Talk:Ergi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

A propos argr meaning bottom/maricon/catcher/uke, I think it could be of interest to mention the Old Norse word "rassragr", where rass is an old metathesis of "ars" (arse), and ragr a metathesis of "argr". Quite explicit. 85.226.122.237 21:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Ergilegur" seems similar to German "ärgerlich", Dutch "ergerlijk", Norwegian bokmål "ergerlig" and Nynorsk "ergeleg", meaning "irritating". I wonder whether the modern sense of the word have found its way from Danish, which originally got it from Low German. 惑乱 分からん 10:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ergi, a(r)gr, seid(r), and nith

According to Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg (1978), "nith" was not the act of diffamation, but actually the negative attributes one was accused of. Thus, "nith" literally meant "malevolence, insidiousness", and the nithing (aka nidding/neiding in Teuton) itself was not considered a human being but a malevolent, evil spirit or demon that could appear human by its ergi magic. As it was not a human being and inferior (nieder or niedrig in modern German) to mankind, the nithing being was jealous of all of man's posessions and abilities and thus desired to destroy all that, even the human race as a whole. Accordingly, the modern German form, although with a more spezialized meaning, of nith is in fact Neid while modern English envy is but derived from Latin invidia. a(r)gr/arg were further attributes of a nithing, especially sexual perversion(s), lecherousness, weakness, cowardice, effeminacy, being poisonous, being contagious like a disease. Mere existence of a nithing and also its evil seid(r) magic was considered ergi, i. e. an annoyance (Ärgernis in modern German), and furthermore ergi already in ancient times referred just as well to the feeling of anger (Ärger in modern German) the existence and presence of a nithing caused in decent belligerant males, but also the whole situation all this caused for a nithing (which would be Ärger in German, trouble in English). Death sentence was preferrably carried out as impaling, burning, drowning (in lakes, rivers, and bogs), or all of the above, in order to keep the body immobile and hence the evil fiend from coming back after death as an undead by help of its seid(r) magic. According to Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg, this Norse tradition was kept alive and re-justified according to Christian dogma by German monk Benedictus Levita in the pseudo-Isidore (where Levita also coined the term sodomia referring to the Sodom myth of interpretation created by Byzantine emperor Iustinianus in the 500s a. D. linking the biblical story exclusively to carnal sins), thus delivering grounds to the Inquisition which even adopted the ancient pagan custom of burning at the stake for the very same sins (while alien cult magic seid(r) became partly sorcery, partly sodomy, partly superstition, and partly hereticism). -TlatoSMD 23:55, 8 Mai 2006 (CEST)

Just one note. It seems like you think Nieder is related to Neid/Nith? This doesnt seem to be true, but they're derived from two different Germanic roots. 惑乱 分からん 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

According to my German etymological dictionary, the ancient Germanic (Teuton) forms were nid (envy) and nidar (inferior, (to) low(er)), while the correspondant ancient Anglo-Saxon forms were nith and nither. There is no mention of the Indo-Germanic or Indo-European root for nid/nith, but for nidar/nither it's *ni-. And what about all the rest of my post above? I'd suggest implementing all those ancient terms along with the concepts they expressed, including ergi, and their modern forms in one article entitled nithing (as all the rest are only qualities of the mythological nithing being) that perhaps all other terms would re-direct to. -TlatoSMD 05:38, 11 Mai 2006 (CEST)

It seems like somewhat of original research, I think. Although discussing concepts of moral behavior among early Germanic tribes surely are interesting, the outline (,as well as the idea that "ergi" is a "sub-concept" of "nithing" etc.) seems a little vague as currently proposed. 惑乱 分からん 22:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be original research as Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg is quoting, referring to, and summarizing more than 150 other works on ancient Norse customs, Norse mythology, and antiquity alone (counting only those that are named in the glossary for the specific chapters at the end of her book while there are even more named at the end of each antiquity chapter as well) and we'd only be quoting either from her or from them. All the research has been done before. -TlatoSMD 06:22, 12 Mai 2006 (CEST)

So, alright. There are some sources available. Otherwise, personally I'll stand by my other opinions, but I'm leaving this up for further discussion. 惑乱 分からん 11:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Wakuran and I don't think we need to merge; there's more than enough material to go around. Haukur 12:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. You aknowledge there is material supporting my opinion but oppose merging? -TlatoSMD 22:27, 12 Mai 2006 (CEST)

Here are some reasons that sometimes overlap:
1. "Ergi" and "Nith" are two different concepts.
2. There's no entry for "Nith" yet.
3. This argument seems fuzzy: as all the rest are only qualities of the mythological nithing being.
4. Notwithstanding all three other arguments, I don't see what could be gained by merging the two different concepts, instead of linking them in the "See also" section. Ergo, even if there'd be no reason not to merge (which I disagree about), there's no real reason for merging, either.
惑乱 分からん 23:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Anything ergi could only be a nithing or relate to it (or, in more recent terms, anything prominently lecherous and perverse can only relate to pervert monsters which is what nithings were regarded as due to their motivating nith), perhaps unless female, note that hunting female witches and mysogyny based upon alleged inferiority by manipulative behaviour and lecherousness didn't particularly start with Christianity since seid itself increasingly gained a negative reputation before the Medieval Age even when practiced by females. My concern is that while trying to explain how these other concepts related to or rather constituted the believe in nithings, the individual concepts would have to be explained at least as detailed as in their individual articles. -TlatoSMD 04:05, 13 Mai 2006 (CEST)

The direct correspondence between the two different concepts seem to be your private reasoning, or from one single book. Anyway, you could start by writing an article about nith and nithings, yet, before you start your arguments again. 惑乱 分からん 11:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after roughly about 20 hours of continouing work, here it is: Níð. Please let me know on its talk page what you think. -TlatoSMD 03:0), 15 Mai 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Merges

I think the merges are a bad idea. From what I read, Ergi is meaning insult not seid, same with Níð which apparently means defamation. I practise Seid, not insults or defamations. I can use seid to do a defamation, and people can find theuse of Seid an Ergi, but they are definatly different things, and need to have seperate articles. Kim van der Linde at venus 02:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you are going by the definitions of the articles seid and ergi? Nith was not literally a defamation (which would actually be scolding instead), nith was malice and insidiousness due to envy. Nith was not practiced, it was an inate quality. Nithings (literally "malicious beings", non-human fiends from utgard) used evil seid magic to meet their malevolent interests which they could not achieve any other way as they were womanish and weak. Practicing seid meant practicing lecherous acts by males among each other (especially anal intercourse), and by having sexual intercourse with animals, in order to achieve the power to decide about the lifes and deaths of innocents. All that was ergi, i. e. lecherous and an annoyance. We're talking about anthropological, ethnological, historical, and socio-psychological research here, not about modern recreational lifestyles. -TlatoSMD 06:35, 15 Mai 2006 (CEST)
Excuse me, seid implies anal intercourse and sexual intercourse with animals? Do you have a primary source to back that up? Or is it just a interpretation of a single scholar? "Nith was not practiced" you write, Seid is. Nithings used' evil seid magic', you write, usage does not imply it is the same. What I see is tertiary sources for many of the claims in the Nithing article, where are they based on, what original sources? The original literature hardly mentions Seid at all, and the few times it is mentioned, it is not as negative as you want to let us believe. What I also see is that you primarily base your article on relative old sources, are there newer sources that come to the same conclusions? Kim van der Linde at venus 13:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Those are the most profound and most detailed sources I know about seid, ergi, and nith. Do you know any more profound and detailed on these topics than them? This is why I originally intended to merge these articles, as the informations from those few sources cited or referred to in the articles Seid and Ergi are less profound and less detailed, resulting in stubs or one-sided articles. Especially the article Seid seems to me as being limited to the Neolithic shamanism aspects as preserved in Bronze Age Vanir religion. By the time it was called seid, the Bronze Age had long been gone. During the Viking Age (or even earlier if we consider the values and standards present in the sagas, for example, in the Edda as older than the Viking Age) or earlier, calling someone a seiðmaðr, seidberender or sorcerer was a legally defined, severe swearword, closely connoted with same-sex activities and sexual activities with animals, as you can find in the contemporary Icelandic Gray Goose law, the Frostothing, the Gulathing, Anglo-Saxon and Danish law, the Salian law, and Merovingian law. The article Níð is not about reconstructing Bronze Age Vanir religion when the component later referred to as seid was still widely accepted, it is about reconstructing social values and common legal practice concerning seid during the Iron Age. Furthermore, the articles Ergi and Homosexuality in Norse paganism in their current forms agree with me on the lecherous connotations of seid and that ergi in general referred to abhorred lecherousness. -TlatoSMD 21:11, 15 Mai 2006 (CEST)
First of all, we are not doing reconstruction here, that is original research, and that has no place in wikipedia. As such, you choice to limit it to the iron age is not acceptable, it should cover both time frames, and describe how it changed. Second, I have not seen any convincing argument (read: original source) that they are the same, and therefore need to be merged. Furthermore, you use almost only interpretations by scholars, but pretty much nowhere you supply the underlying original sources to back the things up. I would very much like to see those before any decision can be made. Finally, the picture that you create in the article is not at all compatable with for example the high seat ritual as described in the Saga of Erik the Red. Kim van der Linde at venus 20:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The very word seid itself limits its article to the Iron Age. If you wish to talk about earlier magical practices predating the occurence of Indo-Germanic languages in Europe, Bronze Age Vanir religion and neolithic shamanism are the terms to be used. Secondary sources are favored in Wikipedia and deemed more significance over primary sources as by Wikipedia guidelines, especially in the case of scholarly secondary sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Third, when talking about the social connotations of seid, we're dealing with basically numinous convictions (see Numina), ancient Germanics didn't need any tangible proof in actual seid practices to believe in partly highly detailed lecherous and evil connotations of seid. And finally, I must admit to having used the word reconstructing incorrectly, I meant describing according to authoritative secondary and primary sources. -TlatoSMD 00:01, 16 Mai 2006 (CEST)
I get just more an more confused about what you want to do. Do Seid, Ergi and Níð mean the same, aka, are the synonyms? Based on what you provide as arguments, they are not, and based on what I know about them, they are definately nott. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the articles should not be merged. Kim van der Linde at venus 23:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
They were not equal, above I stated that ergi and seid were regarded as sub-concepts of the super-concept nith or nithing. -TlatoSMD 01:43, 16 Mai 2006 (CEST)
I very strongly disagree that Seid is a subconcept of nith or nithing.Kim van der Linde at venus 23:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
What scholarly sources on Iron Age convictions disagree with mine on that, and that are more authoritative than mine? And how many are they? I mean those that are not trying to reconstruct anything for contemporary worshipping, for example as Wicca components. I didn't only use secondary sources but also an exhaustive, more contemporary tertiary source. -TlatoSMD 02:38, 16 Mai 2006 (CEST)
Strömbäck: Kulturhistoriskt lexikon för nordisk medeltid, Malmö, 1970 defines Seid as follows (verbatim): a sort of primitive magic, intended to either damage a certain person (destroying s.) or gain knowledge about the future of people, coming weather conditions, year's crops etc. (divinatory s.). I fail to see how that matches your idea, especially the second part. Kim van der Linde at venus 01:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Notice Strömbäck does not refer to the reasons commonly assumed for practicing seid? As referenced by Schoeck, anyone practicing seid was automatically suspected of being a nithing, and as referenced by Weisweiler, anyone practicing seid was automatically considered earg, i. e. lecherous and an annoyance. It is Strömbäck that is referenced in the article Níð on the lecherous connotation that seid linguistically referred to "female sex organs". Furthermore, the pivotal contemporary connotations of seid with nithings and ergi are even referenced directly in all the ancient laws that are quoted in the article Níð, beside all other traced relating connotations in the article. The first part of Strömbäck's definition is identical with the definition of seid given in the article Níð, the second is what practitioners of seid themselves regarded it as, which latter is a concept predating the use of the word seid just as well as the language the word is from. Simplifyingly, one can regard the word seid along with its connotations as a charged negative term of propaganda used by those abhorring sorcerers and their sorcery. -TlatoSMD 03:31, 16 Mai 2006 (CEST)
Maybe that is your simplified conclusion, it is not mine based on the same arguments. Sorry, I have not yet seen a convincing argument why these three articles need to be merged. Kim van der Linde at venus 01:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
So ancient laws and at least roughly about 40 or more modern studies and meta-analyses of sagas and the culture saw it that way, but you don't? I'm extraordinarily positive by regarding seid was only convicted that way and that this conviction didn't necessarily have to be based on facts. -TlatoSMD 03:58, 16 Mai 2006 (CEST)
So, of all the mentioned modern (aka pre 1978) studies in the nithing article, I only see this sentence (Nith was the most likely motivation of all for practicing seid.[1]) related to a single source claiming that Seid is most likely the result of Nith. For such an important and radical diffferent view, I would expect to see the original quote (in German) at least in the notes. Furthermore, I would expect that, if this was indeed generally accepted among scholars, more sources could be found making the same claim. Unfortenately, I am unable to find them. Maybe you can enlighten me and tell me where to look for those numerous citations in those 40 or more works. Exceptional claims, require exceptional sourcing. Kim van der Linde at venus 01:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What about all the ancient legal yki definitions furthermore closely linking the mythological nithing fiend with seid and ergi and mostly declaring them identical? What about the saga scoldings doing the same? As for the German original quotes, you can by now click the link to the German version of the article which for the moment happens to be a WIP. As for the referenced sources, they're all named accurately in the footnotes. I'd say, it's not that easy ignoring more than a hundred years of scholarly research. -TlatoSMD 10:54, 17 Mai 2006 (CEST)
(break indentation for readability)No, there is ONE suggestion in the article that Seid is ALWAYS part of Nithing, without the actual German quote. You can not just rely on your authority of having read this all, it need to be verifiable and when you use a single ancient source that suggests that, I definatly would expect to see the actuall quote. And if out of those many older sources (where are the quotes from newer sources except one of after the 50's), only one suggests that, it is NOT reliable. Because in that case, apparently other scholars did not agree with it and did not follow it. Which could perfectly explain why nobody else mentions that Seid is always part of nithing. Kim van der Linde at venus 13:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
And for the German version doing a better job, I do not see the quote there either, it is a literal translated copy, also completly written by you. Kim van der Linde at venus 13:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Seid is mostly practiced by nithings": Schoeck
  • "Being a nithing equals being a practitioner of Seid: Schoeck, Anglo-Saxon and Danish laws.
  • "Desiring same-sex activities [= being a nithing] equals practicing Seid": Gray Goose, Gulathing, Bergen/Island law, Anglo-Saxon and Danish laws.
  • "The nithing uses Seid to harm people in general and/or destroy the world": Grönbech, Strömbäck, Gray Goose.
  • "Seid is used by beings too weak and effeminate [= earg nithings] to be belligerant": Hermann, Helm, Weisweiler.
  • "Seid means harming people by poisoning": Schrader, Phillippson, Klein.
  • "Seid is the root to criminality, especially murder and theft": Klein, Schröder & Künßberg.
  • "Seid means physically losing one's physical sex if male": Weisweiler, Ström, Danckert, Gulathing, Gray Goose.
  • "Seid means turning into raging and/or female animals": v. Schwerin, Kummer, New Helgi song, Gulathing, Bergen/Island law, Frostothing, Volm, Brunner.
  • "Seid is lecherous, same-sexual, and/or generally a perversion [= earg/ergi]": Klein, Weisweiler, Gray Goose, Gulathing, Bergen/Island law, Anglo-Saxon and Danish laws, Strömbäck.
  • "Seid" means having indecent intercourse with animals": Gulathing, Frostothing, Uplandslag, Noreen, Ström.
Each single one of those statements is furthermore supported by Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg herself. And those are only the sources I've used in the article. Please don't be silly by saying, "You edited it in so I don't believe it, no matter how many valid and scholarly and ancient sources you have!" You asked to see the quotes in German, so I directed you to the German article.
As for these modern, unscientific Neo-pagan attempts of completely re-defining and rehabilitating Seid into anything it has never been, along with completely ignoring its original moral and social connotations and even the mythological nithing character itself, in order to integrate it seamlessly into modern occultist and esoterical ideologies by filling the term with eclectical esoterical and occultist concepts the word Seid never entailed, well, I haven't seen anything doing that in print which is older than 7-10 years (prior to which the term Vril seems to have been in use for a similar purpose). It is a fairly recent strategy of forging Neo-pagan folklore, akin to Guido v. List who spoke of a modern 18-character Ariogermanic Armanic futhark alphabet that he saw in "ecstatic visions". -TlatoSMD 08:05, 20 May 2006 (CEST)
Of the quotes, only "Seid is mostly practiced by nithings" by Schoeck suggests that your assertion could be correct: "They were not equal, above I stated that ergi and seid were regarded as sub-concepts of the super-concept nith or nithing." I was not asking for the quotes about all the other content, but for those quotes that support your assertion that Seid is a sub-concept. Untill now, I have not seen those.) Kim van der Linde at venus 06:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
So all the rest does not exist because it's not Neo-pagan, all the rest that links nithing, ergi, and seid closely together as one nithing that is earg and practices seid? Do you believe into Vril because certain Neo-pagans believed in it, and that Hitler escaped from burning Berlin in flying Vril disks and lives immortally underneath the South Pole within a hollow earth? -TlatoSMD 11:05, 20 May 2006 (CEST)
As far as I know, I have not yet expressed my opinion about the content of the nithing article itself or for that matter, any of the other claims. We are discussing here the question whether the pages should be merged. If Seid has its existence outside of nithing, it should not be merged because that proves that it is not a sub-concept, but a seperate concept that warrants an article by itself. Kim van der Linde at venus 15:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's mention Neopaganism

As this is part of a series of articles on 'Religion and Homosexuality', and since it gets linked from that box at the right with all contemporary, practiced religions, I think it would be good to add a paragraph relating to neopaganism and homosexuality. --82.168.9.5 (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) by JvdL