Hej Keth,

>where the absence of the sought form "kjóla" is apparent. Hence the

meaning cannot be "keel" and we must settle for the word "kjóll" (m.) that
means "ship", which is not listed in the standard vocabularies. However, if
I assume an assimilated final -r (-lr -> -ll), I shall be able to relate it
to a strong masc. a-type:

So the trasnlation of Motz is automatically ruled out as she renders this
"Lord of Keels". "Keels" of course is not possible, but easily mistaken for
"Ships" based on the declenation. As you may know, Lotte Motz built her
entire theory of Thor as a Ship-god around this phrase, and besides
misinterpreting the reference to Hymir also mistranslated the word as
kjóla, keel, rather than kjóll, ship, repeating the error of Benjamin
Thorpe a century before. It's amusing to hear people claim that published
scholars are well-versed in the history of their fields when in fact it is
not hard to demonstrate that they are not. Reading her work, this does not
surprise me at all. Yet we see it recommended by the uninformed to Asatruar
as "important" work in the field.

> The usual interpretation of the stanza does seem to leave something to be

desired. I can imagine that Hymir tested how well Thor could row. But he
found the boat rocked so much while Thor was rowing that he became
scared.

As you note, the English versions are very unsatisfactory and have become
so engrained now that scholars feel confident enough to build fantasy-
castles on them. This says something about the poor nature of post-modern
Eddaic scholarship in English, doesn't it?

>Fair enough. You would like to have an Icelander's opinion. But I think it

strange that you reject what I said merely on the grounds of nationality,
rather than on whether my explanation made sense. I tried to give some
possibilities, not opinions.

I'm sorry if I sounded short, I was in a hurry this morning to get to work.
I initially read your comments re-posted on another list. Reading the
initial paragraphs of your post, I failed to see the value of speculations
on a lacuna, and a "missing" indication of the speaker. I feel such
speculation only clouds the issue at hand, and gives the "Gullveig-Heid's"
of the world (you know, the witch from Voluspa who once burned, has a nasty
habit of reappearing time and again for another burning, ad nauseum) what
they feel is ammunition to repost on such lists as Holmgang. Of course, you
cannot be responsible for the actions of such a creature.

The matter of a lacana is of little relevance since there is no evidence of
a lacuna such as a missing leaf or a damaged manuscript. There is little
difference between the two copies. Any such discussion is therefore
speculative and tangential. In my experience scholars propose a lacuna when
they cannot understand something as written, as a means of "making sense"
of it. In this case, the variant in Snorri is used to justify such a lacuna
although Snorri likely did not know this poem at all.

Also the matter of the "missing" words "Hymir said" is also a non-issue
since the speaker of lines of dialogue is often not noted in such poems.
The indication of speaker was also not likely a part of these poems in the
oral tradition, but again that's a minor side issue of little substance.
Thus, I found it strange that you lead off with those observations. This
of course led others to feel there was something to be doubted regarding
the Icelandic understanding of the passage, when in reality, no such doubts
exist.

>I think you are making a terrible mistake in posing various nations

against each other in this way.

I don't look on it as pitting one nation against another, I've just seen
enough speculation on the meaning of the verse by non-Icelandic speakers
that I have become weary of these various and variant views. They range
from the informed to the absurd. At this point, I'm simply interested in
the probabilities rather than the possibilities. I was in no way attempting
to impede your learning. I find it significant that the Icelandic scholars
and the English scholars are 180 degrees apart on this issue. I think it is
important to understand why. There are those now taking sides, and doubting
that a "modern" Icelander could be proficent in "Old Icelandic" without
intensive study and training, and therefore doubting the opinions of the
recent (as well as past) Icelandic scholarship, using citations from
English translators as evidence. This position of course is bred from
ignorance of the language itself.

Wassail, William





"The art of poetry is implication"
Cecil Wood, Germanic Review v. 33, no. 4, Dec. 1958.