and wonderful kind. Among them are mal-runes (speech-runes). They have
their name from the fact that they are able to restore to a tongue mute
or silenced in death the power to _mæla_ (speak). Odin employs mal-runes
when he rists _i runom_, so that a corpse from the gallows comes and
_mælir_ with him (Havam., 157). According to Saxo (i. 38), Hadding places
a piece of wood risted with runes under the tongue of a dead man. The
latter then recovers consciousness and the power of speech, and sings a
terrible song. This is a reference to mal-runes. In Gudrunarkvida (i.)
it is mentioned how Gudrun, mute and almost lifeless (_hon gordiz at
deyja_), sat near Sigurd's dead body. One of the kinswomen present lifts
the napkin off from Sigurd's head. By the sight of the features of the
loved one Gudrun awakens again to life, bursts into tears, and is able
to speak. The evil Brynhild then curses the being (_vettr_) which "gave
mal-runes to Gudrun," that is to say, freed her tongue, until then sealed
as in death.
Those who are able to apply these mighty runes are very few. Odin boasts
that he knows them. Sigrdrifva, who also is skilled in them, is a dis,
not a daughter of man. The runes which Hadding applied were risted by
Hardgrep, a giantess who protected him. But within the court here in
question men come in great numbers (_thjódir_), and among them there
must be but a small number who have penetrated so deeply into the secret
knowledge of runes. For those who have done so it is of importance
and advantage. For by them they are able to defend themselves against
complaints, the purpose of which is "to requite with consuming woe the
harm they have done." In the court they are able to _mæla_ (speak) in
their own defence.
Thus it follows that those hosts of people who enter this thingstead
stand there with speechless tongues. They are and remain mute before
their judges unless they know the mal-runes which are able to loosen
the fetters of their tongues. Of the dead man's tongue it is said in
Solarljod (44) that it is _til trés metin ok kolnat alt fyr utan_.
The sorrow or harm one has caused is requited in this Thing by _heiptir_,
unless the accused is able--thanks to the mal-runes--to speak and give
reasons in his defence. In Havamál (151) the word _heiptir_ has the
meaning of something supernatural and magical. It has a similar meaning
here, as Vigfusson has already pointed out. The magical mal-runes,
wound, woven, and placed together, form as it were a garb of protection
around the defendant against the magic _heiptir_. In the Havamál strophe
mentioned the skald makes Odin paraphrase, or at least partly explain,
the word _heiptir_ with _mein_, which "eat" their victims. It is in
the nature of the myth to regard such forces as personal beings. We
have already seen the spirits of disease appear in this manner (see No.
60). The _heiptir_ were also personified. They were the Erinnyes of the
Teutonic mythology, armed with scourges of thorns (see below).
He who at the Thing particularly dispenses the law of requital is called
_magni_. The word has a double meaning, which appears in the verb
_magna_, which means both to make strong and to operate with supernatural
means.
From all this it must be sufficiently plain that the Thing here referred
to is not the Althing in Iceland or the Gulathing in Norway, or any other
Thing held on the surface of the earth. The thingstead here discussed
must be situated in one of the mythical realms, between which the earth
was established. And it must be superhuman beings of higher or lower rank
who there occupy the judgment-seats and requite the sins of men with
_heiptir_. But in Asgard men do not enter with their tongues sealed in
death. For the einherjes who are invited to the joys of Valhal there are
no _heiptir_ prepared. Inasmuch as the mythology gives us information
about only two thingsteads where superhuman beings deliberate and
judge--namely, the Thing in Asgard and the Thing near Urd's fountain--and
inasmuch as it is, in fact, only in the latter that the gods act as
judges, we are driven by all the evidences to the conclusion that
Sigrdrifumal has described to us that very thingstead at which Hvedrung's
kinswoman summoned King Halfdan to appear after death.
Sigrdrifumal, using the expression _á thvi_, sharply distinguished this
thingstead or court from all others. The poem declares that it means
_that_ Thing where hosts of people go into _full_ judgments. "Full"
are those judgments against which no formal or real protests can be
made--decisions which are irrevocably valid. The only kind of judgments
of which the mythology speaks in this manner, that is, characterises as
judgments that "never die," are those "over each one dead."
This brings us to the well-known and frequently-quoted strophes in
Havamál:
Str. 76.
Deyr fæ,
deyja frændr,
deyr sialfr it sama;
enn orztirr
deyr aldregi
hveim er ser godan getr.
Str. 77.
Deyr fæ,
deyja frændr,
deyr sialfr it sama;
ec veit einn
at aldri deyr:
domr um daudan hvern.
(76) "Your cattle shall die; your kindred shall die; you yourself shall
die; but the fair fame of him who has earned it never dies."
(77) "Your cattle shall die; your kindred shall die; you yourself shall
die; one thing I know which never dies: the judgment on each one dead."
Hitherto these passages have been interpreted as if Odin or Havamál's
skald meant to say--What you have of earthly possessions is perishable;
your kindred and yourself shall die. But I know one thing that never
dies: the reputation you acquired among men, the posthumous fame
pronounced on your character and on your deeds: that reputation is
immortal, that fame is imperishable.
But can this have been the meaning intended to be conveyed by the skald?
And could these strophes, which, as it seems, were widely known in the
heathendom of the North, have been thus understood by their hearers and
readers? Did not Havamál's author, and the many who listened to and
treasured in their memories these words of his, know as well as all other
persons who have some age and experience, that in the great majority of
cases the fame acquired by a person scarcely survives a generation, and
passes away together with the very memory of the deceased?
Could it have escaped the attention of the Havamál skald and his hearers
that the number of mortals is so large and increases so immensely with
the lapse of centuries that the capacity of the survivors to remember
them is utterly insufficient?
Was it not a well-established fact, especially among the Germans, before
they got a written literature, that the skaldic art waged, so to speak,
a desperate conflict with the power of oblivion, in order to rescue at
least the names of the most distinguished heroes and kings, but that
nevertheless thousands of chiefs and warriors were after the lapse of a
few generations entirely forgotten?
Did not Havamál's author know that millions of men have, in the course of
thousands of years, left this world without leaving so deep footprints
in the sands of time that they could last even through one generation?
Every person of some age and experience has known this, and Havamál's
author too. The lofty strains above quoted do not seem to be written by a
person wholly destitute of worldly experience.
The assumption that Havamál with that judgment on each one dead, which is
said to be imperishable, had reference to the opinion of the survivors in
regard to the deceased attains its climax of absurdity when we consider
that the poem expressly states that it means the judgment on _every_
dead person--"_domr um daudan hvern_." In the cottage lying far, far
in the deep forest dies a child, hardly known by others than by its
parents, who, too, are soon to be harvested by death. But the judgment
of the survivors in regard to this child's character and deeds is to be
imperishable, and the good fame it acquired during its brief life is to
live for ever on the lips of posterity! Perhaps it is the sense of the
absurdity to which the current assumption leads on this point that has
induced some of the translators to conceal the word _hvern_ (every) and
led them to translate the words _domr um daudan hvern_ in an arbitrary
manner with "judgment on the dead man."
If we now add that the judgment of posterity on one deceased,
particularly if he was a person of great influence, very seldom is so
unanimous, reliable, well-considered, and free from prejudice that in
these respects it ought to be entitled to permanent validity, then we
find that the words of the Havamál strophes attributed to Odin's lips,
when interpreted as hitherto, are not words of wisdom, but the most
stupid twaddle ever heard declaimed in a solemn manner.
There are two reasons for the misunderstanding--the one is formal, and
is found in the word _ords-tirr_ (str. 76); the other reason is that
Gylfaginning, which too long has had the reputation of being a reliable
and exhaustive codification of the scattered statements of the mythic
sources, has nothing to say about a court for the dead. It knows that,
according to the doctrine of the heathen fathers, good people come to
regions of bliss, the wicked to Nifelhel; but who he or they were who
determined how far a dead person was worthy of the one fate or the other,
on this point Gylfaginning has not a word to say. From the silence of
this authority, the conclusion has been drawn that a court summoning
the dead within its forum was not to be found in Teutonic mythology,
although other Aryan and non-Aryan mythologies have presented such a
judgment-seat, and that the Teutonic fancy, though always much occupied
with the affairs of the lower world and with the conditions of the dead
in the various realms of death, never felt the necessity of conceiving
for itself clear and concrete ideas of how and through whom the deceased
were determined for bliss or misery. The ecclesiastical conception, which
postpones the judgment to the last day of time and permits the souls
of the dead to be transferred, without any special act of judgment, to
heaven, to purgatory, or to hell, has to some extent contributed to
making us familiar with this idea which was foreign to the heathens. From
this it followed that scholars have been blind to the passages in our
mythical records which speak of a court in the lower world, and they
have either read them without sufficient attention (as, for instance,
the above-quoted statements of Ynglingatal, which it is impossible to
harmonise with the current conception), or interpreted them in an utterly
absurd manner (which is the case with Sigrdrifumal, str. 12), or they
have interpolated assumptions, which, on a closer inspection, are reduced
to nonsense (as is the case with the Havamál strophes), or given them
a possible, but improbable, interpretation (thus Sonatorrek, 19). The
compound _ordstirr_ is composed of _ord_, _gen_, _ords_, and _tirr_. The
composition is of so loose a character that the two parts are not blended
into a _new_ word. The sign of the gen. _-s_ is retained, and shows that
_ordstirr_, like _lofstirr_, is not in its sense and in its origin a
compound, but is written as one word, probably on account of the laws of
accentuation. The more original meaning of _ordstirr_ is, therefore, to
be found in the sense of _ords tirr_.
_Tirr_ means reputation in a good sense, but still not in a sense so
decidedly good but that a qualifying word, which makes the good meaning
absolute, is sometimes added. Thus in _lofs-tirr_, laudatory reputation;
_gódr tirr_, good reputation. In the Havamál strophe 76, above-quoted,
the possibility of an _ords tirr_ which is not good is presupposed. See
the last line of the strophe.
So far as the meaning of _ord_ is concerned, we must leave its relatively
more modern and grammatical sense (word) entirely out of the question.
Its older signification is an utterance (one which may consist of many
"words" in a grammatical sense), a command, a result, a judgment; and
these older significations have long had a conscious existence in the
language. Compare Fornmanna, ii. 237: "The first word: All shall be
Christians; the second word: All heathen temples and idols shall be
unholy," &c.
In Völuspa (str. 27) _ord_ is employed in the sense of an established law
or judgment among the divine powers, _a gengoz eidar, ord oc særi_, where
the treaties between the Asas and gods, solemnised by oaths, were broken.
When _ord_ occurs in purely mythical sources, it is most frequently
connected with judgments pronounced in the lower world, and sent from
Urd's fountain to their destination. _Urdar ord_ is Urd's judgment, which
must come to pass (Fjölsvinnsm., str. 48), no matter whether it concerns
life or death. _Feigdar ord_, a judgment determining death, comes to
Fjolner, and is fulfilled "where Frode dwelt" (Yng.-tal, Heimskr., 14).
_Dauda ord_, the judgment of death, awaited Dag the Wise, when he came to
Vorva (Yng.-tal, Heimskr., 21). To a subterranean judgment refers also
the expression _bana-ord_, which frequently occurs.
Vigfusson (Dict., 466) points out the possibility of an etymological
connection between _ord_ and _Urdr_. He compares _word_ (_ord_) and
_wurdr_ (_urdr_), _word_ and _weird_ (fate, goddess of fate). Doubtless
there was, in the most ancient time, a mythical idea-association between
them.
These circumstances are to be remembered in connection with the
interpretation of _ordstirr_, _ords-tirr_ in Havamál, 76. The real
meaning of the phrase to be; reputation based on a decision, on an
utterance of authority.
When _ordstirr_ had blended into a compound word, there arose by the side
of its literal meaning another, in which the accent fell so heavily on
_tirr_ that _ord_ is superfluous and gives no additional meaning of a
judgment on which this _tirr_ is based. Already in Hofudlausn (str. 26)
_ordstirr_ is used as a compound, meaning simply honourable reputation,
honour. There is mention of a victory which Erik Blood-axe won, and it is
said that he thereby gained _ordstirr_ (renown).
In interpreting Havamál (76) it would therefore seem that we must choose
between the proper and figurative sense of _ordstirr_. The age of the
Havamál strophe is not known. If it was from it Eyvind Skaldaspiller drew
his _deyr fé, deyja frændr_, which he incorporated in his drapa on Hakon
the Good, who died in 960, then the Havamál strophe could not be composed
later than the middle of the tenth century. Hofudlausn was composed by
Egil Skallagrimson in the year 936 or thereabout. From a chronological
point of view there is therefore nothing to hinder our applying the less
strict sense, "honourable reputation, honour," to the passage in question.
But there are other hindrances. If the Havamál skald with _ords-tirr_
meant "honourable reputation, honour," he could not, as he has done,
have added the condition which he makes in the last line of the strophe:
_hveim er ser godan getr_, for the idea "good" would then already be
contained in ordstirr. If in spite of this we would take the less strict
sense, we must subtract from _ordstirr_ the meaning of _honourable_
reputation, _honour_, and conceive the expression to mean simply
reputation in general, a meaning which the word never had.
We are therefore forced to the conclusion that the meaning of
court-decision, judgment, which _ord_ has not only in Ynglingatal and
Fjölsvinnsmal, but also in linguistic usage, was clear to the author of
the Havamál strophe, and that he applied _ords tirr_ in its original
sense and was speaking of imperishable judgments.
It should also have been regarded as a matter of course that the judgment
which, according to the Havamál strophe (77), is passed on everyone dead,
and which itself never dies, must have been prepared by a court whose
decision could not be questioned or set aside, and that the judgment
must have been one whose influence is eternal, for the infinity of the
judgment itself can only depend on the infinity of its operation. That
the more or less vague opinions sooner or later committed to oblivion
in regard to a deceased person should be supposed to contain such a
judgment, and to have been meant by the immortal doom over the dead, I
venture to include among the most extraordinary interpretations ever
produced.
Both the strophes are, as is evident from the first glance, most
intimately connected with each other. Both begin: _deyr fæ, deyja
frændr_. _Ord_ in the one strophe corresponds to _domr_ in the other.
The latter strophe declares that the judgment on _every_ dead person
is imperishable, and thus completes the more limited statement of the
foregoing strophe, that the judgment which gives a good renown is
everlasting. The former strophe speaks of only _one_ category of men who
have been subjected to an ever-valid judgment, namely of that category
to whose honour the eternal judgment is pronounced. The second strophe
speaks of both the categories, and assures us that the judgment on the
one as on the other category is everlasting.
The strophes are by the skald attributed to Odin's lips. Odin pronounces
judgment every day near Urd's fountain at the court to which King Halfdan
was summoned, and where hosts of people with fettered tongues await their
final destiny (see above.) The assurances in regard to the validity of
the judgment on everyone dead are thus given by a being who really may be
said to know what he talks about (_ec veit_, &c.), namely, by the judge
himself.
In the poem Sonatorrek the old Egil Skallagrimson laments the loss of
sons and kindred, and his thoughts are occupied with the fate of his
children after death. When he speaks of his son Gunnar, who in his tender
years was snatched away by a sickness, he says (str. 19):
Son minn
sóttar brimi
heiptuligr
ór heimi nam,
thann ec veit
at varnadi
vamma varr
vid námæli.
"A fatal fire of disease (fever?) snatched from this world a son of mine,
of whom I know that he, careful as he was in regard to sinful deeds, took
care of himself for _námæli_."
To understand this strophe correctly, we must know that the skald in the
preceding 17th, as in the succeeding 20th, strophe, speaks of Gunnar's
fate in the lower world.
The word _námæli_ occurs nowhere else, and its meaning is not known. It
is of importance to our subject to find it out.
In those compounds of which the first part is _ná-_, _ná_ may be the
adverbial prefix, which means _near by_, _by the side of_, or it may be
the substantive _nár_, which means a corpse, dead body, and in a mythical
sense one damned, one who dies for the second time and comes to Nifelhel
(see No. 60). The question is now, to begin with, whether it is the
adverbial prefix or the substantive _ná-_ which we have in _námæli_.
Compounds which have the adverbial _ná_ as the first part of the word are
very common. In all of them the prefix _ná-_ implies nearness in space or
in kinship, or it has the signification of some thing correct or exact.
(1) In regard to space: _nábúd_, _nábúi_, _nábýli_, _nágranna_,
_nágranni_, _nágrennd_, _nágrenni_, _nákommin_, _nákvæma_, _nákvæmd_,
_nákvæmr_, _náleid_, _nálægd_, _nálægjast_, _nálægr_, _námunda_,
_násessi_, _náseta_, _násettr_, _násæti_, _návera_, _náverukona_,
_náverandi_, _návist_, _návistarkona_, _návistarmadr_, _návistarvitni_.
(2) In regard to friendship: _náborinn_, _náfrændi_, _náfrændkona_,
_námagr_, _náskyldr_, _nástædr_, _náongr_.
(3) In regard to correctness, exactness: _nákvæmi_, _nákvæmliga_,
_nákvæmr_.
The idea of correctness comes from the combination of _ná-_ and _kvæmi_,
_kvæmliga_, _kvæmr_. The exact meaning is--_that which comes near to_,
and which in that sense is precise, exact, to the point.
These three cases exhaust the meanings of the adverbial prefix _ná_-. I
should consider it perilous, and as the abandoning of solid ground under
the feet, if we, without evidence from the language tried, as has been
done, to give it another hitherto unknown signification.
But none of these meanings can be applied to _námæli_. In analogy with
the words under (1) it can indeed mean "An oration held near by;" but
this signification produces no sense in the above passage, the only place
where it is found.
In another group of words the prefix _ná_-is the noun _nár_. Here belong
_nábjargir_, _nábleikr_, _nágrindr_, _nágöll_, _náreid_, _nástrandir_,
and other words.
_Mæli_ means a declamation, an oration, an utterance, a reading, or
the proclamation of a law. _Mæla_, _mælandi_, _formælandi_, _formæli_,
_nymæli_, are used in legal language. _Formælandi_ is a defendant in
court. _Formæli_ is his speech or plea. _Nymæli_ is a law read or
published for the first time.
_Mæli_ can take either a substantive or adjective as prefix. Examples:
_Gudmæli_, _fullmæli_. _Ná_ from _nár_ can be used as a prefix both to a
noun and to an adjective. Examples: _nágrindr_, _nábleikr_.
_Námæli_ should accordingly be an oration, a declaration, a proclamation,
in regard to _nár_. From the context we find that _námæli_ is something
dangerous, something to look out for. Gunnar is dead and is gone to the
lower world, which contains not only happiness but also terrors; but his
aged father, who in another strophe of the poem gives to understand that
he had adhered faithfully to the religious doctrines of his fathers, is
convinced that his son has avoided the dangers implied in _námæli_, as
he had no sinful deed to blame himself for. In the following strophe
(20) he expressed his confidence that the deceased had been adopted by
_Gauta spjalli_, a friend of Odin in the lower world, and had landed in
the realm of happiness. (In regard to _Gauta spjalli_ see further on. The
expression is applicable both to Mimer and Honer).
_Námæli_ must, therefore, mean a declaration (1) that is dangerous; (2)
which does not affect a person who has lived a blameless life; (3) which
refers to the dead and affects those who have not been _vamma varir_, on
the look-out against blameworthy and criminal deeds.
The passage furnishes additional evidence that the dead in the lower
world make their appearance in order to be judged, and it enriches
our knowledge of the mythological eschatology with a technical term
(_námæli_) for that judgment which sends sinners to travel through the
Na-gates to Nifelhel. The opposite of _námæli_ is _ords tirr_, that
judgment which gives the dead fair renown, and both kinds of judgments
are embraced in the phrase _domr um daudan_. _Námæli_ is a proclamation
for _náir_, just as _nágrindr_ are gates and _nástrandir_ are strands for
_náir_.
71.
THE DOOM OF THE DEAD (_continued_). THE LOOKS OF THE
THINGSTEAD. THE DUTY OF TAKING CARE OF THE ASHES OF THE DEAD.
THE HAMINGJE AT THE JUDGMENT. SINS OF WEAKNESS. SINS UNTO DEATH.
Those hosts which are conducted by their psychopomps to the Thing near
Urd's fountain proceed noiselessly. It is a silent journey. The bridge
over _Gjöll_ scarcely resounds under the feet of the death-horses and of
the dead (Gylfaginning). The tongues of the shades are sealed (see No.
70).
This thingstead has, like all others, had its judgment-seats. Here are
seats (in Völuspa called _rökstólar_) for the holy powers acting as
judges. There is also a rostrum (_á thularstóli at Urdar brunni_--Havam.,
111) and benches or chairs for the dead (compare the phrase, _falla
á Helpalla_--Fornald., i. 397, and the sitting of the dead one, _á
nornastóli_--Solarlj., 51). Silent they must receive their doom unless
they possess mal-runes (see No. 70).
The dead should come well clad and ornamented. Warriors bring their
weapons of attack and defence. The women and children bring ornaments
that they were fond of in life. Hades-pictures of those things which
kinsmen and friends placed in the grave-mounds accompany the dead
(Hakonarm., 17; Gylfaginning, 52) as evidence to the judge that they
enjoyed the devotion and respect of their survivors. The appearance
presented by the shades assembled in the Thing indicates to what extent
the survivors heed the law, which commands respect for the dead and care
for the ashes of the departed.