Háskóli Íslands

Hugvísindasvið Medieval Icelandic Studies

‘Hann er ljótr ok heldr ósyknligr’:

Archaisms and Linguistic Oddities in Hreiðars þáttr heimska

Ritgerð til M.A.-prófs í Medieval Icelandic Studies

Mariateresa Esposito Kt.: 210191-4109

Leiðbeinandi: Haraldur Bernharðsson May 2019 Abstract

Hreiðars þáttr heimska is found in the Icelandic manuscript Morkinskinna, GKS 1009 fol., dated to around 1275. It has often been noted that the language and style of Hreiðars þáttr contains several peculiar or archaic features. In this study, these peculiar or archaic linguistic features will be examined with the aim of analysing their age and distribution and attempting to determine how archaic they may have been at the time of writing of the Morkinskinna manuscript, GKS 1009 fol.

Three types of comparative material will be used: First, sources from the end of the twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth century, predating the Morkinskinna manuscript.

Second, sources from the last quarter of the thirteenth century and thus roughly contemporary with the Morkinskinna manuscript. Thirdly, sources from the fourteenth century and thus younger than Morkinskinna. In addition to the Morkinskinna manuscript, GKS 1009 fol., Hreiðars þáttr is also found in two younger manuscripts, Hulda, AM 66 fol. from around 1350–1375, and

Hrokkinskinna, GKS 1010 fol., from around 1400–1450. Selected linguistic features in Hreiðars

þáttr in these three manuscripts will be compared with the aim of determining how archaic features in the Morkinskinna manuscript fared in the younger manuscripts. The conclusion is, in short, that Hreiðars þáttr in the Morkinskinna manuscript, GKS 1009 fol. does indeed contain linguistic features that very probably were considered somewhat archaic at the time of writing of

GKS 1009 fol. Some of these features appear in the language of Hreiðarr himself or his brother’s, and it seems not improbable that they were used deliberately to give their language, Hreiðarr’s in particular, an odd or provincial character. Many of these characteristics disappear in the younger manuscripts containing Hreiðars þáttr, Hulda and Hrokkinskinna, perhaps because they were considered too archaic by the later scribes to be reproduced or perhaps the later scribes did not even recognize them or fully understand them.

ii

Ágrip

Hreiðars þáttur heimska er einn af þáttunum í Morkinskinnu í GKS 1009 fol., frá um

1275, en mál og stíll hans hefur löngum þótt bera fornleg einkenni. Í ritgerð þessari verður rýnt í þessi fornlegu einkenni með það fyrir augum að greina aldur þeirra og

útbreiðslu og meta hve fornleg þau muni hafa verið á ritunartíma Morkinskinnu, GKS

1009 fol. Einkum verður litið til þrenns konar samanburðarheimilda: Í fyrsta lagi heimilda frá lokum tólftu aldar og upphafi þeirrar þrettándu og eru því eldri en

Morkinskinna, GKS 1009 fol. Í annan stað heimilda sem eru frá síðasta fjórðungi

þrettándu aldar og því að heita má samtíða Morkinskinnu. Loks verður svo litið til heimilda frá fjórtándu öld sem yngri eru en Morkinskinna. Hreiðars þáttur er einnig varðveittur í tveimur yngri handritum, Huldu, AM 66 fol. frá um 1350–1375 og

Hrokkinskinnu, GKS 1010 fol., frá um 1400–1450, og verða valin einkenni í máli

Hreiðars þáttar borin saman í þessum þremur handritum með það fyrir augum að greina hvernig fornlegum máleinkennum Hreiðars þáttar í Morkinskinnu reiddi af í yngri handritunum. Niðurstaðan er í stuttu máli sú að í máli Hreiðars þáttar á Morkinskinnu,

GKS 1009 fol., er að finna máleinkenni sem líkast til hafa þótt heldur fornleg á ritunartíma Morkinskinnu. Sum þessara einkenna er að finna í máli Hreiðars sjálfs og bróður hans og virðist ekki ótrúlegt að þau hafi verið notuð af ásettu ráði til að gefa máli

þeirra, einkum Hreiðars, sérkennilegan afdalablæ. Mörg þessara einkenna hverfa í yngri handritum Hreiðars þáttar, Huldu og Hrokkinskinnu, ef til vill vegna þess að þau hafa verið svo fornleg að síðari tíma skrifarar hafa ekki talið þau nothæf eða mögulega ekki

þekkt þau eða skilið.

iii

Acknowledgements

My first thanks goes to Haraldur Bernharðsson, my supervisor. Your invaluable help, support and patience throughout my research, as well as during your classes, has been of capital importance for my academical and personal growth. To my Swedish and Old Norse Literature teacher in Italy, Maria Cristina Lombardi. You have laid the foundation for my academical career, and without you, I would have never had the tools and passion for my current studies. Whatever I learned, I owe it to you. To my family. My parents, to whom this thesis is dedicated, not only for giving me the best life I could ever lead, but also because without your sacrifices and help, I would have never found the right path to follow. My grandma, because I’m missing a part of me, when we’re apart. My brother, because our dreams brought us far from each other, but I’m proud of the man you’ve become. To Smilly, my rock, my sister. We’re never apart, and hearing your voice through a wobbly internet connection makes days go by faster, and my troubles feel lighter. “You will always be my baby, even when you’re fully grown”. To Rosa and Alma, whom I’ve known better and for longer than I’ve known myself. No words are needed for the role you play in my life, and your texts brighten my days. Thank you for existing. To Sally and Francesca, for your video-calls and for your support. We’re scattered around the world, but nothing’s changed. Sempre e comunque. To Bianca and Micol, because you always check up on me and make sure I’m still the old MT. You’re among the best people I know, and I’m honoured to be called your friend. To Meri, because you taught me that mi casa es su casa is not just an idiomatic expression. The infamous Icelandic winter is neither dark nor cold, because you’re here. To Giulia, and not only because I would have probably been deported without your help to fix my bureaucracy. You’ve been one of the few reliable things in this ever-changing world. To Oriane and Kristlaug. It’s been a pleasure, going through all this with you two by my side. To Kirstine and Hilmar. I’m not great at new friendships, but you’ve made it so easy. You’ve brightened these last months, making me feel at home and welcome. To Roberto. You crawled into my life quietly, and took your place in my heart very loudly. It’s been an honour, having you as a teacher, and it’s an even greater honour to have you as a friend. Fortune favours the bold, cuore. And last, but certainly not least, to Jake. Many things have changed and will change again, but one thing won’t: you’ve been fundamental through this part of my life, and I’ll never forget it.

When we left, it didn’t feel like we were separating, but rather like we were going somewhere else, to wait for each other. – Cesare Pavese, “L’Estate”

iv

To my parents.

In the storms I’ve weathered,

you were my boat.

‘Hann er ljótr ok heldr ósyknligr’:

Archaisms and Linguistic Oddities in Hreiðars þáttr heimska

Mariateresa Esposito

vi

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 2 2. The textual transmission of Hreiðars þáttr heimska ...... 6 2.1 The storyline ...... 6 2.2 The Morkinskinna compilation ...... 8 2.3 Hreiðars þáttr heimska: the manuscripts ...... 10 3. Examination of selected linguistic features ...... 18 3.1 Introduction...... 18 3.2 The negative particle ‐a(t) ...... 20 3.3 Enclitic 1st person pronoun ek ...... 27 3.4 The contracted form þars ...... 31 3.5 The indefinite pronoun nǫkkurr ...... 33 3.6 Indeclinable adjectives ...... 38 3.7 Rare lexical items ...... 41 4. Provincial language? ...... 47 5. Conclusion ...... 49 Appendix ...... 54 Bibliography ...... 57

1

1. Introduction

Hreiðars þáttr heimska is part of the Morkinskinna compilation in GKS 1009 fol., a manuscript dated to around 1275, but it is also preserved in two other medieval manuscripts, AM 66 fol., Hulda, dated around 1350–1375, and GKS 1010 fol.,

Hrokkinskinna, dated ca. 1400-1450. The language of Hreiðars þáttr heimska in

Morkinskinna, GKS 1009 fol., contains several linguistic traits that appear archaic compared to prose literature from the same period. Several features of the language of

Hreiðars þáttr give the impression of being somewhat esoteric or perhaps more archaic than prose literature from the period in general. The aim of this project is, therefore, to examine these features, determine if they can justifiably be characterized as archaic, as well as study how they fared in the other two younger manuscripts. Did the scribes reproduce these linguistic features or did they perhaps change them?

Morkinskinna is a compilation of sagas in the manuscript GKS 1009 fol. which cover the history of Norwegian kings in the period approximately 1030–1157. The manuscript GKS 1009 fol. is generally dated ca. 1275. The name Morkinskinna is used to refer to both the manuscript GKS 1009 fol. and the compilation of kings’ sagas it contains.

Before Morkinskinna, kings’ sagas were transmitted in the form of epitomes or individual biographies. Therefore, this particular collection represents a first attempt at a compendious assemblage of royal bibliographies (Andersson and Gade 2000, 1–2).

One of the most noticeable peculiarities of this collection is the heterogeneous nature of the works collected in it, and a seeming lack of unity throughout the text, perhaps also due to the fact that the corpus of Morkinskinna seems to have been redacted by two hands, denominated A and B by Kjeldsen (2013, 13).

2

Morkinskinna is also extremely important for the transmission of a number of

þættir, a word indicating the genre of short stories written mostly in Iceland during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, a great part of which is in fact found in

Morkinskinna. The text was most likely copied by two professional scribes who have probably worked on the collection at the same time, although it cannot be established where exactly in Iceland the copying has taken place (Louis-Jensen 1977, 63–64).

Given the two different hands working on the contents of the collection, it does perhaps not come as a surprise that Morkinskinna turns out to be particularly interesting for the variety of linguistic features displayed in it.

The work of the second scribe, denoted by Kjeldsen as hand B (2013, 7) often contains corrections and marginalia added by the first hand. The first hand adopts more archaic features compared to the second, although the second scribe keeps and preserves archaic spellings which are not kept in the same fashion by the first hand (Kjeldsen

2013, 7).

Generally, the orthography of Morkinskinna seems to be characterized by archaic features which are believed to mirror the orthography of perhaps an old archetypical manuscript which has been lost (see section 2.3). The archaisms are evenly distributed throughout both the main text of the compilation and the þættir, although, as pointed out by Andersson and Gade (2000, 6), Hreiðars þáttr heimska contains more of said features than others.

The language of Hreiðars þáttr heimska can be considered to be indeed more archaic than the other works present in the Morkinskinna compilation.

The text of Hreiðars þáttr [in Hulda and Hrokkinskinna] is very different from that in Morkinskinna. Most of the archaisms have been replaced, some of the ineptitudes in the narrative and some of the obscurities have been

3

rationalised, and […] the result is the same story told in different words and in a different, less striking, style. (Faulkes 2011, 16)

As stated in the quote above, the question of the archaisms present in Hreiðars þáttr heimska as already been mentioned by Faulkes (2011, 18), who provides some observations about said archaisms, and namely the negative particle -a(t) and the use of the enclitic pronoun ek, which will be addressed later on in Chapter 3, together with a more extended list of linguistic oddities.

It may seem odd that the scribes would not want to preserve the þáttr in its originality, but it is perhaps quite safe to object that the reason which led the scribes to copy the story was not one of preservation of language; rather, the texts were copied so that they could still be remembered and read out loud in social gathering occasions, which makes it plausible to assume that the scribe would replace or alter whatever part of the text he deemed odd or archaic. The scribe’s objective was to make sure that the story would be enjoyable and understandable to the audience, and that is why it is rare to find the archaisms of the þáttr in Morkinskinna within the younger versions of the same text, since many of the archaisms have been replaced in the younger manuscripts containing Hreiðars þáttr.

The scope of this thesis will be, therefore, to analyse a series of selected linguistic features within Hreiðars þáttr heimska which appear to be odd for the time of its composition. The analysis will be conducted through comparing said linguistic features in Hreiðars þáttr as preserved in Morkinskinna to their correspondents in the other two principal manuscripts in which the þáttr can be found, as earlier stated, namely Hulda and Hrokkinskinna.

Through this comparison, it will be attempted to establish whether the seeming anomalies found within the þáttr can be classified as archaisms. Selected linguistic

4 features of the texts will be analysed and traced back to older texts to be able to prove, where possible, the nature of said archaisms.

To this end, a comparative study on the earliest manuscript of the þáttr and its younger versions is essential. As this research will show, the odd and archaic linguistic features of the text in its earliest version have often been changed by the scribes who took care of copying the story in the following centuries.

Chapter 2 will delve into the textual transmission of Hreiðars þáttr heimska, where particular attention will be dedicated to the relationship between the three manuscripts in which the text is found, as thoroughly studied by Jonna Louis-Jensen in her Kongesagastudier: Kompilationen Hulda-Hrokkinskinna (1977). Chapter 3 will then report an analysis of selected linguistic features from Hreiðars þáttr, which have been chosen by virtue of their linguistic oddity, to conclude whether said features can be classified as archaisms or not.

In Chapter 4, the question about the linguistic oddities as a reflection of the provincial language adopted by the Icelandic characters at the court of Norway will be addressed.

Chapter 5 will then summarise the conclusion which have been reached during the research for this thesis.

5

2. The textual transmission of Hreiðars þáttr heimska

2.1 The storyline

Hreiðars þáttr heimska is a prose work contained in Morkinskinna. It describes the Icelander Hreiðarr heimski and his stay at the court in Norway. The short story begins with a description of two brothers, Þórðr and Hreiðarr, stressing the fact that where Þórðr is very handsome, relatively lean and extremely intelligent, Hreiðarr is tall, ugly and incredibly strong, although he is considered to be somewhat daft, so much so that the very name of the þáttr features the adjective heimskr ‘foolish, daft.’ The name of the þáttr is as old as the compilation itself, and it might be worthy to mention that the only case in which the title Hreiðars þáttr heimska appears is indeed the Morkinskinna compilation; Hreiðarr is never referred to as heimski in the proper text of the þáttr, and the text of the þáttr in the younger versions, Hulda and Hrokkinskinna, does not present any title as well as no references to the word heimski.

Hreiðarr, through his often puzzling behaviour and social interaction, manages to gain the favour of king Magnús, convincing him to grant himself and his brother a place in his court, where his brother already has a place. Despite the other retainers of king Magnús mocking Hreiðarr for his naivety, things fare remarkably well for him until they come in contact with king Haraldr. King Haraldr rules the land with king Magnús, but the two rulers have to settle matters between themselves in a negotiation meeting after one of king Harald’s retainers has been killed by one of king Magnús’s. After convincing king Magnús to let him come to the meeting, Hreiðarr causes the anger and frustration of the retainers of king Haraldr, because whenever they mock him and try to provoke him, he never reacts to the provocation and only laughs. They treat him badly, both with their words and physically, until he finally lets his anger prevail and kills one

6 of them. This, of course, causes the wrath of king Haraldr, who wants to kill him in return.

Hreiðarr manages, at the end of the þáttr, to save his own life by showing the king and his retinue that he does have one incredible ability: he is very good at smithing silver. Hreiðarr forges a perfectly shaped pig out of silver and gifts it to king Haraldr, with the promise that he will serve him forever with all his loyalty and strength. King

Haraldr is very impressed until he sees the pig up close and realizes Hreiðarr has shaped it with teats, which the king interprets as a sign of mockery. He is still intentioned to kill Hreiðarr after that, but Hreiðarr is protected by some very powerful allies of king

Magnús, and therefore untouchable.

The tale ends with Hreiðarr wanting to gift a poetic composition of his to king

Magnús. The poem is not reported in the text, but it is described as maybe the strangest composition the king has ever heard:

Nú kveðr Hreiðarr kvæðit, ok er þat allundarligt, fyrst kynligast en því betra er síðarr er. Ok er lokit er kvæði mælti konungr: „Þetta kvæði sýnisk mér undarligt ok þó gott at nestlokum. En kvæðit mun vera með þeim hætti sem ævi þín; hon hefir fyrst verit með kynligu móti ok einrœnligu, en hon mun þó vera því betr er meirr líðr á.“ (Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson and Ármann Jakobsson 2011, 164)

Then Hreiðarr recites the poem, and that is very odd and the strangest one at first, but better after a while. And when the poem is done, the king said: “This poem seemed strange to me, and yet good towards the end. It is with the poem as it is with your life; it started with oddity and outlandishness, but it shall be better and better as it continues” (my translation).

7

The quotation above is a thorough representation of the whole þáttr itself, because it does indeed revolve around the oddity of the principal character, which is also testified by the general linguistic idiosyncrasy of the work.

2.2 The Morkinskinna compilation

As Andersson and Gade (2000, 1) point out in the very first lines of the introduction to their English translation of Morkinskinna, the text can be regarded as one of the first attempts at producing a chronicle of “royal biographies in a Scandinavian vernacular”.

It has to be observed, nonetheless, that the compendious nature of the text is somewhat altered by its lack of an orderly structure. Morkinskinna does not seem to meet the requirements for a regular survey of biographies, which usually present a proportioned division of the tales, each with a focus on a single monarch. That is not what happens in Morkinskinna, where more than half of the text is devoted to the retelling of the intertwined lives of kings Magnús Óláfsson and Haraldr Sigurðarson, and where the nature of the composition appears to be quite episodic. Morkinskinna is characterized by disproportion throughout the text, for example in numerous instances where the chapters are very brief despite the fact that they cover a fairly long amount of chronological time, or vice versa (Andersson and Gade 2000, 2).

The presence of the þættir in the text does contribute to the fragmentary nature of the compilation. The anecdotal short tales often generate digressions in the main plotline, sometimes even stopping or slowing the course of the principal narration, and mostly dealing with single encounters between the kings and Icelanders rather than focusing on the life of the king himself (Andersson and Gade 2000, 2).

8

Scholars seem to generally agree that one of the main characteristics of

Morkinskinna is that its prose, especially in the þættir, contains language that bears resemblance to poetic language, probably as a result of interpolation (Bjarni

Aðalbjarnarson 1937, 158), and that the þættir in Morkinskinna seem to be semi- independent tales with loose or even no connection to the royal biographies themselves, which could probably be taken as proof of their separate existence prior to the composition of the whole text (Andersson and Gade 2000, 13).

The composition of Morkinskinna itself seems to support the idea that the þættir could be disconnected tales, part of a previous oral tradition, which the author then collected and compiled arbitrarily.

However, Jonna Louis-Jensen argues that some of the þættir seem to have been compiled in the same order in different compilations, which leads her to state that they could not be as disconnected as other scholars claim them to be (Louis-Jensen 1977,

77–78).

The issue of interpolation in the manuscript of Morkinskinna has been recently addressed by Andersson and Gade, who state that the most part of the episodes present in Heimskringla, Fagrskinna and Morkinskinna correspond almost word-by-word.

However, the first two seem to also “fail to record the many þættir and smaller anecdotes that characterize the narrative [of Morkinskinna]” (Andersson and Gade 2000, 11), and the same discourse stands true for the skaldic stanzas scattered throughout the work.

But because these episodes and stanzas do appear in later collections (as Hrokkinskinna and Hulda, which will be discussed below), it seems safe to suggest that the text of

Morkinskinna was indeed interpolated, meaning that the text of Hreiðars þáttr could in principle be older than the remainder of the compilation.

9

Considering this interpolation suggestion, particularly regarding the skaldic stanzas, it comes probably as no surprise that there is general consensus in scholarship about the poetic character of the prose in Morkinskinna, shown by linguistic features which may appear somewhat odd or archaic. As formerly stated, the archaic character is a characteristic which can be found throughout the whole compilation, but analysing

Morkinskinna as a whole would be beyond the scope of this thesis; however, one of the exempla for this peculiarity is Hreiðars þáttr heimska, which is also one of the episodes of the collection in which this feature results most prominent.

2.3 Hreiðars þáttr heimska: the manuscripts

The oldest manuscript which contains Hreiðars þáttr heimska is Morkinskinna, GKS 1009 fol., dated to around 1275 according to Ordbog over det norrøne prosasprog (ONP).1

This manuscript contains a collection of kings’ sagas, and it includes many episodes about Icelanders at the court of Norwegian kings, in the form of þættir. Among the

þættir is Hreiðars þáttr heimska, although it is impossible to clearly determine how many of these þættir were in the original compilation. A separate version of some of the sagas present in Morkinskinna is also present in Flateyjarbók, GKS 1005 fol. from around

1387–1395 which derives from the same compilation, but this compilation lacks many of the þættir found in Morkinskinna, including Hreiðars þáttr heimska (Faulkes 2011,

10).

Hreiðars þáttr heimska is also featured in two other main versions, namely in

Hulda, AM 66 fol. from around 1350–1375, and Hrokkinskinna, GKS 1010 fol. from

1 From this point onwards, the information about the dating of each mentioned manuscript will refer to Ordbog over det norrøne prosasprog (ONP).

10 around 1400–1450. These two manuscripts display very similar texts of a later redaction of the þáttr originally inserted in Morkinskinna. There is, however, a great number of differences between the texts of the þáttr in these two later versions compared to the previous one, and this will be the point from which this research will start.

The Morkinskinna manuscript GKS 1009 fol. consists to this day of thirty-seven leaves, and it dates ca. 1275. It is currently stored in the Royal Library in Copenhagen.

It is stated by Andersson and Gade (2000, 5) that the manuscript originally contained seven quires, whereas now the seventh quire is completely missing, causing the manuscript to end abruptly at chapter 100; the manuscript shows two hands who seem to have compiled the manuscript simultaneously. The first hand appears to be more archaic than the second, but the archaic forms appear to be evenly distributed in both the main text and the þættir. Hreiðars þáttr heimska stands out in this context, showing more archaisms than most of the other episodes of the compilation. The scribe also seems to show a tendency for more archaisms in the direct speech parts of the þáttr, although there is a fair number of them in the body text as well.

The second manuscript in which Hreiðars þáttr heimska is found in its entirety is

Hulda, AM 66 fol. It is dated ca. 1350-1375, and thought to be the work of a single hand, according to Louis-Jensen (1977, 7–10). The manuscript AM 66 fol. is currently stored in the Arnamagnaean collection, and is catalogued by Kristian Kålund as containing 142 leaves. The material featured in the manuscript is classified as Norwegian kings’ sagas down to and including king Magnús Erlingsson (Kålund 1889, 43). The text of the þáttr in Hulda is very interesting, as it presents parts which are completely different from the text in Morkinskinna; it is also the version which is preferred by editors to fill in the gaps of illegible or not understandable text in Morkinskinna.

11

The third and most recent version of the þáttr is found in the manuscript

Hrokkinskinna GKS 1010 fol., currently stored in the Royal Library in Copenhagen.

Hrokkinskinna dates ca. 1400-1450 and is also generally agreed to have been compiled by a single hand, at least for the most part. The text of Hreiðars þáttr heimska seems to be almost identical to the version in Hulda, where both of these versions quite often match each other but differ from the one in Morkinskinna. Hrokkinskinna is catalogued as a manuscript composed by 95 leaves, its material including Norwegian kings’ sagas

(leaves 1–91), the text of Hemings þáttr Áslákssonar (leaves 91–95va) and a genealogy called Ættartala Noregs konunga (leaf 95vb) (Kålund 1900, 20).

Despite their similarities, it has been argued by Louis-Jensen (1977, 13–15) that

Hrokkinskinna is not a copy of Hulda, but rather that the two manuscripts are both descendants of an earlier lost exemplar which she names *H; marginalia and annotations found in Hrokkinskinna and Hulda also suggest that *H was probably compiled ca. 1280.

The relationship between the three manuscripts in which Hreiðars þáttr heimska is found is of great importance for a work of comparison such as the one which is the objective of this thesis.

The age of the compositions and the changes the texts underwent during time and revisions make it impossible, however, to confirm which of the relationship hypotheses might be the correct or most plausible one. Louis-Jensen (1977) advances several hypotheses about the relationship between the manuscripts of Morkinskinna,

Hulda and Hrokkinskinna.

The first relationship hypothesis Louis-Jensen advances is also the one she clearly rejects, and it is diagrammed in Fig. 1.

12

Morkinskinna

Hulda

Hrokkinskinna

Figure 1: Relationship hypothesis no. 1.

This hypothesis has been the first to be taken into consideration during the research for this project, and although it cannot be excluded that it is as plausible as the three more that will be further mentioned, it has been completely rejected by Jonna Louis-Jensen.

Louis-Jensen (1977, 13) states that Hrokkinskinna cannot be a copy of Hulda, since there are parts of Hrokkinskinna which contain a work that can be considered more original than the parts of Hulda which seem sloppy and contain mistakes. Hence, Hrokkinskinna can be used not only to fill the gaps left empty in Hulda by a rushed job of the scribe, but only to even “correct” scribal errors in Hulda. Louis-Jensen (1977, 13), however, makes it clear that although there are several parts of Hulda that can be understood and corrected through the Hrokkinskinna text, as well as parts of Hrokkinskinna that can be regarded as being more original than Hulda, Hrokkinskinna still presents an inferior scribal quality than Hulda. This opinion is also supported by a number of features that will be listed in the following chapter, which will show how it is very common for selected sentences or words to be different in the passage from Morkinskinna to Hulda, but then completely identical in the passage from Hulda to Hrokkinskinna.

The opinion that Hrokkinskinna is indeed a copy of Hulda should still be, however, considered, because there unfortunately is no way to ascertain what the real relationship

13 between the manuscript is with absolute certainty. The hypothesis in Fig. 1 can perhaps not be excluded from consideration.

This, however, makes the next hypothesis just as plausible. As earlier stated,

Morkinskinna seems to be different from the two younger texts, while said younger texts seem to have a lot more in common. This, however, does not necessarily only mean that Hrokkinskinna is a copy of Hulda. It seems possible that Hulda and Hrokkinskinna stem from a common ancestor which now has been lost which in turn derives from the same source as Morkinskinna.

The loss of texts in between the redaction of the three manuscripts here analyzed, as well as a potential loss of an ultimately original copy, allows the relationship hypothesis to be also formulated as diagrammed in Fig. 2:

*X

Morkinskinna *H

Hulda Hrokkinskinna

Figure 2: Relationship hypothesis no. 2

This would mean that we are indeed assuming the existence of an archetype, here named

*X, from which Morkinskinna stemmed, as well as the source of Hulda and

Hrokkinskinna. This copy, named *H by Jonna Louis-Jensen, would have been different from Morkinskinna, and since said differences are found in the younger texts of Hulda and Hrokkinskinna, it would be plausible to hypotize that neither of the two manuscripts is a copy of Morkinskinna, but a copy of the lost manuscript *H.

14

Louis-Jensen (1977, 13) states, in fact, concerning this specific hypothesis, that the common lost manuscript from which Morkinskinna and Hulda-Hrokkinskinna stem from does not necessarily have to be the original manuscript of the compilation. She implies that said manuscript could have been a copy, or even a copy of a copy with additions and changes. She also states that, however, we do not have the possibility to deliberate on in which respects the manuscript here named *X in Fig. 2 may have differed from the original, and so a distinction between this “original” and the archetype for Hulda and Hrokkinskinna cannot be thoroughly pointed out.

There are, nonetheless, a third and fourth less plausible hypotheses that need to be considered as well. The third is perhaps the easiest one to be formulated, and namely:

Morkinskinna

Hulda Hrokkinskinna

Figure 3: Relationship hypothesis no. 3

This theory would then imply that the common changes found in Hulda and

Hrokkinskinna happened in the exact same way to two different scribes, separated by almost a century. It is very unlikely that such a circumstance would occur. As will be stated in the next chapter, many (or perhaps all of the) sentences that have undergone a change in structure, wording and/or meaning in the passage from Morkinskinna to

Hulda, undergo the exact same change in the text of Hrokkinskinna. It is highly unlikely that such word-to-word changes could have happened independently.

The fourth relationship hypothesis that can be advanced is the following:

15

*H

Morkinskinna Hulda Hrokkinskinna

Figure 4: Relationship hypothesis no. 4

This theory assumes, once more, the existence of a lost original manuscript, which here following Louis-Jensen’s example is called *H. This particular hypothesis has in fact first been advanced by Jonna Louis-Jensen (1977, 194), whereas she corroborates it with a thorough analysis on the textual relationship between Fagrskinna, Morkinskinna and

Ágrip: Fagrskinna and Morkinskinna could be deriving from the same lost source, a manuscript commonly named “den ældste Morkinskinna”. This “ældste Morkinskinna”, however, lacks the interpolations from Ágrip that are indeed traceable in the extant

Morkinskinna; the archetype of the extant manuscript for Morkinskinna (*H in Fig. 4), then, must be the source for the Morkinskinna text in Hulda-Hrokkinskinna, which indeed can serve as proof for the relationship hypothesis here discussed (Louis-Jensen

1977, 194–195).

The hypotesis in Fig. 4, however, seems to present a problem akin to the one presented in Fig. 3. If all three manuscripts stem from a common original, then it is difficult to explain why Morkinskinna would be so different from its two younger siblings, whereas Hulda and Hrokkinskinna tend to be very similar in terms of linguistic constructions and modifications of the text in comparison to the older Morkinskinna version. This would suggest Hrokkinskinna and Hulda share a common source which may be more distantly related to Morkinskinna, as discribed in Fig. 2, and it means that the hypothesis in Fig. 3, although perhaps possible, cannot be considered as completely likely to be the right one.

16

In the study which concerns the scope of this thesis, however, Fig. 1–4 can attempt to show the possible relationships between the manuscripts as shown and supported by the linguistic features of a specific text in Morkinskinna, Hulda and Hrokkinskinna, and namely Hreiðars þáttr heimska.

It is, in conclusion, fair to say that the most plausible hypothesis about the relationship between the three manuscripts is the one described in Fig. 2, as Louis-

Jensen also states. There was probably an archetypical lost manuscript, from which

Morkinskinna and another lost sister manuscript stemmed. These two were, however, very different, and the lost sister manuscript could have been the original for Hulda and

Hrokkinskinna, which would also explain the many differences between Morkinskinna and the two other younger manuscripts.

To better understand and prove the oddity of such a text, the next chapter, which is also the backbone of this project, will delve into an analysis of selected linguistic features. The features have been selected and deemed relevant based on their own linguistic oddity and how they fared in the younger manuscripts, and will be corroborated by examples.

17

3. Examination of selected linguistic features

3.1 Introduction

Hreiðars þáttr heimska is a text that immediately strikes the reader as containing several linguistic features which appear archaic or unusual. The language of Hreiðars þáttr appears to be more archaic compared to the rest of the Morkinskinna text, although it has been pointed out by Faulkes (2011, 18) that similar archaisms can be found in the text of other þættir in the same collection. Said archaisms, which will be analysed in the following sections, are remarked to be common in twelfth-century prose and in poetry of both earlier and later periods, but they are nonetheless to be considered rare in tirtheen-century texts if not in the form of proverbs and stereotyped constructions

(Faulkes 2011, 18).

Likewise, the þáttr can be considered peculiar under a linguistic perspective for the heavy presence of hapax legomena or words that are not recorded anywhere else, and extremely rare expressions which should have been considered as already fallen out of use by the time of composition of the compilation (Faulkes 2011, 18).

Faulkes remarks, however, that the value of archaisms of such constructions is far from certain, considering that scholarship does not have an extensive enough corpus of texts dated early enough that they could constitute an accurate picture of the real lexicon of the period in which Morkinskinna was composed: “Morkinskinna is a comparatively old manuscript, and too few manuscripts of the thirteenth century survive for us to be able to be sure what words in it are really archaisms” (Faulkes 2011, 18).

Nevertheless, this thesis will attempt to confirm or deny the status of archaisms of the main oddities which can be found in Hreiðars þáttr through a comparison between

18 the three main versions of the text, as well as a comparison with texts written in the same period, and younger texts all the same.

The earliest version of the þáttr, which can be indeed found in the Morkinskinna manuscript GKS 1009 fol., presents a number of unusual phrasings and grammatical/morphological constructs, for which even the editors of the fairly recent normalized edition of Morkinskinna in the Íslenzk fornrit series (Ármann Jakobsson and

Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson 2011) have resorted to consulting its other versions found in other manuscripts.

In order to be thoroughly able to establish if the linguistic features present in the text are indeed to be considered peculiar, this analysis will proceed to list said features, divided into categories, and namely:

- Negative particle -a(t)

- Enclitic 1st person pronoun ek

- The contracted form þars

- The indefinite pronoun nǫkkurr

- Indeclinable adjectives

- Rare lexical items

They will first be listed as they appear in the three principal manuscripts where Hreiðars

þáttr heimska is found. Subsequently, it will be asserted whether the same features are to be found in other parts of Morkinskinna, as well as in other texts.2

To be thoroughly able to confirm or deny the archaism status of the instances examined in the thesis, a comparison with texts outside of the Msk. compilation is in

2 From here forward, there will be instances where the manuscripts of Morkinskinna and Hrokkinskinna will be named ‘Msk.’ and ‘Hrk.’ for abbreviation reasons.

19 order. The first part of such a comparison will involve texts which are dated as older than Msk., and namely: the Icelandic Homily Book in Holm perg. 15 4to, dated ca. 1200;

St. Þorlákr’s Book of Miracles and Lives of Saints in AM 645 I 4to, from around 1220;

Elucidarius in AM 674 a 4to, dated ca. 1150-1200; the legal text of Grágás in AM 315 d fol., from ca. 1150-1175; Plácítus drápa in AM 673 b 4to, dated ca. 1200.

Subsequently, a comparison with texts dated as practically contemporary to Msk. will be conducted. The texts considered as comparison material are Alexanders saga in

AM 519 a 4to, dated ca. 1280, and Jómsvíkinga saga in AM 291 4to, dated ca. 1275-

1300.

Lastly, a comparison to texts dated as younger than Msk. will be the ultimate confirmation for the hypothesis of archaism regarding each section to follow. The younger texts analysed will be the Uppsala manuscript of Snorra Edda in DG 11, dated ca. 1300-1325, and Möðruvallabók AM 132 fol., dated around 1330-1370.

3.2 The negative particle ‐a(t)

The construction of negations in the þáttr is one of the principal characteristics that need to be taken into consideration for the analysis. The þáttr in Msk. presents a number of negations expressed through the negative particle -a(t), which is commonly known to be a feature used mostly in poetry, and in a time much anterior to the composition of Msk. Here to follow, three instances recorded in Hreiðars þáttr are given.3

3 From this point onwards, the quotes from the manuscript for Morkinskinna will be taken from Finnur Jónsson’s diplomatic edition (1932). References to the corresponding Íslenzk fornrit edition will be given as well.

20

(1) “Ok era þér þá betra hlut í at eiga ef ek ber á mǫnnum eða gerik aðra óvísu”

(ÍF 152.17–18)

a. Msk.: “oc era þer þa betra lut” (125.1)

b. Hulda: “Ok er þer þa eigi betra hlut” (34r7)

c. Hrk.: “Ok er þer þa verra vm ath mæla” (24va26–27)

(2) “Ok væria þér verri vænleikr minni, ok kœmisk þú með ǫðrum mǫnnum”

(ÍF 154.3–4)

a. Msk.: “oc verea þer veʀi venleicr minni” (126,11)

b. Hulda: “ok væri þér betri vænleikr minni” (34r32)

c. Hrk.: “ok væri þer betri vænleikur mínne” (24vb24–25)

(3) “Muna þér betra þykkja at ek fara einn, en ekki fær þú [mik lattan þessar

farar]” (ÍF 153.26)

a. Msk.: “muna þer betra þiccia at” (126.3)

b. Hulda: “Eckí mvn þer betra at” (34r26)

c. Hrk.: “ecki er þer betra” (24vb16)

Firstly, it is important to note that this feature seems to be prevalently used in Hreiðarr’s direct speech. It can perhaps be hypothesized that it is used deliberately as a linguistic oddity or archaism to be perceived as part of Hreiðarr’s image as a provincial and eccentric person.

These three examples also occur on the same page, which could also mean that it was a stylistic feature that the author then abandoned or forgot for some reason.

Consequently, it is safe to state that it was probably not part of the author’s language,

21 but an archaism used by the author to enhance the reader’s perception of “odd” in regards to the character of Hreiðarr.

The sentence (1a), with era being a clear example of the archaic negative particle

-a(t), must have sounded odd and archaic to the scribes copying the original manuscript as well at a later stage, since the same sentence appears recorded differently in both

Hulda and Hrk. in examples (1b) and (1c). The fact that the negative particle -a(t) has been somewhat changed by the later scribes allows the hypothesis that the construction did figure as an oddity to more modern readers.

The negative particle -a(t) is not used in any of the examples from Hulda and Hrk. listed above. In fact, the -a(t) negation seems to not have been used in the whole corpus of Hulda and Hrk., where no new instances of said particle are featured.

In Hulda, the negative particle in (1) has been replaced with the negating adverb eigi ‘not,’ but in Hrk. the text has been rephrased without the negation -(a)t.

Likewise, examples (2b) and (2c) show that the scribes have seemingly decided to delete the negation, preferring to keep the verb in the positive form and instead changing the following comparative from verri to betri, meaning that the authors have taken the decision of replacing the construction “not worse” with “better” instead of keeping the negation at all.

The understatement ‘not better’ is preserved, but in a more ordinary language. In

Hrk., the archaic negation is dropped and the sentence rephrased; ‘not better’ is changed to ‘worse’, thus losing the understatement. In both instances, Hreiðarr’s language is made more ordinary or unremarkable; it loses its archaic or provincial touch.

Understatements like ‘not worse’ are not at all uncommon, which is why the reader would expect the scribes to simply replace the negative particle -a(t) with the adverb eigi, as is done in Hulda in (1b). Both Hulda and Hrk. show the same rephrasing and, as

22 discussed above, it seems highly unlikely that the scribes of Hulda and Hrk. themselves are responsible for this change; rather it must go further back in the textual transmission, to a common ancestor of Hulda and Hrk. It is impossible to retrace a reason for which the negative particle has not been replaced with the negative adverb eigi as well in (1c); perhaps the scribe who rephrased this simply did not understand the negative particle and therefore missed the understatement altogether.

There are, however, other instances in which the negative particle -a(t) has been replaced. The sentence in (3a) appears to have been corrected in both Hulda and Hrk., whereas it is articulated as shown in examples (3b) and (3c). In this case as well, the a- negation from Msk. has been corrected to a more modern negation ekki in both younger manuscripts.

It has to be remarked, as shown already by example (3), that although the a- negation seems to be commonly adopted throughout the Msk. text of the þáttr, there are in fact a number of instances in which the younger negation ekki is used:

(4) “Ekki var hann kallaðr vizkumaðr á unga aldri” (ÍF 154.30)

a. Msk.: “ecki var hann callaþr vizcv maþr” (127,8)

b. Hulda: “Ecki var hann kallaðr vitzkvinr” (34v16)

c. Hrk.: “ecki var hann vizku madr kalladr” (25ra11–12)

(5) “Ekki dála er þat” (ÍF 155.2)

a. Msk.: “ecki dala er þat” (127,10)

b. Hulda: “ecki hvaſt umhygiulauſt” (34v17)

c. Hrk.: “ecki hvaſt umhygiulauſt” (25ra14)

23

The more common negation ekki is featured in all three manuscripts in instances such

(5a) and (6a). The two examples developed in Hulda as shown by (4b) and (5b), while

Hrk. features them most likely as a copy from a common source with Hulda, as it can be remarked from the changes shown by examples (4c) and (5c).

The negation ekki originates as the nom.-acc. sing. neuter of the pronoun engi ‘no one’, and subsequently got a role as a negating adverb beside eigi ‘not’. The adverb eigi seems to be the predominant negation in the þáttr, whereas ekki is used as well, albeit more scarcely; this can be stated for the whole text of Msk. as well. The fact that the scribes of Msk. tended to principally rely on more archaic forms rather than the younger ones is confirmed by Alex Speed Kjeldsen in his thorough linguistic analysis Filologiske studier i kongesagahåndskriftet Morkinskinna (2013), whereas he states the ratio of the words eigi and ekki in the text, clearly showing that the older adverb eigi is more used in the whole text: eigi occurs 549 times, while ekki is featured 219 times (Kjeldsen 2013,

377).

An analysis of the same ratio for the whole corpus of Hulda and Hrk. would be beyond the scope of this thesis; nonetheless, it can be stated that in the case of the two younger manuscripts, on the contrary, the adverb eigi does not figure at all in the text of the þáttr, and ekki seems to be the preferred choice of the scribe.

The changes reported in the examples above might perhaps mean that the scribe in Msk. could have been confused as to how to use archaisms, or perhaps that they were attempting at a more conservative rendition of the text, making some mistakes in the process.

Kjeldsen also dedicates a section to the negative suffix -a(t). In his table, Kjeldsen registers 18 instances of the use of said negative particle in the poetry of the text, in which 11 are recorded as -at, and 7 as -a. Concerning the prose, Kjeldsen only remarks

24

10 instances of this type of negation, and namely 3 with -at and 7 with -a (Kjeldsen

2013, 389). It is relevant to note that among the 7 instances of the negation particle -a in the prose of the whole corpus of Msk. reported by Kjeldsen, 3 (specifically the ones listed in 1, 2, 3) belong to Hreiðars þáttr alone, meaning nearly half of the instances.

A further confirmation that the use of this negative particle is indeed to be considered odd in such a frequent use in a þáttr written around 1275 comes from a comparison to older, contemporary and younger texts. Andrea de Leeuw van Weenen

(2004, 14) registers 75 instances of the negative suffix -a(t) in the entire corpus of Holm perg. 15 4to (Icelandic Homily Book), which is a manuscript dated to 1200.

A number of other manuscripts older than Msk. also present instances of the negative particle -a(t). The manuscript AM 645 I 4to (St. Þorlákr’s Book of Miracles and Lives of Saints), dated ca. 1220, records 3 instances of the negative particle -a(t)

(Larsson 1891, 3, 25). Although the number might appear low, it is important to state that other kinds of negation, namely the adverb eigi, figures 16 times in AM 645 I 4to, while the younger negation ekki does not figure at all in the manuscript. This means that on a total of 19 negations, 15.7% are expressed with the negative particle -a(t).

The same discourse can be conducted for AM 673 b 4to (Placítus drápa) again from ca. 1200. Only 3 instances of the negative particle -a(t) are found in this manuscript

(Larsson 1891, 3, 25), but no record of any other negation is found in this short poem.

A comparison with manuscripts contemporary to Msk. can confirm that the negative particle -a(t) is only recorded in a relatively low number of instances. For example, the text of Alexanders saga in AM 519 4to, dated ca. 1280 and therefore roughly contemporary with Msk., records 34 instances of the negative particle -a(t), against the 442 occurrences of the negative adverb eigi, and no instances of the younger

25 negation ekki (de Leeuw van Weenen 2009, 241, 256). Therefore, on a total of 476 negations, only 7.1% figure as the negative particle -a(t).

Jómsvíkinga saga in AM 291 4to from ca. 1275–1300, and therefore another contemporary manuscript to Msk., does not record any instances of the negative particle

-a(t), since all the negations seem to be expressed with the adverb eigi (Larsson 1956).

The number of instances for the negative particle -a(t) diminish considerably for texts dated as younger than Msk. In the Uppsala manuscript of Snorra Edda in DG 11, dated to ca. 1300-1325, are recorded 17 instances of the negative particle (Grape,

Kallstenius and Thorell 1977, 181, 185–186), against the 156 instances of the adverb eigi and 30 instances of the adverb ekki (Grape, Kallstenius and Thorell 1977, 196–197).

Therefore, on a total of 203 negations, only 8.3% are recorded as expressed with the negative particle -a(t). It must also be pointed out that many of these negations belong to the poetry included in Snorra Edda.

There are, moreover, no occurrences of the negative particle -a(t) at all in another text younger than Msk., namely Möðruvallabók in AM 132 fol., which is dated ca. 1330-

1370 (de Leeuw van Weenen 1987).

The Dictionary of Old Norse Prose (ONP) records 43 instances of the negative particle-a(t). Among these, the particle seems to occur more frequently in religious and legal texts, while they come across as more rare in other kinds of texts such as þættir and sagas.

The three instances of the negative particle -a(t) here analysed all appear in

Hreiðarr’s direct speech and all practically on the same page, early in Hreiðars þáttr.

These may then be deliberate attempts to make Hreiðarr be perceived by the reader and the audience as provincial and odd. In the later manuscripts, the particle has been removed and thus this linguistic characteristic of Hreiðarr, the main protagonist, is lost.

26

Perhaps the scribes working with the younger versions of the text didn’t find the use of the negative particle -a(t) suitable as it was simply too obscure; or possibly, they didn’t understand it, as may have been the case in Hrk. (1c) where the understatement is removed.

The comparison between the occurrence of the negative particle -a(t) in Msk.,

Hulda and Hrk., and the number of occurrences of the same particle in older, contemporary and younger texts than Msk. allows the statement that the negative particle -a(t) can be considered an archaism when used in a texts such as Msk., dated to the end of the thirteenth century.

3.3 Enclitic 1st person pronoun ek

Another feature that might be considered an archaism and that is adopted in the Msk. text of the þáttr is the use of enclitic 1st person pronoun.

Enclitic pronouns, namely the pronominal morpheme positioned at the end of the verb as a suffix instead of being an isolated word before the verbal construction, are a feature that results predominant in texts much older than Msk., and the use of such a construction is mostly linked to poetry rather than prose. The cliticization of pronouns is a phenomenon which mainly involves the 1st and 2nd person pronoun ek and þú

(Hreinn Benediktsson 2002, 308).

As for what concerns Hreiðars þáttr, there seem to be sentences where the archaic enclitic 1st person pronoun is used. Although the use of such pronouns is not to be considered a default rule in the Msk. text, there is a number of instances in which they appear.

27

(6) “eða gerik aðra óvísu, þeim er um fé mitt sitja at lokka af mér” (ÍF

152.18–19)

a. Msk.: “eða geric aþra oviso þeim er vm fe mitt sitia at locca af

mer” (125,2)

b. Hulda: “eða gerík aðra vuíſv fyrir ſlikar ſakir” (34r8)

c. Hrk.: “eða geri aðra ovíſo fyrir ſlikar ſakir” (24va27)

(7) “… ok heyrðak áðan læti kynlig” (ÍF 153.12)

a. Msk.: “oc heyrþac aþan lęti kynlig” (125,22; cf. ÍF 153.12)

b. Hulda: “Ek heyrði fyrir lítlv lætí miǫk kynlig” (34r17)

c. Hrk.: “ek heyrda adan lætí kynlíg” (24vb3–4)

Concerning the first example (6a), it is relevant to note that the clitic pronoun is kept in Hulda (6b). It is, however, completely deleted in Hrk (6c).

Likewise, (7a) figures as a verb with a separate pronoun in both younger manuscripts, appearing in the younger manuscripts as shown by examples (7b) and (7c), where the verb with an enclitic pronoun has been replaced with a separate pronoun and a verb; the word order has thus been changed.

The use of the enclitic 1st person pronoun is also a predominant characteristic of early Old Norse poetry, as shown by the fact that they are very rare both in other parts of the Msk. text as well as in other prose texts from the same period, or slightly younger.

Kjeldsen (2013, 238) registers 30 occurrences of the cliticized 1st person pronoun ek in the whole Morkinskinna corpus, of which 10 are reported as belonging to the poetry sections of the compilation.

28

Concerning texts dated as older than Msk., the Homily Book in Holm perg. 15

4to, dated ca. 1200, features 26 instances of the enclitic 1st person pronoun in the nominative singular, while the occurrences of the pronoun as an isolated entity are 390

(de Leeuw van Weenen 2004, 33–34). The percentage of the enclitic pronoun ek, on a total of 416 occurrences, is hence 6.2%.

Larsson (1891) records some occurrences of the enclitic 1st person pronoun in the nominative singular in the corpus examined in his Ordförrådet. He denotes 13 instances in AM 645 I 4to (St. Þorlákr’s Book of Miracles and Lives of Saints), dated ca. 1220 in

ONP, while the pronoun occurs as a separate word 174 times (Larsson 1891, 62–63); this means that the enclitic 1st person pronoun constitutes the 6.9% on a total of 187 occurrences.

Larsson (1891) registers 2 instances of the enclitic pronoun in AM 674 a 4to

(Elucidarius) from ca. 1150-1200, against the 20 of the pronoun as a separate word

(Larsson 1891, 63); the enclitic pronoun represents therefore the 9% of the occurrences on a total of 22 instances.

The enclitic 1st person pronoun is recorded with only 1 instance in AM 315 d fol

(Grágás), dated ca. 1150-1175, with no instances of the pronoun as a single entity in the same part of this legal text analysed by Larsson (1891, 63).

The texts of Alexanders saga in AM 519 a 4to, dated ca. 1280 and therefore a contemporary to Msk., registers no instances for the enclitic 1st person pronoun in the nominative singular (de Leeuw van Weenen 2009). Another work which can be considered contemporary to Msk. such as Jómsvíkinga saga in AM 291 4to, dated ca.

1275-1300, does feature the cliticization of the 1st person pronoun in the nominative singular, in 4 instances against the 311 occurrences of the pronoun as a separate entity

29

(Larsson 1956, 22). This means that on a total of 315 occurrences, the enclitic 1st person pronoun represents the 1.3% of the instances.

As what concerns a comparison with younger texts than Msk. to be able to define the archaic value of the use of such a pronominal construction, the Uppsala manuscript of Snorra Edda in DG 11, dated 1300-1325, registers 9 instances of the enclitic 1st person pronoun in the nominative singular, while the same pronoun as a separate entity occurs

78 times (Grape, Kallstenius and Thorell 1977, 197). Therefore, on a total of 87 instances, 10.3% are enclitic, although some of these are probably employed in the poetry included in Snorra Edda.

de Leeuw van Weenen (2000, 195) mentions 13 instances of the enclitic 1st person pronoun in her Grammar of Möðruvallabók; assuming that this list is exhaustive, it would mean that the enclitic 1st person pronoun represents the 10% of the instances, since the

1st person pronoun as a separate entity occurs 108 times (de Leeuw van Weenen 1987,

35).

The Dictionary of Old Norse Prose records 62 examples of the enclitic pronoun.

Among these, only 18 belong to manuscripts younger than Msk., and they seem to appear only in religious and legal texts, mainly in stereotyped sentences and fixed expressions.

The comparison between older, contemporary and younger texts than Msk. allows to conclude that the enclitic 1st person pronoun in the nominative singular featured in

Hreiðars þáttr might be considered an archaism already at the time of composition of

Msk., since its use appears to be more frequent in the older texts rather than in manuscripts dated as contemporary and younger than Msk. itself. Nonetheless, the percentages of the occurrences of this enclitic pronoun do not seem to be particularly high, which can perhaps mean that despite its status of archaism, the use of the enclitic

30

1st person pronoun in Hreiðars þáttr cannot be considered a linguistic oddity nor a specific characteristic of the text.

3.4 The contracted form þars

Cliticised particles are found in the þáttr even outside the domain of pronouns, as it can be deducted from the use of the enclitic relative particle es. The relative particle commonly appears as er in younger texts, whereas es is an older form which predominates in the earlier texts, before the younger er replaces it. Noreen (1923, 319) states that the form es was predominant in the oldest texts written in Old Icelandic such as the first two entries of Reykjaholtsmáldagi, a document from the second half of the twelfth century and early thirteenth century, and the earliest parts of the legal text

Grágás. Noreen also mentions AM 237 a fol. In the Icelandic Homily Book, the ratio of es : er is 3 : 2, and in AM 645 4to, es is about as common as er. Interestingly, in Rímbegla,

GKS 1812 IV 4to, dated ca. 1292, the ratio of er : es is 12 : 1 (Noreen 1923, 319).

It was primarily the s-form (es) that was used as an enclitic, much more so than the r-form (er). The form sem then replaced the enclitic es as the main form, granting the form þars the status of archaism against the younger þar sem.

(8) “þótti mér ósannligt at eigi réði hann einum hlut, þars hann lætr mik

mǫrgum ráða” (ÍF 155.7)

a. Msk.: “þars hann letr mic morgom raþa” (127,16)

b. Hulda: “þar ſem hann liét mik eínn raða ǫllv” (34v21)

c. Hrk.: “þar sem hann líet mík rada eínn ollu ” (25ra19–20)

31

Although this is the only example of the enclitic particle es in Hreiðars þáttr, it has been considered relevant for the purpose of this study since said archaism figures as such in

Msk. (8a), but it has been changed in the two younger versions of the text. This is not in Hreiðarr’s own direct speech, but his brother’s, so it is possible that this archaism, much as the precedingly analysed negative particle, was intended to characterise the speech of the provincial Icelander at the royal court.

The contracted þars has indeed been replaced in both younger manuscripts by the construction þar sem, as shown by (8a) and (8b), where perhaps the scribe decided not to keep the archaic form and instead brought it to a more understandable and modern version of the relative particle.

The status of archaism for the contracted form þars featured in Msk. in the example above can be confirmed by, once more, addressing the presence of the feature in the rest of the Msk. corpus. Kjeldsen (2013) registers 11 occurrences of the conjunction þars in the Msk. text, 1 being the one in example (8a), whereas 5 of these are reported as belonging to the poetic sections of the text, which is however a lower number against the 27 occurrences of the conjunction þar sem spelled in a more modern fashion as two separate words; the conjunction þar er, instead, is registered as occurring

33 times (387).

A confirmation of the archaic value of such a construction comes from a comparison with older texts than Msk.

Holm perg. 15 4to presents 26 instances of the relative particle es, of which 14 are the contracted form þars (de Leeuw van Weenen 2004, 40).

Larsson (1891) only records the contracted form þars in AM 645 I 4to, St.

Þorlákr’s Book of Miracles and Lives of Saints, dated ca. 1220, and only in 1 instance

(Larsson 1891, 379).

32

The text of Alexanders saga in AM 519 a 4to from ca. 1280 only features 1 instance of þars as a contracted form, while the rest of the instances follow the more modern forms of þar er and þar sem (de Leeuw van Weenen 2009, 336). In a similar fashion, another text contemporary to Msk. such as Jómsvíkinga saga in AM 291 4to from ca.

1275-1300) also features only 1 instance of the contracted form þars (Larsson 1956, 96).

As concerning younger texts, the Uppsala manuscript of Snorra Edda in DG 11 dated to 1300-1325 does not present any instances of the contracted form þars, and no instances of the relative particle er spelled with the archaic form es. The text does, however, feature the relative conjunction þar er in a total of 10 occurrences, and the construction þar sem also appears in 12 instances (Grape, Kallstenius and Thorell 1977,

273).

Likewise, another younger work such as Möðruvallabók, AM 132 fol. dated to ca.

1330-1370, does not register any instance of the archaic contracted form, and no occurrences of the archaic particle es are recorded either. The preferred form seems to once more be the younger þar er and þar sem, for which de Leeuw van Weenen records respectively 2 and 1 instances (1987, 214).

To conclude, þars in Hreiðars þáttr uses a form of the conjunction (es) which was already considered archaic by the end of the thirteenth century when the þáttr and the whole text of Msk. was composed. In fact, the two later manuscripts of Hreiðars þáttr use later forms such as þar sem.

3.5 The indefinite pronoun nǫkkurr

One more rare inflection that needs to be addressed in this context is the pronoun nǫkkurr ‘some’. In every instance of usage of this pronoun in Hreiðars þáttr, the scribe in Morkinskinna seems to prefer the rarer, more archaic root nakkv-. Hreinn

33

Benediktsson (2002) states, concerning the origin of this pronoun, that it derives from the Proto-Norse phrases *ni-wait-hwarjaʀ ‘not know (I) who’ and *ni-wait-hwata ‘not know (I) what’. These constructions ultimately got contracted and reshaped over time with several stem variants as part of the process (Hreinn Benediktsson 2002, 470–471).

In fact, the indefinite pronoun nǫkkurr can be most frequently found with the stem form nekkver- in the early Old Icelandic sources, whereas the stem form nakkvar- is considered to be much rarer and only to be featured in a small number of early manuscripts (Hreinn Benediktsson 2002, 472).

Masculine Feminine Neuter

Sg. Nom. nekkverr, nakkvarr nekkver nekkvert, nakkvat,

nekkvat, nokkvat

Acc. nekkvern, nekkverja, nekkvert, nakkvat,

nakkvarn nakkvara nekkvat, nokkvat

Dat. nekkverjum nekkverri, nekkverju, nekkvi,

nakkvarri nøkkvi

Gen. nekkvers nekkverrar, nekkvers

nakkvarrar

Pl. Nom. nekkverir, nekkverjar nekkver

nakkvarir

Acc. nekkverja, nekkverjar nekkver

nakkvara

Dat. nekkverjum nekkverjum nekkverjum

Gen. nekkverra nekkverra nekkverra

Figure 5: Inflection of the pronoun nǫkkurr with the archaic stem form nekkv-/nakkv-.

34

In the earliest attested Old Icelandic, the stem nekkver- is predominant, according to

Hreinn Benediktsson (2002), while the stem nakkvar- has a much more limited distribution. The stem nakkvar- probably arose as a mixture of nekkver- and the nominative and accusative singulat neuter nakkvat. From the different forms of this older pronoun, the more modern stem form nǫkkurr arose (Hreinn Benediktsson 2002,

472–473).

It is important to note that the stem nakkv- was used longer in the nominative and accusative singular neuter than in other forms. Therefore, it is particularly interesting to find this very archaic stem nakkv- in the text of Hreiðars þáttr, especially since this stem appears to have been also used in other forms than the nominative and accusative singular. The peculiar choice of the scribe from Msk. does indeed undergo a change in the younger versions of the text.

Hereby three examples:

(15) “Ok nemr stað síðan á hæð nakkvarri ok er allstarsýnn” (ÍF 154.10)

a. Msk.: “oc nemr stað siþan a hęð nacqvarri” (126, 19)

b. Hulda: “Nam hreiðarr þa ſtaðar ok var all ſtarſynn” (34v3)

c. Hrk.: “Nam hann þa ſtaðr ok var all ſtarſynn” (24vb31)

(16) “Nú dregsk þó svá leikrinn at þeir gera honum nakkvat harðleikit” (ÍF

160.15)

a. Msk.: “Nv dregsc þo sva leicrinn. at þeir gera honom nacqvat

harþleikit” (132, 22–23)

35

b. Hulda: “En droz leikrinn ſiðar at þeir gerðu honum helldr

harðleikít” (36r20–21)

c. Hrk.: “en droz leikrin um ſiðar at þeir gíora honum helldr

harðleikit” (26ra20)

(17) “Hreiðarr var nú nakkvara stund með Magnúsi konungi” (ÍF 163.21)

a. Msk.: “Hreiþarr var nv nacqvarastvnd meþ Magnúsi konvngi”

(136, 2)

b. Hulda: “hreiðarr var nu með Magnúsi konungi um ſtund” (37r25)

c. Hrk.: “hreiðarr var nu með Magnúsi konungi um ſtund” (26vb27)

As shown by the changes from examples (15a) to (15b-c), the phrasing has been altered so that the indefinite pronoun would not be needed at all; in examples (16a), (17a) to

(15b-c), (16b-c) and (17b-c), however, the indefinite pronoun with the root nakkv- tends to be deleted or changed to a more modern root in the younger manuscripts.

This is relevant for the whole corpus of Msk., as shown by Kjeldsen in one of his explanatory tables about the indefinite pronoun nǫkkur and its representation throughout the text. According to Kjeldsen (2013), Msk. presents 33 occurrences of the indefinite pronoun with the archaic root nakkv-, while all the other instances in the text occur with different roots such as nokkvör- and nökkor-; the roots seem to alternate quite frequently, especially in the leaves written by hand A, which is the hand that copied

Hreiðars þáttr as well (Kjeldsen 2013, 277). In the case of the leaves of Hreiðars þáttr specifically, however, the only preferred form seems to be the archaic roots nakkv- and nökkv- (Kjeldsen 2013, 283-284). The fact that the root nakkv- is rare and is nonetheless

36 the preferred form of the pronoun in the þáttr can be a remarkable point to confirm once more the archaic mindset of the scribe in Msk.

The hypothesis of the archaic use of the indefinite pronoun is corroborated also by the results gained from the comparison between Msk. and other texts. Andrea de

Leeuw van Weenen (2004, 116) registers 31 occurrences of the root nakkv-/nekkv- in

Holm perg. 15 4to, dated ca. 1200 and therefore an older text than Msk.

Larsson (1891, 239-240) records 15 instances of the same archaic root in AM 645

I 4to, St. Þorlákr’s Book of Miracles and Lives of Saints, dated ca. 1220.

The archaism status of the indefinite pronoun with the root nakkv- is once more confirmed by the relatively low numbers of its occurrence in other texts which can be dated either to the same period as Msk. Alexanders saga in AM 519 a 4to, from ca. 1280, registers a total of 5 occurrences of the stem form nakkv- (de Leeuw van Weenen 2009,

300). The forms are recorded as being all in the nominative or accusative singular, while the predominant stem appears to be the root nocko- (de Leeuw van Weenen 2009, 128).

It is, however, expected, since the root nakkv- lasted longer in the specific cases of nominative and accusative singular.

Likewise, 12 instances can be traced in the Jómsvíkinga saga manuscript AM 291

4to from ca. 1275-1300, lemmatized by Larsson (1956, 60). In the case of this contemporary manuscript to Msk. as well, the occurrences of the root nakkv- seem to be limited to the nominative and accusative singular neuter, while the predominant stem appears to be nocko-.

Snorra Edda in the Uppsala manuscript in DG 11, dated ca. 1300-1325, does not register any instances of this archaic stem form for the indefinite pronoun (Grape,

Kallstenius and Thorell 1977).

37

Möðruvallabók, AM 132 fol., dated ca. 1330-1370, records 4 instances of the root nakkv-, all in the nominative and accusative singular neuter, while the preferred stem form appears to be nokk- (de Leeuw van Weenen 1987).

It is, after this comparison, fair to state that the use of the archaic root nakkv- for the indefinite pronoun reported in this subchapter is indeed to be considered a peculiarity in the text of Hreiðars þáttr.

3.6 Indeclinable adjectives

To be added to the heavy presence of hapax legomena, there are also a number of rare inflections throughout the text. Based on Kjeldsen’s morphological study, it is possible to isolate a number of occurrences concerning this particular feature, which I will record in the examples listed below.

(12) “Hann var ljótr maðr ok varla sjálfbjargi fyr vits sǫkum” (ÍF 152.3–4)

a. Msk.: “Hann var liotr maþr. oc varla sialfbiargi fyr viz socom

(124,16–17)

b. Hulda: “ok líotr ok þotti varla ſíalfráði fyrir vítz ſakar” (33v28–29)

c. Hrk.: “en liotr aa yfir lít ok þotti varlla ſialfraði” (24va11)

(13) “Sigla þeir í haf ok verða vel reiðfara” (ÍF 153.3)

a. Msk.: “Sigla þeir ihaf. oc verþa vel reiþfara” (125, 11–12)

b. Hulda: “Sígldu þeir j haf þegar þeir vorv bvnir. Urðu þeir vel

reidfara” (34r13–14)

c. Hrk.: “Sigldu þeir þorðr j haf þegar þeir voru bunir ok verda vel

reiðfara” (24va35–36)

38

(14) “Ok fagna honum vel, ok verðr konungr áheyrsli” (ÍF 154.14)

a. Msk.: “Oc fagna honom vel. oc verþr konvngr aheyrsli” (126, 23–

24)

b. Hulda: Sentence missing: text altered (34v5)

c. Hrk.: Sentence missing: text altered (24vb34)

Kjeldsen (2013) notes the inflections for sjálfbjargi ‘self-supporting,’ reiðfara ‘travel, voyage’ and áheyrsli ‘capable of hearing’ as not very common, and remarks that they are used in the text as indeclinable adjectives (235).

Sjálfbjargi (12a) appears in the Old Icelandic language also as sjálfbjarga; both forms are, however, very rare, as confirmed by the fact that sjálfbjargi is recorded 5 times in the corpus analysed by ONP, whereas 2 instances belong to family sagas, 1 to historical works, and 2 to þættir (1 of which is, in fact, the word from Hreiðars þáttr).

The same adjective in the form sjálfbjarga occurs in 7 instances, all of which are featured in texts dated posteriorly to Msk.

It is relevant for the scope of this analysis to also note that the adjectives reported in examples (12a), (13a) and (14a) for Msk. have been changed with various degrees of corrections in Hulda and Hrk. In fact, the word sjálfbjargi in 1a has been replaced with a different yet similar, adjective sjálfráði ‘self-determined’ in both (12b) and (12c).

Of the two adjectives figuring in example (12), sjálfráði only appears in the word list compiled by Larsson. While the word sjálfbjargi does not occur at all, sjálfráði is registered by Larsson in only 2 occurrences, and namely 1 in AM 673 a I 4to,

Physiologus, from caþ 1200, and 1 in AM 674 a 4to, Elucidarius, from ca. 1150-1200

(Larsson 1891, 295).

39

As concerning the rest of the manuscripts used as terms of comparison in this thesis, neither sjálfbjargi nor sjálfráði appears in Holm perg. 15 4to, Alexanders saga in

AM 519 a 4to, Jómsvíkinga saga in AM 291 4to, Uppsala Snorra Edda in DG 11, or

Möðruvallabók AM 132 fol.

Examples (13b) and (13c) show, nonetheless, that the scribes of Hulda and Hrk. have decided to keep the adjective reiðfara in both their copies of the probable common ancestor of the two texts, most likely because reiðfara is a more common adjective compared to the other words used as examples above. In fact, slightly higher numbers are recorded for the word reiðfara in (13a-c), which is interestingly also the only word from the examples above which has not been changed in the younger redactions of the

þáttr. ONP records 29 occurrences of this adjective, of which 5 are registered as belonging to þættir, while the majority is to be found in texts such as family sagas, historical works and contemporary sagas. The adjective reiðfara does not, however, appear in any of the texts used in this thesis as terms of comparison with Msk., and namely Holm perg. 15 4to, Alexanders saga in AM 519 a 4to, Jómsvíkinga saga in AM

291 4to, Uppsala Snorra Edda in DG 11, and Möðruvallabók AM 132 fol.

The word áheyrsli from (14a), which has perhaps been perceived as odd and/or rare already by the scribes themselves, does not occur at all in examples (14b) and (14c), since the scribes of both younger manuscripts decided to completely delete the sentence from their own copies. A scarce number of instances from ONP concerns, in fact, the word áheyrsli (14a), for which only 2 instances are recorded, 1 belonging to an historical work (Orkneyinga saga in GKS 1005 fol., dated ca. 1387-1395), while the other is indeed the one from Hreiðars þáttr. The adjective áheyrsli is also found as áheyrsla, and in this form it is recorded 6 times in ONP, where all the instances are reported as belonging to

40 religious works and contemporary sagas, all dating from the fourteenth century onwards, where the adjective in question appears to be used in fixed expressions and proverbs.

In a similar faring as the adjectives from examples (12) and (13), the adjective

áheyrsli from (14) is not featured in the texts lemmatised in Larsson’s Ordförrådet, and it does not appear at all in any of the manuscripts precedingly used as terms of comparison.

3.7 Rare lexical items

One of the main characteristics – and perhaps the most noticeable – of the þáttr, which contributes to advance the idea of a peculiar linguistic oddity in the text, is the fairly heavy presence of hapax legomena.

(9) “Ok vildi eigi láta kœja sik samdœgris” (ÍF 153.6)

a. Msk.: “oc villdi eigi lata køia sic samdøgris“ (125,15)

b. Hulda: “síglðu þeir j haf þegar þeir voru bunir” (34r13)

c. Hrk.: “sigldu þeir þordr j haf þegar þeir voru bunir” (24va35)

(10) “Hann er ljótr ok heldr ósyknligr” (ÍF 154.27–28)

a. Msk.: “hann er liotr oc helldr osycnligr” (127,6)

b. Hulda: “liotr ok helldr ſeinheppiligr” (34v14)

c. Hrk.: “liotr ok helldr ſeinheppiligr” (25ra10)

(11) “Sýnisk nú maðr ljótr ok greitt vaskligr” (ÍF 158.6–7)

a. Msk.: “oc greit vaxligr” (130, 16–17)

41

b. Hulda: “ok karlmannligr” (35v14)

c. Hrk.: “ok karlmannligr” (25vb1)

The three examples listed above in (9a), (10a) and (11a) are remarked by Ármann

Jakobsson and Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson as hapax legomena (2011, 153–156). This means that the words figuring in Hreiðars þáttr are the only recorded instances. This is confirmed by ONP and other major dictionaries such as Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon’s

Íslensk orðsifjabók (1989) and Jan de Vries’s Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch

(1962), as well as by the fact that all four expressions seem to have been changed by the scribes in Hulda and Hrk, as shown in examples (9b-c), (10b-c), and (11b-c).

The word kœja (9a) is indeed only recorded with a single appearance in the Old

Icelandic language, and namely in Hreiðars þáttr, and de Vries (1962) lists it as meaning

‘disturb, annoy’, reporting it as being a cognate word to New Norwegian køjast ‘to disgust’ (de Vries 1962, 342). In the case of this instance, it is interesting to note that the author of the probable common source for Hulda and Hrk. decided to delete it together with the whole sentence, whereas examples 9b and 9c report the same missing sentence with the exact same changes.

Similarly, the word ósyknligr (10a) undergoes a complete substitution in its faring to the younger texts. Due to its state of hapax, it is impossible to provide a translation for it. Nonetheless, possible etymologies of the word can be provided, and namely in relation to the words sykn and sýkn/sœkn. The word sykn is registered by de Vries (1962) as meaning ‘innocent, free of accusations’ and stemming from PGmc. *su̯ikna and Go. swikns ‘innocent, chaste’ (de Vries 1962, 572). The word sýkn/sœkn, ‘suitable for process’, is listed by de Vries (1962) as probably being the same word as sykn, meaning

‘the day which is suitable for a process action’; the form sœkn is based on a cognate

42 relationship to the word sóknardagar ‘day on which court cases can be analysed’, which means that a mixture of different words probably took place (de Vries 1962, 572). If the word ósyknligr really bears resemblance and relationship to these two words, the privative particle ó- could then provide the meaning of ‘not guilty, innocent’ to the example in (10a).

The untranslatable word ósyknligr has been changed to seinheppiligr in both Hulda and Hrk. Although not an hapax, seinheppiligr is nonetheless a rare word, which does figure only in 2 instances in ONP, one of which is the Hulda redaction of Hreiðars þáttr while the other belongs to Vilhjálms saga sjóðs in AM 527 4to, dated ca. 1600-1700, where the word seinheppiligr seems to mean ‘mentally slow’. A possible etymology for this word can be hypothesized, once more, through de Vries’s etymological dictionary

(1962). The compound seinheppiligr could reasonably consist of the adjective seinn ‘late, slow’ (de Vries 1962, 469) and another adjective heppinn ‘happy, glad’ which in turn is an i-umlaut form derived from the word happ ‘success, happiness’ (de Vries 1962, 222).

This would give the word seinheppiligr the meaning of ‘someone who is slow at attaining success,’ which from the context of the description of Hreiðarr’s character seems to be perfectly plausible.

The word vaxligr in example (11a), likewise, is recorded as a hapax by both the editors of the Íslenzk fornrit text of the þáttr. However, the Íslenzk fornrit edition features the word vaskligr, whereas the same word in the Msk. manuscript is spelled “vaxligr” with “x”. Kjeldsen (2013, 131) cites three instances where the scribe of Msk. denotes

/sk/ with “x”; all of them appear in this word, which allows the question about if the spelling “x” could denote /sk/ rather than simply /ks/. Nonetheless, vaxligr – which could be cognate with vaxa ‘to grow’ referring to Hreiðarr’s bodily stature – seems to be nowhere attested.

43

In fact, the word vaxligr seems to be recorded as an hapax by ONP as well, where the only occurrence of this word is indeed the one from Hreiðars þáttr. Jan de Vries

(1962) provides several possible etymologies of such a word, all related to the words vaxa and vexa ‘grow, to let grow’ (de Vries 1962, 658), as well as to the substantive vǫxtr ‘size, shape’ (676). This hypothetical etymology would give the construction greitt vaxligr the meaning of ‘grown in shape, very imposing in size’, which can perhaps be confirmed by the way the later scribes changed the odd word with a fairly more common adjective karlmannligr ‘manly’.

(21) “… stundum fauk hann fyrir sem vindli, en stundum var hann fastr fyrir

sem veggr” (ÍF 160.13–14)

a. Msk.: “stvndom fauc hann fyrir sem vindli” (132, 20–21)

b. Hulda: “stundum fauk hann fyrir þeim ſem halmviſk” (36r19–20)

c. Hrk.: “stundum fauk hann fyrir þeim ſem halm viſk” (26ra18)

The construction sem vindli could be placed under the hapax legomena section as well, in virtue of its unique occurrence. This is confirmed by the fact that Ármann

Jakobsson and Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson (2011, 160) note the word vindli as meaning vöndull ‘bundle of hay, wisp.’ Neither the rest of Msk. nor any of the other texts handled as comparisons throughout this thesis do feature such a word. ONP, moreover, does record a single instance of vindli, and it is exactly the one which can be found in Hreiðars

þáttr.

Hreiðars þáttr heimska also presents remarkable strange passages that do not necessarily cover only one thematic subdivision.

44

(22) “Gramir munu taka þik”, segir hann, “er þú gengr til banans” (ÍF 162.20–

21)

a. Msk.: “Gramir mono taca þik segir hann er þv gengr til banans”

(135, 3–4)

b. Hulda: “Gramir mvnv taka þik er þv hrapar sva til bananſ” (37r4)

c. Hrk.: “Gramir munv taka þik er þu hrapar sva til daudanſ”

(26va28–29)

It is interesting to note that the odd construction in (22a) brought the scribe of the common ancestor of Hulda and Hrk. to change the words completely, as shown in examples (22a-c). The construction in (22a) can be indeed considered odd in its entirety, since this sentence does not seem to be attested elsewhere outside the text of

Hreiðars þáttr.

The substantive bani ‘death, killer’ is not necessarily odd per se, but the word gramir, which seems to mean ‘demons, trolls’, is rare nonetheless. It is interesting to point out that through this research, it would have been expected from the scribes of the younger version to change the rarer word gramir. Instead, the scribes have changed the more common “gengr til banans” to “hrapar sva til bananſ” (22b) and “hrapar sva til daudanſ” (22c), but the less common word gramir has been kept, instead of being changed into more common words such as, perhaps, trǫll.

In virtue of their status of hapax, none of the odd occurrences analysed in this section seems to be used in the rest of Msk., or in any of the other texts examinated as comparison material in this research.

45

The presence of a remarkable quantity of rarely-occurring words and hapax legomena in a relatively short text is a clear reason for which the þáttr should indeed be considered odd from a linguistic perspective.

46

4. Provincial language?

As presented in Faulkes’s (2011) study as well, it is perhaps important to note that these oddities, whose status of archaisms may be confirmed by the study conducted in this thesis, might have been intended by the author to be interpreted “as provincialisms or even vulgarisms” (Faulkes 2011, 19). This might mean that the author intended to portray the rustic and simple-mindedness of the main character of the þáttr through a characterisation of the text which relies on constructions that seem odd or have fallen out in a time much anterior to the composition of the text itself.

Especially concerning the negative particle -a(t) and the use of the enclitic first person pronoun ek in the nominative singular, it is interesting to note that said archaisms seem to be a direct characteristic of Hreiðarr’s speech, and his brother Þórðr’s as well, although less frequently. Is this perhaps used deliberately as a linguistic oddity as part of Hreiðarr’s image as a provincial and eccentric person?

This hypothesis seems to be plausible, since the archaisms seem to highly characterize the direct speech parts of the text, but they are never used in the parts where other people, namely the Norwegian kings or other characters who are not

Icelanders, speaks. The reader is then bound to perceive the Icelanders, protagonists of this þáttr, as simple people whose speech is determined by linguistic oddities and sentences which are different than the ones belonging to the speech of the rest of the characters.

In regard to the negative particle -a(t), the three instances discussed in the preceding chapter seem to all occur the same page of the manuscript. It seems plausible that this feature was not part of the author’s own language but rather something odd and archaic that he borrowed from an earlier language and didn’t use consistently. The

47 examples all appear fairly early in Hreiðars þáttr, which can mean that the author used this feature in the beginning and then perhaps decided not to use it at a later stage of his writing, or even failed to recall using it.

The use of dialectal or archaic features might, in light of this hypothesis, have been directed towards a strive for comicity, since the rest of the text shows that the scribe did have enough linguistic awareness that he could have avoided these oddities, were it his intention (Faulkes 2011, 19).

48

5. Conclusion

Hreiðars þáttr heimska is part of the Morkinskinna compilation in GKS 1009 fol. from around 1275, but it is also preserved in two other medieval manuscripts, AM 66 fol.,

Hulda, from around 1350–1375 and GKS 1010 fol., Hrokkinskinna, from around 1400-

1450.

The language of Hreiðars þáttr heimska in Morkinskinna, GKS 1009 fol., contains several linguistic traits that appear archaic compared to prose literature from that period.

The aim of this project has been to examine these features and determine if they can justifiably be characterized as archaic through an analysis of how they fared in the other two younger manuscripts.

For this purpose, relevant linguistic features have been selected in Morkinskinna and divided into categories, and namely the negative particle -a(t), the enclitic form of the pronoun ek, the contracted form þars, the indefinite pronoun nǫkkurr, indeclinable adjectives, and rare lexical items.

For each category, examples have been given, and then compared to the corresponding sentences in the manuscripts of Hulda and Hrokkinskinna; subsequently, the same linguistic oddities have been compared to older, contemporary and younger texts than Morkinskinna, and namely the Icelandic Homily Book in Holm. perg. 15 4to,

St. Þorlákr’s Book of Miracles and Lives of Saints in AM 645 I 4to, Elucidarius in AM

674 a 4to, Alexanders saga in AM 519 a 4to, Jómsvíkinga saga in AM 291 4to, the

Uppsala manuscript of Snorra Edda in DG 11, and Möðruvallabók AM 132 fol. The conclusions of said analysis can be explained as follows.

49

Hreiðars þáttr in Morkinskinna presents a number of negations expressed through the negative particle -a(t), which is commonly known to be a feature used mostly in poetic compositions belonging to a far earlier time than the writing down of the þáttr.

The hypothesis that the construction did figure as an oddity to more modern readers is allowed by the fact that the negation with the particle -a(t) has been changed by the later scribes to a more modern negations such as ekki or eigi. In conclusion, it can be stated from the study of the three manuscripts, paired with a comparison to the whole corpus of Morkinskinna and other texts through the use of lemmatized indexes and word lists, that the linguistic feature of the negative particle -a(t) is an archaism, which the scribe in Morkinskinna peculiarly decided to keep in his work.

The use of the enclitic 1st person pronoun in the nominative singular is not to be considered a default rule in the Morkinskinna text. However, there is a number of instances in which they appear, which has allowed this research to come to the conclusion that said enclitic pronouns are, once more, an archaic feature. The scribe of

Morkinskinna, whether by conservative reasons or by a lack of knowledge on the matter, decided to keep the feature in his work. Nonetheless, this feature does not seem to be a characteristic of Hreiðars þáttr alone, since it is widely spread throughout the whole

Morkinskinna corpus.

A comparison with the text from Hulda and Hrokkinskinna, as well as a research through the rest of Morkinskinna and through lemmatized indexes for contemporary and younger works such as Alexanders saga, Jómsvíkinga saga, Möðruvallabók and Snorra

Edda, has allowed to come to the conclusion that these features can be indeed considered archaic, which is perhaps the main reason for the changes produced in the two younger manuscripts.

50

The presence of a great quantity of hapax legomena in such a relatively short text has been the principal and most obvious tell-tale sign about the linguistic and morphological oddity of the þáttr. Although hapax legomena cannot, by their nature, be ascribed to archaisms, they have been extremely useful to inquire about the extent in which said words were perceived as errors or odd constructions by the later scribes.

This has indeed been confirmed by this research, since all the hapax legomena are not recorded in the later versions of the þáttr, where they have been deleted or changed into more common words. The principal and most obvious example is the untranslatable word ósyknligr, which might be considered more of a spelling error rather than an actual hapax. It has been chosen as a title for this thesis precisely by virtue of its own peculiarity, corroborated by the fact that the scribes of Hulda and Hrokkinskinna decided to change the word into seinheppiligr, a more modern although still not particularly common word. In conclusion, the section on hapax legomena has made it clear that, although not archaisms, the heavy presence of this kind of words in the text certainly contributes to its linguistic oddity.

It has been relevant for the scope of this analysis to note that a number of adjectives reported in Morkinskinna appear to follow rare/infrequent inflections. These have fairly frequently been changed in Hulda and Hrokkinskinna. As proof, it is important to remind the readers about given example (14), where the adjective áheyrsli has perhaps been perceived as odd and/or rare already by the scribes themselves, whereas it does not occur at all in the younger texts, since the scribes of both younger manuscripts decided to completely delete the sentence from their own copies.

Of the three adjectives taken into consideration as examples in the previous chapter, only sjálfráði and reiðfara appear in the word lists and lemmatized indexes consulted in this thesis as comparative material, while none of the other instances

51 reported in this research is featured in any of the indexes or Kjeldsen’s study on the whole corpus of Morkinskinna, which can perhaps serve as an ulterior confirmation of the rarity of such adjectives and their inflections.

Kjeldsen does, however, address the rendition of the indefinite pronoun nǫkkur in Morkinskinna, and following his lead, it has been possible to note that in every instance of usage of this pronoun, the author of Hreiðars þáttr heimska in Morkinskinna seems to prefer the archaic root nakkv-. In conclusion, it can be stated that the infrequent occurrences and rare inflections present in the þáttr can be classified as archaisms, and they do contribute to the general archaic character of the whole text as much as the other categories earlier mentioned.

The odd constructions cannot be ascribed to the archaisms clearly evident in the other sections of this research. They have, however, been extremely useful to corroborate the theory, once more, of the changing process the text has undergone in the course of its three redactions. In fact, the odd constructions found in Morkinskinna and listed in the examples (21) and (22) in Chapter 3 have always been changed in the exact same way in the younger versions, which has meant a positive result as well for the theories about the relationships between the manuscripts which have been proposed in Chapter 2.

It is however always quite difficult to know when certain words and forms really started to be perceived as archaic; and Morkinskinna is a relatively old manuscript, and too few manuscripts from the same period have survived for a research to be thoroughly and without any doubt able to establish what words in the text are really archaisms

(Faulkes 2011, 18).

Hreiðars þáttr heimska is, indeed, a text which features more archaic constructions than the rest of the compilation in which it is included. These archaic features, although

52 perhaps conservative of any eventual original manuscripts that may have been lost, were regarded as oddities by the scribes who copied the text for future use in the younger versions of the text, Hulda and Hrokkinskinna.

The words and sentences which were perceived as odd by the scribes were, in most cases, changed with the purpose of making the text more legible and understandable for more modern readers.

There are, however, features that have been kept, although it is not possible to determine whether they were copied as they were for conservation reasons, or because the scribes did not possess a sufficient knowledge of the text which would have allowed them to correct the words and change them into more modern constructions.

The oldest surviving manuscript of the þáttr, namely the version found in

Morkinskinna, was written ca. 1275, but as stated by Faulkes, the story is first believed to have been written in an earlier period than this date (2011, 17). There is no possibility to ascertain the influence of other texts, but it is plausible that the þáttr was written in the earliest period of saga-writing, at the end of the twelfth or beginning of the thirteenth century. The evidence for this is mainly linguistic, as can be concluded by the research present in this work.

53

Appendix List of selected linguistic features in Hreiðars þáttr heimska

Here as follows, the selected linguistic features of Hreiðars þáttr heimska analysed in this project are reported. The table will show all the linguistic features as they appear in the three manuscripts Morkinskinna, Hulda and Hrokkinskinna, listed in the same order in which they have been used throughout this thesis. The features will be listed with references to the manuscripts for Hulda and Hrokkinskinna, and to the diplomatic edition by Finnur Jónsson for Morkinskinna (1932). For references to the Íslenzk fornrit edition by Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson and Ármann Jakobsson (2011), cf. the examples enumerated in Chapter 3.

Morkinskinna Hulda Hrokkinskinna “oc era þer þa betra lut” “Ok er þer þa eigi betra “Ok er þer þa verra” (125,1) hlut” (34r7) (24va26) “oc verea þer veʀi venleicr “ok væri þér betri venleikr “geri þér betri vænleikr minni” (126,11) minni” (34r32) minne” (24vb25) “muna þer betra þiccia at” “ecki mun þer betra at” “ecki er þer betra” (126,3) (34r26) (24vb16)

“ecki var hann callaþr “Ecki var hann kallaðr “ecki var hann vizku madr vizcv maþr” (127,8) vitzkvinr” (34v16) kalladr” (25ra11–12) “ecki dala er þat” (127,10) “ecki hvaſt umhygiulauſt” “ecki hvaſt umhygiulauſt” (34v17) (25ra14) “eða geric aþra oviso þeim “eða gerik aðra vuíſv fyrir “eða ger ek aðra ovíſu fyrir er vm fe mitt sitia at locca ſlikar ſakar” (34r8) ſlikar ſakar” (24va27) af mer” (125,2) “oc heyrþac aþan lęti “ek heyrði fyrir lítlv lætí “ek heyrða aðan lætí kynlig” (125,22) kinlíg” (24vb3–4) miǫk kynlig” (34r17)

54

“þars hann letr mic ““þar ſem hann liét mik “at hann myndi af yðr gyfu morgom raþa” (127,16) einom raða” (34v21) hlíota ſem allír aðrir” (25ra19) “oc nemr stað siþan a hęð “Nam hreiðarr þa ſtaðar ok “Nam hann þa ſtaðr ok var nacqvarri” (126, 19) var all ſtarſynn” (34v3) all ſtarſynn” (24vb31) “Nv dregsc þo sva leicrinn. “En droz leikrinn ſiðar at “en droz leikrin um ſiðar at at þeir gera honom nacqvat þeir gerðu honum helldr þeir gíora honum helldr harþleikit” (132, 22–23) harðleikít” (36r20–21) harðleikit” (26ra20) “Hreiþarr var nv “hreiðarr var nu með “hreiðarr var nu með nacqvarastvnd meþ Magnúsi konungi um Magnúsi konungi um Magnúsi konvngi” (136, ſtund” (37r25) ſtund” (26vb27) 2) “Hann var liotr maþr. oc “ok líotr ok þotti varla “en liotr aa yfir lít ok þotti varla sialfbiargi fyr viz ſíalfráði fyrir vítz ſakar” varlla ſialfraði” (24va11) socom (124,16–17) (33v28–29) “Sigla þeir ihaf. oc verþa “Sígldu þeir j haf þegar “Sigldu þeir þorðr j haf vel reiþfara” (125, 11–12) þeir vorv bvnir. Urðu þeir þegar þeir voru bunir ok vel reidfara” (34r13–14) verda vel reiðfara”

(24va35–36)

“Oc fagna honom vel. oc Sentence missing: text Sentence missing: text verþr konvngr aheyrsli” altered (34v5) altered (24vb34) (126, 23–24) “oc villdi eigi lata køia sic “síglðu þeir j haf þegar þeir “sigldu þeir þordr j haf samdøgris“ (125,15) voru bunir” (34r13) þegar þeir voru bunir” (24va35) “hann er liotr oc helldr “liotr ok helldr “liotr ok helldr osycnligr” (127,6) ſeinheppiligr” (34v14) ſeinheppiligr” (25ra10)

“oc greit vaxligr” (130, “ok karlmannligr” (35v14) “ok karlmannligr” (25vb1) 16–17)

55

“Stvndom fauc hann fyrir “Stundum fauk hann fyrir “Stundum fauk hann fyrir sem vindli” (132, 20–21) þeim ſem halmviſk” þeim ſem halm viſk” (36r19–20) (26ra18) “Gramir mono taca þik “Gramir mvnv taka þik er “Gramir munv taka þik er segir hann er þv gengr til þv hrapar sva til bananſ” þu hrapar sva til dauðanſ” banans” (135, 3–4) (37r4) (26va28–29)

56

Bibliography

Andersson, Theodore M. 1997. “The Unity of Morkinskinna.” In Sagas and the

Norwegian experience — Sagaene og Noreg: 10th International Saga Conference,

Trondheim, 3-9 August 1997: Preprints / Fortrykk, ed. Jan Ragnar Hagland, 1–10.

Trondheim: Senter for Middelalderstudier.

Ármann Jakobsson and Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson, ed. 2011. Morkinskinna 1–2. Íslenzk

fornrit 23–24. Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka fornritafélag.

Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon. 1989. Íslensk orðsifjabók. Reykjavík: Orðabók Háskólans.

Bjarni Aðalbjarnason. 1937. Om de norske kongesagaer. Oslo: Jacob Dybwad.

Faulkes, Anthony. 2011. Two Icelandic Stories: Hreiðars þáttr, Orms þáttr. London:

Viking Society for Northern Research.

Gimmler, Heinrich. 1976. “Die Thættir der Morkinskinna. Ein Beitrag zur

Überlieferungsproblematik und zur Typologie der altnordischen Kurzerzählung.”

Inaugural diss., Johann Wolfgang von Goethe-Universität.

Handrit.is manuscript catalog: http://handrit.is

Haraldur Bernharðsson. 2018. “Copying Njáls saga into one’s own dialect.” In New

Studies in the Manuscript Tradition of Njáls saga. The historia mutila of Njála, ed.

Emily Lethbridge and Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, 115–314. Kalamazoo: Medieval

Institute Publications, Western Michigan University.

57

Hreinn Benediktsson. 2002. Linguistic Studies, Historical and Comparative. Edited by

Guðrún Þórhallsdóttir, Höskuldur Þráinsson, Jón G. Friðjónsson and Kjartan

Ottosson. Reykjavík: Institute of Linguistics.

Kålund, Kristian. 1889. Katalog over den Arnamagnæanske Håndskriftsamling 1.

København: Gyldendalske Boghandel.

Kjeldsen, Alex Speed. 2013. Filologiske studier i kongesagahåndskriftet Morkinskinna.

Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana suppl. vol. 8. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum

Press.

Kålund, Kristian. 1900. Katalog over de Oldnorsk-Islandske Håndskrifter i det Store

Kongelige Bibliotek og i Universitetsbiblioteket (udenfor den Arnamagnæanske

Samling). København: Gyldendalske Boghandel.

Larsson, Ludvig. 1891. Ordförrådet de älsta islänska handskrifterna. Lund: Collin &

Zickerman.

Larsson, Ludvig. 1956. Glossar till Codex AM 291, 4to (Jómsvíkinga saga). Uppsala: Carl

Bloms Boktryckeri A.-B. de Leeuw van Weenen, Andrea. 1987. Möðruvallabók. AM 132 fol. Volume I: Index and

Concordances. Leiden – New York – København – Köln: E. J. Brill. de Leeuw van Weenen, Andrea. 2004. Lemmatized Index to the Icelandic Homily Book.

Perg. 15 4to in the Royal Library Stockholm. Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar

á Íslandi. de Leeuw van Weenen, Andrea. 2000. A Grammar of Möðruvallabók. Leiden: Research

School CNWS, Universitet Leiden.

58 de Leeuw van Weenen, Andrea. 2009. Alexanders saga. AM 519a 4° in The

Arnamagnæan Collection, Copenhagen. Manuscripta Nordica 2. Copenhagen:

Museum Tusculanum Press.

Louis-Jensen, Jonna. 1977. Kongesagastudier. Kompilationen Hulda-Hrokkinskinna.

Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 32. København: C.A. Reitzel .

Maas, Paul. 1958. Textual Criticism. Translated by Barbara Flower. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

Medieval Nordic Text Archive: http://menota.org

Morkinskinna. Ed. Finnur Jónsson. 1932. København: Samfund til udgivelse af gammel

nordisk litteratur.

Morkinskinna. The Earliest Icelandic Chronicle of the Norwegian Kings (1030–1157).

Translated by Theodore M. Andersson and Kari Ellen Gade. 2000. Ithaca and

London: Cornell University Press.

Noreen, Adolf. 1923. Altnordische Grammatik I. Altisländische und altnorwegische

Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) unter Berücksichtigung des Urnordischen.

Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Ordbog over det norrøne prosasprog – Dictionary of Old Norse Prose: http://onp.ku.dk

Snorre Sturlasons Edda. Uppsala-Handskriften DG 11 1–2. Transcribed text and

palaeographic comment by Anders Grape, Gottfrid Kallstenius, and Olof Thorell.

1977. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. de Vries, Jan. 1962. Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

59