People,

I can't say I'm surprised to hear a howl of ingnorance
from that particular corner. For those of you not in
the know, Mr. Radford is an American lawyer who has never
read a word of Old Norse in his life, for the obvious reason
that English is the only language he has ever understood,
but for some strange reason he seems to view himself as
an expert on all things Old Norse. What's worse - a lot
of people actually think he is, and they haven't even read
his magnificent essay on "hólmgangr", copies of which are
currently circulating through the Departments of Icelandic
and History at the University of Iceland, to the great mirth
and merriment of all its readers. Let me only say that in the
department of hilarious blunders, Mr Radford is second only
to his idol, Ms Motz.

Haukur wouldn't thank me for replying to any more of Mr
Radford's pathetic, pretentious and transparent attempts
at slinging mud in my face, so this will be my only word
on the matter. Mr. Radford is an old pro at such practices,
and I wouldn't dream of competing with him in this arena,
which he has carved out for himself on the Internet, where
he receives daily sacrifices from the American "Asatruar"
community.

For those who are interested in the real truth of the matter
at hand, you will find the full stanza (misquoted and misread
by "scholar" Motz) printed below, as published in the ÍF edition
of Droplaugarsona saga (ÍF, Vol XI, p. 167). This edition also
has detailed commentary on the stanza (on the same page). I'm
sure that we would all be delighted to have Mr. Radford (an
"actual" scholar) show us exactly how and why this commentary is
erroneous, and what the stanza *actually* means, according to his
(and his idol's) expertise. Would you, Mr. Radford? Please?

I agree with Mr. Radford that it was really sloppy of the
editors of ANF to print this nonsense by Motz. But unfortunately
such sloppiness is not uncommon these days among Old Norse
scholars, particularly in the USA, for the simple reason that
academic standards in this field have deteriorated drastically
during the last 50 years or so. Perhaps the editors simply couldn't
be bothered to correct Motz' errors any more - she was notoriously
inept at Old Norse linguistics, and I've heard she wasn't overfond
of having it pointed out to her.

But here's the stanza, as I promised, and I'm sure we're all
waiting with bated breath to witness Mr. Radford's interpretation.
Show us "the sibyl's wave", Rorik! There's a good boy ....

Ák í mörk, es myrkvir
miðleggs daga tveggja,
fram berk heið í hljóði
'hraunn', argspæing margan,
at mótstafir Meita
myni, menn, þeirs styr vinna,
hildarbörrum hjarra
hrælækjar mik sækja.

Oh, and Rorik, - your "friend" Jesse says hi. He is currently
in Iceland, doing some archaeological work and working on his
new translation of Gylfaginning, and regularly "stops by my
shop" to get a few points "straightened out", as you so quaintly
put it. I've shown him a selection of your writings on the
Internet, and he thinks you picked the correct profession.

Regards
Eysteinn

--- In norse_course@..., rorik@... wrote:
> --- In norse_course@..., "Eysteinn Bjornsson" <eysteinn@...>
wrote:
> >
> > So, one more example of an academic who slept through his Old
> > Norse grammar classes, I'm afraid. There isn't, and never was,
> > such a kenning for the mead as "wave of the sibyl Heiðr". This
> > ludicrous idea is simply a figment of the fertile imagination
> > of an poorly qualified academic with a bee in her bonnet. But
> > unfortunately that doesn't prevent it from being flogged as
> > "Old Norse scholarship" in certain circles.
>
>
> Gee, I can't understand how neither Professor Motz nor the editors
of
> Arkiv för nordisk filologi--perhaps the foremost academic journal
in
> its field, where this piece was published--thought to stop by your
> shop and get themselves straightened out. Or who knows, maybe
> scholarship just looks different to actual scholars. LOL!
>
> regards,
> rorik