Hail Hawk!
And thanks for sending me a sample of one of the verses of
Krákumál! I am glad you are now taking up the question here
on the list, because at first I did not quite know what to say.
:)
First of all, I thought your word-explanations were
quite good.
Second, you asked if I liked the poem, and that is what
I needed some time answering.
As part of that process I first tried to do some reading about
the poem (after having first studied your translation and
word-explanations), and I also tried to locate a copy of
all the verses.
To find the complete poem (which includes 29 verses!)
I first went to Ragnar Lodbrok's saga, in whatever
translations I might have it handy. It soon turned out,
however, that it wasn't there! Finally I even managed
to consult Guðny Jónsson's edition (it's on the net:
please go to Zoe Borowsky's web page, where you will
find a nearly error-free net-version. The other net-
versions I've seen are so full of typos, that I wouldn't
hesitate calling them useless for study purposes);
but as far as I could determine, it wasn't there either.
(that is: I couldn't find the 29 verses of Krákumál at
the end of Ragnar Lodbrok's saga).
I finally did find it, of course, but only in specialized
works on skaldic poetry - works which most people probably
do not have access to.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ Some comments on the first line:
All 29 verses begin with the same sentence:
"We swung our swords! -- in Haukur's rendering.
Here I'd like to interject that the Old Norse text,
that I must quote from memory, of this 1st line ran
something like this:
"Hjuggum vér með sverði"
At this point I'd like to make use if the opportunity to
comment the line:
vér = personal pronoun, 1st person plural = "we"
(= the real plural, not the dualis)
Hjuggum = preteritum (past tense) 1st person plural of
h@... = to chop, as with an axe.
með = preposition "with" -- Q: What do you see as the
main difference in Old Norse, between með and við?
Both propositions með and við rule the dative as
well as the accusative, though I have the impression
that it "usually" is dative. Cf. German "mit" that
always takes the dative.
sverði = dative singular of sverðr (=neutr.) It is dative
because it is linked to the verb h@... as its
indirect object, where the dative-preposition með
acts as the link.
This would then, if memory serves me right, give the
following German translation of the 1st line:
"Hauten wir mit Schwert"
which may not even be correct! And could probably
be improved. For example:
"Mit Schwerte schlugen wir"!
(sounds better, and also has alliteration on "s". I hope
someone will help find a good as well as correct German translation.)
Also: maybe it actually was:
"Hjuggum vér með hj@..."
which would give alliteration on "h".
hj@... (masc.) = sword, hj@... = singular dative.
Incidentally, this also brings us to the "tickets in their
pockets" example, which is the example we learned in school
for this particular feature of English, where the numerus
of "ticket" as well as "pocket" has to match the numerus
of "child". However, in Norwegian you say:
"Vi hadde bilettene i lomma" (= literally, "We had the tickets
in the pocket"). In German maybe "Die Kinder hatten
ihre Fahrkarten in der Tasche." I hope we can discuss this
phenomenon. For example, how you say it in Icelandic, Old
Norse, etc.. (and maybe my examples weren't even correct!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then about the name: Why is the poem called "Krákumál"?
Obviously it is from "kráka" (=feminine noun) = crow.
And so it means "The crow's poem". In Ragnar Lodbrok's
saga, there is also a "Kráka", who is Ragnar Lodbrok's
second wife -- the one who had "to meet him naked and
yet not undressed" : she then chose to wear only a
fishnet at their first meeting, and let her long
hair cover the rest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then to the question as to whether I liked the poem:
A tricky question, because if I am to be quite honest,
the answer is that I do not immediately understand such
poetry. Though I must confess that after reading Haukur's
excellent translation, its content was clear to me.
And yet: in the original Old Norse, the sentences are
perhaps a bit on the long side with a jumbled word order
to allow an immediate grasp of each sentence in Old Norse,
even after I have studied the individual words and their
meanings, as well as how they are linked together by means
of gender, person, numerus and case!
What about the theme then? Hmm.. Those are definitely
the tough guys! And I must confess that such poetry
can give a strong feeling of exhileration, if read
at the right time -- for example in times of war,
or by torchlight in the trenches before dawn, when
awaiting the trumpet signal for the attack.
Or even in a normal day to day situation of city
life, where you feel others may be putting you down
in some sense -- for it helps us remember that we are
all heroes at heart.
It is not the first time I have met with such imagery
either, for it abounds in sagas such as Egil's saga,
for example.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I always liked the philosophical approach, that perhaps
a man's life is not "wasted" if his body is transported
to heaven by the diligent ravens, even if it is only
piecemeal! For, who knows, perhaps his body is somehow
magically reconstituted up there, somewhere in the big blue
sky.
Nevertheless, the question does come up, whether such
poetry is genuine "viking poetry", since the scholars
believe it was composed only some time in the 13th
century, whereas the Viking Age proper, is usually put
to the 9th and the 10th centuries. I should therefore
find it interesting to look for similar poems that are
datable to the viking centuries. That only as an aside,
something we can return to.
All in all, I'd say the poem gives the impression of
consisting of a rational series of Old Norse sentences,
where each sentence is more or less directly translatable
into the modern language of our choice, without one
running into too many "unknown X-es", i.e. words whose
archaic meanings are unknown even to scholars, or overloaded
with masses of bizarre kennings, that require the reader
to know Rudolf Meissner's writings by heart in order to
be able to get a shot at the concealed meanings.
With best regards
Keth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For "vitnir" m. = wolf, see:
Vafþruþnismól 53, 4:
"Ulfr gleypa mun Alf@þr, þess mun Víþarr vreka;
kalda kjapta hann klyfja mun vitnis vígi at".
Grimnismól 23, 10:
800 einheriar exit from one door,
"þás þeir fara viþ vitni vega".
Fragments 17, 4:
"Þeir (Gunnar ok H@...) tóku orm einn ok af
vargsholdi ok létu sjóþa ok gáfu honum (Gotþormi) at
eta, sem skáldit kvaþ:
Sumir viþfisk tóku, sumir vitnishræ skífþu,
sumir Gotþormi g@... gera hold
viþ mungáti ok marga hluti
aþra í tyfrum ..........."
--- In
norse_course@egroups.com, Haukur Thorgeirsson <haukurth@...>
wrote:
> Eysteinn asked:
>
> 1. Why KRÁKUMÁL?
>
> My answer:
>
> Because it's my favorite poem! No, really, I like its rhythm,
language and
> "morals".
> But that's not the only reason. Krákumál has the important
characteristics
> of skaldic
> poetry without being quite as obscure as most of it is. Usually the
> word-order is
> understandable and the kennings are simple and well chosen.
>
> Krákumál was a popular poem in the 19th century but has long since
fallen
> out of
> fashion. It is the source of some interesting misconceptions about
vikings
> including the infamous drinking from skulls...
>
>
> 2. What is "grafvitnis morð"?
>
> My answer:
>
> That would be "the murder of the dig-wulf" with "dig-wulf" meaning
serpent.
> (I seem to remember you understanding "vitnir" in another way but
that
> shouldn't
> change the meaning of "grafvitnir".) The "murder of the serpent" is
then,
> Ragnarr's
> slaying of the ling-worm.
>
> Regards,
> Haukur