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

[akoddsson]

Hails Walhahrabn!

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "ualarauans" <ualarauans at ...> wrote:
>
> Hails Kunjareth!
> 
> I had posted my last message before reading yours, so I reply 
> twice :)
> 
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "akoddsson" <konrad_oddsson@>  
> wrote:
> 
> > ON vetr is from masc. u-stem *wintrus. ON vintr is also attested 
in West Norse from about 1000 (Norðmøri, Norvegr on the Kule Stone). ON
sumar is a neut. a-stem from PN *sumara. The Gothic equivalent,
following masc. wintrus, u-stem, assuming 'summer' would likewise be
parallel, would be *sumar, neut. a-stem. But this word is usually
considered problematic (see etymological dictionaries/works). East
Norse preserved the form vintr much longer than West Norse, which
universalized vetr over the against older parallel vintr.

> Some ON dictionaries say vetr is masculine consonant stem. It fits 
> pretty well in with the pattern: ON cons. stem fótr - Go. u-stem 
> fotus, gás - gansus, hönd - handus, tönn - tunthus. Which one was PG 
> I wonder?

Consonant stem, originally, I think. In ON the distinction is just 
lost here, so it gets classified as an u-stem due to its declension. 
ON masc. consonant stems are very few, also (fotr, etc.), while the 
feminines, while numerous, tend be be drawn into other categories, 
wholey or partially. However, I suppose that I should retract my 
comment about vetr being a u-stem, despite its declension, and call 
it a consonant stem. While the ON consonant stems are really not 
preserved as a very distinct category, having mostly been drawn into 
neighboring ones, there are scholars who insist that ON is the most 
original in that it preserves the most consonant stems as consonant 
stems, giving us insight into what words were originally consonant 
stems in PG. I think they are right in the sense that one can still 
deduce original consonant stems in ON, giving us some insight, but 
at the same time it needs to be born in mind that these words were 
drawn into other categories by ON times, sometimes revealing their 
consonant stem origins in only a single case, if at all. The modern 
grammars often just ignore consonant stems, while the traditional 
academic ones tend to treat them rather exhaustively for academic 
purposes. Anyway, I suppose that I should insist that vetr is a 
consonant stem, as only the historical language is really relevant 
as a tool in reconstructing Gothic words. 

> > > Whether it be, it's Gothic
> > > *milluneis M.-ja.
> > 
> > Yes, I think so. The baltic thunder-god is called perkunas in
lithuanian, perkons in latvian and *perkuns in prussian. In gothic
we have faírguni, neut., 'mountiain'. In ON fjorgynn is a also a
god. fjorgyn, fem., is a goddess. þórr is called fjorgynjar burr,
the 'son of fjorgyn', who is the earth (also called iorð). In Go.
one of the various names for Þórr's mother would have been erþa.

> airþa?
> 
> > Now, baltic perkuns is the god of rain, thunder, lightening and, 
of course, mountains. This ties into the gothic word faírguni.
> 
> Couldn't it have developed in a manner like this: PG *Thunraz 
Fergunijaz (epithet meaning smth like "Thor the Mountainous", i.e. 
ruling over mountain peaks)? Which epithet was later understood as a 
separate name of Thor's parent, feminine *Fergunijo (> ON Fjörgyn). 
Or it was inherited from the same IE source as the Baltic forms (add 
to them Thracian PERKWN, OSl. PerunÚ and Hett. Pirwa with dropped -k-
and, perhaps, OInd. Parjanya, lit. "rain cloud"). Lithuanian has 
perkunija "thunder-storm", a precise equivalent of PG. *fergunijo > 
ON Fjörgyn. It could be Gothic *Thunrs Fairguneis "Iuppiter 
Montanus" resp. *Fairguni F.-jo (gen. *Fairgunjos), goddess of 
earth's bones (= mouintains, fairgunja), closely associated with the 
thunder-god.

I am not sure why the Germanic thunder/rain god was called *thunraz, 
aside from the obvious etymology, while ON fiorgynn and fiorgyn were 
preserved as separate, but related, gods. About all that I can say 
about it is that it is a Germanic development, which is not really 
saying much. Parjanya is celebrated in the Veda, typically enough 
gives rain and fertility, etc.. This is the same god as ON fiorgynn, 
Lith. perkunas, Latv. perkon, etc.. In reconstructing IE religion, 
this is one god that the experts include without fail, as far as I 
have been able to tell. But the Germanics have the thunder/rain-god 
as the offspring of this god in the feminine. I can offer no more 
than guesses as to why. I asked a Hindu friend of mine, who happens 
to be a scholar on Hinduism, some time ago about parjanya. I wanted 
to know if he thundered or only rained. I ended up reading religious 
hymns to parjanya from the Veda (there are several). There seems to 
be no indication that he thunders, but that he gives rain, growth, 
and protects folk, etc.. It sounds to me like *thunraz was perhaps 
thought of as being born of the earth and the dark clouds bringing 
rain, and that he somehow assumes a more active function like Indra. 
Thus, the wind-god (Indic va:ta, Germ. *wo:danaz), might be thought 
of as his father, as he drives the clouds and rain. This is just a 
guess, but take a look at the heavens on a windy day, when the rain 
is blown hard and the clouds move fast, and when thunder strikes, 
and then draw your own conclusions as to how a pre-modern person 
might have interpreted these phenomona. 

> > The idea seems to be that the thunder-god was connected to 
mountains, being the offspring of earth and *wôdans, as the gothic 
version would have had it. Perhaps he was born there, where heaven 
and earth meet, or just worshipped there.
 
> It may be doubted that the cult of *Wodanaz did already exist (see 
my previous post), and so PG *Teiwaz > *Ti:waz (Go. *Teiws) was most 
likely the principal god of heaven in the PG epoch, judging by his 
IE parallels, you know, OInd. Dyaus, deva; Avest. daeva; Greek ZEUS; 
Lat. Iouis, deus; OIr. dia; OPr. deiws; Lith. dievas and so forth... 
Maybe it was *Teiwaz (ON Tyr) who was the original "all-father", 
remember the known IE poetic formula *Dyew pater "oh heaven-father", 
attested in OInd. Dyaus pita, Greek ZEU PATER, Lat. Iuppiter, 
Illyrian DEIPATYROS etc. It could be PG *Teiwi faðer (voc.) > Go. 
*Teiw fadar...

Well, the idea of *ti:waz as the heaven-father (the bright-heaven), 
and even as an all-powerful god, is preserved in Norse sources. One 
should notice that he, unlike the other gods, does not live in the 
god's home *ansugardaz. Instead, *wo:danaz is the ruler there. Now, 
the idea seems to be that there are gods (lead by *wod:anaz), elves 
(who are good and the god's friends, but have their own home), who 
seem to match the Vedic rbhus in being originally a cult of ancient 
fathers, and the etuno:z (who are amoral, wild forces combating the 
gods and men - Vedic ya:tu, Germ. *etunaz). I think the idea that a 
cult of *wo:danaz was somehow late, and not indigenous to Germanics 
from early times, is false. It is a false idea based on conjectures 
and modern theorizing around the idea that only one god can the top 
one (foreign influence, I think). The Veda does not insist on any 
one god being the top one, but tends rather to see them as separate 
but overlapping (i.e they can share characteristics), while being at 
the same time agents of the more impersonal all-power (brahman). The 
point here is not to discuss old Aryan theology (of topic here), but 
simply to suggest that the IE god va:ta/wo:danaz is indigenous to 
Germanics, as well as t:iwaz, and that power-struggles between them, 
and argumentation about their relative importance/function, were 
certainly foreign to old Germanic folk. The complexites of heaven 
were probably thought of much as we accept the co-existence of trees 
and rivers and rocks. There were no theologians, nor any comparative 
religion. Things tended to be experienced, accepted and passed on as 
passed on as the way things were. Thus, while ON folk had o:dinn as 
the ruling god af a:sgardr, leader of gods and maker of men, they 
also had ty:r, by whom they swore their oaths (as he is ethical and 
can be counted on to punish oath-breakers, matching Vedic Varuna on 
this point). Now, ty:r was more abstract and has none of the complex 
mythology surrounding o:dinn, having only one name (not hundreds), 
no known children and no residence in a:sgradr. According the Norse 
mythology, he does not die or participate in ragnarok (Snorri being 
wrong on this point and having no sources to support himself here). 
Vedic Indians swore by varuna, who bound the faithful by ring-oaths, 
receiving the oath and holding the ring, binding and punishing those 
who broke the oath. Likewise, the Norse temple oath (...hialpi me:r 
sva: freyr ok niordr ok hinn allma:ttki a:ss) ends with a references 
to an almighty, unnamed *ansuz. The pattern of the 3 named is earth-
sea-heaven (where each of the 3 mentioned can stand for an entire 
realm). Jon Hnefill Adalsteinsson (Blot i norraenum sid), as well as 
some other scholars of these things, suggests that the almighty one 
is ty:r, being supreme. I agree with him, and some others, about 
this. Another idea is that the supreme god was altogether separate, 
another that he was o:dinn. However, my point is that we are not 
dealing with any middle eastern beliefs here, and that the ruler of 
gods and maker of men need not be almighty, or the only god, in IE 
religion, from which Germanic religion developed. Lastly, I would 
suggest that both ti:waz and wo:danaz were inherited by Germanics 
from their IE ancestors, not imported into Germania at a later date. 

> > Perkunas's sacred tree is the oak, and he is
> > worshipped especially at oak trees.
> 
> If Lat. quercus "oak tree" is from *perkwos, then maybe it's the 
very name of the thunder-god itself which points to the oak-worship.

Not sure.

> > In the West Gautish laws, which are the oldest surviving 
scandinavian laws, hewing nether oak-trees is strongly forbidden. 
There is no explanation given, but the reason should be obvious 
enough. It was taboo. Perkunas has an axe/hammer called milna, I 
think, but check the lithuanian for the correct spelling of the 
word. In russian lightning is called molnija. So, whatever the 
etymology might be, it seems certain here that we are dealing with a 
very ancient and fundamental IE god, as shown here by the amazing 
parallels from the Baltic. See the wikipedia article on perkunas as 
a reference. So, it is impossible to imagine that the goths did not 
have a major god called *þunrs, who killed the *itunôs without mercy 
in defence of his beloved inhabitants of middle-earth (mankind).

> I'd prefer to use *thauris M.-a rather than *ituns, as the former 
is at least attested in East-Germanic personal names. OE has eoten, 
which could suggest Go. *itans as well...

I do not think that *thauris, in the meaning giant, is attested in 
Go. personal names. Something must be amiss here. The word relates 
to dryness, lack of water/rain, tieing into crop-failure, disease 
and dehydration. I am not aware of any Germanic personal names that 
invoke these powers, which were thought of enemies of the gods. But 
we do see a lot of elements like *ansu-, *ragina-, *albi/a-, *guda-, 
*hro:thi-, *aiwi-, *gaiza-, etc. etc. etc. - all of which connoted 
good things to ancient Germanics. About Go. *ituns, I consider it a 
most certain reconstruction, being found not only in other Germanic 
languages, but even in ancient Indic. Of course, we would not expect 
it to occur as an element in Germanic personal names, for obvious 
reasons, or in a Bible-translation, for equally obvious ones, hence 
it is not attested in extant Go., much like *thunrs. 

> > Go. midjungards is attested, which implies *ansugards as
> > the one above the 'middle'.
> 
> And, I think, it could no less imply *utagards, in the horizontal 
projection, right? But what I don't understand is why it's 
midjungards, not simply *midjagards?

Well, the compound was probably inherited from pre-Proto-Germanic, 
before the *-am-to-*ano: change in the accus.sg.masc.adjectives, for 
instance, as shown here by how it compounds. In other words, it's 
fossilized, somehow, I think. 

> > This is where *þunrs lives. Goths would likewise have attributed 
pest, famine, crop-failure, and disease to the *itunôs (everything 
threatening mankind), like the norse did. A norse prayer/incantation 
was (two version are extant):
> > 
> > þórr vígi þik
> > þursa dróttin
> > far þú nú
> > fundinn est
> > 
> > It's ancient and alliterates. Asking *þunrs to kill the giants 
that cause disease is an ancient medical practice, actually, which 
simply ties into religion as it is usually understood today (compare 
also the ancient hindu medical scripture ayurveda, which is a huge 
mass of prayers/incantations/spells to the Gods to cure disease, 
etc.).
> > 
> > > So, the whole phrase would now look as:
> > > Thunrs weihai thana gardan (tho targa)!
> > > Lit. "May Thor hallow this enclosure!"
> > 
> > Yes, something like that ;) If *þunrs weihái is correct, then we 
can no doubt nail the ancient Norse prayer to þórr (above) in Gothic.

> Isn't it the case where "may he hallow" and "may he kill" look the 
same both in Gothic and in ON? Or, maybe, it's vegi, 3rd pers. sing. 
opt., from ON vega st. v. 5 "to kill"? Which could be reconstructed 
Gothic *wigan (wag, wegum wigans) or *waihan (wah, wehum, waihans). 
I'd try to translate it as follows:

> þórr vígi þik
> þursa dróttin
> far þú nú
> fundinn est
> 
> Thunrs waihai thuk, 
> thaurize drauhtin (voc., right?).
> Far thu nu
> funthans is (I'm not sure I understood it correctly)

In literal english translation: thor hallow thee, lord of thurses, 
fare thou now, found art (thou)


> > > And the Eddic fragment (for now):
> > >
> > > Thanuh qath thata Thrums,
> > > thaurize drauhtins:
> > > "Bairith inn hamar (?)
> > > bruth du <ga>weihan,
> > > lagjith Milluni
> > > in maujos kniwa,
> > > weihith ugkis samana
> > > Weros handau."
> > 
> > Gothic seems to form the infinitive in more than one way, which
causes problems for me when it comes to the question of what the
correct Gothic equivalent of the Norse would be in any given
passage. He you have 'du (ga)weihan'. So I ask members for insights
and suggestions here. Also, would not to 'lay something on/in
something' be accusative plus accustive? It suggests movement, 
which triggers this in ON, anyway. *lagjiþ milluni ana máujôs kniw?

> in maujos kniwa I meant kniwa acc. pl. "upon both knees", ON kné 
being plural here, not?

Likely, let me ckeck the ON text here. Back to the books ;)

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/