- Project Runeberg -  Arkiv for/för nordisk filologi / Tjugoförsta bandet. Ny följd. Sjuttonde bandet. 1905 /
22

(1882) With: Gustav Storm, Axel Kock, Erik Brate, Sophus Bugge, Gustaf Cederschiöld, Hjalmar Falk, Finnur Jónsson, Kristian Kålund, Nils Linder, Adolf Noreen, Gustav Storm, Ludvig F. A. Wimmer, Theodor Wisén
Table of Contents / Innehåll | << Previous | Next >>
  Project Runeberg | Catalog | Recent Changes | Donate | Comments? |   

Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - Sidor ...

scanned image

<< prev. page << föreg. sida <<     >> nästa sida >> next page >>


Below is the raw OCR text from the above scanned image. Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan. Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!

This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.

22

Phillpotts: Sturt. 22

out the entirely different nature of the fire in Muspilli to that
described in Vpluspp’. In the former poem the fire comes
down from the heavens, in the latter it is generated on the
earth. Muspilli’s fire is a Christian conception, clearly drawn
from such passages as Peter II. 3, v. 7 and 12.

But the question of the origin of MuspélUheimr in Snorri
need not delay us longer. It is only necessary to point out
that if Muspell is held to be a conception common to all
Teutonic races, the view only lends additional support to the
volcanic nature of Surt. For if Surt is a fire-god, what
func-tion have the sons of Muspell? As the original inhabitants
of Muspellheim, the abode of fire, they cannot be other than
fire giant8. But in this case, what is the function of Surt?
It is impossible to conclude that he is merely a superfluous
understudy, so to speak, of the sons of Muspell. And if the
8econd theory be adopted, that the Muspell idea is a borrowed
one in the North, we can proceed on our way without
further considering it, as there is no intimate connection
indi-cated between Muspell and Surt in the Elder Edda, andwe
can leave Snorri’s account on one side, as it is clear that
he has merely confused that of Vpluspp’l).

We have now examined all the later evidence given
by Snorri, as well as that afforded by Fm. and Yþm.,
without håving been enabled to come to any definite con-

’) Since I wrote the above the Editor has kindly kalled my attention
to what seems to me a more satisfactory theory of the origin of Muspell by von
Grienberger (Indogerm. Forschungen Maroh 1904). The author points out
how the word could be of common Gformanic origin and could mean
etymo-logically "Massentod oder Massenverderben". It was probably only in the
north, he thinks, that it came to signify fire; it being applied first to the
cause of the world’s destraction, there attributed, he saysf to fire, and later
to the district whence the fire was sapposed to issne. On this hypothesis
we shonld be jastified in considering its connection with fire as a
development later than the Edda-poems (thoagh before Snorri), for there is no
in-dication that the word has any more than its original G-mc. meaning in
Vsp. or Lok., where Muspells "lyþer, syner" might just as well mean any
world-destroying agencies.

<< prev. page << föreg. sida <<     >> nästa sida >> next page >>


Project Runeberg, Sat Dec 9 02:24:08 2023 (aronsson) (download) << Previous Next >>
https://runeberg.org/anf/1905/0030.html

Valid HTML 4.0! All our files are DRM-free