The aim of this article is to determine how two logically contradictory cosmological concepts, the vertical and the horizontal, could have co-existed in the Old Nordic mythological system and what their function was. -- I first reject Eleazar Meletinskij's idea that the horizontal and vertical axes can be transformed into each other. I show that relationships expressed on each of the axes are not entirely identical, and therefore it is likely that they express different mythological information connected to different mythological contexts that have to be examined more closely. -- In the second part of the article I raise objections against Jens Peter Schjødt's denial of verticality in the original Old-Norse cosmology. Jens Peter Schjødt claims that the idea of a realm of gods located in heaven originates only in Snorri's Edda and, having arisen because of Christian influence, was never a proper part of the Old-Norse world view. I introduce several examples from both Poetic Edda and scaldic poetry in order to show that the idea of gods located in heaven was quite widespread in Nordic mythology and cannot be reduced to an inconsiderable and marginal outcome of foreign influence. -- In the last part of the article I present specific contexts and functions of each of the axes. The horizontal axis is connected with the concept of cyclic time and with the idea of sustainable cosmic balance. The horizontal axis articulates the problems of society as a whole, the necessity of maintaining a temporary cosmic order and, therefore, the necessity of maintaining a constant defence against the powers of chaos; it articulates the problem of external threat and is mainly connected with physical confrontation. -- The vertical axis, on the other hand, is connected with the concept of linear time and appears mostly in the context of death. It articulates the problems of individuals rather than those of society and is connected with subtle phenomena of an intellectual and spiritual character such as magic, art and the existential problems of individuals.
The article tries to trace the structuralist and post-structuralist interpretations of the opposition of Miðgarðr and Útgarðr and their consequences for the understanding of some Old Norse rituals. After a brief overview of the sources and recent linguistic opinions about the origin of the words Ásgarðr, Miðgarðr and Útgarðr, the authors demonstrate the main features of the structuralist view of this basic mythical opposition, as it is present in the works of Einar Haugen and Eleazar Meletinsky. The paper then describes the implementation of this mythical opposition in the space organization of human settlement that was suggested by Kirsten Hastrup, and tries to support it by adding new material concerning the relation of fence (garðr) and the concept of helgi in Old Norse sources. -- The second part of the article is devoted to the presentation of post-structuralist attacks on the structuralist interpretation that – far from forming a united and consequent school – nevertheless hit some weak points in the structuralist view of the problem. Works by Margaret Clunies Ross, Gro Steinsland, Agneta Ney, and Frederik Stjernfelt criticize the oversimplifications of the structuralist interpretation, its understanding of Miðgarðr as closed universe, the absolute separation between Miðgarðr and Útgarðr, and the lack of understanding of the dynamics of the Old Norse mythical worldview. Especially in respect to the last mentioned problem the authors plead for a new interpretation of the landtaking process (landnám), that can be understood well in the Stjernfelt's concept of "polarization" as a process of dividing the natural and undifferentiated landscape into districts with different measure of sanctity. -- In conclusion the authors try to reconcile the structuralist and post-structuralist interpretations of Miðgarðr and Útgarðr as synchronic and diachronic views of the same phenomenon that pervaded the myth as well as the daily life of Old Norsemen.
The main subject of the article is the comparison between two different mythic accounts of the origin of the sacred mead of inspiration in the context of the Old Norse religious tradition. These two myths are both narrated, although in a highly enigmatic style, as parts of the eddaic poem Hávamál. Both myths have three basic features in common: the frame setting is a difficult trial of the hero; the main character is the supreme god Óðinn; and the acquired treasure is the mead of inspiration. In all other respects the two stories seem to be completely dissimilar, the first one being a dynamic colourful adventure reminiscent of a folktale and the second one being a static vision, an esoteric experience of self-sacrifice. -- The central argument of the article is that these two myths can be explained as two aspects of the same process, the two accounts being necessary complements to each other. However, the structural relationship between the two narratives is of a peculiar nature corresponding to the "internal" and "external" aspects of ritual experience and to several other binary concepts that are shown to be present already as established emic categories of the Old Norse culture. Thus Óðinn's self-hanging corresponds to the factual level of an initiatory ritual, whereas Óðinn's extravagant adventures and metamorphoses correspond to the extatic perspective experienced internally by the initiand. -- The focal argument is supplemented first by the prolegomena, where the problems and limits of intra-cultural and inter-cultural comparisons and identifications are discussed; then the basic introduction to the Old Norse cultural context is provided; and, finally, the primary sources are presented and evaluated. The study is concluded with the epilegomena, where the results of the analysis and the interpretation are reflected upon and their possible applications and wider theoretical significance are considered, especially the new perspective on the relationship between double-aspected ritual and myth in the case of initiatory scenarios.