Talk:Sólarljóð

Norse history and culture Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The former 83. stanza

The 83. stanza does not exist, and there is no doubt about the poet's religion. All the best 157.157.230.197 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Expert needed

Hopefully an expert can tidy the article allowing for a more accommodating read. Tkfy7cf (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a try, based on my work with no:Solarljod. It still remains to dis-connect the poem from the misunderstood connection to the Template:Poetic Edda. Bw --Orland (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it ended up in the "heroic lays" section, but I've since moved it to a more appropriate place in the template. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure if that was an inprovement. This would suggest that this "norse divina commedia" is related to the heathen norse poetry. There is, IMHO, no other connection between Edda and Sólarljóð than metric and geography (and to some extent age; though Sólarljóð is written ca 1200 while the Edda poems might be 200-300 years older). Bw --Orland (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it's in the template (and, specifically, in the section it now is) is because it's included in some editions of the Poetic Edda. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not convinced. Here is a similar example: In some editions of Sverris saga the speech against the bishops is also included. (Anne Holtsmarks 1961 edition; reprinted 1986 ISBN 82-03-15255-4 ) This does not make the speech a part of the saga; the editor only suggests that a modern reader might be interested in both. Bw --Orland (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hard boundary as to what poems belong to the Poetic Edda, broadly understood. Sometimes Hrafnagaldr Óðins is included, sometimes Svipdagsmál is included. Sometimes they are not. Both articles have the template. Haukur (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an argument. If there is "no hard boundary" then I can also suggest that the 13th century drápa Harmsol (sv:Harmsol) should be included to the Template:Poetic Edda??
My argument is still that there is no connection between Edda and Solarljod other than geography, metric and the fact that Benjamin Thorpe for some reason included Solarljod in his 1866 Edda edition. (And Thorpe's assumption that Solarljod might have been written by Sæmund himself [1] is obviously not valid anymore, given Sæmund's lifespan 1056-1133, and that most scholars tend to date Solarljod ca 1200 [2]. (addition to date question: Molkte Moe argued in 1899 that Solarljod must be later than Draumkvedet, because the author of Solarljod seemed to have been inspired by Draumkvedet (see bottom note here)
If there is any other connection between Edda and Solarljod than Thorpes edition, please bring it forward. Bw --Orland (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Harmsol is included in some edition of the Poetic Edda, then yes, actually, and ideally, the entire matter would then be discussed on the Harmsol article. If this were a template handling Sverris saga, then, yes, it would be a good idea to also include a link to A Speech Against the Bishops in it, since they are then related enough to draw the attention of the reader. Thorpe's assumption is of no consequence to the purpose of the template, which directs readers to all items considered to have been a part of the Poetic Edda, no matter the edition. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then again: Which (contemporary) scholar is considering Solarljod to "have been a part of the Poetic Edda"?? --Orland (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why so focused on Thorpe? The poem's inclusion is by no means limited to his translation. It's also included in e.g. Erik Brate's Swedish translation and Ólafur Briem's Icelandic edition. I'm sure there are more, and even if there aren't these three would seem to demonstrate the association well enough. I'm not aware of any Edda edition that includes Harmsól. Haukur (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see by this that there are several Edda editions including Solarljod; though it has hardly ever happened in norwegian editions, and neither does Finnur Jonsson [3] connect the poem to Edda as such. So far, so good; I accept that english scholars seem to consider it a part of an wider eddaic corpus of texts. But still: By placing Solarljod among the "Mythological poems" of the Poetic Edda Bloodofox is actually claiming this poem to be among "the most important extant source on Norse mythology" (quote from article on Edda). That is a strong claim for a christian, medieval poem. I urge that the template should be reorganized. Bw --Orland (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you're quoting me with that? Anyway, if you think it belongs elsewhere in the copy, go ahead and put it somewhere else, albeit one could point out that it contains information about Norse mythology not found elsewhere (Njörðr's nine daughters, for example). :bloodofox: (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]