Gothic religion (Was Re: new and in search of help Go.thunrs and thrums)

[ualarauans]

Hails again,

You've touched a very interesting point here... I must warn I'm not 
an expert on mythology either, but nevertheless I've got some 
thoughts on the topic which I'd like to share. 

> > And yet, perhaps we shouldn't disregard our absolute ignorance
> > about pre-Christian thunder-god of the Goths. To think he was all
> > the same as his later Scandinavian counterpart seems somewhat
> > simplifying...
> 
> I think that is was the same, simply put. Also, I don't think that
> he was simply a later Scandinavian counterpart, but instead one 
that
> is attested from a later date. The key word here is 'attested'. The
> Proto-Norse speaking contemporaries of the Goths of Wulfila's time
> would have had this same god, doing the same things, etc. as in the
> later ON sources. They would have called him *thunraz at that time.
> Religion is often very conservative and, I think, ethnic religions
> like the Norse one especially so. We should recall that the Norse
> were also until the viking period also the most isolated Germanics
> of any sort. They were the 'backward hillbillies', the 'ignorant
> rural folk' of old Germania, as evidenced by their only much later
> conversion to christianity. We know that many ON folk were ardent
> believers in the old gods, as evidenced by their willingness to die
> for their beliefs, even against their own leaders and aristocracy
> after it had started pressing for christianity (mostly a political
> issue at that time in the north, not really a religious one, as the
> average man was probably very ignorant about christianity, while
> leaders tended to support it mostly for political/organizational
> reasons instead of actual religious ones). 

I agree so far, it being perhaps a universal situation in a pagan 
ethnos when getting converted.

> It seems rather foolish,
> I think, to assume that these old Germanics were very accepting of
> change in their religion (witness the Gothic example of Athanareiks
> and company also). It was too closely tied to their ethnicity. 
Thus,
> I imagine that ethnic Goths were the most 'heathen', probably 
seeing
> it as their own ethnic religion, inherited from their fathers, whom
> they no doubt honoured. Political pressure, as well as the presence
> of large numbers of non-Goths (conquered folk, slaves, enlisted co-
> militarists, trading partners, neighbors, etc.), would have pressed
> them toward adopting Arianism as their official creed, as other 
folk
> would not have been able to participate in the Gothic faith, as it
> was ethnic and inherited, much like Hinduism. 

Yes, though some particular cases might have happened when, say, a 
Roman runaway took a Gothic name, married a Gothic woman and started 
to adore Gothic war-gods as a token of his total break with ex-
compatriots which had banished him, and of his gratitude towards the 
people who had accepted him. It were much like adopting a son into 
the family. Of course, this couldn't have been a widespread 
practice, only an exceptional issue, I guess. When the gods are 
regarded as one's particular forefathers, why should aliens be 
forced, or allowed either, to worship them?

> Each folk the Goths
> encountered at that time would have had their own ethnic religion.
> An easy political compromise, minimizing conflict between conquered
> and conquerer, is to adopt the universal religion of christianity,
> where no ethnic distinction is made. Still, the Goths' 
perserverance
> as Arianians, even after it had been banned and the Catholic model
> essentially adopted by all other christians they encountered, shows
> a continued sense of separatism, I think. They probably just did 
not
> want to share their church with non-Goths, simply put. It sounds
> very unchristian in the truer sense, but was in all liklihood real,
> I think.

That's a very interesting explanation. So you think it were non-
Gothic parts of the wandering communities who, feeling annoyed at 
their non-participation in the official cult, pressed the Gothic top 
to finally decide for Christianity (but why not for some sort of 
pagan syncretism associated with no concrete ethnos and well-known 
in the pre-Christian world?), and it was the Gothic religious 
separatism which made them prefer Arianism, right? I heard the idea 
that the Arian dogmatics stood closer, in some respect, to the 
structure of the pre-Christian pantheon and/or society. Could it be 
another reason for the Arian choice, in your opinion?

> Also, the Goths would, no doubt, have still cherished their
> heathen ancestral faith privately, reciting the old songs and being
> pround of their heritage and ancestry. Typical enough. It's really
> not unique, as many cultures have adopted faiths in addition to the
> inherited one (see Tibet, Japan, etc.). Somehow, they make it work.

To add that the Arian priests, lacking any support from the imperial 
state system, had probably to search compromise solutions to much 
greater extent than the Catholic ones when facing surviving elements 
of paganism...

> However, I suspect that the Goths' would have lost their original
> ethnic religion as time moved on, while still having maintained it
> in some form within ethnically Gothic families during the earlier
> Arian period. My guess is that it happened with the lost of their
> language and distinct ethnic identity. Lastly, their is a current 
in
> some forms of christianity which emphasizes that it is the only 
true
> religion and bans belief of any other kind, however impratical this
> may be and whatever the social and personal consequences. 
Naturally,
> this current is not endorsed by most christians, now or then, and
> most Arianians were likely also quite tolerant folk.

When talking of the early Middle Age I'd rather think that the 
religious fanaticism was predominant in the Christian world, and 
that the cases of a relatively tolerant rule (like one of 
Thiudareiks sa Mikila in Italy) were exceptionally rare. For the 
very same 6th century, remember the manner Iustinianus (sa Bloth-
faiha) was dealing with "unorthodox" Christians in Asia Minor, in 
Palestine and Egypt, or what devout Catholics did with the synagogue 
of Rome after having re-captured the city etc etc. One of the basic 
inducements for Byzantines to invade the Vandalic and the 
Ostrogothic realms was no doubt the preached wish to liberate these 
ex-Roman territories off the Arian infidels. Or so at least the 
whole propaganda was telling... These were genuine crusades, both 
ethno-cultural ("dirty barbarians") and religious ("devil-begotten 
haeretics").

> The Goth's, no
> doubt, would have inherited an ethnic religion that was also shared
> by Gutlanders, who would have preserved it much longer due to lack
> of any need for religious integration/cooperation with neighbors. I
> would also suggest that Gutlanders shared common gods/mythology 
with
> the Norse, inherited from common Proto-Germanic ancestors. Thus, we
> should not be deceived or accept bizarre theories simply because we
> lack attestations to the contrary. Common sense, I think, suggests
> that the Goths kept up their ethnic religion and were very proud of
> it, not wishing to change it, while at the same time being 
political
> and showing great personal variation with regards to 'belief' in 
the
> religion. Many folk are intensely proud of their culture/religion,
> not wishing to change it, while at the same time being only 
marginal
> participants in it. Should be a familiar story to anyone, I 
think ;)
> Thus, translating the Norse rescension of this mythology, the only
> surviving one, into Gothic does not bother me in the slightest. I 
do
> believe that it was their original religion/culture and that these
> were also their stories/gods.

It's here where I see the very question, Konrad. Wouldn't you agree 
that the pre-Christian religion of the Germanics was not a strictly 
dogmatized system, universally spread and forced upon via some sort 
of a church apparatus? That it was no "religion" in a narrower 
sense? For all I know (that's not much really) I'd think there was a 
kind of cognate inter-related but still rather distinct cults and 
mythologies, with a definite commonly shared background such as the 
same social rules and stereotypes of behavior, and spoken in the 
same language. Some tribes could prefer *Thunraz, some *Ingwaz, some 
*Teiwaz as their particular divine leader and forefather. What of 
the cults would you choose for departing Goths to carry over to the 
continent? I remember Ingemar Nordgren wrote that matriarchal 
fertility cult of Freyr/Freyja (the so called Wanen-mythologie) was 
particularly spread in East-Scandinavia. Couldn't the Goths, or at 
least some part of them, have been bearers of this "Inguaeonic" 
ethno-genetic tradition and religious practices? In which case we 
can't say for sure that they did equally worship *Thunrs, or that 
they even knew the name of *Wodans, whose cult, according to some 
sources, was a later one, unheard of in PG epoch.

> However, the wording goes back to the
> Proto-Norse, rather than the Gothic, which can cause some problems
> here and there in translation. Still, whole sections go seemlessly
> into Gothic. Instead of focusing on what I see as a non-issue (that
> Goths, as an ethnic group, shared this religion/culture), I choose
> to focus on the language issues involved in such translations. What
> I want to know is that every word of the Gothic is correct and that
> it reads true and natural to the Gothic hear, which is, of course,
> very difficult to achieve in this day and age.
> 
> Regards,
> Kunjareths

Ualarauans






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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

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