Page 42 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja, et al., eds. (2015). Stone narratives: heritage, mobility, performance. University of Primorska Press, Koper.
P. 42
stone narratives
fireplace represented different socially produced and constructed metaphors, of which two
should be pointed out: first, the fireplace as a foundation of the household, and second, the
fireplace as a metaphor of home and homeliness. The fireplace was a sign of an autonomo-
us household and an element of fiscal policy already since the late Middle Ages (Netting,
Wilk & Arnould, 1984, p. xxvi). In the land registry of Gorizia from 1507, there is a record
of the so-called fireplace money (in German fewr gelt), a tax for the fireplace for the inhabi-
tants of the village of Vipavski Križ (Pavlin, 2006, p. 73; 2007, p. 195). The fireplace repre-
sented a household element established through daily practices which connected members
who lived and ate together into a community.
While the metaphor of the fireplace as a foundation of an individual household was
expressed and realised in daily practices and was therefore socially produced, the fireplace
as the metaphor of home and homeliness was a socially constructed (collective) representa-
tion popularised in differently motivated discourses. As it ceased to be used in the first dec-
ades of the 20th century, the fireplace, based on memories of past disappearing practices, in-
teraction and images, became a constructed and accepted metaphor of home, family life,
and values, the so-called »temple of family life« (Terčelj, 1927b). This socially construct-
ed metaphor of the fireplace sometimes still referred to past practices (prim. Terčelj, 1924,
p. 260); more often, however, it only appeared in the figurative sense (cf. Figure 2), as de-
scribed with the following words: »May new houses, albeit without hearths, still be the
hearths of good old Slovenian honesty!« (Terčelj, 1927a, p. 50). Moreover, in a local and na-
tional discourse, the fireplace was used to maintain community awareness:
As a symbol, it is held in common by its members; but its meaning varies with its members’ unique
orientations to it. In the face of this variability of meaning, the consciousness of community has to
be kept alive through manipulation of its symbols. (Cohen 1985: 15)
The fireplace as a symbol of home and a metaphor of a mutual traditional family life,
which has not yet been corrupted by emigration, urbanisation, industrialisation and oth-
er vices of the modern lifestyle, found its place in the Christian and Catholic world as well
as in the liberal literary and real metaphoric language and various professional discourses.
In the first half of the 20th century, the fireplace was, in terms of cooking, replaced by the
stove, and parallel to the introduction of the stove, a kitchen or dining table became the
centre of social life. It seems that instrumental and social disuse of the fireplace contribut-
ed to the perception that the fireplace became a common metaphor of a disappearing, albe-
it representational lifestyle, social relations, and values.
Only a few fireplaces have been preserved in the Vipava Valley until the present day,
of which one is constantly used and the other ones only occasionally. They have certainly
lost their central place and role which they played in the past everyday life. Instead, their
metaphoric dimension has been strengthened and, as the memories fade away, imagination
opens up.
References
Bancalari, G. (1893). Die Hausforschung und ihre Ergebnisse in den Ostalpen [Find-
ings of the Research on Architecture in the Eastern Alps]. Zeitschrift des Deutsche
und Österreichische Alpenvereines, 24, 128–174.
40
fireplace represented different socially produced and constructed metaphors, of which two
should be pointed out: first, the fireplace as a foundation of the household, and second, the
fireplace as a metaphor of home and homeliness. The fireplace was a sign of an autonomo-
us household and an element of fiscal policy already since the late Middle Ages (Netting,
Wilk & Arnould, 1984, p. xxvi). In the land registry of Gorizia from 1507, there is a record
of the so-called fireplace money (in German fewr gelt), a tax for the fireplace for the inhabi-
tants of the village of Vipavski Križ (Pavlin, 2006, p. 73; 2007, p. 195). The fireplace repre-
sented a household element established through daily practices which connected members
who lived and ate together into a community.
While the metaphor of the fireplace as a foundation of an individual household was
expressed and realised in daily practices and was therefore socially produced, the fireplace
as the metaphor of home and homeliness was a socially constructed (collective) representa-
tion popularised in differently motivated discourses. As it ceased to be used in the first dec-
ades of the 20th century, the fireplace, based on memories of past disappearing practices, in-
teraction and images, became a constructed and accepted metaphor of home, family life,
and values, the so-called »temple of family life« (Terčelj, 1927b). This socially construct-
ed metaphor of the fireplace sometimes still referred to past practices (prim. Terčelj, 1924,
p. 260); more often, however, it only appeared in the figurative sense (cf. Figure 2), as de-
scribed with the following words: »May new houses, albeit without hearths, still be the
hearths of good old Slovenian honesty!« (Terčelj, 1927a, p. 50). Moreover, in a local and na-
tional discourse, the fireplace was used to maintain community awareness:
As a symbol, it is held in common by its members; but its meaning varies with its members’ unique
orientations to it. In the face of this variability of meaning, the consciousness of community has to
be kept alive through manipulation of its symbols. (Cohen 1985: 15)
The fireplace as a symbol of home and a metaphor of a mutual traditional family life,
which has not yet been corrupted by emigration, urbanisation, industrialisation and oth-
er vices of the modern lifestyle, found its place in the Christian and Catholic world as well
as in the liberal literary and real metaphoric language and various professional discourses.
In the first half of the 20th century, the fireplace was, in terms of cooking, replaced by the
stove, and parallel to the introduction of the stove, a kitchen or dining table became the
centre of social life. It seems that instrumental and social disuse of the fireplace contribut-
ed to the perception that the fireplace became a common metaphor of a disappearing, albe-
it representational lifestyle, social relations, and values.
Only a few fireplaces have been preserved in the Vipava Valley until the present day,
of which one is constantly used and the other ones only occasionally. They have certainly
lost their central place and role which they played in the past everyday life. Instead, their
metaphoric dimension has been strengthened and, as the memories fade away, imagination
opens up.
References
Bancalari, G. (1893). Die Hausforschung und ihre Ergebnisse in den Ostalpen [Find-
ings of the Research on Architecture in the Eastern Alps]. Zeitschrift des Deutsche
und Österreichische Alpenvereines, 24, 128–174.
40
