Reginrúnar

Rune-working in the primary sources

There is much contemporary interest in the use of runes as a form of divination and source for other magical workings. This article presents what amounts to the primary source evidence in the medieval Germanic corpus that exists for divinatory or magical use/association with the runes. This article will not focus on the rune poems, but will instead present texts which directly reference the potentially divinatory use of runes.

---

Probably the earliest-dated source that is relevant in this discussion is the following reference to the throwing of lot-twigs in Tacitus’ Germania (10)^❦1 Tacitus 10:

If Tacitus’ account has some amount of truth to it, we see that there was some practice of divination based on symbols in some Germanic cultures during the 1st century AD. However, we have no way to know what the markings to which Tacitus refers actually were, much less whether they were runes, or rather precursors to the runes we see in later Germanic inscriptions. Additionally, it should be noted that, while there are manifold artifacts that feature runes, including runes which appear to be functioning as charms or otherwise magical language, nothing akin to rune twigs or rune chips which would be suited for the kind of divination described by Tacitus have appeared in the archæological record.

Around the 700s, we get two possible references to the use of runes for magical or divinatory purposes. The first is the Björketorp Runestone in Blekinge, Sweden. There is a lot that can be said about how to interpret this text^❦2 Looijenga p 178, but one possible reading of it is:

The runes in this semi-alliterative Proto-Norse inscription appear to be associated with a curse, though it is ambiguous what role the carving of the runes themselves actually play in the curse, if any.

Around the same time is the the tentative scholarly date of composition for the Old English Rune Poem. The rune poems are important runological resources in their own right, and are not the focus of this articel, but there is a potentially relevant verse from the Rune Poem which does bear on the topic at hand. The very first stanza reads:

Marijane Osborn contrasts a traditional translation (from Bruce Dickins) of the above verse with her own:

The crux of the divergence in these two translations is the final half-line, dómes hléotan, wherein dóm means ‘judgment’ and hléotan can mean both ‘to gain, to obtain, to be alloted’ and the much more specific ‘to cast lots.’ While Osborn questions the reliability of Tacitus’ account of Germanic divination, as do many scholars, she posits that the composer of the Rune Poem might have been familiar with Tacitus’ account, and may even have actually been referencing it in this stanza. This is not the most common interpretation of these lines, but it is an interesting possibility given the fact that it is the first stanza of the Rune Poem itself.

Additional evidence from around this period are the inclusions of runes in Latin catalogues of alphabets. For example, one of many revisions to the late 8th/early 9th century De inventione litterarum (“On the invention of letters”), often attributed to Mainz archbishop Hrabanus Maurus, has this note on the runes:

Runstabas “rune-letters” or “secret-letters” is attested in several Germanic languages. This text demonstrates a belief among Christian writers that the runes were used for some kind of revelatory magical practice. However, the use of them for “the memory of their songs and incantations” is also stressed, demonstrating how the runes were — first and foremost — a writing system, albeit one which was given additional significance amongst those who knew how to use them.

In the later Germanic literature, we receive few hints as to how runic magic, if it was practiced at all, would have been done. What we do find are obscure references to the use of runes for various ends. Hávamál 157 suggests that runes might have a power to raise the dead:

Some of the final stanzas of the Hauksbók manuscript of Vǫluspá^❦6 Vǫluspá in Hauksbók also hint at a connection between runes and decision-making. Stanza 53 reads:

Fimbultýr ‘mighty-god’ here may be another name for Óðinn. The vague description of the doings of remaining gods after the destruction fo the world might suggest the use of some kind of wooden divinatory tools for portentous judgments. Stanza 56 reads:

The word hlutviðr is difficult to interpret. It is made up of the elements hlutr ‘fate, lot; part’ (etymologically related to the Old English verb hléotan discussed above) and viðr ‘tree, wood.’ While a translation of “lot-twig” would be attractive for those looking for a reference to runes, this could just as easily refer to some kind of staff of judgment.

More direct evidence for a connection between runes and magic can be found in the eddic poem Sigrdrífumál, which enumerates several kinds of gamanrúnar ‘mirth-runes’ (5) one should learn to enhance specific abilities:

• sigrúnar ‘victory-runes’ (6) · sigr hafa “to have victory”
• ǫlrúnar ‘ale-runes’ (7) · við fári sjá “to guard against harm”
• bjargrúnar ‘delivering-runes’ (9) · leysa kind frá konum “to deliver a child from a mother”
• brimrúnar ‘surf-runes’ (10) · borgit hafa á sundi seglmǫrum “to have fortification for sail-horses (= ships) at sea”
• limrúnar ‘branch-runes’ (11) · læknir vera ok kunna sár at sjá “to be a healer & know how to see to wounds”
• málrúnar ‘speech-runes’ (12) · at manngi þér heiftum gjaldi harm ”that no one repay a wound with hatred for you”
• hugrúnar ‘thought-runes’ (13) · hverjum vera geðsvinnari guma “to be sharpest-minded among men to everyone”

While the exact nature of these runes is unfortunately lost to time, the poem does provide some rough instructions for how to put these runes into use, which at the very least suggests some awareness of a magical practice involving these runes.

Chapter 38 of Ynglinga saga also bears a tantalizing reference which may be relevant to divinatory rune-usage; Snorri Sturluson writes:

This appears to be a reference to some kind of divining chips, which may remind us of Tacitus’ description above. However, there is nothing in this reference to directly indicate any runes present on these chips, if they are indeed for divining. A similarly ambiguous reference can be found in Hávamál 80:

This excerpt does not provide specifics of usage, but it may suggest at least some idea of consulting runes for insight. Osborn^❦7 Osborn p 170 hints that this assocation, at least between the word ‘rune’ and insight, may also be suggested in the Old English poem The Wanderer (111):

This use of gesittan with rún is also attested with a similar sense in Béowulf (171b-172a):

This sense of rún for “counsel, consultation,” is corroborated even in the Gothic Bible, e.g. Matthew 27:1:

This meaning in Old English and Gothic stand beside the meanings of ‘mystery,’ ‘secret,’ and ‘whisper’; the word hellerúne/hellrúna (feminine/masculine) are even given as the Old English glosses for Latin terms referring to sorcerers or necromancers. It is possible that what seem to us to be disparate ideas — secrets, advice, insight, the work of magical practicioners, and these ancient writing systems — had enough overlap in early Germanic cultures to be drawn together by the use of the same word “rune.”

Upon reviewing the above primary sources, we can see that there is little certainty that there was anything like runic divination performed in the ancient Germanic past. There are some suggestions of divination, and even some that are connected with runes, but some of these sources elicit doubt amongst scholars. What does seem to be more clear, however, is that the runes were heavily associated with both insights and magical practices.

---

For further reading, I highly recommend this article on historical uses of runes, and this article from the same source which delves deeper into the history of rune divination.

references

---

bibliography

• Björketorp stone
• Derolez, R 1954. Runica Manuscripta. De Tempel
• Looijenga, T 2003. Texts and Contexts of the Oldest Runic Inscriptions. Brill, p 178-179
• MacLeod, M & Mees, B 2006. Runic Amulets and Magical Objects. Boydell
• Osborn, M 1981. “‘Hleotan’ and the Purpose of the Old English ‘Rune Poem.’” Folklore 92,2, p 168-173
• PC Tacitus 98. Germania
• Vǫluspá in Hauksbók

---

philology