Dan,

Dronke's version of Hávamál has still not been published, so
I cannot say, really. I doubt Vol IV of her work will see light
any time soon, but Clive Tolley is working on it with her, so
hopefully we won't have to wait 30 years, like with Vol II. If
the translations in Vols I - II are anything to go by, at least
we will finally have a (mostly) reliable translation.

Compared to Völuspá, Hávamál is a virtually TEEMING with textual
enigmas, so I find it difficult to imagine that Larrington's
translation of it is any better than her Völuspá (even though
the translator claims that "the poetry is not difficult to
understand" (sic!)). I haven't been through the whole thing
with a nitpicker's magnifying glass, andI shudder at the very
thought of doing so. Going through the whole of Völuspá in this
manner was a gruelling labour, even if I only did part of the real
work myself.

If you are studying Hávamál, I recommend David Evans' edition.
He doesn't translate, but the textual notes are really thorough,
and bring together most of the relevant scholarship. Faulkes'
glossary is also really helpful to the student.

> I still think CL´s translation is one of the most accessible and
> relatively accurate versions around ...

How can this translation be said to be "relatively accurate"?

> > Ek man jötna I, born of giants,
> > ÁR UM BORNA remember very early
> > þá er FORÐUM mik those who nurtured
> > fædda höfðu. me then.

Or this one:

> > Skuld helt skildi, Skuld held one shield,
> > en Skögul ÖNNUR Skögul another

Or this:

> > Baldrs bróðir var Baldr's brother was
> > of borinn SNEMMA, born very quickly

Or this:

> > Fyllisk fjörvi The corpses of
> > feigra manna, doomed men fall,

... just to take a few examples. It seems to me that most of this
garbage is just about as "accurate" as an attempt by a less than
average second-year student in "Íslenska fyrir erlenda stúdenta" at
the U. of Ice.

May I recommend that you read the Saga-Book review of Larrington's
translation, by Edward Pettit and John Porter? Among other things,
they said:

"A detailed examination of her translation unfortunately shows it to
be riddled with basic errors and stylistic infelicities ..."

And:

"It is regrettable that Oxford University Press should lend its name
to a work of such deficient scholarship, still more regrettable that
as a result many new readers will place their trust in its accuracy."

I share these regrets, and believe the unwary reader needs to be
told about them. If you choose to place your trust in Larrington's
"relative accuracy", and recommend it to others on the basis of
this trust, this is, of course, your own business, and none of mine.

Regards, and good luck with your translation!
Pelle