From Moscow to Tartu: Layers of Latvian mythology

by Ivanov and Gamkrelidze, was already described in chapter II (p. 63–68).

Therefore here I will characterise the relationship of this reconstruction to the above-mentioned proto-myth as well as a particular interpretation of the Latvian mythology within the framework of mythopoetic studies by scholars of the Moscow-Tartu school of semiotics. In comparison to other research traditions characterised so far, this School is unique for several reasons. Leaving aside the already highlighted methodological facets and contradictory relations to the totalitarian state, its detachment from the previous research in the field might be emphasised, referring to it as neither positive, nor negative. The school’s theoretical particularity as well as massive advancement in research create the self-contained realm of knowledge within which a particular place is reserved for Latvian mythology. For the first time in history, obvious political impli-cations, characteristic to works written on the subject matter previously or at the same time in the LSSR, are obviously absent. Since complete analyses of the School’s heritage in Baltic and Indo-European scholarship requires study far beyond the scope of this thesis, the insight provided below is based on three selected articles – two on Latvian and one on Baltic mythology. On the one hand, the following analysis demonstrates how the School’s leading scholars, Ivanov and Toporov, relate the material on Latvian mythology to Indo-European proto-myth. On the other hand, it is intended to characterise the particular style of reasoning which allows and forms this relationship: the above-mentioned high arbitrariness of interpretation, diachronic comparison of cultural phenomena, almost Gnostic and trans-historical systematisation, and reduction to “origins”, related to the discourse on archaisms.

In the article “О мифопоетических основах латышских дайн” (“On the mythopoetic foundations of Latvian folksongs”, 1986) Ivanov emphasised the rich layer of mythological archaisms in Latvian folksongs, paying close attention to a particular motif related to proto-myth: the Heavenly Wedding of divine twins, articulated as the wedding of Dieva dēli (God’s Sons) and Saules meitas (Daughters of Sun). The reconstruction of Latvian mythology here was in a way subordinated to already reconstructed IE motif, in Ivanov’s words:

“The comparative-historical analysis shows that the plot comes from the common Indo-European motif of a partly successful or completely unsuccessful wedding of the divine twins, burdened with astral symbolism in the Latvian variation” (Иванов 1986: 6). Continuing the analysis, the Latvian deity Jumis was related to the same Indo-European twin motif, bearing linguistic resemblance with Vedic twin character Yama, who features in corresponding versions of the myth¹²⁹. Function-wise, the motif of the Heavenly Wedding is related to the prohibition of incest. Further analysis of the legal aspects beyond the proto-myth leads to one more pair (twin) figure in Latvian mythology. It is the pair of Heaven and Earth, related to creation of the world. According to Ivanov, all these three twin figures suggest the initial dual mythical opposi-tions – the very foundation of early Baltic and Slavonic mythological systems (Иванов 1986: 18). Unity of the oppositions can be represented also by similarly widespread androgenic motif or figure, also represented by the same Latvian Jumis in earlier variations of myth – before the emergence of his female counterpart (Jume, Jumala). Graphical representation of Jumis consists of two symbolic horse heads, corresponding to the motif of the divine twins, which are related to horses too. The Heavenly Wedding in Baltic mythology is often also articulated in ‘astronomical code’ – as the Wedding of the Sun and Moon or other anthropomorphised heavenly bodies. In this version of myth, folksongs frequently feature the figure of the Heavenly Smith or God-Smith, fighting with its mythical enemy. Introduction of this figure allowed Ivanov to unite Latvian folklore with Estonian and generally Baltic-Finnish and Scandinavian folklore (Иванов 1986: 24) as well as to refer to an older layer of mythology, the remains of the megalithic culture present in Europe long before the arrival of Indo-European tribes (cf. Иванов 1986: 25).

In addition, Toporov’s contribution demonstrates research into Latvian mythology almost exclusively from folksongs, but with a slightly different emphasis, folksongs as a source for the linguistic reconstruction of PIE mythology. In the article “К рекострукции одного цикла архаических мифопоетических представлэний в свете “Latvju dainas” (к 150-летию со дня рождения Кр. Барона)” (“On the reconstruction of the cycle of archaic

129 Both Jumis and Yama have their female counterparts in corresponding traditions.

However, the number of wedding parties varies both in Latvian traditions (one, two, or several Sons of God and one or several Daughters of Sun) as well as in comparison to other Indo-European groups, e.g. three and one in Celtic, or thirty and thirty in Hittite, traditions.

mythopoetic views in light of ‘Latvju dainas’ (on the 150th anniversary of Kr.

Barons’ birthday)”, 1986) Toporov emphasised the role of Latvian mythological folklore in reconstructing the thunder god’s opponent in proto-myth, a chthonic character related to linguistic form *Vel-¹³⁰. In folklore materials, partially due to more recent Christian influences, it is often Velns (Devil). Particular to Latvian mythology is the relation of this stem to a female character, Veļu māte (Mother of the Dead), while Velns, and the thunder god’s normal antagonists in other traditions, are male figures. Even though the Mother of the Dead might seem to belong to mythology other than IE (cf. Gimbutas 1963), the author suggests that both male and female Vel- characters represent two different storylines of the same proto-myth: the character of Velns is related to the fight with the thunder god, while Veļu māte denotes the realm of punishment where the opponent of the thunder god is imprisoned after the fight, respectively, the realm of the dead (Топоров 1986: 51). Regarding the tendency of IE dualism, Veļu māte in this plot might also be the female counterpart of Velns, acquiring this name from the cult of mythological Mothers particularly characteristic to Latvian mythology. Importantly, she can be related to Mother Earth, in her turn, a female counterpart of Father of Heaven (Dievs, God). As the thunder god is the transformation of this supreme deity, Toporov arrives at the conclusion that the Latvian Veļu māte is a unique source for the reconstruction of the name of thunder god’s wife in Indo-European proto-myth – *Vela (Топоров 1986: 52).

Her main characteristic is her relationship to death, her main attribute are the keys of the underworld. Symbolism of death also extends to the motif of water, often accompanying the Mother of the dead and the realm of the dead (for example, in some folksongs Veļu māte dwells in the sea). This relationship resembles the release of water at the end of the plot of proto-myth, thus showing a double binding of the *Vel- figures to the symbolism of water.

Ivanov and Toporov also provided a unique systematisation of Baltic (here including Latvian) mythology in seven levels, according to the function of the mythological being or character, level of anthropomorphisation, and topicality in human life. This highly abstract system was reconstructed on the basis of the mythologies of the Baltic tribes living south and west of the Baltic sea at the turn of first and second millennia AD, next to the Slavs and Baltic Finns (Ivanov and Toporov 1995: 112). Latvian mythology was reconstructed mainly from folklore materials; the authors also mention the important role of folk art (ethnographic items) in the course of the research. The linguistic data, applying the comparative-historical method, allowed them to separate the ancient IE level – the remains of the proto-myth and names of its characters. Overall, the authors analysis is somewhat reductive: “The main traits of Baltic mythology are manifested in the set of basic semantic oppositions, describing temporally-spatial, social, and evaluative characteristics of the world” (ibid.: 114). In this setting, the first level of Baltic mythology unites the higher deities belonging to

130 This is a linguistic proto-form.

the Pan-Baltic pantheon and mythological plots. In Latvian mythology these deities are Dievs, Pērkons, Dieva dēli, Saules meitas, Jumis, Velns, and probably also Zemes māte, i.e. characters of the proto-myth and Heavenly Wedding¹³¹. Another myth with common characters in all Baltic mythologies is the Heavenly Wedding between members of the Heavenly Family: Auseklis (the morning star), sun, moon, stars, Austra (morning blaze). The second level consists of deities related to agricultural cycles and particular functions related to seasonal rites. They include the Latvian Ūsiņš, mythological Mothers, and to some extent also Christian saints of vernacular religion, and spirits of locations or elements. The third level includes mythological characters with more abstract functions. For example, Laima (deity of fate), Death (Lithuanian Giltine), folkloristic characters doubling the deities of proto-myth, like Saule (Sun), Mēness (Moon), and other astral deities. The fourth level unites characters who start some historical tradition later mythologised. In some manifestation, individualised characters of proto-myth also belong here: Velns, Veļu māte, Jumis, as well as Lauma. The fifth level includes spirits and characters of folktales inhabiting forests, waters, fields, etc. To the sixth level belong classes of un-personalised and often un-anthropomorphised spirits. Such are fairies, witches, dwarfs, nightmares, werewolves, different kinds of ghosts, and mythologised snakes. Many Latvian mythological Mothers and Mājas kungs – Master of the House, the spirit of each homestead – are related to this level. The seventh level includes man in mythologised hypostasis, first of all as bearer of spirit and participant in ritual. Similarly, priests and seers, different ritual and cult practices, festivities, symbols, ritual items and texts, idols, and sanctuaries are related to this level (Ivanov and Toporov 1995). The necessity of such categorisation, nevertheless, remains unclear.

In summary, Latvian mythology within the works of Moscow-Tartu school of semiotics scholars was conceptualised primarily according to its relation to the IE proto-myth; syntagmatic structural analysis revealed the mythological system as a part of meta-text (the deities are defined primarily as ‘characters’ of mythical text) and diachronic comparative analysis validated this against the gridline of basic semantic oppositions and further developments of constitutive elements of the Indo-European worldview (thus allowing high variability and replacement of particular elements). This was localised in the timeless perspective of the text, unrelated to historical religious practice and religious experience, which are foregrounded in the approach to the subject matter from the perspective of the history of religion.

131 “In the most ancient reconstructed form of Baltic myth, one of the [divine] Twins was God’s son, another his daughter. But the further development of the plot, avoiding the obvious incestuous quality of this wedding between them, leads to a division of twin-brother into two brothers, accompanied by one sister” (Ivanov and Toporov 1995: 117).