[Propp {1895-1970}originated the structural study of folklore and was allied with the Russian formalists. His groundbreaking Morphology of the Folktale {1928} was suppressed by the Soviet government for its formalist {thus not helpful to the cause of the laboring masses? thus participating in decadent Western intellectual movements?} tendencies, but Propp continued university teaching at Leningrad {now St. Petersburg} until his death. Propp’s work was ‘rescued’ from obscurity to Western theorists such as Claude Levi-Strauss.

As you read, think of similar examples from fairy tales and folk tales you know. Be prepared to discuss Propp’s analytical method and its assumptions (what, for instance, is the purpose of the natural science analogy at the beginning?). Pay attention to the final paragraph: do you agree with this hypothetical objection? Why do you think Propp raises it? Do you think he answer it satisfactorily? Do you have any other objections to Propp’s analysis?]

The study of the fairy tale may be compared in many respects to that of organic formation in nature. Both the naturalist and the folklorist deal with species and varieties which are essentially the same. [. . .] Both fields allow two possible points of view: either the internal similarity of two externally dissimilar phenomena does not derive from a common genetic root–the theory of spontaneous generation–or else this morphological similarity does indeed result from a know genetic tie–the theory of differentiation owing to the subsequent metamorphoses or transformations of varying cause and occurrence.

In order to resolve this problem, we need a clear understanding of what is meant by similarity in fairy tales. Similarity has so far been invariably defined in terms of a plot and its variants. We find such an approach acceptable only if based upon the idea of spontaneous generation of species. Adherents to this method do not compare plots; they feel such comparison to be impossible or, at the very least, erroneous. Without our denying the value of studying individual plots and comparing them solely from the standpoint of their similarity, another method, another basis for comparison may be proposed. Fairy tales can be compared from the standpoint of their composition or structure; their similarity then appears in a new light.

We observe that the actors in the fairy tale perform essentially the same actions as the tale progresses, no matter how different from one another in shape, size, sex, and occupation, in nomenclature and other static attributes. This determines the relationship of the constant factors to the variables. The functions of the actors are constant; everything else is a variable. For example:

1. The king sends Ivan after the princess; Ivan departs.
2. The kind send Ivan after some marvel; Ivan departs.
3. The sister sends her brother for medicine; he departs.
4. The stepmother sends her stepdaughter for fire; she departs.
5. The smith sends his apprentice for a cow; he departs.

The dispatch and the departure on a quest are constants. The dispatching and departing actors, the motivations behind the dispatch, and so forth, are variables. In later stages of the quest, obstacles impede the hero’s progress; they, too, are essentially the same, but differ in the form of imagery.

[Here Propp claims that fairy tales are built from 150 elements {such as donor, gift, transmittal etc}. To analyze these texts, scholars should compare like element with like element. He also states that the most basic elements "are linked with religious concepts of the remote past." This leads to a discussion of the relative age of different kinds of elements, and how transformation can suggest chronological development; for example, "if the dragon is encountered virtually the world over but is replaced in some fairy tales of the North by a bear or, in the South, by a lion, then the basic form is the dragon, while the lion or bear are derived forms." Then Propp considers various transformations that have happened or can happen with one element {reduction, substitution, conflation etc.}.]

Our outline would be incomplete if we did not show a model for applying our observations. We will use more palpable material to exhibit a series of transformations; let us take the forms:

The dragon abducts the king’s daughter —

The dragon tortures the king’s daughter —

The dragon demands the kind’s daughter.

From the point of view of the morphology of the fairy tale, we are dealing here with an element which we will call basic harm. Such harm usually serves as the start of the plot. In accordance with the principles proposed in this paper, we should compare not only abduction with abduction, etc., but also with all the various types of basic harm as one of the components of the fairy tale.

Caution demands that all three forms be regarded as coordinated forms, but it is possible to suggest that the first is still the basic form. [Propp explains something about Egyptian dragons and threatened cities.]

Let us take the first form:

The dragon abducts the king’s daughter.

The dragon is viewed as the embodiment of evil. Confessional influence [Propp means the influence of a current religion] turns the dragon into a devil:

Devils abduct the king’s daughter.

The same influence affects the object of abduction:

The devil abducts the priest’s daughter.

The dragon figure has already become foreign to the village. It is replaced by a dangerous animal that is better known (externally motivated substitutions), the animal acquiring fantastic attributes (modifications):

A bear with fur of iron carries off the king’s children.

The villain merges with Baba-Jaga [the witch figure in Russian folktales]. One part of the fairy tale influences another part (internally motivated substitution). Baba-Jaga is the essence of the female sex, and, correspondingly, the person abducted is a male (inversion):

A witch abducts the son of an old couple.

In one of the forms constantly complicating the fairy tale, the hero’s brothers carry out a secondary abduction of their brother’s prize. The intent to do harm has now been transferred to the hero’s kin. This is a canonical form of complicating the action:

His brothers abduct Ivan’s bride.

The wicked brothers are replaced by other villainous relatives from reserve members of the fairy tale’s cast (internally motivated substitution):

The king (Ivan’s father-in-law) abducts Ivan’s wife.

The princess herself may take over the same function, and the fairy tale may assume more amusing forms. Here the figure of the villain has been reduced:

The princess flees from her husband.

In all these cases, a human being was abducted, but, by way of example, the light of day may be abducted (an archaic substitution):

The dragon abducts the light of the kingdom.

The dragon is replaced by other monstrous animals (modification): the object of abduction merges with the imagined life of the court:

The mink-beast pilfers animals from the king’s menagerie.

Talismans play a significant role in the fairy tale. They are often the only means by which Ivan can attain his goal. Hence it is understandable that they are often the object of abduction. If the action is thus complicated in the middle of the fairy tale, such an abduction is even obligatory as far as fairy tale canon is concerned. This middle moment in the fairy tale may be transferred to the beginning (internally motivated substitution). The abductor of the talisman is often a cheat, or a landowner, and so on (externally motivated substitution):

A shrewd lad abducts Ivan’s talisman.

A landowner abducts the peasant’s talisman.

[. . .] In every case the abduction is preserved. The disappearance of a bride, a daughter, a wife, etc., is ascribed to a mythic substratum in the fairy tale. However, this explanation of such a disappearance is alien to modern peasant life, therefore an alien, imported mythology is replaced by sorcery. Disappearance is ascribed to magic spells cast by evil sorcerers and sorceresses. The nature of the villainous deed changes, but its result is still the same: a disappearance entailing a quest (substitution via superstition):

A sorcerer abducts the king’s daughter.

Nursie bewitches Ivan’s bride and forces her to flee.

Again, we see the activity transferred to wicked relatives:

Sisters force the girl’s groom to flee.

Turning to the transformations of our second base form (a dragon tortures the king’s daughter), we encounter transformations on the same patterns:

The devil tortures the king’s daughter, etc.

Here the torture assumes the nature of seizure and vampirism, which can be fully explained ethnographically. Instead of the dragon and the devil, we see again another of the fairy tale’s evil beings:

Baba-Jaga tortures the mistress of the knights.

A third variation of the basic form poses the threat of forced marriage:

The dragon demands the king’s daughter.

This reveals a number of transformations:

A water sprite demands the king’s son, etc.

This same form, morphologically speaking, may lead to a declaration of war without any of the king’s offspring being demanded (reduction); a transfer of similar forms to relatives produces:

The sister, a witch, seeks to devour the king’s son (her brother).

This case is of special interest. Here the prince’s sister is called a dragoness. Thus we have a classical example of internal assimilation. It points up the need for caution in studying kinship ties in the fairy tale. The marriage of brother and sister and other forms are not necessarily remnants of an old custom; rather, they may be the results of certain transformations, as the above case clearly shows.

The objection may be raised against all of the preceding that anything at all could be fitted into a single phrase having but two components. This is far from true. [Propp first cites the beginning of a Russian tale called "Frost, Sun and Wind" as an example of a totally different element–a refutation that doesn’t help too much if we don’t know the text.] Second, the observed phenomena represent the same constructional element with respect to the over-all composition. Although differently stated, they result in identical patterns in the progress of the plots; a plea for help may be masked as a departure from home, as a meeting with a donor, etc. Not every fairy tale containing a theft produces this construction. If this construction does not fellow, subsequent patterns, however similar, cannot be compared, for they are heteronymous [of different types]. Otherwise, we have to admit that an element from the fairy tale has entered a construction foreign to the tale. Thus we return to the necessity of making juxtapositions on the basis of identical components and not external similarity.