Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1999, Síða 306

286
Part Two
The following stanzas are dated by Finnur Jonsson to the second half
of the century: Four instances from Noregs konungatal (ca. 1190), Nkt
9, 20a/b, and 26, (576, 578, 579). In addition, three stanzas from Einarr
Skulason’s Øxarflokkr, ESk XI 1, 5, and 11 (449, 450, 451) are - with-
out compelling arguments - taken by de Vries to be from the skald’s
later years.23
The remaining stanzas are undated: five instances from Rekstefja by
Hallar-Steinn, HSt I la/b, 3, 8, and 16 (525, 527, 529), one from Bua-
dråpa by Forkeil Gislason, PGlsl 8 (537), eleven from fslendingadråpa
by Haukr Valdlsarson, Isldr 1, 8, 11, 13a/b, 14, 15, 16, 17a/b, and 24
(539, 541, 542, 543, 545), four from Harmsol by Gamli kanoki, Gmlkan
II 11, 25, 42, and 64 (551, 555, 559, 565), four from Olåfs drapa Trygg-
vasonar, “er Halfredr orti vandræda skalid”, Od 2, 7, 20, and 27 (567,
569, 572, 574), one spurious stanza from Njåls saga, Nj (XII) 5 (605),
seven from Plåcitusdråpa, PI 7, 34, 40, 43, 48, 49, and 56 (608, 615,
617, 618, 619, 621), one from Leidarvisan, Lei5 37 (631), one from Sol-
arljod, Sol 77 (648), six from Kråkumål, Krm 12, 25a/b, 27, 29a/b (652,
655, 656) and, finally, the two instances in a spurious stanza from
Grettis saga mentioned above, Grett I 7a/b, (288).
In conclusion: from the first half of the century, 16; from the second
half, 7 (if we accept de Vries’s assumption that Øxarflokkr is late, if not,
4); undated, 43 (or 46).
On this point, Kuhn’s criticism has been shown to be very well found-
ed, and it is rather surprising that de Vries, in full knowledge of the de-
tails of his own material, can claim that the assumption will probably
not influence the result in any perceptible manner. He is probably right
in assuming that a great deal of this undated poetry may have been com-
posed in the second half of the 12th century, but nobody knows how
much, and statistics based on this hypothetical assumption are worth-
less. The analysis of the material brought together by de Vries thus
shows that the increase in the use of OSinn-kennings in the second half
of the 12th century which he has postulated is not warranted by the
datings given for his basic material. As far as this part of his work is
concemed, our examination has given a totally negative result.
23 “Wir durfen wohl annehmen, daB diese barocke Form einer Laune des altemden Dich-
ters zuzuschreiben ist” (de Vries 1967: 19).