ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2025
Divine thus good, devilish thus bad? Folk linguistic perceptions about plants and their characteristics in Polish folklore.
Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAccording to folklore, some plants are created by divine beings and holy persons, while others appear on earth through demonic intervention. It is commonly believed that plants of divine origin are "good" plants, useful to humans, while plants of devilish origin are "bad" and not useful. AIM OF THE STUDY: This article analyses folk beliefs regarding the origins of selected plants, identifies which of them are considered to have a divine origin and which a demonic one, and examines whether the perceived divine or demonic origin of a plant influences its usefulness or harmfulness to humans.
methodsThis article first compares folk beliefs regarding the origins of selected plants, identifies their divine and demonic origins, and then evaluates the characteristics of these plants (edible/inedible, desirable/undesirable in cultivation, used in folk medicine, used in rituals, blessed throughout the year, used in apotropaic practices, associated with the devil/used in black magic). The aim is to determine whether there are any correlations between these characteristics and the plants' divine or demonic origins. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The analyses carried out have shown that a given plant's divine or devilish provenance does not determine its usefulness or lack thereof, because in popular folkloristic imagery about plants we can find many characteristics that "escape" the sharp division into "good" and "bad" plants. Plants whose origin in folk imagery is associated with the activity of divine agents are edible plants, desirable to man, commonly used in (annual and family) rituals and in folk medicine, while plants associated with the devil are plants that are often poisonous, harmful, dangerous, stinging and prickly, undesirable as crops and classified as weeds, representing a dwelling place for forces hostile to man on the one hand, yet used in an apotropaic capacity on the other. At the same time, "devilish" plants were sometimes eaten as famine food, blessed and used in folk medicine, while "divine" plants, treated as weeds, were considered the abode of demons and used in black magic.
conclusionThe study shows that the divine or devilish provenance of plants can be interpreted as information about the source of a plant's power-either divine or devilish. The article provides new insights for research on the perception of plants in Polish folk culture and also helps to promote Polish ethnolinguistic studies within the international academic discourse.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.