The Rune Poems (Closing 30th November)

Quote :

Fé - Wealth
Source of discord among kinsmen
and fire of the sea
and path of the serpent. (Icelandic)

Quote :

Feoh
Wealth is a comfort to all men;
yet must every man bestow it freely,
if he wish to gain honour in the sight of the Lord. (Anglo-Saxon)

The first very obvious difference between all three versions is the change in the rune symbol's name, we have Fe in the Old Norse poam, Fé in the Icelandic and Feoh in the Anglo-Saxon one. All three names are, however, similar to some extent.

A distinct similarity we can observe is the mentioning of wealth in all three descriptions, the same meaning we assign to this rune in the Elder Furthark nowadays. On the other hand we can also see that this aspect was not generally interpreted in the same way: While both the Old Norse and the Icelandic poem name wealth as a "[s]ource of discord among kinsmen", even using the exatly same wording, the Anglo-Saxom poem offers the seemingly exactly opposite interpretation of it being "a comfort to all men". This can presumably be reasoned by cultural differences, yet it is noteworthy these two ideas do not directly oppose each other. While - or even exactly because of - being comforting to the individual, wealth can easily draw envy from others and thus lead to conflict among even family members.

After this, the Anglo-Saxon poem is the only one furtherly examining the meaning of wealth in one's life directly, stating that it has to be given to others freely in order to be regarded as a honourful being by God. This religious mentioning indicates religion as being an important factor in the Anglo-Saxon culture of the poem's period, supposedly more so than in the Icelandic and Norwegian cultures of those poems' respective times (since those do not include a relation to a God of any sort).

Instead, these poems both give individual metaphors for wealth being a source of conflict, or it's what I think they do: "[...] the wolf lives in the forest", as taken from the Old Norse poem, is more clouded, "[...] fire of the sea/ and path of the serpent" from the Icelandic one, judging by the way they are listed along with the line about discord, seem to directly describe wealth again, in a metaphoric way. All three metaphors use negatively associated subjects, wolf and serpent as dangerous and possibly threatening animals, fire as a non-animalistic danger and threat to one's life. The Old Norse poem's metaphor could also stand in relation to the various mentionings of wolves in Norse Mythology, the same applying for the serpent metaphor from the Icelandic poem. Adding to that the fire metaphor, one is reminded of Loki, a giant from Norse mythology who was originally the God of Fire, also featuring fiery red hair. The wolf and snake are connected to him because for one he has two sons that are a wolf and a snake and also because once he was tried to be killed by turning one of his sons into a wolf, who then ripped apart another son, those shreds were used to fasten Loki to three stones, and a venomous snake was hung above his head so he'd die from the dripping venom.

Taking this myth into account as well as the fact that Loki was the Trickster God and "Father of Lies", I'd say that both poems obviously want to stress the harm wealth can do, leading to lies and trickery, and the way it can be as dangerous and threatening as a wolf, a snake or fire. This would fit in perfectly with the first line of wealth being "a source of dicsord among kinsmen", making the Old Norse and Icelandic poem stress the negative aspect of wealth while the Anglo-Saxon one concentrates far more on its positive side and meaning to religion.


Part Two: The Rune Bjarkan

For this rune, we have three different yet related stanzas, too:

Quote :

Bjarkan
Birch has the greenest leaves of any shrub;
Loki was fortunate in his deceit. (Old Norse)

Quote :

Bjarken - Birch
Leafy twig
and little tree
and fresh young shrub. (Icelandic)

Quote :

Beorc
The poplar bears no fruit; yet without seed it brings forth suckers,
for it is generated from its leaves.
Splendid are its branches and gloriously adorned
its lofty crown which reaches to the skies. (Anglo-Saxon)

We find again that we are dealing with three different names, Bjarkan in the Old Norse poem and Bjarken in the Icelandic one being closely related while Beorc, the name used in the Anglo-Saxon poem, differs so it only has the slightest similarities. This seems to be a general phenomenon when looking at the other runes in the three poems as well.

One can also notice that, once more, the general meaning of the rune is closely related, as all three descriptions deal with trees of some kind. However there is also a repetition of the slightly less similar Anglo-Saxon rune, for this poem's stanza deals with a poplar, whereas both the Icelandic and the Old Norse poem's stanza are speaking of a birch tree. Birch is additionally the meaning we connect to this rune in the Elder Furthak today, which shows another occasion of the Icelandic and Old Norse poems being closer to the Elder Furthark as we know it than the Anglo-Saxon is.

On the other hand, we have somewhat more similarities here, since not only the topic is loosely the same, but the way this topic is described also seems rather alike. We have a growing tree here, which seems to be considered positive in all three poems. The Old Norse poem stands out most this time, actually, for it says something about the aforementioned mythic giant Loki. While I understand the idea of him being "fortunate in his deceit", for he was after all a tricking, deceiving shape-shifter, I must admit that I cannot see how it would relate to the birch tree having "the greenest leaves of any shrub".This line does, however, work with the modern interpretation of the Berkano rune reversed or merkstave, which includes deceit. Other than this, I cannot see further connection, also not after looking into Loki's role in the Norse Mythology.

We can only determine that the respective trees always seem to be fruitful, the birch having "the greenest leaves of any shrub" (Old Norse) and being a "[l]eafy [...] little tree and fresh young shrub" (Icelandic) and the poplar "[bearing] no fruit", but "[bringing] forth suckers [...] generated from its leaves", with "splendid" branches and a "[...] gloriously adorned [...] crown which reaches to the skies" (all Anglo-Saxon).

Altogether, I would say that this rune's explanations show again that while all three cultures had similar runes with similar meanings, there were differences, and the Anglo-Saxon runes were the most different from these three. As a matter of fact, they are actually completely another alphabet of runes, the Anglo-Saxon ones, while Icelandic and Old Norse runes belonged to the Elder Furthark alphabet, the presumably most ancient one. It is assumed that other alphabets were developed from this one, which would explain the noticeable similarities between the Old Norse and Icelandic and the Anglo-Saxon definitions for runes given in the three poems. The only significant difference between the Icelandic and Old Norse, meanwhile, is that the Old Norse runes were more closely relatd to the Norse Mythology and therefore slighty differ in names and especially meanings.


Part Three: The Clearest Poem

In my opinion, this comparison is slightly complicated with one poem relating to another alphabet than the others, but I guess you can still judge how well the poems can be understood standing alone. First off, I want to say that I believe the fact all three poems were already translated into modern English helps a lot, since trying to guess what the lines mean is enough work as it is without having to figure out some ancient words on top of it.
Now, since the Icelandic and the Old Norse poems are related to each other more than the Anglo-Saxon is to any of them, I decided to start with the Old Norse.

Including all the aspects of understanding the poems, I think that the Old Norse Rune Poem as the most difficult of all three to understand. There were several factors that made it not that easy to understand. Firstly, I had a feeling that there often were sentences that didn't seem connected by any means, e.g.:

Quote :

Naudhr
Constraint gives scant choice;
a naked man is chilled by the frost.

Those two lines did not seem related to me, but the modern Elder Furthark interpretations helped me realise that they could be seen as the normal and reversed/merkstave meanings of the Nauthiz rune. With this little help, I understood the 'connection' between both lines.
Another problem to me was the constant relation to Norse Mythology, as there were explanations that directly required knowing quite a bit about it, such as these:

Quote :

Ar
Plenty is a boon to men;
I say that Frodi was generous.

Naturally, the link between having plenty as a good thing and there being a generous person was easy to understand, but how is one supposed to know who Frodi is? However, when you know that Frodi is a God from Norse Mythology whose name means "the fruitful one", the whole thing makes a lot more sense.
Furthermore, I came upon desciptions where there really wasn't any reasoning to help me decode their meaning, for example these two lines:

Quote :

Logr
A waterfall is a River which falls from a mountain-side;
but ornaments are of gold.

There is a contradiction clearly indicated by the use of the word 'but', yet I couldn't come up with what it is. I didn't think there was any way a waterfall contradicted an ornament, and finally I settled with the idea that a waterfall is actually just something simple while the ornament always will be special. This, though, didn't help me any further, and I looked for the Elder Furthark rune most similar to Logr, which was Laguz. This one interestingly enough means 'water', but for the ornament part I still couldn't work out a solution. Up until now, I have no idea what is meant by those lines.

So altogether, the Old Norse Rune Poem requires knowledge of Norse mythology, is easier if one knows the modern interpretations of Elder Furthark runes, and still isn't completely understandable. The Icelandic and Anglo-Saxon Rune Poems, on the other hand, are equally easy to understand regarding just the level of speech and the way connected facts are written out.
The Icelandic poem generally lists three aspects of each rune, connecting their lines by using a simple 'and', and it works out just fine, as can be seen here:

Quote :

Reid - Riding
Joy of the horsemen
and speedy journey
and toil of the steed.

Those are three meaning to the rune, each listed seperatly and not connected by force when they have no connection. This poem also does not require any specific knowledge.
The same applies for the Anglo-Saxon poem, where the lines regarding one rune even form a coherent sentence:

Quote :

Ger
Summer is a joy to men, when God, the holy King of Heaven,
suffers the earth to bring forth shining fruits
for rich and poor alike.

There is no problem at all in understanding what those lines are expressing, and you don't need to know a thing about any kind of Mythology or the like.

However, I'd conclude that the Icelandic Rune Poem is still easier understood than the Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem, for there are specific meanings included for each rune, e.g.:

Quote :

Lögr - Water

or

Quote :

Ár - Plenty

The Anglo-Saxon poem does not offer this easy help, and the aformentioned fact that it forms whole sentences as opposed to listing properties actually does not do it good. I feel it is harder to figure out a concrete meaning from one sentence than from a list of possibilities already given just like that.
The last aspect complicating the matter for the Anglo-Saxon poem is the fact that it does not relate to the Elder Furthark alphabet but rather provides its own. This rules out taking a short look at the modern meanings and using them to better understand the poem, instead one has to figure it out all by oneself.

Due to all those reasons, I would say that the speech is not really of importance as all poems have been translated to modern English and use fairly modern words, but the way the poems were written and the kind of help they offer influences which are simple and understandable and which aren't, and personally I perceived the Icelandic Rune Poem as that which could best be understood and therefore, plus due to obvious displaying of the general meanings, it offers the clearest view on the runes (in this case, the Elder Furthark ones).


Part Four: Your Own Rune



Suhaz

A treasure worth all the worlds;
hard to find, hard to hold.
Work and thou shalt gain;
embers're needed for every flame.
Strong bond of trust and joy;
some will eternally stay.
Not fragile love, not that weak;
made to satisfy a strong need.
Without lust and complications;
pleasure forever stuck in the making.
Hard to find, hard to hold;
friendship can mean the world.



Sources:

http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/index.html[/center]

Part One

In both the Icelandic and Norse poems, Fe is used as merely a warning: Wealth can cause family problems. I'm sure this refers to jealousy as well as the desire of family members to develop a bond based solely on financial ambition. Int its worst, it refers to the possibility of murder being attempted or committed inm the hopes of expiditing the distribution of the wealth. The extreme side can be seen through the mentioning of wolves, snakes, and fire. All of these symbols are often seen as destructive aspects of nature.

The Anglo-Saxon poem offers a slightly different view, however. Dickins suggests that wealth can be a good thing. Along with the money, comfort can be received. It is worth noting, though, that the comfort can only come under specific conditions: a generous spirit, a lack of miserly tendency, and a good sense of proper stewardship. Basically, one shouldn't horde money but should also avoid spending frivolously just because one can. Without these conditions, surely Dickins is implying that the wealthy can anticipate the discord warned of by the Norse and Icelandic poems. Both penny-pinching and over-spending draw attention to wealth and make people wonder if any will be left over for them.

Part Two

The Norse and Icelandic poems both refer to the third run as THurs. Both relate to a giant who is cruel to women. The Norse poem states that "misfortune makes few men cheerful." Wile the Icelandic does not give such a statement, the Anglo=Saxon poem seems almost to expand upon it. It appears to have little similarity in itsdescription of Thorn to the third stanzas of the other two poems, but it seems to offer the warning that association with cruel and evil people hurts the person taken in.

This rune drew my attention because it seems to be the one Rune the Icelandic and Old Norse poems were fairly straight-forward with, where the Anglo-Saxon poem was heavily metaphorical in its explanation. Despite the metaphore, the message was still fairly clear, which was what helped me to comprehend more deeply the interpretation offered by the two former poems. If I'm completely truthful, though, I had trouble really following all the poems. None of them really seemed to flow, nor did they actually help me to understand the meaning of runes that, in the past, had seemed clear to me.

Part Three

I definitely preferred the Anglo-Saxon poem over the other two. Not only did it flow better for me --"Grief of the bond-maid and state of oppression and toilsome work" sounds far less like a poem than its counterpart in the Anglo-Saxon--it was simply more clear, as I alluded to before. Over all, many of the interpretations offered by the Iclandic and Old Norse seemed to show only harsher sides of the runes, where the Anglo-Saxon poem maintained a balance in the interpretations. A clear example of this could be seen by comparing Haegl from the Anglo-Saxon poem

Quote :

Hail is the whitest of grain;
it is whirled from the vault of heaven
and is tossed about by gusts of wind
and then it melts into water.

to Hagall from the Old Norse poem

Quote :

Cold grain
and shower of sleet
and sickness of serpents.

Part Four



Ahro

Mighty jav'lin soars
piering loving heart.
Words of hurt in
time of rage.
Fest'ring, bitter sore.
A Growing cancer,
slowly killing love
once held strong within.

(I feel like this was utterly weak, but this was the best I could get out from my understanding of the poems. Sorry for the odd formatting, too.)