The Well and the Tree: World and Time in Early Germanic

Culture
-i-
The University of Massachusetts Press
1982
Amherst
-ii-
The
Well and
the Tree
World and Time in Early Germanic Culture
Paul C. Bauschatz
Coyri!ht " 1982 #y The University of Massachusetts Press All ri!hts reserve$ Printe$ in the Unite$
%tates of America
Cre$it to u#lishers for ermission to rerint material un$er coyri!ht is !iven in the author&s
ac'no(le$!ments.
)i#rary of Con!ress Catalo!in! in Pu#lication *ata Bauschatz+ Paul C.+ 19,--The (ell an$ the tree.
.nclu$es #i#lio!rahical references an$ in$e/.
1. Mythology, Germanic--Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Germanic tribes--Religion--Addresses, essays,
lectures. ,. Language and culture-Addresses, essays, lectures. I. Title.
B)80,.B,8 29,&.21 81-11200
.%B3 4-8242,-,-2-1 AAC52
-iv-
Contents
Acknowledgments vi
A Foreword i/
Abbreviations //i
I
Urths Well 1
II
The !revalence o" Urth ,1
#urials: rites and arti"acts ,,
$ituals and everyday li"e -9
III
#eowul" and the %ature o" Events 8-
I&
Action' ()ace' and Time 112
&
*anguage 1--
(omething +ore 189
%otes 199
$e"erences Cited 229
Inde, 21-
-v-
!ublication In"ormation: Boo' Title6 The 7ell an$ the Tree6 7orl$ an$ Time in 8arly 9ermanic
Culture. Contri#utors6 Paul C. Bauschatz - author. Pu#lisher6 University of Massachusetts Press. Place
of Pu#lication6 Amherst. Pu#lication :ear6 1982.
Acknowledgments
T;8 research for this #oo' (as essentially comlete$ in 1922. 7or's that have aeare$ since that
$ate or (hich came to my notice after that $ate are not cite$ <or are cite$ only assin!ly= in the te/t or
in the #i#lio!rahy. Thus+ . have not #een a#le to ma'e as full use of 5. ). %. Bruce-Mitfor$&s >inal
5eort to the British Museum on the %utton-;oo shi #urial as . (oul$ have li'e$ <the first volume+
(hich . sa( #riefly #efore this (or' (ent into its final form+ aeare$ in 192- an$ is cite$ in some
laces in the te/t (here it contains information not availa#le in earlier reliminary reorts? the secon$
volume+ (hich aeare$ in 1928+ is not cite$ at all=. 3or have . #een a#le to use T. ). Mar'ey
comrehensive Germanic and its dialects+ , vols. < Amster$am6 @ohn BenAamins =. Bolume ,+
Bibliography and indices <reare$ #y T. ). Mar'ey + 5. ). Ceys+ an$ P. T. 5o#er!e+ 1922=+ came into
my han$s only after my o(n research on the 9ermanic lan!ua!es ha$ #een comlete$? volumes 1 an$
2 are still not in rint at this (ritin!. 5ecently+ a variety of oular an$ scholarly (or's on Bi'in!
civilization have aeare$. All of this #o$es (ell for a rene(e$ interest in early 9ermanic culture
!enerally.
%ome of the material in the follo(in! essays has aeare$ else(here. 8ssay 1+ &Urth&s 7ell&+ aeare$
in sli!htly $ifferent form in vol. , of The Journal o Indo-!uropean "tudies < 192-=? it is rerinte$ here
(ith the ermission of the e$itor. The material $efinitive of the 9ermanic symbel+ (hich aears here
in 8ssays 2 an$ ,+ (as first resente$ at the Thir$ .nternational Conference of 3or$ic an$ 9eneral
)in!uistics at the University of Te/as at Austin in 1920 an$ (as su#seDuently u#lishe$ in the
Procee$in!s of the Conference < The #ordic Languages and Modern Linguistics+ , EAustin6
University of Te/as Press+ 1928F=. .t is rerinte$ here (ith the ermission of the u#lisher. The
material in 8ssay , analyzin! the use an$ meanin! of G8 HI an$ HJt (as !iven first as a tal' at the
8leventh Conference on Me$ieval %tu$ies at 7estern Michi!an University in Calamazoo in 1920. .t
su#seDuently aeare$ in rint as &Gl$ 8n!lish ConAunction6 %ome %emantic Consi$erations&+ in In
Geardagum II$ !ssays on %ld and Middle !nglish Language and Literature < *enver6 The %ociety for
3e( )an!ua!e %tu$y+ 1928=. .t is rerinte$ here (ith the ermission of the society. >inally+ the
material comarin! Christian an$ 9ermanic time (as first !iven orally at the 3inth Conference on
Me$ieval %tu$ies at 7estern Michi!an University in Calamazoo in 1921.
. (oul$ li'e to than' the follo(in! u#lishers for ermission to rerint from coyri!hte$ material6 Carl
7inter UniversitKtsverla!+ for Duotations from the Poetic 8$$a+ from the e$ition of 9ustav 3ec'el +
!dda$ &ie Lieder des 'ode( Regius nebst )er*andten &en+m,lern+ 1th e$. <" 1902=? the University of
Te/as Press for the Duotations from )ee ;ollan$er&s translation of the Poetic 8$$a+ 2n$ e$. <" 1902=+
an$ for the Duotations from 7infre$ P. )ehmann -roto-Indo-!uropean synta( <" 1921=? the
American-%can$inavian >oun$ation for the Duotations from ;enry A$ams Bello(s&s translation of the
Poetic 8$$a <" 192,=+ an$ for the Duotations from Arthur 9ilchrist Bro$eur translation of the Prose
8$$a <" 1910=? G/for$ University Press for the Duotations from @. 9. C. An$erson&s e$ition of Tacitus
&e origine et situ germanorum <" 19,8=? 3e( :or' University Press for the Duotations from ;. M.
%myser essay+ &.#n >a$lIn&s account of the 5Ls (ith some commentary an$ some allusions to Beo*ul&+
in .ranciplegius$ Medie)al and Linguistic "tudies in /onor o .rancis -eabody Magoun, Jr.+ e$. @ess
Bessin!er an$ 5o#ert P. Cree$ <" 190-=. The Duotations from ;. Mattin!ly translation of Tacitus
Germania are rerinte$ #y ermission of Pen!uin Boo's )t$. <" the 8state of ;. Mattin!ly+ 1918+
1924? " %. A. ;an$for$+ 1924=. The $ia!ram illustratin! 3orse cosmo!rahy that aears on . 124 is
rerinte$ from 8. B. 9or$on An Introduction to %ld #orse+ 2n$ e$. <" 19-2=+ (ith the ermission of
G/for$ University Press.
Many eole have hele$ me in the rearation of this (or'+ more than . can than' in$ivi$ually here.
%ecifically+ ho(ever+ . (oul$ li'e to than' Carroll >. Terrell+ A. Patricia Burnes+ Burton 3. ;atlen+ T.
@eff 8vans+ an$ Cathleen M. Bauschatz+ my collea!ues at the University of Maine at Grono+ (ho rea$
an$ commente$ helfully on ortions of the manuscrit. . must also !ive a (or$ of than's to Mrs.
Marilyn 8meric'+ (ho cheerfully tye$ an$ retye$ all of this #oo'. >inally+ to collea!ues an$ scholars
at other universities . o(e a very !reat $e#t. Many have !enerously !iven me their time an$ oinion on
matters relatin! to this (or'. . must mention+ of these+ four6 )oren C. 9ru#er of %imson Colle!e+
Bruce )incoln of the University of Minnesota+ 8$!ar C. PolomM of the University of Te/as+ an$ 5o#ert
%tevic' of the University of 7ashin!ton+ all of (hom !ave me counsel an$ encoura!ement (hen .
nee$e$ it most.
. (oul$ li'e to $e$icate this #oo' to the memory of my teacher at Colum#ia University+ 8lliott Ban
Cir' *o##ie.
A Foreword
T;8 follo(in! essays have in common a concern (ith early 9ermanic culture. Althou!h they $eal
severally (ith various manifestations of this culture+ a central thesis runs throu!h all of them. Most
simly ut+ it is that 9ermanic culture (as $ominate$ #y its concetion of its o(n ast. This is neither
surrisin! nor ne(. The essays aim+ ho(ever+ not at ela#oratin! the o#vious fact of $omination #y the
ast #ut at e/aminin! ho( an$ in (hat form the 9ermanic concetion of the ast shae$ events.
8very(here they emhasize not the events+ actions+ or constructs of the culture #ut those asects of
events+ actions+ an$ constructs that ren$er them un$erstan$a#le an$ meanin!ful. Ultimately+ this
emhasis tries to articulate some si!nificant asects of the concetual system that shaes action an$
event an$ un$erlies all human creation. To comrehen$+ even to a small $e!ree+ their concetual
system ma'es it ossi#le for us to see more clearly ho( the 9ermanic eoles themselves e/erience$
their (orl$+ ho( they thou!ht an$ structure$ their e/istence+ ho( they shae$ their o(n reality.
.n all human cultures+ action an$ ercetion are mutually coherent? everythin! relates to everythin!
else. %uch ercetion is not--cannot #e--fully conscious. ;uman conceivin! an$ erceivin! cannot #e
fully e/laine$ #ecause human e/lanation is+ as (e still no( live it+ lin!uistic+ an$ lan!ua!e itself is a
concetual structure+ an essential #ut artial asect of the lar!er system of conceivin! an$ erceivin!
that re$icates all human action. Gur tas' in un$erstan$in! any concetual system--our o(n or that of
any other culture--involves a 'in$ of t(o-ste oeration of $escrition an$ e/lanation.
1
>irst+ (e
must #e a#le to o#serve the activityof those (ho articiate (ithin the reality of the system. %uch
o#servation (ill allo( us to $escri#e <or list or resent= the 'in$s of events an$ activities that rea$ily
occur (ithin the culture. .n$ee$+ much of (hat follo(s here is Aust this 'in$ of $etaile$ layin! out of
events eculiar to early 9ermanic culture. %econ$+ our un$erstan$in! of the events (e o#serve $eeens
only as (e are a#le to e/lain them--not to e/lain them a(ay or to e/lain them artially (ithin the
concetual structure of our o(n culture #ut to e/lain them as fully as (e can--so that (e are a#le to
see ho(+ (ithin their o(n confi!urin! system+ they articulate meanin!ful structures of coherence for
those (ho erform such events. .f any one thin! emer!es from the follo(in! essays+ it is a more
tan!i#le <for us= un$erstan$in! of ho*+ in e/actly (hat (ay an$ in e/actly (hat shae+ relationshis of
coherence emer!e (ithin the concetual reality of the early 9ermanic eoles.
>ortunately+ the essays that follo( are not concerne$ (ith the futile tas' of full+ e/licit $elineation of
the concetual reality of the early 9ermans. They are concerne$+ ho(ever+ (ith some of the asects of
that culture that reveal it to #e unli'e our o(n+ an$ fortunately for us+ early 9ermanic e/erience seems
Duite $ifferent from the ercetions an$ concetions of our o(n reality <at least to the e/tent to (hich
(e are a#le to #e!in to un$erstan$ these=.
Peole of other cultures than our o(n not only act $ifferently+ #ut . . . they have a $ifferent
#asis for their #ehavior. They act uon $ifferent remises? they erceive reality $ifferently+
an$ co$ify it $ifferently. .n this co$ification+ lan!ua!e is lar!ely instrumental. .t
incororates the remises of the culture+ an$ co$ifies reality in such a (ay that it resents it
as a#solute to the mem#ers of each culture. Gther asects of #ehavior also e/ress+ if not as
clearly+ the secific hrasin! of reality (hich each culture ma'es for itself. < )ee 19196141=
Thus+ those asects of 9ermanic culture that stri'e us as o$$ or stran!e shoul$ #e!in to oint $irectly to
elements of their concetual structure that $iffer ra$ically from ours. )i'e(ise+ many asects of early
9ermanic culture seem to some e/tent to $iffer imortantly from the reality e/erience$ #y other
similarly &early& cultures+ esecially other .n$o-8uroean cultures of late rehistoric throu!h early
me$ieval times. .n a$$ition+ then+ (e may
-/-
rofita#ly concentrate our attention on these $ifferences as (ell. >inally+ (ith some atience an$ luc'
(e can also #e!in tentatively to roose some e/lanation of the nature or shae of (hat is not
o#serva#le. As a result+ (e mi!ht #e a#le to $ocument (hat it is that ma'es it ossi#le for us to sea'
a#out an$ $efine a concetual reality that is essentially &9ermanic&.
7e must #e careful (hen $ealin! (ith these &$ifferences&. %uerficial $istinctions freDuently reveal
un$erlyin! similarities an$ coherence of !reater matter than the aarent $ifferences. .t is+ for e/amle+
almost a clichM to refer to early 9ermanic eole as !loomy+ humorless+ an$ fatalistic. .t is true that
9ermanic myths an$ le!en$s continually $(ell on the su#Aect of $eath+ #ut then+ many myths $o this.
3ot surrisin!ly+ $eath an$ its ultimate si!nificance in the (hole of human e/erience is a fact an$
ro#lem (ith (hich no man can #e unconcerne$. .f $eath is !loomy+ then the 9ermanic eoles (ere
!loomy? so+ unfortunately+ is every#o$y else. 9ermanic !loominess+ if there can ri!htly #e such a thin!+
is most acutely noticea#le (hen (e consi$er its relation to the structure of the 9ermanic cosmos. >rom
a Christian+ that is+ a non-9ermanic+ oint of vie(+ $eath is a 'in$ of oenin! out to salvation or
$amnation+ a oint in all time throu!h (hich man necessarily !oes to life or nonlife #eyon$. The
e/erience of $eath transcen$s the vicissitu$es of the (orl$ of sense imression. The reality #eyon$ is
eternal. .n the 9ermanic fi!uration+ there is somethin! li'e this in the reresentation of the feastin! of
(arriors in Balholl an$ in some of the $escritions of torment in 3iflheim. There is an essential
$istinction+ ho(ever. .n the 9ermanic myths+ all of these &other& (orl$s $o not transcen$ the tyranny of
the insu#stantial. The 9ermanic arallel to *ooms$ay+ 5a!naro'+ the collase of :!!$rasil+ the (orl$
ash+ (hich inclu$es (ithin its universal #ranches an$ roots all (orl$s+ $estroys not only man&s (orl$+
Mi$!ar$+ #ut Balholl an$ 3iflheim an$ everythin! else. This lac' of eternality is+ from a Christian
oint of vie(+ &!loomy&--it is eculiarly un-Christian to conceive of heaven as not ermanent. But the
early 9ermanic eole (ere not Christians+ an$ aarently the eternality of salvation of the in$ivi$ual
soul $i$ not concern them much? at least+ (ith resect to (hat (e still have+ they $i$ not (rite much
a#out it.
7e coul$ erhas eDuate !loominess (ith humorlessness. .n$ee$+ a lac' of humor is en$emic to much
of the 9ermanic e/erience. But (e shoul$ a!ain #e careful6 The early 9ermanic eole share their
humorlessness (ith the early Christians. The &Aoys& of the #lesse$+ as they seem to have #een anticiate$
#y early Christian converts+ (ere not of this (orl$. Their e/erience can #e e/resse$ as a 'in$ of $our
sin!leness of vision that fin$s fulfillment in reAection of the sensual. ;umor $een$s lar!ely on a
$ou#leness or multilicity of vision+ (hich can someho( or other meanin!fully offer variety to human
e/erience. As close as (e !et to humor is a 'in$ of ru$imentary irony in (hich actions outsi$e the
truth are scorne$? it occurs freDuently in early saints& lives (here the actions of a!an i$olater
tormenters of convince$ saints are ri$icule$. The #est the (orl$ has to offer is a !rim martyr$om. 7e
susect that there (as little lau!hter in the catacom#s--hymn chantin!+ e/ressive acts of faith+ yes+ #ut
no come$y.
The value of martyr$om is not unli'e (hat (e no( have come to call the heroic or (arrior i$eal+ in
(hich a !oo$ $eath cas the !oo$ life? (e also 'no( that this attitu$e is fun$amentally e/resse$ in
much 9ermanic literature. Both the Christian martyr an$ the 9ermanic (arrior aarently foun$ such
actions consonant (ith their universal concetions. 9ermanic irony+ similar to that of Christian saints+
can #e foun$ in the actions of those (ho flout the co$e of #ehavior of the (arrior+ #ut such action is not
funny? it is #eneath contemt. These actions are &fatalistic& in #oth their imme$iate an$ their ultimate
asects. Behavioral co$es of this sort an$ rescritions for martyr$om are ali'e fi/e$+ $etermine$+ an$
un$eviatin!. .n all of these asects+ the early 9ermans an$ early Christians (ere ali'e.
These aarent $ifferences turn out to cover lar!ely similar concetions6 sin!leness of vision+
commitment to courses of action consonant (ith this vision+ an$ an ultimate universal frame(or' that
ma'es such imme$iate activity un$erstan$a#le+ #elieva#le+ an$ lau$a#le. There is (ithin all this
similarity one si!nificant $ifference+ ho(ever6 Christian ermanence+ 9ermanic transience. To the
e/tent to (hich the Christian universe is fi/e$ an$ close$+ that of the early 9ermanic eoles seems to
#e oen an$ in flu/. ;ere erhas is a oint of $ifference+ an$ its imlications may hel us to $iscover
other essentially 9ermanic asects of the human con$ition. >rom this an$ other such oints+ (e can
#e!in to trace more fully the nature of this e/erience? it is the aim of (hat follo(s+ to some e/tent+ to
follo( Aust this trace an$ relate$ traces of the 9ermanic concetion of life+ its realities an$ its
comle/ities.
The Duestion (ith (hich the follo(in! analysis #e!an is t(ofol$6 >irst+ since all 9ermanic lan!ua!es
have evolve$ a #inary system of tenses for their ver#s+ (hat can this tell us a#out the (ay the sea'ers
of these lan!ua!es conceive$ of an$ e/erience$ the actions their ver#s $enoteN %econ$+ (hat other
elements mi!ht #e o#serva#le that hel to $istin!uish the 9ermanic eoles as a !rou from the other
.n$o-8uroean eoles (ith (hom they earlier seem to have share$ a common cultural an$ lin!uistic
herita!e? further+ to (hat e/tent mi!ht these cultural an$ lin!uistic elements #e seen to #e similar+ or
the sameN The secon$ Duestion+ at least+ is not a ne( one? it (as central to much of the scholarly outut
of the nineteenth century.
3ineteenth-century stu$ies of culture an$ lan!ua!e are #oun$ u (ith the emer!in! interest in that
century in comarative reli!ion+ hilolo!y+ an$ anthroolo!y. That there (ere masses of material
relevant to the stu$y of culture that ha$ never #efore #een systematically collecte$ an$ co$ifie$ seems
to have #ecome clear for the first time in the nineteenth century+ althou!h the i$ea $ates #ac' at least to
Bico. 3ineteenth-century research #ore fruit in many si!nificant (ays+ an$ (e are still in its $e#t for
the $eth of our o(n 'no(le$!e of the $eveloment of all asects of .n$o8uroean culture.
3ineteenth-century hilolo!y+ ho(ever+ althou!h it collecte$ an$ $ocumente$ fol' #elief+ stories+ an$
myths+ $i$ little to clarify the interrelations amon! these. .nstea$ of revealin! clear e/ressions of
un$erlyin! unity+ $iverse elements of the earlier cultures ten$e$ to #ecome+ as more an$ more (ere
e/amine$+ more an$ more $isarate an$ comle/. Unli'e (hat ha$ haene$ in the historical+
comarative stu$y of lan!ua!es+ (hich eventually ro$uce$ a mo$el of a sin!le+ un$erlyin!
.n$o8uroean lan!ua!e as the various asects of the e/istin! .n$ic an$ 8uroean lan!ua!es (ere
analyze$+ the collections of myths an$ fol' tales ten$e$ to #ecome merely lar!e. Bariants of stories+
varieties of e/ression of various !o$ly attri#utes+ ten$e$ to $iversify. .n their attemts to reresent the
9ermanic &other (orl$&+ for e/amle+ scholars $eveloe$ e/tremely comlicate$ cosmo!rahies that
attemte$ to lin' all of the various attri#utes foun$ in the sources+ each attri#ute ro$ucin! yet another
$istinct ortion tenuously lin'e$ to the others+ hoelessly incoherent an$ atchy. Attemts to lin' (hat
ha$ not aeare$ in the sources e/ten$e$ imerfectly the nineteenth century&s o(n concetions of
universal relations. Comen$ia !re( volume #y volume+ attri#ute #y attri#ute+ often resultin! in
eccentric+ incomrehensi#le sra(l.
There !ra$ually emer!e$+ ho(ever+ mainly from anthroolo!ists& attemts to un$erstan$ other cultures
contemoraneous (ith nineteenth-century 8uroean culture #ut &rimitive& (ith resect to (hat (as felt
to #e cultural evolution or sohistication+ an a(areness that the cultural resuositions of nineteenth-
century 8uroe (ere not universally share$. Attemts to see myths as some(hat imerfect forms of
narrative have !iven (ay to the i$ea that myths are+ in fact+ not narratives at all. &Myth. . . . in its livin!
rimitive form+ is not merely a story tol$ #ut a reality live$. .t is not of the nature of fiction+ such as (e
rea$ to-$ay in a novel+ #ut it is a livin! reality& < Malino(s'i 19206 18=. 3ot only $aily life as it is #ein!
live$ #ut all asects of human en$eavor rovi$e conte/ts in (hich to see the oeration of un$erlyin!
mythic structures. Thus+ it can #e foun$ in #oth resent an$ ast. Contemorary analysis no( strives to
uncover some coherent structure+ some frame(or' un$erlyin! all of the various materials e/amine$.
7e no lon!er (ish to co$ify the $ifferent versions of myths alone? rather+ (e try+ as Monta!u o#serve$
of Cassirer&s interest in mythical thou!ht+ to concern ourselves (ith &the rocesses of consciousness
(hich lea$ to the creation of myths& < 19196 ,02=.
.t is+ of course+ Clau$e )Mvi-%trauss (ho has ma$e most rominent in our o(n time the i$ea of myth as
a cultural manifestation of un$erlyin! structural imulses. 5ather than interestin! himself in the rocess
of consciousness+ as Cassirer $oes+ )Mvi-%trauss e/amines (hat he calls the creative sirit <esprit= of
the human min$. .t is the structure of this min$ or sirit+ as it is reflecte$ in human activity+ that
interests him6
The voca#ulary Ei.e. out(ar$ manifestationF matters less than the structure. 7hether the myth is re-
create$ #y the in$ivi$ual or #orro(e$ from tra$ition+ it $erives from its sources--in$ivi$ual or
collective <#et(een (hich interenetrations an$ e/chan!es constantly occur=--only the stoc' of
reresentations (ith (hich it oerates. But the structure remains the same . . . .f (e a$$ that these
structures are . . . fe( in num#er+ (e shall un$erstan$ (hy the (orl$ of sym#olism is infinitely varie$
in content+ #ut al(ays limite$ in its la(s. There are many lan!ua!es+ #ut very fe( structural la(s (hich
are vali$ for all lan!ua!es. A comilation of 'no(n tales an$ myths (oul$ fill an imosin! num#er of
volumes. But they can #e re$uce$ to a small num#er of simle tyes if (e a#stract+ from amon! the
$iversity of characters+ a fe( elementary functions. < )Mvi- %trauss 19026 199=
The term structure as use$ #y )Mvi-%trauss is a (or$ $esi!ne$ to sen$ some eole cheerin! to their
feet+ others screamin! from the room. *isa!reements a#out its aroriateness revolve mainly aroun$
his $efinition of structure in terms of #inary oosition+ (hich he has assume$ from structural
lin!uistic theory an$ alie$ to cultural henomena in !eneral.
2
7hether lan!ua!e+ an$ #y imlication
all human activity+ is in its structure #inary is a moot oint? yet+ (hether (e a!ree or $isa!ree on this
matter+ much of )Mvi-%trauss&s (or' merits our attention.
)Mvi-%trauss has $iscovere$ li'e structures un$erlyin! not only the tales+ le!en$s+ an$ stories of a
culturally unifie$ eole #ut also many of their common cultural conventions. 3or is it merely &social&
conventions that may #e so relate$. As Cluc'hohn has note$+ reli!ious lan!ua!e an$ rituals have a
similar structural relation to myth6 &5itual is an o#sessive reetitive activity--often a sym#olic
$ramatization of the fun$amental Onee$sO of the society+ (hether OeconomicO+ O#iolo!icalO+ OsocialO+ or
Ose/ualO. Mytholo!y is the rationalization of these same nee$s+ (hether they are all e/resse$ in overt
ceremonial or not& < 19126 28=. %ocial an$ le!al structure+ for e/amle+ seem to $erive from the same
structural &nee$s&. The e/tensive (or' of 9eor!es *umMzil an$ his follo(ers on the relationshi of
.n$o-8uroean myth an$ the culture&s ro#a#le triartite social structure #ears this out. The same #asis
un$erlies the art an$ literature of a culture? in$ee$+ this un$erlyin! concetual structure shoul$ inform
any cultural artifact+ any construct that has a $imension #eyon$ the merely useful or or$inary6 &Myth+
art+ reli!ion+ an$ lan!ua!e are all sym#olic e/ressions of the creative sirit in man? in them this sirit
ta'es on o#Aective+ erceti#le form+ #ecomin! conscious of itself throu!h man&s consciousness of it&
< 3eumann 19016,09=. The human min$ sym#olizes an$ a#stracts from e/erience+ an$ it $oes this to a
lar!e $e!ree in lan!ua!e. .t seems hi!hly unreasona#le+ at this sta!e of our un$erstan$in! of the nature
of human e/erience+ to $eny that the structure an$ or$er of human lin!uistic activity are closely
relate$ to other asects of human e/erience. .f the same concetual system un$erlies all of them+ then
many of the surface manifestations of this system+ (hich aear in many $ifferent varieties of human
activity+ #oth hysical an$ lin!uistic+ shoul$ #e!in uon analysis to reveal much of their un$erlyin!
similarity an$ some of their un$erlyin! structure.
;o( mi!ht a contemorary analysis of the interrelationshi of culture an$ lan!ua!e avoi$ the ro#lems
inherent in much nineteenth-century scholarshiN Althou!h it is ro#a#ly imossi#le to avoi$ all of
them+ some of these+ (hich have #ecome most o#vious over time+ erhas can #e avoi$e$. >irst+
nineteenth-century investi!ators un(ittin!ly rea$ their o(n cultural reAu$ices into the materials they
analyze$. 7e too un$erstan$ earlier material throu!h our o(n limite$ ercetions+ an$ (e vie( all of it
from the outsi$e. 7e must #e careful in all attemts at &translation&+ #oth in its lin!uistic nature an$ in
its &carryin! across& of cultural cate!orizations an$ relations. A !oo$ $eal of the material to #e e/amine$
in the follo(in! essays $eals+ for e/amle+ (ith !o$s+ $ra!ons+ fate+ etc.-all cultural manifestations (e
no( call &suernatural&+ (ith all of its fri!htenin! an$ &unreal& connotations. .f+ ho(ever+ (e use the
(or$ to $escri#e an asect of some $istant culture+ &far from increasin! our un$erstan$in! of it+ (e are
li'ely #y the use of this (or$ to misun$erstan$ it. 7e have the concet of natural la(+ an$ the (or$
OsuernaturalO conveys to us somethin! outsi$e the or$inary oeration of cause an$ effect+ #ut it may
not at all have that sense for Ethe other cultureF& < 8vans-Pritchar$ 190-6 149--14=. .t seems clear that
there (as nothin! suernatural in our sense a#out any of the monstrous characters (ho aear re!ularly
in 9ermanic literature+ an$ this shoul$ force us to rethin' the &nature& of this earlier (orl$ an$ the
nature of events (ithin it.
To this en$+ rather than focus on the (ay in (hich the 9ermanic (orl$ $iffers from our o(n+ (e shoul$
focus uon the (ay in (hich those elements of the 9ermanic (orl$+ $ifferin! from those of our (orl$+
are effectively inte!rate$ into the structure of events in that (orl$. The monstrous art of the 9ermanic
(orl$-- the 9iants of 9ermanic myth+ 9ren$el an$ his Mother in Beo*ul+ the $ea$ (ho (al' amon!
men--all have a role to lay in the central concerns of 9ermanic ercetion. The o(ers they em#o$y
reresent somethin! of the e/lanatory force that natural or &scientific& la( e/resses for us. ;o(+
(hen+ an$ (here such monsters act (ill !ive us some meanin!ful insi!hts into the (or'in! structure of
the 9ermanic cosmos. )i'e(ise+ (e shoul$ #e chary of remature Au$!ment a#out the Duality of the
aarently <#y our stan$ar$s= &$estructive& nature of much of this &monstrous& activity.
Another ro#lem of earlier analyses resulte$ from an attemt to inclu$e+ if not everythin!+ at least too
much. .n (hat follo(s+ rather than tryin! to inclu$e all asects of 9ermanic thin'in!+ actin!+ an$
erceivin!+ the essays (or' from only one myth+ one oint of vie(. Be!innin! (ith their concern (ith
lan!ua!e+ they try every(here to articulate the #inary oosition inherent in the 9ermanic tense system
#et(een ast an$ resent or+ #etter+ #et(een ast an$ nonast events. This articular oosition of
action resents events in a (ay that is si!nificantly $ifferent from our o(n+ an$ from other .n$o-
8uroean eoles. This articular relation #et(een tenses (or's itself out Duite #roa$ly in the culture.
Most o#viously+ this occurs in reresentations of time an$ of action? less o#vious+ at first+ are its relate$
manifestations in other asects of the culture+ #ut it aears there+ too+ if (e loo' not at the surfaces of
temoral an$ satial matters #ut at the un$erlyin! meanin!ful elements that ma'e u the surfaces. As a
result+ i$eas a#out $rin'in!+ !amin!+ e/loration+ seech ma'in!+ an$ fertility #ecome $eely an$
meanin!fully lin'e$. The most overt &mythical& reresentation of all these un$erlyin! elements is foun$
in the &iconic& fi!ure forme$ #y the union of the (orl$ tree+ :!!$rasil+ an$ Urth&s 7ell. 7ithin this
fi!ure+ the cosmos is e/resse$+ an$+ (ithin that+ everythin! else (e can learn a#out time+ sace+ an$
action ta'es lace.
The essays that follo( e/amine as many of the elements inherent in this concetual fi!ure as their o(n
!overnin! oint of $earture allo(s. These elements are essentially &mythic& in that they $efine an$
structure the 9ermanic cosmos. They are lar!ely &iconic&? in their manifest aearances in the culture+
they em#o$y or Pmirror& the semantic concets they e/ress < Cric' 19206 1,4=. Thus+ there is no
effective or essential $istinction #et(een si!nifier an$ si!nifie$. The interrelations amon! these
structural elements+ at once+ resent a &shae& that can #e erceive$ as (ell as a system of relations #y
(hich they may #e un$erstoo$.
The structural elements (ith (hich the essays $eal have surface$ in the main in (ays that are not
unli'e the (ays in (hich $istinctive lin!uistic features aear in honolo!ical analyses of lan!ua!e.
The soun$ structures of lan!ua!e+ (ith (hich honolo!ical analysis is concerne$+ are comose$ of
those elements of human seech that allo( for meanin!ful $istinctions amon! the actual soun$s use$
#y the sea'ers of the lan!ua!e. The honolo!ical system of a lan!ua!e is comose$+ then+ not of
soun$s as such #ut of the meanin!ful elements that+ in their rule-!overne$ Aoinin!+ create the actual
seech soun$s of the lan!ua!e. Because of such com#inatory o(ers+ the num#er of $istinctive
elements can #e small6 T(o features can create four $istinct &soun$s&? three features+ ei!ht $istinct
soun$s? four $ifferent features+ si/teen+ etc. Thus+ a variety of $ifferent soun$s in a lan!ua!e+ althou!h
they are comose$ of a relatively lar!e num#er of honetic features+ can #e sho(n to consist of a
minimal num#er of $istinctions amon! such features. >or e/amle+ 8n!lish E#F+ E$F+ an$ E!F+ the initial
soun$s of big, dig+ an$ gig+ resectively+ althou!h all $ifferent soun$s+ can #e sho(n to #e ali'e in all
un$erlyin! honetic elements e/cet lace of articulation in the mouth6 All are voice$+ stoe$
consonants. .n 8n!lish+ E#F $ifferentiates itself from E$F only #ecause the #ila#ial articulation of E#F is
erceive$ #y 8n!lish sea'ers to #e &$istinct& from the aico-alveolar articulation of E$F.
,

7hen (e come to e/amine cultural elements other than lan!ua!e+ a similar 'in$ of analysis can #e
helful. The reetitions of events+ acts+ artifacts+ narrative motifs+ etc. #ecome interestin! not so much
in themselves #ut #ecause of the eculiar iconic or semantic elements they em#o$y. They e/hi#it the
'in$s of reiteration that )Mvi-%trauss < 19026 199= has alrea$y notice$. The mythic fi!ure+ for e/amle+
that inclu$es :!!$rasil an$ Urth&s 7ell also inclu$es a num#er of $ifferent trees an$ (ells. As essay 1
ela#orates+ :!!$rasil is calle$ #y $ifferent names in $ifferent laces. Gur interest is not in !ivin! full
accounts of all of these #ut in e/aminin! those elements that are common to all reresentations. Then+
an$ only then+ (e may #e!in to see ho( the remainin! $istinctions amon! these may oerate to oint
u articularly imortant relations not o#vious in the reetitions themselves. There are+ for e/amle+
three (ells at the #ase of :!!$rasil6 Urth&s 7ell+ (hich is most o#viously the (ell of the &ast&? MQmir&s
7ell+ (hich is the (ell of (is$om+ an$ ;ver!elmir+ the (ell that is &serent-infeste$& an$ that &seethes&.
All three (ells su!!est flui$ity+ accumulation+ an$ containment amon! other elements. 7hat their
Auncture uniDuely si!nals in this case is a meanin!ful Aoinin! of &(is$om& (ith a &ast& that+ althou!h
e/hi#itin! somethin! of &containment&+ still &(rithes& li'e a serent an$ &seethes&. >urther analysis of
other asects of the culture sho(s a$$itional si!nificant Aoinin! of these same features. 7hen the (ell
an$ tree are Aoine$+ si!nificant elements #e!in to aear as a result of that Aoinin! as (ell.
.t is clear+ too+ from such analysis that not every element that aears in any confi!uration (ill #e
&$istinctive& in the sense outline$ a#ove. <This is also true for the 'in$ of honolo!ical analysis Aust
$escri#e$.= %ome features are necessary to create the fi!ure #ut have no secial relevance #eyon$ the
surface construct itself. Thus+ the (ells #eneath :!!$rasil contain &(ater&+ #ut it is not the chemical
comosition or i$ea of (ater that is imortant. 5ather+ it is the i$ea of &flui$ity& inherent in liDui$+ of
(hich (ater is the most common tye+ an$ its relation to &flo(& an$ &movement& that is reeate$ an$
#ecomes $istinctive. Gther confi!urations may si!nificantly relace (ater (ith #loo$ or into/icant?
in$ee$+ any item or action e/ressive of &flui$ motion& or &liDui$ activity& (ill contain the same iconic
Duality. )i'e(ise+ (ith resect to the tree :!!$rasil+ its 'in$ <!enus= is not a $istinctive element. .n
some te/ts+ it is merely &a tree&? in others+ it is secifically as+r &ash&? in some+ it is aarently some 'in$
of ever!reen? in still others+ it is of an &un'no(n& 'in$. There are ro#lems if (e (ish to see it as #oth a
$eci$uous ash an$ as &ever !reen&. All of this is ultimately of no si!nificance. Gnly natural trees
functionin! iconically ose ro#lems. Gther semantic elements e/resse$ #y the fi!ure of a &tree& (ill
rovi$e the $istinctions here. Comarison of reresentations allo(s for the resolution of such aarent
contra$ictions.
The essays that ma'e u the #o$y of this (or' $ra( uon a variety of sources. The materials availa#le
for e/amination are of various 'in$s6 first+ there are the recor$s an$ reorts of men (ho+ outsi$e the
culture+ came into contact (ith the 9ermanic eoles? secon$+ there are the hysical remains of the
9ermanic eoles themselves+ mainly !rave !oo$s. All these are e/amine$ in the t(o arts of the
secon$ essay. Thir$+ there are the 9ermanic lin!uistic recor$s. These are e/tensive an$ allo( for
searate e/amination of some asects of 9ermanic mytholo!y in the first essay+ of literature in the thir$
essay+ of the e/erience of time an$ sace as this is reflecte$ in lan!ua!e in the fourth essay+ an$ of the
structural nature of the 9ermanic lan!ua!es in the fifth essay.
The value of these essays lies not so much in their variety #ut in their strivin! to synthesize it+ to
esta#lish a ersective from (hich all the source material may #e seen as inte!rally relate$.
1
The
rocess of reemhasizin! to inte!rate sometimes necessitates that the imort of the sources $iffers+ no(
more+ no( less+ from that of the articular $iscilines from (hich they $erive. The essays (or'
(herever ossi#le (ith the most availa#le an$ least controversial materials. They often use these in
une/ecte$ (ays+ ho(ever? occasionally+ the relevance of a articular oint (ill not #e that (hich an
author himself mi!ht have assi!ne$ it. Thus+ the essays reDuire+ if their novel ersective is to #e
erceive$+ a rea$er (ho is !enerally unresistant to ma'in! the ne( associations the synthesis su!!ests.
At the least+ the consi$erate rea$er shoul$ fin$ that these essays can #roa$en his or her un$erstan$in!
of the (ay in (hich the early 9ermanic eoles shae$ their o(n e/erience? at #est+ they may #e
helful in tyin! to!ether (hat mi!ht seem to #e $isarate asects of the (ay all men act an$ thin'.
Abbreviations
*an. *anish G>ris. Gl$ >risian
9er. <Mo$ern= 9erman G;9 Gl$ ;i!h 9erman
9'. 9ree' G.n$. Gl$ .n$ian
9oth. 9othic G3 Gl$ 3orse
.cel. .celan$ic G% Gl$ %a/on
.8 .n$o-8uroean Gsc. Gscan
)at. )atin G%lav. Gl$ %lavic
)ith. )ithuanian P.8 Primitive .n$o-8uroean
M8 Mi$$le 8n!lish Pol. Polish
M;9 Mi$$le ;i!h 9erman 5us. 5ussian
Mo$.8 Mo$ern 8n!lish %'t. %ans'rit
3or. 3or(e!ian %(e$. %(e$ish
G Gl$ Um#r. Um#rian
G8 Gl$ 8n!lish Be$. Be$ic
-//i-
The Well and the Tree
Urths Well
I
I 3 B lusR 19-24 (e have (hat is ro#a#ly the earliest mention of Urth&s 7ell6
19 Asc veit ec stan$a+ heitir :!!$rasill+
hRr #aSmr+ ausinn hvQtaauri?
HaSan 'oma $ !!var+ HJrs Q $ala falla+
sten$r J yfir+ !rTnn+ UrSar #runni.
24 UaSan 'oma meyiar+ mar!s vitan$i+
Hriar+ Vr Heim sJ+ er un$ Holli sten$r?
UrS hMto eina+ aSra BerSan$i
--scRro R scQSi--+ %cul$ in HriSio?
HJr l ! l !So+ HJr lQf 'uro
al$a #ornom+ Wrl ! se!!ia.
1

The usual 8n!lish version follo(s the lines of Bello*s < 19206 9=6
19 An ash . 'no(+ :!!$rasil its name+
7ith (ater (hite is the !reat tree (et?
Thence come the $e(s that fall in the $ales+
9reen #y Urth&s (ell $oes it ever !ro(.
24 Thence come the mai$ens mi!hty in (is$om+
Three from the $(ellin! $o(n &neath the tree?
Urth is one name$+ Berthan$i the ne/t+--
Gn the (oo$ they score$+-- an$ %'ul$ the thir$.
)a(s they ma$e there+ an$ life allotte$
To the sons of men+ an$ set their fates+
or those of ;ollan$er < 190261=6
19 An ash . 'no(+ hi!ht :!!$rasil+
the mi!hty tree moist (ith (hite $e(s?
thence come the floo$s that fall a$o(n?
ever!reen o&ertos Urth&s (ell this tree.
24 Thence (ise mai$ens three #eta'e them--
un$er srea$in! #ou!hs their #o(er stan$s--
EUrth one is hi!ht+ the other+ Berthan$i+
%'ul$ the thir$6 they scores $i$ cut+F
they la(s $i$ ma'e+ they lives $i$ choose6
for the chil$ren of men they mar'e$ their fates.
2

The conte/t is amlifie$ some(hat in the Gylaginning6
Har sten$r salr einn fa!r un$ir as'inum viS #runninn+ o' Vr Heim sal 'oma ... meyAar+ HJr
er svR heita6 UrSr+ BerSan$i+ %'ul$. Uessar meyAar s'aa mXnnum al$r? HJr 'Xllum vMr
nornir. < Gylaginning 1-6,2=
,

A hall stan$s there+ fair+ un$er the ash #y the (ell+ an$ out of that hall come three mai$s+
(ho are calle$ thus6 Ur$r+ Ber$an$i+ %'ul$? these mai$s $etermine the erio$ of men&s
lives6 (e call them 3orns. < Bro$eur 19296 28-29=
An$ further6
8nn er Hat sa!t+ at nornir HJr+ er #y!!va viS UrSar#runn+ ta'a hvern $a! vatn i #runninum
o' mSe aurinn Hann+ er li!!r um #runninn+ o' ausa u yfir as'inn+ til Hess at ei!i s'ulu
limar hans trMna eSa fYna+ en Hat vatn er svR heila!t+ at allir hlutir+ Heir er Har 'oma Q
#runninn+ verSa svR hvQtir sem hinna sY+ er s'Aall heitir+ er innan li!!r viS e!!s'urn. <
Gylaginning 106,1,-=
.t is further sai$ that these 3orns (ho $(ell #y the 7ell of Ur$r ta'e (ater of the (ell
every $ay+ an$ (ith it that clay (hich lies a#out the (ell+ an$ srin'le it over the Ash+ to
the en$ that its lim#s shall not (ither nor rot? for that (ater is so holy that all thin!s (hich
come there into the (ell #ecome as (hite as the film (hich lies (ithin the e!!-shell.
< Bro$eur 19296,4=
The assa!e is usually interrete$ in the follo(in! (ay6 The (orl$ ash :!!$rasil is ta'en to contain
(ithin its #ranch an$ root
structure the (orl$s of the !o$s+ !iants+ $(arves+ an$ most imortantly Mi$!ar$+ the (orl$ of men.
The activities of the three 3orns influence these (orl$s. Their act of (aterin! the tree sustains it?
their actions influence+ for !oo$ or ill+ the lives an$ affairs of men. They ma'e la(s+ allot or choose
lives+ an$ mar' or set fate for men. The 3orns& activity reresents the (or'in! out of $estiny? they
!overn the ast+ resent+ an$ future of in$ivi$ual men an$ of all man'in$. The 3orns are often
eDuate$ (ith the classical fates <9'. MoaZ+ )at. -arcae=+ an$ the 7ell of Urth+ therefore+ #ecomes
the (ell of $estiny. There is much in this interretation that seems reasona#le an$ rin!s true? there
are also some $ifficulties (ith it.
There is little $ou#t a#out the central imortance of the (orl$ tree as a sym#ol of a lar!e art of the
universe as conceive$ #y early %can$inavian eole. .ts osition in #oth B lusR an$ Gylaginning
suorts this. .ts centrality is closely+ althou!h not $irectly+ associate$ (ith men. .t is al(ays
$irectly involve$ (ith the (orl$ of the [sir+ the !o$s of (hom G$in is chief an$ (ho are most
influential in the affairs of men. The name :!!$rasil itself $erives from an attri#ute of G$in+ an$ the
[sir are resonsi#le for+ amon! other thin!s+ the creation of Mi$!ar$ an$ their o(n (orl$-city
As!ar$ < Gylaginning 8-96 24-2,=. The [sir are inte!rally #oun$ u (ith :!!$rasil an$ Urth&s
7ell6
;var et hXfuSstaSrinn eSa hel!istaSr !oSannaN-;Rrr svarar6 Hat er at as'i :!!$rasils+ Har
s'ulu !oSin ei!a $Vma sQna hvern $a! . . . As'rinn er allra trAR mestr o' #eztr? limar hans
$reifas' um heim allan o' stan$a yfir himni? HrARr rTtr trMsins hal$a HvQ u o' stan$a
afar#reitt? ein er meS Rsum+ Xnnur meS hrQmHursum+ Har sem forSum var 9innun!a!a?
in HriSAa sten$r yfir 3iflheimi+ o' un$ir Heiri rVt er ;ver!elmir+ en 3iShX!!r !na!ar
neSan rVtna. 8n un$ir Heiri rVt+ er til hrQmHursa horfir+ Har er MQmis#runnr+ er se'S o'
manvit er Q fVl!it+ o' heitir sR MQmir+ er R #runninn . . . HriSAa rVt as'sins sten$r R himni+
o' un$ir Heiri rVt er #runnr sR+ er mAX' er heila!r+ er heitir UrSar#runnr? Har ei!u !oSin
$VmstaS sinn. < Gylaginning 1-6 ,4-,1=
&7here is the chief a#o$e or holy lace of the !o$sN& ;Rrr ans(ere$6 &That is at the Ash
of :!!$rasill? there the !o$s must !ive Au$!ment every $ay . . . The Ash is !reatest of all
trees an$ #est6 its lim#s srea$ out over all the (orl$ an$ stan$ a#ove heaven. Three
roots of the tree uhol$ it an$ stan$ e/cee$in! #roa$6 one is amon! the [sir ? another
amon! the 5ime-9iants+ in that lace (here aforetime (as the :a(nin! Boi$? the thir$
stan$s over 3iflheim+ an$ un$er that root is ;ver!elmir+ an$ 3Q$hX!!r !na(s the root
from #elo(. But un$er that root (hich turns to(ar$ the 5ime-9iants is MQmir&s 7ell+
(herein (is$om an$ un$erstan$in! are store$? an$ he is calle$ MQmir+ (ho 'ees the
(ell . . . The thir$ root of the Ash stan$s in heaven? an$ un$er that root is the (ell (hich
is very holy+ that is calle$ the 7ell of Ur$r? there the !o$s hol$ their tri#unal. < Bro$eur
19296 22-28=
Gne susects that the Au$!ments an$ tri#unal of the !o$s an$ the ministrations of the 3orns are very
closely lin'e$. They occur in the same lace+ an$ all of these activities touch the (orl$ of men.
.n 0 lusp1 24+ the 3orns are sai$ &to ma'e la(s& <l ! le!!Aa=+ &to choose life& <lQf 'AVsa= for the sons
of men+ an$ &to set or mar' fate& <Wrl ! se!Aa=. 7ith this can #e inclu$e$ the ro#a#ly interolate$
action of &scorin! the (oo$&. Because it is common in 9ermanic oetry for li'e attri#utes to #e
connecte$ in runnin! te/t+ it is li'ely that the various activities of the 3orns clustere$ here are to #e
felt as relate$ asects of their overall+ inclusive function. A careful loo' at the 3orse hrasin! is
helful. The 3orse e/ression lQf 'AVsa is as va!ue as the hrase &to choose life& is in 8n!lish. .t is
too restrictin! to see this as only the act of choosin! $eath+ the final limit of men&s lives+ as (e are
temte$ to $o. The initial limit+ #irth+ is not e/clu$e$+ nor are any of the events that occur $urin! the
$aily course of life itself. The hrase l ! le!!Aa is the usual term in Gl$ 3orse for the act of ma'in!
la(s+ #ut the literal meanin! of the hrase su!!ests somethin! else. )e!!Aa is &to lay&+ &to lace&+ or &to
$o&. ) ! <the lural of la!= is literally &strata& or &that (hich has #een $eosite$ or lai$ $o(n&. ) !
le!!Aa is+ then+ to lay $o(n that (hich is lai$ $o(n or to lay $o(n or imlant strata. There is a
stron! feelin! of the hysical here <a$$itionally ic'e$ u in the action of &scorin! (oo$&=. Gf
course+ l ! occurs a!ain in Wrl\ ! se!Aa6 &to say or sea' the fr-strata+ the Wr-thin!s-lai$-$o(n+ the
U]44>8r-la(&. The hrase is usually translate$ as &to set fate&+ #ut fate is a non-9ermanic (or$. .f
fate&s meanin! is to #e limite$ to $enotin! &that (hich has #een so'en& or &that (hich has #een lai$
$o(n&+ then it translates the conte/t (ell? if not+ it (ill cause ro#lems. 7hat e/actly is it that the
3orns sea' in sayin! the 2r-lo!N The refi/ 2r-si!nifies somethin! that is #eyon$ or a#ove the
or$inary.
1
.t su!!ests somethin! of first or rimary si!nificance+ #ut it $oes not in$icate the scale
uon (hich the si!nificance is to #e measure$? hence+ the rather va!ue &a#ove& or &#eyon$& Duality it
imarts. The 2rl g is+ then+ a &rimal la(& <in imortance=+ a &hi!hest la(& <in elevation=+ an &earliest
la(& <in time=+ a &first la(& <in any numerical seDuence=+ an$ so forth. To ta'e the more literal rea$in!
of l g + 2rl g is &the most si!nificant thin!s lai$ $o(n&+ &the earliest thin!s accomlishe$&.
-

.n a$$ition to the activities from 0 lusp1 $escri#e$ a#ove+ Gylaginning 10 a$$s the act of (aterin!
the (orl$ tree :!!$rasil to 'ee it &ever!reen&. This is essential to the continuin! life of the tree. The
3orns nurse an$ sustain it? as such+ their activities have a ositive an$ !enerative force. The holy
(ater+ throu!h (hich the nurture is accomlishe$+ comes from Urth&s 7ell. The 3orns reresent a
o(erful+ continuin!+ re!enerative force in the universe. They re!ularly sea' &the rimal la(& or
&lay $o(n the strata of (hat has #een accomlishe$&+ an$ they re!ularly influence the lives of men.
These seemin!ly $isarate actions are all centrally inclu$e$ (ithin the myth of the (orl$ tree an$
Urth&s 7ell. The si!nificant asects of the myth lie in its reetitive+ sustentative Duality+ an$ in its
Duality of hysical control or influence+ resent in the i$ea of &strata& in l g an$ in the activity of the
(aterin! of the tree. Perhas the t(o are si!nificantly Aoine$ in Gylaginning 10+ (here the act of
(aterin! involves a mi/in! of &clay& (ith the holy (ater+ imlyin! a 'in$ of layer or strata. All of
these Dualities are reetitive an$ accretive+ !ro(in!+ as it (ere+ layer #y layer+ act #y act. Because
the 2rl g is so'en continually an$ layers of action are accomlishe$ uon layers of action+ the
'in$ of universal i$eal reresente$ #y the myth is one in (hich everythin! is !ro(in! an$+ in the
rocess of its !ro(th+ connecte$ $irectly (ith its ori!ins. To sea' the 2rl g is+ then+ to ta'e
account of all that haens (ith resect to all that has haene$ alrea$y. The $an!ers in translatin!
2rl g as &fate& are no( clearer. To us+ man&s fate or $estiny is li'ely to su!!est resent 'no(le$!e of
(hat is to #e+ of (hat (e #elieve to #e reor$aine$ to occur. The 3orns+ ho(ever+ sea' of (hat has
#een+ of (hat is alrea$y 'no(n. 8/licit mention of re$estination or fore'no(le$!e is a#sent from
the assa!es !iven an$ from the 3orse universal myth itself.
.$eas of re$estination an$ fore'no(le$!e are+ of course+ re!ularly attache$ to the activities of the
classical fates+ an$ it is not surrisin! to fin$ the 3orns i$entifie$ from Duite early times (ith them.
Both the 8inal an$ 8rfurt !losses+ An!lo-%a/on !losses of the ei!hth century+ ren$er )at. parcae as
*yrdae < %(eet 188-6 80=. 3yrd is the etymolo!ical eDuivalent in Gl$ 8n!lish of G3 4rth+ an$ the
lural *yrdae su!!ests the i$ea of the 3orns actin! as a !rou <a term eDuivalent to the G3 nornir
$oes not occur in Gl$ 8n!lish=. 7hat $i$ the ei!hth-century+ Christian !losser #elieve the functions
of the Parcae to have #eenN .si$ore of %eville in his 8tymolo!ies < A.*. 022-2,= $iscusses fate
<fatum= an$ the Parcae6
.atum $icunt esse DuicDui$ $ii effantur. >atum i!itur $ictum a fan$o+ i.e.+ loDuen$o.
Tria autem ata fin!untur in colo+ in fuso+ $i!itisDue fila e/ lana torDuenti#us+ roter
trina temora6 praeteritum+ Duo$ in fuso Aam netum atDue involutum est+ praesens+ Duo$
inter $i!itos nentis trahitur+ uturum in lana Duae colo imlicata est+ et Duo$ a$huc er
$i!itos nentis a$ fusum tanDuam raesens a$ raeteritum traAicien$um est . . . Duas
<arcas= tres esse voluerunt+ unam Duae vitam hominis or$iatur+ alteram Duae conte/at+
tertiam Duae rumat. < 9rimm 19446 1.14-=
;ere are lai$ out t(o of the most commonly cite$ asects of the !o$$esses of fate6 the triartite
#e!innin!+ mi$$le+ an$ en$ of men&s lives an$ the correson$in! triartite temoral scheme relatin!
ast to resent to future. 7hether the information transmitte$ #y .si$ore is his o(n invention or
(hether he is the so'esman for the common 'no(le$!e of his $ay is not the oint. 7e 'no( that
his i$eas su#seDuently either #ecame or remaine$ common. %o im#ue$ has mo$ern man #ecome
(ith this attri#ution that it has #een iterate$ (ith little Duestion until Duite recently. 9rimm himself
!ave critical cre$ence to the i$ea6
.n the three roer names Eof the 3orns--Urth+ Berthan$i+ an$ %'ul$F it is imossi#le to
mista'e the forms of ver#al nouns or a$Aectives6 4r5r is ta'en from the ret. l. of verSa
<)ar5+ ur5uni=+ to #ecome+ 0er5andi is the res. art. of the same (or$+ an$ %'ul$ the
ast art. of s'ula+ shall+ the au/iliary #y (hich the future tense is forme$. ;ence (e
have (hat (as+ (hat is+ an$ (hat shall #e+ or the ast+ resent an$ future+ very atly
$esi!nate$+ an$ a >ate resi$in! over each. < 9rimm 19446 1-14-=
0

This i$ea of triartite temorality occasionally surfaces in current commentary6 &.n the 0 lusp1 . . .
the !o$$ess of fate EUrthF is seen (ith t(o others+ 0er5andi <PresentN= an$ "+uld <>uture=+ ro#a#ly
late a$$itions+ layin! $o(n the course of men&s lives& < Turville-Petre 19016 284=.
There is little in the classical concetion of either the 678 :;<= or the Parcae to su!!est a temoral
arch of ast+ resent+ an$ future. Gur earliest recor$s are of the 67 :;<= + (ho (ere at first a va!ue
&lural& in num#er an$ only later esta#lishe$ themselves as the three sinners6 Clotho <>?@AB+ from a
root that means &t(ist& or &sin&=+ )achesis <CDEFG=7 &lot+ $istri#ution&+ cf. ?DE7 &share+ ortion&=+ an$
Atroos <HIJKLKM &infle/i#le+ unchan!ea#le&=. These names+ interestin! as they are+ are relatively
recent an$ not as informative as the !eneric name 67 :;<= .
67 :;< an$ NO;7 $erive $irectly from NFP;7N<= of (hich QR S TUVWJIK is the erfect
assive+ an$ F :N<;X 7 the luerfect assive form. 6FP;7N<= is a mi$$le form (hich
means &to receive one&s ortion& <almost--&to receive as one&s $ue&=. This ver# has a
assive sense+ to #e $ivi$e$ from&+ only once Ein ;omerF. < *ietrich 190-6 11=
The root Ysmer-&thin'+ remem#er+ share& un$erlies N7 :;< + (hich often has the meanin! of a
simle &ortion+ share& of somethin! as (ell as the meanin! of &fate+ $oom& in ;omer. The etymolo!y
is helful #ut not entirely clear. &.f the concet of N7 :;< ] OfateO (as $eveloe$ from N7 :
JW ] OshareO+ (hat $i$ this OshareO consist ofN& < *ietrich 190-6 12=. Gn the other han$+ it is ossi#le
that the $eity 67 :;< e/iste$ #efore the i$ea of N7 :;< &share& an$ thus resi$es over all actions
of thin'in!+ consi$erin!+ etc. < *ietrich 190-6 11-1,=.
7hen an$ if &fate& #ecame ersonifie$ as &share& or &share& #ecame a#stracte$ to &fate& is of no
imortance here. The nature of reality in either case is such that either ossi#ility $enotes the
resence of a o(erful force that stan$s at the intersection of this (orl$ an$ the (orl$ #eyon$ it an$
!overns the affairs of men as they relate to this lar!er reality.
2
The cultic reresentations of this
force <as the N7 :;<= = are chthonic in ori!in an$ from the #e!innin! are associate$ (ith $eath in
inscritions an$ hymns an$ also (ith ve!etation < *ietrich 190-6 20-22=. They also aear relatively
early as &sinners of man&s lot& < Bianchi 19-,6 24--24=+ an$ they are often icture$ as #ein! resent
at man&s #irth < *ietrich 190-6 29-84=.
The classical Parcae are the 5oman $eveloments of (hat (ere aarently ancient .talic $eities of
#irth. At least t(o of their three )atin names <3^na+ *ecima+ Morta= su!!est time or num#ers+ an$
their usual interretation refers to times of re!nancy+ (ith the result that one of these &fates& (ill
resi$e over an in$ivi$ual&s #irth6 3^na <from nZnus &a ninth&= for a mature #irth+ *ecima &a tenth& for
a ostmature #irth+ or Morta <from mors &$eath&= for a still#irth.
8
The !eneric name Parcae ossi#ly
$erives from parere &to #ear <chil$ren=&. Bery early in the history of .talic culture+ ho(ever+ the
ancestors of the 5oman Parcae (ere eDuate$ (ith the 9ree' 67 :;<= . .t is ro#a#ly also a#out
this time <late fourth+ early thir$ century B.C.= that )at. atum,ata &that (hich is so'en& <from fari
&sea'&= are associate$ (ith the ver#al roots un$erlyin! N7 :;< . &The t(o ol$est e/amles (e have
(hich connect the ver# ari (ith the i$ea of $estiny occur in the %disia of )ivius An$ronicus an$
the Annales of 8nnius E#oth thir$ century B.C.F. The former+ (ho (rites )atin #ut thin's 9ree'+
eDuates . . . the Parcae+ one of (hom he names+ (ith the Moirai . . . 6 [uando dies adueniet, [uem
proata Morta est\ < *umMzil 19246-44=. .n a$$ition+ from a#out the same erio$+ three cippi #earin!
the inscritions neuna ata,neuna dono,parca maurtia dono have #een $iscovere$ near ancient
)avinium. The names 3^na an$ Morta+ althou!h in $ihthon!ize$ form+ are reco!niza#le. &The
eithet .ata seems to in$icate that alrea$y at this time+ in )avinium+ these characters (ere lin'e$
(ith $estiny& < *umMzil 19246 -44-1=. The $eveloment of the Parcae into $eities of $estiny is thus
clearly tracea#le to 9ree' influences in .talic culture.
The 3orns have many features in common (ith #oth the 67 :;<= an$ the Parcae. All e/ist in their
final formalizations as !rous of three+ althou!h the imlications are that they #e!an either (ith a
va!ue lurality <for e/amle+ in$ivi$ual #irths (ith the Parcae= or (ith a sin!le a#straction
<sharin!+Au$!in!=+ (hich multilie$ itself throu!h a lurality of ersonifications. Thus+ (e fin$
occurrin! to!ether the concets <]^_`a67 :;< = an$ their ersonifications <*yrdae,VW
:;<= =. The a#stractions an$ occurrences evolve$ (ith each !rou are vital to the affairs of men6
#irth+ !ivin! associate$ (ith $eath in inscritions an$ hymns an$ also (ith ve!etation < *ietrich
190-6 20-22=. They also aear relatively early as &sinners of man&s lot& < Bianchi 19-,6 24--24=+
an$ they are often icture$ as #ein! resent at man&s #irth < *ietrich 190-6 29-84=.
The classical Parcae are the 5oman $eveloments of (hat (ere aarently ancient .talic $eities of
#irth. At least t(o of their three )atin names <3^na+ *ecima+ Morta= su!!est time or num#ers+ an$
their usual interretation refers to times of re!nancy+ (ith the result that one of these &fates& (ill
resi$e over an in$ivi$ual&s #irth6 3^na <from nZnus &a ninth&= for a mature #irth+ *ecima &a tenth& for
a ostmature #irth+ or Morta <from mors &$eath&= for a still#irth.
8
The !eneric name Parcae ossi#ly
$erives from parere &to #ear <chil$ren=&. Bery early in the history of .talic culture+ ho(ever+ the
ancestors of the 5oman Parcae (ere eDuate$ (ith the 9ree' 67 :;<= . .t is ro#a#ly also a#out
this time <late fourth+ early thir$ century B.C.= that )at. atum,ata &that (hich is so'en& <from fari
&sea'&= are associate$ (ith the ver#al roots un$erlyin! N7 :;< . &The t(o ol$est e/amles (e have
(hich connect the ver# ari (ith the i$ea of $estiny occur in the %disia of )ivius An$ronicus an$
the Annales of 8nnius E#oth thir$ century B.C.F. The former+ (ho (rites )atin #ut thin's 9ree'+
eDuates . . . the Parcae+ one of (hom he names+ (ith the Moirai . . . 6 [uando dies adueniet, [uem
proata Morta est\ < *umMzil 19246-44=. .n a$$ition+ from a#out the same erio$+ three cippi #earin!
the inscritions neuna ata,neuna dono,parca maurtia dono have #een $iscovere$ near ancient
)avinium. The names 3^na an$ Morta+ althou!h in $ihthon!ize$ form+ are reco!niza#le. &The
eithet .ata seems to in$icate that alrea$y at this time+ in )avinium+ these characters (ere lin'e$
(ith $estiny& < *umMzil 19246 -44-1=. The $eveloment of the Parcae into $eities of $estiny is thus
clearly tracea#le to 9ree' influences in .talic culture.
The 3orns have many features in common (ith #oth the 67 :;<= an$ the Parcae. All e/ist in their
final formalizations as !rous of three+ althou!h the imlications are that they #e!an either (ith a
va!ue lurality <for e/amle+ in$ivi$ual #irths (ith the Parcae= or (ith a sin!le a#straction
<sharin!+Au$!in!=+ (hich multilie$ itself throu!h a lurality of ersonifications. Thus+ (e fin$
occurrin! to!ether the concets <]^_`a67 :;< = an$ their ersonifications <*yrdae,VW
:;<= =. The a#stractions an$ occurrences evolve$ (ith each !rou are vital to the affairs of men6
#irth+ !ivin! life+ resi$in! at #irth+ choosin! life+ etc. All connote fertility an$ <at least (ith resect
to the 3orns an$ 67 :;<= = ve!etation. Ultimately+ all are connecte$ to the i$ea of $eath as <it
seems= a art of life. Both the classical an$ the 9ermanic concets $erive from the i$ea of arcelin!
out+ sharin!+ aortionin!? #oth concets lace man in a relatively assive role. )a(ma'in! an$
&layin! $o(n strata&+ so imortant amon! the activities of the 3orns+ are su!!este$ #y the infle/i#le
firmness of the name Atroos.
There are+ ho(ever+ fun$amental $ifferences amon! the classical an$ 9ermanic !rous. The Parcae+
althou!h their ori!ins are un'no(n+ seem to have #een &ersonal& $eities over the affairs of
in$ivi$ual men. The 3orns an$ 67 :;<= <an$ finally the Parcae as they #ecome influence$ #y
9ree' thin'in!= control not only in$ivi$ual
occurrences #ut the (hole course of human
events. The nature of the control in each !rou
is $ifferent. @ae!er+ commentin! on the oetry
of %olon+ ma'es clear the nature of the control
_`bc defghijklmnmmolpqnmr`stuu_ktvmok
misfortune even if he sees it imen$in!O . . . the central thou!ht . . . stan$s out clearly6 Moira+ >ate+
ma'es all human effort fun$amentally insecure+ ho(ever earnest an$ lo!ical it may seem to #e? an$
this Moira cannot #e averte$ #y fore'no(le$!e+ althou!h. . . . misery cause$ #y the a!ent can #e
averte$& < 191-6 11-= 67 :;< thus stan$s #efore all events that occur on earth. 3yrd <the !eneric
term for the activity an$ control associate$ (ith the 3orns= also stan$s aart from the affairs of men+
#ut it $oes not stan$ in the osition of fore'no(le$!e+ so clearly that of N7 :;<b67 :;< <an$ the
67 :;<= = stan$s beore the events of this (orl$ an$ !overns the (or'in! out of the resent into
the future <or+ #etter+ the (or'in! in of the future into the resent=. 3yrd <an$ the 3orns= !overns
the (or'in! out of the ast into the resent <or+ more accurately+ the (or'in! in of the resent into
the ast=.
3either the 67 :;<= nor the Parcae nor the 3orns (ere #asically or rimarily concerne$ (ith
$eterminin! the temoral continuity of ast+ resent+ an$ future. .f such a function $i$ eventually
accrue to the fun$amental concerns of the 3orns an$ Parcae+ an$ aarently it $i$ or .si$ore (oul$
not have felt comelle$ to say so+ it evolve$ later+ in ostclassical+ ost-early-9ermanic times. But
(hat of 9rimm&s assertion+ alrea$y !iven a#ove+ that in the 3orns& names &(e have (hat (as+ (hat
is+ an$ (hat shall #e+ or the ast+ resent an$ future&N .f this is so+ then there is very !oo$ evi$ence in
the 9ermanic system to su!!est temorality as another asect of the functions of the 3orns. 9rimm
is correct in relatin! the names to the ver#s )er5a an$ s+ula. 0erthandi is transarently the resent
articile of the former+ an$ "+uld correson$s easily (ith the ast articile of the latter. The name
4rth is not so easily inointe$. 0er5a, a thir$-conAu!ation stron! ver#+ ro$uces the stem urth-in
#oth its reterite lural <as 9rimm asserts= an$ in its ast articile. >or 9rimm+ the reterite lural
form seeme$ the most li'ely source #ecause he sa( the three names stan$in! in a ast-resentfuture
relationshi? 4rth sulie$ the ast time from the reterite+ 0erthandi sulie$ resent time in the
resent articile+ an$ "+uld--even thou!h it is a ast articile--rovi$e$ the future time+ for
9rimm fin$s &s'ula+ shall+ Eto #eF the au/iliary #y (hich the future tense is forme$&. ;ere 9rimm&s
ar!ument is (ea'. "+ula or s+ulu+ althou!h it often imlies (hat (e (oul$ call &future time&+ is not
#y any means the au/iliary of the future tense in Gl$ 3orse. .t carries a far !reater force of
o#li!ation or necessity? &(hat shall #e& in Gl$ 3orse is &(hat is+ of necessity&. "+ulu occurs most
freDuently in conte/ts that e/ress a !eneralize$+ universal resent+ that is+ in !eneral statements
a#out (hat haens continually6
c rmt oc rmt oc cerlaugar t)dr,
edr scal efrr )a5a,
h)erian dag, et hann dgma err
at asci hggdrasils,
e)iat 1sbrj brenn ll loga,
heilog ) tn hlfa.
< 9rQmnQsmRl 2960,=
cormt and %rmt and the cerlaugs t*ain,
Thfr does *ade through
e)ery day, to doom *hen he ares
\neath the ash hggdrasilk
or the bridge o the gods is ablale *ith lames--
hot are the holy *aters.
< ;ollan$er 19026-9=
Gften it is use$ in ei!rammatic statements to e/ress $efinin! or necessary truths6
msnotr ma5r eiccil alt )ita,
e hann 1 snr i )1 )erok
hit+i hann )eit, h)at hann scal )i5 [)e5a, e hans reista irar.
< ;RvamRl 206 21=
The un(ise man (eens he 'no(s all+ if from harm he is far at home? #ut 'no(s not ever
(hat ans(er to ma'e (hen others as' him au!ht.
< ;ollan$er 19026 18=
9

A close e/amination of 0 lusp1,/1)am1l, an$ Grimnism1l reveals no occurrences of s+ulu
rimarily e/ressin! &future& time+ althou!h some occurrences+ #y our concetions+ imly this. All
occurrences+ ho(ever+ e/ress constraint+ o#li!ation+ necessary continual action+ an$ so forth.
14
%uch o#li!ations imly a continuous &resent&+ (hich lo!ically e/ten$s into the &future& in some
cases+ #ut s+ulu $oes not $irectly $enote such temoral con$itions.
.f not time seDuences+ then (hat $o the names of the three 3orns si!nifyN *avi$son < 19016 20=
!losses them as >ate <4r5r=+ Bein! <0er5ndi=+ an$ 3ecessity <"+uld=. As 9ehl < 19,9690-14-= has
ointe$ out+ "+uld surely has to $o (ith necessity+ #ut the !losses &Bein!& an$ &>ate& for 0erthandi
an$ 4rth $o not e/ress their #asic similarity to each other an$ to their arent+ the ver# )er5a <G8
*eorean, G>ris. *ertha, G% *er5an, G;9 *erdan, 9oth. *airean=. The ver# o#viously (as
common in all early 9ermanic lan!ua!es an$ remains so in most of their mo$ern $escen$ants. The
si!nificant e/cetion is 8n!lish (here+ e/cet for such an uncommon an$ o#solescent e/ression as
&(oe (orth the $ay&+ it has $isaeare$.
11
0er5a $erives from the .8 root Yuert-+ (hich $enotes the
'in$ of motion common to &turn+ sin+ rotate&. The .8 lan!ua!es utilize it (i$ely+ for e/amle in
Gln$. vRrtate &revolve&+ )at. )ertere &to turn&+ an$ in the %lavic root Y)\ert-&circular motion&+ common
in various com#inations in most %lavic lan!ua!es6 G%lav. )ratiti, 5us. )\ert\et\ &to turn&+ Pol. *iercio
&to #ore+ $rill& etc. The i$ea #asic to )er5a contains this element of &turnin!& an$ ro#a#ly reresents
some 'in$ of chan!e of location or reorientation in sace. .ts meanin! $evelos lo!ically from &turn
<from one lace or osition to another=& w &turn <in to=& w &#ecome&. The henomenon is not uniDue to
this ver# or to the 9ermanic lan!ua!es. &*er Be$eutun!s(an$el O$rehen w !eschehen+ sich
erei!nenO ist auch sonst #ele!#ar. 8n!lisch to turn O$rehenO un$ sanisch )ol)erse Osich $rehenO
#e$euten auch O!eschehenO? auch altin$isch )1rtate O$reht sichO nimmt !ele!entlich $ie a#stra'te
Be$eutun! O!eschiehtO an <v!l. lat. bene )ertere,honori )erti. . .=? un!arisch elpl\ordulni
Ovor'ommenO #e$eutet (Xrtlich Osich nach vorne $rehenO& < Mittner 19--691=.
A$$itionally+ the motion of &turnin!& or &chan!in! osition& foun$ in Yuert-imlies revolution or
motion a#out an a/is. %uch motion su!!ests a return to an ori!inal #e!innin! oint <as in a revolvin!
$oor=+ or at least an aro/imation to(ar$ such an ori!in <as in a scre(li'e motion=. Thus+ one thin!
turnin! into somethin! else (ill retain art or all of itself or return at least artially to its ori!inal
confi!uration. This antithetical nature of chan!e an$ retention is foun$ in the meanin! of )er5a an$
the (or$s relate$ to it in the 9ermanic lan!ua!es. 7hen 0erthandi an$ 4rth are semantically
relate$+ 0erthandi #ecomes that (hich is in rocess of &turnin!& or &#ecomin!&+ an$ 4rth (oul$ #e
that (hich has &turne$& or &#ecome&. .t seems reasona#le that the root of 4rth is also a astarticiial
form+ as the names of the other t(o 3orns are #ase$ on articiles. Concetually+ it seems li'ely
that all three (oul$ have articiial frames if their actions are to #e ta'en as a relate$ !rou. The
articiial frames (oul$ rovi$e a unitin! semantic element+ ossi#ly somethin! li'e &rocess& an$
&comletion&+ (ithout the a$$itional constraints o#tainin! in ver# forms mar'e$ #y tense+ voice+
moo$+ etc.
12

.f (e $ivi$e the influence of the 3orns amon! the three+ their names su!!est that they $efine (hat
(e normally thin' of as the total ran!e of ver#al action6 Urth reflects actions ma$e manifest+
#rou!ht to a full+ clear+ o#serva#le+ fruition? they have &#ecome&? they are accomlishe$. Berthan$i
clearly reflects the actually occurrin! rocess of all that Urth eventually e/resses. The t(o 3orns
are closely lin'e$+ (ith the influence of Berthan$i flo(in! $irectly to Urth. As actions ass from
Berthan$i to Urth+ they move from &#ecomin!& to &#ecome&. As %'ul$ is involve$ (ith necessary or
o#li!atory action+ she stan$s sli!htly aart from the other t(o 3orns. %he seems to ma'e reference
to actions felt as someho( o#li!e$ or 'no(n to occur? that is+ the necessity of their &#ecomin!& is so
stron!ly felt or clearly 'no(n that they resent themselves as availa#le to #e incororate$ into the
realms of Berthan$i an$ Urth.
.f all ossi#le acts in the create$ universe+ (hether they #e acts of men or of !o$s+ are seen as lyin!
(ithin the realm of influence of the 3orns+ #ecause it is they (ho sustain the (orl$ tree+ then all of
these acts must lie (ithin the #oun$aries of those actions that of necessity occur+ those that are
occurrin!+ an$ those that have occurre$. This three-(ay $ivision still allo(s for re$uction to a
future-resent-ast time scheme+ (ith the &future& stan$in! (ith %'ul$+ the 3orn of necessity. %uch a
re$uction (ill lea$ us $irectly to the notion of a 9ermanic cosmolo!y $ominate$ #y a &future& that is
someho( necessary+ re$etermine$+ an$ fore$estine$. :et there is very little any(here in the
remains of 9ermanic culture 'no(n to us that su!!ests that this is true. .f this (ere true+ one (oul$
e/ect a rather heavy emhasis uon the activities of %'ul$+ as her suose$ relation to the future
(oul$ imly. 7e (oul$ e/ect much the same emhasis that+ for e/amle+ me$ieval Christian
8uroe lace$ on the activities of *ame >ortune an$ her (heel (ith its influence on the imme$iate
future in the affairs of men. To the contrary+ such emhasis $oes not occur (ith %'ul$. Aart from
the Duotation in 0 lusp1 24+ in (hich she is merely name$+ an$ a secon$ mention in 0 lusp1 ,4+
(here she is associate$ (ith the Bal'yries+ she is not further mentione$ in 3orse mytholo!y.
1,
The
infreDuency of references to %'ul$ is surasse$ #y those to Berthan$i. Aart from her mention in
0 lusp1 24 <an$ its correson$in! e/ansion in the Prose 8$$a=+ there is no further reference to her
any(here. 3ot so (ith Urth. %he is referre$ to a!ain an$ a!ain. .n a$$ition+ if (e ta'e into account
that she len$s her name to the common noun that e/resses in !eneral the activities of all of the
3orns <G8 *yrd, G% *urd, G;9 *urt, etc.=+ she assumes a central imortance in much 9ermanic
literature an$ for early 9ermanic culture itself. .t is from her (ell that the 3orns $ra( the (ater that
nourishes :!!$rasil. .f any one 3orn has re$ominant imortance+ it is Urth.
This imortance of Urth amon! the 3orns is not an ori!inal or a ne( i$ea. Most commentators on
9ermanic reli!ion an$ mytholo!y mention her in one (ay or another. There are+ of course+
$isa!reements a#out her si!nificance to the cosmolo!ical system. %he is most freDuently referre$ to
as the 3orn of the ast+ an$ there is much to recommen$ this+ as lon! as (e 'ee in min$ that the
ast is not one thir$ of a ast-resent-future trinity. The 9ermanic ast is more accurately a realm of
e/erience inclu$in! all of the accomlishe$ actions of all #ein!s+ men+ !o$s+ etc. .t is ever !ro(in!+
an$ it has a $irect+ nurturin!+ sustentative effect uon the (orl$+ (hich men e/erience as life+ Aust
as the (ater from Urth&s 7ell nurtures :!!$rasil. The relationshi imlies a continual+ suortive
intrusion of ast uon resent e/istence. 8vents+ con$itions+ an$ re$icaments of resent life are+
therefore+ influence$ #y the realm of Urth. .t is no surrise to fin$ that *yrd is use$ to !loss not only
)at. -arcae \*yrdae\,ortuna an$ atum \*yrd\, #ut also ors,sortem,condicionem \*yrd\ < %(eet
188-6 -00=. Urth is concerne$ not only (ith events of the ast #ut (ith the $isosition of events in
the (orl$ of men. This interaction of ast an$ resent events le$ some recent commentators to see
the realm of Urth as reresentin! either the assa!e of time or the course of events.
11
3either of
these seems (ron!+ #ut #oth reDuire careful attention if they are to #e un$erstoo$ fully. There is no
!uarantee that the assa!e of time (as felt #y the early 9ermanic min$ to #e anythin! li'e (hat (e
feel it to #e to$ay? as a matter of fact+ most of (hat has #een sai$ a#ove oints Duite stron!ly to the
li'elihoo$ that it certainly (as not. The course of events over (hich Urth resi$es is more than an
a!!lomeration of actions !one #y? Urth unfol$s the attern an$ seDuence of all events as they #uil$
u an$ out into the resent (orl$? she illustrates the fun$amental imortance of the 2rl g, the
&rimal& events lai$ $o(n in earliest times+ (hose attern $ominates an$ structures events no(
occurrin! in the (orl$ of men.
The imortance of Urth is further enhance$ #y an e/amination of her maAor sym#olic attri#ute in the
myth+ the (ell6 4r5arbrunnr <or+ in its other form+ 4r5ar-bru5r=+ the brunn of Urth. As (ith Urth
herself+ there is some $ifficulty for sea'ers of mo$ern 9ermanic lan!ua!es+ esecially 8n!lish+ in
!rasin! the e/act nature of this brunn. Mo$ern 8n!lish lac's all etymolo!ical $escen$ants of this
(or$+ e/cet in such metathesize$ $ialectal forms as bourne or burn &stream+ rill&. The (or$ is
retaine$ in $ifferent forms in the other 9ermanic lan!ua!es (ith a rather (i$e ran!e of meanin!s.
The usual 8n!lish translation+ &(ell&+ only aro/imates the 3orse ori!inal+ an$ it $oes not $o so
entirely satisfactorily.
.n .celan$ic+ #runnr refers most often to a srin! or (ell+ esecially to a centrally locate$ source. .t
is &common to all+ hi!h an$ lo(+ hence the rover#s+ <allir= ei!a sama til #runns aS #era+ i.e. <all=
ha)e the same needs, *ants, *ishes, or the li'e? allt her aS sama #runni+ all turn to the same *ell, all
bear the same *ay. . . the (or$ may also #e use$ of running *ater, thou!h this is not usual in
.celEan$icF+ (here $istinction is ma$e #et(een #runnr an$ lJ'r EO#roo'+ rivuletOF& < Cleas#y et al.
19-268,=. The various sha$es of meanin! foun$ in .celan$ic te/ts are reeate$ re!ularly in other
%can$inavian lan!ua!es. 3or(e!ian has br2nn <Bo'mxl= or brunn <3ynors'=+ #oth meanin!
!enerally &(ell&. The various refle/es of brunn- in these $ialects often refer+ ho(ever+ to (hat in
8n!lish (oul$ more rea$ily #e calle$ a cistern. Bersions of cistern occur in the %can$inavian
lan!ua!es too+ #ut they are recent #orro(in!s an$ seem to refer e/clusively to manufacture$ (ater-
stora!e tan's. A brunn-+ therefore+ (oul$ refer to a (ater source+ felt to #e someho( &natural&+ (hich
has as a feature of its form a hollo( shaftli'e structure+ sometimes rather $ee+ sometimes relatively
shallo(. The structure seems to #e sun' into or to #e naturally art of the earth. Br2nd in *anish+ for
e/amle+ refers either to the shaftli'e (ell (e 'no( or to a collection ool. .n %(e$ish+ brunn is
use$ most freDuently in conte/ts of mineral srin!s+ referrin! not only to the (ells themselves #ut to
the mineral (aters ta'en from them.
To e/erience the meanin! of brunn- as fully as ossi#le+ (e shall have to thin' not only of a (ell
#ut of the other attri#utes of (ater sources that the (or$ inclu$es. .f (e #e!in #y thin'in! of a (ell
or srin!+ it is clear that #oth reresent certain #asic i$eas6 the (ater source+ some 'in$ of enclosure
that fi/es it as a oint in sace+ an$ the resence of an active rocess that results in the accumulation
of (ater. These $ays+ most of us are ur#an-#oun$+ an$ (e see (ater as comin! almost e/clusively
out of a ta. >rom #oo's+ (e visualize a srin! as a small Aet or rill of (ater srin!in! u from some
sha$y+ mossy roc'--a col$+ small !eyser. %rin!s rise almost e/clusively in marshy lan$+ ho(ever+
usually lo(lan$s. The source of the srin! is usually Duite har$ to locate. Gnce it is foun$+ it is
isolate$ from the marsh #y sin'in! shaftli'e (alls+ most freDuently (oo$en or roc'+ aroun$ it. The
(ater then can rise clearly (ithin it+ free from contamination from its surroun$in!s. Gf course+ a
(ell $oes much the same thin! at a $eeer level. This a#ility to collect ure (ater of aarently
un'no(n ori!in must have once seeme$ not only mysterious #ut suernatural. To fin$ a (ell no(
fillin!+ no( lo(erin!+ or a srin! runnin! clear in a mu$$y marsh must have su!!este$ some 'in$ of
influence ori!inatin! #eyon$ the 'no(le$!e of mere men. The i$ea of the brunn- came then to
inclu$e the enclosure+ the (ater (ithin it+ an$ the o(erful+ active force that allo(s it to fill. The
$ifferin! $eveloments of the refle/es of the (or$ in mo$ern lan!ua!es sho( a searation of these
earlier Aoine$ attri#utes. The %(e$ish reference to the health-!ivin! (ater of mineral srin!s seems
to su!!est an enforcement of the ma!ical influence foun$ in the mysterious force that fills the (ell
at the e/ense of the asect of the (or$ that secifie$ enclosure or satial fi/ity. .n *anish+ its use
to refer to a collection ool su!!ests stress on the construction itself at the e/ense of the more
mysterious+ active+ source-rovi$in! asect. All of the mo$ern uses+ ho(ever+ seem to #e e/tensions
of one or more of the asects of the (or$ as it occurre$ in early .celan$ic.
*ata from other 9ermanic lan!ua!e confirm these fin$in!s. .n *utch+ bron translates+ $een$in!
uon conte/t+ as &source+ srin!+ (ell+ fountainhea$+ fountain&+ as (e mi!ht anticiate. Mo$ern
9erman uses the term Brunnen similarly. 9rimm $ivi$es his entry Brunne into t(o6 >irst+ he
comments a#out the (ater+ (hich is &aus $em er$#o$en Duellen$e+ vor$rin!en$e+ sru$eln$e (asser+
unterschie$en von $em fortrinnen$en bach un$ lusl& < 9rimm an$ 9rimm 180461,,=. %uch (ater
retains the &active&+ &locational& asects of the .celan$ic meanin!. 9rimm&s secon$ reference is to the
container6 &$ie !ehe!te+ ein!efaszte+ ummauerte+ zu!e$ec'te Duelle+ oft auch $ie !e!ra#ne+
aus!ehauene . . . sein (asser srin!t $urch rXhren <springbrunne= o$er (ir$ im eimer aus $er tiefe
!ezo!en&< 9rimm an$ 9rimm 180461,,-,1=. 9erman uses Brunnen+ as $oes %(e$ish+ to refer to
mineral (ater6 Brunnen drin+en &ta'e mineral or me$icinal (ater&. Brunnen is a usual term for a
(ater cistern or collectin! ool or the $ishli'e+ (ater-fille$ #ase of a fountain <or the fountain as a
(hole=. .t is also use$ to refer to a mine shaft or (ater um. 8ven the e/ression der Brunnen des
Abgrunds &#ottomless it or shaft& arta'es of at least one of the ori!inal asects of brunn-. All of
these uses share asects foun$ in the %can$inavian lan!ua!es6 the source? the secial+ ma!ical+
active Duality? the locational asect? the shaftli'e container.
Gnly 8n!lish lac's any !oo$ evi$ence to suort the ar!ument. The (or$ occurre$ in G8 burna or
burne+ (hich seems to have carrie$ somethin! of the i$ea of &srin!& #ecause it is use$ to ren$er )at.
ons in the Gl$ 8n!lish translation of the Bul!ate.
1-
7hat is more interestin!+ thou!h+ is the use of
G8 burne to translate )at. late( in the Corus 9loss < %(eet 188-62,=. Late( is an unusual (or$
meanin! a 'in$ of liDui$ or flui$ <usually (ater= in &oetic& conte/ts. .f late( refers to some 'in$ of
secial (ater of e/traor$inary Duality+ then erhas burne (ith its secial+ active Duality rea$ily
su!!este$ itself to the An!lo-%a/on !losser as a li'ely translation. The use of burn <or later bourne=
to reresent a small stream first occurs aroun$ the year 1444 an$ seems to #e an e/tension of the
active+ )ordringende asect of the (or$ at the e/ense of the locational asect. Beyon$ this it is not
ossi#le to say much. 8n!lish $oes not retain the (or$.
.f the 4rtharbrunnr is a (ell of the 'in$ $escri#e$ a#ove+ (e shoul$ not #e surrise$ to fin$ it
reresentin! not merely a (ater source #ut one in (hich there is (ater of secial+ active Duality. .n
the Prose 8$$a+ Gylaginning 10 ma'es it clear that the (ell is holy an$ that it has a urifyin!
Duality6 &All thin!s (hich come there into the (ell #ecome as (hite as the film (hich lies (ithin the
e!!-shell& < Bro$eur 19296,4=. .n a$$ition+ the (ater has the o(er necessary to nurture an$ sustain
:!!$rasil+ the (orl$ tree. 7e must remem#er that the (ell #elon!s to Urth. The secial Duality the
(ater e/hi#its seems most clearly attri#uta#le to her. ;er name reresents an$ inclu$es all 'no(n or
accomlishe$ actions+ all that has occurre$. This concetion of the (ell ma'es it the (ell of the ast+
an$ it suorts $irectly the imortant sustentative influence that the ast has over all of resent
e/istence. @ust as the (ater of the (ell #rin!s its o(er to the (orl$ tree+ Aust so the ast actively
#rin!s its force to #ear uon the affairs of the (orl$. All resent e/istence is contin!ent uon the
continual control an$ suort of an active+ nutritive ast.
The com#ination of elements inherin! in the concet of Urth&s 7ell an$ its interrelation (ith
:!!$rasil resents a o(erful+ sym#olic confi!uration e/ressive of the nature of the universe an$
its effects uon the lives of men. >rom the concet of the (ell comes the i$ea of the live an$ active
(ater+ the nurture the 3orns #rin! to suort :!!$rasil. This nurture manifests itself as $e( in the
myth6
hRr #aSmr+ ausinn hvQtaauri?
HaSan 'oma $ !!var+ HJrs Q $ala falla . . .
< 0 lusp1 196-=
7ith (ater (hite is the !reat tree (et?
Thence come the $e(s that fall in the $ales . . .
< Bello(s 192069=
The nature of the $e( is further e/laine$ in Gylaginning 10 <,-=+ (here the te/t a#ove is Duote$ in
sli!htly altere$ form6
As' veit e' ausinn+
heitir :!!$rasill+
hRrr #aSmr heila!r+
hvQta-auri?
HaSan 'oma $X!!var+
es Q $ala falla?
sten$r J yfir !rTnn
UrSar#runni.
%Y $X!!+ er HaSan af fellr R AXrSina+ Hat 'alla menn hunan!-
fall+ o' Har af fTSas' #yflu!ur.
. 'no( an Ash stan$in! calle$ :!!$rasill+
A hi!h tree srin'le$ (ith sno(-(hite clay?
Thence come the $e(s in the $ale that fall--
.t stan$s ever !reen a#ove Ur$r&s 7ell.
That $e( (hich falls from it onto the earth is calle$ #y men
honey-$e(+ an$ thereon are #ees nourishe$. < Bro$eur 19296
,4=
The &fallin!& of the $e( reunites the (aters from the tree (ith those of the (ell+ into (hich the roots
of the tree e/ten$. The cyclic nature of this rocess (ith the (ell as #oth source an$ !oal+ #e!innin!
an$ en$in! of the nutritive rocess+ com#ines all of the structural semantic elements of brunn+
reresentin! #oth an active+ natural+ (ellin! source an$ a collectin!+ storin! source. The myth
resents a continuous cycle of activity.
The (ell is name$ for Urth? her name reresents the &ast&. This ast inclu$es the actions of all
#ein!s (ho e/ist (ithin the enclosin! #ranches of :!!$rasil6 men+ !o$s+ !iants+ elves+ etc. )i'e the
(ater+ these actions fin$ their (ay #ac' into the collectin! source? as this haens+ all actions
#ecome 'no(n+ fi/e$+ accomlishe$. .n one sense+ it is such actions that form the layers or strata
that are $aily lai$ in the (ell #y the sea'in! of the 2rl g . The comin! into the (ell is or$erly an$
or$ere$? events are clearly relate$ to each other+ an$ there is attern an$ structure in their stora!e.
This attern of events is everchan!in!+ ever!ro(in!+ an$ $aily+ as the 2rl g is sai$+ ne( events+
ne( actions come into the (ell. The rocess of occurrence of events an$ the continual accu-
mulation of more an$ more of them into the attern of the ast resent a system of !ro(th that is
never finishe$. As the 3orns $aily #rin! their nurture to the tree+ they e/ress the o(er of this
seDuence or attern of the ast u an$ out into an$ uon the (orl$ of men? as these &ast& events
sustain an$ fee$ the tree+ they #rin! into #ein! the events of the here an$ no(? as &resent-$ay&
events occur+ they fall from the tree #ac' into the (ell an$ Aoin themselves into the ever-increasin!
comle/ities of the ast+ restructurin! it+ reinterretin! it+ continually e/ressin! more an$ more
a#out the interrelations of all actions.
This continual !ro(in!+ chan!in!+ an$ interrelatin! of events an$ the layin! of strata one uon
another su!!est the act of (eavin!+ an element often attri#ute$ the 3orns. %eein! the 3orns as
(eavers is lar!ely consonant (ith most of (hat has alrea$y #een su!!este$. The active u- an$
out(ar$-reachin! movement of events of the ast as they involve an$ shae the resent stan$s in an
ortho!onal relationshi (ith the i$ea of the strata or layers lai$ $o(n (ithin the (ell itself. This
level-versus-eren$icular or$er clearly su!!ests the (ar an$ (oof of a loom (ith the $aily sayin!
of the 2rl g movin! amon! the actions li'e a shuttle (hose (eavin! unfol$s the attern of events.
This &(e#& of events is a (ell-'no(n concet.
10
The etymolo!ical source of Urth&s name+ the ver#
)er5a &to turn&+ is not only the source of 9er. *erden #ut M;9 *irtel &$istaff (heel+ sin$le& as (ell.
Gther terms associate$ semantically (ith the o(er (iel$e$ #y *yrd <e.!. lot+ fortune+ $estiny+ 9er.
"chic+sal--itself containin! a root si!nifyin! a &layerin!& or &or$erin!& not unli'e that of the 2rl g =
also su!!est sinnin! or (eavin!. &Man hat altsKchsisch qdan+ altnor$isch au5inn O#eschie$en+ vom
%chic'sal !e(KhrtO heran!ezo!en+ $ie etymolo!isch mit litauisch 1udmi Oich (e#eO
zusammenhKn!en& < Mittner 19--694=.
12
The activity of sinnin! or (eavin! resents in a concise
fi!ure several of the most si!nificant attri#utes of the 3orns. .t is+ ho(ever+ a some(hat
semantically restricte$ concet+ as it $oes not e/licitly reresent the (ell or its nutritive function.
.t is the relation of Urth&s 7ell to :!!$rasil that is of overri$in! si!nificance for this articular
myth. There is a clearly fi!ure$ icono!rahy to this interrelation. Mo$ern man can ossi#ly
e/erience this+ at least artially+ much as he mi!ht visualize a !i!antic otte$ lant (hose root
structure is hi$$en an$ encase$ (ithin the structure of the containin! (ell. >rom this+ the trun' an$
(i$e-srea$in! #ranches of the tree+ uon (hich are locate$ the various (orl$s of the myth+ rise u
an$ out. All of the o(er of the tree comes from #eneath it+ from the nutritive o(er foun$ in its
sustainin! #ase+ an$ the activity that occurs a#ove this #asal container ultimately falls or is enfol$e$
#ac' into the #ase. Perhas the most si!nificant oint of such an icono!rahic relationshi is the
lace at (hich the trun' meets the #ase+ (here the tree Aoins the earth. .t is+ of course+ at this
Auncture that &the !o$s hol$ their tri#unal& < Bro$eur 1929628=. The location reresents the moment
(hen the resent <or (here the nonast= Aoins the ast.
18

The icono!rahic $escrition i!nores the element of multilicity an$ reetition foun$ in the sources.
.n Gylaginning 1-+ Duote$ earlier+ :!!$rasil has three searate roots e/ten$in! into three searate
(ells6 a root stan$in! over 3iflhel <3iflheim=+ (hich e/ten$s into the (ell ;ver!elmir? a root
amon! the 5ime-9iants near a lace once calle$ the &:a(nin! Boi$& <9innun!a!a=+ (hich e/ten$s
into MQmir&s 7ell? an$ the (ell associate$ (ith the [sir+ the holy 7ell of Urth+ (hich stan$s in
heaven. The triartite series of (ells an$ roots reeats the triartite series of 3orns+ an$ it is li'ely
that &in this assa!e+ as in some others+ %norri may #e too systematic+ an$ ro#a#ly the three names
all aly to one (ell+ (hich (as #asically . . . the source of (is$om& < Turville-Petre 19016229=. The
(ells are not clearly $istin!uishe$ from each other+ an$ each one searately rero$uces the same
#asic relationshi (ith the tree? each of the a$$itional (ells enforces a articular asect alrea$y
inherent in Urth&s 7ell. MQrmir&s 7ell <MQmis#runnr= is the (ell of (is$om? it aears si!nificantly
as the (ell in (hich G$in must le$!e his eye to !ain a $rin' an$+ #y e/tension+ (is$om. The (ell
an$ the tree to!ether are lin'e$ in these stories as sources of (is$om. The (orl$ tree is later calle$
the tree of MQmir <Mimameith= in the some(hat later oem & .r ls)innsmi1l &6
19

< ")ipdag said$= 1, OTell me+ >Aolsvith+ for . fain (oul$ 'no(? ans(er thou as . as'6 ho( that ash is
hi!ht (hich out $oth srea$ its lim#s over all the lan$N& < .rols)ith said$= 11 OTis hi!ht Mimameith+
#ut no man 'no(eth from (hat roots it $oth rise? #y (hat it falleth the fe(est !uess6
nor fire nor iron (ill fell it.&
< ;ollan$er 19026110=
The i$ea of (is$om is #asic to everythin! that has #een resente$ a#out the 7ell of Urth. The
icono!rahy locates (is$om in the (ell #ut imarts it to the tree throu!h the recirocal relationshi
#et(een the t(o. A 'no(le$!e of the (or'in!s of Urth (ill lea$ one to (is$om+ an$ the 8$$as
imly that such 'no(le$!e is not easily or li!htly !aine$.
)ittle is 'no(n a#out the thir$ (ell+ ;ver!elmir. .ts name is usually ren$ere$ as 5oarin! Cettle or
%eethin! Caul$ron. The i$ea seems roer if (e are to eDuate all three (ells? one of the most
stri'in! asects of Urth&s 7ell is its o(erful+ ma!ical Duality+ (hich allo(s the (ater to move
u(ar$ an$ out(ar$ sulyin! sustenance an$ nurture to the (orl$. .ts a#ility to seethe+ to move+ to
#e in action seems to #e reflecte$ in this name. Another asect of ;ver!elmir relates it to Urth&s
7ell. .n Grimnism1l 2--20 <02=+ certain activities of some of the many animals associate$ (ith the
(orl$ tree involve ;ver!elmir6
24

2- ;eiSrYn heitir !eit+ er sten$r h llo R ;eriaf Srs
oc #Qtr af )JraSs limom? sca'er fylla hon scal ins scQra miaSar+
'nRat sY vei! vanaz. 20 8icHyrnir heitir hi rtr+ er sten$r R h llo ;eriaf Srs
oc #Qtr af )JraSs limom? enn af hans hornom $ryr Q ;ver!elmi+
HaSan ei!o v tn ll ve!a. 2- ;eithrYn+ the !oat on the hall that stan$s+
eateth off )JrRth&s lim#s? the croc's she fills (ith clearest mea$+
(ill that $rin' not e&er #e $raine$. 20 8i'thyrnir+ the hart on the hall that stan$s+
eateth off )JrRth&s lim#s? $ros from his horns in ;ver!elmir fall+
thence (en$ all the (aters their (ay. < ;ollan$er 19026-8=
;ere the (orl$ tree+ calle$ #y the name )JrRth+ is sai$ to inclu$e the mea$-hall+ Balholl? its mea$ is
sulie$ #y the !oat ;eithrYn.
21
The stanzas su!!est that the clear mea$ flo(s from the hall over
the horns of the fee$in! hart in stanza 20 an$ fin$s its (ay eventually $o(n into ;ver!elmir. As has
#een su!!este$+ the $e(s that fall from the #ranches of :!!$rasil fin$ their (ay into the collectin!
#asin of Urth&s 7ell. The rocess is similar here. 7e are $ealin! either (ith t(o searate trees+
)JrRth an$ :!!$rasil+ an$ t(o searate (ells or (ith the same tree an$ (ell e/ressin! $ifferent
attri#utes in $ifferent situations.
.t is erhas easiest to see this multilication of trees an$ (ells as an essential manifestation of the
un$erlyin! mythic imulse itself. There is !oo$ reason to $o this. >irst+ the fact of multilication of
structural elements seems to #e fun$amental to all mythic thin'in!. )Mvi-%trauss has e/laine$ &(hy
myths+ an$ more !enerally oral literature+ are so much a$$icte$ to $ulication+ trilication+ or
Dua$rulication of the same seDuence. .f our hyotheses are accete$+ the ans(er is o#vious6 the
function of reetition is to ren$er the structure of the myth aarent& < 19026220=. 8arlier+ Glri'+
(ritin! in 1949+ e/oun$e$ (hat he calle$ the &la( of reetition&+ !overnin! the comosition of all
myths+ son!s+ sa!as+ an$ le!en$s. .t !ives $imension+ si!nificance+ an$ intensity to the element
reeate$ < 190-61,1-,,=. Glri' is articularly struc' #y threefol$ reetition of elements he calls the
&la( of three&+ (hich &e/ten$s li'e a #roa$ s(ath cut throu!h the (orl$ of fol' tra$ition+ throu!h the
centuries an$ millennia of human culture. The %emitic+ an$ even more+ the E.n$o-8uroeanF culture+
is su#Aect to this $ominant force& < 190-61,1=.
22
Any reetition calls attention to asects of a
articular fi!ure or act <or relate$ series of acts= (hose imortance is to #e hei!htene$ an$ focuse$.
.n the case here un$er e/amination+ the threefol$ reiteration of the association of (ell an$ tree
hei!htens the imortance of this oint of intersection #et(een the t(o+ its satial location an$ its
relate$ temoral moment. The oint e/resses the confluence of this (orl$ (ith the lar!er realm
#eyon$ an$ of the here-an$-no( (ith the ast. .t also Au/taoses the contrary movement of the flo(
of resent into ast an$ the sur!in! of the ast uon the resent? this is structurally enforce$ #y the
i$ea of the nutritive+ active (ater that+ on the one han$+ collects in the (ell an$+ on the other+
sustains the tree. The reeate$ structural emhasis i$entifies the intersection of (ell an$ tree as a
central focal oint in the myth.
There is an a$$itional asect of the (ell ;ver!elmir that must #e consi$ere$. .t is (ithin ;ver!elmir
that the serent 3Qthho!! <3Q$hX!!r= !na(s the roots of :!!$rasil. The tree is eaten from a#ove an$
#elo(+ as the mention of ;eithrYn an$ 8i'thyrnir illustrates. The !na(in! an$ #itin! of these
animals seem to su!!est that not all the activity associate$ (ith the (ell is sustentative an$ nutritive.
Because+ ho(ever+ it is in the nature of Urth to (or' to #rin! all human activity (ithin her urvie(+
this can #e accomlishe$ in a variety of (ays. Gne (ay involves the $aily !oin! forth+ sayin! the
rimal la(+ an$ influencin! the affairs of men. The continual eatin! a(ay of the tree is another (ay
in (hich essentially the same thin! is carrie$ out. The !na(in! of the serent not only reresents
literally an attemt to #rin! the tree $o(n into the (ell #ut also su!!ests+ throu!h the coilin! of the
serent+ the layerin! an$ intert(inin! activity of Urth. The activity also su!!ests the (eavin! of
threa$s in a (e#. .t is really only the he!emony of the [sir that is threatene$ #y the fall of
:!!$rasil.
The $ifficulties (e encounter (hen (e try to e/erience (hat (as ro#a#ly a rather ositive cosmic
fi!ure $erive from our o(n reAu$icial associational connotations. ;ere+ erhas as much as
any(here+ (e shoul$ hee$ the (arnin! of 8vans-Pritchar$ < 190-= that+ (ithout caution+ (e are
most li'ely to ma the semantic relations of our o(n concetual structure inaccurately onto those of
cultures $ifferent from our o(n. >rom our me$ieval Christian ancestors (e have inherite$ a
$irectional reAu$ice that connotes locations &u& as ositive an$ &$o(n& as ne!ative. The manifol$
ro#lems (e face are associate$ (ith our ne!ative feelin!s a#out the &>all&+ the Un$er(orl$ <&$o(n&
in hell=--as oose$ to our ositive feelin!s a#out &u&6 Ascension+ 5esurrection+ ;eaven <&u& to
heaven=+ or Aust simle &hi!h sirits& <as oose$ to feelin! &lo(&=+ etc. All this (or's a!ainst our
un$erstan$in! of the 9ermanic fi!ure an$ ma'es it $ifficult for us to see it as anythin! #ut ne!ative.
7e fin$ it har$ to use any of the central terms of the myth (ithout ne!ative reAu$ice6 do*n into the
(ell+ collapse+ all+ etc. &ecay <a neutral+ natural rocess= is li'e(ise e/cessively ne!atively tin!e$.
:et+ for the 9ermanic eoles+ there seems to have #een no $irectional+ no u--$o(n connotational
reAu$ice. 5ather+ their concetual rocess seems to have involve$+ as it is relevant to the fi!ure of
(ell an$ tree+ an oosition of stasis or inaction+ seen as ne!ative+ a!ainst mo)ement or action+ seen
as ositive. Thus+ the (helmin! for(ar$ of the (ell an$ the shu$$erin! fall of the tree are #oth
movements+ as are all of the other actions relate$ to the tree6 runnin!+ #itin!+ !na(in!+ etc. The
inte!ration of (ell an$ tree an$ the eretuatin! o(er that such an act of inte!ration erforms
tyify ositive cosmic action !enerally. The final stanzas of 0 lusp1 are stron!ly re!enerative.
2,

The fi!ure that comrises :!!$rasil an$ Urth&s 7ell is foun$+ in full form+ only in 3orse sources.
This is not. surrisin!? all 9ermanic mytholo!y is 3orse. Althou!h there are inci$ental references to
most of (hat is essential an$ central to this mytholo!y in other 9ermanic $ialects+ it is only in the
material committe$ to (ritin! in the 3orth 9ermanic $ialects that (e fin$ anythin! li'e a full
resentation. To (hat e/tent mi!ht these %can$inavian versions offer access to concetual structures
that (ere en$emic to all 9ermanic eolesN 3o $irect ans(er can #e !iven to such a Duestion+ #ut
there are stron! imlications in the evi$ence to #e foun$ else(here in the 9ermanic (orl$ to su!!est
that+ in the case of the iconic relations inherent in the fi!ure of the (ell an$ tree+ the mythic
elements so far e/amine$ (ere+ in$ee$+ (i$ely share$. The essays that follo( ela#orate uon these
share$ elements in $etail. T(o !eneral oints (ill suffice here.
>irst+ the (ell-tree confi!uration is share$ #y #oth the Celtic an$ the 9ermanic eoles. Mac'enzie <
19226120-91= has foun$ throu!hout the British .sles com#inations of trees+ (ells+ an$ animals <most
freDuently serents= that seem to #e sym#ols of cosmic ener!y an$ o(er. ;is earliest citations are
unfortunately from the si/th century after Christ+ after the 9ermanic invasion. The instances are
most freDuent in Celtic areas+ ho(ever. 7ells are foun$+ for e/amle+ in association (ith trees an$
me!aliths <ro#a#ly sym#olic trees= in 7ales. &%ome 02 e/amles occur . . . (here there is a (ell-
me!alith association+ an$ a further 11 cases of (ells near tumuli . . . Many stones that once stoo$
near (ells have $isaeare$ . . . 7ells associate$ (ith trees are not numerous in 7ales+ #ut some ,4
e/amles have #een note$+ an$ there are ro#a#ly more& < @ones 19-161--18=. The associate$ trees
are usually ye(+ hazel+ oa'+ or ha(thorn. .t seems unli'ely that the (i$esrea$ $istri#ution of (ells
an$ trees in urely Celtic arts of the British .sles (oul$ result from influence either from the
inva$in! An!les an$ %a/ons or from the 3orsemen+ (ith (hom the 7elsh ha$ little intercourse.
The Celts an$ 9ermans seem searately to have #rou!ht the fi!ure to the British .sles from the
8uroean continent+ (here the fi!ure of a (orl$ tree (as to #e foun$ not only amon! the northern
.n$o-8uroeans #ut amon! >inno-U!ric eoles as (ell.
21
Thus+ it is li'ely to have #een common
to all 9ermanic eoles rior to their $isersal north+ east+ an$ (est.
3o(+ ho(ever+ (e are oen to ar!ument from another Duarter6 .f the fi!ure is so (i$esrea$+ (hat
can ossi#ly ma'e it 9ermanicN To $iscover its essentially 9ermanic characteristics+ (e must loo'
not Aust at the iconic fi!ure itself #ut at those semantic elements that ma'e it u. Ta'in! the tree-(ell
confi!uration as it has #een ela#orate$ a#ove+ (e mi!ht su!!est flui$ity+ nurture+ circumscri#in! yet
artial containment+ accumulation+ an$ an evolvin! &ast& as the most clearly central elements in the
3orse myth. .t is surely not the i$ea of flui$ity <as it is associate$ (ith the (ell= that is uniDuely
&9ermanic&. The i$ea is (i$ely share$+ an$ it seems to have a central si!nificance amon! the Celtic
as (ell as the 9ermanic eoles.
2-
3or $oes it seem that nurture is a uniDuely 9ermanic element6
&throu!h ve!etation it is the (hole of life+ it is nature itself (hich is rene(e$ . . . the forces of lant
life are an eihany of the life of the (hole universe& < 8lia$e 190,6,21-2-=. The nurture of nature
an$ of the cosmos is imlicit in the iconic fi!ure of the tree+ an$ &(e meet sacre$ trees+ an$
ve!etation rites an$ sym#ols in the history of every reli!ion& < 8lia$e 190,620-=.
.t is+ most fun$amentally+ the i$ea of circumscri#in! yet artial containment+ as it has #een lai$ out
a#ove+ that rovi$es the fi!ure (ith its most 9ermanic Duality. The i$ea is ara$o/ical6 A free+
active movement <#ut one that is structure$ an$ or!anize$--&containe$& an$ &lai$ $o(n& are the most
or!anic terms= ro$uces a universal !eneration not only &flui$& an$ &sustainin!& #ut !ro(in!. 3ot only
is the i$ea of !ro(th natural <&nurture&= an$ sustainin! of the cosmic structure+ it is also a literal+
hysical !ro(in!--an accumulation of more layers in the (ell+ more (ater+ more action. The fi!ure
of (ell an$ tree is sustainin! not simly of its o(n structure+ #ut in the rocess of !ro(in! into
itself? it is in a constant state of selfenlar!in! transformation. >inally+ the $rivin! o(er throu!h
(hich the continual act of universal !eneration occurs is lin'e$ to the o(er of the ast. Urth+
(hose (ell it is an$ (hose name #rin!s the active o(er of all accomlishe$ action to #ear uon the
cosmic self-re!eneratin! activity+ is+ (ithin the iconic fi!ure+ e/ressive of all that animates the
realms of #oth tree an$ (ell.
.f the influential o(er of the ast uon the resent reality of the &no(& of the (orl$s of the tree is a
uniform feature of the concetualizin! structure of all 9ermanic eoles+ then (e (oul$ e/ect to
fin$ some uniform references to it (i$ely $isseminate$ throu!hout the (hole of 9ermanic culture.
This is (hat (e $o fin$. This influential o(er+ etymolo!ically relate$ to an$ semantically lin'e$ to
the function of Urth+ is re!ularly e/resse$ in the lan!ua!es of all 9ermanic eoles #y the concet
of G8 *yrd <G% *urd+ G;9 *urt+ etc.=. 5eferences to *yrd are+ of course+ rather ellitical in nature
#ecause men 'no( its (or'in!s only in$irectly. .ts force comes from #eyon$ our (orl$+ as the myth
clearly in$icates+ an$ our intelli!ences are too limite$ to !ras its (or'in!s fully. Man is touche$ #y
*yrd (hen he #ecomes involve$ in matters (hose nature an$ ori!ins e/ten$ #eyon$ e/istence on
earth. %ome asects of life on earth are limite$ to earthly matters alone an$ are of no !reat
si!nificance6 !oin! to #e$ <!enerally=+ eatin! <!enerally=+ the $aily routine of hysical e/istence+ etc.
There are times+ ho(ever+ (hen aarently or$inary activities acDuire secial si!nificance+ an$ it
seems li'ely that at these times $aily life is touche$ an$ colore$ (ith elements #eyon$ our limite$
ercetions. There are+ in a$$ition+ asects of e/istence that are #y their very natures !overne$ #y
events #eyon$ our 'no(in!6 #attle+ honor <oaths=+ etc. 7hen an$ ho( such influence comes uon
us+ (e may never #e certain. 7e can+ ho(ever+ at least artially reare ourselves for such
involvement. >or all men+ clearly+ the most si!nificant moment of e/istence comes at the instant of
$eath+ the oint at (hich man Aoins e/istence #eyon$ this (orl$. The (ise man reares himself for
this instant (hen his in$ivi$ual life an$ the o(er of *yrd (ill #e in closest conAunction? he
attemts to lace his life most $irectly in the main current of the flo( of *yrd. ;e must act in
accor$ance (ith rescri#e$ co$es of con$uct receive$ from the ast? #y so $oin!+ he (ill rotect his
reutation an$ insure himself !oo$ fame. ;is actions (ill #e !overne$ #y (hat he 'no(s? therefore+
the (ise man see's to $iscover all he can. The force of ast events+ (hich sur!es so meanin!fully
into resent life+ offers him some information a#out the nature of *yrd itself+ #ut man+ as he lives
(ithin the realm of the tree+ fails in 'no(in! the ast fully. As he values himself+ ho(ever+ he (ill
strive to learn. ;e (ill attemt to associate himself $irectly (ith all he 'no(s to #e !oo$ an$ (ise.
20
By so $oin!+ he (ill lace himself in the most ausicious li!ht so that he (ill $ie (ell? the
moment of $eath is the moment of !reatest si!nificance in all of or$inary life.
The !revalence o" Urth II
#urials: $ites and Arti"acts
T;8 ractice of shi #urial is (i$ely recor$e$ in 9ermanic literature+ an$ there are e/tensive
archaeolo!ical remains.
1
Gne of the most interestin! an$ fullest accounts of a shi #urial occurs in the
$escrition of the Bi'in! 5Ls alon! the Bol!a ma$e #y .#n >a$lLn in the tenth century.
2
Amon! other
thin!s+ .#n >a$lIn $escri#es the funeral rites of a tri#al chieftain. The si!nificant features of the account
are as follo(s6 Gf the $ea$ chieftain&s slave !irls+ one volunteers to $ie (ith him. >or the cremation of
the $ea$ man+ a shi is $ra(n onto the river #an' an$ suorte$ #y a (oo$en structure. The #o$y of the
$ea$ man+ (hich has #een #urie$ in a temorary !rave+ is $ec'e$ out in fine clothin!+ inclu$in! a
#roca$e caftan (ith !ol$ #uttons+ an$ is lace$ in the center of the shi+ on (hich has #een reare$ a
avilion (ith a couch covere$ (ith some sort of fa#ric. This is arran!e$ un$er the ae!is of an ol$
(oman calle$ &the An!el of *eath . . . .t is she (ho has char!e of the clothes-ma'in! an$ arran!in! all
thin!s+ an$ it is she (ho 'ills the !irl slave& < %myser 190-698=. The man&s arms+ various foo$s+
clothin!+ an$ sacrifice$ animals--horses+ $o!s+ hens--are lace$ in the shi. 7hile this occurs+ the slave
!irl !oes a#out to the tents of the remainin! chieftains+ &an$ the master of each tent EhasF se/ual
intercourse (ith her an$ EsaysF+ OTell your lor$ . have $one this out of love >or himO& < %myser
190-699=. Gn the afternoon of the funeral $ay+ the !irl erforms a ritual uon a (oo$en frame that
resem#les a $oorframe+ over (hich she is elevate$ #y men three times. The first elevation reveals to her
a vision of her father an$ mother? on the secon$ elevation+ she sees her $ea$ relatives? the thir$
elevation reveals to her the $ea$ chieftain himself. &. see my master seate$ in Para$ise an$ Para$ise is
#eautiful an$ !reen? (ith him are men an$ #oy servants. ;e calls me. Ta'e me to him& < %myser
190-699=. %he is then ta'en to the funeral shi+ an$ she $ivests herself of her Ae(elry an$ rin!s. Gn the
shi+ she is !iven t(o cus of nab d + a o(erfully into/icatin! $rin'. After #ein! into/icate$ #y the
$rin'+ the !irl enters the shi&s avilion (ith the An!el of *eath. &Then si/ men (ent into the avilion
an$ each ha$ intercourse (ith the !irl. Then they lai$ her at the si$e of her master? t(o hel$ her feet
an$ t(o her han$s? the ol$ (oman 'no(n as the An!el of *eath re-entere$ an$ looe$ a cor$ aroun$
her nec' an$ !ave the crosse$ en$s to the t(o men for them to ull. Then she aroache$ her (ith a
#roa$-#la$e$ $a!!er+ (hich she lun!e$ #et(een her ri#s reeate$ly+ an$ the men stran!le$ her (ith
the cor$ until she (as $ea$& < %myser 190-6144=. After this+ the closest relative of the $ea$ man sets fire
to the shi. An earth moun$ an$ (oo$en mar'er (ith the chieftain&s name mar' the site of the
cremation.
7ater+ so much a art of the concet of the (ell an$ tree+ lays no o#vious art here? yet it is not
entirely a#sent. The focus of the ritual is on a shi+ solely a (ater-!oin! craft+ an$ the cremation occurs
on the shore+ in conAunction (ith (ater. The enclosin! sace+ sulie$ #y the shi+ (hich the
icono!rahy of the (ell has also e/hi#ite$+ is reinforce$ #y the resence on the shi of the avilion+ an
enclosure (ithin an enclosure. The elements of (ater <liDui$= an$ enclosure are reeate$ in the
sym#olism of the cus of nab d $run' #y the !irl on the funeral shi. The cu resents in small the
essential features of the (ell or cistern even more o#viously than $oes the shi itself. The $raft of
into/icant reresents not only (ater #ut (ater of a o(erful+ ma!ical Duality.
&The An!el of *eath $oes not have any clear arallel . . . else(here in 9ermanic lore+ thou!h the
riestess--rohetess+ the ) l)a + sha$o(e$ forth as early as Tacitus& Germania Eseems to have a
#roa$er role in 9ermanic reli!ion than that usually assi!ne$ herF& < %myser 190-6149=. .t is clear that
the An!el of *eath acts as an a!ent of some &other (orl$&+ a realm of events #eyon$ the articiants in
the funeral ritual. %he is li'e the ) l)a + (ho 'no(s much of the nature of the universe. %he+ too+
su!!ests ;el+ the $au!hter of )o'i an$ the ruler of 3iflheim+ the a#o$e of those (ho have not $ie$
uon the fiel$ of #attle. But the association of $eath an$ universal 'no(le$!e is central to the (hole
fi!ure of (ell an$ tree an$ the continual structurin! of the cosmos over (hich Urth resi$es.

The activities of all these female fi!ures are lin'e$+ an$+ #ecause of that lin'a!e+ the activities of the
An!el of *eath closely resem#le certain activities of Urth. %he !ui$es the events of the ritual lea$in! to
the slave !irl&s $eath+ (hich she herself insti!ates. %he reares the avilion on the shi? she officiates
at the $rin'in! of the cu of into/icant. ;er final act+ 'illin! the !irl+ is accomlishe$ in t(o (ays? (ith
a #roa$-#la$e$ $a!!er an$ (ith a stran!lin! cor$. The cor$ is erhas si!nificant? it occurs
sym#olically else(here. Tacitus+ in $escri#in! the reli!ious ractice of the %emnones+ mentions that
they have in reverence a !rove in (hich humans are sacrifice$. The !rove is hi!hly sacre$6
nemo nisi vinculo li!atus in!re$itur+ ut minor et otestatem numinis rae se ferens. <
Germania ,9=
3o one may enter it unless he is #oun$ (ith a cor$+ #y (hich he ac'no(le$!es his o(n
inferiority an$ the o(er of the $eity. < Mattin!ly 192461,1=
This i$ea of circumscri#in! or #in$in! turns u in a si!nificantly lace$ scholium to the account of a
a!an %can$inavian temle at Usala #y A$am of Bremen in his /istory o the Archbishops o
/amburg-Bremen.
,

Catena aurea temlum circum$at en$ens sura $omus fasti!ia lateDue rutilans
a$venienti#us+ eo Duo$ isum $elu#rum in lanitie situm montes in circuitu ha#et ositos
a$ instar theatri. < A$am von Bremen .B+ scholium 1,9 E 1,-F62-8=
A !ol$en chain !oes roun$ the temle. .t han!s over the !a#le of the #uil$in! an$ sen$s its
!litter far off to those (ho aroach+ #ecause the shrine stan$s on level !roun$ (ith
mountains all a#out it li'e a theater. < Tschan 19-96242=
The #in$in! chain or cor$ ossi#ly relates to the activity of Urth as (eaver. .n a$$ition+ it #ears
consi$era#le similarity to (rithin! or intert(inin! serents. 7ith resect to $esi!n+ such serents
rovi$e erhas the most imortant sin!le motif of 9ermanic art.
1
The #in$in! or involvin! cor$
su!!ests not only the serents #ut the encomassin! an$ enclosin! nature of Urth&s activities as her
o(er reaches u an$ out of the (ell of the ast an$ influences the affairs of this (orl$.
-

The element of fertility also fi!ures in the funeral rite. There are t(o searate seDuences of multile
acts of se/ual intercourse (ith the ritual victim6 the first seDuence (ith an unsecifie$ num#er of
villa!e lea$ers (ho erform the act &out of love& for the $ea$ chieftain+ an$ the secon$ seDuence
erforme$ #y si/ men of uni$entifie$ ran' (ithin the avilion on the shi in the resence of the $ea$
man Aust #efore the !irl&s $eath #y stran!ulation an$ sta##in!. This fertility is at once si!nificant an$
curious. .t is clearly $irecte$ to(ar$ the realm #eyon$. But then+ this is a funeral rite. The efficacy of
the reeate$ acts of intercourse+ (hatever these are ultimately felt to #e+ is carrie$ (ith the !irl to
ara$ise an$ to her master. At the en$+ she $isaears from this (orl$ an$ Aoins him. .n the rite+ the
fertilization an$ $eath occur #efore the climactic cremation (hen the sacrificial victim $isaears into
the realm #eyon$. %he ta'es the fertility of this (orl$ (ith her. .n the myth+ the 7ell of Urth collects
#oth the (aters of the tree an$ the activities of this (orl$+ an$ this ritual $eath is associate$ (ith the
influence of this (orl$ on the #eyon$? its fertility is $irecte$ to(ar$ life there.
Bery little can #e learne$ a#out the e/act nature of &ara$ise& from .#n >a$lLn&s account. The term itself
must #e interrete$ (ith caution? it results from multile translation. The term the 5Ls themselves
(oul$ have use$ is lost. This is not $isastrously imortant as lon! as (e $o not thin' too much of the
Christian connotations of ara$ise. .t is $escri#e$ in the account as &#eautiful an$ !reen&+ a$Aectives
reflectin! fertility an$ !eneration. 9reen+ articularly J . . . grgnn &ever !reen&+ is use$ to $escri#e
:!!$rasil. The !irl victim+ in her vision of ara$ise+ sea's of seein! her father an$ mother+ her $ea$
relatives+ an$ her master? that is+ she sees those (hom she has 'no(n in this (orl$.
0
%he sea's of
nothin! aart from (hat she has seen+ or in all ro#a#ility sa(+ in her o(n ast+ $istant or near. 3o
visions of the &future& or &events to come& are reveale$. Aart from 'no(n ast events+ she sees ara$ise
as a vision of #eauty an$ !reenness+ su!!estin! o(er an$ fecun$ity. %he is a#out to Aoin herself to her
o(n ast+ an$ #ecause she is carryin! the see$ of human !eneration (ith her she (ill influence the ast.
7ithin the (hole of the ritual there are evi$ences of influence of the o(er of the realm of the (ell
uon events (ithin the (orl$ of men6 the An!el of *eath herself+ the sym#olic acts+ such as $rin'in!
an$ the 'illin! of the slave !irl+ etc. Gn the other han$+ the events erforme$ (ithin the #urial ritual
occur (ithin the (orl$ of men. These (ill+ ho(ever+ affect the reality of the realm of the (ell #eyon$.
The ritual ultimately em#o$ies the fact of interenetration of acts (ithin the realm of the (ell an$ in
the (orl$ of men.
.n a$$ition to .#n >a$lIn&s account+ there is a !oo$ $eal of archaeolo!ical evi$ence a#out 9ermanic
#urials. The materials are vast #ut unfortunately lar!ely inconclusive. .t is nearly imossi#le+ for
e/amle+ to use the actual remains of 9ermanic !raves to verify the $etails of .#n >a$lIn&s
o#servations. The variations in #urial ractices throu!hout the 9ermanic (orl$ are !reat6
>ar from resentin! a uniform imression of the Bi'in! i$ea of the after-life+ EBi'in!
!ravesF reveal a !reat comle/ity an$ variety of ractice an$ #elief. Both #urial an$
cremation occur? #urial occurre$ sometimes in lar!e (oo$en cham#ers+ sometimes in
mo$est coffins? in a #i! lon!shi or in a little #oat+ or sometimes in a sym#olical #oat ma$e
of stones or in a carria!e. There are !raves un$er hu!e moun$s+ an$ !raves un$er or$inary
flat fiel$s+ the !rave-!oo$s are sometimes rich+ sometimes oor+ an$ sometimes comletely
a#sent. < BrWn$ste$ 190-6 289=
The situation is not entirely $iscoura!in!? some asects of .#n >a$lIn&s account recur else(here (ith
re!ularity? other asects $o not. The cremation that rovi$es the climactic moment in the #urial of the
5Ls chieftain+ for e/amle+ is not an essential art of all 9ermanic #urial rituals. .t (as not ractice$
consistently #y other Bi'in! tri#es+ an$ it is not atteste$ (ith re!ularity in #urials from the British .sles
or continental 8uroe either.
2
.n !eneral+ the 9ermans ha$ no secial feelin! for cremation. This is not
surrisin!? the i$ea of fire or cremation is not one of the essential structural elements in the mythic
fi!ure of :!!$rasil an$ Urth&s 7ell. Gn the other han$+ the i$ea of the vehicle+ esecially the shi (ith
its enclosure-$efinin! (alls+ $oes relate $irectly to the icono!rahy of the myth. Behicle #urial--or rites
involvin! such a vehicle--is e/tremely common. The shi #urial (ith its imlie$ reference to (ater-
also a structural element of the myth--is foun$ throu!hout the northern 9ermanic (orl$ (ith a !oo$
$eal of re!ularity6 in *enmar'+ 3or(ay+ %(e$en+ an$ the British .sles.
9rave !oo$s attest to an aarently (i$ely $istri#ute$+ if not universal+ ractice of 9ermanic #urial.
These sho( !reat similarities amon! the artifacts+ clothin!+ an$ arms #urie$ an$ rovi$e lin's amon!
#urials (i$ely $iserse$ throu!hout the 9ermanic (orl$. Curiously+ .#n >a$lIn $oes not mention the
a$$ition of !rave !oo$s to the #urial moun$ #uilt over the site of the cremation. .f this !rave is li'e
most others no( e/cavate$+ ho(ever+ such !rave !oo$s (oul$ have #een a$$e$+ an$ many of the
materials mentione$ in his account are similar to those foun$ in !raves (here cremation has not #een
use$. Althou!h there is variety in the !rave !oo$s foun$ in 9ermanic !raves+ there is also a surrisin!
un$erlyin! consistency. 7oven cloth is not an uncommon item. Gf course+ much of this can #e
attri#ute$ to the simle remains of (hatever material (as use$ to clothe the $ea$+ #ut the a#un$ance of
cloth an$ associate$ instruments of cloth ma'in! clearly !oes #eyon$ (hat (oul$ remain from
shrou$in! alone. The cenotah at %utton ;oo containe$ a !reat variety of te/tile material+ #urie$
aarently in close conAunction (ith the other !rave !oo$s < Bruce- Mitfor$ 192-6 11- - 81=. .#n
>a$lIan mentions a #roca$e caftan (ith !ol$ #uttons. 5emains of (oven material occur in many
%can$inavian !rave sites? the )a$#y shi containe$ not only cloth remnants+ #uc'les+ an$ #uttons #ut
!ol$ an$ silver threa$s < Thorvil$sen 1901=. The Gse#er! shi containe$ not only te/tile scras #ut
te/tile-ma'in! eDuiment6 a loom an$ some com#s. There (ere also te/tile fra!ments in the 9o'sta$
an$ Tune shis < %AWvol$ 1909=? #oth (oven material an$ ieces of sil' (ith !ol$ threa$s (ere foun$ in
the 9o'sta$ shi < 9Aessin! 19-268=. Com#s have #een $iscovere$ in the Ben$el cemetery an$ in
Gttar&s moun$ < %tole an$ Arne 1922? Cham#ers 19-96,-2=. The com# is a (i$ely use$ instrument in
the rearation of threa$ for (eavin! < ;offmann 19016 281 - 88=. 7e 'no( that (eavin! an$ sinnin!
are amon! the evolve$ or relate$ attri#utes of Urth. Thus+ (e mi!ht e/ect to fin$ in some laces the
loom+ threa$+ com#+ he$$le ro$s+ (ei!hts+ etc. associate$ #y e/tension (ith the more #asic attri#utes of
Urth. Gn the other han$+ these com#s may also have #een reresentative of cosmetic use as (ell as of
(eavin!. There is some a$$itional evi$ence from British an$ continental !raves that may e/ten$ these
$ata6
The cremation urns from the lar!e cemeteries of the re!ion #et(een the 8l#e an$ the 7eser
freDuently contain miniature sets of toilet imlements+ shears+ t(eezers+ an$ 'nife+ usually
ma$e of #ronze. .n some cases the t(eezers+ (hich are in any event more normally ma$e of
#ronze+ as also is often the case in 8n!lan$+ may #e erfectly servicea#le imlements+ #ut
the 'nife an$ shears ma$e of that metal must #e re!ar$e$ as mo$els. As such they aear
more than once in 8n!lish urns. < )ee$s 19,06,4=
These items are not uniDue to (omen&s !raves. .n .n$o-8uroean mytholo!y+ human an$ animal hair
e/ress sym#olically ve!etation+ an$ there is evi$ence to su!!est that cuttin! of hair--for tonsure or+
erhas+ for (eavin!--su!!este$ articiation in cosmic re!eneration < )incoln 1922=. Thus+ the
conAunction of (eavin! an$ toilet imlements (oul$ not #e une/ecte$? rather+ articles that reresente$
#oth (oul$ create more o(erful &iconic& evi$ence.
8

7eaons an$ armor+ Aust as $escri#e$ #y .#n >a$lIan+ are re!ularly foun$ in 9ermanic !raves. %hiel$s+
one s(or$ or more+ helmets+ arro(s+ $a!!ers+ 'nives+ sears+ etc. are common < %heteli! an$ >al'
19,26,22 - 14-=. These items are usually real+ not stylize$ or mo$el imlements. They are often
valua#le heirlooms an$ have #een much sou!ht after #y !rave lun$erers. .n many cases+ for e/amle
in the Gse#er! an$ 9o'sta$ shis+ the ro#a#le cache of ritually #urie$ (eaons has $isaeare$
<remains of the corse+ as (ell+ have $isaeare$ from the Gse#er! fin$= < %AWvol$ 1909=. Most #urials
retain+ ho(ever+ some of their #urie$ (eaons. The )a$#y shi (as foun$ to contain arro(hea$s an$ a
shiel$ #oss < Thorvil$sen 1901=. .n the Tune shi (ere foun$ a s(or$ han$le+ searhea$+ an$ shiel$
#oss < 9Aessin! 19-2 6 1=. &The !rave-!oo$s of the An!lo-%a/on Talo( #arro( . . . in
Buc'in!hamshire Einclu$e$F t(o sears+ a s(or$+ . . . Ean$F t(o shiel$ #osses& < Chaney 1924698=. The
%utton ;oo shi--cenotah containe$ a shiel$+ a s(or$+ an$ sears. The %utton ;oo shiel$ is Duite
tyical of this 'in$ of !rave !oo$s. .t (as ol$ at the time of its #urial? it ha$ #een reaire$ #efore its
inhumation. .t is #oth relatively lar!e <a#out thirty-si/ inches in $iameter= an$ (ell constructe$ <leather
over (oo$+ containin! an iron #oss (ith !ilt-#ronze rivet-hea$s+ an$ silver-late$ #ronze an$ !ol$ foil
$ecorations=. .t (as surely a (elluse$ an$ (ell-cherishe$ (eaon. .t &is remar'a#ly similar . . . to those
foun$ in the earliest of the #oat-!raves in the %(e$ish cemetery at Ben$el . . . ;uman faces very li'e
that on the #ir$&s hi on the %utton ;oo shiel$ are set in the interlace on the flan!e of the shiel$-#oss
from Ben$el+ !rave z..+ a #urial (hich is $ate$ #y %(e$ish archaeolo!ists to a#out A.*. 0-4& < Bruce-
Mitfor$ 19226 20=. 7eaons (ere foun$ in all #ut three of the fourteen !raves in the Ben$el cemetery.
T(o-e$!e$ s(or$s+ shiel$ #osses+ helmets+ an$ arro(hea$s seem to #e most common+ #ut the 'in$s of
armor an$ (eaons foun$ are not limite$ to these alone? for e/amle+ there are some 'nives an$ sear
hea$s also < %tole an$ Arne 1922=.
The imortance of (eaons+ esecially the shiel$+ (as notice$ #y Tacitus. The shiel$ laye$ a
si!nificant role in the social an$ military life of the 9erman man. The male chil$ (as !rante$ a$ult
status #y receivin! a sear an$ shiel$6
in ipso concilio )el principum ali[uis )el pater )el propin[ui scuto ramea[ue iu)enem
ornant$ haec apud illos toga, hic primus iu)entae honosk ante hoc domus pars )identur,
mo( rei publicae. < Germania 1,=
in the resence of the Assem#ly+ either one of the chiefs or the youn! man&s father or some
other relative resents him (ith a shiel$ an$ a sear. These+ amon! the 9ermans+ are the
eDuivalent of the man&s to!a (ith us--the first $istinction u#licly conferre$ uon a youth+
(ho no( ceases to ran' merely as a mem#er of a househol$ an$ #ecomes a citizen.
< Mattin!ly 19246112=
The shiel$ functione$ (ithin the society as a sym#ol of the u#lic an$ rivate esteem of the man
himself6
corpora suorum etiam in dubiis proeliis reerunt. scutum reli[uisse praecipuum lagitium,
nec aut sacris adesse aut concilium inire ignominioso as, multi[ue superstites bellorum
inamiam la[ueo inierunt. < Germania 0=
They #rin! #ac' the #o$ies of the fallen even (hen a #attle han!s in the #alance. To thro(
a(ay one&s shiel$ is the sureme $is!race+ an$ the man (ho has thus $ishonoure$ himself
is $e#arre$ from atten$ance at sacrifice or assem#ly. Many such survivors from the
#attlefiel$ have en$e$ their shame #y han!in! themselves. < Mattin!ly 19246 140-2=
At his funeral <in Tacitus+ a cremation=+ the arms of the $ea$ man (ere #urne$ (ith him6
.unerum nulla ambitio$ id solum obser)atur ut corpora clarorum )irorum certis lignis crementur.
struem rogi nec )estibus nec odoribus cumulant$ sua cui[ue arma, [uorundam igni et e[uus adicitur.
sepulcrum caespes erigit. < Germania 22=
There is no ostentation a#out their funerals. The only secial o#servance is that the #o$ies
of famous men are #urne$ (ith articular 'in$s of (oo$. 7hen they have heae$ u the
yre they $o not thro( !arments or sices on it? only the $ea$ man&s arms+ an$ sometimes
his horse too+ are cast into the flames. The tom# is a raise$ moun$ of turf. < Mattin!ly 19246
12,=
There is some contra$iction (ith the account of .#n >a$lIn+ #ut the t(o accounts $o share the fire+ the
sacrifice of a horse+ the earth mar'er erecte$ uon the site of the cremation+ an$+ most imortant+ the
#urial of the man&s arms (ith him.
Armor #urial sym#olizes+ in at least one (ay+ the close of a man&s earthly life.
9
.f his life #e!ins
officially (ith his investment (ith this armor+ it is ri!ht that the use of these (eaons ceases (ith him.
The man&s life an$ the life of his (eaons are inte!rally #oun$ u in each other. 7hat the man has
accomlishe$ (ith the (eaons is not only a art of his o(n life story #ut also a art of the life story of
the (eaons as (ell? !reat $ee$s are accomlishe$ #y !reat (eaons in the han$s of !reat men. The
!lory #elon!s to #oth+ Aust as the i!nominy of co(ar$ly $ee$s falls uon co(ar$ly men an$ ill-
constructe$ (eaons ali'e. 7eaons in the ossession of a man at the time of his $eath are+ naturally+
#urie$ (ith him lest they fall into the han$s of those (ho (oul$ or coul$ use them in a lesser (ay an$+
there#y+ $ishonor them. )i'e(ise+ a (arrior must not leave his (eaons to #e confiscate$ #y an enemy.
The literature of the 9ermanic eoles #ears out the ractice as (ell? one nee$ only turn to the
$escritions of the funerals an$ #attles in Beo*ul+ if no(here further+ to fin$ a$eDuate corro#oration. .t
is li'ely that the cultural sym#olism of the very imortant shiel$ reresents not only in$ivi$ual
rotection #ut the concet of rotection in !eneral. As such+ it is a culturally realize$ sym#ol of
soverei!nty+ closely relate$ in 9ermanic culture (ith the concet of hysical force. A!!ressive o(er
is surely su!!este$ #y the s(or$+ also re!ularly foun$ in 9ermanic !raves. Thus+ s(or$ an$ shiel$
to!ether (oul$ com#ine to reresent the sym#olic attri#utes of the lea$er6 the man at once (ise
counselor an$ (arrior+ rotector of his eole an$ sol$ier.
14
>urther+ the com#ination of s(or$ an$
shiel$ to!ether can #e seen to arallel asects of the sym#olic icono!rahy of the (orl$ tree itself+ (ith
the shiel$ e/ressive of the (i$e-srea$in!+ rotective #ranches an$ the s(or$ of a stout+ suortive
trun'.
The inte!ral relationshi of man an$ (eaon e/ten$s sym#olically to artifacts other than (eaons. Any
artifacts (ith (hich a man surroun$s himself $urin! his lifetime can #e seen to sym#olize articularly
imortant occurrences in that lifetime? the artifact+ then+ is felt to arta'e of or &contain& the si!nificant
ortion of the e/erience. Thus+ #urie$ artifacts (oul$ #e those that reresente$ esecially si!nificant
actions or asects of the life enclose$ (ithin the #urial vehicle. All o#Aects carry their associative asts
(ith them into the !rave+ Aust as $oes the man #urie$. The #urial rovi$es the effective close to the life
of man an$ o#Aect? #oth to!ether #ecome one (ith the !reat+ universal collection of ast events. .n
a$$ition to (eaons+ 9ermanic !raves contain lar!e Duantities of !oo$s not ertinent to (ar+ fi!htin!+
or military activity. .f (e i!nore items use$ for human a$ornment <class+ #rooches+ #uc'les+ etc.= an$
coins+ the remainin! materials re!ularly #urie$ in 9ermanic !raves fall almost e/clusively into the
#roa$ cate!ory of utensils+ freDuently househol$ or $omestic imlements6 #uc'ets+ $ishes+ #arrels+
!o#lets+ $iers+ etc.
11
A fe( citations (ill !ive some in$ication of the variety of items foun$.
The )a$#y shi containe$ ieces of an iron-#oun$ (oo$en #uc'et+ a silver an$ !ilt late <no(
$estroye$=+ an$ a #ronze $ish. &3othin! of the un$ou#te$ly rich collection of $omestic utensils
$eosite$ #esi$e the $ea$ chieftain has #een reserve$ (hole . . . + #ut it can #e seen from the remnants
that the shi containe$ #oth coarser 'itchen utensils+ such as the lar!e iron-#oun$ (oo$en #uc'et+ an$
finer ieces of a $inner-set+ such as a #ronze $ish imorte$ from the British .sles. A late of soli$ silver
$ecorate$ (ith en!rave$ interlacements an$ !ilt on the #or$er is har$ly native (or' either&
< Thorvil$sen 1901 6 ,--,0=. .n the Gse#er! fin$+ in a$$ition to the materials alrea$y mentione$+ (ere
foun$ the remains of #arrels+ $ishes+ $iers+ a (oo$en #o(l+ t(o metal caul$rons+ t(o han$ a/es+
'nives+ a fryin! an+ some small cas'ets+ a trio$+ a stool+ an$ iron ro$s < 9Aessin! 19-2? %AWvol$
1909=.
12
.n a$$ition+ there are #ronze fittin!s of various 'in$s &of forei!n ori!in+ an$ there is no $ou#t
that they are Celtic (or'+ ro#a#ly from .relan$. {uite a lot of Celtic metal (or' ornamente$ in the
same style as that foun$ in the Gse#er! shi . . . has #een $iscovere$ in other Bi'in! !raves from more
or less the same erio$& < %AWvol$ 1909 6 11=. There are also the remains of some (oo$en #uc'ets (ith
metal fittin!s+ amon! (hich is &the stran!est iece of metal (or' in the (hole fin$+ namely the . . .
mounts on the so-calle$ OBu$$ha #uc'etO. This is most ro#a#ly of 7est-8uroean ori!in+ #ut more
li'ely British than .rish& < %AWvol$ 1909 6 11=. This is a #ronze han$le fittin!? the man illustrate$ on it
has #u$$hali'e crosse$ le!s. &British enamel (or' of a tye very similar to that in the Gse#er! fin$ has
#een $iscovere$ in a coule of other Bi'in! fin$s& < %AWvol$ 1909610=. .n the 9o'sta$ shi (ere foun$
hoo's+ #uc'ets+ caul$rons+ 'e!s+ t(o can$lestic's+ small (oo$en cus+ an$ an oa' late < 9Aessin!
19-2? %AWvol$ 1909=. The Borre fin$ containe$+ in a$$ition to some iron !oo$s+ &a stran!e !lass !o#let+
a tan!i#le roof of connections a#roa$+ as it is ro#a#ly >ran'ish (or'& < %AWvol$ 19096 2-=. Althou!h
out(ei!he$ in #ul' #y (eaons+ $omestic imlements (ere #urie$ in the !raves in the cemetery at
Ben$el. 9raves . an$ z..+ for e/amle+ containe$ !lass #ea'ers or !o#lets? !raves .z+ z+ z.+ an$ z.B
have the remains of iron coo'in! ots. There (as a #ronze #asin in !rave z...+ a (oo$en #uc'et (ith
iron fittin!s in z.B+ an$ a (oo$en #o/ (ith loc' in !rave .B < %tole an$ Arne 1922=.
.n the British .sles+ the situation is the same. .n a$$ition to its (eaons+ the Talo( #arro( containe$
t(o #uc'ets an$ some !lass $rin'in! horns < Chaney 1924698=. .n the shi-cenotah at %utton ;oo
(ere foun$ three caul$rons+ an iron lam+ some chain(or'+ three iron-#oun$ (oo$en #uc'ets+ a lar!e
an$ a small silver $ish+ a silver la$le cu+ t(o $ecorate$ aurochs $rin'in! horns+ male(oo$ an$
ottery #ottles+ ei!ht silver #o(ls+ t(o silver soons+ a heavy #ronze #o(l+ an$ a thin+ #ronze han!in!
#o(l < Bruce- Mitfor$ 1922=.
1,
The lar!e silver $ish+ calle$ the Anastasius $ish+ name$ for 8meror
Anastasius . < A.*. 191 - -18=+ is of Byzantine ori!in < Bruce-Mitfor$ 19226,- - ,0=. The smaller silver
$ish is not of local manufacture either? it comes ro#a#ly from the Me$iterranean re!ion < Bruce-
Mitfor$ 1922600=. The t(o silver soons are inscri#e$ (ith the 9ree' names & %aulos& an$ & Paulos&+
resectively+ an$ they are &of a (ell-'no(n late-classical tye& < Bruce-Mitfor$ 1922608=.
11
The heavy
#ronze #o(l &is not of local manufacture an$ must have come from the 3ear 8ast+ ro#a#ly Ale/an$ria.
.t is of a tye 'no(n in the archaeolo!y of the erio$ as OCotic #o(lsO+ i.e. from Christian+ or Cotic+
8!yt& < Bruce-Mitfor$ 1922622=. The #ronze han!in! #o(l is ro#a#ly of Celtic ori!in. &The #o(l ha$
(orn throu!h or sustaine$ $ama!e #efore it (as #urie$+ an$ ha$ #een atche$ in several laces (ith
rivete$ silver lates& < Bruce- Mitfor$ 1922622=
%ome of these items are clearly functional an$ sho( si!ns of use? others are more li'ely to #e
ornamental. %ome are ma$e of (oo$ or other common material? some are silver+ #ronze+ or !lass. %ome
are of common+ local manufacture? others are imorte$ materials li'ely to have #een hi!hly rize$.
Althou!h (e can !ive a fairly comlete accountin! of these !rave !oo$s+ they tell us $irectly very little
a#out (hy they (ere lace$ in the !raves. They are+ in fact+ simly there+ (ithout e/lanatory la#els.
8verythin! so far e/amine$+ ho(ever+ has ointe$ clearly to the ossi#ility that 9ermanic #urial (as
felt to #e a total commemoration of all of the activities of the earthly life Aust close$. .f the #urial of
(eaons an$ armor mar's the en$ of a (a!in! of (ar throu!h the $isaearance of #oth the a!ent of
#attle an$ the instruments throu!h (hich he acte$+ then the other o#Aects #urie$ shoul$ reresent other
asects of that life. 7hat the commemorate$ activities mi!ht have #een (e $o not 'no(. %ome !eneral
information is forthcomin!+ ho(ever+ from an e/amination of the various 'in$s of !rave !oo$s foun$.
%ome events in an in$ivi$ual&s life are more or less uniDue an$ rivate? such events are li'ely to #e
reresente$ #y in$ivi$ual or uncommon items amon! the !rave !oo$s. More u#lic or social activities
(ill #e reresente$ #y !oo$s of a tye reeate$ throu!hout. 8ach of the shi #urials has its uniDue
items6 the loom in the Gse#er! shi an$ the (hetstone sceter of %utton ;oo+ for e/amle. All of the
!raves sho( multile occurrences of utensils+ esecially containers? caul$rons+ #uc'ets+ $rin'in! horns+
#ottles+ cus+ #o(ls+ an$ $ishes a#oun$. These vessels all share the #asic shae of the shis in (hich
they are #urie$+ an$ this shae is+ of course+ share$ #y the (ell+ the container an$ source of life itself. .f
their sym#olic si!nificance is to #e !rante$+ then these artifacts (ill share in the meanin!ful close of all
life on earth+ (hich the #urial reresents. 7hat the armor an$ (eaonry reresent+ these vessels
e/ress as (ell. %ome of the more common containers (oul$ #e associate$ (ith or$inary+ every$ay
activities. Gn the other han$+ the heirlooms of recious metal or !lass are more li'ely to commemorate
some articular+ si!nificant moment in life? they mi!ht #e a rize #rou!ht #ac' from some $istant
e/e$ition+ a !ift of value from a !rateful lor$+ an a(ar$ for successful $ee$s+ etc. 3ot all !rave !oo$s
are containers+ an$ there is no reason (hy they all shoul$ #e? #ut+ (ithout reasons to the contrary+ it is
most li'ely that the ersistent ima!ery of the (ell su!!este$ a container or similarly shae$ artifact as a
commemorative o#Aect for si!nificant events.
1-

9ermanic !ravesites other than shi #urials also sho( freDuent occurrences of containers as !rave
!oo$s. %ilver !o#lets an$ $ishes+ of local manufacture #ut coie$ from 5oman mo$els+ have #een
foun$ in the !raves of 9erman lea$ers < .srsten= in northern continental 8uroe. These $ate from
a#out the time of Tacitus&s account < Much 19026 121 - 22=. The 9ermanic #urial at .ttenheim < seventh
century after Christ= containe$ classical an$ Byzantine artifacts6 some 5oman horse harness+ an$ more
imortantly+ a halera+ an$ a &Cotic& #ronze tan'ar$ an$ an < 7erner 191,=. .n An!lo-%a/on
cemeteries+ in a$$ition to funeral urns+ #oth #o(ls+ esecially han!in! #o(ls+ an$ !lass cus an$
#ea'ers are freDuently foun$. %uch !lass is common throu!hout the 3orth 9ermanic (orl$? much of it
is imorte$ < ;ar$en 19-0=. The arallels #et(een %(e$ish an$ An!lo-%a/on fin$s are stri'in! < )ee$s
19,0=. Many of the #ea'ers foun$ in 8n!lan$ are of Celtic or 5oman <or imitation 5oman=
manufacture? the fin$s in Ben$el !raves . an$ z.. are ossi#ly &of 8n!lish ori!in Ean$F ha$ #een
conveye$ a lon! $istance #y sea+ an$ (hen (e ta'e into consi$eration the state of commerce at that
time E seventh century after ChristF+ it is evi$ent that this must have ma$e them esecially costly&
< %tAerna 19126 129=.
10
The han!in! #o(ls also sho( a !reat variety in $esi!n an$ rovenience. Many
of these sho( classical or &Cotic& ori!ins or influences. Celtic influence is sho(n esecially in the
$esi!ns of escutcheons.
12
Concernin! !rave !oo$s foun$ in An!lo-%a/on #urials+ it is clear that at
least &some of the An!lo-%a/on si/th- an$ seventh-century artifacts+ such as han!in! #o(ls an$ some of
the %utton ;oo fin$s+ are . . . at least in art to #e re!ar$e$ as cult sym#ols& < 7renn 190-614=. The
e/act nature of these cults is not imortant here? ho(ever+ there $oes seem to #e a consi$era#le amount
of evi$ence to su!!est that there are imortant sym#olic asects to all of these !rave !oo$s. A share$+
cultural sym#olism (oul$ easily allo( for their incororation into local cults.
As has #een note$ a#ove+ many of these !rave !oo$s either are of forei!n ori!in or are ma$e in
imitation of forei!n items. >e( shi #urials lac' (or's of forei!n manufacture+ an$ this fact is in every
(ay tyical of 9ermanic #urials in !eneral. The shiel$ an$ helmet of the %utton ;oo closely resem#le
those foun$ in the cemetery at Ben$el. Celtic (or'+ inclu$in! the &Bu$$ha #uc'et&+ (as foun$ in the
Gse#er! shi.The !o#lets in the 9o'sta$ shi are ro#a#ly >ran'ish. &Cotic& (or' is foun$ not only at
%utton ;oo #ut at Ben$el an$ at .ttenheim. The list can #e continue$ easily. 3o $istinction seems to
have #een ma$e as to their monetary value. The &Bu$$ha #uc'et& (as ma$e of (oo$ an$+ in site of its
interestin! han$le mounts+ (as not an o#viously oulent item. Gn the other han$+ the Anastasius $ish
from %utton ;oo is clearly e/ensive. .t is ossi#le to attri#ute the resence of these items in the !rave
to their #ein! art of a collection of ersonal &'eesa'es&+ a collection of acDuire$ loot. This seems too
narro(? it certainly (oul$ not account for the re!ular reetition throu!hout the 9ermanic (orl$. .t has
#een su!!este$ that the !rave an$ the o#Aects in it contain to!ether the eventful activities of the life
commemorate$. The accumulation of items acts sym#olically as an accumulation of events. The more
imortant the life+ the more li'ely there (oul$ #e imortant forei!n connections an$ forei!n !oo$s in
the !rave. 9ifts an$ #ooty may very (ell #e reresente$ amon! these? ho(ever+ there are li'ely to #e
ersonal items as (ell commemoratin! homely activities. 7hat the reresentations (ill #e (ill $een$
uon the in$ivi$ual. The very srea$ of materials su!!ests comrehensiveness. A full life (ill $ra( its
si!nificant events from activities erforme$ as (i$ely as ossi#le in sace <hence the variety an$
a#un$ance of forei!n items= an$ as $eely as ossi#le in time <hence the resence of ol$+ use$ vessels
an$ heirlooms=. Because all actions in time an$ sace fall (ithin the urvie( of Urth+ her sym#ols+
esecially the (ell as enclosure+ $ominate. Gther items+ such as the s(or$ an$ shiel$+ su!!est the tree.
All+ ho(ever+ ultimately com#ine to e/ress the o(er of (yr$ over the lives of all eole.
.t mi!ht #e useful here to ause momentarily to ree/amine the si!nificance attri#ute$ to the information
resente$ a#ove a#out 9ermanic #urial. The assertion every(here has #een that the reeate$ an$
consicuous features of 9ermanic !raves reeat an$ illustrate #asic concetual fi!ures $efinitive of a
9ermanic (orl$ vie( or cosmo!rahy. There is no Duestion a#out the &9ermanic& nature of this
material+ #ut can (e see in it anythin! that is essentially or uni[uely 9ermanicN 7e shoul$ #e
esecially concerne$ that any such uniDueness #e associate$ $irectly (ith the asects of the myth of
Urth&s 7ell an$ :!!$rasil+ (hich have alrea$y #een resente$. 7ith resect to the archaeolo!ical
material here consi$ere$+ (hat is there in it that is eculiarly 9ermanicN )et us #e!in #y tac'lin! the
most vulnera#le art of the recor$6 the resence of containers (ithin 9ermanic !raves. ;o( far can (e
!o in assertin! that the resence of containers in !ravesites suorts a cosmic structure of a 'in$ of
reality #eyon$ $aily life that is itself containerli'eN Gne mi!ht o#Aect that the !rave in itself is a
container in all cases+ 9ermanic or other(ise. This is true+ #ut this $oes not account for the resence of
other artifacts (ithin !raves that are themselves containers. .t is clear that the ractice of inclu$in!
containers (ithin !ravesites is not limite$ to 9ermanic #urials. The ractice is (i$esrea$. .t (oul$
seem+ then+ that the mere resence of containers $oes not in itself reresent any uniDuely 9ermanic
feature. .f+ ho(ever+ (e e/amine the materials of the 9ermanic sites in comarison (ith the !oo$s of
the other 8uroean cultures most closely associate$ (ith the early 9ermans+ certain si!nificant
$istinctions #e!in to emer!e.
>irst+ to the east of the 9ermanic eoles live$ the early %lavic eoles. &At the #e!innin! of their
history the %lavs use$ to cremate their $ea$+ collect the ashes an$ $eosit them in secial urns (hich
(ere then #urie$+ an$ over the !raves they erecte$ moun$s . . . The cinerary urns (ere seale$ (ith an
inverte$ $ish& < *vorni' 19-06 -2=. Prehistoric archaeolo!ical evi$ence e/ten$s our 'no(le$!e
consi$era#ly. The #urials of the 3orth Carathian <Proto%lavic= culture of the late Bronze A!e reveal
that #oth cremation an$ inhumation (ere ractice$.
9rave its (ere line$ (ith tim#er an$ in some cases roofs+ or even the (hole !rave
cham#er+ (ere reserve$. Grnaments (ere lace$ in the (omen&s !raves+ #ut+ (ith the
e/cetion of (arrior !raves in (hich #ri$les an$ arts of (eaons (ere foun$+ male #urials
(ere usually oor. < 9im#utas 19216 --=
A !oo$ $eal of cultural continuity lea$s u to these #urials. ;ouse !raves aear in 8uroe (ith the
movement (est of the so-calle$ Cur!an culture from the central Asian stees <east of the Blac' an$
Casian seas= in the late thir$ millennium B.C. 5emains of this culture from the thir$ millennium #ac'
to at least the early fifth millennium B.C. have #een foun$ in the 8urasian stees re!ularly sho(in!
&house !raves #uilt of tim#er or of stone sla#s . . . covere$ (ith an earthen or stone moun$ an$ then
toe$ (ith a stone stela& < 9im#utas 19246 124=. ;ouse !raves are resent in the eastern U'raine an$
southern 5ussian stees in the late Chalcolithic an$ early Bronze A!es < 9im#utas 19-06 108-09=. The
occurrences in the mi$$le an$ late Bronze A!es are occasionally imressive+ as in the !raves of the
|n}tician culture <ca. 10-4-11-4 B.C.=? for e/amle+ &the hu!e #urial moun$ at ;elms$orf in %a/ony . .
. (as an e/tremely rich !rave containin! !ol$ ornaments . . . + t(o ins . . . + t(o siral earrin!s . . . + a
siral . . . + a #ronze chisel . . . + a $iorite a/e . . . + a ottery vase . . . + an$ otsher$s. The !rave lay
(ithin a cham#er #uilt of (oo$en #eams an$ (as covere$ (ith stones& < 9im#utas 190-6 204=. .n the
east+ these continue in the 3orth Carathian+ roto- or early %lavic culture < 9im#utas 190-6 1-,=.
The careful an$ o#vious closin! of !raves here su!!ests the i$ea of !rave as &house&? a container that
someho( offers a ermanent $(ellin! lace for the $ea$. This reresentation is carrie$ out later in &the
ma!nificent #urial 'no(n as ChernaAa Mo!ila $iscovere$ in the to(n of Cherni!ov+ (hich $ates from
the mi$ tenth century. Three mem#ers of a royal family+ hus#an$+ (ife an$ son+ ha$ #een lace$ in a
tim#er mortuary house an$ eDuie$ (ith everythin!--horses+ (eaons+ sic'les+ #uc'ets+ ots--that (as
#elieve$ to #e necessary for the after-life& < 9im#utas 19216 1-9=. ;ere the theme of the house is
carrie$ out to the full+ an$ the a#un$ance of !rave !oo$s can #e seen as relatin! $irectly to the
furnishin! of this house. There are no e/traneous or ran$om items? all suort the confi!uration of
!rave as &furnishe$ house&.
Unli'e the !rave at Cherni!ov+ ho(ever+ most %lavic !rave sites are comle/+ (ithout such a central
motif. This is+ erhas+ the result of a constant an$ continual overrunnin! an$ resettlin! of %lavic
territory #y other cultures. Gne of the most interestin! of such sites+ the ChernAa'hovo comle/ of the
thir$ to fourth centuries after Christ sho(s a cultural mi/ of %lavic eole (ith &%armatians+ ;ellenize$
remnants of %cythians+ 5omanize$ 9ree's+ *acians+ an$ 9etae& < 9im#utas 19216 08=. 7ith these (ere
the east ern 9ermanic 9oths (ho (ere settlin! alon! the north(est coast of the Blac' %ea. &The
inventories of !rave !oo$s sho( a uniform character in most of the lar!e cemeteries e/cavate$. .n rich
(omen&s !raves there (ere usually no ear-rin!s or ins+ #ut the !raves containe$ one or t(o fi#ulae+
!lass+ am#er or recious stone #ea$s an$ a com#. .n men&s !raves the items mi!ht inclu$e a #elt clas+
one or t(o fi#ulae an$ a 'nife. There (as an enormous Duantity of ots in richer !raves& < 9im#utas
19216 22=. These soun$ much li'e the 9ermanic materials alrea$y e/amine$+ an$ the !raves contain
none of the or$er or structure that ChernaAa Mo!lia e/hi#its. Gf course+ here the resence of 9ermanic
influence is alrea$y #ein! felt.
18
3ot surrisin!ly+ at ChernAa'hovo (as $iscovere$ &an e/cetionally
(ell en$o(e$ !rave+ (hich (as ro#a#ly that of a 9othic chieftain of the fourth century A* . . . .n a
it more than t(o metres $ee lay an e/ten$e$ s'eleton eDuie$ (ith t(o silver surs+ a silver 'nife+
several #ronze vessels of 5oman tye+ a silver #o( fi#ula+ a 5oman !lass cu+ (heel-ma$e $ishes an$
vases an$ $ice of !lass aste& < 9im#utas 19216 22=. 7ith this+ (e are fully #ac' (ithin the 9ermanic
realm (ith its eclectic clutter and its containers.
As in the %lavic ractice+ the fi!ure of the !rave as house is reeate$ in the #urials of the Me$iterranean
eoles (ho live$ to the south of the early 9ermans. &The tom# is the house of the $ea$. This is an i$ea
common to the (hole ancient (orl$+ !oin! #ac' in .taly #eyon$ the foun$ation of 5ome. The
rehistoric cemeteries of the first iron a!e have yiel$e$ a num#er of cinerary urns e/actly rero$ucin!
the various tyes of huts (hich sheltere$ the tri#es (ho then eole$ the eninsula. The #urial laces
of the 8truscans are often on the lan of their $(ellin!s+ an$ 5oman eitahs leave no $ou#t as to the
ersistence of the conviction that the $ea$ inha#it the tom#& < Cumont 192,6 18=.
19
The 8truscan #urial
&house& (as often Duite ela#orate6
3ear Grvieto (as foun$ the Tom#a 9olini+ a tom#-cham#er of the en$ of the fourth century
B.C. A mural aintin! from this E8truscanF tom# . . . $eicts the rearation of . . . a
#anDuet. %ervants an$ (ineservers are rushin! #usily aroun$. Gn the ornate ta#les restin!
on lon! le!s (hich en$ in animals& feet stan$ $rin'in! #o(ls+ mi/in! vessels an$ Au!s of
$ifferent sizes an$ shaes+ a (hole $inner service. ;ere at the 'itchen-stove #a'in! an$
coo'in! are !oin! on+ there someone is 'nea$in! $ou!h in a #i! #asin+ an$ on one of the
roAections of a tree (hose #ranches have #een cut off han!s a (hole o/ cut oen. .ts
#loo$y hea$+ arte$ from the torso+ is lyin! on the !roun$ near #y. Can$les+ fi/e$ in hi!h
can$ela#ra shae$ li'e #ir$s& hea$s+ thro( a festal li!ht over the un$er!roun$ cham#er&.
< von Bacano 19046 99=
>or the 8truscans+ &care for the $ea$ seeme$ constantly to o#sess the livin!. The 8truscan tom# is
constructe$ in the form of the 8truscan house+ #ut (ith articular care+ soli$ity an$ lavishness. After
the #urial+ it (as rotecte$ #y a circle of stones or an immense fla!stone sealin! the entrance . . . There
the man reste$ (ith his (eaons+ an$ the (omEaFn (ith her Ae(els& < Bloch 19-86 1-2=. The situation is
much the same for the early 5oman $ea$6
.t (as necessary not only to ensure him a roof #ut also to rovi$e for his suort+ for he ha$
the same nee$s an$ tastes #eneath the !roun$ as he ha$ uon it. Therefore the clothes
(hich covere$ him+ the Ae(els (hich a$orne$ him+ the earthen or #ronze vessels (hich
$ec'e$ his ta#le+ the lams (hich affor$e$ him li!ht+ (oul$ #e lace$ #esi$e him. .f he
(ere a (arrior he (oul$ #e !iven the arms he #ore+ if a craftsman the tools he use$? a
(oman (oul$ have the articles necessary to her toilet+ a chil$ the toys (hich amuse$ him?
an$ the amulets+ #y the hel of (hich all that (as maleficent (oul$ #e 'et a(ay+ (ere not
for!otten. < Cumont 192,6 19=
The earliest 5oman !raves $o not have such an o#vious oneto-one relationshi of &!rave life& to $aily
life+ #ut their sym#olism is not (i$ely $ifferent. The early .ron A!e !raves in the 5oman >orum sho(
this clearly.
The !raves are of t(o tyes6 for cremation an$ for inhumation. The former (ere its+ at the
#ottom of (hich (as lace$ the dolium (hich (as close$ (ith a li$. The dolium containe$
the cinerary vase+ often a hut urn+ an$ several small votive Aars. The inhumation !raves . . .
(ere ossae in (hich the #o$y (as often stretche$ out in an oa' coffin. 7ith one e/cetion+
these !raves containe$ no hut urns+ #ut the rest of their material resem#le$ that of the
cremation !raves--#iconical urns+ !o#lets (ith reticulate$ ornamentation+ t(o-han$le$ cus
an$ #osse$ amhorae. < Bloch 19046 20-22=
By the thir$ century after Christ+ inhumation is re!ular+ an$ the sarcoha!i #ecome very ornate. The
house sym#olism is maintaine$. .t can #e carrie$ to e/tremes+ as in the case of the #urial from
%imelvel$ in southern ;ollan$+ in (hich &the (hole interior of the sarcoha!us is carve$ (ith scenes
of home-life Einclu$in!F a #ath-house (ith a roAectin! #ay+ $istin!uishe$ #y its hi!h shuttere$
(in$o(s an$ a ventilator for a heatin!-system Aust #elo( the eaves& < 5ichmon$ 19-4619=. .n every
case there seems to #e emhasis uon !rave as house. 8ven the !raves of chil$ren+ not usually !iven
sace in #urial !roun$s+ &(ere sometimes lace$ in earthen(are Aars un$er the roof-e/tension Eof a
houseF& < Bloch 19046 28=.
The Celtic eoles+ (ho live$ !enerally to the (est of the 9ermans+ e/hi#it in their #urials some of the
features alrea$y note$ in %lavic an$ .talic !raves+ #ut they are+ in the main+ $ifferent. Pro#a#le &Celtic&
#urials of the late Bronze A!e+ secifically those of the *everel-5im#ury eole in Britain+ oint u
the $ifference.
24
There is no evi$ence of
!reat la#ours in the #uil$in! of temles or tom#s+ Eor ofF !reat sacrifices for the enrichment
of their $ea$. They ha$ inherite$ from central 8uroe the custom of cremation #urial in
lar!e cemeteries or &urnfiel$s&. The true central 8uroean urnfiel$ ha$ no !rave-moun$s+ #ut
in the (est the ol$ Battle-A/e (arrior tra$ition (as still sufficiently alive for lo( saucer-
shae$ #arro(s often to #e raise$ over the cremations+ or for the urns to #e #urie$ in the
flan's of ol$er tumuli. .n Britain this ersistence of the #arro( i$ea (as articularly stron!
in 7esse/. 3o $ura#le ossessions (ent (ith the ashes into these cineraries. < ;a('es an$
;a('es 19-,692-98=
.n the early .ron A!e <)a T~ne culture=+ ho(ever+ the situation chan!es. .n$ivi$ual aristocratic !raves
#e!in to sho( ela#orate an$ e/ensive !oo$s < ;u#ert 19,26 98-1-2=. .n Britain+
the $ea$ (ere lai$ in its #elo( small+ roun$ #arro(s+ fully cla$ an$ $ec'e$ (ith
ornaments+ an$+ Aust as in >rance+ they mi!ht #e accomanie$ #y their (ar chariots+
sometimes comlete+ more often $ismantle$ . . . E;orsesF (ere too valua#le for sacrifice+
an$ their harness alone (ent into the !rave. Bery freDuently lar!e Aoints of or' or (hole
i!s (ere #urie$+ an$ even the hum#ler !raves (ere sulie$ (ith a le! stan$in! in an
earthen(are Aar. < ;a('es an$ ;a('es 19-,6114=
By the secon$ an$ first centuries B.C.+ there are imortant remains of the Bel!ae+ a Celtic eole
(hose culture ha$ #een si!nificantly tin!e$ alrea$y #y 9ermanic elements.
21
&5emains of this Bel!ic
culture have often #een $iscovere$. The Bel!ae+ li'e the 9ermans+ cremate$ their $ea$+ an$ they #urie$
the ashes in shaely urns+ usually ear-shae$ an$ often (ith a e$estal foot+ (hich are sometimes
foun$ !roue$ in cemeteries or urnfiel$s& < ;a('es an$ ;a('es 19-,6 121=. %o far so !oo$+ #ut the
remains #ecome ro#lematical. .n Bel!ic !raves in Cent+ for e/amle+
the urn (as accomanie$ #y other ots+ no $ou#t to hol$ funeral offerin!s of foo$ an$
$rin'+ an$ sometimes #y #ronze or even silver #rooches+ shae$ li'e a lar!e an$ ornate
safety-in. At Aylesfor$ there (ere also #ronze vessels--a an an$ (ineAu!s--from .taly+
an$ a !reat (oo$en #uc'et #oun$ an$ han$le$ in #ronze+ (ith t(o unearthly-face$ human
hea$s fro(nin! a#ove the rim+ an$ $esi!ns #eaten out on the uer #an$+ inclu$in! stran!e+
leafy-taile$ horse-monsters. < ;a('es an$ ;a('es 19-,6 121-22=
This soun$s susiciously not only li'e the #urial of the 9othic chieftain at ChernAa'hovo+ mentione$
a#ove+ #ut li'e the 9ermanic #urials alrea$y $escri#e$.
Althou!h there is a !oo$ $eal of variety in the %lavic+ .talic+ an$ Celtic material here resente$+ t(o
si!nificant+ relate$ similarities seem to run throu!h much of it. >irst+ the !rave is+ at least in the %lavic
an$ .talic $ata+ clearly consi$ere$ to #e a house+ a ermanent+ fi/e$ $(ellin! lace. .t is+ surely+ an
enclosure+ as (e mi!ht very (ell e/ect+ #ut it is fully close$. 3ot only are the #urials roofe$ over or
enclose$ (ithin (oo$en coffins+ #ut the element of total closure is emhasize$ #y the resence of
fla!stones in the 8truscan sites an$ li$s lace$ over the oenin!s of the dolia in those of the early
5omans. The #uil$in! of moun$s over the %lavic an$ Celtic !raves mi!ht very (ell effect the same
closure. The ermanence of these !rave houses is+ at once+ reeate$ #y their #ein! furnishe$ (ith
materials nee$e$ to ma'e such $(ellin!s inha#ita#le. This is most o#vious in the full+ $omestic
reresentations of the 8truscans+ #ut sym#olic furnishin!s are common throu!hout+ (hether they are
sym#olic of fee$in!+ as the or' in the Celtic sites seems to in$icate+ or of other asects of $aily life+ as
in most %lavic sites. .n$ee$+ the !rave !oo$s in all cases seem reresentative of some asects of (hat
mi!ht #e calle$ &normal $aily nee$s&. .t is only in !raves that can easily a$mit of 9ermanic influence
that one #e!ins to notice #oth the e/traor$inary amount an$ the variety of !rave !oo$s+ esecially+ as .
(oul$ oint out+ a suera#un$ance of ots an$ containers.
.t is+ erhas+ useful at this oint to ree/amine the information cite$ a#ove a#out the (est(ar$
movement of the central Asian Cur!an eole an$ their #urial ractices. 3ot only $i$ they seem to #e
resonsi#le for intro$ucin! the i$ea of the house !rave to the 8uroean continent+ #ut their
e/ansion in the secon$ half of the thir$ millennium B.C. into the 3orth Pontic area+
Anatolia+ the Ae!ean+ the Bal'ans+ central 8uroe+ north(estern 8uroe+ the 8ast Baltic
area+ an$ central 5ussia #rou!ht $estruction to the ol$ 8uroean neolithic an$ chalcolithic
cultures an$ to the 8arly Bronze A!e Ae!ean an$ (estern Anatolian cultures . . . The
Cur!an culture srea$ astonishin!ly uniform cultural elements all over the vast area of
8uroe+ the Caucasus an$ Anatolia. < 9im#utas 190,6 8,,-,1=
Asects of this culture srea$ (i$ely throu!hout 8uroe $urin! the Bronze A!e. This continuity in all
ro#a#ility e/resses the #e!innin!s of .n$o-8uroean culture in 8uroe. .t is unli'ely that these early
eole so'e anythin! li'e &Celtic+ or .talic or 9ermanic or any other 'no(n .n$o-8uroean lan!ua!e
of central or (est 8uroe. But the li'elihoo$ that they $i$ sea' one or more $ialects (ithin the .n$o-
8uroean !rou seems . . . a very stron! one& < Pi!!ott 190-6 91=.
.f the Cur!an eole (ere .n$o-8uroean+ (e can see their #urial ractices as reflective of at least
some essential asects of that culture. The !rave as house seems to #e one of these+ althou!h it is #y no
means uniDue to Cur!an culture+ as the 8truscan materials sho(. .t has #een erhas mislea$in! to
su!!est that Cur!an #urials are uniformly or entirely of a &house& nature. Gther asects of their #urials
can also #e seen+ from the conte/t here $eveloe$+ to #e of imortance. Behicle #urial+ for e/amle+
mentione$ a#ove (ith resect to Celtic an$ 9ermanic !raves+ is not a#sent from Cur!an #urials. .n the
#urials of the Gtomani culture < 2444-1--4 B.C.= of eastern 8uroe <Transylvania=+ (a!on (heels an$
four(heele$ (a!ons have #een freDuently foun$. Clay mo$els of such (a!ons are also common. &The
num#er of (heels an$ mo$els is #i! enou!h to sho( that vehicles laye$ an imortant role. Miniature
mo$els may have #een ma$e as sym#ols of the real ones& < 9im#utas 190-6 240-2=.
>uneral (a!ons (ith (ater #ir$ hea$s $ecoratin! the a/le cas (ere use$ esecially in )ate
Urnfiel$ times Et(elfth to ei!hth centuries B.C.F for the #urial of royal ersona!es or
(arriors . . . 7hether this custom (as alive #efore the Urnfiel$ erio$ in central 8uroe+
cannot #e ascertaine$ . . . .n 8arly 9eometric 9reece+ funeral (a!ons (ere use$ an$ #urne$
containin! the $ea$ . . . Also+ the #o$ies of ;ittite 'in!s of the fourteenth century B.C. (ere
#rou!ht to the cemetery in a secial (a!on+ as funeral te/ts sho(. < 9im#utas 190-6 ,12=
.n the ;allstatt an$ )a T~ne cultures+ ela#orate #urials occur &often in tim#er mortuary houses an$
un$er #arro(s+ sometimes (ith a four-(heele$ (a!on (hich must in some sense have #een a
statussym#ol+ as the chariot (as in later times& < Pi!!ott 190-6 190=.
The evi$ence su!!ests that the #urial ractices of the early .n$o-8uroeans ha$ elements not only of
fi/ity an$ closure #ut of rocess an$ movement. The %lavic an$ Me$iterranean ractice has
emhasize$ that of closure? the Celtic has $one this as (ell #ut not aarently to as comlete a $e!ree.
The 9ermanic eoles of all of the 8uroean #ranches of the .n$o-8uroean arent culture emhasize$
the element of rocess or movement. This arallels in some imortant (ays the emhasis foun$ in
9ermanic myth on rocess an$ flu/+ erhas a $istinctly 9ermanic $eveloment of an earlier share$
cultural herita!e.
3ot only the i$ea of the !rave as fi/e$ ermanent $(ellin! lace of the $ea$ #ut the sym#olic utility of
!rave !oo$s $ifferentiate other .n$o-8uroean !raves from 9ermanic #urials. Bariety an$ a#un$ance
of !oo$s are rather the norm for 9ermanic !raves. Althou!h these too sho( the &sym#olic utility& in the
resence of (eaons+ harness+ an$ so forth <an$ some 9ermanic !raves even sho( remains of
foo$stuffs=+ little of this &utility& is culture(i$e. 5ather+ (e are constantly surrise$ #y the utter
stran!eness of some of the 'in$s of thin!s that $o mana!e to !et #urie$. .n a$$ition+ there aear to #e
no stron!ly felt culturally reeate$ artifacts that secify male or female !raves? the oosite is the case.
7eaons are foun$ in female !raves? toilet imlements are foun$ in male !raves. The !reatest
a#un$ance+ ho(ever+ clusters aroun$ containers. .f nothin! else+ the !rave must surely have #een felt to
reresent some si!nificant asect of the act of accumulation+ an accumulation artly social+ artly
in$ivi$ual. Most stri'in!+ ho(ever+ is the evi$ent lac' in 9ermanic #urials of any feelin! of !rave as
&fi/e$& or &static&. The enclosure of the 9ermanic !rave comes in its fullest form to reresent the shi.
Althou!h these are enclosures+ they are neither fi/e$ nor ermanent. They reresent movement (ith
resect to (ater. Burials <#oth real an$ fictional= in shis+ in #arro(s near the sea+ an$ in shi-shae$
#arro(s are+ (ithin the (estern 8uroean cultures of the erio$+ uniDue to the 9ermanic eoles.
22
Thus+ the 9ermanic !rave is reresentative of enclosure+ as (e e/ect+ an$ ro#a#ly even of ha#itation
or $(ellin!+ #ut it is not fi/e$ or close$ or ermanent <in a satial sense=. The shi has the o(er of
motion+ an$ a #urial in one is most li'ely to reresent a &!oin!& or a rocess rather than a final+
ermanent closure. The #urial #ecomes a circumscri#in! yet artial containment.
%his su!!est travel or the Aourney+ a common motif e/ressive of $iscovery+ acDuisition of 'no(le$!e+
or $eath. There are imortant manifestations of it in Griental an$ classical myth < Patch 19-46 2-20=.
Amon! Celtic eoles+ the voya!e to the ;ay .sles or to the )an$ #eyon$ the 7aves is a common
literary theme <Patch 19-46 22--9=. That the 9ermanic eoles shoul$ have somethin! of the same
tra$itions comes as no surrise. There are some si!nificant $ifferences+ ho(ever+ #et(een the (ays the
Celtic an$ 9ermanic eoles treat them. Celtic voya!es are most often those of $iscovery <immrama=+
of (hich the voya!e of Bran son of >e#al--later to #ecome the voya!e of %aint Bren$an--is one of the
most famous. Bran an$ his comanions float from islan$ to islan$ o#servin! one miraculous 'in$ of
life after another6 an islan$ of Aoy an$ an islan$ of (omen+ amon! many others. .n these travels+ Bran
enters a (orl$ (here our (orl$ as (e 'no( it seems to resolve itself into its comonents.
The eole of the .slan$ of @oy are not enAoyin! any articular leasure? they are not
lau!hin! at anythin!. The islan$ sym#olizes Aoy in its elemental isolation. The .slan$ of the
7omen is li'e(ise the Duintessence of femininity an$ erotic leasure+ searate$ from
everythin! (ith (hich it is intermin!le$ in normal e/erience. < 5ees an$ 5ees 19016 ,22-
2,=.
The tale focuses uon learnin! a#out an$ e/aminin! those asects of these insular (orl$s that lie
outsi$e the or$inary (orl$ of men an$ that clarify man&s o(n e/istence. .n a eculiar (ay+ such (orl$s
are more intensely human than or$inary life.
There are some arallel Aourneys in the 9ermanic materials+ too+ #ut they $iffer in some #asic (ays.
Amon! the 9ermans+ men $o not often visit other create$ (orl$s. 9o$s seem to en!a!e in this 'in$ of
travel more rea$ily+ #ut+ even here+ it is not overly freDuent. More often than not+ too+ the emhasis is
uon the &$iscovery& or &outcome& of the Aourney rather than uon the mo$e of or matter of the transort.
Most often it is simly sai$ that such-an$-such a !o$ aeare$ amon! some create$ #ein!s of a secies
not his o(n. 7hen mo$e of transort is utilize$ it is !enerally not #y #oat? rather+ horse#ac' is the
common means6 ;ermo$ ri$es to ;el in his a#ortive attemt to !ain Bal$er&s release? the Bal'yries
carry their slain (arriors to Balholl on horse#ac'.
.n the 9ermanic tra$ition+ voya!in! #y shi is lin'e$ to the interaction not of create$ (orl$ (ith
create$ (orl$+ as+ for e/amle+ of the (orl$ of !o$s (ith the (orl$ of men+ #ut of all create$ #ein!s
<!o$s an$ men= (ith the realm #eyon$ man&s 'no(le$!e. .n this resect+ the accounts share somethin!
(ith the Celtic &story of the voya!e of the mortally (oun$e$ Cin! Arthur to Afallon for the healin! of
his (oun$s& < 5ees an$ 5ees 19016 ,18=. Arthur&s last voya!e is not really tyical of the immrama
!enerally. Most often+ the Celtic voya!e is the means #y (hich men visit some enchante$ or &hay&
islan$--or a fairylan$. The (ay in (hich life there is more or less than human rovi$es the voya!er
(ith 'no(le$!e. The voya!e ten$s+ on the (hole+ to #e laci$? the voya!er ten$s to #e an o#server.
Gften the voya!e has #een seen or refi!ure$ in a vision rior to $earture. The !oal of the Celtic
voya!e is usually 'no(n. %ometimes it lea$s to $eath+ or immortality.
2,
More often+ it involves a
return. The 9ermanic shi #urial+ as it aears to those (ho erform it+ seems neither laci$ nor
assive. .f it em#o$ies the i$ea of $estination or return+ it $oes so in a (ay to $issociate that $estination
from the (orl$ of men. >or men+ this voya!e is its o(n $estination? it is not a means of reachin!
anythin! #ut itself. The #urial shi+ itself a sym#ol of action an$ movement #ut (hose $estination is
un'no(n+ em#o$ies (ithin it the most si!nificant action ossi#le outsi$e the reality of the realm of the
(ell. The #urial shi e/resses man&s o(er to act an$ his $esire to fi/ that action (ithin the !reater
reality #eyon$.
.t is surely ertinent that the e/ression &to travel forth& <G8 orearan, oreeran= is re!ularly utilize$ in
Gl$ 8n!lish for the act of $yin!+ for e/amle as in the An!lo-%a/on Chronicle6 &Hy ilcan !eare )oSere
Cant (ara cinin! forSfer$e E)au$ 08-F& < Plummer an$ 8arle 18926 ,9=? &on Ham ilcan !eare he forHfor E
)au$-21F& < Plummer an$ 8arle 18926 19=.
21
.n Gl$ 3orse+ the noun ar !enerally refers to &a means of
assa!e+ a shi . . . every floatin! vessel . . . a tra$in! vessel&+ etc. < Cleas#y et al. 19-26 111=. .n$ee$+ in
Gl$ 3orse+ the ver# ara is very common &as it $enotes any motion? not so in other TeutEonicF i$ioms?
in EUlfilasF aran is only use$ once+ viz. )u'e /.2? 9oth. arran means to sail+ an$ this seems to #e the
ori!inal sense of fara . . . E9er.F ahren an$ EMo$. 8F are are use$ in a limite$ sense& < Cleas#y et al.
19-26 111=. .n site of its rather (i$e an$ !eneral $enotation in Gl$ 3orse+ some uses of ara retain its
ori!inal nautical senses+ e.!. aras+ &to erish+ to #e $ro(ne$+ erish in the sea&. 9rimm an$ 9rimm
< 18026 12-1= also note$ that ahren+ in the sense of $eart+ (as more than a simle mo$ern
euhemism6 &fahren+ cedere, e(cedere )ita, sterben, abahren+ hinfahren . . . )erahren, ortgeahren&
ori!inally e/iste$ (ith the sense of erahren &suffer+ !o throu!h+ e/erience&. All these relate to rocess
an$ ultimately to movement. The 9ermanic shi !rave reresents activity+ rocess+ an$ a &!oin! forth&+
an$ the !rave !oo$s must+ of necessity+ #e felt to !o forth (ith it. Gf these+ some <esecially the
accumulation of containers= are+ in all ro#a#ility+ culturally re$etermine$? others seem uniDue an$
imortant solely to the in$ivi$ual #urie$+ (hose life (ithin the (orl$ of men here closes+ #ut (hose
resence continues #eyon$ this (orl$ in the !reater reality of the (ell itself.
$ituals and Everyday *i"e
- 38 of the most interestin! accounts of 9ermanic ritual ractice+ from an outsi$er&s oint of vie(+
occurs in the /istory o the Archbishops o /amburg-Bremen #y A$am of Bremen. This eleventh-
century history !ives a 3orth 8uroean+ yet Christian account of the culture of a!an %can$inavia.
%i!nificant here is the $escrition of the a!an temle at Usala+ %(e$en6
3o#ilissimum illa !ens temlum ha#et+ Duo$ U#sola $icitur+ non lon!e ositum a# %ictona
civitate Evel Bir'aF. .n hoc temlo+ Duo$ totum e/ auro aratum est+ statuas trium $eorum
veneratur oulus+ ita ut otentissimus eorum Thor in me$io solium ha#eat triclinio? hinc et
in$e locum ossi$ent 7o$an et >ricco. < A$am von Bremen .B+ 206 2-2--8=
That fol' Ethe %(e$esF has a very famous temle calle$ Usala+ situate$ not far from the
city of %i!tuna an$ BAXr'X. .n this temle+ entirely $ec'e$ out in !ol$+ the eole (orshi
the statues of three !o$s in such (ise that the mi!htiest of them+ Thor+ occuies a throne in
the mi$$le of the cham#er? 7otan an$ >ri''o have laces on either si$e. < Tschan 19-96
242=
This site at Usala seems to have #een (ell enou!h 'no(n to continental Christian 9ermans for them
to #e a#le to a$$ information to A$am&s account. 7e have alrea$y ma$e mention of one scholium to
this articular account in the first art of essay 2+ a scholium referrin! to the !ol$en chain aroun$ the
temle. The te/t is accomanie$ #y another6 Proe illu$ temlum est ar#or ma/ima late ramos
e/ten$ens+ semer viri$is in hieme et aestate? cuius illa !eneris sit+ nemo scit. .#i etiam est fons+ u#i
sacrificia a!anorum solent e/erceri et homo vivus inmer!i. {ui $um non invenitur+ ratum erit votum
ouli. < A$am von Bremen .B+ scholium 1,8 E 1,1F6 2-2--8=
3ear this temle stan$s a very lar!e tree (ith (i$e-srea$in! #ranches+ al(ays !reen
(inter an$ summer. 7hat 'in$ it is no#o$y 'no(s. There is also a srin! at (hich the
a!ans are accustome$ to ma'e their sacrifices+ an$ into it to lun!e a live man. An$ if he
is not foun$+ the eole&s (ish (ill #e !rante$. < Tschan 19-96 242=
The a$$e$ information clearly su!!ests a reresentation of :!!$rasil+ the (orl$ tree+ (ith its &(i$e-
srea$in! #ranches+ al(ays !reen&. The e/act connection #et(een the tree at Usala an$ the i$ea of
:!!$rasil is not 'no(n. Usala may have #een the center of the universe to the %(e$es+ or the tree
may have ha$ the o(er of an icon+ $erivative of the force of the (orl$ tree itself.
1
The scholium also
mentions a srin! <)at. ons=+ (hich accomanies the tree an$ in (hich sacrifices are ma$e. The srin!
is necessary to comlete the confi!uration of tree an$ (ell as it occurs in the myth? the scholiast seems
to have #een a(are of this.
The sacrifice consists of lun!in! a live man into the srin!? if he $isaears+ the sacrifice is $eeme$
favora#le. The imlie$ alternative su!!ests an unfavora#le omen if the man $oes not $isaear into the
srin!. The $ivision seems+ to mo$ern rea$ers+ ar#itrary. The ritual sacrifice mirrors elements in the
myth of Urth&s 7ell+ ho(ever+ an$ these elements suly the necessary or$er of sacrifice. The srin! is
one of the clearest natural reresentations of the #oun$e$+ (ellin!+ (ater source. .f the (ell is the (ell
of the ast+ into it (oul$ #e !athere$ all actions? li'e(ise+ it (oul$ suly stren!th an$ !ui$ance. The
sacrificial victim carries (ith him a series of actions roose$ #y those ma'in! the sacrifice. .f these
actions are acceta#le to an$ reresentative of the (or'in! out of the course of events flo(in! out of
the ast+ the victim (ill #e !athere$ $irectly into them. ;e (ill $isaear into the srin!+ into the (ell+
an$ sym#olically into the ast. Accetance (ill si!nal the favor of the ast as it is in the rocess of
(or'in! itself out into the resent.
The association of $ro(nin! or $isaearance into (ater (ith $ivine favor an$+ alternatively+ of
reAection #y the (ater (ith $isfavor e/actly arallels the roce$ure of the or$eal #y (ater. Gr$eals+
articularly the or$eal #y (ater+ (ere alrea$y in use #y the continental 9ermans #efore the time of
A$am of Bremen. They (ere clearly oular enou!h to have #een e/licitly #anne$ #y the Bol'srecht
in A.*. 829 < 3ottar 19-06 -0=. Many 'in$s of or$eals (ere ractice$ #y the 9ermanic eoles6 the
lun!in! of a art of the #o$y into hot liDui$ <usually (ater=+ the !rasin! of hot metal+ the eatin! of
aarently to/ic foo$s+ $uelin!+ etc. .n each case+ the or$eal (as autonomic or self-$eci$in!+ (ith the
results al(ays directly o#serva#le in the outcome of the test. Thus+ favor or $isfavor+ innocence or !uilt
coul$ #e o#Aectively $etermine$. The actions of each ritual oenly roclaime$ the resence of $ivine
involvement in the imme$iate affairs of men. The &favor& o#taine$ #y the sacrifice at Usala an$ the
&innocence& $erive$ from the in$ivi$ual or$eal are essentially the same? #oth sho( the actions of men to
#e in accor$ (ith the overarchin! course of the !reater reality #eyon$ $irect ercetion.
2

Because the 9ermanic concet of resent reality (as #asically one of uncertain flu/+ the $irect aeal
to !reater o(er (as assurin!. 3or is it surrisin! that it shoul$ #e6 &#oth or$eals an$ oaths . . . are
lin'e$ (ith an/iety. The former is associate$ (ith o#e$ience an$ the latter (ith resonsi#ility trainin!&
< 5o#erts 190-6 24-=. G#e$ience to strict co$es of #ehavior is reveale$ in all recor$s of 9ermanic
culture? it un$erlies everythin! (e have come to call &heroic&. Gr$eals are common in societies (here
such in$ivi$ual con$uct is stresse$ an$ (here 'inshi is !reatly emhasize$. &Autonomic or$ealsE+F
use$ to $etermine !uilt or innocenceE+F are foun$ (here there is somethin! of a !eneral+ #ut (ea'+
authority system. ETheyF aear to #e (ays of achievin! $ecisions in the resence of (ea' authority . . .
By aealin! to the !o$s+ then+ the users of the autonomic or$eal free the !uilty man&s 'insmen of the
o#li!ation to revolt--they mi!ht not #e (illin! to $efer to a human $ecisionE+F #ut they acce$e to the
(ill of the !o$s& < 5o#erts 190-6 248-9=.
,
Both the ritual at Usala an$ the relate$ or$eal as' for
me$iation from the o(er foun$ in the universal (ater.
The temle at Usala is $e$icate$ to the [sir Thor an$ G$in+ an$ to >ri''o+ an$ the riests (ho
ministere$ in the temle aarently acte$ as me$iators #et(een the [sir an$ or$inary men. .t is to #e
remem#ere$+ ho(ever+ that the [sir are me$iatin! !o$s an$ not $ivine ma'ers of la(. &They ren$er
$ecisions #ase$ uon (hat has e/iste$ in rece$ent Ei.e. in the astF. :!!$rasill is the #ar of Austice+
(hile the UrSar#runnr furnishes the rece$ents+ (here#y Os'olu !oSin ei!a $Vma sina hvern $a!O. The
UrSar#runnr is the ons ruris of 3orse mytholo!y& < %ch(artz 192,6 21=. That the #asis of 9ermanic
la( shoul$ #e foun$ in this myth an$ in its manifestation in the sacrifice at Usala is not unli'ely?
Aust+ temoral la( is man&s mirror of universal reality.
%acrificial immersion lays an imortant art in the ritual of the 9ermanic !o$$ess 3erthus as
$escri#e$ #y Tacitus in the Germania. .t is (orth Duotin! in some $etail6
nec DuicDuam nota#ile in sin!ulis+ nisi Duo$ in commune 3erthum+ i$ est Terram matrem+
colunt eamDue intervenire re#us hominum+ invehi oulis ar#itrantur. est in insula Gceani
castum nemus+ $icatumDue in eo vehiculum+ veste contectum? attin!ere uni sacer$oti
concessum. is a$esse enetrali $eam intelle!it vectamDue #u#us feminis multa cum
veneratione roseDuitur . . . $onec i$em sacer$os satiatam conversatione mortalium $eam
temlo re$$at. mo/ vehiculum et vestis et+ si cre$ere velis+ numen isum secreto lacu
a#luitur. servi ministrant+ Duos statim i$em lacus haurit. arcanus hinc terror sanctaDue
i!norantia+ Dui$ sit illu$ Duo$ tantum erituri vi$ent. < Germania14=
There is nothin! note(orthy a#out these tri#es in$ivi$ually+ #ut they share a common (orshi of
3erthus+ or Mother 8arth. They #elieve that she ta'es art in human affairs+ ri$in! in a chariot amon!
her eole. Gn an islan$ of the sea stan$s an inviolate !rove+ in (hich+ veile$ (ith a cloth+ is a chariot
that none #ut the riest may touch. The riest can feel the resence of the !o$$ess in this holy of holies+
an$ atten$s her (ith $eeest reverence as her chariot is $ra(n alon! #y co(s . . . until the !o$$ess+
(hen she has ha$ enou!h of the society of men+ is restore$ to her sacre$ recinct #y the riest. After
that+ the chariot+ the vestments+ an$ <#elieve it if you (ill= the !o$$ess herself+ are cleanse$ in a
seclu$e$ la'e. This service is erforme$ #y slaves (ho are imme$iately after(ar$s $ro(ne$ in the
la'e. Thus mystery #e!ets terror an$ a ious reluctance to as' (hat that si!ht can #e (hich is seen only
#y men $oome$ to $ie. < Mattin!ly 19246 1,1-,-=
There is !eneral a!reement that 3erthus is a !o$$ess of fertility.
1
This interretation is suorte$ #y
the association (ith 3erthus of the sym#olic attri#utes of Urth&s 7ell. The $eity is feminine.
A$$itionally+ the !o$$ess remains hi$$en &on an islan$ of the sea EinF an inviolate !rove& (hen her
ritual is not #ein! erforme$. The !rove an$ the sea su!!est #oth the sym#olic (etness an$ the ima!e
of the tree that associates :!!$rasil (ith Urth. There is also the secret la'e in (hich the reresentation
<numen= of the !o$$ess is #athe$ at the en$ of the ritual. The la'e is locate$ (ithin the most sacre$
recinct <templum= of the earth mother&s islan$.
-
A small+ enclose$ #o$y of (ater on an islan$+ the
sacre$ recinct+ (hich itself is enclose$ #y (ater+ reeats an$ reinforces the sym#olic nature of #oth
the (ater source an$ the concetion of enclosure. Thus+ the very holy (ater in Urth&s 7ell is stron!ly
su!!este$. The i$ea of the islan$ is not semantically too $ifferent from that of the (ell. Both inclu$e
(ater an$ enclosure? an enclosure o (ater a!ainst an enclosure by (ater. Mythically+ the $istinction is
relatively suerficial? thus+ 3erthus&s .slan$ an$ Urth&s 7ell are not as $istinct as they mi!ht at first
seem.
0

.t is not too surrisin! to fin$ that $urin! the ritual the ima!e of the earth mother+ 3erthus+ is carrie$
amon! the eole in a )ehiculum $ra(n #y co(s. The )ehiculum is sacre$ an$ is touche$ only #y the
officiatin! riest. 7e $o not 'no( e/actly (hat this )ehiculum (as. The term is usually translate$ as
&chariot& or &(a!on& #ecause the remains of cult (a!ons are not uncommon in %can$inavia. The most
(ell 'no(n of these are the *eA#AJr! (a!ons+ #ut there are others? (e nee$ not limit the interretation
to (heele$ vehicles.
2
5e!ar$less of its e/act nature+ such a vehicle must rovi$e enclose$ sace (ithin
(hich the sacre$ ima!e may #e lace$ an$ rotecte$. The sacre$ sace inclu$es the surroun$in! (alls
of the vehicle+ as Tacitus&s account ma'es clear. The relationshi #et(een the vehicle an$ the ima!e
recalls the myth of Urth&s 7ell more $istinctly (hen+ at the conclusion of the 3erthus ritual+ &the
chariot+ the vestments+ an$ <#elieve it if you (ill= the !o$$ess herself+ are cleanse$ in a seclu$e$ la'e&.
All of the artifacts of the ritual are cleanse$ in the holy (ater? even the slaves or ministrants <servi= of
the ritual are themselves &imme$iately after(ar$s $ro(ne$ in the la'e&.
8

The similarity to the sacrifice at Usala is !reat. .t is easy to visualize the ima!e an$ its surroun$in!
vehicular (alls sin'in! slo(ly as the urifyin! (aters rise u an$ s(irl aroun$ it. The (ashin! an$
ritualistic $ro(nin! e/licitly Aoin the $esire$ fertility cele#rate$ in the ritual Aust erforme$ (ith all
favora#le acts of #eneficial fertility in the ast. These acts sym#olize a continuin! favora#le course of
events. The ritual !ets its o(er from the holy (aters of the (ell+ to (hich all elements of the ritual an$
all events finally return. .t may #e+ as Tacitus says+ that the urose of the $ro(nin! is to instill terror
an$ a(e in those (ho $o not fully un$erstan$ its meanin!. .t certainly has su!!este$ these i$eas to
Tacitus+ #ut he+ for all his interest+ stan$s as a 5oman outsi$e 9ermanic culture. .t seems reasona#le
that the 9ermanic eoles un$erstoo$ Duite clearly (hat the urose of the ritual (as+ an$ the
$isaearance of the ministrants (oul$ ro#a#ly not have #een a very &terri#le& fact. Gn the contrary+
the ritual urification an$ its concomitant $ro(nin! (oul$ rovi$e the eole roof that the ritual ha$
#een satisfactorily erforme$ an$ that the ministerin! slaves ha$ #een accete$ #y the o(ers of
!eneration.
.t is informative to comare some of the elements of the t(o rituals here $escri#e$ (ith the account of
klmoptropkmpvmuut rutnpnsnnmpuklm`ponktok_`mnntrrpusrmtopktrmtklh
klmk_lmomo_uputuutruinnktputunkoturtkp_uuklmk_omnmukstnmnklm
sacrificial $eath occurs at the hei!ht or center of the ritual? in the funeral rite+ the $eath occurre$ #efore
the climactic cremation. As (e have seen+ the focus of the funeral rite is uon affairs #eyon$ this
(orl$? the ritual of 3erthus an$ the ractice at Usala focus on the affairs of the (orl$ of men. .n
every case+ the $eaths mar' the intersection or interaction of this (orl$ (ith the realm #eyon$. .n .#n
t ruin`umotropkmklpn_orpnk_pu`rmusmklmumkpuklmopktro_upunklm_klmoomtrqpntnm
to influence this? thus+ the sacrificial victim is $ro(ne$ <that is+ asses into the realm of the (ell= alive.
The interaction of (ell an$ tree is a recirocal one6 The tree fills the (ell? the (ell nourishes the tree.
.nfluence is li'e(ise oose$. Althou!h the conte/ts (ithin (hich these ritual $eaths occur $iffer+ the
structural relationshis ten$ to remain the same.
Althou!h Tacitus calls 3erthusTerra mater+ there is little more than his name to suort such a
$esi!nation. The 9ermanic fi!ure 'ees earth <the (orl$s of the tree= an$ the reality or o(er #eyon$ it
<the realm of the (ell= clearly searate. 8ven the !reatest an$ cleverest of #ein!s+ G$in+ must !ive
!reatly of himself--he must han! uon the tree or le$!e his o(n eye--to associate (ith an$ master
even a fraction of the o(er an$ (is$om of the cosmos #eyon$ the (orl$ of men. The 3orn Urth is
a#stract+ unaroacha#le+ unhuman. %he is har$ly an earth mother? a se/ual union of Urth an$ even
G$in <let alone some lesser #ein!= is unthin'a#le. Urth&s o(er an$ fecun$ity are of another $imension.
.n the ritual of 3erthus+ the !o$$ess is mysterious an$ isolate$? her ima!e is chaste+ (ith$ra(n+
inviolate. The o(er she sym#olizes is a o(er #eyon$ an$ aart from common 'no(le$!e an$
mvmottskpvpkut ruin`umotropktromnmukntupukmomnkpumonmskpvmhlmomtomk__qmu
Gne+ the An!el of *eath+ is austere+ threatenin!+ an$ essentially nonhuman? the other+ the sacrifice$
!irl+ is a se/ual o#Aect an$ a (oman of no imortance. %he is+ ho(ever+ uniDue in 9ermanic lore.
The eculiar osition of (omen in early 9ermanic society is not noticea#le only here. Tacitus+ too+
foun$ them to #e treate$ (ith $eference an$ reverence as somethin! aart. The 9ermanic eoles
feare$ enslavement of (omen a#ove that of men+ an$ hosta!es (oul$ #e most hi!hly re!ar$e$ if they
inclu$e$ some (omen of no#le #irth6
inesse Duin etiam sanctum aliDui$ et rovi$uni utant+ nec aut consilia earum aserantur aut
resonsa ne!le!unt. < Germania8=
More than this+ they #elieve that there resi$es in (omen an element of holiness an$ a !ift of
rohecy? an$ so they $o not scorn to as' their a$vice+ or li!htly $isre!ar$ their relies.
< Mattin!ly 19246 148=
Caesar also mentions this rohetic !ift.
9
The &!ift of rohecy& is+ of course+ an 8n!lish translation of
Tacitus&s )atin hrase for this &holy& activity. 8/actly (hat it (as felt to #e amon! the 9ermans is not
recovera#le from this account+ #ut that (omen (ere more in touch (ith forces #eyon$ this life than
men seems sure+ an$ the nature of these forces has alrea$y aeare$ in other evi$ence.
The vehicle of 3erthus is $ra(n #y co(s. Althou!h animals lay no other role in her ritual+ they are
meanin!fully associate$ (ith other asects of !ainin! information a#out the (or'in! of reality+ (hat
the 5oman (riters call &rohecy&. Tacitus also mentions the 9ermanic ractice of o#tainin! ausices
from the activities of live animals6
et illu$ Dui$em etiam hic notum+ avium voces volatusDue interro!are6 rorium !entis
eDuorum DuoDue raesa!ia ac monitus e/eriri. u#lice aluntur is$em nemori#us ac lucis+
can$i$i et nullo mortali oere contacti? Duos ressos sacro curru sacer$os ac re/ vel
rinces civitatis comitantur hinnitusDue ac fremitus o#servant. nec ulli ausicio maior
fi$es+ non solum au$ le#em+ se$ au$ roceres+ au$ sacer$otes? se enim ministros
$eorum+ illos conscios utant. < Germania14=
Althou!h the familiar metho$ of see'in! information from the cries an$ the fli!ht of #ir$s
is 'no(n to the 9ermans+ they have also a secial metho$ of their o(n--to try to o#tain
omens an$ (arnin!s from horses. These horses are 'et at the u#lic e/ense in the sacre$
(oo$s an$ !roves that . have mentione$? they are ure (hite an$ un$efile$ #y any toil in
the service of man. The riest an$ the 'in!+ or the chief of the state+ yo'e them to a sacre$
chariot an$ (al' #esi$e them+ ta'in! note of their nei!hs an$ snorts. 3o 'in$ of omen
insires !reater trust+ not only amon! the common eole+ #ut even amon! the no#les an$
riests+ (ho thin' that they themselves are #ut servants of the !o$s+ (hereas the horses are
rivy to the !o$s& counsels. < Mattin!ly 19246 149-14=
.t seems li'ely that all of the 9ermanic eoles re!ar$e$ animals (ith a articular reverence. The
animals eventually foun$ their (ay into 9ermanic myth an$ art+ an$ they have associate$ themselves
(ith the most rofoun$ asects of 9ermanic thin'in!.
The a(e that surroun$s Tacitus&s commentary seems to imly that animals have a closer relationshi to
the o(ers of the universe than $o men. Animals aear also in the 9ermanic myth #oth in the (ell
an$ in the #ranches of the (orl$ tree6
HR mJlti 9an!leri6 ;vat et fleira at se!Aa stVrmer'Aa frR as'inumN--;Rrr se!ir6 Mart er Har
af at se!Aa. rn einn sitr Q limum as'sins . . . en Q milli au!na honum sitr hau'r sR+ er heitir
BeSrfXlnir. 'orni sR+ er heitir 5atatos'r+ rennr u o' niSr etir as'inum o' #err
Xfun$arorS milli arnarins o' #i5hpggsk en I0 hirtir renna i limum as+sins o+ bita barr . . .
!n s)1 margir ormar eru i /)ergelmi me5 #i5hpgg, at engi tunga m1 telra. < Gylaginning
106,,-,1=
Then sai$ 9an!leri6 &7hat more mi!hty (on$ers are to #e tol$ of the AshN& ;Rrr relie$6
&Much is to #e tol$ of it. An ea!le sits in the lim#s of the Ash+ . . . an$ #et(een his eyes sits
the ha(' that is calle$ Be$rfXlnir. The sDuirrel calle$ 5atatXs'r runs u an$ $o(n the
len!th of the Ash+ #earin! envious (or$s #et(een the ea!le an$ 3Q$hX!!r? an$ four harts
run in the lim#s of the Ash an$ #ite the leaves . . . Moreover+ so many serents are in
;ver!elmir (ith 3Q$hX!!r+ that no ton!ue can tell them.&< Bro$eur 1929629=
These animals are instrumental to the (or'in! out of the o(er of this myth6 The harts #ite+ the
serents !na(+ the sDuirrel runs? all (or' to #rin! the realm of the tree (ithin that of the (ell. .t is not
surrisin!+ then+ that the !o$s+ li'e men+ (oul$ associate themselves meanin!fully (ith the animals that
surroun$ the tree an$ (ell. ;orses an$ #ir$s lay an e/cetionally rominent role here. Both are
connecte$ (ith G$in in many $escritions of the !o$. An$+ to Tacitus+ the fli!hts of #ir$s an$ the
snortin! of horses are the most common 9ermanic means of o#tainin! information. ;orses <an$+
erhas+ #ir$s= lay a articularly si!nificant role in me$iatin! the intellectual e/chan!e #et(een the
(orl$ of men+ the (orl$ of !o$s+ an$ that of animals. Animals livin! uon the mar!ins of (orl$s--
neither fully $omestic nor fully (il$--rovi$e the meanin!ful lin's #et(een the (orl$s they touch.
Most (il$er animals+ li'e those that run uon or !na( the (orl$ tree+ have their role to lay in the
cosmic structure+ #ut it is a role $istant to men+ (ho 'no( of them #ut little an$ that #y reort.
Animals+ ho(ever+ li'e fo(l an$ horses <an$ also some other her#ivorous animals li'e the harts in the
tree or the co(s of the ritual of 3erthus=+ e/ist in a relatively close relation to men an$ can share (ith
men the 'no(le$!e that is uniDuely that (hich #elon!s to animals (ithin the realm of the tree. ;orses
also me$iate #et(een men an$ !o$s+ an$ the ri$e on horse#ac' is the usual means of facilitatin!
transort amon! the various 9ermanic (orl$s.
.n a$$ition to mentionin! the fli!ht an$ cries of #ir$s an$ the nei!hin! of horses as a means of
!atherin! &rohetic& information+ Tacitus also $escri#es the 9ermanic re$ilection for $icin! an$
!amin!. The follo(in! metho$ of castin! lots e/ists to o#tain ausices6
sortium consuetu$o simle/. vir!am fru!iferae ar#ori $ecisam in surculos amutant eosDue
notis Dui#us$am $iscretos suer can$i$am vestem temere ac fortuito sar!unt. mo/+ si
u#lice consultetur+ sacer$os civitatis+ sin rivatim+ ise ater familiae+ recatus $eos
caelumDue susiciens ter sin!ulos tollit+ su#latos secun$um imressam ante notam
interretatur. < Germania14=
Their roce$ure in castin! lots is al(ays the same. They cut off a #ranch of a nut-#earin!
tree an$ slice it into stris? these they mar' (ith $ifferent si!ns an$ thro( them comletely
at ran$om onto a (hite cloth. Then the riest of the state+ if the consultation is a u#lic one+
or the father of the family if it is rivate+ offers a rayer to the !o$s+ an$ loo'in! u at the
s'y ic's u three stris+ one at a time+ an$ rea$s their meanin! from the si!ns reviously
score$ on them. <Mattin!ly 19246 149=
The imortance of the lots resi$es in the si!nificance of the &si!ns& they contain <those that are mar'e$
uon them= an$ in their ran$om confi!uration on the (hite cloth. Aarently the castin! can #e
accomlishe$ #y anyone (hose imortance in the articular conte/t is most rominent6 the riest of the
state or the father of a family. The scorin! of the sym#ols on slices of (oo$ reeats the action of
&scorin! on (oo$&+ one of the activities of the 3orns in 04Sttuv.lusp1 24. The i$ea of runes is
su!!este$+ #ut Tacitus&s (ritin! is too early? runes $o not aear to have #een in (i$e use until the thir$
century after Christ < %heteli! an$ >al' 19,26 212=. :et+ these mar'in!s seem to su!!est a scorin! of a
relate$ #ut rerunic tye. The runes (ere not merely an alha#etic (ritin! system to the 9ermanic
eoles.
14
Pro#a#ly they ori!inally reresente$ sym#olically some fi/e$ an$ realize$ asects of the
forces that structure the universe. This #ein! the case+ such early lot castin! (oul$ su!!est a artial+
relatively minor asect of this lar!er concern. The three sym#olic ieces of #ranch+ chosen at ran$om+
ma the (ay in (hich the course of events in the (orl$ is ro!ressin!? thus+ they sym#olically
reresent the scorin! of the 3orns an$ the o(er of Urth. .t is erhas also si!nificant that the tree from
(hich the #ranch is cut is a&nut-#earin! tree&. A tree that o#viously #ears fruit (oul$ si!nify fecun$ity+
ro$uctivity+ an$ !enerative o(er.
11

The ic'in! at ran$om of three lots su!!ests a !ameli'e or chanceli'e Duality to the activity. 9ames of
chance laye$ an imortant art in the lives of the early 9ermans. .n an urn #urial in the early An!lo-
%a/on cemetery at Caistor-#y-3or(ich (ere foun$ &the ashes of a man+ some ,4 shee&s astra!ali
<some of them in fra!ments= to!ether (ith ,, #one cylin$rical layin!-ieces of a tye similar to those
of the Talo( cemetery sometimes referre$ to as $rau!htsmen+ no( in the British Museum. Gn one of
these shee&s an'le-#ones is a Duite clearly incise$ runic inscrition of si/ letters in a line on its lar!est
flat surface& < 7renn 1902 6 ,42=.
12
9amin! ieces have also #een foun$ in some of the shi #urials6
Pieces of (hat (ere ro#a#ly t(o !amin! #oar$s an$ a $rau!htsman ma$e of horn (ere foun$ in the
9o'sta$ shi < 9Aessin! 19-2? %AWvol$ 1909=. *rau!htsmen (ere foun$ in !raves .z an$ z.. at
Ben$el? in a$$ition+ $ice fra!ments (ere foun$ in !rave z.. < %tole an$ Arne 1922=. Althou!h amon!
continental 9ermans &7rfel tauchen in $er Klteren rXmischen Caiserzeit sehr selten unter $en
9ra##ei!a#en auf E+F in $er An!eren Caiserzeit treten sie <oft zusammen mit %ielsteinen fr
Brettsiele= hKufi!er in reicher aus!estatteten 9rK#ern auf+ un$ $as !leiche !ilt fr $ie
BXl'er(an$erun!szeit. *as Brettsiel mit 7rfeln ist offen#ar $er vornehmen %chicht vor#ehalten
!e(esen& < Much 19026 ,22=. Tacitus sea's $irectly of such !ames of chance6
aleam+ Duo$ mirere+ so#rii inter seria e/ercent+ tanta lucran$i er$en$ive temeritate+ ut+ cum
omnia $efecerunt+ e/tremo ac novissimo iactu $e li#ertate ac $e corore conten$ant. victus
voluntariam servitutem a$it. < Germania21=
They lay at $ice--surrisin!ly enou!h--(hen they are so#er+ ma'in! a serious #usiness of
it? an$ they are so rec'less in their an/iety to (in+ ho(ever often they lose+ that (hen
everythin! else is !one they (ill sta'e their ersonal li#erty on a last $ecisive thro(. A
loser (illin!ly $ischar!es his $e#t #y #ecomin! a slave. < Mattin!ly 19246 121=
The !ame $escri#e$ is not unli'e the (hole roce$ure of castin! lots alrea$y $escri#e$. The
seriousness (ith (hich the 9ermans
ursue the !ame surrises Tacitus. There is nothin! frivolous a#out it+ nor is there any reason to e/ect
that there (oul$ #e. The castin! of the $ice or lots+ (ith the element of chance confi!uration $erivin!
from the thro(+ e/resses the (or'in! out of the o(er of Urth as it flo(s out into the lives of men.
3ot only is the activity serious+ it is $ili!ently ursue$ to its ultimate success or $efeat. .f one castin!
$ice feels himself in the !ri of the o(er of the course of events+ his life is !overne$ #y this force+ an$
the seDuence of actions inherent in it must #e en$ure$ or ursue$ to its conclusion. There is no
honora#le retreat from such an o#li!atory moment. .f the (ill of Urth is that he lose+ he loses. ;e !ives
u his free$om &(illin!ly&? it is in the nature of events that he $o this.
The interrelation #et(een !amin! an$ the o(er of Urth is further e/lore$ #y %chnei$er < 19-0= in his
interestin! e/amination of the universal imlications of the system of 9ermanic runes. ;e locates
(ithin the sym#olism of the p-rune+

+ the o(er of &allmKchti!e %chic'sal murSiz& <111=. The ar!ument $erives in art from the
icono!rahic reresentation of the rune <in its various !uises6 ncu

= as 7rfel#echer &$ice cu&+ (hich su!!ests !ames of chance. .n the roll of the $ice+ as in the castin!
of& lots+ is to #e seen--al#eit in an imerfect an$ limite$ (ay--somethin! of the ervasive o(er of
Urth. 7hat is no( aarent is that the sym#olism of the $ice cu shares the lar!er sym#olic attri#ute of
Urth+ the cu in !eneral+ the container+ the enclosure+ the (ell. .t is erhas si!nificant that the other
containerli'e rune is An!lo-%a/on ur+

+ from 9ermanic Lruz &aurochs&. Aurochs $rin'in! horns have #een foun$ in #urials+ an$ they (ere
ro#a#ly not uncommon? Caesar mentions the ea!erness (ith (hich the 9ermanic eoles sou!ht out
these animals6
Amplitudo cornuum et igura et species multum a nostrorum boum cornibus diert. /aec
studiose con[uisita ab labris argento circumcludunt at[ue in amplissimis epulis pro
poculis utuntur. w Belli gallici 0I, xy$uxz{
The size+ conformation+ an$ aearance of their horns are very $ifferent from those of our
o/en. They are much sou!ht after #y the natives+ (ho fit the rims (ith silver an$ use them
for !o#lets at their !ran$est feasts. < ;a$as 19-26 112=
A!ain the connection is ma$e #et(een artifact or o#Aect+ its use+ an$ the sym#olic o(er that use
reresents.
The silver $ecoration of the horn cus #rin!s to min$ Tacitus&s comments a#out the 9ermans& aarent
lac' of re!ar$ for recious metals6
argentum et aurum propitiine an irati dii nega)erint dubito. nec tamen adirma)erim
nullam Germaniae )enam argentum aurum)e gignere$ [uis enim scrutatus est| possessione
et usu haud perinde adiciuntur$ est )idere apud illos argentea )asa, legatis et principibus
eorum muneri data, non in alia )ilitate [uam [uae humo inguntur. < Germania-=
%ilver an$ !ol$ have #een $enie$ them--(hether as a si!n of $ivine favour or of $ivine
(rath+ . cannot say. :et . (oul$ not ositively assert that there are no $eosits of silver or
!ol$ in 9ermany+ since no one has rosecte$ for them. The natives ta'e less leasure than
most eole $o in ossessin! an$ han$lin! these metals? in$ee$+ one can see in their houses
silver vessels+ (hich have #een resente$ to chieftains or to am#assa$ors travellin! a#roa$+
ut to the same every$ay uses as earthen(are. < Mattin!ly 19246 141--=
The ironic tone of the oenin! of the assa!e an$ the assa!e in the te/t that follo(s the Duote$ section
<(hich states that the 9ermans livin! close to 5oman civilization have Duic'ly learne$ to value money=
have cause$ commentators to loo' as'ance at the (hole assa!e. 8ven if Tacitus is in some (ays
elevatin! the 9ermanic character to contrast it (ith the $eca$ent 5oman character of his time+ there is
no reason to #elieve that the assa!e is entirely lac'in! in fact. The 9ermans o#viously ha$ an$ revere$
recious metals? &the archaeolo!ical evi$ence sho(s that the 9ermans (ere #y no means in$ifferent to
the recious metals& < An$erson 19,86 -8=.
1,
Tacitus e/licitly states that silver vessels esecially are
to #e foun$ in 9ermanic homes. %urrisin!ly+ these vessels $o not seem to #e reverence$ a#ove others
of or$inary material as+ he imlies+ (oul$ #e the case amon! the 5omans. Tacitus&s assertion is
suorte$ #y the evi$ence of the !rave !oo$s $escri#e$ a#ove. There are recious metals+ esecially
silver? there is ottery+ !lass+ an$ (oo$. .f (e #elieve Tacitus+ it (oul$ #e commonlace to fin$ all of
these in 9ermanic househol$s. The more e/ensive an$ esoteric-!ifts from am#assa$ors--an$ the
cheaer an$ more common (oul$ nestle to!ether. .t seems that the 9ermans coul$ revere eDually all of
these. The reverence+ ho(ever+ $oes not lie (ith the recious metal. .t can #e foun$ in the nature of the
o#Aect. .ts si!nificance lies in the articular action (ith (hich it is sym#olically associate$. Any item
#rou!ht #ac' from forei!n lan$s (oul$ offer itself oenly for such association. 8very$ay items+ un$er
the roer circumstances+ (oul$ also achieve reverential sym#olism. .t is the imortance of the
or$inary+ not a lac' of leasure in the recious+ that is uniDue to 9ermanic culture.
*rin'in! rovi$es a final toic for consi$eration? it seems to have laye$ an imortant role in
9ermanic society+ as Tacitus oints out. 8arly in the mornin!+ #oth feastin! an$ #usiness #e!in. >irst+
men #rea'fast+
tum ad negotia nec minus saepe ad con)i)ia procedunt armati. diem noctem[ue continuare
potando nulli probrum. crebrae, ut inter )inolentos, ri(ae raro con)iciis, saepius caede et
)ulneribus transiguntur. sed et de reconciliandis in)icem inimicis et iugendis adinitatibus
et adsciscendis principibus, de pace deni[ue ac bello plerum[ue in con)i)iis consultant,
tam[uam nullo magis tempore aut ad simplices cogitationes pateat animus aut ad magnas
incalescat. < Germania22=
then they !o out to atten$ to any #usiness they have in han$+ or+ as often as not+ to arta'e
in a feast--al(ays (ith their (eaons a#out them. *rin'in!-#outs lastin! all $ay an$ all
ni!ht are not consi$ere$ in any (ay $is!raceful. The Duarrels that inevita#ly arise over the
cus are sel$om settle$ merely #y har$ (or$s+ #ut more often #y 'illin! an$ (oun$in!.
3evertheless+ they often ma'e a feast an occasion for $iscussin! such affairs as the en$in!
of feu$s+ the arran!ement of marria!e alliances+ the a$otion of chiefs+ an$ even Duestions
of eace or (ar. At no other time+ they thin'+ is the heart so oen to sincere feelin!s or so
Duic' to (arm to no#le sentiments. < Mattin!ly 19246 124=
These $rin'in! #outs <con)i)ia= at (hich serious #usiness is $iscusse$ seem to #e closely relate$ to the
ractice of the symbel+ (hich is not infreDuently recor$e$ in 3orth an$ 7est 9ermanic literature.
5eferences to it occur in the Gl$ %a/on /eliand$ sittien at sumble <,,,9=? in Gl$ 3orse+ esecially in
the 8$$as? in Locasenna <8=+
%essa oc staSi velia Her sum#li at
Jsir al$re!i+
Hviat Jsir vito+ hveim Heir al$a scolo
!am#ansum#l um !eta
%eats an$ laces for thee at symbel
the [sir never choose+
#ecause the [sir 'no( a#out those 'in$s of men it is ri!ht
to have at !lorious-sym#el
an$ in /ymis[)i5a <1=+ 5r )alti)ar )ei5ar n1mo, } oc sumblsamir, 15r sa5ir yr5i &Gnce the #attle-!o$s
too' a !reat-huntin!-catch+ an$+ $esirin!-symbel+ Eso thatF they mi!ht #ecome sate$&? an$ <2=+ H scalt
Rsom ot sum#l !ora &Thou shalt often reare+ sym#el for the [sir&. There are other si!nificant
occurrences else(here. .n Gl$ 8n!lish+ sym#el occurs imortantly not only in Beo(ulf+ as (e shall
e/amine later+ #ut also in The dream o the rood <111=+ edr is &ryhtnes olc } ~eseted to symle, edr is
sin~al blis &There are 9o$&s fol' seate$ at sym#el? there is continual #liss&? an$ Judith <1-=+ /ie 5a to
5am symle sittan eodon &Then they (ent to sit at symbel&.
11
The list is #y no means e/haustive.
Althou!h the references to the activity are freDuent+ none of these tells us very much e/licitly a#out
(hat the symbel (as. Many references to the sym#el are ritualistically fi/e$ (ithin their te/ts. There is
the freDuently reeate$ alliterative hrase sittan to symle <@u$ith 1- or The dream o the rood 111=+ sitia
sumbli at < )ocasenna14=. 8secially in the 3orse sources+ the term seems to #e !reatly restricte$. .t is
more freDuent in Gl$ 8n!lish+ ho(ever+ (here it occurs in early sermons an$ #i#lical translation?
sym#elness &festivity+ solemnity&+ symbel-calic \chalice&+ symbel-ddg &feast $ay&+ etc. 7hether the
(riters usin! the hrase sittan to symle 'ne( fully the nature of the earlier sym#el (hen they use$ it
seems+ from our oint of vie(+ irrelevant. The hrase even in its frozen form su!!este$ features that
have #een carrie$ throu!h intact in all of the materials e/tant.
Clearly the symbel (as some 'in$ of solemn occasion at (hich the articiants si!nificantly sat $o(n.
7ithin the rather strenuously active conte/ts of most 9ermanic te/ts+ sittin! su!!ests inaction+ rest+ an$
or$er. Gr$er seems esecially imortant+ #ecause to sit reDuires a lace to sit+ an$ a lace su!!ests
some aortionin! of ositions+ an$ the aortionin! su!!ests Urth. The symbel is also a Aoint activity?
one never rea$s of someone at symbel alone. Those articiatin! come to!ether an$ sit+ usually (ithin a
chieftain&s hall. The conte/ts are not e/licit (ith resect to the location+ most simly statin! that such-
an$-such eole (ere sumbli at? ho(ever+ the locations that are secifie$ are insi$e+ for e/amle in
;eorot+ ;roth!ar&s ;all+ in Beo(ulf. There are no conte/ts in (hich it is e/licitly state$ that the
sym#el too' lace outsi$e.
The symbel is a 'in$ of feast. .t is solemn in the sense of havin! $ee si!nificance an$ imortance+ #ut
it is not essentially $our. Thus+ in Beo*ul <011-12=+ in the oem&s first $escrition of the events at
;roth!ar&s symbel+ (e hear that dr *ds hdleea hleahtor, hlyn s*ynsode, } *ord *dron *ynsume
&There (as lau!hter of the men+ noise soun$e$+ the (or$s (ere (insome&.
1-
.t (oul$ #e easy to infer
from this that the (hole situation is Duite ro($y+ #oisterous+ an$ chaotic+ an$ Tacitus&s remar's a#out
ensuin! #loo$she$ su!!est this. Althou!h 9ermanic literature has its ro($y hall scenes+ slau!hter+
$issension+ an$ almost animalistic eatin!+ in no (ay are these actions associate$ (ith the symbel. 7ith
resect to the sym#el+ only three tyes of activity are central6 $rin'in! <an$ its relate$ actions such as
the assin! of the $rin'in! cu=+ seech ma'in! <(ith relate$ recitation an$ sin!in!=+ an$ !ift !ivin!.
>irst+ $rin'in! is the only 'in$ of in!estion that occurs at the symbel? there are no references to eatin!+
an$ it seems reasona#le to see it as urosefully e/clu$e$ from the ritual.
10
The $rin'in! itself is
al(ays or$erly6 The cu is asse$+ an$ the $rin'in! it sulies is re!ularly accomanie$ #y relate$
sea'in! an$ resonse. Althou!h the $rin' is an into/icant+ no instances are recor$e$ of the sym#el
itself $e!eneratin! into a 'in$ of or!y or #ra(l. 7hen $isrution does occur in the symbel+ it is al(ays
intro$uce$ from outsi$e? it $oes not !ro( out of the ritual activity of itself.
The e/act nature of the $rin' use$ in symbel is never ma$e clear. .n Beo*ul+ for e/amle+ in the first
symbel of the oem+ three references are ma$e to the $rin'6
HI (Js 9atmJc!um !ea$or Jtsomne
_u_onmrmmusmod qm
HJr s( SferhoHe sittan o$on+
Hr ?Sum $ealle. He!n nytte #ehol$+
s He on han$a #Jr hro$en ealo(J!e+
scencte sc r (ere$.
<191-90=
%o there (as for the 9eatish-men to!ether
a #ench cleare$ in the #eer hall?
thence the stron!-sirite$ EmenF (ent to sit
rou$ in their stren!th. The servin!-thane fulfille$ his office+
EheF (ho #ore on han$ the a$orne$ ale-cu+
Ean$F oure$ out the clear+ s(eet $rin'.
The men are !athere$ on borsele &in the #eer hall&? the thane asses roun$ the ealo*dge &ale-cu&+
(hich contains a sc r (ere$ &a clear+ s(eet $rin'& of some 'in$.
12
Mea$+ the most common &s(eet&
9ermanic $rin'+ is not mentione$ here+ #ut it occurs throu!hout Beo(ulf an$ else(here #oth #y itself
an$ in comoun$s6 medo-benc, medo-heall, medo-ul &mea$ cu&+ etc.
18
The same lac' of secification
occurs in the 3orse te/ts6 Locasenna+ for e/amle+ #e!ins (ith the $escrition of [!ir&s ale feast in its
rose intro$uction an$ a!ain mentions the ale in its oenin! stanza6 "eg5u eat, !ldir. . . h)at hnr inni
haa at rlm1lom } sigti)a synir| &%ay thou+ 8l$ir+ . . . (hat here (ithin have the sons of the victory-!o$s
at ale-sea'in!N& By the thir$ stanza+ the $rin' has chan!e$ to mea$6 i ll oc 1o gri ec 1sa sonom, } oc
blend ec eeim s)1 meini mir5 &foul-tastin! her#s an$ $rin's . #ear to the sons of the [sir+ an$ thus .
mi/ the mea$ for them (ith inAury&. )i'e(ise+ in ;ymisDviSa+[!ir #e!ins #y as'in! Thor to suly
him (ith a 'ettle eannl e+ llom l y5r o heita <,= &(ith (hich . EshallF #re( ale for you all&. 7hen
Thor an$ Tyr arrive at ;ymir&s ;all+ the home of the #re(in! 'ettle they lan to rocure+ a bifr)eig <8=
&$raft of #eer& is #rou!ht to them. This variety of terms for essentially the same item is e/licitly
e/loite$ in Al)issm1l6 Thor as's <,,=6 h)n eat l heitir, er drecca alda synir } heimi h)eriom i &ho( is
it that ale is calle$+ (hich the sons of men $rin'+ in each of the (orl$sN& Alvis relies <,1=6
l heitir me5 m5nnom, enn me5 1som bifrr,
+alla )eig )anir,
hreinal g i tnar, enn i helio mi 5,
+alla sumbl "uttungs synir.
&Ale& it is calle$ amon! men+ an$ amon! the [sir+ &#eer&+
the Banir call it &a $raft&+
&clear-strata&+ the !iants+ an$ in ;el+ &mea$&+
the sons of %uttun! call EitF &symbel&.
The conte/t of the $rin'in!+ the symbel+ itself has #ecome one of the names for the $rin'. .f nothin!
else+ this shoul$ oint to the intimate+ essential relationshi of the act of $rin'in! the into/icant an$ the
nature of the feast+ an$ it aarently $oes not matter (hat 'in$ of into/icant it is. .t mi!ht #e
si!nificant+ ho(ever+ that+ in the assa!e from AlvssmIl Aust cite$+ the !eneric term ic'e$ for this
$rin' is l &ale& an$ not one of the relate$ ossi#ilities.
.n$ee$+ the term symbel itself may very (ell fin$ its o(n roots in ale. The (or$ is Duite ro#a#ly a
comoun$ of sum- or sam<(hich reresents a collectin! or !atherin!=6 M;9 sament+ samt &alon! (ith&?
G3 sam'a+ samna &to !ather&? etc.= an$ the form alu &ale& <G3 l+ G8 ealu+ etc.=. Thus+ the symbel
(oul$ #e a &!atherin! or comin! to!ether of ale&. %emantically+ this etymolo!y matches the elements of
the symbel that (e have so far e/amine$. There is much to recommen$ it over the ol$er etymolo!y
<never very (i$ely accete$= that ostulate$ a #orro(in! of 9'. &collection for a meal&
throu!h )at. symbola. 3ot only $oes symbel occur too freDuently in the e/licitly 9ermanic conte/t
$escritive of the $rin'in! ritual+ #ut the (or$ freDuently occurs (ithout its -b-. There is no evi$ence of
comensatory len!thenin! in the (or$ (hen this occurs+ an$ there (oul$ #e if+ in fact+ the #ila#ial sto
(ere #ein! lost. The sum-alu etymon reDuires no honetic a$Austment of this 'in$ (hen an e/crescent
E#F #e!ins to intru$e itself into the (or$.
19

As alrea$y in$icate$+ $rin'in! is not the uniDue activity of the symbel. %eech ma'in! an$ !ift !ivin!
also occur. The seeches of the symbel in Beo(ulf $eal (ith Beo(ulf&s imen$in! #attle (ith 9ren$el?
arran!ements for this action are esta#lishe$ $urin! the $rin'in! resente$ a#ove+ an$ later+ after
9ren$el&s $eath+ ;roth!ar !ives Beo(ulf !ifts.
24
More to the oint here+ ho(ever+ is the arrival at the
sym#el of 7ealhtheo(+ ;roth!ar&s Dueen6
ode 3ealheo* or5,
c*n /rZ5gres cynna gemyndig,
grtte goldhroden guman on healle,
ond e rol c * ul gesealde
drest ast-&ena eel*earde,
bdd hine bl 5ne dt edre beoreege,
lodum lonek h on lust geeeah
symbel ond seleul, sigerZ +yning.
<012-19=
7ealhtheo( came forth+
;roth!ar&s Dueen? min$ful of the rocee$in!s+
EsheF !reete$ the !ol$-a$orne$ men in the hall+
an$ the no#le (oman asse$ the cu
first to the no#le-lea$er of the 8ast-*anes+
#a$e him to #e hay at the #eer-ta'in!+
$ear to his eole? he (ith leasure artoo' of
the symbel an$ the hall-cu+ the victory-reno(ne$ 'in!.
7ealhtheo(&s arrival is stri'in!+ not least #ecause it ma'es o#vious the usual a#sence of (omen from
9ermanic literature. 7ealhtheo( is the first (oman of the oem+ an$ there are not many others.
21
%he
is no#le #y osition or linea!e an$ aears in the oem in a moment of !reat ritual si!nificance.
7ealhtheo(+ after assin! the cu to ;roth!ar+ cynna gemyndig &min$ful of the rocee$in!s& <01,=+
moves throu!h the hall (ith the cu
_ kngdd rtq
HJt h o Bo(ulfe+ #a!hro$en c(n
m^$e !eHun!en me$oful Jt#Jr?
!rtte 9ata lo$+ 9o$e Hanco$e
( sfJst (or$um HJs Se hire se (illa !elam+
kl__u upumm_ormrd `m
fyrena fr^fre.
<022-28=
until the time came to ass
that she+ the rin!-a$orne$ Dueen+ to Beo(ulf
#ore the mea$-cu? resolute of min$+
she !reete$ the lea$er of the 9eats+ !ave than's to 9o$+
(ise (ith (or$s that her $esire ha$ ta'en lace6
that she Emi!htF trust in some one man
as a hel a!ainst evils.
The elements of this tyical symbel #ear a close relationshi not only to those alrea$y $escri#e$ #y
Tacitus #ut also to those isolate$ in the myth of Urth&s 7ell. The cu+ for e/amle+ is an enclosure+ in
many (ays li'e the brunnr. .t collects an$ hol$s the into/icatin! $rin'+ one that is clearly #eyon$ the
or$inary. The resence of the no#le(oman at the $rin'in! of the into/icant a$$s the a$$itional element
of female nurture. The act of $rin'in! ta'es lace in the resence of the act of seech+ each arta'in! of
the fact of the other? in such activity+ the o(er of all other actions is #rou!ht to #ear uon the ritual
moment an$ fi/es it (ithin the ever-evolvin! interrelation of all resent actions (ith the ast. This
com#ination of (or$s+ their $enote$ actions+ an$ the semantic elements of the $rin' an$ cu reeat the
(hole act of the continual sea'in! of the 2org an$ the nurturin! of the tree :!!$rasil+ the central
activities of the 3orns. .f this action is in$icative of the o(er an$ resence of the ast in the (orl$ of
men+ then here also the ritual (or$s so'en #ecome art of this ast. They $isaear into the $rin'? as
it is $run'+ the sea'er of the seech+ his actions+ an$ the $rin' #ecome one+ assurin! that all no( have
#ecome art of the strata lai$ (ithin the (ell.
The essentially 9ermanic nature of this 'in$ of ritual $rin'in! can #e #etter seen (hen it is comare$
(ith some of the $rin'in! an$ li#ationary rituals of other .n$o-8uroean cultures.
22
Amon! the Celts+
feastin! an$ $rin'in! are atteste$ rather early. &>rom the seventh century EB.C.F+ the main tra$e #et(een
the Me$iterranean an$ the Celtic (orl$ (as that in (ine+ reflecte$ archaeolo!ically in imorte$ vessels
for servin! an$ $rin'in! it+ (hich (ere then freDuently #urie$ (ith the $ea$ as an e/ression of the
i$ea EofF the feast #eyon$ the !rave . . . The tra$e continues in the fifth century+ (ith 9ree' ainte$
cus an$ #ronze fla!ons in the later Celtic !raves& < Pi!!ott 190-6 19-=. The i$ea of the feast #eyon$
the !rave is resent in 5oman #urials. Tom#s freDuently (ere erforate$ to create &a tu#e for li#ations .
. . so that Ethe ashes of the $ea$F coul$ #e lie$ (ith (ine at the annual ritual feast in (hich the (hole
family (as conceive$ to unite+ (ith #arriers #ro'en #et(een $ea$ an$ livin!& < 5ichmon$ 19-46 18=.
All ritual li#ations attemt to unite this (orl$ (ith o(ers #eyon$ it+ #ut they $o not al(ays reflect the
intimate familial an$ $omestic associations so $ominant in 5oman culture.
3ot all li#ationary rituals are $esi!ne$ to unite the $ea$ an$ the livin!. More often+ it is the union of
men an$ !o$s that the li#ationary act imlicitly or e/licitly effects. This is one of the most si!nificant
asects of the 'in$ of 9ree' feastin! relate$ #y ;omer. .n the %dyssey+ Boo' ...+ for e/amle+ there is
a $etaile$ account of a ritual festival of Posei$on that+ in many resects+ clearly relates not only to some
Celtic feasts #ut also to some asects of the 9ermanic symbel.
Telemachus an$ the !o$$ess Athene+ in the !uise of Mentor+ have arrive$ at Pylos (here 3estor an$
his eole are sacrificin! #ulls. The inner ortions of the #ulls are eaten+ an$ the thi!h#ones
are #urne$. 7hen Telemachus an$ Athene aroach+ Peisistratus+ 3estor&s son+ (elcomes them to the
sacrifice6
d i efcgef- icc
e f ggc- ecf
fifcegc -fgcgc
idcdd ddcggfg
cd f eff-fd ecc-
c -fgc d gff-gc-cgddc
dfgffcc cfgf ff cgg
fg - dfci ecg i
< %dyssey ...6 14-18=
2,

Thereuon he !ave them ortions of the inner meat an$
oure$ (ine in a !ol$en cu+ an$+ le$!in! her+ he so'e to
Pallas Athene+ $au!hter of eus (ho #ears the ae!is6
&Pray no(+ stran!er+ to the lor$ Posei$on+ for his is the
feast (hereon you have chance$ in comin! hither. An$ (hen
thou hast oure$ li#ations an$ hast raye$+ as is fittin!+ then
!ive thy frien$ also the cu of honey-s(eet (ine that he may
our+ since he too+ . (een+ rays to the immortals? for all men
have nee$ of the !o$s&. < Murray 19196 21=
Athene+ as Mentor+ rays for !lory for 3estor an$ a safe return Aourney for the shi of Telemachus. %he
then !ives the (ine cu to Telemachus+ (ho rays li'e(ise <---01=.
After the feastin!+ 3estor sea's an$ as's Telemachus (ho he is <09-21=. Telemachus+ only then+
reveals the nature of his visit an$ reDuests ne(s of his father G$ysseus <29-141=. 3estor+ encoura!e$ #y
Telemachus+ recounts the fall of Troy+ the return of A!amemnon to 9reece+ the resultin! slau!hter at
Mycaene? he su!!ests that Menelaus+ (ho (as $etaine$ lon!er than 3estor in returnin! from Troy to
9reece+ mi!ht have more ne(s than he of the fate of G$ysseus <14,-,28=. 7ith this+ as ni!ht is
$ra(in! on+ Athene su!!ests that the feast en$6
iec dcgfd ffc d d eefff-
trltnp_i f-ef cc
efcggfgcg- trltnp_fcgg
f-ccgctrltnp_f
ccedei
< %dyssey ...6 ,,1-,1=
&Gl$ man+ of a truth thou hast tol$ this tale ari!ht. But come+
cut out the ton!ues of the victims an$ mi/ the (ine+ that (hen
(e have oure$ li#ations to Posei$on an$ the other immortals+
(e may #ethin' us of slee? for it is the time thereto&. < Murray
191969,=
There(ith+ the ritual closin! of the feast #e!ins6
d g e-e def-f
d ecge def-fcccd d c
f i efg fecgg
f- i ec gcgi gc
< %dyssey ...6,,8-11=
;eral$s oure$ (ater over their han$s+ an$ youths fille$ the
#o(ls #rim full of $rin'+ an$ serve$ out to all+ ourin! first
$ros for li#ation into the cus. Then they cast the ton!ues
uon the fire+ an$+ risin! u+ oure$ li#ations uon them.
< Murray 191969,=
As Telemachus an$ Athene ma'e rea$y to leave+ 3estor sea's once more+ invitin! Telemachus to his
alace. Athene su$$enly $earts in the li'eness of a #ir$. 3estor+ marvelin! at the miracle+ rays to
Athene+ an$ later <,9,-9-= a li#ation of the 'in$ alrea$y $escri#e$ is oure$ to her.
This len!thy $i!ression into matters non-9ermanic oints u $irectly the e/tent to (hich the 9ree' an$
9ermanic ritual feasts are ali'e an$ $issimilar. Both are at once festive an$ solemn occasions on (hich
!reat affairs are consi$ere$? #oth have ritualize$ atterns of articiation. There are+ ho(ever+
imortant $ifferences6 >irst+ (omen lay no imortant role in the 9ree' ritual <if (e $iscount Athene&s
resence=. %econ$+ sacrifice an$ eatin! of sacrifices lay an imortant art in the 9ree' ritual? eatin! is
a#sent from the symbel. Thir$+ the 9ree' feast is hel$ e/licitly to honor Posei$on+ an$ rayers are
ma$e to him <Aust as+ later+ the ritual is carrie$ out a!ain to honor Athene+ an$ rayers are offere$ to
her=. .t is here that the most si!nificant $ifference is o#serva#le. 3o !o$s are mentione$ in the
9ermanic feast? in$ee$+ the symbel $oes not seem to #e an occasion uon (hich men&s affairs are
relate$ to those of the !o$s. As a matter of fact+ a !oo$ $eal of the material Duote$ a#ove <esecially
the 3orse material= in$icates that #oth men and !o$s share the ractice of the symbel. Thus+ there are
no rayers in the 9ermanic ritual. .n the 9ree'+ the accounts of affairs ast are associate$ (ith a
reDuestin! of the !o$s to favora#ly structure an$ $etermine further human activity. These rayers stan$
as a 'in$ of neutral !roun$ #et(een the ast an$ resent to!ether an$ a future that is to #e $etermine$.
The ritual li#ation here is oure$ out to the !o$s? hence+ the reeate$ emhasis on the ver# &our+
let flo(&. Man oens himself out to a hoe$-for !oo$ favor of the !o$ cele#rate$. .n so $oin!+ he
$issociates himself from the future outcomes of such rayers. .n the symbel+ on the other han$+ the
emhasis is uon $rin'in!+ le$!in!+ an$ s(earin! oaths. Those ta'in! art $irectly an$ literally
associate themselves (ith the flo( of events an$ hol$ themselves resonsi#le for forthcomin! actions.
7hen (e come to e/amine Celtic feastin!+ (e $iscover much less in the (ay of secific $escrition.
7e must infer from other sources rather than interret+ as (e have #een a#le to $o (ith the 9ree' an$
9ermanic material. Celtic feasts+ as they seem actually to have #een ractice$+ &sho( us s(a!!erin!+
#elchin!+ touchy chieftains an$ their eDually imossi#le (arrior cre(+ han$s t(itchin! to the s(or$-hilt
at the ima!ine$ hint of an insult+ allotte$ as in ;omer the chamion&s ortion <of #oile$ or'+ in the
Celtic (orl$=+ (iin! the !reasy moustaches that (ere a mar' of no#ility& < Pi!!ott 190-6229=. The
stories of Celtic feasts are consi$era#ly more ro($y than anythin! encountere$ in the 9ree' li#ationary
ritual or the symbel. The only asect of the account !iven a#ove that seems to match any element of the
9ermanic ritual feast is the resence of &insult&+ to (hich the Celtic chieftain mi!ht at any moment react
(ith violence.
21

The imortance of eatin! to Celtic feasts+ mentione$ a#ove in the &chamion&s ortion& of or'+ is
reeate$ in Celtic #urial urns (ith or' rovision inclu$e$. .n$ee$+ the association of eatin! (ith
fecun$ity an$ the fertility of the earth seems to #e a ritual feature in (hich Celtic festivals an$ feasts
are unli'e #oth the 9ree' an$ the 9ermanic. This ten$ency fin$s si!nificant articulation in the tales
tol$ of the *a!$a+ the .rish &9oo$ 9o$&. .n the mytholo!ical cycle+ for e/amle+ in the account of the
%econ$ Battle of Ma! Tuire$+ fou!ht #et(een the >omoire an$ the Tuatha *M *anann+ the *a!$a
enters the cam of the >omoire to as' for a truce to en$ the fi!htin! temorarily. The >omoire !rant the
reDuest #ut treat the *a!$a as an o#Aect of fun6 Porri$!e (as ma$e for him+ &to moc' him+ for !reat (as
his love of orri$!e&. 9oats an$ shee an$ i!s+ as (ell as meal an$ mil'+ (ere cast into the 'in!&s
!i!antic caul$ron. The foo$ (as then silt into a hole in the !roun$+ an$ the *a!$a (as o#li!e$ to eat it
all on ain of $eath . . . The la$le (as #i! enou!h for a man an$ a (oman to lie in #ut the *a!$a
finishe$ #y scrain! the hole (ith his fin!er+ an$ then he fell aslee . . . A 5a#elaisian assa!e follo(s
(hich tells of his intercourse (ith .n$ech&s $au!hter+ (ho romise$ her ma!ic assistance a!ainst the
host of the >omoire. < 5ees an$ 5ees 19016,0=
The assa!e resents a num#er of the attri#utes+ in a variety of !uises+ that are essential to the *a!$a&s
character. The caul$ron <reeate$ icono!rahically in the a#ove account #y the hole in the !roun$= is
one of his three maAor attri#utes? the other t(o are a har+ associate$ (ith music an$ insiration+ an$ an
immense clu#+ so lar!e that it often nee$e$ to #e $ra!!e$ on (heels < $e Bries 19016,8-,9=. The
association of clu# an$ caul$ron reeats the iconic structure of tree an$ (ell+ an$ the caul$ron is in
some (ays li'e the 3orse (ell ;ver!elmir+ the &seethin! caul$ron&. .n the Celtic myth+ ho(ever+ it is
reresentative of hysical or (orl$ly lenty6 &The sym#ol of a#un$ance in .relan$ (as this ma!ical
caul$ron. Gf the *a!$a&s it (as sai$ Othat no one !oes a(ay (ithout #ein! satisfie$O& < Po(ell 19-86
122=.
The clu# is more e/licitly hallic than the tree in the 9ermanic myth+ an$ the stories of the *a!$a
cele#rate not only fertility an$ lenty in an a#stract sense #ut human !eneration an$ natural harvest.
The aarently casual intercourse (ith .n$ech&s $au!hter at the en$ of the assa!e Duote$ a#ove is
more central to the issue than mi!ht at first aear. .n the assa!e+ #efore the Duotation #e!ins+ &(e are
tol$ of the *a!$a+ Oa#out the %amain <1st 3ovem#er= of the #attleO+ havin! intercourse (ith the
MorrQ!an& < 5ees an$ 5ees 19016,--,0=. As one of the $estructive female #ein!s reresentative of
#attle $eath an$ carna!e+ MorrQ!an is tyical of a !eneral tye of Celtic !o$$ess+ &not tri#al+ or social+
E#utF of the lan$ or territory to #e lacate$+ ta'en over+ or even enslave$+ (ith the occuation of the
!roun$. They $islay #oth fertility an$ $estructress asects& < Po(ell 19-86118=.
The fact that the account !iven a#ove ta'es lace at the time of %amain is li'e(ise si!nificant. %amain
mar'e$ the en$ of summer an$ the #e!innin! of (inter. The (or$ itself may #e #uilt from the same .8
root+

sem-+ that un$erlies symbel? thus+ the %amain festival (oul$ have a &!atherin! to!ether& or
&confluence& as one of its maAor semantic elements.
2-
The *a!$a is also a !o$ of treaties or comacts?
the account Duote$ has him esta#lishin! a truce #et(een the Tuatha an$ the >omoire. The i$ea of
confluence seems to #e central to the festival of %amain. 7hether it is a !atherin! of her$s+ a !atherin!
of a !rain harvest+ a ritual 'in$lin! of hearths a!ainst the comin! (inter+ a reunitin! of families <a 'in$
of ritual census=+ or a rite erforme$ not only to insure a hysically fertile an$ lentiful cro for the
ne( year #ut also to rovi$e eace amon! the anta!onistic or (arrin! o(ers (ithin the earth (ho
!overn the fertility of the lan$--all of this is reresentative of union+ !oo$ favor+ erseverance+ an$ a
continuin! lenty.
>rom the material a#ove+ it is clear that the Celtic eoles--at least+ the .rish--have ta'en a num#er of
cultural elements that they have inherite$ from .n$o-8uroean sources an$ turne$ them their o(n
uniDue (ay.
20
.n this+ the $eveloment is much li'e that+ alrea$y e/amine$+ of the voya!e motif. The
i$ea of confluence+ as (e mi!ht call it here+ has #een a$ate$ to e/ress the confluence of forces
!eneratin! fecun$ity an$ lenty (ithin the (orl$ of men. Much of the Celtic material is turne$ to that
concern $irectly6 ;o( may man turn the o(ers of the earth to his continue$ !oo$ fortuneN %een from
this ersective+ the Celtic festival is much more li'e the 9ree' li#ationary ritual+ (ith its $esire for
!oo$ fortune+ than it is li'e the symbel. 5ather than tryin! to control the flo( of *yrd+ an i$ea (hose
time (ill not come till (ell after the Christianization of the 9ermanic (orl$+ the 9ermanic $rin'er-
sea'er controls only himself+ $irectin! his o(n actions to lace them most a$vanta!eously (ithin that
flo(.
3yrd is a continual resence an$ influence in the rituals+ the artifacts+ an$ every$ay activities of the
early 9ermanic eoles. 8ven thou!h its sym#olic attri#utes can #e (i$ely o#serve$+ an$ somethin! of
its sustentative an$ all-influencin! o(er occasionally can #e felt from the mute o#Aects of the !raves
an$ the chance accounts of commentators (ith non-9ermanic reAu$ices (ritin! for non-9ermanic
au$iences+ these thin!s tell us little a#out ho( this o(er (as felt to oerate (ithin the lives an$ affairs
of men on earth. ;o( actions are meanin!fully relate$ to actions an$ ho( si!nificance is to #e
$iscovere$ in the or$inary seDuence of events are not recovera#le from the 'in$s of materials e/amine$
so far. .f (e are to fin$ evi$ence of the oeration of *yrd+ its sustentative o(er an$ its ast+ (e (ill
have to e/amine the literary remains of the 9ermanic eoles themselves? only they (ill #e a#le to
lace events in (hat (ill #e their roer or$er an$ to !ive them their roer si!nificance.

#eowul" and the %ature o" Events III
.T is clear to anyone (ho has rea$ any early 9ermanic literature <even in translation= that actions are
ren$ere$ an$ interrelate$ stran!ely an$ that the structural rinciles uon (hich this literature is #ase$
$iffer si!nificantly from those that un$erlie the literary (or's of our o(n era. The relationshi in this
literature #et(een actions an$ the lan!ua!e use$ to e/ress them is fun$amental to any un$erstan$in!
of 9ermanic literature an$+ in$ee$+ to the culture that !ave #irth to it. The culture&s concerns a#out men
an$ their actions an$ its concetualization of the universe in (hich men e/ist form the #ac'!roun$ of
an$ ma'e un$erlyin! assumtions a#out the nature of all thin!s an$ events. The literature !ives
rominence to imortant events an$ $o(nlays or i!nores events that are trivial. To un$erstan$ this+ (e
must ay articular attention to (hat is resent an$ (hat is a#sent in early 9ermanic literature an$ to
the amount of emhasis that is lace$ on (hat is+ in fact+ relate$.
This essay e/amines+ amon! other thin!s+ the nature of the occurrence of events+ ho( they achieve
si!nificance+ an$ ho( these are relate$ to other events+ esecially ast events. The influence an$
control of the ast over the resent are e/resse$ $irectly #y the term *yrd in Gl$ 8n!lish+ an$ its
mention in any te/t #rin!s the o(er of all ast actions e/licitly to #ear on the material resente$.
This imortant influence is in$irectly felt in many other conte/ts+ ho(ever+ in laces (here *yrd is not
e/licitly mentione$ at all. Because the term *yrd an$ the conte/ts in (hich it occurs in Gl$ 8n!lish
have #een (ell e/amine$ #y other commentators+ the focus here (ill #e mostly on relate$ conte/ts+
first+ #ecause they have ten$e$ to #e overloo'e$+ an$ secon$+ #ecause they are of !reat imortance to
our un$erstan$in! of ho( *yrd oerate$ in 9ermanic culture.
1
The $iscussion follo(in! is concerne$
mainly (ith a consi$eration ofBeo*ul. The limitation is one of convenience6 The oem $eals $irectly
(ith 9ermanic cultural material? it is relatively lon! an$ comle/ enou!h in its structure to resent a
variety of conte/ts? an$ . haen to 'no( the oem #etter than comara#le 9ermanic literary materials
in other lan!ua!es. The inferences $ra(n here+ ho(ever+ aly+ . #elieve+ to 9ermanic culture in
!eneral.
.t is erhas not entirely #esi$e the mar' to #e!in (ith a loo' at another oem+ 3idsith. 3idsith is a
stran!e oem ma$e u almost entirely of lists of 'in!s+ heroes+ an$ the names of 'in!$oms an$ tri#es.
.n 11, lines of te/t+ a#out seventy tri#es an$ si/ty-nine heroes are mentione$ < Cham#ers 19126 0=6
The oem o#viously falls into a rolo! <1-9=+ 7i$sith&s seech <14-1,1=+ an$ an eilo!
<1,--11,=. The seech itself #e!ins (ith an intro$uction <14-1,= an$ en$s (ith a conclusion
<1,1-1,1= . . . The #o$y of the seech <18-1,4= inclu$es three mnemonic name-lists very
$ifferent from the rest of the oem. .t (as lon! customary to $istin!uish them as the
(eol$catalo! or catalo! of 'in!s+ the (Js-catalo! or catalo! of tri#es+ an$ the sohte-catalo!
or catalo! of heroes. < Malone 1902622=
The maAor focus of the oem+ in #oth sheer #ul' an$ structure+ is on this seDuence of catalo!s+ or
thulas+ the 3orse name for such lists < Malone 19026 22=. 3either the oenin! intro$uctory lines nor the
conclu$in! remar's concernin! the nature of the activity of the sco $o much to alleviate the continual+
almost uninterrute$ flo( of $ata that forms the oem&s center6
[tla (eol$
;unum+
8ormanric
9otum+
Becca
Banin!um+
Bur!en$um
9ifica
<18-
19=
Attila rule$
the ;uns?
8rmanric+
the 9oths?
Becca+ the
Banin!s?
9ifica+ the
Bur!un$ians
or
Mi$
%ercin!um
ic (Js
mi$
%erin!um.
Mi$
Creacum ic
(Js mi$
>innum
mi$ Casere
2
<2--
20=
. (as (ith
the %iraci <N=
an$ (ith the
%eres.
. (as (ith
the 9ree's
an$ (ith the
>inns an$
(ith Caesar
Much of the critical comment on 3idsith concerns i$entifica-tion an$ isolation of the various eoles
an$ heroes mentione$ in it an$ tries to esta#lish the form+ time+ an$ lan!ua!e of the &ori!inal& oem.
These comments usually conclu$e rather tentatively an$ (ith some reservation6
The temtation to attri#ute historic value to oetry in (hich the names of historic chiefs
often meet us is+ of course+ stron!? an$ !ivin! (ay to it+ the early chroniclers of many
nations have incororate$ heroic tra$ition into their histories. But it is an essential
characteristic of heroic oetry that+ (hilst it reserves many historic names+ it !ives the
story mo$ifie$ almost ast reco!nition #y !enerations of oetic tra$ition. Accurate
chronolo!y too is+ in the a#sence of (ritten recor$s+ imossi#le6 all the !reat historic
chieftains #ecome contemoraries6 their $ee$s are confuse$6 only their names+ an$
sometimes their characters+ remain. < Cham#ers 19126-=
Cham#ers (ishes to esta#lish historical fact an$ chronolo!y+ #ut the oem $oes not yiel$ u this
material easily. The characters in the oem--lin'e$ #y #ein! 'no(n #y one erson--#ecome
&contemoraries&. These careful critical oerations that have #een erforme$ uon the oem have !iven
us+ the mo$ern a!e+ a fairly li'ely $ate for the comosition of the oem as (e have it.
,
7hat+ ho(ever+
$oes all of this have to $o (ith the oem 3idsith an$ (ith the intentions an$ imulses that le$ to its
comosition? (hat $oes it tell us a#out ho( the oem as (e have it is to #e e/erience$N .f it is an
attemt to (rite chronicle or history+ it is a terri#le+ sectacular failure. :et+ someone thou!ht enou!h
of it to see that it (as reserve$ in the !(eter Boo+.
Cham#ers&s $ifficulties (ith historical fact an$ chronolo!y are ro#lems of mo$ern times. Clearly+
historical fact counts for little an$ chronolo!y ne/t to nothin! in 3idsith. The oem is or!anize$ alon!
some other rincile. .t is a series of metrical lists. .n one sense+ these are mnemonic+ as Malone has
ointe$ out. These mnemonic lists+ ho(ever+ are not imortant #ecause they are useful as $evices+ such
as memory theaters or #uil$in!s+ (hich #ecame a central art of me$ieval an$ later rhetorical ractice?
neither $o the lists function as a series of note hea$in!s or as an arran!ement of toics as in an in$e/ of
a #oo'. They are the (hole #oo'. They are mnemonic $evices for remem#erin! themselves alone
.f 3idsith arallels any mo$ern literary ractice+ it is the anatomy or the encycloe$ia.
1
The structure
of the oem #roa$ly $ivi$es it into sections $ealin! (ith 'in!s+ tri#es+ an$ heroes. .n most cases+ only
the names of in$ivi$uals or tri#es are !iven? occasionally+ there is an a$$itional line e/ressive of some
outstan$in! attri#ute or characteristic+ #ut this is all. %uch lists are #y their natures unen$in!. .t is
al(ays ossi#le to a$$ ne( 'in!s+ ne( tri#es+ ne( heroes as these #ecome 'no(n. The e$itors are in
a!reement that such a$$itions have ta'en lace (ith 3idsith. %urely the oem invites interolation of
Aust this 'in$? as a result+ a assa!e relatin! a visit to the eoles of ancient times aears6
Mi$ .srahelum ic (Js mi$ 8/syrin!um+
mi$ 8#reum mi$ .n$eum mi$ 8!ytum.
<82-8,=
. (as (ith the .sraelites an$ (ith the Assyrians+
(ith the ;e#re(s an$ (ith the ;in$us an$ (ith the 8!ytians.
Because these are tri#es an$ #ecause tri#es form one of the centrallists+ there is no reason for them not
to #e inclu$e$. .f they (ere not in the oem as receive$+ they most certainly shoul$ #e a$$e$-an$ they
are--Aust as (e (oul$ a$$ ne( material a#out the ancient (orl$ to our o(n encycloe$ias (hen it
#ecomes 'no(n to us. 7e (oul$ fin$ it unthin'a#le not to $o this? the 9ermanic eoles seem to have
felt the same (ay.
The material of 3idsith is mainly &factual&-- (ho $i$ (hat+ (ho (as there+ etc.--rather than e/hortative
or moralizin!--*hy soan$-so $i$ somethin!+ etc. The name &7i$sith& <the name of the sco-sea'er of
the maAor art of the oem= si!nifies &$istant Aourneyin!& or &(i$e travelin!&. This &(i$th& encomasses
#oth time an$ sace. The sco&s comments inclu$e #oth relatively recent history < [lf(ine+ 'in! of the
)an!o#ar$s+ $ie$ ca. A.*. -2,= an$ ancient history. ;e has travele$ amon! the tri#es of (estern
8uroe an$ amon! those of Asia Minor. The oem tries to inclu$e as much of human e/erience as it
can. This e/erience+ these facts a#out lea$ers+ tri#es+ an$ heroes+ are art of the !reat store of
'no(le$!e from the realm of the ast a#out (hich (e 'no( little an$ a#out (hich (e strive en$lessly
to $iscover more. The oem+ then+ contains facts much in the (ay that such events are lai$ $o(n (ithin
an$ containe$ #y Urth&s 7ell. %uch strata are not chronolo!ical? they are interrelate$ throu!h conte/t+
an$ in any conte/t they #ecome &contemoraries&+ as Cham#ers has remar'e$. The oem also 'ees the
events alive+ for its recitation necessitates reutterance. The sea'in! of these events seems to rove
eDual to the occurrence or resence of the event? hence+ each event 'no(n an$ relate$ is hrase$ as if it
(ere #ein! e/erience$ $irectly #y the sea'er. The sco $oes not Aust 'no( a#out the .sraelites an$
Assyrians6 &Mi$ .srahelum ic (Js mi$ 8/syrin!um&? he (as actually (ith them <an$ is (ith them=+
as the recitation of the oem ma'es clear.
The si!nificance of 7i$sith inheres first in the 'no(le$!e it contains an$ secon$ in the recitation of
this 'no(le$!e. .n an oral tra$ition+ the t(o oints are the same6 The e/istence of material &facts& is
eDuivalent to their #ein! so'en or sun!.
-
A name unso'en is a name un'no(n? e/eriences
unrecounte$ are effectively lost to the (orl$ of men. This is+ of course+ a terri#le an$ $an!erous loss if
the accumulation of the force of ast actions is felt to #e a o(erful influence on the affairs of the
resent. The more man 'no(s of the ast+ the more he is a#le to see his lace in the attern of events
clearly? the less he 'no(s+ the more li'ely it is that he (ill #e unrea$y an$ reare$ ina$eDuately to
face this course of events. .t is the sco+ the sin!er of events+ (ho constantly 'ees alive an$ in min$
the affairs of $istances far a(ay in time or sace. .t is not surrisin! that the events of 3idsith are
voice$ throu!h a sco an$ that the final lines of the eilo! to the oem sea' of the interrelation of the
sco an$ the tri#al lea$er6
%(a scriHen$e !esceaum h(eorfaS+
!leomen !umena+ !eon$ !run$a fela+
Hearfe sec!aS+ Honc(or$ srecaH+
simle+ suS oHHe norS+ sumne !emetaS
!y$$a !lea(ne+ !eofum unhnea(ne+
se He fore $u!uHe (ile $Vm RrJran+
eorlscie Jfnan oH HJt eal scJceS+
leoht lif somo$. )of se !e(yrceS+
hafaS un$er heofonum heahfJstne $Vm.
<1,--1,=
%o movin! thin!s chan!e #y facts+
the sin!ers of men throu!hout many lan$s+
sea' throu!h necessity+ say (or$s of than's+
ever+ south or north+ E(henF they meet one
lease$ #y son!s+ unni!!ar$ly (ith !ifts+
(ho+ #efore the comany+ $esires to hei!hten fame+
to ractice lea$ershi until all asses+
li!ht an$ life to!ether. ;e (ho (ins raise
has un$er the heavens lastin! fame.
The relationshi is recirocal? the lea$er (ho is ea!er for fame wdZm{ suorts the sco <gleoman
&sin!er&=+ (ho (ill sea' of the lea$er&s !reatness. &Zm+ of course+ is &Au$!ment&+ &(ise sea'in!&. .n
a$$ition to the relationshi of lea$er to sco+ the assa!e e/resses somethin! si!nificant a#out the
nature of events as (ell. )ine 1,-+ &%o movin! thin!s chan!e #y facts&+ is #uilt aroun$ three (or$s6 the
ver# scr ean &to move+ !o+ !li$e&+ (hich occurs in its resent articile scr eende &movin!+ !oin!+
!li$in!&? the ver# h*eoran &to move+ turn+ !o+ (an$er+ roam&+ (hich is in the resent lural in$icative?
an$ the noun gesceap &shae+ form+ create$ thin!+ creature& in the $ative or instrumental lural. Gesceap
often ma'es reference to the nature of thin!s an$ is often translate$ as &fate&. Thus+ !esceaum mi!ht
$enote &throu!h the nature of thin!s& or &#y the structure or shae of creation& or simly &#y facts&. The
(hole line can e/ress somethin! li'e &continual chan!e is in the nature of thin!s&. Gn the other han$+
scr eende nee$ not refer to &thin!s&? it can refer to &movin!& or &travelin!& eole as (ell. The gleomen
<1,0= (oul$ fit this cate!ory+ an$ the t(o lines <1,--,0= to!ether mi!ht su!!est that &it is in the nature
of creation that movin! men travel or en$ure chan!e&. There are other ossi#le interretations+ #ut in
every case the relationshi of chan!e+ men+ an$ events remains constant+ an$ surely the conte/t
su!!ests all of this. Gne learns an$ recor$s these chan!es+ these e/eriences+ (hich form the #ases of
the sco&s son! of raise+ an$ the raise+ the (ise sea'in! a#out the lea$er (ho suorts the sco+ is
a$$e$ to these other events6 &;e (ho (ins raisehas un$er the heavens lastin! fame& <112-1,=. The
hrase under heoonum &un$er the heavens& has $ou#le si!nificance? on the one han$+ it refers to the
s'y+ an$ the raise is 'no(n throu!hout this (orl$ un$er these heavens? on the other han$+ as the 8$$as
ma'e clear+ the holy 7ell of Urth is locate$ &in heaven&6 UriSAa rVt as'sins sten$r R himni+ o' un$ir Heiri
rVt er #runnr sR+ er mAX' er heila!r+ er heitir UrSar#runnr. <Gylaginning 1-6,1=
The thir$ root of the Ash E:!!$rasilF stan$s in heaven? an$ un$er that root is the (ell
(hich is very holy+ that is calle$ the 7ell of Ur$r. < Bro$eur 1929622-28=
>ame in this (orl$ su!!ests fame in the realm #eyon$. The actions of this (orl$ fin$ their (ay into the
7ell of Urth+ Aust as the sin!in! of the sco also fin$s its (ay into the (ell. The !ro(in! son! (ith its
accumulatin! facts correson$s to the !ro(th of material in the realm of the ast.
The structural rincile or!anizin! 3idsith also informs &eor, a comanion oem to 3idsith in the
!(eter Boo+. &eor <forty-t(o lines= is consi$era#ly shorter than 3idsith, an$ its factual elements are
!iven in more $etail. .n a$$ition+ the in$ivi$ual sections of &eor <references to
7lun$+ the le!en$ary smith? Bea$ohil$+ the $au!hter of
l klmu`_okutkmr_vm_`dlprtutkklmompu_`
o$r c? the rei!n of 8ormanr c? an$ finally the unhay story of the sco+ *or+ himself= are all
searate$ #y the refrain egs oereodek eisses s*a mg &that asse$+ so may this&.
0
Mo$ern rea$ers
interret this line as a unifyin! $evice an$ fin$ it satisfyin!? ho(ever+ for the 9ermanic au$ience+ it
seems more li'ely that the $evice (as a &searatin!& rather than a unifyin! mechanism+ one that (oul$
hel the listener 'ee aart the in$ivi$ual facts #ein! cite$. Gne ten$s to feel that &eor has as its maAor
intention the value of en$urin! sufferin! in this (orl$? one en$ures an$ $oes not $esair+ for all
sufferin! has &asse$&6 egs oereodek eisses s*a mg. 7e must #e (ary of our (or$ passed, ho(ever+
(hich translates oereode &(ent over& or &(ent #eyon$&. -assed cannot mean &asse$ a(ay& or
&$isaeare$& #ut+ more nearly+ means &asse$ out of this (orl$ into the #eyon$& or &transcen$e$ limite$
human e/erience&. The sufferin! $escri#e$ in &eor is (orthy of mention only #ecause it has !one
#eyon$ mere human sufferin! an$ has si!nificantly asse$ into the realm of all !reat sufferin!. This
transcen$ence of or$inary e/erience ma'es the in$ivi$ual inci$ents of the oem (orthy of mention.
As (ith 3idsith, the sea'er of &eor $irectly associates himself (ith the material relate$ in the oem6
7i$sith travels+ *or suffers. Throu!h his o(n $ifficulties+ *or achieves his lace (ithin the &factual&
e/erience of the (orl$+ his immortality an$ fame. ;is oem ma'es this e/licit.
The emhasis on the interrelationshi of factual $etails of the sort Aust $escri#e$ in 3idsith an$ &eor
forms one of the maAor structural un$erinnin!s of Beo*ul. The oem is fille$ (ith $etail6 ersonal
histories+ reetitions of $ee$s of valor an$ co(ar$ice+ !enealo!ies+ etc. This material an$ its use in the
oem have !enerally #een thou!ht of #y commentators as analo!ical to the &central narrative&of the
oem+ Beo(ulf&s life story. The (hole i$ea of a central narrative+ ho(ever+ a central &story& (ith relate$
analo!ical $etails+ resents ro#lems. Mo$ern rea$ers seem to (ant this central narrative? (e call the
oem & Beo(ulf& an$ #y so $oin! imly that Beo(ulf&s art of the oem is its center. :et+ at every turn
the for(ar$+ narrative motion halts? Aust as (e (ant to fin$ out (hat haens ne/t+ the oem intro$uces
$etails that seem irrelevant6 7e are tol$ (hat haene$ to some#o$y else some(here else. .n moments
of !reat tension+ the oem ten$s to #ecome $iscursive. Beo(ulf&s fi!ht (ith the $ra!on+ for e/amle+
covers a#out -44 lines. The intro$uction of the $ra!on&s treasure <line 2244= is follo(e$ #y a
$escrition of its theft an$ an account of its #urial. Beo(ulf&s $iscovery of the rava!in! $ra!on only
occurs a#out 12- lines later <2,21=. Beo(ulf has an iron-#oun$ shiel$ ma$e <2,,0-,9=+ #ut this is not
follo(e$ #y the e/ecte$ fi!ht? instea$+ (e are !iven reminiscences of Beo(ulf&s earlier e/loits+ the
$eath of ;y!elac+ an$ the fate of his sons <2,1--90=. .n four lines+ Beo(ulf an$ his men trace the
$ra!on to its $en <2,92-144=. A!ain+ the fi!ht is ostone$. 7e hear more of ;y!elac an$ his sons
<212---48=6 ei!hty-four lines There are t(enty-seven more lines !iven to Beo(ulf&s accounts of his
o(n e/loits #efore he !ets $o(n to atten$in! to the $ra!on. ;is s(or$ fails+ an$ the $ra!on aears to
!et the uer han$. At this oint <2042=+ 7i!laf is su$$enly intro$uce$. )ater+ he an$ Beo(ulf succee$
in 'illin! the $ra!on <224-=. Throu!h none of this are narrative see$ an$ $eveloment central.
This continual refusal to stress the story $oes not mean that the oem is not much concerne$ (ith
events. Gn the contrary+ the interrelation of events is its central concern+ #ut they are not structure$ to
ma'e a narrative.
2
.nstea$+ the oem stresses asects of occurrences that seem a#normal to us no(
<influence$ as (e are #y narrative= an$ $eemhasizes others. The rimacy of temoral or chronolo!ical
seDuence+ for e/amle+ is $o(nlaye$. Gf course+ some events are resente$ in temoral or$er--certain
asects of life $eman$ this--#ut the $irect evolution of one event into another is not emhasize$.
5ather+ events are li'ely to #e sotty. This is e/actly (hat has #een notice$ a#ove in the resentation of
the #attle of Beo(ulf an$ the $ra!on. .t is+ to an even !reater e/tent+ the (ay in (hich events are
relate$ in #oth &eor an$ 3idsith. )i'e(ise+ events are not li'ely to follo( one another (ith any stron!
feelin! of cause an$ effect. There is in 9ermanic literature no stron! feelin! of immediate causality of
events one uon another.
8
The in$ivi$ual se!ments of (hat aear to us to #e clearly inter$een$ent
an$ relate$ actions freDuently occur in Beo*ul as searate an$ $istinct entities+ li'e rain$ros fallin!+
as if #y chance+ into the same u$$le.
To illustrate this henomenon+ let us e/amine a art of the #attle #et(een Beo(ulf an$ 9ren$el&s
Mother <the secon$ maAor &action& seDuence of the oem=. Beo(ulf has Aust struc' out (ith the s(or$+
;runtin!+ (hich+ for the first time in its history+ $oes not #ite. ;e thro(s $o(n the s(or$ an$
9efn!
HI #e
ea/
le
--
nal
as
for
fJ
d lm
mearn--
9LS-
9ata
lo$
9ren$les
m^$or?
#rJ!$ HI
#ea$(e
hear$+ HI
h
!e#ol!en
(Js+
feorh!en Slan+
HJt ho flet
!e#ah.
;o
him eft
hrae
an$lan
for!eal$
!rimman
!rIum
on$ him
t^!anes
fn!?
ofer(ear
HI
(ri!m^$
(i!ena
stren!est+
fHecema+
HJt h on
fylle
(earS.
GfsJt
HI Hone
sele!yst+
on$ hyre
sea/
!etah
#rI$
Eon$F
#rLnec
!?
(ol$e
hire
#earn
(recan
< 1-,2-
10=
Belo(+ the Gl$ 8n!lish assa!e is ren$ere$ as literally as ossi#le+ (ith the connectives <conAunctions=
lin'in! events retaine$ (ith the assa!es of the te/t they accomany. A rece$es a se!ment of the
te/t for (hich no connection is e/licitly resent6
<e=
the man of the Battle-9eats !rase$ 9ren$el&s Mother #y
the shoul$er
<nalas= unhay for the fi!htin!
<e= the ri!or of #attle of the life-enemies move$ Duic'ly <brggd
. . . bead*e heard E 1-,9F=
<e= he (as enra!e$
<egt= she san' to the floor
<et= she reai$ him Duic'ly reDuital (ith !rim !rass
<ond= seize$ a!ainst him
<e=
(eary-in-sirit+ the foot (arrior+ the stron!est of fi!hters
tum#le$ over
<egt= he came into a fall
<e= E 9ren$el&s MotherF sat uon the hall-visitor
<ond= $re( out her #roa$+ #ro(n-e$!e$ $a!!er
<= (oul$ aven!e her chil$
7hen (e e/amine the (hole #attle scene+ (e can sense that it is some(hat curiously resente$. .nstea$
of havin! t(o com#atants loc'e$ in mutually affectin! conflict+ the te/t seems rather more intereste$ in
'eein! them searate6 Beo(ulf $oes this? 9ren$el&s Mother $oes that an$ that? the #attle ra!es?
Beo(ulf falls? 9ren$el&s Mother $ra(s her 'nife+ etc. Gccasionally+ their actions seem to #e relate$+ for
e/amle+ (here Beo(ulf falls an$ 9ren$el&s Mother sits ato him < 1-11-1-=. 7e are temte$ to rea$
this as &#ecause Beo(ulf has fallen+ 9ren$el&s Mother can no( !ain the uer han$&. The te/t+ ho(ever+
says&<egt= he came into a fall& an$ &<e= E 9ren$el&s MotherF sat uon the hall-visitor&.
9
The Gl$ 8n!lish
te/t is concerne$ (ith (hat each articiant is himself $oin!+ #ut it is not really much concerne$ (ith
(hat each articiant is $oin! to the other or (hat they <to!ether= are $oin!. The te/t collects their
actions an$ laces them in conAunction (ith each other+ an$ the fact that these actions mi!ht have some
chronolo!ical or causal relationshi or that the necessities of the hysical (oul$ lace certain
restrictions uon their occurrence is not of uermost imortance in the te/tual confi!uration they
form.
This short #attle seDuence is tyical of the metho$ of resentation of events throu!hout the oem.
8very action calls to itself other actions to (hich it is si!nificantly lin'e$. This lin'a!e may #e
imme$iate ro/imity in time an$ sace+ as much of the material in this #attle is. The lin'a!e may #e
allusive an$ $istant #ut may share some si!nificant thematic elements+ as much of the material lin'e$
to Beo(ulf&s final fli!ht (ith the $ra!on seems to #e. %uch lin'a!e is valua#le #ecause it illustrates an$
e/ten$s the si!nificance of the associate$ actions. .n Beo*ul, as in 3idsith an$ &eor, the value of any
one action is not clear until it is further relate$ to other actions? the more relations it has (ith other
actions+ the !reater an$ clearer its si!nificance #ecomes. The imortance of any action lies not so much
in the rocess or manner of its occurrence #ut in the act of this occurrence an$ the ossi#ilities this
fact has for allo(in! the action+ no( fi/e$+ to #e relate$ to other facts. Thus+ Beo(ulf&s fi!ht (ith
9ren$el&s Mother is li'e a strin! or arran!ement of #ea$s or the inter(oven stran$s of a roe+ (here
each #ea$ <or stran$= maintains its in$ivi$uality an$ the construct of the (hole results from the
strin!in! or inter(eavin!. The elements that ma'e u the account can easily #e unstrun! or un(oven
an$ reconfi!ure$ if there is some reason to $o so.
The seara#ility of the various elements ma'in! u this #attle can #e seen clearly (hen this first
version is comare$ to the t(o retellin!s of the #attle that occur later in the oem. These are #oth
relate$ #y Beo(ulf himself6 in the first < 10---00=+ he retells the #attle for ;roth!ar+ an$ in the secon$
<21,--11=+ the e/loit is reeate$ for ;y!elac. .n neither of these versions are all the $etails of the
stru!!le reeate$.
14
.n$ee$+ Beo(ulf&s accounts e/clu$e the actions of 9ren$el&s Mother. ;e focuses
almost entirely on himself. .n the account to ;roth!ar+ the only mention of 9ren$el or his mother
< 100--00= refers to them as hses hyrdas &'eeers of the house&. 9ren$el&s Mother $oes not &act& at all.
>irst-erson ronouns <ic, me, mec= occur seven times in the assa!e. Any reference to the #attle itself
is o#liDuely ma$e throu!h terms li'e (i!!e &fi!ht& or *eorc &$ee$& < 10-0= or g5 &#attle& < 10-8=. The
maAor ortion of this account is !iven over to ho( the s(or$ ;runtin!+ (ith (hich Beo(ulf ha$ #een
arme$ for the #attle+ (as una#le to assist him < 10-9-04= an$ ho( the #attle (as finally (on #y an
ealds*eord < 1001-00=+ (hich he $iscovere$ in 9ren$el&s Mother&s cave. 7hen Beo(ulf reeats the
#attle for ;y!elac+ it is a!ain relate$ in terms of (hat he alone $i$6
.c SI SJs (Jlmes+ HL is ( $e cLS+
!rimne !ryrel cne !run$hyr$e fon$.
UJr unc h( le (Js han$ !emJne?
holm heolfre (oll+ on$ ic haf$e #ecearf
in SIm E!LSFsele 9ren$eles m^$or
acnum ec!um? uns^fte Honan
feorh oSfere$e? u nps` dmk
<21,--11=
.+ as is (i$ely 'no(n+ foun$
the !rim+ terri#le !roun$-!uar$ian of the sur!in!-(ater.
There+ a(hile+ (as a han$ share$ #et(een us?
the sea (elle$ (ith #loo$+ an$ . cut off the hea$
of 9ren$el&s Mother in the #attle-hall
(ith !reat #la$es? uneasily thence
E.F #ore a(ay life? . (as not yet
qtom` dm
9ren$el&s Mother is only assively resent? her han$ is &share$& (ith Beo(ulf&s <21,2=+ an$ her hea$ is
cut off <21,8=. >irst-erson ronouns a!ain re$ominate <ic three times+ unc once=. There is aarently
no nee$ for Beo(ulf to recount the ri!ors of the stru!!le #ecause it is alrea$y * de c5 &(i$ely
'no(n&. .t is clear that 9ren$el&s Mother&s action no lon!er lays any si!nificant role. .t is Beo(ulf&s
victory alone that has continue$ si!nificance.
Action as fact <or relate$ to fact= has #een note$ in other asects of 9ermanic culture. >irst+ of course+
is the association of actions (ith items. 9ifts+ s(or$s+ armor+ shis+ etc. lay an imortant role in
Beo*ul.
11
7hat (e !ain from the literature+ (hich coul$ only #e inferre$ from the !rave fin$s+ is
some e/licit account of the si!nificance of these !oo$s. They are usually heirlooms+ items (ith
histories an$ !enealo!ies. .n$ee$+ it is the !reatest element of value of an heirloom that it carries (ith it
its o(n ast. .n the literature+ these si!nificant items have a ten$ency to !et themselves attache$ to
si!nificant actions. The various versions of the fi!ht (ith 9ren$el&s Mother sho( this clearly. The first
account en$s (ith Beo(ulf&s victory+ (hich has #een maneuvere$ #y $ivine control? after 9ren$el&s
Mother ha$ !aine$ the uer han$
;Jf$e S fors iSo$ sunu 8c!Ho(es
un$er !ynne !run$+ 9ata cema+
nemne him heaSo#yrne hele !efreme$e+
herenet hear$e+-- on$ hli! 9o$
!e(ol$ ( !si!or? (Iti! *rihten+
o_mot dmu hit on ryht !esc$
Selce+ syHSan h eft Ist^$.
9eseah SI on sear(um si!ea$i! #il+
eal$s(eor$ eotenisc ec!um Hhti!+
(i!ena (eorSmyn$?
HJt E(JsF (J
d utsnk
#Lton hit (Js mIre
_uum dupqtu
^Ser
t^ #ea$ulIce Jt#eran meahte+
!^$ on$ !eatol c+ ! !anta !e(eorc.
; !efn! HI fetelhilt+ freca %cyl$in!a
< 1--4-0,=
The son of 8c!theo( (oul$ have $earte$
un$er the (i$e !roun$+ the (arrior of the 9eats+
ha$ not his #attle-#yrnie !iven him hel+
the har$ (ar-net+--an$ holy 9o$
controlle$ the #attle-victory+ the mi!hty )or$+
the 5uler of the heavens $eci$e$ it in ri!htE?F
easily then E]] sye5an etF he stoo$ u.
There aeare$ Eor &he sa(&F in the mi$st of thin!s E] on
sear*umF a victory-#lest s(or$+
an$ ol$+ suernatural s(or$+ mi!hty (ith #la$es+
the !lory of (arriors. That (as the choicest of (eaons+
e/cet it (as !reater than any other man
mi!ht #ear to #attle+
!oo$ an$ $ecorate$ E] !eatol cF+ the (or' of !iants.
;e+ the sol$ier of the %cyl$in!s+ !rase$ the rin!e$-hilt
an$+ (ith it+ Beo(ulf slays 9ren$el&s Mother. 3ot only is the s(or$ imortant to the action+ #ut the
amount an$ 'in$ of $escrition lavishe$ uon it in the conte/t oint to(ar$ its secial si!nificance. The
#attle has+ imme$iately #efore the resence of the s(or$ is intro$uce$+ #een lace$ (ithin the $ecision
of 9o$+ an$ his $ominance of the (hole action is ma$e e/licit.
12
.n$ee$+ it is his $ecision that has
ma$e Beo(ulf the victor. This action+ then+ is !overne$ #y the controllin! forces of the universe
#eyon$ the (orl$ of men <an$ monsters+ (hose (orl$ seems in this te/t to #e most closely i$entifie$
(ith an$ tan!ential to man&s=. The s(or$ Beo(ulf finally uses to 'ill 9ren$el&s Mother has its source
an$ history outsi$e man&s (orl$+ too. .t is+ amon! other thin!s+ an ealds*eord eotenisc, a g ganta
ge*eorc, in fact+ cyst &the #est+ the choicest& of (eaons. .t is so !reat+ ho(ever+ that its use lies #eyon$
the means of most men. The e/tensive $escrition of the s(or$ may seem to mo$ern rea$ers stran!e+
#ecause very little of it #eyon$ the hrase ecgum ehtig &mi!hty (ith #la$es& seems to #e of any $irect
relevance to Beo(ulf&s ro#lems. All of this historical+ $escritive material is+ ho(ever+ in the
9ermanic conte/t+ e/tremely relevant. ;runtin!+ the s(or$ that he has trie$ to use a!ainst 9ren$el&s
Mother an$ that has faile$ to #ite+ is the very #est 'in$ of human s(or$+ #ut it is not sufficient to the
!reatness of this tas'. Beo(ulf is $ealin! (ith the !reater-than-human+ an$ he nee$s a correson$in!
(eaon? hence+ (e are e/licitly tol$ of this s(or$&s ori!in an$ history. This !reatest of s(or$s (ill
rovi$e the !reatest action in the han$s+ naturally+ of the !reatest of men. As a result+ the !lory of the
$ee$ is share$ #y Beo(ulf an$ the s(or$.
7hen Beo(ulf reorts the #attle to ;roth!ar+ he sen$s little time on 9ren$el&s Mother+ as (e have
alrea$y seen. ;e focuses on 9o$&s control of the #attle+ the aearance an$ $escrition of the s(or$+
an$ ho( it melte$ in the #loo$ of the #attle. After Beo(ulf&s reort to ;roth!ar conclu$es < 1020=+ the
oem e/lains ho( Beo(ulf !ave the hilt to ;roth!ar < 1022-28=+ an$+ in lines 102980+ the history of
the s(or$ continues. The hilt then encoura!es ;roth!ar to sea'+ #ut #efore he $oes+ a further+ more
e/ten$e$ $escrition of the s(or$ hilt occurs6
E ;roth!arF hylt sca(o$e+
mtrmr`m_u dqnoopkmu
fyrn!e(innes+ sySHan fl^$ ofsl^h+
!ifen !oten$e ! !anta cyn+
frcne !efr$on? HJt (Js frem$e Ho$
cean *ryhtne? him HJs en$elan
Hurh (Jteres (ylm 7al$en$ seal$e.
n_u dqnsmuuqnsotu_rmn
Hurh rLnstafas rihte !emearco$+
mnmkm_umn dlq
HJt s(eor$ !e(orht+
omutsnkd omnkd om
om_mulprk_uoq` dl
< 1082-98=
;roth!ar loo'e$ at the hilt+
the ol$ heirloom+ on (hich (as (ritten the #e!innin!
of ancient-strife+ after the floo$ sle(+
the rushin! sea+ the race of !iants
E(hoF $i$ terri#le thin!s? that (as a eole forei!n
to the eternal )or$? to them+ a final-re(ar$
9o$ !ave throu!h the (helm of the (ater.
Thus EitF (as on the hilt-!uar$s of #ri!ht !ol$
throu!h runes ri!htly mar'e$+
set an$ sai$+ for (hom the s(or$ (as ma$e
ori!inally+ the #est of irons
(ith t(iste$-hilt an$ serent $ecorate$
The $escrition stic's close to early history6 for (hom the s(or$ (as ma$e+ (hat haene$ to the race
of !iants+ etc. The emhasis on the runes an$ (hat they (rite seems to stress a!ain that the s(or$
carries (ith it its o(n history. 3o( the oem+ after the s(or$&s last act+ e/ten$s this history an$
associates it (ith Beo(ulf&s o(n+ (hich is Aust #e!innin! to e/an$ throu!hout the (orl$. Beo(ulf&s
e/loit !ains stature throu!h its association (ith such a ma!nificent s(or$. 7hen ;roth!ar $oes finally
sea' in resonse to Beo(ulf&s account of the #attle (ith 9ren$el&s Mother < 1244 ff.=+ he sea's
$irectly of the (i$e-ran!in! si!nificance that Beo(ulf&s e/loits have no( acDuire$. The (hole
assa!e !ro(s an$ Au/taoses event to event+ sho(in! the interrelation #et(een (hat is occurrin! an$
(hat has occurre$.
Beo(ulf !ives the s(or$ hilt to ;roth!ar+ an$ ;roth!ar recirocates #y !ivin! !ifts to Beo(ulf. These
recirocal actions not only #in$ ;roth!ar to Beo(ulf an$ vice versa #ut continually (eave events into
each other an$ actually e/ten$ the hysical resence of the actions they commemorate.
1,
Thus+
;roth!ar no( has the s(or$ hilt (ith its value+ an$ Beo(ulf has the !ifts !iven him+ (hich+ as they
(ere !iven to commemorate his victorious action+ also carry the value of the act. 7hen Beo(ulf
returns to the lan$ of the 9eats an$ reorts his e/loits to ;y!elac+ the reort concentrates on the !ifts
that have #een !iven to him #y ;roth!ar. The #attle is !iven in very little $etail? 9ren$el&s Mother is
har$ly resent. Also+ unli'e the seech to ;roth!ar earlier in (hich the s(or$ an$ its history are !reatly
emhasize$+ the s(or$ is only assively mentione$ here <21,8-14=? Beo(ulf mentions that he cut off
9ren$el&s Mother&s hea$ (ith &mi!hty #la$es&. This reort is follo(e$ #y a len!thy assa!e <2112-20= in
(hich ;roth!ar&s !ifts to Beo(ulf are $escri#e$ an$ $istri#ute$ #y Beo(ulf to ;y!elac an$ his court.
Beo(ulf recounts the history an$ imortance of each !ift. A$$itionally+ the oem itself often furnishes
more information a#out the !ifts than coul$ #e !iven #y Beo(ulf himself. Throu!h the !ivin! an$
receivin! of these !ifts+ the si!nificance of Beo(ulf&s victories is e/ten$e$ to the 9eats+ (hose nation
no( (ill share in the !reatness they sym#olize. .t is not surrisin! to have learne$ earlier in the oem
<119--90= that one of the rin!s inclu$e$ amon! these !ifts #elon!e$ later to ;y!elac an$ (as (orn #y
him at the time of his $eath <1242-11=.
The association of actions an$ thin!s also mar's the t(o !reat clusters of events that #e!in an$ en$ the
oem6 the life an$ $eath of %cyl$ <1--2= an$ Beo(ulf&s #attle (ith the $ra!on+ his (innin! of the
$ra!on&s treasure+ an$ his funeral. Althou!h consi$era#ly less sace is affor$e$ the activities of %cyl$+
the account occurrin! at the very #e!innin! of the oem has !reat rominence. The first half of the
account $eals (ith %cyl$&s rise to !lory+ an$ the last half is $escritive of his funeral. %cyl$&s
accomlishments are #riefly note$6 ;e meodosetla otah, egsode eorlas <--0=+ an$ that is a#out it.
Clearly+ the emhasis of the account is not on *hat or ho* %cyl$ accomlishe$ (hat he $i$ #ut on the
fact that he $i$ it+ that he (as one of the eelingas (ho ellen remedon &one of the no#le men (ho
accomlishe$ !reat thin!s&. That he is (orthy of remem#rance an$ that his eaeran &follo(ers& <in the
sense #oth of $escen$ants an$ of retainers= carrie$ on this !lory in the (orl$ are si!nificant. The
assa!e culminates in the $escrition of his funeral <20--2=+ the most imortant event of his life+ an$ it
is !iven all the rominence that the $eath of a !reat man reDuires.
%cyl$&s shi funeral has not remaine$ unnotice$ #y commentators #ecause elements of it arallel
closely the 'no(n remains of 9ermanic #urials. The shi is la$en (ith mdma mnigo <11= an$
mdma fela <,0= &much treasure& an$ (ith (eaons. 7hen the shi is loose$ from its moorin!+ it sails
out to the oen sea6
Men ne cunnon
nmstuknmnmrmo dmum
hJleS un$er heofenum+ h(I HJ
d qlrnkm_u`u
<-4--2=
Men $o not 'no(+
truth to tell+ the hall-counselors+
men un$er the heavens+ (ho receive$ that car!o.
This funeral e/hi#its in its $etails the
icono!rahic elements foun$ in the myth of
Urth&s 7ell+ (hich are common in 'no(n
9ermanic #urials. There is the enclosure+ the
(ater+ an$ the ortho!onal relationshi #et(een
the (ell an$ tree+ achieve$ #y the lacin! of
srin_puklmsmukmo_`klmnlpqdoumm
mJste <,0=+ at the most si!nificant oint.
11
.n the rite+ the shi sails out to $isaear from the (orl$ of
men? %cyl$+ his treasure+ his life (ill Aoin (ith the (ater. This fact !ives line -2 a$$e$ resonance
#ecause no man on earth has the 'no(le$!e to sea' of those (ho (oul$ receive such car!o in the
#eyon$+ in that realm of e/istence to (hich %cyl$ has $earte$. .n a$$ition+ there is a stron! feelin! of
!eneration in the assa!e (ith its emhasis uon %cyl$&s eafera. %cyl$&s life an$ actions are still felt+
esecially at this moment of their recitation.
The resence of !reat treasure in %cyl$&s funeral shi is contraste$ to the a#solute lac' of !oo$s that
accomanie$ %cyl$&s first aearance in this (orl$6
trnllpumr d nntu
lIcum to$an+
Ho$!estronum+ Hon HI
$y$on+
H hine Jt frumsceafte
for onsen$on
d uum_`mom
um#r(esen$e.
<1,-10= 3ot at all $i$ they a$orn him (ith fe(er !ifts+
(ith tri#al-treasures+ than
those EothersF $i$
(ho sent him forth at the
#e!innin!
alone over the (ave as a
chil$.
%cyl$ aarently arrive$ a foun$lin! in the lan$ of the *anes6 ;e :__ asceat unden <0-
2= &first (as foun$ #ereft-of-thin!s&. This voya!e out contrasts (ith his final voya!e #ac'. .n each case+
the actions of his #ein! &sent& are !overne$ #y ver#s the a!ency of (hich is left unsecifie$+ an$ the
(hole assa!e is suffuse$ (ith the resence of unseen o(er. 7e shoul$ not i!nore the interestin!
semantic an$ alliterative relationshi #et(een the hrases asceat <2= &(ithout-thin!s& an$ dt
rumsceate <1-= &at the #e!innin!& or+ more literally+ &at Ethe ointF (ithout thin!s rior or #efore&.
1-
Thus+ %cyl$ (as dt rumsceate, asceat. These thin!s are+ of course+ ossessions+ accomlishments+
any ersonal history+ everythin!. %cyl$ must ma'e his (ay entirely on his o(n an$ create his o(n
history. ;is relation to Beo(ulf in this resect is very close. Beo(ulf also #e!ins (ith very little
ersonal history+ an$ he also must create it as he lives his life. The oem resents for us the rocess #y
(hich Beo(ulf also #ecomes a !reat lea$er an$ merits an imortant funeral at the oem&s en$. This is
one of the most imortant structural elements of the oem6 ho( the man #orn asceat achieves
!reatness.
Beo(ulf&s $eath an$ funeral+ the focus of the en$in! of the oem+ are+ as (e have alrea$y note$+ much
interrute$ #y &e/traneous& material a#out 7i!laf+ Beo(ulf&s earlier e/loits+ ;y!elac&s $eath+ etc. All
of this is necessary+ ho(ever+ to illustrate fully the si!nificance of Beo(ulf&s life. The imortance of his
actions lies not only in (hat he erforms--this is #ut a small ortion of its si!nificance--#ut in the
e/tent to (hich these actions touch uon an$ are touche$ #y other asects of human activity from
earliest times on(ar$. That 9ren$el an$ his relatives $escen$ from Cain+ for e/amle+ seems+ at first+ a
rather a('(ar$ insertion of Christian material into a urely 9ermanic te/t? yet+ as (ith 3idsith, such
si!nificant factual material is the very stuff from (hich a 9ermanic te/t is (oven. Beo(ulf&s life mi/es
(ith Cain&s an$ %cyl$&s6 ol$+ imortant thin!s (hose first force (as felt in gardagum, in earliest times?
they touch the >risians+ the >ran's+ the %(e$es+ an$ so on. 7here these si!nificances are finally to !o
the oem leaves to us.
10

Beo(ulf&s fi!ht (ith the $ra!on is inte!rally lin'e$ (ith his acDuisition of the $ra!on&s treasure+ (hich
is reeate$ly emhasize$ throu!hout the last thir$ of the oem from its first mention <2212= till the en$.
There is no escain! it+ an$ the mo$ern rea$er is li'ely to #e a little ta'en a#ac' #y its continually
assertin! itself into affairs that seem to have very little relation to it. :et+ it is clearly of central
imortance to the (hole last action of the oem. The treasure ha$ #een #urie$ #y the last survivor of a
no(-vanishe$ eole. Because the eole&s history is a#out to come to an en$+ its acDuire$
longgestron &ol$ tri#al-treasure& <2214= also ceases to have active history or value. Thus+ it is #urie$
an$ si!nificantly asses from the (orl$ of men into a stone #arro(6
Beorh eall!earo
(uno$e on (on!e (JterSum nah+ n (e #e nJsse . . .
<2211-1,=
A #arro( all reare$
stoo$ on the shore near the (ater-(aves+
ne( on the hea$lan$ . . .
The treasure is comose$ of artifacts of the usual 'in$6 : &cu& <2210=+ sinct &cu& <22,1+ 2,44=+
s*eord &s(or$& <22-2+ ,418=+ :` dmi_outqmukmsi dryncdt &$rin'in! cu&
<22-1+ 2,40=+ helm &helmet& <22--+ 2202=+ herep1d &corselet& <22-8=+ searogimmas &s'illfully cut Ae(els&
<2219=+ earmbaga ela &many arm-rin!s& <220,=+ bagas &rin!s& <,14-=+ segn eallgylden &!ol$en #anner&
<2202=+ bunan ond discas &cus an$ $ishes& <222-+ ,412-18=+ orcas &itchers<N=& <,412=+ much !ol$ an$
iron. .t $oes not seem (ron! to see this collection of items as the !rave !oo$s of the vanishe$ race+
#urie$ in (hat (oul$ #e a cenotah li'e %utton ;oo. The shae of the #arro(+ the enclosure (ithin
stone+ an$ its ro/imity to the *dter5 &sea-(ave& <(ater in motion= all su!!est the icono!rahy
aroriate to #urial. 8ven the coile$+ sleein! serent (ithin the #arro(+ (ho eventually stri'es u
an$ out (hen $istur#e$ #y the theft of the sincdt &cu& <22,1=+ is icono!rahically correct for
e/ressin! the sur!in! forth of the ast uon the resent. The treasure&s value is a value of the ast+ an$
its #urial has e/licitly cut it off from the resent. .ts $ra!on-!uar$ian+ clearly not a art of the
every$ay (orl$ of men+ remains aart from the here-an$-no( only until the affairs of the resent an$
the ast colli$e. Gnce $istur#e$+ the ast sur!es for(ar$ an$ shaes the resent. The eo* &slave&
<222,= (ho steals the cu is unname$ in the te/t an$ lays no art in the final events #eyon$ settin!
them !oin!? he is : &untouche$+ unmar'e$& <2291= #y the !reatness of thin!s. .t is Beo(ulf+ the
lea$er of his eole+ (ho #ecomes involve$ an$ (ho (ins the treasure an$ achieves the !reatness of
the victory.
12
Beo(ulf un$erstan$s clearly that the theft has violate$ the ealde riht &the ol$ ri!ht&
<2,,4=+ the o(er an$ or$er of the ast+ an$ this realization stirs him uncommonly6 brost innan *oll
eostrum geeoncum, s* him gee*e ne *ds &his #reast (elle$ (ithin (ith $ar' thou!hts+ as (as not
its custom& <2,,1-,2=. Thus+ Beo(ulf an$ the $ra!on+ the resent an$ the ast+ are $ra(n to!ether.
7hen Beo(ulf aroaches the #arro(
;im (Js !emor sefa+
(fre on$ (Jlfs+ (yr$ un!emete nah+
s Sone !omelan !rtan sceol$e+
nsmtunrml_onuom drtu
l f (iS l ce. . .
<2119-2,=
;is sirit (as resolute+
restless an$ slau!hter-ea!er+ *yrd E(asF e/cee$in!ly near+
(hich (as o#li!e$ to !reet the a!e$ EmanF+
to see' his soul&s hoar$+ to ren$ asun$er
life from #o$y . . .
3yrd, actin! throu!h the a!ency of the $ra!on+ is to acDuire the hoar$ of Beo(ulf&s soul Aust as
Beo(ulf (ill acDuire the $ra!on&s hoar$. Beo(ulf&s &soul&s hoar$&+ his sirit an$ the !reat $ee$s
accomlishe$ throu!h it+ is connecte$ $irectly to all of the len!thy &$i!ressions& that erva$e the fi!ht6
;y!elac&s ill-fate$ e/e$ition into >rieslan$+ Beo(ulf&s o(n early e/loits+ ;ere#eal$&s 'illin! of
;JScyn+ the $ifficulties (ith the %(e$es+ an$ so on. This #attle (ill result in all of these activities
attachin! to the $ra!on&s hoar$ (hen Beo(ulf (ins it+ as $oes the fact of the victory itself. The treasure
(ill ass from the $ra!on to Beo(ulf+ an$ it (ill #e re#urie$ (ith Beo(ulf (hen his resence in the
(orl$ of men ceases.
The assa!e in the te/t that $escri#es the state of events Aust after Beo(ulf arrives at the $ra!on&s
#arro( offers still more emhasis uon the icono!rahy of the myth of Urth&s 7ell. Beo(ulf
9eseah SI #e (ealle s Se (orna fela
!umcystum !^$ !LSa !e$ !e+
hil$ehlemma+ Honne hnitan fSan+
stoEnF$an stIn#o!an+ stram Lt Honan
omstu_`m_om n domouturq
heaSofrum hIt . . .
<2-12-12=
%a( there #y the (all--he (ho many
#attles survive$+ !oo$ (ith manly-virtues+
E(ho ha$ survive$F #attle-rushes (hen foot-sol$iers fou!ht
to!ether--
Ehe sa(F a stone-arch stan$in! Ean$F a stream out thence
#rea'in! from the #arro(? there (as (helm of a #ourne
hot (ith #attle-fire . . .
;ere the (ater+ the sur!in!+ the enclosure are all e/licitly lai$ out. The $etail of the sur!in! forth of
the hot stream <burnan *dlm :_ =+ an aarently e/traneous $etail+ su!!ests
;ver!elmir+ the &seethin! caul$ron&+ one of the tyes of the 4r5arbrunnr+ an$ the resence of the
$ra!on su!!ests the serents (ithin it. Burne is not a common (or$ in Gl$ 8n!lish+ an$ this is its only
occurrence in the (hole of Beo*ul. .ts use here ma'es it Duite clear that this situation is one in (hich
(yr$ is ungemete nah.
Beo(ulf $ies after slayin! the $ra!on+ an$ the oem recounts the $etails of his funeral an$ #urial.
These re(or' most of the main elements foun$ in %cyl$&s shi #urial at the #e!innin!. Both men are
#urie$ (ith the !reat treasures in$icative of the !reatness of their lives& actions? #oth return to (ater
<%cyl$ to his shi+ Beo(ulf to his #arro( on ;ronesnJs &the (hale&s hea$lan$&=. This $isaearance
from the (orl$ of men into (ater <or into some close conAunction (ith (ater= carries the secial
si!nificance of the assa!e of events in this (orl$ into the realm of the ast+ the realm #eyon$+ (hich
e/erts !reat force uon the $irection of events here. %uch events are not limite$ to men alone or to the
rituals surroun$in! funerals. After Beo(ulf has slain the $ra!on+ for e/amle+ his men
$racan c scufun+ (yrm ofer (eallclif+ lton (! niman+ fl^$ fJSmian frJt(a hyr$e.
<,1,1-,,=
also shove$ the $ra!on+ the serent over the cliff-(all+ let the current ta'e+ the floo$ enfol$
the !uar$ian of the treasure.
Thin!s also $isaear. The treasure (on throu!h Beo(ulf&s victory over the $ra!on is sai$ to meltan
mid em mZdigan &melt (ith the !reat-man& <,411= on his funeral yre #efore #ein! #urie$ in the
#arro(. Meltin! lays a si!nificant art in the other !reat actions of the oem.
18
The s(or$ (ith (hich
Beo(ulf has $isatche$ 9ren$el&s Mother &melts& after the action < 104--1-=. The $ra!on slain in the lay
of %i!emun$ also melts6 *yrm ht gemealt <892=. Because $isaearance into (ater or $issolvin! into
liDui$ reresents the $ominant influence uon man&s affairs #y the o(ers #eyon$+ it a$$s an imortant
$imension to Beo(ulf&s $escent into the mere to see' out 9ren$el&s Mother <1112 ff.=. The mere itself
ha$ #een si!nificantly $escri#e$ earlier6 er mdg nihta geh*m n5*undor son,
:_`b _`
gumena bearna, edt eone grund *ite.
_u_ud mr_unkm
(on t^ (olcnum+ Honne (in$ styreH
lIS !e(i$ru+ oS HJt lyft $rysmaH+
ro$eras rotaS.
<1,0--20=
There may one see each ni!ht a fearful-(on$er+
fire in the (ater. 3o man lives so (ise
amon! the sons of men (ho 'no(s that $eth E] !run$F
Thence the (ave-tossin! rises u
$ar' to the s'ies+ (hen the (in$ stirs
#a$ (eather+ until the air #ecomes !loomy+
the heavens (ee.
The (ellin! fire-(ater of the mere seethes (ith serents6
Ges*on 5 dter *dtere *yrmcynnes ela,
sellice sdracan sund cunnian,
s*ylce on ndshleo5um nicras licgean,
5 on undernmdl ot be*itiga5
sorhulne s 5 on seglrde,
*yrmas ond *ildor.
<112--,4=
They sa( in the (ater many of the serent-'in$+
(on$rous sea-$ra!ons e/lorin! the (aters+
such nicors as lie on the hea$lan$s+
(ho+ in the mornin!s+ often accomlish
sorro(ful $ee$s on the sail-roa$+
serents an$ (il$-#easts.
This scene is as frau!ht (ith the elements of si!nificant action as that of the $ra!on&s #arro( alrea$y
$escri#e$.
Closely relate$ to the elements resente$ a#ove are those surroun$in! the reeate$ acts of s(immin! in
the oem. .t is ma$e clear from early in the oem <-40 ff.= that Beo(ulf is a roficient s(immer.
19
>rom its first mention in the oem+ the Breca contest+ to the last+ Beo(ulf&s escae from >rieslan$+
s(immin! accomanies !reat actions. .n the first+ (e fin$ the ervasive sea #easts attemtin! to $ra!
Beo(ulf ermanently into their realm6
%(I mec !el^me lIS!etonan
Hrate$on Hearle. .c him Hno$e
$oran s(eor$e+ s(I hit !e$fe (Js.
<--9-01=
Thus it haene$ to me that the evil-accomlishers
harasse$ EmeF severely. . serve$ them
(ith a recious s(or$+ as it (as fittin!.
.n the last eiso$e+ Beo(ulf saves not only his o(n life #ut the honor of his comatriots (ho have
fallen in #attle6
Honan B o(ulf c^m
sylfes crJfte+ sun$nytte $rah?
hJf$e him on earme <Ina= Hr ti!
hil$e!eat(a+ HI h t^ holme <st=I!.
<2,-9-02=
Thence Beo(ulf came
#y his o(n s'ill #earin! himself EuF #y means of the (ater?
he ha$ on his arm alone thirty
ieces of (ar-armor (hen he stee$ to the (ater.
;is a#ility to s(im+ to overcome the moment of !reat activity+ allo(s him to escae (ith the armor of
his comanions+ to 'ee it from lun$er+ an$ to save for the 9eats the !lory it reresents < Clar'
190-a=.
Actions an$ thin!s are further si!nificantly lin'e$ in the oem throu!h seech. .n$ee$+ it is the relation
#et(een actions an$ thin!s to!ether an$ the act of seech that is most clearly e/resse$ #y the
9ermanic oem. %eech is the means #y (hich the fact of any action is ma$e e/licit an$ the (ay in
(hich its continuin! resence is assure$. 7e have sense$ this factual nature of the act of sea'in!
alrea$y in #oth 3idsith an$ &eor. %eech lays a li'e(ise imortant role in Beo*ul. There seem to #e
at least t(o imortant 'in$s of &fact-esta#lishin!& seech utilize$ in the oem6 the bot or gilp <seech
that #in$s the resent to the ast= an$+ for (ant of a #etter term+ the &account& <seech #y (hich the ast
is #rou!ht for(ar$ into the resent=.
24
The &account& is #est e/emlifie$ #y the form of most 9ermanic
oems themselves6 3idsith an$ &eor are !oo$ e/amles+ so are most other Gl$ 8n!lish &historical&
oems+ an$ so is the 3orse 8$$a. There are (ithin Beo*ul a num#er of these set &accounts&6 the lay of
%i!emun$+ for e/amle+ an$ the #attle at >inns#ur!. ;avin! loo'e$ at t(o of these in some $etail+ (e
'no( retty (ell (hat they are li'e. The other 'in$ of seech+ the bot or gilp+ $iffers in si!nificant
(ays from the account. &The (or$s gylp*ord an$ beot*ord. . . seem to mean the same thin!? #ut it is
ro#a#le that gielp-stresses the !lory of the a$venture+ somethin! to #oast of+ (hereas beot-stresses the
fact that it is a romise+ a vo(. Both (or$s (ith their $erivatives recur a!ain an$ a!ain . . . EinF heroic
oetry& < 8inarsson 19,16920=.
21
The bot laces its &romise& of action (ithin a closely $efine$ course
of events from (hich the sea'er (ill #e una#le to e/tricate himself (ithout sho(in! himself to #e a
fool or a co(ar$. Thus+ the utterer of the bot laces himself at the confluence of (or$s an$ $ee$s? the
outcome is the $irect association an$ involvement of the sea'er in the unity of the t(o (here the $ee$
is foun$ to #e at one (ith the bot*ord. Gther(ise+ he (ill #e at variance (ith the course of events
imlyin! either his ina#ility to un$erstan$ the course of events <rovin! him to #e a fool= or his
ina#ility to act honora#ly (ithin it <rovin! him to #e a co(ar$=. Thus+ the bot lin's foreseea#le
events (ith the (or$s reresentative of them. .n the bot the (or$ rece$es events an$ statements
#ecome facts? in the &account&+ on the other han$+ the actions rece$e the (or$s? ho(ever+ in #oth the
act of sea'in! an$ the fact of occurrence are lin'e$.
The most imortant instances of #oth the account an$ the #ot in Beo*ul occur in conAunction (ith the
symbel+ the ritual feast+ in the oem <#ut+ it nee$s to #e stresse$+ not only there=. A sym#el rocee$s
first to (hatever sea'in! is central to the occasion. The seech ma'in! ta'es the form of either bot or
&account& or #oth <most freDuently #oth=. 5elevant events from the ast are reiterate$ an$+ throu!h their
#ein! so'en+ create a conte/t in (hich a$vice or counsel can #e !iven to those ma'in! the bot.
Actions of the ast are usually sun! #y the sco.
22
The first sym#el in the oem rovi$es a !oo$
e/amle. Beo(ulf an$ his men arrive at ;eorot (hile ;roth!ar an$ his men are at symbel. 7hen the
9eats are a$mitte$ to the hall+ Beo(ulf sea's6
Boto*ul ma5elode --on him byrne scn, searonet seo*ed smiees oreancum--6
&3ds e, /rZ5gr, hl Ic eom /igelces mdg ond mago5egnk hdbbe ic mdr5a ela ongunnen on
geogoee. . .&
<14--9=
Beo(ulf so'e--on him his #yrnie shone+ the so(n+ carefully-(or'e$ net+ #y the s'ill of the
smith-&Be thou hale+ ;roth!ar . am ;y!elac&s 'insman an$ youn!-retainer? . have many
!lorious-$ee$s un$erta'en in youth . . .&
The seech is in every (ay tyical+ even to Beo(ulf&s reference to himself as /igelcesmg &;y!elac&s
'insman& an$ his imme$iate ro!ression to the mr5a ela &the !lorious-$ee$s& he has alrea$y
un$erta'en. %uch eithets as /igelces mg <or #earn !cgeo*es \!cgtheo*\s son&= are common+ more
common than the in$ivi$uals& roer names in the oem. They esta#lish imortant social an$ le!al
relationshis or linear+ historical relationshis+ (hich are of e/treme imortance in e/ten$in! the scoe
of the oem. The first thin!s Beo(ulf sea's of are these relationshis. >irst+ his osition as a 'insman
of ;y!elac is esta#lishe$? then+ he rocee$s to esta#lish his historical cre$entials #y tellin! of the $ee$s
he has alrea$y un$erta'en.
2,
This havin! #een $one+ he can #etter an$ more cre$i#ly announce his
intentions6
ic mid grpe sceal
Zn *i5 onde ond ymb eorh sacan,
_:
&ryhtnes dZme s ee hine da5 nime5.
3n\ic edt h *ille, gi h *ealdan mZt,
in em g5sele Gotena lode
etan unorhte, s* he ot dyde,
mdgen /r5manna. # e m nne eeart
:`a
drore hne, gi mec da5 nime5
<1,8-12=
. o#li!e myself (ith !ri to fi!ht (ith the fien$ E 9ren$elF an$ fi!ht for my life+ hate
a!ainst hate? there . must trust in 9o$&s Au$!ment as to the one (hom $eath ta'es. . #elieve
that E 9ren$elF (ill <if he can overcome
the man of the 9eats in the #attle-house=
eat fearlessly <as he has often $one=
the o(erful ;rethman. 3or nee$ you my
hea$ hi$e+ #ut he (ill have me
staine$ (ith #loo$+ if $eath ta'es me
The assa!e lays out clearly the e/act nature of the eitheror osition into (hich Beo(ulf is lacin!
himself6 him or me? there is no escae clause+ no loohole that (ill allo( Beo(ulf to emer!e from
this #attle neither victorious nor $ea$+ (ithout #ecomin! 'no(n as a fool or a co(ar$. All hear these
(or$s? all 'no( (hat the ossi#le outcomes can #e. The o#li!in! fi/ity of the bot is here
esta#lishe$ throu!h the reeate$ use of sculan &shall+ #e o#li!e$ to& in the assa!e. This allo(s
Beo(ulf to control his role in the situation to some $e!ree. The seech+ ho(ever+ en$s later6 G5
*yrd s* h o scel \3yrd !oes al(ays as it is o#li!e$ to& <1--=. The seech ultimately lin's
Beo(ulf&s o#li!ations to the o(er of *yrd an$ its o#li!ation to !o . . . s* h o scel \ ever as it
must&. .t is the nature of any bot to lace its state$ action $irectly into this flo(.
;roth!ar relies imme$iately <1-0-94=. ;e sea's first of Beo(ulf&s father+ 8c!theo(+ (hose o(n
mea!er history is here e/an$e$. Throu!h this+ Beo(ulf&s history an$ cre$i#ility li'e(ise e/an$.
Then+ ;roth!ar sea's of himself+ of ho( his ast an$ that of Beo(ulf&s father have #een
inter(oven. 3o(+ a!ain+ it is inter(oven (ith Beo(ulf&s throu!h Beo(ulf&s arrival. Gnly after all
this $oes ;roth!ar sea' of 9ren$el an$ the $ifficulties he has cause$ the *anes. ;e ma'es no
e/licit reference to Beo(ulf&s bot+ #ut he has accete$ it? he conclu$es6
%ite nL t^ symle on$ onsl meoto+
si!ehrS sec!um+ s(I H n sefa h(ette.
<189-94=
%it no( at the symbel+ an$ let loose your thou!hts+
Esea' of theF !lory of men+ as your sirit encoura!es.
The seeches of Beo(ulf an$ ;roth!ar are seale$+ as it (ere+ #y the or$erly $rin'in! that follo(s.
As the $rin's an$ $rin'in! cus are asse$+ "cop h* lum sang } hdor on ;eorote <190-92= &All the
(hile+ the sco san! #ri!ht in ;eorot&. The conte/t $oes not ma'e clear (hat the sco sin!s+ #ut it is
surely to #e some account of !reat actions an$ not unli'e 3idsith an$ &eor in its structure.
The symbel continues (ith Unferth&s challen!e to Beo(ulf&s a#ilities <199--28= an$ Beo(ulf&s rely
$escri#in! the s(immin! contest (ith Breca <-29-041=. This seech en$s (ith Beo(ulf reiteratin! his
#ot an$ a!ain le$!in! himself to $o #attle (ith 9ren$el <041-0=. After this+ 7ealhtheo( arrives an$
asses the mea$ cu eventually to Beo(ulf6
; HJt ful !eHeah+
(Jlro( (i!a at 7ealhHn+
_u_mmm`dnm
<028-,4=
;e artoo' of the cu+
the #attle-fierce (arrior+ from 7ealhtheo(+
an$ so so'e rea$y for #attle
Beo(ulf sea's an$ a!ain reeats his resolve to slay 9ren$el or #e 'ille$ in the effort.
The symbel is follo(e$ #y the #attle of 9ren$el an$ Beo(ulf+ (hich it assures. The attern of in
lin'a!e #et(een (or$s+ thin!s+ an$ actions is further e/ten$e$ throu!h this #attle. .t ta'es lace (ithin
;roth!ar&s mea$-hall+ in (hich the arta'in! of the ma!ical liDui$ (as accomlishe$. .n$ee$+ it is (ith
resect to enclosures of similar tye that all of Beo(ulf&s !reat #attles occur6 this one in ;roth!ar&s
mea$-hall+ the secon$ in the un$er(ater cave of 9ren$el&s Mother+ an$ the thir$ at the #eorh of the
$ra!on+ (ith its hot+ (ellin! #ourne. 8ach #attle is carefully rece$e$ #y an e/ten$e$ bot. .n these
si!nificant locations+ the !reat actions reviously esta#lishe$ throu!h (or$s ta'e lace most
ausiciously. 9ren$el+ for his art+ (ill attemt to ull his a$versary into his o(n e/istence+ to ma'e
him $isaear from the (orl$ of men+ from the resent. 9ren$el (ill try to eat+ to s(allo( u Beo(ulf
as he has $one so many times #efore (ith other a$versaries. .n this sense+ 9ren$el is closely associate$
(ith the other &monsters& of the oem? they all act as a!ents of the realm #eyon$ the or$inary (orl$ of
men.The sea monsters+ for e/amle+ (ho attac' Beo(ulf in the s(immin! contest (ith Breca+
#ds h e 5re ylle gean hddon,
mnorddlan, edt h e m egon,
symbel ymbston sgrunde nah
wvx-v{
3ot at all ha$ they there the leasure of their fill+
the (ic'e$-$estroyers+ arta'in! of me+
seate$ at symbel near the sea-#ottom
.n this aro$y symbel of the sea monsters occurs the only instance in the oem of eatin! (ith resect to
this ritual? ho(ever+ it is roer here+ for the sea monsters are a!ents of the o(er of e/istence #eyon$
this (orl$. They are the means #y (hich men leave this (orl$ an$ enter that (hich lies #eyon$ it.
Thus+ these monsters (oul$ literally $evour the man. 7here the men le$!e+ the monsters eat.
)i'e(ise+ 9ren$el&s activities in the mea$-hall are &actual& in this sense+ an$+ #estial as they seem+ they
are closely lin'e$ to the symbel&s ritual+ (hich is recalle$ $urin! the #attle. The stru!!le is calle$ an
ealu-scer*en &ale-$isensin!& or &ale-$rin'in!&6
&ryhtsele dynedek &enum eallum *ear5,
ceasterbendum, cnra geh*ylcum,
eorlum ealuscer*en.
<202-09=
The no#le-hall $inne$? to all the *anes there (as+
to the to(n-$(ellers+ to each of the #rave+
to the men+ an ale-$rin'in!.
21

The earlier bot has so esta#lishe$ these actions that the #attle no( #ecomes itself the eDuivalent of the
earlier-erforme$ ritual+ an$ the *anes+ (ho (ere resent at the #ot an$ its ale-$rin'in!+ no( ta'e art
in the #attle as (ell.
The #attle en$s (ith Beo(ulf&s victory? 9ren$el receives his $eath (oun$ an$ retreats+ leavin! his arm
an$ shoul$er6
/dde ast-&enum
Gatmecga lod gilp gelsted
edt *ds tcen s*eotol,
sye5an hildedor hond legde,
_`::`_
Grendles grpe--under gapne hrwZ{.
<828-,0=
To the 8ast-*anes ha$
the man of the 9eatish-tri#e ma$e !oo$ his !il
.t (as a s(eet thin!+
(hen the #attle-#rave EoneF lay $o(n
the arm an$ shoul$er--there (as all to!ether
9ren$el&s !ri--un$er the !a#le$ roof.
The actions of the bot are no( fact? it has #een #rou!ht a#out as Beo(ulf so'e it. The fact of the
occurrence is ma$e 'no(n throu!h the resence of the &thin!s& of 9ren$el+ the arm an$ shoul$er+ an$
these have #een #rou!ht (ithin the enclosure of the hall under gapne hrZ+ (ithin the 'no(n+
factual ortion of reality. Beo(ulf&s accomlishin! actions too have #ecome art of this reality+ art
of the ast. The $ee$ is li'e(ise re(or$e$ no(+ this time in an &account&6
G:_
mdr5o mdnedk monig ot gec*d5,
edtte s5 nord nor5 be sm t*onum
oer eormengrund Z|eer nnig
under s*egles begong slra nre
rondhdbbendra, r ces *yr5ra .--
<8-0-01=
There (as Beo(ulf&s
!lory relate$? many sai$ often
that south nor north #y the t(o seas+
over the sacious-earth+ nor anyE(hereF
un$er the e/anse of the heaven (as a #etter
shiel$-#earer+ or (orthier of a 'in!$om.
More meanin!fully+ (hen the sym#el that cele#rates Beo(ulf&s victory #e!ins+ in a$$ition to the
$rin'in! of the mea$ an$ the ritual !ivin! of !ifts <thin!s= associate$ (ith the action+ the sco a!ain
sin!s. This time (e 'no( (hat it is--the lay of %i!emun$--#ut it #e!ins6
/* lum cyninges eegn,
guma gilphldden, gidda gemyndig,
s 5e ealela ealdgesegena
*orn gemunde, *ord Zeer and
sZ5e gebundenk secg et ongan
s 5 Boto*ules snyttrum styrian +
on$ on s$ (recan sel !erI$e+
(or$um (ri/lan . . .
<802-21=
The (hile a thane of the 'in!
a !il-la$en man+ min$ful of seeches+
(ho+ of all of the ol$-sea'in!s+
a !reat many 'et in min$+ EheF foun$ a$$itional (or$s
#oun$ (ith truth? this man then un$ertoo'
to stir u throu!h EhisF craft the $ee$ of Beo(ulf
an$ to create (ith s'ill a careful account E] spelF+
to min!le the (or$s . . .
3o(+ for the first time+ Beo(ulf #ecomes art of the !reat ast 'et an$ sun! #y the sco. The
fa#ric of his o(n !reatness has no( #e!un to #e (oven in earnest. The oem continues to
accumulate the actions of Beo(ulf as they associate themselves (ith other !reat actions. The oem
as (e have it #ecomes the container of Beo(ulf&s life+ his actions+ an$ the actions of others (hose
lives his touches in a si!nificant (ay. Thus+ the en$ of the oem leaves the 9eats sin!in! his raises6
s d _uklomorsuput
manna mil$ust on$ mon<S(=rust+
lo$um l Sost on$ lof!eornost.
<,184-82=
they sai$ he (as of the (orl$-'in!s
of men the 'in$est an$ most no#le+
most !entle to his eole an$ most raise ea!er.
2-

Action'
()ace' and
time
I&
T ;8 9ermanic cosmos is confi!ure$ #y the (orl$ tree an$ the (ells at its #ase. The multilicity of
(orl$s (ithin the tree an$ the three (ells+ into (hich the tree&s roots reach+ re$uce to one structure of
one tree+ :!!$rasil+ (ith its roots in one (ell+ the 4r!T/karbrunnr, the 7ell of Urth. The (orl$s of
men+ !o$s+ an$ other #ein!s are $irectly e/resse$ #y the tree. Ultimately+ ho(ever+ all si!nificant
(orl$ly concerns <concerns of the tree= are relate$ to an$ structure$ #y that art of the cosmos
confi!ure$ #y the (ell+ (hich e/resses that ortion of universal reality lyin! #eyon$ the $irect reach
or comrehension of (orl$ly+ tree-relate$ #ein!s+ #e they men+ !o$s+ or others. The icono!rahy of tree
an$ (ell an$ its various mythic e/ressions sho( clearly ho( the tree an$ (ell mutually interact an$
suort each other. The actions of men+ !o$s+ an$ other #ein!s layer an$ fill the (ell+ an$ these
layerin! strata themselves structure an$ influence the affairs of men. This influence an$ structure not
only is foun$ in the mythic e/ression of the 8$$as #ut is reflecte$ imortantly in many other asects
of 9ermanic culture6 in its artifacts+ in its rituals+ in its social an$ le!al structure+ an$ in the culture&s
o(n vision of itself as it is resente$ in literature. The siritual force that hol$s to!ether in tension the
elements of (ell an$ tree is e/resse$ fun$amentally in all asects of the culture. >urther+ it seems
li'ely #oth from the literature an$ from the $erivation of the name 4rth itself that the same force mi!ht
have si!nificant shain! o(er not only in concetions of time an$ sace #ut also in the very nature of
the common 9ermanic lan!ua!e.
.n$ee$+ it is seech that ren$ers e/licit the continuin! Auncture of tree an$ (ell. ;ere+ $aily+ the 3orns
sea' the !T/krl g 6
Figure . The root in heaven an$ over Urth&s 7ell.
HJr l ! l!U]418B8T;?o+ HJr lQf 'uro
al$a #ornom+ 8T;?rl ! se!!ia.
)a(s they ma$e there+ an$ life allotte$ <)!T/klusp1=
To the sons of men+ an$ set their fates.
< Bello(s 192069=
The layin! $o(n of this seech+ as (e have seen+ structures the events of all (orl$s. ;ere also the !o$s
themselves assem#le6
HriSAa rVt as'sins sten$r R himni+ o' un$ir Heiri rVt er #runnr sR+ er mAX' er heila!r+ er heitir
UrSar#runnr? Har ei!u !oSin $VmstaS sinn. < Gylaginning 1-6 ,1 =
The thir$ root of the Ash stan$s in heaven? an$ un$er that root is the (ell (hich is very
holy+ that is calle$ the 7ell of Ur$r? there the !o$s hol$ their tri#unal. < Bro$eur 19296 22 -
28 =
They hol$ their tri#unal in as close a conAunction as is ossi#le (ith the 3orns. The 3orns& seech <or+
as has #een su!!este$+ the seech of Urth= oerates (ithin the (orl$s of the tree+ !ivin! them
sustenance an$ $ra(in! to the (ell those actions to #e lai$ (ithin its enclosure. This act of seech an$+
#y e/tension+ all acts of seech ren$er aarent the universal tensions e/resse$ throu!h the relate$
$ichotomies of+ resectively+ (elltree+ (ithin(ithout+ layere$ or$erchaos+ an$ astresent. These
ultimately e/ress a relate$ oosition6 factrocess. Thus+ (ell-(ithin-layere$-factast stan$s in a
si!nificantly tense relationshi to tree-(ithout-
chaotic-rocess-resent. The !a #et(een these is #ri$!e$ an$ ren$ere$ real throu!h the act of seech+
throu!h lan!ua!e.
1

This cosmic structure e/resses much a#out the nature of the time-sace continuum in (hich events
occur+ an$ it is imortant to try to $iscover ho( this continuum mi!ht #e confi!ure$. Most attemts to
$o this have come to !rief not+ it (oul$ seem+ #ecause the essential structure has not #een seen #ut
#ecause too much of the reeate$ inci$ental $etail has not #een eliminate$. Thus+ fi!ure 1+ rero$uce$
from 9or$on < 19-26 190 =+ resents a tyical #ut #y no means e/haustive accountin! of many of the
most stri'in! $etails of the 3orse cosmos. .t remains+ ho(ever+ essentially $etail an$ rea$ily
$emonstrates the 'in$s of ro#lems that most !rahic reresentations e/ress. >i!ure 2+ a$ate$ from
5y$#er! < 19406142=+ is more schematic+ less $etaile$+ #ut still $oes not eliminate the multilicity of
roots an$ (ells.
2
Assumin! that the many (ells are #ut multile asects of a sin!le (ell+ (e can
re$uce #oth of these fi!ures to one that is somethin! li'e the lant motif alrea$y e/laine$ in essay 1.
>i!ure ,+ simler than fi!ure 1+ $oes not i!nore the essential structural elements to #e e/resse$. ;ere
the tree rises from the (ell+ an$ its #ranches+ containin! all create$ (orl$s+ oversrea$ it. The actions
of these (orl$s fall as $e(+ some into the (ell an$ some outsi$e it. Those actions fallin! (ithin form
the layere$+ seethin!+ active strata (ithin the (ell. These create a source of o(er+ (hich+ in turn+
returns throu!h the root to the uer ortion of the tree. This seDuence of interrelate$ actions can #e
further a#stracte$ to fi!ure 1+ (hich is simler than fi!ure 2. This !ives us the most fun$amental
account of the structure of the 9ermanic cosmos. A#ove the horizontal lie the create$ (orl$s? #elo( it
lies the enclose$ an$ structure$ ortion of the universe. Anythin! else+ (hich is neither a#ove nor
(ithin the (ell+ is lost. Ultimately+ it is of no si!nificance to anythin! or any#o$y create$. Throu!h the
horizontal ass the vertical+ mutually oosite lines of o(er an$ sustenance. These verticals reresent
all actions in an$ relatin! to create$ sace6 Those $escen$in! <A, B, an$ &= have their imme$iate ori!in
in the create$ (orl$s of the tree? those ascen$in! <' an$ != come only from the (ell? their source is
(ithin the layere$ strata of the (ell. This source cannot #e 'no(n $irectly #y any create$ #ein!+ !o$ or
man. Ascen$in! lines of force are (ell-$erive$ an$ are never lost? these lines return to the (ell as
risin! line ' connects (ith & an$ returns? line !, not reresente$ as connectin!+ $oes eventually ma'e
some si!nificant connection an$ (ill ultimately return to the (ell. *escen$in! lines+ tree-$erive$ lines+
may #e of several 'in$s6 >irst+ they may #e of tye &, (hich is $irectly contin!ent uon an$ structure$
clearly #y the ascen$in! line 'k secon$+ they may #e of tye B, also fallin! (ithin the (ell+ yet (ith no
apparent (ell-$erive$ contin!ency? or+ thir$+ they may #e of tye A, (hich has no si!nificance at all
#eyon$ the ehemeral imme$iate.
These three 'in$s of actions can #e seen oeratin! in Beo*ul. Actions of tye & are those that have
!reat+ o#vious si!nificance for #oth men livin! an$ all of the actions of their o(n an$ other men&s asts?
in such actions+ the resence of the ast is $irect an$ unremittin!ly resent in the (hole conte/t of
events+ as in the moment #efore Beo(ulf fi!hts (ith the hoar$-!uar$in! $ra!on6
;im (Js !emor sefa+
(fre on$ (JlfLs+ (yr$ un!emete nah+
s Sone !omelan !rtan sceol$e+
scean sI(le hor$ . . .
;is sirit (as resolute+
restless an$ slau!hter-ea!er+ *yrd E(asF e/cee$in!ly near+
(hich (as o#li!e$ to !reet the a!e$ EmanF+
to see' his soul&s hoar$ . . .
There is no Duestion at all a#out the si!nificance of this moment+ an$ the e/licit reference to the
e/cee$in!ly close resence of *yrd ma'es this lain. 3yrd, actin! as oint ', touches an$ controls
Beo(ulf&s actions <oint &= an$ ultimately #rin!s them (ithin the realm of the o(er of the universe
(ithin the (ell. Actions of tye B, those of universal si!nificance (ithout imme$iate o#vious
contin!ency are less easy to fin$+ #ut (e can see the !ro(th of o(er an$ influence of %cyl$ %cefin!+
(ho #e!an his life (ith nothin! an$ en$e$ it (ith everythin! <1--2=+ as+ at least+ #e!innin! as a 'in$ of
tye-B action. As (e have seen+ Beo(ulf&s o(n life is a series of similarly $eveloin! actions. Actions
of& tye A, insi!nificant activities+ are unrecor$e$? (e can assume that Beo(ulf&s aarently uneventful+
fifty-year rule+ after his a$ventures in the lan$ of the *anes an$ #efore his fi!ht (ith the $ra!on <2242-
14=+ (as fille$ (ith activity of tye A. Because men live a#ove the horizontal of fi!ure 1+ they can
never #e sure that an event has fallen (ithin or (ithout the enclosure #elo(. They can+ ho(ever+ #e
sure that (hen somethin! o#viously imortant $oes occur its si!nificance no lon!er remains solely
a#ove the horizontal+ (ithin the create$ (orl$s of the tree.
.t seems clear that+ as a cosmic reresentation+ fi!ure 1 is not entirely accurate? in fact+ it reresents a
scheme of events only as they may #e seen or comrehen$e$ #y #ein!s of the (orl$s of the tree. >rom
this oint of vie(+ activities of tyes A an$ B are imme$iately in$istin!uisha#le--a ro#lem for all
create$ #ein!s. Activity of tye B seems to have its rovenance (ithin the tree. )i'e(ise+ activity of
tye ! seems to !o no(here an$ to attach to nothin!. This+ surely+ cannot #e the case. Thus+ the three
'in$s of actions & <si!nificant+ ast-controlle$=+ B <si!nificant #ut not aarently or imme$iately ast-
controlle$=+ an$ A <insi!nificant= ro#a#ly re$uce to simly t(o6 & an$ A, si!nificant an$ insi!nificant+
resectively. Thus+ there are ultimately no tye-B or tye-! actions. Man&s a#ility to ro$uce si!nificant
events is al(ays contin!ent uon the oeratin! resence of the ast+ even thou!h it is not al(ays
o#viously or clearly there. 7e can see that the aarently inausicious #e!innin!s of #oth %cyl$ an$
Beo(ulf are themselves structure$ #y *yrd, al#eit in an uno#vious+ tacit fashion. The scheme of fi!ure
1 coul$ #e more realistically constructe$ as fi!ure -. ;ere+ no u(ar$movin! force lac's connection
(ith a $o(n(ar$-movin! one6 All events of the ast return to it either $irectly an$ o#viously+ as in
'&, or more tan!entially+ as in ! - B. Action A remains insi!nificant. >i!ure 1+ then+ !ives us the
aarent reality of the (orl$s of the tree alone? fi!ure - rovi$es a fuller cosmic structure as erceive$
from the reality of the realm of the (ell.
The confi!uration of the cosmos $ivi$es into t(o $istinct realms+ that of the tree an$ that of the (ell.
These are $istinct in more (ays than in their imme$iately erceti#le shaes alone. Men live (ithin the
realm of the tree+ (hich confi!ures (hat (e no( mi!ht call &create$& reality. .t is a realm of thin!s+
o#Aects+ their relations an$ their actions. .t is lar!ely an$ most o#viously hysical an$ real in a three-
$imensional sense. All asects of it #ecome 'no(n first an$ most clearly #y their create$ shaes an$ #y
the (ays in (hich those shaes move an$ interact. .t is a realm of actions+ not motives? a realm of
hysical realities+ not a#stractions.
The realm of the (ell is $ifferent. That ortion of the cosmos that it confi!ures inclu$es everythin! that
e/ists (ithin the realm of the tree e/cet those asects of tree-confi!ure$ three-$imensionality that
have no si!nificance #eyon$ the ehemeral resent of that reality <that is+ activity of tye A, as $efine$
a#ove=. A$$itionally+ it contains other ortions of the cosmos to (hich access is $enie$ to the #ein!s
(hose resent e/istence is restricte$ to the realm of the tree. Thus+ men $o not 'no( $irectly anythin!
of the nature of the reality of the (ell. .t is clear+ thou!h+ that it is+ in oosition to treeoriente$ reality+
concetual rather than hysical+ a#stract rather than three-$imensionally real. 7ithin the (ell+ the
interrelations amon! actions rather than actions themselves are of aramount imortance? here+ (ithin
the realm of the (ell+ are the motives an$ reasons for an$ the final causes of the acts that occur (ithin
the realm of the tree. 7ithin the (ell+ the o(er of all events ast still sur!es+ (rithes+ t(ists+ (helms+
an$ (eaves the (hole of this !reater reality &out&.
Men refer to #oth realms (ith their lan!ua!e. Because men&s lan!ua!e must+ of necessity+ manifest
itself (ithin the realm of the tree+ it is imossi#le for any $irect statement to #e ma$e a#out the realm
of the (ell. The fi!ural an$ concetual Duality of lan!ua!e ma'es aro/imations to such statements
ossi#le+ ho(ever. )an!ua!e can fi!ure events in such a (ay that their more a#stract rather than their
merely hysical relations are aramount. The truth of such statements lies in the closeness+ the
concetual &nearness&+ (ith (hich they em#o$y relations #eyon$ the merely resent.
7ithin the realm of the tree are many (orl$s. The (orl$ of men is not uniDue? there are also the (orl$s
of animals+ the (orl$ of !iants+ the (orl$ of !o$s <erhas several of these=+ the (orl$s of monsters+
an$ so on. 9iven such a roliferation+ it (oul$ #e un(ise to assume that a totalin! u of men&s
'no(le$!e of these (orl$s (oul$ in any essential (ay encomass the (hole of the realm of the tree.
.n$ee$+ the 9ermanic (ay of thin'in! seems to have a riori assume$ that there (as far more (ithin
the realm of the tree than man ha$ so far 'no(n an$ that more mi!ht at any moment #e $iscovere$.
This rocess of &$iscovery& (as itself a o(erful imetus amon! 9ermanic eoles to 'no(+ acDuire+
an$ fin$ out as much as mi!ht #e 'no(n (ithin the realm of create$ e/istence. Because all of these
(orl$s are caa#le of interactin! (ith each other--!o$s (ith men+ men (ith monsters+ !o$s (ith !iants+
animals (ith men an$ !o$s+ etc.--the ossi#ilities for interaction are many. 9ermanic story an$ myth
account for many of these. 7hat is the si!nificance of such interaction+ as it (ere a horizontal
interaction <= (ithin the #ranches of the tree rather than the vertical interactions <= resente$ #y
fi!ure 1N >rom the $iscussion a#ove+ (e (oul$ assume there to #e relatively little. .n one sense+ this is
true.
.nteractions amon! (orl$s are Duite limite$? even thou!h Beo(ulf $oes #attle (ith three centrally
imortant creatures from ortions of the universe Duite searate from the every$ay (orl$ of men+ these
encounters in the oem are su#or$inate$ to more imme$iate affairs relatin! to an$ stemmin! from the
(orl$ in (hich Beo(ulf actually lives an$ over (hich he eventually rules. 7e are not tol$ nor are (e
concerne$ (ith any chan!es in the lar!er or$er of the realm of the tree that the elimination of 9ren$el
an$ his mother may orten$? the oem is not concerne$ (ith the triumh of the (orl$ of men over the
(orl$ of monsters. .n Grettissaga, the encounter #et(een 9rettir an$ the un$ea$ sirit 9lam $oes not
si!nificantly alter the relationshi of (orl$ (ith (orl$? 9rettir 'ills 9lam an$ in so $oin! is curse$ an$
haunte$+ #ut the si!nificance of the curse lays itself out in 9rettir&s further interaction (ith other men.
8ven the conflict #et(een the [sir an$ Banir+ althou!h it is freDuently mentione$ in 3orse literature+ is
never resente$ centrally+ an$ (e are unsure of its ultimate si!nificance. Althou!h the 8$$a !ives us
some account of the relations #et(een !o$s an$ men+ the usual attern of the te/t is to have men actin!
(ithin their (orl$ an$ !o$s (ithin theirs. The interaction is small+ usually ro$ucin! ei!rammatic
ieces of (is$om learne$ #y analo!y or e/amle. 7hat is si!nificant in the affairs of the !o$s is Duite
ro#a#ly si!nificant in the affairs of men+ too+ as the same universal o(ers $ominate #oth.
This 'in$ of &horizontal& 'no(in!+ this learnin! of the other ortions of the realm of the tree+ !ains its
si!nificance #y rovi$in! information or 'no(le$!e that mi!ht si!nify somethin! of imort a#out the
other realm+ the realm of the (ell. .t seems clear from all of the 9ermanic material (e still have access
to that no one (ithin any &create$& (orl$ 'ne( of the realm of the (ell fully. This is true even of the
(orl$ of the !o$s+ (ho+ as any 9ermanic man (oul$ have o(ne$+ 'ne( more than men $i$ #ut (ho
still faile$ of certain or final 'no(le$!e. 8ven G$in+ (ho ha$ learne$ more than any other &create$&
#ein!+ still (ante$ more 'no(le$!e+ nee$e$ more un$erstan$in! of that ortion of reality #eyon$ even
his !ras. 3or (as it unli'ely+ to ose a hyothetical case+ that some other &create$& #ein! mi!ht 'no(
more than G$in himself? this ossi#ility seems al(ays to lie Aust #elo( the surface of all of those
curious $is!uise$ meetin!s of G$in (ith men+ or (ith other !o$s+ or (ith animals. Create$ reality
clearly never suffices fully of 'no(in!.
,

The relationshi amon! the various (orl$s of the realm of the tree is an uncertain if not an uneasy one.
.t seems clear that+ !enerally+ there is access from one (orl$ to another. Thus+ men may interact (ith
animals an$+ to some $e!ree+ (ith !o$s+ etc. 7ith resect to the t(o (orl$s Aust mentione$+ man&s
(orl$ seems to have !reater access to the (orl$ of animals than it has to the (orl$ of !o$s. Thus+ men
have livin! closely (ith them in their o(n (orl$ a num#er of animals+ (hat (e (oul$ call
$omesticate$ ones+ an$ a num#er of others--erhas horses mi!ht #elon! here--(ho live in close
ro/imity to men #ut (hose lives are some(hat more $istant. The !o$s+ on the other han$+ seem to
have a closer relation to horses+ an$ to #ir$s an$ (olves+ than $o men. The (orl$s of men an$ !o$s
li'e(ise intersect6 Men learn from !o$s? !o$s learn from men. .t seems that !o$s learn more from men
than men learn from !o$s+ #ut this is uncertain. The myths an$ stories tell us (hat men learn+ #ut (hat
the !o$s learn is lar!ely hi$$en from men. All this learnin! imlies that there is more to #e learne$+ an$
it hints at other relations #eyon$ those of (hich men alrea$y 'no(.
The rocess of &learnin!& Aust $escri#e$ is a eculiar one. )earnin! an$ 'no(le$!e (ere not #y any
means assive activities for the 9ermanic eole. Because acDuirin! 'no(le$!e an$ acDuirin! thin!s
(ere so inte!rally relate$ concetually+ such acDuisition is often $escri#e$ an$ carrie$ out in (hat
seems to us to #e a rather violent an$ $isor$erly (ay. 5ae an$ illa!e+ reason an$ assion+ seem not to
have #een (i$ely $ifferent in imulse or rocess for these eole. Thus+ the $escritions of
&interchan!e& amon! (orl$s are themselves more often than not tol$ in or accomanie$ #y terms of
o(er+ $omination+ an$+ ultimately+ $estruction. The sharin! of information <an$ &sharin!& is surely the
(ron! term here= is most often a com#at in (hich the &concet& or &'no(le$!e& is conten$e$+ (restle$
for+ an$ finally (on in a urely hysical sense. .t is clear also in the materials (e have access to that
the reasons (hy a articular act of violence or learnin! is committe$ are sel$om if ever !iven6 9o$s
come $is!uise$ amon! men an$ sit an$ sea' (ith them. 7hyN 7e $o not 'no( this. .t is that (hich
!o$s $o. 7hy $o the $ea$ sometimes (al' amon! the livin!N 7e $o not 'no(. .t is (hat some $ea$
$o. Men fi!ht (ith monsters #ecause that is (hat the confi!ure$ relation #et(een the (orl$ of men an$
that of monsters is li'e. Gf most si!nificance in all of these encounters is that the learnin! rovi$e$ #y
the interchan!e teaches somethin! of the &aroriate& relation amon! (orl$s+ that is+ ho( men are
suose$ to act in such circumstances. The encounter+ then+ has the force of an e/amle.
The fact that some of these interactions amon! (orl$s seem constructive an$ some $estructive+ #y our
contemorary reasonin!+ seems to have ha$ little imort for the early 9ermanic eole. That the realm
of the tree (as a artial an$ insu#stantial realm (as simly an intellectual an$ concetual !iven. The
cosmos+ of (hich it is #ut art+ has its structure else(here as the realm of the (ell (or's $aily to #rin!
more an$ more of the realm of the tree into itself. Men $o (hat they $o+ as $o !o$s an$ animals an$
monsters+ etc. At #est+ men learn somethin! more of that !reater reality of (hich the realm of the tree is
#ut a art. The more si!nificant the interaction of (orl$ (ith (orl$+ the more it (ill imly of those
forces that confi!ure all action+ the source an$ !oal of all acts. .n $oin! (hat is ultimately &ri!ht&+ that is+
that (hich $erives its o(er an$ force from the structure of the (ell+ man acts to the&ri!ht&en$+ to that
one cosmic moment in (hich tree an$ (ell unite an$ the relations amon! an$ structure of all thin!s are
clarifie$.
7hen (orl$s colli$e+ the imortance of the collision lies lar!ely in the vertical <= si!nificance or $eth
of ast that the collision involves. .n$ee$+ such interaction amon! create$ (orl$s imlies a (i$er
involvement of the ast in the affairs of all tree-relate$ (orl$s6 not in the !reater ran!e of horizontal
<= involvement (ithin the tree #ut in a more forceful involvement of (ell-$erive$ vertical force.
Thus+ the victory of Beo(ulf over 9ren$el initiates a (i$e-ran!in! inter(eavin! of Beo(ulf&s o(n
history an$ that of the 9eats (ith the (hole #i#lical account of the race of Cain <142-11= an$+ #eyon$
that+ (ith the !enealo!y of the *anes. This si!nificance is e/ten$e$ throu!h the follo(in! encounter of
Beo(ulf (ith 9ren$el&s Mother. These t(o searate #attles mana!e to unite an$ ree/ress a su#stantial
ortion of the ast+ lacin! all of these ast events in mutually informin!+ tan!ential relationshis (ith
each other. The i$ea of the #attle itself+ (hether it #e a hysical one or one of (its+ icono!rahically
reresents this interaction of searate asts #y means of searate activities? its !reatest imortance lies
here+ in the vertical lines of force that reach u an$ out of the ast. .n their interrelationshi lies the real
contention+ an$ in their final confi!uration the real si!nificance. Thus+ stran!ely enou!h+ (ho (ins+ in
our sense+ is of little value #ecause the ast is al(ays the (inner? it is the factual nature of havin!
fou!ht+ (hich chan!es the confi!uration of everythin!+ that men nee$ to 'no( of.
The imulse in 9ermanic culture to e/ten$ the si!nificance of any human event #y sho(in! it in
conAunction (ith other events+ human an$ other(ise+ an$ ultimately (ith relate$ events from #eyon$
the create$ (orl$s is !reat. .t is not surrisin! that Beo(ulf&s !reatest e/loits !o #eyon$ merely human
ones. .n 9ermanic literature an$ myth+ the $ra!on most o#viously su!!ests not only the interrelation of
men&s (orl$ (ith those tan!ential to it #ut also the reality an$ resence of the ast. 3Qthho!! lies (ithin
;ver!elmir+ one of the tyes of the (ell of the ast. All $ra!ons coil an$ layer an$+ as (ith Beo(ulf&s
a$versary+ fly u an$ out uon the resent (hen the confi!uration of the ast is to #e rearran!e$. The
hoar$!uar$in! $ra!on of Beo*ul is tyical. %i!nificant actions an$ the resence of $ra!ons+ esecially
as they illustrate activities in oosition+ are re!ularly lin'e$. The fi!ure $ie$ har$. .t ma'es itself felt
in the horrors of the $ere$ations in A.*. 29, of the Bi'in!s in 3orthum#ria as reorte$ in the )au$
Manuscrit of the An!lo%a/on Chronicle6
;er (Jron reSe fore#ecna cumene ofer 3orSanhym#ra lan$.
d`_rsmtoqrpsmom_udo_u_oqmkmrponstn
(Jron
!e seo(ene fyrene $racan on Ham lyfte fleo!en$e. < Plummer
an$ 8arle 18926--=
;ere (ere fierce fore-#eacons come over the lan$ of 3orth-
um#ria+ an$ they terrifie$ that eole misera#ly? EthereF (ere
e/cessive li!htnin!s+ an$ fiery $ra!ons (ere seen flyin! in the
air.
1

The #in$in!+ involvin! structure of 9ermanic interlace $esi!n+ (ith sometimes one+ sometimes more
serents hol$in! themselves fast (ithin an aarently never-en$in!+ ever-chan!in! coile$ attern+
su!!ests the o(er an$ imortance of #oth the artifact it covers an$ the (earer (ho e/hi#its it.
>or the 9ermanic eoles+ sace+ as it is encountere$ an$ erceive$ in the create$ (orl$s of men an$
other #ein!s+ e/ists+ to any si!nificant $e!ree+ only as a location or container for the occurrence of
action. &The $istinction #et(een position an$ content+ un$erlyin! the construction of OureO !eometric
sace+ has not yet #een ma$e . . . Position is not somethin! that can #e $etache$ from content or
contraste$ (ith it as an element of in$een$ent si!nificance? it OisO only insofar as it is fille$ (ith a
$efinite+ in$ivi$ual sensuous or intuitive content& < Cassirer 19--6 81=.
-
The content is action+ (hether
of in$ivi$ual men+ of men actin! in consort or in oosition+ of men an$ monsters+ or of (hatever. .n
all cases+ imme$iate actions are $iscontinuous an$ seara#le+ $erivin! their o(er an$ structure from
the ast. Because &hysical sace is in !eneral characterize$ as a space rele)ant to orces& < Cassirer
19--6 9-=+ 9ermanic sace (ill $efine itself #y its relevance to this ast.
Because the ast acts imme$iately #ut $iscontinuously+ locational relations are li'e(ise $iscontinuous.
.n Beo*ul+ the lan$ of the 9eats an$ the lan$ of the *anes are searate$ #y the sea+ #ut the satial
$iscontinuity #et(een them is further accentuate$ #y the te/t. The $escrition of the Aourney of
Beo(ulf an$ his fourteen men to the lan$ of the *anes illustrates this clearly6
onk`_omk`r_kt n_udq
#It un$er #eor!e. Beornas !ear(e
on stefn sti!on+-- stramas (un$on+
sun$ (iS san$e? sec!as #Jron
on #earm nacan #eorhte frJt(e+ !LSsearo !eatol c? !uman Lt scufon+
(eras on (ils S (u$u #un$enne.
mk_`mo l_rqpusrmm`dnm
flota fIm heals fu!le !el cost+
oS HJt ym#? Int $ ^Hres $^!ores
(un$enstefna !e(a$en hJf$e+
HJt SI l Sen$e lan$ !esamacr(on+
#rimclifu #l can+ #eor!as stae+
s $e sJnJssas? HI (Js sun$ li$en+
eoletes Jt en$e.
<214-21=
Time (ent forth? the shi (as on the (aves+
the #oat un$er the hill. The rea$y men
stoo$ on the ro(+--The streams curle$+
(ater a!ainst the san$? The (arriors #ore
into the #osom of the #oat #ri!ht (eaonry+
a$orne$ armor? The men shove$ out--
(arriors on a (ille$-Aourney--the #oun$ (oo$.
<e= (ent over the sea imelle$ #y (in$
the foamy-nec'e$ shi most li'e a #ir$+
<oe edt= a#out the roer-time of the secon$ $ay
EthatF the (oun$-stemme$ EshiF ha$ !one
<edt= the !oin! EmenF sa( lan$+
the sea-cliffs shine+ the stee hills+
the (i$e hea$lan$s. Then (as the (ater traverse$+ at the en$ of the tri.
Gf the fifteen lines of te/t+ the first seven <214-10= $eal e/clusively (ith the act of #oar$in! an$
shovin! off. The shi sails in oen (ater only in lines 212-18. .n lines 219-21+ the *anish shore is
erceive$ an$ reache$? the Aourney en$s. .n site of the icono!rahy of the shi an$ its (eaons an$ its
action of movement on (ater+ the Aourney lac's event <the imortance+ of course+ comes later in the
lan$ of the *anes (here si!nificant action $oes ta'e lace=. The sailin! is $escri#e$ #y the colorless
ver#s ge* tan &!o+ rocee$& <ge*t E214+ 212F= an$ ge*adan &!o+ a$vance& <ge*aden E224F=+ (hich tell
us little more than that the sailin! &haene$&. This sea voya!e has little more si!nificance than a ri$e in
an elevator has? #oth seem to serve the same function--to facilitate satial $islacement. 7here there is
no action of si!nificance+ there is+ in effect+ no sace. 7e mi!ht note that the return voya!e from the
*anes to the 9eatish coast < 194, -- 1,= has the same triartite structure+ eDually lac's event+ an$
serves the same functional+ satial service. After #oth sea Aourneys+ the te/t !ets $o(n imme$iately to
imortant matters at han$+ (hich reesta#lish the vertical lines of force informin! imortant matters
imme$iately resent. 3o one as's Beo(ulf (hat 'in$ of tri he ha$. The arrival on the *anish coast is
follo(e$ #y the coast !uar$&s Duestionin! of Beo(ulf&s intent in ;roth!ar&s 'in!$om? Beo(ulf&s arrival
home is follo(e$ #y his o(n account to ;y!elac&s court of his actions in the lan$ of the *anes+ in
effect #rin!in! the t(o lan$s into imme$iate conAunction. %ace <a lace for action= an$ $istance <the
hysical e/tension of sace= are+ if not imerceti#le+ at least uninterestin! (hen action $oes not occur.
%i!nificant action+ action that is ast-$ominate$+ is #y its nature enclose$+ realize$ an$ factual. .t ten$s
to force its factual nature uon the activities it touches. .n the assa!e Aust cite$+ for e/amle+ the actual
rocess of the shi&s sailin! <212-18= is $ominate$ #y the connective e. The actual sailin! is
insi!nificant+ ho(ever. .t is its en$ an$ the sace that the en$ of the Aourney $efines that are of
si!nificance+ an$ this is $ifferently e/resse$. .ts aearance in the te/t is t(ice $ominate$ #y edt, first
in oe edt <219= an$ a!ain #y edt alone <221=. edt is a nominalizin! or su#stantive form that ren$ers
the actions it accomanies &factual&. The i$ea is not surrisin! to us #ecause Mo$.8 that functions in a
similar (ay. The $istinctions for us+ ho(ever+ amon! various occurrences of that as a mar'er of
su#stantive+ result+ an$ urose clauses (ill ten$ to confuse us. Uses of edt in Gl$ 8n!lish seem to #e
un$ifferentiate$ an$ uniDuely factual.
To illustrate this further+ let us return to the #attle seDuence of Beo(ulf an$ 9ren$el&s Mother+ (hich
(e consi$ere$ in essay ,6
9efen! HI #e ea/le --nalas for fhSe mearn--
9LS-9ata lo$ 9ren$les m^$or?
#rJ!$ HI #ea$(e hear$+ HI h !e#ol!en (Js+
fecorh!en Slan+ HJt ho flet !e#ah.
;o him eft hraHe an$lan for!eal$
!rimman !rIaum on$ him t^!anes fn!?
ofer(ear HJ (ri!m^$ (i!ena stren!est+
fHecema+ HJt h on fylle (earS.
GfsJt H Hone sele!yst+ on$ hyre sea/ !etah
#rI$ Eon$F #rLnec!? (ol$e hire #earn (recan
< 1-,2-10=
<e= the man of the Battle-9eats !rase$ 9ren$el&s Mother #y
the shoul$er
<nalas= unhay for the fi!htin!
<e= the ri!or of #attle of the life-enemies move$ Duic'ly <brdgd
... bead*e heard E 1-,9F=
<e= he (as enra!e$
<edt= she san' to the floor
<et= she reai$ him Duic'ly reDuital (ith !rim !rass
<ond= seize$ a!ainst him
<e= (eary-in-sirit+ the foot (arrior+ the stron!est of fi!hters
tum#le$ over
<edt= he came into a fall
<HI= E 9ren$el&s MotherF sat uon the hall-visitor
<ond{ $re( out her #roa$+ #ro(n-e$!e$ $a!!er
< = (oul$ aven!e her chil$
The most freDuently occurrin! connector of the events $escri#e$ here is e+ (hich occurs five times. .f
it is translate$ as then or *hen in Mo$ern 8n!lish+ lines 1-,9-14 (oul$ #e ren$ere$6 &Then the ri!or of
the #attle of the life-enemies move$ Duic'ly (hen he (as enra!e$& or &7hen the ri!or of #attle of the
lifeenemies move$ Duic'ly+ then he (as enra!e$&. 3either translation is felicitous. The other ren$erin!s
of e+ most commonly since or thereupon+ $o not hel either.
0
More often than not+ translators of Gl$
8n!lish simly i!nore most occurrences of e an$ $o not translate them. The terms that our lan!ua!e
su!!ests as translations are all causal or temoral in orientation? (e are intereste$ in ma'in! si!nificant
interconnections an$ esta#lishin! imme$iate horizontal relationshis of $ominance or $een$ence
amon! actions. >rom everythin! so far $iscovere$ of the earlier frame(or' in (hich Gl$ 8n!lish an$
other 9ermanic lan!ua!es (oul$ oerate+ such tan!ential+ horizontal relationshis are of little imort.
Thus+ it seems reasona#le to loo' for the si!nificance of e else(here.
8n'vist < 1922= has ostulate$ that HI mi!ht very (ell #e an &action mar'er&+ secifyin! ortions of a
te/t in (hich si!nificant or $ensely concentrate$ actions occur. This is surely true of the #attle
seDuence Aust $iscusse$+ #ut it (ill not account for the occurrence of e in the relatively action-#lan$
shi Aourney. 7ith resect to action+ e+ in the Aourney seDuence+ su!!ests Aust the oosite. :et it
seems very li'ely that e $oes oint to somethin! imortant a#out the nature of the actions it
accomanies. .f actions $erive their si!nificance from the historical $eth that informs them+ it (ill #e
imortant to 'ee activities (ith $ifferent histories clearly searate+ thus allo(in! the in$ivi$ual asts
of in$ivi$ual actors to oerate as much as ossi#le searately. e+ then+ is a searatin! $evice useful in
'eein! actions of in$ivi$ual si!nificance aart. This seems to #e (hat is !oin! on in the #attle
#et(een Beo(ulf an$ 9ren$el&s Mother. ;ere e is re!ularly use$ to sho( a shift of focus (ith resect
to (ho the articular actor is. .t is as if the #attle (ere #ein! filme$ from $ifferent ersectives an$ the
final te/t (ere a collection of $ifferent still shots. The occurrence of e is a clue to the rea$er <listener=
that the ersective of action is to chan!e. Thus+ the short #attle se!ment a#ove runs6
<e ] focus= the man of the Battle-9eats !rase$ 9ren$el&s
Mother #y the shoul$er . . .
<e ] focus shifts= the ri!or of #attle of the life-enemies move$
Duic'ly
<e ] focus shifts= he (as enra!e$
<edt focus shifts= she san' to the floor
.n this (ay+ (e are a#le to 'ee the in$ivi$ual actions of Beo(ulf an$ 9ren$el&s Mother aart. .n the
shi Aourney+ HI clearly searates the aarently uneventful &!oin!& from the si!nificant &havin! !one&
that mar's its close.
.n each case+ the most si!nificant+ conclusive events are mar'e$ (ith edt+ not e. e. is clearly an
action or rocess mar'er+ (hereas edt is factual. 5eetitions of e 'ee actions !oin!? HJt mar's the
factual reality of actions in comletion. Thus+ edt occurs in the last line of those Duote$ from the #attle
seDuence. 7e are accustome$ to translate edt #y the hrase &so that&+ ma'in! the te/t into a seDuence of
result6 &;e (as so enra!e$ that she san' to the floor&. The imlication is clear enou!h? Beo(ulf has
#ecome so em#ol$ene$ an$ carrie$ a(ay (ith his art of the #attle that he has #een a#le to summon the
stren!th an$ !ain the levera!e to #ear 9ren$el&s Mother to the !roun$. The conte/t $oes not say this
literally+ ho(ever. .nstea$+ it says t(o thin!s6 first+ <e= Beo(ulf (as enra!e$+ an$ secon$+ <edt=
9ren$el&s Mother san' to the floor. The focus clearly chan!es from Beo(ulf to 9ren$el&s Mother. .t
seems ossi#le to rehrase the last line (ith e rather than edt an$ leave the meanin! much the same.
7hat (e (oul$ lose #y $oin! this is the si!nificant a$$itional emhasis that edt rovi$es6 to inoint
the action it rece$es in such a (ay that the action is hei!htene$ in imortance an$ that the actuality of
its occurrence is stresse$. 5e!ularly+ HJt rece$es actions that are to #e esecially si!nificant (ithin a
articular conte/t. .t occurs a!ain in the assa!e (here Beo(ulf himself falls+ overcome #y 9ren$el&s
Mother. .f these conte/ts e/ress cause an$ effect or result+ they $o so clumsily6 &Beo(ulf #ecame
enra!e$ so that 9ren$el&s Mother san' to the floor&. Unless she has fainte$ at the si!ht of the man <not a
li'ely rea$in!=+ the t(o actions are too (i$ely searate$ to oerate in a result conte/t. The other lines
< 1-1,-11=+ &<thronk= . . . the stron!est of fi!hters tum#le$ over <edt= he came into a fall&+ $o not form a
result construction either. The actions in each art are the same? #oth $escri#e Beo(ulf&s fallin!. The
shift in hrasin!+ ho(ever+ from tum#lin! woer*eorpan=+ a ver#al action+ to the fall <yll=+ no( a noun+
surely inoints an$ refocuses+ this time on the same actor #ut in a ne( ersective. The resence of
the noun in the secon$ statement focuses on the occurrence+ the fact of this fall an$ all of the otential
imlications it has for Beo(ulf.
.n the shi Aourney+ the conclu$in! events are t(ice mar'e$6
oS HJt ym# Int $ ^Hres $^!ores
(un$enstefna !e(a$en hJf$e+
HJt SI l Sn$e lan$ !esI(on
<219-21=
<oe edt= a#out the roer-time of the secon$ $ay EthatF the (oun$-stemme$ EshiF ha$
!one <edt= the !oin! EmenF sa( lan$
The first edt occurs in conAunction (ith oe. To!ether these t(o forms are re!ularly translate$ as &until&?
the translation is not inaroriate #ut fails fully to catch the imlications of the Gl$ 8n!lish ori!inal.
%e edt al(ays stan$s #et(een t(o actions+ the first of (hich is secifie$ as #ein! in the rocess of
occurrin! &until& the hysical resence of the secon$ a#rutly an$ entirely o#literates+ $ominates+ or
overri$es the first action #y its resence. %e- is a form in Gl$ 8n!lish re!ularly resentin! this 'in$ of
e/clusive connection amon! items+ for e/amle in oeee &or&+ an$ edt secifies the factual nature of
(hat follo(s it imme$iately.
2
Thus+ occurrences of oe edt in Gl$ 8n!lish (ill al(ays Aoin t(o
mutually e/clusive actions an$ (ill secify the re$ominance in the conte/t of the secon$ of these. .t
freDuently occurs (here motion is follo(e$ #y ercetion < 9ru#er 1921=. The nature of such
ercetions ren$ers rocess factual not as &result&+ as (e are temte$ to rea$ it+ #ut as $ominance #y
$estruction or imin!ement. %ometimes it seems to #e a $ominance of result? sometimes not. The
connection may not even necessarily #e lo!ical #y our stan$ar$s.
The sea Aourney+ a#ove+ is tyical of uses of pdt an$ oe edt (ith resect to activity $irecte$ to(ar$ a
!oal. %uch conte/ts re!ularly contain &a reference to continue$ or comlete$ motion . . . either a . . .
clause intro$uce$ #y oeedt an$ continue$ (ith a finite form of ma!an an$ a $een$ent infinitive+
usually seon or (litan+ or simly oeedt follo(e$ #y a finite form of the ver# of ercetion+ . . . a
$escrition of the !oal . . . (ith aroriate nouns in the accusative6 (eallas aears very often an$
$esi!nates #oth natural an$ man-ma$e (alls+ . . . sometimes a reference to time. . . + resuma#ly
emhasizin! the #ri!htness or rominence of the $estination& < Clar' 190-#6012-18=. All of these
elements aear in the sea Aourney here. 7e have a situation in (hich activity+ the act of arrivin!+
realizes an$ nominalizes itself simultaneously in the achievin! an$ in the ercetion of its !oal or
$estination.
.n this Aourney+ (e can reco!nize that the nominalizin! roce$ure is also sace-$efinin!. Althou!h
*eallas &(alls& is not resent in this articular conte/t+ the reetition of brimcliu &sea-cliffs&+ beorgas
&hills&+ an$ sndssas &hea$lan$s&+ all in aosition (ith lan$ in the $escrition of the Aourney&s en$+
su!!ests the same thin!. 7alls an$ sea-cliffs eDually $efine an$ enclose+ Aust as si!nificant actions
create an$ $efine their o(n sace. )i'e(ise+ the $ecorative motif of the intert(inin! serents $oes not
so much fill an alrea$y-$efine$ sace+ as $o the mar!inal illuminations of me$ieval Christian man
uscrits+ as it creates an$ $efines its o(n sace. .t is imortant that+ in interlace $esi!ns of this sort+
there are no &loose& en$s+ no arts of the serent activity that $o not ultimately reAoin an$ enclose. The
enclosure is create$ #y the actual+ hysical activity (ithin it.
.f si!nificant action is sace-$efinin! an$ if si!nificant action is ast-oriente$+ it $oes not seem at all
unli'ely that the structure of si!nificant sace (oul$ shae itself formally li'e that of the ast. The
emhasis uon *eallas &(alls&+ natural or man-ma$e+ (oul$ su!!est the e$!e of a $efine$ sace (ith
resect to (hich si!nifi cant action may occur. %atial (alls $erive $irectly from the ima!e of the (ell
an$ its functional closure of activity. %uch (alls+ (hether of vehicles+ as in the ritual of 3erthus+ or
those $erivin! from the mountains surroun$in! the a!an temle at Usala+ $efine sa cre$ saces of
articular imortance. 7ith resect to men&s actions alone+ the hall of the chieftain rovi$es the
si!nificant sace? the symbel occurs (ithin the hall. Beo(ulf&s o(n first #attle (ith 9ren $el occurs
(ithin ;roth!ar&s mea$-hall. The imortance of man ma$e halls+ #ecause they fi!ure as a 'in$ of
container insi$e (hich si!nificant events may occur+ is central to all 9ermanic literature.
8
Rigseula+
for e/amle+ lays off throu!hout an alternation of actions insi$e an$ outsi$e halls. *oors or
entrance(ays seem to oc cuy a articularly si!nificant focal oint6
Gecc hann meirr at eat mi5rar brautar,
+om hann at hjsi, hur5 )ar gttik
inn nam at ganga. . .
< Regspula 26284=
7al'e$ un(earie$ <in mi$$le (ays=?
to a $(ellin! he came+ (as the $oor #olte$.
.n !an he !o . . .
< ;ollan$er 19026 124-21=
an$ a!ain later6
Gecc Ri ea5an rnttar brautirk
+om hann at sal, su5r hor5o dyrr,
)ar hur5 hnigin, hringr )ar i gtti.
< Regspula 20628,=
At his staff 5Q stea$fastly on?
a hall he sa( then+ (as south(ar$ the $oor+
raise$ on hi!h+ (ith a rin! in the $oorost.
< ;ollan$er 19026121=
The emhasis su!!ests imme$iately the $oorli'e frame over an$ #eyon$ (hich the slave !irl $escri#e$
in the funeral ritual of .#n >a$lIn realizes her vision of ara$ise. 3atural &halls& also lay si! nificant
roles. Beo(ulf&s fi!ht (ith 9ren$el&s Mother an$ his last #attle (ith the $ra!on occur in (ell-$efine$
saces close$ #y struc tural &(alls&. The hea$lan$s of the sea+ (hich fi!ure rominently in the
$escritions of sea+ Aourneys+ at the en$ of& Beo*ul form the e$!e or (alls of the sea itself. As the
#e!innin! of "+ldlds+aparmdl ma'es clear+ the sea is !ir&s ;all+ an$ references associatin!
U,1,!ir+ the sea+ mea$+ $eath+ an$ oetry form one of the most imortant an$ freDuent 'ennin!s in
s'al$ic oetry.
Man&s orientation in sace is lar!ely $etermine$ #y the si!nifi cant action that satial henomena
allo( or $efine. Man acts in a (ay that (ill allo( him either to enter si!nificant sace or to create it.
>i!ure 1 resents Aust such a $ia!ram of interrelationshis of sace an$ action. The recirocal+ vertical
lines of force+ $efinitive of actions #oth (ell-$erive$ an$ (ell-$irecte$+ create an$ $efine si!nificant
sace. Man stan$s+ as it (ere+ at the horizontal center of the $ia!ram+ at the intersection of tree an$
(ell. Because the most $ominant sace lies (ithin the (ell+ man is oriente$ to(ar$ it an$ $efines his
o(n activity an$ sace in such a manner as to relicate it to as !reat a $e!ree as is ossi#le.
Man&s osition at the horizontal center of fi!ure 1 is not solely satial. As (e have seen+ this center also
mar's the temoral inter section of resent an$ ast. Actually+ resent an$ ast are not en
tirely a$eDuate terms. Althou!h past (or's reasona#ly (ell for the lo(er+ (ell-$ominate$ ortion of
the $ia!ram+ present is too limite$ to reresent that art of time that lies a#ove an$ outsi$e the (ell.
#onpast is erhas a less unsatisfactory term. Thus+ the 9ermanic universe $ivi$es temorally into ast
an$ nonast. This !ives us some imortant information a#out some of the (ays the 9ermanic eoles
mi!ht have felt the assa!e of time. The ast+ as collector of events+ is clearly the most $ominant+
controllin! ortion of all time. Man&s (orl$ stan$s at the Auncture of this ast an$ the non ast+ that is+
at that oint+ the resent+ in (hich events are in the rocess of #ecomin! &ast&. The ast is e/erience$+
'no(n+ lai$ $o(n+ accomlishe$+ sure+ realize$.
9
The resent+ to the contrary+ is in flu/ an$ confusion+
mi/e$ (ith irrelevant an$ si!nificant $e tails. 7hat (e no(a$ays call the &future& is+ (ithin the
structure of this 9ermanic system+ Aust more of the nonast+ more flu/+ more confusion.
Because man&s (orl$ lies outsi$e+ althou!h tan!ential to+ the (orl$ of the ast+ man&s time+ li'e his
sace+ structures itself ac cor$in! to the shae of the ast #ut fails+ (ithin the create$ (orl$s of the
tree+ to realize this nature fully. Thus+ Aust as si!nificant sace is $iscontinuous+ so is si!nificant time. .t
is oint- or &aorist&oriente$ < 3ilsson 19246,-0--8=. .t #ecomes factual only (ith re sect to
occurrences of imortant+ ast-$ominate$ actions? these occur either throu!h the imme$iate intrusion of
the ast uon the resent <throu!h the u(ar$-movin! vertical lines of fi!ure 1= or throu!h the creation
(ithin the (orl$ of men of an aroriate moment for activity <throu!h $o(n(ar$-movin! lines of
force=. All such moments #ecome eDually &ast&. As (ith satial $istance+ tem oral $uration is of little
value? $uration+ li'e $istance+ rec'ons (ith horizontal+ human relations that lac' si!nificant moment.
14
%i!nificance is #uilt throu!h association (ith the o(er of the ast an$ ultimately lea$s to a satial an$
temoral unification of action (ith the !enerative structure of the (ell.
.t is no( ossi#le to $erive from fi!ure 1 an analo!ical fi!ure for 9ermanic time+ fi!ure 0. >i!ure 0 has
rotate$ fi!ure 1 ninety $e!rees countercloc'(ise? the ast lies no( to the ri!ht+ an$ the horizontal
intersection of fi!ure 1 no( aears as vertical. This allo(s the schematic time erceiver to stan$
uri!ht an$ face ri!ht to(ar$ the ast. Because this temoral fi!ure (ill #e some(hat stran!e for us+ let
us #e!in #y ima!inin! him as a man stan$in! in
the $oor(ay of an enclosure+ a container or room. .nsi$e it is store$ the structure of all ast events. The
man faces in. Aroun$ him flo( events. %ome clearly fall outsi$e the enclosure an$ $isaear? others are
momentarily #ecomin! art of the structure (ithin the enclosure. This is not unli'e--to a$$ analo!y to
analo!y-(ater runnin! into a lar!e container throu!h a nec' in (hich the man is locate$. The flo(in!
(ater analo!y #rea's $o(n+ ho(ever+ #ecause the force that initiates the flo( of time lies (ithin the
container+ not outsi$e it as (ith the force of !ravity. 8vents are #ein! ulle$ in from (ithin? eventually+
the man himself (ill #e ulle$ in at the moment of $eath.
This situation resents $ifficulties for men as they attemt to un$erstan$ their osition (ith resect to
the nature of action+ their o(n an$ all others&. Man stan$s outsi$e the ast an$ has no $irect ercetion
of it or of its force. 3or can he see all of its structure clearly? in$ee$+ most of it is hi$$en. .t $oes
influence activities outsi$e the (ell+ #ut in (ays that are not usually $irectly erceti#le. A$$itionally+
events of the resent rush aroun$ men as if from #ehin$ them. %ome of these events are insi!nificant+
#ut some are imortant an$ ast-influence$. Man&s strivin! to un$erstan$ an$ sort these out comes only
from his a#ility to 'no(+ al#eit $imly+ the o(er of the ast as it reaches out an$ aroun$ him to
structure activities resent or &#ecomin!&. To ut it another (ay+ man never attaches $irectly to the ull
of events of the (ell as they reach out #ut only can #e ulle$ (ith events as they return to the (ell. An$
these events+ it can #e seen+ are never fully o#serva#le to the in$i vi$ual involve$.
This temoral scheme ma'es t(o oints a#out 9ermanic time that are not imme$iately noticea#le to us.
>irst+ time is #inary+ not triartite. .t $ivi$es into ast an$ nonast+ not into ast+ resent+ an$ future.
There are no e/licit references in early 9ermanic ma terials to a concet li'e the future. 8vents that
seem to us to #e future-oriente$ turn out+ (hen carefully e/amine$+ to refer $i rectly to the interaction
of the ast (ith events of the nonast+ of that (hich has occurre$ (ith that (hich is in the rocess of
occur rence. )i'ely references in Gl$ 8n!lish to future-oriente$ ac tivities+ for e/amle+ are often
refi/e$ (ith ore-. These+ ho(ever+ almost al(ays clearly e/ress the relation of the ast to the
resent <as in our term oreathers=. Terms such as orec*e5an &foresay& an$ orescea*ian &foresho(+
foresee& seem occasionally to refer to roh ecy an$ re$iction? yet+ these are limite$ in Gl$ 8n!lish to
transla tions of e/licitly Christian+ )atin materials. 8ven here+ the Gl$ 8n!lish versions of these te/ts
seem to transform rohecy to the (or'in! out in the resent of earlier+ ast seech+ as in the follo(
in! from Be$e6
%unt etiam Dui $icant Duia er rohetiae siritum+ et estilen
tiam Dua isa esset moritura+ rae$i/erit. < Be$e .B+ 196141=
11

%ume men eac s(ylce sJ!$on+ HJt heo Hurh (ite$omes !ast
Ha a$le forec(J$e+ He heo on forSfer$e. < Be$e .B+ 21 E 19F6
,18=
12

%ome men also sai$ that she throu!h the sirit of (is$om fore
so'e EofF the la!ue in (hich she $ie$.
The ren$erin! of prophetiae as *itedomes itself $oes much to en force this #ecause 'no(le$!e an$
Au$!ment are themselves ast !overne$. %i!nificantly+ (or$s (ith the refi/ occur in conte/ts (here a
&foreso'en& event #rin!s the ast of its time of #ein! so 'en for(ar$ rominently into the resent.
The form ore in Gl$ 8n!lish clearly lin's satial an$ temoral concerns.
1,
Thus+ the orebecna &fore-
#eacons& of the Duotation from A.*. 29, in the An!lo-%a/on Chronicle+ !iven earlier+ are si!nal li!hts
or sotli!hts of imortance an$ imme$iacy mar'in! events for rominence. They stan$ imme$iately in
front of those (ho o#serve them. %uch &#eacons& are+ at once+ visi#le an$ resent yet rife (ith the
si!nifi cance of the ast. The lan!ua!e stays clear of usin! such terms in resent conte/ts to ma'e
va!ue+ future-oriente$ references to &thin!s to come&--as the time scheme re$icts.
The secon$ oint6 (ithin the #inary time system+ the ast is constantly increasin! an$ ullin! more an$
more time an$ events into itself? it alone has any assure$ stren!th or reality. Because of this+ time is
ever-chan!in!+ !ro(in!+ an$ evolvin!. .t is a!!lutina tive an$ oen-en$e$+ as is its container. This
structure lea$s+ tem orally+ to one o#vious conclusion6 The container (ill eventually #ecome full.
Uon such conclusion+ (e (oul$ e/ect a cosmic close+ an en$ of the universe imlicit in the structure
itself. .n$ee$+ this is the case in 9ermanic myth? 5a!nar '+ the en$ of the create$ (orl$s+ is !iven a
rominent osition at the en$ of 0 lusp . The events are !rim for the create$ (orl$s of the tree6
natural $isaster+ $eath+ an$ the eventual collase of :!!$rasil6
"celr hggdrasils ascr standandi,
ymr ie aldna trn, enn i tunn losnar .
< 0 lusp 12611=
Trem#les the to(erin! tree :!!$rasil+
it&s leaves sou!h lou$ly6 unleashe$ is the etin.
< ;ollan$er 1902614=
As the vision continues+ the (orl$s of tree an$ (ell #ecome inter min!le$6
"fl tnr sortna, sigr old i mar,
h)era a himni hei5ar sti rnork
geisar eimi )i5 aldrnara,
leicr h1r hiti )i5 himin si1lan.
< 0 lusp -261,-11=
&3eath sea the lan$ sin'eth+ the sun $immeth+
from the heavens fall the fair #ri!ht stars?
!usheth forth steam an$ !uttin! fire+
to very heaven soar the hurtlin! flames.
< ;ollan$er 1902611=
The create$ (orl$s #ecome fully art of the realm of the (ell. 0 lusp $oes not en$ here+ ho(ever.
>rom this en!ulfin! comes forth a ne( creation6
"nr hon upp +oma 5ro sinni
i r5 fr dgi, i5iagrgnak
alla orsar, lgr rn yir
< 0 lusp1 -9611=
. see !reen a!ain (ith !ro(in! thin!s
the earth arise from out of the sea?
fell torrents flo(+ overflies them the ea!le.
< ;ollan$er 1902612=
.t is at once a (orl$ ne( an$ ol$+ the ir return (ith runes <sec tion 04=? (ith them+ from the
re!ions that earlier e/iste$ only in ro/imity to the (ell+ is Bal$r <section 02=+ an$ 3Qthho!!+ the
!na(in! serent of ;ver!elmir+ flies someho( forth into an$ over this ne( (orl$ <section 00=.
.t is clear that 5a!nar ' is not the en$ of time #ut one of+ aarently+ several temoral oints in the
cosmos that mar' #e!in nin!s. These oints are at once ne( an$ ol$. .t is as if the container of the
ast ha$ overflo(e$ itself an$ ha$ #e!un to fill another+ lar!er container+ (hich someho( is structure$
so as to surroun$ an$ enclose the earlier one? it contains more+ an$ as more time is accomlishe$+ more
an$ more time !ro(s. The rocess aarently continues (ithout en$? at least+ 0 plusp1 !ives no
in$ication that the events it finally $escri#es are to #e consi$ere$ as &final& events.
11

The account of 5a!nar ' in 0 lusp1 attemts to unify the t(o asects of temorality uon (hich (e
have so far touche$6 first+ that asect that e/resses the nature of occurrence of events in the imme$iate
&no(& of the (orl$ of men--that is+ time that rovi$es the me$ium of occurrence of events in the
resent? an$+ secon$+ that asect of temorality that relates all events in all (orl$s univer sally to each
other re!ar$less of moment of occurrence. Cosmic myths+ at least to the e/tent that they $eal (ith
matters of time+ al(ays attemt to reconcile (hat seems to #e a universal+ human+ temoral ara$o/.
Man&s $irect e/erience of time cannot alone account for the o#vious $ifficulties inherent in the t(o
asects here e/amine$6 time as rocess of imme$iate occurrence an$ time as universal carrier an$
incororator of all events. 7ithin man&s cre ate$ (orl$ <i.e. the (orl$s of :!!$rasil=+ events haen in
some 'in$ of seDuence+ an$ they haen only once. The e/erience of such events inevita#ly !ives rise+
ho(ever+ to a human comrehen sion that such events are not uniDue or unitary6 There are enou!h
similarities amon! them for men to e/erience some <erhas more+ erhas fe(er= events as
reetitions or manifestations of cosmic a!encies #eyon$ the create$ (orl$ that overlay+ structure+ an$
re$icate create$ e/erience. These asects of events+ their uniDueness as oose$ to their or$er or
reetitiousness+ form (hat are ro#a#ly the roots of all of men&s temoral concetions. &All other
asects of time+ $uration for e/amle or historical seDuence+ are fairly simle $erivatives from these
t(o #asic e/eriences6 <a= that certain henomena of nature reeat themselvesE?F <#= that life chan!e is
irreversi#le& < )each 1900612-=. 3atural henomena+ the seasons+ the heavens+ animal life+ follo( each
other cyclically. These oerate on (hat 8vans-Pritchar$ calls &oecolo!ical time& < 1914691-1,8=+ an$
man&s ercetions of these !ive rise not only to his time-rec'onin! systems #ut also to his concetions
of the structure of the cosmos #eyon$ his un$erstan$in! as li'e(ise &or!anic&+ natural+ an$ $irectly
!overne$ #y oecolo!ical forces? thus+ the 9ermanic universe is in this sense &natural& an$ to some e/tent
cyclical. Because of man&s create$ nature+ the events of his life form (hat seems to #e a linear temoral
seDuence. Man univer sally tries to ren$er si!nificant his o(n linear e/erience #y lacin! it in some
meanin!ful relation (ith the oecolo!ical cycle. The structures of these attemts are man-oriente$ an$
culture-create$. They can #e oriente$ to(ar$ either the more natural+ reetitive cycle or the more
human+ linear e/erience--the natural #ein! more static in its reetitiveness. These t(o structural
e/tremes have #een cate!orize$ #y )Mvi-%trauss as &col$& <natural+ static= an$ &hot& <human+ $ynamic=
< 19006212-11=. The temoral thrust of &hot& societies lies in their &resolutely internalizin! the historical
ro cess an$ ma'in! it the movin! o(er of their $eveloment . . .E?F Ocol$O societies . . . ma'e it the
case that the or$er of temoral succession shoul$ have as little influence as ossi#le on their con tent&
< )Mvi-%trauss 190062,1=. 7e can sense that 9ermanic culture+ as (e have e/amine$ it here an$ in
site of its hi!hly tra$itional nature an$ its i!norance of (hat )Mvi-%trauss here calls the &histor ical
rocess&+ oerates clearly (ithin a osition nearer the &hot& ole of this temoral structure. The
9ermanic cosmos is a &hot& cosmos rife (ith an$ !ainin! o(er from incororative chan!e? its &na
ture&+ if (e may use that term accurately here+ is itself !ro(th oriente$ an$ not static+ as )Mvi-%trauss&s
ar!ument a#out natural cycles (oul$ imly. .t is in the nature of the 9ermanic natural &cy cle& to !ro(.
These temporal peculiarities o Germanic culture can be more clearly seen by comparing
them *ith the medie)al 'hristian\s ideas about the organilation o temporal e)ents and his
perception o the passage o time. These, in the main, *ould be essentially those described
and analyled by "aint Augustine in the 'onessions and in Boo+ II o The 'ity o God.
/is arguments, gi)en in chapters u-x o Boo+ I o the 'onessions, attempt to deine
and illus trate the nature o eternity and to contrast it *ith temporal e)ents in the created
uni)erse. .or Augustine, time, the perception o in terrelated e)ents in space, is a part o
the created uni)erse. This interrelationship o e)ents does not supersede or rise abo)e the
limitations o God\s creation because time, in this sense, has also been created by God.
This earthly, limited, created time is tripar tite, di)ided into a past, present, and uture.
All three o these \times\ are part o creation and, thereore, ha)e the same real e(is tence
that any aspect o the creation has. The tripartite nature o created time permeates all o
Augustine\s arguments. A typical comment could be chosen rom almost any*here$
Duisnam est+ Dui $icat mihi non esse tria temora+ sicut ueri $i$icimus uerosDue
$ocuimus+ raeteritum+ raesens et fu turum+ se$ tantum raesens+ Duoniam illa $uo non
suntN an et isa sunt+ se$ e/ aliDuo roce$it occulto+ cum e/ futuro fit raesens+ et in
aliDuo$ rece$it occultum+ cum e/ raesenti fit raeteritumN nam u#i ea vi$erunt Dui futura
cecinerunt+ si non$um suntN neDue enim otest vi$eri i$ Duo$ non est. et Dui narrant
raeterita+ non utiDue vera narrarent+ si animo illa non cernerent6 Duae si nulla essent+ cerni
omnino non ossent. sunt er!o et futura et raeterita. < 'onessions z.+ 126210=
1-

7ho is he that (ill tell me ho( there are not three times+ as (e learne$ (hen (e (ere
#oys+ an$ as (e tau!ht other #oys+ the ast+ resent+ an$ future? #ut the resent only+
#ecause the other t(o are not at allN Gr have they a #ein! also? #ut such as rocee$s out of
some un'no(n secret+ (hen out of the future+ the resent is ma$e? an$ returns into some
secret a!ain+ (hen the ast is ma$e out of the resentN >or (here have they+ (ho have
foretol$ thin!s to come #efore+ seen them+ if as yet they #e notN >or that (hich is not+
cannot #e seen. An$ so for those that relate the thin!s ast+ verily they coul$ not relate true
stories+ if in their min$ they $i$ not $iscern them6 (hich if they (ere none+ coul$ no (ay #e
$iscerne$. There are there fore #oth thin!s ast an$ to come. < 7atts 19126212=
All of these &times& seem real? (e coul$ not 'no( them if they (ere not. There is in the assa!e+ in
a$$ition to its assertion of the tri artite $ivision+ a statement of the essential $irectionality of cre
ate$ time6 The resent is ma$e out of the future? the ast out of the resent. Gf course+ the thrust of the
ar!ument is not to(ar$ the $istinctions Aust ma$e. Au!ustine is $efinin! eternity an$ try in! to
esta#lish the #asic $ifference #et(een time an$ eternity+ #ut this $oes not concern us here. 7hat is
imortant is that Au!ustine ta'es as his oint of $earture the aarently esta#lishe$ an$ non
ro#lematical i$ea that time as (e erceive it is $ivi$e$ naturally into ast+ resent+ an$ future.
The nature of eternity+ the su#Aect matter for most of Boo' z. of the 'onessions+ (as not so (ell
'no(n or accete$? the len!th an$ comle/ity of Au!ustine&s ar!ument ma'e this lain. .t is im
ortant only that (e un$erstan$ that eternity is all-inclusive of creation an$ temorally all-resent.
7ithin it+ all temoral chan!e ceases6 &raesens autem si semer esset raesens nec in raeteritum
transiret+ non iam esset temus+ se$ aeternitas& < 'onessions z.+ 1162,8=+ &As for the resent+ shoul$ it
al(ays #e resent an$ never ass into times ast+ verily it shoul$ not #e time #ut eternity& < 7atts
191262,9=. Because man&s soul is immortal+ man erceives not only create$ time+ #ut eternity6
uod autem nunc li[uet et claret, nec utura sunt nec prae terita, nec proprie dicitur$
tempora sunt tria, praeteritum, praesens et uturum, sed ortasse proprie diceretur$
tempora sunt tria, praesens de praeteritis, praesens de praesentibus, praesens de uturis.
sunt enim haec in anima tria [uaedam, et alibi ea non )ideo$ praesens de praeteritis
memoria, praesens de praesentibus contuitus, praesens de uturis e(pectatio.
< 'onessions z.+ 2462-2=
Clear no( it is an$ lain+ that neither thin!s to come+ nor thin!s ast+ are. 3or $o (e
roerly say+ there #e three times+ ast+ resent+ an$ to come? #ut erchance it mi!ht #e
roerly sai$+ there #e three times6 a resent time of ast thin!s? a res ent time of resent
thin!s? an$ a resent time of future thin!s. >or in$ee$ three such as these in our souls there
#e? an$ other
(here $o . not see them. The resent time of ast thin!s is our memory? the resent time of
resent thin!s is our si!ht? the resent time of future thin!s our e/ectation. <7atts 19126
2-,=
There is an eternal unity that only seems to $ivi$e itself into the three erceti#le times6 The realities of
these three e/ist only throu!h their inclusion in the one. .n )Mvi-%trauss&s terms+ Au!ustine&s eternity is
clearly &col$&.
To arallel the analo!y (e have alrea$y create$ for 9ermanic time+ let us try to visualize Au!ustine&s
temoral concets as a circle (ith a horizontally $ra(n $iameter <fi!ure 2=. The outsi$e of the
erimeter of the circle (oul$ reresent eternity an$ the min$ of 9o$+ an entity that surroun$s all that
e/ists. The interior of the circle is then the create$ (orl$ of time an$ sace. The horizontal $iameter
AB' mi!ht then reresent any one of all ossi#le lifetimes. Be!innin! at oint A <#irth= an$ en$in! at
oint ' <$eath=+ the line touches the circumference t(ice? it comes from an$ reAoins the eternal.
Temoral events <all moments (ithin create$ time= lie alon! such $iameters. At any instant+ such as
oint B on the line+ there (ill #e+ to the ri!ht <AB=+ the ast+ an$+ to the left <B'=+ the future. Point B
reresents the create$ resent. As life moves from #irth to $eath <ri!ht to left from A to '=+ oint B <the
resent= moves from ast to future. )ife then moves from ast to*ard the future? ho(ever+ the flo( of
time+ as Au!ustine oints out+ ma'es the resent out of the future an$ the ast out of the resent. The
orientation of in$ivi$ual Christian #ein!s is to(ar$ the future. The me$ieval Christian loo'e$ or*ard
to(ar$ the moment of his reAoinin! the eternal+ the close$ fi/ity of salvation+ 9o$+ an$ heaven. The
i$ea of eternal fi/ity (ithin the min$ of 9o$ seems to #e a eculiarly Christian concet+ an$
Au!ustine&s emhasis uon it seems to oint to its eculiarity.
%everal imortant $ifferences #et(een Christian an$ 9ermanic temoral concetions no( emer!e.
>irst+ Christian time is triartite? 9ermanic time is #inary. .f (e attemt to $escri#e 9ermanic time
(ithin the Christian temoral frame(or' of fi!ure 2+ (e can see that the resent-ast AB can #e
oose$ in a #inary (ay to the future-resent B'. .n so $oin!+ (e lose any reality for oint B+ the
resent. >rom the Christian oint of vie(+ this is nonsensical #ecause the future is imme$iately seen to
$iffer from #oth resent an$ ast. %econ$+ #ecause the Christian faces the future+ he clearly sees its
$istinction from the resent. >or the 9ermanic man+ (hose orientation is to(ar$ the ast+ the &future& is
not a foreseea#le or rea$ily confi!ure$ concet. >inally+ (e can see that Christian time is fi/e$ an$
close$? the ro!ression of &times& (ithin the create$ (orl$ is art only of that (orl$? the (hole cosmos
is a static+ atemoral one. The 9ermanic cosmos is $ynamic an$ chan!e-oriente$. Time e/ists #eyon$
the create$ (orl$s an$ is a confi!urin! force of the (hole.
9ermanic time seems to us no( rather stran!e. This is not entirely a matter of $istance across centuries.
.t (oul$ have seeme$ stran!e to Au!ustine <erhas did seem stran!e to him= as (ell. This stran!eness
$erives from a variety of factors+ of (hich t(o mi!ht interest us further. >irst+ there is an asect to the
9ermanic ercetion of time that su!!ests circularity or the cycle+ #ut (e must #e careful (ith such
concets. Althou!h there is an i$ea of comletion an$+ throu!h en$in!s+ ne( #e!innin!s+ as (e have
seen in 0 lusp1 + this $oes not su!!est a return to some essentially unchan!e$ (orl$. The 9ermanic
system is not a static circle #ut a cycle of chan!es ever !ro(in! an$ accumulatin! throu!h the rocess
of chan!e. Au!ustine 'ne( of cyclic concetions of time as (ell. .n fact+ his reeate$ insistence uon
universal stasis is+ in art+ an ar!ument a!ainst those
Dui mun$um istum non e/istimant semiternum+ sive non eum solum+ se$ innumera#iles
oinentur+ sive solum Dui$em esse+ se$ certis saeculorum intervallis innumera#iliter oriri et
occi$ere. < 'ity o God z..+ 126-2=
10

that $o not thin' that this (orl$ is everlastin!. 8ither they #elieve that this is not the only (orl$ an$
that there are countless other (orl$s+ or they #elieve+ to #e sure+ in a sin!le (orl$ #ut hol$ that in fi/e$
cycles it rises an$ erishes times (ithout num#er. < )evine 19006-,=
There is no reason to suose that Au!ustine ha$ in min$ here the 9ermanic concetion of time? rather+
he is ar!uin! a!ainst the 'in$s of temoral seculations that (ere $isseminate$ throu!h the 9raeco-
5oman (orl$ #y 9nostic sects+ those #oth &Christian& an$ &a!an& in orientation+ to (hose teachin!
Au!ustine&s ortho$o/ Christianity stoo$ in oosition. 9enerally+ for 9nostic sects+ &our lesser (orl$+
an aeon uniDue an$ finite in sace an$ time+ cuts #ut a small fi!ure in comarison (ith that infinite
succession of infinities (hose ima!es are multilie$ li'e the reeate$ reflections in a succession of
mirrors& < *oresse 19096--,=.
{uestions a#out the nature of time+ an$ esecially Duestions a#out time&s infinitu$e+ are imortant not
only to 9nostic thin'in! #ut to the thou!ht of the other 3ear 8astern sects+ (hich (ere also (i$ely
'no(n in Au!ustine&s $ay. 7hether he learne$ of them throu!h the teachin!s of the Manichees+ in
(hich Au!ustine ha$ more than a casual interest+ or from some other 3ear 8astern sect is not clear+ nor
is it of imortance here. This seculation has its ori!in in .ranian oroastrianism+ (hose teachin!s
a#out time seem to have influence$ Aust a#out every .ranian an$ ;ellenistic sect to some $e!ree. .n
.ranian #eliefs+
>inite Time is conceive$ as revolvin! in a circle an$ returnin! to its o(n oint of $earture.
.t (oul$+ ho(ever+ #e (ron! to suose that this circular movement of time is eternal6 there
seems to #e a#solutely no evi$ence for this in any oroastrian te/t. The .ranian theory of
Time+ therefore+ is seen to have little or no affinity (ith the EaeonF seculations of the
;ellenistic (orl$ . . . At a !iven moment+ finite Time comes into e/istence out of .nfinite
Time+ moves in a circle until it returns to its #e!innin!+ an$ then mer!es into .nfinite Time+
that is Timelessness. The rocess is never rene(e$ < aehner 19226 140-2=.
These .ranian statements a#out time offer a osition some(here #et(een Au!ustine an$ the 9ermanic
concets $escri#e$ a#ove. .n .ranian #eliefs+ >inite Time is fi/e$ an$ inclu$e$ (ithin an infinite
frame(or'? Time+ in the Avesta+ is urvIn+ an$ &the Avesta $istin!uishes t(o urvIns+ lrlan- a+arana-
an$ lr)andarZ-

ata-+ that is O#oun$less TimeO an$ OTime (hose autonomous s(ay lasts for a
lon! timeO& < aehner 19226-2=. .n !eneral outline+ there is similarity here #et(een Au!ustine&s close$
creation+ (ith its aarent three times+ an$ an eternal &#oun$less& fi/ity that encloses it. There is little+
ho(ever+ in Au!ustine&s thin'in! that conceives of create$ time as circular an$ returnin! uon itself.
3or is there in Au!ustine an i$ea of the reentry of one 'in$ of create$ time into that (hich is also
&Time&+ #ut a time un#oun$e$. .t is Au!ustine&s (hole urose to $eny any 'in$ of temorality to 9o$.
Unli'e the ervanite oroastrians+ for (hom .nfinite Time <lr)an- a+arana-= (as the sureme $eity+
the eternity of Au!ustine&s 9o$ can #e construe$ as one of his attri#utes #ut not one of any rimary
imortance. Au!ustine&s 9o$ is not a 9o$ of .nfinite Time #ut a 9o$ (ho em#o$ies the i$ea of
eternity. Time for Au!ustine is not a rincile of one tye create$ an$ another eternal. Au!ustine&s time
is finally a fantasy of the create$ min$ an$ (ithout reality #eyon$ creation.
.t is uon this very oint+ ho(ever+ that .ranian an$ 9ermanic concetions seem to #e closest. .n
.ranian thin'in!+ the rincile of &Time&e/ists (ithin an$ (ithout the creation? finally+ it is &#oun$less&+
an$ the creation #rin!s forth the rincile of time &#oun$& or ma$e finite. The temoral rincile e/ists?
that is+ urvIn e/ists+ in one form or another+ everlastin!ly. .n this+ the 9ermanic feelin! a#out matters
of time is very close to the .ranian. The o(er of the ast an$ its oeration throu!h all of e/istence
seem to rovi$e the un$erlyin! rincile (ith (hich the 9ermanic cosmos oerates. .t is here also+
ho(ever+ that the 9ermanic concetion $iffers in a si!nificant (ay from the .ranian. 9ermanic &create$
time&+ that is+ time as it oerates (ithin the (orl$s of the tree+ is not in an essential (ay $ifferent from
the lar!er+ more o(erful time that oerates (ithin the realm of the (ell. True+ &create$ time& (ithin the
create$ (orl$s of the tree is limite$ an$ artial+ #ut its artiality is one of limitation #y $e!ree rather
than limitation #y 'in$. Men e/erience cosmic time $irectly #ut artially. Man&s time an$ *yrd&s time
are fun$amentally the same. Man&s time is art of *yrd&s time+ #ut it is real an$ vital+ an$+ e/cet in
$e!ree+ it is not si!nificantly $ifferent from cosmic time. .n this resect+ the 9ermanic concetion is
$ifferent from #oth .ranian an$ Christian seculation.
A secon$ factor that contri#utes to the stran!eness (ith (hich (e erceive 9ermanic time $evelos
from the eculiar (ay in (hich the 9ermanic temoral structure confronts its ast. .t is not the fact of a
concern for ast events an$ their influence uon the resent--that is not uncommon--#ut the uniDue (ay
in (hich the 9ermanic eoles fi!ure$ this influence. There seems to #e ne/t to nothin! of the i$ea of
&sacral& or &rimal& time+ as $efine$ #y 8lia$e < 19-9a=+ in 9ermanic thin'in!. 8lia$e ar!ues that+
tyically in &archaic ontolo!y&+ the rivile!e$ or sacre$ moment is create$ #y
the a#olition of time throu!h the imitation of archetyes an$ the reetition of ara$i!matic
!estures. A sacrifice+ for e/amle+ not only e/actly rero$uces the initial sacrifice reveale$
#y a !o$ ab origine+ at the #e!innin! of time+ it also ta'es lace at that same rimor$ial
mythical moment . . . All sacrifices are erforme$ at the same mythical instant of the
#e!innin!? throu!h the ara$o/ of the rite+ rofane time an$ $uration are susen$e$ . . .
.nsofar as an act <or an o#Aect= acDuires a certain reality throu!h the reetition of certain
ara$i!matic !estures . . . there is an imlicit a#olition of rofane time+ of $uration+ of
&history&. < 19-9a6,-=
This seems much closer to Au!ustine&s osition than it $oes to any of the 9ermanic concerns
mentione$ so far. The sacraments of the Church are erforme$ in such a conte/t. Au!ustine&s o(n
ar!ument is e/licitly $esi!ne$ to a#olish the &history& of the triartite temoral system in (hich his
)atin forces him to (rite. )i'e(ise+ the act of the %oul&s contemlation of 9o$ (ill lea$ man out of
rofane time into a ercetion of eternity. The only $istinction to #e foun$ in Au!ustine is his relentless
refusal to see the &sacral& moment as temoral at all? its function is not to &return& to a rimal moment #ut
to em#o$y in a $ifferent sort of (ay a reality that is in no (ay temoral.
The 9ermanic rivile!e$ moment is $ifferent from #oth the Christian one an$ from that (hich 8lia$e
$escri#es? (hat 8lia$e has calle$ &$uration& an$ &history& form the essence of the &sacral& moment in
9ermanic thin'in!. The 3orns sea' the Wrl ! an$ sustain the tree h)ern dag &every $ay&. These
ara$i!matic !estures $o not loo' #ac' to some rimal moment+ to some ori!inal act that is to #e
reenacte$ or commemorate$? rather+ they emo(er an$ create the resent >or 8lia$e+ the ast is
rimary? so+ too+ for the 9ermanic ast. That ast+ ho(ever+ is not $istant+ inaccessi#le+ or urer than
the resent+ nor is it in the rocess of $eterioratin! throu!h $uration or throu!h the accumulation of
time. The oosite is the case6 The ast !ro(s an$ #ecomes more o(erful throu!h $uration an$ the
flo( of time. .t $oes not rece$e? it is unremittin!ly near an$ &hot&+ in )Mvi-%trauss&s sense. 8lia$e&s ast
is fullest in its rimal state? the 9ermanic ast is al(ays fullest &no(&.
The concetual $ifferences #et(een the early 9ermanic eoles an$ the early Christians ro#a#ly
facilitate$ the Christianization of the 9ermanic eoles yet create$ for them some far-reachin!
concetual comlications. >irst+ it is ossi#le to see+ at least to some e/tent+ (hy the Christianization
too' lace (ith such relative ease. The 9ermanic (orl$ is oen+ inDuirin!+ an$ recetive. Thus+ the
9ermanic eoles manifeste$ their e/loratory acumen+ on the one han$+ in the e/ansion of Bi'in!
civilization (ith its concomitant $estructive an$ terrorizin! imulse an$+ on the other+ in their
recetivity to the $emonstrate$ values of Christianity. This accetin! Duality is reorte$ #y Be$e
in$irectly in the rather curious an$+ if not enli!htene$+ at least aarently self-intereste$ comments of
CJfi+ the primus pontiicum to the a!an %a/on 'in! 8a$(ine at his conversion. CJfi ar!ues for
conversion that+ if the ol$er !o$s to (hom the eole ha$ raye$ ha$ ha$ any o(er+ he <CJfi= shoul$
have notice$ it #ecause he ha$ raye$ more earnestly an$ intelli!ently than any other6
%i autem $ii aliDui$ valerent+ me otius iuvare vellent+ Dui illis imensius servire curavi.
Un$e restat+ si ut ea Duae nunc no#is nova rae$icantur+ meliora esse et fortiora+ ha#ita
e/aminatione erse/eris+ a#sDue ullo cunctamine susciere illa festinemus. < Be$e ..+
1,6282=
;(Jt ic (at+ !if ure !o$o Jni!e mihte hJf$on+ Uonne (ol$an hie me ma fultumian+
forUon ic him !eornlicor Ueo$$e
hyr$e. >orUon me UynceS (islic+ !if Uu !eseo Ua Uin! #eteran
stran!ran+ Ue us ni(an #o$a$ syn$on+ UJt (e Uam onfon. < Be$e ..+ 14E1,F61,1=
.n$ee$+ . 'no(+ if our !o$s ha$ any o(er+ that they (oul$ have ai$e$ me more #ecause . more
earnestly serve$ an$ hear$ them. Therefore+ it seems to me (ise+ if you mi!ht erceive #etter an$
stron!er thin!s (hich are ne(ly announce$ to us+ that (e accet them.
.f the !o$s have less o(er an$ are una#le meanin!fully to affect the lives of men an$ if Christ an$ his
church can+ then Christ an$ his church 'no( more an$ are !oin! to #e more helful+ more informative
a#out the nature of the universe #eyon$ the or$inary. Gf course+ such a conte/t $oes not see Christ as
$ivine or as eternal? rather+ the Christian church aears as yet another (orl$ of #ein!s (ithin all
create$ (orl$s #ut+ si!nificantly+ one that has !reater+ (iser touch (ith the universal sustainin! o(er.
Gne (oul$ surely #e foolish to i!nore such evi$ence. The Christian (orshi of Christ $iffers ra$ically
from the 'in$s of veneration that the 9ermanic eoles roffere$ to their !o$s+ #ut such $ifference
(oul$ not #e at all evi$ent (ithin the conte/t of conversion. %uch ostconversional ro#lems (ere not
noticea#le+ not even comrehensi#le+ to the 9ermanic eole.
CJfi&s comments a#out the conversion are follo(e$ in Be$e&s te/t #y the famous analo!y comarin!
human life (ith the fli!ht of a sarro(+ (hich curiously mi/es 9ermanic an$ Christian elements.
12
.ts
tenor is to emhasize the $im+ tan!ential nature of man&s 'no(le$!e+ an$ its conclusion mirrors CJfi&s6
&Un$e si haec nova $octrina certius aliDui$ attulit+ merito esse seDuen$a vi$etur& < Be$e ..+ 1,6281=+
&>orSon !if Ueos lar o(iht cuSlicre
have ai$e$ me more #ecause . more earnestly serve$ an$ hear$ them. Therefore+ it seems to me (ise+ if
you mi!ht erceive #etter an$ stron!er thin!s (hich are ne(ly announce$ to us+ that (e accet them.
.f the !o$s have less o(er an$ are una#le meanin!fully to affect the lives of men an$ if Christ an$ his
church can+ then Christ an$ his church 'no( more an$ are !oin! to #e more helful+ more informative
a#out the nature of the universe #eyon$ the or$inary. Gf course+ such a conte/t $oes not see Christ as
$ivine or as eternal? rather+ the Christian church aears as yet another (orl$ of #ein!s (ithin all
create$ (orl$s #ut+ si!nificantly+ one that has !reater+ (iser touch (ith the universal sustainin! o(er.
Gne (oul$ surely #e foolish to i!nore such evi$ence. The Christian (orshi of Christ $iffers ra$ically
from the 'in$s of veneration that the 9ermanic eoles roffere$ to their !o$s+ #ut such $ifference
(oul$ not #e at all evi$ent (ithin the conte/t of conversion. %uch ostconversional ro#lems (ere not
noticea#le+ not even comrehensi#le+ to the 9ermanic eole.
CJfi&s comments a#out the conversion are follo(e$ in Be$e&s te/t #y the famous analo!y comarin!
human life (ith the fli!ht of a sarro(+ (hich curiously mi/es 9ermanic an$ Christian elements.
12
.ts
tenor is to emhasize the $im+ tan!ential nature of man&s 'no(le$!e+ an$ its conclusion mirrors CJfi&s6
&Un$e si haec nova $octrina certius aliDui$ attulit+ merito esse seDuen$a vi$etur& < Be$e ..+ 1,6281=+
&>orSon !if Ueos lar o(iht cuSlicre

!erinsenlicre #ren!e+ UJs (eor Ue is UJt (e UJre fyl!en& < Be$e ..+ 14 E 1,F61,0=+ &Therefore+ if this
learnin! #rin!s anythin! more (ise an$ reasona#le+ it is fittin! that (e follo( it&. .n a$$ition+
somethin! of the same chan!e in the confi!uration of the create$ (orl$s is o#serva#le in s'al$ic
oetry+ (hich reflects the .celan$ic conversion later. ;ere in 8ilQfr 9oSrYnarson&s verse+ in lace of the
[sir hol$in! their $aily tri#unal at Urth&s 7ell+ aears Christ himself6
"etbergs, +)e5a sitra
sunnr at 4r5arbrunni,
s)1 her ramr conungr rem5an
Rfms banda si+ lpndum.
< "+1lds+aparm1l -16222=
%o has 5ome&s Mi!hty 5uler
.n the 5oc'y 5ealms confirme$
;is o(er? they say ;e sitteth
%outh+ at the 7ell of Ur$r.
< Bro$eur 1929619-=
18

.t is also clear+ ho(ever+ from all that has #een resente$ that the Christianization of the a!an
9ermanic eoles eventually must have create$ very !reat concetual ro#lems for them. The temoral
reorientation to(ar$ the future+ (hich the Christian concetion stresses so stron!ly+ involve$ a 184-
$e!ree (rench a(ay from the ast to(ar$ a future that $i$ not even e/ist rior to Christianization. The
$octrine of salvation an$ the i$ea of a close$+ fi/e$ eternity must also have #een $ifficult. %in+
reentance+ an$ a#solution must have seeme$ very stran!e at first. 5eentance an$ a#solution involve a
moment in (hich the sins of the ast are confronte$+ reente$ of+ an$+ in effect+ (ashe$ a(ay. The
a#solve$ in$ivi$ual at this moment enters a state of !race? the ast $isaears+ an$ he is #orn ane(.
;o( the 9ermanic eoles must have stru!!le$ (ith the i$ea that the ast coul$ ever $isaear The
continuin! $ominance of the ast is resent in all early 9ermanic literature. .t is no (on$er that the
9ermanic version of Christianity shoul$ also stress heavily the Gl$ Testament (ith its !enealo!ies an$
its emhasis uon retri#ution rather than uon the concets of !race an$ for!iveness+ (hich form so
much of the emhasis of the 3e(. >inally+ *yrd+ the term for the o(er of the ast uon the resent+
lin!ers on lon! after Christianization. .t alone of earlier 9ermanic concets seems to have #een so
firmly roote$ in the consciousness an$ lan!ua!e of the eole that the reli!ious an$ temoral
reorientation $i$ not sulant it Duic'ly or easily.
19
True+ the term comes to $enote a some(hat
am#i!uous concet in Christian times? sometimes it seems to refer to the (ill of 9o$+ at others to
somethin! li'e >ortune <an$+ as such+ su#servient to 9o$&s (ill=+ #ut it (as there+ forcin! itself
meanin!fully into the seech of those ne( Christians (ho stru!!le$ to reconcile it someho( (ith their
recently acDuire$ Christian orientation an$ #elief.
*anguage &
T ;8 satial an$ temoral orientation that has #een e/amine$ in essay 1 can #e relate$ to some
!rammatical asects of the various historically $ocumente$ 9ermanic lan!ua!es. The 9ermanic
lan!ua!es+ as a !rou+ have no morholo!ical mar' for future tense in their ver#s. &.n the course of their
$eveloment+ 9ermanic lan!ua!es have never succee$e$ in ro$ucin! a $istinct future. The e/ression
of time has remaine$ limite$ to the oosition of the resent <the forms of (hich also serve for the
future= an$ the ast& < Meillet 1924608=. The tense system of all 9ermanic lan!ua!es has al(ays #een
an$ still is morholo!ically #inary. This #inary $ivision is re-Christian+ an$ the various syntactic
forms utilize$ to e/ress temoral futurity vary from lan!ua!e to lan!ua!e. All of these $eveloe$
usa!es are ost-Christian+ althou!h the elements use$ in the e/ression of the future+ in !eneral+ ha$ a
lace in earlier 9ermanic usa!e as (ell. Their earlier use+ ho(ever+ is universally relate$ to (hat (e
mi!ht more accurately call &mo$ality& of action rather than &time&. As Meillet&s Duotation notes+ &the
resent tense may #e use$ in sea'in! of some future time Ein Mo$ern 8n!lishF. This (as the re!ular
ractice in EGl$ 8n!lishF+ even in conne/ions (here it (oul$ seem necessary to e/ress the $istinction
#et(een resent an$ future Eno(F& < @esersen 1901 621=. The statement is true for all 9ermanic
lan!ua!es. Because the use of the morholo!ical resent to ma'e reference to futurity is universal in
the 9ermanic lan!ua!e family+ it is useful to loo' in some $etail+ first+ at the system of the ver# as it
ro#a#ly e/iste$ in Primitive .n$o-8uroean+ from (hich the 9ermanic ver#s evolve$? secon$+ at the
earliest constructa#le 9ermanic ver#al system to see ho( the chan!e in usa!e mi!ht #e accounte$
for+ an$ thir$+ at the chan!es that have since occurre$ (ithin the various 9ermanic systems to $iscover
(hat the evolvin! e/ressions of futurity mi!ht tell us a#out the chan!in! nature of the concets these
lan!ua!es $enote. 7here ossi#le+ it (ill #e informative to e/amine the arallels #et(een the lin!uistic
system an$ the concets of time an$ sace alrea$y consi$ere$.
The #inary 9ermanic tense system $iffers (i$ely from the inflectional system of other .n$o-8uroean
lan!ua!es+ as any #e!innin! stu$ent of 9ree' or )atin Duic'ly $iscovers. .f all of these lan!ua!es
$erive from a common lin!uistic source+ (hat (as this source li'eN >rom investi!ations into the
$eveloment of the .n$o8uroean lan!ua!e family+ (e may surmise that the arent .8 ver# &ha$ a
structure Duite $ifferent from that foun$ in most of the atteste$ lan!ua!es of the 9ermanic !rou+ even
in those for (hich (e have the most ancient te/ts& < Meillet 1924600=. Gn the other han$+ &it (oul$ #e
(ron! to ascri#e to .n$o-8uroean the comlicate$ tense system of %ans'rit+ 9ree'+ or )atin. A !oo$
$eal of this is secon$ary innovation& < Pro'osch 19,9611-=. The formal system of the .8 ver#+ as (e
attemt to reconstruct it+ (as Duite $ifferent from any of the formal systems of any of the atteste$
lan!ua!es. The arent lan!ua!e oerate$ (ith (hat (e call &roots&+ form structures that (ere altere$ #y
vo(el chan!es <a#laut=+ au!mentation+ re$ulication+ refi/in!+ infi/in!+ an$ suffi/in!--alone an$ in
com#ination < Bru!mann 189-? Meillet 1901619--2-1=. ;o( this formal structure (as or!anize$ into a
ver#al system+ (hich associates formal criteria (ith $istinctions of meanin!+ is not clear+ as no atteste$
lan!ua!e rero$uces it. 7e have no e/amles of .n$o8uroean usa!e+ no $irect mo$els from (hich the
meanin! structure can #e $erive$. Any reconstruction is+ at #est+ tentative.
Ber#al systems have tra$itionally #een calle$ &tense& systems. Tense has tra$itionally #een relate$ to+ if
not eDuate$ (ith+ consi$erations of time+ an$ early reconstructions of the tense system of .n$o-
8uroean ten$e$ to #e $ominate$ #y temoral consi$erations. 9ra$ually+ these !ave (ay to more
comle/ systems in (hich #oth the temoral an$ the &asectual& nature of the ver# (ere consi$ere$.
7ith resect to resent-tense forms alone+ &the formation of *esi$eratives+ .nchoatives+ .ntensives+
.teratives+ >reDuentatives+ Causatives an$ the rest is in rincile a#solutely the same as that of the so-
calle$ Primitive ver#s connecte$ (ith them. There is a $istinction+ ho(ever+ in the meaning of the
resent tense? in these E$erive$F ver#s the resent ha$ a secon$ secial meanin! in a$$ition to that of
time. EThis secon$+F secial meanin! #ecame a more or less fertile tye& < Bru!mann 189-614=. These
&$erive$& forms are asectual in nature. Thus+ temoral an$ asectual cate!ories ten$ to mer!e6 &The
tenses of the arent seech serve$ to $enote $ifferences in the OasectO of the action+ an$ to some e/tent
also $ifferences of time& < Buc' 19,,62,8=. Most recently+ attemts have #een ma$e to $issociate the .8
ver#al system from temoral matters entirely6
.n EPrimitive .n$o-8uroeanF+ tense an$ the time of the action (ere not in$icate$ #y means
of ver#al affi/es. .n$ications of the time of the action (ere !iven #y means of articles or
a$ver#s or (ere imlicit in the asects of ver# forms. %ans'rit an$ 9ree' have reserve$
tkkmounpulpsltokpsrmnnsltnkodimtorpmoi_oeim`_omipupstkmklm
time of action of the ver# . . . such evi$ence an$ the system of ver#al forms in$icate that
tense (as not a !rammatical cate!ory in EPrimitive .n$o-8uroeanF. < )ehmann 192161,9=
;ere asect $ominates+ an$ tense+ (ith reference to temoral matters+ has $isaeare$6 &5ather than
tense+ ver# forms in$icate$ asect+ that is+ state of the action or rocess e/resse$ #y the ver# . . . This
characteristic of the P.8 ver# system may #e $etermine$ most clearly in inAunctive forms of Be$ic . . .
The $ifference in ver#al stem an$ en$in!s in$icates the $ifference in the state of the action& < )ehmann
192161,9=. Thus+ #y such a $efinition+ it is incorrect to sea'+ as Bru!mann $oes+ of &resent& forms--
this is temoral? rather (e must sea' of &imerfective& forms. &The imerfective forms $eveloe$ into
resent forms in the Evarious .8F $ialects? the erfective $eveloe$ into the erfect of late EPrimitive
.n$o8uroeanF+ %ans'rit+ an$ 9ree'& < )ehmann 19216114=. )ehmann sees asect as rimary an$ tense
as $erivative of it? Bru!mann sees tense as rimary an$ asect as $erivative of it. Gn the other han$+ as
Curylo(icz < 19016 94-1,-= has ointe$ out+ asect an$ tense are not mutually e/clusive cate!ories? no
.8 lan!ua!e lac's elements reflective of #oth cate!ories. Ultimately+ there is no real reason for insistin!
that the arent system itself (as uniformly $ominate$ #y one or the other of these ossi#le ver#al
cate!ories. The lan!ua!e may very (ell have oerate$ (ith ver#al cate!ories $istinct from #oth an$
from (hich the concets of #oth tense an$ asect evolve$.
.n site of the ro#lems inherent in tryin! to account for the functional cate!ories of .n$o-8uroean+
certain formal criteria $o emer!e. .!norin! the comlications of the $erivative forms that Bru!mann
cites+ .8 ver#s fall re!ularly into three $istinct form classes+ (hich (e call resent+ aorist+ an$ erfect
<althou!h the $istinctions #et(een resent an$ aorist forms are not so clear as coul$ #e hoe$
E Bru!mann 189-6,0-,9F=. &All (e can #e sure of is this+ that E.n$o-8uroeanF ha$ ver# orms that
correson$ to the 9'. resent+ aorist+ an$ erfect. But to (hat e/tent tense function shoul$ #e ascri#e$
to these forms+ is an oen Duestion& < Pro'osch 19,96 11-=. As Pro'osch su!!ests an$ as Bru!mann
ma'es clear at len!th+ there are manifol$ comlications here+ #ut these formal cate!ories (ill suffice
for the #e!innin! of an e/amination of the relation of the 9ermanic ver#al system to its .8 arent. .f
.n$o8uroean ha$ ormal cate!ories for (hat (e call resent+ aorist+ an$ erfect+ (e must ma'e
$e$uctions a#out their functions from their atteste$ usa!e in 'no(n .8 lan!ua!es. Three functional
oositions are li'ely to o#tain in .n$o-8uroean6 resent6aorist+ resent6 erfect+ an$ aorist6 erfect.
The oosition resent6 aorist aears to #e one in (hich imme$iate conte/tual relevance is oose$ to
some 'in$ of conte/tual otherness. There is little $isa!reement that resent forms #asically reresent
actions asectually !oin! on+ imerfective at the moment of sea'in!+ or+ in temoral terms+ actions
simultaneous (ith the moment of seech+ lin'e$ $irectly to the &no(& of the utterance. A#out aorist
forms there is less a!reement.
1
Aorists are !enerally $efine$ as e/ressin! &momentary action+ the
oint of #e!innin! <in!ressive aorist= or en$ <resultative aorist=+ or more !enerally action vie(e$ in
summary (ithout reference to $urationE+ orF such action in ast time& < Buc' 19,,62,8=. Basically+
aorists seem to #e associate$ (ith i$eas of &unctual&+ momentary&+ or &oint& actions. To un$erstan$ this
unctual nature of the aorist+ (e must. see it as $efinin! actions that lie outsi$e the imme$iate
confluence of events (ithin the central &no(& of the conte/t of seech. The unctual nature of an event
necessitates that its &oint& of reference #e seen as somethin! other than the imme$iate+ (hich is entirely
self-$efin-in! an$ in rocess. Aorists al(ays su!!est somethin! of Oaartness&+ somethin! not
imme$iately relevant+ somethin! ancillary to or $istant from the &no(&. Thus+ the oosition resent6
aorist ooses+ temorally+ the &no(& of the utterance to actions that are anterior or posterior <i.e. not
no(+ either #efore no( or after no(+ or someho( else not no(= (ith resect to the conte/t of seech.
2
.n terms of asect+ (e may see it as oosin! the imme$iate relevance of the resent to the &me$iate$&
relevance of the aorist. 7ithin the oosition+ it seems li'ely that the aorist is the mar'e$ mem#er <]
other? either temorally or asectually not immediate, not no*=? the resent is unmar'e$+ lac'in! any
secific conte/tual e/ression limitin! it.
The oosition resent6 erfect is one in (hich the imme$iate action of the conte/t is imin!e$ uon
#y actions (ith a $imension that e/ten$s #eyon$ the conte/tual &no(&. There is !eneral a!reement that
erfect forms e/ress the i$ea of action in comletion+ #ut there is less a!reement on (hat the nature of
this &comletion& is. The comletion resents action more as &state& than as &rocess&+ an$+ #ecause of
this+ the .8 erfect has #een felt to #e the most o(erfully &asectual& cate!ory of the .8 ver#al system.
>or Buc'+ it reresents the &resent state of the su#Aect+ resultin! from revious action or e/erience&
< 19,,6 2,9=? for )ehmann+ the P.8 erfect in$icates &states resultin! from revious activity& < 19216
111=. Buc'&s state is more nominal an$ $efinin! of the nature of the su#Aect <actor= of the action?
)ehmann&s is more ver#al. Both see erfects as someho( &resultative&. The i$ea of result may #e
ro#lematical #ecause the concet+ at least in our lo!ical+ causeeffect relationshi+ may very (ell have
#een forei!n to the earlier sta!es of .8 lan!ua!es+ as these essays have #e!un to in$icate. %till+ there is
much to recommen$ these $efinitions in !eneral. .f a erfect form reresents a fulfille$ or comlete$
action+ (e can say that it has someho( fully utilize$ the semantic sace availa#le for its occurrence.
%uch an i$ea has t(o $efinin! factors6 first+ a fully realize$ Duality an$+ secon$+ a $efine$ or $efinin!
conte/t for occurrence (hose semantic limits are either e/licitly or imlicitly 'no(n. Thus+ in the
oosition resent6 erfect+ the erfect form (ill #rin! its fully realize$ or enacte$ element to the
conte/t of seech. As such+ it imin!es uon the &no(&+ thus rovi$in! a 'in$ of me$iation #et(een
actor an$ action+ as Buc' has imlie$. 7ithin the oosition+ it seems li'ely that the erfect is the
mar'e$ mem#er <]ully realiled and impinging=+ (ith its otential for occurrence #ein! reresente$ as
havin! reache$ the fullest. The resent is unmar'e$+ lac'in! any secific reference to full realization.
The oosition aorist6 erfect is the most $ifficult to account for #ecause it has almost comletely
$isaeare$ in atteste$ .8 lan!ua!es. 8ven lan!ua!es li'e 9ree'+ (hich maintain refle/es of #oth .8
forms+ utilize them in (ays aarently Duite $ifferent from their earlier uses. 8ven so+ (e can see from
(hat has alrea$y #een $iscusse$ that aorists an$ erfects #oth e/ress actions that have characteristics
that $elineate or $efine them as containe$ or someho( surroun$e$ #y limits. .t is this limitation that
allo(s aorists to e/ress oint-reference actions or momentary actions.
,
9rante$ the limits are va!ue+
#ut their resence is essential to the uniDue 'in$s of actions aorists confi!ure. Perfects+ on the other
han$+ are e/licitly an$ clearly limite$+ !ainin! their re$icative o(er throu!h their assertion of their
limits as #ein! fully reache$. Thus+ for the oosition aorist6 erfect+ (e are $ealin! (ith
$iscriminations amon! limite$ actions. The erfect is the mar'e$ mem#er secifyin! <ully realiled=
(ithin limits? the aorist is unmar'e$ (ith resect to realization. The elements of imin!ement+ (hich
inhere$ in the resent6 erfect oosition+ an$ otherness+ (hich inhere$ in the resent6 aorist
oosition+ are of no si!nificance here.
.n the 9ermanic lan!ua!es+ these three oositions have collase$ into one+ resent6 reterite.
>ormally+ the 9ermanic resent $erives from the resent forms of the .8 arent lan!ua!e? &the reterit
of the 9ermanic %tron! Ber# com#ines the t(o EotherF forms into a mi/e$ ara$i!m in (hich+ rou!hly
sea'in!+ the sin!ular is #ase$ uon the E.8F erfect+ the lural uon the aorist& < Pro'osch 19,96110=.
7ithin this ara$i!m+ the former .8 aorist an$ erfect forms e/ist in comlementary $istri#ution? they
are never meanin!fully $istinct from each other. >unctionally+ it is not ossi#le that the concets
associate$ (ith the oosition of these forms can oerate any lon!er. .f this (ere still the case+ (e
(oul$ $iscover some functional $istinction oerative #et(een sin!ular <erfect-$erive$= an$ lural
<aorist-$erive$= actions+ #ut this is not the case.
.n a$$ition to its stron! ver#s+ the !rou of 9ermanic lan!ua!es has a secon$ reterite formation+ the
so-calle$ (ea' reterite+ (hich is uniDue to the !rou an$ not tracea#le to any etymolo!ical source in
the .8 ver#al system. There is a ossi#ility of a connection (ith articiles en$in! in -to+ #ut a source
$erivin! from a suffi/ (ith an ori!inal .8 -t+ -dh+ -d+ or -th cannot #e rule$ out < Bru!mann 189-61-,-
--=. .n a series of articles+ )ehmann < 1912+ 191,a+ 191,b= has ma$e a stron! case for tracin! the
9ermanic (ea' reterite to the .8 -dh- $eterminative suffi/6 &The value of the dh-$eterminative in
9ermanic is . . . in nouns forme$ from transitive roots that of a ast assive mo$ification of meanin!+
in nouns forme$ from intransitive roots that of mo$ification cause$ #y revious action+ in ver#s that of
mo$ification cause$ #y revious action& < 19126 1,2=. )ehmann is careful to $issociate his fin$in!s of
action mo$ifie$ #y action from those of Benveniste+ (ho ha$ foun$ in .8 forms suffi/e$ #y -
dh-&l&e/ression $e l&Mtat <!MnMralement $e l&Mtat accomli=+ susceti#le ar l $&intro$uire une rMfMrence
au suAet et ainsi une mo$alitM moyenne ou assive& < Benveniste 19,-6 214=. 7e can see+ ho(ever+ that
the remar's of #oth are very close+ an$+ to the oint here+ #oth !ive us semantic accounts that come
very close to the $efinition of the function of the .8 erfect. 7e $o not 'no( at (hat oint in the
evolution of the 9ermanic lan!ua!es the (ea' reterite #e!an to occur+ nor $o (e 'no( (hen the
collase of the oosition aorist6 erfect too' lace. )o!ically+ ho(ever+ &if there (as a arallelism
#et(een the stron! an$ the (ea' reterite (hen the Eforms un$erlyin! theF stron! reterite still ha$
Etheir earlier functionalF meanin!EsF+ the (ea' reterite may have $eveloe$ from forms (hich ha$ a
similar meanin!& < )ehmann 191,a6 21-22=. The -dh- $eterminative sulies this meanin!. .t is li'ely
that (hat (e mi!ht call the uniDuely 9ermanic reterite+ (hich $evelos uniformly (ithout $istinction
of num#er in #oth the 9ermanic (ea' an$ stron! ver#s+ comes to e/ress some function that $oes !reat
violence neither to the me$iate <other= Duality of the .8 aorist nor to the imin!in! <ully realiled=
Duality of the .8 erfect nor to the semantic elements associate$ (ith the .8 -dh- $eterminative.
A #rief revie( of the tree-(ell mo$el of the 9ermanic satiotemoral system su!!ests that the
inflectional attern $eveloe$ #y the 9ermanic ver# mi!ht very (ell #e accommo$ate$ #y a similar
confi!uration. .ts #inary structure $ivi$es into a ortion of activity <associate$ (ith the (ell= that is
&ast&-$ominate$ an$ a ortion of activity <associate$ (ith the tree= that reresents nonast action. The
nature of the (ell-$erive$ ast is+ in art+ or$ere$+ 'no(n+ an$ fully realize$+ yet o(erfully active.
Concetually+ this i$ea of

the &ast& is not at all (i$e of the asect of fully realize$ imin!in! activity associate$ (ith the function
of the erfect. .t also has a stron! feelin! of &state& or &su#stance&+ (hich is relate$ not only to the
concet of the erfect #ut to forms utilizin! the -dh- $eterminative suffi/. Both the erfect an$ the
forms (ith -dh- su!!est actions (hose force is #uilt from their imme$iate activity&s association (ith
other relate$ actions. This also is one of the $efinitive i$eas associate$ (ith the 9ermanic &ast&. 7ith
resect to imme$iate+ nonast actions of the (orl$s of the tree+ the (ell reresents a 'in$ of concetual
&otherness&+ not unrelate$ to the function of the .8 aorist. Thus+ to some e/tent+ the functional i$eas that
un$erlie the 9ermanic reterite are much li'e those $efinin! the nature of the (ell of the ast. This is
rather too simle+ ho(ever+ to #e entirely the case as (e have e/amine$ it. 7e 'no( that the nature of
the ast is such that it oerates at once (ith resect to the &other& realm of the (ell an$ &imme$iately&
(ithin the (orl$s of men. .t is the very shain! force that suffuses the (hole of the 9ermanic universe.
.f (e are to relate 9ermanic ver#al inflection (ith the 9ermanic cosmic structure+ it (ill resent us
(ith a fi!ure much li'e that of fi!ure 1. ;ere+ resent-tense-mar'e$ actions lie e/clusively outsi$e the
(ell+ a#ove the horizontal that mar's the imme$iate resent. Preterite-mar'e$ actions ran!e over the
(hole of the $ia!ram+ comin! from an$ returnin! to the or$ere$ structure of the (ell. The resent of
the oosition is+ as (e have seen+ hi!hly restricte$ (ith resect to occurrence. .t seems to #e the
mar'e$ mem#er of the oosition secifyin! an$ restrictin! itself to the imme$iacy of the nonast. .t
seems li'ely then that the 9ermanic resent-tense mar'in! is somethin! li'e &unstructure$&+ &unrealize$&+
&imme$iate&+ or &no(&. Gf course+ the &no(& can #e either a conte/t of sin!le oint references+ this
moment only+ or a more !eneral conte/tual resent+ as in references to !eneral truths as re!ular
occurrences+ #ut+ in every case+ resent-tense-mar'e$ action is felt to #e restricte$ to the imme$iacy of
(hatever the conte/t #ein! e/resse$ is. This is still lar!ely the (ay the resent tense is use$. Gn the
other han$+ the functional ran!e of reterite - mar'e$ actions is not restricte$ to ast time althou!h+
#ecause of its oosition to the restrictive resent+ this is one of its si!nificant uses. The reterite has
#ecome the unmar'e$ mem#er of the oosition. As a result+ (e shoul$ also fin$+ lo!ically+ that there
are instances in (hich reterite-mar'e$ actions refer meanin!fully to events in nonast conte/ts+ #ut+
from our analysis so far+ these nonast+ reterite-mar'e$ actions shoul$ lin' imortantly (ith other
events+ ast events associate$ (ith the (ell.
;o( (e are to account for the shift from the three oositions of the .8 arent ver#al system to the
sin!le oosition foun$ in the 9ermanic lan!ua!es is not clear. At least t(o o#vious chan!es must ta'e
lace+ ho(ever6 The oosition aorist6 erfect must #rea' $o(n+ an$ an eventual mar'in! of the
ori!inally unmar'e$ resent forms must ta'e lace. 7e can also see that the e/licit mar'in!s <ully
realiled and impinging= for the erfect an$ <other= for the aorist also can no lon!er e/ist. The 9ermanic
lan!ua!es have one mar' <no* or nonpast= for the resent an$ an unmar'e$ reterite.
1
.f the
$istinction #et(een erfect an$ aorist #ro'e $o(n very early+ it (oul$ most seriously affect the <ully
realiled= asect of the erfect #ecause it is this that is most central to its oosition (ith the aorist.
Because #oth erfects an$ aorists (ere reresentative of actions (ithin some 'in$ of limitation+ this
chan!e (oul$ then #e!in to $efine the emer!in! reterite as havin! some 'in$ of &outsi$e imin!ement&
or &limitin! other& Duality. .f the resent forms then #e!an+ throu!h imlication+ eventually to e/ress
lac+ of &otheroriente$ control&+ this mi!ht ten$ to $eemhasize an$ finally unmar' semantically the
ne(ly create$ reterite forms stan$in! in oosition to the resent forms. Gn the other han$+ an early
mar'in! e/ressive of limitation in the resent coul$ eDually lea$ to an unmar'in! of #oth aorist an$
erfect forms an$ their eventual refi!urin! as mem#ers of a sin!le reterite. 8ither otion is o#viously
too simle to account for all of the comlications.
-
The results are as they have #een $escri#e$+
ho(ever+ re!ar$less of the rocess of their evolution. Because+ in all 9ermanic lan!ua!es+
resentmar'e$ forms came early to e/ress actions e/licitly mar'e$ as <no*= or <nonpast=+ the ran!e
of e/ression of reterite-mar'e$ forms is unmar'e$+ ine/licit+ an$ unlimite$ semantically. They have
$eveloe$ a (i$er semantic ran!e an$ can occur in more conte/ts than the more limite$ resents. Put
another (ay6 their&meanin!s& are lar!ely imlie$ #y conte/t rather than e/licitly $enote$. This is one
of the reasons (hy it has #een so $ifficult for those of us (ho no lon!er share the earlier cultural
concetions to $iscover the o(er of earlier 9ermanic reterites an$ (hy+ (ith the concetual chan!es
that the Christian conversion necessitate$+ there has #een so little ob)ious+ $irectly o#serva#le+ or
formal chan!e #et(een the earlier reterites an$ the reterites of our o(n $ay.
0

There are factors o#serva#le in the $eveloment of 9ermanic ver#s that seem to reveal somethin! of
the (or'in! out of the chan!e from the earlier .8 ver#al system. Gne of the most stri'in! of these is the
$eveloment of the class of so-calle$ reteriteresent ver#s in all 9ermanic lan!ua!es. >orms of these
are illustrate$ in Ta#le 1. As the material of the ta#le ma'es clear+ the $eveloment of these forms is
#oth (i$esrea$ an$ uniform throu!hout the (hole 9ermanic !rou. These &resent& forms are all
$erive$ from earlier reterite <ultimately erfect= inflections of stron! ver#s+ (hich have no( #ecome
functional resents an$ for (hich ne( &(ea'& reterites <i.e. (ith $ental suffi/= have #een ro$uce$. .t
#ecomes imme$iately clear from the !losses in the ta#le that these ver#s as a !rou refer to actions the
occurrences of (hich clearly entail other concomitant actions. They are all reresentative of states or
nonactive+ situational con$itions that rovi$e contin!ent restrictions !overnin! other+ relate$ activities.
The states of 'no(in!+ availin!+ #ein! a#le+ o(in!+ $arin!+ an$ nee$in! all e/ist in relation to o(erful
conte/tual control that structures any conseDuent activity. Thus+ their resence in any conte/t (oul$
su!!est the resence in it also of factors #eyon$ those of any imme$iate ossi#ility for action #y any
imme$iate actor alone. They can Table /
!reterite0)resent verbs 12rd0)erson0singular "orms3
-ld 4igh
Gothic German -ld %orse -ld English
. (Rit <'no(= (eiz veit (It
lRis <'no(= -- -- --
.. $Ru! <rofit+ tou!
avail+ imers.= <imers.= -- $a!
... -- an <allo(= ann <love= ann <!rant=
'ann <'no(= 'an 'ann cann
Harf <nee$= $arf Harf Hearf
!a-$ars <$are= !i-tar -- $earr
.B s'al <#e o#- scal s'al sceal
li!e$+ o(e=
man <thin'= -- man <] remem- !eman
#er+ have in <remem#er=
min$= --
mun <have in
min$+ ] inten$=
#i-nah <#e !i-nah -- #e-+ !eneah
ermitte$= <#e enou!h=
B ma! <#e a#le= ma! mR Eme!aF mJ!
-- -- 'nR <'no(= --
B. !a-m^t <fin$ muoz <have -- m^t <must=
room= ossi#ility=
^N! <fear= -- -- --
<B..N Rih <ossess= ei!un Elu- Eei!a+ infF R Ih
or .= ral onlyF
"ources6 >orms are
$erive$ from 7ri!ht
< 19146101-01= for
9othic+ Braune
< 19116292-,44= for
Gl$ ;i!h 9erman+
3oreen < 194,6 ,11-
1,= for Gl$
3orse+ an$ Cam#ell <
19-96 ,1,-10= for Gl$
8n!lish.
#e seen to reresent easily the 'in$s of o(erful control that (e have seen the force of the ast to
e/hi#it. That such forces shoul$ have #een erfect-$erive$ an$ ossi#ly reterite-mar'e$ in their early
aearances in the 9ermanic lan!ua!es $oes not seem stran!e. &The semantic shift (hich !ave rise to
the reteriteresent ver#s is reasona#ly clear. .n these ver#s a meanin! Oaction (hen comlete$O comes
to #e Othe mo$ification resultin! from revious E#etter+ here+ &relate$&F actionO+ e.!. E9oth.F *1it O. have
seen E#etter+ &. see ully&FO+ O. 'no(O& < )ehmann 191,a6 2-=. 7ith the #rea'$o(n of the oosition
aorist6 erfect+ the <ully realiled= element of such erfect forms (ill #e $o(nlaye$+ leavin! its more
$irectly resent-relate$ concet of imin!ement relatively intact. The resent-oriente$ meanin! (ill
#ecome rimary. >or ver#s (ith semantic natures of this sort+ the move to the realm of the functional
resent (oul$ #e clear. The eventual $eveloment of a ne( reterite (oul$ comlete the rocess.
2
3ot
surrisin!ly+ these forms rovi$e the mo$ern 9ermanic lan!ua!es (ith the syntactic sources of many
of their most (i$ely use$ au/iliary ver#s. )i'e(ise+ others of this list still re!ularly !overn su#stantive
clauses or infinitive constructions or #oth. They still reresent ver#s $ominatin! other ver#s
!rammatically+ actions $ominatin! actions semantically.
Another imortant factor in the $eveloment of the 9ermanic ver# (oul$ associate its evolvin!
reterite forms (ith the relate$ loss of the .8 me$io-assive forms an$ the eventual aearance of
au/iliary assive constructions common to these lan!ua!es. The 9ermanic lan!ua!es Duite early
simlifie$ the E.8F ver#al system #y eliminatin! the oosition of active en$in!s an$
mi$$le en$in!s. .n accor$ance (ith the relation of the action e/resse$ to the su#Aect+
active or mi$$le en$in!s (ere use$ in .n$o-8uroean6 the active E9'.F leipZ means &. leave&+
(hile the mi$$le E9'.F leipomai means &. leave for myself& or &. am left&. 9ermanic 'ne(
this oosition. 9othic still use$ it in the resent (here the ancient mi$$le en$in!s e/ress
the assive6 bairie+ (hich correson$s to E%'t.F bh1rati+ &he carries&+ has this same meanin!?
bairada+ (hich shoul$ #e comare$ (ith E%'t.F bh1rate an$ E9'.F phnretai+ &he carries for
himself& an$ &he is carrie$&+ means &he is carrie$&. The other 9ermanic $ialects have lost the
mi$$le inflection of the resent. .n the reterite+ 9othic itself $oes not have the mi$$le
en$in!s. < Meillet 1924609=
This chan!e or lac' of $eveloment of me$io-assive forms relates to the $eveloment in the 9ermanic
lan!ua!es of the oosition of resent to reterite. The forms un$erlyin! the reterite at first e/ress
$irectly the i$ea of an enclose$ <or ully realiled an$ impinging= asect from the .8 erfect an$ the i$ea
of a conte/tual <other= asect from the .8 aorist. Gn the other han$+ the .8 me$io-assive seems to have
reresente$ the concet of me$iation #et(een su#Aect an$ ver#al action. Thus+ as Meillet&s e/amles
oint out+ in each case the relationshi #et(een su#Aect an$ ver# in the me$ioassive is in$irect+
nontransitive+ an$ me$iate$ #y other elements that must act uon or in conAunction (ith the su#Aect.
These me$io-assives have a rather (i$er ran!e of function than assives in either resent-$ay 8n!lish
or )atin. >ormally+ they are much li'e erfects? there are li'e inflections in 9ree'+ %ans'rit+ an$
ro#a#ly .ranian for mi$$les an$ erfects that &!o #ac' to the same ori!inal series reresente$ #y E%'t.F
-a+ -tha+ -a& < Curyo(icz 19016-0=. This ali!nment #et(een mi$$le an$ erfect forms
must #e interrete$ on the #asis of the resultative imlications of the t(o forms. The mi$$le
. . . in$icates that the result of action e/resse$ #y the ver# has an imact for the su#Aect <&.
see (ith some imact on my . . . action&? also &. see myself&= . . . %ince #oth the erfect an$
the mi$$le in this (ay have imlications #ase$ on the result of an action+ their forms sho(
a natural relationshi. But+ aart from their relationshi in sharin! resultative meanin!+ they
shoul$ not #e more closely ali!ne$+ as if the erfect (ere a reterite to a mi$$le resent.
< )ehmann 1921611,-11=
8/cet for the emhasis on resultative action+ (hich here (oul$ #e #etter e/resse$ as &concomitant or
structure$ action&+ the oint is clear. .t can #e seen that somethin! of the <ully realiled= nature of the
function of the erfect as it is fallin! to!ether in 9ermanic usa!e (ith the conte/tual <other= of the
aorist ro$uces a reterite that functions as an &imin!in! otherness&. The element of imin!ement
comes very close to the concet of me$iation as it ha$ #een e/resse$ throu!h the me$io-assive. 7e
mi!ht then susect that+ (ith only Duite simle semantic rea$Austment+ any oosition #et(een the ne(
reterite an$ the me$io-assive (oul$ ten$ to #ecome functionally nullifie$6 All evolvin! reterites
(oul$ #e #y $efinition &me$iate$&+ remove$ from the imme$iacy of the conte/t #y its &imin!in!
otherness&+ (hich searates the su#Aect from the ver#al action. Gn the other han$+ the resent coul$
allo( for oosition of me$iate$ versus nonme$iate$ action+ as in fi!ure 2.
8
This !ives us some
account of the formal cate!ories (e $o fin$ in 9othic+ #ut only there? functionally+ these allo( for
meanin!ful $istinctions of active an$ me$io-assive <nonme$iate$ an$ me$iate$= forms only in the
resent+ an$ none in the reterite+ (here the <impinging otherness= function has effectively su#sume$
the <mediated= function.
The $ia!ram of fi!ure 2 $oes not+ ho(ever+ reresent the functional oosition of forms in 9othic. As
has alrea$y #een ointe$ out+ #y the time any 9ermanic lan!ua!e is committe$ to (ritin!+ the nature of
the oosition resent6 reterite has chan!e$. The reterite is the unmar'e$ mem#er+ an$ the resent
has acDuire$ a mar'in! of conte/tual <no*=. Thus+ at some still early #ut later sta!e than that reflecte$
in fi!ure 2+ the 9ermanic lan!ua!es coul$ #e more a$eDuately reresente$ #y the $ia!ram of fi!ure ,.
This also is not the functional eDuivalent of the 9othic system+ for the nature of the mar' that is uniDue
to the me$io-assive forms seems to have #een chan!e$+ narro(e$ to somethin! much more li'e (hat
(e no( un$erstan$ strai!htfor(ar$ assives to #e. That is+ it has move$ a(ay from the &me$io-&
function to(ar$ the &assive&. Most simly+ 9othic me$io-assive forms e/ress a lac' of imme$iate
a!ency of su#Aect over the action e/resse$. Thus+ (e fin$ re!ularly constructions li'e d1uprada &he is
#atize$&? rah eu+ barnilZ+ prajtus h1uhistins h1itala &an$ thou+ chil$+ shalt #e calle$ the rohet of
the ;i!hest& < 7ri!ht 19146191=. .n each case+ the a!ent of the #atizin! or callin! is left une/resse$.
Gther 'in$s of constructions also ori!inally &mi$$le& in form--li'e &;e (ei!hs five oun$s&--move out of
the me$io-assive inflection an$ into the active.
The functional oositions of 9othic can+ finally+ #e illustrate$ #y the $ia!ram of fi!ure 1. ;ere+
occurrences of assive forms si!nal $irectly the lac' of relationshi of a!ency #et(een su#Aect an$
ver#. The fi!ure su!!ests also that the ne( function of the assive no( allo(s for a fourth semantic
oosition+ one in (hich the ne(+ fully evolve$ 9ermanic reterite mi!ht also act in some
functional oosition (ith the no( more restricte$ semantic nature of the $iminishe$ me$io-assive. .t
is in this oosition that the #e!innin!s of the common+ 9ermanic au/iliary assive construction can #e
foun$. %uch constructions are common in 9othic. They occur not only in conte/ts that refer e/clusively
to &ast time& utilizin! the reterite mar' #ut also (ithin the semantic territory allotte$ in fi!ure 1 to the
resent assive. Thus+ (e fin$+ arallelin! the occurrence of resent me$io-assive constructions+
forms li'e gamlie ist &it is (ritten&+ aeean il*ara rah tagla h1ubidis alla garaeana sind &#ut the very
hairs of your hea$ are all num#ere$&+ an$ ga1i*is+Zes *airea &. shall #e ashame$& < 7ri!ht 19146191=.
.n each case+ the construction is #uilt uon either the ver# *isan or *airean an$ a ast articile+ an$
each e/resses the e/ecte$ lac' of a!ency. %uch constructions occur also in the reterite6 [am Isus
rah d1upies *as ram IZhann & @esus came an$ (as #atize$ #y @ohn&+ an$ sabbatZ in mans *are
gas+apans &the sa##ath (as ma$e for man& < 7ri!ht 19146191=.
The evolution of assive constructions forme$ syntactically throu!h au/iliaries an$ ast articiles an$
emloye$ eDually in the resent an$ reterite is the rule in all other 9ermanic lan!ua!es.
9
7ith the
common e/cetion of the ver# &#e calle$& <G8 htan+ G;9 heilan+ G3 heita= there are no lon!er any
refle/es of me$io-assive forms e/tant. 7hether the $eveloment of the 9othic constructions outline$
a#ove is alica#le to all other 9ermanic lan!ua!es is a moot oint. Because+ ho(ever+ all the other
lan!ua!es evi$ence occurrences of the etymolo!ically same au/iliary ver#s <9oth. *isan+ G3 )esa+
)era+ G% *esan+ G;9 *esan? 9oth. *airean+ G.cel. )erea+ G%(e$. )area+ G% *er5an+ G;9 *erdan+
G8 *eorean= use$ (ith ast articiles in similar constructions+ it seems unreasona#le to $eny the
similarities of $eveloment.
14
>or our uroses here+ (e shall (ant to e/amine the common semantic
an$ !rammatical nature of these constructions an$ relate them to the 9ermanic cosmic concetual
scheme.
These constructions use the ast articiles of #oth (ea' an$ stron! ver#s eDually. These articiles
have $eveloe$ from earlier .8 ver#al forms suffi/e$ either #y -to-+ in the (ea' ver#s+ or -no-+ in the
stron! ver#s. The .8 suffi/ -no- &is foun$ esecially in ver#al a$Aectives+ (hich+ li'e those in E-to-F+
(ere ma$e from the ver#al stem <not from a articular tense-stem= . . . They are chiefly assive in
meanin!. Besi$es these there are numerous su#stantives . . . !enerally a#stract in meanin!& < Bru!mann
189161,9-14=. As for the forms in -to-+ their meanin! &(as !enerally assive . . . But the assive sense
can har$ly have #een ori!inally attache$ to the suffi/ itself . . . The i$ea of comletion or #ein!
comlete+ an$ hence of #ein! in a articular con$ition seems to have #een the essential element in the
meanin! of the forms $erive$ from the ver#al stem& < Bru!mann 18916219=. .n !eneral+ the suffi/ -to-
seems to have e/resse$ &l&accomlissement $e la notion $ans l&o#Aet& < Benveniste 19186102=. .n its
articiial forms+ it refers to a 'in$ of self-comletion+ self-accomlishment of the ver#al action. As
such+ it is at once stateli'e an$ &assive&+ as it (ere+ #y $efault. Any $istinction+ aarently very little+ in
these t(o .8 suffi/es has $isaeare$ #y the time they aear as articiial mar'ers in the 9ermanic
lan!ua!es. These articiles+ unli'e the 9ermanic tense inflection+ have sho(n no o#vious mer!in!
(ith other .8 inflection. Thus+ they may very (ell a$here closely to the i$eas their ancestors e/resse$.
.f so+ these articiles e/ress+ first+ the semantic nature of their o(n in$ivi$ual action an$+ secon$+ the
i$ea of their articular articiial nature+ action comlete$+ fully realize$+ lai$ out+ 'no(n+ e/resse$--
erhas even as &fact&. The articile ma'es no re$ication+ ho(ever? there is nothin! in its nature that
secifies any occurrence value for its action. )i'e(ise+ there is nothin! in its semantic nature that
secifies any 'in$ of temorality. These articiles--often calle$ &ast+ assive& articiles--are neither
temorally ast nor a!entively assive. They are+ if anythin!+ mar'e$ only for (hat (e have #een
callin! &realize$& action. .t is not surrisin! to fin$ the 9ermanic lan!ua!es usin! them rea$ily in #oth
resent an$ reterite? they are use$ in #oth au/iliary assive an$ &erfect& constructions+ as the 9othic
e/amles a#ove sho(.
The $istinction #et(een the au/iliary or &syntactic& assive an$ erfect+ al(ays clear in Mo$ern 8n!lish
throu!h the comlementary usa!e of forms of be for assive an$ ha)e for erfect constructions+ (as
not al(ays clear in the 9ermanic lan!ua!es an$ is not universally so to$ay. .n fact+ the evolution of
syntactically searate forms for erfect an$ assive constructions is Duite a recent innovation. &The
three functions erfect assive+ resent assive+ an$ state+ are thus neatly $istin!uishe$ Ein Mo$ern
9ermanF6 er ist geschlagen *orden, er *ird geschlagen, er ist geschlagen& < Curyo(icz 19016-2=. But
in Mi$$le ;i!h 9erman+ althou!h the ast articile &$ient in ver#in$un! mit $em ver#. *rden zur
umischrei#un! fr $as man!eln$e raes. un$ raet. $es assivums+ Eun$F in ver#in$un! mit sn zur
umschrei#un! fr $as erf . . . E+F ist E*asF *orden mit $em art. e/istiert noch nicht& < Paul 194161,1=.
8ven this syntactic $istinction #et(een erfect an$ assive (as lac'in! in the earlier sta!es of the
9ermanic lan!ua!es. All of the lan!ua!es+ ho(ever+ ma$e similar erihrastic constructions (ith their
o(n variants of 9oth. *isan or *airean #ut (ithout anythin! li'e an o#vious syntactic slit #et(een
them. 7e can see in fi!ure -+ for e/amle+ the curious srea$ of occurrences of translations of
nonresent+ assive <mi$$le= inflections in the 9ree' 3e( Testament as they aear in the 9othic
version of Ulfilas < %treit#er! 19406 182-8,=.
11
Althou!h the 9'. erfect an$ luerfect assives are
re!ularly translate$ (ith *isan an$ the ast articile+ *airean also occurs+ #ut infreDuently. 7ith
resect to the aorist+ no clear-cut line can #e $ra(n? (isan is use$ a little more freDuently than *airean.
The erihrastic construction (ith *airean is re!ularly more freDuent in other 9ermanic lan!ua!es+
esecially in verse+ even thou!h the )erea an$ ast articile construction is not+ in !eneral+ at all
common in Gl$ 3orse+ an$ *eorean an$ ast articile constructions $isaear relatively early from
Gl$ 8n!lish. 7hen one e/amines 9ermanic literature for constructions that are #y our stan$ar$s
&erfective& rather than &assive&+ the ercenta!es of the num#er of *airean to the total of #oth *airean
an$ *isan constructions fall aro/imately as6 G8 8/o$us+ -.- ercent? Beo*ul+ 21 ercent? the Poetic
8$$a+ 2, ercent? 9othic Bi#le+ 11 ercent?
12
hnglingatal+ 21 ercent? Judith+ 21 ercent? &aniel+ 21
ercent? 'hrist+ 94 ercent? /eliand+ 144 ercent < Mittner 19--6111-12=. The ran!e of variation is
enormous. Because it $oes not seem to #e a ro$uctive tas' to searate erfect constructions from
assives+ the $istinction #et(een these t(o 'in$s of constructions shoul$ #e o#serva#le+ if any(here+
some(here else.
*istinctions amon! these conte/ts must #e sou!ht in the $ifferences #et(een forms of *isan an$ forms
of *airean. These ver#s carry the tense of the conte/t an$+ Aoine$ (ith the articile+ re$icate the
(hole action of the sentence. >orms of *isan re$icate &state&+ an$ they have as their function the
actualizin! of the articiially containe$+ erfecte$+ comlete$+ or realize$ action (ithin the conte/t+
imme$iately <] no*= in resent-tense-mar'e$ forms of *isan an$ not necessarily imme$iately (ith
reterite forms. 7ith *airean there is a $ifference #ecause *airean is semantically more
comle/. . have avoi$e$ !lossin! *airean #ecause its usual translation+ &#ecome&+ is (i$e of the mar'.
As has #een lai$ out in !reat $etail a#ove+ forms of *airean e/ress not only #ecomin! #ut turnin! an$
chan!in! as (ell? more si!nificantly+ the ver# is etymolo!ically relate$ to an$ e/ressive of 9ermanic
concetions of time an$ sace. .t reresents the o(er an$ influence of the ast uon the resent. Thus+
the earliest uses of *airean (oul$ #rin! this o(er e/licitly into the conte/ts in (hich they occur.
This construction+ *airean an$ the ast articile+ is &eine $er (ichti!sten un$ #ezeichnen$sten
8rscheinun!en $er !ermanischen %ynta/ . . . EesF hKn!t aufs inni!ste mit $em 9eheimnamen $er 7ur$
zusammen? es $iente ursrn!lich $azu+ $as Ta#u(ort $es !efrchteten %chic'sals $urch eine sel#st
ta#uarti!e Umschrei#un! anzu$euten+ $urch eine noch mehr o$er (eni!er #e(ute igura etymologica
verhllen$ zu entllen& < Mittner 19--6111=.
1,
7hether (e (ill !o this far or not is a matter of our o(n
#eliefs as to the ossi#ilities of the sea'ers of a lan!ua!e #ein! a#le to control the $irections of their
!rammars. .n any case+ there is no escain! the feelin! that the construction from its earliest
occurrences e/resse$ not only actions lai$ out+ erfecte$+ an$ in comletion #ut actions that structure$
the conte/ts in (hich they occurre$. They (oul$ #rin! factors from #eyon$ the imme$iate to (or' an$
re$icate events+ returnin! them+ as it (ere+ to the !reat universal store of events from (hich all o(er
came an$ in (hich all meanin!ful action returne$. Thus+ (ith resect to occurrences of *airean an$
the ast articile in the translations of the 9othic Bi#le+ the conte/ts in (hich they occur re!ularly
e/ress somethin! #eyon$ the mere occurrence or the state of the action itself? they often seem to
su!!est &$a et(as !eschehen ist+ manchmal !era$ezu $ie 8nt(ic'lun! $es 9eschehens+ ein eher
allmKhliches %ich-7en$en $er *in!e& < Polla' 190161-=.
11
This &(or'in!-out& of thin!s is+ (ithin the
9ermanic frame(or' here evolve$+ central to all si!nificant action. 3o (on$er the construction seems
&erfective&--it $eals $irectly (ith actions so structure$. 3o (on$er the construction seems &assive& --no
effective imme$iate a!ency coul$ #e ossi#le? the roles of mere in$ivi$ual actors (oul$ #e ancillary to
the lay of cosmic forces.
A #inary tense system of the 'in$ lai$ out a#ove is+ amon! the atteste$ .8 lan!ua!es+ uniDue to the
9ermanic !rou. 7hen (e e/amine those lan!ua!es that in all ro#a#ility (ere locate$ in nearest
!eo!rahical ro/imity to (hat (ere li'ely to have #een the areas inha#ite$ #y 9ermanic-sea'in!
eoles+ (e can o#serve a num#er of imortant similarities an$ $ifferences #et(een the ver#al systems
of these lan!ua!es an$ that of the 9ermanic lan!ua!es.
1-
These are (hat mi!ht #e calle$ the
&8uroean& !rou of .8 lan!ua!es6 Balto-%lavic+ Celtic+ ;ellenic+ .talic+ an$ 9ermanic. As in 9ermanic+
so in each of the others6 the oosition erfect6 aorist has #een lost. &3either the form nor the function
of the E.8F erfect fin$EsF correson$ence in the %lavic& < @a'o#son 19--6 19=. &.n Baltic an$ %lavic all
that remains of the erfect is the active articile+ (hich is in$een$ent of the ersonal forms of the
reterite+ the latter #ein! #ase$ on the aorist& < Meillet 190261,2=. .n .talic an$ Celtic+ the forms of the
.8 erfect an$ aorist collase to form ne( .talic erfects an$ the various Celtic &ast& tenses. Gnly the
;ellenic lan!ua!es maintain anythin! of the .8 arent ver#al oositions of resent+ erfect+ an$ aorist.
8ven here+ the relationshis have chan!e$. 9ree' has evolve$ a$$itional inflections an$ a ne(
functional system re$icative of tense or temoral $istinctions lac'in! in the .8 arent system.
10

7ith resect to the #uil$in! of &ast& tenses <those inflecte$ forms of ver#s that are most li'e the
9ermanic &reterites&=+ the %lavic utilizes only the .8 aorist. The Celtic an$ .talic+ alon! (ith the
9ermanic+ use #oth the .8 aorist an$ erfect. The stem forms+ ho(ever+ that result from the collase in
.talic an$ Celtic of .8 aorists an$ erfects $iffer !reatly from those that form the 9ermanic stron!
reterite. .n .talic+ the mer!er of aorist an$ erfect forms is use$ to create the erfect stem of the ver#
< Buc' 19,,6
291-92? Palmer 19-16222-20=. Thus+ in )atin+ the function is asectual+ (ith the resent stem formin!
the inectum an$ the aoristerfect formin! the perectum of any ver#.
12
.n the Celtic lan!ua!es+ the
mel$in! of .8 erfect an$ aorist forms ro$uces (hat is usually calle$ simle &ast& or &reterite& forms.
.n 7elsh+ for e/amle+ &the ast is in the vast maAority of cases aorist in meanin!+ as it is re$ominantly
in $erivation. .t may ho(ever have a erfect meanin!+ as some ver#s have erfect instea$ of aorist
forms& < @ones 191,6 ,10=. .n Gl$ .rish+ simle reterites $enote ast or nonreetitive actions. As such+
they are $istin!uishe$ from .rish imerfects+ (hich $enote reeate$ action in the ast < Thurneysen
19106,,1,2=. This Celtic &imerfect& is $erive$ from an .8 otative an$+ as such+ is etymolo!ically
unrelate$ to the aorist-erfect-$erive$+ simle reterite < @ones 191,6,1-=.
18
Thus+ those Celtic
reterites that $erive from the mer!er of .8 aorist an$ erfect forms are Aust one amon! several &ast&
formations utilize$ #y these several lan!ua!es. The functional $istri#ution resultin! from the
interrelation of these various forms creates a much more comlicate$ ver#al structure than the sin!le+
unitary structure of the 9ermanic reterite. 3o other lan!ua!e of this 8uroean !rou e/hi#its a
$eveloment of the .8 aorist an$ erfect forms li'e that of the 9ermanic lan!ua!es+ nor $o the &ast&
tenses of any of these function li'e the 9ermanic reterites.
19

.n a$$ition to the $ifferences amon! .talic+ Celtic+ an$ 9ermanic in the $eveloment of .8 aorist an$
erfect forms+ #oth )atin an$ .rish have evolve$ formal cate!ories for the e/ression of future time.
9ree'+ li'e(ise+ has a formal future. %uch formal cate!ories are entirely lac'in! from the 9ermanic
ver#al system. The e/ression of future in atteste$ .8 lan!ua!es is most commonly a $erivation of .8&s-
formations (ith $esi$erative an$ future force. A suffi/ -syo- is common to the futures of .n$o-.ranian
an$ )ithuanian+ as %'t. dsymi+ )ith. $uosiu? a suffi/ -so- to those of 9ree' an$ the .talic $ialects+ as
nsqoust OeritO <from seti=+ an$ to the early )atin forms li'e a(Z? (hile #oth of these
are relate$ to the re$ulicate$ s-formations of the E%'t.F $esi$eratives+ as pi-p-smi O. (ish to $rin'O+
an$ certain .rish futures& < Buc' 19,,6228-29=. The re!ular )at. future in -bi- is uniDue to that lan!ua!e.
>uture forms+ ho(ever+ of (hatever ori!in occur uniformly throu!hout #oth the )at. inectum <simle
future= an$ perectum <future erfect=. This+ (ith its t(o arallel &asts& an$ &resents&+ !ives )atin its
neat+ #inary asectual an$ triartite temoral structure. Gf the Celtic lan!ua!es+ only .rish has a formal
future.
24
.t is of t(o tyes6 stron!+ (hich is ma$e of s-formations relate$ to the %'t. $esi$erative+ an$
(ea'+ the so-calle$ -future+ (hich+ in site of the aarent similarities+ is unrelate$ to the )at. -bi-
future < Thurneysen 19106,90-11-=. 7ithin the Balto-%lavic !rou+ the Baltic lan!ua!es have a formal
future inflection #ase$+ as in$icate$ a#ove+ on the .8 -s- suffi/.
21
The %lavic lan!ua!es+ on the other
han$+ lac' any mar' for the future. >ormally+ the %lavic ver# is #inary in its $istinctions.
.t is (ith the ver#s of the %lavic lan!ua!es alone that the 9ermanic ver#al system sho(s any aarent+
close relations. 8ven here+ ho(ever+ the relationshi is more aarently close than actual. 8/cet for
the $isaearance of the .8 erfect in %lavic+ ver#al $eveloment <esecially in its simlification=
seems arallel to that of the 9ermanic lan!ua!es. The %lavic lan!ua!es have evolve$ other
comlications+ ho(ever. .!norin! for the moment the element of asect <alrea$y hi!hly evolve$ in Gl$
Church %lavonic=+ (e can fin$ comlications in the %lavic &ast& tense itself. .n a$$ition to the aorist-
$erive$ ast+ Gl$ Church %lavonic also ha$ an imerfect ast form+ (hich is a %lavic innovation
unrelate$ to imerfect &$urative& forms in other .8 lan!ua!es+ such as 9ree' an$ %ans'rit < Meillet
19,16221-2-=. .n this+ %lavic is li'e .talic an$ Celtic+ an$ unli'e 9ermanic. The aorist-$erive$ ast an$
the imerfect &#oth secify action resente$ as ta'in! lace rior to the moment of utterance. The
imperect secifies an action coor$inate$ (ith a fact or act in the ast6 this oint of reference may or
may not #e resent in the conte/t. The aorist has no such secification--it is merely an event in the ast&
< )unt 190-61,0=. This $ivision of the reterite in %lavic is unli'e anythin! in the 9ermanic system.
The hi!hly $eveloe$ asectual nature of the entire %lavic ver#al system rovi$es another element
missin! from 9ermanic ver#s. Althou!h the resent tense of %lavic imerfective an$ erfective ver#s
are not formally $istinct+ their asectual nature reciitates functional $ifferences. Because of this+ the
resent-tense-inflecte$ erfective ver# is effectively #loc'e$ from ma'in! imme$iate+ resent
reference. Thus+ such ver#s so inflecte$ in Gl$ Church %lavonic #ecome &the most freDuent means of
e/ressin! future action& < )unt 190-61,-=.
22
Because asect oerates in conAunction (ith tense+ the
%lavic ver#al system ma'es more functional oositions than it at first aears to. Ultimately+ the
#inary $ivisions every(here o#serva#le in these ver#s--imerfective6 erfective+ resent6ast+
aorist6imerfect--rovi$e an ei!ht-(ay system of oositions more comle/ than anythin! in the
9ermanic lan!ua!es.
.n their ver#s+ the morholo!ically most simle of all atteste$ .8 lan!ua!es+ the 9ermanic lan!ua!es
once a!ain evi$ence the o(erful+ #inary oositions foun$ in the culture&s mytholo!y+ literature+ an$
satio-temoral concetions. These oositions are relate$ in their nature an$ are uniDue amon! .n$o-
8uroean cultural remains to the 9ermanic eoles. :et+ in each case+ there are stron! associations
(ith other .n$o-8uroean cultures an$ to (hat aear to have #een manifestations of the arent .n$o-
8uroean culture itself. ;o( (ell or ho( accurately the 9ermanic materials+ artifacts an$ lan!ua!e+
reflect the concerns of the arent culture may never #e $etermine$. :et one mi!ht su!!est that there are
reasons to susect that in some si!nificant (ays they mi!ht very (ell resent us (ith co!ent insi!hts
into some asects of matters Primitive .n$o-8uroean. 7ith resect to its honolo!y+ Primitive
9ermanic (as in all ro#a#ility a hi!hly conservative lan!ua!e. .f+ (ith %ch(arz < 19-1+ 19-0=+ (e can
see 9ermanic culture $erivin! from a !eo!rahical osition in northern 8uroesouthern %can$inavia+
then early 9ermanic culture itself+ li'e many isolate$ colonial cultures+ may also have #een
&conservative&. .f this is the case+ the chan!es in the 9ermanic lan!ua!es may #e the result of not so
much an a#an$onin! of earlier .8 elements as a arin! $o(n to retain those asects of the earlier
concetual structure felt to #e essential. &Gur 'no(le$!e that E9ermanicF (as conservative in
honolo!y may hel us to a #etter $escrition of P.8 morholo!y? for if E9ermanicF (as conservative
in one #ranch of !rammar it may also have #een so in others . . . There is no nee$ to loo' for unusual
cultural $eveloments to e/lain the E9ermanicF chan!es& < )ehmann 19-,61-2=.
%o far+ (e have e/amine$ the $eveloment of the 9ermanic resent an$ reterite inflecte$ tenses an$
have #een concerne$ (ith ho( these relate to the 9ermanic #inary satio-temoral concetion. 7e
must remem#er+ ho(ever+ that+ $urin! much of the time in (hich the material use$ in this $iscussion
(as comose$ an$ (ritten $o(n+ much ressure (as #ein! ut uon this essentially 9ermanic
temoral concetion to chan!e an$ to e/ress temoral i$eas other than those en$emic to the system
itself. The early 9othic material is a translation of the 9ree' 3e( Testament. 9ree' is a lan!ua!e in
(hich formal e/ression of the future is re!ular. )ater+ (hen (e come to e/amine material from 7est
an$ 3orth 9ermanic lan!ua!es+ other temoral ressure <i.e. Christian ressure essentially= is alie$
throu!h )atin (ith its neatly triartite tense structure. ;o( the various 9ermanic lan!ua!es han$le
such henomena is clearly of interest to us here. ;o( they coe (ith the reality of a formally e/resse$
future once the 9ree' or )atin e/ression of the future #ecomes via#le for them shoul$ oint not only
to the ossi#ilities for such e/ression in each of these lan!ua!es #ut+ more imortantly+ to (hat finally
haene$ !rammatically as each strove to ro$uce (ithin its o(n lin!uistic structure an acceta#le
formulation of the concet of futurity.
Aarently+ at the very #e!innin! very little haene$. All early 9ermanic te/ts yiel$ the same
information6 O$ie zu'nfti!e ;an$lun! (ir$ in $er 5e!el #erhaut nicht #eson$ers aus!e$rc't. 7ie
in allen !ermanischen %rachen !en!t auch im 9otEischenF $as PrKsens zur Bezeichnun! $er
zu'nfti!en ;an$lun!& < %treit#er! 19406192=. Thus+ there seems to have #een+ in the earliest time+ no
concetual $istinction of resent an$ future? #oth are eDually nonast. This henomenon is not
restricte$ to early 9ermanic lan!ua!es? it is more or less via#le in all of them still. .n resent-$ay
8n!lish+ for e/amle+ &in usin! the resent tense in sea'in! of future events one $isre!ar$s+ as it (ere+
the uncertainty al(ays connecte$ (ith rohesyin!+ an$ sea's of somethin!+ not in$ee$ as really
ta'in! lace no(+ #ut simly as certain& < @esersen 1901621=. Althou!h earlier occurrences of this
usa!e in 8n!lish (oul$ actually have stresse$ #oth the &no(& an$ the &certainty& of @esersen&s
formulation+ his statement clearly e/resses common 9ermanic usa!e. .t forces into the resent conte/t
the assurance+ the resence of the action+ an$ it (as only an$ ever in such conte/ts (here the resent
tense (as use$. Gne loo's in vain for occurrences in 9ermanic lan!ua!es of its use to refer to
seculation or unli'ely future actions. %uch ossi#ilities simly lie outsi$e the 9ermanic concetual
frame.
.n a$$ition to the resent-tense usa!e+ the 9ermanic lan!ua!es also uniformly utilize a series of
au/iliary constructions to refer to (hat (e call the future. These constructions are remar'a#ly similar in
all 9ermanic lan!ua!es. They re!ularly use an infinitive form of the ver# that $irectly e/resses the
action involve$+ an$ they re$icate <i.e. ma'e tense reference= throu!h au/iliaries that are lar!ely
<althou!h not entirely= of the class of reteriteresent ver#s e/amine$ a#ove. The 9ermanic infinitives+
li'e the articiles alrea$y $iscusse$+ are nonre$ictin! ver#al forms. They $erive from an earlier .8
neuter nominalizin! suffi/+ -no-+ (hich (as aarently inflecte$ in the accusative <Bru!mann 189-6
041? Clu!e 1941611,-11? Pro'osch 19,96 241 - - =. These forms retain a closer affinity to the ver#al
than to the nominal system of these lan!ua!es. As ver#s+ ho(ever+ they lac' inflection for moo$+ tense+
erson+ etc.+ (hich are the ara$i!matic mar's of true ver#al forms.
2,
.t is (i$e of the mar'+ ho(ever+
to thin' of the infinitive as a noun-$erivin! form #ecause the infinitive retains its ver#al nature an$ can
surroun$ itself #y nouns fulfillin! roles of a!ency+ instrument+ etc. <most noticea#le in the accusative
an$ infinitive construction=. .n effect+ the infinitive alone can e/ress a fully forme$ sentence <(ith or
(ithout accomanyin! nouns= #ut one for (hich no re$ication value occurs? that is+ the infinitive must
#e im#e$$e$ in or su#or$inate$ to some other tense-mar'e$ ver# < Curyo(icz 190161-8-24=. This is
much li'e (hat (e have seen (ith articiles+ #ut the infinitive $iffers from the ast articile in its
lac' of any secial mar'in! for assivity+ comletion+ or erfectivity. .n$ee$+ the infinitive resents as
simly as ossi#le the semantic content of the action of the ver# stem. .t $een$s entirely uon its
accomanyin! tense-mar'e$ ver# for any element e/ressive of re$ication value.
7ith resect to e/ression of the future+ the infinitive occurs (ith any of a !rou of ver#s that+ from
the #e!innin!s of the 9ermanic lan!ua!es as a !rou+ have forme$ a (i$ely $istri#ute$+ evolvin!+
au/iliary system e/ressive of &mo$ality&. These au/iliary an$ infinitive constructions e/ress the
actions in the infinitive an$ the mo$ality in the tense-mar'e$ au/iliary <or main ver#+ if (e (ish to see
the infinitive as essentially nominal=. Ber#s e/ressive of mo$ality all re$icate not actions $irectly #ut
otentials for occurrence of the action e/resse$ throu!h the Aoine$ infinitive. The ossi#ilities of
occurrence ran!e from merely &ossi#le&+ as in 8n!lish may+ can+ for e/amle+ to &sure+ certain&+ as in
8n!lish shall+ *ill.
21
The actual semantic scoe varies from lan!ua!e to lan!ua!e an$ from time to
time as the lan!ua!es evolve+ an$ it is not imortant here to ela#orate uon the various semantic
a$um#rations that the 9ermanic lan!ua!es severally an$ across time have ro$uce$. .t is enou!h to
oint out that+ from the very earliest times+ references to so-calle$ future time (ere e/resse$ throu!h
this evolvin! system an$ that inevita#ly such reference utilize$ those forms that lay+ (ith resect to the
(hole ran!e of mo$al otentials+ closest to the ole that secifie$ &assure$& or &certain& occurrence.
Thus+ as Ta#le 2 ma'es clear+ the most freDuently foun$ forms are those that $erive etymolo!ically
from the rimitive 9ermanic ver# un$erlyin! 9oth. s+ulan. .t seems li'ely that at some early $ate+
alon! (ith the more common reference #y means of the resenttense inflection+ &$as >uturum . . . im
Alt!ermanischen . . . 'ann $urch Umschrei#un! mit s+ulan zum Aus$ruc' !elan!en& < Clu!e
194161-2=. "+ulan+ also still a full ver# in all early 9ermanic lan!ua!es+ has as its rimary semantic
function the e/ression of o#li!ation+ necessity+ $uty+ etc. The constructions (ith infinitives are
li'e(ise colore$6 in Gl$ 3orse+ &s+ulu infinitive . . . inclu$e$ a notion of necessity+ $uty+ or intention&
< 9or$on 19-26,1,=+ an$ in Gl$ 8n!lish+ in &sculan inf . . . there is a sense of o#li!ation& < Cam#ell
19-9629--90=. This (as+ aarently+ every(here the case+ an$ the resent-$ay refle/es of s+ulan in
many 9ermanic lan!ua!es still e/ress it to some e/tent6 in *an. s+al &have to&+ in constructions (ith
9er. sollen+ an$ in early Mo$.8 #i#lical ren$erin!s+ such as &thou shalt not&+ to cite #ut three o#vious
cases. 7hen (e recall the names of the three 3orse 3orns--Urth+ Berthan$i+ an$ %'ul$--(e fin$ in
a$$ition to forms relate$ to *airpan+ Urth an$ Berthan$i+ the thir$ $erive$ from s+ulan. 8ven if the
latter t(o 3orns+ Berthan$i an$ %'ul$+ are late arrivals on the 9ermanic scene+ (e can see that their
names su!!est (hat seems to have #een the most li'ely source of their activities. The rocess of
occurrence <associate$ (ith Berthan$i= is lin'e$ $irectly to Urth at its root an$ is thus ast-associate$.
G#li!ate$ or assure$ occurrence <associate$ (ith %'ul$ throu!h the ver#al root of s+ulan= is+ as (e
have seen+ also ast-$erive$+ as it (as only throu!h association (ith the !enerative forces of the
activity of the ast in the resent that any meanin!ful o#li!ation or necessity coul$ have #een create$.
Thus+ these reresentations of assure$+ future-mar'e$ activities are not at their ori!in $ifferent from any
other imortant or assure$ activity (ithin the 9ermanic cosmos.
Gther ver#s utilize$ #y the 9ermanic lan!ua!es to e/ress assure$ occurrence of the actions of
associate$ infinitives are not se-
Table .
Forms used with in"initives to build au,iliary constructions e,)ressive o" "uture time
EA$*5 +I66*E +-6E$%
Proto-9ermanic6 s+ulan
9othic6 s+ulan &#e o#li!e$+
o(e&
duginnan &#e!in&
haban &have<to=&
Gl$ 3orse6 s+ulu %(e$ish s+ola
*anish s+al
*anish )il
munu &have in min$+
inten$&

.celan$ic
munu
Gl$ %a/on6 Ymugan &#e a#le
Ys+ulan Mi$$le )o( 9erman6 moten &have<to=&
scholen

schal
*ellen &inten$+$esire&*il
*utch6 lullen
Gl$ ;i!h 9erman6 sculan Mi$$le ;i!h 9erman sulnsollen
*ellen

*ellen*ollen
* 9er. erden
Gl$ 8n!lish6 *illan

Mi$$le 8n!lish *il

*ill

\ll
sculan

shal shall

EA$*5 +I66*E +-6E$%
\ll
bon
"ources6 .nformation is $ra(n+ in art+ from Clu!e < 1941=+
%treit#er! < 1940=+ 7ri!ht < 1914=+ 9or$on < 19-2=+ ;olthausen
< 1899=+ )##en < 1882=+ Braune < 1911=+ Paul < 1941=+ Beha!hel
< 1921=+ an$ Cam#ell < 19-9=.
mantically unli'e s'ulan althou!h they are not initially use$ as re!ularly or as freDuently6 9oth. haban
&have& an$ duginnan initiate+ #e!in&? G% mugan &#e a#le+ have o(er&? G;9 *ellen &have volition&? G8
*illan &have volition&+ #on an$ G3 munu. >orms li'e G8 #on an$ 9oth. haban an$ $u!innan all
e/ress the resence or $uration of the action of the follo(in! infinitive < %treit#er! 19406 192-9,=. As
such+ they stress the ro/imity or real resence of the follo(in! action (ithout secifically re$icatin!
it+ as in Mo$.8 &he is to leave tomorro(& or &he has to leave tomorro(&. .t is clear that the element of
necessity is not far from these constructions? in each case+ the action of &leavin!& is construe$ to #e a
real factor in the activity of the resent. G% mugan+ as in n mahtu s on . . . than indis th
< ;olthausen 18996110=+ su!!ests a similar semantic concet of resence. G;9 *ellen an$ G8 *illan
#oth e/ress volition or intention $irectly+ an$ G3 munu e/resses the i$ea of &havin! in min$&.
2-
The
relationshi #et(een munu an$ *illan is si!nificant #ecause it reresents $irectly the imme$iate
connection of thou!ht an$ action+ (or$ an$ $ee$+ volition an$ necessity? that is+ to thin' or (ill an
action is the eDuivalent of insurin! its occurrence <it is+ li'e(ise+ only sli!htly remove$ from the i$ea of
the #ot+ the romise of an action (hich+ throu!h the sea'in! of the action+ insures its occurrence=.
3ot only this+ #ut the concetion un$erlyin! #oth munu an$ *illan imme$iately lin's the concet of
future or inten$e$ action (ith $omination #y the ast. Actions conceive$ mentally are enclose$ an$
containe$ (ithin the min$ an$ are ro$uce$ #y a callin! forth+ a risin! out--in$ee$+ a re-mem#erin! of
actions alrea$y 'no(n.
20
Thus+ the $istinction #et(een imme$iate thou!ht an$ all ast action is #ro'en
$o(n? mental activity lin's act to intention? resence of intention lin's &future& to ast.
.t may seem stran!e that the !rou of ver#s consi$ere$ a#ove lac's refle/es of *airpan as an au/iliary
of the &future&+ for it seems+ from everythin! so far consi$ere$+ to have secial si!nificance in
reresentin! times not resent. Anyone acDuainte$ solely (ith Mo$ern 9erman (ill #e $ou#ly
surrise$. :et+ refle/es of *airpan $o not occur in the earliest 9ermanic recor$s as art of the system
of forms use$ (ith infinitives to ma'e &future& reference. The ver# is not a#sent from such conte/ts+
ho(ever. .n the 9othic Bi#le+ for e/amle+ forms of *airpan occur alone <i.e. (ithout an
accomanyin! infinitive= not less than forty-ei!ht times as translations of 9'. <future tense
forms of &#e&= < %treit#er! 1940619-=. A similar construction occurs in Gl$ %a/on+ as in thes *ir5id sZ
agan man &this EoneF #ecomesis $etermine$ to #eturns out to #e <li'e= a Aoyful man& < ;olthausen
18996110=. The conte/ts are (hat (e mi!ht call revelatory+ e/ressive of the accomlishment or
$iscovery of that (hich is someho(+ (ithin the structure of thin!s+ uncovera#le an$ 'no(a#le.
>orms of *airpan #e!in to aear in au/iliary constructions in #oth Mi$$le ;i!h 9erman <(r$en= an$
Mi$$le )o( 9erman <*rden= in the thirteenth century. The constructions $iffer si!nificantly from
those so far consi$ere$+ ho(ever. .n Mi$$le )o( 9erman+ for e/amle+ constructions (ith *erden that
seem to have future reference are not &mit $em .nfinitiv 'onstruiert+ son$ern+ (ie im Mh$. $es 1,.
@ahrhun$erts mit $em Partici $es PrKsens+ z.B. i+ *erde ge)ende wdabo{& < )##en 1882691=. .n the
erio$ follo(in!+ the resent articile freDuently aears (ithout the -de suffi/+ !ivin! it the
aearance of an infinitive. .t is then the case that in later Mi$$le )o( 9erman #oth forms+ (ith an$
(ithout -de+ &in einem un$ $emsel#en %atze steht6 i+ *erde sendende und i+ *erde senden& < )##en
1882691=. By the si/teenth century+ the articile is the re!ular form emloye$ in )o( 9erman. .n
!eneral+ ho(ever+ reference to futurity is more re!ularly ma$e in )o( 9erman (ith a form of moten+
scholen+ or *ellen (ith a follo(in! infinitive. 8ven to$ay+ )o( 9erman $ialects usually emloy *il or
schal+ rather than *erde+ (ith an infinitive to refer to the future < )##en 1882692=.
.n Mi$$le ;i!h 9erman+ in a$$ition to the articiial constructions $escri#e$ a#ove+ &seit $er z(eiten
hKlfte $es 1,. Aahrh. 'ommt (r$en mit $em inf. auf+ a#er nicht (ie im nh$. zum aus$ruc' $es fut.+
son$ern zur #ezeichnun! $es eintritts einer han$lun!+ $arum auch hKufi! im raet6 sq *rdent sie
trin+enk r *art *einen& < Paul 194161,-=. This usa!e is arallele$ in Mi$$le )o( 9erman+ (here
occurrences of *erden (ith the resent articile in the reterite re!ularly e/ress $urative or
inchoative asects of the articiially e/resse$ action < )##en 1882692=.
22
.n Mi$$le ;i!h 9erman+
the e/ression of future-oriente$ events (ith (r$en an$ the resent articile falls off rai$ly+ an$ #y
the fourteenth century futurity is re!ularly e/resse$ #y (r$en an$ the infinitive. The construction
then cometes (ith other futuree/ressin! constructions+ mainly forms of suln an$ *ellen (ith a
follo(in! infinitive. By the mi$$le to en$ of the si/teenth century the cometition is all #ut over+ (ith
*erden #ecomin! the re!ular form emloye$+ at least in the literary lan!ua!e+ every(here < Beha!hel
192162-0-0,? Moser 1921622--20=.
>orms of *airpan in 7est 9ermanic occur freDuently an$ re!ularly in the reterite (ith #oth the
resent articile an$ the infinitive. The uses (ith the resent articile are stri'in! #ecause (e have
alrea$y o#serve$ si!nificant occurrences of *airpan (ith the ast articile. Because the resent an$
ast articiles are the only t(o to $evelo in all 9ermanic lan!ua!es+ they act in oosition to each
other. .t is not my intention to ursue the e/act semantic nature of the resent articile here or to trace
its $eveloment. .f+ ho(ever+ the ast articile is &erfective&+ &comlete$&+ an$ &assive& in its nature+
then+ throu!h the oosition+ the resent articile (ill #e unmar'e$+ ermittin! it to ran!e in a manner
unrestricte$ an$ unenclose$ over (hatever oerates as the semantic territory $efine$ #y the
!rammatical cate!ory of articiles. The &unrestricte$& nature of the resent articile ma'es it rather
li'e the infinitive+ an$ it is not surrisin! to fin$ the 'in$s of alternation o#serva#le in the a#ove-
mentione$ 7est 9ermanic $eveloment.
28
.t is+ erhas+ ossi#le to see the ori!in of these
constructions (ith forms of *airpan an$ the ast articile an$ *airan an$ the resent articile as an
e/ression of+ resectively+ the oeration of the enclose$ activity of the ast in the nonast an$ the
active oeration of nonresent activity (ithin the ast itself. The constructions (ith resent articiles
are !enerally inchoative+ su!!estin! activity #e!innin! an$ movin! u an$ out into the affairs of the
resent? constructions (ith the ast articile are structure$+ containe$+ coercive uon events an$ move
in an$ $o(n. Both constructions are+ in this sense+ ara$o/ical+ yet this ara$o/ resents the central
oosition of all si!nificant activity an$ is #asic to the 9ermanic satio-temoral scheme.
.t is+ of course+ true that all of the lin!uistic material cite$ a#ove comes from erio$s in the
$eveloment of all 9ermanic lan!ua!es in (hich the rocess of Christianization is a more or less
esta#lishe$ fact. The chan!es from an earlier+ urely 9ermanic to a later+ Christian concetual system
(ill surely #e reflecte$ in the material (e have e/amine$. The attemt here ma$e to lin' the e/ression
of the future to an imortant asect of an earlier e/ression of (hat must have #een the ast is
hyothetical an$ cannot #e $irectly $emonstrate$. The chan!e that is li'ely to have ta'en lace
concetually+ ho(ever+ $oes arallel si!nificantly some o#serva#le elements of lin!uistic chan!e+ #oth
semantic an$ syntactic. %till+ such o#serva#le chan!es tell us nothin! a#out (hat the sea'ers of these
lan!ua!es conceiva#ly felt or consciously initiate$. .t is+ in fact+ most li'ely that they (ere as una(are
of the chan!es in their lan!ua!es as (e are of our o(n+ #ut such ressures for chan!e+ from #oth (ithin
an$ (ithout the lan!ua!e itself+ are still oerative an$ still influence the $irections in (hich all
lan!ua!es $evelo. .f the erio$ in (hich (e are a#le to e/amine the various 9ermanic lan!ua!es is
later than the one (e are attemtin! to $escri#e+ it is necessary for us to e/amine the $ata to $iscover
not so much (hat they e/ress $irectly <for e/amle+ the i$ea of &future& action= #ut from (hat e/istin!
oint of vie( such innovative e/ressions $erive. .n this resect+ the 9ermanic lan!ua!es seem
consistent (ith (hat (e have #een a#le to infer a#out the concetual frame(or' of early 9ermanic
culture as a (hole. .mulses for action+ (hether hysical or ver#al+ seem to have ha$ the same startin!
oint.
(omething +ore
A 3:G38 (ho has rea$ this far (ill surely have sense$ that the (or$ shape as it has #een use$
throu!hout these essays is not merely a metahor. 8verythin! that has rece$e$ has attemte$ to
articulate a eculiar shain! imulse to 9ermanic activity that creates confi!urational similarities in
their various manifestations (ithin that culture. %hae is a co!ent term? it resents to us at once the
relational asects of an entity that ren$er it erceiva#le #oth as hysical su#stance an$ as concetion.
As a ver#+ it e/resses $irectly the creative asect of human activity? as a noun+ it !ives us the realize$
forms themselves as they have #een create$. Thus+ shape e/resses #oth rocess an$ fact+ imulse an$
act+ form an$ su#stance. .t is consonant (ith #oth any concet an$ our ercetion of it. Un$erlyin! it
are all of the relations that or!anize an$ re$icate human activity an$ that !ive structure to the (hole of
a culture an$ ren$er it #oth intelli!i#le to itself an$ o#serva#le to others. Man acts only (ithin a conte/t
that ma'es action ossi#le? such conte/ts are reco!niza#le an$ un$erstan$a#le throu!h the
confi!urational ossi#ilities they resent. %uch confi!urational ossi#ilities lie #oth (ithin the min$
an$ (ithin the nature of thin!s. The shain! structures all.
The essays herein are limite$ to a consi$eration of asects of early 9ermanic culture. 3o(a$ays (e
are+ more or less+ re$isose$ to loo' at such so-calle$ rimitive or early cultures from e/actly those
oints of vie( that these essays utilize+ an$ (e e/ect to fin$ in such cultures the 'in$s of social+
artistic+ an$ lin!uistic unities that (e have+ in fact+ foun$. %uch $iscoveries shoul$+ ho(ever+ su!!est
some imortant Duestions6 >irst+ is such social unity o#serva#le or $iscovera#le in our o(n culture+ or
is our culture structure$ accor$in! to an essentially $ifferent concetual atternN Gf course+
9ermanic e/erience is+ #y our stan$ar$s+ lar!ely unlo!ical an$ rerational+ #ut lo!ic is itself a term
that e/resses the #asic consistency of action (ith conte/t+ an$ it seems that no culture ever acts or has
acte$ in (ays that are inconsistent or illo!ical (ithin its o(n structures. Thus+ the structural imulse of
our o(n times $iffers from that of the early 9ermanic eoles only in that our #asic+ shain! myth is a
&rational& one. .f this is so+ $oes our rational myth have its o(n si!nificant &shae&N Barrin! some
si!nificant evolutionary chan!e in the structure of the human #rain in this thousan$-orso-year erio$
that mi!ht searate us a#solutely from these earlier times+ the $istinctions (e can note #et(een the
early 9ermans an$ ourselves are li'ely to #e social an$ cultural+ i.e. e/ternal+ ones.
>rom most of the materials e/amine$ in the essays+ (e 'no( that the 9ermanic eoles (ere in the
rocess of reconfi!urin! their o(n cultural e/erience. 7ith the conversion to Christianity+ the
9ermanic eoles entere$ to a !reat $e!ree into (hat (e can no( see to #e the mainstream of
8uroean civilization. 7e still $erive our cultural history an$ much of our concetual atternin! from
this 8uroean+ Christian source. As essay 1 has ointe$ out+ the Christian cosmos (as+ li'e
Au!ustine&s+ at first a close$+ static one in (hich the assin! linearity of human+ (orl$ly e/erience
(as oose$ to the fi/e$ circularity of eternity. 7ith resect only to this early Christian mo$el+ the last
1+-44 years of 7estern history $ocument for us a !ra$ual release from its ri!i$ity. .f the Mi$$le A!es
stresse$ the circular closure at the e/ense of the linearity of the imme$iate+ (hat (e call the
5enaissance can #e seen as a rocess of the re$iscoverin! of or a ne( insistence uon the imortance
of the imme$iate linearity of man&s o(n activity (ithin this lar!er+ circular closure. .n time+ the
$iameter of the circle has len!thene$+ an$ the erimeter of the circle has rece$e$ an$ rece$e$+ movin!
more an$ more to(ar$ imerceti#ility. 7e have come to sense+ (ith the continual len!thenin! of
(hat (as ori!inally a $iameter+ that the imme$iate linearity of man&s e/erience is+ if not all that is
'no(a#le+ at least all that is erceiva#le. Thus+ the close$ $iameter has #ecome essentially a line
e/ressive of uncontaine$+ &oen& linearity? more an$ more+ linearity has come to e/ress the &(hole& of&
human e/erience. .t is in the nineteenth century that. this linearity assume$ its most o(erful shae.
1
Poular i$eas of &ro!ress&+ the $eveloin! $ialectic of ;e!el an$ Mar/+ an$ the theory of evolution all
stress confi!urational linearity. All are &oen& concets? all are e/ressive of rocess.
.t is ro#a#ly not mere chance that early 9ermanic culture shoul$ have #een re$iscovere$ in the
nineteenth century throu!h its interest in the evolution of society an$ lan!ua!e. The re$iscovery ha$
curious ramifications+ comin! as it $i$ at a time (hen (hat (as felt to #e a !reat for(ar$ movement in
the history of man'in$ (as erceive$ simultaneously to reciitate the #e!innin!s of that no( all-too-
resent feelin! of the &en$& of 7estern civilization. 3ot only (as the nineteenth century one of
intellectual+ technolo!ical+ an$ social innovation+ it (as also a century of revivals6 artistic+ architectural+
literary. A nostal!ia for or$er+ a $esire for closure+ erva$es much of the social an$ artistic activity of
the century. A fe(+ li'e *ar(in an$ Mar/+ foun$ the ne( linearity of the century con!enial? fe(er still+
li'e 3ietzsche+ (ere a#le to synthesize in a creative (ay the ara$o/ical tensions of the collase of
closure (ith the emer!ence of linearity. These ara$o/es foun$ their (ay into the century&s e/ression
of the earlier 9ermanic e/erience. The si!nificant Aoinin! of oenness an$ or$er of 9ermanic culture
seems to have aeale$ #oth to the nineteenth century&s $esire for closure an$ to its imulse to(ar$
e/ansive chan!e. The ara$o/ e/resses itself not only in the .celan$ic e/e$itions an$ 3orse
translations of 7illiam Morris+ (hich Aostle meanin!fully (ith #oth his enormous artistic ro$uction in
virtually every fiel$ of alie$ arts an$ his eventual conversion to socialism+ #ut also in 5ichar$
7a!ner&s &er Ring des #ibelungen+ a (or' in (hich early 9ermanic an$ mo$ern concerns are
curiously if not intentionally mer!e$ to a len!th that seems intermina#le+ only to return at its en$ to its
o(n #e!innin!s in a manner so movin! as to $efy reason. The oeras of the 5in! are+ rationally
sea'in!+ silly? so is all oera+ #ut then+ so is Beo(ulf+ an$ so is all s'al$ic oetry.
The nineteenth century&s linearity (as $eely colore$ #y an i$ea of $irectionality as (ell. This is+ of
course+ inherent in the earlier concet of ast+ resent+ an$ future times+ (hich Au!ustine himself
articulate$+ an$ it has #een a $ominant element in all 7estern thou!ht. Many nineteenth-century
thin'ers so'e of &ro!ress& or &imrovement& (ithout serious $ou#t. The choice of terms li'e e)olution+
movement from ? to(ar$ <rather than chance or random change=+ or natural selection+ (hich
li'e(ise em#o$ies (ithin itself the i$ea of natural+ &rational&+ or!anize$ seDuence+ results from this same
un$erlyin! $irectionality. The i$ea of a &natural& history+ a concern of articular imortance to all facets
of nineteenth-century thin'in!+ su!!ests not only a natural or$er #ut an or$er structure$ #y temoral
seDuence. .t is only in the t(entieth century+ (hich has fallen heir not only to the intellectual
concetions #ut also to the an/ieties an$ ara$o/es of the nineteenth+ that rather va!ue $ou#ts a#out
chan!e so conceive$ have move$ meanin!fully to(ar$ the center of our concetual e/erience. 7ith
resect to the no( !reatly $iminishe$ $iameter an$ circle fi!ure+ the t(entieth century lar!ely vie(s
(hat is left of the $iameter only as a truncate$ line fra!ment+ so small as to aroach only the &oint& of
the resent+ (hich is cut off from #oth linear ast an$ future. The resent alone seems to hol$ much
concetual vali$ity. 7e are much concerne$ (ith isolation an$ fra!mentation. 7e tal' en$lessly of
creatin! ossi#le courses of action for futures that seem to chan!e $aily? (e strive to $iscover+ (rite+
an$ re(rite varieties of li'ely asts. >or us+ chan!e can #e confi!ure$ as a movement from oint to
oint+ resent to resent+ (hich $oes not form a line or $iameter #ut e/hi#its a seDuence of aarently
&chance& chan!es+ each chan!e seemin!ly $erivin! from a rocess of actualization of one of a num#er of
&ossi#le& otentials for chan!e inherent in an$ co$ifia#le throu!h the structural elements imme$iately
an$ $ialectically informin! any &resent& oint. ;ere+ rather than the linear evolutionary rocess
!overne$ #y an overarchin! $irectionality+ (e have+ in any oint+ a self-containe$ otentiality for
movement su#Aect at every moment to $irectional chan!e.
.f+ as sycholo!ists tell us+ the $eveloment of mo$ern man arallels the $eveloment of man&s
a(areness of self-conscious action+ (e can see ourselves as e/istin! (ithin a mo$ern resent that is
itself self-consciously motivate$ #y its a(areness of its o(n otentials for action. This is+ of course+
very close to the &oint&-oriente$ fi!ure Aust $erive$. .f this self-consciousness is itself &mythic& in the
sense articulate$ #y these essays+ (hat is the shae of this t(entieth-century+ self-conscious mythic
imulseN .f there is+ in$ee$+ a t(entieth-century myth of the confi!urin! sort+ it lies (ith mathematics.
Action is lar!ely !overne$ for us #y the mathematical ro#a#ilities inherent in any situational resent.
Technolo!ical chan!e no( e/ists as a function of continual cultural re$efinition6 7hat $o (e $o no(N
7hat $o (e $o ne/t <to !et rom no(
1
to no(
2
=N Aarently+ such Duestions must #e continually
formulate$ an$ reformulate$. Gur attemts at ans(erin! such Duestions are ever increasin!ly more
$een$ent uon statistical vali$ity. Pro#a#le courses of action reDuire $efinition (ithin limits set #y
mathematical ro#a#ility. The myth of mo$ern science an$ its cultural $erivatives+ technolo!y an$
statistics+ are #ase$ uon a lo!ical mo$el that is mathematical in its essence. Gur universe is $efine$ #y
mathematical rincile. %cience an$ technolo!y are $een$ent uon it a#solutely+ an$ (e can no lon!er
e/ist (ithout them. More an$ more+ (e formulate the concerns of our society in their terms. >or the
early 9ermans+ *yrd structure$ their (orl$ . . . s* ho scel &ever as it must&? for us+ science can cure
all our ro#lems.
2
More than time searates Beo(ulf from the &%i/-Million-*ollar Man&? Beo(ulf $ie$
in attemtin! his !reatest feat--(e have the technolo!y? (e coul$ have re#uilt him.
The i$ea of an e/an$in! universe+ (hich is consonant (ith the oint-oriente$+ self-containin!
otentiality of the mo$el $erive$ a#ove+ is not entirely forei!n to the early 9ermanic universal
concetion (ith (hich these essays have #een concerne$. Both are &oen& concets. .t is erhas a
ercetion uniDue to the t(entieth century that lets us sense an$ retrieve somethin! of this earlier
mo$el. %uch a ossi#ility seems to have #een $enie$ the nineteenth century. Perhas+ too+ such &oen&
concetions necessitate cultural manifestations of the accumulative or cluttere$ 'in$ that #oth (e an$
the early 9ermanic eoles share. The value of &strivin!&+ &movin!&+ or &inDuirin!& is noticea#le in all
asects of Bi'in! culture as (ell as in mo$ern scientific research. %till+ (e shoul$ not i!nore the vast
$ifferences #et(een our cultures. 9ermanic culture (as ast-$ominate$ an$ si!nificantly structure$ #y
attention to the factual resence of this ast. 7e are+ if anythin!+ resent-$ominate$. Gur i$eas of
chan!e $erive from our a#ility to $escri#e alternative resents from the otentials of the resent. Gur
reason (or's throu!h mathematical ro#a#ility+ not throu!h our a#ility to contain a si!nificant $eth of
ast. 7e (oul$ no lon!er $efine Beo(ulf&s early lac' of romise throu!h his ina#ility to trace his
!enealo!y #eyon$ his o(n father. 5ather+ such inausicious otential (oul$ $erive from his failure to
erform a$eDuately on atitu$e or .{ tests.
The chan!e from nineteenth-to t(entieth-century thou!ht is not nearly so comlete as the comments
a#ove mi!ht su!!est. 8secially in its most o#vious every$ay activities+ t(entieth-century culture still
manifests itself+ as $i$ the culture of the nineteenth+ (ithin the earlier+ Christian frame(or'. The oint-
oriente$ resent+ (ith its concets of relativity an$ statistical ro#a#ility+ (e still &'no(& imerfectly.
These concets $o not rovi$e us (ith the si!nificant shaes necessary fully to structure essential+
human e/erience. 7e $o not 'no( nor $o (e sense or feel (hat our mathematical myth loo's li'e.
7e shae most of our $aily lives in ol$er+ close$+ Christian containers6 the man sittin! in his o(n
home+ (atchin! his o(n television+ $rivin! alone in his o(n car+ #ein! #urie$ in his o(n close$ coffin
insi$e his o(n cement #urial vault e/hi#its for us the last shain! artifacts of the fully close$ universe+
the $ea$ en$s of our 7estern herita!e. Gur !rasin! at ac'a!es+ (hether they #e automo#iles or the
ti$y+ &convenience& foo$s in our suer mar'ets+ sho(s us our o(n ara$o/ical strivin! to maintain a lin'
(ith a fast-rece$in! ast. 7e unconsciously insist uon its structure as (e simultaneously $estroy it.
Perhas it is only in times of such concetual crisis that earlier+ threatene$ concetual atterns #ecome
more nearly aarent an$ manifest themselves most o#viously (ithin a culture as if to esta#lish an$
ma'e ermanent that (hich is most ehemeral an$ vulnera#le. This may #e (hat (e have alrea$y
o#serve$ in the early 9ermanic materials. The most o(erful e/ressions of the essentially 9ermanic
shain! imulse aeare$ &late&. The 8$$a <in fact+ everythin! (e 'no( a#out early .celan$=+ Beo*ul+
the cenotah at %utton ;oo+ all occurre$ (ithin an alrea$y-evolvin! Christian consciousness. :et+ they
still e/ress an earlier concetual attern that is uniDuely 9ermanic in a (ay that ren$ers our o(n
automo#iles still &Christian&. %uch cultural ro$ucts $emonstrate in a articularly si!nificant (ay the
henomenon that *erri$a < 1902= has calle$ intellectual &nostal!ia&+ a rofoun$ refusal to a#an$on--
in$ee$+ a o(erful nee$ to retain-mo$es of concetualization an$ e/ression in the very resence of
concets that $irectly oose them.
The cultural $ichotomy that results from the t(entieth century&s $esire to maintain nineteenth-century
forms (ithin its o(n concetual structure is o#serva#le to a rather lar!e $e!ree in all t(entieth-century
arts. .t manifests itself esecially in literature. 7e still utilize many of the artistic forms of the
nineteenth century+ #ut (e $o so in (ays that $eny our o(n concetual continuity (ith the nineteenth
century&s ractice. Concetually+ the lon!+ rose narrative+ the seDuence of events structure$ #y their
relations in time+ seems to have rovi$e$ the nineteenth century (ith its most tyical literary shae.
The novel+ ho(ever+ (hich has not yet $isaeare$ in the t(entieth century+ has #ecome somethin!
other than the lon!+ comlicate$ rose narrative of the nineteenth. .ts comlicate$ an$ len!thy asects
remain+ #ut the narrative is o#solescent. %ince @oyce+ the novel has come more an$ more to e/ress the
manifol$ comlications inherent (ithin an aarently ar#itrary+ isolate$ se!ment of human e/erience.
.t e/resses the comle/ities of sycholo!ical osture+ $iscontinuous in time an$ achievin!
si!nificance not throu!h the unravelin! of the interrelate$ layers of lotte$ action #ut in as full an
e/ression as is ossi#le of its o(n comle/ities in their lar!est ersective. The oular novel clin!s
to lot in Aust the (ay that (e clin! to our automo#iles+ #ut the mo$ern+ &serious& novel is fra!mente$.
%uch fra!mentation+ ho(ever+ has not achieve$ formal novelty. This mo$ern &novel& stan$s for the most
art in an antithetical osition to that of the nineteenth century an$+ in its osture+ at once e/hi#its an$
$enies the concetual vali$ity of its mo$el. The asect of fra!mentation is almost al(ays accomanie$
#y elements that arta'e of ro#a#ility or chance+ #ut mo$ern (or' li'e 9ertru$e %tein&s automatic
(ritin! or Tristan Tzara&s literally ullin! oems out of his hat has not achieve$ a via#le formal shae.
7hether the self-conscious+ self-containin! an$ $efinin! fictions of a 3a#o'ov or a Bor!es $o achieve
such shae+ (e are too close to #e a#le to o#serve.
{uestions a#out lan!ua!e an$ the $irections of its chan!e+ as these are relate$ to the massive
concetual chan!es that have ta'en lace in the last 2+444 years+ are clearly so comlicate$ as to $efy
a$eDuate formulation. .n some (ays+ lan!ua!e is more resistant to chan!e than man&s other cultural
manifestations. :et+ as (e have #een a#le to o#serve+ chan!es occurre$ in the 9ermanic lan!ua!es that
ren$ere$ them $ifferent from their .n$o-8uroean source. These chan!es too seeme$ consonant (ith
the concetual chan!es that allo( us to $efine a articularly &9ermanic& eole. )i'e(ise+ (e have #een
a#le to fin$ in the #e!innin!s of the e/ression of a Christian <or+ #etter+ a non-9ermanic= futurity the
concetual structure (ithin (hose $iminishe$ limits (e still sea'. .t is ossi#le no( to see+ althou!h
in an o#viously overly simle (ay+ somethin! of the manner in (hich the e/ression of such futurity
has itself chan!e$+ an$ the chan!e arallels the $erivation from the earlier close$+ Christian mo$el to
our o(n+ mo$ern+ oint-oriente$ concet. As the concetual nature of 7estern civilization has move$
from the triartite &times& of the earlier mo$el+ ossi#ilities for action have also come to lie more an$
more (ith otentials inherent in the imme$iacy of any in$ivi$ual resent. Thus+ such otentials are
no( $irecte$ to(ar$ e/ression of ossi#ilities for actin! (ith resect to the articular structural
relations of the resent or to the intentions of or to the structures imose$ uon a articular actor as
initiator or container of any activity. The &otential& e/resse$ #y mo$ality+ (hich in the early+
historical 9ermanic lan!ua!es ma$e $o for reference to the future+ articulates no( more the otential or
orientation of the actor in the resent <or any conte/tually $efine$ actin! oint= for actin! than the
re$ication of a otential for occurrence of the action itself. The (i$esrea$ $eveloment in all mo$ern
lan!ua!es of erihrastic constructions <lin'e$ #y tense to the &no(& of a conte/t= is erhas relate$ to
the evolution of self-consciousness an$ to the oint-oriente$ structure that un$erlies much of our
concetualization.
.t is interestin! to note that tra$itional !rammar+ American structural !rammar+ an$ the earlier
formulations of contemorary !enerative !rammar all lin'e$ the e/ression of mo$ality $irectly to the
re$icate+ the main ver#+ or to the ver# hrase of the un$erlyin! syntactic structure. More recent
!enerative synta/ an$ the various formulations of !enerative case-an$ semantics-#ase$ !rammars have
refi!ure$ the osition of mo$ality to one eDuivalent to or $ominatin! the un$erlyin! nominal an$
ver#al elements of a re$ication. .t may no( #e the case+ in Mo$ern 8n!lish at least+ that mo$ality may
fin$ e/ression either (ith the su#Aect <a nominal mo$ality of intention= or (ith the re$icate <a ver#al
mo$ality of ossi#ility=. Thus+ (e have the nominal he\ll go+ (hich assures us of the su#Aect&s intent+
oose$ to he *ill go+ (hich stresses the fact of the occurrence of the action. The resence of these so-
calle$ contracte$ forms li'e &ll, \d, \s+ from he\ll, he\d, he\s+ an$ even such forms+ unacceta#le in
(ritin!+ as hec\n Ehi'nF+ from he can+ form the ru$iments of a ne(+ nominal inflection of mo$al
otentials that orient su#Aects to(ar$ action. This inciient inflection is srea$ uniformly across the
nouns an$ ronouns of the lan!ua!e. 7e ten$ to resist seein! this as a manifestation of morholo!ical
chan!e #ecause the lan!ua!e still ma'es freDuent use of the ol$er ver#al forms from (hich the
innovatin! inflection $erives. )i'e(ise+ the (ritten form of the lan!ua!e resists it an$ $eserately tries
to $eny its resence.
,
:et+ as (e sea'+ (e 'no( #etter.
7e can see in this evolvin! morholo!ical chan!e a arallel to some of the earlier morholo!ical
chan!es that the earliest recor$e$ 9ermanic lan!ua!es e/hi#ite$. The $eveloment of the #inary tense
system in the 9ermanic lan!ua!es (as seen to #e consonant (ith+ even reflective of+ the concetual
structure that seems to have uniDuely $efine$ a &9ermanic& #ranch of .n$o-8uroean civilization. As the
9ermanic eoles accete$ Christianity an$ refi!ure$ their o(n (orl$ (ithin that of 8uroean culture+
their lan!ua!es a$ate$ their syntactic mo$al systems to reflect the triartite Christian temoral
scheme. 3o(+ this temoral scheme has itself chan!e$. 7ith the $eveloment of mo$ern oint- or
resentoriente$ self-consciousness+ (e can notice a (earin! a(ay of the inflecte$ &futures& in mo$ern
.n$o-8uroean lan!ua!es. .n those+ li'e the 9ermanic lan!ua!es+ for (hich future inflection (as not
re!ular+ the !rammatical forms an$ cate!ories use$ to aro/imate it are also chan!in!. .n 8n!lish+
these forms seem no( to #e in the rocess of creatin! an inflection of mo$al otential that is not only
&resent&-lin'e$ #ut reflective of a consciousness in su#Aects of their o(n ossi#ilities for actin!. %uch a
chan!e is at one (ith our o(n $eveloin! sense of the reality of the (orl$ in (hich (e live.
Man has al(ays seen the $eeest secrets of his lan!ua!e as lyin! meanin!fully (ith those asects of his
universe that most si!nificantly structure his o(n e/istence. The feelin!s that lan!ua!e is ma!ical or
$ivine or that it lies (ith a meanin!fully ro$uctive ast $erive from concets of universal structure
that e/ress Aust such i$eas. )an!ua!e may #e e/amine$ reverentially or scientifically? the terms are in
no (ay mutually e/clusive. 3o(+ in the later t(entieth century+ lin!uists are !reatly concerne$ (ith
fin$in! the lo!ical structure that un$erlies human lan!ua!e. The nature of our o(n lo!ico-mathematical
concetual structure $eman$s this+ an$ (e+ of course+ are fast $iscoverin! Aust such structures. .t seems
unli'ely+ ho(ever+ that such $iscoveries (ill in any (ay fully &cature& the essence of our lan!ua!e+ our
thou!ht+ or our universal concetion. Gur lan!ua!e is more intelli!ent an$ our lin!uistic cometence
more comle/ than (e 'no(. 7e 'no( only (hat (e can 'no(+ an$ (e have faile$+ as humans+ ever
of &'no(in!& fully.
To achieve un$erstan$in! #eyon$ the comle/ities of our o(n lan!ua!e+ in (hich (e co$ify
un$erstan$in!+ to #e outsi$e it+ (oul$ re$icate an e/istence (e cannot no( comrehen$.
7e 'no( only (hat (e can 'no(. .t is not+ therefore+ surrisin! that the me$ieval Christian mystics
ha$ visions of transort to realms #eyon$ this (orl$ of such shae that they (ere reeata#le an$
comrehensi#le to those (ho hear$ them. .t is li'e(ise no surrise that+ on 24 @uly 1909+ (e
$iscovere$ that the surface of the moon (as a relica of the man-ma$e moc'-us on )on! .slan$.
There is a continuous an$ continual $ialo! #et(een man&s surroun$in!s an$ his un$erstan$in! of them.
)in!uistic cometence an$ erformance <lan!uearole=+ concetion an$ ercetion+ fact an$ rocess+
action an$ intention mutually interact an$ shae each other. The $ialo! amon! these is $ialectical an$
ever chan!in!+ #ut the henomenon of the $ialo! is constant. .n its chan!e+ (hat (e 'no( continually
refi!ures (hat (e can 'no(+ (hich in turn re$icates (hat (e 'no(. That (e fail of &final& 'no(in! is
a fact of life. To 'no( finally+ to cease the $ialo!+ is unthin'a#le. Gur 'no(le$!e e/ists in our
continually sea'in! to ourselves an$ to others. This shain! seech in all of its manifestations+ in all
asects of human activity+ creates the various forms (ith (hich (e surroun$ ourselves an$ (hich
sea' to us of their o(n resence. The shar$s of the $ialo! of the ast remain (ith us+ an$+ throu!h
them+ (e may enter into conversation (ith that ast. Gur a#ility to e/amine an$ reconstruct the lar!er
shaes of (hich (e have #ut artial hints !ives our o(n seech a !reater conte/t an$ creates for us a
!reater resent in (hich (e+ no(+ must act.
%otes
Foreword
1. The (or' of Cric' < 1920= has #een instrumental in helin! me to e/ress concisely the rocess of
my o(n thin'in! an$ to cast these essays in their final form. They (ere all ori!inally (ritten
#efore . ha$ rea$ Cric'&s #oo'+ #ut the essays so o#viously e/emlify the un$erlyin! rincile of
his e/amination of &semantic anthroolo!y& that . foun$ it easy to utilize his concet of
&$escrition& an$ &e/lanation& in or!anizin! my remar's in this fore(or$. .t (ill also #ecome
aarent to any rea$er acDuainte$ (ith Cric'&s (or' that the concetion of meanin! outline$ in
the essays that follo( is+ to a very !reat $e!ree+ &iconic& < Cric' 192061,4=.
2. A (or$ of (arnin! in a$vance6 The $escrition of the 9ermanic cosmos that follo(s oerates
(ith a series of fun$amental #inary factors+ usually si!nificantly oose$6 astresent+
factrocess+ (elltree+ etc. )est these #e misrea$+ it shoul$ #e state$ here that they have little to
$o (ith )Mvi-%trauss&s structural concet of #inary oosition. The (hole structural metho$olo!y
that )Mvi%trauss has so successfully emloye$ in his o(n (or' is lar!ely a#sent from everythin!
that follo(s here. Althou!h certain elements similar to those of )Mvi%trauss--li'e the resence or
a#sence of articular semantic elements--are occasionally emloye$+ they $o not reflect the
oosition of nature an$ culture that is central to all of )Mvi-%trauss&s investi!ations.
,. To anyone (ho has stu$ie$ lin!uistic theory+ even at the most elementary level+ this ar!ument (ill
#e an o#vious one? for someone (ho has never stu$ie$ lin!uistic theory+ it may seem o#vious6 Gf
course+ E#F is $ifferent from E$F an$ in Aust the (ay that the te/t says. 7hy is this (orth
remar'in!N The imortant matter here is in the fact of ercetion of $ifference rather than in
actual $ifference in articulation. 3ot all $ifferences are &erceive$& #y sea'ers as $ifferences. >or
e/amle+ the && soun$s in spit an$ pit are honetically Duite $ifferent in articulation6 spit has EF?
pit has E
h
F. <:ou can test it #y lacin! your han$ in front of your mouth an$ sayin! #oth (or$s.
:ou (ill feel a uff of air (hen pit is sai$? there is no such uff in spit.= :et+ native sea'ers of
8n!lish hear these t(o soun$s as the same #ecause the asiration <the &uff&= in E
h
F is not a
$istinctive feature of 8n!lish. <.t is in some other lan!ua!es.= 7e erceive only distincti)e
$ifferences? (e $o not erceive those that are not $istinctive+ (hether or not
they are+ in fact+ there. .t is the honolo!ical system of the lan!ua!e (e sea' that co$ifies these
&$istinctions&. All lan!ua!es have such systems+ #ut the in$ivi$ual $istinctive features $iffer from
lan!ua!e to lan!ua!e.
-. The essays that follo( $o not aear in any necessary or$er. The first essay aears first lar!ely
#ecause the concets that are central to all of the essays are foun$ most clearly an$ e/licitly
articulate$ in the mythic construct of (ell an$ (orl$ tree it e/amines. .ts osition+ then+ rovi$es
an informational convenience for the rea$er. The fifth essay+ on lan!ua!e+ aears last #ecause it
seems to #e the most $een$ent in its ar!umentation uon the conte/t #uilt #y the rece$in! four
essays. Althou!h all of the essays have #een structure$ so as to mutually $evelo the central i$ea
of the shae an$ influence of the ast+ they (ere ori!inally comose$ in somethin! of a $ifferent
or$er. The i$ea of the essays #e!an (ith the literary an$ lin!uistic materials foun$ in the thir$
essay+ on Beo*ul+ an$ in the si/th essay+ on lan!ua!e. The fourth essay+ on time an$ sace+
follo(e$ an$ then the e/amination of myth+ in the first essay. The rather hetero!eneous collection
of material in the t(o arts of the secon$ essay came last. My o(n reasonin! here $eveloe$
lar!ely #ac'(ar$ from essay - to essay 1? for the rea$er+ ho(ever+ the lo!ic is li'ely to seem to
run in Aust the oosite $irection.
I Urths Well
1. All Duotations from the Poetic 8$$a are ta'en from the e$ition of 9ustav 3ec'el + !dda$ &ie
Lieder des 'ode( Regius nebst )er*andten &en+m,lern+ 1th e$. < ;ei$el#er!6 Carl 7inter+ 1902=.
2. Translations are cite$ #y the name of the translator unless they are my o(n.
,. All Duotations from the Prose 8$$a are ta'en from the e$ition of >innur @Vnsson + !dda "norra
"turlusonar < 5ey'AavQ'6 %i!urSur CristARnsson+ 1942=.
1. The refi/ is common in all 9ermanic lan!ua!es. .n a$$ition to Gl$ 3orse it occurs in 9oth. us-+
ur-+ in G;9 an$ 9er. ur-+ in G% ur-+ or-+ in Mi$$le an$ Mo$ern *utch oor-+ an$ in Gl$ 8n!lish+
(here it (as Duite common. .t is no( o#solete in 8n!lish e/cet for its ersistence in ordeal. &The
rimary sense (as OoutO+ as in 9oth. an$ G;9 jrruns Ooutrunnin!+ e/it+ e/o$usO+ G3 frpr
out!oin!+ $earture? thence various $erive$ senses+ of (hich EGl$ 8n!lishF ha$ Oout+ comletely+
to an en$O+ as in oreanc Othin'in! ontO . . . + Os'illO+ . . . _ `Oe/treme ol$ a!eO? . . . oriete
Oclearly erceti#le+ manifestO+ Eetc.F& <G8*=. The relationshi of the refi/ to outer limits an$
e/tremities is further e/emlifie$ #y the remar's in 9rimm an$ 9rimm < 19,062,----9=+ (here it
is relate$ to %'t. ud &hinauf+ hinaus& <2,--=. Ultimately the refi/ comes to e/ress &E$ieF
#ezeichnun! $es ersten+ anfKn!lich vorhan$enen+ ursrn!lichen+ una#!eleiteten+ ori!inalen+
rimitiven+ unverfKlschten+ reinen& <2,-8=.
-. This etymolo!y is consonant (ith $e Bries < 1921=+ (ho traces the *utch form oorlog to Yullaga6
&$at!ene (ar uit!ele!$ is& <191=. .n *utch+ oorlog no( means &(ar+ contention+ strife&. The
$eveloment moves+ accor$in! to $e Bries+ from &that (hich is lai$ out& to noodlot &$estiny+ fate&+
i.e. &that (hich is lai$ out #y necessity&. Thus+ &(at her eerste aan!aat+ ma! men er aan herinneren+
$at $e striA$ als een !o$soor$eel o!evat (er$ en $us een noo$lots#eschi''in! (as&
<191=. >rom the &necessity of strife& to simle &strife& itself mar's the $eveloment into Mo$ern *utch.
The form e/ists+ ho(ever+ in Mo$ern *anish an$ 3or(e!ian in the hrase til orlogs &in the navy& an$ in
all the %can$inavian lan!ua!es as a nominal refi/ $esi!natin! &naval&+ as in %(e$. prlogsartyg
&(arshi&+ prlogs)ar) &$oc'&+ *an. an$ 3or. orlogsgast &seaman&+ *an. orlogslaade+ 3or. orlogslte
&fleet&. These are close to *utch &(ar& #ut a$$ the a$$itional semantic element of &(ater&. As the
ar!ument resente$ here (ill sho(+ the i$ea of the strata of the _ (ill encomass not only
&imlantin!& or &layin! $o(n& #ut a stron! element of &tension& an$ &activity&+ an$ <ossi#ly= &contention&.
The i$ea of &(ater& is also resent+ so the $eveloment into these mo$ern 9ermanic lan!ua!es may not
remove the (or$ as far from its etymon as the resent-$ay $enotations may at first imly. There is no
comlete a!reement on the etymolo!y. .n a$$ition to the one !iven a#ove+ $e Bries < 19216 191= cites
the ossi#le relation of *utch oorlog to 9oth. liuga &marria!e&+ $erive$ from 9ermanic Yleug
&esta#lishe$ #y act&+ an$ to the 9ermanic form Ylugra+ Yleugra <relate$ to G3 logn &calm& an$ lfn &calm
sea near the shore&=+ $eveloin! the meanin! in oorlog &a con$ition in (hich calm is $istur#e$&.
Althou!h these $erivations are from several oints of vie( unli'ely+ they $o e/hi#it some of the
semantic material here resente$ that is not imme$iately noticea#le in the (or$&s contemorary usa!e.
2. The Duotation from .si$ore of %eville+ cite$ a#ove+ follo(s as a note in 9rimm&s te/t+ aarently as a
$ocument suortin! 9rimm&s rea$in!. 9rimm&s $escrition of the meanin!s of the names is e/amine$
later. 8. %ee+ for e/amle+ 3ilsson < 192,-21=. 9. An alternate interretation+ of no !reat imortance
here+ relates 3^na to the lural #Znae &The fifth or seventh $ay of the month& an$ is e/ten$e$ to refer to
remature+ five- or seven-month #irths. *ecima (oul$ then correson$ to a fully mature #irth of nine
or more months+ an$ Morta <from morari &to $elay+ tarry&= (oul$ aly to a ostmature #irth. 14.
3either in this case nor in the assa!e from Grimnism1l <2960,= is the te/t ren$ere$ in 8n!lish (ith a
ver#al au/iliary. .f one (ere use$+ (e (oul$ e/ect to fin$ should or ought <&(hat ans(er he ou!ht to
ma'e& or &(hat ans(er he shoul$ ma'e&= in this case. .n the Duotation from Grimnism1l+ if (e try to
relace do <&ThVr $oes (a$e throu!h every $ay&=+ (e are force$ to choose must <&ThVr must (a$e
throu!h every $ay&=. .t is the only mo$al form that (ill not $o violence to the assa!e. 11. Gl$ 3orse
imlies+ as $o other 9ermanic lan!ua!es+ (hat (e call the &future& in occurrences of nonreterite+
in$icative inflection an$ in its ver#s e/ressin! mo$ality? see essay -. Gf these+ munu seems to #e
closest to our i$ea of future time+ althou!h even it $oes not aroach anythin! li'e re!ularity in such
reresentation. The Ta#le #elo( !ives occurrences of munu+ sculu+ an$ )ilra for the te/ts liste$6
3um#er of stanzas
sculu munu vilAa in the te/t
1 1- 1 0-
/1)am1l 0, -4 9 10-
Grimnism1l 1, 1 , --
"culu is Duite common in /1)am1l+ a te/t e/ressin! !eneral information a#out the nature of thin!s
an$ instructions for acceta#le #ehavior. .t is least common in + a more $escritive te/t. Munu+
on the other han$+ is relatively common in ? fourteen of its fifteen occurrences come in that
ortion of the te/t that $iscusses the vision of the en$ of the (orl$. .t seems to reresent &foreseen
occurrences& (ithout stressin! the &ha#itual& or &continual&+ (hich is common in occurrences of s+ulu.
0ilra al(ays e/resses volition or (ish. 11. %ee the entry for (orth in the G8*. 12. That urth- is a
articiial form rather than a reterite-mar'e$ form is helful #ut not essential. >or more on articiles
an$ the nature of the reterite+ see essay -. 1,. The mention of %'ul$ in 24 an$ its reetition in
Gylaginning 1- are Duote$ a#ove. The secon$ mention of %'ul$ follo(s6
l_uvtrop_ovkkq_quto_ovtotkoptkpr_ptosrlmrknsprpmuus_ r
_ uu_ouuopro_ ur_smpons_ rumo_ktrtou_ uu_omoptun_ovtotkopt
!run$+ val'yrior.
< ,462=
The val'yries& floc' from afar she #ehol$s+ rea$y to ri$e to the realm of men6 %'ul$ hel$
her shiel$+ %'o!ul li'e(ise+ 9uth+ ;il$+ 9on$ul+ an$ 9eirs'o!ul6 for thus are hi!ht ;erAan&s
mai$ens+ rea$y to ri$e o&er re$$ene$ #attlefiel$s.
< ;ollan$er 190260=
11. *unnin! an$ Bliss < 1909621-22= !loss (yr$+ e/lainin! that &the $ifference #et(een the 9ermanic
concet of *yrd an$ the Classical concet of O>ateO is lar!ely etymolo!ical. E)at.F atum is the neuter
ast articile of ari Osea'O? *yrd is relate$ to the stem of *eor5an O#ecomeO. 7hereas O>ateO is
O(hat has #een so'enO <#y some suerior o(er=+ *yrd is #y etymolo!y merely O(hat comes to
assO&. %hiey < 1922614= relies that &*yrd is at least remotely relate$ to *eorean+ Oto #ecomeO+ an$
an acceta#le translation is often O(hat #ecomes+ (hat comes to ass+ the course of eventsO+ not a
suernatural an$ (ilful Po(er+ #ut more simly+ the flo( of Time&. 1-. %ee the entry burn in the G8*.
The metathesis in #urn is noticea#le in some *utch an$ 9erman versions of the (or$ as (ell. 10. Both
the Parcae an$ 7 ;<= have attri#utes of (eavers? the 7 ;<= are sai$ to sin+ measure+ an$ cut the
threa$ of life. 7hether the 9ermanic eoles ha$ the i$ea of the (ell an$ #orro(e$ the i$ea of
(eavin! from .talic eoles <an$ ultimately from ;ellenic culture=+ or (hether they an$ the 9ree's an$
5omans to!ether #rou!ht the i$ea for(ar$ from an earlier .n$o-8uroean source is not 'no(n+ nor is it
of utmost imortance to the $iscussion at han$. >or a $etaile$ account of the latter vie(+ see Branston
< 19-26-0-00=.
12. %ee also $e Bries < 19-0a6224= an$ 9ehl < 19,9619-,8+ 211---=. 18. The otte$-lant ima!e+
ho(ever+ only artially reresents the structure of the myth. Another asect #ecomes clearer if (e
envisa!e the (orl$ tree as a lant enclose$ entirely (ithin an aDuarium+ (hich (oul$ function as the
(ell. ;ere the source an$ sustenance are one an$ the same+ #ut this ima!e violates the searateness of
the tree from the (ell? it is not (ithin the (ell in the myth. 3o scientific or &realistic& reresentation of
(ell an$ tree (ill entirely an$ a$eDuately e/ress these interrelationshis? they are ultimately #eyon$
the sense ercetions of men+ #ut attri#utes of the relationshi can #e 'no(n+ visualize$+ an$
momnnm19ij_ rnvpuunqripnu_ktok_`klmC_mmpn`o_qlpslklmr_`klmP_mkpst
comes. .t is one of t(o early oems reserve$ only in manuscrits $atin! not earlier than the
seventeenth century < ;ollan$er 19026 114=. 24. This material is reeate$+ (ith sli!ht variation+ in
Gylaginning ,9. 21. ;eithrYn is #ut one instance of a series of relate$ occurrences of animals in
9ermanic myth (ho #elon! to a iegengestalt of .n$o-8uroean or re-.n$o8uroean ori!in.
%i!nificantly+ these occurrences are lin'e$ (ith fertility or fecun$ity+ much to the oint of the
association of (ell an$ tree. %ee &*ie 9Xttin in ie!en!estalt& in %chrX$er < 1911629-01= an$ *umMzil
< 19-9b=. The mea$-hall+ Balholl+ is itself of some interest here. The mea$ that ;eithrYn sulies to the
$rin'ers in the hall is relate$ in the Duote$ assa!e to the $ros that fall from the horns of 8i'thyrnir
into ;ver!elmir. The $roin! liDui$ is calle$ &$e(s& <` _= in 19+ an$ the ela#oration of
the assa!e in Gylaginning 10 further i$entifies it as &honey$e(& <hunangall=. The
$e(honey$e(mea$ relationshi is clear. More imortant is the use in 9ermanic oetry of &$e(& as a
'ennin! for #loo$ <e.!. ` &#attle $e(&= < 3ec'el 191,621-22=. The name Balholl itself is ro#a#ly
$erive$ from the roots )al- &#attle& an$ hel or hplle+ #oth e/ressin! the i$ea of &$eath&. Thus+ a )alholl is
the littere$ #attlefiel$ after #attle+ a common ima!e in 9ermanic literature < 3ec'el 191,6,2--1=. >ol'
etymolo!y has #een at (or' turnin! the ta#leau of the recently slain to a lively #out of #loo$$e(mea$
$rin'in!. The asect of the (ell as enclosure+ as it is closely associate$ (ith the tree an$ its $e(+ $i$
nothin! to inhi#it the semantic chan!e from &#attle $eath& to a &(arriors& hall&. 22. .n site of Glri'&s
reference to %emitic culture+ his e/amles are almost e/clusively .n$o-8uroean. %ince Glri'&s time+
other 'in$s of reetitions have #een $iscovere$ amon! non-.n$o-8uroean eoles. >ourfol$
reetitions are+ for e/amle+ not infreDuent. The .n$o-8uroeans seem to have #een fascinate$ #y the
i$ea of trinity. The most recent .n$o-8uroean &threes& are those resente$ in the (or' of 9eor!es
*umMzil+ (ho has conclu$e$ that the earliest .n$o-8uroean social an$ reli!ious thou!ht $ivi$e$ the
culture into three unifyin! functions6 soverei!nty+ force <military mi!ht=+ an$ !eneration. The 9ermanic
eole+ as .n$o-8uroeans+ (oul$ ten$ to see events in threes+ even (here a articular mythic event
(as not essentially $ivi$e$ in this (ay. Gn the other han$+ it is Duite ossi#le that the threefol$ $ivision
is itself very ol$+ not a later a$$ition+ an$ that it has #een su#Aect to some (earin! a(ay as the
9ermanic eoles move$ farther an$ farther from their .n$o-8uroean roots. The Duestion of the
$e!ree to (hich .n$o-8uroean elements remain in 9ermanic reli
!ion an$ myth is at resent unresolve$. Those follo(in! *umMzil fin$ a rather lar!e .n$o-
8uroean comonent o#serva#le there? those reAectin! his vie(s either $o or $o not fin$ it for
other reasons. .t is o#vious that there is something .n$o-8uroean in 9ermanic myth. The
Duestion remains6 ;o( much an$ to (hat effectN >or $etaile$ accounts of resent-$ay oinion+
see PolomM < 1924b= an$ %trutyns'i < 192,+ 1921=+ (ho+ in ans(erin! ;au!en < 1902=+ touches on
other recent oinion an$ $eveloments. There are !oo$ #i#lio!rahies of *umMil (or' in
/ommages Georges &umnlil+ Collection )atomus < Brussels+ 1904=+ 1-6/i-//iii? in Puhvel
< 1924=+ an$ in )ittleton < 192,=.
21. 8secially from stanza -8 to the en$ <stanza 00=? see essay 1. %i!nificantly+ 3Qthho!! aears in
the last stanza of the oem+ as if the (hole universe ha$ no( #ecome art of the (ell. %ome
commentators on the oem+ $esirin! to maintain the &!loomy& concet of 9ermanic mytholo!y+
have maintaine$ that these conclu$in! stanzas are a later a$$ition <ca. A.*. 1444= to the oem an$
thus are $ue to &Christian influence&. There is also some Duestion a#out (hether the oem resents
a coherent vision. >or the history of such oinion an$ some account of the continuin! controversy+
see Turville-Petre < 19-,6-0-0-=+ ;ollan$er < 190,6141-0=+ an$ 3or$al < 1924-2,629-91+ 14,-18=.
There is no nee$ to ursue the matter here. .t is clear that there is nothin! in the final stanzas of
that runs seriously counter to the mythic elements that the (hole of the oem resents.
8ssay , e/amines the rinciles of structural coherence in 9ermanic comosition in $etail. The
ro#lem of &Christian influence& is e/amine$ #riefly there.
2-. Gn ossi#le sources of an$ analo!s to the i$ea of the (orl$ tree+ see ;olm#er! < 1922=+ 8lia$e
< 190,620--,,4+ ,02-82=+ $e Bries < 19-26,84-92=+ *avi$son < 19016194-90=+ an$ *oht
< 19216121--0=.
20. 7ith resect to flui$ity <the sea+ (ater+ associate$ $ivine or suernatural characteristics= in Celtic
material+ see Patch < 19-4=+ @ones < 19-1=+ *umMzil < 19-9c=+ an$ )ittleton < 1924=. *oht < 19216
112--2= rovi$es Celtic an$ other .n$o-8uroean e/amles. A more $etaile$ comarison of some
asects of 9ermanic an$ Celtic culture+ articularly of #urials an$ rituals+ (ill #e foun$ in the t(o
arts of essay 2.
22. ;e (ill $evelo &the sense of an in(ar$ otentiality in the rocess of #ecomin!& < Cam#ell
19086114=. Althou!h Cam#ell is reare$ to see *yrd in the tra$itional astresentfuture
relation <121= an$ althou!h he is reare$ to see it as !loomy an$ fate$+ lea$in! to &an
aroachin! inevita#le en$& <114=+ his feelin! for its activity as a otentiality in thin!s seems Duite
close to the mar'.
II The !revalence o" Urth
#urials: $ites and Arti"acts
1. The shi su!!ests a 'in$ of vehicular sacre$ sace. Tacitus < Germania9= comments that amon!
some of the %ue#i+ .sis is (orshie$ throu!h the sym#olic artifact of the shi+ althou!h he
attri#utes this shae to an imortation6 &ars %ue#orum et .si$i sacrificat6 un$e causa et ori!o
ere!rino sacro arum comeri nisi Duo$ si!num isum in mo$um li#urnae fi!uratum $ocet
a$vectam reli!ionem&. All Duotations from Germania are from the e$ition of @. 9. C.
An$erson$erson
$erson+ 'ornelii Taciti de origine et situ germanorum < G/for$6 Claren$on Press+ 19,8=.
2. The account is (i$ely 'no(n. .t is !iven in MaAor < 192161,--,9=. Most contemorary histories of
Bi'in! civilization ma'e some use of it+ e.!. @ones < 19086 101-0-+ 12--,4= an$ BrWn$ste$
< 190-6,44--=. The most nearly comlete version of the $escrition is !iven #y %myser < 190-692-
119=+ (hose translation is Duote$ here.
,. All Duotations from A$am of Bremen are from the e$ition of Bernhar$ %chmei$ler +
/amburgische circhengeschichte < ;anoyer an$ )eizi!6 ;ahnsche Buchhan$lun!+ 1912=.
1. .n the %utton ;oo fin$+ it is foun$ not only on the !reat !ol$ #uc'le < Bruce- Mitfor$ 1922622-2,+
late 8= #ut also on the silver mounts for the male(oo$ #ottles <,,-,1+ late ;=+ an$ the !ol$
shoul$er clas <late >=. %erents an$ $ra!ons are reresente$ in various $e!rees of stylization on
much of the Ae(elry of the fin$ <24-29= an$ on some of the shiel$ mounts <lates 1--? 9reen 190,6
lates z.-z...=. >or the ersistence of the motif of the intert(inin! serent<s=+ an$ associate$
Dua$rue$s+ as architectural $ecoration throu!hout %can$inavia an$ the British .sles+ see Moe
< 19--=. Mittner < 19--602= i$entifies the serent <alon! (ith fire+ !ol$+ an$ (eaonry= as one of
the sym#ols in 9ermanic culture central to the interrelationshi of this (orl$ (ith the realm
#eyon$.
-. The sym#ol of the #in$in! cor$ or chain is not uniDue to 9ermanic culture. The motif occurs
(i$ely in the artifacts an$ literature of the Celtic eole+ (here &a !rou of #ein!s (ho cannot in
themselves #e re!ar$e$ as #ir$ !o$s+ #ut (ho assume the form of s(ans or other aDuatic #ir$s+ . . .
are reco!niza#le in this form #y chains or nec'lets of !ol$ an$ silver a#out their throats. These
t(o motifs+ i.e.+ the transformation of suerhuman #ein!s into s(ans+ an$ the (earin! of chains+
or lin'in! to!ether #y chains of the metamorhose$ #ein!s+ are thou!ht-rovo'in!& < 5oss
19-9611=. Gne thin's imme$iately in this connection of the s(ans in Urth&s 7ell6 &fu!lar .. fTSas'
UQ UrSar#runni? Heir heita svanir+ o' af Heim fu!lum hefir 'omit Hat fu!la'yn+ er svR heitir& <
Gylaginning 106,-=. &T(o fo(ls are fe$ in Ur$r&s 7ell6 they are calle$ %(ans+ an$ from those
fo(ls has come the race of #ir$s (hich is so calle$& < Bro$eur 19296,4=. These+ ho(ever+ are not
associate$ $irectly (ith the chain or #in$in! motif. The sym#olism itself is Duite ol$ an$ $ates
#ac' amon! the Celts at least to ;allstatt 8uroe. .t is also clear that the Celtic an$ 9ermanic
eoles use the sym#olism $ifferently. >or the Celts+ the motif sym#olizes metamorhosis+
u(ar$ attainment+ fli!ht+ free$om+ an$ release. The 9ermans seem to have foun$ in it
su#mission+ involvement+ an$ the $ominance of a !reater reality over men.
0. 5eferences to the fertility or !reenness of the realm #eyon$ or the (orl$ of the $ea$ are not
uncommon in .n$o-8uroean sources. 5eferences to &asture lan$&+ &mea$o(s&+ an$ &fertile& or
&lo(e$& !roun$ are most freDuent < Thieme 19-26,--01=. .n 9ermanic lan!ua!es+ G3 _
an$ G8 neor(na *ang may refer to very similar i$eas < Cro!mann 19-1=. )i'e(ise+ the same
realm reresents a lace (here reunion (ith arents an$ ancestors occurs < Puhvel 1909=.
2. The evi$ence is Duite e/tensive an$ Duite scattere$. %ee+ for e/amle+ %heteli! an$ >al'
< 19,2612--20+ 181-8-+ 222-81=+ Cir' < 19-0612,-,1=+ an$ Bruce- Mitfor$ < 1922614-11?
192161,2-,8=.
28. The &icon& here create$ #y the insertion of cuttin!+ shearin!+ an$ luc'in! imlements in urns
reresents+ metonymically+ (ell ] urn an$ tree ] hair ] shearin! imlements. .f the 9ermanic eole
$i$ maintain the hairve!etation relationshi of their .n$o-8uroean ancestors+ they have+ once a!ain+
$one so in a (ay to turn the ori!inal reresentation to their o(n a$vanta!e. 29. Concernin! the
sym#olic imortance of armor+ see MaAor < 1921=+ Clar' < 190-a=+ an$ .rvin! < 19086118-24=. ,4. .n the
9ermanic antheon+ the functions of soverei!nty an$ hysical force are clearly reresente$ #y the t(o
$ominant [sir+ G$in an$ Thor+ resectively. The attri#utes of the t(o !o$s are not clearly
$ifferentiate$ from each other+ as *umMzil < 19-9a= an$ ;au!en < 1902= ma'e clear. The i$ea of the
lea$er+ (ith his sym#olic s(or$ an$ shiel$+ also reresents #oth. %ee Chaney < 19246es. 2-12= an$ $e
Bries < 19-0b=. ,1. The cate!orization is rather !eneral. .t i!nores the remains of sacrifice$ animals an$
the eDuiment re!ularly associate$ (ith them <#ri$les+ #its+ leashes+ etc.=+ nor $oes it ta'e into account
$i!!in! materials often foun$ in close conAunction (ith shi #urials. %ome of these seem to have #een
left in the !raves at the time of interment? others are li'ely to #e the remains of !rave-ro##in! activities
< %AWvol$ 1909=. .n site of all this+ ho(ever+ the !rave !oo$s $o seem re!ularly to #rea' $o(n into
three maAor classes6 (eaons+ articles of a$ornment+ an$ utensils. Althou!h there are o#vious
e/cetions to this classification <an$ some of these e/cetions are $iscusse$ #elo(=+ the sheer #ul' of
materials over(helmin!ly suorts it. ,2. The !rave also inclu$e$ a (oo$en sa$$le. T(o (omen&s
s'eletons+ o#viously move$ after #urial+ (ere also foun$. There (as no male s'eleton. The !rave ha$
#een lun$ere$+ an$ the list of artifacts is ro#a#ly not comlete. The Tune shi+ (hich also ha$ #een
loote$+ containe$ no utensils e/cet a (oo$en sa$e an$ a han$ si'e < 9Aessin! 19-261=. ,,. .n
a$$ition to Bruce-Mitfor$ < 1922+ 1921=+ #oth 9reen < 190,= an$ 9rohs'of < 192,= contain !oo$
illustrations of these !rave !oo$s. The %utton ;oo #urial containe$+ of course+ (eaons+ articles of
a$ornment+ an$ t(o other items of aarent sym#olic si!nificance6 a carve$+ (hetstone sceter an$ an
iron stan$ or stan$ar$. The most comlete an$ #est-illustrate$ account of the fin$ is no( to #e foun$ in
Bruce-Mitfor$ < 192-=. ,1. Perhas only one of the soons has an authentic 9ree' inscrition. The
name &%aulos& is clearly inferior in its (or'manshi to the &Paulos& inscrition? it may #e an imitator&s
attemt to coy the name &Paulos&. %ee Cas'e < 1902= an$ %herloc' < 1922=. ,-. .t is easy to ma'e too
much of ots. They are containers an$ are the first choice to &ut somethin! in&+ (hether it #e some
sym#olic offerin!+ cremate$ ashes+ a memento+ or (hatever. %till+ the reetition+ variety+ an$ o#vious
uselessness of many of the artifacts foun$ in 9ermanic !raves oint to(ar$ imulses that+ althou!h not
$enyin! or$inary use+ !o #eyon$ the simly functional. The sym#olism of the container+ for e/amle+
to!ether (ith that of the shiel$ an$ s(or$ icono!rahically su!!ests the full interrelation of (ell an$
tree. ,0. The mention of &cost& is mo$ern. 7e are li'ely to misrea$ the 9ermanic concern
if (e ta'e it to mean &of !reat monetary value&. Balue is measure$ not only #y e/ense of money or
!oo$s #ut #y e/ense of ener!y an$ effort. Gn han!in! #o(ls+ in a$$ition to the reots of shi #urials
alrea$y $iscusse$+ see Cen$ric' < 19,2=+ >ennell < 19-2+ 1904=+ an$ ;aseloff < 19-8=. &The 9oths
remaine$ masters of the (estern stee country from the secon$ century A.*. until ,24+ (hen they
(ere overthro(n #y the ;unsE?F they (ere thus the 9ermanic tri#e (ith (hom the roto-%lavs ha$ the
closest an$ most lastin! relations& < Cross 19186 1-=. This ractice is not restricte$ to the .talian
eninsula #ut &is an unmista'a#le ointer to the ersistence of rimitive #eliefs+ common to the (hole
Me$iterranean (orl$+ E(hichF !ave rise to the ten$ency in 8truria an$ else(here+ esecially in ancient
8!yt+ to #uil$ the tom# in the shae of a house& < Pallottino 192-6 118=. ;ittite #urial customs su!!est
similar elements6 After ritual feastin! uon loaves an$ (ine+ sacrifice of animals+ an$ cremation of the
#o$y <a ceremony lastin! thirteen $ays or lon!er=+ the cremate$ #ones are lai$ out on a #e$ an$ #urie$
in their &stone-house& < 9urney 19-26 101-0-? Gtten 19-86 12-12=. .n the 9ree' ;omeric te/ts+ the
$(ellin! laces of souls after $eath are also re!ularly referre$ to as a house+ houses+ an entrance+ or a
to(n < Thieme 19-26 ,--,0=. The Celtic archaeolo!ical recor$ is Duite har$ to rea$ #ecause it is rather
early overrun #y 5oman civilization+ an$ after the first century B.C. it is $ominate$ #y 5oman
influence. .t is also ro#lematical as to e/actly at (hat oint in the $eveloment of 8uroean rehistory
(e can sea' of &Celtic& eoles #oth as a cultural an$ as a lin!uistic !rou < Chil$e 19126 2-4-0,=.
Archaeolo!ical evi$ence+ ho(ever+ in$icates that #y the late Bronze A!e such a !rou $i$ e/ist
< ;u#ert 19,2? Pi!!ott 190-=? even so+ the #urials of this erio$ sho( a !oo$ $eal of consistency (ith
earlier #urial ractices. 7hether this in$icates an earlier resence of this cultural !rou or a
re$ilection for #orro(in! ritual ractices-a henomenon not uncommon in lair Celtic materials--is not
clear The ro#lem of the interrelation of archaeolo!ical an$ lin!uistic evi$ence+ (ith articular
attention to Celtic material+ is lai$ out in $etail in ;enc'en < 19--=. This contact is fairly recent+ #ut
there is much lin!uistic evi$ence ointin! to (i$esrea$ 9ermanic an$ Celtic cultural contact on the
8uroean continent earlier? for e/amle+ &l&alleman$ eisen+ le !othiDue eisarn+ est le mme mot Due le
!aulois isarno- . . . .+ Due l&irlan$ais iarn et le !allois haiarn EOironOF& < ;u#ert 19,2629=. This su!!ests
meanin!ful contact sometime early in the .ron A!e. Gther le/ical items also oint to early+ close social
contact? for e/amle+ 9ermanic r + -seems to have #een #orro(e$ from Celtic r g - rather than
inherite$ >rom .8 rg- $irectly+ as the 9ermanic lan!ua!es retain .8 ? the Celtic lan!ua!es early
chan!e$ it to . There is consi$era#le seculation a#out this cultural relationshi+ an$ its e/act nature is
still an oen Duestion. %hi #urials an$ rituals in (hich shis fi!ure in a central (ay occur outsi$e
8uroe (ith some freDuency. &%hi-#urial (as ractise$ from %can$inavia to @aan& < 9irvan 19216,1=.
&The O#oat of the $ea$O lays a !reat role in Malaysia an$ .n$onesia+ #oth in strictly shamanic conte/ts
an$ in funerary ractices an$ laments& < 8lia$e 19016,--=. .n$onesian shamanic ractice is often
stri'in!ly
similar to the 9ermanic #urial? it associates the #oat (ith a cosmic tree an$ ooses vertical
ascent to horizontal Aourney < 8lia$e 19016,-2--8=. >or another curious relationshi #et(een
9ermanic an$ Pacific culture <here+ Maori an$ concernin! animal motifs=+ see *avis < 19026,21-
29=.
The $istinction #et(een $eath an$ immortality is a si!nificant one for the Celtic eoles+ (ho
seem to have turne$ much of their inherite$ .n$o-8uroean icono!rahy of the &other (orl$& or
ream of the $ea$ <see a#ove+ n. 0= to the e/ression of immortality (ithin the (orl$ of men
< Meyer 1919=.
All Duotations from the An!lo-%a/on Chronicle are ta'en from the e$ition of Charles Plummer
an$ @ohn 8arle+ T*o o the "a(on chronicles parallel...+ 2 vols. < G/for$6 Claren$on Press+ 1892+
1899=.
$ituals and Everyday *i"e
Many recent commentators have note$ the connection #et(een the tree at Usala an$ :!!$rasil.
The earliest of these . have foun$ in 9ehl < 19,9=? it is reeate$ in $e Bries < 19-0a+ 19-2= an$ in
%chnei$er < 19-0=. There are ro#a#ly earlier references. Because $e Bries&s (or' is so (i$ely
'no(n+ it is li'ely that it has !iven imetus to reetition in more recent (or'? on the other han$+
the i$ea is #y no means o#scure an$ has su!!este$ itself to many commentators+ for e/amle
*erolez < 1902=+ 7renn < 190-=+ %ch(artz < 192,=+ an$ *oht < 1921=.
The or$eal #y (ater (oul$ #e articularly aroriate for the 9ermanic eoles+ an$ it continue$
to #e ractice$ #y them even after their conversion to Christianity. .nterestin!ly enou!h+
references to occurrences of the or$eal #y (ater are scarce amon! %can$inavian 9ermans
< 3ottar 19-0609=. The $uel (as (i$ely ractice$ there+ ho(ever < Ci'lamini 190,=. .f+ as A$am
of Bremen testifies+ the or$eal #y (ater ha$ #een aroriate$ as a reli!ious or cultural ritual in
a!an %can$inavia+ it is li'ely that in$ivi$ual or$eals (oul$ assume some other form. Aarently
the $uel serve$ this urose.
5o#erts&s conclusions are #ase$ on his analysis of $ata from contemorary African+ Asian+ an$
Pacific cultures+ #ut their aroriateness to early 9ermanic culture is too stri'in! to #e i!nore$.
%ee %heteli! an$ >al' < 19,26119-24=+ PolomM < 19-1+ 1924#6-2--8=+ 8lia$e < 190,62,9-,01+
19-9#6 1,8--1=.
The templum is merely a sacre$ lace+ not an artifact+ as it clearly is in the account of A$am of
Bremen+ Duote$ a#ove. Much has chan!e$ in the centuries #et(een these accounts. Tacitus
e/licitly $enies that the 9ermans #uilt temles in the 5oman manner6 &ceterum nec cohi#ere
arieti#us $eos neDue in ullam humani oris seciem a$simulare e/ ma!nitu$ine caelestium
ar#itrantur6 lucos ac nemora consecrant $eorumDue nomini#us aellant secretum illu$+ Duo$ sola
reverentia vi$ent& < Germania9=. Thus+ the numen+ the reresentation of the earth mother+ (as
ro#a#ly not anthroomorhic #ut a &ru$e sym#ol or a fetish in the shae of a stone or a #loc' of
(oo$& < An$erson 19,86194=.
3erthus shares the islan$ <an$ thus (ater an$ enclosure= (ith the later 3orse !o$$ess %'a$i. {uite
ro#a#ly+ the name "candina)ia $eveloe$ from the root meanin! &.slan$ of %'a$i&? -avia is the
9ermanic (or$ a* &islan$& <G3 ey+ %(e$. X G8+ g + 9er. Aue= < %chrX$er 1911610-=. The name
%'a$i is itself interest-
in! in this conte/t. There is a &Ber'nfun! mit E)at.F scateo+ -re <archaisch scato+-ere=
Ohervorsru$eln+ #erDuellenO+ E)ith.F s+astu, s+atau, s+asti Osrin!en+ hfenO. . . "+a5i <E9ermanicF
"+1pe
-n
o$er "+a5n
-n
= (r$e $ann ein 3omen a!entis mit $er Be$eutun! O%rin!er+ TKnzerO
< %chrX$er 19116 00-02=. ;ere is not only the active+ lively+ movin! (ater of the (ell #ut also a 'in$ of
caricious or uncontaina#le movement $erive$ from it+ (hich is associate$ (ith %'a$i as a
reresentative of the ie!en!estalt < %chrX$er 1911629-01=. .n the Gse#er! shi (ere foun$ not only a
four-(heele$ cart #ut three carve$+ ornamental slei!hs an$ a common sle$!e < %heteli! an$ >al'
19,26282-8,=+ <9Aessin! 19-2=+ an$ < %AWvol$ 1909=. There (as also a carve$ sle$!e #urie$ in the
9o'sta$ shi < 9Aessin! 19-2=. Gn the *eA#AJr! (a!ons+ see %heteli! an$ >al' < 19,26182-89= an$
An$erson < 19,86188-89=. >or (hat has actually #een $iscovere$ of the remains of the sun'en offerin!s
of 9ermanic eoles+ see Much < 19026211-12+ 1-2=. Caesar&s remar's are foun$ in Belli gallici, I, t
wall [uotations rom 'aesar are rom the edition o Bernardwus{ &inter '. Iuli 'aesaris belli gallici
w Leiplig$ B. G. Tsbner, uyzy{$ \'um e( capti)is [uaereret 'aesar, [uam ob rem Ario)istus proelio
non decertaret, hanc reperiebat causam, [uod apud Germanos ea consuetudo esset, ut matres amiliae
eorum sortibus et )aticinationibus declararent, utrum proelium committi e( usu esset necnek eas ita
dicere$ non esse as Germanos superare, si ante no)am lunam proelio contendissent\ wu{ \3hen
'aesar in[uired o his prisoners *hy Ario)istus had not roined battle, he disco)ered the reason *as
that German custom re[uired that their matrons must declare on the basis o lots and di)inations
*hether or not it *as ad)antageous to gi)e battle, and the matrons had stated that the Germans *ere
not ated to *in i they ought beore the ne* moon\ w /adas uz${. 7hether the runes reresent a
systematize$ (or'in! out of the full+ unifie$ structure of the cosmos+ as %chnei$er < 19-0= su!!ests+ or
more limite$+ imme$iate factors in fi/in! or realizin! events is an oen Duestion. .n either case+ the
hysical reality of the mar' has o(er much !reater than the mere recor$in! of seech. 5unic an$
nonrunic sym#ols are sometimes foun$ to!ether+ for e/amle+ on an An!lo-%a/on incinerary urn from
the )ove$en ;ill cemetery. .t is inscri#e$ (ith &runes follo(e$ #y . . . rune-li'e yet non-runic sym#ols
an$ . . . circles (ith . . . interior cruciform atterns& < 7renn 190-614+ EillustrationF -1=. .n this
connection it is interestin! to note that the Gse#er! shi containe$ amon! its !rave !oo$s a ail of rie+
(il$ ales. .n a$$ition+ various lant remains (ere scattere$ throu!hout the shi6 (il$ ales+ (heat+
cress see$s+ (oo$+ (alnut+ hazelnut+ etc. < 9Aessin! 19-2611-1,=. .n .rish lore+ Connla&s 7ell (as the
source of 'no(le$!e. A#ove it !re( nine hazels+ an$ the hazelnuts+ (hen $roe$ into the (ell+ create$
insirational #u##les < 5ees an$ 5ees 19016101=. The inscrition &sells& no intelli!i#le (or$. The
mar'in!s may #e sym#olic this may very (ell also #e the case (ith the incinerary urn from )ove$en
;ill < 7renn 190-=. %ee also Much < 19026 119-22=6 &%chon in $er Bronzezeit sielte 9ol$ #ei $en
9ermanen eine !rosse 5olle& <119=. >or the amounts an$ 'in$s of !ol$ an$ silver foun$ in Bi'in!
hoar$s+ see Marstran$er < 19-1=.
All Duotations from The dream o the rood are ta'en from the e$ition of Bruce *ic'ins an$ Alan %. C.
5oss < 3e( :or'6 Aleton-Century-Crofts+ 1900=. Those from Judith are from the e$ition of B. @.
Timmer < 3e( :or'6 Aleton-Century-Crofts+ 1900=. All Duotations from Beo*ul are from the
e$ition of >r. Clae#er+ ,r$ e$. < Boston6 *. C. ;eath+ 19-4=. There are hall scenes in (hich eatin! lays
an imortant art? the #one-thro(in! seDuence of /rfls "aga cra+a <section 2,= is a !oo$ e/amle.
%uch scenes are+ ho(ever+ in nearly every asect+ $ifferent from those here $escri#e$+ an$ the term
sym#el is not use$ in conAunction (ith them. Tacitus himself seems to have seen that the 'in$s of
con)i)ia $escri#e$ a#ove $iffere$ from or$inary activities associate$ (ith eatin!. ;e $escri#es
every$ay hositality in a rece$in! section6 &Convicti#us et hositiis non alia !ens effusius in$ul!et+
DuemcumDue mortalium arcere tecto nefas ha#etur? ro fortuna DuisDue aaratis eulis e/ciit& <
Germania21= &3o nation in$uces more freely in feastin! an$ entertainin! than the 9erman. .t is
accounte$ a sin to turn any man a(ay from your $oor. The host (elcomes his !uest (ith the #est meal
that his means allo(& < Mattin!ly 19246 119=. Before !ivin! his account of the $rin'in! in section 22+
Tacitus secifies that the im#i#er first eats6 &lauti ci#um caiunt& < Germania22=. Then follo(s the
len!thy $rin'in!. The term sc r *ered + here !losse$ as &a clear+ s(eet $rin'&+ may+ in fact+ #e
sc r*ered &a$orne$ (ith ra$iance&+ a comoun$ a$Aective < Cra(for$ 1902624-=. .f this is so+ the
assa!e has the servin!-thane ourin! the ale-cu &a$orne$ (ith ra$iance& rather than ourin! out &a
clear+ s(eet $rin'&. The conte/t is+ then+ less comle/ than in$icate$+ havin! t(o+ not three+ references
to the $rin'. Comoun$s (ith * n - &(ine& also occur in the oem6 * ndrn &(ine house& <0-1=+
* nreced &(ine #uil$in!& <211+ 99,=+ * nsele &(ine hall& <09-+ 221+ 21-0=. The nature of the 9ermanic
$rin' is li'e(ise am#i!uous in Tacitus6 &Potui humor e/ hor$eo aut frumento+ in Duan$am
similitu$inem vini corrutus& < Germania2,= &Their $rin' is a liDuor ma$e from #arley or other !rain+
(hich is fermente$ to ro$uce a certain resem#lance to (ine& < Mattin!ly 19246121=. %ee Cleas#y et al.
< 19-26041= an$ 8ra$es < 1902=. 8/crescent stos after nasals are a common lin!uistic henomenon6
G8 numel w ? Mo$. 8 nimble+ )at. humil#orro(e$ into Mi$$le 8n!lish an$ #ecomin! <h=um#le
&hum#le&+ G8 pmel w Mo$. 8 thimble+ etc. 8ra$es also su!!ests its resence in the $eveloment of
assembly6 &E>renchF assemblne+ ori!inally a feminine su#stantivize$ . of assembler < EPoular )at.F
assimulare < ad- simulare Oto ut to!etherO < simul Oto!etherO? root sem OoneO& < 1902622=. That the
term is #uilt from the root alu is itself si!nificant #ecause &ale& seems to have #een the !eneric term
amon! the 9ermanic eoles for the into/icatin! $rin' < 7at'ins 1924=. .f the etymolo!y is correct+ it
e/resses $irectly the si!nificance of the symbel&s ritual6 the confluences of the o(erful (aters of the
(ell an$ their relationshi to the occurrence of events. The centrality of ale $rin'in! is every(here
noticea#le. The o(er it su!!ests <in$ee$+ the very o(er of (yr$ itself= is felt in the .cel. ver# sumla
&to #e floo$e$+ over(helme$& an$ in hrases e/ressive of the activity of *yrd in Beo*ul+ such as6 h e
*yrd ors*op } on Grendles gryre <122-28= & 3yrd s(et them a(ay in the horror of 9ren$el&.

The imortance of the seech ma'in!
an$ !ift !ivin! to the symbel is
(or'e$ out in !reat $etail in essay ,
an$ (ill not #e consi$ere$ here.
8/clu$in! 9ren$el&s Mother+ (ho is
har$ly a (oman in human terms+
there are in Beo*ul #esi$es
7ealhtheo(+ ;y!$ <;y!elac&s
Dueen=+ (ho resi$es over the
cele#ration of Beo*ul&s return to the
lan$ of the 9eats+ $urin! (hich an
account of the hau!hty activities of
another Dueen+ Thryth+ are relate$?
;il$e#urh <in the account of the
affair of >inn=? an$ finally an
unname$ &9eatish (oman& (ho
laments at the funeral of Beo*ul.
That is all.
Gn li#ations+ 9ermanic an$ .n$o-
8uroean+ see Cahen < 1921=+
Benveniste < 1909=+ an$ *oht
< 1921=.
All Duotations from the %dyssey are
ta'en from the )oe# Classical
)i#rary e$ition+ (ith an 8n!lish
translation #y A. T. Murray
< )on$on6 7illiam ;einemann+
1919=.
The ritual insult seems to have #een a
common feature of the symbel. The
(hole of Lo+asenna is a series of
such insults. They occur too in
Beo*ul <199--28=+ (here Beo*ul&s
ro(ess is challen!e$ #y Unferth an$
<-29-040= (here Beo*ul relies to
the challen!e an$+ in so $oin!+
$isara!es Unferth&s character.
Curiously+ the insults lea$ only to
other ver#al &violence& rather than to
hysical attac'. .t is ver#al ro(ess
that seems central to the sym#el.
&*as 7ort "amuin (ur$e in .rlan$ als
sam-uin+ O8n$e $es %ommersO+
!e$eutet? ei!entlich #e$eutet samuin
Ae$och OBereini!un!O& < $e Bries
19016 229=. %ee also )e 5ou/
< 1901=.
The $e!ree to (hich the .rish
accounts are e/ressive of (i$ely
share$ mytholo!ical elements uniDue
.n$ee$+ encyclopedia+ (hich . hit uon searately+ is e/actly the term ;aveloc' uses to $escri#e
;omer&s (or' <,0-90=. Althou!h encyclopedia is useful+ its use to $escri#e the function of oetry in
earlier societies o#viously is not e/act+ esecially &if (e use the term . . . in that #oo'ish sense (hich is
roer to it. >or ;omer Ean$+ . (oul$ a$$+ the 9ermanic sin!eroetF continually restates an$ rehan$les
the nomos an$ ethos of his society as thou!h from a mo$ern stan$oint he (ere not Duite sure of the
correct version. 7hat he in fact is Duite sure of is the overall co$e of #ehaviour+ ortions of (hich he
'ees #rin!in! u in a hun$re$ conte/ts an$ (ith a hun$re$ ver#al variants& ;aveloc' 190,692=. The
oint is aarently true of all oral formulaic literature. .n the transmission an$ resentation of such
literature+ its o(er $erives from &the reservation of tra$ition #y the constant re-creation of it. The
i$eal is a true story (ell an$ truly retol$& < )or$ 1904629=. 7hether any 9ermanic oem+ as (e no(
have it+ is oral is a matter of $isute. %ee the $iscussion+ history+ an$ #i#lio!rahy in 7atts < 1909=. All
Duotations from &eor are from the e$ition of Cem Malone+ &eor < 3e( :or'6 Aleton-Century-
Crofts+ 1900=. Most recently+ the term use$ to $escri#e this alternative structure of 9ermanic literature
is &interlace&. &8vents (i$ely searate$ in time are Au/taose$ an$ so connecte$ as to reveal the ironies
an$ ortents $ifficult to erceive in a chronolo!ical account. The interlace ro$uces symmetrical
atterns in (hich the com#inations have meanin! an$ the recom#inations have a$$e$ meanin!? on each
art is felt the ressure of all the other arts. A natural ten$ency of criticism has #een to unravel the
threa$s (ith the result that the $esi!n is lost. ConseDuently+ the oem is commonly sai$ to #e
structurally (ea'. .t must #e rea$ (ith attention to the (hole attern+ ho(ever !reat the $ifficulty.
7hat emer!es is a structure of comle/+ 'notte$ unity& < )eyerle 190-690-92=. %ee also )eyerle < 1902=.
The term is a !oo$ one #ecause it !ives us a ositive la#el rather than a ne!ative one <not narrative= to
$escri#e the structure of the oetry+ an$ it rovi$es an interestin! analo!y (ith the use of interlace in
9ermanic artifacts. :et+ (e still $o not 'no( very much a#out the (ay &interlace& is use$ an$ ho* it
informs the oetry. 7hat $oes an &interlace$& oem &loo'& li'eN ;o( $o (e !ras its full structureN ;o(
are (e to erceive the &'notte$ unity& of the oemN ;o(ar$ < 19206199-220= has $one much to ans(er
these Duestions for the me$ieval Christian oem+ #ut they still nee$ investi!ation as they relate to
9ermanic oetry. .t is very clear that 9ermanic oems $o not &loo'& li'e flo(ers. The emhasis of
&imme$iate& is necessary #ecause (hat mi!ht #e calle$ final or ultimate causes are every(here resent?
in$ee$+ final causes seem to act more $irectly uon events in 9ermanic literature than (e erceive
them to no(a$ays. The semantic information si!nale$ #y the conAunctive forms e an$ edt is of !reat
imortance. .t is treate$ in some $etail in essay 1. The rea$in! of the te/t !iven here imlies that the
forms are not essentially temoral or causal? simly rea$in! the te/t as it has #een outline$ literally
shoul$ $o much to enforce this imression. 5ather+ the forms seem to #e much more Au/taositional or
satial in the 'in$s of relations they e/ress. >or another account of the variations in the three versions
of this #attle+ see %tevic' < 190,=. Bro$eur notice$ somethin! of the same effect in the oem&s retellin!
of the events surroun$in! ;y!elac&s $eath6 &.n . . . situations of $ifferent $ramatic moment the same
story is tol$+ (ith $ifferent emhases? an$ there#y main lot an$ su#lot are 'nit to!ether . . . an$ the
unity of the entire oem effectively esta#lishe$& < 19096221=. The materials $escri#e$ in Beo*ul are
relate$ to actual 9ermanic !rave !oo$s an$ archaeolo!ical fin$s in+ for e/amle+ %tAerna < 1912=+
)in$Dvist < 1918=+ Bruce-Mitfor$ < 19-2+ 1922+ 1921+ 192-=+ Clar' < 190-a=+ an$ 7renn < 1902+ 190-=.
The mention of 9o$ ten$s to #other eole #ecause it su!!ests Christian intrusion into the oem. There
is no Duestion that there is in Beo*ul+ as (e have alrea$y foun$+ in essay 1+ in 0 lusp1 + some
evi$ence of &Christian influence&. Put more #ol$ly+ there is virtually nothin! in the literary recor$s of
the 9ermanic eoles that $oes not sho( some $e!ree of &Christian influence&. The fact of the influence
is not ro#lematical+ #ut $ifficulties arise (hen (e try to $efine Aust (hat this &Christian influence& is. .n
its simlest form+ it is aarent in the mere mention of some &Christian& matter6 here+ 9o$+ or else(here+
in Beo*ul+ the mention of Cain? the $ooms$ay-li'e $escrition of 5a!nar ' in 0lusp1+ etc. This line
of reasonin! runs afoul+ ho(ever+ if carrie$ to its lo!ical conclusion6 7e (ill fin$ ourselves
$iscoverin! &5oman& or &8!ytian& influence+ for e/amle+ in 3idsith #ecause that oem mentions #oth
Caesar an$ 8!ytians. This is not satisfactory? clearly+ (e (ant somethin! more+ some more ervasive
reli!ious or cultural evi$ence than a mention rovi$es. 8ven a relatively e/tensive variety of material
mentione$ in a te/t (ill not $irectly an$ o#viously rovi$e a satisfactory semantic ma for those of us
(ho no( rea$ outsi$e the concetual frame(or' that rovi$e$ the imulse for the te/t&s comosition.
To as' (hether Beo*ul+ or 0 lusp1 + is really &Christian& or really &a!an& or somethin! else+ (ithout
rovi$in! a clear account of e/actly (hat articular semantic elements any of these terms consists of+
#ecomes a futile e/ercise. The resently flourishin! controversy a#out (hether Beo(ulf is or is not
&Christian& or &a!an& has only a$um#rate$ this futility. .f convincin! oints can #e ma$e on #oth si$es
of such a case <an$ they have #een=+ it is li'ely that #oth si$es are lar!ely ri!ht an$ that the Duestion
they vainly try to $eci$e a$mits of no $ecision? it is a &Duestion& that is in no essential (ay in contention.
>or information an$ #i#lio!rahy a#out the a!anChristian asects of Beo*ul+ see 7hallon < 190-=+
Moorman < 1902=+ .rvin! < 19086 89-142=+ Bro$eur < 19096182-219=+ an$ Bair$ < 1924=? for information
on the similar controversy a#out 0 lusp1 + see essay 1+ n. 2,+ a#ove.
.t shoul$ #e clear that the ar!ument of all of the essays here has #een to $efine as carefully as ossi#le
the nature of a &9ermanic& (ay of thin'in! an$ conceivin! of reality. 7ith resect to the
&a!an&&Christian& controversy+ 9ermanic thin'in! is earlier on lar!ely &a!an& an$ #ecomes throu!h
time more an$ more &Christian&. Because &9ermanic& thin'in! is oen an$ accumulative+ its literary
forms are also &oen&. &.t has #een sai$ that the 0 lusp1 is not a sin!le oem at all+ #ut a scra-#oo'
containin! fra!ments on mytholo!ical su#Aects $erive$ from various sources. .f this is correct+ it EisF
(ron! to summarize the BlusR& < Turville-Petre 19-,6-8=. .f (e (ish to rovi$e this &scra-#oo'&
(ith some or$erin! rincile other than mere ran$omness+ then the term is essentially the same as
encyclopedia <the $efinin! term use$ at the #e!innin! of this essay= in all asects #ut comleteness.
Anythin! relevant to the su#Aect matter #ein! collecte$ (ill #e aroriate+ irresective of its &a!an& or
&Christian& ori!in. )i'e(ise+ if (e as' of a scra-#oo' or an encycloe$ia (hat it (as li'e &ori!inally&+
(e (ill+ . thin'+ confront ourselves (ith a more realistic formulation a#out the &ori!inal versions& of
9ermanic oems than most of our contemorary e$itin! techniDues have rovi$e$ us. This stan$s in
curious contrast to the remar's of Tacitus6 &notum ignotum[ue [uantum ad ius hospitis nemo discernit.
abeunti, si [uid poposcerit, concedere morisk et poscendi in )icem eadem acilitas, gaudent muneribus,
sed nec data imputant nec acceptis obligantur& < Germania 21= &3o $istinction is ever ma$e #et(een
acDuaintance an$ stran!er as far as the ri!ht to hositality is concerne$. As the !uest ta'es his leave+ it
is customary to let him have anythin! he as's for? an$ the host+ (ith as little hesitation+ (ill as' for a
!ift in return. They ta'e $eli!ht in resents+ #ut they e/ect no reayment for !ivin! them an$ feel no
o#li!ation in receivin! them& < Mattin!ly 19246119-24=. The recirocal e/chan!e is similar+ yet+ in
9ermanic literature+ !ifts are not as'e$ for? they are !iven freely. There is+ li'e(ise+ a !oo$ $eal of
&o#li!ation& to all this. .t is an o#li!ation not to future activity+ ho(ever+ #ut to remem#er the ast+
(hich the !ift contains+ an$ to $isseminate this ast+ as the re!ivin! of such !ifts su!!ests. To Tacitus+
an outsi$er+ as to ourselves+ the ractice seems to have #een stran!e. 7hether or to (hat $e!ree &masts&
(ere resent in 9ermanic shis is still a moot oint. %ee %tAerna < 1912= an$ 9irvan < 1921=. That a
mast or mastli'e element mi!ht #e a$$e$ to a 9ermanic #urial seems Duite li'ely. The ortho!onal
relationshi of mast an$ shi is mythically a si!nificant oint+ an$ (hen it $oes not o#tain it is
simulate$. .n .#n >a$lIn&s account of the #urial of the 5Ls chieftain+ for e/amle+ (e learn that he is
lace$ in the reare$ avilion of his shi <(hich+ as far as (e can tell+ has no mast= an$ that he is
&roe$ . . . u (ith cushions& < %myser 190-699=. The form rum- <)at. prim-us? 9oth. rums+ also
rumaedc rum-=+ althou!h not freDuent in the te/t+ occurs often enou!h to ma'e its
meanin! clear. .t al(ays reresents that (hich is first+ rimary+ inciient+ etc. As a noun+ ruma+ it
su!!ests an initiator+ a #e!inner+ a creator. Thus+ the $ra!on <2,49= can #e referre$ to as se ruma+ &the
initiator& of the havoc to #e (rea'e$ uon the 9eats? 9ren$el <2494= can #e referre$ to as the ` :
druma+ &the initiator of $ee$s& a!ainst the *anes. )i'e(ise+ Beo(ulf can refer to his father 8c!theo( as
an geele ordruma &a no#le oint-initiator&. .n$ee$+ Beo(ulf can trace his linea!e only #ac' to his
father+ a fact that seems to account for the 9eats& not fin$in! Beo(ulf&s early otential to #e romisin!
<218,-89= in site of his imressive hysical stature. The oem carefully contrasts Beo(ulf&s
$ifficulties (ith resect to linea!e (ith ;roth!ar&s+ (hose ordruma is %cyl$ himself. The !reat (or's
of Clae#er < 19-4= an$ Cham#ers < 19-9= form the mo$ern e/tension of the te/t of Beo*ul alon!
9ermanic lines+ a$$in!+ as they $o+ more an$ more $etail to the oem as it #ecomes 'no(n to us. .t is
unfortunate+ ho(ever+ that their (or'+ so !enerous of $etail+ is so sa$ly lac'in! in alliterative style. >e(
(oul$ suffer Cham#ers Introduction to #e sun!. Beo(ulf is+ at this oint+ ge. This contrasts $irectly
(ith his earlier comment6 : &. (as not yet mar'e$& <2111=+ (hich he ma'es to
;y!elac in his reort of his #attle (ith 9ren$el&s Mother. The term al(ays refers to some secial
mar'in! or si!nificance of an aarently or$inary actor+ (hich laces him (ithin the flo( of the
o(ers #eyon$ the normal. .t re!ularly occurs in relation to actions that lea$ to $eath+ esecially an
imortant or meanin!ful $eath+ the ultimate si!nificance. .t is thus clearly relate$ to the o(er of *yrd
itself. %ee 9illam < 1902= an$ %mithers < 1924=. .n the resent conte/t+ the eo* is : even
thou!h his action is imortant? nothin! haens to him. ;e $isaears comletely? he has no reality
#eyon$ the ehemeral resent? he is the unname$ instrument of his action. Beo(ulf+ (hose !reatness is
touche$ #y the action+ is &mar'e$&+ an$ he #ears (ith him the full imact of all of the actions relate$ to
an$ $erivin! from the theft. The action of meltin! an$ its relation to heat+ esecially &heate$& fi!htin!+ is
a relatively common motif in .rish literature an$ fol'lore. %ee Puhvel < 1909=. Beo(ulf is more nearly
suerhuman in his s(immin! than merely roficient. As such+ he has more arallels in Celtic than in
9ermanic literature < Puhvel 1921=. %till+ s(immin! is anythin! #ut uncommon in 3orse literature.
Account is use$ here to avoi$ the $ifficulties alrea$y note$ in $ealin! (ith terms li'e narrati)e+ story+
an$ history. These are all too chronolo!ical in their structure to reresent the 9ermanic account of
actions. %uch accounts are re!ularly comose$ of the $etails of actions that+ at the moment of their
recitation+ are ast or accomlishe$. Their value is the value of fact rather than of rocess. The
resentations of such accounts in 9ermanic literature are usually hi!hly stylize$ or ritualistic <as the
te/t follo(in! ma'es clear=. The same is true+ of course+ of the bot. The term bot is not restricte$ in
the Gl$ 8n!lish to reference to this 'in$ of set seech. .t has &three chief meanin!s6 <1= a threatenin!+
menace? <2= $an!er? an$ <,= #oastin! romise. .t seems that the thir$ one is the most usual+ an$
lo!ically the meanin!s (oul$ seem to have $eveloe$ in the or$er6 romise--#oastin!-threatenin!--
$an!er& < 8inarsson 19,16984=. All of these su!!est conte/ts in (hich resent events are structure$ #y
circumstances that have alrea$y ta'en lace. "cop or sceop <G;9 sco? G3 s+op= &sin!er+ oet+
entertainer& is a $ifficult form to trace etymolo!ically. %ee+ for e/amle+ 7erlich < 19026,01-21=. .t
seems to have connections (ith #oth Mo$. 8 shape <G8 scieppan Eclass B.F &fashion+ create&= an$ sco.
The i$ea of oet as ma'er or creator seems ri!ht to us? yet oet as $eri$er or scoffer seems stran!e. .n
Beo*ul+ the sco is never e/licitly connecte$ (ith $erision or scoffin!. %till+ the relate$ form s+op in
Gl$ 3orse seems re!ularly to refer to moc'in! or railin!. The only moc'in! or railin! (e have in
Beo(ulf is the tauntin! of Beo(ulf #y Unferth+ ;roth!ar&s eyle <199--28=. This fact+ ho(ever+ is not
irrelevant to the matter of the sco. &7hat the title eyle alie$ to UnferS <110-+ 11-0= meant+ cannot
#e $etermine$ (ith certainty. The eyle <EG3F eulr= has #een variously $escri#e$ as a sa!e+ orator+ oet
of note+ historiolo!er+ maAor $omus+ or the 'in!&s ri!ht-han$ man. The EG8F noun occurs several times
as the ren$erin! of OoratorO . . . As to the eulr+ the characteristics of his office seem to have #een Oa!e+
(is$om+ e/ten$e$ 'no(le$!e+ an$ a seat of honorO& < Clae#er 19-46 119=. .t also has connotations of
$iscor$ an$ may #e associate$ (ith G$in < Bair$ 1924=. The same root un$erlies #oth eula+ the term
use$ to $escri#e the (or$-list oems li'e 3idsith+ an$ G3 eylra &to say #y rote+ recite+ chant&. Althou!h
the &sin!er& of 3idsith refers to himself as a gloman+ &le/ical evi$ence sho(s that eyle an$ gloman are
synonymous6 #oth are !losse$ ali'e+ as histrio an$ scurra. Gloman an$ scop are also synonymous+ as
the E Beo*ulF oet&s usa!e sho(s Eline 1104+ (here he refers to the sco&s recital of the >inn story as
the glomanes gydF. ;ence if eyle ] gloman an$ gloman ] scop+ eyle ] scop& < 8liason 190,6281=.
Thus+ the in$ivi$ual erformin! this function for the 9ermanic chieftain (oul$ #e at once a ma'er an$
sin!er of tales <gloman=+ the 'eeer of the eula <the recor$ of the or$er of the ast=+ an$ the
so'esman of its value+ the counselor of the ast <eyle=+ an$ the challen!er of resent actions <scop=. As
these are all asects of one function+ any one term $escritive of one asect (oul$ imly all of the
others+ as the varie$ uses of these $ifferent terms su!!est. .t is also clear that the function of the
in$ivi$ual re-creates (ithin the (orl$ of men the essential activities of the 3orns an$ the o(er of the
ast. The glomanscopeyle on the one han$ collects an$ or$ers the actions of the ast an$+ on the
other+ $irectly confronts the affairs of the resent throu!h counsel an$ challen!e+ lf+ as 8liason < 190,=
su!!ests+ Unferth fills this function in ;roth!ar&s court+ it is ri!ht for him to challen!e Beo(ulf&s bot+
Aust as Beo(ulf&s actions are to #e teste$ $irectly #y the o(er of the ast. *eor also sea's of himself6
&ic h(ile (Js ;eo$enin,a sco+ $ryhtne $yre? me (Js *eor noma& <,0-,2=. ;e tells of his activities
as the sco of the ;eo$enin!s #efore he !ives .ris name. That fact is clearly of more imortance. .t
seems clear also that the function of the 'ennin! in 9ermanic verse is also to esta#lish these far-
reachin! interrelationshis amon! in$ivi$uals+ events+ an$ thin!s < Mittner 19--62-81? >ran' 1928=.
This &ale-$rin'in!&+ &ale-$isensin!&+ or &ale-!ivin!& reeats the semantic elements of the etymolo!y of
symbel <sum-alu= &ale-!atherin!& or &ale-sharin!&. %ee the secon$ art of essay 2+ herein? also %mithers
< 19-1--2 602-2-=+ 8inarsson < 19,1=+ .rvin! < 1900=+ an$ Cle!raf < 1921=. These lines have cause$
interretive ro#lems+ as the e/tensive #i#lio!rahies in .rvin! < 1900= an$ Cle!raf < 1921= attest. The
form -scer*en may $enote either $isensin! or sharin! on the one han$ or+ on the other+ $enyin! or
ta'in! a(ay. %mithers an$ .rvin! suort #oth of these rea$in!s. .f one $ivi$es the form into scer- an$
-*en <an$ len!thens to *n=+ it $enotes somethin! li'e &hoe of a ortion& < Cle!raf 1921=. All these
interretations (ill (or' here $een$in! uon the $ensity of irony one (ishes to fin$ in the assa!e.
All ultimately amount to the same thin!? all are aroriate to the sym#el conte/t. Mo$ern rea$ers
often fin$ this en$in! a#rut an$ some(hat ointless+ as if it ha$ not Duite !ot out all that it ha$ to say.
The oem seems not to conclu$e #ut simly to sto+ #rea'in! off+ as it (ere+ in mi$oint. :et it shoul$
#e clear that a oem constructe$ uon such lines as those $eveloe$ a#ove can only move to(ar$ some
conclu$in! oint that it can never em#o$y. %uch oems articulate only the fact of their o(n rocess of
sayin!? they can say much+ #ut never fully or finally. The 9eats sea'+ the oem sea's+ an$ (e as
rea$ers+ no(+ in an act of rea$in!+ en!a!e in an$ eretuate this seech+ (hich gg5 s* h o scel . . .
I& Action' ()ace' and Time
1. This soun$s very much li'e )Mvi-%trauss&s i$ea of &me$iation&+ an$ in some (ays it is. A term li'e
&tension& oerates much li'e )Mvi-%trauss&s me$iatin! rincile+ #ut the (ay in (hich . have
e/amine$ the structural asects of 9ermanic culture $iffers !reatly from #oth )Mvi-%trauss&s
analysis of the Ge$ius myth < )Mvi- %trauss 19026 242-28= an$ his account of American .n$ian
materials in the Mythologi[ues < )Mvi-%trauss 1909+ 192,=.
2. This is to say nothin! of 5y$#er!&s concern a#out the orientation of the (ell an$ tree. ;e laces
Urth&s 7ell at the to of the confi!uration #ecause the root (ith (hich it is associate$ is sai$ to lie
1 himni &in heaven&. This lea$s him to a $ilemma concernin! the tree&s aarent horizontal
orientation in sace. The ro#lem is a result of tryin! to reconcile one 'in$ of orientation in sace
<that of the (ell an$ tree= (ith another <our o(n=. .t clearly (ill not (or'+ as 5y$#er!&s o(n
$iscussion < 19406 ,9--140= ma'es a#un$antly clear. .f the reresentation is to $efine sace+ it
cannot #e hel$ accounta#le to other $efinitions.
,. 7ithin the realm of the tree+ ho(ever+ are some (orl$s that+ to a $e!ree much !reater than any of
those so far consi$ere$+ resem#le in their confi!urational elements the realm of the (ell itself.
There are+ first an$ foremost+ the create$ (ells to (hich the Prose 8$$a e/licitly refers6
;ver!elmir+ MQmir&s 7ell+ an$ the 7ell of Urth. Thus+ Urth&s 7ell+ as it is $escri#e$ #y the 8$$a
an$ to the $e!ree to (hich (e are a#le to $iscuss it as a &real& thin!+ is not a $irect $escrition of
(hat (e are here callin! the &realm of the (ell&. .nstea$+ it is a ortion of the realm of the tree+
(hich+ in its confi!uration+ more !reatly than any other ortion of the create$ realm iconically
em#o$ies <or+ #etter+ erforms the realm of the tree&s closest aro/imation of em#o$iment of= the
cosmic elements that sustain an$ structure the (hole. The lacement of these asects of the realm
of the tree is such that they are Duite $istant from other create$ (orl$s an$+ #y imlication+ closer
to the reality of the realm of the (ell. .n conAunction (ith these create$ (ells are other ortions of
the create$ (orl$ of (hich men 'no( little6 the (orl$ of the 5ime-9iants <of (hich men 'no(
Aust a#out nothin!= an$ 3iflheim+ the (orl$ of the $ea$. That the (orl$ of the $ea$ (oul$ #e
locate$ close to the realm of the (ell+ (hich suorts all &creation& an$ (hich is &ast&$ominate$+ is
itself not surrisin!. 7e must+ of course+ 'ee in min$ that+ althou!h there are many
confi!urational elements that associate 3iflheim an$ the i$ea of the &(ell& an$ many similarities
#et(een ;el+ (ho controls the (orl$ of the $ea$+ an$ the 3orns+ finally the (orl$ of the $ea$ is a
create$ (orl$ (ithin the realm of the tree. There is traffic #ac' an$ forth amon! the (orl$ of
!o$s+ the (orl$ of the $ea$+ an$ the (orl$ of men? there is no similar traffic #et(een the realms of
the tree an$ (ell.
1. The use of the ver# bregan <bregdon= &to terrify& in the assa!e is interestin!. .t su!!ests+ in an
o#liDue (ay+ the ver# bregdan &to move to an$ fro+ (eave&. Both ver#s have relate$ nouns6 G8
broga &terror& <more common= an$ brgd+ brgda &fear+ terror& <less common=+ an$ Mo$.8 braid+
resectively. ;o( closely mi!ht these aarently $ifferent roots have #een relate$N
8tymolo!ically+ their association is in$efensi#le? one has a lon! vo(el an$ the other a short one.
This vo(el $istinction is not uniDue to 8n!lish6 G;9 brZgo or M;9 brppgg &terror& a!ainst
G3 brag5 &a su$$en movement&+ G;9 brettan &to seize&. %till+ the associations here ma$e (oul$
in$icate that such semantic $istinctions (oul$ have #een felt to #e much less searate in the earlier
culture than they no( seem. .n$ee$+ G;9 brettan also means &to fri!hten&. That such su$$en+ (eavin!
movement (oul$ #e not only si!nificant #ut terrifyin! in its most o(erful manifestations emer!es
from all of the consi$erations of these essays. 8ven if these ver#s $erive from searate roots+ there
(oul$ have #een some ro#a#le imulse to associate them. 7ith the eventual $isaearance in late Gl$
8n!lish of lon! vo(els in close$ sylla#les+ their association mi!ht have #ecome even more o#vious. .f
(e are $ealin! (ith fol' etymolo!y here+ it is of a most rofoun$ 'in$. -. This $oes not mean that the
9ermanic eoles $i$ not un$erstan$ !eometric relations? in$ee$+ they $i$. They (oul$ not+ ho(ever+
have su#sume$ the !eometric an$ locational asects of the (orl$ of men un$er a sin!le term li'e space.
.n fact+ (e still $o not $o this fully+ in site of our lan!ua!e < Cassirer 19--6 8,-141=. 0. The
translations &then+ thereuon+ (hen+ since+ as& !iven #y Clae#er < 19-46 149-14= are tyical. Choosin!
amon! these has #e$evile$ interreters for years. Because the form e is unchan!in!+ its osition in the
sentence has su!!este$ itself as a factor in $eci$in! uon the choice of then or *hen <i.e. in$een$ent
or su#or$inate mar'er+ resectively=. >or the ossi#ilities an$ $ifficulties of such translations+ see
An$re( < 1914+ 1918= an$ BacDuet < 1902=. 2. &The osition of the conAunction 5gt intro$ucin! a noun-
clause in Gl$ 8n!lish is imortant. The rule is that it al(ays stan$s imme$iately #efore its o(n clause+
so that+ if this is mo$ifie$ #y other+ e.!. a$ver#ial+ clauses+ these are lace$ #efore an$ not+ as in
Mo$ern 8n!lish+ after the conAunction& < An$re( 19186,4=. @ust so? a$ver#ial elements+ rocess-
mo$ifyin! elements+ occur aart from the factual su#stantiation mar'e$ #y edt. 8. Althou!h most of
the activities associate$ (ith halls in the 8$$a are seemin!ly entirely a!an in their nature+ those in Gl$
8n!lish literature have o#vious Christian associations < Taylor 1900=. 7e nee$ thin' only of the central
ima!e of the hall as metahor for the creation in &Cae$mon&s ;ymn& to sense this. To arahrase
7hallon < 190-=+ ho(ever+ the ima!e of the hall as si!nificant structure (oul$ not have su!!este$ itself
for use in structurin! Christian concetions if it ha$ not alrea$y #een i$entifie$ (ith a closely
associate$+ rea$ily un$erstoo$ i$ea #efore the conversion. 9. The concetions hi$$en #ehin$ such
hrases as &over an$ $one (ith& or &asse$ #y& (oul$ not e/ist. %uch hrases $o not occur in the
9ermanic lan!ua!es of this early erio$ an$ (oul$ surely have #een thou!ht of as nonsensical ha$ they
#een uttere$. To the contrary+ the ast is all that is sure+ 'no(a#le+ or 'no(n. 14. This $oes not mean
that the 9ermanic eoles $i$ not un$erstan$ the i$ea of $uration or rec'onin! of times anymore than
that their emhasis on $iscontinuous sace $enie$ their un$erstan$in! of $istance or !eometry. They
simly e/ist in $ifferent realms of e/erience. The flo( of time+ time rec'onin!+ an$ $uration are
un$erstoo$ #y all human cultures < Ma/(ell 1921=. They are freDuently felt+ ho(ever+ to #e searate
henomena not necessarily overlain! < Pococ' 1902=. Time rec'onin! is itself aarently $erivative
of the e/erience of &times& as si!nificant occurrences of the 'in$s $escri#e$ here. The si!nificances+ of
course+ vary. Althou!h time-rec'onin! names soun$ pars pro toto to us no(+ they are aarently+ in
ori!in+ the names of real+ hysical concets $erivin! from si!nificant actions--&lantin!& for srin!+
&harvest& for fall+ etc. < 3ilsson 1924=--#ut these are not unifie$+ an$ $ifferent 'in$s of rec'onin!
systems for $ifferent 'in$s of si!nificant events can coe/ist easily (ith one another (ithin a sin!le
culture < 3ilsson 1924? Malino(s'i 1922=. That the 9ermans ha$ a lunar calen$ar $oes nothin! to
inhi#it the e/erience of si!nificant events accor$in! to other+ $ifferent systems. .t is only in relatively
recent times that $uration <scientific time+ cloc' time= has come to $ominate much of man&s activity.
8ven so+ &a little introsection (ill reveal to any of us that+ so far as his o(n life is concerne$+ time is
not rec'one$ on any scientific or numerical #asis. .t is rec'one$ #y events. Gur lives as (e loo' #ac'
on them are unctuate$ not #y $ates #ut #y salient events in our ersonal history& < )each 19-16 120=.
7e mi!ht a$$ that !eometrical sace is li'e(ise recessive in human e/erience+ as anyone (ill testify
(ho has trie$ to remem#er+ (ithout a !oo$ $eal of o#Aective refi!urin!+ Aust (hat rooms on the secon$
floor of a t(o-story house he 'no(s (ell are over (hat first-floor rooms. 11. All )atin Duotations from
Be$e are ta'en from the )oe# Classical )i#rary e$ition+ Baedae opera historica+ (ith an 8n!lish
translation #y @. 8. Cin! < )on$on6 7illiam ;einemann+ 19,4=. 12. All Gl$ 8n!lish Duotations from
Be$e are ta'en from the e$ition of Thomas Miller + The %ld !nglish )ersion o Bede\s ecclesiastical
history o the !nglish people+ 8arly 8n!lish Te/t %ociety+ 9--90 < )on$on6 3. Tr#ner+ 1894-91=. 1,.
.ts occurrences are freDuent6 beZran &in front of+ (ithin the visi#le resence of&+ Zre &in the resence+ of
anterior time+ formerly&+ etc. All occurrences $eal (ith relationshis resultin! from conrontation in
time an$ sace+ an$ these are no more $istinct in the earlier sta!e of the lan!ua!e than they are in
Mo$.8 beore. The &relational& meanin! (as aarently resent in the .8 root per+ #ut the relations
$erive variously in the $ifferent .n$o-8uroean lan!ua!es. Althou!h the satio-temoral lin' is
o#serva#ly there+ it is not uniformly ast-oriente$ as in the 9ermanic usa!e <e.!. )at. per- &throu!h&+
9'. LWJW- &alon!si$e+ #eyon$&=. The henomenon is not restricte$ to .n$o-8uroean lan!ua!es6 &Tiv
(or$s (hich mi!ht #e translate$ OtimeO can #e #etter an$ more accurately translate$ into 8n!lish
another (ay . . . for e/amle+ the (or$ cha means OfarO an$ is use$ of sace+ of time+ an$ of 'inshi&
< Bohannan 19-,6 2-1=. %uch forms #esea' an anthroocentric+ unifie$ un$erstan$in! of #oth time
an$ sace. 11. This lac' of finality !ives to the events of 5a!nar' a Duality that is essentially $ifferent
from anythin! in Christian eschatolo!y+ in site of the fact that some of the events recounte$ in 0lusp1
seem aocalytic <in the Christian sense=. >or further comment+ see essay 1+ n. 2,+ an$ essay ,+ n. 12.
1-. All Duotations from Au!ustine 'onessions are ta'en from the )oe# Classical )i#rary e$ition+ "aint
Augustine\s 'onessions+ (ith an 8n!lish translation #y 7illiam 7atts + 2 vols. < )on$on6 7illiam
;einemann+ 1912=. 10. All Duotations from The 'ity o God are ta'en from the )oe# Classical )i#rary
e$ition+ "aint Augustine$ the 'ity o God against the pagans+ vol. 1+ (ith an 8n!lish translation #y
Phili )evine < )on$on6 7illiam ;einemann+ 1900=. 12. The analo!y has the sarro( fly into a (arm
hall from (inter outsi$e. The
emhasis uon the $esira#le (armth of the enclosure an$ the $irection into it are surely 9ermanic
elements. The e/tension of the analo!y an$+ in$ee$+ its main orientation are Christian. The fli!ht
as it is $escri#e$ is triartite6 fli!ht into+ fli!ht insi$e+ fli!ht out. .t seems clear that+ if such an
analo!y (as ma$e at the time of conversion+ it (oul$ not have #een fi!ure$ in e/actly the terms in
(hich it (as reorte$ to an$ #y Be$e. The )atin is in Be$e ..+ 1,6 282-81? the Gl$ 8n!lish is in
Be$e ..+ 14 E 1,F6 1,1-,0.
18. The translation is not entirely a$eDuate+ #ut it $oes confirm the relationshi #et(een Christ an$
Urth&s 7ell+ (hich is its urose here. Anyone (ho has trie$ (ill have $iscovere$ that translatin!
s'al$ic verse clearly an$ fully is virtually imossi#le. .t is har$+ for e/amle+ to 'no( the e/act
function of the setberg &sitmountain&+ &sa$$le#ac' hill& in the conte/t. .t is no( !enerally ta'en to
#e the eDuivalent of dfmsta5 &tri#unal& <literally+ &Au$!in! lace&=+ (hich is else(here associate$
(ith Urth&s 7ell < Gylaginning 1-6 ,1=. .n this case+ Christ no( sits in Au$!ment setbergs banda
&in the Au$!in! lace of the !o$s&. Gne may construe banda (ith lndum+ ho(ever+ an$ !et &in the
lan$s of the !o$s&. Thus+ (e must choose+ in translatin!+ either the former--&in the Au$!in! lace of
the !o$s . . . throu!hout EallF lan$s&+ or somethin! li'e it--or the latter--&in the Au$!in! lace . . . in
the lan$s of the !o$s& < )an!e 19026 2,1? 7e#er 1924? >ran' 19286 118-19=. These rea$in!s
i!nore the ossi#ility that banda mi!ht #e construe$ (ith Rfms &of the !o$s of 5ome& so that the
reference to Christ #ecomes &Cin! of the !o$s of 5ome&. ;e mi!ht also #e the conungr . . .
setbergs &Cin! of the Au$!in! lace&. 3or $o these e/amles e/haust the ossi#ilities. This says
nothin! of the ro#lems (e no( face (ith the homonymy manifest in her <&he has& versus &he
lifts&= an$ the ossi#ility that rem5an mi!ht #e a articile of #oth remma &to ma'e stron!& an$ of
hremma &to clutch& <(ith the loss of the initial asiration=+ a henomenon not (i$esrea$ #ut also
not un'no(n in Gl$ 3orse. Because etymolo!ical variants of hremma are use$ in other 9ermanic
lan!ua!es to ma'e reference to the Crucifi/ion < Cleas#y et al. 19-26 28,=+ it is not imossi#le that
the te/t is su!!estin! simultaneously+ in her. . . rem5an. . . si++ that &he has ma$e himself stron!&
an$ &he raises himself crucifie$&. But these are our ro#lems+ not the te/t&s.
19. >or a clear+ illuminatin! account of the ro#lems inherent in reconcilin! *yrd (ith Christian
#eliefs+ see Payne < 19086 28-148=+ (here the occurrence of the term <an$ others relate$ to it= are
e/amine$ in Cin! Alfre$&s Gl$ 8n!lish version of Boethius 'onsolation o -hilosophy.
& *anguage
1. )ehmann+ (ho is committe$ to an .8 asectual ver#al system+ $enies any si!nificant systematic
value to the .8 aorist6 &As is commonly assume$ in .8 stu$ies+ an aorist shoul$ not #e osite$ for
EPrimitive .n$o-8uroeanF as a searate ver#al cate!ory comara#le to the aorists of %ans'rit an$
9ree'. The aorist forms in these $ialects have simly $eveloe$ from P.8 roots (ith unctual
meanin!. A characteristic shae of the root is in zero !ra$e+ as of *id- for the e/ten$e$ root *eyd-
. %uffi/e$ only (ith secon$ary en$in!s+ the ver# forms #uilt on such roots ha$ unctual+
erfective meanin!& < )ehmann 19216 111=. .f this is so+ the o-

osition resent6 aorist is Aust a variation of resent6 erfect+ #ut see+ #elo(+ )ehmann&s ar!ument
for the $istinctions of the oosition aorist6 erfect. %ee also n. 0+ #elo(.
2. Usually .8 aorist forms evolve into &ast& tense forms+ reresentin! time anterior. The .8 s-aorist
can #e lin'e$+ ho(ever+ (ith the -syo- $esi$erative suffi/ as a ossi#le source of some future
tense forms <e.!. in Baltic= in -s- < Bru!mann 189-6 189-244? ,0--00=+ thus ossi#ly rovi$in! a
reresentation of time osterior.
,. This is in some oosition to the statements of )ehmann+ (ho sees the nature of the aorist as one
of unctuality or momentariness < 19216 111=. .f erfects are neither unctual nor momentary+
then they contrast (ith aorists in Aust these t(o (ays. As &unctual& has #een $efine$ here+
ho(ever+ i.e. as action (ithin limits+ there is no oosition #et(een aorist an$ erfect on this
oint. 7ith resect to the element of momentariness+ it is $ifficult to $efine this as essentially
$istinct from unctuality (ithout intro$ucin! the i$ea of $uration+ (hich+ aarently+ aorists lac'.
.f+ on the other han$+ aorists are uniDuely temoral in their semantic nature+ then they (oul$
contrast (ith the more asectual nature of erfects. This seems an even less $esira#le $istinction.
1. As in the cases consi$ere$ a#ove+ the use of such notations as <no*= or <nonpast= must #e rea$ as
a 'in$ of shorthan$ for all of the relational Dualities that a restrictin! mar' #rin!s to its
occurrences. Thus+ <no*= ma'es reference to all asects of &resent-tense&-mar'e$ forms. .t shoul$
not #e rea$ to mean &resent time& or &imme$iate conte/t& or (hatever. .t merely enco$es in a
convenient+ short form all the elements inherent in 9ermanic concetion--lan!ua!e+ time+ sace+
etc.--that $elimit the (orl$ of the tree as it stan$s in oosition to all of reality #eyon$ it. As such+
it is neither a temoral nor an asectual mar'? its nature ma'es it useful in reference to #oth--an$
more.
-. There is also the ossi#ility that a !oo$ $eal of this chan!e too' lace #ecause of a refocusin! of
the ori!inal .8 ver#al system uon temoral matters < )ehmann 1912+ 191,a+ 19216 111=. There is
no Duestion a#out the imortance of the relationshi of the 9ermanic temoral scheme to the
#inary tense system+ yet it seems unli'ely that the 9ermanic ver#al system can #e accounte$ for
urely on temoral terms. >or a more $etaile$ account of some of the comlications $erivin! from
the interrelation of temoral an$ asectual matters+ see Curyo(icz < 19016 94-1,-=.
0. .t is ossi#le that the seDuence of chan!es rather va!uely an$ tentatively outline$ in the te/t a#ove
is simler than the one su!!este$. >irst+ as )ehmann < 19216 111= has note$+ the aorist may #e not
a formal or functional cate!ory of the .8 arent lan!ua!e <see a#ove+ n. 1= #ut a secon$ary+ later
form $erive$ from &resent& stems. This (oul$ leave the .8 arent lan!ua!e (ith an oerative
oosition only of resent6 erfect. )i'e(ise+ it has #een ar!ue$ that the reterite of the 9ermanic
stron! ver# itself can #e $erive$ solely from .8 erfect stems < PolomM 1901=. .f #oth of these
ositions are accete$+ then it is Duite ossi#le that the $eveloment of the 9ermanic reterite is
much simler than has #een ar!ue$ here. The 9ermanic reterite (oul$ $evelo only from the
formal oosition of resent6 erfect. >unctionally+ the Dualities of <ully realiled an$ impinging=
e/resse$ #y erfects (oul$ #e the main source of the semantic
elements of the $eveloin! reterite <there (oul$ #e no <other= element associate$ (ith the oosition
resent6 aorist at all=. Thus+ the rather comlicate$ scheme of the collase of the three-(ay oosition
rovi$e$ #y an .8 lan!ua!e (ith aorist+ resent+ an$ erfect forms (oul$ not nee$ to occur at all. .n
such a case+ the 9ermanic lan!ua!es never (ent throu!h the chan!es note$ in %ans'rit+ 9ree'+ an$
)atin. The &9ermanic& $eveloment+ then+ (oul$ #e essentially a lac' of a$$in! comlications rather
than a rocess of simlifyin! an alrea$y more comlicate$ arent lan!ua!e. There is a !oo$ $eal no(
to recommen$ this $eveloment? recent investi!ations into the nature of ;ittite an$ its relationshi to
other .8 lan!ua!es suort the simler mo$el for the .8 arent lan!ua!e. %ee PolomM < 1928-29+ 1929=
for the ar!uments an$ relevant #i#lio!rahy.
This simler $eveloment (oul$ not affect the ar!ument resente$ in this essay in a serious (ay. The
9ermanic reterite (oul$ lac' any effective semantic Duality for &otherness& or &remoteness&+ (hich the
oosition of resent6 aorist shoul$ have lent it. )i'e(ise+ it (oul$ e/ress much more forcefully the
<impinging an$ ully realiled= Duality associate$ (ith the erfect. This (oul$ ma'e the &feelin!& of such
a reterite less remote an$ more $irectly resent in the reality the lan!ua!e $enotes than the ar!ument
here resente$ has asserte$. >or the !reater art+ such a $eveloment for the 9ermanic reterite (oul$
rovi$e an even stron!er case than the one here ma$e. .n the same (ay+ the ar!ument+ follo(in! in the
te/t+ for the loss of .8 me$io-assives in 9ermanic (oul$ nee$ to #e refi!ure$ as an ar!ument for the
lac' of $eveloment of such forms. The &me$iatin!& Duality of me$io-assives (oul$ never fully
$evelo a meanin!ful oosition (ith the &imin!in!& Duality of the erfect in any 9ermanic lan!ua!e.
The eventual $ecay of the fe( forms in 9othic (oul$+ ho(ever+ follo( essentially the same attern as
that !iven in the te/t.
2. This+ unfortunately+ $oes not tell us much that is si!nificant a#out the relative chronolo!y of the
chan!es in the evolvin! 9ermanic ver#al system. .t $oes+ ho(ever+ seem that such a movement of
erfect to resent (oul$ #e accommo$ate$ #y an unmar'e$ resent more easily than if the occurrences
of resent-mar'e$ forms (ere hi!hly restricte$. %till+ the semantic nature of the restricte$ resent is
ro#a#ly close enou!h to that of such chan!in! erfects to accommo$ate the mer!er. 8. .n fi!ures+ the
resence of a #efore a arenthesis in$icates the resence of the arenthetical element? a in$icates
that the arenthetical mar' is a#sent+ leavin! the sace unmar'e$ for this element. 9. . i!nore here the
later formation of the morholo!ical -s+ assives in the 3orth 9ermanic lan!ua!es. 14. The G8
infinitive correson$in! to 9oth. *isan is beon &#e&? its ara$i!m is mi/e$ in the lan!ua!e (ith the
forms *ds &(as& an$ *dron &(ere&+ etymolo!ical relatives of 9oth. *isan+ as art of it. .n (hat follo(s+
unless other(ise secifie$+ the 9oth. forms *isan an$ *airean (ill #e re!ularly use$ !enerically to
refer to all instances of forms li'e &#e& that are relate$ syntactically an$ ara$i!matically to these ver#s+
(hether these are etymolo!ical or not. 11. %treit#er!&s fi!ures have #een challen!e$ #y Polla' < 1901=.
7ith resect to the translation of 9'. finite erfect assives+ Polla'&s recountin! of translations into the
9oth. in$icative ro$uce$ a total of seventy-four 9oth. constructions (ith au/iliaries6 si/ty-seven (ith
ist an$ the articile+ t(o (ith *as an$ articile+ an$ five (ith *arp an$ articile < 19016 ,0=. Thus+
there are consi$era#ly fe(er reterite forms of *isan than %treit#er! foun$. The $ifficulties of
accountin! for such translations are many. 3ot all of the 9'. assive constructions+ for e/ amle+ are
ren$ere$ as assives in 9othic? some 9'. assives are ren$ere$ as 9oth. resent me$io-assives. 3ot
all &erfect& constructions in 9ree' are finite erfect formations? the construction (ith : an$ a
articile is not uncommon+ etc. *een$in! uon ho( many or ho( fe( of these are counte$+ the totals
(ill vary. %till+ the $isaearance of forty of %treit#er!&s *as articile constructions is a serious
variation. Polla' fi!ures < 19016 11=+ arallelin! %treit#er!&s for the 9osel accor$in! to %aint
)u'eonly+ are as follo(s6
*airean *isan
9ree' ren$ere$ as 9othic (ar <only= (as ist
aorist in$icative assive 12 - 0
imerfect in$icative assive 1 8 --
luerfect in$icative assive -- 2 --
: articile -- 2 --
erfect in$icative assive -- -- 11
8/cet for the $isaearance of *as articile as a translation of the 9'. erfect in$icative assive+
the attern is much li'e %treit#er!&s.
.t can #e seen imme$iately that the fi!ures !iven here $iffer from those of fi!ure -+ in (hich the
*airpan an$ ast articiles ma'e u aro/imately 28 ercent of the total <2- ercent #y Polla'&s
fi!ures? see a#ove+ n. 11=. This may #e $ue to at least t(o factors6 first+ %treit#er! counts only those
9othic constructions that can #e trace$ to inflecte$ assives in the 9ree' ori!inal? any a$$itional
constructions not so tracea#le (oul$ not #e counte$. %econ$+ Mittner is countin! only those 9othic
constructions that seem to #e &erfective&+ a $ifficult tas' at #est. Althou!h . have ma$e !reat use of
Mittner&s #oo' here+ . am not in comlete a!reement (ith his osition. ;e laces+ as $o many other
commentators+ *yrd in an almost entirely antithetical an$ hostile osition to the affairs of men? he
stresses its relation to $estruction an$ $eath. . cannot $eny this? it surely has this function. .t is not the
(hole case+ ho(ever+ an$ to i!nore the ositive+ !enerative asect of *yrd is to s'e( if not (ar the
full role it lays in the 9ermanic cosmos. As Beo*ul tells us6 &7yr$ oft nereSunf!ne eorl+ Honne his
ellen $ah& <-22-2,=. This is *yrd not merely (ithhol$in! its $estructive han$ #ut actin! ositively
throu!h the stren!th an$ valor of a !reat man. )i'e(ise+ (e (oul$ $o 9o$ a $isservice to !rant him his
*elu!e an$ $eny him his 5ain#o(. .f this is the case+ occurrences of *airean an$ the ast articile
#rin! to their conte/ts semantic elements a$$itional to those resent in constructions (ith *isan an$
the ast articile. These are not unrelate$ to Duestions of ver#al &asect& an$ its ossi#le resence in
early 9ermanic lan!ua!es. As a matter of fact+ Polla' < 19016 ---04= has foun$ in 9othic an interestin!
correlation #et(een the conte/ts (here *airean occurs an$ those (here ver#al forms refi/e$ (ith ga-
are resent. Both are relatively freDuent in translations of 9'. aorist conte/ts. 7hat the nature of this
&asect& may have #een is unclear+ an$ there is not much evi$ence for it outsi$e 9othic. %ome have
ar!ue$ that it is li'e the erfective6 imerfective oosition of %lavic < %treit#er! 1940? %enn 1919=?
others ar!ue a!ainst it < %cherer 19-1=. 5e!ar$less+ the many cases in 9othic of ver#al airs+ ga-
refi/e$ versus unrefi/e$+ ar!ue that at some time some 'in$ of meanin!ful oosition #et(een these
forms must have o#taine$. 1-. The relationshis amon! .8 lan!ua!es locate$ in 8uroe have rovi$e$
scholars (ith a fertile fiel$ of e/loration ever since the formulation of the .8 family. Most of these
relationshis have #een evolve$ from honolo!ical an$ le/ical correson$ences amon! the various
lan!ua!es+ an$ oinions a#out their relationshis have varie$ !reatly (ith time. The earliest
concetions foun$ Baltic an$ %lavic <satem lan!ua!es= si!nificantly oose$ to .talic+ Celtic+ an$
9ermanic <centum lan!ua!es=. By the en$ of the nineteenth century+ le/ical an$ !rammatical <e.!. the
$ative inflection in -m= correson$ences su!!este$ a closer relation #et(een 9ermanic an$ Balto-
%lavic than ha$ #een aarent earlier. 9ermanic (as seen to #e more &8astern& than ori!inally
conceive$+ an$ .talic an$ Celtic (ere envisione$ as more &7estern&. After 1948+ (hen Meillet < 1902=
(as first u#lishe$+ the i$ea of an .talo-Celtic unity+ much li'e that of Balto-%lavic+ !aine$ currency.
9ermanic+ then+ #e!an to lay an imortant role in the attemts to fi/ chronolo!ically the slit of the
aarent .talo-Celtic unity into its t(o atteste$+ searate lan!ua!e !rous. 8arlier oinion lace$
9ermanic in an imortant relation (ith the .talic su#!rou < Porzi! 19-1=+ #ut there are also imortant
le/ical relationshis eculiar to 9ermanic an$ Celtic < ;u#ert 19,26 20-8,? Porzi! 19-1? Crahe 19-1=.
As a result of all of this investi!ation+ evi$ence accumulate$ that an .talo-Celtic unity+ oosin! it to
the other .8 $ialects+ (as unli'ely an$ that all of the relationshis amon! lan!ua!es (ere far more
comlicate$ than ori!inally anticiate$. Most recently+ there has #een rene(e$ interest in the
relationshi of the Baltic an$ %lavic lan!ua!es to 9ermanic an$ in esta#lishin! the vali$ity of the
le/ical iso!losses amon! these an$ in classifyin! the time--$eth relationshis <esecially of le/ical
#orro(in!= that+ as yet+ are not clearly or accurately 'no(n < Chemo$anov 1902=. The rocess of
classification continues. >or a more comlete+ $ocumente$ account of the history of this research+ see
PolomM < 1924a+ 1924c=+ from (hich much of the attenuate$ account a#ove has #een $ra(n. 10. .n
a$$ition to the aorist+ 9ree' has an evolve$ imerfect+ for e/amle. The aorist an$ imerfect are in
oosition in their reference to events in the ast. Thus+ the nature of the oosition resent6 aorist has
chan!e$+ an$+ if nothin! more+ it has ta'en on a temoral element? most simly+ this (oul$ su!!est that
the &otherness& of the aorist has #ecome further secifie$ as &otherness of the ast&. This is not entirely
the case+ ho(ever. .n !eneral+ commentators have foun$ that+ (ith resect to events in the ast+ the
imerfect form e/resses &$irectness an$ vivi$ness6 it #rin!s the event #efore the eyes in ro!ress . . .
The aorist+ on the other han$+ contains a colourless reference to the event as a unit of history& < Palmer
19-16 200=. This &colorlessness& of the aorist (oul$ su!!est an even further re$uction of its essential
semantic nature. Palmer&s comment is a tyical one. *iver < 1909=+ ho(ever+ in his analysis of ;omeric
narrative+ has foun$ Aust the oosite to #e the case. The active aorist is foun$ to #e the form re!ularly
use$ to re$icate the more central+ most relevant events of the narrative+ an$ the imerfect occurs in
actions e/ressive of less relevant+ eriheral activity. This su!!ests an entirely $ifferent semantic
character for the aorist. 7hen (e recall the 9othic translation of the Bi#le+ $iscusse$ a#ove+ it (as in
&aorist& conte/ts in (hich not only the *airean assive occurre$ #ut also the ga- refi/e$ ver# forms?
#oth of these are semantically comle/ 9ermanic con structions. Perhas our accete$ e/lanations of
the 9'. aorist nee$ reconsi$eration. 12. 3ot all )at. erfects $erive from the mer!er of .8 erfect an$
aorist+ )at. re$ulicate$ erfects <e.!. ce-cin+ pe-pul= are .8 erfect in ori!in. Those (ith vo(el
len!thenin! <e.!. )ni+ lgi= are either erfect or aorist in ori!in? the tye is uncertain. The erfect in
-si is from the s-aorist <e.!. d ( + cleps=. Perfects in -)i or -ui <e.!. l)+ monu= are uniDue to )atin an$
are not foun$ in Gscan or Um#rian+ (hich also mer!e aorist an$ erfect forms < Buc' 19,,6 291-9-=. .n
9ermanic+ it (as only the reterites of stron! ver#s that $erive$ from the mer!er of the .8 aorist an$
erfect forms. 9ree'+ too+ (hich ha$ maintaine$ somethin! of the .8 erfect6 aorist oosition+ has
erfects <e.!. the +-erfect= that $o not $erive from .8 erfects. 18. These imerfects occur re!ularly in
the Celtic lan!ua!es an$ have a variety of functions6 customary or reeate$ action in .rish? in 7elsh
an$ Cornish+ con$itional action < )e(is an$ Pe$ersen 19,26 208=. A$$itionally+ 7elsh has a luerfect
form+ (hich is+ li'e the imerfect+ con$itional <&(oul$ have&+ &coul$ have&= in function < @ones 191,6
,10=. 19. Another (ay in (hich the Celtic <.rish=+ .talic <)atin=+ an$ 9ree' ver#al systems $iffer from
the 9ermanic lies in their maintenance an$ a$atation of the .8 me$io-assive voice+ (hich+ amon! the
9ermanic lan!ua!es+ (as reserve$ only #y 9othic+ (here+ as (e have seen+ it (as in the rocess of
$isaearance. The .8 me$io-assive &is reresente$ #y the E9'.F an$ E%'t.F mi$$le+ a tye common to
9ree' an$ .n$o-.ranian& < Buc' 19,,6 2,2=. The .talic an$ Celtic $eonentassive $erivin! from &a
system of -r- forms (ith mi$$le or assive meanin! is foun$ in .talic+ in Phry!ian+ in ;ittite an$ in
To'harian. The -r- element is in some cases clearly a$$e$ to ver#al forms i$entical (ith the mi$$le
forms 'no(n from E9ree'F an$ E%ans'ritF& < )e(is an$ Pe$ersen 19,26 ,14=. The Celtic lan!ua!es have
a further-$eveloe$ $istinction of active6 assive an$ active6 mi$$le+ althou!h it is not maintaine$
throu!hout the entire conAu!ation of the ver#. This &$istinction #et(een assive an$ mi$$le forms is a
Celtic eculiarity not share$ #y )atin+ ;ittite an$ To'harian <the -r- forms of the Celtic assive are
i$entical (ith ;ittite mi$$le forms? (ith E.rishF -berar+ -carthar (e may comare ;ittite e-a-ri Ohe
sitsO+ i-ia-at-ta-ri Ohe !oesO+ stem e-+ i-ia-=& < )e(is an$ Pe$ersen 19,26 ,14=. 3o(here in the
9ermanic ver#al system is there any lon!er evi$ence of a formal oosition of active to assive or
active to mi$$le. 24. .n 7elsh+ &the res. in$. is often future in meanin! . . . or$inarily the resent
meanin! is e/resse$ erihrastically& < @ones 191,6,1-=. .n Breton+ &it is the res. su#Aunctive that has
a fut. meanin!& < )e(is an$ Pe$ersen 19,26 208=.
Thus+ .rish aro/imates somethin! li'e )atin&s temoral structure? the Brythonic lan!ua!es are
more li'e the 9ermanic !rou in their lac' of $istinct forms for future time+ #ut their reterite
structure is entirely $ifferent.
21. These forms rovi$e the re!ular e/ression of futures in )ithuanian an$ )atvian. .n Prussian+
there is only one e/tant ure s-future form+ postsei &#ecome&. The re!ular e/ression of future in
Prussian+ much influence$ #y 9erman+ is ma$e #y the au/iliary * rst an$ a follo(in! infinitive
or active articile < %tan! 19126 242-1=.
22. %ee also 5e!nMll < 19116 89-98=. This is still the case for the e/ression of future time erfective
in Mo$ern 5ussian. .n Gl$ Church %lavonic+ future time (as freDuently e/resse$ erihrastically
(ith resent forms of the ver# (otti &to (ant& or &to #e!in& an$ an infinitive. There (ere
secial forms <as in bdotb &Elit.F they are&= for the future of &to #e& < )unt 190-6 1,-=. This
un$erlies 5us. budu, bud\esh\ . . .+ (hich+ in conAunction (ith the infinitive of imerfective ver#s+
no( e/ress future time imerfective.
2,. The 3orth 9ermanic lan!ua!es $eveloe$ an infinitive that (as secifically &reterite& in its
nature. .t is &i$entical in form (ith the , l. ret. in$. The au/iliaries s+yldo, mondo, )ildo are
esecially freDuent as su#stitutes for the future after a reterit in the rincial clause6 hann +ual+
<] +uae-si+= +oma mondo Ohe sai$+ he inten$e$ to come+ he (oul$ comeO < Pro'osch 19,96 24-=.
&.n or$inary rose use occurre$ t(o ast infinitives? mundu an$ s+yldu. .n oetry occurre$ other
ast infins.+ #ut (ith the e/cetion of +n1ttu+ they (ere not freDuent& < 9or$on 19-26 ,11=.
21. >or further information on the mo$al au/iliary systems of Mo$ern 8n!lish+ an$ a#out mo$ality in
!eneral+ see @oos < 1901=+ *iver < 1901=+ T(a$$ell < 190-=+ an$ 8hrman < 1900=. >or earlier sta!es
of the lan!ua!e+ see MustanoAa < 1904= an$ Tellier < 1902=.
2-. Concernin! M8 mun+ (hich has come to mean either &must& or &may& in Mo$.8 $ialects+ the G8*
su!!ests that &the rehistoric sense (as $ou#tless Oto inten$O <E.8F root men-$ mon-$ mn-to thin' . .
.=? EGl$ 3orseF has a sli!htly $ifferentiate$ form <inf. mona, muna= (ith the sense Oto remem#erO&.
%ee also Ta#le 1+ herein+ on the reterite-resent ver#s.
20. .t is imortant to 'ee in min$ that in most 9ermanic lan!ua!es ver#s of remem#erin! are
imersonal in nature <e.!. 9er. sich erinnern? *utch lich herinneren? %(e$. minnas, erinra sig?
9oth. andeag+ran si+=. .t is as if such activity (ere occurrin! (ithout the a!ency of the
remem#erer? if this (as initially so+ the lin' #et(een volition+ intention+ remem#erin!+ an$ the
activity of the ast is even stron!er. This articular henomenon is not uniDue to the 9ermanic
lan!ua!es <e.!. )at. recordr+ >rench se rappeler=. %ee Buc' < 19196 1228-,4=.
22. The construction is not limite$ to 7est 9ermanic? there is &ein sel#stKn$i!es Beisiel im 9ot.6 @oh.
10+ 24 saurgandans *aireieiBmltlmr194h0
28. &The counterart of the inf.+ (hich is #y its ori!in a ver#al a#stract noun+ is the articile+ !oin! as
a rule #ac' to a ver#al a$Aective . . . The result of the $eveloment )erbal adr. part. is the same
as in the case of the inf.6 a $erivative is incororate$ into the inflectional system of the #asic ver#&
< Curyo(icz 19016 102=. .8 forms in -nt- un$erlie the 9ermanic &resent& articiles < Bru!mann
18916,91-141=. 7hether the resent an$ ast articiles (ere ori!inally $ifferentiate$ in function in
.n$o-8uroean or $ifferent inflectional ara$i!ms of the same ver#al a$Aective is unclear <see
Curyo(icz 19016 100-09=.
(omething +ore
1. The term nineteenth century is not to #e ta'en as e/ressin! only that time erio$ runnin! from
A.*. 1844 to A.*. 1899+ nor are the terms Middle Ages an$ Renaissance similarly time-#oun$.
They are use$ merely to co$e $ominant atterns or ha#its of min$. .n this sense+ (e shoul$ #e
a(are that there are still eole+ alive an$ (ell in our o(n $ay+ livin! in the Mi$$le A!es. More
are livin! in the 5enaissance+ an$ ro#a#ly the maAority of us still live in this nineteenth-century
(orl$ in site of the fact that (hat (ill later #e calle$ the t(entieth century is no( !reatly
reconfi!urin! the nineteenth. 7e shoul$ #e a(are also that in none of these &erio$s& are the
$ominant or $efinin! characteristics+ as it (ere+ alone. As essay 1 has ma$e clear+ Au!ustine&s
articulation of the $ominant ercetual structure of the Mi$$le A!es (as formulate$ in clear
oosition to other atterns of ercetion that+ in his time+ offere$ serious an$ si!nificant
cometition to (hat (e no( see as an essentially Christian mo$e of thin'in!. The elements of
(hat . am callin! here the nineteenth century o#viously #e!in much earlier in our history than
A.*. 1844+ #ut they $o seem to have reache$ their most (i$esrea$ an$ $ominant shae
follo(in! that $ate.
2. This re$uctive statement+ as oular for us as &ro!ress& (as for the nineteenth century+ is not so
simle-min$e$ as some of us mi!ht #e+ erhas+ incline$ to thin'. 3o one (ho has listene$ even
to only the first t(o hours of any resentation #y 5. Buc'minster >uller can fail to have some+ if
not all+ of his $ou#ts remove$.
,. ;ere+ erhas+ (e can o#serve one of the (ays in (hich (ritten lan!ua!e $iffers !reatly from the
so'en an$ insists uon its o(n ermanence in its aarent oosition to the ehemeral resent.
There is+ as *erri$a < 1902+ 192,= has ointe$ out+ in 7estern alha#etic (ritin!+ a reification of
the (hole i$ea of $irectional linearity.
$e"erences Cited
.n the (ritin! of the rece$in! essays consi$era#le use has #een ma$e of the %(ord !nglish
&ictionary < %!&= an$ Bos*orth and Toller\s Anglo-"a(on &ictionary. Both are re!ularly utilize$
(ithout citation. Gther $ictionaries an$ source #oo's are note$ #elo(. Primary te/tual sources are cite$
#y their author or #y their title if they are anonymous. Translations of such te/ts are cite$ #y the name
of the translator. <>ull #i#lio!rahical material a#out such te/ts is !iven in the notes to the in$ivi$ual
essays after the first utilization of each te/t.=
A$am von Bremen. 1912. /amburgische circhengeschichte+ e$. #y Bernhar$ %chmei$ler . ,r$ e$.
;anover an$ )eizi!6 ;ahnsche Buchhan$lun!.
An$erson @. 9. C. <e$.=. 19,8. 'ornelii Taciti de origine et situ germanorum. G/for$6 Claren$on
Press.
An$re( %amuel G!$en. 1914. "ynta( and style in %ld !nglish. Cam#ri$!e6 Cam#ri$!e University
Press.
------. 1918. -ostscript on Beo*ul. Cam#ri$!e6 Cam#ri$!e University Press.
Anglo-"a(on 'hronicle. 1892+ 1899. T(o of the %a/on chronicles arallel . . . + e$. #y Charles
Plummer an$ @ohn 8arle. 2 vols. G/for$6 Claren$on Press.
Au!ustinus Aurelius+ %aint+ Bisho of ;io. 1912. "t. Augustine\s conessions+ (ith an 8n!lish
translation #y 7illiam 7atts. 2 vols. )on$on6 7illiam ;einemann.
------. 1900. The city o God against the pagans. Bol. 1 <Boo's z..-zB=+ (ith an 8n!lish
translation #y Phili )evine. )on$on6 7illiam ;einemann.
BacDuet Paul. 1902. La structure de la phrase )erbale l\npo[ue alrndienne. <Pu#lications $e la
facultM $es lettres $e l&universitM $e %tras#our!+ 11-.= Paris6 %ociMtM $&M$itions? les #elles lettres.
Bair$ @oseh ). 1924. 4nerth the eyle. Medium )um ,9.1-12.
Be$e. 1894-91. The %ld !nglish )ersion o Bede\s ecclesiastical history o the !nglish people+ e$.
#y Thomas Miller. <8arly 8n!lish te/t society+ 9--90.= )on$on6 3. Tr#ner.
------. 19,4. Baedae opera historica+ (ith an 8n!lish translation #y @. 8. Cin!. 2 vols. )on$on6
7illiam ;einemann.
Beha!hel Gtto. 1921. &eutsche "ynta($ eine geschichtliche &arstellung. Bol. 2. ;ei$el#er!6 Carl
7inter.
Behm-Blanc'e 9nter. 190-. &as germanische Tier+nochenoper und sein 4r-srun!.
srun!. Ausgrabungen und .unde 14.2,,-,9. Bello(s ;enry A$ams <trans.=. 1920. The -oetic !dda.
3e( :or'6 American-%can$inavian >oun$ation. Benveniste 8mile. 19,-. %rigines de la ormation des
noms en indo-europnen. Paris6 )i#rairie A$rien-maisonneuve. ------. 1918. #om d\agent et noms
d\action en indo-europnen. Paris6 A$rienmaisonneuve. ------. 1909. Le )ocabulaire des institutions
indo-europnennes. 2 vols. Paris6 )es 8$itions $e Minuit. Beo*ul and the ight at .innsburg. 19-4. 8$.
#y >r. Clae#er. ,r$ e$. Boston6 *. C. ;eath. Bianchi U!o. 19-,. =7 G< :<a
uomini e di)init nell\ epos, nelle teogonie e nel culto dei Greci. <%tu$i u##licati $ell& istituto italiano
er la storia antica+ 11.= 5ome6 An!elo %i!norelli. Bloch 5aymon$. 19-8. The !truscans+ trans. #y
%tuart ;oo$. < Ancient peoples and places+ 2.= 3e( :or'6 Prae!er. ------. 1904. The origins o Rome+
trans. #y Mar!aret %henfiel$. < Ancient peoples and places+ 1-.= )on$on6 Thames an$ ;u$son.
Bohannan Paul. 19-,. 'oncepts o time among the Ti) o #igeria. "outh*estern rournal o
anthropology 9.2-1-02. Bran$on %. 9. >. 190-. /istory, time and deity. Manchester6 Manchester
University Press. Branston Brian. 19-2. The lost gods o !ngland. )on$on6 Thames an$ ;u$son.
Braune 7ilhelm. 1911. Althochdeutsche Grammati+. 1th e$. ;alle6 Ma/ 3eimeyer. Bro$eur Arthur
9ilchrist <trans.=. 1929. The -rose !dda by "norri "turluson. 3e( :or'6 American-%can$inavian
>oun$ation. ------. 1909. The art o Beo*ul. Ber'eley an$ )os An!eles6 University of California Press.
BrWn$ste$ @ohannes. 190-. The 0i+ings+ trans. #y Calle %'ov. Baltimore6 Pen!uin Boo's. Bruce-
Mitfor$ 5uert ). %. 19-2. The "utton /oo ship-burial$ recent theories and some comments on general
interpretation. -roceedings o the "uol+ Institute o Archaeology and #atural /istory 2-.1-28. ------.
1922. The "utton /oo ship-burial6 a han$#oo'. 2n$ e$. )on$on6 Trustees of the British Museum. ------.
1921. Aspects o Anglo-"a(on archaeology$ "utton /oo and other disco)eries. 3e( :or'6 ;arer.
------. 192-. The "utton /oo ship-burial. Bol. 16 e/cavations+ #ac'!roun$+ the shi+ $atin! an$
inventory. )on$on6 Trustees of the British Museum. Bru!mann Carl. 1891. A comparati)e grammar o
the lndo-Germanic languages+ trans. #y 5. %eymour Con(ay an$ 7. ;. *. 5ouse. Bol. 26 morholo!y+
art 1 <stem-formation an$ infle/ion=. 3e( :or'6 B. 7estermann. ------. 189-. A comparati)e
grammar o the Indo-Germanic languages+ trans. #y 5. %eymour Con(ay an$ 7. ;. *. 5ouse. Bol. 16
morholo!y+ art , <ver#s6 formation of the stem+ an$ infle/ion or conAu!ation=. 3e( :or'6 B.
7estermann.
Buc' Carl
*arlin!. 19,,.
'omparati)e
grammar o
Gree+ and
Latin. Chica!o6
University of
Chica!o Press.
------. 1919. A
dictionary o
selected
synonyms in the
principal Indo-
!uropean
languages.
Chica!o6
University of
Chica!o Press.
Caesar C.
@ulius. 1898. '.
Iuli 'aesaris
belli gallici$
libri 0II cum A.
/irti libro
octa)o+ e$. #y
Bernar$us
*inter. )eizi!6
B. 9. T#ner.
Cahen Maurice.
1921. !tudes
sur le
)ocabulaire
religieu( du
0ieu(-
"candina)e$ la
libation. w
'ollection
linguisti[ue
publine par la
"ocintn de
Linguisti[ue de
-aris, z.{
-aris$ !douard
'hampion.
Cam#ell A.
19-9. %ld
!nglish
grammar.
G/for$6
Claren$on
Buc' Carl
*arlin!. 19,,.
'omparati)e
grammar o
Gree+ and
Latin. Chica!o6
University of
Chica!o Press.
------. 1919. A
dictionary o
selected
synonyms in the
principal Indo-
!uropean
languages.
Chica!o6
University of
Chica!o Press.
Caesar C.
@ulius. 1898. '.
Iuli 'aesaris
belli gallici$
libri 0II cum A.
/irti libro
octa)o+ e$. #y
Bernar$us
*inter. )eizi!6
B. 9. T#ner.
Cahen Maurice.
1921. !tudes
sur le
)ocabulaire
religieu( du
0ieu(-
"candina)e$ la
libation. w
'ollection
linguisti[ue
publine par la
"ocintn de
Linguisti[ue de
-aris, z.{
-aris$ !douard
'hampion.
Cam#ell A.
19-9. %ld
!nglish
grammar.
G/for$6
Claren$on
8nou!h .f you (ant the other 24ish a!es of reference material #uy the #oo'. 6=