Ok, rather than accept any of the various complex explantions of the
two 'cryptic' verses 73 & 74 (tveir ró eins heriar & nótt verþr
feginn), explaining away the difficulties in meter and content in an
otherwise transparant, easy-to-understand section on wealth and
death, I will move them out of the Gnomic section altogether,
allowing the section to close with 80 (þat es reynt). This is the
natural closing ('þat es þá reynt: es þú at rúnum spyrr : hinum
reginkunnum : þeims gørþu ginnregin : ok fáþi fimbulþulr : þá hefir
hann batst ef hann þegir' - þú would probably be better here
than 'hann', but that at another time) - then is is tried when you
about runes ask of the divine (ones), those (runes) which the
holy/very gods make and the mighty þulr (Óðinn) painted - then has he
(you) the best if he(you) remain silent. Ok, silence at this point.
Enough questions to the mighty þulr, enough advice given. Cut here
and we get one coherant gnomic section under ljóðaháttr, mostly full-
but some half-verses. Folk can have their own opinions on ideal
order hereto, etc.. I can, as one voice in the academic crowd, just
take it as it is, provided only a clean text and easy-to-use
numbering system. Having made my cut here, I will just leave verses
81-83 (at kveldi skal dag leyfa - viþr eld skal ol drekka) where
they are, letting them form a kind a tail-off to the gnomic section,
even with the metrical incontinuity. 81-83 belongs together, and the
only change I would make here is cutting 82 into 2 málaháttr verses
(beginning í vindi skal viþ hoggva & á skip skal skriþar orka), each
with 4 lines against 81 & 83's 6 each. While ideally this section
could just be called its own section, I think it to short to call a
complete section, given the length of the others. The suggestion has
been made to me (in private correspendence) that the next section be
allowed to begin with 81-83, as these are proverbial (there is even
málaháttr - the meter of many málshættir 'proverbs'), and the next
section will be just that, but I am just suggesting that they remain
here as a kind of tail-of and lead-in to the next section, which I
begin thus:
tveir ró eins heriar : (hooked-e's)
tunga es hofuþs bani |01|
es mér í heþinn hvern : (hooked-e in 'hvern')
handar véni |02| (hooked-é in 'véni)
nótt verþr feginn : (hooked-ó & e in 'feginn')
sás nesti trúir |03|
skammar ró skips ráar |04|
hverf es haustgríma |05|
fiolþ of viþrir : (hooked-o)
á fimm dogum : (hooked-o)
en meir á mánaþi |06| (hooked-e's)
The numbering here reflects my reading of these 2 'cryptic'
or 'incomplete' verses as a list of proverbs. Readers can read the
many, varied and complex interpretations of these 2 'verses' for
themselves and, I think, likely come to the same conclusion that I
have above. (note: my use of ':' as the sole punctuation is based on
10th century runic writing, and I use it only to form a single line
of poetry - thus, you can print it as verse or prose; the numbering
follows the Hindu textual tradition, and we get modern numbers from
them anyway - this breaks with the Judeo-Christian numbering system,
but then so does Hinduism altogether, and Hávamál is neither). The
proverbs are all metrical, conforming either to 1)a málaháttr-pair
(such as proverb 1 or 2 above, which can, technically, be read as a
metrical verse, if not in content) or 2)a line 1-2 ljóðaháttr-pair
(as in 3 above - and, yes, 3plus4 above=one technical ljóðaháttr
half-verse, if not in content) or 3)a single málaháttr-line (as in 4
or 5 above), a 'technical proverb in proverbial measure', which does
show alliteration and is metrically = to line 3 or 6 in ljóðaháttr),
even if technically a málaháttr one-liner or 4)a ljóðaháttr half-
verse (as in 6 above), presenting proverb. These are the types shown
above. Seen as proverbs, these lines make a lot more sense than as
broken, incomplete or cryptic verses in an otherwise transparent HM
gnomic section. So, here I have made my cut, a small cut, moving 73-
74 to form its own section. I suppose that I am getting away with
murder, in a sense, as many scholars of HM would have been cutting,
pasting and rearranging their way through HM to this point, where I
simply move 73-74 and have the audacity to call it a section. Well,
I think the old HM-concept of the lost proverbial section is correct
(some older HM-scholars, including FJ, went into proverbial studies
after spending enough time on HM - rightly so, I think). I think the
above shows us what the proverbial section would have largely looked
like in ancient oral redactions - that is to say, a raw list in the
metrical types outlined above. For memory's sake, rememberers might
have did things like 1) combine a 1-2 ljóðaháttr proverb with a 1-
liner in málaháttr, making it (while irrational as a verse)
metrically the same as a half verse of ljóðaháttr, or 2) combine 2
málaháttr one-liners to form a málaháttr-couplet, either by a)
content or b) alliteration:
tveir ró eins heriar:
tunga es hofuþs bani - a) alliteration (otherwise, explain it ;)
two are of the same army
the tongue is the heads bane
glø'pr es orþa verstr :
tunga hofuþs bani - b) content (here from the West Gautish Laws)
the crime of words is the worst
the tongue the heads bane
I suppose that the numbering above can be worked out in a number of
ways, and I hardly stand fast with it as the only possibility, but
the point stands that these are proverbs and not normal verses. In
fact, its reads a lot like the list of Jesus-sayings in the Gospel
of Thomas, which has no story-line, just a list, or the sayings of
Solomon (traditionally all Solomon's, but the entire folk-wisdom and
folk-philosophy of the ancient Jewish folk on his mouth) - this is,
of course, how the ancient Norse would have treated proverbs of old
and 'unknown' providence, and of the metrical types outlined above.
I say 'unknown' because saga-writers (and law-manuscript writers -
see above) fail to give the 'author' of many archaic proverbs in the
Odinic metrical types (as shown above) while they quote them,
leaving the reader to assume that they were 1) simply invented by
the writer himself or 2) actually composed by the story-character
quoting them or 3) a legal decree (about this, quotes from Christian
scripture are common in Western law books even down to modern times,
as citing the God of the legal subject in support of a given law is
a very good way to get him to follow it). While medeaval Christian
writers may not have wished to attribute their inherited proverbial
gems to the 'evil' and 'false' God Óðinn, whom was demonized by
radicals of the Judeo-Christian persuasion, the Norse themselves
would have had it otherwise - in fact, to the contrary. The survival
of HM in CR proves this point, as on a few occasions we see verses
or lines from CR's HM quoted in saga or law, but _without citing the
traditional author_. Thus, had not CR survived, anyone suggesting
that an ancient proverb in ljóðaháttr 1-2 (such as 'liggiandi ulfr :
lér of getrat' in Eyrbyggia Saga), or in any of the above and also
found in saga or law, was originally part of a long and sectioned
wisdom-work of the Norse God Óðinn in the Norse tradition, given to
men by their maker as a kind of guide-to-life, would have been taken
as stone-crazy. Imagine the arguments against this wild idea ;) Of
course, chance had it the other way - about where the ancient jewels
of this type really belong, see above. In making my cut here, I am
not cutting out, but cutting open and showing where the precious
jewels can logically be placed, and according to what rules (see
above), and without defacing CR. Thoughts welcome. More later.