OERP Book: Chapter 20
By Gary G. Stanfield. Last updated 27 July 27 2003. Previously published in: Stanfield, Gary G. 1999a. “Excerpts from the OERP Book, Chapter 20 and Addendum”. The Rune, 9 (Spring): 35-44.
Suggested listing of this edition in reference list format: Stanfield, Gary G. 2003. “OERP Book: Chapter Twenty”. In Gary Stanfield's Web Pages [Online]. Available http://pages.prodigy.net/gary_s/toc.htm. [Visited: DateYouWereHere].
Man byþ on myrgþe his magan leof.
sceal þeah anra gehwylc oðrum swican,
for ðam dryhtnes wyle dome sine
þæt earme flæsc eorþan betæcan.
Translations
(A) Transliteration
is in {mirth (gaiety, especially when accompanied by laughter), joy, pleasure}
(to/by) his {(if dat. plural) kinswomen, kinsmen; (if plural substantive and genitive or dative) powerful, rich, competent, or otherwise highly efficacious persons} {beloved, desirable, pleasant, dear}
{shall, must} {however, although} {“anra gehwylc” – “of every one each” – each one}
(from the) {others} {stray, wander; deceive, betray; abandon, desert; depart; fail, fall short is wanting}
because (of) The Lord’s {will; mind; determination; purpose, intention, desire; command; pleasure, joy}
(that is, according to, or by means of ) {doom, judgment; judgment ordeal; justice; tribunal, court, assembly; decree, law; command; power, authority, dominion; propriety; choice, option; glory, magnificence; honor, dignity, praise; sense, meaning, interpretation} (of) his
{that, that (the)} {helpless; miserable, unhappy; destitute, poor} {flesh; mankind’s carnal nature or body as opposed to soul}
(to) {soil; land, cultivated ground} {committed, handed over; entrusted; put in a place for storage; dedicated to a deity (as in sacrifice)}
(B)
A happy human is • to their homefolk dear.
But humans each and every one • shall those homefolk leave;
For sake of The Lord's will – • it’s a law of His –
That helpless humans • to humus must go.
(C)
A human in mirth is dear to his or her kinspersons. However, everyone must leave those kinspersons because of The Lord’s intention – because of His decree – that the lowly human body be given over to soil.
(D)
A mirthful person is dear to his or her relatives. However, each shall abandon those relatives. This is because of The Lord's will – His decree – that helpless flesh be committed to dirt.
(E)
A mirthful person is dear to his or her relatives. However, each must depart from those relatives. This is because of The Lord's intention, His justice, that helpless flesh be committed to soil.
(F)
A mirthful servant is pleasant for his or her lord. However, each must depart from the others. This is because of The Lord's intention, because of his sentence, that helpless flesh be committed to soil.
(G)
A person in mirth is • to his relatives dear.
However, each shall • depart from the others
Because of The Lord's will, • in His glory,
That helpless flesh • be committed to soil.
(H)
A person in mirth is • to his relatives dear.
However, each shall • depart from the others
Due to The Lord's command, • according to His choice,
That helpless flesh • be committed to soil.
(I)
A person in mirth is • to his relatives dear.
However, each shall • depart from the others
Because of The Lord's desire, • according to His choice,
That helpless flesh • be committed to soil.
(J)
A person in mirth is • to his relatives dear.
However, each shall • depart from the others
Because of The Lord's desire, • His sentence,
That helpless flesh • be committed to soil.
(K)
A person in mirth is • to his relatives dear.
However, each shall • depart from the others
By reason of The Lord's pleasure, • (and) by means of His power,
That helpless flesh • be committed to soil.
(L)
A
person in mirth is • to his capable persons dear.
However, each must • abandon the others
Due to The Lord's command, • according to His choice,
That the poor human body • be committed to soil.
(M)
A joyous person is • to his relatives dear.
However, each shall • abandon the others
On account of The Lord's intention, • by means of His own decree,
That the human body • be committed to soil.
(N)
A joyous person is • to their powerful persons desirable.
However, each shall • leave the others
Due to The Lord's command, • according to His choice,
That poor flesh • be committed to soil.
(O)
A happy vassal is • to his powerful persons dear.
However, each shall • depart from the others
On account of The Lord's intention, •
and by means of His decree,
That helpless flesh • be committed to soil.
(P)
A person in mirth is • to his relatives dear.
However, each shall • depart from the others
Due to The Lord's command, • according to His choice,
That helpless flesh • be committed to soil.
(Q)
A joyous person is • to his powerful persons desirable.
However, each shall • leave the others
Because of The Lord's desire, • His sentence,
That lowly flesh • be committed to soil.
(R)
A person in mirth is • to his capable persons dear.
However, each must • abandon the others
By reason of The Lord's pleasure, • by means of His power,
That the poor human body • be committed to soil.
Issues in Edition and Translation
Magan
Most expert translators consider magan as the dative form of a noun for “relative” (See Dickins, 1915; Kemble, 1840; Osborn and Longland, 1982; Paul, 1996; Pollington, 1995; Shippey, 1976; Thorsson, 1993; S. Wódening, 1995b). In addition, magan is grammatically plausible as the substantive form of an adjective denoting a person who is highly efficacious due to competence or resources. The context requires that the “powerful” / “rich” / “competent” person stand in some close relationship to the mirthful one. This limits the possibilities to a lord or to a professional (such as a shaman or physician).
The poet(s) clearly intended that the first whole line in this stanza would present a model of proper attitude towards mankind on the part of two types of roles. (A) There are those we should expect to be very friendly towards us based on something we have in common. (B) There are those who have a responsibility to care about a person based in part on a large difference in rank, skill, or resources. This offers analogies with the roles Christians, Jews, and Moslems say their Lord takes toward mankind. Therefore, “magan” can be used to examine the Biblical concept of deity from a Pagan perspective.
I could not find a word in Modern English that is ambiguous in the same ways as magan. In Translation B, I have interpreted magan as “homefolk”. For purposes of this stanza, “homefolk” conveys the same notions as “relative”. The important notions conveyed by magan in this context are: (1) people who should not be strangers, (2) expectation of friendship and allegiance, and (3) emphasis on the concept as indicated by the word’s place in the alliteration. Ideas of intimacy and permanence of the relationship found in “kinsperson” are missing from “homefolk” but are not critical to correct interpretation of the stanza.
Dryhtnesan
In the “original” copy there is no ending on “Lord” in Verse Five, but this is grammatically incorrect. Dryhten needs a possessive ending. “Lord” here modifies wyle (“will”), which is in the dative or instrumental case, for wyle is the object of “by reason (of)”. We know that “will” is the object of the phrase in Verse Five because the last line does not make sense unless it is part of a statement that The Lord’s will is that humans die. Moreover, if Lord were the object of “because of”, the expression would be: “Lord of Will” – which is not a nickname for the Christian God elsewhere in Old English literature.
The lack of endings on the focal word is not poetic license, because the line sounds better with the endings on Dryhten. Therefore, I have departed from all previous editors in putting inflexional endings on Dryhten.
Earme Flæsc
In Translation C I rendered “earme flæsc” freely. This is a reflection of the main idea of this phrase in context. The main idea is not that the flesh is financially impoverished or somehow physically miserable. The main idea is that in contrast to The Lord’s majesty, a human’s corporeal entity is very lowly. Christians (I do not know about Jews or Moslems) in esoteric practice often feel severely degraded when feeling strongly the presence of their deity (Otto, 1950). Also, it is well known that Christianity evaluates spiritual afterlife as greatly superior to the life of flesh. Thus, other expert translators have rendered the focal phrase as “wretched flesh”, “wretched human body”, or “vile carrion” (Dickins, 1915; Halsall, 1981; Kemble, 1840; Osborn and Longland, 1982).
“Earme flæsc” and other phrases are handled differently in Translations B and C. Most of my translations stick pretty close to the words of the original. My utterly nonpoetic translation C departs from conservative translation in making the meanings of the stanza’s words as explicit as possible. Paradoxically, the poetic Translation B preserves more completely the ambiguities of the Old English
Discussion
The chief staves of a Teutonic stanza are useful clues to the main emphases of the stanza and help to give an overview of its message. The chief staves of this stanza are:
Magan (relatives or capable persons)
Othrum (others – refers to the magas / magan)
Dome (a consciously-willed & official outcome)
Eorþan ([to the] earth)
We can see that the main topics here are human social relations, power, nature, and religion. Relationships highlighted here are (A) between people, (B) between conscious will and Mankind, and (C) between people and nature. Discussion of the consequences of the focal outcome – whether consciously willed or natural – focuses on effects on those other than the person of the title (on the magan). I emphasize the chief stave analysis here because it buttresses the contention I offer below – that this is not a Christian stanza. Just the opposite is the case, for these themes are more Pagan than Christian and the content is anti-Christian.
The meanings of “Man” can be organized into a chain of implicit stanzas. Their content clearly reflects the mingling and contact between adherents of two very different types of religions in Northern Europe during the Migration Era and the early Middle Ages. These stanzas fall into a continuum of abstractness which corresponds to a ladder of meanings. That is, each of the stanzas sets or helps set the stage for the next in line. As we move from lower to higher levels of abstraction the meanings move us into ever more Pagan and more magical notions. Overall, “Man” shows us how Teutonic Paganism viewed Biblical religions, especially Christianity.
At the lowest level of meaning, four implicit stanzas express the themes we see in the chief stave analysis above. (1) “The Lord Is Over Mankind” expresses a very Christian theme. It mentions those who are happy or powerful at the human level, but it stresses the awesome might of The Lord. For this reason – and partly just due to mention of the Christian God – many experts have felt that at least this stanza shows substantial bowdlerization. (For example, see Halsall, 1981; or Paul, 1996). (2) Still at the first level of meaning, a slightly more abstract implicit stanza presents additional medieval theology in “Christian Denial of Wyrd”. (3) Next, the stanza “Justice Is Not Always Served” emphasizes that The Lord is above humans in being beyond our understanding or morals. (4) The final stanza at this level, “Mirth is a Human Treasure”, begins the transition to a more Pagan point of view.
At the second level of meaning, “Wyrd is Mightiest” supplements implicit stanzas elsewhere in the Old English Rune Poem by carrying the description of wyrd a little further. In this implicit stanza, “The Lord” is used as a code for the etiology of wyrd. At this level, we can see the shift into a quite unambiguously Pagan world-view.
At the third level of meaning, three implicit stanzas reveal a Heathen criticism of Biblical-based theology. (1) “Transformation” presents the magician’s inclination to accept responsibility and power over self and surroundings. (2) “An Alien God” depicts the main Biblical deity as remote and difficult to understand at best. At worst, the whole theology appears implausible. (3) “Choose Your Religion” follows logically on “Transformation” and “An Alien God”.
It is easier to see the implicit stanzas at higher levels of abstraction if one has a background in the fundamentals of Teutonic Pagan religion. Some readers might find it useful to page ahead to the addendum to this chapter before returning to this point and delving into the discussion of specific implicit stanzas. This overview can be useful because in countries where Christianity and Islam predominate, they tend to diminish awareness of religious systems which differ radically from Biblical theology.
The Lord Is Over Mankind
This implicit stanza is best supported by Translations C, D, H, N, and O. The main point of “The Lord Is Over Mankind” is this: no matter how important you are to other people, no matter how much they want your company, all joys and social nexuses will be destroyed by the truly awesome might of The Lord and at His unexplained whim. It is common knowledge that this incredible inequality of power God and Mankind is a major theme of Biblical religion, and that God is not accountable for His actions in Biblical theology.
Three translations emphasize different aspects of this statement. Translation D emphasizes that the happy person will be taken from his relatives due to the great power of The Lord. The human is helpless against God. This is a forced abandonment, leaving no connection and no hope of renewal of contact. The human body is degraded to dirt. Translations H and C emphasize that the transition occurs at God’s choice alone. Translations N and O emphasize that even the will of an earthly lord is of no avail against that of God.
This point of view is quite consistent with that expressed by Christian authorities such as Rudolph Otto (1950). The Christian mystic experiences his or her deity as a “mysterium tremendum”. Among other characteristics, this term refers to an overwhelming being. In the presence of the mysterium tremendum, the mystical worshipper feels lowered and degraded. The placing of the body under ground – literally lower than dirt – symbolizes this feeling. Also symbolizing this feeling is the last line in Translation B, which speaks of “sordid flesh”.
“The Lord Is Over Mankind” refers to the Bible’s Book of Genesis, Chapter 3 (Catholic Church, 1987: 10-11). That chapter deals with the Fall of Man and Woman. The reader will probably recall that Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of The Tree of Life, thereby gaining divine mental characteristics. As part of the punishment for gaining divine mental characteristics, Mankind was sentenced to turn into dirt, which means to die. The catch is that fruit from the Tree of Life was pleasant for Adam and Eve, but brought them no mirth. The fruit did cause them or shame and anxiety over being naked, but that attitude is not referred to in this stanza. Moreover, it is not clear how being ashamed of one’s skin, genitals, or whole body is divine. Despite problems with Genesis per se, the allusion is quite clear.
Christian Denial of Wyrd
This implicit stanza also shows a non-Pagan point of view. Medieval English Christians attached to the term “wyrd” a meaning radically different from the Pagan understanding. As I will explain in the next few paragraphs, the position described in “Christian Denial of Wyrd” is a subtly veiled denial of wyrd.
“Christian Denial of Wyrd” is most clearly supported by Translations I and M. These translations emphasize The Lord’s power to carry out His conscious intention without regard to human will. This irresistible ability to act without regard to human desires or intentions resembles wyrd (see the chapter, “Ninth Stanza”). Denial of wyrd is especially highlighted by Translation I, which emphasizes that the separation of a cheerful person from his happy companions is consciously intended “…The Lord’s desire…His choice”.
The message of “Christian Denial of Wyrd” is related to a passage of King Alfred’s in which he attributes wyrd to God. Following is Stanfield’s (1997b) translation of that passage.
“And we call this God’s forethought and his foresight while it is thought, still with Him in His mind, before it is sent out. After it is fulfilled, we call it wyrd. May each person therefore know that these things are two names and two things: forethought and wyrd. This forethought is the Divine reasoning. It is constant in that the high Creator knows how everything happens before it takes place. Therefore, wyrd is God’s everyday work, both that which we perceive and that which we do not. Moreover, the Divine forethought controls all conditions so that they cannot fall out of order. Therefore, wyrd bestows appearances, positions, aspects, and regulations upon all creatures, because wyrd comes from the knowledge and forethought of the almighty God. He works whatever He wills according to His unannounced plan.” Alfred adds that wyrd changes only according to God’s plan (based on Timmer, 1940 & 1941: 130-132).
The quotation from Alfred shows that the Christians chose to deny wyrd by attributing it to their deity. Alfred’s position is understandable. Since Judaism and religions based on Judaism posit a God supreme over and separate from everything, they cannot admit that Wyrd is mightiest. The Christians have to contend that every phenomenon is part of a conscious, well-thought-out, divine plan. In contrast, the Teutonic Pagan concept of wyrd exists to deal with the (obvious) fact that life is not necessarily fair nor understandable in all its aspects. Wyrd relates to the fact that sometimes you must accept and adjust to circumstances that may or may not be pleasant.
In a sense, the Christians were following an example provided by at least some Teutonic Pagans. That is, we know that the Scandinavian Pagans attributed wyrd to norns. The major difference between the Christian and Pagan notions is that the Teutonic Pagan norns represent mindless causality which limits even deities (Stanfield, 1997b).
Justice Is Not Always Served
The main point of this implicit stanza is that the God of the Bible is not limited by mortals’ principles of morals and fairness. God is not to be judged by humans.
“Justice Is Not Always Served” speaks to us of a severe deprivation which may seem to resemble capital punishment. This implicit stanza is best supported by Translation E and J. These translations emphasize the idea of justice denoted by dóm. The person who is desirable company by reason of joyful comportment is involuntarily removed from dear relatives without regard to merit or offense. Likewise, the relatives who so prize the presence and nature of the focal person are deprived without regard to whether they deserve to be so deprived. A clue to the nature of this removal is given by the term “soil” – the last word of “Man”[1]. “Soil” refers to a stripping away of soul, a reduction of a happy, living person to materials. This expresses a shocking transition, for the warm, mysterious “human” feeling is subtracted. The subtraction of human quality shown by the stanza also characterizes human death.
“Justice Is Not Always Served” has a deep implication for our morale when we are confronted by death. Translation E emphasizes more the ethical sense of “justice”. The irony brings to mind the question of whether termination of a pleasant human relationship is really a question of justice. Should we react as to a penalty? Translation J emphasizes more the analogy to a legal penalty by rendering dóm as “sentence”. Again, this raises the question of whether committing flesh to soil is really like a legal penalty, a result of formal due process as well as an official verdict. Should we react as we would react to an unfair sentence? The answer is that death is not a penalty for something we have done but punishment for Original Sin.
“Justice Is Not Always Served” expresses an idea from mainstream Christian theology. God’s arbitrariness as described here may surprise some readers, although it is not a secret. It has been the experience of the present author that Christians and Jews may be naïve about their theology. As Rudolph Otto (1950) points out, one reason many people are unaware of God’s arbitrariness is that the Old Testament always pairs the wrath of God with an explanation of how that wrath brings justice. Mr. Otto opines that this is misleading to many Christians. However, the common aphorism that God causes rain to fall on the good and the bad alike is an acknowledgment of this arbitrariness.
Mirth Is a Human Treasure
Still at the lowest level of meaning, “Man” begins to move our attention away from reviewing core Biblical theology as we come to “Mirth Is a Human Treasure”. This implicit stanza is directly supported by several translations, but especially by C, F, and L. The implicit stanza is also supported by implicit translations in “Eh”. I put “Mirth is a Human Treasure” at the lowest level of meaning because you can see this implicit stanza directly from translations of “Man”; your vision is just a little clearer with help from “Eh”.
Translation C renders magan as “relatives”. This reminds us that although relatives are obliged to be one’s friends – Bloch refers to them as “friends by blood” (Manyon, 1961a) – they do not have to enjoy it. You can help your kin enjoy relations with you by being a cheerful, fun person sometimes. Recalling the discussion of “Eh”, we are reminded that your kin will probably do a better job of helping you when you are in need if they have happy memories of your company.
Translation F reminds us that people of means or political power also are human. They, too treasure the presence of cheerful, fun persons. This assumes, of course, a minimally friendly attitude on the part of the powerful towards those around them. “Mirth Is a Human Treasure” also tells us that such an attitude is usual. Again recalling the discussion of “Eh”, we can see that fitting in among the powerful can be both a subjective joy and useful for personal advancement.
Translation L refers to the capable. This interpretation of the stanza also makes an implicit assumption. It assumes a certain amount of responsibility and good will on the part of persons who have financial wealth, technical skills, practical knowledge, social influence, or any other basis of capability. In other words, Translation L assumes that there is a moral basis or concomitant of true high-level competence. Also, this translation assumes that people in possession of material resources or social connections typically manifest a minimal level of social psychological health.
All three of these translations – C, F, and L – show that three-fourths of the stanza is not about how wonderful mirth is on the human level. In “Man”, most of the emphasis is on termination of a person’s life and social nexuses at The Lord’s whim. In other words, mirth is a human treasure. As Paul (1996) interprets this stanza, we are reminded to enjoy life and share the enjoyment while we can.
Up to now, we have seen “Man” reciting Biblical theology without being clearly worshipful. At the next level, where camouflage is a little heavier, we will find a radical break with this pattern.
Wyrd is Mightiest
To review: wyrd is as blind as chance and as powerful as death. As mentioned above, medieval English Christians were required to deny wyrd by attributing its causality to divine power, specifically to the will of their God. Consequently, medieval persons of Pagan or mixed persuasion could use the Christian God as an esoteric metaphor – or as a code – for the independent force(s) causing wyrd. We are presented with an interesting paradox, since the authentic Pagan concept of wyrd is incompatible with Christian theology. In Scandinavian Paganism, the etiology of wyrd was symbolized by mindless norns, not by deities. It will take the next few paragraphs to show that the circumstances described in “Wyrd is Mightiest” are wyrdish and not divine.
Consider Translations K and M. The person full of joy and laughter is enjoyed by his or her relatives and, given the need of humans to fit in socially, no doubt the mirthful one enjoys being wanted. It seems odd that, it is The Lord’s pleasure and His act that every such happy person will eventually have to permanently and completely depart. Translation K omits consciousness in the form of intention, speaking instead of pleasure and power. The power spoken of is so great that people are helpless against it. Yet it is without reason that happiness and dignity are terminated by this great power.
Consider how Translation F would suggest wyrd to an ancient English Heathen. That translation says that a mirthful servant is pleasant for powerful persons – certainly a mirthful servant would be more desirable alternative than a chronically depressed servant would be. Nevertheless, it is The Lord’s intention, and therefore his sentence, that every such pleasant person will be taken from the pleased moguls and buried. Then the formerly useful and joyful member of society will be degraded into various kinds of soil. In this way, The Lord’s behavior deviates quite substantially from that expected of a good lord. This literally killjoy attitude does not does not appear to serve a constructive purpose for The Lord or the people. Because this attitude does not seem fitting for a lord or The Lord – or for any sane person – we look for wyrd.
Reconsider Translation E as an ironical remark. That translation renders the third line as: “This is because of The Lord’s …justice.” There is a fine nuance between the Translation E as an expression of the idea of a God beyond human moral standards and that same stanza as a negative criticism of the idea that an unlimited deity would have made the universe as it is. It is just not the case that everything in life has to be fair. But wyrd does not have to be just.
In the descriptions of divinity in Chapters Four, Ten, Twelve, and Sixteen, we have seen that the OERP’s view of divinity rules out the possibility wyrd could be divine. That is, a deity is a conscious and thoughtful wight concerned with fair play, justice, responsibility, rationality, intelligence, intention, and knowledge. Quite clearly, a deity is not the kind to cause wyrd.
A true conception of wyrd also conflicts with the usual way that adherents of Biblical-derived religions describe their God. Consider Translation G, which renders dóm ironically, as “glory”. Under Biblical-related theologies, a being without limits has chosen among limitless alternatives and decided that there must be misery among mankind. This is not glorious. If there were a “supreme” deity, he or she could not be glorious unless he or she were limited – by wyrd. This is because wyrd limits one’s liability for blame, although it does not completely relieve one of responsibility. Thus, Translation G implies a scathing criticism of Biblical theology.
|
Wyrd Just Is. Yet another interesting irony in this stanza is the analogy between the nature of wyrd and the name of the Biblical God. Samuel 3:15 states that the name of that deity is “I Am” or “I Will Be” (Barker et al, 1995: 90, 91; Catholic Church, 1987: 60). This is related to the implicit stanza “Wyrd is Mightiest”. |
In short, the circumstances described in “Wyrd is Mightiest” fit the definition of wyrd. Wyrd does not reward the well-behaved nor punish miscreants. Wyrd has no rationale, and therefore it does not serve an intended purpose, although it may have functions. Wyrd does not have a visible etiology, and it cannot be resisted nor altered. It is not in any sense divine. Wyrd just is. And it is more powerful than any deity.
So far, the discussion of this implicit stanza has emphasized the themes of our relations with others and of conscious will, themes that we could see in the chief stave analysis. The concept of wyrd also relates to the theme of nature. Often in our personal observations, we see the opportunities and constraints that nature gives us as products of extremely powerful forces and of a vast complex of causal relations that we can never fully know.
In “Wyrd is Mightiest”, the implications for our attitude toward death are the similar to implications of “Justice Is Not Always Served.” Death of someone loved is not a happy thing, for we will miss our joyful, warm companion – and we rightly grieve a little. On the other hand, death is not necessarily a sign that we have sinned or that we are being wronged.
Of course, there are a couple of major differences between the Heathen and Biblical messages. In Teutonic polytheism, you are supposed to be as divine as you can be, so death is not a punishment for Original Sin. In general, the Germanic Pagan religion offers less guilt-ridden, more humane counsel.
Transformation
This implicit stanza is not supported directly by a translation. “Transformation” is supported indirectly by “The Lord is Over Mankind” and “Christian Denial of Wyrd”, with qualification from “Wyrd is Mightiest” and “Mirth Is A Human Treasure”. In a Teutonic Pagan frame of reference, these implicit stanzas raise questions: “Are we really so helpless?” Are we really so dominated by some other sentient being with whom we cannot bargain nor struggle?
Of course we are not really so helpless! You are the lord over your own færyld (lifeway, course of life – see Chapter 17 of this book). You are not supreme, for no one is supreme and “Wyrd is Mightiest”. In addition to the limitations and oppressions of practical necessity, there is a channeling of behavior that results from just being a decent person – you have at least minimal good will towards others. You are responsible to yourself and others for your own actions or omissions.
Among other things, this means that you can leave a condition you find undesirable even if your current close companions would gladly have you as you are. You can transform yourself if this is your own will, backing up your own choice.
As I mention elsewhere in this book, the ancient rune poems complement each other. In this case, you can much more clearly see what the OERP is talking about in “Transformation” when you know what the Old Norwegian Rune Rhyme has to say about this topic.
The stanza “Man” in the Old Norwegian Rune Rhyme specifically focuses on transformations without comparing Teutonic Paganism with another religion. The stanza in question is: “Man is the increase of dust / Mighty is the talon-span of the hawk” (Thorsson, 1993). There are at least four implicit stanzas inside the original. (1) The destruction of your body is inescapable and final, for the grip of death is strong. (2) To be human is to be mortal, but to die is to leave a residue for future generations. (3) Upon death, you will rise to a higher spiritual level. (4) If you understand your roots, then you are the hawk with a strong grip on reality that will carry you to a higher perspective and make possible a radical transformation -- or a continuing and enlightened transformative process. Other meanings are also possible (Camp, 1996; EranInMpls, 1996a-c; Lord, 1996a-f; Stanfield, 1996f & g; Thorsson, 1996a-c).
The possibility of personal transformation is definitely a message of both Biblical and Teutonic Pagan religions, and it might be universal or nearly universal in religions in general. Seeing the possibility of conscious self re-engineering can cause some discomfort, for this is not something easily done. Frankly, I do not fully live up to the “standards” I find in the Old English Rune Poem, not to mention Teutonic Heathen religion as a whole. I certainly cannot transform myself into just anything I want to be, and my inability to do this is not strictly a matter of wyrd. I am limited by my own degrees of self-discipline and awareness. One piece of wisdom emphasized by the Christians that we can all learn is the non-imperfectability of each of us. There certainly are standards of behavior in any system worthy of the name “religion”, but much of what we see in religious lore constitutes advice or goals rather than standards.
An Alien God
The content of this implicit stanza is a critique of Biblical theology from the Germanic Heathen perspective, for ancient native Germanic religion differed radically from Bible-related religions. Basically, from the Teutonic Pagan perspective the Biblical God is unrecognizable as a deity. The implicit stanza “An Alien God” is supported by all the lower-level implicit stanzas; plus Translations P, Q, and R; plus other strophes of the OERP.
The core difference between the two theologies is omnipotence versus wyrd. “Man” bears down heavily on the logical consequences of postulating a deity supreme over absolutely all. Following is a very brief consideration of Bible-related theology, then a corresponding overview of Teutonic Pagan theology.
As “The Lord Is Over Mankind” reminds us, Bible-related religions posit a deity who is all-powerful and all-knowing. As a logical consequence, adherents of Biblical religions must deny that any phenomenon occurs outside of His conscious intention, as we are reminded in “Christian Denial of Wyrd”. In turn, denial of wyrd causes a difficulty for them, as they must explain how it comes to pass that “Justice Is Not Always Served” without holding their God responsible for evil. Ultimately, Bible-based religions are forced to posit a deity that so unlike us that standards of attitude and behavior cannot be applied to Him. Of course, this contradicts the claim that humans are somehow made in their God’s image. Essentially, the difficulty is that too much is claimed for one wight.
Teutonic deities are more readily understandable because they are more limited, as are perhaps most poly-dieties. Members of the Teutonic pantheon have emotions, make mistakes, and experience situations analogous to those of people. The behavior of Teutonic Pagan wights (including deities) and the codes of conduct to which those wights are held are understandable from a human point of view. As we see them in the myths, Pagan wights furnish us with examples of what to do and what not to do. It is much more plausible that we are kin to Teutonic deities than that we are kin to the God of the Bible – and this holds regardless of our gender, the time and place in which we live, or our ethnicity. The sense of familiarity that we have with Germanic deities is contributed to by their resemblances to us and to people we have experienced. The Germanic Heathen concept of divinity is discussed briefly in the implicit stanza “Critique of Artifice” at the highest level of abstraction in “Sigel” (Chapter 16).
Specific translations bring out the Pagan critique, for Translations P, Q, and R compare Yahweh to persons in human roles. These human roles are comparable to roles Yahweh is supposed carry out. In the Germanic Heathen view, Yahweh is in this regard more like a hostile giant than a deity. He is not of us, He is not like us, it is not even clear that He likes us.
Yahweh is supposed to love us. Translation P emphasizes how Yahweh’s preference is so different from that of a close associate, and the difference is not that Yahweh’s support is more loving, more rational, or more effective. The difference is that Yahweh is pretty cold, for He does not seem to share the humans’ need for a mirthful companion.
Yahweh is like a superior over humans, a lord or boss. Translation Q compares the Biblical God to persons of high status and social power. Most humans of high status are responsible enough, humane enough, and human enough to treasure joy in others. Therefore it is normally with reluctance and with a need for rationale that persons in official authority scold, fire, or otherwise visit unpleasant consequences on subordinates. In contrast to this attitude, Translation Q refers to “The Lord’s desire, His sentence” that we find in Genesis 3. In that chapter of the Bible, we find that it is God’s sentence that every person must die to pay for the crime of eating of the tree of life – the crime of becoming more divine. Thus, Translation Q presents a sentence that seems incomprehensibly inhumane, and not like the action of even a below-average boss.
Yahweh is the supreme knower and magician. Translation R compares Him to a highly capable person. Again, although highly capable persons like the mirthful one, the ultimate in capable ones deprives good people of their treasured company. This is not because He cannot arrange things otherwise. This is the way He wants life to be. A wight who acted like this in Teutonic religions would likely get tied to a rock or smashed with a hammer.
Consider not just actions, but attitude. In many of the translations of “Man”, an unfriendliness to human nature appears in the last line. The physical aspect of human nature is lowly in Translation Q and poor in Translation R. In the discussion of translating “earme flæsc”, I mentioned that experts agree that a degrading view of human physical life is adumbrated in the last line of this stanza. However, as the OERP repeatedly reminds us, humans are both divine and animal. It would therefore seem healthy to view both the divine and animal in us as valuable. (See the sidebar, “The Dual Nature of Mankind”). From a Teutonic Pagan point of view, it is unholy to despise either the divine or animal aspect of mankind.
The Dual Nature of MankindThe divine and animal combination that makes us human is pervasive in the OERP. For example, in Stanza Four, “Os” stresses that the human and animal aspects of mankind are inseparable, and the mental nature of divinity is discussed in “Divinity”. In the tenth stanza, “Perspicacity” implies that it is divine to use mental powers to adjust well to wyrd. In the twelfth stanza, we are advised that even the best of our bodies or the best aspects of our bodies are animal, for “Beauty Is Not Divine”. In the sixteenth strophe, we are advised of limits on the value of our mental talents, for “Technology Does Not Give Certainty”. This notion of the animal aspect of humanity is fundamental to an understanding of the implicit stanza “An Alien God”. |
Thus from a Teutonic Pagan perspective, the deity posited by Bible-related religions appears at best strange and uncomfortable. At worst. the cold, hostile, inhumane qualities of this wight are undivine. From a consistently Pagan perspective, Biblical theology is not plausible. There just could not be any deity such as Biblical religions postulate.
To be fair, we have to note how esoteric Christians can make constructive use of what appears to be an irrational conception of deity. An empirical mystery can be used to suggest a divine mystery and thereby help a meditator or worshipper attain a remarkable emotional state and perceive a holy mystery. Although empirical and holy mysteries are nonoverlapping categories (Stanfield, 1995), they do at least have some kind of a generalized sense of mystery in common. Contemplation of one can lead to perception of the other (Otto, 1950). Thus, a basically rational person can find benefit from insisting on a self-contradictory ideology that provides a bundle of artificial mysteries. Certainly, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have done enormous numbers of people a lot of good. Those religions have a way of approaching religious mystery that is theirs.
It is fascinating that valid types of religion can differ so greatly. We have to keep in mind that although we might have difficulty making sense of someone else’s religion within our favorite system, there are people for whom that other religion works.
Let us summarize what the contrast here reveals about the Teutonic pantheon (and perhaps of all polytheistic pantheons). This feature is difficult to express fully in words because it is partly the kind of thing you can only know by direct experience. But in the terms that I can write explicitly here: you can relate to the Germanic deities as recognizable, organic, enough like us to be our friends, enough like us to be examples, and as just as able (or not) to withstand rational inquiry as you and I.
Choose Your Religion
All of the previous implicit stanzas taken together constitute a statement of comparative religion from a sophisticated Pagan standpoint. This statement is fair but biased, and it implicitly raises an interesting question. We can see that there are aspects of different religions that are not equally comfortable to everyone, and the discomfort can reach the point where some people simply cannot practice some religion or other. Specifically, the irrationalities required by postulating an omnipotent, omniscient deity are much less appealing to some people than are the logical consequences of more humanlike qualities of Germanic poly-dieties. Therefore it is reasonable for a person to consciously evaluate and choose her or his own religion, although there certainly people who would have you do otherwise. Make your own choice based on what is best for you!
“Choose Your Religion” also relates to the question of whether to have a religion. Many persons in cultures dominated by Biblical religions have had their views of religion narrowed by propaganda which depicts Biblical religion or monotheism as the only religion. The type of religion that lacks a notion of an all-powerful or all-creating deity passes them by in the distance, far beyond their view. Consequently, many bright people opine that all religion must be characterized by the degree of irrationality and submission to authority which characterize Biblical lore. Therefore, they inadvertently deny themselves the benefit of religious experience because they are uncomfortable with the Biblical style.
Themes
Simple Themes
· Man as mortal
· The God of the Bible
· Will, conscious desire
· Devaluation of the animal aspect of mankind
· Esoteric perception of deity or a deity
· Physical degradation
· Social degradation
· Moral degradation
· Ethical standards
· The human body
· Christianity, other Biblical religion
· Wyrd
· Etiology of wyrd
· Denial of wyrd
· Justice
· Unfair punishment
· Original Sin
· Fairness
· Death
· Mirth
· Social nexus
· Social attraction between humans
· Responsibility of the capable to care
· Kin
· Value of one person for another
· Domination
· Awe
· Choice
· Nature of divinity
· Variations in the appeal of a given religion to different people
· Religious mystery
· Logical or empirical mystery
Contrasts
· Human versus deity
· Pagan versus Biblical concept of deity
· Fairness versus unfairness
· Easily related-to versus alien
· Freedom versus lack of choice
· Friendly versus cold
· Glorious versus tacky actions
· Religious mystery versus nonreligious mystery
· Taking charge of your own life; choosing/evaluating religions
Advice for Living
Mortality is intrinsic to human nature, not a punishment. Concepts of deity differ greatly as between Biblical and Teutonic Pagan religions, in large part due to the presence of wyrd in the Teutonic Pagan system.
You can take charge of your own life. Among other things, you can choose for yourself a religion that seems most natural and comfortable to you.
Addendum to Chapter 20: Comparison of Teutonic and Biblical Religions
Overview
This addendum begins with a brief overview of religion itself. This will reveal some of the author’s biases and help establish some recognition of a common ground between Pagan and nonPagan religions. The tact of recognizing common ground might be helpful, since much of Chapter 20 presents negative critiques of religions that are very dear to the hearts of very many people. However, one reason many people will disagree with the following characterization of Biblical religion is that they want to be Christians, Jews, or Moslems, but they cannot accept the fundamentals of such religions.
A Brief Consideration of Religion
This section reveals a personal meta-religious philosophy. First, these are the characteristics of a religion.
As an organization, it makes moral demands on members as condition of membership or esteem. As a belief system, it makes moral demands as a condition of self-esteem or some other form of psychological comfort. This means that religion is morally judgmental.
Religion offers a form of psychological comfort. This comes in the form of providing a theoretical explanation of morally significant events. It also comes some form of practical relief from psychologically stressful conditions. This practical relief can come from solitary practice or from association with co-religionists.
It helps you live a better life, in part by means of its moral demands. In part, this comes from simply teaching wisdom.
Religion as a belief system posits at least one living, spiritual being and/or it posits an afterlife. The spiritual being would be a deity or guardian spirit and would be involved in the system of morals that also characterizes religion. The afterlife would also be involved in the moral system of the focal belief system. Buddhism meets this criterion because some varieties are atheistic but posit an afterlife as a reward of right living. Teutonic Paganism meets this criterion although some of its varieties offer no afterlife reward nor punishment, for all Teutonic Pagan denominations posit spiritual beings as exemplars of human conduct.
There is not a perfect, universal religion that is best for everyone. Each adult can decide for himself or herself how well a religion does or does not fulfill its major functions for him or her. Among other things, you need to ask what a religion asks you to do, what kind of people it would have you associating with, and how you would relate to them. (See also She-Wolf, 1997.)
This definition highlights the point that native Germanic and Biblical religions have some important things in common just because they are religions. In the next section, I will show how these two types of religion differ radically.
Selective Contrast of Biblical and Germanic Heathen Religions
Those who know Wicca might find familiar the following remarks on attitudes toward community, authority, written lore, joy, and justice. It is possible that in respect to these issues, Teutonic Paganism is typical of many European Pagan religions – or of all Pagan religions. On the other hand, Northern European or Teutonic Pagan religions may be unique in regard to some of these five issues. Pagan religions vary greatly, and the present author is not an expert on all Pagan religions.
The first issue dealt with is community. “Man” emphasizes this matter, and it is related to the issue of authority. The two types of religion handle authority very differently in part because one of these types of religion has a very simplified pantheon. The third issue is joy. The contrast between the religions’ handling of joy is quite marked, and is addressed directly by “Man”. The fourth issue is lore. Essentially, the Biblical religions are stuck with the Bible, and you can see how this causes them difficulty. The fifth issue is justice, another matter that is dealt with directly in “Man”. It is important to realize that from inside the system of a Biblical religion, their attitude makes sense and is very holy – but many alleged adherents of Biblical religions do not accept that attitude are not going to.
Community
An important element in “Man” is the contrast in approaches to social life. Biblical religions are ideologically less social than is Teutonic Polytheism.
The most basic lesson of any polytheistic pantheon is that no person is an island. We need cooperation of others for many practical purposes, and we need a feeling of community. Also, polytheistic pantheons show relationships of widely varying degrees of cooperation and conflict among widely differing beings. The metaphor of a Polytheistic pantheon posits as one of its most basic tenets that “it takes all kinds of people to make a world”.
This lesson is not part of monotheism per se. Of course, all religions offer a moral code or set of guides that call for responsible and appreciative attitudes toward other people. These lessons are not as much a part of any religion that posits just one deity or that insists that there is one deity of which all others are just aspects, hypotheses, or derivatives.
Although experts might question how monotheistic Biblical religions are, the other wights sometimes regarded as deities in Biblical religions do not have the same status as do the Teutonic deities. For example, Christ has no discussions with Yahweh in Biblical lore. Instead, Christ is simply sent to do Yahweh’s bidding.
As you study “Man” closely, you will see how it deals with the value of human social relations from a Teutonic Pagan bias.
Authority
Authority relations are much more emphasized in Biblical religions than in Teutonic polytheism.
In the Teutonic pantheon, there is no commander. Wodan is called the chief or king of deities, but in most myths involving discussions among deities he does not even chair the meetings. Only in a few of the myths related by Saxo is Wodan shown acting as someone who is in charge. Wodan’s kingship of Asgard is analogous to the pre-Migration Age Germanic kingships described by Tacitus. Tacitus wrote that “The authority of their kings is not absolute nor arbitrary….The commanders rely on example rather than…rank.” In Teutonic Polytheist lore, commands from any deity to all mankind are as scarce as they can be (Crossly-Holland, 1980; Elton, 1905; Faulkes, 1987; Hollander, 1962; Hollander, 1964; Mattingly and Hanford, 1970: 107).
By contrast, Biblical lore is replete with commands from Yahweh or with scolding people to submit to Him. This authority relationship is the major theme of the Bible, appearing so frequently that no citations are necessary, although an example might make the contrast clearer.
A revealing point of contrast is that between two acrostic poems: the Old English Rune Poem and Psalm 119. This psalm is a long poem divided into twenty-two sections, one for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Each section contains eight stanzas which begin with a synonym for “instruction”. The first section of the first stanza of the psalm says “Blessed are (they)…who walk in the law of the Lord.” The second section says in part: “let me not wander from thy commandments….teach me thy statutes….” The third section says in part: “…hide not thy commandments from me….” To make a long story short, this theme of submission to God’s rule is explicit in every section of the acrostic psalm (Barker et al, 1995; Catholic Church, 1987; World Publishing Company, n. d.).
The repetitiveness of the authority submission theme in Psalm 119 very strongly underscores this message and accurately reflects the nature of Biblical religions. Yes, the OERP is wisdom poetry, and Psalm 119 is a devotional piece. Also, the OERP is extremely densely packed with meaning – it is like a very busy person who cannot afford to tell you the same thing twenty-two times. However, comparing the Bible and the body of Teutonic Pagan lore as wholes, we can easily see that Teutonic Pagan religion is much less interested in personal authority relations and in submission to a deity than is Biblical religion.
This contrast in attitudes toward authority is central to the content of “Man”.
Joy
Fun is acceptable in any religion worthy of the name. However, a marked contrast in attitudes toward human joy is referred to in “Man”.
Fun is significantly more acceptable in Teutonic Heathen religion than in Biblical religions. By now you have noticed several instances in the thoroughly Pagan and relatively short OERP where having fun has clearly been endorsed. By contrast, the prevalence of references to having fun is much less in the Bible. Moreover, in the OERP having fun is something you do not only for your own sake. Sometimes you should have fun to fit in with others. This social emphasis is missing from the Bible, where joy is often a function of simply praising Yahweh.
This difference can be seen in modern culture. For example, although many modern Germanic Pagans, at least in the USA, are relatively conservative socially, it is from a Christian point of view that many modern Americans seem to confuse sensual pleasure with the Biblical concept of sin. For example, in our thoroughly Christianized society we often hear or read someone depicting chocolaty foods as “sinful”. This idea might not be accurately derived from Biblical lore, but does derive from the general bias. We also often hear or read of people referring to recreational sexual intercourse as sinful, but this idea derives from Scriptural lore.
Lore
Because “Man” refers to Biblical lore, it is important to consider relationship between the two types of religion and their most fundamental literature. Examination of the modern movement of fundamentalism can help us understand this contrast. The discussion of the fundamentals of Biblical religions in “Man” proceeds from inside a system that does not allow nor need fundamentalism. In the main body of Chapter 20 of The OERP Book, you can see this illustrated in a consideration of Genesis.
Fundamentalism arose among Protestants in the early Twentieth Century, and now manifests itself in all Biblical religions. The term “Fundamentalism” refers to certain fundamentals, such as “literal” interpretation of the Bible, which adherents felt necessary to a strong Christianity. Strictly literal interpretation of the Bible is hindered by its self-contradictions, but Christian Fundamentalism is characterized by strict adherence to the infallibility of the Scripture in matters of morals and scientific fact. Fundamentalists of all Biblical faiths turn to more literal interpretations because they seek reinvigoration and renewal of purity in the face of modern religious liberalism (Barnes & Noble, 1996; Farah, 1994; Houghton-Mifflin, 1993; Learning Company, 1996; Macmillan Reference, 1987). Perhaps because of their doctrinal conservatism, fundamentalists have a reputation for social conservatism. American Protestant fundamentalists also have a reputation for emphasis upon “family values”. However, it is not clear how social conservatism derives from their lore, since some of the mores and social structures of Biblical times are radically different from – not conservative of – the mores and social structures of modern society. Moreover, like Teutonic Pagan lore, Christian lore is not to be confused with a child-raising manual. Concern with raising offspring is an area of weakness of both types of religion.
Fundamentalism probably occurs in part because of two characteristics of Biblical lore. (1) Biblical myths are offered as true stories and many of them look relatively realistic and can be supported with archaeological evidence. (2) For persons looking for metaphorical implications that are logical, the more abstract messages of the Bible are not always interesting.
Fundamentalism is not possible in Teutonic Heathenry because of the literary base of this religion. Teutonic Heathen myths of the Prose Edda and the Poetic Edda are surrealistic and openly metaphorical. Many of the stanzas of the Old Norwegian Rune Rhyme and the one stanza of the Abecedarium Nordmannicum do not make sense at the lowest level of meaning. As you have seen so far in this book, in the OERP the lowest level of meaning tends to show little religious relevance, and what religious content it does show at the lowest level can be misleading.
It is an interesting irony that Teutonic Heathen lore tends to be relatively cryptic at the lowest level of meaning, while at higher levels of meaning the religious content tends to be relatively rational and timeless (modern). In general, Teutonic Heathen lore tends to be not as accessible as Biblical lore — we might say not as “user friendly” — at exoteric or introductory levels. Then once you penetrate the initial puzzles, the world-view you find tends to be more realistic than is the case with Biblical religions.
The OERP Book is an attempt to learn from Biblical religions’ bright and talented adherents and make at least this one Pagan religion more accessible. However, the relative barriers at lower levels are probably inherent in Pagan religion.
Justice
It is much easier to see the implicit stanzas at the more abstract level of “Man” if you realize the fundamental differences in valuation placed on justice. This is clearer if we review ideas about afterlife. If a religion has a notion of afterlife punishment and reward, that notion can inform us of that religion’s fundamental orientation regarding justice. Biblical and Teutonic Pagan religions have remarkably different notions of afterlife reward and punishment.
In the Biblical point of view, there is no commitment that can take precedence over a commitment to the religion in question – and this means that a commitment to justice is subordinated to allegiance to a religion. It is no secret that in Biblical religions, those who do not accept the particular religion (or denomination) are consigned to eternal damnation and torture. In some Biblical systems, accepting the religion is enough to save one from eternal torment or some lesser punishment. In other Biblical systems, to be truly saved from Hell one is supposed to not sin (very much), to repent of one’s sins, or to perform compensatory or punitive acts prior to death. In any case, allegiance to a Biblical religion is critical to attaining eternal salvation.
By contrast, Teutonic Paganism does not countenance punishing people simply for their ideologies. Teutonic Paganism is variegated in regard to an afterlife. It includes beliefs that do not posit afterlife punishments nor rewards. However, this religion also includes the notions of eternal punishment for wrongful acts. One idea is that: “All righteous men shall dwell with Him (Wodan)…in…Gimlé (Lee-of-Fire)[2] or Vingólf (Friendly-Floor)[3], but wicked men shall go to…Nifelhel (Abode-of-Darkness).” Another segregation of the good and wicked puts badly-behaved people into a hall which is eternally flooded with poison in which the condemned must wade. These rewards and punishments are for ways of behaving, not for ideological or organizational allegiances (Young, 1954: 31, 40, 47, 90-91).
Conclusion to the Addendum
The stanza “Man” has a definite message in comparative religion. “Man” does not say that Biblical religion is evil, that their God is a devil, or that the adherents of such religion are necessarily bad people. It does say that Biblical religion has a very different style from Teutonic Pagan religion, and in so doing “Man” illuminates Teutonic Pagan religion for us. A major message of this stanza is you can make a conscious choice of which coherent system to follow. I do not intend for this addendum to amount to a put-down, for each religion has its own strengths.