Talk:Odin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
"Book" This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Odin as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Italian language Wikipedia.
Portal:Mythology
 Mythology Portal
This article is supported by the Mythology WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] older discussions (read these before asking a question or making a substantial edit to this article!)

[edit] actual reasons for the required rewrite

Back in March (see Talk:Woden), we decided to have a central page about all variants of Wodanaz, here at Odin. Now the article is getting long, and I agree the etymology section was inflated beyond what is warranted on an overview article. We need to keep a central, comparative article, but we need to branch off, especially Eddaic Odin deserves his dedicated article. The question is, where to keep the main article. I see two approaches:

either

or

the second option would require us to move the entire article to Wodanaz, and then start an article about Nordic Odin in particular here at Odin. My preference, I think, is with this. We could then start sub-articles along the lines of

Odin is the North Germanic form of Germanic Wodanaz ...
Woden is the Anglo-Saxon form of Germanic Wodanaz ...
Wotan is the German form of Germanic Wodanaz ...

etc. dab (ᛏ) 12:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Castanea dentata comments:

I was one of the anons that Dab reverted. I didn't like it, so I just ignored the page.

I appreciate Wighson's sticking up for me here, and it looks like that Dab is seeing that it pays to be respectful of others even when they are saying things you don't want to hear.

But Dab, you can be really rude,I don't see how Wighson or whoever puts up with it. To be frank, I don't think you knew what you were talking about at all, and everyone here has been very patient.

We don't need rudeness, Dab, and we don't dicators, either. You should be ashamed of yourself!!!!

I think Haukurþ and other Icelanders have set things straight. They stood with the facts.

Maybe the page can reflect the suggestions. Takk.


So everyone going to insult me now, too? Oh well. Castanea dentata 22:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why I should be taking abuse on this page, in pink font, or in fonts of any colour, just because I'm trying to enforce scholarly standards for the article. I haven't removed a single sourced statement. Wighson has made it painfully clear in the mess above that linguistically, he doesn't know his ass from his elbow, and now this guy thinks, why not add a little insult to injury? The more the merrier man, let's make this dab bashing week. Or Pokorny bashing week. Wait, no, let's make it academia bashing week, why be rational if we can have pink text. dab (ᛏ) 22:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to decide whether to laugh or sigh.
. . .
Yeah. Laughter it is. Good gods. Can we say 'persecution and inferiority issues'? Preferably without Barbie-pink text?
 ;)
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{fact}}

Do you have to abusivley use the template in article? It looks horrible. :( --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

'Fraid so. I quote: Wikipedia articles which are on popular, important or historical subjects are given the greatest attention by vandals This definitely applies to Odin. Especially within the past month or so.
It seems that the visually annoying nature of {{fact}} markers tends to incite people to want to remove them. Since the best way to remove them is to go pawing through books that are necessary to provide a citation for the marked passages, it appears to work out well. Wicca is another one currently being improved in this fashion, and the method is working as outlined above- people are citing what can be referenced, and removing what cannot be referenced or is otherwise not appropriate for an encyclopædia. Darwikianism and Eventualism are the two philosophies that make the most sense to me in the context of a Wiki. If you know of a better way to cudgel interested editors into making an article resemble something useful, I am quite open to suggestions. I have learnt just enough to get things done here, so there are surely more efficient tools and methods of which I am unaware. Slainté,
P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 23:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
addendum- in light of your removal of the markers, I refer you to Wikipedia:Cite_sources#When there is a factual dispute. Doing it one section at a time seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the appropriate passage from that location: A milder step—where you believe content is probably accurate, but feel that a citation would be a significant enhancement—is to place {{fact}} after the relevant passage. This should be used sparingly; Wikipedia has a lot of undercited articles, and placing tens of thousands of instances of {{fact}} is unlikely to be beneficial. /endquote.
Thoughts?
P.MacUidhir (t) (c)
the intro is supposed to be a summary of the article. I.e. every statement in the intro will be repeated in greater detail in the article body. References need not be quoted in the intro, but at whatever point the statement is discussed. Therefore, of your "contested" points, I maintain a number is already sourced. You can change those for which you find no discussion in the article, and for those that are discussed, you can add {{fact}} to the various statement in the article. Many statements are attributed, to Viktor Rydberg, Robert Wace, Julius Caesar, Adam von Bremen and others. That said, I don't mind the templates too much seeing that the whole article has a big ugly "rewrite" template. I just wish somebody would act on it (see my suggestions above), rather than just adding the templates. dab (ᛏ) 19:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ynglinga saga

I have great difficulty in approaching this article. I usually arrange the mythology articles I write by source; typically starting with a Prose Edda quote and then going on to the Poetic Edda, Heimskringla, skaldic poetry or other sources (see Ullr for an example). But the Odin article is structured by topic and that may be a more practical arrangement for such a complex topic. I don't know.

In any case here are some of the most interesting passages on Odin from the Ynglinga saga for easy reference.

Odin was a great and very far-travelled warrior, who conquered many kingdoms, and so successful was he that in every battle the victory was on his side. It was the belief of his people that victory belonged to him in every battle. It was his custom when he sent his men into battle, or on any expedition, that he first laid his hand upon their heads, and called down a blessing upon them; and then they believed their undertaking would be successful. His people also were accustomed, whenever they fell into danger by land or sea, to call upon his name; and they thought that always they got comfort and aid by it, for where he was they thought help was near. Often he went away so far that he passed many seasons on his journeys.

...

Odin was the cleverest of all, and from him all the others learned their arts and accomplishments; and he knew them first, and knew many more than other people. But now, to tell why he is held in such high respect, we must mention various causes that contributed to it. When sitting among his friends his countenance was so beautiful and dignified, that the spirits of all were exhilarated by it, but when he was in war he appeared dreadful to his foes. This arose from his being able to change his skin and form in any way he liked. Another cause was, that he conversed so cleverly and smoothly, that all who heard believed him. He spoke everything in rhyme, such as now composed, which we call scald-craft. He and his temple priests were called song-smiths, for from them came that art of song into the northern countries. Odin could make his enemies in battle blind, or deaf, or terror-struck, and their weapons so blunt that they could no more but than a willow wand; on the other hand, his men rushed forwards without armour, were as mad as dogs or wolves, bit their shields, and were strong as bears or wild bulls, and killed people at a blow, but neither fire nor iron told upon themselves. These were called Berserker.

...

Odin could transform his shape: his body would lie as if dead, or asleep; but then he would be in shape of a fish, or worm, or bird, or beast, and be off in a twinkling to distant lands upon his own or other people's business. With words alone he could quench fire, still the ocean in tempest, and turn the wind to any quarter he pleased. Odin had a ship which was called Skidbladnir, in which he sailed over wide seas, and which he could roll up like a cloth. Odin carried with him Mime's head, which told him all the news of other countries. Sometimes even he called the dead out of the earth, or set himself beside the burial-mounds; whence he was called the ghost-sovereign, and lord of the mounds. He had two ravens, to whom he had taught the speech of man; and they flew far and wide through the land, and brought him the news. In all such things he was pre-eminently wise. He taught all these arts in Runes, and songs which are called incantations, and therefore the Asaland people are called incantation-smiths. Odin understood also the art in which the greatest power is lodged, and which he himself practised; namely, what is called magic. By means of this he could know beforehand the predestined fate of men, or their not yet completed lot; and also bring on the death, ill-luck, or bad health of people, and take the strength or wit from one person and give it to another. But after such witchcraft followed such weakness and anxiety, that it was not thought respectable for men to practise it; and therefore the priestesses were brought up in this art. Odin knew finely where all missing cattle were concealed under the earth, and understood the songs by which the earth, the hills, the stones, and mounds were opened to him; and he bound those who dwell in them by the power of his word, and went in and took what he pleased. From these arts he became very celebrated. His enemies dreaded him; his friends put their trust in him, and relied on his power and on himself. He taught the most of his arts to his priests of the sacrifices, and they came nearest to himself in all wisdom and witch-knowledge.

...

The Swedes believed that he often showed to them before any great battle. To some he gave victory; others he invited to himself; and they reckoned both of these to be fortunate. [1]

[edit] Now I *know* that it is time for me to shove off to bed... :)

A few moments ago, I was reviewing some of Haukur's and Dieter's edits to this article when something trival struck me as insanely hiliarious... for at least ten seconds or so, anyway. :)

One sees this passage at the beginning of the article.

Quote: "His name is, in Old Norse, Óðinn. Although its precise meaning is debated, the name is thought to be related to the word óðr, meaning "excitation" or "fury".

...but half-a-scroll-button's worth of movement going down the article brings up this picture:

Odin, the wanderer.
Odin, the wanderer.

Excited? Furious?

Heh.

He looks like he is posing for a daguerrotype portrait and was becoming a bit annoyed at the length of time needed to take the picture.

Thought I would share this in case anyone else can see the humour inherent in the irony.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's the god of berserkers according to Ynglinga saga but in the myths he isn't really the emotional type. Unlike Thor getting angry at Útgarða-Loki's or Freyr moaning over Gerðr, Odin always seems composed and deliberate, doesn't he? - Haukur 22:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I think he's in post-berserkergangr depression, in this image :p dab (ᛏ) 09:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I think in this snapshot, he's just about ready to enter another fit :)
I think in this snapshot, he's just about ready to enter another fit :)
Perhaps Freya has just left him, and now Frigg doesn't want him back? Fornadan (t) 13:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a bit disrespectful Fornadan, but still i agree he does look grumpy. SynthesiseD

[edit] ok

not many edits, recently; we agree that the article may have to be refactored, hence the "rewrite" template. What is the point of the "npov" template, precisely? The etymology section is now extremely watertight as a result of the pissing contest above. What else is totally disputed? Can we just insert {{fact}} in those places and drop the template? Or move it to some section in particular? dab (ᛏ) 13:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, that would be a good course of action here. I agree, Dieter.
Another thing-
"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup."
Does the meaning of that message at the top of the Odin article strike anyone else as being a bit redundant? This is Wikipedia. A vast number of articles 'may require cleanup'. That is the nature of this entire process- to develop the articles to a certain standard of excellence. We might as well add a template message stating 'This article may require discussion between editors for it to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.' ;) Just seems. . . obvious, really. Can someone justify having that template message at the top of this article? If not, I am inclined to have a bit of fun with my delete key.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. It's no worse than a lot of articles. It's actually reasonably coherent and reasonably accurate - though it still needs restructuring, more content and better balance before I'd be happy with it. - Haukur 11:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I am actually quite happy with it, I think it will be difficult to find a better single online resource on Odin, and I don't think the "cleanup" tag is warranted; it is, even, not very far from {{GA}} imho. Of course I agree it can still be substantially improved, and I'll be even more happy if somebody sits down and does that. dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Dieter's perspective here, though Haukur's point about the article needing some tweaking and selective expansion here and there is well said. Perhaps a discussion here about what, in general, should be considered in that line of action might be a good idea?
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toponyms with the name of Odin

Audinghen (Odingham), close to Raventhun (Raventown), Tardinghen (Thordingham),

Loquinghen (Lokingham) and Audembert (Odinberg)

  • In central France (Berry):

Vatan same as Wotan

I moved this from the article. A section on French toponyms is not something I'd expect to find in an overview article on Odin :) - Haukur 23:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

well, if the connection with Odin is genuine, what's the problem? This is still the article about *Wodinaz, too. If and how this article should be split up into regional sub-articles is still in the balance, as far as I can see. We need to make this decision now, otherwise we won't know how to proceed. dab (ᛏ) 12:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If we can get a decent referenced balanced section on toponyms then I won't object.
I've been trying to write an article on "Early Odin" but it's much harder than I thought to avoid excessive overlap with "Eddaic Odin". Maybe one huge monolithic article is the way to go after all, I don't know. - Haukur 12:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Odin

Here's some brainstorming on stuff we may want to have an an "Early Odin" article. Please feel free to add to or annotate the list.

  • Tacitus
  • Caesar
  • Votive altars to "Mercurius Rex" et al.
  • Ælfric
  • Paul the Deacon
  • Æthelweard
  • 2nd Merseburg charm
  • Jonas of Bobbio
  • Nordendorf fibula
  • Saxon baptismal vow
  • Toponyms
  • Solomon and Saturn
  • Picture stones
  • Eggjum stone
  • Ribe cranium
  • Adam of Bremen

Alternatively we could scratch the early Norse items and go for a "West-Germanic Odin" article. - Haukur 13:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

that would be "West Germanic Woden", if you please -- we West Germans don't have your Nordic speech defect :) -- in fact, this would mean resurrecting Woden as an independent article. We may want to give good thought whether we want to have Anglo-Saxon Woden and German Wotan separate or not. Maybe the first step would be to do a sub-article on "early Odin", how about branching out Wodinaz/Wodanaz? dab (ᛏ) 13:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the overlap of "Early Wodinaz" with "Eddaic Odin", btw? "Early Wodinaz" would include the Celtic stuff, Tacitus, Paul, and the Migration period up to maybe AD 700. Eddaic Odin starts at about that time. dab (ᛏ) 13:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing that bothers me most is that it's difficult to go over the material of human sacrifice to Odin in a way that makes sense without making use of both Eddaic and early material.
I would prefer not to use a reconstructed form for an article title. Using the asterisk is cumbersome and omitting it is sloppy. I doubt we have enough material to divide the West-Germanic part into two articles.
And "Eddaic Odin" is maybe not so good a title if we're going to apply it to things like the Ribe cranium, Ibn Fadlan, Adam of Bremen and Saxo as well as the Eddas and the sagas. But I would like some article where we could go through the whole laundry list of Norse Odin myths :) - Haukur 16:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
true. What about
(redirects in brackets) ? dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, okay, we're definitely getting closer. I like Norse Odin better than Eddaic Odin and Woden seems like a natural choice. So, Early Odin would be basically the Roman stuff? Could I sell you Germanic Mercury as a title? :) - Haukur 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
hmmm, not just "Roman" but also archaeology. Anything pre-600 is not "Odin", even in Scandinavia, but "*Wodinaz". "Germanic Mercury" is too fixed on Roman tradition; our division should be (a) temporal (pre vs. post 7th century) and areal (Viking Age Norse vs. West Germanic). Necessarily, some features will be pertinent to several articles, that's no bother, since we'll keep a central "pan-Wotan" article anyway. This is quite difficult, and I'm not sure there's a single best solution. dab (ᛏ) 19:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there's archaeology but most written sources before 600 call the god in question "Mercury" (sometimes with an epithet). I agree that "Early Odin" is a bit stupid for that period but I'd still prefer that to a reconstructed form and "Germanic Mercury" is my first choice, though I concede that it's not perfect. The article will also have to mention Germanic Ares, Germanic Mars and Regnator Omnium Deorum.
But agreeing on a title is less important than agreeing on the division of the material. Maybe we can try breaking out one article at a time. I'd like to expand the stuff on the earliest sources in this article and then we can maybe break it into a separate article, leaving a summary. - Haukur 19:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woden and the Anglo-Saxons

There seems to be a bit of a factual error in the Anglo-Saxon section, however since my chronology may not be up to date I thought it best to confirm this. Specifically, it is stated that the "conversion to Christianity" happened "in the 8th and 9th centuries." Certainly this is a false statement, as Aethelberht of Kent was (most likely) baptized in 601, with Edwin of Northumbria following suit in both Bretwaldaship and conversion shortly after. Perhaps the 8th/9th century was when the old pagan religion began to truly vanish, rather than when England began to convert? Thought 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see that idea being asserted? The portion of text dealing with the matter seems to be different from what you are perceiving it to say:
quote: "The Anglo-Saxon tribes brought Woden to England around the 5th and 6th centuries, continuing his worship until conversion to Christianity in the 8th and 9th centuries, at which point the old gods and records of them were almost completely lost."
It reads rather clear to me from those statements- the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, et cetera, brought their native paganry with them to Britain, after which those ideas graduallys dwindled in favour of a form of Christianity amongst those Germanic settlers. The invasion of Scandinavians tipped the balance again in favour of the pagans, but ultimately the vast majority of what we call the English peoples chose Christianity since that time. King Alfred himself serves as an example, a measure if you will, of that shifting of religious loyalties. Where does it say that they only began converting in the 8th-9th centuries?
The quoted portion given above could be worded better to reflect the historically attested gradual changes rather than implying a more sudden societal change. Is that what you mean? That the current wording implies a sudden rather than a gradual change? I can agree with that, if so, since it was definitely a gradual process.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 08:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the implication that the "balance was tipped in favour of paganism" with the Viking invasions (much to the contrary, paganism seemed more dreadful with every Viking attack :) -- England was fully Christianized by the end of the 7th century, and I don't think it is possible to argue for "conversion" during the 8th, let alone the 9th century. This is why we have so precious little information about "Anglo-Saxon paganism" of course; the only pagan Anglo-Saxon textual testimony is about one page, the Finnsburgh fragment. dab (ᛏ) 10:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Penda of Mercia died in 655. - Haukur 10:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
that's what I mean. Nobility was converted first, but give them another 50 years, and you'd have to go pretty far off the beaten track to find lingering paganism. by 700, England was a Christian country. dab (ᛏ) 11:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
My father-in-law still takes off his glasses and bows to the new moon (for the same reason as waving money spiders around your head - and possibly as effective) - isn't that a lingering pagan exercise. GraemeLeggett 11:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
well, in that sense, Christianity itself is pure "lingering paganism", no point in drawing a distinction :) dab (ᛏ) 11:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
In reference to your original response here to myself, Dieter- Yes, of course. My point was simply that the invading Scandinavians were themselves pagans, and that they settled a substantial portion of what is now Britain, but ultimately Christianity continued to be the dominant religion in Britain even after the Danelaw was established. Nothing more than a minor corollary point was I making. :) I was not arguing in favour of Christianisation during the 8th-9th centuries, and hope that I was not misunderstood on that point.
Now, if we can get back to the original question... actually, I will go fix it myself. Thought's point was a valid one, at least if I understand his meaning correctly- the wording in the article on this matter is a bit misleading.
→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odin and Týr

Odin probably rose to prominence during the Migration period, gradually displacing Tyr as the head of the pantheon in West and North Germanic cultures.

How do we figure that? Already in Germania Mercury is the man. And from what I can gather there are far more pre-migration age votive altars to Mercury than Mars. - Haukur 09:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
yes, only the Goths stuck with "Mars", but that's considered conservative; maybe the division was Proto-Germanic, with the "Tyr" sect in the East?[OR: that makes sense if Vatinos is Celtic=Western!] The idea that Tyr worship predates Odin worship is based in linguistics, of course, and we may well say so. dab (ᛏ) 11:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
ah, and I think the idea is that Odin as a war god dates to the Migration period. "Mercury" at the top may well be Proto-Germanic, but I suppose Tyr only lost much of his profile after Odin decided he was interested in war as well. dab (ᛏ) 11:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha, perhaps. But already in Tacitus the Germans are sacrificing to Mercury, as well as Mars, in connection with warfare.

The same summer a great battle was fought between the Hermunduri and the Chatti, both forcibly claiming a river which produced salt in plenty, and bounded their territories. They had not only a passion for settling every question by arms, but also a deep-rooted superstition that such localities are specially near to heaven, and that mortal prayers are nowhere more attentively heard by the gods. It is, they think, through the bounty of divine power, that in that river and in those forests salt is produced, not, as in other countries, by the drying up of an overflow of the sea, but by the combination of two opposite elements, fire and water, when the latter had been poured over a burning pile of wood. The war was a success for the Hermunduri, and the more disastrous to the Chatti because they had devoted, in the event of victory, the enemy's army to Mars and Mercury, a vow which consigns horses, men, everything indeed on the vanquished side to destruction. And so the hostile threat recoiled on themselves. - [2]

It seems clear that Týr declined in importance between those early Roman accounts and the Eddas but it is not clear that he was ever the head of the pantheon. It's also interesting that apart from the weekday his name does not occur in any mainland sources. I think philologists have a tendency to exaggerate his importance because they're so happy with the etymology of his name :)

Incidentally the practice of sacrificing the entire beaten side once a victory is secured is also referred to by Orosius in connection with the Cimbri. Strabo also mentions the sacrificial rituals of the Cimbri and Procopius those of the Heruls. All of this might belong in the Germanic paganism article. - Haukur 13:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, when discussing Proto-Germanic times, you have to take what little evidence you have :) The "Mercury and Mars" bit is perfect for the idea of Wodinaz and Tiwaz forming a transitional Proto-Germanic Diarchy. Anyway, you are right, and I'm not defending the statement as it is now, feel free to rephrase more cautiously. Instead of saying "Proto-Germanic Tiwaz was on top" we can say "Proto-Germanic Tiwaz was still way more important than Eddaic Tyr, and ultimately originates with Dyeus, who was at the top in PIE times. He may still have been the chief god among the East Germanic tribes, and in the West, he may have ruled the pantheon in a diarchy with Wodinaz from Proto-Germanic times."dab (ᛏ) 14:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll find some other wording. Incidentally I've never entirely bought the idea of *Dyeus as the greatest god of the Indo-Europeans :) It seems strange that he would have been so de-emphasized already in the Rig-Veda if he was ever at the top. But it's a standard theory and it does have a reasonable amount of evidence in its favor so it should definitely be mentioned where appropriate. The Týr article could use some work. - Haukur 14:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
we are talking about the 4th millennium BC here, there is not much mythology that has survived that long, at all. Dyeus is the only god that is attested in practically all branches, so if there was a chief god of the PIEans, it would have been him. Keeping in the business of being a god for some 4,000 years is quite an acheivement, even if he started to look a bit battered by the Viking Age :) dab (ᛏ) 15:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Simek's Dictionary says, in the entry for Mars:

"The frequently quoted passage from Jordanes (Getica V, 41) that the Goths worship Mars as their ancestor and bring him blood sacrifice, would appear to rest on the transfer of the Thracian and Getian god Mars/Ares onto the Goths and therefore is of little importance."

Perhaps. But it should be noted that in my opinion the entry in question is borderline insane. It procedes like this:

"It is not clear exactly why Mars was compared to Zîo/Týr. Zîo/Týr was the old Germanic god of the sky which also agrees with the linguistic correlation with Greek Zeus, Latin Jupiter. The only indication for the identification of Týr as a possible god of war is found in Snorri, who, writing in the 13th century (Gylfaginning 24) talks about the Æsir god Týr as follows: 'He is the boldest and bravest, and he has power over victory in battle. It is good for heroes to call upon his help.' However, as we can assume that Snorri was only too aware of the old identification of Týr and Mars as being one and the same, this evidence must be ignored, even more so since there is no further confirmation of Týr having this function in the myths."

This is so weird I hardly know where to begin. Simek states categorically that Týr is the old Germanic god of the sky and then adds that this "also agrees" with the linguistic evidence. But the linguistic evidence is not some incidental corraborating "also-agrees-with" evidence. It is the only evidence we have for Týr as a sky god. Then he spends the rest of the paragraph shutting his eyes to the fact that most of our scant evidence indicates Týr as a war god. He says that "it is not clear" why Mars was identified with Týr but surely it is strong evidence in itself that he is a war god. Then Simek says that the only description of the god which has come down to us must be ignored. And finally he says that there is "no further confirmation" of Týr as a war god in the myths. But surely we shouldn't just ignore evidence like Sigrdrífumál 6:

Winning-runes learn, | if thou longest to win,
And the runes on thy sword-hilt write;
Some on the furrow, | and some on the flat,
And twice shalt thou call on Tyr.

Nor should we ignore evidence of Germans sacrificing to Mars for victory in battle. - Haukur 20:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perkwunos

If you're interested, there are problems of organization very similar to those experienced here over at Perkunas, Perun, Perkwunos etc. dab (ᛏ) 11:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] attempted restructuring

My thinking behind this edit is this: the main sections are

  • General characteristics
  • Origins
  • Worship
  • West Germanic
  • North Germanic
  • Medieval
  • Toponyms
  • Modern

"General characteristics" ("Overview") is supposed to give a brief summary of the commonalities and the aspects treated in this article. The remaining sections are roughly chronological; "Origins" and "Worship" treats Proto-Germanic to Migration period, and traits common to all traditions (Sacrifices, Shamanic stuff), ideally comparing Northern and Western evidence. Then we get to West Germanic Woden, say 500-800, in particular, and finally to Viking Age (800-1300) Norse Odin, while "Toponyms" and "Medieval" treat the Christian period. I don't know if this is usable. The "main" articles indicated here are for "German Mercury", for "West Germanic Woden", and for Norse Odin; the idea is that some content of these sections would be exported there, of course. This is only my current thinking of what we were discussing, and I won't mind being reverted. dab (ᛏ) 12:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What bugs me a bit about breaking Óðinn into a separate article is that I'm not sure where to link to it. Should the article on, say, Höðr link to Odin or Óðinn? I'm wondering if a subarticle like Odin myths would be a more suitable place for the mass of Odin information in the Norse sources.
But I'm fine with just working on this article for a while and trying to get it solid (good edits today from you both). We still need to be more clear on which sources we're making use of in each instance. It's a bit jarring to me, for example, to say that the Cimbri sacrificed to "Odin", especially when the next sentence deals with material from Orkneyinga saga - a gap of more than 1000 years there. Arranging this chronologically seems like a good way to address that. - Haukur 13:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The title of this main article is the main problem. Ideally, if we do have an article about Norse Odin, Odin should link there. But what will be the title of this article? Wodanaz? I wouldn't mind this, but then I have a predilection for reconstructed article titles (Hausos, Dyeus, Perkwunos). Or, maybe we could have the main article at Wodan or Wotan? Regarding the "comparative" sections, it is the bounty of having such a "main" article to be able to compare the Cimbri with the Vikings; but the nature of the comparison should alwas remain clear. Of course the article on Norse Odin will have its own "Blot" section concentrating on Norse worship. The mass of Norse myths can easily be on Eddaic Odin, a sub-article of Norse Odin; we opted against Eddaic Odin equating Norse Odin altogether because we will want to include archaeological / historical non-Eddaic Norse sources. dab (ᛏ) 13:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Ok, here's an idea: I have made Wodanaz into what I think an "Early Odin" article might roughly look like. What about making the "main" article and the "early" article identical? This article would then be about Norse Odin exclusively, and comparative material would go to Wodanaz. (the idea is of course to cut the material taken to Wodanaz out of this article, overlap should be as sparse as possible). We would then have

The toponyms can go to a list sub-article. dab (ᛏ) 13:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not big on reconstructed names as article titles but, yes, I agree that Odin should be about the Norse god. I'm not sure there is enough material for a good separate article on Woden - that might best go into the comparative article too, leaving us with Odin and *Wodanaz. - Haukur 13:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
So Woden starts off as a bit of a stub - lots of articles look stubby somedays. Easier to expand a stub than wade into the middle of an existing article. GraemeLeggett 14:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


well yes, but you should be aware that a stubby Woden was merged into Odin abuot a year ago. The difference now would be of course that there will be a main article for both. Woden may or may not redirect to the main article for now, the point is that it can be branched out in principle.
right, so I made Óðinn into an experimental "Norse Odin" article; the idea is of course that it would reside at Odin if we agree to proceed with this. we would then have
dab (ᛏ) 14:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Combining English Woden and German Wodan, we get more than just a stub, look at Woden now. dab (ᛏ) 14:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


I carried out the restructuring along the lines discussed above now. It may need some cleanup, but I think I have preserved all material. There is now Wodanaz, the comparative (diachronic) article, Woden the Migration period/West Germanic and Odin the Norse/Viking age god. The toponyms I stuffed into List of places named after Odin. I'll redirect the talk pages of the other articles here so we can keep the discussion in one place. Please comment and improve; the aim must be to have as little overlap as possible between the articles, but they contain of course short summaries of each other. dab (ᛏ) 13:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

— hmm, any feedback? Is this an improvement? Did I ruin the article? dab (ᛏ) 21:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No, you didn't ruin it :) I wonder why you don't have a macron over the o in *Wodanaz and I wonder if the asterisk should be included in the title itself.
John Lindow's Handbook has an entry for regnator omnium deus so I went and wrote one too :) - Haukur 23:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there should be an asterisk in the title itself. It messes up sorting, and most people won't know what to make of it. It is better, imho, to say "Wodanaz is the reconstructed name of a god" than just "*Wodanaz is a god". Strictly speaking, not even the ō is necessary, since ō did not contrast with an o in Proto-Germanic (but notation with ō is preferable I agree). dab (ᛏ) 07:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
We can move to *Wōdanaz but sort by Wodanaz. Naked reconstructed forms give me the heebie jeebies :) - Haukur 09:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
"And someday we will have the class to risk / Dropping that preposed asterisk" [3] :p Not all article titles are words. Some are just graphemes or symbols (A, =, 5). In the case of etymological articles like Wodanaz or Dyeus, the title consists of symbols representing sound corresponences between cognates. The problem with the asterisk is that in general linguistics, it marks an ungrammatical form, so the problem of explaining that ō is a symbol for corresponding vowel qualities in a number of Germanic languages is exactly the same as the problem of explaining that * is indicating that the following letters are such symbols, nothing is gained by adding it to the article title. See talk:Perkwunos, people don't like specialist symbols in article titles too much (although the point there was rendering, which for * would be no problem). But since the * is not part of the word, I would rather link *Wōdanaz than *Wōdanaz. A feasible approach would be a descriptive title like Origins of Odin, Comparison of Odin, Woden and Wotan or similar. dab (ᛏ) 11:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


The Cult of Othin An old book but rather a good one. - Haukur 20:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odin and Jesus

I was surprised to see the statement that Wagner had likened Odin to Jesus. What is the basis for this statement? --rossb 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement is that Jung pointed out, in the reference given, that Wagner's Wotan has traits of Jesus, not that Wagner had explicitly said so, but we'll have to look into Notes of the Seminar Given in 1928–1930 to be sure. dab (ᛏ) 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it may also be because of Óðinn hanging on Yggdrasill with a spear in his side, the Nazarene's crucifixion seems similar to this.

Though most all of that has removed (suggested to be OR0 i have seen it commented on in other works such as Lost Gods Of England. More sources may be needed. GraemeLeggett 09:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seid

Mircea Elidae states in Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy that seid and shamanism are not cognate terms. I would also like the specific reference being cited in Ynglinga saga in this section. Also, why does the Seid heading include the loss of Odin's eye, the winning of the runes, comparison to Christian crucifixion, etc.? this seems to be a misnamed section. Also this sentence:

The purpose of this strange ritual, a god sacrificing himself to himself because there was nothing higher to sacrifice to, was ostensibly to obtain mystical insight through mortification of the flesh.

Seems like pure conjecture to me. WeniWidiWiki 03:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

regarding the section title, that is a leftover of my refactoring; the section used to be entitled "shamanistic traits", now at Wodanaz. "Shamanism" would apply to early (pre-Proto-Norse) times, I suppose, so I decided to organize the Odin article by attested concepts (Seid, Blot), but I was not too careful. Please feel free to reorganize as you see fit. But what does Elidae mean by saying Shamanism and Seid are not "cognate"? What is the context? Are the two concepts expressedly compared? "Cognate" means "of common origin"; now since Shamanism (in the wide sense not restricted to Siberia) is pretty much an umbrella term for "aboriginal" spirituality, it would be difficult to imagine what this "common origin" of Shamanism and Seid would be. Are you sure the term "cognate" is really used? In fact, "cognate terms" is usually referring to etymology, but it would be possible to talk about "cognate concepts" if two concepts can be shown to share a single historical predecessor. The relevance of the rune-fniding bit seems to hinge on the assertion that "climbing of the world tree to find knowledge" is common in Shamanism. I have no idea if this is true, so I'll tag it with {{fact}} for now. dab (ᛏ) 12:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
ok, so I found axis mundi, a Shamanistic concept I think is fair to compare to Odin's trip to the world tree. Also, Seid is unequivocally described as "a form of shamanism", so you may want to go discuss over there first. "Shamanism", it goes without saying, is here used in a general "Eurasian" sense, not restricted to its Tungus roots, I don't think anybody means to claim that Proto-Germanic religion is related to the Evenks in particular. dab (ᛏ) 12:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Dab - "cognate" was my usage, and I was using it in the sense that they are not derived from the same source. The specific quote from Mircea Eliade is:

“The specifically shamanic themes—descent to the underworld to bring back a patient's soul or escort the deceased—although attested, as we have seen, in Nordic magic are not a primary element in the seidhr séance. Instead, the latter seems to concentrate on divination, that is, belongs rather to "minor magic".

There is a lot of confusion over this issue in the US because many people are are using the term 'seið' for what should be 'spa' or 'spae' which is soothsaying or oracular divination. Consensus on a linguistic level and as used in the Eddaic materials is that sorcery is a more apt definition than shamanism because so many things which are clearly sorcery are called 'siða' or 'seið'. All I'm saying is that "seid = shamanism" is not fact based. WeniWidiWiki 16:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. seidh != shamanism. However, I think it justified that seidh includes "shamanic aspects", and that Odin has "shamanic traits". The "escort the deceased" bit is quite tangibly present with Odin, as is the axis mundi and all that. I don't think that the article texts intends to claim any more than that. dab (ᛏ) 16:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Óðinn Pronunciation

Does anyone know the pronunciation of the ON Óðinn? I assume that it's pronouned 'Othin' as the character eth is usually interchangable with the character thorn. Can anyone confirm this?

no, there is a contrast, see Old_Norse_language#Phonology. dab (ᛏ) 15:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
'Othin' is not a clear way of indicating the pronunciation, as th in English can indicate either a voiced sound (as in 'then') or an unvoiced one ('thin'). Eth and thorn are interchangeable in OE, but not in Old Icelandic. I suspect there may have been variations among the ON dialects. In O Icel, thorn is voiceless and occurs only at the beginning of words, or the beginning of word-roots if there is a prefix. Eth is voiced, and occurs only medially or finally.
I am guessing that the voiced/unvoiced contrast in other ON dialects was like that of English. As far as I am aware, modern Danish has d where English has voiced th, but t where English has voiceless th. Copey 2 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odin's eye

Could someone please confirm which eye Odin had to extract to gain knowledge from the well of Mimir because I've always heard it was his right eye however there's an image at the top of this page with Odin's left eye gone however later on, his right eye's gone. Which eye was it? --Apoc100 10:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

see Talk:Odin/Archive1. apparently there is no authoritative evidence deciding the question. dab (ᛏ) 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
od, Odin
hug, Hugin
mein, Munin
od, male
hug, female
mein, memory
od, right side of brain, left eye
hug, left side of brain, right eye
mein, contents of brain, history
From where do you derive this? :bloodofox: 15:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Under the tree she sat when Odin there came, Wisdom was her name. The tree of knowledge has three roots, on his head a crown where three becomes nine. If you tell me the name of the nine songs, given to Odin in your favourite poem, I tell you. But if not wisdom you seek then cut down the tree and delete me. - Ninum

[edit] males of each species

This phrase needs rewording or expansion. Does it mean "males of various species of animals"? Does it include birds? Copey 2 13:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy?

Odin appears in the viedeo game final fantasy VIII, but this isn't mentioned at all in the article, would it be suitable to include? Epitaf 10:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see: Odin in popular culture. :bloodofox: 15:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming in modern Scandinavia

Odin is a relatively common boy's name in modern Scandinavia. In Norway, according to this site, 1 100 out of 4,5 million people (or 0,5%, which for a name is actually quite much) are named Odin. Should that be included? Or is it, and missed by blind ole me? 88.90.68.175 03:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Safe-Keeper

Go here, select "Mann" and type "Odin" in "Fornavn" and you will see that there are 1296 Odins in Norway, 989 of them are only called Odin (i.e. does not have a double christian name").Click the graph that appears, and it shows you that it has increased dramatically the last few years. Still, if you click "Mannsnavn brukt av 200 eller flere" you will see that it is only the 272nd most common name in Norway. Whether that's worth including or not, I don't know. --Barend 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and your math doesn't add up. It actually amounts to about 0,05 % of the male population of Norway - not 0,5 %.--Barend 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/d/i/Talk%7EOdin_838d.html"