Re: Vanir

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:

> Seconded.
>
> Piotr
>
>
> --- In cybalist@..., celteuskara@... wrote:
> > AAaaargh! Torsten, stop it please! Snorri and Saxo's stories,

are

> shameless euhemerisations, as Chris Gwinn has so rightly pointed
> out. They are in exctly the same vein of Mediaeval and Classical
> scholarship as the stories of Aeneas founding Rome, or that other
> Trojan Brutus naming Britain. [No offence to the great memory of
> Snorri Stuluson, who was only following the example of what was
> thought in those days to be the best possible methodology. I have

a

> little less sympathy for Saxo, who seems to have had less respect

for

> his people's traditions] You say you are well acquainted with

Viktor

> Rydberg's 'Germanic Mythology' but I would like to hear why you

don't

> agree with his account of the euhemerisation process.

Not well acquainted, but I've read it and have it on my computer.

Because, as I pointed out also about an "excellent" article Piotr
referred me to, Rydberg takes for granted what he purports to prove.
He does not ask the question "Do they tell the truth?" but says
rather "Everybody knows this is not true. Now why are they telling
this tall story?". The whole line of argument reminds me of a film
clip I've seen on TV where Vyshinskij sums up one of the Moscow
trials before the jury (if it wasn't just the audience). Not "they
are guilty because the facts are so-and-so", but "is it humanly
possible to understand the workings of the minds of these people?"
"Shameless euhemerisations", indeed.

Torsten