Viktor Rydberg: A Critique
William P. Reaves
Historica Danica; by Frederick Powell (1905):
SAXO'S MYTHOLOGY.
No one has commented upon Saxo's mythology with such brilliancy,
such minute consideration, and such success as the Swedish
scholar, Victor Rydberg. More than occasionally he is over-
ingenious and over-anxious to reduce chaos to order; sometimes he
almost loses his faithful reader in the maze he treads so easily
and confidently, and sometimes he stumbles badly. But he has
placed the whole subject on a fresh footing, and much that is to
follow will be drawn from his "Teutonic Mythology" (cited here
from the English version by Rasmus B. Anderson, London, 1889, as
"T.M.").
Let us take first some of the incontestable results of his
investigations that affect Saxo.
SCIOLD is the father of Gram in Saxo, and the son of Sceaf in
other older authorities. Dr. Rydberg (97-101) forms the
following equations for the Sciolding patriarchs: --
a. Scef -- Heimdal -- Rig.
b. Sciold -- Borgar -- Jarl.
c. Gram -- Halfdan -- Koning.
Chief among the mythic tales that concern Saxo are the various
portions of the Svipdag-Myth, which Dr. Rydberg has been able to
complete with much success. They may be resumed briefly as
follows: --
Svipdag, helped by the incantations of his dead mother, whom he
had raised from the dead to teach him spells of protection, sets
forth on his quests. He is the Odysseus of the Teutonic
mythology. He desires to avenge his father on Halfdan that slew
him. To this end he must have a weapon of might against
Halfdan's club. The Moon-god tells him of the blade Thjasse
has forged. It has been stolen by Mimir (Nidhad), who has gone out into
the cold wilderness on the rim of the world. Svipdag achieves
the sword, and defeats and slays Halfdan. He now buys a wife,
Menglad, of her kinsmen the gods by the gift of the sword, which
thus passes into Frey's hands.
How he established a claim upon Frey, and who Menglad was, is
explained in Saxo's story of Eric, where the characters may be
identified thus: --
Svipdag -- Eric
Freya -- Gunwara
Frey -- Frode III
Njord -- Fridlaf
Wuldor -- Roller
Thor -- Brac
Giants -- The Greps
Giants -- Coller.
Frey and Freya had been carried off by the giants, and Svipdag
and his faithful friend resolve to get them back for the Anses,
who bewail their absence. They journey to Monster-land, win back
the lady, who ultimately is to become the hero's wife, and return
her to her kindred; but her brother can only be rescued by his
father Njord. It is by wit rather than by force that Svipdag is
successful here.
The third journey of Svipdag is undertaken on Frey's behalf; he
goes under the name of Skirner to woo giant Gymer's daughter
Gerd for his brother-in-law, buying her with the sword that he
himself had paid to Frey as his sister's bride-price. So the
sword gets back to the giants again.
Svipdag's dead foe Halfdan left two young "avengers", Hadding and
Guthorm, whom he seeks to slay. But Thor-Brac gives them in
charge of two giant brothers. Vagnhofdi took care of Hadding,
Hafli of Guthorm. Swipdag made peace with Guthorm, in a way not
fully explained to us, but Hadding took up the blood-feud as soon
as he was old enough.
Hadding was befriended by a woman, who took him to the Underworld
-- the story is only half told in Saxo, unluckily -- and by
Odin, who took him over-sea wrapt in his mantle as they rode
Sleipner over the waves; but here again Saxo either had not the
whole story before him, or he wished to abridge it for some
reason or prejudice, and the only result of this astonishing
pilgrimage is that Odin gives the young hero some useful
counsels. He falls into captivity, entrapped by Loki (for what
reason again we are left to guess), and is exposed to wild
beasts, but he slays the wolf that attacks him, and eating its
heart as Odin had bidden him, he gains wisdom and foresight.
Prepared by these adventures, he gets Guthorm to join him (how or
why the peace between him and Svipdag was broken, we know not),
and they attack their father's slayer, but are defeated, though
Odin sunk Asmund Svipdag's son's ship, Grio, at Hlessey, and
Vagnhofdi and Hardgrep his daughter fought for Hadding.
Hadding wanders off to the East with his foster-sister and
mistress and Hardgrep, who is slain protecting him against an
angry ghost raised from the Underworld by her spells. However,
helped by Heimdal and Odin (who at this time was an exile),
Hadding's ultimate success is assured.
When Odin came back to power, Svipdag, whose violence and pride
grew horribly upon him, was exiled, possibly by some device of
his foes, and took upon him, whether by will or doom, a sea-
monster's shape. His faithful wife follows him over land and
sea, but is not able to save him. He is met by Hadding and,
after a fierce fight, slain. Svipdag's wife cursed the
conqueror, and he was obliged to institute an annual sacrifice to
Frey (her brother) at Uppsala, who annuls the curse. Loki, in
seal's guise, tried to steal the necklace of Freya at the Reef of
Treasures, where Svipdag was slain, but Heimdal, also in seal-
skin, fought him, and recovered it for the gods.
Other myths having reference to the goddesses appear in Saxo.
There is the story of "Heimdal and Sol", which Dr. Rydberg has
recognised in the tale of Alf and Alfhild. The same tale of how
the god won the sun for his wife appears in the mediaeval German
King Ruther (in which title Dr. Rydberg sees Hrutr, a name of the
ram-headed god).
The story of "Othar" (Oðr) and "Syritha" (Sigrid) is obviously
that of Freya and her lover. She has been stolen by the giants, owing
to the wiles of her waiting-maid, Loke's helper, the evil witch
Angrbode. Oðr seeks her, finds her, slays the evil giant who
keeps her in the cave; but she is still bewitched, her hair
knotted into a hard, horny mass, her eyes void of brightness.
Unable to gain recognition he lets her go, and she is made by a
giantess to herd her flocks. Again found by Oðr, and again
refusing to recognise him, she is let go again. But this time
she flies to the world of men, and takes service with Oðr's mother
and father. Here, after a trial of her love, she and Oðr are
reconciled. Sywald (Sigwald), her father, weds Oðr's sister.
The tale of the vengeance of Balder is more clearly given by the
Dane, and with a comic force that recalls the Aristophanic fun of
Loka-senna. It appears that the story had a sequel which only
Saxo gives. Odin had the giantess Angrbode, who stole Freya,
punished. Frey, whose mother-in-law she was, took up her
quarrel, and accusing Woden of sorcery and dressing up like a
woman to betray Wrind, got him banished. While in exile Wuldor
takes Odin's place and name, and Odin lives on earth, part of
the time at least, with Skade Thjasse's daughter, who had parted
from Njord.
The giants now resolved to attack Asgard; and Odin, under the
name of Yggr, warned the gods, who recall him after ten years'
exile.
But for Saxo this part of the story of the wars of the gods would
be very fragmentary.
The "Hildiger story", where a father slays his son unwittingly,
and then falls at his brother's hand, a tale combining the Rustam
and the Balin-Balan types, is one of the Hilding tragedies, and
curiously preserved in the late "Saga of Asmund the Champions'
bane". It is an antithesis, as Dr. Rydberg remarks, to the
Hildebrand and Hadubrand story, where father and son must fight
and are reconciled.
The "story of Orwandel" (the analogue of Orion the Hunter) must
be gathered chiefly from the prose Edda. He was a huntsman, big
enough and brave enough to cope with giants. He was the friend
of Thor, the husband of Groa, the father of Svipdag, the enemy of
giant Coller and the monster Sela. The story of his birth, and
of his being blinded, are lost apparently in the Teutonic
stories, unless we may suppose that the bleeding of Robin Hood
till he could not see by the traitorous prioress is the last
remains of the story of the great archer's death.
Great part of the troubles which befell the gods arose from the
antagonism of the sons of Iwalde and the brethren Sindri and
Brokk (Cinder and Brank), rival artist families; and it was owing
to the retirement of their artist foster-parents that Frey and
Freya were left among the giants. The Hniflung hoard is also
supposed to have consisted of the treasures of one band of
primaeval artists, the sons of Ivaldi.
Whether we have here the phenomenon of mythological doublets
belonging to different tribes, or whether we have already among
these early names that descent of story which has led to an
adventure of Moses being attributed to Garibaldi, given to
Theodoric the king the adventures of Theodoric the god, taken
Arthur to Rome, and Charles the Great to Constantinople, it is
hard to say.
The skeleton-key of identification, used even as ably as Dr.
Rydberg uses it, will not pick every mythologic lock, though it
undoubtedly has opened many hitherto closed. The truth is that
man is a finite animal; that he has a limited number of types of
legend; that these legends, as long as they live and exist, are
excessively prehensile; that, like the opossum, they can swing
from tree to tree without falling; as one tree dies out of memory
they pass on to another. When they are scared away by what is
called exact intelligence from the tall forest of great
personalities, they contrive to live humbly clinging to such bare
plain stocks and poles (Tis and Jack and Cinderella) as enable
them to find a precarious perch.
To drop similitudes, we must be prepared, in unravelling our
tangled mythology, to go through several processes. We must, of
course, note the parallelisms and get back to the earliest
attribution-names we can find. But all system is of late
creation, it does not begin till a certain political stage, a
stage where the myths of coalescing clans come into contact, and
an official settlement is attempted by some school of poets or
priests. Moreover, systematization is never so complete that it
effaces all the earlier state of things. Behind the official
systems of Homer and Hesiod lies the actual chaos of local faiths
preserved for us by Pausanias and other mythographers. The
common factors in the various local faiths are much the majority
among the factors they each possess; and many of these common
factors are exceedingly primitive, and resolve themselves into
answers to the questions that children still ask, still receiving
no answer but myth -- that is, poetic and subjective hypothesis,
containing as much truth as they can receive or their inventors
can grasp.
Who were our forbears? How did day and night, sun and moon,
earth and water, and fire come? How did the animals come? Why
has the bear no tail? Why are fishes dumb, the swallow cleft-
tail? How did evil come? Why did men begin to quarrel? How did
death arise? What will the end be? Why do dead persons come
back? What do the dead do? What is the earth shaped like? Who
invented tools and weapons, and musical instruments, and how?
When did kings and chiefs first come?
From accepted answers to such questions most of the huge mass of
mythology arises. Man makes his gods in his own image, and the
doctrines of omen, coincidence, and correspondence helped by
incessant and imperfect observation and logic, bring about a
system of religious observance, of magic and ritual, and all the
masses of folly and cruelty, hope and faith, and even charity,
that group about their inventions, and seem to be the necessary
steps in the onward path of progressive races.
When to these we add the true and exaggerated memories of actual
heroes, the material before the student is pretty completely
comprised. Though he must be prepared to meet the difficulties
caused in the contact of races, of civilisations, by the
conversion of persons holding one set of mythical ideas to belief
in another set of different, more attractive, and often more
advanced stage.
The task of arriving at the scientific, speculative ethic, and
the actual practice of our remote ancestry (for to that end is
the student of mythology and folk-lore aiming) is not therefore
easy. Nor is the record perfect, though it is not so poor in
most cases as was once believed. The Brothers Grimm, patriarchs
alike as mythologists and folk-lorists, the Castor and Pollox of
our studies, have proved this as regards the Teutonic nations,
just as they showed us, by many a striking example, that in great
part folk-lore was the mythology of to-day, and mythology the
folk-lore of yesterday.
In many cases we are helped by quite modern material to make out
some puzzle that an old tale presents, and there is little doubt
but that the present activity in the field of folklore will not
only result in fresh matter but in fresh methods freshly applied.
The Scandinavian material, at all events, is particularly rich:
there is the extensive Icelandic written literature touching the
ninth and tenth and eleventh centuries; the noble, if fragmentary
remains of Old Northern poetry of the Wickingtide; and lastly,
the mass of tradition which, surviving in oral form, and changing
in colour from generation to generation, was first recorded in
part in the seventeenth, and again in part, in the present
century; and all these yield a plentiful field for research. But
their evidence gains immensely by the existence of Saxo's nine
books of traditional and mythic lore, collected and written down
in an age when much that was antique and heathen was passing away
forever. The gratitude due to the Welshman of the twelfth
century, whose garnered hoard has enriched so many poets and
romances from his day to now, is no less due to the twelfth-
century Dane, whose faithful and eloquent enthusiasm has swept
much dust from antique time, and saved us such a story as
Shakespeare has not disdained to consecrate to highest use. Not
only Celtic and Teutonic lore are the richer for these two men,
but the whole Western world of thought and speech. In the
history of modern literature, it is but right that by the side of
Geoffrey an honourable place should be maintained for Saxo, and
"awake remembrance of these mighty dead."
-- Oliver Elton
Rorik
>From the introduction to Oliver Elton's translation of Saxo Grammaticus'
>Historica Danica; by Frederick Powell (1905):
Hej, William:
It's clear that Powell was impressed by Rydberg, but as you know, many
things that were considered fresh and exciting in 1905 are no longer taken
very seriously by Norse scholars. I would still be interested in your
responses to the unanswered questions I addressed to your last couple of
messages. For your convenience I'll repeat them here:
1. What is the basis of your statement that Snorri got his version of
Baldr's death from Húsdrápa, given that Húsdrápa does not mention Baldr's
death?
2. What is the basis of your statement that Skirnir goes to find Baldr in
Hel?
3. What source supports your statement that "ása synir" in Álvismál 16
refers to a race of men living in Hel, instead of its common meaning as a
poetic term for the Æsir?
4. What source supports your statemnt that Nanna returns from Hel?
regards,
rorik
William P. Reaves
>as you know, many things that were considered fresh and exciting in 1905
are no longer taken
very seriously by Norse scholars.
Yes, many theories have come and gone. It was very popular in Rydberg's day
to equate the Norse myths with the Bible, and assign a Biblical origin to
them. Odin=God, Balder=Christ, etc. Not surprisingly, Snorri's works The
Edda and Heimskringla were often cited as evidence to support this theory.
The scholars of Rydberg's day also often altered the texts of the older
heathen poems to better reflect Snorri's Christianized account of the
heathen religion. Sadly, some of these text changes are held up today,
since the original words of the text don't seem to make sense. I can give
you several examples of this, and show the confusion it perpetuates. Unlike
these scholars, who held to the premise that the Germanic religion was a
loose collection of disjoined myths, about a family of gods that varied
from place to place, tribe to tribe, era to era; Rydberg, like Tacitus, saw
the unity of culture and religion within the Germanic peoples.
The Grande Dame of Norse scholarship, Hilda Davidson rejects Rydberg's
theory solely on the basis that he saw a system in the poems of the Elder
Edda, that spoke of a connected mythological epic spanning from the
Ginnungagap to Ragnarok. Rydberg's theory has merit, and the argument
Rydberg presents for it still holds up today as it is based solely on the
unaltered texts of the source material rather than any popular theories. In
fact, Rydberg's first work in the field of Old Germanic religion was a
paper in defense of the European (and ultimately Indo-European) roots of
the Old Norse poetry, intended to counteract the popular theory that the
Eddaic poems were derived from the Roman Sybiline Oracles put forth by a
future Swedish Bishop in the late 1870s. Having studied the earliest
Christian documents and making a critical examination of the Bible, Rydberg
was uniquely qualified to comment in this area. His investigations are on
the cutting edge of modern scholarship.His work has never been fully
critically examined, but pieces of it have been accepted by every scholar
that has commented on it in depth beginning with the German school. Lack of
scholarly criticism of the book, and the fact that it has fallen out of
print (and perhaps that it is incomplete in English, being only the first
volume of a two volume work) have all contributited to allowing Rydberg's
theories to go dormant.
> I would still be interested in your responses to the unanswered questions
I addressed to your last couple of messages. For your convenience I'll
repeat them here:
>1. What is the basis of your statement that Snorri got his version of
Baldr's death from Húsdrápa, given that Húsdrápa does not mention Baldr's
death?
But few verses from Husdrapa survive, and these are perserved by Snorri
Sturluson in Skaldskaparmal. When Snorri speaks of Balder's death in
Gylfaginning. He mirrors the words of the poem. Two examples should
suffice:
(Anthony Faulkes translation)
From verses of Husdrapa preserved in Skaldskaparmal:
"Battle-skilled Freyr rides in front of Odin's son's (Balder's) pyre on
golden-bistled boar and governs hosts"
From Gylfaginning 49 (A. Faulkes): while Freyr drove in a chariot with a
boar called Gullinbrusti
Husdrapa: "The most powerful mountain-Hild (giantess) made the sea-Sleipnir
(ship) lumber forward, while Hropt's (Odin's) beserkers felled her steed"
Gylfaginning: "So they sent to Giantland for a giantess named Hyrokkin. And
when she arrived, riding a wolf and using vipers as reins, she dismounted
from her steed, and Odin summoned four beserks to look after the mount, and
they were unable to hold it without knocking it down."
Snorri quotes many verses by this poet, Ulf Uggasson, demonstrating that he
likely knew the whole poem Husdrapa. The index in the back of the Faulkes
translation also supports this view (see Husdrapa in the index).
We know that the Husdrapa was composed to commemorate pictures carved on
the walls of a hall at Hjardarholt (Laxadeala Saga 32). Thus if the
surviving verses of the poem describe Balder's funeral, it is likely that
the spoke of Balder's death as well. A logical look at Snorri's account of
Balder's death indicates that it is ephemized, and unlikely in the context
of the other accounts we have (for example, that Loki would stand beside
Hodr and guide his hand, throwing a sprig of raw mistletoe is unlikely).
If Snorri took the account of Balder's death from Husdrapa, this would
explain the unlikely circumstances, since the poem describes a pictorial
representation of the myth, rather than an actual narrative account. Thus
in pictures, Loki is depicted beside Hodr to show that he planned the
murder, and Hodr is depicted with his eyes closed to show that he acts
blindly. That Hodr is blind is highly unlikely as the poets speak of his
byrnie and shield. Hodr is known as a warrior, an archer, and a
dragon-slayer (He is also known as Hedin, Haecynth, and Loddfafnir).
>2. What is the basis of your statement that Skirnir goes to find Baldr in
Hel?
Using the story of Hermod found in the Old English poem Beowulf, it is
possible to identify him with both Skirnir and Freyja's husband Odr. The
names Svipdag, Odr, Hermod, Skirnir, and Erik, all refer to the son of Egil
(Volund's brother) who rescues Freyja and Frey from the giants, and
captures the Volund Sword and brings it to Asgard. Fjolsvinsmal speaks
extensively of this sword. It is kept beneath Mimir's tree. In Skirnismal
32, Skirnir threathens Gerd with this sword. He says to he "I went to the
Holt, and to the juicy tree, Gambanteinn to get, gamnbanteinn I got." In
other words, he went to Mimis-Holt to fetch Volund's sword (captured by
Nidhad-Mimir). The sword is "gambanteinn" the rod of revenge, as Volund
forged it to avenge the insult to him and his brothers, the Sons of Ivaldi,
in the contest of the artists.
It is too lengthy to go into here, but I am both capable and willing to lay
it out. The argument is found in the third book of the English translation
of Volume 1 of Rydberg's Investigations in Germanic Mythology.
>3. What source supports your statement that "ása synir" in Álvismál 16
refers to a race of men living in Hel, instead of its common meaning as a
poetic term for the Æsir?
A comparision of eevry use of the term "asa synir" and similar phrases such
as "asa lithar." Logically, why would the Aesir be called asa synir, sons
of the Aesir?
In Vegtamsvida 7 we find the Aesir's sons in "ofvaeni," in anticipation, in
suspense. While in verse 6, Odin sees a hall with decorated benches and
mead poured out in glasses. Someone decorated these benches, could it not
be the same people who were in "anticipation" --the residents of Hel who
wanted Balder there, who were happy he was coming to live with them?
Could these not be the "mennskir menn" the living men by Mimir's root of
Yggdrassil (Grimnismal 31); the same Lif and Lifthrasir in Hodd-Mimis Holt
(Vafthrudnismal 42), who return to the new earth with Balder? There in the
grass they find the golden game pieces that the gods played with in the
early days (Voluspa 8, 58). As we know Balder traveled to Hel, in the
underworld. This new world, risen from the sea, is thus none other than
Hel. Balder has not moved. It is the true heathen underworld, and the
fields of Urd and Mimir, rather than the Christianized Hel of the Younger
Edda.
In Saxo Book 1 when Hadding comes to the lower world, he is taken to a
castle wall, which he is not allowed enter and when his host pulls of the
head of a rooster and throws it over the wall, the head returns and the
bird comes to life. It is this castle where Balder abides.
>4. What source supports your statemnt that Nanna returns from Hel?
There is no source for this, yet I still believe it to be true. Nanna
follows Balder to Hel, and it is likely she, like Hodr, remains with him
after Ragnarok.
Wassail, William
Rorik
Thank you for answering my questions. To follow up a little:
>>1. What is the basis of your statement that Snorri got his version of
>Baldr's death from Húsdrápa, given that Húsdrápa does not mention Baldr's
>death?
>
>But few verses from Husdrapa survive, and these are preserved by Snorri
>Sturluson in Skaldskaparmal. When Snorri speaks of Balder's death in
>Gylfaginning. He mirrors the words of the poem. Two examples should
>suffice:
As your examples demonstrate, Snorri is _not_ speaking of Baldr's death in
these passages; he is speaking of Baldr's funeral, which is in fact depicted
in Húsdrápa.
>Snorri quotes many verses by this poet, Ulf Uggasson, demonstrating that he
>likely knew the whole poem Husdrapa. . . .
> We know that the Husdrapa was composed to commemorate pictures carved on
>the walls of a hall at Hjardarholt (Laxadeala Saga 32). Thus if the
>surviving verses of the poem describe Balder's funeral, it is likely that
>the spoke of Balder's death as well.
I don't see where the "thus" comes from. The fact that the poem dealt with
subject A does not lead to any logical inference that it also dealt with
subject B. The verses that have survived skip around over a number of
unrelated themes, and a hall is, after all, only so big.
>If Snorri took the account of Balder's death from Husdrapa, this would
>explain the unlikely circumstances, since the poem describes a pictorial
>representation of the myth, rather than an actual narrative account. Thus
>in pictures, Loki is depicted beside Hodr to show that he planned the
>murder, and Hodr is depicted with his eyes closed to show that he acts
>blindly.
Another problematic "thus." Having speculated that a missing part of
Húsdrápa might have dealt with Baldr's death, you have now moved on to
imagining what these nonexistent verses might have contained. This seems
very slim evidence to support your conclusion that Snorri was mistaken about
Baldr's death because he was basing his account on Húsdrápa.
>>2. What is the basis of your statement that Skirnir goes to find Baldr in
>>Hel?
>
>Using the story of Hermod found in the Old English poem Beowulf, it is
>possible to identify him with both Skirnir and Freyja's husband Odr. The
>names Svipdag, Odr, Hermod, Skirnir, and Erik, all refer to the son of Egil
>(Volund's brother) who rescues Freyja and Frey from the giants....
>The argument is found in the third book of the English translation of
>Volume 1 of Rydberg's Investigations in Germanic Mythology.
Umm ... okay, next question.
>>3. What source supports your statement that "ása synir" in Álvismál 16
>refers to a race of men living in Hel, instead of its common meaning as a
>poetic term for the Æsir?
>
>A comparison of every use of the term "asa synir" and similar phrases such
>as "asa lithar." Logically, why would the Aesir be called asa synir, sons
>of the Aesir?
Because we're dealing with poetry, not logic. Not only does a term like
"ása synir" add interest and variety to a verse, sometimes you need a term
for the gods that alliterates with a word beginning with "s."
>>4. What source supports your statement that Nanna returns from Hel?
>
>There is no source for this, yet I still believe it to be true.
Okay, but when you say, "Balder who resided in Hel, his brother Hodr, and
his wife Nanna, all residents of Hel return," in the midst of what purports
to be a scholarly essay, don't you think you should indicate that there is
no basis in the lore for this statement?
Wassail,
rorik
Cloudchaser Hawk
"William P. Reaves" wrote:
>
> The Grande Dame of Norse scholarship, Hilda Davidson rejects Rydberg's
> theory solely on the basis that he saw a system in the poems of the Elder
> Edda, that spoke of a connected mythological epic spanning from the
> Ginnungagap to Ragnarok. Rydberg's theory has merit, and the argument
how could she do that? We all know: Rydberg is Allfather and Reaves is his
prophet!
cch
ro...@yolo.com
Cloudchaser Hawk <cloudch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>We all know: Rydberg is Allfather and Reaves is his prophet!
>
This sort of comment doesn't do anyone much credit. If everyone on this list
spent as much time researching the lore and reporting their findings as
William does, we'd all be a lot better off. It seems to me that his
eagerness to find holistic patterns sometimes causes his conclusions to
outrun his analysis, but that's what the present dialogue is about.
William's posts have increased my understanding of a number of obscure points
in the lore, and frankly I don't recall yours having done so.
regards,
rorik
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
William P. Reaves
>Thank you for answering my questions. To follow up a little:
>As your examples demonstrate, Snorri is _not_ speaking of Baldr's death in
these passages; he is speaking of Baldr's funeral, which is in fact
depicted
in Húsdrápa.
True, this is a supposition. However, Balder's death and funeral likely
would be told together, even as Snorri does. And it does explain the
descrepancies between the Edaic references, and Snorri's account, and even
draws closer to Saxo's version (which is mingled with elements of Odr's
tale, and Saxo apparently combined Hodr and Odr in this tale) As for
speculating what was in the missing verses--- look at the Balder story told
by Snorri:
Loki stands beside Hodr. We are told that the gods stand in a ring around
Balder throwing and shooting. Wouldn't the gods have seen the true culprit?
They don't discover Loki's part until Lokasenna, and even there he is
ambiguous.
Why would the gods allow a frost-giantess, especially this one Hyrokinn
(the fire-smoked), who can be identified with Gullveig-Heid-Aurboda into
Asgard and even touch Balder's ship? Aurboda lives in the far east in the
Ironwood, and is more likely a symbol of the east wind blowing Balder's
ship out to sea. She is a known emeny of the gods. Aurboda is Gymir's wife,
and twice Snorri quotes a verse that says something to the effect that
"Gymir's primeaval-cold vala blows ships into Aegir's jaws" (again, I'll
look it up if asked, I'm on my my to work at the present)
Why does Thor needlessly kick a dwarf into the funeral fire? And why is
Loki once called Litr? Could this "Litr" have been a fish in the carving to
indicate that Loki like Aurboda played a part in Balder's death? The gods
would not kill Hodr since it was holy ground, yet a giantess and a dwarf
are killed at Balder's pyre!
Why does Snorri say that Hodr is blind, when other poets speak of his
weapons, his byrnie, etc And Hodr can be identified with Hedinn and
Loddfafnir who cannot be blind.
How does one account for the Balder myth in Saxo, which parallels Rydberg's
version much more closely once the euphemism's are withdrawn?
How does one reconcile the fact that Hel's hall in Snorri has a table of
hunger and a knife of starvation, its decorations are despair--- and the
hall in Vegtamskvida which awaits Balder decorated with gold-rings, and
mead already poured out for him in goblets?
Why would Hel allow a minor god like Hermod to enter Hel and leave again at
will, and never once have Hel herself appear in the story? Who is this
Hermod, why is he chosen for the task?
Why would Freyr ride Gullinbursti to the funeral when he is known to ride a
horse? (This smacks of a pictorical representation of him, in order to
distinquish him from other horse-riding gods. The gods are shown with their
symbols to readily identify them to the viewer of the carving.)
These questions are of course rhetorical, but Snorri's story reveals a lack
of understanding about the nature of these myths. This is the Teutonic
mythologies most serious and solemn event, and he unintentionally
introduces comic elements. If he took the Husdrapa as a literal account of
the myth, rather than a description of pictures on a wall, this would
immediately explain the descrepancies. (Rydberg writes several pages on
this---- I will do a point by point breakdown if you wish)
>>Thus if the
>surviving verses of the poem describe Balder's funeral, it is likely that
>the spoke of Balder's death as well.
>I don't see where the "thus" comes from. The fact that the poem dealt
with
subject A does not lead to any logical inference that it also dealt with
subject B. The verses that have survived skip around over a number of
unrelated themes, and a hall is, after all, only so big.
Subject A and Subject B in this instance are intimately connected, and
likely would be told together.
Thor's battle with the Midgard serpent, and Loki's struggle with Heimdall
over Brisingamen are also depicted on the walls--- and according to the
description in Laxadeala saga it was a rather large hall---- so the size in
this case is not really a factor. But I will agree the material engraved is
finate.
In regard to "unrelated themes," when you see the mythology as an epic (and
I believe the ancient Northmen did see it this way), it's all related. One
obvious thread I can see that connects these 3 myths is Loki. Perhaps the
theme of the hall was Loki, if it had a theme at all.
>Another problematic "thus." Having speculated that a missing part of
Húsdrápa might have dealt with Baldr's death, you have now moved on to
imagining what these nonexistent verses might have contained. This seems
very slim evidence to support your conclusion that Snorri was mistaken
about
Baldr's death because he was basing his account on Húsdrápa.
Snorri's tale can be disproven in other ways-- or at least serious doubt
can be raised. The "Husdrapa Argument" explains how Snorri arrived at
these. It is not the basis of the argument that Snorri was mistaken-- its
the explanation of why. Snorri's tale is flawed in a numer of significant
ways (as the questions above indicate, and to which more can be added).
From the Husdrapa Argument I gave few examples. The reasons taken as a
whole are quite convincing (at least to me). Once understood this way, the
myth becomes much more serious and realistic-- and a previously
unrecognized myth about Hodr opens up. Balder and Hodr struggle over Nanna,
and later Loki frames Hodr for the murder with a magical arrow. The gods
believe he is the killer because he and Balder had once been rivals and
enemies-- Aurboda gave Hodr a love-potion, so she too played a role in
this.
>Because we're dealing with poetry, not logic. Not only does a term like
"ása synir" add interest and variety to a verse, sometimes you need a term
for the gods that alliterates with a word beginning with "s."
First, I beg to differ: Poetry is based on logical principles--- and Norse
poetic formations are always based in logic, and have logical explantions.
A ship is a sea-horse, because men ride ships across the sea as one rides a
horse over a meadow. The sea can thus also be called a meadow (as it is in
Thorsdrapa)
In that case, we should find other formations like Vana synir, and Dvergar
synir, meaning Vans and Dwarves, but be don't. Nor does this hypothesis
explain all the occurances of the terms Asa synir and Asa lithar. If you
wish we can go over them, there's only about 4 or 5 of them. It is a
specialized term, and in Alvismal, I believe it specifies a portion of that
group that the poem refers to as "those in Hel"
>Okay, but when you say, "Balder who resided in Hel, his brother Hodr, and
his wife Nanna, all residents of Hel return," in the midst of what purports
to be a scholarly essay, don't you think you should indicate that there is
no basis in the lore for this statement?
I don't feel that is necessary simply because the lore supports such a view
and offers nothing to contradict it. Nanna is depicted as a faithful wife
to Balder, we know she too resides in Hel's hall, thus she likely returns
with him, since the new world is nothing but the current underworld (Hel)
where Balder and Nanna reside. Do you know of anything that would
contradict this?
I have and will continue to share my sources. Feel free to question.
Wassail, William
Rorik
>How does one account for the Balder myth in Saxo, which parallels Rydberg's
version much more closely once the euphemisms are withdrawn?>
I don't think that being closer to Rydberg is necessarily a valid criterion
for judging the correctness of Saxo's version of Baldr's death. We have two
(and only two) conflicting versions of the story--Snorri's and Saxo's. We
know that Saxo's was written expressly under Christian auspices, at the
direction of Absalom, archbishop of Lund, while Snorri's was written as a
private venture to preserve the meaning of the old poetic kennings. To me,
the really puzzling question is why Rydberg (or you) would assume that
Saxo's version is the more accurate. (Leaving aside the possibility, which
is widely accepted among scholars today, that both versions of the myth were
current simultaneously in different parts of Scandinavia.)
>Snorri's story reveals a lack of understanding about the nature of these
myths.>
Compared to whose understanding? Rydberg's? Yours? Snorri wrote at a time
when Asatru was still a living religion for many people in Scandinavia. He
had the benefit of immense scholarly resources that have since been lost.
He studied and wrote in this field his entire adult life. It seems to me it
takes immense hubris to just casually say, "Well, Snorri didn't understand
these myths 700 years ago, but of course I have a much superior grasp of
them today." Rydberg, of course, didn't even have access to the normalized
critical editions of the texts that we take for granted as providing the
first step in modern scholarly analysis.
>[H]e unintentionally introduces comic elements.>
Again, why do you assume this was unintentional, unless you are convinced
you know the myths better than Snorri did?
>Subject A [Baldr's funeral] and Subject B [Balder's death] in this instance
are intimately connected, and likely would be told together. ... [A]ccording
to the description in Laxadeala saga it was a rather large hall---- so the
size in this case is not really a factor.>
On reflection, I would admit that the size of the hall is less likely to
have been a constraint than the length of the poem. Twelve verses of
Húsdrápa have survived, and none of them mention Baldr's death. We know
that 20 verses was considered a good length for a poem to be presented to a
king. How many verses would Ulfr have written as a housewarming gift for a
farmer? We can't know, of course. All we know for certain is there is no
direct or indirect evidence of any kind that the poem dealt with Baldr's
death.
>> Having speculated that a missing part of Húsdrápa might have dealt with
Baldr's death, you have now moved on to imagining what these nonexistent
verses might have contained. This seems very slim evidence to support your
conclusion that Snorri was mistaken about Baldr's death because he was
basing his account on Húsdrápa.>>
>Snorri's tale can be disproven in other ways-- or at least serious doubt
can be raised. The "Husdrapa Argument" explains how Snorri arrived at
these. >
But this just adds another missing term to the equation. Now you seem to be
saying that IF Snorri was mistaken about Baldr's death, and IF the missing
verses of Húsdrápa dealt with this subject, THEN Snorri may have gotten his
[hypothetical] misinformation from Húsdrápa. This thesis seems even more
attenuated than what I originally thought you were saying. (Although I
admit you are on much firmer ground than the other poster who recently
suggested that Snorri didn't have access to Húsdrápa at all!)
>>Not only does a term like "ása synir" add interest and variety to a verse,
sometimes you need a term for the gods that alliterates with a word
beginning with "s.">>
>...In that case, we should find other formations like Vana synir, and
Dvergar
synir, meaning Vans and Dwarves, but we don't.>
Actually we do, in a way. Although I have no examples at hand I believe
dwarfs are poetically referred to as ____ synir, where you fill in the blank
with a known Dwarf name, depending on what the alliteration requires.
>Asa synir ... is a specialized term, and in Alvismal, I believe it
specifies a portion of that group that the poem refers to as "those in
Hel.">
I disagree. If you look at Álvismál 16, the term "ása synir" is used to
alliterate with "alskír," where the more literal "æsir" would not have
provided enough syllables to fill out the line. The term "í helju,"
referring to those in Hel, is used to alliterate with "hvél" (v.14), "hjálm
huliz" (v. 18), "hviðuð" (v.20), "hröðuð" (v.26), and "hnipinn" (v.32). The
only exception to this pattern is verse 34, which seems to use a more
complex alliteration scheme, linking together the 4th and 5th lines
(hreinalög/helju). The whole poem seems to be driven by alliteration, not
literal content.
>>[W]hen you say, "Balder who resided in Hel, his brother Hodr, and his wife
Nanna, all residents of Hel return," in the midst of what purports to be a
scholarly essay, don't you think you should indicate that there is no basis
in the lore for this statement?>>
>I don't feel that is necessary simply because the lore supports such a view
and offers nothing to contradict it. Nanna is depicted as a faithful wife to
Balder, we know she too resides in Hel's hall, thus she likely returns with
him, since the new world is nothing but the current underworld (Hel) where
Balder and Nanna reside. Do you know of anything that would contradict
this?>
No, not at all. I simply believe your credibility would be enhanced, and
your analysis would be more useful, if you tossed in an occasional "I
think," or "it may well be" to mark those parts of your material that
represent your own deductions, as opposed to obscure facts you have brought
to light that are expressly supported by the primary sources. Just my
opinion.
Keep up the good work.
Wassail,
rorik
Susan Granquist
On 9 Apr 1999, William P. Reaves wrote:
> Hej Rorik,
>
> >as you know, many things that were considered fresh and exciting in 1905
> are no longer taken
> very seriously by Norse scholars.
>
> Yes, many theories have come and gone. It was very popular in Rydberg's day
> to equate the Norse myths with the Bible, and assign a Biblical origin to
> them. Odin=God, Balder=Christ, etc. Not surprisingly, Snorri's works The
> Edda and Heimskringla were often cited as evidence to support this theory.
> The scholars of Rydberg's day also often altered the texts of the older
> heathen poems to better reflect Snorri's Christianized account of the
> heathen religion. Sadly, some of these text changes are held up today,
> since the original words of the text don't seem to make sense. I can give
> you several examples of this, and show the confusion it perpetuates. Unlike
> these scholars, who held to the premise that the Germanic religion was a
> loose collection of disjoined myths, about a family of gods that varied
> from place to place, tribe to tribe, era to era; Rydberg, like Tacitus, saw
> the unity of culture and religion within the Germanic peoples.
As he said, many of the ideas that seemed fresh and exciting in 1905 are
no longer taken that seriously. One of those ideas is the "unity of
culture and religion." Tacitus mentions some distinct differences among
the tribes he's describing, despite some similarities.
Rydberg applied his own Christian and then current scientific theories to
the lore and "interpreted" it to suit his theories.
> The Grande Dame of Norse scholarship, Hilda Davidson rejects Rydberg's
> theory solely on the basis that he saw a system in the poems of the Elder
> Edda, that spoke of a connected mythological epic spanning from the
> Ginnungagap to Ragnarok. Rydberg's theory has merit, and the argument
> Rydberg presents for it still holds up today as it is based solely on the
> unaltered texts of the source material rather than any popular theories. In
What specific unaltered texts show the material in the older Eddas in one
long epic form? The "Elder" Edda is a collection of poems that come from
different periods and by different poets, some of which have clear
historical precedents. There's nothing like the Samhitas with the four
Vedas is there? If not, Hilda Davidson's evaluation is correct as you
stated it.
> fact, Rydberg's first work in the field of Old Germanic religion was a
> paper in defense of the European (and ultimately Indo-European) roots of
> the Old Norse poetry, intended to counteract the popular theory that the
> Eddaic poems were derived from the Roman Sybiline Oracles put forth by a
> future Swedish Bishop in the late 1870s. Having studied the earliest
You do realize that if both are Indo-European groups that htey would have
common origins, which is reflected in the similarities? What has been
discovered since the early 1900s is that there are common origins rather
than either being totally different or origination from one or the
other. They werne't likely totally independent of each other either.
> Christian documents and making a critical examination of the Bible, Rydberg
> was uniquely qualified to comment in this area. His investigations are on
> the cutting edge of modern scholarship.His work has never been fully
> critically examined, but pieces of it have been accepted by every scholar
It has been critically examined.
> that has commented on it in depth beginning with the German school. Lack of
> scholarly criticism of the book, and the fact that it has fallen out of
If you can't find scholarly criticism of his work it's probably because
you're looking at current scholars such as Davidson instead of the earlier
part of this century, the few decades following publication of his work.
That's true of any scholarly publication. Some of his ideas are still
around as they proved to be sound, while the others were discarded.
It's in the same classification as Robert Graves' _White Goddess_. both
were poets, both saw underlying themes, and both are far more imaginative
then scientific in their approach. Both are worth reading if not taken
too seriously and critical thinking is applied.
> print (and perhaps that it is incomplete in English, being only the first
> volume of a two volume work) have all contributited to allowing Rydberg's
> theories to go dormant.
With so many Rydberg fans around (and web-sites) one wonders why. Perhaps
it didn't possess the timeless qualities of his other work? Or that it's
outside his field of expertise?
> > I would still be interested in your responses to the unanswered questions
> I addressed to your last couple of messages. For your convenience I'll
> repeat them here:
>
> >1. What is the basis of your statement that Snorri got his version of
> Baldr's death from Húsdrápa, given that Húsdrápa does not mention Baldr's
> death?
>
> But few verses from Husdrapa survive, and these are perserved by Snorri
> Sturluson in Skaldskaparmal. When Snorri speaks of Balder's death in
> Gylfaginning. He mirrors the words of the poem. Two examples should
> suffice:
>
> (Anthony Faulkes translation)
>
> From verses of Husdrapa preserved in Skaldskaparmal:
>
> "Battle-skilled Freyr rides in front of Odin's son's (Balder's) pyre on
> golden-bistled boar and governs hosts"
These are allusions (in the form of kennings) to the story in the
Husdrapa, not proof that Snorri got his version from this poem. His Edda
was an attempt ot explain such kennings/allusions to poets so they could
understand them and use them.
> Snorri quotes many verses by this poet, Ulf Uggasson, demonstrating that
> he likely knew the whole poem Husdrapa. The index in the back of the
> Faulkes translation also supports this view (see Husdrapa in the index).
Snorri likely did know the poem, but that hardly means that it was the
was the only source of the story. Saxo's version differs, but mostly in
the matter of presentation and the cause of his death. The two can be
reconciled quite easily.
> We know that the Husdrapa was composed to commemorate pictures carved on
> the walls of a hall at Hjardarholt (Laxadeala Saga 32). Thus if the
> surviving verses of the poem describe Balder's funeral, it is likely that
> the spoke of Balder's death as well. A logical look at Snorri's account of
If there were carved pictures then it's likely that it was a well known
story, don't you think?
> >2. What is the basis of your statement that Skirnir goes to find Baldr in
> Hel?
>
> Using the story of Hermod found in the Old English poem Beowulf, it is
> possible to identify him with both Skirnir and Freyja's husband Odr. The
> names Svipdag, Odr, Hermod, Skirnir, and Erik, all refer to the son of Egil
> (Volund's brother) who rescues Freyja and Frey from the giants, and
How is it possible? It looks prety creative based on a sword in a tree.
Are you going to tell us that the story of Arthur is related to Baldur's
death too?
> >3. What source supports your statement that "ása synir" in Álvismál 16
> refers to a race of men living in Hel, instead of its common meaning as a
> poetic term for the Æsir?
>
> A comparision of eevry use of the term "asa synir" and similar phrases such
> as "asa lithar." Logically, why would the Aesir be called asa synir, sons
> of the Aesir?
Because the "aesir" was a term for semi-divine princes who were actual
mortals? (Something that Jordanes includes in his history).
> In Vegtamsvida 7 we find the Aesir's sons in "ofvaeni," in anticipation, in
> suspense. While in verse 6, Odin sees a hall with decorated benches and
> mead poured out in glasses. Someone decorated these benches, could it not
> be the same people who were in "anticipation" --the residents of Hel who
> wanted Balder there, who were happy he was coming to live with them?
All men go to Hel? :) The description of those benches and the poured out
mead seems rather at odds with Snorri's depiction of Hel as a place
plagued by famine...doesn't it? It wasn't Valhall and Odin's home.
> Could these not be the "mennskir menn" the living men by Mimir's root of
> Yggdrassil (Grimnismal 31); the same Lif and Lifthrasir in Hodd-Mimis Holt
> (Vafthrudnismal 42), who return to the new earth with Balder? There in the
> grass they find the golden game pieces that the gods played with in the
> early days (Voluspa 8, 58). As we know Balder traveled to Hel, in the
> underworld. This new world, risen from the sea, is thus none other than
> Hel. Balder has not moved. It is the true heathen underworld, and the
> fields of Urd and Mimir, rather than the Christianized Hel of the Younger
> Edda.
Have you really thought about what you're saying here? You have dismissed
the return to Hroft's Hall mentioned in the Voluspa, so unless Hel and
Odin's place are the same...or that the High One's hall is different from
that one...
Regards,
Susan Granquist
http://www.irminsul.org
William P. Reaves
Hej Susan,
>As he said, many of the ideas that seemed fresh and exciting in 1905 are
no longer taken that seriously. One of those ideas is the "unity of
culture and religion." Tacitus mentions some distinct differences among
the tribes he's describing, despite some similarities.
Chapter 27 of Germania notes "Such is the general account that we find
given of the origin and customs of the Germans as a whole"; (It seems "some
similarities" take over half of the work to tell) while in Chapter 2 he
speaks of "the traditional songs which form the only record of their past."
We have a collection of these poems. Modern scholars like Ursula Dronke
also use this term "traditional" when describing the mythological songs of
the Elder Edda, and also note the collection of stock
phrases and the temporal references, which seem to suggest knowledge of
other poems. That they are a collection of interrelated poems, with
supporting literary and iconographic references found across all of
northern Europe and England, suggest a "unity of religion," in as much as
there existed a common collection of mythological lore which had its
origins in earliest Indo-European times (inside of the stone-age, based on
comparative studies), and had evolved and expanded until the close of the
heathen era around 1000 AD.
Snorri's work comes at a time, 200 years after the conversion, when the
poems were subject to being lost, when the skaldic art was dead or dying,
and the many references in the older poems were being forgotten. Snorri's
intent was to explain and preserve them, and it is apparent even to modern
scholars that he did not always get it right. But paradoxically, modern
scholarship has relied on his works to explain the obscure references.
Else Roesdahl in The Vikings says "Without Snorri's explanations much of it
would be incomphrehensible today." She goes on to say "the fullest
(accounts of the pre-Christian religion) were written several centuries
after the conversion" and that our knowledge of the heathen religion is
thus based on "information from many periods and places, which was often
recorded by people with a completely different religious background." Thus
modern scholars rely on the explanations of an Christian author 200 years
after Christianity ruled Europe. It is a given that there will be
inconsistanices. But in that regard, the oldest documents should be
considered the most accurate--- yet this is not the case. With modern
scholars, Snorri's explanations rule whenever a conflict is found.
Rydberg took the opposite approach and relied on the oldest surviving
documents, contemporary archeology, and foriegn accounts of the Germanic
people to explain their faith, rather than the fuller (and known to be
influenced) explanations found in Medieval Christian Europe. The approach
is definately unique in the field. He gives a vast amount of evidence for a
coherent epic of which we now have only fragments. Thus, while there may
have been various religious practices across Germania, there was a single
body of lore known by the Germanic tribes. Similarily, today, there are
many and varied demoninations of Christianity from the Quakers to the
Metropolitan Community Church, but all of these groups operate off of a
single religious text. In the case of the ancient heathen Northern
Europeans, their "text" consisted of an oral mythological epic, not
preserved in any one great poem, but rather a collection of tales that
referred to it or sought to tell portions of it. Rydberg filled almost 1000
pages detailing the various connections, and cross-references found in the
various sources. He analyzed them, always with regard for when, by whom,
and for whom, they were written, trusting the earliest eye-witness accounts
and first-hand story-telling above later Christian authors like Saxo and
Snorri.
>Rydberg applied his own Christian and then current scientific theories to
the lore and "interpreted" it to suit his theories.
You have yet to give any evidence for this oft-chanted claim. Rydberg was a
scholar who questioned his own Christian faith, he examined the earliest
church documents and studied the methods used by Christians in conquering
the pagans. He had an intimate knowledge of both the Christian faith and
Roman History, as his many scholarly books attest (and from which he
achieved his stature as one of Sweden's most prominent thinkers and
authors), which made him uniquely qualified to examine the Northern
European pre-Christian faith. He too had a great love for the native
European lore, which is reflected in his novels and some of his most
beautiful poems. His broad range of achievements in the field of religion
and history gave him a scope and perspective absent in many of the
scholarly texts of today.
>What specific unaltered texts show the material in the older Eddas in one
long epic form?
All of the poems contain consistant temporal references, which can be
mapped out to show the epic design inherent in the lore. Voluspa is the
only account of the entire epic, making references to the most important
mythic events in short, but pointed, phrases. The remaining poems are
either a part of the epic (such as For Skirnis, or Fjolvinsmal,
Volundarkvida), or make broad references to it (such as Vafthrudnismal, and
Harbardsljod).
> The "Elder" Edda is a collection of poems that come from
different periods and by different poets, some of which have clear
historical precedents.
Please give me an example of that, you've peaked my interest.
> There's nothing like the Samhitas with the four
Vedas is there? If not, Hilda Davidson's evaluation is correct as you
stated it.
The poems of the Elder Edda are divided into two catagories, the
mythological and the heroic. The mythological poems are generally
acknowledged to be older, and a truer reflection of the pre-Christian
faith. It is these verses that Snorri largely quotes and paraphrases in his
Gylfaginning (the main body of his work on the mythology, or properly his
attempt to explain poetic-kennings). These poems show signs of unity in
their language and style, and at least in the Icelandic era, show signs
that the other poems of this group were known. For example, in regard to
Vegtamskvida, Dronke says "The poet of Voluspa has, no doubt, known a
traditional poem (or poems) of Odin's visit to a vala with its own
narrative interests." Saxo also shows a knowledge of the poetry, as some of
his narration is a direct parallel of language found in surviving poetic
fragments. The Heroic poems of the Elder Edda on the other hand already
show signs of degeneration and the influence of Christian ideas, Solarljod
being the most obvious example, but also evident in poems such as Helgi
Hjorvardsson (which is a heroic retelling of an episode from the myth of
Balder and
Hodr).
I stated that the texts have been altered in places to better reflect the
view of Snorri Sturlesson. The Skaldic poem Haustlang is the best case to
illustrate this. The original manuscripts remain the same, but the accepted
versions contain textual changes for "clarity" and are based on arguments
always using Snorri's texts as the evidence. When the poems of the Elder
Edda seem to conflict with Snorri, and the text is not altered, modern
scholars will simply state that the Eddic poem is mistaken, rather than
questioning
Snorri (For example see Carolyne Larrington's footnote to Havamal 14 on
page
266 of her Poetic Edda).
Ms. Davidson's theory is built on the same lines of reasoning. From this
view, she also draws such conclusions that Idunn is an aspect of Freyja
(which she states in her most recent book, and is also accepted by other
scholars such as Richard North). You've done trance work Susan, is Idunn
Freyja? Based on the evidence of the poems of the Elder Edda, I can
demonstrate that she was not, nor do I believe our anscestors equated the
two--- but modern scholarship, which fails to recognize the mythological
epic referred to in the Eddaic poems and disregards any signs of unity,
does and can equate Freyja with Idunn based on its own premise that the
Germanic tribes were a bunch of primative yahoos creating their own
independant mythologies from tribe to tribe.
>You do realize that if both are Indo-European groups that htey would have
common origins, which is reflected in the similarities? What has been
discovered since the early 1900s is that there are common origins rather
than either being totally different or origination from one or the
other. They werne't likely totally independent of each other either.
The Voluspa was not derived from the Sybilline Oracles, as was commonly
accepted in the late 1870s. This was directly derived from the theory that
the Aesir were men from central Asia who fooled the Northern tribes into
worshipping them-- these concepts go hand in hand, Ms. Granquist. You
cannot have your cake and eat it too. If Odin was a historical king from
Asia, then the entire lore is a distorted version of actual history,
euphemized and hyperbolized, and flat out fabricated. My anscestors did not
believe that hogwash, and neither do I. Is nothing sacred to you?
>>His work has never been fully critically examined, but pieces of it have
been accepted by every scholar
>It has been critically examined. If you can't find scholarly criticism of
his work it's probably because you're looking at current scholars such as
Davidson instead of the earlier part of this century, the few decades
following publication of his work. That's true of any scholarly
publication.
Which is precisely why I went back to the earliest journals looking, and
found the existing criticisms, and references to ones I could not. The
Warburg biography of Rydberg also summarizes the contemporary criticism.
NONE ARE COMPREHENISIVE. So Susan, if you know of this phantom critique you
continue to state exists, produce it.
There are but few critques and I believe I have found all of them, (and I
continue to search). All of them who did look into his theories at any
length, accepted large parts of his conclusions including the existence of
the World-Mill on which Bergelmir was laid. Admittedly however, they could
not accept the theory of an epic connection, for to do so would invalidate
their own work. I am thinking of
three prominent German scholars writing immediately after the publication
of the work. Then again in 1907, the introduction to Oliver Elton's
translation of Saxo is highly favorable, and a book of mythology was
written in 1905 by Donald MacKenzie which used many of Rydberg's theories,
but drew his own conclusions such as Loki being Odin's actual brother,
which distort the material. HRED and Jan De Vries also refer to him, but
make no critical examination of the work. In the 1950s Brain Branstock,
amusingly, derides his theories then uses some of them uncredited!
The references are relatively few, and none of them examine or undermine
the basic conclusions of his work. They disagree, but do not present
argument and evidence as to why. In the case of Davidson, she simply states
that a mythological epic doesn't exist and that's that. If this were the
case, the Eddiac poems would be riddled with numerous inconsistancies (and
except when compared to Snorri, they are not); nor would the poets have
felt the need to make temporal statements in the poems. Chronological order
is a part of the human psyche. Even modern authors who wish to retell the
lore arrange it in the best chronological order they can garner. Our
ancestors were no different. Voluspa succinctly tells the epic, no
wonder it is the most popular of the poems and the first in every
collection.
> Some of his ideas are still around as they proved to be sound, while the
others were discarded.
One cannot discard what she is not willing to pick up. Theories come and go
Susan, and come back again in evolved forms. Davidson is in favor now, and
may not be the next century. A work stands on the argument and evidence
contained within it. Rydberg's theories will rise to the challenge, as it
becomes more widely available, thanks to the efforts of the people who have
read and taken the time to understand it. It requires you to gather the
documents he refers to and read them, rather than rely on the
characterizations of these works you find in modern books. And Rydberg
covers the spectrum of the source material from the Eddaic material, to
history and archeology, iconography, and comparative studies. His scope and
range is impressive, and puts many modern texts (for example anything by
HRED) to shame. Rydberg examines all the material, not just bits and pieces
that fit a theory.
>Snorri likely did know the poem, but that hardly means that it was the
was the only source of the story. Saxo's version differs, but mostly in
the matter of presentation and the cause of his death. The two can be
reconciled quite easily.
Modern scholars disagree with you on this, I can cite Crossley-Holland and
HRED for examples. They are seen as conflicting versions, and no wonder if
you have read them both.
>If there were carved pictures then it's likely that it was a well known
story, don't you think?
Yes Susan, well-known in the heathen age when it was engraved and the poem
was composed around the year 900 AD, but how well known in Saxo and
Snorri's time, some 500 years later after it had been worked on by the
Christian scholars who saw the gods as men? The heathen mythology was
actively suppressed, one surviving verse speaks of the death of the skald
Vetrlidi at the hands of a Christian missionary, and the heathen history
was actively changed to explain the gods and the "false religion." That
Snorri felt the need to explain these stories to the Icelandic population
and illucidiate obscure kenning suggests that the myths were already in a
rapid state of decline, in his own time. When his explanations conflict
with the poems he cites, it really should make you wonder how well he
understood them. In Gylfaginning, Surt comes off like some angel of light
destroying the old pagan idols. His references to Muspel's sons flat out
contradict Voluspa: So who is right in regard to heathen belief, Voluspa or
Snorri?
> >it is possible to identify him with both Skirnir and Freyja's husband
Odr. The names Svipdag, Odr, Hermod, Skirnir, and Erik, all refer to the
son of
Egil (Volund's brother) who rescues Freyja and Frey from the giants, and
>How is it possible? It looks prety creative based on a sword in a tree.
Are you going to tell us that the story of Arthur is related to Baldur's
death too?
I'm not suggesting that the saga of the sword is related to Balder's death
other than the fact that the man who captures the sword for Asgard, and
marries Freyja, is the same one who travels to Hel to get news of Balder.
Svipdag retrieved the sword from Mimir's realm where it was kept, and
returns there to get news of Balder who now resides in the same place. I
think there is a lot of mythic justice there. He returns there once more
to get the rope Gleipnir to bind Fenris with from the dwarves, the Sons of
Mimir. The epic is full of these kinds of parallels. The Beowulf poem tells
us that Heremod had set out on long journeys and become the most celebrated
traveler that man had heard of. This is a trait often referred to among his
various epithets, he is a traveler, and very eloquent. The rest of the
information regarding Heremod in Beowulf exactly parallels the story of
Odr-Svipdag-Erik-Skirnir found in other mythological texts.
>All men go to Hel? :)
Yes, Susan, even the female ones. The Einherjar however do not stay there,
they proceed to Valhal over Bifrost which meets Hel, near Urd's well.
Recall the Aesir sitting in judgement after they cross Bifrost from
Grimnismal 29, 30.
> The description of those benches and the poured out
mead seems rather at odds with Snorri's depiction of Hel as a place
plagued by famine...doesn't it? It wasn't Valhall and Odin's home.
Why would the Aesir brew mead for Balder and decorate the benches? One does
this to welcome a guest. In verse 3 of Vegtamskvida, Odin approachs the
high hall of Hel, he passes it, and then rides east to see the vala. In
verse 7, Odin describes the events at the hall he has seen. There the
"Aesir's sons are in anticipation,"
ready for a feast to welcome an honored guest. The words of the verse
indicate that this hall he saw was in Hel. Immediately before Odin says
"Tell me the news from Hel, I remember from that world:" he then describes
the hall, and the poem previosuly said he had passed a hall in Hel. Are we
to believe that this is all superfluous, just useless information? How did
you arrive at the conclusion this hall was in Asgard?
>Have you really thought about what you're saying here? You have dismissed
the return to Hroft's Hall mentioned in the Voluspa, so unless Hel and
Odin's place are the same...or that the High One's hall is different from
that one...
Indeed I have Susan. I believe that the hall here referred to is the hall
that the gods come to "every day" near Urd's well (Urd after all is Hel).
It is located on Idavoll referred to in Voluspa 7 and 57, where the Aesir
met in the early days, where they played the golden chess game. (If Idavoll
is the
site of Asgard as is commonly believed, how did it survive the flames that
"played against heaven itself"?) It exists in the earliest days, and it
remains even after the flames of Ragnarok. The Eddying-Plains (Idavoll) are
the plains of eddying water, the plains were the three fountains that feed
the world-tree can all be found. In the lower world. As Snorri has removed
Urd and Mimir's well from the underworld, and confounded the goddess of
fate and death (Urd-Hel) with Loki's daughter, there really shouldn't any
surprise that Snorri's account contradicts some of the evidence of the
Eddaic poems.
Wassail, William
Rorik
>Chapter 27 of Germania notes "Such is the general account that we find
>given of the origin and customs of the Germans as a whole"; (It seems "some
>similarities" take over half of the work to tell) while in Chapter 2 he
>speaks of "the traditional songs which form the only record of their past."
>We have a collection of these poems. . . .
Hail, William,
It seems to me that the assumption of a direct connection between Tacitus
and the Eddaic poems would in itself be sufficient justification for
Rydberg's theories to be largely ignored by modern scholars. The current
understanding is that Tacitus used his "Germans" much as Swift did his
"Lilliputians," as foils to make points about contemporary conditions in his
home country. Any resemblance between what he wrote and actual Germanic
practices and beliefs was purely coincidental. Moreover, while I am a
strong advocate of attributing the Eddaic poems (or many of them) to
pre-Christian times, I know of no basis for dating any of them to before the
6th-7th century. Do you have any scientific grounds for attributing the
poems to the first century, or is this basically a religious conviction?
Wassail,
rorik
William P. Reaves
>I don't think that being closer to Rydberg is necessarily a valid
criterion
for judging the correctness of Saxo's version of Baldr's death. We have
two
(and only two) conflicting versions of the story--Snorri's and Saxo's. We
know that Saxo's was written expressly under Christian auspices, at the
direction of Absalom, archbishop of Lund, while Snorri's was written as a
private venture to preserve the meaning of the old poetic kennings.
Saxo and Snorri are contemporaries. In fact Saxo actually wrote his Danish
Histories before Snorri wrote Gylfaginning and Skaldskaparmal. Snorri may
have even have read and been influenced by Saxo. At any rate, it is clear
that Saxo did have genuine mythic sources for his histories. But to tell
the "history" of Denmark, he had to assume that the mythology preserved
ancient history. Saxo had a much more complete knowledge of the mythology,
including the stories of the first few generations after Heimdall walked
among mankind as Righ and established the classes. Saxo speaks exstensively
of Halfdan, who is Kon Ungr, Heimdall's grandson in the Eddic poem
Rigsthula. He is the patriarch that Tacitus had heard of under the name
Mannus, in Germania 2. His three sons, go on inherit the Germanic kingdom
after his death and war along tribal lines. The mythological history was
much more complete than we know it today. This was the well from which
Saxo drew his histories.
But unlike mythology which spans but few generations, Saxo proported to
tell the entire history of Denmark streching back several generations. In
order to have enough material, he divided the mythological episodes and
spread them out over several generations. Thus sometimes characters are
called by their proper names, such as Odin. But more often than not by an
epithey such as Yggr, which Saxo Latinizes into Uggrus. And in other
places, they are thinly disquished, but easily recognizable such as a
One-eyed old man, clad in a cloak, who rides a horse than can run as easily
on the sea as in the air. In places Saxo paraphrases verses of old poems,
fragments we still have today thanks to Snorri, which suggests that Saxo
was familar with a body of traditional poems. We must remember that Denmark
and Iceland were culturally close, and travel between the two nations was
common. Neither Snorri nor Saxo has any better claim to accuracy, but
Snorri has the advantage of preserving poetic fragments in the native
tongue that we can examine ourselves. The later discovery of the collection
of poems known as the Elder Edda aids our understanding.
> To me, the really puzzling question is why Rydberg (or you) would assume
that
Saxo's version is the more accurate.
Rydberg assumed no such thing. If you read the story of Balder in Saxo
Hist. 3, you will notice that it has been mingled with the folklore motif
of the sword of victory, an irresistable sword that cannot be defeated in
battle. Hodr obtains this sword from a "satyr" who lives in a cave named
Mimingus, but Hidr defeated by Balder a number of times before he is able
to kill him, and then himself is killed by Vali-- even though he holds the
irresistable sword. The two motiffs are incongruous.
Rydberg reconstructed the mythic kernal of the sword motiff evident in such
poems as Volundarkvida, Fjolvinsmal, Skirnismal, and even Beowulf. From
this he discovers that a mortal hero, stepson of Halfdan, named
Svipdag-Skirnir-Hermod had obtained the sword of victory forged by Volund,
the Son of Ivaldi, and brought it to Asgard in exchange for Freyja. He is
the "man called Odr" mentioned by Snorri who travels all over the worlds.
He obtains the sword from Mimir, in the underworld beneath "Mimir's Tree"
(Fjolsvinsmal). With this knowledge, let us return to Saxo's tale of
Balder.
It becomes apparent that the conflict between Balder and Hodr has been
mingled with the story of Freyja's husband Odr. Saxo has confounded Hodr
and Odr into the hero Hotherus, who kills the god Balder with the
irresistable sword. The mixing seems intentional, but yet not well thought
out. Perhaps Saxo confused his sources and made certain assumtions, as
Snorri does in the Younger Edda, or perhaps he thought he could create a
better story. Who knows?
>Snorri wrote at a time when Asatru was still a living religion for many
people in Scandinavia.
That is not true.
> He had the benefit of immense scholarly resources that have since been
lost.
That is pure speculation, founded in good reasoning, but dramatically
hyberbolized ("immense"?).
>He studied and wrote in this field his entire adult life.
Which field exactly? If you read Heimskringla which is by far the larger
book, Snorri does as Saxo does and alters the mythology into a kind of
pseudo-history. He even does this in The Younger Edda where the Aesir are
called "men from Asia" which tricked the ignorant Scandinavians into
worshipping them.
>Rydberg, of course, didn't even have access to the normalized
critical editions of the texts that we take for granted as providing the
first step in modern scholarly analysis.
You're right. He had to look at all of the manuscripts in the original and
note every variation. It's a pity that all we are left with these days is
the "normalized critical editions of the texts" which often do not note the
variants, or do not give them adequate weight. Rydberg examined variant
texts and spellings, and at times made some rather helpful discoveries.
>On reflection, I would admit that the size of the hall is less likely to
have been a constraint than the length of the poem.
Especially since the hall is described as "the largest men had known."
> Twelve verses of Húsdrápa have survived, and none of them mention Baldr's
death. We know
that 20 verses was considered a good length for a poem to be presented to a
king. How many verses would Ulfr have written as a housewarming gift for a
farmer? We can't know, of course. All we know for certain is there is no
direct or indirect evidence of any kind that the poem dealt with Baldr's
death.
First off, "farmers" don't build immense halls, and in regard to poem
length, Voluspa is over 60 verses, and Havamal (a unique example, I know)
is over 150, so we can't know, you're right.
>But this just adds another missing term to the equation. Now you seem to
be
saying that IF Snorri was mistaken about Baldr's death, and IF the missing
verses of Húsdrápa dealt with this subject, THEN Snorri may have gotten his
[hypothetical] misinformation from Húsdrápa.
Snorri directly paraphrases the four funeral strophes speaking of Balder's
funeral. His information is thus straight from this poem but little
changed. Of course we cannot know how many verses he paraphrased, but such
a theory does explain the comic elements Snorri has introduced. Do you
really think the Aesir would call a giantess (named Hyrokkin) to shove off
Balder's ship? A giantess stronger than Thor? And then why would Thor kill
her for doing this service for them--- what does that say of heathen
values? Then Thor heartlessly kills a dwarf who runs in front of him?
However this imagery would make sense if the poem described pictures in
which the giantess Hyrokinn (the fire-smoked) who rides in on a fierce wolf
represents the thrice burnt, and thrice reborn Gullveig-Heid-Aurboda, who
is the mother of the Fenris Wolf, and the dwarf represents Litr (which can
mean "fish") is Loki (One of Loki's names is Hoening which means
'salmon."). Thor is shown with his hammer raised to Hyrokkinn (since
Voluspa 26 tells us he killed her once, and this is confirmed by a loose
strophe in Skaldskaparmal) and Thor is the one who catches Loki when he
hides in a stream in the shape of a salmon. The artist at Hjardarholt was
using symbolic pictographs to indicate that Aurboda and Loki (the Teutonic
evil principle, the male and the female) were responsible for Balder's
death. The artist showed Loki standing beside Hodr to indicate that Loki
was the actual murderer. In Saxo we learn that Hodr was seduced by "three
hags" in a cavern, and made to love Balder's wife Nanna. Could these "three
hags" have been the thrice-reborn Gullveig-Heid-Aurboda? It seems probable.
>>...In that case, we should find other formations like Vana synir, and
Dvergar synir, meaning Vans and Dwarves, but we don't.>
>Actually we do, in a way. Although I have no examples at hand I believe
dwarfs are poetically referred to as ____ synir, where you fill in the
blank
with a known Dwarf name, depending on what the alliteration requires.
One such paraphrase is in Voluspa 15, where dwarves are called Dvalins
liði. As you can see there is no illiteration, and a name of a person is
used rather than the name of a race. In Fafnismal we also find Dvalin's
daughters, and in Havamal, Dvalin helps Odin spread runic wisdom. Without
examples, your argument does not pan out.
>Keep up the good work.
Thanks Rorik, I enjoy the discussion. It helps keep me on my toes.
Wassail, William
Matz Bjurström
--
Cheers
Sweden
William P. Reaves <Beo...@magicnet.net> wrote in message news:01be884b$dc4840c0$2dc806d0@default...
L. M.
Matz Bjurström wrote:
> I'm reading Rydberg now in Swedish (Proofreading for Project
> Runeberg). I think one can state that he is viewing the old history in
> a somewhat 'romantic' christian way. Ie, not to be taken for 100%
> truth, but fun reading any way.
> --
> Cheers Matz Bjurström
> Sweden
>
>
Hej Matz!
Thank you for a much-needed balanced perspective on Rydberg. The
pro-Rydbergians have buried us in such an avalanch of well-intentioned
verbiage that it's difficult to evaluate his work.
What are your thoughts on Sigurd Agrell? He seems to have re-arranged
the order of the Futhark for questionable reasons. We'd be interested in
your views.
Tack!
Lavrans RM
Cmabridge MA USA
Rorik
>
>What are your thoughts on Sigurd Agrell? He seems to have re-arranged
>the order of the Futhark for questionable reasons. We'd be interested in
>your views.
Hej, Lavrans:
I thought Turville-Petrie hammered the last nail into that coffin back in
1936, with his article on Agrell's crackpot theories in the Journal of
Folklore (v. 97, pp. 203-213). I have a copy of this laying around
somewhere; let me know if you'd like me to track it down and send you a
copy. As I recall, the thrust of T-P's critique was (1) we have several
complete orderings of runes from the earliest times that start with
f-u-th-a-r-k, and none that start with u-th-a-r-k; (2) Agrell's numerology
only holds for one particular futhark (er, "uthark"), while in fact the
actual number of runes in use varied widely both temporally and
geographically; and (3) even the best runecarvers had a hard enough time
spelling; it's just fantastic to imagine they were also sitting around
encoding hidden numerological messages into their inscriptions.
regards,
rorik
Matz Bjurström
--
Cheers
Sweden
L. M. <lavr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:371B45AC...@earthlink.net...
Matz Bjurström wrote:
> I'm reading Rydberg now in Swedish (Proofreading for Project
> Runeberg). I think one can state that he is viewing the old history in
> a somewhat 'romantic' christian way. Ie, not to be taken for 100%
> truth, but fun reading any way.
> --
> Cheers Matz Bjurström
> Sweden
>
>
Hej Matz!
Thank you for a much-needed balanced perspective on Rydberg. The
pro-Rydbergians have buried us in such an avalanch of well-intentioned
verbiage that it's difficult to evaluate his work.
What are your thoughts on Sigurd Agrell? He seems to have re-arranged
the order of the Futhark for questionable reasons. We'd be interested in
your views.
Matz Bjurström
--
Cheers
Sweden
Rorik <ro...@yolo.com> wrote in message news:ZdMS2.1368$qj7....@news14.ispnews.com...
L. M. wrote in message <371B45AC...@earthlink.net>...
>
>What are your thoughts on Sigurd Agrell? He seems to have re-arranged
>the order of the Futhark for questionable reasons. We'd be interested in
>your views.
Pleroma
Matz Bjurström <ma...@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:uti$cyvi#GA...@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net...
deeps...@my-dejanews.com
Hey, I'm not taking sides in this R-thing, but even I can see
oversimplificaiton when it's going on:
In article <VF0R2.649$kr1....@news7.ispnews.com>,
"Rorik" <ro...@yolo.com> wrote:
> William P. Reaves wrote:
> It seems to me that the assumption of a direct connection between Tacitus
> and the Eddaic poems would in itself be sufficient justification for
> Rydberg's theories to be largely ignored by modern scholars.
William simply note that there ist a theory that Germanics never had a unified
religion spreading across the tribes (and that this notion has an indirect
impact on how one approaches the Eddas), and suggests that Tacitus, for one,
*did* report on the existence of such unity. You can critique *that* as you
will, - but you simply *can't* claim that this constitutes proposing a "direct
link"! William never said there was a "direct link" and *never* said Rydberg
claimed one.
> The current
> understanding is that Tacitus used his "Germans" much as Swift did his
> "Lilliputians," as foils to make points about contemporary conditions in his
> home country. Any resemblance between what he wrote and actual Germanic
> practices and beliefs was purely coincidental.
Well over the mark, Rorik! The Germanic tribes north of Rome were a major
security problem for the Romans. Tacitus demonstrably refers to tribes which
we know existed, and was providing what could be termed nothing short of
"military intelligence". Swift made up fabulous beings with nothing more than
didactic purpose. Tacitus may have given a *spin* to his reporting fitting
his feelings, but he have been in hot water if the Emperor had figured out he
was peddling entirely bogus intelligence! Yet that's what you mean when you
say "entirely coincidental".
Also - Tacitus *did* report on items that seem to be represented - hundreds of
years later - in the Eddas:
Moreover a custom, practised indeed in other nations of Germany, yet very
rarely and confined only to particulars more daring than the rest, prevails
amongst the Cattans by universal consent. As soon as they reach maturity of
years, they let their hair and beards continue to grow, nor till they have
slain an enemy do they ever lay aside this form of countenance by vow sacred
to valour.
So, there is at least one reference to a custom that seems suspiciously
similar to the actions of Vali noted in the Eddas. Now, obviously you think
Tacitus was trying to impress his fellow Romans with what a dangerous bunch
of dudes these were (maybe to make sure the Emperor kept the Army well-funded
- shades of Pentagon reporting...)- but isn't it a bit unlikely that he would
"accidentally" pick a description that would be repeated, in song, hundreds
of years later by people who never heard of him?
- DeepStream
Rorik
>Hail Rorik!
>
>Hey, I'm not taking sides in this R-thing, but even I can see
>oversimplification when it's going on:
Hail DeepStream!
Hop in, the water's fine. Oversimplification? Mois? Surely you jest!
> "Rorik" <ro...@yolo.com> wrote:
>> William P. Reaves wrote:
>> It seems to me that the assumption of a direct connection between Tacitus
>> and the Eddaic poems would in itself be sufficient justification for
>> Rydberg's theories to be largely ignored by modern scholars.
>. . . William never said there was a "direct link" and *never* said Rydberg
>claimed one.
What William actually said was:
>>Chapter 27 of Germania notes "Such is the general account that we find
>>given of the origin and customs of the Germans as a whole"; (It seems
"some
>>similarities" take over half of the work to tell) while in Chapter 2 he
>>speaks of "the traditional songs which form the only record of their
past."
>>We have a collection of these poems.
By which (I infer) he means the Elder Edda. This looks like a very clear
claim of a "direct connection" between Tacitus and the Eddaic poems.
>> The current
>> understanding is that Tacitus used his "Germans" much as Swift did his
>> "Lilliputians," as foils to make points about contemporary conditions in
his
>> home country. Any resemblance between what he wrote and actual Germanic
>> practices and beliefs was purely coincidental.
>. . . Tacitus demonstrably refers to tribes which
>we know existed, and was providing what could be termed nothing short of
>"military intelligence". Swift made up fabulous beings with nothing more
than
>didactic purpose.
I didn't say Tacitus *created* the Germans the way Swift did his little
people; I said he *used* them the same way, as literary foils. It mattered
not a whit from a military standpoint what tales Tacitus told of the natural
morality, egalitarianism, non-usuriousness, homophobia, etc., of these proud
people he had never even traveled among. Lines like "good morality is more
effective in Germany than good laws are elsewhere" make what Tacitus was
doing pretty hard to miss.
> Tacitus may have given a *spin* to his reporting fitting
>his feelings, but he have been in hot water if the Emperor had figured out
he
>was peddling entirely bogus intelligence! Yet that's what you mean when you
>say "entirely coincidental".
No, that's not what it means (see above). I will admit, however, that
"purely coincidental" was intended as hyperbole. A better term would be
"fortuitous."
>Also - Tacitus *did* report on items that seem to be represented - hundreds
of
>years later - in the Eddas: ... "As soon as they reach maturity of
>years, they let their hair and beards continue to grow, nor till they have
>slain an enemy do they ever lay aside this form of countenance by vow
sacred
>to valour." So, there is at least one reference to a custom that seems
suspiciously
>similar to the actions of Vali noted in the Eddas.
This is a good point, although before I could decide whether it says
anything about the continuity of this practice (or its memory) over 1,000
years I would have to know more about how common this behavior was/is among
primitive warlike societies in general. It might just be coincidence.
Moreover, even assuming that there *was* continuity of a specific martial
practice from Tacitus' tribes to Eddaic society, that doesn't necessarily
imply continuity of religious belief--or of poetic traditions, which was the
original point.
regards,
rorik
deeps...@my-dejanews.com
In article <m4bT2.6302$5E.8...@news7.ispnews.com>,
"Rorik" <ro...@yolo.com> wrote:
> > "Rorik" <ro...@yolo.com> wrote:
> >. . . William never said there was a "direct link" and *never* said Rydberg
> >claimed one.
>
> What William actually said was:
>
> >>Chapter 27 of Germania notes "Such is the general account that we find
> >>given of the origin and customs of the Germans as a whole"; (It seems
> "some
> >>similarities" take over half of the work to tell) while in Chapter 2 he
> >>speaks of "the traditional songs which form the only record of their
> past."
> >>We have a collection of these poems.
> By which (I infer) he means the Elder Edda. This looks like a very clear
> claim of a "direct connection" between Tacitus and the Eddaic poems.
>
OKOK, William - he gets enthusiastic sometimes (he forgets the "ic" in
"Germanic" alot, for instance) ... What he *meant* was we have a collection
of poems that are the Norse decendants of the poems Tacitus was refering to.
*Of course* William's not saying "the Eddas" were around then - *Norse*
wasn't even around then, and you *know* he's aware of that! Of course you're
technically (and trivially) correct in pointing out that a poem is a specific
work with a specific content. If you right two different poems about
Ragnarok, then they are, as you point out, two *different* poems - but the
same "basic story" ("Epic" is the term I think William is using to refer to
this concept).
The question of whether the mythic occurences described in the Eddas were the
same (or largely the same) occurences in the songs Tacitus is refering to is
of course an extremely valid one (and one in which William (and I, by way of
sympathy) will obviously be on the losing side - *how* the HEL could one ever
"prove" the original starting point of an *oral* tradition?? William can only
make educated guesses or elaborate on Rydberg's - you'll allways have the
iron mallet of "but you don't have any stereo recordings" (paraphrased) to
crush the arguments). But by reducing the argument down to "you are claiming
the Eddas were composed before the language they are in existed" you are
trying to trick William into a ridiculous position, and that's kinda slimy...
> I didn't say Tacitus *created* the Germans the way Swift did his little
> people; I said he *used* them the same way, as literary foils. Lines like
> "good morality is more
> effective in Germany than good laws are elsewhere" make what Tacitus was
> doing pretty hard to miss.
But Tacitus also said the Germanics were slovenly and not given to working
hard (I think he was confused - we just don't work *in captivity*), and that
they were particularly susceptible to compusulsive gambling to the point of
losing their freedom (and hence becoming slovenly (see above) - we obviously
still have that problem) - why did he write that stuff if he was trying talk
up the Germanics? I'm so sorry, but these academics come up with a theory
like "Tacitus was overrating the Germanics" and then everybody feels
authorised to repeat it over and over again like the fact the world is round
and never look at the text!
> This is a good point, although before I could decide whether it says
> anything about the continuity of this practice (or its memory) over 1,000
> years I would have to know more about how common this behavior was/is among
> primitive warlike societies in general. It might just be coincidence.
Yeah, I thought of that, but I don't know of any general examples. There are
also the refernces by Tacitus to Nerthus riding her wagon into the upper world
on special occaisions which are repeated in fairy tales in Germany - but then
such rides are not referred to in the Eddas to my knowledge ( it's the great
"Nerthus-Coverup" of the Norse!), which is the current thread's theme.
> Moreover, even assuming that there *was* continuity of a specific martial
> practice from Tacitus' tribes to Eddaic society, that doesn't necessarily
> imply continuity of religious belief--
Oh, don't be so modern - "religious belief" was all wrapped up with culture,
poetry, government and everything else back then. Only in modern, rationalised
societies is there even the idea of "religion" as something separable from
everything else. If the stories they told around the fires were the same, then
it's a 90% (ok, no 100%) bet the religions would be the same - wanta put some
money on it? (ooh, I got sweaty palms!)
> or of poetic traditions, which was the
> original point.
Oh. Then why isn't this thread being following on a poetry list instead? I
personally don't care whether the ancient Germanics aliterated every second
stanza, rhymed every third stanza, or started every fourth stanza with a "P"
except on Tuesdays, on which they used "W" (you get the idea) - it's the EPIC
that interests me from a religious perspective (and necessarily a "modern"
religious perspective).
Rorik
>OKOK, William - he gets enthusiastic sometimes ... What he *meant* was we
have a
>collection of poems that are the Norse decendants of the poems Tacitus was
refering
> to. *Of course* William's not saying "the Eddas" were around then ...
I don't understand. First you say I was misrepresenting William by claiming
he said there was a direct connection between Tacitus and the Eddaic poems.
Then I showed you exactly where he said that. Now you say that's not what
he "*meant*," and go right on berating me because (you say) I know William
knows the Eddaic poems are not the same poems the 1st century Germans had.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with my original comment. Is it just
generalized criticism of Tacitus as a source you are objecting to, or what?
> *how* the HEL could one ever "prove" the original starting point of an
*oral*
> tradition??
Nobody said anything about the starting point. One could prove that the
oral tradition of Tacitus' Germans was substantially similar to the Eddaic
poems by quoting stories or poems told by Tacitus' Germans that were
substantially similar to themes in the Eddaic poems. Of course it would
have been difficult for Tacitus to do that without actually setting foot
among the tribes he wrote about.
>But by reducing the argument down to "you are claiming
>the Eddas were composed before the language they are in existed" you are
>trying to trick William into a ridiculous position, and that's kinda
slimy...
Obviously I never said that, or anything similar to it. You ought to be
careful which way your gun is pointed before you toss around words like
"slimy" to describe those who mischaracterize other people's arguments.
>> I didn't say Tacitus *created* the Germans the way Swift did his little
>> people; I said he *used* them the same way, as literary foils.
>But Tacitus also said the Germanics were slovenly and not given to working
>hard . . . why did he write that stuff if he was trying talk
>up the Germanics?
Once again, I didn't say he was exclusively "talking up" the Germanics, I
said he was using them as foils. By first painting a picture of the "noble
savages" as moral paragons, and then telling how these pillars of
righteousness could be brought low by drink and gaming, Tacitus was bringing
home his points about (what he saw as) the moral depravity of Rome and its
causes.
>> Moreover, even assuming that there *was* continuity of a specific martial
>> practice from Tacitus' tribes to Eddaic society, that doesn't necessarily
>> imply continuity of religious belief--
>
>Oh, don't be so modern - "religious belief" was all wrapped up with
culture,
>poetry, government and everything else back then. Only in modern,
rationalised
>societies is there even the idea of "religion" as something separable from
>everything else. If the stories they told around the fires were the same,
then
>it's a 90% (ok, no 100%) bet the religions would be the same - wanta put
some
>money on it? (ooh, I got sweaty palms!)
"Stories told around the fires" are frequently the same in wholly unrelated
cultures around the world. I would feel guilty taking your money.
>> or of poetic traditions, which was the original point.
>Oh. Then why isn't this thread being following on a poetry list instead?
Again, I don't understand what's going on. William raised the poetry issue
and I responded. If you don't like the fact that we were talking about
poetry, why don't you start your own thread?
regards,
rorik
deeps...@my-dejanews.com
In article <jX_T2.8708$5E.1...@news7.ispnews.com>,
"Rorik" <ro...@yolo.com> wrote:
> deeps...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Obviously I never said that, or anything similar to it. You ought to be
> careful which way your gun is pointed before you toss around words like
> "slimy" to describe those who mischaracterize other people's arguments.
Sorry sorry, I meant "tricky" - which you apparently also don't think you were
being, but I didn't intend an organic reference to your being...
> By first painting a picture of the "noble
> savages" as moral paragons, and then telling how these pillars of
> righteousness could be brought low by drink and gaming, Tacitus was bringing
> home his points about (what he saw as) the moral depravity of Rome and its
> causes.
>
Ok, I don't get it, but that's OK - I never understood the screwy way
academics claim the protestants look at the world in the "protestant work
ethik" material either. It sound like much the same wierd arguments are being
applied to Tacitus.
> "Stories told around the fires" are frequently the same in wholly unrelated
> cultures around the world. I would feel guilty taking your money.
Oh, now that *would* be interesting to hear about. (Incidentally, from what
spiritual tradition do you get the guiltiness about taking other people's
money in a fair wager?).
In Frith!