Re: Bugge vs Other

Well, you can also look at Svend Grundtvig's edition.
He has arranged things in a way that many find quite logical.
I have looked at many editions, but none I find with such
concise and relevant foot notes as Bugge. I do not have a copy
on my desk right now, but I believe he follows the common custom
of listing variant readings at the bottom of each page.


The modern Icelandic edition may not be a bad idea.
But you then ought to be sufficiently fluent in
Icelandic to be able to read the footnotes.
In Bugge the footnotes are in Norwegian, and Grundtvig
has them in Danish. I mean, whatever you read, it is
okay, as long as you feel you are progressing in your
understanding of things.

To the Rydberg fans out there, I'd like to remark
that Fridtjof Nansen also had studied his work on
Germanic Mythology, and quotes him.


Cheers
Xigung



--- Lazarus wrote:

> Bugge did not use a single MSS for his edition. That's what
> interests/concerns me.
>
> I own a copy of the Konungsbok, and have
> been working with that, but in comparison with Bugge, I notice that some
> stanzas are exchanged with others. As the literal meaning of the

text is of

> interest to me, I'd like to make the comparison myself to examine

why Bugge

> chose the stanzas he did. I'm curious to know what the exchange

rate is and

> how much is Konungsbok and how much from the others. I read the

notes from

> Mal of Menning's last edition of Eddukvaeda (Gisli Sigurdsson) but

that is

> just a general overview. Not a line by line comparison.
>
> If every edition (I said IF) of modern the 'Poetic Edda' is hinged

on Bugge,

> then I'd like to know that. If there are other versions out there,

I'd like

> to know that too.
>
> -Laz
>
>

> >
> > If you look at the (poetic) Edda edition from before 1867,
> > you will see a big difference compared with Bugge.
> > Bugge has a very extensive apparatus, and tries
> > to keep the original spelling of the Mss.
> >
> > I do not think a similar edition was ever created
> > after 1867, and so it is still standard reference.
> >
> > (if you know of any, I should be interested to hear about it)
>
> >
> > --- Lazarus wrote:
> > >
> > > Can anyone explain definitively why Bugge's compilation of the
> > "Poetic" Edda
> > > is more valuable than others? I know that it is a compilation of

several

> > > different sources and I have a copy of his and of the sources,

but I was

> > > wondering if there was another compiled version that is

comparable or

> > > possibly better to begin my own translation (for my own use -

not for

> > > publication)?