Talk:Rheda (mythology)

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge with Hrōþ

Oppose. Theories around Hretha should be handled separately from an article covering Hrōþ. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The two seem to be merely lingustically connected, so the best solution would be a good etymology section. –Holt (T•C) 21:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess?

Bede states states that Rheda is a god, not a goddess. He uses the masculine. See here. Rwflammang (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources provided on this article come to no such conclusion - perhaps there's a mistake on the part of your source? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. It's a difference between an a and an o in one word. I'll try to confirm with the edited source, whose reference I will improved. I find "Giles (1843:179)" to be too cryptic. Rwflammang (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity (I'm not proposing to do Original Research), how's your Old English? Do you happen to know the gender of the common nouns hrethe or hroth? Rwflammang (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I couldn't find Giles, but the Patrologia Latina has a critical edition, volume 90, column 356 (on page 185 of this PDF), that supports dea, or "goddess". No mention is made of a variant for deo, so apparently this is a case of a typo (or "scanno") in the on-line source. Rwflammang (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Old English is currently largely dependent on my Old English dictionaries. Sure, hrethe is masculine, but this isn't a unique situation; the Old Norse theonym Skaði is also masculine, for example. Here's the Giles edition cited in the article: [1] :bloodofox: (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Thanks. Rwflammang (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All secondary sources that claim Hreða is a goddess have not read the original Latin text thoroughly because in Latin the 'a' in the phrase "Rhed-monath a deo illorum Rheda" would fall into the context of "named after". As for "illorum" that is plural genitive of masculine and neuter of "that, those". I think a lot of people have jumped the gun with thinking Hreþa is a goddess due to the proximity of Easter. As well, the other word for March is Hlȳdmonaþ which means Loud-month, and it would make sense that Hrēðe means Fierce, Cruel. There's even "Hlȳda" which means March as well in Old English. Literally this word would mean "Loud one" (male) because in Old English the -a denotes a male agent. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take back what I say because in the Manuscript in this link [2] shows Latin Feminine Dea for Hreda. Leornendeealdenglisc (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rheda is Frigga

I tried to add this to the Theories section but it was removed even though I referenced it. Karl Blind shows in his article “Wotan, the Wild Huntsman, & the Wandering Jew” published in many places but originally in The Gentleman’s Magazine number 249, which can be found free on Google books here https://books.google.com/books?id=3FVIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=rheda+goddess&source=bl&ots=bqSIlAw92e&sig=ACfU3U2MtrP7Wy7fBYUcwHZdE2LESBMiJQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwvrW93YDlAhWBmVkKHW2NBSc4ChDoATAOegQIBBAB#v=onepage&q=rheda%20goddess&f=false.

Blind shows that Rheda is aka Hruoda or Herodias and is the consort of Rodes, aka Rodso, Hruodso or Herodes. And through these by-names reveals that Rheda is Frigga, wife of Odin. I then suggested that the god-goddess couple Hrudso-Rheda be compared to the Rhodes deities Helios-Rhoda and the Vedic consorts Hari-Radha. Bhakti Ananda Goswami conclusively shows that Helios-Rhoda correlates to Hari-Radha. https://bhaktianandascollectedworks.wordpress.com/

Admin can do as they please, but I am trying to learn how to make Wiki edits that do no get removed, amd so I always cite my sources. Why is the Karl Blind theory unacceptable given it has been published widely. I could give 2 other places his article has appeared, but referenced the first place. Why was Blind’s theory removed? Do advise. Thank you. DErnestWachter (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few points to make in response here. First, we don't state theory as fact on Wikipedia. That's very important, especially when a reference comes from a paper a 19th century magazine article. Second, it's unclear if this reference is notable. Third and finally, the blog you reference fails WP:RS and therefore cannot be used on the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]