Winifred Hodge Rose
Note: As background to this article, you may want to read “Speaking Orlog: The Ancient Role of Symbel,” and keep those points in mind as you read through here. Speaking Orlog: The Ancient Role of Symbel
“Speech is the means by which the fact of any action is made explicit and the way in which its continuing present is assured” (Bauschatz p. 109).
The Modern Heathen Symbel or Sumble
Orlog can be understood as a process of ‘laying of patterns.’ The Heathen ceremony of symbel or sumble is a powerful way to lay patterns in orlog, and to begin the reworking of existing patterns when needed.
Symbel is one of the two standard ceremonies among modern Heathens, along with the Blot, and is usually included in abbreviated form within the Blot. In its simplest group form it proceeds like this: a designated person raises a horn or other drinking vessel and opens the ceremony by hailing the Heathen Deities—all of them together, or sometimes one in particular if the symbel or Blot is dedicated to that Deity. Participants follow around the circle in turn, each hailing one or more Holy Ones. During the second round, ancestors, heroes, admired persons are hailed. For the third round, some groups will hail the Landwights, others consider it an open round to speak their hearts in whatever way they wish. Some groups may do this more formally and include the Braga-Full—hailing the group who hosts the symbel, its members, and other such acknowledgements. Sometimes the symbel is performed very formally, with carefully structured steps and customs meaningful to the group performing it. Other times it may be informal—springing up around a campfire spontaneously, for example, or held among a relaxed group of Heathen friends. For many groups, the level of formality falls between those two styles.
Oathing in Symbel
There is one symbel event that does require a degree of formality, however: swearing oaths. These should never be done lightly, whether it involves the swearing-in of group officers or others in authority, relationship oaths such as betrothal or blood-siblinghood, or oaths to accomplish a certain deed. Oaths are a powerful means of both influencing and fulfilling our orlog; they need to be carefully thought-through and faithfully carried out or we risk serious damage to our orlog.
For this reason, some Heathen groups appoint a Thyle or Thul for the symbel, an experienced and mature Heathen who serves as a reality-check during the process of oathing. The Thyle may challenge a person’s ability to perform the oath, as was done during Beowulf’s symbel in Hrothgar’s hall in the Beowulf poem (see my article “Speaking Orlog: The Ancient Role of Symbel”). Other experienced Heathens present at the symbel may play that role as well. The purpose for this is to make sure that the oathing person has thought through all the ramifications and requirements of the oath. If it becomes clear during the challenge that the person has not done this, then the Thyle might either suggest some modification of the oath to make it more achievable, or suggest that the oath-taker wait and prepare more thoroughly before making the oath in a future symbel.
In acknowledgement of the power of Skuld, some groups require that a person swearing a formal oath in symbel should also state the shild or penalty that they will pay if they fail in their oath, even if the failure is due to circumstances beyond their control. The purpose here is to make clear, and to accept, that failed oaths inevitably affect one’s orlog and involve the accumulation of shild, of metaphysical debt. The shild-penalty that the oath-taker offers as part of the oath-swearing is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the oath and its consequences. We can see how serious the offered shild could be, in the example of Beowulf oathing to slay Grendel or die in the attempt: if victory is not achieved then his death will be the shild that he agrees to pay.
In a modern setting, the shild might take the form of a deed of service for one’s Heathen or non-Heathen community, a substantial donation to a worthy cause, helping to clean up a natural area, planting a tree and caring for it, memorizing a long passage of significant Heathen lore and reciting it in symbel, or any other deed that seems appropriate. The cost or difficulty of the shild should match the significance and difficulty of the oath. For a great, challenging, perhaps life-changing oath, the shild should also be costly and difficult—a ‘heavy’ oath requires a ‘heavy’ shild to compensate for its potential failure, though it needs to be something one can realistically do. For a more minor oath, the shild can be relatively light. Matching the ‘weight’ of the shild to the ‘weight’ of the oath is something else a Thyle and / or the other symbel participants can help the oath-taker establish.
If the oath is fulfilled, the oath-taker gains much might and main, spiritual power, increase of luck and hamingja, an honorable reputation among Heathens and the Holy Ones, and lays an influential and beneficial layer of orlog in the Well. If the oath is not accomplished, a commensurately negative layer of orlog is laid, that may bring about harm in complex and unforeseen ways. One’s reputation or gefrain will of course suffer, as well. Paying shild for a failed oath may partially—not completely—mitigate some of that harm. If one fails in keeping the oath, and then also fails to pay the promised shild, of course the orlog-harm and reputation-harm are multiplied exponentially.
It is in hopes of preventing such failure that a Thyle or other person may challenge one’s oath in symbel and require one to prove the seriousness of intent regarding both the oath and the promised shild. Part of this challenge could involve the oath-taker giving examples of previous oaths or serious commitments they’ve undertaken that have been successfully accomplished. This action was part of the ancient symbel formalities described in the Beowulf poem and analyzed by Bauschatz in his Chapter III, “Beowulf and the Nature of Events.”
One’s gefrain is an important factor here: Heathens who have built a reputation for serious commitment, truthfulness, strength of will, previous successful oathing, and keeping their word are unlikely to be challenged during oath-taking. Someone whose reputation is unknown, who has not yet built such a reputation, or whose reputation is a bit spotty or doubtful might well be challenged—and this is to their ultimate benefit. They can thus learn to use appropriate oathing practices as a way to grow into the stature of an honorable gefrain.
Once an oath has been achieved, or has failed but one has paid the required shild, this should be reported in a subsequent symbel as the completion, the final act, of that oath-taking. Verðandi stands witness at the moment when we take our oath, then hands that promise over to Urð to lay in the Well as an accomplished fact: ‘the oath has been sworn; this is now laid in orlog.’ Then Verðandi watches again as the actions of the oath are accomplished. Once the oathed action is completed, by formally boasting it in symbel it is handed over to Urð’s domain to be laid in the Well as another layer of our orlog: a strong, shining layer that brightens our entire wyrd by the honor it achieves.
As Bauschatz describes this process of boasting an accomplished oath: “Speech is the means by which the fact of any action is made explicit and the way in which its continuing present is assured” (p. 109). Once the oath, now achieved, has been laid in the Well, it continues to influence what is coming into being: it is not ‘over and done with.’ This is why failure to achieve an oath, without paying shild for that, is so harmful: the influence of that failure continues to affect the course of events through orlog.
Skuld is not left out: the oath is a form of ‘what-must-be,’ and so is the shild that’s stated along with the oath. When we have sworn an oath, Skuld emphasizes that sense of ‘what-must-be, what needs to happen’ in our life, urging us to the accomplishment of the oath and creating unease and difficulties if we are slack in that pursuit. Keep in mind that Skuld is a Valkyrie as well as a Norn—one who hovers over the battlefield or the field of struggle and striving in our daily life. This imagery of Skuld as a Valkyrie, spear in hand, hovering over our daily actions can certainly strengthen our motivation to fulfill our oath in a timely manner! If we fail in the oath (whether that is our fault, or not—the reason does not matter), shild is owed to her and she makes sure it is paid, whether by our own honorable payment of our promised shild, or by disruptions and harms occurring in our daily life.
If we fail our oath but offer no excuses and simply pay our promised shild, this also should be reported during symbel, so that ‘our accounts are settled,’ so to speak, in the eyes of the Norns and the Gods as well as the eyes of our fellow Heathens. Paying shild is an honorable deed, too, and is thus laid in the Well and helps to establish our reputation as someone who honors our given word, without excuses.
Taking an oath and achieving it or paying the price are part of what we do to build our reputation among our fellow Heathens as well as all the Holy Ones. Marking these steps in symbel is how that reputation becomes laid in orlog, and also how it becomes fully known to these all-important companions of our lives.
A Modern Heathen Concern
Some modern Heathens believe that the failure to accomplish an oath boasted in symbel damages not only the luck and orlog of the one who oaths, but also the luck and orlog of all who witness that oath in symbel—the ‘luck of the hall.’ This is an additional reason for the work of the Thyle to weed out untrustworthy oaths before they are finalized, and it’s also a reason to be very cautious about allowing oathing in symbel at all—especially if it is a large group with many members whose reputations are unknown to each other.
If one believes that the orlogs of all witnesses are damaged by a failed oath, this caution is understandable. It results in an unfortunate situation, however, when personal Heathen oathing in symbel is strongly discouraged or not allowed at all (except for the swearing-in of group officers, whose reputations may be better known). As I and many Heathens believe, oathing in general and especially in symbel is a very powerful way to grow our Heathen might and main, to improve our lives and strength of character, and to nurture bright and shining reputations as the Heathen forebears valued. (The name ‘Robert,’ by the way, comes from Anglo-Saxon Hreth-beorht, meaning ‘fame-bright.’) If fear of consequences results in no opportunities to oath in symbel except in solitary practice, that chokes off a very important avenue for Heathen spiritual development, as I and others believe.
In the rest of this article I offer some perspectives to take into consideration as you and any Heathen group(s) you practice with explore the deeper meanings of Heathen symbel and decide how you will handle oathing during symbel. I also suggest some further resources about practicing Heathen oathing at the end of this article. I want to note that you and other Heathens might disagree with any of the perspectives I offer; I don’t pretend to know ‘the one and only right way’ to do anything in Heathen practice! I have thoughts about these matters and I share them here, but your views, beliefs and practices, and those of any Heathen group(s) you’re a member of, are up to you to decide.
Risking Luck versus Risking Orlog
I mentioned earlier that some Heathens believe that a failed symbel-oath impacts the wyrd or orlog of everyone present who witnessed that oath. Because of this severe risk, some are reluctant to allow any oathing in symbel, or attend any symbel where oathing might take place. Of course, people have a right to this belief, but I have a partial—not complete—counter-argument here: that witnessing a failed oath in symbel may affect our luck, but not our orlog, under most circumstances. This argument is based on the difference between luck and orlog, which I discuss in my article “The Roles of Hamingja and Luck in Orlog.” It might be helpful to review that chapter in the context of this discussion. Here are the salient points of my argument.
(1) Luck and orlog are not the same thing, though they are related and have some effect on each other. While Heathens in the past saw orlog as being certain and fixed, luck is complex, variable; the outcome of the luck or unluck is not 100% certain in any given circumstance. Orlog is under the governance of the Norns / Wyrd and is stored in Urð’s Well, with all the metaphysical ‘weight’ that this storage implies. Hamingja-luck is managed by lesser luck-bearing spirits; it is stored in objects we possess and use, in our surroundings, and—significantly—it is ‘stored’ or inherent in our relationships with others, both human and non-human. Both luck and orlog manifest in the events of our lives, but they do so in different ways though they may overlap at times.
(2) Luck is something that can be relatively easily (compared to orlog) gained or lost. Many folklore practices, ‘superstitions,’ and magical practices, in the past and in the present too, are focused on gaining good luck or warding off bad luck. Changes in one’s orlog are not so easily achieved, requiring hard work, focused intent, and the recognition that changes in orlog depend mostly on our personal work with the Norns / Wyrd, rather than on the influence of ‘luck,’ other people, and our surroundings.
(3) Luck is ‘contagious;’ orlog is not, and I think this is an important point when considering the impacts of oathing in symbel. This is especially true of hamingja-type luck. People in the past (and present!) wanted to associate with someone with a lot of luck—a king, chieftain, leader, someone who demonstrated luck and success in their life, with the understanding that this hamingja or good luck could ‘rub off’ on them. By the same token, they didn’t want to be associated with unlucky persons or enterprises because of the belief bad luck is contagious as well. People around the world believed and believe in things like good-luck tokens whose luck is considered ‘contagious’ in the sense that the luck contained in the token can spread to themselves and their activities and events of their lives.
In contrast to luck, I think orlog in elder times was viewed in a different way. Most often, they considered that orlog meant ‘the time and circumstances of death,’ and the events leading up to that—with the implication that the Norns / Wyrd have shaped one’s lifespan and life circumstances to lead to that death. Just because one person’s lifespan ends and death comes about in a specific way doesn’t mean that their ‘orlog-while,’ their time of death, is contagious for other people around them. Yes, of course the event leading to that death may affect others as well: a battle, a plague, a famine, a disaster will cause large numbers of people to die together. But it wasn’t one person’s orlog that affected those around them and caused their death; it was each person’s orlog affecting that person individually, as well as the overarching, impersonal effects of group orlog and world-orlog.
What I suggest is this: we do not substantially risk our own orlog because of what others say in symbel, and what they do or fail to do afterwards (with exceptions that I’ll discuss in the next section). There may, on the other hand, be some effect on our luck and the ‘luck of the hall’ when unlucky, disastrous oaths are sworn, or when sworn oaths or shilds fail to materialize. Whether this is an acceptable risk for you and your group is something you will have to decide.
One thought that is meaningful to me is this: the risk of bad luck for everyone is a motivating factor both for the person oathing and for all in attendance. It creates a more weighty seriousness of intent for the oathing person to achieve their oath if they realize that their fellow-Heathens will be impacted by their failure. It can motivate friends and fellow-Heathens present at the symbel to support the oath-taker in the achievement of their oath: offering encouragement and advice, following up in a friendly way to make sure they’re on track, helping in practical ways if that seems appropriate. It causes the oath-taker and all present to take seriously the acts of oathing and of community support for each member of the group in symbel; it builds community and commitment.
The idea that we are all subject to a certain degree of risk—loss of luck—if one of us fails is very supportive of group solidarity, especially with a closely-knit group. It also has the potential, if it is not handled appropriately, to create hard feelings in the group when failures happen. This approach or understanding of symbel dynamics has its pro’s and con’s, certainly, and it’s up to individuals and Heathen groups to decide whether the shared-luck benefits of oathing in symbel that I’ve outlined here are worthwhile for them, or not.
But I want to make this point again: I believe that it is luck—individual and group luck—rather than individuals’ orlogs, that is at play in this group dynamicof oathing in symbel. The oathing individual’s orlog is obviously involved, and so is the orlog of any oath-helpers the oathing person might have, who stand with the oather, vouch for them, and commit to helping with the oath. But the individual orlogs of each of the witnesses are not substantially impacted, in my understanding, except under the circumstances I describe next.
Oathed Bonds and Group Orlog
Luck is contagious; orlog is not. There is, however, a similar effect at work with the orlogs of people who are closely related to or oathed to each other: not contagiousness precisely, but linked or interconnected orlogs. Such links are created through specific bonds, formed by oaths, kinship, or lives that are linked together in other significant, long-term ways. For example, the marriage-bond: two people swear specific oaths to each other during the wedding, and those oaths do create an orlog-bond, a linkage between their orlogs. What comes to one spouse through their orlog is likely to affect the orlog of the other spouse as well. That connection plays out during their married life and affects any children they might have. It’s likely to reach out farther, to grandchildren and perhaps extended families as well.
Orlog plays an important role in kinship through family dynamics. For example harmful layers laid in orlog, such as patterns of spouse or child abuse or neglect, tend to get passed down through generations, affecting their descendants’ choices of spouse and their child-raising practices. Helpful layers of orlog, such as a family culture of facing and overcoming hardship together in wise, dynamic and practical ways, also spread their beneficial influences through the generations.
Some Heathen groups require an oath in order to join them. This is usually a simple oath taken by each individual to the group as a whole, rather than to any specific person such as the group leader. A few Heathen groups require more complex hold-oaths or oaths of fealty, where there is a hierarchical structure similar to ancient Heathen social structures. Each member functions within a network of oaths of loyalty and obligation to those ‘above’ and ‘below’ them in the hierarchy, with the leader of the group holding all the oaths together. This structure of hold-oaths, when they are properly fulfilled, is intended to generate luck as well as solidarity, might and main for the entire group. It also creates stronger interconnections of orlog than is the case for groups who are not bound by oaths to each other.
For Heathens who are bound to one another by close kinship or by oaths—whether through marriage, blood-siblinghood, membership oaths, or hold-oaths of fealty—I believe it is true that their orlogs are more closely linked than among Heathens who are not formally oathed or closely related to each other. In such cases, failing to fulfill an oath in symbel may significantly affect the orlog of the group as a whole, as well as their individual and group luck. Usually these groups are aware of this risk and structure their oathing procedures with great care, including substantial support for the oath-taker by the others to whom they are oathed, to ensure a successful achievement of the oath.
Individual Oaths and Group Orlog
What about group orlog in groups where the members are not oathed to one another? Here is my thought about this. Orlog is a pattern, not just a one-off, especially when it comes to group orlog. If one person takes an oath in symbel and fails in the oath, I think the group orlog is slightly but not significantly impacted. But if there is a pattern of multiple failed oaths within the group, that is significant and may come about not only through the individual actions of each failed oath-taker, but even more because of how the group practices oathing.
A pattern of failed oaths is significant to group orlog and indicates that, as a group, they are not doing a good enough job managing the process of oathing. They may need to educate their members better in how to prepare for and take oaths, and how to proceed from there. They may need to make better use of a Thul or Thyle, and train such a person to guide their members in making achievable oaths. They may need to support their oath-takers better and follow up with them. They may need to improve the overall ethical culture or ethos of the group, placing greater emphasis on the importance of keeping their word, growing their honor and reputations.
In other words, the effect of oathing by an individual on the orlog of the group is interactive. Individuals are more likely to succeed with their oaths when their group has established good oathing procedures and offers support for the oath-taker. This success, when multiplied by many instances of successful oathing, does lay layers of good orlog for the group as a whole. Likewise, a succession of failed oaths shows not only the effect of such failures on the group’s orlog, but may also be an indicator that the group’s orlog is not supportive of successful oathing. The group’s negative orlog in this respect will then negatively affect the likelihood of success for each individual oath-taker.
The obvious lesson is that as with all groups, what each member does affects the group, but what the group does affects each member, too. As Heathens with a deep understanding of orlog, we can work with these insights to enhance our experience of symbel, improve the success of Heathen oathing, and lay layers of orlog, luck, might and main, and shining reputations within the Well and within the circle of our lives and deeds in Midgard.
Further Reading:
https://heathensoullore.net/oaths-what-they-mean-and-why-they-matter/
https://heathensoullore.net/the-practice-of-heathen-oathing/
Book-Hoard
Bauschatz, Paul C. The Well and the Tree: World and Time in Early Germanic Culture. The University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.