Talk:Zisa (goddess)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Germanic studies articles 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What is a modern scholar?[edit]

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

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 (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)


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[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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)[edit]

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 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

garbled articles[edit]

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)