From: llama_nom

To: norse_course@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:14 AM

Subject: [norse_course] Illuga (1)--Comments for Patricia

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Patricia" <originalpatricia@......> wrote:
>
> Sá konungr hefir ráðit fyrir Danmörku, er Hringr hét. Hann var
> Skjaldarson, Dagssonar.
>
> That king who had ruled (over) Denmark was called Hringr

We assumed "has ruled (over)", but Alan has suggested "has authority over", ráð + the definite article -it.  He could be right, but at the moment I'm still inclining towards "has ruled", as the usual saga opening formula is the past tense of the verb ráða, thus: réð fyrir.  And compare the beginning of paragraph two: Sviði hefir karl nefndr verit.

 

> Skjaldar's son

The nominative is Skjöldr, same as the word for "shield".

>
> Þessi Skjöldr barðist við Hermann, sem segir
> í sögu þeira.
> This Skjoldrr did battle with Hermann as is told in those Sagas

í sögu þeira "in their saga", rather than í þeim sögum or í sögum þeim "in those sagas".  Dative plural is always -um.

> Hringr konungr var vitr maðr ok vinsæll ok mildr af fé
> ok inn mesti bardagamaðr.
> King Hringr was a wise and popular man and the Greatest Warrior

Yup, good emphatic capitalisation!  I think King Hringr would approve.  (See my comments on Grace´s translation about the non-literal nature of Old Norse superlatives, although that doesn't necessarily mean you should translate it ultra-prosaically "a very great warrior".  I suppose it's a stylistic thing and we have the same in English anyway, especially in fairy tales, so I'm sure we can cope.)

> Hann átti drottningu, er Sigríðr hét. Hún
> var dóttir Vilhjálms konungs ór Vallandi.
>
> He had a queen called Sigrið she was the daughter of King William of Holland (or maybe Belgium but I doubt Wales)

"Normany" is the current favourite, but apparently the name has also been applied to France or Italy, maybe Belgium and, yes, just possibly Wales, maybe..., but we don't have a confirmed sighting on that last one yet.

> Við henni átti hann þann
> son, er Sigurðr hét. Hann var allra manna fríðastr ok at íþróttum bezt búinn.
> With her he had a son who was called Sigurð. He was of all men the most handsome and skilled at Sports (or best at all sports)

The word is used for "sports" in the modern Scandinavian languages.  In Old Norse I think the word has a wider and vaguer use, no doubt including sports in Sigurðr's case, but also other skills and abilities generally, whatever would be expected of a man of his station.  It's often translated with the old-fashioned word "accomplishments", and seems to cover courtly refinements as well as sporting and martial prowess.  Male and female heroes of legendary sagas are typically said to possess all the íþróttir which it was títt "customary" (see under tíðr) for men or women to know "in those days".  But it can also be unusual even supernatural abilities, for example, Örvar-Oddr (Arrow-Odd) and his forfathers have the heretitary íþrótt of being able to hoist a sail always get a good sailing wind, even if the weather was calm--which is nice, but not really a sport.

>
> Hann var blíðr við vini sína, örr af fé, en grimmr sínum óvinum.
> He was (Kind/good) to his friends generous with his wealth and Grim (I like Grim) to his enemies

Oh yes.  Give me grim!  Footnote on grimness: grimmr can also on occasion be "cruel, savage, vicious, malevolent, hate-filled", e.g. it's used of Queen Ólöf in Hrólfs saga kraka, who is not merely implacable, but acts with malice aforethought (albeit with some rather grim provocation).  It can also be "fierce, ferocious, savage" like a wild animal (in contrast to English "grim" which to me suggests "stern, hard, implacably harsh" but in a quietly ominous way).  So, generally "inclined to do harm".  But these mostly sound very negative qualities to us, which is why I think "grim" works well here, because we can imagine it's possible to be justifiably "grim" but not justifiably "cruel".  grimmr also overlaps with our "grim" applied to things that are tough to experience: "severe, hard, harsh", like a hard battle, a severe verdict, bitter tears, etc.

> Sviði hefir karl nefndr verit. Hann átti eitt garðshorn, harðla skammt frá konungshöllunni.
>
> Sviði was a man with a place in the Stronghold (or the Keep) hardly far from the Kings (own) Hall

Literally: "S. has a man (of common birth) named been" (!)--or "there has been a man named S."--but, to make it idiomatic English, we need (as you've done) to dispense with a verb or two: "there was a commoner named Sviði", or something like that.  We haven't found a proper definition of garðrhorn yet, but see my post on said topic for some clues.

> Hann átti kerlingu, er hét Hildr. Við
> henni átti hann einn son, er Illugi hét.
>
> He had a woman who was called Hilda, with her he had a son who was called Illugi

Or "a wife"...  See my comments on Grace's translation re. karl and kerling.

>
> Hann var mikill vexti ok
> sterkr at afli, fimr var hann á alla leika.
>
> He was big in person, mighty, strong and althletic & agiile

Good rephrasing.  More literally perhaps: "He was big/great [in respect of] physical size, powerful in strength; he was agile in all sports/games."  But the formulaic semantic redundancies in the Norse "big in size, strong in strength" could easily end up sounding just silly in English, so I think you're quite justified to put it into something a bit more idiomatic.

 

>
> Átti Sigurðr marga leiksveina, ok bar hann langt af þeim, hvat sem þeir skyldu reyna,
> Sigurð had many playmates (but clearly surpassed them all) what ever they tried

You're spot on there in spite of The Brackets of Uncertainty.  He "clearly surpassed them", or "he surpassed them by far".

>
> en Illugi vann hann í öllu.
> but Illugi was better in all things

I think this is literally: "but Illugi beat him in all things (at everything)", which I guess amounts to the same.

> Ok svá kom, at þeir sórust í stallbræðralag, ok skyldi hvárr annars hefna,
> And it happened (?came about) that they swore a bond to each other that the (must/should) avenge each other

Yes, "it happened that...", "it came to pass that...", see Zoega koma (2).

 

> ef þeir væri með vápnum vegnir.

> If they were attacked with Weapons

"if they were (i.e. if one of them was) slain with weapons" (See my comments on Alan's translation).

>
> Var nú allkært þeira á milli.

"there was now great friendship between them", "they got on marvelously".  (Lit. "it was now very friendly between them.")

>
> It will be seen that I have continued my habit of bracketting what I am unsure of, and I wonder if weapons were visualised as the only Manly means of Fighting, was a fist-fight considered low class, and poison or strangling considered unmanly

I wondered about this too--see my comments to Grace.  On balance, I reckon it's just a sort of oath-taking legalistic formula, með vápnum vegnir "slain with weapons", with a little alliteration to make it sound more solemn and ritualistic like "to have and to hold".

> I am sorry I took so long, and I can only say I vow I did not peek at other peoples work, for that would not be the way to learn
> WHEW!!!
> Patricia

I think it's not so much you being slow, Patricia, as these others being preternaturally fast this time.  Well done, anyway!  If I haven't mentioned anything, assume I agree.  I like the way even a little chapter like this that seems so simple can turn up all sorts of curiosities.

Llama Nom