Talk:Väinämöinen

'Bout the joking one

There's some contradictions as pages in wikipedia to which this link claim that he had to save the brother through his singing or that the brother sunk him... 1:41 am 18/10/2006

---

Hi, I added a historical section, feel free to give me ideas on how to improve it and (of course) feel free to improve it yourself. I spent a lot of time on finding the sources as well so the claims would not be based on thin air. -Erik

That's interesting stuff, right enough. I've never delved too deeply in early Norse history, so I can't comment on the topic too much, but it is interesting. --Agamemnon2 04:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Historical viewpoints" section

Please give me one good reason why the section should not be removed right away.--JyriL ^talk 23:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As there was not a single reason given, I removed the nonsense.--217.112.249.156 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Birth of Väinämöinen

This sentence is completely incorrect: "Väinämöinen was floating at sea, while a bird came and laid eggs on his knee."

Väinämöinen was born "from Air-daughter" his mother. The bird, scaup, laid eggs on the Air-daughter's knee, not on Väinämöinen's knee. This is directly from the Keith Bosley's translation:

"So then the water-mother the water-mother, air-lass raised her knee out of the sea her shoulderblade from the wave for the scaup a nesting-place sweet land to live on.

That scaup, pretty bird glides and hovers; it spied the water-mother's knee on the bluish main; thought it was a grass hummock a clump of fresh sward.

It flutters, it glides and it lands on the kneecap. There it builds its nest laid its golden eggs: six eggs were of gold an iron egg the seventh.

It began to hatch the eggs to warm the kneecap: it hatched one day, it hatched two soon it hatched a third as well.

At that the water-mother the water-mother, air-lass feels that she is catching fire that her skin is smouldering; she thought her knee was ablaze all her sinews were melting.

And she jerked her knee and she shook her limbs: the eggs rolled in the water sink into the sea's billow; the eggs smashed to bits broke into pieces."

There is the problem of Ilmatar being a creation of Elias Lönnrot's, who took, twisted and mangled whatever Finnish folklore he had to in the misguided attempt of his to fabricate (in both senses of the word) a national epic of Finland. There is no one correct version of the tale. --Agamemnon2 06:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then there should be probably more sections (or even articles) on what "Väinämöinen" might mean according to various sources. We could have "Väinämöinen (Kalevala)", the Elias Lönnrot version, and a separate more archaic version. Väinämöinen definitely is a character from Kalevala, even if that differs from the even older conception of him or her. There is no reason why we couldn't discuss the Väinämöinen of Kalevala and the older Väinämöinen (or should I say "Veen Emonen") separately. After all, the Väinämöinen of Kalevala is much better known these days. (And after reading more, it seems we already have that discussion started there, good. :)

Historical viepoints section

I restored the section. If the information is correct, some mention should definitely be made of plausible historical antecedents to the mythical/literary figure of Väinämöinen, much as we would have in teh article about King Arthur. This is not to say that the mention should not be brief and to the point. If there is grounds for discounting the information in that section entirely, that is of course another matter. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 13:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I read it once more, and I have to say that it is a freely floating mixture of facts, mis-facts and personal innovation, and as a result to be omitted entirely. --Drieakko 14:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only say that Drieakko is 100 % correct in this question. Note: after writing this, I am going to register an username---130.234.5.136 11:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Done that--Kirmukarmu 11:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ilmatar

The first section "In mythology" should, IMO, only include matter from the collected runot or earlier. Anything created by Lonnrot should be in hisown section.

Currently we say he invented Ilmatar, yet mention her (rather trepetatively, but in more detail) in the first section.

Anyone able to clarify?

All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 13:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Sources

At present, this article is mostly uncoursed, most notably the 'In The Kalevala' section, which contains a lot of information, some of it quite the bold assertions to just leave unsourced. The wiki page for [[1]] does mention these views, (That Elias made quite a bit up,) but it is much more NPOV there, telling who holds this view, rather than asserting it as fact. --216.56.145.37 (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)