Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T03:23:36.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Myth of a Finno-Ugrian Community in Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Sirkka Saarinen
Sirkka Saarinen*
Affiliation:
University of Turku, Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scholars had already suggested the relationship of some Finno-Ugrian languages in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but the linguistic affinity of the Finno-Ugrian languages was proven only at the end of the eighteenth century by two Hungarian pioneers of comparative linguistics, János Sajnovics and Sámuel Gyarmathi. Henrik Gabriel Porthan (1739-1804), professor of rhetoric and a great humanist, brought their ideas to Finland. He was strongly influenced by August Ludwig Schlözer, author of a comprehensive and critical survey of the history of the Finno-Ugrian peoples. Having studied Sajnovics' work in Göttingen, Porthan published an extensive account of it in a Finnish newspaper in 1779, demolishing previous ideas about the kinship between Finnish and Hebrew. Porthan urged Finnish scholars to investigate the Finno-Ugrian languages of Russia, of which very little was then known (some lists of words and short grammars were all that was available).

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 41 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Similar ideas about the affinity of Hungarian and Hebrew, Greek, or the Turkic languages were common in Hungary, too. To some extent they survived into the nineteenth century.Google Scholar

2. See Michael Branch, “The Finno-Ugrian Peoples,” The Great Bear. A Thematic Anthology of Oral Poetry in the Finno-Ugrian Languages. Finnish Literature Society Editions, Vol. 533 (Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, 1993), pp. 25–41; Mikko Korhonen, Finno-Ugrian Language Studies in Finland 1828–1918 (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1986), pp. 31–33.Google Scholar

3. Honko, Lauri, “The Kalevala: The Processual View,” in Lauri Honko, ed., Religion, Myth, and Folklore in the World's Epics (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990), pp. 181–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. At the time, scholars were unable to distinguish between linguistic and genetic affinity.Google Scholar

5. Honko, ibid., p. 204.Google Scholar

6. Cf. Korhonen, op. cit., pp. 109–110; Sirkka Saarinen, “Fennougristiikka ei-eurooppalaisten kansojen tutkimuksena,” in Tuomo Melasuo, ed., Wallinista Wideriin. Suomalaisen kolmannen maailman tutkimuksen perinteistä (Tampere: Suomen Rauhantut-kimusyhdistys, 1984), pp. 79–115.Google Scholar

7. Péter Hajdu and Péter Domokos, Uráli nyelvrokonaink (Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 1980); Miklós Zsirai, Finnugor rokonságunk (Budapest: Trezor Kiadó, 1994 [1937]).Google Scholar

8. See Rein Taagepera's article in this volume.Google Scholar

9. This notion has gained new supporters in the 1990s since the fall of the Soviet Union. Some Hungarians claim that Finno-Ugrian affinity is a communist plot that can be abandoned together with the ideas of brotherhood of the socialist countries.Google Scholar

10. Cf. Gustav Ollik's and Matti Pesonen's speeches to kindred peoples in Fenno-Ugria 1925 (Helsinki: Suomalaisuuden liiton sukukansajaosto, 1925), pp. 15–25, 100-103.Google Scholar

11. See, for example, Sanukov, Ksenofont, “Stalinist Terror in the Mari Republic: The Attack on ‘Finno-Ugrian Bourgeois Nationalism’,” Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 74, No. 4, 1996, pp. 658–682; Sirkka Saarinen, “Myrskyn lehto,” Elias, No. 3, 1989, pp. 4–9; F. K. Ermakov, Kuzebai Gerd (Izhevsk: Udmurtiia, 1994).Google Scholar

12. In Finland one political organization, the Academic Karelian Society (1922-1944), originally a radical right-wing student movement, was striving towards a Greater Finland, which meant expanding Finland's territory to the east and annexing East Karelia and Ingria. This idea already had been justified on ethnic grounds during the period of autonomy: Finland's national boundaries were to be determined on a linguistic basis. When Finland became independent, East Karelia and Ingria, where most of the Kalevala poetry had been collected and where Finnish dialects were spoken, remained in Russian hands. Some members of the Finnish intelligentsia, among them prominent folklorists, were active members of the Academic Karelian Society, whereas Finnish Finno-Ugrists wanted to stay neutral. The Finnish government was negative in its attitude to the strivings for a Greater Finland. For more details see William A. Wilson, “The Kalevala and Finnish Politics,” in Felix J. Oinas, ed., Folklore, Nationalism and Politics (Columbus: Slavica, 1978), pp. 51–75; Risto Alapuro, Akateeminen Karjala-Seura (Porvoo-Helsinki: WSOY, 1973); Jouko Vahtola, Suomi suureksi—Viena vapaaksi (Rovaniemi: Pohjois-Suomen Historiallinen Yhdistys, 1988); Matti Klinge, Vihan veljistä valtiososialismiin (Porvoo-Helsinki: WSOY, 1972).Google Scholar

13. See, for example, V. N. Demin, “Slovo o V. I. Lytkine,” in V. I. Lytkin i finno-ugorskii mir (Syktyvkar: Ministerstvo po delam natsional'nostei Respubliki Komi, 1999), pp. 5–14; Ermakov, op. cit., p. 38; Saarinen, “Myrskyn lehto,” p. 6; Alpo Juntunen, “SOFIN kansainvälisessä yhteydessä,” Journal de la Société Finno-Ougrienne, Vol. 88, 1999, pp. 39–47. On the SOFIN trials in Udmurtia see K. I. Kulikov, Delo “SOFIN” (Izhevsk: Udmurtskii institut istorii, iazyka i literatury UrO RAN, 1997).Google Scholar

14. See Antti Heikkilä, “Suomen ja Unkarin kohtalonyhteys toisessa maailmansodassa Suomen Budapestin-lähetystön raporttien valossa,” Castrenianumin toimitteita, Vol. 47, 1994, pp. 13–27.Google Scholar

15. Tuomi, Tuomo, “Sanakirjatyötä ja tiedepolitiikkaa,” in Juri Viikberg, ed., Inter dialectos nominaque. Pühendusteos Mari Mustale 11. novembril 2000 (Tallinn: Eesti Keele Instituut, 2000), pp. 375–387; Eero Saarenheimo, “Presidentti Kekkosen avaus Viroon,” Kieliposti, No. 4, 1989, pp. 4–13.Google Scholar

16. See Seppo Lallukka's and Rein Taagepera's articles in this volume.Google Scholar

17. Wilson, “The Kalevala and Finnish politics,” p. 51.Google Scholar