Havamal 76 & 77: The Judgement on Each one Dead
William P. Reaves
http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/ugm11.html#65
This brings us to the well-known and frequently-quoted strophes in Hávamál
76-77:
Deyr fé,
deyja frændur,
deyr sjálfur ið sama;
en orðstírr
deyr aldregi,
hveim er sér góðan getur.
Deyr fé,
deyja frændur,
deyr sjálfur ið sama.
Eg veit einn,
að aldrei deyr,
dómur um dauðan hvern.
(76) "Your cattle shall die; your kindred shall die; you yourself shall
die; but the fair fame of him who has earned it never dies."
(77) "Your cattle shall die; your kindred shall die; you yourself shall
die; one thing I know which never dies: the judgment on each one dead."
Hitherto these passages have been interpreted as if Odin or Hávamál's skald
meant to say - What you have of earthly possessions is perishable; your
kindred and yourself shall die. But I know one thing that never dies: the
reputation you acquired among men, the posthumous fame pronounced on your
character and on your deeds: that reputation is immortal, that fame is
imperishable.
But can this have been the meaning intended to be conveyed by the skald?
And could these strophes, which, as it seems, were widely known in the
heathendom of the North, have been thus understood by their hearers and
readers? Did not Hávamál's author, and the many who listened to and
treasured in their memories these words of his, know as well as all other
persons who have some age and experience, that in the great majority of
cases the fame acquired by a person scarcely survives a generation, and
passes away together with the very memory of the deceased?
Could it have escaped the attention of the Hávamál skald and his hearers
that the number of mortals is so large and increases so immensely with the
lapse of centuries that the capacity of the survivors to remember them is
utterly insufficient?
Was it not a well-established fact, especially among the Germans, before
they got a written literature, that the skaldic art waged, so to speak, a
desperate conflict with the power of oblivion, in order to rescue at least
the names of the most distinguished heroes and kings, but that nevertheless
thousands of chiefs and warriors were after the lapse of a few generations
entirely forgotten?
Did not Hávamál's author know that millions of men have, in the course of
thousands of years, left this world without leaving so deep footprints in
the sands of time that they could last even through one generation?
Every person of some age and experience has known this, and Hávamál's
author too. The lofty strains above quoted do not seem to be written by a
person wholly destitute of worldly experience.
The assumption that Hávamál with that judgment on each one dead, which is
said to be imperishable, had reference to the opinion of the survivors in
regard to the deceased attains its climax of absurdity when we consider
that the poem expressly states that it means the judgment on every dead
person - "dómur um dauðan hvern". In the cottage lying far, far in the deep
forest dies a child, hardly known by others than by its parents, who, too,
are soon to be harvested by death. But the judgment of the survivors in
regard to this child's character and deeds is to be imperishable, and the
good fame it acquired during its brief life is to live for ever on the lips
of posterity! Perhaps it is the sense of the absurdity to which the current
assumption leads on this point that has induced some of the translators to
conceal the word hvern (every) and led them to translate the words dómur um
dauðan hvern in an arbitrary manner with "judgment on the dead man".
If we now add that the judgment of posterity on one deceased, particularly
if he was a person of great influence, very seldom is so unanimous,
reliable, well-considered, and free from prejudice that in these respects
it ought to be entitled to permanent validity, then we find that the words
of the Hávamál strophes attributed to Odin's lips, when interpreted as
hitherto, are not words of wisdom, but the most stupid twaddle ever heard
declaimed in a solemn manner.
There are two reasons for the misunderstanding - the one is formal, and is
found in the word orðs-tírr (str. 76); the other reason is that
Gylfaginning, which too long has had the reputation of being a reliable and
exhaustive codification of the scattered statements of the mythic sources,
has nothing to say about a court for the dead. It knows that, according to
the doctrine of the heathen fathers, good people come to regions of bliss,
the wicked to Niflhel; but who he or they were who determined how far a
dead person was worthy of the one fate or the other, on this point
Gylfaginning has not a word to say. From the silence of this authority, the
conclusion has been drawn that a court summoning the dead within its forum
was not to be found in Teutonic mythology, although other Aryan and
non-Aryan mythologies have presented such a judgment-seat, and that the
Teutonic fancy, though always much occupied with the affairs of the lower
world and with the condition of the dead in the various realms of death,
never felt the necessity of conceiving for itself clear and concrete ideas
of how and through whom the deceased were determined for bliss or misery.
The ecclesiastical conception, which postpones the judgment to the last day
of time, and permits the souls of the dead to be transferred, without any
special act of judgment, to heaven, to purgatory, or to hell, has to some
extent contributed to making us familiar with this idea which was foreign
to the heathens. From this it followed that scholars have been blind to the
passages in our mythical records which speak of a court in the lower world,
and they have either read them without sufficient attention (as, for
instance, the above-quoted statements of Ynglingatal, which it is
impossible to harmonise with the current conception), or interpreted them
in an utterly absurd manner (which is the case with Sigurdrífumál 12), or
they have interpolated assumptions, which, on a closer inspection, are
reduced to nonsense (as is the case with the Hávamál strophes), or given
them a possible, but improbable, interpretation (thus Sonatorrek 20). The
compound orðstírr is composed of orð, gen. orðs, and tírr. The composition
is of so loose a character that the two parts are not blended into a new
word. The sign of the gen. -s is retained, and shows that orðstírr, like
lofstírr, is not in its sense and in its origin a compound, but is written
as one word, probably on account of the laws of accentuation. The more
original meaning of orðstírr is, therefore, to be found in the sense of
orðs tírr.
Tírr means reputation in a good sense, but still not in a sense so
decidedly good but that a qualifying word, which makes the good meaning
absolute, is sometimes added. Thus in lofs-tírr, laudatory reputation;
góður tírr, good reputation. In the Hávamál strophe 76, above-quoted, the
possibility of an orðs tírr which is not good is presupposed. See the last
line of the strophe (hveim er sér góðan getur).
So far as the meaning of orð is concerned, we must leave its relatively
more modern and grammatical sense (word) entirely out of the question. Its
older signification is an utterance (one which may consist of many "words"
in a grammatical sense), a command, a result, a judgment; and these older
significations have long had a conscious existence in the language. Compare
Fornmannasögur, ii. 237: "The first word: All shall be Christians; the
second word: All heathen temples and idols shall be unholy," &c.
In Völuspá 26 orð is employed in the sense of an established law or
judgment among the divine powers, á gengust eiðar, orð og særi, where the
treaties between the Asas and gods, solemnised by oaths, were broken.
When orð occurs in purely mythical sources, it is most frequently connected
with judgments pronounced in the lower world, and sent from Urd's fountain
to their destination. Urðar orð is Urd's judgment, which must come to pass
(Fjölsvinnsmál 47), no matter whether it concerns life or death. Feigðar
orð, a judgment determining death, comes to Fjolnir, and is fulfilled
"where Frodi dwelt" (Ynglingatal 1). Dauða orð, the judgment of death,
awaited Dag the Wise, when he came to Vorvi (Ynglingatal 8). To a
subterranean judgment refers also the expression bana-orð, which frequently
occurs.
Vigfusson (Dictionary, p. 467) points out the possibility of an
etymological connection between orð and Urður. He compares word (orð) and
wurdr (urðr), word and weird (fate, goddess of fate). Doubtless there was,
in the most ancient time, a mythical idea-association between them.
These circumstances are to be remembered in connection with the
interpretation of orðstírr, orðs-tírr in Hávamál 76. The real meaning of
the phrase proves to be: reputation based on a decision, on an utterance of
authority.
When orðstírr had blended into a compound word, there arose by the side of
its literal meaning another, in which the accent fell so heavily on tírr
that orð is superfluous and gives no additional meaning of a judgment on
which this tírr is based. Already in Höfuðlausn (str. 26) orðstírr is used
as a compound, meaning simply honourable reputation, honour. There is
mention of a victory which Erik Blood-axe won, and it is said that he
thereby gained orðstírr (renown).
In interpreting Hávamál 76 it would therefore seem that we must choose
between the proper and figurative sense of orðstírr. The age of the Hávamál
strophe is not known. If it was from it Eyvind Skaldaspillir drew his deyr
fé, deyja frændur, which he incorporated in his drapa on Hakon the Good,
who died in 960, then the Hávamál strophe could not be composed later than
the middle of the tenth century. Höfuðlausn was composed by Egil
Skallagrimsson in the year 936 or thereabout. From a chronological point of
view there is therefore nothing to hinder our applying the less strict
sense, "honourable reputation, honour," to the passage in question.
But there are other hindrances. If the Hávamál skald with orðs-tírr meant
"honourable reputation, honour," he could not, as he has done, have added
the condition which he makes in the last line of the strophe: hveim er sér
góðan getur, for the idea "good" would then already be contained in
orðstírr. If in spite of this we would take the less strict sense, we must
subtract from orðstírr the meaning of honourable reputation, honour, and
conceive the expression to mean simply reputation in general, a meaning
which the word never had.
We are therefore forced to the conclusion that the meaning of
court-decision, judgment, which orð has not only in Ynglingatal and
Fjölsvinnsmál, but also in linguistic usage, was clear to the author of the
Hávamál strophe, and that he applied orðs tírr in its original sense and
was speaking of imperishable judgments.
It should also have been regarded as a matter of course that the judgment
which, according to the Hávamál strophe (77), is passed on everyone dead,
and which itself never dies, must have been prepared by a court whose
decision could not be questioned or set aside, and that the judgment must
have been one whose influence is eternal, for the infinity of the judgment
itself can only depend on the infinity of its operation. That the more or
less vague opinions sooner or later committed to oblivion in regard to a
deceased person should be supposed to contain such a judgment, and to have
been meant by the immortal doom over the dead, I venture to include among
the most extraordinary interpretations ever produced.
Both the strophes are, as is evident from the first glance, most intimately
connected with each other. Both begin: deyr fé, deyja frændur. Orð in the
one strophe corresponds to dómur in the other. The latter strophe declares
that the judgment on every dead person is imperishable, and thus completes
the more limited statement of the foregoing strophe, that the judgment
which gives a good renown is everlasting. The former strophe speaks of only
one category of men who have been subjected to an ever-valid judgment,
namely, of that category to whose honour the eternal judgment is
pronounced. The second strophe speaks of both the categories, and assures
us that the judgment on the one as on the other category is everlasting.
The strophes are by the skald attributed to Odin's lips. Odin pronounces
judgment every day near Urd's fountain at the court to which King Halfdan
was summoned, and where hosts of people with fettered tongues await their
final destiny (see above). The assurances in regard to the validity of the
judgment on everyone dead are thus given by a being who really may be said
to know what he talks about (eg veit, &c.), namely, by the judge himself.
--
"Mythology is the Archeological Psychology" George Lucas
DeepStream
Thank you for the insights into Havamal. While most of the post is backed up by
well referenced arguments, you seem to have shaken the last bit out of your
sleeve:
William P. Reaves wrote:
> The strophes are by the skald attributed to Odin's lips.
I don't mean that bit's shaken out of your sleeve - it's clear enough. But
even if it is Wotan who is supposed to have made the statements about eternal
judgments, the following does not seem clear to me at all:
> Odin pronounces
> judgment every day near Urd's fountain at the court to which King Halfdan
> was summoned, and where hosts of people with fettered tongues await their
> final destiny (see above). The assurances in regard to the validity of the
> judgment on everyone dead are thus given by a being who really may be said
> to know what he talks about (eg veit, &c.), namely, by the judge himself.
I'd be surprised and mortified if you could find any clear references to Wotan
sitting in judgment.
Surprised, because most of the Germanic scholars I know of all speak of the
Germanic view that men, wights and the gods are all caught up in the
interrelationship of Skuld - they see a kind of unavoidable doom has been set
in motion by the initial misdeeds of the Gods at the building of Aesgard, from
which the Gods themselves can no longer extricate themselves, and which
eventually leads to Ragnarok. I'm sure you're aware of the idea that this is a
broader Indo-European idea that, developed further, resulted in the concept of
"karma" among the Hindus.
Mortified, because I wonder what kind of fair judgments the Germanics could
have suspected from such a conniving, under-handed figure as Wotan. Even if you
subscribe to the idea that it was that nasty Loki who was "behind" all the
misdeeds that set the doom in motion, then you have to admit that Wotan appears
to be a particularly easily mislead and manipulated character (mislead by
Loki).
Seeing as it was Donner who finally called Loki's bluff and started his
"prosecution", I'd feel alot more comfortable having Donner on the judge's seat
- but of course what I'm comfortable with has nothing to do with what the Lore
says. Incidentally, I can't resist noting that judges today still use the
*hammer* when decreeing sentences (not the spear) - but I'm still currently of
the opinion that even Donner was subject to the rules of Skuld, rather than
being the judge over it.
--
Kindest Regards,
- DeepStream
|'''' ''''||'''' '||'''' '' : ||''''''''|'|||'''' '||'''' '|'''' :
||'|'''|'''' ' : |||''''||'''' ' : |||''''||'''' ' :
|||'''' '|'''' '''|' : |'''' ''''||''' : |||'''' '|||''||''
William P. Reaves
That was strictly Rydberg talking! I take no credit for it at all. It is
amazing isn't it? If the people who think he is "antiquated" would actually
read it, they might even learn something. His ideas are extremely modern,
regardless if the modern scholars do not know what to make of it.
Did you take a look at the map? (refer to the post below this one). What
did you think of it? It is more eloquent than any words.
Wassail, William
DeepS...@geocities.com
In article <01beb2f8$1eba1e20$78c906d0@default>,
"William P. Reaves" <Beo...@magicnet.net> wrote:
> Hail Deepstream,
>
> That was strictly Rydberg talking! I take no credit for it at all.
Well, then did *Rydberg* have any reason for saying it was Wotan who
held judgement over the fate of the dead? Perhaps because Wotan took
his pick of the battle-slain for his troup in Valhalla? Hopefully
that's where his judgement ends.
I still have the correspondence re: the drink of the dead. At the time
I also had the question of "who" brewed the drink for the dead
(practically the same question as who holds judgement). You suggested
it was the Aesir, but I'm still sceptical - it seems like the sort of
poetic image that says "you brew *your own* fate during life, and after
death, you'll drink it!". I contributed some runic references that
seemd to correllate with an ale cult for the dead. The inscriptions
seemed to invoke "good ale" in general, rather than asking a specific
god to give good ale. I remember you asked me for more references, but
I had already referenced the collection number and scholar in my first
posting, so I never responded. You'd have to review the scholar's work
to learn more about his collection.
> Did you take a look at the map? (refer to the post below this one).
What
> did you think of it? It is more eloquent than any words.
Umm, you said it was in the middle of chapter 66, but all I found was a
two-dimensional picture in the middle of chapter 65 (more af a picture
of Bifrost, really). I think you're three dimensional picture
http://www2.crosswinds.net/iceland/~eysteinn/hrg/heimur.gif is better.
But thanks all the same for your untiring efforts!
--
Kindest Regards
- DeepStream
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
William P. Reaves
Please go to the site I named in the first letter. You will access a piece
of VR's work. At the bottom there is a link to the rest. Eysteinn has
created a great site with links to the sources you can access as you read
along.
Basically, Rydberg demonstrates that the gods go to "sit in judgement"
every day at Urd's well (as it says in Grimnismal 29, 30. Various other
passages support this). He shows that the dead come to the underworld, and
that Urd's well (contrary to Snorri's statements) was viewed by the
ancients as being located in Hel. Both the dead and the gods come to Hel
daily, surely this is not coincidence. Other passages speak of judgement on
the dead, Havamal 76 & 77 being the most famous.
Grimnismal 31 tells us that the roots of the tree are:
1) In Hel
2) with living men
3) with frost-giants
Using Snorri's logic, and our modern understanding, that would place the
roots
1) In Niflhel, i.e. the under world (near Hvergelmir)
2) On the earth plane, in Midgard (???)
3) with frost-giants (by Mimir's well, as Mimir is assumed to be a
frost-giant)
In Snorri's scheme, he states that one root goes to Urd's well, and he
clearly knows this verse (because he paraphrases it almost word for word).
If one root goes to Hvergelmir, one to Mimir's well, and one to Urd's well,
as Snorri states (and is supported by other texts) The only choice then, is
that Urd's well, where the gods go daily is on the Earthplane (in Midgard).
This should come as no surprise to Snorri's readers, because he says that
the gods were human beings, and that Asgard is the earthly city of Troy. He
states this directly in Gylfaginning, several times.
Rydberg, after a careful analysis of the poems of the Elder Edda comes to
the (radical?) conclusion that, the roots of Yggdrassil are (as said in
Grimnismal 31):
1) In Hel (by Urd's well, as opposed to Niflhel; Urd's realm is a realm of
bliss where the dead come to be judged by the gods, and their final fate
decided; refer back to Grimnismal 29, 30)
2) With living men, who are Lif and Lifthrasir in Hodd-Mimir's grove. They
do not come there during Ragnarok as Snorri states, but long before.
Vafthrudnismal supports this (there are two variants of this verse, one
says they dwell there "through ages")
Mimir's kingdom is also in the underworld. This is where Balder comes,
and what Vegtamskvida refers to as "Hel's high hall," which is an enclosed
castle which preserves the best of this world to regenerate life after
Ragnarok. The new world rising from the sea is the present lower world.
3) With frost-giants in Niflhel, which corresponds with Niflheim in the
beginning of time. (Hvergelmir is located here)
Nothing in the Elder Edda contradicts this, in fact everything supports it.
Snorri however, is directly opposed to these ideas. So one must ask, which
is a better representation of heathen beliefs, Snorri's Edda, or the Elder
Edda?
Rydberg spells out all the details, and the argument is best read first
hand rather than through the filter of my understanding. To get the full
thrust of it, you must unlearn many of the things that modern textbooks
(based on Snorri) teach on the subject and go directly to the source.
Please look at the map:
http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/ugm11.html#65
Wassail, William
Ingeborg S. Nordén
Greetings, everyone!
William Reaves wrote:
> I still have the correspondence re: the drink of the dead. At the time
> I also had the question of "who" brewed the drink for the dead
> (practically the same question as who holds judgement). You suggested
> it was the Aesir, but I'm still sceptical - it seems like the sort of
> poetic image that says "you brew *your own* fate during life, and after
> death, you'll drink it!". I contributed some runic references that
> seemd to correllate with an ale cult for the dead. The inscriptions
> seemed to invoke "good ale" in general, rather than asking a specific
> god to give good ale.
I see several things wrong with the idea of orlog as a brew, judging by my
own studies of the lore and Germanic linguistics.
(1) Where drinking IS mentioned in connection with the dead, it does
not appear as part of a divine judgment. Drinks served in the afterlife
are served *after* the person has gone to his reward or punishment; they are
never explicitly said to be made from, or even influenced by, the person's
deeds in this world. (Skirnir's curse on Gerdhr--"corpses will give you
goat-piss to drink in the underworld"--seems like an exception at first.
However, this curse still isn't an afterlife judgment: it's a blackmail
attempt, by a non-deity, on someone who is still alive!)
(2) The other recorded connection between drinking and death involves
toasts made in memory of the dead... which certainly could be thought of as
a kind of judgment. The drinkers do not include the dead man himself,
however; he could not be said to drink his own deeds in that case.
Furthermore, the memorial-toast custom certainly isn't limited to the
gods--it's a very human tradition that appears in a number of stories, even
those recorded after Scandinavia became Christian.
(3) ALU runic inscriptions are not associated exclusively with the dead;
at least one ancient ring (which wasn't part of a grave find IIRC) bears the
word in code. It was probably intended as a general luck/warding talisman:
several etymologists claim that the word was connected with magic in
general, before being used for the "magical drink". I agree with this idea
myself, considering that some ALU inscriptions do appear in non-funeral
contexts (and ale was held sacred for other reasons as well). The fact that
ALU usually appears alone, not in a longer phrase that links it to judgment
or an afterlife, also supports this idea. (Talismans bearing isolated magic
words exist in many cultures, after all.)
(4) Drinking doesn't seem to be part of human trials by ordeal in the
Germanic culture (at least not until after the conversion). Since the gods
are supposed to hold councils and judge in much the same way their
worshipers did, why would *they* be described as passing judgment-by-brew
when *people* didn't do that? That seems very illogical IMO.
Without true evidence in the lore, then, Rydberg's drink-of-judgment theory
falls flat: whatever judgment the gods do pass for our deeds, it would not
be symbolized in that way.
--
Ingeborg S. Nordén
(rune...@msn.com)
Ingeborg S. Nordén
Ingeborg S. Nordén <rune...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:udbzF2rs#GA.310@cpmsnbbsa03...
>
> Greetings, everyone!
>
> William Reaves wrote:
>
>
I got confused seeing the > signs in my reply window and thought those were
Reaves' words rather than DeepStream's. My sincere apologies to both of
them!
William P. Reaves
This just goes to show how you and others of Susan's circle are quick to
trash anything that might be attributed to Viktor Rydberg, so quick in fact
that you fail to take the time to read it. I know for a fact that Susan has
not read Rydberg, and I'll bet a horned helmet that you haven't either. I
suggest you try thinking for yourself.
What do you find so frightening about Rydberg anyway? I can see what
frightens Susan.
William P. Reaves
Perhaps you should read Rydberg's theory before trashing it! First off, the
quote you attribute to me is not mine, and second Rydberg does not equate a
drink with a judgement on the dead. The dead are judged, and the word used
specifically is "daema," to sit in judgement. The judgement occurs at Urd's
well, where the gods meet in counsel daily.
Several passages support this in the Elder Edda and in Saxo's
History, and NOTHING from the Elder Edda contradicts it. Snorri does
however make this impossible by wrongly placing Urd's well in the heavens.
Since the gods cross Bifrost to get to Urd's well, where is Urd's well
anyway. Is it further up in heaven? or is this part of Bifrost like one of
those little decorative bridges on a garden path?
After the judgement, the dead men are given a drink. Gudrunakvida 2, 21 &
22 describe the horn (although this later heroic poem places it in human
hands; Saxo speaks of a similar horn in Book 8, and does place it in the
lower world near a mead-cistern). If the men are fated for Hel (the realms
of bliss) the drink strengthens them and allays their earthly sorrow; if
they are damned to Niflhel the horn is filled with venom and their bodies
regain the ability to feel pain. Freyja seems to refer to this at the end
of Hyndlaljod. I know there are those of you who think this is a Christian
idea, but the oldest heathen records (pre-Snorri) support it, and speak of
it consistantly. It goes unrecognized because of the damage Snorri has done
to the world-view, misplacing Urd's well in the heavens and Mimir's well in
Jotunheim. The heathen poetry knows them to be located in the underworld,
where they consistute a realm of bliss referred to as Hel, which is the
opposite of the places of torture and misery called Niflhel. Remove
Snorri's world-view and the passages become clear.
>Without true evidence in the lore, then, Rydberg's drink-of-judgment
theory
falls flat: whatever judgment the gods do pass for our deeds, it would not
be symbolized in that way.
Thank you for this brilliant insight and all of the evidence you have shown
to support it. This is not Rydberg's theory or even close to it; this was
an idea presented by Deepstream. My problem with you and the Granquist
crowd is your consistant attempt to pass off opinion as hard fact, and a
refusal to look at the evidence in any other way than what you practice.
Take off the Rydberg-blinders and you might learn something. This isn't
personal.
If you would care to engage in an honest discussion of this. I'd be happy
to point out the references I am speaking of, and build a case for my
position. But only if you would take the time to comment, otherwise it will
be yet another exercise in futility, which I have little time for these
days.
Wassail, William
Ingeborg S. Nordén
>
> Perhaps you should read Rydberg's theory before trashing it!
I confess that I've had only a casual look at his _Teutonic Mythology_,
and even then it was in an older English translation rather than the
original Swedish. (Show me the Swedish and I'd probably sit down with
it for a few weeks! <g>) However...from what I've read of his other
works, I wouldn't trust Rydberg to interpret the lore any more than I
would trust Esaias Tegnér. (Both were nationally respected scholars
and poets, both had some interest in Sweden's past and folk
traditions...and both were heavily influenced by their 19th century
Christian mindsets.)
First off, the
> quote you attribute to me is not mine, and second Rydberg does not
equate a
> drink with a judgement on the dead. The dead are judged, and the
word used
> specifically is "daema," to sit in judgement. The judgement occurs at
Urd's
> well, where the gods meet in counsel daily.
This part of the description, I agreed with in the first place; the
gods' sitting in judgment does have plenty of support in the lore
(though even then it isn't limited to judging the dead). On the other
hand...
> After the judgement, the dead men are given a drink. Gudrunakvida 2,
21 & 22 describe the horn (although this later heroic poem places it
in human hands)...
Perhaps because that's where it was *supposed* to be, and the drinks in
these two poems are not part of an afterlife judgment at all. Instead,
I'd describe both of them as memory-affecting brews similar to the one
in Volsungasaga: Gudrun, like Sigurd before her, is not dead and not
being judged by the gods when she is offered a drink. What Gudrun gets
is a potion of forgetfulness to help her get over losing a husband--not
a divine reward for good deeds.
The drink that Freyja demands from Hyndla, similarly, may be a sign of
divine favor--but Ottar is to get it while he's still alive, to
strengthen his memory so that he can claim kingship (an earthly
reward). The envenomed drink which Hyndla threatens to give instead is
not a symbol of torture in Niflhel, but an angry reaction to being
coerced by Freyja (who does threaten the giantess with fire magic).
Not "I hope Ottar suffers forever when he's dead"...more like "Here's
your stupid bleeping potion, and I hope your friend chokes on it!"
Freyja's reply that Ottar will drink well with her, again, does not
clearly allude to an afterlife situation: it may symbolize blessing,
but not be limited to a blessing after death.
Saxo speaks of a similar horn in Book 8, and does place it in the
> lower world near a mead-cistern). If the men are fated for Hel (the
realms
> of bliss) the drink strengthens them and allays their earthly sorrow;
if
> they are damned to Niflhel the horn is filled with venom and their
bodies
> regain the ability to feel pain. Freyja seems to refer to this at the
end
> of Hyndlaljod. I know there are those of you who think this is a
Christian
> idea, but the oldest heathen records (pre-Snorri) support it, and
speak of
> it consistantly. It goes unrecognized because of the damage Snorri
has done
> to the world-view, misplacing Urd's well in the heavens and Mimir's
well in
> Jotunheim. The heathen poetry knows them to be located in the
underworld,
> where they consistute a realm of bliss referred to as Hel, which is
the
> opposite of the places of torture and misery called Niflhel. Remove
> Snorri's world-view and the passages become clear.
Mimir's well DOES belong in Jotunheim, if you ask me: no lore connects
Mimir's head with any kind of afterlife judgment, and his counsel is
apparently reserved for Odin (not the general divine assembly at
Urdhr's Well). Besides, Odin often does visit Jotunheim to exchange
wisdom with giants; the only story that explicitly has him going to
*Hel* to gain knowledge, is the myth of Baldr's death.
Rydberg, IMO, seems to make a mistake exactly the opposite of Snorri's
here: where Snorri put too many divine places in the heavens, Rydberg
seems over-eager to put important places and beings in Hel.
Please do not take this as a personal attack on you or your beliefs;
I'm just stating my own case based on what I've seen in the source
texts. Anybody--you, me, Susan, Rydberg himself!--can look at the lore
and see something that isn't there...if I've come to a conclusion
that's too far in left field, please say so.
--
Ingeborg S. Nordén
(rune...@msn.com)
Megas-Robinson
Piparskegg here...
William P. Reaves wrote: An explanation of the drinks given to the dead vis
a vis Rydberg, plus other ideas.
The mirror of this discussion has just taken place on the Nova Roma list.
The idea of a drink for the dead after judgment plays a part in Greco-Roman
mythology also.
After the dead are judged by the three kings: Minos, Rhadamathos and Aecus,
the shade is given a drink from the River Lethe (forgetfullness) and sent on
to their place of afterlife. The Elysian Fields for warriors or heroes, the
Plains of Asphodel where all other good men and women continue to live a
fine "life" and Tartarus, the place of punishment for one's misdeeds in
life. One would stay in Tartarus until the punishment wiped away the debt
and would then be sent on to Asphodel.
(Being a quick summation of that thread.)
Perhaps the base ideas and beliefs are embedded further in the past than we
sometimes think?
In Frith - Piparskegg
Megas-Robinson
William P. Reaves wrote:
>
> Hail Piparskegg,
>
>(snipped my stuff, plus surgery to cogent points.)
>
> I would be very interesting in reading this discussion! Please forward
> the letters to me, if you would. Both the Greek and the Teutonic
> mythology have their roots in an earlier Indo-European epic, ...
>
Pip: I shall ask the participants, but I anticipate no problem. The main
Roman Pagan in the aforementioned discussion proclaims "Dis Pater" as one of
her Gens Patrons. She's been a good source of info.
>
> In Europe this branch split into a North and a South branch. The
> southern branch was diluted by contact with foriegn elements, but its
> essential elements can still be seen. For example, Rydberg equates King
> Minos with Mimir, and the parallels are amazing once the epic is
> understood according to his world-view with the 3 wells located in the
> underworld. He merely...
>
Pip: It has struck me, I just received a copy of your translation of
Rydberg' "Overview" from the OR-V.
>
> There is no doubt in my mind, and that has been the true focus of my
> research. I originally got into Rydberg's work for what he said about
> Indo-European mythology, and got interested in the Teutonic because of
> it.
>
Pip: I am interested in the broader view myself. Partially because of the
broad range of European Ancestry which is in my family line (from Russia to
Ireland, from Italy to Denmark, and points betwixt and between). Mainly,
because I'm a curious cuss.
>
> There is much more in the poems of the Elder Edda than modern scholars
> would have you believe, but it is difficult to go against the tide of
> scholarship, and no one thus far has been willing to do it in the
> mainstream press. Perhaps it will take a heathen. :-)
> Wassail, William
It will take anyone of curiousity, intellect and will - being Heathen will
bring a proper mindset to the work though.
In Frith - Piparskegg
William P. Reaves
>>Perhaps because that's where it was *supposed* to be, and the drinks in
these two poems are not part of an afterlife judgment at all. Instead,
I'd describe both of them as memory-affecting brews similar to the one
in Volsungasaga: Gudrun, like Sigurd before her, is not dead and not
being judged by the gods when she is offered a drink. What Gudrun gets
is a potion of forgetfulness to help her get over losing a husband--not
a divine reward for good deeds.
I agree, there may be other rational explanations for all of these verses.
But I believe, based on the evidence, that these passages refer to a
specific horn and a specific drink known to the heathens, and remembered
long after in their heoric poetry. It is a drink that allays the sorrows of
the dead specifically, and strengthens their shades for a new life in the
underworld. When you look at the various passages together a pattern
develops. For example, the horn handled by Gudrun contains:
Uršar magn
svalköldum sę
ok sónum dreyra
compare a similar passage in Hyndlujod (unrelated to the comments of
Freyja) which says that a child (probably Heimdall) is fed with:
jaršar magn
svalköldum sę
ok sónum dreyra
Here we have either the strength of Urd or of the Earth (and a similar word
veigar, strengths often means a drink), mixed with the cold sea, and the
Blood of Son. Son is generally translated as the a sacrifical pig based on
the phrase sonar-goltr. But Son is the name of one of the 3 world-wells in
Skaldskaparmal, and also one of the vessels in which Odin keeps the mead of
poetry in Snorri's tale, along with Ošrerir, which we know is a name for
the mead of poetry (Havamal) and an underworld well (Forspallsljod, refers
to Urd's Odrerir).
The suggestion here is that the liquid of the three world wells is the mix
in the drink:
Urd's (earth's) strength is the liguid of Urd's well
the Cool Sea is the liguid of Hvergelmir (which is the Mother of all
waters, and from which the river Sval "cool" flows)
and Son's blood is the liquid in Mimir's well. (In skaldskaparsmal it says
that the seeds of poetry grow around Son)
Furthermore, Gudrun's horn, which contains this drink, is embellished with
pictures that also refer to the lower world:
It is engraved with a long heath-fish, a dragon, which are common in the
underworld around Hvergelmir (see Grimnismal). These Heath-fish belong to
the Hadding-land-- in Book one of Saxo, Hadding makes a visit to the
underworld, thus confirming this suspicion. The Hadding-land is the
underworld. The horn is further embellished with pictures of ears of uncut
grain and animal "innleiš," which also have reference to the underworld,
but in ways that would take longer than I have time to explain at the
moment.
In Book 8 of Saxo, there is a similar horn. It is an immense aurochs
drinking-horn laying next to a huge gold-plated wine vat with strands of
silver rings dangling into it. Recall that Voluspa tells us that the roots
of Yggdrassil hang into her well, and whatever touches this water turns
silver-white. It stands to reason that the roots then are silver-white and
dangle into the well. If Heimdall drank out of this well (Urdar magn,
Jardar Magn) he too would be "white" and not surprisingly he is referred to
as "the whitest of the gods" several times. Thus Saxo probably is
describing one of the wells in the underworld, transforming the mythic Tree
and its roots into a historical wine-vat and dangling silver-ringlets.
Thorkill, the sailor, who sees all this, is clearly in the underworld.
This is a brief sketch, but once you accept that the 3 world wells, and the
three roots of Yggdrassil are in the underworld, (as Rydberg tediously
explains and gives many examples to support) then you begin to see the
patterns in these descriptions. Together they build a picture of the
underworld, consistant in all ways.
If you accept Snorri's world-view then these are just contradictory
examples scattered in time and space. Logically, the roots of a Tree are
below the earth, and the branches are in heaven. It is highly unlikely that
a "primitive" northern people would conceive of a tree with one root in
heaven, one on earth, and one in Hel (THis itself sounds like a Christian
conception of the world!). Yet, that is what Snorri, a 12th century
Christian would have you believe.
Snorri did not do this maliciously. His premise demanded it. He probably
believed that the gods were men, as he states, and thus he located Asgard
on Earth, which he also states. He knew that the Aesir traveled over the
Rainbow (Bifrost) to Urd's well, as stated in Grimnismal 29, 30, 31 which
he clearly knew. Thus logically, he assumed that if Asgard was on Earth,
then Urd's well was in the heavens. In this day, we recognize Snorri's
euphemism and return the gods to their proper home in the heavens, but then
take him literally when he says that Urd's well is located higher up. If we
return Urd and Mimir's well to their location in the underworld, we see
that the Aesir traveled downward over Bifrost to the underworld (which
would explain why Thor has to wade through rivers in Grimnismal 29, which
occurs right after a catalog of the rivers in Hel in the previous verses---
logically these rivers he wades through are also in Hel) then the
world-view becomes much more logical and symetrical, and the contradictions
in the source material vanish.
Asgard=branches of Yggdrassil
Midgard=Trunk of Yggdrassil
Hel & Niflhel (and the 3 wells) = Roots of Yggdrassil
Underground wells nourish tree-roots. This is both accurate and logical,
and is the entire premise of Rydberg, his view is not based in Christianity
in any way.
When you see the world-view in this way, then the passages in the poems
cease to become contradictory, and you see an epic thread running through
the various poems, which more or less follows the outline established in
Voluspa. This should not be viewed as Radical, in fact its so obvious, it
would have been recognized long ago if all we had were the poems of the
Elder Edda. (Snorri provides a lot of extra details, and we are richer for
having his work. Rydberg does not fully discredit it as Susan would have
you believe.)
Read the text, Rydberg explains it better than I ever could. There is a
picture of the map located in Chapter 65. Simply point and click on the
chapter, and you will be linked to it.
http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/ugm0.html#top
>Mimir's well DOES belong in Jotunheim,
Why is Yggdrassil called Mimir's Tree. Why does a Jotun preserve human life
Lif and Lifthrasir in a grove? (HoddMimis holt in Vafthrudnismal). Why
would a frost-giant protect the world-tree? Aren't the frost-giants intent
on destroying the gods and their creation? Mimir is a Jotun by birth, but
then so is Odin, afterall isn't his mother a giantess? Could Mimir be
Odin's mother's brother--- does this account for the savred role of
uncle-nephew mentioned in Tacitus? Doesn't Vafthrudnismal mention two kinds
of giants, one from Ymir's armpit and one from his feet? Why is Jotunheim
sometimes referred to in the plural Jotunheimar?
Are these just more silly contradictions or might there be method in the
madness?
>Rydberg, IMO, seems to make a mistake exactly the opposite of Snorri's
here: where Snorri put too many divine places in the heavens, Rydberg
seems over-eager to put important places and beings in Hel.
This is done methodically, not with eagerness. His main fault is
over-explaining his reasons for doing so, which makes the text hard to
follow.
>Please do not take this as a personal attack on you or your beliefs;
I'm just stating my own case based on what I've seen in the source
texts. Anybody--you, me, Susan, Rydberg himself!--can look at the lore
and see something that isn't there...if I've come to a conclusion
that's too far in left field, please say so.
I do not take it as personal. But I do get a bit flustered when people like
Susan keep chanting that Rydberg is antiquated, a Christian, worthless, etc
when they haven't even read the text. Read it, then form a judgement. Think
for yourself, after weighing all of the evidence. Perhaps modern scholars
have missed something.........
Wassail~William
William P. Reaves
>The idea of a drink for the dead after judgment plays a part in
Greco-Roman
mythology also.
>After the dead are judged by the three kings: Minos, Rhadamathos and
Aecus,
the shade is given a drink from the River Lethe (forgetfullness) and sent
on
to their place of afterlife. The Elysian Fields for warriors or heroes, the
Plains of Asphodel where all other good men and women continue to live a
fine "life" and Tartarus, the place of punishment for one's misdeeds in
life. One would stay in Tartarus until the punishment wiped away the debt
and would then be sent on to Asphodel.
I would be very interesting in reading this discussion! Please forward the
letters to me, if you would. Both the Greek and the Teutonic mythology have
their roots in an earlier Indo-European epic, which Rydberg demonstrates in
his second volume (in Swedish only). He identifies a group of Western
Indo-European myths that come from the same source, but split off from the
Asian branch and developed independantly (developing such ideas as the 3
fates).
In Europe this branch split into a North and a South branch. The southern
branch was deluted by contact with foriegn elements, but its essential
elements can still be seen. For example, Rydberg equates King Minos with
Mimir, and the parallels are amazing once the epic is understood according
to his world-view with the 3 wells located in the underworld. He merely
touches on this, it is not a "proof" of his arguement but rather a
by-product. Rydberg's worldview also agrees with the Greek world-view which
can be discerned in the Odyssey, for example (and he makes no mention or
allusion to this fact!)
>Perhaps the base ideas and beliefs are embedded further in the past than
we
sometimes think?
There is no doubt in my mind, and that has been the true focus of my
research. I originally got into Rydberg's work for what he said about
Indo-European mythology, and got interested in the Teutonic because of it.
Susan Granquist
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, William P. Reaves wrote:
> I agree, there may be other rational explanations for all of these verses.
> But I believe, based on the evidence, that these passages refer to a
> specific horn and a specific drink known to the heathens, and remembered
> long after in their heoric poetry. It is a drink that allays the sorrows of
> the dead specifically, and strengthens their shades for a new life in the
> underworld. When you look at the various passages together a pattern
> develops. For example, the horn handled by Gudrun contains:
Actually you might be interested in a particular type of sacrificial
cup, the _ringgefass_. (Grave 118 of Durrnberg) which have three "cups"
emerging from a single common "well." These are fairly common cultic
drinking vessels.
> Here we have either the strength of Urd or of the Earth (and a similar word
> veigar, strengths often means a drink), mixed with the cold sea, and the
> Blood of Son. Son is generally translated as the a sacrifical pig based on
> the phrase sonar-goltr. But Son is the name of one of the 3 world-wells in
> Skaldskaparmal, and also one of the vessels in which Odin keeps the mead of
> poetry in Snorri's tale, along with Oðrerir, which we know is a name for
> the mead of poetry (Havamal) and an underworld well (Forspallsljod, refers
> to Urd's Odrerir).
How do you think that these might relate to the cultic cups?
>
> The suggestion here is that the liquid of the three world wells is the mix
> This is a brief sketch, but once you accept that the 3 world wells, and the
> three roots of Yggdrassil are in the underworld, (as Rydberg tediously
> explains and gives many examples to support) then you begin to see the
> patterns in these descriptions. Together they build a picture of the
> underworld, consistant in all ways.
Tediously is definitely the word..and how do you support it if there were
other cultic "cups" and drinking vessels that clearly show a three wells
from a common source type of concept?
> If you accept Snorri's world-view then these are just contradictory
> examples scattered in time and space. Logically, the roots of a Tree are
> below the earth, and the branches are in heaven. It is highly unlikely that
> a "primitive" northern people would conceive of a tree with one root in
> heaven, one on earth, and one in Hel (THis itself sounds like a Christian
> conception of the world!). Yet, that is what Snorri, a 12th century
> Christian would have you believe.
then we have Rydberg, an 18th century Christian who would have us believe
a lot of other very odd and illogical things.
> Snorri did not do this maliciously. His premise demanded it. He probably
His premise was to explain the allegories and kennings that were used, and
what they referred to. It's poetry, and not that different from other
examples and descriptions of "world trees" in other cultures.
> believed that the gods were men, as he states, and thus he located Asgard
He said that there were men that believed it..and we have other reports
that scholars accept as examples of the "heathen" believing that men and
gods were very close, and some could be gods...at least after death and
with the proper sacrifices.
> on Earth, which he also states. He knew that the Aesir traveled over the
> Rainbow (Bifrost) to Urd's well, as stated in Grimnismal 29, 30, 31 which
> he clearly knew. Thus logically, he assumed that if Asgard was on Earth,
He didn't necessarily "know" it as a reality, but as a poetic expression.
> Voluspa. This should not be viewed as Radical, in fact its so obvious, it
> would have been recognized long ago if all we had were the poems of the
> Elder Edda. (Snorri provides a lot of extra details, and we are richer for
> having his work. Rydberg does not fully discredit it as Susan would have
> you believe.)
I assume that you're talking about another Susan? :) I've never said he
discredits Snorri, he actually provides some significant information
supporting Snorri. My disagreement is with the people who keep insisting
that Rydberg can be used to replace Snorri and that he was "wrong" and
that there is some kind of conspiracy to downgrade this misunderstood and
victimized author.
> texts. Anybody--you, me, Susan, Rydberg himself!--can look at the lore
> and see something that isn't there...if I've come to a conclusion
> that's too far in left field, please say so.
>
>
> I do not take it as personal. But I do get a bit flustered when people like
> Susan keep chanting that Rydberg is antiquated, a Christian, worthless, etc
> when they haven't even read the text. Read it, then form a judgement. Think
> for yourself, after weighing all of the evidence. Perhaps modern scholars
> have missed something.........
Well, apparently you must see it as a personal issue since you've
mentioned me so often. Since you seem to think we need to discuss
this..I've got time..
Regards,
Susan Granquist
http://www.irminsul.org
DeepS...@geocities.com
In article <udbzF2rs#GA.310@cpmsnbbsa03>,
"Ingeborg S. Nordén" <rune...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> (3) ALU runic inscriptions are not associated exclusively with the
dead;
> at least one ancient ring (which wasn't part of a grave find IIRC)
bears the
> word in code. It was probably intended as a general luck/warding
talisman:
Here are the references to runic artefacts with ALU related to graves,
including, I believe, the ring you refer to above (the Ring of Körlin)
[Note: the quotes of William's email are from a diferent list from
April 98, not quotes from this thread]
The intriguing thing is that there are any runic inscriptions which
seem to be related to "Alu" (Ale) (a) placed directly in graves (where
I myself have never seen much of a connection with intoxication) or (b)
directly juxtaposed to the Rune Hagalar - which I will argue is a
ideographic reference to Hel rather than Hail (note: alot of
runologists claim that Hagalar indicates "Hail" or "Ruin" in the
following inscriptions. However, I see little relationship between Hail
or Ruin with the sacred kind of intoxication meant with the term "Alu"
in Germanic inscriptions. Alu+Hail would NOT, for instance, indicate
"Alcoholism" (ruin through ale) because Alu referred not to alcohol as
such, but to inspiration) and (c) both with hagalar AND in a grave:
c. ALU Both with Hagalar AND in a grave
The Kinneve barrow stone (550-600, Sweden, Krause inscription #52) was
the inscription right to left "...sizaluh" which is read "siz alu h" or
"(ae)siz alu h" and translated "be thou ale! Hagalar!" or "Aesir! Ale!
Hagalar!". Though with regard to William's insights one would suggest
that "Hagalar" means here "Hel", the Godess of the Hagalar Rune, and
the inscription is a plea to Hel for the buried to receive the "good
ale".
a. ALU In graves in general
Elgestem stone (400-500 CE S. Norway, Krause inscription # 57) was
found inside a grave-mound. It is clearly read from the right to left
Ansur + Lagur + Urur, or ALU. The presence inside a grave-mound may
seem incidental unless the other artifacts are considered
simultaneously:
The Eggjum Stone (ca. 700 CE Western Norway, Krause inscription #101)
has the inscription ALUMISSYRKI, which is translated "Ale to the wrong
doer". This may actually be a curse, wishing the *bad* ale to the
wrongdoer as noted by William:
William:
>For the damned, the serpent horn is "much mixed with venom" and its
cold,
>posionous liquids strip away their "litu godr" and they are left with a
>horrible form, most resembling a "scorched bird." Upon entering the
heathen
>"hell" the poet of Solarljod sees "scorched birds flying numerous as
gnats;
>They were souls."
The Arstad stone ( ca. 550, SW Norway, Krause inscription #58) states
"hiwigaz/sazALU/ungwinaz" (capitalization added) and is translated
"Hiwig is the Ale of Ungwin" - found near what is believed to be
Ungwin's grave (who could "Hiwig" be, however - a misnomer for Hel?)
b. ALU in conjunction with Hagalar (Hel) is often found on bracteats
(perhaps originally worn by the dead? Perhaps worn by the living in
anticipation of the afterlife?).
The bracteat Oelst - C (Calvadetscher bracteat collection I, # 135) has
generally been read "HAG ALU" in which "Hag" is the first part of the
Rune name "Hagalar", but which I would still argue is meant to indicate
Hel, since she is the Godess of the Rune bearing the name "Hagalar".
Alternatively, I suppose one could argue that HAG/ALUmeans "Hel and the
Aesir share/ale ".
Finally a favorite of mine to which William's citing has brought whole
new meaning: The Körlin gold finger ring (500-550, East Pommerania,
Krause inscription #46). I've brought this up before, the ring bears
the straight-forward right to left inscription ALU along with a strange
bind rune:
|\
\|
\|
... which has often been interpreted as a code-rune which for some
reason notes the aett numbers on the RIGHT, the row place on the LEFT
(first aett, second place - "U" or "B" depending on whether the bottom
or top aett is number one).
The runologist Marstrander, on the contrary, argues for the much more
intuitive interpretation that the branches on the *left* denote the
aett, and on the right side the place - in order words, second aett,
first stave or HAGALAR!
The incryption of the Hagalar rune on the Körlin ring makes alot of
sense to me: magical formulas often are constructed in such a way that
everything is expressed in the formula *except* the main operative word
(in this case, the name of a Godess) - thus leaving a "gap" in the
exact "shape" of the missing word - perhaps in the hope that not the
word, but the REAL THING would fill in the gap. Thus Hel's reference on
the Körlin ring is put in code so that Hel HERSELF will come to finish
the formula.
As I have said before, William's reference to the after-life cocktail
of the ancients has shed alot of light onto the ALU inscriptions on
graves and in conjunction with the H-Rune.
--
Kindest Regards
- DeepStream
William P. Reaves
It seems by your silence on my post regarding Cultic Cups, that you really
did not want to engage in a discussion of the issue. Instead you refer to a
limited piece of archeological information, from sources unknown (you
listed a grave site number!), and this is supposed to raise doubt about
evidence found in our source material?
It would be nice to hear this evidence, see what the scholars you are
referring to say of it, and then factor that into a discussion of the
issue.
You wrote:
>Actually you might be interested in a particular type of sacrificial
cup, the _ringgefass_. (Grave 118 of Durrnberg) which have three "cups"
emerging from a single common "well." These are fairly common cultic
drinking vessels.
Yes, I am interested. I am also interested in your description of three
"cups" emerging from a single "well." Is this part of the iconography on
the cup? What do these symbols mean? Who interpreted the data? What culture
is this from? How old are these graves? What else is in these graves? Some
simple references to your source would do the trick, and perhaps some
comments by you on their meaning (if that's not too much to ask).
But you do not really care to engage in a discussion of the evidence, do
you?
Wassail, William Reaves
Albert Boyle
A man is killed and made into the mead of inspiration.
Al