Odhinn and Tyr – Two modes of Sovereignty
by P.A.Q.
War and peace, the two concepts seem worlds apart, in fact they are often thought of as exact opposites, they seem to be two extremes that are irreconcilable with each other. Yet they are two intimately linked social potentialities. Crisis and stability, again we are presented with two opposed concepts, concepts that seem antithetical - but once again these are two potentialities that often confront societies. This latter pair of concepts has some resonance with the former pair, crisis seems to resonate with the concept of war, war represents a social modality through which a society seeks to overcome a crisis. Such an overcoming brings that society towards stability and peace. Yet times of war and crisis are very different to times of peace and stability, and so in facing times of crisis societies are forced into patterns of behavior that are very different from those that they display in times of peace. The social mode is, by necessity, altered by the conditions that the society has to face and hence the form of leadership that is required will also have to adapt to the conditions that the society has to face. A society that is inflexible in the face of changed conditions is not likely to be a long lived one - society must have the capacity to move between different modalities.
Think now of two more abstract concepts - magic and law, there seems again to be some tension between these two concepts even though the tension is not quite as distinct as in our first two examples. Yet for our ancestors these two concepts also resonate with the notions of war and peace, crisis and stability, albeit in quite an abstract way. These two notions, magic and law, are linked to two modes of leadership or sovereignty, they serve as abstract yet pragmatic modes or principles of action for a society which is realistic about the potentiality for war as well as the possibility of peace. Such a claim is difficult for many moderns to accept, we are often unable to see beyond our legalistic notion of sovereignty and so we fail to understand, worst still we fail to accept the possibility, of a form of sovereignty which some commentators refer to as magical. One of the main aims of this essay is to highlight the sophistication of our ancestral notions of sovereignty through demonstrating that these two social modes were not only social realities but also mythical and sacral realities. In so doing I hope to be able to open up new ways of considering the nature of two of the most well known deities in the Teutonic world - Odhinn and Tyr.
In order to achieve this I have broken the article into two sections. The first section aims to provide a broad background for the ideas presented in part two. It covers a consideration of the types of evidence for Teutonic religion and the limitations of that evidence. It also considers the Indo-European background to studies in Teutonic myth and religion - this is important as much of the argument presented in part two is based on Indo-European studies. This will involve a very brief consideration of two key players in the field of Indo-European studies, the infamous Georges Dumezil and a more contemporary scholar - Bruce Lincoln. Both of these theorists have argued that Indo-European society is marked by a dualistic, or bi-functional notion of sovereignty. With this background information laid Part Two takes up the issue of bi-functional sovereignty in regard to the Gods and myths of the Teutonic people. Part two will demonstrate that this bi-functional model is applicable to the Teutonic people; it will demonstrate that this bi-functionality in sovereignty is connected to two forms of command - direct verbal command and indirect magical command; it will demonstrate that this bi-functionality of sovereignty is also linked to a bi-functionality in the notion of the holy - that there are two modes of holiness in Teutonic religion; further it will show that this bi-functionality of sovereignty is reflected in the pantheon of the Teutonic people through the gods Odhinn and Tyr. The article will end by considering the exact relationship that these gods have to the two notions of sovereignty that this article proposes.
Part One:
Teutonic and Indo-European society - evidence and models.
Evidence For Teutonic Religion
A good deal of the evidence for Teutonic religion is drawn from external commentaries, these are two fold: Firstly those written by non-Christian contemporaries such as those of Gaius Julius Caesar (C.100 - 44 BCE) and Cornelius Tacitus (C.56 - C.120 BCE); Secondly those written at a later date based on the reportage of Christian missionaries such as Anskar (801-865 BCE). These are undoubtedly quite valuable sources, yet it must be emphasised that they are not entirely reliable as they tend to reflect the agendas of their authors. In the first case Caesar is a Roman General eager to win tribute and hence there is a tendency for self aggrandizement in his work - this in turn leads Caesar to focus on the militaristic nature of the Teutonic tribes and to emphasise their ferocity. Tacitus is a writer who seems to have a critical agenda and tends to portray the Germans as ‘Noble Savages’ and almost models of virtue in contrast to what he sees as the decadence of his own people - hence his work carries its own particular bias. In the case of Christian missions to the North there are a number of factors which must be considered as possibly skewing reportage, most importantly the need to portray Christianity as the superior faith by highlighting the barbarism of the Heathen, the savagery of their religion and the impotence of their gods (a pattern that missionaries continued well into the modern period). So while these external accounts of Teutonic religious practice are important one must approach them with caution, we must approach them critically, holding off from the immediate acceptance of these reports and trying to understand the motivations of the particular authors.
Due to the difficulties presented by these external sources one feels the pressure to turn to internal sources, archaeological artifacts and particularly texts written by Teutonic folk in their vernacular language. It is these sources which are felt to provide the most intimate contact with the life world of our Teutonic ancestors and so these become an important tool for accessing our old ways. This is not, however, a path that is completely problem free and these internal sources present problems of their own. Most important is the fact that our textual record is not complete, there are gaps in our knowledge that will prove difficult to fill from internal textual sources alone. Where source material in the vernacular exists it is primarily from medieval Scandinavia and more specifically from Iceland, a historical and geographic context distinct from that of Caesar’s “The Gallic Wars” [1] or Tacitus’ “Germania”[2]. This geographical and temporal distance makes it difficult to directly confirm or deny any of the details provided by our early external sources. Nonetheless if one proceeds cautiously some fruitful comparisons between these texts can be made, these two sources of information can inform each other to provide better access to the traditions of our ancestors.
The Icelandic vernacular literature is essentially comprised of two sorts: The Eddas, which are poetic accounts of Northern myth and legend and the Sagas which are prose accounts of life in the Scandinavian society of the Viking age. To these two main categories can be added the writings of Snorri Sturluson, prose writings which form important sources for both Myth and History. The Eddas and Sagas provide us with a reasonably good route of access to the mythology, folklore and customs of our ancestors but only allude to aspects of ritual. The scarcity of evidence for the ritual practice of our ancestors has made the reconstruction of our ancestral ways extremely difficult. It must, however, be recognised that, at present, this religion cannot be reconstructed with perfect precision, the gulf of time is too great, the evidence too ill-assorted - reconstruction must proceed carefully through close study of evidence and careful analysis of language. Yet non-specialists can hope to benefit from the work of scholars and tease out motifs and themes which were important to our ancestors, most importantly the non-specialist can, through reading our ancestral literature, attempt to share in the perceptions of their long dead kin. Ultimately this is just as important as accuracy in reconstruction - through coming to understand our ancestors and their values we reactivate the primordial understanding of the world which lies buried within us - we reactive the primordial wisdom of our folk. Our factual knowledge of their tradition grows constantly, this kindles the fires of reconstruction. But our inner understanding of those facts - an understanding based on the reactivation of our ancestral relation to the world - kindles an altogether different fire, it kindles the fires of wisdom. Indeed it is wisdom which is the source of all meaningful reconstruction. Our task as modern folk is not to merely act on knowledge and describe what ‘was’, but to take our knowledge of what ‘was’ and use it with wisdom to revitalise our culture in the present - our aim is to turn knowledge of what ‘was’ into wisdom in what ‘is’.
The Indo-European connection: Broadening the Context
Modern Ásatrúar acknowledge the fact that it is difficult for us to exactly determine the nature of our ancestral tradition directly from internal sources and for many this raises another problem, that of context. Is the field of study to be narrowed to exclude anything beyond that which is specifically Teutonic or does one look to Indo-European cultures for correspondences which might illuminate the evidence available through purely Teutonic material? The first approach, due to limited evidence and the delicate nature of the sources, might seem to leave one at a bit of a dead end in relation to many aspects of the tradition. The second approach risks abstraction into theoretical comparisons and speculations which are potentially far removed from the social reality of life in Teutonic society. Yet with the limitations of each of these approaches in mind one can seek to overcome these difficulties - one can use comparative Indo-European material as a means of accessing aspects of the Teutonic tradition which are opaque or concealed. More importantly one can use this material to fill out and deepen our understanding of those aspects of the tradition which are more familiar to us. This is an especially powerful tool for those who have a sound foundation in the specifically Teutonic tradition, those who have a sound understanding of the specifically Teutonic approach to the world. Such a person can take the disparate Indo-European material and interrogate it from the ‘perspective of the Teuton’ to try and discern how earlier Indo-European ideas apply within our own tradition.
The use of Indo-European comparative material as a means of coming to understand Teutonic religion is an approach which has been promoted by scholars such as Georges Dumezil and recently Bruce Lincoln. Their work is based on two premises, firstly that myth expresses social values that strengthen social coherence and secondly that linguistic unity represents a considerable ideological unity[3]. The first point emphasises the idea that the key avenue to understanding the life world of a people is through their mythology and legends. Myth and legend codify the most important values and beliefs of a people, they reflect the relation of that people to the world - physically, emotionally and intellectually. Understanding this relationship to the world is the key to understanding the folk, the society and the religion. Hence Myth is not mere religious discourse but is a vehicle for the aesthetic expression of culture and deep cultural values.
The second point emphasises the importance of language as a vehicle of culture and deep cultural values - language is the primary vehicle of culture and one will have a hard time understanding a culture without first having some understanding of that cultures language. The point that linguistic unity represents a considerable ideological unity is vital for our tradition - this notion implies that the linguistic unity of the Teutonic languages, of which modern English is a part, provides a broad ideological unity for those who share that language. The closer the languages the closer the ideological unity. Our own understanding of the Modern English language can be seen as a primary link to the ideology and values of our ancestors, this is also the case for all the other modern Teutonic languages such as; German, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Dutch and all the dialects of these languages.
Georges Dumezil: The Tripartite division of Indo-European Society
Georges Dumezil, one of the most famous Indo-Eurpoean scholars of our time, has proposed a controversial theory about the structure of Indo-European society which claims that that society was subject to a tripartite division which is broadly reflected in the notion that society is comprised of three estates; firstly the peasantry or sometimes slaves, secondly the warrior class and thirdly the sovereign, noble or ruling class. This is both a controversial theory and one that on first glance does not appear to be of great significance - as Dumezil’s tripartite functional division of society is evident in many societies and hence it does not seem to say much about the specific nature of Indo-European society. However, in Indo-European society this structure is intimately connected to religion and receives expression in myth, pantheon and ritual - hence the social structure of the Indo-European people is seen as a reflection of mythical structure of the cosmos, this is in line with the thesis that myth expresses and strengthens deep social values. This reinforces the notion that Dumezil’s theory is not purely sociological but a theory about broad cultural paradigms, paradigms which are thought to reflect something of the cognitive structures of the Indo-European people. A tripartite social structure which is reflected in a tripartite mythic and ritual structure reflects a tripartite mode of understanding the world. Hence Dumezil’s theory is a theory about the way the Indo-European mind structures its world.
In order to understand the relation between this tripartite division and Indo-European culture it is important to understand the way Dumezil characterises the social structure of the Indo-European world. The foremost layer of the social structure, the realm of sovereignty, is the most complex and is itself subject to its own internal division. Sovereignty is considered a bipartite system based on the opposition of two modalities of sovereignty - magical sovereignty based on rule by magical power (or might) and juridical sovereignty based on the rule of law. Both forms of sovereignty are seen as legitimate modes of rule in different contexts, different circumstances require different modalities of rule. The second layer of the social structure is the warrior function, this is a layer which represents physical force which can be directed outward towards hostile forces or at times inwards in policing actions. The third layer of the social structure is that of the rural peasantry, this is the function of fecundity and prosperity, this class can be associated with the class of slaves - although this class is very different to the slave class of the early modern era and is probably best thought of as an underclass.
This social structure is reflected to a significant degree in Indo-European mythology where the gods were marked by this three fold division - the mythical society reflects the nature of the society experienced in the life world of the Indo-European people. This can be seen in the Nordic context where Odinn and Tyr represent the dual aspects of magical and juridical sovereignty (see Table 5). The Gods Thorr and Heimdallr represent the warrior function and the Gods Freyr and Freyja represent the function of fecundity and fertility so important to the rural peasantry. The relation of this last group of deities to the social structure is quite complex and it seems that certain Teutonic peoples found an important role for the gods of fertility and fecundity in their noble cults. This is an interesting point but will not be pursued here as it is beyond the scope of this article.
There is also important mythical support for Dumezil’s thesis that Indo-European society was based around a tripartite social structure, here the myths are used to support a sociological thesis. Most important in this regard is the Eddic Rigsthula [4], a myth reinforcing the threefold division of society into that of Thrall (slaves), Karl (freemen) and Jarl (nobles) [5]. Some commentators have treated this narrative with critical caution claiming that it is merely a justification for aristocratic rule. This criticism has some force, and indeed the poem could not be seen as a discourse free of value judgements about the merits of the various estates. But we are not here interested in the value judgements that the poem contains, rather we are interested in the social structure it reflects - which is indeed tri-partite. This poem itself seems to be a reflex of an older narrative and may be connected to the earlier continental narrative of the three sons of Mannus, as described by Tacitus, who Dumezil associates with the Indic Manu[6] (See Table 6)[7]. The social stratification has also been preserved in the colour symbolism of Indo-European societies, where Indian, Iranian, Latin and Celtic cultures all associated the priestly or sovereign group with the colour white, warriors with the colour red and peasants with dark colours[8]. Such a schema finds its expression in Teutonic culture where in the Rigsthula the poet mentions the hair colour of Rigr’s three sons, the first Thral has “dark” hair (strophe 7), the second Karl was “ruddy” (strophe 21) and Jarl whose hair was “flaxen” (Strophe 35) [9].
Lincoln’s Hegelian Revision of Dumezil: An alternate Model for Indo-European social structure.
Bruce Lincoln using similar methods to Dumezil and working largely with Indo-Iranian material has proposed a model of Proto-Indo-European society based on a four tiered social system. In essence this system is broadly in harmony with the tripartite model of Dumezil yet this system is also one that allows for a greater degree of complexity in the power relations between the various groupings of people in the system. Lincoln has referred to his own model of Indo-European society, in Hegelian terms, as one of ‘dialectical binary opposition’. To demonstrate what this involves one must turn to the system itself. Lincoln sees Indo-European society as one which is based on a series of binary oppositions which become more restrictive as one moves up the scale and more open and inclusive as one moves down the scale towards its base. For Lincoln the basis of this system begins by a strict definition of ‘our’ people against ‘other’ peoples - there is a binary opposition between ‘us’ and ‘them’. At the next level the system divides our people into two groups, commoners and the upper classes - this forms the first internal binary opposition. The upper classes are then themselves divided into warriors and sovereigns. Finally sovereignty is itself divided. Sovereignty for Lincoln was divided into kingly duties, the maintenance of proper order in ‘this’ world and priestly duties, revolving around the maintenance of the relationship with the ‘supernatural’ world (see tables 2 & 3). It can be seen that in this system there is a process of division or separation of peoples into two groups where one group is privileged over the other. The privileged group then becomes a tight circle - warded from outsiders - an inner core that leaves a remainder on the outside. Ultimately this inner circle is itself further divided as the process continues until the ultimate binary opposition is reached - the opposition of priests and kings - at this level the power must be balanced.
This system is one that is marked by a high degree of ethnocentricity where it is difficult for outsiders to penetrate into the inner sanctums of society. From a linguistic study a society emerges which has a high degree of cultural or, more specifically, ethnic ’self-consciousness’ and hence a society that is highly conscious of cultural or ethnic difference. Most importantly a society emerges which is united by close knit kin ties, a society in which hospitality and reciprocity are an ideal when extended to members of the group, but are always hesitantly extended to the ‘other’[10]. In this regard kin loyalties are the primary and overriding loyalties of the society - kin come first and foremost, the kin group is placed above the tribe and even above the self - this is a tight group, an inner circle - a circle of trust or, as we Ásatrúar would have it, a circle of troth. This does not imply that outsiders cannot be integrated within this society, this is not the case as there are many ways that outsiders can be integrated within the society. What is indicated by this is that such integration is an exception rather than the norm, normatively Indo-European society is marked by a sense of closure to outsiders.
Another point which is central to Lincoln’s thesis relates to ecological and socio-economic factors - the importance of cattle (mobile wealth) to the Indo-European economy. Lincoln proposes an ecological basis for Indo-European society and religion, viewing their society as one that grew out of their pastoralist life style. It is this ecological basis which, when combined with the dialectical binary opposition as a mode of structuring social relations, contributes greatly to the nature of Indo-European traditions - especially the importance of wealth and the giving of prized possessions to the Gods. In a reconstructed myth cycle Lincoln makes the relationship of the gods, the people and cattle clear - here we will encounter the reconstructed Indo-European terminology for our tribe, the *arya, and for all ‘other’ tribes, the *dasa. The sovereign deities give cattle (mobile wealth) to ‘our’ people, the *arya, cattle as a form of wealth is our divine gift. This divine gift can be stolen by the *dasa, and indeed some portion of this divine gift has been stolen by them, their possession of cattle is evidence of this fact - it is a transgression of divine decree. This necessitates a raid by the *arya warriors who win back the lost cattle and return them to the sovereign class. Finally the priests sacrifice the cattle - thus returning a share of the wealth to the Gods who gave it - this sacrifice is made in order that the celestial sovereigns will grant an increase in cattle and warriors[11], it is made in the spirit of reciprocity.
It must be remembered that this is a reconstructed proto-Indo-European myth cycle, a myth cycle that is supposed to represent the beliefs of the proto-Indo-Europeans who lived in the second millennia BCE - not one that perfectly reflects any of the ways of the later Indo-European cultures. Yet elements of this myth cycle are kept alive in the traditions of later Indo-European peoples and for Northern European people this is clearly demonstrated in both the Celtic tradition, with their Cattle raid cycles such as the Táin Bó Cuailnge and in the Teutonic world it seems best exemplified by the concept of raiding - a practice common to the Viking age.
Conclusion to Part One.
This concludes our consideration of the nature of the sources for a reconstructed Teutonic religion, its relation to the Indo-European tradition and the outline of the two most important approaches to reconstruction from an Indo-European basis. It is the opinion of this author that while culturally specific studies are the fundamental point of departure for all reconstruction of Teutonic religion, the Indo-European approach still has much to offer in filling out and deepening our understanding of the Teutonic tradition. Dumezil was vital to this modern Indo-European perspective on Teutonic religion and it was Dumezil who first proposed a bifunctionality in the role of Indo-European sovereignty. The work of Linclon is an important continuation of Dumezil’s work and one that overcomes many of the criticisms leveled at Dumezil’s approach. Importantly Lincoln’s thesis maintains a similar bifunctionality in sovereignty to that which was proposed by Dumezil, a bifunctionality of rule which seems to have been the norm in Indo-European society. This notion is extremely important for understanding the social structure of Indo-European society and also for understanding the sovereign function of both the ruling classes of the human social realm and the role of divine sovereignty in the mythical realms. The remainder of this article will deal with this issue explicitly and focus on how this notion is played out in a specifically Teutonic context.
Part Two: Indo-European and Teutonic conceptions of Soverignty and the Great Gods of the Teutonic Tradition - Odhinn and Tyr.
In our consideration of the role of sovereignty for the Teutonic folk it is important to firstly clarify the exact nature of juridical versus magical sovereignty in Indo-European society generally and the different ways these roles are approached by the two theorists under consideration - Dumezil and Lincoln. This consideration will be framed against a consideration of the way sovereignty is played out in a particularly Teutonic setting and will lead into many issues which are vital to understanding Teutonic Religion.
Sovereignty and bi-functionality: a controversial thesis
Unlike Dumezil, who characterises the dual sovereign roles as juridical and magical, Lincoln narrows the semantic field of the respective functions to kings and priests. While the evidence from Indo-Iranian material would justify Lincoln’s conclusion, whether this is applicable to the Germanic concept of sovereignty is a matter of debate. There is little evidence of any organised, specific, ‘priestly class’ in Germanic society[12] - in fact the Godhar (plural) of Scandinavia are not specifically religious functionaries and their role seems to span religious, legal and political functions. In a sense they are like the tribal ‘Big Men’ of Papua New Guinea, they are the focal point of the community for almost all matters of community importance be that religious, legal and political. Hence for the Godhi (singular masculine) and Gythja (singular feminine) the prime focus was on the community and community cohesion, they did have an important relation to the Gods as head of the community but they acted more as chieftains than as priests.
Some have doubted the importance of any bi-functional division at all, on the basis that a variety of social systems developed in Germanic lands. It is an undeniable fact that, from all the evidence, there does seem to have been some very different social systems within the Teutonic world. According to Caesar, those tribes nearer the Roman Empire were more warlike and subjected to a totalitarian agricultural system[13]. A social system whose foundation is the act of war, the leaders of war bands held great power - such power can be seen as corresponding to the theological concepts expressed by Valhalla[14] where warriors are united by their loyalty to one war-chieftain or Drighten who leads them in battle and in feast. Here the Drighten is an earthly reflection of Odhinn. This reflects a society in which the ideals are physical and magical might, the capacity for martial prowess, bravery and above all loyalty to one’s lord. The honor system, which determined a persons social standing was dependent on the degree to which they lived up to these ideals. This is a social system that is far removed from the hereditary system of Rome. It differs also from Scandinavia, a more stable society, in which hereditary land tenure developed, however loyalty to king and especially to ones kin are also vital[15]. Hence there seems to be quite a gap between the social structure of the migration age Teutonic society and the more settled existence of their later Scandinavian cousins.
Far from its intention, this criticism might only serve to highlight the dual nature of sovereignty in Germanic society and the evidence does seem to be in accord with the Dumezilian model. From this evidence one might propose a model of sovereignty which has the capacity to move between two modalities of social behavior. Sovereignty can be seen as divided between two leaders, one for times of peace, conducive to stability, prosperity and structure (a juridical mode of sovereignty), the basis for its society is hereditary land tenure and aristocratic rule. The other social modality is one that suits times of social instability and war, a harsh and totalitarian social mode marked by the dissolution of stable hereditary structures, expansiveness and violence (physical and magical), the basis for this society was autocratic. In each case the sovereigns operate along a continuum of war and peace as two alternate modes of sovereignty for a society.
Soverignty and power - the power to command
Primarily the sovereigns access power through words and communication, however they used the power of the word in different ways, the magical or priestly power is accessed through Galdor (a form of incantation usually expressed in poetry or verse), and kingly power is emphasised by the power to command at the material level. Priestly and magical rulers effect change through the manipulation of the mythic or sacral dimension through the use of the word in its poetic manifestation - the vehicle of mythic expression - this is the power of magical command. Whereas the chieftain or King effects change through the manipulation of the material dimension through the use of the word in more prosaic directives or commands. The power of the word is reflected in the nature of one of the main sovereign gods of the Norse, Odhinn, who is said to speak only in poetry, an art form important to Germanic aristocracy, indicating some form of divine reverence for the spoken word. The relation of speech to the supernatural can also be seen in Germanic religion, especially the importance of prophetic speech and communication with dead ancestors in times of crisis. The importance of speech for sovereignty is also evidenced in the legal sphere were the term ‘Lawspeaker’ is applied to the leader of the Thing (assembly). Finally, the binding and sacral power of the word, in Teutonic society, is further evidenced through the importance placed on the act of swearing oaths - one is bound to enact the terms of ones oath or suffer a humiliating loss of honor. The words spoken by the Teutonic hero during a communal drinking session were taken as an oath, words which must be matched with action otherwise honor is lost[16].
Duality and sacral unity: the ultimate unity of duality
Kingly power is temporal and relates to command in this world, the priests’ power is sacral and relates to communication with the ‘other world’. This worldview seems to be marked by a duality between this world and the ’supernatural’ order - yet no such duality in fact exists, the duality is a practical social duality. Some theorist say that this duality is evidenced by linguistic studies of Indo-European religious terminology, which seems to be arranged in doublets, one referring to sacred nature, the other to its secular nature[17]. These theorists are correct to point out this system of doublets but one must bare in mind that the dualisms which exists between them is not that of two opposed substances, one material and one sacred, but rather a conceptual dualism whereby the world can be classified in terms of two different categorical schemas - one material the other sacral. The radical substance dualism of Christianity, where spirit and matter are radically opposed substances, is foreign to the worldview of our ancestors. Likewise the kind of substance dualism that is found in early modern notions of mind - where mind is seen as something radically other than the material body - such notions are mere secularisations of the original Christian substance dualism. These notions are alien to our ancestors who viewed the universe as a complex whole, comprised of many interrelated, yet not opposed, parts - a cosmic or sacred unity.
This being said one must account for the fact that this cosmic and sacred unity exists side by side with an apparent conceptual or terminological dualism. This terminological opposition is strikingly present in Germanic religious terminology where two different modalities of the holy manifest. Firstly there is a form of the sacred which specifically relates to healthy or whole material manifestation. This concept is rendered by the proto-Teutonic term *hailagaz or wholeness and integration, the holy seed of life[18] - the terms whole, health and holy are all concepts that are derived from this proto-Teutonic root word. This form of the sacred is represented by all forms of whole and integrated being - in terms of sovereignty this form of the sacred is represented by the king who is the material affirmation of the divine immanence and a reflection of the wholeness and health of the lands he rules. This principle of wholeness or integration is possibly a principle that Yggdrasill metaphorically embodies[19]. Conceptually the world can be considered from the point of view of *hailagaz, in this case the more integration, wholeness and health that an object, person or group demonstrates the more it demonstrates the principle of *Hailagaz.
The other expression of the holy in the Teutonic languages relates to a concept of individuation or separateness, it relates to that which has been marked out as special. This notion is rendered by the reconstructed word *Wihaz, this is the power that the priest must regulate - a power that seems to be otherworldly. This concept is embodied in a number of different ways in the Teutonic tradition, firstly and most importantly it is connected to the Old Icelandic word for a sacred site Wê or Wih-stead. Here the use of a word which is related to *Wihaz denotes that the space signified is special or separate from the space that surrounds it, that it is marked out by an main that is particular to it. Another important term which is a cognate of *Wihaz is the Old Icelandic word for banner - Vé - here what is indicated is that the group of individuals that are united under this banner are a select group, separate from the masses which exist outside of the unity of this banner - it denotes a sense of separation. Hence banners signify the sacral nature of a group. Here the sense of particularity and separation that is embodied in the banner is a reflex of the dialectical binary opposition that was encountered in the social sphere. From a mass which is originally a unity it distinguishes a subset which is special and select, this subset is given unity by the commonality of sharing in the *Wihaz energy, the specific form this energy takes is physically embodied in the banner or Vé which marks the group. To ‘march under one banner’ is to acknowledge that those who march under that banner share some particular trait or goal - thus separating the group from the mass but creating a strong internal unity within that group.
This last example gives us good ground to destabilise the notion that these two terms for the holy are somehow mutually exclusive or dichotomous terms. For if we consider the fact that a group can be both *Hailagaz, that is unified, whole and integrated as a healthy group should be, yet also *Wihaz or separate, individuated or select - apart from the masses which surround it - then we can see that there is no opposition between the terms. These two terms represent two ways or perspectives that one can take in regard to objects, one can consider its health or wholeness and on the other hand one can consider its separateness or individuality. One might also posit that the more an object demonstrates the *Hailagaz energy (wholeness) the more it will also demonstrate *Wihaz energy (individuality) - as that which is whole and integrated is also that which is more self-contained and individuated. Likewise in order for something to be *Hailagaz (whole or integrated) there must also be a sense in which it is first *Wihaz (individuated or separate).
These two terms merely represent two different principles of judgement applied by two forms of thinking about the world in Teutonic society - a form typical of the juridical sovereignty of Kings (*Hailagaz) and a form typical of the Magical sovereignty of the mage or priest (*Wihaz). Yet just as the two social roles are seen as two faces of the principle of sovereignty so too these two terms which denote the holy are two faces of a more unified principle of the sacred - a principle preserved in the runic formula found on the Pietroassa ring - Wihailag. A compound word which combines the notion of *Wihaz here rendered in the form Wih and the notion of *Hailagaz here rendered in the form Hailag. That which is Wihailag is that which is both a) whole, integrated, healthy and hence holy (*Hailagaz), but also that which is b) separate, special or marked off from the masses (*Wihaz). The highest form of the holy in the Teutonic tradition must demonstrate the unity of these two notions of the sacred, hence the highest social level, that of sovereignty, bares the marks of this notion of the holy - it is a unity of two functions, that which unifies through outward command and that which individuates through magical command.
Principles of Judgement: Perspectivity and the Cosmos
One of the interesting points to note from the above discussion is the relationship between the subjectivity of the particular perspectives and the unity within which those perspectives exist. Both the terms for the holy in the Teutonic tradition can be seen as principles of judgement - they are two different perspectives that one can take in regard to the world. Importantly these two perspectives are not mutually exclusive, taking up one perspective does not exclude the possibility that one could also take up the other - one taking the principle of wholeness as its principle of judgement, the other taking the principle of separateness and individuality as its principle of judgement. Indeed, as we have seen, both views are ultimately united and find unified expression in the term Wihailag. The idea that there are a number of principles of judgement which present unique perspectives on the world yet are not mutually exclusive is an interesting one and one that we should take time to consider - as philosophically this is a very modern way of thinking about the world, our ancestors did indeed develop a very advanced and subtle way of thinking about the world.
The Eddic poem Alvismal, a didactic poem which is designed to teach skalds the use of terminology in all worlds[20], may preserve evidence for the idea that in Germanic religion, there are a number of different principles of judgement - none of which are mutually exclusive. The poem demonstrates that the various objects of the worlds are known by different names from the perspective of different entities and hence in terms of mythological meaning and sacral significance the world is a multivalent object. In other words the various objects that we encounter in the world are not reducible to a single meaning. It demonstrates that the various material entities that we encounter in our world are understood in very different ways depending on whether one is a God, man, giant, dwarf, elf or ghost. This shows that the one universe that is inhabited by all of these entities can be conceptualised in different ways - that the world means different things to different entities.
Important for our discussion is that the poem constantly juxtaposes the terminology of the Gods to the terminology of human folk - showing a dual conceptualisation of a united cosmos - one material the other mythic or sacral. Consider the following example, when asked about the names of the Earth Alvís answers “‘Tis hight ‘Earth’ among men, among Aesir ‘Land’;” (strophe 10, Alvíssmál). This implies a different linguistic and cognitive relation to the one material entity - the Earth - it does not imply that these two terms relate to two different material entities. It is possible that these two ways of understanding the world might harmonise with the perspective of juridical and magical sovereignty. The perspective of ‘men’ might represent the concrete and material understanding which would be important to juridical rule, where as the perspective of the ‘Gods’ might represent the mythic or sacral conception of the cosmos. While this proposal is merely speculative what must be noted is that the poem Alvíssmál provides a literary precedent for the idea that our ancestors understood the nature of perspectivity - that they understood that there were different ways of relating to the same cosmos.
Bi-functionality and the Gods
Dumezil in his book “Mitra-Varuna” proposes that the bi-functionality of sovereignty is best expressed by two sovereign gods whose names, in Sanskrit texts, are usually presented as united - Mitra-Varuna (see table 5). This dual function grew out of the original otiose Indo-European sky-god *deiwo (celestial)[21], the only term for god common to Indo-European peoples[22]. Here we find support for the notion that duality in the Indo-European tradition is duality of aspect or perspective rather than duality of substance. In the first case the dual name Mitra-Varuna demonstrates a unity in duality or a duality in unity - the dual nature of the coupling is overcome by the symbiotic relationship of the two. In the second case we can see that this duality is itself derivative of a more fundamental unity and the coupling Mitra-Varuna emerges from an original united entity *deiwo. Hence these two sovereign deities do not represent two separate functions but two potential modalities of the same sovereign function. To understand this we will need to explore the nature of these two deities.
The deity Mitra (friend, god of the contract), like the king, is responsible for the bond of men in this world and provides and maintains the social contract - he keeps the material order whole through the juridical bonds that unite men, he operates under the principle of *Hailagaz. The deity Varuna on the other hand is related to the supernatural cosmic order (rta) and magic, he is a dark god who binds or fetters those who break the social contract. Varuna is a dark deity that uses his magical potency to bind and discipline individuals, he rules through magical might - fear is the force which binds folk to his laws. Dumezil uses the legend of the founding of Rome to further demonstrate this bi-functional sovereignty (see table 2). In this legend, the young and war-like Romulus who establishes the material Rome with military might, is followed by a wise old law maker, Numa, who establishes the law and religion of Rome and thus provides its spiritual birth[23]. Dumezil further compares these two gods with the Norse sovereign gods Odhinn (Varuna), and Tyr (Mitra)[24] (see table 5). This connection might seem to be a tenuous one, as Lincoln identifies Tyr with the *deiwo (celestial), which gives the Indo-European *dieu-s, Latin dius, Greek Zeus and the German *teiwaz[25]. Eliade would seem to agree that Tyr and *teiwaz represent the old Germanic celestial sovereign, who due to remoteness become otiose and many of his functions replaced by other closer sky powers[26].
Tyr and Mitra
While there may be good etymological reason to associate the god Tyr with the proto-Indo-European *deiwo the Tyr encountered in the Mythology does seem to have something in common with Dumezil’s Mitra. There is indeed a sovereign and a juridical air associated with the deity Tyr - for he is a God who uses contracts to preserve cosmic order, even if this means accepting a painful fate, the loss of his hand. Both Dumezil and J. De Vries conclude that Tyr is the chief judicial god for the Germanic people, and it was Tyr or *teiwaz who was behind the Romanised Mars Thincsus[27], a god who presided over legal assemblies. There is also, however, a warrior aspect to the God Tyr, which is alluded to in Gylfaginning where he is referred to as a God who is “the bravest and most valiant and he has great power over victory in battles.” [28]. Yet this reference does not seem to fit well with the fact that this god is never depicted in battle, rather we are reminded of the Iranian Mitra who was shown as master of verethranga (the spirit of victory)[29]. The tension between the juridical and the warrior functions of Tyr and the Iranian Mitra seem to present a challenge to the bi-polarity of sovereignty, demonstrating that the deities themselves are not reducible to a single function.
That the juridical god of the Germans might take on a martial air is not entirely surprising when we consider that warfare itself might be envisaged as a “decision obtained between two combatants and secured by precise rules of law”[30]. Warfare itself might be considered from a juridical perspective, a consideration that would seem to harmonise with our modern ‘adversarial’ legal system. If we move to a consideration of the judicial process of our ancestors and particularly the evidence from Iceland we see too that this legal process bears marks of violent confrontation. All the men involved were armed and, as the early Germans of Caesar, shake their weapons in approval of a decision. Most of the decisions reached at the Thing are reach by a verbal struggle of two groups, each trying to impose their will on the other[31]. Tyr, like Mitra, represents the rule of law, he grants victory to the just whether that be on the battlefield or in the legal assembly. Tyr is a ‘pillar’ of society and originator of the social contract that binds the community, he is invoked for ‘just victory’ both in war and in legal assemblies - he is the god of the aristocrat. The kind of sovereignty that is represented by this deity is the kind of aristocratic or noble rule that is fitting for a stable society free from the chaotic pressures of migration or war. Tyr rules that function of sovereignty that we have designated juridical, he is the god of the material order and the right of command. At the material and juridical level his binding social decree is that which brings unity to the social order - he is the God of the principle of *Hailagaz. Yet the same juridical decree which unifies the social order making it whole is also implicitly a decree which individuates or separates that social order from those which surround it - hence *Wihaz is concealed within *Hailagaz.
Odhinn and Varuna
In the Eddic texts and Snorri’s Prose Edda, Odhinn[32] is portrayed as the father of the cosmos and of the gods, he is a primal figure and a divine leader. Unlike Varuna, Odhinn is closely associated with war, a trait which Dumezil sees as particularly Germanic, and a trait which also marks the nature of the other sovereign god, Tyr. Yet whilst Tyr seems to be concerned with the juridical nature of the act of war and the distribution of justice on the battle field, Odhinn’s relation to the art of war is far less benevolent. Odhinn is no lover of just victory, and indeed to be chosen by Odhinn is to be slain in battle rather than to be victorious. Odhinn’s love of war stems from a love of the magical energy of the fray - the heightened senses, the rush of adrenaline and the divine furor. His love of war is also related to his own power, for the strife of warfare and the blood of the battlefield are vehicles for the empowerment of Valhalla, bringing a new influx of warriors into Odhinn’s hall. Dumezil and De Vreis both place Odhinn at the head of the Germanic pantheon, he is the most distant god, he cares little for human affairs and is more concerned with human death than life. He is the most transcendent god, a god who is beyond human understanding, a god to be respected yet feared.
The similarities between Odhinn and Varuna are striking. Odinn, the battle god, is a psycho-pomp, gathering those killed in battle to be by his side - he is venerated by warriors, yet he is a god who never really takes part in battle, just as Varuna is unconquerable, yet never fights. Despite the loss of one eye, Odhinn is still omniscient, Varuna is also omniscient and with a thousand yellow eyes (the stars of the night sky), sees and knows all. Odhinn is a necromancer who has the ability to talk to the dead especially the victims of the gallows. In Indic texts Varuna is associated with the night and the moon, he too is a dark god. Odhinn is the master of fetters, which he can cause to be placed on people especially in battle. Varuna is also associated with fetters, he binds those who break the contract of Mitra. Both Odhinn and Varuna are often portrayed as old men, yet it is said of both that they are remarkable looking[33]. Odhinn is the supreme mystic, relentlessly in search of ‘otherworldly’ knowledge. Like Varuna he is the initiated mage, he knows the secret of the runes. Most importantly Odhinn, like Varuna, is not a beneficent deity, many of his names reveal his sinister nature, he is a hooded or masked god who belongs to the world of magic, strife and death. Thus, Odhinn is not only a deity who is closely associated with the magical function of sovereignty, the ‘terrible king’, he would also seem to share many aspects of correspondence with Varuna, who represents the same function. Odhinn is not a ruler for times of peace and stability, the stability of settled life seems almost anathema to his nature. Odhinn is the God of the warrior and frontiersmen, the God of the Drighten who leads the war-band to fame and glory. He governs the principle of magical sovereignty and rules through magical might. Those who march under Odhinn’s banner are a select group who master their fear and tread baldly into dark and unknown territories - they march under the raven banner, they are *Wihaz, separate from the mass. Yet within this separateness there is the implicit unity of those who share common aims, those who follow Odhinn’s path, the path of magical self actualisation, are indeed a select, separate and special group, yet one which are united by their ties to the Odhinnic energy - hence *Wihaz conceals *Hailagaz.
Odhinn, Poetry and Odhinnic Cults
Odhinn is the god who is most closely associated with poetic inspiration. In Ynglinga Saga, Snorri states that his temple priests were called “songsmiths”[34]. Yet the evidence for an Odinnic cult, especially in Iceland, is very limited. Many believe that if such a cult existed it was restricted to the Scandinavian peninsula and Denmark[35]. In Iceland there is no place name evidence to support the worship of this god, and the only literary evidence for worship of him comes from the sagas, which are more concerned with artistry than with history. Despite this the poetic Edda and the Prose Edda, Icelandic sources, portray Odhinn as the most active and dominant god. Examining the social causes of the Icelandic migration provides some insight into why this might be.
It is claimed by many of the sagas that the Icelandic migrations were in effect the result of King Harald’s attempt to centralise Norway[36]. Many Norwegian aristocrats resented the autocratic, totalitarian and ultimately Odhininic tendencies of Harald and, in equally Odhinnic fashion, decided to preserve their independence and to migrate West to Iceland where they could continue their system of hereditary land tenure. Many of these aristocrats may have worshiped Odhinn who is, as we have seen, an aristocratic God. But King Harald himself seems to have been a worshiper of Odhinn and indeed seems to represent some of the potential excesses of those who worship Odhinn - the capacity to become a tyrant. It has been posited that the excesses of Harald made many Scandinavians suspicious of the Cult of Odhinn and that this suspicion had the effect of driving the Odhinnic cult underground, into concealment or occultation.
The fact that Icelandic literature related to Odhinn is so plentiful, would indicate that the poets of Iceland had a great deal of knowledge about this god and his role in the Norse pantheon. This alone is sufficient evidence that many of those who settled in Iceland where followers of this dark God. It must indeed be countenanced that this effusion of poetic sources on Odhinn in Iceland was a product of the fact that he was the God of poets and hence the God that poets would have felt closest to and known most about. But it seems that Iceland itself had more than its fair share of poets and Skalds, who were also predominantly members of the more noble classes. Surely the cult of Odhinn was something that these noblemen and poets took with them when they migrated to Iceland - it would be difficult to imagine that the cult was something that was left behind or rejected by those who settled Iceland. Hence the absence of cultic and place name evidence for the cult of Odhinn may indicate the worship of Odhinn was something which was restricted to the halls of the aristocrat and possibly subject to some secrecy.
Odhinn, Tyr, Mutilation and Ragnarok
Odhinn and Tyr are both depicted as mutilated gods, Odhinn has only one eye and Tyr only one hand and while this seems to be a mere coincidence their respective mutilations can in fact tell us something about the nature of the deity and the nature of the specific form of sovereignty that the deity presides over. The actual details of Odhinn’s mutilation are quite vague and no direct narrative is given, all that is known is that he pledged his eye at Mimirs well. This pledge is seen as an exchange for knowledge, Odhinn sacrifices physical vision for spiritual vision, this exchange forms part of Odhinn’s quest for knowledge. It is only through occult knowledge that Odhinn can hope to prevent Ragnarok. He is acting in full accord with his sovereign function[37], he is guarding his social unit from hostile forces and trying to preserve both the individuality (*Wihaz) and the unity or wholeness (*Hailagaz) of that group. The means that Odhinn deploys towards this end is the magical sacrifice of his eye in exchange for magical insight into the workings of the world - Odhinn uses magical technique to preserve the social order. Very important in this regard is the fact that through preserving the social order Odhinn also preserves his own right of sovereignty.
The encounter between Tyr and the wolf Fenrir and Tyr’s resulting injury is also interesting when considered in relation to the proposed function of the god as sovereign jurist. In the narrative as given by Snorri in Gylfaginning the god was not at all unaware of his potential fate. In fact he seizes the opportunity to bind the wolf by using the terms of the Fenrir’s own contract. Admittedly the terms are harsh for Tyr, but the result is that the wolf is bound and Asgard is safe. In fact the ruse is so successful that the wolf is not heard of again until Ragnarok. This is a story of a sovereign god who manipulates contracts so as to defeat an enemy and to the benefit of society[38]. Tyr uses the juridically binding contract as a vehicle to prevent the social unity (*Hailagaz) from being sundered and dissolved by the wolf Fenrir - in so doing he preserves the social unity as an individuated and separate unity (*Wihaz).
Both these deities make a self-sacrifice that is for the benefit of cosmic order - both of their sacrifices preserve the cosmic and divine unity of the worlds. But their respective sacrifices are very different in nature and tell us much about the deities. Fittingly the Odinnic sacrifice is not merely aimed towards preserving social unity it also represents a sacrifice for personal gain, the self-sacrifice of a mystic or shaman who seeks knowledge. So whilst Odhinn assists in maintaining cosmic unity (*Hailagaz) his sacrifice increases the degree to which his own being is separate (*Wihaz) as this act of sacrifice increases his personal power and adds to his personal capabilities. Tyr’s sacrifice is for the benefit of the community of gods, it is the jurist’s sacrifice, giving of the self to protect society. His sacrifice maintains the community in unity and separateness, it staves off dissolution, but this is only achieved through the loss of his personal powers. Tyr sacrifices his own individual powers (*Wihaz) through the loss of his hand, he also sacrifices his health and wholeness (*Hailagaz) through this sacrifice but maintains the cosmic and social unity. Odhinn Balances the his physical sacrifice, an act which decreases his health and wholeness but gains an increase in personal power - indeed Odhinn must sacrifice in order to help maintain the cosmic and social unity but with his sacrifice comes a boon. Odhinn, Drighten and mage, will accept personal pain and suffering so long as that suffering brings with it an increase of power.
Conclusion
To be concluded!!!
Appendix.
Table 1. [39]
Comparison of proscribed behaviour between Roman and Vedic Hindu priests.
*Despite their contextual remoteness both the Roman and Hindu priestly class show many aspects of correspondence.
Table 2. [40]
|
Antithetical roles of Luperci and Flamen Dialos in Roman society.
|
* The Luperci were the warrior band who accompanied Romulus. This table demonstrates the antithetical nature of sovereignty in Roman society.
Table 3. [41]
|
Antithetical roles of Gandharva and Brahman in Vedic society.
|
*The Gandharva were a mysterious band of warriors in Hindu mythology.
Table 4. [42]
|
Antithetical nature of Mitra and Varuna in Vedic society.
|
Table 5. [43]
|
Antithetical nature of Odinn and Tyr in Germanic society.
|
Table 6. [44]
|
Dumezil’s Three functions and Germanic religion.
|
Bibliography.
H. Aguilar. The Sacrifice in the Rgveda. Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan. Delhi. (1976).
Caesar. The Gallic Wars.(C. Hammond. Trans.) Oxford University Press. Oxford. (1996).
Clunies-Ross, M. Prolonged Echoes: Old Norse Myths in Medieval Northern Society. Odense University Press. Canberra. (1994).
Ursula Dronke. Myth and Fiction in early Norse Lands. Variorum. Vermont. (1996).
Georges Dumezil. Gods of the Ancient Northmen. University of California Press. Berkeley. (1973).
Georges Dumezil. Mitra- Varuna: An Essay on Two Indo European Representations of Sovereignty. Zone Books. (1988).
Mircea Eliade. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. New York. (1959).
Mircea Eliade. Patterns in Comparative Religion. University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln. (1996).
Michael J. Enwrite. Lady with a Mead Cup: Ritual Prophesy and Lordship in the European War-band from the La tene to the Viking age. Four Courts Press. Dublin. (1996).
Gavin Flood. An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. (1996).
Dominic Goodall. Hindu Scriptures. Orion Books Ltd. London. (1996).
Hollander, Lee. M. (ed. and trans.) The Poetic Edda. (Second Edition) The University of Texas Press, Austin. 1996.
Kristjansson, J. Foote, P (ed). Eddas and Sagas: Iceland’s Medieval literature. Hid islenska bokmenntafelag. Reykjavik. (1988).
Bruce Lincoln. Priest Warriors and Cattle: A Study in the Ecology of Religions. University of California Press. Berkeley. (1981).
Bruce Lincoln. Myth Cosmos and Society: Indo-European Themes of Creation and Destruction. Harvard University Press. London (1986).
Bruce Lincoln. Death, War and Sacrifice: Studies in ideology and practice. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. (1991).
J. P. Mallory. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language Archaeology and Myth. Thames and Hudson. London. (1989).
Britt- Mari Nasstrom. Freyja- the Great Goddess of the North. Lund Studies in History of Religions. University of Lund. Sweden (1995).
Meulengracht-Sorensen, P. The Unmanly man. Odense University Press. Canberra. (1992)
Palsson, H. Edwards, P. (eds.) Eyrbyggja Saga. Penguin Books. Ringwood Victoria. (1992.).
Palsson, H. Edwards, P. (eds.) Egil’s Saga. Penguin Books. Ringwood Victoria. (1976.).
Edgar C Polome. Language society and Paeleoculture: Essays by Edgar C. Polome. Stanford University Press. Stanford. (1982).
Edgar C. Polome. Essays on Germanic religion. Institute for the Study of Man. Washington. DC (1989).
Sturluson, S. Heimskringla: History of the Kings of Norway. (Hollander L. trans.) University of Texas Press, Austin. (1991).
Tacitus. The Agricola and The Germania. (H. Mattingly & S.A. Handford. Trans). Penguin Books (1970).
Talley, J.E. Runes mandrake and the Gallows. University of California. Los Angles. Germanic Religion. Course Book. Sydney University. (1997)
Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Myth and religion in the North: The Religion of Ancient Scandinavia. University of Oxford Press. London. (1964).
Turville-Petre, E.O.G. The Cult of Odinn in Iceland. Nine Norse Studies. Course Book. Germanic Religion. Sydney University. (1997). (No reference in course book)
Turville-Petre, E.O.G. Origins of Icelandic Literature. The Clarendon Press. Oxford. (1953).
[1] Caesar. The Gallic Wars.(C. Hammond. Trans.) Oxford University Press. Oxford. (1996).
[2] Tacitus. The Agricola and The Germania. (H. Mattingly & S.A. Handford. Trans). Penguin Books (1970).
[3] J. P. Mallory. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language Archaeology and Myth. Thames and Hudson. London. (1989). p 132.
[4] Lee. M. Hollander. The Poetic Edda. University of Texas Press. Austin. (1996)
[5] Ritual evidence for this structure can be found in the hierarchy of sacrifice. The nature of animals sacrificed would depend on the nature of that deity, hence the sovereign, Norse god, Odinn is the only god who receives human sacrifices. This hierarchy of sacrifice can also be seen in the way the sacrifice is divided according to Vedic ritual. This division basically reinforces the social structure, where the portion of the sacrifice received by the participant reflects their social status.
Bruce Lincoln. Death, War and Sacrifice: Studies in ideology and practice. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. (1991).
[6] Op cit. J.P.Mallory. (1989) p. 130
[7] Dumezil also allows for what he terms Glissement, a sliding between functions, this is especially evident between the first between the sovereigns and warriors.
[8] J. P. Mallory. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language Archaeology and Myth. Thames and Hudson. London. (1989). p 132
[9] Op cit. Lee. Hollander. (1996). p. 121. There is some debate as to exactly who this Rigr is, the prose introduction states that the poem is about Heimdallr, however due to the myths sociogonic nature it would be more suited to a sovereign god. Some say that due to the fact that Rigr is also portrayed as an instructor in the art of magic this figure is, necessarily, Odin. Despite this fact one could still mount a convincing argument against this view and in favour of Heimdallr, who is associated with magic ( Gylfaginning 27: A. Faulks. p 25.) Heimdallargaldr. Also both H. Pepping and B. Pering discuss Heimdallr’s association with the cosmic tree (U. Dronk. p. 666-678.), which links the worlds and is a symbol of life and a healthy society. In this sense Heimdallr could also be seen as a sovereign and a lot like Mitra. He also has the role of protector.
[10] Edgar C Polome. Language society and Paeleoculture: Essays by Edgar C. Polome. Stanford University Press. Stanford. (1982). p 297-8. Also Margaret Clunies-Ross notes that Germanic culture is marked by negative reciprocity to outsiders.(1994). p. 103-4.
[11] Bruce Lincoln. Priest Warriors and Cattle: A Study in the Ecology of Religions. University of California Press. Berkeley. (1981). p. 159-62.
[12] This may, however, be due to uniquely Indo-European or alliteratively uniquely Indo-Iranian social developments.
[13]Edgar C. Polome. Essays on Germanic religion. Institute for the Study of Man. Washington. DC (1989). p. 4-5
[14] E.O.G. Turvile Petre. The cult of Odin in Ice Land. In. Nine Norse Studies. Course reader. Myth and Religion of the Germanic People. (1997).
[15] This ideal of loyalty seemed to break down during the viking period, when once again loyalty to a warrior band is more important than traditional loyalties.
[16] Michael J. Enwrite. Lady with a Mead Cup: Ritual Prophesy and Lordship in the European War-band from the La tene to the Viking age. Four Courts Press. Dublin. (1996). p. 15-17.
[17] Op cit Edgar C. Polome. (1989). p. 57.
[18] Mircea Eliade. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. New York. (1959). p.116-120.
[19] Mircea Eliade. Patterns in Comparative Religion. University of Nebraska Press. Lincoln. (1996). p. 265.
[20] Op cit. Lee M Hollander. (1996) 110.
[21] Op cit. Edgar C Polome (1982). p. 286.
[22] Ibid. p285.
[23] This is further reflected in the relationship of the flamen dialis (priest of Jupiter) and rex sacrorum (holy king) who headed the early Roman hierarchy. Their roles and rules of conduct are in an antithetical relation, one marked by celeritas (swiftness, vitality) in the domain of the Iuniores (youths), the other by gravitas (heaviness, importance, dignity) in the domain of the Seniores (elders).
[24] It must be recognised that a number of etymologies are possible for these deities, therefore it would be hard to determine correspondences on the basis of name alone.
[25] The sky is one of the most important symbols of transcendence, it encapsulates the ‘otherness’ of the sacred as being beyond and above the self, “the sky shows itself as it really is: infinite, transcendent.”. This transcendence gives rise to the tendency for sky gods to become otiose and are often replaced by other divinities. A prime example of this is the way the Indian Dyaus was replaced by dual sovereigns Mitra-Varuna who together encapsulated “the two powerful and sublime masters of the sky.” (Eliade. 1996. p. 68.)
[26] Op cit. Mircea Eliade. (1996) p. 66-8.
[27] This is attested to be an Anglo-Frisian inscription found in Britain.
[28] Snorri Sturluson. Edda. (A. Faulkes. Trans.) Everyman. London. (1995).Gylfaginning (24). p25.
[29] Op cit. Bruce Lincoln. (1981). p. 98.
[30] Georges Dumezil. Gods of the Ancient Northmen. University of California Press. Berkeley. (1973). p. 44.
[31] Ibid.
[32] The name Odinn derives from the Old Norse Odr, it denotes drunkenness, excitation, poetic genius as well as a violent or rapid movement, particularly of wind or sea. (Dumezil. 1973. p. 36-37.).
[33] Op cit. E.O.G. Turville-Petre. The Cult of Odinn in Iceland. p. 13.
[34] Snorri Sturluson. Heimskringla: History of the Kings of Norway. (Lee. M. Hollander. Trans.) University of Texas Press. Austin. (1991). In relation to Snorri’s comments about the priests of Odinn being refereed to as “songsmiths”, we can possibly gain some insight into the nature of an Odinnic priesthood, by considering the Hindu tradition. The oldest form of the word Brahman, in the masculine, means poet, singer and creator of forms. The word stems from the Indo-Iranian *brazman (E. Polome. 1982). Also it is important to note that almost all Vedic Samhita literature is made up of hymns, songs, verses, incantations, but only limited prose. The mixture of verse and prose in the ‘black’ book of the Yajur Veda, as opposed to the ‘white’ book which is entirely verse. In this respect it must be noted that during the Vedic period poets where used to drive the warriors chariot, they held a special non combatant role. (G. Flood. 1996).
[35]Op cit E.O.G Turville- Petre. The Cult of Odinn In Iceland. p. 6-7.
[36] This would seem to be the case in both Eyrbgyggja Saga and Egil’s Saga.
[37] Georges Dumezil. Mitra- Varuna: An Essay on Two Indo European Representations of Sovereignty. Zone Books. (1988). p. 140.
[38] Ibid. p 142-3.
[39] Op cit. Georges Dumezil. (1996). Addapted from Ch 1, 2 & 3.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Ibid
[42] Op cit. Georges Dumezil. (1996). Adapted from Ch 3,4,5,6 & 7.
[43] Ibid.
[44] See bibliography.
