The creation of Latvian mythology: The first pantheons

involving scholarly authority and corresponding institutions are rather recent phenomena. Historical records are more or less of an incidental character due to the circumstances of their creation and discovery, and folklore collections were originally formed within the agenda of the mass movement. Similar tendencies can also be found in reconstructions of Latvian mythology, based on these sources. Simultaneously to the accumulation of the sources the first efforts of interpretation also appeared. For example, large-scale comparative projects created outside the territory of Latvia and contributing to the main develop-ments of the discipline in Western Europe, like Leopold von Schroeder’s Arische Religion (1914). The most well known instances of this trajectory are Wilhelm Mannhardt’s Die Lettischen Sonnenmythen (1875) and Letto-Preussische Gotterlehre (1870), promoting the theory of solar mythology.

Despite the decline of the solar trend of interpretation, the latter collection of texts remains one of the most comprehensive resources relating to the historical records on the ancient Baltic tribes. On the other hand, pseudo-mythological pantheons were published in the local media, invented by national romanticists who, following the textual wide-spread and historical textual practice, tended to construct Latvian mythology according to Prussian or even Ancient Greek examples. This tendency corresponded to discovery of national mythologies, established by the publication of Deutsche Mythologie by Jacob Grimm (1835) and the role of such enterprise in building of the national idea (cf. Leerssen 2006). However, the first fabulae – hierarchic catalogues with short expla-nations – of presumably Latvian gods were published already by Einhorn (1636), Lange (1777) and Stender (1783). The latter, comparatively easily available, informed many national romanticists in the search for, and creation of, the Latvian past (cf. Pūtelis 2000). Similarly, if not more inspiring, was the idyllic scene of ancient Latvian and Estonian life, conjured by Garlieb Merkel (1769–1850) in Die Vorzeit Liefland (1798) and Wannem Ymanta: Eine lettische Sage (1802). “Merkel was a somewhat pathos-ridden romantic firebrand of Livonia-Latvia, who had imbibed Voltaire, Rousseau and Herder in equal measure, and whose publicistic activism bore on social justice and literature alike” (Puhvel 2003. Online). Still, Merkel did not invent any deities,

he just composed his pantheon from previously published Old Prussian, Lithuanian and Latvian catalogues (cf. Rozenbergs 1997).

As Merkel created historical vision of Livland that included both Latvian and Estonian parts according to his agenda, shared Latvian and Lithuanian history was depicted in rather similar manner by Lithuanian historian Teodor Narbutt (1784–1864), also serving as a source of inspiration for Latvian romantic nationalists. The first effort to create a Latvian national pantheon by an ethnic Latvian, based on Teodor Narbutt’s Mitologia litewska (Lithuanian mythology), the first part of Dzieje starożytne narodu litewskiego (History of Lithuanian nation), was carried out by Juris Alunāns (1832–1864) in 1856 (cf.

Prusinowska 2008). Alunāns was one of the central personalities in the early years of the Neo-Latvian movement⁵³: a translator, one of the founders of national poetry, and developer of the modern Latvian language. As many Neo-Latvians, he studied at the University of Dorpat (Tartu). His article “Latviešu valoda” (“Latvian language”; Mājas viesis, 1858, no. 19) could be considered as a manifesto of early Latvian nationalistic ideology (Priedīte and Sočņevs 1995: 373). In other article, “Dievi un gari, kādus vecie latvieši citkārt cienījuši” (“Gods and spirits, once venerated by ancient Latvians”; Mājas viesis 1856, no. 23), he lists more than twenty names of mythological beings, some genuinely Latvian, like Saule, Laima, or Pērkons, some purely invented like Anšlavs un Pramšāns, and some from Old Prussian like Potrimps and Pakuls.

The same list some years later was extended and arranged in a hierarchical table by another poet and Neo-Latvian Auseklis (Miķelis Krogzemis, 1850–1879), and also published as genuine (see Auseklis 1923: 545–550). Auseklis had composed several poetic legends on the Golden Age in Latvian history, featuring mythological persons and motifs. Auseklis’ metaphor Castle of Light is repeated by multiple authors for more than a century and is still an often-encountered trope in nationalistic discourse today. However, the best known

“poetic pantheon” comes from “the council of gods” scene in the Latvian national epic Lāčplēsis (Bearslayer) composed by Andrejs Pumpurs (1841–

1902) in 1888, bearing great resemblance to the ancient Greek pantheon.

The steeds of Perkons saddled in the court, With trappings glowing waited in the morn;

The sun’s first rays a dazzling glitter brought, As polished harness glinted in the dawn.

And Patrimps, God of Plenty, held in yokes His beeswax-yellow steeds with flowing manes;

53 Lat.: Jaunlatvieši, a name adopted by local historians for members of ‘first national awakening’, a movement similar to those in other Eastern and Central European countries.

The term Young Latvia (junges Lettland) appeared in public for the first time in the review of Alunāns’ collection of poetry and translations Dziesmiņas by pastor Wilhelm Brasche (Brasche 1856).

Of golden stalks his winged chariot’s spokes- Its course ensures the timely suns and rains.

Dread Pakols, God of Death, had horses black, Yoked closely to his sledge of human bones;

Of ribs the runners, driver’s seat and back, Shinbones as shafts, arrayed in sombre tones.

While Antrimps, of the Sea, had steeds all scaled, And chariot swift of reeds of ocean green.

Of shells whose beauty yet was still unpaled Its supple seat was formed, as could be seen.

And Liga fair, the Goddess of sweet Song, In flower-decked chariot seated high in state, By swiftest horses queen-like drawn along, With Puskaitis passed through the Rainbow Gate.

The Gods’ proud Sons, all mounted brave and bold, On fiery steeds into the courtyard rode.

Their saddles shone, their bridles gleamed with gold, With diamond bits their snorting horses glowed.

Soon Austra, Morning Goddess, came in haste, And Laima too, the greatest Goddess there, While Tikla, Virtue’s Goddess stern and chaste, Thence travelled fast, bedecked with roses fair.

Last, drawn by prancing stallions swift and strong, Up came the beauteous Daughters of the Sun.

Firm holding golden reins they dashed along;

A flower-strewn course their chariots thence had run

(Pumpurs 2006 [1888]).

The English translation presented here is written in verse, while the Latvian original consists of 4 700 lines in free verse. Highly eclectic, this poem echoes the romantic world of Auseklis’ writings, refers to Latvian and Estonian folklore, and certainly reflects the pan-European tendency of discovering or composing national epics in the nineteenth century (cf. Taterka 2010; Leerssen 2006). The conceptual axis of the epic here is Neo-Latvians ideas inspired by Garlieb Merkel (cf. Rozenbergs 1997). Plot, characteristic to fairytale, is projected upon the historical situation of the thirteenth century. It is an idyllic world, easy to identify with contrasting oppositions: ancient gods, Lāčplēsis and his people on the one side, and chthonic creatures, German conquerors and Latvian traitors on the other side. At the same time, Lāčplēsis was by no means a unique composition, regarding both its aims and mythology-related content:

between 1860 and 1890 about ten longer or shorter compositions intended to represent Latvian epic poetry were made, some of them equally celebrated by the general public and discussed by literary critics (Bula 2002). Pumpurs’

composition turned out to be the most successful in the long-term, now for more than century shaping the national imagery and providing a particular version of Latvian mythology.

From the point of view of historical reception, the researcher of new religious movements Agita Misāne doubts that the authors of these invented gods seriously believed in their existence and suggests that

it rather must be considered as a cultural-national play or clumsy endeavour of research, inspired by intellectual atmosphere of this time. (...) Poets praised gods, whose cult was never directly suggested, which symbolised the bright and clear spiritual constitution of the lost Latvian Golden Age. With this the value of ancient Latvian religiosity was acknowledged, the one characterised as pagan brutality by Baltic German authors, apart from it being opposed to Christianity on the conceptual level

(Misāne 2005).

However, as many examples from the previous chapter suggest, the invented mythological beings exist in the public realm with the same epistemic status as deities discovered by academic researchers. Mythological images, surviving from the times of tribal society or invented just recently, circulate between different domains of knowledge with or without scholarly claimed authenticity.