--- In
norse_course@yahoogroups.com, "Eysteinn Bjornsson"
<eysteinn@...> wrote:
>
> --- "akoddsson" wrote:
>
> > as anything which FJ maintains is important to me ;)
>
> Well, I'm glad to hear it! Welcome to the club!
Club FJ ;)
> I have also noted, with interest, that Bugge agrees
> with FJ (or the other way around, surely). He notes
> the "-rerir", "-reri" spellings in Hávamál, and then
> says: "I codd. af SnE. skrives navnet Óðrerir eller
> Óðrærir, én gang i R Óðreyrir. Jfr. Þjóðreyrir Háv.
> 160, og maaske Mandsnavnet Rerir. Stammeordet kan
> næppe være hroera." [Conclusion: "The basic word can
> hardly be hroera".]
>
> On the shoulders of giants, indeed.
Yes. Of course, as most of the work on textual criticism has already
been done, this is unlikely to be a ground-breaking area of research
in the future. Instead, I think that the future here lies more in
rejuvenation of old material - in re-collection and re-redaction of
it along clearer, more complete, more user-friendly lines. I think
that this is especially important in the case of Hávamál, where this
word occurs, as its place in Norse culture answers to that of, say,
the Bhagavadgita or the basic sermons of Gautama Buddha in the Aryan/
Asian traditions, or the sayings of Jesus or the revelations by God
to Mohammed in the Semitic/Western traditions. Hávamál is something
like the Sermon on the Mount (Fjallræðan) or the Sutra of the four
noble truths (chaturaryasatyâni) in its importance for understanding
of Norse philosophy/religion. Yet, where the Aryans were systematic
in how they canonized their basic religious documents, the Norse of
today are simply refered to CR, a 13th century skin-book containing
various pieces, or often only fragments of them. In the case of HM,
one 13th century redactor's memory (or rather the memory of the man
who wrote the original his copy derives from) is traditionally given
the final say. Of course, as FJ and many others realized, this is an
absurd situation, as neither the copyist's language-stage, nor his
official religion, is consonant with the Norse tradition of, say,
the 10th century, when the Hávamál would have enjoyed similar social
prestige to Biblical content in his time. Realizing this, FJ turned
the language of HM back to the 10th century, and succeeded (only a
few minor points where more recent findings suggest modifications).
Furthermore, FJ (and others) realized that HM, as shown in CR, can
hardly be complete, and that even the extant verses (and fragments)
are not always presented in a logical order - thus, the material has
often been reordered or misplaced items set in paranthesis. Also, a
fair amount of minor reconstructions have been required, here and
there, by every modern redactor of CR's version. Additionally, the
suggestion has been persistent that HM-material not found in CR,
such as the many archaic, alliterative proverbs of the ljóðaháttr
type (in lines 1-2, line 3 or occasionally a whole half-verse) be
rightly included in HM. Yet, while this material is widely found in
Eddukvæði and Sögur), in some instances echoing HM in CR (though, of
course, not mentioning Óðinn as the author), no one has been able to
agree on a system of inclusion, or where to draw the line, so that
many a jewel lies buried in dust, far from the mouth of Óðinn, whom
in Norse tradition owns the wisdom-jewelry, much like Solomon in the
Old Testament. Indeed, it seems clear that the Norse heathens, and
those of their descendants who prefer their little ethnic tradition/
religion to the world-dominating Judeo-Christian-Islamic one, have
never really be given a say in the redaction of their own tradition,
something which FJ (and others) realized before our time. Hávamál,
its language and content, is the natural place to start, or rather
continue, the work begun toward a fuller, more logical and better
dedaction of Norse tradition, being as central as it is (teaching of
mans-maker and educator in Norse tradition). Fortunately, with HM we
are talking largely only about 1)collection/arrangment of fragments
in a logical, user-friendly fashion (somewhat like in CR, but in a
superior redaction and 2)showing correct linguistic forms, whatever
the era in question (following FJ, 9-10th cent. easiest authentic
forms, but other options exist). Given that we have the existing
work that we have, and that some of us are highly specialized in ON,
I think that it would be wise for us to lead a collective process
toward a superior, future redaction, making it available online. It
is said 'mörg eru dags augu' - in this case, details missed by one
are spotted by another. FJ wished in his 1924 preface 'måtte min
tolking blive 'allþörf ýta sonum''. Along the same lines, a superior
redaction is needed today for HM, even if there can be no talk of a
one true early redaction in oral tradition, much as with the sayings
of Jesus. Still, a superior redaction is possible, and if through
argument and compromise we can get there, then I suggest that it be
done and that steps be taken towards cooperation in this direction.
Raising the shoulders of giants... ;)
> > Copies of Snorra Edda (R ): reris R (Vellekla), reris (hooked e)
W, roeris U, røris T; and in in 1:250: reyrir R, rerir TU, roerir W;
in 218: reris R, røris T, etc..
> As I have copies of all the "stafréttar útgáfur", I
> would like to slightly correct the above - I don't think
> that -oe- can be truly read from any of the mss.
>
> Here's the lowdown, as I have it on all the 6 occasions
> in Skáldskaparmál (order is RTWU):
>
> 1 -reyrir -rerir -rærer -rerir
> 2 -reris -røris -reris missing
> 3 -reri -rørir -reri missing
> 4 -reris -røris -reris missing
> 5 -reris -røris -re,ris -ræris
> 6 -reri missing -ræris -ræris
>
> I should mention that ø often stands for in T
> - but T is a very young ms (though copied from an
> older one which must have been very closely
> related to R) and it would be dangerous to form any
> strict conclusions from this. In W, æ is is very
> commonly written for e ('hæyra', etc.).
>
> > otherwise, I think that he would
> > have amended his text on just this point
>
> Very probably. Almost certainly.
Yes, indeed. FJ was, quite rightly, focused on 10th century Norse as
the most logical language for material like HM, as it was a)heathen
and b)young enough to be easily accessible via 1) inscription and 2)
the 13th century language of Snorri´s time. So, yes, new findings on
the character of that language would likely have effected FJ's text,
as we seem to agree.
> > the óðhrø'rir-option is still attractive, as it
> > offers a plausible meaning
>
> I see your point (and know this is more or less
> accepted by most), but I can't help finding this
> a VERY dangerous reason to accept anything in
> the texts, when there are so many reasons to doubt.
> My professor in Greek had me read Maas' "Textual
> Criticism" many times, and never tired of reminding
> me of the principle of the "lectio difficilis".
> "Plausible" doesn't necesarily equal "correct",
> and if we are to accept that a simple, transparent
> word somehow whose to mutate into something quite
> opaque, we'd better have very good reasons for
> believing it! Just saying ...
>
> > Otherwise, gaman að heyra í þér :)
>
> Sömuleiðis! Ertu enn í Noregi að læra?
Já. Er nú að stunda munngígju/munnhörpuspil með það í huga að spila
undir kvæðamenn.
> Ertu farinn að spila á sveitaböllum?
> Wink, wink ;-)
;) Ekki á sveitaböllum ennþá, en víst á ýmsum fundum um þióðlaga-
tónlist. Ég spilaði síðustu viku með íranskri konu, flutti ýmsa
slætti og kvað fornar vísur eftir tónum munngígju í G.
> Góðar stundir,
> Eysteinn
Sömuleiðis,
Konráð