Discussion:
Rydberg: V.115. Review Proofs of Volund = Thjazi
(too old to reply)
Heidi Graw
2007-09-15 15:40:51 UTC
Permalink
http://www.northvegr.org/lore/rydberg/115.php

Part 5




115.
REVIEW OF THE PROOFS OF VÖLUND'S IDENTITY WITH THJAZI.

The circumstances which first drew my attention to the necessity of
investigating whether Thjazi and Völund were not different names of the same
mythic personality, which the mythology particularly called Thjazi, and
which the heroic saga springing from the mythology in Christian times
particularly called Völund, were the following: (1) In the study of Saxo I
found in no less than three passages that Njörd, under different historical
masks, marries a daughter of Völund, while in the mythology he marries a
daughter of Thjazi. (2) In investigating the statements anent Völund's
father in Völundarkviða's text and prose appendix I found that these led to
the result that Völund was a son of Sumbli, the Finn king - that is to say,
of Ölvaldi, Thjazi's father. (3) My researches in regard to the myth about
the mead produced the result that Svigdir-Ölvaldi perished by the treachery
of a dwarf outside of a mountain, where one of the smith-races of the
mythology, Suttung's sons, had their abode. In Vilkinasaga's account of the
death of Völund's father I discovered the main outlines of the same mythic
episode.

The correspondence of so different sources in so unexpected a matter was
altogether too remarkable to permit it to be overlooked in my mythological
researches. The fact that the name-variation itself, Alvaldi (for Ölvaldi),
as Thjazi's father is called in Hárbarðsljóð, was in meaning and form a
complete synonym of Ivaldi I had already observed, but without attaching any
importance thereto.

The next step was to examine whether a similar proof of the identity of
Thjazi's and Völund's mother was to be found. In one Norse mythological
source Thjazi's mother is called Greip. Völund's and Egil's (Ajo's and
Ibor's, Aggo's and Ebbo's) mother is in Paulus Diaconus and in Origo
Longobardorum called Gambara, in Saxo Gambaruc. The Norse stem in the
Latinised name Gambara is Gammur, which is a synonym of Greip, the name of
Thjazi's mother. Thus I found a reference to the identity of Thjazi's mother
and Völund's mother.

From the parents I went to the brothers. One of Völund's brothers bore the
epithet Aurnir, "wild boar". Aurnir's wife is remembered in the Christian
traditions as one who forebodes the future. Ebur's wife is a mythological
seeress. One of Thjazi's brothers, Idi, is the only one in the mythology
whose name points to an original connection with Ivaldi (Idvaldi), Völund's
father, and with Idunn, Völund's half-sister. Völund himself bears the
epithet Brunni, and Thjazi's home is Brunns-acre. One of Thjazi's sons is
slain at the instigation of Loki, and Loki, who in Lokasenna takes pleasure
in stating this, boasts in the same poem that he has caused the slaying of
Thjazi.

In regard to bonds of relationship in general, I found that on the one side
Völund, like Thjazi, was regarded as a giant, and had relations among the
giants, among whom Vidolf is mentioned both as Völund's and Thjazi's
relative, and that on the other hand Völund is called an elf-prince, and
that Thjazi's father belonged to the clan of elves, and that Thjazi's
daughter is characterised, like Völund and his nearest relatives, as a
ski-runner and hunter, and in this respect has the same epithet as Völund's
nephew Ull. I found, furthermore, that so far as tradition has preserved the
memory of star-heroes, every mythic person who belonged to their number was
called a son of Ivaldi or a son of Ölvaldi. Örvandil-Egil is a star-hero and
a son of Ivaldi. The Watlings, after whom the Milky Way is named, are
descendants of Vati-Vadi, Völund's father. Thjazi is a star-hero and the son
of Ölvaldi. Idi, too, Thjazi's brother, "the torch-bearer," may have been a
star-hero, and, as we shall show later, the memory of Völund's brother
Slagfinn was partly connected with the Milky Way and partly with the spots
on the moon; while, according to another tradition, it is Völund's father
whose image is seen in these spots (see Nos. 121, 123).

I found that Rögnir is a Thjazi-epithet, and that all that is stated of
Rögnir is also told of Völund. Rögnir was, like the latter, first the friend
of the gods and then their foe. He was a "swan-gladdener," and Völund the
lover of a swan-maid. Like Völund he fought against Njörd. Like Völund he
proceeded to the northernmost edge of the world, and there he worked with
magic implements through the powers of frost for the destruction of the gods
and of the world. And from some one he has taken the same ransom as Völund
did, when the latter killed Nidad's young sons and made goblets of their
skulls.

I found that while Ölvaldi's sons, Idi, Aurnir (Gang), and Thjazi, still
were friends of the gods, they had their abode on the south coast of the
Elivagar, where Ivaldi had his home, called after him Geirvaðils setur, and
where his son Örvandil-Egil afterwards dwelt; that Thor on his way to
Jötunheim visits Idi's setur, and that he is a guest in Egil's dwelling;
that the mythological warriors who dwell around Idi's setur are called
"warrior-vans," and that these "Gang's warrior-vans" have these very
persons, Egil and his foster-son Thjalfi, as their leaders when they
accompany Thor to fight the giants, wherefore the setur of the Ölvaldi sons
Idi and Gang must be identical with that of the Ivaldi sons, and Idi, Gang,
and Thjazi identical with Slagfinn, Egil, and Völund.

On these foundations the identity of Ölvaldi's sons with Ivaldi's sons is
sufficiently supported, even though our mythic records had preserved no
evidence that Thjazi, like Völund, was the most celebrated artist of
mythology. But such evidence is not wanting. As the real meaning of Reginn
is "shaper," "workman," and as this has been retained as a smith-name in
Christian times, there is every reason to assume that Thjazi, who is called
fjaðrar-blaðs leik-Reginn and vingvagna Rögnir, did himself make, like
Völund, the eagle guise which he, like Völund, wears. The son of Ivaldi,
Völund, made the most precious treasures for the gods while he still was
their friend, and the Ölvaldi son Thjazi is called hapta snytrir, "the
decorator of the gods," doubtless for the reason that he had smithied
treasures for the gods during a time when he was their friend and Thor's
ofrúni (Thor's confidential friend). Völund is the most famous and, so far
as we can see, also the first sword-smith, which seems to appear from the
fact that his father Ivaldi, though a valiant champion, does not use the
sword but the spear as a weapon, and is therefore called Geirvandill. Thjazi
was the first sword-smith, otherwise he would not have been called faðir
mörna, "the father of the swords". Splendid implements are called verk
Rögnis and Þjaza þingskil, Iðja glysmál, Iðja orð - expressions which do not
find their adequate explanation in the Younger Edda's account of the
division of Ölvaldi's estate, but in the myth about the judgment which the
gods once proclaimed in the contest concerning the skill of Sindri and the
sons of Ivaldi, when the treasures of the latter presented in court had to
plead their own cause.
Doug Freyburger
2007-09-19 14:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heidi Graw
http://www.northvegr.org/lore/rydberg/115.php
Part 5
115.
REVIEW OF THE PROOFS OF VÖLUND'S IDENTITY WITH THJAZI.
The word "proof" here is hilarious. The arguments are built upon
discussions of the family trees of the known ettin wights as if
these wights had bodies that bore young and if humans could
actually know in detail the parentage of them. Yet Rydberg takes
this house of cards and has the audacity to call it proof. There
isn't even proof the Aesir "exist", whatever "exist means.
Heidi Graw
2007-09-19 15:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Freyburger
Post by Heidi Graw
http://www.northvegr.org/lore/rydberg/115.php
Part 5
115.
REVIEW OF THE PROOFS OF VÖLUND'S IDENTITY WITH THJAZI.
The word "proof" here is hilarious. The arguments are built upon
discussions of the family trees of the known ettin wights as if
these wights had bodies that bore young and if humans could
actually know in detail the parentage of them. Yet Rydberg takes
this house of cards and has the audacity to call it proof. There
isn't even proof the Aesir "exist", whatever "exist means.
Doug, whether or not the Aesir or ettin wights *actually* exist,
is not what is being argued. What is being used as proofs is the
*written lore* fragments...what exists in *writing* about these
beings and how these writings are related or fit together?

For example:

Person A write a story about a fairy named Hilda who bears
100 children with a human husband named Fritz. This story
appears in Denmark.

Person B, living in France, writes a story about a fairy named
Rothilda who bears 100 children with a human husband named
Francois.

Looking at these two stories we can use these pieces as literary
proofs there existed a common story in Denmark and France about
a fairy who bore 100 children by a human husband. Hilda/Rothilda
bore 100 children with a human husband Fritz/Francois.

The stories themselves serve as the proofs. Of course we do not
know wether or not fairies truly exist and whether or not a human
was married to one, nevermind that fairy even bearing 100 children.
It's the information in the story that counts and it is that what is
being used as proofs to support a particular story which was
covering a larger area.

The Danish and French stories have something in common.
That's all Rydberg is basically pursuing...What do the fragments
say and how do they fit together, if at all!

Heidi
Doug Freyburger
2007-09-19 17:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heidi Graw
Post by Doug Freyburger
The word "proof" here is hilarious. The arguments are built upon
discussions of the family trees of the known ettin wights as if
these wights had bodies that bore young and if humans could
actually know in detail the parentage of them. Yet Rydberg takes
this house of cards and has the audacity to call it proof ...
Person A write a story about a fairy named Hilda who bears
100 children with a human husband named Fritz. This story
appears in Denmark.
Person B, living in France, writes a story about a fairy named
Rothilda who bears 100 children with a human husband named
Francois.
Looking at these two stories we can use these pieces as literary
proofs there existed a common story in Denmark and France about
a fairy who bore 100 children by a human husband. Hilda/Rothilda
bore 100 children with a human husband Fritz/Francois.
The stories themselves serve as the proofs.
And yet that isn't what Rydberg did in this case. You gave an
example that I would have found far more convincing than the
one Rydberg used. He compared family trees, and then used
stories of the descendants and relatives not of the primary
characters in the story.

What he did is far more like saying in the French story the
grandmother was named Grandmere and in the Danish story
the grandmother was named Grossmutter therefore Grandmere
and Grossmutter are names for the same person. When in
fact they are actually job titles or descriptions of relationship
not personal names.
Post by Heidi Graw
Of course we do not
know wether or not fairies truly exist and whether or not a human
was married to one, nevermind that fairy even bearing 100 children.
It's the information in the story that counts and it is that what is
being used as proofs to support a particular story which was
covering a larger area.
By the way, that's also found in a Robert Heinlein novel Time
Enough for Love. it is most important to understand that his
novel is quite distinct from the Lore and therefore should not
be used mixed with Lore. That's not something Rydberg did
in this particular chapter, but he has used such a method in
prior chapters when he drew from other far away mythos.
Post by Heidi Graw
The Danish and French stories have something in common.
That's all Rydberg is basically pursuing...What do the fragments
say and how do they fit together, if at all!
Not the if at all part, though. He fits the parts together as he
wishes whether they rally do fit or not. I don't care if Thiazi and
Volund are the same being, but claiming there is "proof" on
the issue is ridiculous.
Heidi Graw
2007-09-19 18:51:10 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by Doug Freyburger
Post by Heidi Graw
The Danish and French stories have something in common.
That's all Rydberg is basically pursuing...What do the fragments
say and how do they fit together, if at all!
Not the if at all part, though. He fits the parts together as he
wishes whether they rally do fit or not. I don't care if Thiazi and
Volund are the same being, but claiming there is "proof" on
the issue is ridiculous.
Ah well, I haven't gone into enough depth yet to say whether or
not there is substance to those proofs. You have to remember this
is just my first reading of Rydberg. It took him a couple of decades
to investigate and write the stuff. It took William two decades to
deciminate Rydberg's logic and to study the sources which Rydberg
was drawing from. I highly doubt I'll be able to do all that within just
the first reading. In fact, I know I can't.

Once I've finished with this first reading, I'll be able to go back over
everything by myself at home to do a really in-depth study. What I
think I might do, though, is pick through the sources, quote them,
and ask you guys where you see a similarity, a connection, etc. or not.
We might even talk about how you interpret the materials vs. as to how
I interpret them. And we could talk about what kind of conclusions
*we* can reach about these sources.

If our conclusions end up matching Rydberg's .... great! And if not...
that's o.k., too. Whatever the outcome, I'm sure if William is reading
this newsgroup, he'll see what, if any differences, we've managed
to come up with on our own.

Anyway, I'm not in a position to say "yea" of "nay" to Rydberg. There's
a heck of a lot more I have to study before I can make a decision
either way.

Take care,
Heidi
Doug Freyburger
2007-09-19 19:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Heidi Graw
... He fits the parts together as he
wishes whether they rally do fit or not. I don't care if Thiazi and
Volund are the same being, but claiming there is "proof" on
the issue is ridiculous.
Ah well, I haven't gone into enough depth yet to say whether or
not there is substance to those proofs.
In several cases not a lot of depth is needed to see what Rydberg
is doing. I don't have to care why he was working the Lore to
get that he was putting his own bias into it.
Post by Heidi Graw
It took him a couple of decades to investigate and write the stuff.
Which does not effect the issue of inserting his own bias.
Post by Heidi Graw
It took William two decades to
deciminate Rydberg's logic and to study the sources which Rydberg
was drawing from.
William is obsessed and therefore does not see problems in
the material.
Post by Heidi Graw
I highly doubt I'll be able to do all that within just
the first reading. In fact, I know I can't.
I think in some cases you should be able to quite easily. Just
how hard is it to realize that a "proof" based on family trees is
too weak to call a proof?
Post by Heidi Graw
... What I
think I might do, though, is pick through the sources, quote them,
and ask you guys where you see a similarity, a connection, etc. or not.
We might even talk about how you interpret the materials vs. as to how
I interpret them. And we could talk about what kind of conclusions
*we* can reach about these sources.
Great. I like going over the Lore and I make no pretext about
what I do with the Lore. I insert my own bias and I am quite
fluffy about it. Rather like Rydberg in that sense.
Heidi Graw
2007-09-19 20:02:02 UTC
Permalink
(snip)
Post by Doug Freyburger
Post by Heidi Graw
... What I
think I might do, though, is pick through the sources, quote them,
and ask you guys where you see a similarity, a connection, etc. or not.
We might even talk about how you interpret the materials vs. as to how
I interpret them. And we could talk about what kind of conclusions
*we* can reach about these sources.
Great. I like going over the Lore and I make no pretext about
what I do with the Lore. I insert my own bias and I am quite
fluffy about it. Rather like Rydberg in that sense.
LOL...I'm looking forward to it. Fluffy Heathen vs. Huggy Heathen...
just what in the Lore will these two come up with! Just how much
will the die-hard pillage and plunder Heathens shudder? I can just
imagine them gagging on their own spittle. ;-)

Take care,
Heidi
Asvinr
2007-09-28 03:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Freyburger
Great. I like going over the Lore and I make no pretext about
what I do with the Lore. I insert my own bias and I am quite
fluffy about it. Rather like Rydberg in that sense.
In relaity, the method you describe is wholely unlike Rydberg's, as he
sought to examine the mythology in an unbiased manner, free of
assumptions and preconceptions.

Of course, Heidi, is correct. Rydberg, who wrote in Swedish, uses the
word translated here as "proof" in the sense of a logical proof, not
an emperical proof. The evidence of the source material that he cites
supports his conclusions. Not addressing any part of the chain of
evidence presented from the Old Norse sources, Doug can make no valid
claims about Rydberg's conclusions.

Based on Doug's statements above and those he has made in other
threads (particularly the one where Doug says that Rydberg understood
the myths as actual historical events), it's plain Doug has a basic
misunderstanding about Rydberg's methodology as well as the contents
of Rydberg's text.

Rydberg's methodology is explained by Rydberg himself in detail, in
the recently published "Viktor Rydberg's Investigations into Germanic
Mythology, Vol. II, Part 1", now available on Amazon.com and through
other booksellers. Many of Rydberg's most vocal critics seem to be
unable that his work translated as Teutonic Mythology is merely half
of Rydberg's work on Germanic Mythology. The other half of the work
was not translated into English until recently. Rasmus Anderson, the
translator of volume one, was a Dnaish-American ambassador who was
reassigned to the United States after the presidental election of
1888. Although he intended to translate the second volume (as he
states in published letters to Rydberg) once it was published in 1889,
he never completed the work.

Rather than begin with any assumptions about what the myths contained,
Rydberg cast all assumptions regarding the myths aside and utilized
the oldest (i.e. the most reliable) mythic sources to demonstrate the
outlines of the myths as they probably existed in the oral mythology
before they came to be written down in christian times. By considering
the oldest sources to be the most reliable and systematically
comparing their contents, he sought to detail the outlines of the oral
mythology of the heathen period. He didn't believe that he was
"correct" or that his theories were emprically "proven". To state this
is to grossly misunderstand the nature of a logical literary
argument. In truth, Rydberg's text is a series of formal arguments
which are logical and literary in nature, presenting evidence and
conclusions, not empiral proof, as Doug suggests-- nor has Doug
presented any evidence that supports his opinion in this regard.
Asvinr
2007-09-28 04:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Freyburger
William is obsessed and therefore does not see problems in
the material.
Actually Doug, I can easily point out problems in the chain of
evidence at various points in the book, including examples in this
chapter. In the same vein, I have also discovered evidence in support
of Rydberg's conclusions that he did not cite, and therefore probably
did not see himself. Anyone who reads my translations of the second
volume of the work can see ample evidence of both of these. I am not
only able, but interested in finding the flaws in the work, and have
purposed alternate theories based on evidence; as well as simply
outright discarded elements of Rydberg's theories when the supporting
evidence was found faulty. No author's work is without flaw, and
Rydberg's work is no exception.

Still, despite some evidencery flaws in places, the overall argument
that the "giant" Thjazi is identical to the "elf-prince" Volund of
Volundarkvida is sound-- as a thorough examination of the textual
evidence demonstrates. Many details of their stories show exact
correlation, too many to be attributed to coincidence. As anyone who
has studied the Eddic poems knows, it is not unusual for a single
character to be called by more than one name. For examples of the
evidence, besides those found in Rydberg's own work, see:

http://www.boudicca.de/wpb-002.htm


The smith Volund-Thjazi is one of the Sons of Ivaldi, the famous
smiths who created Sif's golden hair, Odin's spear Gungnir, and Frey's
ship Skidbladnir according to the Prose Edda. The evidence indicates
that he is the son of the elf Ivaldi (also called Olvaldi, and
Allvaldi) and the giantess Grep. According to the poem Hrafnagaldur
Odins, Idunn is the daughter of Ivaldi, and thus a half-sister of the
famous smiths the Sons of Ivaldi. Thus, when Thjazi kidnaps the
goddess Idunn he is kidnapping his own half-sister along with her
golden apples which prevent the gods from aging. The golden apples,
referred to as the "Aesir's remedy against old age" in the poem
Haustlong were likely conceived of as a product of his smithy. As a
single piece of correlating evidence, note the magical nature of the
"giant" Thjazi. He wears an eagle guise (like the ones possessed by
Odin and the goddesses). He prevents a fire from cooking meat, and he
carries a stick which Loki cannot let go of. These too were likely
considered products of his smithy, and we might also logically
conclude that he created the bird-guises for the gods. In
Volundarkvida, he is associated with swan-maidens who also wear bird-
guises, and himself flies away from Nidhad by an unstated means.

That Thjazi-Volund is called an elf and a giant may seem
incomprehensible to a modern ear, but is mythologically accurate from
a heathen perspective. When Volund-Thjazi is a friend of the gods,
creating treasures for them, he is referred to as an elf (as he is on
his paternal side) and later in life when he is an enemy of the gods,
he is characterized as a giant (a Jotun, as he is on his maternal
side). Similarly, Loki is called both an As (one of the Aesir) and a
Jotun. Frey and Njord are called both Aesir and Vanir. Upon closer
inspection, these mythological "racial" types are more a function of
tribal association than birth.
Post by Doug Freyburger
I think in some cases you should be able to quite easily. Just
how hard is it to realize that a "proof" based on family trees is
too weak to call a proof?
Again, you misunderstand the term "proof". Here, the word translated
from the Swedish as "proof" does not mean emprical proof, but the
logical proofs of a formal argument which presents literary evidence
in support of its conclusions. You cannot validly discredit the
logical conclusions without addressing the collected evidence in
support of them.

"Family trees" or geneologies of mythic characters are actually quite
helpful in establishing the identities of these characters as Rydberg
demonstrates. Mythological geneologies are quite common, for example
see Harbardsljod 9 and most all of the poem Hyndluljod. Since mythic
characters do not have last names, "family trees" (including ones with
alternate names of characters) are not only necessary, but quite
common. They are not intended as emprical proofs of identity, but
serve as clues in cryptic Eddic poetry to indicate who is intended.
Post by Doug Freyburger
Great. I like going over the Lore and I make no pretext about
what I do with the Lore. I insert my own bias and I am quite
fluffy about it.
Loading...