Talk:Seiðr/Archive 1

Disambiguation & move

Why is this Seid (shamanic magic) when there's nothing under Seid?

Because this is a very specific concept which only Norse scholars/Asatru/etc need to deal with. I particularly don't want confusion with Seid (rock band); Seid (chemical company) or (USS Seid). I am therefore pre-emptively disambiguating. (Actually there are about 50 different seid manifestations out there....)user:sjc

This page has existed for two years now, and there is still no disambiguation page for "seid". The other uses seem to be very rare and consequently I have moved it to "Seid"--Wiglaf 19:03, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good move. —Ashley Y 21:52, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Homosexuality & shamanic magic

There are a couple of problems with this page that need clarification.

First, what is the evidence that they were homosexual? This question really has two parts: a) is there an objective record of them having engaged in same-sex-sex? Or is there only a record of cross-dressing? This is important because in Native North America Europeans often assumed that cross-dressers were "sodomites" with no evidence. b) even if there is an objective record of same-sex-sex, did they identify themselves as homosexuals? To classify certain acts as signs of "Homosexuality" is a relatively recent phenomena. In the past, and in other cultures, acts that we might consider "homosexual" today were considered differently. How did they think of their sexuality?

Second, the paranthetical (shamanic magic) must be removed. It is at best misleading. Both terms mean a plethora of things, and I think the article would be stronger if, instead of relying on these terms, it spelled out in greater detail what "seid" actually entailed. Otherwise, we run into serious terminological confusion, including anachronisms. The concept of "magic," as it developed in modern European countries and was applied to the past and to non-European cultures, was and remains inherantly ethnocentric. Also, shamanism and magic are not quite the same thing. Eliade for example classified seid not as shamanism but as a form of magic because it involved divination. For many scholars (most, other than Eliade) shamanism involves techniques of healing and killing -- are these present? (By the way, Eliade's work although influential is out-dated, and the language is out-dated -- another reason why it is better to avoid these labels altogether).

I suggest cutting the paranthetical in the title, and simply providing a link to the shamanism article at the bottom. I appreciate the need for disambiguation -- if there must be a paranthetical, how about (divination technique) or (divination practice) or something like that? Slrubenstein

I have no intention of getting sucked into a long debate about this. This article is MARKED WORK IN PROGRESS. This has been disregarded once. I don't propose to discuss something which is clearly being dealt with in depth in a particular context i.e. the sphere of Norse mythology out of context in terms of some intellectual no-mark like Eliade. Nor am I getting sucked into an egregious discussion about semantics. I have work to do on this and other Norse articles, rather than messing around on talk pages.user:sjc

an afterthought. The title means exactly what the title means as you will discover if you have the courtesy to wait until it is marked complete. user:sjc

There is no debate to get sucked into. Except perhaps what it means that a "work is in progress." All wikipedia articles are works in progress, and anyone is invited to contribute. This is precisely what I have done. It is precisely because this is a work in progress that I contributed to this page. And it is because I assume you may know more about Seid than I that I did not unilaterally make a change to the article itself -- although I might, as your defensive response makes me wonder whether my assumption is correct.

Wikipedians are under no obligation to "wait until it is marked complete" before posting suggestions or making changes -- indeed, all of us have an obligation to make changes and post suggestions as we see fit. That is what the process is all about.

as for the content of my suggestions, I see you actually acted on the first one by removing the stuff about homosexuality -- thank you. As for the second suggestion, there is no semantic debate. "shamanic magic" is a poor and misleading description and should be changed. Slrubenstein

I had already removed it, it was someone else's insertion. It is NOT a poor and misleading description because as I said if you will kindly wait for this article to be complete you will be able to see seid for precisely what it is: on the cusp of shamanism and magic. But here we go, yet another long and ineffably tedious debate...

There is no debate -- I point out that the use of terms is unclear, you respond by saying you will work on the article to make them clear. Why get so defensive? Just say "you are right, I will address that?" And it doesn't really matter WHO inserted the reference to homosexuality. My comments were not directed to you at all, they were addressing the article. You really like to take things personally, don't you! In the meantime, I will not wait. As I said, Wikipedia is a work in progress, and all of the articles are works in progress, and all of us are involved in one way or another on working on them. Slrubenstein

Volva

For this:

The seidkhona (or volva) wore a blue cloak and a headpiece of black lamb with white catskins

SeeDag Stromback, Sejd. Textstudier i nordisk religionhistoria page 50 ff., and Arne Runeberg, Witches, Demons, and Fertility Magid page 9 ff. Slrubenstein

Er, this is a secondary source and probably quoting from the Eiriksmal, which is the only reference to the blue cloak I am aware of. Can you find his source? The Eiriksmal is the only one I can think of and that was late and in Greenland. The opinion I formed was that seid was very ad hoc in this respect; more hedge magic than ritual. user:sjc

You ae right that they are secondary sources. Would you feel comfortable inserting in a paranthetical "(according to some accounts)," or separating the clause entirely and having it read, "In some regions, the seidkhona (or volva) wore a blue cloak and a headpiece of black lamb with white catskins."

The larger point is that the seidkhona had some special costume -- what that costume was, exactly, isn't the issue here. Do you have other sources that describe different outfits? Or do your sources suggest that outside of Greenland the seidkhona wore ordinary clothes? I defer to your knowledge, but I think this needs to be spelled out, Slrubenstein

I'll dig out the passage from Eiriksmal where Stromback got his quote from and put it in context. The only known fact about the seid workers outside of Greenland is the distaff (a (fairly) common unifying and archaeologically provable factor) i.e distaff=seidkhona. I'm not suggesting that they wore ordinary clothes; there's nothing to suggest they didn't either due to the lack of reliable and consistent evidence. user:sjc

Sounds fine -- I wouldn't discount the blue cloack just because it is limited to Greenland, but you are quite right that it should be put in context. Thanks for checking the original passage, too, Slrubenstein

I have just found another reference from the Orvar-Odd saga: the seidkhona wears a black cloak in this one. Whatever; the dress is calculated to attract attention. her distaff was saud to cause forgetfulness in anyone who is tapped three times on the face by it. user:sjc

Great! Your point "the dress is calculated to attract attention" is valuable, at least for comparative purposes, and I hope you will put it into the article, Slrubenstein

Already done. user:sjc

Thorny problem

Now I have to address the thorny problem of the frame which is actually a metaphysical concept in itself. I am going to go and have a think about this one. user:sjc

Merging into Nithing

I've proposed merging this article along with ergi and (linked but not existing) nith into a new one entitled Nithing. For my reasons see Talk:Ergi. -TlatoSMD 14:56, 11 Mai 2006 (CEST)

Bad idea, Nithing is not Seid. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Emphatically agree with Kim. Nithing is not Seid. Seid is a fairly major category of magical/shamanistic practice which can be used in a multiplicity of ways and which is indicated in many of the sagas. Some practitioners were subject to charges of 'ergi' or 'nið' but they were not alone in this - the categories are far from synonomous Seidkona 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

See extensive discussion on this here: Talk:Ergi#Merges, and it seems that the person who proposed it can not provide good arguments why Seid is a subconcept of Nithing. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of seid being considered ergi, I'm a little concerned about this phrase in the article: 'as its manipulative aspects ran counter to the male ideal of forthright, open behaviour.' Now that sounds to me like an interpretation -- what we know is that in a number of textual sources, male seid practitioners, including Odin, are described as ergi. Why exactly is unclear: Neil Price, among others, has suggested that seid was seen as sexually transgressive for men, and that the crossing of gender boundaries was the problem. After all, the idea of argr behaviour is a broad and complex one; it's not just 'being manipulative' or anything like that. And of course, like a lot of things in early medieval Scandinavia, it's not completely understood. I don't think our understanding of the sources currently supports making a claim in this absolute manner, but maybe there's something I'm not aware of. 81.107.37.204 09:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Seid stones?

And there are also "seid stones" sv:Höna på ägg (I wrote the page, at bottom there are links to external pages with english texts about the stones).

These stones are most likeley of sami origin, not Norse.

The oldest stones we (a small and loose group of Swedish amatures) have found is as far as we can see about 4 000 years old (megalith age), the youngest less than a thousand and maybe even younger.

This is of course something for this article but does anyone know anything about the connection between the seid tradition and the seid stones?

The stones is as far as I can undesrstand used in some "mystic" way as a part of the tradition.

You can sometimes find lines/groups of blocks pointing towards the solstices.

In rare cases the blocks has got cup marks (is there any page for those in en?? look at sv:Skålgrop, yep, I wrote that one too =) or rock art. (the pictured one at the sv-page has got about 20 cup marks on top of the stone)

// Solkoll 14:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seið & Galdr: Relativity

I have been a practicing Seiðmothr and Galdrar for 10 years and have researched the practices in depth both through academic libraries available at university and the oral relations I was able to access personally through 'networking' with other Seið-Workers internationally.

I have noted a couple small errors in description:

From the section Overview " Seið involved the incantation of spells, which could amongst other things be termed galdrar or galðrar (sing. galdr or galðr, compare Old English: gealdor or galdor). "

Seið was (and is) primarily (many would say entirely) a rite of trance-induction wherein the state of trance was used for magickal ends. Usually, Soul-Travel & divination ( as in Spae, or "Oracular Seið" ) and only occasionally as a form of spellworking utilizing the galdr as a magickal device.

In the common, and many would say, the only accurate form of Seið-Rite, galdr would be used; like a mantra, as a tool & method which through repetition and oxygen depletion would result in a trance-like state which would be informed by the content of the galdr. (For Example, a Seið Rite for divination would use the repetition of the rune sound of the Pethro rune, the rune of divination.)

Spellworking, or effecting outside circumstances would be within the auspice of Galdr-Work. The only exception to this would be if one were intending to and able to affect the outside world with their soul-body effecting an environment far away. This is a rare and undocumented form of Seidhr however, and is more of a modern phenomenon based on the addition of tangential pagan concepts to the robust system of Seið-Work.

I beleive that anyone wishing to learn of Seið in its original context would benefit greatly from reading The Voluspo

[ THE POETIC EDDA: VOLUME I: LAYS OF THE GODS: "The Wise-Woman's Prophecy" as contained on www.sacredtexts.com and accessed 18Jun07/1105 ]

Many sources make the essence of Seið confusing because of this self-same lack of very clear delineations between the magickal systems of the ancient Norse. This is a skilled article but it does not give a CLEAR sense of teleological separateness between the practices, and it would help a great many persons studying the area to have this thorn pulled out.

(Feel free to contact me with further questions.)

Αγαθος και Σωφος, Σωφος και Καλος, Καλος και Αγαθος 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Odin and Seid

Is what I said about Odin gaining knowledge of Seid from Freyja incorrect? If so I will need to examine my sources for any other errors.Yggur (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Prose Edda says that Freyja has half the slain. Ynglinga saga says that Freyja taught seiðr to the Æsir. That much is correct. But I don't think any logical connection is made between those two facts in the medieval sources. Haukur (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)