Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1959, Blaðsíða 18
4
parallelism, digressions, etc. The classical family saga belongs to a later
period, and its style is possibly strongly influenced by Snorri’s work14.
In Norway, the influence of foreign models is evident in our oldest
literary remains. Theodoricus15 writes in a straightforward, matter-of-fact
style, although he is not averse to the use of digressions for the purpose
of instructing and amusing his readers. The Historia Norwegiae, on the
other hånd, is the typical representative of the florid mannerism of the
“New Style” of the 12th century16. The difference between “Classicism”
and “Mannerism” is not a difference between two genera dicendi in the
ancient sense, the genus submissum naturally does not permit a mannered
style of writing, hut that does not mean that the simple and direct language
of many sermons is classical in any sense. It is in their handling of the
genus grande that the difference between classicists and the adherents of
mannerism becomes significant. The classicists try to imitate the autores
(Snorri’s attitude to the hgfudskald is, mutatis mutandis, that of a classi-
cist); their opponents wish to avail themselves of all the devices of tradi-
tional rhetoric, to make their style striking, effective, bizarre. The suc-
cess of each individual author depends, of course, on his ability, train-
ing, and taste, and there are a large number of intermediate stages between
that of the out-and-out classicist who tries to imitate ancient authors, and
the thorough-going modernist who will go to any lengths to create a ba-
roque style, even at the expense of rendering himself unintelligible. Theo-
doricus and the author of the Historia Norwegiae are third-rate authors,
and neither of them is an extremist17. But they give us a valuable glimpse
of the educational level of the Norwegian clergy at the end of the 12th
century, particularly valuable because we know so little about the schools
in Scandinavia in this period. They may both have received at least part
of their education abroad, but we are probably justified in assuming that
the same tendencies were represented in the Norwegian cathedral schools.
14 SigurSur Nordal, ibidem, pp. 253-54.
15 Ed. by G. Storm in Monumenta Historica Norvegiae, Kria. 1880, pp. 1-68.
16 Ed. by G. Storm ibidem pp. 69-124. On the style of Theodoricus and the Hist.
Norw. vide Turville-Petre op. cit. pp. 169-71, 175. On the “New Style” in the 12th
century, vide E. Norden: Die antike Kunstprosa II pp. 753-55.
11 On Theodoricus and his knowledge of foreign literature, vide Arne Odd John-
sen: Om Theodoricus og hans Historia de antiquitate etc. Oslo 1939, pp. 29-60, and
Jens S. Th. Hanssen: Theodoricus Monachus and European Literature in Symbola
Osloenses vol. 27, pp. 70-127. On the language of the Hist. Norw. vide Eiliv Skard:
Målet i Historia Norwegiae, Oslo 1930.