Twenty-Eighth Stanza

 

 

By Gary G. Stanfield.  Last updated 24 August 2003. Previously published in:  Stanfield, Gary G. 2000d. “Excerpts from the OERP Book: Chapters 28 and 29.” The Rune, 11 (Autumn): 32-40.

 

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

 

 

 

---------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

Íar byþ eafixa; · and ðéah a brúceþ;
fódres on foldan; · hafaþ fæġerne eard;
wætre beworpen; · ðǽr hé wynnum leofaþ.

 

Translations

 

(A)  Transliteration

Beaver     is      (of the) river/stream fishes

and     yet     always      {consumes, uses, enjoys, eats}

food     on    (dry) land

(it)      has     (a/an)    {fair, beautiful; pleasant, agreeable; attractive}     {dwelling, home; natural place; condition}

(by) water     surrounded

{there; where}     he      {joyfully, delightedly, happily}     {resides; lives}

(B)

A beaver is a brook fish, · but habitually it
Forages in the forest. · And fair is its home,
Lapped by liquid, · where delightedly it resides.

(C)

The beaver is much like the fresh-water fishes, but it always consumes its food on land and has a pleasant home surrounded by water, where it lives happily.

(D)

Beaver is of the river fishes; • and nonetheless always forages;
food on dry land; • (and) has (a) pleasant dwelling;
by water surrounded; • were it happily resides.

(E)

Beaver is of the stream fishes; • and nonetheless always harvests;
food on dry land; • (and) has (a) pleasant dwelling;
by water surrounded; • where it happily lives.

(F)

Beaver is of the stream fishes; • and nevertheless always consumes;
food on dry land; • (and) has (a) comfortable dwelling;
by water surrounded; • where it happily resides.

 

Issues in Edition and Translation

There are two categories of issues regarding this stanza. First, the title word occurs only in the OERP and in lists of runes, so that there are questions of spelling and meaning to be dealt with here. The second category of issues involves a set of minor editing problems.

 

The Spelling of the Title Word

 “Íar” versus Íár”

When most editors of the OERP write the name that Hickes' shows and add pronunciation marks, they show íar (no acute mark over the "a"). However, if the word as shown in the poem's manuscript was an alternate spelling for íor, then the marked-up spelling of the OERP original should indicate an "á" pronounced further back in the throat, nearer the position for pronouncing an "o" (Mitchell and Robinson, 1992: 2-3, 14). Since the acute mark is not related to profound interpretation of the OERP as religious lore, I decided to minimize the issue in this book and omit the acute mark over the "a".

Since Hickes’ day, there has been some confusion over the spelling of this rune name. The spelling “iar” appears only in this stanza; and in all the lists of Anglo-Saxon rune names that are shown without poetry, the name of this rune is ior. Hickes (1705) showed the rune names that appeared in the medieval manuscript, but added phonetic equivalents based on another rune list he published. (See Appendix A). Since in this case the phonetic equivalent from the other rune list (io) did not appear to him to match the rune name, he inserted a “correction” above the rune name (io).

 

Following Hickes, most editors of the poem emend the rune name to íor. I do not see any reason to normalize or “correct” the spelling of the title word. (See Dickins, 1915; Dobbie, 1942; Grienberger, 1921; Halsall, 1981; Hickes, 1703-1705; Kemble, 1840; Polling­ton, 1995; Shippey, 1972; Thorsson, 1993; Wordsmith 1989 in Wóden­ing, 1996a; see also the sidebar “’Íar’ verses ‘Íár’).

 

The Meaning of the Title Word

There have been centuries of confusion over what an “íar” is. Among the translations offered are: lizard, serpent, newt, and eel. The most common translation has been “eel”. “Serpent” has been popular with scholars who are looking for a tie-in with metaphorical references to change (serpents shed their skins). However, none of these transla­tions fits the present context. (For examples, see Dobbie, 1942; Halsall, 1981; Paul, 1996; Shippey, 1972).

 

Osborn and Longland (1982) translated the word as “beaver” and they are right. Beavers are well adapted to flowing bodies of fresh water (ea) ― that is to the streams and rivers small enough for them to dam. In beaver ponds, their playful swimming gives an impression of happiness. They always collect food (and sometimes eat) on forested land, eating mainly parts of trees. Amidst their ponds, beavers build lodges which protect them from weather, contain stored food, and are practically impervious to predators. These animals also store food in the muddy bottoms of their ponds. In the winter, they commonly eat their meals of stored tree parts inside the homes they build. At least to the beavers, their real estate must be pretty fine. The catch is that beavers do not always eat on land ― unless we consider the mud-and-stick floor of the lodge as “land”. (See Encyclopedia Britannica, 2000: “Beaver” and “Rodent”, visited 4 March 2000).

 

Knowledge of beavers would certainly have been part of the culture that gave us runes. Beavers formerly prospered over very large proportions of North America and Europe, though since medieval times they have been trapped to extinction in many regions due to the value of their pelts.

 

Osborn and Longland (1982) point out that in at least one Celtic language, an “iar” is a small, brown animal; and therefore the word could be a relatively late borrowing. This would be consistent with the notion that the stanza is a relatively late composition. This dating and purpose of this stanza are taken up again in the postscript to the present chapter.

 

Scholars previous to Osborn and Longland have been misled by the notion that the first half-line in this strophe defines íar as a river fish (for example, see Page, 1973: 85). No strophe in the OERP defines its title word. Since the objective is to densely pack encoded religious instruction into the poem, complete and accurate botanical or zoological descriptions are not attempted.

 

Minor Editing Issues

Each of the first three half-lines has been the object of emendations by scholarly editors. Let us examine these half-lines in the order they appear in the stanza.

 

Verse 1a. Partly because they are expecting a definition in the first verse, some scholars are distinctly uncomfortable with having a plural genitive (eafixa) in the clause. They emend the half-line to “íár is (a) river-fish” (“byþ eafixa [sum]” ― Kemble, 1840) or “íár is one of the river-fish” (“byþ eafix” ― Dobbie 1942). Grienberger (1921) disagrees. He contends that saying that the íár is of the river fishes is like saying that the character Hygelac in Beowulf is “of the Geats”. The poem is merely saying that beavers are practically fish in the sense that they are very comfortable and proficient in the water.

 

Verse 1b. In the original, “always” and “consumes” are run together (abrúceþ). If that were what the poet(s) intended, then the stress would not go on the “á and the line would violate an important allitera­tion rule. As a prefix, “á-” indicates “away, forth”, which does not make sense in this context. Moreover, there is no other instance of any verb “abrúcan”. Therefore, running those words together is a typo and the “á” should be separated. All editors of the poem who have been cited in the present book agree on this point.

 

Verse 2a. Here the original says “onfaldan”. Since at least as early as Kemble’s (1840) edition, every editor whose work I studied has separated the preposition from the verb. Since at least Dickins’ (1915) edition, every editor whose work I studied has corrected the spelling of the verb to foldan. Grienberger (1921) and Halsall (1981) offer good explanations for the corrections.

 

Discussion

“Íar” delves into the mystery of layers of existence and the mystery of adaptation to parallel realms. The basis for these considerations is laid at the lowest level of meaning, in a brief discussion of the beaver’s lifestyle (“The Beaver Is an Amphibian”).

 

At the second level, the stanza splits into two branches. The social-psychological branch is “One Can Be Happy in Two Realms”. The psychological branch is a brief description of “Layers of the Psyche”.

 

The third level ties together not only the present stanza, but also much of the rest of the poem. The stanza begins addressing esoteric religion in “Use of the Surreal Realm”, which deals with the un-named area in which mystics do much of their work. Finally, this is all tied together in “The Beaver-Like Style”, in “The Sacred Community” and ultimately in “That Which Is Sacred”.

 

The Beaver Is an Amphibian

The plainest support for this implicit stanza is in Translation B, although all the translations provide support for “The Beaver Is an Amphibian”. Beaver life is described above, in “The Meaning of the Title Word”. Notice that water is not the beaver’s native element. This is a land animal that skillfully enhances and intentionally exploits a liquid environment.

 

The main ideas of this implicit stanza revolve around a ladder of three contrasts. (1) At the bottom of the ladder, there is a contrast between the two realms ― a body of water and dry land. (2) Another contrast is between the amphibious beaver and creatures who are less versatile. (3) Recall from an earlier chapter that Eolhxsecg resides on the edge of two realms, but does not create nor alter its environment; nor does it move between realms. Therefore looking at the whole poem, we find another implicit contrast concerns passive versus active adaptations.

 

There is also a theme of consistent enjoyment, which is highlighted by chief staves. They are: always, beautiful/pleasant, and joyfully (á, fæġerne, and wynnum). This theme is to be interpreted in view of the contrasts, for active exploitation of polar-opposite realms helps the beaver achieve a consistently pleasant living.

 

One Can Be Happy in Two Realms

In this stanza, the beaver represents people while land and water represent distinct cultures or subcultures. “One Can Be Happy in Two Realms” is supported by all the translations. The major point is that versatility and variety can be quite comfortable, for we can be aware of and involved in the ways of another person, another group, or another “reality” and still happily retain a separate and stable identity.

 

The contrast between the two ecosystems is analogous to many contrasts that we encounter in our lives. The boundary between these two realms ― the surface of the water ― is readily penetrated by many types of beings, but requirements for being at home in each realm are practically contrary to the requirements for being at home in the other. Each realm is only vaguely visible from the other, and it is quite possible for beings native to one realm to ignore or avoid the other realm. Similar contrasts occur between human geographic communities, gender identities or preferences, ethnic subcultures, religious systems, and divisions of very large organizations. This sort of contrast also applies to institutions, for many of us live highly compartmentalized lives. Many of us spend our time so differently at work and at home that it is as if we had two person­alities. Likewise, our behavior in hobby, religious, or political realms may contrast markedly with our behavior elsewhere because we are in markedly different environments.  Doing well in one type of setting does not necessarily mean that we cannot do well in another, and being well adapted to different compar­tments of our lives can be a contributing factor to overall happiness.

 

The most refined and well-rounded persons learn languages and cultures to which they are not native, and in other ways broaden their perspec­tives. While it might be efficient for us to be creatures of habit and at home with the familiar, we can also profit from branching out.

 

Being well adjusted to two realms does not require that we be equally at home on land and in water. Just as the beaver still gets its sustenance on land and is happy in a home out of the water, we can be quite comfort­able and proficient with others’ ways and retain our identifications with our own groups. Looking back at stanza 23 (“Éþel”), we can see that people can be quite complacent with their lives if they are allowed to contentedly enjoy material goods at home. One does not necessarily deny or destroy one’s own precious roots by adapting to another group’s way.

 

Of course, you can get cut off from your home. You can branch out well or poorly.

 

Layers of the Psyche

This implicit stanza is supported equally well by all the translations. Just as modern psychology has theories of psychological structure, ancient Teutonic religion had a sophisticated lore of the soul or psychic structure. Here we see three layers of living that are metaphorically represented by the land, the water, and the lodge.

 

On the outside the forest land surrounds the pond and gives an overall environment. The forest land is where subsistence is obtained, and it corresponds to outer empirical reality. Obviously, materials and data from outside are required.

 

Inside this reality is the pond, a psychic layer which is constructed by the beaver. The pond is not an arbitrary construction, but a very creative rearrangement of things that reflects a standard model. The model for the pond is simultaneously in the beaver’s own nature and its environment. Essen­tially the beaver has redirected flows into canals (for floating logs to the pond) and has altered flows with a dam. If we regard the flows of water as corresponding to flows of psychic energies, then we can see that the pond is fantasy and subconscious psychic defense, an inner reality that is a protection from the outer reality. We all experience it in sleeping dreams, lucid dreams, and flashes of intuitive insight or premonition. One swims in this zone by means of imagination, meditation, metaphor, simile, recreation, play, music, ceremony, and other emotionally-oriented, subconsciously-oriented means. The pond is a fortification, reserve of resources, and source of joy.

 

The lodge is a stable inner core. This is why the lodge is subjectively “fæġer”. The word is not a valid description of the physical appearance of a beaver lodge from a human point of view. The inner mind is stable, comfortable, and safe partly because it is protected against excessive stresses. This protection comes from sound construc­tion, but partly from the psychic layer that surrounds. The psychic inner core is where a noble one can be at peace within and is necessary to enjoy enlightenment (see stanza number 6, “Cen”). Like the pond, the lodge is made from materials at hand and reflects a standard model that is built into the beaver and its environment. Lodges represent the subjective in that they are made by specific beaver individuals and groups, but lodges also represent the objective reality of one’s inner core, which comes from a common model and commonly available resources.

 

Not restricted to staying in its innermost core, the beaver thus corres­ponds to the conscious, analytical, will-having, and psycholo­gically motile aspect of a person. This is because the beaver is dynamic and moves about in this complex freely. Building on the discussion of “The Beaver Is an Amphibian”, exploitation of these differ­ent realms helps in achieving a more consistent level of pleasantness and joy. (See Thorsson, 1989: Chapter 17 “The Soul”, for a different version of the this lore.)

 

Use of the Surreal Realm

This implicit stanza, supported by “One Can Be Happy in Two Realms” and “Layers of the Psyche”, begins the third level of meaning. In this implicit stanza, the beaver is a spiritually adept kind of person. The water is a particular kind of other realm ― one sometimes called the shadow, or spiritual realm. Water is a realm beyond time, space, and matter. It can be of benefit only if we relax, adapt, and have skill. We never see as clearly in it as we see in the mundane realm, for it is surreal. Many people are unaware of that other realm or try to deny its objective reality, but we all experience it.

 

The “Proper Mystic” (an implicit stanza in “Eoh”), tells us that a mystic should strive to be a supportive member of a broader society. In “Íar”, “Use of the Surreal Realm” adds that a deeply mystical person can be happy and prosperous as an individual in ordinary life. Instead of being a source of escapist “enlightenment”, esoteric religion is supposed to help one make enlightened adjustments to practical affairs. In this respect, it is significant that Teu­ton­ic clergy were often expected to live in ordinary society and succeed in ordinary terms (Byock, 1988; Mattingly and Handford, 1970; or see any of the Icelandic sagas mentioning priests or priestesses).

 

Beaver-Like Style

This implicit stanza is supported only by the implicit stanzas below it in “Íár” and by implicit stanzas elsewhere in the OERP. The point is that we should strive to achieve adaptation in more than one realm. Lower-level implicit stanzas tell us that if we are versatile we can be happier. To achieve a relatively consistently pleasant condition, we should strive to be comfortable with different subcultures, layers of psychic functioning, and realms of existence. However, the beaver person is not just sophis­ticated and cultured, but powerful and creative.

 

In religion, the beaver-like style goes beyond recognizing that there is another realm and being strong. By way of contrast, consider the Eolhx­secg (Cutting Sedge), a metaphor that appears in the 15th stanza. That sedge merely resides in two realms and is analo­gous to the passively religious. The happier beaver constantly modifies and creates, and is therefore anal­ogous to the magically religious persons of “The Homeland of Infinite Progression” (Chapter 22). This also calls to mind “Creation and Dialectics” of the stanza “Dæg” (Chapter 24) ― for the beaver exploits polar opposite realms to make something new. Exploita­tion of polar-opposite realms is what magicians do. They invoke wights, mobilize dynamic powers, and do soul travels – this puts them into the other realm or has them bring resources out of the other realm. They structure their experiences with the surreal realm based in part on common models inherent in their own psyches and on resources common to human lives.

 

The psychological realms of the pond and the lodge are one way to look at creative versatility in religion, but another dichotomy of psychic functioning is lower animal versus divine. At the ultimate basis of the creatively religious person’s endeavors, the creativity is a consciously willed combination of the lower animal and the divine aspects of human­ity. Any creatively religious person, includ­ing any who would not be called “magician”, enters or takes part in an­other realm to communi­cate with deities (or a deity), and that person brings something back. This point applies to all endeavors. The better-adjusted person can take charge of his or her life-course and be creative by working dialectically with these two aspects of humanity.

 

People do not get into a beaver-like style by accident. Just as not all animals can “beaver”, so not all people will be so creative, sophisticated, refined, and versatile. Implicit stanzas in “Ing” and “Éþel” speak of making the transition, and the present implicit stanza clarifies what transformation one makes in moving to the more effective type of fareld. You move from the relatively static style of the sedge to the busy-ness of the beaver, although in doing so you become more vulnerable. Further details of making the transformation are beyond the scope of this book.

 

The Sacred Community

Although the fact is not explicitly referenced in this stanza, beavers commonly reside in groups, for a lodge usually houses a family. Therefore, “The Beaver-Like Style” leads to an implicit stanza referring to group life. The group can be a family, a town, a formal association, etc. What sets the sacred community apart is a sacred intent, but the sacred community should have a beaver-like style as a group.

 

That Which Is Sacred

The beaver lives a balanced life. It thrives in the otherworld and in two realms of reality that seem separated by that otherworld. The inner stead is a functional or physical core. It could be a time/space set aside for medita­tions, a temple, an inner sanctuary or altar, or a group (such as a temple membership or staff). The outer stead is the wider world or environment in which the person has to live. The beaver is adept and comfortable with the otherworld aspect of life, but takes sustenance from a firmer reality and takes pleasure and sanctuary in its own inner core (which is also real and “of land” ― of the land realm).

 

Part of the balance is something that is sanctuary-like. An idea that is present in all third-level implicit stanzas of “Íár” is sanctum or holy sanctuary. You cannot see it in words, but you can see it implied, for the “fairness” of the beaver’s home is an emotional consequence of the three qualities mentioned in “Layers of the Psyche” (stability, comfort, and safety). Beyond this is the idea of the sacred per se. Here in “That Which Is Sacred”, the poem is telling us that the sacred is distinct from a layer of ritual, belief, and symbols. It is a condition or quality that is very real, but also protected by the fantastic, the play-like, and/or by esoteric otherworldly experiences. The sacred is not directly accessible, but like the beaver lodge it requires a trip through the otherworld. As words are not quite sufficient to describe the other­world, they are even less sufficient to describe the quality of the sacred itself. However, to achieve an advanced mystical understanding, you have to also achieve a balance among the environ­mental, fantastic, and inner core of life.

 

This implicit stanza is related to the warning the implicit stanza “Distractions of Esoteric Practice” in “Eh”. This implicit stanza also relates to “The Proper Mystic” (in “Eoh”), which says that we should be persons of our communities.

 

 

Themes

Simple Themes

·        Layers of existence

·        Psychic layers

·        Distinct realms

·        Surreality

·        Versatility

·        Sophistication

·        Adaptability

·        Skill in social situations

·        Happiness

·        Creativity

·        Land

·        Water

·        Home

·        Sustenance

·        Comfort

·        Always

·        Pleasantness

·        Attractiveness

·        Beaver

·        Amphibiousness

·        Self-esteem

·        Empirical manifestations of inner nature

·        Product of individual and environment

·        Balance

 

 

Contrasts

·        One-realm versus two-realm (or many-realm) adaptation

·        Mystical versus nonmystical

·        Satisfaction or contentment versus frustration

·        Home realm versus “away” realm

·        Consistent happiness versus variable adaptation

·        Surreal versus mundane or common

·        Passive versus active adaptations

·        Versatility versus limiting specialization

 

 

Advice for Living

The effort to understand and take part in other subcultures than our own can be worthwhile, even while we retain our identities. Being skillful and comfortable in more than one milieu can (ironically) help you attain consistent delight and contentment. The well-adjusted person is sophisticated but enjoys a cultural home and a core sense of self that contributes to comfort and very healthy functioning.

 

The advanced mystic is a skillful and strong-willed person who comfor­tably and creatively negotiates the inner mind, the mystic aspects of the universe, human cultures, and everyday life. An important religious goal is to achieve wholesome balance.

 

Postscript: Changes from Elder Fuþark

The Old English Rune Poem implies a different organization of mysteries than we see implied in many medieval runic manuscripts. Two of the differences between the rune row shown in the OERP and the rune row common before 800 CE (the Elder Fuþark) are: (1) a change in the name of the 15th rune from Eolhx (or some spelling variant) to Eolhxsecg; and (2) the addition of Íar to the OERP (Kemble, 1840; Page, 1987: 14-21; Thorsson, 1987: 21-22).

 

Allow me to speculate for a moment on the philosophic meaning of these two changes, which may be related. Some may feel that the stave shape of Íar means that it is more related to “Hægl” than to “Eolhxsecg”. I prefer to emphasize stanza content over stave shape, and the discussion in this chapter shows a relative close complementarity between “Eolhxsecg” and “Íar”. Let us entertain the hypothesis that the ancient Teutonic Pagans did not add subtopics by adding staves or stanzas, but instead reorganized the runic system’s existing coverage.

 

Runologists sometimes try to explain changes in rune rows on the basis of phonetic changes in Teutonic languages (for example, see Thorsson, 1987: 23 or Page, 1973). However, runic alphabets do not seem to corre­spond exactly to the phonetic needs of their languages. Changes in rune rows most likely took linguistic needs into account but were based also on changes in the underlying philosophy. (See also Thorsson, 1987: 30-31, where he asserts that the Younger Fuþark evolved for magico-religious reasons and not for linguistic purposes.)

 

Changes in the rune rows probably correspond to changes in the generally accepted rune poem. It is quite possible that there was a 24-stanza rune poem corresponding to the Elder Fuþark. It is also quite possible that when a 29-stanza rune poem was composed, messages regarding means of power and advan­tages of active versatility were moved from the 15th stanza to one of the new stanzas. This would help explain the change in name of the rune from an animal name to a plant name. Why make the change? Perhaps the question of resisting removal would have become more prominent during Christianity’s quite forceful struggle to take over. This matter would be emphasized by giving it its own stanza. The new stanza also deals with topics which would have required more emphasis during Christianization. One topic is secrecy and maintenance of an inner sanctum. Another topic is adaptation to the alien Christian world.  In addition, the use of a borrowed, nonTeutonic word as the title of the new rune would have symbolized the old religion’s adaptation to new circum­stances.

 

 

References

Bosworth, Joseph and T. N. Toller. 1898. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.

Bosworth, Joseph and Toller T. N. 1921. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary...Supplement. London: Oxford University Press.

Bradley, S. A. J. 1982. Anglo-Saxon Poetry. London: J. M. Dent.

Bridle,  Susan, Simeon Alev,  Amy Edelstein, and Craig Hamilton. 1999. “Editorial” What is Enlightenment? Issue 15 (Spring-Summer 1999): 16-17.

Byock. Jessee L. 1988. Medieval Iceland. Berkely, CA (USA): University of California Press.

Dent, Anthony, transl. 1971. They Rode into Europe by Miklós Jankovich. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Originally published as Pferde, Reiter, Völkerstürme in München by BLV Verlagsgesellschaft mBH.

Dickens, Bruce. 1915. Runic and Heroic Poems of the Old Teutonic Peoples. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dobbie, Elliott van Kirk. 1942. The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems. NY: Columbia University Press.

Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc. 2000a. “Military Technology” / “The age of cavalry, c. AD 400-1350” Encyclopædia Brittanica Online. [Online]. Available from Brittanica.com at http://www.brittanica.com.

Faulkes, Anthony. 1987. Edda. By Snorri Sturluson (1220). London: Everyman.

Grienberger. Theodor von. 1921. “Das angelsächsisches Runengedicht.” Anglia, 45: 201-220.

Hall, J. R. Clark. 1960. A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. 4th ed., with a supplement by Herbert D. Merritt. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Halsall, Maureen. 1981. The Old English Rune Poem: A Critical Edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Healey, Antonette diPaolo, Joan Holland, David McDougall, Ian McDougall, Nancy Speirs, and Pauline Thompson. 1996. Dictionary of Old English: E. Toronto, Canada: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.

Hickes, George. 1703-1705. Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesauri: Grammatico-Critici et Archæologici Pars Prima: Seu: Institutiones Grammaticæ Anglo-Saxonicæ & Mœso-Gothicæ. Facsimile reprint. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag (1970).

Hollander, Lee M. 1962. The Poetic Edda. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Hollander, Lee M., transl. 1964. Heimskringla: History of the Kings of Norway. Austin, Texas, USA: University of Texas Press.

Kemble, John M. 1840. Anglo-Saxon Runes. Additional notes and translations by Bill M. Griffiths. Reprinted in 1991. Middlesex, UK: Anglo-Saxon Books. Originally published as “On Anglo-Saxon Runes” in Archeologica  in 1840.

Larrington, Carolyne. 1996. The Poetic Edda. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Mattingly, H. and S. A. Handford. 1970. Tacitus: The Agricola and the Germania. London: Penguin.

Mitchell, Bruce and Fred C. Robinson. 1992. A Guide to Old English. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell.

Osborn, Marijane and Stella Longland. 1982. Rune Games.  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Page, R. I. 1973. An Introduction to English Runes. London: Methuen & Co, Ltd.

Paul, Jim. 1996. The Rune Poem. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.

Pollington, Stephen. 1995. Rudiments of Runelore. Thetford Forest Park (UK): Anglo-Saxon Books.

Shippey, T. A. 1976. Poems of Wisdom and Learning in Old English. Cambridge, U. K.: D. S. Brewer and Totowa, NJ, USA: Rowan and Littelfield.

Stanfield, Gary. 1996b. “Introduction to the OERP Book.” The Rune 7 (Issue 1): 37-39.

Thorsson, Edred. 1989. A Book of Troth. St. Paul, MN, USA: Llewellyn Publications.

Wódening, Swain. 1996a. The Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem: A Translation and Commentary on the First Twenty-Four Stanzas with an Appendix of the Additional Rune Verses with Esoteric Commentary. Watertown, NY, USA: Theod.

Young, Jean I., transl. 1954. The Prose Edda by Snorri Sturluson (probably written in 1220). University of California Press. Berkley, California.