This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Those who can read and understand Hǫfuðlausn, are quick to see that the poem is - poetically - among the poorer drápur. It bears all the hallmarks of being composed in haste in an easy metre. But Egill had to have something to offer, so he invented a great many kenningar and heiti. But the contents of the poem are: Eríkr killed X. Eiríkr killed Y. And so on. All the best Óttarr svarti (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I say you are right, Óttarr, in that Höfuðlausn is not particularly remarkable for its content. But I challenge your opinion that it is among the poorer “drápur”. It is craftsmanship (as opposed to creation) of the highest quality. The skill of the poet, manifested by the rhythmic flow of the verbiage, the pointedness and originality of the kennings (as is characteristic of Egill), and the apparent effortlessness of the composition, still deserves admiration. One hallmark of good poetry is exactly a listeners' or reader's impression of straightforwardness and easiness of expression. Your comment reminds me of the fallacy that the job of a writer is very easy and simple - one just sits down and writes. This is very wrong. If Höfuðlausn is in any way poor, it is in substance, not in poetic value. It is just because of this that it is still read and admired.
But permit me to refer to the book Ritgerðakorn og ræðustúfar (Reykjavík, Félag íslenzkra stúdenta í Kaupmannahöfn, 1959) by Jón Helgason, pp. 21-23. Discussing metres and metric fashions by language and time, Jón draws attention to the fact that there is an obvious relationship between Höfuðlausn and the English Rhyming poem, but the connection between the two remains unknown to scholars. The Rhyming Poem is probably the work of a 10th century poet, and its substantial content is very different from that of Höfuðlausn. The metre of the Rhyming poem is the same as of Höfuðlausn. This, Jón writes, is a southern phenomenon, and the overwhelming likelihood is that Egill, who was a friend of King Æþelstán and quite at home in England, adopted the metre from the English. Höfuðlausn is the first poem in Nordic (or Icelandic) that joins southern end rhyme with Germanic alliteration (as does the Rhyming Poem). With Höfuðlausn, the poetry tradition begins that reigns in Iceland to the present day (Jón wrote this before the “atomic” fashion and the (reluctant) acceptance of Steinn Steinar-like expression modes). Somewhat surprisingly this particular metre seems not to have gained a foothold among the English, as the Rhyming poem is the only preserved poem of its kind composed in their language. I feel that the article would be improved by including this information. And the article on the Rhyming poem might also be improved by pointing to the similarity to Höfuðlausn. Rummungr (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
