Was Loki Baldr's Killer? Saxo's Version...
NKPAGE
I've been reading some interesting stuff about Loki & Hodr and thought everyone
might be interested to listen to some of it. Feel free to voice your opinions.
My main questions and aims are to ascertain:
1. Was Loki originally the killer of Baldr, or could it even have been Odin
himself?!
2. As a result of this study, was Loki really such an evil person as Snorri
credited him?
3. Does Saxo Gramaticus' story of Baldr & Hodr contain the original story that
resulted in the Balder myth?
Firstly I would like to point out that I can find nowhere in the Edda's that
specifically tell us that Loki killed Baldr, only that he was killed by Hodr.
To my knowledge Snorri is the only one who tells us this.
In Balder Dream (written by an unknown poet) the last two verses say:
12 'Witch you are not, nor woman either: Womb of monsters, you have mothered
three.'
13 'Go home, Odin: air your triumph. No guest shall again my grave visit, Till
wild Loki tear loose from his bonds And the World-Wasters on the warpath come.'
Could this witch be Loki? He is the most well known character who motherd three
monsters.
The Eddic poet's thoughts were not consistent with those expressed by Snorri
for, according to Snorri, it was not until AFTER the death of Baldr that Loki
was bound in chains. But the Edda speak of Loki in chains at the same time
Baldr was killed!
Also Hermod was said to be born to kill Hodr and NOT Loki. In fact Snorri must
have drew on poems unknown to us for the descent of Hermod to the world of
death and his attempts to ransom Baldr are not described elsewhere.
The following is a summery of Saxo Gramaticus' account of the death of Balder
in which it shall be seen that it was Hodr alone who killed Baldr and not Loki.
Saxo version of Baldr's death takes place, not in Asgarð, but on earth, chiefly
in Denmark and Sweden. For Saxo Hodr (Hotherus) has no claims to godhead, and
Baldr (Balderus), although son of Óðin, was described as a demigod. Hodr was
the son of Hodbrodd, a King of Sweden, and brother of Athisl. After the death
of his father Hodr was brought up by Gevar in Norway. He was early
distinguished for his skill in sports, and especially on the harp. By the power
of his music he could turn men's minds and, with it, he quickened love in the
heart of Nanna, the daughter of Gevar. Nanna was beautiful, and when Baldr saw
her bathing, he was inflamed with lust, and resolved to kill his rival. One day
when Hodr was hunting, he lost his way in a fog, and came to a hut in which he
found some forest maidens (Valkrytes). They declared that it was chiefly they
who decided the fortunes of war, and that they took part unseen in battle. They
told Hodr of the intentions of Baldr, but warned him not to attack, hateful
though Baldr was, since he was a demigod. The house and the maids vanished, and
Hodr was left alone on an open field. When Hodr returned to his foster-father,
Gevar, he sued for the hand of Nanna, but Gevar dare not give her for fear of
Baldr. Instead he told Hodr of a sword, capable of killing Baldr, and of an
arm-ring, which would bring wealth to its owner. These treasures were in the
hands of Miming (Mimir), a satyr (dwarf) dwelling in a distant, frozen region.
Hodr set off on the long journey and, by a ruse, he got the satyr in his power
and seized the treasures from him. Some adventures followed, which have little
to do with the main theme. For a second time Hodr went to the far north and,
while hee was away, Baldr came and demanded Nanna from Gevar. The decision was
left to the girl, and she subtly refused Baldr on the grounds that he was a
god, and their natures would be incompatible. Enraged by Baldr's insolence,
Hodr and his allies joined battle with him, evidently in Denmark. Óðin and all
the gods fought on the side of Baldr, and Thór was in the forefront, striking
with his club. Victory would have gone to the gods, had not Hodr struck off the
head of Thór's club. Then all the gods took to an ignoble flight, and Hodr was
free to marry Nanna. He took her to Sweden, where the people honoured him,
while Baldr was held to ridicule. Soon aftenvards, fortunes changed and Baldr
won a victory over Hodr in Denmark. His victory did Baldr little good, for now
he began to be troubled having nightly visions of Nanna. His health declined,
and he grew so weak that he had to he carried in a chariot. For a time, the
fortunes of war alternated, until Baldr won another victory over who left the
field as a fugitive. Wandering alone through forests of Sweden, he came upon
the same maidens whom he had met before. This time they told him that he would
overcome his enemy if only he would taste of the magic food which sustained the
strength of Baldr. Again the two parties joined battle and, after great
slaughter on both sides, they retired for the night. At the dead of night, Hodr
spied three maidens carrying the magical food. He pursued them to their
dwelling and, making out that he was a minstrel, entertained them with his
music. They were preparing the food of Baldr with the venom of three serpents.
In spite of textual difficulties, it seems that Hodr induced them to let him
taste it, and they gave him a girdle of victory. On his way back, he met his
old enemy, and pierced him with his sword. Baldr fell to the ground mortally
wounded, but was able to renew the battle next day, whilst being carried. On
the following night he had a vision, or a dream, in which the goddess
Proserpine promised her embraces. After three days Baldr was dead, and after a
royal funeral, his body was laid in a harrow. Óðin now plotted revenge. He
sought the help of a Lappish wizard Rostiophus (Hrossbjofrd), who told him that
the avenger must be born to him by Rinda daughter of the King of the Ruthenians
(Russians) Odin assuming various disguises, took service with that King. The
maid rejected his advances, until disguised as a woman, Odin became her servant
and raped her. Soon, the son of Rinda and Óðin (Bous-Vali), met Hodr in battle
and slew him, while receiving a mortal wound himself.
The conclusions...
In outline, Saxos story resembles that told by Snorri and alluded to by the
West Norse poets. According to Saxo, as in Snorri's story, Baldr was struck
down by Hodr as mentioned in Snorri's story and was given a splendid funeral.
Saxo agrees with the Baldrs Draumar that Óðin begat a son by Rindr, who avenged
Baldr. But the differences between Saxos account, and that given in the West
Norse sources leap to the eye, and it is not necessary to consider all of them
in detail though.
Is the story the same one?
The main point is that Saxo tells us that it was Hodr alone that was the slayer
of Baldr, and no room was left for Loki. This may have been what the author of
the Baldrs Draumar thought.
Baldr was not, according to Saxo, killed by the mistletoe, but by a magic
sword, seized from a dwarf in the frozen north, this dwarf has been identified
with Mimir. Norse poets say that Óðin's son, who avenged Baldr, was called
Vali, but Saxo calls him Bous, but Saxo then adds a wealth of detail about his
conception that is not given by the West Norse poets.
Was Hodr Odin?
Hodr need not, in the first place, have been the pathetic, blind instrument of
evil. His name means 'warlike', and appears also to be used in kennings for
'warrior'. In fact, it may be suggested that Hodr was not, in the first place,
a separate god, but that his name was one of the many used for Óðin. From this
could arise the myth that he was blind. One of Óðin's names was Twiblindi
which means blind in both eyes. Saxo mentions meetings between Hodr and the
maidens of the forest, who must be valkyries. They gave him a girdle, and told
him how to win his ultimate victory. The valkyries are the warrior maidens of
Óðin.
It may not be too extravagant to suppose that there was yet another version
of the story, in which the blind or half-blind Odin contrived the death of his
own son. If so, Óðin may have been inspired by the same motive which guided him
on many other occasions. He needed his son Baldr to join him in his Kingdom,
just as he needed his favourites Sigmund, Harald Wartooth, Erik Bloodaxe and
others, to die in battle.
Was Nanna a Valkyrie?
Besides this, Nanna, the name of Hódr's (or Baldr's) wife, is a valkyrie name,
and it probably had a similar meaning to that of 'warlike'.
Was the Mistletoe the sword of Hodr?
In certain romantic sagas, Mistletoe is often the name given to a sword, and it
is listed in early sources as a poetic word for 'sword'. Is it possible that
the kenning for sword "mistletoe" has been rationalised by others who didn't
understand the kenning?
Was it influenced by the Christian religion?
Many commentators have mentioned the influence of the Christian religion as the
reason for the differences of Snorri's account. But this cannot be covered here
as I've already written far too much. Suffice to say that It would be hard to
believe that the myth of Baldr had influenced that of Christ, and it has often
been said that the weeping of nature for the dead god is a motive strange to
Norse, in which inanimate objects rarely display emotion. For this reason,
foreign influences upon the story of Baldr have been sought, and especially
those of the fertility gods of the near east, whose deaths were followed by
copious weeping. The ultimate source of this weeping may well be oriental, but
it is probable that nature wept for Baldr because, in the legend recorded by
the English poet, she had wept for Christ. We might even go further, and
suggest that the dry-eyed Thokk was introduced into the story of Baldr to
explain why he did not rise from Hel as Christ did.
Finally was Loki really very Evil?
This is far too long now so I'll just quote my good friend Morgan and finish
there:
"One has to wonder how Sigyn viewed Loki as a husband, since she remains
steadfastly by him until Ragnarok, keeping him from as much harm as she is
able. If he'd been truly awful to her, Sigyn could have just told him to sod
off and gone on her way. Njord and Skadi parted for far more trivial reasons
without apparent censure.
Hope everyone finds this interesting
Nick
May the Æsir be with you :)
Frankly My Damn I Don't Give a Dear!
sessr...@yahoo.com
spear to Baldur's blind brother Hodur.
Rorik
NKPAGE wrote in message <19990220064113...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
. . .
>The Eddic poet's thoughts were not consistent with those expressed by
Snorri
>for, according to Snorri, it was not until AFTER the death of Baldr that
Loki
>was bound in chains. But the Edda speak of Loki in chains at the same time
>Baldr was killed!
Hej, Nick:
Actually, the sequence is pretty clear in Völuspá 31-34.
>Also Hermod was said to be born to kill Hodr and NOT Loki.
The reason Váli (not Hermoðr) had to be conceived on a giantess to slay Höðr
is that the latter was a blood relative of those with primary responsibility
for avenging Baldr. No such problem existed with Loki, so the gods took
their vengeance directly.
> . . .
>Is the story the same one?
In a way. Snorri gives us the Icelandic version of the myth, Saxo gives us
the Danish version.
> . . .
>Many commentators have mentioned the influence of the Christian religion as
the
>reason for the differences of Snorri's account.
This is pretty amusing, since Saxo's version was written expressly at the
command of Archbishop Absolom. If we want to surmise that the difference in
the two versions is due to Christian influence, it would obviously be Saxo's
account that is suspect. In fact, though, there is no reason to suppose
Christian influence played a role in either version.
>"One has to wonder how Sigyn viewed Loki as a husband, since she remains
>steadfastly by him until Ragnarok, keeping him from as much harm as she is
>able. If he'd been truly awful to her, Sigyn could have just told him to
sod
>off and gone on her way. Njord and Skadi parted for far more trivial
reasons
>without apparent censure.
Who said Loki was "evil" toward Sigyn? Being a killer doesn't necessarily
mean your spouse stops loving you.
regards,
rorik
Ryan of Vaerdal
between the Norse and Teutonic accounts of many of the sagas. And Snorri
was writing most of his literature based on the Norse rather than
Teutonic accounts of the stanzas and kennings.
Hel Loki was not even considered as major a god in the Teutonic patheons
as in the Norse patheons so we can therefor equate that Loki was not the
original killer of Baldr possibly.
Loki like Skadhi was probably a foreign import of Finnish or Celtic
origins.
Hail the high Æsir and the holy Vanir,
- Ryan of Vaerdal
"Agitate with your goal in mind."
- K. Chernenko
"Your enemies may hate you, but they shall never win. For when you
hate your
enemies you thus destroy yourself.
You can never be on the highest
mountain until you have been in the
deepest valley in the world."
-Richard M. Nixon
"Never mock a guest or wandering man;
For never does one have so much virture;
that they lacks all fault." -The Havamal
H4P1A3S1
>Loki was not directly Baldur's killer, but he DID hand the mistletoe
>spear to Baldur's blind brother Hodur.
*Only* in Snorri's version.
The weapon is not always "mistletoe" and Hodr is not always blind. (And
Baldr's sometimes a right bastard who deserves everything he gets.) For that
matter, Loki isn't even there in some of the recountings of this myth.
Did you read the post you were responding to?
Respectfully,
Morgan
"I can call spirits from the vasty deep."
"Why, so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when you do call for
them?"
--Wm. Shakespeare: Henry IV, Part I, Act III, Scene I
H4P1A3S1
>n fact, though, there is no reason to suppose
>Christian influence played a role in either version.
I would beg to differ on this point: Christian writers composing works for a
Christian audience in a Christian culture are going to display a certain slant
to their viewpoint which would have been present even in spite of conscious
efforts on their part to keep the stories they relate in their original form
(even if we assume, of course, that such efforts were made in the first place -
an idea which seems a bit too modern to attribute to medieval writers).
H4P1A3S1
>Loki like Skadhi was probably a foreign import of Finnish or Celtic
>origins.
Since I have no knowledge of Finnish mythology, I cannot speak to that.
However, the closest figure to Loki in Irish Celtic mythology is a relatively
minor figure in the Ulster cycle, Bricriu Nemthenga (Poison-tongue, which, as
H.R. Ellis-Davidson also points out, would suit Laufey's son admirably, esp.
c.f. Lokasenna). Actually, it's rather interesting to compare the tale of
Bricriu's Feast to that of Lokasenna, since they come at the same type of
event from essentially opposite viewpoints (the "bad host" v. the "bad guest").
In Welsh mythology, the figure of Efnysien (sp?) could also be proposed,
however, unless one considers his repentence for his actions a later Christian
addition, it diminishes whatever similarities may exist between the two
figures.
(I apologise if the above descriptions are rather sketchy, most of my library
remains at the location I moved from, rather than the location I am in now, and
I am dealing primarily from memory and oblique references in other books.)
What all this verbiage essentially boils down to is this: that even with a
relatively extensive background in Celtic mythology, I see no direct
correlaries from which Loki could have sprung from that source.
NKPAGE
Do you mean the Finnish hero Lemminkainen?
There is a similarity between Baldr and the Finnish hero, Lemminkainen.
Lemminkainen was a beautiful, vigorous and a great lover. In quest of a maiden
in the hostile north, he drove off all the men by the force of magic songs,
sparing only one, a miserable herdsman. He won the maiden he desired, but on
the condition of performing three perilous tasks. He succeeded in the first
two, but the third was more difficult. He must procure a swan from an
underground river. Lemminkainen reached the river, but the blind herdsman shot
him as it seems, with a reed, or shaft of cowbane. The herdsman chopped his
victim up and hurled the pieces into the river. After a long search and many
trials, his mother fished the members out of the river with a magic rake and
joined them together, and Lemminkainen was restored to life
Few scholars would deny that the story of Lemminkainen owes a good deal to
that of Baldr. Lemminkainen's assailant, if not innocent as Hodr was in
Snorri's story, was blind and crippled, and his weapon was a seemingly harmless
plant. But the story of Lemminkainen contains many elements which do not appear
in any Norse version of that of Baldr and are hardly to be traced to it. Most
striking of these is the dismemberment of Lemminkainen's body and his revival.
This may well represent a seasonal ritual, the death and revival of the
fertility god. The dismemberment and re-assembly of the god also have
parallels, e.g. in the story of Orpheus. Rituals of this kind were common in
many parts of Asia and Europe, and it would not be difficult to believe that
the Finns derived this element in their story of Lemminkainen from a Germanic
or Indo-European source. But it would be difficult to accept the commentator
Schroder's suggestion that the story of Lemminkainen, in motives like these,
represents the myth of Baldr in a form older than we otherwise know it. There
is nothing to suggest that Baldr will ever be restored to life until the
Ragnarök, nor that his body was dismembered. Baldr shows some features of a
fertility god, but less than many others. The myths of Baldr appear to be much
more closely related to those of Óšin than to those of the specialised
fertility-gods. He was the son of Óšin and Frigg, and he was killed by a blind
god with a seemingly harmless plant.
Nick ;)
May the Ęsir be with you :)
Frankly My Damn I Don't Give a Dear!
Rorik
H4P1A3S1 wrote in message <19990221000547...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
>>From: "Rorik" <ro...@yolo.com>
>
>>n fact, though, there is no reason to suppose
>>Christian influence played a role in either version.
>
>I would beg to differ on this point: Christian writers composing works for
a
>Christian audience in a Christian culture are going to display a certain
slant
But in this case, shouldn't we discount the claims of 20th century Christian
scholars who assure their Christian audiences that the apparently pagan
tales Snorri recounted were in fact influenced by Christianity?
respectfully,
rorik
H4P1A3S1
>>>n fact, though, there is no reason to suppose
>>>Christian influence played a role in either version.
>>I would beg to differ on this point: Christian writers composing works for
>a
>>Christian audience in a Christian culture are going to display a certain
>slant
>>to their viewpoint .
>But in this case, shouldn't we discount the claims of 20th century Christian
>scholars who assure their Christian audiences that the apparently pagan
>tales Snorri recounted were in fact influenced by Christianity?
No. Most scholars of the literature (or any literature, for that matter, at
least in the United States and Europe) are either practicing Christians or at
the very least grew up in an ostensibly Christian culture (and the latter
would, I venture, apply to everyone who reads or posts to this board, as well).
In order to completely discount their views, we would essentially have to
trash everything that's ever been written on the subject, which seems like
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
What I was trying to say is that there is no purely heathen version of our
mythology extent, that all of what we now possess has been influenced to one
degree or another by Christianity. The best we can do at this point in time is
to approach the texts with as much knowledge we can about those who wrote them
and the times they lived in so that we might make an educated guess as to the
particular points at which that influence might have made itself most markedly
known. In addition, secondary sources ought to be approached with the same
level of critical thinking applied to the motives and motivations of their
authors.
If someone is writing with a Christian agenda, it ought to be reasonably easy
to detect. It is more likely to be subtextual, however, especially in the case
of more recent works. This is where prior knowledge and background information
come into play when making discernments about the potential value of a
particular work.
There should be no either/or answers, in any case. We ought not to believe
everything we read uncritically, nor should we dismiss it out of hand until a
conscious effort has been made to derive what is of use from it. Of course,
what is "of use" will also vary, depending upon the outlook of the individual
and the level of knowledge which they bring to their critique.
RedWolf
A fantastic post. I happen to like Saxo's version the best. From the book
Northern Mythology by Friedrich Kauffmann concerning the Icelandic version:
"It has recently been proved that many of the incidents of this narrative
are of Christian origin. For instance, the deliverance of Baldr from hell
is made to depend upon all creatures, living and dead, weeping for him. The
sources of this feature of the story date from as late a period as the
twelfth century, and are contained in a poem composed by Bjarni Kolbeinsson,
who was consecrated bishop of Orkney in 1188. The old pagan lay only tells
how the mother wept for the death of her son." This was translated in 1903
by M Steele Smith
If you choose to believe the Saxo's version to be the correct version but
this sets about numerous ugly questions about other tales.
I am wondering do you consider the 3 wise women to be the Norns.
May the gods walk with you
Mike
Rorik
H4P1A3S1 wrote in message <19990221124934...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
>>> Christian writers composing works for a
>>>Christian audience in a Christian culture are going to display a certain
>>slant to their viewpoint .
>
>>But in this case, shouldn't we discount the claims of 20th century
Christian
>>scholars who assure their Christian audiences that the apparently pagan
>>tales Snorri recounted were in fact influenced by Christianity?
>
>No. Most scholars of the literature (or any literature, for that matter,
at
>least in the United States and Europe) are either practicing Christians or
at
>the very least grew up in an ostensibly Christian culture (and the latter
>would, I venture, apply to everyone who reads or posts to this board, as
well).
> In order to completely discount their views, we would essentially have to
>trash everything that's ever been written on the subject, which seems like
>throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I didn't suggest throwing out everything that is written by Christians. I
was referring specifically to the tendency of Christians to interpret
everything in history--including the recorded lore of other religions--in
terms of their own beliefs. Let me ask the question another way: Why are
you unwilling to believe that a 13th century Christian antiquarian could
relate pre-Christian lore accurately, yet have no problem believing the
claims of 20th century Christian historians that the old Norse lore "really"
reflects the influence of their religion?
>What I was trying to say is that there is no purely heathen version of our
>mythology extent, that all of what we now possess has been influenced to
one
>degree or another by Christianity.
Well, that of course is the conclusion you want to get to. But what is your
argument? Do you think of Christianity as some kind of fast acting
universal solvent, that just sort of seeps into everything in the
environment as soon as it is introduced into a culture?
>If someone is writing with a Christian agenda, it ought to be reasonably
easy
>to detect.
Do you mean this to apply only to modern scholars, or also to the original
texts? If the latter, what Christian agenda do you detect in Snorri?
Respectfully,
rorik
H4P1A3S1
>Why are
>you unwilling to believe that a 13th century Christian antiquarian could
>relate pre-Christian lore accurately
I believe that many of them were attempting to relate the lore inthe most
accurate way possible available to them, which is not saying the same thing.
>yet have no problem believing the
>claims of 20th century Christian historians that the old Norse lore "really"
>reflects the influence of their religion?
I take no one entirely at their word for anything - I take all the information
available to me at any given time and deduce my own opinions from that.
>Do you think of Christianity as some kind of fast acting
>universal solvent, that just sort of seeps into everything in the
>environment as soon as it is introduced into a culture?
I think that there are any number of factors which can influence what a person
chooses to write, even such things as seemingly insignificant as whether or
not they were having a bad day when they sat down to work.
>Do you mean this to apply only to modern scholars, or also to the original
>texts? If the latter, what Christian agenda do you detect in Snorri?
All of the above - if you read Snorri in the context of other writers of the
same period, it's fairly obvious that the literary devices which he uses to
frame his stories are fairly common to the time period. It would also be of
use to study the works of later antiquarians, in whom there is no question that
an active interest in past beliefs did not necessarily reflect a personal
belief in or commitment to those same beliefs.
ro...@yolo.com
"RedWolf" <md...@shore.net> wrote:
> . . .
> From the book
> Northern Mythology by Friedrich Kauffmann concerning the Icelandic version:
> "It has recently been proved that many of the incidents of this narrative
Hej, Red Wolf:
Thanks for the excellent example. This sort of claim was tossed around like
confetti by turn of the century Christians. This was published at virtually
the same time as the Olive Bray translation of the Edda, with the pictures of
Jesus illustrating the poems. Of course, no such "proof" ever existed, except
in the minds of Christians who saw the image of their own beliefs everywhere.
regards,
rorik
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bjorn Sundberg
>credited him?
Here we can be quite sure that since Snorri was a christian, the person Loke
was very confusing to him, in the same way as Odin was. To him it must seem
that Loke was an evil man, since he for sure isn't a "goodguy". But what we
must remember is that such a dualism isn't found in those old myths, none of
the goods are specifically "good" or "evil", they have different sides and
are not one-sided.
Loke is the god that must be hardest to grip, and especially for a christian
that need to label them as one or another, therefore I think Snorri showed
his side of Loke, which might be correct in a way, but it only focuses on
one part of him, and leaves out many important characteristics.
William P. Reaves
Good observations.
>Loke is the god that must be hardest to grip, and especially for a
christian
that need to label them as one or another, therefore I think Snorri showed
his side of Loke, which might be correct in a way, but it only focuses on
one part of him, and leaves out many important characteristics.
Regarding Balder's death, Loki is the rad-bani, the planner of his murder,
but Hodr is the hand-bani, the actual murderer. Snorri's Balder myth is
mainly correct, but it is highly euphemised. Snorri took a stylized version
of the Balder myth that he found in Husdrapa, and presented it literally.
From Laxadeala Saga chapter 32, we learn that the Husdrapa was composed by
Ulf Uggasson to commemorate the beautiful paintings and carvings at the
walls of the hall on Hjardarholt. The verses describe graphic depictions of
scenes from the mythology, including the Balder myth, the myth of Heimdall
and Loki fighting for Brisingsamen as seals, and of Loki's binding.
Surviving verses of Husdrapa confirm this.
Thus Snorri is not retelling the Balder myth literally as he assumes, but
rather giving a literal interpretation of the myth as painted on a hall, as
Husdrapa does.
Thus where the painter represented Loki standing beside Hodr, and Hodr,
with his eyes closed to show that he acted blindly, and that Loki was the
true murderer, Snorri takes this scene literally and depicts Hodr, known to
be a warrior and a dragon-slayer, as a blind man who must act under
another's direction, totally ignoring the fact that all the Aesir were
gathered around Balder at the time of his death, and would have witnessed
Loki's crime.
Hodr is indeed the agent of Balder's death, but the forces of the giant
world are to blame. A witch intices Hodr one evening, while taking refuge
in a cave during a hunt, to love his brother's wife. Hodr is compelled to
steal Nanna from Balder and they fight for her. Ultimately the spell is
broken and brotherly love prevails. Thus the scene is set for Loki to frame
Hodr for the murder by slipping an arrow made of mistletoe into his quiver.
Hodr loves his brother dearly, and is a threat to the giant world, thus the
giants use his own weakness to destroy him.
Snorri's tale is correct in the main outline, but the details are skewed by
over-reliance on Husdrapa as the source of his information.
Wassail, William
ro...@yolo.com
"William P. Reaves" <Beo...@magicnet.net> wrote:
>
> Snorri took a stylized version of the Balder myth that he found in Husdrapa,
> literally as he assumes, but rather giving a literal interpretation of the
> standing beside Hodr, and Hodr, with his eyes closed to show that he acted
Hail William:
What is your source for this information? Húsdrápa 7-10 gives a description
of the gods riding to Baldr's funeral, but the killing itself is not
mentioned. Are you positing a "lost" version of the poem, or something like
that?
Rorik
>...