From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Runes (was Re: Odinism Help for Newbie)
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 05:41:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.164422.14522@burrhus.harvard.edu>, canders@isr.harvard.edu (Carl E. Anderson) writes:
> 
> 
> 	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 ...

Hello Carl. Seems like they'll let any riff-raff post to this group;-)


> >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.

They appear to have used the runes in the way that people use alphabets
generally:- for writing letters, inscriptions, advertising, price tags and
magical formulas amongst other things. Once the Roman alphabet was introduced
they used it for all these things also; often alongside the runic alphabets
(sometimes evenusing the two in the same inscription). *If* they were going
to use a divination system based on an alphabet, then they would have used 
runes, it's just that there's no evidence that the did. They did have other
forms of divination however, for which there *is* evidence.
> 
> >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
> >languages 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).

Have to disagree with you there Carl, I think it *is* unreasonable to suspect
it existed in the absence of any evidence for it. It's an attractive idea, but
that's not really good enough.
 
> 	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 ...

None that I've been able to find. Ralph Blum's book is the first reference to
runic divination that I've been able to find, though apparently it was 
kicking around amongst the neo-pagans for a while before he popularised the
idea. It appears to be a modern innovation.
> 
> >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!

I've been feeding the net-elves, of course!
Wes thu hl
Tim O'Neill
Newsgroups: alt.magick