The Ragnarök

[Hildeburh]

"In the beginning was the void, Ginnungagap. In it grew two realms; Muspelheim and Niflheim. Eons passed until they touched, and from their collision was born Ymir, the first giant.

Is this a quote? If so from where?

There are three versions of the Norse creation myth non contain the phrase "in the beginning was the void ". Snorri's in the Prose Edda, which is a particularly unreliable source for a number of reasons) uses the phrase is "In the beginning God almighty created heaven and earth" but this is in the Prologue and is unrelated to Snorri's version of the Norse creation myth.

Snorri' s version of the creation myth is in Gylfaginning ( the delusion of Gylfi), Gylfi asks the High, " What was in the beginning, or how did things start? What was there before? The High answers by referencing The Sibyl's Prophecy (possibly the same as the seeress from Voluspa):

"The earth was not found nor the sky above. Ginnungagap was there but grass nowhere".

The creation myth from the Voluspa also (poem from the Poetic Edda) does not mention "in the beginning there was the void"

"Earth had not been, nor Heaven above. But yawning gap and grass nowhere."

Muspelheim and Niflheim as abodes are also not attested anywhere but Snorri’s Prose Edda. The is no mention of them growing:

" Niflheim was made many ages before the earth was created". And " First, however there was that world in the southern region which is called Muspell.

Ymir (also called Aurgelmir) is attested in Grímnismál (poem from the Poetic Edda) and Snorri’s Prose Edda, and neither state that he was born from the collision of Muspelheim and Niflheim. Grímnismál has nothing to say regarding the origin of Ymir and Snorri’s Prose Edda says:

"At the point where the icy rime (from Elivagar a rivers from Niflheim) and the warm winds ( from Muspelheim) meet. There was quickening in these flowing drops and a life sprang up. The likeness of a man appeared and he was called Ymir".

As Ymir slept, the elements that formed his body became solid. He began to sweat, giving birth to the frost giants.

From the Gylfaginning in Prose Edda:

" It is said that as he slept he sweated. The, from under his left arm grew a male and a female, while one his legs begot a son with the other. From here the clans that are called the frost giants".

Far from Ymir, Auðumbla the cow was born. Made from purity, Auðumbla began to lick the ice upon which she stood. Three days passed before the body of Búri, father of the Gods, was revealed.

Audhumla is aslo only found in Snorri's version of the creation myth. Audhumla was formed not born and certainly not from purity: From the Gylfaginning in Prose Edda:

"Next it happened that as the icy rime dripped, the cow called Audhumla was formed".

Búri gave birth to a son named Borr, who in turn married Bestla. Together, they had three sons; Vili, Vé and Óðinn.

Buri did not give birth to Borr, Snorri simply states " he had a son" like Audhumla he just appears without birth. Don't tidy up the myths Snorri did enough of that on his own.

Those born

from ice and fire were of a good soul, whist those born from tainted elements carried darkness in their hearts.

What???? The gods and giants share Ymir as a common ancestor who, as Snorri writes "sprang up from the point where the icy rime and warm winds met"

Ymir is father to the giants and related (?grandfather) through Bestla to Odin Villi and Ve.

What are these tainted elements, good soul and darkness in their hearts? .... Sniffs air, this talk of taint, good souls and darkness I smell the stink of Christian theology superimposed on Norse mythology. Even Snorri doesn't go that far.

The Creation Myth is complete."

The Ginnungagap is the empty void that permeates our universe. Anti-matter, in a word.
The clash of Muspelheim (heat) and Niflheim (cold) is the Big Bang; the creation of the cosmos.
From then we see the gathering of matter, and an eon where chaos rules the cosmos.
Order begins to emerge, and "slays" chaos. Our universe is made livable.

Not quite complete you left us out.

Order doesn't slay chaos, this is a constant battle for the gods, perhaps one of their own creation since they are responsible for the killing of the father of the giants and their own ?grandfather on their mothers side. Ah, the tangled web of the genealogy of the gods.

All quotes from
Völuspá - Norse and Germanic Lore site with Old Norse / English translations of the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda
Snorri Sturluson: Prose Edda, Penguin Books.
Grimnismol from: The Poetic Edda: Grimnismol

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Is this a quote? If so from where?

Not that I'm immediately aware of, I've it written in my tome. Consider it a re-telling. However let me nip this growing-in-commonality issue in the bud, as I've also noticed it coming up in the gargantuan replies that I'm working on. Plagiarism is legally defined as "The act of appropriating the literary composition of another author, or excerpts, ideas, or passages therefrom, and passing the material off as one's own creation." It is also extended to registered trademarks (such as characters), though it's harder to stick it to art unless it's literally stolen. (e.g. if I repaint the Mona Lisa it's not plagiarism, as my painting was done by me and is considered a rendition or interpretation of.)

Mythology does not fall under such coverage, as it is authorless cultural tales with countless instances of being told. For such I don't need to cite Snorri, or Thorpe, or Bellows, or anyone else because they didn't create it either. It's not plagiarism uncited because they don't own it. This would also include (or rather exclude as plagiarism) quotes from a source that are pure fact or information, things that are not their intellectual property, as it's not really possible to claim such things as one's own.

Muspelheim and Niflheim as abodes are also not attested anywhere but Snorri’s Prose Edda.

Technically there is no mention of Múspellsheimr and Niflheimr outside the Prose Edda. Nine Worlds are mentioned in the Völuspá, but I see no reason to not use Múspellsheimr and Niflheimr to give name for what we know now of the universe and the way things are.

Ymir (also called Aurgelmir) is attested in Grímnismál (poem from the Poetic Edda) and Snorri’s Prose Edda, and neither state that he was born from the collision of Muspelheim and Niflheim. Grímnismál has nothing to say regarding the origin of Ymir and Snorri’s Prose Edda says:

"At the point where the icy rime (from Elivagar a rivers from Niflheim) and the warm winds ( from Muspelheim) meet. There was quickening in these flowing drops and a life sprang up. The likeness of a man appeared and he was called Ymir".

Bold 1 contradicted by Bold 2. The only difference is the interpretation and presentation of the force by which those two opposing forces met.

Audhumla is aslo only found in Snorri's version of the creation myth.

Yet still regarded by scholars as authentic, and not a creation or addition of Snorri. One being "formed" and "born" is also a matter of semantics, and they are functionally the same.

Buri did not give birth to Borr, Snorri simply states " he had a son" like Audhumla he just appears without birth.

Again, semantics. It's also said that people "give birth" to ideas and even artwork. It doesn't always literally means something came from a biological womb.

What are these tainted elements, good soul and darkness in their hearts?

A statement on natural and unnatural. If it seems like Christianity imposed over Norse myth, then you're viewing "darkness" in a Christian sense, i.e. "evil." Although on the other hand, we're certainly seeing the very negative effects that unnatural creation have brought us since the Industrialization. I wouldn't advise sniffing that air.

Not quite complete you left us out.

That's our creation myth, not the universe as a whole. Perhaps I'll take a stab at re-writing that one sometime.

 

[Hildeburh]

Not that I'm immediately aware of, I've it written in my tome. Consider it a re-telling. However let me nip this growing-in-commonality issue in the bud, as I've also noticed it coming up in the gargantuan replies that I'm working on. Plagiarism is legally defined as "The act of appropriating the literary composition of another author, or excerpts, ideas, or passages therefrom, and passing the material off as one's own creation." It is also extended to registered trademarks (such as characters), though it's harder to stick it to art unless it's literally stolen. (e.g. if I repaint the Mona Lisa it's not plagiarism, as my painting was done by me and is considered a rendition or interpretation of.)

Mythology does not fall under such coverage, as it is authorless cultural tales with countless instances of being told. For such I don't need to cite Snorri, or Thorpe, or Bellows, or anyone else because they didn't create it either. It's not plagiarism uncited because they don't own it. This would also include (or rather exclude as plagiarism) quotes from a source that are pure fact or information, things that are not their intellectual property, as it's not really possible to claim such things as one's own.

I think you misunderstood my question, I didn't mention plagarism or copyright, I have however mentioned it in two other threads regarding your borrowing of others work without referencing and will continue to do so if don't provide your sources.

My question in this thread was regarding which of our sources you got this version of the Norse creation myth because it contained obvious errors. If you are going to retell it to an audience that may not know the details I would think accuracy is important. All that was missing from your rendition was "once upon a time", then it could have past as a fairytale.

Technically there is no mention of Múspellsheimr and Niflheimr outside the Prose Edda. Nine Worlds are mentioned in the Völuspá, but I see no reason to not use Múspellsheimr and Niflheimr to give name for what we know now of the universe and the way things are.

Your jumping to conclusions, no complete list of the worlds exists in our corpus. Just because Voluspa mentions nine worlds doesn't mean Snorri’s Múspellsheimr and Niflheimr are real worlds rather than Snorri tidying up or creating mythology. The Anglo Saxon sources state that there were seven worlds, mythology is often contradictory.

It is not a good idea to use Snorri to fill in the blanks in the poems of the Poetic Edda, read these blogs on Niflheimr and Múspellsheimr and you may understand why I am saying this:

Niflheim - Norse Mythology for Smart People
Muspelheim - Norse Mythology for Smart People

Yet still regarded by scholars as authentic, and not a creation or addition of Snorri. One being "formed" and "born" is also a matter of semantics, and they are functionally the same.

Authentic by scholars? Please state which scholars and provide a reference.

Authentic is a big word when discussing mythology, I think you may find discussion and use of comparative mythology by scholars in an attempt to clarify or explain Audhumla's role and presence in Snorri's Gylfaginning but not a statement of authenticity.

When you have one mention of mythological role in one source, I would go for enigmatic or interesting, authentic is too greater leap. As Lindow (Norse Mythology: A guide to Gods, Heroes, Rituals and Beliefs) points out, Audhumla means 'hornless cow rick in milk' and this name is used in thular to mean cow. Outside of Snorri's Gylfaginning that's all we have.

Again, semantics. It's also said that people "give birth" to ideas and even artwork. It doesn't always literally means something came from a biological womb.

We are not talking about ideas or art we are discussing Norse mythology and specifically the origin of certain beings within it, if the source does not specify birth why change the narrative to suit your own purposes.

A statement on natural and unnatural. If it seems like Christianity imposed over Norse myth, then you're viewing "darkness" in a Christian sense, i.e. "evil." Although on the other hand, we're certainly seeing the very negative effects that unnatural creation have brought us since the Industrialization. I wouldn't advise sniffing that air.

Good soul and darkness in their hearts! Light and dark, good and bad, good and evil. Don't deflect, how do these things apply to Norse mythology?

That's our creation myth, not the universe as a whole. Perhaps I'll take a stab at re-writing that one sometime.

Please do just don't imply by omission that it is Norse mythology.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I think you misunderstood my question., I didn't mention plagarism or copyright, I have however mentioned it in two other threads regarding your borrowing of others work without referencing and will continue to do so if don't provide your sources.

Yes, I did notice it in the other thread of mine. But as I said here, unless it's someone's intellectual property (like the quote from Einar, rather than an alphabetic list of Heathen practices,) it's not plagiarism in the slightest. So demanding sources of quite literally everything is tedious and unnecessary. If something needs sourced, I will source it. What you checked was not others work per se, but rather pure information. Their sources. There's nowhere else to go from there.

My question in this thread was regarding which of our source you got this version of the Norse creation myth

It's a retelling, so... me. Science that we know about our universe, and logical connections from there. There are no "errors" because the root source is a myth, vague even from several sources, and one that's not regarded as factual. Do you believe that the sky dome is a giant's skull, and the clouds his brains? Reshaping the myths to merge better with scientific fact is only practical.

It's also somewhat cynical to compare it to fairy tales, as they serve practically the same purpose, and often overlap.

Your jumping to conclusions, no complete list of the worlds exists in our corpus. Just because Voluspa mentions nine worlds doesn't mean Snorri’s Múspellsheimr and Niflheimr are real worlds rather than Snorri tidying up or creating mythology. The Anglo Saxon sources state that there were seven worlds, mythology is often contradictory.

Actually quite a bit of thought has gone into trying to merge myth with fact in ways that make sense. It's also still confusing that for things like this you'll say "our corpus," but otherwise treat Heathenry as a fractured assortment of traditions and beliefs. Yet with Múspellsheimr and Niflheimr as opposing cosmic forces of being rather than worlds or dimensions, the numbers at... seven. Leaving room for comparison and possibly even co-existence after all.

Regarding Niflheimr, there is (somewhat) mention of it in the Poetic Edda. In Baldrs draumar, Niflhel is mentioned at being on the outskirts of Helheimr, and in Vafþrúðnismál it is told that Niflhel is where dead men dwell. For Niflheimr to be a state of entropy, decay and death is plausible.

Regarding Múspellsheimr, while it is named as such only in the Prose Edda the word Múspell can be traced linguistically throughout the Germanic cultures, and regards fire and destruction. In Old Norse poetry, it refers to the giant Surtr who sets Yggdrasil aflame at the Ragnarök. Múspellsheimr would really only mean "Home of Múspell". A "realm of heat and fire" is mentioned in the Poetic Edda. It is not too far-fetched to thus take what is known of Niflheimr and conclude the opposing forces to this "realm of heat and fire," and identify them as forces higher than the created Worlds.

Far from jumping to conclusions, and even using Snorri as little as possible. The "Norse mythology for Smart People" blogs seem to back this up, even.

Authentic is a big word when discussing mythology, I think you may find discussion and use of comparative mythology by scholars in an attempt to clarify or explain Audhumla role and presence in Snorri's Gylfaginning but not a statement of authenticity.

Authentic to the culture, as suggested by parallels in earlier myths from Vedic, Zoroastrian and likely as a root PIE cultures. As opposed to Christian notions and sentiments being superimposed into the myths in ways that do not suggest a natural progression and evolution of cultural myth.

We are not talking about ideas or art we are discussing Norse mythology and specifically the origin of certain beings within it,

No, specifically you were talking about semantics; the words being used to describe creation of several beings that don't have natural parentage. Whether it is worded as "birthed" or "had", the core myth remains that Borr came from Buri.

Good soul and darkness in their hearts! Light and dark, good and bad, good and evil. Don't deflect, how do these things apply to Norse mythology?

Quite well, actually. All things that are made of ice and fire (the cycle of life) are of good soul; living beings, be they gods, alfar, or men. Things that are born from "tainted elements," much less so; mythically speaking things like draugr, mares (the monster, not a female horse), etc.

Please do just don't imply by omission that it is Norse mythology.

No, I will. Because it is. It may not be the Völuspá, or the Gylfaginning, yet it is in relation to the figures of Norse culture and myth, and tells the same story. For the same reason as to why several stories in the Prose Edda - such as Chapter 42, the story of the walls of Asgard - are considered Norse mythology. If I start including Ra or Zeus, then you'd be able to say that it's not Norse mythology.

 

[Hildeburh]

Yes, I did notice it in the other thread of mine. But as I said here, unless it's someone's intellectual property (like the quote from Einar, rather than an alphabetic list of Heathen practices,) it's not plagiarism in the slightest. So demanding sources of quite literally everything is tedious and unnecessary. If something needs sourced, I will source it. What you checked was not others work per se, but rather pure information. Their sources. There's nowhere else to go from there.


It's a retelling, so... me. Science that we know about our universe, and logical connections from there. There are no "errors" because the root source is a myth, vague even from several sources, and one that's not regarded as factual. Do you believe that the sky dome is a giant's skull, and the clouds his brains? Reshaping the myths to merge better with scientific fact is only practical.


It's also somewhat cynical to compare it to fairy tales, as they serve practically the same purpose, and often overlap.

Actually quite a bit of thought has gone into trying to merge myth with fact in ways that make sense. It's also still confusing that for things like this you'll say "our corpus," but otherwise treat Heathenry as a fractured assortment of traditions and beliefs. Yet with Múspellsheimr and Niflheimr as opposing cosmic forces of being rather than worlds or dimensions, the numbers at... seven. Leaving room for comparison and possibly even co-existence after all.

Regarding Niflheimr, there is (somewhat) mention of it in the Poetic Edda. In Baldrs draumar, Niflhel is mentioned at being on the outskirts of Helheimr, and in Vafþrúðnismál it is told that Niflhel is where dead men dwell. For Niflheimr to be a state of entropy, decay and death is plausible.

Regarding Múspellsheimr, while it is named as such only in the Prose Edda the word Múspell can be traced linguistically throughout the Germanic cultures, and regards fire and destruction. In Old Norse poetry, it refers to the giant Surtr who sets Yggdrasil aflame at the Ragnarök. Múspellsheimr would really only mean "Home of Múspell". A "realm of heat and fire" is mentioned in the Poetic Edda. It is not too far-fetched to thus take what is known of Niflheimr and conclude the opposing forces to this "realm of heat and fire," and identify them as forces higher than the created Worlds.

Far from jumping to conclusions, and even using Snorri as little as possible. The "Norse mythology for Smart People" blogs seem to back this up, even.


Authentic to the culture, as suggested by parallels in earlier myths from Vedic, Zoroastrian and likely as a root PIE cultures. As opposed to Christian notions and sentiments being superimposed into the myths in ways that do not suggest a natural progression and evolution of cultural myth.


No, specifically you were talking about semantics; the words being used to describe creation of several beings that don't have natural parentage. Whether it is worded as "birthed" or "had", the core myth remains that Borr came from Buri.


Quite well, actually. All things that are made of ice and fire (the cycle of life) are of good soul; living beings, be they gods, alfar, or men. Things that are born from "tainted elements," much less so; mythically speaking things like draugr, mares (the monster, not a female horse), etc.

No, I will. Because it is. It may not be the Völuspá, or the Gylfaginning, yet it is in relation to the figures of Norse culture and myth, and tells the same story. For the same reason as to why several stories in the Prose Edda - such as Chapter 42, the story of the walls of Asgard - are considered Norse mythology. If I start including Ra or Zeus, then you'd be able to say that it's not Norse mythology.

Dude, enough said! Your going to continue to make stuff up, mash Norse mythology in with new age ideas and claim its Heathenry. Got it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So what then are the "new age" ideas that are so un-Heathen, or even that I have completely made up? For that matter, what even is "new age"?

 

[Srivijaya]

Vili, Vé and Óðinn killed the giant Ymir. His flesh became earth. His blood became water. His hair became grass and trees. His skull became the sky, held high by the four dwarves. Thus, our world was created.

Do you feel that the creation and destruction myth is relevant also on a microcosmic/personal level? For many years I studied the Norse myths and came to my own conclusions, which may be incorrect.

It seems that on a microcosmic level the cosmos relates to the human body - Yggdrasil the spine. The swallowing of the sun and moon could refer to our own death, when energy from the sun and moon channel are irreversibly absorbed into the central channel. The twenty four runes of the elder Futhark correspond to the circle of the year and of time itself. I just see a lot of parallels between Norse cosmology and the Vajrayana mandala teachings (highest yoga tantra).

It's my belief that both are in essence experiential. Those who had the teaching were supposed to discover Odin as a visceral reality. There's a shamanic and transcendent aspect to both systems and the deities of the Germanic tribes are more familiar to our own inner archetypes (if that is ultimately our pre-Christian cultural background).

I'm probably way off and I mean no offense, just interested in your take on it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I don't see much application to it, personally. It's interesting to see, but I haven't seen it very well applied in a way that makes sense. For example in a Facebook group, we recently had a girl post something about the runes of the Elder Futhark laid out over the year, and how we would "soon be entering into the time of Thurs, and take on it's lessons" or something to that effect. It seemed very "New Age" and astrological, and didn't very well represent whatever lessons the Thurs rune might represent or teach.