V. Propp (1958), Morphology of the Folktale, translated by Laurence Scott, edited with an introduction by Svatava Pirkova-Jakobson, Bloomington: Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics, Publication 10 (= International Journal of American Linguistics 24(4), Part III; Bibliographical and Special Series of the American Folklore Society 9), x + 134 pp. Second edition, revised and edited with a preface by Louis A. Wagner, new introduction by Alan Dundes, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1968, xxvi + 158 pp. — DOI-10.7560/783911
Key takeaways
From a skim of the 1968 edition: Dundes’s introduction and chs. II–III, pp. 19–65 (NOTE-642). The record’s full reading is of the 1928 Russian, LIT-828 and NOTE-615.
- The method and the inventory come through intact. Ch. II gives the four theses, among them “The sequence of functions is always identical” and “All fairy tales are of one type in regard to their structure”. Ch. III gives the 31 functions, from absentation (β) to wedding (W), each with a capitalised summary, a one-word definition and a sign, after the initial situation (α), with lack as VIIIa. Function is “an act of a character, defined from the point of view of its significance for the course of the action”.
- The genre word shifts. The title says “Folktale”, the text studies “fairy tales” (Aarne 300–749), and the record’s reading of the Russian says “wondertale”. Dundes, in the edition itself: “The English title Morphology of the Folktale is misleading.”
- The character word splits. “Dramatis personae” in the chapter title and the function headings, “characters” in the theses, “personages” for newcomers. The Russian reading has one word.
- The signs are not the Russian ones. Struggle–victory is H–I and difficult task–solution M–N in English, with branding J and mediation B. The Russian reading writes these pairs in Cyrillic (Б–П, З–Р).
- The 1968 apparatus corrects the source. Wagner’s 41 notes in chs. II–III check Propp’s examples against Afanas’ev. They fix wrong tale references, including a misreading that recurs in Appendix II, and renumber all tales to the new Afanas’ev numbering: Propp’s 50–151 become 93–270.
- Dundes’s frame. Propp’s analysis is “syntagmatic”, inductive and replicable, against Lévi-Strauss’s “paradigmatic” one. Propp left context aside. Dundes lists extensions to other genres and cultures and notes that the scheme has been programmed for a computer.
Standing in the record
Filed on 2026-10-09 from the manuscript bibliography of 2026-10-09 (work
what-survives-translation) at the owner’s request, as the English
translation of the Russian original the record holds and has read,
LIT-828 (Морфология сказки, 1928). See the curation entry of that
day.
One entry, not two. The 1968 edition is Scott’s 1958 translation revised and edited by Wagner, not a new translation: the catalogues credit the same translator and keep the series numbers (Indiana Publication 10, American Folklore Society 9). What they show as new is apparatus: Wagner’s preface, Dundes’s introduction and a chart of tale numbers. How far Wagner revised the text could not be assessed without reading it, so nothing yet shows a substantive difference that would justify a second entry. If a reading finds one (in the terms, the functions or the schemes), the 1968 edition should be split out with its own LIT.
The 1968 edition was skimmed on 2026-10-09 (NOTE-642); the 1958 edition has still not been seen. The skim found the 1968 differences to lie in the apparatus: Wagner’s notes, corrections of Propp’s tale references, and the renumbering of the tales. The theses and functions of chs. II–III match the Russian. The signs and some terms are the translation’s own, and nothing seen shows whether they differ from 1958. That is not yet the substantive difference that would split the 1968 edition into its own LIT, but it is a difference in the text’s references, which the 1958 edition very probably lacks. A reading of the 1958 text, or of Wagner’s preface, should settle it.