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 -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[the strophic Detter-Heinzel’s and Gering-Sijmons’s expli- makeup and meter], (8) “Wortschatz und cations are partly outdated, so the Frankfurt stilistische Eigentümlichkeiten” [vocabulary initiative deserves the support of everyone and stylistic peculiarities], (9) “Literaturge-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 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 , 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- ( 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 (La invettive di sources are the best proof of how necessary , 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, - 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 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 ’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 ’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- 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). a big spider,/who sat down beside her/and More problematic is the use of bróður- frightened Miss Muffet away.” The etymol- bani. Gerðr invites the messenger in, even ogy of tuffet is obscure, but tuffet and þúfa though she fears that her bróðurbani has are probably related and designate the same arrived. Nothing is known about Freyr’s object. Nothing good happened to females (let alone Skírnir’s) successful attempt on who were put on a “tuffet.” Gerðr’s brother, so this line has given rise to Skm.36.1–2 (89–91). Here the problem endless speculations. The authors cut the is the enigmatic line “Þurs ríst ek þér ok þriá Gordian knot by suggesting that bróðurbani stafi.” The authors lean to the conclusion meant ‘mortal enemy’ and that the passages that Skírnir carved the rune þurs three times. in which it occurs do not contain reference But did he not first and foremost show Gerðr to any actual events. This is an ingenious a picture of the three-headed þurs with solution borrowed, without acknowledging whom she would henceforward spend her the source, from Cleasby-Vigfusson (see days (31.1–2: “Með þursi þríhofðoðom þú bróðir and their gloss ‘deadly foe’), but some skalt æ nara”), that is, the rune þ with some difficulties remain. In Beowulf 587 (“þe¯ah ðu¯ embellishments? þ¯numi bro¯ ðrum to¯ banan wurde”), all the Skm.37.4–6 (94). It seems that the au- words are used in their literal sense, and thors did not do full justice to stanza 37, in Beowulf predicts that the fratricide Unferth which Gerðr declares that she has given up will burn in hell (see also line 1187). and will comply with Freyr’s wishes. Gerðr’s At a certain stage, bróðurbani must response comes as a complete surprise. have meant ‘brother’s murderer’. It is hard Equally surprising are stanzas 25–36. Most to avoid the suspicion that some ancient eddic poems are composed in dialogue form, practice was no longer understood in medi- and a soliloquy consisting of twelve stanzas eval and Scandinavia (cf. Ursula incorporated into a drama has no analogues. Dronke’s article in Tolkien Studies referred One would expect something like: Skírnir: to on p. 66). Such situations are not uncom- “For ever and ever will you dwell with a mon. In ritual, a virgin is sacrificed to a three-headed monster, you, husbandless totemic animal, but in epic poetry the mon- hussy! May your juices run dry and your grief ster is killed by the hero: people know the multiply! Be like a useless thistle thrown tale (“Beauty and the Beast”), wonder at it, onto a heap of grain!” Gerðr: “May three- and rescue the victim who was allowed to headed monsters seize you on your way perish as long as the ritual retained its home! Three times nine do I curse you and religious significance. A thousand years ago, your master. Speak not of thistles: each of there must have remained a lingering mem- my kinsmen is like a noble leek in a field ory of unpunished fratricide (assuming that full of weeds, etc.” In other words, one could bróðir is ‘brother’ and not a generic term for expect a senna, but Gerðr is completely si- ‘kinsman’) among the Teutons. They disap- lent while Skírnir promises to kill her father proved of what they could only view as a with Freyr’s magical sword (cf. málfár [25.2] heinous crime but did not reshape the tradi- and the brogdenmæ¯l [damascened] sword in tional motif. Returning to Skírnismál, we Beowulf), to tame her with a wand used for must admit that some “kinsman slaying” by just such purposes, and to banish her from the gods could indeed have happened: con- the sight of men, to the kingdom of the dead, sider the Þjazi-Skaði myth. where food and sexual intercourse will be- Skm.27.1–2 (75–76). Whatever the con- come a detestation and loathsome giants will nection between eagles and the tussock (ara torture her. He promises her many other þúfa) on which Gerðr is doomed to sit if she punishments, but there is no escalation of alvíssmál 6 (1996): 114–18 Rezensionen 117 horror. Although a bully, Skírnir is not a of the .” The authors keep repeating great orator. He even rambles a bit. In stanza that the encounter between Freyr and Gerðr 26, he threatens Gerðr with a taming wand, should be looked upon not as a i™eròß gámoß and in stanza 32 he describes going to the (see, for instance, 40–41), but only as an forest to cut a wand endowed with magical amorous encounter (Stelldichein). This con- properties. Why does he need a second one? clusion is the result of some strange mis- Gerðr could have broken down at any mo- understanding. Was Zeus “married” to any ment, but, well-versed in the art of verbal of the women with whom he slept? Was abuse, the poet allows Skírnir to deplete his Óðinn? What kind of a marriage can one whole word-hoard. expect in a myth? In any case, Snorri says The authors look upon Skírnismál as “ok níu nóttum síðar skyldi hon þar koma er a variation on the theme “Taming of the Barrey heitir, ok ganga þá at brullaupinu Shrew.” However, the similarity between með Frey” [and in nine days she will go to a Skírnismál and “King Thrushbeard” (the place called Barrey and be wedded to Freyr]. Grimms’ “König Drosselbart”) is not as sig- The ancient kernel of the myth, wording nificant as it seems. Gerðr is an “unwilling and all, is contained in stanzas 41 and 42. (reluctant) bride” of Brünhild’s type. Such a The rest is a fairy tale woven around pre- bride (a heroic maiden) is usually won by a cisely a i™eròß gámoß (“One day a young man male who can prove his worth, and once she looked out and saw a maiden of surpassing is overcome, she turns into a faithful wife. beauty. He immediately fell in love with her, If she is duped, tragic events follow, as is etc.”) in which a messenger uses magic to known from the Nibelungenlied. The shrew procure a bride for his master. Many popular is opposed to marriage unconditionally and elements occur in this tale: a journey into has to be coerced into accepting a husband. the otherworld, a (flying?) horse, a self-fight- Skírnismál is an unnatural (and rather in- ing sword, and so forth. From the point of ept) blend of both plots: winning a heroic view of fairy tale morphology only one thing maiden and taming the shrew, a blend that is unusual: everything is done by the helper could appeal only to people with “decadent” in the absence of the protagonist. Scholars tastes. This mixture of genres is a decisive have elucidated all the obscure points in factor for the late dating of the poem. Skírnismál, but they tend to take this poem Skírnismál fails as a myth (that is, as a too seriously. Its theme is hardly the ex- charter hallowing the existing practices), for change of women for peace, the position of when were young women ever wooed in women, the revelation of women’s desires, such a way? It fails as a piece of heroic or the tension between matriarchy and patri- poetry, for there is nothing heroic in forcing archy. Skírnismál is a Schwank developed an unwilling bride to drink goat urine (the from a myth and thickly seasoned with invo- authors explain that goat urine is particularly cations. The juncture between stanza 36 (the humiliating), and it fails as a ballad, for end of Skírnir’s threats) and 37 (Gerðr’s sud- a classic ballad should center on the fate den surrender) cannot be plastered over, and of star-crossed lovers. Humorous tales it is clear that Gerðr’s words should have (Schwänke) of shrews could have existed at been addressed to the hero, not to the mes- any time, but their penetration into godlore senger. The authors do not take sides while happened late. It is no wonder that Skírnir, a presenting the many views on the poem character with a transparent name that fits (37–38). Their objectivity is admirable, but his horse better than him (skírna ‘clear up, one sometimes wishes that their approach brighten up’: cf. ), appears nowhere were marked by more strongly pronounced else in the Elder Edda. individuality. However, they may not have There is no reason to doubt the exis- had a clear conception of the genre and gen- tence of an ancient myth about Freyr or esis of the poem; in this case, an impartial, some other god paying court to a heroic almost dispassionate survey was the best maiden (a giantess), a myth in which he solution. proves his superiority and elicits the reply: Skm.39.1 (95). Gerðr tells Skírnir that “Never have I thought that I could love one she will meet Freyr in a grove called . alvíssmál 6 (1996): 114–18 118 Rezensionen

The authors share the traditional derivation be correct. First of all, it presupposes logical of Barri from barr ‘needle, bud’. The name, stress on the nonalliterating pronoun siá, they say, refers to a mixed forest with conif- which is out of the question. Secondly, it erous and deciduous trees. If this is correct, makes no sense. Freyr must be saying ap- a curious parallel is the name of Loki’s proximately the following: “One day is long, mother. She is ‘leafy island’ and Nál two days are even longer; three are unendur- ‘needle’ (cf. the word Nálgrund structured able. How shall I survive nine? A month has like Laufey). Prickly needles must always often seemed shorter to me than these nine have been associated with the male genitals. days will.” I have replaced night by day, for, One of the three most obscene Russian as is well known, the Teutons counted time words, khui~ ‘penis’, is believed to be a cog- by nights, and nótt has no erotic overtones nate of Russ. khvoja (stress on o or a) in this passage. ‘needles’ (collective). Barri would then be Hýnótt understood as ‘wedding night’ a perfect place for the lovers’ rendezvous. or ‘this night’ is extremely strained (see this Meeting in a lundr may be a romantic motif word in Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon’s Íslensk typical of a ballad, as is pointed out in the orðsifjabók [Orðábók Háskólans, 1989], and commentary, but, on the other hand, groves cf. OHG hî-naht, Modern German dialectal are a well-known component of Germanic hinte ‘this past night’; strangely enough, the cults, and Askr and Embla were trees before authors do not discuss the possibility of a they became human beings. pronominal hý-). But the variant offered in Skm.39.3 (96–97). Although not with- the book is equally untenable. The phrase out hesitation, the authors explain lundr hálf hýnótt must mean ‘nine nights’ and be- lognfara as a ‘quiet, windless grove’. At the long with time units like misseri. I have no beginning of their note, they say that, except idea what charms can reveal the hidden for Collinder (“Eddica,” Nordisk tidsskrift sense of hýnótt ‘eighteen nights’. Perhaps for filologi, 4. række 10 [1922]: 23), every- hýnótt originally designated fourteen nights body understands logn- as logn ‘quiet, still- (a fortnight) and hálf hýnótt a sennight, ness’. It seems that when a reference of this with hý- being a prefix related to hé- (as type is made, the readers should not be left in hégomi ‘vanity’) and hjá- (as in hjátrú guessing. We are naturally curious to know ‘superstition’). The problematic word in hálf the dissident opinion. Nordisk tidsskrift for hýnótt is not hýnótt but hálf! We do not filologi is not easily available, so a one-line know how long Skírnir was absent, but ‘half summary of Collinder’s interpretation would a night’ is nonsense. Who ever counted time have been welcome. Besides that, ‘windless by half days (nights)? grove’ is hardly a correct gloss: the suggested A reviewer has a temporary advantage epithet is obviously “uneddic.” The order of over the author(s). By putting forward such words, even though not in a compelling way, a fanciful explanation of hýnótt, I have de- also suggests that lognfara is the genitive of liberately made myself vulnerable: Professor *lognfari. Collinder identified logn- with a von See and his associates will now have no word for ‘flame’, deciphered ‘flame traveller’ trouble filling my life with tópi ok ópi or as Þórr, and the grove as a place where mar- even putting me on a tuffet. But I hope that riage could be consecrated. This hypothesis they won’t do so, because, despite some is rather shaky, but lognfari is, most likely, a disagreements and quibbling, this reviewer for some deity, perhaps Freyr him- thinks highly of their work. Producing a self. commentary on the entire Edda is not much Skm.42.6 (99–100). Freyr’s answer is easier than winning a giantess. We will be translated so: “One night is long, and two waiting with impatience for the outcome of nights are long; how shall I endure three? their labors, though many a hýnótt will pass Often has a month seemed shorter to me before the last volume of their series arrives than this half a night of agony.” Hýnótt is at our libraries. explained as ‘thrall night’ (Finnur Jónsson’s gloss). I have no solution to this crux, but Anatoly Liberman the interpretation given in the book cannot alvíssmál 6 (1996): 114–18