Review
Author(s): Sverre Bagge
Kings' Sagas and Norwegian History. Problems and Perspectives by Shami Ghosh
Source: The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 112, No. 1 (January 2013), pp.
98-100
Published by: University of Illinois Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jenglgermphil.112.1.0098 .
Accessed: 12/11/2013 08:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [e-mail].
.
University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of English and Germanic Philology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.0.101.242 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:01:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
98 Journal of English and Germanic Philology, January 2013
on two ideas, first, that the poems are the scripts for dramas, and, second, that they
present Old Norse myths within the context of the conversion of the Scandinavians
to Christianity. Each of these ideas has been the subject of a considerable scholarly
literature, both older and more recent, but Dronke makes only sporadic attempts
to locate her interpretations within recent scholarly dialogues on these subjects.
Regrettably, Ursula Dronke died on 8 March 2012, after this review had been
written.
Margaret Clunies Ross
University of Sydney
Kings Sagas and Norwegian History. Problems and Perspectives. By Shami
Ghosh. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Pp. xv + 253. $166.
In his introduction, Shami Ghosh identifies the following aims of his book: (1)
to present a critical overview of recent research on the sagas of the Norwegian
kings, (2) to highlight some of the more important problems posed by the source
material, and (3) to suggest some pathways for further research. Finally, he hopes
 to provide some pointers as to how the study of the kings sagas could be better
integrated into the larger field of scholarship on medieval European historiogra-
phy (p. 3). The book is divided into three chapters, which deal respectively with
the relationship between skaldic poetry and saga prose, nonnative sources and
their influence, and the uses of the past. The first of these (chap. 2), is by far the
longest (pp. 25 109), as well as the most important.
In this chapter, Ghosh addresses the fundamental problem faced by researchers
into Norwegian history before the early twelfth century: the lack of contemporary
written sources. He gives a detailed and very useful presentation of the many ways
of dealing with this issue in scholarship over the last decades, mainly focusing
on the problems involved in the use of skaldic poetry. Although admitting that
extant skaldic poems may actually present contemporary evidence and have been
transmitted orally over a century or two, he argues that in no particular case can
this be guaranteed. He also rejects Snorri s famous claim in the prologues to Heims-
kringla and Óláfs saga helga that the metric form of skaldic verse prevents change
and that their factual information can be trusted because the poets would not lie
in the face of their patrons. Nor does he accept Beyschlag s theory of poems be-
ing transmitted together with narrative prose (Begleitprosa). Consequently, the
prospect for research on the political history of Norway from the reign of Haraldr
hárfagri until the early twelfth century seems bleak; and Ghosh does nothing to
console the historians wanting to deal with this period.
Most contemporary Norwegian historians will probably agree with many of
these observations. However, it is a problem that Ghosh, despite his extensive
reading, is not sufficiently familiar with recent nor apparently with earlier
Norwegian historical research. He mostly refers to two recent surveys in English.
The one-volume History of Norway (1995) is actually a translation of an elementary
introduction intended for beginner students of history. The Cambridge History of
Scandinavia (2003) is more substantial, but is nonetheless also a summary. The
best and most relevant work in this context is Claus Krag s volume of Aschehougs
Norgeshistorie (1995), which, although written for the general public, tries to do
exactly what Ghosh has failed to find in the volumes he has read, namely to apply
the saga criticism from the Weibulls also unmentioned by Ghosh onward to
a relatively detailed narrative history from ca. 800 until 1130. Certain additional
articles, both by Krag and others, are also relevant in this context.
This content downloaded from 193.0.101.242 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:01:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Book Reviews 99
With regard to Ghosh s arguments against the use of skaldic poetry, every scholar
who has ever looked at a critical edition of skaldic poems will immediately un-
derstand the potential for variation, as they differ among the various sagas and
manuscripts in which they have been transmitted. Snorri s insistence on the poems
being  rétt kveðin suggests the same. Nevertheless, the meter is important; a prose
story may be changed far more easily than a skaldic poem. Nor are all changes
equally problematic from a historical point of view. Snorri s statement about the
trustworthiness of poems recited before kings or chieftains has been subject to
much discussion. Referring to the recent studies by Krag, Ghosh shows that it
does not hold true regarding Haraldr harðráði s battles in the Mediterranean
(pp. 72 75). However, this is a special case, as nobody in Norway could control
what Haraldr chose to recount about his foreign career; there may be more to be
said in favor of Snorri s argument concerning events in Scandinavia.
Ghosh finds it unlikely that skalds would abstain from  exaggerated praise (p.
50), and he raises the question of whether Snorri only believed what the skalds
told about battles and journeys and not about other subjects (pp. 52 53). Both
observations suggest that he has not understood Snorri s point. Snorri does not
deny that skalds exaggerate; on the contrary, he says that this is just what they do,
and that, consequently, we should not believe everything they say but trust only
the bare facts, i.e., battles and journeys. Moreover, Snorri points to the fact that
the poems were recited in the presence of an audience that could control the
information that was transmitted in them. Snorri here states two principles that
are essential to all historical research: the distinction between factual statements
and bias, and the possibility to control the information. Consequently, it becomes
absurd to suggest that Snorri disbelieved information about matters other than
battles and journeys. Why would he? Would the skalds flatter the king by referring
to famine?
Ghosh agrees with most scholars in rejecting Beyschlag s theory of Begleitprosa.
Nevertheless, he includes a lengthy discussion of the relationship between verse
and prose, starting with the passage on Domaldi from Ynglingatal, in which he
points out that the prose and verse do not match. This question has been discussed
by scholars for the last hundred years or more, and it is difficult to see that Ghosh
in this particular case adds anything of importance to Gustav Storm s observa-
tions from 1873. Ghosh continues by discussing the relationship between verse
and prose in a series of other episodes. In addition, he examines the question
of national identity, as expressed in the terms Norvegr and norðmaðr (pp. 41 42).
The fact that there are only thirteen such references in poetry in contrast to many
hundred in prose allegedly shows the difference between the two as well as the
fact that such terminology was relatively late. However, as the poems form only
a tiny proportion of Heimskringla one tenth or probably less the relevance of
this observation is doubtful.
Although accepting that  there is probably something in these poems that goes
back to the time in which they were purportedly composed, Ghosh generally
finds the information provided in skaldic verse to be of little value; and he seems
to regard both correspondences between verse and prose and the lack of it as
evidence against a poem s authenticity (pp. 96 97). This seems excessively nega-
tive. Although Ghosh is right that there is no general method that consistently
allows us to distinguish between truth and fiction, a practicing historian will not
look for such a method, but will try to seek solutions in each particular case.
Depending on contents, transmission, and general context of the poems, argu-
This content downloaded from 193.0.101.242 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:01:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
100 Journal of English and Germanic Philology, January 2013
ments may be given for the trustworthiness of some of this information. Ghosh
actually provides an example of this, albeit apparently being unaware of it (pp.
88 95). The story of the mortally wounded Þormóðr KolbrÅ›narskáld, composing
poems in dialogue with a woman in the aftermath of the Battle of Stiklarstaðir,
is, as Ghosh points out, extremely unlikely to be authentic. Would a man be able
to create verse with an arrow through his heart? And would the woman and the
other wounded warriors present be able to remember the whole dialogue, having
heard the verses just once? By contrast, there is more to be said in favor of the
Bersoglisvísur, which are referred to in Ágrip, Fagrskinna, and Heimskringla. The
variations in the context indicate that the poem must have existed before the
texts were written. Moreover, the poem was performed before a large assembly
by a famous poet who may himself have taken care to see that his work would be
transmitted in the future.
In Chapter 3, Ghosh gives a useful presentation of recent research on the con-
nection between the sagas and Anglo-Norman historiography, after which he deals
with  the broader context of Icelandic historiography, discussing the use and
importance of foreign models as well as similarities and differences between Old
Norse and European texts. He does not seem to distinguish very clearly between
these two operations, and his discussion generally offers little of value. The same
applies to the last chapter. In both, he points to the similarity rather than the dif-
ference between the sagas and European historiography and to the connections
rather than the opposition between secular and ecclesiastical culture. However, he
presents few arguments in favor of this view. He frequently criticizes other scholars
for lack of precision or incomplete arguments (e.g., pp. 125, 137, 180), but has
no qualms stating, with only a single reference to Ármann Jakobsson, that there
is little difference between the image of kingship as portrayed by Theodoricus
and the vernacular saga authors (p. 141).
Ghosh has clearly fulfilled the first aim, indicated in his introduction, to give
a critical overview of recent scholarship. Despite a few gaps, his reading is truly
impressive and the book contains a useful overview. Its value is more doubtful in
respect to the two other aims. Ghosh is more concerned with discovering problems
than with finding solutions to them. He is also oriented more toward details than
to a systematic discussion of major problems, as is evident from his many lengthy
footnotes that often take up more than half the page and the numerous paren-
theses that break up the main text. Although it is easy to agree with him about
the need for comparative studies of Old Norse and European historiography, it
is difficult to see that he has pointed to new and fruitful ways of achieving this.
Sverre Bagge
University of Bergen
Modes of Authorship in the Middle Ages. Edited by Slavica Ranković with
Ingvil Brügger Budal, Aidan Conti, Leidulf Melve, and Else Mundal. Papers
in Mediaeval Studies, 22. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
2012. Pp. 427; 13 illustrations. $90.
Modes of Authorship in the Middle Ages has its origin in a conference entitled  Tradi-
tion and the Individual Talent: Modes of Authorship in the Middle Ages, which
was organized and hosted by the Center for Medieval Studies at the University
of Bergen in the fall of 2008. According to Slavica Ranković, the purpose of the
twenty-one articles that make up this sizeable volume is  to explore different modes
This content downloaded from 193.0.101.242 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 08:01:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions