Talk:Zisa (goddess)

What is a modern scholar?

The so-called "modern scholars" are all neopagan representatives:

• Prudence Jones was president of de Pagan Federation, her main topic is astrology .
• Stephan Grundy (aka Kveldulf Gundarsson) is a novellist and a member of the Ring of Troth.
• Nigel Pennick is an occultist, a runosoph etc. His maintopic is geomancy.

The article is missleading, telling, that "modern scientists" are accepting the sources as valid. In fact, a modern scholars, like Professor Rudolf Simek do not accept Zisa as a historic pagan deitiy! --al-Qamar (talk) 10:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

He never backs it up though, simply dismisses it though without giving a reason why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.70.190 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No, Jones and Pennick were (and are now again) cited as "authors". Stephan Grundy is, yes, a scholar and his work here is cited from a scholarly publication (regardless of whether or not he is a neopagan). :bloodofox: (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

It is the right of all Wikipedia User to improove an article, dear Bloodfox! Deleting all my stuff is pure vandalism, and if you start to delete it again, I will accuse you as a vandal! I have no reason to "dismiss scholar Stephen Grundy" how you claim! The three authors are in some kind representatives! Besides, you know, I am, not a native speaker of English, so it is not necessary to ridicule about some minor mistakes. Behave you! Meanwhile I have enough stuff to show, that your are not willing to discuss in e modest way with other authors! --al-Qamar (talk) 07:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Do it—it's clear that this article could use more eyes. Again, claiming a specific scholar that you disagree with (and makes your point of view inconvenient to push) is a "neopagan representative" is absolutely inappropriate. Again, the cited work comes from a scholarly publication, as is quite plain to see, and makes it clear that not all scholars dismiss the source in modern times, unlike what the unsourced paragraph you've introduced claims. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I made an announce foryour bad and ashaming behaviour here: [1]. --al-Qamar (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

For scientific discussion

We have to consider two things in the article:

• the original medieval text
• the (un)historicity of Cisa

First: the medieval text is according to all modern scholars a pseudohistoric text with no scientific value. The same states Jacob Grimm in his book Deutsche Mythologie. He wirtes, that the medieval texts are full of »unheilbaren Widersprüchen« (i.e incureable contradictions) and he writes also: »Aber all der unsinn, den sie enthält, hebt den werth der merkwürdigen überlieferung für uns nicht auf.« (But all the nonsense, which they contain, does not diminuish the worth of the remarkable records.« German text from: Jacob Grimm: Deutsche Mythologie (1835) p. 224ff.). Modern scholarship agrees fully with this point of view and no historian uses this text at all, considering the mentioned victory as unhistorical. The anachronistic text mixes historical and unhistorical names of different ages and nations (!!!). The hole text ist nothing else than a fabula and speculation, typically for the that time.

A neutral scientific text has to mention the fact, that scholarship considers the original text as a unthrustable pseudihistoric and contradictatory fabula!

Secondly: Cisa is considered by Grimm as a historical goddess. Later scholars dismiss her. Wolfgang Golther writes that Cisa is »aus den Glaubenvorsteluungen der alten Deutschen zu streichen« (has to be crossed off the old religious believes of the old Germans; German text from: Wolfgang Golther: »Handbbuch der Germanischen Mythologie«). Jan de Vries does not mention Cisa at all, Rudolf Simek in his »Lexikon der Germanischen Mythologie«, dismisses her as well. The three man are/were capcities in the scholarly research of Germanic Religion!

A neutral text has to mention, that at least high scholarly de Vries and Simek dismiss the goddess Cisa. This is the scholarly point of view.

Thirdly, the three authors mentiond by Bloodofox are all involved in neopagan circles. They try to establish Cisa as a historical goddess.

A neutral article has to mention, that scholars and writer with connections to neopagan circles think Cisa as a historical godess.

Within a book on the history of Augsburg, that is featured in the library at Augsburg, is the statement that in the Church of Ulrich there is proof of Ciza being worshiped in Augsburg. Unfortunately, this was more of a textbook so it had no one particular author, and it was simple titled Augsburg. If you do go to the city today and look it up, I can almost guarantee you will find this very large book that says this.

I have absolutely no doubt. Plus, no one has yet to mention that the Bohemians (Czechs) and other Slavic deities, who resided in Bavaria two thousand years ago, worshiped a Goddess named Civa, or Siva. Do you really mean to tell me that the culture which came before the Germanic tribes had a Goddess with a name with one letter difference in that very region, and this is just a coincidence? Nonsense! This is yet to be academically proven, but only because I have yet to go to Ulrich to search through the texts and find this evidence, and that is the only reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.98.203 (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Like in all other religious topics, it is essential to mention, of witch group a startement comes! I can not understand, why it schould be bad to mention this point??? Is it bad to be a neopagan writer??? Not to mention it is nothing else than eyewash! --al-Qamar (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong citations

The last phrase in the article: On the other hand, scholar Stephan Grundy, and authors Nigel Pennick and Prudence Jones, present the source and goddess as valid.[2] is not true at all an missleading. I was in the library: neither Stephan Grundy nor Prudence Jones present the source nor the goddess as valid! In fact, neither of them looses one word about the sources, how the phrase of Bloodofox implies. They don´t discuss the historicity of Cisa at all! In contrary they mention the goddess in only view words:

• Prudence Jones in A Historiy of Pagan Europe writes on Zisa (p.160): »…among the more notable examples are the fane of the Swabian goddess Zisa at the Zisenburg in Augsburg, the sacred places of Jutta at Heidelberg .« That´s all! A little bit meagar, isn´t it? No mention of the source how the phrase written by Bloodofox suggests! Obviously the (noncritical) authors consider that fane as a historical fact, but they don´t give a proove for its existence, they even give no reference, where this information comes!
• Stephan Grundy in Freyja and Frigg writes (p.63): »… among the Æsir, where a goddess Zisa … appears to have been worshipped in the area of Augsburg …«, soso, »appears have to been«, is for Bloodofox who ridcules at my bad English, a hard given fact. But Stephen Grundy is obviously not that sure about the historicity, how Bloodofox claims, otherwise he would not have written »appears have to been«. Even me as a non native Englsh speaker is able to see the insecuritiy in this words!

I found in the library even an other book of an other neopagan author:

• Patricia Monaghan in The book of Goddesses and Heroines (1991) mentions also Zisa. Since the library has only the German version, I will cite this entry in German: »Zisa, Cisa So soll eine germanische Göttin geheißen haben, der zu Ehren in der Gegend ovn Augsburg …« That means nothing else, that there is the claim, (not the proove), tha Cisa could have been the name of a goddess.

Ridicule at my bad (not native) English, but not able to cite published works correctly, is not a heroic deed, dear Bloodofox! The last phrase has to be deleted or totally new written! Since I don´t dare to spoil thy Shakespearean English in the article, it´s on you, to correct you missleading phrase! --al-Qamar (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Bachlechner (1851)

Joseph Bachlechner (ZfdA 8, 1851) provides some additional info in terms of old and hard to find references - though he argues, against Grimm, that Ciesburc originally referred to Ziu. Here's the link to the relevant edition of ZfdA > [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.160.69 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

garbled articles

As usual with articles that are based on Grundy, Jones, Pennick & friends, and which focussed on how to present these authors (are they "scholars", or "writers", or "authors"?) it is at the bottom end of a long tradition of copy-pasting, containing some accurate information but transformed almost beyond recognition.

"Codex Monacensis" (which is what "Codex Monac" is short for) isn't a proper designation. It just means "Munich manuscript", and there are thousands of those. It can only be used in context, assuming that the reader is already aware which codex is being discussed. Of course these days, readers do not only not know this, they do not even realize that they do not know it and think that "Codex Monac" is in some way a meaningful piece of information to be cited as a "source" on Wikipedia.

Also, the article seems to wrongly suggest that Grimm supports the historicity of this goddess. While in fact he considers and rejects it. The actual tradition of Zisa as a Swabian goddess is medieval or early modern. The source actually cited by Grimm is de:Ladislaus Sunthaym. The interesting thing here would be tracing the actual medieval and early modern tradition in Augsburg rather than focussing on second-rate sources regurgitaing poorly-researched literature. There may not have been a Zisa in pre-Christian Augsburg, but it appears to be a historical fact that there was a tradition of a "patroness" of Augsburg by the late medieval period, so the article should focus on that. --dab (𒁳) 11:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, the article is (still!) an absolute mess. There must be some more recent reliable sources on Zisa than Grimm. You seem to have some knowledge of them, User:DBachmann?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed fringe material

I removed all the fringe sources, which basically means rewriting the article. Something could be said about how Zisa was celebrated in medieval Augsburg, however, if we can find the sources.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bloodofox:, looking through the history of the article some more, I've realized that you were the one who added the sources I've removed, so I thought I'd see what you're thoughts on them are. Of the three, the one with the strongest claim to inclusion in my mind is Gundy, who, however, I don't think was being cited properly. He mentions Zisa in an offhand way and doesn't seem to be aware of any objections to her existence. All he says is that she's an etymological double of Tyr.

Pennick strikes me as a very questionable author, and I am against including the TYR article. I see he did co-write a book published by Routledge, however. I've found several reviews that quibble about the details in that book, however, such as this one mentioning the Germanic section in particular. Cf. this one also that questions the book's reliance on 19th century sources.

All and all, I think we need sources more specifically about Zisa than either Gundy or Prudence-Pennick, and I don't know that I trust the journal TYR. That leaves us with Grimm and Simek, and a few older sources. I might note that someone removed Simek at some point before my rewrite, meaning that readers here had no idea that there was any contest about Zisa's existence at all.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking back on this article, I in fact provided all sources here. Grundy is a reliable source and a specialist, but Pennick’s book, despite the publisher (Routledge), shouldn’t be cited. Additionally, Simek’s handbook should not be taken as gospel, as he’s keen to insert his opinion, including when it stands well outside of mainstream scholarship (such as in essentially all of his encyclopedia’s Tyr-related entries). We need more sources, but this is a topic very rarely discussed. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I've found the following source on the medieval and humanist traditions. If I can get my hands on a PDF, it looks like it has other references, including at least one recent one (2005). I also found the source that Simek seems to rely on inside of this scanned PDF. Kohl quotes a certain Golther (Handbuch der germanischen Mythologie, 1895, Leipzig, p. 489) " Seit Grimm ist man ihr gegenüberfreilich immer kritischer geworden, so daß Golther1 erklärte, „die vonJ. Grimm in der Mythologie 266 f. aufgestellten altdeutschen GöttinnenHruoda, Ostara, Ricen, Zisa sind aus den Glaubensvorstellungen der altenDeutschen zu streichen“." Another older source questioning the existence is here (argues that since Zisa is derived from local names, it's actually a mistake coming from a contraction of the genitive Ziwes to Zis). I haven't had time to look through everything carefully, but I'll try to soon.

Can it be that the authors of the sources (Gundy, for instance) who assume the existence of Zisa don't speak German?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@Dbachmann:, since you commented on the article before I wonder if you might have anything to contribute. I'm hoping to add more on the humanist traditions around Zisa.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's unwise to make any assumptions regarding Grundy's background, particularly given the hyper-skepticism that marks the works of figures such as Simek (perhaps a reflection of the German language scholarship of his era). However, I haven't dug into this for years, and didn't spend a lot of time with it then, but would like to take some time to revisit it sometime soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The Grundy mention of Zisa is limited to saying that her name is an etymological doublet of Tyr and only cites Grimm. I think it's safe to say he's unaware of other scholarship on the matter. I find his competence somewhat questionable anyway, as he's primarily a novelist without any degree in the subject. This is (so far) the only source I'd consider reliable that seems to support the notion that there's any disagreement on whether or not Zisa is a real goddess, and it was, notably, published before Simek's lexicon was translated into English. Various German scholars had been poo-pooing Zisa through the whole 19th century before Kohl even did.

I think we'd need to find a RS that specifically deals with Zisa and/or at least mentions the widespread skepticism about her before we could say that Simek is wrong in his assessment of scholarly consensus.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As I recall, Grundy holds a PhD in a relevant field from Cambridge University. His dissertation was on Odin. Simek's handbook contains mistakes here and there, and he rarely hesitates to present his opinions as fact. In turn, while I haven't really sat down to dig deeply into this topic, I'm not keen on presenting Simek's opinion as fact, particularly on an obscure topic such as this one. I'm finding a lot of 19th century and 20th century stuff entertaining the notion of the figure as a goddess, and it seems it's probably a topic worth digging further into. I recommend that we simply start with a "primary sources" or "attestations" section and go from there. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir:, @Haukurth:, and @Alarichall:, this conversation may be of interest to you. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

No, thanks. Although I'll second you on Grundy having a Cambridge PhD on Odin. Some nuance is needed in relation to sources: opinions have changed on many etymological matters, Grundy's Llewellyn book was altered by the publishers and he urges extreme caution in using it, and flaws in the English translation of Simek's overview book (such as omission of at least one entry) suggested to me long ago that the original German should be consulted, but I've been unable to get access to it. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I share Bloodofox's concerns that German scholars tend towards hyperskepticism. People jump too easily from "can't confirm" to "definitely fake". Scholars of Old Norse could only wish for a written source as old as the 11th century! That said, I don't know any suitable sources to give another perspective and the present article seems well written. Haukur (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected on Grundy's credentials then, but I still don't think the way he cites Zisa is particularly helpful. I think my rewrite with Bloodofox's alterations is probably a good compromise for now. I might flesh out the humanists' rather extensive speculations on her, which show up in some neo-Pagan versions of the goddess (that she's a fertility goddess, for instance). I'll keep a lookout for further sources - it seems strange that Zisa wouldn't at least be mentioned in studies of Germanic goddesses. Then again, literally all we know about her is that she was credited with saving pre-Christian Augsburg from an obviously fictional Roman invasion and that she had a feast on St. Michael's Day Eve.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)