First of all many thanks to William for the link to a more user friendly Rydberg! The one I'd been accessing was making my laptop give out some disconcerting noises. And very nice to see I might have done a little in resurecting the old scholar ...
I think I must have missed the message wherein Piotr recommended this "excellent article", could you tell me what this is please? I'd be interested to see a different account.
Now, Torsten, to business. I can see what you mean about Rydberg's general manner, but where exactly do you fault his reasoning? It's a bit over the top to say he recalls Soviet show trials because good old Viktor goes thru everything step by step. George Knysh summed it up best in his proposal that Saxo et al looked for correspondences with Pontine events that bore some similarity to traditional stories. We might even be able to dredge some history out of Saxo in this regard, while still admitting that the myths as a whole are of a generally more ancient vintage. Unlikely though ;o)).
It might be useful to point out how the news of the migration of the Cimbri, or een the Helvetii, or the Huns well preceded them, and how a movement you propose would have soon come to the attention of the History-writing peoples south of the Alps. I find it it impossible to think that events of a spectacular enough nature to cause their protagonist to be deified should have found no echo in the traditions of societies only a little further afield.
Come on! My mind's ajar, if not quite open.
However, I was aghast at Rydberg's consigning Hengest to realms of fiction. Is there any way He can be saved from this fate? I'd hate to have to mourn the founder of my nation [one of em, anyroad] as well as the very divinity of my Gods! You're an Anglicist, aren't you Piotr? Can you exonerate the founder of England?
Yours,
Beinn Mac an Gheairr
>
>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
>
>
>
>Vae victis.
----------
Personalise your email address at
http://another.com
THINK: your slogan or email address on a gorgeous mousemat
CLICK HERE
http://another-shop.com