I do not copy up everything I see but sometimes feel constrained to do so - as now !!
I shall do a print out for my notes and take it to my Hlidskalf for further study.
is as comfortable as a board and has wheels on which it skates of it's own volition.
Komið ér sæl.
I thought that I would share some thoughts about Hávamál, Codex
Regius and where to make the cut, as I have in recent months
discussed HM rather intensely with a number of knowledgable persons
(and read a lot of scholarly literature on it). Naturally, as HM is
considered sacred by some (and was, no doubt, seen so by the ancient
Norse), I approach its redaction with great respect and the utmost
caution, wishing to respect both its history as an oral text of
multiple redactions and its written form in CR (along with other
minor sources). Make a bad cut and the clothes won't fit, loosing
customers. Now, as CR (and the oral tradition) would have it, HM is
sectional. As we cannot know in what order, nor how many, these
sections were in various redactions, following CR's order is wise,
as it 1)could be based on real tradition from one or more early
Icelandic inherited arrangements (and thus as good as any other) and
2)for our purposes, the sectional ordering of a decidedly sectional
work is probably not that significant, especially as no one treats
HM as one section anyway. Following Herman Pálsson's edition, we get
5 sections plus one closing verse (his arrangement typical enough),
following CR: 1-83 (the gnomic section) 84-110 (the love-section,
including some narrative), 111-138 (advice to Loddfáfnir section,
characterized by imperative usage), 138-145 (trials and runes, also
some narrative), 146-163 (magic-song section), 164 (closing verse).
Separating the closing verse seems natural enough, as it could have
been used by a þulr, for instance, after a recitation of any part of
HM. Section one consists of full lióðaháttr verses (or half verses)
on a series of related themes. No scholars seem to find the order
original, according to whatever ideas they have of the *original,
but given that it is a loosely connected collection quoted only in
part and at different times, the usability of its ordering system is
probably more important than its actual order - so CR's order is as
good as any other. Also, I don't think we would ever agree on a
perfect order here if scholars were all asked to submit an ideal
order. However, I take seriously FJ's comments about the artificial
welding together of verse-halfs with 'þvíat' (see his comments on
137), and would thus cut, for instance, verse 6 into 2 numbered
items, a verse and half-verse thus:
at/af hyggiandi sinni(CR At hyGiandi siNi;Hugm. af hyggiandi sinni)
skylit (maþr) hrø'sinn vesa (CR scylit maþr | hrosiN vera hooked o)
heldr gétinn at geþi (hooked-e's & é) (CR he,ldr ge,tiN at geði)
horskr ok þogull (hooked-o; CR þa er horscr oc þaugull)
komi heimisgarþa til (CR ko,mr | heimis garda til)
sialdan verþr víti vorum (hooked-o CR sialdan verþr víti vórom)
óbrigþra vin (CR þvíat obrigdra vin |)
fér maþr aldrigi (hooked-é CR fo,r M-rune aldregi)
an mannvit mikit (CR eN manvit micit)
Thus, I would let this half-verse stand thus. There are at least two
other half-verses in the Gnomic section proper, anyway (at 27 & 65).
Lastly, there are 2 'over-long' (7-line verses), 1 & 61 in CR, where
no ones seems to agree on what to do. Following FJ, I would cut 1 to
6 lines, dropping 'um skoðask slyli' in favour of 'um skyggnask
skyli' and reading with FJ: of skyggnask skyli(on 'of' here, see FJ)
and on 61 I would just let the extra line stand, as it, while not at
all needed, is relevant and explanatory, and such extra final-lines
were likely thrown in here and there, I think, in the oral tradition
anyway, even if this one instance is allowed to stand for all of the
theoretical ones. However, I can go either way on this. This brings
us to verses 73(tveir ró eins heriar),74(nó tt verþr feginn), 80(þat
es þá reynt) and 81-83(at kveldi skal kveld leyfa-viþr eld skal ol
drekka), closing the Gnomic section, which is where I think the real
problem lies, both in terms of the metrical- and content-consistency
of the Gnomic chapter, which I can accept both the order and content
of as in CR, unless the scholars agree on something else (unlikely).
Now, scholars have had various ideas about 73 & 74, usually
attempting to interpret them as coherant verses, providing some very
strange explantions in some cases. Some ideas include: 1)completing
them somehow to make regular ljóðaháttr verses out of them 2)moving
them. Obviously, these verses interrupt the meter and content right
in the middle of a section on wealth and death (being between sunr
es betri and veita hinn), causing problems. Here is where to make
the cut, I think, but very cautiously. Continuing this post (please
add comments if I have missed anything important), I will actually
move 73 & 74, leaving an intact and thematically clean ljóðaháttr
section here, and show what I think should be done with 73 & 74,
which is to form a separate section at this point, falling between
the Gnomic-ljóðaháttr section and the love section (see above). If
something is unclear in my presentation, please ask, and I will try
to clarify.
-K