Snorri Sturluson qua Fulcrum: Perspectives on the Cultural Activity of Myth, Mythological Poetry and Narrative in Medieval Iceland

MIRATOR 12/2011 

21

 

troll-lore.

75

 This suggests that the insult was denigrating an otherwise heroic 

or mythically significant act in which Þórr was threatened and nevertheless 

overcame his adversary. In relation to these traditions, Snorri’s narrative 

assumes the quality of parody: Þórr is not trapped and under duress, 

captured by a giant; he wilfully enters his adversary’s ‘mitten’ and stays 

there for the night. Rather than being threatened, incapacitated or even 

failing in an explicit challenge, there is no adversary and he simply fails to 

correctly identify what he sees. The contrast with a broader Germanic 

pattern makes it probable that Snorri is manipulating tradition as a referent 

here much as in the challenges of Útgarða-Loki’s hall, with which it is united 

through the theme of misrecognition. If this is correct, Lokasenna would be 

adapting verses of a conventional insult (normally denigrating a 

mythologically significant event) to reflect Snorri’s parody, which is itself 

already intended simply to poke fun at Þórr. 

 

Loki’s next insult in Lokasenna (st. 62) would then follow directly from 

the same narrative in Edda: Þórr went unharmed but hungry when he could 

not open Skrýmir’s sack. This insult clearly refers to the prank described by 

Snorri. The giant-name Skrýmir (‘Frightener’) is only found in Edda, this 

stanza of Lokasenna and the late Samsons saga fagra (‘The Saga of Samson the 

Fair’).  In  Lokrur,  the  medial  /m/  changes  to  /mn/  (Skrimnir  /  Skrymnir) 

although this song is adapted directly from Snorri’s text, as addressed 

above, and does not support this as a conventional giant-name and 

adversary or companion of Þórr.

76

  The  adversary  with  the  glove  in  

Hárbarðsljóð 26 is called Fjalarr. In Lokasenna, the prank of the food-sack is the 

final insult in the 65-stanza poem, and the third consecutive insult addressed 

to Þórr. In some sense, this insult is the climax of Loki’s verbal assaults on 

the gods and on Þórr in particular, yet the progression seems anticlimactic 

from a modern perspective: 

 

Insulting Þórr’s wife Sif: 

St. 54. Loki slept with her. (Sexual/social impropriety) 

Insulting Þórr: 

St. 58. Þórr will fail to avenge his father’s (Óðinn’s) death. (Social 

impropriety) 

                                                

75

 C.W. von Sydow, ‘Tors färd till Utgård’, Danske Studier 7 (1910), 65–105 and 145–182, at 145–158; 

Laborde, ‘Grendels Glove and His Immunity to Weapons’, Modern Language Review 18 (1923), 202–

204, at 202; Lerer 1994; cf. the Sámic traditions surveyed in Frog 2011b, 81. 

76

 In Egils saga and Kormáks saga, Skrýmir is used as a sword-name, and also listed elsewhere among 

poetic synonyms for ‘sword’. 

---

MIRATOR 12/2011 

22

 

St. 60. Þórr spent the night cowering in a mitten-hall. (Cowardice = 

social impropriety) 

St. 62. Þórr could not open Skrýmir’s food-sack and went hungry. 

(Stupidity?) 

 

Insults  in  Lokasenna  are primarily on themes of social and sexual 

impropriety.

77

 Before Þórr arrives, Loki insults Þórr’s wife Sif with the 

provocative claim that he slept with her, cuckolding Þórr (st. 54). Loki’s first 

remark to Þórr (st. 58) is also strong: Þórr will not avenge his father’s 

murder. This refers to Óðinn being slain by the wolf Fenrir (Loki’s son) at 

ragna r k, and implicitly to Þórr’s simultaneous battle and death with the 

world serpent (Loki’s son), preventing his taking revenge. This insult is 

heavily loaded with mythological significance. The insults go downhill from 

there.  Lokasenna dispels the threat and mythic significance of the insult in 

Hárbarðsljóð st. 26 by following Snorri’s version: rather than the god having 

been under duress, he mistook a large mitten for a hall. The final insult is 

hollow, lacking any dimension of social impropriety: Þórr was tricked by an 

adversary with a silly prank that seems rather paltry as an independent 

event. However, it may be mistaken to presume that the insult should be 

mythologically or socially significant, especially if it refers to Edda:  the 

progression may reflect the reception of Snorri’s burlesque and the 

popularity of his humour at Þórr’s expense. Internal and contextual evidence 

suggests that Snorri has consciously developed a parody of mythological 

narratives about Þórr which contrast sharply with the broader tradition; 

correspondences  of  Lokasenna  with  Edda also contrast with the broader 

tradition in manners suggestive of referring to Snorri’s parody rather than 

parodying the tradition itself. In Lokasenna, the probability that Edda 

supplied models for the surrounding prose texts in the manuscript was 

complimented by the probability that the use of ragna røkkr in Lokasenna, st. 

39, occured under the ægis of Edda. These support the possibility that Edda’s 

impact may have extended to whole stanzas and mythological narratives 

referred to in the stanzas of the poetic text, as in the present examples which 

appear to reflect a narrative as it was adapted and manipulated by Snorri 

within strategies and priorities specific to his Edda. Such impacts could have 

already occurred in oral circulation, but they may also be attributable to 

manuscript transmission – for example, complimenting a single climactic 

                                                

77

 See e.g. McKinnell 1986–1989. 

---