Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

reg. runes

Expand Messages
  • hrafnsnest <mimir@smithsys.net>
    Konrad wrote: Yes. Also, there is one point about runes which I feel compelled to make over and over again: they were a regular alphabetic sequence used
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 15, 2002
      Konrad wrote:
      Yes. Also, there is one point about runes which I feel compelled to
      make over and over again: they were a regular alphabetic sequence
      used primarily for communication. We can forget the trendy books
      on "rune magic" and the "deeper meaning" of the runes.

      >>Jeff.
      I will have to strongly disagree with Konrad on his point about the runes. =
      While the runes did indeed serve as a communicative tool more often than no=
      t, they also served a "magical" function as well, complete with a "deeper me=
      aning". This is well attested in both literature and archeology (in the for=
      m of staves and stones).
      In literature: The Havamal 138- the end, the Rigsþula 44-46, the Sigdrifum=
      al (practically the whole text), the Voluspa 59 (("..Fimbultyr's unfathomed =
      runes"). There are examples from the sagas, Egils Saga for instance, where =
      runes are carved on a drinking horn that has poison in it, they are bloodied=
      (in keeping with tradition), whereupon the horn bursts in two.

      There are many stones, staves, spear-heads, swords, asf., that have "messag=
      es" carved upon them that convey something other than someone's name, who ca=
      rved it, or who is remembered. The carvings that seemingly say nothing,, ar=
      e generally regarded as "magical meta-language", communicating with either t=
      he dead or the gods, or perhaps used as a "reality shaping" tool (a "magical=
      " function).

      While I will agree that there are many "trendy" rune books on the market, t=
      here are also books that deal with the subject of the magical use of runes f=
      rom a scholarly point of view. Several authors that come to mind is Dr. Edg=
      ar Polome, Edred Thorsson (Dr. Stephen Flowers), Dr. Jan de Vries, Dr. Georg=
      es Dumezil,
      Dr Hilda Davidson, and others. There are also the works of Johannes Bureus=
      , 1568-1652, who was the "antiquarian" under King Karl IX. Among his many s=
      cholarly contributions, he also discovered first hand, that runes were still=
      being used in the province of Dalarne, in fact, the farmers were still usin=
      g them well into the 19th cent.

      Sael,
      Jeff
    • konrad_oddsson <konrad_oddsson@yahoo.com>
      Séls (Sæll) Jeff - ... to make over and over again: they were a regular alphabetic sequence used primarily for communication. We can forget the trendy books
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 16, 2002
        Séls (Sæll) Jeff -

        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "hrafnsnest <mimir@s...>"
        <mimir@s...> wrote:
        > Konrad wrote:
        > Yes. Also, there is one point about runes which I feel compelled
        to make over and over again: they were a regular alphabetic sequence
        used primarily for communication. We can forget the trendy books
        on "rune magic" and the "deeper meaning" of the runes.
        >
        > >>Jeff.
        > I will have to strongly disagree with Konrad on his point about
        the runes. While the runes did indeed serve as a communicative tool
        more often than not, they also served a "magical" function as well,
        complete with a "deeper meaning". This is well attested in both
        literature and archeology (in the form of staves and stones).

        You will hardly need to disagree with me on this issue, as I agree
        with your position here. The reason I put the phrases "rune magic"
        and "deeper meaning" in quotes was to underscore the often dubious
        claims of certain modern authors that they can help us predict or
        change the future through runes. This makes me rather suspicious.

        I have an interest in the early language and have accordingly read
        many books on early inscriptions. Also, I have transcribed by hand
        most of the inscriptions in the corpus (including names and single
        words) and all of the earliest ones, intelligible or not. Although
        my purpose has been to learn about the evolution of the language, I
        have also learned something about the "magical" use runes along the
        way. As you imply, their are inscriptions which clearly served some
        sort of magical purpose, legible or not.

        > In literature: The Havamal 138- the end, the Rigsþula 44-46, the
        Sigdrifumal (practically the whole text), the Voluspa 59
        ("..Fimbultyr's unfathomed runes"). There are examples from the
        sagas, Egils Saga for instance, where runes are carved on a drinking
        horn that has poison in it, they are bloodied (in keeping with
        tradition), whereupon the horn bursts in two.

        Yes, I am familiar with these passages.

        >
        > There are many stones, staves, spear-heads, swords, asf., that
        have "messages" carved upon them that convey something other than
        someone's name, who carved it, or who is remembered. The carvings
        that seemingly say nothing,, are generally regarded as "magical meta-
        language", communicating with either the dead or the gods, or
        perhaps used as a "reality shaping" tool (a "magical" function).

        While there are no doubt inscriptions which served some sort of
        magical purpose, I am uncomfortable with the conclusion that those
        inscriptions which are illegible to us should be regarded as some
        sort of "magical meta-language". Also, while it is possible that
        some such inscriptions represent communications to gods or the dead,
        it likewise possible that the carvers where illiterate, practicing,
        or using runes for decoration. It seems that illegible inscriptions
        do not all belong in the same basket. Some could be magical, others
        not. Regardless, my interest lies in the tongue itself.

        >
        > While I will agree that there are many "trendy" rune books on the
        market, there are also books that deal with the subject of the
        magical use of runes from a scholarly point of view. Several
        authors that come to mind is Dr. Edgar Polome, Edred Thorsson (Dr.
        Stephen Flowers), Dr. Jan de Vries, Dr. Georges Dumezil, Dr Hilda
        Davidson, and others. There are also the works of Johannes Bureus,
        1568-1652, who was the "antiquarian" under King Karl IX. Among his
        many scholarly contributions, he also discovered first hand, that
        runes were still being used in the province of Dalarne, in fact, the
        farmers were still using them well into the 19th cent.
        >
        > Sael,
        > Jeff

        Yes, there are distinctions to be made among books. Thank you for
        your response.

        Regards,
        Konrad.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.