He Is a Dog, But I Am a Bigger Dog Than He Is
Thursday, 8. January 2009, 00:02:36
Th e subject of this article is one specifi c ritual that has been practised in Macedonia
during Orthodox New Year (Vasilica), when the village boys have violently beaten and
expelled the village dogs. Th e goal of the investigation is to stress the social and the religious
codes of the ritual related to the affi rmation of the male principle, as well as the ambivalent
relation of the humans towards the dog in general, that speaks in favour of the symbolic
duality dog-wolf, which leads towards emphasised elements of the wolf cult in the New
Year ritual cycle. In a certain sense the article is following the recent investigation of these
phenomena done by Mirjam Mencej and others.
In the frames of the folk rituals there is certainly a logic of action which stems
from beliefs. Unfortunately, the logic of the rituals is oft en diffi cult to grasp, due to the
fact that there are a number of transformations which happen from the moment of its
establishment or real action to the present, when one can speak of certain traits that
have survived and have a relatively new ritual content. Still, the interest in fi nding out
the specifi c logic of certain rituals exists. Th is is particularly true when it comes to
those rituals that are being performed solely based upon the strength of the belief that
a certain ritual “should be done, because this is how it was done in the past”, while at the
same time the memories of why this was done in the fi rst place have disappeared.
Such specifi c ritual, which is accompanied by numerous mysteries, is the violent
beating of the dogs at Vasilica. An identical ritual has been noted in Kosovo where the
dogs were beaten at Vasilica and Epiphany1.
If we take into account the fact that in many folk proverbs there are certain
refl ections of beliefs and rituals, starting from these proverbs, such as “He will be
treated as a dog on Vasilica day”2 or “Even a dog on Vasilica day did not suff er as much
as he did”3, we can conclude that this ritual praxis of dog beating on Vasilica was well
known.
The earliest notes on this ritual that was practised in certain parts of Macedonia,
which at the same time state the mystery regarding the reasons why it was practised,
date from the first quater of the XXth century4. However, it is in human nature to try to
give sense to the apparent “ritual senselessness”. Th is was done by the village population,
but as well by the investigators themselves. Sometimes it is almost impossible to extract
what is an authentic information and what is a recent creation of the villagers, the
author. In that sense we would like to note two examples covering two neighbouring
regions - Maleš and Pijanec, one of Jeremija Pavlovic, 1928 and the other more recent
by Dimitar Uzunski, 1995.
1. Jeremija Pavlovic gives the following data on this ritual in Maleševo5
Th e day before New Year all young people gather on one place, everyone holding
a stick or a shovel, they split into three groups and prepare for the beating of the dogs.
Th e owners of the dogs know this, they have already released their dogs and expelled
them in the fi elds. Th ere is a belief that if a young boy does not hit a dog on this very
day he will die the same year. Young boys go through the village in groups shouting: ha!
and u! and if they meet old people they toss them on the back saying: “Surova dedo!” or
“Surova babo!” (meaning something like Happy New Year - translator’s note). Th is ritual
starts at three in the aft ernoon the day before New Year’s Eve and lasts until sunset. It
is a very old custom. At that time all dogs go into the fi elds and if the youngsters fi nd
a dog that is on a rope it can even die of the harsh beating. Th is expulsion of the dogs
aims towards “educating” them to do their duty - to chase the wolves which are near the
live stock and not in the villages.
2. Dimitar Uzunski, 19956, gives the following data:
Our New Year in fact starts with the expulsion of the dogs. Th e dogs are being “led”
by a special device called “topuz” (a stick 80cm long, extended at the end in a form of
pyramid). Th e length of the stick depends on the age of the boy that carries it. Th e main
participants of this ritual were the village youngsters, and later on just the children. Th ey
are beating the dogs so that they start barking - as a sign to remind everyone who has
forgotten that New Year is approaching. Th e dogs are beaten so that they survive, so that
they stay healthy and resistant during the year. Th e dogs are expelled outside of the village,
anywhere, but not close to the houses. Th en the children go home and change clothes,
somewhere around 12 o’clock. Th en the adult men start preparing for other customs”.
Th ese two models give numerous relevant data that correspond in terms of the
time of the ritual action, the ritual space, the ritual target/victim (dog), the participants
(youngsters) and ritual instruments. However, the explanation of the reasons, the
function and the logic of the ritual does not correspond totally with the above mentioned
elements of the ritual. Th e most signifi cant example in this sense is the information
that the dogs have been violently expelled in order to perform their duty - to chase
the wolves, and on the other hand that they are beaten in order to become healthy, to
survive the winter. We can assume that this explanation is an attempt to rationalise the
ritual on behalf of the village population (the informants) and the authors. Besides, it
is well known on the basis of fi eld research that with few variations this is an usual way
of explaining the ritual by the participants.7 Th is “explanations” can, however, be very
relevant in the frames of some other investigations of the ritual, but for us the most
important moment is the absence of correspondence of the ritual structure with the
function of the ritual that has been suggested by the informants or the authors.
It is without any doubt that all these data speak about the violent beating of the
dogs with sticks. However, the material that concerns the expulsion of the dogs is not
very clear when it comes to the way this ritual action was done. According to some
data8, the village people were expecting this procedure and they were releasing the dogs
and expelling them outside the village beforehand. According to some recent data9, the
memories of who has released the dogs and how they were expelled are not clear. Th ere
is one short information on the celebration of Vasilica in the village of Volkovija, which
says that early in the morning a group of young boys and men, so called “vasilichari”
have gathered. One of the groups were the so called “keepers”, they were entitled to
defend the group from the village dogs with sticks.10 Th ey had another function, to
bless their sticks by placing them into the fi re saying “žar pilinja” (birds of fi re) etc. Th e
author states that in the fi rst quarter of the 20th century, the ritual was transformed into
children’s ritual and folklore.
These different data create a confusion regarding the function of the ritual of
beating the village dogs. In that sense, it is a question whether these are diff erent ritual
variants which were present in diff erent Macedonian regions, or whether it is a matter
of a once unique ritual praxis of surrounding the village by a group of youngsters and
young men who were expelling the village dogs by using sticks. One of the possible
assumptions is that in the past the unique ritual was separated into two according to the
function: the status and the age of the participants. Th e youngsters’ task was to defend
and triumph over the dogs, and when it comes to ritual timing they came fi rst. Aft er
them the second group of adult young men — both married and not married, so called
“vasilichari”/”surovari” – appeared on the scene, wearing masks.
Having in mind that most of the data refer to two ritual activities of the male
persons, who are clearly distinguished by status, function and age, the subject of our
interest in the article will remain the same and will focus upon the ritual form including
youngsters that beat and expel the dogs.
In order to examine the data in a more detailed manner, we would defi ne fi ve
key codes of the ritual: 1. ritual time 2. ritual space 3. participants (male, youngsters) 4,
ritual instruments 5. direct ritual target / victim - dog.
1. Ritual time
- Surva/Vasilica 01.01 (old calendar) / 14.01 (new calendar)
- Kolede 24.12 (old calendar) / 06.01 (new calendar)
- beginning of ritual time = audio markation = barking of dogs
- day = high visibility part of the day = public character of the ritual
Most of the data regarding the ritual time when the boys were beating the dogs
refer to Surva/Vasilica. According to Blaže Risteski, “In the region of Tikveš the kids
beat (“to death”= the household dogs - “so that they can pass the winter11, and early on
Kolede, according to the same belief, they beat lightly the girls “koledashki” and their
own parents”. It is not very clear if in this case it is a matter of rescheduling of ritual time
or a matter of usual ritual praxis in this region. Still, the ritual time refers to thr few key
days of the New Year cycle, and it does not destroy the temporal ritual concept.
Th e data show that the “beating of the dogs” is a fi rst interval of the ritual time on
Surva/Vasilica. Th is beginning of ritual time is marked by an audio signal - the barking of
the dogs. Th e ritual was performed during daytime or in the aft ernoon. Th is determines
the public character of the ritual. In that sense everyone could be a direct witness of the
events related to the victim and the participants and could fully identify them.
2. Ritual space
- Village - village yards/houses = code belongings to the category of culture
- Outside of the village borders = code belongings to the category of nature
Th e ritual started inside the borders of the village as a ritual space. Upon that very
moment the dogs were considered as part of nature in the frames of culture, and they
had strictly defi ned functions as keepers of the house, the live-stock, the people and the
property. Th e process of beating, expulsion and in some cases killing of the dogs shows
that they were not desired in the ritual space during Surva/Vasilica. Th is relation defi nes
the dogs as “dangerous”, “fi lthy animals” during Vasilica. Th e creation of a state of chaos
begins with them being beaten and paralysed / dissabled or expelled outside the ritual
space, outside the village borders, in the wilderness. In one way or another the dogs are
temporarily put outside the category of “culture” and they are moved to the category of
“nature”, back to the circle of their predecessors - the wolves.
3. Participants in the ritual - young boys
- male persons - village division according to gender
- young boys (in a phase of transition) - village division according to age
- usual working obligations of the boys = taking care of the livestock
- male principle in the frames of the Surva/Vasilica rituals
- breaking the fear of the wolf/close encounter with a shepherd dog = ritual
of initiation
- social+religious pressure = belief that a boy who did not hit a dog will die
that year
In the frames of the village division according to the gender in traditional culture,
the male gender is synonymous with the kin, the family “slava”, the continuation of
the family tree and the existence of the house. Desired characteristics of the male
person were his physical abilities for hard work, ability to organise work, ability to
make the right decisions, strong character, honesty and bravery. Th e man proved these
characteristics in the frames of the family and the village community all his life. In the
frames of the village division of labour according to gender and age, the boys were
mainly obliged with taking care of the livestock.
Th e village division shows that the young boys were still without a real status
related to accepted gender values, up to the moment of establishing a family. In that
sense, the already married were much more appreciated. Th e fi rst year of the marriage
was in fact a test period for the new status.
Before that the young boys went through ritual procedures which were a phase of
attaining the real status. Th e boys’ teams through certain ritual procedures of initiation
have gradually become closer to the traditional social values of adult man. In that sense
they appeared as defenders of the village, the village endogamy, the moral norms and
other values of traditional culture. During this test period it was important that the boys
showed fearless behaviour and courage that were the most valued characteristics of an
adult man. An important courage test that served as a ritual initiation of the boys was
their ritual clash with the dangerous village dogs. Th is fi ght is a procedure that is not
appropriate for the real men since it gives them unjustifi ed strength over the victim.
Th ere was a strong social and religious pressure upon the boys to undergo this
ritual of fi ghting their own fear. Th is can be concluded based upon the belief that “if a
boy does not hit a dog on that very day he will die”.12
Th ere is a realistic possibility in this case that the dog represents a symbol and
substitute for a wolf, having in mind the magical form of healing when it comes
to children, that is - using wolf body parts for that purpose. Even the recent fi eld
investigations from 2001 in the region of Kumanovo13 have shown that for that purpose
a “wolf howl”14, a dry wolf heart, wolf fur and other wolf parts were used.
The noisy performance of the young boys against the village dogs establishes
the beginning of ritual time and emphasises the domination of the male character of
Surva/Vasilica. Th e ritual activities at Vasilica promote the female principle as well,
through transferring the female roles to the man, through ritual transvestity, which is
not a subject of investigation at this moment. Th is totality of the ritual does not exist
now even when it comes to the memory of the informants. Today the date mainly refers
to the masked teams and the data on the ritual beating of the dogs are reduced.
4. Ritual tools - stick (“topuz”)
- massive stick extended at one end = weapon = phallus symbol
- “colored” stick = “dren”, fruit tree = code of the vitality of the green plants
All data show that the ritual instruments of the boys were the special sticks.
Unfortunately there are no data regarding their appearance. One of the relatively new
examples from Pijanec describes the stick as extended at one end (“topuz”) and says
that at Surva another colored stick was used, to lightly hit the girls.15
Th e investigations, including our own, concerning the stick, especially the one that
is extended at one end, show that it is a matter of a signifi cant phallus symbol.16 If two
sticks were used at Surva/Vasilica, we can then speak of two functions of the stick. Th e
stick with extension of the “topuz”, “surojca”, “grabovica” etc., besides its connotations as
an erotic symbol had a weapon function since it was more massive and it weighed more.
Th e slap with that stick surely diff ered from the symbolic “hit” of the girls that was done
with a colored decoration stick. If we take into account the proverb “Th e stick is used
according to the (size of the) bear”17, it is logical that according to the weight of the boy
and the strength of the enemy (the dog) the weight of the stick was established.
Th e boys, through carrying such sticks, have actually and symbolically
demonstrated maleness and violence having a tendency towards gender distinction.
5. Direct ritual target/victim - dog
It is a question if the data saying that in the past Vasilica or “Clean Monday” were
considered as “dog’s holidays”.18 We do not have enough arguments in that sense. At the
same time we are not in a position to resolve in a simple way the question of the dog -
target/victim at Vasilica as a way of communicating with the “holy”. Th ere are numerous
unsolved questions since it is not a matter of a “classical” act of sacrifi ce with regulated
sacrifi ce rituals. Th e fact that a dog could die as a result of the severe beating shows that
it is a matter of a “collateral” blood sacrifi ce and not a matter of special ritual rules on
the selection of the sacrifi ced object and the act of sacrifi ce itself.
Since the dogs present a direct target/victim of maltreating on Surva/Vasilica we
assume that there are other reasons for that kind of ritual behaviour. Th ere are a few
realistic assumptions related to the dog in the world of the culture and nature related to
its genesis, its function and mythological attributes that are assigned to it.
Although the dog is considered as the oldest companion of man, obviously its taming
was reduced to the most necessary level since it was thought that it is only the wild and not
the tamed dog that could properly do its function of a keeper and assistant at work. Th is
attitude is obvious when one examines the folk proverbs of the following type: “Th e bad dog
can take care of the sheep”.19 Nourishing the wild nature of the dog as a useful characteristic
for certain economical activities of man was realised through limited procedures of taming
and through selection, so that one could say that “a selection of the dog was done so that it
stems from a good family”.20 How highly the “natural” dog was valued could be seen from
the fact that for a killed high quality shepherd dog in the Skopje valley a half or a whole
“krvnina”21 of the money sum that was paid for a killed human had to be compensated.
According to information from the region of Gevgelija, during the division of a household
the dogs remained in mutual ownership and they were fed together.22
On the other side, this component of the wild nature of the dog created binary
oppositions when it came to the feelings of man, that are also characteristic when it comes
to the phenomena of the “holy”. Th e ambivalent relation of the man towards the dog is
refl ected in two contradictory directions: positive (good-loyal) - negative (bad-dangerous).
If one takes into the account the quantity of the data, one can notice that the
position “positive - good” is less present than the position “negative - bad”. Th e dilemma
when it comes to the formation of folk beliefs concerning the negative characteristics
of the dog remains. In that sense it is also a question as to how much Christianity
infl uenced its formation. In the Bible there are numerous examples where the dog is not
mentioned in a direct or indirect negative sense.23
In the folk beliefs the dog is, however, connected to the most positive virtues
since it is loyal to man, and in this sense it became a symbol of these virtues - “loyal
as a dog”. Th e ritual bread of the “badnik” type presents a dog as a keeper of the
symbol called “argach”.24 On the other hand, due to its aggressiveness, thirst for blood
and unpredictability, the dog has created fear and distrust. In that sense it became a
symbol of a bad temper, so that even for a bad man one should say “a dog” and a “bitch”
for a female person. In a few Macedonian folk tales and sayings the woman, being
described as a sexually addicted “bitch”, is presented as having sex with a dog in an act
of sodomy25, while the result of such a relationship, the children, are persons with dog’s
characteristics26.
The symbolic tie between the dog and the wolf belongs to the group “negativebad-
dangerous”. In the frames of the folk tale there is a belief in the two-way genesis
of the dog. According to some examples, the wolf is the predecessor of the dog27,
while according to others the dog is the predecessor of the wolf28. In the Macedonian
variation of the story, the creation of the wolf is a result of the Devil’s work, and the
creation of the dog of God’s work. Th e dog (wolf) as an animal with dual functions,
presents a zoomorphic code of nature and the non-organised space. Th e population
assigned identical mythological attributes to the dog and the wolf, for example the
resistance to bad spells29, resistance regarding sickness and wounds (“healthy as a
wolf”30 = “the sickness passed as if he was a dog”31), the relation with the underworld as
a fore-teller of death32, power for vampire neutralisation33, “ritual dirtiness”34, ability of
metamorphosis35, contamination with skin wounds through indirect contact - a touch
of the body part where a dog/wolf has scratched his nails36, etc. It is also believed that
the wolves and the dog communicate. According to some stories whose topic is the
“mute language”, the “unloyal” dogs have made an agreement with the dogs to let them
into the sheep-yard and then to split the fortune.37 Th ere are also beliefs that intercourse
occures between the dog and the wolf. Th e physical similarity between them has been
so great that sometimes it happened that the village people would catch a dog thinking
that it is a wolf.38
The duality dog-wolf can be established also upon the beliefs that the wolves were
dogs on the day of St. George and St. Sava.39
Although there are signs of equality between the mythological attributes of
the wolf and the dog, the folk tradition sets a thin line between them that marks the
diff erence. In that sense, the border between the former and the latter animal is the
fear they feel of each other, since “the wolf is scared of a dog” and the “dog is scared
of the wolf ”.40 Th e data show that the intercourse between the wolf and the dog was
considered as a sign of bad luck.41 Th ere is a cult towards the wolf that is manifested
at St. Luka (Kumanovo area)42 and Marta/martinici/Wolf ’s holidays, as well as during
holidays at the beginning of the shepherd’s year (Gjurgjovden, Eremija), while there is
no such ritual praxis when it comes to the dog.
Th e above mentioned data show that the dog had a special status in the
traditional community as an ambivalent animal that belongs to the world of nature
more than to the world of culture, so that his natural instinct could prevail at any
given time. As such, this animal was a continuous challenge for man to become its
master in all possible situations. Th e tying up as a method of taking away its strength,
the beating, its rotation on ropes over water (“cirene” - Bulgaria43) were methods of
controlling its wild nature and its introduction to the world of culture. Th ese rituals
of taming / domination were a part of the male ritual praxis and work. Th us, one
of the ways of proving the “male value” in a traditional community was the power
of managing the unpredictable “dog’s nature” through demonstration of cruelty that
was even greater than the one of the dog itself. Th is wish for a dominant position
of the man over the dog is refl ected in the folk saying “he is a dog but I am a bigger
dog than he is”44, although, as usual, it refers to inter-human relations. Having in
mind the beliefs in supernatural characteristics of the dog that are similar to the
ones of the wolf, the domination over the dangerous village dogs was most probably
comprehended as a magical supremacy over the wolves. It was expected that the boys
should pass this ritual maturity test through the limited clash with the tied or untied
village dogs during Surva/Vasilica, a test that according to its essence was equal to the
close encounter with the wolves.
However, there are still open questions related to the ritual logic of these events,
the “thing” that is in direct relation with beliefs.
If the data are correct, that in the past during winter the villagers have expelled
the dogs outside of the village in order to protect the village space from wolves45, this
can be an explanation of an essential code of ritual logic related to the behaviour of
the adolescents who have provoked the violent dog nature on this day of the New Year
cycle. Th e religious basis of the ritual procedure of expulsion and beating of the dogs
could be a result of the beliefs that are correlated to the cult of the wolf46. A few pieces
of information from Macedonia from the 1930s, that refer to two important holidays of
the New year cycle - Ignjat and Badnik (Christmas), show that these days in the frames
of the shepherd communities, among others, were important “wolf ’s” holidays. As is
well known on the basis of the past investigations, they are a part of the dangerous
period of “crazy wolves”47. According to sources from Poreche, Star Badnik (Ignjat) and
Mal Badnik (Badnik - Kolede)48 were considered as “heavy” days. It was forbidden to say
aloud the name of these holidays, as well as to say aloud the term “wolf ” that has been
replaced by the alternative general name, “gadotija” (something dreadful), “loshotija”
(something very bad) etc.
Star Badnik (Ignjat) was celebrated for the livestock, following the same
restrictions as the Martinci (Wolf ’s holidays).
“At Star Badnik49 one should not work. We do not use the broom, we do not touch
the needle, we do not put on our collars. Th e broom is hidden the previous evening. We
hide the wool so that we do not work with it. You would put your wool aside so that
you do not see it. One should not plough on that day. Th e one who is smart should not
plough. To protect one from a snake, from a wolf, from everything”50.
Similar procedures are related to the cult of the wolf, and they were performed
on special days, until Eremija holiday, when there is a visible step by step change of the
magical procedure, of the one of “raspust” (release) to the one of “zaključ” (locking up
- the wolves, the bad ones).
Clean Monday51 - “we would collect everything that we have. We wash everything,
we steam everything. And the housewife would not talk. when the washing is done she
would tie the scarf on the back and say:
I am tying up the mouth of the eagle,
Th e mouth of the snake
And the mouth of the wolf.52
Letnik53 - We do not work. We hide the needles, we do not use the brooms, we do
not wash- nothing. To protect us from the bad, the snake, the wolf54.
Gjurgjovden and Eremija - “locking up the ugly ones”55.
Gjurgjovden - “this holiday means that the ugly ones are locked up”.
Jeremija56 - you would take a bell from the goats, you would go around the house,
around the sheep yard and you would put one stone below the tongue and you would
push behind you a piece of wood and some people would go aft er you - you would go
ahead and say:
“Go away you ugly one, go away you wolf.
You to the sea, me to the fi eld
You away from the sun, me on the sun
Go away you ugly one, go away you wolf!”57
-----------------
Th e investigation shows that in the materials that refer to the beating of the dogs
during the change of the seasons in the frames of the New Year ritual cycle there are
variable and constant elements:
Variable elements
1. holidays: a) Vasilica (Surva); b) Kolede
2. participants: 1) a ritual group of boys: vasilichari and “guards”
b) two ritual groups
3. position of the dogs: a) dogs on a rope; b) released dogs
4. ritual punishment: a) beating; b) beating and expulsion
5. function of the ritual: a) expulsion to perform a duty; b) health-fertility
Constant elements
1. the character of the ritual: noon/aft ernoon-day=public character
2. period of the calendar: New Year cycle
3. critical ritual period: “non-baptised days” - released wolves
4. participants in the ritual: young boys - period of transition
5. ritual clash: beating/torture/death of the dogs - domination/provocation/supremacy
- initiation
6. ritual instrument: massive stick-weapon-phallus symbol
7. dog=direct ritual target/victim - ritual dirtiness - nature
9. function of the ritual: initiation-supremacy of the male principle - cult towards the
wolf
When it comes to the variability of the data regarding the holidays, as a stable
average value we stress the ritual time, as an interval in the New Year cycle: Kolede
- Surva/Vasilica. Th e data on the participants of the ritual are also a variable element.
In that sense, one piece of information shows that it is a matter of the activities of one
ritual group being split into two parts according to their ritual function. Other data
show that it is a matter of two ritual groups that step on the scene one aft er the other
and could be defi ned as diff erent according to their function, status and the age of the
participants in the ritual system. Th e third variable refers to the position of the dogs -
some data say that the dogs were tied up to a rope during the ritual action, while others
say that the dogs were not tied up and that they were expelled outside of the village.
Th ese data could be very important if compared to the general “encyclopaedia” data
referring to this ritual praxis, which say that “once upon a time” during the winter the
dogs were expelled out in the fi elds to chase the wolves, while humans went through the
village and killed the tied up dogs.58 I did not succeed in identifying the true empiric
source of this short information, but if it is correct it also speaks in favour of the older
and recent data from Pijanec that people would expect such violent behaviour directed
towards the dogs and that this was the reason why they untied them.
When it comes to the ritual group and functions, we think that neither the fi rst nor
the second form (tied/untied dogs) does disrupt the basic concept of the ritual in the
part that refers to the close contact of the boys and the dogs. Th e same attitude applies
to the variance of the ritual action: beating and expulsion or just beating, since they are
related when it comes to the identical expected eff ect: fi ghting the fear - supremacy.
Th e constant elements speak in favour of the public character of the ritual since
the ritual action was done at noon or in the aft ernoon, in daylight. Concerning the
period of the calendar, all known examples speak about the New year ritual cycle,
especially about the critical period of “non-baptised days”. At the same time this period
is a time of “released” wolves. Other data show that in the New year cycle this ritual
could be noted starting from Ignjat (Star Badnik), that speaks in favour of the ritual
activities related to the cult of the wolf.
Th e boys in the period of transition were expected to clash with the dangerous
village dogs. For a successful ritual action the boys constantly used the same
instruments - sticks with a realistic function of a weapon and a symbolical function of
a phallus symbol. It was expected that the boys should pass this ritual test of maturity
in the limited clash with the village dogs at the time of Surva/Vasilica, to fi ght their fear,
as a precondition for their own survival in nature. Th e ritual clash of the boys with the
village dogs is a procedure not worthy of real men since it gives them an unjustifi ed
advantage over the victim. In that sense, the very nature of the activity shows that it is
a matter of a ritual of initiation.
Th ere was a strong social pressure upon the boys to pass through this ritual of
initiation. Th is can be concluded starting from the belief that “the boy who would not
hit a dog that day will die the same year”.
Now there is a logical question: “what would be the reason for the boy to die the
same year”? If one were to examine the ritual contents of a few separated days starting
from Ignjat to Gjurgovden and Eremija, one could conclude that there is a regular ritual
praxis related to the wolf cult and cult towards other “ugly things” (snake etc.). Having
in mind the village division of the work, the boys were mainly in charge for taking care
of the livestock, which includes spending time in the mountains, fi elds etc. - places full
of dangers, especially wolves. Th is element taken from real life has strengthened the
reason for continuous beliefs in dangerous creatures and animals. In that sense, there is
one more possibility that this hides traces of beliefs in which the child appears as one of
the potential victims of the wolf, that is the chief (shepherd) of the wolves.59
Th e dog is also a constant element, it is a direct ritual target/victim, under constant
attacks by boys, fi ghting on unequal terms: tied up or facing on its own a violent group
of boys with sticks. Th e examination of folk beliefs on the dog show that there was
an ambivalent relation towards it, in which – having in mind the quantity of the data
– the negative characteristics prevail. Christianisation had a certain infl uence over this
religious attitude, since the Bible contains the negative attitude towards the dog. It is
even more likely that there is a symbolic dog-wolf tie. Th e ambivalent relation towards
the dog is visible when one takes into account that only the bad dog is considered as
a good (useful) dog, as well bearing in mind the identical elements of the genesis and
the mythological attributes which speak in favour of the duality dog-wolf, which fi nally
leads us to the emphasised elements of the wolf cult as one of the signifi cant codes of
the ritual beating, torturing and expulsion of dogs at Vasilica.
И тој пес, ама и јас уште попес
Анета Светиева
Во Македонија е забележан еден каракстеричен обред на суровото тепање
на кучињата на Василица, каде учесници биле селските момчиња. Идентична
обредна пракса е забележана на Косово каде кучињата ги тепале на Василица
и Водици (Богојавление), а слични форми на обредна суровост кон кучињата
е забележана и во Бугарија. Обредната пресметка на момчињата со селските
кучиња, претставува постапка недостојна за вистинските мажи бидејќи
им овозможува неоправдана предност над жртвата, што оди во прилог на
мислењето дека се работи за обред на инициација. Се очекувало, момчињата да
го поминат овој испит на зрелост во лимитираниот судир со селски кучиња како
обредна постапка на совладување на стравот како услов за сопствен опстанок во
услови на живот во природа. Покрај силната општествена и религијска присила
за реализација на овој чин на инициација од страна на младите момчиња, тука
е присутна симболичката врска куче → волк. Амбивалентноста по однос на
кучето се гледа од ставот дека само лошото куче е добро (корисно) куче, како
и по однос на идентичните елементи во генезата и митолошките својства што
зборуваат во прилог на двојството куче → волк, што во крајна линија не води до
изразени елементи од култ кон волк како еден од битните религијски кодови на
обредот со тепање, сакатење и гонење на кучињата на Василица.
Aneta Svetieva
------------------------------
1 Ш.Кулишић - П.Ж. Петровић - Н. Пантелић, Српски митолошки речник (понатаму: СМР), Београд
1970, с.в. пас; пасја недеља.
2 Th is proverb is from the town of Bitola and its region. I myself was born in Bitola, and I have learnt this
proverb in childhood.
3 Мил. С. Филиповић, Дебарски Дримкол, Ск.1939, 114.
4 Мил. С. Филиповић, Дебарски Дримкол, Ск.1939, 114.
5 Јеремија М. Павловић, Малешево и Малешевци, Београд, 1928 , 202, 203.
6 Own fi eld research in Pijanec 1995. Informant Dimitar Uzunski, teacher from the village of Trabotivišta.
7 Бл. Ристовски, Машките еротски песни околу коледниот огин во некои места во Македонија, МФ, 8,
15-16, Скопје, 1975, стр.225.
8 Јеремија М. Павловић, Малешево и Малешевци, Београд, 1928 , 202, 203.
9 Informant Dimitar Uzunski, teacher from the village of Trabotivišta.
10 Мил. С. Филиповић, Божићни обичаји у Волковији (у Пологу), Јужни Преглед, 1, Скоплје, 1937, 29-
11 Бл. Ристовски, Машките еротски песни околу коледниот огин во некои места во Македонија, МФ, 8,
15-16, Скопје, 1975, стр.225: заб.37.
12 Јеремија М. Павловић, Малешево и Малешевци, Београд, 1928 , 202, 203.
13 Field material from the project “Pirajhme” - Public museum Kumanovo, village Malotino, 2001. Research
person Vesna Petreska, PhD, informant Trajan Mladenovski, born 1934, village of Malotino.
14 In order to make a “wolf howl” one should cut in a circle the soft parts around the wolf ’s mouth.
15 Own fi eld research in Pijanec 1995. Informant Dimitar Uzunski, teacher from the village of Trabotivišta.
16 Aнета Светиева, Eротски елементи во обредите со маски кај Македонците, Oбичаи со маски, Музеј
на Македонија, Скопје 1998, 9, 10.
17 Марко К. Цепенков, кн. 8: Пословици, поговорки, гатанки, клетви и благослови, “Македонска книга”,
Скопје 1972, поговорка бр. 2382.
18 Ш. Кулишић - П. Ж. Петровић - Н. Пантелић, Српски митолошки речник (понатаму: СМР), Београд
1970, с.в. пас; пасја недеља.
19 Marko K. Cepenkov, kn. 8: Poslovici, pogovorki, gatanki, kletvi i blagoslovi, “Makedonska kniga”, Skopje
1972, pogovorka br. 1329.
20 Idem, proverb n. 919.
21 “Krvnina” is a transformed blood revenge where the term refers to the stipulated money sum for a killed
person. Th is form of “blood returning” was not always acceptable.
22 Idem, 251.
23 It is a question why Christianity had advocated a negative aspect of the dog in a direct or symbolical form.
According to some investigators this is because in Israel there were many street dogs that were hungry and
attacking the people. According to others the term “dog” was used to describe someone belonging to the
lowest social class. Th ere is another assumption related to the fi erce and negative attitude of Christianity
towards the prehistoric beliefs connected to worshiping certain kinds of animals, among others the dog.
See: Донка Петканова, Средновековна литературна символика, Софија, 1994, (куче - 82-84).
24 “argach” is a local term for a fence. Editorial: Збирка на обредни лебови од Македонија, 1982-1990. (Ed.
Aнета Светиева PhD). Институт за фолклор “М. Цепенков” - Скопје.
25 Јозеф Oбрембски, Фолклорни и етнографски материјали од Порече, кн.1, Скопје 2001, 99-101 (Ed.
Tanas Vrazinovski); Iстиот, Македонски етносоциолошки студии, кн.2, Скопје 2001, 278.
26 Note: In this case it is a matter of the genesis of the Turks.
27 Народна митологија на Македонците, кн. 2, Eтнографски и фолклорни материјали. Редакција: Танас
Вражиновски, Соработници: Лјупчо С. Ристески, Владимир Караџовски, Лола Симовска, Прилеп
1998, story number 233: “Th e devil has created the wolf and God has created the dog”.
28 Тихомир Р. Ђорђевић, Природа у веровању и предању нашег народа, књ. 1, СEЗб, књ. LXXI, Живот и
обичаји народни, књ. 32, СAН, Београд, 1958, 207.
29 Idem, 209 (materials from Krushevo), 246 (materials from Gevgelija)
30 Тихомир Р. Ђорђевић, Природа у веровању и предању нашег народа, књ. 1, СEЗб, књ. LXXI, Живот и
обичаји народни, књ. 32, СAН, Београд, 1958, 209.
31 Марко К. Цепенков, кн.8: Пословици, поговорки, гатанки, клетви и благослови, “Македонска книга”,
Скопје 1972, поговорка бр. 3111; Proverb “I am healthy as a wolf ”(village Malotino Kumanovsko, 2001.
Informant Trajan Mladenovski from Malotino, Investigator Vesna Petreska PhD).
32 Тихомир Р. Ђорђевић, Природа у веровању.., n. d., 250 (materials from Debar), 237.
33 Танас Вражиновски, Народна митологија на Македонците, кн.. 1, Assistants: Лјупчо С. Ристески, Вла-
димир Караџовски, Лола Симоска, Скопје-Прилеп, 1998, 226 (vampire).
34 Ш. Кулишић - П. Ж. Петровић - Н. Пантелић, Српски митолошки речник, Београд 1970, с.в. пас; пасја
недеља; вук.
35 Танас Вражиновски, Народна митологија на Македонците, кн. 1, н. д., 121,199, 226.
36 Ш. Кулишић - П.Ж. Петровић - Н. Пантелић, Српски митолошки речник, Београд 1970, с.в. пас; пасја
недеља; Тихомир Р. Ђорђевић, Природа у веровању и предању нашег народа, књ. 1, СEЗб, књ. ЛXXI,
Живот и обичаји народни, књ. 32, СAН, Београд, 1958, 236; Марко Цепнков, кн.9: Народни Верувања
- Детски игри, Кирил Пенушлиски (Eд.); Лепосава Спировска, “Македонска книга”, Скопје 1972, 96
( n. 510: “Goast - dog”); Јозеф Oбрембски, Фолклорни и етнографски материјали од Порече, кн.1, Та-
нас Вражиновски (Eд.), Скопје, 2001, 211.
37 Branislav Rusić, Nemušti jezik u predanju i usmenoj književnosti Južnih Slovena, Filozofski fakultet na
Univerzitetot Skopje, Istorisko-fi lološki oddel, Posebni izdanija, kn.5, Skopje, 1954, 60-62.
38 Idem, 231.
39 СМР, с.в. Св. Ђорђе, Св. Сава; Словенска митологија, Београд 2001, с.в. пас.
40 Тихомир Р. Ђорђевић, Природа у веровању и предању нашег народа, књ. 1, СEЗб, књ. ЛXXI, Живот
и обичаји народни, књ. 32, СAН, Београд, 1958, 212.
41 Idem, 209.
42 Village of Malotino, Kumanovo area. Informant Trajan Mladenovski 2001. Field data of Vesna Petrovska,
PhD, “Pirajhme” project - Museum Kumanovo.
43 Стоян Раичевски, Валерия Фол, Кукерът без маска, София, 1993, 95-96.
44 Марко К. Цепенков, кн.8: Пословици, поговорки, гатанки, клетви и благослови, “Македонска книга”,
Скопје 1972, proverb n. 3361.
45 Јеремија М. Павловић, Малешево и Малешевци, Београд, 1928 , 202, 203;Ш. Кулишић - П. Ж. Петро-
вић - Н. Пантелић, Српски митолошки речник, Београд 1970, s.v. pas; pasja nedelja: (It has been noted
that a simillar ritual praxis of dogs’ expulsion and killing of the ones who were not realised existed on
Kosovo).
46 Mirjam Mencej, Volčji pastir v kontekstu dosadanjih raziskav na področju slovanske mitologije, Studia
mytologica Slavica, 4, Ljubljana 2001, 159-188.
47 Idem, 179.
48 Јозеф Oбрембски, Македонски етносоциолошки студии, кн.2, Редакција Танас Вражиновски, Скопје,
2001, 215-217.
49 20th of December according to the old calendar = 2nd of January according to the new.
50 Јозеф Oбрембски, Фолклорни и етнографски материјали од Порече, кн.1, Редакција Танас Вражи-
новски, Скопје, 2001, 125.
51 First day of the Easter.
52 Јозеф Oбрембски, Фолклорни и етнографски материјали од Порече, кн.1, Редакција Танас Вражи-
новски, Скопје, 2001, 130,131.
53 1st of March old calendar = 14th of March new calendar.
54 Јозеф Oбрембски, Фолклорни и етнографски материјали од Порече, н.д., 131.
55 Јозеф Oбрембски, Фолклорни и етнографски материјали од Порече, н.д., 143.
56 1st of May old calendar = 14th of May old calendar.
57 Јозеф Oбрембски, Фолклорни и етнографски материјали од Порече, н.д.,132.
58 СМР, с.в. Пасја неделја.
WIDGETIZE
How to use Quote function: