Snorri Sturluson as a historian of religions: The credibility of the descriptions of pre-Christian cultic leadership and rituals in Hákonar saga góða Abstract
Yüklə 209,35 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Snorri’s sources
Snorri Sturluson as a historian of religions
can be deduced to heathen times is not a sufficient argument for concluding that the phenomena they designated not existed in the old religion.¹⁷ There are also elements in Snorri’s description which may be ancient. Anders Hultgård, for instance, has in several important publications been giving strong and well-founded arguments in support for a pre-Christian origin of the formula ár ok friðr which is mentioned in Snorri’s text.¹⁸ In line with Hultgård I will argue that some other themes in Snorri’s account may be built on ancient traditions, more precisely some aspects which concerns cultic leadership in Trøndelag. These themes have been discussed in previous research in connection to Hákonar saga góða, by Preben Meu- lengracht Sørensen.¹⁹ But opposite to him I will emphasize that Snorri’s text (and other sources) indicates the notion that the ruler (i.e. the king or the earl) as well as the chieftains had important cultic roles and was an important ritual link to the gods when attending these ceremonies. The secular and religious leadership was one and the same in all levels of the society. My purpose here is to illuminate these notions with materials, which not have had enough attention in this debate. But first I will put focus on Snorri’s sources for the description of cultic leadership and rituals in Trøndelag.²⁰ Snorri’s sources In Hákonar saga góða Snorri explicitly states that Sigurðr Hlaðajarl, “was most ardent worshipper” (var inn mesti blótmaðr) and that he “maintained all sacrificial feasts there in Trøndelag on the king’s behalf” (helt Sigurðr jarl upp blótveizlum ǫllum af hendi konungs þar í Þrœndalǫgum). Snorri also states that Earl Sigurðr sometimes defrayed all expenses himself for them. The idea that the earl played important roles in the religious sphere and commissioned the sacrifices may, for instance, be sup-
organized by those in power on different social levels, yeomen and chieftains. The king had no excep- tional authority in terms of religion, since he had no exceptional power. He had a particularly impor- tant relationship to the gods, and a particular responsibility, but he had no indispensable function in the cult. The landowners were in charge of the cult, and the king took part in their local cult-feasts. The religious leadership was in the hands of the yeomen as long as the power belonged to them […]” (Meulengracht Sørensen 1991, p. 244). I agree with Meulengracht Sørensen that this text and other written sources indicate that the secular and religious leadership was one and the same, however, in my opinion the king and the earl as well as the chieftains cared for the public cult and played impor- tant ritual roles during the sacrificial feasts. 20 For a more thorough investigation of Snorri’s sources to the present passage, see Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson 1998, pp. 57–80. Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet Authenticated | 10.248.254.158 Download Date | 9/18/14 2:50 PM
78
Olof Sundqvist ported by the contemporary skaldic poem Sigurðardrápa (960 AD), which was quoted by Snorri and thus must be regarded as one of his major sources for the current passage.
²¹ The first half-stanza mentions that nobody must bring food and drink to the banquets which were arranged by Sigurðr, because of his generosity. Since the other half-stanza indicates that the earl was regarded as a ruler (protector) of the sanctuary (vés valdr), we may suppose that the first half actually referred to a religious feast, i.e. a blótveizla. The manager and agent of this feast was thus the earl himself. It seems therefore as if Snorri at least had some support in Sigurðardrápa for his account. It should be noticed that Klaus Düwel’s study proceeded on the basis of a new interpretation of this stanza. He interpreted the kenning and designation of Sigurðr,
assertion that Snorri knew about ancient traditions of the ritual feasts (blótveizlur) in Trøndelag, he had only support for the idea that Sigurðr was regarded as gener- ous. Skilled philologists, such as Ottar Grønvik and François-Xavier Dillmann have, however, rejected Düwel’s attempt and put forward strong arguments in favour of the traditional interpretation of vés valdr as ‘the ruler (protector) of the sanctuary’.²³ Grønvik translated the second part of the stanza as thus: “Hvilken ætling av agefylte (gudfryktige) menn / vil vel strides med (sette seg opp mot) templets herre?”²⁴ He interpreted the problematic word vægja as a hapax legomenon of a noun (gen. pl. of
deceived Þjazi. / All men should avoid opposing / the keeper of the sanctuary, / because he makes the chieftains glad. / The ruler battled for the gold’ (Heimskringla (Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson 1941–51), 1, p. 168). See also Skjaldedigtning (Finnur Jónsson 1912–15), B 1, pp. 69 f. 22 Most scholars interpret the expression valdr vés as ‘the protector of the sanctuary’, i.e. ‘the ruler Sigurðr’. Klaus Düwel has rejected this interpretation and suggested that the sequence valdr vés vægja should be interpreted as ‘der Beherrscher des Thingplatzes der Schwerter’ (= Schild) = der Krieger Sigurðr – that is, ‘the warrior Sigurðr’ (Düwel 1985, pp. 14–17). 23 Norwegian: ‘véets (templets, hovets) høvding, hersker’ (Grønvik 1989, pp. 82–90). See also Dill- mann 1997. 24 ‘Which offspring of godfearing men, will oppose the ruler of the sanctuary?’ 25 Norwegian: ‘gudfryktig mann, d.e. mann fylt av vægje, age (for guddommen)’. Brought to you by | Stockholms Universitet Authenticated | 10.248.254.158 Download Date | 9/18/14 2:50 PM Yüklə 209,35 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|