Snorri Sturluson Háttatal

Snorri Sturluson Edda Háttatal Snorri Sturluson Edda Háttatal Edited by ANTHONY FAULKES SECOND EDITION VIKING SOCIETY FOR NORTHERN RESEARCH UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON 2007 © Anthony Faulkes 1991, 1999, 2007 First published by Clarendon Press in 1991. Reprinted with addenda and corrigenda by Short Run Press Limited, Exeter in 1999. Second edition 2007. ISBN: 978 0 903521 68 0 Contents Manuscript Sigla ...................................................................................vi Introduction ........................................................................................ vii The Poem and its Author .............................................................. vii Influences on the Work ................................................................. xii Influence on Later Writers .......................................................... xvii Evaluation .................................................................................. xviii Preservation ..................................................................................xxi This Edition................................................................................ xxiii Further Reading ..........................................................................xxiv Text ........................................................................................................ 3 Textual Notes ....................................................................................... 41 Explanatory Notes ............................................................................... 47 Appendix: Examples of Snorri’s Metres in Other Old Norse Verse ....... 77 Bibliography ........................................................................................ 92 Glossary ............................................................................................... 98 Index of Names..................................................................................166 General Index ....................................................................................170 Manuscript Sigla R Reykjavík, Stofnun Árna Magnússonar, Gks 2367 4to; ed. SnE (1931); facsimile in Wessén (1940). T Utrecht, University Library, 1374; ed. W. van Eeden, De Codex Trojectinus van de Snorra Edda (Leiden, 1913); Árni Björnsson, Snorra Edda (Reykjavík, 1975); facsimile in Codex Trajectinus, ed. Anthony Faulkes (Early Icelandic Manuscripts in Facsimile, 15; Copenhagen, 1985). U Uppsala, University Library, DG 11; ed. SnE 1848–87, II 250–396; facsimile in Snorre Sturlas(s)ons Edda. Uppsala-handskriften DG 11 (I, Stockholm, 1962; II, Uppsala, 1977). W Copenhagen, Arnamagnæan Institute, AM 242 fol.; ed. SnE 1924; facsimile in Codex Wormianus (Corpus Codicum Islandicorum Medii Aevi, 2; Copenhagen, 1931). Introduction The Poem and its Author Háttatal is an Icelandic poem in 102 stanzas divided into three sections (kvæ›i) which exemplifies a wide variety of verse-forms available to Norse poets in the thirteenth century, accompanied by a prose commentary that points out the main features of each verse-form. The content of the poem is praise in traditional skaldic style of Hákon Hákonarson, king of Norway 1217–1263, and his co-regent and future father-in-law Earl Skúli (1188/9–1240), for their generosity and valour in battle. The first section, stt. 1–30, is about Hákon, the second, stt. 31–67, is about Skúli, except for st. 67, which is about both rulers; in the third, stt. 68–95 are also mainly about Skúli, stt. 96–102 again seem to relate to both rulers; see note to stt. 1–30 and Möbius (1879–81), I 35–6. It was composed by Snorri Sturluson (1179–1241), apparently in Iceland after his first visit to Norway to visit the two rulers in 1218–20, and is thus an example of the modification of the skaldic tradition brought about by the increasing use of the written word for literature in Scandinavia: instead of being recited aloud from memory by the poet in person before the ruler and his court, Snorri’s poem was (presumably) sent in manuscript form to its patrons to be read by them or to them by someone else (cf. rita in Glossary). There is no record of its reception. It is found in manuscripts as the third part of Snorri’s Edda, after Gylfaginning (with its prologue) and Skáldskaparmál, though it is likely to have been the first part to have been composed (see Wessén 1940, 31–2). Snorri’s authorship of the poem is unequivocally confirmed both by attribution in the earliest manuscript (U) and by the attribution to him of extracts from it quoted in Hákonar saga Hákonarsonar and the third Grammatical Treatise (both by his nephew Sturla ﬁór›arson) and in additions to Skáldskaparmál in W (cf. also the reference in TGT 96: í hattatali ﬂví er Snorri hefir ort; the title is also found in rubrics in U and with the quotations from the poem in Hákonar saga and TGT and in the heading in T). Whether he also wrote the commentary, and whether this was sent to the rulers of Norway along with the poem, is much less certain. The prologue to the Grammatical Treatises in W seems to refer to it viii Háttatal naming Snorri as the author (eigi lengri reknar en Snorri lofar, GT Prologue 155, cf. Háttatal 8/29–31), and the reference in TGT 96 can also be taken to refer to the commentary. But there are occasional discrepancies between the stanzas of the poem and the comments on them that cannot all be blamed on inaccurate copying, though they may be partly due to the poet’s difficulty in analysing his practice if this was based on an intuitive rather than conscious grasp of principles. There are the following apparent examples of the commentary not fitting the verses: (i) At 15/9–12 the etymology of the word aflei›ing suggests that it belongs with the first word of st. 15 rather than the last of st. 14. (ii) At 16/13 none of the possible meanings of tí›ar fall seems to fit the pairs of words exemplifying refhvƒrf in stt. 17–22. (iii) The similar phrase at 23/11, í eina tí›, also does not seem to fit the examples in st. 23. (iv) Lines 23/11–16 seem to be in the wrong place, since st. 24 does not involve variation in length of line or in arrangement of hendings; these variations first appear in stt. 33 and 28 respectively. (v) Lines 27/12–16 also seem to be in the wrong place, since the words as they stand ought more naturally to refer to the preceding verse, and it is rather artificial to make them introduce st. 28, with which they belong; cf. Möbius (1879–81), II 51–2. (vi) Lines 28/12–13 mention the possibility of the frumhending falling on the second syllable of the lines with skjálfhenda, which happens in st. 33 but not in st. 28. (vii) Lines 32/9–10 claim that the two hendings in the even lines both end á einum hljó›staf, which is not the case. (viii) Lines 77/9–10 state that there may be 7 syllables in a line of hálfhnept, but none of the lines of st. 77 has more than 6. (ix) Line 79/10 states that the hendings in st. 79 are as in dróttkvætt, but line 3 has a›alhending. (x) The statement at 82/10–12, whatever the meaning of hljó›stafr, does not seem to apply to st. 82. Some of these discrepancies may be oversights on the part of the author, especially if there was an interval between the composition of the poem and the compilation of the commentary. Others may be due to our misunderstanding of the author’s terminology, which in some cases may have been experimental; and there is the perennial problem of medieval rationalisation never quite conforming to our modern methods of analysis. Certainly the fact that Snorri is clearly able to handle resolution with Introduction ix short stressed syllables in his verse, though he is unable to give an explanation of it that conforms to Sievers’s perception of it (6/22–8/14), should not be used as evidence that he was not the author of the commentary, though there do seem to be certain illogicalities and mis- understandings in the commentary that readers are reluctant to attribute to Snorri. The kind of analysis and the way in which the dialogue form is handled (the speakers have no identity and the questions are not maintained throughout the work) are also different from what is found in Gylfaginning and Skáldskaparmál, though this may be because Snorri’s techniques developed over the period he was engaged on his Edda (which may have been extensive, and Háttatal is assumed to have been written before the other two sections). The description of the kenning and particularly of the sannkenning, the meaning of the word fornafn and the exemplification of n‡gjƒrvingar are rather different in Skáldskaparmál from what we find in Háttatal (see under these words in the Glossary). In spite of all this there does not seem sufficient reason to doubt that the commentary is by Snorri, and that it formed part of his overall purpose in compiling the Edda as a handbook for young poets (see the so-called Epilogue, Skáldskaparmál 5/25–32, and cf. Kuhn 1983, 326). Though Háttatal is formally addressed to the rulers of Norway, its didactic purpose as an aid and encouragement to other poets and its intended Icelandic audience are obvious. There is a clear authorial voice in places in the commentary expressing unhesitant value-judgements on aspects of Norse poetry that there is no reason not to accept as Snorri’s; these characteristically condemn excesses of various kinds, such as over-use of attributives (4/18–20), mixing of metaphors (6/16), repetition of words (8/27), using words in too extravagant senses (16/13–16), inconsistency in verse-forms (58/14–16), variation of metre for its own sake

Load more