Here is my answer to William, that I wrote some days ago.
Sorry for the delay in sending!

William wrote :

>This says something about the poor nature of post-modern
>Eddaic scholarship in English, doesn't it?

By post-modern you refer to the method of de-construction ?
Sounds interesting. I hope your low opinion does not include
such scholars as Ursula Dronke. From what little I
have read of her "Poetic Edda", I have a favorable
impression.

>they feel is ammunition to repost on such lists as Holmgang. Of course, you
>cannot be responsible for the actions of such a creature.

Is it a list you recommend ?

>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.

Have you had a chance to take a look at them ?
They are called Codex regius nr. 2365 4° (parchment) and
Codex Arnamagnæus nr. 748, 4°, also parchment.
The lacunae before and after the disputed stanza
are not indicated in cod.R. and in cod.A. as far as I am
able to tell from the summary description I have.
The lacuna *before* the stanza was introduced (I think)
by Gudbrand Vigfusson in Corpus Poeicum Boreale (1883) as well
as by Sijmonds in 1888. The lacuna *after* was introduced
by Sven Grundtvig in 1874, as well as by Hildebrand in 1876 and
Sijmonds in 1888. In many editions lacunae are indicated
by a row of dots or some such device. You often see them in
the connection with stanzas that have fewer lines than
the other stanzas of the same poem. In the present case
most stanzas seem to consist of 8 lines, which is also
the case with the present stanza nr. 19 that we are discussing.
At least, that is the way it appears in Sophus Bugge's edition
of 1867, who in general stays faithful to the various Ms.
editions ("R" and "A" in this case), and indicates it in
his extensive apparatus of notes, whenever he introduces
a small change, such as for example adding "Hymir qvaþ:"
in the middle of stanza 19:

19. Bravt af þióri
þurs ráþbani
hatv´n ofan
horna tveGGia.
Hymir qvaþ:
"VERc þiccia þin
vERri myclo,
kiola valdi!
eNN þv kyRR sitIR."
{ I have replaced the cursive letters by
upper case, because my font lacks the former }
As you see, adding "Hymir qvaþ:" actually introduces a 9th line.
What Gudbrand Vigfusson must have done in 1883, is to have postulated
(or hypothesized) a lacuna right in the middle of stanza 19,
just before the place where Bugge inserted "Hymir qvaþ:".
Of course Eysteinn is right when he says that "Verc þin"
may actually refer to Thor's tearing off the bull's head (i.e."braut af")
in the first part of stanza 19. If that is the case, there is no need
to assume a lacuna there. Others have however thought that "verc þin"
refers to Thor's rowing, which may perhaps also be seen as "work".
Bugge's remarks to verse 19 is to refer to Finn Magnusson who has stated
that "noget mangle" (something is missing) between verses 19 and 20;
i.e. the hypothesis of a lacuna *after* verse 19. Bugge then goes on
to remark that Snorri in his prose Edda must have used another source
for this myth than Hymiskviþa. And it is indeed Snorri who here
fills in some details about how Hymir and Thor took out to sea in order
to go fishing:
"Hymir had now launched the boat. Thor went aboard and took his seat
in the well of the boat, took two oars and rowed. [...] Hymir was
rowing forward in the boat and the rowing progressed fast."
It is in this connection of some importantance to remark that on
these old ship types, the "hals-kar" (Hymir sat in the boat's "hals"
or "neck") was the second in command, whereas the seat above the
"austrróm" (bailing room = 2nd room from aft or "astern") was the place
of he who was in command of the ship. In this way, the information
about where they both sat aboard the ship, may throw some light
about the meaning of the term "kjóla valdi" (i.e. the ship master)
and who it applies to.

>Any such discussion is therefore speculative and tangential.

Speculative for sure, in as much as it involves thinking.
Tangential perhaps in the sense that it "touches on" the matter
at hand. But the best description is simply to say: "Hey, there
was apparently a jump in the story here."

>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.

No, but he knew the myth. And in connection with the stanza under
discussion, he is able to fill in with many details.

>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

^^^^^^
It is still of interest.

>oral tradition, but again that's a minor side issue of little substance.

^^^^ ^^^^^
I think it is of interest to know who speaks.

>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. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^

Lacunae were suggested by Gudbrand Vigfusson as well as Finn Magnusson.
To me this shows that everything was not entirely clear to everyone
who looked into the matter.

And besides, if it was a case of "no doubt", why would *all* Englishmen
get it wrong. That seems like a tall story to me.

>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.

If someones view about possible interpretations are widely quoted
in scholarly publications, it shows that the scholars themselves
consider it relevant.

>They range
>from the informed to the absurd. At this point, I'm simply interested in
>the probabilities rather than the possibilities.

^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But probability is intimately connected with possibility - in fact it is
absurd to estimate "probabilities" without having a good survey of
possibilities. Sure, a lot can be done with intuition, but that is often
not enough when it comes to communicating the results. At least I prefer
to read authors who explain things, and not such as simply say "It is like
this. Period."

>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.

Maybe it was just a haphazard case that bears no statistical
significance.

>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.

That's why we should all be grateful to Haukur and Oskar!

Keth