|
|
Post by arth_frown on Sept 16, 2009 9:46:49 GMT -1
Erriapus or Eriappus
One find was found in Cambridgeshire which depicts him as a tree trunk with a human head at the top.
In Gaul he has been depicted him within tree foliage
Is he a woodland God?
The description of him he looks like the ”green man” found in some churches. Coincidence?
|
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Sept 16, 2009 10:19:46 GMT -1
Don't know of this one, but I have to say the idea of the head at the top of the tree reminds me of Lleu.
|
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Sept 16, 2009 11:20:07 GMT -1
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 16, 2009 11:46:47 GMT -1
|
|
|
|
Post by megli on Sept 16, 2009 17:40:12 GMT -1
Mysterious and of obscure etymology. Possibly 'God who goes on horseback' or 'god with a horse's (ahem!) tail'---but NB neither of these are more than informed guesses, assuming underlying forms *Ariepos or *Errepos. The etymology in your link, Lee, is unlikely: the loss of -g- in the 'king' root (rig-) would be far too early---you'd expect *Uerigapos 'Overkingly One'.
|
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Sept 17, 2009 7:53:50 GMT -1
Is it me, or do god names all basically distill down to 'Big Boss of this place/thing'?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Sept 17, 2009 8:13:23 GMT -1
Is it me, or do god names all basically distill down to 'Big Boss of this place/thing'? well, what else is a god, if not that? |
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Sept 17, 2009 8:19:13 GMT -1
Is it me, or do god names all basically distill down to 'Big Boss of this place/thing'? well, what else is a god, if not that? True enough, but it's got me thinking (in an angels on the head of a pin stylee) about the *need* for the ancient names. Which is basically (and nothing new) that if we have an ancient name then brilliant, but if we feel something and we don't know the name then it don't really matter. |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Sept 17, 2009 8:40:33 GMT -1
I totally agree. All the names are things like'groveking', 'the great looker-after', 'He who hits things well', 'Tribe-god', 'Winding brook', 'Divine [occupation]. This is the standard I-E way of it---compare Jupiter, literally 'brightsky-father', or Agni, 'Fire'.
|
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Sept 17, 2009 8:43:24 GMT -1
Which is basically (and nothing new) that if we have an ancient name then brilliant, but if we feel something and we don't know the name then it don't really matter. I don't think it matters.But we can give them a title something like Lord of the woods or something like that. Maybe we can convert that into Brython, if it's possible? |
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Sept 17, 2009 8:57:03 GMT -1
I'm with Arth. If we can work out and use an ancient name, all the better. But if we have no names, we can do what they used to do: think up one that is fitting, within a Brythonic context.. Don't think it necessarily needs to be in retrofitted into IE though, no reason the name(s) couldn't be in modern Welsh/Breton/Cornish- as long as they fit the old pattern of "big boss of X". This certainly feels better to me than using an Irish godname, or a greek one, or something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 17, 2009 9:37:28 GMT -1
sounds entirely reasonable.
hence Moccus or Mokkonos
|
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Sept 17, 2009 11:11:03 GMT -1
the problem we need to watch is: if we made up a perfectly reasonable IE/Brythonic names, in 20,30 years, there would be this bunch of godnames, and people would (just like the post-Iolo/Graves academic) not have a real clue which names were ancient and which were modern. Just thinking aloud
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 17, 2009 11:50:57 GMT -1
well, i guess that is why it is useful that sites like this are archived or where they are used elsewhere or recorded we are honest about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 17, 2009 11:52:39 GMT -1
Which is basically (and nothing new) that if we have an ancient name then brilliant, but if we feel something and we don't know the name then it don't really matter. I don't think it matters.But we can give them a title something like Lord of the woods or something like that. Maybe we can convert that into Brython, if it's possible? Veering into slightly dangerous UPG territory here, I know that my sense of spirit of place (and other animistic presences) is a two way process... if I ask by what should that presence be known, I receive a series of sense impressions which can translate to a series of descriptive words... with ancestor it is different, the sense is more of a kinship type... maybe others have similar experiences? Would it not be possible for a number of people to bear similar enough UPG's regarding a specific presence that a new, entirely Brython, naming system becomes meaningful? |
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Sept 17, 2009 12:26:35 GMT -1
I don't think it matters.But we can give them a title something like Lord of the woods or something like that. Maybe we can convert that into Brython, if it's possible? Veering into slightly dangerous UPG territory here, I know that my sense of spirit of place (and other animistic presences) is a two way process... if I ask by what should that presence be known, I receive a series of sense impressions which can translate to a series of descriptive words... with ancestor it is different, the sense is more of a kinship type... maybe others have similar experiences? Would it not be possible for a number of people to bear similar enough UPG's regarding a specific presence that a new, entirely Brython, naming system becomes meaningful? Personally, I don't see a problem with that as I identify with what you describe. If we believe that spirit, the genius loci, grows from a place then is it not possible that new ones are born/developing and come into existence requiring names? EDIT: Actually, I think this may require a thread on it own |
|
