(5) Of the manner in which Thjasse and his brothers divided the golden treasure the Younger Edda contains, in the above passage, the following statement: "When Olvalde died and his sons were to divide the inheritance, they agreed in the division to measure the gold by taking their mouths full of gold an equal number of times. Hence gold is called in poetry the words or speech of these giants."
It is both possible and assumable that in the mythology the brothers divided the gold in silence and in harmony. But that it should have been done in the manner here related may be doubted. There is reason to suspect that the story of the division of the gold in the manner above described was invented in Christian times in order to furnish an explanation of the phrase _thingskil thjaza_ in Bjarkamal, of _Idja glysmál_ in the same source, and of _idja ord_, quoted in _Malskrudsfrædi_. More than one pseudo-mythic story, created in the same manner and stamped by the same taste, is to be found in the Younger Edda. It should not be forgotten that all these phrases have one thing in common, and that is, a public deliberation, a judicial act. _Mál_ and _ord_ do not necessarily imply such an allusion, for in addition to the legal meaning, they have the more common one of speech and verbal statements in general; but to get at their actual significance in the paraphrases quoted we must compare them with _thingskil_, since in these paraphrases all the expressions, _thingskil_, _glysmál_, and _ord_, must be founded on one and the same mythic event. With _thingskil_ is meant that which can be produced before a court by the defendant in a dispute to clear up his case; and as gold ornaments are called Thjasse's _thingskil_ in Bjarkamal, it should follow that some judicial act was mentioned in the mythology, in which gold treasures made or possessed by Thjasse were produced to clear up a dispute which, in some way or other, touched him. From the same point of view Ide's _glysmál_ and Ide's _ord_ are to be interpreted. Ide's _glysmál_ are Ide's "glittering pleadings;" his _ord_ are the evidence or explanation presented in court by the ornaments made by or belonging to him. Now, we know from the mythology a court act in which precious works of the smiths, "glittering pleadings," were produced in reference to the decision of a case. The case or dispute was the one caused by Loke, and the question was whether he had forfeited his head to Sindre or not. As we know, the decision of the dispute depended on a comparison between Brok's and Sindre's works on the one hand, and those of the Ivalde sons on the other. Brok had appeared before the high tribunal, and was able to plead his and his brother's cause. Ivalde's sons, on the other hand, were not present, but the works done by them had to speak in their behalf, or rather for themselves. From this we have, as it seems to me, a simple and striking explanation of the paraphrases _thjaza thingskil_, _Idja glysmál_, _Idja ord_. Their works of art were the glittering but mute pleadings which were presented, on their part, for the decision of the case. That gold carried in the mouth and never laid before the tribunal should be called _thingskil_ I regard as highly improbable. From heathen poems we cannot produce a single positive proof that a paraphrase of so distorted and inadequate a character was ever used.