FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36  
37   >>  
and than in Denmark, which, being on the mainland, was earlier subject to Christian and Romantic influences; and that a heathen God should, in the two or three centuries following the establishment of Christianity in the North, be turned into a mortal hero, than that the reverse process should have acted at a sufficiently late date to permit of both versions existing side by side in the thirteenth century. A similar gradual elimination of the supernatural may be found in the history of the Volsung myth. Snorri's version is merely an amplification of that in the Elder Edda, which, scanty as its account of Baldr is, leaves no doubt as to his divinity. The outline gathered from the poems is as follows: Baldr, Odin's son, is killed by his brother Hoed through a mistletoe spray; Loki is in some way concerned in his death, which is an overwhelming misfortune to the Gods; but it is on Hoed that his death is avenged. He is burnt on a pyre (Snorri says on his ship, a feature which must come from the Viking age; _Hyndluljod_ substitutes howe-burial). He will be absent from the great fight at Ragnaroek, but _Voeluspa_ adds that he will return afterwards. Nanna has nothing to do with the story. The connexion with the hierarchy of the Aesir seems external only, since Baldr has no apparent relation to the great catastrophe as have Odin, Thor, Frej, Tyr and Loki; this, then, would point to the independence of his myth. The genuineness of the myth seems to depend on whether the mistletoe is an original feature of it or not, and on this point there can be little real doubt. The German theory that Baldr could only be killed by his own sword, which was therefore disguised by enchantment and used against him, and that the Icelandic writers misunderstood this to mean a mistletoe sprig, is far-fetched and romantic, and crumbles at a touch. For if, as it is claimed, the Icelanders had no mistletoe, why should they introduce it into a story to which it did not belong? They might preserve it by tradition, but they would hardly invent it. Granting this, the mistletoe becomes the central point of the legend. The older mythologists, who only saw in it a sun-myth, overlooked the fact that since any weapon would have done to kill the God with, the mistletoe must have some special significance; and if it is a genuine part of the story, as we have no reason to doubt, it will be hard to overturn Dr. Frazer's theory that the Baldr-myth is a relic of
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36  
37   >>  



Top keywords:

mistletoe

 

Snorri

 

feature

 
theory
 

killed

 
disguised
 

enchantment

 

romantic

 

misunderstood

 
writers

Icelandic

 

fetched

 

subject

 

earlier

 

apparent

 

relation

 

catastrophe

 
independence
 
genuineness
 
crumbles

mainland

 

depend

 
original
 

German

 

Denmark

 

weapon

 

overlooked

 
special
 

significance

 

overturn


Frazer

 

reason

 

genuine

 

mythologists

 

introduce

 

belong

 

Icelanders

 
Christian
 

claimed

 
central

legend

 

Granting

 

invent

 

preserve

 

tradition

 

influences

 

sufficiently

 

outline

 

gathered

 

divinity