• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 15405 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 15405 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Presses universitaires de Caen
  • ›
  • Symposia
  • ›
  • Poésie et politique dans les mondes nord...
  • ›
  • Le pouvoir et les dieux
  • ›
  • Early Eddic poetry (c. 850‑1000): The ot...
  • Presses universitaires de Caen
  • Presses universitaires de Caen
    Presses universitaires de Caen
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral Context of composition: internal indications External indications Conclusions Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Poésie et politique dans les mondes nordiques et normands médiévaux (IXe-XIIIe siècle)

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Early Eddic poetry (c. 850‑1000): The other type of pagan court poetry?

    La poésie eddique (ca. 850‑1000) : l’autre type de poésie païenne de cour ?

    Mikael Males

    p. 159-175

    Résumés

    Old Norse poetry is commonly divided into Eddic and skaldic poetry. Skaldic poetry is generally connected to the court, but scholars rarely mention possible contexts of composition of Eddic poetry, and no overview of indications has been published. This chapter presents such an overview. In fact, the evidence is relatively rich and points unambiguously to a courtly context. It therefore seems likely that the distinction between Eddic and skaldic poetry was not one of context, but one of function, and since only skaldic poetry merited substantial rewards from the ruler, only the latter had a strong sense of authorship. It is further argued that scholarly reluctance to discuss context is not primarily due to the character of the sources, but that it has been inherited from an earlier period, when Eddic poetry was seen as a popular form, in contradistinction to elite skaldic poetry.

    La poésie en vieux norrois est habituellement divisée en poésie eddique et poésie scaldique. La poésie scaldique est généralement liée à la cour, mais les spécialistes mentionnent rarement les possibles contextes de composition pour la poésie eddique, et aucune synthèse sur cette question n’a été publiée : c’est ce que propose le présent chapitre. De fait, les données sont assez abondantes et pointent sans ambiguïté vers un contexte curial. Il apparaît donc que la distinction entre les poésies eddique et scaldique n’est pas liée au contexte mais à la fonction : la poésie scaldique étant la seule à permettre l’obtention de récompenses substantielles de la part d’un souverain, elle seule s’accompagnait d’un fort sentiment d’auctorialité. Nous montrons par ailleurs que la réticence des spécialistes à évoquer le contexte de composition n’est pas due à la nature des sources mais qu’elle est héritée d’un temps où la poésie eddique était regardée comme une forme populaire, par opposition à une poésie scaldique élitaire.

    Texte intégral Context of composition: internal indications External indications Conclusions Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Texte intégral

    1The Old Norse poetic corpus, composed in the period c. 850‑1400, is traditionally divided into Eddic and skaldic poetry. The scholarly distinction between the two is based on a number of criteria, three of which are relevant here. Firstly, Eddic poetry is associated with the comparatively lax metres fornyrðislag, málaháttr and ljóðaháttr, whereas the bulk of the skaldic corpus is composed in the strict dróttkvætt metre. Secondly, Eddic poetry is generally anonymous, whereas skaldic poetry is attributed to named skalds. Thirdly, whereas Eddic poetry appears primarily to serve as a carrier of the mythological and heroic tradition, skaldic poetry is mainly associated with praise of the ruler, but also with expressions of personal sentiment. Scholars generally treat the second and third criteria as more decisive than the first, so that when a poem in Eddic metre is attributed to a known skald or serves as praise of a ruler, it is classified as skaldic.

    2While these criteria are modern, they are based on implicit medieval distinctions, evident through features internal to the poetry, through the treatment of Eddic versus skaldic poetry in prose texts, and through the collection of Eddic poetry in two manuscripts (R and A).1 The overall division is thus sound both from a taxonomic and a cultural perspective, but this need not be true of all scholarly notions associated with either type of poetry. This paper focuses on a modern conceptual distinction between the two, namely that skaldic poetry is ultimately associated with the court, whereas Eddic poetry is not. I shall argue that indications found in early Eddic poetry also point to a court context, and that the difference between the two types of poetry is one of function, not of context. I have singled out Vǫluspá, Hávamál and Lokasenna as particularly informative.

    Context of composition: internal indications

    3To date, no overview of the indications regarding the original context of composition of early Eddic poetry has been written. Indeed, one is easily left with the impression that there was no such context. There may be a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it should be noted that the most obvious reason – that the corpus itself invites a context-less interpretation – can be ruled out. As we shall see, the body of evidence pointing to a specific context is relatively substantial, and since Eddic poetry has attracted an extraordinary amount of scholarly interest, the most striking fact is that this evidence has not previously been collected. This suggests that the view of Eddic poetry as detached from any specific context is not primarily informed by probabilistic considerations. One likely contributing factor is that in early German scholarship in particular, perceptions of a Romantic character, construing Eddic poetry as the voice of the people or nation, were prevalent.2 Already in 1894, Finnur Jónsson dismissed such perspectives on Eddic poetry as untenable and claimed instead that all but the very earliest Eddic poems were likely composed by skalds. By all appearances, he did so based on the intuition he had developed through his skaldic expertise; but he presented no positive arguments in support of his claim.3 Perhaps for this reason, the vaguer, German perspectives appear to have been more important for the scholarly discourse than those of Finnur, his towering presence notwithstanding. Subsequently, “context-less” perspectives have been reinforced by postmodern scepticism towards the concept of authorship, with a shift of emphasis towards the manuscripts and late dating, but still with no author or context of composition. This perspective, too, has found its strongest expression in German scholarship, through the now standard commentary on the Eddic poems: Kommentar zu den Liedern der Edda.4 Somewhat counterintuitively, then, Romantic and postmodern perspectives have in this instance served to reinforce each other. In terms of probabilities, however, questions relating to authorship and context of composition must be evaluated on the basis of the best evidence available, not of preconceived notions. Finnur Jónsson’s attempt to rebut the “popular/unauthored poetry hypothesis” did little to move the discourse in an empirical direction, since in the end, he adduced no evidence to support his position, and while he was firmly in favour of skalds as authors of the Eddic poems, he did not address their context of composition.

    4For this reason, I believe that we must turn a new leaf and evaluate the indications pointing to a context of composition based on their own merits. The question is important not only with respect to Old Norse poetic and literary culture generally, but also for our evaluation of the appropriate balance between comparative and reconstructive versus internal and synchronic – or at least more synchronic – perspectives in literary and cultural analysis.

    5Of the Eddic poems, Vǫluspá provides the richest evidence for its context of composition, exhibiting three features that are otherwise exclusively associated with skaldic poetry. Vǫluspá has attracted more scholarship than any other Eddic poem, and a number of scholars have argued that it belongs among the late Eddic poems (roughly the twelfth century). All studies asserting a late date share one fundamental epistemological problem, however, in that they either ignore or minimise the importance of metrical and linguistic evidence, as well as clear indications of intertextuality within the Old Norse poetic tradition, in favour of vague similarities with texts from other traditions (influence from Biblical texts is irrelevant here, since a plausible case can be made for this irrespective of date).5

    6Dating is a one-parameter hypothesis, much like the “guilty” and “not guilty” of criminal investigation, and as such, it is eminently susceptible to the standard scientific evaluation of evidence in order to eliminate all but the most plausible hypothesis. The scholarly pursuit of knowledge means that this option must be preferred when available. The comparison with criminal investigation also serves to illustrate the point that it is not reasonable to give precedence to vague criteria over specific ones in single-parameter queries: if person X passed through the face-recognition system of a passport control, whereas a person of roughly similar description were caught on a security camera in a supermarket, we must assume that X was, in fact, at the passport control, not in the supermarket. We are certainly not entitled to disregard the evidence from the passport control in favour of that from the supermarket. Only scholarship that adheres to such basic scientific principles is relevant to dating. In the case of Vǫluspá, all attempts to place it among the late Eddic poems rely on a preference for vague evidence, which means that they have opted out of the progressive elimination of hypotheses in a case when this epistemologically preferable option is available. The lack of scholarly consensus on the date of Vǫluspá does not, therefore, indicate that the poem is especially difficult to date, but only that it has attracted an unusual amount of scholarship with a preference for vague criteria.6

    7The dating of Vǫluspá has recently seen a large-scale probabilistic evaluation, and a date before c. 1000 now seems overwhelmingly plausible.7 These are a few of the most noteworthy indications: linguistic evidence unequivocally places the poem in the early group; metrical evidence and an additional allusion to another older poem in Þorfinnsdrápa (§ 24) show that Arnórr jarlaskáld alluded to Vǫluspá (§ 57) in the 1060s; the mythological slump in the eleventh century was more complete than scholars have suspected, making a date between c. 1015 and 1120 unlikely; Vǫluspá displays marked lexical overlap with poetry from the second half of the tenth century, not attested in other poetry; scholars have presented no Christian analogues to such repurposing of Christian religious motifs as found in Vǫluspá, but related responses to Christianity is to be found in pagan poetry from the tenth century.

    8Based on the results of this study, the following discussion assumes that Vǫluspá was composed in the second half of the tenth century. The poem may therefore serve to inform our analysis of the early context of composition of Eddic poetry. A court setting is suggested by internal evidence in the first stanza (internal rhymes are in bold type):

    Hljóðs bið ek allar
    helgar8 kindir,
    meiri ok minni
    mǫgu Heimdallar;
    vildu at ek, Valfǫðr,
    vel fyr telja
    forn spjǫll fira,
    þau er fremst um man.

    I ask all the holy offspring, lesser and greater sons of Heimdallr, to be silent; lord of the slain [Óðinn], you want me to recount the ancient words of men, the first that I remember.

    Such a bid for a hearing is unique among Eddic poems but is a topos in another genre, namely skaldic panegyrics.9 In the typical bid for a hearing of the pagan period, the skald asks the audience to be silent while he produces god-given poetry, for instance by reference to Óðinn’s liquid pouring forth over his lips. Noteworthy examples in poetry addressed to Hákon jarl are found in the openings of Háleygjatal and Vellekla. In later poetry, God takes over the role of Óðinn, but the template otherwise remains largely intact.10 As in Vǫluspá, the noun hljóð (“hearing”) or forms of the verb heyra (“hear”) are common in these openings, as in the first stanza of Eyvindr skáldaspillir’s Háleygjatal:

    Viljak hljóð
    at Hǫ́ars líði,
    meðan Gillings
    gjǫldum yppik,
    meðan hans ætt
    í hverlegi
    galga farms
    til goða teljum.

    I would wish for a hearing for the drink of Hǫ́arr [Óðinn > Poetry], while I [we] lift up the payment for Gillingr [giant > Poetry], while we reckon his lineage back to the gods in the cauldron-liquid [drink] of the burden of the gallows [Óðinn > Poetry].11

    In the pagan period, the bid for a hearing is typical of royal panegyrics, although it can occasionally be found in panegyrics to other prominent men.12 Since the bid for a hearing is not found in any other Eddic poem, it is likely that the Vǫluspá poet plays on the conventions of panegyrics, but that the topos has been adapted to the subject at hand. He speaks in the first person, as skalds always do in their bids for a hearing, but he impersonates the vǫlva. Óðinn’s role has been changed from patron of poetry to commissioner of the poem. This sophisticated play with the conventions of panegyrics suggests that the poem was intended for a setting where panegyrics were regularly performed, that is, at court.

    9It is also noteworthy that while fornyrðislag does not feature rhyme, the third couplet of Vǫluspá above follows the rhyme-scheme of dróttkvætt: odd verses have skothending, even ones have aðalhending, and the second member of each pair is found in the penultimate syllable (see italics above). The couplet even has retained rhyme (il : al : el : el), which is an optional ornament. Since this stanza otherwise plays on skaldic conventions, the presence of a skaldic couplet is not likely to be coincidental. Rather, the rhyme scheme draws on poetic conventions within a courtly setting.13

    10Vǫluspá displays yet another feature typical of skaldic panegyrics, namely two to three refrains, depending on whether one counts the single verse vituð ér enn eða hvat? or not (the other two are Geyr Garmr mjǫk […] and Þá gengu regin ǫll […]). The number of refrains in drápur varied, as indicated by, for instance, the name of the poem Sexstefja (drápa with six refrains). By contrast, refrains are not typical of other Eddic poems. In sum, various features of the first stanza as well as the refrains indicate that Vǫluspá was intended to play on the conventions of panegyrics. While some panegyrics were composed in honour of Icelandic chieftains, their typical setting was at court, and it is at court that it would make most sense to play on the conventions of the poetry that was normally recited there. It therefore seems likely that Vǫluspá was intended for recital at court, presumably in Norway.

    11The fact that Vǫluspá is intended for a male audience, “the sons of Heimdallr”, supports this conclusion, since this is consistent with a warrior retinue. The male perspective is much more prominent in the next item under analysis, namely Hávamál. Even when the the latter's poet reminds his listeners that men are as treacherous towards women as women are towards men, the distinction between “us” and “them” is very clear (§ 91). Before exploring Hávamál further, however, its likely dates must be evaluated.

    12Like the debate on the date of Vǫluspá, that on Hávamál has seen some contributions arguing for a late date based on vague similarities with Latin texts. In so doing, Klaus von See and Hermann Pálsson completely disregard formal criteria.14 John McKinnell argues for a twelfth-century interpolation of stanzas 84 and 91-110. He takes formal criteria into account but notes that the evidence, although limited, suggests that these stanzas are old.15 He therefore suggests that the poet drew on older material in his interpolation.16 All three scholars focus on textual analogues that are to be expected, since they compare Hávamál to other gnomic literature and its erotic content to Ovid’s erotic literature. In other words, they focus on widely shared aspects of the human experience, and none of the features mentioned are typologically rare or specific enough to suggest influence. These studies may therefore be disregarded for the purposes of dating.

    13Apart from these studies, another epistemic limitation looms large in the debate: the reluctance of scholars to subject content to probabilistic evaluation for the purposes of dating. Since the linguistic evidence is scant, additional parameters are needed, and on closer inspection, Hávamál contains at least three strong, content-based indications of an early date whose validity has not been tested in previous scholarship. A full exploration, in conjunction with a test of formal criteria, is presented elsewhere, but the main points are rehearsed below.17

    14With regard to formal criteria, Hávamál 32 contains alliteration in vr- in the form of a unique pair (virði : vrekast), instilling the strongest possible confidence in the diagnostic validity of the criterion for dating the stanza to before c. 1000. Stanzas 4 and 38 contain expletive of / um before nouns (um œðis, § 4, l. 4; um þǫrf, § 38, l. 6), which is an only slightly weaker indication to the same effect. The remaining 161 stanzas contain no linguistic criteria of even remotely comparable significance, but the high overall incidence of expletive of supports the conclusion that Hávamál belongs among the earliest Eddic poems.18 Strong formal criteria are thus limited to the first quarter of the poem, and since Hávamál falls into a number of distinct sections, this raises the question of whether or not the testimony of these criteria is valid for the poem at large. To explore this issue, let us turn to content.

    15The first content-based criterion is found in stanza 81. Hávamál (§ 81, l. 1-2) reads: At kveldi skal dag leyfa / konu er brend er […], “one should praise the day in the evening [and] a woman when she has been burnt [= having received funeral rites] […]”. This matter-of-fact statement about praising things only when they are over presupposes that the burning of the dead is sufficiently common for the practice to serve as a recognisable metaphor for death, just as the modern "until she rests in the ground/is dead and buried" draws on inhumation as the typical way of disposing of the dead. The same metaphor is used in stanza 71, l. 4-5: blindr er betri / en brendr sé, “it is better to be blind than to be burnt [= dead]”. The metaphor must presumably have been created in the pagan period, since burning of the dead was a strong taboo throughout the pre-modern Christian period. This dating criterion may be tested in various ways. Firstly, it may be compared to the archaeological record, which shows that cremation gradually declined during the tenth century, and that it came to a full stop at the end of that century.19

    16This is promising but not decisive, since metaphors may at times survive their causes for hundreds of years. Old Norse literature is extremely rich in deaths, and the preconditions for testing whether the metaphor survived are thus in place and may be explored by surveying the occurrences of the verb brenna (“to burn”). Lexicon Poeticum covers all poetic occurrences, while the digital Dictionary of Old Norse Prose (ONP) and Saga Corpus now offer excellent possibilities for surveying prose occurrences. A search indicates that the metaphor did not survive, since the only superficially similar occurrence is a brend kona (“burnt woman”) in the Icelandic Annals of 1301. This is not a reference to burial practices, however, but to her manner of death: Brend kona ór Þýðersku á Norðnesi, ok hálshǫggvin bóandi hennar, “A woman from Germany was burnt on Nordnes, and her husband was decapitated”.20 The woman in question was the so-called False Margrete, executed on Nordnes in Bergen.21 Since burning was now a punishment and the practice of burning one’s enemies in their houses remained the most efficient way of disposing of them, whereas cremation of the dead was abandoned, the old metaphor would gradually have become misleading.

    17Later authors knew that the pagans practiced cremation, but the crucial point in the present context is that when referring to this practice, they always disambiguated: Þá skyldi brenna alla dauða menn, “then all the dead should be burnt”; Eptir þat lagði Brynhildr sik sverði ok var hon brend með Sigurði, “after that Brynhildr ran herself through with a sword and was burnt with Sigurðr”.22 Evidently, they felt that this was necessary even when describing the remote past, where references to cremation might be expected. By contrast, Hávamál describes a timeless present, where dying and burning can be used as poetic synonyms without further qualification. If stanzas 71 and 81 were composed by a Christian poet, one would expect the present tense of Hávamál to make the need for disambiguation even greater than in descriptions of the pagan past. The passage in the Icelandic annals supports this interpretation.

    18This criterion has thus withstood testing against both archaeological and later sources. In previous scholarship, no such testing has been performed. Presumably due to scholarly suspicions, the criterion has not been used since 1927, but testing is more relevant than speculation to the evaluation of probabilities.23

    19The second content-based criterion is a quotation. The verses Deyr fé / deyja frændr (“cattle dies / relatives die”) in Hávamál (§ 76-77) are also found in Hákonarmál (§ 21) composed shortly after Hákon góði’s death in 961.24 The presence of an identical couplet in both poems is not likely to be due to shared traditions in a general sense, since the disyllabic–trisyllabic structure of the couplet, in conjunction with double alliteration, is a highly marked poetic choice. We may thus assume that one poem has borrowed from the other, and it is likely that Hávamál is the giver for two reasons. Firstly, like the rest of Hávamál, this statement presents universal preconditions for human existence – cattle and relatives die – whereas this is the only statement applicable to the general human condition that is found in Hákonarmál. Secondly, Hákonarmál uses the metre of Hávamál – ljóðaháttr – when treating Óðinn and topics related to him, but otherwise uses fornyrðislag (a single exception is found in stanza 2).25 This suggests that Odinic topics are treated in the metre of Óðinn’s own poem, that is, Hávamál. This amounts to a metrical allusion, strengthening the hypothesis of the textual allusion and a date before 961. None of these three parameters – conspicuous metrical marking, overall theme of the poems and the “Odinic” distribution of meters in Hákonarmál – have been evaluated in previous scholarship.

    20In Hávamál (§ 129) we read gjalti glíkir / verða gumna synir, “the sons of men become like a gjalt(r)”. Scholarly consensus holds that a number of elements in the stanza are Old Norse reflections of the Irish story of Suibne geilt (“the madman”).26 The word gjalt(r) is also found in prose sources from the early thirteenth century onwards in the expression verða at gjalti, “to become mad with fear in armed conflict”, and scholars generally treat the occurrence in Hávamál as an early variant of this phrase. The crucial point here is that the occurrences have not been subjected to close syntactical analysis, which indicates that we must be dealing with the personal name Gjaltr in Hávamál, whereas at gjalti has become grammaticised as an adverb in later sources. Glíkr / líkr (“like”) can only be used to compare plural to plural of common nouns (e.g. “sons of men become like madmen”), but it can be used to compare a plural common noun to a singular proper name (e.g. “sons of men become like Gjaltr”).27 We must therefore be dealing with a name in Hávamál, and the narrative correspondences to the Irish story (looking up in battle so that a curse can take hold) support this. This means that we must posit sufficient time between the use of the name in Hávamál and later occurrences of gjalt(r) for the name to become detached from its narrative context and for the expression to become grammaticised. This could hardly have taken less than two-three generations, since speakers who were aware of the fact that Gjaltr was a person in a story would have found the new expression ungrammatical. Other poetic occurrences of Irish loans are found in poetry before c. 1000, with the exception of King Magnús berfœttr’s use of the word ingjan (= Ir. ingen, “young girl”) to add local colour to his description of his love affair with an Irish woman in Dublin in 1098. For various reasons, then, Hávamál (§ 129) was probably composed before c. 1100, and most likely before c. 1000. Since a close syntactical analysis of the occurrences has been absent from previous scholarship, this dating criterion is new.

    21As these examples show, content may be subjected to testing no less than formal criteria. Indeed, all three content-based criteria may be stronger than the formal criterion of the overall ratio of expletive of, since poets occasionally used this feature in archaisation.28 There is thus no absolute correlation between formal criteria and diagnostic reliability; the most important characteristics of a criterion are its specificity and susceptibility to testing.

    22For the long and seemingly composite Hávamál, it is a particular asset that indications of a date before c. 1000 are spread across the poem: stanzas 4 (of before noun), 32 (vr-), 38 (of before noun), 71 (brendr sé), 76-77 (deyr fé), 81 (brend kona), 129 (gjalti glíkir). The data therefore invites us to contemplate the possibility that the poem is the product of one creative mind and that the sections of the poem are intended as such. The lists of dwarves in Vǫluspá and of names of Óðinn in Grímnismál also amount to semi-independent sections, and drápur are divided into bálkar (sections). There are thus a number of analogues to dividing a poem into segments, and it is doubtful that their presence should be taken to suggest that more than one poet has been at work in the way that, for instance, two linguistic strata would have. The poetic and saga corpus at large both suggest that poetry was seen as an individual endeavour, and the sections of Hávamál may well reflect one poet’s rendering of a number of traditional strands relating to Óðinn.

    23Be that as it may, it would at least appear that Hávamál as a whole dates to before c. 1000 and that it may therefore be analysed as an early poem. Unlike Vǫluspá, it does not contain specific indications that it belongs in the setting of a great hall, but its contents are consistent with such a setting. Most notably, its staunchly male perspective fits that of the warrior retinue. The polarised view of the sexes in Old Norse warrior culture may, for instance, be illustrated by the standard insult that the opponent would rather stay at home with the women than join battle with the men.29 The “us versus them” perspective is even shared with the divine speaker of the poem – Óðinn – who describes how Billingr's daughter deceived him and how he in turn deceived Gunnlǫð in their erotic dealings (§ 97-105). Hávamál is the Old Norse male bonding poem above others, and as such, it seems highly suitable to a retinue of warriors.

    24In addition to the features discussed up to this point, the clearest skaldic allusions to Eddic poems – Þorfinnsdrápa (§ 24) to Vǫluspá (§ 57) and Hákonarmál (§ 18) to Hávamál (§ 76‑77) – are found in panegyrics to rulers. These poems were intended for the hall, and their expectations on their listeners suggest that Vǫluspá and Hávamál belonged in the same setting. Lokasenna, which displays interesting connections to both poems, may serve to elaborate this point further.

    25The correlation between alliteration in vr- and a high incidence of expletive of strongly suggests that Lokasenna was composed before c. 1000.30 A relative post quem may be established in relation to Hávamál. Lokasenna contains a number of echoes to this poem, and one is of particular interest here. Hávamál (§ 29) has tunga […] opt sér ógott um gelr (literally “the [glib] tongue often chants un-good for itself”), whereas Lokasenna (§ 31) has tunga […] ógott um gala. The substantivised ógott is found only in these two places, and similarly, these are the only two places where gala (“chant”) is used of ordinary speech.31 The use of the expletive particle before the verb further underlines the similarity between the phrases. Coincidence is thus ruled out, and we are in all likelihood dealing with an allusion.32

    26It seems inherently likely that Hávamál is the giver, since the poem is all about giving good advice. This impression is corroborated by the alliterative scheme. Hávamál’s opt : ógott is expected, whereas Lokasenna’s ógott : gala is a relatively rare and marked choice.33 In light of the twists that are typical of Old Norse poetic allusions, Lokasenna’s alliterative scheme makes sense as part of the poet’s play with the listener’s expectations: the good advice of Hávamál is turned into scorn, and the alliterative pattern familiar from Hávamál is revealed to be misleading at the end of the verse (cf. Rǫgnvaldr’s unmetrical níu in his allusion to the expected, metrical átta).34 Lokasenna must thus be younger than Hávamál, but not younger than the tenth century.

    27These observations raise the question of whether verbal similarities may be taken as diagnostic of influence, as here, or if they are rather due to a shared poetic register. A number of factors are relevant in order to address this question. First, it should be noted that in spite of their shared heritage, Old Norse poetry is not as formulaic as Old English.35 With regard to kennings, it was actively anti-formulaic.36 Overall, the evidence suggests that when similar expressions are found in only a few instances in the corpus, the similarity is due to intentional allusion. This may be deduced from the fact that the younger occurrence typically twists the earlier one in one way or another.37

    28Formal similarities between Old English and Eddic poetry do not alter the fact that Eddic poetry was part of a poetic tradition that saw many innovations in the period c. 800–1000. While West Germanic alliterative poetry is stichic, already the stanza on the Rök runestone (c. 800) displays not only the canonical eight verses of the later tradition but is clearly composed of two half-stanzas: verses 1 and 5 are hypometrical, and there is a syntactic break between verses 4 and 5.38 Eddic poetry is far denser and more suggestive than West Germanic stichic poetry, and this quality probably has some connection to the stanzaic form. As Fulk notes, the only two stanzaic poems in early West Germanic alliterative metre, Deor and Wulf and Eadwacer, also belong to the most enigmatic.39 This supports that there is a connection between stanzaic form and unique forms of expression.

    29While Eddic poetry retains more similarities to its West Germanic cousins than does skaldic poetry, it must be remembered that Eddic poetry was produced in the culture that at the same time produced skaldic poetry, not the culture that produced Beowulf. The diagnostic significance of marked verbal correspondences must therefore be evaluated on the basis of indications found in the Old Norse poetic tradition. This is a more challenging undertaking in Eddic poetry than in skaldic, since the latter is so regularised and datable that the dynamics involved may be described with some precision. The phrase ógott…gala suggests that Eddic allusion may at times have been reminiscent of skaldic ones, however, since the alliterative scheme differs between the two occurrences. We are thus clearly not dealing with a formula that might aid composition, but rather with an active twist. As we shall see, other factors militate against a formulaic interpretation also of the correspondences between Lokasenna and Vǫluspá.

    30The name Muspell is found only in Lokasenna and Vǫluspá, and the phrase Muspells synir (“Muspell’s sons”) in Lokasenna (§ 42) is sufficiently like Muspells lýðir (“Muspell’s peoples”) in Vǫluspá (§ 51) to suggest a direct link between the poems. Again, it is unlikely that the similarity is due to a shared poetic tradition, since the name Muspell appears to be a loan, probably from Old Saxon. The name is found in the Old High German Muspilli, but also twice in Heliand, in the forms mûtspelli and mûdspelli.40 The Saxon forms display more clearly than the Old High German one that we are dealing with a compound, and they appear to be older; the etymology is uncertain. It seems likely that the word was first used in the remarkable blend of pagan tradition and Christian influences that is Vǫluspá, whereas it is unclear why such a religious term would have been imported into Lokasenna if it was not already present in the Old Norse poetic discourse.

    31The assumption of direct influence is strengthened by the use of ginnheilagr, found only in these poems in the identical phrase ginnheilǫg goð (“very holy gods”). This phrase is part of Vǫluspá’s refrain, which itself suggests that Vǫluspá is the giver, since an allusion to the refrain of a famous poem would be highly effective. The fact that it is found in a refrain also weakens the case for a formulaic interpretation of the correspondence, which might otherwise have been plausible, since we are dealing with an alliterative pair. Stichic traditions, for which the oral-formulaic theory was designed, typically do not feature refrains. If a pair like this were found five times in Old English poetry, as ginnheilǫg goð is, it would certainly have been interpreted as a formula. In actuality, however, the reason why the phrase occurs five times is that the refrain is repeated four times in Vǫluspá. In such a situation, the phrase will become intrinsically associated with one poem, and its repetition in another poem will evoke this reference.

    32In Vǫluspá’s refrain, the gods are sitting down on their “deliberation-chairs” (gengu regin ǫll / á rǫkstóla). In Lokasenna, the gods are sitting on their benches and drinking (sitr […] bekkjum á), which sets the scene for the verbal abuse to follow. It makes sense for the satirical Lokasenna to turn a dignified refrain into scorn, but it would be contrary to Vǫluspá’s elevated style and message to evoke a subtext of farts and urinating into mouths. We may thus assume that Lokasenna is alluding to Vǫluspá and, based on Lokasenna’s alliteration in vr-, that this allusion was produced within a few decades of Vǫluspá’s composition.41

    33An interesting picture is here beginning to emerge. The two poems that have left the clearest imprints on the skaldic panegyric discourse, and one of which actively draws on that discourse, have also left similar imprints on Lokasenna. Lokasenna describes a feast in the hall and thus the divine counterpart to the setting of early skaldic discourse. These observations are most easily explained if the performance of Eddic poetry belonged to the same context, and some of them – notably the skaldic characteristics of Vǫluspá – cannot plausibly be explained otherwise. Other Eddic poems that are likely to be early contain few or no indications of their context of composition and early performance, and scholarly hypotheses must therefore be based on the ones that do. We may, however, find additional indications in sources outside the core Eddic corpus.

    External indications

    34Vǫluspá’s blend of Eddic and skaldic features may be compared to that of a poem from the other side of the Eddic-skaldic divide. Þjóðolfr ór Hvini’s Haraldskvæði from c. 900 is composed in málaháttr (a variant of fornyrðislag), and it is thus formally Eddic, although it is skaldic in the sense that it is a panegyric to a ruler and attributed to a named skald.42 In addition, the poem contains occasional hendingar (ok Freys leik heyja, á baki létu blíkja, etc.), making the blend of Eddic and skaldic features prominent. This poem thus strengthens the impression of a degree of permeability between the Eddic and the skaldic registers in a courtly setting.

    35The earliest preserved fornyrðislag stanza, that on the Rök runestone (c. 800), suggests that it belongs to an elite warrior context, since it is carved on a highly prestigious monument celebrating warrior culture.43 In the Old English area, too, there are indications that poetry was performed in secular courts (or “halls”) in the early period. Donald A. Bullough has convincingly shown that Alcuin’s famous condemnation of the performance of Germanic heroic poetry of 797 was aimed at the semi-secular context of the banquets of a Mercian bishop of a non-monastic cathedral, and not, as was previously thought, at the monastic community of Lindisfarne.44 It would appear that Alcuin thought that the entertainment of a secular court had no place at the court of a prince of the Church.

    36Another circumstance pointing to a court setting is the fact that the primary, identifiable lines of poetic transmission in the eleventh and twelfth centuries ran through Icelandic families producing panegyrics for Scandinavian rulers. It seems unlikely that Eddic poetry would have enjoyed independent lines of transmission, only to finally end up in the same Icelandic manuscripts as skaldic poems and be used to elucidate skaldic poetry in Snorri’s Edda. Rather, both types of poetry probably first had courtly connections and gradually entered the learned discourse in the twelfth century, leading to their eventual recording in the thirteenth. For these reasons, and since most known references to poetic performances indicate that such activities were centred on the ruler, I would suggest that the hall or court – primarily in Norway, but perhaps also in Orkney, Ireland, Northumbria, Iceland and elsewhere – was the centre of gravity for the production and performance of Eddic poetry in the early period.

    37With regard to the productive period of the early Eddic poems, it seems likely that preserved poems are no older than c. 850‑900. This is a slightly later post quem than the date c. 800 suggested by Sophus Bugge on the basis of his observation that most ljóðaháttr poems would not retain their metrical integrity in Proto-Norse.45 Bugge’s data have been further scrutinised by Fidjestøl, who concludes that his results appear trustworthy, but one may note the problem that it is inherently likely that the metrics changed along with such a profound linguistic change as the syncope.46 My proposed post quem, by contrast, relates to transmission. 850‑900 are the rough dates of our earliest preserved skaldic poems, and as argued above, the lines of transmission of skaldic and Eddic poetry would probably have been largely the same from the time of composition until they were committed to writing. Germanic analogues and the Rök stanza indicate that the fornyrðislag tradition is at least about two centuries older, but the corpus preserved in later manuscripts was dependent on its carriers. I see no reason to assume that these would have favoured poems that were considerably older than those of skaldic poetry, simply because the Eddic tradition itself was older. The crucial factor is continuous transmission such as that provided by the courts and their poets, and it seems likely that these poets would have memorised poems favoured at their courts and, perhaps, produced by the very skalds that we know from their skaldic production. Thus, for instance, the topic of Þjóðrekr (Theodoric the Great) found in the Rök stanza was a dead end from a transmission perspective, having analogues in contemporary Continental and somewhat earlier English poetry, but not in likely early Eddic heroic material.47 He is found only in Guðrunarkviða III , with its conspicuous German analogues that are otherwise unattested in the Norse tradition, and in the introduction to Guðrunarkviða II, based on Guðrunarkviða III.48 In Þiðreks saga, the form of his name is German. Apparently, the poetry and lore about Þjóðrekr was lost, not being favoured by the rulers and retinues that would prove decisive for the transmission of poetry from pagan courts to Christian parchment.

    Conclusions

    38As we have seen, Vǫluspá, Hávamál and Lokasenna suggest that early Eddic poetry was composed for the same courtly context as skaldic panegyrics. Other early poems would also fit that context, but they do not contain clear positive indications to this effect. Haraldskvæði, the Rök stanza, Germanic analogues and later transmission all support these observations. In all likelihood, then, the early Eddic poets belonged to the same social group and context as the early court poets.

    39In light of the relatively substantial body of evidence discussed above, it is noteworthy that nearly all present-day scholars remain vague on how, why and in what context the Eddic poems were produced.49 As noted in the beginning, this is probably partly a legacy of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century perceptions of Eddic poetry as the voice of the people, in contradistinction to elite skaldic poetry. Such views were later reinforced by post-modern perspectives, and opposing views, most notably that of Finnur Jónsson, have not been combined with the detailed discussion of evidence that would have been necessary to present a viable alternative to such trends.

    40It is true that the Eddic poems are anonymous and difficult to date, but this does not stand in the way of an evaluation of indications and probabilities. Thus, for instance, also in later Norse literature, texts that report older traditions are presented as anonymous, and scholars do not assume that Njáls saga is the product of an undefinable collective simply because it is anonymous. I would suggest that this situation had precedence in the poetic tradition and that the distinction between attributed and anonymous poetry is traceable to the function of the texts, not to their compositional process.50 Eddic poems were not technically sophisticated eulogies of rulers, meriting substantial rewards, and they thus lacked this compelling reason to be strongly connected to the name of the poet. In addition, Eddic poems, like later sagas, elaborated on known historical or mythological themes that belonged to the community at large. By contrast, skaldic poems generally centred on contemporary events, and even the best-known mythological poems were composed in praise of a ruler (e.g., Ragnarsdrápa, Haustlǫng, Húsdrápa).51 As a consequence, Eddic poems were probably perceived as more traditional than individual as early as the time of composition, a perception that would have been reinforced as the memory of the original context of performance faded. Being relatively accessible, Eddic poetry presumably served as lighter entertainment than stylised panegyrics, but this is not to say that it belonged in another context.

    41The strongest case for the court of a specific ruler is the likely connection between Vǫluspá and Hákon jarl’s (r. c. 970‑995) court, which is supported by a rich body of evidence.52 The short timespan between Vǫluspá and Lokasenna may suggest that the latter was produced in the same milieu, just as a number of the most interesting skaldic panegyrics were. It is not likely that equally strong indications of a specific context can be produced for many Eddic poems, but Hákon jarl’s court may be useful for providing a concrete example of a setting where Eddic poetry was produced and performed. In addition, the likelihood that Eddic poetry was produced for the same contexts as skaldic poetry means that we already know much about the people and conventions involved, even if we cannot identify the individuals responsible for each poem.

    Notes de bas de page

    1R = Reykjavík, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, GKS 2365 4to; A = Copenhagen, Den Arnamagnæanske Samling, AM 748 1a 4to.

    2In early scholarship, this state of affairs was more often taken for granted than stated explicitly. Occasionally, however, the underlying assumptions become clear, as in the statements ‘Nun ist aber Vǫluspá ein volkslied.’: see E. Mogk, “Untersuchungen ueber die Gylfaginning. II: Die quellen der Gylfaginning und ihr verhältnis zu den sogenannten Eddaliedern”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur; vol. 7, 1880, p. 203-318 (220, n. 1; see also 266-267, n. 3); and “Die sogenannte volkstümliche Dichtung der Eddalieder”: see E. Sievers, “Beiträge zur Skaldenmetrik. II.”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, vol. 6, 1879, p. 265–376 (298).

    3Finnur Jónsson, Den oldnorske og oldislandske litteraturs historie [1894-1902], 3 vols, Copenhagen, G. E. C. Gads, 1920-1924, vol. 1, p. 80 (p. 78 in the 1st edition, with slight variations): “Den betragtningsmåde, at Eddadigtene skulde være såkaldt folkedigtning og av den grund anonym, er urigtig, da Eddakvadene slet ingen folkedigtning er i dette ords sædvanlige betydning”. He does not clarify, however, in what way they are “certainly not popular poetry”, nor does he here provide any positive evidence pointing to particular contexts or points of contact with skaldic poetry.

    4Kommentar zu den Liedern der Edda, K. von See et al. (ed.), 7 vols, Heidelberg, Winter, 1997-2019 (unless otherwise stated, all references to Kommentar zu den Liedern… refer to this work). For an evaluation of its biases and methodological weaknesses, see M. Males, “Hear no Sievers, See no Sievers. Metrics and the Eddic Commentary Tradition”, Neophilologus, vol. 107, 2023, p. 257-277.

    5For an overview of the numerous publications of this kind, see Kommentar zu den Liedern der Edda, vol. 1/I, p. 32, 35-40. For further discussion, see M. Males and K. J. Myrvoll, The Date and Purpose of ‘Vǫluspǫ́’, Ithaca, Cornell University Library (forthcoming); for an overview of the main arguments, see M. Males, Den äldsta fornnordiska litteraturen. Nya vetenskapliga rön, Stockhom, Dialogos, 2024, p. 184-232.

    6It may be noted that a similar situation applies to the dating of Beowulf. From 1980 onwards, scholars arguing for a date close to that of the manuscript have generally drawn on vague arguments and ignored the wealth of strong, specific arguments indicating an early date. For a concise overview, see L. Neidorf, “Introduction”, in The Dating of Beowulf. A Reassessment, L. Neidorf (ed.), Cambridge, D. S. Brewer, 2014, p. 1-18 (5-8).

    7M. Males and K. J. Myrvoll, The Date and Purpose…

    8This word is present only in Hauksbók (Copenhaguen, Den Arnamagnæanske Samling, AM 544 4to 20r) but is required in order to avoid the abnormal structure of an A3- with a disyllabic initial drop containing a noun: see Haukur Þorgeirsson, “In Defence of Emendation. The Editing of Vǫluspá”, Saga-Book, vol. 44, 2020, p. 31-56 (42).

    9C. Wood, “The Skald’s Bid for a Hearing”, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, vol. 59, no. 2, 1960, p. 240-254 (250).

    10Ibid.

    11Eyvindr skáldaspillir Finnsson, Háleygjatal, § 1, R. Poole (ed.), in Poetry from the Kings’ Sagas 1. From Mythical Times to c. 1035, D. Whaley (ed.), Turnhout, Brepols (Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages; 1), 2012 (hereafter SKALD 1), p. 197. I follow Finnur Jónsson in including only the eight verses that are transmitted together as one stanza in the manuscripts of Snorra-Edda: Finnur Jónsson (ed.), Den norsk-islandske skjaldedigtning, 4 vols (A I-II; B I-II), Copenhagen, Gyldendal, 1912-1915, A I, p. 68; B I, p. 60.

    12Thus, for instance, Hofgarða-Refr has a bid for a hearing in his poem to Þorsteinn: see Poetry from Treatises on Poetics, K. E. Gade and E. Marold (ed.), Turnhout, Brepols (Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages; 3), 2017 (hereafter SKALD 3), p. 250.

    13There is a similar, but somewhat weaker, case for internal rhymes in the last stanza of Vǫluspá (§ 66; R62 / H59), where the second couplet has the wording “naðr fránn, neðan / frá Niðafjǫllum”.

    14K. von See, “Disticha Catonis und Hávamál”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur, vol. 94, 1972, p. 1-18; Hermann Pálsson, Heimur Hávamála, Reykjavík, Bókaútgáfa Menningarsjóds (Íslensk ritskýring; 4), 1990.

    15J. McKinnell, “Hávamál B: A Poem of Sexual Intrigue”, Saga-Book, vol. 29, 2005, p. 83-114 (p. 92-93). The formal criterion suggesting that these stanzas are old is the frequency of expletive of. By contrast, McKinnell assumes that alliteration in r- in the name Rati means that stanza 106 must have been composed after c. 900, after an initial v- had been lost. It is not known whether this name ever had an initial v-, however: see J. de Vries, Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2nd ed., Leiden, Brill, 1962, s.v. According to the skaldic record, no instances of v- are found after c. 1000: see Haukur Þorgeirsson, “The Dating of Eddic Poetry. Evidence from Alliteration”, in Approaches to Nordic and Germanic Poetry, Kristján Árnason et al. (ed.), Reykjavík, University of Iceland Press, 2016, p. 33-61.

    16J. McKinnell, “Hávamál B”, p. 100.

    17M. Males, “The Dating of Hávamál”, Maal og Minne, 2024, vol. 116, no. 1, p. 81-117 (DOI: 10.52145/mom.v116i1.2277). A fourth content-based criterion, relating to pagan sacrifice, has been added in the article.

    18Haukur Þorgeirsson, “The Dating of Eddic Poetry”, p. 54.

    19R. L. Taylor, Deviant Burials in Viking-Age Scandinavia, M.Phil. dissertation, London, University College London, 2005, p. 12.

    20Islandske Annaler indtil 1578, G. Storm (ed.), Christiania, Grøndahl, 1888, p. 52.

    21S. A. Mitchell, “Margete of Nordnes in Cult, Chronicle, and Ballad”, Religionsvidenskabeligt Tidsskrift, vol. 74, 2022, p. 262-286.

    22Heimskringla, vol. 1, Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson (ed.), Reykjavík, Hið íslenzka fornritafélag (Íslenzk fornrit; 26), 1979, p. 4; S. Sturluson, Edda. Skáldskaparmál, A. Faulkes (ed.), London, Viking Society for Northern Research, 1998, p. 48.

    23H. Gering and B. Sijmons, Kommentar zu den Liedern der “Edda”, 2 vols, Halle, Weishaus, 1927-1931, vol. 1, p. 117.

    24Eyvindr skáldaspillir Finnsson, Hákonarmál, § 21, R. D. Fulk (ed.), in SKALD 1, p. 193.

    25Ibid., p. 176.

    26The most important publication is Einar Ól. Sveinsson, “Vísa í Hávamálum og írsk saga”, Skírnir, vol. 1, 1952, p. 168-177.

    27I have found no comparable instances with common nouns in the singular (ONP s.v. glíkr). William Sayers translates gjalti as the plural ("geilts") and treats this stanza simply as an early occurrence of the “concept” of verða at gjalti: W. Sayers, “Deployment of an Irish Loan: ON verða at gjalti ‘to go mad with terror’”, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, vol. 93, no. 1, 1994, p. 157-182 (165).

    28H. Kuhn, Das Füllwort “of-um” im Altwestnordischen: eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der germanischen Präfixe. Ein Beitrag zur altgermanischen Metrik, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929, p. 33; M. Males, The Poetic Genesis of Old Icelandic Literature, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2020, p. 247.

    29See e.g., P. Meulengracht Sørensen, The Unmanly Man. Concepts of Sexual Defamation in Early Northern Society [1980], Odense, Odense University Press, 1983.

    30Haukur Þorgeirsson, “The Dating of Eddic poetry”, p. 54. Kommentar zu den Liedern…, vol. 2, p. 367-368, 384, dates the poem Lokasenna to the twelfth century because, like some Classical texts, it features drinking and verbal exchange, as well as one uninvited and one late-coming guest. In so doing, the editors disregard specific in favour of extremely vague evidence, and their verdict is therefore irrelevant to dating.

    31Finnur Jónsson, Lexicon Poeticum antiquae linguae septentrionalis. Ordbog over det norsk-islandske skjaldesprog, oprindelig forfattet av Sveinbjörn Egilsson, 2nd ed., Copenhagen, Møllers, 1931, s.vv.

    32Pace Kommentar zu den Liedern…, vol. 2, p. 381-382.

    33Analogues include: Hávamál 70.1-2 lifðum: *ólifðum; Hávamál 159.6 ósnotr: svá; Skírnismál 19.6 óleiðastan: lifa; Sonatorrek 25.7-8 óhryggr: heljar; Fáfnismál 31.1-2 hvǫtum: óhvǫtum; Hugsvinnsmál 72.1-2 hyggjandi: óhræsinn.

    34See M. Males, The Poetic Genesis…, p. 70, n. 122.

    35The classical, albeit maximalist, description of Old English poetic formulas is F. P. Magoun Jr., “Oral-Formulaic Character of Anglo-Saxon Narrative Poetry”, Speculum, vol. 28, no. 3, 1953, p. 446-467. More general overviews are e.g., A. Riedinger, “The Old English Formula in Context”, Speculum, vol. 60, no. 2, 1985, p. 294-317; S. C. E. Hopkins, “Of Scopas and Scribes. Reshaping Oral-Formulaic Theory in Old English Literary Studies”, in Weathered Words. Formulaic Language and Verbal Art, Frog and W. Lamb (ed.), Cambridge (MA), Harvard University Press, 2022, p. 49-79.

    36See T. Wills, “Kennings and Variability. Corpus and Structural Views”, European Journal of Scandinavian Studies, vol. 51, no. 1, 2021, p. 11-25; E. A. Gurevich, “The System of Kennings”, Nordica Bergensia, vol. 3, no. 3, 1994, p. 139-156 (140-142).

    37B. Patria “Quotations with a Twist. Aware Intertextuality in Skaldic Verse”, Quaestio Insularis, vol. 19, 2018, p. 70-91.

    38Bo Ralph has reinterpreted the first verse, traditionally taken as Réð Þjóðríkr, as Reið jó: “Gåtan som lösning. Ett bidrag till förståelsen av Rökstenens runinskrift”, Maal og Minne, vol. 99, 2007, p. 133-157 (150-51). According to Suzuki’s count, two-position verses like Reið jó are found only three times in a body of 5998 fornyrðislag verses, and only once in an a-verse: S. Suzuki, The Metres of Old Norse Eddic Poetry. Common Germanic Inheritance and North Germanic Innovation, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2014, p. 161-162, 642-643. With a ratio of c. 0.05%, the type was clearly unmetrical. Reið jó must therefore be rejected as highly implausible. A possible counterargument, that metrics at this early stage may have differed from that of later stages, is invalid, since the stanza in other regards adheres to known types and Ralph’s reading would place it at a further remove from West Germanic analogues. Ralph supports his reading with reference to the first verses of ljóðaháttr stanzas, where two-position-verses are occasionally found. Ljóðaháttr adheres to a different basic principle than fornyrðislag, however, since the triplets of ljóðaháttr tend to display a rising structure: hypometrical-normal/hypermetrical-full line. The occasional compression of the first verse in ljóðaháttr to only two positions is presumably a product of this principle, which never affected fornyrðislag. Ralph’s reading reið as opposed to réð is sound, however, since reið is the only plausible interpretation of the inscription’s raiþ.

    39R. D. Fulk, “Rhetoric, Form and Linguistic Structure in Early Germanic Verse: Towards a Synthesis”, Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotics, vol. 1, 1996, p. 63-88 (74).

    40Heliand 31 (2591), 52 (4358): see “Heliand’ und “Genesis”, O. Behagel (ed.), 10th ed., B. Taeger (ed.), Tübingen, Niemeyer (Altdeutsche Textbibliothek; 4), 1996, p. 96, 155. See also H. Kolb, “‘Vora demo muspille’. Versuch einer Interpretation”, Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, vol. 83, no. 2, 1964, p. 2-33 (5-6, 32).

    41In addition to Muspell and ginnheilagr, Óðinn’s name Sigfaðir (“father of victory”) is likewise used in these poems only, and the identical context – that of Fenrir killing Sigfaðir – suggests direct influence, even if the name is, in fact, only found in the R version of Vǫluspá. These unique occurrences are listed in Kommentar zu den Liedern…; vol. 1, book 1, p. 59. For variants in § 55, see Edda. Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst verwandten Denkmälern, G. Neckel and H. Kuhn (ed.), 5th ed., Heidelberg, Carl Winter, 1983, p. 13.

    42Þorbjǫrn hornklofi, Haraldskvædi, R. D. Fulk (ed.), in SKALD 1, p. 91.

    43Recent suggestions of a different function and context cannot be reconciled with the evidence. On metrical problems, see n. 37 above. On syntactical problems, see K. J. Myrvoll, “Theodoric the Great on the Rök Runestone” (in preparation).

    44D. A. Bullough, “What has Ingeld to do with Lindisfarne?”, Anglo-Saxon England, vol. 22, 1993, p. 93-125.

    45S. Bugge, “Nogle bidrag til det norröne sprogs og den norröne digtnings historie, hentede fra verslæren”, in Beretning om forhandlingerne på det første nordiske filologmøde i København den 18.-21. juli 1876, L. F. A. Wimmer (ed.), Copenhagen, F. Hegel og Sön, 1879, p. 140-146.

    46B. Fidjestøl, The Dating of Eddic Poetry. A Historical Survey and Methodological Investigation, O. E. Haugen (ed.), Copenhagen, Reitzel, 1999, p. 260-669. On the likely different character of pre-syncopated poetry, see R. Pascual, “Old English Metrical History and Widsið”, Neophilologus, vol. 100, 2016, p. 289-302.

    47K. J. Myrvoll, “Theodoric the Great…”.

    48See Kommentar zu den Liedern…, vol. 6, p. 592-593, 782-783. Unfortunately, there are no strong criteria for dating Guðrúnarkviða III, although some features may suggest that it is young. The poem is irrelevant to the main storyline of the Niflung material and its main analogues are found in German tradition. Perhaps more suggestively, it centres on a trial by ordeal. It seems likely that trial by ordeal entered the Nordic tradition with the conversion to Christianity: see R. Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water. The Medieval Judicial Ordeal, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1986, p. 21; but see Kommentar zu den Liedern…, vol. 6, p. 780-81. Nonetheless, the possibility of an earlier entry of this motif, at least in narrative form, cannot be excluded, especially since the poem describes what appears to have been its earliest form in both Frankish and Irish tradition: trial by cauldron (Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water…, p. 4-12). No matter the date of the poem, the apparent German influence on the two instances drawing on lore about Þjóðrekr strongly suggests that such lore had been lost in the Old Norse tradition.

    49A noteworthy exception is J. McKinnell, “Vǫluspá and the Feast of Easter”, Alvíssmál, vol. 12, 2008, p. 3-28. One with doubtful empirical support is T. Gunnell, The Origin of Drama in Scandinavia, D. S. Brewer, Woodbridge, 1995. S. Nordal, “Völu-Steinn”, Iðunn, vol. 8, 1924, p. 161-178, presented some interesting, but ultimately unconvincing, arguments in favour of Vǫlu-Steinn’s authorship of Vǫluspá.

    50E. Mundal, “Modes of Authorship and Types of Texts in Old Norse Culture”, in Modes of Authorship in the Middle Ages, S. Rancovič (ed.), Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2012, p. 211-226 (225).

    51Finnur Jónsson also explains the anonymity of the Eddic poems in this manner: Finnur Jónsson, Den oldnorske og oldislandske litteraturs historie (2nd ed.), p. 80.

    52M. Males and K. J. Myrvoll, The Date and Purpose…

    Auteur

    • Mikael Males

      University of Oslo

      ORCID : 0000-0001-6151-1873

      IdRef : 235034053

      Mikael Males est professeur de philologie du vieux norrois à l’université d’Oslo. Ses travaux portent principalement sur la poésie en vieux norrois et sur la littérature grammaticale et mythographique : parmi ses publications, on mentionnera The Poetic Genesis of Old Icelandic Literature, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2020. Il a aussi travaillé sur la littérature des sagas, l’étymologie médiévale, l’interprétation exégétique dans la littérature profane, la traduction du latin vers le vieux norrois, les influences irlandaises sur la culture et la littérature norroises, et les questions de genre.

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    La sécularisation en Irlande

    La sécularisation en Irlande

    Paul Brennan (dir.)

    1998

    Studies on Seamus Heaney

    Studies on Seamus Heaney

    Jacqueline Genet (dir.)

    1987

    Studies on Joyce’s Ulysses

    Studies on Joyce’s Ulysses

    Jacqueline Genet et Wynne Hellegouarc’h (dir.)

    1991

    Les voyages de Gulliver

    Les voyages de Gulliver

    Mondes lointains ou mondes proches

    François Boulaire et Daniel Carey (dir.)

    2002

    Studies on W.B. Yeats

    Studies on W.B. Yeats

    Jacqueline Genet (dir.)

    1990

    Studies on Louis MacNeice

    Studies on Louis MacNeice

    Jacqueline Genet et Wynne Hellegouarc’h (dir.)

    1988

    Irlande, écritures et réécritures de la Famine

    Irlande, écritures et réécritures de la Famine

    Bertrand Cardin et Claude Fierorbe (dir.)

    2007

    Studies on the contemporary Irish theatre

    Studies on the contemporary Irish theatre

    Jacqueline Genet et Elizabeth Hellegouarc’h (dir.)

    1991

    Le Tigre celtique en question

    Le Tigre celtique en question

    L'Irlande contemporaine : économie, État, société

    Catherine Maignant (dir.)

    2007

    Le processus de création chez les écrivains irlandais contemporains

    Le processus de création chez les écrivains irlandais contemporains

    Jacqueline Genet et Elizabeth Hellegouarc’h (dir.)

    1994

    L'autobiographie irlandaise

    L'autobiographie irlandaise

    Voix communes, voix singulières

    Pascale Amiot-Jouenne (dir.)

    2004

    Les Français sont dans la baie

    Les Français sont dans la baie

    L'expédition en baie de Bantry, 1796

    John A. Murphy (dir.)

    2004

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 12
    La sécularisation en Irlande

    La sécularisation en Irlande

    Paul Brennan (dir.)

    1998

    Studies on Seamus Heaney

    Studies on Seamus Heaney

    Jacqueline Genet (dir.)

    1987

    Studies on Joyce’s Ulysses

    Studies on Joyce’s Ulysses

    Jacqueline Genet et Wynne Hellegouarc’h (dir.)

    1991

    Les voyages de Gulliver

    Les voyages de Gulliver

    Mondes lointains ou mondes proches

    François Boulaire et Daniel Carey (dir.)

    2002

    Studies on W.B. Yeats

    Studies on W.B. Yeats

    Jacqueline Genet (dir.)

    1990

    Studies on Louis MacNeice

    Studies on Louis MacNeice

    Jacqueline Genet et Wynne Hellegouarc’h (dir.)

    1988

    Irlande, écritures et réécritures de la Famine

    Irlande, écritures et réécritures de la Famine

    Bertrand Cardin et Claude Fierorbe (dir.)

    2007

    Studies on the contemporary Irish theatre

    Studies on the contemporary Irish theatre

    Jacqueline Genet et Elizabeth Hellegouarc’h (dir.)

    1991

    Le Tigre celtique en question

    Le Tigre celtique en question

    L'Irlande contemporaine : économie, État, société

    Catherine Maignant (dir.)

    2007

    Le processus de création chez les écrivains irlandais contemporains

    Le processus de création chez les écrivains irlandais contemporains

    Jacqueline Genet et Elizabeth Hellegouarc’h (dir.)

    1994

    L'autobiographie irlandaise

    L'autobiographie irlandaise

    Voix communes, voix singulières

    Pascale Amiot-Jouenne (dir.)

    2004

    Les Français sont dans la baie

    Les Français sont dans la baie

    L'expédition en baie de Bantry, 1796

    John A. Murphy (dir.)

    2004

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    • decitre.fr
    • mollat.com
    • leslibraires.fr
    • placedeslibraires.fr
    • lcdpu.fr
    ePub / PDF

    1R = Reykjavík, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, GKS 2365 4to; A = Copenhagen, Den Arnamagnæanske Samling, AM 748 1a 4to.

    2In early scholarship, this state of affairs was more often taken for granted than stated explicitly. Occasionally, however, the underlying assumptions become clear, as in the statements ‘Nun ist aber Vǫluspá ein volkslied.’: see E. Mogk, “Untersuchungen ueber die Gylfaginning. II: Die quellen der Gylfaginning und ihr verhältnis zu den sogenannten Eddaliedern”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur; vol. 7, 1880, p. 203-318 (220, n. 1; see also 266-267, n. 3); and “Die sogenannte volkstümliche Dichtung der Eddalieder”: see E. Sievers, “Beiträge zur Skaldenmetrik. II.”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, vol. 6, 1879, p. 265–376 (298).

    3Finnur Jónsson, Den oldnorske og oldislandske litteraturs historie [1894-1902], 3 vols, Copenhagen, G. E. C. Gads, 1920-1924, vol. 1, p. 80 (p. 78 in the 1st edition, with slight variations): “Den betragtningsmåde, at Eddadigtene skulde være såkaldt folkedigtning og av den grund anonym, er urigtig, da Eddakvadene slet ingen folkedigtning er i dette ords sædvanlige betydning”. He does not clarify, however, in what way they are “certainly not popular poetry”, nor does he here provide any positive evidence pointing to particular contexts or points of contact with skaldic poetry.

    4Kommentar zu den Liedern der Edda, K. von See et al. (ed.), 7 vols, Heidelberg, Winter, 1997-2019 (unless otherwise stated, all references to Kommentar zu den Liedern… refer to this work). For an evaluation of its biases and methodological weaknesses, see M. Males, “Hear no Sievers, See no Sievers. Metrics and the Eddic Commentary Tradition”, Neophilologus, vol. 107, 2023, p. 257-277.

    5For an overview of the numerous publications of this kind, see Kommentar zu den Liedern der Edda, vol. 1/I, p. 32, 35-40. For further discussion, see M. Males and K. J. Myrvoll, The Date and Purpose of ‘Vǫluspǫ́’, Ithaca, Cornell University Library (forthcoming); for an overview of the main arguments, see M. Males, Den äldsta fornnordiska litteraturen. Nya vetenskapliga rön, Stockhom, Dialogos, 2024, p. 184-232.

    6It may be noted that a similar situation applies to the dating of Beowulf. From 1980 onwards, scholars arguing for a date close to that of the manuscript have generally drawn on vague arguments and ignored the wealth of strong, specific arguments indicating an early date. For a concise overview, see L. Neidorf, “Introduction”, in The Dating of Beowulf. A Reassessment, L. Neidorf (ed.), Cambridge, D. S. Brewer, 2014, p. 1-18 (5-8).

    7M. Males and K. J. Myrvoll, The Date and Purpose…

    8This word is present only in Hauksbók (Copenhaguen, Den Arnamagnæanske Samling, AM 544 4to 20r) but is required in order to avoid the abnormal structure of an A3- with a disyllabic initial drop containing a noun: see Haukur Þorgeirsson, “In Defence of Emendation. The Editing of Vǫluspá”, Saga-Book, vol. 44, 2020, p. 31-56 (42).

    9C. Wood, “The Skald’s Bid for a Hearing”, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, vol. 59, no. 2, 1960, p. 240-254 (250).

    10Ibid.

    11Eyvindr skáldaspillir Finnsson, Háleygjatal, § 1, R. Poole (ed.), in Poetry from the Kings’ Sagas 1. From Mythical Times to c. 1035, D. Whaley (ed.), Turnhout, Brepols (Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages; 1), 2012 (hereafter SKALD 1), p. 197. I follow Finnur Jónsson in including only the eight verses that are transmitted together as one stanza in the manuscripts of Snorra-Edda: Finnur Jónsson (ed.), Den norsk-islandske skjaldedigtning, 4 vols (A I-II; B I-II), Copenhagen, Gyldendal, 1912-1915, A I, p. 68; B I, p. 60.

    12Thus, for instance, Hofgarða-Refr has a bid for a hearing in his poem to Þorsteinn: see Poetry from Treatises on Poetics, K. E. Gade and E. Marold (ed.), Turnhout, Brepols (Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages; 3), 2017 (hereafter SKALD 3), p. 250.

    13There is a similar, but somewhat weaker, case for internal rhymes in the last stanza of Vǫluspá (§ 66; R62 / H59), where the second couplet has the wording “naðr fránn, neðan / frá Niðafjǫllum”.

    14K. von See, “Disticha Catonis und Hávamál”, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur, vol. 94, 1972, p. 1-18; Hermann Pálsson, Heimur Hávamála, Reykjavík, Bókaútgáfa Menningarsjóds (Íslensk ritskýring; 4), 1990.

    15J. McKinnell, “Hávamál B: A Poem of Sexual Intrigue”, Saga-Book, vol. 29, 2005, p. 83-114 (p. 92-93). The formal criterion suggesting that these stanzas are old is the frequency of expletive of. By contrast, McKinnell assumes that alliteration in r- in the name Rati means that stanza 106 must have been composed after c. 900, after an initial v- had been lost. It is not known whether this name ever had an initial v-, however: see J. de Vries, Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2nd ed., Leiden, Brill, 1962, s.v. According to the skaldic record, no instances of v- are found after c. 1000: see Haukur Þorgeirsson, “The Dating of Eddic Poetry. Evidence from Alliteration”, in Approaches to Nordic and Germanic Poetry, Kristján Árnason et al. (ed.), Reykjavík, University of Iceland Press, 2016, p. 33-61.

    16J. McKinnell, “Hávamál B”, p. 100.

    17M. Males, “The Dating of Hávamál”, Maal og Minne, 2024, vol. 116, no. 1, p. 81-117 (DOI: 10.52145/mom.v116i1.2277). A fourth content-based criterion, relating to pagan sacrifice, has been added in the article.

    18Haukur Þorgeirsson, “The Dating of Eddic Poetry”, p. 54.

    19R. L. Taylor, Deviant Burials in Viking-Age Scandinavia, M.Phil. dissertation, London, University College London, 2005, p. 12.

    20Islandske Annaler indtil 1578, G. Storm (ed.), Christiania, Grøndahl, 1888, p. 52.

    21S. A. Mitchell, “Margete of Nordnes in Cult, Chronicle, and Ballad”, Religionsvidenskabeligt Tidsskrift, vol. 74, 2022, p. 262-286.

    22Heimskringla, vol. 1, Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson (ed.), Reykjavík, Hið íslenzka fornritafélag (Íslenzk fornrit; 26), 1979, p. 4; S. Sturluson, Edda. Skáldskaparmál, A. Faulkes (ed.), London, Viking Society for Northern Research, 1998, p. 48.

    23H. Gering and B. Sijmons, Kommentar zu den Liedern der “Edda”, 2 vols, Halle, Weishaus, 1927-1931, vol. 1, p. 117.

    24Eyvindr skáldaspillir Finnsson, Hákonarmál, § 21, R. D. Fulk (ed.), in SKALD 1, p. 193.

    25Ibid., p. 176.

    26The most important publication is Einar Ól. Sveinsson, “Vísa í Hávamálum og írsk saga”, Skírnir, vol. 1, 1952, p. 168-177.

    27I have found no comparable instances with common nouns in the singular (ONP s.v. glíkr). William Sayers translates gjalti as the plural ("geilts") and treats this stanza simply as an early occurrence of the “concept” of verða at gjalti: W. Sayers, “Deployment of an Irish Loan: ON verða at gjalti ‘to go mad with terror’”, Journal of English and Germanic Philology, vol. 93, no. 1, 1994, p. 157-182 (165).

    28H. Kuhn, Das Füllwort “of-um” im Altwestnordischen: eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der germanischen Präfixe. Ein Beitrag zur altgermanischen Metrik, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1929, p. 33; M. Males, The Poetic Genesis of Old Icelandic Literature, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2020, p. 247.

    29See e.g., P. Meulengracht Sørensen, The Unmanly Man. Concepts of Sexual Defamation in Early Northern Society [1980], Odense, Odense University Press, 1983.

    30Haukur Þorgeirsson, “The Dating of Eddic poetry”, p. 54. Kommentar zu den Liedern…, vol. 2, p. 367-368, 384, dates the poem Lokasenna to the twelfth century because, like some Classical texts, it features drinking and verbal exchange, as well as one uninvited and one late-coming guest. In so doing, the editors disregard specific in favour of extremely vague evidence, and their verdict is therefore irrelevant to dating.

    31Finnur Jónsson, Lexicon Poeticum antiquae linguae septentrionalis. Ordbog over det norsk-islandske skjaldesprog, oprindelig forfattet av Sveinbjörn Egilsson, 2nd ed., Copenhagen, Møllers, 1931, s.vv.

    32Pace Kommentar zu den Liedern…, vol. 2, p. 381-382.

    33Analogues include: Hávamál 70.1-2 lifðum: *ólifðum; Hávamál 159.6 ósnotr: svá; Skírnismál 19.6 óleiðastan: lifa; Sonatorrek 25.7-8 óhryggr: heljar; Fáfnismál 31.1-2 hvǫtum: óhvǫtum; Hugsvinnsmál 72.1-2 hyggjandi: óhræsinn.

    34See M. Males, The Poetic Genesis…, p. 70, n. 122.

    35The classical, albeit maximalist, description of Old English poetic formulas is F. P. Magoun Jr., “Oral-Formulaic Character of Anglo-Saxon Narrative Poetry”, Speculum, vol. 28, no. 3, 1953, p. 446-467. More general overviews are e.g., A. Riedinger, “The Old English Formula in Context”, Speculum, vol. 60, no. 2, 1985, p. 294-317; S. C. E. Hopkins, “Of Scopas and Scribes. Reshaping Oral-Formulaic Theory in Old English Literary Studies”, in Weathered Words. Formulaic Language and Verbal Art, Frog and W. Lamb (ed.), Cambridge (MA), Harvard University Press, 2022, p. 49-79.

    36See T. Wills, “Kennings and Variability. Corpus and Structural Views”, European Journal of Scandinavian Studies, vol. 51, no. 1, 2021, p. 11-25; E. A. Gurevich, “The System of Kennings”, Nordica Bergensia, vol. 3, no. 3, 1994, p. 139-156 (140-142).

    37B. Patria “Quotations with a Twist. Aware Intertextuality in Skaldic Verse”, Quaestio Insularis, vol. 19, 2018, p. 70-91.

    38Bo Ralph has reinterpreted the first verse, traditionally taken as Réð Þjóðríkr, as Reið jó: “Gåtan som lösning. Ett bidrag till förståelsen av Rökstenens runinskrift”, Maal og Minne, vol. 99, 2007, p. 133-157 (150-51). According to Suzuki’s count, two-position verses like Reið jó are found only three times in a body of 5998 fornyrðislag verses, and only once in an a-verse: S. Suzuki, The Metres of Old Norse Eddic Poetry. Common Germanic Inheritance and North Germanic Innovation, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2014, p. 161-162, 642-643. With a ratio of c. 0.05%, the type was clearly unmetrical. Reið jó must therefore be rejected as highly implausible. A possible counterargument, that metrics at this early stage may have differed from that of later stages, is invalid, since the stanza in other regards adheres to known types and Ralph’s reading would place it at a further remove from West Germanic analogues. Ralph supports his reading with reference to the first verses of ljóðaháttr stanzas, where two-position-verses are occasionally found. Ljóðaháttr adheres to a different basic principle than fornyrðislag, however, since the triplets of ljóðaháttr tend to display a rising structure: hypometrical-normal/hypermetrical-full line. The occasional compression of the first verse in ljóðaháttr to only two positions is presumably a product of this principle, which never affected fornyrðislag. Ralph’s reading reið as opposed to réð is sound, however, since reið is the only plausible interpretation of the inscription’s raiþ.

    39R. D. Fulk, “Rhetoric, Form and Linguistic Structure in Early Germanic Verse: Towards a Synthesis”, Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotics, vol. 1, 1996, p. 63-88 (74).

    40Heliand 31 (2591), 52 (4358): see “Heliand’ und “Genesis”, O. Behagel (ed.), 10th ed., B. Taeger (ed.), Tübingen, Niemeyer (Altdeutsche Textbibliothek; 4), 1996, p. 96, 155. See also H. Kolb, “‘Vora demo muspille’. Versuch einer Interpretation”, Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, vol. 83, no. 2, 1964, p. 2-33 (5-6, 32).

    41In addition to Muspell and ginnheilagr, Óðinn’s name Sigfaðir (“father of victory”) is likewise used in these poems only, and the identical context – that of Fenrir killing Sigfaðir – suggests direct influence, even if the name is, in fact, only found in the R version of Vǫluspá. These unique occurrences are listed in Kommentar zu den Liedern…; vol. 1, book 1, p. 59. For variants in § 55, see Edda. Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst verwandten Denkmälern, G. Neckel and H. Kuhn (ed.), 5th ed., Heidelberg, Carl Winter, 1983, p. 13.

    42Þorbjǫrn hornklofi, Haraldskvædi, R. D. Fulk (ed.), in SKALD 1, p. 91.

    43Recent suggestions of a different function and context cannot be reconciled with the evidence. On metrical problems, see n. 37 above. On syntactical problems, see K. J. Myrvoll, “Theodoric the Great on the Rök Runestone” (in preparation).

    44D. A. Bullough, “What has Ingeld to do with Lindisfarne?”, Anglo-Saxon England, vol. 22, 1993, p. 93-125.

    45S. Bugge, “Nogle bidrag til det norröne sprogs og den norröne digtnings historie, hentede fra verslæren”, in Beretning om forhandlingerne på det første nordiske filologmøde i København den 18.-21. juli 1876, L. F. A. Wimmer (ed.), Copenhagen, F. Hegel og Sön, 1879, p. 140-146.

    46B. Fidjestøl, The Dating of Eddic Poetry. A Historical Survey and Methodological Investigation, O. E. Haugen (ed.), Copenhagen, Reitzel, 1999, p. 260-669. On the likely different character of pre-syncopated poetry, see R. Pascual, “Old English Metrical History and Widsið”, Neophilologus, vol. 100, 2016, p. 289-302.

    47K. J. Myrvoll, “Theodoric the Great…”.

    48See Kommentar zu den Liedern…, vol. 6, p. 592-593, 782-783. Unfortunately, there are no strong criteria for dating Guðrúnarkviða III, although some features may suggest that it is young. The poem is irrelevant to the main storyline of the Niflung material and its main analogues are found in German tradition. Perhaps more suggestively, it centres on a trial by ordeal. It seems likely that trial by ordeal entered the Nordic tradition with the conversion to Christianity: see R. Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water. The Medieval Judicial Ordeal, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1986, p. 21; but see Kommentar zu den Liedern…, vol. 6, p. 780-81. Nonetheless, the possibility of an earlier entry of this motif, at least in narrative form, cannot be excluded, especially since the poem describes what appears to have been its earliest form in both Frankish and Irish tradition: trial by cauldron (Bartlett, Trial by Fire and Water…, p. 4-12). No matter the date of the poem, the apparent German influence on the two instances drawing on lore about Þjóðrekr strongly suggests that such lore had been lost in the Old Norse tradition.

    49A noteworthy exception is J. McKinnell, “Vǫluspá and the Feast of Easter”, Alvíssmál, vol. 12, 2008, p. 3-28. One with doubtful empirical support is T. Gunnell, The Origin of Drama in Scandinavia, D. S. Brewer, Woodbridge, 1995. S. Nordal, “Völu-Steinn”, Iðunn, vol. 8, 1924, p. 161-178, presented some interesting, but ultimately unconvincing, arguments in favour of Vǫlu-Steinn’s authorship of Vǫluspá.

    50E. Mundal, “Modes of Authorship and Types of Texts in Old Norse Culture”, in Modes of Authorship in the Middle Ages, S. Rancovič (ed.), Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2012, p. 211-226 (225).

    51Finnur Jónsson also explains the anonymity of the Eddic poems in this manner: Finnur Jónsson, Den oldnorske og oldislandske litteraturs historie (2nd ed.), p. 80.

    52M. Males and K. J. Myrvoll, The Date and Purpose…

    Poésie et politique dans les mondes nordiques et normands médiévaux (IXe-XIIIe siècle)

    X Facebook Email

    Poésie et politique dans les mondes nordiques et normands médiévaux (IXe-XIIIe siècle)

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Poésie et politique dans les mondes nordiques et normands médiévaux (IXe-XIIIe siècle)

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Males, M. (2024). Early Eddic poetry (c. 850‑1000): The other type of pagan court poetry?. In A. Gautier, M.-A. Lucas-Avenel, & L. Mathey-Maille (éds.), Poésie et politique dans les mondes nordiques et normands médiévaux (IXe-XIIIe siècle) (1‑). Presses universitaires de Caen. https://doi.org/10.4000/13tz6
    Males, Mikael. « Early Eddic Poetry (c. 850‑1000): The other Type of Pagan Court Poetry? ». In Poésie Et Politique Dans Les Mondes Nordiques Et Normands médiévaux (IXe-XIIIe siècle), édité par Alban Gautier, Marie-Agnès Lucas-Avenel, et Laurence Mathey-Maille. Caen: Presses universitaires de Caen, 2024. https://doi.org/10.4000/13tz6.
    Males, Mikael. « Early Eddic Poetry (c. 850‑1000): The other Type of Pagan Court Poetry? ». Poésie Et Politique Dans Les Mondes Nordiques Et Normands médiévaux (IXe-XIIIe siècle), édité par Alban Gautier et al., Presses universitaires de Caen, 2024, https://doi.org/10.4000/13tz6.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Gautier, A., Lucas-Avenel, M.-A., & Mathey-Maille, L. (éds.). (2024). Poésie et politique dans les mondes nordiques et normands médiévaux (IXe-XIIIe siècle) (1‑). Presses universitaires de Caen. https://doi.org/10.4000/13tzo
    Gautier, Alban, Marie-Agnès Lucas-Avenel, et Laurence Mathey-Maille, éd. Poésie et politique dans les mondes nordiques et normands médiévaux (IXe-XIIIe siècle). Caen: Presses universitaires de Caen, 2024. https://doi.org/10.4000/13tzo.
    Gautier, Alban, et al., éditeurs. Poésie et politique dans les mondes nordiques et normands médiévaux (IXe-XIIIe siècle). Presses universitaires de Caen, 2024, https://doi.org/10.4000/13tzo.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Presses universitaires de Caen

    Presses universitaires de Caen

    • Mentions légales
    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • X
    • Flux RSS

    URL : https://www.puc-ed.fr

    Email : puc@unicaen.fr

    Adresse :

    Université de Caen Normandie

    Campus 1 – Bâtiment F - MRSH

    Esplanade de la Paix

    14032

    Caen

    France

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement