Talk:Nerthus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Mythology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

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.
Start This article has been rated as start-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] Information

I have tried to pick together what information I can find about Nerthus. I find the reasoning logical, but that can of course be disputed. I you find the information contradictory or simply wrong, please make a contribution Wiglaf

I have trouble understanding this last sentence: "Slaves do this ministry and are then swallowed by the same lake: hence a mysterious terror and an ignorance full of reverence as to what that may be which men see only to die." Does this mean that the thralls sacrificed themselves in a ritual?

I believe it means that after doing their work and hiding the goddess, the slaves were killed and given to the lake.--Wiglaf 15:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Addition

I added the paragraph "It should also be noted that the same root as in Nerthus …" and so on. I used “Svitjod, resor till Sveriges ursprung” by Swedish archaeologist Mats G. Larsson as main reference here. Salleman 16:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have now formed a theories-section and written a few more paragraphs. My sources are still Larsson, along with Dumézil's works. Salleman 02:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Originality

I found the following website which is, upon brief inspection, a verbatim copy of this article. I'm not sure which came first, but I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention:

http://experts.about.com/e/n/ne/Nerthus.htm

I checked the mouse print at the bottom of that page and it says "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia." So ... there is nothing to worry about it was written at Wikipedia (having written some of it) and they're stating that in mouse print. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions on relevance

I made some comments inside the article inside <> editor marks. Inside Etmology, what do the names of other Gods have to do with the etymology of the name, Nerthus? The names don't sound etymologicaly close, to me. What does the war of the Gods have to do with Nerthus? The relevance is missing. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nerthus is generally thought to be the female counterpart of Njörðr. Such pairings were not uncommon and most likely this figure probably warped into another in the surviving sources we have, such as Gefjun and, through Gefjun, potentially even to Freyja later on.
Since it would seem that Nerthus was a figure of the Vanir and a fertility goddess and because this is often seen as an invasion of the Aesir (often seen as a sort of magic-using group of ruling gods) against the Vanir (largely associated with agriculture and fertility) Nerthus is often figured into this subject. This is most likely why it's mentioned but at the moment I agree it is a confused garble.
I've since gone through and restructured some things, switched some sections around and added some new information and references. It's not done by any means but I have used all the time I have for it at the moment. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There's also some other things missing at the moment, by the way. The cart is of a particular relevance, I will add more information later. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reginheim

I assume that this section is inspired by Reginheim:

Some scholars note that Nehalennia and Nerthus might be the same goddess, they both had ship symbols and were protectors of ships.

First of all it is unreferenced and begins with a weasel term and secondly it reminds of Reginheim's entry. I have skimmed through Reginheim and I must say that although it is commendable that people present their own theories on homepages, the information we add on WP should abide by WP:reliable sources.--Berig (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have too wonder any longer, I think the article used to cite Reginheim here. I wish people would leave cites in place especially on speculation (since we do not propoose to speculate, but we can cite sources that speculate). Goldenrowley (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC).
Berig: I will read WP:reliable sources to make sure I am using them. keeop in mind Reginheim did not write everythingon his cite and thats not the author's name, some of his articles are English translations of other published sources. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nehalennia?

The reason I originally deleted the ref to Reginheim is that the author says some scholars believe Nehalennia=Nerthus, but does not identify any of them. If there is any scholarly support for this theory, the statement should be referenced directly to the relevant scholar or scholars. If there is no such support, the section headed Nehalennia is speculation, and should be deleted. Rsradford (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have already deleted it, and I see no reason why it should reappear unless someone can indicate any scholar that has made the connection.--Berig (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The scholar was ^Ansuharijaz^ on Reginheim, and you've already told me your opinion of him ^or her^ in the edits: "Sorry Goldenrowley, but that site is anything but a reliable source. Even in its first entry it has unsubstantiated speculation.)" -- I am willing to entertain the notion he is not a scholarly, but it leaves me wondering why would we refer to some people as scholars and other people not. I beleive there are many speculations, why not this one. I think he mentioned they both have a travelling ship on wheels motif, which is a strong argument in my opinion...how often does one see a goddess travelling on a ships on wheels? Goldenrowley (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is Ansuharijaz's credentials (found on the Reginheim site). Honestly going by our WP rules, they are kind of vague, has he been "vetted" and is he "mainstream" enough to be used. I would say yes? "Greetings visitor, I am Ansuharijaz and I have created most of this site in 2002 and 2003, the building started on June 2002 ...I was born in 1981 in a small town in the Netherlands and have been interested in history since I was a little boy, during my childhood I was always fascinated by the ancient legends and fairy tales ... and like many other people I was in search of my roots, when I got older I started searching for the answers to my questions and I wanted to know who my Germanic ancestors were...Therefore I decided to create this site on which I shall try to provide accurate and historical information ...please don't be shy to email me if you have any further questions. Enjoy exploring the wondrous world of our ancestors." Goldenrowley (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Ansuharijaz and his admirable efforts, I don't think this is a solid reference as it's simply speculation and only that as it doesn't, in my opinion, have much basis. Other than this, I don't think this is particularly notable. Further, there is no traveling ship mentioned - Tacitus mentions a wagon. The notion of gods associated with wagons in Germanic paganism is not isolated to Nerthus. Freyr is also connected with a ritual wagon in Flateyjarbók and so is a mysterious god referred to as Lytir in the same source. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I see two points here. First, the idea that two goddesses must have been the same because they were both associated with boats seems implausible on its face. If true, this wouild probably apply to hundreds of goddesses in as many different religious traditions around the globe. (And of course, Nerthus was only tenuously connected with boats in the first place.) More important, however, this is apparently just one layperson's random speculation. Without scholarly support of some kind, Ansuharijaz's personal web page just doesn't count as a verifiable source, imo. Rsradford (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok its plausible, but after some research last night, to look for others who may hold the same opionion, and not finding any yet, I can agree. Goldenrowley (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Good. If you come across any published scholarly support for this point, I'll be the first to agree to restoring this section. I just haven't seen anything reliable on it, so far. Rsradford (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone's taken rather a high hand and deleted about half the article. That's what you get for not giving sources for every statement, I suppose. So tiresome, really. Shall we pull together and get some references in? --Wetman (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the material I cut earlier today, the problem generally was not lack of attribution. Much of it was argumentative -- the anonymous editor felt the need to explain to the world which scholars are right and which are wrong, based on how closely their work conforms to his personal opinions. As I said in my comment, that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. The rest of the deleted material had no direct relevance to Nerthus, but might appropriately be relocated to the articles on Freyr, Freyja, the Aesir, etc. Rsradford (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tacitus translation

I see someone's tagged the present translation with a "citation demanded" tag. Would the H. Mattingly and S. Hanford translation (Penguin 1986) be acceptable? Before I take the trouble of hand-transcribing the Nerthus passage I want to be sure that it won't be reverted by someone, wasting my labor. --Wetman (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mattingly & Hanford would be fine. Presumably, it will be pretty close to the unattributed quote that someone already inserted into the article, so it shouldn't involve too much transcribing. Rsradford (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Just add it :). It seems very unlikely that anyone would revert you.--Berig (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I found a better translation but someone reverted it back almost immediately... I propose the translation I found as follows. I thought it was better because it was done in 1877, and because I was alarmed to find the translation we were using mispelled half the tribe names in the 1st sentence. Proposed:

(English translation) There follow in order the Reudignians, and Aviones, and Angles, and Varinians, and Eudoses, and Suardones and Nuithones; all defended by rivers or forests. Nor in one of these nations does aught remarkable occur, only that they universally join in the worship of Herthum [Nerthum]; that is to say, the Mother Earth. Her they believe to interpose in the affairs of man, and to visit countries. In an island of the ocean stands the wood Castum: in it is a chariot dedicated to the Goddess, covered over with a curtain, and permitted to be touched by none but the Priest. Whenever the Goddess enters this her holy vehicle, he perceives her; and with profound veneration attends the motion of the chariot, which is always drawn by yoked cows. Then it is that days of rejoicing always ensue, and in all places whatsoever which she descends to honour with a visit and her company, feasts and recreation abound. They go not to war; they touch no arms; fast laid up is every hostile weapon; peace and repose are then only known, then only beloved, till to the temple the same priest reconducts the Goddess when well tired with the conversation of mortal beings. Anon the chariot is washed and purified in a secret lake, as also the curtains; nay, the Deity herself too, if you choose to believe it. In this office it is slaves who minister, and they are forthwith doomed to be swallowed up in the same lake. Hence all men are possessed with mysterious terror; as well as with a holy ignorance what that must be, which none see but such as are immediately to perish. --Tacitus, Germania, 40, translated 1877 by Church and Brodribb.[1]

Proposed by Goldenrowley (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem can be solved in that it's a pretty big quote, so we're going to need to transcribe as much of it as we can. I suggest that we just convert the directly quoted areas into our transcription, including the spelling variants into what we have for our article titles, as well as pointing out specific Latin terms. Something similar was done just recently at Tuisto, which is also based off of a passage from Germania. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)