The Paths of Folklore: Essays in Honor of Natalie Kononenko

Discussions on the Ukrainian Duma “Ivas’ Konovchenko”

The Paths of Folklore: Essays in Honor of Natalie Kononenko. Svitlana Kukharenko and Peter Holloway, eds. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers, 2012, 7–22.       Discussions on the Ukrainian Duma “Ivas’ Konovchenko” Oleksandra Britsyna In   the   Ukrainian   minstrel   tradition,   the   epic   song,   or   duma,   “Ivas’   Konov-­‐‑ chenko”  was  one  of  the  most  popular  (Kononenko  1998,  247–52).  Pavlo  Zhy-­‐‑ tets’kyi  (Pavel  Zhitetskii)  noted  at  the  end  of  the  19th  century  that  “this  is  the   most  lasting  duma.  It’s  been  preserved  in  numerous  variants,  and  it  is  even   being  sung  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Dnipro  where,  generally  speaking,  dumy   are  seldom  encountered”  (Zhytets’kii  1893,  147).   The  number  of  recorded  texts  of  this  epic  song  has  exceeded  50  (Kateryna   Hrushevs’ka   published   44   of   them   in   1931),   yet   new   archival   searches   con-­‐‑ tinue  to  add  to  this  number.  It  is  possible  that  the  existing  recordings  do  not   fully  reflect  the  popularity  of  the  duma  within  the  tradition,  for  collectors  of   the  19th  century  were  obsessed  with  finding  survivals  and  antiquities.  They   did  not  make  repeated  recordings  of  already  known  songs  and  did  not  record   imperfect  performances.  This  attitude  was  very  characteristic  of  methodologi-­‐‑ cal  trends  in  19th-­‐‑century  folkloristics  and  can  be  attested  in  published  advice   for  collectors.  For  example,  Volodymyr  Hnatiuk  advised  precisely  that  in  his   reviews  of  folkloric  publications  at  the  end  of  the  19th  century,1   when  dumy   were  still  being  performed  live.  Performances  with  inconsistencies  or  inaccu-­‐‑ racies  were  ignored  due  to  the  predominant  interest  in  the  artistic  form  and   exclusive   attention   to   the   contents   of   the   texts.   Moreover,   texts   might   be   “abridged”  by  researchers  to  reflect  only  the  general  plot  line.   The   same   treatment   was   accorded   the   texts   of   other   extremely   popular   genres,  yet  the  number  of  recordings  of  those  songs  did  not  reflect  how  wide-­‐‑ spread  they  really  were.  Hrushevs’ka  wrote  in  this  regard:     Of  the  44  compiled  texts  that  were  recorded  between  the  beginning  of   the  19th  century  and  1926,  only  half  had  been  published  previously,   and  [they]  show  that  although  it  was  easy  to  encounter  this  duma  in   everyday  life  and  to  write  it  down,  collectors  paid  little  attention  to  its   artistic  or  historic  value  and  did  not  publish  what  they  had  written   down,  did  not  value  those  achievements.  For  example,  [Panteleimon]   Kulish   transcribed   [the   duma   about]   Konovchenko   three   times,   but                                                                                                                             1  For  more  information,  see  Iatsenko  1964,  133.   8 OLEKSANDRA BRITSYNA published  only  one  variant  of  it,  and  only  in  [Amvrosii]  Metlyns’kyi’s   [book],  while  in  [his  own]  Zapiski  o  Iuzhnoi  Rusi  there  is  none.  All  this   shows  that  this  duma  was  not  popular  among  collectors  (perhaps  due   to  its  being  very  easy  to  collect);  this  also  means  that  the  number  of   existing   variants   absolutely   does   not   reflect   the   diffusion   of   the   “Konovchenko”   in   those   times.   And   indeed   …   we   have   frequent   mention  of  this  duma  and  its  performers,  but  their  performances  were   never  recorded  or  were  lost.  (1931,  14)     Hrushevs’ka   argued   that   the   duma   survived   until   the   beginning   of   the   20th  century  only  because  it  was  extremely  popular  among  listeners.  Chrono-­‐‑ logically  speaking,  the  duma  about  Ivas’  Konovchenko  was  recorded  from  the   beginning  of  the  19th  century  through  the  middle  of  the  20th  century.  As  for   the  geographical  distribution  of  such  recordings,  it  corresponds  to  the  area  of   existence   of   the   duma   tradition   as   a   whole.   The   very   first   recordings   of   the   duma  were  handwritten.  Yet  contemporary  researchers  have  at  hand  not  only   manuscripts  of  the  duma  texts  but  also  phonograph  records,  from  wax  cylin-­‐‑ ders.  The  latter  allow  for  a  better—albeit  still  partial—  understanding  of  the   peculiarities  of  the  performance.     As  far  as  the  manuscripts  are  concerned,  they  differ  in  terms  of  both  the   amount  and  quality  of  documentation.  Some  of  them  contain  only  the  written   verbal  texts  of  the  duma  and  have  no  information  on  the  performer.  It  is  prob-­‐‑ able  that  such  recordings  were  made  according  to  the  method  that  prevailed   in  the  early  days  of  collecting.  Despite  the  slow  tempo  of  the  performer’s  reci-­‐‑ tation  it  was  very  difficult  to  write  the  text  down,  and  it  was  hardly  possible   for   someone   who   was   not   a   part   of   the   minstrel   tradition   to   recall   the   text   from   memory.   Thus,   most   of   the   researchers   transcribed   texts   as   they   were   dictated   by   the   performers   themselves.   Such   transcriptions   certainly   differ   from  phonographic  recordings.  The  answers  to  “Why?”  and  “How?”  seem  to   be  obvious,  yet  they  are  still  problematic.  Contemporary  researchers  are  able   to   compare   both   audio...