Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1999, Síða 214
194
Conclusion of Part One
concentrate on the content of the poems without any regard for their
status as literary texts, or to stick to the study of the Edda as 13th- and
14th-century written texts. There are several reasons, however, why I
find it difficult to rest content with this dilemma.
The first reason concems the possibility of interpreting the poems,
touched upon by Gurevich. As is well known, poems like Lokasenna,
Prymskvida and Rigspula are read by some scholars as Christian and ar-
chaizing persiflages of old lore, while others read them as genuine
heathen mythological poems. If we know nothing of their ultimate pre-
literary age, neither interpretation can be discarded, even if neither can
be their original meaning. Even if we choose to limit our perspective to
what is known without any doubt, namely the written poems as they
were “fixed” in the 13th century, and to give them an interpretation in
terms of their Medieval reception, it is still very important whether the
poem, in a given historical context, is perceived as being brand new or
age old. Also the study of “Edda medii aevi” in its synchronic percep-
tion will have to allow for a certain amount of diachronic awareness.
It is generally accepted by students of literature that the meaning of a
literary work can never be confined to one exhaustive interpretation and
that each new reader as well as each new period will perceive the work
in different ways. It is thus obvious that the full original meaning of an
Eddie poem lies outside the immediate grasp of any modem reader.
Nevertheless, it is the task of the historian of literature to aim at ap-
proaching the original meaning of the work, knowing that this goal will
never be completely attained. It is possible to adjust one’s compass and
navigate in accordance with it without ever having set one’s foot on the
Magnetic North Pole. Similarly, it is the task of the historian of literary
reception to try to discern the different interpretations belonging to suc-
cessive periods. Without any idea of the original period of composition,
this task cannot be attempted.
Secondly, the resignation implies a serious loss of literary history. By
distinguishing between the content of the Eddie poems and their form
Meulengracht Sørensen succeeded in reseuing them as sources to the
history of Old Norse religion, but at the same time they are lost as
sources to the history of Old Norse poetry anterior to the period when
they were written down. If epistemological considerations compel us to
accept this loss, we must do so of course, but I am not quite convinced
that this is the case. The logical consequence of this sceptical position