Following one of those ‘spirited’ exchanges in relation to the theology of Odin some days ago (you know the type – an affronted (and affronting!) multi-paragraph “HE’S NOT MY REAL (SKY) FATHER!” column, which is then thrust … in my direction / into an ambush / into next week, by the time I’ve finished writing up all the errors) – I’ve been crafting a critical appraisal for that remarkably prevalent notion of Odin being a ‘Psychopomp’.

This post isn’t it (as you can probably tell via the decided lack of bottomless scroll-bar when reading); however you can think of it as a bit of a ‘curtain-raiser’.

I’d happened across this passage within Grimm’s Teutonic Mythology earlier today, and was quite frankly astonished at how on point it was.

Not only for illustrating the sort of … haphazard reasoning through which we’ve wound up with our specific situation, viz. the claims of Odin as Psychopomp (more – and I do mean considerably more – upon this in the full-length piece, rest assured) …

… but also, in its formulaic essence, much of the whole mess of modern ‘Embedded (Expert) Misapprehensions’ concerning Odin (and, hell, concerning me), all up.

But let’s just stick with the Psychopomp avenue of focus, for now. And actually get on with explaining what we’re endeavouring to show, here, through this text.

As you can see from the image, I’ve underlined several sentences in either maroon or turquoise ; the former being statements which are, basically, correct – while the latter serve to indicate specific steps where Grimm’s train of reasoning has gone awry. You’ll see what I mean as we move through, I’m sure. And, speaking of which …

Grimm starts off well enough. He is absolutely correct when he assays “a connexion between Valkyrs and Hermes”, and we would charitably presume that the fact for Hermes as “conductor of souls to the underworld, ψυχαγωγός , ψυχοπομπός , νεκροπομπός” features as flourishing finish for the sentence is due to the role in question being a prominent part to that coterminity.

The collecting and conveyancing for (certain) souls of the deceased to an afterworld is, after all, the iconic feature for the Valkyrie – the integrality for this undertaking for them being such that it’s quite literally ‘right there in the name’ (‘Valr’ + ‘Kjósa’ – ‘Fallen-Chooser’).

Meanwhile, when it comes to ‘Messengers’ and ‘Herald’ – we would, perhaps, endeavour to ‘update’ Stallybrass’ 1883 translation efforts in order to make the concept which Grimm had been going for clearer. In the original German, the terms he uses are iterations built from ‘Bote’ (“botinnen” and “boten”, for the Valkyries; “götterbote”, i.e. “Gods’ ‘Bote”, for Hermes) – which, while certainly translatable as ‘Messenger’ (or, for that matter, ‘Postman’), we would here parse as ‘Courier’; lest it be mistakenly presumed that the conveying in question was of an epistolary nature (i.e. the carrying of communication – that is, messages – as the term ‘Messenger’ most overtly would imply).

What he’d sought to evoke through this labelling was the concept of an archaic ‘psychopomp’ type figure effectively being the ‘Agent’ of a God, and accordingly sent forth in order to collect and convey back thereto. As Grimm had put it (per Stallybrass’ translation), featuring ‘Death’ as the ‘Agent’ in question – “Death came in as messenger of a deity, to whom he conducted the parting soul.” Which, as we can see, is certainly resonant enough for Odin’s sending forth His Valkyries in order to ‘collect’ the best souls and bring these back to He.

However, it is here that things begin to ‘run askew’.

Hermes is, indeed, attested as ‘Herald of the Gods’ (Hesiod’s Theogony, for instance, hailing Him at 938-9 as “κύδιμον Ἑρμῆν, κήρυκ᾽ ἀθανάτων” – ‘Glorious Hermes, Herald of the Immortal [Gods]’); however both more prominent and more prevalent are the ascriptions for Hermes’ (Mercury’s) ‘Herald’ engagement as being on behalf of Zeus (Jupiter) Himself (Orphic Hymnal XXVIII 1 : “Ἑρμεία, Διὸς ἄγγελε” – Hermes, Dios’ [Zeus’] ‘Angel’; Statius’ Silvae III 3 80-81 : “summi Iovis aliger Areas nuntius” – “the winged Arcadian [Mercury] is the messenger of Jove on high”, per Slater’s translation; Pausanias VIII 32 4, drawing from Homer : “τῷ μὲν Διός τε αὐτὸν διάκονον εἶναι καὶ ὑπὸ τὸν Ἅιδην ἄγειν τῶν ἀπογινομένων τὰς ψυχάς” – “that Hermes is the minister of Zeus and leads the souls of the departed down to Hades”, per Jones & Ormerod’s translation; and, with slight variation no doubt intended to express conceptry correlate to that just referenced, Apollodorus’ Bibliotheka III 10 3 : “Ζεὺς δὲ αὐτὸν κήρυκα ἑαυτοῦ καὶ θεῶν ὑποχθονίων τίθησι” – “And Zeus appointed Him [Hermes] herald to Himself and to the Infernal Gods”, per Frazer’s translation; etc. etc.).

It seems odd in the extreme that Grimm would eschew the more pervasive understanding for something rarer – and doubly so when one considers how well this notion for Hermes acting as ‘Messenger’ and Psychopomp-Agent in the employ of the Sky Father deific, Zeus, should have fit quite directly with what he, himself, had put forward concerning both Valkyries and ‘Death’ in his reconstructive typology for how things would ‘originally’ have been.

Except that’s just it. By acknowledging this actual and major understanding, Grimm would have backed himself into quite the corner. He doesn’t really want to have Odin as Zeus – he wants to have Odin as Hermes. And so, we get this bizarre warping and seemingly deliberate overlooking, upon the part of Grimm. As he himself puts it (again, per Stallybrass’ translation): “These maids [Valkyries] are Oðin’s messengers, just as Hermes is herald of the Gods, nay Hermes is Oðinn Himself, to Whom the souls belong. Thus the God’s relation to the Dead is an additional proof of the identity between Wuotan and Mercury. “.

As you can see, that “Nay” is doing rather a lot of work there – and quite incorrectly, to boot. Not least because it is not the case that the Souls of the Dead belong to Hermes. Instead, these ought – surely – be said to belong to Hades … i.e. a Sky Father deific expression (ref. Roman ‘Dis Pater’, etc.), just as Odin is (and one with a fair pedigree in ‘Interpretatio’ terms for Odin, when we remind ourselves of Saxo Grammaticus; with additional logic to the position in light of the Vedic comparanda, as we have covered quite extensively elsewhere).

In other words – “the God’s relation to the Dead” is absolutely not “an additional proof of the identity between Wuotan and Mercury.” But rather, quite the contrary, it shows the opposite to be true. And with it being quite peculiar that Grimm had not, when conjuring differentiation viz. “A distinction appears in the fact that Hermes […]” – made no mention for these points.

Now it is, of course, true that there is a bit of an obvious difference between Valkyries upon one hand, and Hermes upon the other. A clade of female figures, versus one male God. But then we might integrate the situation of Hermóðr and Bragi being attested per the Hákonarmál [14], to be sent forth in similar capacity to bring in a requested soul. Bragi, as is well known, having a name which is very much within the ‘Hermes’ area of operation – and attested competence, as well, per the Gylfaginning :

“Hann er ágætr at speki ok mest at málsnilld ok orðfimi. Hann kann mest af skáldskap, ok af honum er bragr kallaðr skáldskapr, ok af hans nafni er sá kallaðr bragr karla eða bragr kvinna, er orðsnilld hefir framar en aðrir, kona eða karlmaðr.”

“He is renowned for wisdom, and most of all for fluency of speech and skill with words. He knows most of skaldship, and after Him skaldship is called bragr, and from His name that one is called bragr-man or -woman, who possesses eloquence surpassing others, of women or of men.”
[Gylfaginning, XXVI, Brodeur translation]

It’s a shame, because I really do rather like Grimm’s effort in various respects. But as we can quite readily observe – in order to produce the ‘conclusions’ which are underlined in blue (intermediate or more ‘fully’ culminatory conclusions built also therefrom, as well), Grimm effectively had to, as I say, introduce incorrect elements (like this notion of, in interpretatio or directly, Souls ‘belonging’ to Hermes rather than Hades), or leap to conclusions which were simply not to be found as the actual result of his train of contemplation.

And, as I say also – I find this to be effectively emblematic for a whole tranche of comment upon ‘Interpretatio’ and broader Indo-European theological equation, where Odin is concerned.

People – well-meaning or otherwise – coming at it from the stance of Odin as Mercury being basically ‘correct’, whether because they really want to believe that (often because they are attempting to run the “YOU’RE NOT MY REAL SKY FATHER” type line from earlier), or because they feel that the first and last word upon the subject is that of a Roman historian writing second-hand and with a demonstrably not-quite-correct take on things, some two thousand years afore, or because the sheer weight of inertia in the scholarship has so suppressed their critical faculties that they are, it seems, apparently unable to re-evaluate the position and remark upon its flawed nature.

Whatever the case – we are here to serve as corrective.

Not in disrespect for those scholars and inquiring minds who have come before (except where very deserved & necessary).

But out of piety for The Gods.