Personalities and theories: Kārlis Straubergs

A scholar I have mentioned already multiple times, Kārlis Straubergs (1890–

1962) illustrates extremely well the combination of political, cultural and academic activities, all of them benefiting from each other. Briefly, Straubergs acquired a degree in classical philology in the University of Moscow and studied archaeology at Moscow’s Institute of Archaeology, after returning to Latvia obtaining a Doctor of Philology degree at the University of Latvia.

Straubergs later provided courses on Greek and Latin antiquities, magic and Latvian mythology. His education definitely influenced both the themes he was interested in and the methods of analysis he used. Thus, for example, the fundamental edition of Latvian charms (Straubergs 1939–1941) was preceded by extensive research into magic in Greek antiquity. In general, Straubergs’

writings on witchcraft and charms resemble archaeology of discourse: while searching for the roots of particular Latvian charms, he introduces the reader to traditions of medieval European, Ancient Greek, and even Cabalistic magic.

While chairing the Archives of Latvian Folklore, he published several articles on the history of Latvian folkloristics and its most ancient sources, also authoring the entry on Latvian mythology in the prestigious Latviešu kon-versācijas vārdnīca (LKV) – the largest lexicon published in interwar Latvia.

Regarding the mythical cosmogony, Straubergs introduced the theory of vertical and horizontal divisions of the world, an outcome of the cross-genre analysis of

folklore texts. In comparison to other researchers, he had paid a lot of attention to the questions of cult accompanying mythical narratives. Religion consists of three facets: cult, dogma, and myth, as Straubergs states in the entry on Latvian mythology in the LKV (Straubergs: 1934–1935). Although there is no evidence of ancient Latvian religious dogma, and because evidence of cult (from the historical records and archaeological findings) and the remains of myths are not so easy to connect, Straubergs further defines his object of study as “Latvian religious thought”.

Straubergs could be considered a follower of Šmits, especially regarding this entry in LKV. Many references to Šmits’ Latvian mythology are also within the articles “Viņa saule” (“The other world”, 1922) and “Pasaules jūra” (“World Sea”, 1937), analysed in detail below (p. 134–137). In general, Straubergs most often compared the mythological and religious elements from historical records with the materials of Latvian folklore, avoiding parallels of too broad a scale.

He was cautious regarding the folksongs, but explored historical records comparatively more than fellow scholars. Consequently, of all researchers of Latvian mythology, the broadest circle of references to medieval and early modern historical records belongs to Straubergs, often borrowing them from Mannhardt’s works. Interestingly, in the LKV entry on Latvian mythology he not once referred to folksongs; from other genres only some customs and beliefs are mentioned – everything else is taken from Šmits’ Latvian mythology. In the longer term, his comparative scope evolved: in “The Other World” Latvian mythology was compared only with Ancient Greek and Latin sources, for example the works of Homer, Vergil, Lucian and others; fifteen years later, in

“World Sea” Egyptian, Russian and, according to his own words, “traditions of many other people” are also mentioned. Multiple references to different Euro-pean people, especially the Celts and Scandinavians, are encountered in works published after World War II (e.g. Straubergs 1948 and 1957). Straubergs most extensively manifests his interest in the mythical netherworld within the latter work, articulated for the first time in the works published in the 1920s (p. 143–

146).

Referential practices in Straubergs’ writings on folklore may testify to his insecurity in a relatively unfamiliar field, combined with the pressure of the high administrative position he occupied in it. Like other authors of this time (e.g. Šmits 2009 [1918]; Adamovičs 1937), Straubergs established a stance claiming distance from the outdated nineteenth century theories; however, in between he related solar mythology represented by Max Müller and similar authors to the “Sun henotheism of Macrobius⁸²” (Straubergs 1922: 615); this, again, says more about the author’s background than the sources of the grand comparative projects he refers to. A more extended overview of older mythological theories was included in the article “Grieķu mītu iztulkošana un

82 Ambrosius Theodosius Macrobius, fl. 410–30 CE, a senior civil servant of the Western Empire and Latin encyclopedist.

mitoloģiskās teorijas” (“Interpretation of Greek myths and mythological theories”, 1926), covering the history of the research of myths from the ancient Greeks to the beginning of the twentieth century. Here the most up-to-date theories were summarised under the term ‘anthropological direction’. Strau-bergs conducted his own research in contrast to the heritage of great nineteenth century and fin de siècle projects, defined as belonging to outdated theories:

here Sir Edward Burnett Tylor and Herbert Spencer were categorised as animists, while Sir James George Frazer was categorised as a pre-animist, as were Wilhelm Wundt and Emil Rhode.

In brief, Straubergs interpreted mythology simultaneously as a philologist and historian or archaeologist. The latter feature, accompanied by extensive historiographical grounding of almost every question observed, allows us to draw close parallels between the works of Straubergs and Švābe. Straubergs’

statement that it is necessary to research common Latvian-Estonian folklore material to “separate alien – Russian and German – influences” (Straubergs 1933: 19) is interesting in relation to the dominant theories about the common origin of Latvians and Lithuanians that also involve common mythology.

Nevertheless, this statement was made by an official figure – the head of the Archives of Latvian Folklore and chairman of the Latviešu-Igauņu biedrība (Latvian-Estonian Society), in the context of not-so-happy relations with Estonian colleagues (cf. Treija 2010) and published in the bilingual Society’s newspaper.

Characterising the internal dynamics of the field, in Latviešu folklora (Latvian folklore, 1940: 587) Straubergs pointed out traits of criticised theories in the works of his contemporaries: “Professor Adamovičs sees mana-like beliefs in the ancient Latvian Jumis and Laima. In Pūķis he finds characteristics of fetishism; professor A. Švābe sees totemism in the cult of oak and lime-tree”.

Straubergs also criticised Eduards Zicāns⁸³ for “overly direct references to Mannhardt” (Straubergs 1937: 172). I will further outline the relationship between Straubergs’ political involvement and knowledge production (p. 126–

130), as well as more detailed analysis of his writings on mythological space (p. 134–137 and 143–146). Summarising so far, the scholarly activities of Straubergs were more inclined to analysis (and later also editing) of sources rather than building systematic research regarding mythological subject matters.

Mythology was intimately connected to other research areas, determined by his background, interests and the positions held.

83 Professor at University of Latvia (1942–1944), Dr. Theol. Eduards Zicāns (1884–1946) authored few articles on particular motifs of Latvian mythology, majority in German.

1.5. Personalities and theories: The phenomenologists