In class, we went over the story about Tyr and Fenrir, how Tyr sacrificed his hand in order to bind the wolf. Now, I don’t think it will surprise any of us that the god of justice binding the wolf is generally seen as a sacrifice for the greater good. That motif of course popped up in class. However, something we did talk about is there was an agreement, or at least implied agreement, that the gods weren’t supposed to be trying any funny business with Fenrir.
This reading would imply Tyr, the god of justice, broke his word to bind the wolf. In short, implying a necessity to do wrong in order to bind chaos. It also would put the gods and goddesses in the wrong, in this case.
What are our thoughts?
I've talked about this before in different ways and at different times, and I think this story is one that should be understood in an almost entirely poetic/figurative way. Fenrir, the wolf, is outlawry and chaos and strife (since wolves were regularly used this way in the literature of the time). Gleipnir, made up of things that don't exist, is that which keeps outlawry from overwhelming Midgard. Justice, honor, law, mercy, love, and all the other abstract concepts that mostly exist because we collectively agree they exist are the sorts of things that bind the Wolf. The gods, including Tyr (whose name basically means "god"), create and make use of these things that don't concretely exist. They also employ a frequently used strategy of theirs: making a very carefully crafted agreement that means something rather different than what their opponent understand the agreement to be.
Law and Order aren't real in the same way that, say, rocks and trees are. They still function, however, and their functioning sometimes requires some very careful manipulation
The AEsir's word not holding and Thor attacking the giant, leads us to hospitality. Is Fenrir as Elizabeth pointed out a relative or is he guest. If Fenrir is a guest, has he pushed the bounds of hospitality beyond what is reasonable? In Njal's saga after the burning, when Flosi and his men go and antagonize Asgrim to the point Asgrim tries to attack them. Flosi who aside from the burning is considered a reasonable chieftain prevents his followers from retaliation because the burners pushed Asgrim to far.
As I'm writing this, I guess the other issue to take away fro modern heathes is that is "it is not about you". So if the story isn't really about the consequences to Tyr, what is the story about? The removing of a threat to the AEsir?
Within the line of reasoning, then, do we just point to the scene as an instance of flawed morality amongst the gods and goddesses? Or, is there further implications for heathenery?
I more or less agree Schuyler, but I’ll play Loki’s advocate.
Let’s sidestep the justice aspect for now. The class does have to simplify matters more than we’d like.
As far as the main point goes, admittedly, I have not reread it. Though, I plan to eventually. However, I was, like my class, under the impression that Tyr knew about the guile beforehand.
If he didn’t, that would suggest the AEsir wronged both Tyr and Fenrir. Either which way, it does suggest in this case the AEsir’s word didn’t hold. Kind of like Thor attacking the giant without warning. What we make of that?
Lets start with my usual rant: Why is Tyr the god of justice? I still think the god of justice thing has no basis in the lore. After doing some looking again it is based on Dumezil, has anyone re-examined Dumezil work in a modern scholarly context? I admit I am tempted to sweep it under the rug with other Victorian ideas.
However, on the topic at hand. In the Prose Edda, that Fenrir only bit off Tyr's hand when the AEsir refused to let Fenrir loose. Tyr did not lose his hand for breaking his word. He lost his hand for the AEsir breaking theirs. I think implied agreement is not strong enough here. Tyr was the hostage against the freedom of Fenrir that is pretty explicit.
-Schuyler