Viktor Rydberg
The Complete Mythological Works
Over a Century of Scholarship
[PRIOR] 1940s [NEXT]
[HOME]
 
 
1942 Fredrik Gadde
Viktor Rydberg and some Beowulf Questions  
Studia Neophilologica, Volume 15, Issue 1, 1942, pp. 71–90
 
 

        "It was in the eighteen-eighties that Viktor Rydberg, with passionate energy, plunged into the study of Germanic mythology, What prompted him to enter upon this study was a pamphlet, published in 1876 by a Norwegian scholar, Dr. Bang, in which the author set out to prove connection between The Voluspa and the Sibylline Oracles, and which seemed to support the views set forth shortly before by Sophus Bugge that many Old Norse sagas were partly of antique-classical, partly of Jewish-Christian origin, and that they had been carried over to Scandinavia from the British isles in the Viking days. Rydberg found himself called upon to appear as an Opponent to Dr. Bang and published, in 1881, a treatise, The Sibylline Books and the Voluspa, in which he subjected Dr. Bang's arguments to severe criticism. From his boyhood, Rydberg had been interested in the Old Norse myths; some passages out of the Voluspa, besides the catechism, had been the printed matter from which he learned to read. Now, mythology was to keep him spellbound for many years. During these years, especially the· beginning of the eighties, he hardly allowed himself time for food and rest. Whole days and nights through he would sit lost in his speculations without leaving his writing-desk, without saying a word to those around him. He shut himself off from all intercourse, did not communicate with the outside world. Rydberg's untiring labours resulted in his Undersokningar i Germansk mytologi~ in two imposing volumes, the first published in 1886, the second in 1889. English, French, and German editions of the first volume were planned, but only the English translation was carried out. The translator was Rasmus R. Anderson, United States ex-minister to Denmark, whose offer to translate the book was greeted with joy by Viktor Rydberg. The book was reviewed by several German scholars, who all took up a more or less disparaging attitude towards Rydberg's methods of investigation and his results. Although they speak with high praise of the author's learning, his thorough insight, his ability occasionally to throw light upon intricate problems by means of ingenious suggestions, they criticize severely his hazardous etymologies, his identification of different mythical figures without sufficient grounds, his mixing up of heroic saga and myth, and, above all, his bent for remodelling myths in order to make them fit into a system which (they say) never existed. The general opinion prevails that the poet in him had a fatal influence on the scholar. "Rydbergs Undersökningar sind zum grossen Theile keine streng wissenschaftliche Behandlung der My then sondern geistreiche Construction en eines Dichters" (Detter). "Die dichterische Schopferkraft hat Rydbergs wissenschaftlichen Sinn zu boden geworfen" (E. H. Meyer). Among contemporary Swedish reviewers, Hildebrand and Båath are appreciative; especially the latter bestows unreserved praise' on Rydberg's work. On the other hand, Rydberg met with severe criticism later from A. Noreen, who blames him for misinterpretation of the myths: what Rydberg holds to be primeval myths are often inventions of a later date, christianized, systematized by theologians. "The first of the theologians whose name is known to us, was Snorre, the last Viktor Rydberg ... Rydberg is not a restorer of old myths but something far greater - a creative artist, a great poet". Schück endorses the opinion that Rydberg's great work is a failure and finds an explanation in the fact that his researches had earlier turned on theological subjects: in particular, he had penetrated deeply into the theological system of the Middle Ages, and the views with which he had become familiar during these studies, he brought with him when turning to mythology. Here too he wanted to find a system. E. H. Meyer in his first review' had already emphasized the fatal influence which these circumstances seem to have exercised on Rydberg's work. Rydberg's work was, then, stamped as a failure, and this verdict which from certain points of view cannot be considered unjust, seems to have caused the book to fall into oblivion! a fate which surely it has not deserved. In spite of fundamental deficiencies and many errors in detail, the book presents stimulating reading, and even the severest critic should recognize Rydberg's many ingenious deductions.       As already mentioned the first volume was translated into English. Within the Anglo-Saxon world the book seems to have attracted some attention. In a translation of Saxo Grammaticus, published by Elton, Mr Powell has written an introduction where, among other things, he treats of Saxo's mythology. We here find the following enthusiastic appreciation of Viktor Rydberg:
"No one has commented upon Saxo's mythology with such brilliancy, such minute consideration, and such success as the Swedish scholar, Victor Rydberg. More than occasionally he is over-ingenious and over-anxious to reduce chaos to order; sometimes he almost loses his faithful reader in the maze he treads so easily and confidently, and sometimes he stumbles badly. But he has placed the whole subject on a fresh footing ... " ,
Stopford A. Brooke, in his History of Early English Literature, refers to Rydberg's researches on some points and says about his book:
"When we have made every allowance for a certain fancifulness, and for the bias which a well-loved theory creates, this book is a real contribution to Northern mythology ... ".
 
         Another proof of Anglo-Saxon appreciation is that the book has been considered worthy of a re-print. It was indeed published by a so-called "Norroena Society", in 1906, in three extremely handsome volumes bound in leather, the impression being limited to 450 copies. The latter part of Rydberg's work, which only appeared in Swedish, is certainly not widely known. I have not seen many signs, for instance, of scholars having paid attention to Ryd- berg's contribution to Beowulf research. Yet Rydberg devotes several pages, chiefly in the second part of his book, to un- ravelling problems touching upon the mythical elements of the Beowulf-poem. His theories, with due regard paid to the views prevailing at the time when his work was published, are not void of interest, and, whatever their deficiencies, they are re- markable for their originality. Even though the views set forth by Rydberg never stood a chance of being accepted, there are points in his exposition that, deserve being once more brought to light. Among the questions discussed by Rydberg, I choose to state his views on Grendel (in the first part of his book), his comments on nature-myths, the Breca Episode, and the Haethcyn-Herebeald Episode." "...Rydberg took up a very critical attitude towards what he calls the "myth-meteorological" school:  "The gravest fault that this school has committed from a methodological point of view is that it has not seen the difference between mythogony and mythology, that is to say, the difference between the science of the origin of myths and the science of their present contents, their epic connection and historic development. Mythogony, which is an ethno-psychological and ethnographic science, . has been regarded by this school as mythology. Connected with this methodological fault is the untenable conception from which this school starts, namely that myths in their present form contain appropriate material, by the aid of which it is possible to explain their origin from different phenomena: from the storm, the lightning, the dawn, or the sunset glow etc. This fault became aggravated through the influence of the philologists who imagined, when a mythical person's name had been interpreted and found to mean 'the roaring one', 'the shining one' etc., that all myths connected with him could be explained from this meaning of the name. This meteorologic-etymological school has been blind to the fact that the myths, whatever their genesis - and it is highly probable that several of them have indeed arisen from the effect of natural phenomena on the imagination - exist now in a form that they have attained after a process of development, continued for an indefinite number of thousands of years, during which time quite other factors than the phenomena of sky and weather were working on behalf of the genesis of new myths and the transformation of the old nature- myths. "It may be safely asserted that since the time when super- human forces began to be shaped by man's imagination into concrete personalities, everyone with his definite character and his sphere of activity marked out, the purely nature-mythical elements of the myths faded or were more or less remodelled, and were combined with elements of quite a different origin and character ..." "...in order to solve its tasks, mythogony has to regard myths in their present form as material to be used only with the greatest discrimination, and as being only a slight portion of the material it has to collect and examine. It is the new folklore movement, with its investigation into ethno-psychology, from which we have to expect a mythogony that will be able to solve its task".  The Herebeald-Hrethcyn Episode  "The 'Geat' princes with whom Beowulf has been brought up are Herebeald and Heethcyn. A careless and disastrous shot from Haethcyn's bow kills his brother Herebeald. The prototype of this episode is the myth of Balder's death, caused by an arrow from his brother Had's bow. It is strange that students of the Beowulf- poem should have overlooked this connection, as the names of Had and Balder reappear in Haethcyn and Herebeald and as Herebeald and Haethcyn are brothers like Balder and Had, and one is killed  accidentally by the other's arrow . . .                       "After Haethcyn has unintentionally killed his brother, he goes to the wars and falls at the hand of the Swedish king Ongentheow, according to the Beowulf-poem. Thus the latter has succeeded the Vali of the myth as the slayer of Hrethcyn. The statement of Hyndluljod that one Angantyr (Ongentheow) claimed the inheritance of Vali's sword [vala malmi, Hyndluljóð 9] the sword that slew Had, is evidently mythically connected herewith and confirms the original identity of Herebeald and Haethcyn with Balder and Had. "Saxo's tale of Had's (Hotherus') death is also mythically connected with the Beowulf-poem. Saxo, who supposed Herebeald's and Haethcyn's fosterbrother Beowulf to be identical with Balder's and Had's brother Vali, makes Beowulf, under the name of Bous, avenge Balder and slay. Had. Saxo's account of the burial of Bous reminds us of the description of Beowulf's burial in the poem. Bous is accorded a sumptuous funeral (cujus corpus magnifico funeris apparatu Rutenus tumulauit exercitus), Beowulf is buried in a gigantic mound, filled with treasures, helmets, coats of mail etc. The name of Bous is attached to the mound (nomine ejus insignem collem), Beowulf himself orders that his mound shall bear his name. It is piled on a headland, Hrone's ness ("Whalesness"). Vali, whose role Saxo has given to Bous, bears the epithet Ranr and, in heroic legend, Hrane, as I have shown elsewhere. "The Beowulf-poem makes its hero take part in a war between Onela-Ali and Eadgils-Athils. The mythical counterpart of this is what was told above of Bjarr taking part in the celebrated winter campaign, when gods, heroes, primeval smiths and emigration leaders til tss ritru, - in which campaign Bjarr fought on one side, one King Athils on the other. Undoubtedly there is some connection between this and the fact that just as the Beowulf-poem tells about the death of the Swedish king Ongentheow, fighting alone against two warriors, so does Saxo tell, about the death of a Swedish king Athislus; and also that the description in the Beowulf-poem of the character and exploits of King Ongentheow agrees with Saxo's description of Athislus. Whilst the myth made Bjarr fight against Athils, the Beowulf-poem makes Beowulf fight partly against one Eadgils-Athils", partly against one Ongentheow, whose character, adventures and death calls to mind his original identity with one Athislus ... " Detter, after enumerating some interesting ohservations made by Rydberg, goes on to say: "Die hübscheste dieser Bemerkungen findet sich s. 6651; Haedcyn ist Hodr, Herebeald sein Bruder. Wir haben also hier ganz deutlich den Baldr-mythus vor uns. Ich bemerke class mir mein Lehrer Prof. Heinzel schon vor langer Zeit dasselbe mitgetheilt hat.       Nerman, who made the same observation many years afterwards, found later on that the identity (of Herebeald and Balder) had been already noticed by others; he refers to Englische Studien, LIV, where the matter is discussed.' In this volume it is stated (p. 33) that Gisle Brynjulfsson was the first to point out the resemblance between the episode and the myth, but from the way in which Brynjulfsson expresses himself in the passage referred to it is not obvious that he means to connect the episode in question with the myth of Balder. I think Rydberg is the one who first stated the connection in plain terms, but no mention is made of him. Klaeber, on the other hand, refers to Rydberg among other scholars, who have discussed this question.

 
 

1942 D. Whitelock
The Year's Work in English Studies


"... In his relation of the Herebeald- Haethcyn story to the Balder myth Rydberg has had some following, and he anticipated Schütte in identifying Ongentheow with Saxo's Athislus."


1943 Hilda R. Ellis Davidson
The Road to Hel

 
“All through the heathen period belief and thought was shifting and fluid, varying according to local cultures, developing in accordance with particular influences in specific localities; and the oral literature that reflected it was shifting and developing too.”
 
“The evidence for Odainsakr in Norse literature is slight and tantilising. Rydberg (Teutonic Mythology, trans. Anderson, London, 1889) built up a fascinating but wild theory around it equating it, among other places, with the land behind the high wall in the story of Hadingus, and the land beyond the golden bridge next to Gudmundr’s realm in Saxo; but we have unfortunately no grounds for accepting these suggestions, pleasant though they might seem, without more weighty evidence. Apart from the reference in Saxo to Fjaller, governor of Scandia, who is said to have been driven into exile and ‘to have retired to a spot called Undersakre, unknown to our people’ (IV 105), we are limited to the strange Saga Eiriks Vidförla in the Fornaldar collection, which caused even Rydberg to despair because of the preponderance of Christian influence.”
 

1945 John Gustaf Berg, Rolf Hillman
Urval ur Viktor Rydbergs Diktning


Tor [Thor]
 Helge Ljungberg, 1947

(Partially translated by William P. Reaves)
(c)  2010 All Rights Reserved


 
Indra - Thor.
 
Viktor Rydberg especially has collected in detail all comparative mythological material concerning Indra and Thor with the intent of showing the identity of both gods.  “The question is not as to similarity in special details,” writes Rydberg, adding “that kind of similarities may be pointed out in nearly all mythic groups in the world, and, as a rule, altogether too bold hypotheses are built on the feeble foundations they offer." (UGM1, p. 660)   1. According to Rigveda (9,28,5; 9,97,31; 9,72,2) a primeval smith Tvashtar sharpened a heavenly-stone for Indra, like Sindri forged Thor’s hammer. Animosity arose among the smiths and the gods in the Indic and the Norse regions.   2. Indra like Thor was a son of “Mother Earth” (RV 4,17,2). Both gods had two sets of parents one divine and one belonging to the demon class. According to Rgveda Indra is born at a point when the battle between good and evil forces rages its worst (comparable to Ahriman’s struggle against Ahura Mazdah) and when the forces of evil had taken the forces of good into their power. Indra is born as a savior under dramtic circumstances. The goddess Earth did not want to know her fetus, but abandoned it. In the womb of the deep-water giantess, Kusava, incubated the fetus. Her husband, the giant Vyamsa, "as bad as Vrtra himself" (RV 1,32; 4,18,1) wanted to kill the fetus at the moment of birth, but Indra broke his way out of his mother’s side and newly born crushed Vyamsa’s head with the lightning wedge (RV 4,22,3). Kusava, that Indra now “made a widow”, died of sorrow, while the while the discarded gods rallied again. Indra got a soma-drink from Tvastr, killed the dragon Vrtra and liberated the bound masses of water so that the earth could become fruitful again and released the sun from its prison.   Rydberg maintained that this mythic complex would reflect in the stories about Thor, if in a distorted form. He assumed from the description in the Prologue to Snorri’s Edda, according to which Thor was raised in Thrace by the Duke Loricus. At twelve years old Thor killed his foster-father and his wife Lora, took Thrace for himself and traveled widely in the world “and alone conquered all berserkers, giants and the greatest dragon, and many animals.” Rydberg considers these similarities sufficient to show the original identity of the myths between Indra’s and Thor’s birth and youthful exploits.   3. According to one of the hymns of the Valakhilya (3,8) Indra once took possession of a krivi (according to Rydberg a mead-kettle) and killed the giant Susna, “drought”. Susna lived on the other side of Rasa, the border river between the worlds of the giants and the humans. Rydberg compared this myth with the story of Thor and Hymir and held that one probably had its root in the other.     4. The myth of Indra and the dragon Vrtra is well-known (RV 3,30,8).
The waters exceeded Vrtra. Han lay by their feet, the dragon. In the middle of the never stopping, never sleeping water’s course lay the serpent’s body. In far reaching darkness Indra’s enemy sinks. (RV 1,32,8-10.) Indra hit Vrtra i the head with the many-sided lightning-wedge. (RV 1,52,15.) Rydberg correctly establishes, like many before and after him, the similarities with the myth of Thor and the Midgard serpent.   5. A single giant, Rauhina, dared to enter the gods’ dwelling, but was afterward crushed by Indra’s lightning wedge (RV 1,103,2; 2,12,12). Indra killed the giant on his own territory and brought along two other gods on his journey. The myth shows similarities with the story of Thor and Hrungnir.   6. The giant-race the pani possessed fleet-footed horses and stole the heavenly grain. They chased away and imprisoned the rain-clouds and the morning dews, so that the earth dried up. The gods, Indra before all others, undertook crusades to punish the pani. Rydberg makes far-reaching comparisons between the pani’s excellent horses those of the Nordic giants (Gullfaxi) and wishes to prove that “giant-demons in horse-shape” (like the Iranian Apaosa) exist in both the Indic and Germanic mythology (Sleipnir, son of Loki and the horse
Svadilfari, the demon Moinn in horse-form). Grain also played a prominent role within Germanic mythology: according to Lokasenna 23, Loki milked cows in the underworld for eight years; white cows drew Terra Mater’s wagon according to Tacitus.   7. Indra, accompanied by a group of warriors, on one occasion had gone off to kill the giant Ahi. The way there was difficult to find, and Ahi complicated the journey further by sending hail-showers toward Indra and his men (RV 1, 32, 13). They must wade through 19 rivers (RV 1, 32, 14). Two of Indra’s companions were almost drown but were rescued and carried to the other shore by the god. At the meeting of Indra and Ahi, the giant cast lightning toward Indra, but Indra was unharmed and killed Ahi (RV 1, 32, 13). With that, the giantess’ caves opened and the water gushed out. Similarities with the Geirrod myth are obvious.   8. Indra stood in irreconcileable opposition to all winter-powers and storms. Rydberg compares the winter-giants with Gymir, and he identifies the Sanskrit hima, Latin hiems, greek. χιών 'wintercold' and sees in him the same giant that Saxo calls king Snow.   9. Both Thor and Indra ride in a wagon through the atmosphere (RV 10, 89, 2; 49:7 etc.) but walk on foot into the world of the giants. When they wade through the streams of water, they grow in bodily size as high as the wave-swells (RV 1, 52, 7 - Thorssdrapa 7).   10. Both gods require a considerable amount to eat and drink. Indra feels stong when he eats 1,000 bulls, Thor is satistfied with less. At Hymir’s (Hym. 15) he eats two bulls. At Thrym’s (Thrymskvida 24) one bull and eight salmon in addition to it. Indra was the greatest soma-drinker (RV 1,8,7): at one time, he emptied thirty bowls of soma (RV 8,66,4), while Thor in this regard was his superior; at Skrymir’s he drank nearly the whole sea from a horn.   11. Indra’s thunder-wagon was yoked with haris, 'the red-brown', that he slaughtered to revive again like Thor’s goats.  
  12. In character, Thor and Indra were completely like one another; “friendly to humans”, “noble-minded” easily aroused, quickly calmed again, basically good-hearted, joyous with song and mead” which Rydberg using folk-pyschology, interpreted as a creation from “the Aryan time of unity, when unsubdued  heroic courage was united with goodness and good-will as an ideal.”   13. Rydberg maintains that Thor’s oldest weapon, a hammer, was of stone, and sees this confirmed by the folk-concept of the thunder-wedge (flint).  Indra’s weapon, vajra, was “four-edged” like the swastika (RV 4,22,1,2).   14. The name Thor, according to Rydberg, 'means “roarer' and is related to Sanskrit tan, tanyati, 'roar', 'thunder', which is an ancient epithet for Indra’s weapon probably also a name borne by Indra himself. In Thor’s byname Einridi Rydberg sees a distorted echo of Indra” every attempt to explain the word from the Norse store of language “smacks of folk-etymology.”   15. Indra’s friend, ward and battle-brother was the hero Kutsa, who belonged to the class of beings comparable to the Norse alfar. Rgveda’s angiras and rbhus. Kutsa lived together with his “judicial, imaginative” wife and a darling son on a farm near the border-river Rasa. Kutsa fought, alone or together with Indra, against the giant dasyus and susnas. Indra stayed with him on his journeys to the giant’s land. In Kutsa’s company Indra killed the giant Susna (RV 4,16,12; 1,63,3; 1,121,9 etc.). Kutsa rides together with Indra on the thunder-wagon, etc (RV 2,19, 6). Rydberg compiles Kutsa with the Norse Egill-Aurvandill. In the first volune of his Investigations, Rydberg has sought to show the identity of Völund’s brother Egill and Svipdag’s father Aurvandill. Egill-Aurvandill lived by the Elivagor, the boundary water between Jotunheimm and Asgardr, he was Thor’s friend and received him on his farm. Rydberg identifies Kutsa’s wife with Groa, »the dis of vegetation» Egill-Aur-
vandil’s wife. Kutsa was like Egill the protector of crops. Indra rescued Kutsa from mortal danger like Thor rescued Egill-Aurvandill. Kutsa utilizes a weapon, “so characteristic that it is called by his name kutsya” (RV 4,16,12). Rydberg gives approval that kutsya was a bow. Egill-Aurvandill too was an archer.   In Rigveda two other heroes are named beside Kutsa, Aya and Atithigva. Aya, one of the smith-competent rbhus, Rydberg associates with Old Norse Ajo, another name of the smith Volund. Egill stood in the same relationship to Volund as Kutsa to Aya. Kutsa, Aya and Atithigva  Gradually beome Indra’s enemies in the same manner as Volundr, Egill and Slagfinr from having been the gods’ friends to becoming their adversaries.  16. Rydberg finally identifies Pusan and Thjalfi. “Among the Rigveda-Aryans he became Indra’s ward, among the Germans he became Thor’s.  Thialfi was an orphan, adopted into Egil’s house (FAS 3, 241). Pusan too was an orphan encountered in a concealing vavri (RV 10,5,5). Thialfi accompanied Thor on his campaigns against the giants and took part in battles. Pusan played the same role, when in Indra’s company he fought the Vrtras (RV 6, 56,2). Thjalfi broke the goat’s bone. The same is said of Pusan. Both had sisters who are mentioned in the myths. “Pusan, like Thialfi, is the Aryan tribes’s and family’s leader and defender, when they  departed to find their new dwelling-places ...Among the Rigveda-Aryans as well as the Germans, the same hero became the defender of migrants and colonizers, and particularly in the Germanic, the prototype for settlers. Det har synts mig vasentligt att redogora for Rydbergs syn pa problemet Thor-Indra, and this for many reasons. Rydbergs forskningar har pa ett satt. som de ingalunda Iortjanar blivit asidosatta in the scientific discussion. Hans  sammanstallning of the mythological elements show that he sjalv havdat, »gemensamhet in a large, central, connected-myth complex»." Rydberg's view on the myth i allmanhet och den vediska myten i synnerhet ar i stort sett riktig, da den i vasentlighet vilar pa Bergaigne’s theories about Iorhallandet between rite and myth. Svagheten i Rydbergs position sammanhanger framfor allt med att han till varje pris ville pressa fram likheter for att pa sa satt stalla the Germanic mythology in samklang with the Indo-European. Harmed samanmanhanger ocksa hans benagenhet for en viss fri tolkning av de...  Obviously considerable similarties exist between Indra and Thor although  not to such a high degree as Rydberg wanted to prove. One has pointed out, for example, a similarity in the name-conception: *Þun-ra and Ind-ra, with the same suffix. Hela den stora fragan, huruvida gemensamma myth-complex forelegat fardiga already during the so-called Indo-European cultural time of unity, a question that Rydberg tillmatte stor vikt, maste Iamnas obesvarad, da dels prehistorien ar for litet kand for att kunna laggas till grund for sakra slutsatser, dels fragan om mytkomplexens uppkomst och vandringar mellan de olika kulturkretsarna inrymmer alltfor manga osakerhetsmoment, for att man skall kunna giva en helhetsbild by the mythic world. Av vikt ar ocksa i detta sammanhang att understryka att ett flertal Indra myths, som Rydberg ej tagit stallning till, inte ager tillampning pa the Nordic thunder-god. The older forskningen explained tamligen enhalligt Indra as the god of heaven. His original character as a thunder-god is commonly maintained, for example by Maurice Bloomfield and H. Oldenberg. Macdonnell saw in Indra, partially a thundergod and secondly a wargod. E. W. Hopkins had a strong feeling that the disparate elements in the Indra-form that had “too much storm in himself to be the sun, too much light to be the storm, too closely related to monsoons to be the heaven and too rainy to be the fire.”
 

 

 
 
 
  [HOME]
[PRIOR]
1940s [NEXT]
[Germanic Mythology]