A curious thought I have had this evening concerning the Three Ættir [‘Clans’, Sets / Rows] of the Elder Futhark. These are customarily divided based upon the first Rune in each – *Fehu , *Hagalaz, and *Tiwaz ; with these being further associated , as applies the first, with Freyr , and with some efforts to connect the middle with Heimdallr, whilst the last, for obvious reasons, is often said to be Tyr’s.

But what if that’s not quite true? What if another reasoning originally underpinned the ordering for the Runes into Three Rows in such a manner?

Consider this – the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad [V 2 1] divides up the beings [‘Prajapati’s Sons’] into three clades: Gods (Devā), Men (Manuṣyā), and A’suras (Asurāḥ). I would suspect this to be an archaic schema (although it is most definitely not the only one one encounters within the Hindu perspective).

Now, ‘Gods’ – Devas – have an easy correlation as applies the Names of the Rune-Rows: *Tiwaz is directly cognate with Sanskrit ‘Deva’ , and is often encountered both to refer to individual Gods (c.f., for instance, the many ‘-Tyr’ suffixes in Odinic theonymics), as well as (admittedly somewhat more rarely) in plural / group formulation, Tivar, to refer to *The* Gods.

It would be entirely unsurprising – to me, at any rate – were the *Tiwaz / ‘Tyr’ Rune-Row so named due to a ‘Divine’ association as one third the clades of sentient beings, in the manner of that Hindu schema.

But what of the other two Rows?

The First Row is often termed that of Freyr – albeit here we have some curious points, as *Ingwaz and *Mannaz , two of the Runes that should prove most pertinent for that which we are about – are not to be found in this Row (instead, both proving occurrent in the Third – *Tiwaz demarcated – Aett).

*Mannaz, we mention as that is the Proto-Germanic reconstruction for ‘Man’, and of course, this is a direct cognate viz. Sanskrit Manu & Manushya ; with Mannus, per Tacitus, being seemingly the same figure.

*Ingwaz, however, we mention as underpinning an alternate name for Lord Freyr [a tautology] – Yngvi / Ing / Ingwi, and also occurring in the ‘Ingaevones’ / ‘Ingvaeones’ stated as one of the three descendant tribes of the aforementioned Mannus by Tacitus.

We would surmise that both this and the otherwise unexplained Istvaeones, are in fact simply different ways to say ‘Man’; the latter, per Grimm’s innovative denotion in his Teutonic Mythology (excerpt immediately below), being linked to ‘Askr’ (i.e. ‘Ash-[Tree]’, and Spear – ref. ‘Aescling’; and the broad complex of Greek peoples tracing descent to a Melia [‘Ash[-Tree]’ / ‘Ash-Nymph’ / ‘Spear’] ).

And the former, either resultant from the same PIE which produces ‘Youth’ (ref. ‘yuvaśá-ḥ’ or ‘yuvaká-h’, per Pokorny), or, more intriguingly, perhaps from PIE *Nekus [like ‘Necro-‘; ‘Death’ / ‘Mortal’ as meaning – c.f. Tocharian A ‘Oṅk’ & Tocharian B ‘Eṅkwe’, meaning ‘Man’], and therefore meaning ‘Mortal’ [ref. Sanskrit and Old Persian ‘Martya’ – derived from PIE *Mertis , and both meaning ‘Mortal’ as in ‘Man’; and, for that matter, per Pokorny [ *mór-to- ] the similarly plant-originated Mashya & Mashyana first man and woman of the Zoroastrians].

It would also be possible, one suspects, to situate the third grouping – the Irminones – in such a typology as well, based around the fashion in which ‘Irmin’ (Proto-Germanic *Ermunaz) would likely derive from PIE *h₃er- (ref. ‘Erinyes’), the sense of ‘stirring up’ pertaining to the ‘bringing to life’ itself and/or the ‘spirit’ imparted into Man to bring humanity to life (and c.f. the manner in which ‘Manyu’, ‘Menos’, in Sanskrit and Ancient Greek are both from the same PIE *Men as ‘Man’, and connote that ‘Active Spirit’ which is Fury; c.f. also the situation of the investiture of ‘óðr’ (and ‘ǫnd’) – and the Upanishadic notion [c.f. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad III 9 4, Chandogya Upanishad III 16 3] wherein the Eleven Rudras refer to the ‘Vital Airs’ which bring a mortal body to life – these being Ten Pranas [‘Breaths’] of the Purusha [‘Body’], and one ‘Soul’ / ‘Mind’ [ Atma ] .)

But I digress.

Freyr, as we well know, is often identified via *Ingwaz derived titles and hailings – indeed, ‘Yngvi[-]Freyr’ is quite directly a name of His.

Although as applies that which that particular title actually means … ‘Lord of Men’ is one (obvious) prospect; however we would also ponder the prospect for the PIE root to ‘Freyr’, *Per, to actually have archaically been intended (also) as ‘First’ (another *Per derivative, as it happens): that is to say Ingvi-Freyr as ‘First Man’, something non-exclusive with ‘Lord of Man’ when we consider the PIE ‘Progenitor Twins’ schema which has Manu / Romulus (etc.) as ‘First King [of the Living / Man]’ and Yama / Iemus (Remus) going forth to rule the Realm of the Ancestors / Dead [ref. Yama’s rule over Naraka (‘Nara’, as in ‘Man’) or Pitrloka; Remuria / Lemuria , whence ‘Lemur’ in the sense of a haunting ancestral spirit, etc.]

And so therefore, it should make some sense were that ‘F-‘ Rune-Row to be that of Man.

The ‘F-‘ Rune in question, however, is actually of a different meaning – *Fehu is cognate with Sanskrit ‘Pashu’, the ‘Pecu-‘ of Latin which gives us ‘Pecunious’ [i.e. ‘Wealthy’], although in all cases, actually archaically referring to Cattle [PIE *Peku – and note both P => F and K => H sound-shifts in operation there]. Which were, after all, quite the source of and store of ‘Wealth’ in those ancient times.

One does encounter ‘Pashu’ utilized in a somewhat different (but similarly originated) sense to refer to humans, particularly in rather particular theological context – however I do not seek to propose that that is (necessarily) the origination for *Fehu in a prospective ‘Of Man’ Row sense. Instead, as you may have gathered, the connexions between the *actual contents* of the respective Rune-Rows and the labelings for such, maybe rather figurative or ‘loose’. Again I digress.

Our final Rune Row is that of *Hagalaz – and, if my typological hypothesizing is vaguely accurate, then it *should* be linkable to ‘Demons’, the ‘Asura’ (I tend to anglicize as ‘A’sura’ so as to avoid confusion with the entirely different yet homophonic ‘Asura’ term in archaic Vedic Sanskrit; ‘A’sura’ as in ‘Demon’, is ‘Opposite to Solar (‘Sura’)’).

Is it?

Well, the Gylfaginning depicts the Hrímþursar, the ‘Rime-Giants’, as originating from Ymir and occurrent in decidedly malefic terms.

Why do I mention this?

The etymology for *Hagalaz has been proposed in a number of different directions – Kroonen’s Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic (entry reproduced below) has it rooted in a term for ‘Cold’ [ref. PIE *ḱel(h₁)- ; and c.f. Old Norse ‘héla’ for ‘Frost / Rime’], although also acknowledges another prospect, viz. ‘torment’ or infliction of pain (something that should certainly seem within the ‘Demonic’ area of tangible affect; and which is often emphasized as the characteristic of the A’suras in commentaries on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad V 2 3 – see next textual excerpt after the Kroonen immediately following ).

[I would personally ponder whether ‘Hex’, as in ‘Hexen’ (‘Curse’) might prove similar : and c.f. also, for our purposes, the ‘Hex-Placers’ , the ‘Witches’, we find declared as *Hagatusjo’ in Proto-Germanic [Pokorny, as it happens, wishes the foreparticle to be correlate with the root for ‘Hedge’. We *could* work with this ‘bordering’ notion for our typology, c.f. my suspicions as to the functional rooting for ‘Rakshasa’ in relation to the ‘Borders’ of the Ritual Enclosure and how this correlates to the similarly ‘Devouring’ Jotunn and Jotunheim’s cosmological position … but again, I digress !]; a more immediate correlate for this sense to *Hagalaz would assumedly be the somewhat uncommon English ‘Hag’ – a verb for ‘harassing’, and the like .]

[In a spirit of completeness, the third notion countenanced by Kroonen, viz. ‘Pebble’ – whilst it does make sense for ‘Hailstone’, could also … vaguely … be thought of in relation to the addition of bricks often mentioned in the Vedic ritual schemas for the mythologized versions of rites via way of their explication [SBr III 8 4, interestingly, has ‘pebbles’ as an assumedly inferior alternative to the proper Bricks of the Altar for one who has not constructed same; SBr II 1 1 8, meanwhile, mentions these ‘pebbles’ in the same breath as the division between Gods and Demons], wherein we find the A’Suras doing just exactly that in trenchant rivalry to the Gods. But I acknowledge that this is quite ‘figurative’ and ‘loose’ a potential parallel, indeed – and does not account for the fact of the conventional utilization for both Bricks and Pebbles being in proper [i.e. Divinely-oriented] Rites]

We have also, as applies the other half to Hrímþursar, noted that þurs (from Proto-Germanic *Thurisaz) possesses an intriguing cognate in Sanskrit ‘Tura’ – a term that can mean ‘Hurt’, but is more usually encountered as ‘Powerful’, ‘Strong’, and the like. In that it would reflect ‘Asura’ (note – not the ‘demon’ one, the more archaic homophone).

So, where does all of that leave us?

Well, perhaps further ahead – perhaps not.

I do not – and I must emphasize this, do not – believe that, even if I am correct as to this archaic ‘triple’ division schema (Gods – Men – Demons) being adequate to explicate the Three Runic Aettir having such nomenclature attached to Them, that this has substantive bearing as to the content of each Rune Row.

One often encounters in various guidebooks and online comments efforts at making sense of the Runes in such a way – linking the Eight Runes of each Row to the God (or other labelling) affixed to such, and thence trying to torturously (even tendentiously) extract a logical ‘processional’ or other associated suite of meaning for ‘why those Runes in that Clade’, style of thing.

Some of these are better than others, and I by no means seek to imply that there can be no coherent explanation to be had for why which Rune goeth where.

But I do think that it may be possible to significantly over-egg things in seeking to directly link each and every one of the Eight Runes of a Row to the post-facto short-handing titles given to the Rows in question.

Sometimes, things that are symbolic are – ‘symbolic’ of things other than we may, perhaps, be heavily expecting them to be.

But more upon all of that, perhaps, at some other time.