Malefactor and Antagonist: A Study in Aetiological Legend Structures

Malefactor and Antagonist: A Study in Aetiological Legend StructuresAuthor(s): Thomas JohansenSource: Folklore, Vol. 100, No. 2 (1989), pp. 184-200Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of Folklore Enterprises, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1260296 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 21:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Folklore Enterprises, Ltd. and Taylor & Francis, Ltd. are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Folklore.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.78 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:08:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fel

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1260296?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Folklore vol.100:ii, 1989 184

Malefactor and Antagonist: A Study in Aetiological Legend Structures THOMAS JOHANSEN

AETIOLOGY means the accounting for something remarkable and/or unusual which for some reason demands an explanation, an explanation which is arrived at with the help of fantasy.' Aetiological legends, then, are a well-defined type of legend, and the material is very extensive. This cannot be wondered at, as human curiosity has always prompted the endeavour to give an explanation of the origin of remarkable objects in our vicinity.

In dealing with legends, and not only aetiological ones, it is striking to note that some motifs occur again and again, for example the drowning of impious people, the prohibition against looking back, and the rejection of a request. It must, however, be remembered that in an aetiological legend the actions will always result in some physical feature coming into being.

'Local [aetiological] legends are brief, their motives few and for ever recurring;2 i.e. they are composed of relatively few episodes. Regarding their relation to each other, it would seem natural to consider the narrator's situation. If in the first episode of a legend a cause is felt to be lacking, the audience will ask: 'How did that come about?' and, correspondingly, if the final episode seems to lack a satisfactory outcome, it will ask: 'And what happened next?' Thus the legend will normally appear as a chain of episodes following each other in a logically determined order. We shall not, however, deal with one-episodical legends which, according to what has been stated above, have no structure as they consist of one episode having no cause and no consequence. For instance: When we hear that a certain mountain was carried by a giant in his basket which broke so that the mountain fell to the ground, it is useless to ask why he carried it, as the answer would be: 'Such is the nature of giants.' Correspondingly it would be irrelevant to ask about the consequence.

THE COMPONENTS OF AN EPISODE AND THE LEGEND-STRUCTURE

The term 'episode' has already been used several times. But what should be understood by an episode from a structural point of view?3 We shall consider it as consisting of an animate agent performing an action which causes an object, animate or inanimate, to be brought from one state, the pre-state, into another state, the post-state. In many cases we find a subordinate episode which expresses some accompanying circumstances under which the action of the agent is brought about (e.g. the agent using an instrument, or the agent having had a certain experience). Moreover the location in space and/or time of the episode can be stated. Thus a 'complete' episode will consist of the following components: The agent; one or several subordinate episodes; the object in its pre-state; the object in its post-state; the location of the episode.

It will be observed that an episode contains only one (main) action. Thus 'episode' and 'action' are corresponding terms, but in using 'episode' we are more concerned with the content, while 'action' is a structural term.



MALEFACTOR AND ANTAGONIST 185

As the object in its post-state is the more or less lasting result of the action, it will attract attention to a much higher degree that it did in its pre-state. Accordingly the simplest form of an episode will consist of only two components: The agent, and the object in its post-state. Example: 'The soldiers destroyed the fortress.' The agent: the soldiers. The object in its post-state: the fortress having been destroyed.

This, of course, could be augmented with a subordinate episode, such as: (The soldiers) having bribed the guards.

An episode will often be found in an incomplete form, as the agent may not be stated. This is the case with legends which begin with the object being in such-and-such state (e.g. 'Some people were in distress at sea'). In other cases the agent is implicit (e.g. 'as a punishment the cloudburst carried the impious people away,' where it is implied that God was the agent.).

In its more profound meaning a change of state means that the object acquires or loses a relationship to another object, a relationship, which respectively, it had not, or had, before, or that the object had a relationship to a certain other object and this other object has now been exchanged with another one.

In the first case the pre- and post-states (the 'before' and 'after' conditions) can be expressed thus:

The object not connected with a certain other object, the object connected with that other object,

and vice versa. Example: 'The well acquired healing properties':

The well having no healing properties the well having healing properties

Here the states are contradictory, but in the other case where the object is exchanged with another one, they will be in contrast:

The object connected with a certain other object the object connected with yet another object.

Example: 'The malefactor was turned to stone': The malefactor in the form of a living person the malefactor in the form of a stone.

In the 'contradictory' case there are only two possibilities; in the 'contrasting' case there are several, as the malefactor could have been turned into something else.

Moving on from one-episodical legends we will now consider the more complex ones which are composed of at least two episodes. Here the epic tension is established by having two agents with contrasting attitudes to an object, acting and counteracting.

Let the first of these two episodes be an episode of malevolence in which an animate agent, the malefactor, does harm to an object. Then the following episode will have the antagonist as its agent, who accordingly is benevolently disposed towards the object in the first episode. The antagonist brings the matter to a satisfactory conclusion, either by acting as benefactor in restoring the pre-state of the object or, if this impossible, by acting as the punisher of the malefactor.

However, it may happen that the basic feature, the existence of which the legend will explain, is not created in this episode, in which case the legend will be augmented with one or several subsequent episodes. The feature in question may come into being as a



186 THOMAS JOHANSEN

token of gratitude on the part of the object, or of the malefactor's repentance. In cases where the malefactor is punished by disappearance it may come into being in order to show where the punishment took place.

As a prelude, a succession of episodes leading up to and motivating the episode of malevolence will sometimes be found. In this way the legend may consist of the following episodes: episode(s) of preliminary narration; the episode containing the malefactor's action; the episode containing the antagonist's reaction; an episode in which the basic feature is created.

ANALYSIS OF AN AETIOLOGICAL LEGEND

On the basis of what has been stated above we shall now analyse the following legend:4 A certain farm was owned by terribly crude and impious people. One day they dressed up a pig, placed it in a bed, and sent for the vicar, telling him that their old mother was dying and wanted to see him.

When he saw that he had been mocked he got angry, cursed the farm and its people, upon which they sank into the earth.

On the spot where the farm had disappeared a lake came into being.5

This legend clearly consists of three episodes: the episode of malevolence (the people mocking the vicar), the episode with the antagonist's reaction (here as punisher of the people), and the episode where the basic feature of the legend is created (the coming into being of the lake). It should be noted that the episode of punishment is evaluated as such from the point of view of the offended party (the vicar, being the object of the first episode), as it always is. (But from the malefactor's point of view a punishment would, of course, be an action of malevolence).

Now we shall present the legend in a formal way which should make each component stand out more clearly. This procedure will later make it much easier to compare legends that have the same structure. In this representation 'malefactor' and 'antagonist' as agents will be written in italics, as will the basic feature of the legend.

Malefactor: the people on the farm. Subordinate episode: dressing up a pig, etc.; sending for the vicar, etc. The object in its post-state: the vicar having been mocked.

Antagonist (as punisher): the vicar. Subordinate episode: condemning the farm people. The object in its post-state: the people having been disposed of

Basic episode: the lake coming into being.

In the second episode the antagonist reacts against being mocked, but as this post-state cannot be changed, it must be revenged, and accordingly the malefactors are punished.

STATES, ACTIONS, AND LEGEND-STRUCTURES

An episode of malevolence or punishment contains, as stated, an action where the object of that action is brought into an unsatisfactory state. This raises the question of the possible post-states resulting from such actions. Considering the object's ability to act when it is in its post-state, and the possibility of the re-establishment of its pre-state, we can recognize four cases:

The object is able to act and re-establishes its pre-state by following advice given by the antagonist. The object is able to act, but cannot re-establish its pre-state by itself. Consequently

it is helped by the antagonist, who may have been asked for help or not. The object is able to act but its pre-state cannot be re-established, hence the antagonist

will act as the punisher of the malefactor. (As in the case of the vicar in the above example).




The object is unable to act because it has been transformed to an inanimate state or has been eliminated. (As were the people on the farm in the example given above).

Concerning actions, it must be borne in mind that we are dealing with legends in which there is an episode with the malefactor as agent, followed by another in which the antagonist's reaction occurs. These two episodes, then, form the 'nucleus' of the legend, and hence we arrive at a formula which expresses the three main components of this nucleus:

Malefactor * Object * Antagonist (enemy of of the male- (friend of the object) factor's action the object)

Here it would seem natural to divide the legends into two groups according to the antagonist's role as punisher, or benefactor. The antagonist will act as punisher if the malefactor has: (a) performed a 'real' malefactory action, i.e. if it has brought the object, or the antagonist itself, into an unsatisfactory state, maybe if it has violated a prohibition laid down by the antagonist; or (b), if it has omitted to grant a request from the object or the antagonist thus maintaining it in its unsatisfactory state. As for the antagonist's role as benefactor: It will act as such when it (a) re-establishes the object's pre-state, eventually by disabling the malefactor, or (b) when it reacts upon the intention of the malefactor, preventing the malefactory action and thus maintaining the object in its present state.

On the basis of this we can recognize the following types of legends: I The antagonist punishes the malefactor who has harmed or offended the object

or the antagonist. II The antagonist punishes the malefactor for having violated a prohibition laid down

by the antagonist. III The antagonist, being identical with the malefactor, punishes itself. IV The antagonist punishes the malefactor for having denied a request given by the

object or the antagonist. V The antagonist restores the object's pre-state by disabling the malefactor.

VI The antagonist restores the object's pre-state without interfering with the malefactor. VII The antagonist maintains the object's present state in spite of the malefactor's

intention. Below examples (A-S) of these types will be given. At the same time each legend will

be analysed and set up in such a way that its construction and the type to which it belongs can be clearly seen. In a following section some examples of legends with dual character, i.e. legends where two attitudes of the agents in one of the two episodes are expressed, will be given.

EXAMPLES OF LEGEND-TYPES: THE ANTAGONIST AS PUNISHER

Type I. The antagonist punishes the malefactor who has harmed or offended the object or the antagonist.

This type reveals itself in two different forms, according to the character of the relationship between the object and the antagonist. In one form these two components are identical, while this is not the case in the other. As the relationship between the object and the antagonist is often very close it can be difficult to decide to which of the two types the legend in question should belong.



188 THOMAS JOHANSEN

In the above-mentioned legend of the people on the farm, which clearly belongs to this type, we can interpret the vicar as being identical with the antagonist, as we did in the analysis. But after all the vicar is God's representative, which could mean that we might just as well consider God as the real antagonist, and thus the vicar as the object. Due to this complexity, it might be better to avoid the distinction between the two forms, as it could prove to be very difficult indeed to define between them.

A. In Cornwall there is a sandbank known as Doom Bar, which choked Padstow harbour and caused many shipwrecks. It is the result of a curse laid by a mermaid who was shot at by a local resident.6

B. During the Thirty-Years' War many Protestants fled to the Alps. So did some boys who came to Weissbriach where they found a goldmine. But when they had dug a pit and had started to work the mine they were found by their pursuers, who condemned them to death. They were, however, allowed to descend the pit once more, and then they laid a spell on the mine causing it to yield no more gold.7

C. Three rocks in France on the river Meuse are said to be three ladies of the manor who deceived their husbands while they were at war in the Holy Land. As a punishment they were turned to rocks.s

Malefactor A a local resident B the pursuers of the boys C the ladies

subordinate episode A- B allowing the boys to descend the pit C-

the object in its post-state A the mermaid having been shot at B the boys having been killed C the husbands having been deceived

Antagonist (punisher) A the mermaid B the boys having descended the pit C God (implicit)

subordinate episode A creating the Doom Bar B laying a spell on the mine C-

the object in its post-state A the villagers having had their harbour choked causing shipwrecks B the mine yielding no more gold C the ladies turned to rocks

Referring to the introductory remarks concerning this type, the three examples given here have, however, no ambivalence as to the question of the identity of the object and the antagonist. In A and B they are clearly identical (the mermaid and the boys), while in C they are not identical (the husbands / God).

It should be noted that in B the punishment (the mine being made useless) precedes the malefactor's action (the killing of the boys). Moreover the legend does not explain the existence of a remarkable feature (the mine being rich in gold) but contrarily the absence of it.




Type II. The antagonist punishes the malefactor for having violated a prohibition laid down by the antagonist.

Whatever the character of the malefactions, the violation of a prohibition against looking in a certain direction or at a certain object is a grave offence. In the legends considered here the result, or the punishment, will be the malefactor's transformation into a stone. That the punishment is so severe is understandable if we allow the interpretation that it is an attempt of man to explore the secrets of the deity,9 especially if the motif is seen as coming from a Christian background. In such a case we are concerned with an attempt to acquire God's wisdom, which was the cause of the fall of man and his expulsion from Paradise. On superficial consideration the punishment in the latter case could not, for good reasons, be a physical transformation into stone, but if we look at the matter from a broader point of view, it could be said that man's spirit became 'fossilized' he lost his immortality, i.e. he became like a stone.

As to the problem mentioned in the introduction to Type I, the uncertainty regarding the identity of the object and the antagonist, it is not relevant here, as the violation of the prohibition concerns the antagonist directly.

D. Five miles north of Portree, on the island of Skye, Scotland, there is a black rock-stack, 160 ft high, called the Old Man of Storr. Another stack, the wife, has fallen over. These are said to have been an old couple who went hunting a lost cow and encountered a band of magical giants. The couple ran away but made the mistake of looking back and were turned to stone.1.

E. The legend of Lot leaving the city of Sodom before it was destroyed is probably the most famous example of this type. Although his wife knew that they had been forbidden to look behind them, she disregarded the constraint and was transformed into a pillar of salt.11.

F In the Leofric Hotel in Coventry there is a wooden figure with an agonized expression in its unseeing eyes. It is called Peeping Tom and it is said that he was transformed into this shape because he had the temerity to look at Lady Godiva riding naked through the town.12

Malefactor D the old couple E Lot's wife F Peeping Tom

the object in its post-sate D the old couple having looked behind them E Lot's wife having looked behind her F Peeping Tom having looked at Lady Godiva

Antagonist (punisher) D the magic giants E God (implicit) F Lady Godiva

the object in its post-state D the old couple turned into two rocks E Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt F Peeping Tom turned into a wooden effigy

Type III. The antagonist, being identical with the malefactor, punishes itself.



190 THOMAS JOHANSEN

Due to the identity of the opposed components of malefactor and antagonist, this type is rarely met with. In a certain sense both the types II and III could be considered as subtypes to Type I.

G. The church of Our Saviour in Copenhagen has a spire with an outside staircase winding counterclockwise upwards. When the builder had finished the spire he saw to his despair that he had made an error, as he had made the staircase wind against the sun. Consequently he went to the top of the spire and threw himself down.13

Malefactor G the builder

subordinate episode G making the staircase wind against the sun

the object in its post-state G the builder in despair

Antagonist (punisher) G the builder

subordinate episode G throwing himself out from the top of the spire

the object in its post-state G the builder having punished himself

Type IV. The antagonist punishes the malefactor for having denied a request from the object or the antagonist.

In this type the remarks from Type I concerning the relationship between the object and the antagonist are relevant.

H. St Paulinus was riding in the vicinity of Caistor, Lincolnshire, England. Here he met a man sowing corn, of whom he requested some grain to feed his ass. The man said that he had none. In answer to the question of what was in a sack that St.Paulinus saw in the field, the man lied and said that it was not a sack but a stone. 'Then stone it shall be,' St Paulinus retorted, and the stone stands to this very day on Fonaby Top.14

I. The Wildalpensee in Bavaria flooded a field which used to be a fertile pasture. The shepherds and shepherdesses lived in a whirl of pleasures, but one Sunday a small man came and asked for alms. They denied his request and mocked him, but then he stamped with his foot and so much water gushed forth that they were all drowned.15

J. A subterranean river, which has now disappeared but the existence of which is attested, drove a mill in Grainville d'Alouette in Normandy. Once a woman, who held in her arms a child, which was dying from cold and hunger, asked the miller for a morsel of bread and some straw on which to lay the child. He refused, and the woman pronounced a malediction, upon which the millstones stopped turning as the river had changed its course to a subterranean bed.'6

Malefactor H a man sowing corn I the shepherds and shepherdesses J the miller

subordinate episode H being asked for a corn I being asked for alms J being asked for a morsel of bread, etc




the object in its post-state H St. Paulinus having been lied to I the small man having had his request denied J the woman having had her request denied

Antagonist (punisher) H St. Paulinus I the small man J the woman

subordinate episode H turning the sack of corn into a stone I stamping with his foot making water gush forth J making the river change its course to a subterranean bed

the object in its post-state H the man deprived of his corn I the shepherds and shepherdesses drowned in a lake J the miller having had his mill made useless

EXAMPLES OF LEGEND-TYPES: THE ANTAGONIST AS BENEFACTOR

The question of identity between the object and the antagonist is not present in these types (V, VI, VIII). This is due to the fact that a benefactor will act towards an object which is not identical with itself, an object which moreover, for good reasons, cannot be identical with the malefactor unless the malefactor repents, in which situation it can be considered a malefactor no more.

Type V. The antagonist restores the object's pre-state by disabling the malefactor.

K. A well was the only source of water for the people of Ellesmere, Shropshire, England, but a new landowner imposed a charge for every bucketful. The people prayed that God might redress their wrongs, and one night the water rose until it flooded the land, and thus everyone had enough water.17

L. About the origin of seven rocks at the entrance to the bay of Chiavara, Corsica, it is said that once the fishermen were struck by fear as they saw seven pirate-vessels outside the bay waiting for the morning breeze to take them into the harbour. Apparently they intended to attack the village, and the fishermen implored the Holy Virgin to help them. When the morning came the ships remained immovable as they had been turned to rocks.8.

M. The villagers of Wookey in Somerset, England, were frightened by the wickedness of a witch who lived in the cave called Wookey Hole. They appealed to the Abbot of Glastonbury to rid them of-her, and a monk was sent to confront the witch whom he besprinkled with holy water which caused her to be turned to stone.19

Malefactor K the new landowner L the pirate-vessels M the witch of Wookey

subordinate episode K imposing a charge for the water L supposedly intending an attack M having shown wickedness towards the villagers

the object in its post-state K the villagers feeling wronged and imploring God L the fishermen feeling frightened and imploring the Holy Virgin M the villagers feeling frightened and appealing to the Abbot



192 THOMAS JOHANSEN

Antagonist (benefactor) K God L the Holy Virgin M the Abbot of Glastonbury

subordinate episode K making the well overflow to a lake L turning the pirates and their vessels to rocks M sending a monk who turns the witch to stone

the object in its post-state K the villagers having free water again L the fishermans' peace having been restored M the villagers having been freed of their fright

Type VI. The antagonist restores the object's pre-state without interfering with the malefactor.

N.. Very often we hear of people tormented by thirst imploring a holy man to supply water; he then strikes a rock with his staff and a spring gushes forth.20

0. The dilapidated church on the island of Hela off Danzig was built by three Swedish sisters who, on account of their being baptized, had been sent to sea in a trough. They had promised to build a church if they were saved, and this happened, thanks to the intervention of St. Nicholas.21

P. Some people were building a church, but whatever they built in the daytime the ogres pulled down at night. Having received advice concerning their situation, the people yoked two oxen and left them to roam where they liked. On the spot where they were found in the morning the church was built. That is why the church has an awkward location.22

Malefactor N circumstances (implicit) O an unchristian power P the ogres, by nature averse to churches

subordinate episode N causing the people to find no water O sending the sisters to sea P pulling the building down at night

the object in its post-state N the people harassed by thirst O the sisters being in distress at sea P the people having their work destroyed

Antagonist (benefactor) N a holy man O St. Nicholas P the giver of advice

subordinate episode N creating a spring O having observed the sisters' promise to build a church P giving advice which is followed by the people




the object in its post-state N the people having had their thirst quenched O the sisters having been rescued P the people having built the church in an awkward location

Basic episode: O the sisters building the church

Type VII. The antagonist acts as benefactor by maintaining the object's present state in spite of the malefactor's intention.

Q. A giant who was averse to churches threw a rock against a certain church in order to destroy it, but the rock was averted and did not hit the church but fell at a distance from it. The fingermarks of the giant are seen in the rock.23

R. St. Patrick, the apostle of Ireland, was born near Glasgow. His great piety offended the Devil, who raised an army of witches in order to attack the saint. On the banks of the Clyde, however, St. Patrick found a boat in which he pushed off for Ireland. Witches cannot cross running water and hence his pursuers tore a rock from a nearby hill and hurled it at him. It did not hit him but became the rock on which Dumbarton castle is built.24

S. Robin Hood and Little John were bent on destroying the monks at Womersley in Herefordshire, England. They set out, each carrying a spadeful of earth. When they arrived at King's Pyon, they asked a travelling cobbler who was laden down with shoes, how much further it was to Womersley. He replied that they would not get there even if they were to wear out all the shoes he was carrying, and as many more again. In disgust they dropped the earth on two spots now known as the Butts.25

Malefactor Q a giant R the Devil S Robin Hood and Little John

subordinate episode Q hurling a rock against the church R sending an army of witches after the saint S setting out with a spadeful of earth each

the object in its intended state Q the church being destroyed R St Patrick being killed S the monks at Womersley being killed

Antagonist (benefactor) Q God (implicit) R God (implicit) S the cobbler

subordinate episode Q making the rock miss the church R making the rock miss St. Patrick S making the malefactors drop the earth forming two hills

the object in its post-state (= its present state) Q the church being untouched R St. Patrick being unharmed S the monks being unharmed



194 THOMAS JOHANSEN

LEGENDS OF DUAL CHARACTER

Up to now we have been dealing with legends where the antagonist acts either as punisher of the malefactor, or as benefactor of the object. In other legends we find, in addition to the malefactor, a non-malefactor. Accordingly the antagonist will play the roles both of punisher and of benefactor, or we may have one malefactor with two antagonists playing the roles of punisher and benefactor. Thus we recognize three types of legends of dual character:

VIII The antagonist acts in two roles: As punisher of the malefactor and as benefactor towards the non-malefactor.

IX The antagonist acts as benefactor towards an object and then as punisher of this object.

X Two antagonists with different attitudes act towards one malefactor. In order to analyse these legends it will be most convenient to split them in two, so

that this duality can be seen more clearly. Type VIII. The antagonist acts in two roles: As punisher of the malefactor and as

benefactor towards the non-malefactor. According to the number of malefactors and non-malefactors we can distinguish three

subtypes demonstrated in the following three examples. Several malefactors vs several non-malefactors: T. The inhabitants of a hilly region in Austria desecrated Sunday by dancing and following other temporal occupations, and as a punishment God drowned them in heavy rain. But there was a danger that the water streaming down the hillside would also drown the people in the valley, and they had done nothing wrong in this respect. Hence God let the water freeze, the people were saved, and the Pasterzenglacier had come into being.26

Several malefactors vs one non-malefactor: U. Of the stone circles near Stanton Drew, Somerset, England, it is told that a married couple held their wedding reception there on a Saturday. The dancing and drinking continued until midnight when the piper refused to play any longer. The bride was furious and swore that she would find another piper even if she should have to go to Hell to fetch him. Then an old man (in fact the Devil), appeared and offered to play. Soon after he was forced to switch to a quicker tune. He, however, played faster and faster without the people being able to stop, and by dawn the whole party had been reduced to skeletons. When the villagers came in the morning they found that these remains had been turned into the stones that stand there today. Only the village piper had survived, although he was almost dead with fright.27

One malefactor vs several non-malefactors: V. To protect their monstrance from being desecrated by the Turks, the priests of the town of Viktring in Kirnten, Austria, took it to an out-of-the-way chapel, but in doing so they trampled the crops and the peasants demurred. One of them was very angry and blamed God for His injustice. But when the monstrance had been brought to safety all the crops rose up again, with the excepti6n of those in the angry peasant's field. He, however, repented and promised that he would build a church instead of the chapel if his crops were raised again. His crops were restored, and the church was built.28

Malefactor T the inhabitants of the hilly region U the married couple V the procession of the priests

subordinate episode T desecrating Sunday U saying that even if she should have to go to Hell, etc. V treading one peasant's crops down




the object in its post-state T God being offended U the old man having appeared V one peasant having blamed God

Antagonist (punisher) T God U the old man V God

subordinate episode T causing heavy rain to fall U making the party unable to stop dancing V -

the object in its post-state T the inhabitants having been drowned U the married couple and their party turned to stones V the angry peasant not having his crops raised

Non-malefactor T the people in the valley U the village piper V the peasants who did not abuse God

subordinate episode T not participating in the desecration U refusing to play after midnight V -

the object in its post-state T God, no longer offended U the village piper having been scolded by the bride V the peasants having had their crops trodden down

Antagonist (benefactor) T God U the old man V God

subordinate episode T freezing the water to a glacier U ignoring the village piper V -

the object in its post-state T the people in the valley being unharmed U the village piper having saved his life V the peasants having had their crops raised

Basic episode V the angry peasant has his crops raised and builds the church

Type IX. The antagonist acts as benefactor towards an object and then as punisher of the object. W. In the Chanda district of the Central Provinces (in India), is the lake of Taroba or Tadala. A marriage procession was once passing the place, and, finding, no water, a strange-looking old man suggested that the bride and bridegroom should join in digging for a spring. They laughingly consented, and after removing a little earth a clear fountain gushed forth. As they were all drinking with delight the waters rose, and spreading into a wide lake, overwhelmed the married pair.29



196 THOMAS JOHANSEN

The married couple's ambivalent attitude to the strange-looking old man's suggestion leads us to consider the legend as consisting of two parts, the first one as belonging to type VI, the other as belonging to type I. The object of the beneficial action in the first part is the malefactor in the second.

Malefactor-1 W circumstances (implicit)

subordinate episode W causing the couple to find no water

the object in its post-state W the couple harassed by thirst

Antagonist (benefactor) W the strange-looking old man

subordinate episode W giving the advice of digging for a spring

the object in its post-state W the couple having their thirst quenched

Malefactor-2 W the couple

subordinate episode W laughingly consenting to follow the advice

the object in its post-state W the strange-looking old man having been mocked

Antagonist (punisher) W the strange-looking old man

subordinate episode W making the spring overflow to a lake

the object in its post-state W the couple having been drowned

Type X. Two antagonists with different attitudes act towards one malefactor.

X. A friar from the monastery of Sainte Marguerite had fallen in love with a young girl and he left the monastery to join her. But, exhausted by rough weather, he collapsed, and the demons quickly gathered in order to carry his soul away. At this moment, however, his guardian angel appeared and said to him: 'You have committed a grave sin, and you shall stand here in the shape of a stone until the Last Day.' The stone is seen on the road from Prats de Mollo to La Preste in the Eastern Pyrenees.30

The existence of two antagonists means, in this case too that the legend can be considered as consisting of two parts of which the first one belongs to type I, whereas the second one has characteristics belonging to types VI and I.

Malefactor X the friar

subordinate episodes X falling in love with a young girl

leaving the monstery to join her the object in its post-state

X the friar having committed a grave sin Antagonist--1 (punisher)

X the demons




subordinate episode X gathering around the friar

the object in its intended post-state X the friar's soul having been carried away

Malefactor X the friar

subordinate episodes X falling in love with a young girl

leaving the monastery to join her the object in its post-state

X the friar having committed a grave sin Antagonist-2 ('benefactor')

X the guardian angel subordinate episodes

X saving him from the demons pronouncing another form of punishment

the object in its post-state X the friar turned to stone until Doomsday

The designation of 'benefactor' is used here in a relative sense, because compared to what would have been the friar's fate if he had fallen in the hands of the demons, the guardian angel's punishment must, after all, be considered a beneficial act.

In comparison with the legends belonging to types I-VI, where there is an epic tension in the form of a contrast between the malefactor and the antagonist, there is in types VIII-X a further tension which is found in different forms. In type VIII we have a passive counterpart of the malefactor and the antagonist: The non-malefactor and an antagonist which performs a beneficial act towards the non-malefactor in avoiding to punish it. In types IX and X the antagonist's double role is played by the same and by different antagonists, respectively.

REFI ECTIONS ON THE ORIGIN OF AETIOLOGICAL LEGENDS

In the previous sections we have considered the legends as having a character which is distinctly spiritual and which leads from a 'natural' start to the creation of a physical feature, and where two central episodes have been identified. The legends have, in other words, been considered from the point of view of an audience.

But when we are concerned with the origin of a certain legend the situation is quite reversed because we shall now have to consider it from the point of view of the narrator who told it for the first time.

A natural question to ask would then be: 'Why does the legend take only this form, couldn't it have taken another one?' To answer this we shall have to make an attempt to force our way into the primary narrator's mind when we imagine him looking at some conspicious feature the origin of which he felt a need to explain. Because of difficulties in connection with some of the uncertain factors we are up against here, it will be possible to give only some indications of the nature of his thoughts.

To begin with, the primary narrator is confronted with the following facts: The type of feature; its properties (form, colours, size, etc.); the number of similar features at one place; the feature's surroundings; his knowledge of historical facts concerning the locality; his knowledge of other legends explaining a similar feature.



198 THOMAS JOHANSEN

When his mental powers have been stimulated by these facts his imagination begins to work, concerning the sort of impression which the feature makes on his mind and hence its representing the outcome of a maleficiant or a beneficial action; the agent who created it; the cause of the agent's action.

We shall limit the considerations here to features which are commonly found in aetiological legends:

Due to its immobility and inanimate state, a rock will give an ominous impression, especially if it resembles a person. This is often the case with upright standing stones which have been eroded at the top (by wind, rain and frost, etc.). A lake will give a similar impression because its waters do not move. Whatever falls into the lake will remain there, 'its mirror-like surface attracts the imprudent, and the secrets of its depths are dangerous.'31 In contrast to these gloomy features, a spring or a well is inevitably considered as a boon, especially in hot countries where good drinking-water is difficult to obtain. In cooler climates people are as a rule more concerned about the possible healing properties of the water. Finally a church will be considered positively as an expression of gratitude towards God. As a consequence, the two first-named features will generally be regarded as the results of malefactory actions and, as the creating of each feature is the episode which brings the legend to a satisfactory conclusion, it will be a result of a punishment or of a means used to remove a potential malefactor. In the latter three cases the features will be interpreted as being the results of beneficial actions.

The agent (i.e. the antagonist) will have to be endowed with great power in order to be able to perform the action which, as stated, brings the conflict to an acceptable solution, both ethically and epically. We can, then, recognize a deity acting on its own behalf or on behalf of a human being, and a human being acting as a representative of the deity. As to the cause of the action, it is not possible to say anything definite.

The more conspicious facts the narrator is confronted with in taking into consideration the feature, its properties, its surroundings, etc., the narrower the field of interpretation. This implies that the possibilites for the play of imagination will be limited because the legend must satisfy all the observed and known facts.

Legend X, for example, concerns a rock which strikingly resembles a friar; his transformation must be due to a grave offence, which in this case naturally will be the breaking of his monastic vow.

Then we have in M a rock resembling a woman, and it is found in a cave. This location has a sinister character, so it seems natural to interpret the rock as a malicious woman, in other words a witch. She, according to her nature, must have harassed the people of the neighbourhood, and thus her transformation is seen as an action of benevolence performed by a Christian agent, i.e. a monk from the nearby Glastonbury Abbey.

Finally, legend L concerns the rocks at the entrance of Chiavara bay, Corsica. The fact that the area is known to have been pestered by pirates and that the rocks are placed in water makes the interpretation of them as pirate-vessels seem natural. But is their transformation a punishment or a beneficial action? Or, in other words, are they transformed on account of an action they have performed or one that they intend to perform? The morning-breeze needed to take them into the harbour makes it probable that it has been a familiar sight to see ships outside the harbour, hence the interpretation of an intention.

In the instances given above the feature had orignally been the malefactor himself. If, however, the rock bears no resemblance to a human being this interpretation will not do. In certain cases it is thought to be some of the malefactor's belongings (H), but if




the rock has marks on it which can look like finger-marks the legend will tell that it has been thrown-but at what? In cases where a church is standing nearby the answer is evident (Q); while if the rock is situated in a river, which is a forbidden area for demons, it will have been thrown at some holy person sailing in a boat on the water (R).

As stated above, the narrator has a wide field of interpretation when additional circumstances are absent. Then he has to choose an interpretation among a great number of similar possibilities, i.e. a personal interpretation which presumably will have no strong motivation and accordingly is prone to future oblivion. In such cases, a much more durable basis for the long-term survival of a legend will be found in the general ideas underlying its structure.

From the remotest times the concept of taboo has played a most important role in man's life because, roughly speaking, it was connected with his fear of displeasing the higher powers, and manifested itself in the prohibition of performing certain actions.32 Sacrifice, which was a means to influence these powers, could be considered in some respects as a contrast to the taboo. A sacrifice was performed partly to make malevolent beings abstain from doing harm, and partly to secure the positive attitude of benevolent ones. Thus a taboo represented what should not be done, a sacrifice what should be done, and on these grounds an offence against the powers could take the form either of the breaking of a taboo (cf. type II), or else of the omitting of a sacrifice (cf. type IV).

In certain cases where the powers were disregarded they could be nevertheless pacified by a propitiary sacrifice, as in V. While the taboo, and these forms of sacrifice, manifest man's fear, the making of a request and especially the offering of a prayer can be considered as an expression of his needs, and as a means of making the deity act directly in his favour. Here prayer represents the simplest way of communicating with the deity.

In cases, then, where there is a wide field of interpretation concerning the coming into being of, for example, rocks resembling a person, a common explanation will accordingly be that the person broke a taboo, perhaps by looking back. But if we are concerned with a collection of several such rocks, this interpretation immediately becomes less likely. This is because in that case the offenders would have had to commit the offence simultaneously, hence their offence must be considered rather as one made collectively, as a result of which they were punished collectively. Some offences could consist in the refusal of alms (H.I.J.), or offences towards God, for instance the desecration of Sunday (I.U.).

Up to now we have considered only rocks as basic features of aetiological legends. The fact that they give rise to a great diversity of interpretations is not surprising, as they can be found in very many different shapes.

Another important feature is the lake. As stated above, it can be considered as an instrument of punishment, or, as in K, as a means of disabling the malefactor. But due to their size lakes will as a rule indicate the punishment of several persons, if not of a whole city. If no further facts are present at the site of the feature created, the narrator can make use of either of two offences commonly cited as motivations in legends: the inhabitants' impious lives (T.U), or else one or several poor people having been denied a request. These motifs mirror the breaking of a taboo and the neglect of offering a sacrifice. In some legends that include the latter motif, the people last visited fulfil the request and are spared accordingly; this motif, as is well known, is found in the Biblical narrative of the Flood.33

Water has an ambivalent nature: In large quantites in the form of lakes it has a devastating effect, but in small quantities it is an absolute neccesity, in which case the creating of



200 THOMAS JOHANSEN

a spring or a well is a beneficial action. This is normally performed by a holy man who strikes a rock with his staff, like Moses in the desert.34 The ambivalent nature of water is clearly demonstrated in W.

Churches are features created on a human initiative and as manifestations of the Christian faith (P. Q), but they can also be built as a propitious sacrifice (0).

Looking back at the examples given above, it is evident that few of them have a non- Christian background (A, D, F, and W). Yet in all cases their moral is that good actions bring their reward and bad ones their punishment, and that Christian powers are the stronger. But it is also evident that these examples represent only an infinitesimal part of the vast amount of material available, and hence it has only been possible to give some general ideas in relation to this fascinating subject. The Royal School of Librarianship, Copenhagen

NOTES

1. Handw6rterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens (Berlin, 1927-41), vol. I, s.v. Atiologie. 2. A.H. Krappe, The Science of Folk-Lore (reprint, London, 1968), p. 71. 3. My ideas on structure, which play a central role in this article, are set out in three papers in International

Classification (Frankfirt): Thomas Johansen, 'An Outline of a Non-Linguistic Approach to Subject-Relationships,' 12 (1985), no. 2; 'Elements of the Non-Linguistic Approach to Subject-Relationships,' 14 (1987), no. 1; 'On the Relationships of Material Subjects, 14 (1987), no. 3.

4. These versions of the legends are my own summaries. 5. Evald Tang Kristensen, Danske Sagn (2nd ed., Copenhagen, 1980), III, nos 1209-65; cf. Stith Thompson,

Motif-Index of Folk Literature (Copenhagen, 1955-58), Motif A 920.1.8. 6. Russell Ash et al., Folklore, Myths and Legends of Britain (London, 1973), p. 27. 7. Georg Graber, Sagen aus Kdrnten (Leipzig, 1914), no. 343. 8. Paul Sebillot, Le Folk-Lore de France (Paris, 1904-7), I, pp. 302-3. 9. As note 1. 10. Ash, p. 450; cf. Thompson, Motif C 331. 11. Genesis 1.19; cf. Thompson, Motif C 331. 12. Ash, p. 315; cf. Thompson, Motif C 312.1.2. 13. Kristensen, III, no. 464. 14. Ash, p. 288. 15. Johann Nepomuk Sepp, Altbayerischer Sagenschatz zur Bereicherung der indogermanischen Mythologie

(neue Ausgabe, Munich, 1893), p. 380. 16. Sibillot, II, p. 334. 17. Ash, p.316. 18. Sdbillot, II, p.73. 19. Ash, p. 167. 20. Karl Weinhold, Die Verehrung der Quellen in Deutschland (Berlin, 1898), p. 6; cf. Thompson, Motif A 941. 21. Sepp, p. 300. 22. Kristensen, III, nos. 911, 915, 916 etc. 23. Kristensen, III, nos. 121-74; cf. Thompson, Motif A 963.4. 24. Ash, p. 419. Sometimes life itself is symbolized by a river, and the crossing of it means attainment

of salvation. Witches and the like cannot attain salvation, and hence cannot cross a river. 25. Ash, p. 35. 26. Graber, no. 326. 27. Ash, p. 36. 28. Graber, no. 449. 29. W. Crooke, An Introduction to the Popular Religion and Folk-Lore of Northern India (Allahabad, 1894), p. 32. 30. Sebillot, I, p. 304. 31. Handw6rterbuch (as in note 1), s.v. See. 32. Wilhelm Wundt, Mythus und Religion (2nd rev. ed., Leipzig, 1910), V'dlkerpsychologie, vol. IV. 1. 33. Genesis 1.6. 34. Genesis II.17.6; cf. Thompson, Motif A 941.5.



Date post:	20-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	thomas-johansen
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Malefactor and Antagonist: A Study in Aetiological Legend Structures

Documents