[gothic-l] Agotas

[Ingemar Nordgren]

Hi everybody,

Now the discussion starts getting really interesting with the
introduction of the Agotes and specially so after Fernandos last mail
concerning the possible religious background of the Gothic ethnicity.
Those of you having had occasion to read my book Goterkällan-The Well
Spring of the Goths - in Swedish already know I have worked very hard to
make it probable the Gothic ethnicity indeed was religious from the very
start but definitely mixed genetically and linguistically, and I
consider myself to have succeeded fairly well in making that hypothesis
quite probable. I have however of course not finally proven I am right
but the indices are really convincing. There is also an English and a
German summary. I have already an English version ready but I have still
not found a publisher which means I am soon considering printing it by
myself. This however presupposes a number of forehand-orders that can
make it economically possible to print and distribute a book of 486 pp
in size 17,5x25 cm weighing 1 kilo. (Anybody interested please mail me
personally.) I think however I will do some final searches for a
professional publisher at first.

I accordingly presupposes that religion was the etnic marker of the
Goths already from the start and that the old cult was surrogated with
Arianism which still divided them from the Mediterraneans and gave
possibility to internal control. The ethnic composition did not start to
break gradually until Reccared et consortes accepted the Catholic Nicean
faith and started follow the pope and his gang, persecuting Jews, the
own nobility et c.

Before I continue please read the article below concerning the history
of Arianism that is a summary of a lecture I gave at a symposion on Tree
of Life Slabs in Sweden and Byzantium in year 2000. After that it is
more easy to follow my reasoning.

Article from Liljestenar (Tree of Life Slabs):

The Tree of Life slabs are claimed to be relatively late medieval - 12th
to 13th cc. - and they are classified as Romanesque grave-stones
influenced from England. This is indeed quite dubious both concerning
the supposed function and as well the proposed origin of influences and
the dating. To clarify these questions it is nessecary at first to
examine the religious background of the motive having been interpreted
in different ways in different cultures and times. You then have to
settle both the specific probable geographical area of origin and the
interpretation valid for that area and time, and so compare the result
with the local conditions.
Generally the iconography of these slabs is founded on pre-Christian
influences from Mesopotamia with details as stair-zikkurates, Trees of
Life and similar patterns. What is vital now is to decide when these
motives enter a Christian context, wich calls for an excurse in history
of religion.
215 AD in Rome Sabellius declared as his opinion that the Father, the
Son and the Holy Ghost were only different manifestations of God. He was
part of the modalistic school. Immideately he was classified as heretic.
Hundred years later the presbyterian Arius in Alexandria launched what
later was called Arianism. The modern definition of this faith says
shortly that the Son, the pre-existent Christ, is not of the same divine
character as the Father but the first created entity. This is however a
rude simplification of the complete story. Arius himself claimed the Son
had both a human and a divine nature. He was born human and raised to
divinity through a righteous life, like a boddisathva or deva being
given a divine status. This implies that even other humans could have
the chance being devinated in this way. Regarding the above mentioned
Sabellianism you could even interpret Arius saying Jesus was a human but
the reincarnated Christ was an incarnation of God, but in the visual
shape of Jesus. In this way both Sabellius and Arius succeed to give a
picture of a monoteistic God in opposition to the later in Nicea created
trinity God, which was understood as three different Gods by the Arians.
A great majority of the Eastern bishops sympatized with Arius and the
leading were the two Eusebius' in Caesarea and Nicomedia-the Eastern
residential city of the emperor. They had however a formidable opposer
in Alexander, pontiff of Alexandria and later this position was taken by
his deacon Athanasius, one of the most ruthless clergymen ever known in
history and fully comparable with e.g. Al Capone using the same criminal
methods to control the Alexandrian economy and the church. He was
several times abolished by the joint bishops, both Nicaenan and Arian,
because of his methods. Nota bene that all bishops used rough methods
but this was too much to take even for them. Athanasius and his, mostly
Western, followers claimed that the Father and the Son were of the same
nature, and hence they were regarded as polyteistic from Arian wiew. The
traditional Eastern wiew includes a God who is an abstract entity and a
single God. This goes as well for the Mosaic religion and it also
explains the later volontary Egyptian conversion into Islam.
In 325 the famous meeting in Nicea was held. Emperor Constantine had
engaged the old bishop Hosius of Spain who sided with Athanasius and the
Westerners but because of the strong opposition there was a compromise.
The Arian bishops agreed that Father and Son were of the same nature but
interpreted it as being of a similar nature, not same. The Father was in
command of the Son and the Son was created. This resulted in almost
total victory for the Arians for a considerable time. In spite of the
compromise they fundamentally claimed there was but one real God.
Arianism dominates until the death of emperor Valens and the Vesigoths
accept the Arian faith in his time, and the Goths also send missionaries
converting all the other Germanic continental tribes of major importance
to Arianism except the Franks. The famous find in Pietroassa contained
also a collar with Byzantine reliefs picturing the motiv of the heart,
which is found on so many of the Tree of Life slabs in Västergötland.
This is tied to Mary. This opens for the possibility Arian Christians
lived in Scandinavia already around 500 AD because, according to my
research of the Goths, it seems that the continental Goths all the time
kept the contacts with their kin in the North, and this is also
supported by archaeological indications in Scandinavia but of course not
proven
( I. Nordgren 2000).
Theodosius then calls a meeting in Constantinople in 381 forcing the
assembly to accept a dictate saying that the Father, the Son and the
Holy Ghost are of the same essence and that the Son existed together
with the Father before all ages. To get the Arian bishops to sign that
decision an amendment was issued, saying that the Father worked through
the Son and the Spirit and so stressing the unicum of the Father. As
soon as the Western delegates had returned home they rejected this
amendment. Soon after this Teodosius issued an edict banning Arianism by
law, and so it ceased in the empire but flourished in the Germanic
states. The united church was still in reality divided and now the
divison focused on the amendment which finally resulted in the split
1054 because of the Filioque-question.
Within the Eastern half of the pro-forma united church the old Arian
fight continued but now disguised as the Theotokos-debate. There were
two centrals, Antioc arguing the Arian wiew and Alexandria the Nicaenan.
The question was wether God could be born by a human woman. The
Antiocenes meant Jesus was both human and divine and hence could be
borne by a woman, but this was rejected by the Alexandrians claiming
Jesus Christ was wholly divine. In the long run this gives Mary a
similar position of type Boddisathva as Arius had given Jesus and she
is, as the first ever, made a saint. Her saintly background is of course
also closely connected with Isis and Harpokrates in the Late Antique
cult of Serapion and further back to the different Mother-goddesses.
Here we touch also a connection to the Tree of Life. The council of
Efesos in 431 aknowledged the position of Mary as Theotokos. Jean
Damasce`ne writes in the 7th c. that Mary was the tabernacle in which
logos was incarnated into Jesus, finally making him Christ. Also in
James's protevangelium 4:1 and in Photius is stressed, that Marys
mother, Anna, had a vision that her daughter should be the instrument
delivering human blood to Christ, to be let out for the salvation of the
world. There is accordingly no doubt that Jesus is described as born
with human blood. After death Theotokos raised to heaven, now residing
with the Father and the Son. This is illustrated in the grave-chapel of
Chora church, where Mary wears the imperial purple mantle.
Here we are, accordingly, the old Orientalic trinity with father, mother
and son. Adding also the Gnostics we have a unification of male and
female-spirit and matter- both leading to the single allmighty God, the
result of both the forces like O and H becoming OH2. The female power is
connected to the Earth and the growing things and the male is the
spiritual force. Hence, also in Christian context Mary is connected with
plants and fertility. Very early the Tree of Life is connected with her
and so is the heart-palmette. The Tree of Life, in combination with the
hearts, indicates indeed Mary and her son, the Tree, growing out of the
soil but on a divine foundation of a zikkurate, and thereby stressing
that Jesus is born human, by a human mother, and is indeed the Son, not
the Father. Arianism has succeded to survive even in Västergötland year
2000 AD. There is no doubt whatsoever of the Byzantine origin of the
motive and with all probability this style was originally connected with
the iconoclasm. The way influences came could be several. We have the
värings from the imperial guard as seen even on the Eastern crosses on
rune-stones and cists both in East- and West- Sweden, the possible
marriage between Syritha/Sigrid Storråda and Eric the victorious via
Bohemia, as proposed by Lindblom, MacMathan et al., the clunyasensis
(Mac Mathan) or the intermarriage liasons of Olof Skötkonung and his
daughter with the Kievan royal family. His daughter became an orthodox
saint. The fabrication was evidently centralized and controlled which
could point to nobles or rather the king, residing in exactly the area
around Kinnekulle where the real concentration of slabs occur. After
1054 the Catholic church would not have admitted such stones unless
Hyenstrand is correct assuming a crusader as the initiator. Before 1054
however even Adalberth had plans to establish himself as Patriarch over
the North. Hamburg-Bremen was affiliated with the emperor in the
investiture fight and also the Ottonian empire, specially Otto III, can
have influenced as his church in Gernrode from 963 might have influenced
the one in Husaby. England, however, is the least probable origin as it
seems. Their function is most likely as votive-stones and even standing
altar-stones, presumably originally placed inside or along the wall of
the early wooden churches and maybe also continously used for a while,
when early stone churches started to be constructed.
It could be added that the only locations I have found relatively
similar stones except Byzantion and Västergötland is in Spain close to
Compostela de Santiago - in the Asturian area - and some single in Braga
and Carcassonne.
.
Literature: (above general standardworks of history of religion)

Karahan, Anne Den Heliga modern och Gudsriket, Dragomanen 3, s.48-59,
Stockholm, Konstantinopel 1999 (The Holy Mother and the Divine Realm)
Nordgren, Ingemar Gravmonumenten vid Husaby, Götiska Minnen 106,
Lidköping 1990 (The grave monuments at Husaby)
Nordgren, Ingemar Gotlands kelto-romerska arv, Götiska Minnen 113,
Lidköping 1992 (The Celto-Roman Inheritance of Gotland)
Nordgren, Ingemar Goterkällan-Om Goterna i Norden och på Kontinenten,
Göteborg 2000 (The Well Spring of the Goths)
Photius/CyrilMango The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople,
Cambridge, Mass. 1958
Rubenstein, Richard E. When Jesus became god. The epic flight over
Christ's Divinity in the last days of Rome, New York, San Diego 1999
S. Jean Damasce`ne/P. Voulet Homélies sur la nativité et la dormition,
Paris 1961

Well, to continue the reasoning from above I will stress some social and
religious factors within the Visigothic society in Spain during the
Arian epoch
It is known already from the Toulose-realm that there were both Arian
and Catholic bishops and that every citizen could choose freely - all
were in fact not at all Goths in the poulation but also the Goths I
think were tolerant towards each other as well as they were tolerant
towards confessors of other religions. The Jews e.g. had special
permission from the king to establish an own community. In the period
after Reccared the intolerance towards Arian grew worser but as far as I
know Arianism was not forbidden and also practiced by many, both
commoners and nobles. There were several revolts towards the different
ruling kings and these were founded both on political and religious
base. The most disastrous during this epoch was however the
Toledo-councils of the church and the demand from the pope to persecute
Jews ending up in their total slavery in 702. No wonder they supported
the moors. The Jewish question took I presume that much effort that
there never was taken real action against the remaining Arians. Many of
these might have stayed in the Moorish areas where they presumably were
better treated than by Catholics. Remember their opinion of Jesus is
much closer to the Moslem wiew as demonstrated by the Egyptians. Now
after 711 however the remaining Catholic rests of the former Visigothic
state up North must have considered these Arians as illojal and
presumable traitors, but still have well known that they were deeply
religious and that they allways had attended the Visigothic churches.
Also remember that before the filioque-guestion caused the final split
in 1054 a lot of the "Catholics" still were in fact "Arian" or in any
case "Eastern" in their interpretation. There was a broad agenda to act
within with other words.
These "traitors" hence could not reasonably be totally expelled by the
church but they could be punished with a low social position and
restrictions similar to those in fact applied by Hitler with the
Jew-stars et c. They could also loose the right to be called
Goths-Gotas. The little letter 'a' in Latin and Spanish means among
else'no,not'. The Agotas then could be the 'Non-Goths''the Un-Goths',
the humans beings denied to be called Goths any longer. In surrounding
countries they still for a time seem to have been regarded as just Goths
in e.g. the example with Bisigotas given in another mail. In time the
Spanish name spread to other countries but not in the same form and
hence we have the Cagots. They were allowed to visit church but not
allowed to communiate but had a special 'benitor' saint to attend to. In
time their pure Arian background was forgotten and they were regarded
Catholics but I am sure they never really were Roman Catholics even if
the society around regarded them as such. Maybe they at last even
themselves were not aware of the difference and of the original reason
of their status.

Well here I stop right now. I suppose somebody will tell me I am totally
wrong out and that all my ideas are stupid. If so I am used to that
reaction. This is just a try to a possible solution of the Agota-mystery.

Best wishes
Ingemar





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/wWMplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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/