Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Folklore
Institute.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 109.121.60.138 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:04:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MILKO MATICETOV
The
Concept
of
Folklore
in
Yugoslavia
It may seem that the word folklore is not very popular in the terminology
of Yugoslav social science. Officially, however, it does exist. The
"Folklore Section" at the Institute for Ethnography within the Serbian
Academy of Science in Belgrade and other institutes formed in the first
years after the war had the designation "folklore" in their titles. In
Sarajevo in 1947, the Institute for the Study of Folklore (Institut za
proucavanjefolklora) was established, which existed independently until
1958. In Skopje in 1950, the Institute for Folklore (Folkloren institut)
and in 1952 the Society of Music Folklorists of Yugoslavia (Udruzenje
glasbenih folklorista Jugoslavije) were created. The latter society has
broadened in recent years and also changed its name when a great number
of non-musicology-oriented folklore workers joined. Later, folklore
associations were formed within each republic of Yugoslavia and the
coordination of their activities was assumed by the Union of Folklorists
of Yugoslavia (Savez udruzenjafolklorista Jugoslavije)in 1955.1
Nevertheless, we may remark on the rather surprising fact that one
looks in vain for an entry under the word "folklore" in the third volume
of the Encyclopedia of Yugoslavia. There is not even a hint under which
heading the desired information can be found. Such an omission could
not happen merely by chance. The answerlies in the fact that in the decade
after the war the term "folklore" was used to describe indiscriminately
1 To complete the review, the folkloristic section of Glasbena Matica (Folklorni
oddelek GlasbeneMatice) in Ljubljana,active since 1934, became independentafter
the war and has changed its name to the Institute of Ethnomusicology(Glasbeno
narodopisniinstitut). In 1948, the Institute for Folk Art (Institutza narodnuumjetnost)was begun in Zagreb,and the Institutefor Ethnography(Institutza slovensko
establishedwithinthe SlovenianAcademyof Ljubljana.All theseresearch
narodopisje)
programs mentioned devote their activity intensively or almost exclusively to the
study of folklore.
This content downloaded from 109.121.60.138 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:04:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
220
MILKOMATITETOV
This content downloaded from 109.121.60.138 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:04:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
221
This content downloaded from 109.121.60.138 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:04:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222
MILKOMATICETOV
This content downloaded from 109.121.60.138 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:04:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
223
Folklore," Professor B. Rusic of Skoplje could not help but state that in
Yugoslavia "greatinequality had prevailedboth in definingthe conception
of folklore and in the extent of the folklorists' work. It could be said
that the scientists of each people in Yugoslavia had their own particular
opinion of folklore, frequently varying from the broadest to the narrowest
meaning and extent."5 This inequality is, of course, not a Yugoslav
peculiarity. It suffices,for example, to open Funk and Wagnall's Standard
Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend (1949) and to look up
the entry "Folklore" to see how strongly scholarly views of that term
differ in the world. According to Dr. Rusic, "folklore" ought to keep
the meaning of "people's tradition" out of respect to W. J. Thoms,
who in 1846 gave this branch of knowledge its name. Besides, "it ought
to embrace part of that popular spiritual creativeness which is a product
of human fantasy, in other words the entire popular knowledge and art
including all sorts of oral folk literature. Hence folklorists ought to be
the investigators of this folk art." After recommending caution with
regard to the use of the word and meaning of folklore and its derivatives
lest it should throw unsophisticated persons, incapable of using them
properly, into confusion, Rusic says: "The words 'folklore' and 'folklorist' will be correctly understood and used only with regard to this
clearly explained meaning of folk art, its field, and that which deals
with it."6
Finally, Rusic raises the question as to where the scientific study of
folklore is to be placed among the branches of knowledge. He says:
"In some countries the folklorists think that the study of folklore has
become independent enough today to make it a completely separate
science, sometimes called 'folkloristics'; yet most of the scientists, both
within and without the ranks of folklorists, decidedly hold this study to
be just a small part of the broader science of ethnology. There is another
view, which regards folklore as part of literary studies." The way in
which Rusic has presented the three different opinions already shows
his endorsement: he sides with the majority, comprising both folklorists
and scientists "outside their ranks" (i.e., ethnologists), and - quite logically - he continues: "It is completely correct to regard folklore as part
of ethnology, and to say that their interrelations will always remain
5 B. Rusic, "Odredba pojma folklor," Radkongresafolklorista Jugoslavije u Varazdinu
1957 (Zagreb, 1959), pp. 271-273.
6 Rusi6, p. 273.
This content downloaded from 109.121.60.138 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:04:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
224
MILKOMATICETOV
within this frame, for ethnology and folklore are like mother and child."7
It is this comparison that sets one thinking. Is it not a well-known fact
that children, when grown up; become emancipated? Rusic emphatically
lays down the rule: "Thereforeevery folklorist ought to start from ethnology, or to penetrate deeply into it, into its subject and method, with the
view of more successfully achieving his task thereby." (Why? Because
ethnology and folklore are "like mother and child"?) I agree that deepened knowledge of the subject and method of any field may be highly
useful. Nevertheless, in this connection let me take the liberty to point
out just one striking example from the history of our science. Kaarle
Krohn, one of the founders of the outstanding "Finnish School," has
come from the history of literature, and reaches the conclusion that for
the study of the popular art of words a particular method is required,
which he has explained in his book Die folkloristische Arbeitsmethode
(Oslo, 1926). On this occasion I feel justified in returning to the childand-mother question. Who is "the mother" in this case?
The main (if not only) common denominator with ethnography
(ethnology), folklore, or other investigations of folk culture, is the subject
of these investigations: various phenomena of folk life. In methods used
we are already diverging according to the specific properties of any given
branch, and that is in no way abnormal, let alone harmful. When investigating the folklore of the figurative arts, our approaches are likely to
be quite different from those used when doing research in musical,
religious, and mythological folklore. When illuminating oral literature
("folklore" in the narrower, Russian meaning), we will benefit more
from literary-historical,literary-aesthetic,psychological, sociological, and
other approaches, although, of course, not neglecting ethnography
(ethnology). The wisdom of folklore science rests upon combining
folklore and ethnology in proportion, not proclaiming either to be the
only saving discipline. In this way folklore uses the achievements of all
related branches, yet remains properly equidistant, and maintains its
autonomy.
Sergij Vilfan contributed an interesting report on the so-called folklore
juridique to the Congress at Varazdin, and said, among other things:
"So far we have refrained from making a final choice among the several
terms (ethnology, ethnography, narodopisje,folklore, Volkskunde),and
we use them freely, as if they were customary in a given context. From
7
Ibid.
This content downloaded from 109.121.60.138 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:04:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
225
8
SergijVilfan,"Pravnafolkloristika - etnografija- etnologija?"Rad kongresa
folklorista Jugoslavijeu Varafdinu1957 (Zagreb, 1959), p. 278.
9 Vilfan,p. 280.
0 Dusan Nedeljkovic,"Problemnarodnogstvaralastva
danas,"Narodnostvarala-
This content downloaded from 109.121.60.138 on Fri, 23 Oct 2015 08:04:53 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions