Did the Runes Originate With an Act of Gay Sex?
James Kirkup's scurrilous, and surprisingly tender, poem “The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name,” in which a Roman centurion makes love to (and with) the dead body of the crucified Jesus, has been twisting the nuts of pious Christians since 1977.
Behold, the heathen iteration.
If you've been pagan for more than 16 minutes, you will no doubt be familiar with the famous Rúnatál (“Song of the Runes”) from Hávamál, in which Óðinn discovers the runes in a heroic act of literal self-sacrifice, cited here in Carolyne Larrington's 1999 translation:
139 I know that I hung
on a windy tree
nine long nights,
wounded with a spear,
dedicated to Óðinn,
myself to myself,
on that tree of which no man knows
from where its roots run.
140 No bread they gave me,
or a drink from a horn,
downwards I peered;
I took up the runes,
screaming I took them,
then I fell back from there.
In the standard reading, Allfather hangs himself from World Ash Yggdrasil (“Steed of the Terrible [One]” presumably Óðinn himself), and runs himself through with a spear: the standard manner of human sacrifices offered to Óðinn. It is this terrible sacrifice which enables him to discover, and seize, the Runes, those mystic building-blocks from which what is, is made.
But how if what the Rúnatál describes is no literal hanging, with branch, rope, and swinging corpse?
What if Rúnatál is actually describing (in a very graphic sense) an act of impalement?
What if the destructive-creative act that gave us the Runes was also an act of ergi?
In the surviving literature, ergi (noun) and argr (adjective) are terms of abuse, in a semantic field encompassing translations like “shameful”, "unmanly", “effeminate”, and “cowardly.”
As any web-search will show, in our day the terms are not infrequently associated with receptive male-male intercourse, the assumption being that, to those über-butch vikings—as in machismo cultures to this day—it would have been shameful to be (willingly) penetrated.
Whether the Norse-speaking ancestors saw it this way or not has yet to be proven. Still, for the sake of argument, let us grant the premise.
What, then, are the implications that—as anyone conversant in Norse literature knows—Óðinn is himself not infrequently accused of ergi?
Might it be for this that he became known—surely one of his more enigmatic heiti, or by-names—as Jálkr, "eunuch"?
Certainly we can say that the Norse found the practice of seiðr by males to be argr: presumably because opening oneself to be a “passive” receptacle is analogous to permitting sexual penetration.
Óðinn, of course, is also said to have (transgressively) practiced seiðr.
That the act of receptive intercourse can be an initiatory experience, generating profound, transformative insights, I would be the last to deny.
Did it also—possibly even historically—give us the runes as well?
The remaining question here can only be: granted the rest, on whose “tree of life” is Óðinn “hanged”?
(On top, even when he's being receptive. Yep, that would be Óðinn, all right.)
To anyone conversant in the lore, there can really be only one answer: whose else but that of his ettinish oath-brother, whose argr credentials—as himself the mother of Sleipnir—are surely ungainsayable? thus rendering their joint act doubly transgressive.