What is a Rune
Page 27
[←10]
My capitalization of the B in “Being” follows the practice of English translations of Heidegger in distinguishing “Being” from “a being” (or “beings”). Beings (otherwise known as “things”) are called beings because they have a mysterious something that we call “Being.” They are; they have Being. But Being is not a being; it is no thing. So what exactly is Being (or, we could say, Being-as-such)? This is one of the major questions of Heidegger’s philosophy. My own thought is heavily influenced by Heidegger, but I do not follow him in all things. I do, however, believe that his insistence on “the ontological difference”—the difference between Being and beings—is absolutely correct and necessary. See chapter 8, “Heidegger: An Introduction for Anti-Modernists.”
[←11]
Heidegger writes: “The divinities are the beckoning messengers of the godhead. Out of the holy sway of the godhead, the god appears in his presence or withdraws into his concealment. When we speak of the divinities, we are already thinking of the other three along with them, but we give no thought to the simple oneness of the four” (PLT, 150).
[←12]
In Summoning the Gods.
[←13]
It is poetry and myth that are primary here, as I will argue in a moment, though philosophy and science also create a world. But ultimately philosophy and science become mythic, erecting new forms in which Being reveals itself to us. Very often in the modern period these forms conceal more than they reveal.
[←14]
I realize most readers will expect me to use an example of skaldic poetry. I chose a haiku just because it is an extremely simple form, and I wish to make my point in the simplest possible way.
[←15]
Italics in original. In Rilke’s original text the first sentence in the quote is in his native German. The second sentence is in French.
[←16]
However, the horizontal plane may actually be tilted—with the world in the north below the one in the south. This is because—as Edred Thorsson points out—the Indo-European root from which “north” is derived (*ner-) meant “under.” See Edred Thorsson, Runelore: A Handbook of Esoteric Runology (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 1987), 155.
[←17]
Because of the ginn- prefix, which is also found in terms denoting sacrality. See Jan De Vries, Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 167.
[←18]
See Snorri Sturluson, The Prose Edda, trans. Jean I. Young (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 33.
[←19]
Snorri’s account seems to suggest that Audumla appears after Ymir. However, it must be acknowledged that an argument can be made—based upon Snorri’s text—that the two appear together.
[←20]
Prose Edda, 34.
[←21]
A common mythological motif is the division of time into two periods: that of the Titans (as in Greek mythology), who pre-exist the gods—and that of the gods, who usurp the titans. The first period is a period of chaos—of disorder in the sense both of randomness and in the sense of a reign of monstrosities. The gods negate this and bring about an order of their own design, in which a regularity of cycles and patterns prevails. See my essay “The Missing Man in Norse Cosmogony” in Summoning the Gods.
[←22]
Prose Edda, 41.
[←23]
Edred Thorsson argues in Runelore (188) that the etins are not necessarily giants. Rudolf Simek disagrees, stating that ON jötunn is “the generic term for giants.” See Rudolf Simek, Dictionary of Northern Mythology, trans. Angela Hall (Rochester, N.Y.: D. S. Brewer), 107.
[←24]
Prose Edda, 42–43.
[←25]
In Snorri’s account, Hel is a goddess, the daughter of Loki. Snorri tells us that Odin “threw Hel into Niflheim and gave her authority over nine worlds, on the condition that she shared all her provisions with those who were sent to her, namely men who die from disease or old age” (Poetic Edda, 56). So here Hel is not a place but a goddess, and the abode of those who die straw deaths is in Niflheim. However, this is thought to represent a late personification of Hel, which is clearly depicted as a “world” in other, earlier sources. That Hel in Snorri has “authority over nine worlds” can simply mean that she, as personification of death, has power over the inhabitants of the nine worlds (save those warriors who die in battle).
[←26]
Prose Edda, 46.
[←27]
Prose Edda, 43.
[←28]
Prose Edda, 43.
[←29]
Prose Edda, 47.
[←30]
Gríminsmál 31. See The Poetic Edda, trans. Carolyne Larrington (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 56.
[←31]
Prose Edda, 42.
[←32]
Prose Edda, 42.
[←33]
Völuspá, 2; Poetic Edda, 4.
[←34]
On the vertical and horizontal planes, and the vertical as the Irminsul see Runelore, 154–55.
[←35]
My interpretation of the Germanic cosmology builds upon Thorsson’s commentaries in Runelore and elsewhere, but I do not follow him in every respect.
[←36]
Calvert Watkins, The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, 2nd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000), 38.
[←37]
In The Blank Slate, psychologist Steven Pinker gives us some reason to think that the “Aristotelian” way of perceiving things may be “hardwired” in us. See Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Penguin Books, 2002), 220–21
[←38]
Thorsson, Runelore, 188.
[←39]
Tolkien’s treatment of the elves in The Lord of the Rings clearly reflects the same idea.
[←40]
See, for example, Aristotle’s discussion in De Anima of why nous or intellect is distinct from the body.
[←41]
Simek, 68–69. Watkins, 20.
[←42]
“Will” has both negative and positive aspects. For the negative aspects, see my essay “Knowing the Gods” in Summoning the Gods.
[←43]
See Thorsson, Runelore, 155: “The vertical column or axis defines the psychocosmic bisection between the conscious and unconscious, between light and dark, just as the horizontal plane defines the bisection between the expansive, electric energies of fire and the constrictive, magnetic energies of ice.”
[←44]
In Runelore, Thorsson identifies the “fire” and “ice” of Muspelheim and Niflheim with “total expansion” and “total contraction” (see Runelore, 150, 156). Thorsson also explores the alchemical aspects of the Germanic cosmology and cosmogony in an essay, “The Alchemy of Yggdrasil” collected in Blue Runa (Smithville, Texas: Runa-Raven Press, 2001).
[←45]
See Thorsson, Runelore, 157: “The eight realms outside Midgardhr each oppose and balance a counter realm: Ásgardhr balances Hel, Ljóssalfheimr balances Svartálfheimr, Muspellsheimr (fire) counters Niflheimr (ice), and Vanaheimr counters Jötunheimr. The ‘material world,’ Midgardhr, stands in the midst of all—the realm of the all-potential.”
[←46]
Really, I have already offered an answer to it in my essay “Summoning the Gods,” where I discussed the phenomenon of personifying the gods.
[←47]
Hence the ancient Platonic conflict between the poets and the philosophers.
[←48]
And where did these insights come from? From something that clearly transcends the human.
[←49]
It is fundamentally problematic to speak of a single “Germanic cosmology.” Instead, what has come down to us through Snorri is an attempt to synthesize a number of cosmologies in which the details are different. The inconsistencies within Snorri reflect this (as do the inconsistencies, for example, between Sno
rri and the Poetic Edda).
[←50]
There is a second “Earth” (Jördin again) mentioned just after the account of Thor’s parentage. However, she is the daughter of Night and a man named Annar. See Prose Edda, 37.
[←51]
The translation is by Carolyne Larrington, The Poetic Edda (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 6. I have amended the translation in the case of the word lá, which, following Edgar Polomé, I’ve rendered “hair.” See further on for an explanation of this.
[←52]
Hræring is often translated “movement” but Edgar Polomé notes that “hræring does not necessarily apply to a physical movement: in the compound hugarhræring, as well as in numerous contexts and phrases like geðs hræringar, it indicates emotion and may, therefore, better than vit, reflect the connotations of the Eddic noun óðr, which Leiv Heggstad glosses more adequately hugrørsla (movements of the mind).” See Edgar C. Polomé, “Some Thoughts on Voluspá Stanzas 17– 18,” in Essays on Germanic Religion (Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 1989), 32.
[←53]
It should be noted that the Poetic Edda does not state that Hœnir and Lodur are Odin’s brothers. The three are referred to merely as “three great Æsir.” But because they perform the same (or virtually the same) functions as the brothers Vili and Ve in the Prose Edda, it seems reasonable to assume that they might be Odin’s brothers differently named. (The fact that a couple of sources give as a kenning for Odin “Lodur’s friend”—Lóðurs vinr—means nothing, since a brother can certainly be a friend.) Further, the Prose Edda does not actually name the brothers in connection with the gifts they confer: the text merely says “the first gave,” “the second gave,” “the third gave” But earlier in the text the three sons of Borr and Bestla are described as “the first, Odin; the second, Vili; the third, Ve.”
[←54]
On this point see Collin Cleary, Summoning the Gods, 21–22 (footnote 1).
[←55]
See my essay “What God Did Odin Worship?” in Summoning the Gods.
[←56]
Kris Kershaw, The One-Eyed God: Odin and the (Indo-) Germanic Männerbünde (Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, 2000).
[←57]
Those familiar with Heidegger’s work will immediately think of his use of Ekstase (in German), and what translators refer to as the “ecstastic temporality” of Dasein. I should note, therefore, that I am not using ekstasis to mean what Heidegger means by Ekstase. But I am employing the term to describe something that he would certainly recognize.
[←58]
Larrington, Poetic Edda, 12.
[←59]
Polomé, 39– 40.
[←60]
F. Detter and R. Heinzel, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Literatur, XVIII (1894), 560.
[←61]
Rudolf Simek, Dictionary of Northern Mythology, trans. Angela Hall (Rochester, N.Y.: D. S. Brewer, 2000), 190.
[←62]
A conception of analytical thought is probably implicit in the gifts of Ve. Perhaps it is embedded in the meaning of mál, “speech,” just as Greek logos could mean both “speech” and “reason.” (I hasten to admit this is a highly speculative suggestion.)
[←63]
Kekulé later famously said of his visions: “Let us learn to dream, gentlemen, then perhaps we will find the truth—but let us beware of publishing our dreams before they have been tested by the waking understanding.”
[←64]
See Edred Thorsson, Green Runa (Smithville, Texas: Runa-Raven Press, 1996), 42. I have altered the list slightly.
[←65]
Profanum designated the ordinary ground outside the enclosure of a sacred place. Lawrence J. Hatab writes, “To the mythical mind . . . the profane is that which is meaningless, the sacred is that which is meaningful.” See Lawrence J. Hatab, Myth and Philosophy: A Contest of Truths (LaSalle, Ill.: Open Court, 1990), 23.
[←66]
See “What is a Rune?” in this volume.
[←67]
See Heidegger’s essay “The Letter on Humanism” in Basic Writings, ed. and trans. David Farrell Krell (New York: Harper and Row, 1977), 193, 213.
[←68]
Heidegger, Basic Writings, 210.
[←69]
It should be noted that “hallowing” actually derives from another Germanic word group having to do with the sacred or the holy. “Hallow” derives from Germanic *hailagōn. See Thorsson, Green Runa, 43, and Cleary, Summoning the Gods, 48–49.
[←70]
The essay is included in Summoning the Gods.
[←71]
This lends support to the idea that Vili and Ve are hypostases of Odin; i.e., that the three are aspects of one. Edred Thorsson writes: “The essential Ódhinic structure is threefold. The oldest name of this tripartite entity is Wōdhanaz-Wiljōn-Wīhaz (ON Ódhinn-Vili-Ve). The meanings of these names show us how the tripartite entity of consciousness works. Wōdh-an-az (master of inspiration [wōdh-]) is the expansive all-encompassing ecstatic and transformative force at the root of consciousness and enthusiasm. Wiljōn (the will) is the conscious application of a desired plan consciously arrived at, and Wīhaz (the sacred) is the spirit of separation in an independent sacred ‘space.’ This separation between consciousness and ‘nature’ (that outside consciousness) must be effected before any transformations or ‘work’ can take place. All three are necessary; all three should work together as a whole.” See Edred Thorsson, Runelore (York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser, 1987), 179. As should be clear, my discussion in this section builds upon Thorsson’s.
[←72]
In a famous essay, C. G. Jung writes that “the god of the Germans is Wotan and not the Christian God.” Wotan (Odin), Jung says, is “a fundamental attribute of the German people” and “a Germanic datum of first importance, the truest expression and unsurpassed personification of a fundamental quality that is particularly characteristic of the Germans.” Although a good deal of Jung’s essay—written in 1936—deals with modern Germany, we must understand him in these passages to be speaking broadly of the Germanic peoples. See C. G. Jung, “Wotan” in Civilization in Transition, The Collected Works of C. G. Jung vol. 10, trans. Gerhard Adler and R. F. C. Hull (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), 191, 186.
[←73]
I wish to thank Michael Moynihan for some corrections to an earlier draft of this essay.
[←74]
It seems likely to me that some art was probably also done on rock walls exposed to the elements. The cave art, as I will discuss below, is the work of accomplished artists. They must have practiced on something, before creating the magnificent art that we find in the caves. We do not find prehistoric art outside caves (no rough drafts or preliminary sketches) probably for the simple reason that thousands of years of exposure to the elements has washed it all away.
[←75]
One is tempted to conjecture that some form of “classicism,” now lost to us, may have preceded this. And that what we see in the caves, as in modern art, is a rebellion against it.
[←76]
It is a dark triangle, but its bottom point is marked by a short, thin vertical notch. This device appears again and again in Paleolithic cave art to suggest a vulva.
[←77]
If one spends just a bit of time studying the different varieties of rock art, including that of the Upper Paleolithic, one quickly learns to identify it purely by its style: “That’s European,” “That’s African,” “That’s Amerindian,” etc.
[←78]
Quoted in David Lewis-Williams, The Mind in the Cave (London: Thames and Hudson, 2002), 96. The anthropologists are Sally McBrearty and Alison Brooks.
[←79]
Lewis-Williams, 96.
[←80]
Lewis-Williams, 99.
[←81]
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0321/p13s01-stss.html
[←82]
Ibid.
/>
[←83]
For this statistic see Nicholas Wade, Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (New York: Penguin, 2006), 108. Wade’s book is an attempt to reconstruct prehistory through genetics.
[←84]
Lewis-Williams, 80.
[←85]
Paul R. Ehrlich, Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect (New York: Penguin, 2001), 159.
[←86]
The reason I say “possibly” is that I believe social hierarchy in some form has probably always existed, and that genuinely “egalitarian” societies have never existed. If the argument of this essay is correct, however, aristocracies or monarchies in which individuals are invested with, as I have put it, a “numinousness” that transcends their personal being, could not have existed prior to the Upper Paleolithic “explosion.”
[←87]
Lewis-Williams, 81–82.
[←88]
Lewis-Williams, 43.
[←89]
Lewis-Williams, 173.
[←90]
Joseph Campbell, The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology (New York: Viking Penguin, 1970), 305.