Differences between Norse/ Nordic/ Scandinavian and Germanic/ German/ Teutonic myths

Joshua Dyal said:

Good, because that would be the correct usage of the term Germanic.

Click to expand...

Damn, I hate when that happens

Roman said:

Hmm, if much of our current knowledge of Norse/Germanic myths is based on the works of one author it appears that we do not really know all that much about them - there is no way one author could compile all the important myths - sounds like we are only scratching the surface of Norse mythology. I suspect this may also be the case with other old mythological systems.

Click to expand...

Actually we have the works of several authors, despite what this thread has mentioned to date. While Snorre is important, far more important for the understanding of Norse mythology is the Poetic, or Elder Edda, one of those anonymous collections. This was collected sometime before Snorre Sturlson started writing and (potentially late 11th through mid-12th century, but exact date uncertain), while still incomplete, has great material in it, including the Havamal and the Volsupa. Overall the Elder Edda gives us much more information about the gods and in a somewhat less tainted form.

For the Germanic we have scraps and bits, ranging from several Roman authors to the Niebelungenlied, but all of these sources have to be taken with at least a heavy, heavy dash of salt as they were written either well after the fact or by non-practioners.

While there is a fair amount of information, some of it is repetative, much of it is incomplete, and there are huge, obvious holes in our understanding. For example, none of the goddesses take active roles in any version of the legends that we have. Also Thor, by archaeological and linguistic evidence the most popular of the gods, appears to us almost entirely in comic tales; additionally he was the patron of marriages, but there are no tales to explain his connection this way, except about his wife Sif's potentially wandering ways. On top of this we have many more tales of the Aesir gods than of the Vanir gods, yet there are almost as many shrines to the latter as to the former.

No, our vision of Germano-Norse beliefs is woefully inadequate. Anyone basing their theology on the scraps we have left would have, at best, an incredibly incomplete view of what these religions were all about in their own day. Indeed, it would be about as "accurate" as the post-Gardner vision of "witchcraft", which is held together more by wishful thinking than by any accurate information.

It's "Snorri Sturluson" BTW - I think I've seen it spelled 10 different ways so far.
http://www.fva.is/~harpa/forn/snorri/aevi/aeviagr.html

First off, I want to say this... As an Odinist/Norseman myself, I fully endorse this discussion... Not that it mattered, but I am glad that there is a discussion like this going on.

There are a few books that I have invested in (besides the Eddas and Sagas) that take a critical look at the different Norse Sagas as well as the Germanic sagas, doing a nice contrast and compare... They even went as far as breaking down Frigga's hand maidens and the like. Sadly, I am at work and cannot get a title at the moment *sniff* sucks getting older, memory slips away.

As far as the cult of Odin goes... eh... It was considered suicidal to follow him anyway, seeing that the almighty paranoia of Odin was so overwhelming he would take any of his followers in their prime to stave off Ragnarok. Usually the cults were associated with the Fins and the Fins migrated from the Slov regions. Then again, if you know Finland, you would have to be crazy to be there in the first place... At least in that time frame... *thanks Odin I am part Finnish*

In the end though, it is all moot. Not only were the people fractured with multiple Jarls who would put their own spin on the deities, but the only thing that kept them interested was because that was the only thing they knew. We, sadly, were fickle people in those days and if the crops weren't doing well with Odin... Hey, lets give this guy Jesus a try... Maybe he will take care of the crops. If that didn't work, then it was onto another deity. Heck, I can't find a Fellowship that has anything the same way...

Then again, that is the beauty of it all. No organization means that there is no corruption due to religious power. You don't have the local priest pointing a finger in your face and demanding you do something because Odin/Thor/Tyr/Loki said it and it is in the book of Earthquakes 13:17...

A little tangent, I know... Just my own views and opinions since I live the lifestyle. *grins*

Roman said:

Hmm, if much of our current knowledge of Norse/Germanic myths is based on the works of one author it appears that we do not really know all that much about them - there is no way one author could compile all the important myths - sounds like we are only scratching the surface of Norse mythology.

Click to expand...

The major myths and characters are known extensively from other sources, but Snorri gives many details and spells out a highly organized overarching cosmology that are less than clear in other sources. On the other hand, he certainly would have had access to a lot of sources and oral traditions that we don't, so it would be woefully misguided to dismiss him as an accurate source. Usually, whenever you see modern collections of "Norse Mythology," they're based largely on Snorri's expert storytelling, but there are numerous other sources, sometimes conflicting with him at various points.
For example, Baldur appears for certain in at least two other sources and is probably alluded to in others, but Snorri's is by far the best-composed and most compelling (also the most Christianized) version of it, so that's usually what gets recounted.

As for what to call 'em: How about "Teutonic?" The root meaning of the word Teutonic is "the people who worship Tiu."

tarchon said:

On the other hand, he certainly would have had access to a lot of sources and oral traditions that we don't, so it would be woefully misguided to dismiss him as an accurate source.

Click to expand...

From where? He didn't write until 200 years after the Christianization of Iceland.

Which was the last of the Norse countries to be Christianized, for that matter. And since he was trying to record an oral tradition that was no longer current, and hadn't been for many, many generations, what are these sources of which you speak?

Algolei said:

As for what to call 'em: How about "Teutonic?" The root meaning of the word Teutonic is "the people who worship Tiu."

Click to expand...

Actually, that's only one proposed etymology of Teutonic. The word is contentious to linguists; although usually assumed to be equivalent with Germanic, the original Teutones who attacked the Romans might as likely have been Celtic, or mixed Celtic and Germanic. I'm not sure I believe that, because I think deutsch and Dutch are clearly cognates with Teutones, but regardless, that's not universally accepted.

Joshua Dyal said:

From where? He didn't write until 200 years after the Christianization of Iceland.

Which was the last of the Norse countries to be Christianized, for that matter. And since he was trying to record an oral tradition that was no longer current, and hadn't been for many, many generations, what are these sources of which you speak?

Click to expand...

It's pretty widely known that many relevant folk beliefs survived, as they do to this day í Íslands (there, as here, trolls still abound), and it's not so unlikely that there were still some at least semi-serious believers around at that point. I mean, "Thor" and its dozen derivatives are even now rather common names, and every third esker is named after some mythological figure. There's also the fact that this literary tradition is one of the world's most continuous - many Icelanders in Snorri's day absolutely knew these stories just as they do now, even if they no longer marched down to the family idols a couple times a year with a sheep in tow.
Obviously, poor Snorri wouldn't have been rousted as he was unless the Christian mainstream was still feeling a little insecure about the whole issue, though to be sure it was probably more political than anything. Have you read the sagas pertaining to the Christianization, Njal's particularly? They do not give one the impression that the issue was settled then and there in the minds of everyone (a rather curious tale in all). It's also virtually certain that manuscript sources existed then which do not exist now, though I don't suppose I have expend much effort to explain the idea that many Medieval manuscripts have been lost over the years. Given that Snorri thought of himself as the arbiter elegantiae and chief chronicler of the genre and additionally was wealthy and powerful, a hereditary chieftain no less, it would be insane to suggest that his library wasn't an unparalleled treasure trove of Icelandic literature.
Finally, do I have to also point out that the Volsungasaga was written 50 years after Snorri died? Somebody there must have had other sources besides Snorri, because much of that appears nowhere in his works.

Joshua Dyal said:

Actually, that's only one proposed etymology of Teutonic....

Click to expand...

Ehh, I get my info from John Ciardi, what can I say.