EASTER: PATRON GODDESS OF CHILDREN

By Gary G. Stanfield, 29 April 2001

Based in part on a previous article by the present author, published in 2000: “Easter and the Lore of
Giants”. Lina, 5 (Ostara): 6-16.

Easter was a regional wight of exceptional popularity. In ancient England, Francia, and Germany the
people observed an Easter month (Gundarsson, 1993e). Today most Wiccans include Her in their
pantheon, English- and German-speaking Christians are unable in their hearts to avoid Her, and even
agnostics and atheists often are drawn to superficial celebrations of Her. She is an extraordinarily
appealing wight, with a special place in the hearts of many people for centuries past, for the present, and
likely into the very distant future. However, Easter’s great emotional importance is accompanied by
vagueness in our understanding of Her.

formal places of worship? The answer to these

An Overview of the Paradox
The Venerable Bede’s De Temporum Rationae
tells us that She was a “dea” — Latin for
“goddess”, but Bede tells us nothing of Her
jurisdiction(s) nor function(s) (see Jones, 1943:
Chapter 15: “De Mensibus Anglorum”; Lord,
1998). Therefore, some authorities are admittedly
not quite sure what are Her jurisdictions or
functions.
Easter presents us with an unusual situation
regarding lore of a deity. Usually, we know of a
Teutonic goddess or god mostly from myths and
partly from sagas, archeological finds, place
names, and folk tales. Usually customs of worship
have been long ago discarded and forgotten, and
we have little or no evidence regarding ceremonial
treatment. In contrast, Easter’s enduring
popularity has preserved at least some of the
customs of Her worship into modern times, but
there is no mythic, archeological, nor place-name
evidence that She was in any Germanic pantheon.
This unusual situation is itself evidence. How is it
that there is only one major Teutonic deity whose
ceremonies have survived in widespread
observance with explicit connection to that deity’s
name? How does it happen that a deity with
persistent and widespread popularity left behind
none of the usual sculpture, myths, or signs of
questions will greatly clarify our understanding of
Easter. But first, let us consider etymological
evidence and find out what She is most probably
not.
Etymological Evidence
Some respected authorities infer that She is a
goddess of spring, dawn, the direction East,
shining, fertility, and/or rebirth. In large part this
is because Easter’s names in Old English (Easter,
Eastor, Eastre, Eoster) and Old High German
(Ostara) are etymologically associated with the
east, with shining, and with dawn (Bosworth and
Toller, 1898; 1921; Brown, 1987; Houghton
Mifflin, 1993: 1585; Jones, 1943: Chapter 15: “De
Mensibus Anglorum”; Lord, 1998).
However, East, shining, dawn, and spring are not
divine functions in the Teutonic system. They are
giant’s associations — things that occur
automatically. A goddess would have mitigated or
otherwise modified these functions, but would not
have performed them. For example, Njorð might
calm sea waves, but the giant Ægir was the wight
of the sea. However we know that She must have
had goddess functions, for in neither the Old
Norse nor Old English culture was there a giant
who would have had a holiday. Therefore,
etymological evidence regarding Easter contra-
dicts what we know of typical divine functions in
the Teutonic system (Stanfield, 2001a).
Was Easter not a goddess? Were there were two
Easters? Or is the etymological evidence
misleading as regards Easter? Let us look closer at
the evidence.
Consider the nature of etymological argument.
One infers the ancestry of a word based on its
structure — spelling, grammar, and/or
pronunciation. Also taken into account are
similarities between the focal word and words in
other languages. Thus, words in known languages
are used to deduce words in ancestor languages,
which are no longer spoken, and which have left
little or no literature. On this basis a “family tree”
of languages or words can be made. For example,
Indo-European language is considered to be an
ancestor of modern Celtic, Germanic, Romance,
and other languages. However, there is no
surviving literature in Indo-European. Its former
existence is inferred from similarities and
dissimilarities among, Greek, Norwegian,
Sanskrit, French, and many other languages.
From this inferred family tree of languages,
further inferences may be drawn regarding the
meaning of a word that seems related to a branch
in the family tree of words. For example “Easter”
derives from the Indo-European root word “*aus-
”, as are modern-language words for east and
other things (Houghton-Mifflin, 1993). Carrying
this line of thought out further, we would expect
all words with related pronunciation to have
closely-related meanings.
At times, etymological analyses can be helpful.
When we lack adequate knowledge of the
meaning of a word, etymology can be used with
contextual clues to define that word. Also,
etymological reasoning can help reveal the
systematic structure of an observed language and
therefore make it easier to learn.
However, there are certain weaknesses in
etymological analysis. Etymological conclusions
regarding the meaning of a word are based in part
on the assumption that structurally similar words
have very similar or identical meanings. Also,
etymological inference would predict that a word
would faithfully reflect its ancestry. Following are
a few examples where firmly-known definitions of
words contradict inferences that would be drawn
from etymological analysis.
The Modern English adjective “virtual” derives
from the Latin noun “veritas”. However, if you
were to infer that “virtual” meant anything like
what “veritas” means, you would err horribly.
“Virtual” means “almost or very similar to” — in
other words, not quite real or true. More deceptive
than actual is that which is “virtual” — as in
“virtual reality”. The Latin noun means “truth,
truthfulness, real life, reality, honesty...” — in
other words, the Latin term implies the opposite of
the Modern English “virtual” (Glare, 1976;
Houghton-Mifflin 1993).
Another example of how a word may carry only
meanings which differ from those of its parent is
our Modern English “technology”. This word
derives from ancient Greek words “skill” and “the
study of”. Therefore, the uses of this word closest
to such roots would refer to a body of knowledge
or practice of inquiry. However, we never use
“technology” to refer to knowledge or to the study
of skill. The word practically always refers to
equipment, to substances such as plastics or drugs,
or to computer programs. On rare occasions
“technology” may also refer to methods of
working.
In Old English, "nerian" is a verb meaning to save,
protect, liberate, or rescue. This word is
etymologically related to the Modern German
"nähren", which means to nourish. If you were to
infer the meaning of one of these words from the
meaning of the other, you would be deceived.
In Old Norse, "vé" is a modifier denoting "holy"
or a noun denoting priest, house, sanctuary,
temple, court of law, or woe. The ON "vé" can
also refer to an emblem or standard. In Old High
German, the etymologically-related "wih" means
temple. In Gothic, "weih" or "weihs" means holy.
The Old English "wih" denotes an idol. These
words are similar and probably derived from a
common root word, but their meanings are not
quite the same, and the Old Norse term is more
ambiguous than others in this group. Moreover,
the words in that group are structurally similar to
another group: Old Saxon and Old English "wig",
Icelandic “vig”, and Gothic “waiho”. These words
refer to intense struggles, such as war or battle, or
to valor.
In Old English, there is the term “orþanc”, which
does not strictly reflect its apparent ancestry. It
appears to combine the notions of “ur” (original,
ultimate) and “þanc” (thought). However, actual
uses in early medieval documents refer to fore-
thought, skill, intelligence, or mechanical art.
Orþanc is similar in meaning to the structurally
dissimilar ancient Greek "techne", denoting art or
skill.
Therefore, etymological evidence tends to be
somewhat speculative. We cannot say for sure that
structural similarities between words are
correlated with their meanings. Where there is
other evidence — as in the case of Easter —
etymological analyses must be considered
subordinate.
Thus, the etymological inference that Easter is a
wight with giant-type jurisdictions can be
discarded, for it contradicts other evidence. (A)
She was widely and enthusiastically celebrated or
worshipped. (B) Wights with giant-type
jurisdictions were not openly celebrated or
worshipped often enough or seriously enough that
we can find evidence of such worship. Moreover,
(C) evidence regarding Her ceremonial treatment
implies a function appropriate to a great goddess.
Ceremonial Treatment
Surviving folk customs give us some idea of how
Easter’s holiday was celebrated during this month.
However, there was something very odd about this
festival, for it was celebrated with games, but not
with formal Pagan sacrifices.
For example, Bede wrote that in the third lunar
month, Hredmonaþ, the Pagans used to sacrifice to
their goddess Hreda. However, he wrote that the
Pagans celebrated Easter — pointedly omitting
mention of sacrifice (Jones, 1943).
This examination of ceremonial treatment is
broken down into four categories. Celebrations of
Easter are examined to show that they imply an
absence of the usual Pagan formulas. Then formal
places of worship and magical rituals are briefly
discussed ― these also seem absent from Easter’s
ceremonial treatment. All this shows that Her
ceremonies were designed for participation by
children.
THE NATURE OF SACRIFICE
I will begin with a brief overview of sacrifice to
show how it does not resemble Easter
celebrations. The general purpose of holy sacrifice
is to give something back to the recipients and
acknowledge some kind of responsibility toward
them.
There are two kinds of acts we can consider holy
sacrifice.
One kind of sacrifice we may call physical-loss
sacrifice, for there is a loss on the part of the giver.
Some substance, object, or wight is formally
blessed or dedicated ― often by a full-time priest
or priestess. Then that which has been set aside
may be taken to an altar and destroyed or
slaughtered. The sacrifice might also be left out
next to a bush, stuffed into an idol, etc. In other
words, that which is given is exclusively of no use
to the divine recipient. An example would be
pouring out a dedicated drink on the ground. This
type of sacrifice is common in Mediterranean
religions.
Another kind of “sacrifice”, described in detail in
The Saga of Hakon the Good, involves the giver
getting plenty of use out of that which is
“sacrificed”. Here it is the givers and temple
objects that are blessed, and the slaughtered
livestock are eaten by the celebrants. Often blood
would be smeared on an altar; sometimes a less-
edible part, such as the head, would be placed in a
pit or buried. The emphasis here is on sharing with
the divine. Sacrifices of this sort seem especially
Teutonic. Like physical loss, a sharing sacrifice
would involve elaborate and precise ritual. (See
Chisholm, 1993; Hollander, 1964: Owen, 1985:
43-48; 107; Stanfield, 1999c; Thorsson, 1992: 45-
51; Turville-Petre, 1964; Welch, 1992: 40; for
comparison, see Catholic Church, 1987: Leviticus,
Chapters 22, 23, and 27).
EASTER CELEBRATIONS
Celebrations of Easter seem not to be descended
from sacrifices of either the sharing or simple
giving type. Instead, the emphasis is on
consumption. There is no emphasis on formal
dedication, and rituals tend to be primitive. These
rituals. Of the spring-time celebratory rituals of
Teutonic Europe, we know little that would have
been clearly associated with Easter except this:
people played with their food, then ate it. These
celebrations are not technically very demanding
and do not require much knowledge of mythic
lore. There is at most a primitive sense of relating
to a spiritual being.
Consider the Easter egg. Although we see people
following an ancient custom of eating eggs to
celebrate Easter, those incredible edibles are not
blessed nor dedicated. Decoration is likely
vestigial dedication, but if so, the ancient dedica-
tion must not have been elaborate and precise.
Otherwise, we would commonly see official
Christian forms of egg dedication. Also, eggs are
often rolled or hidden-and-sought in play, but
these are not precise and somber ceremonies. In
other words, the ancient Pagan egg ceremonies
were as easy as child’s play.
Hares and rabbits are often mentioned in Easter-
time celebrations. However, participants in these
rituals do without relating rabbits to Jesus. Not
relating rabbits or hares to Jesus (the ultimate
sacrifice in Christianity) implies that rabbits and
hares were not sacrificed with the usual
formalities in ancient times.
Gundarsson mentions squirrel hunting as a part of
German spring ceremonies. These hunts
culminated in rock-throwing, not in killing with
the most lethal weapons of the day. Therefore, the
hunts would have been safe for small children, if
not very effective. Also, there seems to have been
no formal ritual of dedication nor blessing in these
hunts (Gundarsson, 1993a; Gundarsson, 1993e).
FORMAL PLACES OF WORSHIP
Judging from place names, Her rituals seem not to
have involved temples nor dedicated open spaces.
That is, there are no surviving place names to
indicate that She had facilities which would have
required maintenance by adults.
We would expect that a deity who was very
popular over a large expanse of territory would
have many place names indicating particular loci
of worship, and this is the case for other Teutonic
deities (for example, see Stanfield, 1998c and
1999c). Since Easter was observed in all Germanic
lands outside Scandinavia, we would expect that
She would have at least several surviving place
names.
The absence of place names relating to this deity
implies a lack of any kind of formal organization
to maintain facilities, supplies, or equipment. In
turn this implies the lack of a part-time or full-
time clergy dedicated to Her.
Since a clergy to maintain facilities and equipment
would not need to be dedicated to Her exclusively,
we may reasonably infer that the worship of Easter
explicitly excluded those formalities which would
require such facilities or staff to maintain them.
Given the warning in the Old English Rune Poem
against the distractions of “filigree”, we may also
reasonably suspect that Her constituency would
have been particularly susceptible to such
distraction. This vulnerability would have been
due to a lack of maturity. (Regarding the
distractions of method and equipment, see
Stanfield, 2000c). Of course, this does not
preclude attention and supervision by adults.
MAGIC
Easter customs do not emphasize magic directed
at future gain or performance. Do the egg-related
activities celebrate or magically invoke fertility?
Consider again Easter egg customs, which involve
using up present resources — sometimes blowing
out the edible insides and discarding them — for
present joy. The future chicken, which would be
of greater value than the present egg, is foregone.
This kind of play and consumption lacks elements
of imitative or contagious magic and does not
imply a metaphor for springtime agricultural
activities such as planting. Do children hunt
rabbits to gain personal fertility, or is that kind of
fertility not appropriate for their ages?
APPROPRIATENESS FOR CHILDREN
Easter celebrations were (and still are) very
appropriate for small children. In such customs we
see a solemnity which is not very sober and does
not look to the future. We see celebrations which
are not determined, disciplined, investing,
combative, nor formal. Instead the celebration of
Easter is uninhibited, childlike, child-friendly,
parent-friendly, and generally user-friendly
(exoteric and informal). Mom does not have to
work as much in the kitchen (although she may),
for she can make the kids boil eggs and the whole
family will love it. It is safe. Celebration of Easter
does not demand the skill, discipline, nor attention
span necessary for elaborate and precise
ceremony. It does not require deep understanding
of allegory nor metaphor. It does not demand the
strength, coordination or knowledge necessary to
ritually slaughter and butcher a major livestock
animal. It does not demand having much in the
way of resources of your own to sacrifice. It is
possible that springtime fire ceremonies were
Easter celebrations, but if so they would have
made rituals very different from the rest of what
we know about this holiday. They would also have
required supervision or exclusive participation by
responsible adolescents or adults.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion: Her celebration was (and still is) a
family-oriented affair and a break from the usual
round of more serious and more adult-oriented
holy days Her celebration was (and still is) a break
for adults and a treat for children.
Personal Names
Our modern personal name “Esther” derives from
a Biblical character, a Persian Jewish queen whose
“Esther” was based on the Farsi “sitareh” (star).
Thus, “Esther” is not derived from the Teutonic
goddess’ name (Houghton Mifflin Company,
1993. We cannot discern that anyone was
dedicated to Her, although naming people after
other deities was common (for example, see
Stanfield, 1999c).
If no one was dedicated to Her, this situation
would be consistent with Her being a patron
goddess of people in a certain phase of life, and
having no other major functions.
Further Inferences
It would be helpful to provide an aspect of religion
appropriate for children but so clearly meant for
them that they would eventually leave it behind as
they leave behind their favorite childhood games.
This would imply a deity functioning something
like the training wheels on a bicycle.
In general, the thrust of Teutonic Pagan religion –
as of any true religion – is that its members should
be even more responsible, self-disciplined, happy,
and effective adults than they would have been
without the religion. In short, it is an extra boost
for people who have attained maturity. Our
pantheon and myths show this emphasis of our
religion, as does what we know of ancient
Teutonic religious ceremony.
However, the major thrust of religion leaves little
room for people who are in very early stages of
maturation. The extra boost from religion cannot
do much for them, and they may find adult
religion beyond their knowledge or understanding.
Moreover, since children often fail to understand
the deeper complexities of religion, there can be
harm from an early introduction. They may infer
that the exoteric aspects they perceive are all there
is to religion and later turn away from it or
practice it without true understanding.
But when we see how Easter was celebrated, we
see a rare goddess of a kinder, gentler, and less
demanding kind. More like a grandparent than a
typical goddess, Easter did not require — and
probably did not allow — sacrifices, temples,
dedicated groves or hills, nor a formal cult
separate from any high other deity’s cult.
That Her popularity survived early
Christianization may be another clue, for it is one
thing to tell adults that some of their favorite
deities are demons. It is quite another to
repeatedly tell large numbers of very small
children that their favorite and patron deity is a
demon or the devil in disguise.
Therefore She must be the sort of goddess that
children of both genders could relate to directly,
whether or not they had been dedicated to another
patron deity or understood an adult deity. You can
be Hers and She can be yours even if you have to
have your mother help you to make a phone call or
to tie your shoes. But she would be a goddess no
adolescent, adult, nor aged person would likely
completely abandon, just as we never abandon our
fond memories of childhood games or friends.
She might have had other functions, such as
assisting natural or agricultural fertility, or
assisting with processes in early stages. If so,
Easter’s worship would have harkened back to
earlier and physically poorer times, when
nomadism and/or technological conditions would
have hindered the more formal religion of peasant
or industrial societies. However, this would imply
a cult of very dedicated purists or fundamentalists.
Even if these people were mild-mannered and
reticent as a matter of policy, they would surely
have had the energy and determination to leave at
least a small but very distinctive mark on society
as witches, Essenes, and others have done.
Vestiges of Easter worship in modern times imply
the existence of no such cult. If She were a
goddess of beginnings, She would be the goddess
of early stages of human lives.
Conclusions
Easter is very unlike other deities. This is because
other deities are oriented toward adults and adult
functioning, while She demands no more than
small children can give.
She is the means by which the very young are
integrated into Teutonic Polytheism, and She is
their protector and special friend. Perhaps no other
religion has anyone like Her, and it is well that
She has a special and very enduring place in our
hearts!
References
Bosworth, Joseph and T. N. Toller. 1898. An
Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. London: Oxford
University Press
Bosworth, Joseph and Toller T. N. 1921. An
Anglo-Saxon Dictionary...Supplement.
London: Oxford University Press.
Brown, George H. 1987. Bede the Venerable.
Boston: Twayne Publishers.
Catholic Church. 1987. The New American Bible. Stanfield, Gary G. 1999c. “Appendix D: Lore of
Cleveland, OH, USA: World Publishing Frey”. Web page:
Company. “http://pages.prodigy.net/gary_s/AppendixD.ht
Chisholm, James A. 1993. True Hearth. Bastrop, m”. A previous edition was published as “Lore
TX, USA: Runa-Raven Press. Confraternity of of Frey — Excerpts from the OERP Book:
Christian Doctrine. 1986. The New American Appendix D”. The Rune, 10 (Fall): 36-44.
Bible. Canada: World Catholic Press. Stanfield, Gary G. 2000c. “Excerpts from the
Glare, P. G. W., ed. 1976. Oxford Latin OERP Book: Chapters 26 and 27”. The Rune,
Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press. 10 (Summer): 32-40.
Gundarsson, Kveldulf. 1993a. Teutonic Religion. Stanfield, Gary G. 2000e. “Excerpt from the
St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications. OERP Book: Appendix E: Wyrd”. The Rune,
Gundarsson, Kveldulf. 1993e . “Ostara”. In Our 11 (Winter): 31-40.
Troth, ed. Kveldulf Gundarsson, 584-595. Stanfield, Gary G. 2001a. “Giants in Teutonic
Seattle, WA, USA: The Ring of Troth. Religion.” The Rune, 11 (Spring): 32-37.
Hall, J. R. Clark. 1960. A Concise Anglo-Saxon Stead, Lewis. 1994. Raven Kindred Ritual Book,
Dictionary. 4th ed., with a supplement by 3d ed. Wheaton, MD, USA: Asatru Today.
Herbert D. Merritt. Toronto, Canada: Thorsson, Edred. 1992. Northern Magic. St. Paul,
University of Toronto Press. MN: Llewellyn.
Healey, Antonette diPaolo, Joan Holland, David Turville-Petre, E. O. G. 1964. Myth and Religion
McDougall, Ian McDougall, Nancy Speirs, of the North. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
and Pauline Thompson. 1994. Dictionary of Winston.
Old English: E. Toronto, Canada: Pontifical Welch, Martin. 1992. Discovering Anglo-Saxon
Institute of Mediaeval Studies. England. University Park, PA, USA:
Hollander, Lee M., transl. 1964. Heimskringla: Pennsylvania State University Press.
History of the Kings of Norway. Austin, Texas,
USA: University of Texas Press.
Houghton Mifflin Company. 1993. The American
Heritage College Dictionary. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, Charles W. 1943. Bedae: Opera De
Temporibus. Cambridge, MA, USA:
Medieaval Academy of America.
Lord, Gárman. 1998. Théodish Planning Calendar
1998. Watertown, NY, USA: Théod.
Mitchell, Bruce and Fred C. Robinson. 1992. A
Guide to Old English. Oxford, UK and
Cambridge, MA, USA: Blackwell.
Owen, Gale R. 1985. Rites and Religions of the
Anglo-Saxons. London: Dorset Press.
Oxford University Press. 1933. The Oxford
English Dictionary. London: Oxford
University Press.
Stanfield, Gary G. 1998c. “Excerpts from the
OERP Book, Chapter 17 and Appendix C”.
The Rune 9 (Fall): 31-40.