Search

Copyright of Letonica is the property of University of Latvia, Institute of Literature, Folklore & Art and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The corpus of folksongs contains at least over one hundred patterns, which can be regarded as ritualistic threats. Ritualistic threats mainly were made in celebrations and feasts, most often - in the summer and the winter solstice, as well as weddings. The threateners, as already mentioned, mostly were "strangers", and the hosts were requested to give them treats. In Midsummer celebrations the threateners were called the Midsummer's children, who came to demand beer from the host and cheese, milk from the hostess. If the treat was not given, the singer alone or together with other boys threatened to tread out the host's barley field. The threats usually took an evil and destructive verbal form. When turning to the hostess, the threateners menaced her to destroy the cattle, namely, the cows belonging to the host family. At Christmas, the threateners were no longer called the Midsummer's children, but mummers. The addressees of the threats were similar to that of the Midsummer, namely, the hosts. The mummers usually threatened to break the established order of family home, regardless of the generous meal provided by the hosts. The mummers menaced the hosts' daughters with sexual abuse, and what is even more incomprehensible and weird - the hosts' sons were threatened by mummers' daughters. Obviously, these threats were made to awaken libido. The awakening in nature also meant the awakening of the human body. If in the summer and winter solstice the ritualistic threats were linked to the destruction of fields, livestock and people, then in weddings the threats were made mainly in the form of possible sexual aggression. The redirection of aggression works best, if it has a ritualistic scenario, developed by previous generations. The best scenario is based not on physical force or weapons, but on "a sharp tongue" - mutual chaffing in songs. The ritual aggression, which is reflected in our folksongs, is a vivid example of how coexistence was possible without doing harm to each other - neighbours or villages. At the same time, it is an example of how ritualistic threats can be transposed not only to peaceful cohabitation, but also to friendship and love. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For several centuries Latvian moral values have been rooted, on the one hand, in folklore traditions, and, on the other hand, in Christianity. The first one was based on oral testimonies that were not written down or defined in a rational manner (folksongs, folk beliefs, proverbs, fairy tales and customs), the latter - on written and rationally defined sources. In the folklore tradition the taboo was expressed in a symbolic way as two or three options for action. In the case of the wrong choice, the consequences were negative, if the choice was right - positive. It can be defined as the morality of fairy tales, and it is a morality without moralizing. In Christianity “you shall not” was expressed directly and obviously - in Ten Commandments or various compilations of secular laws (with the respective indications of punishment). The first system was established following the ideas on the concreteness of the world and things. It is also attested by the meaning of the respective attributes tikumīgs, lietīgs, godīgs, gantīgs, ķītrs (‘virtuous', ‘decent', ‘honest') in folklore texts, which only in a lengthy process of evolution acquired a certain level of abstraction in Latvian language. In the second system, the generalizations of the moral values dominated. In the first system, the notion of shame was active, in the second system - the notion of sin. However, neither the first, nor the second system managed to function according to one and the same standard in relation to “us” and the “others”, to create morality per se. Both ethical systems had strict boundaries, which only a few dared to cross. Whereas in the 21st century, when the principle of moral relativism has become more popular, we can expect the transformation of boundaries between the possibility and impossibility of any ethical norms, as well as the renewal and new additions to the vocabulary related to this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides an insight in the materials that the author has collected over the meetings with Arturs Baumanis in person in 1988. During several conversations the author took notes on Baumanis' stories about himself and his contemporaries—writers and cultural workers—as well as about writing the trilogy Hernhūtieši (The Herrnhutians). During these conversations photographs of Arturs Baumanis were taken, and over the years, it has turned out that these pictures are nearly the only publicly accessible visual representations of him. Likewise, the author collected additional notes written by Baumanis on the creative process of Hernhūtieši, as well as his biographical notes. So far they have been published only partially. The article provides a broader perspective on these notes, revealing significant sources of inspiration for Baumanis' creative work. In the context with these conversations and notes the second part of the article examines the architectural features of the Herrnhutian gathering houses. The research carried out by architects Pauls Kundziņš and Roberts Legzdiņš is the most important one in this aspect, and the specific pattern of the pillars of these houses has been particularly emphasised by these authors. It confirms that the Herrnhutians built their cult buildings completely on their own without any external influence. The forms of the pillars were not related to the style of the official architecture of the time at all. Pauls Kundziņš refers these peculiar forms of pillars to the Early Middle Ages. The artist and ethnographic scholar Jēkabs Bīne has written about the parallels of these architectonic details in the art of Lithuanians, ancient Prussians, ancient Indians, Norwegians, the Karelians, etc. This architectonic detail had not only a practical, but also a sacral function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Latvian wooden house (in a broader context—wooden houses) so far have been examined mostly within the disciplines of history or ethnography. Only a few studies (in the 1920s and 1930s) may be referred to a house as an object of folklore and/or mythology. On the grounds of Latvian folklore material, as well as the field studies carried out by the author over a decade (2003-2013) in Latvian regions and Latvian diaspora in Russia (Siberia) and Belarus, the outer shell of a house (walls, roof, windows, door) and its mythical-magical functions in folk opinion have been analysed. The author has come to a conclusion that gradually the boundary between the binary polarisation “us and the other”, “to be protected—to be unprotected”, “our space—the other space”, “secured and open” that were so crucial in the folk tradition has been dismantled. The “skin” of the house, to a great extent, has lost its significant function of protection rooted in the tradition, preserving only the practical function—guarding from cold or heat, and partially the aesthetic function—which of the house owners have a more beautiful or unusual paintwork or the design elements of the external wall. At the same time, nowadays there is a tendency to return to the protection signs of the house (pentagrams, octograms, etc.), whose meaning is rooted in the ancient mythical and magical ideas about the isomorphism and periodic renewal of the house (microspace) and the world (macrospace). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]