Snorri's Edda as a Source

Snorri Sturluson is our richest source for Old Norse mythology, but his Christian learning, his aesthetic purposes, and his euhemeristic frame raise fundamental questions about the reliability of his testimony.

The euhemeristic frame

Snorri opens Gylfaginning with a narrative in which the gods were in reality Asian kings from Troy whose memory idolatry transformed into divine worship. This euhemeristic interpretation, drawn from classical tradition via medieval Latin learning, allowed Snorri to write about the pagan gods without professing belief in them. Anthony Faulkes has shown how carefully considered this frame is as a rhetorical strategy.

The consequence is that Snorri presents mythology on two levels simultaneously: as literary fiction (Gylfi's encounter with the gods) and as historical explanation (the gods were really humans). What constitutes 'authentic' pre-Christian tradition and what is Snorri's own construction is often impossible to determine without comparative source material.

Margaret Clunies Ross has argued that Snorri is a creative theologian rather than a passive compiler. His systematization of cosmology in Gylfaginning, with its precise data about numbers and sequences, lacks direct parallels in the Eddic poems and may partly reflect his own intellectual interests rather than a coherent pre-Christian worldview.

Editorial choices and the witness of silence

Snorri cites Eddic poems as evidence for his statements, but he selects his quotations, and his selection reflects the purpose of writing a textbook on skaldic poetry. Skáldskaparmál is above all a catalogue of kennings, and the stories Snorri tells are meant to explain the origins of those kennings. This means that stories that generated many kennings are well represented, while others may have been omitted.

It is equally important to consider what Snorri does not recount. The roles of goddesses, for instance the relationship between the Frigg and Freyja figures, are treated summarily compared to the adventures of Odin and Thor. This skewing may reflect the gender hierarchies of Old Icelandic society rather than any pre-Christian tendency.

Comparison with Saxon and Danish Christian writers such as Saxo Grammaticus and Adam of Bremen shows that a richer mythological repertoire existed than Snorri records. Saxo tells variants of stories Snorri knows but presents differently. No single source captures the whole tradition.

Snorri as template and as filter

Snorri's Edda has paradoxically shaped the modern image of Old Norse mythology more than any other source. Stories that lack support in the Eddic poems, such as the detailed account of Ragnarök in Gylfaginning, have become standard versions. Distinguishing 'Snorri's mythology' from 'Old Norse mythology' is a methodological challenge every scholar must address.

Anthony Faulkes's commented edition of the Edda (1982-1998) and his work on the glossary and commentary have given scholars tools for engaging critically with Snorri. He notes that Snorri had access to sources we lack, which means his information can sometimes be well-founded even when no parallel is attested.

The most defensible method is to use Snorri as a first guide who must always be confronted with the Eddic poems, with skaldic verse, and with archaeological and place-name evidence. Snorri deserves neither blind trust nor systematic suspicion.