Multiformity Within the Traditional Theme: "Shouting in Prison"

As we shall see in chapter 10, the Return Song begins in a great many cases with a theme we may call "Shouting in Prison."^[19] The onset of this multiform prefigures a longer set of actions far beyond its immediate extent, the entire process culminating by tale's end in the Odyssey -like re-emergence of the seemingly lost hero and his re-accession to his proper social and familial position through a series of contests and a prolonged rapprochement with his wife or betrothed. In its obvious significance to the story-pattern of Return, as well as in its relatively large compass and complex inner fabric of motifs, the Shouting multiform is an ideal candidate for structural analysis. Following Lord's suggestions on comparative evaluation of parallel passages and song-texts,^[20] I shall look first at instances of this theme in the Return Song repertoire of a single guslar . After establishing this initial profile, we shall expand the investigation to take in additional examples of the same multiform in the performances of another singer from the Stolac region, and finally in a text by another singer from a widely separated area, that of Novi Pazar.^[21]

Mujo Kukuruzovic^[*] and the Idiolectal Theme

My first set of examples is drawn from Return Songs sung and recited by Mujo Kukuruzovic^[*] , a guslar collected by Parry and Lord in 1933-35, in particular from two songs called by the collectors The Captivity, of Alagic^[*] Alija (AA , texts 6618 and 1868) and The Captivity of Ograscic^[*] Alija (OA , texts 6617 and 1287a). As we shall discover in chapter 10, they are in fact two variants of the same generic song. By collating the four texts, we can to a limited but representative extent gauge thematic variance from performance to performance and song to song within a singer's repertoire and study the variorum identity of the theme.

To begin, I offer a brief recapitulation of the major action of Shouting in Prison in Kukuruzovic's^[*] songs and elsewhere. As the story opens, whether with a proem or not,^[22] either AA or OA is crying out loudly in lamentation (motif #1). The banica reports his shouting to her husband the ban and, explaining that the noise has kept their son from nursing or sleeping, demands that the prisoner be either released or hanged (motif #2). The ban refuses on the grounds that before his capture AA/OA had wreaked havoc in Christian territory and he fears a repetition; after the hero dies, the ban says, he will grind up his bones for cannon fodder (motif #3). The banica then replies that she will kill their son unless some action is taken, acerbically noting that the ban is too old to father another heir and that failure to obey her demand will thus mean the end of his royal line. When she repeats her threat, he acquiesces, suggesting that she enter the prison herself and personally conduct the bargaining for release (motif #4).

The breakdown into constituent motifs is a convenient first step in penetrating the wholeness of the theme.^[23] In addition, I note in passing that a great number of themes in Serbo-Croatian epic seem to divide along dialogue axes, and that I have customarily employed this criterion in marking narrative boundaries. Narrowing the focus, then, I intend to examine rather closely all four motifs that make up Shouting in Prison with a view to (a) their narrative sequences, (b) the extent and kind of verbal correspondence among instances, and (c) the consistency and texture of (a) and (b) from motif to motif. Much of this analysis will seek to test the idiosyncratic nature of thematic structure in Serbo-Croatian; I do, however, offer these findings as a basis for comparison with analogous narrative structures in ancient Greek and Old English epic.

Motif # 1

As a start, consider Kukuruzovic's^[*] four versions of motif # 1, a static portrayal of the prisoner crying out in his misery.

Motif #1, here subdivided into the three elements labeled a , b , and g , follows the proem in texts A and C. While the pripjev is itself optional for most singers,^[24] its appearance apparently does condition what comes afterward at least in Kukuruzovic's^[*] songs, for the presence of the proem leads to a certain song beginning (a₁ ) and its absence to another (a₂ ). Briefly stated, Kukuruzovic^[*] follows the pripjev with a declarative statement about the shouting (A.20-21 and C. 12-13); yet when motif #1 starts the song, it takes the form of a rhetorical question (B.1 and D.1-2), the continuation of and answer to which establish the hero's identity. The b section depends directly on a and is thus influenced by the occurrence or non-occurrence of the pripjev , but the g section seems to be an independent unit that lexically echoes a and completes a small ring structure.^[25]

The density of verbal correspondence is greatest between texts B and D, where only a place-name substitution (Zadar/Janok) and what Robert Austerlitz has called a "terrace" (6617 .1-2 and 5-6)^[26] keep the motif instances from being identical. Texts A and C, in contrast, diverge widely in element b , where they share not a single formulaic phrase, and also exhibit a good deal of variation in g , along with some formulaic correspondence. All in all, there is enough variance among the four examples to justify the subscript labeling added above: this relatively consistent first motif in the Shouting multiform can take at least two forms for element a , the argument of the scene to follow; three forms for b , always an elaboration on the argument but highly individual in subject and phraseology; and two more closely related forms for g ,. The major point is that verbal correspondence, which takes the form of whole-line and colonic repetition in Serbo-Croatian epic tradition, is not uniform in

density either from instance to instance within parallel motifs or from one part of a motif to another. While the abstract pattern a -b -g , remains constant over the four texts, the actual verbalization of that pattern can take different shapes, in this case depending in part on the way the song begins.

Motif #2

Turning to the second motif, we find all four occurrences consisting of a series of discrete elements: d , a statement of the banica's sadness, optionally including mention of the prisoner's screaming as its cause;  , her complaint to her husband the ban; z , an ornamental clement that can take two quite disparate and phraseologically unrelated forms (z ₁ and z₂ below); and h , the banica's first alternative or request. Between elements d and   are interposed boundary lines, much as in Ibro Basic's^[*] performances examined above.

Overall, motif #2 shows more phraseological and sequential stability than motif #1, the only real variability occurring between elements   and h with the two forms of the optional element z . Nevertheless, some sections can vary considerably in length and development, although expansibility is not a characteristic of all elements. The first subunit, d , for example, has the essential

idea of presenting the sorrowful banica, whether her misery is simply stated in a terse, one-line phrase (6617 .9) or its cause is articulated over a four-line passage (1868.9-12). That very articulation, couched as it is in formulaic language, offers an interesting illustration of multiformity in expression:

The first line of this expansion on the argument is a classically defined formula, the only variation resulting from metathesis under the penultimate ictus rule (IAD) and from particles: a colon-initial interjection (A), the enclitic je that must take final position in the hemistich (B), and the proclitic I placed characteristically before the trisyllable (c). All three lines, as we have seen in chapters 3 and 5, must be considered the same formula from a prosodic and compositional point of view. After this identical start, Mujo adds a variation or terrace on text A, repeating the tetrasyllabic verb form usplašijo as the opening colon of the next line. In text B he uses the entire second line as an appositive to cedo , so that the first hemistich is filled not by the verb but by ludo cedo , a partial terrace on the preceding line and an expansion on Providura sina in the next colon. From one perspective these passages show a tightly knit structure: they all gloss the banica's misery with a single formula, explaining her grief in the same manner each time and expressing the idea of fright in virtually identical phrases. But from another point of view, each instance embroiders the central fact somewhat differently; text A adds a terrace, B a partial terrace and a two-line expatiation, C nothing at all. This kind of traditional multiformity, of variation within limits, is the most consistent feature of thematic structure.

Immediately after the d clement we find a position change line (e.g., A.33), sometimes accompanied by a verse-type I shall call a diurnal rhythm marker (e.g., A.32). Throughout the Stolac material, and throughout the songs from Novi Pazar and other published collections, these lines and others like them act as boundaries, signaling the end of one unit and the onset of the next. Compositionally, they mediate both between thematic wholes and between their parts, that is, between the elements and motifs that comprise a theme. Here they have the latter function: they separate elements d and , marking a narrative seam and allowing easy passage from one scene to another. Text B, in fact, well illustrates the bounded extremities and unitary character of element d by both beginning and ending the four-line passage with marker verses—the diurnal rhythm lines at the opening (7-8) and the position change at the close (13). It seems appropriate to note that we shall discover other such verses in our analysis of multiforms, including the extremely common

type I term the agent line , which usually takes the form A/Pa da vidiš [character X] ("But/Then you should have seen [character X]"), where the character involved is customarily the agent of the next multiform, motif, or element. All of these marker verses or boundary lines—position change, diurnal rhythm, and agent lines—perform an invaluable service in affording the guslar a traditional, generic way to effect transitions between units that, we should recall, also have individual lives of their own in the poetic tradition.

After the marker verses, Mujo turns to the banica's complaint (), for which there seems to be a phraseological core including her address of the ban and the present insufficiency of the prison to contain in silence the shouting Turk who is keeping their son from sleep. This core changes only nominally over the four versions, with minor substitutions in colon 1 of the first line^[27] —

A: E ja,  bane, zemlji komandare ,
        Eh! ban, commander of the territory,
B: h E ja,  bane, zemlje gospodare ,
C: Ustaj, bane, zemlji komandare ,
        Get up,...
D: Cuješ, bane, zemlje komandare ,
        Listen,...

—metathesis of words, and the addition in texts A and C of a fourth line to the three-line kernel.^[28] The introductory line or lines preceding her speech vary from none at all (C) to a rather elaborate and formal four-line exchange (B), but this flexibility should be expected in introductory expressions, which are highly generic in the tradition, with the essential idea "he/she spoke" existing in a considerable number of compositionally equivalent phrases. Moreover, the formal giving and receiving of greeting in text B has its own status as a floating and remarkably stable "atom" in the tradition, being available for many and diverse occasions, from the meeting of warriors about to engage in a mejdan ("single combat") to the long-sought reunion of two lovers; its presence in text B is simply another aspect of the paratactic structure of narrative multiformity.

From the banica's main and recurring statement of her complaint, three of Kukuruzovic's^[*] song-texts move to an intensification of and enlargement on

that complaint. What is more, this optional element z , missing entirely in text C, takes two very different forms. In z₁ , of which we have versions in texts A and D, the banica continues her presentation of the problem by asking a series of questions about what might be troubling the prisoner and causing him to raise such a racket. The first two questions and verses are identical, as are the fourth lines concerning the captive's mother, the only variations being the result of a substitution in line 3 of the element and two somewhat divergent terraces in the fifth lines.^[29] Neither the substitution nor the terraces constitute serious modifications of what is generally a stable structure with an ability to expand or contract under changing performance conditions, a kind of flexible set-piece that, like the offering and receiving of a greeting, can occur in different narrative situations. In addition, the list of questions itself proves to be a generic kind of passage, one that will recur when the banica enters the prison and interviews the captive at the start of the second major theme, "Bargaining." The z₂ passage, on the other hand, for which we have only the single example in text B, conveys the same notion of just how much misery the Turk has wrought, but it has no such traditional integrity as a floating piece of narrative matter suitable for numerous situations. With its exclamatory third line echoing earlier verses in motif #1 and its coda a recombination and repetition of lines 9-11 in element d , the z₂ passage seems more the closure of a ring than a true element in itself.

With the banica's closing demand (h ), we reach the stable end of motif #2. In two highly patterned set phrases she presents the ban with three alternatives: grant the prisoner what he wants, "resell" (preprodati ) him to his people for a ransom, or simply hang him. Text C substitutes releasing the captive into Turkish territory for hanging. There is nothing in the phrase Ja ga pusti na zemlju turciju^[*] to indicate metrical or phraseological malfeasance; indeed, the formula derives from a common system of diction in the Stolac tradition.^[30] In all four instances of the element, the first line is held together by a common type of sound-patterning, leonine or end-colon rhyme—"Ja ga daji , ja ga preprodaji "—so that the syntactic balance and semantic correspondence between cola is reinforced by repetition of (-)daji . Although the second line of the couplet participates as a third alternative in this syntactic series, it is founded on no such sound-patterning and, as text C illustrates, is vulnerable to substitution. In element h , then, we sense both the conservatism and the inherent flexibility of diction and narrative subunit; multiformity means compositional

tendencies in both directions, both toward stability and toward phraseological and thematic neologisms, and the twin tendencies are overseen by the particular, tradition-dependent dynamics of formulaic and thematic structure as informed by traditional rules.

Motif #3

As the next textual comparison indicates, motif #3 subdivides into four elements: q , introduction and address; i , AA/OA's heroic deeds; k , the ban's promise; and l , grinding the bones.

The first of these units, element q , remains quite stable over the four instances, with the usual exception of the introductory line, which typically employs three different second-colon formulas to convey the essential idea of "[he/she] spoke":

A. 'vako progovara ("spoke thus")
B. rece lakrdiju ("spoke a word [utterance]")
C. [no introductory line]
D. sjede besjediti ("began to address")

Conversely, the line of address to the banica recurs regularly, held in phraseo-logical check partly by the internal rhyme on mila/bil .^[35] Element i , which details the destruction caused by the Turkish hero, appears mobile; as a flashback to former events, it can fit in at various points in the logic of the narrative sequence, either as a motivation for the ban's capturing the offender (texts A, B, D) or as a remembrance of those dark days (C) and therefore a posterior justification of the ban's attitude toward him. From a structural point of view, the mobility of this element illustrates the kind of variation in sequence that may take place under the aegis of multiformity; in turn, this particular sort of flexibility reveals an aspect of the associational or paratactic nature of thematic structure and suggests that the theme is composed of a conglomeration of parts with certain associative relationships to other parts, rather than of a hierarchical framework to which constituents are always and everywhere subordinate. As for phraseological stability, variation in the verbalization of i takes the form of added or deleted whole lines rather than of formulaic substitution. This integral or "quantum" variation is typical of narrative passages that enumerate items, such as the hero's accoutrements in an arming theme. In less cataloglike units, formulaic substitution is more common.

Element k consists of an optional condition ("When I captured him alive") and result, usually followed by the ban's pledge to maintain AA/OA's imprisonment until the captive's death.^[36] Here again the verbal correspondence is almost complete. The last unit, l , which occurs in all texts except B, is verbalized very consistently, with limited variance in the first, third, and final lines of the sequence. The first two of these lines vary only in the choice and morphology of related or identical verbs, and the last is a whole-line formula often associated with cannon being fired in celebration. All in all, the motif pattern is once again clear and consistent, with the mobility of element i the sign of its generic relationship to the narrative pattern. The degree of verbal correspondence among the four instances is customarily high but, as we have come to expect, varies from one element to the next.

Motif #4

The fourth and final motif in the "Shouting in Prison" multiform consists of a mixture of new, situation-specific elements together with some units we have

encountered earlier in the theme's progress. After the banica generally curses her husband's foolishness in not responding immediately and sensibly to her urgent demands (m ), she threatens him specifically by noting that he is too old to father another child and by promising to drown his only son and thereby snuff out his lineage (n ). In two of the four versions this threat concludes with a reprise of element h , with the banica demanding the outright release, ransom, or hanging of the prisoner. The ban's consequent address to his wife then begins as before (q ) but within a few lines deflects to a new element (x ) in which he tells her to visit the prisoner herself and to strike a bargain for his freedom.

Of all the elements in motif #4, the initial one (m ) is the most stable phraseologically,^[41] and the reasons for that consistency are readily apparent. Apart from the introductory line, which as shown above is but one of the protean forms for the essential idea "she spoke," the stability of the following three to four lines stems from their logical semantic combination and syntactic balance. Texts A and C begin the litany on the ban's foolishness with the straightforward remark on his weak-minded behavior, the variation in phraseology (E ja/Jadan ) occurring at the opening of the first colon, in the very position where we have come to anticipate variation. The next three lines, shared in all three texts that include m , are founded on a syntactic pattern that may be construed as [noun] [verb] vazda si ga [adjective], where the object noun, verb, and adjective arc closely related semantically, all harmonized by the essential ideas of eating and drinking. The dosing verse has a syntactic balance of its own, this time between cola instead of whole lines; in addition, of course, it continues the skein of second person verb forms, matches the verbs imaš and nemaš in leonine position, and, in texts A and C, forms a ring structure with the opening line (glave/glavu ). From many different points of view, this element is highly structured internally, and its persistence in familiar phraseological garb is thus to be expected.

Element n also shows appreciable consistency in verbalization over three of its instances, but for somewhat different reasons. Setting aside momentarily the variant n₂ , note that from about the middle of the clement on (A ti nemaš od srca evlada ), the three other instances correspond virtually word for word, line for line. Variation over this passage takes the form of substitution of particles in the structurally more flexible positions in the line (Ja/Pa ,

A.77/C.63), indefinite versus definite forms for adjectives (jedina/jedinog , A.75/C.62), and slightly more involved forms of recombinant diction just before the formula that seals off this unit (A.78 etc.). The earlier section of v offers a good example of the expansible nature of multiforms and their parts: in text A Mujo covers the idea of the ban's elevated age in a single verse, without specifying either his seventy years or the exact nature of his decrepitude, but in texts C and D the banica's imprecation takes an identical five-line form replete with precise notations of his advancing age, her many fewer years, and his physical demise. These five verses exhibit their own phraseological and acoustic coherence, with the first two lines founded on the same syntactic pattern and the last three sharing a continuous syntax and end-rhyme. The aberrant form of the element, n₂ (B.46-51), may well be another instance of the price of multiformity. Its opening formula is ubiquitous in the Stolac tradition, being available for application not just in this motif or theme but in a great many narrative situations;^[42] given that flexibility and the inexplicit nature of the threat that succeeds it, we may consider n ₂ a manifestation of a momentary lapse in the singer's handling of traditional flexibility.

Next in order come the familiar elements h (texts A and C) and q , units more generic than many that surround them. We first encountered h in motif #2, where it also formed the coda to the banica's plea to her husband. In two versions of her second and more threatening speech the element recurs, illustrating its traditional adaptability in contrast to the majority of units that are tied to a particular narrative context. Even less situation-specific is element q , the ban's formal opening address to his wife. Indeed, an argument could be made for considering q a floating phrase of general meaning and usefulness, not a narrative entity per se, which is available for use as a highly generic and ornamental opening to many sorts of speeches. I have here chosen to treat it as an element in order to simplify description, but we should keep in mind that such lines of address, or equally the introductory verses mentioned above, represent the kind of non-specific traditional phrase that, like the boundary lines, allow the guslar passage between more focused narrative units. Their presence at this point in the motif illustrates that the makeup of a motif and thus of a theme depends on a combination of compositionally heterogeneous elements: some tightly organized and bound (m ), some expansible (n ), and some of generic application (h , q ).

After addressing his wife, the elderly ban—now thoroughly apprised of the danger awaiting should he continue to refuse to take steps to silence the

shouting Turk—suggests that she conduct the bargaining. This element, x , which most resembles n₁ in its degree and kind of verbal correspondence from instance to instance, also proves expansible. In text B Mujo begins with two phrases that have verbatim or near equivalents in the other texts, but then opens up the passage to what Lord and others have called ornamentation. The essential idea of x —that of sending the banica to bargain with the captive—is expressed even in the tersest version of this element, and so there is no purely compositional reason to include here the list of demands that the ban instructs his wife to present as conditions for the prisoner's release. But the singer does include the demands, and the reason is near at hand: in the next theme, "Bargaining," the banica will as part of the theme's narrative logic actually present those very demands to the Turkish captive, and he will have to promise to fulfill them before he can gain his freedom.^[43] By association with that part of the story-pattern—that is, under the influence of the multiformity that pervades every level of the traditional idiom—Mujo puts a version of those demands into the ban's cautionary words to his wife.^[44] The associative nature of traditional thematics promotes this sort of paratactic connection; in this particular case, the multiform "works" logically and does not disturb the flow of the narrative.

As the ban relinquishes control of the captive's fate to his wife, motif #4 and the Shouting in Prison theme draw to a close. Others may choose to place the point of thematic division elsewhere, but I would defend my choice on two grounds. First, as mentioned above, this study attempts a descriptive analysis; thus, some of the distinctions it makes are formulated both because the units seem to divide and combine in certain ways and because marking those passages as units facilitates the comparison of texts and the consequent establishment of a narrative morphology. The ontology of narrative units is in any case a vexed question: do they exist in the singer's mind as building blocks, or are they impositions we make on the texts in order to understand them? I believe we can see from the foregoing analysis that the text depends for its articulation on patterns that are undeniably present both in the tradition and in each of its realizations in performance. At the same time, we must be aware that, in the terminology employed by Dan Ben-Amos (1969), whatever categories we denominate must by definition be "analytic" rather than "ethnic." No singer ever pondered the morphology of themes, motifs, and elements; were he able to do so with any of the philological rigor we espouse, he would have removed himself from the oral tradition and lost the ability

to sing. Yet even though categories and discriminations of pattern must to an extent be our assessment of thematic structure rather than the will o' the wisp itself, we can illuminate the dynamics of tradition by proceeding as faithfully as possible in matching our scholarly apparatus to the material we wish to explicate.

Second, and more specifically, there exists hard textual evidence to place a thematic boundary after the ban's abdication of personal responsibility for the Turkish prisoner. This evidence takes the form of boundary lines , those common and generic verses of nearly universal applicability that promote transition between units in sequence. Here are the lines that follow motif #4 in each of the four versions:

In each case, and with virtually the same formulas, the locus of the song's events passes from the ban's chamber to the prison, and the involved characters become not the ban and his wife but the banica and the Turkish prisoner. In three of the four instances we can trace the transition to what was called above a position-change line: Ona pade kapku i zindanu . Although the position change perhaps more often employs systems like the one examined above in

motif #2, this too is a frequent way of expressing the same idea. In text C the transition remains implicit, but the action still guides us in perceiving a shift from one multiform to the next. The actual "Bargaining" can now begin, with the Turk and the banica at center stage.

As an interim summary of our findings on thematic structure, four general points should be stressed. First, themes have logical subdivisions that remain under the aegis of a unifying narrative idea but that also, like themes themselves, have more or less independent lives of their own. For the sake of descriptive analysis I have formulated a hierarchy of motifs , and of elements that make up those motifs. Some of the elements studied were found to be generic and therefore mobile, while others proved stationary and more obviously tied to a specific narrative moment or situation. The relationships among subunits, in short, turn out to be many and various, and it would be reductive to attempt a blanket statement on thematic substructure. Simply put, motifs and elements in a given theme are to an extent comparable with their counterparts in other multiforms but are to a greater degree idiosyncratic.

Likewise, and this is the second point, the density of verbal correspondence among instances of Shouting in Prison drawn from Kukuruzovic's^[*] song-texts is, although generally high, quite uneven. Phraseological consistency may be absolute in certain spots and negligible or even absent in others, depending in large part on the patterns and balances within elements and lines. Some of the stability at the level of diction is due to phonological and formulaic structure (and ultimately, of course, to traditional rules); some is attributable to thematic structure, in the sense that the action of the narrative can contribute to holding some verses in a kind of traditional suspension, keeping them immune from changes that might otherwise occur. This verbal correspondence takes precisely the tradition-dependent shape to be expected on the basis of our study of formulaic phraseology in chapter 5—cola, whole verses, and occasional tightly bound runs of lines. Moreover, the patterns of phraseological variation observed in comparing instances of multiforms arc exactly those predicted by our examination of deseterac prosody in chapter 3. A third and related point is that a highly formulaic group of verses that we have called boundary lines accomplish transitions between units as well as mediate between the theme as part of a larger narrative organization on the one hand and as an independent, integral unit on the other.

Fourth—and this observation really amounts to the sum of the preceding three—thematic structure has shown itself to be an active, dynamic, associative, and paratactic force that binds motifs and elements into an inorganically unified whole. As I trust the example of Kukuruzovic's^[*] Shouting in Prison scene has illustrated, the narrative multiform cannot be faithfully represented as a bound synchronic whole with a neat and efficient assemblage of working parts. To be sure, its elements and motifs cooperate in the shared expression of its central action, but they are not simply equivalent bits of

information that add up to a data base for the epic tradition. To an extent each unit is manifestly itself as well as a member of the narrative entourage, and each has its own characteristics of order, associated diction, and mobility or localization. To insist on a uniform texture for thematic structure is to construct an unrealistic model, one that is untrue to the multiformity of oral tradition and reductive of its art. Thematic structure means a complex aggregate of units and phraseology in the service of a traditional idea, and its shape-shifting form extends from the language in which it is expressed to the sequence of actions that defines its role in oral epic tradition.

From Idiolect to Dialect: The Individual Singers Community

What we have considered in the four Shouting in Prison instances in the songs of Mujo Kukuruzovic^[*] is a set of features that characterize an exemplary theme as it takes shape in different texts of a single song-type by one guslar . This version of the multiform may thus be construed as an example of traditional idiolect , that is, of the range of multiformity found in the practice of one singer. In order to better understand the tradition as a whole, I shall now turn from the features of idiolect to the multiformity observable in the larger Stolac tradition of singing—in other words, to the dialect of thematic composition in this district. Just as dialectologists intent on recording lexical and phonological habits expect and report more variance among a geographically designated group of speakers than in the personal speech of a single informant, we may anticipate more variation as we move from singer to singer than was evident in the equivalent passages from Kukuruzovic's^[*] texts. At the same time, however, there should remain distinct regional commonplaces, genetic similarities in the structural or phraseological physiognomy of the theme. Since this analysis is intended to uncover basic principles and not to establish a full thematic morphology, and also since the space for documentation is limited, I shall confine the comparison to three occurrences of Shouting in Prison as sung or dictated by Ibro Basic^[*] in three texts of his Return Song Alagic^[*] Alija and Velagic^[*] Selim (1283, 291b , and 6597 ; hereafter AAVS ).

Motif #1

As above, I present the theme by subunits; instances of its first motif are as shown in figure 9. With these three versions of Basic's^[*] idiolectal theme we begin to gain a perspective on the nature of the dialectal multiform. In the case of this particular song, Shouting in Prison does not start the action; rather it occurs well into the progress of the story, after one prisoner, Velagic^[*] Selim (VS), has heard from a recently captured Turk, Alagic^[*] Alija (AA), how enemies have raided VS's homeland of Udbina, threatening his residence, possessions, and family. Indeed, the ban has already paid the prisoners an earlier visit in an effort to extort from them the usual unreasonable agreements in exchange for their release. The effort has been in vain, however, and, just as we reach the quoted passages and the onset of the theme, the captor has

angrily departed the prison, hurling back a promise to "grind their bones"—the very promise identified above as element l . The narrative context surrounding these three occurrences of the theme is thus quite different from that in which the examples from Kukuruzovic^[*] are embedded: one bargaining session has already taken place, and the banica and her discomforted child have not yet figured in the action.

Nonetheless, after the boundary lines at the head of the quoted passages, which include agent lines (e.g., 1283.323), position changes (6597 .418), and diurnal rhythm lines (291b .365), Ibro does enter on his own idiolectal version of Shouting in Prison, and it follows in its general outlines the multiform employed by Kukuruzovic^[*] . The first divergence is in the order and occurrence of elements: the only instance of the b unit surfaces in text 1283, where it takes the form b₂^[47] and precedes rather than follows the statement or argument a . But the boundary lines on either side of b argue for its independence as a unit, and if we realize that a and g in the Kukuruzovic^[*] texts can be understood as a single element split (or ornamented) by b , then we can start to assess the permutations ascribable to multiformity and see how the two singers are really using the same theme. To be sure, each is employing an idiolectal variant of the first motif of Shouting in Prison, but it is the kind of variance one expects among dialect samples. To recapitulate, what seems in the Kukuruzovic^[*] passages to be an a -bg , progression may, on the comparative evidence of the Basic^[*] material, be reconstrued as a -b -a . How we actually label the subunits is less important than the fair representation of the recombinative nature of thematic structure.

As for the question of verbal correspondence, the Basic^[*] texts exhibit a good deal more flexibility in phraseology than does the set of examples from Kukuruzovic^[*] in relation to addition, substitution, and outright omission as well as formulaic morphology. Among the kinds of phraseological flexibility observed are terracing (1283.332-33), colon-initial variation (Neko cmili/A sve cmili , 1283.332/291b .369), and the other techniques typical of oral epic composition in the deseterac .

But in addition to providing another view of one singer's compositional habits, the Basic^[*] examples also show by comparison how widely different the verbal components of different singers' themes can be. Although essential ideas may match rather closely at points, we find not one formula shared between the two groups of texts over this first motif: both singers convey the basic information "the Turk shouted," emphasizing in the process how serious a problem the noise had become,^[48] and yet not a single line is common to their

(Figure continued on next page)

(Figure continued from previous page)

separate renderings. This, then, is a first approximation of the idiolectal and dialectal forms of a theme; even in the face of relatively consistent substructure, the verbal correspondence that typifies one singer's handling of a theme diminishes markedly as one enlarges the textual sample from individual to area or local tradition. Clearly, the criteria for defining thematic structure must therefore vary as we change our focus from idiolect to dialect.

Motif #2

Moving on to the second motif in Basic's^[*] versions, we find more evidence for the same conclusions (figure 10). Once again the elemental structure compares relatively closely with that underlying the four instances in Kukuruzovic's^[*] texts: after the boundary verses, Ibro places, in order, a statement of the banica's problem (d ), her complaint to her husband (), and in two cases her demand for some ameliorative action (h ).^[49] Against this background of similarity we do, however, discern some differences. First, there is no true z element, that is, no true ornamental passage to develop the ideas of units d and ; since ornamental elements are by nature ubiquitous, generic, and optional, this represents no real omission but simply compositional expedience and personal habit. Second, as in general with Basic's^[*] songs, many more boundary lines are present, setting off integral narrative units and furnishing transitions from one to the next. It is as if these verses serve for Basic^[*] to mitigate the paratactic relationship of themes and thematic subdivisions; their frequent use amounts to a stylistic trademark, an idiolectal trait.

A third difference, or set of differences, also constitutes a stylistic idiosyncrasy. As with motif #1, the phraseology with which the singer verbalizes these thematic ideas varies more among parallel passages than does Kukuruzovic's^[*] diction. We thus have two readings on verbal correspondence from instance to instance in the repertoire of a single singer; both show a number of repeated cola, verses, and runs, but the Basic^[*] texts are more prone to addition, omission, and formulaic remaking. In neither case does one doubt the existence of the kind of theme described by Lord, for we have no shortage of the repeated words, lines, and parts of lines that he demands as one aspect of thematic structure. But neither could we apply the strictures of one poet's compositional style to that of the other. Fourth, and complementarily, verbal correspondence among occurrences is not of uniform density throughout the motif and theme; just as with Kukuruzovic's^[*] texts, certain elements or even parts of elements are more stable than others. Fifth, as would be expected, Basic^[*] and Kukuruzovic^[*] employ widely variant diction in expressing the elements in motif #2. In part because he concentrates on the problem of nursing the frightened infant, Basic^[*] uses a personalized mode of expression to render the same general ideas.

(Figure continued on next page)

(Figure continued from previous page)

(Figure continued on next page)

(Figure continued from previous page)

(Figure continued on next page)

(Figure continued from previous page)

(Figure continued on next page)

(Figure continued from previous page)

While there is a bit more than in motif #1 to cite as phraseology common to the two singers' texts,^[50] still the guslari diverge greatly at the level of phraseology, even though they once again converge in respect to narrative pattern.

Because the AAVS begins, as indicated above, with a long flashback on the condition of VS's homeland and relatives and with the ban's initial unsuccessful attempt at bargaining with his Turkish prisoners, there is no reason for the ban to decry his wife's protestations and insist on AA's and VS's continuing incarceration without appeal. What is more, their captor has just exited the cell in a fury over their recalcitrance in granting him all of the outrageous conditions he has placed on their release; indeed, he has only a few lines earlier expressed that anger in the "grinding the bones" element (l ) employed by Kukuruzovic^[*] as part of motif #3. From a traditional point of view, then, motif #3—or its equivalent—has already occurred once Basic^[*] begins the Shouting in Prison theme in the AAVS ; to repeat it here, between motifs #2 and #4 in Basic's^[*] version of the multiform, would be to disrupt the narrative flow of the story and to pervert its compositional structure. To put the same matter differently, the l element is another example of a mobile, generic unit that can answer a number of purposes, one that can participate in different ways in different narrative designs. That we do not find the unit in this particular theme in the AAVS simply illustrates the protean nature of thematic structure: its fabric of motifs and elements is seldom so impervious to change as to fail to adapt to the demands of divergent story-patterns. Multiformity means the potential for adaptation, and thematic structure depends in definite, observed ways on that multiformity.

Motif #4

With the fourth motif we reach the end of Shouting in Prison in these three texts, the actual coda once again marked by boundary lines and followed by the "Bargaining for Release" theme, but this time with the ban rather than his wife as the bargaining agent. (There is no occurrence in 1283.361ff.)

Within this motif, essentially an intensification of the banica's complaint, we again encounter the n element, the threat to kill the infant, and in one instance the h closure used consistently in Kukuruzovic's^[*] versions. But although these features are shared by the two singers in their idiolectal forms of motif #4, we should note the omission of elements m and x in the Basic^[*] passages, as well as the general lack of verbal correspondence between the two sets of occurrences. Element m seems to be a stylistic feature of Kukuruzovic's^[*] texts; strictly speaking, it is not absolutely necessary to the action of the motif and theme, so we may expect its absence in the repertoires of this or that guslar . Element x , in contrast, depends on the story-pattern for its raison d'être: if the ban himself goes to conduct the bargaining, he obviously will not need to send his wife. The essential ideas of the motif are thus preserved, as Basic^[*] , employing

his own idiolectal language and elemental structure, tailors the traditional action of the unit to its place in the story at hand, which is also the Return Song at large.

From Dialect to Language: The Stolac singers and the Epic Tradition

The foregoing examples from the song-texts of Mujo Kukuruzovic^[*] and Ibro Basic^[*] illustrate the nature and extent of multiformity in a theme shared by two guslari from the same local tradition. Let us now broaden the scope of examination once more by comparing a final instance of Shouting in Prison from outside the Stolac region, one from a version of the Ropstvo Djulic^[*] Ibrahima (Captivity of Djulic^[*] Ibrahim ) by Salih Ugljanin, also a Return Song and text no. 4 in the second volume of Serbo-Croatian Heroic Songs .^[51] As with Basic's^[*]AAVS , the theme occurs well into the story, after a conversation with the servant Rako on the devastation in Djulic's^[*] homeland, a flashback on his capture, and the ban's curse have set the scene for his screaming out in misery. There is thus reason to expect a motif sequence not unlike that which Basic^[*] employed, that is, the succession of motifs #1, #2, and #4, with the narrative necessity for #3—the ban's adamant refusal to do anything about the captive's shouting—having been eliminated.

In the opening two lines we recognize the essential ideas of elements a , the argument of the theme, and g , the notation on the seriousness or intensity of the situation. Both units are much abbreviated in comparison to their counterparts in the Kukuruzovic^[*] material, and we can recognize no formulaic correspondence with the other a and g elements,^[52] but still the narrative logic inherent in the two units and the first motif is preserved and functional. Likewise, Ugljanin follows these three lines with element d , the onset of motif #2 that furnishes a statement of the cause for the banica's sadness: once again, the Turk's noise has frightened her progeny, this time twin sons instead of the single infant of the other versions. Ugljanin's text is at this point more elaborate than any of those treated above; it includes a full description of not only the boys' inability to cat but also their mother's attempt to soothe them, a palliative entirely absent from the other versions. And as we would by now expect, there exists no verbal correspondence between this instance of the motif and the other passages.

After the boundary lines—at this particular juncture a position change (238) and some ornamentation (239-41)—Salih proceeds to clement , the banica's complaint to her husband. The verses of formal greeting are familiar (cf. text 1868), and certain features, such as her inquiry as to what sort of Turk the ban has imprisoned, also recall similar ideas in earlier examples, but in general the verbal correspondence with other instances is negligible. After the closure of another ring at lines 252-54 (echoing 226-27), we come upon a kind of n clement from motif #3. True enough, it does not entail the banica's direct threat to drown the infant(s) and end her husband's lineage, but it does entail the indirect threat of fever, jaundice, and eventual death, and in bringing out that danger explicitly it corresponds in principle to the more straightforward challenge.^[53] Ugljanin's version of Shouting in Prison

then closes with an elaborate rendering of the h element found at the close of motifs #2 and/or #4, with the alternative—this time the release, beheading, or some other disposal of the offensive Turk—surrounded by directions on going to the jail and calling to the prisoner, and also by yet another annular reference to his screaming as the source of the problem. In general, these last two elements recall some of the ideas presented in versions from Kukuruzovic^[*] and Basic^[*] but use virtually none of the same phraseology to express them.