėmei mano tėvą? Mano tėvą ir motulę, Mano tėvą ir motulę? Kad paėmei mano tėvus, Kad paėmei mano tėvus, Imk ir mane našlaitėlę, Imk ir mane našlaitėlę...29 or: Kam did you feed the horse, Kam did you polish the little sword, Where will you ride, dear brother, White clover?...30 or: Kam did you make the beer drunk...? Kam did you get My dear father drunk...?31 or Kam why are you cuddling so close, my girl? Kam why are you pensive, my young one?...32 There are many examples of this kind in the Latvian folklore tradition as well, including texts associated with particular rituals: Jūnēdz pāra jumal'en' Pa teirum' dzanōdams: Kam nawīra bīzes putres, Kam nacače plōcēneišu!33 and others. Another structural type, related to the one represented in „Klausimai“, is a sequence of questions and answers. Without discussing it in greater detail, we can note only certain types common to Baltic and Slavic folklore. Compare: Kāpēc tu gaudi?... Kā, lai neraudu...34; Ko tu verki, kūmute? — Kā aš neverksiu...35 or Kur tu eini, Vabale, verkdamas? — Ką aš neverksiu? Gimė sūnus, 28 The same device (using čamu) is widely used in Belarusian songs. 29 Lietuvių liaudies dainos, Vilnius, 1955, стр. 138. 30 Ibid., p. 453. 31 Lietuvių tautosakos rinktinė, Vilnius, 1954, стр. 152. 32 L. Rėza, Lietuvių liaudies dainos, Vilnius, 1958, стр. 297. 33 E. Volter, Materials for the Ethnography of the Latvian Tribe of Vitebsk Province, St. Petersburg, 1890, p. 87. 34 J. Niedre. Latvian Tales, III, p. 60. 35 J. Basanavičius, Rinktinės pasakos, 1948, стр. 284. 163 I get no godparents, and I have nothing to eat. — Don’t cry, I’ll be your godmother...³⁶ etc., corresponding to similar turns of phrase in Russian fairy tales, such as: “Why are you crying, godmother?” “How can I not cry...” “Don’t cry, I’ll be your godmother...” and so on.37 Finally, something should also be said about the chain-like type of textual construction, recorded not only in „Klausimai“ but in a whole series of folkloric works³⁸, ranging from such examples as the well-known sutartinė “Aviža prašė” (Aviža prašė gražiai pasėti..., gražiai priakėti..., gražiai nupiauti..., gražiai surišti..., gražiai statyti..., gražiai parvežti..., gražiai iškulti..., gražiai sumalti..., gražiai iškepti...)³⁹ to the popular tale about the rooster and the hen, exemplified by „Vištytė ir gaidžiukas“⁴⁰ and „Gailītis un vistiņa“⁴¹, not to mention the reflection of this plot in other folkloric traditions⁴². Particularly characteristic is the version of the tale from Dauglon, published by Basanavičius: „...Gaidžiukai! gaidžiukai! kam tu vištytei akytes išmušei?“ — „E kam man lazdynas kelyntes perplėšė!“ — „Lazdynai! lazdynai! kam gaidžiukui kelyntes perplėšė?“ — „E kam man' aška pagraužei?“ — „Aška! aška! kam tu lazdynų pagraužei?“ — „E 36 In the same place, p. 265. 37 A Lithuanian song may be considered a variant of this type, represented by very close parallels in Baltic and Slavic folklore: Hey, my dark bay steed, why don’t you eat the green grass, why don’t you drink the stream in the river?................... What shall I eat, the green grass, what shall I drink, the stream in the river? (see the tale „Apie devynis brolius“ in Basanavičius’s edition) and the corresponding Serbian song, which ultimately served as the basis (through Mérimée) for Pushkin’s “What are you neighing at, my mettlesome steed”. More will be said about this parallel elsewhere. For now, I would only like to draw attention to the metre of the Lithuanian song: (˘) — / — / (˘) — / —, which coincides with the metre of a number of Serbian texts with a similar structure. 38 Ср. Аарне-Томпсон 2032, 2033, 2200, 2300 и др. Случай, когда вся цепь представлена в заключительной формуле, иллюстрируется сказками типа: «Дом, который построил Джек» (2035). См. Bolte, Polivka, Указ. соч. II, стр. 108. 39 Lietuvių tautosakos rinktinė, p. 26. There is another version as well: aviža prašė dirvoną iškelti..., gražiai užakėti..., gražiai pasėti..., gražiai nupiauti..., gražiai nuvežti..., gražiai sukrauti..., gražiai iškulti..., žirgelį pašerti... See Lietuvių liaudies dainos, p. 131. It is characteristic that in this version the chain, reflecting the sequence of agricultural work cycles, is complicated by a new motif (žirgelį pašerti), linking the text with „Klausimai“ (karvėms ėsti). 40 См. J. Basanavičius, Lietuviškos pasakos įvairios, d. II, Kaunas, 1928, стр. 323, d. III, стр. 57; Lietuvių pasakos, Vilnius, 1905, стр. 6 (= C. Cappeller, Litauische Märchen und Geschichten, Berlin, 1924, стр. 2); Lietuvių tautosakos rinktinė, стр. 281 и др.; см. также J. Balys, Lietuvių pasakojamosios tautosakos motyvų katalogas, стр. 169—170. 41 См. P. Smits, Latviešu tautas pasakas. I, Rīgā, 1925, стр. 320 (=Latviešu tautas pasakas, Rīgā, 1956, стр. 92—93); ср. также A. Medne, Latviešu dzīvnieku pasakas, Rīgā, 1940, стр. 73—74. 42 See Bolte, Polivka, op. cit., II, p. 80. 164 “Why didn’t the shepherd graze me!?” — “Shepherd! Shepherd! Why didn’t you graze me!?” — “And why didn’t the mistress bake buns for me!” — “Mistress! Mistress! Why didn’t you bake buns for the shepherd?” — “Because the pig ate the chips?” — “And why did the wolf carry off the piglet for me!” — “Wolves! Wolves! Why did you carry off the pig’s piglet?”⁴³. The core of this tale is defined by a sequence of constructions of the type⁴⁴: [Voc₁ + kam + Vb (+ Dat) → kam + Nom₂ + Vb (+ Datₚₙ)] → [Voc₂ + kam + Vb (+ Dat₁) → kam + Nom₃ + Vb (+ Datₚₙ)] → [Voc₃ + kam + Vb (+ Gen₂) → kam + Nom₄ + Vb (+ Genₚₙ)] → [Voc₄ + kam + Vb (+ Gen₃) → kam + Nom₅ + Vb (+ Datₚₙ)] → ..., which, when Voc is replaced by Nom⁴⁵, forms a transformational variant of the type: [kam + Nom₁ + Vb (+ Dat) → Nom₂ + Vb (Dat₁)] → [kam + Nom₂ + Vb (+ Dat₁) → Nom₃ + Vb (+ Gen₂)] → [kam + Nom₃ + Vb (Gen₂) → Nom₄ + Vb (+ Gen₃)] → [kam + Nom₄ + Vb (Gen₃) → Nom₅ + Vb (+ Gen₄)] → ..., that is, *Why did the little rooster peck out the hen’s eyes? (Then) the hazel bush tore the little rooster’s trousers. Why did the hazel bush tear the little rooster’s trousers? (Then) the goat nibbled the hazel branches. Why did the goat nibble the hazel branches? (Then) the shepherd did not graze the goat. Why didn’t the shepherd graze the goat? (Then) the mistress did not bake buns for the shepherd... This transformation proves to be very close to the “Klausimai” scheme, both structurally⁴⁶ and, to some extent, in content (cf. the motifs involving a shepherd, baking, and a pig). At the same time, there can be no doubt that the Lithuanian tale variant under discussion is much older than the Latvian version in P. Šmits’s collection, which is a degenerate form of the tale’s old prototype⁴⁷. It is extremely interesting to compare the Baltic tale about the rooster and the hen (for example, the Lithuanian version analyzed here) with the corresponding Russian tale, which researchers have hitherto ignored. This comparison is instructive in several respects. First, in both Baltic- ⁴³ See ‘J. Basanavičius, II, p. 323. ⁴⁴ Voc — Vocativus, Vb — Verbum, pn — personal pronoun, 1 — little rooster, 2 — hazel bush, 3 — goat, 4 — shepherd, 5 — mistress, / (stroke) — little hen. ⁴⁵ Including, of course, the changes that follow from this. ⁴⁶ See the diagram on p. 5. ⁴⁷ Compare, for example... The master asks: “Why are you shouting now?” “This and that.” “How did the nut get thrown into her eye?” “Who threw it?” “The rooster threw it, the rooster!” “Well, wonders of heaven! Where did he go? Let him come to the manor!” The rooster comes to the manor, and the master confronts him: “Why were you throwing things around there? Why did you knock the nut into the hen’s eye?” “I didn’t knock it in! I climbed the hazel tree to gather nuts, and the hazel tree suddenly shook, and so the nut went into her eye.” “Is that so? Very well! Then let the hazel tree come to the manor!” The hazel tree comes, and the master confronts it: “Why did you shake and knock the nut into the hen’s eye?” “I wouldn’t have shaken, but, you see, the neighbor’s goat was gnawing my bark—what could I do?” “Very well, then let the goat come to the manor!” The goat comes, and the master confronts it: “Tell me, why did you gnaw the hazel tree’s bark?” “Would I have gnawed it? But they didn’t pasture me at all—what could I do?” “Then summon the herdsman to the manor!” The master summons the herdsman and confronts him: “Vadži, tell me, why didn’t you pasture the goat? Look what the hazel tree looks like!” “Arel, I would have pastured it too, but the mistress cheated me: she promised to give me some cakes to take along, but God took them; I was left hungry”...“ 165 In the Russian and East-Slavic area this tale is quite popular48. Secondly, as part of a broader group of tales on this subject (cf., for example, tale no. 80 in the Grimm collection), the Baltic and East-Slavic variants form an evident unity and, in the forms in which they are known, are specific to this folkloric area. Thirdly, analysis of some Russian variants of the tale about the rooster and the hen, clarifying a number of details in the analogous Baltic tale, will make it possible to establish a fairly direct connection with the Lithuanian text “Klausimai”. In connection with the problem that concerns us here, certain Russian and Belarusian variants are of particular importance49 (the latter, however, are less indicative for two reasons: their proximity to the Lithuanian folkloric area and the evident presence of Baltic substratum elements in this area). Here is the core of one variant of the Russian tale “The Cockerel and the Hen”50, in every respect extremely close to the Lithuanian text from Dau-luon (see p. 31):... “Cockerel, cockerel! Why did you knock the hen’s eye out?” — “The hazel tree tore my trousers.” “Hazel tree, hazel tree! Why did you tear the cockerel’s trousers?” — “The goats trampled me.” “Goats, goats! Why did you trample the hazel tree?” — “The herdsmen don’t look after us.” “Herdsmen, herdsmen! Why don’t you look after the goats?” — “The mistress doesn’t feed us pancakes.” — “Mistress, mistress! Why don’t you feed the herdsmen pancakes?” — “My sow farrowed a piglet.” — “Sow, sow! Why did you farrow a piglet for the mistress?” — “A wolf carried off my little pig.” “Wolf, wolf! Why did you carry off the sow’s little pig?” — “I wanted to eat; God showed it to me.” In the notation adopted, the text can be represented as follows51: [Voc₁ + why + Vb (+ Dat′)→Nom₂ + Vb (+ Datₚₙ)]→ [Voc₂ + why + Vb (+ Dat₁)→Nom₃ + Vb (+ Datₚₙ)]→ [Voc₃ + why + Vb (+ Acc₂)→Nom₄ + Vb (+ Accₚₙ)]→ [Voc₄ + what + Vb (+ Gen₃)→Nom₅ + Vb (+ Genₚₙ)]→ —... or in a transformed version: [why + Nom₁ + Vb (+ Dat′)→Nom₂ + Vb]→ [why + Nom₂ + Vb (+ Dat₁)→Nom₃ + Vb (+ Acc₂)]→ [why + Nom₃ + Vb (+ Acc₂)→Nom₄ + Vb (+ Gen₃)]→ [what + Nom₄ + Vb (+ Gen₃)→Nom₅ + Vb (+ Gen₄)]→ 48 See N. P. Andreev, “A Survey of Russian Folktale Plots,” “Khudozhestvennyi fol’klor,” issue II—III, Moscow, 1927, pp. 66—67; according to N. P. Andreev, the tale “The Little Cockerel Choked” (241 I) is represented in Russian folklore by six recorded versions. 49 Например, А. Н. Афанасьев, Народные русские сказки, вып. IV, М., 1860, стр. 85 (архангельская запись); Д. Н. Садовников, Сказки и предания Самарского края, СПб., 1884, стр. 170; Е. Р. Романов, Белорусский сборник, том I. Губерния Могилевская, Вып. 3, Сказки, Витебск, 1887, стр. 6 и др. 50 See A. N. Afanasyev, cited collection, issue II, Moscow, 1859, p. 1. 51 The symbolism is the same as in the recording of the Lithuanian tale on p. 165. 166 As can be seen, the identity of these two types of record with the corresponding records of the Lithuanian tale is practically absolute: some deviations are not significant and can be explained either by the somewhat different nature of verb government in Lithuanian and Russian, or by obvious recording defects (for example, Nom₂+Vb in the second version of the Russian tale record, as against Nom₂+Vb(+Dat₁) in the corresponding version of the Lithuanian tale record, confirmed by the expression (на что+) Nom₂+Vb(+Dat₁), which follows the defective Nom₂+Vb; or: что instead of на что in the fourth line of the second record). Thus, what is involved here is in fact a single text recorded in two different (but sufficiently closely related) languages. In other Russian versions of this tale, the long chain of actions undertaken by the hen to save the cock also includes the following: «… the hen carried a coal to the blacksmiths, and the blacksmiths forged a scythe; she carried the scythe to the haymakers, and the haymakers cut hay; she carried the hay to the cow, and the cow gave milk; she carried the milk to the girl…»52 or: «… Oak, oak, give the sparrow an acorn!» — «No, I won’t give an acorn: go to the cow, let her give me milk» … «Cow, cow, give the acorn some milk!» — «No, I won’t give milk: go to the mower, let the mower give me hay!» — … «Mower, mower, give the cow some hay!» — «No, I won’t give hay: go to the blacksmith, let the blacksmith give me a little knife!» … «Blacksmith, blacksmith, give me a little knife!» — «Go to the place where they make money, bring it to me, and then I’ll give it to you…»53 and so on in reverse order: the hen brought the money, the blacksmith made a little knife, and so forth. A review of the East-Slavic variants of the tale makes it possible to reconstruct at least two fragments comparable to the corresponding parts of the Lithuanian tale “Klausimai”: Lithuanian pattern East-Slavic pattern The stork flew in and brought money I The hen brought money What is this money for? … … … … … … … … … ….to buy a scythe The blacksmith made a little knife What is this scythe for? … … … … … … … To cut hay The mower cut hay What is this hay for? … … … … … … … To feed the cows They fed the cow hay What are these cows for? … … … … … … … To milk them (to give milk) The cow gave milk What is this milk for? … … … … … … … To give the shepherds something to drink II … … … fed the shepherds What are these shepherds for? 52 See A. N. Afanasyev, Op. coll., fasc. IV, p. 85. 53 See E. R. Romanov, Op. coll., p. 6. 167 To herd pigs54......... To bake loaves. Why these loaves? So the women can eat.......... .......... The shepherds herded goats..... baked loaves.......... The mistress.......... It is evident that, apart from incidental details, the Lithuanian and East-Slavic schemes stand in a relationship of transforms, one of which results from the operation of the interrogative operator. It cannot be ruled out that the correspondence between the variants of the schemes was even closer earlier, since a Russian interrogative transform of the tale is also known (на що, see above). The consideration of East-Slavic versions of the tale about the rooster and the hen is valuable in that, being unquestionably connected with “Klausimai” on the one hand, and with Baltic variants of the tale about the rooster and the hen on the other, they thereby help establish a connection between “Klausimai,” isolated in the Lithuanian folklore tradition, and tales of the “Vištytė ir gaidžiukas” type within that same tradition. However, a text is known in Russian folklore that not only reproduces the general scheme of the Lithuanian “Klausimai,” but is a direct reflection of the text that is the source both for it and for “Klausimai.” Even more important is the fact that a number of features of the Russian text corresponding to the Lithuanian “Klausimai” explain the nature of these works of folk literature, linking them to another extensive class of texts and, through it, to a particular ritual. In speaking of the Russian text that resolves the problem of the Lithuanian “Klausimai,” we have in mind versions recorded in Dmitrov District, north of Moscow55. Meadows beyond meadows. One friend after another. Fires burn, brews boil. What are the brews boiling for? To sharpen the scythe. What is the scythe for? To mow grass. What is the grass for? To feed the cows. What is the feeding for? To milk them. What is the milk for? To water the pigs. What is the watering for? To dig hills. What are the hills for? To sow grain. Little cow, little cow, butter-colored head. She peeps through the window, darts through the gate. (A. B. Zernova, p. 16) 54 The pig motif also occurs in the East-Slavic tale (“Parsyuk”). 55 See A. B. Zernova, Materials on Agricultural Magic in the Dmitrov Region, “Soviet Ethnography,” 1932, no. 3, pp. 15–52. 168 Having corrected some obvious textual defects (“what to feed?” is replaced by “what cows for?”; “what to water?” is replaced by “what pigs for?”, etc.), we can speak of complete correspondence between the Lithuanian and Russian texts56; it is all the more surprising that these texts are isolated, and the Russian one is known in this form only from the Dmitrov records. Lithuanian text Russian text — To buy a scythe. — What is that scythe for? — To mow the hay. — What is that hay for? — For the cows to eat. — What are those cows for? — To milk them for the milk. — What is that milk for? — To feed the pigs. — What are those pigs for? — To root around on the slopes⁵⁹. — What are those slopes for? — To sow wheat. — To sharpen a scythe57 — What for the scythe? — To mow grass. — What for the grass? — To feed cows. — What to feed?58 — To milk them. — What for the milk? — To water pigs. — What to water? — To dig mountains. — What to dig mountains for? — To sow grain. A continuation of the Lithuanian text, which through the motif of baking a bun or ring-shaped loaf moves on to a comic ending, has a counterpart (though entirely serious) in the Russian text: “little cow, little cow, butter-colored head.” This naturally refers to ritual baking, when on the first day of Christmas figures of cows, rams, or horses are baked from dough and distributed to the carolers (agricultural magic)60. In other versions of this Russian text, the meaning of the closing phrase is even clearer. Cf. “give us a little cow, a butter-colored head; she sits in the oven and looks at us”61. “give us a little cow, a butter-colored head; she stands over the fire, looks at me— 56 This correspondence is all the more striking because an archaic Dat.+Inf. construction, identical to the analogous Lithuanian one, is known in the Slavic languages. Cf. Old Russian малъзе мастеры олову льяти, Old Czech pytel peřezóm klásti, etc. See J. Marvan, Verbum infinitum in the Baltic languages and its relation to the Slavic state, “Acta Universitatis Carolinae. — Philologica 2. Slavica Pragensis II,” Praha, 1960, pp. 7–16. 57 Ср. dalgaitį kalt в литовском тексте сказки из Лазун, LKK, II, 1959, стр. 222. 58 See the corrections proposed above. 59 There is a variant kalnams knisti, “to dig mountains”. 60 A. B. Zernova, op. cit., p. 37. 61 Ibid., p. 16. 169 …! Give us a little pancake, and the oven will be smooth62; and they must plow the field and break up the fallow strips; give us a pie63, and so on. Some records of that same Russian text, although less accurate reflections of the original, prove no less important for interpreting the text and investigating its additional connections. Compare the text of the ritual of “singing the goat,” recorded in the village of Yarovo, Dmitrov District: The goat went to a new yard to ask for a scythe. What for a scythe? To mow grass. What for grass? To feed the horses. What for horses? To carry the posts. What for posts? To build bridges. What for bridges? For Christ to walk on. What for Christ? To pray to God. Give us a little cow, with a buttery head; she sits in the oven and looks at us, and when the door opens, she sweeps with her tail64 or: Young Koliada, at Ivanov’s yard, at Irina’s, the tall one’s, bought a pot—to cook kutia and feed the wife, so she may bear children, and they may plow the field and break up the fallow strips. Give us a pie65. As these variants show, they are all directly connected with agrarian rituals known as “singing the goat”66, “calling the meadow (plow)”67, and “Koliada visiting.” This connection is reflected not only in the texts themselves, but also in the fact that they are performed (as A. B. Zernova testifies) at Christmas and accompanied by corresponding actions. Their antiquity is confirmed by the presence of this kind of 62 A. B. Zernova, op. cit., p. 17. 63 Д. К. Зеленин, Описание рукописей ученого архива РГО, т. II., СПб., 1915, стр. 712. 64 See A. B. Zernova, op. cit., p. 16. 65 See D. K. Zelenin, op. cit., p. 712. For “to feed the wife, so she may bear children”5 compare vaikelius gyrdzyiu ir ugdysiu in the variant recorded at Lazukhy (see J. Senkus, op. cit., p. 222). 66 One result of the degeneration of this text is the children’s game “leading the goat.” 67 См. А. А. Потебня, Объяснение малорусских и сродных народных песен, II, Варшава, 1887, стр. 45 и след., 173 и след.; Его же, О мифическом значении некоторых обрядов и поверий, М., 1865, стр. 6, 21; А. Н. Веселовский, Разыскания в области русского духовного стиха, Сб. ОРЯС, т. 32, 1883, стр. 114 и след. 170 texts in almost all Slavic folklore traditions, as well as in some others, primarily Romanian and Modern Greek68. It is also curious that these “kolyada” texts repeat a number of features characteristic of „Klausimai“ and Russian texts of the type “What is the scythe for? To mow grass...”. Among these features, the question-and-answer form (often with an unexpected ending) deserves particular attention; it also occurs, however, in some related forms, such as spring choral songs of the type “And we sowed millet, sowed it”69. There is reason to think that „Klausimai“ and “What is the scythe for? To mow grass” reflect an actual dialogic form of old kolyada songs70. The divergence in genre of the corresponding texts should be considered no less indicative: the Lithuanian „Klausimai“, carrying the formal basis of the earlier kolyada text to its limit, turned into a kind of tale, whereas the analogous East Slavic text remained a kolyada song, while preserving its old poetic meter. An attempt to reconstruct the metrical form of the text from which „Klausimai“ derive cannot be ruled out. It is almost certain that it was close to the meters of Slavic kolyada songs: 4+4 (————/————), found in Serbian and Bulgarian folklore and in the Russian text under discussion71: What is the scythe for? To mow grass. What is the grass for? To feed the cows. — ´ — ´ | — ´ — ´ — ´ — ´ | — ´ — ´ or 5+5 (—————/—————), characteristic of Russian kolyada songs. Compare the alternation of metrical possibilities, insofar as they can be judged from the text of „Klausimai“: What is that scythe for? To mow the hay. What is that hay for? For the cows to eat. What are those cows for? To milk them for the milk... (˘) — ´ — | — ´ — ´ — (˘) — — ´ — | ´ — ´ — (˘) — ´ — | — ´ — ´ — 68 See P. Caraman, Obrzęd kolędowania u słowian i u rumunów. Studium porównawcze, Kraków, 1933. 69 See, for example, П. В. Ш т е й н, Великорус в своих песнях, обрядах, обычаях, верованиях, сказках, легендах, СПб., 1898, № 382; А. Т е р е щ е н к о, Быт русского народа, СПб., 1848, V, 19; VI, 307; А. Б. З е р н о в а, Указ. соч., стр. 26 и след. и др. 70 Compare the structure of a kolyada song common to Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Romanians. See P. Caraman, cited work, p. 213. The Latvian kolyada cited by Э. А. В о л ь т е р, cited work, pp. 105–107, is very interesting. 71 In general, however, the 4+4 meter is not characteristic of Russian kolyada songs (unlike Ukrainian shchedrivky). 171 or, in another version: (1) — ´ — — | ´ — — ´ — (2) — ´ — — | ´ — — ´ — Kām tōs kārvės? Pienui duoti. Kām tās pienas? Sūriams slėgti... (the consistency of the trochaic endings of each half-line is noteworthy). Finally, among the features that bring together the aforementioned Lithuanian and East Slavic texts with related folklore works, we may also include those pertaining to content. In particular, this concerns the recurrence of certain similar motifs (sometimes even not entirely clear within the given text), which make it possible to reconstruct a new set of cultural realities. Leaving a detailed examination of such motifs for another study, we will limit ourselves here to a general indication of individual parallels. In one of the cited versions of a Russian Koliada, the expression build bridges occurs, linking this text with many others that contain this expression72. Without listing examples (they are frequent and well known), we note that the bridge theme, in various forms, is also reflected in non-Slavic texts; cf. Serbo-Croatian mi-si moste gradimo, iz česa je gradite?... puščajte nas krez at most, a ča nam za to date (from a Croatian song); Slovak pa čo vám to kamenía? zlaté mosty stavať? či sú mosty hotové? už sú mosty hotové...; Polish jaworowi ludzie, czego tu stoicie? стоjemy, стоjemy, mosty budujemy... and so on.73 The same theme is also present in Baltic folklore: Nukaldink man tiltelį, Nukalk tiltelį, Per Nemunėlį...79 72 Cf.: Take the axes! — What should we take axes for? Cut down the pines! — What should we cut down the pines for? Split the boards! — What should we split the boards for? Build the bridges! — What should we build bridges for? And so on. See P. V. Shtein, Velikoruss, vol. 1, issue I, St. Petersburg, 1898, p. 307 (No. 1038). Also characteristic is the similarity between the formal structure of this text and the Koliada recorded by A. B. Zernova. 73 См. А. А. Потебня, Объяснения малорусских и сродных народных песен, I, Варшава, 1883, стр. 127 и след. Здесь же дана интерпретация этого выражения. 74 See Lietuvių liaudies dainos, p. 93. 172 The sea of Jūrė swayed, the copper bridge rang out. Beneath that bridge, under the little bridge, three little fishermen were fishing...75 Not a long way is the bridge of alva, for me to cross over...76 Step onto the bridge, into the little doorway. Let my little feet not get wet!77 and so on. The kindling of a fire and the preparation of a goat for sacrifice belong among the same motifs common to Baltic and Slavic folklore texts. Cf., on the one hand, the Russian tale of Alyonushka and her brother Ivanushka and the reflection of the same theme in Koliada songs and related texts (...the dense forests stand, in those forests fires are burning, great fires are burning,... he sharpens his damask knife, the cauldron boils fiercely, a goat stands beside the cauldron; he wants to slaughter the goat...78, and, on the other hand, degenerate forms of this motif in Baltic folklore, including the children's game in Lithuania “vilkas avēs gana”79. The point of these and similar comparisons is that the facts being compared, belonging to texts in many respects close to “Klausimai” and “What is the scythe for? To mow grass,” broaden the common Balto-Slavic background against which the folklore texts analyzed in this article and the realities reflected in them took shape. Moscow ABOUT THE BALTO-SLAVIC CONNECTIONS IN THE FIELD OF FOLK-LORE. V. TOPOROV S u m m a r y The aim of this article consists in illustrating on the basis of the Balto-Slavic folk-lore the big possibilities given by the structural and typological approach to the folk-lore texts even to the solution of genetic 75 Šimtas liaudies baladžių, Kaunas, 1941, стр. 89 (ср. стр. 96). 76 E. A. Volter, Materials for the Ethnography of the Latvian Tribe in Vitebsk Governorate, p. 361. 77 Ibid., p. 183. 78 См. И. М. Снегирев, Русские простонародные праздники и северные обряды, М., 1837, I, стр. 103, II, стр. 68 и др. Ср. также вырожденный вариант «Коза» (А. Н. Афанасьев, Народные русские сказки, № 27), кумулятивное построение которой возвращает нас к текстам вроде «На что косу? Траву косить». 79 See E. A. Volter, op. cit., pp. 91, 100–101, 109–110. 173 problems. The object of analysis is a unique class of Lithuanian texts represented by a number of variants of a Lithuanian popular tale „Klausimai“ („Questions“) (comic texts in which the effect is produced by means of a certain discrepancy between the strict logic of the compositional structure, automatically functioning in its form of questions and answers, and fastening together the whole text, and the unexpected semantic associations, following one another in the compositional chain). The results of the analysis are as follows: a synoptic table, representing the relations among the different variants of „Klausimai“ on the level of semantic transcription; a general scheme of a popular tale, being realized by all of its variants, on the level of phonomorphological transcription. An attempt to analyse the position of such texts within the Lithuanian folk-lore tradition necessitates the analysis of some other texts characterized by the „chain-structure“, cp. first of all the popular tales of such a type as „Vištytė ir gaidžiukas“ (lettish „Gailītis un vistiņa“), the structure of the kernel of which [kam+Nom₁+Vb(+Dat₁)→Nom₂+Vb(+Dat₁)]→[kam +Nom₂+Vb(+Dat₁)→Nom₃+Vb(+Gen₂)] etc. seems to be rather similar to the „Klausimai“ scheme. The comparison of the Baltic popular tale with the corresponding variants of the East-Slavic popular tale shows us that the relations between the Baltic and Slavic versions are those of transforms one of which results from the effect of the operator of interrogation. The taking into consideration of the East-Slavic popular tale about the cock and the hen is rather instructive, for being obviously connected both with „Klausimai“ and with the Baltic variants of the cock and the hen tale, it helps to establish connections between the isolated within the Lithuanian folklore tradition „Klausimai“ and the popular tale within the same tradition of the „Vištytė ir gaidžiukas“ type. The task of the historical interpretation of „Klausimai“ and that of the establishment of its genetic connections can be fulfilled by means of analysis of a Russian folk-lore text recorded in the Dmitrovski region (to the North of Moscow) — „На что косу? Траву косить.“ This text being almost an ideal formal and semantic correspondence of the Lithuanian „Klausimai“ certainly belongs to the Koliada type, and is connected with the agrarian ceremonial rites. Therefore it is suggested that the Lithuanian „Klausimai“ should also be interpreted as a result of a partial degradation of an old text, belonging to the Koliada type. The article is concluded with some examples of the degradation of such texts (e. g. children's games) and with a supposition about the probable metrical form of the text to which „Klausimai“ goes back. 174 FROM THE FIELD OF BALTIC-SLAVIC FOLKLORE RELATIONS V. TOPOROVAS Abstract The aim of the article is to illustrate, on the basis of Baltic and Slavic folklore materials, the broad possibilities that the structural-typological analysis of folkloric texts offers even for solving genetic problems. It analyzes a unique class of Lithuanian texts represented by numerous variants of the tale “Questions” (texts of a mocking nature, in which the effect is achieved through a certain mismatch between the highly logical, automatically functioning compositional structure of questions and answers, which firmly binds the entire text together, and the unexpected semantic associations that follow one another in the compositional chain). The results of the analysis are a synoptic table recording the relations among various variants of “Questions” on the semantic plane, and a general schema of the tale with all its realizations on the phonomorphological plane. To establish the place of such texts in Lithuanian folklore, several other texts with a “chain” structure are analyzed, first and foremost, for example, the tale type “The Little Hen and the Cockerel” (Latv. “Gailītis un vistiņa”), whose core structure [kam+Nom1+Vb(+Dat1)→Nom2+Vb(+Dat1)→[kam+Nom2+Vb(+Dat1)→Nom3+Vb(+Gen2)] and so on, proves to be quite close to the schema of “Questions.” A comparison of the Baltic tale with corresponding East-Slavic tale variants shows that the Baltic and Slavic versions relate to one another as transforms, one of which is the result of the operation of a questioning operator. The comparison with the East-Slavic tale about a cock and a hen is noteworthy because this tale, being undoubtedly related both to “Questions” and to Baltic variants of the tale about a cock and a hen, also helps establish the connection between “Questions” and tales of the “Little Hen and the Cockerel” type, which are isolated from one another in the Lithuanian folkloric tradition. The history and genetic relations of “Questions” are established through analysis of one Russian folkloric text (“На что косу? Траву косить”), recorded in Dmitrov District (north of Moscow). This text, which almost perfectly coincides with the Lithuanian “Questions” in form and semantics, undoubtedly belongs to the Koliada type and is associated with agrarian rites. It is therefore proposed that the Lithuanian “Questions,” too, be viewed as the product (result) of the partial degradation of an ancient Koliada-type text. The article concludes with several examples of the degradation of similar texts (even into children’s games) and a hypothesis concerning the metrical form of the text from which “Questions” derive.