Re: Syncretism and Adaptation

No, it only shows that Guerber was an early common source of errors. Not early compared to the real sources of knowledge available to you and I, but "early" to those who privilege a derivation to an original.

The idea of Thor being the god of the lower classes is so widespread in the modern world that Marvel Comics actually made Thor a card-carrying socialist and defender of the working class in their Ultimate line of comics. Hence, as I pointed out before, I didn't get this idea out of thin air. It's a popular modern conception of Thor, and I don't think Guerber was wrong when you consider how popular and widespread Thor's worship was among the peasants. This is not something that you would see in the tales described in the Eddas.

That's funny, most translators describe the language as being uncomplicated.
"...the poetry is not difficult to understand: its language is neither obscure nor complex, but rather strikingly simple and direct." ( Carolyne Larrington; from her preface to The Poetic Edda 1996 )

This is one person's opinion, and I certainly don't share it. I have heard many other people say that the Eddas were difficult to get through. The poems were translated from a different language, and they were done so by Christian scholars who are believed to have altered things along the way. So sometimes the Eddas can be very confuzzling.

This is further attested to by the singular similarities of all retranslations from the Icelandic. Most interpreters who refer to Guerbers thirdhand work ( for she never looked at an Icelandic text in her life ) can't resist interpolating some value into Thor's possessive in the Song of Harbarth. Hollander says that Thor "caters" to a "great" clamor of thralls in Bilskirnir. But when one refers to another fresh translation from the Icelandic we find And Thor hath the race of the thralls replaced by and Thor has the breed of serfs. No author's conjecture about what that possessive entails; just simple plain language speaking from the Pagan past to you without modern values thrust into the mouths of the ancients.

As you can see, many authors see Thor as catering to the thralls in the literature. This was based on who was largely worshipping Thor and was not actually seen in the tales themselves. In fact, there was no surviving tales that showed Thor interacting with the dead. The Einerjar were described in the tales, but were only seen during the final battle between the gods and the forces of chaos at Ragnarok, and in fact they were under the control of Odin and Freya (half went to Odin, the other half to Freya). What you are trying to say here is basically that since Thor wasn't actually seen defending the lower classes in the Eddas, which are the actual tales, this means that it's not valid to see him today as a god of the working class. But this was never described in the tales, it derives from the way Thor was worshipped in the past. He was perhaps the most popular of the Norse deities to be worshipped by the lower classes, and this fact is not in dispute. The mere fact that this doesn't appear in the tales themselves doesn't mean that Thor wasn't worshipped by the lower classes and considered their protector.

Since my sources were largely primary texts, I was ignorant of any Marxist/Socialist spin on Mjolnir. So, in the absence of any support from the original, it seemed natural to assume that someone had pulled such notions out of thin air. You have amply documented that the error was not your own but that of your secondhand sources. Guerber was the earliest "reteller" after the first translation of the Eddas to English and had the field to herself; as such she became a primary source for error-ridden derivations of an error-ridden derivation. Her impact and influence are vast and the damage is difficult to contain. Many able scholars cannot find sources for her outlandish claims. And since she never saw the originals, her followers have little excuse in their reliance upon her for characterization of the original texts.

I don't think that Guerber's statements were "outlandish." As I said above, just because Thor wasn't described as defending the lower classes in the tales themselves doesn't mean that he wasn't worshipped as such by the working classes back then. The point remains, Thor is seen as the god of the working class today. If you believe that is an error in interpretation, and that Thor was actually a symbol of class tyranny, then you are entitled to that interpretation. That doesn't mean that I am going to cease using Mjolnir to represent the working class, or no longer consider Thor a protector of the lower classes.

However, you did seem to pull your citation that of the Arm of Hephaestus logo was that of Thor out of nowhere. You began with and rested upon that claim. Only offering "further proof" if Hephaestus being citable as Thor wasn't sufficient enough to make your entire case. It wasn't, and now we're here.

When I first saw that symbol used by the SLP, I thought of Thor immediately because I had seen paintings of Thor with his hand raised in that manner, like the one I linked to elsewhere in this thread. Then, Freya Aswynn made it clear that many socialists perceive this as the hammer of Thor, and since she has been active in all aspects of promoting Norse symbolism, this is something she would know. Hence, it makes sense to see the Arm and Hammer as representative of Thor rather than Vulcan/Hephaestus.

However, unless we wish to pretend that the truth or falsity of a statement of fact is irrelevant, then we can't reduce them all to matters of variant interpretations.

I think the manner in which Thor was worshipped in the past is every bit as relevant as what was described of him the Eddas. That's all I'm trying to say.