| TekstiThis property is a special property in this wiki.
|
<P align="justify"> <i>Fragmen … <P align="justify"> <i>Fragments of Lappish Mythology</i> is a work about Saami folk myths written by Lars Levi [[Laestadius, L.L. (engl. ver.)|Laestadius]] (1800-1862), who is better known as a revivalist leader. It was published in abbreviated form in 1959 and in extenso in 1997 in its original language, Swedish, and in English translation in 2002. At the invitation of the King of Sweden, Laestadius took part as a Lapp in a French expedition called La Recherche to northern Scandinavia in the years 1938-1840. He made ecological observations and wrote a mythology of the Saami at the request of the leader of the expedition, J. P. Gaimard. Part 1 of Fragments, which deals with the deities, was finished on 8 March 1840, and Parts 2 4 (sacrifice, divination and a selection of Lapp legends) and Part 5 (an addendum containing Laestadius comments on J. [[Fellman Jacob (engl.ver.)|Fellman]] s manuscript dealing with the folk myths of the Finnish Lapps mainly from Kemi Lapland) were ready to be dispatched to Paris by 1st January 1845. Fellman appended Laestadius comments to his own manuscript and they were published with it in 1906, in other words before Laestadius own work. </P> <P align="justify"> On the subject of the original monotheism of the Saami and their relation to it, Laestadius adopted the opposite stance of that of A. Gottlund and E. Lönnrot, who considered that Ukko was the supreme god of a monotheistic original Finnish religion. Laestadius did not believe that the Saami as a primitive people were capable of such philosophical sophistication, but he did emphasize the Saamis genuine and profound religiosity. Although Laestadius criticized attempts to present Lapp mythology ([[Myth|Myth]]) in more precise and systematic forms than could ever have actually existed among the people, he named his own reconstruction of it a mythology . The pantheon of the Lapp gods was five-tiered, as Laestadius illustrates with the shaman s drum of K. Leem. The gods above the sky, Radien, Veralden Olmai ([[Radien (engl. ver.)|Raedie]]) and Ruonaneid (the names are here given in the forms used by Laestadius) he considered to be papist , i.e. foreign imports from the time of the conversion of the Lapps in the Middle Ages. The Sun God [[Sun|Beiwe]] and [[Ailekis olmak]] the Men of the Holy Days constitute the category of sky gods, the Scandinavian origins of which are apparent in the name ([[Áiligas (engl. ver.)|áiligas]] < Swedish helig holy ). The third group of is more Lappish in origin; it consists mainly of female divinities; Laestadius believed that Madderakka and other [[Áhkká]] goddesses (Sarakka, Juksakka and Uksakka) who presided over birth-giving carried a more Lappish stamp . The fourth category consists of divinities dwelling in sacred places: passe ([[Bassi (engl. ver.)|bassi]]) and seita ([[Sieidi (engl. ver.)|sieidi]]).</P>
<P align="justify"> Laestadius explains the underground beings of the Saami through legends and links them with the saiwo people ([[Sáiva (engl. ver.)|sáiva]]), who are still alive in the imagination of the Lapps everywhere in Lapland , and who, depending on the area, were familiar either to the whole people or were known only to the shamans. Laestadius concludes that the belief in them arose from the fact that the shamans felt that their experiences of these beings in their heads were real. The number and nature of the eye-witnesses, he believed, were such that it was not possible to totally dismiss information about these beings; moreover, there were the writer s own, rationally inexplicable experiences which had to be taken into account.</P>
<P align="justify"> In Part 2, Sacrifice , which describes what is internationally the best known and most controversial area of Lapp religion, Laestadius takes a cautious stand with regard to the reliability of the sources and addresses the subject ethically in his interpretation of them from his stance as a clergyman. For example, he admits that he himself never had the opportunity to see a → shaman s drum ( that remarkable drum ) or to hear it with his own ears. After some criticism of the closet Lappology of his day, Laestadius provides valuable information about the last pagans , who he claimed had only a score of years previously used the drum. In this context he also mentions the names of the Saami shamans and the places where they lived. After citing some misconceptions of earlier Lappology beginning with the work of J. [[Schefferus, Johannes|Schefferus]] (1673), Laestadius presents his own views about the use of the drum; he considered that it was mainly used for oracular purposes and as an important accoutrement in sacrificial ritual ([[Sacrificials|Sacrifice]]). With his ecological orientation, Laestadius was interested in how the drum was manufactured; his description of the method of construction and the materials used is detailed. </P>
<P align="justify"> As far as actual sacrifices are concerned, Laestadius thought that most of the earlier sources described the sacrifices of the Lapps to the dead. His knowledge of the Lapps secret rites performed in connection with childbirth, baptism with alder bark, menstruation or diseases is relatively fresh compared with the old sources. At the end of this part, there is a description of Lapp bear rituals ([[The bear worship and ritual|Bear cult]]). Its inclusion here is justified by its close connection with the cult of sacrifice. His description follows that of P. Fjellström (1755). Laestadius defends his views about details of the bear hunt in the north with his zoological, ecological and mythological knowledge. The reader is given the feeling that he can follow in the footsteps of the writer to the very spot where the tracked-down bear is lying unsuspecting in its lair until the hunters awaken it. Laestadius considers that the Saami bear ritual followed the patterns described in Fjellström s mythical legends, but he lends his own interpretation to them.</P> <P align="justify"> Part 3, The Doctrine of Divination , contains a brief treatise on the notorious practice of sorcery among the Lapps ([[Noaidi (engl. ver.)|noiaidi]]; [[Shamanism|Shamanism]]). The description is enlivened with local colour and details, and it contains numerous personal comments. On the subject of divination, Laestadius takes the stance of a rational sceptic of the Enlightenment; however, after a thoroughgoing consideration of the matter, he is forced to admit that there is a place for rationally inexplicable phenomena. The associated question of the compatibility of the roles of mythologist and clergyman also come up in when he writes about the knowledge and functions of the Saami shamans: The writer, who is not himself a noaidi and has no desire to learn the art, is forced, after a thorough investigation, to bring forth truths which are difficult to explain away. This was consistent with his philosophical outlook: Yet a person s inside has the components of an existence which is not in place and time. He has an inborn sense of justice, a moral principle totally independent of place and time. He has a conception of a higher existence beyond place and time and a presentiment of a coming existence beyond time and place </P>
<P align="justify"> Part 4, Lapp legends,was intended by him to be the last part, and it deals with the Saami narrative tradition. In his work as a botanist, Laestadius followed in the footsteps of Linné in seeking out the flora of Lapland with such success that more plant species are named after him than any other botanist of Lapland. It is in a way the task of a scientist to discover the species created by God in the world. The mythologist is in a similar position, and he experiences the same pleasure in discovering the categories of myth in the minds and legends of man. Part 4 offers an interesting insight into the period with regard to the problem of categorizing Saami narrative folklore; for Laestadius the Lappish legends constituted the history of the people. In the nineteenth century, ethnography was generally regarded as the primary method of explicating ancient unwritten history. Although Laestadius did not use the word ethnography to describe his method, his mythology stands as an ambitious project for an ethnographic description of the Lappish people .</P>
<P align="justify"> Where Parts 1-3deal with mythology and rituals, Part 4 is a summary of the popular narrative tradition. It was compiled by a man who was himself an upholder of the tradition and a teller of tales (homo tradens), a mystic who himself underwent the experiences described (homo religiosus). In his attempt to deal only with genuine legends, the writer has striven to include information that was in his opinion of Lappish origin . In studying this collection of legends, it is worth bearing in mind the claim he makes in the introductory paragraph: Nevertheless the little that I will present is scarcely a tenth of that which still lives in the meory of the people. Many of Laestadius criticisms of Fellman are based on an attempt to eliminate foreign borrowed elements from authentic Lappish mythology; according to Laestadius assessment, this goal was lacking in Fellman's work. Laestadius considers that Fellman included in his work too many matters which were derived from Finnish folklore. In his long treatment of the seidi (sacred object), Laestadius suggests that his colleague may have confused the remains of Lappish and Finnish mythology with one another . Another difference is Laestadius attempt to interpret the mythology of the Lapps from the perspective of history. He seems to have read Fellman's work with a view to finding support for his own historical interpretations; this is evident, for example, in his view of the [[Stállu (engl. ver.)|stállu]] as representing the ancient Vikings.</P>
<P align="justify"> Laestadius Fragments was not an isolated, unique work; the composition of mythologies was a common undertaking amongst scholars at that time. Therefore, it is possible to approach the work as one link in a chain, in which it was preceded by Christian [[Ganander, Henrik|Ganander]]'s Mythologica Fennica (1789) and followed by M. A. Castrén s lectures on Finnish mythology (1851 52), and it was one of numerous mythologies produced all over Europe. For the writers of these, folk poetry, language and mythology were three sides of the same phenomenon, and they considered that they all represented the immemorial history of a people from different points of view. In those days, it should be noted, mythology and history had somewhat different meanings from their present-day significances. Another point is that some texts may have crossed the narrow border between mythology and history in the case of some peoples and become part of their sacrosanct history . In these processes, the writers who have dealt with the mythologies of their peoples have become mythographers of their sacrosanct history ; this was the case with the Finn Elias Lönnrot during his own lifetime and of Laestadius posthumously. </P>
<P align="justify"> Among the strong points of Laestadius Fragments are its incisive criticism of the sources and a knowledge of the subtle regional, local and individual aspects of Saami culture. Laestadius sharply criticized many earlier writers for their fantastic interpretations resulting from their inability to speak or understand Saami. As clergymen, they preferred to persecute the very persons, the shamans the wise ones or the priests of the people who according to Laestadius were initiated into the secrets of the Saami, and from whom, if they had adopted a wiser approach, they would have obtained genuine mythological information. Laestadius was the first folklorist to distinguish between the sacral expertise of the specialists in folk religion, the shamans, and that of ordinary people (the so-called collective tradition). He makes a comparative distinction between the common, local and individual traditions of the Saami and conclusively demonstrates that the claims and statements made by many other Lappologists were invalid. Laestadius lays great emphasis on the native knowledge of the inner household of the Lapps. This was the term he coined for the world view of the Lapps, or more broadly, their mentality and cultural idiom.</P>
<P align="justify"> Laestadius also makes his own contribution to the definition of mythology: With the term mythology I mean a general popular belief in supernatural beings and forces. All ideas of supernatural beings and phenomena, which are not part of the general folk belief, but pertain only to fantasies of individuals, do not, according to my simple mind, belong in mythology. If, however, a poetic painting, a frightened imagination, or a ghost story becomes integrated into general folk belief, it also enters the realm of mythology. Laestadius definition of mythology thus also includes folklore. His view of mythology can be compared to that of Lönnrot, who in his old version of the Kalevala (1835) consciously attempted to create for the Finns a mythology based on the folk runes of Karelia, while the New Kalevala (1849) was regarded as the sacrosanct history of the Finns. There where Lönnrot based the compilation of the Kalevala on folk poetry the so-called Kalevala rune singing tradition Laestadius wrote his mythology onthe basis of prose legends, some of which he found quoted in the works of earlier Lappologists, and some of which he heard about from his Saami informants, or which he sometimes heard in person. Like Castrén, he wrote his mythology in prose, not in verse. The spercifically Saami genre of juoiggus ([[Joik - traditional song|chanting]]) he did not hold in particularly high esteem musically, and the epic chant he was only acquainted with through Fellman s manuscript.</P>
<P align="justify"> Laestadius mythology works rather on the plane of experience than that of knowledge. He was aware that Fragments was in the end a conscious attempt on his part to create for the Lapps a mythology based on his own unique reconstruction, and he justified the result as follows: Since humans think in terms of time and place and one idea always gives rise to another, I have here presented Lappish mythology as a kind of system. </P> mythology as a kind of system. </P> +
|
