Et uænset egenhændigt vidnesbyrd om Grundtvigs ungdom

Abstract

An unnoticed autobiographical Paper by N. F. S. Grundtvig. Edited, with introductory comments, by Helge Toldberg.

Introduction.

A generous grant from the Danish State Research Foundation has enabled a number of scholars to start making a complete register of the heaps of MSS. left by Grundtvig, mainly deposited in the Grundtvig Archives of the Royal Library of Copenhagen. Though the Archives have been carefully studied for years, owing to their enormous bulk, a few of the most important papers have entirely escaped notice.

An instance is the Fasc. 172 b, which is now published for the first time (above PP. 68—75), On my Attitude towards Antiquarian Studies. It is a pity that it has escaped notice until now, more particularly because last year’s excellent monograph by Niels Kofoed: Grundtvig som selvbiograf (G. as an Autobiographer), might otherwise have deduced G.’s autobiographical method from a comparison of this unpublished version and Et Par Ord om Oldgrandskning (i. e. A few words on antiquarianism), printed in the third volume of G.’s periodical Danne-Virke (1817), as a close comparison proves the connection between the two versions, but illustrates G.’s undoubted intention of veiling the blunt and unconsidered personal statements of the draft in the published version.

Another item of the Fasc. 172, “e”, a fragment of two pages, contains an abandoned beginning of the subsequent paper in Danne-Virke III; it is styled Om Fornjotur og hans Æt (On F. and his progeny), and a similar headline originally occurred in the Fasc. 172 b. The abandoned e-text deals with the subject of its headline, to be sure, but is mainly concerned with antiquarianism at large, so that it may reasonably be regarded as a forerunner of the b-text. It should be noticed that G. has numbered it 17, because MSS. intended for printing in the periodical were marked with successive numbers for each issue (four to a volume). We are, however, able to prove that the paragraph on the myth of Fornjotr (just styled Fornioter) began by the sheet marked 23, as in the Fasc. 268 we possess, among other things, the MS. Of DV III PP. 190—194, the only contribution to the entire periodical not originating from Grundtvig. Editorial remarks of G.’s at the bottom of this sheet, crossed out by himself, indicate that he thought it inconvenient to be called upon to expound his own views of the myth as well. It was now eight years since he had last acted as an authority on Old Norse subjects.

Grundtvig overcame this reluctance, however, and wrote a separate paragraph on his attitude towards antiquarianism to be inserted before the one on Fornioter, the draft being one of our most valuable sources of information about the youth of the poet, as the first half of the statement is autobiographical, whereas the second throws a light on his view on Old Norse mythology at the resumption of his research on that subject. Apart from this the paper reflects literary controversies of the day, particularly with the gazette Athene, where the critic Peder Hiort had blamed G. for lack of philosophical method, and with new methods of Scandinavian antquarianism (the archaeological one practised by Christian Jiirgensen Thomsen, and the comparative one adopted by the Icelander Finn Magnusen).

Synopsis.

After the long interruption of his Old Norse research G. thinks it natural to give some information on his attitude to antiquarianism then as well as now.

G. never cared for classical philology, but was from early boyhood fond of the Lord’s People and of his Scandinavian forefathers, and filled with enthusiasm for the great and wonderful features of history. This was completely changed when as an undergraduate he mentally fell asleep. He does not want to blame his academical teachers, though they might have made him a nonpareil student, whereas he was made to abandon his original views of history and antiquarianism. Neither to studies nor to professors as such does he owe any gratitude; nay, the academical standard must be very poor when a book-loving undergraduate without any outside temptations is on the point of forgetting scientific research. Let down as he felt by the University, he was fortunate enough to meet P. N. Skovgaard, a student of mathematics of his own age, who became his friend and unofficial tutor, so to speak. G. joined him in the Copenhagen observatory, and drew benefit from his knowledge of Old Norse by being initiated into the Eddas and the histories af Saxo Grammaticus and Snorri Sturluson. This made G. abandon his attempt at composing stories on Old Norse themes in 18th century style, and begin to study Icelandic. As it was impossible for him to get a suitable post in Copenhagen, he had to go to “one of the most unscientific districts of Eastern Denmark” (i. e. the manor of Egeløkke in the island of Langeland) as a private tutor. “Here, where steel and flint sparked, so to speak, a light began to dawn upon me concerning my obscure urge and the interrelations of poetry and science, intuition and research” — furthermore he was influenced by the romanticists and their idols (including Schiller!), and had his literary debut as a Norse mythologist. Confident as to his stylistic powers, his only anxiety was with regard to shortcomings of mythological insight; but a message from Skovgaard encouraged him to carry on, and abundant loans of books from the University Library of Copenhagen greatly supported his research. On his return to Copenhagen in 1808 he became a schoolmaster. When he published his Norse Mythology, hardly anybody cared for it, which cooled his enthusiasm for its topic considerably. What helped him to overcome his “Asa-Rus” (i. e. enchantment with the Old Norse deities), was his activity as a teacher of universal history; he now realized that only part of the mythology reflected historical facts, whereas the rest was just fiction.

However much he may have scandalized his contemporaries by his “clergyman’s talk”, he now intends to describe his present (Christian) view of antiquarianism. The archaeological method is no less hateful to him now, and he thinks it ridiculous to adopt it in dealing with the relics of Norse antiquity, since he could never in any field of study regard mere handiwork as being of capital importance. He Wants to concentrate on myths, but, contrary to his original view, he will not cut out younger traditions, because in their turn they reflect a previous age. “What I love and appreciate now as ever, is certainly not knowledge as a memorial record, but the hidden kernel: the reason, development, and significance of it all; but I am no longer in such a hurry as before, as, after all we are not to be Einherjar (i. e., warriors in the Old Norse Paradise), and a system whose most flourishing period we cannot ascertain is, historically speaking, of no use to us then. . . ” It is not his aim to prevent the research of others, but he thinks most of it superficial owing to lack of thorough knowledge and influences from modern poetry, aesthetics, and philosophy.

G. makes a firm objection to any attempt at comparing details of one religion with details of another, e. g. Odin and Buddha, instead of describing one religion as a whole. By neglecting that, scholars have opened the field of mythology to jesters. It is better, like Schlözer and Rühs, to draw the line between the historical and fabulous ages at the establishment of the Church, and leave to the poets to haunt the fabulous age. He thinks this a deplorablesolution, though, as nothing is hidden that shall not some day be revealed, and recommends that each mythology be described as it was in its best period, so that comparisons be postponed until all mythologies have been described separately. Before solving the great problem of the origins and interrelations of the peoples it will be necessary to make a thorough study of the modern language and history of each nation as well as the ancient languages and to collect all (literary) remnants of antiquity. He ends by warning against mere hypotheses.