Talk:Jörð

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Norse history and culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, 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.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Mythology Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ok this isn't all that relevant and probably shouldn't go in the article but I thought it was mildly interesting. Thor is a character in Marvel comics. In the comics his mother Jord is revealed to be an alias of Gaea the greek goddess of the earth (mother of the titans, grandmother of Zeus and his siblings etc). --Ksofen66613:15 19 January 2007.

It could be mildly interesting, but it is trivia and pseudo-scientifical. If this is added to the article in the state it is now, people could misunderstand and believe this to be fact. –Holt T•C 14:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not everybody would be aware that the letter ð is pronounced as a 'th' or 'eth' and the inclusion on the page that it can be anglicised as just plain Jord, might lead people to believe that the ð is just some sort of fancy old fashioned d and not realise that this is closer to 'Jörth' in pronunciation, rather than Jord as suggested by the aforementioned anglicised version. Not quite sure about the ö, since that can do different things depending on the language and time, but perhaps someone else who does know more about this could comment and put something in the article.Number36 01:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added an IPA guide, so people can look up the sounds for themselves. Explaning the pronunciation with English examples would be too difficult. –Holt T•C 14:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on Fjörgynn (Frigg's father) has nothing to do with Jord, so I moved it to the entry for Frigg. The statement that Jord can be considered the mother of Meili "by extension" of the fact that Fjorgyn is identified as Thor's mother in Hárbarðsljóð seems downright weird; more importantly, it is not supported by any citation to source texts or scholarship, so I have deleted it. Similarly, the assertion that "[s]ome think she may simply have been an alias of Odin's wife" is unsupported, and has been deleted. If anyone knows of any serious scholarship or primary texts that support any of these points, feel free to reinstate them with documentation.Rsradford (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been readded by an anonymous contributor... (200.100.174.39, [1]) I do not know enough about this to state anything firmly, but I can recall vague memories of reading of Fjörgynn and Fjörgyn being some sort of fertility pair, or something like that. Lord, where are my books when I need them! I might check into this later. At least, those paragraphs ought not to be there, I removed them. –Holt T•C 14:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Fjörgyn and Fjörgynn in an attempt to clarify the confusion here. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which language is the pron. supposed to be? kwami (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Norse. Haukur (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It was coded as English. kwami (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not misleading and anachronistic to link the word "earth" to the Wikipedia article on "Earth"? The view at the time would have been quite different from what that article describes.

Norse mythology, and no doubt most of humanity, probably had a very different view a thousand years ago of what Earth might be from what we think today. It's only since the 1960s when space travel began that we even knew the planet was blue. It's only since the 19th century that the Roman Catholic Church has acknowledged the world is not flat.

So I've removed the link and the word's capital "E". What is really needed is some scholarly knowledge about how earth was conceived at the time. Even just 500 years ago, Shakespeare used the word "earth" to mean land or country. (As in "This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.") Perhaps that is something like what was also meant in Norse mythology. Adrian Robson (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point, and I've corrected the internal link to simply go to soil, which is much closer semantically to what was meant at the time. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ON jǫrð translated as 'earth' in the sense of 'land, soil', not the planet. Alcaios (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, this article was a lot more careful about referring to Jörð as a goddess: The simple reason is that nowhere in the corpus is she referred to as an ásynja. Instead, like many other entities, she is referred to as a jötunn, deity-like entities who are defined as somehow vaguely separate but also either aligned or opposed to the Æsir, depending on narrative or context.

As with entities like Hel, some scholars discuss that she may have been conceived of as a goddess, but this is analysis (quite reasonable analysis, in my opinion) and not something the record transparently states. In cases such as these, we need to be quoting specific scholars and making it clear that it is coming from them, and not directly from the corpus.

Additionally, we need to be careful about flatly stating a geneaology where there are important manuscript variations. These topics require care, context, and trasparent sourcing. Let's not take two steps back when we could be taking three steps forward. I'd like to work together to make these articles the best they can be. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're only following what the RS are stating are per WP policy against original research. Cite other scholars if you disagree, not your personal view:

Orchard (1997): "According to the thirteenth-century Icelander SNORRI STURLUSON, she was the daughter of NÓTT (‘night’), and as such he reckons her among the goddesses or ÁSYNJUR, alongside other giantesses, such as RIND, who gave birth to ÆSIR."

Lindow (2001): "In Skáldskaparmál, discussing poetic diction, Snorri says that Thor may be called “son of Jörd” and that Jörd may be called “one who shares a man with Frigg.” In Gylfaginning, after enumerating the ásynjur and describing the valkyries, Snorri says that “Jörd, the mother of Thor, and Rind, the mother of Váli, are numbered among the ásynjur. Rind is certainly a giantess, and to be “numbered among the æsir” is to be from some other group originally. Jörd must have been a giantess in the beginning. (...) Earlier in Gylfaginning Snorri has a confused discussion of Jörd, in connection with Alfödr (Odin) (...) Snorri’s use of the definite article in this passage suggests a desire to keep separate the earth and the goddess Jörd (Earth). A few lines later Snorri gives a genealogy of Jörd: She is the daughter of Annarr (Second) and Nótt (Night), daughter of the giant Nörfi or Narfi." Alcaios (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you new to this topic, or what? And are you aware that Jörd appears in none of the lists of Ásynjur in the corpus and is nowhere referred to as an ásynja, and that her mother—Night, which various by manuscript—is flatly described as a jötunn in Gylafinning 10? Have you read Gylfaginning? Let's take a look at Simek, shall we? He opens his entry up with: "An Æsir goddess, even though she is also called a giantess".

Now what to make of these comments? Obviously, as scholarship indicates, the corpus does not refer to Jörd as a goddess, but scholars interpret her as having been a goddess. And then there's the question of what we mean by the concept of a 'goddess' in these contexts. Seriously, rather than revert-warring, your time is better spent getting more familiar with the corpus and digging deeper into scholarship beyond a surface-level skimming. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You won't win an argument with the pseudo-contempt you're displaying at other editors in most talk pages.

(1) Never did I write that she was an ásynja. My wording has always been clear: “reckoned among the Ásynjur” and “numbered among the Ásynjur'

(2) Gylfaginning [35–37]. Trans. A. Faulkes (1987) :

These are called valkyries. Odin sends them to every battle. They allot death to men and govern victory. Gunn and Rota and the youngest norn, called Skuld, always ride to choose who shall be slain and to govern the killings. Thor’s mother lord and Vali’s mother Rind are reckoned among the Asyniur.

Alcaios (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And after checking the old version of the article, there has never been an issue with this part indeed (except its position in the lede). The wording was already correct: "reckoned by 13th-century poet Snorri Sturluson among the Ásynjur (goddesses)", which is demonstrably true. Alcaios (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Writing these articles isn't a contest to "win": The goal here is to provide accurate, transparent, and well-sourced information for general readers, and the process can be messy. Simple errors, like listing Gylfaginning as the first section of the Prose Edda, introduce problems in these articles, which is why we need straightforward sourcing and discussion, rather than simply parroting handbooks, especially when we have other secondary sources discussing important manuscript differences and when those handbooks are at odds with one another. There's no reason that this shouldn't have been a productive conversation founded on these principles.

As you can see form the three major handbooks from these topics, there's discussion among scholars about the status of classifying Jörd. I've been meaning to sit down and get this article up to snuff for a while, and now is a great time to do it. However, looking at the soruces, my memory had it backward: Jörd is in fact listed twice as among the Ásynjnur (and also as a heiti for Sif, as I recall) but it scholarly discussion about her status as a jötunn that is less clear—so, the question is where this tertiary source discussion is coming from on this topic exactly and how to untangle it into a digestible section for readers. It appears to stem from interpretation of her ancestry from Night.

I had the Gylfaginning and Skáldskaparmál attestations charted out via Faulkes but lost them (edit conflict, my fault for not copying the edit before clicking publish). Then there's the question of where and why translators like Faulkes see jörd as simply 'earth', as in 'soil'—and why and where that distinction is being chosen over the personified deity, which is the same issue we see with Hel (the entity rather than location). I'll chart the attestations up again here soon and take a deeper dive into secondary and tertiary sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never called Gylfaginning the first part of the Prose Edda, this was already there before. And yes it's not a contest, but you have removed sourced content as you did before on other articles, often with patronizing contempt, likewise accusing other editors of misreading or having not read the sources. If weren't here to revert your edits, you would have done the very contrary of "provid[ing] accurate, transparent, and well-sourced information for general readers". Parroting handbook is better for WP than trying to outsmart scholars with a "failing memory", although you had the decency to admit this was not a good idea after Gylfaginning 36 was in front of your eyes. Alcaios (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you're diverting the original issue again. The initial wording was that she's reckoned among Ásynjur by Snorri. I have never written in any article or talk page that she should be classified as Ásynja, Jötunn or whatever, never. Alcaios (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a pleasant little exchange we're having here on a Wikipedia talk page. Wiki-stalking aside and especially given that you're clearly new to these topics, here's a little insight that a quick glance at Google Books won't hand you: Handbooks, secondary sources, and primary sources often don't agree in this field, and tricky issues, like manuscript variations, often don't make it into handbook summaries.

That means that if you simply parrot what they say as facts in wiki-voice rather than simply report that they've said something, you're going to end up wasting your time and the time of others on talk pages. Do yourself (and myself) a favor, and simply stick to reliable sources, and directly attribute them.

On the up side, this has given me a reason to take give this article the attention it has long deserved, and for that I thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some recurrent Wikipedia contributors belong the category of would-be scholars that have failed in their own career and have consequently developed a feeling of superiority over other WP contributors, and of revenge against scholars that have succeeded in being published by reputed publishing houses. I only hold a Master in I-E linguistics (I'm only 26), so yes I'm not as familiar as de Vries with Germanic mythology. I'm mainly contributing to the etymology sections of ON mythology, adding at the same time mythological information from the main handbooks. You can point to any error I have made regarding Old Norse mythology in the articles I have contributed to, I will be happy to correct it and learn from my mistakes! Alcaios (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I know this was a rhetorical argument, but I'm not reading those works from Google Books since I have a university access to those books. Alcaios (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS2: If we put this petty conflict aside, we could indeed improve all ON articles with your knowledge in Germanic mythology and my own knowledge in Indo-European comparative linguistics. Alcaios (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, let's clear the slate: At the end of the day, there are just far too few of us working in these corners to not work together in a supportive and friendly manner, it is far too easy to get into disagreements and misunderstandings on Wikipedia via the edit-revert-discuss cycle, and none of us should or, really, can be do this alone. These articles really do need far more attention and more editors keeping them in good condition, and I really do appreciate you editing this piece, as it is long overdue for improvements. What do you say we reset our interactions and work together to improve our coverage? :) :bloodofox: (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's why I have written the last comment. This conflict is clearly trivial compared to the work we could do together to bring ON mythology articles to current academic standards. Alcaios (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have spent some time adding etymology sections based upon de Vries' Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, Orel's Handbook of Germanic Etymologies or Kroonen's Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. I will keep on doing it since I'm quite confident in my ability to deal with such references. But if there's anything wrong with my contributions regarding folklore and mythology, just let me know. Alcaios (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on this, @Alcaios:. BTW, if you don't have ready access to it already, Mallory and Adams's Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture is also available in full on Archive.org. And, likewise, if you'd ever like me to explain any of my edits further or have any recommendations or suggestions, please let me know. Again, I'm happy to work you in improving these articles, and I am glad you are here. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have a pdf of Mallory & Adams (2006). Alcaios (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The son of Odin and Jörð, Meili, is in the often omitted list of sons of Odin in the Prose Edda. But the difference between him and the other random names in that list is that he's actually mentioned by Thor in the Poetic Edda when he "declared that even if he were an Outlaw, he'd reveal his homeland, for he is the son of Odin, the brother of Meili, and the father of Magni." He doesn't mention his other brothers, which likely implies he shares the same mother as him. 2603:6011:F83F:5015:D018:5C67:C58:3475 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This possibility is mentioned in this article's notes. However, as our Meili article outlines, Meili's mother is not attested. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added a bit more information about the matter to this article. Thanks for bringing it up. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]