--- In cybalist@..., celteuskara@... wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
> Yours,
> Beinn Mac an Gheairr
>
> >Torsten
> >
Actually I was thinking like this: the Germanic invasion in Germania
and Denmark, was led by not Odin, as you seem to have understood me
(and as Snorri presents the story, but someone I call "Odin" (or
should I write: -Odin- or *Odin), a very mortal person who either
had a compund name with the divine name Odin in it, or had named
himself directly after his god. The man and the divinity merged later
into one in later accounts by historians. And this because I suspect
(just a suspicion, but that's how it always starts, that the As
people knew some kind of monotheist(?) religion based ultimately on
Aton and Adonis ("Lord"). So the traditional connection of Odin with
*wed-/*ud- "anger, fury" would then be a folk etymology.
One year after Mithridates was north of the Crimea and there
discussed plans with local potentates to invade Italy though Moesia
(says Appianus), plans that were thwarted by the rebellion against
them of his own troops once he returned (after which Mithridates
committed suicide), Caesar in Gaul runs into a certain king of the
Germani, Ariovist (never before or since do we hear of a king
of "Germani" tout court; never since, to my knowledge, a Germanic
name beginning with *ario-; but cf. Ariobarzanes, contemporary king
of Cappadocia). He tells Caesar that he knows very well that if he,
Ariovist, kills Caesar, there are people in Rome whio would be
graceful. What is he saying here? That Caesar does not represent the
whole Roman power. Who is a potential adversary of Caesar in Rome?
Pompey. And what does Ariovist know about him? Is Ariovist possibly
the mortal *-Odin- himself, under another name (and we know Odin had
many names)? Did he actually carry out Mithridates' plan and then
suddenly see himself stranded in Pannonia with his whole army and
retinue with nowhere to go when Mithridates suddenly died? Did he
then decide to set up shop in the Celtic lands east of the Rhine,
organizing resistance to the Romans, spreading a version of the
Bastarnian language in the process? (The chronology of these two
events is from the excerpts of Titus Livius' (aka Tit Liviy) lost
books.)
As you can see, if we combine things a bit, the Romans actually did
hear of this, but since he was no immediate threat it was not
registered as a campaign on the part of -Odin/Ariovist-.
But there is another thing. Ariovist mentions that Caesar had seen to
it that he, Ariovist, was made a friend of the Roman people.
According to Titus Livius' excerpts Caesar was awarded several
triumphs, but one of the them was for a war in Pontus. Now what was
Caesar doing there? Was there something fishy going on that Caesar
wanted to cover up?
As to Rydberg's method: He says that the erroneous connection to Troy
was invented by "Fredegar" and that F. also names his sources: St.
Jerome and Vergil. He then proceeds to find the passages from which
F. has gotten his information, and shows that F.'s interpretation of
these passages is erroneous. However: an implicit premise here is
that what was avaible to Rydberg of these two authors was what
avalable to Fredegar. In other words: in the intervening one and a
half millenium none of their works were lost. Now that's a strong
assumption; and if that doesn't hold, his argument is not conclusive.
Torsten