The Rune Forum

Of the original 24 Elder Futhark, few are more devilish to interpret across the board than Kenaz, AKA Kuan, Kaunan, and cen.
It's one of a tiny group of runes where the Anglo Saxon poem is at odds with the other two.

Old English/Anglo Saxon

The torch is known to every living man
     by its pale, bright flame;
     it always burns
     where princes sit within.

Norwegian
   
     Ulcer is fatal to children;
     death makes a corpse pale.

Icelandic

     Ulcer

     disease fatal to children
     and painful spot
     and abode of mortification.

So - which is it - a fatal ulcer or wound,  or a torch (or hearth)?

I have seen noble attempts to somehow reconcile the two, but for me, those interpretations don't quite work. While I can appreciate and respect the honest attempt of one to make sense of this disparity, in my opinion those interpretations sometimes are marked by leaps of logic or tenuous references that seem anywhere from desperate to contrived.  Really, if one tries hard enough, one can associate anything with anything else.

I believe that Kenaz, probably like Thorn, simply developed an entirely different meaning somewhere along the way. Perhaps the Anglo Saxons, having migrated from their homeland,  eventually confused two different homonyms or homophones or words similar in root.  I have seen a translation of the Havalmal where the word "peace" was used where clearly the intended word was "piece". Simple typographical errors of that nature could indeed create major changes in centuries to follow.
We may never know what happened.
Regardless, this leaves one pretty much having to decide between which poems to use as a guide, though sometimes elements may be successfully mixed if keeping in mind those elements are more coincidental than deliberate or esoteric.

Personally, I tend to prefer the Anglo Saxon poems if faced with such a decision for the following reasons; it's more verbose than the other two, is more complete with regard to the Elder Futhark (several of the EF don't exist in the NPR or IRP), and if I have my facts straight, the ASRP (aka OERP) is considered the oldest of the three.  
I'm not trying to convince anyone this is the only true way, it's just my preference.  Others may quite justifiably feel that the majority rules, and therefore in such cases, as a matter of two against one, the IRP and NRP should be given higher consideration.

Looking to the OERP, citing Kenaz as a torch;  I see it as a rune of light in the darkness;  perhaps, a mystery revealed, or more simply put;  insight.  I've also read of interpretations of passion due to the association with fire and the ability to work into the night, even after the sun sets. Another interpretation may imply a degree of comfort and status, as evidenced by, " it always burns where princes sit within". It might reference a hearth, in this case.

If one follows the other poems, it's meaning is quite clear- a fatal wound. The constant references to death - fatal, death, corpse, mortification..  are unmistakable.
The mention of "ulcer" reminds me of the sores endured by victims of the Plague, but I don't honestly know if the plaque spread as far north as Norway and Iceland, at least, at that time.

Any theories as to how this rune changed in meaning so drastically?

I got this definition from this site: http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/meanings.html (http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/meanings.html)


If you look at the poems as expressing the meaning and reverse it makes some sense. Perhaps instead of torch it means more like life force.  The two poems expressing situations where there is life and two without it?

Well,  I see what you're saying:  he's essentially taken the OSRP for the upright position, and the NRP/IRP for the reversed.
However, you have to be careful when taking an interpretation from another interpretation.  Those from Sunnyway (an excellent site, by the way) are a mix of common interpretations and the author's interpretations.
I think it's better to go straight to the original sources; the poems, the Eddas, etc.. and let each person find their own interpretation directly from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
(By the way, this is one reason you won't find similar, terse interpretations here on the forum; I want to provide the original sources, or links to them, but ultimately leave it up to each member to decide for themselves what the runes actually mean*)

For me, there's also the matter that I don't use reversed or murkstave runes. There's no historical accounting I know of that suggests that's how they were used.  I suspect that particular practice was borrowed from the Tarot, which of course is not a Northern tradition.
Admittedly, though, I'm still a little on the fence about it, as it isn't disproven either.. but at the current time, I have to believe those symbols had relatively singular meanings. I suspect that if they were meant to have dual meanings, they would have been included monolithically in each poem, since someone was concerned enough to create the poems in the first place. 
But who knows? To each their own. No way is right or wrong. If they work for you, then they work!

Another layer of complexity and mystery for the rune poems are the occasional use of kennings. A kenning is a poetic phrase used to allude to something. Germanics and Norse were fond of kennings, but I think that if they wanted Kenaz to allude to "life force", they would have, more or less, said so. Kennings are typically somewhat obvious when used (at least, in the poems), such as "the fishes bath" to refer to the ocean, or "brine-stallion" to refer to a sailing vessel. In the case of the OERP, however,  I don't detect any other meaning than for what it says it is -a torch.
Now, in the modern age, that may seem like a petty thing to honor with a rune. A torch?  It can be hard to remember that back in those times, night was, more often than not, pitch black. If you've never been outside of a light polluted area on a new moon, you can't believe how dark it gets.  Pitch black.  A torch would have shone like a beacon in the ocean of dark, the only one, save the Moon, which wasn't always bright,  and it was the only source of light reproducible and under the control of man.  That's gotta count for something.
Additionally, it could provide a source of warmth, nothing to sneeze at in the Northern latitudes.

One other thing I see some authors and interpreters do: we cannot be selective about which elements in the poems we heed, and which we don't. Sometimes some parts go ignored. The OERP clearly says "where princes sit within", so this has some reference here to nobility. My guess is, while the torch may be known to every man, perhaps not every commoner had the means to possess torches, to be lit in his abode all the time, thus the Prince reference.


*This is the mantra of the Rune-Net rune studying gild (http://www.mackaos.com.au/Rune-Net/) run by Sweyn Plowright, author of the Rune Primer. I highly suggest anyone interested in Runes get his book, either in print format, or eBook.
The view of Rune-Net is that many rune authors have introduced their own esoteric, sometimes even eastern, belief systems into their rune literature, and sold their books on the premise that this is historically and traditionally accurate.  To say the least, for an author to do this is intellectually dishonest, and I've seen it firsthand. 
I have the utmost respect for Sweyn and his group for holding up an honest and true accounting of runelore.  The truth is, there isn't that much to go on; there's the poems and some mentions in Norse literature, but all in all, woefully little.

There isn't much to add to all of that but to say I don't follow the practice of the inverted rune or the blank one, I would also agree the original Edda's and poems are the best source for meaning and inner light or life force would be much more specifically stated if that was the meaning. It will come down to how an individual feels about the rune in relation ot the poems to see how they will interpret it.

Some interpretations can get pretty .. well, creative.   ;)

Here's an example:
I recently read in a blog where the author reconciled the Kenaz poems by interpreting them as a sort of smackdown from the Gods or Norns, or from Wyrd; the message being, "Don't get lazy, idle, or complacent" kind of thing. 
The "torch burning/ where Princes always sit within" phrase was taken as a reference to metaphorically getting your bottom spanked; (thus where you sit would be burning). Clever.
As to the why, you must reference the other two poems; where ulcers, disease and death were referenced, the author saw stagnation and idleness.  The result of idleness, therefore, would be a spanking of sorts from the gods, or fate, because nothing good comes to the lazy.
And so it was made into one neat, congruent bundle.

While this author also has some other unique interpretations I find very intriguing and intelligent, I don't see eye to eye on this one.
Interpretations are subjective, personal things, yet at the same time, there should be some solid framework of consensual logic from which to base those interpretations on. Context is everything.

You're not lazy if you're dead or sick, you're dead or sick.  Putting it in context, sickness and death -especially of children, where the infant mortality rate was high- would have been a major part of life for the ancient germanics, I can't see that they would have used something so deeply solemn to refer to something like idleness, which I honestly doubt was all that commonplace. Life was so harsh, how many people would seriously have needed to be reminded to work? Would they create an entire rune just for the few who did? Unlikely, IMO.
Also, we don't know if the Anglo Saxons or Norse engaged in the specific practice of spanking a child's bottom as punishment. That may well be a more recent cultural thing, in which case, at the least, it's an anachronism.
I have a feeling their penalties for misbehavior just might have more severe - even for kids. Besides that, children are not mentioned in the OERP along with the torch, burning, and sitting, they're only mentioned in the other two poems; therefore, the reference is split and thus incongruent. Had the OERP said, "they always burn were children sit".. that could make sense.. but it didn't. Then there's also the adverb "within" at the very end, to describe the sitting, which seems to place more emphasis on the action of sitting rather than what a person sits on (his butt).  This may seem like nitpicking but I see it as not selectively ignoring parts which don't fit into an interpretation for convenience's sake.  If parts don't fit, the interpretation is probably off.

Happily, this author is very honest and straightforward about declaring this as his own personal interpretation, so, from that perspective, I have no problem with it.  It's also not bad advice. I just don't believe it's the original intended message of Kenaz.

Nonetheless, the only way we'll get to the bottom of these kind of mysteries is through discussion, interpretation, trial and error, and even through the logical process of elimination.  No one should take my verbose posts as being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative;  it's just to exercise every thought and reflection on the runes, to look into every nook and cranny, and to try to put things in context as accurately as possible.
Also, it's kinda fun.

I have a distinct tendency to look to the OERP when thinking about interpretations, rather than the Norse or Germanic. No idea why, but that's me.

I've always looked at Kenaz as ummm... a stereotypical lightbulb above the head? I'm not sure about the 'where princes sit' part but I do believe that the poor folks (like me) didn't have nearly as many torches as royalty would or any at all, dealing with light from the fireplace only. Therefore, rich halls would be more brightly lit. So, Kenaz is all about bringing light to a situation, as it were.

I've always favored the OERP too MW.  I believe they may be older than the other two as well, but I'm not currently confident of that statement enough to declare it as fact.
The IRP and NRP are so terse sometimes, and the NRP can be given to what seems at first to be some rather obscure references. Though, I suppose, that could be a blessing in disguise; referencing other mythology or literature may provide much more insight than say, an extra stanza;  I just haven't gotten there yet.  I've read the Havalmal, which also contains the Runamal; but there's sooo much more!

In any case, the OERP just seems to "click" better for me.  Or maybe I just don't want to acknowledge yet another unpleasant rune.   ;)

I think that all three poems allude to the same thing

The Norse and icelandic poems both mention death directly but the Olde English only mentions the Torch and its flame. I think that this may be a case where the OEAS is cryptic in its meaning

A place where princes sit within could indicate a burial chamber and the torch the light within therefore cryptically mentioning death.

This would go someway to reconciling the poems

Also in this way Kenaz can be seen as the flame of transformation and regeneration, the flame of the forge and of the cremetorium. It holds the power to create or destroy

Just read something on this that possibly sheds more light on Kenaz's ostensibly duplicitous nature, from etymological research - IMO, the best kind.

The Elder Futhark name for this rune is Kenaz, and in the OERP is Cen or Ken. This is cognate with kennen, (to know) and kenning, and also "kin" and "kind" -the known.

However, "Kaun", Kauno, or "Kaunaz", the Icelandic/Norwegian names, apparently are not cognate.  It appears that somewhere along the way, the name was mis or re-interpreted due to an extant Norwegian, similar sounding and spelled word, (kaun)and the meaning of the rune there became something entirely different -a festering sore, particularly a fatal one, at least to children.

Obviously I'm still refusing to reconcile the two. I cannot - I cannot see how a fatal sore relates to insight, knowledge or creative passion.  I believe a simple etymological error is the simple explanation for this discrepancy - occam's razor and all. 

http://www.linguexperience.com/A_Linguistics_Experience/KENAZ.html
http://www.linguexperience.com/A_Linguistics_Experience/Runes.html

I'm still on the hunt for the source I read that explicitly advised that Kaun is not cognate with Ken.. might not have been an Internet source but a book, I'll have to double back and recheck those I've read lately.