The significance of runes for Dasein’s constitution of meaning therefore has an epochal character. This does not mean that people of different ages read and interpret runes in different ways; instead, the memory of runes becomes manifest in different degrees according to the spiritual distress of an epoch. We moderns live in the age of nihilism and have hunger for memory beyond the individual, family and nation.

However, I think one thing needs addressing, and that is when you say “Personally I have found the rune poems to be like deep wells into the collective unconscious – the more I explore them, the deeper they get.” I can agree with that.

But I’ve also noticed that I can delve into anything of substance with the same intensity and come up with some related explorations into the runes. Jung in particular, but you’ll catch me reading lots of things often with a pencil in my hand (or mouth since I quit smoking a while ago ;) and marking runes down the columns of books where a thought lines up with something from one of the runes… anyone else do this?

I hear what you are saying, and of course the rune poems are not perfect sources. But I don’t think that meaning dies just because it has been recorded. For me the old myths, just like the words of Jung or Nietzsche or Ralston Saul, are just as alive now as when they were recorded. Words are doors into imagination, and what dies (in my opinion anyway) is not the door but our willingness or ability to enter.

That said, just about everything we have of Northern myth was recorded by Christians – does that mean we chuck out the whole of the Poetic Edda, too? These sources might have been written down by Christians, but they are clearly not Christian in content. These are old documents but they’re the best place to start that we have.

At some point we have to take a leap of faith. Personally I have found the rune poems to be like deep wells into the collective unconscious – the more I explore them, the deeper they get. For me personally they’ve been a profound window into the runes.

I’m not sure which oral histories you are referring to – my understanding is that there is no living oral rune magic tradition and has not been for centuries – or if there is then it is thoroughly underground.

And even if someone did come along and claim to be the recipient of such a tradition it would be impossible to authenticate…so, limited though they may be, the rune poems have more credibility than any such tradition is likely to be able to achieve.

I tend to find that when I go back to historical sources I find that they offer much more interesting ideas and insights than the innovations of most modern authors on runes. The imagery of the rune poems is heavily saturated with the pre-modern Germanic worldview, and the Christian gloss on some of the stanzas washes off easily. With a critical mind one can make informed decisions about what to rely on and what not to rely on…Runic Amulets and Magic Objects is a useful tool for acheiving that end, too.

So I agree, historical sources such as the rune poems are not the be all and end all. But for me they are incredibly inspiring and have enriched my runic practice immeasurably. I’ve not found anything comparable, but I invite you to offer some suggestions to that effect…

Thanks for your complimentary sentiments, by the way!

H

I’ve always found that some of the evidence surrounding the runes is misleading: this was a culture that largely avoided writing things down, perhaps because they knew intuitively that people latch on too tightly to written records, and the living-meanings that warp and shift naturally to maintain MEANING (which is of ultimate importance) are instead twisted and interpreted according to the inclinations of the interpreters of a given culture or age.

That’s an important thing to consider… as soon as those words hit the paper, they were dead. It’s clear that the runes themselves, choked full of meaning and symbolism, working cohesively together or individually, are not yet ‘dead’ or stagnant. But the evidence we have of them in the rune poems, unfortunately, is.

Not to discourage analysis of the rune poems, of course (that’d be an odd statement to infer from someone who teaches the runes). I agree that it seems unlikely the poems were meant as a memory device: it’s OUR memories that suffer, probably not so much the ancients… oral culture is quite amazingly different in it’s ability to store information…

But these poems were probably written (with considerable revisionary powers) by an outsider, more a historian in his own time. Just look at Tacitus’ bias when dealing with the northern cultures. Many perspectives… just as many then as now, surely?

Anyway, just some thoughts. I stumbled upon one of Matt’s articles (his most recent) and thought it was yours Henry, so left a comment there too. I love what you’ve done with the website. A little envious maybe. But I don’t do black websites anymore ;)

-Tyriel
RuneSecrets.com