[gothic-l] Re: Snorri on Reidgotaland

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

Troels wrote:
>Sorry for the empty letter yesterday.
Bedre sent enn aldrig !

>--- In gothic-l at y..., keth at o... wrote:
>> Ór SKÁLDSAKAPARMÁL K. 75 :
>>
>>
>> The term gotnar comes from the name of a king called Goti, whom
>> Gotland is named after. He was called after one of Odin's names,
>> it was derived from the name Gaut, for Gautland or Gotland was
>> called after this name of Odin, while Sweden is from the name
>> Svidur. This is also one of Odin's names. At that time all the
>> mainland that he ruled over was known as Reidgotaland, and all
>> the islands Eygotaland. These are now known as the Danish realm
>> and the Swedish realm.
>>
>>            (English translation by Anthony Faulkes)
>
>When I read this I must admit, that here Reidgotland is defined as
>Jutland and the Scandinavian Peninsula as Anders claims,

The meaning that spontaneously formed itself for me, was that
the last sentence  "These are now known as the Danish realm and the
Swedish realm" in the above quote from Faulkes, is a clause subordinate
to the last mentioned nomen, which is "Eygotaland".
Or said differently, the word "these" in  "these are now known as the
Danish realm and the Swedish realm" is a demonstrative pronoun that
echoes "all the islands" in the previous sentence.

Of course there is a contradiction, because we do not regard South
Sweden (+ possibly South Norway) as an "island". It was then that I remembered
that ancient authors actually DO speak of Scania as an island.
And I thought that this might have referred to local usage that
was communicated to Plutarch, or whoever it was, by word of mouth
from Greek and Roman merchants who had visited these regions.
It is not easy now, nearly 2000 years later to see how this
may actually have worked.  Maybe whoever lived North  of the
Baltic called themselves "islanders" because they travelled
a lot back and forth betwen all these islands all the time.
Also perhaps "meginland" was actually a relative term to Snorri.
That is, it was always the biggest landmass that was "meginland"
when two lands separated by ocean, were compared.


>but it does
>not make sense to make a group with a common name out of Jutland and
>Sweden against Sealand/Fyen because of the word mainland. There was
>more water between Sweden and Jutland than between these places and
>the islands, and who cared about a geographical connection throug the
>forests of Finland/Russia? You have to make Jutland to a
>Swedish/Goetic region if this connection shall make sense.
>
>You also have to explain the name in the same way as Eygothland. From
>the Roek-stone Keth quoted:
>
>>Raiþ  þiaurikz bin þurmuþi
>>Stiliz flutna strandu Hraiþmaraz.
>>Sitiz nu garuz a guta sinum
>>Skialdi ub fatlaþz skati Maringa.

We discussed this Rök inscription some years ago in lots of detail
with Bertil. The difference now is that you have quoted the original
text in direct runic transcription, which I think is very useful.

A side note here: I notice that the English speaking peoples apparently
always have shown a greater interest in the "heroic" aspect of
ancient Scandinavia, than the Scandinavians themselves.
This is reflected in the works of people like "Tolkien" etc..
But also in the standard Old Norse textbook "An Introduction to
Old Norse" by E.V. Gordon (e.g. 2nd edition, Oxford 1957),
where this can be seen from the choice of selected texts.
Thus, you there also find the full text of the Rök Stone quoted
on page 188. That is a tip for those who'd like to take a look
at it. Excerpt from E.V. Gordon, page 188 :

« A. . . . þat sakum a,na|rt huaR fur niu altum a,n urþi
  fiaru | miR hraiþkutum auk tu | miR a,n ubs (s)akaR | raiþ
  (þ)iaurikR hin þurmuþi stiliR | flutna stra,ntu hraiþmaraR
  sitiR nu karuR ,a
  B. kuta sinum skialti ub fatlaþR skati mari(n)ka »
(note: the comma after the "a" denotes a "hooked - a" that Gordon
has used in his transcription)

>What does Hraid/Reid mean?

This was almost discussed to the point of exhaustion some years
ago. But the important progress that we can now make, is to note
that on the Rök-stone itself, "reid" is actually written with
an initial "h", as "hraiþ". And if you look at the above excerpt,
you will see that it even occurs twice there, both in "hraiþkutum"
as well as in "hraiþmaraR". The latter in connection with "strantu"
(w. hooked-a) must then refer to open water or an ocean. (German
"Meer", Latin "Mare")

But with Snorri you already find it written without the initial "h" as
"reiðgotar". However, looking at the Edda poem "Vafþrúðnismál",
verse 12, one can see that adding an initial "H" to the name
"Reiðgotom" used there, one obtains a better alliteration.
So the conclusion must be that it is the same name both in Edda
as well as on the Rök stone, and that the original form of the
name had an initial "h". This again is quite useful when we try
to zero in on what the original meaning of the stem "hreið" may
have been. Personally, I think it is the same stem as occurs in
the P.N. "Hreiðmarr". (if that solves it)

I recall two possible meanings that were much discussed in our
previous discussion. One was "rede" (nest), the other was "ride"
(to ride). If I then look at the etymology as well as the
words corresponding to these two basic meanings in the different
Germanic languages, I believe I find that only the first meaning
(rede/nest) derives from a stem that originally had an initial
"h". That means that we can then eliminate all meanings that
have something to do with "riding", like in horse-riding, and that
is certainly progress. At least as far as I am concerned: Since
you so often find Goths mentioned in connection with horses, I
seriously believed, for a long time, that it meant something
like "the horse-riding goths". But I think we can rule that out now.

>What does Maringa/Maeringer mean?

Wasn't that the name of a district ?
(or maybe "famous man"?)

>Keth also wrote about the Roek-stone:
>>The interesting part is that he speaks about
>>a great battle that took place nine generations
>>earlier. That would have been around A.D. 500.
>>(maybe these were Bertil's returning Heruls ?)
>
>If we fix the year to 800AD (How sure can we be about this age of the
>stone?) the length of a generation will be 33,3 years (From fathers
>birth to the first surviving boys birth). This should not be much
>more than 25-28 years in those days dating the battle around 550-75.
>The Heruls arrived around 512 and might of course have joined the
>battle. From Snorre we know a battle between Ases and Vanes, and
>from Beowulf we also know a battle around that time between the
>Danish king of Lejre and the Heathobeards and a battle between the
>Swedes and the Goetes. From Hervarar Saga we hear about Goths and
>battles far away in South Eastern Europe.
>
>Keth is right that we have to look for explanations south of the
>Baltic Sea too - even in the south eastern corner - but who were the
>Heathobeards and the Hreidgoths? Any ideas?

I wish to maintain as important hypothesis, that the "Hreidgoths" is
what the Scandinavians called the continental Goths - the ones who
had followed the Vistula down towards the Black Sea.

Best regards
Keth



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/