Theories of borrowing. theory of wandering and wandering plots in

Itinerant Families Some families constantly move from place to place - for example, ghetto families who go into hiding when their rent arrears become too large, or families of large corporation employees who are constantly transferred from

Chapter 11 Stray Swallows

Chapter 11 Stray Swallows Boys at the North Korean Market At the Chongjin station, Mrs. Song probably met a boy dressed in blue factory overalls, which was so big for him that his fly hung somewhere at knee level. In tangled hair

In the 50-70s. XIX century a scientific direction arose - the theory of borrowing (the theory of migrations; the theory of wandering plots). Its supporters pointed out the amazing similarity of many folklore works between the peoples of the West and the East (including unrelated ones), which they explained by direct or indirect borrowing, spread from one or several centers. Representatives of the borrowing school raised the question of cultural and historical ties between peoples and drew on extensive multilingual material. This was facilitated by European research into the countries of the Middle East, and in Russia by the development of Turkic and Mongolian studies.

The theory of borrowing has had a particularly strong influence on the study of fairy tales. Its founder, the German orientalist T. Benfey, published a collection in 1859 Indian fairy tales and parables "Panchatantra" ("Pentateuch"). In a long preface, Benfey noted the close similarity fairy tales in world folklore and using the example of the fate of the collection "Panchatantra" revealed a picture of the cultural influence of the East on the European West.

The collection "Panchatantra" was created in India in the 3rd-4th centuries. AD, its lists reached us no earlier than the 5th century. This book was compiled by the brahmana (sage) Vishnusharman to “awaken the minds” of the three sons of King Amarashakti. He used stories folk tales and divided the book into five sections: “The separation of friends,” “The acquisition of friends,” “Of crows and owls,” “The loss of spoils,” “Reckless actions.”

To this day, there are over 200 adaptations of the Panchatantra, translated into more than 60 languages. They are found in Malaya, Indonesia, Siam and other countries.

India was declared a land of fairy tales, and the theory of borrowing gained numerous followers, including in Russia. However, Russian science approached this theory quite independently.

Even V. G. Belinsky in 1841, dividing Russian fairy tales into two types (heroic and satirical), emphasized: “The first are often striking by their foreign origin; they flew to us from both the East and the West.<...>In fairy tales of Western origin, a knightly character is noticeable, in fairy tales of Eastern origin - a fantastic one."

Regardless of Benfey, the formation of a school of borrowing in Russia began with the work of A. N. Pypin “Essay literary history ancient stories and Russian fairy tales." Pypin was the first to specifically show the extensive connections of Russian verbal culture, mainly written, with the East and West. He was interested in the interaction of art with the spiritual life of society as a whole; the researcher called his method “socio-historical.”

The concept of T. Benfey had a direct influence on the extensive article by critic V.V. Stasov entitled “The Origin of Russian Bylinas.” It was written with journalistic fervor. Stasov argued that the plots of Russian epics and even the images of heroes were borrowed and came from the East. The author questioned the degree of originality of Russian national culture as a whole. He needed this as a liberal Westerner in the fight against the Slavophiles.

A heated discussion arose, in which many scientists joined: F. I. Buslaev, O. F. Miller, P. A. Bessonov, V. F. Miller, A. N. Veselovsky. Everything was revealed in Stasov’s speech vulnerabilities new theory. It turned out that it cannot exist “in its pure form,” because it must take into account the national and specific historical context.

It was in this direction that the prominent Russian philologist A. N. Veselovsky developed the theory of migration. He emphasized that the condition for borrowing is the typological universalism of world cultural development. Veselovsky enriched migration theory. He formulated a position about the so-called “counter currents” that arise due to the similarity of the “foundations” of literary or folklore works of different ethnic groups: “When explaining the similarity of myths, fairy tales, epic stories among different peoples, researchers usually diverge in two opposite directions: the similarity is either explained from the general foundations to which similar legends are supposedly traced, or by the hypothesis that one of them borrowed its content from the other. In essence, none of these theories is applicable separately, and they are only conceivable together, for borrowing presupposes something not empty in the perceiver. place, and countercurrents, a similar direction of thinking, analogous images of fantasy. The theory of “borrowing” thus evokes the theory of “foundations”, and vice versa...”

Veselovsky revealed the picture of cultural connections between Russian oral poetry and written literature with countries of the East and West. He wrote several major works about this: “Slavic legends about Solomon and Kitovras and Western legends about Morolf and Merlin” (1872), “Experiments on the history of the development of Christian legend” (1875-1877), “Research in the field of Russian spiritual poetry” ( 1879-1891), “From the history of the novel and story” (1886-1888), etc. He believed that cultural contacts between peoples contributed to social progress and the development of those reflecting it artistic forms: “If one of the folk-cultural spheres that came into collision was ahead of the other in understanding life and setting ideals and, on a par with them, developed a new schematism of poetic expression, it has a contagious effect on a more backward environment: along with the ideal content, the plot that expresses it is also assimilated.”

Veselovsky’s methodology was based on comparative analysis, which had long dominated science. However, the method used by the mythological school was felt by Veselovsky to be insufficient. The scientist contrasted him with a method that required explaining a life phenomenon primarily from the real time in which this phenomenon exists. Veselovsky’s thought about the everyday foundations of poetry is important: “... A good literary historian must also be a historian of everyday life. Tell me how the people lived, and I will tell you how they wrote...”

In 1899, the idea of ​​Veselovsky’s main theoretical work, “Historical Poetics,” arose. By historical poetics, the scientist meant “the history of social thought in figurative and poetic experience and the forms expressing it”; "the evolution of poetic consciousness and its forms." The chaotic picture of the general history of literature had to come to a harmonious generalizing scheme, which would reflect the objective processes of development of content and form. In Veselovsky’s interpretation, the literary process for the first time appeared as a natural-historical one.

The idea of ​​"Historical Poetics" was not, and could not be, fully realized. The scientist wrote three chapters in which he explored the problem of the origin of poetry and its genera, the poetics of plots and the origin of figurative means that create a poetic style. "Three Chapters from Historical Poetics" is a valuable contribution to the theory of folklore.

The borrowing theory found many followers in Russia (G.N. Potanin, A.I. Kirpichnikov, M.G. Khalansky, partly F.I. Buslaev, V.F. Miller, etc.).

In Western European science, this theory sometimes received formalistic development. This is the historical-geographical method, which was developed by Finnish scientists J. Kron, K. Kron and A. Aarne. The study of folklore works included chronological diagrams and geographic Maps with the migration paths of these works indicated on them. This method was not adopted in Russian folkloristics, but the cataloging of fairy tales developed by the Finnish school gained international application (including in Russia). Based on its principles, a Russian and then an East Slavic index was compiled.

"Pointer fairy tale types"compiled by A. Aarne (published in 1910). Aarne based his systematization on fairy tales European peoples. In the "Index" they are divided into the following groups:

I. Tales about animals.

II. Fairy tales themselves, which include:

A. Fairy tales,

V. Legendary tales,

S. Novella fairy tales,

D. Tales about the stupid devil (giant).

Within these groups, fairy tales are combined into nests according to a thematic principle. Each fairy tale (as a complete story, and in some cases as a characteristic episode) has a serial number. At the same time, gaps are left for introducing new subjects.

In 1928, the American folklorist S. Thompson, together with Aarne, based on the previous one, created a multinational consolidated “Index of Fairy Tale Plots”, which was repeatedly republished with additions and clarifications; it entered world folklore as an Aarne-Thompson index. In 1929, N.P. Andreev translated Aarne's index into Russian with adaptation to Russian materials (additions were made based on Russian folklore collections). In 1979, the Comparative Index of Plots of East Slavic Fairy Tales (abbreviated as SUS), prepared by the team of authors, was published. It is based on international principles Aarne-Thompson index.

In order to highlight the necessary research functions and methods of using the wandering plot in the process of political communication, it is necessary, first of all, to consider in detail the evolution of the term “wandering plot” (sometimes also called “wandering plot” by literary theorists). This needs to be done as carefully as possible, since a step-by-step examination of how the theory developed will allow us not only to better define the essence of the term itself, but also to consider what concepts and definitions are inextricably linked with it, how the “wandering plot” interacts with other terms and theories. In addition, observing the step-by-step development of the theory will help in the future in determining the functions of the wandering plot, and will also allow us to make some considerations regarding the mechanism and patterns of using this technique.

Before talking directly about the emergence of the theory, it is worth noting the fact that the plot as such has come to the attention of thinkers since antiquity. It was the plot that was one of the elements that Aristotle considered in his Poetics. Aristotle operated with the concept of “fable,” clarifying in his work “I call a combination of events a fable,” Aristotle Poetics. Thus, Aristotle was the first to point out the possibility that some combinations of events can be distinguished as separate constructs. It is also important to make a remark here, which will be very useful for further work, that it was the plot that Aristotle considered the most important element of any work. Aristotle’s logic in this matter was as follows: since the essence of poetic creativity is imitation, and the plot is the main tool for reproducing the action in any work of dramatic art (this is what Aristotle considers in this chapter of his “Poetics”), then the plot is the most important and the most important element of the work. Aristotle once again emphasizes this idea in the words “the creator must be more a creator of plots than of meters..” Aristotle Decree. Op. . Characters for Aristotle are secondary, since characters are also recognized through the actions of the heroes, which are contained in the plot. In addition, as Aristotle notes, “without action, tragedy is impossible, but without characters it is possible” Ibid. Explaining this idea, the philosopher says that many tragedies do not depict individual characters, but depict actions.

Aristotle explains the very need for poetic creativity for two reasons: 1) people tend to imitate; 2) they find pleasure in watching imitation, since they see in this action an opportunity to learn something new. In the same chapter, Aristotle notes that some poets (Epicharmus and Formides) began to compose comic plots, while Crates began to compose plots of a general nature.

Thus, although we do not have a direct phrase from Aristotle, which would clearly make it clear that the compilation of well-established constructions in art from a sequence of actions was practiced everywhere, nevertheless, we can judge that such constructions existed. Aristotle himself points out that the creator should draw inspiration from the stories of famous families, although in this case he has quite few sources for tragedy - for this reason, many poets turn to the same plots. It is also impossible to distort significant details of the plot: “myths preserved by tradition cannot be changed.<...>The poet must find the appropriate one and skillfully use the tradition.” Ibid. And finally, Aristotle makes the following remark, important for this work: “At first the poets moved from one random plot (italics mine - Yu.Ch.) to another, and now the best tragedies depict the fate of a few families, for example, Alcmeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus and others...” Aristotle Decree. Op..

Thus, we can judge what is already in ancient Greece there were prerequisites for a single body of legends and sources of plots, which, according to Aristotle, evoke the same and strongest feelings in all viewers or readers, such as the story of Oedipus. However, after the era of antiquity, plots were forgotten for a long time, returning to the consideration of this element only in the 19th century, when the theory of “wandering plots” began to emerge, which gave rise to the term necessary for our research.

It was at the beginning of the 19th century that the observation was developed that some plots, motifs, poetic images and symbols are often repeated in folklore and literature, despite the difference in cultures and the distance that often separates peoples and makes any “transmission” of such plots impossible from the bearers of one culture to the bearers of another. Goethe was one of the first who, in 1825, in the wake of romanticism, pointed out the “psychological parallelism” of some images, speaking, in particular, about the “folk origin” of Serbian songs. The very movement of romanticism, which was based not only on folk legends and songs, but also often based on motifs borrowed from other cultures, served as the impetus for the first steps in the development of the theory of “wandering plots”, since the romantics could not help but notice that the cross-culturality of some elements often allows completely different images and plots to take root in an environment completely alien to them. Just two years after his first remark, Goethe said in a letter to Eckermann: “National literature now means little, the era of world literature is coming, and everyone must contribute to its speedy advent.” Quote. According to Veselovsky A.N. Historical poetics. M., 1989. P. 308. Thus, in the first half of the 19th century, the beginning was made of the separation of two concepts: world literature as a complex literary phenomena world significance and universal literature as the sum of national literatures. Ibid. P. 308. Simultaneously with the theoretical understanding of the phenomenon, some poets began to make attempts to define a list of “fundamental plots” that would list all possible plots for one type of creativity or another. For example, the list of plots was compiled by Schiller and Gozzi, who tried to derive “fundamental plots” for the drama. Ibid. P. 300. A little later (in 1895), a list of 36 plots to which all can be reduced also became famous. famous plays, compiled by the French writer and literary critic Georges Polti. Unsuccessful attempts to supplement this list with new situations prove the correctness of the fundamental classification of “vagrant” plots for the drama by Lunacharsky A.V. Thirty-six stories // magazine "Theater and Art", 1912, No. 34. / .

It is worth noting that the described work at this stage did not come down to understanding the root causes and origins of the phenomenon, but only to compiling an exhaustive list of “fundamental” subjects that would make it possible to identify the patterns of all already written works of art, regardless of their place of origin - and also have ready-made tools on hand for further creativity. Clear ordering literary works according to the developed closed list, it became one of the ideas that later fueled literary studies, giving rise to the so-called “Finnish school”, which will be discussed a little later.

Thus, on early stage During their development, ideas about the relationship of images were closely related to issues of the emergence and development of various genres of literature: from drama to poetry. In addition, these ideas were originally not among literary researchers, but among those who were the direct creators of works of art - poets and writers. Apparently, this is precisely what was associated with the shift in focus to purely practical use and the search for a list of subjects - a kind of “ philosopher's stone", which would give any creator ready set situations for new works. When scientists took up the issue of “wandering” of plots, they began to explore the reasons why certain symbols and images arose in literature and became “worldwide.” The study of “wandering plots” gave rise to several main theories, which sometimes came to contradict each other.

Among the founders of the theory of wandering plots are the German philologists the Brothers Grimm, who collected and systematized tales of the German principalities. The followers of the Brothers Grimm, called mythologists, came to the idea that the soil for the birth of poetry was pagan (namely, Aryan and ancient Germanic) mythology and that all modern plots can in one way or another be reduced to proto-plots, just as all the languages ​​of the world can be reduced to several proto-languages. Theodore Benfey (1809-1881) fundamentally disagreed with them, who, after publishing the Panchatantra he analyzed, made an assumption about the Indian origin of most of the fundamental motifs of the whole world. He, thus, denied mythologists the Aryan root of all known plots, explaining the similarity not so much by a common prehistoric ancestor, but by the migration of plots “from century to century and from region to region” Veselovsky A.N. Historical poetics. M., 1989. P. 12. The thoughts developed by Benfey’s followers led to the emergence of a theory that began to be called “migration” Veselovsky A.N. Decree. Op. P. 12. In some scientific works, another formulation is also found - “borrowing theory”.

In parallel with the research of philologists, representatives of another science, anthropology, also contributed to the theory. It was anthropologists, among whom it is especially worth highlighting the representative of comparative ethnography E. Taylor, who conducted a number of studies of the life of primitive peoples, which made it possible to replace vague thoughts about the “folk spirit” with a more significant observation that similar living conditions gave rise to similar psychic reflections, which can explain the uniformity and repetition of many myths, legends and fairy tales. Right there. pp. 12-13 It can be considered that it was then that the first prerequisites for the idea of ​​the “spontaneous generation” of certain subjects appeared, the basis for which was provided by the very life of the people. This significantly complicated the theory of plot wandering, giving such important representatives, like the Russian academician Alexander Veselovsky, who will be discussed later, and his followers have rich material for thoughts and conclusions. Among anthropological researchers, it is also worth highlighting James Frazer and his work “The Golden Bough”, which can be called the first significant attempt to find out the underlying reasons for the emergence of many rituals and images, as well as to search for parallels between the realities of life and the myths of ancient peoples. Despite the fact that already in the 20th century Frazer’s work was subject to significant criticism, it cannot be denied that for its time it was a very useful work that presented a lot of materials, which also helped in the development of the theory of “plot wandering.”

As noted earlier, among those who made the most significant contribution to the development of the theory, it is necessary to mention the followers of the Finnish school, led by the literary critic Antti Aarne. Scientists of this school were engaged in the categorization and classification of wandering plots in fairy tales of the peoples of the world. The fruit of their research was one of the most famous collections of indexes of plots of folklore works according to the Aarne system. In 1928, Vladimir Propp wrote in his book “Historical Roots fairy tale": "The works of this school represent at present the pinnacle of fairy-tale study." The principle of work of representatives of this school was to obtain and compare variants of individual plots according to their worldwide distribution, grouping the material according to geo-ethnographic criteria according to a system developed for this, in order to then draw conclusions about the basic structure, distribution and origin of the plots. Later, the Finnish school was also criticized by many scientists, among whom was Vladimir Propp, who paid tribute to them, but the essence of the researchers’ claims will have to be written later, since they already relate to a new stage in the genesis of the theory. For now, it is only worth noting that Aarne’s followers made a significant contribution to folklore, and Aarne’s index of plots is still taken as the basis for the creation of later classifications of folklore plots, including for the Index of plots for East Slavic fairy tales by N.P. Andreev, as well as “Index of Fairy-tale Types” by Stith Thompson.

In Russia, the founder of the theory of wandering plots should be considered academician Alexander Veselovsky, who became the founder of such directions in literary criticism as historical poetics and comparative literature. It is worth noting that Alexander Veselovsky largely accepted both the ideas of the mythologists and the theories of Benfey, since the period of his studies coincided with heated debates between representatives of these two movements. However, Veselovsky could not completely agree with either theory. Accepting only some of the postulates of mythologists, Veselovsky agreed with the folk roots of poetry about the origin of literature from pagan mythology, but he could not accept the postulates about the general Aryan origin of all legends. The last hypothesis contradicted the scientist’s ideas that literature is only a reflection of successive eras, and also could not get along with other theories of the cultural-historical school, the follower of which Veselovsky was O.M. Fraidenberg. Poetics of plot and genre. M., 1997. P. 20. The academician partly accepted Benfey’s theories about the migration of plots, but could not agree with the fact that Benfey ignored the best conjectures of the school of mythologists. It seemed to Veselovsky that these two fundamental ideas not only should they not oppose each other, but “even necessarily complement each other, they should go hand in hand..<…>..that an attempt at mythological exegesis should begin when all accounts with history are already settled” Veselovsky A.N. Historical poetics. M., 1989. P. 16. Thus, Veselovsky gave the development of a separate category of literary criticism, called historical poetics, which studied historical and cultural patterns that influence the creation of a work.

It is worth noting that the plot and plot scheme were particularly highlighted by Veselovsky - in fact, he brought plot structures into a separate category of study. It was at the instigation of Veselovsky that the term “wandering plot” itself appeared in Russian literary criticism, which, according to Veselovsky, is a complex complex of originally given motives and which, due to this complexity, can rather be attributed to borrowed elements than to those originally developed. In the comparative study of works, Veselovsky considered the motif to be indecomposable - that is, this element could, in its entirety, migrate from one scheme to another, being a component of more complex structures. Subsequently, it was this idea of ​​Veselovsky about the “indecomposability” of motives that caused criticism of the scientist’s ideas, which will be discussed below. However, if you follow the logic set out by Tomashevsky, one of Veselovsky’s followers, this question was not principled. Tomashevsky pointed out: “In comparative poetics, it does not matter whether they can be decomposed into smaller motives. The only important thing is that within the given genre being studied, these “motifs” are always found in their entirety. Consequently, instead of the word “decomposable” in comparative study, one can speak of something that is historically non-decomposable, preserving its unity in wandering from work to work.” Cit. according to Veselovsky A.N. Historical poetics. M., 1989. S. 400-401.

However, with the advent of the 20th century, the focus of attention in literary criticism shifted again - there was a turn from the joint study of a complex of literatures to the study of the characteristics of a particular national literature. In the minds of philologists there was no longer a single understanding of literature, and the complex of works of art began to be divided into different components. As a result, myths, legends and fairy tales, and with them “wandering stories,” became the subject of study mainly for researchers of folk art, therefore, among Veselovsky’s followers who were influenced by his ideas, one can name such folklorists as Vladimir Propp, Eleazar Meletinsky and Olga Freidenberg, who will be discussed later. Further diversification of literary studies and the isolation of theories led to the fact that the theory of wandering plots itself began to be reduced to the study of “individual, often random literary contacts,” which essentially constituted Theodore Benfey’s theory of borrowing. However, this direction also received its development within the framework of literary studies, and over time grew into a separate movement, the purpose of which was to search and explain literary connections in works that were in no way related to folklore. This movement was called “literary compartivism.” Among the communists, Alexander Veselovsky's brother, Alexey Veselovsky, made a great contribution. It is also worth noting the work of the remarkable Soviet compartivist Viktor Zhirmunsky, who in many ways became the second teacher of the younger generation of philologists. It is useful to analyze some of Zhirmunsky’s conclusions within the framework of this study.

After the formation of the USSR and the general reorientation, criticism of the postulates and achievements of “bourgeois science” began to appear quite often in the works of Soviet folklorists. The primacy of the thoughts expressed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in all sciences led Soviet folklore studies and researchers who paid attention to the study of plots to the idea of ​​the social and historical premises of their origin, and, consequently, to their social interpretation. Thus, Vladimir Propp looked for the roots of the fairy tale, considering the forms of production during its inception. Propp V.Ya. Historical roots of fairy tales. 1998., and Olga Freidenberg spoke about the difference between the consciousness of pre-class and class society Freidenberg O.M. Myth and literature of antiquity. Ekaterinburg, 2008. pp. 36-37, while the compartivist Viktor Zhirmunsky explained by the common social structure and structure not only the emergence of plots, but also the reasons why this or that plot is borrowed by one people from another Zhirmunsky V.M. Comparative Literature. L., 1979. S. 20-23. Attention to issues of the evolution of consciousness, which entails the evolution of ideas about the world and the mythological plots reflecting these ideas, ultimately led Soviet philologists to the so-called “genetic” approach to the study of literature. Below we will look in more detail at the views of each of these prominent researchers to better understand how understanding of the essence of the wandering plot and its roots has changed.

First of all, it is worth paying attention to the contribution made to the development of ideas about plots by the Soviet folklorist Vladimir Propp. The influence of this researcher is all the greater because he subjected the most significant criticism not only to Veselovsky, but also to many other developments of various schools of folklore. For example, he examined in detail the research carried out by representatives of the Finnish school, and made many comments on this matter. The most important among his amendments was the following: representatives of the Finnish school did not take into account, according to Propp, the obvious fact that the plots of fairy tales are closely related to each other, and it is often very difficult and difficult to determine where one plot ends with its variants and where another begins. is possible only after “inter-plot study of fairy tales and precise fixation of the principle of selection of plots and options” Propp V.Ya. Morphology of a fairy tale. 1998. . In addition, the Finnish school forgets about the potential transferability of some elements from fairy tale to fairy tale. “The works of this school are based on the unconscious premise that each plot is something organically integral, that it can be snatched from a number of other plots and studied independently” Ibid. This same “integrity” (or, more precisely, “indecomposability”) became the reason why Propp criticized his predecessor, Alexander Veselovsky. The Soviet folklorist noted in his work that the studies done before him, although they provided rich material, were completely unsuitable for the current state and study of fairy tales. Reason unsuccessful attempts classification and compilation of a list of fairy tale plots Propp saw that these lists and classifications were not derived on the basis of available material, but were introduced from above, contrived. Propp especially emphasizes that “..the entire classification of fairy tales should be put on a new basis” Ibid. For this reason, he began to develop a fundamentally new approach, based on considerations of “socialist science.” The approach was to look for an explanation of fairy tales in forms of reproduction and social institutions ancient peoples, which are directly reflected in fairy-tale texts. However, Propp recognized that not all features of a fairy tale can be explained in this way, therefore, as a supplement, he proposed the study of the rituals and rites of ancient societies, which could also leave their mark on the fairy-tale “canon.” This is what his work “Historical Roots of a Fairy Tale” is dedicated to. The researcher examined the plots, which Propp also paid attention to, from a fundamentally new point of view, rejecting old theories about the “wandering” of fairy tales and their transition from culture to culture, which would explain their similarities in different parts of the world. In his work, the researcher writes: “All questions of fairy tale study should ultimately lead to the resolution of the most important, still unresolved problem - the problem of the similarity of fairy tales around the globe.<...>this similarity cannot be explained if we have incorrect ideas about the nature of this similarity” Propp V.Ya. Decree. Op. .

Propp's new theory allowed him to analyze rich empirical material from a qualitatively new point of view. An important conclusion of the researcher about the evolution of motives and plots, which should be noted within the framework of this work, was that plots could be modified to explain rituals that had lost their force, that is, contribute to a change in rituals in society. Propp examines this situation using the example of the motive of the hero’s rescue of a beauty who was destined to be sacrificed to a monster (a well-known example of such a motive is the myth of Perseus). An important function of stories is that it was through changing the myth that early society overcame the feeling of possible cognitive dissonance from the fact that a previously revered custom was no longer observed. However, as Propp himself noted, old rite did not “die”, i.e. did not disappear without a trace, it only changed as the rationalization of society took place. In preserving the memory of old rituals, as we can judge, myths also played an important role, passing on stories about such rituals from generation to generation. The plot describing this ritual becomes the backbone of the stories, which change as the realities prevail in society. Thus, we can see that a new important turn has taken place in the understanding of “wandering plots.”

Even more significant in this regard were the works of the Soviet philologist Olga Freidenberg, who agreed with Propp’s ideas and made her contribution to their development. As part of this study, it is necessary to consider three of her works, in which an important part is devoted specifically to plots and their evolution: “Myth and Literature of Antiquity”, “Poetics of Plot and Genre”, as well as the article “System literary plot».

Freudenberg, like Propp, decisively rejected both the developments of mythologists and the theory of borrowing, briefly analyzing these schools in the first chapters of “The Poetics of Plot and Genre.” The main drawback of mythologists, which the researcher highlighted, was that they viewed myth as a product of folk art, and not as “a universal and only possible form of perception of the world at a certain stage of development of society” Freidenberg O.M. Poetics of plot and genre. M., 1997. P. 17, while any poetic forms and expressions were only fragments of this myth. The conclusions that the researcher made became fundamental for a new stage in considering the issue of plotting: Freudenberg writes about image-creativity as one of the integral functions of primitive consciousness, which thus developed its own ideas about the world. In this matter, Frydenberg supports Propp's ideas about the continuity of plots due to the fact that they perform in the mind the function of accepting old experience and moving towards new experience. Thus, primitive culture naturally relied on previous experience: “We are talking about a natural state of primitive consciousness, which does not yet know how to overcome what has been passed. It is thanks to this law that a whole diverse system of myth, plot, mythical character and everything that will later be reflected in the cult is created: the trampling of the same motives, connected to each other without cause-and-effect threads, differing only in stages” Freidenberg O.M. Decree. Op. P. 34. Thus, the evolution of literature and its elements, among which plot and genre play an important role, occurs “in the clash and struggle of two social ideologies, of which the old, defeated, remains a component of the new” Ibid. P. 49. Thus, the constant processing of worldview leads to the fact that the “semantic code” developed by the first human society lost its meaning when social conditions changed original meaning. This, however, was not a reason to discard it - all subsequent experience was superimposed on this initial meaning, changing it. As a result of this process, the original meaning turned over time into the value of culture, to characterize which Frydenberg selects a very successful and important for our study definition of “spiritual equipment” Ibid. P. 13. At the same time, the researcher makes a significant clarification that it was this “inventory” that was later used for the purposes of a new ideology and a new culture.

Here is a fairly accurate description of this process: given by Olga Freudenberg: “The former concrete meaning is abstracted from its significance, remaining a bare structure and scheme; it is taken for a new ideological need, and taken in certain doses, adapting it to new specific goals. But the accuracy and strict extremeness of these goals are no longer immune to the identical semantic permeation within the scheme itself” Freidenberg O.M. Decree. Op. P. 13. The concept itself "semantic permeation", indicating its different degrees, can be very useful within the framework of this study for determining the plots and motives we need based on this criterion, but for this we first need to compare this concept with the theories of the collective unconscious of Carl Gustav Jung, which will be discussed later.

In addition, it is important to note on the pages of the study the fact that in his work “The Poetics of Plot and Genre” Freudenberg repeatedly refers to the provisions of Emile Durkheim, agreeing with his thoughts about the primacy of the collective principle in the formation of archaic forms of consciousness. Durkheim himself, as Freudenberg noted, often emphasized the role of the public as a creator cultural forms and values, which resonates with theories about the collective unconscious.

Even more revealing in this regard are Freudenberg’s statements, which can be read in her article “The Literary Plot System.” The “genetic” approach we mentioned earlier can be seen here in its most striking manifestation. Here are just a few particularly revealing quotes that explain the researcher’s logic:

• 1) “The plot is a condensed summary of the presentation. As one of the forms that convey representation, the plot is genetically homogeneous to its other forms: word, image, effectiveness, etc.” Freidenberg O.M. Literary plot system // Montazh. Literature, Art, Theater, Cinema. M., 1988, p. 216-236. ;
• 2) “As soon as the plot acquires a verbal character, it emerges from the depths of the hidden imagery of representation into independent literary imagery” Ibid (i.e., according to Freudenberg, it becomes from a “fact”, something generated due to its cause, “ factor" - that creative principle that can give rise to other designs);
• 3) “In each plot there is only one scheme. One scheme can contain any number of motives.<...>

Finally, Freudenberg further unquestioningly postulates the idea that the original ideas were based on genomorphism, that is, on the uniformity of the heavenly, earthly and human. It followed from this that some diverse phenomena could be expressed using the same plot. Thus, one plot could have a certain, sometimes quite large, number of different interpretations - from physical phenomena (for example, an explanation of thunder or natural disasters) to processes in human soul and body. This idea leads Freudenberg to one of the most important conclusions within the framework of our research, that “the nature of the origin of the plot lies deeper than similarities and analogies” Ibid. In this case, only those plots can be considered “similar”, the coincidence of which is observed not only at the level of plot schemes, but also at the level of terminology of motive interpretations, as well as at the level of the focus of consideration of what is happening (as examples of such focuses, “etiologies”, Freudenberg cites religious, moral, geographical, etc.). If all these three elements are the same, then, according to Freudenberg’s theory, the following conclusion can be drawn: “Such analogies in the environment of one literature constitute a plot stencil and in the environment of different literatures - replantation.” Ibid. The biological term “replantation” in this case interests us to the greatest extent, since it is, in essence, precisely “migration,” albeit systematic, and not spontaneous, from one culture to another. Thus, despite the strong criticism of the theories of the Benfey school, Freudenberg, nevertheless, could not help but recognize the fact that in some cases the borrowing and “nomadization” of the plot takes place, although this process had previously been overestimated by her predecessors.

At the same time, general plot schemes, which, nevertheless, have different interpretations or are used from the point of view of different etiologies, Freudenberg refers to the term “homologous”. However, this difference, according to the researcher, “does not eliminate the commonality of their basis” Freidenberg O.M. Decree. Op.. This basis is common origin. From this follows the possibility, when establishing a genetic connection between homologous plots and knowing the origin of the plot, to predict future interpretations, as well as the etiology of this plot. In addition, images, metaphors and other elements can be homologous to the plot, that is, following in conjunction with it. Thus, the plot is inextricably linked with the character who acts within its framework; moreover, these two elements have a common genesis. From this follows another fundamentally important idea of ​​Freudenberg: “The totality of heroes - the character - is identical to the totality of motives, the plot” Ibid. In this work of 1925, it was for the first time emphasized that character is inextricably linked with action and this connection is justified by cause-and-effect phenomena. Let us briefly mention two more important comments made by Freidenberg in this article: firstly, the researcher directly points out that the genesis of one of the plot cycles was based on solar-chthonic ideas. Thus, Freudenberg once again emphasizes the fact that the plot partially served as an explanation of the surrounding realities and was one of the tools for understanding the surrounding world. Subsequently, Freudenberg also points to the process of transition of the plot from essence to mechanics, which began to be used by various authors to express their author’s “I”. The researcher points to the use (i.e., in fact, to “wandering”) of plot in various literatures, naming, in particular, the names of Schiller, Boccaccio and Shakespeare, but emphasizes that the plot, in her opinion, is increasingly dying as a separate structure , becoming a tool and conductor of the author’s thoughts.

This makes Olga Freidenberg’s conclusions similar to the conclusions made by one of the most important researchers in the history of Soviet literary studies, Viktor Zhirmunsky. Thanks to the work of this Soviet philologist, a number of considerations that related to the “wandering” of plots were significantly expanded. First of all, it is worth noting the fact that Zhirmunsky, like other Soviet philologists, adhered to the idea of ​​​​the social and historical conditioning of plots. Thus, literature, according to Zhirmunsky, becomes only an “ideological superstructure”, one of the tools for reflecting reality, and as social institutions and ideologies develop, an instrument for influencing it. With this main function of literature (reflection of reality), Zhirmunsky explains the unity of the literary process, regardless of region, people or country. “Art as figurative knowledge of reality should present significant analogies at the same stages social development“- writes the researcher in his article “Literary relations between East and West as a problem of comparative literature” Zhirmunsky V.M. Comparative Literature. L., 1979. P. 18. Zhirmunsky revises Veselovsky’s legacy, largely accepting his basic considerations, but making significant amendments to them. Thus, Zhirmunsky notes that Veselovsky had thoughts about the social and historical conditioning of literature, but he did not have time to bring them to their logical conclusion.

The most interesting in this context is Zhirmunsky’s rethinking of the theory of “counter currents”, which was also founded by Veselovsky. Here the Soviet philologist suggests new term- “international literary interactions.” “The impossibility of completely turning off these latter is quite obvious” Zhirmunsky V.M. Decree. Op. P. 20,” the researcher concludes, citing as the main argument the fact that it is almost impossible to find examples of absolutely isolated cultural development. Postulating Marx’s thought: “every nation can and should learn from others,” Zhirmunsky explains these “interactions” by the fact that a more backward country does not necessarily have to go through the entire development path on its own - it can simply assimilate the achievements of a more developed neighbor. At the same time, “a similar international exchange of experience is observed both in the field of political practice and in the field of ideology” Ibid. P. 20. However, as Zhirmunsky notes, this exchange cannot happen in a vacuum; it requires the presence of similar images and sentiments in the borrowing society, as well as social needs in this borrowing.

Zhirmunsky makes an equally important clarification of Veselovsky’s thoughts when it comes to the repeatability of plots, that is, the possibility of random and independent spontaneous generation of two complex, but at the same time identical plot structures. Veselovsky assessed this chance from a mathematical point of view, while such an assessment, according to Zhirmunsky, is completely inappropriate to the situation. The mathematical theory of probability is not applicable in this case, since the plot is not a mechanical combination of motives, its design is built according to its own logic. This logic, in turn, is built on the basis of the conditions that surrounded society during the birth of the plot. From this, Zhirmunsky concludes: “Given a certain initial situation, the further movement of the plot in the specific conditions of historical life is to a certain extent predetermined by the peculiarities of everyday life, social life and social psychology.” Ibid. P. 22. Due to this important feature, it was necessary to expand the assumption initially made by Veselovsky about the “spontaneous generation” of the plot, since in fact parallelism not due to “wandering”, but due to such “spontaneous generation” is found in literature, according to Zhirmunsky, much more more often than is commonly thought.

From this point of view, the researcher also explained the similarity of the epics of different peoples, suggesting that the epic is the most protected from outside influences, since it represents a people’s rethinking of their past and their history. About the unity of the epic, Zhirmunsky wrote: “.. the unity of living conditions and psychological acts led to the unity or similarity of symbolic expression” Zhirmunsky V.M. Decree. Op. P. 23, and added a little later: “There is no doubt that with a fairly broad comparative study of epic plots, many plot parallels, usually explained by influences, will turn out to be analogies of the above type” Ibid. pp. 29-30. As one of the striking examples of the unity of literary development, the researcher cites an explanation of the similarity between Russian epics and the set of legends about the “knights” round table", the reason for which was the similarity of the court of Prince Vladimir the Red Sun and King Charlemagne. Right there. P. 34

Zhirmunsky also touches directly on the issue of “wandering plots”, speaking about them mainly in the context of fairy tales and again proposing his term - “international fairy tale plot” Ibid. P. 336. In an article devoted to this issue, Zhirmunsky challenges, first of all, the assumption of the “spontaneous generation” of fairy tales, similar to a similar process in the epic. The “migration” of the fairy tale is facilitated by the absence of national and local references, the prose form, which facilitates the “substitution” of local color, as well as its entertaining, event-focused content. In addition, an argument in favor of the migration of fairy tales is the fact that often the motives and semantic blocks in them may not be logically interconnected, and therefore, one or another block can be excluded without prejudice to the plot, and therefore the overall plot cannot be explained by the same social structure. Another argument in favor of migration was Zhirmunsky’s mention of the fact that many fairy tales contain inserted verses, which are often too similar to each other (Zhirmunsky supports his argument with examples of analysis of different variations of the inserted verse from the fairy tale about Alyonushka and the little goat).

The consequences of such ignoring the “wandering” of fairy-tale plots, according to Zhirmunsky, are significant - as a result, an element that in fact is a global fairy-tale heritage can be mistaken for a national feature. It is in this that Zhirmunsky sees one of the most serious shortcomings of the Finnish school and the cataloging of fairy tales according to the Aarne system: the followers of this school believed that a fairy tale is built and modified “mechanically.” Those. certain elements, if we follow Aarne’s logic, disappeared or appeared in the tale due to the fact that the narrator forgot some particular move or inserted a random association. Zhirmunsky notes that with this approach “the place and role of the motif in the functional structure of a fairy tale as an integral poetic work is completely ignored” Zhirmunsky V.M. Decree. Op. P. 340.

In another of his articles, “On the Question of Wandering Subjects” (1935), Zhirmunsky derives another postulate that is important for our work: in studies of folklore and literary borrowings, “a philologically accurate comparison of texts must be combined with an analysis of the historical conditions in which borrowings occur, then there are places and times, social relations and social environment” Ibid. P. 345. For this reason, Zhirmunsky condemns Western literary criticism, which has followed the path of empirical accumulation of material, leaving aside both theoretical and historical background plot borrowings. Among the factors influencing the “wandering” of the plot, Zhirmunsky notes, among other things, trade, military and cultural relations between the countries participating in literary interaction.

Already in one of his later articles, “Problems of comparative historical study of literature” (1960), Zhirmunsky writes that traditional comparative literary criticism used methods that did not take into account the connection of the plot to social reality, nor its historical, national and individual specificity, nor the often very significant degree of processing that the plot could undergo as a result of its “wandering.” In the same article, the researcher sums up some of the work that occupied him long years, and among the conclusions especially emphasizes the dominant role of the needs and trends of social and literary development in how this or that work influences the “receiving” party, how it is borrowed and processed. He also mentions Plekhanov’s formula, which is quite significant in this context: “The influence of one country on the literature of another is directly proportional to the similarity of social relations of these countries” Zhirmunsky V.M. Decree. Op. P. 73.

Finally, within the framework of this work, Zhirmunsky’s review article on the activities of Alexander Veselovsky is also worthy of mention, which also expresses thoughts that are fundamentally important for further work about the parallelism of literatures and the similarity of plots. Zhirmunsky here again sums up his thoughts, but this time he brings to the fore a new mental component for his statements. He writes that the similarity of primitive thinking, rituals and superstitions, as well as the similarity folklore motifs, is defined by “unity mental process", "people's psychological legality”, i.e. “a natural change of ideologies caused by a change in social relations” Zhirmunsky V.M. Decree. Op. P. 113. In this, according to Zhirmunsky, lies the possibility of “polygenesis” of motives, their spontaneous generation. Finally, Zhirmunsky agrees with one of the fundamental thoughts expressed by Veselovsky: “...primitive poetry took shape in unconscious collaboration of the masses, with the action of many.” Thus, having become one of the points of the strongest concentration of human ideas, one of the points of the highest “semantic permeation” (according to Freudenberg), plots that spontaneously arose in parallel in different peoples or wandered from one people to another if there was such a need on the receiving side , received part of this potential. Thus, they concentrated in themselves those fears and hopes, beliefs and disappointments that made up the “spiritual inventory” of humanity that most powerfully affects everyone.

It is worth noting that after Zhirmunsky, literary critics and scientists from other fields of knowledge began to be more interested in myths in general than in the genesis of the plot as a separate element of this complex. However, although the theory of “plot wandering” can be considered fully formed in the first half of the 20th century, it is necessary to include in our literary review one of Viktor Zhirmunsky’s followers, Eleazar Meletinsky. Although this researcher looked at plots from a more general point of view, his ideas still concerned plots. In addition, Meletinsky’s considerations were formed after the time when the scientific world learned about the theory of archetypes and the “collective” unconscious of Carl Gustav Jung and his followers, and therefore in his works Meletinsky could not help but take into account the achievements and achievements of Jung. From this point of view, within the framework of this work, it is important to include Meletinsky in the circle of researchers who have studied the topic of interest to us.

Despite the large number of works by Meletinsky devoted to myths, for the purposes of this study three of them are most interesting: the articles “Myth and the Twentieth Century”, “Semantic Organization of Mythological Narrative and the Problem of Creating a Semiotic Dictionary of Motives and Plots”, as well as the monograph “On Literary Archetypes” "

In the first of these articles, Meletinsky addresses the question of why myth remains, despite the development of mankind and the progress of science, an important element that will never be completely destroyed. The researcher refers to such concepts as “demythologization” and “remythologization”, describing the processes that occur in culture and society. Based on Meletinsky’s postulate that the main function of myth is “maintaining the harmony of personal, social, natural, support and control of the social and cosmic order” Meletinsky E.M. Myth and the twentieth century., It logically follows that remythologization is resorted to mainly when a certain instability is felt, a loss of the meaning of life or the final destination of the path, i.e. answers to those questions for which myth claims to have a sacred explanation. Due to the impossibility of science to answer these questions, Meletinsky points out that science will never be able to supplant mythology. Another remark of the researcher, which is worth mentioning in the context of this work, concerns the purpose and mechanism of action of the myth: “Myth generally excludes insoluble problems and seeks to explain those that are difficult to solve through something more solvable and understandable. Cognition in general is neither the only nor main goal myth" Ibid. This idea is combined with those theories of Soviet philologists that were mentioned earlier, and will be very useful in the future when it comes to the use of unconscious elements in political communication. It is worth mentioning here another idea of ​​Meletinsky, expressed by him in the same article: “The mythical way of conceptualization is associated with a certain type thinking, which is specific to primitive thinking in general and to some levels of consciousness, especially mass (italics mine - Yu.Ch.), at all times” Meletinsky E.M. Decree. Op.. This feature of mass consciousness highlighted by Meletinsky will be further examined in detail within the framework of this study.

As for the issue of plotting itself, it is discussed in much more detail in the second of the above-mentioned articles by Meletinsky. The philologist rethinks the heritage of the Finnish school and indexes according to the Aarne-Thompson system, correlating the achievements of these researchers with the theories that were later built by V. Propp, K. Levi-Strauss and scientists who worked in the field of narrative grammar (A. Zh. Greimas, K . Bremont, T. van Dyck and others). All these researchers, according to Meletinsky, although they make undoubtedly important conclusions, nevertheless, “tend to abstract from motives and plots as such.” Meletinsky E.M. Semantic organization of mythological narrative and the problem of creating a semiotic index of motives and plots. //: Works on sign systems. Tartu, 1983. XVI: Text and culture. - With. 117. But, more importantly, there is no precise definition of motive in Thompson’s Index of Motives, where not only a clichéd action, but also an object can become a motive. The same applies to some individual epithets or relationships between a character and an object, which, according to Meletinsky’s idea, cannot be separated from the main motive. “In other words,” the researcher writes, “S. Thompson loses sight of the motive as an integral structure” Ibid. P. 115. Considering the theories that were developed in literary criticism by Veselovsky, who, according to Meletinsky, anticipated the ritualists, and in the field of psychoanalysis by von der Leyen, the researcher notes: “In all these and similar theories, motive and plot were thought of as “atoms” and “ molecules" of the narrative" Ibid. P. 116. This approach did not take into account the “permeability” of plots and motifs that were later noticed by Propp and Freudenberg, which were closely related to each other, to the point of interweaving or considering all known plots only as variants of one eternal meta-plot of a fairy tale, as was the case with Propp . Meletinsky, in turn, proposes to rationalize the index by considering the motive as a “one-act microplot, the basis of which is the action” Meletinsky E.M. Decree. Op. P. 118. All other elements of a given microplot accordingly depend on this action; Meletinsky calls such elements actant arguments. Thus, the researcher proposes to consider the motive as a complex, without isolating individual elements from it, as S. Thompson did. In this case, the complex of motives can be presented in the form of a structural table, where each motive occupies one line. As examples, Meletinsky gives a similar analysis of motives that correspond to the predicate-action “creation”. This approach, according to the researcher, will allow us to better study the role of the motif in the plot and look deeper into the semantics of these two elements. The logic of plot formation that Meletinsky derives is also of some interest: microplots are formed into plots according to their own internal laws, among which the following stand out: 1) summation of homogeneous motives; 2) mirror inventory of the original motive; 3) negative parallelism; 4) metaphorical (metonymic) transformation of the original motive (or addition to the motive of its “duplicate”, often with the introduction of parallelism of codes). In addition, to more complex mechanisms of plot creation, Meletinsky includes identification (a new action in order to verify the previous one or to establish the culprit/performer of the action), dramatization (confrontation between hero and antagonist), gradation (gradual achievement of a goal), and, in addition, the identification of new motives by concretization of the old ones. When constructing a new semantic index, it is equally important to take into account how different homonymous motifs appear as part of archimotifs. Archimotives, according to Meletinsky’s logic, are larger semantic classes that can give an idea of ​​larger semantic fields.

Thus approaching the consideration of the topic of this study from various points of view, it is worth mentioning finally about “literary archetypes,” the idea of ​​which also attracted the attention of Meletinsky. Even in the first of the articles mentioned in this work, Meletinsky pointed to an idea that obviously interested him very much, citing N. Fry, one of the representatives of the ritual-mythological school, who called the Bible “a grammar of literary archetypes.” Meletinsky developed these thoughts in his monograph, which is also useful to refer to for research purposes.

In the book “On Literary Archetypes,” Meletinsky talks about the components of the “plot language” of world literature, which he proposes to call “plot archetypes.” Reflecting on the concept of archetype in Carl Gustav Jung, Meletinsky points out that psychoanalysts mainly talk about established images or characteristics, but not about plots. This happens, according to the researcher, because Jung and his followers believed that “the plot is somehow, by definition, secondary, while it is not secondary and not recessive, it can not only be combined with different images, but also give rise to them (my italics - Yu.Ch.)» Meletinsky E.M. About literary archetypes. M., 1994. P. 12. This function of the plot, expressed in this quote from Meletinsky, will be useful in the future for determining the mechanism of action of this technique in political communication. It is also important here to mention the specific feature of myth that characterizes society at the time of its inception - myth is “interpersonal”, since it was created in an era when humanity not only did not separate itself from nature, but also did not separate the individual from society, therefore the hero of the myth is only an expression of the entire society, its concentration, he acts for its purposes Meletinsky E.M. Decree. Op. P. 13. Thus, it is natural for a person not only to see some of his personal traits in the hero of a myth and therefore identify himself with him, but also to think in “heroic” categories when it comes to politics, since in essence the description of the hero’s purpose myth coincides with what his voters see in politics. However, the character becomes a hero precisely through the plot, since in order to obtain this status (or to prove it) he needs to perform certain actions or pass tests. Therefore, the fate of plot archetypes, Meletinsky concludes, “is closely connected with the expansion of the hero’s functions, with the gradual stereotyping of the plot and the shift of emphasis from the model of the world to the plot action, which roughly corresponds to the movement from myth to fairy tale” Ibid. P. 53.

Meletinsky singles out his groups of archetypal motifs, since he does not entirely agree with the “Indices of Plots” that were compiled before him. He also lists several basic archetypal motifs, which are, in essence, quite large semantic groups that include similar archetypal motifs. The researcher considers the following to be: 1) the creation of the world and the appearance of things; 2) the fight against demonic forces (two types: to protect “one’s own” clan-tribe or to obtain some benefit for fellow tribesmen); 3) falling into the power of evil spirits and suffering from them; 4) tricks, pranks or adventures characteristic of a trickster; 5) plots reflecting ancient initiation rites (assignment from the stepmother as part of initiation, murder of the father and incestuous marriage with the mother as a symbol of growing up and generational change, etc.). Separately, Meletinsky identifies the group of plots “dragon fighting”, where he points out that this plot can be an integral part of the group of plots “difficult task”, “fight against demonic forces” or the motive of “returning a treasure” (which often turns out to be a stolen princess), as well as the group of plots “wonderful wife”, the origins of which he traces to the period of totemic marriages. For the purposes of this work, we are interested in only some of these groups, but not all. So, for example, no attention will be paid to the “wonderful wife” group of plots if some of its individual motives are not found within other groups, such as “a difficult task” or “the fight against demonic forces.”

Summing up the results of the first part of the work, it is worth, first of all, to outline the field of terms to which wandering plots are related, but which were used differently by the authors mentioned in this chapter. The most significant terms can be considered: “international plots” and “wandering plots” by Zhirmunsky, as well as his term “theory literary interactions“(or “the theory of counter currents”, as Veselovsky called it). No less important is the term “spiritual inventory,” which was used by Olga Freidenberg to define and describe the process of accumulating knowledge and experience in society through the transmission of myths and fairy tales from generation to generation. Finally, it is worth supplementing this chain with the term “ story archetypes", with which Meletinsky worked, meaning by this concept the fundamental plots that constitute the code of all world literature.

Having traced the development paths of the theory that interests us, we can see that work on determining the content, as well as the boundaries and functions of wandering plots, began back in the 19th century. and began with a literal definition of this concept. However, later, in the 20th century, a movement of philosophical thought looked at the phenomenon of wandering plots from a different point of view, revealing the “prehistoric” and subconscious essence of this phenomenon, which made the term much less straightforward. Some conclusions were developed that are important to consider in the context of this study.

Thus, it is undoubtedly important to determine, when considering a particular wandering plot, the most likely way of its appearance: whether it was a direct literary borrowing or whether the plot was born as a result of “literary parallelism,” which was caused by similar living conditions and rituals of societies at the same stages of development. Understanding full well that it is impossible to determine this fact with complete certainty, and also that there may always be a possibility of “incorporation” of borrowed motifs into the “native” plot as a result of the complication of the literary tradition, we will, nevertheless, try to distinguish between these two types of plots when We will consider “wandering” subjects in political communication. Although the very fact of the origin of the plot is not of fundamental importance for our research, it is important to take this nuance into account.

Another clarification made by Zhirmunsky and useful for the purposes of this work is that the “borrowing” of the plot does not occur in a chaotic or random order, “not out of nowhere” Zhirmunsky V.M. Comparative Literature. L., 1979. P. 21. Similar symbols, images and moods must circulate or be present in society, in addition, there must be a society’s need for a plot, since these are the prerequisites that determine its ability to somehow influence reality in order to be tool to change it. Or, which is a completely logical alternative, a tool for “fixing” reality. This refers to the function of stories and myths as “legitimization,” that is, the confirmation by stories of certain norms, rules and truths that need to be more firmly strengthened in the minds of the people - this is how taboos were consolidated in ancient societies, this is how experience was accumulated. With the passage of time and the change of eras, this mechanism, however, does not lose its strength and relevance.

Mention was made of another function that “storytelling” served, which is important to consider when considering plots. Human thinking in ancient times was built on the principles of “genomorphism,” as Freudenberg noted. This helped explain the surrounding world, explain the incomprehensible through the understandable, celestial physical phenomena - through human stories, the origin of diseases - through fascinating stories of the tricks of the gods or, on the contrary, their fatal mistakes. It is precisely because of this that myths, as a complex of images, plots and principles, still have power over human consciousness, which cannot receive answers to many questions that interest it.

It is equally important to have an understanding of the “structure” of plots, examples of which we will look for in the practical part of the work. Should we accept as “wandering” plots only complex, established sets of motives that fully correspond to the most famous and exploited stories all over the world (as a shining example let us cite the story of Cinderella) or establish a less strict criterion and include in the field of consideration simpler structures, the ubiquity of which, nevertheless, is well known and proven by the fact that these motifs are noted as widespread in authoritative reference books and indexes. It is likely that the complexity of the complex of motives will be directly proportional to the likelihood of recognizing the plot or making it too “artificial.” In this case, most likely, it makes sense to look for simpler structures that, nevertheless, will not lose their psychic potential due to their belonging to the “spiritual inventory” of humanity.

It is worth taking into account the criticism of the “Plot Indexes” that was expressed by almost all the researchers mentioned in this chapter. Nevertheless, practical part The work will nevertheless necessarily be based on these indexes, since the enormous amount of empirical material collected in them cannot be denied. However, when working with indexes, taking into account all the amendments, only those columns and items will be used that include some very specific action or set of actions. Within the framework of this study, two indexes will be used: “Motif-Index of Folk-Literature” by Stith Thompson for the interpretation of plots used in European political communication, as well as “Comparative Index of Plots according to the Aarne System” by N.P. Andreev for plots used in Russian and Slavic political communication.

Meletinsky and Freidenberg made the remark that the plot depends on the complex of characters in the story. Consequently, plot analysis should first of all include an analysis of the complex of characters and the relationships between them. This course of analysis will be useful for understanding the principles of constructing and using stories, which can be used to create them more competently.

Based on the first chapter, we can also conclude that the plot is not “born” when this or that action was directly performed. It is born during the narrator's interpretation of what is happening. Therefore, you need to look not at the story itself, but at how it is presented in the materials, despite the form of these stories, which can be either simply text or multimedia.

Extrapolation to political communication of those inferences and conclusions that were made within the framework of this chapter can provide useful information for a more competent search and interpretation of stories in the modern political process. However, before this, it is necessary to take one more step and consider what place plots occupy in the complex of the collective unconscious of Carl Gustav Jung in order to complement the list of functions and patterns of use of plots, and then move on to the study of plot constructions in modern politics.

In the 50-70s. XIX century Another scientific direction arose - the theory of borrowing (theory of migrations; the theory of wandering plots). Its supporters pointed out the amazing similarity of many folklore works between the peoples of the West and the East (including unrelated ones), which they explained by direct or indirect borrowing, spread from one or several centers. Representatives of the borrowing school raised the question of cultural and historical ties between peoples and drew on extensive multilingual material. This was facilitated by European research into the countries of the Middle East, and in Russia by the development of Turkic and Mongolian studies.

The theory of borrowing has had a particularly strong influence on the study of fairy tales. Its founder, the German orientalist T. Benfey, published in 1859 a collection of Indian fairy tales and parables "Panchatantra" ("Pentateuch"). In a long preface, Ben-fey noted the close similarity of fairy tales in world folklore and, using the example of the fate of the collection “Panchatantra,” revealed a picture of the cultural influence of the East on the European West.

The collection "Panchatantra" was created in India in the 3rd-4th centuries. AD, its lists reached us no earlier than the 5th century. This book was compiled by the brahmana (sage) Vishnusharman to “awaken the minds” of the three sons of King Amarashakti. He used themes from folk tales and divided the book into five sections: “The Separation of Friends,” “The Making of Friends,” “Of Crows and Owls,” “The Loss of Loot,” and “Reckless Deeds.”

The first translations of the Panchatantra were made in the 6th century. into Persian and Syriac. In the 8th century The Arab poet Abdallah revised the Persian translation into a book called Kalila and Dimna. In the XII-XIII centuries. numerous translations of “Kalila and Dimna” (into Spanish, Latin, and Hebrew) opened the way for the collection to Europe. So, Latin translation entitled "Instructions for Human Life" was translated into German, Italian, French and other languages. The Greek adaptation of "Kalila and Dimna" was called "Stephanit and Ikhnilat". Slavic translations were made from Greek, which in the 12th century. came to Rus'.

Echoes of “Kalila and Dimna” penetrated Europe in another way, through the Persians and Turks. In the 16th century A Turkish adaptation of this book was translated into French under the title “Gumayun-name” (“Royal Book”). In 1762, it was translated from French into Russian under the title: “Political and moralizing fables of Pilnai, the Indian philosopher.”

To this day, there are over 200 adaptations of the Panchatantra translated into more than 60 languages. They were found in Malaya, Indonesia, Siam and other countries.

India was declared a land of fairy tales, and the theory of borrowing gained numerous followers, including in Russia. However, Russian science approached this theory quite independently.

Even V. G. Belinsky in 1841, dividing Russian fairy tales into two types (heroic and satirical), emphasized: “The first are often striking by their foreign origin; they flew to us from both the East and the West.<...>In fairy tales of Western origin, a knightly character is noticeable, in fairy tales of Eastern origin - a fantastic one."

Regardless of Benfey, the formation of a school of borrowing in Russia was initiated by A. N. Pypin’s work “Essay on the literary history of ancient Russian stories and fairy tales.” Pypin was the first to specifically show the extensive connections of Russian verbal culture, mainly written, with the East and West. He was interested in the interaction of art with the spiritual life of society as a whole; the researcher called his method “socio-historical.”

The concept of T. Benfey had a direct influence on the extensive article by critic V.V. Stasov entitled “The Origin of Russian Bylinas.” It was written with journalistic fervor. Stasov argued that the plots of Russian epics and even the images of heroes were borrowed and came from the East. The author questioned the degree of originality of Russian national culture as a whole. He needed this as a liberal Westerner in the fight against the Slavophiles.

A heated discussion arose, in which many scientists joined: F. I. Buslaev, O. F. Miller, P. A. Bessonov, V. F. Miller, A. N. Veselovsky. Stasov's speech revealed all the vulnerabilities of the new theory. It turned out that it cannot exist “in its pure form,” because it must take into account the national and specific historical context.

It was in this direction that the prominent Russian philologist A. N. Veselovsky developed the theory of migration. He emphasized that the condition for borrowing is the typological universalism of world cultural development. Veselovsky enriched migration theory. He formulated a position about the so-called “counter currents” that arise due to the similarity of the “foundations” of literary or folklore works of different ethnic groups: “When explaining the similarity of myths, fairy tales, epic stories among different peoples, researchers usually diverge in two opposite directions: the similarity is either explained from the general foundations to which similar legends are supposedly traced, or by the hypothesis that one of them borrowed its content from the other.

In essence, none of these theories is applicable separately, and they are only conceivable together, because borrowing presupposes in the perceiver not an empty space, but countercurrents, a similar direction of thinking, analogous images of fantasy. The theory of "borrowing" thus evokes the theory of "foundations", and vice versa..."

Veselovsky revealed the picture of cultural ties between Russian oral poetry and written literature with the countries of the East and West. He wrote several major works about this: “Slavic legends about Solomon and Kitovras and Western legends about Morolf and Merlin” (1872), “Experiments on the history of the development of Christian legend” (1875-1877), “Research in the field of Russian spiritual poetry” ( 1879-1891), “From the history of the novel and story” (1886-1888), etc.

He believed that cultural contacts between peoples contributed to social progress and the development of artistic forms reflecting it: “If one of the folk cultural spheres that came into collision was ahead of the other in understanding life and setting ideals and, on a level with them, developed a new schematism of poetic expression, it acts on a more backward environment is contagious: along with the ideal content, the plot that expresses it is also absorbed.”

Veselovsky’s methodology was based on comparative analysis, which had long dominated science. However, the method used by the mythological school was felt by Veselovsky to be insufficient. The scientist contrasted him with a method that required explaining a life phenomenon primarily from the real time in which this phenomenon exists. Veselovsky’s thought about the everyday foundations of poetry is important: “... A good literary historian must also be a historian of everyday life. Tell me how the people lived, and I will tell you how they wrote...”

In 1899, the idea of ​​Veselovsky’s main theoretical work, “Historical Poetics,” arose. By historical poetics, the scientist meant “the history of social thought in figurative and poetic experience and the forms expressing it”; "the evolution of poetic consciousness and its forms." The chaotic picture of the general history of literature had to come to a harmonious generalizing scheme, which would reflect the objective processes of development of content and form. In Veselovsky’s interpretation, the literary process for the first time appeared as a natural-historical one.

The idea of ​​"Historical Poetics" was not, and could not be, fully realized. The scientist wrote three chapters in which he explored the problem of the origin of poetry and its genera, the poetics of plots and the origin of figurative means that create a poetic style. "Three Chapters from Historical Poetics" is a valuable contribution to the theory of folklore.

The borrowing theory found many followers in Russia (G.N. Potanin, A.I. Kirpichnikov, M.G. Khalansky, partly F.I. Buslaev, V.F. Miller, etc.).

In Western European science, this theory sometimes received formalistic development. This is the historical-geographical method, which was developed by Finnish scientists J. Kron, K. Kron and A. Aarne. The study of folklore works was accompanied by chronological diagrams and geographical maps with the migration routes of these works indicated on them. This method was not adopted in Russian folkloristics, but the cataloging of fairy tales developed by the Finnish school gained international application (including in Russia). Based on its principles, a Russian and then an East Slavic index was compiled.

The “Index of Fairy Tale Types” was compiled by A. Aarne (published in 1910). Aarne based his systematization on fairy tales of European peoples. In the "Index" they are divided into the following groups:

I. Tales about animals.

II. Fairy tales themselves, which include:

A. Fairy tales,

V. Legendary tales,

S. Novella fairy tales,

D. Tales about the stupid devil (giant).

Within these groups, fairy tales are combined into nests according to a thematic principle. Each fairy tale (as a complete story, and in some cases as a characteristic episode) has a serial number. At the same time, gaps are left for introducing new subjects.

In 1928, the American folklorist S. Thompson, together with Aarne, based on the previous one, created a multinational consolidated “Index of Fairy Tale Plots”, which was repeatedly republished with additions and clarifications; it entered world folklore as the Aarne-Thompson index (abbreviated: AT). In 1929, N.P. Andreev translated Aarne's index into Russian with adaptation to Russian materials (additions were made based on Russian folklore collections). In 1979, the Comparative Index of Plots of East Slavic Fairy Tales (abbreviated as SUS), prepared by the team of authors, was published. It is based on the international principles of the Aarne-Thompson index.

Zueva T.V., Kirdan B.P. Russian folklore - M., 2002