An Overview of the Paradox
The Venerable Bede’s De
Temporum Rationae tells us that She was a “dea” — Latin for “goddess”, but
Bede tells us nothing of Her jurisdiction(s) nor function(s) (see Jones, 1943:
Chapter 15: “De Mensibus Anglorum”; Lord, 1998). Therefore, some authorities
are admittedly not quite sure what are Her jurisdictions or functions.
Easter presents us with an unusual situation regarding lore
of a deity. Usually, we know of a Teutonic goddess or god mostly from myths and
partly from sagas, archeological finds, place names, and folk tales. Usually
customs of worship have been long ago discarded and forgotten, and we have
little or no evidence regarding ceremonial treatment. In contrast, Easter’s
enduring popularity has preserved at least some of the customs of Her worship
into modern times, but there is no mythic, archeological, nor place-name evidence
that She was in any Germanic pantheon.
This unusual situation is itself evidence. How is it that
there is only one major Teutonic deity whose ceremonies have survived in
widespread observance with explicit connection to that deity’s name? How does
it happen that a deity with persistent and widespread popularity left behind
none of the usual sculpture, myths, or signs of formal places of worship? The
answer to these questions will greatly clarify our understanding of Easter. But
first, let us consider etymological evidence and find out what She is most
probably not.
Etymological Evidence
Some respected authorities infer that She is a goddess of
spring, dawn, the direction East, shining, fertility, and/or rebirth. In large
part this is because Easter’s names in Old English (Easter, Eastor, Eastre,
Eoster) and Old High German (Ostara) are etymologically associated with the
east, with shining, and with dawn (Bosworth and Toller, 1898; 1921; Brown,
1987; Houghton Mifflin, 1993: 1585; Jones, 1943: Chapter 15: “De Mensibus
Anglorum”; Lord, 1998).
However, East, shining, dawn, and spring are not divine
functions in the Teutonic system. They are giant’s associations — things that
occur automatically. A goddess would have mitigated or otherwise modified these
functions, but would not have performed them. For example, Njorð might calm sea
waves, but the giant Ægir was the wight of the sea. However we know that She
must have had goddess functions, for in neither the Old Norse nor Old English
culture was there a giant who would have had a holiday. Therefore, etymological
evidence regarding Easter contradicts what we know of typical divine functions
in the Teutonic system (Stanfield, 2001a).
Was Easter not a goddess? Were there were two Easters? Or is
the etymological evidence misleading as regards Easter? Let us look closer at
the evidence.
Consider the nature of etymological argument.
One infers the ancestry of a word based on its structure —
spelling, grammar, and/or pronunciation. Also taken into account are similarities
between the focal word and words in other languages. Thus, words in known
languages are used to deduce words in ancestor languages, which are no longer
spoken, and which have left little or no literature. On this basis a “family
tree” of languages or words can be made. For example, Indo-European language is
considered to be an ancestor of modern Celtic, Germanic, Romance, and other
languages. However, there is no surviving literature in Indo-European. Its
former existence is inferred from similarities and dissimilarities among,
Greek, Norwegian, Sanskrit, French, and many other languages.
From this inferred family tree of languages, further
inferences may be drawn regarding the meaning of a word that seems related to a
branch in the family tree of words. For example “Easter” derives from the
Indo-European root word “*aus-”, as are modern-language words for east and
other things (Houghton-Mifflin, 1993). Carrying this line of thought out
further, we would expect all words with related pronunciation to have
closely-related meanings.
At times, etymological analyses can be helpful. When we lack
adequate knowledge of the meaning of a word, etymology can be used with
contextual clues to define that word. Also, etymological reasoning can help
reveal the systematic structure of an observed language and therefore make it
easier to learn.
However, there are certain weaknesses in etymological
analysis. Etymological conclusions regarding the meaning of a word are based
in part on the assumption that structurally similar words have very similar or
identical meanings. Also, etymological inference would predict that a word
would faithfully reflect its ancestry. Following are a few examples where
firmly-known definitions of words contradict inferences that would be drawn
from etymological analysis.
The Modern English adjective “virtual” derives from the
Latin noun “veritas”. However, if you were to infer that “virtual” meant
anything like what “veritas” means, you would err horribly. “Virtual” means
“almost or very similar to” — in other words, not quite real or true. More
deceptive than actual is that which is “virtual” — as in “virtual reality”. The
Latin noun means “truth, truthfulness, real life, reality, honesty...” — in other
words, the Latin term implies the opposite of the Modern English “virtual”
(Glare, 1976; Houghton-Mifflin 1993).
Another example of how a word may carry only meanings which
differ from those of its parent is our Modern English “technology”. This word
derives from ancient Greek words “skill” and “the study of”. Therefore, the
uses of this word closest to such roots
would refer to a body of knowledge or practice of inquiry. However, we never
use “technology” to refer to knowledge or to the study of skill. The word practically
always refers to equipment, to substances such as plastics or drugs, or to
computer programs. On rare occasions “technology” may also refer to methods of
working.
In Old English, "nerian" is a verb meaning to
save, protect, liberate, or rescue. This word is etymologically related to the
Modern German "nähren", which means to nourish. If you were to infer
the meaning of one of these words from the meaning of the other, you would be
deceived.
In Old Norse, "vé" is a modifier denoting
"holy" or a noun denoting priest, house, sanctuary, temple, court of
law, or woe. The ON "vé" can also refer to an emblem or standard. In
Old High German, the etymologically-related "wih" means temple. In
Gothic, "weih" or "weihs" means holy. The Old English
"wih" denotes an idol. These words are similar and probably derived
from a common root word, but their meanings are not quite the same, and the Old
Norse term is more ambiguous than others in this group. Moreover, the words in
that group are structurally similar to another group: Old Saxon and Old English
"wig", Icelandic “vig”, and Gothic “waiho”. These words refer to
intense struggles, such as war or battle, or to valor.
In Old English, there is the term “orþanc”, which does not
strictly reflect its apparent ancestry. It appears to combine the notions
of “ur” (original, ultimate) and “þanc”
(thought). However, actual uses in early medieval documents refer to forethought,
skill, intelligence, or mechanical art. Orþanc is similar in meaning to the
structurally dissimilar ancient Greek "techne", denoting art or
skill.
Therefore, etymological evidence tends to be somewhat
speculative. We cannot say for sure that structural similarities between words
are correlated with their meanings. Where there is other evidence — as in the
case of Easter — etymological analyses
must be considered subordinate.
Thus, the etymological inference that Easter is a wight with
giant-type jurisdictions can be discarded, for it contradicts other evidence.
(A) She was widely and enthusiastically celebrated or worshipped. (B) Wights
with giant-type jurisdictions were not openly celebrated or worshipped often
enough or seriously enough that we can find evidence of such worship. Moreover,
(C) evidence regarding Her ceremonial treatment implies a function appropriate
to a great goddess.
Ceremonial Treatment
Surviving folk customs give us some idea of how Easter’s
holiday was celebrated during this month. However, there was something very odd
about this festival, for it was celebrated with games, but not with formal
Pagan sacrifices.
For example, Bede wrote that in the third lunar month,
Hredmonaþ, the Pagans used to sacrifice to their goddess Hreda. However, he
wrote that the Pagans celebrated Easter — pointedly omitting mention of
sacrifice (Jones, 1943).
This examination of ceremonial treatment is broken down into
four categories. Celebrations of Easter are examined to show that they imply an
absence of the usual Pagan formulas. Then formal places of worship and magical
rituals are briefly discussed ― these also seem absent from Easter’s
ceremonial treatment. All this shows that Her ceremonies were designed for
participation by children.
The
Nature of Sacrifice
I will begin with a brief overview of sacrifice to show how
it does not resemble Easter celebrations. The general purpose of holy sacrifice
is to give something back to the recipients and acknowledge some kind of
responsibility toward them.
There are two kinds of acts we can consider holy sacrifice.
One kind of sacrifice we may call physical-loss sacrifice,
for there is a loss on the part of the giver. Some substance, object, or wight
is formally blessed or dedicated ― often by a full-time priest or
priestess. Then that which has been set aside may be taken to an altar and
destroyed or slaughtered. The sacrifice might also be left out next to a bush,
stuffed into an idol, etc. In other words, that which is given is exclusively
of no use to the divine recipient. An example would be pouring out a dedicated drink
on the ground. This type of sacrifice is common in Mediterranean religions.
Another kind of “sacrifice”, described in detail in The Saga of Hakon the Good, involves the
giver getting plenty of use out of that which is “sacrificed”. Here it is the
givers and temple objects that are blessed, and the slaughtered livestock are
eaten by the celebrants. Often blood would be smeared on an altar; sometimes a
less-edible part, such as the head, would be placed in a pit or buried. The
emphasis here is on sharing with the divine. Sacrifices of this sort seem
especially Teutonic. Like physical loss, a sharing sacrifice would involve
elaborate and precise ritual. (See Chisholm, 1993; Hollander, 1964: Owen, 1985:
43-48; 107; Stanfield, 1999c; Thorsson, 1992: 45-51; Turville-Petre, 1964;
Welch, 1992: 40; for comparison, see Catholic Church, 1987: Leviticus, Chapters
22, 23, and 27).
Easter
Celebrations
Celebrations of Easter seem not to be descended from
sacrifices of either the sharing or simple giving type. Instead, the emphasis
is on consumption. There is no emphasis on formal dedication, and rituals tend
to be primitive. These rituals. Of the spring-time celebratory rituals of Teutonic
Europe, we know little that would have been clearly associated with Easter
except this: people played with their food, then ate it. These celebrations are
not technically very demanding and do not require much knowledge of mythic
lore. There is at most a primitive sense of relating to a spiritual being.
Consider the Easter egg. Although we see people following an
ancient custom of eating eggs to celebrate Easter, those incredible edibles are
not blessed nor dedicated. Decoration is likely vestigial dedication, but if
so, the ancient dedication must not have been elaborate and precise.
Otherwise, we would commonly see official Christian forms of egg dedication.
Also, eggs are often rolled or hidden-and-sought in play, but these are not
precise and somber ceremonies. In other words, the ancient Pagan egg ceremonies
were as easy as child’s play.
Hares and rabbits are often mentioned in Easter-time
celebrations. However, participants in these rituals do without relating
rabbits to Jesus. Not relating rabbits or hares to Jesus (the ultimate
sacrifice in Christianity) implies that rabbits and hares were not sacrificed
with the usual formalities in ancient times.
Gundarsson mentions squirrel hunting as a part of German
spring ceremonies. These hunts culminated in rock-throwing, not in killing with
the most lethal weapons of the day. Therefore, the hunts would have been safe
for small children, if not very effective. Also, there seems to have been no
formal ritual of dedication nor blessing in these hunts (Gundarsson, 1993a;
Gundarsson, 1993e).
Formal
Places of Worship
Judging from place names, Her rituals seem not to have
involved temples nor dedicated open spaces. That is, there are no surviving
place names to indicate that She had facilities which would have required
maintenance by adults.
We would expect that a deity who was very popular over a
large expanse of territory would have many place names indicating particular
loci of worship, and this is the case for other Teutonic deities (for example,
see Stanfield, 1998c and 1999c). Since Easter was observed in all Germanic
lands outside Scandinavia, we would expect that She would have at least several
surviving place names.
The absence of place names relating to this deity implies a
lack of any kind of formal organization to maintain facilities, supplies, or
equipment. In turn this implies the lack of a part-time or full-time clergy
dedicated to Her.
Since a clergy to maintain facilities and equipment would
not need to be dedicated to Her exclusively, we may reasonably infer that the
worship of Easter explicitly excluded those formalities which would require
such facilities or staff to maintain them. Given the warning in the Old
English Rune Poem against the distractions of “filigree”, we may also
reasonably suspect that Her constituency would have been particularly
susceptible to such distraction. This vulnerability would have been due to a
lack of maturity. (Regarding the distractions of method and equipment, see
Stanfield, 2000c). Of course, this does not preclude attention and supervision
by adults.
Magic
Easter customs do not emphasize magic directed at future
gain or performance. Do the egg-related activities celebrate or magically
invoke fertility? Consider again Easter egg customs, which involve using up
present resources — sometimes blowing out the edible insides and discarding
them — for present joy. The future chicken, which would be of greater value
than the present egg, is foregone. This kind of play and consumption lacks
elements of imitative or contagious magic and does not imply a metaphor for
springtime agricultural activities such as planting. Do children hunt rabbits
to gain personal fertility, or is that kind of fertility not appropriate for
their ages?
Appropriateness
for Children
Easter celebrations were (and still are) very appropriate
for small children. In such customs we see a solemnity which is not very sober
and does not look to the future. We see celebrations which are not determined,
disciplined, investing, combative, nor formal. Instead the celebration of
Easter is uninhibited, childlike, child-friendly, parent-friendly, and
generally user-friendly (exoteric and informal). Mom does not have to work as
much in the kitchen (although she may), for she can make the kids boil eggs and
the whole family will love it. It is safe. Celebration of Easter does not
demand the skill, discipline, nor attention span necessary for elaborate and
precise ceremony. It does not require deep understanding of allegory nor
metaphor. It does not demand the strength, coordination or knowledge necessary
to ritually slaughter and butcher a major livestock animal. It does not demand
having much in the way of resources of your own to sacrifice. It is possible
that springtime fire ceremonies were Easter celebrations, but if so they would
have made rituals very different from the rest of what we know about this
holiday. They would also have required supervision or exclusive participation
by responsible adolescents or adults.
Conclusions
In conclusion: Her celebration was (and still is) a
family-oriented affair and a break from the usual round of more serious and
more adult-oriented holy days Her celebration was (and still is) a break for
adults and a treat for children.
Personal Names
Our modern personal name “Esther” derives from a Biblical
character, a Persian Jewish queen whose “Esther” was based on the Farsi
“sitareh” (star). Thus, “Esther” is not derived from the Teutonic goddess’ name
(Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993. We cannot discern that anyone was dedicated to
Her, although naming people after other deities was common (for example, see
Stanfield, 1999c).
If no one was dedicated to Her, this situation would be
consistent with Her being a patron goddess of people in a certain phase of
life, and having no other major functions.
Further Inferences
It would be helpful to provide an aspect of religion appropriate
for children but so clearly meant for them that they would eventually leave it
behind as they leave behind their favorite childhood games. This would imply a
deity functioning something like the training wheels on a bicycle.
In general, the thrust of Teutonic Pagan religion – as of
any true religion – is that its members should be even more responsible,
self-disciplined, happy, and effective adults than they would have been without
the religion. In short, it is an extra boost for people who have attained
maturity. Our pantheon and myths show this emphasis of our religion, as does
what we know of ancient Teutonic religious ceremony.
However, the major thrust of religion leaves little room for
people who are in very early stages of maturation. The extra boost from
religion cannot do much for them, and they may find adult religion beyond their
knowledge or understanding.
Moreover, since children often fail to understand the deeper
complexities of religion, there can be harm from an early introduction. They
may infer that the exoteric aspects they perceive are all there is to religion
and later turn away from it or practice it without true understanding.
But when we see how Easter was celebrated, we see a rare
goddess of a kinder, gentler, and less demanding kind. More like a grandparent
than a typical goddess, Easter did not require — and probably did not allow —
sacrifices, temples, dedicated groves or hills, nor a formal cult separate from
any high other deity’s cult.
That Her popularity survived early Christianization may be
another clue, for it is one thing to tell adults that some of their favorite
deities are demons. It is quite another to repeatedly tell large numbers of
very small children that their favorite and patron deity is a demon or the
devil in disguise.
Therefore She must be the sort of goddess that children of
both genders could relate to directly, whether or not they had been dedicated
to another patron deity or understood an adult deity. You can be Hers and She
can be yours even if you have to have your mother help you to make a phone call
or to tie your shoes. But she would be a goddess no adolescent, adult, nor
aged person would likely completely abandon, just as we never abandon our fond
memories of childhood games or friends.
She might have had other functions, such as assisting
natural or agricultural fertility, or assisting with processes in early stages.
If so, Easter’s worship would have harkened back to earlier and physically
poorer times, when nomadism and/or technological conditions would have hindered
the more formal religion of peasant or industrial societies. However, this
would imply a cult of very dedicated purists or fundamentalists. Even if these
people were mild-mannered and reticent as a matter of policy, they would surely
have had the energy and determination to leave at least a small but very
distinctive mark on society as witches, Essenes, and others have done. Vestiges
of Easter worship in modern times imply the existence of no such cult. If She
were a goddess of beginnings, She would be the goddess of early stages of
human lives.
Conclusions
Easter is very unlike other deities. This is because other
deities are oriented toward adults and adult functioning, while She demands no
more than small children can give.
She is the means by which the very young are integrated into
Teutonic Polytheism, and She is their protector and special friend. Perhaps no
other religion has anyone like Her, and it is well that She has a special and
very enduring place in our hearts!
References
Bosworth, Joseph and T. N. Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press
Bosworth, Joseph and Toller T. N. 1921. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary...Supplement. London: Oxford University Press.
Brown, George H. 1987. Bede the Venerable. Boston: Twayne Publishers.
Catholic Church. 1987. The New American Bible. Cleveland, OH, USA: World Publishing Company.
Chisholm, James A. 1993. True Hearth. Bastrop, TX, USA: Runa-Raven Press. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. 1986. The New American Bible. Canada: World Catholic Press.
Glare, P. G. W., ed. 1976. Oxford Latin Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.
Gundarsson,
Kveldulf. 1993a. Teutonic Religion.
St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications.
Gundarsson, Kveldulf. 1993e . “Ostara”. In Our Troth, ed. Kveldulf Gundarsson, 584-595. Seattle, WA, USA: The Ring of Troth.
Hall, J. R. Clark. 1960. A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. 4th ed., with a supplement by Herbert D. Merritt. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Healey, Antonette diPaolo, Joan Holland, David McDougall, Ian McDougall, Nancy Speirs, and Pauline Thompson. 1994. Dictionary of Old English: E. Toronto, Canada: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
Hollander, Lee M., transl. 1964. Heimskringla: History of the Kings of Norway. Austin, Texas, USA: University of Texas Press.
Houghton Mifflin Company. 1993. The American Heritage College Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, Charles W. 1943. Bedae: Opera De Temporibus. Cambridge, MA, USA: Medieaval Academy of America.
Lord, Gárman. 1998. Théodish Planning Calendar 1998. Watertown, NY, USA: Théod.
Mitchell, Bruce and Fred C. Robinson. 1992. A Guide to Old English. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell.
Owen, Gale R. 1985. Rites and Religions of the Anglo-Saxons. London: Dorset Press.
Oxford University Press. 1933. The Oxford English Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.
Stanfield, Gary G. 1998c. “Excerpts from the OERP Book, Chapter 17 and Appendix C”. The Rune 9 (Fall): 31-40.
Stanfield, Gary G. 1999c. “Appendix D: Lore of Frey”. Web page: “http://pages.prodigy.net/gary_s/AppendixD.htm”. A previous edition was published as “Lore of Frey — Excerpts from the OERP Book: Appendix D”. The Rune, 10 (Fall): 36-44.
Stanfield, Gary G. 2000c. “Excerpts from the OERP Book: Chapters 26 and 27”. The Rune, 10 (Summer): 32-40.
Stanfield, Gary G. 2000e. “Excerpt from the OERP Book: Appendix E: Wyrd”. The Rune, 11 (Winter): 31-40.
Stanfield, Gary G. 2001a. “Giants in Teutonic Religion.” The Rune, 11 (Spring): 32-37.
Stead, Lewis. 1994. Raven Kindred Ritual Book, 3d ed. Wheaton, MD, USA: Asatru Today.
Thorsson, Edred. 1992. Northern Magic. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn.
Turville-Petre, E. O. G. 1964. Myth and Religion of the North. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Welch, Martin.
1992. Discovering Anglo-Saxon England.
University Park, PA, USA: Pennsylvania State University Press.