Why Scholars Keep Writing Æsir and Vanir "Obituaries"

An overview of the debate over what these words mean

Once upon a time, a 13th-century, Christian Icelander named Snorri Sturluson (presumably) wrote a book that today we call the “Prose Edda”. In this book, Snorri documents some unique myths that haven’t survived in other sources and expounds upon a lot of obscure information.

One point Snorri attempts to clarify is the war mentioned in Vǫluspá 24 (or 25, depending on the version) as contained in some other manuscripts, and which has come to be included in a collection of poems we now call the “Poetic Edda”. Here’s that stanza:

Fleygði Óðinn ok í fólk um skaut, þat var enn fólkvíg fyrst í heimi; brotinn var borðveggr borgar ása, knáttu vanir vígspá vǫllu sporna.

Odin let fly a spear and shot (it) into the host; that was the the first war yet in the world; broken were the Æsir’s wooden-walled fortifications, the vanir could, by war-prophecy, tread the plains.

At face value, this stanza appears to describe two groups, the Æsir and the Vanir. The core mythic characters from the Vanir group, Snorri tells us, are the gods Njord, and his children Frey, and Freyja, while the other big-name gods such as Thor, Odin, Tyr, and Loki have been termed Æsir. He explains that there was once a war between these two groups which ended in a truce and an exchange of hostages. But here’s the rub… how do we know Snorri didn’t make some of that up?

To be fair, Snorri’s Edda is a more-or-less trustworthy source.¹ Although sometimes his narrative can be tainted by a false, medieval view of history. Interestingly, Gesta Danorum by 12th-century Danish author Saxo Grammaticus (even more-extensively comprised of made-up history) appears to describe the same war as having been fought between the Æsir (which he euhemeristically believes, like Snorri, began as wizards) and the “giants”:

Between [the soothsayers] and the giants there were interminable battles for supremacy, until the soothsayers won an armed victory over the monster race and appropriated not only the right to rule but even the reputation of being gods.²

In fact, although pre-Christian sources do use the words æsir and vanir, it is only Snorri who comes right out and actually tells us these are words for two separate categories of Norse gods. So, how do we know he didn’t make that up either? After all, his categorization of elves into light and dark categories is generally accepted as dubious³ (or at least confusing) and every so often his information even appears to contradict pagan-era poetry.⁴

There have been a few papers written about this, and I won’t be diving deeply into all of them, but I will provide some high-level summaries. Here’s how the conversation has progressed so far:

Motz

In 1996, Lotte Motz published a book called The King, The Champion and the Sorcerer⁵ wherein she asserted that there is no logical basis for traditional claims that Vanir gods are different from Æsir gods due to their function. Whereas the Vanir are traditionally thought to have functions related to farming, sexuality, fertility, royal ancestry of humans, etc., Motz provided examples that she believed linked Æsir gods to these functions equally well. She then proposed that if the categorization of gods into Æsir and Vanir is not related to their function, it must be based on something else. Her ultimate hypothesis was that each group of Norse gods evolved from deities that were native to two different Stone-Age cultures that settled in Northern Europe around the same time.

Simek

In 2010, Rudolf Simek published a hand grenade an alternative hypothesis in his article “The Vanir: An Obituary.”⁶ Building on Motz’s attack of the functional argument, Simek noted that vanir is used sparsely and rigidly in surviving poetry, and suggested it may have been an archaism used as a stand-in for similar words to accommodate poetic meter. In this case, he suggested, vanir may have originally been a poetic word for “gods” in general, rather than a category of gods. He also noted that Snorri discusses the Vanir most thoroughly in Ynglinga Saga which is euhemeristic (i.e., medieval-style fake history), and warned that all of Snorri’s information needs to be taken against that backdrop. Simek suggested that Vǫluspá 24 was already obscure in Snorri’s time and that Snorri invented the Æsir/Vanir categories in order to explain the war by way of the fake pseudo-history he knew.

Frog & Roper

Two responses were published the following year. One, by Frog⁷ & Jonathan Roper, was called “Verses versus the ‘Vanir’: Response to Simek’s ‘Vanir Obituary’”⁸ and it focused on using statistical literary analysis to put some numbers on Simek’s claims about how the word vanir is used. It turned out that the numbers were “consistent” with Simek’s hypothesis. The word vanir, used only 16 times in eddic verse, carries alliteration in 100% of those cases and, outside of the poem Alvíssmál, it always alliterates with the same word: “wise”. Usage this rigid is consistent with an “archaism suspended in the poetic system.”⁹ By contrast, the word goð (generically, “gods”) is used 59 times and alliterates in less than 50% of cases. These results did not definitively prove Simek right, but the authors found no evidence to contradict him.

Tolley

Also published in 2011 was Clive Tolley’s “In Defense of the Vanir”.¹⁰ Here, Tolley conceded that the notion of which gods belonged to the Æsir or Vanir groups could have varied over time and place, but he also presented a few “what-if” scenarios designed to show that alternatives to Simek’s theory could exist, although he did not explore these alternatives in depth. Tolley noted that earlier scholarship by Dumézil argued in favor of Snorri’s trustworthiness regarding the war in Vǫluspá and asserted that we can trust Snorri’s documentation of Vanir-related kennings (which Snorri did not invent) that apply to Njord’s family. He pointed to stanzas in Skírnismál and Alvíssmál that appear to contrast the Vanir against different groups including the Æsir and concluded that there is no well-founded reason to reject Snorri’s idea that vanir refers to a particular group of gods.

Tolley also argued for some bafflingly eccentric ideas, such as his assertion that Vanir gods are invincible in battle (especially when it comes to spears) because, as a group, they represent feminine “relationality” and spears are a metaphor for penetration-by-penis.¹¹ Unfortunately this claim is based on completely fabricated notions (Frey famously dies in battle, for instance), but I have attempted to summarize the good points.

Schjødt

A few years later, in 2014, Jens Peter Schjødt penned a chapter in Tangherlini’s Nordic Mythologies: Interpretations, Intersections, and Institutions called “Did the Vanir ever exist?”¹². Here, Schjødt argued that Simek’s hypothesis can only be true if there is really no inherent difference between Æsir and Vanir gods, which is an idea based on Motz’s work. Schjødt suggested that Motz misunderstood how functionalism works and pointed out that, while various gods will behave in ways that overlap, their functions must be inferred from the ways in which they are different. In that respect, he cited the sexual proclivity and wealth of Njord’s family as setting them apart from other Norse gods as a group. He concluded that even if Simek is right about how the word vanir was used historically, it’s still the best word we have to refer to the gods of this particular functional group.

Gunnell

In 2017, Terry Gunnell published “Blótgyðjur, Goðar, Mimi, Incest, and Wagons: Oral Memories of the Religion(s) of the Vanir,”¹³ adding his voice in support of Tolley and Schjødt, although he did not find some of their arguments convincing. Gunnell noted that the traditional Vanir gods were less popular in Iceland as evidenced by place-name research and by “otherness” shown in literary evidence. He offered some new Vanir associations such as Njord with temples and Frey with mounds, and suggested that Saxo also otherized the worshippers of Frey in Gesta Danorum when he portrayed the character Starkatherus’ disgust over their less-traditionally-masculine practices.¹⁴ Gunnell concluded that the combination of Danish and Icelandic attitudes about the worship of popular Vanir gods in Sweden indicated a unique nature (and possibly origin) among them.

Lindow

In 2020, John Lindow authored a chapter for The Pre-Christian Religions of the North, Vol. III called “Vanir and Æsir”¹⁵ which took the position that surviving sources support the idea of two groups of gods. Lindow pointed to stanzas that appear to treat the Vanir as a distinct group at face value, but did not directly address Simek and Frog/Roper’s alternate explanations of these stanzas. He conceded that although cult worship of Njord’s family is strongly evidenced, it is “more difficult to postulate” cult worship of the Vanir and pointed to various reasons why vanir could be synonymous with álfar (“elves”), such as Frey’s attested ownership of Alfheim¹⁶, and the instance in Lokasenna wherein the only two groups attested as being present at the feast are Æsir and elves, even though Njord and his children are all individually named as being present as well. Ultimately, Lindow detects a “bipartite structure for the accommodation and expression of basic needs” regardless of what actual names they may have gone by.

Frog (again)

In 2021, Frog took up the mantle of literary analyst once again and published “The Æsir: An Obituary.”¹⁷ Here, he coined the more neutral term “Njǫrðung” in reference to Njord’s family, and reminded us that the notion of Snorri inventing mythology (i.e., dark and light elves) is not new. He noted that the word áss (singular of æsir) alliterates or rhymes in over 90% of cases in eddic and skaldic verse and can be shown to satisfy other metrical constraints when it doesn’t, making it a likely poetic synonym for the more common goð (again, as opposed to a category of gods). He also showed that the Njǫrðung are referred to as Æsir in a few places across both Eddas, and suggested that the word vanir may not even refer to gods at all. If true, Snorri’s distinction between Æsir and Vanir may have actually been a distinction between gods and something else.

So who's right?

That’s for you to decide. This is a tough one. But I will offer a few of my thoughts:

To me, it seems there are a couple of separate questions being conflated here. One is whether or not the so-called Njǫrðung have a unique function among Norse gods. The other is whether or not the word vanir was actually used to refer to a specific category of gods in pre-Christian Scandinavia. One question inspired the other, but they do not necessarily have the same answer.

Motz may have misinterpreted the functional hypothesis. But whether or not Njord’s family were rich and promiscuous seems beside the point if we are asking who fought against who in the war from Vǫluspá, or whether Snorri was correct in his definition of vanir. It’s worth realizing that support for Simek’s idea is a minority stance in the community, however the functionalist detractors in this debate seem to find each other’s arguments unconvincing and have not united around a cohesive reason why Simek’s “Obituary” should be rejected.

In my opinion, there may well be something unique about Njord’s family, but the functional argument so far has failed to address why Njǫrðung deities are referred to as Æsir in both Eddas, why other gods with unique behaviors (e.g., Loki) don’t have their own functional categories in the sources, or why the functions commonly ascribed to the Vanir by scholars don’t match the explicit associations found in poetry (i.e., wisdom and knowledge of the future¹⁸); they are instead always ascribed wealth and fertility.

Additionally, I think it’s worth considering Simek’s assertion that Snorri’s explanations of the Æsir/Vanir war could be influenced by historical euhemerism. If so, then the fact that Saxo’s euhemeristic version pits the Æsir against the “giants” probably deserves more attention.

I like Frog’s statistical approach. However he is working with a small sample size. Tolley chose to refute Simek’s idea that Snorri invented information to fit a narrative by inventing information to fit his own narrative, proving that scholars can easily get away with this, even today. His best point is probably his reference to Skírnismál 17-18 where elves, Æsir, and Vanir all appear to be contrasted against each other. Frog took a stab at explaining this as possible poetic repetition but I didn’t find that idea terribly convincing.

It would be interesting to see more papers written about this from a few more perspectives. I would like to see, for example, an application of comparative mythology here (i.e., how are primordial wars handled in other Indo-European traditions?). Until then, based on the information presented so far, I personally lean toward accepting the idea that vanir may not have originally meant what we have come to believe it means (perhaps it was a word meaning “all gods”, or maybe even an umbrella term for gods and elves). This does not imply that Njord’s family were not special in some way, but it makes sense to me that, by the 900s, vanir had largely fallen out of common use, and survived mainly in old, recited poetry, thus leaving its meaning up for interpretation by individual poets.

If true, the resulting lack of consistency would have been a problem for Snorri who wanted to systematize the mythology. It is plausible that he interpreted Vǫluspá through the lens of medieval, euhemeristic histories and a few kennings that he knew. The war mentioned in that poem might therefore have been understood by Norse pagans as a war fought between the gods and their more obvious rivals the jotuns, although it is still difficult to get past the narrative that seems to be implied (i.e., because the Æsir’s fortifications were broken, the Vanir were then able to tread the plain). Though admittedly, these two phrases may not be causally linked. It may be that the gods’ fortifications were broken and they were able to tread the plain as per war prophecy.

There may indeed be something unique about the “Njǫrðung” as a group, even functionally, but is that really enough to prove that they should be thought of as categorically separate from the Æsir? We also can’t forget about the ever-present possibility that Snorri had access to some important sources that have been lost, which could turn this conversation on its head if we ever found them.

I encourage you to read these papers for yourself, to be open to new ideas, to form your own opinions, and to have fun exploring the ambiguity.

1. See my post, “Why You Should (Mostly) Trust the Prose Edda”.

2. Friis-Jensen, K., ed., and Fisher, P., trans., Saxo Grammaticus: Gesta Danorum: The History of the Danes, vol 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), p. 41

3. See, for instance, Simek 2007: “Presumably, the awareness that traditionally various mythological beings were grouped together under the term elves led Snorri to attempt to systematize them according to categories of Christian folklore.” (Simek, R., Dictionary of Northern Mythology, (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2007). p. 56)

4. Contrast, for instance, Snorri’s Gylfaginning 15 against Grímnismál 31 where the three roots of Yggdrasill are explained rather differently. Snorri’s version requires one of these roots to extend from the ground up into the sky in order to approach its associated locations, which is strangely more complicated than the version in Grímnismál, possibly indicating that Snorri’s account is confused in some way.

5. Motz, Lotte. The King, the Champion and the Sorcerer: A Study in Germanic Myth. Fassbaender, 1996.

6. Simek, Rudolf (2010). "The Vanir: An Obituary" (PDF). RMN Newsletter. The University of Helsinki (1): 10–19.

7. Yes, the man’s name is just “Frog”. You may occasionally find a first name listed for him online as “Etunimetön”, however, this is just a Finnish word meaning essentially “unnamed”.

8. Frog, & Roper, J. (2011). “Verses versus the Vanir: Response to Simek’s ‘Vanir Obituary’”. RMN Newsletter. The University of Helsinki (2): 29-36.

9. Frog & Roper, p. 32.

10. Tolley, C. (2011). “In Defence of the Vanir”. RMN Newsletter. The University of Helsinki (2): 20-28.

11. Tolley, p. 24.

12. Schjødt, Jens Peter (2014). "Did the Vanir Ever Exist?". In Timothy R. Tangherlini (ed.). Nordic Mythologies: Interpretations, Intersections, and Institutions.

13. Gunnel, T (2017). “Blótgyðjur, Goðar, Mimi, Incest, and Wagons: Oral Memories of the Religion(s) of the Vanir”. In Hermann, Pernille, Stephen A. Mitchell, and Jens Peter Schjødt, eds., with Amber J. Rose. 2017. Old Norse Mythology—Comparative Perspectives. Milman Parry Collection of Oral Literature 3. Cambridge, MA: Milman Parry Collection of Oral Literature.

14. Saxo I:VI

15. Lindow, J., “Vanir and Æsir”, The Pre-Christian Religions of the North: History and Structures, vol. 2, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020).

16. See Gríminsmál 5: “The gods gave Alfheim to Frey in olden days as a tooth-fee” (Álfheim Frey gáfu í árdaga tívar at tannfé). In this context, a “tooth-fee” refers to a gift given to a young child for cutting their first teeth.

17. Frog, M. (2021). “The Æsir: An Obituary”. In S. H. Walther, R. Jucknies, J. Meurer-Bongardt , J. E. Schnall, B. Jaroschek, & S. Onkels (Eds.), Res, artes et religio: Essays in Honour of Rudolf Simek (pp. 141–175)

18. See, for instance, Þrymskviða 15 wherein Heimdall “knew the future well, like other vanir” (vissi hann vel fram, sem Vanir aðrir).