Gripla - 20.12.2008, Blaðsíða 154

GRIPLA152
But while this fact prevents us from detecting such finer points of
development in skaldic diction as the exact ratio between certain types
of kennings in narrower periods, it does not prevent us from detecting
the bigger strokes. The impression is certainly that skaldic poetry went
through at least three major stylistic phases with regard to kennings and
diction: in the Viking Age it was rather sturdy, heavy on kennings, and
riddle-like in character, around the turn of the millennium its style became
generally lighter and more straightforward, with fewer and simpler ken-
nings, and in the later twelfth century the taste swung again towards a
more ornamented style of kennings in the spirit of the old days. As all
other art forms that are in use over prolonged periods of time skaldic
poetry was fluid but not static, and it goes without saying that it was
subject to ever-changing taste and fashion. The tendency to view the
“middle period” as somehow abnormal, calling for external explanatory
factors (such as religion), probably owes much to the Snorristic spell: the
often irresistible tendency of modern students to grant the teachings of
this supreme and incomparable teacher on skaldic poetry the status of
absolute normality. We should remind ourselves regularly that deviation
from Snorri’s taste and aesthetics, which were quite definite, is not a sign
of abnormality. The insistence on interpreting the development of skaldic
diction in religious terms relies on the same presuppositions as before:
that composing a skaldic stanza using mythologically-based kennings was
perceived of as a religious act. Locating that understanding, as well as the
assumed opposition, in the sources is problematic. The only instances
found are references to the insistence of the two Ólafar not to listen to or
receive poetry incorporating mythologically-based kennings, recounted
in Hallfreðar saga and Heimskringla.86 Hallfreður vandræðaskáld, who
served both Hákon Hlaðajarl and Ólafur Tryggvason, is then the clas-
sic example of the turning tide.87 However, these remarks are first and
foremost an evidence for the personal piety of the two king-saints (or the
personal piety attributed to them), and carries as much historical weight
86 Hallfreðar saga, ed. Einar Ól. Sveinsson, Íslenzk fornrit 8 (Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka forn-
ritafélag, 1934), 155–156; Heimskringla II, 55.
87 cf. Kare Ellen Gade, “Poetry and its Changing Importance in Medieval Icelandic Culture,”
Old Icelandic Literature and Society, ed. Margaret Clunies Ross, Cambridge Studies in
Medieval Literature 42 (Cambridge, et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 73–74.