From: canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Runes (was Re: Odinism Help for Newbie)
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:44:22 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA


	Tim!  Imagine running into you here!  I just popped onto this list
and your post shows that my brain is just not working today - must be those
elves ...

In article <1992Jul23.050943.16710@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
>In article <UeOoXze00WBNM6Bqwt@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Stephen P. Marting" <sm6h+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>> A very good introduction to Runes is _Runes_ by Ralph Warren Elliott. 
>> It is available at our (CMU) library; your milage may vary.
>
>While it has been recently reprinted, I'd say RWV Elliott's book
>is pretty outdated. A more reliable source for the beginner is
>R.I. Page's 'Runes'  or his 'English Runic Inscriptions'.

	Ach!  This is what I mean!  In my previous post I confused Page's
Runes with Elliott's Runes.  I think I need some sleep.
	But yes, _Page's_ book on runes is a brilliant piece of work.
Please apply everything I said about Elliott's book to Page's book.
	Sorry about that!
>Page's
>reassesment of runes and magic is particularly interesting; he 
>argues that the runes were simply an alphabet, and only used for
>magical inscriptions in the way any alphabet was. There was nothing 
>intrinsically magical about the runes. 

	I would say, though, if people _were_ going to attempt divination
using "alphabetic" means, and runes were their standard alphabet they would
use runes.  This doesn't mean that runes are inherently magical, but it
does mean that they serve as well as anything for magical purposes.

>I've made a study of books on runic divination over the last four years
>and, since both Old English and Old Norse are my fields, I've read all
>of the primary literature that I can get my hands on, and in the original
>laguages when possible. I can assure you that runic divination is a 
>MODERN invention. There is no evidence that it was ever practiced by the 
>early germanics. Tacitus mentions several means of divination including
>the randomn selection of slivers of wood marked with 'signs', but there 
>is no evidence that these were runic and other than this there is NO 
>OTHER EVIDENCE FOR RUNIC DIVINATION WHATSOEVER from the middle ages.
>It's a con-job.

	Tacitus is the only early source for divination information and it
is true that there is no real evidence for runic divination in the middle
ages.  While we'll never be able to prove anything, I don't think it's
unreasonable to suspect it might have existed.  After all, there are saga
references to other forms of runic magic (I can think of some from Egils
saga), and with divinatory magic such a common thing, I'd be mildly
surprised if runes weren't used in some ways for divinatory purposes
(though I don't claim to know what they were).
	Aren't there a some references to folk tradition uses of runes for
divination in the post medieval period?  I could be wrong about this ...

>Wes thu h>l

	You slick man!  How did you get that "ash" character to appear on
my screen!  I've never seen _that_ on the net before!

Regards,
Carl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Edlund Anderson	            	"Hefi ek ok aldri sva reitt vapn
canders@isr.harvard.edu			at manni at eigi hafi vidh kommit."
OR
anderso2@husc.harvard.edu			- Skarphedhinn Njalsson 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------