Tuesday 28 November 2023

The Clan of Cain: Ogres, Elves, Evil Phantoms and Giants

I recently had the opportunity on a long drive to listen to Seamus Heaney reading his own translation of Beowulf from start to finish. It was a real treat, and I highly recommend it. I had read Beowulf before in other translations, but long ago, and the words are of course meant to be spoken rather than read; it is a much more powerful experience that way, especially (and strangely) when delivered in Heaney's decidedly un-Germanic Irish brogue. 

I was very struck by the poem's syncretism (more on this in future posts) and the way in particular Germanic myth and Old Testament legend are able to fit alongside one another almost seamlessly. Hence:

Grendel was the name of this grim demon haunting the marches, marauding round the heath and the desolate fens; he had dwelt for a time in misery among the banished monsters, Cain's clan, whom the Creator had outlawed and condemned as outcasts. For the killing of Abel the Eternal Lord had exacted a price: Cain got no good from committing that murder because the Almighty made him anathema and out of the curse of his exile there sprang ogres and elves and evil phantoms and the giants too who strove with God time and again until He gave them their reward.

The idea that the creatures of Northern European myth were born from the murder of Abel by Cain is just too wonderful not to spur the imagination (as is the idea of giants literally fighting against God himself), and it would be incredible to me if no other RPG bloggers or writers have noticed it or done something with it. Nonetheless, it very much makes me want to do something with it - perhaps along the lines of the single class paladin campaign, with paladins conceptualised as warriors who specifically battle the 'clan of Cain' and protect humanity against them.

The interesting thing about the 'clan of Cain' - aside from the fact that it groups elves with the bad guys, which is always how I have thought elves work best - is the distinct division into four categories: ogres, elves, evil phantoms ('orcneas' in the original Old English, the only instance of the word appearing to our knowledge, and apparently thought by Old English scholars to be a compound of 'hell corpse') and giants. This is suggestive of four clear archetypes into which monstrous threats can be divided.

The easiest is the last: giants here are clearly meant to be genuinely huge giants capable of actually struggling with the almighty. (The Old English has 'gigantas', which speaks to me of something truly gigantic and also demigod-like, stemming as it does from an ultimately Greek source.) The vision I have is of titanic cthonic or celestial beings of immortal character and scale, rather than just a big person in the traditional D&D mode.

Another easy one is elves - understood as capricious and malevolent, or perhaps simply incapable of empathising with humanity. Not the elves of Tolkien but something more like the Aelf of The Wizard Knight who come in the night to steal babies or mislead travellers, and are of many different varieties. 

Then there are the 'evil phantoms', clearly simplest to understand as the undead, but perhaps also encompassing demonic and devilish spirits born from Hell or the Abyss (or, indeed, the dead brought back to life as demonic spirits). Here, I imagine everything from D&D-style zombies and skeletons all the way up to Lord Soth, and on the other hand the lemures, manes, pit fiends, succubi and so on that we tend to think of as 'demons' in the classical sense. It's all grouped under the orcneas category.

And finally we come to the most difficult category to define, the ogres. The original has 'eotonas', which obviously has a similar root to 'jotunn', but this conjures in the mind precisely the same kind of image as 'gigantas' - a demigodlike, supernatural figure of immense size and power. This is clearly the meaning of the word in the Eddas. Wikipedia provides us with the interesting information, however, that the word's root is the proto-Germanic word 'etunaz', which is connected with 'etanan' ('to eat'), and that from this were derived various Old Norse and Old English words connected with consumption, gluttony and greed. Could this make 'ogre' a catchall then for the type of creatures that we might traditionally think of as goblinish or orcish, and which make their living from catching and eating people? Or maybe even evil dwarves, acquisitive, avaricious and grasping - like perhaps the duergar or derro?

I like this basic idea of dividing threats into four categories, and one could even thereby subdivide paladins into four types, each specially equipped for taking on one of the monster types in particular: the giant-killer being especially difficult to kill and physically strong; the elf-killer being especially knowledgeable in/resistant to magic and charms; the phantom-killer being very good at smiting evil spirits; and the ogre-killer being very skilled in melee. This would allow some differentiation by archetype, even while maintaining the basic framework of the 'everything is paladins' motif. 

You could even call it The Clan of Cain

28 comments:

  1. Truly excellent stuff. I know what my next audiobook is. Our conception of undead includes zombies and ghouls, but in this context these monsters make more sense under the "ogre" category of flesh-eaters. Maybe the giant-killer isn't so much strong/tough as crazier/luckier than the others (luck? in the OSR heresy!). I'm thinking Jack (of the Beanstalk), Gotrek, or those Attack on Titan guys. Fighting a ghost or elf is a moral duty. Fighting a giant the size of a mountain is insane.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But of course. That said, I think a luck-like mechanic can have a place in a setting with interested gods. A godless setting, or one where She Moves In Mysterious Ways, obviously doesn't have a justification for a thumb on the scales.

      Delete
    2. Would that not be better imagined as a 'prayer' mechanic? Or a 'miracle' one?

      Delete
    3. I think "divine providence" may be a better word than "luck" for what I think I mean, but it depends on what kind of setting you want to create.

      I don't think prayers=spells saying anything interesting. A prayer than is reliably answered implies a setting where the mortals have more agency than the divine. As far as miracles go, to justify the label they require a mechanic that gives the divine/player/DM too much agency. Miracles are game-breaking by definition, can ruin immersion and feel cheap.

      In a setting that includes a divine force, and also objective forces of Good and Evil, luck or providence can be the mechanism by which the setting itself favours an outcome, e.g. the defeat of Evil.

      In the context of the lucky giant killer, they have been chosen or favoured to be more likely to succeed in their purpose. This is distinct from a knight keeping vigil for a boon, or expecting a miracle.

      Still, I love dice. So I'd manifest this "providence" in the form of an advantage against huge things, lots of HD etc, and/or exploding dice.

      Delete
    4. Exploding dice wouold probably be the most faithful way of doing it, as that still is genuinely founded on luck!

      Delete
  2. What category would Grendel and his mom belong to? We know that he is the right size to be wrestled, which I can imagine Superman doing to the Hulk but not to Galactus. In Runequest an ogre appears to be a class of being that you might not know was an ogre until you saw it succumbing to its craving to eat the flesh of its own kind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. In the poem Grendel has just been hanging out with the clan of Cain without apparently being a fully paid up member. Same with his mum and also, I suppose, the dragon. (This also raises the question as to which category the dragon comes under. Giant?)

      Delete
    2. Is the dragon more akin to Satan?

      Delete
    3. I believe the Runequest ogre is intended to refer to a Cornish ogre -- like you say, mostly man-like (if large) in appearance, and definitionally cannibalistic. I've always understood "ogre" to mean a brutish cannibal. That would be my take on this category in the taxonomy of Cain's brood: not an elemental giant contending against God, but a sort of ghoul feasting on human flesh in secret.

      As for the "giants": might this not refer to the various fallen giants from Hebrew mythology, like the Nephilim? In various interpretations, the Nephilim were giants, they were descended from Cain, and they contended against God... it seems like a tidy fit.

      Delete
    4. The "Cornish ogre" reference in RuneQuest is puzzling, as I don't think there's any Cornish tradition of man-sized but man-eating ogres. There's Oscar Wilde's Cornish ogre in The Selfish Giant, and an Arthur Rackham illustration, but those are clearly giant-sized. I had half a memory that the reference might have come from Barbara Byfield's The Glass Harmonica (AKA The Book of the Weird), but I can't find confirmation and may have misremembered. But in any event, it just seems to be a notion that someone made up in the twentieth century.

      I think you're in identifying Beowulf's giants with the Nephilim - and yes, the distinction would appear to be between giants that can eat you in the here and now (or the there and then from our perspective) and giants that are powerful and primordial enough to contend with God.

      Delete
    5. Yes, giants as Nephilim makes sense to me.

      Delete
    6. The bit about the sword hilt later confirms it. From Heaney, page 55: "It was engraved all over and showed how war first came into the world and flood destroyed the tribe of giants. They suffered a terrible retribution from the Lord; the Almighty made the waters rise, drowned them in deluge for retribution".

      That's a clear call-back to the Cain passage, and these giants are "gigantas" rather than "eotenas". The Apocryphal Book of Jubilees has the Nephilim drowned in the Flood, and the same occurs in Islamic tradition.

      Delete
  3. That passage (the original rather than Heaney's) has had a huge influence. Not only has it given us Tolkien's orc (and hence D&D's and Warhammer's, etc., etc.) and ent (from eotenas) but it's also given us that bit in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe where the White Witch's followers include "ettins" and "orknies". Ettins, of course, crop up in Gawain and the Green Knight; it's interesting that Ishiguru goes with "ogre" for "ettin" in The Buried Giant (following Heaney?) when he riffs on a G&TGK passage.

    Although I love Heaney's translation, I've always slightly balked at that passage - I think the Romance "phantoms" is a bit of a cop-out, and I only half-approve of "ogres" (ettins, dammit!). Perhaps it's because I can imagine Tolkien throwing a fit over it!

    I couldn't agree more that elves work best as baddies. Have you read Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword? That's got some splendidly malevolent elves - perhaps even nastier than the trolls they're at war with - as has Three Hearts and Three Lions (though The Broken Sword is by far the better book). Anderson and Susannah Clarke provide a very useful correction to Tolkien!

    Dwarves would probably be in your elf class too - Alberich is Oberon, and the Svart-alfar and Dokk-alfar seem to be the same as the dwarves of the Eddas. I find that using "elf" and "dwarf" interchangeably is a great way of snapping players out of Bland Fantasyland and getting them into something richer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ettin and ogre are catch-all terms - the "giants who strove too with God" are clearly the jotunn as they were originally conceived so eotenas here I would guess is intended to refer to that whole class of related supernatural beings often simply labelled trolls, which is to say almost anything inimical and magical - how nice a distinction might be meant I suppose would depend on just when it was written. Phantom also seems a reasonable translation for that whole category of various malevolent spirits that's always popping up in Germanic folklore.

      Delete
    2. The question then is what the difference between eotenas and elves would be, if eotenas is simply 'anything inimical and magical'. Obviously it's different to create a clear taxonomy but it's a fun exercise.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous - I think the "giants who strove too with God" are the Nephilim (as Picador suggests above) rather than the Jotunn (although the later Norse stories of the latter may well be Biblically influenced); the hilt of the (giant - or *giant-slaying*) sword that Beowulf presents to Hrothgar has an inscription describing the destruction of the giants in the Flood (in line with the fate ascribed to the Nephilim by the Apocryphal Book of Jubilees and taken up in various subsequent traditions).

      My objection to "phantom" is just that it's a good deal less evocative than "Hell-corpses" or something like that. I think I'd probably even prefer "orcs" (which I'm sure I've seen in some recent translation), although that gets a bit meta!

      I'd agree that eotenas probably refers to that whole troll/gygr/thyrs class of creature. Noisms, Tom Shippey says somewhere that the "thyrs" is essentially something big, which might distinguish that class of being (ettins/trolls/gygr ...) from elves - and then Beowulf's "gigantas" would be *off-the-scale* big!

      (Oddly, though, the thyrs/thurses are the originals of Tolkien's Misty Mountain-dwelling orcs - and orcs - even the Uruk-hai - are small!)

      Delete
    4. I would stick up for 'phantom' poetically, and I think that is why Heaney went for that word. It just fits the rhythm of the line.

      'Hell-corpse' sounds a bit too 'metal' for my taste. 'Wights' or 'wraiths' might even be better.

      Delete
    5. Fair! Heaney follows Gummere ("etins and elves and evil-spirits") in preserving the vowel-sound alliteration of the three terms from the original; in Old English, any stressed opening vowel alliterates with any other (it kind of works in modern English too). So in quibbling at "phantoms", I may be overlooking the importance of "evil".

      "Wights" is a funny one - like "orc" above, it's a bit meta because the word meant person or thing and didn't really come to denote an undead creature until Tolkien and D&D; Morris and Tolkien had "barrow-wights", which Tolkien sometimes shortens to "wight", and then Gygax did the rest from Chainmail on.

      Alliterative considerations aside, "Hell-wight" would combine the metal and the meta, coming quite close to the supposed meaning of "orcneas" with a nod to post-Gygax developments!

      Tolkien said that he doubted the assumed "Orcus" root of "orcneas", but I don't think he ever put an alternative down in print.

      Delete
    6. @noisms: Elves seem to often be associated with the aesir, and IIRC sacrifices and ceremonies to the elves were still being conducted at a very late date after Christianisation. To sacrifice to the jotunn was surely never anything other than foul trollcraft. From my smattering of reading I suspect the elves were originally minor tutelary deities or genii locorum, something both dangerous and helpful, respected and to be placated (much like the gods), whereas the eotanas stand in opposition to man and god.

      @JC: Given that the jotunn as best we can tell were envisioned as (sometimes) giants striving against the gods before any Christian influence, and with the word eotenas mentioned here in the same breath, I think we can take that as a bit of Christian syncretism rather than the nephilim as a distinct concept. That is, while it suited the missionaries' purposes to identify the jotunn with the nephilim, it's likely a paint-job on a pre-existing local tradition, like trolls and church bells.

      Delete
    7. JC - 'hell-wight' sounds cool to my ear!

      I would also doubt the 'orcus' root of 'orcneas', not on the basis of any real academic knowledge, but just because it doesn't quite pass the sniff test - seems too obvious.

      Anonymous - That interpretation of the elves would fit the notion of the aelf in The WIzard Knight very nicely.

      Delete
  4. I’d love to GM a campaign in a Beowulfian setting - that sort of in-between place between Rome and the medieval. It’s a very gameable time period, too; far more ruin, battle and mystery as compared to the medieval, which is far too settled and organised. The best thing would be the monsters - like you said, the pagan elements subsisting in a Christian context. I don’t think there’s anything like that on the market - Luke Gearing’s Wolves Upon the Coast is excellent but the metaphysical element (or lack of it) is pretty nihilistic. I made a mutant homebrew system to satisfy myself (the unbaptised get to invoke their Wyrd for bonuses, Christians are immune to most magic) but there seems to be a real gap in the market for Spear N’ Sorcery,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, definitely. I like 'spear n' sorcery'.... Or how about 'sheld wall n' sorcery'?

      Delete
    2. Could we stretch the definition of 'arm-ring' and call it 'sword and torcery?'. Perhaps that's better saved for a Celtic game ...

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I like Shieldwall N’ Sorcery - seeing as Spear N’ Sorcery is already a category, mostly in reference to Afrocentric SFF. I’ve got some stories published in a couple places with that dark age vibe but I don’t think it’s really been covered all that much - Keith Taylor’s Bard and Poul Anderson’s Broken Sword is all that comes to mind. Norse is popular, which is close but not sufficient.

      Delete
    4. I don't think Norse myth has ever really been done 'properly' to my satisfaction but, you're right, what we're talking about here is something a bit different.

      Delete
  5. And for an appropriate soundtrack, why not use Australia's greatest band: The Mark of Cain! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFVQxm3H9UA

    ReplyDelete