Contents of FF Network 19
|
FFSS99, Workshop II The Diversity of Oral Epics: Language and Meaning (FFN 19, March 2000: 13-20)
Group leaders: John Miles Foley (U.S.A.), Lauri Harvilahti (Finland)
Report by the group leaders & Camilla Asplund (Finland), Mehri
Bagheri (Iran), Qubumo Bamo (P.R. China), T. Dharmaraj (India), Mihai
Fifor (Romania), Anneli Honko (Finland), Jouni Hyvönen (Finland),
Djamilya Kurbanova (Turkmenistan), Aaron Tate (U.S.A.) and Senni
Timonen (Finland); with visits and contributions from Paul Hagu
(Estonia), Lauri Honko (Finland), and Dell Hymes (U.S.A.)
From the beginning of our collective work, we have been principally
concerned with two main areas: (1) acquiring a “menu” of approaches
to understanding oral and oral-derived traditional epics, and (2)
demonstrating the inherent diversity of the complex expressive
systems - or registers - within the traditions represented by our
group. We have been very fortunate in this regard to have colleagues
with expertise in the following fields: Altaic, Ancient Greek,
Bangaladeshi, Estonian, Finnish, Mongolian, Native American, Old
English, Persian, Romanian, Setu, South Slavic, Swedish, Tamil, Tulu,
Turkmen, and Yi.
In regard to approaches, we focused chiefly on three schools:
Oral-formulaic theory, Performance theory, and Ethnopoetics. Making
an effort to avoid favoring any single approach, we examined the
advantages and the disadvantages of each, using examples from
various traditions to show how they can be applied. During these
meetings, the discussion was mostly theoretical, as we tried to
understand how the three approaches share some basic lines of
reasoning.
Oral-formulaic theory depends on the concept of what we might call
“big words,” units of expression larger than what we mean by a word
in a text. In many traditions the shortest unit is the whole line or
half-line, corresponding to what Milman Parry and Albert Lord meant
by the “formula”. We also explored the two additional levels of
structure described by Parry and Lord: the “theme” or “typical
scene”, a narrative increment; and the “story-pattern”, a “map” for
the entire epic. We learned how these two researchers used fieldwork
in the former Yugoslavia to prove experimentally that singers employ
such “big words” to compose epics of great length and elaboration
without the aid of writing.
Among the positive aspects of this first approach are its
explanations of heavily repetitive language, of how preliterate
singers could create epic poetry, and of so-called “flaws” in
performances; it provides an emphasis on comparative insights on
structure as well. But there are also problems with this model, which
leaves little or no room for the individual singer or for artistry,
creates a false dichotomy of oral versus written (which is not borne
out in fieldwork, and places limits on comparison because it depends
on a universalized model instead of attending to difference in
traditions, genres, and individuals). Most significantly, it focuses on
composition at the expense of reception. In order to prove truly
useful, Oral-Formulaic Theory must address the spectrum of oral and
oral-derived forms, make room for the individual singer and his or
her art, and consider the idiomatic implications of the traditional
units (as opposed to their literal meanings).
Performance theory was examined chiefly through the writings of
Richard Bauman, who has maintained most basically that performance
is simply part of the meaning. He has stressed that the performer is
effectively saying to the audience: “Take this communication in a
special way; do not understand it only literally.” In order to grasp
this approach in a practical fashion, we discussed what Bauman has
called “keys to performance,” signals that a performer sends in order
to alert his or her audience that the communication will proceed
according to a special code that they share. He lists the following
keys as a partial, suggestive inventory, recognizing that each
tradition will have its own set of signals: special codes (any aspect
of the specialized taletelling language), figurative language (a
greater density than outside of performance), parallelism (the
expressive units lined up like “beads on a string”), special formulae,
appeal to tradition (“Once upon a time...”), disclaimer of performance
(“I can’t tell a joke, but...”), and special paralinguistic codes
(gestures, music, etc.). Invoking any one of these keys - or whatever
signal a given tradition employs - establishes a privileged channel
for communication. One could say that performance implies as much
as it explicitly portrays.
Like any other approach, Performance theory is not without
complications and drawbacks. Not all of the keys translate to texts,
so that this approach has weaknesses when applied to transcriptions
of oral traditions that one can no longer examine in fieldwork. Oral-
derived epics from the ancient and medieval worlds are particularly
hard to address via this theory. We should add that performance-
centered approaches have not produced many usable editions of oral
traditional works. Perhaps the advent of more sophisticated media,
especially hypertext and other digital presentations, will eventually
make performance-centered editions more feasible.
Ethnopoetics was the third approach we explored, and we were
very fortunate to have Dell Hymes as a guest participant while doing
so. It was chiefly through his writings that we examined this theory.
At every point, Ethnopoetics seeks to understand oral traditional
communication from the inside, that is, on its own terms. By
considering the etymology of the term, we saw that the primary
concern is with the poetics of the ethnos (“tribe, ethnic group”). For
that reason, this approach gives priority to internal traditional
categories without making prejudgments. Thus researchers have been
able to expose Western scholars’ very narrow view of poetry, for
instance, illustrating that measures like syllable-count are not
applicable to poetries that depend on organization of lines by breath-
groups. Ethnopoetics pays particular attention to the question of
“What is the unit?” or “What is the pattern?” and does not impose
external, irrelevant criteria from the outside. It maintains that
logical modes of organization are inherent in the form, and will vary
from one tradition and genre to another. We stressed the point that
from this perspective traditional categories are constitutive; that is,
they are meaningful in themselves, and if they are lost a part of the
meaning is lost.
There are of course some dangers associated with Ethnopoetics,
as with the other approaches. For one thing, researchers must be sure
that they have located the truly significant features and organization
of the given performance or transcription. Discovering the actual
structures and strategies of an utterance can be very difficult. Also
potentially dangerous is the overburdening of a text with too many
performance signals for the reader to process all at once. While
inserting cues is of course a laudable practice, texts can only do so
much.
Another perspective on this approach is offered by what Lauri
Harvilahti refers to as “ethnopoetic strategies,” a term he employs
to describe all those features that mark the specialized languages of
epic composition, distinguishing them from ordinary speech. By using
these strategies, the singer designates a channel for the transaction
of epic communication, signalling to the audience that he or she is
intending a particular kind of reception. He also refers to the
“ethnopoetic substrate,” by which he means the features shared
across different epic traditions within the same closely knit
language family and more widely, such as Finnic and Central Asian.
Our group discovered similarities among the North Asian and other
traditions, for example, that can only be explained by the existence of
interrelating epic languages. This larger unity has important
implications for comparative studies.
We also spent some time with a single, unified theory that draws
from the three schools that we examined separately. In brief, it can
be described as consisting of three items in a simple equation:
Register + Performance Arena = Communicative Economy.
A register, or “way of speaking” as Hymes calls it, is a marked
variety of language serving a particular social situation. As such, it
is a specialized language, with specialized rules for composition and
performance. Registers usually differ from everyday “street”
language, often employing archaisms, alternate dialect forms, special
structures or vocabulary, or other eccentric forms. They do their
particular job extremely well, serving the singer and the audience as
a narrowed and focused medium. In order to do that, they sacrifice
the wide variety of applications to which ordinary speech can be put.
The performance arena is the place where bards and their
audiences go to sing and hear oral epic. It is always a particular
place, of course, but more importantly it is a virtual space, within
limits the same virtual space every time. Thus the performance arena
is defined most fundamentally not by geography, but rather by the
action that recurrently takes place there. Effectively, it serves as a
frame that keys performance.
Communicative economy is what results when the participants
use the register within the performance arena. Because all parties
are fluent (in varying degrees) in the specialized language, a great
deal of communication can take place very quickly and economically.
Much of our workshop was devoted to study of the particular
registers or ethnopoetic strategies used by epic singers and their
audiences around the world. We feel very fortunate to have had a
tremendous variety of traditions represented around the table, and
we feel that we all learned a lot about the diversity of expressive
systems in epic and other genres. During our discussions it became
obvious that one of the relevant viewpoints was “transparency of
genre.” In other words, for example, a mythical tale could be
transformed to a lyric epic and still retain the basic features of
structure and diction. Because the amount of information developed
by our group far exceeds the few pages we can present here (as well
as the patience of our own “epic audience” for this report), we have
decided to sample the evidence accumulated and to consign the rest
to the report’s appendix.
Each participant in the group then read the excerpt representing
the copious data he or she contributed to our joint studies.
The Romanian repertoire of epic songs consists of about 330 types of
songs. These are of three general categories: (1) heroic songs, which
account for 50%; (2) “novelistic” songs, another 40%; and (3)
“fantastic” songs, the final 10%. The heroic songs include both hajduk
narratives, which detail the adventures of highwaymen, and stories
about battles against the Turks. The average size of a singer’s
repertoire is from 20 to 45 songs. In the southern area of Romania,
songs run between 200 ad 400 lines in length, while in Timoc and the
northeastern part of Serbia they reach 700 to 900 lines.
Characteristics of the Romanian epic register include formulaic
phraseology, leonine or in-line rhyme, catalectic lines (5-7 instead of
6-8 syllables), acatalectic lines (the reverse process), anaphora,
epiphora, anadiplosis (also known as terracing or pleonasm),
intertextuality, and rhetorical interrogation. Some of these are
traditional features that affect every line and some are intermittent,
but all of them help to create the performance arena by invoking the
poetic tradition.
Let me focus on two of the features more closely. First,
catalectic lines are lines with a verb in final position; they can occur
only if the musical component of the performance allows their
formation. They provide for end-line rhyme by using the past
continuous tense:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A second strategy that distinguishes the Romanian epic register from everyday speech is the use of the possessive dative form to emphasize the high emotional charge of the episode. Here are two examples: Dumnezeu ca mi l-a dat / God gave him to me IVb. Swedish folktales
|
| 20 | Pojastaase miu isooni pojastaase miestä toivoo mutt en tiie mie polonii en tiie polonen piikuu tullookos polon pojastu |
| 25 | laiha linnu lapsoisestu emolle elättäjäini maamon maahan saatajaini. Mie en tiie itsekkään mitä tulloo tehhystääni |
| 30 | kasvaa kannettuisestaini. |
| 20 | My father hoped to see his son hoped to see his son to manhood But poor me, I don’t know But I, poor girl, don’t know if the wretched one’s son |
| 25 | the lean bird’s child will take care of his mother and see her back to the earth. Even I do not know what will become of the one I made |
| 30 | what will emerge of the one I wore. |
Paraske has composed her song using her “idiolect,” her special command of the lyric register of Kalevala poetry - its specialised language and metre - as well as the ability to construct new wholes from independent lyric songs and themes. This particular song is composed of 13 different lyric units. With the aid of the “thick corpus” of 2000 songs, it is possible to see that she uses each of them many times in other co-texts, but never in the same manner or with the same meaning as here.
In China the concept and definition of epic are quite different from the working assumptions of Western scholars. Within the circle of Chinese epic studies, even Chinese folkloristic theories, scholars have usually divided epic songs into three types: (1) Creation epics, (2) Origination epics, and (3) Heroic epics. Until the 1980s, there was a general agreement that heroic epics existed only in the north and northwest of China, including Tibet. However, as the result of further exploration and publication, folklorists have come to realise that epics exist among many Southern ethnic minorities, such as the Naxi, Dai, Dong, Pumi, Zhuang, and Yi.
Yi sacred transcriptions, or scriptures, contain different genres of traditional poetry, such as myths, legends, tales, wedding songs, laments, curses, epics, lyrics, and proverbs. These are fixed texts that are revocalised in oral performance. The Bi-mot, or priest of the native religion in Yi society, is the authentic singer of the epic scripts and ritualised texts.
Yi oral traditions have specialised “ways of speaking” or registers that show many of the same features discovered in other areas. Among these are formulaic structure, typical scenes, anaphora, epiphora, mesodiplosis, terracing, parallelism, and performatives (syllables with no semantic function). Additionally, narrative genealogies follow the traditional form aabb, bbcc, ccdd, and so forth, with the last two elements of the father’s name doubling as the first two elements of the son’s name.
I analyse the textualisation process under three headings: formula- cluster; idiolect and dialect; and themes, schema, and reproduction. The first two of these will be examined here.
First is the dimension of textualisation at the level of formula- clusters. A single formula can head a series of variants of itself. Usually these variations connect together by parallelism or by other semantic means. When formulaic lines activate other lines that are closely related to this formula by structural or other associative ties, accumulation results. These instances of accumulation have been termed “formula-clusters” (Harvilahti 1992), and are relatively common in the charm register. Lönnrot’s textualisation can proceed via combinations of the different variants of the same formulas, extension of the formula-clusters, or contractions of the formula- clusters. Here is an example of combination:
(a: oral, from Archangel Karelia)
Niin sie turvu tuskiisi,
painut pakko päiviisi,
haluisi halkiele
[thus you will swell up in your agonies,
you will be forced into distress
you will split in your desires]
(b: oral, from Archangel Karelia)
itse turvu tuskihisi,
painu pakkopäivihisi,
halu huiki halkieli!
[you yourself swell up in your agonies
you be forced into distress,
you be split in your desires!]
(c: oral, from Ladoga Karelia)
ite turvu tuskiisi,
paisu pakkopäiviisi,
halkia, paha, kaheksi,
konna, kolmeksi muruksi
[you yourself swell up in your agonies,
you swell up in distress,
you split, evil thing, in two,
villain, into three pieces!]
(Old Kalevala 10: 285-288)
Vielä turvut tuskihisi,
Haluisi halkielet,
Halkiat paha kaheksi
Konna kolmeksi muruksi.
[Still you will swell up in your agonies,
you will split in your desires,
you will split, evil thing, in two,
villain, into three pieces.]
The second dimension is idiolect and dialect. Lönnrot could not adapt the textuality of compiled rune-episodes to the system of only one rune-singer. So the textuality of the rune-episode is a compromise between different aspects of variation in the original runes. The charms that Lönnrot used to textualise certain charm-episodes should be seen as a textual corpus unified by semantic and morphosyntactic features. But this raises the question of differences between dialectal and idiolectal aspects of the charm register, because Lönnrot combined charms from different regions sung by many rune-singers. Thus the textual corpus on which he based his textualising varies at both dialectal and idiolectal levels of stability. This varying textuality should be compared with the textuality created by Lönnrot.
I present here a rough sketch of possible traditional rules and other prosodic options, according to N. Poppe, L. Harvilahti, and A. Tate. It consists of four features.
1. Anaphora between adjacent lines, not always required. In other words, sometimes other performance-based or narrative needs, such as the use of a longer two-line formula, override this rule.
2. Mesodiplosis, or the repetition of a lexical unit inside the verse line.
3. Epiphora, the equivalent of anaphora at the end of the line.
4. Blocks, through which material is sometimes organized into flexible clusters, but not fixed.
These features are illustrated in the following passage (anaphora in bold, mesodiplosis in underlining, and epiphora in italics):
Tögrög tögrög ordonduMongol epic can be performed in three ways: singing with musical accompaniment, singing without musical accompaniment, or recitation alone. The meter is neither syllabic nor podic nor entirely stress-based. It varies according to the music, and both vowel lengthening and line-end catalexis occur.
Nogoon oyu nuruutoi
Nomin jörön tulguurtoi
Har dzandan hantai
Ulaan dzandan onitoi
Caasan cagaan deevertei
Cagaan möngön tuuragtai
Tas cagaan oosortoi
Tobci doloon haalagtai, gene
In the round, round palace
With a green jade ceiling
With an emerald coral pillar
With a black sandalwood wall-frame
With a red sandalwood rafter
With a paper-white roof
With white silver panels
With a pure white rope
With seven tightly closed gates - it was told
A draft version of my edition of “The Wedding of Mustajbeg’s Son Becirbeg,” sung for Milman Parry and Albert Lord by the Stolac guslar Halil Bajgoric, was distributed to the members of Workshop II. It contains a facing-page translation of the 1030-line epic song, together with a number of supplements intended to thicken the corpus. When completed, the introduction will cover broad-based issues of context, such as the heroic code, the system of Ottoman Empire government, the history of audiences for Moslem epic, and the role of Parry and Lord’s translator and field interviewer, Nikola Vujnovic. Scholars have paid little attention to Vujnovic as either a co-investigator or transcriber, but the mere fact that he was himself also a singer of tales in the South Slavic tradition demands attention.
There will also be a section on usage, a linguistically based record of archaisms, dialect forms, and other unusual lexical or phonological points that help to mark the poetic register as specialized. Instead of a critical apparatus or apparatus criticus, which text-based scholars use to open up the work they are editing, I will employ an apparatus fabulosus, or story-based apparatus that explains the meaning of traditional elements and structures by reference to occurrences in this performance and others. The edition will also contain discussion of the particular features of the register (metrics, phraseology, typical scenes, story-pattern, and so forth), but will concentrate on the idiomatic implications of these traditional forms or signs. That is, I am just as interested (if not more so) in the referentiality of the traditional register as in its structure.
It appears at this point that my research on oral epic in South Slavic will result in three books: a relatively short edition of “The Wedding of Mustajbeg’s Son Becirbeg,” with the thickened corpus described above; a bilingual anthology of Moslem epic songs from the Stolac area; and a study of the poetics of this consummately traditional art, with references to Homeric and medieval English analogues.