Mussolini in Myth and Memory: The

First Totalitarian Dictator 1st Edition

Paul Corner
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/mussolini-in-myth-and-memory-the-first-totalitarian-di
ctator-1st-edition-paul-corner/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Putin’s Totalitarian Democracy: Ideology, Myth, and

Violence in the Twenty-First Century Kate C. Langdon

https://ebookmass.com/product/putins-totalitarian-democracy-
ideology-myth-and-violence-in-the-twenty-first-century-kate-c-
langdon/

Researching Subcultures, Myth and Memory 1st ed.

Edition Bart Van Der Steen

https://ebookmass.com/product/researching-subcultures-myth-and-
memory-1st-ed-edition-bart-van-der-steen/

Mobilizing Cultural Identities in the First World War:

History, Representations and Memory Federica Pedriali

https://ebookmass.com/product/mobilizing-cultural-identities-in-
the-first-world-war-history-representations-and-memory-federica-
pedriali/

First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins Steven C Harper

https://ebookmass.com/product/first-vision-memory-and-mormon-
origins-steven-c-harper/
Europeanisation and Memory Politics in the Western
Balkans 1st ed. Edition Ana Miloševi■

https://ebookmass.com/product/europeanisation-and-memory-
politics-in-the-western-balkans-1st-ed-edition-ana-milosevic/

The Fifth Corner of Four: An Essay on Buddhist

Metaphysics and the Catuskoti 1st Edition Graham Priest

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-fifth-corner-of-four-an-essay-
on-buddhist-metaphysics-and-the-catuskoti-1st-edition-graham-
priest/

The Power of Memory and Violence in Central America 1st

ed. Edition Rachel Hatcher

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-power-of-memory-and-violence-
in-central-america-1st-ed-edition-rachel-hatcher/

Stalin's Library: A Dictator and his Books Geoffrey

Roberts

https://ebookmass.com/product/stalins-library-a-dictator-and-his-
books-geoffrey-roberts/

China, Russia, And Twenty-First Century Global

Geopolitics 1st Edition, 3rd Impression Edition Paul J.
Bolt

https://ebookmass.com/product/china-russia-and-twenty-first-
century-global-geopolitics-1st-edition-3rd-impression-edition-
paul-j-bolt/
M U SS O L I N I I N M Y T H A N D
M E M O RY
MUSSOLI N I I N MYT H
A N D MEMOR Y
T H E F I R S T TOTA L I TA R I A N
D I C TATO R

PAU L C O R N E R
 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp, United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the
University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing
worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in
certain other countries
© Paul Corner 2022
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2022
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in
writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under
terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning
reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same
condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022932837
ISBN 978–0–19–286664–6
ebook ISBN 978–0–19–269190–3
Printed and bound in the UK by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A.
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website
referenced in this work.
 Acknowledgements

This book was written during the pandemic—a period in which it was
not always easy to confer with colleagues or to access libraries and
archives. Nonetheless I owe thanks to many people who helped me
in one way or another, despite the circumstances. Not all can be
listed here but, for help and encouragement in various forms, I
should like to thank in particular, Richard Bosworth, Filippo Focardi,
Jie-Hyun Lim, Cecilia Palombelli, Ian Kershaw, and Paul Preston. As
always Adrian Lyttelton was a constant source of stimulus even
though our occasional lunches in Santa Croce were so dramatically
curtailed by events. Obviously none of the above-named has any
responsibility for the final product.
The book would not have seen the light of day without the
patience and understanding of the editors at OUP—Matthew Cotton
and Cathryn Steele—with whom it has been a pleasure to work. I
should also like to thank two anonymous readers who made helpful
and very constructive comments on an early draft. A final word of
thanks must go to my wife, Giovanna Procacci, whose readiness to
discuss many of the issues dealt with in this book has been, as
always, an invaluable asset.

Florence, February 2022

 Contents

Abbreviations and glossary of terms

1. History, memory, and amnesia

2. ‘Good-natured Fascism’: exploding the myth
3. Italy: a nation of fascists?
4. Things were better when HE was in charge…
5. Mussolini: twentieth-century statesman?
6. Mussolini as modernizer: a developmental dictatorship?
7. Mussolini: myth and memory

Select bibliography
Index
 Abbreviations and glossary of terms

confino domestic exile

fascio local fascist organization
federale provincial fascist leader
GDR German Democratic Republic (East Germany)
gerarca, gerarchi fascist leaders, local and national
GUF fascist university groups
INFPS fascist national welfare organization
MVSN fascist Militia
ONMI fascist organization for Maternity and Infants
OVRA fascist secret police
PNF National Fascist Party
podestà fascist mayor of a commune
questura, questore police station, chief of police
ras powerful local fascist leaders
squadrismo violent actions of the squadristi
squadristi violent blackshirt activists, organized in
squads
ventennio synonymous with ‘fascist regime’ (twenty
years)
Soviet ideological slogans get reborn in the mass consciousness, but are
mistaken for a reality—a phantom utopia—that never existed
Lev Gudkov
(Levada Center, Moscow)

We remember the past not in order to get it right, but in order to get it
wrong
Alon Confino
(UMass Amherst)

We are a country without memory, which is like saying without history.

Italy removes its recent past…keeping only those memories, those
fragments that might be useful for its contortions, its conversions
Pier Paolo Pasolini
(Scritti corsari)
 1
History, memory, and amnesia

Dictators come, dictators go. Very often their departure is

accompanied by expressions of popular jubilation, mitigated in some
cases only by uncertainty about what may come next. Once a
relatively secure stabilization is achieved the verdict is usually
undisputed. Three years after Stalin’s death, his name could finally
be linked to the word ‘criminal’ in a way unthinkable in the Soviet
Union before 1953. With Hitler there was little discussion. When the
extent of the Holocaust came clearly into focus (and it took more
than a decade for this to happen), Hitler’s name became virtually
synonymous with evil. More recently, for anyone enjoying Christmas
television in 1989, the sight of the bodies of Nicolai and Elena
Ceauşescu lying huddled in a desolate courtyard near Bucharest
remains indelible. In this last case judgement was immediate.
Popular anger directed at the dictator was such that, in defence of
the hasty trial and summary execution, the former Romanian
defence minister declared that shooting was preferable to the
spectacle of the couple being lynched by a mob in the street. And if,
for the moment, the North Korean Kim dynasty has avoided popular
overthrow, there can be few doubts, judging from what escapees
recount, that its eventual demise will not be mourned with copious
tears.
Dictators have been accused of most things, often with reason,
even if they have sometimes provided useful scapegoats for the
difficulties their successors found they had to face. Certain
accusations are common. The pursuance of disastrous foreign
policies is a charge that can be levelled at many dictators and it is
not difficult to think of examples. But it is at the level of domestic
politics that they most often seem to resemble each other. Arbitrary
power is frequently seen as leading to private enrichment. Whether
Ceauşescu’s kitchen scales were really made of solid gold remains in
question, but the story fits well with what people expected of the
man’s behaviour, essentially corrupt and self-regarding. Indeed,
corruption comes high on the list of accusations made of
dictatorships; the deviation of public funds into the private pockets
of a privileged elite is judged to be a common phenomenon—a
phenomenon particularly galling in what are frequently countries
with very limited resources. Any protest against either corruption or
peculation is impossible because of a system of justice itself
subservient to the political elite and all too ready to interpret the
law, even where there is a semblance of legality, in the interests of
that elite. Underlying all these problems are the central questions of
the denial of rights and the repression of certain liberties—of
freedom of speech, freedom of assembly (and of opposition to
authority), freedom of movement, and so on. Repression denies
people the right to express themselves in a multitude of ways,
forcing them to conform to certain patterns set by authority. You are
compelled to behave ‘as if’ you support the regime.
The list of offences is long and would seem to be enough to
condemn this type of regime in perpetuity. Yet, surprisingly, this is
not so. With the exception of Hitler, dictators and dictatorships seem
to be making a comeback in public perceptions. It is most obvious in
the case of contemporary Russia, where, according to the Moscow-
based Levada Center, there has been a steady rise in the percentage
of Russians disposed to view Stalin in a favourable light—75% at the
last survey in 2019. In fact, the coffee mugs depicting Stalin and
Putin sit happily side by side in St Petersburg souvenir shops. And
Russia is not the only example. In Romania, even the once-reviled
figure of Ceauşescu has been transformed, with—in 2018—almost
65% of Romanians declaring a positive opinion of their former
leader. Although such figures have to be read with due caution, the
trend seems clear. In some senses at least, dictators and
dictatorships are back in the public eye and that eye is not always
unfavourable.1
The phenomenon is well known. A further example could be the
Ostalgie of former East Germans—a reaction to what seemed to
many to be the annexation of identity—which attracted considerable
attention for a while. Indeed, there is now an academic industry
bent on analysing post-communist nostalgia. Very obviously what we
are looking at goes beyond the farcical situations of the film
Goodbye Lenin! or the smoking exhaust pipes of the Trabant tours of
former East Berlin—of people essentially just playing with the past.
The phenomenon of nostalgia for rulers and for systems responsible
for some of the horrors of the past has much deeper explanations—
and much more serious implications. In an in-depth interview on the
situation in Russia, Lev Gudkov, the prominent Russian sociologist
and director of the Levada Centre, suggested that nostalgia for the
Soviet era was based on a desire for order, security, social justice,
and national dignity. These were factors thought by many (indeed,
by the majority) to have been lost in the years following 1991, when
the experience of territorial fragmentation of the Union itself and the
national humiliation of reliance on American frozen chicken legs
inaugurated a period of free-for-all in which only the values of the
market commanded any respect. As with East Germans, even a
national identity was uncertain for a time. In the case of Romania
many of the same factors apply. Ceauşescu, for all his faults, is seen
as having offered a stability and a security now absent from a post-
communist society heavily dependent on emigration for survival. The
disillusion with Western-style ‘freedom’ is apparent in both cases and
the high percentages of people expressing this disillusion suggests
that it is shared by more than the old and the poor—the left out and
the let down—categories feeling they are living in ‘secondhand time’
and to which these attitudes have been usually ascribed.2
 It can hardly escape notice that there is a paradox here. Regimes
of arbitrary rule, regimes in which you could spend ten years in a
prison camp without ever knowing why you were there, are now
remembered as regimes that offered order and security. What has
happened? Gudkov has few doubts on this score. In the face of
present-day difficulties which—and this is an important point—offer
little hope for the future, people look back, remove the negative
elements from their memory, and construct a new memory based on
more positive recollections. In short they create what he terms a
‘phantom utopia’ of the past, against which the problems of the
present can only appear in negative contrast. Here what purports to
be memory is in fact playing strange tricks—and the consequences
are significant. Regret for the loss of a ‘phantom utopia’ of an
authoritarian past pushes people in the direction of authoritarian
solutions to their present problems. In a world that appears to be
increasingly chaotic and without order, many look for a ‘firm hand’
that can restore what is imagined to have been security and stability.
As is logical, the reconstructed ‘myth’ of a socialist society tends
towards the rehabilitation of the ruler, now seen as the guarantor of
justice and dignity rather than the dictator responsible for coercion
and repression.
Russia and Romania are good examples of this renewed
authoritarian nostalgia, but the dynamic is not limited to post-
communist societies. On a much wider canvas, historically, and
despite significant differences with dictators named so far, we might
cite Juan Peron’s hold on the imagination of the Argentine working
class which continued long after his death or the development of the
nostalgic Park Chung-Hee ‘syndrome’ in the Republic of South
Korea.3 Today, in many countries we can see a weakening of
democratic impulses and an increasing desire for a politics with a
‘firm hand’. Donald Trump showed scant respect for democratic
principles when it came to losing an election but his support
remained, nonetheless, very strong among the American public. And
while the USA is the most obvious case of democracy in difficulty,
many other examples could be cited, particularly in those countries
where the right-wing populist movements are growing in strength
and where illiberal ‘democraships’ have taken hold. Present-day
difficulties push people towards what seem to be simple solutions;
the strong man is one of these solutions. Sometimes it seems that
people would even prefer a supposedly efficient tyranny to a corrupt
and market-driven democracy.
This book is about Italy and Italians’ relationship with Mussolini
and his fascist movement. It may seem strange to discuss Italian
Fascism and the memory of Italian Fascism in terms of what has
been illustrated above and, of course, comparisons go only so far.
Every regime is historically specific. Even so, the primary intention of
the book is to place the memory of Italian Fascism firmly within the
context of what is happening elsewhere in respect of nostalgia for
authoritarian regimes. This intention requires an immediate
clarification. As a totalitarian regime—indeed the first totalitarian
regime—the fascist dictatorship certainly cannot be excluded from
the negative characteristics of dictatorships listed above. Yet books
on totalitarianism often fail to mention Italian Fascism. Frequently
the regime has been relegated too easily to the rubric ‘not serious’;
films sometimes show a humorous caricature of blackshirt
blundering. And, as the leader of a country too often associated by
non-Italians with the pizza and the mandolin, Mussolini has been
dismissed as a picturesque buffoon, gesticulating ridiculously from
his balcony towards a gullible and easily moved audience. Instead, it
is important to stress that, as in companion regimes, in fascist Italy
there was the same totalitarian attempt to transform people and to
transform society. To this end there was violence, hardship, privilege,
nepotism, and corruption on a grand scale. And there was a
disastrous foreign policy, culminating in the unconditional surrender
of September 1943. It is often forgotten (incredibly) that the regime
has direct responsibility for some 500,000 Italian dead. Yet, despite
this abject record, the attitude of many Italians towards the regime
remains ambiguous, and the rapidly growing Italian Right looks
increasingly towards the fascist past, sometimes mimicking attitudes
and poses drawn from the ventennio (the twenty years of the
regime). Reflecting his Cold War upbringing, Berlusconi denounced
totalitarianism and political violence, but it was always Pol Pot he
denounced, not Mussolini.
It is alarming that, almost exactly a hundred years after the
March on Rome, people are once again talking about, and warning
against, the threat of a new Fascism. Mussolini continues to haunt
Italy. If the behaviour of Trump has raised the spectre of a new
Fascism at the international level, his Italian epigoni have put
Fascism back on the possible political agenda. Rehabilitation of
Mussolini is thankfully still some way off, but the temptation to look
back to the regime as a moment when problems were solved and
things got done—in short, when government had the much-admired
‘firm hand’—is ever more pervasive. The ‘myth’ of a ‘good-natured’,
‘benevolent’, or ‘mild Fascism’ (fascismo bonario, fascismo ad acqua
di rosa) which did ‘many good things’ seems increasingly acceptable
to a collective memory that—always less and less attentive to history
—chooses what it wants to remember and forgets the unpalatable
rest. Here we seek simply to redress the balance, to present a few
facts and figures that can destroy the myth, to respond to many of
the current commonplaces that absolve the regime, and to place it
where it should rightly be placed—in the company of other
totalitarian dictatorships.
It may seem strange to begin a book that is principally about
Italian Fascism with references to Romania and Ceauşescu, but the
parabola of violent death and a subsequent slow rehabilitation is
surprisingly similar. The Romanian leader was spared the mob, as
was Mussolini, who was shot, again after a hasty trial, by Italian
partisans. But the events following that execution resembled very
much a public lynching, even if the fascist dictator was already dead.
In Piazzale Loreto in Milan. Mussolini’s dead body was hung, head
down, from a scaffolding after an angry crowd had kicked it, spat on
it, and, according to some reports, urinated on it. The same hatred
of Fascism and fascists was reproduced in many village and city
squares in the months following the Liberation, when popular fury
was vented against those responsible for two decades of
repression.4 At that point, there were, apparently, very few doubts
about the ‘achievements’ of the fascist leader or of his movement.
In those days—April 1945—it might have been assumed that
Fascism was finished and that Mussolini’s place in history was
assured: he was a failed dictator, a man who had brought death and
destruction on his nation. But, as with the other dictators we have
mentioned, it has not been so. Like Stalin, Ceauşescu (and one
might even add Francisco Franco, although he, in a sense, never
went away), Mussolini has made a come-back. Some people even
speak well of him. This inevitably prompts the question: how is it
that a man executed by Italians, reviled by Italians, a man whose
body was strung up from the gantry of a petrol pump for public
execration by Italians, has become a figure of whom people speak
with some regard, even nostalgia? Much the same can be said for
Fascism itself. Why is it that the memory of Fascism revolves around
what, all things considered, is now seen as an acceptable past,
invoked at times almost with a sense of indulgence, rather than
provoking a shudder of revulsion? What has happened to our
memory of Fascism—our relation with the fascist past—to permit
such a turnaround?
Here we are not talking about neo-Fascism, where little
explanation is required. The extreme Right needs its heroes and its
martyrs to give it some kind of spurious legitimacy and it is only to
be expected that the neo-fascist activists still put Mussolini on a
pedestal; ‘many enemies, much honour’ is a slogan that fits perfectly
the mentality of an exiguous, if unfortunately growing, minority.
What is more difficult to explain is the way in which, in
contemporary Italian society, in what might be termed a generalized
popular memory, the fascist regime has ceased to be seen in totally
negative terms. It is not considered to be without its blemishes, of
course, and the alliance with Hitler is often referred to as Mussolini’s
‘one mistake’; yet even here the very concept of ‘one mistake’
implies that, in other respects, Fascism was not mistaken, that it was
acceptable. Strangely, the fascist dictatorship has lost its capacity to
shock, its capacity to serve as a reminder of where we don’t want to
go. Rather, in some quarters, it has come to be seen as a ‘good-
natured regime’, ‘a rose-water Fascism’, agent of some degree of
modernization and certainly not without its original, even colourful,
aspects. For some reason Piazzale Loreto has been lost to view. In
the same way as we have to investigate the post-communist
memory of communism, we have to ask, what has happened to our
memory of Fascism?
The most obvious answer is very simple. Our memory has
disappeared; we have forgotten. It is now a long time since Piazzale
Loreto; the generations who lived through Fascism have largely
passed away; direct experience and personal testimony no longer
occupy our attention. Moreover our perspectives have changed.
Other tyrants, other horrors, have intervened to dim our impressions
of the regime and to permit us to cast it in a relatively neutral, at
times almost favourable, light. Mussolini was not Hitler is the often
repeated refrain; nor was he Stalin, nor (as Berlusconi reminded us)
was he Pol Pot—the list is long, and the longer it gets, the less
Mussolini stands out from the crowd. Just—and the emphasis is on
the ‘just’—another dictator, and not all that bad at that. Why make a
fuss? After all, as the oft-repeated popular argument goes, in the
final analysis Mussolini did a lot of good things.5
How much truth is there in this judgement? Many good things? It
implies that history has been hard on the fascist leader, that the
negative judgements generally ascribed by professional historians to
one of Europe’s foremost dictators have been wide of the mark,
perhaps nothing more than the history written by the victors. And
popular commonplaces, such as the ‘many good things’, suggest that
Mussolini deserves more credit than he has been given. But does
history really bear this out? At this point the ground becomes
slippery. In the era of fake news, post-truth, and contempt for
expertise, history has a hard time. Sometimes it seems that you can
bend it as you like, given that fake news, including fake news about
the past, knows no deontological boundaries; verifiable evidence is
no longer the determining factor, and facts can be either invented or
ignored at leisure. But, in respect of commonplaces about Fascism,
we are not talking about history in the strict sense, which, if it is
certainly interpretation of the past, has, or should have, when all is
said and done, its evidence, its rules and conventions that justify
that interpretation. We are talking about what passes for memory,
and memory is a more elusive beast. When talking about the past it
is essential to keep in mind that history is history and memory is
memory; it is essential to distinguish between the two. History tries
to explain, it is about causality, while memory purports to record
past experience.
Memory concerns the ways in which people construct a sense of
the past, the ways in which they seek to give meaning to the past. It
does not depend on documents or archives, nor does it necessarily
relate to ‘facts’. In a sense, memory has no rules, it is a free agent;
it might even seem to be each individual looking backwards in time.
Yet, paradoxical as it may seem, memory is not just looking back. In
many respects memory is as much about the present as it is about
the past and if, unlike history, it has no hard and fast rules, it
nonetheless obeys certain patterns; for memory is formed not only
by what we read about the past, what we are told about the past,
but also, more importantly, by what we choose to forget and what
we choose to remember, and what we choose to remember is
intimately linked to what seems relevant to our present. Memory is
the presence of the past in our present.
In fact, societies ‘reconstruct’ their past, and their memories,
according to the prevailing interests of the present, and, very often,
according to their hopes for the future. Usually this is not a purely
individual process—the apparently straightforward formation of a
personal view of the past—but much more a reflection, an
‘absorbing’, of a ‘collective memory’ formed socially from current
attitudes and discussions relating to the past, from what you see on
television and on the internet, read in the newspapers, hear in the
bar. Snowball-like, collective memory is a process both of absorption
and of addition, a progressing interaction between the individual and
the social context. ‘Collective memory’—which determines our
individual interpretation of the past—is a product of a whole range of
inputs of information from many different sources—the so-called
‘vehicles of memory’. Where collective memory deals with politics it
can, of course, be highly instrumental. We sometimes create the
memory that suits us, others may create a memory for us that suits
them. Vladimir Putin has skilfully generated a new and favourable
memory of Stalinism in order to reinforce his own authoritarianism.
What is sure is that ‘collective memory’ becomes a social view of the
past. At this point it is appropriated by the public and generates
commonplaces and usually simplified judgements about the past,
accepted and often repeated without further reflection.6
‘Collective memories’ may differ, of course, according to inputs,
according to interpretation, according to purpose, and according to
which social (or ethnic) group is doing the remembering. For
example, in respect of Fascism, the collective memory of the working
class is likely to be different from that of the high bourgeoisie, the
collective memory of men different from that of women. And, as is
widely recognized, a common, shared, vision of the Italian past has
been difficult to achieve in a country where history divides rather
than unites. There is no single legend relating to Italy’s recent past
with which all can identify; as a consequence there are different
‘collective memories’. What we are concerned with here is one
widespread ‘collective memory’ that has selected certain aspects of
the fascist regime and forgotten others. And what has been selected
is significant, just as what has been forgotten is revealing. People
‘remember’ the draining of the Pontine Marshes, the trains running
on time (for many, this last has become a kind of metaphor for the
entire regime), and some may even point to ‘fascist welfare’ and the
‘social pension’ as conquests of the regime. Some may mention new
forms of socialization and new expressions of leisure, others point to
impressive examples of fascist architecture. Less remembered is the
violence, the repression of liberties, the secret police, the colonial
massacres, and the constant march towards war of a regime which
required above all that people should ‘believe, obey, and fight’. A
strange amnesia has descended on these latter aspects. With regard
to the Duce, there has been a general easing of tension in attitudes
towards Mussolini, no longer associated with violence and the
destruction of war. His figure has been resurrected as the agent of
the ‘many good things’ and his memory celebrated in all the
Mussolini paraphernalia that inhabits so many of our news-stands.
Is this ‘resurrection’ the product of recent years? Not exactly. In
reality the ‘normalization’ of Fascism, and in particular of the role of
the Duce, has a long story and has never been devoid of elements of
apology. But if this normalization is in no sense a recent
phenomenon, there is—as we will see—a very current aspect to it.
To understand this evolution we need to take a closer look at the
collective memory that recalls the ‘many good things’. Two questions
are in order. The first is straightforward: how far does the affirmation
of ‘many good things’ done by Fascism correspond to the historical
reality of the interwar years—as far as we can know it—or is it an
idea based on myth and mystification? This verification of reality
versus legend is the subject of a large part of this book. The second
question has already been anticipated in the lines above. It is more
complex and relates to the present day. It asks why so many people
today are prepared to share the permissive memory of Fascism and
to repeat the mantra of ‘many good things’ in respect of a violent
and repressive dictatorship.
On the face of it, were we to accept the assumption that what
people believe today is based entirely on information that can be
confirmed or refuted, a credible and well-documented answer to the
first question might appear to solve the problem of the second. After
all, we can (and will) check the extent (and the quality) of the
programme of land reclamation undertaken during the regime (the
bonifica). Was it one of the ‘many good things’ or not? But, in reality
the two questions, although linked, are less closely connected than it
might seem because, as already suggested and as we have seen
with post-communist nostalgia, the evaluation of the past is often
more a reflection of current problems, disposing us to highlight
certain aspects of the past and ignore others, than it is a response to
historical analysis. We may even, without fully realizing it, ‘invent’ a
past that gives us some comfort in the present, just as the Russians
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 4 piika kuiva kuikuttelen
5 vetelen vähä-väkinen
6 laihan laula'a tuleepi
8 verettömän vieretellä
10 verevämmät vierettele (XXI: 300.)
13 kuin ei laula laaukkaammat
17 pos'est' on verettömästä
18 sano'ot kyläiset naiset
24 sen mie virkan viisahasti
33 jott' se sorjan suu kuluupi
34 kaunon varsi vaivahuupi
38 niin kuin vettä vierettelen.

2 vuoroin laulettiin aina (vrt. siv. 3), paitsi silloin kun oltiin
"yksinpäisiäisnä", jolloin laulettiin joka säe kahdesti ikäänkuin
"jälest'laulaja" (= puoltaja, säistäjä, Lönnr. esip. Kalev. II § 17) olisi
saapuvilla. Kun tällä tavoin lauletaan yksin, esiintyvät selvimmällä
tavalla säkeitten loppusanojen päämuodot, kun säe kerrotaan eli
toisen kerran lauletaan, niinkuin alla-olevasta taulusta näkyy (vrt.
myös siv. 42):

Parasken runojen loppusanat kuuluvat:

1. suusanalla luettuina: 2. [sivumuodot] ensikertaisessa

laulussa: 3. [päämuodot] kerrotessa:

Nom.
1. mies |2. miesi |3. miesi
1. piika |2. piikui |3. piika
1. ihmeet |2. -meeti |3. -meete, -me'et
1. palentuneet |2. -neeti |3. -neete
 Gen.
1. hirre(n) |2. hirrii |3. hirre(n)
1. katokse(n) |2. -toksii |3. -tokse(n)

Part. 1. kunniaa |2. -niaani |3. -niaane, (niaista) 1. vettä|2. -vettui |3. -vettä 1.
lih(h)aa |2. -haani |3. -haane (-haista) 1. san(n)aa |2. -naani |3. -naane (-naista)
1. pojaista (poikanen) |2. -jaistu |3. -jaista 1. ol'tta |2. ol'ttu |3. ol'tta 1.
mi(n)uista (minunen) |2. -minuuni |3. minuune 1. hy(yv)vii (=hyviä) | 2.
hyviihyi |3. hyviini, hyviä 1. oppimii (=-mia) |2. -miihui |3. -miini, -mia 1.
vetelemii (=-miä) |2. -miihyi |3. -miini, miä 1. run(n)oi (=runoja) |2. runoiui |3.
runoja 1. lausehii (=-hia) |2. -sehiihui, -hiiui |3. -sehiini, -hia 1. ilmisii (=-misiä)
|2. -misiini |3. -misiine

Iness.
1. viluss' |2. -lussui |3. -lussa
1. jäless' |2. -lessi |3. -lessä

Elat.
1. pakkasest' |2. -sestui |3. -sesta

Illat.
1. päähä(n) |2. päähii, päähyy |3. päähä(n)
1. kät(t)ee(n) |2. -teeni |3. -teene
1. istuntaa(n) |2. -taani |3. -taane
1. ko(t)tii(n) |2. -tiihi |3. -tiini, (-ne)
1. kartanoo(n) |2. -nuuni |3. -noone

Adess.
1. laitumell' |2. -llui |3. -lla
1. kunniall' |2. -llee (-llui) |3. -lla
1. maill' |2. mailli |3. mailla
1. mättähill' |2. -llyi |3. -llä
1. kunnahill' |2. -lli |3. -lla
 Abl.
1. keralt' |2. -lti |3. -lta
1. tavalt' |2. -lti |3. lte

Allat.
1. sommelolle(n) |2. -lli |3. -lle(n)

Transl.
1. iloks' |2. iloksi |3. ilokse
1. luoks' |2. luoksi |3. luokse

Prol.
1. alaits' |2. -tsi |3. -tse

Suff.
1. vakkasein |2. -siini |3. -seini
1. varrellain |2. -laani |3. -llaini
1. ik(k)äin (=ikäni) |2. -keini |3. -käini
1. käyessäin |2. -ssääni |3. -ssäini
1. m(i)un sukuhein (=sukuhuni) |2. -kuhiini |3. -kuheini
1. meiän neiossaa(n) (=neidossamme) |2. -ssaasi |3.- -ssaase
1. si(n)un em(m)ois |2. -oosi |3. -oisi
1. ollakseis' |2. -kseesi |3. -kseisi
1. tultuais |2. -tuvaisi |3. -tuvansi
1. teiän virsissää(n) (=virsissänne) |2. -sääsi |3. -ssääse
1. lapsillee(n) |2.-lleesi |3. lleese
1. kuollaksee(n) |2. -kseesi |3. -kseese
1. paikoillee(n) |2. -lleesi |3. -lleese
1. itsiää(n) |2. -siääsi |3. -siääse

Adv.
1. suorastee(n) (=-staan) |2. -teesi |3. -teese
1. kohastee(n) (=kohdastaan) | 2. -eesi |3. -eese
1. hyväst' |2. -västi |3. -väste
1. somast' |2. -masti |3. -maste
1. laatuisast' |2. -sasti |3. -saste
1. itsekää(n) |2. -sekääni |3. -sekääne
1. huomennai |2. -naaii |3. -nnak(k)i(n)(-na'i)

Pres.
1. viritän |2. -tyi |3. -tän
1. kalkuttelen |2. -telii |3. -telen
1. vak(k)oon |2. (vakoilui) |3. (vakoilen)
1. tul(l)oo (=tulee) |2. -lo'o |3. -lloopi
1. laittelei |2. -leevui |3. -leepi (-leipi)
1. aj(j)aa |2. ajaavui |3. ajaane, -aapi
1. aj(J)aat |2. aj(j)aati |3. aj(j)aata
1. kerkiäät |2. -kiäävyi |3.-kiääti, -ääte
1. näk(k)yyt |2. -yyty |3. -yytö
1. tulloot (=tulevat) |2. -ooti |3. -ooto
1. otteloot (ottelevat) |2. -ooti |3. -oote, -ooto

Impf.
1. virkko(i) |2. -kkui |3. -kko
1. toivat |2. -vui |3. -vat
1. aj(j)oit |2. -oivui |3. -oivat

Konc.
1. sotkenoo |2. -ooni |3. -oone
1. kanittanee |2. -neeni |3. -neene

Inf.
1. maata|2. maatui, tuu |3. maata
1. as(s)uu (=asua) |2. asuuni |3. asuune, asu'u
 1. otella |2. -tellu |3. -tella
1. vieretellä |2. -tellii |3. -tellä
1. rykkii (=rykkiä) |2. -kkiini |3. -kkiini (-ne)
1. laulamaa(n) |2. maani |3. -maane

Pass.
1. annetaa(n) |2. -aani |3. -aane
1. ristitti(n) |2. -ttiini |3. -ttiini
1. leikattaa |2. -kattaavui |3. -kattavan
("jos näkisin leikattaa")

(Vrt. Sel. 1-5 ja Sel. 24-25)

12 kaunn_e_h_e_mmat eroaa kirjakielestä; tässä muodossa tulee

komparativi näkyviin, jota vastoin länsisuomalaisissa murteissa
"kauniimmat" voi olla sekä komparativi että superlativi.

17 nouvi = selvä, ymmärtäväinen.

34 ranni = (ehkä: ruots. grann) korea, kaunis.

38 vieoista, vetonen-sanasta (vrt. selitys 5: 2). Sakkulan kielessä

diftongiseerataan tai pitennetään vokaali kun k tahi t on hävinnyt
sellaisissa sanoissa kuin: keko, kieon; joki, juoen; noki, nuoen; lato,
loaon; laki, loaon; mato, moaon; nato, noaon; käki, keäen (niinkuin
myös sanotaan käsi, keäen; vesi vie'en); kyty, kyy'yn; hiki, hiien;
suku, suu'un j.n.e. Tämä murteenomituisuus on tekstissä säilytetty,
sillä jos kirjakielen mukaan kirjoitettaisiin veoista, niin se ei täysin
allitereeraa vierettelen-sanaan.
 21. Tantsu- ja liekkuvirsi.

Mitä varten tänne läksin? mie en ilman istuntahan,

pihk' en puolisen pitohon, seinän-vieren en seisontahan;
— 5 ilo siinä, missä nuoret, vaka siinä, missä vanhat; —
sitä varten tänne läksin, virsiäni virkkamahan, laulujani
laskemahan, 10 leikkiä leventämähän; tulin ilmisiin
iloksi, tulin rahvahan ratoksi; — taas meitä moni
sanovat, muutomannet muistelevat, 15 tämän iltaisen
ilosta (I: 99.) tämän päivän pään perästi; — ilotaan me
tääkin ilta, muien iltojen mukahan, remutaan me tääkin
retki, 20 muien retkien mukahan; — mitäs minä sanoista
huolin, ketäs pelkään? — en ketäkään! — la sanovat, la
panevat, viel'hän viimein herkiävät, 25 ennen kuin kuolla
kerkiävät; en mie pannessa pahene, enkä lauhu
laatiessa, kiintii en kirottaessa; minkä saavat, hot
sanovat 30 sen saavat sanottuansa, minkä ilman
oltuansa, pahan mielen palkastansa, pahan mielen,
paksun huulen, kun kirves kivestä saapi, (XII: 153.) 35
napa-koira kalliosta. (XII: 154.)

Selityksiä: 21.

2-4 viimeiset sanat kuuluvat laulussa: istun_taane_, pi_toone_,

seison_taane_, mitkä muodot yhtähyvin voivat olla partitivin kuin
illativin.

3 pihk' en puolisen = pihk'puolisen (pihtipuolisen) en.

6 vaka = vakavuus.
 13 Omituista on, että kun subjektina on sana, jolla on kollektivinen
merkitys, esim. kansa, kyläkunta, jokainen, moni, muutama y.m., niin
käyttää P. laulussaan monikon muotoja tekosanassa.

14 muutomannet; ehkä = muutomat ne(t).

19 remuitset = riemuitsen.

27 lauhtua = läyhkää.

28 kiintii; kiintiin (-tiän), kiinnitä = tulla kiintiäksi; jos joku esim.

nostamisesta sydänalasta on hellä, niin sanotaan että se on kiintiinty
(= kiintiinnyt) ja luullaan että nahka on kiintynyt ruumiiseen liian
lujasti, jonkatähden hierotaan.

32 kl palkas_teese_; niin myöskin palkastein (-stani), suorasteese,

kohasteen; adverbissa käytetään aina -ste-muotoja (kts. selitys 2: 5-
6.)

22. Loppu-virsi liekussa.

Kyll' on, kyll' on; täys' on, täys' on,

kyll' on täysi tästä päästä,
tästä tyhjäst' on tytöstä,
lapsest' on emottomasta,
5 täys' on täst' sanelijasta;
älkää te kyläiset naiset,
älkää naiset naapuriset,
älkää äijäistä anoka,
tästä tyhjästä tytöstä,
 10 natukasta laulajasta; —
kyll' on, kyll' on; täys' on, täys' on,
pian piisaa on minusta,
tämän iltasen iloksi, (I: 99, XXI: 305.)
tämän päivän päätteheksi.

Selityksiä: 22.

Koska tämä runo on loppuvirsi liekussa, niin P. sanoi kun hän oli
sen laulanut: "Se olkoon virsi viimeinen minun hurjan laulakseni" —
eipä vaan ollut!

8 äijäinen = paljo.

10 natukka = kuivavartaloinen, pieni.

23. Piina-luku.

Tule tänne Herra Ieesus,

saa tänne hyvä Jumala,
piika-lapsen piinasihin; —
päästä piika pintehistä, [I: 173
5 vaimo vatsan vääntehistä, [I. 174
ava'a lihainen lukko,
luinen lukko longottele; — [I: 321
mehiläinen kanna mettä,
suussasi sima sulaapi,
10 kipiöille voitehiksi, (XV: 487.)
 haavoillen pareneville;
keitä mettä kielelläsi,
joka kukkasen nenästä,
joka heinän helpehestä,
15 tuo ol'tta Topiolasta,
tuo mettä Mielolasta,
voia niillä voitehilla,
niillä rasvoilla rakenna,
millä Ieesus voiettihin,
20 Maariainen maasittihin,
sisäst' on kivuttomaksi,
alt' on aivan terveheksi,
päältä tuntumattomaksi; —
Jumala on parantaja,
25 Ieesus on terveen-tekijä.

Selityksiä: 23.

Piina-luku eli luku synnytystuskissa.

8:sta säkeestä alkaa se lisäys, joka aina luetaan loitsulukujen

perästä. Loitsut eli "luvut" luetaan, "sopotetaan, lomitetaan" matalalla
äänellä, eikä niitä koskaan laulettu; kun loitsuluvut ja loitsutemput
olivat toimitetut luettiin "Isä-meidän" tahi "uskontunnustus".
Tavallisesti on runomitta loitsuissa huonompi kuin muissa runoissa,
mutta jos loitsut lauletaan, niin helposti runomitta korjaantuu, niinkuin
tässäkin luvussa.

15-16 Topiola (ja Mielola); väännetyt Tapiola- ja Metsola-sanoista.

— Mainittakoon, että v. 1687 nostettiin kihlakunnan oikeudessa
kanne erästä Lapinlahden (Sakkulan pitäjästä) miestä vastaan; hän
oli muka lukenut käärmeenluvun, jossa muun muassa oli seuraavat
säkeet: [Lapinlahden kylä oli naapurikylä Vaskelaan, missä P. asuu.]

Tule tänne Herra Kiesus saa tänne sula Jumala — — — —

ja edelleen:

ota mette[-tä] Mettolasta tima Tapiolasta mesi keitä kielelläs

sima suussas sula[a] j.n.e.,

ja kertoi mies oikeudessa, että kun sanat olivat luetut oli luettava
"Isä-meidän"; vielä hän lisäsi että tämä oli "maakunnan tarve", ja tätä
lukua hän oli lukenut 20 vuotta (vrt. Hertzberg, Bidrag till Finlands
kulturhistoria på 1600-talet, Vidskepelse, s. 59-60; — erehdystä
vaan on, että mies olisi ollut kotisin Raudusta). Tästä näkyy, miten
suomalaisten runous aikojen kuluessa muuttuu pienessä määrässä,
kun 6 säettä melkein muuttumattomina on pysynyt paikkakunnalla
ainakin 225 vuotta. Vast'edes saamme nähdä, että toisetkin säkeet
siinä vanhassa luvussa (joka löytyy kirjaanpantuna Valtionarkiston
Tuomiokirjoissa v. 1687) löytyvät P:n "maon luvussa".

(Vrt. Loitsurunoja siv. 238, 239, 271: h—273.)

24. Liekkuvirsi.

Kuin mie tehnen, kuin ruvennen

kuin se lienee on parempi,
kuin se lienee kunniampi?
liekos kuolla, vain elä'ä
 5 vain paremp' pakoon lie männä? —
paremp' on pakeneminen,
ennenk' nuorra kuoleminen; —
mitäs tehhä, kuin elä'ä,
tämän suuren huolen kanssa,
10 tään suuren surun keralla,
kaihon kauhean keralla;
synny ei syyä leivän kanssa,
painaa ei palan keralla; —
mitäs tehnen kuin ruvennen,
15 kuin se lienee on parempi,
kuin se lienee kuuluisampi,
tehnenkos tuvan tulehen, (I: 191.)
vain vestän vetehen lastut? —
mie jos teen tuvan tulehen,
20 tul'han polttaa mun tuvaini,
jos vestän vetehen lastut,
ves'han viep' mun vestokseni.

Toisinnuksia ja selityksiä: 24.

Tois.:
19 jos mie teen tuvan tulehen
20 tul' on polttaa mun tuvaini
22 ves' on viepi vestokseni.

3 kunnia komparativissa = kunniallisempi.

4 vai_n_ eikä: vai, niinkuin se on kirjakielessä ja Ahlqvist olettaa

(vrt. Ahlqvist, Tutkim. Kalev. tekst. siv. 36); säe kl "liekö kuolla vain
elääne"; (-ni ja) -ne liitetään säkeen lopussa 1:0 yksikön partitiviin,
esim. siiaane, majaane, kylääne, kaupuntiine, kalaane, kutsuntaane,
lihaane, lyllyyne, minuune, karsinaane, matoone, emoone,
kunniaane, sanaane, palmikkoone, iloone, värttinääne; 2:0 monikon
partitiviin, esim. ilmisiine, tuomisiine; 3:0 yksikön illativiin, esim.
eteene, mukaane, sisääne, perääne, päähkeneene, kalaane,
minuune, nojaane, kitaane, tappeluune, taivoseene, lumeene,
rakoone, tupaane, veroone, pakoone, etsinkoone, etsimääne,
liukkumaane, katsomaane, kuulemaane; 4:0 yksikön 3 pers. pres.
esim. ajaane; myöskin kieltomuodossa, esim. ei sikiine; 5:0 yksikön
3 pers. koncessivissä, esim. saattaneene, tehtäneene, kanittaneene,
vietäneene, unohtaneene, masentaneene, polkeneene; 6:0
optativiin, esim. painukoone; 7:0 infinitiviin, esim. elääne, pitääne,
kytööne: 8:0 passiviin, esim. pantaneene, saattaneene, ristittiine ja
9:0 samassa merkityksessä kuin suffiksi -kana Kalevalassa, esim.
puoletkaane, millenkääne, kulloinkaane, hauton'tkaane,
havainnutkaane, (en) laulakaane j.n.e.

(Vrt. selitys 20: 2, taulu.)

12 syntyy = sopii.

17 omituista on, että Kalevalassa puhutaan tuuleen

rakentamisesta, ja Kantelettaressa sekä P:lla tuleen rakentamisesta.

18, 21 vestän = veistän.

20 tuvaini = tupani; murteessa kuuluu tämä sana: tuuvvaini (vrt.

ed. Runo 7, Sel. 35).

(Vrt. Knt. I: 199: 23—30.)

 25. Liekkuvirsi.

Pääsky-lintu, päivä-lintu, (I: 201). yö-lintu, lepakko-

lintu lentel' on kesoiset päivät, sykyetkin yö-syämet; 5
etsi maata maataksensa, lehtoa levätäksensä, pesoa
muni'iksensa; saan't ei maata maataksensa, lehtoo ei
levätäksensä 10 pesoo ei muni'iksensa; muni kultaisen
munaisen, [I: 210 valo vaskisen pesoisen, soti-laivan
kannen päälle; — toi Jumala suuren tuulen, 15 suuren
tuulen, ves'-satehen, kaato pesän kallallensa, sysähytti
syrjällensä, munat vieri'it vetehen; — [I: 225 pääsky-
lintu, päivä-lintu, 20 yö-lintu, lepakko-lintu, hän lentel'
kesoisen päivän, sykyenkin yö-pimiän, hän sai rautaa on
palaisen, pikkaraisen pihjalata; 25 hän vei rauan
seppälähän: "seppyein oot selvyeni, taitaja takojaiseni,
taoit eklen, taoit ennen, nyt tao tänä'i päinnä, 30 tao
rautanen harava!" teetti rautaisen haravan, pihjalaiset
piit panetti, vas'est' on valatti varren, teräksestä naaklat
teetti, 35 haravoi meret kokohon, meren ruuot
ruopusteli, meren kaislat kaaputteli, meren hiekat
helsytteli; löys' hän puolen valkulaista, (1: 239.) 40 tuon
lähätti taivosehen, sen on kuuks' kumottamahan; (1:
240.) löys' on puolen ruskulaista, sen lähetti taivosehen,
sen täheksi taivosehen.

Toisinnuksia ja selityksiä: 25.

Tähän on verrattava J. Krohn'in Kalevalan Toisinnot I: N:o 155 ja

siv. 160.
 Tois.:
5 ets' hän maata maataksensa
6 pesoo on muni'iksensa
8 ei saan't maata maataksensa
40 sen lähätti taivosehen (lähättää = lähettää)
40 toisen puolen valkulaista.

15 kl sateene (-teeni).

26 oot; omituista on, että tässä 2:nen pers. käytetään runollisena

lisäkkeenä.

34 naaklat = naulat.

36 ruuot; ruoko-sanasta.

(Vrt Knt. I: 200 ja 3:as pain. III: 1.)

26. Tantsuvirsi.

Ei ilo ilollen tunnu,

ei remullen millenkänä,
kuin ei vanha Väinämöinen,
entinen ilon-tekijä,
5 lihojaan ei liikuttele,
väkiään ei väännettele,
järkyt' ei jäseniänsä; — (I: 294.)
kuin ei vanha virren-seppä,
vanha laulujen latoja,
10 vanha virsien vetäjä,
 kuin ei virka virsiänsä,
eikä las'e laulujansa; —
täss' on entinen evesti,
entinen ilon-tekijä;
15 antakaapas! — mie aloitan,
mie aloitan aika nuotin,
tehhähän leviä leikki,
kierretään kiperä leikki;
kaikki lapset lattialle,
20 kaikki kansa katsomahan,
ilmiset iloitsemahan,
akat meitä auttakaa,
tah' sanalla, tah' kahella,
tah'ka puolell' on puhetta
25 tytöt nuoret nuotiohon;
ilotaan nyt tääkin ilta,
muien iltojen mukahan.

Toisinnuksia ja selityksiä: 26.

Tois.:
16 mie aloitan aika leikin
22 akat kaikki arttelihin
23 (25) tytöt nuoret työn-tekohon
26 iloitaan on tääkin ilta.

3 P:n runoissa ei mainita Väinämöisen nimeä kuin tässä ja

kahdessa toisessa runossa. Sitä paitsi hän laulaa "Sokeasta pojasta"
(= Kalev. Väinämöisestä).
 13 evesti = keikkeä, vurtti, kaikin puolin riski ihminen.

25 nuotio = kun on paljo ihmisiä tukussa, niin sanotaan: "niin on

suuri nuotio".

27. Liekkuvirsi.

Kun olin ison kotona,

mie käin ulkona use'in
uutta kuuta katsomassa, (I: 311.)
ilmaa on ihailemassa, (I: 312.)
5 otavaista oppimassa; (I: 313.)
taivas tantsi, kuu iloitsi,
tähet löivät leikaria;
mie kuin istuin — maa iloitsi,
mie kuin seisoin — seinä paisto,
10 mie kuin käin — kämärät läikkyit,
mie kuin tantsin — taivas läikky.

Selityksiä: 27.

2 kl usein_i_; -i on joko runomitan täydentämiseksi tahi = -kin.

3 uudesta kuusta eli kuun synnystä laskevat vielä nytkin EK:n

kreikanuskoiset ajanlukunsa. "Taivaallisia kuita" luetaan, niin että 1:0
Ensimäinen sy[d]änkuu alkaa kuun synnystä Joulukuussa, sitten
tulee 2:0 Toinen sy[d]änkuu, 3:0 Vaahtokuu, 4:0 Hank'kuu, 5:0
Sulama(a)kuu, 6:0 Kesäkuu, 7:0 Ensimäinen heinäkuu, 8:0 Toinen
heinäkuu, 9—13:0 Elo—Joulukuu.

4 otavainen = otava; vrt. sananlaskua: "otavass' on nuoren nousu,

kun on pursto pohjoisessa, päin sarvet suliin maihin".

7 leikari = leikkisä ihminen; lyödä l. = peuhata, pauhaa.

10 kämärä = märännyt eli laho kanto, matala kanto.

(Vrt. Loits. run. 3. 241: l.)

Kalevalan II Runo.

28. Sananlasku

Minkä niitin, sen kokosin (Kalev. II: 65.)

Selityksiä: 28.

Vrt. Loitsr. s. 332: a, säe 9.

29. Liekkuvirsi.
 Mie laulan tähän talohon, tähän täytehen talohon,
tässä täyttä tarvitahan, täss' on aina annetahan, 5 koko-
leivin kuollehille, kannikoin kävelijöille, puolin leivin
puistajille, vakoin antaat vaivaisille; — mie laulan tähän
talohon, (XXI: 40.) 10 tähän täytehen talohon, isännälle
uuen turkin, (XXI: 411.) emännällen kaattuvaisen, (XXI:
412.) pojallesi miel'-miniän, (XXI: 414.) tyttärelle mieli-
sulhon; — (XXI: 413.) 15 mie laulan tähän talohon,
(XXIX: 153.) tähän täytehen talohon, tammen keski-
tanhualle, (XXIX: 154, XLIV: 183.) tammellen tasaiset
oksat, — (XXIX: 155, XLIV: 185.) oksat ol'tta
vuotamahan, 20 viinaa on vilajamahan, — joka oksalle
omenan, (XXIX: 156, XLIV: 186.) omenallen kulta-
pyörän, (XXIX: 157, XLIV:187.) kulta-pyörällen käköisen;
— (XXIX: 158, XLIV: 188.) kuin käki kukahteleepi, (IV:
509, XXIX:159.) 25 niin syän pakahteleepi, (IV: 510.)
syän sytty'y tulelle, pää palollen paukahtaapi; — sitä
mieheks' mie sanoisin, urohoksi uskaltaisin, 30 ken tuon
tammen taittelisi, (II: 91.) puun pitkän piroittelisi, (II: 92.)
tekis' tyven tynnyriksi, latvan laivan mastiloiksi, kesk' on
paikan kelleriksi, 35 pikariksi pienet oksat, tuopiks' on
tomiat oksat; — onhan mulla oimo vello, — syötett' on
sian lihoilla, kamaroill' on kasvatettu, 40 joka tammen
taitteleepi, puun pitkän piroitteleepi, tekee tyven
tynnyriksi, latvan laivan mastiloiksi, kesk' on paikan
kelleriksi, 45 pikariksi pienet oksat, tuopiks' on tomiat
oksat; — tytöt juovat tynnyristä, pikarista piiat juovat,
pojat juovat puolikosta, 50 ämmät juovat ämpäristä,
miehet juovat mistä saavat, ukkoloille annetahan.
 Toisinnuksia ja selityksiä: 29.

Tois.:
26 syän syyttyy on tulelle
30 ken sen tammen taittelisi
ken tään tammen taittelisi
joka tammen taittelisi
31 pitkän puun piroittelisi
40 jott' on tammen taitteleepi
52 akat mistä annetahan.

2 kl tähän täyte'en taloone.

5 näkyy olleen tapana, että kuolleita varten varustettiin leipiä.

7 puistaja = kerjäläinen.

8 vakka on EK:n mitta, = 1/6 osa tynnyriä eli 5 kappaa (niin ainakin
jo 1684 Sakkulassa); jonkatähden myöskin puhutaan esim. 6 n
vakan-maasta j.n.e. EK:n häissä pidetään "lahjukset" vakassa.

12 kaattuvainen (P:n selityksen mukaan) = kate-nuttu,

päällysniekka turkki; EK:n sekä miehet että naiset pitävät tavallisesti
turkkia ilman päällyksettä.

34 kelleri = kellari; kesk' on paikan = keskipaikan on.

36 tomia = vahva, paksu.

37 oimo = oivo; vrt. ati_mo_, ati_vo_; myöskin nimeissä, esim.

Anterm(v)o, Istermo(va), Joukamo(va)inen, Kalermo(va),
Pellerm(v)o, Väinämö(vä)inen, Äyrämö(vä)inen &c; — vello = veli.
 39 kamara = sianlihan pinta.

Runo loppu-osa (28-52) on luettava Kal. II (Krohn, Suom. Kirj.

Hist.
Kal., s. 410) (Vrt. Knt. I: 10 III: 3 kolm. pain.)

30. Liekkuvirsi.

Turun tyttö, Saaren neito, Turun morsian mokoma,

Turun Helka, helmi-kakla, istui Saaren sillan päässä, 5
vuoroin itki, vuoroin nakroi, vuoroin päätään hän sukiipi,
vuoroin sipuu silmiänsä, vuoroin panee paklojansa,
kiinnitti hän kenkiänsä; 10 ootteli miestä mielellistä,
sulhaist' on sima-suloista, joka ei riuhtois' rististänsä,
katkois' ei kakla-ketjyistänsä; — mies merestä
näytteleipi (II: 111.) 15 kulta-suinen, kulta-päinen, kulta-
hattu hartioilla, (II; 117.) kulta-kinta'at käessä, (II: 119.)
kulta-kihlat kormannossa; alkoi neittä laaitella, 20 alkoi
neiolta kysellä: "tulets' neitonen minulle? yhen lehmän
lypsäjäksi, yheksän heruttajaksi, kymmen-kunnan
kytkijäksi, 25 saa'an lehmän saattajaksi, ja lavesta
laskijaksi?" — neito vasten vastaeli: "minkä annat
palkastani?" sulho vasten vastaeli: 30 "ilo-viikon
ensimäisen, itkun kaikeks' on iäksi!" — neito vasten
vastaeli: "ei oo suotu, ei oo luotu, (II: 146.) eik' oo eukko
toivottanut, 35 saunan maass' ei maatessansa,
ollessaan ei olkiloilla, pehuill' ei levätessänsä"! — Turun
tyttö, saaren neito, Turun morsian mokoma, 40 Turun