Home of the Eddic Lays
Introduction
The names of the two rivers, Hope and Despair, show that at the outset this myth must have had a moral significance. Professor Falk, elaborating a suggestion of E. H. Meyer, (25) has shown beyond a doubt that the origin of this mythical feature is due to medićval Christian statements concerning Behemoth or the devil. The source of these statements is Job xl. 16 ff, where we read of Behemoth: 'He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed and fens' [21]. 'Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth' [23].
In the Vision of Tundalus' is mentioned the terrible beast Acheron, which is identical with Behemoth, and is a form in which the devil appeared. (26) 'Of this creation the holy book saith, that it is not marvellous if it swallows the whole stream; and, further, it says that Jordan runs into its mouth. The stream is the name the holy book gives to the heathen folk who enter that animal. But Jordan represents the Christians; for there originated baptism, and this animal will torment and devour them.' (27)
This interpretation agrees with the explanation which Gregory the Great gives of the passage just quoted in the Book of Job. In the Old Norse translation of his homily, we read: 'Thus the Lord spake to the holy Job, when he spake of the old enemy: He shall drink up the river, and he marvels not at it, and he trusteth that Jordan shall fall into his mouth. What does the river signify but the rapid course of human beings, who from their birth move forward unto death, as a river flows from its source into the sea. But Jordan designates baptized mortals; for our Redeemer first consecrated our baptism in its water, when he let himself be baptized in Jordan. The old enemy drank up the river; for he drew the whole race of men into his belly of wickedness from the beginning of the world to the coming our Saviour, so that few escaped. He drinks up the river and marvels not at it, for it matters little to him if he obtains the unbelievers. But what follows is sad: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. For he dares also to lay hold of the faithful, after he has obtained the unbelievers.'
The name Víl, 'Despair,' refers to Gregory's interpretation of the stream as a figure for the heathen, those lost beyond redemption. Ván, 'Hope,' is Jordan as a designation of the baptized Christians, who have hope of salvation.
In the mythical feature of the two rivers that issue from the mouth of the bound wolf Fenrir, we have a good example of a phenomenon which often manifests itself in the alteration of Jewish-Christian stories into heathen Scandinavian myths: mystical and allegorical features, connected with the dogmas of Christianity, are changed into material parts of a graphic supernatural or romantic, picture.
Of the bound Fenrir, it is said: 'The wolf yawned fearfully, and exerted himself mightily, and wished to bite the gods. Then they thrust a sword into his mouth. Its hilt touched the lower jaw and its point the upper one; by means of it the jaws of the wolf were spread apart.' (28)
The Norwegian poet Eyvind Skáldaspillir was familiar with this story; for, in a strophe composed after the death of King Hákon the Good in 961, (29) he calls a sword Fenris varra sparri, 'that which spreads the lips of Fenrir.'
The idea that Christ keeps the mouth of the bound devil spread open by means of an object stuck into it, was current in the Middle Ages.
In medićval German works is ascribed to the devil a mouth (kiuwe) like a wolf. In a poem on the life of Jesus (30) we read: 'When the Lord had bound the monster [the soul-robbing wolf, the devil],he placed a block in its mouth, so that the mouth may stand open, and let out the souls that the monster has swallowed, and so that it may not swallow more.' Here, as in the Scandinavian myth, the monster's jaws are spread apart after it is bound. Another Christian account occurs in the Icelandic MS. Hauksbók of the beginning of the fourteenth century. (31) In a section beginning with the words, 'The holy bishop called Augustinus spoke to the men whose priest he was,' (32) we read (p. 32): 'When our Lord penetrated into the realm of the dead and bound the devil, he placed a cross in his mouth and subdued him with it, and bade us by means of that victorious sign to keep off the devil and all evil beings.' This form of the Christian legend seems to have been known in various parts of the North. We may thus explain the figure on a series of Swedish bracteates, usually ascribed to the time of King Sverker (the beginning of the twelfth century), viz. a dragon's head with a cross in the wide-open mouth, as if it were the tongue. (33)
But the heathen Scandinavians also told how Fenrir's mouth was spread apart in another and a different way. At the end of the world Fenrir is represented as escaping from his fetters, and advancing, together with other monsters and demons, to give battle to the gods. In Snorri's Edda we read: 'The wolf Fenrir goes with gaping mouth; its upper jaw touches heaven, and its lower one the earth. It would spread its jaw still wider if there were room. Fire issues from its eyes and nostrils.' The wolf meets Odin and swallows him. But thereupon Odin's son Víthar advances against Fenrir. Placing one foot on the wolf's lower jaw, and seizing the upper with one hand, he tears asunder the beast's mouth, and thus causes its death.
In Vafţrúđnismál [53] we read: 'The wolf shall swallow the father of mankind (i.e. Odin); this Víthar shall revenge. He shall cleave the terrible jaws in the struggle.' In this connection we should observe---first, that in the Middle Ages the devil was called lupus vorax, and that he was represented in England 'with gaping mouth,' (34) or 'with burning mouth and flaming eyes.' (35) The account of Fenrir's death just given shows remarkable similarity to a South Slavic story which stands in connection with the teachings of the heretical Bogomiles, and is due ultimately to Byzantine influence. In Archiv für slavische Philologie, V, II ff, is recorded a Serbian tale, which begins as follows: 'Once Dabog was prince on the earth, and the Lord God in heaven.' (Dabog here corresponds to a being who, according to the Bogomiles, is the creator of matter: Satan, Diabolus, Lucifer.) 'They agreed that the souls of sinful men should fall into the hands of Dabog, and the souls of the just into those of God in heaven. Things went on for a long time in this way. At last God became greatly displeased that Dabog obtained so many souls, and He began to consider how He could diminish his power. He could not kill him, for Dabog was quite as powerful as the Lord God in heaven; but to break the agreement was neither possible nor advisable.'
What is here said of an agreement which it was not advisable for the Lord to break, is doubtless connected with the statement in Snorri's Edda (AM. ed., I, 114), that 'the gods valued their sanctuaries and inviolate places (vé sín ok griđastađi) so much that they would not defile them with the blood of the wolf, although it was prophesied that the wolf should slay Odin.'
According to the Serbian tale, the Lord induced Dabog to promise that, if a Son were born to Him, the inheritance of the Son would be restored. When Dabog heard that God had begotten a Son, who was even then on His way to reclaim his inheritance, he endeavoured to swallow Him, and spread his mouth so wide in his rage that his lower jaw touched the earth and his upper jaw heaven. But the Son of God drove a lance into his lower jaw, and so fixed it that it also pierced the upper jaw. Even as Dabog's jaws stood when thus spread apart by the Son of God, so they have continued to stand until the present, and so they shall remain for ever. In this Serbian picture of the demon's lower jaw touching the earth while the upper jaw touches heaven, we have exact agreement with the Scandinavian story of Fenrir. To the Son of God in the Serbain story corresponds Víthar in the Scandinavian myth. Just as the former spreads apart the mouth of the demon, so that it remains open ever after, so Víthar cleaves the mouth of the wolf. The fact that the mouth of the demon in the Serbian tale is kept open by an upright lance, while in the Scandinavian tale the mouth of the bound Fenrir is kept open by an upright sword, is not a remarkable variation. It was easy enough for 'sword' and 'lance' to change places in the migration of a popular story; for glaive, 'sword,' means, in Old French, 'spear,' and Lat. framea, 'lance,' has a later meaning, 'sword.'
A bit of sculpture, which is unmistakably connected with the Scandinavian myth on Víthar's fight with the wolf Fenrir, may be seen on the Gosforth Cross in Cumberland. The exact date of this cross (preserved from the early Middle Ages) has not yet been definitely settled. By comparing it with Irish crosses with dated inscriptions, I have come to the conclusion that it is most likely of the ninth century. On the east side of the Gosforth Cross (36) we see a figure formed by the bodies of two snakes coiled together, with the head of a wolf on each side. Before the wide-open mouth of the head, which turns downwards, a man is standing with a rod in his right hand, and his left hand extended towards the monster's upper jaw, apparently as if to spread the jaws apart. The man's left foot is in the monster's mouth. Evidently he is standing upon the lower jaw.
The agreement between this representation on the Gosforth Cross and the heathen Scandinavian myth of the fight between Víthar and Fenrir is striking, and supports the theory that this myth was shaped under the influence of tales of Christians in the British Isles, possibly also under the influence of Christian works of art.
It should be observed that the Gosforth Cross is a Christian monument. But a Christian monument cannot well represent a heathen god as victorious. The carving under discussion does not, then, in my opinion, represent the victory of the god Víthar, but the victory of Christ, the Son of God, over the monster; (37) and this in the Scandinavian myth has been worked over into the victory of Víthar over Fenrir.
This same carving is connected also with the Serbian story, as is evident if we examine the sculpture on the west side. (38) Two monsters may there be seen, side by side, with snake-bodies coiled together and with heads turned downwards. Their lower jaws are turned toward each other, their mouths wide open, and their teeth are like those of ravenous beasts. In his right hand a man is holding a rod before one monster's mouth.
This carving on the Gosforth Cross is, I believe, to be interpreted, in accordance with the Serbian story, as follows:---The figure who is holding upright in his right hand the rod, or pole, is the Son of God. Each of the pointed ends is fastened in one of the jaws of the double-monster. The sculptor probably meant to represent the mouth as kept open by the upright rod, as by the lance in the Serbian story. This intention is not very clear on the Gosforth Cross, because the artist there represented the dragon as double.
The historical connection between the Serbian tale, on the one hand, and the carving on the Christian North-English cross, together with the Norse myth, on the other, I explain thus:---The Serbian tale probably goes back, through the Bogomile teachings, to apocryphal Christian representations that were known early in the Middle Ages in Byzantium. These same apocryphal ideas became widespread in the early Middle Ages in western Europe, particularly in England; and in northern England, which had many points of contact with East European Christendom, they were communicated to heathen Norsemen.
In the carving on the east side of the Gosforth Cross, the man who with his left hand, holding in his right hand an upright rod. I conjecture that this situation represented on the east side is to be regarded as preceding that on the west side, where the man (i.e. the Son of God) may be seen thrusting an upright rod, or pole, into the monster's mouth, which is thus kept for ever wide open.
The figures on the Gosforth Cross throw light on the origin and nature of the myth of Víthar.
I have already said that the man there represented, who with his left hand is spreading apart the mouth of the wolf-snake, and with one foot is treading on the monster's jaw, is hodling an upright rod in his right hand; and further, that a man on the west side of the same cross is apparently keeping a monster's double mouth open by means of a rod. This rod evidently reproduces the 'rod of iron' of the Revelation of St. John. In Rev. xix. 15, we read: 'And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.' Compare Rev. ii. 26-27: 'And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron.' Also Rev. xii. 5-6: 'And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to His throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness.'
ENDNOTES:
24. See Bugge's edition of the Elder Edda, p. xxxiii. Back
25. Völuspá, p. 151 f. Back
26. According to the ON translation in Duggals leizla, chap. VII, in Heilagra Manna Sögur, I, 337 f. Back
27. Leifar, p. 19. Back
28. ţat er gómsparri hans, Snorra Edda, ed. AM., I, 112 = II, 273. Back
29. Heimskringla, Hákonar saga góđa, chap. xxvii.; Corp. Poet. Boreale, II, 36, 1. 17. Back
30. Quoted from Max Dreyer, Der Teufel in der deutschen Dichtung des Mittelalters, Rostock, 1884, p. 19. Back
31. Fritzner (Ordbog over det gamle norske sprog, s.v. gómsparri) compared this with the story of Fenrir. Back
32. Nokkur blöđ úr Hauksbók, Reykjavík, 1865, p. 29. Back
33. Henry Petersen, Om Nordboernes Gudedyrkelse og Gudestro, p. 79, where a reproduction may be found. Back
34. Bouterwek, Cćdmon, p. cxlvii. Back
35. Mid byrnendum műđe and lîgenum éagum (Thorpe, Homilies, II, 164). Back
36. See the reproduction in Aarbřger for nordisk Oldkyndighed, 1884, p. 16. Back
37. E. H. Meyer (Germ. Myth., p. 60) is of the same opinion. Back
38. See Aarbřger f. n. Oldk., 1884, p. 22; cf. p. 19. Back
<< Previous Page Next Page >>
© 2004-2007 Northvegr.
Most of the material on this site is in the public domain. However, many people have worked very hard to bring these texts to you so if you do use the work, we would appreciate it if you could give credit to both the Northvegr site and to the individuals who worked to bring you these texts. A small number of texts are copyrighted and cannot be used without the author's permission. Any text that is copyrighted will have a clear notation of such on the main index page for that text. Inquiries can be sent to info@northvegr.org. Northvegr™ and the Northvegr symbol are trademarks and service marks of the Northvegr Foundation.
|