114 Rezensionen laus von See, Beatrice La mentary (50–101). The article on Skírnismál Farge, Eve Picard, and Maria- (“Einleitungskommentar”) contains the fol- Claudia Heß. “Skírnismál”: lowing ten rubrics, to be used throughout the Modell eines Edda-Kom- commentary: (1) “Bibliographie” [a special K bibliography for Skírnismál], (2) “Überliefe- mentars. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, rungszustand” [the manuscripts], (3) “For- 1993. 101 pages. schungsgeschichte” [the state of the art], (4) “Stoffgeschichte und literarisches Nach- A group of scholars headed by Professor von leben” [history and later reworkings of the See (Frankfurt University) has undertaken plot], (5) “Gedankliche Konzeption” [plot an ambitious project, namely, to bring out a concepts], (6) “Komposition” [composition], new detailed commentary of the Elder Edda. (7) “Strophen- und Versform” [the strophic Detter-Heinzel’s and Gering-Sijmons’s expli- makeup and meter], (8) “Wortschatz und cations are partly outdated, so the Frankfurt stilistische Eigentümlichkeiten” [vocabulary initiative deserves the support of everyone and stylistic peculiarities], (9) “Literaturge- interested in Old Norse literature. The idea schichtliche Standortbestimmung” [the liter- of updating Gering-Sijmons on selected ary-historical background], (10) “Datierung” lays has occurred to a number of people [dating]. Sections 2 and 10 are brief; the since 1927–31. The authors mention Ursula others are from one to three pages long. Al- Dronke’s The Poetic Edda, vol. 1, Heroic though the authors’ goal is not to produce a Poems (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969) variorum edition of the Edda, they summa- that was never followed by a volume 2, rize and evaluate all the reasonable ideas on David A. H. Evans’s Hávamál, Text Series 7 the text and its history. The book is charac- (Viking Society for Northern Research, terized by an excellent knowledge of the 1986), and Tim William Machan’s Vaf- subject, the subdued, courteous tone of the þrúðnismál, Durham Medieval Texts 6 polemic, and a skillful maneuvering between (Cambridge 1988). In the commentary, there the authors’ and other people’s opinions. is a brief reference to Maria Elena Rugge- Numerous references to post-1927–31 rini’s edition of Lokasenna (La invettive di sources are the best proof of how necessary Loki, Testi e studi di filologia 2 [Roma: Il a new comprehensive commentary of the Calamo, 1979]). One can add to this list Elder Edda is, and yet the ointment with Carla del Zotto’s Hymiskvidha e la pesca which I am only too happy to present the di Thórr nella tradizione nordica, Testi e authors is not without a small fly. A glance studi di filologia 1 (Roma: Il Calamo, 1979), at the research done on Skírnismál in the Bernard Kummer’s Die Lieder des Codex last sixty odd years will show that the quality regius (Edda) und verwandte Denkmäler, of this research is hardly commensurate to vol. 1, Mythische Dichtung, erster Teil: Die its bulk. Most of what has recently been Schau der Seherin (Voluspá), vol. 2, Hel- said about the dating, vocabulary, etc., of dendichtung, erster Teil: Die Dichtung von Skírnismál was in principle known to Helgi und der Walküre (Zeven: Gisela Gering-Sijmons and even to Detter-Heinzel. Lienau, 1959–61), and Ólafur Briem’s un- It seems that an encyclopedic philological pretentious but convenient edition of all work written at the end of the twentieth cen- the poems (Eddukvæði, Íslenzk úrvalsrit 5 tury should give more prominence to the [Reykjavík: Skálholt, 1968]). aspects of scholarship peculiar to our time, “Skírnismál”: Modell eines Edda-Kom- indeed not to the trendy approaches or jar- mentars is a trial volume designed to show gon that may not (let us hope: will not) sur- how the four-volume commentary will be vive their creators, but to the new expecta- organized. It consists of an introduction in tions with which we open a medieval text. which the objectives of the project are laid One can test our achievements in a out (5–18), a list of abbreviations, a general simple way. If August Schleicher, Eduard bibliography (close to fifty primary and three Sievers, and Sophus Bugge came alive, what hundred secondary sources, 24–34), an ar- could we tell them that would be eye-open- ticle on Skírnismál (35–49), and the com- ing news to them? We would be able to alvíssmál 6 (1996): 114–18 Rezensionen 115 explain the difficulties of recognizing the p. 65, and 17.6: “salkynni,” p. 68), the au- Stammbaum to Schleicher; Sievers would thors discuss the stylistic function of the have to adopt a functional view of speech plural. But such plurals were lexicalized very sounds, and Bugge would learn that medi- early in Germanic, as evidenced, among eval literature is not only “antiquities” but other things, by hús (pl.) in the meaning of also art. I find it regrettable that sections 6 ‘farmstead’ (= all the buildings on a farm). and 8 of the “Einleitungskommentar” are Centuries later, it is still natural to speak so uninspiring and dry. It would be most about Kew Gardens and Hollywood Studios. interesting to read a thorough analysis of We go to the pictures/movies (for which Skírnir’s rhetoric and of the obscure words there is some justification in the technology occurring in his monologue (of their seman- of film production) and to the woods (= for- tics and emotional character, not only ety- est), come off with flying colors, etc. In mology: curses always contain frightening, Icelandic, with its numerous words like jól unintelligible words and formulas like tópi (n.pl.), the line between the singular and the ok ópi). Many details are mentioned in the plural was (is) even more blurred than in the commentary (“Stellenkommentar”), but they rest of Germanic, so it is better not to say are lost among other miscellaneous items. that the plural sali in “hví þú einn sitr enn- Consider the use of hrím in this poem: langa sali” emphasizes Freyr’s solitude. the giant who will torment Gerðr is called Skm.10.3–4 and 10 prose (60–61). In Hrímnir (28.3), Hrímgrímnir will be her the telegraphese of our etymological dictio- spouse or jailer in the kingdom of the dead naries, one often runs into curt dismissals: (35.1), and hrímþursir are invoked as wit- Walde, Feist, and Jan de Vries would cite an nesses to Skírnir’s curse (34.2). When Gerðr opinion they do not like and kill it with the gives in, Skírnir is offered a hrímkálki full peremptory abzulehnen. Against the back- of mead (37.2). The authors note the hrím- ground of the unhurried discussion charac- motif (just as they note the persistent use of teristic of this book, such unsubstantiated munr ‘desire’), but stay away from discussing verdicts sound like dissonances. The use of the artistry of the poem: they are satisfied galdralag in 10.3–4 is a problem the authors with “stylistic peculiarities.” A few stray re- cannot solve. Lönnroth suggested that 10.3– marks on the commentary are offered below 4 were part of a magical formula; he is criti- for what they are worth. cized for “probably having gone too far.” P. 40. In the section “Stoffgeschichte One expects counterarguments, but none und literarisches Nachleben,” the Icelandic are offered. Short shrift is also given to periodical Skírnir conceived as a cursor Phillpotts’s idea that Skírnir rides over the mundi could perhaps have been mentioned. wall of fire because he could not pass by the Skm.3.2 (52). In the authors’ opinion, dogs. Phillpotts may have been wrong, but fólkvaldi goða as a form of address does some refutation would have been in order. not tell us anything about Freyr’s position Skm.13.1–3 (62–63). “Kostir ro betri, among the gods and should be taken as an heldr enn (at) klökkva sé, hveim er fúss er attempt to improve Freyr’s spirits. Seeing fara” [A resolute man (literally, a man ready that Freyr usurps so many of Óðinn’s func- to set out) knows better than to whimper]. tions in Skírnismál (cf. p. 47, c), the dis- The authors suggest that Skírnir quotes a missal of fólkvaldi goða as a meaningless proverb, though no such proverb has been compliment does not carry conviction, and found. More likely, we have here a variant of the phrase cited as another expression of the poetic formula: “It is better for an [epi- fulsome flattery (“beztr allra ballriða ása thet] man to act than to mourn,” cf. Beowulf gorðom í”) is not “parallel”: to call a person 1384b–85: “Se¯ lra bið æ¯ ghwæ¯ m, þæt he¯ his the best, the wisest, the bravest, or the most fre¯ond wrece, þonne he¯ fela murne” [It is beautiful (all these forms being elatives better to avenge a friend than to lament rather than superlatives) is not the same as long]. to address him as Generalissimus. Skm.16.4–6 (66–67). The authors are Skm.3.4–5 (52–53). In connection with most probably right in stating that the shep- the form sali (see also 14.3: “ronnom í,” herd was not killed by Skírnir. In such alvíssmál 6 (1996): 114–18 116 Rezensionen scenes, the shepherd (or guard) is never the does not succumb to Freyr, there could have target of the protagonist’s wrath. Even Loki been a custom of exposing girls on a grassy does not kill Eldir, and the murder of hillock, in the middle of a swamp. In a nurs- Fimafeng is unmotivated. Incidentally, the ery rhyme known throughout the English- social status of the guard varies depending speaking world, “Little Miss Muffet/sat on a on the work’s genre: it is low in myth but tuffet/eating of curds and whey;/there came high in heroic poetry (Wulfgar in Beowulf).