2022 STUDIA MYTHOLOGICA SLAVICA ISSN 1408-6271 wwwISSN 1581-128x Uredniški svet / Natka Badurina (Universitŕ degli Studi di Udine), Nikos Causidis (UniverzitetConsiglio di redazione /Sv. Kiril i Metodi, Skopje), Larisa Fialkova (University of Haifa), Mare Kva Advisory Board (Estonian Institute of Folklore, Tartu), Monika Kropej Telban (Inštitut za slovensko narodopisje ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana), Janina Kursďte (Univerza v Rigi), JumaniyozovaMamlakatTojievna(Urgenchstateuniversity),NijoleLaurinkiene (Lietuviu literaturos ir tautosakos institutas, Vilnius), MirjamMencej(Univerzav Ljubljani), Vlado Nartnik (Inštitut za slovenski jezik Frana Ramovša, ZRC SAZU,Ljubljana), Andrej Pleterski (Inštitut za arheologijo, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana),Ljubinko Radenkovic (SANU, Beograd), Svetlana Tolstaja (Institut slavjanovedenija Rossijskoj Akademii Nauk, Moskva) Uredništvo / Saša Babic (odgovorna urednica/co-direttrice/Editor-in-Chief), ZRC SAZU, InštitutRedazione / za slovensko narodopisje, Novi trg 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija/Slovenia, E-mail: Editorial Board Sasa.Babic@zrc-sazu.si KatjaHrobat Virloget(odgovornaurednica/co-direttrice/Editor-in-Chief), UniverzanaPrimorskem, Fakulteta za humanisticne študije, Oddelek za antropologijo in kulturneštudije, Titov trg 5, 6000 Koper, Slovenija/Slovenia, E-mail: katja.hrobat@fhs.upr.si Roberto Dapit, Universitŕ degli Studi di Udine, Dipartimento di Lingue e Letterature, Comunicazione, Formazione e Societŕ, Via Tarcisio Petracco 8, 33100 Udine, Italija/Italia, E-mail: roberto.dapit@uniud.it Izdajata / Znanstvenoraziskovalni center Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti, InštitutPubblicato da /za slovensko narodopisje, Ljubljana, Slovenija Published by in / e / and Universitŕ degli Studi di Udine, Dipartimento di Lingue e Letterature, Comunicazione,Formazione e Societŕ, Udine, Italia Založnik / Casa editrice / Založba ZRC / ZRC Publishing, ZRC SAZU Publishing house Spletna stran / http://sms.zrc-sazu.si/ Sito internet / Website http://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/sms/ Prispevki so recenzirani / Gli articoli sono sottoposti a referaggio / The articles are externally peer-reviewed Izhaja s podporo Agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost RS / Pubblicato con il sostegno finanziario deli‘ Agenzia perlaricercascientificadellaRepubblicadiSlovenia/PublishedwiththesupportoftheSlovenianResearchAgency Studia mythologica Slavica is included in the following databases: MLA Bibliography; SCOPUS, Sachkatalog der Bibliothek - RGK des DAI; IBZ; FRANCIS; HJG (The History Journals Guide); OCLE; INTUTE: Arts and Humanities UK, EBSCO, ERIH plus, ANVUR. Slika na ovitku / Fotografia sul copertina / Cover photo: Gvido Birola, Kuga (Peste / Plague), 1972. Naklada / Tiratura / Imprint 300 Tisk / Stampato da / Printed by Collegium Graphicum, d. o. o. 25 2022 ZNANSTVENORAZISKOVALNI CENTER SLOVENSKE AKADEMIJE ZNANOSTI IN UMETNOSTI INŠTITUT ZA SLOVENSKO NARODOPISJE, LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIJA UNIVERSITŔ DEGLI STUDI DI UDINE DIPARTIMENTO DI LINGUE E LETTERATURE, COMUNICAZIONE, FORMAZIONE E SOCIETŔ, UDINE, ITALIA Ljubljana 2022 Vsebina / Indice 5 Pandemija Covid-19 in družba La pandemia Covid-19 e la societŕ Monika Kropej Telban: Emotions of Fear in Narratives about the Plague and the Contemporary Pandemic........................................................................................................................7 Kristina Radomirovic Macek, Saša Babic: COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories in Slovenia............27 Mirjam Mencej: Življenje s COVID-19 v spletni folklori....................................................................49 77 Razprave Studi Mare Kőiva, Elena Boganeva: The Treasure-bearer in East Slavic and Finno-Ugric Contexts...79 Vita Ivanauskaite-Šeibutiene: From Ritual Communication to Convivial Entertainment: Reflections of Old Drinking Rituals in Folk Songs......................................................................105 ....... .. ...........: ........ ........... ....... . ......... .................. ............ ................................................................................125 ........ .. ........: «........» ......... . .............. ......... ..........-........ (.......-.......... . ........-...........) .............141 Larisa Fialkova: Rus, Russia and Ukraine between Fairy Tales and History: Alternative Slavic Fantasy by English-Language Writers................................................................................165 .......... .....: ...., ..... . ..... ...........................................................................183 Vladka Tucovic Sturman: Folklorne prvine v romanu Marjana Tomšica Óštrigéca ....................203 Marjeta Šašel Kos: Belenus, Cybele, and Attis: Echoes of their Cults over the Centuries..........227 Arianna Carta: Who’s Afraid of the Goddess? Leopard’s Tale, Menopausal Syndrome: Terms of Debate within Archaeology.............................................................................................245 273 Razvoj raziskovalnih metod in diskusija Sviluppo dei metodi di ricerca e discussione Tomislav Bilic: How do We Know the Ancient Slavs also Knew Gnomons?...............................275 Andrej Pleterski: Kako vemo, da so stari Slovani poznali gnomone?.............................................283 291 Recenzije in porocila o knjigah Recensioni di libri Emily Lyle (ed.), Myth and History in Celtic and Scandinavian Tradition....................................293 Juan Antonio Álvarez-Pedrosa (ur.), Sources of Slavic Pre-Christian religion.............................296 Nemanja Radulovic in Smiljana Đordevic Belic (Ur.), Disenchantment, Re-Enchantment, and Folklore Genres...........................................................................................298 Monika Kropej Telban, Pripovedno izrocilo: razvoj in raziskovanje..............................................302 ............. ...... ............ . ......... .......... . ..............................307 Contents 5 Pandemics Covid-19 and the society Monika Kropej Telban: Emotions of Fear in Narratives about the Plague and the Contemporary Pandemic........................................................................................................................7 Kristina Radomirovic Macek, Saša Babic: COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories in Slovenia............27 Mirjam Mencej: Living with the COVID-19 Virus in Internet Folklore...........................................49 77 Articles Mare Kőiva, Elena Boganeva: The Treasure-bearer in East Slavic and Finno-Ugric Contexts...79 Vita Ivanauskaite-Šeibutiene: From Ritual Communication to Convivial Entertainment: Reflections of Old Drinking Rituals in Folk Songs......................................................................105 Ludmila N. Vinogradova: Folk Demonology of Polesye in the Context of East-Slavic Traditional Beliefs...............................................................................................................................125 Uladzimir J. Auseichyk: «Impure» Dead People in Perceptions of the Population of the Belarusian-Russian (Polotsk-Pskov and Vitebsk-Smolensk) Borderland................................141 Larisa Fialkova: Rus, Russia and Ukraine between Fairy Tales and History: Alternative Slavic Fantasy by English-Language Writers................................................................................165 Kostyantyn Rakhno: Chaga, Koshchey and Living Shereshyrs........................................................183 Vladka Tucovic Sturman: Folklore Elements in the Contemporary Novel Óštrigéca by Marjan Tomšic.....................................................................................................................................203 Marjeta Šašel Kos: Belenus, Cybele, and Attis: Echoes of their Cults over the Centuries..........227 Arianna Carta: Who’s Afraid of the Goddess? Leopard’s Tale, Menopausal Syndrome: Terms of Debate within Archaeology.............................................................................................245 273 Development of Research Methods and Discussion Tomislav Bilic: How do We Know the Ancient Slavs also Knew Gnomons?...............................275 Andrej Pleterski: How do We Know that the Ancient Slavs Knew Gnomons?.............................283 291 Book reviews Emily Lyle (ed.), Myth and History in Celtic and Scandinavian Tradition....................................293 Juan Antonio Álvarez-Pedrosa (ur.), Sources of Slavic Pre-Christian religion.............................296 Nemanja Radulovic in Smiljana Đordevic Belic (Ur.), Disenchantment, Re-Enchantment, and Folklore Genres...........................................................................................298 Monika Kropej Telban, Pripovedno izrocilo: razvoj in raziskovanje..............................................302 The lives of Otto of Bamberg in clerical texts and legends...............................................................307 Pandemija Covid-19 in družba La pandemia Covid-19 e la societŕ Reflections of pandemics Covid-19 in the society 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 7–25 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222501 Emotions of Fear in Narratives about the Plague and the Contemporary Pandemic Monika Kropej Telban Pripovedi o kugi in drugih pandemijah povzrocajo strah in napovedujejo smrt in lakoto ter povzrocajo vrsto custev med ljudmi, predvsem nelagodje. V tem clanku je analizira-no, kako pripovedno izrocilo o kugi, ceprav staro in preživeto, ponovno prihaja na dan v kolektivnem spominu in podzavesti, ko ljudje ponovno doživljajo podobne izkušnje, kot jih je izkusilo cloveštvo pred stoletji. Ceprav pandemija Covid-19 – s katero se soocamo med leti 2019 in 2022 – ni tako smrtonosna kot kuga, jo vendar obcutimo, kot stalno grožnjo. V clanku je predstavljeno, kako stari tradicionalni družbeni konstrukti ponovno prihajajo na dan v sodobnih povedkah in pripovednih diskurzih o Covidu-19 in kako se obcutje strahu odraža v družbenem življenju ljudi, kakor tudi v njihovih pripovedih, Narratives about the plague and other pandemics essentially induce fear and predict death and hunger, triggering a variety of emotions among people, particularly anxie­ty. The paper discusses how the motifs of plague narratives – despite being ancient, traditional and old – resurface from the collective memory and the subconscious as people now have experiences comparable to those endured by humanity centuries ago. Although the COVID-19 pandemic that confronted the planet from 2019 to 2022 is not as deadlyas the plague, it is still an ongoing existential threat. A discussion is also pre­sented of the ways that old traditions and social constructs re-emerge in contemporary narratives and discourses about COVID-19, and how the atmosphere of fear affects the emotional and social lives of the people, along with their narratives, jokes, fake news, INTRODUCTION In Slovenian and some other Slavic languages, the word “fear” translates to strah, which may also mean “ghost”. Discussed is a special kind of spectre of fear – the pandemic or global sickness, also known as the Black Death.1 Contemporary legends and discourses The name “Black Death” for the plague appeared during the devastating global epidemic of bubonic plague that struck Europe and Asia in the mid 1300s. The plague arrived in Europe in October 1347 when 12 ships from the Black Sea docked at the Sicilian port of Messina. The name “Black Death” was later used for all plague or cholera sicknesses. M ONIKA K ROPEJ T ELBAN about the COVID-19 pandemic are compared with the experiences of similar fears and distress during the plague, cholera, the Spanish flu, and other similar virulent diseases. Lutz Röhrich established that among narrative folklore it is precisely legends that are the most pessimistic and often characterised by anxiety or fear since the humans ap­pearing in them are typically at the mercy of supernatural forces, and in folk narratives there is a looming, primary fear of being decimated, even vanquished by a certain dis­ease (Röhrich 2018: 252). Further, Jon D. Lee claims that all disease narratives “revolve around a single emotion in all its many forms: fear”, and that the more frightened and anxious those listening felt about the plot line, the more likely they were themselves to pass it on (Lee 2014: 169, 171; as cited in: Hiiemäe et al. 2021: 25). In the modern European narrative world, frightening supernatural creatures in par­ticular are preserved, expressing the fear of dying, of the dead, of the dangers and terrors of black or malefic magic and, not least, a perfectly well-founded fear of illness (Šešo 2020: 192). These types of stories, namely, also help to disperse and transmute the fears that overwhelm people in certain situations. The plague, as referred to in the lore of some European nations, had nearly fallen into oblivion before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2019 in Wuhan. This glob­al phenomenon revived narrative folklore surrounding a ‘plague event’, also seeing it widely return to the people’s mode of cognition and mental discourse.2 After exploring the Estonian folk narrative on the plague in comprehensive archived materials (Hiiemäe 1997), Reet Hiiemäe established that within the framework of legends about dangerous places – for instance of the places where spread of the plague is men­tioned – a mental map can be formed, which covers the threat’s emergence in the com­munity, and escaping from it (Hiiemäe 2016, 179–181). Timothy Tangherlini concluded similarly – also while focusing on plague narratives – that in folk belief, people quite logically try to create narrative maps of the route of the plague spirit as personification of the disease (Tangherlini 1988). Many similar motives were spread in plague narratives across Europe because folklore shows certain universal patterns and activating methods. BRIEFLY ON FOLK NARRATIVES ABOUT THE PLAGUE AND HEALING PRACTICES3 Plague epidemics have stricken humanity in various periods of history, causing mas­sive death of the population, even the collapse of cultures. In the wake of the Plague of Athens, the Ancient Greek state began to shrink, the Antonine Plague in the sec­ond half of the 2nd century triggered the Roman Empire’s downfall, while in the 6th century the Plague of Justinian likewise shook the foundations of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Bubonic Plague or Black Death, which killed nearly one-third of Europe’s 2 Kaarina Koski (2016, 32) introduced the term “mental discourse” in the sense of a cognitive map reflecting the conditions in which people live, and their narratives about what is happening to them. 3 I analyse the plague narrative tradition and healing practices in more detail In Kropej Telban (2022). Figure 1: Danse Macabre, Church of the Holy Trinity in Hrastovlje, painted by John of Kastav, finished in 1490. The motifs are influenced by the medieval pandemic of the plague (https://sl.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Mrtva%C5%A1ki_ples_(Hrastovlje). population, arrived on the continent in 1347 on trade ships from Central Asia. The Great Plague in the late 17th century also left grave demographic and economic devastation, particularly across Europe. The plague anchored itself in the people’s historical memory and subconscious. Al­ready in Ancient Rome, it was thus stated: “From plague, pestilence, and famine, Good Lord deliver us!” [A peste, fame et bello – Libera nos Domine!]. In folk ideation, the plague was an evil spirit killing cattle and people. Affected populations, especially in Europe, conceived it as a supernatural or mythological entity, the way they imagined death, nightmare, famine and various other afflictions. In a per­sonified form, it appeared in the demonology of many nations, as a figure of one of the greatest fears in those epochs and places where it was ravaging. The plague narratives in European folklore were preserved as either accounts of the conditions and escape from the pandemic of the plague and its potential treatment, or as folk legends of the Plague personified – a demon massacring people and animals. This ideation joined death, fam­ine and pestilence as some of the biggest archetypal fears of the time. The motifs of the folk narratives concerning the plague were included in “The Mi­gratory Legends” catalogue (1958) by the Norwegian folklorist Reidar Christiansen in the sub-chapter Legends Concerning the Great Plague, (7080–7095). Their thematic horizon is naturally far more diverse, as seen in the materials preserved in the archives of various research institutions, academia, and in printed sources. In the Slovenianspace, a folklorist who wrote about the plague and accompanying famine – in the shape of the insatiable creature Netek – was Ivan Grafenauer (1958). The plague was associated with hunger, which the Netek personifies in Slovenian folk tradition. People narrated that Netek (Gluton) travelled the world, bringing hunger to a homestead if he was not fed well while visiting. Similar narratives can be found in other parts of the Alpine world, among the Rhaeto-Romance people in Switzerland, and in Voralberg in the Austrian Alps, in the figure of the voracious man Glutton. Elsewhere as well, the narrative tradition speaks of war and famine related to the plague. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, legends state that a year of plague is followed by a year of famine (Softic 2020: 165). Romanian peasants, in fearful expectation of the plague which supposedly wanders around in the figure of a woman, left food by the side of the road for travellers to feast on, with a view to turning the malaise away (Grafenauer 1958: 190). M ONIKA K ROPEJ T ELBAN Figure 2: Gvido Birolla: the Plague (Möderndorfer, Šašel 1972). In the European space, the plague is represented in folklore by personified images of a woman, man, boy, girl, or a contagious travelling pair. In regions where the word “death” is of the masculine gender, the plague is often also represented as a man, while where “death” is feminine in gender, the plague often analogously appears in the image of a woman. Also frequent are representations of contagious couple – a man and woman who go from town to town causing people to fall ill. A German legend from Schweinfurt by the River Main talks about a deathly man reaping the souls of people and a pestilent woman (the plague) raking them aside. Similar narratives have been preserved in Cen­tral Europe, especially in the Alpine world, they have been documented in Northern Europe as well, even in Iceland as analysed by Terry Gunnell (2001: 49–50). Swedish legends narrate how the plague arrives from the South in the form of a beautiful young boy followed by a pestilent girl (pestflicka), who sweeps her broom outside houses causing everyone in the village to perish (Grimm 1835: 994). In the Estonian narrative tradition, the plague is personalised in masculine form as a young or “black” man, enumerating the places where he is destined to go, allowing the people to evade the plague or attempt to prevent it (Hiiemäe 2016). In Europe, a widespread idea was that the plague cannot cross water alone and will frequently be carried or ferried to another place. Timothy Tangherlini establishes that Scandinavian people often spoke of a plague that travels a set route to the places it is headed to, being ferried across a river, or across the sea to an island (Tangherlini 1988). Similar legends are also documented in the French-Breton, Prussian, and Polish folk tra­ditions. Many stories of this kind were narrated by the South Slavs, among others they were published by Matija Valjavec (1858: 243) and Friedrich Krauß (1883, 1890: 67), while also inspiring the Slovenian poet Anton Aškerc (Midnight Passenger, 1890). The plague epidemicwas spreading in Serbia which was at that timeruled by the Ottoman Turks even as late as in 1787 when Vuk Stefanovic Karadžic was born in Trsic, with these places leaving an impact in his life and his work. The legends frequently mentionthat the plague is afraid of dogs or cats, while also being driven away by the crow of a rooster (Valjavec 1858; Softic 2020: 164). To protect themselves from disease, the people ploughed the ground around their village in various ritual ways, for example having women drag the plough around the vil­lage thrice (Möderndorfer 1964: 130). Tradition in the surroundings of Bosnian Gradiška speaks of how the village required twin sisters and two black oxen born by the same cow. Overnight, a brand-new plough had to be constructed and the twin sisters ploughed a fur­row around the entire village while fully naked (Softic 2020: 163). In this custom, next to the geometric element – a circle, supposed to protect from evil forces, magic power was attributed especially to the ploughed furrow-line as an enchantment, where the details of who and how this action was performed were highly ritualised. Memory of the old agrar­ian rituals is preserved in these narratives from the South Slavic space. Believing that the demon of a person’s disease could be defeatedby a positive spirit, people also practised a magical treatment: ‘hammering the plague’ into a tree. They bore a hole into a tree(linden, oak, willow), which was supposed to be a holy tree. At sunrise on the following day, they placed in the hole a small amount of the sick person’s blood, M ONIKA K ROPEJ T ELBAN some nails or hair, then crammed it into the hole, put a nail in the tree, and hoped the demon of the disease would be defeated by the tree’s spirit (Travner 1934: 78–79). People also tried to keep the plague at a distance with incantations and protective magical seals, apocrypha and charms, albeit not many of these remain intact. One of the oldest Slovenian charms against the plague is described in the Carinthian Duhovna brauna (Spiritual Protection) from 17404: Sir Franciscus Salorius bore witness to bishops and other men of the cloth having gathered to hold a council in 1547. Because twenty bishops and several senior clerics had already died of the plague, the Patriarch of An­tioch (?) recommended using all letters (buhštabi) that Bishop Zacharias from Jerusalem had approved to protect homes from the plague. They were to be printed and worn on the body. People heeded the advice, and no one died of the plague again; and when they wrote them on their front doors, no one ever died of the plague from that house again. These are the letters against the plague: + ZDIA + BIZ + SAB + ZHGP + BFRS. An incantation from 1851 against all contagious diseases was also preserved in the Book of Incantations by Jakob Rant from Dolencice in Poljanska Dolina.5 The incanta­tion runs as follows: I call Jacob in the name of Saint Benedict and in the name of the holiest of Saints in the Heavens and on Earth, looked on with zinaji (?) of Adonis (?) Attanatos Deous God the mightiest of the Holy Trinity zpik = tro = ik = volf This is Hallelujah Hallelujah Hallelujah. Draw three crosses and take three breaths in the air, and then make four heavenly signs using (?) (. S . . . S S . S S o. L. .). Then pray seven of Our Fathers in honor of the Holy Trinity and the Patron Saints. It was a common practice across Europe for people to wear pouches around their necks containing sewn-on charms or magical protection seals written on pieces of paper.6 To defeat the plague, people erected plague columns, churches and chapels dedicat­ed to patron saints considered as protectors from the plague, notably Saint Roch, Saint Sebastian, Saint Rosalia, Saint Barbara and Saint Oswald. One of these columns still stands in the district of Krakovo in Ljubljana where in 1598 the plague spread quicky. It is inserted in a house fronting as a sculpture in the form of an angel sitting on the 4 Dolenc/Zupanic Slavec, Makarovic 1999: 45; Kropej Telban 2022: 31. 5 The Book of Incantations by Jakob Rant, locally known as Kocar from Dolencice no. 9 in Poljanska Do-lina. The manuscript is from 1851 (Möderndorfer 1964: 23–24). 6 For more on this, see Kropej Telban 2022: 70–71. skull of death with a sand glass clock in his hands. Legend has it that the plague stopped at this house at 21 Krakovska street, and ceased killing. Prohibiting travelling to another place can amount to an extremely strict and demanding human sacrifice. A story preserved in Treibach in Austrian Carin-thia speaks of the tragic fate of a young girl who was thrown into a pit and buried alive to prevent the plague from spread­ing (Möderndorfer 1964: 33). In towns with a plague guard in place, newcom­ers and wares were not allowedto pass without health certificates called fede. Especially prevalent and broadly used were rituals of protection from the plague or for treating it using medicinal plants and apotropaic ceremonies. Spac­es in houses and stables were fumigated with juniper (Juniperus communis) and charcoal, with the addition of Alpine valerian (Valeriana celtica), myrrh (Commiphora) and incense. Plants holding special powers were seen as particularly including garlic, burnet saxifrage (Pimpinella saxi­fraga), wild angelica (Angelica silvestris), white butterbur (Petasites officinalis), cuck­oo-pint (Arum maculatum) and heath speedwell (Veronica officinalis). Medicines or apotropaic ingredients also included parts of toads (Bufo vulgaris), spiders (Araneida) as well as snake-stones. Similar plants and practices were also used to heal from or treat the illness. The plague was primarily treated with medicinal plants, vinegar, wine, honey, tobacco and a range of other natural remedies. In the countryside, for help people most often turned to villagehealers and witch doctors, whereas physicians, if accessible at all, mainly tended to patients in towns and mansions. During the plague, they would don special protective outfits to avoid becoming infected with the disease themselves. They wore a leather cloak and covered their faces with beaked masks and spectacles. The long ‘beaks’ were filled with a mix of aromatic herbs believed to protect against infection (Golec 2001: 37). From the time of the plague Sneezing was seen as a symptom of the plague, with this expression “God help you!” or “God help us all!” becoming widely used throughout Europe. Moreover, some curses or swearwords spread at that time, for instance in Slovenia “Naj te kuga!” or in the Slovenian region Bela Krajina: “Kuga te vgnjela” (666/31:19), meaning: “Let the plague take you!”. People also invented proverbs like: 14 M ONIKA K ROPEJ T ELBAN Se prikaže kuga v bližini, kupi si par mocnih crevljev in beži tako dolgo, da bodo podplati raztrgani. [If the plague appears nearby, buy yourself strong shoes, and run as fast as you can!”] 7 Vernacular health concepts, narratives and behaviour during the plague, and later on at the time of cholera varied, reflecting the time and circumstances of their existence. DISEASE NARRATIVES AND CRISIS FOLKLORE ABOUT COVID-19 As Reet Hiiemäe stresses, COVID-19 shows the multitude of combined dimensions that approaches to health can consider. Besides purely medical and bodily outputs, sig­nificant social, religious, narrative, emotional, and material-technological aspects arise simultaneously, and must be taken into account and researched (Hiiemäe 2021: 8). All of these aspects are reflected in the narrative culture and pandemic lore of the time. Humanity’s recent past is a macabre reminder of the plague during the period of some epidemics like deadly cholera, or the Spanish Flu which caused many deaths after the First World War, and resurfaced after the Second World War to a somewhat smaller degree. Now, in the third millennium, when most people had believed this impossible in the developedworld, we are witness to a global pandemic of a new ‘plague’, the respiratory disease COVID-19 which – while less deadly – likewise causes mass death, fear, anxiety, neuroses, poverty, widespread economic crisis, and violence. This is all reflected in contemporary legends, narrative discourse, conspiracy theories, and other pandemic lore. The Internet has become an important forum for discussing the supernatural, the extraordinary, and the emotionalexperiences that people are forced to cope with (Koski 2016: 13). This means discourses based on people’s interaction with COVID-19 – their opinion of the pandemic and their lived experiences of the circumstances – are part of everyday discussion online, chiefly on social media like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and Internet forums. Early responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, already during the first wave in March 2020, included frequent humorous dialogues, jokes and memes about the subject, in line with the understanding that people ease their existential fears, traumas and distrust using humour. Online humorous content began to circulate, ridiculing the emerging conditions of life. Although these conditions caused frustration and deep anxiety, it is interesting that not much of it was specifically morbid disaster humour, as established by Theo Meder based on content collected in the Netherlands (Meder 2021: 135). In Slovenia many puns, jokes and memes were recorded,8 for instance: 7 M. Slekov, Kuga na slovenskem Štajerskem. Slovenski gospodar 17, št. 18 (3. 5. 1883), p. 142. 8 For more, see: Mencej 2022. Figure 4: Little Red Riding Hood in the time of COVID 19. Figure 5: Just to remind you who invented greeting people with a forearm. M ONIKA K ROPEJ T ELBAN Figure 6: Be good, I’ll be back soon. Figure 7: Damn, they have made such a panic that even I am afraid of it. Mars says to Venus: “Look how Earth’s been improving since it’s been on COVID-19!” Why are folks buying toilet paper like crazy? – Because 1 sneezes and then 10 shit their pants! They told me a mask and gloves were enough to visit the store, but I’m smart enough to wear a shirt and jacket as well. As these examples reveal, many jokes and memes originating during the COVID-19 pandemic attempt to diffuse fear and ease the emotionally-ladensituation through hu­ mour and catharsis. In the first wave of the epidemic, people often shared advice, encouragement, ver­nacular cures, and personal experiences. They also reanimated the memory of the liter­ature and arts concerning the plague, among others writing: Doing similar activities as the literary protagonists of Boccaccio, we may get ourselves through the dark times of the coronavirus. There are, of course, many alternatives to storytelling – board and card games, watch­ing series or films, cooking, reading ... all such leisure one might nor­mally, when not under a forced quarantine, have no time for. Panick­ing makes no sense since there are no reasonable actions to take, except for following the epidemiological and hygiene guidelines, and diligently keeping away from those who might be at serious risk of infection. And so, focusing on various activities at home and staying safe is the way to go. The interest in such literature was so strong that it then became impossible to obtain the book Decameron by Giovanny Boccaccio. Popular advice also appeared with regard to practices that might protect people from the virus, or at least ease the disease symptoms, such as by consuming vitamins C and D, vinegar, zinc, plenty of vegetables etc. During wave two of the epidemic that began locally in October 2020, people de­ scribed their lived experiences with the virus, for example in the report below published on 14 March 2021 at the website Protikorona.si: I’m a 59-year-old entrepreneur from Ljubljana, and I’ve recently gotten over an infection with the SARS-COV-2 virus. I was probably infected on 29 February when my friends and I had dinner together. Nobody was then showing any symptoms of the disease. A few days later, on 3 March, I was still free of any symptoms and going about my day, spreading the virus. In the evening, I had a meeting with 12 people. We were in a con­fined space, most of those present were eventually infected even though we were several metres apart. The next day, I felt a little sore in the morning but had no other problems, and so I held a few more meetings where I likely infected another three people. In the afternoon, I felt so tired that I decided to stay at home. My condition worsened considerably on Thursday, 5 March. After 4 March, I was in self-isolation, although I wasn’t aware of my exact disease yet. I suspected it was the flu, which was then in season. On Sunday 8 March, I was informed that two of my friends, from among those at our dinner together had tested positive for the novel coronavirus. They immediately told me while I was self-isolating. My partner and I went to be tested the next day, and received a confirmation of positive. I then quickly told everyone who I’d been in contact with. /…/ Unfortunately, my illness progressed: the infection spread to my lungs and I was hospitalised at the infectious disease unit of the UKC in Lju­bljana. At 59 years of age, this was my first stay ever in hospital! It wasn’t pleasant. My mind was full of questions to which there were no answers. I must say the staff were incredibly dedicated, kind, always ready with a smile, so full of positive energy and encouragement even though the conditions are harsh ... with face-coverings and goggles that keep getting misty ... /…/ After a week, my condition improved sufficiently to be re­ leased. /…/ The last two tests for COVID-19 were negative, but it’ll take me a long while to fully recover seeing that I lost 8 kilograms during my illness. It’s definitely done damage to my body.9 Curiously, the date the author purports to have been infected (29 February 2021) does not exist since 2021 was not a leap year; and the 8 March mentioned was not a Sun­ day as is stated but a Monday, while likewise 5 March was not a Thursday but a Friday. Also published in “Glasilo Ljubljana”, March 2021, dedicated to the novel coronavirus. M ONIKA K ROPEJ T ELBAN The general style and syntax arouse suspicion regarding whether the post was written by an actual COVID-19 patient, given that it is oddly reminiscent of a political messaging ‘discourse-template’ of the possible consequences of treating the virus lightly. Presented here are only some examples of expressing certain vernacular health con­cepts and behaviour in Slovenia on which ideologies and personal values have a great impact. It is characteristic of many of these discourses that they reveal a certain mistrust of the punitive and therapeutic politics of the State. In public discourse, it was often only stressed how COVID-19 is harmful, without not enough advicebeing given to people about how to improve their immune system. People understood this as a threat and hence many of them developed mistrust, and searched for consolation on the Internet. The genres of narrative discourses and stories emerging around the subject of the coronavirus online in the Slovenian space primarily fell under conspiracy theories, fake news, and a wide variety of circulating rumours. Oft-discussed themes included that the outbreak of the virus had spread from the ‘wet market’ in Wuhan in China; or that the virus was purposefully created in China in a laboratory as a biological weapon. Com­mon themes also referred to the breakdown of society, of institutions and of individuals. On the other hand, the central messaging of the conspiracy theories was that the intention behind the virus’ global spread was to reduce the human population. Many of these theories related to the topic of the creation and dissemination of the coronavirus, and the problematic issues of the vaccine.10 Conspiracy theories of this kind are global and often rely on the QAnon movement, one of the centres from which conspiracy theories have spread with considerable speed. In Slovenia, a growing number of people either categorically disbelieve the exist­ence of the COVID-19 phenomenon (and interpret the deaths as being due to pneu­monia, the flu, a sinister plan etc.) or, in even bigger numbers, follow the alternative narratives of ‘self-professed doctors’ and public thinkers warning people against vacci­nation and compliance. Further, some intellectuals developed their “reasonable theories against vaccination” – mistrusting the government and science – explaining that people also die from vaccination, and that it is the right of every individual to decide what is done to their body. Under the influence of conspiracy theories, on 12 June 2021 a vaccination station in Ljubljana was physically attacked and its staff temporarily prevented from working. An “anti-vaccination” group of people also started in 2021 to organise demonstrations on the streets of Ljubljana or in front of the premises of the broadcaster RTV-Slovenia. Their reactions to the advice of doctors or politicians were not only hostile but often even threatening in character. During the first wave of the pandemic crisis in 2020, people revived old beliefs and narrative traditions with the aim of defeating COVID-19. These narratives soon 10 For more about this, see: Babic 2022; Folklore ee 82 / 2021; Contemporary legend 10 / 2020: Special Issue on COVID-19. became global. In Italy, they sang from the balconies. In the UK, they placed pictures of rainbows in their windows. In India, they chanted “Go corona”. Around the world, solidarity in the face of the coronavirus took many forms. In Japan, memory resurfaced about the ancient beast Amabiko renamed Amabie, which helps ward against the coronavirus. It has three legs, a beak, scaly skin, and floor- length hair. Amabie: The Ancient Beast Helping Japan Ward Off the Coronavirus The mermaid-like creature began appearing on social media in Japan in early March and was soon being tagged in upwards of 30,000 posts a day. Manga artists rendered the creature in their own styles, sharing images alongside messages wishing for an end to the virus. Amabie then got official recognition when Japan’s health ministry made it the face of its public safety campaign. After that, it started appearing on cookies, face masks, candy, bread rolls, the obligatory Starbucks logo pastiche, and even statues in parks. According to a woodblock-printed news sheet dated April 1846, the crea­ture made its first and only appearance in the sea off Higo Province, now Kumamoto Prefecture, on the southern island of Kyushu. As the story goes, a government official went down to the beach to investigate reports of something shining in the water. When the official arrived, a mermaid-like creature emerged, introduced itself as “Amabie who lives in the sea”, and issued two predictions. “For the next six years, there will be a bountiful harvest across Japan, but there will also be an epidemic”. Amabie then told the official, “Quickly draw a picture of me and show it to people”, and disappeared back into the sea. Nagano Eishun, librarian of the Fukui Prefectural Archives and an expert on ancient spirits, says Amabie is one of more than a dozen prophecy beasts reported during the Edo period, and it probably derives from an ape-like creature with a similar name. In 1843, three years before Amabie first appeared, there were reports of a three-legged simian in the same province. The furry beast went by the name Amabiko and its origin story was strikingly similar. A woodblock printed news sheet from the era said a man went down to the sea to in­vestigate reports of glowing lights. Amabiko introduced itself, predicted a rich harvest and an epidemic, then claimed that people would survive and live long, healthy lives if they saw the creature’s image. “The two have so much in common, it’s natural to think that Amabiko was Amabie’s former self”, says Nagano. And he says the monkey was far more famous than the mer-creature in the 19th century. During times of plagues, such as cholera and dysentery, people used a picture of Amabiko as a good luck charm. M ONIKA K ROPEJ T ELBAN Nagano says the creature probably changed form as its story spread across the country through drawings and people took liberties with their interpretations. He adds that commercial interests may have driven both the creativity and the creature’s insistence that it had to be seen. “The woodblock printed news sheet, called kawaraban, was basically a single sheet of paper with a piece of illustrated news or gossip”, he says. “The producers always wanted an interesting story to catch people’s at­tention, so they got inventive, like perhaps letting a spirit warn people they’d get sick unless everyone had a copy of that image”. After many decades out of the spotlight, Amabie is finally getting the at­tention it craves with some help from social media. It seems human nature hasn’t changed much since the 19th century, and the image of this strange creature is still able to provide some kind of solace. But Nagano says there’s a fundamental difference between then and now. “Back in the 19th century, those images were only supposed to save the person who bought the news sheet. But now people are spreading the images to protect everyone. I would say that shows we’ve made big pro­gress.”.11 The reminiscent on the plague columns is the “plague column – Corona” – erected in Vižmarje in Ljubljana. The sculptor Franc Zavodnik says he has been regularly dis­ infecting it with WD40.12 11 NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation World-Japan: Yamamoto Saori; http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/ type7080.html#denmark , accessed 15. 4. 2021). 12 https://theworldnews.net/si-news/v-ljubljani-kuzno-znamenje-ki-je-posveceno-koronavirusu. Narrative discourses connected to the COVID-19 phenomenon can easily be found on the Internet. Researchers already began collecting such online records during the first pandemic wave. For instance, at the Institute of Slovenian Ethnology in Ljubljana the blog “Vsakdanjik” was already set up in April 2020, and numerous ethnological insti­tutions are compiling entire archives of this content, providing interesting and valuable documentation of the pandemic era. CONCLUSION In grave situations like the outbreak of an epidemic or pandemic, people adapt to the newly arising circumstances and look for ways out of the crisis. Their daily practices and narratives reflect the ways and customs they rely on to deal with an infectious disease. Narratives emerging around the subject of the disease – precisely because they ad­dress fears – have a fundamental function of assisting people through difficult existen­tial situations. Conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic triggered a huge number of stories, jokes, memes, contemporary legends, and other epidemic folklore seeking ways out of the crisis or allowing individuals to express their emotions and experiences. These reflect how people tried to protect themselves from becoming ill, what their reactions were like, and how they survived the pandemic. On the other hand, many fake news and conspiracy theories have emerged and continue to do so, causing a destructive current of ideation and even activity. As the Dutch folklorist Theo Meder established, these types of narratives provide complex insights into the emotions and lived experiences in society. Notably, the lockdown in mid-March 2020 led to many people being confined to their homes, sparking markedly increased online activity and interest in social media, in the active (creation/narration) and passive (consumption) senses (Meder 2021, 135). While old legends surrounding the plague narrate how it was spreading – often in personified form: how the people protected themselves from it, and how they treated it, the narrative discourses on COVID-19 describe the lived experiences of individuals, their ways of enduring the pandemic, their thinking, includingpessimistic examples, and humour through which they attempted to achieve catharsis and emotional stability – and all of this occurring in the modern, highly technologically advanced era charac­terised by global media ubiquity. As Ian Brodie stresses, “our knowledge of legends, rumours, and conspiracy theoriesis little comfort in this ever-changing world as we also seek scientific knowledge about this virus. /…/ As folklorists, and legend scholars in particular, we are uniquely able to recognize immediately the patterns of contemporary legends and quickly provide a critique of them in real time, placing the legends within the longer arch of legend history” (Brodie 2020: 1). The anthropologist Dan Podjed posits that the virus is not just a natural phenome­ non but also an important social actor since the pandemic has radically transformed the ways we live, work and socialise. In addition, it has further deepened the disparities between rich and poor, leading to economic, demographic, and various psychological crises (Podjed 2020). M ONIKA K ROPEJ T ELBAN It is clear that pandemics, including COVID-19, are some of the worst catastrophes affecting humankind. They bring fear of physical and mental suffering at a very funda­mental level of human existence. The COVID-19 crisis has evidently also called into question the freedom of the individual, extreme solitude, the economic crisis facing many people, and psycholog­ical problems. The atmosphere of generalised suspicion concerning the masks, test materials and vaccination was provoked. The narrative folklore reflects all of this, having become extremely globalised due to the digitalisation of society and “tech­no-feudalism”13. Also globalised has been the advice regarding what to consume to remain healthy, even if some practices are extremely strange, like drinking bleach (Varikina) or inserting WD-40. While tradition addresses epidemics from ages past with considerable seriousness, obedience and worry, the modern responses are often different. They also exhibit hu­mour, expressions of irony and frustration, anxiety, malicious pleasure and general dis­trust, especially in the mainstream media and politics. Narrative discourses also attempt­ing to identify a culprit are based on emotions like fear, confusion, anxiety, doubt and mistrust. Nevertheless, even though the past and present activities and discourses appear quite different at first glance, they share some underlying similarities. These loosely include: folk advice on foods to eat and for protection against infection, the closing of borders and quarantine, the personification/memefication of the disease – and even in contemporary world, plague- or corona-columns, the summoning of ancient mythologi­cal beings back into the popular consciousness to assist in the struggle against the virus. New and traditional elements sometimes interweave, despite the very different societal and cultural attitudes causing them. The COVID-19 pandemic is surrounded by a huge number of conspiracy theories and fake news. Researchers in the USA as well as Europe establish that the people reso­nating with and spreading conspiracy theories are often in conflict with the government or the prevalent cultural and social order; and yet, the context of such inclinations and activities is far broader, more nuanced and complex. Folklorists should continue to re­search this pluralism of opinions and perceptions and the heterogeneousness of health beliefs, narratives and practices. REFERENCES Brodie, Ian, 2020: Precedent: COVID-19 and Vernacular Response. Contemporary Legend. Series 3, Volume 10: Special Issue on COVID-19, 1–16. Byford, Jovan. 2014: Beyond belief: The social psychology of conspiracy theories and the study of ideology. In: Antakiand, C.; Condor, C., (eds), Rhetoric, Ideology and Social Psychology: Essays in Honour of Michael Billig. Explorations in Social Psychology. London: Routledge, 83–94. 13 This term was presented by Cedric Durand (after Monique Selim 2021: 16). Christiansen, Reidar Th., 1958: The Migratory Legends. A Proposed List of Types with a Systematic Catalogue of the Norwegian Variants. (FF Communications 175). Helsinki: Academia scientiarum Fennica. Dolenc, Milan; Zupanic Slavec, Zvonka; Makarovic, Marija (ur.), 1999: Zagovori v slovenski ljudski medicini ter zarotitve in apokrifne molitve. Ljubljana: Inštitut za zgodovino medicine Medicinske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Golec, Boris, 2001: Kužne epidemije na Dolenjskem med izrocilom in stvarnostjo. Kronika 49/1-2, str. 23–64. Grafenauer, Ivan, 1958: Neték in »Ponocna potnica« v ljudski pripovedki. V: Razprave Razreda (II.) za filološke in literarne vede IV. Ljubljana: SAZU, 157–201. Grimm, Jacob, 1835: Deutsche Mythologie. Göttingen: Dieterich’sche Buchhandlung. Gunnell, Terry: Mists, Magicians and Murderous Children: International Migratory Legends Concerning the ‘Black Death’ in Iceland. In: Ó Catháin, Séamas (ed.), Northern Lights. Following Folklore in North-Western Europe. Dublin: University College Dublin Press 2001, 47–59. Hiiemäe, Reet, 1997: Estikatkupärimus [Estonian Plague Tradition]. Tartu: Estonian Literary Museum. Hiiemäe, Reet, 2016: Narrative Maps of Danger as a Means of Subjective Protection. Etnološka tribina 39, vol. 46, 176–186. Hiiemäe, Reet, 2021: Introduction into Health-Related Folklore and Its Research: From First-Hand Experience to Second-Hand Narrating Models. Folklore ee. 82, 7–20. Hiiemäe, Reet; Kalda, Mare; Kőiva, Mare; Voolaid, Piret, 2021: Vernacular reactions to Covid-19 in Estonia: Crisis Folklore and Coping. Folklore ee. 82, 21–52. Koski, Kaarina 2016: Discussing the Supernatural in Contemporary Finland: Discourses, Genres, and Forums. Folklore ee 65, 11–36. Krauss, Friedrich S., 1883: Sslavische Pestsagen. (Separatabdruck aus dem XIII. Bande [Neue Folge III. Band] der »Mittheilungender Anthropologischen Geselschaft in Wien«) Wien: Verlagdes Verfassers. Krauss, Friedrich S., 1890: Volksglaube und religier Brauchder Sslaven worwiegend nach eigenen Ermittlungen. Mster. Kropej Telban, Monika. 2022: Pripovedi o kugi in zdravilne prakse proti tej bolezni v ljudskem izrocilu / Folktales about the Plague and Healing Practices against It in Narrative Folklore. Kronika 70, 27–40 in 127–139. Lee, Jon D., 2014: An Epidemic of Rumors. How Stories Shape Our Perception of Disease. Boulder: University press of Colorado. Meder, Theo, 2021: Online coping with the first wave: Covid humor and rumor on Dutch social media (March – July 2020). Folklore ee 82, 135–157. Mencej, Mirjam, 2022: Življenje s koronavirusom v spletni folklori. Studia mythologica Slavica 25, 49–75. Möderndorfer, Vinko, 1964: Ljudska medicina pri Slovencih. (Classis II, Gradivo za narodopisje Slovencev) Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Möderndorfer, Vinko; Šašel, Josip, 1972: Koroške pripovedke. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. Podjed, Dan 2020: Antropologija med štirimi stenami: Spoznavanje družbe in sebe med pandemijo. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. M ONIKA K ROPEJ T ELBAN Radomirovic Macek, Kristina; Babic, Saša: COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories in Slovenia. Studia mythological Slavica 25, 27–48. Röhrich, Lutz, 2018: Predaja – bajka – narodno vjerovanje: kolektivni strah i njegovo svladanje. V: Marks, Ljiljana i Evelina Rudan (ur.), Predaja: temelji žanra. Zagreb: Institut za etnologiju i folkloristiku, 351–370. [Original: Röhrich, Lutz, 1984: Sage – Märchen – Volksglauben. Kollektive Angstundihre Bewältigung. In: Eifler, Günter, Otto Saame, Peter Schneider (eds.), Angst und Hoffnung. Grundperspektivender Weltauslagung. Mainz: Studium Generale der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, 173–202]. Selim, Monique, 2021: The pandemic: catalyst, analyzer. In: Selim, Monique (ed.), Anthropology of Pandemic. Paris: Association Française des Anthropologues, 11–18. Softic, Aiša, 2020: Zapisi usmenih predaja o kugi u Bosni i Hercegovini s kraja 19. stoljeca. Godišnjak. Centar za balkanološka ispitivanaja / Jahrbuch. Zentrum f Balkanforschungen 49 (Govedarica, Blagoje, ur.). Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, 155–169. Šešo, Luka 2020: The Supernatural Beings of Belief Legends – Old Fears in a New Context. Studia mithologica Slavica 23, 183–202. Tangherlini, Timothy R. 1988: Ships, Fogs and Travelling Pairs. Plague Legend Migration in Scandinavia. The Journal of American Folklore 101/400, 176–206. Travner, Vlad, 1934: Kuga na Slovenskem. Ljubljana. Valjavec, Matija, 1858: Narodne pripovjedke skupio u i oko Varaždina Matija Kracmanov Valjavec. U Varaždinu: Josip pl. Platzer. CUSTVA STRAHU V PRIPOVEDIH O KUGI IN SODOBNI PANDEMIJI COVID-19 MONIKA KROPEJ TELBAN Pripovedi, ki nastajajo na temo bolezni in pandemij, kot sta kuga in Covid-19 pogosto zbujajo strah in napovedujejo smrt in eksistencno krizo. V clanku je na kratko predstavljena motivika folklornih pripovedi o kugi, ob tem pa primerjalno predvsem razmere ob pandemiji Covid-19. Številne pandemicne pripovedi, diskurzi, vici, memi in sodobne zgodbe išce­jo pot iz krize ali posameznikomomogocajo, da izražajo svoja obcutja. V njih se kaže, kako so se ljudje skušali braniti pred tovrstnimi boleznimi, kakšne so bile njihove reakcije in kako so premagovali epidemijo. Nastajajo tudi lažne nov­ice in teorije zarote, ki povzrocajo destruktivni tok razmišljanja in dogajanja. Tovrstne pripovedi omogocajo vpogled v obcutke in custva v družbi. Medtem ko povedke o epidemiji kuge pripovedujejo, kako se je kuga širila – pogosto v personificirani podobi, kako so se ljudje branili pred njo, kako so se zdravili in so epidemije iz preteklih obdobij obravnavane z veliko resnostjo in zaskrbljenostjo, se teh tem sodobni odzivi na Covid-19 pogosto lotevajo s humorjem, izražanjem frustracij, strahov, zlobe in nezaupanja. Vendar pa tudi opisujejo življenjske izkušnje posameznikov, kako so premagovali epidemije, njihova razmišljanja ob tem, tudi negativna in kontraproduktivna. Vse to pa je v sodobnem visoko tehnološko razvitem casu zaznamovano z globalno medijsko odmevnostjo. Za razliko od reakcij na kugo so s pandemijo Covid-19 povezane številne teorije zarote in lažne novice. Raziskovalci tako v Zveznih državah Amerike kot v Evropi ugotavljajo, da so ljudje, ki širijo teorije zarote in tisti, ki jim verjamejo, pogosto v konfliktu z vlado ali družbenim sistemom. Vendar je kontekst tovrst­nih nagnjenj in dejanj mnogo širši in bolj kompleksen. Virus torej ni le naravni pojav, ampak pomemben družbeni akter, saj zaradi te bolezni živimo, delamo in se srecujemo drugace. Poleg tega poglablja razliko med revnimi in bogatimi, povzroca gospodarske in demografske krize in številne psihicne težave. Vendar pa, ceprav so pretekla in sedanja dejanja in diskurzi na prvi pogled povsem drugacna, je med njimi nekaj podobnosti. Tako npr. tudi v casu pande­mije Covid-19 ljudje svetujejo kaj jesti in kako se obraniti pred virusom; uvaja se zapiranje meja, karantene; ljudje so celo zaceli poosebljati bolezen in oživljati oziroma posodabljati stare bajeslovne like, ki naj bi pomagali premagati virus. Monika Kropej Telban, Ph.D., Research Advisor, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute of Slovenian Ethno­logy, Novi trg 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, monika@zrc-sazu.si 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 27–48 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222502 COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories in Slovenia Kristina Radomirovic Macek, Saša Babic Clanek obravnava teorije zarote, ki so povezane s pandemijo COVID-19 v Sloveniji. Ra-ziskava je potekala na gradivu, zbranem na spletu ter s terenskim delom. Vsebina je ana­lizirana s semioticnega in folkloristicnega vidika, zgodbe pa so kategorizirane glede na funkcijo in glede na izpostavljeno temo, teorije zarote pa so obravnavane tudi z vidika mi-tološke strukture. Teorije zarote, povezane s pandemijo, izhajajo iz že uveljavljenih teorij zarote, ki pa so v konkretnem kontekstu pandemije povezane z vecjo in neposredno grožn­jo zdravju in svobodi cloveštva, za katero se domneva, da jo izvajajo zarotene zle sile. KLJUCNE BESEDE: teorija zarote, COVID-19, pripoved, semiotika, digitalna kultura The article discusses conspiracy theories concerned with the global crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic in Slovenia based on material collected from the Internet and during fieldwork. Content is examined using the well-established foundations of con­spiracy theories, the semiotics of the conspiracy theories, and their mythological struc­ture. Pandemic-related conspiracy stories appear to emerge from already established conspiracy narratives, linking themto a bigger and imminent threat to the health and INTRODUCTION Conspiracy-based narratives are neither arecent socialphenomenon nor acultural product of modernism. They are known since at least Roman times, e.g., when the Jews were accused of having poisoned the water supply and causing a plague. Throughout Europe’s cultural history, conspiracy-based narratives have followed times of crisis and social change, and been an important model for explanatory storytelling during periods of unsettled meaning (Kline 2017: 186, Merlan 2019: 13, Varis 2019: 2). After the French Revolution, reaching its peak in the 20th century (Oberhauser 2020, Girard 2020), the conspiracism in modern conspiracy theories took theformof mass transmission (Wojcik, 2003: 247), undergoing a particular poetic transformation in the digital ecosystem. K RISTINA R ADOMIROVI c M ACEK , S AŠA B ABIC Althoughthe mostimportant contributions on the subject are made byAmerican academics using examples from American history and culture (Girard 2019: 567), the European cultural history of conspiracism relies on its own matrices. After all, conspir­acy theories are considered to be a global phenomenon (as shown in Routledge 2019). Conspiracy theories have not been researched as often or as explicitly in Slovenia. Scholarly lack of interest in this field has stood out during the COVID-19 crisis, when many have sought to understand the source of the multiple conspiracy theories. Slovenia’s conspiracy theories should be contextualised and researched within the scope of four spatial-temporal contexts: a) the tradition of European conspiracy theories in the 20th century (like in Girard 2019); b) Balkan conspiracy theories matrices (like in Blanuša 2019); c) the post-socialist era of conspiracy theories shared with Eastern Europe and Russia(as studied in Routledge 2021);and d) global conspiracy-based narratives emerging in Western popular culture. Insight gained into COVID-19-related conspiracy theories, given that we know much more about their narrative potential and preferences, means it is necessary to look back and rethink the conspiracy-related narratives involved. The current success and popularity of conspiracy-based narratives on COVID-19 and their connection to the numerous, already globally spread conspiracy theories reveals a strong conspiracy narrative tradition. At the same time, the conspiracy narrative models of sto­rytelling are already a familiar response to epistemological dissonances in everyday life. The media largely tried to ‘fact-check’ conspiracy narratives with scientific and researched articles, criticising the content of the conspiracy storiesand their spread through comments in the public. Still, by making them a topic in the news, the media also helped to strengthen (yellow print) and give exposure to these theories. The question is whether public speaking about conspiracy theories assists in spreading them or whether this refers more to unleashing the long-silenced conflict between conspiracy theorists and their important opponent or ‘collaborators’ – the mainstream media (MSM). On the other hand, ignoring the spread and existence of conspiracy theories might bring even more serious consequences when one considers their constant success, growth and thus influence on public life (Radomirovic Macek 2020: 5). This article does nothowever engage in thetruthfulness or lack thereof of the content of conspiracy theories. Based on numerous examples, we may say that conspiracy the­ories cannot simply be labelled truthful or wrong per se (Uscinski 2018: 5), mostly due to their specific epistemologicalpath (Piazza 2011) or being grounded on fundamental attribution error and other logical fallacies (Pelkmans, Machold 2011: 68). We therefore consider them as narratives which function in society according to the matricesof folklore storytelling rules. Based on the semiotic approach, analysis is conducted on the narratives and their function in the relatively large outbreak of viral infection in Slovenia. The topic of conspiracy theories about COVID-19 has attracted considerable inter­est and scientific analyses, published as proceedings at many conferences and debated in various articles, which rethink the psychological background of conspiracy theories research. For example, Uscinski J., Enders A., Klofstad C. et al. (2020) consider the connection between rumours and Internet space, Shahsavari S, Holur P., Wand T., Thangherlini T., (2020) are opening the new possibilities for conspiracy theories research COVID-19 CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN SLOVENIA online. Conspiracy theories are becoming significant research subject also as part of the thematic journals like Contemporary Legend 3/10; the Estonian journal Folklore vol. 82 etc. with all the authors included, and books (the recently most visible: Bodner et al. 2014; Baeva, Ilieva 2021 etc.) or monographs (Gonsalo 2021; Butter 2020). It is also a subject of interest in considerable interdisciplinary research stressing the importance of researching conspiracy theories online, like in Shahvasari S., Tangherlini T., Holur P., Roychowdhury (2020), Gruzd A., Mai P. (2020), and Ahmed W, Vidal-Alaball J., et al. (2020). They have also at a minimum become an important subject of essayistic journalism, such as in Scott M. (2021). METHODOLOGY Today’scommunication environmentsmake alternative pointsof viewmore visible than ever before (Stano 2020: 1). Several studies focused in the past on the dissemination of conspiracy theories in the mass media, while research into conspiracy theories in the digitalsetting remains a novelexpertise(Stano 2020:2). Themostimportantonlinetrans- mission aspects underpinning the methodology of online conspiracy theories are: going viral (quantitative dissemination), spreadability with recontextualisation (qualificative transformation potential), information overload and echo-chamber effect (Stano 2020). The research methodology includes both quantitative and qualitative analytical appara­tus, often supported by specific software that segments and measures data according to certain parameters. The recent scientific drive to understand the velocity of the spread of online conspiracy theories calls for interdisciplinary research methods based on social analytics, digital ethnography and user path analysis such as the social big data analysis (Erdman 2016; Madisson 2016; Thibault2016), and more recently (Caballero 2019;Stano 2020; Shahsavari, Holur et al. 2020; Varis 2019; Varis, Hoe 2020). These approaches build on the factthat the modern worldwide web is based on a participatory culture to diffuse online information, with the many-to-many communication model instead of the mass media one-to-many model(Stano 2020: 3, Caballero 2019: 135). Briefly, the key step in disseminating online CT is re-sharing, where more viral means more popular and visible, while more popular seems to amount to more relevant. The online group of material was collected as part of a 2-year research project1on various digital platforms; social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram), blogs of conspiracy theory influencers, and webpages of social organisations whose activism is based on conspiracy theories and conspiracy-based ideology. It includes over 1,000 units collected from the start of theCOVID-19epidemic inWuhan,namelybetween14.2.2020 and3.12.2021, when the working classification was created. For the purposes of this paper, only qualitative aspects of the collected online material are to be presented with a view to detecting the narratological diversity of COVID-19 conspiracy theories in Slovenia these days. Thedoctoraldissertation titlewhich includes theconspiracytheories materialmentioned above“Contemporary narratives and notions about the end of the world in the area of former Yugoslavia”, Kristina Radomirovic Macek. K RISTINA R ADOMIROVI c M ACEK , S AŠA B ABIC Alongside the online material, the article includes data collected through participa­tory observation, interviews and discussions with various known individuals and social networks from printed and audio-video media. This arose from a public call to collect COVID-19 humour and conspiracy theories issued by the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slo­venian Ethnology and disseminated through e-mails. These two groups of material are divided and explained in a four-part typology, while the characters are grouped into seven narrational functions (Radomirovic Macek 2021). At this point, our approach is more narratological and semiotical than contextual. Nevertheless, our interpretation includes certain of the main functional aspects of conspiracy theories in Slovenia nowadays. We also raise the question of networking COVID-19 conspiracy theories with somepreviously established conspiracy theories that may have influenced the narrational line and lent a few well-known motifs to the COVID-19 conspiracy mindset. CONSPIRACY THEORY While definitions of conspiracytheory have different focuses, in this article we focus definitions that expose narrativeand myth, and the elements of time and evil. The defi­nitions providedare also supportedwith semiotic apparatus and usedfor folkloristic research of conspiracy theory. The general definition of the content of a contemporary conspiracy theory is that it constitutes a belief that an event/situation is the result of a secret plan made by powerful people or entities. Conspiracy theories lead to the following dichotomy: on one side, there are evil conspirators who hold financial, symbolic or political supremacy together with evil intentions regarding the common good while, on the other side, there is an enlight­ened group of people who have discovered the mentioned evil plan and are fighting to defeat it (Barkun 2016: 1-2). At its centre we are dealing with plots including numerous hypotheses and possibilities very close to the potential–actual relationship (Zupancic 2022). Bratich (2008) defines conspiracy theory as “any narrative that accounts for an event by positing a collusion of agents who seek to determine the course of the event according to the agents’ agenda, and at the expense of others’ agendas. In addition, the collusion, the agenda, and/or the determination are shrouded in secrecy”. Byford (2014: 90) puts it this way: Tales of conspiracy, the cause of disease or some other crisis are “marked with distinct thematic configuration, narrative structure and explanatory logic /…/ common motifs and tropes”. Marjanic (2016) goes further and interprets these narratives with the help of urban legends, with the difference that conspiracy theories contain emphasised paranoid matrices, and here we may add non-folklore material, like fake news, misin­terpreted scientific data, phony documents, false or decontextualized statements etc. By locating conspiracy theories next to urban legends, Marjanic also defines them as one of the folklore genres, reflecting social anxieties in a narrative form. A conspiracy theory refers to a perception and is the fear of a an alleged set of facts, while conspiracy itself refers to an act (Pipes 1997: 21). COVID-19 CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN SLOVENIA In folkloristics generally, a conspiracy theory is a narrative circulating in society based on the folklore principle: often relayed through live communication, it has several variants, considers the questions of belief and believing in the narrative, and discusses the burning fears of society. The well-positioned location of conspiracy stories in the conceptualframeworkof societyproves andreflects otherfolkloregenres likerumours, which are often linked to conspiracy stories or even socially interpreted as them. Many rumours are also categorised in the media as a conspiracy theory, even though rumours are somewhat conceptually different. Rumours are claims made about reality (Dono­van 2015: 13413), usually unofficial interesting stories or news items that may or may not, and spread quickly from person to person. Rumours are “usually brief and do not necessarily have a narrative element” (Mullen 1972: 96) and, unlike unwarranted, global conspiracy theories, rumours generally have no mythological structure and lack a narrative structure. Rumours about COVID-19 resonated in the media (during the COVID-19 pandemic they also appeared in official speech, being addressed as an ‘in-fodemia’, although historically they were spread by informal speech and the Internet or personal communication on a daily basis: they were negative (in Slovenia, they burst out in the spring of 2021). Yet, when it comes to the COVID-19 rumours, we cannot draw a parallel between them and urban legends as is often suggested (see Donovan 2015: 13413). In this case, the rumours lacked a narrative element, only clusters of rumours that could create a focal point (Mullen 1972: 96) and they changed within a short time, weekly or even daily. Rumours emerged and disappeared without any continuation. They emerged at new critical moments in the pandemic, either the rising death rate or the state’s medical equipment purchases. Still, many of these rumours were built on existing conspiracy theories, or used as additional support for the conspiracy narrative, which explains why a deeper look at rumours makes sense – to establish the wider context and the connections among the conspiracy narratives. Conspiracy theories also partly function as a mythological/demonological narra­tive (Marjanic2016:112): agreat evilimprecisely defined (only seemingly realistic, but actually abstract) with the intent to harm people, use them, or cause a commotion. Many conspiracy theories are established on the apocalyptical tension: they describe the final battle between good and evil (QAnon, Antichrist CT), predict the end of humanity (Computer Called Beast, Chipping and Depopulation CT), announcetheend of theworld as we know it (different Techno Dystopian conspiracy theories)etc. While conspiracy theories can have a very complex storyline, the protagonists are always constructed through a two-dimensional perspective: good and evil. The visible division is between ‘light’ and ‘dark’ forces of the particular mythopoetics, with the dark forces being the results of secretactions by groups, organisations, countries or other entities that represent evil. These forces of evil are very diverse, from classical (Freemasons, Jews (Judocracy), satanists and illuminati), through to classes of the world’s financial and political hier­archy (the rich, Bill Gates, George Soros, communists, culturalMarxists, Antifa) and extra-terrestrial beings (aliens, coming from a parallel universe or reptiles from another world). Unlike mythological narratives, conspiracy theories involve humans rather than gods and demigods (Marjanic 2016: 120), albeit some of our fieldwork records show that even in conspiracy theories evil characters acquire a degree of ‘divinity’. One in­formant mentioned that the powerful sinister characters have royal, otherworldly, even extra-terrestrial blood –they are not regular human beings but take something from a sinister, transcendent world: “they say these aren’t people, they’re a kind of mixture, but not people proper, that’s why they go around doing these ultra-psychopathic things (like Satanism, paedophilia etc.) /…/ we cannot perceive everything that exists, we only see what’s in our human visual spectrum, so we don’t see these beings from the other realm /…/ all the members of royal bloodlines, the Rothschilds etc., they have their genetics, they take the bloodline from these other beings. They’re bred together, so they have human characteristics and special ones, too, this is how they know so much and recognise one another /…/ they’re intelligent but without any empathy, besides they’re not creative. Humans are creative and these half-bloods exploit our inventiveness, so these families and beings can then use it for themselves” (interview with a male respondent, 38 years, Ljubljana, 18.12.2020).2 We found another example of the same transcendental nature of the vaccinatedin the Internet material: “I cannot believe it, I noticed the same thing, in Maribor, at the vaccination place, there was a similar ‘person’, although I am unsure if ‘it’ was male or female, it was extremely white, had icy-blue eyes, I don’t know what’s going on, but that vaccine must be some kind of a poison. Has anyone seen something similar?” (12.5.2020, Facebook comment). The narrative time in a conspiracy theory is always the time of the narrating (as Degh (2001) also showed for urban legends), yet it is simultaneously always apocalyptically oriented to the future, the future advocates the “time of the final judgement” (Klepec 2016: 63), as is also present in myths. As Dyrendal, Robertson and Leiden (2018: 36) state: “The conspiracy mytheme is almost automatically linked with another element that is common to religious myth: that of the apokalypsis, or ‘revelation’ of secrets of the past, present, and future”. Notably, the outcome of modern conspiracy theories is almost always bad or even damning (with no re-birth into a new life) since its fatalism expresses a strong apocalyptic paradigm. In today’s Western world, the apocalypse is often transmitted and limitedto the level of humanity andthe material world rather than the level of ontological destruction as we may find, for example, in a myth or in the main institutional religions. If we do not perceive the world as a divine creation whereby an absolute creating entity has a plan for the eternal afterlife, then there is no place for eschatological optimism in the modern world. Conspiracy theories in some ways reflect this deficiency: instead of personalised evil in the face of Lucifer, we have the secret elite with a doomed plan; instead of the promise of an eternal kingdom, the emptiness of ecological disasters awaits us, or the dystopia of the world of cyborgs is foretold. Conspiracy theories are awaking the need for centralised Evil, which can be discovered, fought and destroyed. The mythological modelling of the conspiracy theory was already noticed by Lotman (1988), subsequently further discussed in the article by It is noted that the interviewee received information about the “extra-terrestrial blood of royal families” on the Internet, generally by listening to online talks on the topic. The original author of the idea was not revealed, the interviewee simply confirmed that they believed this notion to be true. COVID-19 CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN SLOVENIA Leone, Madisson and Ventsel (2020: 47). Lotman’s view on mythological modelling is interpreted as the outcome of conditions of social stress and anxiety: “although the mythological modelling to the sacral order is characterised with transcultural meta-text, it is transformed into the perception of contemporary events, so that the interpreter can recognise the original forms of the meta-text, which has its source in cultural memory” (Leone, Madisson and Ventsel 2020: 47). The mythological modelling of contemporary conspiracy theories might not be as intense and clear as that in archaic communities, yet it still “organises a specific kind of meaning-making that perceives tragic events not as a succession of unfortunate coincidences, but as motivated by one and the same original cause: Evil” (Leone, Madisson and Ventsel 2020: 47). We apply semiotics and its sign theory while trying to discern the meaning-making of conspiracy in these narratives. Conspiracy theories build meaning-making on the search for secret signs of conspiracy, and on demonstrating the significance of such signs; these sign-based models for mapping reality are usually simplified (Leone, Mad-isson and Ventsel 2020: 44). We can illustrate this simplified perspective of the almost random and provisional connection between signs with the help of the early responses to COVID-19 seen on social media. The TV series The Simpsons predicted COVID-19 in an episode where, in order to entertain humanity, a secret elite is plotting based on the evil plan of an imaginary cat-virus. Another example is that the first 5G tower was built in Wuhan, the city in which the outbreak started; this is where the 5G–COVID-19 connection started to arise. Conspiracy theory, i.e., a sign from a semiotic perspective, therefore explains a series of events as signifiers by positing a conspiracy as their cause, i.e., signified; that is, the events are seen as “the result of a group of people acting in secret to a nefarious end” (Birchall 2006: 216-217). A telling example of that is a very interesting argument used by conspiracy theorists when confronted with the fact their storyline is actually already known from other conspiracy theories, to which they respond: “Yes, smart people knew that this was coming, so they wanted to secretly warn us”. This backward prediction lap or reinterpretation of old ‘facts’ in relation to the new context is very common in conspiracy theory storytelling. Mark Fenster also notes that a conspiracy theorist sees even trivial everyday events as signs of conspiracies and manipulation and that these function as “a form of hyperactive semiosis in which history and politics serve as a reservoir of signs that demand (over)interpretation and that signify, for the interpreter far more than their conventionalmeaning” across time (Fenster 2008: 95). The passion of producing a conspiracy theory is not only seen in conspiracies but also in creating the theory, “assembling or recognising the things to attest to it, interpreting and connecting the clues” (Zupancic 2022). Conspiracy theories focus on specific explanations within the appropriate ideological and cultural context (Byford 2014: 92), and give numerous hypotheses andpossibilities (Zupancic2022). Inthese contexts,they maybeseen as a rational attempt to explain complex situations, a cognitive mapping that locates the ‘culprit’ and attempts to explain the situation (without radically thinking through the propositions) (Klepec 2016: 64). Conspiracy theories find strong motivation in the belief that a certain truth exists, that someone knows this truth, and that this omniscient agent rules the world. The world is not random and chaotic, but shaped and overseen by the one agent or group that possesses greater knowledge (in the sinister, nefarious sense). To communicate these ideas, conspiracy theories rely on specific rhetoric to convey an aura of secrecy, create a symbolic elite,and reproduce the division between insiders and outsiders (Leone, Ma-disson, Ventsel 2020: 46) and aim to address the masses in addition to any mainstream rejections (Byford 2014: 92) so as to gain publicity and exposure. Desirable rhetoric is characterised by both metonymic logic (one that is close to the source of evil in order to be affected by it) and metaphoric logic (the more similar the objects are, the more they are perceived as connected)(M. Lotman 2009: 1239 cited in Leone, Madisson and Ventsel 2020: 45). On the first level, conspiracy theories are mostly paranoid (Bratich 2008: 3, Zupancic 2022) whereas the stated fundamental myth of conspiracy theories is not to be discussed: the discursive relationship of conspiracytheories is with “a re­gime of truth” (Foucault 1980), while manipulation and deceiving are prevalent in these discourses (Zupancic 2022). The worldview of people who follow conspiracy theories is based on knowledge and individual research which they gain through patience and dedication. Accordingly, they need to explain and convince other people of their truth so as to fascinate, cause fear and get attention in the storytelling context. As our fieldwork also showed, their knowledge collides with belief and thus labelling them as a conspir­acy theorist seems offensive and aggressive. Here, talking about conspiracy theories is often transmitted to the level of belief and induces the problem of identity more than remaining on the level of constructive dialogue. COVID-19 CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN SLOVENIA TheCOVID-19 virus phenomenon shook theworld in 2020. Theofficialoutbreak of thevirus was located in China, allegedly due to inadequate hygiene measures at the “wet market”. The highly contagious and for some even fatal virus spread very rapidly; the first positive coronavirus test in Slovenia was recorded on 5 March 2020. Before then, the virus seemed far away from people’s minds, even though neighbouring Italy had already confirmed it had a COVID-19 epidemic. People did not perceive the virus as a particular threat, nor as something that would be conceptually labelled an enemy against which we must ‘wage war’ (while later, all media and political discourse surrounding the virus contained a con­ceptual war metaphor linked with the disease (“we are fighting the disease and defeat it by healing ourselves”): doctors and nurses are the “first lines of defence / in the trenches”, we “fight” the virus in everyday life, we can win the “battle” against the virus with measures etc.). After an epidemic was announced in Slovenia, two diametrically opposed tendencies were present in the social sphere: the first being that COVID-19 was merely a flu, and the second that the apocalypse and final transformation of the world is heralded by the new disease. These two paradigms have stayed alive until today and have significantly marked the development of types and sub-types of COVID-19 conspiracy theories. COVID-19 CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN SLOVENIA On 15 March 2020, the government began imposing epidemiological measures at various times mandating the wearing of masks, banning gatherings of people (except close family members), while closing schools, shops, museums, cultural institutions and libraries. As the strictness of the pandemic measures increased and the political crisis grew, so did scepticism regarding the virus and the institutions. The initial public reactions to the measures included discussions about perceived threats to democracy: the mask mandates, and organised movement or restrictions in public, closed spaces were seen as amounting to forced behaviour. Soon after the initial reactions, conspiracy theories grew in volume. These did not emerge in the Slovenian space per se, with the ones with the greatest momentum being global, heard across the world with possible minor adaptations (for example, describing Germany or even Italy as one of the an­tagonists, not China or the USA). Social networks were filled with conspiracy theory narratives and opinions about them, followed by media exposure – partly questioning whether there was any truth in these theories and partly trying to actively discredit the conspiracy claim. The first conspiracy theoriesthat immediately began circulating in Slovenia (and were heard in conversations cited in printed media and Facebook, as well as disseminated via email) were that: a) the virus came from a laboratory (it was brought to China by American soldiers, who are also responsible for its further spread); b) China created the virus in a lab and used it as a biological weapon; c) the USA created the virus to ruin the Chinese economy; d) the government wants to restrict human rights (dictatorship) and destroy small businesses; e) the virus was spread for (urgent) artificial selection: to reduce the number of old people; f) 5G radiation weakens the immune system, combined with the vaccine that contains surveillance chips the government will use to control humanity; and g) Bill Gates: chips for the vaccine will be made by Microsoft (recently developed tech to be used to exert general control over society). In order to more systematically present the conspiracy theories and their variants circulating in Slovenia, we must consider seven different functions or clusters of motifs based on narrative agents. This division of characters based on their functions is first created based on the Internet material (Radomirovic Macek 2021), although the subse­quent fieldwork data confirmed its validity. 1. Function of evil conspirators – enemies of the people and the common good. Rep­resentatives of a ‘dark order’, who are following a secret plan. The evil conspirators, thecentralantagonistin conspiracy narratives that circle in Slovenia, are usually said to be the richest and most influential people; they cannot be detected by their name (exceptfor some likeBillGates, GeorgeSoros or theRothschild family). The conspirators are more often referred to as secret groups of unknown (or mostly unknown) individuals, such as the Kaballah, the Illuminati, or members of the Deep State, and areplotting to enforce a singleworld governmentoverpowering humanity. Slovenian versions of these conspiracy theories rarely mention specific nationalities, such as American, Chinese or German (even though it is noticeable that Germany appears asthe negative, predator country in the Slovenian context); in most cases, the group of threatening Others is a hidden, shadow elite. Among them also we find: the Freemasons, Jews, satanists, globalists, Babylon system, Big Pharma, elite and rich psychopaths and paedophiles, the Government, the Deep State, and Cultural Marxists. As noted, many of these are already known in conspiracy theories and storytelling. The choice of the evil conspirator points to the next function. 2. Function of the plan against the common good. Their goalis to:control, depopulate, profit, establish the techno-dystopia via chipping, cause a holocaust (or concentra­tion camps) and faciliate genocide. It is implemented with the help of Helpers and Collaborators. 3. Function of Helpers and Collaborators. These vary and are found on different levels, from the MSM (mainstream media), the WHO, NGOs, war profiteers (mainly politicians) through to scientists, people who checkPCT(abbreviationfor prebolel,cepljen, testiran – the recovered, vaccinated, tested), bureaucrats, institutions and migrants. Helpers and collaborators are the first target of the en­lightened agents. It is thus no surprise that the enlightened often express their dislike of the MSM insocialnetworks andattempttodiscredit them with accusations and silencing, like the following one published on Facebook: “I found the cure for corona virus: – Turn off the TV!”. or one from the protests staged in front of Slovenian National Television building. 4. Function of Saviour(s). This function is shared between an individual and the group. They call themselves free people, “wolves”, enlightened citizens of Slovenia, natural people (in contrast to the vaccinated who are artificial and in the possession of in­ternational pharmaceutical companies or the US government), fighters for freedom, and independent researchers. COVID-19 CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN SLOVENIA 5. Function of Whistle-blowers. Whistle-blowers make up a very important part of the narrative. It is they who have found out about the ‘plandemic’ and serve as proof of the conspiracy;namely, theheroes in thefightagainsttheevilconspirators. Typically, they are widely celebrated because they need protection from powerful evil. They hold medical titles, or have worked in at vaccine companies, or at least have a medical education to decodethetruth ofthevaccineorvirus:whetheritexists or does not,as thecasemaybe. 6. Function of Traitors – this is very closely connected to the collaborators and helpers. The difference lies in their ignorance, they are the ‘sheeple’ (sheep+people), ‘ovce’, who are being manipulated. Sometimes they are referred to as being unenlightened, stupid, ‘educated’, the false elite or, simply, the vaccinated. 7. Function As a Tool of Evil: the primary tool is the vaccine, which may be described as: a DNA manipulator, a chip, genetic filth, poison, a brew, a genetic treatment, an annihilator with a third chain of the DNA material etc. Apart from the vaccine, the tools of Evil include: 5G, Chemtrails, PCR sticks for testing, and face masks. This database of functions can make it easier to follow the conspiracy theories sto­ryline, but might also be a good indicator of keywords for the online research metho­dology. As they are more motifs, we collect and divide them into functions to make it easier to track the most frequent variants of the conspiracy theories. For now, we can talk about four main types of COVID-19 conspiracy theories in Slovenia (Radomirovic Macek 2021). These variants are divided into types by criteria in relation to the virus and appear in the following order: 1. Type A: The virus is not dangerous. This type of variant considers several narra­tionalpoints:Thevirus is notas dangerous as itis presented, itis simply an excusefor social control; vaccines are the medicalisation of natural living and are unnecessary; traditional vaccines are fine,theproblem is thatMRnavaccines are experimental and not safe enough, rendering natural immunity the best choice. Pharmaceutical companies are in crisis due to the healthy lifestyle trend, and more people are doing sports and eating healthy food, forcing them to find other ways to make a profit. Vaccines are actually triggers for different diseases (chiefly cancer), meaning that in the future we will need to buy more medicine from these companies. This type of variant has a strong anti-capitalist background, while individualism, democracy and a healthy (bio, ecological etc.) lifestyle are openly promoted. They reference already known conspiracy theories like Big Pharma, Bill Gates, and the New World Order. In cyberspace and social networks, they emerge through individuals, organisations and webpages that promote bio food without supplements, organic products, sports and workouts, namely, a strong individualistic philosophy that everybody is able to control their own destiny and live as they wish. For example: “Hahaha, the globalists conduct and the government performs the repression. The point of corona is actually to take all the rights and freedoms away from us, like in the social credit system in China, to do away with printed money, and to vaccinate everyone en masse and change our genetic nature. Long story short, the New World Order is coming, people! The Babylon system is failing, and this is their last chance”. 2. Type 2: The virus doesn’t exist. This variant uses strong antivaccine propaganda. At the beginning, it referenced Andrew Wakefield and other known antivax activ­ists. They go even deeper by saying that viruses do not actuallyexist, there is only a‘poison’ fromsome kind of source(typically ricin, which is dispersed through chemtrails, testing sticks, masks or emitted with the help of 5G towers) that makes us sick with “COVID”. They stand for common sense and folk wisdom by rejecting institutional knowledge and strongly confronting the MSM and scientific authorities. One Slovenian organisation that bases itsanti COVID-19 activism on such narratives violently enteredthe studio of the national television broadcaster (RTV) demanding space to “tell their own truth” to the people. They claimed: “TheChinese virus does not exist, today we got the proof from an Australian university that no virus exists. Over 34 pages it is explained the truth of how the Rockefellers made huge business with viruses, and now they areconducting world depopulation, becausethey invented the solution – the chip-ccine (cipivo slov.: cip+cepivo=cipivo) for the problem of the ‘virus’. This organisation has a strong Internet campaign. With their participation in the ‘Wednesday’ protests (against the COVID-19 measures), they continue to gain the public’sattention in order to become a relevant political subject. These types of variants are easily connected with the Chemtrails conspiracy theories (CTs), the Diseases are Artificial CTs, with the Film Your Hospital movement and with many Antivax CTs. They refer to the values of freedom of choice and human rights. 3. Type 3: The virus is an artificial bio-weapon or a genetic treatment. The ‘little man’ in the storms of history is the chief protagonist of such narratives. The official worldview, media representations and everything that is learned in public schooling is simply a simulation masking the actual history that is going on. Dark forces are treating the governments and the media like puppets. They are using more symbolic and fantastic language than used in the discourse of the previous types: this is the era of the snake (poison, medicalstaff, evil force) and the needle (vaccine), the fighters of light must reveal the apocalypse occurring behind the scenes. The Third World War has already begun, with the children being the first to be attacked, so many stories about infertility, birth defects following vaccines, paedophile elites and hidden laboratories where evil conspirators experiment with vaccines and foetuses. For example: “It happened in Turkey! Hairy babies and babies with tails are born to vaccinated parents”. Or, like in the next variant: “The Black swan, how things are going should be moving off the African continent towards Europe, and that force will shake us all, but the transfer of that force will be in the Alps. So, above Mount Triglav, pretty much here. I feel that from March and I warned you already. Now we are almost there”. Besides the apocalyptic discourse, prophetic language frequently in use. Currently, there is a variant in Slovenia (tracked down from the Balkans3) in which the new virus is ready to arise: “(...) Actually, this is the next pandemic – the In the Slovenian Internet space, variants of the Marburg virus are supported with shared material (video or quotes about conspiracy theories from influencers in other parts of the WB) in the Serbian or Croatian lan­guages. For example, in variants which include ricin, the most commonly referenced influencer is the clinical psychologist Mila Aleckovic, known for her anti-COVID activism. COVID-19 CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN SLOVENIA Marburg virus. Symptoms of this virus are very similar to the side effects of the vac­cines (…). The plan of governments around the world is to cause panic once again by telling that the side effects are not side effects but the symptoms of Marburg, which is more contagious than corona (...), then they will get you to a PCR which is staged to be positive, so to call ‘positive people’, then they willsay that everyonemust take the vaccine against this Marburg, and this vaccine will have that thing, deadly thing, ricin in it. (...)”. This type is very closely connected to the QAnon, antisemitic and racist CTs and the Deep State CT, while it is observed that their storytellers are found on the far-right end of the political spectrum which they often show, among others, via affection for former US president Trump or for anti-migration propaganda. On the other hand, the vaccine in such conspiracy theories is a tool for decreasing fertility. It was often heard in the conversations that parents do not wish to vaccinate their children, which they explained by not knowing what the vaccine might do to a young person; it might destroy their health or even cause infertility.4 The last infertility argument was mostly heard from the parents of daughters. This argument typically continued with the expressed fear their daughters would be unable to have children and create their own family. 4. The virus is an nanotechnology asset. The point of vaccination is to insert chips into human bodies and achieve a techno-dystopian world. The human body will become technologised, leading to a new era of cyborgs. The syndrome of magnetic arms or mysterious magnetic fields around the body following vaccination is well known in these kinds of narratives. The goal of the evil conspirators is to destroy human society with digital control where the hybrid human is privately owned by multinational dig­ital corporations. Anxiety regarding the idea of the anti-nature element of the human body is the main preoccupation of the storytellers, such as the values of a pure and natural human. This type commonly refers to CTs such as a Computer Called Beast, the QR or Bar Codes, HAARP, and includes the links between 5G and COVID-195. The core idea is that the Antichrist will arise in the digital space, where the signs are devious and have no meaningful background. Avatars without a voice or body dominate in this demonic ecosystem of cyberspace , they appear to have chthonic smiling faces without a soul and tangible past. In this ‘simularium’, everything can bemanipulated,retouched andfalsified.As intheexamples:I1:“Has anyonenoticed how the vaccinated have lately started to behave aggressively? More people have confirmed this, I also noticed it.”I2: “Me too, aggressive and bitter. David Icke told to be aware this autumn and to observe the behaviour of the vaccinated. Something in their consciousness will change. Nanotechnology will start to work. “Or the following example: “The USA decided that everyone vaccinated in the world is their property because they are patented by their law, and are not humans anymore. With modified 4 The conspiracy theory about infertility somewhat follows the earlier conspiracy theory about HPV virus vaccination, which in 2009 was added to the compulsory vaccinations for girls. 5 These similaritiesreflect different narrative elements: motifs (chip, poisoning from the air, ricin etc), tropes (digital control, cyborgs, surveillance systems, weather control) and storylines, such as exemplified in the 2020–2021 Radomirovic Macek research. DNA or RNA GEN vaccination, you are the property of the ones who patented this genetically modified vaccine (...). They are not people anymore but trans-people so their human rights are lost”. We must be aware that these types represent ideal variants. The situation in the field is much more complex since many motifs and narrative fragments are fluid and easily attached to various spectra of motifs. An example of the intertwining of different types is seen in the next example: The evil conspirators are supposed to also interfere in our daily habits, trying to enforce a sterile, anti-social environment and thereby weaken the immune system.6In one interview (male, 1957, August 2021), the question of why the interviewee thinks there is a chip in the vaccine was responded to with a set of his own questions: “Why wouldn’t there be a chip? Why would they try so much to vaccinate all of these people all around the world? It is obvious!! They want to control us!”. Concern­ing the question of who is trying to control us and why, the answer was “I don’t know who, they, who can afford it. And it is always about money”. All of these quite soon coalesced to form a major conspiracy theory arc, further reaffirming that not only do the conspiracy theories “sound remarkably alike” (Byford 2014: 90), but even have ‘trav­elling motifs’ transmitted from one narrative to another, they emerge and are re-argued. However, these travelling motifs are not the subject of this paper. After the vaccinations against COVID-19 were approved, the conspiracy theory very soon emerged that the hidden elite is trying to gain control of the population through the vaccination plan. The vaccination contains technology transmitting information about each person, the ‘chip’: it will transmit activities, habits, even physiological processes like heartbeat, metabolism etc. Consequently, an interdisciplinary study about online CT during the COVID-19 crisis (Shahvasari, Thangerlini, et al., 2020) shows that individuals are not really aware of the whole narrative of the conspiracytheories. In the storytelling process they decide which part is the most convenient to talk about. As mentioned, like many folklore narratives conspiracy theories have an open structure, they have the structure of a network, which is very easily spread with new narrative fragments. One might argue that this web-like characteristic explains the huge success on the Internet, which similarly has a web structure. BEHIND THE CONSPIRACY: UNDERSTANDING SOCIAL TENSIONS AND FEARS Conspiracy theories thrive on the fear and confusion that accompany contemporary so-cio-cultural upheavals. Both Bauman and Castells argue that fear has become one of the most effective mobilising emotions in modern society (Bauman 2006; Castells 2009), and the media-fuelled proliferation of irrational fears is a powerful force undermining the ability to critically assess the social world (Leone, Madisson, Ventsel 2020: 45). This conspiracy memeplex was also disclosed in an interview in a more or less similar variant. COVID-19 CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN SLOVENIA The process of fear is also semiotic: “The temporal distance between the immediate experience of the fear object and the interpretation of the same allows for an intensification of meaning-making processes. Conspiracy theories are central epiphenomena of this kind of meaning-making in the context of an atmosphere of anxiety” (M. Lotman 2009: 210 cited in Leone, Madisson, Ventsel 2020: 45). Potential referents for conspiracy theories are usually therefore individuals who fear explicit phenomena in the culture, typically based on cultural memory. Zupancic(2021) links conspiracy theories with Lacanian comments on jealousy and the pathological factor with it; still, Zupancic also stresses that with conspiracy theories it is never theindividualpathology but the social pathology that is registered. This collective aspect is crucial not only because it can be discussed from the folkloristic perspective, as the engine of storytelling, but can also be a clue for the functional analysis of modern conspiracy theories. Like all conspiracy theories, this COVID-19 conspiracy narrative builds on fear and confusion: fear of losing one’s health or even life and that of one’s relatives, friends due toadeadlydisease, fear of excessivecontrol, of surveillance, digitalisation, fear that some external agent controls more of our lives than we do. The language of fear concerns disease, death, totalitarian social control and uses certain elements of reality interpreted as fearful omens and warning signs: “When two things are similar, one is a sign of the other and vice versa” (Eco 1990: 164). People start to intentionally draw connections and similarities between two phenomena, sometimes tentatively, often simply to enable a connection which might present itself as a fearful omen, even when connections are not evident. The similarities are supported by explanatory narratives, typically exagger­ated and over-emphasised, all with a view to show the threat of the phenomenon. These signs connect and the connections are upgraded with new signs, and once again with new signs – this is how the chain of conspiracy-based narratives then expands the content and support the fear of technology and control: 5G is radiation yet also technology that will control humans via chips inserted through vaccination. The already existing connection between HAARP (high-tech technology system) and ricin coming from the chemtrails is hence easily amalgamated with previous ones. Signs like the Internet network, disease, chip, and controltaken separately by its purpose and source do not have any connection, yet the narratives link them and even add some natural phenomena as fearful omen, such as the position of the clouds in the sky or the direction of the wind. Different narratives often show society’s tendency to polarise the phenomena into the ontological ‘good’ and ‘bad’, and conspiracy theories on every level go even further in this polarised logic: an antithetical opposition between ‘us’ and ‘them’, brightness–darkness, nationalism–cosmopolitanism, prosperity of culture–cultural disaster, honesty–corruption etc. (Ventsel 2016: 315-325), and the demonised alien and/or distant Other is usually characterised as paranoiatowards thehuman institutions of modern society itself (Auspers 2012: 24). The distant, threatening Other is transformed into a mythological beast (as described at the start of this article) that seems to be invincible (albeit some conspiracy theorists fight it with disclosures and persuasion). Confusion in the conspiracy theories about COVID-19 is not only seen in the narra­tive, where the emphasised misleading of the population creates the basis of fear, but is also noticeable in the functioning of the Slovenian medical profession, the government, and the public. Confus­ ing information about the virus and the corrupt dealings in Slovenia that accompanied the respond to it and created a perfect storm for doubt and mistrust, providing an ideal environ­ ment for conspiracy stories to flourish. Allfour main characteristics of conspiracy theory: fear, confusion, doubt and mistrust are observable in the COVID-19 conspiracy narrative and were felt by the general public. Therefore, even trivial everyday events soon became seen as signs of manipulation by conspiratorial forces, such as mandatory medical face masks that have come to embody coerced behaviour. [Conspiracy theories do not exist, only conspiracies exist. The corona virus is a con­spiracy with which the (hidden) leaders wish to justify the upcoming worst economic crisis, they want to scare people and redirect their focus elsewhere. National governments are gladly using it and cooperating with the media in this effort. They are scaring people with fascist measurements, restricting movement with the intention of creating a herd of sheep that they can take whatever they want from! From money to dignity!] ESCAPING THE CONSPIRACY: TOWARDS HUMOUR AND PARODY7 Conspiracy theories reflect society and its fears. Still, humour also reflects well-positioned phe­nomena in society: when a phenomenon is well-known and well-positioned, another of the possible reactions is a humorous response, in this case to being fearful and the exaggerated claims. Putting these narratives into humorous form makes them lose authority: the exaggeration becomes so over- emphasised that it trivialises the fear of a greater danger posed by ‘evil’; their mythological nature is negated by comedy. However, humour usually pointsto the topic’simportance: conspiracy theories are obviously increasingly present in society, and are being taken seriously, given that the humorous For more, see Mencej Mirjam (2022). COVID-19 CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN SLOVENIA form cannot function if the semantic referent is not understood widely. This means that while we can say that conspiracy stories are nevertheless narratives of adisaster, justthe opposite, humour proves its importance in the contemporary narrating situation. CONCLUSION Pandemics, including COVID-19, are some of thebiggestcrises affecting humankind. Diseases in themselves bring a fear of physical and mental suffering, of losing one’s loved ones. As such, they are a sign of suffering and represent evil on the very foundational level of ontology. It seems that the individual must often justify their suffering cognitively and therefore place the responsibility on the numinousOther: on either the mythological God (who wants to punish society) or the demonised group of governing people (who wish to exploit society). This diabolical group of people and entities in conspiracy narratives is a cabal of rich, influential and mysterious, albeit hidden individuals. With the help of collaborators, Evil distributes its tools (virus, vaccine, chip-ccine) in order to subordinate, destroy and control humankind. Just like we have a need to understand and define Evil, we have an aim to have or be a hero in the final transformation. Luckily, the enlightened individuals, with the help of whistle-blowers, do whatever it takes to reveal the decentralised Evil, to fight against its minions, and bring the light of knowledge to the sinful and deceived. Theseandsimilarmythologicalstructures havefollowedhumanitythroughoutthecultural history of any civilisation. Conspiracy theories are not the fantasies of foolish people, far from it, they are logical response to times of crisis and disappointment. Their characters are based on our postmodern reality. In a world without gods, promises of the afterlife, and cruel economic inequality, the suffering of the little man is even stronger and more visible than ever before due to the possibility of having insight into every corner of this globalised world with the help of the Internet. Feelings of fear, insignificance, margin-alisation and anger regarding the deafness of others make conspiracy theories possible, in turn awakening the known mythological patterns. People useconspiracystories to make the world manageable andunderstandable. By wanting to map and control the world, storytellers exhibit a tendency to demand an answer to everything. The control is supposed to ease the collective fear and confusion caused by the disease and the upcoming control by a hidden elite; both disease and con­trol (including the fearful control of the hidden elite as well as to gain control over the situation) are signs connoting fear, terror, apprehension, ‘the wrong way for humanity to evolve’. All of these identifications are utilised as the language of fear also within the conspiracy theory on COVID-19: the fear that our lives and future will be destroyed, the fear we will lose our freedom, that someone else will take charge of our lives. Namely, scepticism and disbelief are the starting point of the conspiracy theory, even though subsequent conspiracy theories in further give another, truer explanation, which seems to be the one single truth (Zupancic 2022). In the process, the scepticism and distrust are replaced with the explanation given by the conspiracy theory. On the other hand, turning these conspiracy theory narratives into a humorous form makes them lose their authority: the fear and danger are trivialised, their mythological nature is negated with comedy. Moreover, transforming them into a humorous form shows that conspiracy theories are narratives that are well established in our day-to-day discourse and experiences. After all, these conspiracy theory narratives can fuel the engine of storytelling and also be a clue for the functional analysis not only of modern conspiracy theories but of society and related humour as well. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Slovenia has been overloaded with various sus­picions: some turned out to be factual wrongdoings, some remained on the level of rumours, and others were alteredor added to conspiracy theories. Considering that the pandemic is not yet over, people will spread new rumours, and conspiracy theories will evolve and be added to the mythology arc, while their basis of fear, confusion, doubt and mistrust will remain. Likewise, public interest in conspiracy theories will continue: identifying a culprit for the social anxiety, providing an explanation – these are intra-so­cial narratives that are passed on in daily communication. The seriousness of people understanding and acknowledging conspiracy theories is also evident in the adjacent use of popular humour: memes and jokes about conspiracy themes prove that people pay some regard to the narratives, as it is only in this way that the comedic referent can be widely understood. Likewise, among some segments of the population, the mythopoetic narrative of a ‘great evil at work’ continues to drown out science, thereby fanning the flames of fear and doubt. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Research for the article was supported by the ARRS (P6-0088): Etnološke, antropološke in folkloristicne raziskave vsakdanjika. COVID-19 CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN SLOVENIA REFERENCES Ahmed, W.; Vidal-Alaball, J. et al., 2020: COVID-19 and the 5G Conspiracy Theory: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Data. Journal of medical internet research, 22/5, 1–9. Aupers, Stef. 2012: ‘Trust no one’: Modernization, paranoia and conspiracy culture. European Journal of Communication 27 (1), 22–34. Baeva, Vihra, and Angelina Ilieva, 2021: Ethnology and epidemics. Sociocultural Dimensions of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sofia: Prof. Marin Drinov Publishing House. Babic, Saša, 2020: Waste And Dirt in Short Folklore Forms.Traditiones 49 (1): 125–139. https://doi.org/10.3986/Traditio2020490107. Blanuša, Nebojša; Hristov, Todor, 2020: Psychoanalysis, critical theory and conspiracy theory. In: Butter, Michael and Peter Knight (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, London, New York: Routledge, 67–81. Brodner, John, Welch, Wendy, Brodie, Ian et al., 2021: Covid-19 Conspiracy Theories. Quanon, 5G, the New World Order and Other Viral Ideas. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Brumvand, Jan Harold, 2003 [1981]: The Vanishing Hitchhiker. American Urban Legends and Their Meanings. New York, London: WW Norton/Company. Byford, Jovan, 2014: Beyond belief: The social psychology of conspiracy theories and the study of ideology. In: Antaki C. and S. Condor (eds.), Rhetoric, Ideology and Social Psychology: Essays in Honour of Michael Billig. Explorations in Social Psychology, London: Routledge, 83–94. Birchall, Clare, 2006: Knowledge goes pop. Oxford, New York: Berg. Bratich, Jack Z., 2008: Conspiracy Panics Political Rationality and Popular Culture. State University of New York Press. Caballero, E. G., 2020: Social Network Analysis: Social Big Data and Conspiracy Theories. In: Butter, Michael and Peter Knight (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, London, New York: Routledge, 135–147. Girard, Pascal, 2020: Conspiracy theories in Europe during the twentieth century. In: Butter, Michael and Peter Knight (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, London, New York: Routledge, 569–582. Gruzd A.; Mai P., 2020: Going viral: How a single tweet spawned a COVID-19 conspiracy theory on Twitter. Big Data and Society, 1–9. Dancygier, Barbara; Sweetser, Eve, 2014:Figurative Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Degh, Linda, 2001: Legend and Belief. Dialectics of a Folklore Genre. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Dentith, R. X. Matthew, 2018: Introduction. In: Dentith R.X Matthew. (ed.), Taking conspiracy theories seriously, London: Rowman & Littlefield, ix-xiii. Donovan, Pamela, 2015: Rumors and Urban Legends. In: Wright James (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd Edition). Orlando: Elsevier, 13413-13416. Eco, Umberto, 1990: Interpretation and overinterpretation. Cambridge: World, History, Texts Tanner Lectures. Fenster, Mark, 2008: Conspiracy theories: secrecy and power in American culture. Florida: University of Florida. Foucault, Michel, 1980: Truth and power. In: C. Gordon (ed.), Michel Foucault: Power/ knowledge. New York: Pantheon, 109–133 Klepec, Peter, 2016: Kaj spregleda “teorija zarote”? Casopis za kritiko znanosti 44/266: 61–74. Kline, Jim, 2017: C.G. Jung and Norman Cohn explain Pizzagate: The archetypal dimension of a conspiracy theory. Psychological Perspectives. A Quarterly Journal of Jungian Thought 60 (2), 186–195. Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark, 1980:Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marjanic, Suzana, 2016: Teorije zavjera kao urbane predaje/legend s paranoidnom matricom. Narodna umjetnost 53/2: 111–131. [https://hrcak.srce.hr/170724, 15. 12. 2020] Madisson, Mari-Liis, 2014: The semiotic logic of signification of conspiracy theories. Semiotica: Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies 202: 273-300. Leone, Massino; Madisson, Mari-Liis; Ventsel, Andreas, 2020: Semiotic approaches to conspiracy theories. In: Butter, Michael and Peter Knight (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories. London, New York: Routledge, 43–54. Lotman, Juri M., 1988: ........... ........ ... .................. ......... [Progress of technology as problem of culturology]. ..... .. ........ ........ Vol. 22: .......: ......... ............: 97–116. Lotman, Juri M., 1998: ..... .. ......... ......... ....... [Witch-hunt: semiotics of fear], Sign Systems Studies 26: 61–80. Lotman, Mihail, 2009: ‘Hirmusemiootika ja vene kultuuri tüpoloogia [Semiotics of fear and typology of Russian culture] I–VI’. Akadeemia, 1: 191-215; 2: 429-55; 3: 631-47; 5: 1035-64; 6: 1217-48. Mullen, Patrick B., 1972: Modern Legend and Rumour Theory. Journal of the Folklore Institute 9/2-3: 95–109. Oberhauser, Claus, 2020: Freemasons, Illuminati and jews: Conspiracy theories and the French Revolution. In: Butter, Michael and Peter Knight (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories. London, New York: Routledge, 555–569. Pelikan, Egon, 2015: Teorije zarote po slovensko: antisemitizem brez Judov. Casopis za kritiko znanosti 43/260: 54–68. Pipes, Daniel, 1997: Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From. New York: Free Press Radomirovic Macek, Kristina, 2020: Teorije zarote v digitalni kulturi. Psihološki inkubator 9/14: 5–8. Radomirovic Macek, Kristina, 2021: Teorije zarote o Covid19 na slovenskem spletu. II. slovenska folkloristicna konferenca: Aktualne raziskave v slovenski folkloristiki (December 3rd., 2021). Ljubljana, Slovenija. Soltero, Gonzalo, 2021: Conspiracy Narratives South of the Border: Bad Hombres Do the Twist. London, New York: Routlidge Taylor and Francis. Scott, Mark, 2021: QAnon goes European. Politico, 7. 5. 2021. https://www.politico.eu/article/ qanon-europe-coronavirus-protests/ Shahsavari, S., Holur, P., Wang, T. et al., 2020: Conspiracy in the time of corona: automatic detection of emerging COVID-19 conspiracy theories in social media and the news. J Comput Soc Sc 3: 279–317. COVID-19 CONSPIRACY THEORIES IN SLOVENIA Skujyte-Razmiene, Asta, 2021: Conspiracy Theories on Covid-19 in Lithuania. ISFNR Newsletter 8 (2021). http://www.isfnr.org/files/Newsletter2021.pdf. [11. 3. 2021] Stano, Simona, 2020: The Internet and the Spread of Conspiracy Content. In: Butter, Michael and Peter Knight (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories. London, New York: Routledge, 483–496. Šterk, Karmen, 2013: JFK Assassination or how not to be paranoid in the enlightened age of conspiracies. Teorija in praksa 50/5–6: 847–862. Uscinski, Joseph E., 2018: The Study of Conspiracy Theories. Argumenta, 3–2: 233–245. Varis, Piia, 2019: Conspiracy theorising online: Memes as a conspiracy theory genre. Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies 238. Ventsel, Anreas, 2016: Political potentiality of conspiracy theories. Lexia 23–4: 309–26. Zupancic, Alenka, 2022: A Short Essay on Conspiracy Theories. In: Johnston, Adrian; Nedoh, Boštjan; Zupancic, Alenka (eds.), Objective fictions: Philosophy, Psychoanalysis, Marxism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 232–249. TEORIJE ZAROTE O COVID-19 V SLOVENIJI KRISTINA Radomirovic Macek, SAŠA Babic Teorije zarote so znan pojav šeiz starorimskih casov (npr. obtožbaJudov za epidemijo kuge) in so spremljevalni pojav vseh družbenih kriz in sprememb. V Sloveniji so vecjo odmevnost doživele v casu pandemije COVID-19 (2020–2022), kjer so na podlagi starejših teorij zarote, njihovimi združevanji, dodajanjem novih narativnih elementov izoblikovale nove, vendar so te povezane s starejšimi zgod­bami. Clanek obravnava teorije zarote kot zgodbe, ki jih uporabniki prenašajo tako ustno kot prek medijev (in se ne sprašuje po njihovi resnicnosti). Raziskava je temeljila tako na kvantitativnem(vec kot 1000 enot) kot kvalitativnem analitic­nem pristopu; zgodbe so bile zbrane tako s terenskim delom kot prek medijev in spleta v casu pandemije. Pandemije, vkljucno s COVID-19, spadajo med najvecje družbene krize. Bolezni same po sebi prinašajo strah pred fizicnim in duševnim trpljenjem, pred izgubo bližnjih. Zato so znak trpljenja in predstavljajo zlo na temeljni ravni ontologije. Zdi se, da mora posameznik velikokrat spoznavno opravicevati svoje trpljenje in zato odgovornost prelagati na numinoznega Drugega: bodisi na mitološkega boga (ki želi kaznovati družbo) bodisi na demonizirano skupino vladajocih ljudi (ki želijo izkorišcati družbo). Ta diabolicna skupina ljudi in entitet v pripovedih o zaroti je krog bogatih, vplivnih, ceprav skritih posameznikov. Zlobneži spomocjo sodelavcev distribuirajo svoja orodja (virus, cepivo, »cipivo«) za podrejanje, unicenje in nadzor cloveštva. K RISTINA R ADOMIROVI c M ACEK , S AŠA B ABIC Tako kot moramo razumeti in definirati zlo, pa se v teh zgodbah kaže tudi cilj biti junak v koncni preobrazbi: razsvetljeni posamezniki s pomocjo žvižgacev naredijo vse, kar je v njihovi moci, da razkrijejo decentralizirano Zlo, da se borijo protinjegovim privržencem in prinesejo lucspoznanja grešnimin zavedenim. Te in podobne mitološke strukture so sledile cloveštvu skozi celotno kulturno zgodovino katerekoli civilizacije. Teorije zarote niso domislice neumnih ljudi, dalecod tega, so logicen odziv nacase krize in razocaranja, vpogleda v vsak koticek tega globaliziranega sveta s pomocjo svetovnega spleta.Obcutki strahu, nepomembnosti, marginalizacije in jeze zaradi gluhosti drugih omogocajo teorije zarote, posledicno pa prebujajo znane mitološke vzorce. Kristina Radomirovic Macek, doctoral student, Faculty of Arts, Aškerce­va 2, SI-1000, Ljubljana, kristina.radom@gmail.com Saša Babic, Ph.D., Research Associate, Research Centre od the Slove­nian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute of Slovenian Ethnology, Novi trg 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, sasa.babic@zrc-sazu.si 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 49–75 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222503 Življenje s COVID-19 v spletni folklori Mirjam Mencej Clanek obravnava meme o virusu COVID-19, ki so bili deljeni na Facebook skupini Belief Narrative Network’s od njenega zacetka aprila 2020 do konca avgusta 2020 (ko je bil ta clanek napisan), torej med prvim valom pandemije. Avtorica obravnava glavne skrbi clanov skupine, ki se odražajov temah, ki jih memi obravnavajo, in vloge, ki so The article discusses memes about the COVID-19 virus shared in the Belief Narrative Network’s Facebook group since its inception in April 2020 until the end of August 2020 (when this article was written), i.e., during the first wave of the pandemic. The author addresses the main preoccupations and anxieties of the members of the group as they re­flect on the themes addressed in the memes, and the roles the memes played in their lives. KEYWORDS: Internet folklore, memes, COVID-19, virus, pandemia UVOD Folklora, kotvedno znovapotrjujejo raziskavefolkloristov, tako alidrugaceodsevakulturni in socialni kontekst, znotraj katerega se širi. S pomocjo folklore ljudje nagovarjajo ne le svoje strahove, ampak izražajo tudi širše družbene in kulturne vrednote in pricakovanja, se spopadajo s pritiski in konflikti, utrjujejo družbene norme in sprošcajo tesnobe, ki jih sprožajo ekonomske, politicne in druge spremembe v družbi. Kot piše Hafstein, bi morali folkloro razumeti pravzaprav kot »razširjeno metaforo družbenih sprememb«, ki »zagotavlja narativni okvir za pogajanja o njihovem pomenu, veljavnosti in vplivu na kulturni sistem vrednot in identitete« (Halfstein 2000: 96; glej še Honko 1962: 118; Ward 1976; Fine 1985; Tangherlini 1994: 18-19; Dégh 2001: 127-28; Ellis 2003: 11-12). Glede na to da je pandemija koronavirusa sprožila strah pred boleznijo in so ukrepi za njeno zajezitev vsaj zacasno, ce ne dolgorocno, temeljito spremenili in zaznamovali nacin življenja ljudi skorajda vsepovsod po svetu, lahko torej lahko upraviceno pricaku­jemo, da se bo na pandemijo in z njo povezane spremembe odzvala tudi folklora. Res so etnologi /antropologi /folkloristimarsikje po svetu že takoj po izbruhu epidemije postali M IRJAM M ENCEJ pozorninato,kakotavplivananašeživljenje;razlicneinstitucije,kotsomuzeji,inštituti idr., so pozivalek zbiranju gradiva, npr. spletnih dnevnikov posameznikov v casu epi­demije, fotografij vsakdanjega življenja v tem casu in seveda tudi folklore, na primer šal na temo epidemije. A vecina teh zbirk obsega gradivo znotraj nacionalnih okvirov. Ker pa ima pandemija svetovne razsežnosti in so v boju proti njej države skorajda po vsem svetu sprejele bolj ali manj enakeukrepe, se zdi, da takšna situacija ponuja tudi enkratno priložnostzaraziskavo globalno razširjene folklore in obenemprimerjavo in opazovanje podobnosti v odzivu nanje in razlik, ki se kažejo kot kulturno specificne. Ker digitalna tehnologija danes prežema vse naše življenje, se seveda tudi folklora, kot oblika izrazne kulture, v veliki meri širi digitalno. Ce izhajamo iz razumevanja folklore, ki se pojavi, kjerkoli pride do »neformalne, vsakdanje medsebojne komunikacije (»iz oci v oci«, kamor sodi tudi spletni »pogovor«) (McNeill 2009: 84), lahko recemo, da splet, zlasti med mladimi, danes predstavlja verjetno celo najpomembnejšo platformo za širjenje folklore. Internet kot medij, ki uporabnikom omogoca hitro širjenje informacij, obenem pa anonimnost, se kaže kot idealen kanal za transmisijo folklore. Tako kot v ustno posredovani folklori so tudi na spletu nosilci folklore posamezniki, ki si v medsebojni interakciji delijo mnenja, videe, podobe in osebne spomine. Zaradi anonimnosti avtorjev elektronsko posredovana folklora pogosto vodi celo v bolj avtenticen izraz uporabnikovega pravega jaza ter izraža družbene strahove in predsodke ljudi bolj neposredno kot ustno širjena folklora (Blank 2009: 9). Splet tako daje platformo vernakularnim glasovom in ustvarjalnemu izražanju t. i. »malega cloveka« in je prostor participatorne kulture, znotraj katerega posamezniki in skupine lahko izrazijo svojo ustvarjalnost. Lahkota, s katero se folklora širi po spletu, namrec zlahka zakrije dejstvo, ki ga ne smemo prezreti,da gre za ustvarjalni proces in za zavestno odlocitev ljudi, da primerke folklore ustvarijo, poustvarijo alisamo prepošljejo dalje in tako podelijo z drugimi. Ust­varjalnost je pomembna znacilnost folklore, in ta vidik je dobil v novi Blankovi definiciji folklore, kijenajprimernejšazaraziskovanjenaspletu, tudikljucno vlogo. KotpišeTrevor Blank, lahko folkloro definiramo kot»zunanji izraz ustvarjalnosti– v neskoncnemštevilu oblik in interakcij – posameznikov in njihovih skupnosti« (Blank 2009: 6). Sodobni nacin življenja folklore na spletu na eni strani omogoca njeno izjemno hitro širjenje od posameznika v lokalni in globalni prostor. Na drugi strani pa splet predstavlja tudi arhiv, v katerem se folkloraz vsega sveta ohranja in kjer nastaja neke vrste nova »dedišcina« (Blank 2009: 6; Heimo in Koski 2014: 4-6). Zavedanje o tem je vodilo v pobudo izvršnega odbora BeliefNarrative Network (BNN) priInternationalSociety for Folk Narrative Research (ISFNR), ki združuje folkloriste s skorajda vseh celin, da pricnemo na spletu dejavno zbirati folkloro prav na temo pandemije koronavirusa. 8. aprila 2020 smo zato ustvarili posebno Facebook (FB) skupino, dostopno na povezavi https://www.facebook.com/groups/625573241323757/?ref=bookmarks,kjer smo objavili poziv k sodelovanju pri zbiranju folklore na temo koronavirusa oz. virusa covid-19, pa tudi pri zbiranju terenskih fotografij, videoposnetkov, prvoosebnih pripovedi o osebnih izkušnjah življenja v casu korone itd. Naš poziv je tako rekoc v hipu naletel na izjemen odziv – v naslednjih nekaj dneh in tednih so se Facebook skupini pridružili clani BNN, pa tudi širše ISFNR, a tudi mnogi drugi, ki niso folkloristi, saj so se vabila k sodelovanju Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI kmalu razširila izven meja folkloristicne skupnosti; v skupino so bili sprejeti vsi, ki so se želeli prikljuciti, ne glede na folkloristicno izobrazbo. Avgusta 2020,1to je v casu pisanja tega clanka, je skupina tako združevala že vec kot 400 clanov in clanic z vsega sveta, zlasti iz Evrope, Azije, Južne Amerike in ZDA. Ceprav so nekateri v njej izstopali po pogostosti svojih objav, pa je splošno gledano objavljalo zelo veliko število ljudi. Ceprav je bila skupina ustanovljena iz strokovnih razlogov – zbiranje folklornega gradi­vanatemo koronavirusnebolezniin ukrepov zanjeno zajezitev, kibikasnejeomogocilo njeno raziskovanje – pa ti nagibi za uporabnike spletne strani BNN FB skupine nikoli niso biliv ospredju. Medtemko so nekaterisodelujocifolkloristi, predvsemnazacetku, v svojih komentarjih res obcasno opozarjali na razlicice istih memov in na njihov kontekst – kar so pac vsebine, ki zanimajo folkloriste – so bili takšni »strokovni« komentarji na FB skupini vedno v manjšini. V FB skupini posamezniki praviloma objavljajo folkloro na temo korone predvsem zaradizabave, užitka ob (virtualnem) druženju ter deloma še iz želje doprinesti k ustvarjanju zbirke primerkov take folklore. Najvecje število objav na tej strani predstavljajo memi, redkeje tudi fotografije s terena, fotografije grafitov, video posnetki, krajša besedila, casopisne objave, obcasno pa tudi najave (na primer mesecnih spletnih predavanj, ki jih organizira izvršni odbor BNN, in sem jih v tistem obdobju kot predsednica prispevala sama) in razni pozivi. V tem clanku bom na kratko predstavila spletno folkloro, objavljeno v BNN Face­book skupini, ki je nastala kot odziv na pandemijo in ukrepe za zajezitev virusa na zacetku pandemije, tj. v casu od zacetka aprila, ko je bila ta FB skupina ustanovljena, do konca avgusta 2020, ko je bil ta clanek dokoncan.2 Po zacetnidiskusiji o žanrih in intertekstualnosti spletne folklore na temo covida-19 se bom osredotocila predvsem na meme in teme, ki jih ti najpogosteje nagovarjajo. Pogostost dolocenih tem, ki jih folklora nagovarja, namrec ocitno razkriva tiste dejavnike, ki v ljudeh sprožajo najvec tesnobe. Ceprav ta clanekzaradi prostorske in casovne omejitve raziskave(april-avgust 2020) ni namenjen poglobljenianalizi, primerjavi in interpretaciji obravnavanih spletnih folklornih »besedil«, ampak zgolj njihovi kratki predstavitvi, bom v svoji analizi vsaj do neke mere pozorna tudi nato, kako seglobalno razširjena spletnafolkloraprilagaja specificnim kulturnim okoljem ter kakšne funkcije opravlja v življenju t. i. sodelujocih v tradiciji (tradition participants), torej ljudi, ki folkloro na temo koronavirusa ustvarjajo, širijo dalje, spreminjajo ali pa zgolj pasivno sprejemajo. 1 Clanek je bil v obliki referata z naslovom Življenje s koronavirusom v internetni folklori prvic predstavljen na spletni konferenci Vsakdanježivljenjevcasu epidemije.Noveizkušnje, etnografijainrefleksija,kijo jeorganiziral OddelekzaetnologijoinkulturnoantropologijoFF UL19.maja2020.Konecavgusta2020jebilclanekdokoncan in oddan za objavo. Žal se je objava zavlekla najprej iz organizacijskih razlogov, zatem pa zaradi tehnicnih razlogov do objave v Glasniku SED, kjer so bili objavljeni drugi prispevki s konference, ni prišlo. Ker bi lahko v clanku namrec predstavila najvec osem primerkov memov, sem se odlocila, da clanka ne bom objavila, saj brez prikazanih memov ne bi imel pravega smisla. Urednici Studie Mythologice Slavice, Saši Babic, se najlepše zahvaljujem, da je omogocila, da bo v tej objavi lahko prikazana vecina memov, o katerih clanek govori. 2 Po tem ko je bila clanek avgusta 2020 že napisan in oddan v objavo, je bilo objavljenih nekajclankov na temo spletne folklore o covidu-19. Nekateri avtorji so v njih prišli tudi do deloma podobnih rezultatov, a ker v casu pisanja tega clanka še niso bili natisnjeni, jih v razpravi ne upoštevam, naj pa jih na tem mestu nekaj naštejem: Nicholls 2020; Pulos 2020; Aslan 2021; Bischetti, Canal, Bambini 2021; Blaber, Gougoumanova, Palatnik 2021; Chlopicki, Brzozowska 2021; Dynel 2021; Olah, Hempelmann 2021; Sebba-Elran 2021; Strick 2021. ŽANRI Zdi se, da so koronavirus in ukrepi za njegovo zajezitev že zelo zgodaj po zacetku ep­idemije vstopili tudi v folkloro. Zlasti v Aziji so temo hitro pograbili profesionalni ali polprofesionalni ljudski pevci in jo navezali na tradicijske folklorne motive, na primer tiste, ki so tipicni za cudežne pravljice. Tako so že kmalu zaceli prepevati pesmi o vi-rusu kot o zlem nasprotniku in o zdravstvenih delavcih kot junakih – borcih proti zlemu nasprotniku ter opevali ukrepe za zajezitev virusa kot cudežna sredstva, ki junakom pomagajo v boju proti nasprotniku. V Indiji je tema koronavirusa vstopila tudi v ljudsko likovno umetnost. (Slika 1) Motiv koronavirusa je seveda vstopil tudi v ustno pripovedno folkloro. Medijska objava (ABP live, 23 Marec 2020), ki opozarja ljudi, naj ne nasedajo»izmišljenim govoricam«, ki trdijo, da bodo tisti, ki bi med pandemijo zaspali, okamneli (zato so mnogi menda prejemalitelefonskeklice,kinajbipreprecili,dabizaspaliintakookamneli),sesklicuje na povedke, ki so se na zacetku epidemije razširile na podeželju severne Indije. Kot je dandanes že obicajno, so se tudi v zvezi s tem virusom seveda takoj razširile povedke o teorijah zarote, ki jih folkloristi razumemo kot posebno podzvrst povedk. V njih kot glavni krivec za koronavirus nastopa – poleg iluminatov, Billa Gatesa in drugih – zlasti 5G tehnologija. O teh na spletni BNN FB strani lahko sklepamo po memih, ki se iz njih v glavnem norcujejo – kar je obcasno vodilo tudi v ostre odzive njihovih zagovornikov, ki so nasprotovali, ceš da ne gre za »teorije« zarote, ampak zgolj za zarote. (Sliki 2, 3) Koronajevstopilatudiv kratkefolklornežanre, naprimer pregovore, aliboljereceno »meta-pregovore« (prim. Dundes 1979: 50-58). Ti vcasih humorno potvarjajo pregovor, na primer tako, da izjavo definirajo kot pregovor, recimo: »Maska odganja virus tako kot tangice pokrivajo rit. Kitajski pregovor.« Vcasih pa se sklicujejo na splošno znan tradicijski pregovor in ga humorno preoblikujejo, na primer: »Za paremiologe: koronavirus je nekoc na Kitajskem slišal, da vse poti vodijo v Rim«. Medtem ko prvi seveda leti na izvor koronavirusa na Kitajskem, se drugi nanaša na pregovor »Vse poti vodijo v Rim« ter obenem na kasnejši prenos žarišca bolezni s Kitajske v Italijo in je ocitno nastal v casu hudega izbruha epidemije v Italiji. Na spletni strani Facebook skupine BNN naletimo tudi na koronauganke, recimo naslednjo: »Kako se prepozna carovnico? Leta 1485: V vodi ne utone.3Leta 2020: V karanteni se ne zredi.« A dalecnajvecprimerkov folklore, kisojih claniFBskupineobjavljalinaspletnistrani, namenjeni koronavirusu, bi lahko uvrstili v žanr memov (memes), ki se – v nasprotju z drugimi, zgoraj omenjenimi žanri, ki se sicer pogosto širijo kot spletni memi, a se lahko prenašajo tudi ustno – širijo izkljucno preko spleta. Zato se bom v nadaljevanju clanka osredotocila samo na ta žanr, in sicer predvsem na meme, ki so sestavljeni iz vizualne in/ali besedilne podobe (zaradi težje predstavitve se bom na tem mestu izognila memom v obliki videoposnetkov, ki jih je sicer na spletu prav tako kar veliko število). 3 Gre za t. i. preizkus z vodo, s katerim so v zgodnjem novem veku, v casu lova na carovnice, dokazovali, ali je oseba carovnica ali ne: ce ni potonila, je bila prepoznana kot takšna, ce je, je obveljala za nedolžno. Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI MEMI KOT FOLKLORNI ŽANR Termin mem, ki se nanaša na širjenje kulturnih enot, je – kot analognega terminu gen, ki implicira širjenje bioloških informacij – skoval Richard Dawkins. Kot etski koncept predstavlja mentalno enoto, ki se širi od možganov ene do možganov druge osebe s po­mocjoposnemanja.Kotemskitermin,zlastimedmladimiuporabnikiinterneta,paobsega razlicne široko razširjene spletne vsebine, tj. razne oblike obdelanih podob (fotošopov), kratkih videoposnetkov, šal, gest, obraznih izrazov in verbalnih fraz, ki so postali široko razširjeni in popularni. Praviloma vsebujejo element humorja, imajo potencial za inter-tekstualnost, zanje pa so znacilne tudi neobicajne primerjave (Blank 2012: 7; Heimo in Koski 2014: 6). Shifman je spletne meme definirala takole: a) gre za skupino digitalnih enot, ki imajo skupne znacilnosti vsebine, oblike in/ali mnenjske pozicije; ki so bile b) ustvarjeni zzavedanjem drugih;in c) so jih mnogispletniuporabnikiširilidalje, jih imitirali, in/ali spreminjali.4 (Shifman 2014: 41) Spletni memi predstavljajo kulturne prakse udeležbe v medsebojni interakciji. Izrazne vzorce, ki se kažejo v razlicicah, katerih obstoj je za vecino folkloristov kljucni kriterij za identifikacijofolklore(Dundes inPagter1975:xix),lahkojasnoprepoznamotudivmemih (Blank 2012: 6-7), kar meme nedvomno potrjuje kot folkloro (prim. Ellis 2003: 83). Spre­menljivost se lahko nanaša tako na likovno podobo kot na besedilo mema ali pa se kaže v kombinaciji obeh. Memi, ki so bili razširjeni že pred izbruhom koronavirusne bolezni, so se v casu pandemije pogosto prilagodili aktualni temi zgolj s spremenjenim besedilom ali sliko, ali pa s kombinacijo obojega, pogosto celo v vec razlicicah. (Slike 4, 5, 6, 7) Sevedapa so nastalitudinovi memi, mnogiprav tako v vec razlicicah. Zlasti v variantnosti likovnega ozadja se vcasih jasno razkriva raznolikost kulturnih kontekstov, znotraj katerih se širijo sicer globalno razširjeni memi. V memih z istim besedilom, a razlicnim likovnim ozadjem, je tako vcasih mogoce jasno prepoznati potrebo ljudi, da folkloro, kiprihajaizdrugekulture, prilagodijo svojemu lastnemu kulturnemu okolju tudi na spletu, tako kot to praviloma velja za folkloro v ustnem prenosu – celo, ce to zahteva nekaj dodatnega truda in casa. (Sliki 8, 9) INTERTEKSTUALNOST V nasprotju z nekaterimi memi, ki so bili razširjeni že pred izbruhom pandemije in so se naknadno zgolj navezali nanjo (prim. zgoraj slike 4-7), pa so mnogi drugi memi, kiobravnavajo razlicne vidikeživljenja s koronavirusom, nastali nanovo in nimajo prepoznavnih modelov od prej. A ne glede na to lahko v obojih pogosto identificiramo prepoznavne »tradicijske« reference, na katere se sklicujejo. Nekatere od teh referenc izhajajo neposredno iz folklore same – tako na primer najdemo kar precej memov, ki 4 »(a) a group of digital items sharing common characteristics of content, form, and/or stance, which (b) were created with awareness of each other, and (c) were circulated, imitated, and/or transformed via the Internet by many users.« se navezujejo na cudežne pravljice, zlasti na globalno razširjeni cudežni pravljici Sneg­uljcica in Rdecakapica. Ti morata biti za svojo mednarodno prepoznavnost sicer bolj hvaležni popularni kulturi, zlastihollywoodskim predelavam, kot pa klasicnim nacinom transmisije folklore. (Slike, 10 11, 12, 13) Na drugi strani najdemo tudi meme, ki se navezujejo na folkloro znotraj specificnega kulturnega konteksta. Samo memi, katerih spremno besedilo v rušcini kaže na to, da so nastali v Rusiji, se, na primer, navezujejo na vsebino bilin, ruskih ljudskih junaških pesmi, v katerih nastopaljudskijunak Il'jaMuromec, kiv memih postane»junak samoizolacije«. (Slika 14) Pogosteje kot na folkloro pa se zlasti globalno razširjeni memi navezujejo na globalno popularno kulturo, kar je razumljivo, kajti le (široko) prepoznana intertekstualnost lahko sproži globalen humoren odziv. Tu izstopajo kultni filmi, kot so Gospodar prstanov, Mat-rica, Vojna zvezd, John Wick, Ko jagenjcki obmolknejo, Bilo je nekoc v Hollywoodu, Forest Gump, Briljantina, filmi Quentina Tarantina itd. Seveda ne gre niti brez Chucka Norrisa, verjetnonajbolj priljubljene figure v svetu spletne folklore, ki v svojem slogu rešuje vse težave. (Slike 15, 16, 17, 18) V »mem-predelavah« naletimo tudi na svetovnoznana dela likovne umetnosti, ki predvidoma sodijo v splošno izobrazbo povprecnega clana conduita5 memov – na primer Michelangelovega Davida in Da Vincijeve Zadnje vecerje (ki je bila posebej popularna v casu velikonocnih praznikov),pa tudi nekatere najbolj sloviteslike avtorjev, kot so recimo Monet, Van Gogh, Gaugain idr. (Sliki 19, 20) TEME KORONAMEMOV Memi, ki so nastali v zacetnih mesecih pandemije koronavirusa in se neposredno nave-zujejo nanjo, predvsem na ukrepe za zajezitev, jasno razkrivajo specificne tesnobe, skrbi in nezadovoljstvo ljudi v casu spopadanja s pandemijo – od strahu pred pomanjkanjem, do spodbujanja k upoštevanju ukrepov za zajezitev epidemije, pa do kriticnih pogledov na ukrepe in norcevanja iz njih. Vmnogih memih se, ne glede na to, katere vsebine izražajo ali problematizirajo, kot stalnica pojavlja motiv smrti in pogrebne tematike (prim. spodaj), kar, se zdi, kaže na to, da so ljudje v tem casu veliki meri zares obcutili, in skozi meme tudi izražali, strah pred lastno smrtjo in smrtjo bližnjih. V nadaljevanju se bom osredinila na nekatere najpogostejše teme, ki so prevladovale v memih v mesecih po izbruhu pandemije. Conduit je terminza komunikacijsko verigo oziroma stik, ki se vzpostavi med posamezniki, ki sprejemajo in prenašajo posamezne primerke / žanre / tipe / motive itd. folklore (Dégh 1995: 176-177). Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI STRAH PRED POMANJKANJEM Ceprav se je v enem od memov pokazala skrb pred pomanjkanjem hrane – z referenco na kanibala Hannibala Lecterja iz filma Ko jagenjcki obmolknejo (»Ce zmanjka hrane, imamo še vedno drug drugega.«) – pa antropologov najbrž ne bo zacudilo, da ena od prvih in glavnih tem, ki so bile zares množicno obravnavane v spletnih memih, ni bil strah pred pomanjkanjem hrane, ampak strah pred pomanjkanjem toaletnega papirja. Ceprav zaradi prevlade evropskih, severnoameriških in azijskih udeležencev na FB strani BNN ni mogoce delatizanesljivih globalnih medkulturnih primerjav, se, vsajgledenazbranepodatke, zdi, da je bil ta strah sicer veliko bolj prisoten na Zahodu kot na Vzhodu; memov na to temo, ki bi bili ocitno postavljeni v azijski kulturni kontekst, nisem zasledila. Ceprav so memi odsevali strah pred pomanjkanjem toaletnega papirja, pa so se najveckrat posmehovali kopicenju zalog, ki ga je sprožil strah pred pomanjkanjem. (Slike 21, 22, 23, 24) »SOCIALNA« DISTANCA Zahteva po medsebojni distanci je bil eden od prvih ukrepov, ki so jih uvedle vlade po vsem svetu, da bi preprecile širjenje virusa in smrti kot posledice okužbe. Tudi v tej skupini memov pogosto naletimo na tematiko smrti in pogrebno tematiko ter prigovarjanje k vzdrževanju distance, ki naj bi preprecila okužbo in potencialno smrt. (Sliki 25, 26) A didakticna vloga memov, ki opozarjajo na nujnost distance, kot je razvidna iz zgornjega mema, ni vedno v ospredju; ukrep je sprožil tudi mnoge kriticne odzive. Že sámo poi-menovanje ukrepa je v memih vzbudilo posmeh. (Slike 27) V memih, ki se navezujejo na vzdrževanje zahtevane distance, pogosteje kot na spodbujanje k spoštovanju ukrepa naletimo na norcevanje iz njega in kriticen odnos(Slika 28), obcasno tudi kulturno specificno samoironijo. (Sliki 29, 30) DEZINFEKCIJA, UMIVANJE ROK Mnoge humorne odzive v memih je sprožilo tudi poudarjanje pogostega umivanja in razkuževanja rok in površin, posebej navodila glede pogostosti in dolgotrajnosti oziroma natancnosti pri umivanju rok. Kljub humornim vsebinam pa tudi tu, tako kot v zgornjih dveh tematskih skupinah memov, pogosto naletimo na podobe smrti. (Slike 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36) MASKE Prav tako je eden od prvih ukrepov vlad ob pandemiji, tj. uvedba obveznega nošenja mask v javnih prostorih, izzval množico odzivov v memih. Nekateri memi, se zdi, izražajo obcutek ljudi, da nošenje mask kot zašcita pred okužbo z virusom spominja na filme, ki prikazujejo življenje po apokalipsi. (Slika 37) Drugi so bolj humorni – na primer mem o Van Goghu z masko, zataknjeno za eno uho (saj si je, kot je splošno znano, drugega odrezal), ki se navezuje na njegov avtoportret, ali pa sloviti nasmeh Mone Lize v Louvru izza maske. (Sliki 38, 39) A timemisotudiposmehljiviinkriticnidoukrepa:pogostosmešijopretiranipomen, ki ga dobiva nošnje mask (in rokavic) v našem vsakdanu, in se norcujejo iz nove, spre­obrnjene lestvice norm vedenja, po kateri prej nesprejemljiva dejanja v primerjavi z neupoštevanjem ukrepa nošenja mask (in rokavic) naenkrat postanejo sprejemljiva in povsem nepomembna. (Sliki 40, 41) UKREP SAMOIZOLACIJE Tudi zahteva po samoizolaciji oziroma karanteni na domu je na razlicne nacine pustila odtisv memih. Na motiv samoizolacije se tako navezujejo memi tipa »Vrste žensk/ moških, ki ...«. Ta tip folklore je bil prepoznan že mnogo pred pandemijo in se pravilo-ma nikoli ne širi z ustnim prenosom, ampak nekoc le s fotokopiranjem (prim. Dundes in Pagter 1975), kasneje prek medijev in v današnjem casu zlasti po spletu. (Slika 42) Tudi ta ukrep je v memih pogosto naletel na posmeh. Memi se pogosto norcujejo iz tega, kako se siceršnje povelicevanje produktivnosti v sodobni neoliberalni družbi naenkrat spremeni v svoje nasprotje – cenjena postaneta »ne-delo« in pasivnost, torej to, kar je sicer obsojano. (Slika 43) KAZNI ZA NEDOVOLJEN ODHOD OD DOMA Medtem ko so redki memi didakticni in spodbujajo k upoštevanju ukrepov, se pogosteje kot da bi predstavljali obliko kulturne didaktike, ljudje iz teh ukrepov norcujejo, jih sprevracajo in poudarjajo njihovo absurdnost ter problematizirajo kazni za nedovoljeno prekinitev samoizolacije, s cimer obenem sprošcajo napetosti ob obcutkih ogroženosti osebne svobode, ki so jih ti ukrepi, kot se zdi, vzbudili. Memi pogosto sledijo vzorcu, v katerem je na znano likovno ozadje dodana fotografija ali slika policaja, ki zapisuje kazen zaradi kršitve prepovedi odhoda od doma, tako da je poudarjena absurdnost situacije, v kateri je kazen izrecena. (Sliki 44, 45) Ker je obdobje najhujše karantene zaradi razglašene epidemije na Zahodu sovpadlo z velikonocnimi prazniki (a ne le zato), so se mnogi memi na temo socialne izolacije in njene kršitve (pa ne le ti!) navezovali tudi na kršcanske vsebine, natancneje na svetopisemsko zgodbo o Jezusovem vstajenju in praznik velike noci; v teh Jezus obicajno preverja, ce že sme zapustiti grob, ali pa je zaradi odhoda iz groba oglobljen. (Sliki 46, 47) DOVOLJENE IZJEME ODHAJANJA OD DOMA Posebej veliko komicnih spreobrnitev je v memih doživela omilitev prepovedi odhajanja od doma in sprehajanja samo za lastnike psov. Norcevanje iz ukrepa – ali pa morda izraz obupanih sanjarjenj o tem, kako se izogniti omejitvam – kažejo tudi memi, ki prikazujejo razne domislice, s katerimi poskušajo ljudje priti do enakih ugodnosti, kot so jih deležni lastniki psov, na primer s sprehodom živali, ki se jih sicer ne vodi na sprehode, kot so kokoši idr. (Slika 48) Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI Humorni ucinek ti memi pogosto dosežejo prek spreobrnitve obicajne vloge, v kateri je pes odvisen od lastnika, v vlogo, v kateripostanejo ljudjeodvisni od živali. (Sliki 49, 50) Takšna spreobrnjena perspektiva se tudi sicer pojavlja v mnogih drugih koronamemih. (Sliki 51, 52) Vse te podobe spreobrnjene vloge clovek-žival v memih izražajo, kot se zdi, tudi obcutek popolne izgube nadzora nad situacijo, v kateri smo se znašli in v kateri smo na milost in nemilost podrejeni vsakokratnim bolj ali manj (ne)smiselnim ukrepom vlada­jocih struktur. ŽIVLJENJE V SAMOIZOLACIJI IN NJEGOVE POSLEDICE Mnogi memi problematizirajo tudi druge vidike življenja v samoizolaciji in posledice, kijih prinaša takšno življenje. Glede na to, da je del clanov BNN Facebook skupine zaposlenih na univerzah in študentov, ne cudi, da so bili priljubljeni tudi memi na temo poucevanja in konferenc, ki potekajo po Zoomu, ki so med karanteno za vecino postali del akademskega vsakdana. (Sliki 53, 54) Memi pogosto opozarjajo tudi na pomanjkljivosti in slabo kakovost šolanja na dal­javo pa tudi na neenakost pri dostopu do izobrazbe po spletu. (Sliki 55, 56) Tudi v teh memih naletimona družbenokriticno ost: pogosti so, na primer, memi, ki opozarjajo na problematicnost vsakdana, v katerem dela v službi ni vec mogoce locevati od prostega casa in družinskega življenja, ki je v casu epidemije postal nova resnicnost za mnoge zaposlene. (Sliki 57, 58) Kot so vseskozi opozarjali mediji, je prisilna izolacija marsikje prinesla tudi povecane napetosti in nasilje v družinah, psihicne stiske in težave, ki se lahko kažejo tudi v kom­pulzivni konzumaciji hrane. Vse te teme najdemo tudi v memih; predvsem strah pred debelostjo je postal iztocnica za številne meme, kar ocitno izraža tudi ponotranjenost norm, ki jih sodobna družba postavlja pred ljudi. (Slike 59, 60, 61, 62) Po prvih nekaj mesecih karantene, ko še kar nismo videli konca, so se zaceli vrstiti tudi memi, ki so izražali strah pred dolgotrajnostjo karantene in anticipirane spremembe med njo in po njenem koncu; smrt in apokalipticno razpoloženje tudi tu ne umanjkata. (Sliki 63, 64) DruŽbene TEME Mnoge od tem in vsebin, ki se izražajo v koronamemih, kot že receno, niso nove, ampak so v temcasu dobile le novo obliko ali pa se je stara vsebina v njih prilagodila na novo situacijo. Tesnobe, ki jih sprožajo crnoglede napovedi glede prihodnosti planeta zaradi globalnega segrevanja, onesnaženja (prim. Babic 2020: 134-136), izumiranja živalskih in rastlinskih vrst itd., se tako kažejo tudi v memih na temo korone. Spodbudne novice o pozitivnih vplivih izolacije na domu na okolje (manjša onesnaženost ozracja zaradi manj izpušnih plinov) so tako spodbudile nastanek cele vrste memov, ki so v glavnem sledili nekaj vzorcem, ki so se obcasno tudiprepletli. Njihova iztocnica jebila, na primer »Delfini so se vrnili v beneške kanale/Italijo, medtem pa ...« (Slike 65, 66, 67) ali alternativno: »Ko so ljudje v izolaciji …« (Slika 68) Druga skupina memov, iz katerih je razvidna ekološka naravnanost njihovih ustvarjalcev in skrbi zaradi onesnaženja okolja, in ki se nanašajo na pozitivne posledice izolacije na okolje, na katere so opozarjali znanstveniki, pa se je zacenja s stavkom »Zaradi zmanjšane onesnaženosti ...« (Sliki 69, 70) Razlika med obema skupinama je predvsem v tem, da se memi prve skupine vecino-ma osredotocajo na vrnitev tistega, za kar se je zdelo, da je »zaradi onesnaženosti« stvar daljne preteklosti – od prazgodovinskih dinozavrov in miticnih pošasti v Anglijo, Skandinavijo, na Škotsko (Nessie), vampirjev v Srbijo, do heavymetalcev v Skandinavijo, pa do vrnitve komunizma – »rdece« Jugoslavije na Balkan, Lenina in Stalina v Rusijo itd. V drugi skupini, na drugi strani, pa je poudarek na videnju, »prepoznanju« tega, kar je bilo zaradi onesnaženja ozracja prej »nevidno«, na primer »matrice« oziroma Boga alias Keanuja Reevesa (v navezavi na franšizo Matrica), (Disneyjevega) Plutona, Google oblackov, duha Marxa nad Berlinom itd. V koronamemih poleg prevladujocih »ekoloških skrbi« zaradi klimatskih in drugih škodljivih poslediczanaravo, kijih povzrocaclovek, prepoznamo tudiskrbigledeekon­omskihposledicepidemije(vcasihtudizvtkanimiksenofobnimivsebinami).Pravtakose najdejo v njih sporocila, kiizražajo skrb zaohranjanjejavnegazdravstva. (Slike71, 72, 73) ZAKLJUCEK Memi na temo koronavirusne bolezni in ukrepov za njeno zajezitev, ki so bili objavljeni v Facebook skupini komiteja Belief Narrative Network v prvih mesecih razvoja pandemije in sem jih v tem prispevku na kratko predstavila, jasno izražajo tesnobe, s katerimi so se ljudje soocali ob zacetku pandemije – od splošnega strahu pred smrtjo, tesnobe zaradi izgube nadzora nad lastnim življenjem in avtonomnega odlocanja glede osebnega gibanja in delovanja, do bolj specificnih strahov, kot so strah pred pomanjkanjem hrane in zlasti toaletnegapapirja. Obenempa kažejo tudiodnos ljudido ukrepov zazajezitev epidemije, ki je bil le redko pozitiven in veliko pogosteje kriticen in posmehljiv. Funkcija izražanja tesnob in strahov ob epidemiji pa tudi nestrinjanja z naloženimi ukrepi, ki jo memi opravljajo, je gotovo do neke mere terapevtska. Prek nagovarjanja strahu ob epidemiji in tesnob, ki so jih sprožali v ljudeh ukrepi proti epidemiji, skozi folkloro oziroma natancneje skozi meme lahko ljudje vsaj do neke mere sprostijo na­kopicena custva; ob dejstvu, da v memih kljucno vlogo igra humor, je tak terapevtski ucinek seveda še dodatno ojacan. A tudi »skupnostni« vidik mem-folklore, tj. dejstvo, da ustvarjanje, sprejemanje in širjenje memov pa tudi njihovo spreminjanje, všeckanje in komentiranje, povezujejo ljudi in kažejo vpletenost posameznikovega izraza v skupnost (Heimo in Koski 2014: 4-8), ima v casu epidemije in zlasti prisilne izolacije še posebej pomembno vlogo.Obcutek, dav nevarnemin zamarsikogaosamljenemobdobju karantene niso povsem sami s svojimi strahovi, ampak so povezani v (vsaj virtualno) skupnost, na sodelujoce v conduitu nedvomno še dodatno deluje terapevtsko. A memi, kljub humornim vidikom, ne delujejo le na ravni zabave, niti ne zgolj na ravni ugodnih terapevtskihucinkov kar zadevasprošcanjepsihicnih napetosti. Skozimeme Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI posamezniki pogosto izražajo tudi širše družbene tesnobe, nagovarjajo ideološke teme, izražajo družbeno kritiko in do neke mere delujejo celo subverzivno. Poleg zgoraj omen-jenih skrbi zaradi globalnih sprememb na Zemlji, življenja v neoliberalnem kapitalizmu, pa tudi specificnih (pricakovanih) družbenih sprememb kot posledic pandemije, ki jih memi problematizirajo, se v mnogih memih kaže tudi izrazit strah ljudi, da bodo ukrepi proti epidemiji vodili v popoln nadzor družbenih institucij nad posamezniki. (Slike 74, 75, 76) Družbenokriticnividik jesevedašeposebejrazviden izmemov zeksplicitno politicno tematiko, uperjenih predvsem protiposameznim politicnim vodjem – v memih tako nastopajo politiki, kot so Putin, Vucic, Trump, Bolsonaro, Lukašenko idr. Medtem ko kriticna ost, uperjena proti prvima dvema, leti predvsem na njun avtokratski nacin vladanja (pri Putinu tudi v navezavi na volitve, s katerimi si je podaljšal možnost vladanja do leta 2036), drugi kritizirajo neresne odzive politicnih vodij na epidemijo. Mem proti Bolsonaru tako meri na njegovo zanikanje nevarnosti virusa, ki je ljudi izpostavila nevarnosti in pripomogla k velikemu številu nepotrebnih smrti, mem, ki opozarja na pitje vodke kot ucinkovitega sredstva proti okužbi, pa smeši Lukašenkovo propagiranje tega »ukrepa« proti korona virusu. Memi letijo tudi na Trumpovo nesmiselno in nevarno propagiranje hidrociklina kot zdravila proti virusu, obenem pa se v njih vcasih tudi Trumpa samega prikazuje kot virus. (Slike 77, 78, 79, 80, 81) Skozi meme lahko ljudje izražajo svoje vrednote in kritizirajo vrednote drugih na bolj sprejemljiv nacin kot kdaj koli prej; memi, kot pišejo Miller in drugi, predstavljajo neke vrste »moralno spletno policijo« (Miller et al., 2016: xvi). Še vec: koronameme do neke mere lahko razumemo tudi kot »taktike« (de Certeau 2007: 39-53), tj. kot vedęnje oziroma kulturne produkte, s katerimi ljudje nasprotujejo dominantnim družbenim struk­turam, jih »izigravajo«, spodkopavajo in tako predstavljajo njihovo protiutež, pa ceprav (zgolj) v virtualnem svetu (kolikor je tega danes seveda sploh še mogoce locevati od vsakdanjega življenja – prim. McNeill 2009: 84). To je morda najbolj ocitno razvidno iz mema, s katerim naj to kratko predstavitev spletne »koronafolklore« tudi zakljucim, ki ukrepe proti epidemiji »spodkopava« tako rekoc v samem temelju: definira jih kot obrede, »religijo«, ki zahteva slepo poslušnost. (Slika 82) LITERATURA Aslan, Erhan, 2021: When the Internet Gets ‘Coronafied’: Pandemic Creativity and Humour in Internet Memes. In: Jones, Rodney H. (ed), Viral discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge Elements. Elements in Applied Linguistics), 49-60. Babic, Saša, 2020: Waste and dirt in short folklore forms. Traditiones, 49/1, 125–139. Bischetti, Luca; Canal, Paolo; Bambini, Valentina, 2021: Funny but aversive: A large-scale survey of the emotional response to Covid-19 humor in the Italian population during the lockdown. Lingua 249, 102963; www.sciencedirect.com. Blank, Trevor J., 2009: Introduction. Toward a Conceptual Framework for the Study of Folklore and the Internet. In: Blank J. Trevor (ed.), Folklore and the Internet. Vernacular Expression in a Digital World. Logan: Utah State University Press, 1-20. Blaber, Zlatinka; Gougoumanova, Guergana; Palatnik, Barry, 2021: COVID-19 Editorial Cartoons: Theories of Humor Perspectives. Israeli Journal of Humor Research,10/1, 6–42. Blank, Trevor J., 2012: Introduction: Pattern in the Virtual Folk Culture of Computer-Mediated Communication. In: Folk Culture in the Digital Age. The Emergent Dynamics of Human Interaction. Blank J. Trevor (ed.), Logan: Utah State University Press, 1-24. Certeau, Michel de, 2007: Iznajdba vsakdanjosti I: Umetnost delovanja. Ljubljana: Studia Humanitatis. Chlopicki, Wladyslaw; Brzozowska, Dorota, 2021: Sophisticated humor against COVID-19: the Polish case. Humor 34/2, 201–227. Dégh, Linda, 1995: Narratives in Society: A Performer-centered Study of Narration (Folklore Fellows Communication 255). Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica. Dégh, Linda, 2001: Legend and Belief. Dialectics of a Folklore Genre. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Dundes, Alan; Pagter, Carl R., 1975: Urban Folklore from the Paperwork Empire. Austin, Texas: American Folklore Society. Dundes, Alan, 1979: Analytic Essays in Folklore (Studies in Folklore 2). The Hague-Paris-New York Mouton Publishers. Dynel, Marta, 2021: COVID-19 memes going viral: On the multiple multimodal voices behind face masks. Discourse & Society 32/2, 175–195. Ellis, Bill, 2003: Aliens, Ghosts, and Cults. Legends We Live. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. Fine, Garry Alan, 1985: Social change and folklore. The interpretation of social structure and culture. Arv. Nordic Yearbook of Folklore 41, 7-15. Hafstein, Valdimar Tr., 2000: The Elves' Point of View. Cultural identity in Contemporary Icelandic Elf-Tradition. Fabula 41, 87-104. Heimo, Anne; Koski, Kaarina, 2014: Internet Memes as Statements and Entertainment. FF Network 44 (July), 4-12. Honko, Lauri, 1962, Geisterglaube in Ingermanland (Folklore Fellows Communication 185). Helsinki: Academia scientiarum Fennica. McNeill, Lynne S., 2009: The end of the internet: a folk response to the provision of infinite choice. In: Blank J. Trevor (ed.), Folklore and the Internet. Logan: Utah State University Press, 80–97. Miller, Daniel; Costa, Elisabetta; Haynes, Nell; Mcdonald, Tom; Nicolescu, Razvan; Sinanan, Jolynna; Spyer, Juliano; Venkatraman, Shriram; Wang, Xinyuan, 2016: How the World Changed Social Media. London: UCL Press. Nicholls, Christine, 2020: Online Humour, Cartoons, Videos, Memes, Jokes and Laughter in the Epoch of the Coronavirus. Text Matters 10, 274-318. Olah, Andrew R.; Hempelmann, Christian F., 2021: Humor in the age of coronavirus: a recapitulation and a call to action. Humor 34/2, 329–338. Pulos, Rick, 2020: COVID-19 crisis memes, rhetorical arena theory and Multimodality. Journal of Science Communication 19/07, 1-30. Sebba-Elran, Tsafi, 2021: A pandemic of jokes? The Israeli COVID-19 meme and the construction of a collective response to risk. Humor 34/2, 229–257. Shifman, Limor, 2014: Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI Strick, Madelijn, 2021: Funny and meaningful: media messages that are humorous and moving provide optimal consolation in corona times. Humor 34/2, 155–176. Tangherlini, Timothy R., 1994: Interpreting Legend. Danish Storytellers and Their Repertoires. New York, London: Garland Publishing. Ward, Donald, 1976: American and European narratives as socio-psychological indicators. Studia Fennica 20, 348-353. LIVING WITH THE COVID-19 VIRUS IN INTERNET FOLKLORE MIRJAM MENCEJ The article discusses memes about the COVID-19 virus shared in the Belief Nar­rative Network’s Facebook group since its inception in April 2020 until the end of August 2020 (when this article was written), i.e., during the first wave of the pandemic. After first briefly discussing various genres and the intertextuality of the Internet folklore shared on the website, I focused on the themes discussed in the memes about COVID -19. The frequency of the themes referred to in these memes clearly reveals the factors that at the start of the pandemicwere triggering the greatest anxiety in people. The limited period of less than 4 months encom­passed by this article and the time of writing it (August 2020) when the pandemic was still ongoing means that its aim is not an in-depth analysis, comparison and interpretation of the memes, but a brief presentation of their main types and contents and the preoccupations, fears and anxieties of membersof the group as revealed in these memes, along with the roles they play in people’s lives. With their inherent humour, they certainly hold therapeutic value by releasing anxieties, while their sharing and commenting helps people have a sense of belonging to the community and connecting with others, which is especially needed at a time when many were isolated at home alone. However, the memes also proved to be a tool for people to express their social anxieties and criticism. Prof. dr. Mirjam Mencej, Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo, Aškerceva c. 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, mirjam.mencej@ff.uni-lj.si Slika 1: Community Transmission: Coronavirus Enters Bengal’s Folk-Art Form. Slika 2: 16. stoletje–21. stoletje. Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI Slika 8: V tvoji biografiji je vrzel. Kaj si pocel leta 2020? – Umival sem si roke. Slika 7: Zdaj pa poglejmo, kdo si v resni­ci – Država Tretjega sveta. Slika 9: V tvoji biografiji je vrzel. Kaj si pocel leta 2020? – Umival sem si roke. zunaj, babica! – P...i kovid! Muromec ležal na peci. Tako junaškega dejanja samoizolacije Rusija še ni videla. Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI Slika 22: STOPNJE KAPITALIZMA: Dobrine se izmenjuje z dobrinami; denar se izmenjuje z dobrinami in storitvami; roboti izmenjujejo delnice teoreticne tržne vrednosti v prihodnosti za zavarovanje tveganja rasti; dobrine se izmenjuje z dobrinami. Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI Slika 32 našli na kovcku ruske radiotelegrafistke. - Gruppenfrer, priznati moram, res sem ruski obvešcevalec. - Zaradi mene ste lahko tudi ameriški! Ampak zakaj ste brez rokavic? Bi nas radi vse okužili?! * Max Otto von Stierlitz, stereotipni vohun v sovjetskiin post-sovjetskikulturi, sicer glavna oseba ruskih romanov Julija Semjonova, ki jih je ta izdal v šestdesetih letih 20. stoletja, in njihovih televizijskih priredb (https://en.wiki­pedia.org/wiki/Stierlitz). Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI 1. ves cas spi in je brez energije; 2. uporabi ta cas za to, da si ogleda 184 filmov; 3. ves cas pospravlja in popravlja; 4. si najde mnoge hobije in je zelo zaposlen; 5. trpi, se pocuti izgubljenega in ne ve, kaj bi delal; 6. nic se ni spremenilo, saj je bil že pred karanteno vedno doma. Si se našel? Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI Slika 68: Ko so ljudje v izolaciji, se divje Medtem pa v Rusiji … živali na Škotskem vracajo v obicajno stanje. [Matrica]. bo vse v redu. COVID-19 – RECESIJA – PODNEBNE SPREMEMBE. milenijci. Slika 75: NOVA NORMALNOST. JEBI GA. LJUDJE-OVCE NOVE NORMALNOSTI [UBOGAJ]: satelitsko sledenje; zaviralec možganov; vsajen cip; senzor socialne distance; odstranjen spol; neskoncno cepl­jenje; nagobcna maska; gumijasta hrbtenica; obvezen telefon: sledenje, identifikacijska številka cepiva, dovoljenje za potovanje, število socialnih tock, digitalna denarnica. Ž IVLJENJE S COVID-19 V SPLETNI FOLKLORI Razprave Studi Articles 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 79–104 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222504 The Treasure-bearer in East Slavic and Finno-Ugric Contexts Mare Kőiva, Elena Boganeva Namen tega clanka je primerjalna in stukturalno-semanticna raziskava narativov ver­ovanja v letece kace in zakladonoše na vzhodnoslovanskih (beloruskih, estonsko ruskih, drugih slovanskih) in ugrofinskih (estonskih, votskih, livonskih, finskih, vepskih) ob-mocjih ter povezanosti teh narativov z baltskimi in skandinavskimi verovanji. Gradivo je bilo zbrano med 19. in 21. stoletjem. Sodec iz razpoložljivega gradiva, je bil lik ust­varjen z opisovanjem lastnosti letecekace in zakladonoše: izvora (kako se je nadnaravno bitje rodilo in kdo ga je rodil), splošnih pojavnih oblik, casovnih in krajevnih vidik­ov, obnašanja (aktivno/pasivno; obredi) in žanrske pripadnosti (proces pripovedovanja The goal of this article is to conduct comparative and structural-semantic research into belief narratives concerning flying serpents and treasure-bearers in East Slavic (Belaru-sian, Estonian Russian, other Slavic traditions) and Finno-Ugric (Estonian, Votic, Livo­nian, Finnish, Vepsian) regions related to Baltic and Scandinavian beliefs. The source material was collected between the 19th and 21st centuries. Based on the available materials, a character profile was created with respect to the following features while describing a flying serpent and a treasure-bringer: description of the origin (how and from whom the supernatural being originates), general forms of appearance, aspects of time and location, as well as the creature’s behaviour (active/passive; rituals) and genre affiliation (the process of storytelling, perception of the character). KEYWORDS: dragon, khut, kratt, magic, milk magic, treasure bearer, tsmok INTRODUCTION The goal of this article is to conduct comparative research into belief narratives concerning flying serpents and treasure-bearers in East Slavic (Belarusian, Estonian Russian, other Slavic traditions) and Finno-Ugric (Estonian, Votic, Livonian, Finnish, Vepsian) regions related to other Scandinavian beliefs. Based on available materials collected between 80 M ARE Kő IV A , E LENA B OGANEV A the 19th and 21st centuries, we created a character profile with respect to the following features while describing a flying serpent and a treasure-bringer: terminology (names, designations), and themutualactions of peopleand asupernaturalbeing;theorigin (how and from whom the creature originates), general forms of appearance, time and location and modality issues, as well as behaviour (active/passive; motivated/ritual, rituals and their functional alternatives), the genre affiliated with the message, notes and comments about the process of storytelling and the perception of the mythical creature. Different belief complexes intertwine in the corpus related to a mythical flying serpent and a treasure-bearer. For example, there are motifs of a dragon, in Belarusian folklore named tsmok and khut, and texts about a serpent-lover1who, at the same time, was also a spirit-enricher. Treasure-bearing spirits mostly take the form of a flying fiery serpent, except for the West Belarusiankhut, which is not tied to a specific form and can take the appearance of eitheran animate or inanimate object, as well as entities of the Belarusian-Lithuanian border areas like aitvaras/skalsininkas/kutas/hutas whose appearance is distinctly poly­morphic. Exterior polymorphism (zoomorphism, ornitomorphism, or shape-shifting into an object) is also common in such Estonian, and Estonian Russian diaspora’s, entities as kratt, tont, puuk etc. However, even shape-shifting treasure-bearing entities are often depicted as flying fiery serpents. In theEast(as wellas the Westand South) Slavictradition, thetreasure-bearing serpent can also be a supernatural lover, and which case he has a dual appearance, taking the form of a fiery serpent in the air, and that of a human on the ground (Levkiyevskaya 1999: 332–333). The serpent appears as a deceased husband (or groom) that a woman misses dearly, and engages in sexual activity with her. As a result, the woman either becomes ill or dies if she is unable to find a way to drive the dangerous visitor away2. In Belarus, texts about a serpent lover that also simultaneously function as a treasure-bearer were recorded fromtheruraloraltradition even morerecently (Boganeva2012:30, No 15–17). In Estonian, Finnish, Swedish and other Finno-Ugric and Scandinavian traditions, as a rule treasure-bearing spirits are never combined with the concept of supernatural lover. In these traditions, a supernatural lover is a separate entity whose origins are connected to dangerous, restless undead or demonic forces. According to information available in archives of the Estonian LiteraryMuseum, treasure-bearing spirits are not supernatural lovers in the mythology of the Estonian Russian diaspora. As we show later, the beliefs of Estonia’s Russian diaspora concerning treasure-bearers were heavily influenced by traditions among the native population: this includes both borrowing Estonian entity names notfoundinRussian(kratt, tont, puuk, pisuhänd etc.)andtheirvisualrepresentation,abil­ 1 The appearance of a flying fiery serpent in East Slavic traditions encompasses at least three functionally different mythological entities: a) a treasure-bearing spirit; b) a supernatural lover; and c) a spirit that heralds tragic social events or natural disasters. With different origins, each of these entities takes different forms and appearances. 2 One such method used by Belarusians (and Russians) involves the use of hemp seeds: the woman places hemp seeds in her hair and later combs them out before eating them in front of the serpent. When the serpent asks what she is doing, the woman replies that she is combing lice out and eating them. This will cause the serpent to fly away and never return. T HE TREASURE -BEARER IN E AST S LA VIC AND F INNO -U GRIC CONTEXTS ities and actions. Therefore, since Estonian tradition has never combined treasure-bearing spirits with supernatural lovers, texts with similar occurrences are also not found in the Estonian Russian diaspora (there are 36 Russian texts featuring treasure-bearing spirits in theELM archives). Our articleabouttreasure-bearing spirits accordingly does not consider the supernatural-lover entities common in the East Slavic tradition. The treasure-bearers and flying serpents were often polymorphic: anthropomorphs, zoomorphs, or animated objects. We aimed to deconstruct these legendsinto sequences, plots and motifs so as to determine the consistency and details of the information concerned with these mythical creatures. Ethnographic and folkloristic methods were used to explain the legends and other belief narratives about the supernatural being, with use of the semantic-structural method, which shares features with the ethnolinguistic-folkloristic approach of the Moscow School and its development in Belarus. Yet, our approach has features similar to comparative method and situation analyses used in Estonia (Loorits 1949, Laagus 1973). Nikita Tolstoi (2013: 19) formulated his direction, initiated in the 1970s, as follows: “Ethnolinguistics is a part of linguistics, a subdiscipline which orients the scholar towards investigating the correlation and coherence between a language and folk culture, language and archaic mentality, language and folk art, through their interrelationsand diverse correspondences. Ethnolinguistics is not just a hybrid of linguistics and ethnology, or a mixture of certain elements, factual or methodological, of one discipline and another”. Our analysis entailed dividing the entire verbal text into categories, with each part of the text being analysed with respect to these categories. Since all text variants are analysed using a single cate­gory system, the texts are all comparable (Loorits 1949, Penttikäinen 1968, Laagus 1973, Kőiva and Boganeva 2021; Levkiyevskaya 1999). The ethnic corpuses vary in size and are based on the level of intensity involved in the collection work. The amount of material collected from small nations is obviously smaller, and we operated with some corpuses through story catalogues, meaning that we did not pursue a more detailed statistical analysis. The main information sources about flying serpents in Belarusian folklore are ethno­graphic publications and modern field materials (BFELA; Avilin 2015: 172–177; Boganeva 2012: 27–31; Bogdanovich 1895: 73–74; Drevlyanski 1846: 3–25; Nosovich 1870: 213; PEZ 2011: 81–82; Pietkiewicz 1938: 11; Romanov 1912: 290; TMKB 2011: 485–488). The primary source for the Estonian and Estonian Russian lore is the folklore archive of the Estonian Literary Museum, the digital tool Skriptoorium, and publications (cf. Eisen 1895 and 1919; Kőiva and Boganeva 2021), whereas the main source for the Livonian, Votic, Finnish and Swedish lore is publications (Livonian: Loorits 1928; Votic: Arukask 1998, Västrik 1998, Ariste 1943; Finnish: Jauhiainen 1998; Swedish: Klintberg 2010). References to these creatures can also be found in modern society in political or other discourse, or are again in the spotlight for cultural, political or other reasons. The aim of the article is to examine which creatures and what kind of notions are involved in a particular region’s lore, and any similarities and differences. BRIEFLY ABOUT TERMINOLOGY AND ACTION The Belarusian mythical creature khut (...) is in many ways similar to the flying, fiery serpent of enrichment. The khut hatches from an egg laid by a 3- or 7-year-old rooster (typically a black one); it is a polymorphic demon with traits of both domovoy and dvo­rovoy (a house spirit; Salavei 2011: 503)3. In other Slavic narrative traditions, folktales talk of the dragon or dwarf treasure-bearer Blagonic that hatched from a rooster’s egg (Kropej 2012: 109–111). Another Belarusian demonological creature tsmok (....) – a dragon – finds many parallels in Slavic languages and mythologies (cf. Russian-Proto-Slavic c....(a serpent); in Bulgarian c...(a grass snake, deaf adder); in Czech zmok (a dragon); in Slovak zmok (domovoy a house spirit); in Polish smok (a dragon), in Slovenian ses (a serpent – the name ses derives from the verb sesati, meaning to suck; cf. Kropej 2012: 238). According to Brückner, smok. originally meant ‘the one who sucks’, akin to ......´.. (to suck) mentioned by Fasmer (1987: 303). The creation of the tsmok character was influenced by the Christian legend about the battle of St. George (St. Yuri) with a terrible dragon. In Belarusian folklore, the tsmok is a traditional character in magical and heroic fairy tales about serpent slayers as well as in a poem about St. Yuri (George) and Tsmok. Pavel Drevlyanski distinguished three types of tsmoks, one of which, tsmok-domovik, is very similar to a fiery serpent that brings riches (Drevlyanski 1846: 262–267). The Belarusians and Lithuanians have many cultural connections, explaining why sim­ilarities can be detected among the Lithuanian aitvaras, a flying spirit that brings wealth; Lithuanian Belarusians in the north-west of Grodno region also know of skalsininkas, kutas, khutas, skutas, sparyzius, paryzius and damavykas. Aitvaras-kutas brings riches (grain, money, gold); it emergesfrom an egg, loves fried eggs, and burns a house down if it suspects that the master disrespects them. In short, it possesses many of the traits of domestic evil spirits, just like its Belarusian counterpart. Quite different terminology concerned with flying (fiery) serpents can be found in the lore of Estonian Russians. We observe typical Russian/Slavic features: Zmey is the name given to a serpent usually referred to as “flying” by Russians (Belova 2012: 24–26; Makhracheva 2012: 19–21; Levkiyevskaya 2019: 434–459; Petrova 2012: 23–24; Skulachev 2012: 21–23), Belarusians (Boganeva 2012: 27–30) and Ukrainians (Belova 2012: 24–25; Levkiyevskaya 2019: 434–459). The names of the flying serpents given by Estonian Russians are largely influenced by their close proximityto Estonians and their mythology: puuk (a bearer, a tick), nasok (‘the one who carries’, probably derived from the word ...... meaning: to carry), tont (a ghost, a bearer), lendva (a flying object, a witch arrow, a mythical disease); kratt (a bearer); haldjas (a protector, spirit), kratt; pyvsh/ pyuch, pš, puvchish/puktish, puksish, puksik (differentversions of puuk or bearer) – the terminology denotes treasure-bearers or spirit-protectors. According to Loorits, pukis is Domovoy and dvorovoy (orkhlevnik inBelarus)in RussianandBelarusianmythologymaydifferinregional traditions: domovoy is a spirit of the household that inhabits and exerts its power only within the house, whereas dvorovoy or khlevnik is a spirit of the farmyard, or barn, protecting the domesticanimals in the barn (horses, cows etc.). T HE TREASURE -BEARER IN E AST S LA VIC AND F INNO -U GRIC CONTEXTS also known in the traditions of Latvia and Lithuania as well as in Western Russia close to the Baltic republics. A well-established Western Russian term about puuk or pukis is pyvsh/pyuch (Loorits 1949:208;cf.Karulis 1992).A coupleofadditionalnames recorded in Estonian are täht (a star) and punane kukk (a red rooster) – with both referring to its forms of appearance. In the Estonian language, approximately 30 different terms or local names exist for the mythical treasure-bringer. Linguistically, one Estonian term – pisuhänd – refers to the image of a fire serpent, even though neither a serpent nor a flying serpent are mentioned in the Estonian descriptions as attention has been drawn to the sparking tail or fire tail that is described and by which the creature is identified. Five terms are almost equally popular, with these terms and their variations in different dialects seeing wide use: kratt (‘a bearer’), pisuhänd (a bearer, a fire tail, a sparking tail); puuk (a tick, meaning ‘to suck’); tont (a ghost); vedaja (a bearer, a treas-ure-bearer) – which are all treasure-bearers, or sometimes referred to as grain-, dairy-, money- or fish-bearers. Puuk is a loanword from Swedish (puke) or from Low German (spok, spuk – a ghost, a spook, an otherworldly creature). Tont is not only a term for a treasure-bearer but also for a vague supernatural being, an evil spirit, a monster, a ghost (EKSS 2009, ETY 2012; Skriptoorium; VMS 1996). Almost all of these terms are also used in compound words to denote sub-categories of mythical or symbolical creatures, to express a negative (less often also a positive) emotion; to mark the villain, the compulsion, the syndrome etc.; they are curse formulas, exclamations. Words like kratt sometimes hold a broader meaning in standard language, including stealing or something shabby, poorly dressed, naughty etc. Fig. 1. Estonian terminology connected with a treasure-bearer; map by M. Kőiva 2021 Votian lemm, para, lennos, in some villages kandashka (‘a bearer’), is mostly connected with a human, especially a witch, and only scattered data exist about a flying serpent (Västrik 1998). The meaning of lemm was originally noidannuoli (a witch arrow), reconstructed as ‘flying, fluttering fire’ (cf. Estonian lemmed, lembed – sparks, fire particles; pisu has the same meaning) and also meant as a meteor, a ball of lightning, or some thunder-related phenomenon (Ariste 1943: 309). The most typical Finnish names are para (maitopara – milk para, voipara – butter para) and mara. The Finnish para comes from the Swedish bära (cf. Estonian Swedish päär) and denotes a milk-stealer or milk-bearer (Jauhiainen 1998); the Karelian and Vepsian name is para (Vinokurova 2014). The main task of the flying serpent or treasure-bringer is to steal from others and bring grain, bread, milk, beer or money to its master. In gratitude for the wealth the ser­pent brings, the master must constantly give work to or feed it. However, it is the butter topping in the kratt’s porridge bowl that triggers action in the most common Estonian narrative, as evidenced by hundreds of records: “A servant eats the kratt’s food and shits in the bowl instead” (Aarne 1918, Aarne S.53). The same motif is popular among Votians (Västrik 1998) and Finns (Jauhiainen 1998: H191). ORIGIN OF THE SERPENTS OF ENRICHMENT In all the traditions considered here, the masters of the flying serpent are partly associated with witchcraft and sorcerers, or a farmhand’s imitation of witchcraft. The traditional method for obtaining a serpent involves several steps and belongs to the mythical and fantasy dimension. In Belarus, an egg laid by a rooster (possibly a remnant of 16th-century myths about cockatrice-like creatures, a natural tiny, often yolkless egg reproduced before the hen is properly laying or after its reproductive period) must be carried next to one’s bosom for 1 to 7 years, and then a flying serpent will hatch out of it. According to Pavel Shein, a cat, not a serpent/snake, hatches from the egg. The cat is invisibleduringthedaybutappears atnightwheneveryoneis asleep.Thelandladyfeeds it with scrambled egg and in return the cat brings her grain or money stolen from others (Shein 1902: 303). Shein also refers to a story in which a cat comes at night to eat the scrambled egg and frightens the young daughter-in-law to death. The young woman had slept next the stove, which the cat crossed each time on its ice-cold paws (Shein 1902: 303-304). That is, even though in Shein’s description the cat is functionally identical to the enrichment snake, the last detail – the ice-cold paws – moves it closer to a ghost. For Estonian Russians, the owners of flying enrichment serpents are typically asso­ciated with witchcraft and sorcerers, or demons, and thus their origin is referred to as the outcome of a deal between demons and knowledgeable people (sorcerers): You will sell your soul, thus ‘puvchish’ carries money home (ERA, Vene 11, 509 (115); Laura, 1928). According to Uno Harva (1948), the Finnish para also denotes a sorcerer while the devil T HE TREASURE -BEARER IN E AST S LA VIC AND F INNO -U GRIC CONTEXTS as a tick is an expression of piritys (< spiritus) in Finland; the same tradition is spread in Estonia and Livonia (Loorits 1928: 68–70, Loorits 1949: 167–168). In Estonian belief narratives, the mythic being – a treasure-bearer – is associated with extremely diverse folklore: – A self-made and animated kratt, which can make it self and be revived by verbal magic and magical actions, sometimes requiring the help of an evil force. Such a mythical beingcanalsobepurchased,butsinceitis asupernaturalhelper therelationshipbetween the master and the mythical helper is complex. Magical helpers may appear upon reading the Seventh Book of Moses or the Black Book4, an ancient religious complex in it­self, a famous book of knowledge and power (Eisen 1896; Ljungström 2015;Klintberg 2010:M 85, typeP 41-43); Davies 2010; Kőiva 2011a). The self-made creature refers to a complex of witches possessing su­pernatural knowledge. The tradition of kratt has several parallels with the spiritus, especially legends about difficulties of doing away with a spiritus or kratt. – A human or their soul is a kratt, mostly an anthropomorphic figure. Especially in the Estonian and Livonian traditions, one finds the well-known image of a witch whose soul can fly, and acts as a treasure-bearer, while her body lies breathless on the ground. In Estonian and Livonian lore, both men and women can fly to collect treasures or suck milk. – An animal-shaped kratt. We must consider this variety and the ambivalent processes because folklore is not a clear-cut system. Based on the material analysed, we may say that in the Estonian texts in which the narrator is the protagonist of the story typically male and sometimes even concrete persons, known by their name, are mentioned. The kratt can be stopped by calling out to it: If you called out the name of the person who acted as a kratt, it dropped all the treasures it was carrying (E 36146/7 (15) Ambla, 1898). According to beliefs, the treasures carried by the kratt were usable. At the end of the story when the treasure-bearer is forced to throw its load away, the narrator concludes: The treasure-bearer left its sack with peas in it. Women distributed the peas among themselves. My granny also ate those peas (RKM II 68, 191 (13) Simuna, 1955). According tofolk belief, this was acollectionofmagicthatoriginallybelongedtotheBiblebutwas separated from it. The background to the beliefs and legends of the Black Book was the existence of both handwritten and printed books containing magical formulae and recipies. The clergymen and healers are the persons to whom the Black Book has most often been associated. A survey about the magical books or grimoires was written by Owen Davis Grimoires: A History of Magic Books. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Even though, according to the economic gender division, women were supposed to perform milk witchcraft, it is once again not uniform since the mythical milk stealing could be a job for either gender. In this respect, the Estonian and Livonian material dif­fers from the Finnish and Swedish narratives where women are the main practitioners of witchcraft. The same pattern applies more generally in Estonian stories, for example, more men were accused at witch trials than women, which differs from European practice (Uuspuu 2001 [1938]). It is also evident that even in belief narratives young men are involved in various adventures and affairs more often than women, i.e. the young man is also more active in the storyworld (cf. Honko 1962). – A specially made and animated kratt was a four-legged creature, yet a three-legged milk tickalso existed, with two legs at the front and one at the back. There were also two-legged and one-legged creatures. In southern Sweden, mjkhare (a milk hare) was well known (Klintberg 2010: 289); after being shot with a silver bullet, it is transformed into its original components: burned sticks, threads, and fur. One of the standard plots in Estonia describes a farmer who goes to Riga with the intention of buying a kratt for himself from the Riga fair. On his way back, he looks at the creature he got from the seller and only sees a bunch of unnecessary clutter on his sleigh and then throws it all to the side of the road. Later on, the farmer travels the same road and discovers that the creature he had bought was still a kratt because it had carried grain and other valuable stuff there (cf. Jauhiainen 1998 in the Finnish tradition). The parallel noticed in connection with the Slavic tradition is remarkable: the treasure-bear­er’s relationship with the house spirit (cf. Latvian majas gars (~kungs), in German (Haus-) Kobold,in Russiandomovoi, in Votian maja-elukas, and in Estonian tont, who originally was probably also a house spirit (cf. Loorits 1949), and had features in common with the spiritus. Estonianfolkloredemonstrates thateachhouseholdhadoneor twoof thesecreatures; it was chiefly farm owners who had them, or at least people considered to be wealthy. In a humorous tale, a servant imitates his master by making a kratt and, in the absence of suitable material, makes it with one leg. However, the latter is very agile yet also somewhat lazy and does not feel like going far from the house, so it starts to steal the grain the master’s kratt brought for him (E 15897 (25) Vőnnu). The way the kratt is animated also varies. The Estonian treasure-bearer was made on three consecutive Thursday nights in the same month at the intersection of three roads. The materials used were pieces of worn-out fabric, pea stalks, ropes, old wooden bowl halves (for buttocks), an old hank (for the tail), a piece of glowing coal for the heart, pieces of iron for the teeth etc. In order to give it a soul, one had to steal sacramental wine from a church, keep it in one’s mouth and bring it home to animate the kratt (ERA II 12, 289 (1) Simuna, 1931). In general terms, the same tradition spread among Estonian Russians. It is often necessary to give three drops of blood to animate it, and in the stories the devil sometimes himself appears at the crossroads (cf. Klintberg 2010: 290). In many versions, people try to cheat the devil: blood is withdrawn from the paw of a cat or from a piglet. All of these elements add humour and excitement to the stories (RKM II 169, 407/9 (706) Sangaste, 1963). T HE TREASURE -BEARER IN E AST S LA VIC AND F INNO -U GRIC CONTEXTS Verbal magic as well as the spells used to make the kratt were widely employed in Estonia (Kőiva 2011b), although some spells find parallels in the narratives about making a supernatural creature (a werewolf) and/or from metamorphoses: A fire tail or ghost In the olden days, people used to make fire tails or ghosts. On three Thursday nights, all sorts of old litter were put together. To breathe life into it, you read: Kiuh, kauh hair on your head! Siuh, sauh tail behind! Piuh, pauh head on you! An old man had made his own [kratt]. His son secretly went to see and heard the words uttered. As later also told to others. (ERA II 14, 247 (32) Anna, 1929) The corpus of charms is rich (over 50 texts); some ask the treasure-bearer to bring grain and promise to feed the treasure-bearer: Come, dear krätt, Come next door to me, Bring my grain, Back from the neighbours’ granary! Feed you with bread then And give you the joy of milk, Shall not make you carry a heavy load Neither gold, nor silver. (ERA II 159, 506/7 (85) Martna, 1937) The Belarusian khut is closest in appearance and function to the kratt. However, khut is not made from old things or objects but has the ability to metamorphose; it can turn into any creature or thing, including a fire serpent. A milk kratt or a milk tick (piimapuuk) could also act imperceptibly and only ‘tick drops’ or drops of milk or excrements remained in the well, on the table, wall or trees (cf. Sweden: Klintberg 2010: 289; Latvia: Laime 2013). Whenatreasure-bearerwas punished,itwas believedthatthepersonwhohadbrought the milkin this form became ill (the same motifs are known in Belarus). A custom in Saaremaawas to throw thefoundexcrementofthemythicalcreatureintothefire, leading the perpetrator to suffer stomach-ache (constipation), which could only be relieved when a member of the victim’s family gave them something (water, food, tools or utensils). Another aspect typical of modern legends about the treasure-bearer is a change in explanation. The observed phenomenon may be interpreted according to the old tradition in the periphery of Estonia, like in Setomaa and on the islands of Muhu and Saaremaa. Still, wecan also find anew modelof interpretation – aliens. This modelbegan to emerge inthe1970s inconnectiontotheattentionbeingpaidtounusualatmosphericphenomena and the expansion of UFO folklore. The latter mainly spread through a variety of lec­tures, translations, or handwritten pamphlets, and helped instil knowledge about aliens, not only in Estonia but in Belarus as well (Kőiva 1996; Butov 2021). This broadened the explanatory model and drew attention to different light phenomena, for example, the descriptions of flying serpents – something resembling a fire wheel – by Russians living in Estonia during the 1930s. Again, this is a process entailing changes, retranslations, and a set of vernacular perceptions. VISUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FLYING SERPENTS Belarusian and Ukrainian traditions contain stories of serpents that walk instead of fly (Levkiyevskaya 2019: 439; TMKB 2011: 486–487). In Belarusian tradition, we find the appearanceof aserpentdepicted as “shaggy, scary and tall”, yetmostimportantly itdoes not fly; it walks, and walks upright, that is, in this description, the serpent possesses the features of both zoomorphic and anthropomorphic creatures. Ukrainianfolklorealsoincludes stories of serpents that walk instead of fly (Levkiyevskaya 2019:439, No. 9). Some re­ markable features are attributed to the flying serpents as they appear in flight, emphasising their fiery, luminous nature. Certain changes can be noticed in descriptions of the serpent’s colour, the brightness of its glow, and its shape based on the way it flies and what it is carrying. T HE TREASURE -BEARER IN E AST S LA VIC AND F INNO -U GRIC CONTEXTS Estonian Russians say that it glows yellow when it is carrying milk, and when it is carrying money it glows red (ERA II 109, 107 (48)). In Estonian lore, most forms of kratt – the self-made and human-shaped ones – are visible as fiery streaks. A characteristic shared by all the regions under investigation is the anthropomorphic figure of a flying serpent or treasure-bearer. For instance, modern Belarusian lore con­ tains purely anthropomorphic descriptions of a serpent of enrichment. It may be observed that, even with such an anthropomorphic appearance, the serpent is still flying, despite it looking like a man and wearing shoes that need to be dried (Boganeva 2012: 29, No. 8). InLivonianfolkbelief,awitchorawitch’s soulintheformofakratt is seen flying in the sky, carrying milk or cream to its family. According to beliefs, it used to milk cows or suck milk, take cream from others and bring full barrels of milk back to its family. Besides the anthropomorphic and artificial kratt, zoomorphic ones also fly as fiery streaks. The mythical being is described as follows: it flies under the sky like a streak of fire; sparks are flying; it flies through the air, has fire in its mouth; like a stripe it goes through the air, a flame of fire in its wake; flies like a fire, leaving a tail behind; flies like a big bird overhead; comes like fire; a bird comes and fire appears in the yard; through the air like a black ball or a pile of wood or a haystack. A toad is seen sucking on the cow in a barn, leaving like a streak of fire through the air etc. (Loorits 1928: 40 ff.). Like the Estonians, the Livs describe the anthropomorphic treasure-bearer as an ordinary persons, but when they practice witchcraft they turn into a streak of fire, a broom, or a bird, flying through the sky. Again, narrators refer to real people by their names, speaking about how they acted as milk ticks. It is said that the body of a person lay lifeless on the ground until the soul acted as a tick. Here we can see an overlapping with the tradition of a whirlwind (Est. tuulispask) that steals grain and other things. Some reports in Livonian folklore state that only the witch that escapes through the chimney, with an oven broom between her thighs, milks cows. Some stories specify that the witches have a vessel with them – for example, a bladder, a large one like a pig’s bladder, into which they put milk to take it home; however, they cannot take butter. In some descriptions, the witches are black while the vessel into which they milk is also black, but the red tail behind them is like fire. The Livonian witches can be invisible when they are sucking milk from a cow, while their shad­ow can be seen on the barn wall. Loorits gives an example where the storyteller’s mother understood that somebody had been suck­ing on her cow every night. One morning, she went to milk it and on the wall saw a naked man with big balls, which were decreasing; then there was a flash like a flame Fig 6. Kratt-bearer, Kristjan Raud, 1927. Vikipeedia. of fire and he disappeared, but that morning the cow had not been milked (Loorits 1928: 42, Loorits 1926: S 152). In Estonian tradition, the zoomorphic kratt figures were known as milk-bearers: a toad, frog, (black) dog, (black) cat, bird, crow, (black) rooster, chicken, duck, eagle, squirrel, or a snake, or commonly known as a milk sucker and a demonic creature. At the same time, the snake shares features with the house snake, which was fed and banned from killing. A ‘fish-bearer’ was widespread in the Estonian inland, but not along the coast or on the islands where fishing was a daily activity. The silgukratt could be a person, yet it was common for it to take the form of a cat (grey or black, and rarely also a yellow one), sometimes a large bird or a chicken. The money-bearer, or rahakratt, was a lesser-known character tasked with bringing money to the master. Records of rahakratt originate from different parishes, with it mainly appearing as anthropomorphic or artificial creatures. Votian tradition mentions para primarily as a human (often a witch) who milked cows (Västrik 1998). The Finnish para appeared in the form of an animal (rat, toad, frog, bird), a ball of fire, or a woman. It is the owner or the milk stealer (cf. Jauhiainen 1998: H1­300). A woman was also the owner or the “milk bearer” in Sweden (Klintberg 2010: 289). ACOUSTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF FLYING SERPENTS In Belarus folklore, flying serpents of enrichment lack specific acoustic characteristics, which is not typical of mythological creatures. Rusalka, pharaonka, domovoy, lesovik, bannik and other demons usually possess certain auditory characteristics, sometimes very diverse,reflectedintheirrespectivetales.Rusalki,forinstance,makevaguesounds,entice and call people, laugh, cry, and sing, among others, insightful and enlightening songs. Domovoy and dvorovoy (khlevnik) can talk with their masters and answer questions; evil spirits make terrible noises (Vinogradova 2000: 179-199). Although the acoustic image of Belarusian spirits-enrichers is generally uncertain, some texts about a flying serpent published by Pavel Shein in the early 20th century say the serpent’s flight is accompa­nied by noise (Shein 1902: 302). Shein also presents the image of a spirit-enricher in the form of a cat whose movement is always associated with a slight noise and a buzz (Shein 1902: 304). The flying serpent is an exceptional, silent character, although its visual characteristics are vibrant and detailed. If the serpent is unhappy with its master, it does not chastise him or make its disapproval known with sounds, but burns the house down and flies away to serve another master. Although the flying serpent lover is visually similar to the serpent of enrichment, it has a distinctly different auditoryimage. In a famous tale about the serpent lover, hemp and lice, the serpent asks a woman eating hemp seeds what she is doing. The woman answers that she is eating lice and the serpent leaves her forever. In the Estonian corpus, acoustic parameters indicate that the treasure-bearerscom­municates with the master or has discussions with them and they also communicate with each other. Para also communicates with humans in the Votian tradition (Västrik 1998). T HE TREASURE -BEARER IN E AST S LA VIC AND F INNO -U GRIC CONTEXTS In legends, the milk-bearer and the fish-bearer vomit up milk or fish and thus make corresponding sounds. The way the master calls the creature is interesting as the human employs typical onomatopoeia:calls,imitationofasoundmadebyorassociatedwithananimalorabird, or imitative and suggestive words for a greater effect. The treasure-bearer’s speech is remarkable, often using distortedforeign words and expressions or baby talk. In the legends under study, two kratt discuss the quality of food using baby talk: In a household the hostess put food in the attic for the kratt. The farm servant was not given as good food as the kratt. [One day he followed the hostess to the attic.] The servant ate the porridge left for the kratt and did his thing in the bowl instead. Kratts came to eat. One of them said: “Kuku pupp!” [‘Good porridge’ in baby talk], the other one: “Äka pupp!” [äka = kaka, ‘bad, shit porridge’ in baby talk]. The second kratt won the argu­ ment. Then they set the house on fire. (ERA II 30, 65/6 (4) Torma, 1930) Tactile experiences are very rare, which is why they are not addressed here. TEMPORAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SERPENT OF ENRICHMENT Unlike with the mythological khut and tsmok, the events in the texts take place in real historical time and usually in the time of the narrator, or in the recent past. The image of the treasure-bearer or flying serpent is associated with certain workflows, e.g. har­vest and other periods related to winter supplies. This means the mythical creature’s image is situational. The least known in Estonian tradition is a kratt who moves about in wintertime. In Belarusian tales about a serpent of enrichment, it can be seen during the winter months (one informant recalled she had seen the serpent while sledding downhill as a child), in autumn, in late summer during grain threshing, and during the off-season in spring and autumn (the mistress is “drying the serpent’s shoes”) (Boganeva 2012: No. 5, 7, 8). In Estonia, the most common time for milk stealing and milk magic was the period from the day the cattle were let out (around 1 April) until Midsummer Day (24 June). The motifs of milk magic are more closely related to spring (Easter, St. George’s Day) when it is done either by means of dust picked from the tracks of a neighbour’s herd, by the symbolic milking of junipers or fences, or by calling for milk while sitting on the branches of a tree (the same in Sweden; see Klintberg 2010: type P24 ff.). It was believed that butter madefrom the stolen milk had blood cells in it; the same motif appears in Swedish legends (Klintberg 2010: type P22). The ‘fish-bearer’ acts during spring and summertime, the ‘grain-bearer’ in summer and also in autumn, when it is darker. The animated creature is connected with Thursday, namely, the most popular time for magic rituals. As for thetime of day when the act was accomplished, in Estonia this depended greatly on the type of bearer. They can act in the evening, in the morning, or at night, but certainly at a time when the grain has been winnowed. The treasure was carried by the kratt also during the day. If there is nothing else to carry, they carry hay from meadows. (EKS 2, 161/2 Torma, 1890) As for the time of day, in most cases the Belarusian tales and the legends found in the Russian archive of theEstonian Literary Museumdo notexplicitly mention it;still, based on the information collected it may be concluded that night is the serpent’s preferred time. The taleof a shimmering luminous serpent suggests a darker time of day. In some cases, nighttime is explicitly mentioned (ERA, Vene4, 64 (7);Boganeva 2012:29, No. 6, 7, 8). TYPICAL LOCI FOR THE SERPENT OF ENRICHMENT The vast majority of narratives under investigation talk about a village environment; the activities take place on farmlandor between farms and villages, in meadows, on village or inter-village roads, in which case the narrator, being on the outside, sees a kratt flying in the sky. The making and acquisition of the treasure-bearer occur in a space of magical significance such as a crossroads or a forest road outside the village. The treasure-bearer is oftenboughtin the city ofRiga (see above),the administrative centreofLivonia. Riga represents a more distant space/city where miraculous cases are possible from the storytelling point of view. Moreover, the structure of the farmstead is revealed in via legends. In both Estonian and Estonian Russian legends, the most typical loci for the serpent in the house are the attic and the threshing floor, or a storehouse for milk or grain, or a barn. The grain car­riers lived in the attic, under the roof, and were given food there. They went in and out through a hatch,a gable end window. This was also consideredto be the reason that a tail of fire was seen entering a house. Even today, people believe that a streak of fire that goes into a house but does not cause a fire is a kratt. In Votian tradition, the porridge for the treasure-bearer is put in an oven, on a rake, or in a barn (Västrik 1998). METHODS USED TO WARD OFF THE TREASURE-BEARER In Belarusian texts, including modern ones, the spirit-enricher in the form of a flying serpent is often envisioned as an au pair and is not associated with evil spirits. In this case, as a rule the owners do not protect themselves from it, and try to please it with their favourite food. Yet, when the snake threatens a person’s life or property they employ typical methods of protection from evil spirits: a cross, prayers, sharp iron objects etc. (Boganeva 2012: 29-30). T HE TREASURE -BEARER IN E AST S LA VIC AND F INNO -U GRIC CONTEXTS However, one Belarusian ethnographic description by Alexander Dembovetski from the 19th centurygives a curious ‘instruction’ regarding the destruction of the serpent-en­richer. The owner must find out where the snake sleeps, then take a rope, cover it with tar, and hit the serpent with it. The serpent takes different guises and asks to be hit again (which cannot be done), and then dies. If the owner listens to the snake and hits it again, the snake willkillhimand burnthepropertydown(Dembovetski1882:498-499). Estonian lore stipulates that, while punishing the treasure-bearer, numbers must not be counted in the correct order: Volmer grabbed it, took a whip and gave the treasure bearer a good beat­ing, counting: ‘One, two, four; one, two, four’. The treasure bearer was screaming: ‘Say one, two, three!’. As soon as Volmer had said one-two-three, the treasure bearer vanished. (E 45211/2 Paistu, 1905) In Estonia, we can find verbal charms against the treasure bearer and all the usual methods of protection against evil spirits like crosses, prayers, and sharp iron objects, but a common belief is: Then undo all the cords and buttons around you and the fire tail will drop its load. And if you put a silver bullet in the gun and you shoot it in the direction of the fire tail, it will also drop its load. If you see a fire tail and throw a lit match or an ember at it, it will set the master’s house in fire (E 16787 (1) Pärnu-Jaagupi, 1895). PERCEPTION OF THE FIERY SERPENT Legends and belief narratives usually address the viewpoints of the narrator and the listener. In rituals, a distinction is made between the viewpoints of the spectator, the ritual leader, and the ordinary participator. Also in our cases, a distinction is first and foremost made between the stories and experiences of the narrator or transcriber, and those that they have heard from their friends and relatives as to which the narrator has no direct experience. There is a considerable number of people’s own experiences in the Estonian corpus, and among the texts of Estonian Russians and also in the more recent Belarusian texts. We even have eyewitness accounts (ERA, Vene 11, 445 (9); ERA, Vene 11, 445 (9)). Such experiences are distinguished by emotional evaluations and often lead to new arguments and interpretations. Doubts about the existence of flying serpents are much less common. Estonian Russians at the start of the 20th century generally considered flying serpents to be evil spirits. Tont is a serpent. It brought goods to its master. It was Satan himself, they said. (ERA, Vene 1, 699 (3)) OneEstonianRussiannarratorreflects onwhethertheflyingserpentcomes fromGod or Satan, and concludes that it does not come from God. The flying serpent… I don’t know if it was sent by God or the Evil One. Probably by the Evil One. God would just give it to man if he wanted to make him rich, and it [the serpent] wouldn’t have been necessary. (ERA, Vene 1, 218/9 (22)) In modern Belarusian lore, the narrators rarely state that they themselves have wit­nessed flying serpents, and mainly refer to the stories told by their relatives and friends (Boganeva 2012: 28, No. 2, 13, 30). Not all modern narrators living in Belarusian villages believe in the existence of flying serpents: There used to be legends about a serpent that brought riches to a wealthy man. He had storehouses, this and that… We didn’t have this. … Well, they were just fairy tales. (Boganeva 2012: 28, No. 4) The perception of the character described by the Belarusian narrators is far more ambiguous than that of the Estonian Russians. In contemporary records, the serpent that brings wealth has adualinterpretation.On onehand,itis ahousehold deity, similar to that described by P. Shpilevsky5and A. Bogdanovich, which contributesto the enrichment of its master (not necessarily a sorcerer). It is only about such a serpent that the following could be said: You know, daughter, if only we had such a serpent … (Boganeva 2012: 28, No. 1). This kind of serpent, a serpent of enrichment, is not usually referred to as an evil spirit. In this regard, the text that was recorded as told by Maria Seliverstovna Kokhanovskaya (b. 1927) is especially telling. When asked whether the serpent is an evil spirit, she answered affirmatively, yet sounded very uncertain: “Well, yes, it’s probably an evil spirit …”. And then she immediately changed her opinion, stating that “it does exist since bats exist…” (Boganeva 2012: 28, No. 2). On the other hand, the serpent can be clearly presented as an evil spirit, a means of enrichment for its masters – sorcerers. The work of Pavel Shpilevsky under the pseudonym P. Drevlyansky “Belarusian Folk Traditions” has been repeatedly criticised because many characters were almost completely invented by the author (see Toporkov 2002: 245-254; Levkyevskaya 2002: 311-351). However, as E. Levkyevskaya correctly notes, not all the characters described in the “Belarusian Folk Traditions” are fictions invented by Drevlyansky himself. Some belongtocharacters thatreallyexistinBelarusianmythologyandaredescribedwithsufficientcorrespondence to folk ideas (Levkyevskaya 2002: 318). One of these characters is Tsmok or an enrichment serpent. T HE TREASURE -BEARER IN E AST S LA VIC AND F INNO -U GRIC CONTEXTS ACTORS IN THE BELIEF NARRATIVES Belief narratives convey behavioural instructions for how to cope with the situation, while a noticeable part of the narratives concerns how to make a kratt (which components are needed, what must be done, in what chronological order the actions have to be performed, and which verbal techniques to use). Some texts describe the behaviour of a servant or maid who discovers the kratt and either scares them away, insults them verbally, kicks them, or kills them. There are more characters in the story of spoiling the kratt’s porridge: the kratt’s feeder and the master or lady of the house, the servant, and the kratt. The kratt is active in both bringing in goods and breaking the contract and starting fires. Sometimes, in the final phase, the servant re-enters the game, throwing the kratt(s) who had escaped from the house into the fire as well, thereby destroying the evil creature. One of the characters may be a mysterious merchant or salesman from Riga, and cer­tainly the devil or a representative of evil forces in stories about acquisition of the kratt, as well as about the treasure-bearer as a miraculous and dangerous helper who constantly demands work; its appearance is connected with, for example, a book of witchcraft or The Seventh Book of Moses. Different actions hold various functions in the stories. The links between an action and an object are contrasting, and it is already clear from what was mentioned above that distinct characters are either active or passive in the stories. 1. Activities related to acquiring a mythical creature are connected with a spatial loca­tion. In most cases, there is a short introduction to present the setting, characters, and period of time. More often, the mythical being’s activities are related to a farm and the economy; some stories see it as working in the open air, in a barn, or in a shed. 2. There are many texts in which a person passively observes the actions of a treas-ure-bearer. 3. A person observes the actions of a treasure-bearer and activelytries to stop them: performs magical activities to stop a hostile action (cuts shoelaces, undoes buttons etc.) so that the treasure-bearer falls or drops what it is carrying. 4. Texts in which a person and the treasure-bearer take turns being active (making the treasure-bearer a story of spoiling the kratt’s porridge; if the conditions of the ‘agree­ment’ are not met, the serpent destroys the farmer’s property). Many stories describe fantastical elements of the tradition: a person who can turn into a treasure-bearer or a whirlwind, moves like light or in a physical form across the sky and cover distances quickly. The peculiarity of East Slavic and Finno-Ugric folklore is that unusual abilities can also be used by ordinary people either by imitating others or through the influence of new skills. THE TREASURE-BEARER AS PART OF THE CULTURAL SPACE The participation of mythical characters in professional culture and various art forms is a topical question. St. George, the patron saint of many Christian cities and countries, and especially his struggle with the dragon, which also symbolises the struggle of Christian­ity with non-Christianity, paganism and evil, is depicted in both monuments and icons in many countries. In Estonia, such a monument, depicting St. George’s fight with the dragon, was erected near the Tori Church in Pärnu County in 2006 to mark Estonia’s victory in the War of Independence and the country’s regained independence. However, a large monument in the centre of Minsk has now become a memorial to those killed in the2020 strugglefor freedom,andhas becomean importantnationalsymbol. Thestatues of a tsmok (in a provincialtown) and a dragon in a green area of Minsk in Belarus are related to different mindscapes. The statue of the dragon has a good-natured appearance and resembles recent media figures. This figure has also been painted as a sign of protest in the colours of the unofficial flag of Belarus. The mythical treasure-bearer, especially the kratt,holds a special role in Estonian professional culture where it isdepicted in all media and art forms: ballet, musical forms, literature (including children’s books), productions, art, films, community art sculptures from handy natural materials, and staged performances captured in professional photo­graphs. The kratt is reflected in company names, computer-software names etc. In other words, although its shape has changed, it is still part of today’sculture, having both humorous and serious roles. LIMITED GOOD AND THE TREASURE-BEARER In our analysis, we proceeded from legends and the storyworld and discarded the idea of placing the action in a concrete social environment. The purpose of a legend is not to provide a truthful description of events and experiences but to present an unusual experience and sometimes also moral dilemmas. While describing the material, we also considered the anthropologist George M. Foster’stheory of a limited good (1965), which was supplemented by John Kennedy (1966). In the second half of the 19th century serfdom was abolished in Estonia and peo­ple’s economic opportunities were improved. Peasants started to buy freehold title to farms. On their land lived cottagers who worked for the farmers, as well as the ‘farm’s proletariat’ – maids, farmhands, seasonal workers, herders, craftsmen etc. If we analyse the kratt stories from a social aspect, the kratt is usually owned by a farmer or his wife who communicate directly with them, yet in stories they are also made and obtained by poorer peasants and farmhands. The corpus of stories is implemented in very many registers: in addition to the serious discourse of legends, stories in the style of fantasy, humour, sarcasm etc. can also be heard. The voices heard also vary: young and old, women and men, representing various social strata. To some extent, the stories reveal the labour division between genders: milk T HE TREASURE -BEARER IN E AST S LA VIC AND F INNO -U GRIC CONTEXTS magic on the farm is women’s sphere and women are more connected to it, whereas the grain-bearer is chiefly made by men, who also operate it. The fatal blow is delivered by young people – a farmhand or a maid. Either out of ignorance or dislike for the things seen (a cat vomiting milk into a pot), they ruin the magic practice, frighten the spirit off, kill it, or spoil its food. This kind of behaviour is displayed when a supernatural creature is encountered whose existence young people cannot interpret because they lack knowledge of the olden world and, even if some links emerge, they reprehend the use of witchcraft and magic. The postulate of many stories seems to be the warning that if you use a magic helper you can lose your life and riches following a brief period of wealth. Narratives andbeliefs abouttreasure-bearers are ambivalent as is the attitudeto the treasure-bearers, yet there are no records of a documented boom in making treas-ure-bearers and treasure-seeking, nor can we witness any economic development in the kratt stories (cf. Taylor 1986). Treasure-hunting stories are quite realistic, at the same time the treasure-bearers like kratt are attributed with highly fantastic capabilities of shape-shifting, soul-wandering and witchcraft. The action still takes place in the village and on an old-fashioned farm. Thedwelling has only onefloor, which in the20th-century modern village became a sign of wealth, and the creature does not choose a town as its habitat. During the 200-year period when the stories were written down, technological development was at a standstill. There are no novel materials, the kratt is still made from old junk, and no laws of robotics are applied. In most cases, several explanations are possible. For example, moral choices, but also cases in which themotifs convey experienceyetdo notlink thephenomenon with acquir­ing wealth and other benefits; the treasure-bearer has no immediate connection with any person, and its existence is self-evident like snow or rain, an unexplained phenomenon. E. Boganeva recalls: “In 2013 I wrote down a story about the narrator’s mother walk­ing through the forest and a black rooster following her. And the mother knew that if she threw somethingat the cock, it would crumble into a heap of gold. Although they led a shabbylife,themotherdecided thatshedidnotneedthis gold as itwouldcomefromevil spirits. She cameout of the forest without throwing anything at the cock, and the latter disappeared. The narrator said that her mother was very religious, a Catholic. It means that the moral conflict let her give up wealth”. M. Kőiva added a conversation with her great-aunt’s husband, a miner, who was pondering some coloured balls of light moving about just above the ground in his home village near a town, heading for the attic of a wealthy farmhouse. “Kratts”, he guessed. “But they did not bring wealth. Cold light!”. In 1998, a female Setu singer described a treasure-bearer in the form of a window frame, a frame of light that followed her and then suddenly changed direction. CONCLUSION A generalruleis thattheimageryofmythicalcreatures has changedover thecenturies. The description of a demonic character (flying fire, a burning sheaf, various anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures) is based on what it is carrying, or sucking. It is possible that different creatures have merged into one. Estonian Russians also associated the flying serpent with kratt, tont, haldjas – the Estonian demonic characters. The kratt here was made of various items and old junk, and then animated with sacramental wine secretly brought from a church. The perceptions of fiery serpents among Belarusiansand Estonian Russians are similar to the Lithuanian beliefs about aitvaras, a flying spirit that brings wealth and emerges from an egg laid by a 3- or 7-year-old rooster. The imaginationsand storiesassociated with these names have changed following the development of the lived folk religion and are changing, developing local circumstances and new international motifs like UFOs to replace the treasure-bearer. When we compared the traditional Belarusian perceptions of flying serpents of enrich­ment with those of Estonian Russians reflected in archival records from the 1920–1940s preservedbytheEstonian LiteraryMuseum,wefoundseveralsimilarities inthedescrip­tion of: (a) the appearance of the demonic character (flying fire, a burning sheaf etc.; the serpent changes its colours, brightness and shape based on what it is carrying); (b) the mutual actions of the serpent of enrichment and the master it serves (the man feeds the serpent, the serpent enriches its master; if the conditions of the ‘agreement’ are not met, the serpent destroys its master’s property). As concerns the origin of the serpent of enrich­ment, some textsfrom Estonian and Votic narratives contain an ancient mythical layer of motifs about the serpent having emerged from a rooster’s egg that a person had to carry beneath their clothing for 1 to 3 years. In the tales of Estonian Russians and Estonians, the serpent usually appears as a result of a man’s deal with evil spirits (selling their soul to the devil, signing their name in blood etc.). In addition, Estonian Russians identified the flying serpent with a kratt, an Estonian demonic character.In this case, the animated kratt was made from various items of old junk, and then brought to life with sacramental wine secretly brought from a church. In Estonian tradition, one of the most important hypostases is the animated treasure-bearer and helper. This creature finds parallels in many cultures, including in Northern Europe. Further, the complex of Estonian milk magic as well as the ‘milktick’ or ‘milk-bearer’ has a wide cultural background. Estonian lore is characterised by close relationships with the Baltic-Finnic and Swedish lore as well as the Slavic and German traditions; yet, there are also considerablehistorical and cultural differences in the gender aspect or differences in animal-shaped treasure-bearers. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thispaper ispart of the research project “Narrative and belief aspectsof folklore studies” of the Department of Folkloristics of the Estonian Literary Museum (EKM 8-2/20/3), and the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund (Centre of Excellence in Estonian Studies, TK-145). T HE TREASURE -BEARER IN E AST S LA VIC AND F INNO -U GRIC CONTEXTS SOURCES Estonian Literary Museum: Estonian Folklore Archives – manuscripts H, E, ERA, RKM, EKS ERA, Vene – The Russian archives, 17 volumes Skriptoorium – Digital Archives and tool, Department of Folkloristrics, ELM Centre for the Study of Belarusian Culture, Language and Literature of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus: BFELA — Database of Belarusian folklore and ethnolinguistics BIBLIOGRAPHY AaS = Aarne, Antti, 1918: Estnische Märchen- und Sagenvarianten: Verzeichnis der zu den Hurt’schen Handschriftsammlungen gehenden Aufzeichnungen. Hamina: Academia Scientarum Fennica. (FF Communications 25.) Aarne, Antti, 1918: Estnische Märchen- und Sagenvarianten: Verzeichnis der zu den Hurt’schen Handschriftsammlungen gehenden Aufzeichnungen. Hamina: Academia Scientarum Fennica. (FF Communications 25.) Ariste, Paul, 1943: Vadja lemm. Mőningaid vadja sőnaseletusi [Votian lemmüz. Some Votian word explanations]. Virittäjä 3–4, 301–314. Arukask, Madis, 1998: Tuulispea [Wirbelwind]. Västrik, Ergo-Hart; Arukask, Madis (comp.). Vadja aken. Vaateid vadja rahvausundile ja asustusloole [Votic Window. Views of the Votian Folk Religion and Settlement history]. Tartu: EKI, rahvausundi töörühm. https:// www.folklore.ee/rl/folkte/sugri/vadja/mytol/mytindex.htm (31.01.2022) Avilin, Tsimafei, 2015: Pamiž niebam i ziamlioj. Etnaastranomija [Between Heaven and Earth. Ethnoastronomy]. Minsk: Technalohija. Belova, Olga, 2012: Letaiet’ zmey k lyudyam… [A Serpent Flies to People ...]. Zhivaya Starina 1, 24–26. Boganeva, Elena, 2012: Garuchy zmey — tak yon zvausya [Fire Serpent — This is so-called]. Zhivaya Starina 1, 27–30. Boganeva, Elena; Kőiva, Mare, 2023: Mifologicheskiye teksty russkogo arkhiva ELM v zapisyakh 20-40-kh gg. XX .. [Mythological Texts of the Russian Archive of theELM in the Records of the 20–40 years of the 20th century]. Russian Folklore. I. Tartu: ELM Scholarly Press. Monumenta Antiqua Estoniae. Bogdanovich, Adam, 1895: Perezhitki drevnego mirosozertsaniya u belorusov: etnograficheskiy ocherk [Remnants of the Ancient World Outlook among Belarusians: an Ethnographic Essay]. Grodno: Gubernskaya tipografiya. Butov, Ilya, 2021: Moskovskiy arkhiv Komissii po anomal’nym yavleniyam v okruzhayushchey prirodnoy srede kak istochnik svedeniy po narodnoy mifologii [Moscow archive of the Commission on anomalous phenomena in the natural environment as a source of information on folk mythology]. Slavyanskiy al’manakh [Slavic yearbook], 3-4. https:// www.ufo-com.net/publications/art-12715-kaia-istochnik-svedenii-narodnoi-mifologii. html (31.01. 2022) Dembovetski, Aleksandr, 1882: Opyt opisaniya Mogilevskoy gubernii v istoricheskom, fiziko­geograficheskom, etnograficheskom, promyshlennom, sel’skokhozyaystvennom, lesnom, uchebnom, meditsinskom i statisticheskom otnosheniyakh [The attemt of describing the Mogilev province in the historical, physical-geographical, ethnographic, industrial, agricultural, forestry, educational, medical and statistical directions.] Book 1. Mogilev: Tipografiya gubernskogo pravleniya. Davies, Owen, 2010: Grimoires: A History of Magic Books. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Drevlyanski, Pavel (Shpilevskiy Pavel), 1846: Belorusskiye narodnye pover’ya [Belarussian Folk Beliefs]. Zhurnal ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya (pribavleniya) 1–2, 4. Eisen, Matthias Johann, 1895: Krati-raamat [The Book of Kratt]. Narva: R. Pőder. Eisen, Matthias Johann, 1919: Eesti moloogia [Estonian Mythology]. Tartu: Eestimaa Kooliőpetajate Vastastiku Abiandmise Seltsi raamatukaupluse kirjastus. EKSS = Karelson, Rudolf et al. 2009: Eesti keele seletav saraamat [Explanatory Dictionary of Estonian]. 2nd ed. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. ETY = Metsmägi, Iris et al. 2012: Eesti etoloogiasastik [Etymology Dictionary of Estonian]. Tallinn: EKI. Fasmer, Maks, 1987: Etimologicheskiy slovar’ russkogo yazyka [The Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language]. Vol. 4. Moskva: Progress. Foster, George M., 1965. Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good. In: American Anthropologist New Series, Vol. 67, No. 2, Apr., 293–315. Harva, Uno, 1948: Suomalaisten muinaisusko [Finnish Ancient Mythology]. Helsinki: Academia Scientarum Fennica. Honko, Lauri, 1962: Geisterglaube in Ingermanland I. Helsinki: Academia Scientarum Fennica. (FF Communication 185.) Jauhiainen, Marjatta, 1998: The Type and Motif Index of Finnish Belief Legends and Memorates. Revised and enlarged edition of Lauri Simonsuuri’s Typen- und Motivverzeichnis der finnischen mythischen Sagen. Helsinki: SKS. (FF Communication 267.) Karulis, Konstantins, 1992: Latviešu etimologijas vardnica [Latvian Etymological Vocabulary]. Riga: AVOTS. Kennedy, John G., 1966. Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good: A Critique. In: American Anthropologist New Series, Vol. 68, No. 5, Oct., 1212–1225. Klintberg, Bengt af, 2010: The Types of the Swedish Folk Legend. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica. (FF Communications 300.) Kőiva, Mare, 1996: Some aspects of UFO-lore. In: Contemporary folklore, Vol. 1, Tartu: EKM Rahvausundi töörühm, 254-266. Kőiva, Mare, 2011a: Koldovskie, magicheskie i zagovornye knigi v estonskom folklore [Books of Witches, Magic Books and the Manuscripts of the Healing Books]. Centr i periferia [Center and Peripheri], 3, 69-75. Kőiva, Mare, 2011b: Eesti loitsud [Estonian Incantations]. Tallinn: Pegasus. Kőiva, Mare; Boganeva, Elena, 2020: Beliefs about Flying Serpents in Belorussian, Estonian and Russian Estonian Traditions. In: Maeva, Mila et al. (eds.), Between the Worlds: Magic, Miracles, and Mysticism. Vol. 2. Sofia: IEFSEM – BAS & Paradigma, 386-401. Kropej, Monika, 2012: Supernatural Beings From Slovenian Myth and Folktales. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. T HE TREASURE -BEARER IN E AST S LA VIC AND F INNO -U GRIC CONTEXTS 101 Laagus, Aino, 1973: Situatsioonianalüüsist folkloristikas [Situation analyzes in Folkloristics]. Keel ja Kirjandus, 7, 404–412. Laime, Sandis, 2013: Raganu priekšstati Latvija: Nakts raganas. [Witches in Latvian folk belief: Night witches]. Riga: LU Literaturas, folkloras un makslas instituts. Levkiyevskaya, Elena, 2019: Zmey letayushchiy [Flying serpent]. In: Vinogradova, L.; Levkiyevskaya, E. (eds.), Narodnaya demonologiya Poles’ya [Folk Demonology of Polesie]. Vol. 4: Dukhi domashnego i prirodnogo prostranstva. Nelokalizovannyye personazhi. Moskva: Izdatel’skiy dom YASK. Levkiyevskaja, Elena, 2002: Mehanizmy sozdanija mifologicheskikh fantomov v “Belorusskih narodnykh predaniyakh” P. Drevljanskogo [Mechanisms for creating mythological phantoms in “Belarusian Folk Belief” by P. Drevlyansky]. In: Toporkov, A.; Ivanova, T.; Lapteva, A.; Levkiyevskaya, E. (eds.), Rukopisi, kotoryh ne bylo: Poddelki v oblasti slavjanskogo fol'klora. Moscow: Ladomir, 311–351. Levkiyevskaya, Elena, 1999: Zmey letayushchiy [Flying serpent]. In: Slavyanskiye drevnosti: Etnolingvisticheskiy slovar’, Vol. 2. Moskva: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 330–332. Ljungström, Ĺsa, 2014: Material Artefacts In Oral Tradition: Notes And Family Lore On The Owners Of The Sandvik Manor Magic Art Manuscripts. Incantatio. An International Journal on Charms, Charmers and Charming, 4, 9–33. doi:10.7592/Incantatio2014_ Ljungstrom. Loorits, Oskar, 1926: Livische Märchen und Sagenvarianten. Hamina: Academia Scientarum Fennica. (FF Communications 66.) Loorits, Oskar, 1928: Liivi rahva usund III. [Folk Belief of Livs. III].Tartu: Tartu University Press. Loorits, Oskar, 1949: Grundze des estnischen Volksglaubens.I. Lund: Carl Blom. Makhracheva, T., 2012: Fol’klornye predstavlenia o zmeyakh v Tambovskoy oblasti [Folklore Ideas about Serpent in the Tambov Region]. Zhivaya Starina 1, 19–21. Nosovich, Ivan, 1870: Slovar’ belorusskogo narechiya (Dictionary of Belarusian Dialect.) Sankt-Peterburg: Otdeleniye russkogo yazyka i slovesnosti Akademii nauk. Paulson, Ivar, 1958: Die primitiven Seelenvorstellungen der nordeurasischen Vker: Eine religionsethnographische und religionsphänomenologische Untersuchung. Stockholm: Statens etnografiska museum. Pentikäinen, Juha, 1968: Grentzprobleme zwischen Memorat und Sage. Temenos 3, 136–167. PEZ 2011 = Lobach, Uladzimir 2011: Polacki etnahraficny zbornik. [Polotsk Ethnographic Collection]. Issue 2:1. Narodnaja proza bielarusau Padzvinnia. Navapolack: PDU. Petrova, Natalya, 2012: .Voglennyy' v fol’klore Kirovskoy oblasti. [‘Fiery’ in the Folklore of the Kirov Region]. Zhivaya Starina 1: 23–24. Pietkiewicz, Czeslaw 1938: Kultura duchowa Polesia Rzeczyckiego: materjaly etnograficzne. Warszawa: TNW. Romanov, Evdokim, 1912: Belorusski sbornik. 8-9: Byt belorusa; Opyt slovarya uslovnykh yazykov Belorussii. [Belarusian collection. 8-9: Everyday life of Belarus; Experience in the Dictionary of Conditional Languages of Belarus]. Vil’na: A. G. Syrkina. Shein, Pavel, 1902: Materialy dlia izucheniia byta i iazyka russkogo naseleniia Severo-Zapadnogo kraia. [Materials for Studying the Way of Life and Language of the Russian Population of the North-Western Region]. Vol. 3. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoi akademii nauk. Salaviej, Liya, 2011: Khut. In: Valodzina, Tatziana; Sanko, Siarhei (eds.), Mifalohija bielarusau. Encyklapiedycny slounik [The Mythology of Belarusians. Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Minsk: Bielarus, 503. Skulachev, Anton, 2012: Bylichki o letuchem zmeye iz Vel’skogo rayona Arkhangel’skoy oblasti. [Mythological Tales of a Flying Serpent from the Velsky District of the Arkhangelsk Region]. Zhivaya Starina 1, 21–23. Taylor, Alan, 1986: The Early Republic’s Supernatural Economy: Treasure Seeking in the American Northeast, 1780-1830. In: American Quarterly, 38, 6–34. ..KB 2011 = Varfalameyeva, Tamara (ed.), Tradycyjnaja mastackaja kultura bielarusau. Vol. 5. Tsentral’naya Belarus’. Vol. 2. [Traditional Art Culture of Belarusians. The Central Region. Book 2]. Minsk: Vysheyshaya shkola. Tolstoi, Nikita, 2013: Etnolingvistika v krugu gumanitarnykh distsipliin [Ethnolinguistics amoung humanities] In: Tolstoi, Nikita; Tolstaya, Svetlana (eds.), Slavyanskaya Etnolingvistica: voprosy teorii [Slavic Ethnolinguistics: theoretical questions]. Moscow: Institut slavjanovedenii RAN, 19–31. Toporkov, Andrei, 2002. O “Belorusskih narodnyh predanijah i ih avtore” [About “Belarusian folk legends“ and their author” In: Toporkov, A.; Ivanova, T.; Lapteva, A.; Levkiyevskaya, E. (eds.), Rukopisi, kotoryh ne bylo: Poddelki v oblasti slavjanskogo fol'klora. Moscow: Ladomir, 245–254. Uuspuu, Vile, 2001 [1938]: Surmaotsused Eesti nőiaprotsessides [Death Penalty in Estonian Witch Traials]. Mäetagused. doi:10.7592/MT2001.19.uuspuu (Reprint of the article published in Usuteadusline Ajakiri in 1938, Nos. 2–4.) Västrik, Ergo-Hart, 1998: Varavedaja [Treasure Bearer]. In: Västrik, Ergo-Hart; Arukask, Madis (comp.). Vadja aken. Vaateid vadja rahvausundile ja asustusloole [Votic Window. Views of the Votian Folk Religion and Settlement history]. Tartu: EKI, rahvausundi töörühm. https://www.folklore.ee/rl/folkte/sugri/vadja/mytol/mytindex.htm (31.01.2022) Vinogradova, Liudmila, 2000: Narodnaya demonologiya i mifo-ritual’naya traditsiya slavyan. [Folk demonology and the mythological and ritual tradition of the Slavs]. Moskva: Indrik. Vinokurova, Irina, 2014: Mifologiya vepsov. Entsiklopedia. [Encyclopaedia of Vepsian Mythology]. Petrozavodsk: PetrGU. VMS 1996 = Pall, Valdek 1996: Väike murdesastik [Small Dialectological Dictionary]. Tallinn: EKI. ....-........... . ........-.......... . .....­........ .......... MARE KŐIVA, ELENA BOGANEVA ..... ...... ........ ............. ........... .............. . ..........­.............. ............ ......... . ....... . .....-............, . ... ..... . ...... ........./......... ...., ................... T HE TREASURE -BEARER IN E AST S LA VIC AND F INNO -U GRIC CONTEXTS 103 ......... . .....-........ ......... (........., ......., ........., ......., ........) . ..... . .............. . .............. ........... .. .... ........... ...................................................19­21 ... ........., ......., . ....... ....... ........., ... . .. .. ............... ..... ........ ......... .......19-20 ... ....... ......., ........, ......, ........, ....., ......, ....... .......... . ......... ............ ...... ........ .... . ........... ............ .............. .......... .. ............ ... . .... ...........: ....-........... . ........... ........., ... ... ....... .... . .... ........... ......... ......... ............ .......... ....-............ . ...................(........) . ......... ............... ........... .....................: ......../........ (.......) ....,.. ......... — ......«....». .. ......-.............. ......................... ................... .............. ............... ... .. ............. ....-........... (........., .........), ...... ... — ................, . ....... ........ . ......... ... .... ........... ........, ....... . ......... .... . .... — .... — ....... ........... ........ .... ..... ...... . .......... .........— ......... ......... ...., ........ .......... ........ — ........... ....., ..... ........ . ...... ......... ......, ......, .... ...... .. ......-........ ........... ..... ........... ........ .. ........ ... ...... ........, . ..... ... ....... ............., ....., ....., .... — ......, ........, ......., .......... .............. .... . ......... ......., .. ................ ........ . ........ . .. .........: .... (........, ....), ..... («..., ........»), tont (.......), lendva (........ .......,.............., .......... .......); .....(........); ......(........, ...); ..../..., ...., ....../......, ......, ......(...... ........ .... ... ........). .................. . ...............,.....,........ ......,....... . ............. ............ . ......... ..... ... ........... ........... .......... ..... 30 ......... ........ ... ....... ......... ......... ...... – pisuhänd – ......... . ...... ......... ..... ..... ......... ......... .... ........, ...... ... ....... . .. ........ . ...... ......... ...... ............: kratt («........»), pisuhänd (........, ........ ....., .......... .....); puuk (.......); tont (.......); vedaja (........, ....) — ...... ........ .......... ........, ... ........ ........ .......... ....., ........ ........., ..... ... ..... .... — ............. .. ......... (.......) ... .. .............. (spok, spuk — .........., .........., ............. ........). .... — ... ...... .. ...... ... ........... ....-..........., .. . ... ............... ................... ........, ..... ...., ........, ......... ............. ........ .....-............ . ......... . ....... ............. ........... . ........... ........... . ......... ....... ....-........... . ........ ............... . ......, ....... .. .. ............. ....... ... . .......... ...... ..... ...... . ........ ...... (.........). ... ........ ......, .. .. ........ ........... ............. ........ .. ..... . ........ ...... ... ...., ..... ....... ... ....... ........, ......... .......... ........... . .........., ........... .. ....... ......... ..... ..... ............... . ........, ......, ......... ........ . ......... .. ......21 .............. ....... ..... ............. . .....-............, ....... ..... ......... .............. ........ ...... ..., ............. .... ........... . ......... ....., ....... ............ .......... ..... ..... ............. ...... ..... ...... ........ ..... . ...... .......... ........ . ............ ........ ........., ................ ...... ............, ....-........... .......... «.........» ... «.........», ... ........ ........ «...........». ..... .... . ...... .......... ........ .....-............(......../ ........ .....) .. ......... .........: ....... ..., ............ .............., ..... ........, ........ ......... .. ......... . ..... (......../.........) . ........ ..... .. ......... . ......... (. ... ..... ..........., ......., .......). ............... ........ .......... .......... (.. ........ ...., ............. ........ .. ....-.........), ...... .....-............ (........ .....) . ........... .......... ............. ........ .....: ......../........ ...., ...-..........., ....., ....., ......../.......... ..... Mare Kőiva, Ph.D., research professor and head of the Department of Folkloristics, Estonian Literary Museum, Vanemuise 42, EE-51003 Tartu, mare@folklore.ee Elena Boganeva, Ph.D., head of the Department of the Ethnolinguistic and folklore, Center for Belarusian Culture, Language and Literature Research, National Academy of Sciences, Surhanava St., 1, Bldg. 2, BY­220072, Minsk, elboganeva@gmail.com 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 105–123 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222505 From Ritual Communication to Convivial Entertainment: Reflections of Old Drinking Rituals in Folk Songs Vita Ivanauskaite-Šeibutiene Clanek obravnava spremembe v obredih pitja in kako se odražajo v folklori. Za podrob­nejšo razpravo so izbrane beloruske in litovske pesmi, ki si delijo vec podobnosti. Pe­semski motivi, analizirani v clanku,kažejo jasne povezave med obredi pitja in folkloro (porocne pesmi in šege zarocnega pitja) ter doloceno implicitno kulturno povezavo med starimi obrednimi odnosi in praznovanji v poznejših casih (motivi praznicnih pesmi, parafrazirani v pitnih tradicijah). Teoreticni okvir prispevka izhaja iz raziskav s podroc­ja folklore, obrednega komuniciranja in zgodovine tradicionalnih pijac, ki preucujejo kulturno kontinuiteto življenjskih pojavov skupnosti. Izkušnje obrednih odnosov, ki se prenašajo iz roda v rod, lahko spodbudijo obstoj arhaicnih kulturnih oblik, tudi ce so specificne obredne prakse že davno zamrle in so postale nepomembne, saj so se življen­jske okolišcine ljudi bistveno spremenile. KLJUCNE BESEDE: ljudske pesmi, obredi pitja, pogostitev, tradicionalne pijace (med­ica, pivo, vino, vodka), obredno komuniciranje. The article considers changes in drinking rituals and how they are reflected in folklore. Belarusian and Lithuanian songs sharing several similarities are selected for a more detailed discussion. The song motifs analysed in the article show clear links between drinking rituals and folklore (wedding songs and betrothal drinking customs), along with a certain implicit cultural link between the old ritual attitudes and festivities in sub­sequent times (motifs of feast songs paraphrased in drinking traditions).The theoretical framework of the paper is supported by research from the fields of folklore, ritual com­munication, and the history of traditional beverages that examines the cultural continuity of community life phenomena. The experiences of ritual attitudes passed down from generation to generation may encourage the existence of archaic cultural forms, even when specific ritual practices have long died out and become irrelevant as people’s life circumstances have changed significantly. KEYWORDS: folk songs, drinking rituals, feast, traditional drinks (mead, beer, wine, vodka), ritual communication. 106 V ITA I V ANAUSKAIT e-Š EIBUTIEN e INTRODUCTION Anthropologists, mythologists and folklorists who study the content, expression and changes with respect to old religious and community-based rituals often state that the old ritual communication isgenerally reflected in modern mass events, gatherings of various groups, or simplyin everyday communication. Onemayinterpretthe norms of etiquette, linguistic stereotypes and folklore motifs which arose from elements of old community rituals as signs pointing to the decay of traditional culture, yet also as evidence of its vitality and adaptation to a constantly changing worldview. Old drinking rituals are among such traditional phenomena which have seen many transformations and taken peculiar forms in folklore. This article seeks to answer several questions through analysis of folklore and old wedding customs while also exploring relevant research on ritual communication and the customs prevalent in community feasts of the later period. Namely, how do changes in the old drinking rituals take place, and how are their separate elements transformed into the entertainment-related self-expression of the participants at various feasts? Which explicit and implicit reflections of old drinking rituals can we detect in comparatively recent folklore forms? Another relevant question is: how can the investigation of these reflections add to the wider studies concerning the folkloric reception of culture? LithuanianandBelarusianfolksongs areselectedinthis articleas thefolkloricmaterial for investigation. Several relevant motifs in these songs are discussed in an attempt to highlight how archaic drinking rituals are reflected in folklore, and their particular mod­ifications1. The shared qualities of Lithuanian and Belarusian songs have been discussed by folkloreresearchers on many occasions. Coinciding folkloricmotifs and poeticimages, as well as parallels in melodic types, characterise the ballads and wedding, work, calen­dar and other songs of the two nations (for more, see Miseviciene 1968, 1985; Žickiene 1996, 2011). Ethnographic data show the two nations share much with regard to calendar festivals, agrarian customs, and the way of life in the traditional community generally. From a historical perspective, these folkloric connections and mutual influences may be explained by both their close geographic vicinity and shared historical experience, going back to the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The idea for this research emerged in the course of the several years the author of this article spent preparing thescientificpublication‘‘TheBookofLithuanianFolkSongs”(“Lietuviuliaudies dainynas”),Vol.24,entitled ‘‘Feast Songs” (“Vaišiu dainos”). The volume comprises folk songs recorded in the 19th century – the start of the 21st century, stored in manuscript collections and printed publications of folklore; the main folkloric motifs of these songs include beer brewing, gathering the guests and seeing them off, vivid encouragements to drink to the bottom of the glass, passing a drink around in circle, praising the hosts, etc. As the author analysed several thousands of song variants from different regions of Lithuania and explored the ethnographic contexts of their existence and their connections with the folklore of neighbouring countries, it has become evident that these folklore pieces of relatively recent origin contain the elements of old drinking traditions, albeit rendered in a distinctive way and, more often than not, difficult to recognise. The investigation also revealed that in relatively recent past (approximately at the start of the 20th century), a considerable amount of feast songs was widely sung at weddings as a natural part of the ritual, and, as the ritual died out, they eventually devel­oped into cheerful ‘‘drinking songs” accompanying different community festivals. It should be noted that this tendency, i.e., the eventual incorporationof the folk songs previously linked to ritual contexts into community entertainment, may be observed in the folklore of many countries. Two groups of songs are selected for a more detailed investigation2. The first group comprises Lithuanian and Belarusian wedding songs containing motifs of ritual drinking; specifically – the set of wedding songs related to rituals in the betrothal period. Drinking rituals in existence during the betrothal period as reflected in the songs are explored based on considerably well-documented ethnographic descriptions of Belarusian and Lithuanian weddings of 19th century/early 20th century and folkloric material gathered in the same period. Another group of songs analysed in the article is Lithuanian feast songs of a compar­atively recent origin thatexhibit explicitlinks with theold songs (especially wedding ones) and might alternatively be called drinking songs. Accordingly, in the following parts of the article two different, albeit closely interconnected cases of drinking rituals being reflected in folk songs are presented: the motifs of wedding songs which show clear links to the ritual context of betrothal, and the repertory of feast songs oriented to entertainment-related feast practices, denoted by distinctive paraphrases of traditional beverage consumption. It should be noted that this article does not seek to comprehensively analyse the or­igin of old drinking rituals, the aspects of their distribution or the history of traditional beverages. These fields of interest have received the close attention of scholars from different countries in recent decades3. We are more concerned with the directions taken in the changes occurring in the ritual drinking tradition, especially when the old ritual practices were already extinct. This question is briefly discussed in the part below. SOME NOTES ON CHANGES IN DRINKING RITUALS AND FOLKLORISATION TENDENCIES Old written sources, folklore data, and numerous archaeological, anthropological and ethnological investigations show that traditional beverages like mead, wine, beer or vodkahavean ancientand rich history in both Europeand other continents (Dietler 2006: 232–235). Since ancienttimes, they have accompanied religious rituals, community festivals, and life events of an individual, and been widely used as an integral part of libations, to confirm ritual actions, and even as a ‘seal’ holding legal power in important agreements. As researchers of the history of traditional beverage consumption state: 2 Different folkloresources were consulted in the selection of Belarusian and Lithuanian song texts relevant for the investigation. A substantial amount of wedding songs was selected from scientific publications of Bela-rusian and Lithuanian songs (see ....., LLD.VD). The author of this article also used the early ethnographic wedding descriptions published in the 19th century which usually provide summaries of rituals together with related songs. The Lithuanian feast songs analysed in the paper were selected from the series “The Book of Lithuanian Folk Songs”, Vol. 24 “Feast Songs” (published in 2019; cf. LLD.VšD). Folk song collections stored at the Archive of Lithuanian Folklore were also consulted. 3 In recentdecades, numerous investigations on theuse, culturalmeaning and ritualsignificanceof traditional beverages have been carried out. With reference to relevant research on this topic in the field of Lithuanian and, in a wider respect, Baltic ritual culture, the works of mythologists and folklorists Daiva Vaitkeviciene (2011, 2019), Brone Stundžiene (2004), Nijole Laurinkiene (2012), Elvyra Usaciovaite (.......... 2009) should be mentioned. Comprehensive data on the traditions of ritual consumption of mead, beer and vodka in the Slavic countries may be found in the ethnolinguistic dictionary “.......... .........: ................... .......” (1995–2012). the importance of these alcoholic beverages is evident in the multiplicity of customs and regulations that developed around their production and uses. They often became central in the most valued personal and social cere­monies, especially rites of passage, and were ubiquitous in such activities as births, initiations, marriages, compacts, feasts, conclaves, crownings, magic rites, medicine, worship, hospitality, war making, peace making, and funerals (Keller, Vaillant). When delving into the drinking traditions of more recent historical periods that still have noticeable attributes of community life, one observes over the last 200 years the consumption of beverages at festive gatherings of European and other nations has been and remains actively combined with various ritualattitudes. Theprocess of sharing drinks itself encompasses different actions evidently stemming from ritual, and which formerly held sacred meanings. Although for every individual nation this ‘drinking culture’ has its own features (preferences are observed to vary for drinks or even drinking), a consid­erable share of feast customs has universal attributes. Here one could include numerous ‘international’ drink-related gestures and attitudes that are practised quite actively; we note a few of the popular ones easily observable in the feasts of most European nations: before drinking, the drinking vessel is raised in the air, the remainder of the drink some­times is spiltover one’s shoulder; the feast participantsitting beside is greeted (a drink to their health is taken); feast participants compete over who will drink quicker or a greater quantity; when a drink is finished, the glass is turned upside down; sometimes people stand up while consuming a drink etc. Scholars of culture history easily recognise the reflections of archaic drinking rituals in these festive ‘performances’. Even these days, in wedding, christening, house-warming and other celebrations in different countries (especially in rural regions) attended by family members, relatives or neighbours, one can hear the hosts encouraging the guests to drink more, and to drink their glasses right to the bottom. All of these festive communication elements have long been seen as an expression of hospitality and popular feast customs. Generally speaking, when celebrat­ing, modern communities do not identify the origin or primary purpose of their actions or accompanying verbal formulas which come from the old ritual contexts, but merely repeat their variations as certain norms of etiquette, habits of social behaviour, or as an engaging tradition that helps to unite members of a group. Over time, peculiar forms of feast culture developed in different countries that were gradually more oriented to entertainment, yet simultaneously preserved some elements of a ritual character, albeit profoundly transformed. According to the author of ‘‘Alcohol and Culture”, the anthro­pologist David G. Mandelbaum: ‘‘drinking in a particular society may be either a sacred or a profane act,depending on the context, and the people may not be aware of the basic principles and meanings that are actually involved” (Mandelbaum 1965: 281). The verbal communication of feasts which forms an integral part of the festive ‘per­formance’ discussed above has evolved into different forms of folklore. This communi­cation is directlyrelated with the consumption of traditional beverages; it manifests in concise oral formulas and as longer texts intended for specific occasions. In line with local traditions and occasions for feasts, it may appear as laconic greetings while drinking to the health of the person sitting next to an individual at a feast and bestowing wishes of happiness and prosperity on them, brief toasts, or, to the contrary, as toasts marked by elaborate rhetoric, as well as songs sung by all feast participants that are called drinking or feast songs. All of these creative activities directly related to beverages and their use and performed by feast participants have long been part of the folklore of various nations and received the considerable attention of scholars investigating traditional culture. In his study ‘‘An Anthropological View of Alcohol and Culture in International Perspec­tive”, the anthropologist Dwight B. Heath defines the connections between the drinking traditions and the folklore observed in the cultures of many nations around the world in the following way: ‘‘much of what is learned about drinking, whether favorable or unfa-vorable,is passedfromonegenerationtoanotherthroughstories,songs,poems,tales,and sayings that reflect long-term cultural experiences and attitudes” (Heath 1995: 343). The ‘‘long-term cultural experiences” he mentions should encouragefolklore researchers to primarily view the reflections of the old drinking traditions in folklore as a distinct cultural continuity characterised by a specific internal logic and inevitable folkloric paradoxes. It is well known that their poetic character, distinctive symbolic expression and variance caused by the oral tradition mean that folklore texts, especially folk songs, cannot always be seen as a reliable source of knowledge and exploration of community life in the old times. Nonetheless, having selected appropriate tools for analysis, one may recognise a range of explicit and implicit traces of archaic ritual communication in them. Perhaps the most viable research direction here is the thorough investigation of folklore contexts (historical, social etc.), delving into the tendencies of folklore genre development etc. In contemporary folklore research, the approach taken to folklore texts of various genres as an integral part of everyday life and ritual communication of the traditional community is more relevant than ever. DRINKING RITUALS AS REFLECTED IN BELARUSIAN AND LITHUANIAN FOLK SONGS 1. “THEY GAVE THEIR DAUGHTER AWAY FOR A GLASS OF VODKA”: THE FOLKLORIC VERSION OF A DRINKING RITUAL IN WEDDING SONGS As noted, traditional beverages have made up an important part of the ritual life of a community since ancient times. According to Martin A. Lynn, ‘‘drinking accompanied theimportantrites of passageof birth, marriage and death, the festivals of the agricultural calendar and of the liturgical year, and royal, civic, religious and fraternal rituals” (Lynn 2001: 120). Out of all the listed ‘‘rites of passage”, wedding rituals and customs stand out because they continue even today. It is known that archaic wedding customs were first and foremost related to entering into a contract between two families that acquired a legal status via the ritual consumption of traditional beverages. Recent research on Baltic beverages and associated rituals indicates, ‘‘historical and ethnographic facts provide the most data on three areas where a drinking ritual served as a legal act: concluding a mar­riage, peace treaties, and contracts of exchange (gift and purchase and sale agreements)” (Vaitkeviciene 2019: 337). Hence, the primary role of traditional beverages at wedding rituals was to finalise the marriage contract between the bride’s and groom’s families during thebetrothal. Itwas particularly importantin pre-Christian times whentheofficial canonical marriage was still not in place. During the betrothal4, the mutual agreements on the material assets given by parents and the bride’s consent to the marriage gained a legal status. This explains why the contracts had to be concluded in the presence of community members (neighbours and relatives served as the witnesses to the contracts and undertakings), and the final legitimisation of the marriage contract was a common feast at which drinks appear to be the main ritual element. A similar order of concluding marriage contracts was found among many European nations until the first half of the 20th century. It should be noted that the ritual consumption of traditional beverages came to wedding customs from the archaic past of community life – its origin is related to ancient libation rituals (for more, see Biegeleisen [1928]: 38–39). Numerous situations of ritual drinking may be observed at traditional weddings in both Lithuania and Belarus (also in many other Slavic nations).ThefolkloristBrone Stundžiene analysed Lithuanian wedding rituals and their reflections in songs and noted that drinking “acts”, numbering approximately 20, accompanied all wedding episodes from matchmaking through to the end of the wedding feast. Stundžiene states, “in all cases, the dual purpose of drinking acts catches the eye: it signifies the ritual separation from one family and the incorporation into another one. In the first case, the bride’s family drink as a sign of giving the bride away, in the second case the groom’s family drink as a sign of accepting the bride” (Stundžiene 2004: 46). Still, the ritual consumption of traditional beverages during betrothal is viewed as the most important act because, as stated, the betrothal was the main part of the wedding ritual. Linguisticdataconfirmthatconsolidationofthecontractconcludedbetweenthefamilies of the bride and groom during the betrothal by means of community-based drinking was viewed as the key point of the ritual. In Lithuanian, Belarusian (and many other Slavic) languages, the names referring to this wedding stage are directly linked with the words gerti, pragerti, degtine (to drink, to drink as a sign of giving [the daughter] away, vodka) etc. Here, we mention several of such names based on the monograph ‘‘Marriage and Wedding in SlavicFolk Culture”(“..... ........ .......... ........ ........”) by the ethnolinguist Aleksandr Gura: Lithuanian – užgeros, prageros, sugertuves; Hereitshouldbeexplainedthatbetrothal inthis caserefers totheinitialstageoftraditionalwedding,lasting from matchmaking to the wedding itself, which takes place at the house of the bride’s parents. During this period, the families of the bride and of groom made arrangements regarding the allocation of financial and material assets and also negotiated specific aspects of the wedding organisation. Other essential moments of betrothal: the bride’s consent to marriage (frequently known as “giving the hand in marriage”); ring exchange between the newlyweds; gift exchange between both sides etc. As time passed and the rituals were reduced, the initial stages of a wedding, which in both Belarusian and Lithuanian ethnographic “vocabularies” had a variety of names, inevitably changed, were combined etc. (see .....i. 1980: 20; Vyšniauskaite et al. 1995: 284–286). Belarusian – ....i.., ......, ...... (.......) . ...... ....i..5;Ukrainian – .......; Polish – zapoiny; Slovak – prepíjanie, Serbian – ..je.e ....j.., etc. (for more, see .... 2011: 412).6All of these old names for rituals refer directly to the culmination of the betrothal – the establishing of mutual agreement between the family of the bride and the family of the groom through a common feast, where the key action was the sharing of drinks among the ritual participants in a specific order, thereby legitimising theagreements.First,thebeverages broughtbytherepresentatives ofthegroom’s family were consumed. As a Belarusian wedding description of the 19th century states, “vodka brought by the representatives of the groom has a significant role: it may be consumed only after the agreement is concluded and it serves as the confirmation that the bride’s parents will honour their promise” (......-.......... 1888: 11–12). The betrothal ritual occurring after the “economic” agreement between the two families is described by Antanas Juška, the most prominent collector of Lithuanian wedding customs and folk songs of the 19th century: The bride gives a small posy of rues wrapped into a white kerchief to the groom.Thegroomtakes it,unwraps therues and attaches themtohis chest, takes the kerchief for himself, removes a ring from his finger and gives it to the bride. In exchange, the bride gives her ring to the groom and puts it on hisfinger; afterwards, they kisseach other. The groom užgeria nuotaka (drinks to the health of the bride), and they must drink the cup together to the bottom. Then parents, relatives, friends, and neighbours <...> bestow the wishes of happiness, good days, and along lifeupon the newlyweds. They all begin drinking, singing, and celebrating. This is pragertuves (drinking as a sign of giving the bride away), or žiedynos(betrothal) (Juška 1880: 9). Motifs of beverages and drinking arecommon in Belarusian and Lithuanian wedding songs dedicated to the stage of betrothal. They present a distinct folklorised perspective of the key point of the marital agreement, where a joint feast of the participants and wit­nesses of the betrothal serves as final confirmation and seals the girl’s consent to marriage, the promise of her parents to give the agreed material assets to the groom’s family, the mutual exchangeof gifts, as well as the ring exchange between the bride and the groom. This ritual ‘pouring a drink on’ the marriage contract by using traditional beverages also signified that it was irrevocable. This may be why the ‘theme’ of drinking is so frequent in songs dedicated to this wedding stage. One motif from betrothal songs of both nations stands out as the most popular and most capable of reflecting the festive drinking tradi­tion, which may generally be called Už degtines stikla tevai atidave/pardave dukra [The 5 Note that in Belarusian wedding customs and rituals exceptional attention was paid to “drinking in a sign of giving the daughter away”; the feast legitimising marital agreements was held three times. 6 A linguistic connection of a similar character is also typical in several other European languages. The Polish historian and ethnographer Henryk Biegeleisen wroteextensively aboutthis subject in 1928 (Biegeleisen [1928]: 36–37). parents sold/gavetheirdaughteraway foraglass ofvodka].Below,weprovideafew ofthe mostcharacteristicexamples of thediscussed motif in Belarusian and Lithuanian songs7. Examples of Belarusian songs (1) .. ......, ......, .. ......... ........ .. ...... .... .....; .. .. ...... ......., .. .. .... ........., .. ....... ....... (....... 1916: 248). (Tatyana’s father drank his child away. He drank her away on a new terrace, for a glass of mead, for a cup of vodka.) (2) .. ...... ...... ....., .. .. .. ...., .. .. ......., .. .. ..... ....... (..... 147). (Father drank his daughter away not for a grosz, not for a kopeck, but for a glass of vodka.) (3) .., ... . .... .. ......., ... ....... . ........... .. ...... . ....... ....... .......... ..... .... . ........., ..... ..... . ........ (..... 138). (What sort of a mother is she, she sold her own child. She drank her young daughter away for bitter vodka. It was easy to drink her away, it will be hard to forget her.) (4) .., .‘....., ........ .. . ......... .....: ....... .... .... .. ...... ......., .. ........ .......8 (..... 156). (Oh, what a drunkard Dunechka’s mother is: she drank her child away by drinking the bitter vodka, the sweet honey.) (5) ..... ..... ......., ......., .. ......... ......., ....... (....... 1916: 248). (Mother sold her child, drank her away by drinking vodka.) (6) .. ........, ........ ... .. .... ........ ...... .... ..... ....., .... ....... ........ ... .... ........, . .... ....... .......... (..... 179). 7 In this article, the quotations of songs are provided in Belarusian and Lithuanian together with English translations. As this paper aims to render the folkloric content and meanings of songs as accurately as possible, a literal translation is given instead of a poetic one. It should be noted that not only texts but also melodies of Belarusian and Lithuanian songs havemany similarities. This investigation focuses only on thelyrics of songs; hence the instances of melodies are not included. 8 Togetherwiththis song, thefollowingremarkof thesinger is recorded:“[Thesongis sung] when thegroom’s parents and the bride’s family drink vodka in a sign that they accept the gifts and the marriage agreement” (.... ..... . ...... ....... ......... ......... .... . ..... .. ....). (Don’t be angry, girl, that we drank you away. Everyone drank you away, first of all – your father. Everyone drank from small cups, your father drank from a big glass.) Examples of Lithuanian songs: (7) Stikliukeli penkta gere, Jau teveli perkalbejo, Teveli perkalbejo, Tevas dukrele žadejo (JSD 253). (They were drinking the fifth glass, they have already persuaded the father, the father promised them his daughter [in marriage].) (8) Skamba kankleles Ir trimitates, Eina mociute Graudžiai verkdama. Vakar vakara Aš girta buvau, Mano dukruže Aš pažadejau. Jau šiandien šiandien Isšsiblaivejau, Jaunos dukružes Labai gaila (LLD.VD 60). (Kankles9 and trumpets sound, mother walks and cries bitter tears. Yes­terday I was drunk, I promised my daughter [in marriage]. Today, I have grown sober, I feel sorrow for my daughter.) (9) Už arielkos puskvortele Pažadejo dukterele. Ar taip pigiai užauginai, Ar vargelio nepažinai, Ar nesupai nakti lopšelio? (LLD.VD 64). ([Mother] promised her daughter [in marriage] for half a quart of vodka. Was it so cheap to raise her, did you not experience any hardships, did you not rock the cradle overnight?) (10) Girdžiu, pragere, liliava, Matka dukrele, liliava. – Pragerk, mot-ule, liliava, Margas karveles, liliava, Ne mane jauna, liliava. Girdžiu, pragere, liliava, Tevas dukrele, liliava. – Pragerk, teveli, liliava, Margus veršelius, liliava, Ne mane jauna, liliava (LLD.VD 65). (I hear, mother drank her daughter away. – Mother, drink away mot­ley cows, not me, a young girl. I hear, father drank his daughter away. – Father, drink away motley bulls, not me, a young girl.) Attention should be paid to the fact that the folklorisation of drinking rituals in songs occurs in distinctive ways that conform to the laws of song poetics. In a sense, ritual contexts are‘reformulated’tofitthepoeticcanon of thesongs and adapted to theirpoetic logic. Those parents who give away or sell their daughter for beverages are seemingly reproached and condemned (see examples 3, 4, 9). This folkloric version of the ritual communication clearly belongs to the general ritual context of a wedding (together with, for instance, the bride lamenting upon leaving her parents’ home, scolding, or even scornful remarks made to the representatives of the groom’s family and expressed in a speech or song). A Lithuanian box-zither musical instrument. As evidenced by copious ethnographic material and our investigations of the rituals in Lithuanian and Belarusian traditional weddings, the wedding negotiations and related drinking rituals were held at the house of the bride’s parents. The initial negotiations between the bride’s parents and representatives of the groom’s family were sometimes conducted in a ‘neutral’ place, often a tavern in the town or village. On such an occasion, drinks were also consumed in order to strengthen, to ‘pour a drink on’, the agreements. The folklorisation of such contracts and accompanying feasts is arguably seen in the songs of the two nations: (11) Atpuskely buvau, Karcemelej geriau, Su ženteliais kalbejau, Dukrele pažadejau (LTR 514/53). (I attended a patronal festival, I was drinking in a tavern, I was talking with sons-in-law, I promised my daughter [in marriage].) (12) ......, ......! ....i. ...... ..... . ...... .. ....... (......: 403) (He drank her away, he drank her away! Father drank his daughter away in the city of Slutsk, at a market.) The poetic image of a daughter/a girl who was “drunk away” (i.e., given away for beverages and for money) that reappears in songs is directly linked with the archaic customs of buying brides. According to the ethnographic descriptions of Lithuanian and Belarusian weddings, the whole narrative about the matchmaking stage is based on “sale–purchase” negotiations, while matchmakers who come to a girl’s parents’ house are portrayed as merchants in dialogue between the two families, as well as in songs. The frequent use of money in betrothal rituals should also be viewed as an echo of the archaic ‘bride-buying’ customs. Some of them are directly related to drinking rituals. The following custom is an example of such ritual communication: “a young man drops a coin into a glass full of vodka and drinks to the health of the girl. She takes the money, drinks vodka, and passes the glass on” (......, p. 387). Overall, it should be stated that even though betrothal songs embody a poetised view of the principal moment of the wedding, it is obvious that this layer of folklore still has a direct connection with archaicwedding rituals. The song motif discussed above (The parents sold/gave their daughter away for a glass of vodka) is the most characteristic motif of Belarusian and Lithuanian betrothal songs, but is far from being the only one. As research on betrothal songs indicates, “next to the motif of negotiations, the motifs of drinking are similarly frequent” in such songs (Sauka 1988: 14). 2. “DRINK THE GLASS AND SHOW ME THE BOTTOM OF IT”: PARAPHRASES OF DRINKING RITUALS IN LITHUANIAN FEAST SONGS As noted, various drinking motifs recur in wedding songs and are often directly linked to wedding customs. Lithuanian folklore research shows that long ago following the death or significant transformation of the old wedding rituals, a large number of the songs that had accompanied them were gradually incorporated not only into wedding celebrations but into other community feasts and entertainment. Already in the Lithuanian cultural press as far back as in the early 20th century, an article (author unknown) about betrothal customs and related songs noted that songs performed as part of wedding drinking rituals have acquired a new meaning over the course of time: “young people sing them at their gatherings; they are also sung in various feasts: christenings, name days, etc.” (Užgeros 1913: 39). Moreover, around the end of the 19th century and early in the 20th century a multi­tude of new songs appeared that dealt with beer and vodka, the merry sharing of drinks, encouragement to drink to the bottom of one’s glass, etc. Slowly emerging from all of theseold and new songs was aseparatecorpus of songs named “feastsongs”, or “drinking songs”. In recent years, these songs have received growing scholarly interest from folk­lorists and mythologists (Vaitkeviciene 2019: 23–24, 141–144; Ivanauskaite-Šeibutiene 2015).Conditions fortheexploration of feastsongs as an integralpartofcommunity-based communication have improved following a recent publication of them in a scholarly volume10. Songs of a similar character can be found in the folklore of several nations. In community feasts, feast songs are inseparable from other forms of feast folklore such as toasts, board (drinking) games, jokes;theyareunquestionably related to theconsumption of traditional beverages. According to Kevin Grace, ‘‘the genre of drinking songs owes its existence to the celebration and conviviality that is associatedwith the consumption of alcohol” (Grace 2010: 77). Below, we present several of the most popular motifs from Lithuanian feast songs that interpret the drinking themein a particular way. These selected instances represent song types with numerous variants. These songs were put down in writing at the end of the 19th century and start of the 21st century. Perhaps the most frequent motif deals with encouraging a person/s to drink to the bot­tom of the glass. This motif may generally be called Išgerkstikla, parodykdugna (“drink the glass and show me its bottom”). Many feast songs contain active encouragement to consume the whole beverage and not leave a single drop in the vessel. The songs also call to “turn the glass upside down”, “show the bottom of the glass”, “roll the glass across the table”, i.e., to prove that the liquid has been fully consumed. Such songs also claim that any guest who does not drink their glass to the end will be “punished” and need to drink several more servings. All of these imperatives found in songs are connected to the general atmosphere found at feasts, where singing iscombined with drinking and a range of traditional gestures (raising glasses, drinking while standing up etc.). 10 For more detailed information, see footnote 2. (1) Išgerki stikleli Visa i dugna, Neliki sveteliams Savo lašeliu (LLD. VšD 819). (Drink the glass to the bottom, don’t leave a drop for the guests.) (2) Išgerk stikleli ir parodyk dugneli (LTR 5571/54). (Drink the glass and show [me] the bottom [of it].) (3) Išgeriau stikleli In dugneli, Paritau stikleli Per staleli (LLD.VšD 252). (I drank the glass to the bottom, I rolled the glass across the table.) (4) Versk ant šono stiklinele, Parodyk dugneli (LTR 3839/22). (Tip the glass on its side, show me the bottom of the glass.) (5) Jei sklenycios neišgersi Ir ant dugno neapversi, Tris gersi, tris gersi (LTR 3957/8). (If you don’t drink the glass and turn it upside down, you will drink three more, you will drink three more.) Theencouragementtodrinkone’s beverage“tothebottom”heardinthefeastsongs of considerably late origin and surviving until these days as an amusing entertainment, in its origin is an ancient cultural phenomenon, presumably linked to the archaic drinking rituals of the Baltic peoples. The book “Deliciae Prussicae oder Preussische Schaubühne” by Matthäus Prätorius, published at the end of the 17th century, along with other old sources, describes libations being poured on the soil during community gatherings as offerings to the Earth Goddess, household deities, or souls of the departed (for more, see Vaitkeviciene 2019: 298–304). An integral part of this ritual was performed when community members drank from the same vessel as the vessel was being passed around a circle and every par­ticipant in the ritual drank it down to the bottom. When ritual contexts died out, passing a drink around a circle became an element of communal communication in entertainment and gained new meanings. In modern times, the custom of drinking from the same vessel by passing it around a circle has died out in communal feasts in Lithuania and other countries. It was replaced by drinking from separate drinking vessels given to each feast participant. The encouragement to drink one’s glass to the bottom survives even today, although it has turned into an invitation for guests to drink as much and as swiftly as they can. Another equallypopular motif in feast songs is drinking “to one’s health”. It should be noted, however, that wishes of health, happiness and joy are very common in these songs. The addressees of such wishes are the hosts of the feast, the guests, neighbours, and relatives. (6) Už gaspadoriaus sveikata Mes išgersim su ukvata. Už gaspadines sveikata Mes išgersim tris stiklines (LTR 4528/178). (To our host’s health we will eagerly drink. To our hostess’s health we will drink three glasses.) (7) Cinkt cinkt, stikla pakeldamas, Klan klan, i gerkli leisdamas. I tava sveikata, i mana žyvata, Ei vyvat, ei vyvat! (LLD.VšD 430). (Clink clink, lifting the glass, clank clank pouring into the throat. Here’s to your health, and here’s to my life, hey, vivat!) (8) Gaspadoriau, gaspadine, Bukit visi linksmi, Bukit visi sveiki (LLD. VšD 800). (Host, hostess, may you all be happy and healthy.) (9) Gimineles mano, Mylimieji mano, Tai mes gerkim, uliavokim, Kolei sveiki esam (LLD.VšD 40) (My beloved relatives, let’s drink and be merry while we are healthy.) (10) Sveika sveika, mus sesula, Alaus gereklela (LLD.VšD 82). (Greetings, our sister, a drinker of beer.) (11) Kad mes sveiki vis butum, Arielkeli vis gertum (LLD.Vš 249). (So that we’ll be healthy and will always drink vodka.) The anthropologists/folklore researchers Albert Baiburin and Andrej Toporkov be­lieve “the custom of drinking ‘to one’s health’ is undoubtedly of mythological origin”. According to these scholars, the prototype of this custom was drinking in honour of a deity. Even though greeting one’s table companion while passing a drinking vessel on to them may seem like a simple gesture, its ancient meaning is profound (........, ........ 1990: 150). We do not have firm grounds to state that a direct link exists between feast songs and the old drinking rituals. In these songs, the repeated encouragement to drink to the bottom of one’s glass, to pass the drinking vessel around the table, the wishes of happiness, joy and especially of good health are all not explicitly related to archaic ritual practices but through models of behaviour and interpersonal communication that have been around for hundreds of years and were formed under the influence of ritual communication. Therefore, the drinking motifs in feast songs which unexpectedly remind one of the old drinking rituals are more appropriately to be viewed as paraphrases of ritual communi­cation or as certain allusions to an implicit ritual experience. It is likely that feast songs were created in order to verbalise and sing about the actions of the hosts and guests during feasts (passing a drinking vessel around the table, encouraging people to drink to the bottom of their glass, turning the drinking vessel upside down etc.), which, as mentioned, is closely connected with the old rituals. In this way, the reflections of archaic drinking rituals were introduced in more recent folk songs. The community members, gathered around a festive table and passing drinks around, are united by mutual goodwill, the joy of being together, the desire to share food and drinks and thereby have an experience of a feast and humans coming together. As D. G. Mandelbaum states, “drinking together generally symbolizes durable social solidarity – or at least amity – among those who share a drink” (Mandelbaum 1965: 282). Feast songs enable a better understanding of the essentially changed reality of traditional beverage consumption, where the sacred ‘vertical’ ritual experience is transformed into a ‘horizon­tal’ experience of interpersonal connection. Regardless of the reason that people gather together, it is essential that their being together, while sharing drinks and food, chanting sacred hymns, or singing merry drinking songs, constitutes a feast in the widest sense of the word. It may be viewed as a pause hic et nunc, taken to rejoice in the great company of friends and relatives, to drink to each other’s health, wish happiness, and to celebrate life itself, having forgotten one’s work and other troubles at least for a moment. This vivacious attribute of traditional gatherings that is found in many nations round the world was extensively analysed by the philosopher and literary critic Mikhail Bakhtin. In his book “Rabelais and His World”11dedicated to the carnivalesque medieval folk culture, he writes: “the banquet always celebrates a victory and this is part of its very nature. Further, the triumphal banquet is always universal. It is the triumph of life over death” (Bakhtin 1984: 283). Even though they no longer exhibit a noticeable connection to the old drinking rituals, feast songs fulfil a distinctive communicative function – they bring the community together, create a positiveatmosphere, and bring joy. In this context, the songs also serve to pro­vide a certain ‘musical background’ for the feast while also acting as a common creative activity which unites the community. In the words of Grace, “drinking songs continue to be a dynamic rather than static cultural expression of group behavior” (Grace 2010: 78). CLOSING REMARKS AND CONCLUSIONS Ellen B. Basso and Gunter Senft, the editors of the collective monograph ‘‘Ritual Com­munication”, argue that a ritual is not only an action or event, but an experience as well: “ritual is not only something done but also something experienced in the doing” (Basso, Senft 2009: 3). The specified “ritual experience” unites generations of people living in different époques. The experiences of ritual attitudes passed down from generation to generation may encourage the existence of archaic cultural forms, even when specific ritual practices have long died out and become irrelevant as people’s life circumstances have changed significantly. After all, even such habitual, arguably ‘automatically’ performed actions, such as a handshake upon greeting someone, or the especially popular drinking “to one’s health”at feasts, have an ancient and remarkable history that reveals the abun­dance, transformations and a certain universality of ritual actions. As noted by the scholar 11 First edition: .......... ....... ..... . ........ ........ ............. . .......... [Francois Rabelais and the Folk Culture of the Middle Ages and Renaissance], Moscow: .............. .........., 1965. of religious studies and the ritualtheorist Catherine Bell, “at one time or another, almost every human activity has been done ritually or made part of a ritual” (Bell 1997: 91). In this article, we considered how the elements of the old community-based drinking rituals are developed in folklore. The song motifs discussed in the paper show explicit links between drinking rituals and folklore (wedding songs and betrothal drinking rituals), as well as a certain implicit cultural connection between the old ritual attitudes and the festivities of later times (the motifs of feast songs paraphrased in drinking traditions). In both cases, we can still talk about active community-based traditions of beverage con-sumption.Meanwhile,beverageconsumptioninmoderntimes has acquiredanessentially different character. Numerous studies on the history of beverage consumption reveal an obvious shift from community traditions to individual self-expression: as the old ritual communicationfaded,community-baseddrinkingcustoms havegraduallybecomeameans of fulfillingone’s personalneeds or evenofalleviatingpsychologicaldifficulties. On the level of interpersonal communication, the sharing of drinks has become established as a social act ensuring mutual understanding and convivial relationships. As scholars of the history of traditional beverages state, it is: not that the ancient uses of alcohol have been forgotten: a drink is still the symbolic announcer of friendship, peace, and agreement, in personal as well as in business or political relations. In modern society, however, many people discover that drinking can often help them to suppress the overwhelming inhibitions, shyness, anxieties, and tensions that frustrate and interfere with urgent needs to function effectively, either socially or economically (Keller, Vaillant). The culture of traditional beverage consumption has developed from the most archaic religious rituals and the use of drinks to legitimate significant community contracts to beverage consumption being more a form of pastime, a way of relaxing and creating an elated mood, and an integral part of entertainment and interpersonal communication. Notably, traditional beverages and the practices of their consumption remain a connect­ing link between the customs of archaic celebrations and contemporary feasts, and also serve as a means for creating a festive atmosphere. In the most general sense, ‘‘alcohol is universally associated with celebration, and drinking is, in all cultures, an essential element of festivity” (Social and Cultural Aspects of Drinking 1998: 9). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research was supported by the Research Council of Lithuania and is related to the research project “Istorine folklorines kulturos recepcija: dainu tyrimas ir šaltiniu rengi-mas” / “The Historical Reception of Folk Culture: The Song Research and Edition of Sources” (No. P-LIP-18-37). BIBLIOGRAPHY Bakhtin, Mikhail, 1984: Rabelais and His World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Basso, Ellen B.; Senft, Gunter, 2009: Introduction. In: Basso, Ellen B.; Senft, Gunter (ed.), Ritual Communication. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1–20. Bell, Catherine, 1997: Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford University Press. Biegeleisen, Henryk, [1928]: Wesele. Lwów: Instytut Stauropigjanski. Dietler, Michael, 2006: Alcohol: Anthropological / Archaeological Perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 35, 229–249. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123120 Gefou-Madianou, Dimitra, 2002: Introduction: Alcohol Commensality,Identity Transformations and Transcendence. In: Gefou-Madianou, Dimitra (ed.), Alcohol, Gender and Culture. London: Taylor & Francis, 1–34. Grace, Kevin, 2010: Drinking Rituals. In:Black, Rachel (ed.), Alcohol in Popular Culture: an Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood,74–76. Grace, Kevin, 2010: Drinking Songs. In:Black, Rachel (ed.), Alcohol in Popular Culture: an Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood, 77–78. Ivanauskaite-Šeibutiene, Vita, 2015: Skambanti užstale: vaišiu dainos bendruomeniniuose samburiuose. Tautosakos darbai 50, 113–134. JSD, 1883: Lietuviškos svotbines dajnos uzrašytos par Antana Juškevice ir išspaudintos par Jona Juškevice. Petropyle. Juška, Antanas, 1880: Svotbine reda veliuonyciu lietuviu, surašyta par Antana Juškevice 1870 metuose. .azan: Tipografija Imperatorskago universiteta. Heath, Dwight B., 1995: An Anthropological View of Alcohol and Culture in International Perspective. In: Heath, Dwight B. (ed.), International Handbook on Alcohol and Culture. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 328–347. Keller, Mark; Vaillant, George E. [n.d.]: Alcohol and Society. History of the Use of Alcohol. In: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Internet: https://www.britannica.com/topic/alcohol- consumption/Alcohol-and-society (17.11.2020). Laurinkiene, Nijole, 2012: Alus – apeiginis baltu gerimas. Tautosakos darbai 42, 15–32. Lynn, Martin A., 2001: Old People, Alcohol and Identity in Europe, 1300–1700. In: Scholliers, Peter (ed.), Food, Drink and Identity: Cooking, Eating and Drinking in Europe Since the Middle Ages. Oxford: Berg, 119–137. LLD.VD – Lietuviu liaudies dainynas, t. IV, 1988: Vestuvines dainos, kn. 2. Parenge B. Kazlauskiene, B. Stundžiene, melodijas parenge Z. Puteikiene. Vilnius: Vaga. LLD.VšD: Lietuviu liaudies dainynas, t. XXIV, 2019: Vaišiu dainos. Parenge Vita Ivanauskaite­Šeibutiene, melodijas parenge Živile Ramoškaite. Vilnius: Lietuviu literaturos ir tautosakos institutas. LTR: Lietuviu tautosakos rankraštynas Lietuviu literaturos ir tautosakos institute [The Lithuanian Folklore Archives of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore]. Mandelbaum, David, G, 1965: Alcohol and Culture. Current Anthropology 6/3, 281–293. Miseviciene, Vanda, 1968: Lietuviu ir baltarusiu liaudies dainu ryšiai. In: Dieveniškes. Vilnius: Vaga, 239–248. Sauka, Leonardas, 1988: Nuo sutartuviu iki jaunojo išleistuviu. In: Lietuviu liaudies dainynas, t. IV: Vestuvines dainos, kn. 2. Vilnius: Vaga, 7–27. Social and Cultural Aspects of Drinking, 1998: Social and Cultural Aspects of Drinking. A Report to the European Commission. Oxford: The Social Issues Research Centre. Internet: http://www.sirc.org/publik/social_drinking.pdf (20.01.2021). Stundžiene, Brone, 2004: Iš dainu poetikos: Vyno ivaizdis ir jo kontekstas. Tautosakos darbai 20(27), 32–56. Užgeros, 1913: Užgeros Marijampoles apygardoj. Musu tautines tverybos žiedai 5-6-7, 33–39. Vaitkeviciene, Daiva, 2011: Libation in Baltic Religious Practices. Archaeologia Baltica 15: Archaeology, Religion and Folklore in the Baltic Sea Region, 105–119. DOI:http:// dx.doi.org/10.15181/ab.v15i1.26 Vaitkeviciene, Daiva, 2019: Žydinti taure: baltu gerimai ir apeigos. Vilnius: Lietuviu literaturos ir tautosakos institutas. Vyšniauskaite, Angele; Kalnius, Petras; Paukštyte, Rasa, 1995: Lietuviu šeima ir paprociai. Vilnius: Mintis. Žickiene, Aušra, 1996: Kai kurie lietuviu javapjutes dainu melodikos bruožai baltu-slavu melodikos kontekste. Tautosakos darbai 5 (12), 72–82. Žickiene, Aušra, 2011: Daugialype kulturu jungtis: apeigines rytu Lietuvos ir šiaures vakaru Baltarusijos dainu melodijos. Liaudies kultura 3, 26–39. ........, .. .., ........, .. .. 1990: . ....... ........ .........: ...... ......, 1978: .......: ...... ......... .. .. ....... ...: ...... . ........ ....., 1980: .......: ...... . ..... ....... ..... 1. ........... .. .. ...... ...: ...... . ........ ...., .. .., 2011: .... . ....... . .......... ........ ........: ......... . .......... ......: ....... ......-.........., .. .., 1888: ........... ....... . ......... ...... ....: .......... .. .......... ......., .. .., 1916: ........, .. III, ...... ............ ............ ......., 1: ........ ....... ....... .........., ....., 1985: .. ........ ......... . ........... ......... ...... In: ........ ............ . .......... ....... ....... .......: ......., .. 278–285. .........., ......., 2009: ........... ..... – ....... . ....... ...... . ............. . ....... .......... ........ Studia mythologica slavica 12, 353–360. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/sms.v12i0.1679 .....i., .. .., 1980: ....i ....... i ..‘.... ........ .. ........ In: ........ ..... . ..... ....... ..... 1. ........... .. .. ...... .....: ...... . ......., 20–32. .. .......... .O.......... . .......... ............: ......... ....... ....... . ........ ...... ................-.......... .... ...... ...... – ......., .......... ........... .......... ............ . .......... .. ...... .......... ................. . ....................... .........., ........... ..................... ............ ........ . ... ......... ........ ............ ....... ................ . ........... .......... ..........., ..... ..... ...... . ......... ......... ....... .......... ....... ..... .......... . ............ ....... ...... .......... ... ............ .......... ... ...... ........... .......... ........ ..................– .......... ........................., ....... ...... ..... . ........ .......... ....... (.... ....i..; .... pragertuves). ... .. .............. ............... ........ ........... . ......... ......... ....... XIX ..... ...... ...... – ......... .......... ..... ............ ........ .............. ............ ....... (... ......, ...., .... ... .....) ..... ..... ...... . ....... ....... . ...... . . ...... ............ . ............ ...... ... ............ ........... ......, ............ ......... . ...... ....... ..... ........, ...... .............. . ........, . ..... ....... ........... ............ ...... ........... . ........... . ......... ......... ...... ........ ..... ........... ......, ......... . ......... ............. ............ ......... ..... .. ..... ................ ........ ..... «.... (....) ...... (......) ..... .. .....». ...... .... ....... ............ ..... .......... .......... ........ ........ ..... ......... ....... . ...... ........... ........... ..... .......... ......., ....... ...... ....... ...... .... ......., ............ .......... ........ ........... ..... ......, .......... / ........... .. ....... ... ......, ...... . . ............ ........ ....... ........ ............... ........ .......... ...... ..... ....... ............, ... .... .......... ........ ....... .. ........... «.....-.......», . ....., ........... . ............ ... ......., . ........ . ...... ...... ............ ... ...... .............. ..... ........, ... ... ............ ... ............ ......... ...... ......... . ...... ....... ...... .. .............. ..... . ........ ..... ..... ...... ............. .......... ............ . ......... ......... ........... ........ ....... ...... .......... ....., .......... ...... (. ...... ....... .........) . ..... (......... . ..... XIX .. . . ...... ........ XX ..) ....., ....... ...... .......... ....... ...... ........... ......... .......... .... .. ..., ........ .... .. ....., ........... . ........ .. ..., .... .. ........ ...... . ......, ........ ........, ....... . ... .. ..... ............ ........ .............. ......................... ....... . .......... ........... .............: .... ....; ........ ....... ....... ..... .....;...... .. ..., ...... . .......... ............. ... ..... ...... .... ........ . ......... ...... ........ ... ...... ......... ........ . .....-.... ...... ..... ..... ........... ....... ............ ........ ............. . .......... ....................... . .... ...... ............. ....... ..........., ................, ....... . ..................... ....... ........ .................................. .......... ..... ......... .......... ............... ....... – ... ....... .......... ......... . .......... ........... .................. ...... ..... ........ ... ...... ..... ..... .......... ............. ............ ........ . ......... (......... ..... . ..... .......), ... .......... ......... .......... ..... ..... ........... ......... .......... ................................. (...... .......... ..... ... ......... ....... .......). Vita Ivanauskaite-Šeibutiene, Ph.D., Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore, Department of Folk Songs, Antakalnio Street 6, LT-10308 Vinius, vytaseib@gmail.com 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 125–140 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222506 ........ ........... ....... . ......... .................. ............ ......... ..... 2. ................ .............. .......... .... . ............. ..........* ....... .. ........... Clanek preucuje folklorna demonološka verovanja, razširjena na ozemlju Polesja, regije na meji Ukrajine, Belorusije in Rusije. Tradicionalna kultura te regije je zelo zanimiva za etnologe in jezikoslovce najširšega profila, saj ohranja številne arhaicne elemente obceslovanskega pomena. V prvem delu naše raziskave sta bila obravnavana dva bloka mi-toloških verovanj:duhovi domacih in naravnih lokusov ter demoni-pokojniki, ki se vraca­jo z drugega sveta. (Prvi del clanka je objavljen v Studii Mythologici Slavici 24 (2021).) V drugem delu clanka so analiziranaverovanja o likih, ki pripadajo drugima dvema mi-tološkima skupinama: skupini dolocenih nelokaliziranih duhov (hudic, personifikacija vihra, personifikacija smrti, duhovi bolezni, liki zastraševanja) in razlicnim kategorijam živih ljudi, obdarjenih s posebnim znanjem (carovnice, carovniki, zdravilci, volkodla­ki, ljudje ozkih poklicev). Raziskava poteka na podlagi podatkov vzhodnoslovanskega The article studies folk demonological beliefs in the territory of Polesye, a region locat­ed on the border of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. The region’s traditional culture is of great interest to ethnologists and linguists of the broadest profiles since it retains many archaic elements of common-Slavicsignificance. In the first part of our research, two blocks of mythological beliefs were considered: the spirits of domestic and natural loci, and the demons-deceased returning from the other world. (The first part of the article is published in Studia Mythologica Slavica 24 (2021).) The second part of the work analyses beliefs about characters belongingto the two other mythological blocks: a group of certain non-localised spirits (devil, personification of a whirlwind, personification of Death, spirits of diseases, intimidationcharacters) and different categories of living people endowed with super-knowledge (witches, sorcerers, healers, werewolves, people of narrow professional occupations). The research was car­ried out taking data about the East Slavic mythological system into account. KEYWORDS: East Slavic lower mythology, folk demonology, traditional beliefs of Polesye * .................. .......... .................... ........ ......... (..... . 20-012­00300) «...... ......... ......: ..... ...... . ....... . ............». 126 . ...... .. . .......... . ...... ..... .......... ............, ............... . ....... (SMS 24 (2021)), .... ........... ... ..... .............. .......: . ..... ........ . ......... ....... . . .............. . .... ..... ........... ... ...... .... ............. .. .......... ......., .............. .. .......... .... ........ . .............. ....... (..........., ............ . ........), . .. ...... .............. . ........ ...... ..... ...... ......... ....... ....... . ..... .........., ....... ...... . ...... .... ...... .............. ............... ........................ (...., ..................., .............. ......, .... ........, ........., ........ .......... .....) . ...... ......... ..... ....., .......... ............ (......, ......., ......., .......-........., .... .................... .......). . ....... ......... ........... .......... ....... ........ ........ ..... .......... .... ....., ......, ........... ........... . ..... ...... ........, ........... ...... ........ ............ ..... ..../..... ............ . ............ ........ ... ........... .... .......... . ....... ................................ ....... ..... ..... ............. ...... ....., ...: .......... ....-......, ......... . ....... .. ........ ....... . .......... ...., .. ..... ... ....... . ..... .. .......; ......... ........... ............ ......., ........... . .... ..... . ............. . .. ............ .....; ........ ...., ......... ......... . .... ........, ..... ... ....... ... ..........; ....-«.......» ......... ....... (....... ...., ...... ...., ........ ....); .... ......... ............ (........ ....). ......., .... .. ...... ..... ............ ... ........ .... . ...... ...... ...... ............... . ........ .............. ......... . ...... ............ ....... ........, ......... ......, .. ..... .............. ....... .............. .... . ........ ............. ...... ........ ........... . ........ ......... ......... ...... .. XX ...., – ... ........... . ...... ........... ........... .......-......., .... ........... .......... ..... ..../.....: «... .... ... .. ......», «... ... ........», «.. ... .... .... .......». . ........ ............... ........... ..... ......... . ....... ............ ..............-...........: ........., ........, ........, .........., .. .... ..., ..... ..., ...., ....., ......., ......., ......, ...... (.....), ......, ...., ...., ...., ...... . ... ......... ..... ... ......... ..... ........... . ......... ......... ..... .....................:..............., ........ ....................... ........ . ........ .. ...... ...... . ....... ......... ......... .... ........ ........... ...... ......... .... . .... ........-........ (.........., «.... . ........»), .... . .... .........-......... ......... ........... ........ .......... ..... ... ......... ........... ...... (........, ......... ... ......... ........, ......., ......... ....... . ....) .... . ..... ..... – ............, . ...... – ........ ..... ............. .............. ......... ..... ......... ...... ....... ..........: .....; ....... ........ ......; ........, . ........– .......... .......... ... ...... ....... ........ ... .......... ...................:..../......, ..., ........... ....., ........, ....., ....... ...., ........... ...... ....; ..... ...., ... ........... ...... .......... ......... .... (...... .........). ....... . ............. ..... ......... ........ . ....... . .... .......: ..... – ... ...... ......, .... ..... ......... .. ... ....... .....:«...., ...... .. ......... ..........,......... ......... ....... ............. ......» (..........., ........... 2012: 419 . 60). . ........ ........... ....-...... .... ......... . ....... .. ..... «........... .......... ...... ..........», ...... . ....... ............. ........ ........... ........ ......., ........... . .... .....–........ .... ...........;...:«....................... ......:“..... ..........”,..... ........: “. . ........ ... ......!”. . ... ........: “. . ...... ..... . .... .....”. . ....: “. . ... ........ .......”… [. ....]» (..........., ........... 2019: 566 . 347). .... ..... (....... .......... ............... .....), ........ ...... . ...... .......... . .... ...... ......... . ..., ... ..... ..... ...... ....., ... ... ... ... ... .... ......... ........ .. ........ . ..... ............. ........... ....... ..... ......... . ......... ......... ......... ...... ..... ........, ............... ... ... .............. . ......... ..........: .... .......... ........ ......... ....... . ....... ....; ........ .................... .. ......; ........ ..............., ............ .. .............; ......... ........ ...... . ..... .. ... .......... ....; ......... . ........, ..... ... ..........; ............ ...... .........., ...... .. .......... ....... ...... ........ ....... ........ ......... .......... .. ..... ........ ...... .............. ........... ........ ......, ... .. ....... ..... . ...., ...... .. .. ..........; ..... .......... . .......; ...... ......... .....; ....-........ ........ .. ..... . ......... ....... ... ..... .. ........ ..... ....... ..... ........, .... ........... .. ..... ........, ......... ... .......... ...... ....... ............. .......... . ....... ........ .. ..... . ....... ........, ....... ........, .........................(........,......., ........., ........), ........ .. ........ ....... . ........ . .... . ........ .. .... . .... ....... .......... ... ......., .... .... ..... .., ..... .. ....... ........., ....-......... ....... . ......... ...... ................ ..... ...... . ........ ...... ....... ........ . .........., . ......., –............,–. ............-......................... ... ......... ........ ....... ............ ....... ......... ..... ...., ... ... .. ... ................. . ........ .... ....... ........ ........... ........ ..... (.. ............ .. ........), ... ........ ......., ........... . ........ ....... ......... . .......... ....... . ..., ... ..... ......... .... ....... ... .......... .......... .......; .......... .. ... ........., ......... ... ...... ......, . ..... ... ............ ....., .... ........... ...... ....... ..... ........... ... ....... ........ ......; .. ........ ........... . .... ............ .. ...... ........... ............ . ...... .. ....... ..... ......... ..... ........ ......... .....-.. ........ ....., ....... ...... ...... ....... .. .... . ....... .. .....; ..... .. ......... . ....... ........... ... ............ . .... . .....; ..... ......... ...... .. ...... ..... ..... ....... .. ......, . ..... ......... ..... .. ..... ............ . .... . ........ ... .. ......... . ..... ........ ........ .... .......... .. .... . .... .... ........ . ......... ......... ..... ..... . ....... ........., ... ..... – ... ........ ... ..... .......... ......; .... ... ......... ............ ..... ....;.... .............. ............. .......... ......... . ............ ...... ............................................................ .... .............. .........., ........... ....... ........ ........: ....... .......... .............. ...... ..... .. ... .......... ..... (.. ....... ... ....... .....); .... .. ....... ...... ......, ......... ... ........ ......, ..... .. ........ .. .......... .......... .. ....., – .. ........ ........, – ..... ...., .... .... ... ..... ..... ......... ......., .......... . ....., .. ..... ..... ..., ... ... ... ....... .... .. ......... ... ....... . ...... ....... .......... ......., ... ..... ... ........... ..... .... ..... .... ..... ......, ... ... ......... ..... .. ........ ... .......... . ......... ...... ......... ........... ....... ........... ....., ...... ....... ....... . ... ........ ............ .. ...... .... ............. . ..... ... . ........... ......., ........... ..... ............ ...... ............ ....., ...., ....... ............ ..., ... ........ ..... .......... ....... ......... ...... ....... ... ......, . ..... ... ............ ........; .... ..... ......... ......... . ....... ........ ........... ......, ..... .................. ......... ........ ..........., ........... ......, .......... ........... ..... «........ .......». ... ............... ........ ..... ........ ........, ... ... «..... ....... .........», «......», «.......»; ... «.... ..... ..... ......»; ... ... «....... ...... . ......». ...... ........ .............. ......., ........... ............. ....., ........ .. ......... ......... .....: .. ..... «...... . .....», «........ .. ...», «..... ......», «.......», «...... .....», «.... ..... .....», «...... .... ........ .....» . .... ........., ... ........ . ..... ....... .......... ....... . ......... ............................................................. (....................... ....., ................), ..................... ... «........». .......... ..... ....... .. .............. .. .............. ....... ........ ............ ........, ............ .. ...... .. ....., .. ...... ......... . ......... ...... ........ ..... ...... ...... ...... ......... ............................... ........... .......... . .... ......, . ..... ............ ......... (......, ......., ......). ............. ... .................. ......... .......... .......... . ....... ..... ................... ....... ... ........... .... ..... ... ......., ....., ....... ....... . ..... ......, .......... ... . ..... (......, ....., ......) . ...... .. . ......... ......... ........... . ............. . ......... (....... . ........ ........, . ...... .. ......) .... ........... (......., ........, ........). .......... . ........ ........ . ........... ....... ............ ....... ........ ...... ... ...., ......, .......... ......, ......., ......... . ........... ....... ............. ...., .......... ............ ..... ....... ......... ... ............... ...... ...... ........ .., .......... . ......., .......... .......... . .... ..... .... ... ........ ....... (......, ...). ........... ......... ......-....... ..... ..... ........... . ......... ......... . ....... ......... .. .... ......... ........ ........ ........... ......... ........: ....... ....., ... .......... ....... . ..... ............ . ...., ........ ....... (.... ....... ............ .. .....), — . ..... .......... ....... ........., ... .... ...-.. .. ....... ..... ..... . ...... ......... ....... . ...... ... ..... .... ... ..... ........ ........: ..... .. ...., ............., ........ .....-.........;........ . .... ...... ......;...... . ........,...................... . ........ .............. –.......... ............ ..... – ... ............ .... ... ...... ...... ........, .... ....... ......... (....., .... ...... ........... .....). .. .......... ........ ............... .............. ........, ....... ..... ......... ........ .... ...... ... .............. ..... ....... ...... .......... ..... «......-....», ...... ......... . .................. ......... (..... . ... 1979: 123, . 332). .. .... ........... ..... ...... .......... . ........ ................... ........ (........ ......., .........). . .. . ...... ..... ......... ... ......., ......... ......., ...... ... ......., . ..... ... ...... ......, . ............ ........, .. ....... ...... ........ . ..... .......... ...... ... ...... ....... ... .... ......... ....... ..... ............ ... ....... .............. ...... . ......... ......... ... ......... ............... ........... ........, . ....... ............ ........ ...... ........ ........... ... .. ...... ..... .......; .... ............. . ...... . ....... . ........ ........ . .......... ....; .... ........... .. ..... ........ . ........... ....... .... . ........... ...... .. ......... ...... ... ........... ......... ..... ........, . ... ......... ......... . ...... ......... . .... ....... ...... .........., ....... .. .... . ............. ................... ....... ... ....... . ......... ......... .......... .................... ........ .......... ............,...: ....... –.........,....................; ......; .........;..............;......................;. ....... ....... – ....... (...... .......) . ....... .. ...... ..... .... ......... . ........ ... .......... ......... .. ...... ..... . ....... ......... ......., ...., ....................... ............ ................................ .......: «........», «........», «........». ... ........... ... ......... ....,................... ..... . ....................... .... ................ .............. ........ ..... ...... .. ....... ......... .. ....... ........... ........., ... ....... ......... . .... ... ......, ....... ..... ...... ...... ..... ....... ....... .. .....; ... ... ...... .. ..... .....; ..... . ...., ....... ...... ... .....; ........ .. ..... ...... . .... .... ........... ..... ..... ........, ........ . ........ ........... ...... .... ............... ......... ....... ..... ... ...... . ..... ......: .... ....... .. ........... ... ....., ... .. ...... .......... . .... ............ .............. ........... ......... . ........ ........., ...... ..................(......)........... ........................ ..........................., ........ ......... ................. ...... .... ........... (........ ...., ........... ...., ...... ......, .....). ........., ... ...... ............ ...... ............., . ...... . ..... ....... ......, ........ ... ......... ...... ............. ............. ............ . ..............., ........... . ....... (.........) ........ ....... ........... ......... ........ ......... ....... . ......., ....... ....... ........ ....... .............. ....... ...........................,................... .......... ..........: ....., ..... (........ ...... .......) .... ....., ..... (........... . ......... ......). ..... ...., . ...... .......... ....................................... ........: ......., ........, ........., .......... . ... ...... ...... ............ ..... ...... .....; . .......... .......... ........: ... ..... ........ . .............. ........ . . ........ ......... .... ........ ........... ..-........ .... .. .....................(.......),.............................. ........ . ........ ... «.... . ........», . . ......... ... ..... ......... ......, – ....., ....., ............., ......, ........, ......, ...... . .... .... .. ........ .............., ......... ..... ....... .... (....... ....... ...... .. ... ...., ..... ......... .......); ...... ......... ....... ...... (.... ..... .... .. ........); .. ....... .......... .......; ......... ....., ....... .. ..... ...... ........... ....... ........ .............. ............... ....... ....... (.........), .......... . .......: ...... ......., .... ........, ........., ........ ........., ... ... ......... . .... ....... ........ .. ... ... ........ (........ .......), .. ......... .... .. . ..... ... .............. ... «.......», ....... ...... .......... .........; .. ....., ..... . ...... ......... ........ .......; ........ ........, .... ........ ........ ... ... ..... ..... .. .......: «..... .. ......, ..... .... . .....!». ........ ..... ............. . ........... ....... ........ . ......... ....... ........ (........ ......, ....... ......., ....). .... ..... .. ............. ... ....... ......., .... .... . .....,.... ............. ....., ........ «....», .. . ......... ........ ...... ..., ....... .......... . ...... ....., ...... ....... ........ .. . ..... ........., ... ... .. ..... .......... . ...., .... ... «......... ......... ........», .... ....... ........... .. .... ..... ....... . ...... . ... ...... ........ .........-..........., ............ ........ ................, ............ ....... ..... ..................... ......., .......... . ......, ....... ............ ... ............... ....., ..... ... .. ............ . ....... ........ ...... ...... ........ ....... ........ ...... («.. ....... . ....!»), . ...... – ......, ......... .. ............ ........ («......... ......»). . ..... ........., ........ ...... ........... ....., . ....... ........., ..-......, ............. ......... ....... ................ ........ (...., ......., .........., ......., ...... . ...); ..-......, ............. «.......» .........-.......... (........ ...., ....-..., ... . ......., ....., ..... . ...); .-......., ....-«......» (......, ....., .....); .-........., ......... ........ (...., ...., ....). ............. .. ....... .......... ........ . .... ........... ........: ... ..... ..... ....... ....... . ....., ........ ... . ....., ...... . ...., ......, ........, ........ . .... . .... ............. ....., .......... ............. . ....... . ............. ................ ....... .........: ......, ......., ......., .......-......., ............., . ..... ........... .............. ....... (......., ......., ........, ........., ......., ......... . ...). .... .. .......... ..... ....... – ......... .............. ........ . ........, ... ........... . ............. ......... ........: ....., ......, ....., ........, .........., ........., ........, ........ . ... ..... ....... ......... ............. .. .... ...... .......... ......... ..................................(.......,......,.........) ...................... ...... ........... .........., .. ....... ........ ‘......’ ..... ......................, ............................ «.......»: ........, ........., ........, .........., ........ . ........... ..... ............. ................ ....... .. ......... ‘......’: «.... . ...... . ....» ... «.., ... ... . .... ......»: «. ... ....., .. ....... – .. .... . ....... .. ...... ...., .. ..... ..... .... . ...... [. ....] – .. .......» (..........., ........... 2010: 100). ... ............. ......... .......... ..... . ........... ................. ............., ........... . «.......» ...... ........ ... ...... ............. .....: .... ........... ... ........ ....... ........ ........-......(............. «.......» .....), .... . .......... ............ ........ . ...... (............. «......» .....). ......... .. .... ...... . ....... ........ ........ ................. ..... «............. ........» – .... .. ....... ................ ......... ..... ........., ... ....... ..............: ...... — .. ...., .. ....... . .......; ..., .. .... ....... ... .... ........ ........ ...... ........... ......... .......... ...... .. ...... ......... ......., ........... . .............. ........... . ...... .. ..... .. ... ..., .... .... ... ..... . .. ...., . ... ...... ....... ...... ......, ........ ... ........, . ......-......... ..... .......... ......... .. ...... ...... ....... ......... ......... .. . ...... ...... ..... ...... .... ............ ... ............. . ...... ........... . ....... ........ .. ............ .. ........ ....; ...... ........., ... ... ..... .. .......... .. ........ ....... .... .. .......... (...........) ......, . ... .... ......... ..... . ........ ..... ..... ................................... .............. (............... ..........) ..... ........... ............ ...... (....., ......, ...., ......., .... ......., ..... ....) ... ....... ........ (......, ......, .....). ..................................................... ............ ..... .. ........... ............. ..... ... .... . ......... . .... ........... ........... .....: ........, ..... ....., ....... ..... . ........ ........, .......... ......, ......, ....... . .......... ...... ....., ...... ............. ........... ........ ...... . ..... ..... (... .. ........ .......). ........., ... ... .. ....... ...... ........ . ..... .. ........ ...... ...., ..... ....... .. .... ......, .. ... ..... ........ «........ .......» . ...... ........ ..... (........ . ........... .......). ...... .......... ... . ...... ........-...... ..........: .. ..... ...... ... . ..... .... (.... – .. ............, .. ....., .. ..... ........... .....). ...... ............ .. ......... . ............. ........ ..... ......... .... ..... ........... . ...... ........... ..... . ........ ................ ........ ......... ...... . ......... ........ ......... .........: ...... ......... ..... . ..... .... . .... .........-........ . ..... .... ..... ......; .. ..... ............ ........ ..... ..., .... . ..... ....., ........... ...... . «.........» . .... ...... (. . ....... ........... .....); .......... ...... .......... .... .. ..... ..... (........, ......., ......), ........... .. ... ....... .........;................ ...... ..... ..... ........ . .... .. ......... ......... ...... . ....... ..... . ........, ....... .. ........ ....... ..... . ....., ... ... ....... ....... ....... .. ........ .....; ......., ... ... «.........», .. ......... .. ........ (....... .. .... .....), ......... ... .... .....: «... ...., .. . ...». . .......... . .... . ..... . ........... ...... .............. ..... ....... ...... .. .......... ........... ....... – ......... ..... .. ....., ....... ....., .. ........ .... . .... .. ......... ........ ... ...... ...... ........... ..... ............ .......... ..........: ... ............ .. ..... ... . .... ...... ........, ........... . ...... ... ......., ......... ........... «.........»; «........ ....» .... ........, ........ ..... .........; ........... «.......» (......... ..... .......) . ..... ........ .... . .......... ....... ... . ... ... «.......» ...... ....., ..... ...., .......... ........ .. ......... ... . ......... ............... . ........................................... ........... ...... ......... .............. .. ......: ........ ...... («........ .....»), .........., ........ ....., . ..... .......... ........ ......... .. ... ...... ....... ...., ... ... ....... .......... ............. .......... ......... ..... ......... ............ . ....... ......... ........ . ....... .............. ........ ........... .............. ........ . «........... ...... ......», ....... ...... ....... ....... . ... ....; ....... ... ........ ........ ....-...... .. .............. ..... «...... ....». ..... .. ......... ........ . ..., ... ......... ..... . ..... .... ....-...... ....... ...... ......., . .. ...... .... .......... (.. ......... ......... ......) ......... ..... ......-.............. ..... ...... ............. ........ ... ...... ...... ..... . «....... .. .....». . ......... ......... ........... ........ ...... ......, . ... ............. ........ . ......... . ..., ... . .... ....... ...... .......... ...... ...... .. ......... ...... (.. ........) ......... .. ..... ....... . ..... ...... ...... . ... ........., ........., ............, .... ..... ...... ........... .... .......... .......... .... .......... ........... .....: ......... ...............................................,......... .. ........ . ..... .. ... ...... ...... ........... ... ......... ......... . ...... ........ ..... . ..., ... ... .......... ........... ........... . ......... ........., ......... ............ .......... ....:....... ... ......... .......... ...... ............. ...........;........... .. ....;.......... .............. ......; ........ . ....... .... ..... ....-...... «.........». ........... ....... .... ....... ..... ............. «...............» ...... .............................................. ........... .............. . ....... ........ ........... .... .....................: ....... ....... ...... ............. ..... ..... ..... .........-........ . ..... ......, ..... .. ........ ...... ........ ............; ........ .. ......... .......... ...... . ...... .. ..... .......... ......; ....... .......... ...... .. ......... .. ...... (.. .. ..... ........... ..... .......... ............ .. ...... ...., ....., .......). . ........ ....... ....... ............. ........... .......... ............... ...... ....... ..... . .............. ... ..... ....... ........... ......., ..... ....... ............. ...... ........... ......: ..... ..... ......... ........ . ........ . ...... ... .......; ........., ... ...... .. ..... .......... ........... .... ., ..... .......... ......., .... ........ . ......... ......... ............(............«.......».....).......... ..... ....... ............................, ....... ......... .. ........... . ...... .............. .... ..... ....... .......... ....... . ......, ........ . ..... .... ........... «.......» (..... ....... ...... . ...... ....). ........ .. ..... ... ...... ... . ...... .. .......: «....-........., .. .........!» ... ....... . .... . .... ........... ......, .. ....... . .....: «. .., ....-........., .. ......... .. ......!». ... .... ...... .. ..... ..........., .... . ...., . ... .. ... ......... .. .... .. ... ..., .... .. .... . ....... ........., ................ .......... ...... (..........., ........... 2019: 572 . 372). ..... ............... . ........... ................ ........... ..... ....... ....... .. ......... . ........ ...... . ......... ......, ..... .......................:......, ......., ......., ......., ............, ......... .............. ........ ..... ......... ......... . ................ ......: ...... ........ .... ........... .. ..... . ........ .....; ........ .......... ........ . ........; ........ ..... .. ..... . ....; ........ ...... . ..... .....; .............. . ....... .. .. ...... ...... ....... .............; ....... .. ....... ....... . ....... .. ......, .... ....... ........ .. ....... «.......» ..... ......... .... ............ ........ .......... .. ............ ........ ............ ........... ........... ........... .......... ........ . ...... .... ..., ... ........ ..... ........ ....... «...... .....». . ....... .. ......, ...... ..... ......... ... .........-......... ... ............. ...... .......... ................. . ........ ..... ....... ........................... . ..., ... ............. ........ ....., ...... . .... ....... ........... ....... ................. ........ . ....... ........ ..... . ....... . .... .....: ....... ....... . ..... ........... ..... ... ... ..... (.. ....... ... .. ........... ..... .....), . . .......... ............ .... .... .......... . .... ........... ........ ... .......... ......... ...... ........... ..... (...... .............. . .................. ...........) – «...... ...... .... ........ .. ..... .......». ........., ... .. ... «.........» ...... . ....... (.... ......... ......), .... ... .. .......... .. ....... . ........ ........ ............. ... ......... .....: ...... ..., ... ....... . ........ ..............; .... ...... . .. ..... .....; ......... ........ .. .......; ....... ........; ... ......... ....... ............ . ....... ...... .... ...... ......... ..... – «..... ........... ..... ....... . ...... ... ......» – ...... . ..... ........... . ....... ............... . ..., ... ..... ...... ....... ...... . ... ......... .... ........ ......... . ... ................................ ....-...... ......................, ... . ... ....... .... ..... ....... ...., . ......., ... ............. ... (.... ...... .. ........ ...... .......). ........... . ....... ........ ........ . ..., ... ..... ..... ...... ....... ........... ........ ............ ......./........(....../........)............... ...................... ... .........-........., ....... ............. ......: ....... ......... ......... . ........ .....; ........ ....... ..... . ........ ....; .......... ......... ........; ............. «.......» ......... ....; ............ ................. ... ....... .............. ......; ......... .......; .............. ........-........;........ ........ .........;...... ..... . .... . ......... . ........ ........... ........ ... ..... . ........ ......: «..... . ........ .....», «....... ......», «.......... ........». ........., ... ........ . ......... ....., ....... .......... «........... ........» . «..... .....». ...... . ..., .. ...... ......... ......... ........, ... ......... «.......» ..... ..... ........... ... .. .... ....., ... . .. ...... .., – . ........... .. .. ....... ............ ... .............. . ........... ......... ....... ........ ............... .......... . ............ ........ ...........,............................... ........:.......,........, ........., ......... ..... .. .............. ........., ....... ....... ....... ..... .... ...... . ....... ........ ...., . ....... .............. ........, ............ ..... ........... ..... .................. ...........: ... ........... ............ (..... ............ ...., ... ..... .. .......);....... ..... ............ .... .. ...... ........; ......... ..... ....... ..... .. ..... ..., .... .... ....... .. ......; ......... ........ .... ....... ....... .. ...., ... ...... . ... .... ........., ... .......... ..... ........ .......-.........: ......, ... ... .......... ....... . ....... ............ .... . ....... ......... . ........ ......... ........ . ......... ......... .......... . .......... ........... ............. ..... ..........-....... (....., ....... . .....). ......... .... ....... . ....... «.......» ..... ......... .......­........., ......... .. ..... ......... . ......... ......... . .......... .........., . ... .. ..... ............ ..... ...... ............. ......... – ... .......... ............ ......., ....... ............ . ..... .. ..... ........... ...., ..... . ..... ....... ....... ..... ............ . ........ ...... «........», ........ .......... ..... . ......, .........: ......... ...-.. ......, ......... .............., .... ...., ....... ........ .............. . ....... ............. . ..., ... ......-......... .......... ......., ......... . «........» ...... .............. ... .............. . ..... .......... (...... ... .... . ... ............. ........) . ...... ............ ........... ..... ...... ..... ..... ......... ......... . ...... (..... ........... . ......., .. ..... ...... ................ . ................. . ................. .........) . ..., ... ... . ..... ...... ....; ... .. ...... ........., . . ... ..... .. ....... ..... ....; ... ........ .. .... ......, .. ... ..... ....... ..... .. ....; ..... ... . ..... ....... .... ........ .. ..... ........, .... ....... .......... ... ... ..... ..... .. .. ...... . .......... ..... ....... .......... ..... ................ . ......... ......... ...... ............. .............. . .....– ................... ..... ........ (..... ......... . ..... ... ... ... .......; ..... ....; .......) ... .......... ..... ....... ..... .. .......... . ........ ........... ..... .......... ....... ... ............ .... . . ........ ....... ........... ..... .. ........... ..... . ..... ......... ......... ........: ...... .......... ........ ........ ...... .....; .......... ... .......... ......; .......... ...... ........ .... ... ...... ........; ........... .. .... ...... ...... ...... .................... ............. ....... .......... .... .. .......... ............ ... ..... ........; .... ... ......., ... ...-...... ...... ... .. ....., ... ....... ............ ......, ... ....... .. .... ............ ....... ...... .............. ......... ........ .. ....... ....... (.........­..................)................................................., . ....... ............ ...... .........., ............ .. ... ....... ..... – «..........» ........ (.... ........ .......... ...... ....... ....... ....); .......... ....; . ..... ......., ........ . ... ....... ... ............... ... ........, ............ .. ........ ....; . ... ......., ... ... .. ...., . ............ ...., ...... ... ......... ........, ... ... – «. .... ..... .....». ........., ... .. ............ . ... ......... «..........» ..... .......... .................. ......, ............. ..... (.............) ....... ..........: ..... ....... ......., ......... ......... ..... . .... (..i....i., ....... 2011: 137; .... 2013: 742–745). . ........ ......... ....... ........... .... ......... ....... . .......­........., ............ ..... ...... ........... . ... ............ .............. ......... ... ............ . ........ ......... ......... ....... ..... .. ...., .... .... ........ . ..... . ..... ..... .. ......... ............ ...... ............. . ..... .......... ..... (....... ....), . ....... ............ .... ....., ........ . .......... ........... ....... .. ......................... . ................ ......................... ........., .........: ....´..., ....´..., ..... ......., ...´..., ....... ...., ..... ....´ .... . .... .. ....... ....... – ........ ........ ..... ......... .......... ... ........ . .......... ....... ... .........-...... ..........: ......´, .... .., ....... ....... ........, ......... ... (.. ....... ......... ‘........’). ........... . ...... ......... ......... ...... ......... . .... ...... ......, ....................... ................. ...........,.. .......... ........... . ........ ..... ... ...... ....... ... ......... . ............... . ........................... ...................... .............. ........ ....... . ... ........ ..... «........ .... ........ ..../.........., ............ ... .....». . ......... . ........................... ......... ........ .............. ...... ..... (.. ...... ....., ......... ... ...... .........). .......... . . ......... ........ . ...........:........., ... ........ ..... ............ . ..., ...., ...... ......... ... .................. ....... ......... .... ............... .... . ...... ........... ....: .... ....... ..-........ . ........ .......... .... ........... ... .............;. .......... .... ......... ........... ..... ...., ............ ........... ........... ... .... .. ........ ..... «.......» .......... ........... ...... ................. .................................., ....... ............ ............. . .. ...... ......... .......... ..... .. ... ........ ...... ............ ..... ...... .......... (........, ......., .......... ....., ....... .........., ....... .....-............) . ...... ....... ...... ....... . .............. .............. . ....... ....... ... «........» ....., ... ... ....... .. .... .. ............... .... .......... . ....... ........... ....... ............ ...... ...../....... ... ........., ... ........... ................. ..... ........... .......... ....... .... ....... ...... ................ .....-«......» ......... ....... .... ....... . ............... ......... . ..., ... ... .......... ............ (......., ......, ...., ....) ........ .......... .. ..... ....... ............. .... (.... «........» .......... ... .....). ...... ..... ....... – .......... ..... ......... .......... (......, ......., . .............. ......... . .....) ... ................... ....... (...., ..........) . .......... ............ ......., .. ........ ....... .. .......... ......., ........... ... ....... .............. ....... ........... ............. ................ ............. . ........... ......... ......... (........ «....... .......»; .......... ...... «........ ......»). . ..... .......... ........ ......... ...... ............. ....... . ..........; . ................ (. ..... .......) .... . ...... ....-........... . ... ..........; . .......-«.......», ......... ............ .....; . ..... ... ................... ......... ....... . ... ... ......... ........... . ....... ........ ............. «.........» ........., . ............ ....... .......... . ...... .................. .......... ......... ............. ............... ......... . ................ ...... ..... ....... ..... ... ........., .. ............ ... ....; ........, ........ . ........ ......... .. .... .. ........ . ....... . ..... .... . .............. ......... (.. ...... ....... ........... .....) ......... ........ ..........., ..... ...., .. ........ ....... ............., .. . .............. ...... ... ............. ........... ....... ..... ........ ................ ....... . ....... ... ..............., .... ................... ................ ........ ......... ........ ...... .............. ........ ..... . .......... ......... ....... ... ........ ..... .. ............ ......... .......... ........ .......... ....., ... ..; ..........., .... ..; .........., .......... ..; ......., ........., 1979: ............. ......... ........ .................. ....... ..... ........., ..............., .............., ............ .........: ...... [Barag, Lev G.; Berezovskiy. Ilya P.; Kabashnikov, Konstantin P.; Novicov, Nikolaj V., 1979: Sravnitel’nyj ukazatel’ s’uzhetov. Vostochnoslav’anskaya skazka. Sostav. L.G. Barag, I. P. Berezovskij, K.P. Kabashnikov, K.P.. Novicov, N.V. Leningrad: Nauka]. ..........., ....... ..; ..........., ..... .., 2010: ........ ........... ....... (.......... ....... . ....... 80-90-. ..... XX ....). ...........: .... ..........., .... ............ .. 1. .... .. ................... ........... ......: ..... .......... ........ [Vinogradova, L’udmila N.; Levkievskaya, Elena E., 2010: Narodnaya demonologia Polesia (Publikaciya tekstov v zapis’ach 80-90 godov). Sostaviteli: L.N. Vinogradova, E.E. Levkievskaya. T. 1. L’udi so sverkhyestestvennymi svoystvami. Moskva: Jazyki slav’anskikh kultur]. ..........., ....... ..; ..........., ..... .., 2012: ........ ........... ....... (.......... ....... . ....... 80-90-. ..... XX ....). ...........: .... ..........., .... ............ .. 2. ............... ....... ...... ......: .......... ......... ....... ..... [Vinogradova, L’udmila N.; Levkievskaya, Elena E., 2012: Narodnaya demonologia Polesia (Publikacia tekstov v zapis’akh 80-90 godov). Sostaviteli: L.N. Vinogradova, E.E. Levkievskaya. T. 2. Demonologizacia umiershykh l’udej. Moskva: Rukopisnye pam’atniki Drevnej Rusi]. ..........., ....... ..; ..........., ..... .., 2016: ........ ........... ....... (.......... ....... . ....... 80-90-. ..... XX ....). ...........: .... ..........., .... ............ .. 3. ............. ......... ....... . ............ .......... ......: ............ ... .... [Vinogradova, L’udmila N.; Levkievskaya, Elena E., 2016: Narodnaya demonologia Polesia (Publikacia tekstov v zapis’akh 80-90 godov). Sostaviteli: L.N. Vinogradova, E.E. Levkievskaya. .. 3. Mifologizacia prirodnykh javleniy i chelovecheskikh sostojaniy. Moskva: Izdatel’skiy dom JaSK]. ..........., ....... ..; ..........., ..... .., 2019: ........ ........... ....... (.......... ....... . ....... 80-90-. ..... XX ....). ...........: .... ..........., .... ............ .. 4. .... ......... . .......... ............. ................ .......... ......: ............ ... .... [Vinogradova, L’udmila N.; Levkievskaya, Elena E., 2019: Narodnaya demonologia Polesya (Publikacia tekstov v zapis’akh 80-90 godov). Sostaviteli: L.N. Vinogradova, E.E. Levkievskaya. T. 4. Dukhi domashnego i prirodnogo prostranstva. Moskva: Izdatel’skiy dom JaSK]. ..i....i., .....; ......., ......, 2011: .i.....i. .......... .............. .....i.. ...... I. ..i....i., .. .......; ...... .... .. ......i.., .. ....... .i...: ......... [Klimkovich, Iryna; Avtushka, Victor, 2011: Mifalogiya belarusav. Encyklapedychny slovnik. Sklad. I. Klimkovich, V. Avtushka; navuk. red. T. Valodzina, S. San’ko. Minsk: Belarus’]. ...., 2009: ........... ......... ........ .......... . 6-.. ...... .. 4. ........ ........ . 2-. ... ... 2.; ...... .... .... ............. .i...: ........ ...... [TMKB 2009: Tradycyjnaja mastackaja kul’tura belarusav. V 6-ti tomach. T- 4. Bresckae Palesse. V 2-kh kn. Kn. 2. navuk. red. T.B. Varfalameeva. Minsk: Vyshejshaya shkola]. ...., 2013: ........... ......... ........ .......... . 6-.. .. .. 6. .......... ....... i ........... . 2-. ... ... 2. ...... .... .... ............. .i...: ........ ...... [TMKB 2013: Tradycyinaya mastackaya kul’tura belarusav. V 6-ti tomakh. T. 6. Gomel’skaye Palesse. V 3-kh kn. Kn. 2.; navuk. red. T.B. Varfalameeva. Minsk: Vyshejshaya shkola]. FOLK DEMONOLOGY OF POLESYE IN THE CONTEXT OF EAST-SLAVIC TRADITIONAL BELIEFS: Part 2. Non-localised characters; people with demonic properties LUDMILA N. VINOGRADOVA Thefolk demonology of Polesyeis of greatinterestto ethnologists of awide profile because it combines the features of different neighbouring ethno-cultural traditions. This is due to the fact that the territory of Polesye borders Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, and in the west it is a neighbour of Poland. In addition, a peculiarity of the local culture is that it retains many common-Slavic elements in the most archaic forms. The research was conducted taking the data about he East Slavic mythological system into account. The work is published in two parts. Thefirstpartis devoted to beliefs aboutthe spirits of domesticand naturalloci, and about the dead returning from the other world. Part two of the article examines two major blocksof Polessian mythology: beliefsabout mythical creatures that are notassignedtoaspecificlocus (devil,personificationofawhirlwind,personifica­tionof Death, spirits of diseases, intimidating characters) and acomplex of beliefs about people possessing super-knowledge (witches, sorcerers, werewolves etc.). The lower mythology of the region under study is characterised by a number of features that add support to the notion of its archaic state. One of them is the close connection of many characters (housekeeper, mermaid, deceased un-baptised children, the ‘walking dead’, water spirits come from drowned men) with the souls of deceased people. Mermaids and un-baptised children are perceived in the local tradition more as spirits of relatives than as malicious demons. This is also evidenced by the fact that in Polessian mythology there is no fully formed image of a vampire as a demon-deceased, who has already lost blood ties with a person and able to harm everyone in a row. The weak individualisation of images of spirits – «masters» of natural loci is also associated with the idea that the entire surrounding space (reservoirs, swamps, forests, fields) is inhabited by multiple spirits identical in nature – the souls of «impure» dead or devils. The second sign of the archaic culture of Polesye is the clear connection between demonological characters (witches, mermaids) with the mythology of calendar time on which their behaviour depends. Finally, the involvement of demonological subjects in spring-summer ritualcomplexes is characteristic of the local tradition (cf. Trinity rituals “seeing the mermaid off”; Kupala-rituals of “exorcism of the witch”). Remaining relics include well-preserved beliefs about wolkolaks; about the disputes between the god of thunder and his adversary; about the vortex as a personified natural phenomenon and several others. Although from the perspective of the general structure of character types (in quantitative terms), Polessian demonology perhaps does notlook too diverse, in a meaningful sense it demonstrates an extremely wide coverage of typical demonological plots and motives of both common-Slavic and Western European distribution. The systematic description of the Polessian demonological tradition could be used for comparative studies in Slavic mythology. Ludmila N. Vinogradova, Ph.D., Senior Research Advisor, Institute of Slavic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Department of Ethnolin­guistics and Folklore, Leninsky prospect, 32-A, RU-119334 Moscaw, lnv36@yandex.ru 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 141–163 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222507 «........» ......... . .............. ......... ..........­........ (.......-.......... . ........-...........) .......... ........ .. ........ Clanek obravnava razumevanje »necistih« mrtvih na podlagi gradiva belorusko-rus­kega (Polock-Pskov in Vitebsk-Smolensk) obmejnega obmocja. Posebna pozornost je namenjena analizi takšnih kategorij »necistih« mrtvih, kot so nekršceni otroci, samo­mori in carovniki. Študija je tudi na podlagi sodobnih materialov pokazala prisotnost številnih arhaizmov v teh predstavah. Prispevek spremlja razvoj pogrebnih obredov »necistih« mrtvih,pa tudi verovanja, povezana z njimi. Študija temelji na objavljenem in arhivskem gradivu ter avtorjevih zapiskih. Pomembno mesto v razpravi ima gradivo folklornih in etnografskih odprav, ki so bile izvedene v regiji ob koncu XX – zacetku XXI stoletja. Velik del teh gradiv je objavljen prvic. KLJUCNE BESEDE: folklorna demonologija, “necisti” mrtvi, samomori, nekršceni otroci, carovniki, pogrebni obredi, beloruska meja The article deals with the perceptions of «un-pure» dead people on the basis of the materi­als of the Belarusian-Russian (Polotsk-Pskov and Vitebsk-Smolensk) borderland. Special attention is paid to the analysis of such categories of «un-pure» dead people as unbaptized children, suicides and sorcerers. The study has shown the presence of many archaisms in these representations even on the basis of contemporary materials. The paper traces the evolution of the funeral rites of the «un-pure» dead, as well as the beliefs associated with them. The study is based on published and archival materials, as well as the author’s notes. An important place in the study belongs to the materials of folklore and ethno­graphic expeditions which were conducted in the region at the end of XXth – beginning of XXIst century. A significant part of these materials is published for the first time. KEYWORDS: folk demonology, mythology, «un-pure» dead, suicides, unbaptized chil­dren, sorcerers, funeral rites, Belarusian-Russian borderland ............ .......... .......... .............. ....... ........ ........., ............ .. ....... ...... ...... ..... ..... ... ........ ...... ... .......... «........» ........... . ...... ......... ......... ........., ....... .............., .. «.....» ......., . ..... .., ... ... ..... ....... . ........ ...... ............ ....... . ............., ......... . .... ....... .........., ........... .......... ... ........... ........ .... ........... . ..............., «............. ....... – .... .. ........ 142 . ....... .. . ....... ............ .......... ........ ................ ....... . .......... ........» (... 2012: 7). ........... ..........................., .......... «.........» ..........., .. ......... . ..... ................ ....... . ... ........... ... ........ .......... ....... ... . ...... .. .. ....... ............. ........... ........... .... ............... ...... «...... ....... .........: ....... .............. ....... . .......» (1916 ..), ... ................ ......... .. .............. .........., ....... .......... .. «........» .......... (....... 1995). ......... ............ ...... ............ ........ . ..... .. – ...... ... .. . .... ...... ... ........... ... ......... ............ .......... ...... .... ............, .... ..........., .... ........., ........... (...........1986;...........2000.;........... 2000b; ........... 2001; ..........., ....... 1994; ........ 1983; ........ 2004; ....... 2001; ... 2012). . ......., .............. . ..... .. – ...... ... .. .. ...... ............, ............ ..... .... ........ ....... ......... ........... ... ........... ........... ..., ... ....... .............. ............... ... «........... . .............. .......... .......» (......., ....... 1983: 7), . ..... «..... .. ... «.......» .......... ........, .. ......... . ....... . ...... ....... ....... ....... ...... ............ ........ .......... ..........» (......., ....... 1983: 8). ..... ......... .......... ....... ....... .............. ....... . ............ ...... ........ ............ ........ ........... (............... ...................) ........ ...... .............. ..............., .................. . ................... ............ ........ . ............. .......... ......... .......... ... ............ ...... ....... ............ ........ ......... ....... . .. .. ..... ...... ....... ........... .... ............ ........... ....... . ........ ....... ....... ............ .... ....... .....................­.......(.......-.......... ........-..........) ..........1. ............. .............. ........ ............. . ..... ...... ............ ........... ....... ........ ........ ....... ............ .............. ........ .......... ............. . .......... ........... .............. .............. . ..... .... ........... . ......... ...... ........ ........ ......., . .... . ......... . ........... . ...... ... .... .. ..........-....... .......... (.......-......... . ........-..........) ............... ... ..... ....... ............, ........... .. .... ..........., ........ ............ ........ .. .............. ........2. . ...... ........... ....... ........... 1 . ............ . ........... ...............-............... ........ . ...... ............ ..... ....... .......... ......... ....... (..................), ............... . .......... ........ .......... .......... 2 ..................................... ....................-............ .......­................................... ......................-....: «............ .........-........ ..................-........(........-...........)............ –...... ... ..:.................... ......., ................. . .. ............................» .............. ............. . ....... . «........» .......... . ......... ..........-........ (.......-.......... . ........-...........) .......... .................. ... – ......... .. ..................... ....... ..... ......... ... .......... ...., .......... . ........ . ...... ..... .............. ........ ......... . ......... ........, ......... . ..... ........ ........... ... ......... ............ ............ ....... ......... .......... ........., . ..... ... ............. .. .............. ...., ......... . ..........-........ .......... .. ..... .............. ............ .... ............ ........ (. ...... ......., ..........). . ...... ...... ............ ......... ........... ....... ..........­............... ............ ....... ............ .. ..... ....... ........ . ....... ....... «....» . «.. ....» ...... ........ ............ .......... ......... ....... ........... («..........») ....... ........ ......... «....» ...... (.... ...... «.. ........»). . ..... ...... ...... ........ ......... . .......... ...., ... ... ...... .... «...»: «., ..... .. ..... ... .. ..... ... ... ....…» (........... ..... ......... ................ ............3, ......... ..... ......... .......). ..... ............... ........... ...... . ............ ........ ....... «...» (................. ..... ........) . ... «.....», ....... ... ...... ... ........ (....... 2010: 131). .. ....... ........... ......... ............ ........ . ......, ... . ............ ........ ... ... .... ............ ..... (....... ....... ....... ............... .........) – ..... ..........., ....... . ...., ..... ............ ............. .......... ......... ........ (........ 2004: 40). . ..... ...... ........... ...... ........ ........., ..... ... ........ .... ......... ...., ........ .. . ....... .... ...... . ............. ......... .................... .... ................. .......: «.., .... .. ......., .... ..... .... .’..» (.........., ......... ..... ......... .......). ........ ..... .......... .... ............ ..... ..... ......... ... ....., ... . ...... ........... ......: «.. ..... .. . .. ......, .... .... ......... ....... .. . ........» (.........., .......... ..... ......... .......). ... ....... .. .......... ... – ...... .. .., ........ ..... . ........ ................. ............ ..... .... ..... ....... ........ ...... ............ . . ........... ....... ......., ............... . ....... (... 2011.: 54–57). . ..... ...... ................. (2014-2016; . .14..-003); «............ .............. . ........ ........ ........-.......... .......... . ..... ... – ...... ... ..: ...... ............. . ........ ............... ......» (2016-2018; ..16..-004); «........... ....... . ........ ...... ......., ..... . ......... ........-.......... .......... .. – ...... ... ....» (2020-2022; ..20.-095). ..... – ........... ..... ..... .... .......... ......... .......: «.. ... .... . ..., ... ........ ......... .. ...., .... ... ......» (.........., .......... ..... ......... .......). . ..... . .... ...... ........ «.. ........» ............ ... «..-...... .......» (.... 2004: 387). ....... «....... ..... .......», ........ ............ .............., ........ .......... . .......... ........ ..... ............... .......... ... ........ ..............., ... ......... ................ («..........» . «..........» ....) (........ 1993: 102). ....... . «.........» .... ..... .......... ... ..... ....... . .................. ........, ... ............... ......... ............ ............., ..... ......... .. ..... ........ ................ .............................. ....... ............ ......... ........,................., .................. ....... («...... .. .....»). .. ...... .... ......... ......... ............. .... .............. ............... .. ....... (........ 2004: 41). ......, ... ............... ........., ........... ....... ........ ...... .............. . ........... ............ ....., . ... ..... . .. ...... ........ (... 2011.: 37; ... 1983: 104–108). ............. ... . . ......... ....... .... .. .......... ....... ..... .. .. (... 2004: 152). ... .... ... .. .... .......... . ............. . ............., ... ..... .............. .. .................. .......... ............. . .............. ....... . ....... «.. .....» ....... (....... 1995: 39–40; ........ 2004: 39–41). ........ .......... ......... ......., ....... «.....» ....... .......... . ......... «...ó.» (.......). . .. .......... . ........ ......... . ......... ........ (........ 2015). .............. ....... ................. ... «........» .......... ... ........ ..... ......... (. ...... . ...........), ......... ........ ... ...... ........ .........................., ............... ...... ......... ......... .. ........... . ...... ..... ......., ....... .. ...... ....... ..... ......, .. ... .. .... ..... (.. 2011: 449). ..... ........... ............. . «.........» ....... .. ...... ....... ........... . ............ ......... ....... ......... ..., ............. ........ .......... ...... ....... ....., ......... ........ .......... . ...., .. ... ..... ...... .. ............ ..... .......... .... ....... ........ . ......... ...... («... ... .....»). ........ ......... ...... ............. . . ........... .......: «.. .. .......: ...... ........ ....., ..... ......, . ...... – ......, ........, .....» (............. ..... ......... .......) (.... 2004: 379). ........... ..... ........ ....... .......... .. .... .. ........ ......., ...... .......: «... ... ......... ....... ... ....... ......, ... ..... ...... ....... ... ...., ........... .. ... ..... ......, ............, .... ... ...... ......... .. . ....... ..... ....... . ... ... ....... .. ..... .........» (.........., .............. ..... ......... .......). .. ...... .... ........., .. .... ........ ........... ..... .. .... .. ........: ..... . ....., ..... ........... ....... ....... .. ... ... ............... ..... ........ . ......... ........ ...... ...... .......... ... ....... «.......» .......... (........2004:76–77). . ........ ................ ............. ...... ........ . .............. ....... ........., ......... ... .. ......... .... ......... .... . ..... .. ............ .. .... ...... . ..........-............... .........., ............... . ......., ........ ...... ............ ....... . .............. . «....» ..... ........... ...... . ........... ......., ... ......., «........» ......... ........... ........... . .......... ........... ...... («.. .. ......», «.. ......... ....» ....). ..... ......... ......... .............. .. ........... ....... .......... .. ........ ........ (... 2011b). . ..... . .... . ........... .......... .......... ......... ....... ........... ....... ........... . ............................. ................... (........2021:57–58). ......... .... . ....... ....... ........... ......, . ....... «........» ......... ........... .. ............ ............. ... ..... (... ........ . ...., ..... – . ......., .... – . ....... . ....). . ..... ....... ......... «........» ......... ..... ........... . ... «.........» ............. ...... ............ ... ...................... ........... . ......... ....... ... ................,......................... ........ ............., ........... ...... «..... .. ......... ........ ..........» ........... . . ..... ........: «. ... ..... ....... [..... ...... .......-.......... – ....] . ........., ....., .. ...... .... .. ....... .. ...... . .. ... ..... .. .......» (......... ..... ......... .......) (... 2011b: 198). . ........ ....... ........... ............. . «.....»/«.. .....» ...... . ............................, ....................., .......... ............ .......... .. ...... ....... .......... .......... .... ........ ........ . ......, ... ...... ......... . .............. ...... ... .. ............... ..........«........».........,................... «.........». «........» (........, ... ........ ....... .......). . ......... .... «.. .....» ...... ........... ............... ...... «......» ...... (........ 2004: 46). ... ....... .. ......... .........., «......» ....... ..... ......... ...... .. ...... (........ 1983: 254). ........... ....... ........... . . ........ ........ . ........... ......:«<...>....................., ....... ........» (.........., .............. ..... ......... .......). .. ... .... ........ ... ........... ......... ........................: «....... ....... ........, .. .. ....... ...... ......» (.........., .......... ..... ......... .......). ... ............... .................. ........., ......... ......... ....... ..... ......... ......... «.........». ........ ......... .......... ...... ........ .. .., «.........» ......... ......... .., ... ....... .. ...... ....... ......... .......... ............ ...... . ......, ... ..... ...... .... ......... «......» (........ 1983: 254). ......, ... .......... ......... ........ – ........ ... ...................................-.......... . ........-........... .........., ..... .............. ......... ...... . ... ......., ....... ....... .. .. ..... ..... ............-......... ... . . ........... ............... ....... ...... ......... «........» ........... ...... .......... . ...... ........ .. .. ..... .......... «.... .......... ........ ..........., ..., ... ........., ........”(........ ..... ......... .......) (... 2011b: 197). “. .. ....... ...... ...... .........., ......... .. .. ........., . .... ......... ........» (........ ..... ......... .......) (... 2011b: 214–215). ........... ..... ............. . ..., ... ............, ... . ...... ........., ...... ........ ...... . .......... ......... ... .... . .......... ........... ........ ............. ....... .. ...........: «........... ...... .......... ..... ........., .... ...... ......, .........., ...., ........, ......, ..... .. ..... . ....... ........, ...... .... ...... .........» (........... ..... ......... .......) (.... 2004: 387). ... ....... .. .......... ... – ...... ... .., . ......... ..........­........... .......... ......... «........» .................... .......... . .......... .... (...... . ..... ....... ....... ......... ........... .. .... ......), . ..... ......., ....... ... ..... ......... .......... ...... . ..., ... ....... .. .......... (............... .........), . .......... ........ . «........» .......... ..... . .... ......... ........... . ... ............ ....... ........... ....... . ........ (...... ...... .... ..... ..... . .... .. ...... ..... .......... ........) (....... 2009: 90). . ......... «........»..... ........ . ...,........ «.........».........,. ....... ........., ... ......., ....... ..... .. ......... ......, ...... ........ (........... 2009: 119–120). ............. . ......... .. .... .......... «........» . ......... .......-.......... . ........-........... .......... ........ .......... . ............ . ...... ............ .. ..... .. ...... ......... .......... .. .............. .......... .......... .... ........ ........ ........ ......... ......... .......... .......... ....... .. ....... .......... ...... ... .......... .... ... ........ ............ ....... .. ....... ..... ......... .. ... ........: .... ........ .......... ....., . ....... ........... ......... ... . «........», ...... – ........, ....... ......... ........ (........ 2004: 46). ......... ... – ...... .. .. ........ ..... ........ ..... ........... ..... ........... ............. . ..........-............... .......... ..... ....... .. ............ . .... ....... .... ............................. ............ ...., ...... ..... ........ ..., .. ......... ........., ... ....... ... ..... ...... ... ......., ....... ... .. ....., .. ....... . .. ....... ...... ...... (............. 1897: 46). ... ........ ............ ............... .. .......... ......., ..... ........... ....... ..... ........ ...... ....... ............. .. .. ........ ......-.... ............. .......... . ........... ...... ..... «...», ... . ........ ........ ..... .........., .......... .... ..... .. ...... ....., ... ...... «........» .......... . ......... ........ ... ......... ............. .........., ....... .. ..... ....... . ... (... 2012: 225–226). . ............ ..... .......... . ....... .......-.......... . ........­........... .......... ..... .............. ....... ...... ............. ....... ................ ...... ......... ............... . ........... ......... ... – ...... .. .. ......... .. ..... ........... .............. ..., .. ............. .......... .................. . ..............., .......... ...., ... . .......-.........., ..... ...... ............ . ....... (............. 1897: 295; .......... 1895: 77). . ........... ...... ... .. ....... ..... ....... ............ ... .......... ...... .... ....... ....., ... ........... .. ......... . ........ . ........ ......... ....... ........ ................ ........ ..... . ..., ... .... .......... ..... .. ..... ....... . ..., . ...... ...... .. ..... . ...... .......... .. .......... . .... .... ........... . ........ ........ ..., ... ..... .... .. ......... ..., ......... ... .. ....... . .. ..... ...... . ........ ......... ....... ................ ........ ..... . ............. «........» ..... ...... .......... ...... ... ....... .. ....... .........., ...... ........ .............. .. .......... ..... ........ ........ ........ ........, .... ........ (.... ..... ......) ........ ..... ............ . .... ....................... ... ............. ........ . ..... ........ ............: «....... ... «....» .... .. ........... . ...... .......... .. ........... ...... .. ..... ... ........ . ... ......... . ....... ............., ...... «.... . ......» ........ ....... ... .......... ...... . ............, ..... .............. . ............ ..... ..... ....., ...... ........ ..... <…> .. ... ..... .......... ..... ..., ... .... ...... ...: ..... ...... .......... ...-... ..... .... ...., . ........ ........... ...., - . ... ......... .. ..... ..... .. ..... .. ............, ..... ........ ...... ...., .. ........ ... .. ......., .. .... . ...... .. ...... . ..... ......., ... .......... ....... .... ........ .......... ........... . ......... .....» (............. 1897: 17–18). . ......... ....... ..... ........... ......., ........ ....... .... ........... ....... ............. . ........ ........ ..... ............. ........ ........... ... ................. ........ (.. 2011: 195). ..... ........ ...... ... .... ........... ....... ............ ........... .. ...... . ....... ......., . ..... . ....... (... 2012: 235). ........., ... ......., ........... ..... .......... .... ..... . ...... «.......» .. ............ . .... ... (.. 2011:195;... 2012:235–237). .................. ........... . . .... ........... ....... ............ . .......: «..., ......, ... .. ..... ......, ... .... ........... ..... ......, ... .......... ....., ... ... .... .........., .... .... ........ .. .......: “.. ... ....…” ............, ... ... ..., .... ., ......, .. ........., ......, ....., .. .... ..... ...... . ..... .. ....... ......: “......., ......... ..... ......, .... . ........... ...... ........”. ..... . .. ...... .... ....... . .....,. ...... ., ..,......, ..........................»(.........., ......... ..... ......... .......). «. .. ...... ......, .... .. ..... ...... .. ....? .., ... .... ......, .... .. .......... .... <…> ........ ..... <…> ... ......, .... ........ ......, .... ....., ... ..., . .... ....., ... ..... <…> .... ....., ......, . .... ....., ... ..... .. .... ... ...... .....» (.........., ......... ..... ......... .......). .............................-............... ....... ....... ...... ........ .......... ..... .. ..... .......... ..... ...... ...... .......... ... . ...... ........ .. .. ............ .. .... ........... . . .... ........... ....... ............ . .......: «. .... ..... . ........ ...... ...... .. .... .. ........ ........?– .. .. .. ........, ... ... .... .......... .... .. ...... .. ......... ......, ...... ... . ...... ........., ... ... .. ......... ........., ... .......» (.........., ............. ..... ......... .......). .................. ..........-............... ........., .. ...... ........ .. – ...... ... .. ..... ......... ........... ................. ....... ............. . «.........» ....., ....... ..........., . ........... ........ .......... .. ............... .. .. «..........» .«...........»: «. ........... .... ........, .... ...........? – .. .... .........» (.........., .......... ..... ......... .......). . ..... . ...., ........ ..... .......... . .... ..... ...... . .......... ......... ... .... ............, ... . .... ....... ............ ......... «......... . ......», .... .......... ..... ... . .. .. ......: «. ...... .......... .. ..... ...... . .... ........» (.........., .......... ..... ......... .......). ... ............... ........... ....... ........., ............ .......... .. ..... .......... ...................«........» ........ ........ ...... ... ......... .. .......... .... .......... ....... ............. ... .......... ... ... ............ ....... ............ ..........: «. ... ........... ....., .... ........., ..., .... .. ........ ..... .. .........? <...> – ., ...... ......... ....... ........, .... ..... ......... .........., ....... ......... ... . . ....... .........» (.........., ........ ..... ......... .......). ....... ......, .. ............. ............, ... ......... . .........: «......... ..... ....... ....... . ..... ... ...» (.........., .......... ..... ......... .......). .......... ......... ......... ....... .......... .........., ....... . ............ ............. ........... .......... .. .........., ....... .. ......... ..... ......................................................., .... ............ .................... ........ ..... . ...................., ... ...... .. ........... ...... ..... ......... ..... ......... ...... ........... . .......... ... – ...... .. .. ... .............. . .. .......... ........... ....... ............: «... ....... ........., .. .... ... .... .....» (.......... ..... ......... .......) (... 2011b: 217). . ..... . .... .............. ............. . ..... . ..., ... ..... ....... ............., .......... ....... ........... ... ......., .. ........ .... ........ . ............ ........ .........: «... .............., ......., .. ..........» (.......... ..... ......... .......) (... 2011b: 216). . ....... ........... . .................,..............................,................... ................. .............. ............ ....... ...... . ..., ... ... ...... ....... ...... ......., .. ..... ..........: «.... . ........ ....... .. ......., ....... ...... .. .........., .. .... ..... ......» (.........., ........ ..... ......... .......). «. .... ..... ... .. .... ... ......., . ... ........ ........., . .. ..... .... ........., .... ....... .. ..... . .... .. ....... ..... . ..., ........ .. ...., . ... – ..........» (............. ..... ......... .......) (... 2011b: 216). ... ............... ......... ... – ...... .. .. . ........... ....... ...................................................... .... ............. ... .......... .......... ............. ......... . «....» ..... ........., ... .......... .. .............. . ..... ......... ....... («.....»). ........ ............................, ........... ............. ................. ..... ................. ........ ....... ............ ...., ... .. ..... ....... «..... ........». . ............ ..... ......... .......... ...... ............. ........... ........ ...... ... ............. ... . .......... ...... ........ .. ..: «.........., .......... – ..... ....» (........... ..... .......... ................ ............4, ......... ..... ......... .......). «... ..... ...... ........... ........ ...., .. ...... ... ..... ... ..... . .... .. ....... ...., .............. . ... ..........: “...... .. .. ..... ..... .....? –... .......: «......, .... ... ....». . ... .....: “..., .... – .. ...... .........., – .......... ...... ... .... – ........... ... .... – .... ..........…” ......... ...... ....... ......... ........ ....... – ..... .. ......, . .... ..... ...... .......!» (........., ......... ..... ......... .......). «... .... ..... .......... – .... .... ......, ...... ... .. ... ..... . ......» (........., ......... ..... ......... .......). . ..... . .............. .............. . ..., ... .... .......... ......... ........ .... (.....), .. ... ...... .............. .. ......... . . ..... . ................ ............. ... .......... ......... ... – ...... .. ..... – .......... .., ............. ............ .......... . ......, ....... .. ............. ...... ............. . ........... ...........: «........ ..... ........ .......... .......... . ......, ......, ... .. ........ .......... ....... .......» (............. 1914: 989) ... ....... ........ ............... . ........... ....... .......... ............ ..... .. ... ........, ... ............ .......... . ....., ...., .. ....... . .... (... 2011b: 215, 216). .............. .............. ........., ... ..... ............. ............ – ...... ...... . ........... ....... ... ........... ..., ... .......... ...... . ........... ......, ... .. «.....» . ......: «. ... ........: “. ., ......, ..... ....., .. .. ..... ... ....... .. ..... . . ... ...... ..... . .. ....... ........ ..., ... .. .........”» (.......... ..... ......... .......) (... 2011b: 217). ...... .........., ............, .................... ......... ....... ........... ............. . ..., ... ...... «........» ........ . ... ........ .............. ....... ......., . ...... ........ (.........., ....... . ....) – ....... .. .... .... ............ ........ ............. ..........: «....... . ............... ....., ........ ... ......... ......, ......... .. .............. . ............... ...... ......-.... ........, ..............., ..........., ............ ............. ............... ........ ..... ..... .......... ....... .. ...., . ....... – ....... . .....» (............. 1897: 214). . ......... ....... .. ......... . ..... ....... ........... ...., ... ... .........., ....... «.....» ......., ....... ........... ....... ......... ..... .. ........, ........ . ... ......, . ....... ... ......... ......, ...... .... ... ..... (... ... ...... .. ..... ...... .....). .. ... ........... ....... . .. .......... (... 1986:27;.... 1890:549–550). ....... ........... ... ......... ...........: «., ......, ...... ...... ........., .... ... .... ......, ........ ...... ....... .... . ...... ... – . .... ........, . ...... ......., ...... .... ..... . .... .. ......» (........... ..... ......... .......) (.... 2004: 387). ........ ................ .................................... ......... ........... ......... .. ......, ....... ......... ........ ......... ............ . ........... ..........., ... .... ....... . .......... ..... (. .......... ......, . ............, . ...... ..... ........ . ....) (.... 1890: 550). ....... ......... ........ . ...... .. ....... . .... ......., ... ........ ........., ......... ............., .. .... ... .. ..... ...... ... ......... .......... .. ............ ... .. .............. . ...., ....... ..... ...... ..........., ..... .. .... ..... ....... . ......... ........, .. ....... ....... ...... ........ ......, . ..... ... ......... ......., ...... .. ... ...... ......., ..., ... . .... (... 1986: 104–105). ..... ..... .......... ... ......... ... .......... ...... «............. ............ .. ...... ....., .. . “.......” ..........» (.. 2011: 450). ... ............... ........., ..... .......... .......... ......... ................. ... «........» ...... ... ....... ........ .... ............., .... .. ..... .... ......: «.. ...... ......... .. ....... .... ..... ....... ............, ...... ............ . ........ .... ........, . ...... ........... .... ........ ......: ... ...... ... ............ ....., ... .............................» (............. 1897:295). ............, ..... .......... .......... ..... ......... .... . .........: «......... ........ ..........-........., . ..... ...., ... ... ......... ..... . ... .......... ........ .. .. .. ........... ........., a ..... . ........, ... .... ... ... ............. ........., .. .......... ...... ............ ........, ... ...... .......... ..... ......... .. ........... ...... .........» (... 1998: 300). . .......... ... – ...... .... ......................... .. ...... .......... ......., ......... ............. ...... ...... .... ....... ................ . .................. ........ .... ......... .... ........ ........ .... «........» .......... .. .... ....... «.........», .... ........... .......... ....... ........... ...... ............. ..... ....... .......... ....... ....... (....... 1995: 41). ... ........ «........» ........... ....... .......... ........., ....... ... ....... .........., . ......... ............ . ...... .. ...... ........., .... ...... .......... . .... ...... ....... (....... 1995: 96). .. ............. ....... ........ . .......................«........» .........., .. ... ......, .. .......... . ...... ........., . ... ..... . . ..........., ..... ........ .. ............ ...... . ... . ... ...... ........... ...... «........» .......... (. ...... ....... .........) ........., ......., ....... .. ....... ..... ........... . .......... ............ .... ......... ...... (........ .. . ....., . ......................, .......) .......................... . ..., ... ..... ....... «..... .. .........» (....... 1995: 43–46). ...... ... . ...... .. ............. ............. .... ....... ........ .... ...... ....... ........... .......... .. ............. ........., ..... ........... .... ..... ........ . . .... ............. ..... ......... ........ ... ....... . .... ........... ......(....... 2007:314). . .... ..... ........... .............. . ........ ......... ...... .. ........ .. ..... «............»5, ....... . . .... ..... ........... .. .......... .......... ...... ......... ........ .. ...... ........ . .... .... ....... .. ...... ....... . ....., .. . .......... ........... ..... (... ........: ........ 2018). ............ ..........,. ........ ............................ ..... ....... ...... ....... ........., ....... ..... (....... 1991: 354). ..-........, ............. .... ......... ........ ......... .. ..... .......... . .... ....... ... ....... ......... .... ............ ......... ......... . ...... «...........» – ... ........... ....., ........... . ....... ....... .... ..... ....... . .............. ............. ...... (........ ......, ......., ......., ......... ......... . ...). ........... . ........ . ........... ...... ......... ........ .. .. ..... ........... .... .......... . ... .......... ......... ........ ..., . ....... ......... ... .1920-. ... .......... .................. ........, ... ........ ...... ........ ........ (...2010:111). ..... ........ .......... ..., ... . .............. ........ ......... ........ ... . ....... ......... .......... .. ........... ............ ... ..... «......» . «......». ....... .... ........, .. ...... .... ......, ........ ............. ...... ....., ... ....... .. ...... ..... .......... ... ....... ........ ...... . ..., ........ .......... ...... ....... ........... ...... .... ............... ........... ............... ......... ........ ............. .......... (..... 2008: 72). .. ........... .........., ....... ......... «.........» ..........., .... «......» .... .... ......., .. ..... ......... ...... . .......... ......... «...... .. .... ..... ...., ... .... ..... .... ...... ... ........, ... ........... ...... .. ... .. ........, ......... .... ........ ........ ........, . ... ........ .. .. ........., . .. ..... ......... . .. ....... ...... ..., . ....... ....... ..., ........, ... .... ........ ... .... . ..... ........ <…>. ... . .. .......... .... .. ......., .. ... . ....... .. ........ <…> ...... ... .. ..... .’..... .... ..... ... .. .... ...» (........ ..... ......... .......) (... 2006: 222). ......... ....... ........ ......... .. ..... ........, .. ...... ........ ........., .... .............. ..... ........ . ..... ...................... .... ............ .......... . ........ ........... ........... ..... ......... ......... .......«.........,................... ..........?–..,........, ....... .. .....» (.........., ......... ..... ......... .......). «.. . .......... .. (..........–....).. .......... .. ... . ... ........, .... ......... ...... ... ..... ............ ....... ...... ...-....... ......... ... ... ... ........» (........ ..... ......... .......) (... 2011b: 214). ..... ............. ..... ........ ........... ............. . ....... . ..... . .., ... ....... ...... ..... ...... .. ....... ......, ............ ..... ........, . ..... .. ...... (..... 1995: 33). . ........... ...... ........ ........., ........ .. .......... ......... ........ ........... ........., . ........... ....... ........ .. ...... .. ......, ... ..... ......... ........ ....... .... ........, ... ........ ................ ...................,................................ .......... ......... .... ..... ..... ....... ..... ....... ... .. ......... ....... .........,. ................... ........ ....................... ...... ........ ......... .. .......... ......... ........ .... ... .......... .. ...... ........ ..... ....... . ........... ... .....: «. ... ........, ... ........... . .. ......... .. ........? – ...-....... . ....., .. ........, . .... ....., . ...... <...> ..... ......... ...-....... .... ....» (.........., ........ ..... ......... .......). ... ............... ....... ........., .. ............ ....... .......... ......... ..... ... .. ........ «....... ... ........ ........ .. ......... .. ......? – ..... .. ........ ..... ... ......... <...> ...... ... ....... ......... ... ..» (.........., ......... ..... ......... .......).«.................. ....................?–.., .. ........ ... .. .... ........., ... ... <…> ....... ... . ..... ......., ..., .......» (.........., ........ ..... ......... .......). ... ....... .. ....... .........., . ........ ....... ........ ............. ............ .......... . ... ......... ......... ... .. ........... ...... ....... ......... . .. .. ..... ......... ........... ............ ......... ........ ................. ............ ........ .. .......... ........ ........., . ..... ........... .. ......... ....... ... ......... ......... .................... ..... ...... ...... ......... ........:«. ....., .. ........ ........... (.........– ....)? – .... ...... .. ................., .. .. ......... .. ..» (.........., ........ ..... ......... .......). . .... ......., ............ ...... ......... ........... ............ ........ ........., ....... .. .......... ..... «......... .............. . .... . .......» (..... 2002: 171). . ..... . .... .. ......... (............... . ........ .. .....) ........... ...... ........... ............. .......... ... ....... ............., ....... ........ ..... .............: «......., ... ......... ... ....... .. ......., ....., ........ ....... . ... . ... ... ...... ..... ..... .... ........ ..... . ........... ... ........ ....... .. ......., . ....... ........, ......... ..... . ....... . .......» (.........., .......... ..... ......... .......). ....... ....................................... ....................... .......... ........ ... ........ .......... ............ ...... ..... ......... ....... ............ ......... ..... ......... ........... .......... ... .......... ....... ......, . .... ....... ........... ......... ..... .............. ........ (......): «.... ... ..... . ...... ......., ... .. .. (......... – ....) .. ........., . ... . ........, . ...... ... ....., . .... ..... ......... ......., . ..... .... ... ... .. .........» (......... ..... ......... .......) (... 2011b: .. 218). ................. .......... ........ ........ ....... ..... ........... .......... ........ ...... (..........., ...............) (....... 1995: 129–140;... 2012:403).......,...........................,............. ........ .......... ... ....... ........... ......... . ..........-........ (.......-.......... . ........-...........) .......... .. .... ......... ... ...... ............ ........ .. ............... . ....... ......... ............ ..... (........ 2015: 327–329; ........ 2019: 134), ........... ......... . .... ...... .. ........ .. . .......... ... – ...... .. .., .. . ........... ....... ........ ....... . ..... «........» .......... ......... ......., ......., ... ........., ... ..... .......... ........... . ........ . ........ ...... ........ ........ .........., .................. ........... ....... ..... ........... .. ...... . «......» . ............ ........ «........» .... ... ............. ..... ..... (............. 1897:282).«........»....,............,................ ....., . ..... ...... ... .... .. ... ......... ..... (............., ................ . ......... . ........ ...... (........... 1999: 529–530)). ...... .......... .. ....... . ............. ...... ........ ......................... ......... .......... ......... ............... ... «........» .......... . ....... .................... ........ ....... . ..., ... ..... ....... ...... ...... ........ .... «......». . ......... ......, ... ........., ... ...... ..... ........ ..... ....... ...... ............ . .......... ... – ...... .. .. ... ........... .. .......... ........... ....... ............. .......: «. ... ..... ... ......., ..... ... ... ..... ...., .. .... ..... ...... ......., . . ... ................. ......, . ..... .. ..... ... ....., . .., ... .......,................................,......... ..... ........,.... ... .................,............................ .................., . ... ......» (........., ......... ..... ......... .......). «.......» ...... ........... ..., ... ... .... ...... ..... .. .... . ........ .... ... ........... ..., ... .... ... ....... . .. ...... ........ .. ...., ... ..., ... ... .. ..... ......... ..... .... . ....., ....... ...... .......... ........ . ..... ....... ...... ........ «..... ............ ....», ... ..­.. ...., ... .... . ..... .... ......... «......» ..... . ........ ...... (............. 1897:284;.... 1890:524). ............................... ... . . ........... ......: «..... ...... .. .. ...... ......, ... ...... ........ ........ . .......» (........... ..... ......... .......) (.... 2004: 377). .. ...... ........ ........., ....... ...... ....... ..... .... ....... . ..., ... .... .. ....... .. ...., ... ... ....., ... .. .... . «....» ..... . ..... ......, ... ........., ..... ........ .... .. .... ............ .......: «.........., ... “.... ..... .........”, ........ ...... .......; .. .. ........ . “..........” ....., ....... ...... .... . .... .........: .... .., ...., ... .. ........ ......... ...., .. ..... ........ ...., . ..... ........ .. ....... ........» (.......... 1895: 50–51). ... .......... ............ ...... (... «...... ....») ........... ......... . ...... ... ..... .... ...... .............. ......... (......... ....., ......., ........ ....... ..... ......), ....... .. ... .......... ..... . .... (....... 2007: 319; ............. 1897: 284, .... 1890: 512). ..... .. ............. ...... ........... . . ........... ........ «.... ........ ......., ...... ........ ....-........ .... .. ......., ......... ..... .. .......... .....» (.......... ..... ......... .......) (... 2006: 207). «. .... ........ .... .... ..... .......... ... ... .. ........ ...... ..... ........,.......,...... ..............................., ... ..... ........... ......., .... ... .......»(........ ..... ......... .......) (... 2006: 156). «..........., ......,................... ...........–........... ........... ....., .., ... .........., .... ... ........ .... .. ........ – .. ..... ......» (.......... ..... .......... .......) (.... 2003: 14). ... .......... ......... («...... .......») ....... .......... ........... «........»...................................... ............. ......... ...... (.....). ............. ......, ..... ..... (......) ........ ....... ... «.......» ........ «...... .... ..., ..... ......... . .... .... ... ..... ...... . ... .... .... ...... ........, ... ...... ........., ... ....... ....... . ........ ... ...... ........... <…> ..... ....... .......... . .. ....... «......., ...... .. .. ..., .......... .. . ...!» . .. ..... ......, .... .....-....... <…> .... ... .... ........... ...., ......... .... ........... ...., .... ......... ......... <…> ....... .. ......... .. ...... .......... ......... . ... .. ......, ....... ......... .. ... ...... ...., . .. .. ... ..... ........ ... ......, .. ..... ..... .. ........., ... .. ... .... .... ........ .......... ........, . ....... ......: “.... . ..., – .... .... ... ......., – ..... .....?” “. .... . ....?!” . ... ......: “........ .. ... .. .., ... .........., ........”. .. . ......» (.........., .......... ..... ......... .......). .... .. .......... ........... ....... ............ ..... .......... ........ ................ ............. . ..., ... . ...... ...... ....... .......... ............ ......... . ... ..... (.... .... ............, ... ... ............ ... .....-.. ........ . ....): «. ... ........ .. ....... ...: ........, .......... ....... ......, . ........ ......, ............ ......» (............. ..... .......... .......) (.... 2003: 15). .. ............. ............ ....... ...... ....... .............. . ..... .......... .........: «... .... ........ ..... ....... .. ........ .. ....... ..... ..... .... ... ...., . .. .......: “..-..-.., ..-..-..”. ..... .......»(.............. .....) (... 2011b: 37). . ........ ...... ....... ....... ......... ... ...... . «........» .....: «. ...... ... . ......., . ..... ...-.. ... . .....… .. ...... ... .... ..... ......, ...... ........»(............ ..... .......... .......) (.... 2003: 16). ..... ......... ....... ............. .......... ............. . «........» ..........-........ ..... ....... ... ........., ..... ........ ..... ......... .... ..... ...... ........... .......... ...... ........ ... – ...... .. .. .. ........ ..... . ....... «............» ........ ..... ...... (.... 1890: 519; ........... 1874: 200–201). ...... . .... ....... ............. ....... . ..., ... ....... ..... ...... «.....», ....... ..... . .... .. ..... (............. 1891: 113-115; ............. 1893: 312; .......... 1895: 57–58). ........ ............. ........ ...... .. .................. ............. .. ...... ................ . .... ........... ...... ... ........-......., ....... ....... ..... . .... ....., .......... ............... ... ..... ...... (... 2012: 11–12). . ......... ....... .............. ....... . ..., ... ..... ...... ....... «........ .....». . . .................. .............-....... ....... .... (... ....... . ... «.....»). . .................. ..... ........... ....... «........» ....... ..... ....... ..... ............. ........... . . ........... ...... .. .......... ....... (.... 2004: 377; ... 2011b: 21). ........ ........................, ...... (. ........) ......., ... . .........., ....... . ...... ........ «....................,...........,.............. ......,........... ........, .. ........., .... .. ...... ....... ..... ........ .... .. ...., . .... ......... ... ........ .... ...... .. ...... ........ ..... ... ......., .... .. .. ... .......... .... ...... .. ...... ....... [.....], .... ... ....... ....... .. ........ ....., . ..... .... . ....., . ..., .. ...... .... .... ...... .....-..... ......, ......... ......» (........ ..... ......... .......) (... 2011b: 39). «. ..... .. ......., .. .. ...... .... ......... ... ......... ... ....., .. ......... . .. ......... .... [.. .......] ....... ........, ... .........., ......» (.......... ..... ......... .......) (... 2011b: 29). .... ...... «........» .........., ........ .. ........ ....... .........: «.... .. ....., ... ..., . .. ......, ... ......., .... .. ...... ....... ......... ...(........... – ....), ........., .. ........., ....... .... ..... .. ......... .. ........» (.........., .......... ..... ......... .......). «. ... ........, ... ..... .... .. ........ .. ........, . ...... .... ....» (........ ..... ......... .......) (... 2006: 156). .. ......... ........ . ..... .............. .. .......... «...........» . ... ..... («..... .. ......») ...... ......... ........ ........... . ........ ........: ........ ........ ....... ......, .. ............ .... ............ ...... (........2004:49). ..... ..... ........ – «........» ........, ..... ... ..... ...... . .. ........... ...... ............ . ........ .......... ... ........... ..... ......... ....... . ........... ......: «.......... ........ .. ........... . .... ..... . ...... ....... ........ ........ ....... .. ....., . .. .. .....» (.........., .............. ..... ......... .......). ......, ... .... ..... ...... .. «.....» ..... ......, ............ . ..... ........... ....... ... ..... ......... ... ......, ........ ......, ..... .. ..... ... . ......... ........ ..... (............. 1897: 294; .... 1890: 519–520, 550–551). ....... ............. ............. . . ........... ......: «.......... ..., ...... ........, ..... ... ......; ....... ... . ..... .......» (.........., ........ ..... ......... .......). ..... ......., .. ...... ....... .......... ........ . ......... ........ ....................-............................ «........».......... .......... .......... . .......... .... (. ..... ....... ....... ......... ................. ......),............., .......... ..... ......... .......... .... ...... «........» .........., ........... .................. ........., .. .......... ..........-........ .......... .... ...... .. ....... ........... . ..........-............... .........., .... ............ . ... ..... ......... . ............. ........... . ...... ...... .......... ........... ............... . ............. .......... ........... ......... . «........» .......... . ......... ........ ... ............ .. ...... ..........-........................ ...... ........... – ...... .. .., .. . ......... ........... ....... ............. . ............ ........ ..........­........ .......... ........ .................. ...... .......... .......... ........... . ............ ....... ... ........... ....... ................. . ............ (........ ... ........ ......) ............. . ............. ............ .... ......... ........ ... ................... ........ ...... ............. ...... ........ .. .......... . ............ ....... ........ ............. .......... ..... ... .... ......... .......... – ............................................... ..................... ....... ............. . ....... ........... ...... ........... ......... . ........ ... . ...... «........» ........... . .. .. ..... .............. ..... .......... ..... . ........ ......... ....... ........... ........ ..... ....... ......... . ......., ... .......... . ....... ............. ........... ........ ....... ............... . ....... ....... .... ..... .. .. ............. «........» (............) ..... ....... ...... . ..., ............ .............. ....... . .......... ......... .......... . ....... ............ . ................. ........., ........ .. ...... .......... – ......... .. . ........................... ........ .......... ............ ......... ... . .............., ... . . ...........­........... .......... .... ......... ........... . ........... ........ ....... ........... .... ......... ............... ... «........», . .. .......... .......... ..... . .......... ............ ........ ......... ..... ........... .. ..... ......... . .......... .. ...... .. ......, ... . ....... ......., ......, ..... . ........... ......... .............. ........... . .. ............. ...... .........., ....... ... ..... ......... .......... .. ...... . ... ......... . ...... ......... . ........... ........ ........ ..-........ ........ ........... ........ .. ..... ............ ......... .......... ........ ......... .... . ...... ... .. .... ........ ........... ............. . ......., ........... . ...........-........... .......... «........» .........., ....... ......., ..... ........ ....... ........ .......... .........................,... ........ ................................­........ .......... . «........» .......... ........ ...... ............... ....... .. ... ......... ........... .. . .. .. ..... . ... .............. . ............. ............ ....... ....... .. ...... ... . .............., ... . .............. ........... ........ ...... ... ......... ..... .............. ....... ....... .......... .......... – ........... ..... ......... ................ ............ (.. .........., .......... ........). ......... – ........... ..... .......... ................ ............ (.. ....., .......... .........). .......... ........, ......... .., 2015: ........... ...i....... ...... ......... .....i... (.. .......... .I. – ....... ..I .....). Bialorutenistika Bialostocka. T.7. 2015, 313-331. [Auseichyk Uladz.m.r Ya., 2015: Kaliandarnyia paminal'nyia abrady belarusau Padzvinnia (pa materyialakh XX – pachatku XXI stst.). Bialorutenistika Bialostocka. T.7. 2015, 313-331]. ........, ....... .., 1993: ...... . ............ ........: ..........­............. ...... .................. ........ ....: ...... [Baiburin Al'bert K., 1993: Ritual v traditsionnoi kul'ture: Strukturno-semanticheskii analiz vostochnoslavianskikh obriadov. SPb.: Nauka]. .........., .... .., 1895: ......... ........ .............. . .......... ............... ...... ......: .......... ........... [Bogdanovich Adam E., 1895: Perezhitki drevnego mirosozertsaniia u belorusov. Etnograficheskii ocherk. Grodno: Gubernskaia tipografiia]. ..........., ....... .., 1986: .............. ...... ......... «.........» ......... .......... . .......... ........: ........ ........ ....... .. .............. ..... ......: ....., 88–135. [Vinogradova Liudmila N., 1986: Mifologicheskii aspekt polesskoi »rusal'noi' traditsii. Slavianskii i balkanskii fol'klor: dukhovnaia kul'tura Poles'ia na obshcheslavianskom fone. Moscow: Nauka, 88–135]. ..........., ....... .., 2000a: ........ ........... . .............. ........ ....... ......: ....... [Vinogradova Liudmila N., 2000a: Narodnaia demonologiia i miforitual'naia traditsiia slavian. Moscow: Indrik]. ..........., ....... .., 2000b: ........ ............. . ............. ........ ....: ............... ........ .......... . .......... ......... ........ ............ ......: ......, 25–51. [Vinogradova Liudmila N., 2000b: Narodnye predstavleniia o proiskhozhdenii nechistoi sily: demonologizatsiia umershikh. Slavianskii i balkanskii fol'klor. Narodnaia demonologiia. Moscow: Indrik, 25–51]. ..........., ....... .., 2001: ......... ........ ........... .. .... .................. ....... .................. ................... ........ ............ . .......... ......: ......, 10–49. [Vinogradova Liudmila N., 2001: Polesskaia narodnaia demonologiia na fone vostochnoslavianskikh dannykh. Vostochnoslavianskii etnolingvisticheskii sbornik. Issledovanie i materialy. Moscow: Indrik, 10–49]. ..........., ....... ..; ......., ........ .., 1994: . ........ ............. . ......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . .......... ......... .......... ...... ....... ......: ....., 16–44. [Vinogradova Liudmila N., Tolstaia Svetlana M., 1994: K probleme identifikatsii i sravneniia personazhei slavianskoi mifologii. Slavianskii i balkanskii fol'klor. Verovaniia. Tekst. Ritual. Moscow: Nauka, 16–44]. ............., ........ .., 1891: .......... ............... ........ ..1. ....: .... ............. [Dobrovol'skii Vladimir N., 1891: Smolenskii etnograficheskii sbornik. Ch. 1. SPb.: Tip. E.Evdokimova]. ............., ........ .., 1893: .......... ............... ........ ..2. ....: .... .... ......... [Dobrovol'skii Vladimir N., 1893: Smolenskii etnograficheskii sbornik. Ch. 2. SPb.: Tip. S.N. Khudekova]. ............., ........ .., 1914: .......... ......... ........ ........: .... .. .. ....... [Dobrovol'skii Vladimir N., 1914: Smolenskii oblastnoi slovar'. Smolensk: Tip. P.A. Silina]. ..., ...... .., 2010: ...... . ........ (IX – XVIII .....). ..........: .... [Duk Dzian.s U., 2010: Polatsk . palachane (IX – XVIII stst.). Navapolatsk: PDU]. ... 1998 – ..... ....... ...: .......... ........ ........ i .....'.. ..... 2. ........... .. .......... .....: ......... ........... [ZhAL 1998 – Zhytstsia advechny lad: Belarusk.ya narodnyia prykmety i paver'.. Kn.ga 2. Ukladal'n.k U. Vas.lev.ch. M.nsk: Mastatskaia l.taratura]. ......., ....... .., 1991: .................. ........... ......: ...... [Zelenin Dmitrii K., 1991: Vostochnoslavianskaia etnografiia. Moscow: Nauka]. ......., ....... .., 1995: ......... ...... ...... ....... .........: ....... .............. ....... . ........ ...... ... ............; .......... ......, ......., ....... ................ ..: ....... [Zelenin Dmitrii K., 1995: Izbrannye trudy. Ocherki russkoi mifologii: Umershie neestestvennoi smert'iu i rusalki. Vstup. st. N.I. Tolstogo; podgotovka teksta, koment., ukazat. E.E. Levkievskoi. M.: Indrik]. ......., .... .., 2007: ......... ..3: ...... ........... ............ ......., ...1. .....: ...... [Karskii Efim F., 2007: Belorusy. T.3: Ocherki slovesnosti belorusskogo plemeni, kn.1. Minsk: BelEN]. ..........., ..... .., 1874: ... .......-........ ......... ......: .... .... ........ ....... .......... ...... ... ....... ............. [Krachkovskii Yulian F., 1874: Byt zapadno-russkogo selianina. Moscow: Izd. imp. Obshchestva istorii drevnostei Rossii pri Moskov. Universitete]. ..........., ..... .., 1999: ....... .......... .........: ..................... ........ ... ..... .... .... ......... ..2. ......: ............. ........., 528–534. [Levkievskaia Elena E., 1999: Koldun. Slavianskie drevnosti: Etnolingvinisticheskii slovar'. Pod obshchei red. N.I. Tolstogo. T.2. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 528–534]. ..........., ..... .., 2009: ........ «........». .......... .........: ................... ........ ... ..... .... .... ......... ..4. ......: ............. ........., 118–124. [Levkievskaia Elena E., 2009: Pokoinik »zalozhnyi«. Slavianskie drevnosti: Etnolingvisticheskii slovar'. Pod obshchei red. N.I. Tolstogo. T.4. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 118–124]. ... 1983 – ....... . ........ .....: ...... . ........ [L.P 1983 – Legendy . padann.. M.nsk: Navuka . tekhn.ka]. ....., ......... .., 2008: .......... ...... . .......... ....... ....... . .......... ........ ........ ........ ........ . ..... .. – .... ... ... ....... ......... ................ ............. ..... .. ............ ...... . 1, 71-82. [Lobach Uladz.m.r A., 2008: S.mval.chny status . rytual'nyia funktsy. mog.lak u belaruskai narodnai kul'tury viarkhouia. Biarez.ny . V.l.. XX – pach. XX. st. Vestnik Polotskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia A. Gumanitarnye nauki. . 1, 71-82]. .. 2011 – ......... .........: .............. ........ .....: ......... [M.falog.ia Belarusi: Entsyklapedychny sloun.k. M.nsk: Belarus']. ... 2012 – ........ ........... .......: .......... ....... . ....... 80-90-. .... XX ..... ..2. ............... ....... ...... ..... .... ..........., .... ............ ..: .......... ......... ....... ..... [NDP 2012 – Narodnaia demonologiia Poles'ia: Publikatsiia tekstov v zapisiakh 80-90-kh gg.. XX veka. T.2. Demonologizatsiia umershikh liudei. Sost. L.N. Vinogradova, E.E. Levkievskaia. M.: Rukopisnye pamiatniki Drevnei Rusi]. ............., ....... .., 1897: .............. ....... . ......., ......... ...... . ......... ......... ........... .......: .......... ....-........... [Nikiforovskii Nikolai Ya., 1897: Prostonarodnye primety i pover'ia, suevernye obriady i obychai... Vitebskoi Belorussii. Vitebsk: Gubernskaia Tipo-Litografiia]. ........, ........ .., 2018: ..... ........... . ......... ......... ..... ........ 2018. .4, .. 15–18. [Ovseichik Vladimir E., 2018: Obriad Prykladz.ny u belorusov Podvin'ia. Zhivaia starina. 2018. .4, S. 15–18]. ........, ........ .., 2019: ........... ........... ........... .......... ......... ......... ................. ...... 2019. .41. .. 123–144. [Ovseichik Vladimir E., 2021: Osobennosti sovremennoj pominal'noj obryadnosti belorusov Podvin'ia. Antropologicheskij forum. 2019. .41. S. 123–144]. ........, ........ .., 2021: ............ .......... ............ ......... ......... ........ .. ........... ...... ........... 2021. .2 (12). .. 52–71. [Ovseichik Vladimir E., 2019: Pogrebalnaya obryadnost belorusskogo selskogo naseleniya Podvin'ia na sovremennom etape. Etnografiya. 2021. .2 (12). S. 52–71]. ... 1986 – .......... ........ .......... .....: ...... . ........ [PPG 1986 – Pakhavann.. Pam.nk.. Galashenn.. M.nsk: Navuka . tekhn.ka]. ....., ........ .., 1995: ....... ........ .........: (.... ........­................ ............). ....: ..... – ....... [Propp Vladimir Ya. 1995: Russkie agrarnye prazdniki: (Opyt istoriko-etnograficheskogo issledovaniia). SPb.: Terra–Azbuka]. ... 2006 – ....... ............ ........ ....1: ........ ........ ......... .......... ..2. ...... .... ....., .... .......... ..........: .... [PEZ 2006 – Polatsk. etnagraf.chny zborn.k. Vyp.1: Narodnaia medytsyna belarusau Padzv.nnia. Ch.2. Sklad. U.A. Lobach, U.S. F.l.penka. Navapolatsk: PDU]. ... 2011b – ....... ............ ........ .... 2: ........ ..... ......... ........., ..2. ....., ...... . ...... ........... ..........: .... [PEZ 2011b – Polatsk. etnagraf.chny zborn.k. Vyp. 2: Narodnaia proza belarusau Padzv.nnia, ch. 2. Uklad, pradm. . pakaz. U.A. Lobacha. Navapolatsk: PDU]. ... 2011. – ....... ............ ........ .... 2: ........ ..... ......... ........., .. 1. ....., ...... . ...... .... ....... ..........: .... [PEZ 2011a – Polatsk. etnagraf.chny zborn.k. Vyp. 2: Narodnaia proza belarusau Padzv.nnia, ch. 1. Uklad, pradm. . pakaz. U.A. Lobacha. Navapolatsk: PDU]. ........, ..... .., 1983: ......... . ........ .......... ............. ....... ......... ................... ........ ......... . ............. ......: ....., 246–262. [Sedakova, Ol'ga A., 1983: Materialy k opisaniiu polesskogo pogrebal'nogo obriada. Polesskii etnolingvisticheskii sbornik. Materialy i issledovaniia. Moscow: Nauka, 246–262]. ........, ..... .., 2004: ....... ......: ............ .......... ......... . ..... ....... ......: ....... [Sedakova, Ol'ga A., 2004: Poetika obriada: Pogrebal'naia obriadnost' vostochnykh i iuzhnykh slavian. Moscow: Indrik]. ... 2004 – ...... ......... ........ ... ......... .... ....... .....: ..... [Skazki Pskovskoj oblasti. Pod redakciej G.I. Ploshchuk. Pskov: PGPI]. .... 2003 – .......... ..........-............... ........ ..2. .......... ...... ..... . ........... ...... ......: ....... [SMES 2003 – Smolenskiy muzykal'no-etnograficheskiy sbornik. T.2. Pokhoronnyy obryad. Plachi i pominal'nyye stikhi. Moskva: Indrik]. ..... 2002 – ....... ...... ......-........... ............, ....... . ......... ......... .....: ... ....... [SSMMA 2002 – Statuty S.nodu M.nska-Mag.leuskai arkh.dyiatsez.., P.nskai . V.tsebskai dyiatsez.i. M.nsk: Pro Khrysto]. .... 2004 – ........... ......... ........ .......... ..2: ......... .......... ........... ................. .....: .... ....... [TMKB 2004 – Tradytsyinaia mastatskaia kul'tura belarusau. T.2: V.tsebskae Padzv.nne. Skladal'n.k T.B. Varfalameeva. M.nsk: Bel. Navuka]. ....... ........ .., 2001: ......... ....... . ....... ........... .................. ................... ........ ............ . .......... ..: ......, 151–205. [Tolstaia Svetlana M., 2001: Polesskie pover'ia o khodiachikh pokoinikakh. Vostochnoslavianskii etnolingvisticheskii sbornik. Issledovanie i materialy. M.: Indrik, 151–205]. ....... ........ .., 2009: ............ ...... .......... .........: ................... ........ ... ..... .... .... ......... ..4. ......: ............. ........., 84–91. [Tolstaia Svetlana M., 2009: Pogrebal'nyi obriad. Slavianskie drevnosti: Etnolingvisticheskii slovar'. Pod obshchei red. N.I. Tolstogo. T.4. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 84–91]. ......., ........ .., 2010: ............. ......... ..... ........: ...... .. .......... ................ ......: ....... ... «........». [Tolstaia Svetlana M., 2010: Semanticheskie kategorii iazyka kul'tury: Ocherki po slavianskoi etnolingvistike. Moscow: Knizhnyi dom “LIBROKOM”]. ......., ...... .., ....... ........ .., 1983: . ....... .................... ........ ........ ......... ................... ........ ......: ....., 3–21. [Tolstoi Nikita I., Tolstaia Svetlana M., 1983: O zadachakh etnolingvisticheskogo izucheniia Poles'ia. Polesskii etnolingvisticheskii sbornik. Moscow: Nauka, 3–21]. ...., ..... .., 1890: ......... ... ........ .... . ..... ........ ......... ......­......... ..... ..1. ..2: ....... . ........ ..... ......... . ....... . ....... ....: .... .... ..... ..... [Shein Pavel V., 1890: Materialy dlia izucheniia byta i iazyka russkogo naseleniia Severo-Zapadnogo kraia. T. 1. Ch. 2: Bytovaia i semeinaia zhizn' belorusov v obriadakh i pesniakh. SPb.: Tip. imp. akad. nauk]. «IMPURE» DEAD PEOPLE IN PERCEPTIONS OF THE POPULATION OF THE BELARUSIAN-RUSSIAN (POLOTSK-PSKOV AND VITEBSK­SMOLENSK) BORDERLAND ULADZIMIR J. AUSEICHYK In the population of the Belarusian-Russian borderland, the category of «impure» dead included suicides and unbaptised children (although in later records the latter are excluded), as well as the dead who were considered to be sorcerers during their lifetime. The material contains quite archaic notions about unbaptised children. The most widespread in the region are beliefs about the unenviable posthumous fate of such deceased. In theregionaltradition of people, themotif of «baptising» after the death of an unbaptised childis widespread. The folklore materials broadly describe the prohibition on burying unbaptised children in normal cemeteries. This prohibition was strictly observed in the first half of the 20th century. A separate category of deceased is a suicide victim who in the traditional worldview was viewed considerably differently froma person who had died of old age. Widespread ideas existed across the region about the unenviable posthumous existenceof suicides in the«other world». Itwas believed thatsuicidevictims did not join the general category of the dead. After death, the soul of a suicide bastard goes to some evil force. The population of the region had a different funeral rite for such a person than for someone who had died «on their own». Everywhere in the region, it was prohibited to bury a suicide in a normal cemetery. Amongthe«impure»deadareindividuals believedtohavepractisedwitchcraft while alive and to have communicated with evil spirits. Therefore, irrespective of the time and circumstances of death, sorcerers were traditionally and steadily characterised as the «impure» dead. It was commonly believed in the region that asorcerer should pass on their «knowledge» beforethey die. Otherwise, his death was believed to be hard. Another strong belief held in the region concerns the «walking» of dead witchdoctors after they have died. Like other «impure» dead, witches were not buried in normal cemeteries. Between the 20th and start of the 21st centuries, the funeral rituals of the Be­larusian-Russian (Vitebsk-Smolensk and Polotsk-Pskov) borderland population regarding the «impure» dead changed as did their attitude to this category of the dead. In modern society, unbaptised children are no longer regarded as «impure» dead, and their funerals are held in normal cemeteries. Suicides are also buried in the usual cemeteries, with the same ritesas others, but often in a shortened version. The old rituals for burying the dead believed to have been practising witchcraft while alive have also disappeared. Despite these significant changes, it is noted that even at the start of the 21st century several quite archaic notions about funerals for the «impure» dead, mainly among elderly rural inhabitants, remain in use. Auseichyk Uladzimir, Ph.D., .ssociate Professor, Polotsk State Universi­ty, Blochina str., 29, BY-211440, Novopolotsk, u.auseichyk@psu.by 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 165–181 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222508 Rus, Russia and Ukraine between Fairy Tales and History: Alternative Slavic Fantasy by English-Language Writers PART TWO: MODERN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE IN THE 19THAND 20THCENTURIES* Larisa Fialkova Prispevek je drugi del prispevka; uvod in prvi del je objavljen v Studii Mythologici Slavici 24 (2021): 13–32). Alternativna slovanska fantazija je opredeljena kot fantastika (spekulativna fikcija), ki so jo ustvarili angleškojezicni pisci na podlagi resnicne ali domnevne slovanske folklore, vendar loceno od slovanske fantazije kot take. V središcu pricujocega dela je logika interakcije med slovanskimi in/ali kvazislovanskimi ljudskimi zapleti in liki z rusko in ukrajinsko zgodovino 19.–20. stoletja v dilogiji Evelin Skye ter romanih Catherynne Valente in Orsona Scotta Carda. KLJUCNE BESEDE: Evelin Skye, Catherynne Valente, Orson Scott Card, alternativna in kripto zgodovina, fantazija This is the second part of the paper (for introduction and the first part which addresses Medieval Rus in Peter Morwood’s and Katherine Arden’s trilogies see Studia Mytholog­ica Slavica 24 (2021): 13–32). Alternative Slavic fantasy is defined as fantastika (specu­lative fiction) created by English-language writers on the basis of real or assumed Slavic folklore, separate from Slavic fantasy per se. The focus of the current part is the logic of interaction between Slavic and/or quasi-Slavic folk plots and characters with Russian and Ukrainian history of the 19th–20th centuries in Evelin Skye’s dilogy and Catherynne Valente’s and Orson Scott Card’s novels. KEYWORDS: Evelin Skye, Catherynne Valente, Orson Scott Card, alternative and crypto history, fantasy THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 19TH CENTURY: EVELIN SKYE’S ALTERNATIVE VERSION Evelin Skye’s interest in Russia dates back to her teens when she established a long­term pen pal called Denis Ovchinin. She went on to receive a BA in Slavic Studies from * Part 1, which contains an introduction to the entire paper and analysis of Medieval Rus’s representation in Morwood’s and Arden’s trilogies (Morwood 2016, 2016a, 2016b; Arden 2017, 2018, 2019), see Studia Myth-ologica Slavica 2021. Conclusions are based on both parts of the paper. 166 L ARISA F IALKOV A Stanford University. In 2003,shevisited Russiaand wenton ariver cruisefromMoscow toSt.Petersburg(Skye2016:401–403,406).This makes itonlynaturalthatSt.Petersburg would become the main location of her historical fantasy dilogy. Yet, unlike other creators of alternative Slavic fantasy, she concentrates on Russia as an Empire which manifests in another key location – Kazakh’s steppe. Skye’s sources include not only Pushkin’s The Bronze Horseman, Tolstoy’s War and Peace and Dostoyevsky’s Petersburg novels, but also her old textbooks – Figes’s Natasha’s Dance and Olcott’s The Kazakhs (Skye 2016: 401–402, 2017: 413) – and fairy tales, with Cinderella chief among them. In Skye’s alternative Russia, Christianity coexists with magic, which is practised by the imperial enchanter. The country’s stocks of magic are limited and dwindling due to the population’s Christian religiosity and the growing scepticism regarding power of non-Christian magic forces. There is, therefore, just a single imperial enchanter, one who typically is long-lived. When there are two candidates for the post, they must compete in the Crown Game until one of them perishes. The plot’s focus is on the Crown Game engaged in by ViktoriaAndreyevaand NikolaiKarimov (later Karimov-Romanov), whose tutors, Sergei Andreyev and Galina Zakrevskaya, are sibling rivals. Viktoria Andreyeva, whom Sergei Andreyev has adopted, is in fact the abandoned daughter of the volcano nymph. She directs the magic forces of nature. Nikolai Karimov-Romanov, a fictional illegitimate son of Tsar Alexander and the Kazakh faith-healer1Aizhana, is adept at the magic of mechanics. Starting out as mortal adversaries, Viktoria and Nikolai are in fact two halves of a magic superpower. Their unity is reinforced in several exchanges of energy in which they revive each other in various situations. This voluntary gift of energy differs radically from Aizhana’s reviving herself through the energy brutally appropriated from her victims, be they plants, worms or human beings. Aizhana’s predation is similar to that of Cherryh’s rusalka before she meets her future husband (Cherryh 1989: 104, 154, 156; Fialkova 2020: 444; Skye 2016: 150, 369). The timeframe of the dilogy roughly encompasses 20 years. It commences in 1805 when theimperialenchanter Yakov Zinchenko has fallen in theBattleof Austerlitz, leaving the position vacant. Its end coincides with the new Tsar’s coronation and the start of his reign in 1826, following the failure of the Decembrist coup2 during which Viktoria and Nikolai fight on different sides of the barricades. Viktoria loses her hand in the battle, but Nikolai makes a prosthesis for her from the sash of the Bronze Horseman. Whole again, Viktoria can perform magic with it. Viktoria and Nikolai’s competition, the duel, deaths and resurrections restore population’s belief in magic, and the store of it grows in the country. In this new reality, Russia now has room for two imperial enchanters, with powers that, while different, are equally magnificent. The new Tsar changes the rules of the Crown Game, thereby benefiting from the united protectionof the two enchanters, and the Church agrees to work with them (Skye 2016: 9, 50–51, 387–392; Skye 2017: 402–404, 413). 1 A faith-healer in Skye’s definition, Aizhana might better be called a witch. 2 The attempted coup was as in reality on 14 December 1825. This timeframe is somewhat wobbly. For ex­ample, one of Viktoria’s magic moves is imprisoning Nikolai inside a Fabergé-type egg, even though Fabergé did not open in Sankt-Petersburg until 1842 (Gudek 2020). Skye’s Saint Petersburg appears in the dilogy with many of its famous landmarks, their names either real or slightly altered, alongside an invented space. The landmarks include the Ekaterinsky (sic!) Canal,3the Winter Palace, the Imperial Public Library on the corner ofNevskyProspekt andSadovaya Street, Neva, VasilyevskyIsland, Chernyshev4 Bridge, and the Bronze Horseman (Skye 2016: 19–20, 29, 122, 156, Skye 2017: 9, 328). The invented space includes fictional locations invented by Skye from the very beginning (Ovchinin Island and Bolshebnoe/Volshebnoe Duplo or Enchanted Hollow)5 and those created by Viktoria and Nikolai through the magic they use during the Crown Game. Among the latter are Viktoria’s Summer Island and Nikolai’s bench­es. Each bench is inscribed with a different place-name – Moscow, Kazan, Kostroma, Mount Elbrus, Kizhi Island, the Kazakh steppe – and is a kind of portal, which takes the person seated in the place inscribed, into a dream if not into reality (Skye 2016: 2, 79, 236, 257–268, 398; Skye 2017: 10, 167). Another layer of invented space evokes the fairy tale. Thus, the Cinderella Bakery is mentioned on the book’s very first page, located on Ovchinin Island where Sergei and Viktoria Andreyev reside. When Viktoria moves to Sankt-Petersburg for the Crown Game, the bakery moves there as well, at least temporarily. Its owner Ludmila, although a former circus performer not a fairy, claps her hands and supplies Viktoria with a dress made of snow for her first ball at the Winter Palace. The debutante Viktoria, as Lady Snow, simultaneously evokes Natasha Rostova and Cinderella, especially when her magnificent dress starts to melt (Skye 2016: 1, 151–152, 187–189, 206–207, 226–227). From time to time, Skye uses italicised Russian words, mostly in phonetic translitera­tion – such as, ochen kharasho, spasiba, tvoe zdarovye and, mistakenly, myevo zdarovye. Many of these words concern Russian cuisine – piroshki, vatrushka, zavarka6 and so on. The longest Russian passage is transliterated and italicised (Skye 2016: 2, 130, 132, 151, 231; Skye 2017: 204, 346). An alternative chronotope develops an alternative history. In Skye’s version, Tsar Alexander and Tsarina Elizabeth parent two teenage children (in reality not true) – Pasha/ Pavel Alexandrovich Romanov and Yuliana Alexandrovna Romanova. Thus, the new Tsar isnot the historical Nikolai 1, but the fictional Pavel Alexandrovich Romanov (Skye 2017: 413). Even though Alexander dies in Taganrog, like in the historical record, the cause of his unexpected death becomes Aizhana’s vengeful kiss that gives him typhus (Skye 2016: 29–30, 348–351). Skye refers to the famous Decembrists Trubetskoy, Pestel, Obolensky and Volkonsky. Trubetskoy in the book, similarly to the historical Trubetskoy, does not come to Senate square on the day of the rebellion, but the reason given is his fictional conversation with Yuliana Alexandrovna, who never existed. Contradicting historical truth, the Decembrist coup does not lead to executions. Russia’s death penalty 3 Ekaterininskii kanal, Catherine Canal, currently Griboyedov Canal or kanal Griboedova. 4 Currently, it is Lomonosov Bridge. 5 The spelling varies in different books. The motif of the magic hollow may be familiar to readers of Anders­en’s The Tinder-Box. However, in Skye’s version, the hollow is not in a tree, but in the Mountain and nothing should be physically removed from it. 6 These are, respectively, pies, pastry filled with quark or farmer’s cheese, and a dark tea concentrate. has beenabolished,andPaveldoes notwantitreinstated,eventopunishtherebels (Skye 2017: 341–344, 409). In Skye’s alternative Slavic fantasy, the power of the state and the power of magic, both of nature and mechanics, come together within the family despite the orphaning and illegitimacy. Pavel and Nikolai are half-brothers, and Nikolai and Viktoria are, it may be assumed, prospective spouses. All types of power are inborn, but they must be drawn out through appropriate upbringing and education. Evil and good powers are inner family matters, open for rebooting. Magic and Christianity complement each other as the state’s guardians. Russia’s alternative future is peaceful: the Decembrists go unpunished and their ideas lead to reform. RUSSIA IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY: CATHERYNNE VALENTE’S HISTORICAL FANTASY Valente’s interest in Russia began in childhood. It was prompted by both Cold War fears and a healthy curiosity nurtured by her stepmother, who was of Russian origin. Her hus­band is an immigrant from the former Soviet Union who translated Russian fairy tales for her. Valente is also familiar with Russian cuisine and Russian language. In 2019, she participated in Petersburg’s Fantastic Assembly, Fantassambleia (Fialkova 2020: 441). Valente’s plothas its roots in Marya Morevna, oneof themostpopular Russian folktales (discussed in Fialkova 2021)7). It has, however, no Ivan Tsarevich, responsible for his orphan sisters, and their mother is stillalive. Three suitors appear as birds atthedoorway of Marya’s house, each wishing to marry her but getting her sisters instead. These birds are different from those of the folktales and of Morwood. Instead of a falcon, an eagle and a raven, they are gratch (a rook), zuyok (a plover) and zhulan (a shrike). The birds transform not simply into supportive siblingsand princesof faraway magic lands, but also into Russian officers representing the changes in power before and after the Revolution of 1917. All are lieutenants. Gratch serves in the Tsar’s Personal Guard, Zuyok in the White Guard, and Zhulan in the Red Army. While three is a typical number in folklore, in Valente’s novel there are, in fact, four birds, with the fourth appearing much later. He is an elderly owl, “ComradeKoschei, surnameBessmertny”, who marries Marya. Koscheiis the only one whose military rank is unspecified. He is also the only brother whom Marya has not seen as a bird, despite her ability to see suitors as birds – or, in other words, to see the world’s naked truth (Valente 2011: 16–19, 54–55). These breeds of bird, with the exception of the owl/Bessmertny (the Deathless8), appear in Russian without italics.9 7 Other fairy tales – e.g., Vasilisa Prekrasnaia (Vasilisa the Fair or Vasilisa the Beautiful)and Tsarevna-liagush­ka (The Frog Princess) as well as many stories about Yelena the Beautiful – are used episodically (Afanasev 1916, Zheleznova 1966). 8 Deathless, also used by Arden, is asynonymof Morwood’s Undying. Differentauthors spellhis name differently: Koshchei (Morwood), Kaschei (Arden) and Koschei (Valente). 9 The translations of bird breeds into English appear near the end of the novel when, one after another, they come to Marya Morevna’s second husband, Ivan the Fool, to ask for some of Marya’s personal possessions. Looking at the state of these objects, they learn of her pain and approaching death (Valente 2011: 321–326). Glassford compares severalEnglish translations of this folktaleand finds thatsuitors can be falcons, eagles and ravens, but also hawks and crows (Glassford 2018: 31, 36, 38). The hawk is somehow present in this novel in Marya’s perception of Lenin’s essence and the crow’s eyes Marya in due time acquires herself (Valente 2011: 26–27, 284). The plot develops in both Russia, with the focus on Marya’s house, and in the magic lands of fairy tales. The house, while remaining in the same place, changes its address and its tenants. Gratch comes to Gorokhovaya Street in Saint Petersburg, Zuyok to the same street, but in Petrograd. At the time of Zhulan’s visit, the street name is Kommis­sarskaya, and Koschei goes to Dzerzhinskaya Street. These changes in address, which virtually follow the actual renaming history,10go hand in hand with the changing social and economic status of Marya’s family. At first, they live in a private house in St. Pe­tersburg. In Petrograd and then Leningrad, Marya squeezes in with other families. Each family brings its domovoi or housespirit, and thehouse spirits organise a Domovoi Kom­ityet, a pun on House Committee. Among the new tenants and alongside Russian folk characters like domoviye (Valente’s spelling for plural for domovoi) and rusalki (water spirits, a mermaid, but without a tale), there is even a beautiful vila, a pagan spirit with the wings of a swan from Southern Slav folklore. In the novel, she becomes the beautiful Madame Lebedeva (from lebed’, swan) (Valente 2011: 15–22, 30–31, 38, 54–55, 82). The story starts before the First World War in Marya’s big, happy home, and ends with the deathof her shrunken house from famine during the Siege of Leningrad, February 1942 (Valente 2011: 247, 270–284, 318, 320). The novel’s final date is 1952. It is well after the war between Germany and “the wizard with the mustache in Moscow” (Valente 2011: 343–344), who is recognisably Stalin. This date may signal the Doctors’ Plot, an anti-Semitic campaign during 1952–1953, which started by accusing Jewish doctors of plotting the murder of top Soviet leaders. While this plot is, in fact, mentioned in the novel, in another section it is disconnected from its historical time (Valente 2011: 239). The world of the living has become the world of the dead. The dead, however, must con­tinue their daily work and the routine of the living (Valente 2011: 348–349). In Valente’s novel, Russia, like Marya Morevna, has two husbands. One is Koschei the Deathless, the Tsar of Life, who is constantly dying and resurrected, acquiring a new woman with each resurrection.11The other is Ivan the Fool. He is not the fool of fairy tales, who wins in the end. Even his surname Geroyev (‘Hero’yev) does not makehim a hero. He has no bird within him. He is the fool who serves at the “factory of arrests” (Cheka, the secret In the original folktale, as well as in Morwood’s trilogy discussed in the first part of this paper, Ivan visits his married sisters himself and leaves some of his possessions to their husbands. Whereas in the folktale and in Morwood the birds resurrect Ivan from death, in Valente’s novel they simply inform him of Marya’s suffering and about death gathering inside her. When help is in fact available, it comes from the sisters and not from their husbands. The inversion of roles is very prominent. 10 The actual Russian name of Komissarskaya Street is Komissarovskaia. In the novel, the street becomes Dzerzhinskaya while still in Petrograd – which, in reality, takes place in 1927 when it is Leningrad. See St. Petersburg: Official City Guide https://www.visit-petersburg.ru/en/showplace/199458/ (last accessed 14.02.2021). 11 His former spouses – numerous Yelenas and occasional Vasilisas the Beautiful with their dolls – forever work in factories, bent over leaping shuttles and hurtling looms. Marya is the only one to escape this fate. Yet, in her death she remains alone as well. police), looking for “enemies of the people.”12Ivan dies from famine during the 1942 Siege of Leningrad. His final foolish act of liberating Koschei helps Marya to reunite with her first husband and escape with him from Leningrad to the magic lands (Valente 2011: 178, 185, 278, 282–284). Some features of Valente’s poetics are close to those of Arden whom she precedes chronologically. She gives Russian folk characters new family members, some of whom she finds in folklore and others in fiction and history. Koschei the Deathless and Baba Yaga become siblings of Viy from Gogol’s eponymous story. Gorinich’s mother happens to be the dragon from Lake Baikal, while his father is the mighty Genghis Khan.13 The mechanism of ruling through terror is common to both the Party and the Golden Hord (Trocha2020:408).Thedialecticbetween Koscheiand Viy,theTsarof LifeandtheTsar of Death, is somewhat similar to that between Morozko and the Bear in Arden’s trilogy. Another point of similarity with Arden is the postulation of human guilt as concerns the chyerti (sic!) (devils) who they not only oust from towns and churches, but from the entire world (Valente 2011: 47–48, 78–79, 104, 132, 135, 206). Even the fact of Marya’s choice of Koschei predicts that Vasilisa will select Morozko. Both couples are doomed because the women are mortal whereas their magic partners are not. Valente is heavily indebted to the Russian literature of the 19th and first part of the 20th centuries.14Direct quotations and allusions show that Pushkin’s Ruslan and Liud­mila, Akhmatova’s Poem without a Hero and Gogol’s Viy are sources for her fantasy. Hidden allusions to Bulgakov are no less important. Ivan the Fool, as Ivan Nikolayevich Geroyev (Hero'yev), reminds readers of Ivan Nikolayevich Bezdomny (Homeless) from The Master and Margarita. Marya’s ability to see the supernatural behind the mask is similar to that of the Master in identifying Woland, the Satan, disguised as a foreigner. Marya’s ride with Koschei (the owl) in the driverless car parallels that of Margarita’s with the rook in the driver’s seat. Soviet writers as liars who eat in special cafes and relax in dachas invoke the writers’ restaurant Griboyedov in the same novel. And, of course, the narrative of life in Stalin’s Moscow in the 1930s opens the gate to a fantasy version ofPetersburg-Petrograd-Leningrad(Bulgakov1988:23,68–81,157,282;Valente2011: 60, 98–102, 171). Finally, the village of Yaichka (sic!) (An Egg), where the dead forget the animosities of the living, is reminiscent of paradise in Bulgakov’s The White Guard, seen by Alexei Turbin in a dream. This paradise accepts both Whites and Reds from the front along with their women. In Yaichka. Vladimir Ilyich and his wife Nadya15 Kon­stantinovna (Lenin and Krupskaia) not only have two sons, Josef and Leon (Stalin and 12 The manager of the factory of arrests is Comrade Gorinich, Zmey Gorinich (Valente’s spelling for Zmei Gorynych), a dragon/serpent and a villain from Russian folklore. In the novel, Comrade Gorinich boasts of having organised many deaths, including the 1934 murder of Sergei Mironovich Kirov and of those falsely accused of his murder. Gorinich almost convicts Marya Morevna, but she manages to outwit him and escape the death penalty (Valente 2011: 131–136). 13 Genghis Khan (1158–1227) founded the Mongol Empire. I would like to remind that the Blue she-wolf in Morwood’s trilogy discussed in the first part of this paper is also connected to Chinggisid lineage. 14 Magyarody compares Valente’s Koschei with that of the Strugatsky brothers, but does not bring sufficient evidence of their similarity (Magyarody 2017; Fialkova 2021: 20). 15 Nadya is a diminutive of Nadezhda. Trotsky), but also become friendly with the Russian Tsar and his family, all of whom have been executed by the Bolsheviks (Bulgakov 1989: 233–237; Valente 2011: 293–297). On a visual level, Yaichka with its denizens is a kind of Fabergé egg. FROM UKRAINE IN THE 1970S–1990S TO KIEVAN RUS AND BACK IN ORSON SCOTT CARD’S ENCHANTMENT Orson Scott Card’s interest in alternative Slavic fantasy originates from neither family nor education. Aware of his lackof knowledge, he hired a graduate student – a native Russian-speaker, who contacted him through Internet – to check his use of Russian language and allusions to Russian culture (White 1999). Although Card’s plot addresses both Orthodoxy and Judaism, he himself is a dedicated Mormon. His novel is set in three distinct locations. Two of them are from the familiar world – Sovietand post-Soviet Ukraine, and the USA during the 1970s to 1990s. The third is the fictional state of Taina (Mystery), ruled by the fictional King Matfei in the so-called Rus of the everlasting 9th century. Taina’s principal enemy is not a historical invader like Cumans or Pechenegs, but Baba Yaga. Yet, this fairy tale character is partly identified with the historical Princess Olga (920–969) of Kievan Rus. Yaga’s long-forgotten first name is Olga and she is a widow, who, like her prototype, cruelly slaughtered the leaders of the Drevlianians in response to a proposal of marriage from their King Mal. Still, the Drevlianians are not to blame for her widowhood. Card explainsthat her evil behaviour is a result of the trauma related to the sexual abuse she suffered. Her late husband, King Brat (not Prince Igor), rapes her at age 12 and later becomes a victim of her revenge (Card 1999: 65, 118). The widowed Yaga then marries a huge Bear, Rus’s winter god. However, the mythological beings do not eliminate Christianity. The people of Taina are baptised and the words of the Church fathers are familiar to some. The fictional state is sealed off, separated from modern Ukraine by a clearing and a Pit in the Carpathian Mountains. The Pit is guarded by the Bear and usually invisible.Some characters, both good and evil – a modern man and a medieval princess, Baba Yaga and the saint Mikola Mozhaiski16– can cross this void between thetwo worlds and/or play arolein both. Using witchcraft, others can glimpse into Taina without actually crossing its border. Card’s protagonist is Vanya/Ivan Petrovich Smetski, a boy of mixed Jewish/Slavic descent from Kiev,17the son of Petr Smetski, a professor of ancient Slavic literature and of oldest dialectsof Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Serbian (Card, 1999: 3, 14). In the 1970s, the family decides to emigrate to the West, a perilous undertaking in Soviet times. The 16 According to Card, Mikola Mozhaiski is “the protector of sailors, ancient but unforgotten god” (Card 1999: 202). In the Orthodox Church, he is perceived as an emanation of Saint Nikolas, who, in the 14th century, pro­tected the town of Mozhaisk against Tatar invasion http://iordanhram.orthodoxy.ru/Icons5-rus.htm (last accessed 25.02.2021). Card uses Ukrainian form of the name - Mikola (instead of Mykola) and not Russian – Nikolai. 17 It is unclear whether Vania is Russian or Ukrainian on his Slavic side. As his father’s second cousin Marek owns a farm in the Carpathian Mountains and is later identified as Mikola Mozhaiski, he is likely to be Ukrainian. Card uses Russified toponym Kiev and not the Ukrainian Kyiv, although he chooses the Ukrainian spelling for the city of L’viv and for Kiev’s district Podil (Card 1999: 7, 11, 26, 36). only way to do this is apply to the Soviet authorities for visas to Israel and, once they leave, change their destination to the USA. Although the family has been living as Rus­sians, they pragmatically adopt an Orthodox Jewish lifestyle to prove their partly Jewish roots, circumcise their men and change their names. Thus, 10-year-old Ivan becomes Itzak18 Shlomo (1–12). Two folk stories, neither Slavic and both familiar to Card’s protagonist from child­hood, appear in the book’s first two chapters, signalling their roles as plot movers. They are the universal fairy tale Sleeping Beauty (ATU 410) and the Jewish story of The Sky, the Well and the Rat. Ivan/Itzak Shlomo’s first glimpse of an alternate reality occurs shortly before he emigrates. The Smetskis, now Refuseniks, find temporary refuge with a paternal second cousin, Marek, on his farm in the Carpathians. The boy is exploring a forest near the farm when he finds himself in a clearing at the edge of a Pit. In its center, a sleeping woman is lying on apedestalrising up fromadeep hollow. Thevision is fleeting butintroduces the motif of the Sleeping Beauty, who is Katerina here, the Princess of Taina, who Vanya/ Itzak Shlomo will one day rescue. Soon afterward, the visas are miraculously granted and the family leaves for the USA. Ivan never tells his mother about the sleeping woman. Time passes by. By 1991, Ivan is happily engaged to a Jewish girl, Ruthie, and has all but forgotten what he saw in the clearing. His mother, Esther, however, magically knows that Ivan has a prior marriage obligation that cannot be altered. She reminds Ivan of the old Jewish story, The Sky, the Well and the Rat, which she told to him as a child and which he has since studied in folklore class. A rabbinical student agrees to rescue a girl from a well if she agrees to sleep with him. She insists that he marry her and he undertakes to do so, as witnessed by the sky, the well and a rat. Upon returning home, he forgets his promises and marries another. It is not long before their two children die – one from a rat bite, and the other after falling down a well. He divorces his wife and returns to the girl (Card 1999: 18). ThenextstageofCard’s storystarts in 1992,whenIvan arrives in thenewlyindepend­ent Ukraine to do a PhD on Russian fairy tales. “It was a mad project, he soon realized – trying to reconstruct the earliest versions of the fairy tales described in the Afanasyev collection in order to determinewhether Propp’s theory that all fairy tales in Russian were, structurally, a single fairy tale was (1) true or false and, if true, (2) rooted in some inborn psychologically true ur-tale or in some exceptionally powerful story inherent in Russian culture”(Card 1999: 22). Returning was not his wish but that of his parents, especiallyhis mother. Yet, onceback in UkraineIvanleaves behind theAmerican version of life in the USSR as all terror and poverty, which had been installed in him during his studies, and instead feels the happiness of coming home. He decides to prove to himself that the woman sleeping in the clearing only exists in his dream and is no impediment to him marrying Ruthie. He returns to cousin Marek’s farm, by then fully mechanised, goes into the forest – and again sees the sleeping woman on the pedestal. A star athlete, Ivan jumps over the hollow and kisses the woman, who awakes. The huge Bear who is 18 Card uses form Itzak and not Itzhak – L.F. guarding over the woman is climbing the pedestal, and Ivan’s only escape is to propose marriage to the rescued woman. Card’s princess has been cursed by Baba Yaga, who wants to vanquish Taina and rule over it. To stop her, Princess Katerina must marry and give birth to a child. The curse, unrelated to the fairy birthday wishes, is intended as an everlasting obstacle to marriage. The spindle is mentioned twice, but briefly and in passing – first, as Ivan’s reference to a fairy tale motif, and then in Katerina’s dim recol­lection of falling asleep (Card 1999: 54, 80). Ivan must follow Katerina to Taina where people perceive him as foolish. His behaviour is incompatible with their expectations – as in fairy tales about Ivan the Fool, and in the experience of new immigrants.19As a survival strategy, he mobilises his cultural capital – his proficiency in Church Slavonic20 which helps him communicate in proto-Slavic, his professional knowledge of folklore and history, and his pragmatic familial flexibility. Having experienced becoming Jewish overnight in order to emigrate to the USA, in Taina he agrees to convert to Christianity, as is obligatory for the marriage. Even when legally wed, the coupleshun physical contact. Their marriage is not consummated until much later, when they escape from Baba Yaga to the USA of the 1990s. This time, it is Katerina who becomes the immigrant, first in the Carpathian Mountains of independent Ukraine and then in the USA. The alienation gradually evaporates and love grows.21 Ivan’s magical journey to Taina gives his doctorate a new angle. With his planned escape to the Present, he realises the potential of artifacts, which can be fabricated in the Past. To create the best artifact possible, he instructs the lame scribe Sergei to write down oral tales on the reverse side of an ancient parchment of the gospels, written in Old Church Slavonic, by still not canonised Kirill.22 “He wanted stories about witches and sorcerers. About Baba Yaga. About Mikola Mozhaiski. About kings and queens, about lost children and wolves in the woods. (…) About Ilya of Murom” (Card 122–123). Although Ivan realises the ethical dubiousness of his project, which Sergei would never have undertaken without his instruction, he is firm in his decision to complete it. He ensures that the parchment’s carbon-14 molecules show eleven hundred years of radioactive decay to convince people that it is genuine. The plan works, making Ivan a respected professor in America and a cultural hero in the Ukraine, with a street named after him in Kiev. This street was once named after a communist who had slaughtered millionsof Ukrainian kulaks. Ironically, Card seesno contradiction between Ivan’sstatus as a Ukrainian cultural hero and the fact that it was granted to him for having discovered the earliest known versions of Russian rather than Ukrainian folktales. Simultaneously, Ivan is a king who retains the throne of Taina (Card 146–147, 383–384). The partly-Jewish boy from Kiev thus becomes Ivan the Fool of Russian fairy tales and builds an internationalacademic career in folklore studies. Hetravels repeatedly 19 This paper does not address American sources of Card’s plot, such as Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (Card 1999: 133–134). 20 According to Card, Petr Smetski spoke to his son for 1 year in Church Slavonic (Card 1999: 14, 257), although the language was designed for religious purposes and had never been used as a vernacular. 21 The Smetskis’ life in the USA will be addressed in my next paper – America and Americans in the Alternative Slavic Fantasy. 22 Card uses the Russian spelling Kirill rather than Cyril. across the Pit that separates Past from Present – to wake the Sleeping Beauty, overpower Baba Yaga, and reconcile paganism with Judaism and Christianity.23 The idea of a modern man finding a sleeping medieval princess in a clearing came from Card’s friend and business partner, Peter Johnson, and marked the beginning of his work on the novel (Vincent 2018). The source of the plot, according to Card himself, is Perrault’s version of Sleeping Beauty and unspecified Russian folktales, which do not end with marriage. On the contrary, the marriage signals a new start as the princess dislikes her husband and tries to kill him (Card 1999: 71; Vincent 2018). Burkhardt compares Card’s Sleeping Beauty with both those of Perrault and the brothers Grimm, in combina­tion with Disney images and mentions Russian variants, which again are unspecified. As a sign of Russianness, Burkhardt points to the social standing of the hero, who may not be a prince (Burkhardt 2009: 241–242). Although in two Russian versions of ATU 410* Okameneloe tsarstvo (The Realm of Stone), the hero is indeed a soldier or peasant rather than a prince, both end in a happy marriage without delay. Another relevant fact is that in the Russian versions and in that of Card the famous motif of birthday blessings from fairies to a new-born princess is completely absent. Instead, the big bird – the princess’ sister – transforms the Tsardom into a realm of stone (Afanasev 1916: 204; Afanasiev 1985: 280–282). Still, neither Russian version has a sleeping princess. According to Do-brovolskaia, Russian folklore lacks the type of Sleeping beauty – ATU 410 (2021: 158). However, the sleeping beauty is the sole image from this fairy tale that is truly important for Card. His interest in delayed consummation of marriage can nevertheless be directly traced to Russian folklore. Two books here are key – Morphology of the Folktale and Historical Roots of the Wonder Tale by the same Vladimir Propp whose theory Card’s protagonist Ivan/Itzak Shlomo Smetski wants to test in his PhD thesis (Propp 1968: 63–64, 73–74, 131–132;Propp 1986:112–140, 298–299, 305–309;Propp 2012:198–204). Propp analyses motifs and plots, which reflect initiation rites in the so-called “big houses in the woods”. Particularly important among these are The Beauty in the Coffin, The Wife at her Husband’s Wedding and The Husband at his Wife’s Wedding. According to Propp, in the period following initiation but prior to integration into the adult collective, young men had to live together in the woods in a kind of brotherhood. Women were forbidden from entering their houses, with two notable exceptions. Older women could be there as mothers to look after the young men, as could young girls, who stayed there as “sisters” during their own initiation rites. The word “sister” is used to obscure true gender relations. They acted as wives to their “brothers”. These group sexual encounters tended to morph into couples after leaving the big house, especially in the case of a child. The woman, however, had to “forget” her past. The path to a new life led through a ritual temporary death and the motif of a woman in her coffin. According to Propp, both women and men made two marriages – a temporary group marriage in the big house in the woods, and a constant union as a couple at home as the 23 To my mind, Card’s motif of the Bear as the god of winter on the clearing, that separates the two words later influenced Arden’s image of a clearing with the Bear/the demon of summer on it. In both cases, the enemy later becomes an ally. basis for a family. In some fairy tales, the hero marries twice or at least intends to marry a second time because he forgets his first wife. The abandoned first wife reminds him of their past, and the hero resumes the union, remarrying his wife from the woods/other world and abandoning or even killing his second bride. Examples of such plots are in Morskoi Tsar’ i Vasilisa Premudraia – The Sea Tsar and Vasilisa the Wise (Afanasiev 1985: 137–142)24 and Peryshko Finista Iasna Sokola – Finist the Falcon (Afanasiev 1985: 190–198; Zheleznova 1966). The wife is not always good and faithful, and can be aggressive and cruel, behaviour sometimes causedbyher lover, amonster.Thenuptialnightthus becomes atest:thebride may try to kill her husband and/or his magic helper, or to escape from him. Reconciliation between them, seen as a second marriage, signals normalisation. An example is the fairy tale Beznogii i slepoi bogatyri – The Legless Knight and The Blind Knight (Afanasiev 1985: 59–65; Afanasev 1916: 321–332). The idea of the first betrothal being of greater value than the second is, as mentioned above, manifest in Card’s novel through the Jewish folktale The Sky, the Well and the Rat. This story is known in written form from the Talmudic era but scholars believe it to be told orally prior to the Talmudic age. It has numerous folk versions and literary elaborations in various Jewish languages, e.g. Hebrew, Yiddish, Ladino and Judeo-Arabic (Alexander 1998: 257). It forms the Jewish oikotype 930*F The Well and the Weasel as Witnesses, one of the four Jewish oikotypes of the universal folktale The Predestined Wife ATU 930AA, discussed in detail by Aliza Shenhar.25Another oikotype, however, AT930*J Taming the Father-in-Law, which refers to a boy of low origin and a princess, is even more relevant to Card’s plot. Central to it is King Solomon’s daughter in a tower in which the king has secluded his daughter in a helpless attempt to avoid her predestined marriage to aboy of unfit origin. In other stories of the oikotypeof predestined marriage, itis mother and son and notthefather who areatthecentre. Importantly, Shenhar equates legends about an “imprisoned or sleeping hero” (Shenhar 1987: 33) 26. In one of the variations of this oicotype, a young Jewish scholar who is loyal to the commandments of the Torah and tradition is magically transferred against his will to a strange land where he is betrothed to a Christian princess. Transferred back, his heart remains with his bride. Both pine desperately for each other. The young man’s father finds the bride, heals her and brings her to his son, but he has died of grief. His bride brings him back to lifeand the coupleare reunited. In any case, the foreign princess always converts to Judaism because of her love for the Jewish boy. Intriguingly, this oikotype of a Jewish boy and a Christian princess is popular among Jews from Islamic countries (Shenhar 1987: 31–32, 34–37). 24 The English translation of this fairy tale in Afanasev 1916: 243–255 lacks the second marriage. 25 Shenhar wroteher paper addressing Aarne-Thompson’s classification (AT) as Uther’s reworking of it(ATU) has not been done yet. 26 Prof. Eli Yassif who commented on my presentation at the annual folklore conference in Bar-Ilan University in 2022 suggested another Jewish folktale as a source of Card’s story. A young man puts a ring on the finger of a sleeping woman whom he abandons without understanding the consequences. However, Ivan did not approach Katerina when he was 10. The striking similarity between Card’s plot and Shenhar’s paper suggests it may be one of Card’sactual sources, even though he uses the oikotype with a notable inver­sion. Instead of a Jewish scholar who studies the Torah, Ivan/Itzak Shlomo Smetski is a secular scholar whose Jewishness is pragmatic and superficial. Instead of the Torah, he studies non-Jewish culture. His mother, the most Jewish person among the Smetskis, sends her son away from his Jewish bride, Ruthie, to his predestined Christian wife. In Taina, he pragmatically converts to Christianity, and back in the USA continues to live as a secular Jew. The Jewish Ruthie, influenced by Baba Yaga, tries to kill Ivan but he is saved by his mother’s witchcraft. According to the same logic of inversion, it is not the Jewish King Solomon who should be tamed, but a Christian King Matfei who needs the legitimate heir, but hates the idea of unsuitable son-in-law. Katerina’s conversion to Judaism is not part of the narrative. It may be assumed that she did so as in the USA her children are registered as Jewish. Yet, all become Christian during their regular visits to Taina (Card 1999: 291, 387). Card’s alternative Slavic fantasy is largely based on non-Slavic folklore, be it the uni­versal type of a Sleeping Beauty or Jewish oikotypes of the Predestined Wife. He not only makes his protagonistafolklorist,butalsomakes intenseuseoffolklorescholarship. Inher research into folkloristsascharactersin contemporary American fantastika, Shelley Ingram claims they are professionally incompetent. Card’s Ivan Smetski refutes this. Capable of being both a folk hero and a scholar, he anticipates the emerging Russian fantastika tradi­tion which treats folklorists as people with magical power (Fialkova 2020a; Ingram 2019). CONCLUSIONS All of the authors discussed in this paper create their alternative Slavic fantasy using plots and motifs from fairy tales and mythology of both folk and literary origin. They either ignore the Russian epic bylinas or simply mention them in passing, like Morwood and Card. This is of particular interest because bylinas, although containing various monsters, address Russia’s assumed historical past rather than the non-existent world. Where epic poetry is relevant – for example,as the source of magic – Morwood alludes to the Iliad. The sources of the plots openly manifested by the authors could be unreliable. Thus, Arden’s trilogy is indebted not so to Morozko as to Marshak’s play Twelve Months, while Card’s novel not to the Russian versions of Sleeping Beauty, but to the contamination of the Russian folktales with the motif of delayed marriage and the Jewish oikotypes of the Predestined wife. While Valente’s direct allusions to Gogol’s Viy are merely superficial, hidden parallels with Bulgakov are evident. Folklore characters freely mergewith literary creations and historicalfigures. In Arden’s world, for instance, Baba Yaga is a former lover of Pushkin’s Chernomor and they are great grandparents of Alexander Peresvet (Lightbringer), a hero of the Battle of Kulikovo. Valente’s Koschei the Deathless and Baba Yaga become siblings with Viy from Gogol’s eponymous story, while Zmei Gorinich (Zmey Gorynych, a snake) is the son of thedragon fromLakeBaikaland Genghis Khan;in Stalinisttimes, heconvicts and kills “enemies of the people”. Many of the female characters are proactive and powerful (Morewood, Arden, Skye, Valente), sometimes even androgynous (Arden), which lead them to husbands/mates from the supernatural world. Chronicles are not juxtaposed with folklore as reality to fiction because they are freely manipulated by therulers – commissioned, torn and edited (Morwood). Authors relateto folklore as an important historical database and see linguistic ability as a source of mag­ical power. It is therefore logical that the professional folklorist proficient in languages prospers in both worlds (Card). Alternative Slavic fantasy recreates different historical periods and events with vary­ing levels of accuracy, from Kievan Rus in the 9th–13th centuries (Morwood, Card), the Principality of Moscow in the 14th century (Arden), the Russian Empire of 1805–1826 (Skye), Russia during 1913(?)–1952 (Valente) and Ukraine between the 1970s–1990s (Card). The plots play out in fictional states such as Khorlov and Koldunov (Morwood) and Taina (Card), and in recognisable Moscow, Saint Petersburg and Kiev (Arden, Skye, Valente, Card). In many instances, famous historical events are totally reconstructed, as happens to the Northern Crusade in Morwood’s novel. It features the only conflict between Rus and the westerners in the novels under discussion. Similarly, changes occurred in the actions of Oleg of Ryazan in the Battle of Kulikovo in Arden’s trilogy and in the fate of the Decembrists in Skye’s dilogy. Only this last one, however, offers an alternative outcome. More typically, authors expose ‘how it really was’, creating a crypto-history rather than an alternative one. The problematic character of the chronicles, themselves manipulated, helps them do this. The phenomenon that attracts almost all of the authors is dvoeverie – the duality of paganism and Christianity. Whereas thiscan be freely explored in a mythological mode, in historicalfantasy there is always a tension between the two, from mild (Morwood, Skye) to hostile (Arden). The conflict between paganism and Christianity is perceived as the factor which negatively influences the country’s safety. Consequently, the authors strive to bring the two together for a reconciliation. The idea of unity and peace between former enemies is generally very important in this type of historical fantasy. Although there are enough historical events, featuring the Russian or Soviet army as the aggressors, they do not influence the plots. As a result, contrary to current political realities in alternative Slavic fantasy Russia does not pose a threat to the Western world. Aggression is often directed inward against Russian citizens and Russian pagan spirits. BIBLIOGRAPHY Afanasev, A.N., 1916: Russian Folk-Tales. Translated from Russian Leonard A. Magnus. London: E.P. Dutton and Co, 78–91, 192–203. http://www.gutenberg.org/ files/62509/62509-h/62509-h.htm (25. 9. 2020). Afanasiev, A.N., 1985: Russkie narodnye skazki v 3-kh tomakh. ..2. Moskva: Nauka. Alexander, Tamar, 1998: “The Weasel and the Well”: Intertextual Relationships Between Hebrew Sources and Judeo-Spanish Stories. Jewish Studies Quarterly 5/3, 254–276. Arden, Katherine, 2017: The Bear and the Nightingale. New York: Del Rey. Arden, Katherine, 2018: The Girl in the Tower. New York: Del Rey. Arden, Katherine, 2019: The Winter of the Witch. New York: Del Rey. Bulgakov, Mikhail, 1988: The Master and Margarita. Translated from the Russian by Michael Glenny. London: Collins Harvill. Bulgakov, Mikhail, 1989: Belaia gvardia. In: Mikhail Bulgakov. Sobranie sochinenii v 5-ti tomakh. T. 1. Moskva: Khudozhestvennaia literatura. Burkhardt, Marie, 2009: «Enchantment» d’Orson Scott Card ou les contes de fées revisités. In: Burkhardt, M; Plattner, A; Schorderet, A. Parallelismen : Literatur- und kulturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zu Ehren von Peter Fkirstenrlicher. Tübingen, 239–249. Card, Orson Scott, 1999: Enchantment. New York: The Ballantine Publishing Group. Cherryh, C.J., 1989: Rusalka. New York: Del Rey. Dobrovol’skaia, Varvara, 2021: Spiashchie geroi i sny v russkoi volshebnoi skazke. In: A.A. Lazareva (ed.), Antropologia snovidenii. Moskva: RGGU, 153–164. Fialkova, Larisa, 2020: Al’ternativnoe slavianskoe fentezi amerikanskikh pisatelei. In: ..... ......., ..... ........ (........). ......... ...... ............., VIII. ....... ....... ......... ....... . ........ ........... ....... – .....: ........ ........... ......, ........ .. ............. ............ ........ ........, 439–459. Fialkova, Larisa, 2020a: Offerings to Propp the Overlord: Folklorists and Folkloristics in Contemporary Fantastika (Russian Fantastic Fiction). Slavic and East European Journal 64/4, 649–667. Fialkova, Larisa, 2021: Rus, Russia and Ukraine in Alternative Slavic Fantasy of English-Language Writers. Part 1. Medieval Rus. Studia Mythologica Slavica, 24: 24–32. Glassford, Rachel, 2018: Death Objectified, Life Affirmed: Mortality and Materialism in Russian Folktales Featuring Koschei the Deathless: Honors Thesis. San Marcos, Texas. Gudek, Tea. 2020: The History behind Fabergé Eggs: Where to See Fabergé Eggs in saint Petersburg. Culture Tourist, Feb., 11. https://culturetourist.com/destinations/russia/ where-to-see-faberge-eggs-in-saint-petersburg/ (24. 3. 2021). Ingram, Shelley, 2019: “The Footprints of Ghosts: Fictional Folklorists in the Work of Gloria Naylor, Lee Smith, Randall Kenan, and Colson Whitehead.” Ingram, Shelley; Mullins, Willow G.; Richardson, Todd (eds.), Implied Nowhere: Absence in Folklore Studies. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 95–117. Magyarody, Katherine, 2017: Translating Russian Folklore in to Soviet Fantasy in Arkadi and Boris Strugatski’s Monday Begins on Saturday and Catherynne Valente’s Deathless. Marvels and Tales, 2: 338–369. Morwood, Peter, 2016: Prince Ivan. Tales of Old Russia. No place: Venture Press. Morwood, Peter, 2016a: Firebird. Tales of Old Russia. Book Two. No place: Venture Press. Morwood, Peter, 2016b: The Golden Hord. Tales of Old Russia. Book Three. No place: Venture Press. Propp, Vladimir, 1968: Morphology of the Folktale. Translated by Laurence Scott. 2d Edition. Austin: University of Texas Press. Propp, Vladimir, 1986: Istoricheskie korni volshebnoi skazki. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo universiteta. Propp, Vladimir, 2012: The Russian Folktale. Editor and Translator Sibelan Forrester. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Shenhar, Aliza, 1987: The Predestined Marriage. In Aliza Shenhar. Jewish and Israeli Folklore. New Delhi: South Asian Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 30–43. Skye, Evelyn, 2016: The Crown’s Game. New York: Balzer + Bray, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. Skye, Evelyn, 2017: The Crown’s Fate. Balzer + Bray, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. Trocha, Bogdan, 2020: Renarracje Slowianskich motywów Ludowych we wspólczesnej fantastyce. ..... ......., ..... ........ (........). ......... ...... ............., VIII. ....... ....... ......... ....... . ........ ........... ....... – .....: ........ ........... ......, ........ .. ............. ............ ........ ........, 401–417. Valente, CatherynneM., 2011: Deathless. New York: A Tom Doherty Associates Book. Vincent, Jérôme, 2018: Interview with Orson Scott Card. Actusf, 20.09. https://www.actusf.com/ detail-d-un-article/Interview-with-Orson-Scott-Card,3871 (20. 2. 2021). White Claire E., 1999: A Conversation with Orson Scott Card. The Internet Writing Journal 3/7. https://clck.ru/MHBGq (19. 2. 2021). Zheleznova, Irina., 1966: Father Frost. In Vasilisa the Beautiful. Russian Fairy Tales. Translated by Irina Zheleznova Moscow: Progress publishers. http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/ arvindgupta/65r.pdf (11. 10. 2020). ...., ...... . ....... . .............. .......... ....... ............ ......... ..... 2. ...... . ....... . 19 . 20 ..... ...... ........ ...... .............. .......... .......... .......... ............ ......., ...... ........ ........... . .......... ... ............... ....... ................. ... ................ .......... ...... .......... – ... ......... ......, ..... ........ . ....... . ...... ....., ........... ....... ........ ............. ...., ............ . .......... ...... ....... Studia Mythologica Slavica, 2021, 24: 13–32 https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/sms/article/view/10419/9566. ..... ....... ...... .... ..............., . ........, . .....­.......... . 1805–1826 ....., .. ............ ........... . ......... ....., ............ ......... ............. ........ ............. ........, ........, ....... ........, ............ ......, ........ ..... ...... ......,................................ ......... . ...... ........., .. .... . ......... ......, . ....... ........ .............. ..... .......... ...... ................. ... ........ .. .......... ......... ............ ....... – ..... ... .......... . ......... ........... - . ........... ......... ............ .... .......... ........... ........ . ..... ....... .. ............... ..... .............. ........, ........... ............ ........ .. .......... .... ..., ....... ...... ........ .. ....... ........, . ...... ......., .......... . .. .............. (........ ............), . .. ......... ....... . ....... .... ........ ... ......... . ...... ..... ...... ........ (..... . ... ........). ... . . ........ ....., ............. . ...... ..... ......, ...... ........... ......... . ............ ... ........ .......... ............ . ........... ....... .......... ........... ..... . . ...... ...... ......., ... ..... ........ ...... (.....-.........-.........-.........) . .............. ..... (.........- ............ (sic!)-...........) ........ ...... ........ ..... .......... ...... ..... ........ 1913 . 1942-. ......, ....... ...... ......., ........... . ...... ....... ....., ............ ........ ........... .... ...... 1952–1953 ..... .... ......... ... ......... ........ . ..... ........... ....... ......... ...... . ................. .............................................. .......... . .............. ........ ..... ............, .... ....., ............ ..... ......... . .... (.......... ........... ....... ......), ............................... ...........,. .. ..... ....... ......... ..... ..... ........... ...... ...... - ...... ..... ....... ............ ........... ........ . ....... ........ .........., .......-....... . . ..... ........... ...... .......... ........ ......... . ...... .......... ...., ....... .............. ................... ........, ........... .............. ....... . ....... .... .............., .... ..... .......... . ....... .. ..... ....... . ........ ........., . .......... ......., ...... . ........., ....... .. ...... ......... ...... . ......... . ..... ....... ..................... ................................. ....... ... . . .......... ....., ............. . ...... ..... ......, ............ ......... . .............. ..... ...... ...... ....... ....... . ....... .......... ........, ....... ....... (sic!) .......... .......... ....... ......., - ... .......-....... .. ........... . ......-.......... ..................................... . ....... . ....................(sic!), .......... ..... ........, ........, ...... ...... ........ ....................................... . ...................... – . ....................................., ............ .......... 9-. ...., . ......., ... ......... (1970-. ....), ... . ............. (1990-. ....), . . ... . .. .. ............ ........ ........... ..... ..... ..........., ......... . ......... ..... ...../.....-..... ......... . ........ ..., .... .. .. ......... ......., .. ............ ........... ... .......... ...... ......., – ... . ......... .. ....... ... ...... . ............, . ......... ...., . .......... ................ ...... ......-............., ................... ........... (...........?) . .......... .................................- ..............., ..... ....... . ....... ......... ..........., . ......... ....... . ............... ..... . ....., ... . . ........... .. ... ....... . ....., ........ .......... ........... . ............ .........., .... ... . ....... ...... ....... ........... ....... . ...... ..... ........ .......... ...., .............. ........ .... . ........... ..... . .......... ...... . ....... .. ......., ........ .... . ........ ....... . . ........... ......., . . .... ........... ............ ........, .... . . ......., . . ........, ............. ..... . ..... .. . ......, .. . .......... .. ......... .. ...... ...... . ..., ...... ....... ..../ .... ..... ........ .......... .. ........, . ......, .. .......... .......... . ........, . .. ........... ......... ...... ........... ......... . ...... .. ............ ........... ...... ............... ........... ....... ........ ........................................ .......... .......... ........... .......... . ............. . .............. .. ...... ........... (....), ........... . ............. ......... .. ........ . .........., ............. .. ........... ............ ........., ............ ............, ...... .............., . ...... .......... ............ ........... ...... ...... . ......... .......... .. .......... ...... . ...... ....... .............. ......... . .......... ........ ......, ............ . .......... Prof. Dr. Larisa Fialkova, University of Haifa, Department of Hebrew and Comparative Literature, Abba Khoushy Ave 199, IL-2611001 Haifa, lara@research.haifa.ac.il 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 183–201 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222509 ...., ..... . ..... ........ .......... ..... Clanek obravnava interpretacijo odlomka v Pesmi o Igorjevem pohodu, znameniti anonimni srednjeveški epski pesmi. Obravnavani odlomek je avtorjev nagovor Vsevo­lodu Jurijevicu, vojaško mocnemu velikemu vladimirskemu knezu. Podoba Vsevoloda je pretirana. Podobno kot starodavnim perzijskim kraljem mu pripisujejo sposobnost kaznovanja rek Volge in Don, ki so jih takrat zasedli Polovci. Istocasno se uporabljata imeni sužnja (chaga) in sužnej (koshchey), ki sta najverjetneje iranskega izvora. Sev­ernoiranski mit prikazuje tudi Vsevolodove vazale, sinove kneza Gleba Rostislavica Rjazanskega, žive pušcice (šereširjem) za ogromno balisto (tir-i-charkh), ki se uporablja na vzhodu. Vzporednice s to podobo je mogoce zaslediti v nartskem epu o Osetih, kjer neranljivi Nart Batraz deluje kot pušcica iz takšnega orožja. Kljucne besede: Pesem o Igorjevempohodu, mitološke metafore, nartska epika, iranske izposojenke, skitsko-sarmatska mitologija, osetska folklora The article looks at the interpretation of an episode in the Tale of Igor’s Campaign, a famous anonymous medieval epic poem. The episode is the author’s address to Vsevolod Yuryevich, the militarily powerful Grand Prince of Vladimir. The image of Vsevolod is exaggerated. Similar to the ancient Persian kings, he is credited with the ability to chastise the Volga and the Don rivers, then occupied by the Polovtsian people. At the same time, the names of a female slave (chaga) and a male slave (koshchey) are used, most likely of Iranian origin. The North Iranian myth also portrays Vsevolod’s vassals, the sons of Prince Gleb Rostislavich of Ryazan, as living arrows (shereshyrs) for the huge ballista (tir-i-charkh) used in the East. Parallels of this image can be traced in the Nart epic of the Ossetians, where the invulnerable Nart Batraz acts as an arrow from such a weapon. Key words: Tale of Igor’s Campaign, mythological metaphors, Nart epic, Iranian bor­rowings,Scythian-Sarmatian mythology, Ossetian folklore ..... .. ........ ....... ... .......... ........ «..... . ..... .......» ..................................................................., ........... ....... ....... .....: ....... ...... ..........! .. ...... .. ......... ........ ..... ..... ..... ........! 184 . ......... . .... .. .. ...... ..... ..... .........., . .... ...... .......! ... .. .. ...., .. .... .. .... .. ......, . ..... .. ......, .. .. ...... ...... ...... ........ ........, ....... .... .......… (..... . ..... ....... 1950, 21–22, 28–29, 44). ...... ......... ......... ............ ... ..... ... ......... ........ .. ......... . ...... ..... . ........ ............. ..... ......., .... ........... . .......... .......... ........ .. ..... ........... ....... . ............ ..... ......, ... ....... .... ... .. .... ......... ............. ..... ..........-......... .......... . ... .............. ...... ... ......... ...... ..... ... ..... ............ ........ ........ .... . ....... ............ ........ ...... . .. ........ ... .... ....... ........., ... ............. .............. ..... .............. ....... .......... ......... ... . ............ .........., ... . . ........... ............. ............ ....... ..... .. ........ ............ ........ ........, .. ....... ....... ..... ... ........ .............. .......... . .............. ................. . ... .... ......... .. ........ .......... ..............., ...... ...... .. ... ...., ....... ... . ....... ......... ..... .. ......, ............., ...... ..., ........ ....... ........ ...., ........ .. ........ . ......... ......... ...... . .......... ........................ ......... ....... ......... 1183 ..... ........, .. .... .......... ........... ......... ...... ......... ........ .. ........ ...... ....-.... 1183 ..... ............. ......., . ....... .... ...., ... . ........, ............. ....... ... ......... .....: ......, . 1132 . . 1133-1135 ....., ... ....... .... ........... .. ......... . ...... 1184 .... ..... ......... ....... ........., ........-..........., ... ...... .... . ......, ....... ....... .......... ..........., . ....... ......... .... ........., ....... ....., ....... ..... ............. ... .. . ......... ......... . ...... ...... ....... . .... ... ....... ...... .. ...... ....., . ...... ....... ......... . ... .......... (......... 1989, 127–132). .. .................,........... .............. ..... . ..., ....... .........., ....... ...., ... .......... .... . .... ................ .... (....... 1972, 71, 325). ... .............. .............. ......., ......... .. ...... .. ......... ... ......... .. ...... ........ ........., .. . ... ...... ....., ....... ..... ........ ......... ............, . .... ..... .............. ......... ............ ...... ...... ........ ........ (...... 2006, 37). .. ....... ...... ............ ........ .......... ............ ...... ......... ................., ....,............ ........... ........ . ... , ..... . ..... ........ 185 ... 1170 .....: «. ...... ..... ...... ........., ..... ..... ....... ..... ........... .. .........:. ........., . ......, . ..... ..., . ......., . ....., . .....» (.... 1871, 369). ................................... .......... ......... ....... .......... ....., .. ............ ..... .. ..............: «........, .... ........, ........... .. .. ......, . ...... ..... .. ......», ......., ... ........ ..... «.. ........ ..... ...., .. ....., ...... .. .. ........... .....» (........ 1842, 169). . ..., ... .... – .........., ........... ....... .......... (........... 1876, 93) . ......... ....... (....... 1914, 100). ... .. ....., .......... .... ....... . .......... ..... ....... ........ ....., ......., ... «.... ..-....... ......: ..... ..... ..... ...., . ..... ......... ..... ......., ...... ... .... ................... . ..... ...... . .......................... ............... ........ ........... ..... «....» – ....» (....... 1854, 71). ..... .... ......... ................. .... ‘.......’ (Korsch 1885, 644). ...... ............ ...... ....... ........ .. ........ ..... . ......... ....., .. ..... ........ ... ... .. ........... ...........: «........ ..... ..... .. ......... ....: ... .......... «.......». .. ... ......... .... ...... ‘........, ......’, .. ........... ........ «....» ...... ‘..........’, ...........– ‘.......’;.. ............. ....... ..... ......... .......... (......., 1298 .. ........ ...) ....... ......, ..... ......, ‘...., ......., ........’. . ........, .. ........ ....... ............ ... ..... (..........?) ........ ... ...., ......, ..... ..........., . ...... ‘.... ........ ...., .......,.......’. ....... ...... ...... ........ ........ .... ..... ...... . .....-.......... ........ . ....... «.... ....»..., ....... ...... ‘... ....’...» (............ 1902, 23–24). ....... ........ ....., .., ... .. ....., ....... ........ ... ........ ........., ....... ........, ... ... .......... . ... ... ........ ...... ..... ............ ....... .......... .. ......... . ........... ...... ........ ....... ....... ......-.......... ......... ...... ..... ..... ......: «..... ... ........ ..... ........, .........., ‘....’, ‘.......’. ........... ... . .........,.......... . .......... ............... ........ ........., ......... ... ......... ......... ... ...... . ........ ........... .... ...... ........, ... . .......... ...... ....... ...... «. ...... – ..... ..», ... ... .... ........ ‘....’ . ....., ....... . ....... ...... ...., ............ . ...... (.... . ......... ........ ...... ........). ......., ........, ... ........ ...... ........... . ....... ..... ... .. ...... ....., ........ .... ......... .......». ........... . .... .... ..........: .. «........ ...... ‘. ........’, ‘. ......’, ‘....... .......’, ‘....... .....’ (.... ‘.......’, ......... ‘.......’); ...... ....... ‘.......’ (.......) . ... ....... ......... ... ......... .... ...... ..... ...... ... ...-...... . .... ....» (..... 1949, 116). ..... ......., ..... ......... .......... .. ...... .. ......... ........ ........ ......... ... ............, ..................... ..... . ........ ......, .... .... ... ............ ...... ..... . ......... ......... ................... ...... ........... ................. ........... ....... . ........... .... ...... ......, ....... .......... ... ....... .........., ........ .. .......... . ........ ........... ........ «...-...., .... ...ca.a ‘...., ....... ........., ........ ........’, .... ca.a ‘....’, ....-.... bala-caqa... ‘.. ..’, ..... ‘.. ..’... . .... ca.a ‘..........’... – .............. ........., .. ..... .................................. ...........................,......... ........... c- ......... ... š- . ......... ...... ..... ....... .. .... ca.a ...... ............... ... ............. .. ....., ... ... ..... ..........., ... ......-..... caxa<*caqa..., ..... c’axxa ‘........’. . .... ca.a ........ ....... . ......... ........ «Futuh.u ’š-Šam» [«.......... .....»] ......... ... .... ...... (1388–1392 ...) .. ......... ‘......, .. ....... ........’...; . ........... ......................................,................ .....,........... ‘....’ ... ....... balaža...» (...... 1979, 170). ....... .... ...... . ..... ............... ....... ........ ..... .. ......, .. ....... .. ............. . ....., ......... .... . ........ .............., .. . ........ ... ..... ........‘.......’ ........... (.....................) ....(...... 1986, 309). . ................ ... ........ ‘....’ . ........ .. ............ ......... . ............ .............. ....-.... .. ............. (......... 1987, 260). ........ ....... ........ ....... ... ........ ............. ... ... .......... ....: «... ........ . ..., ... .... . «.....» ............ ..... ........ ............. . ........ «.......-.........., ......», – .... . ........ ...... – ....... . .............. ... ........... ...... . ........ «......., ........, .......»... ............. .. ...... . . «.....», . . ......... ..... .... .... ....... ...... . ........ «.........., ........»...» (........ 1976, 228;........ 1985,157). . .............., ... ............ ...... ....., ........... .... ........, .. .. ........ . ...... ...... ............., ... ... ........ ............., – ..... ........ ........ ‘.......’ .. ........ ‘.......’ ............. ..........., ........, ............... *keüken ‘.......’ .... ‘......., .....’ . ........., ........., ......... ...... (Nugteren 2011, 422). .. ... ................. *caka, .............. *caka ‘............. ......., .......’ ...... ........ .. ............. (Starostin, Dybo, Mudrak 2003, 437). ...., .......... ..... ........ ............... ..-......, ........ ..... ............ ....... .. ......... ............ ........... ..-......, .. .... ........ ......, ....... ... ............., ..... .. ....... ......... ..... ......................,.............................................., ... ... .....-.... ... ....., .. .........., ......... .. .......... ......, ........... .. .... ....... ......... ........, .... ... ..... ....., ........... ....... ...... . .............. ..... ..... ........ .... .... ....... .... .. ........., ... ......... ...... . ... ....... ........ ............ ....... ..... . ...... ...... ....., ... ... ........ .. .........., ........... ... .... ......... ...... ..... ......... . ....... . ............. ....... ......... ............. . ........... ....... . ........ ....... ...... .......... ..... .. ............... .............. ...... . ... , ..... . ..... ........ 187 ............., .... .. ..... .... ............. ........... cagar ‘...’, cagajrag ‘.........’, ...................... cokár ‘.....’,‘.........’,................ . ......... ..... .... – ........, .. ....... .......... ..... ........ ... .........., ........... cokár ‘.....’, ............. cukar ‘.....’, ‘..........’ (..... 1958, 286; ........ 1976, 154; .......-......... 1999, 128). .......... ...a., ..... – ....., ........., ........ ...... .. ...... ........ (......... 1999, 380). . ........ «............ ..... ..... «....» (.o...…); ...... .. .......... . ...... .... ........., ...... ....... ... ......., . ... ........ ................... .o....... .....«.....»,............. ............. ............. ...... .. ..... ......, . ..... ........ ........ ........... ..... .o..... .... ............ .............., . . .............. ........, .......... . .......... ........, .. ...... .. .......... ......... ......., .., .. ....... ....., ...... .... .............. ..... .. ......., . ... .. ......... .o..., .. . ..... .............. .........., .......... . ......; . .... ...... . ...... .......... ....... .. ........., .............. ..... . ......... .. .... ................ ......., .. .... ........ .......... ...., .......... ....., . .... ......., ........ . ...... ..., .......... ..... ....... ........... ........ ......,.............. .................,..., .........., .......... .... .........;........,.... ................ ..... ......... .. ....... ......., .. ........ ...... ..... ..... .... ......... ..........» (......., ........ 1911, 9). . ........ ‘..., ....., ........ ....., ......, ...............’ ........ ...... «.....» ............... . ......... ...... ......... ......., ......... . ........... ..... .. ......... ..... ..... ......... .......... (. ........) cakar ‘.....’, ............ cakar, ............ j’kyr, .......... c’.r, ................... ... T.a.a... (......). ........... ... . . ............ ......... ........ ........., .......... ........... ........ ... ........... .. ......... ............ ......kar- ‘......’. ........ . ..................... .......... (..... 1958, 286;.......-......... 1999, 128;......... 2001, 144;...... 2014, 98). ...... ... .......... ...... ....... .......... ......, ....... ... ......... . .... ...., ...... . ....... ........ .......... (Frye 1998, 81). ......... ......... ........ ... ..... ... che-chieh (Golden 2006, 21). ...... . ..... .... .... . ........ .......... ......... ............., . ........... ......... zan-i cakar – ‘.........’. ............ . ... ......... .......... . ....... ....... .... .... ...... ..... ........... . .......... ....... . ..... cakar . ........, .. ....... ...., . ........ ......, ........., .......... ........ .......... .......... ........, ...... .... ........ .... .. ..... . cakar ...... .... ....... . ...... .. ...... .............., ...... ........ . ....... ............... ...... (........... 1917, 29–31). .............. ....., ..... ........... ....., ..........., ..... ........ ‘.........’ (.... 2008, 244). . ........... ......... ... ..... (. .......... ............ jukor) ............. ...... . ........ ‘.......’ (Robertson 1896, 180; .......-......... 1999, 128). ..... ......., .... ............. ...... ..... ........ .......-.........., ................................ ..... ............ .... . .......... cagar ............. .............. ........... ..... .......... .... . .......... xćdzćr (..... 1989,160–161; ....... 1997, 163). .......... . ...... .......... ............. . ......... ......... .. ... ............ ......... .......-........ . .......... .... . ......... . .... .... . .......... ..................... .......... .. .: c’ammar – ....., cćppćr – ......., ......., cyrv, cirwć, ciwrć – ....., cybyr, cubur – ......., ......., cyrxyn, curxun – ....., cyt, citć – ....., ....., ....., cyxt, cigd – ..... . .... (..... 1958, 301, 317, 319–320, 326–330; ..... 1965, 31). ... ....... . ....... .... ......, ...... ......... ....... ....... ......., .. .........., «... .......... .... .... .. .. ......…» (...... 1821, 38–39). .......... ..... ......... ..... ........... .......,... ..... . .... –... ....... ...., . «....» ......... ... .. ..... .. .......... ........ ......., . .. ........... .. . ........ – ........... . ......., ...... . ......... (......... 1873, 100, 271). ......... ........ ........, ... «.... – ........, ..... – ....... . ...» (......... 1873, 287). . ........., .. .......... .. .... .. ........, .. ........ ..... .............. ................ ........ ............ ........ ... ....: «.. ..... ..... ...... ... ..... ....., . .. ..... .......»; «......., ........., ......., ........ ....., .. ..... ......, .. .... ......., ..... ............!» (..... . ..... ....... 1950, 19, 22, 22, 30, 42, 44). . ........... ........ ... 1170 ..... ..... ......... ..... . ............ – ........, .......... .....: «........ .. ...... .......... .... . .....» (.... 1871, 369–370). ...... ...... ............ ..... ..... . ........... ........, . ............ ........ . ............ ......... .... ......... .. .. .............. . .......... ........., ........., ....... ...... .... ........: «..... ..... ......... ... ..... .. .......... ... ........, ... ..... .. .. ..... .......» (.... 1871, 369); «..... .......... ..... ......…, .... .. .... ..... ..... ....» (.... 1843, 16; .... 1978, 78). . ...... ....... ..... ..... .......... ... ... ........... ........ ........... .... ......... ..... ..... ......... ....... .... ......... ......., ... ....... .......... ......, ....... ........ ...... (......... 1819, 68). .. ...... .............. ....... .........., «... ........ ....... ......... ......., ......... . .....» (........., 1844, 112). ..... ............ ............., ... ......... ......, ......... ............... ............ ..... ..... . ............ ......... ., ...... .. ...... ................., ..........., ... ... ........ «........-....» . ...... «........ ......., ........., ..............» (...... 1889, 397–399). ...... ......... ...... ........... ...... . ..., ......... ............. ....... ....... .......... ..... ..... .. ......... ....... ...... .............. ..... ... ........, .. . ...... ........ ... .... ....... .. ............. ... ........ ... ... ...... ......... ........ ....... .......... ........ ...... . ...... .. . ... , ..... . ..... ........ 189 ......... .... ........., ... ..... – «....... ........, ....... .. ....... ....., ......, . ....., .... ..... ...., ... . ....; ............. ..... (....?) ..... ... ...... ...... .. ...... . ...... ....., .. ........... .... ......» (...... 1890, 112–113). ............ ........ ................ ..... ..... «......... ... ....... ......, .......» (............ 1902, 19). ... .......... ........ .... ........ (Berneker 1908-1913, 586). .......... ........ (.......), ...... .. ........ ......, ..... . ..... ‘......... .. ....’ (....... 1967, 183). ........ ......... ..... .......... ........ ... ..... . ............ .. ................ ..... ‘........’ (.......... 1975, 16–18). .... ...... . ..... ............... ......., .......... .. ............., ....... ..... .. ..... .. ......................, ............... ......... ..... ‘.........’ (...... 1986, 362). ......... ...... ....... .. ......... ..... ‘........ .. ..... ...........’ (...... 1976, 202). ......, ...... .......... ..... ‘......, .........., ..........’, ......... ......... ..... ..... – ‘........ ....... .......’ (......, 1979, 113). ........ ......... .............. ..... ..... ‘.............. . ....’, .. ..... ‘.............. ....... (............. ........................... . ....’, ‘.....’, ‘......’, ....... ....................‘.... .......’ (........ 1976, 229; ........ 1985, 158). ........ ...... ... .. ....., .. . ........ ... . ................. ....... ............ ........................ ....... . ......... ........... . ............ . ............... ........ (....... 1980, 398; ............. 1989, 70). ........ ......... ........ ........., ..... . ..... ... .. ......., .. ....., ., ........, ...... ........... ....., ..... ............. ... (........ 1990, 129, 133). .. ..... .......... ..... ...... .. ................... . ........... .. .... .... ......... .......... ..... ......... ............. . ....... ....... ..... . .......... xast ‘....’, ‘......’, ‘........’. ... ................... ......... ......... .. xćssyn ‘.......’, ......., . .... ......., ........ . ......... *kaš-, *karš-, ... ........ ...... ............., .........., ........., .........., .........., ..........., ........... . ...... ........ ...... (..... 1989, 143, 189; ........ 2011, 299–300, 304). .. ..... .. ..... .......... ............ prk’s.- ‘........ . ......’ (.. -pari-kašia-), .......... prk’ ‘.........’, .......... .......... . ........... prkyš-, ........... . ............ prqyš- ‘............, ........, ........’, .......... ............ ptqyš- ‘............, ........ . ......, .......’, ........... p.d..a..- ‘.........., ..........; ............’ (.. -pati-karda-) (........ 2011, 304)........ . ..... ................................. .... ........... .. ......... ..... *kaš-, ... ............ .. .......... ........ .... *košc.(j.), ............. . ......-................... ...., ....., *k.šc.n.(j.), *k.šc.v.(j.) (............... 1984, 186–187). .. ........, . ........ ..... ..... ............. .......... .... ....... .......... ..... ..... ............ – ......, ....., ......... . .........., ........ ..... ........ ........ ........... (........... 2005, 178–179). ......., ......., ... ... ........... ....... ............ . .. ......, .. ........ ........, . .., ... ......... ......... ..........., ... «..........» ....... .....-.. ............ ......., . ....... .. .... ....., .. ............ .. .. ...., ..... ... ..... ..... ............. .. . ............ .......... (......... 2003, 68). ............., ... ...... ........ ..... ........... .. .......... . ....................,.... 1184.............. ... ...............«..... ...... ......... ......, .... .. ...... ............ ..........., ... ........ ............,............... .... .............,....50.... ........ .......». ........ .................. ........, ...... «............... .... ........». . ..... .. ...... .......... ...... .... ..........., ...... ............., . ....................................................., ........ .... ........... ....... ...... ....., .. ......... ......... .......... . ......... .......... ........... ....... ......... . .... ....... .... ......., «. ..... ........... ..., . .... .. ...... ..... ...., .. . .... .. .......... ......... .. ..........» (....1871, 428–429; ....... 1774, 259). ..... ......., ...... ......... ........ ...... .. ....... ..... ............ ........ .......... .... ............ ............ .. .......... ...... ..... .. ........., ..... ... . ...... .. ................................. «......-...........» (......... 1863, 92). .. ...... ............ ....... ........ .. .., ... ........, ....... ........ ..... ....., ..... .. ...... . ....... . .............. ......., ... . .. ..... ............. ............ ........ .......... . ..........-........, ............ ..-......... ...., .. .... «......», – ..-.. ....., ............. .. ....... ...... (....) .......... .......... .... ... ......., ........ ............. ...... (...). ............ ........, ....... ........... .......10. ......................,......,. .............., ..... . ....... ........ ...........-............, ........ .. ... ......... ............. ...... ...... .......... .......... .......... ...-.-..... .. ... ........ . . ...... . XII ..... ....... .......... ... .... ....... ...... ................ ................................. ........, ..... ..-.... . ......... . ........., ........, ........ ...... ......... .......... . 1220 ...., ........., ... ............ . ...... ......... ...... ......... ..... . ...-.-....., .. ..... ........ . ...... ......... ......., .. ...... ...... . ........... ... ...... ..... ..-... .......... ... ..... ... ........... ........ ....... ... ... ..... .......... ......... ........ ....... . ....... ........, ....... ...... ...... ......... ....... .. ..... ........... «..........» ....... (............ 1902, 25–28). .. ......... .............., ........... ...... .... ........ ....... .........., ......, .................. .... .......... ........... ......-..., ... ...... ........ ............. ...... .. ....... .........., ............ . ... ...... ..... .... .. ........, .......... .... ........ .........., ........ ........ ..... .. 10 .. .. ......... .. 500 . . ..... . ... , ..... . ..... ........ 191 (.. 1000 .), ....... ....., . ....... ....... ..... .... ........... ...... .. ..... .............. ......... ..... . ....... .............. ... ...... . .......... . ................. ... . ... ............ .... ........... .......... . ........ .. ...... ... ....... ......, .. . ...... ........ ..... ....... ...... ... ....... ...... .. ...... ..... ........... .. ......... . .... ......... . ....... ...... ..., . ..... .... .... . ......... ... ....... ..... .... ..... ...... ............ .. 5,5 ., ....... ............ ....... ...... ..... . ......... .. 20 ......... ..... ..... ..... ........... ...... (....... 1979, 249–250). ... .... ............... ....... ....... ........, ............ ... ......., .. ....... ...... . .. ...... ........... (............ 1902, 26; ........ 1990, 136; ....... 2000, 153–154). . ....... .. «..........» .... ........... (...... 1979, 180–181; ...... 2007, 94–97), ..... «.....» ..... .......... .. .. ...., . ... ... .. ...., «......». .......... ....... ..... ............ ... ........... .. ....... ........ ............ .... ........... ...... ..... II ............. .. 1298 ...., ........ ........ ........ ..... ...... .... ....... «... ..... ..... ....... .... ............, ..... .... . ......... ....... . ........, . .......... . ....... .. ........ ............» (...... 2016, 309). «...........» ........ . ....... ....... ...... ....... ........... (...... 2007, 92–94), . ........ ........ – .............. (........ 1990, 136). ..... ......., .......... ......., ..., .. ......... ...... ....., ........ ..... ........ ........... ........­......., ......... ..... ............, ... ...... .............. ......... .. ............ ...... ... ........ ....... . .... ......... .... .. ....... ........ .... ........ .... ............ ......... ...... .......... ............... ...... .............. . .......... ..... ......, . ...... . ..... ........ .... ......, ... ........... ....... .... ........ (........ 1990, 14–22), – ........, .......... . ............... .... ....., .......... ... . ....... . .......... ......... ........ . ....... ..........., ........ .......... ... ...... ..... ............. ..... ... ......... .......... .... ... . ...... (...) – ... ........... . .......... .......... . ..... .. .............. ......., ..... ... ........ .. ... . .......... .. ............ ....... ..... ... .. ........ .... ........ .... (.... 1871, 168). ... .. ...... .......... ......... .... . ......, . ... .......... ... . ............... ...... ... ....... ............................. ...... .................. ............. ..., ... .......... ..... . ...... ... ....... (...... 1868, 54). .... .. .... .... .. ......, ....... . ..... .......... ...... . ....... ...... ..... ........ ..... ... ...... .. ......, ... ........ ....., ..... . ...... ... .. ..... ...., . ......... ............ ......... .......... ..... .............. ........, . ....... ...... ...... ...... ......... ... ... ...... .. ... . .......... .. . ............ ........ ...., ..., .... . ..... ....., ......... .........., ......... ..... ..... ..... . ..... ......... . ..... ....... ....... ..... ...... ...... .... . ...... .......... ....... ..... .... ......, ....... ...... ...... ........ (...... 1871, 34–35; ......... 1925, 90; ..... 1989, 253;.....2005, 390,404,552).. ................... ........... ........, ....... ........ ..... ........ ..... (......... 1925, 90). ...... ....... .......... ...... ........ .. ..... ..... .. ..... ..... (...... 1881, 44–45). ..... .......... ....... .... . ..... ........ ......... ...., ..... .... . ...... ........ ............ (......... 1925, 90–91). ..... ........ . ............ . .. .. ......... ...... ..... ......... . .... ..... ...... . ............ ........ ....... .........., .. ......... ..... . ........ .. ........ .............. ........,......... ......... .... ....... .. ............. ...... – ....... (........), ........ ........ ........ «...... ......... ............... ... ........... ......, .. ............ – . ....., . ......» (........ 1990, 17–18, 38, 42, 62; ........ 1976, 59, 62–63; ..... 1990, 185, 248; ......... 2003, 92–93). ........ ...... .... .... ..... ....., ... ... .. ...... ...... ..... ....... ... ...... (....... 1979, 242; ........ 2003, 92–93). ..... ...... ....... ........ ..... .......... ..... . .......... ... . ............ ........ ....-......, ......... ...... ..... ..... . ........ .. ........... ...... ........, ...... ......... ....-...... . ...... ... ........ ........ ...... (...... 1876, 19–20; ....... 2003, 40). ............ .. ....., ...... ......... ........ ..., ............. .......... . ............... .....-...... ..........., ... .... ........ ..... ........ (..... 2005, 390). .......... ... ..... ..... ..... (.........), .. ....... ...... ........... .......... ..... . ..... ..... .......... ... . ........ .... ....., ...... ...... ........ ......... – ...... ... .... (...... 1881, 22–23). . . ........, ... ...... ......... ........ ...... ...... . ........ ....... ... ...... .... ......, ..... (..ć..ć...), .. ....... .. ........, ........... ........... ........ ... ............ ..., ... ..... ........... (...... 1936, 40–43). . ....... ........ .. ....... ..... ...... ......... ........ ..., ..... ......... .... ......., .... ............... ......-......, .......... ............. (...... 1936, 125–126; .... 2007, 220–221). . ...... ........ ...... ........... ........ .... .. ... . .......... .. . ........... ........ ......-....... ... ... ... ......... .......... – .... . ....... ... ...... ... ... ..... .... ........ ......, .......... .. ...., ......... ..... ...... (........... ....), ... ............ ............. .. ......, ........ .........., ......... .. ... ...... ......... ..... ....... .... ..., ...... ....... .......... ..........., . ......... ....... .. .... .......... .... (.... 1871, 168). .... . ...... ..... ........... . .. ...... ......., .., ...... .............. ....., ....... .......... .......... ... ....., .. ......... ........ ..... . ........ .......... ........... .. ......... ........... (......... 1928, 25). .........., ... ...... ..... ...... ............... ..... ........... ..... ....... ...... ..... ....... . 1814 ...., ........ . ....... ......, .... ...., ....., ... «....... ........, ......... . ......... ...... ..........., ....... ............ ....... ......... .. ...... .........., . ... , ..... . ..... ........ 193 ..... ......, ............. .... .......... . ..... . .. ....... .......... . .....» (....... 2008, 107; ........ 1977, 95). . ......... ............. ......... ........ .... .. ..... ..... ....... ...... ... ..... ....... ......., ..... ...... .. ... ... ....... ...... .. ........ ......... .. .. ....... ......., .......... ..... .. ..., ....... ........ . ......... ......... ..... ......, ........ .. ....., ........ .. ...... (............ 1936, 60; ........ 1990, 30). ... ... ...... ............. ... ........ ........ ......... . .......... ....-.. ..... .......... (..... 1949, 320), .. ...... . .............. ....... ........... ..... .... ...... ....., . .... ........ ....... ........ ......... .... . ..., ... ............, ....... ..... ........... ....... . ........ ... .........., .............. ........... ........... .. . .... ......... .... . ....., .. . .... ......­.. ..... ........ ............ .........., ....... ... ..... .......... ... ....... (........), .... .........., ... ....... ......... ..... .... . ...... . .......... ......, ... ...... ........ .. ..... ....... ...... ............. ...., . .......... ..................................... ......-........, ............. ...... ... ...... ........ ...., . ....., .......... ... ...... ....... ......, ........... . ...... ..... ........, . ...... ... .. ........, .... ..... ....... . .......: ... ..... ........ . ..... ...... .......... ... ........... ... ..... (....... 1979, 240, 242, 247). ... .......... .......... ........... «...........». ........... ..... ....... ..........., ... ..... ......... ..... ....... ... ....... ... ........ ......... . ............... ....... ....... .. .............. . ............... ............ ....... .......... .... ........ ... ................, ......... .. ................ ........ .......... .. ...... ...... ........... . ........ ........... .... .... I . .......... ............ ... . ....... ..... .. .......... ..... .... ........... .... ... .... ...... .... ......., ....... . ........... ....... ...... ...... ..... .... . . ........ ..... I, ........... ...., . ....... .... . . ......, . ..... .. ....... ....... .... . ....................., ....... ..... ..... ... .... ........., ....... . ....... ..... ... .......... ...... .. ..... ........ ...... ........... ... ... ...... .......... ....... ....., ... «....» . «.....», ........... . .......... ......... (....... 1979, 250, 251). .. .... .......... ......., ....... ........ .. ........, ...... ....., .............. ... . .....-.......... ....., . ..... ................ . ............ . ......... ......-........... ..... ... ......... . ...-.-.... ..... . ...... ....:. ............................. . ......... ....... .......... ........ .......... .......... ....... ...... ..... (....., ....., ......, .....), ....... ........ . ............... (............) ..... «......», ....... .............. ...., .............. ..... ... ........... .... .. ....... ......... ...... .......... ......... .... ..... ........... ...... . ..... ......... ........ ....... .. ....... ... ...... .. .......... ......, . ......................... .............,..... ........... ........ ...... .......... (....... 1979, 238–239, 247, 249, 254–255). . . ........ . .... ......, ......... ......, ........... ....... ......, .. ....... ........ ....., – «...... ......» (......... 1925, 29, 37; ....... 1979, 244–245). ......... «.... ......» ... ... ............. ........... ...-.-.... (....... 1979, 255–256). ... .... .. .............. ....... ....., ....... ....... ..... ..... . ......... ............ ....... . ....... ...... ... .......... .. .............. ....... ....., ... ... .....-............ ..... ................ ....., ..... ............ ....... ... ........... ........, ......... ............. ......, ..... ........... ................. ....... . .......... ......-......... ......... ........ ...... . ......... ....., ..... ........, ... ...... ........... ..... ........ ....... ... ..... .. ......, . ... ............... .................... ........ 1182 ....: «..... ......... .......... ............. ..... 2 ...., .. ..... ... ........., . .. ......... ..... .. .......... ............, .......... ......; ..... .. ..... ......» (.... 1871, 422). ...... ........, ... ... ......... ..... .......... ............. ........ . ........... ..... ........ ....... .... ...... .. .... ......., ....... .. .............. ... ..... .... ......... – .........., . ... ... .... ......... ........ ........... ........ ........, ... . 1205 .... «. 19 ..... .......... ....... ....... ..... ...........». . ..... . .... «........... ........ . ....... ....... ......... ......... ...... .. .... .. ......... ... ..... ... ......... . ....». .... ......, ... .... .... . ........ ... ......­...., ....... . 1116 .... ............. ..... ....... ............ ......... . «....» (.... 1856, 112; ....... 1997, 122). .. ..... ............, ... ..... ......... ......, ........... .. ......... .... . ........ ..... ...... . .... ......, ........ . ..... .. . .......... .... ............. ............. .......... .., ... . ......... ...... ...... . ......, ....... ....... . ........ ......... ........ .....-........, .......... .. ....... ..... ......., «..... ........» ..... .......... ....... ..... ..... ............ ......... ..... ........... ....., ....... ....... ......, ........ .......... ..... .. ..... ......... ............ ........... ............. ........ ........ ........ ...... ..... .. .... ...... .......... ........ .... ........ ..... . ......, .......... ... .. ... ....... ...... ......... ............., .... .. ....... ......, ........, ....... .................., . .. ........ ....... ...... ....., ... ..... ........... .......... ...... ............ ........... ...... ....... ......, . ..... ......., . ..... ........ ............, . ......, .........., ........ .................. ........ ..... ......., .. ............. ......... ............... ........., . ... .........., ........, ............ ............... ............., ....... .............. .. .... .......... ....., ........ . ..... ........, .....­........... ........ . ... , ..... . ..... ........ 195 .......... ....., ...., 1990: ......... .....: ......., ........, .........., ............ [Abajev, V.I., 1990: Izbrannyje trudy: Religija, folklor, literatura, Vladikavkaz.] ....., ...., 1958: ........-............... ....... ........... ....., .. I: .–.’, ......, .......... [Abajev, V.I., 1958: Istoriko-etimologiceskij slovar osetinskogo jazyka, t. I: A–K’, Moskva, Leningrad.] ....., ...., 1989: ........-............... ....... ........... ....., .. IV. U–Z. .........: ...... [Abajev, V.I., 1989: Istoriko-etimologiceskij slovar osetinskogo jazyka, t. IV: U–Z, Leningrad.] ....., ...., 1949: .......... .... . ........, .. 1, ......-.......... [Abajev, V.I., 1949: Osetinskij jazyk i folklor, t. 1, Moskva-Leningrad.] ....., ...., 1965: .....-........... .......... .. ..... ....... . ......, ....... [Abajev, V.I., 1965: Skifo-jevropejskije izoglossy. Na styke Vostoka i Zapada, Moskva.] ......., ...., 1979: ......... ....... .......... .........: ...... . ............ .. .......... ..... . ........., ............. [Alborov, B.A., 1979: Nekotoryje voprosy osetinskoj filologii: statji i issledovanija ob osetinskom jazyke i folklore, Ordzhonikidze.] ......., ...., ........, ...., 1911: ......... .. .......... ........ ...... ....... ..... ....... . ....., .....-.......... [Andrejev, M.S., 1911: Polovtsov, A.A., Materialy po etnografii iranskih plemen Srednej Azii. Iškašim i Vahan, Sankt-Peterburg.] ........., ...., 1863: ........ ....... ......, ....... I . II, ....... [Afanasjev, A.N., 1863: Narodnyje russkije skazki, vypuski I i II, Moskva.] ......, ...., 1889: ..... . ..... ....... ... .............. ........ ........ ......... ....: ............, .. III. ............ «.....». .-., ....... [Barsov, Je.V., 1889: Slovo o polku Igoreve kak hudožestvennyj pamjatnik Kijevskoj družynnoj Rusi: Izsledovanije, t. III. Leksikologija “Slova”. A-M, Moskva.] ........, ...., 1976: ........ – .......... ............ . «..... . ..... .......», in: Turcologica. . ............... ......... .. .. ........, ........., 225– 234. [Baskakov, N.A., 1976: Tjurkizmy – socyalnaja terminologija v “Slove o polku Igoreve”, in: Turcologica. K semidesjatiletiju akademika A.N. Kononova, Leningrad, 225–234.] ........, ...., 1985: ........ ....... . «..... . ..... .......», ....... [Baskakov, N.A., 1985: Tjurkskaja leksika v “Slove o polku Igoreve”, Moskva.] ......., .., ....., ..... ........., 1854: ...... ....... ....... ........ ..­.......... 1854 ...., in: ..........., .....-............ ......, ... VI, . 21, ... 2, .... IV, 68–71. [Berezin, I., Igor, knyaz Severskiy, 1854: Poema. Perevod Nikolaya Gerbelya. S.-Peterburg. 1854 goda, in: Moskvitjanin, uceno-literaturnyj žurnal, tom VI, . 21, kn. 2, otd. IV, 68–71.] ............, ...., 2005: ..... «..... . ..... ........» .. ........ ......... ...., ..... [Brajcevskyj, M.Ju., 2005: Avtor «Slova o polku Igorevim» ta kultura Kiyivskoyi Rusi, Kyyiv.] ......., .., 1997: ... . ........ . ...... ......... ...... (VI – ...... XIII ...), ..... [Bubenok, O., 1997: Jasy i brodniki v stepyakh Vostocnoj Jevropy (VI – nachalo XIII vv.), Kiyev.] ......, .., 1821: ..... . ..... . ..... ....., .: ....... ......, ......., . 19, 34–63. [Butkov, P., 1821: Necto k slovu o polku Igorja, in: Vestnik Yevropy, October, . 19, 34–63.] ......, ...., 2016: ........ ... ....... .......... ........ ............ ......... ............ XIV .., .....-.......... [Varjaš, I.I., 2016: Saracyny pod vlastju aragonskih koroley. Issledovanije pravovogo prostranstva XIV v., Sankt-Peterburg.] ........., ...., 1873: ......... .. ..... . ..... ......., .....-.......... [Vjazemskij, P.P., 1873: Zamecanija na Slovo o plku Igoreve, Sankt-Peterburg.] ........, ...., 1977: ......... ....... ............. ......... ....., ......... [Gaglojti, Ju.S., 1977: Nekotoryje voprosy istoriografii nartskogo eposa, Tskhinvali.] ......., 1972: ....... . ...... ......, ....... . .......... .... .............., .......... [Herodotus, 1972: Istorija v devjati knigakh, perevod i primecanija G.A. Stratanovskogo, Leningrad.] ......., .., 2003: ..... ...., .......... . .....: ...... ...... . ...... ........, .: .... . ......... ...... . ....... ........, ..........., 6–81. [Grisvard, J., 2003: Motiv meca, brošennogo v ozero: smert Artura i smert Batradza, in: Epos i mifologija osetin i mirovaja kultura, Vladikavkaz, 6–81.] ........., ...., 2003: .......... .... . .........., ........ [Dziccojty, Yu.A., 2003: Nartovskij epos i Amiraniani, Chinval.] ........., .., 1844: ..... . ..... ......., .......... ......... ....... ........ ........... .. ....... .......... .........., ....... [Dubenskiy, D., 1844: Slovo o plku Igoreve, Svtslavlja pjestvortsa starogo vremeni. Objasnennoje po drevnim pismennym pamjatnikam, Moskva.] ........, .., 1976: .......... .... . ........., ....... [Dumézil, G., 1976: Osetinskij epos i mifologija, Moskva.] ........, .., 1990: ..... . ....., ....... [Dumézil, G., 1990: Skify i narty, Moskva.] ........, .., 2003: ......... .......... ....., .: .... . ......... ...... . ....... ........, ..........., .. 89–94. [Dumézil, G., 2003: Dostojanije nartovskih rodov, in: Epos i mifologija osetin i mirovaja kultura, Vladikavkaz, s. 89–94.] ............. ....... ........... ....: . .... ...... .. 3. ....-.. ...., 1989. [Etymolohicnyj slovnyk ukrajinskoji movy: U semy tomakh. T. 3. Kora-M. Kyjiv, 1989.] ......, ...., 2014: ........ ...... ......... ...... . ......... ......., ............ [Zurajev, F.A., 2014: Severnyje irantsy Vostochnoj Jevropy i Severnogo Kavkaza, Vladikavkaz.] ..........., .., 1917: ............... ...... . ........... ........., .: ....... .......... ......... ........ ................ ........, ........., .. 24, .. 29–32. [Inostrantsev, K., 1917: Sredneaziatskij termin v sasanidskom sudebnike, in: Zapiski Vostocnogo otdelenija Russkogo arkheologiceskogo obšcestva, Petrograd, t. 24, s. 29–32.] .... ..ć... ..ć........ ....ć ...., ...ć... .ć ...ć.... .., ...... ..., ..ć......ć., 2007. [Iron adćmon sfćldystad. Dyuuć tomy, sarćzta yć Salćgaty Z., fytstsag tom, Dzćudžykhću, 2007.] ......., ....., ..... ... ...... .....: ........... .........., ........, 1967. [Ilarion, mytr., Slovo pro Igoriv pokhíd: literaturna monografija, Vinnipeg, 1967.] ............ ........, ..... ........ .... ......, ............. ......, ........... . ....... .... ....., ......-........., 1936. [Kabardinskij folklor, obšcaja redakcyja T.I. Brojdo, vstupitelnaja statja, kommentarii i slovar M.Je. Talpa. Moskva-Leningrad, 1936.] . ... , ..... . ..... ........ 197 ......, ..., 1890: .. ...... ..... «.....» «..... . ..... .......» . ........ ........, in: ....... .............. ......., ......., . 1, 112–113. [Kallaš, Vl., 1890: Po povodu slova “košcej” “Slova o polku Igoreve” i Ipatskoj letopisi, in: Russkij filologiceskiy vestnik, Varšava, . 1, 112–113.] ........, ...., 1842: ....... ........... ..........., ..... I (.... I, II, III . IV.), .....-.......... [Karamzin, N.M., 1842: Istorija gosudarstva Rossijskogo, kniga I (tomy I, II, III i IV.), Sankt-Peterburg.] ........., .., 1999: .........-....... ......., .. 3. .–., ....... [Karamšojev, D., 1999: Šugnansko-russkij slovar, t. 3. T–C. Moskva.] ........., ..., 1987: ............ .. .......... ..........., ....-.... [Kenesbayev, S.K., 1987: Issledovaniya po kazakhskomu yazykoznaniyu, Alma-Ata.] ......., .., 2008: ........ ....... .. ....... . ...... . 1807 . 1808 ....., ........ [Klaproth, J., 2008: Opisanije pojezdok po Kavkazu i Gruzii v 1807 i 1808 godah, Nalcik.] ........., .., 1989: ... ...... «..... . ..... ........», ..... [Mahnovec, L., 1989: Pro avtora “Slova o polku Igorevim”, Kyjiv.] ............, .., 1902: ........ ........ . ..... «..... . ..... .......», .....­.......... [Melioranskij, P., 1902: Tureckije elementy v jazyke “Slova o polku Igoreve”, Sankt-Peterburg.] ......, ...., 1979: ......... ........ . «..... . ..... .......». .......... [Menges, K.H., 1979: Vostocnyye elementy v “Slove o polku Igoreve”, Leningrad.] ......, .., 1881: .......... ...... ..... ....... .......... ......, .: ...... ....... .............. ........... ............. ..... ........­.............., .... 1, ....... [Miller, V., 1881: Osetinskije etyudy. Chast pervaja. Osetinskije teksty, in: Ucenyje zapiski imperatorskogo Moskovskogo universiteta. Otdel istoriko-filologiceskij, vyp. 1, Moskva.] ...... .......... ........... ...., ........... .... ......... . .... ......., ... 2, ......, 1989. [Narty. Osetinskij geroiceskij epos, sostaviteli T.A. Hamicajeva i A.H. Bjazyrov, kn. 2, Moskva, 1989.] ..... .......ć: .... ..ć.. ...., ......ć ...ć..ć ....., ..... ć.ć ........ ...ć... .ć...... ..; ....... ........ ......... .., ć....... ....., ..ć......ć., 2005. [Narty kaddžytć: Iron adćmy epos, teksttć bacćttć kodta, cinyg ćmć dzyrduat sarćzta Hćmycaty Tamarć; zonadon redaktor Džykkayty Š., ćrtykkag chinyg, Dzćudžykhću, 2005.] Nugteren, H., 2011: Mongolic Phonology and Qinghai-Gansu Languages, Utrecht. ..........., .., 1876: ..... . ..... .......: ......... ........ ....... ............ XII. ..... ..... . .......... . . ..........., ...... [Ogonovskyj, O., 1876: Slovo o plku Igoreve: Poetychnyj pamjatnyk ruskoji pysmennosti XII. viku. Tekst s perekladom i s poyasnenjami, Lviv.] ......... ......... .......... ....... .......... ........ ........, ...... I, ..........., 1925. [Pamjatniki narodnogo tvorcestva osetin. Nartovskije narodnyje skazanija, vypusk I, Vladikavkaz, 1925.] ......... ......... .......... ....... . ...... ..... ........, ..........., ....... .. ....... .... . .......... .... ......., .... 3, ..........., 1928. [Pamyatniki narodnogo tvorcestva osetin. V zapisi Cocko Ambalova, predislovije, perevod na russkij jazyk i primecanija G.G. Bekojeva, vyp. 3, Vladikavkaz, 1928.] ....... .., 2000: «..... . ..... .......» (.... . ... ...........), .: ....... ....... .....: .. ........ ....... ........., ......, .. 142–158. [Plautin, S., 2000: “Slovo o polku Igoreve” (Spor o jego podlinnosti), in: Velikoje russkoje slovo: Iz nasledija russkoj emigracyi, Moskva, s. 142–158.] ........, ...., 1990: ......., ....... [Pletneva, S.A., 1990: Polovcy, Moskva.] ........., .., 1819: ..... . ..... ..... ............ ......... ..... .......... .........., ..... ............ ...... ........., . ................ .........., .....-.......... [Požarskij, J., 1819: Slovo o polku Igorja Svjatoslavica udelnogo knjazja Novagoroda Severskogo, vnov pereložennoje Jakovom Požarskim, s prisovokuplenijem primecanij, Sankt-Peterburg.] ...... ........ ....... ........., ..2. ........ .. ......... ....... ....... ................ ........, .....­........., 1871. [Polnoje sobranije russkih letopisej, t.2. Letopis po Ipatskomu spisku. Izdanije Arheograficeskoj komissii, Sankt-Peterburg, 1871.] ...... ........ ....... ........., ..III. ............ ........, .....-........., 1843. [Polnoje sobranije russkih letopisej, t.III. Novgorodskiye letopisi, Sankt-Peterburg, 1843.] ...... ........ ....... ........., ..VII. ........ .. .............. ......, .....-........., 1856. [Polnoje sobranije russkih letopisej, t.VII: Letopis po Voskresenskomu spisku, Sankt-Peterburg, 1856.] ...... ........ ....... ........., ... 34. ............., ............, .......... . ........ .......... ......, 1978. [Polnoje sobranije russkih letopisej, tom 34. Postnikovskij, Piskarjovskij, Moskovskij i Belskij letopistsy. Moskva, 1978.] ....., ...., 1949: ....... . ...., in: ...... ....... .............. ................ ............. ..... ............ ...., .... 14 (. 112), 94–119. [Popov, A.I., 1949: Kypcaki i Rus, in: Ucenyje zapiski Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya istoriceskikh nauk, vyp. 14 (. 112), 94–119.] ......., ......, 1914: I. ..... . ..... .......: ..... . .......... . ........... .. ........ ......... «. .........». II. .......... ........... ..... XVI ...., ........ [Potebnja, Al.Af., 1914: I. Slovo o polku Igoreve: tekst i primecanija s dopolnenijem iz cernovyh rukopisej “O Zadonšcine”. II. Objasnenije malorusskoj pesni XVI veka, Kharkov.] ......, .., 2007: .... . ... .... ........ «..... . ..... ........», ..... [Pritsak, O., 2007: Koly i kym bulo napysano “Slovo o polku Igorevim”, Kyjiv.] ...., .., 1871: ........... .. ....... ........ ...... (. ........), in: ....... ........ . ......., .... 1, ......, 127–176. [Pfaf, V., 1871: Putešestvije po uššeljam Severnoj Osetii (s risunkom), in: Sbornik svedenij o Kavkaze, vyp. 1, Tiflis, 127–176.] ........., ...., 2003: «..... .....» . «..... . ..... ........», ..... [Sklyarenko, V.G., 2003: “Temni miscja” v “Slovi o polku Igorevim”, Kyjiv.] ....... ........ ..... XI–XVII ... ...... 7 (.–........). ......,1980. [Slovar’ russkogo jazyka XI–XVII vv. Vypusk 7 (K–Kraguyar’). Moskva, 1980.] ..... . ..... ......., ... .... .... ..........-......, ......-........., 1950. [Slovo o polku Igoreve, pod red. V.P. Adrianovoj-Peretc, Moskva-Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, 1950.] Starostin S., Dybo A., Mudrak O., 2003: Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages, Part One [A-K], Leiden-Boston. . ... , ..... . ..... ........ 199 .......-........., ...., 1999: ............... ....... .......... ....., .....­.......... [Steblin-Kamenskij, I.M., 1999: Etimologiceskij slovar vahanskogo jazyka, Sankt-Peterburg.] .........., ...., 1975: .. . .: ..... ................ ........, ....-.... [Sulejmenov, O.O., 1975: Az i Ya: Kniga blagonamerennogo chitatelja, Alma-Ata.] ......., ...., 1774: ....... .......... . ..... .......... ...... .......... ....... ..... ........ ... ......... . ........., ... 3, ....... [Tatišcev, V.N., 1774: Istorija rossijskaja s samyh drevnejših vremion neusypnymi trudami cherez tridcat ljet sobrannaja i opisannaja, kn. 3, Moskva.] ........., ...., 2001: ....... . ..... . IV .. .. .... – I ......, ............ [Tuallagov, A.A., 2001: Sarmaty i alany v IV v. do n.e. – I v.n.e., Vladikavkaz.] ......, .., 1986: ............... ....... ........ ...... ... II: . – .... ....... [Fasmer, M., 1986: Etimologiceskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. Tom II: Je – Muž. Moskva.] ......, .., 1986: ............... ....... ........ ...... ... IV: . – ..... ....... [Fasmer, M., 1986: Etimologiceskij slovar russkogo jazyka. Tom II: T – Jašcur. Moskva.] ...... ........ ........, ........... . ........... .. ........, ........, 1936. [Xussar Irystony folklor, predisloviye i kommentarii A. Tibilova, Stalinir, 1936.] ...., ..., 2008: ...... ............. ........ ........... ........., ............ [Cheung, J., 2008: Ocherki istoricheskogo razvitiya osetinskogo vokalizma, Vladikavkaz.] ......, .., 1876: .. .......... ........ . ......, in: ....... ........ . .......... ......, .... IX, ......, 1–64. [Šanajev, G., 1876: Iz osetinskih skazanij o nartah, in: Sbornik svedenij o kavkazskih gorcah, vyp. IX, Tiflis, 1–64.] ......, ..., 1871: .......... ........ ........, in: ....... ........ . .......... ......, .... V, ......, 2–37. [Šanajev, Dž., 1871: Osetinskije narodnyje skazanija, in: Sbornik svedenij o kavkazskih gortsah, vyp. V, Tiflis, 2–37.] ......, ...., 1976: ....... ......... . ....... ....e, ....-.... [Shypova, Ye.N., 1976: Slovar tjurkizmov v russkom jazyke, Alma-Ata.] ......, .., 1868: .......... ......, ......... .... ........ . .... ........, .....-.......... [Schifner, A., 1868: Osetinskije teksty, sobrannyje Dan. Conkadze i Vas. Tsorajevym, Sankt-Peterburg.] ........, ...., 2011: ............... ....... ........ ......, .. 4 (i—k), ....... [Edelman, D.I., 2011: Etimologiceskij slovar iranskih jazykov, t. 4 (i—k), Moskva.] ............... ....... .......... ....... ............. ........... ..... .... 11. *kon.c. — *kot.na(ja), ... ......... .... .......... ......, 1984. [Etimologiceskij slovar slavjanskikh jazykov. Praslavjanskij leksiceskij fond. Issue 11.*kon.c. — *kot.na(ja), edited by O.N. Trubacov, Moskva, 1984.] ......, ...., 2006: ..... . ..... ........ .. ......... ........ ........ ...... ......., ..... [Jacenko, B.I., 2006: Slovo o polku Igorevim jak istorycne džerelo. Tajemnyci davnih pysmen, Kyjiv.] Berneker, E., 1908–1913: Slavisches etymologisches Wterbuch. Erster Band. A-L. Heidelberg. Frye, R.N., 1998: Ossete-Central Asian Connections, in: Studia iranica et alanica: Festschrift for Prof. Vasilij Ivanovic Abaev on the Occasion of His 95th Birthday, Roma, vol. LXXXII, p. 79–83. Golden, P.B., 2006: Turks and Iranians: A Historical Sketch, in: Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas: Historical and Linguistic Aspects, Wiesbaden, p. 17–38. Korsch, Th., Fr. Miklosich, 1885: Die türkischen Elemente in den südost- und osteuropäischen Sprachen (griechisch, albanisch, rumunisch, bulgarisch, serbisch, kleinrussisch, grossrussisch, polnisch), in: Archiv f slawische Philologie, Berlin: Achter Band, 637–651. Robertson, G.S., 1896: The Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush, London. CHAGA, KOSHCHEY AND LIVING SHERESHYRS KOSTYANTYN RAKHNO One of the most difficult episodes to interpret in the Tale of Igor’s Campaign is the author’s address to the Grand Prince of Vladimir, Vsevolod Yuryevich, who held great military power: Great Prince Vsevolod! Do you not think of flying here from afar to safeguard the paternal golden throne? For you can with your oars scatter in drops the Volga, and with your helmets scoop dry the Don. If you were here, a chaga would fetch one nogata, and a koshchey, one rezana; for you can shoot on land living shereshyrs [these are] the bold sons of Gleb! According to the poet, Vsevolod could even chastise the Volga and the Don river areas, occupied by the peoples of Steppe, just like the ancient Persian kings had chastised the rivers and seas. It is characteristic that the words used for fe­male and male slave – chaga and koshchey – are apparently borrowed from the Northeastern Iranian languages, which are close to modern Ossetian. However, the biggest mystery is the idiomatic expression “living shereshyr” – meaning special arrows. The first publishers of the poem compared it with the chronicle about the Polovtsian Khan, Konchak, who had acquired ballistas (huge crossbows on carts) that shot ‘living fire’ and hired a Muslim specialist to operate them for the siege of the Ruthenian cities. This formidable weapon was captured . ... , ..... . ..... ........ 201 by the Ruthenian princes. In the poet’s words, Vsevolod could shoot the vassal warrior princes (the sons of Gleb Rostislavich) like living fire arrows from the ballista (tir-i-charkh). There are no analogies in this metaphor. The only parallel of such an unusual mythological image can be traced to the Nart epic of the Ossetians, the Batraz cycle. Nart Batraz, as Iranists have proven convincingly, is a character that goes back to the ancient Iranian god of thunder, even known by the Scythians. In several versions of the legend of Batraz, the hero is sometimes described as using his metal body as a projectile – in several versions, an arrow. In one legend, Batraz demands to be put on a bow and shot towards the Black Sea, where he hardens his Damascus steel body. Batraz also has himself bound to the arrow, which carries him to the enemy city or army. In some versions, the Nart knight orders a bow to be made that is so large that 12 pairs of bulls can hardly pull it. More often, the weapon is calleda cannon and Batraz is the cannonball. It falls like a lump of fire, melting and burning everything in its path, and destroys an impregnable stronghold. There is another variant in which Batraz asks the Narts to put him like an arrow in the bow and shoot him at the impregnable fortress of Uarp or Gur or Xiz. The hero, unharmed, breaches the wall of the fortress with his body. In later versions of this story, instead of a bow and arrow, a large can­non of the wealthy Boratć family appears, which Batraz had asked for. Twelve or sixteen pairs of bulls driven by the most eminent Narts are harnessed to the Boratć’s cannon. It is believed that these weapons were initially the siege engines encountered by the ancestors of the Ossetians, Scythians and Sarmatians. This means that the Batraz myth, in which he is fired from a ballista, was most likely formed back in the Scythian-Sarmatian era and was then ‘modernised’ with the development of military engineering. Thus, the ‘living arrows’ in the poem liken the sons of Prince Gleb Rostislavich with the hero of the Nart epic, who was fired from a giant wheeled crossbow. The source of this metaphor was the capture of the Polovtsian ballista by one of these princes. Even the terms chaga and koshchey for a female and male slave (mentioned as potential trophies of Vsevolod of Vladimir), whose price will fall, are due to the appearance of the Iranian, not Turkic, languages. Most likely, these are traces of the ethnic substrate of the Slavs. The close family ties between the Ruthenian princes and the Alanian aristocratic families created cultural contacts between both peoples. However, the elements of North Iranian folklore, with its mythology, poetry and shamanism, throughout the poem date back to the more ancient Scythian-Sarmatian period. Kostyantyn Rakhno, Ph.D., The National Museum of Ukrainian Pottery in Opishne, 102 Partizanska St., UA-38164 Opishne; krakhno@ukr.net 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 203–225 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222510 Folklorne prvine v romanu Marjana Tomšica Óštrigéca Vladka Tucovic Sturman V prispevku je predstavljeno, katere bajne like oz. bajna bitja in elemente ljudske me­dicine ter kršcanstva je v sodobnem slovenskem romanu Óštrigéca (1991) uporabil Marjan Tomšic. Roman se uvršca v pisateljev istrski opus, s katerim je slovensko Istro postavil na slovenski literarni zemljevid, v sodobno slovensko književnost pa vnesel narecne in folklorne prvine. Avtorica se Óštrigéce loteva interdisciplinarno, z metodama The paper discusses the use of folkloric elements, more specifically supernatural be­ings and elementsof folk medicine and Christianity in a contemporary Slovene novel Óštrigéca (1991) by Marjan Tomšic. The novel is part of the writer's Istrian opus and is generally considered as the one thatplaced the region of Slovene Istria on the Slovene literary map and introduced dialectal and folkloric elements into contemporary Slovene literature. The study was conducted using the interdisciplinary approach with the meth­ Folklorneprvinev književnostiniso redkost, ravno nasprotno, pogosto so ravnofolklorni drobci tisti, ki besedilu pomagajo graditi tako vzdušje kot vsebino. Folklora vstopa v književnost zato, ker je bistvena sestavina življenjske resnicnosti (Brown 1998: xxxiv), to pa je bistveni gradnik tudi sodobne slovenske književnosti, kamor sodi literarno delo sodobnega slovenskega pisatelja Marjana Tomšica (roj. 1939). Leta 1991 je izdal pravljicni roman Óštrigéca, ki jenastalnaosnovizadnjenovelev njegovi kratkoproznizbirki Olive in sol (1983). Besedilo seuvršcav pisateljev istrskiopus, kamor poleg žeomenjenekrat­koproznezbirke sodijo še tri zbirke, Kažuni(1990), Glavo gor, uha dol: pravljice iz Istre (1993) in Vruja (1994), ter dva romana, Šavrinke (1986) in Zrno od frmentona (1993), s katerimi je slovensko Istro, konkretno pokrajino, v kateri je živelin deloval, postavil na slovenski literarni zemljevid. S tem, ko je realna pokrajina kot literarni prostor z vsemi svojimi specifikami, kamor sodi tudi folklora, vstopila v literarno umetnost, se je slovenska 204 VLADKA TUCOVIC STURMAN Istra globlje zasidrala tudi v splošno kulturno zavest. V sodobno slovensko književnost Tomšic s temi deli ni vnesel le narecnih jezikovnih prvin, pac pa na medbesedilni nacin tudi elemente bajeslovja oz. mitologije in ljudske medicine, zaradi cesar njegova besedila niso zanimiva le za literarno vedo, temvec tudi folkloristiko. ZaTomšica,kijenapodeželjeslovenskeIstre,kjersejesrecalzistrskofolkloro,prišeliz Štajerske kot ucitelj slovenšcine, pozneje pa je deloval tudi kot novinar, velja, da naj bi s svojo istrsko literaturo iz Istre naredil literarno pokrajino in kot mentor v lokalnem okolju deloval literarnospodbudno (Cebron 2012: 349).1Ledino je oral tudi na podrocju zbiranja slovstvene folklore v slovenski Istri – knjigaNoc je moja, dan je tvoj: Istrske štorije (1989) je prva med knjižno objavljenimi istrskimi povedkami in pravljicami; izš-la je v zbirki Glasovi.2 V razpravljanju o sodobni slovenski književnosti v slovenskem delu Istre, kamor uvršcamo Tomšicev opus, ne moremo mimo pojava v 80. letih 20. st., imenovanega »istrska prebuja« (Cergol Bavcar, Cebron 2001: 216), »istrska renesansa« (CergolBavcar1991:5)in »prebujanjeistrskezavestialiidentitete«(Baskar 2002:182). Spodbudil naj bi ga s svojim prosvetnim, mentorskim in pisateljskim delom prav Marjan Tomšic (Cergol Bavcar 1991: 5). Rezultati so se pokazali npr. v dejavnosti glasbenikov (skupina Istranova, Luciano Kleva, Emil Zonta itd.) in ljubiteljski kulturi (ljudske pevke Šavrinke itd.). Povecana literarna produkcija z istrsko tematiko v slovenski Istri je nas­tala ravno v zadnjih dveh desetletjih prejšnjega stoletja, in tako sovpadla z nastankom drugih kulturnih žarišc. V tem obdobju se je v Kopru osnoval neformalni kulturni krog, sestavljali so ga ustvarjalci in osebni prijatelji (med drugimi Marjan Tomšic in Edelman Jurincic), centralna osebnost pa je bil gledališcnik in performer Vlado Šav, ki je živel in ustvarjal v opušcenem mlinu ob Dragonji. V zvezi s tem je treba omeniti še negativni vidik t. i. »iznajdbe šavrinske identitete« (Baskar 2002) in »šavrinizacije« (Ledinek Lozej, Rogelja 2012), ki naj bi se v slovenskem delu Istre razvila po objavi Tomšicevega romanaŠavrinke (1986). »In tudi ni literarna produkcija oblikovala zgolj šavrinskih identifikacij oz. istovetenja, marvec je (pre)oblikovala tudi krajino in siceršnje materialne okolišcine istrskega podeželja.« (Ledinek Lozej, Rogelja 2012: 545) Z literarnovednega stališca je bil roman Óštrigeca obravnavan že veckrat (Virk 2000: 213,Zupan Sosic 2003: 76, Štuhec 2012: 726), pri cemer folklorni motivi niso bili podrobneje raziskani oz. so bili predstavljeni v literarni funkciji, v tem prispevku pa je izpostavljeno raziskovalno vprašanje, kaj tocno iz ljudskega izrocila je pisatelj medbesedilno uporabil v svojem izvirnem literarnem besedilu. Prispevek se Óštrigéce loteva interdisciplinarno,z metodama literarnovedne in folkloristicne analize, saj, kot pravi Zmago Šmitek (2004: 5), se za mitološko tematiko živahno zanima marsikatera znanost, tudi slavistika. 1 Med številnimi ljubiteljskimi literarnimi ustvarjalci, ki jih jespodbujalin napisal spremne besede k njihovim prvencem (najvec pri knjižnih izdajah revije Fontana), izstopa Marija Franca, nekdanja šavrinka, Tomšiceva stanodajalka in gospodinja v Gracišcu, ki je bila njegov model za Katino v Šavrinkah in je na njegovo pobudo napisala in objavila svoje spomine Šavrinske zgodbe I, II, III. Med ostalimi Jasna Cebron (2012: 349) izpostavlja pesnike Edelmana Jurincica, Ines Cergol, Gašperja Maleja in pisatelja Vanjo Pegana. 2 Sledile so ji objave zbranega folklornega gradiva Rožane Koštial, Nelde Štok Vojska in drugih ter periodicna publikacija študijskega krožka Beseda slovenske Istre, Brazde s trmuna. Objavljene povedke, ki so jih zbrali drugi, vsebujejo podobne motive, kot jih je v Óštrigéci uporabil Tomšic, npr. Štorjice od straha (2010) Nelde Štok Vojska v besedilih Beli psi, Procesija mrlicev, Maša za mrlice itd. Razmerje med folkloro in literaturo je kompleksno (Evans 2005: 99) in obravnava izbranega literarnega dela potrjuje, da miti med drugim »živijo svoje drugo življenje skozi besede poustvarjalcev in pripovedovalcev, ne nazadnje se ohranjajo tudi v umetniških stvaritvah in kulturnih predstavitvah posameznikov in skupnosti« (Kropej (2008: 9). Po besedah Zmaga Šmitka (2012: 7) so miti »ponovljive mentalne strukture, ki se ohran­jajo v dolgih casovnih obdobjih«, v kolektivnem podeželskem okolju so se prenašali iz generacije v generacijo, »v njih pa je zgošcena esenca ljudskegapogleda na svet« in so duhovni kapital, iz katerega ob razlicnih priložnostih crpa med drugim tudi umetnost (Šmitek 2012: 8), torej tudi književnost. Medtem ko je raziskovalni interes za folkloro dokaj nov, star manj kot dve stoletji, ima njeno nastajanje in prerojevanje v variantah neprimerno daljšo zgodovino (Myer 2006). In medtem ko raziskovalce zanima na eni strani, od kod je npr. mitološko izrocilo za svoje drame crpal Shakespeare, in po drugi, kakšno je bilo kulturno okolje, v katerem so ustvarjali nekateri avtorji starejših literarnih obdobij, ki so v svoja dela vnašali folklorne prvine (Brown 1998: xxxv), Tomšiceva Óštrigeca potrjuje, da je na folklornih prvinah mogoce zgraditi povsem sodobno literarno delo, saj ne nazadnje drži, da imata mit in literatura skupne korenine, posluh za variacije mitoloških tem pa se kaže v vseh zvrsteh književnosti 20. stoletja, še posebej v evropskemromanu (Šmitek 2012: 10, 12).3 Istra je v sodobni literaturi »pogosto predstavljena kot caroben, misticen prostor, v katerem še vedno domujejo magicne sile in se dogajajo cudežni pojavi. Tako razume­vanje Istre je nadvse uporabno za sodobni urbanizirani svet, ki želi ohranjati romanticno prepricanje, da nekje še vedno obstaja neokrnjeni tradicionalni nacin življenja« (Lipovec Cebron 2010: 62). Književnosti pa gre za upodabljanje realnosti, ki je lahko samo prib­ližna oz. je od avtorjeve odlocitve odvisno, kaj in še posebej kako bo realnost predstavil, kaj pa bo tej podobi dodal svojega, avtorskega. Ne nazadnje je vecina dogajalnega casa v Tomšicevem istrskem opusu preteklost, ne sedanjost, Tomšic torej ne predstavlja se­danjerealneIstre,tudiglavnilik Boškinnisodobnaliterarnaoseba.Fikcijskabesedilaso literarna besedila, ki svet v nasprotju z besedili, ki reprezentirajo dejanski svet (novice, porocila, komentarji ipd.), sama ustvarjajo in ga oblikujejo (Juvan 2006: 220). Svetovi iz nefikcijskih besedil so vseskozi podvrženi postopkom preverjanja in spodbijanja, besedilni svetovi fikcijskih besedil pa ostajajo neodvisni, ni jih treba spreminjati ali raz­veljavljati z novimi besedili. Po drugi strani so pisna besedila, kamor sodi tudi umetna književnost, v nasprotju z ustno kulturo izrazito netradicionalisticna: »zanje je znacilen premik k vzpostavljanju distance med avtorjem in bralcem in analiticnosti ter k pojmu objektivnosti kot neizkrivljene reprezentacije sveta« (Beguš 2014: 113). Tako kot ni folk-loristova naloga,da za pojave bajnih bitij išce racionalno razlago (Lozica 1995: 15–16), ni naloga bralca, da locuje med fikcijo in nefikcijo v literarnem besedilu, pac pa, da se potopi v besedilne svetove, kar mu nudi estetski užitek. 3 O zelo živahnemmedbesedilnem odnosu folklore in sodobne književnosti prica tudi vpeljava folklornih elementov v sodobno fantasticno in znanstvenofantasticno književnost, še zlasti na primeru anglosaške literature (Sullivan 2001). BAJNA BITJA IN BAJNI LIKI Bajno bitje je po Slovenskem etnološkem leksikonu (Stanonik 2004: 20) definirano kot »junak, nosilec dogajanja v bajeslovju. Kot bitje z nadcloveškimi lastnostmi in sposob­nostmi nastopa v bajkah in povedkah.« Monika Kropej (2008: 11) loci med bajeslovnim likom in bajeslovnim bitjem: »Medtem ko je pomen izraza 'bajeslovni lik' širši, saj zaobjema tudi druge like, npr. ljudske junake, antijunake in zgodovinske osebe, ki so jih ljudje mitizirali, je pomen izraza 'bajeslovno bitje' nekoliko ožji in oznacuje le like verovanjskega in domišljijskega predstavnega sveta.« Mitološka bitja v slovenski Istri imajo razmeroma malo skupnih lastnosti s podobnimi pojavi v drugih slovenskih regijah in vec podobnosti z nekaterimi deli Hrvaške (Kvarner in Dalmacija) ter bližnjimi italijanskimi pokrajinami (Furlanija - Julijska krajina), neka­tere sorodnosti je najti tudi z mitološkimi bitji v Bosni, Crni gori, Srbiji in Makedoniji, verovanja v bitja z magicnimi, nadnaravnimi lastnostmi so predstavljala pomemben element v tradicionalnem nacinu življenje (Lipovec Cebron 2010: 12, 62).4 Na zacetku razpravljanja o bajnih bitjih in likih v Óštrigéci niodvec vsajmalo ocrtati vsebino romanain pokazati, kdo in kakšna sploh je glavna literarna oseba Óštrigéce. Boškin je vaški posebnež, ki je nenehno na poti. Pešaci med istrskimi vasmi, doživlja realne in irealne dogodke in se bojuje z zlom v podobi babure Štafúre, ki meša toco, pije kri dojencici Nini, se uteleša v neobvladljivi deklici Albi in Boškina dneve in noci vlaci po brezpotjih. Na zacetku je poleg osebnega lastnega imena poimenovan še »potepuh in vecni popotnik« ter »popotnik« in »berac« (Tomšic 1991: 5, 7, 9). Ko se Boškin predstavi neznancu, zagrobnemu svatu, rece: »Boškin sem. Petljac, popotnik.« (Tomšic 1991: 98) Milja, ki je ena izmed mnogih vašcank oz. ženskih literarnih oseb v romanu, ga ima za »bužca« (Tomšic 1991: 20), kar lahko pomeni 'revež' ali tudi 'posebnež, obrobnež', oz. cloveka, »ki ni […] ko drugi«. Maršiceva žena mu predlaga, da bi lahko pomagal njeni bolni kravi zato, ker je »štrigo«5(Tomšic 1991: 14). Tako kot si ljudje niso enotni glede tega, ali je Boškin cudodelnik ali samo navaden potepuh, tako je nasprotujocega mnenja tudi poosebljena narava. Boškinov zaveznik veter trdi, »da je Boškin nenavaden clovek, povsem drugacen od drugih; in celo tako dalec se je spozabil, da je govoril, kako je Boško ko'en bogic'«(Tomšic1991:21),torejbogalibožjisin(kresnik),medtemkodrevesnilisti temu nasprotujejo in se vetrovi trditvi posmehujejo. Tudi volkodlak, ki prileze iz groba, je posmehljiv glede slednjega poimenovanja: »E, se že spominjam: ti si Boško, Boškin, imenovan tudi Boškarin, nekateri pa ti pravijo, hihi, tudi Bogic.« (Tomšic 1991: 41) 4 Temeljna primerjalna literatura za hrvaški del Istre so seveda dela Maje Boškovic Stulli, še zlasti poglavje Hrvatske islovenske usmene predaje okrsnikukresniku v knjigiUsmena književnost kao umjetnost rijeci (Boškovic Stulli 1975) in clanek On the Track of Kresnik and Benandante (Boškovic Stulli 2003), ter novejši clanek Luke Šeša O krsniku: od tradicijske pojave u predajama do stvarnog iscjelitelja (Šešo 2002), Šmitek pa v svojih izcrpnih študijah Gospodar gore: Kresnik in Šamanizem na Slovenskem? (Šmitek 2004: 137–178, 195–216) in Od staroslovanskega Svarožica – Radogosta do slovenskega Kresnika in Kresnikova sveta pokrajina(Šmitek 2012: 111–166) ter Nocni bojevniki: kmecke herezije in carovništvo na Slovenskem in v Furlaniji (Šmitek 2015) izpostavlja še dela Nikolaja Mikhailova (Mihajlov 1996, Mikhailov 1996, 1997a, 1997b). 5 »V istrskihdialektihseštrigainštrigonpojavljatakotromaniziransinonim(vitalijanšcini:strega, stregone) za slovensko carovnico in carovnika. Poleg omenjenega izraza štriga in štrigon so na temozemlju opaženi tudi izrazi: comprnica, copernica, štroliga, štruga, štrigun, štrigo.« (Lipovec Cebron 2002: 68) Da je neobicajen clovek s cudodelnimi sposobnostmi, ki ve vec kot drugi, o tem ne dvomita ne Milja: »Ker pa je to vprašal on, njemu pa itak ne moreš nic zameriti in od njega lahko pricakuješ cisto vse […] Ko bi ti takrat prišel mimo, bi se mogoce zgodil cudež« (Tomšic 1991: 18, 19) ne Jakominka: »Cuj ti, ki dosti hodiš okoli in znaš, kar nam, navadnim smrtnikom ni dano znat.« (Tomšic 1991: 31) V pogovoru z Jakominko o videnju na pokopališcu se izkaže celo, da Boškin vsaj približnopozna pomen tretjega ocesa: »'Kar si videla ti, Noemi6moja, so videle moje oci. Ali ne te oci; to so videle tiste, ki jih imamo v glavi, za celom, notri … Razumeš? […] Pa kaj bi ti to govoril, saj ne zas­topiš. Tudi meni ni cisto jasno. Ali to dobro znam, da se ti ne meša.'« (Tomšic 1991: 32) Ko se Boškin na zacetku romana znajde v Maršicevem hlevu, je videti takole: Kojebežalizdrage, jeizgubilkapoin zdajso mu dolgi,posivelilasještrleli na vse konce, prav tako razmršena brada. Ponošeni in raztrgani suknjic je na pol visel z njega in hlace, toliko da mu niso odpadle, kajti med begom se je strgala vrvica, s katero so bile privezane. Gumijasti škornji, blatni prav do roba. (Tomšic 1991: 13) Žeto, dajeBoškin po svojizunanjostiin obnašanju ter delovanju drugacen od obicajnih vašcanov, saj je potepuh, berac in posebnež, govori v prid temu,da bi lahko bil štrigon, saj »sta štriga in štrigon na eni strani osebi, ki odstopata od obicajnih norm vaške skup­nosti (po starosti, fizicni podobi, bogastvu, osebnosti ipd.)« (Lipovec Cebron 2002: 68). Štriga in štrigon kot konkretna cloveka sta sopomenki za carovnico in carovnika, torej cloveka, ki znatacarati, ne pa bajni bitji. Figuri štrige in štrigona zasedata v verovanjih slovenskeIstreposebno mesto, njuno delovanjejelahko razlicno škodljivo in lahko vpliva na vreme, letino, ljudi ali živali. Med najpogostejšimi ucinki delovanja štrig in štrigonov je povzrocanje glavobola ali bolezni in smrti živine. (Lipovec Cebron 2002: 62–69) Boškin vsekakor odstopa od vecine, saj naj bi bil zelo star (kdaj se je rodil, niti ne ve, Danjeli rece, da je star kakih sto let, mogoce dvesto, tristo; volkodlak, ki je iz pre­jšnjega stoletja, se Boškina tudi spomni iz nezagrobnega življenja), še zlasti izstopa po zanemarjenosti, torej drugacni fizicni podobi, in hkrati s svojo osebnostjo izstopajoce priteguje ljudi. Toplina je žarelaiz njega, mehkoba posebna; oboje je bilo skrito v glasu, v kretnjah in v pogledu. Mehkobo njegovih rok so najbolj cutile prav ženske. Imel je namrec navado, da jih je prijemal za roke, ko se je šalil z njimi, se navidez norceval iz njih. Ob dotiku z njegovimi prsti in dlanmi so vztrepetavale, po telesu so jim hiteli prijetni, sladko omamni in tolažilni obcutki. Marsikatera se je brezdomcu potožila, mu razodela bolno srce in pricakovala od njega tolažilne besede. (Tomšic 1991: 30) Pojavitev tega svetopisemskega imena v Óštrigéci ni posebej motivirana (v objavi iz leta 1983 ga ni), razen da v hebrejšcini pomeni 'prijetna' in da je literarna oseba, ki jo Boškin nagovarja, Jakominka, ena od dobro­namernih žensk v romanu. Noemi je tudi ime glavne literarne osebe Tomšicevegaromana Ognjeni žar (1995). Štrigi in štrigonu so nadnaravne sposobnosti dolocene že z rojstvom, saj se lahko rodita z repom (Lipovec Cebron 2002: 68). Prav rep, ki naj bi ga Boškin imel, a mu ga je carovnica oz. štriga babura Štafúra ukradla, je gibalo celotnega romana: na zacetku se Boškin zavé, da ga nima vec, zato ga ob srecanjih z baburo Štafúro (simbolom zla, kace oz. zmaja) poskuša dobiti nazaj, na koncu ji odreže njen rep, s tem carovnica izgubi vso moc. Ce sem jaz Boškin, in mislim, dasem, potem bi moralimeti, kar semvedno imel, se pravi: rep. Ker ga pa nimam vec, to pomeni, da se je moralo nekaj zgoditi, kar mi ga je odpililo, da ga zdaj ni vec, kajti resnicno ga ni vec, o tem ni nobenegadvoma. Bil pa sem pri baburi Štafúri, torej mora biti rep tam in nikjer drugje. […] Nebo je crno in bliska se. Kadar pa je takšno vreme, imajo štrige preveliko moc. In sploh, kaj mi ce! Naj bo, kjer hoce biti. Je že tako prav. Seveda bi bilo bolje ga imeti, kajti zadnje pomagalo je pac zadnje pomagalo. Brez njegase težko razpletajo težave. Oh, kaj bom umrl brez njega? (Tomšic 1991: 6, 16) Prav zaradi tega, ker se ne ve povsem, ali je Boškin rep res imel ali se mu to samo zdi, ceprav sicer deluje, kot da v to povsem verjame, nismo povsem prepricani, ali je res štrigon (tudi sam se sprašuje, kdo pravzaprav je, odkod in kam je namenjen), saj nima repa. Ali ni ne nazadnje krsnik, saj mu uspe uroke razdirati kljub temu, da repa nima? Potem ko carovnici odreže rep, si ga ne prisvoji kot nekaj, kar mora nujno imeti. Ko se ponovno rodi, repa tudi nima. Babura Štafúra je vsekakor prava štriga, saj ne nazadnje ima rep (svojega ali prisvojenega), zato z njim tudi dela húdo. Preden ji Boškin odseka rep, se zacudi, da ga babura Štafúra sploh ima, tako spozna, da on ni štrigon, saj repa nikoli ni imel, da je to, da je verjel, da ga ima, da je nekdo drug, kot je v resnici (krsnik), bil pravzaprav Štafúrin urok: »Taka je ta rec! A meni je govorila, da ga imam jaz, pa ga je ves cas imela ona! Ocitala mi je, da ga imam jaz, in mislil sem, da ga res imam. Zdaj pa vidim, da ga ima ona in zdaj šele vem, da ga je ves cas skrivala in se sprenevedala, me grdo lisicila!« (Tomšic 1991: 150) Kresnik oz. krsnik (poleg kresnice oz. krsnice, ce je ženska) je edini cloveku naklonjen lik izmed istrskih bajnih bitij oz. bajnih likov (konkretnih ljudi),ki deluje kot zašcitnik skupnosti ter posameznih oseb in živali, se bojuje z negativnimi in destruktivnimi bitji in liki, predvsem sštrigo, štrigonom in volkodlakom, ki poskušajo vaški skupnosti in njenim prebivalcem škoditi, pogosto je opisan tudi kot zdravitelj in prerokovalec prihodnosti (Lipovec Cebron 2002: 67) ter miticni carovnik (Kropej 2008: 305, 307), soroden furlanskim benandantom (Šmitek 2015: 37). Izraza krstnik in krstnica sta v Istri oznacevala ljudske zdravilce na sploh (Möderndorfer 1964: 8). Poudariti pa je treba, da se v slovenskem izrocilu kresnik pojavlja v dveh oblikah oz. beseda kresnik hkrati oznacuje bajno bitje in konkretnega cloveka: na eni strani je kresnik božanstvo, ki je povezano s soncemin ognjem (kres je ogenj), v vlogi boga Peruna ali Perunovega sina, po drugi pa je tudi clovek z nadnaravnimi sposobnostmi, od rojstva ali pridobljeno jasnoviden oz. vidovit in zmožen spreminjati podobo – scasoma je torej privzel vlogo rodovnega zašcitnika, vraca oz. šamana, ki naj bi se rodil z nekim znamenjem, npr. repkom (Kropej 2008: 58–75, 307). Po mnenju Maje Boškovic Stulli (1975, 2003), ki je kresnika razi­skovala v ljudskem izrocilu hrvaškega dela Istre in ga primerjala s slovenskim v Istri, je vloga kresnika v prvi vrsti zašcitniška, saj se bojuje z negativnimi silami. Kresnik sodi v skupino oseb, ki jih raziskovalciuvršcajo med šamane v širšem smislu ali ostanke nek­danjih šamanov, druži jih sposobnost komunikacije z onim svetom, to so poleg kresnika še benandanti, taltosi, zduhaci ipd. (Mencej 2013: 164). Zašcitniki kmeckih pridelkov pred toco in benandantom sorodni ljudski zdravilci oz. kresniki kot varuhi plodnosti so znani marsikje v Evropi: »hrvaški krsniki in moguti, dalmatinski negromanti, bosanski in crnogorski zduhaci, srbski vjedogonje in vjetrovnjaci, bolgarsko-makedonski ’zma­jski ljudje’, madžarski táltosi, romunski calusari, grški kallikantzari, korziški mazzeri idr.)« (Šmitek 2015: 40). V bajeslovju slovenske Istre se kresnik najpogosteje pojavlja kot moška oseba, ki ima zaradi že predhodno omenjenih posebnih znakov ob rojstvu – rodi se v beli placenti, posteljici, kamižeti (redkeje pa kot deseti otrok) – nadnaravne sposobnosti. Kresnika pogosto opazijo v živalski podobi, najpogosteje kot belega psa ali vola. Kresnik ali (redkeje) kresnica delujeta kot zašcitnika skupnosti ter posameznih oseb in živali. Pogosto ju opisujejo kot zdravitelja in prerokovalca prihodnosti. (Lipovec Cebron 2002: 62–69) Nobenega dvoma ni, da je Boškin krsnik, saj ustreza vsem naštetim lastnostim. Vedno znova ga na pomoc klice vaška skupnost: vašcanke pred Danjelinim domom, kosci na Jukicevem travniku, ženske v vasi, kjer umira mala Nina; k njemu se obracajo možje, da bi jim dal navodila, kako uniciti volkodlaka; pred mocno nevihto in toco z zagovorom in carnimrisom, v katerega vriše vas in njive, reši celotno vas. Kot zdravitelj s postopki ljudske medicine pomaga tako živalim (bolni Maršicevi kravi) kot posameznikom izvaške skupnosti, ki so bolni, uroceni ali jim štriga ali kodlak pijeta kri (Šavronko ozdravi bolecin v križu, Jukicu pozdravi zvin, iz Albe izžene transformirano štrigo, oživi Danjelo in Nino). Ne nazadnje Belicu napove dobitno loterijsko kombinacijo, Milji pa cas smrti, torej na nek nacin celo prerokuje. Izraza krsnik in štrigon sta po terenskih izkušnjah (Lipovec Cebron 2008: 116–117) najveckrat prekrivna in lahko oznacujeta tudi tradicionalnega zdravilca, kar Boškin je. Boškin je ocitno dobri štrigon oz. krsnik, saj zna carati pozitivno, a tudi negativno, vendar so te njegove carovnije skromne in skupnosti ali posamezniku ne škodijo usodno (uroci Loborcevega osla, da noce tovoriti soli, ker se je Loborc iz njega norceval; seno se na voz nalaga tako, da ga morajo kmetje metati navzdol; Jakominkin fižol je kuhan brez kuhanja, ker je Boškin lacen, ceprav sta ga komaj izlušcila; Bertova glava se sname z vratu, z Bertom kljub temu ni nic narobe; s carnim risom in zagovorom prepreci baburi Štafúri toco). A cetudi je Boškin krsnik, tudi sam vcasih potrebuje zašcito in pomoc drugega krsnika, ki se mu pokaže v živalski podobi. Tako ga neke nevarne noci dohiti bel pes; iz brinovja, potem ko ga je babura Štafúra tri dni in noci vlacila po brezpotjih, ga komaj živega potegne beli vol – kresnik naj bi prevzemal ravno podobo psa ali vola pa tudi bika in prasca (Kropej 2008: 71), kar izpricuje tudi Uršula Lipovec Cebron (2002: 67). Boškintudinesluti,dajeoslica,7 kijonekegapomladanskegavecerazajaha,pravzaprav spoj dveh bajnih bitij, orka in mraka, dveh zelo težko opredeljivih bajnih bitij (Lozica 1995: 15).8Mrak in orko, slednji ponavadi transformiran v osla (Lozica 1995: 16), obicajno nastopata skupaj, mrak, kot že njegovo ime pove, pridobi moc nad clovekom, še zlasti nad otroki (Möderndorfer 1964: 345–348), na zacetku noci (Kropej 2008: 300–301).9Orka je laže definirati, saj se najpogosteje pojavlja kot nagajiv duh v podobi osla. Mraka pa je v nasprotju z orkom težje opredeliti, saj lahko oznacuje oseben ali brezoseben pojav, ki se nanaša na del dneva (cas, ko prehaja dan v noc), v katerem zavladajo negativne magicne sile. Za orka in/ali mraka je znacilno, da se ponoci nenadoma pojavi pred clovekom, in ko ta sede nanj, mu povzroci vrsto nevšecnosti – orko pod njim zacne rasti ali ga premesti z enega mesta na drugo, tako da clovek izgubi obcutek za cas in prostor. (Lipovec Cebron 2002: 62–69) Mrak nastopa tudi v izrocilu Istri bližnjega Krasa, stopiti na »mrakovo stopinjo« pomeni izgubiti orientacijo oz. se nehote vrteti v krogu (Hrobat Virloget 2019: 125). Orko niprisoten lev južnoslovanskem, predvsemhrvaškemin slovenskem,10pacpa tudi v germanskem, romanskem in celo skandinavskem izrocilu; nagaja predvsem popot­nikom, ki jih lahko zvabi nekam, kamor niso bili namenjeni in tistega kraja ne poznajo, zato blodijo, dokler se naslednjega dne ne znajdejo na zacetku svoje poti (Kropej 2008: 271). Oslica pod Boškinom zacne rasti (znacilnost orka), ko se zacne mraciti (to je cas delovanja mraka, tj. zlohotnega bitja, ki ima najvecjo moc ob prehodu dneva v noc, ko zavladajo negativne magicne sile (Lipovec Cebron 2002: 65)).11Boškinu se torej zgodi, kot prej omenjenim furlanskim benandantom, še zlasti benandatkam, ki so se morali »pod prisilo« ponoci klatiti naokoli in na hrbtih živalih nehote prejezditi velike razdalje (Mencej 2013: 164) – znacilnosttako benandantov kot kresnikov pa je, dasenjihoviboji z zlimi silami dogajajo ravno ponoci (Šmitek 2015: 36). Tomšic za Boškina nikoli ne zapiše izraza krsnik in naše branje Óštrigéce je drugacno, ce ne poznamo mitološkega ozadja: pomena belega psa in vola, osla, ki zacne rasti, in repa. V slovenski Istri kresnika oznacujejo (vendar redkeje) tudi z besedo desetinar, tj. deseti otrokalidesetibrat(LipovecCebron2002:66),kotnamjeznanizsiceršnjegaslovenskega ljudskega izrocila (pripovedne folklore) in še zlasti umetne književnosti. Martinek Spak iz Jurcicevega romana Deseti brat (1866) sicer ni bil pravi deseti brat, a se je za desetega brata izdajal – nekatere podobnosti med Martinkom Spakom in Boškinom so ocitne: oba 7 Pojavitev oslice oz. osla, ne pa katere druge živali, izhaja iz dejstva, da so v Istri, podobno kot drugje v sredozemskem prostoru, gojili osle kot vprežno oz. tovorno živino, kar je prešlo celo v leposlovno temo (prim. crtico IvanaCankarja:Istrski osel), mitoškegaoz. globljega pomena, kotgav evropski kulturiza osla dokazuje Monika Kropej Telban (2018: 237–252), pa Tomšic oslu ni namenil. 8 Kljub pogostosti v zapisanem hrvaškem ljudskem izrocilu pa verjetno ravno zaradi težje opredeljivosti npr. nista prešla iz slovstvene folklore v umetno književnost v hrvaškem jeziku, kot se je to zgodilo z vilami in volkodlaki, ceprav naj bi imela mocan literarni naboj (Lozica 1995: 12, 13). 9 Tudi iz naslova ene od knjig iz zbirkeGlasovi, Mrak eno jutrnja: štorje iz Slovenske Istre (2002), ki jo je s pomocjoŠpele Pahor uredila Nada Morato, je v primeru mraka mogoce sklepati na protivno razmerje med dnevom in nocjo. 10 NaHrvaškemv Istriin Dalmaciji, nepojavljapasenpr. v srbskemokolju, najverjetnejejestaregaromanskega izvora (prim. Lozica 1995: 13). 11 Tudi v slovenskem delu Istre je bilo znano verovanje, da mrak škodi otroku še zlasti po soncnem zahodu, ko naj bi se, da bi otroke zavarovali pred »mracnino«, zapirala okna (Möderndorfer 1964: 345). sta potepuha, zanemarjena in opravljata dobra dela.12Verovanje v poseben status desetega, devetega ali trinajstega otroka istega spola ni slovenska ali slovanska posebnost, ohranjeno je tudi v izrocilu Baltov in Ircev, tak otrok »naj bi bil božanstvo, demonsko bitje ali vrac […] z desetništvom [pa] so lahko zaznamovani tudi crnošolec, volcji pastir, zeleni Jurij in kresnik« (Kropej 2008: 145). Desetnik in desetnica sta kot Boškin prisiljena v nenehno gibanje, popotovanje od vasi do vasi, enako velja za madžarske taltose in porabske gra­bancijaše oz. crnošolce, ki so veljali za »potujoce carovnike« (Mencej 2013: 166, 168, 170). To, kakšnega vidi Boškina njegov zaveznik, sanjaški veter, ko o tem prepricuje jezikave in posmehljive liste, ki trdijo, da Boškin že ni bogic, ce se pijan plazi po tleh, namesto da bi bil v nebeških višavah, ni povezano z ljudskim verovanjem, temvec je avtorjev domišljijski dodatek, ceprav je po drugi strani kresnik kot soncno božanstvo povezan tudi s svetlobo (Kropej 2008: 75): Poglejte njegovo srce in boste videli, da v njem živijo sedmere barve. In poglejte v globine njegovega srca in boste tam zagledali odsev vecnega sonca; drobceno sonce sije v srcu Boškinovem. Ce le dobro napnete oci, vam ne more uiti. Bitje pa, ki ima v svojem srcu sonce, in bitje,ki živi s sedmerimi barvami, ni nihce drug kot bogic sam. (Tomšic 1991: 21) Osrednji carovniški lik oz. štriga v Óštrigéci je seveda babura Štafúra, predstavljena kot prototip carovnice: grda, suha, brezzoba starka z redkimi, pocrnelimi in škrbinastimi zobmi, s hrešcecim glasom in smehom ter kremplji namesto nohtov, ki lahko leti, dela toco, povzroca grom, se spremeni v krastaco, mocerada, deklico Albo ali izzivajocomlado lepotico, s katero se Boškin ljubi. Najbolj natancno je Štafurin videz opisan med plesom v Boškinovih sanjah, malo preden jo unici: »Smešno in prav žalostno je bilo vi-deti, kako poskakujejo njene suhe noge, kako ji opletajo okoli pasu in reber posušeni in viseci zizici in kako sršijo okoli njene glave razmršeni lasje, brezzoba usta pa se pacijo v nekakšnem izzivalnem smehljaju.« (Tomšic 1991: 138) Starost in suhost ter splošna neurejenost, ki jih izpostavlja Tomšic, sta najpogostejši oznaki za t. i. vaško carovnico, realno osebo, ki ji vašcani pripišejo vlogo grešnega kozla v primeru nesrec, bolezni itd., medtem ko je t. i. nocna carovnica, ki je pogosto nevidna, nejasna ali se pojavlja zgolj kot svetloba, sinonim za nadnaravni fenomen, ko posameznik v bližini vode, križišca itd.zgreši pot ipd. (Mencej 2006: 114). Pri opisu babure Štafúre je pisatelj ocitno podlegel stereotipnemu nacinu opisovanjacarovnic, kot se je še pred desetletji kazalo v sodobni otroški literaturi, pa tudi ljudskih pravljicah (Schöck 1978: 116–117 v Mencej 2005: 251). Drugi dve štrigi, ki se pojavita le enkrat, takrat, ko odletita z omamljenim Boškinom na hrvaško stran,13sta Štafúrini prijateljici, Škropa in Cunjka ali Ukoticka. Njun videz 12 V avtorski pravljici Vragov dotik iz Tomšiceve kratkoprozne zbirke Glavo gor, uha dol: Pravljice iz Istre (1993) Tomšic medbesedilno vplete literarno osebo z imenom iz prve objave Oštrigece v Olivah in soli in jo poimenuje desetnik: »Vsem znani desetnik Marjo jo je enkrat, ko je minilo od vsega že dobro leto, med smehom vprašal: 'Karlina, je vrag, je?' Karlina se je nasmehnila, mu napolnila kozarec in pritrdila« (Tomšic 2009: 47). 13 Pojav, da so kresniki ponoci letali okrog, je izprican že v Keleminovih Bajkah in pripovedkah slovenskega ljudstva (1930) (Šmitek 2004: 201). ni opisan, zajahata ga cez boke in prsi, da se skoraj zaduši: »Potepuh je stokal; tlacila ga je mora. Skušal se je prebuditi, a se ni mogel, kajti ena od carovnic mu je tišcala na nos zvarek iz omamnih in strupenih rastlin. Skakali sta po njem in ga mucili na mnogo nacinov.« (Tomšic 1991: 115) Ocitno se v tem primeru podoba carovnic oz. štrig prekriva z moro, eno bolj prepoznavnih in poznanih bajnih bitij, ki je lahko cloveške, živalske ali nadnaravne podobe, cloveka pa poškoduje v spanju, kar sicer medicina razlaga kot fiziološko, psihoanaliza pa psihološko pogojeno (Kropej 2008: 301, 302). V slovenskem delu Istre izrazmoraalimuora poleg nocnetesnobein družabneigrezrokamipredstavlja tudi bajno bitje ženskega spola z izrazito negativnimi lastnostmi. Mora kot nosilka ne­gativnih sil povzroca škodo predvsem ljudem, najpogosteje novorojenckom ali majhnim otrokom. Njeno delovanje je omejeno le na noc, na cas, ko ljudje spijo. Pogosto se za njen nocni obisk ugotovi šele zjutraj, po znakih na telesu (modrice, bule ipd.). Morinekljucne dejavnostisosesanjekrvi,grizenjealizbadanjevrazlicnedeletelesa,pricemerjenajbolj izpostavljen prsni del ali pete. Ce se je tovrstno morino delovanje pogosto ponavljalo, je pri majhnem otroku lahko povzrocilo smrt. (Lipovec Cebron 2002: 62–69) Ceprav sta Boškina tlacili pravzaprav coprnici, in ne mora, ki je druga vrsta bajnega bitja, se tudi v Óštrigéci potrjuje, da je štriga pogosto nadpomenka za razlicna druga bajna bitja in pojave (Lipovec Cebron 2002: 69), v tem primeru za tesnoben spanec ali moro. Tudi to, da babura Štafúra hodi deklici Nini pit kri iz prsi in pet, je znacilno za moro, ki se nevidna ponoci loti novorojenckov in majhnih otrok, da se jim zjutraj poznajo krvavece rane in lahko shirajo do smrti. To, kar so gledali pred sabo, je bilo brez dvoma delo kakšne babure. Toda nihce ni vedel, katera bi naj bila, in kar je bilo najhuje: ni jim bilo jasno, kako ji prepreciti vstop. Govorilo se je, da prihaja skozi kljucavnico ali pa skozi špranje na oknih in vratih.Ženske, ki so privrele gledat cudo nocne more in moríje, so vedele povedati marsikaj zanimivega in nenavadnega. Govorile so, da se carovnica spremeni v zrak in kot veter ali prepih sikne v hišo, ko pa je notri, se spet spremeni v žensko, ki pa je še vedno nevidna, in pristopi k postelji ter pocenja tiste svoje ogabne stvari. Vašcanke so zmajevalezglavamiter govorile, daje hudobo možno ujeti le, cejo zgrabi kak drug carovnik. Praviloma le tako, kajti ce jo zalezuje druga baba, to nic ne velja in se stvar ne odcara. (Tomšic 1991: 101) V zadnjih dveh povedih navedka je tudi že navodilo za postopek tradicionalne me­dicine, ki ga je, kot bomo videli v nadaljevanju, vešc tudi Boškin, in sicer z zagovorom zoper urok in z metanjem ogorkov v vodo. V nekaterih situacijah Tomšic Boškinove magicne besede zagovora zapiše,14 vedno pa ne. Boškin se bori s štrigami (carovnicami), a je tudi sam štrigo oz. štrigon (carovnik) ali kot spoznanja nizozemskega antropologa Willema de Blécourta povzema Mirjam Mencej 14 Dodatno razsežnost raziskave bi prineslo primerjanje besedil Boškinovih zagovorov in realnih, na terenu zbranih zagovorov (v preteklosti in danes). (2006: 37): »[B]eseda 'carovnica' lahko pomeni tako osebo, ki je osumljena škodovanja drugim, se pravi 'pravo', zlo carovnico, kot tudi osebo, ki izvaja dejanja proti carovnicam, se pravi nasprotnico carovnic«. Sicer pa Tomšiceva uvedba carovnice kot literarne osebe v evropskiknjiževnostininovost,likcarovnice(razlicnopoimenovan)jenamrecprepoznavna znacilnost popularne evropske književnosti od antike do današnjih dni (Johnston 2014). In nazadnje – v Óštrigéci nastopa še eno istrsko bajno bitje, tj. volkodlak oz. kodlak. V evropski kulturi ima dolgo tradicijo in je med evropskimi narodi zelo razširjen. Ob tem je zanimivo tudi dejstvo, da volkodlak v izrocilu slovenske Istre nima klasicno likantrop­skih potez (ne spremeni se v volka, dlakavost ni prisotna kot njegov prepoznavni znak itd.), temvec je po znacilnostih bližje vampirju, ki se sicer pojavlja na celotnem ozemlju Balkana, kljub temu je ohranjeno poimenovanje kodlak (iz samostalnika volkodlak, ne iz vampirja), saj sta se obe poimenovanji na Balkanu prepletli; v Dalmaciji je imenovan tudi kudlak (Šešo 2016: 44). Med morinim in volkodlakovim delovanjem obstajajo šte­vilne podobnosti: njune potencialne žrtve so ogrožene med spanjem ali v stanju polsna, obe bitjisesata svojim žrtvam kri ali jim otežujeta dihanje, jih dušita. Volkodlaki tako kot mori in kot bomo videli pozneje, tudi štrigi ter štrigonu pripisujejo odgovornost za bolezen in smrt, najpogosteje otrokovo. (Lipovec Cebron 2002: 62–69, Šešo 2016: 54) Že vValvazorjevihcasihsovolkodlakeinvampirjezamenjevali,širilesosesrhljivepripovedi o vracanju povampirjenih umrlih, kar je sicer izraz prastarega verovanja in strahu živih pred mrtvimi (Kropej 2008: 288–289) Volkodlak v Óštrigéci ima prav take lastnosti, kot jih je zabeležila Uršula Lipovec Cebron (2002: 67–68), in sicer se ne spremeni v volka in dlakavost ni njegov razpoznavni znak. Bolj je podoben vampirju, svoji žrtvi ponoci sesa kri in jo v spanju duši. Podoba Tomšicevega »kodlaka Tulka«, ki zleze iz groba na pokopališcu, kamor se je spravil spat Boškin, je res vampirska. S snežno belima dolgima zobema, oblecenv frak in v krsti z belim pregrinjalom ne deluje prav nic tradicionalno istrsko, kvecjemu spominja na filmske upodobitve vampirskega grofa Drakule. Zemlja se je potem mocno razgrnila in iz temne razpoke je prilezlo cudno bitje: nemrtvak in ne clovek. Nekaj sredinskega. Motovilo jebilo obleceno po modi prejšnjega stoletja ali morda stoletij, kdo bi to uganil v poltemi. TolikopajeBoškin levidel,dajeimelataprilikanaglavicilinder, oziroma klobuk, ki je bil na moc podoben cilindru. In dolgi ter ostri škrici so mu štrleli levo ter desno. Oci pa so se žarece in rdece svetile, tako mocno, da ni mogel gledati vanje. Iz celjusti je molelo dvoje dolgih, snežno belih zob; tudi ta dva cekana sta svetila, kot da bi bila fluorescencna. […] Ko so se dovolj približali, so zagledali kodlaka. Ležal je na belem, cistem pregrinjalu in obraz je imel spacen od bolecine. (Tomšic 1991: 41, 47) Potem ko kodlak Tulko najprej cez streho vrže slamico in ob tem domaci pes ne zalaja (to je prepoznavno dejanje vampirja – Kropej 2008: 290), deklici Danjeli izpije kri, nakar se zopet izkaže Boškin kot krsnik. Na pokopališcu pocaka, da se zacne daniti, saj imajo, dokler je noc, še vedno moc volkodlaki in more, ter odide oživit Danjelo in sredi belega dne ubit kodlaka. V oživitvi Danjele in uboju kodlaka se mešajo prvine tradicionalne medicine oz. ljudskega verovanja in Tomšicevi avtorski, domišljijski elementi: potem ko Boškin namrec izgovori ustrezen zagovor, se hišni zidovi razprejo in Danjelino telo se napije soncnih žarkov. In ceprav ima volkodlak zabita dva ostra akacijeva kola v telo (ne glogova, s katerimi se sicer prebada vampirje – Kropej 2008: 290, Šešo 2016: 55), kodlak še zmeraj ni mrtev – ubije ga šele to, da Boškin nanj zlije prgišce nekakšne nadnaravne, ne soncne svetlobe. LJUDSKA MEDICINA IN KRŠCANSKI ELEMENTI Tudi reprezentacija ljudske oz. tradicionalne medicine je nenadomestljivi del Óštrigéce, ki pomembno doloca njen istrski pripovedni prostor. Po Slovenskem etnološkem lek­sikonu (Makarovic 2004: 289) je ljudska medicina (etnomedicina, ljudsko zdravilstvo) »preprosto, nestrokovno, ljudem in živalim namenjeno zdravilstvo, ki uporablja naravne in carovne nacine zdravljenja« ter »skupek zdravilnih metod in predstav, kakršne je imel naš clovek delno še v pradavnini, ki jih je spopolnjeval v dolgi dobi svojega raz­voja« (Möderndorfer 1964: 7). Etnologi in medicinski antropologi so ljudsko medicino, znacilno za evropski ruralni prostor, definirali pretežno z opozicijo do uradne medicine, kar se »kaže predvsem v drugacnem koncipiranju telesa, zdravjain bolezni, posledicno tudi v razlicnem etiološko-diagnosticnem modelu in klasifikatornem sistemu zdravst­venih motenj ter v drugacni terapevtski praksi« (Lipovec Cebron 2010: 93–94). Druga dolocnica ljudske medicine je prisotnost magijskih in/ali religioznih elementov, iz cesar izhaja tudi posledica, da so v ljudski medicini bolezen in vzroki zanjo pojmovani kot zunanji, personalni in metafizicni. To pomeni, da je povzrocitelj, ki je lahko cloveški ali necloveški, zunanji (npr. urok); bolnik, ki tako tudi ne prevzame odgovornosti za svoje stanje, je njegova žrtev oz. »je imel naš clovek v davnini bolezen za delo zlih duhov in se je zato zdravil tudi s preganjanjem zlih duhov z raznimi pripomocki, predvsem z besedo in carom […] carodejna medicina […] je usedlina davne primitivne dobe, ko je clovek še iskal vzroke za obolenje v dejavnosti zlih duhov« (Möderndorfer 1964: 7, 18). »Caranje ali magijo je clovek zacel uporabljati že v najstarejših civilizacijah, ko je skušal s pomocjo obredij, zaklinjanj, urocitev ali drugih carovnih dejanj vplivati na naravo, ljudi, živali in dogajanja okoli sebe.« (Kropej 2008: 305) Izrocilo o caranju in magicnem zdravljenju na Slovenskem je zelo bogato in raznoliko: »Ena najstarejših oblik zdravl­jenje in poskusa obvladovanja narave je vraštvo. Vracenje združuje uporabo zelišcnih pripravkov, zagovorov in magije.« (Kropej 2000: 77) Verbalna magija oz. zagovori, ki so najverjetneje najbogatejši, najbolj raznolik in poeticen izraz magicnega (Pócs 2019: 7) in starodavni in razlikovalni del naše skupne evropske kulture (Pócs 2019: 10), so poseben del magijske prakse, ki se izvaja tako, da se izgovarjajopovedane ali zapisane besede, ki so najpogosteje skrivnostni, skriti del ustne ali zapisane magijske tradicije v vsaki ljudski kulturi, ustni korpus verbalne magije pa je del kolektivnega spomina, ki se na skrivaj prenaša iz roda v rod (Vukelic 2014: 243). Namen zagovora je, da se bolezen oz. hudic ali hudobni duh preseli iz telesa, ki je pojmovano kot prostor, da torej bolezen zamenja življenjski prostor, se umakne (Babic 2019: 266). Izvajalke tradicionalnih postopkov zdravljenja v Istri so bile povecini starejše ženske (redkeje moški), ki jih ponavadi niso posebej poimenovali (redko so jih imenovali štrige), zdravile so bolezni, ki jih je povzrocala urocenost (naredile so proti uroku, gledale so za urok, nacinjale 'delale'), in to z najpogostejšim postopkom – metanjem žerjavice oz. ogorkov v vodo (gašenje) (Lipovec Cebron 2010: 116). Na prvo dejanje tradicionalne medicine v Óštrigéci, zdravljenjezzdravilnimizelišci, ki v slovenski ljudski medicini obsega uporabo vec kot petsto rastlin (Möderndorfer 1964: 15), naletimo, ko se Boškin znajde v Maršicevem hlevu in ugotovi, da krava Vijola že poginja. Ceprav ga ljudje ocitno že poznajo kot ljudskega zdravilca, niso povsem pre­pricani o njegovih sposobnostih ali dvomijo zato, ker mogoce ne zaupajo (vec) povsem postopkom ljudske medicine: »'Ti, ki si štrigo, ti bi lahko pomagal,' je rekla Pepa kar tako; ni mislila resno.« (Tomšic1991: 14) Krava zacne jesti, kar je znak, da je rešena, potem ko ji Boškin ob izgovarjanju zagovora z zdravilnimi zelišci natre noge in gospodar nic vec ne dvomi, da ima Boškin zdraviteljsko moc. Novica o Boškinovem uspehu pri zdravljenju bolne krave se hitro razširi, nanjo se v pogovoru sklicujeta Milja in Danjela, pa tudi Eljo, eden izmed delavcev v Šavronkinem vinogradu: »'Pravijo, da znaš zdravit in delat cudeže.'« (Tomšic 1991: 23) Vresnici se Boškin ocitno ne zaveda povsem svojih zdraviteljskih sposobnosti oz. jih ni navajen, saj se med nabiranjem zdravilnih zelišc za ozdravitev krave z njim, ko se kot v transu premika od ene zdravilne rastline do druge, od gozda do puca, dogaja nekaj, cesar ne razume. Boškinovo poklicanost za zdravljenje Tomšic motivira z domišljijskim, ne folklornim motivom, da je Boškin videl ognjenega konja. To samo kravi (Boškinu in drugim pa ne) razloži v kotu hleva stojeci vol: »'Na, zdaj pa te bo ozdravil! Res te bo. Vidim svetlobo okrog njegove glave in srebrno meglico na njegovih prstih. Srecal je ognjenega konja in ta mu je dal nekaj svoje moci.« (Tomšic 1991: 15) Eksplicitno ni povedano, zakaj je krava bolna oz. urocena. Njen lastnik ne sprejema odgovornosti za njeno bolezen, saj trdi, da nikomur ni storil nicesar hudega, da bi zdaj moral odplacevati dolg s kravino smrtjo. Vdan je v usodo in za kravino bolezen ne išce racionalnega vzroka, temvec dejstvo sprejema kot neizpodbitno, kar je znacilno za ljudsko medicino v nasprotju z uradno (Lipovec Cebron 2008: 12). To je natancneje razvidno iz dvogovora z Boškinom, ko o kravi pove: »'Šla bo. Tako je pac. Nekaterim se godi le dobro, drugim slabo.' Boškin je na te besede odgovoril dvoumno: 'No ja, slabo se vraca s slabim, dobro z dobrim.' 'Meni se vedno dobro vraca s slabim. Kaj pa sem komu storil? Vijola bo šla k vragu, to vem.'« (Tomšic 1991: 14) Jedro tradicionalne medicine je v zunanjem vzroku bolezni, bolezen torej nikoli ne nastopi slucajno, pac pa je v njenem ozadju dolocen namen. Gospodar je pomoc za bolno kravo ocitno brezuspešno že iskal, nemara pri uradni veterinarski medicini: »'Je bil zjutraj oni iz Kopra tu in je rekel: Kar zakoljite jo, ne bo preživela.'« (Tomšic 1991: 14) Domnevni veterinar, »oni iz Kopra«, je predstavnik uradne medicine, prihaja iz mesta, je tujec, zato s kmeckim gospodarjem »ne delita istega kulturnega koda in interpretacijskega modela zdravja in bolezni« (Lipovec Cebron 2008: 96) oz. je med zdravnikom (v našem primeru veterinarjem) in ruralnim prebivalcem Istre sociokulturna distanca. To je ocitno že iz dejstva, da veterinarja razocarani kmet sploh ne poimenuje konkretno, zadovolji se zgolj z osebnim zaimkom in dolocilom, od kod prihaja. Da so se Istrani bolj zatekali k ljudski kot uradni medicini, je ocitno tudi v Óštrigéci: za nobeno od težav, ki jih odpravi Boškin (razen za kravo), niso vašcani prej poklicali predstavnikov uradne medicine oz. veterine. Tudi ko Boškin pri Urihu ves izcrpan po treh dneh in noceh tavanja po brezpotjih preleži tri tedne, Urih ne poklice zdravnika, ampak mu kuha »caje« in ga maže z »mastjo, za katero je njegova nona trdila, da je božja mast in da pomaga zoper vse težave, tudi zoper smrt samo.« (Tomšic 1991: 83) Ko zaradi opecenosti Boškinovega obraza, ker ga je ožgala ognjena muša, vašcani vseeno tecejo po zdravnika, se Boškin, ko sliši za to, izmuzne iz hiše in odide iz vasi. Kulturno distanco v razmerju med zdravnikom in bolnikom v Istri so poglabljali družbeno-ekonomski dejavniki (razlike v izobrazbi, družbenem statusu in financnem položaju), jezikovni dejavniki (odsotnost skupnega jezika komunikacije, ker zdravniki niso razumeli narecja, ruralniprebivalcipa neznali nobenega od knjižnihjezikov), hierarhija (zdravnik strokovnjak – bolnik laik, ki verjame v »vraževerje«) in ideologija (nacionalisticni odnos italijanskih zdravnikov do slovenskega in hrvaškega prebivalstva). Tudi v Istri je najbolj razširjena oblika etiološke razlage nastanka bolezni – urok, ki je lahko zavestno ali celo nezavedno in nenamerno škodovanje, njegova posledica pa niso le zdravstvene težave, temvec je lahko cela vrsta težav od medosebnega nerazumevanja, prometnih nesrec in težav z denarjem (Uršula Lipovec Cebron 2008: 121, 137, 140). DelavcivŠavronkinemvinogradu želijo Boškinakotštrigona oz. tradicionalnega zdravilca, ki naj bi napovedoval celó prihodnost in poznal vzroke za bolezni, za lastno zabavo preizkusiti. On jim odgovarja pametno, logicno in tako na široko, da mu ne morejo dokazati, da si izmišljuje. Boškin namrec ni podoba tipicnega zdravilca, saj je zanemarjen, pogosto pijan potepuh, medtem ko so (bile) ljudske zdravilke obicajne vašcanke z urejenim življenjem in (vecinoma, vsaj v preteklosti) spoštovane v skupnosti (po terenskih izkušnjah Uršule Lipovec Cebron 2008: 150). Šavronkinebolecinev križu so Boškinu jasne, nedabigospodinjao njihspregovorila. Gre za dokazovanje magicnih sposobnosti, saj zdravilec še pred zdravljencevim opisom težav ve, kaj je narobe, in to zdravljencu tudi povepravi (Lipovec Cebron 2010: 157). Šavronka na zacetku sicer vsaj na videz, da ne bi izpadla prevec vraževerna, malo dvomi o Boškinovih sposobnostih, zato ga preracunljivo vpraša, kako sebostapogodilav primeru, ce njene bolecine ne izginejo. Boškin ji predlaga, da ga bo lahko pretepla s kolom. Po drugistrani mu Šavronka zaupa zaradi preteklih pozitivnih izkušenj: »In vedela je, da Boškin ne govori kar tako, kajti on je že bil nekoc pri njih v hiši in je takrat ozdravil Bepíno« (Tomšic 1991: 26), zato ga kasneje, da bi jo odrešil tudi pokojnikovega vracanja, za pomocprosi še enkrat. Šavronka je bogata, a skopa debela vdova brez otrok in z mogocno hišo, delavce slabo placuje, izkaže se, da se tudi s pokojnim možem ni razumela, zato jo hodi še po smrti vznemirjat s trkanjem. Da jo boli križ, je nekakšna kolektivna kazen. Boškin jo sicer odreši bolecin, vendar tako, da mora pred svojimi delavci leci na gola tla. Na ta nacin Boškin kot tisti, ki v funkciji poklicane osebe (zdravilec, krsnik) ureja medsebojne odnose, predstavnikom skupnosti (delavcem) ponudi obliko zadošcenja. To potrjujeta ugotovitvi Uršule Lipovec Cebron: Diagnosticiranje ima izjemno pomembno družbeno funkcijo, ki zdravilcu nudi privilegirani položaj usmerjevalca odnosov v skupnosti. […] [P] redstave o telesu imajo v istrski tradicionalni medicini še dodatno, družbeno dimenzijo. Odnosi v družbeni skupnosti se namrec neposredno odslikav­ajo na fizicnem telesu posameznika, pri cemer se konflikti v medosebnih odnosih simbolno prevedejo v simptome bolezni. Gre za specificno vrsto skladnosti oziroma ’pretocnosti’ med makro- in mikrokozmosom, na pod-lagi katere individualno telo eksistira kot družbeno telo. (Lipovec Cebron 2010: 156, 133) Boškin z izgovarjanjem magicnih besed, tj. z zagovorom, ki je »najstarejši slovenski nacin borbe proti boleznim« (Möderndorfer 1964: 7) in »najbolj arhaicen del zakladnice ljudskomedicinskegaznanja«(ZupanicSlavec2000:85)kottradicionalnizdravilecdeluje v vseh dejanjih tradicionalne medicine (ozdravi kravo, bolecine v križu, izvin, rane od štriginega in volkodlakovega sesanja krvi, izžene hudobnega duha) in krsnik oz. štrigon v preprecitvi toce. Dopolnjuje ga: z zdravilnimi zelišci in ilovnato oblogo (pri kravi in Jukicevem gležnju), dotikanjem obolelega dela telesa (Šavronkin hrbet premeri s palcem in kazalcem, Jukicevo oteklino pogladi), metanjem žerjavice v vodo (pri deklici Nini, ki ji je štriga pila kri, kar je (bil) najbolj razširjen nacin razdiranja uroka), s carnim risom (v prah s palico skicira vas in njive) in z mocjo pogleda (deklico Albo gleda v oci, ko izganja iz nje transformirano baburo Štafúro; v sanjah baburo Štafúro prisili, da gola pleše, tako da jo gleda globoko v oci). Da se pri Danjeli razprejo zidovi in nanjo posije sonce in da Boškin na kodlaka zlije prgišce tekoce nevidne svetlobe, sta domišljijska elementa, Tomšicev avtorski dodatek, ki s postopki tradicionalne medicine nista v zvezi. Boškin zasvojezdravljenjenikolinezahteva nikakršnegaplacila, šecelo vneto iskreno zahvaljevanje, ko se mu Ninina mati Marija vrže k nogam ali ko ga Danjela objame, mu je odvec. Ne odrece se ponujenemu vinu (pri Šavronki), pršutu (pri Milji), fižolovi solati (pri Jakominki) in mleku (pri Momjanki). To je v skladu z ugotovitvijo, da se je placilo tradicionalnemu zdravilcu izvršilo v sistemu blagovne menjave (Lipovec Cebron 2008: 120), ceprav Möderndorfer (1964: 9) pravi, da so imeli ljudski zdravilci mogocne domove, torej niso bili revni, in je izrocilo, da naj bi zdravilec placilo prejel, samo ce so mu ga ljudje sami ponudili, že v preteklosti utonilo v pozabo. Na kakšen nacin pa je v Óštrigéci prisotna v Istri prevladujoca kršcanska vera in ka­toliška veroizpoved? Omemba kršcanske oz. katoliške cerkve, zvonika in pokopališca je nepogrešljivi element istrskega dogajalnega prostora. Ob odhodu iz gostilne Boškin sliši bíti stolpno uro; ko razdira Štafúrin urok v Crnici, zvonovi zvonijo, ne da bi kdo vlekel za vrvi; Šavronka je placala tri maše, a jo pokojnik še zmeraj prihaja strašit; Momjanka je na pokopališcu videvala procesije mrtvih; Boškin na pokopališcu sreca volkodlaka in zagrobne svate. Kršcanski elementi so del t. i. apotropejskih sredstev, tj. vzklikov in zagovorov, ki naj bi imeli moc, da premagajo urok ali pred njim šcitijo. Mnogi zagovori s kršcanskimi elementi so predelani poganski obrazci, ki so ohranili prvotno obliko in vsebino (Zupanic Slavec 2000: 86).15Ob transformaciji Kozlovicevega in Juricevega glasu 15 Npr. vec kot polovica poznanih tipov zagovorov na Madžarskem je na tak ali drugacen nacin povezana z izvirnimi kršcanskimi religioznimi besedili (Pócs 2019: 237). v belega in crnega psicka se Boškin prekriža16in zdrdra izmišljeno pesmico – molitvico oz. zagovor, ki naj bipregnal poganskiurok. Ko zagleda ognjenega konja, vzklikne: »'Vsi svetniki kontra štrigeriji! […] Strmel je proti nebu s široko odprtimi ocmi in se križal.« (Tomšic1991: 11) Proti skušnjavam babure Štafúre in proti njenemu mešanju toce – povzrocanje toce je ena najpogostejših obtožb v zgodovini carovništva (Mencej 2000: 88) – se bori z zagovorom: ’Trifrkadelevo, /štiridesno, /babacótasta, /babaštufasta, /križemkražem križ!’ […] Že je Boškin segel po leseni žlici, da bi zajel, ko mu je dobri duh prišepnil odrešilno besedo. In Boškin je zakrical: 'Sveti križ, iš, iš!' […] Zamahnil je s palico nad risbo in mocno govoril: ’Kar je moje, ni tvoje! / V žerjavici taca kosmata;/ iz ognja pepel, iz pepela voda, / iz vode žegen!' (Tomšic 1991: 8, 35, 75)17 Ko mala Alba zaradi Štafúrine preobrazbe v njeno telo domala ponori, išce njena teta pomoc v katoliški veri: »Momjanka se je križala in na glas molila: 'O vsi svetniki, pomagajte! Jezus, Marija, pomagajte nam, preženite vraga iz nje. O Marija, pomagaj, pomagaj!'« (Tomšic 1991: 54) To, kar pocne Boškin z Albo, je eksorcizem, izganjanje hudica oz. hudobnega duha z mocjo pogleda in zagovora: ’Skobca-zlobca! Štafúra-bura! Vijavaja-ven!’18je gromozansko divje zakrical in isti hip je zacutil v rokah moc. Iztegnil jih je in Alba je kar zaplavala proti njemu, mimo svoje volje, pritegnjena z neznansko silo. Prijel jo je za obe rami, mocno jo je stisnil in se ji zagledal globoko v oci. […] Moc, ki jo je cutil v prstih, je pronicala v Albina ramena, in ogenj, ki mu je sijal iz zenic, je neusmiljeno žgal crni klobcic v deklicini notranjosti. (Tomšic 1991: 55) Razdiranje uroka je vrsta eksorcizma, kar se opredeljuje kot apotropejski, zašcitni in ocišcevalni ritual, ki ima magicno naravo (Lipovec Cebron 2008: 159); mnogi zagovori so nastali ravno na podlagi kršcanskih obredov izganjanja zlih duhov (Zupanic Slavec 2000: 86). Poleg tega se tradicionalne zdravilke pogosto identificirajo z duhovnikom, ceš da je zdravilkina naloga, da s terapevtskim postopkom, vrsto eksorcizma, iz telesa odstrani zlohotni metafizicni element, torej urok. Boškin pomiri oglašanje Miljine vesti, ker je Mariji z Vršica prevzela fanta, kot bi bil katoliški duhovnik. Kot da bi se mu Milja izpovedala, on pa ji daje odvezo: 16 Znotraj uradne katoliške vere je »prekrižanje oblika blagoslovitve, ki je v funkciji zašcite in terapevtskega akta odstranitve zlih sil« (Lipovec Cebron 2008: 158). 17 Ko se Boškin po strmi poti spušca k reki, se spomni, da se je tam nekje ubila Jukiceva krava Mandola. Tudi do živalske smrti je Boškin spoštljiv in podobno, kot se v katoliški tradiciji, ko se spregovori o pokojniku ali pomisli nanj, doda še misel na njegov mir, ravna tudi Boškin: »Bilo mu je žal zanjo, tudi zdaj. Zato je rekel, ko se je prebijal mimo: 'Naj bo blagega spomina.'« (Tomšic 1991: 155) 18 Hudicu ali hudemu duhu, ki se je naselil v telo, Boškin s krajevnim prislovom ukazuje, naj iz telesa izstopi (»ven!«), kar je v skladu z ugotovitvijo, da je telo prostor, ki ga mora bolezen (ali hudi duh) zapustiti (Babic 2019: 266). ’Poklekni. Daj mi roko. Ne, levo roko. Tako. Zdaj pa ti povem. In glej me v oci. Povem ti, da si placala, kar je blo treba placat. Drugi del daš, ko pride jesen. Takrat te bomo pokopali. Ali ne boj se, zakaj ni bil tvoj greh tako velik, da bi bla pogubljena. Iz ljubezni si kradla, iz ljubezni, zato ti bo odpušceno.’ (Tomšic 1991: 20) Osrednji del v Óštrigéci, povezan s kršcanstvom, je prizorišce boja z baburo Štafúro: Žepetnajstletjecerkvicasamevalasredigrmovjain nizkih hrastov, okrog in okrog obdana zzapušcenimi travnikiin jasami. Povsod se je belilo kraško kamenje; kot košcene kope se je šopirilo: kupi in kupcki belega kamenja.19 […] 'Kako prazno in samotno,' je pomislil in si kar ni upal prestopiti praga. Z desnico je potipal kamen, v katerem je bila nekoc žegnana voda.20 Roka se mu je samodejno pomaknila tja. Vendar ni bilo niti kapljice, da bi si omocil blaziniceprstov in se pokrižal. Pa je vendar pokleknil in prebežal s prsti celo, prsi ter obe rameni. (Tomšic 1991: 140, 141) Boškin v opusteli in izropani cerkvici posedi, potem zasliši žebranje. Ko hoce pre­strašen oditi, se spotakne, pade in v cerkvenih klopeh, ki jih prej ni bilo, zagleda ljudi brez glav, ki molijo neciste priprošnje k svetnikom, ter spozna, da ga je spet v past ujela babura Štafúra. Ko se skozi napol podrt cerkveni strop prikaže odrešilna svetloba, ki unicibrezglavce, se Boškin zave, da mu je na pomoc, da bi dokoncno unicil baburo Štafúro, prihitela njegovaizvoljenka Vitica; poslednji boj se odvije pred cerkvijo. Izbor cerkve kot dogajalnega prostora za koncni obracun z baburo Štafúro, simbolom slabega, zlega in hudega, ni nakljucen, saj posveceni prostor kršcanske vere kot vere ljubezni poudari zmago dobrega nad zlim oz. ljubezni nad sovraštvom. Ceprav se Boškin v celotni Óštrigéci nic ne sprašuje o kršcanskem Bogu, njegovem obstoju in veri vanj, katoliško vero prakticira iz navade: prekriža se in spoštljiv je do posvecene zemlje in sakralnih objektov. V razmišljanju o pomenu njegovega življenja, ki ga spodbudijo drobni znaki prisotnosti nekega njegovega skrivnostnega prijatelja in zašcitnika, »Neznanca«, nevidno prisotnega tudi ob Boškinovi smrtni uri, je aluzija na kršcanskega Boga oz. Stvarnika: Psicek, ki ni imel imena (pravzaprav ga je imel, vendar ga ni bilo možno izgovoriti s cloveškim glasom), je povedal: ’Poslal me je tvoj prijatelj in zašcitnik in mi narocil, naj te spremim ta del poti, kajti današnji dan in ta ura sta zate zelo nevarna in utegnilo bi se ti zgoditi kaj hudega.’ […] ’Vidiš, kaj bi, ce vas ne bi imel!Pa reci, ali ni prijateljstvo zares lepa st-var. Najboljša, najlepša na svetu.’ […] Tisti, ki je poslal belega psicka, je neviden stopal zadaj. Brundal si je pesmico, stalno eno in isto, ki pa je bila 19 Opis se ujema s podružnicno cerkvijo Marije Snežne na Gradišcah v župniji Crnotice tik nad Kraškim robom (v 90. letih 20. st. obnovljena), mimo katere vodi pot iz Istre na Kras. 20 Blagoslovljenavodaima, tako kotaktprekrižanja, funkcijo zašcitepred zlimisilami(LipovecCebron 2008: 158). tako prijetna, da je prevzela Boškina in psicka in ju navdala s hvaležnostjo in toplino. […] Ob tej poti, malo za njim, korak nazaj od tam, kjer se je bil pred davnimi leti nenadoma pojavil, je stal nekdo, ki ga je Boško dobro poznal, vendar mu ni vedel ne imena ne izvora. Ko se mu je zdaj, v tej zadnji uri tega njegovega življenja, plazil mraz v trebuh, je napel vse moci, da bi prepoznal to skrivnostno bitje, kajti vedel je, da ga je prav on takrat postavil na pot in mu ukazal: ’Hodi!’ (Tomšic 1991: 87, 88, 160) SKLEP Prispevek išce odgovore na raziskovalno vprašanje, kaj vse iz folklore je pisatelj Marjan Tomšic medbesedilno uporabil v svojem izvirnem literarnem besedilu, pravljicnem ro­manu Óštrigéca (1991). Tomšic, ki je zbiral in objavil tudi istrsko slovstveno folkloro v knjigi Noc je moja, dan je tvoj: Istrske štorije(1989), je z Óštrigéco v sodobno slovensko književnost poleg narecnih prvin medbesedilno vnesel še elemente bajeslovja in ljudske medicine, prepletene s kršcanstvom. V Óštrigéci je prisotnih precej bajeslovnih bitij in likov (mora, orko in mrak, kresnik, volkodlak ter štriga in štrigon), ki postanejo tudi literarne osebe, v literarno besedilo pa so vpleteni še nacini ljudske medicine, prepleteni s kršcanstvom. Že osrednji literarni lik, potepuh Boškin, je krsnik oz. dobri štrigon, ki deluje kot ljudski zdravilec, na svojih popotovanjih pa se srecujez drugimi bajnimi bitji in bajnimi liki: moro, ki ga v podobi dveh štrig tlaci v spanju, orkom in mrakom, ki mu nagajata, ter volkodlakom, katerega pomaga uniciti, in ne nazadnje štrigo baburo Štafúro, ki ga skuša na vse nacine onemogocati v njegovem delovanju. Podoba Boškina kot po­tepuha, ki se ves cas premika in se trudi delati dobro, aludira na ljudskega desetega brata in Jurcicevega Martinka Spaka iz prvega slovenskega romana Deseti brat (1866) – tako kotBoškin, kinipovsemtipicnikrsnik, setudinezakonskisin Martinek Spak zadesetega brata samo izdaja, oba pa se cudežno pojavljata v trenutkih, ko ju druge osebe potrebujejo. Tomšicev roman je nastal oz. bil objavljen v obdobju, ko sta na literarno prizorišce z romanit.i. pokrajinskefantastikeopazno stopilašedvaslovenskapisatelja,VladoŽabot z romani Stari pil (1989), Pastorala (1994) in Volcje noci (1996) ter Feri Lainšcek z romanom Ki jo je megla prinesla (1993). Znavedenimiliterarnimidelijegotovo mogoce potegniti vzporednice že zaradi njihove umešcenosti v obrobne slovenske pokrajine (Istra, Prekmurje oz. Pomurje) ter poudarjene literarno predelane kršcanske ikonografije pri Žabotu, ki se je v kasnejših delihsicer še mocneje naslonil na staroslovansko mitologi­jo,21vendar se Tomšiceva Óštrigéca od teh del tudi temeljno razlikuje prav po obsežni prisotnosti bajnih bitij, ki postanejo osrednje literarne osebe in nezamenljivi del fabule. Prav izbrana bajna bitja in liki, posebej znacilni za istrsko ljudsko izrocilo, in ele­menti tradicionalne medicine, poleg drugih znacilnosti istrskega literarnega prostora, 21 Npr. v delu Sveta poroka: epska pesnitev po staroslovanskem mitu (2013). Ne nazadnje je bil prav Žabot pobudnik ustanovitve nagrade za najboljši slovenski roman, ki se po bajnem bitju imenuje kresnik. kot so dialektizmi in specificna submediteranska narava, oblikujejo podobo Óštrigéce, kibijivangleškemprostoru rekli »local color« (Pimple 1998:387–388) alipo naše regionalna književnost, vendar ne v smislu drugorazredne, manjvredne književnosti, temvec v smislu izstopajocih regionalnih posebnosti, ki v literarnem besedilu ustvarjajo specificen estetski ucinek. Folklorne prvine v Tomšicevem romanu Óštrigéca so tudi nezamenljivi regionalni oznacevalci literarnega prostora, literarnih oseb in družbenih razmerij med njimi. Prisotnost bajnih bitij in bajnih likov ter prvine ljudske medicine ustvarjajo poseben, regionalno obarvan zgodbeni prostor, ki ga napolnjujejo prostorsko dolocene literarne osebe. Istrski literarni prostor, kot ga je Tomšic v svojem romanu ust­varil z vpeljavo folklornih prvin, v katerih se odseva »zapleteno tradicijsko zaznavanje prostora, ki temelji na odnosu tostranstvo in onstranstvo ter vrsti pravil, ki uravnavajo prehode med tema dvema svetovoma« (Hrobat Virloget 2019: 9), vpliva na dogajanje, delovanje literarnih oseb in njihove znacilnosti. Folklorna podstat besedila vpliva na njegov potek, literarne osebe se ravnajo v skladu z znacilnostmi mitoloških bitij oz. likov. Realna slovenska pokrajina, slovenski del Istre, je pisatelju postala temelj za ustvaritev fiktivnega zgodbenega prostora, zato je jasno, da Tomšicev roman Óštrigéca ni objek­tivno folkloristovo terensko porocilo, temvecumetniško besedilo s folklornimiprvinami, ki so v vlogi doseganja estetskega ucinka, oz. besedilo z novoizgrajenim, literarnim, ne realnim prostorom in družbo. V zvezi z umešcenostjo Tomšiceve literarne ustvarjalnosti v evropsko oz. širše svetovno literarno tradicijo velja dodati, da je literarna kritika Tomšicev istrski opus, predvsem roman Óštrigéca,tudizaradifolklornihprvinpopularnopovezovalas t.i.slogom magicnega realizma Južne Amerike, denimo romanom GabrielaGarcie Marqueza Sto let samote in romanom Miaguela Angela Asturiasa Koruzarji – slednji se je navezoval na ljudsko izrocilo Majev, vendar je literarna veda to povezavo in umešcanje Tomšiceve književnosti v neko drugo nacionalno književnost oz. postkolonialno latinskoameriško literaturo že zgodaj zavrnila (Zupan Sosic 2003: 80).22 Folkloristicna obravnava Óštrigéce je pokazala, da je Tomšic odlicen poznavalec ljudskegaizrocila, kiga znamojstrsko vplestiv literarno delo. Pritemsisicer privošcitudi avtorskedomišljijskedodatke, npr. antropomorfizirano naravo v podobigovorecegavola ali ognjenega konja, kar ne sodi med folklorne prvine (ceprav bi besedna zveza ognjeni konj lahko aludirala tudi na boga Peruna, interpretacija je odvisna od bralca), pri tem pa bralcu prepušca, da sam loci med folkloro in avtorsko domišljijo. Z vpeljavo ljudskega izrocila v umetno literaturo potrjuje, da je folklora (sporocena posredno iz pisnega ali neposredno iz ustnega vira) s svojimi žanri, strukturami, stili in okoljem pisateljem in drugim umetnikom na voljo kot bogat kulturni vir (Brown 1998: xxxvi), kar ne nazadnje potrjuje tudi slovenska literarna tradicija oz. mitopoetsko izrocilo, ki ima v slovenski književnosti nezamenljivo mesto – denimo medbesedilno naslanjanje na slovensko ljud­sko pesem od Prešerna do moderne slovenske poezije, npr. Svetlane Makarovic (Golež Kaucic 2003) ali transformacija ljudske pesmi v prozi socialnega realizma (Tucovic Avtorica spremne besede Eva Vrbnjak (2019: 170) v najnovejši izdaji Óštrigéce predlaga nadomestni izraz pravljicni realizem. 2009). Tomšic se je, tako kot npr. Prežihov Voranc, ki je zbiral in zapisoval ljudske pesmi in jih uporabil v svoji prozi, izkazal tako kot zbiralec folklore kakor tudi njen interpret v opusu istrske književnosti. Roman Óštrigéca sodi med vrhunska slovenska literarna besedila, istrske folklorne prvine, ki jih je Tomšic vpeljal vanj v estetski funkciji, pa so ustvarile specificen literarni prostor, dogajanje in literarne osebe ter razmerja med njimi. Raziskava je pokazala, da je besedilo Óštrigéce prepleteno z istrsko folkloro, bajnimi bitjiin liki, prvinamitradicionalnemedicine ter kršcanstvom, kimu dajejo nezamenljivi, prepoznavni pecat, bralcu pa po eni strani nudijo seznanitev s folklorno tradicijo in po drugi specificen estetski užitek. VIRI IN LITERATURA Babic, Saša, 2019: Charms and Localities: Location Description in Charms. Charms and Charming: Studies on Magic in Everyday Life. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC SAZU, ZRC SAZU (Studia mythologica Slavica - Supplementa 15). Beguš, Ana, 2014: Internetne avtorske prakse kot pojavi sekundarne ustnosti. Primerjalna književnost, 39/2, 109–118. Baskar, Bojan, 2002: Med regionalizacijo in nacionalizacijo. Iznajdba šavrinske identitete. Dvoumni Mediteran: Študije o regionalnem prekrivanju na vzhodnojadranskem obmocju. Koper: Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središce Republike Slovenije (Knjižnica Annales). 179–216. Boškovic Stulli, Maja, 1975: Hrvatske i slovenske usmene predaje o krsniku kresniku. Usmena književnost kao umjetnost rijeci. Zagreb: Mladost, 205–227. Boškovic Stulli, Maja, 2003: On the Track of Kresnik and Benandante. V: Muršic, Rajko; Weber, Irena (ur.), MESS, Mediterranean Ethnological Summer School Vol. 5 (Zbirka Županiceva knjižnica). Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo, 13–40. Brown, Mary Ellen, 1998: Introduction. V: Brown, Mary Ellen; Rosenberg, Bruce A. (ur.), Encyclopedia of Folklore and Literature. Santa Barbara, Denver, Oxford: ABC-CLIO, xxxi–xli. Cergol Bavcar, Ines, 1991: Istrska tematika v leposlovnih delih Marjana Tomšica: Diplomska naloga. Ljubljana: Oddelek za slovanske jezike in književnosti Filozofske fakultete Univerze Edvarda Kardelja v Ljubljani. Cergol Bavcar, Ines; Cebron, Jasna, 2001: Slovenska književnost v Istri. Revija 2000, 143–144, 215–219. Cebron, Jasna, 2012: Utemeljitve priznanj Slavisticnega društva Slovenije: Marjan Tomšic. Zbornik Slavisticnega društva Slovenije: Slavistika v regijah – Koper. Ljubljana: Zveza društev Slavisticno društvo Slovenije, 348–349. Evans, Timothy, 2005: A Last Defense against the Dark: Folklore, Horror, and the Uses of Tradition in the Works of H. P. Lovecraft. Journal of Folklore Research 42/1, 99–135, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3814792 Golež Kaucic, Marjetka, 2003: Ljudsko in umetno: dva obraza ustvarjalnosti. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU. Hrobat Virloget, Katja, 2019: Ko baba dvigne krilo: prostor in cas v folklori Krasa. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. Johnston, B., 2014. Witches and wizards in European literature and film. V: Weinstock, J. A. (ur.), The ashgate encyclopedia of literary and cinematic monsters. Ashgate Publishing, https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/ashgtmonster/witches_and_wizards_in_ european_literature_and_film/0?institutionId=8671 Juvan, Marko, 2006. Literarna veda v rekonstrukciji: uvod v sodobni študij literature. Ljubljana: Literatura (Zbirka Novi pristopi). Kropej, Monika, 2000. Magija in magijsko zdravljenje v pripovednem izrocilu in ljudsko zdravilstvo danes. Etnolog 10/1: 75–84. Kropej, Monika, 2008: Od Ajda do Zlatoroga: slovenska bajeslovna bitja. Celovec, Ljubljana in Dunaj: Mohorjeva založba. Kropej Telban Monika. The Donkey in the Narrative Culture and Changing Sociohistorical Epistemology. Osel v pripovedni kulturi in spreminjajoci se družbenozgodovinski epistemologiji. Studia Mythologica Slavica 21: 237–252, doi:10.3986/sms.v21i0.7075. Ledinek Lozej Špela; Rogelja Nataša, 2012: Šavrinka, Šavrini in Šavrinija v etnografiji in literaturi. Slavisticna revija 60/3. 537–547. Lipovec Cebron, Uršula, 2002: Mitološka bitja v Slovenski Istri. Brazde s trmuna, glasilo študijskega krožka Beseda Slovenske Istre 26/6: 62–70. Lipovec Cebron, Uršula, 2008: Krožere zdravja in bolezni: tradicionalne in komplementarne medicine v Istri. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo (Županiceva knjižnica). Lipovec Cebron, Uršula, 2010: Štorjice od straha kot sredstvo discipliniranja posameznika v istrski skupnosti. Nelda Štok Vojska, Štorjice od straha: strašljive prigode iz slovenske Istre. Marezige: samozaložba, 173–181. Lozica, Ivan, 1995: Dva demona: Orko i macic. Narodna umjetnost 32/2, 11–63. Makarovic, Marija, 2004: Ljudska medicina. Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 289. Mencej, Mirjam, 2005: Vaška carovnica. Etnolog 15, 245–280. Mencej, Mirjam, 2006: Coprnice so me nosile: raziskava vaškega carovništva v vzhodni Sloveniji na prelomu tisocletja. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo (Županiceva knjižnica). Mencej, Mirjam, 2013: Sem vso noc lutal v krogu: simbolika krožnega gibanja v evropski tradicijski kulturi. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC SAZU, ZRC SAZU (Studia mythologica Slavica - Supplementa, 7). Mihajlov, Nikolaj, 1996: Fragment slovenskoj mifopoeticeskoj tradicii. Struktura slovesnyh i neslovesnvh tekstov slavjanskoj tradicii. Koncept dviženija v jazyke i kul’ture. Moskva: Rossijskaja akademija nauk, institut slavjanovedenija i balkanistiki, 127–141. Mikhailov, Nikolai, 1996: Baltico – Slovenica. Alcuni paralleli mitologici. Res Balticae, 164–166. Mikhailov, Nikolai, 1997a: Eine slowenisch - prussische lexikalisch – mythologische Parallele: kres/kresze. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 1, 151–159. Mikhailov, Nikolai, 1997b: Baltoslovanska mitologija – baltska in slovanska mitologija – slovenska mitologija. Nekaj terminoloških pripomb. Traditiones 26, 92. Möderndorfer, Vinko, 1964: Ljudska medicina pri Slovencih/Volksmedizin bei den Slowenen. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Myer, M. G., 2006: Folklore. V: Serafin, S; V. G. Myer (ur.), Continuum encyclopedia of British literature. Continuum. Credo Reference: https://search.credoreference.com/content/ entry/britlit/folklore/0?institutionId=8671 Pimple, Kenneth D, 1998: Local color. V: Brown, Mary Ellen; Rosenberg, Bruce A. (ur.), Encyclopedia of Folklore and Literature. Santa Barbara, Denver, Oxford: ABC-CLIO, 387–388. Pócs, Éva, 2019: Preface. Charms and Charming: Studies on Magic in Everyday Life. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC SAZU, ZRC SAZU (Studia mythologica Slavica - Supplementa 15). Pócs, Éva, 2019: Hungarian Incantations Beetween Eastern and Western Christianity. Charms and Charming: Studies on Magic in Everyday Life. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC SAZU, ZRC SAZU (Studia mythologica Slavica - Supplementa, 15). Schöck, Inge, 1978: Hexenglaube in der Gegenwart: Empirische Untersuchungen in Swestdeutschland. Tingen: Tinger Vereinigung f Volkskunde. Stanonik, Marija, 2004: Bajno bitje. Slovenski etnološki leksikon. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, 20. Sullivan, C. W., 2001: Folklore and Fantastic Literature. Western Folklore 60/4, 279–296, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1500409 Šešo, Luka, 2002: O krsniku: od tradicijske pojave u predajama do stvarnog iscjelitelja. Studia Ethnologica Croatica 14/15, 23–53. Šešo, Luka, 2016: Živjeti s nadnaravnim bicima: vukodlaci, vile i vještice hrvatskih tradicijskih vjerovanja. Zagreb: Naklada Jesenski i Turk. Šmitek, Zmago, 2005: Mitološko izrocilo Slovencev: svetinje preteklosti. Ljubljana: Študentska založba (Posebne izdaje). Šmitek, Zmago, 2012: Poetika in logika slovenskih mitov: kljuci kraljestva. Ljubljana: Študentska založba (Koda). Šmitek, Zmago, 2015: Nocni bojevniki: kmecke herezije in carovništvo na Slovenskem in v Furlaniji. V: Hrobat Virloget, Katja; Kavrecic, Petra (ur.), Nesnovna krajina Krasa. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem. Štuhec, Miran, 2012: Tomšicev literarni opus med Šavrinkami in Šandrinkami. Slavisticna revija 60/4, 723–731. Tomšic, Marjan, 1991: Óštrigéca. Ljubljana: Založba Mladika. Tucovic, Vladka, 2009: Transformacija ljudskega v umetnih proznih besedilih socialnega realizma. Magistrsko delo. Nova Gorica: Univerza v Novi Gorici. Vrbnjak, Eva, 2019: Odsekati hudicu rep. Marjan Tomšic: Óštrigéca. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga (Kondor). 165–167. Virk, Tomo, 2000: Strah pred naivnostjo. Ljubljana: LUD Literatura (Novi pristopi). Vukelic, Deniver, 2014: Uvod u klasifikaciju verbalne magije i verbalna magija u zapisanoj usmenoj hrvatskoj tradiciji. Studia Mythologica Slavica 17, 243–270. Zupan Sosic, Alojzija, 2003: Zavetje zgodbe: sodobni slovenski roman ob koncu stoletja. Ljubljana: LUD Literatura (Novi pristopi). Zupanic Slavec, Zvonka, 2000: Zagovori – magicne korenine medicine. Etnolog 10, 85–94. ELEMENTI FOLCLORISTICI DEL CRISTIANESIMO DAL ROMANZO ÓŠTRIGÉCA DI MARJAN TOMŠIC VLADKA Tucovic STURMAN Nel contributo vengono presentati in modo interdisciplinare, con l’applicazione della scienza letterariae dell’analisi folcloristica, le creature mitologiche e gli elementi di medicina popolare e cristianesimo utilizzati nel romanzo sloveno contempo­raneo Óštrigéca (1991) di Marjan Tomšic (nato il 1939). Il romanzo appartiene all’insieme di opere che trattano il tema dell’Istria, alle quali oltre alla raccolta di brevi prose Olive in sol (1983), appartengono anche altri tre raccolti, Kažuni (1990), Glavo gor, uha dol: pravljice iz Istre (1993) e Vruja (1994), nonché due romanzi, Šavrinke (1986) e Zrno od frmentona (1993). Con queste opere l’autore introduce nella letteratura slovena contemporanea, dal punto di vista intertestuale, elementi linguistici dialettali, mitologici e di medicina popolare,rendendo cosě i testi interessanti non solo per gli studi letterari, ma anche per quelli sul folclore. Il principale personaggio letterario di Óštrigéca č lo scemo del villaggio Boškin, che assomiglia a Tantadruj di Kosmac perché, come quest’ultimo, č sempre in viaggio. Cammina tra i villaggi istriani, vivendo momenti reali e irreali e combatteil male che si cela nella figura della megera Štafúra, che scatena la grandine, beve il sangue ad una neonata, si incarna in una ragazza indomabile e trascina Boškin in un cammino senza meta, notte e giorno. In Óštrigéca, numerose creature mitologiche (gli incubi, l'orco e le tenebre, il Kresnik - che secondo la credenza popolarerappresenterebbeilsolelacuiforzaraggiungel’apiceconilfalň-illupo mannaro, la strega e lo stregone) diventano personaggi letterari, che si intrecciano con numerosi elementi di medicina popolare e cristianesimo. Dal punto di vista della scienza letteraria, il romanzo Óštrigéca č stato esaminato diverse volte, ma senza approfondire i motivi folcloristici oppure presentandoli solo in funzione letteraria; il contributo di cui si tratta, invece, pone principalmente l’attenzione ed evidenzia di quali elementi si č servito intertestualmente l’autore, attingendo a piene mani dalla tradizione popolare, per trasporli nel testo letterario originale. Doc. dr. Vladka Tucovic Sturman, Univerza na Primorskem, Pedagoška fakulteta, Cankarjeva ulica 5, in Fakulteta za humanisticne študije, Odde­lek za slovenistiko, Titov trg 5, 6000 Koper, vladka.tucovic@fhs.upr.si 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 227–243 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222511 Belenus, Cybele and Attis: Echoes of their Cults over the Centuries Marjeta Šašel Kos V clanku sta obravnavana dva zanimiva primera cašcenja rimskodobnih božanstev v severovzhodni Italiji, Noriku in Panoniji, ki je, kot se zdi, preživelo skozi srednjeveško obdobje vse do novega veka. Belen, ki so ga kot pomembno keltsko božanstvo castili v Noriku in Akvileji, je bil kot »sveti Belin« še vse do druge polovice 19. stoletja med ljudstvom cašcen na Tolminskem v zaledju Ogleja. V Prekmurju in slovenskem Porabju (ter širše na Madžarskem, Gradišcanskem in avstrijskem Štajerskem) so se po vsej verjet­nosti ohranili sledovi kulta Kibele in Atisa, ki se kažejo v nenavadnem pustnem obicaju Two interesting examples of worshipping Roman-period deities in the north-eastern Italian and Pannonian regions seem to have survived in one way or another through early medieval to modern times. The first is the cult of Belenus, the well-known Celtic and most notably a Norican and Aquileian god. The second example is that of Cybele and Attis, ‘eastern deities’ whose cult became highly influential in the mentioned areas – and elsewhere – during the second and third centuries AD. Interestingly, a deity called “holy Belin” was documented in the second half of the 19th century in the area of Tolmin in Slovenia (the hinterland of Aquileia) as a traditional folk belief. In Pannonia, traces of the cult of Cybele and Attis appear to have survived from antiquity in Prekmurje and Porabje (Slovenia, Hungary), as reflected in the unusual and ongoing custom of the BELENUS – BELINUS Worshipping Belenus, the well-known Celtic and most notably a Norican and Aquileian god,1 is well attested in Celtiberia, Galliae, and western Alpine regions.2 However, his cult was especiallysignificantineasternVenetiaandCarnia,primarilyinAquileiaandits surround­ings, as wellas in Noricumwherehewas regarded as themain god of theNorican kingdom. 1 Maraspin 1968; Birkhan 1997: 582–585 and passim. Šašel Kos 2001; Wojciechowski 2002; Zaccaria 2008 (Beleno); Piccottini 2017; Handy 2018; De Bernardo Stempel, Hainzmann 2020, 1: 151–156; 2: 902–909 and passim. 2 Gourvest 1954; Hatt 1976: 358–359; Olmsted 1994: 386; Haeussler 2008: 29–30 and passim. 228 M ARJETA Š AŠEL K OS In two passages, Tertullian referred to him as the most important Norican deity, not unlike the goddess Atargatis in Syria, the god Dusares in Arabia, worshipped as the chief deity by the Nabataeans, Caelestis in Africa, and the otherwise unknown Reguli in Mauretania (Apol. 24.7: Unicuique etiam provinciae et civitati suus deus est, ut Syriae Atargatis, ut Arabiae Dusares, ut Noricis Belenus, ut Africae Caelestis, ut Mauretaniae Reguli sui; cf. ad nat. 2.8). In Noricum, from where the worship of Belenus probably spread to IuliumCarnicum (Zuglio) and Aquileia, the god has always been documented as Belinus;3 dedications to him have mainly come to light in the core of the Norican king­dom in Virunum (Zollfeld near Maria Saal) and Magdalensberg (probably old Virunum: Dobesch 1997, but see Glaser 2003). The otherwise unknown goddess Belestis (possibly the goddess of nature and fertility),4 who may be associated with Belinus and whose cult has been attestedto in the same area (Šašel Kos 1999: 21–22, 25), seems to confirm the local importance of the god. At Aquileia and in its hinterlands, Belenus was frequently equated with Apollo; in a similar way to Apollo, he was also worshipped as a god of (sun)light and healing powers (Green 1997: 152–164; also see Green 1995: 474) even though, according to a new etymology of the name, Belenus should instead be related to springs of water (De BernardoStempel2004:212–213;DeBernardo Stempel,Hainzmann 2020, 1:152–153). His close association with water is confirmed by two dedications to Fons B(eleni)5 and by an altar in which Belenus is worshipped together with the Nymphs (Inscr. Aq. 155 = EDR117090); Wojciechowski 2001: 140–141, no. 12). Thermal springs are also attested to at Iulium Carnicum (Zaccaria 2008 [Beleno]). Belenus was regarded as the divine patron of Aquileia (Maraspin 1968; Wojciechowski 2002; Zaccaria 2008 [Beleno]) and, as such, he figures in Herodian’sHistory after Marcus Aurelius (8.3.7–8) and in the Historia Augusta (Vita Maximini duo 22.1) in quite long narratives in which these authors described the march of Maximinus Thrax and his troops to Italy in AD 238. The emperor died during the siege of Aquileia (Šašel Kos 1986: 412–433) while his army was defeated soon afterwards. These events were ascribed to the divine protection of Belenus Apollo, who – as the city’s most prominent god – was regarded as a powerful protector against any enemies, as the defensor of the city.6 At Iulium Carnicum, a town close to the border with Noricum, Belinus (his name does not appear as Belenus) was undoubtedly worshipped as one of the important gods, possibly under the influence of his cult at Aquileia or in Noricum, or both. The region was inhabited by the Carni, as indicated by the second part of the town’s name (which earlier appears to have been a castellum or forum), while “Iulium” suggests the settlement had been given certain autonomy, very likely by Julius Caesar. At that time, it must have been granted the status of a Roman vicus, while eventually, under Augustus, it became a 3 Scherrer 1984: 175–187; Šašel Kos 1999: 25–27; Zaccaria 2004; Piccottini 2017; Handy 2018. 4 ILLPRON 446 (= HD042481); ILLPRON 654 (= HD057853); De Bernardo Stempel, Hainzmann 2020, 1: 147–150; 2: 800–804. 5 Inscr. Aq. 153 (= EDR116842); 152 (= EDR116841); Wojciechowski 2001: p. 160, nos. 61, 62; the abbre­viation has probably been correctly explained. 6 Birkhan 1997: 282–285; Olmsted 1994: 386–387, and passim. Pascal 1964: 123 ff.; Maraspin 1968: 145–161; Chirassi Colombo 1976: 175–180. B ELENUS , C YBELE AND A TTIS : E CHOES OF THEIR C ULTS OVER THE C ENTURIES 229 colonia (Mainardis 2008: 36–55). The town must have had close links with the Norican kingdom, particularly commercial ones; it was excellently situated midway between the kingdom and north-eastern Italy with Aquileia being the most significant city in the region. The cultof Belinus must have flourished in the town for a long time since his sanctuary had to be repaired as early as in the second half of the first century BC. Belinus’sanctuary inthetownis epigraphicallyattested toonalargestonemonument from the second half of the first century BC, perhaps a stele, erected by two chiefs of the village (magistri vici), both freedmen: Publius Erbonius Princeps and Sextus Votticius Argentillus. They commemorated the sanctuary’s renovation and its decoration with five gilded disks and two statues, which they themselves financed.7 An altar dedicated to Belinus has also been discovered at Celeia (Celje), one of the most important Nori-can towns, where his cult was perhaps introduced from the Virunum territory or, more plausibly, from Aquileia.8This may be inferred from the name of the dedicator, Lucius Sentius Forensis; Sentii are well attested to at Aquileia, but not in Noricum (Inscr. Aq., indexes; OPEL IV, 68). Belinus may have been the main god of the Norici and it cannot be excluded that the famous bronze statue of the “Youth of Magdalensberg” (a 16th-century copy of a statue from the first century BC) should actually be associated with Belenus, as suggested by Peter Scherrer (1984: 175–187). This can plausibly be argued on the basis of a small bronze statue of a youth from the early Augustan period found at Concordia, but now missing. The dedication to Belenus was inscribed on the left thigh of the statue in the name of Marcus Porcius Tertius.9 A sanctuary of Belinus has also been confirmed at Santicum in the territory of Viru­num (present-day Villach, Slovenian Beljak); it is mentioned on one of the two altars dedicated to the god.10 THE GOD BELIN IN THE TOLMIN AREA (WESTERN SLOVENIA) It is indeed fascinating that the worship of a deity called Belin, with the epithet “sveti” (meaning “holy” in Slovenian), was documented in the second half of the 19th century in the area of Tolmin (present-day Slovenia, Fig. 1) as a traditional folk belief. The local population believed that Belin was a divine healer in possession of a miraculous “key” with which he could cure blindness(Ovsec 1991: 472). Thiswasdescribed by the historian and 7 Mainardis 2008:85–88, no. 1 = CIL V 1829 + p. 1053 (= EDR007048):[---] / et q(ui) s(upra) s(cripti) s(unt), aedem Belini / [su]a pecunia refecere et / [clu]pea. inaurata in fastigio V / et signa duo dedere, / [P.] Erbonio P. l. Principe / [Se]x. [V]otticio Sex. l. Argentillo / mag(istris) vic(i). See also Fontana 1997, 153–165. 8 Belino / L. Sentius / Forensis: Lovenjak 2003: 335, fig. 4 (= HD045030); he originally published the first line as Beleno, thus also in EDH. 9 CIL V 1866 = Lettich 1994: no. 1 (= EDR097739): M(arcus) Por(cius) Tertius / Bel(eno) Aug(usto) v(otum) s(olvit) Concord(iae). Zaccaria 1995, 184–185; Zaccaria 2008 (Beleno), 382; 384. Also see Mastrocinque 1995, 273–274. I would like to thank Prof. Claudio Zaccaria for having kindly drawn my attention to this statuette. 10 Leber 1972: 19, no. 15 = ILLPRON 685 = Scherrer 1984: no. 26 (= HD057524): [---?Be]lin[o ---] / [---tem-plum ve]tusta[te conlabsum ---] / [---?]). 230 M ARJETA Š AŠEL K OS Fig. 1: The region of Tolmin, Slovenia (Computer graphics: Mateja Belak). ethnologist Simon Rutar in his book about the Tolmin area’s history (Zgodovina Tolmin­skega, 1882), which is the only testimony to the presence of Belin among the inhabitants of the Tolminsko region. Rutar interpreted this phenomenon as the Slovenian adaptation of the belief in Belinus/Belenus, who was widely venerated during the Roman Republican and imperial periods in eastern Venetia and Noricum as the principal god of the Carni and patron of Aquileia. Rutar regarded him as a deity of sunlight and correctly noted that the god had had several shrines and temples at Aquileia; still, he erroneously ascribed him with an Illyro-Thracian, i.e., an oriental origin, not a Celtic one (Rutar 1882: 21; Rutar 1883). Rutar’s misinterpretation of the Celtic Belenus/Belinus and worshipping of him in the Roman period is understandable since towards the end of the 19th century, when he was writing, no adequate scholarly literature concerning Roman and Celtic cults would have been available to him, and not much had been done on these subjects in his time. How to explain the phenomenon of Belin in the Tolmin region, as described by Rutar? The worship of Belinus at Aquileia and in its hinterlands may or may not shed light on the belief in Belin in the Tolmin area and, indeed, the conclusion that the cult of Belinus/ Belenus continued throughout antiquity and has never entirely ceased is far from certain. B ELENUS , C YBELE AND A TTIS : E CHOES OF THEIR C ULTS OVER THE C ENTURIES 231 Yet, it is certainly true that the adoration of pagan divinities took deep roots in the regionsof Tolmin and Kobarid, preventing the advance of Christianity, aswell illustrated by an incident in 1331 in Kobarid in the late Middle Ages. The local population must have been considerably pagan since the inhabitants worshipped a sacred tree and a sacred spring. The church in Cividale (Cedad in Slovenian) took drastic measures against the “ethnic religion”, engaging the inquisitor Franciscus de Clugia (Francesco di Chioggia), a Franciscan, to be in charge of the regions of Venetia and Friuli, and to act against the heretics. During a punitive expedition to Kobarid, the sacred tree was felled, while the sacred spring was destroyed with large stones being thrown into it (Juvancic 1984, with further citations). Similar pagan traditions may have been aliveamong the indigenous population of the Tolmin and Kobarid regions during prehistory and the Roman period. The existence of an important pagan sanctuary in the immediate vicinity of Kobarid, at Gradic, is interesting for shedding light on the pre-Roman and Roman cults in this relatively remote area.11 Sacred places like caves, unusually shaped stones, sacred trees and springs must have been quite common in thisregion, living on through centuries and surviving as late as the secondhalf of the20thcentury, as recently revealedbythetestimony of PavelMedvešcek – Klancar (2015; 3rd edition 2018). Old faith in divine qualities of the surrounding nature has persisted in this area for many centuries and, upon the arrival of the Slavs at the start of the Middle Ages, must have merged with the Slavic forms of paganism. One cannot thus entirely denythatbeliefinBelinus couldhave established deep roots inan area outside the main communicationroutes such as the regions of Tolmin and Kobarid. One may suppose that theveneration of this popular deity, which was no doubtmodified over several centuries, persisted among the Romanised indigenous inhabitants until the arrival of the Slavs. They may have come late to this area, where they largely encountered the descendants of the pre-Roman Carni. The god’s name was not modified or linguistically adapted to the Slavic language, probably indicating the local indigenous population was powerful enough to impose its own beliefs on the entire community there.12 CYBELE – GREAT MOTHER The second interesting exampleconcerns Cybele and Attis, her youthful consort who castrated himself, ‘eastern deities’ whose cult became very influential in the north-east­ern Italian, Adriatic and Pannonian regions – and elsewhere – in the second and third centuries AD (Šašel Kos 2010). The worship of Cybele originated in Phrygia where she had been venerated as the “Mother of the mountains” since early in the first millennium BC (Roller 1999: 124–125, 171). 11 Osmuk 1987; Osmuk 1998. Several statues of Apollo were discovered, as well as of Hercules, other statues that have been found were of Venus, Mars and Diana; votive tablets, as well as Celtic and Roman coins have come to light as well, also see Osmuk 1997; cf. Horvat 2018: 344. 12 Celtic culture and cults had exercised some influence on the Slavic world elsewhere, cf. Rosen-Przeworska 1964. 232 M ARJETA Š AŠEL K OS In the Greek-speaking world that sawworshipping of her being introduced in the early 6th century BC (Roller 1999: 119–141), she was known as Męter oreía (the Greek translation of “Mother of the mountains”); in the Roman Empire, she was worshipped as Magna Mater, the Great Mother. Most interestingly, in a dedication to Magna Mater from Emona (Ljubljana) in the Italian Regio X, the divine name Oraea appears, which should almost certainly be explained as Cybele’s epithet oreia, even though it appears as if this was the name of another goddess on the same altar.13At Salonae (Solin), where 11 dedications to her have thus far been found, a dea barbarica is mentioned in one of them, an epithet that could hardly have referred to any other goddess but Cybele since festivities related to worshipping her were regarded as barbaric. In the Dalmatian metropolis, she seems to have been worshipped as early as in the second half of the first century BC (CIL III, 14663,2 = AE 1994, 1348 = HD031710; Šašel Kos 1999, 82, no. 1). Upon a decisionof the Roman Senate, a dark meteorite symbolising the goddess was solemnly transferred from Pessinus (Ballihisar in Turkey) to Rome in 204 BC during the war against Hannibal, when his army had invaded central Italy. Still, different accounts by ancient writers mean it is not entirely clear what were the exact reasons and initiative for this political and religious mission led by eminent Roman senators (Gruen 1990;Roller 1999, 263–265; Šašel Kos 1994). Rome strove to gain prominence in the East of Greece, not least justifying its ambitions by referring to its legendary Troianic origin (Gruen 1990). A sanctuary was built for Cybele on the Palatine and her cult became and remained one of the official cults in Rome, generally enjoying favour from the Roman aristocracy despite several of the rites performed in her honour indeed being barbaric.14 As the goddess of mountains and wild nature, she was usually accompanied by two lions. She was mostly equated with Rhea by the Greeks, her servants having been called “Couretes”, such as Rhea’s companions, who with their shouting rescued the new-born infant Zeus from his father Kronos. According to several writers, including Posidonius and Strabo, Rheawas called theGreatMother of theGods,or Agdistis,or theGreatPhrygian Goddess, but also Idaea (referring to Mt Ida), Dindymene, Sipylene, Pissinuntis, Cybele or Cybebe reflecting various places of her worship (10. 3. 12 C 469; cf. 12. 5. 3 C 567; Van Haeperen 2019: 57–77). The cultof Magna Mater is well documented in the northern Adriatic area (Verma­seren 1989), notably in Histria and particularly in a metropolis like Aquileia, but also at Emona.15At Celeia or in its territory, the Great Mother was worshipped by a member of the municipal aristocracy, one Gnaeus Pompeius Iustinus, as M(ater) D(eum) M(agna) Blau(n)dia. Iustinus was a town councillor (decurio) and one of the town’s two mayors (duumvir).16 The dedication is very interesting because of the epithet of the goddess derived from the Phrygian town of Blaundus (Toutain 1911: 75, no. 11; Swoboda 1969: 200, 13 RINMS 21 =AIJ 162 (= EDR128998 = lupa 8871): Orae(a)e / ex imp(erio) / M(atris?) D(eum?) M(agnae?) / L(ucius) A(---) P(---). 14 Sanders 1981. Also see Thomas 1984; Dubosson-Sbriglione 2018; Van Haeperen 2019. 15 Jurkic 1975 (Histria); Inscr. Aq. 284–291; Zaccaria 2008 (Cibele); RINMS 20 (= EDR128997); 22 (= EDR129001); RINMS 21 = AIJ 162 (= EDR128998 = lupa 8871). 16 CIL III 5194 + p. 1830 (= HD067019); Wedenig 1997: 120 C 11; Visocnik 2017: no. 49, with earlier citations. B ELENUS , C YBELE AND A TTIS : E CHOES OF THEIR C ULTS OVER THE C ENTURIES 233 no. 8). At Poetovio, within an area of minor sanctuaries at Spodnja Hajdina (Ciglenecki 1998: 255), an altar dedicated to Iuno and Magna Mater has been found together with a statue of Cybele (ILJug 1138 = HD016103; Modrijan – Weber 1981: 95–97). Cybele possessed all the characteristics of a “divine mother”; Diodorus Siculus, for example, mentioned she could heal children with her purificationrites, .a.a.µ.. (Bibl. hist. 3.58). The goddess was worshippedin severaltowns in Noricum andPannonia. The great influence of the cult of the Great Mother in these regions, as well as in the Roman Empire generally, is indirectly confirmed by the ‘mourning Attis’ often depicted on Roman-period grave monuments. It may be assumed that his representation on the tombstones symbolises an untimely death (Sanders 1981: 282). The goddess called Great Mother was worshipped under different names right across the Roman Empire, among various Romanised peoples of the Empire, hence also among the Celts who were pre-Roman inhabitants of the Poetovio region. The cult of Magna Mater often took the place of local goddesses, as seems to have been the case of Adsal­luta worshipped in the sanctuary of Savus and Adsalluta at Podkraj near Hrastnik where, in addition to several altars dedicated to Savus and Adsalluta or to Adsalluta alone, a small altar to Magna Mater has also been discovered. Among the Celts, cults of various Mother Goddesses, in plural or singular, enjoyed great popularity, as occurred with the Alounae (Alovnae) at Bedaium (Seebruck im Chiemgau; Hainzmann 2016), the Nutrices atPoetovio,themostfavouredgoddesses inthecity(ŠašelKos 2016),orDeaNutrixwho was worshipped in the sanctuary at Frauenberg near Flavia Solva (Schrettle 2016). These were some kind of birth goddesses, nourishers and guardians of children; some aspects of their worship were presumably congenial to Magna Mater. The considerable impact of the cult of Magna Mater throughout antiquity can also be explained by the soteriological aspects of the goddess. It should thus not be surprising that the worshipping of Magna Mater might have been a challenge to the spread of Christianity (Fear 1996; Borgeaud 1996: 169 ff.; Alvar 2008: 383 ff.). “WEDDING WITH A PINE TREE (BOROVO GOSTÜVANJE)” IN PREKMURJE, AND THE CARNIVAL FESTIVAL It is interesting that traces of the cult of Cybele and Attis seem to have survived from antiquityin Slovenia and outside ofits borders, chieflyin Prekmurje (the extreme north-eastern region of Slovenia) as well as in Ptuj (Roman Poetovio) and the surround­ing countryside. Poetovio was an important and cosmopolitan Roman town where, as mentioned, the cult of Magna Mater is well attested. The city was transferred from the province of Noricum to Pannonia at the beginning of Roman rule, and came again to Noricum in the late Roman period (Slapšak 2001; Horvat et al. 2003; Šašel Kos 2014). The most unusual and still existing custom of the “wedding with a pine tree”, which takes place during Carnival timein various, mainly Protestant, villages in Prekmurje (Fig. 2), quite likely sheds light on the long tradition of the cult of the once very popular deities Cybele and Attis. The custom is also known in Porabje in north-eastern Hungary 234 M ARJETA Š AŠEL K OS Fig. 2: “Wedding with a pine tree” (Porabje, 2005: photo Slavko Ciglenecki). that is home to a Slovenian minority, in the nearby regions in Croatia, as well as in Austrian Burgenland and Styria. The ceremony of the “wedding with apine tree”is performed between Christmas and Shrovetide in villages where there was no wedding in pre-Carnival time (Ciglenecki 1999; Ravnik 2009). There were not as many young people in Protestant villages as in the Catholic communities, meaning that weddings were rarer. Moreover, Catholic priests did not approve of the custom since they regarded it as making fun of church rituals. The “wedding with a pine tree” is an event involving an entire village and, as suggested by Slavko Ciglenecki, resembles in an interesting way the festival that was celebrated each year on 22 March in various towns of the Roman Empire (Ciglenecki 1999). On this date, “timber workers” (dendrophori: “tree-bearers”) ceremoniously performed the act of carrying a pine tree in a procession, having first embellished it with flowers and wrapped it in bandages. The pine tree symbolically represented the dead Attis, the youthful consort of the mother-goddess Cybele. On Carnival Sunday, the cutting down of a pine tree occurs in the course of elaborate ceremonies in one of the villages in Prekmurje and the regions mentioned above, where nobody got married in the previous year. It is a combination of Carnival and wedding customs (Kuret 1989, I: 24–28). A skilfully decorated pine tree is carried in a procession by male and female adolescents, while one of the performing young people should marry the pine tree. The comparison between the worship of Cybele as celebrated in Rome (Summers 1996) and elsewhere in the Roman Empire, notably also in Pannonia (Tóth 1992),andthe“pinetreewedding”in various villages inPrekmurjeand Porabjeis indeed B ELENUS , C YBELE AND A TTIS : E CHOES OF THEIR C ULTS OVER THE C ENTURIES 235 striking. Mojca Ravnik described the traditional event as held in 2002 in the village of Predanovci in the Prekmurje municipality of Puconci;17 there the pine tree personified the‘bride’, who was sitting on itwhen itwas being broughtfromtheforestto thevillage. Jelka Pšajd analysed the custom in detail, basing her research on all available (written and oral) sources.18The custom is increasingly becoming a tourist event, losing its original meaning of making fun of unmarried young people. However, it seems more likely that the pine tree should represent the bridegroom, not least because the word “pine tree” in Slovenian is masculine in gender (Hari, op. cit. in no. 17). The most outstanding Carnival event in Slovenia is the “Kurentovanje” festival. The masked men involved,generallyyoung adults, are calledKurents (Kurenti/Koranti); they are the main performers of the traditional and widely famed Carnival merrymaking at Ptuj and in the Ptuj region, as well as in several other towns and villages in Slovenia and beyond its borders, especially in Dravsko polje, Haloze, and Slovenske gorice (Kuret 1989, I: 11–73). In 2017, Carnival was included on UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage list. The masked companions of the Kurents include the “piceki” (“cockerels”), children wearing pointed caps who may be seen as reminiscent of the young Attis.19 It is interesting that the emasculated attendants of Cybele were called galli.20 Gallus is also the Latin word for “cock”; however, in this context this should merely be regarded as a strange coincidence or a misunderstanding. The roots of the “Kurentovanje” festival should be sought in the old beliefs in the spirits of the deceased, as well as in the spirits of nature who were to chase the winter away and restore the fertility of the soil (Kuret 1989, I: 11–73). Thecoincidentalsimilarityofthenames ofKurents (Kurenti)andtheCuretes (nature spirits protecting the harvest of the fields) should be noted along with certain similar features associated withtheir activities. Lucretius’ description of festivities related to the cult of Cybele and Attis may be insightful regarding the role played by the Kurents. The Roman poet and philosopher described the Curetes as armed groups attending to the Great Mother. His passage reads: “Here an armed band, which the Greeks name Curetes, disport themselvesrandomly among the Phrygian troops, and leap up among their group, joyful in blood, shaking the frightful crests by the nodding of their heads” (2.629–632; translation from Roller 1999: 298). There are, of course, no “Phrygian” or any other troops during Carnival. Instead, many other maskers are walking around the towns and villages dressed in the most specific attire. However, “joyful in blood” can be compared in one way or another to the behaviour of some of the Kurents before the Second World War, especially if two groups of Kurents met. They were armed with hedgehog clubs, several also with knives 17 Ravnik 2009. An excellent description of the custom, first noted in Prekmurje already before the First World War and possibly as early as in the 19th century, is found in the “Wikipedija, prosta enciklopedija”, written by Brigita Hari (consulted in November 2021). 18 Pšajd 2004. 19 Ciglenecki 1999: 27; about the spiritual roots of the Kurents, also see Celan 2020. 20 Galli were not Cybele’s priests, but her attendants: Van Haeperen 2019: 53–54. 236 M ARJETA Š AŠEL K OS and some even with revolvers and it happened that a few were killed during the ensuing skirmishes (Kuret1989, I:29–30). TheKurents also make considerablenoiseand behave quite wildly in recent Carnivals. The two presented cases of echoes of the pre-Roman and Roman worship of Belinus and Cybele with Attis, and of the festivities related to their cults, are very revealing with respect to the great impact of ancient religious practices. One cannot deny that their traces, albeit having transformed over the passing centuries, have persisted to the modern age. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to thank Slavko Ciglenecki and Monika Kropej Telban for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. BIBLIOGRAPHY ABBREVIATIONS AE = L’Année épigraphique. AIJ = V. Hoffiller, B. Saria,Antike Inschriften aus Jugoslavien. Heft I: Noricum und Pannonia Superior. Zagreb 1938 (re-print Amsterdam 1970). CIL = Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. EDH = Epigraphic Database Heidelberg. EDR = Epigraphic Database Roma. ILJug = A. et J. Šašel, Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Jugoslavia inter annos MCMXL et MCMLX repertae et editae sunt. Situla 5. Ljubljana 1963; iidem, Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Jugoslavia inter annos MCMLX et MCMLXX repertae et editae sunt. Situla 19. Ljubljana 1978; iidem, Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Jugoslavia inter annos MCMII et MCMXL repertae et editae sunt. Situla 25. Ljubljana 1986. ILLPRON = Inscriptionum lapidariarum Latinarum provinciae Norici Indices (compos. M. Hainzmann, P. Schubert). Fasc. I. 1986; II-III. 1987. Inscr. Aq. = J. B. Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae. I–III, Udine 1991–1993. lupa = F. und O. Harl, http://lupa.at (Bilddatenbank zu antiken Steindenkmälern). OPEL = B. Lorincz, Onomasticon provinciarum Europae Latinarum: Vol. I: Aba – Bysanus, Budapest 20052; Vol. II: Cabalicius – Ixus, Wien 1999; Vol. III: Labareus – Pythea, Wien 2000; Vol. IV: Quadratia – Zures. Wien 2002. RINMS = Marjeta Šašel Kos, The Roman Inscriptions in the National Museum of Slovenia / Lapidarij Narodnega muzeja Slovenije. Situla 35. Ljubljana 1997. B ELENUS , C YBELE AND A TTIS : E CHOES OF THEIR C ULTS OVER THE C ENTURIES 237 Alvar, Jaime, 2008: Romanising Oriental Gods. Myth, Salvation and Ethics in the Cults of Cybele, Isis and Mithras (transl. and ed. R. Gordon). Leiden, Boston: Brill (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 165). Birkhan, Helmut, 1997: Kelten. Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung ihrer Kultur. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Borgeaud, Philippe, 1996: La Mčre des dieux. De Cybčle ŕ la Vierge Marie. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. Chirassi Colombo, Ileana, 1976: I culti locali nelle regioni alpine. In: Aquileia e l’arco alpino orientale. Udine: Arti grafiche friulane (Antichitŕ Altoadriatiche 9), 173–206. Ciglenecki, Slavko, 1998: Nenavaden spomenik Kibelinega in Apolonovega kulta iz Marofa (Mrzlo Polje) v bližini Jurkloštra (Ein aussergewöhnliches Denkmal des Kybele und Apollo Kultes aus Marof [Mrzlo Polje] in der Nähe von Jurklošter). Arheološki vestnik 49, Ljubljana, 251–259. Ciglenecki, Slavko, 1999: Late Traces of the Cults of Cybele and Attis. The Origins of the Kurenti and of the Pinewood Marriage (“Borovo Gostüvanje”) (Pozni sledovi Kibelinega in Atisovega kulta. O izvoru kurentov in borovega gostivanja). Studia mythologica Slavica 2, Ljubljana, Pisa, 21–31. Celan, Štefan, 2020: Kurent – Korant. Ali veš, kdo si?. Ptuj: Beletrina. De Bernardo Stempel, Patrizia, 2004: Die sprachliche Analyse keltischer Theonyme. In: Gorrochategui, J. – De Bernardo Stempel, P. (eds.): Die Kelten und ihre Religion im Spiegel der epigraphischen Quellen / Los Celtas y su religi a través de la epigrafía. Vitoria Gasteiz (Anejos de Veleia 11), 197–225 (= Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie 53, Bonn 2003, 41–69). De Bernardo Stempel, Patrizia; Hainzmann, Manfred, 2020: Fontes epigraphici religionum Celticarum antiquarum I. Provincia Noricum. 1. Die Gottheiten in ihrer sprachlichen und kultischen Erscheinungsformen. 2. Die epigraphischen Testimonien. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 89, 1–2). Dobesch, Gerhard, 1997: Zu Virunum als Namen der Stadt auf dem Magdalensberg und zu einer Sage der kontinentalen Kelten. Carinthia I 187, Klagenfurt, 107–128. Dubosson-Sbriglione, Lara, 2018:Le culte de la Mčre des dieux dans l’Empire romain. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner (Potsdamer Altertumwissenschaftliche Beiträge 62). Fear, Andrew T., 1996: Cybele and Christ. In: Lane, E. N. (ed.): Cybele, Attis and Related Cults. Essays in Memory of M. J. Vermaseren. Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 131), 36–50. Fontana, Federica, 1997: I culti di Aquileia repubblicana. Aspetti della politica religiosa in Gallia Cisalpina tra il III e il II sec. a. C. Roma: Quasar (Studi e Ricerche sulla Gallia Cisalpina 9). Glaser, Franz, 2003: Der Name der Stadt auf dem Magdalensberg. Rudolfinum 2003, Klagenfurt, 85–88. Handy, Markus, 2018: Unicuique etiam provinciae et civitati suus deus est. Bemerkungen zum Belenus-Kult in Noricum. Risches Österreich 41, Wien, 51–66. Gourvest, Jacques, 1954: Le culte de Belenos en Provence occidentale et en Gaule. Ogam 6/6, Rennes, 257–262. 238 M ARJETA Š AŠEL K OS Green, Miranda J., 1995: The Gods and the Supernatural. In: Green, M. J. (ed.): The Celtic World. London, New York: Routledge, 465–488. Green, Miranda J., 1997: The Gods of the Celts. Bridgend: Sutton. Gruen, Erich S., 1990: The Advent of the Magna Mater. In: Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy, 5–33 (Cincinnati Classical Studies 7). Haeussler, Ralph, 2008: How to identify Celtic religion(s) in Roman Britain and Gaul. In: d’Encarnaçăo, J. (ed.): Divindades indígenas em análise. Divinités pré-romaines – bilan et perspectives d’une recherche. Actas do VII workshop FERCAN Cascais 2006. Coimbra, Porto, 13–63. Hainzmann, Manfred, ALOVNAE (sive) NUTRICES: identische norische Muttergottheiten? in: M. Lehner, B. Schrettle (eds.), Zentralort und Tempelberg. Siedlungs- und Kultentwicklung am Frauenberg bei Leibnitz im Vergleich. Akten des Kolloquiums im Schloss Seggau am 4. und 5. Mai 2015. Wien, 39–48 (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Archäologie der Universität Graz 15 = Studien zur Archäologie der Steiermark 1). Hatt, J.-J., 1976: Les divinités indigčnes dans les districts alpins ŕ l’époque romaine (Alpes Grées et Pennines, Alpes Cottiennes, Alpes Maritimes). In: Atti. Centro studi e documentazione sull’Italia romana 7, Roma, 1975–1976, 353–362. Horvat, Jana, 2018: Statuettes from Ravelnik near Bovec in the Soca Valley (Slovenia). In: Bouet, A. – Petit-Aupert, C. (eds.): Bibere, ridere, gaudere, studere, hoc est vivere. Hommages ŕ Francis Tassaux. Bordeaux: Ausonius éd., 337–351 (Mémoires 53). Horvat, Jana et al. 2003: Horvat, Jana; Lovenjak, Milan; Dolenc Vicic, Andreja; Lubšina-Tušek, Meri; Tomanic-Jevremov, Marjana; Šubic, Zorka: Poetovio. Development and Topography. In: Šašel Kos, M. – Scherrer, P. (eds.): The Autonomous Towns in Noricum and Pannonia / Die autonomen Städte in Noricum und Pannonien – Pannonia I. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije, 153–189 (Situla 41). Jurkic, Vesna, 1975: The Cult of Magna Mater in the Region of Istria. Živa antika 25, Skopje, 285–298. Juvancic, Ivo, 1984: Križarska vojska proti Kobaridcem 1331 (La crociata contro gli abitanti di Caporetto / Kobarid del 1331). Zgodovinski casopis 38/1–2, Ljubljana, 49–55. Kuret, Niko, 1989: Praznicno leto Slovencev. Starosvetne šege in navade od pomladi do zime. I–II. Ljubljana: Družina. Leber, Paul S., 1972: Die in Kärnten seit 1902 gefundenen rischen Steininschriften. Klagenfurt: J. Heyn (Aus Kärntens römischer Vergangenheit 3). Lettich, Giovanni, 1994: Iscrizioni romane di Iulia Concordia (sec. I. a.C. – III. d.C.). Trieste: Centro Studi storico-religiosi Friuli-Venezia Giulia (vol. no. 26). Lovenjak, Milan, 2003: Rimski napisi iz Celja, najdeni med 1991 in 2003 (Die römischen Inschriften von Celje, gefunden in den Jahren 1991 bis 2003). Arheološki vestnik 54, Ljubljana, 331–368. Mainardis, Fulvia, 2008: Iulium Carnicum. Storia ed epigrafia. Antichitŕ Altoadriatiche: Monografie 4. Trieste: Editreg. Maraspin, Flavia, 1968: Il culto di Beleno-Apollo ad Aquileia. Atti. Centro studi e documentazione sull’Italia romana 1, Roma, 1967–1968, 145–161. Mastrocinque, Attilio, 1995: Aspetti della religione pagana a Concordia e nell’alto Adriatico. In: Croce Da Villa, P., Mastrocinque, A. (eds.): Concordia e la X Regio. Giornate di studio in onore di Dario Bertolini nel centenario della morte. Atti del convegno Portogruaro 22–23 ott. 1994. Padova: Zielo, 269–287. B ELENUS , C YBELE AND A TTIS : E CHOES OF THEIR C ULTS OVER THE C ENTURIES 239 Medvešcek - Klancar, Pavel, 2015: Iz nevidne strani neba. Razkrite skrivnosti staroverstva. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC (Studia mythologica Slavica, Suppl. 12; 3. ed. 2018). Modrijan, Walter; Weber, Ekkehard, 1981: Die Römersteinsammlung des Joanneums im Eggenberger Schloßpark, 2. Teil, Verwaltungsbezirke Virunum, Ovilava, Celeia und Poetovio. Schild von Steier 14, Graz, 1979–1981, 7–111. Olmsted, Garrett S., 1994: The Gods of the Celts and the Indo-Europeans. Budapest: Archaeolingua alapítvány (Archaeolingua 6). Osmuk, Nada, 1987: Die Bronzeplastik aus Kobarid. Kulturgeschichtliche Bedeutung kobarider Gruppe kleiner Bronzeplastik und ein Datierungsversuch. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 24, Beograd, 57–79. Osmuk, Nada, 1997: Kobarid od prazgodovine do antike [Kobarid from Prehistory to the Roman Period]. In: Kobarid. Kobarid: Kobariški muzej, 9–16. Osmuk, Nada, 1998: Le sanctuaire protohistorique de Kobarid (Slovénie). Instrumentum 7, Montagnac, 13. Ovsec, Damjan J., 1991: Slovanska mitologija in verovanje [Slavic Mythology and Beliefs]. Ljubljana: Domus, 1991. Pascal, Cecil B., 1964: The Cults of Cisalpine Gaul. Bruxelles: Peeters Publishers (Collection Latomus 75). Piccottini, Gernot, 2017: Belinus, eine antike Quellen- und Heilgottheit in Warmbad-Villach?. Carinthia I 207, Klagenfurt, 35–43. Pšajd, Jelka, 2004: Poroka z borom. Borova gostanja v Prekmurju in v Šalamencih. Murska Sobota: Tiskarna M.A.M. Puconci. Ravnik, Mojca, 2009: Borovo gostanje v Predanovcih. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. Roller, Lynn E., 1999: In Search of God the Mother. The cult of Anatolian Cybele. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press. Rosen-Przeworska, Janina, 1964: Tradycje celtyckie w obrzedowosci Protoslowian. Wroclaw, Warszawa, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Polskiej akademii nauk. Rutar, Simon, 1882: Zgodovina Tolminskega [The History of the Tolmin Region]. Gorica: J. Devetak. Rutar, Simon, 1883: Belinjska opatija. Soca 13, no. 14 (6 April). Gorica. Sanders, Gabriel, 1981: Kybele und Attis. In: Die orientalischen Religionen im Rerreich. Leiden: Brill, 264–297 (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain 93). Scherrer, Peter G., 1984: Der Kult der namentlich bezeugten Gottheiten im rerzeitlichen Noricum. Diss. Wien (unpublished). Schrettle, Bernhard, 2016: Votive an eine Ammengöttin aus dem Tempelbezirk auf dem Frauenberg bei Leibnitz. In: G. Koiner, U. Lohner-Urban (eds.), “Ich bin dann mal weg”. Festschrift für einen Reisenden Thuri Lorenz zum 85. Geburtstag. Wien, 195–202 (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Archäologie der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz 13). Slapšak, Božidar, 2001: Poetovio as a supra-regional center. In: Vomer Gojkovic, M., Kolar, N. (eds.), Ptuj v rimskem cesarstvu. Mitraizem in njegova doba / Ptuj im Rischen Reich. Mithraskult und seine Zeit / Ptuj in the Roman Empire. Mithraism and its Era. Ptuj: Pokrajinski muzej; Zgodovinsko društvo, 11–25 (Archaeologia Poetovionensis 2). 240 M ARJETA Š AŠEL K OS Summers, K. 1996: Lucretius’ Roman Cybele. In: Lane, E. N. (ed.): Cybele, Attis and Related Cults. Essays in Memory of M.J. Vermaseren. Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 337–365 (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 131). Swoboda, Roksanda M., 1969: Denkmäler des Mater-Magna-Kultes in Slovenien und Istrien. Bonner Jahrbher 169, Bonn, 195–207. Šašel Kos, Marjeta, 1986: Zgodovinska podoba prostora med Akvilejo, Jadranom in Sirmijem pri Kasiju Dionu in Herodijanu / A Historical Outline of the Region between Aquileia, the Adriatic, and Sirmium in Cassius Dio and Herodian. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Šašel Kos, Marjeta, 1994: Cybele in Salonae: a Note. In: Le Bohec, Y. (ed.): L’Afrique, la Gaule, la Religion ŕ l’époque romaine. Mélanges ŕ la mémoire de Marcel Le Glay. Bruxelles: Latomus, 780–791 (Collection Latomus 226). Šašel Kos, Marjeta, 1999: Pre-Roman Divinities of the Eastern Alps and Adriatic. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije (Situla 38). Šašel Kos, Marjeta, 2001: Belin. Studia mythologica Slavica 4, Ljubljana, Pisa, 9–16. Šašel Kos, Marjeta, 2010: Adsalluta and Magna Mater – is there a link?. In: Alberto Arenas- Esteban, J. (ed.): Celtic Religion across Space and Time. IX Workshop F.E.R.C.AN, Molina de Aragón. Toledo: Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha, 242–256. Šašel Kos, Marjeta, 2014: Poetovio before the Marcomannic Wars: from Legionary Camp to Colonia Ulpia. In: Piso, I., Varga, R. (eds.): Trajan und seine Städte. Cluj-Napoca: Mega, 139–165. Šašel Kos, Marjeta, 2016: Nutrices: the most popular goddesses at Poetovio. In: Lehner, M., Schrettle, B. (eds.): Zentralort und Tempelberg. Siedlungs- und Kultentwicklung am Frauenberg bei Leibnitz im Vergleich. Akten des Kolloquiums im Schloss Seggau am 4. und 5. Mai 2015. Wien, 167–174 (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Archäologie der Universität Graz 15 = Studien zur Archäologie der Steiermark 1). Thomas, Garth, 1984: Magna Mater and Attis. In: Aufstieg und Niedergang der rischen Welt II 17,3. Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter, 1500–1535. Tóth, István, 1992: The Cult of Cybele and Attis in Pannonia. Specimina nova 6, Pécs, 1990 (1992), 119–157. Toutain, Jules, 1911: Les cultes paďens. II: Les cultes orientaux. Paris: Editions Ernest Leroux (repr. Roma 1967). Van Haeperen, Françoise, 2019: Étrangčre et ancestrale, la Mčre des dieux dans le monde romain. Paris: Cerf (Les conférences de l’École pratique des hautes études, 12). Vermaseren, Maarten J., 1989: Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attidisque (CCCA) VI. Leiden: Brill (Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain 50). Wedenig, Reinhold, 1997: Epigraphische Quellen zur städtischen Administration in Noricum. Klagenfurt: Geschichtsverein für Kärnten (Aus Forschung und Kunst 31). Visocnik, Julijana, 2017: The Roman Inscriptions from Celeia and its Ager. Celje: Celjska Mohorjeva družba. Wojciechowski, Przemyslaw, 2001: Untersuchungen zu den Lokalkulten im rischen Aquileia. Herkunft, Funktion und Anhängerschaft. Torun: Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika. Wojciechowski, Przemyslaw, 2002: Il culto di Beleno ad Aquileia romana: origini, interpretatio romana e la cosidetta ‘rinascita celtica’. In: Gli echi della terra. Presenze celtiche in Friuli: dati materiali e momenti dell’immaginario. Convegno di studi. Pisa, Roma, 29–35. B ELENUS , C YBELE AND A TTIS : E CHOES OF THEIR C ULTS OVER THE C ENTURIES 241 Zaccaria, Claudio, 1995: Alle origini della storia di Concordia romana. In: Croce Da Villa, P., Mastrocinque,A. (eds.): Concordia e la X Regio. Giornate di studio in onore di Dario Bertolini. Atti del convegno Portogruaro. Padova: Zielo Editore, Libraria Padovana Editrice, 175–186. Zaccaria, Claudio, 2004: Scelta dei signa onomastici e tradizioni religiose locali ad Aquileia. In: Ruscu, L. et al. (eds.): Orbis antiquus. Studia in hon. Ioannis Pisonis. Cluj-Napoca: Nereamia Napocae Press, 171–178. Zaccaria, Claudio,2008 (Cibele): Iscrizioni inedite del culto di Cibele rinvenute nelle fondazioni del battistero di Aquileia. In: Epigrafia 2006. Atti della XIVe rencontre sur l’épigraphie in onore di Silvio Panciera. Roma: Quasar, 741–772 (Tituli 9). Zaccaria, Claudio, 2008 (Beleno): Cultores Beleni. In: Sartori, A. (ed.): Dedicanti e cultores nelle religioni celtiche. Milano: Cisalpino, 375–412 (Quaderni di Acme 104). BELEN, KIBELA IN ATIS: ODMEV NJIHOVIH KULTOV SKOZI STOLETJA MARJETA ŠAŠEL KOS Belen – Belin Belen, v Noriku znan kot Belin,je bil keltski bog, ki je bil cašcen od Iberije do Galije in obmocja Alp, njegov kult pa je bil posebej priljubljen zlasti v Noriku in Akvileji (Oglej). Veljal je za najpomembnejše božanstvo Noriškega kraljestva, kar je omenilgrškipisec in zagovornik kršcanstva s konca 2. in iz 3. stoletja, Tertulijan (Apol. 24.7). Iz Norika se je njegov kult zelo verjetno razširil v mesto Iulium Carnicum (Zuglio), kjer je stalo njegovo na napisu omenjeno svetišce, in v Akvilejo, kjer je veljal za zašcitnika mesta. V casu, ko jo je oblegal rimskih vladar Maksimin Tracan, ki je bil na poti v Rim, da bi kaznoval uzurpatorje, naj bi mesto rešil Belen. V Noriku so castili tudi boginjo Belestis, kar po vsej verjetnosti dodatno potrjujepomembno vlogo Belina. Ni izkljuceno, da znameniti bronasti kip »mladenica s Štalenske gore« predstavlja Belina. V Akvileji in njeni sosešcini, kjer je stalo vec Belenu posvecenih svetišc, so ga pogosto enacili z Apolonom, bil je torej božanstvo (soncne) svetlobe in zdravilstva, po vsej verjetnosti pa tudi zašcitnik vodnih izvirov, saj so ga castili skupaj z Nimfami. Njegov oltar je bil najden tudi v noriški Celeji (Celje). Bog Belin na Tolminskem Zelo zanimivo je, da je bilo cašcenje svetega Belina dokumentirano še v drugi polovici 19. stoletja med staroverskim prebivalstvom na obmocju Tolmina (sl. 1). Ljudje so verjeli, da je Belin božji zdravilec, ki ima cudežen kljuc, s katerim lahko pozdravi slepoto. To je v svoji Zgodovini Tolminskega, ki je izšla leta 1882, zapisal zgodovinar in etnolog Simon Rutar. Lahko domnevamo, da bi kult Belina 242 M ARJETA Š AŠEL K OS iz Akvileje utegnil preživeti iz antike skozi dolga stoletja do konca 19. stoletja, da torej nikdar ni popolnoma zamrl. Ceprav je staroverstvo na obmocju Tolmina in Kobarida izpricano v dokumentu iz 14. stoletju, v odrocnem podrocju zahodne Slovenijepacelo vsedo 20. stoletja, predvsemv Posocju, jetrebavendarlepriznati, da ta razlaga ni povsem zanesljiva. Kibela, velika mati Njen kult izvira iz Frigije, v casu rimskega imperija je bila ena najvplivnejših boginj, ki je bila v Emoni cašcena kot Velika mati Oraea (z gore). Na oltarju iz Salon (Salonae, zdaj Solin) pa se, glede na svoje poreklo in nenavaden obred, saj se je njen mladisoprog Atis kastriral, imenuje celo »barbarska«. V Celeji so jo castili kot Veliko blaundijsko mati, boginjo iz frigijskega mesta Blaundus. V casu vojne proti Hanibalu je rimski senat leta 204 pr. kr. št. sklenil, da temen meteorit, ki naj bi predstavljal boginjo, prenesejo iz Pesinunta (Ballihisar v Turciji) v Rim. Bila je boginja gora in divje narave, ki sta jo pogosto spremljala dva leva. Imela jevseznacilnostibožanskematere,lahkojeozdravljalaotroke,onjenemvelikem pomenu pa prica tudi »žalujoci Atis«, ki je bil pogosto upodobljen na nagrobnikih. Ko je umrl, naj bi se spremenil v bor. Poroka z borom (Borovo gostanje) v Prekmurju in pustovanje Vse kaže, da so sledi cašcenja Kibele in Atisa preživele iz antike do danes; to je mogoce opazovati predvsem v Prekmurju, Porabju in sosednjih obmocjih, tudi na Madžarskem, Hrvaškem in v Avstriji. Elementi tega kulta pridejo najbolj na­zorno do izraza v obicaju »poroke z borom«, ki se je v casu pustovanja ohranil predvsem v protestantskih vaseh v Prekmurju (sl. 2), kajti katoliški duhovniki ga niso odobravali. Ta slovesni obred je potekal med Božicem in pustnim casom v vaseh, kjer se tisto leto ni nihce porocil. Poroka z borom je bila dogodek, pri katerem je sodelovala vsa vas, in kot je opozoril Slavko Ciglenecki, je v neka­terih podrobnostih zelo zanimivo sovpadala z anticnim praznovanjem, ki se je 22. marca odvijalo po raznih mestih rimskega imperija. Na ta dan so »drvarji« (dendrophori: nosilci drevesa) v procesiji slovesno nosili iz gozda bor, ki so ga okrasili s cvetjem in slavnostno povili. Bor je simbolicno predstavljal mrtvega Atisa. Obicaj »poroke z borom«, ki je do nedavnega še imel simbolicni naboj, saj je opozarjal na to, da tistega leta ni bilo poroke, pa, kot ugotavlja Jelka Pšajd, vse bolj postaja turisticni dogodek. Tudi kurentovanje, ki je zlasti odmevno na Ptuju in v širši okolici (Dravsko polje, Haloze, Slovenske gorice) in je vpisano v seznam svetovne nesnovne kul­turne dedišcine, ima svoje zametke v antiki. Spremljevalci kurentov so »piceki«, in zanimivo je, da so se spremljevalci Kibele, evnuhi, imenovali galli, gallus pa je latinsko ime za petelina. Kurenti oz. koranti spominjajo na Kurete (Curetes), udeležence pri Kibelinem kultu, duhove narave in zavetnike poljskega pridelka. Izvor kurentov je treba iskati vstarem verovanju vduhove umrlihin duhove narave, ki so pregnali zimo in zemljo ponovno napravili rodovitno. B ELENUS , C YBELE AND A TTIS : E CHOES OF THEIR C ULTS OVER THE C ENTURIES 243 Iz obeh komentiranih primerov je mogoce sklepati, da so sledi kultov Belina, Kibele in Atisa po vsej verjetnosti preživele od predrimskega in rimskega casa vse do polpreteklih oz. celo današnjih dni, kar dokazuje, da je vpliv anticnih verovanj resnicno velik in ni nikoli povsem zamrl. Dr. Marjeta Šašel Kos, Šujica 107, SI-1356 Dobrova pri Ljubljani, mkos@zrc-sazu.si 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 245–272 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222512 Who’s Afraid of the Goddess? Leopard’s Tale, Menopausal Syndrome: Terms of Debate within Archaeology Arianna Carta Clanek predstavlja vpogled v arheološke diskusije o ženskih neolitskih figurinah in zacenja z zgodovinskim pregledom glavnih akademskih interpretacij figurin. Poleg tega uvaja feministicne pristope v arheologiji, povezane s figurinami, ter prikazuje, kako je androcentricna pristranskost vplivala na teorije in metodologije. Študija primera Çatalhöyük služi kot primer kontrastnih naracij. Clanek trdi, da lahko akademsko raz­vrednotenje dela Marije Gimbutas v okviru sodobne arheologije štejemo za lakmusov test, ki kaže na razširjenost spolne pristranskosti na tem disciplinarnempodrocju. Med posebnimi argumenti proti Gimbutasovim teorijam so: sindrom menopavze, ginecen­tricna agenda in obrnjeni seksizem, ki vsi kažejo, kako so se arheologiosredotocili na osebne napade in ne na resno akademsko razpravo. Na koncu so vse te retoricne strate­gije preusmerile pozornost znanstvenikov z glavnega vprašanja, ki se redko obravnava: zakaj v neolitiku prevladujejo ženske figurine? KLJUCNE BESEDE: neolitik, ženske figurine, boginje, Gimbutas, feministicna arhe­ologija in arheologija spola, arheološke diskusije. This article presents an insight into archaeological disputes around female Neolithic figurines, starting with a historical overview of main academic interpretations of the figurines. Furthermore, it introduces feminist approaches in archaeology related to fig­urines, showing how androcentric bias has undermined theories and methodologies. Çatalhöyük case-study serves as an example of contrasting narratives. The article ar­gues that academic devaluation of Marija Gimbutas’ work within contemporary archae­ology can be considered a litmus test which show the pervasiveness of gender bias in this disciplinary field. Among peculiar arguments against Gimbutas’ theories, there are: menopause syndrome, gynocentric agenda, and reverse sexism, all of which show how the archaeologists have focused on personal attacks rather than on serious academic discussion. In the end, all those rhetoric strategies have shifted scholars’ attention from the main issue which is rarely addressed: why is it that the Neolithic period is dominated 246 A RIANNA C ARTA INTRODUCTION The issue of female Neolithic figurines has constituted a controversial debate within the archaeological discipline, especially when related to Goddesses. This paper explores a range of academic positions on this disputed topic. Starting from a historical overview of fundamental hypothesis regarding prehistoric Goddesses, my argument will consist in showing that the acceptance or refusal of the theories of Marija Gimbutas could be understood as a litmus test of charged discussions within the mainstream of the disci­pline of archaeology but also of their intersections with feminist and gender approaches to archaeology. The discourse on prehistoric divinities has a long history as it was theorized in different contexts by numerous scholars, predominantly the historians of religion.At the end of the 19th century, historian, lawyer, and anthropologist Johann Jacob Bachofen ([1891] 1988) claimed thatthehuman species had developed in two main phases:prehistory dominated by the cult of female Goddesses, resulting from a matriarchal society (characterized by the rule of women, which he also defined as “gynocracy”), which then progressed towards a (superior) patriarchal society, dominated by male gods.At the turn of the 20th century, during the fifties, there was a growing number of scholars interested in the topic. The anthropologist and historian of religion James Frazer ([1951] 2014) has elabo­rated several theories concerning the influence of matriarchy on religions, drawing on various ethnographic cases of rituals devoted to the feminine principle. Bachofen and Frazer shared a view that exalted progress characterized by male superiority. The expert of Greek mythology Robert Graves ([1948] 1992) in his essay The White Goddess ana­lyzes numerous historical and mythological resources that testify a strong matriarchal imprint of pre-Christian Europe. Another important essay, this time in the field of psychology, by Erich Neumman ([1955] 1981), inserts the discourse on mother Goddess into that of psychological arche­types, referring to the archaeological and mythological evidence from Anatolia, especially regarding the cult of Cybele. The anthropologistand historian of religion E. O. James (1960) dedicates a long chapter of his essay to a discussion of Mother Goddess and her successors, relating the paleolithic “venuses” to the cult of a primigenial Mother Goddess. Following James, the “venuses” would later develop into Middle Eastern goddesses such as Mesopotamian Inanna-Ishtar, Egyptian Isis-Hathor, while in the Syrian and Palestinian regions there would be Astarte-Anat. Also, the philosopher Bertrand Russel ([1946]1991), in his History of Western Phi­losophy, thinks that at the origins of antique civilizations there had existed a figure of a Mother Goddess that got transformed subsequently into the Goddesses of Asia Minor and of Greece, Ishtar and Artemis. Furthermore, in the recently republished collective works of the American historian of religion Joseph Campbell, we find an interpretation of protohistoric religiosity that is influenced by Gimbutas, in which Campbell asserts that the figurines of the Paleolithic, in their nudity, represent female Goddesses (Campbell 2013: 10-11). THE APPLE OF DISCORD: ÇATALHÖYÜK Within the discipline of archaeology, up until the first half of the 20th century and for a while afterwards,therehadbeenanimplicitagreement around the understanding of the cult of Mother Goddess, according to which the Paleolithic and Neolithic figurines were considered its material proof (Renaud 1929;Evans 1935;Childe1951; Nilsson 1971; Atzeni 1978; Cauvin 1997; Lilliu 1999). The morecommon interpretation was the onethatrelated femaleGoddesses to thecultof fertility, explained through the emphasis given to the representation of breasts and vulva of the figurines. This interpretation reached one of its peaks with the discoveries by James Mellaart in his excavations attheNeolithicsiteof Çatal­höyük in Anatolia. During the excavations, the archaeologist uncovered dozens of bas-reliefs representing women in the act of giving birth. Among numerous finds at this archaeological site, the one that subsequently became famous as its emblem represents the statue of a woman seated on the throne with two leopards1(other figurines, showing sculpted spotted animals, have been identified as “goddesses with leopards” (Mellaart 1967: 141, 182). According to Mellaart, at the site there used to exist a city devoted to the cult of the Mother Goddess. Severalyears later, archaeologistMarija Gimbutas notonly confirmed Mellaart’s hypoth­esis, but she also conducted multidisciplinary research of female figurines and related symbols. Gimbutas affirmed that during the Neolithic period, in the “Old Europe”, thereexisted a cult of numerous Goddesses (or alternatively, of one single Great Goddess, presented in many forms). Her theories have generated strong reactions in academia, both positive and negative, especially within the field of archeology. Mellaart (1967) describes this figurine as “goddess supported by two felines giving birth to a child” (Mellaart 1967:138). To comprehend the motivation behind such strong reactions, it is necessary to dis­sect the controversial points around the discourse of female Goddesses in the field of archaeology, their connection to the female figurines and the link to the women’s role in society.After Mellaart, another archaeologist, Ian Hodder, who is considered a founder of the post-processual archaeology, had worked at the archaeological site of Çatalhöyük. In 20 years of further excavations and analysis, he noticed that not only women but also many animals were represented in the remains at the site, especially felines and bulls/ cows. Based on this discovery (which was, moreover, highlighted also by Mellaart and Gimbutas who both used the formulation “mistress of animals’’), Hodder then refocused his research on the fauna. Reversing the previous interpretations, he published an essay entitled The Leopard’s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Çatalh, in which the focus is on the animals’ tales instead on the aspects of the divine feminine. The same archae­ologist, consistently negating the strong presence of female symbology, insists to affirm that “we can talk about the violence, sex and death of the imagery at Çatalhöyük simply in terms of male prowess” (Hodder 2006: 203). This argument curiously mirrors the claims developed by Peter Ucko in which the scholar complained that “the male figurines are rejected as a Male God of prowess (Ucko 1962: 42)”. Similarly, Michael Balter in his essay, The Goddess and the Bull, also devoted to the same contested archaeological site, claims that Gimbutas suffers from “nostalgia for a lost egalitarian paradise, where women were empowered rather than trodden underfoot”2 (Balter 2016: 40). This (recently pub­lished) text implies, in a not too subtle way, that the female gender is not only constantly discriminated againstand humiliated butalso thatan egalitarian society is unimaginable, or at least, relegated to the realm of fantasy. I would argue that the rhetorical discursive moves frequently used in debates in the field of archaeology consist in a certain deliberate denigration and/or rendering invisible of women, counterbalanced by the constant emphasis on presumed male prowess. This phenomenon is so pervasive and evident that even two paleontologists who certainly are not feminists such as Lewis-Williams and Pearce, find it necessary to ask the following: “who saw the process of domestication as a metaphor for the control of women: the peo­ple of Çatalhöyük themselves, or the archaeologists who study them?” (Lewis-Williams and Pearce 2005: 138). They also provide a remarkably interesting interpretation of the figurine of a woman seated on/between two leopards. The two paleontologists, experts in the topic of shamanism, statethat “around the world, large and physically powerful animals, such as bears and felines, are associated with shamans” (Lewis-Williams and Pearce 2005: 145). In other words, if in mainstream archaeological discourse it seems impossible to admit that this figurine could represent a Goddess, recognizing her status as that of a shaman could represent an important step ahead in the debates in the field. In my opinion, it is important as well to pay attention to the headpiece which the woman seemsto be wearing, ascribable to polos that is characteristic of the iconography of Middle Eastern Goddesses such as Cybele and Artemis, among others. My emphasis. FEMINIST ARCHAEOLOGY: AN ONGOING DEBATE In the meantime, women archaeologists, after decades of a subordinate position within academia3, became increasingly articulate in turning their attention to the question of the roleof women in theeraunder research. To understand thecontextin which Gimbutas and other women archeologists were working, it is useful to recall the analysisadvanced by the archaeologist Joan Gero, according to whom it used to be considered common sense that women archaeologists could only work in closed spaces such as laboratories or museums where they could cataloguethe materials and finds courageously discovered by their male colleagues. To describe this situation, Gero coined the term “woman-at-home-ideology” (Gero 1985: 342). Indeed, the exceptionality and rarity of the fact that the supervision over the international excavation project was entrusted to Marija Gimbutas, should be noted. It is also important to acknowledge that Gimbutas was not the only female archaeologist to have reached important position within the academy. In the British context Dorothy Garrod (1892-1968), the first archaeologist to obtain a professorship in Cambridge, was an important point of reference in Neanderthal research, while Kathleen Kenyon (1906­1978) dealt with the Neolithic in the fertile crescent, becoming famous for the excavations in JerichoandJerusalem,withher worktranslatedinvarious languages.IntheSlovenian context, TatjanaBregant (1932-2002) is known for her interdisciplinary research on the Neolithic, while the Serbian archaeologist Draga Garašanin (1921-1997) distinguished herself for her study of the Dacian necropolis in the Danube area. These are important examples that unfortunately must be considered as exceptions. In recent years there have been some major improvements within academia that have made women increasingly visible as members of prehistoric societies. For this reason, in our precise academic cultural moment, there is less of an immediate urgency to argue a case for their presence in prehistory since they have been included in the interpreta­tions of recent decades. However, even as recently as 2020, a book has been published that clarifies how even today we cannot take for granted the need to research the role of women in prehistory. French paleontologist Marylčne Patou-Mathis, director of the CNRS (NationalCenterforScientificResearch),authored abookwithaprovocatory but meaningful title: L’homme préhistorique est aussi une femme: Une histoire de l’invisiblité des femmes (Prehistoric man isalso a woman, a history of women’sinvisibility).Pa-tou-Mathis (2020) analyzes and denounces androcentric foundations of archaeology as an academic discipline. She shows through various examples how the interpretations of prehistoric finds are still centered around the idea that it is men who are the inventors as well as responsible for technological progress, while women seem to occupy a sec­ondary position, subordinate and without prestige. There are numerous other examples of research by feminist (women) archaeologists that denounce sexism, misogyny and gender-related stereotyping. One “classic”, edited by Frances Dahlberg, titled Woman the gatherer (1981) collects severalcontributions of women anthropologists focusing on the The difficult position of women scholars in the discipline of archaeology is thoroughly discussed in the essay Excavating women: a history of women in European archaeology (Díaz-Andreu and Stig Sorensen 2005). socio-economic role of women. This volume is thought of as a response to the book Man the Hunter, by DeVore and Lee (1968), one more book that celebrates primitive men as brave hunters and tribal leaders. Other important contributions are by Gero and Conkey (1991), as well as by Roberta Gilchrist (1991, 2012), which all deal with the need and urgency to develop afeministapproach to archaeology, given theunequalpower relations between men and women in archaeological theory and practice. Despite these scholarly endeavors, itremains necessary nowadays to keep advancing this sameegalitarian project. Furthermore, differentexamples, much discussed among feministscholars, help in testifyingtotheneedtoincludethecategoryofgenderas fundamentaltothemethodology, analysis, and elaboration of theory in the field of archaeology. Of interest here is the work of Bettina Arnold, scholar of the Iron Age, who had frequently criticized the androcentrism of the establishment in the field of archaeology, affirming that the interpretations regard­ing women in positions of power in prehistory had “ranged from benign neglect to active sabotage, particularly with regard to the interpretation of the wealthy inhumation burials” (Arnold 1991: 366). Omitting here numerous (and futile) discussions on differences between feminist archaeology and gender archaeology, it is more important to emphasize the main schools of thought that insist on taking into account gender as the methodological basis for analysis. The first approach consists in simply insisting on considering the existence of women in the period under analysis, the second focuses on gender as a category of analysis thatproblematizes gender roles. Both approaches willmakeit possible to analyze the written work in archaeology that encourages gender stereotyping by reproducing (more or less) unconsciously an androcentric version of the past of human societies. As already mentioned, numerous women archaeologists had criticized androcentric biases of the discipline, invoking thenecessity of a serious re-examination of the finds in the light of gender research (in French context see also Cohen 2003, 2018). At inter­national level, according to Arnold and Wicker, gender theories have had a difficult time to achieve recognition within the discipline of archaeology for various reasons: oneof them is undoubtedly the androcentric nature of thediscipline, historically primarily focused on, and practiced by men. Another is the widespread assumption that patriarchal systems like those that dominate the world today have always existed and reflect biological imperatives as much as culturalinfluences. This has resulted in the naturalization of the male-centered reconstruction of the past that has dominated the discipline since its inception as a profession in the nineteenth century (Arnold and Wicker 2001: vii). According to Arnold and Wicker, the consequence of such attitudes in archaeology is the ghettoization of gender analysis, as if it did not represent a vital element for the study of the past. A problem encountered also in contemporary archaeology is that even when it dialogues with gender theory, what still seems to be missing is the use of adequate methodological approaches (Arnold and Wicker 2001: vii-viii). The issue of methodological approaches is, as will be explored in detail, a key issue to understand both the reactions to the theories of Gimbutas, and the particularity of gender approach in post-processual archaeology. As the scholars point out, the results obtained can vary according to the parameters of analysis, especially when the interpretation of the data include the gender variable (Arnold and Wicker 2001: xiii–xiv). Their example is the interpretative context where the weapons are considered of high symbolic value because associated with masculinity, while the value attributed to the activities considered feminine, such as gathering, weaving, pottery-making etc., are given secondary importance. After all, as they affirm, “you find what you look for (or, in the case of gender structures, you don’t find what you don’t look for)” (Arnold and Wicker 2001: xi). GENDER STUDIES AND ARCHAEOLOGY: “ADD GENDER AND STIR”? Throughoutthis article, itis importantto keep in mind abasic definition of sex and gender: while “sex” refers to genitals with which a person is born, “gender” refers to socially constructed identity of masculine or feminine. Up until 1970s and 1980s, feminist archaeology has been mainly interested in uncovering androcentrism of the discipline that assumed the transparency of the categories of “woman” and “man” without questioning them. In contrast, most men and women scholars using gender approaches as a part of post-processual archaeology emphasize the cultural construction of identities, considered fluid, without clear boundaries, and above all, culturally and socially determined. Thus, on the one hand, there are many feminist scholars dealing with thesocio-economic roles, status, and cults regarding women in prehistory, who accusearcheologists such as Gimbutas of essentialism. On the other hand, there are numerous women and men archaeologists, adhering to gender approaches used in post-processualism, who often use a methodol­ogy, which Conkey and Tringham efficiently defines as the method of “add gender and stir” (Conkey and Tringham 1995: 204; see also Knapp 2003: 665).Recently several books devoted to this issue have been published, such as Gender archaeology by Marie Louise Stig Sřrensen (2013), as well as In pursuit of gender: worldwide archaeological approaches edited by Sarah Nelson and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon (2001), and A compan­ion to gender prehistory edited by Diane Bolger (2012). In general, upon examining the works approaching this topic, itis possibleto individuateacertain tension in confronting the problem of defining the categories of man/woman, leading to confusion in reasoning, instead of clarity or increased complexity. In the first book under consideration, Sřrensen (2013)4 addresses the issue of theo­retical and methodological approaches to gender in researching prehistory, in relation to recent theories of philosopher Judith Butler (1996, 2011) that understand gender identity as fluid and constructed through performative acts which literallycreate bodies. In gen­eral, Sřrensen’s focus is on the interaction of material culture and gender.In the second book, women archaeologists Nelson e Rosen-Ayalon (2001) start the introduction with a Archaeologist who is also the author of the section on “feminist archaeology” in the manual of Renfrew and Bahn (2013). complaint that gender archaeology suffers due to disagreements and endless debates on definitions, aims and methodologies. After the initial phase in which feminist scholars were “finding women’’5of past civilizations, fortunately an awareness was reached that women can assume infinite roles and status. On a theoretical level, the outdated concepts informed by essentialism were thus (finally) abandoned (Nelson e Rosen-Ayalon 2001: 1–8). Also Bolger, in the introduction to her chapter, explores the main theories and methods in research on gender in prehistory, underlining the “tensions and debates which at times seem to divide its practitioners into intractable, opposing ‘camps’’’ (Bolger 2012: 1). According to the scholar, the focus of theory of archaeology shifted from researching monolithic concepts such as society and culture to studying individuals, their personal and social identities. She maintains that while the difficulties in fully accepting gender theories within mainstream archaeology depend both on discrimination against women archaeologists in comparison to their male colleagues and on the fact that “the uncritical acceptance of sex and gender as natural and unchanging phenomena continues to shape much of the research in prehistoric archaeology today” (Bolger 2012: 4). Bolger explains that the passage from the Second Wave to the Third Wave of feminist theory operating within postmodernistframework has allowed the acceptance of “ambiguous and multiple genders” (Bolger 2012: 6). Despite their differences, the common aspect of all these texts is an approach in which different theories, instead of coexisting, overtake each other in a way in which the “old” ones turn out to be wrong, while new theories turn out to be good. Such an approach par­adoxically, although theresultof purelyhumanisticdebates, reflects apositivist-scientific approach in which the old is outdated while the latest discoveries would be more truthful. In an epistemological debate biased by such premises, Gimbutas’ work is perceived as not very current and certainly essentialist, because she does not focus on the ambiguity and fluidity of genders. Instead, in assuming a society characterized by a binary division (man/woman), thescholar is perceived as engaged in essentialisthypothesizing thatwomen in the Neolithic period had a fundamental role expressed by the cult of Goddesses. That feminist claims have disavowed this hypothesis to uncritically embrace discourses of gender fluidity that result in queer theory applied to prehistory, seems paradoxical to me. It is certainly true that gender categories can (and in some cases should) be problem-atized. On the other hand, what all feminist archaeologists or those involved in gender studies agree upon is that the countless examples of sexist stereotypes that deeply affect methodologies, analyses, and related archaeologicaltheories should be an objectof investigation. It follows that it is still necessary and timely to deal with the discourse of femininity in archaeology. Here this task is approached through analyzing the reception of the theoriesof Gimbutas. Though they should certainly be contextualized by highlighting the inconsistencies (at timesmethodological, at timestheoretical), the contribution of this scholar cannot be deleted, especially by scholars who claim to be feminists. The paradox lies in the fact that while Gimbutas is barely mentioned in texts that deal with feminist or gender archaeology, it is precisely the term feminist that is used as an insult against her. Point often cited also by Ruth Whitehouse (2002, 2013). THE SEX OF FIGURINES AND THE FEMALE DIVINITIES In archaeology, the link between the sex of the figurines and the recognition of the existence of female divinities is firmly intertwined with issues of power and status of women from prehistoric timesuntil today. Therefore, we are witnessing what I would term continuous academic boycott implemented by scholars who do not want to acknowledge the enor­mous richness and variety of finds that can be associated with the female sphere during the Neolithic (a period that lasted several millennia), adopting certain rather questionable rhetorical strategies. At the end of the 1960s, when archaeology was in the process of consolidation as a scientific field, the British archaeologist Peter Ucko, exponent of the “new archaeology”, in an attempt to legitimize the discipline, created a new categorization of the figurines that established that one could define as “female” only those with explicit sexual organs or breast and vulva clearly defined - the others would end up in the category “sexless” (Ucko 1962). This new criterion, assumed by many archeologists even today, has removed from consideration most of the plastic female representations, so that, at the moment, it is virtually impossible to perform an exact count of the figurines based on the category of sex. In fact, if you want to know the number of Neolithic female figurines in Italy, for example, the number varies a lot depending on the source (for an interesting discussion, see Soffer and Adovasio 2000). The next theoretical phase, post-processual archaeology, turns out to be as against the recognition of an elevated status of figurines as the previous approaches. The main tensions can be illustrated by analyzing the writings of one of its exponents, the archaeologist John Robb whose academic focus is allegedly located within the discipline of gender studies.6 In a recent publication devoted to Neolithic Europe, he states that the fact that female figurines were found in the Neolithic is a coincidence, while in the fourth millennium B.C. it was hunting that was the fundamental activity that can really tell us something usefulaboutgender (Robb2015). Thesamescholar is also responsible, severalyears after that, for the interpretation of prehistoric figurines according to which “they may have provided gendered representations that helped develop women’s subjectivity about their own bodies” (Robb and Harris 2017: 7). Two important implications should be noted: a) it is assumed, without any archaeological basis, that the figurines were used only by women; b) it is argued that these figurines were objects that served to confirm and/or strength­en the female identity (which the scholar evidently presumed to had been rather weak). Later the same scholar states that both the “fat ladies” from Malta and “Sardinian volu­metric figurines” were considered female only because fat (Robb and Harris 2017: 7),7 thus erasing decades of archaeological analysis that was based on the comparison of the statuary carried out through iconographic elements. 6 So much so that most of his articles are found in the gender and archaeology readers. 7 Consideration shared also by Meskell who, referring to (feminine) Neolithic figurines from Malta, affirms that: “From a purely representational point of view we could be witnessing obesity rather than divinity (Meskell 1995: 77). In broader terms, the interpretations of the figurines range from Mother Goddesses, with emphasis on fertility discourse, to erotically charged images, dolls etc.; however, some scholars have denounced the bias of these interpretations and their implicit and unjustified assumptions(Dobres1992; Soffer 1987; Soffer and Conkey 1997). While the (more or less) bias-laden interpretations can be explained by the great emotional charge that anthropomorphic representations carry (i.e., issues of gender, sexuality, and power), there is no doubt about the enormous numerical difference of female versus male figurines. As Soffer and Adovasio write, basing their work on the iconographic decipherment work of the Paleolithic “Venus” by Abramova and Gvozdover, the upper Paleolithic figurines of naked or clad women are found all across Eurasia, and “their distribution contrasts sharply with the scarcity of unambiguous depictions of Paleolithic males” (Soffer and Adovasio 2000: 516). In general, according to the scholars, the difference between hundreds of female figurines and few male figurines lies in the richness of de­tail, hairstyles, or headdresses, so much so that a connection can be made between the high level of elaboration of female statuettes and the value of women (or at least of their work). According to the scholars, in fact, “the exquisite and labor-intensive detailing employed in the depiction of the woven garments worn by one group of Venuses clearly shows that weaving and basket-making skills and their products were valued enough to be transformed into transcendent cultural facts carved into stone, ivory, and bone” (Soffer and Adovasio 2000: 524). Concerning cultic discourses, Joan Marler and Harald Haarmann (2007), note how after the studies of Gimbutas and Mellart on Neolithic symbolismand ‘religion’, extremely polarized movements have arisen. On the one hand, there are the devotees of Mother Goddess theories. On the other hand, a part of archaeology denies the remotest possibil­ity of inferring any element of spirituality or religiosity from excavations, so much so that even archaeologist Peter Biehl (2007) admits that “many archaeologists react with alarm when theirwork is associated with alternative religious beliefs”, especially if they mention Gimbutas in their research (in Marler and Haarmann 2007: 50). In fact, based both on my fieldwork and on textual analysis, I have noticed that many women and men archaeologists show rather strong reactions not so much when dealing with religious topics in the traditional sense (read: male), but rather when talking about female gods. Otherwise, we cannot explain the absence of fierce criticism for a paleoethnologist like Leroi-Gourhan who has widely theorized about prehistoric religious practices, without mentioning Goddesses. As well as David Lewis Williams, or the “father” of Sardinian archaeology, Giovanni Lilliu. Aside from the dispute betweenproponents and deniers of the divinity of the figu­rines, one of the most heated archaeological discussions in recent decades, therefore, is establishing the sex of the figurines8. Macedonian archaeologistGoce Naumov, on the A number of scholars including Nakamura and Meskell (2009), Nanoglou (2006) and Vella Gregory (2007) opt for their asexuality, while the interpretations on their functions are varied and colorful (see Bailey’s sex dolls (Bailey 2005), or Talalay’s childrens’ dolls or educational devices (Talalay1993) within the American academic discourse). In Italy we have the recent discussions of Boric et al. (2019), Luglič (2017) Fanni, Sirigu and Soro (2019) that question their cult use. These interpretations will be discussed in detail further ahead. onehand, confirms thatnotonly “thestatistics and ratios of Balkanfigurines stillconfirm the prevalence of female representations” (Naumov 2014: 51), but more importantly he admits that most of the conflicting and varied archaeological theories to date, “still did not offer the most elementary answers to: (i) what and whom the figurines represent; (ii) what was the motive for them to be modeled with definite iconographic features; and finally (iii) what was their actual use” (Naumov 2014: 50). Another important element that followers of “sexless figurines’’ approach keep for­getting is the presence of “secondary” gender characteristics such as prominent bellies and hips, the position of arms and hands, as well as a protruding chest (if we don’t want to call it breasts), as Naumov (2009, 2014) and Lesure (2011) also point out. Accord­ing to Naumov in archaeology at the moment, there is neither contrary nor favorable evidence that the figurines were deities (Naumov 2014: 52). In general, after analyzing some ethnographic examples from Macedonia, he repeatedly argues that “figurines did not have singular functions, meanings and purpose” (Naumov 2014: 56), a statement that can certainly be shared but should not prevent one from attempting comparative analyses based on analogies, which many archaeologists avoid. FEMALE REPRESENTATIONS: “NON-RELIGIOUS” INTERPRETATIONS AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL BACKGROUND As previously mentioned, within the discipline of archeology there have been various “non-religious” interpretations of the figurines. An influential essay by archaeologist Ta-lalay, entitled Deities, Dolls & Devices. Neolitic figurines from Franchti Chave, Greece, analyzesa collection of Neolithic figurines from Greece. Taking a stance against the “Goddess theory” (Talalay 1993: 81–82), and claiming the impossibility to demonstrate their cultic use (ibid.: 40), the archaeologist focuses on the figurines production through a series of research questions: who was the creator? Was it a specific group? What were the reasons for choosing a certain material instead of another? Who owned them?, etc. (Talalay 1993: 29). Throughout the research, the scholar admits that the possession and control of these objects must have been related to power and rites of passage. However, intheend,sincebasingherassumptions onethnologicalstudies,Talalayasserts their use as educational devises to teach children about pregnancy (the figurines with the belly) or to cure or use as voodoo dolls or simple toys for children (Ibid.: 41, 43). The scholar, although exploring various hypotheses, does not explain the reason why the majority of the supposed dolls, vodoo or otherwise, are female, as if the male gender could have been absent from voodoo rituals, cure practices or children’s toys. Another sholarly interpretation that invites criticial attention is the comparison of Neo­lithic figurines with contemporary popular culture advance by Douglass Bailey. Douglass Bailey (2005) analyzes Hamagia and Cucuteni figurines from Romania, and Tessaloniki, Greece, with an aim to “deflate the Mother Goddess readings” (Bailey 2005: 19), and so insisting on the sexual features of the figurines, portraying prehistoric bondage sexual practices (2005: 165) and comparing contemporary spread and usage of Barbie dolls with the Neolithic massive production of female figurines (2005: 73).9Following this lineof argument, thearchaeologisteven discusses thedifferences between bidimensional or tridimensional representations asserting that the latter can be penetrated: “the doll’s amorous suitor cannotgetinsidethephotograph of thenaked women but, literally, hecan enter the doll” (Bailey 2005: 40). As a conclusion, the scholar assumes the theories on fertility cults related to figurines as “simpler, safer, more pleasant” (Bailey 2005: 166). Other scholars’ interpretations referred to figurines as representations of ancestors, especially for those without clear gender features (Naumov 2014: 194; Bernabň Brea and Mazzieri 2009: 18). Similar refusal of acknowledging potential religious status of female figurines is dominant in the discipline at the present moment. Even in the recent and monumental The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Figurines (Insoll 2017), all archeologists involved in the project, offer various examples of recent archaeological research on figurines which attempt to diversify methodology. All of these scholars, reject the religious interpretations10. As most of the previous work though, they not only avoid addressing the predominant presence of female figurines but also, as Naumov clearly states: “other artefacts that represent the entire human body or of only some body parts, such as vessels, house and oven models, or ‘altars’ and stamps” (Naumov 2014: 57), that fall within the feminine sphere. While the hypothesis that the “earrings figurines” could be representations of Astarte goddess in Cyprus, is defined “ambiguous” by Knox (2017: 763), the author is more prone to other interpretations such as: figurines depicting the“third gender” or generic “markers of identity”(2017:767). Another interesting exampleis offered by Vella Gregory’s discussion on the agency of figurines (Vella Gregory 2017). Analyzing the well-known Sardinian “volumetric stone figurine” from Cuccurru SArriu archeo-logical site, the scholar goes against the “traditional” archaeological literature, based on iconographic comparison, which indubitably assigned female gender to the statuette (see: Atzeni 1978; Lilliu 1999, 2017). The author instead, questions its gender, with the reason that the sexual characteristics are not clearly defined (Vella Gregory 2017: 781). Even in a recent exibition “Donna o Dea: le raffigurazioni femminili nella preistoria e protostoria sarda” (Woman or Goddess: female representations in Sardinian prehistory and protohistory) held in the island’s main archaeological museum, in Carlo Luglič’s11 scientific overview, the statuetteis defined as an “antropomorphic figure (female?)”12 (Fanni, Sirigu e Soro 2019, 58). In the end, as Lesure (2017) states, while in the recent archeological literature, the goddess interpretation has been rejected, being “murdered” i.e. rendered unacceptable The scholar is clearly adopting the discursive strategy of affirming something while denying it, widely used by authors who are aware of stating concepts which could bump sensitivities like racist or sexist statements. 10 They do this in different ways: by emphasizing form, function, context, and miniaturization issues, by stressing the use of small figurines as “personal objects” (see Morris (2017), Renfrew (2017b), as well as by focusing on gender, and on ethnographic comparison with ritual practices, rites of passage, initiations, and gesture analysis. 11 Carlo Luglič is a full professor of prehistory, at the Cagliari University. 12 My italic. Fig. 3: Limestone female figurine from the Fig. 4: Limestone female figurine from the necropolis of Cuccuru S’Arriu, Sardinia, front necropolis of Cuccuru S’Arriu, Sardinia, side view. Bonuighinu culture, 4800-4450 B.C. view. Bonuighinu culture, 4800-4450 B.C. Cagliari, Museo Archeologico Nazionale. Cagliari, Museo Archeologico Nazionale. (Source: https://twitter.com/museoarcheoca/ (Source: https://twitter.com/museoarcheoca/ status/1127839593259204608; Photos’ property: status/1127839593259204608; Photos’ property: Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Cagliari). Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Cagliari). by most of the scholars13, itcomes back again and again untilprehistorians will be forced to take into serious account a large scale research “open to lively comparison, in which multiple investigators can incrementally contribute to the creation of a new synthesis (Lesure 2017: 58).” From anthropological perspective, in the first half of the XX century, Margaret Mead (1901-1978), has been oneof thefirstscholars who questioned theassumption thatfemi­ninity and masculinity were naturaland analyzed their culturalconstruction (Mead 1949). Mary Douglas (1921-2007), in turn, made a great contribution to the study of corporeality in anthropology, differentiating physical and social body, showing how every culture assigns special meanings to body parts and functions. According to Douglas’s theories, therefore, the body embodies the culture of the reference society, becoming the terrain on which, the ideas and values of the social structure are negotiated (Douglas [1966] 2003). In the seventies, a groundbreaking work depicting the absence of women’s voice within the ethnographic research appeared with Edwin Ardener’s essay “Belief and the 13 In this article, Lesure uses Agata Christie’s novel, Murder on the Orient Express, as a metaphoric attitude towards Goddess theories. problem of women” (Ardener 1975). Even though women’s behavior was registered and studied within family relationships, household, etc, their voice was muted, they had no agency, they were “effectively missing in the total analysis or, more precisely, they were there in the same way as were the Nuer’s cows, who were observed but also did not speak” (Ardener 1975:4). Following Ardeners’ steps, other two studies have been crucial for unraveling sexist biases in academic thought: Rosaldo and Lampere’s edited collection, Women, Culture and Society (1974) and Shirley Ardener’sPerceiving Women (1975). These two contributions have shown how women’s exclusion as a topic of study has led to biased anthropological accounts, and clearly stated that it would be necessary to reconsider the theoretical and methodological premises in order to bring back women into the picture. In the same period some anthropologists criticized previous studies trying to correct male biases in ethnographic research. One of them, Annette Weiner, went back to Trobriand islands, focusing on a group previously studied by Bronislaw Malinowski. In her study, paying attention to the role of women in funeral ceremonies and using female informants, that were not accounted for previously, the anthropologist overturned the colleague’s findings and offered a different version of women’s role and position in the funeral ceremony that involved the entire population and lasted several months. In her account women played a vital role within the economic and symbolic exchange (Weiner 1979). As Busoni(2000) argued, androcentrism in past anthropologic research has been based on two apparently opposite mechanisms: invisibility and over-visibility of women. The first denies the active presence of women due to the fact that all informants are men. Moreover, it testifies to the difficulty in seeing forms of social asymmetries both on the part of the researcher and by the protagonists themselves, lack of attention to women regarding topics and activities considered by researchers to be purely male. Invisibilization therefore operates on two levels:observation/description and theorization, where due to various obstacles and forgetfulness, half of the population is not considered within the social and cultural relations of the society. The second process, that of over-visibility, operates at the level of language and classifies women as “more natural” than men. This determines the emphasis on the female biological dimension, obscuring their social side and alltherelationships connected to it. Languagebecomes atoolthathides women’s role as social actors and links them only to the natural dimension. The female sphere becomes a separate universe, distinct from the male one, which is depicted as cultural and more powerful. Highlighting these processes in anthropological writings shows how gender relations, where man dominateswoman in an almost natural way, have been distorted in studies undertaken from the androcentric perspective, which, until the 1970s, were prevalent within anthropological research (Busoni 2000: 104–108). In the end, anthropological reflection has long insisted that the representations and practices relating to bodies are cultural, social, symbolic and, to a great extent arbitrary instead of “natural”, but consistent with other representations, cosmology, religion, sys­tem of social relations and hence, power relationships. Social and cultural practices are necessarily inscribed in the bodies that are to be considered both objects and subjects of such practices, in the sense that they reproduce them at the very moment in which they are interpreted (Foucault 2019, Connell 2002). It could be argued then that the key issue deciding the mode of representation of female bodies, as exemplified by Neolithic figurines, is power and social relations constructed around it. MARIJA GIMBUTAS: ANATOMY OF AN (ACADEMIC) MURDER In the archaeological debate, the figure of Gimbutas is emblematic precisely because she found herself at the center of a double academic conflict. On the one hand, she was one of thefirst female archaeologists to conductimportantexcavations, occupying aposition of great importance in a university world dominated by male figures. On the other hand, although she never joined the feminist movement, she found herself embroiled in the disputes between feminist archaeologists and proponents of gender archaeology, who contested her gender essentialism (see Conkey and Tringham 1995; Eller 2000; Navick­aite2019) at a time when feminist and gender studies theories were merging within the postmodern archaeological academic debate. If, for example, one reads the 2012 edited volume A Companion to Gender Archaeology, not only are Gimbutas’s studies sharply criticized (see Goodison and Morris, 2012), buteven when dealing explicitly with gender and power in prehistory, the concepts of “ambiguity, contradiction, diversity” are cele­brated repeatedly(Hutson, Hanks, and Pyburn 2012: 45), even to the point of arriving to Benjamin Alberti’s “queer prehistory” (Alberti 2012). Gimbutas was the first (and remains one of few archaeologists) who, although not belonging to the feminist movement, had tried (in my opinion successfully) to reread and re-analyze much of the archaeological material culture pertaining to “Old Europe”, espe­cially statuary and pottery. She not only searched for “patterns that connect”, analogies, symbolic and cultural links but also found thousands of archetypes semantically connected to the feminine that she declined as attributes of the Goddess. Another great merit of Marija Gimbutas has been that of having divulged studies that normally belong only to insiders, to a vast public, even a non-academic one, so much so that the American anthropologist Joseph Campbell, in the introduction to the essay The Language of the Goddess, stated that As Jean-Francois Champollion, a century and a half ago, through his decipherment of the Rosetta Stone was able to establish a glossary of hie-ro-glyphic signs to serve as keys to the whole great treasury of Egyptian religious thought from c. 3200 B.C. to the period of the Ptolemies, so in her assemblage, classification, and descriptive interpretation of some two thousand symbolic artifacts from the earliest Neolithic village sites of Europe, c. 7000 to 3500 B.C., Marija Gimbutas has been able, not only to prepare a fundamental glossary of pictorial motifs as keys to the my­ thology of that otherwise undocumented era, but also to establish on the basis of these interpreted signs the main lines and themes of a religion in veneration, both of the universe as the living body of a Goddess-Mother Creator (Campbell 1989: xiii). What I would like to emphasize is precisely Gimbutas’ attempt to analyze more than 2000 symbols, attributable to the cult of the female divinity, carried out through research that represents a unicum in an archaeological field that does not accept collaborations with humanistic disciplines (apparently aimed at not going beyond the safe limits of the excavation context). This was also thanks to her linguistic knowledge that allowed her to access the results of excavations from the entire area of Central Europe that had never been translated and were therefore unknown in the international arena. In this regard, even a scholar opposed to her, such as Cynthia Eller, admits “her tremendous linguistic expertise” and her “encyclopedic knowledge of Central and Eastern European archae­ological sites that permitted her to speculate effectively on ‘big picture’ questions” (in Dashu 2005: 192). On the other hand, it is important to emphasize her truly multidisciplinary approach that drew on her knowledge of linguistics, mythology and folklore, symbolism, archaeol­ogy, and anthropology - based on her doctoral studies in prehistoric archaeology, history of religion and ethnology at the University of Tubingen in 1946. Her academic career, developed at Harvard and UCLA Universities in the United States, includes directing international excavations, 20 academic papers, and more than 200 scientific articles translated into several languages. Yet, even today, naming Gimbutas in archaeology raises strong suspicions and hostile reactions. In turn, I argue, that such strong discipli­nary aversions constitute themselves important discursive material necessarily open to cultural criticism, as developed throughout this article. MARIJA GIMBUTAS: A BRIEF EXCURSUS ON HER MAIN THEORIES Gimbutas’ first important essay published in the mid-seventies entitled The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe: 7000 to 3500 BC. Myths, Legends and Cult images14 dealt with the material culture of theNeolithic fromamatristic pointof view, outlining a society in which, before the arrival of the proto-Indo-Europeans, people lived within an egalitarian society, in harmony with nature “governed” by female divinities. This social order, accordingto the scholar, was then destroyed by the arrivalof the Kurgan, a popu­lation of warriors and worshippers of male divinities, in a sense, precursors of both our patriarchal system and the monotheisms of Western society. The main characteristic of these people was also a rigidly hierarchical social structure, quite different from that of the indigenous populations of “Old Europe” in which the two sexes coexisted peacefully on the same level. Thanks to this essay, the archaeologist acquires a certain notoriety, especially within the “Goddess movement” (started in California at the end of the 1980s) that uses her writings as an academic reference to validate an idea of spirituality centered on the feminine. Her revolutionary thesis is confirmed and expanded in the following works, 14 Then changed in The Goddesses and the Gods of Old Europe 6500-3500 BC. Myths and Cult Images, republished in 1974. listed here in order of publication: The Language of the Goddess (1989), The Civilization of the Goddess: The World of Old Europe (1991) and in the last The Living Goddess (1999), which seek to demonstrate, through a complex and articulated interdisciplinary analysis, that the culture of Old Europe between 7000 and 3500 B.C. was permeated by the “feminine principle” that allowed women to hold positions of power both socially and culturally, ensuring a balanced relationship between the sexes. ARGUMENTS AGAINST GIMBUTAS: FROM MENOPAUSAL SYNDROME TO POLITICAL TRAUMA As mentioned earlier, in thepost-processualarena, even archaeologists who call them­selves feminists use rather unprofessional arguments in both tone and content when referring to Gimbutas’s work. Below is a brief selection: British women archeologists Goodison and Morris, evidently agreeing with Balter, write: “Gimbutas’s work has promoted a moral fable in which humanity deteriorated from the innocence and peace of the Neolithic, a utopian society paralleling the biblical Garden of Eden, except that original sin now lay with men, who spoilt the party” (Goodison and Morris 2012: 272). In general terms, Goodison and Morris critique the cult of Goddess mother while pro­moting Ian Hodder to the status of a grand “destroyer of Goddess theories” (Goodison and Morris 2012: 276). TheargumentadvancedbyGoodison andMorris (2012) thatwould provethebadfaith of Gimbutas, is the fact that she did not mention in her works the figurine of the “lovers of Ain Sakhri”, for fear of disproving her theories. Given the magnitude of this statement, I looked for information on this find so controversial to overturn the theories on the exist­ence of female gods. It is a stone statuette from 9000 B.C. that shows a couple probably in the process of intercourse. My academic perplexity increasesas the article proceeds and mentions the disreputable behavior of the followers of the Goddess in Çatalhöyük who marketed the image of the Goddess (the reference is to the straw products with the seated Goddess image by the members of the movement). In the first case she is accused of not having included in her works a statuette out of hundreds analyzed, for fear that it would have contradicted her theories in which there would be only and exclusively fe­male examples. In fact, Gimbutas, in dealing with the topic of “sacred nuptials,” analyzes this precise statuette “representing the union of man and woman” (Gimbutas 2005: 51). In the second case, methodological planes are mixed with an enviable nonchalance: to use as an academic argument a group of women making drinking straws with the image of a statueis at least as bizarre as to foreground the tales of an animal rather than a woman sitting on a throne.15 It would be difficult to continue claiming that this atypical figurine depicting inter­course could somehow overturn Gimbutas’ theories. 15 The second motif is a clear reference to recognized Goddesses such as the Anatolian Cybele often depicted on a throne pulled by large felines. Fig. 5: Cybele with chariot and lions, 2nd century A.D. bronze (Neumann 1981: 55). As in the post-processual area, there are contemporary archaeologists who try to dis­credit Gimbutas not through a serious academic debate, discussions of archaeological theories and methodologies,but rather bytaking re­course to questionablediscursivestrategies. The archaeologist Lynn Meskell, in an article with the provocative title Goddesses, Gimbutas and ‘New Age’ archaeology, while admitting “her recognizedacademicstandingandlonghistoryof fieldwork in southeast European sites”, states that the theory of Kurgan warriors invading the peaceful society of Old Europe, comes from the traumatic experience of the Soviet invasion of her homeland (Meskell 1995: 74–79). John Chapman, agreeing on the traumas that would have generated in the troubled mind of Gimbutas an imaginary of war-mon­gering males, finds in menopause the answer to the theories about the Mother Goddess: The second point is one perhaps not easily discussed by a male prehisto­rian. It concerns the personal fertility of Gimbutas and its loss at the time of menopause; this latter can be dated to sometime in the 1960s. It may be no more than coincidence that a woman with strong professional interests in the Mother Goddess, regeneration and fertility begins to write most vividly about fertility symbols at a time when her own personal fertility is disappearing, and her own children leave home. Yet this is a factor which I would be loath to omit from my account (Chapman 1998: 300). Interestingly, Meskell, who calls herself a feminist, critiques Gimbutas’s theories, moving fromthegeneric “purefantasy”(Meskell1995: 83) to “political”, “reverse sexism”, “gynocentric agenda”, and “gynocentric narratives” (Meskell1995: 83, 76, 84). Moreover, the archaeologist, considered one of the most important exponents of post-processualism, was part of Ian Hodder’s workinggroup atthe Çatalhöyüksite, unconditionally supporting his interpretations. In general, thearguments of thesetwo archaeologists, far fromany adherenceto theories and methods of their academic discipline, are based on discursive attacks. Certainly, one of themostwell-founded criticisms fromastrictly archaeologicalpointof view, expressed by Meskell and taken up by various scholars, is that Gimbutas has elaborated a univocal theory on figurines that belong to different archaeological contexts, different periods and very distant geographical areas (Meskell 1995: 75). But if we consider this analysis in a broader perspective, not only within the context of a single archaeological excavation, but observing incredible similarities between figurines that actually belong to different periods and different contexts, then Gimbutas’s theories appear more plausible. Certainly fallible, as majority of scientific hypotheses and theories that are continuosly disproved, remodeled, and discussed. Otherwise, reading these articles, one gets the impression that these criticisms are based on “rumors” rather than on a careful reading of the texts. For example, contrary to what Meskell claims (Meskell 1995: 75), Gimbutas does not speak of Mother Goddess as much as Goddess who encompasses both aspects of life and death (see Gimbutas 1982: 152), just as she does not speak of matriarchy, which is another of the “classic” accusations made against her, but of matristic, matrilineal society (Gimbutas 1991, 2005, 2008). Whereas, if we are to take seriously the conclusion of the article in which Meskell states: “emphasis on one sex to the exclusion of the other is not only detrimental to serious gender/feminist studies but threatens the interpretive integrity of archaeology” (Meskell 1995: 84), it becomes difficult to rely on methods of traditional archeological analysis and interpretations that take into account almost exclusively the male sex. DEBUNKING THE MYTHS: MATRIARCHY, MOTHER-GODDESSES, FEMINISM, AND “SCIENCE” Reading the numerous criticisms against Gimbutas one has the strong impression that their force is not in the strength of argument but in being constantly repeated. Examples of this are the interpretation that Gimbutas imagined a Neolithic era in which women dominate over men (common lay representation of matriarchy),16that this society was legitimized by a cult that exaltedmotherhood, and that this arose from the desires and imagination of a frustrated feminist with little adherence to “scientific” data (for a detailed list of ad personam attacks against Gimbutas, see Dashú 2005; Marler and Haarmann 2007; Rigoglioso 2007; Spretnak 2011; Navickaite2019). Of course, the critique against androcentrism in archaeology that implicitly pervades her works has helped create the academic myth of Gimbutas as a feminist, so much so that even Goce Naumov, an ar­chaeologist usually not engagingin academic hearsay, falls into the trap and describes her as “oneof themostprominentapostles of second wavefeminism, endorsing figurines as Mother Goddesses” (Naumov 2014: 49). Generally speaking, as philosopher and historian of religions CharleneSpretnak points out: “Even the post-processualists, nominally interested in symbols, disdain metanarratives 16 For an extensive and well-documented account of matriarchy see Goettner-Abendroth (2012). such as a unifying metaphysical perception that informs a culture” (Spretnak 2011: 37). And it is also on this basis that the latter reject Gimbutas’s “unifying” theories, since on the one hand they are interested in symbols, and on the other hand they are also bound to the specific archaeological context to succeed in having a broader horizon. Another peculiar criticism comes from feminist archaeologists Conkey and Tringham, who object to her use of the terms “cult”, “religion”, “temples” etc., that would separate the sacred from the profane in a Western dualistic manner (Conkey and Tringham 1995). In fact, Gimbutas clearlywrites that in the Neolithic cultures she studied there was no dualistic conception. Rather, according to her, the concept of the feminine creative Deity is unifying, and multifaceted in its aspects:“Themultiplecategories, functions, and symbols used by prehistoric peoples to express the Great Mystery are all aspects of the unbroken unity of onedeity, aGoddess who is ultimately Natureherself”(Gimbutas 1991:223). This is the concept that she repeats also in her last essay that resumes, clarifies, and completes her theory on the symbols and the metaphors used during the Neolithic to represent the female divinity, circles, spirals, meanders, sacred animals etc. (Gimbutas 2005). If anything, what is certainly objectionable is the constant emphasis on the feminine, at times unjustified, as when she insists on associating the horns of the bull (bucranio), very present in the symbolism of the Neolithic in Sardinia for example, to the uterus. In some examples, she cites the Venus of Laussel who holds a horn of bison and some other unconvincing data (Gimbutas 2008: 265). The accusation that her theory on the Kurgans had no scientific basis was retracted after several decades by one of her greatest detractors, the British archaeologist Colin Renfrew. On the one hand, as Spretnak (2011) states, Renfrew’s paper that was supposed to sweep away Gimbutas’s paleolinguistictheories, entitled Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, has been widely refuted by various scholars. For example, Haarmann (1999)17presented abundant evidence that renders Renfrew’s counter-hypothesis impossible(in Spretnak2011:30). Somuch sothat, accordingto Spretnak, though initially presented as a theory, it was subsequently degraded to a hypothesis (Spretnak 2011: 30). On the other hand, Renfrew, after years of academic attacks against Gimbutas, in 2017 spoke at a conference dedicated to her with a reading entitled“MarijaRediviva:DNA andIndo-EuropeanOrigins’’(Renfrew 2017a),inwhich he supports the Kurgan theories that have since been confirmed by several DNA studies (among others, Haak 2015). ThearchaeologistErnestineElster (2007) also affirms thatoneof Gimbutas’s greatest merits was thatof proposing acoherentanalysis concerning the Neolithicof ancientEurope, succeeding in interpreting a fundamental part of the material culture, the figurines, and their symbols, which before her were considered uninterpretable. Furthermore, she did it by combining an exquisitely scientific methodology with the skills of a great popularizer when, “Even though it was about excavation, and she always used hard data (C14 dates, paleozoology, etc.), the prehistoric world was presented in a powerful narrative, complete 17 Haarmann (1999) noted the colleague’s “relative ignorance of linguistics” that “not only muddles him but dampens his flair for imaginative innovation” (in Spretnak 2011: 30). and unquestionable” (Elster 2007: 104). Unlike many scholars who contest it, Gimbutas’ areas of expertise go far beyond archaeology and have served to enable the elaboration of a theory that, in many ways, remains valid and coherent. CONCLUSION In this article I haveanalyzed how thetheories of archaeologistMarija Gimbutas, in some ways well-grounded in the discipline but in others willingto engage in extensive interdisciplinary work, reveal strong tensions (methodological, interpretative and theo­retical) inherent in the disciplineof archaeology. On the one hand, the age-old question of the exclusive adherence to the archaeological context can prevent the elaboration of hypothesesand theories that go beyond the single excavation. Asthe philosopher and anthropologist Martino Doni points out in the introduction to the Italian edition of Gimbutas’s Living Goddesses, “the findings should not simply be collected, they should be interpreted, that is, placed side by side to build a coherence” (Doni 2005: 6). While a profound methodological problem that distinguishes archaeological rhetoric, is to repeat to oneself and to the so-called scientific community that up to here one can arrive, because there is certain evidence, after which it is only conjecture, or worse still, fantasy. There are countless archaeological and paleontological publications that adopt this strategy. But without the hazard of interpretation [...] the accumulation of findings, risks becoming a dogmatic excuse for games of accounting and archival antiquarianism (Doni 2005: 12–13). Certainly, Gimbutas has dared to go further and has evidently suffered the conse­quences both by being attacked by the “mainstream” archaeology and by archaeologists who callthemselves feminists or adhere to gender archaeology. If we use the concept of gender fluidity and performativity that has characterized the postmodern currents that are often cited in archaeology (especially Judith Butler and Donna Haraway, including the concept of queer),18we risk, by distorting the very premises of feminist and gender studies, materially and metaphorically erasing women. And if, as Conkey and Gero argue “feminist scholarship in archaeology, demanding fundamental alterations in basic assumptions, firstrequires a painstaking retooling of definitions, data sets, textualsources, and functional assignments” (Conkey and Gero 1991: 7), the central issue in archaeology remains the question of the modality of achieving this scope. Becoming willing, within the discipline, to consider the academic merits of Gimbutas, could be a road that leads in a valid direction, from the scientific point of view, while continuing to wage academic wars damages serious academic discourse and is certainly not useful for the feminist claims. 18 In short, fluid identity of those who do not identify with any one gender. The implicit or explicit accusation of “gender essentialism”, “gynocentric agenda” etc., brought forward by a group of feminist archaeologists, hides the central issue: to admit the androcentric bias, to recognize a narrative that stillanalyzes prehistory in terms of hierarchical relationships in which women occupy subordinate positions. I think it is more useful and necessary to ask why the European Neolithic is littered with female figurines. Specifically, Sardinian’s Neolithic produced more than half of the female statuettesfound throughout Italy, while the male ones predominate in the Bronze Age. This drastic change musthavehad profound reasons caused by a social and cultural change that is reflected in the creation of (cult) objects. In addition, assuming that the European Neolithic produced thousands of female statuettes, Gimbutas’s hypotheses appear more plausible. I argue that continuing to claim that this phenomenon is just a coincidence could be critiqued as insisting on applying an unscientific and uncritical atti­ tude. The phenomenon of female statuettes is indisputable and has precise characteristics of pervasiveness and longevity (approximately three millennia in most of the European territory) and precisely because of these reasons, it cannot be understood by limiting itself to the single archaeological context. Rather, connecting patterns and linking similarities could allow us to achieve an alternative reconstruction of a history instead of persisting on manipulating or denying material finds. In conclusion, what would happen if archaeological theories admitted that there was a long period of prehistory dominated by female depictions, many of which were found in cultic settings? Who is afraid of the Goddess? And who is afraid of Gimbutas? BIBLIOGRAPHY Alberti, Benjamin, 2012: Queer prehistory: bodies, performativity and matter. In: Bolger, Diane (ed.), A companion to Gender Prehistory. Malden: John Wiley & Sons, 86–107. Ardener, Edwin, 1975: Belief and the Problem of Women. In: Ardener, Shirley (ed.), Perceiving Women. London: Malaby Press, 1–17. Arnold, Bettina, 1991: The Deposed Princess of Vix: The Need for an Engendered European prehistory. In: Walde, Dale; Willows, Noreen (eds.), The Archaeology of Gender. Calgary: The University of Calgary, 366–374. Arnold, Bettina; Wicker, Nancy (eds.), 2001: Gender and the Archaeology of Death. Plymouth: Altamira Press. Atzeni, Enrico, 1978: La dea madre nelle culture prenuragiche. Sassari: Gallizzi. Bachofen, Johann Jakob, [1891]1988: Il matriarcato: ricerca sulla ginecocrazia del mondo antico nei suoi aspetti religiosi e giuridici. Torino: Einaudi. Bailey, Douglass, 2005: Prehistoric Figurines. Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic. London and New York: Routledge. Balter, Michael, 2016: The Goddess and the Bull: Çatalh: An Archaeological Journey to the Dawn of Civilization. London and New York: Routledge. Bernabň Brea, Maria; Paola Mazzieri, 2009: Oggetti e contesti rituali nella cultura vbq dell’Emilia occidentale in accademia. PADUSA, Bollettino del Centro Polesano di Studi Storici, Archeologici ed Etnografici. Fabrizio Serra Editore, 7–42. Bolger, Diane, (ed.) 2012: A companion to gender prehistory. Malden: John Wiley & Sons. Boric, Dusan; Martini, Fabio; Sarti, Lucia; Starnini, Elisabetta; Visentini, Paola, 2019: Le raffigurazioni femminili neolitiche: riflessioni, problemi e ipotesi. In: Martini, Fabio; Sarti, Lucia; Visentini, Paola (eds.), Le raffigurazioni femminili neolitiche in Italia: iconografia, iconologia, contesti. Udine: Museo friulano di storia naturale, 9–28. Busoni, Mila, 2000: Genere, sesso, cultura: uno sguardo antropologico. Roma: Carocci. Butler, Judith, 1996: Corpi che contano. I limiti discorsivi del «Sesso». Milano: Feltrinelli. Butler, Judith, 2011: Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge. Campbell, Joseph, 1989: Foreword. In: Gimbutas, Marija, The Language of the Goddess: Unearthing the Hidden Symbols of Western Civilization. San Francisco: Harper & Row, xiii–xiv. Campbell, Joseph, 2013: Goddesses: Mysteries of the Feminine Divine. Novato, CA: Joseph Campbell Foundation. Cauvin, Jacques, 1997: Nascita delle divinitŕ e nascita dell’agricoltura. La rivoluzione dei simboli nel Neolitico. Milano: Jaca Book. Chapman, John, 1998: The Impact of Modern Invasions and Migrations on Archaeological Explanation. A Biographical Sketch of Marija Gimbutas. In: Díaz-Andreu, Margarita; Stig Sorensen, Marie Louise (eds.), Excavating Women: A History of Women in European Archaeology. London: Routledge, 259–86. Childe, Gordon, 1951: Social Evolution. London: Watts. Cohen, Claudine, 2003: La femme des origines. Images de la femme dans la préhistoire occidentale. Parigi: Belin. Cohen, Claudine, 2018: Femmes de la préhistoire. Parigi: Belin. Conkey Wright, Margaret; Gero, Joan, 1991: Tensions, pluralities, and engendering archaeology: An introduction to women and prehistory. In: Conkey Wright, Margaret; Gero, Joan (eds.), Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell, 3–30. Conkey Wright, Margaret; Tringham, Ruth, 1995: Archaeology and the Goddess: Exploring the Contours of Feminist Archaeology. In: Stanton, Domna; Stewart, Abigail (eds.), Feminisms in the Academy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,199–247. Connell, Raewyn, 2002: Gender. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishers. Dahlberg, Frances (ed.), 1981: Woman the gatherer. Yale: Yale University Press. Dashú, Max, 2005: Knocking down straw dolls: A critique of Cynthia Eller’s The myth of matriarchal prehistory. Feminist Theology 13/2, 185–216. DOI: 10.1177/0966735005051947 DeVore, Irven; Lee, Richard, 1968: Man the hunter. Aldine Publishing Company. Díaz-Andreu, Margarita; Marie Louise, Stig Sorensen (eds.), 2005: Excavating women: a history of women in European archaeology. London: Routledge. Dobres, Marcia Anne, 1992: Re-considering Venus figurines: A feminist-inspired re-analysis. In: Goldsmith, Sean; Garvie, Sandra; Selin, David; Smith, Jeannette (eds.), Ancient images, ancient thought: The archaeology of ideology. Calgary: University of Calgary, 245–62. Doni, Martino, 2005: Ta arkaia, tempora ignota. Per un’epistemologia dell’archeologia. In: Gimbutas, Marija, Le dee viventi. Milano: Edizioni Medusa, 1–20. Douglas, Mary, 2003: Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge. Eller, Cynthia, 2000: The myth of matriarchal prehistory: Why an invented past won’t give women a future. Boston: Beacon Press. Elster, Ernestine, 2007: Marija Gimbutas: setting the agenda. In: Whitehouse, Ruth; Wright Hamilton, Katherine (eds.), Archaeology and Women: Ancient and Modern Issues. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 83–120. Evans, Arthur, 1935: The Palace of Minos. London: Mac-millan. Fanni, Silvia; Sirigu, Marcella; Soro, Laura (eds.), 2019: Donna o Dea? Le raffigurazioni femminili nella preistoria e protostoria sarda. Cagliari: WRB. Frazer, James, [1951] 2014: Matriarcato e Dee-madri. Milano: Mimesis. Foucault, Michael, 2019: The history of sexuality: 1. The will to knowledge. London: Penguin Gero, Joan; Conkey Wright, Margaret (eds.), 1991: Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell. Gero, Joan, 1985: Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology. American Antiquity 50, 342–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/280492 Gilchrist, Roberta, 1991: Women’s archaeology? Political feminism, gender theory and historical revision. Antiquity, 65 (248), 495–501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0003598X00080091 Gilchrist, Roberta, 2012: Gender and Archaeology. Contesting the Past. London: Routledge. Gimbutas, Marija, 1982: The Goddesses and the Gods of Old Europe 6500-3500 BC. Myths and Cult Images. Berckley: University of California Press. Gimbutas, Marija, 1991: The Civilization of the Goddess. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Gimbutas, Marija, 2005: Le dee viventi. Milano: Medusa editore. Gimbutas, Marija, 2008: Il linguaggio della dea. Roma: Venexia. Goettner-Abendroth, Heide, 2012: Le societŕ matriarcali. Studi sulle culture indigene del mondo. Roma: Venexia. Goodison, Lucy; Morris, Christine, 2012: Goddesses in prehistory. In: Bolger, Diane (ed.), A Companion to Gender Prehistory. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 265–287. Graves, Robert, [1948] 1992: La Dea Bianca. Milano: Adelphi. Haak, Wolfgang, 2015: Massive Migration from the Steppe Was a Source for Indo-European Languages in Europe. Nature, June 11, 207–211. DOI:10.1038/nature14317 Haraway, Donna, 1988: Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist studies 14.3, 575–599. https://doi. org/10.2307/3178066 Hodder, Ian, 2006: The Leopard ´s Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of C¸atalho¨yük. London: Thames & Hudson. Hutson, Scott; Hanks, Bryan; Pyburn, Anne, 2012: Gender, Complexity, and Power in Prehistory. In: Bolger, Diane (ed.), A companion to Gender Prehistory. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 45–67. Insoll, Timothy (ed.), 2017: The Oxford handbook of prehistoric figurines. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199675616.001.0001 James, Edwin Oliver, 1960: Antichi dei mediterranei. Milano: Il Saggiatore. Knapp, A. Bernard, 2003: Engendering Aphrodite: Women and Society in Ancient Cyprus. American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 107, No. 4, October, 663–665. DOI:10.2307/40024331 Knox, Daisy, 2017: Mediterranean–Cyprus.The Oxford handbook of prehistoric figurines. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 755–776. Lesure, Richard, 2011. Interpreting Ancient Figurines: Context, comparison, and prehistoric art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lesure, Richard 2017: Comparative perspectives in the interpretation of prehistoric figurines. In: Insoll, Timothy, (ed.), The Oxford handbook of prehistoric figurines. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 37–62. Lewis-Williams, David; Pearce, David, 2005: Inside the Neolithic mind: Consciousness, cosmos and the realm of the gods. London: Thames & Hudson. Lilliu, Giovanni, 1999: Arte e religione della Sardegna prenuragica. Sassari: Carlo Delfino Editore. Lillu, Giovanni, 2017: La civiltŕ dei sardi dal Paleolitico all’etŕ dei nuraghi. Nuoro: Il Maestrale. Luglič, Carlo, 2017: La comparsa dell’economia produttiva e il processo di neolitizzazione in Sardegna. In: Moravetti, Alberto; Melis, Paolo; Foddai, Lavinia; Alba, Elisabetta (eds.), La Sardegna preistorica. Storia, materiali, monumenti. Sassari: Carlo Delfino Editore, 37–64. Marler, Joan; Haarmann, Harald, 2007: The Goddess and the Bear Hybrid Imagery and Symbolism at Çatalhöyük. The Journal of Archaeomitology, Spring/Summer, 48–79. Mead, Margaret, 1949: Male and Female: A Study of the Sexes in a Changing World. New York: William Morrow & Co. Mellaart, James, 1967:Çatal H: a neolithic town in Anatolia. London: Thames and Hudson. Meskell, Lynn, 1995: Goddesses, Gimbutas, and ‘New Age’ Archaeology. Antiquity 69, March, no. 262, 74–86. DOI:10.1017/S0003598X00064310 Meskell, Lynn, 2007: Archaeologies of identity. In: Insoll, Timothy (ed.), The Archaeology of Identities: A Reader. New York: Routledge, 23–43. Morris, Christine, 2017: Minoan and Mycenaean Figurines. In: Insoll, Timothy (ed.), The Oxford handbook of prehistoric figurines. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 659–680. Nakamura, Carolyn; Meskell, Lynn, 2009: Articulate bodies: forms and figures at Çatalhöyük. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 16/3, 205–230. DOI:10.1007/s10816­009-9070-3 Nanoglou, Stratos, 2006: Regional Perspectives on the Neolithic Anthropomorphic Imagery of Northern Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19/2, 155-176. DOI:10.1558// jmea.2006.v19i2.155 Naumov, Goce, 2009: Patterns and corporeality: Neolithic visual culture from the Republic of Macedonia. Oxford: Archaeopress. DOI:10.30861/9781407303932 Naumov, Goce, 2014: Figuring out the figurines: Towards the interpretation of Neolithic corporeality in the Republic of Macedonia. DigIt: Journal of the Flinders Archaeological Society 2/1, 49–60. Nelson, Sarah Milledge; Rosen-Ayalon, Myriam, (eds.), 2001: In Pursuit of Gender: Worldwide Archaeological Approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Navickaite, Rasa, 2019: The Prehistoric Goddess of the Late Twentieth Century: Transnational Feminist Reception, Construction and Appropriation of Marija Gimbutas. PhD thesis, Budapest: Central European University. Neumann, Erich, [1955] 1981: La grande madre: fenomenologia delle configurazioni femminili dell’inconscio. Roma: Astrolabio. Nilsson, Martin, Persson, 1971: The Minoan-Mycenaean religion and its survival in Greek religion. Vol. 9. Biblo & Tannen Publishers. Patou-Mathis, Marylčne, 2020: L’homme préhistorique est aussi une femme: Une histoire de l’invisiblité des femmes. Parigi: Allary Editions. Renaud, Etienne, 1929: Prehistoric female figurines from America and the Old World. The Scientific Monthly 28/6, 507–512. Renfrew, Colin; Bahn, Paul (eds.), 2013: Archaeology: the key concepts. London: Routledge. Renfrew, Colin, 2017a: Marija Rediviva: DNA and Indo-European Origins. The First Marija Gimbutas Memorial Lecture. Chicago: The Oriental Institute. Renfrew, Colin, 2017b: Cycladic Figurines. In: Insoll, Timothy (ed.), The Oxford handbook of prehistoric figurines. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 637-658. Rigoglioso, Marguerite, 2007: The Disappearing of the Goddess and Gimbutas. A Critical Review of The Goddess and the Bull. Journal of Archaeomythology 3/1, 95–105. Robb, John, 2015: Burial and Human Body Representations in the Mediterranean Neolithic. In: Fowler, Chris; Harding, Jan; Hofmann, Daniela (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe. Oxford: OUP Oxford. Ebook. Robb, John; Harris, Oliver, 2017: Becoming gendered in European prehistory: was Neolithic gender fundamentally different? American Antiquity 83/1, 1–20. DOI:10.1017/ aaq.2017.54 Rosaldo, Michelle Zimbalist; Lamphere, Louise; Bamberger, Joan, 1974: Woman, culture, and society. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Russel, Bertrand, 1991: Storia della filosofia occidentale. Milano: Tea. Sřrensen, Marie, Louise Stig, 2013: Gender archaeology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Soffer, Olga, 1987: Upper Paleolithic connubia, refugia, and the archaeological record from eastern Europe. In: Soffer, Olga (ed.), The Pleistocene Old World: Regional perspectives. New York: Plenum Publishing, 333–348. Soffer, Olga; Adovasio, Hyland, 2000: The “Venus” figurines: textiles, basketry, gender, and status in the Upper Paleolithic. Current Anthropology 41/4, 511–537. DOI:10.1086/317381 Soffer, Olga; Conkey Wright, Margaret, 1997: Studying ancient visual cultures. In: Soffer, Olga; Conkey Wright, Margaret; Stratmaan, Deborah (eds.), Beyond art: Pleistocene image and symbol. San Francisco: University of California Press, 1–16. Spretnak, Charlene, 2011: Anatomy of a backlash: Concerning the work of Marija Gimbutas. The Journal of Archaeomythology 7, 25–51. Talalay, Lauren, 1993: Deities, Dolls & Devices. Neolitic figurines from Franchti Chave, Greece. Bloominton & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Ucko, Peter, 1962: The interpretation of prehistoric anthropomorphic figurines. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 92/1, 38–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2844320 Ucko, Peter, 1968: Anthropomorphic figurines of predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete with comparative material from the prehistoric Near East and mainland Greece. London: Royal Anthropological Institute. Occasional papers. Vella Gregory, Isabelle, 2007: Embodied materiality: The human form in pre-Nuragic Sardinia. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 2/21, 9–31. Vella Gregory, Isabelle, 2017: Mediterranean Sardinia. In: Insoll, Timothy, (ed.), The Oxford handbook of prehistoric figurines. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 779–822. Weiner, Annette, 1979: Trobriand kinship from another view: The reproductive power of women and men. Man 14/2, 328–348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2801571 Whitehouse, Ruth, 2002: Gender in the South Italian Neolithic: A Combinatory Approach. In: Milledge Nelson, Sarah; Rosen-Ayalon, Myriam (eds.), In Pursuit of Gender: Worldwide Archaeological Approaches. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, 54–118. Whitehouse, Ruth, 2013: Gender in Central Mediterranean Prehistory. In: Bolger, Diane (ed.), A Companion to Gender Prehistory. Malden-Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 480–501. CHI HA PAURA DELLA DEA? RACCONTI DI LEOPARDI, SINDROME DA MENOPAUSA: TERMINI DI UN DIBATTITO ARCHEOLOGICO ARIANNA CARTA Il presente articolo intende esplorare le controverse ipotesi all’interno del dibattito archeologico sulle statuette neolitiche femminili e le associazioni delle stesse con le divinitŕ. Partendo da un excursus storico sulle principali ipotesi che riguardano statuette e dee preistoriche, ho mostrato come l’accoglienza o l’ostracizzazione delle teorie di Gimbutas, possa essere letta come cartina tornasole delle dispute ideologiche all’interno dell’archeologia mainstream alla quale si intersecano quelle di matrice femminista e di genere. Il discorso delle divinitŕ protostoriche ha rad-ici lontane ed č stato teorizzato in vari ambiti da numerosi studiosi, tra gli altri: Bachofen, Frazer, James, Neumann e Russel. Anche in ambito archeologico, fino alla prima metŕ del ‘900, a livello internazionale esisteva un (implicito) accordo sul culto della Dea madre di cui le statuette del Paleolitico e del Neolitico erano considerate la prova materiale diquesta divinitŕ. L’interpretazione piů comune era quella che collegava la divinitŕ femminile al culto della fertilitŕ, che si esplicava nell’enfasi data a seni e vulva delle statuette. Mentre in campo archeologico si sono susseguite scoperte di statuette femminili che sono state studiate limitandosi allo specifico contesto, gli studi di Gimbutas hanno offerto un lavoro che in am-bito archeologico non era mai stato intrapreso: l’analisi comparativa di migliaia di simboli legati alla sfera femminile e presenti nella cultura materiale di tutta l’Europaantica. Comeho cercato didimostrarenell’articolo,questo lavoro rivoluz­ionario ha scatenato una serie di reazioni avverse sia all’interno dell’archeologia mainstream, che, paradossalmente, nell’archeologia femministae di genere. Le motivazioni sono complesse e varie ma di base riflettono una disciplina che, sia nella teoria che nei metodi, poggia saldamente su pregiudizi androcentrici in cui anche l’approccio di genere si puň riassumere nella definizione: “add gender and stir”. Nell’articolo offro svariati esempi di bizzarre interpretazioni sulle statuette neolitiche che da un lato sono state considerate asessuate, dall’altro assimilate a bambole gonfiabili attraverso strategie retoriche che le priva del sesso oppure le ipersessualizza. Marija Gimbutas in questo dibattito risulta un prezioso indi­catore perché č proprio attraverso gli attacchi che la studiosa subisce nel corso della sua carriera che si possono comprendere alcune strategie denigratorie poco consone ad un dibattito accademico costruttivo. Accusata di soffrire di sindrome da menopausa, traumi psicologici, di essere una “sessista al contrario” o di avere troppa fantasia, sono diversi gli archeologi e le archeologhe che sferrano attacchi ad personam piuttosto che muovere critiche costruttive relative alle sue interpre­tazioni. Nella conclusione, auspico che la portata di un lavoro interdisciplinare come quello che Gimbutas ha svolto sulle divinitŕ femminili venga riconosciuto e che l’archeologia superi il limite angusto del contesto archeologico e abbandoni la pretesa di oggettivitŕ, incompatibile con il concetto stesso di interpretazione di culture anche se “materiali”. Arianna Carta, Ph.D. student, University of Primorska, Department of Anthropology and Cultural Studies, Titov trg 5, SI-6000 Koper, arianna. carta70@gmail.com R azvoj raziskovalnih metod in diskusija S viluppo dei metodi di ricerca e discussione D evelopment of Research Methods and Discussion 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 275–281 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222513 How do We Know the Ancient Slavs also Knew Gnomons? Tomislav Bilic Poskušal bom dokazati, da hipotezeo 'svetih trikotnikih, ki temeljijo na soncnem kotu', ni mogoce šteti za resno znanstveno trditev, ker se zdi, da ni podkrepljena z nobenim trd­nim dokazom. Gre bolj za primer krožnega sklepanja, ki vkljucuje podporo ideji, da so stari Slovani vedeli za nagnjenost ekliptike, tako da kažejo na domnevni obstoj »svetih trikotnikov«, hkrati pa dokazujejo obstoj teh »svetih trikotnikov« z dokazovanjem, da so stari Slovani poznali vrednost poševnice. Izkazalo se je, da so sodobni raziskovalci prevec vneto interpretirali nekatere strukture, ki so bile v staroslovanskem kontekstu pri­kazane kot gnomoni. To se razkrije v podrobni analizi vec teh »gnomonov«. Nazadnje je opaženo, da se študija »svetih trikotnikov« ne ukvarja niti s sodobno zgodovino znanosti niti s sodobnimi študijami mitov, s tistimi disciplinami, ki bi vpletenim raziskovalcem lahko zagotovile boljši pogled na teme, ki so se jim tako strastno predani. KLJUCNE BESEDE: stari Slovani, starodavna astronomija, sveti trikotniki, soncni kot, gnomon, krožno sklepanje I will attempt to demonstrate that the ‘sacred triangles based on the solar angle’ hypoth­esis cannot be regarded as a serious scientific proposition because it seems uncorrobo­rated by any solid evidence. It is more an example of circular reasoning, which entails supporting the idea that the ancient Slavs knew about the obliquity of the ecliptic by pointing to the purported existenceof ‘sacred triangles’, while also proving the exist­ence of these ‘sacred triangles’ by demonstrating the ancient Slavs were familiar with the valuefor the obliquity. Certain structures portrayed as gnomons in ancient Slavic contexts are shown to have been overzealously interpreted by modern scholars. This is revealed in a detailed analysis of several of these ‘gnomons’. Finally, it is observed that the ‘sacred triangles’ scholarship engages with neither the modern history of science nor modern studies of myth, the very disciplines that could provide the scholars involved with a better perspective on the subjects to which they are so passionately committed. KEYWORDS: ancient Slavs, ancient astronomy, sacred triangles, solar angle, gnomon, circular reasoning In atruly stimulating yetalso admirably civilresponseto my paper on the‘sacred triangles’ hypothesis (Pleterski2021), AndrejPleterskiraises someinteresting points in defenceof this intriguing scholarly insight into ancient Slavic cosmological beliefs. In this paper, I seek to show why I believe his attempt is not fully successful, especially as concerns the significant question of how familiar, if at all, the ancient Slavs were with gnomons. 276 T OMISLA V B ILI c The paper should thus be viewed as a modest contribution to the apparently developing intellectual debate on the set of pertaining issues. I generally do not see how my main thesis is challenged by Pleterski’s response. In short, I have claimed that those adhering to the ‘sacred triangles’ hypothesis – specifically, those who introduce the notion of a “solar angle” into the discussion – have unwillingly fallen victim to circular reasoning. Indeed, their ‘proof’ the ancient Slavs knew about the obliquity of the ecliptic builds on the allegation that they displayed this knowledge while reifying the ‘sacred triangles’ across the landscape. Yet, at the same time they seek to substantiate the existence of the ‘sacred triangles’ by pointing to the ancient Slavs’ knowledge of the obliquity (Bilic 2020). To add weight to either claim, scholars subscribing to the ‘sacred triangles based on the solar angle’ hypothesis need to present proofthattheseclaims areindependentofeachother,i.e.,toshow theancientSlavs were familiar with the obliquity – with its quite peculiar value, more specifically - beyond the ‘sacred triangles’ framework. To the best of my knowledge, such proof has yet to be offered. For instance, no support can be found in narrative sources for the idea that the ancient Slavs knew about the obliquity, despite the reasonable expectation that such an apparently important feature in their cosmology would have left at least some trace in their narrative tradition.1However, Pleterski does not address this crucial issue in his response. Turning now to more specific, yet still essential points, Pleterski questions my un­derstanding of the difference between ancient and modern science, namely of astronomy (Pleterski 2021: 262). Yet, this is a misinterpretation of the rigorousness demanded by the modern history of science that should not be confused with insensitivity to the issues with which Pleterski and I are both concerned. The study of ancient science in terms of modern is today treated by majority of scholars in this field of study as an anachronistic approach (see, for example, the writings of Francesca Rochberg) and I am fully aware of the anachronism in approaching the former in terms of the latter.2 Still, it is true that I did not discuss this question at any length in my paper. Further, crucially, this familiarity with gnomons is relied on by Pleterski as a strong point in his argument concerningthe ancient Slavs’ astronomical knowledge as regards this particular set of issues (Pleterski 2021: 264). In his response, Pleterski stresses the deductive natureof my approach, contrasting it with his own inductive reasoning, based on ‘hard evidence’. While deliveringsome sortofcoup de grace tomy criticism, he somewhat misleadingly finishes his response (introducing it with “[f]inally: some con­creteness”) with the following bold statement: “We [Pleterski & Mareš 2003] also represented two preserved gnomons and traces of the other two in the ancient Slavs (Pleterski & Mareš 2003: 18–24). In The Cultural Genome, I additionally show traces of two gnomons (Pleterski 2014: 205–207, 211), while in my most recent publication I add 1 Cf. Kale 2012: 388, who raises this objection to the role of Mokoš in the ‘sacred triangles based on the solar angle’ idea. 2 See Bilic 2021: 5–6 (with literature). four more gnomons (Pleterski 2020: 267–271). No further accumulation of gnomons seems necessary”.3 Indeed, if Pleterski is right, we may declare the matter settled (as concerns the an­cient Slavs’ use of gnomons, not the entire question of the ‘sacred triangles’). Yet, is he actually correct? One thing that instantly draws the reader’s attention: Pleterski only cites his own papers as corroborating evidencefor his own assertion (Pleterski2014;Pleterski 2020; Pleterski & Mareš 2003). Of course, he might simply be doing this to keep matters concise. Still, he could have supported his claims in the works he published earlier, the very ones that he cites. This is manifestly not the case as anyone making an effort to track these references down will soon discover. The references Pleterski cites are as a rule reports of archaeological excavations to which he adds his own interpretations. Any supporting literature he cites stems from the domains of linguistics and ethnographic studies of Slavic myth, without seeking to engage with modern studies of the history of science, or myth generally.4 What we basically have here is an author trying to support the existence of ancient Slavic gnomons with his own interpretations of various structures that he believes may be representing the gnomons of the ancient Slavs. This is surely not enough to refutemy main complaintconcerning the‘sacred triangles’ hypothesis, i.e., the unwitting use of circular reasoning (Bilic 2020: 50). Quite the contrary, it is yet another example of this fallacy in the ‘solar triangles’ scholarship. To start with, one should briefly discuss what a gnomon actually is: a multi-purpose, yet simple astronomical instrument whose main component is an upright object that casts a shadow. With a gnomon it is possible to determine the local noon, the north–south line (meridian), the (approximate) date of the solstices and (more controversially in practice) the equinoxes, the (approximate) value for the obliquity of the ecliptic, the latitude of the observer, the solar azimuth (including the solstitial sunrise/sunset azimuths), the time of day (most efficiently achieved when the gnomon of a sundial is placed parallel to the earth’s or celestial axis, i.e., when inclined at an angle equal to the latitude of the observer) (Couprie 2011: 28–41, 79–81). I note that Couprie’s definition of a gnomon’s functions is generously inclusive, and thatperhaps many historians of science would not agree with the charitable view he holds of the ancient practitioners of astronomy, including thosewho actually used gnomons. Moreover, these uses of agnomon are, naturally, theoretical, given that in practice one can use it in any or all of the ways listed above. Nevertheless, while discussing a particular object or structure that one contends is a gnomon, any author should define this instrument’s function in the context being studiedwithintheframeworkofgnomonusage.This seems tohaveneverbeendonewith the Slavic ‘gnomons’, as will become clear in the following analysis. One may ask: in which way are the Slavic ‘gnomons’ actually gnomons? Pleterski, in the first paper he cites, one that he wrote along with Mareš, states that he could recognise 3 Pleterski2020:265. Theend of thefirstsentenceis moremeaningfulin Slovenian:“Prav tako tampredstaviva dva ohranjena gnomona in sledove drugih dveh pri starih Slovanih” (Pleterski 2020: 260). 4 On this characteristic of the ‘sacred triangles’ scholarship see more below. agnomoninwhatexcavators hadidentifiedas abaptistery(Pleterski&Mareš 2003:20), in fact, a funnel-shaped pit less than 1.5 m deep inside the present Church of St Peter and Paul at the Vyšehrad castle in Prague (Pleterski & Mareš 2003: 19–20). The authors believe the excavators are in error (Pleterski & Mareš 2003: 20) and connect the pit with the ‘Devil’s Column’, a three-piece 7-m-tall stone column that currently sits in a nearby park but which, according to our earliest source, stood in 1609 in the cemetery nearby (ca. 250 m away) at the Church of the Beheading of St. John. It was only later placed inside the St Peter and Paul’s Church (Pleterski & Mareš 2003: 21). An earlier hypothesis proposed by an amateur researcher, who saw in the column “eine altslawische Säule zum Zweck des Zeitmessens”, but which has been rejected by modern scholars, was revived by Pleterski and Mareš (2003: 21).5With little supporting evidence, they transferred the mentioned column from its attested setting and planted it in the “baptistery” pit (Pleterski & Mareš 2003: 21–23). They interpret this construction as a gnomon, yet not one that forms part of the “sacred solar triangle” they claim exists in the Prague area (Pleterski & Mareš 2003: 25–26), while its actual function is also never explicated. On pages 23 and 24, they mention certain additional “ancient Slavic cult columns”, presumably the other “gnomons” that Pleterski refers to while responding to my paper. Pleterski subsequently repeats and somewhat updates the compelling story of this “gno­mon” (Pleterski 2014: 226–232), but still without discussing the use of this ‘gnomon’ as a gnomon at the Vyšehrad castle. In this interpretation, it is merely an upright column serving the same purpose as another landscape point that is now occupied by a church (a rotunda of St Martin), even though previously a completely hypothetical‘gnomon’ also apparently stood there, whose existence is not supported by any evidence (Pleterski 2014: 232–233). It does not therefore seem justifiable to admit this ‘gnomon’ at St Martin’s as evidence of the ancient Slavs being familiar with the instrument, given that its existence was initially hypothesised in order to support the very interpretation that Pleterski himself advocates. Pleterski also refers to two further gnomons in his book Kulturni genom. The ‘gno­mon’ hedescribes here(Pleterski2014:205–207) is amoundfound near Cracow (kopiec Krakusa) with a pillar at the top – or successive stone pillars/a tree/a wooden cross atop a successive mound of layers – which is interpreted, with littlesolid evidence, as “[t] ak navpicen steber lahko koristno uporabimo kot orientir in kot gnomon za opazovanje ter merjenje gibanja sonca” (Pleterski 2014: 207). The other ‘gnomon’ mentioned here is presumably a stone pillar on a mound called kopiec Wandy, some 9 km in distance from the Cracow mound (Pleterski 2014: 209).6However, the extensive archaeoastro­nomical analysis of the mounds that follows does not discuss these structures’ function as gnomons (Pleterski 2014: 212–215). Both ‘gnomons’ are merely points of a “sacred triangle” (apparently defined by an angle of 28.5°, one that does not correlate with the value for the obliquity), with a third point that is not demarcated by any ‘gnomon’ at all. 5 The author in question is Miloš Josef Pulec, whose biography is quite colourful (see Wagner 2014); his idea was published in a tourist guide (Pulec 1960). 6 “Lahko da je bil to [kamniti steber] še zgodnjesrednjeveški gnomon” (Pleterski 2014: 209). Pleterski even­tually hypothesised the existence of another ‘gnomon’ at the Babki Krakusa mound next to the kopiec Krakusa, also without any supporting evidence (Pleterski 2014: 217–218). The discrepancybetween the angle of the obliquity and the angle that apparently de­fines the Cracow triangle is recognised by Pleterski: “Zakaj kot med gomilami z vrhom pri Vandini gomili meri kar 28,53°, kar nikakor ni velikost obrednega kota…” (Pleterski 2014: 215). The way in which he addresses this inconsistency is a good example of the overall method often used by those adhering to the ‘sacred triangles’ hypothesis. With the initial ‘sacred triangle’ not fitting with the general postulates of the hypothesis, he advances another set of points that he contends form the desired triangle (Pleterski 2014: 217–218). The fact that one of the points of this new triangle does not quite fit into this alternative set is explained away all too easily: “[t]orej je cisto verjetno, da cerkev sv. Vojteha ne stoji natancno na nekdanjem obrednem mestu, ampak ob njem” (Pleterski 2014: 218). Moreover, another point is also not located where it is supposed to be ac­cording to the postulates of the ‘sacred triangles’ hypothesis (the Babki Krakusa mound is used in measurements instead of the kopiec Krakusa) (Pleterski2014: 216–217, 219).7 It seems that we cannot seriously speak of a ‘sacred triangle’ here, let alone a gnomon. Finally, Pleterski refers to a further four ‘gnomons’ in his latest paper (Pleterski 2020: 267–271). He argues there that a posthole found on the Bled island once housed an upright pillar that served as a gnomon. While it was apparently used to determine (1) the date corresponding to the successive churches’ solar orientation, and (2) the buildings’ actual orientation, Pleterski does not attempt to explain how exactly this was accomplished with this hypothetical ‘gnomon’ (Pleterski 2020: 268). Whatever its precise function, this single postholedoes notconstitutesolidevidenceoftheexistenceofagnomoninamedievalSlavic context. The other three gnomons mentioned in this paper are introduced only in captions tothefigures,includingtheVyšehrad‘gnomon’ (Pleterski2020:269–272,Figs. 10.22–26). In light of all of this, can it still be maintained that the evidence presented by the scholars working under the ‘sacred triangles’ hypothesis is so robust and convincing to dispel any possibleobjection thatmightarisefromthedeductivestandpoint?In my view, the‘facts’ in this particular case are inadequate to support the conclusions these ‘sacred triangles’ scholars seem inclined to make. This does not mean that I question that the landscape is an important element in the study of our intellectual past, as Pleterski appears to imply (Pleterski 2021: 263) – quite the opposite, this is precisely what lies behind my attempt to question the validity of the ‘sacred triangles based on the solar angle’ hypothesis. I also do not question the presence of upright columns and other objects in the ancient Slavic landscape and/or cultic arrangements, but I do insist on solid proof that these structures may be interpreted as gnomons. In conclusion, I believe the issue of what the ancient Slavs knew about the obliquity deserves a more studious investigation, primarily, but not exclusively, in dialogue with the modern history of science. In carefully chosen words, Pleterski maintains that I do not truly understand the ancient Slavs’ mind-set and that I have confused it with the Greek (= Western scientific) ‘mentality’ (my paraphrasing of Pleterski’s claims made on p. 262 in Pleterski 2021). This appears as an easy dodge of the difficult questions I Pleterski is aware of these inconsistencies, but does not seem to address them:“Natancnost umestitve tock, ki sem jih uporabil pri meritvah, razen gnomona v Krakovi gomili...” (Pleterski 2014: 218, my italics). have raised in my assessment of the ‘sacred triangles’ hypothesis.8One should always be wary of bold statements like “[s]etting an angle of 23.5° according to the principles of imitative magic ensures a natural balance of the seasons’ proper course” (Pleterski 2021: 262), especially when they are not supported by solid evidence. The reconstruction of the ancient Slavs’ astronomical insights, I strongly believe, demands the same level of scrutiny, epistemological and otherwise, as that of any other ancient tradition, including Greek, with no shortcuts in the form of ‘special insights’. A related issue urgently in need of addressing concerns the relation of ‘sacred triangles’ idea with the modern study of myth, which is all but ignored by those who adhere to this approach.9 Pleterski’s assertion that “when quoting, I personally adhere to the principle of less is more” (2021: 262, his italics) seems programmatic for this method. Still, using and, where appropriate, quoting the key modern works in this burgeoning field of study might be worthwhile for scholars who study myth with such commitment. Leavingourcomfortzoneis sometimes theonlywayforward.However,seeingfaults in a paradigm that one passionately subscribes to, an interpretative framework that one personally helped to develop almost ex nihilo, cannot be an easy task.10 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bilic, Tomislav, 2020: Mit o “svetim trokutima” temeljenima na “suncevom kutu” – analiza “astronomije” ranih Slavena. Studia mythologica Slavica 23, 35–50. Bilic, Tomislav, 2021: The Land of the Solstices: Myth, geography and astronomy in ancient Greece. Oxford: BAR Publishing (BAR International Series 3039). Couprie, Dirk L., 2011: Heaven and Earth in Ancient Greek Cosmology. From Thales to Heraclides Ponticus. New York: Springer. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V.; Ivanov, Vjaceslav V., 1995: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A reconstruction and historical analysis of a proto-language and a proto-culture. 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 80). Kale, Jadran, 2010: Kamo idu hrvatske zvijezde? In: Marjanic, Suzana; Prica, Ines (eds.), Mitski zbornik. Zagreb: Institut za etnologiju i folkloristiku, Hrvatsko etnološko društvo, Scarabeus-naklada, 379–392. 8 “To make clear below that Bilic’s critique is totally mistaken, I must first highlight some of his quiet theoretical assumptions… of which he may not even be aware, but which I can conclude from his method of argument, which is distinctly deductive and neglects empiricism in relation to the ancient Slavs… Bilic emphasises the ancient Greek tradition as the origin of modern astronomy, and as a decisive question, how the supposed knowledge of the ancient Slavs – of the relatively accurate value of the obliquity – fits into the knowledge of the modern history of the science that speaks of the development of comparable knowledge in the Greek tradition…. The tenacity of Bilic’s reasoning is only apparent… An angle of 23.5° can be placed in the landscape even if we have no knowledge of the value of the obliquity of the ecliptic… The ancient Slavs did not need to know Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, or how to calculate angles...” (Pleterski 2021: 262, my italics). On the now-abandoned concept of “mentalities”, see Lloyd 1990 (admittedly, Pleterski only implicitly adheres to this concept). 9 See a selection of modern literature on myth in Bilic 2020: 44 n. 36. 10 “The older generation is usually unwilling to part with old ideas and views, preferring to continue working, as it were by inertia,within the traditional and therefore more familiar paradigm even when weak and contra­dictory points of that paradigm become obvious” (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995: 1.857). Lloyd, Geoffrey Ernest Richard, 1990: Demystifying Mentalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pleterski, Andrej, 2014: Kulturni genom: Prostor in njegovi ideogrami miticne zgodbe (Studia mythologica slavica - Supplementum 10). Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Pleterski, Andrej, 2020: Miticna pokrajina. Preizkusi njenega obstoja z napovednima modeloma na primeru Bleda / A mythical landscape. Tests of its existence with predictive models for the Bled case. In: Štular, Benjamin(ed.), Srednjeveški Blejski otok v arheoloških virih / Medieval archaeology of Bled Island (Opera Instituti archaeologici Sloveniae 42). Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. 235–277. Pleterski, Andrej, 2021:Tudi stari Slovani so poznali gnomone / The ancient Slavs also knew gnomons. Studia mythologica Slavica 24, 257–264. Pleterski, Andrej; Mareš, Jiri J., 2003: Astronomische Grundlagen einiger frühmittelalterlichen Kultstellen in Praha. Studia mythologica Slavica 6, 9–35. Pulec, Miloš Josef, 1960: Vyšehrad. Praha: Sportovní a turistické nakladatelství. Wagner, David František, 2014: Miloš Josef Pulec a Starokatolická církev. Diploma thesis, Universita Karlova v Praze. KAKO ZNAMO JESU LI I DREVNI SLAVENI POZNAVALI GNOMON? TOMISLAV Bilic Ideja o “svetim trokutima baziranima na solarnom kutu” ne bi se trebala tretirati kao ozbiljna znanstvena hipoteza, jer se ne cini poduprta cvrstim dokazima. Rijec je zapravo o primjeru cirkularne argumentacije, gdje se poznavanje oblikviteta ekliptike kod starih Slavena podupire navodnim postojanjem “svetih trokuta”, dok se istovremeno postojanje “svetih trokuta” dokazuje poznavanjem iznosa oblikviteta od strane starih Slavena. Pokazalo se da su strukture opisane kao gno­moni u staroslavenskom kontekstu zapravo odraz previše gorljivih interpretacija suvremenih istraživaca. Taj zakljucak izveden je iz detaljne analize odredenog broja tih navodnih gnomona. Naposljetku, istraživaci koji se bave proucavanjem “svetih trokuta” ne ulaze u dijalog sa suvremenom povijesti znanosti, kao niti sa suvremenim izucavanjima mita, dakle upravo onim disciplinamakoje bi im, kao gorljivim istraživacima upravo takvih tema, mogle ponuditi jasniju perspektivu o promatranoj materiji. Tomislav Bilic, PhD, The Archaeological Museum in Zagreb, Trg Nikole Šubica Zrinskog 19, HR-1000 Zagreb, tbilic@amz.hr 25 Studia MITOLOGICA Slavica 2022 283–289 | https://doi.org/ 10.3986/SMS20222514 Kako vemo, da so stari Slovani poznali gnomone? Andrej Pleterski Pokoncni stebri so tudi del miticne pokrajine starih Slovanov. Na dejstvo, da je bil tak steber uporabljen kot gnomon, je mogoce sklepati iz obstoja ucinkov njegovega delovanja, ki jih najdemo v pokrajini: smeri neba, datumsko pomembni azimuti soncne­ga vzhoda in soncnega zahoda, kot, ki ustreza nagibu ekliptike. Domnevni krožni argu­ment, da trikotniki definirajo kot in isti kot definira iste trikotnike, je Bilicev konstrukt in je matematicno nemogoc, saj trikotnika ne moremo definirati samo z enim kotom. A tudi ce so astronomsko znanje starih Slovanov res utemeljevali v sedanjosti s povsem krožnim dokazom(kar pa niso), to še ne pomeni, da stari Slovani niso imeli astronom­ Upright pillars are also part of the mythical landscape of the ancient Slavs. The fact that a column was used as a gnomon can be inferred from the existence of the effects of its action found in the landscape: the cardinal directions, the azimuths of sunrise and sun­set significant for the date, an anglecorresponding to the obliquity of the ecliptic. The alleged circular argument that triangles define an angle and the same angle defines the same triangles is a Bilic construct and mathematically impossible, since we cannot de­fine a triangle with only one angle. However, even if the astronomical knowledge of the ancient Slavs in the present were really justified by a purely circular argument (which is not the case), it does not mean that the ancient Slavs had no astronomical knowledge. Keywords: ancient Slavs, astronomy, gnomon Vesel sem, da Tomislav Bilic vztraja v diskusiji o astronomskem znanju starih Slova­nov in urejenosti njihove miticnepokrajine. To mi daje upanje, da jo bova pripeljala do konstruktivnega zakljucka. V repliki (Bilic 2022) na moj odgovor (Pleterski 2021) na zacetek, ki ga je sprožil (Bilic 2020), daje nekaj dobrih iztocnic za bolj osredotoceno razpravo. Opažam namrec, da sva doslej v nemajhni meri govorila eden mimo drugega. Potem, ko je v repliki nekoliko izjasnil svoja stališca, je potrebno, da to storim tudi jaz, ker bo nadaljevanje potem mnogo lažje. 284 A NDREJ P LETERSKI Bilic poudarja, da ne dvomi o pokrajini kot pomembnem elementu naše intelektu­alne preteklosti.Prav tako ne dvomi o obstoju pokoncnih stebrov in drugih objektov v staroslovanski pokrajini ter o kultnih sestavih. Glede vsega tega se torej strinjava. To je dovolj, da omogoca razlicne nadaljnje interpretacije in zato vsaj meni povsem zadošca. Ker pa je že v naslovu replike zastavil povsem jasno vprašanje, kako vemo, da so tudi stariSlovanipoznalignomonein ker trdi, damojeizpeljavetemeljijo nakrožnemdokazu, si zasluži tudi povsem konkretna odgovora. Polovico odgovora na prvo vprašanje je ponudil že Bilic sam s koristno podrobno definicijo gnomona, po kateri je to mnogonamenski astronomski instrument, navpicen predmet, kimece senco. Znjim je mogoce dolocitilokalno poldne, linijo sever–jug (poldnevnik), (približni) datum solsticija in (v praksi bolj sporno) enakonocja, (približno) vrednost naklonaekliptike, zemljepisnoširino opazovalca, soncniazimut(vkljucno s solsticijskimi azimuti soncnega vzhoda/zahoda), cas dneva (Bilic 2022, 277). Že pri branju te definicije se izpostavi morda temeljni nesporazum med Bilicem in menoj. Gre za vprašanje, kako sta povezana gnomon in naklon ekliptike. Bilic govori o vrednosti naklona ekliptike pri uporabi gnomona in se sklicuje na Dirka Couprieja. Ta o tem pove nekaj vec in drugace: »The angle made by the top of the gnomon and the end of its shadow at the time of the solstices can be measured and will show to be about 47°. This angle equals twice the inclination of the ecliptic« (Couprie 2011, 31) – »Kot, ki ga tvorita vrh gnomona in konec njegove sence v casu solsticijev, je mogoce izmeriti in pokaže se, da je približno 47°. Ta kot je enak dvakratnemu naklonu ekliptike.« Couprie govori o kotu in o merjenju tega kota., kar sta dve stvari, Bilic govori samo o vrednosti naklona ekliptike, kar pa seveda predpostavlja vednost o obstoju sfericnosti Zemlje. Couprie na istem mestu posebej poudari, da ta vednost, za dolocitev kota ni potrebna. Gre za to, da vrh gnomona in konec dolžine njegove sence v dveh skrajnih tockah leta – torej tri tocke, dolocajo nek kot. Ta kot je na ta nacin podan geometrijsko. Merjenje z neko vrednostjo lahko pride na vrsto šele, ko smo ga dolocili. Bilic govori o vrednosti (v angleškem besedilu value, v hrvaškem iznos), jaz govorim o dolocitvi kota. Bilic je preprican, da stari Slovani vrednosti opisanega kota niso poznali,jaz trdim, da so bili na ta nacin dolocitikot sposobni tudi stari Slovani. Sva zato nesoglasna? Ne. Tudi jaz ne verjamem, da bi Slovani poznalivrednost kota in tudi Bilic dopušca možnost, da bi ga lahko z gnomonom dolocili (Bilic 2020, 44). Ostaja torej vprašanje, ali so stari Slovani uporabljali gnomone. Bilic priznava, da so del njihove miticne pokrajinetudi pokoncni stebri. Jaz priznavam, da vsak pokoncen steber ali podobno telo še ni gnomon. Spomnim pa, da je vendarle vsak gnomon tako telo. In se zavedam, da na noben staroslovanski steber ni pritrjena plošcica z napisom »gnomon«. Oblika stebra tako sicer omogoca funkcijo gnomona, vendar je sama še ne doloca. Zdi se mi, da je Bilic želel povedati tudi to. In tudi v tem se z njim strinjam. Da je bil nek steber uporabljen v funkciji gnomona, lahko sklepamo po obstoju ucinkov njegovega delovanja v skladu z zgornjim Bilicevim popisom. Te ucinke vidimo kot arheoastronomske strukture v prostoru. Sestavljajo jih ustrezno razporejene, kulturno dolocene prostorske tocke. V primerih, ki jih obravnavam v Kulturnem genomu (Pleterski 2014),tetockemed drugimdolocajo smerinebaindatumsko pomembneazimutesoncnih vzhodov in zahodov ter dolocajo kot, kijeenak nagnjenostiekliptike. In ponavljam, eden od tehnicnih pogojev za to je opazovališce z gnomonom. Zato lahko o obstoju gnomona sklepamo, tudi ce ga danes ni vec. To je odgovor na prvo Bilicevo vprašanje. Ker pa si želi tudi zelo oprijemljiv primer, ki ga nisem sestavil jaz, opozarjam na clanek Piotra Banasika in Wladislawa Górala, ki povsem neodvisno od mojih raziskav obravnava arheoastronomski znacaj Krakove gomile v Krakovu. Takoj povem, da besede gnomon v clankune uporabita. Ugotovila pa sta, da imajo nekatere od ravnih crt plotov, ki potekajo radialno od središca gomile z ostanki navpicnega stebra proti obodu gomile, astronomske azimute, ki se ujemajo s koledarsko pomembnimi datumi, tudi z zimskim solsticijem. Nadalje dolocajo dva kota, katerih simetrala je tocno v smeri zahod–vzhod (Banasik, Góral 2016). To komentiram s parafrazo znane retoricne uganke o raci. Ce je videti kot gnomon, ce stoji kot gnomon, ce so ob njem sledovi uporabe gnomona, kaj je to? Sedaj pa še k vprašanju krožnega dokaza, ki mi ga Bilic pripisuje: »the ancient Slavs were familiar with the value of the obliquity of the ecliptic solely by the existence of sacred triangles, simultaneously proving the existence of sacred triangles themselves by the familiarity of the ancient Slavs with the solar angle (i.e., the value of the obliquity of the ecliptic)« – »[Avtorjibiradi dokazali, da so] stari Slovani poznalivrednost poševnosti ekliptike zgolj na podlagi obstoja svetih trikotnikov, hkrati pa dokazujejo obstoj svetih trikotnikov na podlagi staroslovanskega poznavanja soncnega kota (tj. vrednosti poševnosti ekliptike)« (Bilic 2020, 44; Bilic 2022, 278–279). Biliceva trditev o obstoju krožnega dokaza in nicnosti vsega, na kar se ta dokaz nanaša, je zmotna v kar treh pogledih: faktografsko, matematicno in logicno. Naj najprej, vendar pa najmanj pomembno povem, da tehnicnih izrazov soncni kot, sveti trikotniki jaz ne uporabljam.Res pasemsprvauporabljalizrazsvetikot,asemganatozamenjalzizrazom obredni kot, ko sem opazil, da že tradicionalno pomeni tisti kot v hiši, ki je povezan s svetim vidikom življenja v njej (prim. Ränk 1949). In sedaj faktografski vidik. V svoji prvi razpravi o miticni pokrajini starih Slovanov sem najprej dolocil trojice kulturno pogojenih prostorskih tock. Kot take so dolocale trikotnike in opazil sem, da se en kot ponavlja (samo to v prvi razlicici clanka: Pleterski 1995). To je bil kot približno 23°. In ko semrazmišljal, kajv naravibiustrezalo temu kotu, semprišeldo nagnjenostiekliptike (Pleterski 1996). Toda trikotniki in koti so bili že definirani. Nadalje poudarjam, kar sem povedal že zgoraj, menim, da so stari Slovani obredni kot dolocali geometrijsko in zato nikjer ne govorim, da so poznali vrednost poševnosti ekliptike,kot mi pripisuje Bilic. Trdim pa, da so poznali razliko v višini sonca pozimi in poleti ter bili sposobni to razliko z gnomonom tudi dolociti. V temni nobene argumentacijske krožnosti. Formulacije in njihova argumentacijska krožnost so Bilicev konstrukt. Matematicna zmotnost. Bilicev krožni dokaz je matematicno nevzdržen. S tremi tockami lahko dolocimo trikotnik in vse kote v njem, tudi obrednega, ce tam je. Ne moremo pa z enim samim kotom in cetudi je obreden, definirati trikotnika. Tudi ce bi želel, krožnega dokaza nisem mogel sestaviti. Logicna zmotnost. Zmotna zmota (znana tudi kot argument iz zmote) je logicna zmota, ki se pojavi, ko nekdo domneva, da ce argument vsebuje logicno zmoto, potem mora biti njegov sklep napacen. Z drugimi besedami, tudi ce bi bilo astronomsko znanje starih Slovanov res v sedanjosti utemeljeno zgolj s krožnim argumentom (a ni), to še ne pomeni, da stari Slovani niso imeli astronomskega znanja. Ne vem, ali bo Bilic zmogel biti zadovoljen z mojimi odgovori, a to tudi ni moj cilj. Gapaželimzakonecpohvaliti. damipriznava strastno vztrajanje primojih prizadevanjih. Hvala! Upam, da me ta strast nikoli ne bo zapustila. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE ANCIENT SLAVS KNEW GNOMONS? ANDREJ PLETERSKI I am glad that Tomislav Bilic insists on discussing the astronomical knowledge of the ancient Slavs and the order of their mythical landscape. This gives me hope that we will bring them to a constructive conclusion. In his rejoinder (Bilic 2022) to my reply (Pleterski 2021) to the opening he raised (Bilic 2020), he gives some good pointers for a more focused discussion. I note that we have talked past each other. Having made his views a bit clearer in his rejoinder, it is necessary for me to do the same, because then it is much easier to move on. Bilicemphasises thathehas no doubtaboutthelandscapeas an importantele­ment of our intellectual past. Nor does he doubt the existence of upright columns and other objects in ancient Slavic landscape and/or cultic arrangements. So we are in agreement on all these points. That is enough to allow for various further interpretations and is therefore, at least for me, quite sufficient. However, since he has already asked a very clear question in the title of his rejoinder as to how we know that the ancient Slavs also knew gnomons, and since he claims that my deductions arebasedon circular evidence,healso deserves averyconcreteanswer. Half of the answer to the first question has already been given by Bilic himself, with a useful, detailed definition of a gnomon, according to which it is a multi­purpose astronomical instrument, a vertical object that casts a shadow. It can be used to determine the local noon, the north-south line (meridian), the (approxi­mate) date of the solstices and (more controversially in practise) equinoxes, the (approximate) value for the obliquity of the ecliptic, the latitude of the observer, the solar azimuth(including the azimuths for sunrise and sunset), and the time of day (Bilic 2022, 277). Even reading this definition may highlight the fundamental misunderstanding between Bilic and myself. The issue is how the gnomon and the obliquity of the ecliptic are related. Bilic talks about the value of the obliquity of the ecliptic when using a gnomon and refers to Dirk Couprie. »The angle between the tip of the gnomon and the end of its shadow at the time of the solstices can be measured and is about 47°. This angle corresponds to twice the inclinationof the ecliptic« (Couprie 2011, 31). Couprie speaks of the angle and of the measurement of this angle, which are two things; Bilic speaks only of the value of the obliquity of the ecliptic, which of coursepresupposes knowledgeof theexistenceof thesphericity of the earth. Couprie explicitly points out in the same place that this knowledge is not necessary to determine the angle. The point is that the tip of the gnomon and the end of the length of its shadow at two extreme points of the year - that is, the three points - determine an angle. This angle is therefore given geometrically. A measurement with a value cannot come into play until we have determined it. Bilic speaks of value (in Croatian iznos), I speak of determining the angle. Bilic is convinced that the ancient Slavs did not know the value of the angle described, I maintainthattheancientSlavs werealsoableto determinetheangleinthis way. So are we in disagreement? No. I also do not believe that the Slavs would have known the value of the angle, and Bilic also allows for the possibility that it could have been determined by a gnomon (Bilic 2020, 44). The question remains, then, whether the ancient Slavs used gnomons. Bilic admits that upright columns are also part of their mythical landscape. I concede that any upright column or similar body is not yet a gnomon. But I remind that every gnomon is such a body. And I know that there is no plaque on any ancient Slavic column that says 'gnomon'. The shape of the column enables the function of a gnomon, but does not itself define it. It seems to me that this is what Bilic was trying to say as well. And I agree with him there as well. The factthat a pillar was used as a gnomon can be inferred from the existence of effects of its action according to Bilic's inventory above. These effects are seen as archaeoastronomical structures in the landscape. They consist of appropriately arranged, culturally defined spatial points. In the examples I discuss in The Cul­tural Genome (Pleterski 2014), these points determine, among other things, the cardinal directions and date-relevant azimuths of sunrises and sunsets, as well as an angle corresponding to the obliquity of the ecliptic. And I repeat, one of the technical requirements for this is an observatory with a gnomon. Therefore, we can infer the existence of a gnomon, even if it no longer exists today. This is the answer to Bilic's first question. Since he also wants a very concrete example, not compiled by me, I would like to point to an article by Piotr Banasik and Wladyslaw Góral, which deals with the archaeoastronomical character of Krak's Mound in Kraków, quite independently of my research. I should note right away that they do not use the word gnomon in their article. However, they have found that some of the straight lines of the fences running radiallyfrom the centreof the mound with the remains of the vertical column to the perimeter of the mound have astronomical azimuths that coincide with calendrically importantdates, including thewinter solstice. They also define two angles whose bisectors lie exactly in the west-east direction (Banasik, Góral 2016). I comment on this by paraphrasing the famous rhetorical conundrum of the duck. If it looks like a gnomon, if it stands like a gnomon, if there are traces of the use of a gnomon beside it, what is it? Now tothequestionofthecircularproofthatBilicattributes tome:'theancient Slavs knew the value of the obliquity of the ecliptic by the existence of sacred triangles alone, and at the same time proved the existence of sacred triangles themselves by the ancient Slavs' familiarity with the angle of the sun (i.e. the value of the obliquity of the ecliptic)' (Bilic 2020, 44; Bilic 2022, 278–279). Bilic's claim about the existence of the circular proof and the nullity of all that this proof refers to is false in no less than three respects: factually, mathematically, and logically. Let me begin by saying that I do not use the technical terms solar angle and sacred triangles. I did, however, initially use the term sacred angle, but thenreplaced itwith thetermritualanglewhenI realised thatittraditionallymeant the angle in a house associated with the sacred aspect of dwelling in that house (cf. Ränk 1949). And now to the factual aspect. In my initial discussion of the mythical landscape of the ancient Slavs, I first identified the triads of culturally conditionedpoints of space. As such, theydefinedtriangles,andI noticed thatone angle was repeated (only this in the first version of the article: Pleterski 1995). This was an angle of about 23°. And when I thought about what would correspond to this angle in nature, I came up with the obliquity of the ecliptic (Pleterski 1996). But triangles and angles had already been defined. To reiterate what I said above: I believethat the ancient Slavs defined the ritual angle geometrically, and there­fore nowhere do I say that they knew the value of the obliquity of the ecliptic, as Bilic implies to me. But I do assert that they knew the difference in the altitude of the sun in winter and summer, and were able to determine thatdifference with a gnomon. There is no argumentative circularity in this. The formulations and their argumentative circularity are a Bilic's construct. The mathematical fallacy. Bilic's circular proof is mathematically untenable. With three points we can definea triangle and all the angles in it, including the ritual angle if it exists. But we cannot define a triangle with a single angle, even if it is ritual. Even if I wanted to, I could not construct a circular proof. The logical fallacy. The fallacy fallacy (also known asthe argument from fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, then its conclusion must also be false. In other words, even if the astronomical knowledge of ancient Slavs were justified in the present by a purely circular argument (but it is not), that does not mean that ancient Slavs had no astronomical knowledge. I do not know if Bilic will be satisfied with my answers, but that's not my goal either. However, I would like to conclude by thanking him for acknowledging my passionate persistence in my efforts. Thank you. I hope this passion will never leave me. REFERENCES Banasik, Piotr; Góral, Wladislaw, 2016: Kopiec Krakusa a zachód slonca w dniu przesilenia letniego – aspekty astronomiczno-arheologiczne. Materialy archeologiczne 41, 301–312. Bilic, Tomislav, 2020: Mit o “svetim trokutima” temeljenima na “suncevom kutu” – analiza “astronomije” ranih Slavena. Studia mythologica Slavica 23, 35–50. Bilic, Tomislav, 2022: How do we know that the ancient Slavs also knew gnomons? Studia mythologica Slavica 25, 275–281. Couprie, Dirk L., 2011: Heaven and Earth in Ancient Greek Cosmology. From Thales to Heraclides Ponticus. New York: Springer. Pleterski, Andrej, 1995: The trinity concept in the Slavonic ideological system and the Slavonic spatial measurement system. Swiatowit 40, 113–143. Pleterski, Andrej, 1996: Strukture tridelne ideologije v prostoru pri Slovanih. Zgodovinski casopis 50, 163–185. Pleterski, Andrej 2014, Kulturni genom. Prostor in njegovi ideogrami miticne zgodbe. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC (Studia mythologica Slavica - Supplementa 10). Pleterski, Andrej, 2021: Tudi stari Slovani so poznali gnomone = The ancient Slavs also knew gnomons. Studia mythologica Slavica 24, 257–264. RÄNK, Gustav, 1949: Die heilige Hinterecke im Hauskult der Vker Nordosteuropas und Nordasiens (FF Communications, Vol. LVII, N:o 137). Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Prof. dddr. Andrej Pleterski, upokojeni sodelavec ZRC SAZU, Novi trg 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, andrej.pleterski@zrc-sazu.si R ecenzije in porocila o knjigah R ecensioni di libri B ook reviews EMILY LYLE (ED.), MYTH AND HISTORY IN CELTIC AND SCANDINAVIAN TRADITION. – AMSTERDAM: AMSTERDAM UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2021, 304 PAGES. Myth and History in Celtic and Scandinavian Tradition is an edited volume appearing in the series The Early Medieval North Atlantic, all of which gives some good indications of the material, themes, and time periods involved. The book title also hints at the contents, which are analyses of medieval writings which spoke of the past. Situating those writings in a particular medieval mom­ ent of composition is the focus of most of the chapters, which helps create a feeling of a fairly unified whole. Of course, there is a rather stark dividing line in the work: one half on Celtic material, and one half of Scandinavian. The utility of this duality seems doubtful:mostscholars wouldwork in either Norse or Celtic traditions, and so the different halves of the book would likely appeal to different scholars. Scholars interested in the overlap of Norse and Celtic materials will find little, here, either. Still, for either Norse or Celtic scholars, the relevant halves would likely prove very valuable. The various scholarship is, for the most part, first rate, with very little romantic over-generalizing. The “deeper past” is not explored, so much as the ideas about the deeper past in the medieval periods evidenced in these writings. The medieval versions are revealed to be situated in specific political, religious, and cultural sentiments of the day, and the chapters in this volume reveal how various characters, stories, and motifs were reworked over time, to fit the shifting demands placed on the past. In the first (Celtic) half, three of the seven essays deal with aspects in the Cath Maige Tuiread and the “evolving use of myth” during the time period of its creation. The essay by John Carey dealswith the various written accounts ofthe Fomoiri, showing how this group appears variously in various texts: the mundane, the monstro­us, the semi-divine. This group is taken up again, and contrasted with the Tuatha Dé, in ElizabethA.Grey’s “Tuatha Déand the Fomoiri in Cath Maige Tuired, which further documents that the consideration of such earlier peoples was not unified, but rather present in multiple variations, even within one text itself. For Grey, the larger point may be in the relationship between the two people, perhaps especially salient at the time of composition due to the experience with the Norse settlers in Ireland. The next chapteralsopays attentiontothewritingof the Cath Maige Tuired in the late Viking age of Ireland, as IonaTuomalaexplores this in terms of maintaining cultural identity in the faceofincreasinghybridity.TheTuathaDé feature once more in Joseph Falaky Nagy’s “How Time Flies in the Cath Maige Tuired”, in which Nagy’s notes that the text shows that “major changes are taking place in the mythic Ireland it has presented, affecting the characters who populate it in the narrative present and in whatever future may follow it.” (111). Alexandra Bergholm’s essay deals with how medieval Irish literature treated their ancestors’ worship of pagan deities, centering on Crom Cruaich. As the author put it: “the medieval Irish thus crafted an iconography of idolatry thatsuited their ownunderstanding of Ireland’s historical past: their ancestors may have been misled by the devil to adore false images, but despite their depravity they were not inherently wicked.” (131). A further chapter investigates the story of Dinn Ríg, as evidenced in multiple texts, and Kevin Murray makes the point that while the various narratives “did not always agree fully on points of detail” (138), at the same time, quoting Seán Ó Coileáin, a “surprising degreeof unity willbeseen to emergefrom a reconstruction of these often fragmentary sources.”In this case, the central mythic narrative of a defeat of an ancestor figure of the Uí Néill by the Laigin’s ancestor figure, was repurposed for then-present political purposes, and, further, that these increasingly became regarded as historical accounts, as earlier written fragments were used for later historical claims: in this case, therelation between myth and history being a fluid one. The last Celtic chapter deals with a hagiographicalaccountof SaintBerach, showing how this composition was cru­cially concerned with property claims of ecclesiastical groups. As the author, Ksenia Kudenko, puts it “Although the twelfth century was characterized by church reform, Betha Bearaigh seems to show little interest in contemporary religiousdiscourse. Instead, the main purposeof thetextseems to be concern with property, as well as desire to forge or revive connections with secular dynasties.” (p. 151). In the Norse half, the authors also pay attention to historical detail of the manuscripts themselves, rather than seeing them merely as muddy windows into the mythic past. Karen Bek-Pedersen’s “Baldre’s Achilles’ Heel? About the Scandinavian Three-God B-Bracteates”is acareful reassessment of material items often taken to represent the narrative of the death of Baldr, and the author concludes that this is unlikely, and that they are instead derived from Roman coins, detailing some narrative of which we have no further understanding. A slightly more reconstructive attempt is featured in Joshua Rood’s chapter “The Cult of Ódinn in the Early Scandinvian Warrior Aristocracy” as the author considers some of the earlier attestations of Odin, to suggest that the divinity was “under construction” duringthe earlyViking era, andthatthe deity was formed as part of the warrior Viking aristocracy.Such reconstructions are intriguing, yetdifficultto trust. For example, thearticlerelies heavilyon theexistenceof “Odin” placenames in Scandinavia, yet many of thesearefar fromthecoast, and far from the maritime Viking culture that the author sees as its crucible. The interpretations of various motifs and artifacts are also difficult to interpret. Still, theauthor does demonstrate that, by paying close attention to particular time periods, deities will definitely appear in different forms. Morten Warmind’s “Myth to History in Saxo”compares literaryaccounts, showing surprising similarities between separately authored versions, suggesting a strong folk tradition in maintaining many of these stories, or perhaps other unknown literary sources. Saxo’s take on relating such past stories is compared to Snorri’s, and the author shows that Saxo was interested in presenting the stories as history, while still mentioning mythic elements. In a similar vein, James Parkhouse’s chapter “Loki the Slandered God? Selective Omission of Skaldic Cita­tions in Snorri Sturluson’s Edda” examines how Snorri left out known kennings which presented Loki in amore positive light, assumably to emphasize Snorri’s “demo-nization” of Loki, possibly due to Snorri’s exposure to Christian mythos, and the role of Loki now being influenced by the role of the Devil. Jonas Wellendorf in his chapter sees Snorri’s work as recrafting older stories inadramaticfashion:“Likethecreationof Odinn and his brothers, Snorri’s creation is not made ex nihilo, and like them he dismembers his source material in order to fashion something which did not exist prior to his creative act” (p. 289). Wellendorf uses this realization to push back against incautious attempts to similarly imagine a unified and cohesive mythologicalworld outsideofSnorri’s writings,usingtwomain examples: 1, that Loki as responsible for the slaying of Balder, an integral part of many mythicinterpretations, is only presentin the Gylfaginning source; and that 2, ideas of a theme of kin-slaying spanning the temporal arch—from killing of Ymir to the killing of Baldr, are likewise unlikely to represent anything outside of Snorri’s creation. There are many valuable essays in this work that will be of great interest to scholars working in either Norse or Irish medieval materials. The authors are for the most part very careful not to over-generalize, and indeed the point of many of the essays seems to be the opposite: to show how the context of the written piece helps understand agreat dealof what is being said. The various writings may have used stories of long ago to make their point, but it is their points being made that are their foci, rather than the past itself. All that said, this reviewer did find a few things to critique along the way. Firstly, as mentioned, the utility of bringing together the Celtic and Norse examples was not particularly evident. Secondly, the “Celtic” in the title is displayed by Irish materials alone, while Iwouldholdthat “Norse”, rather than “Scandinavian”, would be a more appropriate appellation for the other half. Lastly, the introduction by Emily Lyle, and even more so her chapter, seem to be an ill fit for the rest of the work. These entries are the only ones to embrace a fanciful reconstructive approach, in stark contrast to the rest of the submissions. Such outliers, however, should not detract from the real value in the rest of the essays provided. Many of these chapters will be of major interest to scholars of Irish and Norse medieval writings on the past, and perhaps even to scholars working in any field who seeking to understand the how the present continu­ally utilizes the past. Rather than viewing medieval writings as “mistaken” about the deeper past, these essays show how these pieces were constructed according to the needs of their present moments, and they call scholars to study these as products of aparticular performance, contextualized in a specific time and place. Tok Thompson, University of Southern California JUAN ANTONIO ÁLVAREZ-PEDROSA (UR.), SOURCES OF SLAVIC PRE-CHRISTIAN RELIGION. – NUMEN BOOK SERIES. STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS 169, LEIDEN – BOSTON, BRILL, 2021, 537 STR. Opisujemknjigopisnihvirovzaslovansko predkršcansko religijo, ki je skupinsko delo španskih jezikoslovcev in ki je najprej izšlav španšcini (Juan Antonio Álvarez-Pedrosa Núńez (Ur.), Fuentes para el estudio de la religi eslava precristiana. Zaragoza: Libros Pórtico, 2017, 505 str.). V španski izdaji so samo prevodi brez izvirnih besedil, v angle-ški ta sedaj so, kar je izjemna obogatitev. Obicajno knjigo najprejtehnicno opišemo, preden obravnavamo njene vsebinske vidike in do njih zavzamemo stališce. Tokrat bom vrstni red spremenil, k cemur me je izzval že prvi stavek uvoda. V njem avtorji knjigo predstavijo kot tisto, ki je prvic zbrala v zahodnoevropskem jeziku objave in prevode vseh srednjeveških besedil, ki se nanašajo na slovansko predkršcansko religijo. V na­daljevanju uvoda povedo, da namen zbirke ni rekonstrukcija slovanske religije pred pokristjanjenjem, ampak na najširši možen nacin ponuditi vsa besedila, ki omogocajo tako rekonstrukcijo, da jih specialist za stare religije lahko bere, besedila kriticno ovrednoti in uporabi v rekonstrukciji. Knjiga je rezultat treh zaporednih raz­iskovalnih projektov in povsem razumem, da se mora pohvaliti, kako popoln izdelek je. Hkrati je namen porocila o neki knjigi predvsem obvestilo bralcem, kaj od knjige lahko pricakujejo. Lahko od te knjige res pricakujejo popolnost in možnost rekon­struiratislovansko religijo?Odgovor je seveda nikalen. Zbirka besedil je resnicno najobširnejša doslej, a nima vseh virov. In mocno dvomim, da bi jih katerakoli zbirka kadarkoli lahko imela. Navajam samo en primer.KerjeavtorjemznanaStudiamytho­logica Slavica, ki je tudi v odprtem spletnem dostopu, bi pricakovali, da vkljucipisna vira, ki sta bila že podrobno predstavljena in komentirana (Hans-Dietrich Kahl 2004, Das erloschene Slawentum des Obermain­gebietes und sein vorchristlicher Opferbra­uch(trebo) im Spiegel eines mutmaßlich würzburgischen Synodalbeschlusses aus dem 10. Jahrhundert. – Studia mythologica Slavica 7, 11–42; Julijana Visocnik 2010, Hrenova pridigaob polaganju temeljnega kamna za kapucinski samostan v Ljubljani. (Hren’s Sermon upon Setting of the Foun­dation Stone for the Capuchin Monastery in Ljubljana).-Studia mythologica Slavica 13, 59-74), a se to ni zgodilo. Toda možnosti s pisnimi viri rekonstruirati slovansko religijo to prav nic ne zmanjšuje. Zanesljivo doslej najbolj popoln poskus take rekonstrukcije dolgujemo Henryku Lowmianskemu (He-nryk Lowmianski, 1979, Religia Slowian i jej upadek (w. VI–XII). – Warszawa). In ta prepricljivo kaže, da je sporocilnost pisnih virov zelo omejena. Zgovorni so samo za opisovanje poteka pokristjanjevanja, o tem, kaj kršcanstvo zamenja, pa povedo zelo malo. Danes je že povsem ocitno, da brez povezovanja pisnih virov z jezikovnimi, etnološkimi, arheološkimi viri ni mogoc noben resnejšivpogled v preteklostslovanske religije.Tegasezavedajotudiavtorjiknjige. Verjetno po lastni izkušnji, kajti njihov tretji projekt je imel naslov Rekonstrukcija predkršcanske slovanske religije. Da so se sami preizkusili v tej vlogi, je pomembno vedeti. Gre za vprašanje objek­tivnosti kateregakoli izbora besedil. Trdim, da objektivnost pri tem ni mogoca. Vsak izbor namrec predpostavlja merila izbora, ki so lahko samo subjektivna in predvsem zelo odvisna od poznavanja tistega, kar iš-cemo. Tu in tam avtorji povedo, zakaj so se odlocili za posamezen odlomek, vecinoma pa ne. Utemeljitev naj bi bila pac samou­mevno ocitna. Saj taka v glavnem tudi res je, vendar je problem drugje. Nikjer namrec ni utemeljitve, zakaj se za neke dele besedil niso odlocili. Ker teh besedil ne vidimo, tudi ne vidimo samoumevnosti. Avtorji so se naslonili na dva starejša izbora Mansikke (Viljo Johannes Mansikka 1922, Die Religion der Ostslaven. I Quel­len. – FF Communications, N:o 43, Vol. X, Helsinki) in Meyerja (KarlHeinrich Meyer, Fontes historiae religionis slavicae. Bero­lini 1931). Prvi je osredotocen na vzhodne Slovane in starocerkvenoslovanska besedila, drugi prvenstveno na latinska. In medtem ko španska zbirka dalec presega Meyerja, vsaj pri komentarjih ne dosega Mansikke. Pri tem je hkrati vsekakor treba priznati, da so komentarji zgodba brez konca. V stoletjih so seob omejenem številu pisnih virov nabrali že v povsem nepregledno množico. Izbor, ki ga nudijo španski avtorji, je zato lahko samo podoba njihovega nujno omejenega poznavanja problematike. Zdi se, da avtorji svojega dela od 2017 do 2021 niso vec dopolnjevali, ce odmislimo prevajanje in vstavljanje originalnih besedil. Tako sta njihovipozornostiušlitudidve pomembni izdaji virov na temo slovanske religije(JiríDynda2017, Slovanské pohanství ve stredovekých latinských pramenech. – v Praze; Jirí Dynda 2019, Slovanské pohanství ve stredovekých ruských kázáních. – Praha). Prva obsega izbor odlomkov iz tistih latinskih virov, ki ne obstajajo v cešcini kot celotna besedila. Podani so tako v latinšcini kottudi v ceškem prevodu ter z vec komentarjev kot španska zbirka. Toda šepomembneje je, da so španskiodlomkimnogo krajšiin zato luknjasti kot bohinjski sir. S temprehajam do verjetno odlocilnega vprašanja. Koliko je študij slovanske religije samo s pomocjo nekih odlomkov sploh smiseln. Tega se je nedvomno zavedel tudi Jirí Dynda, ki je svojo drugo knjigo, zbirko vzhodnoslo­vanskih pridig zasnoval povsem drugace. Ni se odlocil za vsa besedila, zato pa tista, ki jih je objavil, objavlja v celoti in izdaje vseh variantnih rokopisov istega besedi-la. Španski avtorji so problem razlicnih rokopisov delno skušali reševati z objavo posameznih odlomkov v opombah, kar pa nikakor ne omogoca pravega konteksta, ki se kaže kot zelo pomemben. Dynda je zato lahko napisal obširno spremno študijo, ki je nekaj opomb španske izdaje niti približno ne more nadomestiti. In ker se odpira vprašanje kontekstov, postane šebolj ocitno, da kakršenkoli prevod ne more nadomestiti originala. Verjetno je problem najbolj izrazit pri latinskih besedilih. Piscem latinšcina ni bila materinšcina. Vsak je latinske besede uporabljal nekoliko po svoje. Kako, lahko ugotovimo samo iz pripadajocih sobesedil. Možnost konkordancnih analiz je zato za bralca zelo pomembna. Hitro narašcajo-ce število digitalnih objav virov to sedaj omogoca. Svoje misli so srednjeveški pisci prevajali v latinšcino. Prevod iz latinšcine v živ jezik pomeni ustvarjanje še enega novega konteksta in s tem novih pomenov. Ce pa potem naredimo še tretji prevod, kar se je pri prevodu iz španšcine v anglešcino zgodilo, je sprememb še vec. Zato so angleški prevodi mestoma že zelo svobodni in nika­kor ne nadomešcajo branja v originalnem jeziku. Res pa je, da je med evropskimi bralci le malo takih, ki bi bili usposobljeni brati arabšcino, kajti španska zbirka poleg starogrških, latinskih, staroceških, staro­islandskih, starocerkvenoslovanskih besedil obsega tudi arabske. V tem je nedvomno izjemen dosežek zbirkein celoten avtorski podvig lahko samo obcudujemo. Kaj nam torej prikazana zbirka virov za slovansko predkršcansko religijores omo­goca? Vsekakor predstavlja hiter pregled vecine pisnih virov, ki jih trenutno poznamo. Seveda ne virov v njihovi celotnosti, ampak samo odlomkov. Prevod v en skupni jezik omogoca intuitivna iskanja nekaterih poj­mov in njihovih kontekstov. Tako iskanje je vsekakor omejeno, ker gledamo skozi izkrivljene lece prevodov in mocno zožan obseg besedil. Kljub vsem naštetim omejit­vam knjiga vendarle predstavlja mogocno interpretativno orodje, ki pa ga je treba znatiuporabljati.Inzauporabojepotrebno mnogo domišljije. Vendar ce je kdo nima, ne sme kriviti knjige. Andrej Pleterski, Ljubljana NemaNja RaduloviciN SmiljaNa ĐoRĐevic Belic (uR.), diSeNchaNtmeNt, RE-ENCHANTMENT, AND FOLKLORE GENRES. – BEOGRAD: INŠTITUT ZA književnostin umetnost, 2022, 286 str. Ceprav se sprva zdi, da zbornik, ki sta ga uredila Nemanja Radulovicin Smiljana Đordevic Belic z uporabo weberjanskih konceptov zacaranja, razcaranja in ponov­nega zacaranja pogreva stara akademska vprašanja,tavsvojihprispevkihneponudi le teoreticnih diskusij. Kot zapiše ena izmed avtoric, je Webrova teorija relevantna in uporabnatudinadrugihpodrocjihhumani­stike, njegovi znameniti koncepti pa se lahko uporabljajo kot metafore na razlicnih razi­skovalnih podrocjih (Mladenovic-Mitrovic 2022:89–90). Zbornikprikažerelevantnost Webrove teorijev razlicnih vsebinskih in kulturnih kontekstih, interdisciplinarnih ter tudi folkloristicnih raziskavah. Kot v uvodniku zbornika zapišeta ured­nika, je avtorje vodila želja po raziskovanju, ali lahko razprave o Weberjevih konceptih prispevajo k ucinkovitejšemu postavljanju vprašanj znotraj folkloristike, pa tudi k bolj celovitemu razumevanju lastnih raziskovalnih orodij (Radulovic in Đordevic-Belic 2022: 13). V trinajstih prispevkih strokovnjaki obravnavajo razlicna tematska, geografska in kulturna podrocja znotraj discipline. Pri­spevki so razdeljeni v tri vsebinske sklope, vsakega pa sestavljajo štirje prispevki. Prvi sklop je naslovljen Zacaran svet in njegov zaton, drugi Vrste zacaranja v preteklosti in sedanjosti, tretji pa Soocenje z razcaranjem: Pojav ponovnega zacaranja. Besedila so vecinoma izvirno napisana v angleškem jeziku,nekaterapasoprevedenaizsrbšcine in hrvašcine. Prvi sklop besedil sestavljajo prispevki na temo tradicijske folklore. Izhodišce Francisca VazdaSilva v prispevku Pravljicna zacara­nja je, dajebistvo pravljicecarovnija. Avtor priobravnavimetaforv pravljicah izpostavi pomen uporabe alomotivov in osnovne vzorce simbolov zacaranja, ki so bistvo pravljic. S tem trditev Vladimirja Proppa, da najbolj celovito pravljico sestavlja »herojsko iskanje«, nadgradi z mislijo, da je potek pravljice še dodatno pogojen z zrelostjo protagonistke. Pravljice, ki vsebujejo te­matiko obredov polnoletnosti, so odvisne od ciklicnih procesov, v katerih razpad napoveduje obnovo. Ker se je zbiranje ljudskih pravljic pri-celo v Grciji v casu modernega grškega razsvetljenstva, Marianthi Kaplanoglou v prispevku Postopno zacaranje: Od utopicne ljudske pripovedke do genericne hibridnosti sodobnih grških ljudskih pripovedi preucuje procese teh zbiranj. Tega se loteva iz dveh zornih kotov: zunanjega (razsvetljenega zbiratelja) in notranjega (kmecke skupnosti same, pripovedovalcev in njihove publike). Iz zunanjega vidika so bila zacarana podrocja ljudske pravljice uporabljena za komentiranje družbenih navad urbane družbe, ki je bila tacas v procesu ustvarjanja. Iz notranjega vidika pa je ljudska pravljicna domišljija obravnavala napetosti glede ohranjanja odnosov v skupnosti in družbene kohezije. Prispevek nazadnje obravnava tudisodobno pripoved v grških vaseh in ugotavlja, da so nove variacije ljudskih pravljic del vsakdanje komunikacije. Pravljice niso izginile, le spre­menile so podobo. Po avtoricinem mnenju to nakazuje na dolg proces preoblikovanja ljudske pravljice – od utopije do genericne hibridnosti, ki spremembam navkljub v vsakdanjemjeziku ohranjadelcek zacaranja. Kot piše Romina Werth v prispevku »Kaj je v imenu?« Metaforicna zacaranja plemiških otrok v stari islandski književnosti, jevzadnjemdesetletjuprišlodopovratkak uporabi folkloristicnih metod v raziskovanjih sag, kar je vodilo v osredinjenost na fanta­sticne in nadnaravne elemente v srednjeveški islandski literaturi. Avtorica to prikaže na primeru pripovedi o izgubljenih plemiških otrocih. Slednje v sagah najpogosteje ali ugrabijoalizamenjajo,natopajihvzgojijo grdi in revni kmetje. Otroci morajo ravno takotrpeti zanicevanje, mnogokratspre­meniti zunanji videz, tudi ime, kar dodatno poudarinjihovnov,nizekstatus,tj.njihovo nicvrednost. Po težkem otroštvu ti junaki in junakinjepremagajo ovire in zasedejo svoj ob rojstvu pripisan družbeni položaj. Glavni argument njenega prispevka je, da je takšna zacasna izguba statusa plemiških otrok v islandski literaturi najboljši prikaz zacaranja in razcaranja. Marina MladenovicMitrovic v prispev­ ku Oblikovanje etnografske zbirke arhiva Srbske akademije znanosti in umetnosti med zacaranjem in razcaranjem prikaže, kako je znanstvena elita ustvarila idejo o folklori in tradicionalni kulturi skozi koncepte, ki so pomensko blizu razcaranju. Avtorica preslika Webrove ideje na doloceno toc­ko v zgodovini srbske folkloristike, cas oblikovanja Etnografske zbirke Arhivov Srbske akademije znanosti in umetnosti in vpliv Stojana Novakovica, t. i. predstavnika omenjene znanstvene elite. Avtorica opiše nacine zbiranja folklore po Novakovicevi pobudi, ki je bila predstavljena kot zadnji poskus rešitve sveta pred razcaranjem, ki bi sledil kot posledica izgube folkloristic­nega gradiva. Z romanticnega stališca, da jefolkloraprežitekmitskepreteklosti, seje slednja preobrazila v artefakt, ki ga je treba pridobiti, preuciti, razvrstiti in ohraniti. Oblikovanje Etnografske zbirke arhivov Srbske akademije znanosti in umetnosti je bilo tako ujeto med zacaranjem in razcara­njem, izginjanjem in cvetenjem pripovedne kulture, s cimer se je razkrila vsa komple­ksnostdružbenih, politicnih, kulturnih in znanstvenih procesov, ki so se dogajali na obmocju tedanje Srbije na križišcu stoletij. Drugi tematskisklopje usmerjen v sodobno življenje žanrov, ki pripoveduje o zacaranemsvetu. SuzanaMarjanicv svojem prispevku Žanri (in) interpretacije raziskuje razlicne možne pristope (totemisticne, psiho­analiticne, feministicne in ekofeministicne) v hrvaških razlicicah arhetipa živalskega ženina in neveste. Napodlagi navedenih interpretativnih smeri raziskuje navedbe o enacenju cloveka in živali v obliki mitskih kiborgov v znanstveni fantastiki (z izbranimi primeri) in v antropocenu v okviru globalnega ekocida. Besedilo je prevedla Mirta Jurilj. Lidija Delic in Danijela Mitrovic v prispevku Cudež na razprodaji: Fenomen cudeža v novih medijih skozi primere spletnih oglasov problematizirata stanje ali naravo cudeža v sodobnih medijih v t.i. Zahodni civilizaciji. Sodobne pripovedi se bistveno razlikujejo od tradicionalnih v odpravi tran­scendentnosti in preoblikovanjucudeža v neko tržno vrednost. V današnji internetni kulturi se cudežne razume le kot izrazita spremembav posameznikovemzdravstve­nem stanju, temvec v skoraj vsem: lepoti, (spolni) potenci, dolgemživljenju, vecni mladosti, ucenju razlicnih vešcin, zaslužku brez dela itd. Paleta ponujenih instantnih cudežev v oglasih in mnogih »receptov za sreco« zagotavljata gradivo za rekonstrukcijo vrednostnega sistema sodobne »zahodne družbe«; študijacudežev se lahko pri tem osredotoci na etsko, namesto na emsko perspektivo. Maria Palleiro v prispevku Lisica, osel in magicni lonec: Zacaranja in razcaranja v argentinskih ljudskih pravljicah preucuje vec tradicionalnih motivov sodobne argen­tinske ustne folklore, parodije pa predstavi kot obliko razcaranja. Medbesedilni dialog med ljudskimi pripovedmi in oglaševanji ne kaže le na pomen ljudskih matric v sodobni medijskikulturi,ampaktudinanjenovlogo pri manipuliranju s tradicionalnimi kolek­tivnimi identitetami. Zdi se, da je takšna manipulacija ena od znacilnosti sodobnih potrošniških skupnosti. Avtorica dodaja še, da lahko isti motivi v nacinih oglaševanja dolocajo ponovno zacaranje. Koncept raz-caranjavpovedkahinponovnegazacaranja v oglaševalskih prikazih odražata ne le pre­oblikovanje tradicionalnih žanrov, ampak tudioblikovanjenovih v dinamicninapetosti med tradicijo in inovacijami. Slednje se izkaže kot posebnost sodobne kulture. Smiljana Đordevic Belic v prispevku Sanje o umrlih kot oblika komunikacije z nezemeljskim zapiše, da »sanje o mrtvih pravzaprav veliko povedo tudi o živih« (2022:209). Avtorica izpostavlja mnoge nacine razumevanja sanj s sodobnega kota raziskovanja– kotnevrofiziološkiproces ali psihološko manifestacijo; avtorica v svojem prispevkunapodlagiterenskihpodatkov iz Srbijein srbskemanjšinev Romunijipokaže tudi živahnost misticno-verskih sanjskih svetovnih izkušenj. V tem okviru in z nana­šanjem na doslej izvedene folkloristicne in psihološke raziskave obravnava vprašanje razmerja med custvenim doživljanjem sanj in njihovo potencialno folklorizacijo skozi družbeno interakcijo. Prispevek je prevedla Danijela Mitrovic. Zadnji, tretji sklop, sestavlja zbirka pris­pevkov, kiseposvecajovprašanju, kako so se folklorne zvrsti soocile sprocesi razcaranja, v ospredje pa prihaja tudi nasproten proces ponovnega zacaranja. Eymeric Manzinali v »Sindrom sivkinega mesta« Creepypasta: Racionalna pripoved o nadnaravnem skozi primere grozljivih urbanih legend, do katerih lahkodostopavsakposameznikzinternetno povezavo, pokaže na kakšne nacine kreatorji creepypaste ustvarjajo zaupanjepribralcih, kako jih prepricajo v verjetje v nenavadne dogodke ali stvari, kako ustvarjajo zgod-be, v katerih se raziskujejo in izkoristijo pomanjkljivosti video iger in družbenih medijev, ki ustvarjajo mite v oblikah me-mov (slo. prev. jazjazov), ki so kolektivno preoblikovani. Eden izmed primerov, ki jih obravnava avtorica, je zgodba Sindrom sivkinega mesta in govori o povecanem številu otroških samomorov v povezavi z glasbo iz iger Pokemon Green in Red. Meret Fehlmann v prispevku Ljudska grozljivka kot ponovno zacaranje razcarane­ga sveta izpostavi Phila Rickmana in njegovo serijo knjig o izganjalcu hudica Merrilyju Watkinsu kot primer ljudske grozljivke, v kateri se pojavi povratek k zacaranemu svetu. Kot ugotavlja Fehlmann, se grozljivka take vrste ukvarja z »metafizicnimi entitetami« in okultnimi nevarnostmi, ki izvirajo iz daljne, poganske preteklosti. Pogosto se grozljivkaosredotoca nakmeckeobicaje in rituale. V seriji, ki jo Fehlmann vzame kot primer, pa se pokaže še en pomemben vidik – meja med tradicijsko in moderno Anglijo. Predstavitev življenja na podeže­lju uteleša kmet in je polna predsodkov. V casu romantike je bila podoba podeželskega prebivalca predrugacena – ce je bil do tedaj prikazan kot neveden in zaostal, je od sredine 19. stoletja naprej poosebljenje tradicije in modrosti. Študija Elene Gogiashvili Novo živ­ljenje pravljice v sodobnih telenovelah je usmerjena v popularno kulturo z analizo telenovel, katerih vsebina (z vsemi mogo-cimi zapleti) temelji na shemi zacaranega pravljicnega sveta. Iz vidika folkloristike so TV serije,predvsemtelenovele, noviepito-mi kontinuitete ustne pripovedne tradicije. Telenovele imajo tako kot ljudske pripovedi nove razlicice, ki predstavljajo družbene odnose casa, v katerem so bile ustvarjene. Avtorica trdi, da v tem tici razlog, zakaj imajo televizijske serije boljše in bolj plodne rezultate v številu ogledov v Kavkazu, na Bližnjem vzhodu in na Balkanu v uporabi tradicionalnih tem pripovedovanja zgodb. V zadnjem prispevku zbornika, Nemanja Radulovic v Novo življenje Knjige Velesa: Preoblikovanje mistifikacije v mit. Knjigo Velesa vzame kot izjemen primer misti­fikacije v 20. stoletju. Slednja se je skozi cas spremenila v sveto knjigo slovanskih neopoganskih praks. Ena od tem prispevka je vprašanje: katera plast omenjene knjige omogocabranjeknjigekotsvetegabesedila? Popoln odgovor na to vprašanje bi nedvomno zahteval terensko delo v vec rodnoverskih skupnostih razlicnih držav; vendar pa to ni osrednja tema prispevka. Delni sklepi avtorja na omenjeno vprašanje so narejeni predvsem na podlagi analize besedil in razlag sodobnih avtorjev/akterjev rodnoverstva. V besedilu avtor ravno tako raziskuje, kako lahko razumem branje takšnih besedil v sodobnem svetu, znotraj konceptov razca­ranja in ponovnega zacaranja. Besedilo je prevedla Danijela Mitrovic. Kot v zakljuckuzapišeta urednika, ra­ziskave, zbrane v tem zborniku, so seveda le del razlicnih problemskih podrocij, po­vezanih s postopki zacaranja in razcaranja v folkloristiki. Raznolikost obsežnih tem pa hkrati kaže na polivalentno naravo terminov, medtemkointerpretacijenakazujejo napo­tencialno vkljucitev konceptov v podrocje folkloristike. Urednika ravno tako izpostavita potencial folklornega gradiva in folklornih analiz izven okvira te discipline, ki bi lah­ko prispevali k iskanju odgovorov na vec vprašanj:aliobstajarazlikamed zahodnim protestantskim svetom, o katerem, kotse zdi, govori Weber, in katoliškim svetom južne Evrope ali južne Amerike, kot tudi svetom pravoslavnega vzhoda in Balkana? Kaj se dogaja v družbah, ki so stopile iz »dolgega 19. stoletja« v nenadne procese modernizacije, v katerih je komunizem v poznih 20. stoletju spodbujal razcaranje? Kaj se dogaja s prostorom zunaj Evrope? Ali obstajajo kulturne razlike v razcaranju alijeneizbežnoevrocentricen?Ziskanjem odgovorov na ta vprašanja bi se folkloristika opredelila do konceptov iz drugih disciplin, ki si jih je nenazadnje »izposodila«. Zbornik se uspešno potrudi odgovoriti na zastavljena vprašanja z vkljucitvijo prispevkov iz razlic­nih geografskih in kulturnih okolij, kot tudi tematskih podrocij, ter skuša zapolniti vrzel, ki še vztraja v folkloristicnih raziskavah. Manca Racic, Bratislava moNika kRopej telBaN, pRipovedNo izRocilo: RazvojiNRaziSkovaNje. – ljubljana: Založba Zrc, ZrcsaZu 2021, 190 STR. 3. knjigo zbirke efka lahko slikovito ozna-cimo za sprehod po izbranih zgodovinskih poglavjih slovstvene folkloristike – od prvih poskusov zbiranja pripovednega izrocila do raziskovalnih vprašanj sodobnega casa. Sprehodtecegladko,brezdaljših postankov, kar najverjetneje odraža avtoricino željo ponuditi bralcu zgošcen, a berljiv tekst, v katerem se nekoliko dlje pomudi le pri tistih vsebinah, ki so bile ali posebnega pomena zavedoinnjenezgodovinskerazlickealipa ima avtorica o njih izdatnejše znanje zaradi osebnih raziskovalnih izkušenj. Avtorica uvodoma zapiše, da je namen knjige »prib­ližatibralcem znacilnostiin razvojkakor tudi razlicne teorije in metode raziskovanja pripovednega izrocila v preteklosti in danes« (8) – tekst je bil torej izhodišcnozasnovan pregledno. Rezultat predstavlja pomembno pridobitev za slovensko folkloristiko; vsak pregled namrec pomeni vsaj kratko vrnitev h kljucnim konceptom iz zgodovine vede, ki segajo v njeno predznanstveno dobo. Ob tem se nemara velja vprašati, kakšna je vrednost tovrstnih preglednih monografij in kako se kosajo z domnevno vse hitrejšim in zanesljivejšim dostopom do partikularnih podatkovzdanegaraziskovalnegapodrocja. Na tem mestu se z vprašanjem podrobneje ne moremo ukvarjati, a na primeru predsta­vljene knjige lahko zapišemo, da bralcem tovrstna dela pomagajo vzpostaviti povezan, sledljiv in preverjen znanstveni referencni okvir vede, ki s premišljeno razmestitvijo kljucnih podatkov omogoca spoznavanje osnovnih gradnikov vede in njenih domi­nantnih raziskovalnih interesov.V doticni knjigi se je avtorica odlocila ta izjemno širok okvir zapolniti s podatki o znacilno­stih predmeta preucevanja, raziskovalcev, teorij, terminologije in metodologije – vsako v locenem poglavju alipodpoglavju, ter premišljenim izborom virov in literature. Urejevalno nacelo njenega pregleda v veliki meri predstavlja kronologija, tako da si opisana snov znotraj zakljucenih tematskih celot sledi od najstarejše do najmlajše. Avtorica je na prvo mesto med poglavji (11) postavila predmet preucevanja, pri cemer svojo pozornost najprej usmeri v terminologijo. Znanstveno izrazje slovstvene folkloristike je v minulih desetletjih prešlo nemalo sprememb, zato so podani razlocki med posameznimi krovnimi poimenovanji predmeta preucevanja (pripovedno izroci-lo, ustno slovstvo, slovstvena folklora in besedna umetnost). Dodani so jim tuje­jezicni ustrezniki s kratkimi epizodami iz poimenovalnih tradicij folkloristicne vede v tujini, tem pa sledi zbir pojmov, katerim je bilo v preteklosti namenjenih kar nekaj etnoloških, folkloristicnih in kulturnoan­tropoloških razprav, in sicer gre za pojme narodno, ljudsko, folklorno in vernakularno. Omembe vreden je tudi pregled razprav o terminu folklora in njenem odnosu do folklorizma znotraj slovstvene folklore, kar je bilo vec desetletij vir številnihpolemik v širšem evropskem prostoru. Vsi ti izrazi tvorijo del temeljnega izraznega nabora, h kateremu seveda vselej znova vraca, ko preizprašuje svoja teoreticna izhodišca in prilagaja metodologijo za raziskovanje novih pojavov. V drugem poglavju (28) najdemo izra­zito jedrnat pregled pripovednih žanrov, pri katerih avtorica izpostavi, da so razvrstitve istih besedil v en sam žanr razmeroma redke in da je zato med primerjanjem obstojecih žanrskih oznak pomembno upoštevati raz­licna merila, ki so jih raziskovalci postavljali med zbiranjem in razvršcanjem folklorne­ ga gradiva. Pomemben del tega poglavja predstavlja terminološko soocenje, saj so predstavljenatakoemskakotetskažanrska poimenovanja ter njihovo spreminjanje skozi cas – od mita in bajke do sodobnih povedk in govoric. Kot piše avtorica, so se slednje v rabi pojavile najkasneje in sprožile nova metodološka vprašanja o pristopih k obravnavi gradiva, ki se ne prenaša vec zgolj ustno, temvec v spletniobliki oz. navec nacinov hkrati, pretežno s pomocjo novih medijev, zaradi cesar nastajajo »drugacni obrisi kulture pripovedovanja« (49). V tretjem poglavju (50) so pred bralcem razgrnjene teorije, ki so v najvecji meri zaznamovaleraziskovanje pripovedništva. V njem avtoricaneposredno sooci (ali so-postavi)glasovetujih teoretikovinjim,kar je najpomembneje, doda podatek, kako je posamezna teoreticna usmeritev vplivala na slovenske raziskovalce. Pregled teorijzajema obdobje od vzpostavitve mitološke šole z zacetka 19. stoletja do mnoštva perspektiv sodobne folkloristike v tem tisocletju. Po-nekod bibilo poleg okolišcin uveljavitve konceptadobrodošlo ovrednotenjedometa in aktualnosti posameznega koncepta za sodobno znanstvenoraziskovalno delo (npr. mitologema pri von Franz, 69, ali preproste oblike pri Jollesu, 65), kar bi predvsem mlajšim bralcem olajšalo umestitev kon­cepta v okvir konkretnih raziskav, vendar jetakihprimerovmalo.Avtoricaprivecini primerov predstavi kriticna stališca ali nasprotnikov ali nadaljevalcev teoreticne usmeritve, pa tudi lastno vrednotenje, ki je utemeljeno na osebnih izkušnjah, npr. pri vlogi kulturnozgodovinskih metod za študij starejšegapripovednegaizrocila(67)ališe izraziteje pri pomenu in uporabnosti tipnih indeksov pravljic (59–60), kar je še posebej dragoceno. Najobsežnejša sta sklopa teorij o izviru in razširjenosti pripovedi (52) ter o njihoviformiin pomenu (61), kijima sledijo opisi mlajših pristopov zlasti druge polovice 20. stoletja, pri cemer je eden vecjih poudarkov na performancni teoriji, ki je v mednarodno in slovensko folkloristiko vnesla nemalo sprememb in prispevala k bolj središcnivlogi pripovedovalskega konteksta. Poglavje je sklenjeno s pristopi sodobnihraziskav, vkaterihsostrnjeni: ontološki in epistemološki disciplinarni premiki pod vplivom ontološkega obrata, razvojzoopoeticnih raziskav, prenos pozor­nosti na nove medije, kjer avtorica izpostavi pretežno spletno folkloristiko, ter raziskave pripovednega izrocila kot dela nesnovne kulturne dedišcine. V besedilu pride veckrat do izrazapodrobnost, ki je ne gre zanema­riti – avtorica namrec termine ali naslove del navede v jeziku izvirnika, literaturo pa opremi z morebitnim prevodom v slovenšcino in podatki o izdaji, s cimer pomembno kon­tekstualizira in razširi uporabnost podatkov, s tempa vsajdelno olajšasledljivostin pre­nosljivost konceptov v prostoru, kamor so ti podatki posredovani. To nas napeljuje na misel, da bi bil v tovrstnih preglednih delih z vecjo terminološko razvejenostjo izjemno koristen vecjezicni glosar, ki bi tvoril del znanstvenegaaparata.Znjimbibilomogoce ucinkovito prispevati k poenotenju razme­jitev med uveljavljenimi terminološkimi poimenovanji danega jezika in njihovimi tujejezicnimi ustrezniki. Uporabnost glosarja bi denimo postala ocitna v primerih tistih terminov, ki se jim je znanstvenaskupnost odlocila nadeti novo podobo in jo napolniti s podobno, a ne nujno povsem prekrivno vsebino (to je lahko npr. posledica vec pre­vodov in izdaj pomembnih teoreticnih del v nekem jezikovnem prostoru). To ne bi le zmanjšalo možnosti za nesporazume, temvec bicelotno znanstveno skupnostposredno spodbudilo k neposrednemu soocanju s prevzetimi koncepti in poimenovanji zanje ter njihovi dosledni umestitvi v znanstveni diskurz prostora, v katerem se uporabljajo. Predstavitvi teorij in zgodovinskih raziskovalnih smerisledicetrto poglavje o razvoju pripovednegaizrocila (81). V tem poglavju avtorica smiselno poveže pripovedne tekste in osebnosti, ki so bile s teksti povezane na najrazlicnejše nacine: odzapisovalcevinprevajalcev(npr.83)do pripovedovalcev in literatov (npr. 87), ki so iz folklornih pripovedi crpali navdih za lastna avtorska dela. Bralca, ki nima predznanja s tega podrocja, velja opozoriti, da je pregled vplivov na razvoj pripovedništva v tempo-glavju izrazito reduciran – gre za nekakšen reprezentativni »izbor izbora« avtorice. V njem je uspela stkati veliko število medbe­sedilnih povezav, ki omogocajo z dokazi podprto ugotavljanje mere sovplivanja besedil in njihovo vsaj delno rekonstrukcijo, in jih smiselno nanizati po okvirni kronologiji, ne glede na njihov kontekst, kar bralcu lahko pomagapremagati»izkljucno ljudski« okvir širjenja pripovednih tekstov in spoznanje, kako prepleteni so biografski, religijski, poucno-vzgojni, zgodovinopisni in drugi dejavniki, ki so omogocili ali spodbudili prenos najrazlicnejših sestavin pripovednih tekstov – od motivov do zunanje strukture. O obstoju nekaterih tekstov, ki so kasneje burili domišljijo raziskovalcev in poganjali zbiralne (ce ne že kar iskalne) akcije, imamo ohranje­na le pricevanja (npr. 84, 99), ki poudarijo pomenkriticnegabranjavirov zahistoricno folkloristiko. Fragmenti iz najbolj oddaljenih obdobij se nahajajo pod naslovoma Zgodnji viriinodsevivslovenskempripovedništvu ter Srednjeveški viri in odsevi v slovenskem pripovedništvu, za temi pa avtorica navede posameznike in dela, pri katerih je bila zaradi dostopnosti virov naceloma mogoca natancnejšahistoricnakontekstualizacija; bralec se tako seznani s pripovedništvom v obdobjih renesanse, reformacije, baroka in katoliške obnove, daljši postanek pa je namenjen razcvetu pravljicnih zbirk od 16. do 18. stoletja. Obdobji razsvetljenstva in romantike skleneta poglavje ter z ugotovljeno tedanjo rastjo raziskovalnega zanimanja za pripovedništvo (in t. i. narodno blago nasploh) naznanjata prelomnost 19. stoletja za poznejšo konstitucijo znanstvenih ved, kot jih poznamo danes. Od razlicnih zgodovinskih pojavnih oblik pripovedništva avtorica v petem poglavju (101) preide k vznikanju najrazlicnejših oblik zanimanja za raziskovanje slovenskega pri­povedništva, torej svojo pozornost usmeri k zbiralcem in raziskovalcem. Kot na številnih podrocjih je tudi v odnosu do raziskovanja tu za mejnik postavljena letnica 1848; pred temmejnikomsopopisanidosežkirazisko­valcev iz obdobja razsvetljenstva, zacenši zMarkomPohlinominnjegovimucencem Valentinom Vodnikom. Po pomladi narodov so prizadevanja,povezana z zapisovanjem in ohranjanjem slovstvene folklore, dobila nov zalet. Avtorica poseben razdelek posveti doprinosu Matije Valjavca – Kracmanovega, cigar delo poveže z izjemnimi dosežki FrancaMiklošica in Karla Štreklja. Slednjemu je skupaj z Jernejem Kopitarjem namenjeno loceno poglavje v zadnjem delu knjige, v katerem sta ovrednoteni in izdatno pojas­njeni širina in teža daljnosežnega pomena obeh raziskovalcev za slovensko slovstveno folkloristiko. Pri Kopitarju avtorica v ospredje postavinjegov stik zJacobomGrimmominVukom Karadžicem, pri Štreklju pa napravi poudarek nanjegovineobjavljenizbirkislo­venskih pravljic. Poleg temeljnih znacilnosti posameznega obdobja, ohranjenih virov, besedil ali izpricanih prizadevanj slovensko govorecih izobražencev, avtorica v petem poglavju nevpadljivo vnese opise razmerij medpesemskiminpripovednimizrocilom. Bralec tako izve, da je bilo v razsvetljen­stvu vec pozornosti deležno pesemsko, po pomladi narodov pa pripovedno. Razlike med gradivom, ko se je doloceni zvrsti namenilo vecjo težo, nemalokrat na racun druge, so se naceloma zacele zabrisovati z vsesplošnimi pobudami za zbiranje »narod­nega blaga«. Krajšim slovstvenofolklornim žanrom se je v slovenskemprostoru zacelo namenjati vec pozornosti proti koncu 19. stoletja,denimovokviruomenjenihpobud, in razveseljivo je, da jih avtorica v delu kljub naslovni temi ne zanemari, ampak jih celo omeni vvecpoglavjih. Najobsežnejšeje podpoglavje o realizmu, v katerem je pred­stavljeno obdobje, ko se je proti koncu 19. stoletja mitološki usmeritvi zacela po robu postavljati mlajša generacija narodopisno usmerjenihfilologov (110). Medtemi se bralec seznani zlastis Karlom Štrekljem in njegovim doprinosom vedi ter navsezadnje s pomembnimidosežkištevilnih drugihposameznikov, npr. Števana Küharja, Ivana Koštiála in Matije Murka. Naštetemu sledi predstavitev raziskav sodelavcev Inštituta za slovensko narodopisje, ki ga je v zgodnjih inštitutskihletihpredstavljalopredvsemdelo Ivana Grafenauerja (112–113). Po prelomu stoletja je v povojnem obdobju poudarjen prenos zanimanja k raziskavam konteksta ter vlogepripovedovalca, pricemersosezaceli upoštevatidružbenikontekstinmiselnisvet pripovedovalca. Avtorica v tem delu posebej izpostavi doprinos Milka Maticetovega, s cigar dosežki vzpostavi postopen prehod v podpoglavje o sodobnih raziskavah slovstve­ne folklore, v katerem predstavi trenutno ali do pred kratkim dejavne raziskovalce (116). Na tem mestu avtorica dobrodošlo razširi pozornost tudi na posamezne folkloriste, ki se ne ukvarjajo izkljucno s preucevanjem pripovednega izrocila, temvec širše z razi­ skavami slovstvene folkloristike. *** Težava pregledov, kakršen je doticni, je nemalokrat v izvedbi osnovne ideje, ki je inherentna njihovi strukturi, in sicer da mora avtor hkrati zagotoviti preglednost in zgošcenost vsebine, pri cemer naj bi bilo branje obvladljivo in dostopno, da bi se bralecrad vrnil. Gre za lovljenje vedno izmikajocega se ravnotežja. Pri vsem tem ima nenadomestljivo vlogo vrednotenjski odnos avtorja kot poznavalca, ki bralcu denimo pomaga ustvariti celovitejšo predstavo o stanju raziskav s pomocjo komentarjev – in prav ti igrajo kljucno vlogo. Povedo nam, da je nekaj že raziskano, da o necem ni dostopnih podatkov ali da je nekaj preprosto izpušceno zavoljo ucinkovitegaupravljanja s prostorom, ki je avtorju na razpolago. Zapišemo lahko, da avtorica ta pricakovanja izpolni z dobro umerjenim ravnotežjem med informativnostjo dela in njegovim obsegom. Težišce knjige je, kot gre pricakovati iz naslova,nazgodovinskihzametkihrazisko­vanja, ki so se zaceli po kvantiteti in kvaliteti zgošcevati v 18. stoletju in so pozneje pri­pomogli h konstituciji vede in kontinuuma raziskav, ki se še vedno nadaljuje. Bralec bo v knjigi morda pogrešil bolj podrobno razdelane sodobne pristope, ki se komaj vzpostavljajo, pri cemer ciljamo predvsem na mednarodni prostor, na podlagi katerih bi lahko avtorica izkoristila potencial za razmislek o prihodnjih izzivih vede pri nas. Tega se delno dotakne v uvodu z omembo »nove ustvarjalnosti« v casu pospešenega razvoja informacijske tehnologije (9) in novih nacinov prenosa motivov v digitalni dobi. A tak obrat pozornosti bi imel svoje prednosti in slabosti – ob vznemirjenju med spoprijemanjem s sveže vzniklimi raziskovalnimi vprašanji lahko namrec pozabimoinspregledamobodisipomembne teoretskerazmislekebodisistarejšefolklorno gradivo, ki nam ima ob preudranem vracanju vselej kaj ponuditi. Knjiga bralca popelje k izboru temeljnih elementov vede, izmed katerih mnogikljub casovnioddaljenosti niso preživetiin nesmejo postatipozabljeni. Avtorica tudi z dostopnim slogom pisanja poskrbi, da je obravnavana snov dostopna vsem, ki želijo izvedeti vec o pripovedni­štvu. Posebno uporabno vrednost bo delo lahko uresnicilo v študijskem okolju, saj omogoca študentom, da na enem mestu hitro dostopajo do temeljnega pregleda raziskav pripovednega izrocila in se karseda ucinko­vito prebijejo skozi sorazmerno dolgotrajen in obcasno razburkan ter interdisciplinarno prepleten historiat vede. Rok Mrvic, Ljubljana ................... ...................... .................... / .... ....., ....... ......... .... ........ .... ......... – .....-.........: ....... ......., 2021, 912 .., 16 .. ... .... (theliveSof ottoof BamBeRg IN CLERICAL TEXTS AND LEGENDS / TRANSLATED FROM LATIN, RESEARCH AND COMMENTARIES BY ANDREY S. DOSAEV AND OLEG V. KUTAREV. SAINT-PETERSBURG: DMITRY BULANIN, 2021, 912 PAGES, 16 PAGES OF COLOURED ILLUSTRATIONS.) Russian Slavistics may be considered re­latively advanced in researching Slavic paganism: in the over more than 250 years since Vasily N. Tatishchev and Mikhail V. Lomonosov, many authors from different spheres from history and archaeology through to ethnography and linguistics have studied various aspects of this major topic. Yet, while this is true of the ancient paganism of the Eastern Slavs, the traditions of Southern and Western Slavs have received less attention. During the 1850s to 1880s, Russia saw the rise of paganism-related studies on the Western Slavs, especially the culture of thePolabianandBalticSlavs,entailingthe work of Izmail I. Sreznevsky, Alexander F. Hilferding, Alexander A. Kotlyarevsky etc. However, after then and throughout the entire 20th century only a handful of major studies focused primarily on the history and social organisation of the Baltic Slavs. The case of the translation of sources was pitiful and paradoxical. Despite the Soviet school of translating ancient sources being on a high level, only a single translation of Helmold of Bosau’s “Chronica Slavorum” was released (in 1963). Still, the beginning of the 21st century has seen a new wave of interest in this topic in Russia. Since 2005, new editions have emerged of important sources like the chronicles of Thietmar of Merseburg, Adam of Bremen (two different editions at once), Saxo Grammaticus and a number of other German chronicles and annals as well as Scandinavian sagas. Russian translations of classic foreign research have also been released, e.g. those by Henryk Lowmianski and Aleksander Gieysztor. Alexander F. Hilferding’s “History of Baltic Slavs” was reissued. Of new noteworthy works, we must mention Andrey Paul’s book on the Baltic Slavs on the mediaeval lands of mo­dern Germany. Yet, a lack of new works is felt, especially considering all of the latest findings and research about the heritage of the Baltic Slavs in Poland and Germany. The mentioned literature has now been enriched with anew major work, “The Lives of Otto of Bamberg”, that combi­nes the academic translation of sources with interdisciplinary research. The book was written by two individuals. Andrey S. Dosaev,whoin2017releasedatranslation of “Gesta Danorum” of Saxo Grammaticus, introduces a fresh translation of a set of Latin sources from the middle and second half of the 12th century. The second author, the religious scholar Oleg V. Kutarev, writes about a set of topics such as the life of Otto of Bamberg, the history of German-Slavic relations during the early and high Middle Ages, the missionary work of the Catholic Church, the hagiography of Mediaevalsaints and, of course, the culture and paganism of the Baltic Slavs. Both authors provide extensive comments and indexes. A shortsummaryofthesources follows: Otto, the Bishop of Bamberg, was invited as a missionary to baptise Pomerania (today, a large territory covering north-western Po­land and north-eastern Germany) in 1120s after those once free pagan lands had been conquered by Poland. During his two visits, Otto managed to baptise the Pomeranians and not only created the basis for a church structure in the region, but assistedwith future Germanisation of the local culture. The work includes all the Lives of Otto writtenbyhis younger contemporaries and their students. It is interesting that the hagi­ographic tradition showsa growing number of miraculous elements ineachsubsequent text, slowly turning a historical character into a semi-mythological saint, with healing powers (Otto was canonised as a saint by the CatholicChurch in 1189, half acentury following his death in 1139). Information aboutthePomeranian customs, pagan belief and rituals is even more valuable. A lot of unique data iscontained in those textsonly (e.g. a detailed description of the god Tri­glav or the term «contina» used to describe Slavic pagan temples). It is also important to keep in mind that this data comes from those who actually came in close contact with the Slavic pre-Christian culture. The book’sApplicationssection includes the translation of a few other small texts, e.g. the Papal bull, adding more political context to Otto’sactivities. The political aspect is hard to read in the hagiography text as the latter is naturally more concerned withthe virtue ofthe saint andbaptism. Nevertheless, “it would be neither a mistake, nor an exaggeration to call Otto of Bamberg during the period of at least the 1100–1120s a politician among other things” (pp. 488). The translation of sources consumes about half the book (pp. 10–469), including 12 texts: Lives, stories of Otto-related mi­racles, and Applications. These texts have never been available before in a full Russian translation.Another one-thirdof thebook is devoted to Oleg V. Kutarev’s text «The Lives of saint Otto of Bamberg» as source material for mediaeval culture” (pp. 470–750). The book has 10 chapters, each dedicated to a certain topic. For example, one chapter presents analysis of Otto’s biography using the Lives as well as other known sources (Ch. 2), while another chapter considers textualstudies of Lives and their authors (Ch. 7). Some chapters are connected (ch. 3–6) and presentanarrativeaboutthehistory and culture of the Baltic Slavs, especially the Pomeranians, from them settling in the region after the Migration period to them vanishing following fighting and assimilating with the Germans and Poles. Here Otto’s baptism is presented as a natural part of the entire history of the Baltic Slavs. Readers are provided with a broad context for the information given by the Lives. A separate chapter (Ch. 9) is dedicated to the presence of Otto of Bamberg in Russian literature over the centuries. The analysis of the early stage is quite interesting by showing how the data from the sources became mixed with later speculation that led to many odd curiosities such as Triglava, a female deity who has outshined the source-accurate male counterpart in terms of popularity, being created. In Chapter 10, an innovative idea concerning the textual effect of Otto’sLives on Saxo’s “Gesta Danorum” is introduced as part of analysis of the influence held by the Lives on the subsequent culture and literature. Oleg Kutarev’s text qualifies as a large afterword not just for the Lives of Otto but also for all of the translations of sources mentioned above that previously lacked proper scholarlyanalysis: the text “is seen as anecessary foreword for thetopic of the historyandpaganismof thePolabian-Baltic Slavs today” (pp. 742). It is worth noting that the author includes the leading research of modern foreign historiography, even though many facts have long deserved a place in Russian literature. For instance, he provides illustrations and descriptions of a wooden Pomeranian idol from a Szczecin city: “the idol was found in 1995 and, as far as we know, has never been mentioned inRussianliteraturebefore”(pp.565–566, pictures14–15). The book containsover 20 coloured illustrations, chiefly of archaeolo­gical findings related to Slavic paganismin Pomerania and a few monochrome paintings mostly dedicated to mythological themes. Some geographical maps are also included. Both the monography and the detailed commentaries contain quotes in fragments (at times quite large) from never-before­-translated sources. The small article by Andrey S. Dosaev (pp. 751–759) considers the ever-topical question of the origin of the Rus people and mightseemunrelatedtotherestofthebook, although the sources do touch on the topic, even if only briefly. One author of the Lives, Herbord “calls both Rujanie and Russians by the same name «Rutheni»”. The authors reach a logical conclusion and explain that “Herbord probably just confused thetwo due to the similarly sounding names” (pp. 527 ft. 4, pp. 824 comment, pp. 723). Detailed and nuanced commentaries on the sources (more than 820) make up a significant share of the book (pp. 760–834) and are followed by several indexes and a Reference list. The book is well designed and equipped with an elaborate page header, which allows for quick orientation hence and reduces the need to constantly return to the Contents page. The overall number of copies is just 530 books, with the book having been available since early December 2021 and popular among readers and it is hoped that it will not be the last one. We also hope that, first, the authors will in the future present new works on this still underexplored topic in Russian Slavicstics and, second, that this magnificent book will revive interest in this fascinating topic (given that out of all the ancient Slavs the Polabian-Baltic and the Ancient Rus are the two we know the most about, but other Slavic pagan ancient traditions considerably less!) and will also encourage new works, translations and grateful admirers. Ivan F. Obraztsov, Moscow Navodila avtorjem Uredništvo sprejema avtorsko povsem dokoncane clanke, napisane v slovanskih jezikih, v anglešcini, italijanšciniali nemšcini. Rokopisi naj vsebujejo tudi seznam kljucnih besed v anglešcini, avtorski izvlecek v anglešcini in povzetek v drugemjeziku kotclanek bodisiv anglešcini, italijanšcini, nemšcinialislovanskemjeziku. Oddaninajbodo neoblikovani in v formatu MS Word 6.0 ali vec oz. v zapisu RTF. Digitalizirane slike naj bodo v formatu TIFF ali JPG. Slikovno gradivo v klasicni obliki digitalizira uredništvo. Uredništvo daje prednost clankom, ki niso daljši od 45.000 znakov, vkljucno s presledki in prostorom za slike. Rokopisi naj bodo v koncni obliki. Tiskovne korekture opravi uredništvo. Z objavo v SMS se avtor strinja, da je njegov clanek dostopen tudi v digitalni obliki na svetovnem spletu. Prispevki so recenzirani. Podrobna navodila za oblikovanje clanka so na: https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/sms/prispevki Istruzioni per gli autori La redazione accetta contributi scritti nelle lingue slave, in inglese, italiano e tedesco. Si richiede che i manoscritticontengano pure l‘elenco delle parole chiave in inglese, 1‘abstract in inglese e il riassunto redatto in una lingua diversa da quella usata nell‘articolo, ovvero in inglese, italiano, tedesco o lingueslave. I manoscritti devono essere consegnati su copia cartacea e in formato MS Word 6.0, o versione successiva, oppure in formato RTF. Si accettano le fotografie digitali nel formato TIFF o JPG mentre il materiale iconografico nel formato classico verrŕ trasferito in formato digitale dalla redazione. La prioritŕ viene attribuita agli articoli che non superano le 45.000battute, compresiglispazi ele fotografie. I manoscrittidevono essere consegnati nella versione definitiva. Gli errori tipografici sono corretti dalla redazione. Con la pubblicazione in SMS 1‘autore č d‘accordo che il proprio articolo sia disponibile anche in formato digitale su internet. Gli articoli sono stati recensiti. Istruzioni particolareggiati sono su: https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/sms/prispevki Submission Instructions for Authors Articles should be sent to the editors in final version, written in a Slavic language or in English, Italian, or German. They should include a list of key words and an abstract, both written in English, and a summary in a language different from the language of the submitted article (English, Italian, German, or Slavic language). The proposed articles need to be unformatted, and sent as a Word document, preferably in Rich Text Format (RTF) by e-mail or on a floppy disk. A print-out should also be sent to the editor‘s address. Illustrations in digital form should be saved in TIFF or JPG format; classic photographs and illustrations will be converted to digital form by the editors. Articles should preferably be no longer than 45,000 characters (including spaces and room for illustrations). Proofs will be done by the editors. The author agreesthat by publishing in SMSthe article will be available also in the digital form on the Internet. The articles are externally peer-reviewed. For further informations see: https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/sms/prispevki Letna narocnina / Prezzo d’ abbonamento /Annual Subscripttion for individuals: 20.00 EUR for institutions: 24.00 EUR Narocanje / Ordinazioni / Orders to: Založba ZRC / ZRC Publishing P. P. 306, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija E-mail: zalozba@zrc-sazu.si