ETHICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE SLOVENE BALLAD

ETHICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE SLOVENE BALLAD

MaijetkaGole ZKau CiC

InstituteofEthnomusicology,ScientificResearchCentreofSlovenianAcademyofSciencesandArts Novitrg5,SI-1000Ljubljana,Slovenia

Abstract:TheSloveneballadAnimalsBurytheHunterisananimal narrativesongofjocular character.Ittellsoftheburialofahunterandofafuneralprocessionnotcomposedofhumansbut wildanimals(abear,foxes,hares,awolf,cranesandpartridges,songbirds,etc.)whoseemtoderive greatjoyfromtheevent.

Theanalysisofthesong’s31variantsrevealsthechangesmadetothesongoverthecourseof time,asitsurvivedthroughdifferenthistoricalperiodsandspreadthroughoutSlovenia.Iattemptto showthattheballadwasusedasamodelforpaintedbeehivepanelsfeaturingthesamemotif.In additiontotheanalysis,Iamconcernedwiththesociologicalandethicalelementsoftheballad.

Thepaperproposesatleastthreepossibletheses:

1.Thesongispartoftheconceptionofatopsy-turvyworld,wheretherolesandmutualrela- tionshipsofpeopleandanimalsarereversedinanironicsociologicalviewoftheworld.

2.Thesongisacritiqueofoneclassbyanother:peasantsmockinghunterswhobelongtoa differentsocialstratum.

3.Thesongisarepresentation of“pre-Cartesian”times,when animalswerenot“merema- chines”withoutfeelings,tobetreatedbymanasobjectswithnoethicalsignificance.Itpointstothe ethicalaspectsofthehumantreatmentofanimals.

Keywords:Slovenianballad, animaljocularnarrative folksong,textology, folklore, folk art, ecology.

When researching the ballad tradition in terms ofits content and form, and reaching intoits inner structure, we inevitably find at the centre the human being and his attitude to the world, his environment, his fellow man and, finally, to ani- mals.Inseekingtodiscovertheethicalandsociologicalaspectsofanindividualbal- ladwe encountertwoofman’sviewstowardstheothercreatures aroundhimwhich wecannotignore. Thefirstistheanthropocentricviewoftheworld reflectedbythe majorityofballads,whiletheotheris anon-anthropocentricview.1Thefirstofthese viewsplacesthehumanbeingatthecentreoftheworld-asthecrownofcreation- whilethesecondshowshimasoccupyingthesamepositionasotherlivingcreatures.

Mostballadsexpresstheformerviewbutafew,thoseinwhichanimals appear,give

1Ofcourseuncoveringtheethicalelementsinsuchasongshouldnotonlyderivefromhumanethics, itmustalsocontainethicalbehaviourtowardsanimals,otherwiseweareonlyresearchingtheanthropo- centricaspectofthesong.

164 MarjetkaGol eZKauCiC

theimpressionthattheyperhapscontainareflectionoftheideathatmanismerelya part ofnature, or thatin a‘topsy-turvyworld’hisrulecouldsoon cometo an end.2 We mayalsoobservethatman is sometimeshumblypreparedto put offhis crown, orthatarespectfulattitudetoothercreaturescontributestothis,orthattheanimals inthesongtakeitfromhimwhetherhewishesitornot.

TheSloveneballad traditioncontainsawholecycleofnarrativesongs-ballads -featuringanimals. In mostcases theanimalsinthesesongs havetaken on human characteristics and act and live like human beings, although the representation of animalsmaybeahiddentruthaboutman,hislifeandhisfoolishness,ahidden truth wrapped intheskin ofan animal, asawayofmockingthisfoolishness.Allofthese images were human projections ofwhat actually happened, or that which people secretlydesired(andthus theyalsoincludecriticismofsocialconditions,class strife orpersonal desires and resentments). Perhapsthese songs alsoconceal man’s per- sonal attitude to animals.3 Examples include songs about animal courtships and weddings and songs in which roles are reversed, e.g. the blackbird mocking the hunter,thesickblackbird,thefoxandthecockerel.4

Many ofthese motifs also survive in Slovene folk art, on the famous beehive panels: thefoxshavingthehunter,5 thebearshooting thehunter,the tailors fleeing fromthesnail,animalsridingincarriages,thebearchasingthehunterfromthefor- est,thehunterdancingwiththefox,hens driving abear,haresplayingin thesnow, etc. One ofthese balladswhere ‘theworld is topsy-turvy or therightwayround’ is the Sloveneballad TheAnimalsBury the Hunteror TheHunter’sFuneral, ajocular animal ballad, though some also classify it as part of the ‘topsy-turvyworld’ song cycle. ItwasfirstwrittendownbyFrancisekSedejinCerkno,sometimebefore 1873.

ItssubjectmatterprobablydatesfromtheMiddleAgesorjustafter.Ittellsthestory ofthe burial ofthe hunter, orofhis funeral procession,which isnot composedof humanbeingsbutofwildanimals(abear,afox,hares,awolf,cranesandpartridges, songbirdsetc.),whoseemtoderivegreatjoyfromtheevent.

The archive ofthe Institute ofEthnomusicologycontainsthirty-oneversions of this song (the last version was recorded in 1999 at Brkini in south-west Slovenia).

Thesonghas undergone severalchangesoftext andmelody, and the context ofits message has also changed. Asked about the meaning ofthe song, most singers re- pliedthatitwasjocular,old,thattheyhadlearntitfromtheirparents,thattheyhad heard itinlivefolksingingetc., thatitwas entertaining,and that thatwaswhythey

2SeeLucFERRY,Noviekoloskired:drevo,zivalinclovek(1998)-thetitleoforiginal:Lenouvelordre écologique,EditionsGrasset&Fasquelle,1992.;seealsotheessaybythepoetJureDETELA, ‘Ekologija, ekonomijaprezivetjainzivalskepravice’,Novarevija(Ljubljana,1988),pp.1473-1484.

3AlbinaStru beu ’Sstatementis:“Man’sattitudetoanimalsisonlyrevealedtousinfolktraditions, narratives,songs,customs,beliefs,proverbsandsayings.Buteventhischapteroffolkcultureremains unresearched.”(STRUBELJ1996:458).

4KarelStre ke u,Slovenskenarodnepesmi,Slovenskamatica(Ljubljana,1895-1898),(reprint)Nos.

924-1006.

5Themotifofthefoxshavingthehunter(lisicabrijelovca)isanillustrationofthesaying‘britinorcaiz koga'or‘tomakefunofsomeone’.

Л.ч

2*32.

£:í;.J5iwJ- SKIMUIFJ UUblJА.Ч1

05

tf ^r--•«*-A<

t*-- %< М/

r4 'we'

¥ ^{Ш •Ц - u f 7 >:}

^I;

^•M-

p*

^I

JXüdlvWt/WOtActokX*

SraA'wÄ^ti**

«taUij (*ft М&*<ъ)

Sr«ta^c*"U-<~v^et4; ^

'R/'w .

\Mx

1t^44bvtbY*iÁjA^ÍVOVwnOttl

'VbAfc-^e. gurulj

*Rív&|ц>-ущ|.»-<u—4:1j 'M&jtj«aíui £*£-4

»>«■>«■Pütt«илюn*prvoIntretjortranl

Fig.1.FromtheArchiveoftheInstituteofEthnomusicologyZRCSAZU,GNIOSNP2832,recordedby J.Zirovnik,theendofthe19thcentury,Gorenjsko,Slovenia

Udbor га nahiiauj«

elovenskih narodiuh pesmi.

liked it. The song did not have a special role in ceremonies or customs. The first recordedversion(S 970)containsalltheanimals(hares,fox,bear,wolf,cranes,par- tridges, little birds)which rejoiced atthe death ofthe hunter, as can beseen from the refrain. The song is from Primorska, Slovenia’s littoral, and later spread throughout Slovenia. Otherversions are from Stajerska, Gorenjska and Bela Kra- jina.Thestoryis asimpleone and thesongis notparticularlydramatic-unlikethe

166 MarjetkaGole ZKauCiC

eventitdescribes. Inmostversionsthesonghassevenversesandeachversefocuses onawild animalrejoicinginitsownwayatthedeath ofthehunter,whom theyare carryingto his funeralin aspecialprocession. Becausethe animals areparticipants inthefuneralthey alsoplayappropriateroles: theharesjump aroundand burythe hunter, thefox saysthe rosary orlaughs, thebearcarries a cross,and in somever- sionsitisthebearwho killsthe hunter(inothersitis thewolf). Someversionsfea- turedeer,somestags, and alsocrows. Inmostversions thewolfhowls(in the sense ofcrying)because hehas missed the funeralorbecauseheloved thehunterbest- ironicallyofcourse. Insomeversionsthesongbeginswith thehunterhuntinghares, orjusthunting, andthebear (orwolf-role-reversal) killshim,and thencomes the funeralprocession. Interestingly dogs are onlypresentin this funeralprocession in oneversion,from1960(GNIM23.527).Inthisversiontheyweepatthedeathofthe hunter,whichfromthehumanpointofviewisperfectlylogicalsincethedogwasthe hunter’s faithful companion and the only domesticated animal in the procession.

(On beehive panels the dog is the only animal depicted on all fours. All the wild animalswalkuprightontwolegs.)Thefuneralprocessionisdescribedasfollows:the hunterwenthunting andwhileouthuntingwaskilled bythebearorthewolf. Now thewildanimals(fromdeerandfoxes topartridges andcranes)arecarryinghimto hisfuneral.Mostofthemarehappyandtheyalsoperformthefuneraryduties,pray, carry the cross andbury him. Atthe end ofthe song the littlebirds, an additional fabulous element, carry his soul offto purgatory - and not, interestingly, to hell.

Thereare nosignificantchanges, exceptthatsometimestheanimalsswaproles and sometimesotheranimalsareadded.Howandwhythehunterdiedisunclearinmost versions, thoughsome include aversewhichrecounts howthe hunterwaskilled by thebear,whichisalsothemostlogicalversion.Intheversewhichdescribeshowthe wolfhowledbecause he missed the funeral-since hewas supposed to have loved the hunterthe best - a considerabledegree of sarcasm, mockeryand ironycan be detected (Kumer 1957: 160).An indicationofthe condensednature ofthe text of the ballad is the fact that the last recorded version (Brkini, Primorska, 1999) pre- servestheentirecontentofthefirstknownversionandonlydiffersfromitindetails.

Ontheotherhandthemelodiesareverydifferent.

JAGERGRENAJAGO/THEHUNTERGOESA-HUNTING 1. Jager6grenajago

tarnvzelenodrago, hajh,hajló

zdajjagravecnebo,haha, hajh,hajló

zdajjagravecnebo.

Thehuntergoesa-hunting Downintheleafydell, Hi-lee,hi-low,

Thehunternowisgone,haha, Hi-lee,hi-low,

Thehunternowisgone.

6Iwouldlikeinpassingtodrawyourattentiontothewordjagerwhichwecanseeatthebeginningof theballad.This isacorruptionoftheGermanJägerwhichwasoftenusedinfolksongsinSlovene, al- thoughtheproperSlovenewordfor‘hunter’islovec.

The rabbits all were dancing When they laid him in his grave, Hi-lee, hi-low

The hunter now is gone.

Vsi zajci so plesali, к so jagra pokopali, /: hajh, hajló

zdaj jagra vec ne bo.:/

2.

The fox he was a-laughing When they laid him in his grave Hi-lee, hi-low

The hunter now is gone.

Lisica se smejala, к je jagra pokopala, /: hajh hajló

zdaj jagra vec ne bo.:/

3.

The bear was all a-quiver As he carried forth the cross, Hi-lee, hi-low,

The hunter now is gone.

Medved se je tresu, kje kriz pred jagrom nesu, /: hajh, hajló

zdaj jagra vec ne bo.:/

4.

The wolf he was a-howling, for he did miss the funeral, Hi-lee, hi-low,

The hunter now is gone.

5. Volk pa je zatulil, ker pogreb je zamudil, /: hajh, hajló

zdaj jagra vec ne bo.:/

So prisle drobne ptice, so nesle duso v vice, /: hajh, hajló

zdaj jagra vec ne bo.:/

Then came tiny songbirds

And bore his soul away, (in purgatory) Hi-lee, hi-low,

The hunter now is gone.

6.

From the Archive of the Institute of Ethnomusicology ZRC SAZU - GNI DAT 103/5, recorded by Marjetka Golez Kaucic and Drago Kunej: 16.4.1999, tst. by MGK 2001, sung by Lidija Znebelj, Gradisce, Primorsko, Slovenia.

On reading this ballad, which I admit entranced me because of the role-reversal of man and animals, I began to be interested in what hides below the surface, where the ballad comes from (in terms of time and also theme), and whether this ballad was also the basis for the beehive panels featuring this motif, or vice versa. I also asked myself whether the ballad and the beehive panels might perhaps appeared independently of each other. I began to try and discover the purpose and meaning of the ballad in the past and its importance for the present day.7

This motif is extremely widespread in the tradition of beehive panels. These ex- amples of folk art first appeared in the 19th century and although similar subject matter can be found in lithographs and picture books from Central Europe, it seems that the painting of these beehive panels was directly influenced by this ballad. At the beginning of my research Professor Dr. Ildikó Kriza very kindly drew my atten-

7Thispaperisamixtureoftheobjectiveordemonstrableandthesubjectiveorphilosophical.Both apsectscomefrommyown‘personaltheory’.

168 MarjetkaGole ZKauCiC

tion to an essaybythe Hungarian ethnologistSándor Solymossyon afolk painting with the sametitle as our ballad and beehivepanel (‘The Hunter’s Funeral’). This essay, written in 1915, looks at the origin and dissemination ofthis motif on folk paintingsinHungary andwestern Europe. (MayItake thisopportunitytooffermy sincerethankstoIldikó Kriza).Theessaydescribesthe internationaljourneyofthis motifand revealswhatis apparentlythetrue modelforit:LaprocessiondeRenard, theseventeenthepisodeofthe FrenchfolkepicorcollectionofstoriesLeRomande Renard8(this episode is onlyfound in onefourteenth-centurymanuscript, although atleastfourmanuscripts exist). The episodedescribes thefuneralprocession ofan apparentlydeadfox.Atsomepointduringthedevelopmentofthemotifthefoxwas replacedby the hunter and thuswe now havethe hunter’sfuneral ratherthan the fox’s funeral.9 Sándor Solymossy talks about simple images adorning the walls of roadside inns, hunting lodges, the passages of simple forest houses. We even find them on a shaving kit. The motif iswidespread in Hungary, among the southern Germans, inAustria and evenintheNetherlands.Theimagemayhavespreadwith thehelpoflithographsorhandbills(SOLYMOSSY 1915: 232).Solymossyalsoconsid- ers the possibility that the motif arrivedin Hungaryfrom animal fairy tales,which were often createdso that their instructive stories couldbeused for religiouspur- poses, orlaterforridiculingindividual monasticorders. Solymossyfinds itinterest- ingthatthe motifspread in Hungaryin theformofimagesand notasastory. The storydoesnotexisteitherinGermanorHungarianfolklore. Butthemotifispresent in theSlovene balladtradition, and this isperhaps even original,ifwe subscribeto the polygenetic theory. (Mati Cetov 1956: 127-128). Thus in Solymossy’s opinion the motif of the popular folk painting ‘The Hunter’s Funeral’ goes back to the Renardepisode (fromthe late 13th/early 14thcentury) andits original roots canbe discoveredwithin the cycle ofstories aboutthe cunning fox.10How, whenand why did theimage finditswaytoSlovenia-andcanweevensaythattheimagecameto Sloveniafromelsewhere?

Letuslookat an illustration offamous beehivepanel aboutThe Hunter’s Fu- neral found in Slovenia: we see an unusual procession. In front, a fox and a bear walkon their hind legs;four harescarry a stretcher onwhich lies the deadhunter;

8SeeLeRomandeRenard(adaptation),PierredeBeaumont,Hachette,Paris1990.

9Whileresearchingthemotiftheauthoraskshowamotiffromacollectionofstoriesaboutacunning fox-in Slovenian languageLisica Zvitorepka (LeRomandeRenard) cameto Germanyand then to Hungaryandwhypaintingsshowthefuneralofahunterandnotafox.Hestatesthattherewasapainting ofthefox’sfuneralinMünsterCathedral.Alongsidethefuneralceremonywasanotherpictureofanimals celebratingaMass(1318).Howeverthismotif,whichappearedsacrilegioustotheProtestants,hadtobe removedin1685.Sinceanimalscouldnotbeinthepositionofpriesttheylatermadea‘pendant’image whereahunterratherthanafoxliesinthecoffin.Theauthoralsomentionsalaterimagerepresenting theresurrectionoftheapparentlydeadhunter,whichwasapendantorcomplementtothefirstpicture.

ThisperhapsprovestheconnectionwithLeRomandeRenard.

10TheSlovenewordprelisicili(fromthewordlisicameaning‘fox’), meanstotrickordupesomeone andderivesfromthebeliefthatthefoxisaverycleverandcunninganimal,capableof‘outfoxing’anyone -asintheSlovenefolksongLisicajepravzvitazver(‘TheFoxisaTrulyCunningBeast’).Slovenedistin- guishesbetweenlisica,avixen,andlisjak,adogfox.

Fig.2.Animalscarryingahuntertohisfuneral-photoofbeehivepanel.FromtheArchiveoftheSlo- vene EthnographicMuseum, inv.no. 17086/13ж27.5 cm/date: 1891,paintedby MarijaPavlic, Selcev

SelSkidolini,Slovenia

deer and sometimes a fox walk at the back walk; in the middle of the picture is a dog walking on all fours, and above the stretcher birds fly.

Gorazd Makarovic, a researcher of beehive panels, believes that the model for the first beehive panel featuring this motif, which is dated 1787, was a corresponding print and that the painter simplified the motif, reduced it and adapted it to the elon- gated form of the panel. He also claims that panels featuring this scene with signifi- cant iconographic changes do not appear until the last third of the 19th century.

These changes are supposed to have been caused by the copying of colour litho- graphs of this motif, which would have hung on the walls of inns and suchlike. Ac- cording to Makarovic: ‘Even images from the international motif family “the topsy- turvy world” lost their original sense, at least in certain rural environments. For ex- ample the scene in which the animals carry the hunter to his grave, playing the roles of human beings, is explained as the illustration of a story in which a hunter met with an accident and was carried off to his grave by the animals of the forest, or even as an illustration of special grace: the animals are supposed to have buried the hunter in answer to the prayer of his final hour. And thus for example a song from the rural oral tradition featuring this motif offers another interpretation: the animals killed the hunter and rejoice at his death.’ (Maka rov iC-Roge lj Skafa r 2000: 30, 36 and 124)11. A completely different view is offered by the art historian Emilijan Cevc, whose starting point are the historical relations between the peasant and the profes- sional hunter: ‘The motif of the hunter - the official, professional gamekeeper -

11SeealsoG. MAKAROVIC,‘Poslikanepanjskekoncnice’,Likovnizvezki,Vol.2(Ljubljana,1962), p.

128,wheretheauthorclaimsthatthismotifcametoSloveniafrompicturebooksandlithographsfrom CentralEurope.

170 MaijetkaGOLE2KauCiC

whom the beasts bury as in the folk song is an extremely eloquent one. Here the peasantwithhiscommonsenseisinfactventinghisangeratthe absurdhuntinglaw, theviolationofwhichwasforhima heroicact,butnot awicked one.Thepeasant’s ideal is thewild hunter,whomheneverridicules asmuch asthebourgeois ‘Sunday hunter’ being shaved by the hares and foxes.’ (CEVC 1955: 1072-1073). The wild hunter was a peasant himself- another reason for this vision of the professional hunter, which also points to relations between individual social strata. Helmut Kropej believes that thisbeehivepanelbelongs to the thematic cycle known as the

‘topsy-turvyworld’. Inhisopiniontheconceptofanimalsandhumanbeingsrevers- ing theirrolesgrewupin the thirteenth century, ifwe ignoreparallels fromAntiq- uity. In fabrications, farces and fables, proverbs and sayings, we encounter scenes wherea hare pursues dogs or a hunter, where a sheeptears apart awolf... ‘From literarytraditioncomesHansSachs’sfamousfarce“diehasénfangen undpratenden jeger” (“Thehares capture and roastthe hunter”).12To allthe scenes whichrepre- sent thetwosides,theruling andtheruled-i.e. ahierarchicalrelationshipcontrary to reality - two patterns apply: the reversal of theroles ofhuman beings and ani- mals,andareversalofauthorityinsociety.’(KROPEJ1990:67).Theoriginalsenseof thesongcouldhavebeen thereversaloftherolesoffeudallordsandserfs,13 ridicul- ing individualclasses and professions, mockingcertain religiousorders etc. History ofcoursetellsusthatintheMiddleAgesthereweregreatsocialdifferencesbetween feudal lordsandserfs.Therewere alsosocialdifferencesbetweenthevarious social strata andprofessionsorclasses.14Thefolksinger couldonlyexpress thesubjection ofhispositionthroughtheconcealedstructureofpoeticformandthemanshrouded in the imageofan animal. Similarly, different professions ridiculedeach other, es- pecially in cases where one encroached on the other’s sphere (BLAZNIK, Grafe nauer , Vilfan 1970: 486-488). The reversal of the roles of animals and humanbeings is ofcourse only possible if animals are subject to man in the real world.Weknowthatthisholdstrueifviewedfromtheposition ofman astheruler oftheworld.Whatweneedtodoisfindthematerialoriginofourballad,ifpossible, andfind outroughlywhenit appeared andwhyit isknown to Slovenesand notto other nations. I say this only provisionally, since unfortunately I cannot claim to knowtheentireEuropeanballadtradition.

Howcanwediscoverwhat thebasiswasforthesongand the beehivepanel, or know what is original and what the importance ofboth the song and the ethno- graphicimagecanbe?

Ifwe accept the opinion ofthe Hungarian researcher Sándor Solymossy, who saysthat theoriginofimages ofthehunter’sfuneralmustundoubtedlybesoughtin the Frenchnationalepic(orcollectionofstoriesabouta cunningfox)LeRoman de

12PieterBrueghelusestheexpression“VerkeerdeWereld"onthesignoftheludicrousinninhis1559 paintingofproverbs,thusindicatingthatthetopsy-turvyworldisanallegoryfortheludicrousnessand foolishnessofpeople.SeeHelmutKropej ,Poslikanepanjskekoncnice(Klagenfurt,1990),p.67.

13SeealsoSergejVILFAN,PravnazgodovinaSlovencev,Slovenskamatica,Ljubljana,1961.

14cf. Josip GRUDEN,Zgodovinaslovenskeganaroda, Mohorjevadruzba (1992-reprintfrom 1910- 1916).

Renard15 and thatthebasis forthese images is therefore a fable, we can conclude thatthebasisfortheSlovenebeehivepanelistheSlovenefolksongwhichwithouta doubt appeared before lithographs or handbills arrived in Slovenia from western Europe.Theselithographsmayhavelaterhadaninfluenceonthedisseminationand popularisation ofthebeehivepanel featuring thismotif,butwe have to doubtthat theywere the basis for its creation, and in particular that the songonly appeared after these beehive panels had already established themselves.16 This statement is supported by the high incidenceofmotifs from folksongs on beehivepanels -for example the well-known ballad Pegam in Lambergar, which was undoubtedly the materialbasisforabeehivepanel(aviewsharedbyresearchersofSlovenefolkart).

This ballad is seen through human eyes, and the rejoicing at the death ofthe executionerispresentfromthepointofviewofman’sviewoftheworld. Manisable torevengehimself,animalsarenot. Orthissong(orimage) isanallegoryusedbyits creator in order to draw attention to the killing ofanimals, an unethical act. Fur- thermorein this‘allegory’the animalsdidnotsimplyburythe manorcasthisbody awaysomewhere,asmanusuallydoeswithanimals;insteadtheyarranged afuneral, aceremony,forhim.Althoughthe animalsinthesongrejoice,theirhappinessisnot an animal characteristic, itis aprojection ofman’s viewoftheworld. Animals are notmalicious and donot killforrevenge, they donotknow theseemotions (or do they?). Only man could believe that animals could kill their executioner just as downtrodden man often rose up againsthis oppressor, and therefore thisballad is merelyman’sprojectionofhisowndesires andfeelings.Perhapsthecreationofthis storywas alsoacatharticsymbolicact,as an apologyforan actcommitted.Itwould be interesting toestablish the function ofthe storyin people’slives. OrasJohn D.

NileswritesinHomoNarrans(1999),onlymaniscapableofcreatingstoriesandthis is what separates him from other living beings. Perhaps? Whether this story was createdbyapersonwhowishedtoemphasisetheequalroleofanimalsandmen,we canonlyguess.

Ifwe assume that the substance of the story dates from before the sixteenth century, orevenfromtheMiddleAges,wecanperhapsestablishthatthe attitudeto animals is ‘pre-Cartesian’. There are several cases in the 16th century of animals beingafforded thesametreatment ashumanbeings, asshownbythe ‘animaltrials’

15TheentryforFuchs(Fox)intheEnzyklopädiedesMärchensV(Handwörterbuchzurhistorischenund vergleichenden Erzählforschung, Ed. Kurt RANKE, Göttingen (BAUSINGER, BREDNICH, BRÜCKNER, RÖHRICH, SCHENDA),Walterde Gruyter(Berlin-New York, 1985)statesthatLeRoman deRenard presentsthesocialdimensionsofthesefables:‘TierweltundihreSocietätdieFoliefürAnspielungenaufhis- torischeundpolitischeEntwicklungen,sozialeundmoralischeKritikundsatirischeAngriffeaufdasklosterle- benunddieHeiligsprechungabgeben. SolchezeitgenössisheBezügesindallerdingsindenvolksprachlichen Fassungenunterschiedlichausgefallen, unddiesgiltgleichermassenfürdiebislangunzulänglich untersuchte RolledesFuchses,deretwaimmhdReinhartF.dasBöseverkörpert,imfiz.RomandeRenartdagegenwe- sentlichsympatishereZügeträgt.’(p.450).Seealsothebibliographyrelatingtothistopiconp.474andthe GermantranslationbyJacobGRIMM(ReinhartFuchs-ReinekeFuchs,GeorgOlmsVerlag(Hildesheim- NewYork1974)).

16Beehivepanelsfirstbegantoappearattheendofthe18thcenturybutreachedtheirgreatestvogue inthesecondhalfofthe19thcentury.

172 MarjetkaOole ZKauCiC

which tookplacefrom the thirteenth centuryto the eighteenthcentury, where ani- mals(worms, leeches,rats)which‘threatened’ thewell-being ofhumanbeingswere given their own lawyer, in otherwords treated as equals: for examplein 1587 the inhabitantsofthevillageofSaintJulienwenttothediocesanjudge atSaint-Jean-de- Maurennetobringasuitagainstaplagueofmaggotswhich hadattacked theirvine- yards and causedenormous damage. The casewaswon bythe maggots, whowere defended by a lawyer, and the verdict pronouncedby the diocesanjudge was that animalscreated by Godhave theright,justas human beings do, to feedonplants.

Heorderedthe inhabitantsofSaintJulientodo penanceand calledon themtore- pentoftheirsinsandtocallonGod’smercy(Ferry 1998:9).

Is thistruehumanismbecause itisjoinedwithzoophilia? Perhapsourballadis the reflection ofsuch an attitude tonature and the animal kingdom. Perhaps it is talking to us about this non-topsy-turvyworld, or is a warning in the shape ofthe viewoftheworldheldbyLeonardodaVinciandStFrancisofAssisi.17Perhapsthis hidden structureoftheballad is forour time, tellingusnotonlywhat the pastwas likebutthatwecanlearnsomethingfromthispast,thatthemeaningcommunicated by theballad can alsobe usefulfor thepresent day.18 Theethicaldimension ofthe balladisthespecialattitudeofitscreatortowardsanimals,evidentinthe anthropo- morphisingoftheanimalswhich appearinthesong, intheirbehaviourtowards hu- manbeingswhichisthesameasthebehaviourofhumanbeingsthemselves,butwith onefurtherperspective:theanimalsmayrejoiceatthehunter’sdeathbutneverthe- lesstheyrespectfullyaccompanyhimtohisfuneral.

CONCLUSION

Thus wefind intheballad atleast threepossibletheses ortheoriesconcerning thethematicorhistoricalbackgroundofthesong:

1.Thesongispartoftheconception ofatopsy-turvyworld,wheretherolesand mutual relationships ofpeople and animals are reversed in an ironic sociological viewoftheworld. This is a symbolicrenderingofhuman relationships,in ourcase the relationship between the feudal lord and his serfs, and therefore a concealed criticismofsocialconditions.

2.Thesongisacritiqueofoneclassbyanother:peasantsmockinghunterswho belongtoadifferentsocialstratum.

3.Thesongis arepresentationof“pre-Cartesian”times,whenanimalswerenot

“mere machines”without feelings, tobe treated by man asobjectswith no ethical

17LeonardodaVincipredictedthatin ahundredyears’timekillingananimalwouldbeconsidered thesameaskillingahumanbeing.ForStFrancisallofGod’screatureswerebrothersandsisters.

18Perhapswe canobservein thissong the hiddenbelief inheritedfrom the immemorial past and preserved,thathigherforceswatchoverman’streatmentofanimalsandthatmaltreatmentofanimalsis severelypunished.Thisideaisespeciallytopicaltodayaswewitnessthemassslaughterofanimalsand seetheheapedcarcassesofsentientbeingskilledbymanbecauseofhisown mistakes,greedandglut- tony.

significance. It points to the ethical aspects ofman’s treatmentof animals. Rather than describing a topsy-turvyworld, it speaks of human beings’ attitudes towards animalsprior to the 17th century, when people were still aware that the killingof animalswasanunethicalact.Perhapsthisballadspeaksofman’sbadconscienceand ofhis compassion for animals. Theironic approach, employing thereversal of the humanand animalworlds,mayhavebeentheonlypossiblewayofaddressingalter- nativevalues.

Thelikelihoodthat, takingthehistoricalmigrationtheory,the originofthebal- lad canbefoundin medievalcollectionsofstories inFrance (ignoring storiesfrom Antiquity) and stories aboutcunning foxeswhich wereused to ridicule man’s mis- takes(in theMiddleAgesmonasticorderswere themainobjectsofridicule),which cametoSloveniafromEuropeviapaintedimages,issmall.Thereisnodatasuggest- ingthattheRomandeRenardstorieswereevenknownin Sloveniainthatperiod.It is morelikely that the Slovene ballad appeared independently. Perhaps the ballad waswrittenasaresultofoneofthethreetheorieslistedabove. It isinterestingthat we find the same motifboth in song and in painting. It may be the case that the beehivepanelwasoriginallybasedonthesongand thatitspopularisationwaspartly theresultoftheimageswhichlaterspreadtoSloveniafromCentralEurope.

In orderforthispapertobecompleteandinorder topresentallofthe aspects indicated,wewouldhavetoexpanditandresearchpossibleconnectionswithsimilar motifs, balladsorfablesfromelsewherein Europe and theworld (ifofcourse they exist), the symbolic, metaphorical and mythological backgrounds of the individual animalsappearingin theballad, archetypalmotifs and connectionsbetween animal and man(ethologicalaspects) andtherolesofanimals inthe realand mythological worlds.Butthesequestionsarealreadythesubjectofthenextpaper.

LITERATURE

Blazni k,Pavle-GRAFENAUER,Bogo-ViLFAN,Sergij(eds)

1970: GospodarskaindruzbenazgodovinaSlovencev.Vol.I.DZS.Ljubljana.

Cevc ,Emilijan

1955: Problematikanaäihposlikanihpanjskihkoncnic.Nasasodobnost,11/12.1061-1078.

DETELA,Jure

1988: Ekologija,ekonomijaprezivetjainzivalskepravice.Novarevija,77.1473-1484.

Ferry ,Luc

1998: Noviekoloskired:drevo,zivalinclovek.Krt.Ljubljana.

Grimm ,Jacob

1974: ReinhartFuchs-ReinekeFuchs.GeorgOlmsVerlag.Hildesheim-NewYork.

Grude n,Josip

1992(reprintfrom1910-1916):Zgodovinaslovenskeganaroda.Mohorjevaáruiba.Celje.

KROPEJ,Helmut

1990: Poslikanepanjskekoncnice.Mohorjevazalozba.Celovec/Klagenfurt.

KUMER,Zmaga

1957: Godíevskiinplesnimotivinapanjskihkoncnicah.SlovenskietnografX.157-165.

KUNZLE,David

1978: World Upside Down: The Iconography of a European Broadsheet Type. In: Barbara A.

BABCOCK(ed.),TheReversibleWorld:SymbolicInversioninArtandSociety.CornellUniversity Press.IthacaandLondon.39-94.

MaijetkaGole ZKauCiC 174

Maka rovi C,Gorazd

1962: Poslikanepanjskekoncnice.Likovnizvezki2.Mladinskaknjiga.Ljubljana.

Maka rovi C,Gorazd-ROGEU§kap ar ,Bojana

2000: Poslikanepanjskekoncnice:zbirkaSlovenskegaetnogrqfskegamuzeja=Paintedbeehivepanels:the collectionoftheSloveneEthnographicMuseum.Slovenskietnografskimuzej.Ljubljana.

MATICETOV,Milko

1956: Ljudskapróza.In:IvanGRAFENAUERandLinoLEGiSA(eds),Zgodovinaslovenskegaslovstva:

Dozacetkovromantike.Vol.I.,Ljubljana.Slovenskamatica.119-138.

RANKE,Kurt(RolfWilhelmBREDNICH,HermannBAUSINGERetal.)(eds)

1987: EnzyklopädiedesMärchensV(Handwörterbuchzurhistorischenundvergleichenden Erzähl- forschung).Vol.5.WalterdeGruyter.Berlin-NewYork.

SOLYMOSSY,Sándor

1915: Avadásztemetése.EthnographiaXXVI.232-255.

Strek eu,Karel

1895-1898:Slovenskenarodnepesmi.Ljubljana.Slovenskamatica(Reprint).

STRUBEU,Albina

1996: Ljudskavednostоdomaíihzivalihintujauéenostnanasizemlji.lYaditiones25,453-460.

VlLFAN,Sergij

1961: PravnazgodovinaSlovencev.Ljubljana.Slovenskamatica.

1996: ZgodovinskapravotvomostinSlovenci.Cankarjevazalozba.Ljubljana.