> > --- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, Haukur Þorgeirsson
> > <haukurth@...> wrote:
> >
> > > "Golli Gautrekr þótti
> > > góðr illr kyni þjóðar,
> > > saddr varð svanr, en hræddisk
> > > seint, skjótt, konungr, Þróttar."

--- In norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "llama_nom" <600cell@...>
wrote:

>
> Right, I´ve just had some expert assistance on this one, so here's

a

> revised interpretation in light of that:
>
> LINES 1 & 2. The people thought Gautrek good, [but] bad to gold
> [that is, he destroyed/wasted/diminished gold by giving it away
> generously].
> LINES 3 & 4. Odin's swan got full fast. The king was slow to

fear.


Hello all,

High time for a further belated revision of my attempts at this
verse. Thanks to everyone who's helped me with this; here's a
summary of what I've been told. Apparently from a grammatical point
of view, either of the following is possible:

(1) "Gautrek, [who was] bad to gold [=generous], was thought good by
his people"
(2) "Good Gautrek was thought bad to gold [considered generous] by
his people"

The concensus seems to be that (2) is more likely because it's more
meaningful. But it could be that the ambiguity is deliberate.

The juxtaposing of opposites (góðr illr "good, bad"; seint
skjótt "slowly, quickly") is a device Snorri calls 'refhvörf' in
Háttatal--in reference to it´s fox-like cunning? Here the opposites
do have literally opposite meanings, but the effect can also depend
on punning use of words that only seem to be opposites, e.g. in
Snorri´s example in verse 17: heit köld "cold threats" (but 'heit'
naturally suggests 'heitr' "hot").

Llama Nom