Herätys kylässä ja tuvissa : Rääkkylän Oravisalon kylä ja renqvistiläinen herätys 1820-luvulla

A Revival in a Village and its Households. The Village of Oravisalo in Rääkkylä Parish and the Renqvistist Revivalism in the 1820s. My purpose is to apply the science of religion and the study of past communities to the study of religious revivalism. Revivalism will be considered a religious phenomenon as well as a cultural and social phenomenon. What makes this study unique is the possibility to reconstruct a list of participating revivalists based on entries in the communion book of the time. The conflict between the revivalists and the chaplain of Rääkkylä also generated other documentary material. The community in Oravisalo was relatively stratified. People lived in complex and varying forms of households. They also had plentiful contacts both with unrelated inhabitants of Oravisalo and with the neighbouring villages. Through these contacts the inhabitants of Oravisalo were introduced to revivalism. In Oravisalo, the revival for the most part fell into a certain social stratum and did not severely damage existing relationships within families or among acquaintances. The revivalists formed a new community within the village but the community was neither very tightly-knit nor was it closed. The revival was an individual phenomenon affected by general factors. First, there were factors that brought about a quest for an applicable system of meanings. These factors included at least three important issues: the Great Partition of land, the crisis of slash-and-burn cultivation, and a population growth that increased the proportion of the landless in the village. As a result, many of the revivalists had low status and poor expectations for the future. Second, there were factors that appealed to the people in the message and character of the preacher, Henrik Renqvist. Third, the proximity of the village to Liperi, where the revival got its start, was crucial to revivalism s spread to Oravisalo. Culturally, the revival meant a change in the system of symbols or meanings, so it was not solely a matter of intensified religious fervour. For instance, Communion, prayer, reading, and perhaps baptism symbolised different things to the revivalists than to other villagers. However, the revivalists do not seem to have started any moral revolution in their village. The religious aspect defined the limits of the protest and the resistance towards authorities. The revivalists wanted only to have the right to follow their conscience. The freedom granted the female members was limited to the religious sphere. No social or economic claims were made. The revival altered the situation of its members only on a symbolic level, yet it also offered them status within their own group.

Suomi kasvitieteen kieleksi : Elias Lönnrot termistön kehittäjänä

The development of botanical Finnish: Elias Lönnrot as the creator of new terminology In the 19th century the Finnish language was intentionally developed to meet the demands of civilised society and Finnish-language science. The development of the language involved several people from different fields of science. This study examines this enormous project in the field of botany. By which methods were scientific terms formed, and for which reasons were those terms used? Why has a certain word been chosen to represent a particular concept? The material of this study is the terminology of plant morphology in Finnish that Elias Lönnrot developed in the middle of the 19th century. The terms of plant morphology denote and describe the parts of the plant and the relationships between those parts. For instance, the terms emi pistill , hede stamen , terälehti petal and verholehti sepal , which are nowadays familiar in the general language, were used for the first time in Lönnrot s texts. The study integrates the methods of lexicology and terminology. In lexicology, the word and its various meanings serve as the focus, whereas the theory of terminology focuses on the concept and concept systems. A new, consciously developed terminology can be understood through the old, familiar vocabulary and structures as well as through the new, logical term system. Lönnrot s botanical terminology can be divided into three groups depending on their origin: 1) 19% of all terms have been accepted from the existing vocabulary and used in their original meanings, 2) 11% of all terms have been chosen from the existing vocabulary and used in the new, specific botanical meanings, and 3) 70% of all terms have been created on the basis of the existing vocabulary and used in the new, specific botanical meanings. Therefore, the study reveals that domestic materials primarily morphosemantic neologisms form the Finnish terminology of plant morphology. Characteristic of Lönnrot s botanical terms is the utilisation of the vocabulary of various Finnish dialects and particular repeating elements. Repeating elements include, for example, the prefixes that come from botanical Latin or Swedish as well as the particular Finnish derivation types. Such structures form term systems that reflect scientific concept systems. Two thirds of the created new words are formed loosely or precisely according to either Latin or Swedish terms; one third is formed completely differently from its equivalents in the foreign languages. Approximately half of the chosen terms are formed differently from the Latin and Swedish terms. It is worth noting that many loan translations use rare vocabulary from Finnish dialects as equivalents to foreign parts of terms. Lönnrot aimed to inspire scientific terminology with Finland s own language, thus making scientific text accessible to the Finnish agricultural population.