Category Archives: philosophy

Written by Dyami Millarson

When one says Germanic religion, that is just that – a religion that is defined by whatever Germanic means. However, when one prefixes religion with folk, natural, indigenous, traditional, ethnic, cultural, etc. one adds a new flavour to what religion means, and this may offer a fresh perspective that helps us improve our fundamental understanding of Germanic religion. So what we are looking for with these prefixed descriptors is gaining new perspectives that help enlighten us on the nature of Germanic religion. Another added bonus is the fact that the familiar-sounding word religion itself is not substituted, yet the connotation is changed.

When speaking of Germanic folk religion, Germanic natural religion, Germanic indigenous religion, Germanic traditional religion, Germanic traditional religion, Germanic ethnic religion, Germanic cultural religion, Germanic legal religion, etc. we are proposing equally valid alternate perspectives on Germanic religion and all of these perspectives have merit as they highlight or zoom in on a different aspect of the religion. The very nature of Germanic religion allows for this multitude of perspectives, and we should not be afraid to play with it and even have fun switching between different perspectives, as it deepens our understanding.

The ultimate purpose of this admittedly playful and fun approach is not just to entertain ourselves and the readers, but ultimately it is about learning to understand Germanic paleopaganism properly; we are trying to remove our own biases by highlighting various pristine associations – perhaps looking like contradictions to us – that exist within the religion. Changing between a variety of perspective namely has the advantage of opening our eyes to how religion penetrated the entirety of Germanic society.

Whilst Germanic religion is undoubtedly all-encompassing and spans across the entirety of Germanic existence, we cannot understand what it means to be Germanic without seeking to understand Germanic religion; being Germanic – or what it means to be Germanic – cannot properly be separated from Germanic religion. As Germanic religion is ‘everything that it means to be Germanic’ while it is everywhere in Germanic society, we must presuppose overlap that works like a vortex that cannot be escaped.

In other words, it is like the event horizon of a black hole which is inescapable. If we look at Germanic society from the outside, we see and feel an emptiness that is hard to define; we keep grasping at straws as we try to define what it is we are seeing. That is why we may symbolically see Germanic society as a black hole, it is a Ginnungap, an empty abyss that we can hardly comprehend. Continuing this black hole analogy, being Germanic is itself the event horizon, everything that is Germanic is connected and cannot be separated. Owing to the inescapable overlap that is inherent to the Germanic religious worldview or philosophy; as a result, every system of religion that is meant to help us understand Germanic religion is necessarily synonymous with Germanic religion itself (see my previous article).

Whilst Germanic religion was so deeply ingrained among the early Germanic tribes, it is inevitable that it survived in various forms. Similarly, Chinese religion survived in various forms despite the rise of Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism. Various prefixes are applied to Chinese religion to differentiate it from those last three philosophies, and while our use of prefixes may also serve the purpose of differentiating from other philosophies prevalent in the West, really the main purpose for us is benefiting from the various perspectives that are offered – or conjured up – by the various terms that may be prefixed to religion.

Each prefix creates a new connotation or association that may inspire us and help us get a better intuitive grasp of Germanic religion. Since Germanic religion is as complex as it is, we cannot hope to ever fully intellectually understand it, but what we can hope for is to get an intuitive grasp such that we can be in harmony with the genuine tradition of the paleopagans who practised Germanic religion in their daily lives. Our goal is to get closer to the paleopagans and thus removing biases is vital; we have to embrace whatever it meant to be Germanic in the past and we have to let go of our modern ideologies which limit our understanding of the ancient world. Piecing together the ancient worldview that characterised Germanic religion means fitting pristine Germanic information into the matrix of our own worldview, as only then we can fully empathise with Germanic religion as it was. One has to live a philosophy or religion to truly understand it; Germanic religion is no exception.

Written by Dyami Millarson

Theism, animism, shamanism, messianism and totemism, which are respectively based on Greek, Latin, Manchu, Hebrew and Ojibwe terms, are systems of religion that may be analysed as universal despite their respective Greek, Latin, Manchu, Hebrew and Ojibwe origins, and therefore may also be analysed as particularly Germanic; for if the definition of each of these terms can be universally applied, it can also be particularly applied. When defining Germanic religion as theistic, animistic, shamanic, messianic and totemic, we need to define those systems of religion in a fitting Germanic way. The definitions, in other words, have to be adapted to the Germanic religious context if our stated aim is to study Germanic religion. The use of these terms in relation to Germanic religion is therefore no mere application of their universal definitions to the Germanic religious situation, but the universal definitions are merely a stage they pass through before being adapted to properly fit the Germanic context as we need an intermediate stage, free from particulars (e.g. Greek, Roman, Manchu, Hebrew or Ojibwe characteristics), that may help us get an idea of why the term may be useful. Regardless of the etymological origin of these concepts that we may define in such a way that they fit Germanic religion, the aforementioned terms are useful for describing the Germanic religious situation. After all, whilst students of Germanic religion, what we need is proper and familiar-sounding descriptors without preoccupying ourselves too much with their non-Germanic origins despite truthfully acknowledging these origins. When one speaks of Germanic theism, animism, shamanism, messianism and totemism, one is speaking of Germanic religion. To make any sense, these terms have to be defined in such a way that they are synonymous with (façets of) Germanic religion; they are merely alternate approaches to the same concept. In other words, each system of religion highlights another aspect of religion, and thus they are different, non-mutually exclusive ways to define what religion really is.

The key take-away from this article ought to be the insight that Germanic religion is theistic, animistic, shamanic, messianic and totemic as much as it is religious. The fact of the matter is that a Germanic theism, animism, shamanism, messianism and totemism defining and defined by Germanic religion are merely possible on the basis of the study of Germanic society as it once was before the decline of Germanic religion as an integral part of high culture (the culture of elite circles) as well as after Germanic religion was pushed out of elite discourse and receded to being merely part of low culture (the culture of the lower classes), as the decline of Germanic religion was a complex process whereby it did not die outright but simply gained a lower-class status in which it was socially locked and from which it could hardly escape before Protestants revived intellectual interest in the matter and began studying Germanic religious survivals into the modern era earnestly, which historically helped improve intellectual understanding of (continued) Germanic religion in elite circles. Given the unique situation of Germanic religion, culturally sensible definitions of Germanic theism, animism, shamanism, messianism and totemism cannot come from without by forcing universal definitions simply and mechanically on the Germanic situation, which will only create an anachronistic monstrosity unhelpful to our endeavour of trying to understand what Germanic religion is and what it is not – we seek to penetrate the Germanic zeitgeist using modern terms that may serve as tools for achieving that scholarly aim. Cultural sensitivity is a must when studying religion that is particularly Germanic rather than generally human, even though the general may be useful for the particular and vice versa. In other words, we cannot study Germanic religion unless we are sensitive to – and curious to learn – what makes it stand out as Germanic. The problem of the study of Germanic paleopaganism is that we have to be open to the ancient Germanic world and whatever that entails; we must not limit ourselves in seeking to understand, and thus our definitions ought to be flexible in that they may be adapted to what we learn as our study of Germanic religion progresses further.

Written by Dyami Millarson

Rembert Dodoens, whose family originally comes from Frisia, is known for having published a Dutch plant book titled Cruydt-boeck in 1554. Dodoens was born in 1517, which is the exact year that marks the end of the MIddle Ages if we use the Protestant Reformation as the event that marks the historical separation between medieval and post-medieval Europe. Being perhaps a child of the Middle Ages, Dodoens grew up in a changing world. Nevertheless, he must have possessed linguistic and cultural knowledge of the old medieval world and this may be seen in his medieval-looking Dutch language. Dodoens ought to have been aware of medieval lore about spirits. His plant lore is very extensive and offers us, to some extent, a glimpse into medieval plant knowledge, which may be connected with the the knowledge that the Germanic pagans had of the natural world around them.

People are shaped by the zeitgeist. The fact that Dodoens was at the crossroads between medieval and post-medieval culture makes him an interesting character. In my view, it is unfair to say that Dodoens – despite his novel innovations that broke with established medieval traditions – was distinctly non-medieval, because, from our modern perspective, Dodoens was much more medieval than he was “modern” like us. After all, Dodoens lived much closer to the Middle Ages than we do; we are further removed in time from the Middle Ages than Dodoens was. If we take the Reformation as the definitive point where the Middle Ages ended, we may say that Dodoens’ parents were born and grew up in the Middle Ages. Dodoens reasons in a medieval manner and his way of explaining things is medieval. The only difference is that the post-medieval environment is more tolerant; medieval culture and language were not being wiped out, but they were being phased out gradually by an environment of cultural and linguistic blossoming. Complicating things is that, in fact, the suppressed cultural and linguistic elements of the Middle Ages were suddenly becoming more apparent in the post-medieval world, and so one may argue that the post-medieval world was actually more medieval than the Middle Ages; the oppression and suppression had been reduced, so what had been lying dormant in the Middle Ages could now finally awaken. Just as languages between ages are transitory and do not suddenly change, cultures between different time periods are transitory and do not abruptly change. So, early 17th-century Dutch will look like the 16th-century Dutch language, and early post-medieval culture will look very much like medieval culture. However, the winds of rapid change had started to blow in the 16th century and this would become increasingly visible in the ages that followed the 16th century.

In the year 1608, an amended version of Dodoens’ plant book was published, which contained addenda by various anonymous botanists. The 1608 expanded version of the book contains a passage where stinging nettles are mentioned as a remedy against “spirits and apparitions”. Curiously, the original 1554 version of the book does not contain this entry. So it was not Dodoens himself who transferred this spiritual knowledge, which probably had medieval origins. I had once discovered the passage in the book of Dodoens, but could not find it back after a lot of labour reading through the book over and over again; I found it very strange that the passage that I was looking for was not there, it had magically disappeared. It was only much later that I came to realise that I had read the passage in a later version of the book, which had not been edited by Dodoens himself. The passage from the expanded version (p. 225) that I worked so hard to retrieve is the following:

Important to remember here is the fact that Dodoens did, in all likelihood, not write this passage himself and it was added later. It does, however, offer us a glimpse into contemporary Dutch folklore, even though it was added 54 years after the original version was published. This addition must be seen in the context of an environment that is culturally increasingly tolerant to folklore, as this was already quite some time after the Reformation. Folklore had previously been heavily suppressed and it was now only starting to carefully rear its head. I have already previously talked about how the Reformation lead to a pagan renaissance; as a result of Protestantism, medieval paganism could make a resurgence.

I would have liked to put more time and consideration into my words in this article, but as fate would have it, I wrote it somewhat hastily while I am not in the position to spend more time on this than I have already done. Therefore, my assertions here and there might have needed more nuance and deliberation, but I simply had to go with what came to my mind and leave it as it is without any significant improvement. Of course, I may improve upon my current writings at a later time; I consider this article to be a public entry of a diary that records my thoughts.