FOLKLORE AS A SPECIAL FORM OF CREATION" Roman Jakobson and P e t r B o g a t y r e v

T r a n s l a t i o n b y John M. O ' H a r a Introduction b y F e l i x J. O i n a s

INTRODUCTION f l F o l k l o r e as a S p e c i a l Form o f C r e a t i o n V b y Jakobson and B o g a t y r e v i s one o f t h e most famous and o f t - q u o t e d a r t i c l e s i n f o l k l o r i s t i c s , comparable p e r h a p s t o A x e l O l r i k ' s " E p i c Laws I t has been t r a n s l a t e d i n t o s e v e r a l o f Folk Narrative." languages. The a r t i c l e c o n s t i t u t e s a combined e f f o r t by t w o s i g n i f i c a n t S l a v i c s c h o l a r s , Roman Jakobson and P e t r B o g a t y r e v , who l e f t communist R u s s i a and s e t t l e d i n Prague i n t h e 1920s, where t h e y were engaged i n v e r y p r o d u c t i v e s c h o l a r l y work. They were b o t h a c t i v e members o f t h e Prague C i r c l e . Jakobson soon moved t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and became a l e a d i n g S l a v i c and g e n e r a l l i n g u i s t and f o l k l o r i s t . B o g a t y r e v r e t u r n e d t o t h e S o v i e t Union, a d e c i s i o n w h i c h s i g n i f i e d t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e e n d o f h i s a c h i e v e m e n t s i n f o l k l o r e and m y t h o l o g y . He d i e d i n 1975. f l F o l k l o r e as a S p e c i a l Form o f C r e a t i o n " aims a t b r i n g i n g o u t t h e s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f f o l k l o r e i n comparison w i t h l i t e r a t u r e . T h i s i s done by c o n s t a n t r e f e r e n c e t o l i n g u i s t i c s and o c c a s i o n a l l y even t o economics. DeSaussurels t e r m s p a r o l e ( E n g l i s h "messaget1--a p a r t i c u l a r speech a c t ) and l a n g u e ( E n g l i s h Ifcodelf--a g e n e r a l i z e d f o r m o f l a n g u a g e as a d o p t e d by t h e community o f s p e a k e r s ) a r e r e f e r r e d t o f r e q u e n t l y t o c l a r i f y t h e

Appeared o r i g i n a l l y as " D i e F o l k l o r e a l s e i n e b e s o n d e r e Form des S c h a f f e n s , I 1 V e r z a n e l i n g v a n O p s t e l l e n d o o r O u d - L e e r t i n g e n e n B e f r i e n d e Vakgenooten (Donum N a t a l i c i u m S c h r i j n e n ) ( N i j m e g e n Utrecht:1929), pp. 900-913. R e p r i n t e d i n Roman Jakobson, S e l e c t e d W r i t i n g s , v o l . I V (The Hague: Mouton, 1 9 6 6 ) , pp. I15.

2
d i s t i n c t i o n between f o l k l o r e and l i t e r a t u r e . I t i s emphasized t h a t f o l k l o r e i s o r i e n t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t o u a r d l a n g u e and l i t e r a t u r e t o w a r d p a r o l e . An i t e m o f f o l k l o r e b e g i n s i t s e x i s t e n c e o n l y a f t e r i t has been a d o p t e d and s a n c t i o n e d by t h e community. As i n t h e development o f l a n g u e , t h e e n v i r o n m e n t p r u n e s a c r e a t e d work t o f i t i t s t a s t e ; i f t h e community r e j e c t s i t , i t s i m p l y d i e s o u t . A community r e t a i n s o n l y t h o s e i t e m s o f f o l k l o r e w h i c h have a f u n c t i o n a l v a l u e f o r i t . L i k e l a n g u e , t h e work o f f o l k l o r e i s e x t r a p e r s o n a l and l e a d s o n l y t o a p o t e n t i a l e x i s t e n c e ; i t i s o n l y a complex o f c e r t a i n norms and i m p u l s e s , t h e canvas o f t h e a c t u a l t r a d i t i o n , which t h e t e l l e r s r e v i v e w i t h t h e embellishment o f t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c r e a t i o n . Should t h e bearers o f a f o l k l o r e t r a d i t i o n d i e o u t , t h e r e i s no p o s s i b i l i t y f o r r e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e t r a d i tion. The a r t i c l e t o u c h e s upon numerous o t h e r q u e s t i o n s : Hans Naumann's c o n c e p t of "Gesunkenes K u l t u r g u t f t ; f o l k l o r e as an expression o f i n d i v i d u a l or c o l l e c t i v e c r e a t i v i t y ; genetic autonomy and o r i g i n a l i t y o f f o l k l o r e , and o t h e r s . W h i l e t h e J a k o b s o n - B o g a t y r e v a r t i c l e has a r o u s e d much i n t e r e s t i n t h e West, and t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t i n t h e E a s t , i t has t o m y knowledge had no echo i n t h e S o v i e t U n i o n . The r e a s o n for t h i s i s the difference i n the interpretation o f folklore, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e g a r d t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between f o l k l o r e and l i t e r a t u r e . Whereas Jakobson and B o g a t y r e v make e v e r y e f f o r t t o u n d e r s c o r e t h e p r o f o u n d d i s t i n c t i o n between f o l k l o r e and l i t e r a t u r e , S o v i e t F o l k l o r i s t s have a d v o c a t e d t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e t w o d i s c i p l i n e s . The l i t e r a r y approach was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of S o v i e t f o l k l o r e r e s e a r c h i n t h e 1920s and ' 3 0 s , l e a d i n g t o t h e encouragement o f i n d i v i d u a l a a s t e r s i n g e r s t o c r e a t e new, o r i g i n a l works ( n o v i n y o r Itnew e p i c songs," e t c . ) i n t h e ' 3 0 s and ' 4 0 s . S i n c e t h e ' 4 0 s t h i s t r e n d has a s s e r t e d i t s e l f i n t h e f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e t a k e n t o u a r d t h e use o f l i t e r a r y models f o r mass v e r b a l c r e a t i o n s . [ F o r d e t a i l s see F.J. O i n a s , "The P r o b l e m o f t h e N o t i o n o f S o v i e t F o l k l o r e . 1 ' F o l k l o r e Today: A F e s t s c h r i f t f o r R i c h a r d W. D o r s o n ( ~ l o o m i n ~ t o n I:n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 6 ) , pp. 379-97. I

FOLKLORE AS A SPECIAL FORM OF CREATION The naive realism which particularly c h a r a c t e r i z e d the m i s g u i d e d t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n of thought d u r i n g the second h a l f o f the nineteenth c e n t u r y h a s a l r e a d y been superseded b y the newer d i r e c t i o n s i n s c i e n t i f i c thought. Only i n the areas of those h u m a n i s t i c d i s c i p l i n e s whose proponents were so preoccupied w i t h t h e c o l l e c t i o n of m a t e r i a l s a n d b y s p e c i f i c concrete problems t h a t they were d i s i n c l i n e d to r e v i s e phi Iosophical assumpt ions, and thus were n a t u r a l ly conservative i n t h e i r theoretical p r i n ciples, d i d n a i v e r e a l i s m c o n t i n u e to e x p a n d in the and frequently even gain momentum b e g i n n i n g of t h i s c e n t u r y . However strange the p h i losophical perspective of naive r e a l i s m may seem to t h e modern i n v e s t i g a t o r ( a t least where t h i s p e r spect i v e h a s not become catechism o r i r r e f u t a b l e dogma), nevertheless a whole series of f o r m u l a tions, r e p r e s e n t i n g a d i r e c t o u t g r o w t h of t h e phi losophical assumptions o f science d u r i n g t h e second h a l f of the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , c o n t i n u e to l i v e on i n many f i e l d s of c u l t u r a l s t u d y a s smuggled b a l l a s t , a v e s t i g e r e s t r i c t i n g s c i e n t i f i c development A t y p i c a l p r o d u c t of n a i v e r e a l i s m was the widespread thesis of t h e neogrammari a n s t h a t the l a n g u a g e of the i n d i v i d u a l i s the one a n d only real language. Epigrammatically stated, t h i s thesis asserts t h a t , i n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s , o n l y the speech of a p a r t i c u l a r person a t a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t i n time represents a n a c t u a l r e a l i t y , w h i l e e v e r y t h i n g else i s merely a theoretical-scientific a b s t r a c t i o n . However, n o t h i n g i s q u i t e so f o r e i g n to contemporary e f f o r t s in l i n g u i s t i c s as t h i s thesis, w h i c h became one o f the cornerstones of the neograrnrnarian school.

Alongside the i n d i v i d u a l , p a r t i c u l a r speech act--parole according to Saussurel s terminology--modern linguistics also recognizes langue, t h a t is, " a c o l l e c t i o n of necessary conventions adopted b y a s o c i a l body to p e r m i t t h e exercise of that faculty [language] among individuals.'' In this traditional, interpersonal system this or that speaker may introduce personal v a r i a t i o n s , w h i c h c a n nonetheless b e i n t e r p r e t e d o n l y as i n d i v i d u a l d e v i a t i o n s f r o m langue, a n d o n l y w i t h respect to l a n g u e i t s e l f . They become f a c t s of l a n g u e a f t e r the community, the bearers of a particular langue, has sanctioned them a n d accepted them a s b e i n g g e n e r a l l y admissible. Herein l i e s the d i s t i n c t i o n between, on the one hand, transformations of l a n g u a g e and, on the o t h e r hand, individual speech e r r o r s ( l a p s u s ) , the p r o d u c t s of i n d i v i d u a l whim, of s t r o n g emotional states, o r of the aesthetic impulses of the s p e a k i n g i n d i v i d u a l . When we come to the question c o n c e r n i n g of t h i s o r t h a t l a n g u a g e i n the l'conception'l novation, we c a n examine those cases where l a n g u a g e t r a n s f o r m a t ions t a k e p l ace as a r e s u l t of a k i n d of s o c i a l i z a t i o n o r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of individual speech e r r o r s ( lapsus), individual emotional states, o r aesthetic deformations o f speech. L a n g u a g e changes may a l s o o r i g i n a t e i n a d i f f e r e n t manner; namely, when they cons t i t u t e a n i n e v i t a b l e , r e g u l a r l y determined r e s u l t of speech changes w h i c h h a v e a l r e a d y o c c u r r e d a n d a r e embodied d i r e c t l y i n l a n g u e ( t h e b i o l o g i c a l concept of monogenesis). But w i t h t h e u s u a l changes f o r l i n g u i s t i c change i n effect w e c a n speak of t h e " b i r t h " of a l a n g u a g e i n n o v a t i o n o n l y from t h a t moment when i t cons t i t u t e s a social f a c t , i.e., when t h e community of speakers h a s adopted i t as i t s own. If we cross now from the field of l i n g u i s t i c s to t h a t of f o l k l o r e , here we encounter p a r a l l e l phenomena. An item of f o l k l o r e p e r se b e g i n s i t s existence o n l y after i t h a s been

a d o p t e d b y a g i v e n community, a n d only in those o f i t s aspects w h i c h t h e c o m m u n i t y h a s accepted L e t u s suppose t h a t a member o f a comm u n i t y h a s composed something. S h o u l d t h i s o r a l work, created b y the individual, b e unacc e p t a b l e to t h e community f o r one r e a s o n o r another, s h o u l d t h e r e m a i n i n g members o f t h e community n o t a d o p t i t , t h e n i t i s condemned t o f a i l u r e . O n l y t h e c h a n c e t r a n s c r i p t i o n of a collector c a n rescue i t b y t r a n s f e r r i n g i t from the sphere of oral composition to that of l it e r a t u r e . The F r e n c h poet of t h e 1860s, Comte d e L a u t d a m o n t , o f f e r s a t y p i c a l e x a m p l e o f t h e socalled pohtes maudits, i .e., poets who are r e j e c t e d , s i lent1y i g n o r e d , a n d u n r e c o g n i z e d b y their contemporaries. He pub1 i s h e d a smal l volume w h i c h a t t r a c t e d n o a t t e n t i o n a n d f o u n d n o r e a d e r s h i p , a s was t h e case w i t h h i s o t h e r works, w h i c h r e m a i n e d u n p r i n t e d . At t h e a g e of twenty-four h e was overtaken by death. Decades p a s s . I n l i t e r a t u r e t h e r e a r i s e s t h e soc a l led surrealist movemen t, in m a n y r e s p e c t s in concordance with Lautr&amontls poetry. L a u t r g a m o n t i s r e h a b i l i t a t e d - - h i s w o r k s a r e published, he i s celebrated a s a master a n d g a i n s influence. But what would have become o f L a u t r 6 a m o n t i f h e h a d o n l y been t h e composer of w o r k s of o r a l p o e t r y ? Upon h i s d e a t h h i s works would have disappeared without a trace. Here we h a v e c i t e d t h e most e x t r e m e case, i n w h i c h e n t i r e w o r k s a r e r e j e c t e d . Yet i t i s possible that single t r a i t s only, peculiarities o f form, o r s i n g l e m o t i f s m a y b e r e j e c t e d o r n o t adopted b y contemporaries. I n these i n s t a n c e s the environment p r u n e s the created work to i t s own t a s t e . And, again, everything rejected b y t h e e n v i r o n m e n t s i m p l y does n o t e x i s t a s a f a c t of f o l k l o r e ; i t fa1 I s f r o m use a n d d i e s o u t . One of Goncharov ' s h e r o i n e s t r i e s , b e f o r e r e a d i n g a n o v e l , to a s c e r t a i n t h e outcome o f t h e

p l o t . Let u s assume t h a t a t a c e r t a i n time t h e a v e r a g e r e a d e r bahaves in the same way. F o r example, when r e a d i n g a work he too may p a s s over a l l d e s c r i p t i o n s of n a t u r e , r e g a r d i n g them as d r a g g i n g , tiresome b a l l a s t . No m a t t e r how much a novel may b e d i s t o r t e d b y the r e a d e r , no m a t t e r how much i t m i g h t c o n f l i c t i n i t s cornposition with t h e expectations of the c u r r e n t school of l it e r a t u r e , n o m a t t e r how f r a g m e n t a r i l y it might b e perceived, still it retains i t s p o t e n t i a l existence i n t a c t . A new time w i l l come which will rehabilitate the once-rejected features. But t r a n s p o s i n g these f a c t s to t h e sphere of f o l k l o r e , l e t u s suppose t h a t the comm u n i t y demands t h a t the outcome of the p l o t b e r e v e a l e d i n advance, a n d we w i l l see t h a t e v e r y f o l k n a r r a t i v e w i l l i n e v i t a b l y adopt a compositional scheme of the sort we encounter in T o l s t o y ' s s t o r y "The Death of I v a n I l y i c h , " in which the outcome of the p l o t precedes the n a r ration. I f d e s c r i p t i o n s of n a t u r e d i s p l e a s e t h e community, they a r e s t r i c k e n from the f o l k l o r e r e p e r t o i r e . I n short, i n f o l k l o r e o n l y those forms are retained which h o l d a functional value f o r the g i v e n community. I n t h i s way one f u n c t i o n of a form may c l e a r l y be r e p l a c e d b y a n o t h e r . But as soon as a form becomes n o n - f u n c t i o n a l i t d i e s out i n f o l k l o r e , w h i l e i n a l i t e r a r y work i t r e t a i n s i t s p o t e n t i a l existence. Yet another I it e r a r y - h i s t o r i c a l example i s that of the so-cal l e d "eternal companionsw-w r i t e r s who, i n the course of centuries, are i n t e r p r e t e d i n d i f f e r e n t ways from d i f f e r e n t ori-' entations, b y each a c c o r d i n g to i t s own manner a n d i n a novel f a s h i o n . Many of these w r i t e r s ' peculiarities, which were strange, incomprehensible, unnecessary, a n d u n d e s i r a b l e to t h e i r contemporaries come to b e g r e a t l y v a l u e s a t a l a t e r time, a n d sudden1y become t o p i c a l ; t h a t i s , they become p r o d u c t i v e l i t e r a r y f a c t o r s . T h i s too i s p o s s i b l e o n l y i n the r e a l m of l i t e r a t u r e . F o r example, i n o r a l p o e t r y what would h a v e

become of Leskov's linguistically daring and innovative output, which has r e q u i r e d several decades to become a p r o d u c t i v e l i t e r a r y f a c t o r i n the l i t e r a r y e f f o r t s of Remizov a n d subsequent Russian prose writers? Leskov s environment would h a v e p u r g e d h i s w o r k s of h i s b i z a r r e s t y l i s t i c techniques. I n a word, t h e r e r e m a i n s a p r o f o u n d d i s t i n c t i o n between l i t e r a r y a n d f o l k l o r i c t r a n s m i s s i o n . I n the f i e l d of f o l k l o r e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of r e a c t i v a t i n g p o e t i c f a c t s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y smaller. I f the b e a r e r s of a g i v e n poetic t r a d i t i o n s h o u l d d i e out, this tradition c a n no l o n g e r b e r e s u s c i t a t e d , w h i l e i n l i t e r a t u r e phenomena w h i c h a r e a h u n d r e d o r even several h u n d r e d y e a r s o l d may r e v i v e a n d become p r o d u c t i v e once a g a i n ! From the above d i s c u s s i o n i t c l e a r l y f o l lows t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e of a work of f o l k l o r e r e q u i r e s a g r o u p to accept a n d s a n c t i o n i t f o r i t s continuation. I n f o l k l o r e r e s e a r c h t h e prev e n t i v e censure of t h e community must b e k e p t i n mind constantly as a fundamental p r i n c i p l e . W e del ib e r a t e l y use the term " p r e v e n t i v e , for i n c o n s i d e r i n g a f o l k l o r i c f a c t we a r e concerned not w i t h t h e moments p r i o r to i t s b i r t h , n o r w i t h i t s "conception," n o r w i t h i t s embryonic l i f e , b u t w i t h the " b i r t h " of the f o l k l o r e f a c t a s such a n d w i t h i t s subsequent f a t e . Folk lore researchers, the Slavs in p a r t icular--who have a t their disposal perhaps the liveliest and richest folklore material i n Europe--f requent l y p r o p o u n d the thesis t h a t t h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between o r a l p o e t r y a n d l i t e r a t u r e , a n d t h a t , i n both cases, we a r e dealing with the unmistakeable products of individual creation. This thesis traces its o r i g i n s d i r e c t l y to t h e i n f l u e n c e of n a i v e r e a l i s m : we a r e u n a b l e to v e r i f y communal c r e a t i o n b y means of e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , theref o r e i t i s necessary to p o s t u l a t e a n i n d i v i d u a l c r e a t o r o r i n i t i a t o r . Vsevolod M i l l e r , a t y p i c a l

neogrammarian i n l i n g u i s t i c s a s well a s f o l k l o r i s t i c ~ , r e m a r k s on t h e subject of f o l k l o r e i n the f o l l o w i n g w a y : "By whom i s i t conceived? By the communal c r e a t i o n of the masses? But t h i s too i s a f i c t i o n , s i n c e human experience h a s never observed such c r e a t i o n .'I Here, without a doubt, the i n f l u e n c e of o u r e v e r y d a y s u r r o u n d i n g s f i n d s expression. Writing, not o r a l c r e a t i v i t y , i s the most f a m i l i a r a n d best-known form of c r e a t i v i t y to us; a n d so o u r accustomed n o t i o n s a r e e g o c e n t r i c a l I y p r o j e c t e d onto t h e a r e a of f o l k l o r e a s w e l l . Thus the moment of b i r t h of a l i t e r a r y w o r k i s reckoned from t h e p o i n t of i t s b e i n g set down on p a p e r b y i t s author; a n d , b y a n a l o g y , the p o i n t a t w h i c h a n o r a l work i s f i r s t o b j e c t i v i z e d , i.e., uttered b y i t s c r e a t o r , i s r e g a r d e d a s the moment i n r e a l i t y t h e work becomes of i t s b i r t h - - w h e n f o l k l o r i c f a c t o n l y a t t h e moment of i t s acceptance b y the community. Adherents to t h e t h e s i s of t h e i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r of f o l k l o r i c c r e a t i o n tend to s u b s t i t u t e the concept of a n o n y m i t y f o r t h a t of c o l l e c t i v i t y Hence, f o r example, a well-known handbook of Russian o r a l p o e t r y c o n t a i n s t h e f o l l o w i n g statemen t :
I t i s c l e a r t h a t , when d e a l i n g w i t h a r i t u a l song, i f we do n o t know who t h e c r e a t o r o f t h e r i t u a l was o r who composed t h e f i r s t song, t h i s does n o t , however, c o n t r a d i c t t h e i d e a of i n d i v i d u a l c r e a t i o n , b u t t e s t i f i e s s i m p l y t h a t t h e r i t u a l i s so o l d t h a t we can d e t e r m i n e n e i t h e r t h e composer n o r t h e o r i g i n a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s a n c i e n t song, so c l o s e l y bound up w i t h t h e r i t u a l ; and, f u r t h e r m o r e , t h a t i t a r o s e i n a s i t u a t i o n where t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f t h e a u t h o r h a d a r o u s e d no i n t e r e s t , f o r w h i c h r e a s o n t h e memory o f h i s p e r s o n a l i t y has n o t been p r e s e r v e d . I n t h i s manner t h e i d e a o f "communallt c r e a t i o n n e e d n o t be i n v o k e d .

&

'-

What i s not t a k e n i n t o account h e r e i s t h a t t h e r e c a n b e no r i t u a l w i t h o u t s a n c t i o n b y t h e community; that this is a contradictio in

'c

adiecto; a n d t h a t even i f i n the germ of t h i s o r t h a t r i t u a l t h e r e l a y a n i n d i v i d u a l expression, the p a t h from t h i s e x p r e s s i o n to t h e r i t u a l i s j u s t a s l o n g a s t h e p a t h from t h e i n d i v i d u a l d i s t o r t i o n of speech t o g r a m m a t i c a l linguistic mutation. What h a s been s a i d c o n c e r n i n g t h e o r i g i n of r i t u a l ( o r , s i m i l a r l y , of a work of o r a l poe t r y ) may a l s o b e a p p l i e d i n r e g a r d to t h e e v o l u t i o n of r i t u a l ( o r to f o l k l o r i c e v o l u t i o n i n g e n e r a l ) . The d i s t i n c t i o n employed b y l i n g u i s t i c s between a change i n t h e r u l e s of l a n g u a g e a n d the i n d i v i d u a l ' s d e v i a t i o n from these rules--a d i s t i n c t i o n w h i c h h a s not o n l y q u a n t i t a t i v e , b u t also fundamental qualitative significance--remains almost t o t a l l y f o r e i g n to f o l k l o r i s t i c s . One of the i n h e r e n t d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e s between f o l k l o r e a n d l i t e r a t u r e i s t h e concept of the essence of a work of a r t . I n f o l k l o r e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e work of a r t on the one h a n d , a n d i t s obj e c t i v i z a t i o n - - i .e., the so-called v a r i a n t s of t h i s work a s performed b y d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s - - o n the other, i s completely analogous to t h e r e l a tionship between langue and parole. Like langue, the f o l k l o r i c work i s e x t r a p e r s o n a l a n d leads o n l y a p o t e n t i a l existence; i t i s o n l y a complex of p a r t i c u l a r norms a n d impulses, a c a n v a s of a c t u a l t r a d i t i o n , to w h i c h t h e p e r formers i m p a r t I i f e t h r o u g h the embel l ishments of their individual creativity, just as the p r o d u c e r s of p a r o l e do w i t h respect to l a n g u e . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t these i n d i v i d u a l i n n o v a t i o n s i n speech ( o r f o l k l o r e ) conform to t h e exigencies of t h e community a n d a n t i c i p a t e t h e r e g u l a r e v o l u t i o n of l a n g u e ( o r f o l k l o r e ) they become social ized and form the constituent elements of l a n g u e ( o r t h e elements of a f o l k l o r e work) The l i t e r a r y work i s o b j e c t i v i z e d , e x i s t i n g concretely a n d i n d e p e n d e n t l y of t h e r e a d e r ; a n d e v e r y subsequent r e a d e r a p p l ies h i m s e l f d i r e c t l y

to the work. T h i s i s not the p a t h of a f o l k l o r e work f rom performer to performer, but r a ther a p a t h from the work to the performer. The interpretations of other performers may, of course, be t a k e n i n t o account; b u t t h i s i s o n l y one of the i n g r e d i e n t s i n the r e c e p t i o n of t h e work, a n d b y no means the o n l y source as i n f o l k l o r e . The r o l e of t h e performer of a f o l k l o r e work s h o u l d not, u n d e r a n y circumstances, b e i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h a t of e i t h e r the r e a d e r o r w i t h t h a t of the r e c i t e r of a l i t e r a r y work, much less w i t h t h a t of the a u t h o r . Considered from t h e v i e w p o i n t of the performer of a f o l k l o r e work, these [folklore] works represent a fact of langue; t h a t is, a n e x t r a p e r s o n a l , given fact a l r e a d y independent of the performer, a l t h o u g h a d m i t t i n g of m a n i p u l a t i o n a n d the i n t r o d u c t i o n of new poetic a n d o r d i n a r y m a t e r i a l . But f o r the a u t h o r of a l i t e r a r y work, t h i s [ l i t e r a r y ] work a p p e a r s to be a f a c t of p a r o l e ; i t i s not given a priori, but is dependent upon a n individual realization. All that i s given i s a c u r r e n t 1y e f f e c t i v e works of art, context of against the b a c k g r o u n d of which--that is, a g a i n s t the b a c k g r o u n d of whose f o r m a l r e q u i r e ments--the new work of a r t i s c r e a t e d ( b y appropriating some of these forms, reworking others, a n d d i s c a r d i n g s t i l l o t h e r s ) a n d s h o u l d be p e r c e i v e d A s i g n i f i c a n t difference between f o l k l o r e and literature l i e s i n the f a c t t h a t the former i s o r i e n t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t o w a r d langue, a n d t h e l a t t e r t o w a r d p a r o l e . According to the a c c u r a t e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the sphere of f o l k l o r e g i v e n b y Potebnia, the [ f o l k ] poet h a s no reason to view h i s work as h i s own, w h i l e v i e w i n g the works of o t h e r poets of the same c i r c l e a s s t r a n g e . The r o l e of censure exercised b y t h e community i s d i f f e r e n t i n l i t e r a t u r e a n d f o l k l o r e , as was p o i n t e d out above. I n the case of f o l k lore, censure i s i m p e r a t i v e a n d c o n s t i t u t e s a n d inescapable c o n d i t i o n f o r the g e n e r a t i o n of works

o f a r t . t h e w r i t e r may g i v e more o r less cons i d e r a t i o n to t h e demands o f h i s e n v i r o n m e n t ; b u t however h e may a d a p t t o these demands, what i s l a c k i n g here i s the i n s e p a r a b l e f u s i o n of c e n s u r e a n d t h e w o r k , w h i c h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of f o l k l o r e . A l i t e r a r y work i s not predetermined b y censure a n d cannot b e e n t i r e l y d e r i v e d from it, but can only approximately surmise its demands, a t times c o r r e c t 1 y , a t times i n c o r r e c t l y . Many o f t h e c o m m u n i t y ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e not taken i n t o consideration a t a l l . The f i e l d o f n a t i o n a l economics o f f e r s a c l o s e p a r a l l e l to t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i t e r ature and the consumer in the concept of "market production," w h i l e f o l k l o r e comes c l o s e r t o " p r o d u c t i o n o n demand .I1 A d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e demands o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a n d a l i t e r a r y w o r k may b e t h e r e s u l t of a m i s t a k e ; b u t i t may a l s o stem f r o m the conscious i n t e n t i o n o f t h e a u t h o r a t t e m p t i n g to r e s t r u c t u r e t h e demands o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a n d r e e d u c a t e i t , in a l i t e r a r y sense. Such a n a t t e m p t b y t h e a u t h o r t o i n f l u e n c e p o s t e r i t y may a l s o f a i l . Censure m a y n o t y i e l d , a n d between i t s s t a n d a r d s a n d t h e w o r k t h e r e a r i s e s a n d ant i n o m y . There i s a tendency t o c o n c e i v e o f t h e " f o l k a u t h o r " a s s i m i l a r to, a n d m o d e l l e d a f t e r t h e " I i t e r a r y poet"; but this transposition i s I n c o n t r a s t to t h e "1 i t e r a r y poet," inappropriate. t h e " f o l I< poetn--accordi n g t o t h e r e l e v a n t obs e r v a t i o n made b y Anichkov--does n o t c r e a t e " a new e n v i r o n m e n t . " Any d e s i r e to c h a n g e t h e env i r o n m e n t i s c o m p l e t e l y a l i e n to h i m . The a b s o l u t e supremacy of " p r e v e n t i v e censure," w h i c h r e n d e r s a n y conf l i c t w i t h t h e c e n s u r e f r u i t less, produces a special k i n d of p a r t i c i p a n t i n poetic c r e a t i o n a n d leads t h i s p e r s o n a l i t y to renounce a n y a t t a c k aimed a t overcoming censure. I n t h e c o n c e p t i o n of f o l k l o r e a s a n e x p r e s s i o n of i n d i v i d u a l c r e a t i v i t y , t h e t r e n d t o w a r d e f f a c i n g t h e b o u n d a r y between t h e h i s t o r y o f I i t e r a t u r e a n d of f o l k l o r e reached i t s highest

point. W e b e l i e v e , however, a s f o l l o w s f r o m t h e above discussion, t h a t t h i s thesis must b e subjected to serious r e v i s i o n . Does t h i s r e v i s i o n necessarily mean rehabilitating the Romantic conception of f o l k l o r e w h i c h was a t t a c k e d so s h a r p l y b y the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e aforementioned doctrine. Without a doubt, yes. The d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e d i f f e r e n c e between o r a l p o e t r y a n d l i t e r a t u r e o f f e r e d b y t h e Romantic theoret i c i a n s c o n t a i n e d a number of correct t h o u g h t s , a n d t h e Romantics were r i g h t i n e m p h a s i z i n g the " h e r d n a t u r e " of o r a l poetic c r e a t i v i t y a n d c o m p a r i n g i t to l a n g u a g e . But a l o n g w i t h these c o r r e c t theses, t h e Romantic concept i o n a l s o cont a i n e d a series of assertions which can no longer b e s u p p o r t e d b y contemporary s c i e n t i f i c c r i ticism. Furthermore, the Romantics placed too great a v a l u e on t h e genetic autonomy a n d o r i g i n a l i t y of f o l k l o r e . Only the e f f o r t s of t h e succeeding generations of scholars have demonstrated the enormous r o l e p l a y e d i n f o l k l o r e b y the phenomenon w h i c h i s d e s i g n a t e d a s "gesunkenes Ku I t u r g u t " b y modern German f o l k l o r i s t i c ~ . T h i s may g i v e t h e impression t h a t t h e r o l e of c o l l e c t i v e c r e a t i o n i n f o l k l o r e i s cons i d e r a b l y d e l i m i t e d b y t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e important, sometimes even exclusive position w h i c h t h i s "gesun kenes K u l t u r g u t " assumes i n the f o l k r e p e r t o i r e . B u t t h i s i s not t h e case. Works of a r t w h i c h a r e borrowed b y f o l k p o e t r y from the h i g h e r l e v e l s of society may be, i n a n d of themsel ves, typical examp Ies of personal initiative and individual creativity. But the question i t s e l f c o n c e r n i n g the sources of f o l k l o r e lies, b y i t s very nature, outside the boundaries of f o l k l o r i s t i c s . Any q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g heterogeneous sources becomes a t a r g e t f o r s c i e n t i f i c interpretation only when considered from the p o i n t of v i e w of t h e system i n w h i c h i t i s formulated--in t h i s case t h a t of f o l k l o r e . What

i s i m p o r t a n t f o r f o l k l o r i s t i c science i s not t h e o r i g i n a n d existence of sources, w h i c h l i e outs i d e of f o l k l o r e , b u t t h e f u n c t i o n of b o r r o w i n g a n d the selection a n d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of t h e b o r rowed m a t e r i a l s . From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e t h e we1 lknown a s s e r t i o n t h a t " t h e f o l k does not create, i t re-createstt loses i t s edge, s i n c e we h a v e n o r i g h t to d r a w a n i m p e n e t r a b l e b o u n d a r y between p r o d u c t i o n a n d r e p r o d u c t i o n a n d to c o n s i d e r t h e latter as h a v i n g somehow lesser v a l u e . Rep r o d u c t i o n does not mean p a s s i v e a p p r o p r i a t i o n ; a n d i n t h i s sense t h e r e i s no f u n d a m e n t a l d i f ference between Mol i g r e , who r e w o r k e d t h e p l a y s of antiquity, and the folk which, to use Naumannt s expression, " u n s i n g s a n a r t song .It The transformation of a work of so-cal l e d monumental a r t i n t o a so-called p r i m i t i v e one i s e q u a l l y a n a c t of c r e a t i v i t y . Creativity i s expressed h e r e as much a s i n t h e selection of a p p r o p r i a t e d works a s i n t h e i r a d a p t a t i o n f o r o t h e r conventions a n d e x p e c t a t i o n s . E s t a b l i s h e d I i t e r a r y forms, following t h e i r transference to f o l k l o r e , become the r a w m a t e r i a l f o r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . A g a i n s t t h e b a c k g r o u n d af d i f f e r e n t p o e t i c a l circumstances, a d i f f e r e n t t r a d i t i o n , a n d a d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p to a r t i s t i c v a l u e s , t h e work i s i n t e r p r e t e d i n a new manner; a n d even those formal s t r u c t u r e s w h i c h a t f i r s t g l a n c e seem to h a v e been p r e s e r v e d i n t h e b o r r o w i n g shou I d not b e r e g a r d e d a s i d e n t i c a l , a s to a p r o t o t y p e . I n these a r t forms, a c c o r d i n g to the e x p r e s s i o n of the Russian l i t e r a r y c r i t i c T y n i a n o v , a n exchange of f u n c t i o n s t a k e s p l a c e . From t h e standp o i n t of f u n c t i o n , without which understanding of the a r t i s t i c f a c t s i s impossible, t h e work of a r t o u t s i d e of f o l k l o r e , a n d the same work of a r t a s a d a p t e d b y f o l k l o r e , a r e two d i s t i n c t l y different things. The h i s t o r y of P u s h k i n ' s poem "The Huss a r " f u r n i s h e s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c example of t h e way i n w h i c h a r t forms change t h e i r f u n c t i o n s i n p a s s i n g from f o l k l o r e to l i t e r a t u r e a n d , v i c e

versa, from l i t e r a t u r e to f o l k l o r e . The t y p i c a l f o l k l o r i c n a r r a t i v e a b o u t a s i m p l e m a n ' s encounter w i t h t h e o t h e r w o r l d ( w h e r e t h e c r u x of t h e n a r r a t i v e l i e s i n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e d e v i l ' s antics) i s transformed b y Pushkin i n t o a s e r i e s of g e n r e - p i c t u r e s t h r o u g h t h e psychol o g i c a l d e l i n e a t i o n of t h e m a i n c h a r a c t e r s a n d the p s y c h o l o g i c a l m o t i v a t i o n of t h e i r t r e a t m e n t . The main hero--the Hussar--as well as f o l k superstition are depicted with a humorous c o l o r i n g b y P u s h k i n . The Marchen w h i c h P u s h k i n uses i s " f o l k s y " ; however, i n the poet's rew o r k i n g "folksiness" i s a n a r t i s t i c device, b e i n g foregrounded, so to speak. F o r P u s h k i n t h e u n educated speech of the f o l k narrator is a p i q u a n t e s u b j e c t f o r v e r s i f i e d treatment. Pushk i n ' s poem r e v e r t e d b a c k to f o l k l o r e a n d was incorporated into several v a r i a n t s of "Tsar Maximilian," one of t h e most p o p u l a r s t a g e pieces of the Russian f o l k theatre. Here i t serves, along w i t h other l i t e r a r y borrowings, t o f i l l o u t t h e t r a n s i t i o n a l episode, a n d i s one of a number of c o l o r f u l d i v e r t i s s e m e n t s d e p i c t i n g the h e r o of t h i s episode, t h e Hussar. The o v e r b l o w n b r a g g a d o c i o of t h e Hussar i s a s much i n k e e p i n g w i t h the a e s t h e t i c s p i r i t of b u f f o o n e r y as is the humorous portrayal of the d e v i l f i g u r e . Nevertheless, t h e tendency of P u s h k i n ' s humor to g r a v i t a t e t o w a r d a tone of r o m a n t i c i r o n y c e r t a i n l y h a s l i t t l e i n common w i t h t h e buffoonery of "Tsar Maximi l ian" which ass i m i l a t e d t h e poem. Even i n those v a r i a n t s where P u s h k i n ' s poem was r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e altered, i t i s i n t e r p r e t e d b y a folklore-educated p u b l i c i n t h e i r own p e c u l i a r way, especially in i t s performance b y f o l k a c t o r s a n d i n t h e c o n t e x t of the d r a m a t i c pieces w h i c h s u r r o u n d i t . In other v a r i a n t s t h i s change i n function i s manifested d i r e c t l y i n the form, w i t h the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c c o n v e r s a t i o n a l v e r b a l s t y l e of P u s h k i n ' s poem r e a d i l y transformed i n t o f o l k verse; a n d of t h e o r i g i n a l poem a l l t h a t remains--stripped of i t s

m o t i v a t i o n s - - i s t h e p l o t o u t l i n e , to w h i c h i s appended a series of t y p i c a l jests a n d gags. No m a t t e r how m u t u a l l y intertwined the f a t e s of l i t e r a t u r e a n d o r a l p o e t r y m i g h t be, no ;r~ait.er how common o r t h o r o u g h t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l i n f l u e n c e may h a v e been, no m a t t e r how o f t e n f o l k l o r e a n d l i t e r a t u r e may h a v e affected one another; we a r e not e n t i t l e d , i n s p i t e of a l l t h i s , to efface t h e b o u n d a r y between o r a l p o e t r y a n d l i t e r a t u r e f o r the sake of genetic a n a l y s i s . Another notable error in the Romantic c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of f o l k l o r e , a l o n g w i t h t h e assumption of i t s o r i g i n a l i t y , was t h e t h e s i s t h a t o n l y a f o l k not s t r a t i f i e d i n t o classes--a sort of c o l l e c t i v e p e r s o n a l i t y w i t h a s i n g l e soul a n d a s i n g l e w o r l d v i e w ; a community w h i c h does n o t acknowledge individual expressions of human a c t i v i ty--could c r e a t e f o l k l o r e a n d b e t h e a g e n t of communal c r e a t i o n . W e f i n d this inseparable association of communal creation with a ' ' p r i m i t i v e c u l t u r a l community" nowadays i n t h e work of Naumann a n d h i s schoot, who a r e in agreement w i t h t h e Romantics o n a number of ~ s s u e: s
Here i n d i v i d u a l i s m does n o t e x i s t . W e should n o t h e s i t a t e t o draw a n a l o g i e s from t h e a n i m a l kingdom, w h i c h o f f e r s , i n fact, the closest p a r a l l e l s . T r u e f o l k a r t i s communal a r t , b u t n o l e s s t h a n s w a l l o w s - n e s t s , b e e h i v e s , o r s n a i l - s h e l l s a r e p r o d u c t s o f c o m ~ u n a la r t .

...

"They a r e a l l d r i v e n b y a s i n g l e impulse," a d d s Naumann concerni n g t h e b e a r e r s of communal culture; "they are a l l i n s p i r e d b y t h e same thoughts a n d purposes." I n t h i s concept t h e r e lies a hidden danger, inherent i n any inference d r a w n d i r e c t l y from a s o c i a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n to e.g., from the properties of a mentality; linguistic feature to those of thought. (The d a n g e r of a s i m i l a r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n h a s been ade f i n d the m i r a b l y exposed b y Anton M a r t i . ) W same t h i n g i n t h e f i e l d of e t h n o g r a p h y ; t h e u n c h a l Ienged dominance of c o l l e c t i v e m e n t a l i t y i s

b y no means a necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r communal creation, even i f such a m e n t a l i t y does o f f e r a n e s p e c i a l l y f a v o r a b l e g r o u n d f o r i t s most comp l e t e r e a l i z a t i o n . Nor i s communal c r e a t i v i t y b y a n y means f o r e i g n even to a c u l t u r e w h i c h i s permeated b y i n d i v i d u a l ism. W e need look n o f u r t h e r f o r examples t h a n t h e widespread anecdotes, legend-I i k e r u m o r s a n d gossip, s u p e r s t i t i o n s a n d my t h - s t r u c t u r e s , a n d accepted customs a n d modes of t h o u g h t i n present-day educated circles. I n addition, t h e Russian e t h n o g r a p h e r s who h a v e i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e v i l lages i n t h e Moscow d i s t r i c t c a n p r o v i d e a g r e a t deal of i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e connection between a r i c h a n d v i t a l f o l k l o r e r e p e r t o i r e a n d the v a r i e t y of socia l , economic, i d e o l o g i c a l , a n d even moral d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s among t h e p e a s a n t r y . The development of oral poetry (or, similarly, l i t e r a t u r e ) may be e x p l a i n e d to a g r e a t e x t e n t not only i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l terms, b u t i n f u n c t i o n a l terms a s w e l l . Compare, f o r example, t h e simultaneous existence of o r a l poe t r y a n d l i t e r a t u r e i n t h e v e r y same educated circles in Russia during the sixteenth and seventeenth c e n t u r i e s . Here I i t e r a t u r e f u l f i l l e d one set of cultural tasks, and oral poetry another. N a t u r a l l y , i n the u r b a n s i t u a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e gained the upper hand over folklore-m a r k e t p r o d u c t i o n o v e r p r o d u c t i o n on demand. But to the c o n s e r v a t i v e v i l l a g e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d p o e t r y i s j u s t as a l i e n a s m a r k e t p r o d u c t i o ~ . Accepting the thesis of folklore as a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of communal c r e a t i v i t y poses a series of practical problems f o r f o l k l o r i s t i c s . Undoubted1 y, t h e t r a n s l a t i o n of methods a n d concepts stemming from t h e treatment of I i t e r a r y h i s t o r i c a l m a t e r i a l s to t h e f i e l d of f o l k l o r i s t i c s h a s f r e q u e n t l y h i n d e r e d the a n a l y s i s of f o l k l o r e a r t forms. I n p a r t i c u l a r , too l i t t l e emphasis h a s been placed on the fundamental distinction between a l i t e r a r y t e x t a n d the w r i t t e n r e c o r d

o f a work of f o l k l o r e ; f o r a t r a n s c r i p t i o n i n transposing i t to e v i tab1 y d i s t o r t s t h i s w o r k , a different category. It would be ambiguous to speak of identical forms with I it e r a t u r e . Thus, for "verse," which on the t h e same m e a n i n g i n actual ly represents e n t i t i e s in f u n c t i o n a l respect to f o l k l o r e and example, t h e concept of s u r f a c e appears to have literature as in folklore, two r a d i c a l ly different terms. M a r c e l Jousse, a

s e n s i t i v e researcher of o r a l m e t r i c a l s t y l e ( s t y l e oral rhythmique), regards this distinction as o f s u c h i m p o r t a n c e t h a t h e r e s e r v e s t h e terms "verse" a n d " p o e t r y " f o r l i t e r a t u r e a l o n e , subs t i t u t i n g t h e d e s i g n a t i o n s " m e t r i c a l schema" a n d "oral sty let' respectively in t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n to o r a l c r e a t i o n s , i n o r d e r t o a v o i d r e a d i n g i n t o these concepts t h e u s u a l l i t e r a r y c o n t e n t . Jousse h a s b r i l l i ant1 y d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e mnemotechnical f u n c t i o n o f these " m e t r i c a l schemata." He i n t e r p r e t s o r a l m e t r i c a l s t y l e i n a " s e t t i n g o f spontaneous n a r r a t o r s " i n t h e f o l l o w i n g m a n n e r :
Imagine a language i n which t h e two o r t h r e e hundred rhymed phrases, t h e f o u r o r f i v e hundred t y p e s of m e t r i c a l schemata are f i x e d f o r a l l t i m e and t r a n s m i t t e d w i t h o u t m o d i f i c a t i o n by o r a l t r a d i t i o n . From t h a t t i m e f o r t h p e r s o n a l i n v e n t i o n would c o n s i s t o f t a k i n g t h e s e m e t r i c a l schemata as models and c r e a t i n g i n t h e i r image, b a l a n c e d by t h e use o f s t r u c t u r a l c l i c h e s , o t h e r analogous m e t r i c a l schemata h a v i n g t h e same r h y t h m , t h e same s t r u c t u r e and, as f a r a s p o s s i b l e , t h e same m e a n i n g .

. . .

Here t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t r a d i t i o n a n d imp r o v i s a t i o n , between l a n g u e a n d p a r o l e i n o r a l poetry is clearly defined. The verse, the s t r o p h e , a n d t h e s t i l l more c o m p l i c a t e d composit i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s i n f o l k l o r e c o n s t i t u t e a powerf u l s u p p o r t of t r a d i t i o n o n t h e one h a n d , a n d on t h e o t h e r ( c l o s e l y b o u n d u p w i t h t h e f i r s t ) an effective resource for improvisational technique.

Any t y p o l o g y of f o l k l o r e s t r u c t u r e s m u s t b e c o n s t r u c t e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h a t o f l it e r a r y structures. One of t h e most p r e s s i n g p r o b l e m s of l i n g u i s t i c s i s the e l a b o r a t i o n of a phonetic a n d morphological typology. I t i s r e a d i l y apparent t h a t there e x i s t general s t r u c t u r a l r u l e s which l a n g u a g e s do n o t v i o l a t e , and evident t h a t t h e v a r i e t y o f p h o n o l o g i c a l a n d morphol o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e s i s l i m i t e d , a n d may b e t r a c e d to a c o m p a r a t i v e l y s m a l l n u m b e r o f b a s i c t y p e s ; from which it follows that the variety of structures of communal creativity is also bounded. Parole p e r m i t s a r i c h e r v a r i e t y o f m o d i f i c a t i o n s t h a n langue. These c o n c l u s i o n s o f comparative l i n g u i s t i c s c a n be contrasted to the r e m a r k a b l e v a r i e t y of l i t e r a r y themes o n t h e one hand, and the limited s e l e c t i o n of Marchen themes o n t h e o t h e r . T h i s l i m i t a t i o n c a n b e e x p l a i n e d b y t h e c o m m o n a l i t y of n e i t h e r sources, p s y c h e , n o r e x t e r n a l c i reumstances. The o c c u r r e n c e of similar themes i s founded in the g e n e r a l l a w s of p o e t i c composition; and like t h e s t r u c t u r a l r u l e s o f l a n g u a g e , these l a w s a r e more u n i f o r m a n d s t r o n g e r i n t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n to c o l l e c t i v e t h a n to i n d i v i d u a l c r e a t i o n . The next task facing synchronic folkloristics i s the systematic characterization of the a r t forms which c o n s t i t u t e the c u r r e n t repert o i r e of a g i v e n community--village, region, o r ethnic group--taking i n t o account s u c h f a c t o r s as the reciprocal relationship of systematic structures, t h e h i e r a r c h y o f these s t r u c t u r e s , a n d t h e d i f f e r e n c e between p r o d u c t i v e s t r u c t u r e s and those which have lost their productive capacity F o l k l o r e r e p e r t o i r e p r o v i d e s a means o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g n o t o n l y e t h n o g r a p h i c a n d geo g r a p h i c groups, b u t a l s o groups c h a r a c t e r i z e d by sex (male and female folklore), age ( c h i I d r e n , adolescents, o l d p e o p l e ) , a n d occupat ion (herdsmen, fishermen, soldiers, thieves, etc.). To t h e e x t e n t that these o c c u p a t i o n a l g r o u p s m e n t i o n e d c r e a t e f o l k l o r e f o r themsel ves,

these f o l k l o r e c y c l e s may b e compared t o professional jar'gons. But there are also folklore a1 t h o u g h belonging to a repertoires which, p a r t i c u l a r occupational group, a r e directed a t consumers who s t a n d a t some d i s t a n c e f r o m t h e group. I n these i n s t a n c e s t h e c r e a t i o n of o r a l p o e t r y i s one of t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a d e m a r k s of t h e g r o u p . Thus, f o r example, i n a l a r g e p a r t of Russia r e l i g i o u s p o e t r y i s performed almost e x c l u s i v e l y b y t h e k a l i k i perekhozhie, t h e wand e r i n g beggars, who a r e f r e q u e n t I y o r g a n i z e d i n t o s p e c i a l societies. The performance of r e l i g i ous p o e t r y i s one of t h e m a j o r sources of t h e i r l i v e l i h o o d . Between t h i s s o r t of example of t h e complete s e p a r a t i o n of p r o d u c e r a n d consumer, a n d those cases of t h e opposite extreme i n w h i c h n e a r l y t h e e n t i r e community i s a t t h e same time p r o d u c e r a n d consumer ( e . g , p r o v e r b s , anecdotes, Schnaderhupfel , c e r t a i n genres o f b o t h ritual and non-ritual songs) there exists a series of i n t e r m e d i a t e types. W i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r s e t t i n g a g r o u p of t a l e n t e d i n d i v i d u a l s emerges to more o r less monopolize t h e p r o d u c t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r f o l k l o r e genre, such a s t h e Marchen. These i n d i v i d u a l s a r e not p r o f e s s i o n a l s , a n d t h e p r o d u c t i o n of p o e t r y does not c o n s t i t u t e t h e i r c h i e f occupation o r source of income; they a r e r a t h e r amateurs who p u r s u e t h e i r p o e t i c act i v i t i e s d u r i n g t h e i r l e i s u r e time. Here i t i s imp o s s i b l e to e s t a b l i s h a complete i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between p r o d u c e r a n d consumer; b u t n e i t h e r i s there a complete separation. The boundary fluctuates. There a r e people who a r e more o r less Marchen n a r r a t o r s a n d yet, b y t h e same token, a l s o audience; the amateur c r e a t o r j u s t a s e a s i l y becomes a consumer, a n d v i c e v e r s a . Oral poetic creation remains COIIPC~~V even in the cases of separation between p r o d u c e r a n d consumer, except t h a t then t h e coll e c t i v e aspect t a k e s on s p e c i f i c q u a l i t i e s . Here we h a v e a community of producers, a n d "pre-

v e n t i v e censure" i s more independent of the consumer than i f the c r e a t o r a n d consumer a r e identical a n d censure serves the i n t e r e s t s of p r o d u c t i o n a n d consumption to the same degree. Under one c o n d i t i o n o n l y does o r a l p o e t r y b y i t s n a t u r e t r a n s c e n d the bounds of f o l k l o r e a n d cease to b e a c o l l e c t i v e c r e a t i o n : s p e c i f i c a t l y , i n the i n s t a n c e when a w e l l - i n t e g r a t e d cornm u n i t y of p r o f e s s i o n a l s w i t h a s o l i d p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a d i t i o n behaves t o w a r d c e r t a i n poetic c r e a t i o n s w i t h such a p i o u s a t t i t u d e t h a t they attempt a t a l l costs to p r e s e r v e these c r e a t i o n s w i t h n o changes whatsoever. T h a t t h i s i s more o r less possible is demonstrated by a number of historical examples. The vedic hymns were passed down i n the course of the c e n t u r i e s b y the p r i e s t s i n t h i s manner--from mouth to mouth " i n baskets, " a c c o r d i n g to the B u d d h i s t terminology. All efforts were directed toward g u a r d i n g the t e x t s a g a i n s t d i s t o r t i o n - - a goal w h i c h was achieved, a p a r t from i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n n o v a t i o n s . There, where the r o l e of the comm u n i t y consists o n l y of p r e s e r v i n g a corpus o f poetic works elevated to the s t a t u s of i n v i o l a b l e canon, c r e a t i v e censure, i m p r o v i s a t i o n , a n d collect i v e c r e a t i o n cease to e x i s t . As a c o u n t e r p a r t to the m a r g i n a l forms of o r a l p o e t r y we may a l s o mention those of literature. F o r example, the a c t i v i t y of the anonymous a u t h o r s a n d scribes of the M i d d l e Ages, w i t h o u t l e a v i n g t h e domain of l i t e r a t u r e , possessed certain features which brought it closer i n p a r t to o r a l p o e t r y . The s c r i b e , not infrequent1y, t r e a t e d the work w h i c h he c o p i e d as one of a number of m a t e r i a l s a v a i l a b l e f o r h i m to r e w r i t e . B u t however many t r a n s i t i o n a l phenomena may a p p e a r on the b o u n d a r y between i n d i v i d u a l a n d communal c r e a t i o n , we do n o t i n t e n d to f o l l o w the example of the infamous sophist who r a c k e d h i s b r a i n o v e r the question of how many g r a i n s of s a n d must b e removed from a sand p i l e before i t ceases to b e a p i l e .

Between a n y two n e i g h b o r i n g domains of c u l t u r e we may w i s h to choose t h e r e a r e a l w a y s b o r d e r t r a n s i t i o n a l zones. Yet t h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e does not a l l o w u s to deny e i t h e r t h e e x i s t e n c e of two d i s t i n c t types, o r the usefulness o f k e e p i n g them separate. When i n d u e course t h e g a p between f o l k l o r e a n d l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y h a s n a r r o w e d to t h e p o i n t of a l l o w i n g a number of q u e s t i o n s of a genetic n a t u r e t o b e answered, then t h e separat i o n of b o t h d i s c i p l i n e s a n d the r e e s t a b l i s h i n g of the autonomy of f o l k l o r i s t i c s i s l i k e l y t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e f u n c t i o n s o f folklore, a n d t h e d i s c o v e r y of i t s s t r u c t u r a l p r i n c i p l e s a n d special features.

and