The Principal work of the Vikings
Anders Berg
At 23.20 1996-10-29 GMT, you wrote:
>I will mention the Viking Olvir Barnakarl, son of Einar, son of Snjall,=20
>son of Vatnar, son of Vikar.
>Olvir had the nickname Barnakarl - Baby Guy. The story says that
>the Vikings (the real, 'vocational', Vikings - pirates and
>robbers) used to throw babies up into the air and catch them at
>spearpoint as the fell down again. Olvir, however, must have had
>some soft point deep down inside his bloodthirsty heart, because
>he refused to take part in this game. And so the other Vikings
>called him Barnakarl - Baby Guy.
>It is further said that Olvir was father of Einar, father of
>Olav, father of Gudbrand Kula, father of Esta who married Sigurd
>Syr and became the mother of the Norwegian king Harald Sigurdsson
>'Hardrule'
K=E5re,
I'm sure the baby-throwing story is just as historical
as Harald Sigurdsson's descent from the saga-King Vatnar Vikarsson!
Perhaps it's time for a new newsgroup, soc.genealogy.mythology or
something like that?
Cheers,
Anders
John Yohalem
> >As I said before, I'm sure they were kind to children and dogs, but they
> >burned an awful lot of towns and abbeys, putting whole populations to
the
> >sword, for three centuries, and I do not admire such behavior. You
cannot
> >tell the tale of the vikings without accounts of their thousands upon
> >thousands upon thousands of victims up at the top. You are trying to
evade
> >this by pointing out they were nice guys at home.
>
> WERE they really kind to children? says Kere Lie
I mean, their own children, of course.
JY
Kaare Albert Lie
Anders Berg <and...@ALGONET.SE> wrote:
>I'm sure the baby-throwing story is just as historical
>as Harald Sigurdsson's descent from the saga-King Vatnar Vikarsson!
>Perhaps it's time for a new newsgroup, soc.genealogy.mythology or
>something like that?
Such a group might of course be interesting, too, for discussing
the children of Zeus, etc.
But Harald Sigurdsson would hardly have a place in such a group.
It seems that you are overlooking a disturbing feature of
medieval genealogy: lots of medieval genealogies start with some
documented historical person, and trace his ancestors back into
the legendary or mythological past.
It is easy - too easy - to brush it all away as fiction. Usually
one end of the line is demonstrably historical, while the other
end either is demonstrably unhistorical or leads into realms
where nothing can be proved right or wrong.
Thus, instead of shallow sceptisism, it might be interesting to
see an intelligent discussion of questions like these:
Exactly where along the line does history end and
legend/mythology take over?
Where are the legendary/mythological names taken from? Are they
pure fiction? Names of gods? Do they possible conserve memories
of persons who actually have lived, even though the genealogy may
be wrong?
What were the circumstances and motives for constructing those
genealogies?
Two books that contain interesting discussions of such questions
are: Claus Krag, Ynglingatal og Ynglingesaga, Oslo 1991
(discussing the Snorri's ynglinga genealogy of the Norse kings)
and: T. F. O'Rahilly: Early Irish History and Mythology, Dublin
1984 (containing some interesting thoughts about those weird
Irish genealogies and the reasons for constructing them).
Like it or not - these questions are part and parcel of medieval
genealogy.
______________________________________________________________
Kåre Albert Lie
ka...@sn.no
Gordon Fisher
At 04:55 PM 11/4/96 GMT, you wrote:
[material deleted]
>
>Thus, instead of shallow sceptisism, it might be interesting to
>see an intelligent discussion of questions like these:
>
>Exactly where along the line does history end and
>legend/mythology take over?
>
>Where are the legendary/mythological names taken from? Are they
>pure fiction? Names of gods? Do they possible conserve memories
>of persons who actually have lived, even though the genealogy may
>be wrong?
>
>What were the circumstances and motives for constructing those
>genealogies?
>
[material deleted]
>Like it or not - these questions are part and parcel of medieval
>genealogy.
>______________________________________________________________
>
>Kere Albert Lie
>ka...@sn.no
>
>
Hear, hear! Not just names, dates, maybe places, and those confounded links!!!
Gordon Fisher
Gordon Fisher
At 04:55 PM 11/4/96 GMT, you wrote:
[material deleted]
>
>Exactly where along the line does history end and
>legend/mythology take over?
>
>Where are the legendary/mythological names taken from? Are they
>pure fiction? Names of gods? Do they possible conserve memories
>of persons who actually have lived, even though the genealogy may
>be wrong?
>
>What were the circumstances and motives for constructing those
>genealogies?
>
[material deleted]
>
>Kere Albert Lie
>ka...@sn.no
>
>
For a small start, consider the following statement by William of Malmesbury,
made about 1125 C.E. in his *Chronicle of the Kings of England*, translated
by J A Giles, 1847 (reprint 1968, AMS), p 8:
"From Germany, then, there first came into Britain, an inconsiderable number
indeed, but well able to make up for their paucity by their courage. These
were under the conduct of Hengist and Horsa, two brothers of suitable
disposition, and of noble race in their own country. They were
great-grandsons of the celebrated Woden, from whom almost all the royal
families of these barbarous nations deduce their origin; and to whom the
nations of the Angles, fondly deifying him, have consecrated by immemorial
superstition the fourth day of the week, as they have the sixth to his wife
Frea."
William of Malmesbury seems to have based this statement on the following
one by Bede in *The Ecclesiastical History of the English People*, 731 C.E.
translated by Bertram Colgrave, 1969 (new edition, 1994, Oxford, p 27:
"Their [the Angles's] first leaders are said to have been two brothers,
Hengist and Horsa. Horsa was afterwards killed in battle by the Britons,
and in the eastern part of Kent there is still a monument bearing his name.
They were the sons of Wihtgisl, son of Wiita, son of Wecta, son of Woden,
from whose stock the royal families of many kingdoms claimed their descent."
Note that Bede's genealogy makes Hengist and Horsa great-great-grandsons of
Woden, contrary to William of Malmesbury -- this could be a translation
error by Giles.
The editors Judith McClure and Roger Collins of the 1994 Oxford edition have
a note on p 368:
"*Woden*: to be identified with the Norse divinity, Odin [curled "d"), and
found in all of the known Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies other than that of
the East Saxons, though not always as the founding figure. For his role in
these lists, see E. John, "The Point of Woden', ASSAH 5 (1992), 127-134."
It appears that Bede did not identify Woden with the Norse god Odin, nor
with any deity at all. William of Malmesbuty appears to hold a euhemerist
position: Woden was "fondly" deified by the Angles. Roughly speaking, if
Woden was indeed the great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather of Horsa
and Hengist, then he was born around 370 C.E. or 340 B.C., according to
William of Malmesbury or Bede.
Question: On what grounds are we requested to identify the Wodin of
Anglo-Saxon genealogies with the Norse God Odin? When was this request
first made? Perhaps by relatively recent chronologists, say 16th century
C.E. or later? Or earlier than the 16th or 17th century? Or later? (Does
anyone interested in this thread have easy access to ASSAH = *Anglo-Saxon
Studies in Archaeologya and History*?)
Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net