Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences Research Article

ISSN 1112-9867 Special Issue

Available online at http://www.jfas.info

PECULIARITIES OF THE PLANT CODE (THE WEDDING BROOM) IN THE RUSSIAN FOLK WEDDING OF THE REGION OF THE DISTRICT

M. Mikhail Gershonovich1,*, M. Andrey Viktorovich2, F. Daniil Anatolievich3, L. Antonina Petrovna4, G. Marina Vladimirovna5

1PhD in philology, Associate Professor of the Department of the , literature and journalism of Ilya Ulyanov State Pedagogical University 2PhD in biology, Associate Professor of the Department of Botany of Ilya Ulyanov State Pedagogical University 3PhD in biology, Associate Professor of the Department of Botany of Ilya Ulyanov State Pedagogical University 4PhD in philology, an independent researcher 5An independent researcher

Published online: 15 February 2017 ABSTRACT The relevance of the study is due to the current trend of conducting interdisciplinary research in the field of traditional folk culture, in particular, its interaction with the environment. Such interaction is realized with the help of the plant code, a particular type of which is analyzed in the article. The leading methods of research are structural-typological, statistical and cartographic, which allows considering the problem in a complex manner. The article presents the study based on the plant code (particularly, the wedding broom) features and functioning in the Russian folk wedding of the Ulyanovsk Region of the Volga District compared to that of the Nizhny Novgorod Region. Three main types of plants used in the wedding ceremony were revealed during the research: the coniferous tree, the deciduous tree and the herbaceous plant (burdock) with the absolute prevalence of the birch broom.

Author Correspondence, e-mail: [email protected] doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jfas.v9i1s.769

Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Libraries Resource Directory. We are listed under Research Associations category.

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1144

The broom was either transformed and modified or remained unchanged, combined with other types of plants or acting as the only embodiment of the plant code. The most widely wedding broom was used in the bride's pre-wedding banya, and its main functions were informational, symbolic, magical, and theatrical. Three main types of the wedding broom were singled out, and it could replace the traditional wedding tree regardless of whether the landscape conditions contributed to the preservation of this tree. In where both the broom and the wedding tree were used in the ceremony, different semantics and pragmatics were attributed to them. In the Ulyanovsk Region all the manipulations with the broom were confined exclusively to the pre-wedding period, contrary to the post-wedding period in the Nizhny Novgorod Region. At the same time, in both wedding ceremonies the broom was associated with the banya ritual: in the Ulyanovsk Region with the banya of the bride, in the Nizhny Novgorod Region with the banya of the newlyweds. Therefore, the semiotisation of the broom in the Ulyanovsk Region occurred mainly in the ritual of bridesmaids visiting the groom's house, while in the Nizhny Novgorod region it was used in the ceremonial manifestation of ‘honesty’ (virginity) or ‘dishonesty’ (loss of virginity). The research presented is the first interdisciplinary work in the Russian science on traditional folk wedding; the results obtained, as well as the research methodology, can be used to further study the wedding rituals of other regions of and the wedding traditions of other Eastern Slavic nations. Keywords Russian folk wedding, symbol, Ulyanovsk Region of the Volga, wedding broom, theatre, semiotisation, cultural landscape

INTRODUCTION Relevance of the study The relevance of the study is due to the current trend in conducting interdisciplinary research in the field of humanities, in particular, in culture studies, including the traditional culture, and in its interaction with the environment [Cosgrove 1978: 66-72; Minca 2013: 47-62]. As a result of such interaction, a fundamentally new formation called ‘a cultural space’ or ‘a cultural landscape’ appears. The process of the surrounding world’s spiritual development in the traditional culture is carried out with the help of cultural codes [Geertz 1973] among which an important role is played by the plant code; it is especially significant in calendar ceremonies and in the traditional folk wedding. In different regions of Russia the code was implemented with the help of various wild and cultivated plants. In this respect, an extremely interesting object of study is the Russian folk wedding of the Ulyanovsk Region of the Volga.

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1145

Firstly, this territory is a forest steppe zone of the Middle where the settled at the end of the 17th century, during the 18th century, and partly in the 19th century. The process had three stages – from the north of the Volga and from the central and southern regions of Russia. The settlers not only brought their culture to new places but also found themselves in different landscape conditions, which gave rise to adaptation both in the economic and in the cultural spheres. As a result of the environmental impact due to their activity (deforestation, plowing, new forest tracts, etc.), the vegetation was transformed, which also influenced the traditional wedding ritual, causing its diverse changes. Second, it is particularly in the wedding ceremony that the plant code (along with the activity code, the verbal code, the food code, etc.) was one of the main ways to implement the wedding semantics at certain stages of the ritual [Ivanova 1998]. Therefore, examining the cultural plant code equally deepens ‘the understanding of the properties and characteristics attributed to plants, and the properties and characteristics attributed to the new things they signify (for example, to the characters of the wedding ritual)’ [Tolstaya 2008: 336].

Literature survey A special role in comprehending culture belongs to the concept of cultural space, defined as ‘the environment in which cultural phenomena exist and are being coordinated’ [Svirida 2003: 19]. In modern geography, ethnology and folklore, the term ‘cultural landscape’ [Fleming], understood as ‘a special type of heritage, ensuring interaction, interpenetration and interdependence of its natural and cultural components’ [Vedenin 2004: 13], is widely used. Characterization and description of the cultural landscape of a certain region is a complicated procedure, and scientists suggest taking both external and internal factors into account. For instance, from the point of view of V.M. Shchurov, ‘differences in the environment (steppe and forest, severe north and warm south, mountains and open field)’, various historical circumstances (the nature of migration processes, the ethnic isolation of some areas and interethnic influences in others), and everyday life (differences in the economic and cultural typology) can be classified as external factors, while the internal are ‘the factors related to the creative activity of the representatives of the culture’ [Putilov 1994: 148]. (прим.ред. – Так цитата принадлежит Щурову или Путилову?) Specifying this approach, B.N. Putilov wrote that the historical continuity in those regions which were formed on a tribal basis and in those formed secondarily, i.e. ‘relatively late and as a result of ethnic heterogeneity migration’, would be different. As pointed out by the researcher, ‘in the new regions,

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1146 traditions transferred from the ‘metropolis’ were not simply maintained and developed, but new ones were also created’ [Putilov 1994: 150]. Some researchers refer to this feature of the traditional culture functioning in space and time as to ‘the ritual dynamics’. There are two types of change(s): ‘in the context (as a result of the transfer) and in the rituals themselves’ [Robert Langer, Dorothea Lüddeckens, Kerstin Radde, Jan Snoek 2006: 1]. Here, the context does not always determine the dynamics itself – the main role belongs to the internal dynamics of the rituals themselves, the important part in which is ‘the creativity of the participants who may introduce alterations’ [Robert Langer, Dorothea Lüddeckens, Kerstin Radde, Jan Snoek 2006: 1] Vegetation played an important role in the formation of the cultural space. The place of vegetation in the cultural landscape, the uniqueness of plant code in various rituals, including the wedding ceremony, found a new reflection in scientific research. As V.A. Kolosova shows in her review ‘Slavic Ethnobotany: Essay on History’, the research on the subject began in the middle of the 19th century and now covers such areas as lexis (methods of phytonyms formation), cartography (analysis of the geography of phytonyms distribution), semantics (principles of phytonyms nomination), folklore (analysis of plant images and motifs), and ethnology (plant functions in traditional rituals, folk medicine, etc.) [Kolosova 2010: 7-30]. Russian and Belarusian scientists [Minh 1893: 191-192; Zelenin 193: 591-629; Kolosova 2003; Chasovnikova 2003; Swede 2010: 362-369] and others also regard these aspects of interest for the present study. Plant code analysis in traditional culture is found in the scientific works of the late 19th-20th century [Sumtsov 1996: 136-143; Potebnia 1914: 159-187; Avtonomov 1902: 244-288], while at the end of the 20th century such analysis is mainly found in the articles by representatives of the Tolstoy ethno-linguistic school [Tolstoy 1995: 333-340; Tolstoy 1986: 39-43; Tolstaya 2008: 338-346; Agapkina 1996: 7-22; Agapkina 1999: 60-69; Agapkina 2010: 238-253; Usatcheva 2009: 406-412; Vinogradova 1995: 231-259; Kolosova 2012: 303-307] and of Serbian scientists [Karanović, Jokić: 2016]. Some works consider the plant code in the traditional East Slavic and Russian wedding ceremonies [Vinogradova, Usatcheva 1999: 156-160; Vinogradova, Usatcheva 1999: 364- 366; Gura 1999: 83-84; Gura 2012: с.254-279; Усачева 1999: 446-448; Agapkina 2012: 134- 137; Zorin 2004]. The semantic and pragmatic features of the broom in the Slavic and Russian traditional culture, including the wedding ceremony and wedding lyric poetry, were also partly analyzed [Vinogradova, Tolstaya 1999: 307-313; Vinogradova, Morozov 1999: 313-314; Gura 2012:

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1147

254-279; Zorin 2004: 118-120; Morozov, Budovskaya 2012: 138-139; Vuinovich 2013: 110- 119]. Other papers attempt at tracing the connections between the vegetation type and the originality of the floristic-geographical territories of a particular ethnos. So, A.Avtonomov believed that ‘people in most cases choose for images the objects they have right before their eyes or those leaving them amazed by its features. Therefore, plants more often found in a certain area are thus more often chosen as symbols there’ [Avtonomov 1902: 286]. Needless to say, such statement does not correspond to the modern understanding of the connection between cultural symbols and natural objects, but the very question on the need to investigate these links is quite significant. Despite the existing research works on the plant code in the traditional folk wedding ceremony in the context of the cultural landscape (taking into account the migration processes and transformations that took place in traditional culture in the process of developing new territories), the problem still provides a vast field of study. The functioning of the wedding broom as a type of plant code in the cultural landscape of the Ulyanovsk Region will be considered below.

Originality and the basic changes of floristic-geographical zones of the Ulyanovsk Region. Long-term flora and vegetation studies showed that eight regions can be distinguished on the territory of the Ulyanovsk Region according to the floristic, phytocenotic, soil, historical and modern conditions for the formation of floral complexes and vegetation [Pchelkin 1974; Pchelkin, Rakov, Maslennikov 2002]. The northern, north-western, western and south- western parts of the region are forest areas, the centre and the northeast are forest steppes, while the south and the south-east are steppe regions, differing in the ratio of floral complexes and plant species composition. Numerous landscape features of Simbirsk province are revealed by toponyms. ‘If you put the names associated with the forest and steppe on the map of the Middle Volga Region, you will get a very colorful and confusing picture: both are fancifully mixed, often, ‘contrary to the nature’ the root ‘steppe’ is proudly attributed to the regions farther to the north than the root ‘forest’’ [Nikonov 1960: 191]. They also provide an opportunity to observe certain historical changes. Thus, according to the names of the villages ‘in the Tagay area, for example, Podlesnaya Tenkovka, Podlesnaya Dyacha and simply Podlesnoe’ you can trace the existence of the forest islands in the 17th-18th centuries’ [Nikonov 1960: 192]. In general, these toponyms show that ‘to the south of Ulyanovsk, both on the right bank and in the Transvolga,

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1148 the steppe with forest patches prevailed, less so farther to the south-east’ [Nikonov 1960: 192]. In the Volga region, the main processes of ecosystems and landscapes change occurred in different historical periods with varying degrees of intensity, but, according to most researchers, the intensive economic development of the region started at least in the 10th century, and has been growing at an increasing rate since the 17th century and up to the present day [Blagoveschensky 2005; Blagoveshchensky and others 2004; Maslennikov 2008]. Significant changes in natural landscape of Simbirsk became conspicuous by the end of the 18th century. Thus, large-scale cutting resulted in strong deforestation of territories – large areas of indigenous coniferous, deciduous and, in particular, oak forests were replaced by secondary vegetation where small-leaved birch and aspen groves played the major role. Moreover, deforestation, active livestock grazing, plowing of steppes and former forest areas to turn those into arable lands, and meadows irrigation led to a wide development of agro- landscapes changing the face of the region. Such multifaceted anthropogenic transformation of ecosystems and landscapes, as well as of the flora and vegetation of the Ulyanovsk Volga Region led to a vast development of treeless areas and agro-landscapes, which influenced the region’s traditional culture.

See. Figure 1. Fig.1. Floral zones of the Ulyanovsk Region: 1. Northern Sursky forest area; 2. Northern Ulyanovsk steppe area; 3. Privolzhsky north-eastern Undorov forest area; 4. West Inzensky forest area; 5. East right-bank Sengileevsky forest-steppe region; 6. Southern steppe region, 7. Northern left-bank Staromaynsky forest-steppe region; 8. Southern left-bank Cheremshansky steppe region.

Problem statement Purpose and objectives of the study The purpose of this paper is to determine the unique nature of the plant code (the wedding broom) functions in the Russian folk wedding ritual of the Ulyanovsk Region from the 1910s of the 19th century till the 1920s of the 20th century. The main objectives of the study are as follows:  to determine the types of wedding brooms and their functions, as well as the uniqueness of their plant code realization in the pre-wedding, wedding and post-wedding rituals;

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1149

 to establish connections of a certain broom type and of its pragmatics with the floral and geographical features of the regions and individual settlements of the Ulyanovsk Region.

Methods The main research methods are structural-typological, historical-ethnographic, statistical and cartographic.

Research material The study contains the analysis of 232 wedding ceremonies records in the Ulyanovsk Region, taken from the archives of the scientific educational centre of Ilya Ulyanov State Pedagogical University ‘Traditional culture and folklore of the Ulyanovsk Region’, and 235 descriptions of Nizhny Novgorod Region weddings [Materials on wedding rituals...].

Results The study showed that three types of vegetation dominated the Russian folk wedding rituals of the Ulyanovsk Region – a coniferous tree (a pine tree and its branches), a deciduous tree (birch and its branches, including a dry birch broom), and a herbaceous plant (burdock). The birch broom was employed practically on all the territory, yet with differences in its configuration and use in various zones. It was transformed, modified or remained unchanged, combined with other types of vegetation or acting as the only implementation of the plant code. First of all, the areas where only the wedding broom served as a plant symbol were singled out. These include Nikolayevsky, Pavlovsky and Terengulsky districts. See. Figure 2.

Fig.2. Districts where the broom was the unique plant symbol.

It should be noted there are settlements where the broom was not used in wedding ceremonies, although it was used in other villages of the same area. Besides, in the vast majority of districts and settlements of the region the wedding broom was of various types and had different pragmatics. Since the survey scales of different regions are not homogeneous, it is not possible to trace a direct data correlation based on the level of involvement of the broom in wedding ceremonies;

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1150 thus, the probable percentage of its use was calculated, provided that all the villages in each region were examined. The results are shown in the table and map.

Probability (at 100% examination rate Districts settlements examined found ) Bazarnosyzgansky district 31 17 11 0,2 Baryshsky district 59 26 15 0,34 Veshkaymsky district 28 13 4 0,08 Inzensky district 56 31 11 0,19 Karsunsky district 36 23 21 0,33 Kuzovatovsky district 38 21 19 0,34 Maynsky district 55 21 16 0,42 Nikolaevsky district 49 13 11 0,41 Novospassky district 38 16 16 0,38 Pavlovsky district 24 12 10 0,2 Radischevsky district 29 12 6 0,15 Sengileevsky district 23 16 15 0,21 Staromaynsky district 30 10 8 0,24 Sursky district 51 25 25 0,51 Terengulsky district 32 16 15 0,3 Ulyanovsk district 53 20 17 0,45 Cherdaklinsky district 57 13 12 0,53 Melekessky region Insufficient data Novomalyklinsky district Area with predominance of non-Russian population Tsilninsky district Area with predominance of non-Russian population Starokulatkinsky district Area with predominance of non-Russian population

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1151

See. Figure 3

Fig.3. Rates of broom use in the wedding ceremonies in the districts of the Ulyanovsk Region.

Finally, in some areas and settlements the wedding broom was combined with other types of vegetation. The data are presented on the map which indicates each combination and the degree of distribution.

Fig.4. Combinations of the broom with other types of vegetation in the wedding ceremonies in the districts of the Ulyanovsk Region.

The results obtained make it possible to draw the following conclusions: 1. The broom and other types of vegetation are closely intertwined in the Russian folk wedding on the territory of the Ulyanovsk Region. 2. There is no clear and direct correlation between the broom distribution and a certain type of the wedding tree. 3. The absence of any wedding tree or, conversely, its wide distribution on the territory of a particular region does not lead to an increase or, correspondingly, a decrease in the degree of broom distribution on this territory. The analyzed data also show that the broom was used in the period from matchmaking to the second day, in other words, it was part of pre-wedding, post-wedding and wedding ceremonies, yet its role at different stages and in various ceremonies of the Russian folk wedding on the territory of the Ulyanovsk Region was heterogeneous. In particular, only a few cases of its use in the rituals of matchmaking, bride price, the departure of the wedding procession, of meeting the newlyweds, the groom's relatives (‘zvaty’) visiting the bride's home, waking the newlyweds up, the young wife’s ‘honour’, and searching for ‘the ewe’. The overwhelming majority of records describe the functioning of the broom in connection with the ritual of bridesmaids visiting the groom’s house, connected with the pre-wedding banya of the bride and groom. In this case, either one broom or two brooms could be used.

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1152

1. In case one broom was used 1.1. The broom was taken from the bride’s house and was not carried over to the groom’s house. ‘On the wedding eve, the bride is led to the banya and washed with a decorated broom. The bridesmaids performed the ceremony, while the bride wept; the soap was taken from the groom [1989; the of Adelino, Nikolaevsky district; Timonina P.Ya., born in 1901]. 1.2. The broom was taken from the bride’s house and carried over to the groom’s house. ’On the last day the banya is heated, the broom is decorated and taken to the groom’s house where soap and firewood for the bride are obtained’ [1989; the village of Panovka, Nikolaevsky district; Mineeva D.S., born in 1914]. 1.3. The broom was taken from the groom’s house and carried over to the bride’s house. ‘The pre-wedding party visited the groom to get a bar of soap and a broom for the bride. The broom was not decorated and was used to wash the bride just like that’ [1994; the village of Akshuat, Baryshsky district; Yushina E. P., born in 1915; Matlin M.]. This option is presented in almost all of the surveyed villages; however, in some of them the ritual was performed by the groom’s relatives, while in others by the bridesmaids who would come to get the broom. 1.4. The broom was taken from the bride’s house, carried over to the groom’s house and then brought back to the bride’s house. ‘The broom is decorated and put on a pole, and everyone is dressed in rags to look weird. They arrive at the groom’s house, are entertained, and after they are given firewood and soap for the bride, and sing and dance on their way back with the broom which is then used to wash the bride’ [1994; the village of Koptevka, Novospassky district; Kazakova M.A., born in 1929; Matlin M.].

2. In case two brooms were used 2.1. One broom was made in the bride’s house, the second in the groom’s house. ‘On the wedding eve, the girls decorated a broom with ribbons and took it to the groom’s house. In return, they took another broom and soap’ [1995; the village of Sosnovka, Karsunsky district; Shinkarova A.F., born in 1933; Shinkarova N.]. 2.2. Both brooms were made in the groom’s house and taken by the bridesmaids to the bride’s house. ‘At the groom’s the girls were given two brooms. One was divided among everyone and dressed in red rags. The second broom was taken to the bride to wash her with it’ [1993; the

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1153 village of Troitskiy Sungur, Novospassky District; Telenikova E.I., born in 1931; Stepanets O.].

Pragmatics and semantics of the wedding broom The use of a broom in the wedding ritual is a special case of how the inclusion of ‘an object used for domestic, economic purposes, <...> in a ritual context’ changes its semiotic status, so that ‘the object turns into a sign possessing some semantics, not deduced directly from the object itself ‘ [Baiburin 1993, p. 224]. Practically all the researchers agree that the wedding broom is a variant of the so-called wedding tree. ‘On a part of the northern Russian territory (mainly in the north-eastern zone), a banya broom, sometimes decorated, can function as the wedding tree or rod’ [Gura 2012: 264]. As for its ritual use, N.V. Zorin noted ‘the broom was a symbol of the wedding itself, a sign of individual rituals, persons and objects included in it’ [Zorin 2004: 120]. The most significant is the symbolism of the girlhood [Gura 2012: 265]), as well as the symbolism corresponding to the ‘main moments of the ritual transition: the breaking of the ties with girlhood and the creation of a new family’ [Gura 2012: 254]. However, it should be borne in mind that ‘ritual functions and symbols of the wedding tree are diverse, and its semantics often change during the ceremony’ [Gura 2012: 265]. Prior to considering the typology of the broom in terms of its semantics and pragmatics, it should be noted that some functions of the broom did not change its semiotic status. ‘Before the wedding (one day prior), the bride goes to the evening banya, heated by her parents <...>. The bride goes there with her friends who take a broom and soap’ [1984; the village of Beklemishevo, Veshkaymsky district; Plaksina M., born in 1904; Zhidyaeva L.]. Sometimes, when two brooms were used, only one had symbolic meaning. ‘On a Friday prior to the wedding, the bridesmaids take part of the dowry, decorate a broom with rags and walk down the street singing songs and waving the broom. They go to the groom’s house where he gives them a broom and soap for the bride’ [1989; the village of Beloe Ozero, Nikolaevsky district; Enotova A.I., born in 1903; Enotova S.]. If the broom was combined with another type of wedding tree, it could either acquire a new semiotic status or not. ‘In the morning the bridesmaids go to the groomss house with burdock decorated with ribbons. The groom gives them soap and a broom decorated with ribbons for the bride’ [1995; the village of Tomylovo, Kuzovatovsky district; Anoshkina M.P., born in 1919; Yurenkova E.].

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1154

There was also a case when, while retaining the reference to the broom in the description of the ritual, the actual broom was not used. ‘A week before the ‘shirt’ [that is, the ritual of bringing a shirt for the groom] the bridesmaids went ‘to get the broom’. They said ‘Let’s go get the broom’, but there was no broom’ [1981; the village of Koltsovka, Sursky district; Yefimova E.Ya., born in 1902; Baranov A.]. Summarizing the scientists’ opinions on the pragmatics of the broom in the Russian folk wedding and the results of an analysis of the broom functions in the Ulyanovsk Region wedding, its following main functions can be singled out.

1. Informational – to inform about the wedding ceremony or about a separate wedding ritual. 1. After matchmaking the broom is hung out on the bridess house, and after the banya ritual it is hung on the bride’s banya. ‘Most were married on Sunday. On Saturday, a broom was decorated with ribbons and put up on the banya. Bridesmaids went to the groom for soap’ [1989; the village of Golovino, Nikolaevsky district; Merzlova A.Ya., born in 1905]. 2. With a broom, decorated or plain, the bridesmaids walk around the village, often singing songs, including special wedding ones. Letting the villagers know about the wedding, about the bridesmaids’ visit to the groom’s house, about the bride’s banya happens when the bride [Gura 2012: 266] or bridesmaids with a decorated plant, including a broom, go around the village. [Zorin 2004: 67]. ‘The girls went to the groom with a shirt to exchange it for a broom and soap, and left with a decorated broom. They walked around the village and sang merry songs loudly’ [1990; the village of Sukhodol, Cherdaklinsky district; Krasnova N.F., born in 1923; Palferova L.].

2. Symbolic – to designate marriage by placing the symbolic deputies of the bride and groom, such as the broom, into the space of the marriage partner; to designate marriage through the use of the items symbolizing the marriage partner in the ritual, including the broom; to designate the marriage as an exchange of symbolic gifts or their sale and purchase; to designate those entering into marriage by modifying or transforming the broom. These functions embodiments occur separately or in combination with each other.

1. The broom is modified or transformed As a result of these actions performed both in the bride’s house and in the groomss house by bridesmaids or relatives of the bride and the groom, the broom becomes one of the variants of

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1155 the wedding tree, so that its semiotic status (to be a symbol of those entering into marriage) is articulated. Modification is often about decorating the broom. Colourful rags, girls’ ribbons, beads and in some cases a girl’s handkerchief to cover the broom are used, thus modifying a household item into a symbolic one, making it denote the bride and, in particular, a ritual version of ‘maiden beauty’ [Zorin 2004: 118 ]. In the 19th century the wedding tree (and the broom as well) was also perceived as a symbol of the bride in the transition from one social age group to another’ [Zorin 2004: 118]. Quite interestingly, Zorin assumes that ‘a decorated tree or burdock personified not the maiden beauty of an individual, but a collective one, and was a symbol of a group of girls who reached the age of marriage and are in a state of spiritual kinship which the bride also entered’ [Zorin 2004: 118]. ‘The groom will give the broom, and the girls will decorate it by untying their ribbons and wrapping them around it’ [1994; the village of Staroe Tomyshevo, Novospassky district; Pyryna A.F., born in 1912; Stepanets O.]. Another modification is installing the broom on a pole or a long stick. Very often the broom was taken to the bride’s house, and the groom’s side provided the pole. Such connection within the wedding ceremony can be regarded as a symbolic designation and accomplishment of marriage and the act of coitus, which played an important role in the wedding and had a specific ritual design. ‘It took place before the wedding. The broom is decorated and put on a pole, and everyone is dressed in rags to look weird. They arrive at the groom’s house, are entertained, and after they are given firewood and soap for the bride, they sing and dance on their way back with the broom which is then used to wash the bride. There were colourful ribbons, and the pole was 3-4 metres’ [1994; the village of Koptevka, Novospassky district; Kazakova M.A., born in 1929; Matlin M.].

2. The broom is neither modified nor transformed. The broom in this case does not become one of the variants of the wedding tree, so that its semiotic status – to be a symbol of the entering into marriage – is not articulated. ’The pre-wedding party visited the groom to take a bar of soap and a broom for the bride. The broom was not decorated and used to wash the bride just like that’ [1994; the village of Akshuat, Baryshsky district; Yushina E. P., born in 1915; Matlin M.].

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1156

3. The broom is moved from the space of one marriage partner to the space of the other partner. In this case, the broom can undergo modification or transformation, yet sometimes it does not. In the latter case, it does not become one of the wedding tree variants, and its semiotic status is not articulated. Moving the broom is either carried out independently or as a part of one complex action. The result is placing ‘someone else’s’ into ‘mine’ and vice versa, which can be considered as a symbolic unfolding of the marriage model with the help of a subject code [Gura 2012: 51- 61]. At the same time, the groom’s broom is usually moved to the space of the bride’s banya, while other types of plants which are the symbols of the bride are moved to the groom’s house. Yet if the groom’s broom is then included in the ritual of the bride’s banya, the wedding tree which is the symbol of the bride, as a rule, is not used in any ceremonies in the groom’s house. ‘On the wedding eve the girls visit the groom’s house. <...> They go to get the broom and soap for the bride because it is the day of her banya. They carry the wedding tree, always decorated with colorful ribbons. This wedding tree is a branch of a birch tree and is made in the bride’s house. <...> The ritual tree remained in the groom’s house, and no other rituals were performed with it. The groom’s mother greeted the girls, asked them in and took the wedding tree from them. <...> Then the groom’s mother took out a broom and soap for the girls. The girls took a broom and walked home to the bride. On the way they sang songs and whipped each other with the broom’ [1994; the village of Apalikha, Mainsky district; Rozhnova P.N., born in 1922; Vorsina L.].

4. The broom is passed over, exchanged or bought in the marriage partner’s home. The exchange of a broom to another object takes place between the bride and the representatives of her sex and age group and between the groom and the representatives of his family or his sex and age group. This is a variant of numerous acts of gift exchange [Mauss 1966]. In the wedding ceremony, the broom (received instead of any ritually significant object), modified or not, became a symbol of the marriage partner, and the act of exchange itself is a symbol of marriage. ‘There (in the groom’s house) they exchanged: the groom gave soap and a towel, and the girls left the broom’ [1985; the village of Podkurovka, Terengulsky district; Kazakova A.S., born in 1903; Zotova T.].

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1157

5. The bride was washed by the groom’s broom and had to say his name (sometimes the names of his parents). According to A.K. Bayburin the fact ‘the bride was washed by the groom’s broom and soap’ is ‘another form of symbolic defloration’ [Baiburin 1993: 73]. ‘The groom gives soap and the broom which is decorated with ribbons. The bridesmaids washed the bride, demanding that she give the groom’s, the father’s-in-law and the mother’s- in-law names, and did not stop till she gave the names of all the in-laws’ [1978; the village of Isheevka, Ulyanovsk district; Kuznetsova A.P., born in 1906; Chalaya G.].

6. The young wife swept the house in the morning of the second day with the broom, and the litter was specifically brought by the husband’s relatives. Money was usually thrown into it. ‘In the morning the peasants will come and scatter litter and straws on the floor. The bride has to sweep, and as she does so, they again make a mess’ [1981; the village of Tsypovka, Sursky district; Makarov M.S., born in 1909; Matlin M.G]. The inclusion of traditional female domestic work in the wedding ceremony made it more difficult, updating the ritual-mythological semantics of the actions performed by and over the young wife and of objects that were used, while at the same time turning it into a bright and merry theatrical scene [Matlin 2016]. A special significance was in the fact that sweeping acquired a symbolic meaning due to the semantics that litter [Valenzova 2004: 337-340] and, specifically, straw [Belova 2012: 107-113] possessed in the traditional culture.

3. Magical – to protect from evil eye, to contribute to the lasting marriage, to provide others with a way to get married, to give wealth. 1. The corner of the bride’s house was whipped by the broom, with a saying that articulated the pragmatic aim of this action – to promote a strong, lasting marriage. ‘The broom was struck against a corner three times with a saying: ‘Live together without quarrels!’ [1996; the village of Solovchikha, Radischevsky district; Kolesova M.A., born in 1938; Gonoshilkina O.].

2. The broom was divided into twigs and distributed among girls. Since ‘the broom was a symbol of the wedding itself, a sign of its individual rituals and actions, persons and objects’ [Zorin 2004: 120], dividing the wedding object (symbolizing the marriage partners) and distributing it among the girls promised a successful marriage for them as well.

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1158

‘They went to get the broom and brought shirts – the first brand new, and the second one quaint and funny. They took soap and a broom decorated with ribbons and candies. Then they would scatter the broom – a twig for you, a twig for me’ [1981; the village of Knyazhuha, Sursky region; Starostina A.P., born in 1905, Zheleznova E.Ya., born in 1905; Baranov A.].

3. Girls beating each other with the broom or with its twigs. As A.V. Gura noted, ‘the conjugal symbolism is associated with using the tree for magical purposes. So, the Poles hit girls (sometimes boys) with it at the wedding ceremony to ensure they get married soon’ [Gura 2012: 269]. In the Russian folk wedding of the Ulyanovsk Region the same interpretation of this action by the bearers of the tradition is recorded. ‘The girls were given a decorated broom. They tore it and then chased each other, whipping with these twigs. Whom they hit will soon be married’ [1995; the village of , Terengulsky district; Fufayeva A.I., born in 1914; Makurova L.].

4. Scattering the broom twigs on the house floor. This action is synonymous to scattering straw at the wedding ceremony, which tradition carriers explain as a ‘... desire to give young people wealth so that they do not walk on bare floor’ [Sumtsov 1996: 185-186; Kagarov 1929: 175]. ‘On the wedding eve after the banya they go for the broom. The shirt is brought to him [to the groom]. Everyone dances, and the broom is scattered over the floor and not cleaned up until the wedding is over’ [1981; the village of Tsypovka, Sursky district; Makarov M.S., born in 1903; Baranov A.].

5. Matchmakers stole the broom from the bride’s house for the safe outcome of matchmaking. ‘If you take a broom from the house of the bride, she can not refuse’ [2009; the village of Lava, Sursky district; Bespomoshnova A.I., born in 1926; Sleptsova I.].

4. Theatrical – to participate in the creation of merry scenes and game activities as a primary or secondary component. The presence of the theatrical principle in rituals, including the wedding, was noted by many scientists [Gusev 1977: 41, 42; Bogatyrev 1971: 31; Tolstoy, 1995c: 114, 119]. In this case, the comical theatrical pragmatics in various actions with the broom was developed:

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1159

 by incorporating the broom into merry scenes created by participants in some wedding ceremonies;  as a result of its separation from the banya ritual in those ceremonial acts where it was an obligatory and final component;  finally, in the actions that revealed the magic function and the enthusiasm of the participants. The desire for vivid entertainment led to the fact that the aforementioned function came forward. 1. A broom is a component of merry theatrical scenes. ‘On Thursday, the girls brought a shirt to the groom. They were dressed as shepherds, nurses, gypsy women. They brought three or four old shirts and one brand new, first giving the old ones to the groom to wear and laughing at him, then finally giving a new one. The groom gave them a broom, a bar of soap and some perfume in return. It was a birch broom, decorated with different ribbons’ [1994; the village of Andreevka, Cherdaklinsky district; Maksimova S.I., born in 1932; Turkina MM].

2. The broom was separated from the banya ritual in those ceremonial acts where it was an obligatory and final component. ‘And when they went to the groom before the banya, they took soap and a broom from him. They walked waving the broom, discarding it somewhere along the way. The last ones walking were all dressed up and sang wedding songs’ [1987; the village of Naleyka, Kuzovatovsky district; Martynova O.I., born in 1899; Lyapaeva M.N.].

3. Enhancing the playful behavior of the participants, their desire for vivid entertainment made the theatrical pragmatics dominant in the acts with the broom which traditionally perfrmed the symbolic function. ‘And the groom gives a broom and soap. I was brought a broom and soap and was washed with it! [In the banya?] No, at home. [With the broom?] Yes, with the dry broom. That was all a joke’ [1996; the village of Lesnoye Matyunino, Kuzovatovsky district; Zhidkova A.S., born in 1935; Krivonogova MN]. A fairly frequent phenomenon was the combination of different pragmatists in the process of deployment of the wedding ritual or of a set of interrelated rituals. In this case, one pragmatic feature could be dominant while some other was additional.

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1160

Symbolic + informational ‘The same day the bridesmaids took the bride to the banya – it was customary before the wedding. The girls came to the groom with a birch tree and got a broom and soap in exchange, while the groom’s family kept the birch. Then the bridesmaids took the bride to the banya, carrying the broom and singing songs’ [1992; Ulyanovsk, born in the village of Volostnikovka, Staromaynsky district; Kalmykova A.Ya., born in 1916; Kalmykova I.N.].

Symbolic + theatrical ‘Before the wedding, the bride’s friends went to the groom with a shirt. They were dressed up. ‘The Gypsy woman’ always hid the shirt and replaced it with tie-wraps or torn shirts. A good shirt had to be paid for; finally, the groom gave the bridesmaids a broom and soap. The broom was decorated with ribbons, and the bridesmaids washed the bride with it until it lost all the leaves’ [1988; the village of Yazykovo, Karsunsky district; Baranova M.F., born in 1921; Prakina T.N.].

The analysis shows that the type of broom used in the wedding ritual is due to the process of a household item acquiring a new semiotic status, so in some cases it becomes a type of the wedding tree, beginning to duplicate it and sometimes even to replace it. This makes it possible to distinguish three main broom types (from the point of view of its semiotic status formation) and to show their distribution on the territory of the Ulyanovsk Region of the Volga. Type 1. The broom is not modified or transformed and acquires a semiotic status in the ritual based on the semiotization of its characteristic everyday use (the bride’s banya, the banya of the newlyweds, the young wife sweeping the floor). Type 2. The broom is modified and/or transformed, sometimes employed in actions typical of its household use. However, as a result of transformation or modification and the actions not characteristic of its household use, its semiotization takes place, so the broom is likened to the wedding tree and acquires new pragmatic features (informational, symbolic, magic). Type 3. The broom is modified and/or transformed, and the actions performed with it are not typical of its daily use. This, on the one hand, contributes to its semiotization, bringing the broom closer to the wedding tree, forming new pragmatic features (informational, symbolic, and magical) and, on the other hand, sometimes erases its semiotic status, turning the broom into one of the attributes of a humorous act (theatrical pragmatics). The results are given in the maps.

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1161

See Figures 5, 6, 7. Fig.5. Distribution of the wedding broom by the area of the region (Type 1).

Fig.6. Distribution of the wedding broom by the area of the region (Type 2).

Fig.7. Distribution of the wedding broom by the area of the region (Type 3).

The given data and maps show that there is a certain pattern in the broom type distribution on the territory of the Ulyanovsk Region.

Firstly, in the wedding ritual of the Ulyanovsk Region, brooms of Type 1 and Type 2 prevail, yet in five districts of this area Type 2 prevails. This means that the wedding broom as a semiotic object can act as an alternative or as a substitute for such wedding plants as burdock, a pine-tree or a birch. Such expansion of its semantics and pragmatics is due to various reasons: a new natural habitat in which migrants from other provinces of Russia have found themselves, historical changes in wedding rituals in the 20th century, borrowing traditions of other settlements in the process of developing marital relations, etc. Second, in 13 districts all the three types of brooms are represented, and in 19 districts two types are found – Type 1 and Type 2. The exception is the two districts – Radischevsky (Type 1) and Veshkaymsky (Type 1 and Type 3). The reason for such diversity in plant wedding symbols in a limited area (sometimes in one village) is the result of conjugal traditions of different historical periods and different individual versions of the wedding ceremony in one cultural space. Some features of the distribution of Type 2 and Type 3 on the territory of the Ulyanovsk Region (taking the identified floral-geographical zones into account) are reflected in Fig. 8 and 9.

Fig.8. Distributions of brooms of Type 2 and Type 3 across the territory of the Ulyanovsk Region.

(1. Northern Sursky forest district, 2. Northern Ulyanovsk steppe district, 3. Privolzhsky north-eastern Undorovsky forest district, 4. Western Inzensky forest Region, 5. Eastern right- bank Sengileevsky forest-steppe district, 6. Southern Syzran steppe district, 7. Northern left-

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1162 bank Staromainsky forest-steppe district, 8. Southern left-bank Cheremshansky steppe district).

Fig.9. Distributions of brooms of Type 2 and Type 3 across the territory of the Ulyanovsk Region.

(1. Northern Sursky forest district, 2. Northern Ulyanovsk steppe district, 3. Privolzhsky north-eastern Undorovsky forest district, 4. Western Inzensky forest Region, 5. Eastern right- bank Sengileevsky forest-steppe district, 6. Southern Syzran steppe district, 7. Northern left- bank Staromainsky forest-steppe district, 8. Southern left-bank Cheremshansky steppe district).

The map shows there is no direct correspondence between the broom type and the floral region. However, it should be borne in mind most of the areas are in the forest-steppe zones, and the steppe zones are not homogeneous: there are settlements where forests are either a short or a long distance away. Therefore, it is much more important to consider the distribution of Type 2 and Type 3 in separate villages rather than districts.

The data are presented in the table below.

District/village Type 2 Type 3 forest steppe forest steppe Bazarnosyzgansky district Dolzhnikovo + Lapshaur + Baryshsky district Elkhovka + Polivanovo + Akshuat + + Staraya Bekshanka + Silaevka + Voetskoe + Veshkaymsky district Beklemishevo + Inzensky district Oskino + Pyatino + + Novosurskoe + Tiapino + + Kensha + Karsunsky District

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1163

Ust-Uren + Tavolzhanka + + Krasnopolka + + Kadyshevo + Valdivatskoe + Bolshie Poselki + Yazykovo + Bolshaya Kandarat + Sukhoy + Bolshoe Stanichnoe + Ermaki + Kuzovatovsky District Khvostikha + Tomylovo + Bestuzhevka + + Ekaterinovka + Chertanovka + Chirikovo + Naleika + Lesnoe Matyunino + Bolshaya Borla + Maynsky District Ignatovka + Kopyshovka + Tagay + Podlesnoe + Vyry + Apalikha + Melekessky district Novaya Mayna + Nikolaevsky district Panovka + Tyoplovka + Beloe Ozero + Novospassky District Koptevka + Staroye Tomyshevo + Rep'yovka + Matrunino + Novospasskoye + Vasilyevka + Gorny + Komarovka + Monastyrsky Sungur Монастырский Сунгур + Novaya Lava + Novoe Tomyshevo + Sadovoe + Samaykino + Troitskiy Sungur + Fabrichnye Vyselki + Pavlovsky District Baklushi +

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1164

Pavlovka + Novaya Alekseevka + Sengileyevsky District Silikatnyy + Shilovka + Tushna + + + Artyushkino + Staromaynsky District Krasnaya Reka + + Volostnikovka + Sursky District Arapovka + Lava + Sheyevshchino + Ashcherino + Arkhangelskoye + Kolyupanovka + Neplyovka + + Baryshskaya Sloboda + Tsypovka + Sara + Knyazhukha + Olkhovka + Chirkovo + Kirzyat + Zasarye + Khmelyovka + Nikitino + Kezmino + Koltsovka + Polyanki + Boltayevka + Arkhangelskoye + Terengulsky District Molvino + Terenga + Zelenets + Yelshanka + Podkurovka + Sosnovka + Gavrilovka + Nazaykino + Belogorskoe + Tumkino + + Ulyanovsky District Karamzinka + Ponikiy Klyuch + Novy Uren + Isheyevka + Bolshie Klyuchishchi + Cherdaklinsky District

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1165

Andreevka + Ozerki + + + Staroe Yeryomkino + Petrovskoe + Sukhodol + Total: 61 40 15 9

The results obtained show that in the vast majority of villages located in or near the forest, brooms of both types are present. In four of them pine tree as the wedding tree was recorded together with the broom, and in five of them burdock was employed as the wedding tree. In the first case the broom was not transformed or adapted, i.e. did not become an analogue of the wedding tree. In the second case the broom became an analogue of the wedding three in three cases out of five. Thus, the distribution of these types of brooms indicates that the process of substituting the traditional wedding tree (pine-tree or burdock) took place irrespective of whether the landscape conditions could contribute to the preservation of the traditional wedding tree or not. When a full replacement did not occur, the broom and the wedding tree, even within the bride's banya ritual, received different semantics and pragmatics. Burdock or the pine-tree remained a symbol of the bride or a group of unmarried girls, and the broom denoted the union of the bride and groom in the symbolically expressed act of coitus. It should also be noted that in the Nizhny Novgorod wedding tradition the wedding night was often spent in the banya, where it was no longer symbolic, but real coitus. The data obtained are consistent with historical facts. In the 19th century publications (39 entries) describing the wedding in the Simbirsky Volga region, nothing is said about the actions performed with the wedding broom. This proves that the broom acquiring special value in the wedding ceremony is a relatively recent phenomenon. Perhaps, as pointed out by N.V. Zorin, it was connected ‘with the qualitative proximity of a broom and a birch tree, with the absolute predominance of winter weddings, when the birch required any replacement, with the wide use of a broom as an amulet and, finally, with a general weakening of the wedding ritual tradition in the second half of the 19th century’ [Zorin 2004: 119].

Comparison with the Nizhny Novgorod wedding tradition As noted above, information on the Nizhny Novgorod Region was taken as a control array of data on the wedding broom use. This choice is due to two main reasons: firstly, only this area provided a comparable amount of data available for public access, and second, one of the most significant colonization flows of the 17th century was from Arzamas, Nizhny Novgorod

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1166 districts, along with Vladimirsky, Shatsky and Alatyrsky districts [Scribal Book 2004: 434- 445]. Data on the frequency of broom types occurrence in wedding ceremonies in Ulyanovsk and Nizhny Novgorod Regions and Shigonsky district of the region are given in the table.

Frequency of broom types occurrence in wedding ceremonies in Ulyanovsk and Nizhny Novgorod Regions

Type 1 Nizhny Ulyanovsk Novgorod Region Region Bridesmaids visit the groom’s house (to get the broom) 31 78 Bridesmaids visit the groom’s house (with the 3 22 broom) Type 2 Magical Pre-wedding period Matchmaking 3 1 Bridesmaids visiting the groom’s house (to get the broom or with the broom) 7 15 The groom visiting the bride’s house 1 0 The bride’s banya 0 4 Wedding day Bride price 1 0 Departure to the church 4 1 Meeting the newlyweds 3 1 Post-wedding period The newlyweds’ banya 2 0 The third day 1 0 Arrival of the wedding procession 1 0 Symbolic

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1167

Pre-wedding period Bridesmaids visiting the groom’s house 20 74 The groom visiting the bride's family the day before 2 0 The groom visiting the bride 2 0 Hen-party 1 0 The bride’s banya 6 5 Wedding day Post-wedding period The wedding night 1 0 After the wedding night 1 0 The morning of the second day 1 3 The newlyweds’ banya (the place of the 3 0 wedding night) The newlyweds’ banya 3 0 Sweeping the floor 19 30 Informational Matchmaking 6 0 Bridesmaids visit the groom’s house 3 6 Drinking ceremony 1 0 The bride’s banya 1 1 The bride’s honour 54 4 Type 3 54 20 Total 235 245

The information given in the table convincingly shows that there is a fundamental difference in the wedding broom functions in the Ulyanovsk and Nizhny Novgorod Regions: in the Ulyanovsk tradition, the actions performed with the broom are confined exclusively to the pre-wedding period (except for the sweeping ritual), and in Nizhny Novgorod to the post- wedding period. At the same time in both ceremonies the broom is associated with the banya ritual: in the Ulyanovsk wedding with the bride’s banya and in the Nizhny Novgorod wedding with the newlyweds’ banya. Therefore, the semiotization of the broom in the Ulyanovsk Region wedding occurred mainly in the ritual of bridesmaids visiting the groom’s house and

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1168 in the Nizhny Novgorod Region in the ceremonial act of manifestation of ‘honesty’ (virginity) or ‘dishonesty’ (loss of virginity).

CONCLUSION The study of the plant code represented by the wedding broom, particularly, of its functions in the Russian folk wedding of the Ulyanovsk Region of the Volga District, revealed that in the wedding ceremony three main types of vegetation were used: coniferous (a fur tree, a pine tree or their branches), deciduous (a birch tree and its branches) and herbaceous (burdock). At the same time, although the birch broom was employed practically throughout the entire territory, its configuration and use differed. In some districts it was the only plant symbol; there were villages in other districts where the use of a broom in wedding ceremonies was not recorded, although it was used in other villages of the same area; in the vast majority of districts and settlements of the region, the wedding broom was of various types and possessed various pragmatics; in some settlements it was combined with other types of plants, although there was no clear and direct correlation between the broom and a certain type of the wedding tree. The absence of any wedding tree or, on the contrary, its wide distribution did not lead to either an increase or a decrease in the extent of the broom distribution on this territory. In general, the broom was used almost throughout the whole wedding period, yet its place and role at different stages and in different rituals varied. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it functioned in the ritual of bridesmaids visiting the groom's house, connected with the pre- wedding banya of the bride and groom. One or two brooms could be used; they were made both in the bride's and in the groom's house, and their pragmatics, as a rule, was different. The analysis of the features of plant code implementation in the wedding ceremony revealed that the main functions in the broom semiotic status formation were informational, symbolic, magical and theatrical. The combination of different pragmatists was quite frequent, with one being predominant and others being additional, and during the ritual a change in the pragmatics could occur. This indicates that the broom type is determined by how a household item acquires a new semiotic status, so that it becomes the type of the wedding tree, duplicating or sometimes replacing it in the ritual. Therefore, three main types of wedding broom were singled out, their distribution in the Ulyanovsk Region of the Volga was presented, and the analysis of their usage showed that the wedding broom (as a semiotic unit) not only indicated the union of the bride and groom in the symbolically expressed act of coitus – it was employed to inform others about the wedding ceremony or a part of it, it performed ‘magical’ actions and was also used as a festive

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1169 attribute. This allowed reconsidering the established opinion in science that the wedding broom represents only one of the variants of the so-called wedding tree. Such extension of the semantics and pragmatics of the wedding broom is due to various reasons: a new natural habitat in which migrants from other provinces of Russia found themselves, historical changes in wedding rituals in the 20th century, borrowing traditions of other settlements in the process of developing marriage relations, etc. The analysis of the distribution of the wedding broom of Type 2 and Type 3 in the Ulyanovsk Region (taking the identified floral-geographical zones into account) revealed no direct correspondence between the broom type and the floral region. Nevertheless, it can be stated that the process of substituting the traditional wedding tree (pine-tree or burdock) took place in the villages, irrespective of whether the landscape conditions could contribute to the preservation of the traditional wedding tree or not. In cases when there was no substitution, the broom and the wedding tree received different semantic and pragmatic meanings. Burdock or the pine-tree remained the symbol of the bride or a group of unmarried girls, and the broom denoted the union of the bride and groom in the symbolically expressed act of coitus. Moreover, in the Nizhny Novgorod wedding tradition the wedding night was often spent in the banya, where it was no longer symbolic, but real coitus. The data obtained are consistent with historical facts. In the 19th century publications (39 entries) describing the wedding in the Simbirsky Volga region, nothing is said about the actions performed with the wedding broom. This proves that the broom acquiring special value in the wedding ceremony is a relatively recent phenomenon. The comparison showed that in the Ulyanovsk tradition the actions performed with the broom are confined exclusively to the pre-wedding period (except for the sweeping ritual), and in Nizhny Novgorod tradition to the post-wedding period. Therefore, the semiotization of the broom in the Ulyanovsk Region wedding occurred mainly in the ritual of bridesmaids visiting the groom’s house, developing from pragmatics to theatrical semantics. In the Nizhny Novgorod wedding ceremony the broom semiotization is connected with the ritual and the ethically relevant manifestation of ‘honesty’ (virginity) or ‘dishonesty’ (loss of virginity). On the whole, the analysis of the wedding tradition of the period from the 20s of the 19 century till the 10s of the 21 century revealed a diversity of local variants that were formed during the settlement of Russians in the 17th and 18th centuries, as well as those historical changes that took place in the wedding ceremony of the 20th century. This determines the complexity and variety of wedding broom types in the Russian folk wedding in the Ulyanovsk Region.

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1170

The research is the first interdisciplinary work in the Russian science on traditional folk wedding. It is an attempt to examine the functioning of the plant code, one of the most important wedding codes, in connection with the landscape features and the history of the given territory. The results obtained, as well as the research methodology, can be used to study the wedding rituals of other regions of Russia and also the wedding traditions of other Eastern Slavic nations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The study was carried out under financial support of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. The project registration number is AAAA-A17-117041850171-6.

REFERENCES Avtonomov Ya.A. Plant symbolism in Great Russian Songs // Journal of the Ministry of Education. 1902. CCCV. November. Pp. 46-101; Journal of the Ministry of Education. 1902. CCCXXXXIV. December. Pp. 244-288. Agapkina T.A. Tree // Slavic antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 volumes / ed. by N.I. Tolstoy. - V. 2: D-K. - Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 1999. P. 60-69. Agapkina T.A. Symbolism of trees in the traditional culture of the Slavs: aspen (the experience of system description) // Кодови словенских култура. 1996. Броj 1. Биљке. С. 7-22. Agapkina T.A. Symbolism of trees in the traditional culture of the Slavs: rowan // Ethnobotany: plants in language and culture / Ed. by V.B. Kolosova, A.B. Ippolitov. SPb .: Nauka, 2010. S. 238-253. (ACTA LINGUISTICA PETROPOLITANA, Proceedings of the Institute for Linguistic Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences / Editor-in-chief N.N .Kazansky, V. VI. Part. 1). Agapkina T.A. Pine // Slavic antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 volumes / ed. by N.I. Tolstoy. - V. 5: S-Ya. - Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 2012. P. 134-137. Bayburin A.K. Ritual in Traditional Culture: Structural and Semantic Analysis of Eastern Slavic Rituals. SPb: Nauka, 1993. 240 p. Bayburin A.K. Semiotic status of things and mythology // Material Culture and Mythology: [Collected papers] / Miklouho-Maclay Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR; [Ed. by B.N. Putilov]. – Leningrad: Nauka, 1981. - P. 215-226. (Collection of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, V. 37)

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1171

Belova O.V. Straw // Slavic antiquities: Ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 volumes / ed. by N.I. Tolstoy. T. 5: S-Ya. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 2012. P. 107-113. Blagoveshchensky V.V. Vegetation of the due to its history and rational use. - Ulyanovsk: USU, 2005. Blagoveshchensky V.V., Maslennikov A.V., Maslennikova L.A., Rakov N.S., Saxonov S.V., Shustov M.V. The main directions of studying and protecting flora and vegetation in the central part of the Volga Upland // Materials of the international conference ‘Natural heritage of Russia: study, monitoring, protection’. Togliatti: Institute of Ecology of Volga Basin of RAS, 2004. P. 30. Bogatyrev P.G. Folk Theatre of the Czechs and Slovaks // Questions of the Theory of Folk Art. - Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1971. - P. 13-166. Valentsova M.M., Vinogradova L.N. Rubbish // Slavic antiquities: Ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 volumes / Ed. by N.I. Tolstoy. T. 3: K-P. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 2004. pp. 337-340. Vedenin Yu. A., Kuleshova M.E. Cultural landscapes as a category of heritage // Cultural landscape as an object of heritage. Ed. Yu. A. Vedenina, M.E. Kuleshova. - M .: Institut Naslediya; SPb .: Dmitry Bulanin, 2004. Vinogradova L.N. The flower name of the mermaid: Slavic beliefs about the blossoming plants // Ethno-linguistic and ethnocultural history of Eastern Europe. M., 1995. P. 231-259. Vinogradova L.N., Morozov I.A. Banya broom / / Slavic antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 volumes / ed. by N.I. Tolstoy. - V. 1: A-D. - Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 1999. P. 313-314. Vinogradova L.N., Tolstaya S.M. Broom // Slavic antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 volumes / ed. by N.I. Tolstoy. - V. 1: A-D. - Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 1999. P. 307-313. Vinogradova L.N., Usacheva V.V. Birch // Slavic antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 volumes / ed. by N.I. Tolstoy. - T. 1: A-D. - Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 1999. pp. 156-160. Vinogradova L.N., Usacheva V.V. Branch // Slavic antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 volumes / ed. by N.I. Tolstoy. - T. 1: A-D. - Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 1999. P. 364-366. Vuinovich T. Functions and values of plants in wedding songs from the collection of Vuk Karadzic // Traditional culture. 2013. No. 4. P. 110-119.

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1172

Gura A.V. Marriage and Wedding in the Slavic Folk Culture: Semantics and Symbolism. M .: Indrik, 2012. (Traditional spiritual culture of the Slavs.) Modern research.) Gura A.V. Wedding tree // Slavic antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 volumes / ed. N.I. Tolstoy. - V. 2: D-К. - Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 1999. P. 83-84. Gusev V. E. The origins of the Russian folk theatre: Textbook. - L .: Russian State Institute of Performing Arts, 1977. - 88 p. Zelenin D.K. The totemic cult of trees among Russians and Byelorussians // Izvestiya AS USSR. General Sciences. 1933. № 6. S. 591-629. Zorin N.V. Russian wedding ritual / Miklouho-Maclay Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology. Moscow: Nauka, 2004. 248 p. Kagarov E.G. Composition and Origin of the Wedding Ritual // Collection of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography. - Leningrad: AS USSR, 1929. - V. VIII. - P. 152-195. Kolosova V.A. Slavic Ethnobotany: Essay on History // Ethnobotany: Plants in Language and Culture / Ed. by V.B. Kolosova, A.B. Ippolitov. SPb.: Nauka, 2010. pp. 7-30 (ACTA LINGUISTICA PETROPOLITANA, Proceedings of the Institute of Linguistic Research, Russian Academy of Sciences / Ed. by N.N. Kazansky, V. VI.Part 1.). Kolosova V.B. Vocabulary and symbolism of the Slavic folk botany. Ethnolinguistic aspect. M., 2009. Kolosova V.B. Herbs // Slavic antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 volumes / ed. by N.I. Tolstoy. - V. 5: S-Ya. - Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 2012. P. 303-307. Korepova K.E. Materials on wedding rituals in the archive of the Folklore Center of the NNSU. Nizhny Novgorod: Rastr, 2016. 500 p. Maslennikov A.V. Flora of calcium landscapes of the Volga Upland. Ulyanovsk, 2008. Matlin M.G. ‘To plow the floor’: the originality of the wedding term semantics // Scientific dialogue. 2016. No. 1 (49). Pp. 59-69. Matlin M.G. To look into the oven // Traditional culture of Ulyanovsk Prisurie: ethnodialectic dictionary in 2 volumes / Miklouho-Maclay Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology. N.N.; I.S. Kyzlasova (Sleptsova) and others; ed by I.A. Morozov, M.P. Cherednikova. - Moscow: Indrik, 2012. - V.2. M-Ya. - P. 259-260. - (Traditional spiritual culture of the Slavs: Modern studies) Minh A.N. Burdock in folk rites and songs // Ethnographic Review. 1893. № 2. P. 191-192. Morozov I.A, Budovskaya E.E. Banya // Traditional culture of Ulyanovsk Prisurie: ethnodialectic dictionary in 2 volumes / Miklouho-Maclay Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology. N.N.; I.S. Kyzlasova (Sleptsova) and others; ed by I.A. Morozov, M.P.

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1173

Cherednikova. - Moscow: Indrik, 2012. - V.1. A-L. - pp. 138-140. (The Traditional Spiritual Culture of the Slavs: Contemporary Studies) Nikonov V.A. History of the Middle Volga Region development on the basis of toponymic data // Historical geography. Questions of geography: Book 50. M.: The State geography and literature publishing house, 1960. pp. 172-194. The scribal book of the Karsun and Simbirsk districts of 1685-1686. / Regional state budgetary Research Institute of History and Culture of the Ulyanovsk Region; [Ed. by Yu.N. Melnikov]. Ulyanovsk: Corporation of Promotion Technologies, 2014. - 543 p. Potebnya A.A. On certain symbols in the Slavic folk poetry. Kharkov, 1914. Putilov B.N. Folklore and folk tradition. Spb: Nauka, 1994. Pchelkin Yu.A. Botanic-geographical analysis of the flora of the Ulyanovsk Region: Author's abstract. PhD thesis, Saratov, 1974. Pchelkin Yu.A., Rakov N.S., Maslennikov A.V. Floristic zoning of the Ulyanovsk Region // Samarskaya Luka. Samara, 2002. № 12. C.275-280. Svirida I.I. Space and Culture: Aspects of Study // Slavic Studies. - 2003. - No. 4. - P. 14-23. Sumtsov N.F. Symbols of Slavic Rites: Selected Works. M .: Voctochnaya literatura, 1996. 296 p. (Ethnographic Library.) Tolstaya S.M. Codes of culture and cultural concepts // The wordspace. Lexical semantics in the all-Slavic perspective. M .: Indrik, 2008. P. 333-337. Tolstaya S.M. ‘Man lives like grass grows’ // The wordspace. Lexical semantics in the all- Slavic perspective. M .: Indrik, 2008. p. 338-346. Tolstoy N.I. The daughter-in-law became a poplar in the field // Slavic and Balkan folklore. M., 1986. P. 39-43. Tolstoy N.I. ‘Male’ and ‘female’ trees and days in the Slavic folk concepts / / Language and folk culture. Essays on Slavic mythology and ethnolinguistics. M., 1995. P. 333-340. Usacheva V.V. Viburnum // Slavic antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 volumes / ed. by N.I. Tolstoy. - V. 2: D-К. - Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 1999. P. 446-448. Usacheva V.V. Plants // Slavic antiquities: ethnolinguistic dictionary in 5 volumes / ed. by N.I. Tolstoy. - V. 4: P-S. - Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya, 2009. P. 406-412. Chasovnikova A.V. Christian images of the plant world in folk culture. Petrov cross. Adam's head. Holy Willow. M., 2003. Shved I.A. The image of fur tree in the Belarusian folklore picture of the world: (in the Slavic context) // Ethnobotany: Plants in Language and Culture / Ed. by V.B. Kolosova, A.B. Ippolitov. SPb.: Nauka, 2010. - 386 p. Pp. 362-369 (ACTA LINGUISTICA

M. Mikhail Gershonovich et al. J Fundam Appl Sci. 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174 1174

PETROPOLITANA, Proceedings of the Institute for Linguistic Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences / ed. by N.N. Kazansky, V. VI, Part 1). Cosgrove D. Place, landscape and dialectics of cultural geography // Canadian Geographer. 1978. Vol. 22. № 1. P. 66–72. Fleming K. Cultural landscape: a theoretical perspective/ URL: https://ru.scribd.com/document/287728971/Cultural-Landscape-a-Theoretical-Perpsective. Geertz C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Ivanova R. Свадба као систем знакова // Кодови словенских култура, Београд, 3, 1998. Karanović Z., Jokić J. Plants and herbs in traditional serbian culture: Handbook of folk botany. Belgrade: Serbian folklorist association, University library ‘Svetozar Marković’, 2016. Mauss M. The gift; forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies / Translated by Ian Cunnison; Introduction E.E. Evans-Pritchard. London: Cohen & West, 1966. Minca C. The cultural geographies of landscape // Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 62 (1) (2013) 47–62. Langer R, Lüddeckens D, Radde K, Snoek J. Transfer of ritual // Journal of Ritual Studies. 2006. № 20 (1). P 1-10.

How to cite this article: Mikhail Gershonovich M, Andrey Viktorovich M, Daniil Anatolievich F, Antonina Petrovna L, Marina Vladimirovna G. Peculiarities of the plant code (the wedding broom) in the russian folk wedding of the ulyanovsk region of the volga district. J. Fundam. Appl. Sci., 2017, 9(1S), 1143-1174.