SAGA-BOOK - Viking Society Web Publications

SAGA-BOOK - Viking Society Web Publications SAGA-BOOK - Viking Society Web Publications

vsnrweb.publications.org.uk
from vsnrweb.publications.org.uk More from this publisher
23.03.2013 Views

Saga-Book of the Viking Society who differ from him on basic principles. And Bugge is moderate in comparison with the German mythologist E. H. Meyer, who edited V oluspa with a commentary in 1889 and traced all its matter to mediaeval Christian writings. For in this large book (300 pages) I have not found one single observation which I have thought worth mentioning in my commentary. It is from beginning to end a scholarly fable by a man whose learning had made him mad.P Many came forward to oppose this line of research. Victor Rydberg attacked Bang, while Bugge defended him, and this resulted in Rydberg's producing his great work Undersiikningar i germanisk mythologi,13 This is written with great learning and eloquence, but its chief fault is that the author makes it clear neither to himself nor to his reader where the learning stops and the eloquence begins. Another of Bang's opponents was one of the leaders of the German antiquarians, Karl Miillenhoff. He edited V oluspa with a translation and a detailed commentary-! and maintained that the poem was totally heathen in spirit and matter, that it was composed in Norway but that its essence was common to all Germanic poetry (at one point he speaks of "die deutsche Voluspa"). But there is no point in writing at length about this essay, for it is, in spite of all differences of opinion, the basis of my commentary, as of most others by his successors. For instance, Finnur Jonsson followed Miillenhoff for the most part in his editions of and dissertations on the poem - but then Finnur is the man who has stood most firmly against Bugge's theories and has advanced the most powerful argments against them. Two other scholars who have contributed much towards the elucidation of the poem should be mentioned. Bjorn ,. I shall not waste space describing the views of Meyer and Bugge, for they are dealt with, as are many of these disputes, in articles by Valtyr GuOmundsson and Benedikt Grondal in Timarit (1892"3). i s 2 vols., 1888-9. Published in English as Teutonic mythology (1889). U Deutsche Altertumskunde V (1883), 1-165.

Voluspd M. Olsen-" advanced the strongest arguments for the poem's composition in Iceland, distinguished with moderation between heathen and Christian elements, and described plausibly how the poem is likely to have been composed. Axel Olrik made an exhaustive search for the origins of the content of V oluspd in his most important work, Om Ragnarok.t» There he examined the origins of the ideas of the end of the world, and traced their spread from the Caucasus westward into Europe. From his work one can see, for instance, that the legends of Prometheus bound and Loki bound may be related, though the Norse legend does not have to be a copy of the Greek. This opens up a much more fruitful field for research than Bugge's theory.t? Miillenhoff was the first to place V oluspd on the operating-table of the so-called "higher textual criticism" in an attempt to distinguish between the original poem and later additions. He considered that 16 of the 66 stanzas had been interpolated. Finnur Jonsson went a step farther (Miillenhoff considered st. 65, for instance, an original part of the poem) but otherwise agreed. Bjorn M. Olsen 18 objected to this method of examination of the poem, and in his edition of V oluspdP F. Detter argued that little was to be gained by departing from the manuscripts, whether over occasional words or whole stanzas. The same policy is apparent in the edition of Detter and Heinzel. 20 But other investigators have gone much farther in dismembering the poem than Mullenhoff and Finnur Jonsson. E. Wilken cuts 27 stanzas from the 15 'Hvar eru Eddukvaoin til orcin', Tlmarit (1894), 1-133 (d. also Finnur J6nsson's criticism of this article, ibid. (1895), 1-41, and Olsen's rejoinder, 42-87, and Um kristnit6kuna (1900). "2 vols., 1902-14. Cf. also the revised German version, tr. W. Ranisch (1922). 17 Among works which take a similar line I may mention F. von der Leyen, Das Miirchen in den Gottersagen. der Edda (1899) and G. Neckel, Die Uberlieferungen vom Gotte Balder (1920). Axel Olrik has also made the special position of V6luspa clearer than any other commentator. ,. Timarit (1894), 102 fl. ,. F. Detter, Die V6luspa (1899). 2. F. Detter and R. Heinzel, Samunda» Edda (1903), 2 vols.

Saga-Book of the <strong>Viking</strong> <strong>Society</strong><br />

who differ from him on basic principles. And Bugge is<br />

moderate in comparison with the German mythologist<br />

E. H. Meyer, who edited V oluspa with a commentary in<br />

1889 and traced all its matter to mediaeval Christian<br />

writings. For in this large book (300 pages) I have not<br />

found one single observation which I have thought worth<br />

mentioning in my commentary. It is from beginning to<br />

end a scholarly fable by a man whose learning had made<br />

him mad.P<br />

Many came forward to oppose this line of research.<br />

Victor Rydberg attacked Bang, while Bugge defended him,<br />

and this resulted in Rydberg's producing his great work<br />

Undersiikningar i germanisk mythologi,13 This is written<br />

with great learning and eloquence, but its chief fault is that<br />

the author makes it clear neither to himself nor to his<br />

reader where the learning stops and the eloquence<br />

begins. Another of Bang's opponents was one of the<br />

leaders of the German antiquarians, Karl Miillenhoff.<br />

He edited V oluspa with a translation and a detailed<br />

commentary-! and maintained that the poem was<br />

totally heathen in spirit and matter, that it was composed<br />

in Norway but that its essence was common to all<br />

Germanic poetry (at one point he speaks of "die deutsche<br />

Voluspa"). But there is no point in writing at length<br />

about this essay, for it is, in spite of all differences of<br />

opinion, the basis of my commentary, as of most others<br />

by his successors. For instance, Finnur Jonsson followed<br />

Miillenhoff for the most part in his editions of and<br />

dissertations on the poem - but then Finnur is the man<br />

who has stood most firmly against Bugge's theories and<br />

has advanced the most powerful argments against them.<br />

Two other scholars who have contributed much towards<br />

the elucidation of the poem should be mentioned. Bjorn<br />

,. I shall not waste space describing the views of Meyer and Bugge, for they<br />

are dealt with, as are many of these disputes, in articles by Valtyr<br />

GuOmundsson and Benedikt Grondal in Timarit (1892"3).<br />

i s 2 vols., 1888-9. Published in English as Teutonic mythology (1889).<br />

U Deutsche Altertumskunde V (1883), 1-165.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!