Talk:Nerthus

message: I have tried to pick together what information I can find about Nerthus. I find the reasoning logical, but that can of course be disputed. I you find the information contradictory or simply wrong, please make a contribution Wiglaf
I have trouble understanding this last sentence:
"Slaves do this ministry and are then swallowed by the same lake: hence a mysterious terror and an ignorance full of reverence as to what that may be which men see only to die."
Does this mean that the thralls sacrificed themselves in a ritual?
:I believe it means that after doing their work and hiding the goddess, the slaves were killed and given to the lake.--Wiglaf 15:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Information

message: I added the paragraph "It should also be noted that the same root as in Nerthus …" and so on. I used “Svitjod, resor till Sveriges ursprung” by Swedish archaeologist Mats G. Larsson as main reference here. Salleman 16:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now formed a theories-section and written a few more paragraphs. My sources are still Larsson, along with Dumézil's works. Salleman 02:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition

message: I found the following website which is, upon brief inspection, a verbatim copy of this article.  I'm not sure which came first, but I thought I'd bring it to everyone's attention:
http://experts.about.com/e/n/ne/Nerthus.htm
:I checked the mouse print at the bottom of that page and it says "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia." So ... there is nothing to worry about it was written at Wikipedia (having written some of it) and they're stating that in mouse print. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Originality

message: I assume that this section is inspired by Reginheim:
:Some scholars note that Nehalennia and Nerthus might be the same goddess, they both had ship symbols and were protectors of ships.
First of all it is unreferenced and begins with a weasel term and secondly it reminds of Reginheim's entry. I have skimmed through Reginheim and I must say that although it is commendable that people present their own theories on homepages, the information we add on WP should abide by WP:reliable sources.--Berig (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have too wonder any longer, I think the article used to cite Reginheim here. I wish people would leave cites in place especially on speculation (since we do not propoose to speculate, but we can cite sources that speculate). Goldenrowley (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Berig: I will read WP:reliable sources to make sure I am using them. keeop in mind Reginheim did not write everythingon his cite and thats not the author's name, some of his articles are English translations of other published sources. Goldenrowley (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reginheim

message: The reason I originally deleted the ref to Reginheim is that the author says some scholars believe Nehalennia=Nerthus, but does not identify any of them.  If there is any scholarly support for this theory, the statement should be referenced directly to the relevant scholar or scholars.  If there is no such support, the section headed Nehalennia is speculation, and should be deleted.  Rsradford (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already deleted it, and I see no reason why it should reappear unless someone can indicate any scholar that has made the connection.--Berig (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The scholar was ^Ansuharijaz^ on Reginheim, and you've already told me your opinion of him ^or her^ in the edits: "Sorry Goldenrowley, but that site is anything but a reliable source. Even in its first entry it has unsubstantiated speculation.)" -- I am willing to entertain the notion he is not a scholarly, but it leaves me wondering why would we refer to some people as scholars and other people not. I beleive there are many speculations, why not this one. I think he mentioned they both have a travelling ship on wheels motif, which is a strong argument in my opinion...how often does one see a goddess travelling on a ships on wheels?  Goldenrowley (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: With all due respect to Ansuharijaz and his admirable efforts, I don't think this is a solid reference as it's simply speculation and only that as it doesn't, in my opinion, have much basis. Other than this, I don't think this is particularly notable. Further, there is no traveling ship mentioned - Tacitus mentions a wagon. The notion of gods associated with wagons in Germanic paganism is not isolated to Nerthus. Freyr is also connected with a ritual wagon in Flateyjarbók and so is a mysterious god referred to as Lytir in the same source. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see two points here.  First, the idea that two goddesses must have been the same because they were both associated with boats seems implausible on its face.  If true, this wouild probably apply to hundreds of goddesses in as many different religious traditions around the globe.  (And of course, Nerthus was only tenuously connected with boats in the first place.)  More important, however, this is apparently just one layperson's random speculation.  Without scholarly support of some kind, Ansuharijaz's personal web page just doesn't count as a verifiable source, imo. Rsradford (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok its plausible, but after some research last night, to look for others who may hold the same opionion, and not finding any yet, I can agree. Goldenrowley (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  If you come across any published scholarly support for this point, I'll be the first to agree to restoring this section.  I just haven't seen anything reliable on it, so far. Rsradford (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: If you're referring to the material I cut earlier today, the problem generally was not lack of attribution.  Much of it was argumentative -- the anonymous editor felt the need to explain to the world which scholars are right and which are wrong, based on how closely their work conforms to his personal opinions.  As I said in my comment, that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia.  The rest of the deleted material had no direct relevance to Nerthus, but might appropriately be relocated to the articles on Freyr, Freyja, the Aesir, etc. Rsradford (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nehalennia?

message: I see someone's tagged the present translation with a "citation demanded" tag. Would the H. Mattingly and S. Hanford translation (Penguin 1986) be acceptable? Before I take the trouble of hand-transcribing the Nerthus passage I want to be sure that it won't be reverted by someone, wasting my labor. --Wetman (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mattingly & Hanford would be fine.  Presumably, it will be pretty close to the unattributed quote that someone already inserted into the article, so it shouldn't involve too much transcribing. Rsradford (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Just add it :). It seems very unlikely that anyone would revert you.--Berig (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem can be solved in that it's a pretty big quote, so we're going to need to transcribe as much of it as we can. I suggest that we just convert the directly quoted areas into our transcription, including the spelling variants into what we have for our article titles, as well as pointing out specific Latin terms. Something similar was done just recently at Tuisto, which is also based off of a passage from Germania. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tacitus translation

message: It looks like we have another edit war going on here. RSRadford keeps reverting my revisions, in favor of promoting a laudatory comment toward Lotte Motz's article "Nerthus: a New Approach"  making it look as if 21st century scholars are in agreement with the conclusions of 19th century scholar Jakob Grimm, which suggests that no research has been conducted since that time. This is verifably false. If you compare the statements of Grimm and McKinnell which I provided in my most recent revision (immediately reverted), you will note that McKinnell doesn't mention Grimm and certainly doesn't rubberstamp Grimm's reading, as the current revision suggests. This is original research being promoted elsewhere by the same editor. 
The statements of Grimm and McKinnell are both relevant and show the reader the historical progression of ideas. Motz was not a linguist [her training was in German and Old English], and her observation that the manuscripts don't all say "Nerthum" is hardly original, and certainly not "new". Both Grimm and McKinnell discuss their differing reasons for accepting the reading "Nerthum" (Nerthus) among the mss. reading as their quoted works, now excised, show. 
Undue credit is being given to Motz's novelty article. The statement by Simek is quoted from an introductory biographical sketch of Motz published in a work memeorializing her. In his scholarly works, Simek says that "The earth mother Nerthus in Tacitus, Gmc. Nerþus, is exactly the same form of the name which would correspond to the ON god Njorðr." (Dictionary of Norse Mythology, p. 230). Similarly, Andy Orchard (1997) says "The name Nerthus readily recalls that of the god Njörd" (Dictionary of Old Norse Myth and Legend, p. 117). Peter Orton (2005) says "He describes the cult of the goddess Nerthus", "Tacitus glosses the Latinized name Nerthus as terra mater," and "it is not inconceivable that Njörðr and Nerthus represent twin sibling deities."  
None of these general reference works make mention of the alternate readings, which were new to Motz apparently, precisely because these are not accepted based on sound linguistic principles, Motz was obviously unaware of. Her statement that Grimm chose the name Nerthus precisely because it corresponded to Njörðr demonstrates this ignorance.  Grimm chose the reading Nerthus, based on his knowledge of linguistics as he states in the excised quote. There is no reason to delete it, other than to hide these facts. Jack the Giant-Killer (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War? 

message: Why are we giving space in this article to Viktor Rydberg's imaginary "identification" of Nerthus with Jord?  No real scholar has ever bought into this nonsense, and repeating it here seems to give it undeserved credence, in addition to misleading uneducated readers.  It carries the same weight as something one might find in a comic book. Rsradford (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: People are going to want to know where this stuff comes from. Rydberg's views have had some influence and sometimes are still bandied around. When people realize they're coming from Rydberg, they'll know how to approach it. Mentioning Rydberg's theory basically inoculates the article from it being added again randomly, as another editor has mentioned before. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Hello, and no problem. I've been intending to bring this up to GA-status, and once I have done this with the Njörðr article, I will do it here as well. Well, the "hermaphrodite" element is probably worth mentioning in the etymology as the etymology of the term essentially breaks down to being the same word, just with a change of sex, so without the supporting evidence of other twins and the later attested figure of Njörðr, it would just appear that the god changed sex. I've noted there that, as Simek states, the "twin" theory is generally considered more likely. As for the "earth" and "sea" thing, I don't think this is the case - both Nerthus and Njörðr seem to have been associated with water, they're both Vanir (which means an association with things fertility), and anything beyond that is going to probably derive from someone's theory of an apparent division. This also seems to be the general opinion across the board. I would also add Motz and Rydberg into a chronological "identity" overview as you've started doing there. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: What we should probably do since the hermaphroditic element is usually mentioned as being "unlikely" and often not mentioned at all nowadays is to take it out of the etymology section, and then give it its own section called "change of sex" in the "theories" area, and then deal with it there. Of course, we can't make any judgment calls on our part or produce any original research in this area, so it needs to be fully referenced. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Skaði and Elli aren't really masculine in form, they're just of a fairly rare feminine declension class. As for the Latin, there are some Latin feminine nouns in the second declension Haukur (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rydberg's Theory 

message: I've substituted the sentence:
 Njörðr is often identified with the Vanir god Njörðr
with this one:
 Nerthus is often identified with the Vanir god Njörðr
I suppose that's the right correction but I'm not sure. Could anyone check? Jalo 15:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, glad you caught that! I've fixed it. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error? 

message: Lotte Motz proposed that the Germanic goddess described by Tacitus may not have been called Nerthus at all, stating her opinion that Grimm selected the name Nerthus from among the manuscript readings precisely because it bore an etymological resemblance to Njörðr Since there is only one surviving manuscript of Tacitus' Germania how can there be variant readings? See also the article  Lotte Motz. Id it possible that editors have it backward: that Motz suggests Grimm selected the name Njörðr from among the manuscript readings precisely because it bore an etymological resemblance to  Nerthus? Direct quote would help. --Wetman (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a bit of a misconception.  For the Germania, there are indeed many manuscripts, but it is known that they all descend from the single text in the Hersfeld Codex, which is now lost (some of the Agricola of this manuscript does actually survive, though). (Reference: Rodney Potter Robinson, The Germania of Tacitus: A critical edition. Middletown, Conneticut 1935. Reprint: Hildesheim 1991, p. 1). Also, as I understand it, even some of these manuscripts are known to have been corrected with reference to other manuscripts independent of the Hersfeld Codex.  (And I assume there is indirect evidence, i.e., testimonia, but I have no idea about that).  --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, are Tacitus or Grimm actually considered authorities on this? Tacitus also said Germans had red hair, let's remember, and I don't believe he ever encountered them directly himself, correct? Grimm, while a notable scholar, was from an era of bad scholarship, folk etymologies and bunk linguistics. The scholars of his age may have been well-motivated but they were too driven to find authoritative answers. "answers." Obotlig ☣ interrogate 08:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germania ms readings of ''Nerthus'' 

message: Is the name really unattested? "Nerthus" seems like a Latin speaker who had a lisp. "Njörðr", I am sure there is good reason for this interpretation but it doesn't seem a sure thing. *Nerþuz is um. People at that time spoke "proto-Germanic"? Come again, I'm not up on the linguistics but that seems flakey too. Is this the best we have, and there is no other mention or piece of information? Maybe the name is wrong because it was a real name, not a linguistic construction. Närsys maybe? *shrug* Seems like there must be more speculation on this. No documentation in all those scrolls? No rune stones? Unfortunate. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 08:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are interpretative issues with Tacitus's account (for example, why bodies were placed into bogs), but a lot of Germania subsequently has checked out (for example, bodies placed into bogs). Here and there, Tacitus also provides readers with examples of Proto-Germanic words (such as the Latinized Ingvaeones, itself containing a theonym). Nerthus is one such word. As you note, linguistically, it's clearly cognate with Old Norse Njörðr, which has been observed since Grimm. There's no good reason to assume that this was therefore simply a wild coincidence, especially when their associations and geographic areas match up. I would also be very careful about dismissing Grimm. While some of Grimm's conclusions aren't very useful to us today, his work continues to be an important source to draw from, and, for example, Grimm's Law was and remains extremely important. However, we're not here to speculate; we only report on what others have said. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I am just wondering that there isn't any other research. The word "German" itself has fallen victim to latinized folk etymology even though it had a clear and simple meaning and there are runes for both words. Similarly there is a rune for Ing. There's no rune for "Nerthus" and the ending seems suspicious by any measure - it is indeed a happy coincidence to decide the "us" was a vowel-z ending rather than a lisp. Also the general theme of gender ambiguity, role shifting, shape shifting, etc. really make this questionable and the article is taking for granted the conclusions of two unreliable sources. Maybe at the least it could make some mention of why those sources are unreliable - which wouldn't be a difficult observation to source. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 00:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

text: And if I might repeat: "answers" Obotlig ☣ interrogate 00:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding rune names and that particular exonym. A lot has been said about the Njörðr-Nerthus gender situation, but it's not particularly strange to begin with. Here's something that should probably be getting more attention here: Sister-wife of Njörðr & Njörun. It happens that the corpus provides us with a mysterious feminine twin of Njörðr, which is itself not unique in a comparative context. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that for the correct meanings of things like "Ing" or "Ger-man" there is very straightforward evidence. The question about gender identity is exactly what I am getting at. If we are saying Njördr = Nerthus because they sound very similar, adjusting for sound shifts, because of basically one source, Grimm, that seems questionable and like both his claims and those of Tacitus should be couched with reasonable questions about the quality of their scholarship, if it can be sourced and seems worth including. If you think this article is fine the way it is, I'm good with it, since you are the primary editor on these pages. Personally neither Grimm nor Tacitus seem like reliable sources except on themselves. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 05:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a widely accepted observation in modern scholarship. As a result, this page reflects that. In this case (as with many others examples in Germania), Tacitus is widely held in academia to be a reliable primary source. The same goes for Grimm's observation, which isn't dependent upon Grimm but is openly observable—he simply pointed it out (and thus it's not a simple matter of 'sounding very similar'; that's not how historical linguistics works). :bloodofox: (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Plainly Tacitus is not very reliable, given that the most fundamental observation was false - that Germans have red(dish) hair? It's not even very common. Picts or Scots perhaps have it most often. Similarly, I don't see how any reconstructive linguistics is patently empirical. If something is thoroughly unattested, the logic and deductions that went into the conclusions are always subject to doubt. Just to toss out another example, the classifications of West Germanic, North Germanic, East Germanic are questioned by some linguists, especially more recently. The older scholarship is really in doubt, from what I understand. There is not solid deduction behind it, only correlation and speculation. But, again, if you are completely satisfied with this, I don't think any other editors even pay attention. Thanks for your replies. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 13:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Name unattested? (Närsys?)

message: There is a quote which reads: "strange has been the history of this goddess Nerthus in modern times. Sixteenth century scholars found irresistible the temptation to emend the name of 'Mother Earth' into Herthum, which nineteen century century scholars further improved into Hertham, Ertham. For many years this false goddess drove out the rightful deity from the fortieth chapter of Germania".
The text "nineteen century century" looks wrong, but I don't want to correct it without access to the source. Thank you,   SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch—fixed it! :bloodofox: (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be "nineteen century" instead of "nineteenth century"?   SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nineteenth" is correct. By the way, you can view the source here:  :bloodofox: (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.   SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check Chambers quote 

message: Tacitus did not say the Angles were Suevi in Germania (Chpt 40) at all. I removed this, and edited it to say that the Angles were distinguished by worship of Mother Earth, which is what he DID say.
Unlinked "priest of state" to Godhi, the Icelandic Godhi is not relevant to the Germanic paganism of the Iron Age.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.97.211.185 (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suevi? Godhi?