OERP Book: Appendix E — Wyrd

 

By Gary G. Stanfield.  Last updated 27 July 2003. Previously published in:  Stanfield, Gary G. 2000e. “Excerpt from the OERP Book: Appendix E: Wyrd”. The Rune, 11 (Winter): 31-40.

 

Suggested listing of this edition in reference list format:  Stanfield, Gary G.  2003. “OERP Book: Appendix  E — Wyrd”. In Gary Stanfield's Web Pages [Online]. Available http://pages.prodigy.net/gary_s/toc.htm. [Visited: DateYouWereHere].

 

 

 

 

Pronunciation of Wyrd

The consensual theory of Old English pronunciation holds that the “y” in wyrd is pronounced as is the Modern German umlaut-u or the “u” in Modern French “tu” (Mitchell and Robinson, 1993). Whether the “r” is pronounced like the modern American “r”, or like a modern Brit­ish upper class “r”, the sound of wyrd is distinct from that of its descendant, “weird”.

The word “wyrd” represents an important concept in Teutonic pagan religion. In modern times, many questions about the nature of wyrd have been raised and many answers have been expressed in both the Pagan and academic literature. Some of these questions are: Is it a process or an outcome? If an outcome, is it specific or circumstantial? Can we change our wyrd, and if so how? How is wyrd caused? Just how complete or incomplete is the evidence and how ambiguous is it? What is the religious significance of wyrd? (See also the sidebar “Pronunciation of Wyrd”.

 

It may seem ironic that this appendix is an attempt to get a more objective answer to some of the questions that have been posed by tak­ing more account of religious or psycho­logical matters than is common in the philological literature. However, there are things that can be seen from one perspective that are much more difficult to see from the other.

 

This discussion of wyrd is a sub­stantial revision of Stanfield’s (1997) paper in Théod Magazine. The analysis and writing are more lucid, but the sub­stance of the conclusions is about the same.

 

Variety of Concepts

Reviewing the variety of Pagan and secular views on wyrd may help to increase awareness of the methodological and substantive issues.

Reconstructionist Pagan Concepts

The point of this section is that there has been a great variety of views of wyrd among Pagans rather than a consensual definition. Opinions have varied along five dimensions: (1) fate-to-free will;  (2) internal versus external source;  (3) spiritual-or-environmental;  (4) all-encompassing-to-narrowly relevant; (5) lability. It should be noted that since 1997 some of the persons whose works are cited in this section have changed their positions but not yet published new works dealing with wyrd.

 

Fate-to-Free Will

Views range from the idea that wyrd is the same as the Modern English “fate” to the view that human will is supreme. In Teutonic Religion, Gun­darsson states each thing has its own wyrd “which cannot be escaped” and that wyrd is “fate”. Gundarsson equates wyrd with ørlög (primal layer, or first cause), which is set at birth. However, most heathen authors opine that we have more control over our wyrd. Edred Thorsson explains that we can each discern our own wyrd through divination, and that doing so helps us each to become more the master/mistress of his/her own destiny. Thorsson also takes the view that we each provide our own primal cause for our own karma/wyrd. Aswynn takes the position that wyrd is con­trolled by people to the extent that they exert conscious thought. Exertion of conscious thought alone is enough to resist being dominated by externally imposed wyrd. On the extreme free-will side of the continuum, we not only make our own wyrd, but we can change it after it is made. Thus, Swain Wóden­ing claims that a person can magical­ly select which events from the past influence future chances (Aswynn, 1990: 258; Gundarsson, 1993a: 13-15; Thorsson, 1988: 13-16; Thorsson, 1989a: 99-102; S. Wódening, 1994).

 

Internal-or-External Source

The extreme view on the external end is clearly delineated, but clarity falls off as we move toward the internal end of the continuum. No one takes the internal extreme. The external-source extreme is held down by Gundarsson. He contends that wyrd is created entirely by norns (Gun­darsson, 1993a: 13-14). Freya Aswynn takes the more moderate position that “Although Norns shape the fate of men (sic), they do not necessarily create it.” She feels position that people control their wyrd to the extent that they exert conscious thought. However, Ms. Aswynn also states that Norns “con­trol fate and dispense wyrd.” Aswynn also advises us to call on the Norns in magic and divination (Aswynn, 1990: 111, 238-239, 258). Swain Wódening clearly feels that “we lay our own wyrd,” although he also indicated that Wóden could intervene in one’s wyrd (S. Wódening, 1994c: 10; 1994b: 18). Thorsson appears to be ambivalent than is the case. In At the Well of Wyrd, he appears to imply that wyrd is woven by the norns, but if one reads the relevant passage in At the Well of Wyrd very carefully, it is clear that Thorsson only mentions the norns in passing. They have no role in creating wyrd. In both At the Well of Wyrd and A Book of Troth, he seems to take pains to say that people create all of their own wyrd without necessarily being aware of it. Thorsson; 1988: 13-16; 1989:99-102; 1995).

 

Spiritual-or-Environmental Locus

This dimension refers to the location of wyrd. The distribution of opinion does not truly resemble a continuum, for there are only two positions. The spiritual position is Edred Thorsson’s, who tells us that wyrd “works through the fetch,” which is a numinous being attached to the individual. The fetch stores the “energies and actions of the individual” and events in one’s environment. So wyrd is located in the spiritual aspect of our being (Thorsson, 1989: 93, 101).  The other heathen authors cited here imply that wyrd is an environmental constraint or circumstance.

 

All-Encompassing-to-Narrowly Relevant

This dimension refers to the extent to which things and events are connected in the web of wyrd. Swain Wódening sees wyrd as “the collective deeds and lives of all in the cosmos.” Under the influence of this view, wyrd could be described in terms of modern concepts such as path analysis, markov chains, and open systems theory, as I used to do. Thorsson and Chisolm define wyrd more restrictively as “The process of the unseen web of synchronicity and cause and effect throughout the cosmos”. This leaves out all visible causal connections. Other sources present wyrd as referring only to influences which bear in some impor­tant way on a focal phenomenon. In other words, the contents of wyrd depend on who and what you are talking about. Freya Aswynn and Edred Thorsson hold that we each have our own personal wyrd — which con­tradicts Thorsson’s notion that wyrd is the unseen web. Gundarsson quotes Eric Wódening as pointing out that causal influences in wyrd vary in strength of effect, and that some things are just not important enough to be in the web (Asywnn, 1990: 258; Chisolm, 1993: 115; Thorsson, 1989a: 101, 215; 1992: 217; Emery, 1969; Kemeny et al., 1956: 171-177; Nie et al, 1975: 383-397; E. Wódening, 1993; S. Wódening, 1994c: 11).

 

Lability

Heathen authors disagree on the extent to which wyrd is open to change. In At the Well of Wyrd, Thorsson (1988: 13) indicates that wyrd is an accomplished result, and Gundarsson agrees with this point of view in Teutonic Religion (1993a). In Our Troth, Gundarsson (1993b: 268-270) quotes Eric Wódening’s position that there is a “process of wyrd,” but this process is apparently conducted only at the beginning, when norns establish wyrd. In A Book of Troth, Thorsson (1989) indicates that wyrd is a process, a “dealing out” of events subsequent to a primal cause. This would mean that wyrd constantly changes as it progresses from the beginning of a chain of events to the end, but that these changes are predetermined. In Our Troth, Gundarsson claims that Pagans magically created or modified wyrd by means of ritual magic (Gundarsson, 1993b: for example, see the chapter on Yule). Swain Wódening (1994a) holds that one can change one’s wyrd at any time. Aswynn (1990) hold that wyrd is always in flux.

 

Summary

Among Pagan scholars, there is little agreement on the nature of wyrd, and some of our most prominent scholars seem to disagree with them­selves. We in Pagan reconstructionist movements must apply subjective criteria because religion is more subjective than is science. Also, where the evidence is incomplete or ambiguous, we must make use of our own well-informed insights from outside the ancient texts. Therefore there will always be some reliance on hunches, intuition, and pre-existing preferences However, expressions of the opinions in question are usually not accompanied by evidence, and this lack of objectivity might explain the extent of disagreement.

 

Secular Studies

The common element in dictionaries and other studies of the concept is the lack of conscious human control over wyrd. Wyrd refers to two types of phenomena. One type is events that are certain: things that have already happened or that are sure to happen. The other type of phenomenon is chance. The academics never discuss the possibility of perceiving the etiology of wyrd.

 

Dictionaries show more variety of meaning for wyrd than do other sources.  The first Old English dictionary to make it into print (Somner, 1659) did not define wyrd in the singular, although it discussed the derivation of the focal word. Somner defined the plural of wyrd as “Parcæ, the fates, destinies.” Later dictionary authors translate the focal word as “event”, “fact”, or “phenomenon”. Some add: destiny, chance, fortune, The Fates, deed, transaction, pheno­menon, condition, and fact. To these, Borden adds “that which will happen,” which is a nuance away from fate. Bosworth and Toller say that wyrd can denote what happens with or without a sense of numinous etiology. However, only Hall and Bosworth-Toller cite evidence in support of their definitions. (See Barney, 1977:12, 108; Bessinger, 1960: 80; Borden, 1982: 1587; Bosworth and Toller, 1898: 1287-1288; Bosworth and Toller, 1921: 751; Doane, 1978: 411; Hall, 1960: 427; Houghton Mifflin Company, 1993: 1531; Jember et al, 1975:178; Mitchell and Robinson, 1992: 365).

 

Some books on Germanic religion include brief studies of wyrd, which they tend to equate with fate. For example, Branston made a case that the concepts of Fate and the Fates has ancient Indo-European roots, that these ideas show branches in three Indo-European religions, and that wyrd and the norns are the Germanic part of this pattern. Earle claims that wyrd is the same as Urðr in Scandina­vian myth, but he also claims that wyrd combines all the characteristics of all the Norns. Turville-Petre did not directly translate wyrd, but he also equated it with “urðr”, which he said was an Old Norse word for fate. (See Branston, 1974: 57, 65-71, 186; Davidson, 1964: 217; Earle, 1884: 68-69; Guerber, 1895: 148, 154-159; Turville-Petre, 1964: 278).

 

The Well and the Tree

Many Pagans opine that The Well and the Tree is the classic study of wyrd, but this is not the case. Bau­schatz (1982: 87) says that wyrd has been well studied by others than himself, implying no need for extensive research on his part. The references he gives on wyrd consist of the Payne (1974) article the list of references in that article. The book does contain scattered in­sights related to wyrd, and I have found it useful in limited ways. This explains why Bauschatz’ book is not cited in this paper as among the major studies of wyrd.

Three secular studies concentrated on wyrd as a concept in Old English literature ― and those studies generally conclude that wyrd is beyond human control. The most important is Timmer’s (1940, 1941) very thorough and extensive study.  Timmer concludes that wyrd represented “blindly ruling Fate” until conversion to Christianity. After conversion wyrd was subordin­ated to Yahweh, although it still rep­resent­ed “a sense of the inevitability of the events of a man’s (sic) life” (Timmer, 1940-1941: 124-125). Also important is Stanley’s (1975) book on Anglo-Saxon Paganism. Stanley points out that wyrd glosses certain Latin words referring to fate, destiny, or predestination, and it occurs in contexts where it refers to Yahweh’s will. The focal word also occurs in contexts where Stanley feels it refers to outcomes (final fate, doom, or death). Payne’s (1974) paper on wyrd in Beowulf is closer to the conclusion drawn in this paper, for she says that wyrd represents “the agent behind...experiences” which show a lack of that paternalism or beneficence “associated with ‘God’”. (See also the sidebar “The Well and the Tree”.)

 

In their prominent study of The Wanderer, Dunning and Bliss (1969) infer that “the difference between the Germanic concept of wyrd and the Classical concept of ‘Fate’ is largely etymological.” It seems likely that whatever the nuances of Roman Pagan religious philosophy, Dunning and Bliss were referring to the Modern English “fate”. Otherwise, they would have had to create or to cite an explanation of fate in Roman Pagan religion similar to the study of wyrd in this appendix.

 

Incidentally, two additional definitions are provided by Hall and by Borden (probably following Hall): “pleasure” and “verbosity” (Hall, 1960; Borden, 1982). It is worthwhile to note that the focal word is not always used in a philosophically interesting way.

 

A major shortcoming in the secular studies is that the subculture of academe tends to bias scholars’ attentions away from the more profound religious questions. This bias tends to inhibit perceiving the religious context that gives meaning and importance to ancient discourse regarding wyrd.

 

Summary of Pagan and Secular Views

There certainly has been a lot of disagreement about this topic. To the extent that Teutonic Pagan religion has been suppressed, we might expect that some of its core concepts might seem so alien to modern sensibilities that we would have difficulty seeing them even with the very skillful and professional examination that this topic has had. In the recent past, scholars studying wyrd in a Pagan religious context have disagreed more  radically than those working in academe. Many Pagans opine that a person can make or change wyrd, that one can perceive the etiology of wyrd, and/or that wyrd is a causal process. In contrast, scholars writing for secular or mostly Chris­tian audiences tend to look upon wyrd as fate-like. In general, those who have the most reason to expect critical scru­tiny by experts tend to view wyrd as an outcome and as not subject to conscious manipulation ― except insofar as medieval Chris­tians said that Yahweh controls wyrd. One of the concerns of Pagan (and other) religious philosophers is to avoid saying that people totally lack freedom and responsibility. This concern is philologically valid because we would be right to expect the ancient’s use of wyrd to reflect correct philosophy. And so we might well ask of the evidence: “to what extent is wyrd fate-like, does it encompass all phenomen­a, and what does it mean?”

 

Ancient Usages

Purely Christian Culture

Stanley’s (1975) and Timmer’s (1940-1941) main thesis was that there was no Pagan influence on early medieval English culture. Tim­mer felt that Old English literature on wyrd was Chris­tian, but Stanley saw it as secular. Al­most all modern Pagans and neo­Pagans would regard a denial of Pagan influence as greatly in error. Stanley and Timmer did their best to handle the evidence logically and thorough­ly. We should keep in mind that James Russell’s (1994) book on Pagan in­fluences and some of the sources he used were not available to Timmer nor to Stanley.

One in­teresting point of scholarly agree­ment is that wyrd is not a Chris­tian concept. Therefore, when the term “wyrd” is mentioned in ostensibly Christian writings we are looking at an impurity that has been added to create an acceptable or comprehensible alloy. Apparently, Biblical concepts that seem natural to many modern persons would have been alien or incomprehen­sible in early medieval Germanic cultures. Therefore, we can justify exam­ining early medieval uses of the focal word to see how it would have been used without the one-god theory. (See also the sidebar, “Purely Christian Culture”).

 

The evidence used here relies heavily on poetry as opposed to prose. Since diction is more archaic in Old English poetry than in prose, poetry is a better place to look for clues to the customs and beliefs of Pagan times.

Dissertations on Wyrd

The most straightforward discussion of wyrd in early medieval literature is King Alfred’s, written in the 800’s. Alfred saw his missions as including instructing his people, advancing quality scholarship, and strengthening Christian religion. Alfred’s definition gives clues as to how wyrd was used in Pagan culture as well as how he wanted the word used henceforth (Campbell et al., 1982: 155; 157; Bolton, 1986).

 

There is also an implicit disserta­tion on wyrd in a poem from the early 900’s called The Wanderer. That poem was not intended as explicit instruc­tion on wyrd ― the poem says that wyrd was well known in those times. However, The Wan­derer can tell us a lot about the present topic and is often cited in studies of wyrd.

 

Alfred

Originality in Alfred on Boethius

Alfred apparently intended to ex­plain Boethius’ ideas and Christian doctrine in Anglo-Saxon cultural context, not to provide an exact translation of The Conso­lations of Philoso­phy. King Al­fred’s interpre­tation reor­ganized Consolations and omitted large parts, but Al­fred’s book is twice as long as the Latin original. Thus, it is reason­able to infer that where Alfred used “wyrd” in place of  “fatum” and “fortuna” in the pas­sage quoted here, he meant to explain Yahweh’s actions in terms of wyrd and not necessarily in terms of Roman Pagan religious concepts. The present author is not competent to make an esoteric inte­r­pretation of the Roman Pagan con­cepts related to fate and cannot elucidate nor speculate upon any relation be­tween wyrd and Pagan fatum. (See Bol­ton, 1986; Camp­bell et al, 1982: 155, 157; Fox 1864)

In Alfred’s discussion and else­where in Old English literature, the term “wyrd” is incorporated in Christian philoso­phy. This implies that the concept was most likely of Pagan, not secular origin, and that the reality of wyrd was beyond denial. Alfred set forth a redefini­tion of wyrd to explain the Biblical con­cept of an all-powerful and all-knowing deity. (See also the sidebar, “Originality in Alfred on Boethius”).

 

Alfred’s Definition

The passages used here are taken from Timmer’s (1940, 1941) quota­tions from Alfred’s transla­tion of Consolations of Philosophy and from editions of Alfred’s translation by Sedgefield (1899) and Fox (1864). The division into numbered paragraphs is based on Timmer’s but is mine.

 

1) Ac ðæt ðætte we hatað Godes foreþonc and his foresceawung, þæt bið þa hwile þe hit ðær mid him bið on his mode, ærðæm þe hit ġefremd weorðe, þa hwile ðe hit ġeþoht bið; ac siððan hit fullfremd bið, þonna hatað we hit wyrd. Be þy mæġ ælc mon witan þæt hit sint æġþer ġe tweġen naman ġe twa þincg, foreþonc and wyrd.

2) Se foreþonc is sio godcunde ġesceadwisnes; sio is fæst on þæm hean sceppende þe eall fore wat hu hit ġeweorðan sceall ær hit ġeweorðe.

3) Ac þæt þæt we wyrd hatað þæt bið Godes weorc þæt he ælce dæġ wyrcð, æġþer ġe þæs ðe we gesioð ġe þæs þe us unġesewenlic bið.

4) Ac se godcunda foreþonc heaðerað ealle ġesceafta, þæt hi ne moton toslupan of hiora endebyrdnesse. Sio wyrd þonne dælð eallum ġesceaftum anwlitan and stowa and side and ġemetgunga; ac sio wyrd cymð of ðæm ġewítte and of ðæm foreþonce þæs ælmihteġan Godes.

5) Se wyrcð æfter his unascecgendlicum foreþonce þonne swa hwæt swa he wile, swa swa ælc cræftega ðencð & mearcað his weorc on his mode ær ær he hit wyrce, & wyrcð siððan eall. þios wandriende wyrd þe we wyrd hatað færð æfter his forþonce & æfter his geþeahte, swa swa he tiohhað þæt hit sie.

 

In translation.

 

1) And we call this God’s forethought and His foresight, that is while it is with Him in his mind, before it becomes accomplished, while it is thought. And after it is fulfilled, we call it wyrd. By means of this may each person therefore know that both two names and two things: forethought and wyrd.

2) This forethought is the divine sagacity. It is constant in that the High Creator knows all beforehand, (and knows) how it happens before it takes place.

3) Therefore that which we call wyrd is God’s everyday work, both that which we perceive and that which is imperceptible to us.

4) Moreover, the divine forethought controls all conditions so that they cannot fall out of order. Therefore, wyrd bestows upon all phenomena appearances, places, aspects, and regulations, because wyrd comes from the knowledge and the forethought of the almighty God.

5) He works whatever He wills according to His unannounced plan, just as each craftsperson thinks & plans his or her work in his or her mind before he/she does it, and afterwards does it all. This wandering wyrd which we call wyrd fares according to his forethought and according to his thought, just as He intends that it should be.

 

In an earlier passage of the same work, Alfred advises us: “Ne meaht ðu nu geit þinre wyrde nauht oðwítan ne þín lif no getælan, ne eart þu no eallunga to nauhte gedon swa swa þu wenst.” In Modern English: “You may not blame your wyrd at all nor despise your life; nor are you entirely free to do as you please”

 

Discussion of Alfred’s Definition

Clearly, Alfred depicts wyrd as beyond human foresight, control, or alteration. It is a powerful set of circumstances, providing a structure of constraints and opportunities within which we must act. We cannot explain it empirically, and we cannot see it as it develops around us. Sometimes we cannot perceive it as it exists. Wyrd is clearly a result or a set of results, not a causal web. It is certainly not a being as defined in this passage.

 

When Alfred says that we should not become emotionally negative about wyrd, he is implying that wyrd is not all-encompassing, for we have at least partial responsibility for our own outcomes and adjustments. He indirectly advises us that emotional negativity toward things that we cannot change is wasteful and can be quite unhealthy.

 

That which is explicitly not Teutonic Pagan in this definition is the role of an almighty and all-knowing deity who is always loving and just. Thus, the differences between Alfred’s (revisionist) wyrd and Teutonic Pagan wyrd are threefold. (1) In a Biblical adaptation, wyrd is necessarily always just because it is controlled by Yahweh. We do not necessarily perceive the justice of wyrd, for Yahweh is beyond human understand­ing. In a Teutonic Pagan system, wyrd would not need to be just. (2) In a Biblical adaptation, there must be a conscious mind behind wyrd, but that mind does not learn nor adjust because Yahweh’s mind is perfect. In the Pagan system, there need be no thought behind wyrd. (3) In a Biblical use of the focal word, it cannot refer to anything beyond the power of Yahweh, but in a Teutonic Pagan system wyrd can be independent of deities and beyond their powers.

 

It might be said that the presence of sorcerers and diviners in Pagan systems raise the possibility of people working wyrd. However, sources more Pagan than was Alfred stress that no one avoids wyrd. Also, although some English Pagan spell chants have survived, none of them speaks directly of manipulating wyrd. Nor is there explicit mention of magicians peering into wyrd or manipulating it. Wyrd is the same as or very similar to the Old Norse urðr, which is said to limit the the deities. Likewise, there is no source showing that someone learned of a future wyrd from a diviner and avoided it. (See discussions below and Rodrigues, 1993; Hollis 1997). It is obvious that there are limits of human capability, and in Teutonic Pagan religion there are limits of divine power. It seems quite safe to infer that by definition wyrd included those factors which were beyond the limits of even the greatest conscious power.

 

The Wanderer

This poem has been the subject of interesting controversies. The composition was probably completed about 950, but the title “The Wan­derer” was bestowed by Benjamin Thorpe in 1836. Therefore the title is not a clue from medieval times and probably reflects a modern misunder­standing. Some feel that this poem is a Pagan work with a few Christian lines added at the beginning and end, others think they see a thoroughly Christian composition. Scholars have also debated whether the poem is a monologue in which the title character tells his story, or a series of speeches by distinct voices speaking on a single theme. (See Bradley, 1982; Crossley-Holland, 1982: 45-47, 50-53; Dunning and Bliss, 1969; Gollancz, 1895; Leslie, 1966; Mitchell and Robinson, 1993: 268-275; Pope, 1965).

 

The best short title is probably “Oppression”. A major theme of the poem is that in the normal course of human life there are extremely unpleasant situations that affect many personal lives but are beyond the power of any group or individual to alter or prevent. In certain passages, these situations are referred to as wyrd. The other themes are (1) lament and warning of the destruction of warfare, (2) emphasis on the importance of self-containment in the face of hardship, and (3) finding an honorable course in a churlish world.

 

The poem is a series of brief excerpts organized around the common themes. Selecting excerpts from a few popular classics would help give legitimacy to a work of question­able political correct­ness ― the oppressions and disasters discussed were part of normal early medieval Germanic politics. The number of speaking roles or performers would depend on artistic and philosophical considerations, but as many as 10 performers can be utilized. In some ancient gatherings, everyone in the hall could perform a part, and some parts could have been choruses. The poem was intended for an audience of Chris­tians, agnostics, atheists, and (mostly) diehard Pagans.

 

All quotations from The Wanderer are compilations from the editions of Gollancz (1895), Diamond (1970), and Mitchell and Robinson (1994). The translations shown below are like the half-line-based translations of OERP strophes, made more to give the meaning of each half line than to communicate the nonverbal messages of the original. No attempt is made to preserve the medieval punctuation.

 

Wyrd is Absolutely Unyielding

These are the first five lines of the poem. The main point of this passage is that whether wyrd persists or changes is a matter of chance, not of conscious efforts nor of (human’s nor spiritual beings’) wishes. Because there is no profound “why” behind some things, there is hope even in the most enduring and depressing situation.

 

Oft him ánhaga • áre gebídeþ

Metudes miltse • þeah-þe hé mód-ċeariġ

ġeond lagu-lade • lange scolde

hréran mid handum;  • hrím-ċealde sǽ,

wadan wræc-lástas. • Wyrd byþ ful arǽd.

Oft for himself the loner • favor experiences ―
Metod’s mercy ― • although he in discouragement
far (over) sea routes • long had to

propel (his boat) by hand; • (through) frost-cold sea
to travel the paths of exiles. • Wyrd is absolutely resolute.

 

The first line seems ambiguous to some modern observers. It could mean “Often the solitary one asks favor for himself”, or it could mean “Often the loner experiences favor for himself”. The following line gives a clue, for its “b” verse is: “þéah þe he mód-cearig”. You ask for a break because (not “although”) you have long suffered without it. You can experience relief although you thought you never would get a break from loneliness, physical hardship, and sheer discouragement.

 

Notice what this passage does not say. It does not imply that you can gain mercy or favor if you pray sincerely and deeply believe.

 

Some scholars feel that this passage is Christian because it mentions Metod, but mention of Metod can be quite ambiguous. If Metod were a hypostasis of Yahweh, He would be above changing His mind because He is super-conscious and all wise. Therefore He would never change His mind and give you mercy merely because you asked for it, and you would not be able to get “áre” on your own against His will. This produces the same result as if Metod were but a giant without aware­ness or intent and yet more powerful than any goddess or god. Either way, that part of your situation that is wyrd is absolutely unyielding. Thus, the first five lines allow interpretations according to both Alfred’s idea of wyrd and according to a strictly Pagan view. The catch is that Christians expect prayer to bring results or a change on one’s ways to trigger mercy, so we have to look upon the ambiguity of this passage as pretty thin camouflage.

 

Character is Needed for Endurance

Lines 15-18 occur near end the first phase of the drifter’s monologue (lines 8-21). The first phase tells us that he has lost all his confidants and has not yet found a replacement, therefore he must suffer in silence.


Ne mæġ wérig mód • wyrde wiðstondan
né sé hréo hyġe • helpe ġefremman.
Forðon dóm-georne • dréorigne oft
in hyra bréost-cofan • bindað fæste.

Neither may weary mood • withstand wyrd,
nor (may) those angry thoughts • be of assistance.
Therefore, those eager for a good reputation • a dreary thought often
in their heart-coffers • bind fast.

 

The drifter tells us that strong negative emotions, whether of depression or anger, are of no help in successfully enduring wyrd. Complaining about problems without hope of solving them can be cathartic, but such talk can also make you more aware of anger or discouragement. Com­plaining too much can also alienate others. Sometimes you just have to tough it out and maintain the best mood you can. The drifter has to main­tain this discipline while physically impoverished and far from a suppor­tive lord or sympathetic comrades. This emphasizes that ultimate­ly one has to take responsibility for one’s own morale.

 

Another side of this passage is the emphasis on social support. Namely, close friends and supportive authorities are the good social supports to help you keep your sanity in the face of severe oppression.

 

We understand this passage more clearly if we see that it is part of a general theme against excessive war­fare. That is why there is so much emphasis on severe suffering, and we should not infer that wyrd is simply bad news and hard times. This passage is part of a warning that the effects of warfare often go beyond what is thought of during the fighting or planning to fight, and that even intended results are sometimes regrettable.

 

Dunning and Bliss (1969) interpret these lines as implying that somehow one can change wyrd. However, the poem includes a prior passage which indicates that “wyrd biþ ful áræd”. This excerpt is about maintaining mental health, not changing one’s environmental circumstances.

 

The Seen but Invisible, the Willed but Involuntary

Everyone who reads this document (including the author) has at some time committed and act and wondered why he or she did it, and every one of us has done something important and found that it had conse­quen­ces we knew in advance but were not fully aware of. That is the sort of thing that lines 85-87 speak of. Although wyrd is not explicitly mention­ed, this passage clearly speaks of it.

 

Ýþde swá þisne eard-ġeard • ælda scyppend
oþþæt burg-wara • breahtma lease,
eald enta ġeweorc • indlu stodon.

Thus laid waste this earthly place · did mankind’s Creator
until city-dwellers’ · noises ceased
(and) ancient giants’ works · stood empty.

 

The immediate context of passage is a description of a walled city that was constructed with labor that would be very difficult to repeat, but which is now ruined and depopulated by war. The point of the phrase “Ýþde..ælda scyppend” (Laid waste….Mankind’s Creator) is that the proximate cause of the destruction in question is human nature. In whatever context the excerpt originated, it might have spoken of Yahweh openly punishing a city of sinners, but in The Wanderer there is no sign of direct action by Him. Instead He has indirectly caused this by making human nature.

 

By reminding us that there are things we do that bring about wyrd-type circumstances, this helps us realize how wyrd can develop and change all around us all the time. How, then does wyrd arise? “It is just human nature.”

 

These three lines contradict the tone of the rest of the poem by blaming Our Father for the carnage and destruction in question. The rest of the poem says that the wyrd of war that we see has been made by men, and the rest of the poem carefully avoids directly criticizing anyone’s theology. This is a telling clue that The Wanderer has been redacted from several speaker’s lines and probably from several poems.

 

Everyone Knows You Cannot Change Wyrd

Lines 97-100 are part of a passage that bemoans the loss of the martial inhabitants of a walled city. The remarkably moving poetry is intended to reinforce the caution against warfare that is a major theme of The Wanderer.

 

Stondeð nú on láste • léofre duguþe
weal wundrum heah • wyrm-licum fah.
Eorlas fornóman • asca þrýþe
wǽpen wǽl-gífru. • Wyrd séo mǽre!

Stands now after •(the) dear war band (has gone)
wall wondrously high • (and) and painted with sinuous shapes.
Earls were taken away • by spears’ force,
(by) slaughter-greedy weapons. • Wyrd the well-known!

 

The passage laments the fact that deaths are not to be taken back, just as everyone knows that you cannot change wyrd. This fact is highlighted by the lifeless walls of a city ruined by the loss of its humans. We see a sadness not necessarily fully intended by either the defenders or attackers.

 

This quotation tells us that wyrd was common knowledge, not a highly esoteric and obscure concept addressed only by a few occult insiders. In turn this supports the interpretation that wyrd refers to a type of commonly-experienced situation. We may infer that wyrd refers to a structure of opportunities and constraints ― everyone experiences this all the time. This would be something to be dealt with by those who would proselytize large numbers of Teutonic Pagans to a Biblical religion.

 

Wyrd Brings Changes

Following are lines 107-110.

Onwendeð wyrda ġesceaft • weoruld under heofunum.
Her bið feoh lǽne. • Her bið freond lǽne.
Her bið mon lǽne. • Her bið mǽġ lǽne.
Eal þis eorþan ġesteal • idel weorþeð.

Changes wyrds’ nature • (the whole) world under heaven.
Here is money temporary. • Here are friends temporary.
Here is man temporary. • Here is woman temporary.
All (of) this earthly place • becomes useless.

 

For students of wyrd, the expression “wyrda ġesceaft” has drawn substantial interest. Contrary to certain commonly-expressed opinions, in this context “wyrda” is used as speakers of Modern English would use the possessive of “circumstances”.

 

The mention of wyrd in this passage may appear to refer to an allegory, so some people infer that this passage evinces a set of two or more Pagan goddesses collectively called “Wyrd”. Thus, “wyrda ġesceaft” is some­times translated as fate’s (sic) decree or Fates’/Wyrds’ decree. This in turn could be taken to imply a group of Pagan Teutonic wights called wyrds who rule supreme and cause evil (Timmer, 1940, 1941). However, poetic license allows us to say that inanimate things act although they do not. For example, if a road could wander we would have great difficulty staying on it or going to a known destination over it, but the figure of speech “road wanders” is often heard. There is more than one wyrd mentioned because there are many circum­stances impinging on the whole world.

 

The translation of “ġesceaft” is not as critical as is our understanding “wyrda” in this passage. We could translate “ġesceaft” as “decree” or “decrees” in the sense of “requirement” However, the treatment of wyrd in The Wanderer does not allow wyrd to be an absolutely determining circumstance or set of circumstances. If we translate as “created phenomenon”, then “wyrda ġesceaft” would refer to the implications or specific results of extant conditions beyond our control. To get the best sense out of lines 107-110, ġesceaft can be translated as “nature or condition”. Then the passage says that it is the nature of wyrd to cause these changes. (See Bosworth and Toller, 1921; Hall, 1960)

 

This passage tells us that wyrd does not necessarily cause things to remain as they are. Instead, the circumstances we cannot change can themselves bring changes. The broader context is that the poem is trying to tell us not to make things even worse than they are by rash action.

 

You Can Choose Not to Make Things Worse

Lines 112-114 include most of the concluding advice in the poem. They allude to advice in lines 64-72, which say that a wise person will not be overly exultant, too weak, etc. ― but most of all a wise man will not rashly promise action before he knows what is really in his heart.

 

Til bið sé þe his tréowe ġehealdeþ. • Né sceal nǽfre his torn tó rycene
beorn of his bréostum acýþan, • nemþe he ǽr þá bóte cunne,
eorl mid elne ġefremman. • Wel bið þam þé him áre séċeð.

 

 

 

Good is he who keeps his troth. • Never shall his resentment too quickly
born of his breast be made known, • unless he knows the remedy beforehand,
(and) the earl with vigor (how) to act. • (It is) well with he who seeks honor for himself.

Regarding wyrd, this tells us that although certain flaws are normal, you do not have to let them take over. In other words, you cannot eliminate wyrd, but you can moderate its consequences (and perhaps its occur­rence) by taking conscious control.

 

The poem concludes with a line of Christian liturgy that is just as out of phase with the main body of he poem as is the criticism of Christianity in lines 85-87. The statement is: “Comfort (is) from (the) Father in Heaven, • where that security stands for us all.” This appears to be merely politi­cally correct, but what it can mean to an esoteric listener in a mixed audience is that we need inner strength to have the discipline to act with honor and alert common sense in a challenging world of reality.

 

Conclusions

The Wanderer implies that wyrd was widely known in ancient times. Also, it is circumstantial, it is beyond human intervention, it could lead to changes as well have a conservative effect, and each of us is responsible for her or his own coping with wyrd. Wyrd is not your outcomes, it is the structure of opportunities and constraints within which your outcomes occur.

 

Wyrd does not refer to an etiological chain or web, nor a web of synch­ron­icity. The focal word that in Old English contexts refers to certain current circumstances. These are circum­stances whose etiologies are never fully known.

 

In The Wanderer, we see certain circumstances develop­ing from man­kind’s folly, but all we can say of the etiology is that making war is just human nature and the best we can do is try to not make things worse by acting less consciously than we must.

 

Additional Uses

Uses of the focal term outside dissertations on wyrd support the contention that the best one-word translation is “circumstance”, although wryd usually refers to a certain type of circumstance. These three selections are just illustrative. It is not possible in this appendix to explicitly discuss all 882 instances where wyrd and its etymological relatives appear in the corpus of Old English (Bessinger, 1960) nor even the 19 times that that wyrd per se appears in poetry (Barney, 1977).

Wyrd Does Not Always Allow Freedom of Action

Sometimes the opportunities and constraints we face do not allow meaningful freedom of action. Therefore there are times when courage and clear thinking would have us accept conditions or outcomes that we do not desire. For a religion to help a person live a better life, it has to deal with this kind of situation, one where adaptation is more a matter of aware emotional self-control than of an aggressive strategy.

 

The often-compelling power of wyrd is illustrated by a passage from King Alfred’s “translation” of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, which is not in a section where Alfred was trying to explicitly explain wyrd. The context is this section is a historical background explaining how the Ostrogoths took over a large area of the Roman Empire and how the Ostrogothic King Theodoric felt compelled to suppress an incipient rebellion. (Among other things, King Theodoric had a Pope executed). From the Mitchell and Robinson (1993) edition, these are lines 28-31a with some changes in punctuation.

 

Stód þáġe on ðám. • Þéod wæs ġewunnen
wintra mænigo  • oðþæt wyrd ġescráf
þæt þe Þéodriċe  • þegnas and eorlas
héran sceoldan.

 

 

For a time things stood like this. • The nation was conquered
many winters • until circumstances required
that Theodoric • to thegns and earls
had to listen.

 

Theodoric had gotten himself into difficulty by doing things he knew he was doing, yet he did not foresee the consequences of his actions and possibly did not realize afterwards how he got himself into this trouble.

 

The Ruin, which is often cited in studies of wyrd, discusses something that has happened to people due to a combination of factors that were beyond their control. These are the first two lines of that poem, quoted from the Mitchell and Robinson (1993) edition with some changes in punctuation.

 

Wrǽtliċ is þes wealstán, • wyrde ġebrǽcon.
burgstede burson; • brosnað enta ġeweorc.

 

 

Wonderous is the stone wall, • (yet) shattered by compelling circumstances.
The city in ruins • ‑ a thing made by giants ‑decays.

 

A Slighly Different Sort of Circumstance

In some instances where the focal term is sometimes translated as “phenomenon” or “deed” the modern “circumstance” would also work. This is from the forty-seventh poem in a group in the certain ancient book called “riddles”. This particular poem is not a riddle, but more like a stanza from the OERP with the first word indicating a topic and deeper subject matter partially hidden from view. This is the whole poem, based on Mackie’s (1934) edition. In this context, Groff (1992) translates wyrd as “deed”, and “phenomenon” is probably the most accurate (if not very poetic) rendering. However, you can see that “circumstance” does fit.

 

Moððe word fræt. • Mé þæt þúhte
wrǽtliċu wyrd, Þá iċ at wundor ġefrægn,
þæt se wyrm forswealg • wera ġied sumes,
þéof in þýstro, • þrymfætne cwide
ond þæs strangan staþol. • Stælġiest ne wæs
wihte þý gléawra, • þe hé þám wordum swealġ.

 

 

A moth eats words. • By me that is considered
(a) wonderous circumstance. • Then I inquire into that wonder
that the caterpillar consumes • men’s words whole
(as a) thief in the night, • (both) glorious discourse
and its strong (physical) basis. • Clever not was thief-guest
(nor made a) clear-thinking wight, • although he consumed the words.

 

Etymological Considerations

The inference that wyrd refers to circumstances without question as to causal relationships can be corroborated by etymological considera­tions. The focal word is related to weorðan (to become or to happen). Barney (1977: 12) and Pagan author Swain Wódening (1994a) have described the evolution of wyrd from a hypothetical Indo-European root word (wer) meaning “to turn” through a family tree of Germanic words. “Weorðan” refers to happening. It does not refer to making something into nor (usually) to being made into; it does not denote “caused to become”. Wódening speculates that weorðan came to mean “to become” as a result of its relation to wyrd. It may be a noun made from a past participle of a verb meaning “to turn out” in the sense of “become”.

 

Old English words relating to causality are very different than the focal word. The OE prepositions for “because” (ac, for, ða, mid ðam ðæt), “consequently” (swa), and “because of” (be, fore) are etymologically unrelated to weorðan and to wyrd. As a conjunction forði means “because”. As a conjunction, forði denotes “for that cause, or conse­quently”. Forþon:means “for that, for, because”. Likewise, the verbs denoting cause are unrelated to weorðan (ġedon, fremman, ġeweorcan). The verb ġeweorcan derives from the Indo-European root “werg” rather than the roon “wer”. The noun for “cause” (intinga) is also etymologicaly unrelated to weorðan. (See Hall, 1960; Houghton Mifflin, 1993: 1623-1624).

 

Therefore, wyrd is not a web of causal interrelationships connecting all phenomena nor is it a process. The focal word does not refer to the past nor to the future, but only to that which has become.

Wights and Wyrd

If there were a Pagan wight or wights who controlled wyrd, then we would expect that wight to symbolize an etiology that would not be concerned with ethics, communication, intelligibility, shrewdness, nor learning. Such a wight would be alive, very active, and very powerful ― but not conscious. The sections immediately following show that there are beings in Teutonic Paganism who fit the description of “wyrd’s controller” In the Old Norse literature, the norns of Asgarð fit the description. Since there is more Pagan discussion in the Old Norse corpus than in Old English, an understanding of the norns of Asgarð helps us analyze the Old English wight called Metod, who is the Pagan “wyrdra wealdend” (controller of circumstances).

 

Norns

The Norse branch of Teutonic Paganism has three norns, but one of them is of particular interest here. The importance of Urðr for the present inquiry is that she gives a clearer model than we get from Old English sources, because there is much more surviving mythical literature in Old Norse than in Old English, and the Old Norse literature is more Pagan. Also, comparison of national similarities and differences within German­ic Paganism is interesting per se.

The Character of the Norns

The norns of Scandinavia are associated with a cognate of wyrd; a wyrd-like effect comes from one or all three of them, and they behave as we would expect causers of wyrd to behave.

 

Urðr as Wyrd

The Old Norse cognate is urðr, which may have most of its denotations in common with wyrd. Cleasby et al (1957) and Zöega (1910) define urðr as “a weird, fate” and as “the name of one of three norns”. Zöega adds that urða is a verb meaning “to cover with stones and an urð (also a feminine noun) is a heap of stones fallen from a hill. From the compound words listed in the Cleasby et al and Zöega dictionaries, the fate-related sense of urðr seems the more common, and it seems possible that if competent non-Pagan scholars interpret wyrd as the Modern English “fate”, then scholars could be making a similar mistake in translating urðr. In the Skalds­kaparmal, Snorri Sturluson refers to Urð as fate in the sense of impend­ing death. Likewise, wyrd was used to refer to death or impending death (as is the Modern English “fate”).

 

There is substantive as well as etymological evidence of the wyrd-like effects of at least one norn. Old Norse myths speak of the irresistible dominance of the norns. There was a golden age when the deities were extremely creative and joyful, then three norns came ― Urðr (Had to Be), Verðandi (Coming to Be), and Skuld (Has to Be), and the deities could no longer do whatever they wanted. There are also many non-Asgarð norns who “shape the lives of” people. For exam­ple, in Skalds­kaparmal there is a list of four norns “who shape neces­sity”. Strophes 4 and 5 of The Spell of Groá state that the work of the norns is not subject even magical manipulation. As in England the Christians had to reconcile their religion with wyrd, so in Scandinavia the Christians had to reconcile themselves with urð: Snorri refers to Urð’s well as the seat of Christ’s power. In The Prose Edda, Voluspa, The First Lay of Helgi the Hunding-Slayer, and Skalds­kaparmal, and other sources, we see norns determining broad outlines of life chances and personalities rather than details of outcomes. It seems that the most important of the norns of Asgarð is Urðr, and that her effect is called urðr.  The Gylfanning in the Prose Edda says that norns for humans originate as goddesses, elves and dwarves, but they function about the same as the norns of Asgarð. (See Dronke, 1997; Faulkes, 1987: 18, 121, 126, 157; Hollander, 1962; Morris and Magnusson, 1888).

 

Unconscious Actors

Norns operate like causers of wyrd in that they do not know what they have done, what they are doing, nor what they are going to do ― nor have they reasoned why. The norns of Asgarð come from the least intelligent sort of giants, for they are “þursa meyiar” ― daughters of thurses. Although many of the deities of Asgarð have risen from giant origins, we know that Urðr, Verðandi, and Skuld are not divine by their behavior and relationships to other wights. When nornic behavior is described, norns are said to weave, cut, award, etc. What norns are not said to do is cogitate. Although they decide, norns do not plan, calculate, consider, nor intend. Old Norse litera­ture does not usually let us read a character’s thoughts on paper, but we can infer their thoughts from dialog and behavior. No one ever asks norns any questions. Although Wodan consults female wights for divination, and although the deities hold council every day at “Urðar brunnar” (Urð’s Well), neither Urð nor her sisters takes part in these consultations. Nor do norns confer with each other. When Oðin recites wisdom poetry at the Urð’s Well in Havamál (strophe 111), Urð does not give assistance. There is also a story from the Volsunga Saga: “Sigmund…(had) two sons…and when Helgi was born, Norns came to him…and said that he should be in time to come the most renowned of all kings” (Morris and Magnusson, 1888: Chapter 8). But in the Volsunga Saga story the norns announce without showing any intent to give useful advice, without giving any reason for their deci­sions, and without mutual dialog. The norns never give reasons for anything they do. (See the side­bar “The Well of Urð”; and Bau­schatz, 1982: 2-7; Bellows, 1923; Brodeur, 1916; Dronke, 1997: Voluspa, str 8; Faulkes, 1987; Hollander, 1962; Kroesen, 1996; Thorsson, 1988: 13; Morris and Magnusson, 1988; Cleasby et al, 1857: 498; Young, 1954).

 

Some might find it strange that a ultra-powerful and very commonly-observed characters would act without consciousness, because we usually associate unconsciousness with extreme passivity. However, if you examine the Norse myth of creation very carefully, you will find that the first being, the giant Ymir, never attained consciousness (Faulkes, 1987).

The Well of Urð

The meaning of making considera­tions at Urð’s Well seems to be that we need to at least know the situa­tion to make decisions or give advice. For example, the Loddfáf­nismál is introduced by the strophe in which Oðin says he will recite by Urð’s Well, and Lodd­fánis­mál discusses only every­day practical­ities, not accounts of events in the past nor those to come (Larrington, 1993).

 

There is one story that contradicts this interpretation. The Story of Norn­a­gesta shows norns arguing with each other, although they are childishly irresponsible. Perhaps the Story of Nornagesta represents a local varia­tion in Teutonic religion. We would certainly not expect that Teutonic religion would be the same everywhere and throughout Pagan times. (See Guerber, 1895: 154-159; Gundarsson, 1993a: 245-255; Gundarsson, 1993b: 116-117; Thorsson, 1987: 188-189; Stead, 1994: “The Jotnar”.)

 

Wyrd, Urðr, and Ørlög

Since wyrd refers to a situation that has already arisen, only one of the norns could have decreed anything like wyrd. In Old Norse sources, the result of collective nornic actions is ørlög or a metaphorical web or woven cloth. Ørlög might refer to prime causes in chains of events, since the word means “ultimate layers” or “primary strata.” The philoso­phical meaning of having three norns decreeing is that the past (Urðr) provides a context for but does not determine the present (Verðandi), and the present condi­tions but does not determine the future (Skuld). Thus, norns together would “pronounce prime causes” at a child’s birth which would shape his or her life to the extent of determining some outcomes. A meaning of the web or woven cloth would be that it takes all three of the norns to make an outcome. Thus, the ørlög that is produced by all three norns could a prime cause that works out to someone’s destiny (Bau­schatz, 1982: 2-7; Dronke, 1997: Voluspa; Thorsson, 1992: 214).

 

Thus, the effect of Uðr is wryd-like and might be exactly the same as the Old English wryd. The effect of the norns as a group does not have a corresponding term in the surviving corpus of Old English, and ørlög probably did not play significant a role in the English branch of Teutonic polytheism.

 

Metod

It is reasonable to infer that among English Pagans Metod was the wight of wyrd. We know this being from mixed-faith literature, where he usually appears as an aspect of Yahweh. Metod is masculine and not referred to as a norn, but he fits the model of an allegory for the origins of wyrd. Metod had the charac­teristics of supreme (but not unlimited) power and lack of con­scious­ness that we find in Urðr. This wight did not have any partners combining to make specific outcomes.

 

Production of Ørlög

Anglo-Saxon scholars found that wyrd approximated the Latin fatum or fortuna closely enough to translate those words. Therefore if there were “norns” in English Paganism, then the ancient scholars would have found an Old English word for norns as an adequate approximation of Parcæ. Although Alfred did not translate Parcæ (he Anglicized it into “Parcas”), one of the Old English glosses shows “Wyrde” (plural) as a translation of Parcæ (Bosworth and Toller, 1898). Thus, it appears that norns might have been part of English Paganism.

 

However, the gloss of Parcae as “Wyrde” is probably a very loose ap­proximation on the part of the ancient writer. If the English wyrd giants were wyrde, then all the English norns would have corresponded to Urðr. Wryd is a cognate of urð, the Old Norse word that forms the basis of the name of the norn Urðr.

 

Also, wyrde are not found associated with wyrd in Old English literature ― except perhaps for translations from Latin originals. If some transla­tors glossed a set of Roman a Pagan deities as “wyrde” (plural), that was probably as close as they could get to making a translation ― but not a true statement of equivalence. In Old English, the appellation “Wyrdra Wealdend” (Controller of Circumstances) occurs many times, but is always singular.

 

This means that there was not an English group to collectively produce ørlög. Most likely, the concept of ørlög was not important in Pagan England. This would imply a denominational difference between the Norse and English. That is, the Norse appear to have been a little more fatalistic than the English. We would be surprised if there were not denominational differences within Germanic Paganism.

 

Metod is Associated with Wyrd

If there had been an English allegory for the cause of a circumstance that had already arisen from the past, then would also expect to find that wight’s name in the surviving corpus in association with wyrd. We find that association very clearly made in lines 115b-116 of The Seafarer (Mitchell and Robinson, 1994: 282).

 

…. • Wyrd biþ swíþre

Meotud meahtiġra • þonne ǽnges monnes ġehyġd.

…. • Wyrd is stronger,

Metod (is) mightier • than any man’s intention.

 

The Allotted of Each Person

In the Scandinavian system, there are three norns in Asgarð and many lesser norns for people. However, in the English system, there is only one Metod, who is multifaceted and affects each of us differently. (Metod is first discussed in this book in Chapter 24.) His name is “The Allotted” (acted upon) not “The Allotor” (actor), and this implies that he is not divine. The name “Allotted” corresponds to the notion that children are allotted norns at birth. That is, Metod is the wight allotted to Mankind somehow, and presumably in a different aspect to each of us. This passage from lines 2524b-2527a of Beowulf (Alexander, 1995) illustrates the association of Metod with wyrd as he who is allotted to each.

 

…. • Nelle ic beorges weard

oferfléon fótes trem, • ac unc furður sceal

weorðan æt wealle, • swá unc wyrd getéoð

Metod manna gehwæs.

… • Not willing am I from the barrow’s guardian

to flee one foot-length, • but for us from that point on

will happen at the wall • as for us wyrd ordains,

(as ordains) The Allotted of each person.

 

Metod was Assimilated to Yahweh

If the Christians had sought to assimilate the concept of wyrd into their theology, then perhaps the Christians would have also depicted the Pagan wight of wyrd as an aspect of Yahweh. The association of Metod with Yahweh during period of mixed religion is illustrated by a passage from The Battle of Maldon. No distinction is made between Metod and other aspects of Yahweh in that poem, as in this example from lines 145b-147. These lines occur after an English earl has been morally wounded in battle.

 

…· Se eorl was þe bliþra

hlóh þá, móde man · sǽde Metode þanc

þæs dægweorces · þe him Drihten forgeaf.

… · The earl was the happier —

laughed then, the courageous one — · (and) said “Thanks” to Metod

(for) the days’ work · which the Lord had set before him.

 

The Unconscious Actor

With the norns, evidence lack of awareness includes their being typed as giants. For example, in the myths the norns impart no information and never offer shrewd analyses to other wights. Also, the high deities never ask norns for any favors, and this implies that any such request would fall upon deaf ears ― or an uncomprehending mind.

 

Likewise Metod is not one to ask for assistance or advice. For example, The Wanderer pointedly gives us a clue in its first couple of lines, where we see a verb that could imply praying for mercy or could imply passively experiencing mercy in the first line. If you know that Metod is an unconscious being, then the ambiguity is resolved in the next verse; otherwise you have to complete at least the second whole line.

 

Also, we have evidence from literature of syncretic Christianity. In that literature, Metod is an aspect of Yahweh who is often mentioned in connection with desperate or disastrous situations. In such situations, adherents of Biblical religions often pray to Yahweh or one of His saints for assistance, salvation, or courage. No one ever prays to the Metod aspect of Yahweh for anything, not even for the courage to face wyrd with dignity.

 

In considering whether the wights of wyrd have intelligence, we must be aware of what Metod does and how this is handled ― without justifica­tion. He is the origin of the most exciting, thrilling, and growth-potential things that occur, but also the origin of horrible disasters. To put it collo­qui­ally, how smart can he be if he brings us the excessive devasta­tion of war that The Wanderer reminds us of? It would be circular reasoning to say that Metod is unconscious just because I think that war is stupid. How­ever, the literature that mentions Metod in connection with wyrd (but without mentioning Yahweh) does not justify anything he brings us. 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.  Things are otherwise where Metod is clearly an aspect of Yahweh, as in lines 103-109 of The Seafarer (Mitchell and Robinson, 1994), where workings of Metod/Yahweh are character builders. The notion that hard­ship is here to build our character is standard Biblical theodicy. The Teutonic Pagan attitude is that some hard­ships (and advantage) merely exist, and that any eufunction or dysfunction they serve may be inciden­tal, not inherent. (That is why Teutonic Paganism does not need a theo­dicy.)

 

Conclusions Regarding Wights of Wyrd

There are wights of wyrd in Teutonic religion. These beings show both commonalities and contrasts between the Norse and English branches of Teutonic Pagan family.

 

The wights of wyrd symbolize the obscure or mindless origin of wyrd. In the surviving literature from early medieval times, no one prays to them, no one sacrifices to them, no one consults them, they never give useful guidance. They never show any sign of analysis. They never show any concern for nor anger at anyone, nor do they attempt to be fair. They never respond to anything. They never learn.

 

In the Scandinavian branch, one of the norns fits the bill. Her name is Urðr, and she probably produces an effect called urðr, which is a cognate of wyrd and which shares most of its meanings with wyrd. She has two sisters who are less important, and together they produce ørlög, a determining primal layer in the course of an individual human’s life.

 

In English Paganism, the wight of wyrd is Metod. However, English Paganism was less fatalistic than was the Scandinavian branch of the family. Therefore, Metod does not have partners and wyrd is not fitted into a primal layer of events. In Scandinavia, each person was allotted norns at birth, but in England each person was allotted a facet of Metod.

 

Conclusions regarding Wyrd

Wyrd has several meanings, such as “death, “pleasure”, or “pheno­me­non”, but one of them is philosophically much more interesting than the others. It is in that more philosophically interesting sense that the concept is investigated here.

 

The best one-word translation of wyrd is “circumstance”, and a clue to the philosophically interesting sense of wyrd is the phrase “we must attend to realities”. Wyrd is a firm structure of opportunities and constraints within which we must choose how to act (or not to act). Wyrd is always something that has already occurred. It has no relevance to questions of justice and is beyond conscious influence. Wyrd does not include that which can be adequately accounted for on  empiri­cal or moral grounds. Thus, wyrd does not always refer to numinous etiology. Instead, the concept points our attention away from etiology and toward our own adaptive actions or strength of character. Wyrd is not an all-inclusive web and is not necessarily weird. It is not a wight, despite a phrase like “wyrd ordains”, which is a metaphor like “as chance would have it”. Pagan religious philosophers are correct who opine that one can reduce the effect of wyrd on one’s life by increasing one’s degree of conscious control. However, no one can eliminate wyrd. The wyrd one has at any time may prevent changes or cause them, but that wyrd itself is almost certain to change as long as one lives.

 

Wyrd is not inherently pleasant nor unpleasant. However, the concept is useful in making healthy adjustments to reality. (As such it has a proper place in Teutonic Pagan religion.) Since we are more likely to need counseling or written wisdom when faced with circumstances we regard as on balance unpleasant, the concept is most often mentioned in connection with disadvantage, death, or disaster.

 

“Wryd” is also used in the plural where we would use the plural of “circumstance”, to indicate the sum of factors beyond conscious control which impinge in a highly influential way. The plural of wyrd is also used because each person or thing has its own wyrd.

 

There are mythical beings that symbolize the origin of this type of circumstance. The English wight of wyrd is Metod. He is neither friendly nor unfriendly, but can be quite beneficial or harm­ful. He is not a conscious being. No one ever prays to him, sacrifices to him, or celebrat­es him, but on balance human life thrives on our planet so he has to be good for us. The Norse wight of wyrd is Urðr, one of the norns.

 

The English and Scandinavian branches of Germanic Polytheism differ in regard to wyrd. The Scandinavian system is more sophisticated but takes a slightly more deterministic outlook than does the English system.

 

There are probably some subtle differences in concepts of urðr and wyrd that are not currently perceptible. There are also probably some subtleties in common of wyrd and urðr which the present author has not discerned, especially with regard to adequacy of empirical explanation. In addition, as this appendix was written, Swain Wódening has in progress a study of ørlög that well sharpen our perceptions.