124 Rezensionen and Cicero’s De officiis. Simek took his cue erry Gunnell. The Origins of from the poetic description of the winds Drama in Scandinavia. Cam- (ed. 1848, 52–53), which is not paralleled in bridge: D. S. Brewer, 1995. medieval works on the natural phenomena 440 pages. but is matched in the agricultural tradition T (e.g., Hesiod and Columella). Simek suggests that a cross-fertilization of medieval thinking This is a brave and engaging book. In it, the on social hierarchy and domestic arts may be author charts a course where very few have at the root of the anomalous position occu- gone before. Most prominent among that pied by Konungs skuggsjá. This represents a small group is Bertha Phillpotts, whose The substantial broadening of our perspective on Elder Edda and Ancient Scandinavian the book. Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, Similarly remote from Þiðreks saga, 1920) has hitherto been the most compre- but similarly instructive, is Stefanie Würth’s hensive treatment of the subject. In the study of Alexanders saga. She reviews the present volume, Dr. Gunnell capably and debate on authorship, whether Alexanders artfully takes the reader through the tangled saga is originally a Norwegian translation or thicket of data on drama in early Scandina- the work of Brandr Jónsson, and she is un- via and provides scholars of Old Norse with able to find sufficient grounds to disallow their most thorough consideration of this Brandr. She then sketches out what we topic to date. Reconstructions of this sort know about Brandr’s life, personality, and represent dangerous, and difficult, terrain, of politics, emphasizing his good relations with course. One is reminded of Franz Bäuml’s the Norwegian court. The remainder of the now famous, if overly harsh, review (Specu- paper is concerned with Brandr’s translation lum 57 [1982]: 346–49) of Theodore Anders- technique, his approximation of native style, son’s The Legend of Brynhild (Ithaca: his clear grasp and overview of Walter’s Cornell Univ. Press, 1980). There, Bäuml original, his economies in the interest of his writes concerning Andersson’s reconstruc- reading audience, his idiomatic usage, cer- tion of a Brynhild in Sigurðarqviða in meiri, tain hints of political consciousness about which Andersson then assesses as “the most Iceland’s relationship to Norway, and an complete portrait, male or female, in Icelan- awareness of the contemporary issues allud- dic literature” (249), that “In view of the fact ed to by Walter. The sum of these observa- that the Brynhild of Meiri does not exist, tions leads the author to hypothesize that this is not saying much for Icelandic litera- the translation is more likely to have been ture” (349). One senses a decided parallel in executed for the instruction of an Icelandic this instance, since Gunnell has written a audience than for the Norwegian court. four-hundred-page book about a topic most Würth writes with rare clarity and sense of scholars in the field have been inclined to direction, and her essay makes a valuable dismiss as something that did not exist, or at contribution to the study of translation lit- least that cannot be reconstructed. Yet, like erature. Andersson, Gunnell makes an excellent case In her capacity as editor, Susanne for regaining Nordic literature’s lost ground. Kramarz-Bein provides a crisp introduction It could be argued that Gunnell’s operating to contextualize the volume. The introduc- definition of drama is so broad that a critic tion includes summaries of the contribu- would have to be a truly committed nay- tions, which in effect make reviews such as sayer to deny that something of this sort this one supererogatory except for publicity must have existed in early Scandinavia purposes. Finally, Kramarz-Bein deserves (“‘Drama’, in the sense in which the word much credit for having done what appears to will be used in this book, has very few re- this reviewer to be a flawless job of editing a strictions or limitations on its scope. It is a particularly complicated volume. wide-ranging phenomenon that overlaps on one side with solo recitation and story-tell- Theodore M. Andersson ing, and on several other sides with the areas of ritual, spectacle, children’s games of alvíssmál 7 (1997): 124–28 Rezensionen 125 make-believe and the living art ‘perfor- is a subtly nuanced discussion and explores mances’ of modern artists” [12]). in depth, and detail, a number of important Gunnell has in effect written two stud- relationships (e.g., the “dancing warrior” ies, joined by their shared interest in per- figures of northern Europe and the descrip- formance art. In the first section of this tion of ritual dances by “Gothic” warriors book, the author examines in detail possible in tenth-century Constantinople). Still, one evidence for early Nordic traditions of may reasonably object that at times enthusi- performance. In the second part, he focuses asm for the subject matter seems to over- on the mythological dialogic poems of the whelm the evidence, as when Gunnell writes Poetic Edda (especially Skírnismál, Hár- of “the picture depicting ball players sitting barðsljóð, Vafþrúðnismál, Lokasenna, and amidst figures obviously engaged in semi- Fáfnismál), and particularly the codicologi- dramatic ritual activities on the now lost cal evidence that might support the assertion Gallehus horns (c.400)” (32). In point of that “it is logical to call these works elemen- fact, nothing is really obvious on the existing tary plays rather than poems” (281). A ful- representations of these horns, and the use some coordination of these parts is warrant- of “semi-dramatic” surely suggests much less ed, although Gunnell’s most complete state- certainty than the author would like to ment in this regard is the following: “Yet claim. Nevertheless, this is a rich and from the examinations made of the evidence thought-provoking section, although indi- of Scandinavian dramatic customs found vidual scholars will certainly find much to in archaeological, literary, and folkloristic quibble about. (For example, are the sagas sources in the last two chapters, it is possible truly reliable as ethnographic documents, to extract a general core of traditions . . . As- and if so, are they all equally reliable?) suming that such core elements existed in The chapter dealing with folkloric evi- ritual and/or games during the Viking Age, dence for early traditions of performance there is little question that they could have lays out a delicate argument for a shared provided a context for the dialogic Eddic po- Nordic custom of seasonal miming, based ems that will be discussed in the following on materials from throughout the North chapters. Many of these poems feature dis- Atlantic islands, including Shetland and the guise as a central motif. It is not hard, for Faroes, and from noninsular Scandinavia example, to imagine associations between (93–181). This discussion evokes an admi- Skírnismál and a tradition of folk marriage; rable, if somewhat antique, style of folklore between Hárbarðsljóð and an enacted scholarship usually associated with the likes poetic contest, or mannjafnaðr, involving of Sigurd Erixon and Alexander Krappe (that figures representing Winter and Summer; or is, thorough and breathtakingly positivistic), between Fáfnismál, Vafþrúðnismál and the but Gunnell’s conclusions concerning the costumed initiation ceremonies suggested by possibilities of a once-shared tradition which Arent with regard to the Torslunda matrices, is today reflected in such figures as Grýla, and Weiser-Aall with regard to the julebukk. Halm-Staffan, and so on, are fresh and in- In this sense, the dialogic Eddic poems, if vigorating, and there is much to be learned they were originally performed dramatically, from the discussion, even if in the end, one would fill in the temporal gap between the may remain skeptical about specific aspects archaeological and the folkloristic evidence, of Gunnell’s interpretation of the material and help to illustrate both” (180). (179–81). In such a wide-ranging discussion, In the chapter treating the archaeologi- it is only natural to ask oneself, does the net cal and literary evidence for dramatic activ- get cast too wide? And in the midst of this ity in early Scandinavia (23–92), the reader extensive discussion, one does begin to is taken on a wide-ranging tour of facts and sense, in the words of Guta saga, that “alt ir artifacts, including petroglyphs, onomastics, baugum bundit” in northern Europe: were it recent archaeological discoveries, saga refer- not for the associated verses (173) that make ences, and other aspects of Scandinavia from the case appear airtight, the same concat- the earliest times to the Middle Ages which enation of traits on which Gunnell relies so might indicate ritual and performance. This heavily to bring together julebukker, grýlur alvíssmál 7 (1997): 124–28 126 Rezensionen and skeklers (i.e., costumes, masking, re- specialists who have examined the question versed speech, cross dressing, begging, lead- of orality in areas much more proximate ership roles [“captains”], and so on) might linguistically, temporally, and geographically also be made to include such distant materi- to Gunnell’s own discussion of eddic poetry, als as the Mardi Gras of the rural Cajun albeit mostly in the specific context of landscape in the southern United States prose works (e.g., Oscar Bandle, Dietrich (see Dance for a Chicken: The Cajun Mardi Hoffman, Theodore Andersson, Jesse Byock, Gras, prod. Pat Mire, 57 min. [Eunice, LA: Robert Kellogg). But there is much to be Attakapas Productions, 1993], videocassette). learned from Dr. Gunnell, who is an astute And one might wish that Gunnell had paid and inventive observer: he carefully assesses, more attention to other possibly mitigating for example, the relationship between the factors that might account for the wide- eddic poems we possess from the Codex spread nature of the phenomena he finds in regius, Codex Wormianus, and so on, and the modern residues of miming, including the monuments Snorri seems to know as he the potential influence of the German popu- composes his ars poetica in the early thir- lations in the Hansa trade centers, a topic teenth century, an examination that leads which receives only passing attention (93, him to the conclusion that the introductory 122). Overall, however, Gunnell’s discussion prose in the two traditions is close indeed, of the early testimony to dramatic activity in but that “Snorri’s acquaintance with the Scandinavia, which manages to include, use- verse of Fáfnismál, Lokasenna, and Skírn- fully, sources as recent as Faroese television ismál . . . would thus appear to have been and the writings of William Heinesen, as highly limited” (222). Gunnell notes (by way well as materials as ancient as the three- of three statistical tables treating such topics thousand-year-old hällristningar, is a daz- as the “The Blended Strophes: Narrative/ zling display of erudition and dedication to Speech Proportions” [195–96]) that the rela- the topic. tionship in the eddic texts between prose, The chapter which takes up “The Eddic dialogue verses, and mixed speech and Poems and Drama” (182–281) focuses much narrative verses is highly consistent: those more narrowly on the extant mythological poems with a large proportion of narrative poems which consist principally of dialogue verses also contain blended narrative and in ljóðaháttr. Gunnell bases his consider- speech verses but hardly any prose inser- ations on a confession of faith unlikely to tions, whereas it is those poems that consist have many adherents among modern stu- almost entirely (90% and more) of “pure dents of Old Norse, at least not a priori speech strophes” that also contain prose (“Central to the discussion that follows is the interpolations (187–90). This information is basic premise that, for the most part, the ex- then folded in with a discussion of systems tant versions of the Eddic poems represent of marginal speaker indications in the vari- records of works that were originally pre- ous manuscripts of eddic poetry, and the sented and preserved orally. Of course, this chapter concludes around a detailed discus- is an accepted fact” [182]). If, indeed, one sion (236–81) of the problems a single per- could assume that point of view, such dis- former would encounter in presenting the cussions would be easy and the answers poems orally. Gunnell adduces evidence to foreordained, but can the author prove that support the view that if the ljóðaháttr poems point to the satisfaction of those not so will- represent materials intended for perfor- ing to accept this statement as a starting mance, it is more likely that such a per- point? My own sense is that, in fact, he formance would have been carried out by makes a good case, although it is less clear several talented actors than by a single per- to me why Gunnell should employ with such former attempting to play several roles by energy introductory surveys of distant tra- modulating his voice or through other means ditions (e.g., Ruth Finnegan’s Oral Poetry, of tagging the various parts. Walter Ong’s Orality and Literacy, the The fourth chapter, “Marginal Speaker Chadwicks’ Growth of Literature), while at Notation in the Edda and Early Manuscripts the same time ignoring the detailed work of of Drama” (282–329), examines the systems alvíssmál 7 (1997): 124–28 Rezensionen 127 of speaker tag notation used in medieval different light from that provided in standard Latin and Anglo-Norman manuscripts in commentaries. More speculative, and dis- circulation in northern Europe (e.g., the tant, possibilities, such as the hymns of the works of Terence, Babio, La Seinte Resu- Rig Veda, enhance the discussion, but feel reccion, The Harrowing of Hell, Le Mystère too remote to be of any direct relevance to d’Adam) and such native products as the the debate. King’s Mirror, and, of course, the Poetic According to the preface, this book Edda. Gunnell concludes that certain forms began life as a doctoral dissertation (xvii). of marginal and other speaker tag notations For the most part, this genesis is hardly to be were limited to those works intended for noticed, but there are occasional stumbles. I dramatic presentation. Gunnell argues fur- would number among these the overly long ther that the system which uses the outer and overly dependent introductory discus- margins for this purpose, such as is found sion of dramatic concepts (10–22). Likewise, in the Poetic Edda, was developed and cen- I found the index exceedingly uneven — it tered in northern France and England and includes a few selected older figures, but gaining ground in exactly the thirteenth cen- generally ignores scholars. One will see, for tury and is moreover distinguishable from example, references to Sir Walter Scott and usage in the Terentian and liturgical tradi- Lord Raglan carefully detailed, but will look tions. These facts, together with the exten- to no avail for the locations where Lars sive cultural exchange that existed between Lönnroth’s ideas about the “double-scene” this area and the West Norse area, lead the have informed the argument. Another area author to the conclusion that “the alterna- where one senses a lack of control pertains tive form of notation the scribes chose is to the book’s treatment of bibliography. I found only in connection with the dialogic have indicated above that in some instances poems of the Edda manuscripts and in one will search in vain for supporting evi- certain manuscripts from northern France dence from adjacent subfields within Old and England containing obviously dramatic Norse itself. One will also periodically en- works, or works which, like the dialogic counter difficulties identifying the original, Eddic poems, arguably needed to be per- or at least earlier, proponents of certain formed in a dramatic fashion to be under- views. Thus, for example, one will find that stood properly” (329). Margaret Arent’s article (“The Heroic In the final chapter (330–50), Gunnell Pattern: Old Germanic Helmets, Beowulf, reviews the possible contexts for the perfor- and Grettis saga,” in Old Norse Literature mance of poetry and song in medieval Scan- and Mythology: A Symposium, ed. Edgar C. dinavia. Perhaps because this section deals Polomé [Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1969], less with facts — apparent or reconstruc- 130–99) is heavily cited, but one will see tible — or perhaps because of its heavy reli- nothing of Heinrich Beck’s earlier contribu- ance on the argument-by-analogy strategy so tions in this area. Similarly, it seems curious out of favor with the Old Norse scholarly for the author to discuss the image of the community (cf. Old Norse–Icelandic Litera- berserkir in the context, especially important ture: A Critical Guide, ed. Carol Clover and for performance traditions, of theriomorphic John Lindow [Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, costumes, and note in passing (66) only that 1985], 273), one senses here a strangely Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson argues for an etymol- unsatisfying — if fundamentally bountiful — ogy based on ‘bare’ rather than ‘bear’ in a smörgåsbord of ideas. Undoubtedly most note in his edition of Ynglinga saga, without useful exactly because of their closeness to referring to a single other contribution in the cultural moment at the epicenter of the that long and tangled argument by, for ex- book are the discussions of such known, or ample, Erik Noreen, Nils Lid, Hans Kuhn, or at least indicated, performance contexts as Klaus von See. And despite the bibliog- seiðr, mansöngvísur, senna, and mannjafn- raphy’s apparent determination to err on the aðr. These sections are extremely interest- side of inclusion, such obvious candidates ing and productive and cast the idea of for discussion as James Knirk’s Oratory in performance in medieval Scandinavia in a the Kings’ Sagas (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, alvíssmál 7 (1997): 124–28 128 Rezensionen

1981) and H. R. Ellis Davidson’s “Wit and the extant Skírnismál took shape in the thir- Eloquence in the Courts of Saxo’s Early teenth century. Phillpotts’ explanation here Kings,” in Saxo Grammaticus: A Medieval as elsewhere, on the other hand, “bases too Author between Norse and Latin Culture, much on general assumption,” as Gunnell ed. Karsten Friis-Jensen (København: Mu- himself states (7). Still, her explanation does seum Tusculanum Press, 1981), 39–52, are manage to account for the presence of the unaccounted for. This and other examples of prose insertions in the extant text, whereas bibliographic innocence are surprising in Gunnell’s arguments leave one even more such an otherwise heavily documented perplexed as to why they would be necessary work. These “sins of omission” aside, the if the poems were in fact being reconfigured book commits admirably few errors, al- to fit the emerging image of how a play- though Gunnell’s detractors will undoubt- poem was to be presented on vellum, that is, edly point to such lapses as missing page ref- moving toward dramatic presentation rather erences (3), at for Swedish att (94), tvesang than away from it. In Phillpotts’ treatment of for Swedish tvesång (339), and Liestöl for the topic, she devotes much of her time to Liestøl (347). the so-called Helgi poems; Gunnell does not It remains to be asked how this book (cf. 200), and one cannot help but wonder compares with Dame Phillpotts’ study of how the inclusion in a detailed way of other 1920. The Elder Edda and Ancient Scandi- eddic poems might have influenced the navian Drama was written in the context book’s results. The principal difference be- of that era’s dominant mythological ideol- tween the two works, it seems to me, is that ogy, the so-called Cambridge School. This Phillpotts has a broad, engaging, and easily group’s most famous members — Sir George accessible thesis concerning the dramatic James Frazer, Gilbert Murray, Jane Harri- use of the eddic poems in religious rituals son — were admired by scholars of that gen- (albeit a context in which no one really be- eration for their attempts to place archaic lieves any longer), whereas the strength of literary monuments into ritual contexts, and Terry Gunnell’s book lies in its keen atten- Phillpotts provides for Norse texts what her tion to detail, its more informed views on the colleagues provide for the ancient Greek nature of performance, and its careful exami- ones. Phillpotts sees a vast difference be- nation of historico-cultural conditions which tween those Eddic texts preserved in forn- may account for the extant eddic texts. Or, yrðislag and those in ljóðaháttr. The latter as the author himself writes, “The aim of the she understands to hark back to Norwegian, present study was simply to gather together pre-Settlement originals which would have all the available evidence for ritual and been performed in religious rituals, espe- popular drama having existed in early Scan- cially in fertility dramas, with Skírnismál as dinavia, and to re-examine both this and the the prime example. The prose inserted into dialogic poems of the Poetic Edda with fresh such works represents the detail necessary eyes, and most particularly with the eyes of a for comprehending the action of the plot performer” (351). In this, Gunnell has suc- once these previously enacted poems be- ceeded skillfully, and thereby pushed for- came mere texts on a page. One might want ward the frontiers of our knowledge about to compare that view with Gunnell’s asser- early Scandinavian performance arts consid- tion that an Icelander who encountered erably. Few scholars of Old Norse will agree abroad European plays having to do with a with all the arguments Gunnell presents, but male winning the love of a virtuous woman no Scandinavianist can afford to remain un- through a middle party (e.g., De nuntio sa- familiar with them. gaci, Dame Sirith) might draw “vague paral- lels between the material in question, both Stephen Mitchell in terms of theme and methods of presenta- tion” (322). The beauty of Gunnell’s argu- ment is that it provides a specific set of pos- sible influences on the Icelandic scribe and suggests that the written, dramatic form of alvíssmál 7 (1997): 124–28