Long, Long Tales from the Russian North

Commentaries to Tales

297 Commentaries to Tales 1. Nechaev, 12. SUS 301A + 301B. This type, “Three Underworld Tsardoms,” is one of the most popular in the East Slavic tradition, and it is widely reported from Europe as a whole. 2. Nechaev, 7. SUS 3021 + 402. The combination is rare in East Slavic, and SUS does not list it. 3. Nechaev, 19. SUS 518 + 560. The first sujet is common throughout the East Slavic territory, as is the second. The combination is not listed in SUS. 4. Nechaev, 11. SUS 301B. By repeating sequences, Korguev made a very long tale out of a very common sujet. He was fond of tales where one of the parents was nonhuman . See Haney, Jack V., An Anthology of Russian Folktales, pp. 302–21, where the hero kills his father, a bear. 5. Nechaev 3, SUS 516**. This uncommon sujet was repeated over and over to make this tale. 6. Nechaev 13. SUS 300*B +303 + 513A. Magic, and therefore an unnatural parent, gives this unusual combination of types charm beyond that of the typical long tale. 7. Nechaev 5. SUS 575. Korguev enjoyed substituting the “modern” airplane for the traditional eagle. 8. Nechaev 4. SUS 502. The attempt to make this tale of the tsarevich into a tale with a peasant hero is not entirely satisfactory, but this is an interesting variation on a theme that is not all that common in the Russian folk tradition. 9. Nechaev 15. SUS 725 +518 + (507). The motif of a hero’s involvement in regicide is most unusual, but that is not all that is rare in this combination of tale types. 10. Pomor’e 34. SUS 402 + 400A +302. Nikonov’s tales are among the best told among the Pomors. The combination of tale types is not otherwise attested among the East Slavs. 11. Pomor’e 35. SUS 301A + 301B + 400* + 551. Although this tale was given no title in its original form, it is clearly of the “Rejuvenating Apples” type. Nikonov claimed to have learned his tales from his father. This complex tale is a fine example of his art. 12. Pudozh 2. SUS 402 + 4001 + 518 +3021 . This tale was recorded in 1975 from a narrator, M. O. Dmitriev, who may have been the last recorded in the Karelian area. According to Dmitriev, he had learned the tale from his father. The combination of types is unique to the Pudozh tradition. 13. Pudozh 1. SUS 303 + 300A + 519 + 3001. M. O. Dmitriev shows considerable skill in weaving these four types into one wondertale. The hero’s name, and its local variants, are unknown except in the Pudozh tradition. 14. Pudozh 3. SUS 502 + 513A. Also recorded by T. Sen’kina and Z. Tarasova in 1975. This is a very unusual combination of tale types. Other recordings of this tale are considerably shorter. 298 Commentaries 15. Pudozh 10. SUS 530A. This tale was told by O. I. Dmitriev to the folklorist V. Dmitrichenko in 1938. According to the editors of the Pudozh tales, this is a most rare tale, and even in the Pudozh tradition only its second part has ever been recorded. The editors of SUS do, however, list a number of versions of this tale type. It is not known beyond the East Slavic territory. The elements taken from the bylina tradition are particularly strong in the early part of the tale. 16. Pudozh 24. SUS 313A + 315 + 315A +3001 . This tale is widely known from the Russian north, but not in this particular combination of tale types. It was recorded in 1948 by F. Belovanova in Pudozh when Kabrenov was 52 years old. 17. Pudozh 27. SUS 552A. Kabrenov told this tale to Belovanova in 1946. The mixing of traditional and contemporary elements in the tale is striking. Note especially the interesting fact that the three brothers-in-law who are animals have but one name and yet three different physical appearances. ...