Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 11, 1900.djvu/293

This page needs to be proofread.

The Ancient Teutonic Priesthood. 281

this stone to the memory of Ali Solvagocti, the noble temple- priest,"^ &c. The point in dispute is the meaning to be attached to the phrases Nora-godi, Solva-godi. Maurer translates, " Nori's priest," &c., i.e. a priest in the service of Nori, and takes the latter to be the name of a man. This explanation is, however, unnecessary. Wimmer translates ' priest of {i.e., at) Norar (or Norir),' a place- name of plural form (or possibly the name of the inhabitants of a district) ; S'olva he takes to be the genitive of Solvi, a place-name identical with that of Solvi, in Norway (or possibly, like Nora, a genitive plural, denoting the inhabit- ants of a place).- If Wimmer's explanation be adopted, Hroulfr and Ali may obviously have been local chieftains, like those on the west coast of Norway. Maurer's hypothesis therefore rests on insecure foundations. Had a priestly class existed, it is curious that we should find no reference to it in Saxo, who frequently refers to laws of the heathen period.^

4. There is one distinct reference to the existence of priestly officials at the Upsala sanctuary, namely in Adam of Bremen, iv., 27 : " Assigned to all their gods they have priests to present the sacrifices of the people." But were these officials persons of exclusively priestly character, or were they local chiefs entrusted with the performance of priestly duties, like the Norwegian chieftains at Maeren?

In contrast to Norway — the land of small independent communities — Sweden is distinguished from the earliest times by centralisation of government. At the beginning of the eleventh century we find the country (exclusive of Skano) divided into seven provinces, each possessing an

' Lit. ' The honour- worthy man of the temple.' Wimmer takes nia )>mkn to be equivalent to hof-godi.

^ Wimmer, Runenschrift,^ pp. 341 ff., 359 ff.

' The occurrence of the name Lyuth-giithi (viii., p. 381), even if correct, can obviously prove nothing.