[gothic-l] Re: reg. runes - for Jeff

[konrad_oddsson <konrad_oddsson@yahoo.com>]

Séls (Sæll) Jeff - 

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "hrafnsnest <mimir at s...>" 
<mimir at s...> wrote:
> Konrad wrote:
> Yes. Also, there is one point about runes which I feel compelled 
to make over and over again: they were a regular alphabetic sequence 
used primarily for communication. We can forget the trendy books 
on "rune magic" and the "deeper meaning" of the runes.
> 
> >>Jeff.
> I will have to strongly disagree with Konrad on his point about 
the runes. While the runes did indeed serve as a communicative tool 
more often than not, they also served a "magical" function as well, 
complete with a "deeper meaning".  This is well attested in both 
literature and archeology (in the form of staves and stones).

You will hardly need to disagree with me on this issue, as I agree 
with your position here. The reason I put the phrases "rune magic" 
and "deeper meaning" in quotes was to underscore the often dubious 
claims of certain modern authors that they can help us predict or 
change the future through runes. This makes me rather suspicious. 

I have an interest in the early language and have accordingly read 
many books on early inscriptions. Also, I have transcribed by hand 
most of the inscriptions in the corpus (including names and single 
words) and all of the earliest ones, intelligible or not. Although 
my purpose has been to learn about the evolution of the language, I 
have also learned something about the "magical" use runes along the 
way. As you imply, their are inscriptions which clearly served some 
sort of magical purpose, legible or not.  

> In literature:  The Havamal 138- the end, the Rigsþula 44-46, the 
Sigdrifumal (practically the whole text), the Voluspa 59
("..Fimbultyr's unfathomed runes").  There are examples from the 
sagas, Egils Saga for instance, where runes are carved on a drinking 
horn that has poison in it, they are bloodied (in keeping with 
tradition), whereupon the horn bursts in two.

Yes, I am familiar with these passages.
  
> 
> There are many stones, staves, spear-heads, swords, asf., that 
have "messages" carved upon them that convey something other than 
someone's name, who carved it, or who is remembered.  The carvings 
that seemingly say nothing,, are generally regarded as "magical meta-
language", communicating with either the dead or the gods, or 
perhaps used as a "reality shaping" tool (a "magical" function).

While there are no doubt inscriptions which served some sort of 
magical purpose, I am uncomfortable with the conclusion that those 
inscriptions which are illegible to us should be regarded as some 
sort of "magical meta-language". Also, while it is possible that 
some such inscriptions represent communications to gods or the dead, 
it likewise possible that the carvers where illiterate, practicing, 
or using runes for decoration. It seems that illegible inscriptions 
do not all belong in the same basket. Some could be magical, others 
not. Regardless, my interest lies in the tongue itself.  

> 
> While I will agree that there are many "trendy" rune books on the 
market, there are also books that deal with the subject of the 
magical use of runes from a scholarly point of view.  Several 
authors that come to mind is Dr. Edgar Polome, Edred Thorsson (Dr. 
Stephen Flowers), Dr. Jan de Vries, Dr. Georges Dumezil, Dr Hilda 
Davidson, and others.  There are also the works of Johannes Bureus, 
1568-1652, who was the "antiquarian" under King Karl IX.  Among his 
many scholarly contributions, he also discovered first hand, that 
runes were still being used in the province of Dalarne, in fact, the 
farmers were still using them well into the 19th cent. 
> 
> Sael,
> Jeff

Yes, there are distinctions to be made among books. Thank you for 
your response. 

Regards,
Konrad.


You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/