The present article has four major parts. First is a discussion
of methodology. Second is a description of each type of giant in the Norse
system and how they were regarded. Third is a description of giants in the
English system. The last section presents conclusions.
Method and Context
The method used here is rooted in Jacob Grimm’s approach
(Stallybrass, 1966). Modern philology on the whole owes a lot to Jacob Grimm,
although our scholarship had advanced since his day. Grimm was an etymologist,
and etymology was the main thrust of his study of religion. His etymological
work started with the premise that we can infer a non-observed language or
dialect (such as Indo-European) based on existing languages and dialects.
Therefore, by analogous inference we can reconstruct ancient religion based on
observed superstitions, folk tales, myths, and other data to infer some of the
native Pagan religious systems of Europe.
The present study focuses primarily on nonetymological
data. Jacob Grimm was also an advocate of the folk tale in addition to
etymological clues to religion. He emphasized that folk tales are our only
source of knowledge of the Wild Hunt, and of Holda, Berchta, and Fricka. Modern
scholars also like to use place names, verse, charms, legal documents, and
archeological evidence.
It is logical to start with Norse religion and then ask if
other branches of Germanic Paganism deviated from the Norse model. Mr. Grimm
contended that contended that just as Norse language is younger and purer than
Modern German, so also Norse mythology that has survived is purer than
surviving Germanic non-Norse religious lore. Most modern scholars would concur
that the data on Norse religion give a more complete picture of Pagan religions
and show a more Pagan society than do data from other Germanic societies.
This approach does not produce a single model of Teutonic
religion. Jacob Grimm pointed out that just as Germanic languages show much
variety in dialect from one district or region to another, so Germanic religion
must have shown much variety from one district or region to another. For
example, consider the sibling deities Frey and Freya. In Old High German, there
is a feminine noun frouwa, in Gothic there is the masculine frauja (lord), and
in Old Saxon froho or fro, “so that the Goths and Saxons seem to have preferred
the god, High Germans the goddess; in the North both Freyr and Freyja are
honored alike” (Stallybrass, 1966). Another example: Holda was a regional deity
known outside of Scandinavia. However, Norse lore of Frigga can be used to put
Holda in a context and contribute to understanding of Her (Gundarsson, 1993a:
47-50).
Types of Norse Giants
There are five types of giant in the Old Norse language. In
predominately Pagan times there were the þurs, jötunn, gýgr, and norn. During
predominately Christian times there were also the risi and troll. Motz (1987)
and Gundarsson et al (1993a) say that the Norse of ancient times used their
words for giant “fairly interchangeably”. However, the categories do show some
distinctions.
Þurs
Regarding these wights, there is a high level of agreement.
Þursar are enemies of the deities and relatively unintelligent. Cleasby,
Vigfusson, and Craigie (Cleasby et al, 1957) tell us that in the surviving Old
Norse literature, “þurs” refers to a being notable for surliness and stupidity.
They also emphasize that Thor is the mortal enemy of þursar. Zoëga (1910)
emphasizes the enmity between þursar and deities when he tell us that Thor is
called “þursa raðbani” — killer of giants. More recent scholars go beyond the
dictionaries. Using mythic sources, Thorsson (1987: 176, 188-189) tells us
that a þurs is a wight of great age, but marked by stupidity and by hostility
toward deities, at least toward Asgardian deities. Gundarsson (1993a:
116-117) agrees with Thorsson, adding that þursar are “elemental” wights, such
as cliff-giants or rime-giants. (Rime is an opaque coating of granular ice).
Jötunn
The jötunn vary greatly in more than one dimension. In the
surviving Old Norse literature, “jötunn” is used both as a term for a specific
type of giant and as a generic label for the whole species (Motz, 1987). As a
specific type of giant, the jötunar partially overlap deities’ jurisdictions
― but not their functions.
Despite the variety among jotunar, none of them was quite as
good as a deity -- in any sense of “good”. The difference in mental level means
that deities can be our friends, but jötunar are at best useful allies and at
worst simply ogres. This is supported by the very low esteem for giants in
surviving Old Norse literature. For example, in Skáldskaparmál Snorri
tells that men may be referred to with names of gods as praise, but that use of
jötunn names implies insult (Faulkes, 1987: 94; Kaske, 1967).
Jötnar Compared to Deities
The categories of jötunn and deity are quite distinct
despite the overlaps in jurisdiction and intellectual capacity. Vafþrunismal (Strophe 16) tells us that
the realms of deities and jötnar are separated by a river that never freezes,
and therefore never provides a broad bridge to allow free intercourse (Larrington,
1996: 42; Thorsson, 1993: 22, 23). This symbolizes the fact that although
deities and giants may interact and their jurisdictions overlap, the
differences in function are very significant.
Overall Character of Jötnar
Jötunar vary greatly in mental functioning. Ymir, who never
attained the slightest level of awareness, was a jötunn. On the other hand, in
the mythic poem Vafþruðnismál, Vafþruðnir lost his quiz game against
Oðin only because Oðin was able to ask the jötunn for one of His own secrets.
Some Jötnar learn but do not creatively adapt. Gundarsson et al tell us that
jötnar are able to breed with Asgardian deities and to function on the Æsir’s
level as regards “wisdom”. Gundarsson et al mean “knowledge”. The present
author has found no legend of jötunn breeding with humans. (See Cleasby et al,
1957; Gundarsson et al , 1993a; Hodge, 1998; Larrington, 1996: 3-60; Thorsson,
1987)
Jötunar are sometimes said to vary greatly in physical size,
but the variation can be exaggerated. Jötunar are various sizes of gigantic.
Thorsson (1987) tells us that a jötunn might be as small as a beetle or as
“vast as the worlds”. Nowhere in the sagas nor Eddas is a giant described as
tiny. Nor is any giant as vast as all or any of the worlds. We can be sure that
Ymir’s skull was magically enlarged
to form the sky, for if Ymir’s skull were large enough to form the sky when
Ymir lived, it would have been far out of proportion to the amount of Ymir’s
blood (the sea), his flesh (soil), his hair (trees), his bones (barren hills or
rocks) or his brains (the clouds). (See Hollander, 1962: 46; Young, 1954:
35-36). It is probably an message of Teutonic religion that no wight is a big
as all reality or is a major chunk of physical reality. Gundarsson adds that
jötnar are skilled in magic (Gundarsson, 1993a).
Thorsson (1987) also us that some jötnar side with the Æsir
and some with the Þurses. For example, in Hymskviða (Hymir’s Poem)
the jötunn Ægir brews ale (albeit reluctantly) for the deities, but the
jötunn Hymir is an enemy from whom a couple of the gods steal a cauldron.
Gýgr
This word appears in Hymskviða (strophe 14), where it
clearly refers to a giantess. It also appears in Hel Reið Brynhildar (Brynhild’s
Ride to Hel), where the giantess in question is “ór steini” (from the rock
― she is a rock giantess). The
giantess in Hel Reið Brynhildar has enough dialog with Brynhild that we
discern the giantess’ mental character. She is quite knowing but not
perceptive, for she has knowledge of Brynhild’s life, but has not gotten the
whole story or has not gotten it straight. The implication is that a gýgiar
might have empirical, extra-sensory, or otherwise unusual knowledge. Nevertheless,
such a being is not a good source of information.
These wights are also always associated with hostility
toward characters we regard as sympathetic. For example, in Hel Reið
Brynhildar the giantess is definitely hostile toward the heroine. In Voluspá a “gýgiar hirðir”
(giantess’ herdsman) is happy that giants are assaulting Asgarð during Ragnarok.
(See Neckel, 1936a; Larrington, 1996).
Norn
Norns appear to be metaphors for the production of circumstances
that defy empirical explanation and moral justification. Norns are the most
powerful of wights but uniformly unaware of themselves or what they are doing.
The three norns of Asgarð originate among the Þursar, but
norns are a type of giant unto themselves. Unlike Þursar, norns are not
inherently friendly nor hostile. Instead, norns are too unaware to be friendly
or hostile. In Miðgarð, the lesser norns attached to individual humans might
be more or less beneficial in nature, but their tendencies also do not result
from conscious decision making (Young, 1954, Stanfield, 2000e).
Norns have nothing to say. In the high myths, folk tales,
and sagas no one ever asks the norns for advice about the past nor the future.
This is despite stories in which female wights are asked for accounts of the
past, present, or future.
However, norns produce circumstances within which both
people and deities must operate. The myths and sagas are clear that deities and
people cannot alter, predict, nor explain nornic circumstances. One must have
inner strength to emotionally withstand such situations and resourcefulness to
handle them.
Risi
While it is possible that the word “risi” does not originate
in Pagan times, it is certainly not Christian. Regarding risar, there is
great disagreement. What is clear is that risar are a lower form of wight than
are deities, and that risi mental functioning is not impressive.
The most important Pagan authors seem to have taken slightly
different views, but agree that risar are friends of Mankind. Thorsson (1987)
says that risar are very large, friendly to humans, physically beautiful, and
pleasant company for deities. He adds that they intermarry with humans and
bear their children. Kveldulf Gundarsson (1993a) says that risar are mountain
giants, inherently unintelligent, and that they may occasionally be helpful to
humans.
However, in the Prose
Edda, we are told that when the Æsir recognized that the wight who helped
them fortify Asgard was a mountain giant, they felt not compelled to keep their
promises of wages. They had the laborer killed instead. Elsewhere in the Prose
Edda, Thor is called a trouble-worsener of mountain giants, which
definitely implies animosity (Faulkes, 1987: 35-36, 84).
The major dictionaries also disagree. Zoëga defined risi as
a type of giant comparable to trolls, who are enemies of mankind. Cleasby,
Vigfusson, and Craigie failed to find “risi” anywhere in the surviving Old
Norse documents. Neckel listed “risi” in his glossary to the Poetic Edda, defining that word simply
as Modern German “riese”. “Riese” has no more negative connotations than does
our Modern English “giant”. “Risi” is used in Modern Icelandic to mean “giant”.
(See Cleasby and Vigfusson, 1957; Taylor, 1990; Neckel, 1936a, 1936b; Zoëga,
1910)
It would have been much more helpful if the prominent
experts would have explained why they differ. Thorsson’s view may be based
partly on evidence from Bard’s Saga, for in that story a character named
Dumb was descended from rísar on his father’s side and trolls on his mother’s
side, and was good-looking, helpful to humans, and able to breed with women.
(See S. Anderson, 1997a; Bjarnasson, 2000; Motz, 1987). However, the story
does not say that Dumb was a risi. In Nordic religion, giant parentage does not
a giant make. For example, some of the deities are of giant parentage.
Lotte Motz, in an overall review of giants and trolls in Old
Norse, concludes that risi “came late into Scandinavian speech and did not
denote a truly ancient spirit”. The editor of The Complete Sagas of the Icelanders agrees with Motz that the term
“risi” was “coined when the old beliefs were fading”. Perhaps modern Pagan
scholars are right to include “risi” as a Pagan term. New words are coined all
the time in living languages, and it is possible that Pagan innovations
occurred in times of Christian dominance without showing reactions to
Christianity. Therefore, it does not matter for present purposes if this word
“came late into Scandinavian speech.” (Hreinsson et al, 1997c: 409-410; Motz,
1987).
Troll
The editorial team of The Complete Sagas of the Icelanders
inferred that trolls were not giants in Pagan times. Instead, they were evil
spirits residing in rocks and wild areas and having small anthropomorphic
bodies like those of dark elves. Thus, the trolls Lottie Motz writes of in his
classic study of giants characterize “later medieval times”.
Trolls are very magical and usually hostile to mankind. In
exceptional episodes, they are loyal to humans, sometimes against other
trolls. Good will, cleverness, and highly conscious self-control are not
characteristic of trolls, who are as lower animals with magical skills. (See
Hreinsson et al, 1997c, Kroesen, 1996; Motz, 1987).
The Question of
Worship of Norse Giants
Despite the variety among Norse giants, they differ from
deities in one critical way. Giants are never depicted as having a high degree
of conscious self-control . They exert little or no conscious control over
short-term events, and they exert no control over the long term. It is unusual
that giants do humans any good, and some of them are hostile. In contrast,
deities commonly exert conscious control and can be asked to favor people.
|
Sun
and Moon
In
the Gylfanning, we are told that Mani (Moon), who was apparently a
human son, was exiled to the sky because his father married his sister Sól
(Sun) to Glen. Moon now “governs the journeying of the moon and also its
waxing and waning” (Young, 1954: 38, 61). This penal chore would be pretty
menial, since the moon is extremely predictable in its actions. Although
the Prose Edda does not explicitly indicate that Moon is a giant, the
inference seems quite clear. Moon is accompanied by Bil and Hjuki, who are
children, but “Sól and Bil are reckoned among the goddesses.” Perhaps the
goddess Bil has functions appropriate to her mobile locus in the sky, such
as helping small children to sleep when they are afraid. Sól’s divine status
simply contradicts my theory, for her duty is to drive the vehicle of the
sun, and this is similar to Mani’s tedious and highly repetitive job.
However, most bodies of religious literature have at least minor inconsistencies.
This matter is alluded to in the sub-section “Conscious and Active Control”
|
Conscious and Active Control
One way that giants are associated with natural forces or
events is by “personifying” such forces or events, while deities control or
mitigate. Examples of this can be found in the Eddas. For example, the giant Logi is wildfire but the god Njörð stills fire. Another example: the
giant Elli is old age, but the god of
health and strength (Þórr) slows down its onset (See Gundarsson, 1993a;
Karlsdóttir et al, 1993;Young, 1954: 51, 77, 78).
Another function of giants is to automatically cause. Thus,
Vindlóni (Wind-Cool) is the (automatic) father of winter, but several deities
could be called upon to mitigate weather for human benefit. A giant called
Svásuð (Agreeable) is the father of summer, which comes relentlessly year
after year. In the OERP Book, Stanfield (2000a) argues that Night and
Day are giants. (See also the sidebar, “Sun and Moon”).
Even when standing outside natural forces and not acting as
automatons, giants show a remarkable lack of consciousness. For example, the
Norns of Asgarð create circumstances for divinities and others without the
slightest idea of what they have done, are doing, or will do. In contrast, the
gods and goddesses of Asgarð consciously adapt, respond, argue, discuss,
plan, and review. (See Young, 1954; Larrington, 1996; Stanfield, 2000e;
Turville-Petre, 1964).
Alleged Exceptions -- Skaði and Mímir
Giants were not objects of cults. This issue is important
because if giants were the objects of cults and were given sacrifices, then conscious
favorable intervention in long- or short-term would be implied. Some scholars
contend that two giants were worshipped. The “giants” in question are Skaði
and Mímir. (See Gundarsson, 1993; Gundarsson et al, 1993a; Karlsdóttir et al,
1993; Stead, 1994; see also the sidebar, “Sacrifices in Sagas”).
Skaði
Place-name evidence implies that Skaði was worshipped in
several places in Scandinavia. However, Skaði was not a giant.
Snorri repeatedly labels Skaði as a goddess, despite Her
residence of origin in Þrymheim and Her giant parentage. The Teutonic Pagans
did not classify wights strictly on the basis of ancestry. Many of Asgarð’s
deities have jötunn ancestry. It is how
a wight acts that makes the difference between giant and deity in Teutonic
Paganism. (See Faulkes, 1987: 24, 75; Larrington, 1996: 270; Turville-Petre,
1964; Young, 1954: 51-52).
One clue to Skaði’s
status as a goddess is the treatment she receives in the story of Thiazi in
the Skáldskaparmál (Young, 1954: 97-100). That is, her treatment by
the deities is respectful, she is allowed to join the community of deities, and
we are subtly invited to sympathize with her.
Skaði is a goddess of bow and arrow use, skiing, snowshoes,
and hunting. She is a loyal daughter and the only warrior female in the
pantheon.
Mimr
“Mímir” refers to at least two distinct mythic beings, one a
giant and one a god. In the days before surnames and middle names, Europeans
had to accept that as a matter of course different people would have the same
name. By analogy, they would have tolerated very different mythic wights (or
objects) having the same name much more easily than do modern persons.
Several scholars opine that the same Mímr who was sent to
the Vanir as a hostage from Asgard was a giant. This is rather unlikely.
Certainly, a giant would not have been a credible hostage sent to the Vanir.
Therefore mention of Mímir as a giant’s name in Skaldskaparmal raises the possibility of two quite different
wights under the same name (Faulkes, 1987: 84, 155). It is also possible that
Mímir the god was transformed from a giant in some shamanic or puberty myth
now lost.
Sacrifices
in Sagas
Motz (1987) claims that in Jomsvikings
Saga, Earl Harald sacrifices to a giant, but Hollander says the “giant”
is Harald’s “patron goddess”. In Chapter 4 of Bardar Saga Snælfellsáss,
a group of men sacrifice “for good luck” at a place later called “Troll
Church” (S. Anderson, 1997a), so they probably did sacrifice to trolls,
unless the place had been tendentiously renamed by Christians. Kroesen
(1996) infers that people sacrificed to giants to get them to leave humans
alone, but not to worship nor ask for positive deeds. This matter is
referred to in the subsection “Alleged Exceptions – Skaði and Mímir”.
|
Snorri specifically
lists “Mímir” his discussion of ambiguous words. Furthermore, other mythic
names were duplicated. Examples follow. Ðekk (Known) is the name of a dwarf
listed in strophe 12 of Voluspá and one of the names of Oðin listed in
strophe 46 of Grimnismál. Draupnir is a both a wight (soil-dwelling
dwarf) and Oðin’s magic gold ring. Faulkes’ index of names in the Prose Edda indicates other examples of duplicated
names, including Atli, Bragi, and Dag. (See Faulkes, 1987:17, 50 155, 229-259;
Hollander, 1962).
The Question of
Fífl
Old Norse “fífl” refers to a fool, clown, or boor. The Old
Norse word also refers to giants in the expression “fífl megir” (fools’ sons)
in a strophe of Voluspá, where it implies the witlessness of the giants
who attack Asgarð in Ragnarok. However, this does not necessarily mean that a
fífl is a giant. Dronke renders “fífls” as “giants’” and Neckel renders it as
“monsters’” in disagreement with Cleasby et al. However Dronke and Neckel seem
to be interpreting only in terms of context in Voluspa, while Cleasby et
al seem to be using a wider range of evidence. (See Cleasby et al, 1957;
Hollander, 1964: 10, strophe #50; Neckel, 1936a and 1936b; Zöega, 1910).
Types of English Giants
Early medieval Anglo-Saxons used seven terms to refer to
“giant”: ent, eoten, gigant, þyrs, the one-of-a-kind Metod, fífel and nicoras.
As is the case with the Norse, none of the English giants is a wight who might
have been worshipped or prayed to for positive deeds. As is the case with the
Norse, the English giants are not all hostile. And in the English system,
giants have lower levels of mental functioning than do deities or people.
Ent
Definition
The dictionaries of Old English simply define “ent”
(nominative plural entas) as “giant”, but the data they cite give a fuller
picture. Entas call our attention to a distinction between technical progress
and building for the future. They symbolize beings who were very efficacious
but who left no intellectual nor moral legacy. (See Bosworth and Toller, 1898;
1921; Hall, 1960; Healy et al, 1996).
An ent was a large, physically strong, and skillful being
of ancient times. Entas were creative and capable of doing things beyond known
human capacities, but they were not magicians. Entas were not destructive –
just the opposite. They were associated with stone works and other impressive
physical products. Entas were vaguely human-like, but not necessarily beautiful,
ugly, nor somewhere in between. In every use of “ent” but one, the ent or entas
written of passed away long before the story occurs. The one exception is the
reference to Goliath (discussed below).
Examples
“Enta geweorc” is a stock phrase, found frequently in Old
English poetry to describe stone works which the early medieval Anglo-Saxons
did not know how to build. An illustrative example is in The Ruin. As the narrator views an ancient Roman city, he or she reflects
that it was once filled with human lives and joys, tragedies and treasures,
sounds and emotions. The city that once stood so usefully is “enta geweorc”
(giants’ work). In Maxims II, Lines 2-4, among the truths-by-definition listed
is this: “Cities are...skillful enta
geweorc....”. These wights were also builders of dykes and mounds (Bosworth
and Toller, 1898; Mitchell and Robinson, 1992: 253; Owen, 1985; Rodrigues,
1993).
So this is an ethically neutral category of wight. Some, but
not everything the entas made was beneficial to mankind. For example, in Lines
2715-2719 of Alexander’s (1995) edition of Beowulf,
the underground hall where the evil dragon resided is called “enta geweorc”.
These wights might have been ethically neutral, but they
were not menacing. The only association of “ent” with combat is in Lines
2976-2981 of Alexander’s (1995) edition of Beowulf,
where a thegn attacks swinging an “eotenisc” sword and wearing an “entiscne
helm” (ent-ish helmet). The contrast between the sword as an offensive weapon
and the helmet as defensive armor is significant. Entas did not make offensive
weapons.
Translations from Other Ancient Literature
Parallels recognized by native speakers of Old English help
to reveal the meaning of “ent”, although these parallels were probably not exact.
In cases where the early medieval Anglo-Saxons were trying to find a word to
refer to beings in another culture’s mythology or folklore, the translators
were probably trying to find as close a correspondence as possible.
“Ent” was used to translate “Cyclops”, the builders of ancient,
ruined cities. For awhile after the fall of Mycenaean and Minoan
civilizations, the inhabitants of Greece did not see how people could build
those large stone halls, city walls, bridges, and paved roads. Cyclops were said
to have built those things and to have had talents as smiths. The catch is that
Cyclops have a menacing aspect as characters in The Odyssey and as relatives of titans, enemies of the Greek
deities. Also the Cyclops gave Zeus the thunderbolt as an offensive weapon, and
entas did not “geweorc” offensive weapons. (See Barr, 1961: 27-28, 31;
Durant, 1939; Graves, 1960: 31-33, 37, 40, 83, 122, 151, 238, 241-242; Healey
et al, 1996; Lévêque, 1964: 46; Rees, 1991).
Like the uses of “ent” to refer to Greek beings, references
to Old Testament characters show approximation as opposed to exact
translation. In Genesis, Chapter 6
Verse 4, ent was used to translate “Nephalim”, beings of great size and
strength, long-gone “men of renown”. Nephalim were descended from “sons of
heaven” and human women. Scholars speculate that the Nephalim were supposed to
have constructed megalithic structures in Palestine that seemed to the ancient
Jews as beyond known human capability. In Genesis,
Chapter 10 Verses 8-13, Nimrod was “the first potentate” and a builder of
cities. Wulfstan used the focal word in his version of Palestinian history:
“Nimrod and the entas made the wonderful tower.” In 1 Samuel, Chapter 17, Goliath is presented as a Philistine, born in
the Philistine’s capitol city where he grew to be a very large man. Goliath
was characterized as an ent in the Old English translation. (See Barker et al,
1985; Bosworth and Toller, 1898; 1921; Catholic Church, 1987).
The semidivine origin of the Nephalim and the unequivocally
human origin of Goliath differ from the nontranslating use of “ent”, where we
do not see any origin of entas. Also untypical is that Goliath is spoken of as
alive and that he is an enemy of human protagonists while he is an ally of
human villains. In native Old English literature, Entas do not take sides for
or against humans.
These translation uses of “ent” tend to support what we see
in non-translation uses. “Ent” in translations refers to very high-level
capacity for mundane achievement. This achievement is based on high levels of
muscle or technical skill, but is not magic. In translation uses, entas do
not consciously leave a moral or intellectual legacy for future generations of
any wight.
Eoten
“Eoten” denotes a metaphor for an ancient and tragic
tendency. This word was used in poetry only. The dictionaries define eoten
unequivocally as a villain: a giant, monster, ogre, or enemy. Every use of the
focal term that the present author found and every derivation or compound word
implies an enemy of mankind. A typical example of an eoten is Grendel. (See
Hall, 1960; Bosworth and Toller, 1898; 1921; Healey et al, 1996).
An interesting use of the focal concept is in the poetic
stock phrase “eald-sweard eotenisc”. An example is in Lines 2977-2980 of
Alexander’s (1995) edition of Beowulf,
where a soldier moves to rescue a fallen comrade: “Where his brother lay,
Higelac’s thegn with broad sword made his old-sword eoten-ish and his ent-ish
helmet break through the shield wall.” The action is taken by a sympathetic
character, but the reference is to the regrettable and ancient tragedy of
warfare as a practically universal human institution.
There are two instances of “eoten” in Beowulf which
some scholars have interpreted as “Jute”. However, Kaske (1967) has made a
convincing case that the Jutes never appear in Beowulf, and that the
uses in question refer to Frisians in a pejorative sense. Kaske points out that
this parallels use of “jötunn” and names of specific jötunar in Old Norse.
There is not an Old English word that is a synonym of
“jötunn”. A misconception which is implied by some modern literature is that
“etin” is a Modern English word derived from eoten and meaning the same as
“jötunn”. The word “etin” became obsolete a few centuries ago and seems to have
been revived with a revised meaning late in the Twentieth Century. Although
the Oxford English Dictionary defines
“etin” simply as “giant”, the examples given from the years 1205-1611 show an
unequivocally negative concept — in line with the idea of eoten and out of
line with jötunn (Oxford University Press, 1933).
Gigant
This is also a hostile being. Hall (1960) and
Bosworth-Toller (1898; 1921) define this word simply as “giant”. However, the
examples they cite show no pleasant connotations, and the word shows up in
Lines 111-113 in Beowulf in a list of
monsters hostile to people (Alexander, 1995). In the surviving literature,
they are remarkable neither for stupidity nor for cunning.
Þyrs
This Old English
dictionaries define this word as (A) “giant, demon” or (B) “enchanter,
sorcerer, wizard”. Any giant þyrs would have been hostile to people. The
magician þyrs might or might not have been hostile. There is no implication of
stupidity nor of shrewd planning on the part of any þyrs.
“Þyrs” is a cognate of “þurs” in Old Norse. However, these
cognate words do not carry the same meaning. Complicating things further,
“þurs” in Old English has practically the opposite referent of the identical
word in Old Norse, since “þurs” in Old English is the possessive of Thor’s
name.
Þyrs as Human Magician
Let us first consider the definition of þyrs as “enchanter,
sorcerer”. In a minor codex, the focal word is used to translate a Latin word
referring to wizards, sorcerers, or magicians. In turn, the expressions
translated refer to an ethnic stereotype of the Marsi, an ancient people of
South Central Italy. It is not clear whether the stereotype is negative or
positive. Þyrs in this sense occurs only when paired with “snake charmer”. It
is possible that a snake charmer would have been viewed as either a menace or a
great benefit to others ― or perhaps as both. Of course the scale of the
Marsi is human rather than gigantic (Bosworth and Toller, 1898; Glare, 1976).
Þyrs as Giant
This more common usage of þyrs presents a nasty image. For
example, in Beowulf, Grendel is a
þyrs as well as an eoten (Alexander, 1995: see line 426 regarding “þyrs” and
761 regarding “eoten”). But þyrs also was used to denote “Cyclops” — as we have
seen above, Cyclops were not necessarily evil. The focal word was also used to
translate the Latin “colossi” (denoting a larger-than-life statue).
From the strictly native use in Beowulf and Maxims II, we
see that a þyrs would have been a
water-loving wight. These giants would not necessarily have resided inside a
body of water, but would have preferred to lurk near water. Place names also
provide clues. Owen claims to have found three places named after þyrs. (1) It
is possible that Thursford was named after Thor and that the name alludes to
his inability to walk across Bifrost. (2) On the other hand, Tusmere
(þyrs-mere) strongly suggests a giant’s habitat. (3) Owen says that Thirsqueche
means “þyrs thicket”, and this would indicate a difficult place to enter or
navigate (perhaps on dry land, perhaps in a marsh). (See Owen, 1985; Rodrigues,
1993: Lines 43-44; Young, 1954).
It would have been quite out of character for Pagan English
people to have celebrated a þyrs. There is no indication of a þyrs-town,
-hamlet, or –farmstead, although human home places were named for deities (such
as Woden-town, Wednesbury).
Metod
Among English Pagans, Metod was allegory for the origins of
wyrd. Metod is one-of-a-kind in the English system, and he corresponds to the all
the norns in the Norse system – both those of Asgarð and those of individual
persons.
In the OERP Book, Stanfield (2000a and e) presents
the philological justification for this view of Metod. Following are the
highlights of Stanfield’s argument.
We must first realize how the ancient English defined wyrd.
The word had several meanings, as do many modern English words, but the focus
here is on a “philosophically interesting” meaning.
There are unavoidable circumstances in every human life
that have etiologies that are not empirically accountable and that cannot be
justified morally. Wyrd is the power of such circumstances or the circumstances
per se. Face with wyrd, you must cope. “Wyrd” is used to translate “fatum”, but
it is only an approximation, for wryd is circumstance (or the power of certain
circumstances) and not outcome. (Except that wyrd sometimes denotes death.)
The concept of wyrd acknowledges that life does not have to be completely
fair and does not have to always make sense. Many surviving uses of wyrd show
this, including an explicit philosophical discussion by Alfred.
Like norns, Metod has supreme (but not unlimited) power.
Also like the norns, Metod is ethically neutral and lacking in awareness of
what he is doing or has done or will do. He
is the origin of the most exciting, thrilling, and growth-potential things
that occur, but also the origin of horrible disasters. He sends us light to
enjoy and danger to fear.
In mixed-faith literature Metod sometimes appears as an
aspect of Yahweh. This would be because the syncretic religionists of the
time could not deny the existence of wyrd but could not allow Yahweh to be
limited. So they made a chimera. However, some uses of Metod do not
necessarily refer to him as an aspect of any other being.
Some authorities translate Metod as “The Creator”, but the
giant —even as an aspect of Yahweh — never appears as a creator of anything but
wyrd. In mixed-faith literature, Metod
appears in connection with desperate or disastrous situations. Metod is never
associated with willful mercy, compassion, nor salvation. Nor is hatred nor
willful mischief attributed to him.
Metod is not one to
ask for assistance or advice. In those desperate situations where we see Yahweh
as Metod, adherents of Biblical religions often pray to Yahweh or one of His
saints for assistance, salvation, wisdom, or courage. No one ever prays to
Metod for anything. For example, you can see this in lines 2524b-2527a of Beowulf, where Beowulf and his opponent have to each find their own inner
strength for the combat.
The name is another clue that Metod is not a deity. His name
is “The Allotted” (acted upon) not “The Allotor” (actor), and this emphasizes
that he is not consciously doing things. The name “Allotted” corresponds to the
Scandinavian notion that children are allotted norns at birth. That is, Metod
is the wight allotted to each person, and he works differently for each of
us. Like the Old Norse literature, the Old English literature does not say who
does the allotting.
The mixed-faith
literature implies ethical neutrality by mentioning circumstances created by
Metod without indicating justification. This holds whether it is the light of
day (as in strophe 24 of the Old
English Rune Poem) or the
drifter’s personal woes in The Wanderer.
Consider an appearance of Metod in clearly Christian literature. In
lines 104-108 of The Seafarer (Mitchell and Robinson, 1994), the workings
of Metod build character. The notion that all hardship exists to test or build
our character and is necessary for that purpose is theodicy. In these lines of
the Seafarer, we see an almost Pagan attitude in Christian
propaganda, for we are not told that hardship or death is moral. Instead, we
are told that some learn from Metod’s challenges and some do not. In this
instance, what some learn is to adhere to Yahweh. Theodicy is not offered, for
these circumstances merely exist.
Fífel and Nicor
Fífelas and nicras are giants much like norns or Metod, but
with far less power and philosophical significance. Fífelas and nicras have no
dialog and no complex, human-like motivation to make them empathic. Very unlike
norns and Metod, fífelas and nicras do have emotion: hatred of mankind.
Fífelas and nicras have other traits in common: they like
water, be it a shallow marsh or a deep ocean. “Water monster” is a better
translation than the dictionaries’ “sea monster”. Fífelas and nicras also live
exclusively in wilderness. “Nicor” was used to denote “hippopotamus” and “walrus”,
which are very large, water-loving animals. Although hippos are vegetarians,
they are often aggressively hateful to people who venture among them.
Fífelas are definitely associated with giants in Beowulf,
in line 104. The context shows how persons became giants and had to live in the
waste regions. Another example of the use of fífel is in the poem Waldere, at the start of Part II. In
that passage a hero releases another man from imprisonment, and to escape they
must hasten through a place dominated by these monsters. The Norse/Icelandic
cognate for fífel (fifl) implies enough mental functioning to be a fool, but
the Old Norse noun does not denote a giant. (See: Bosworth and Toller 1898;
Chickering 1977; Hall, 1960; Rodrigues, 1993: 84).
Conclusions Regarding Lore of Giants
Similarities between the Old Norse and Old English systems
imply different denominations or styles of Teutonic Paganism.
Similarities
In both Norse and English systems, giants are physically
large and have great powers of various sorts. Churlishness is their second most
common characteristic, but true giants are not just hostile predators.
Sometimes here is something about giants that invites our empathy without
inviting significant sympathy. They may be written of as “men” or “women”, as
are deities, even if the giants in question lack the slightest degree of
consciousness. On the other hand, some giants are simply hostile monsters
without personalities and with no profit in preying on people. They sometimes
side with heroes. In both systems, some types of giants have magical powers.
Some, but not all giants in both systems show non-magical or magical abilities
to do very constructive deeds.
Giants are separated from deities mainly by the giants’ lack
of highly-developed consciousness and self-control. Because of their lack of
conscious self-control, their control of other things is not volitional. Thus,
the seasons practically always appear or wyrd may be used to refer to sheer
chance.
Some giants are never constructive, but those who are
constructive never do themselves nor their kind any long-run good. Their gains
are in the short run. Any true cleverness on the part of giants other than
entas is in playing games or in hostile action.
Although Old Norse sources indicate giants who mingled with
the deities of Asgarð, myths tell us that in the Norse system even the deities
could not bridge the gap between divine and giant cultures. Likewise in the
ancient English view, most giants were quite separate from people and deities.
As a result of this gap, even the most constructive and friendly of giants are
eligible at best for admiration but not for worship.
Both Norse and English giants include a type that produces
a certain type of circumstance (or the power of such circumstances). The
existence of norns and the Metod type of giant implies a major difference between
Teutonic polytheism and Abrahamic religion. In Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam an all-powerful and all-knowing deity rules alone. In Teutonic
polytheism, no conscious wight nor combination of conscious wights knows all or
has supreme power, and the deities live in communities. The power of the
conscious wights is limited by a greater might which has no will.
Differences
None of the terms for giant in Old Norse maps exactly to a
term in Old English, despite some approximations. The Old Norse þurs and Old
English þyrs have similar names, and the þursar relate to gods and goddesses as
þyrs relate to humans, but the Old English þyrsas were not so especially noted
for stupidity as were their Old Norse kin. Jötunar and eotenas differ in that
some of the jötnar are at least reluctant helpers of people’s deities, while
eotenas are always hostile. In the Norse system, no type of giant was as
constructive as the entas and skilled work was in the jurisdiction of dwarves
(after the coming of the norns). The line between ent-kind and mankind was less
distinct in the English system than was the line between jötunar and humans or
deities in the Old Norse system. The norns and Metod perform practically the
same function, but they differ in form and number. Also, the circumstances
that the norns and Metod produce are described with different metaphors.
A Caution
The Norse lore used here is primarily mythological, relating
giants to deities but not to humans. The English lore is exclusively folklore,
and relates giants to humans but not to deities. Therefore, if there is a
philosophical contrast between high deity lore and folklore, that disjunction
will be part of the contrast between the English and Norse data.
A previous edition of this article was originally published
in the Spring of 2001: “Giants in Teutonic Religion.” The Rune, 11 (Spring):
32-37. A link to a web edition is under the heading “Other Philology” at: “http://pages.prodigy.net/gary_s/toc.htm”.
References
Alexander, Michael. 1995. Beowulf.
London: Penguin Books.
Barker,
Kenneth, Donald Burdick, John Stek, Walter Wessel, and Ronald Youngblood, ed.
1985. NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids,
MI, USA: Zondervan Corporation.
Barr,
Stringfellow. The Will of Zeus. New
York: Barnes and Noble.
Bjarnasson,
Saemundur, Benedikt Saemundsson, Hafdis Saemundsdottir, and Bjarni Sæmundsson.
2000. “Netútgáfan”. Available at “http://www.snerpa.is/net/”. [Visited 4
November 2000].
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.
Catholic
Church. 1987. The New America Bible.
Cleveland, OH, USA: World Publishing Company. (This book has over 100
individually-listed “collaborators”.)
Chickering,
Howell D. 1977. Beowulf: A Dual-Language
Edition. New York: Anchor Books.
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.
Cleasby,
Richard and Gudbrand Vigfusson. 1957. An Icelandic-English Dictionary. With
a supplement by Sir William Craigie. London: Oxford University Press.
Durant, Will.
1939. The Story of Civilization. Vol 2.
The Life of Greece. New York: Simon and Schuster. (Copyright renewed 1966
by Will Durant).
Faulkes,
Anthony, transl. 1987. Edda. By
Snorri Sturluson (1220). London: Everyman.
Glare, P. G.
W., ed. 1976. Oxford Latin Dictionary.
London: Oxford University Press.
Graves, Robert.
1960. The Greek Myths. London:
Penguin.
Gundarsson,
Kveldulf. 1993a. Teutonic Religion.
St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications.
-----, Diana
Paxson, and Lewis Stead. 1993a. “Etins, Rises, Thurses, Trolls, and Muspilli”.
In Our Troth, ed. Kveldulf
Gundarsson, 245-260. 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. 1962, transl. The Poetic Edda.
Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
----- transl.
1964. Heimskringla: History of the Kings
of Norway. Austin, Texas, USA: University of Texas Press.
Hodge, Winifred.
1998. Personal correspondence.
Houghton
Mifflin Company. 1993. The American
Heritage College Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hreinsson,
Viðar, Robert Cook, Terry Gunnell, Keneva Kunz, and Bernard Scudder. 1997c.
“Reference Section”. In The Complete
Sagas of the Icelanders. Vol 5, Viðar Hreinsson, Robert Cook, Terry
Gunnell, Keneva Kunz, and Bernard Scudder (ed.), 383-446. Rekyavík, Iceland:
Leifur Eiríksson Publishing.
Karlsdóttir,
Alice, Diana Paxson, and Laurel Olsen. 1993. “Skaði, Gerðr, Earth, and Other
Etin-Brides.” In Our Troth, ed.
Kveldulf Gundarsson, 206-215. Seattle, WA, USA: The Ring of Troth.
Kaske, R. E.
1967. “The Eotenas in Beowulf.” In Old English Poetry, ed.
Robert P. Creed. Providence, RI, USA: Brown University Press.
Kroesen, Riti.
1996. “Ambiguities in the Relationship between Heroes and Giants”. Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 111: 56-71.
Larrington,
Carolyne. 1996. The Poetic Edda.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lévêque, Pierre. 1964. The
Greek Adventure. Transl. by Miriam Kochan (1968). Cleveland, OH, USA: World
Publishing Company.
Lord, Gárman. 1998. Théodish
Planning Calendar 1998. Watertown, NY, USA: Théod.
Mitchell, Bruce
and Fred C. Robinson. 1994. A Guide to Old English. Fifth
Edition. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell.
Neckel, Gustav.
1936a. Edda: Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst verwandten Denkmälern.
Vol. 1. Text. Heidelberg, Germany: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Neckel, Gustav.
1936b. Edda: Die Lieder des Codex Regius
nebst verwandten Denkmälern. Vol. 2. Kommentierendes
Glossar. Heidelberg, Germany: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Motz, Lotte.
1987. “The Families of Giants.” Archiv
for nordisk filologi, 102: 216-236.
Neckel, Gustav.
1936b. Edda: Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst verwandten Denkmälern. Vol. 1.
Kommentierendes Glossar. Heidelberg, Germany: Carl Winters
Universitätsbuchhandlung.
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.
Rees, Ennis.
1991. The Odyssey of Homer. New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company.
Rodrigues,
Louis J. 1993. Anglo-Saxon Verse Charms,
Maxims, and Heroic Legends. Pinner, Middlesex, UK: Anglo-Saxon Books.
Stallybrass, James
Steven (transl). 1966. Teutonic Mythology, by Jacob Grimm (1854). New
York: Dover Publications.
Stanfield, Gary
G. 2000a. “Excerpts from the OERP Book: Chapters 24 and 25”. The Rune,
10 (Spring): 32-40.
------ 2000e.
“Excerpts from the OERP Book: Appendix E: Wyrd”. The Rune, 11 (Winter).
------ 2001.
“Giants in Teutonic Religion.” The Rune, 11 (Spring): 32-37.
Stead, Lewis.
1994. Raven Kindred Ritual Book, 3d
ed. Wheaton, MD, USA: Asatru Today.
Taylor, Arnold
R. 1990. Icelandic-English English-Icelandic
Dictionary. New York: Hippocrene Books.
Thorsson, Edred. 1987. Runelore. York Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser.
----- 1992. Northern Magic. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn.
----- 1993. Rune-Song. Austin, Texas: Runa-Raven
Press.
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.
Young, Jean I.,
transl. 1954. The Prose Edda by
Snorri Sturluson (circa 1220). Berkley, California, USA: University of
California Press .
Zoëga, Geir T. A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic.
London: Oxford University Press.
