VIKING SOCIETY FOR NORTHERN RESEARCHTEXT SERIESGENERAL EDITORS

Alison Finlay and Carl Phelpstead

VOLUME XX
HRAFNAGALDUR ÓÐINS (FORSPJALLSLJÓÐ)HRAFNAGALDUR ÓÐINS(FORSPJALLSLJÓÐ)EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION, NOTES AND TRANSLATIONbyANNETTE LASSEN

VIKING SOCIETY FOR NORTHERN RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON

2011© Annette lassen 2011
Reprinted 2012
ISBN: 978-0-903521-81-9
The illustration on the cover is from f. 80r of Melsteðs Edda, SÁM 66,
Stofnun Árna Magnússonar í íslenskum fræðum, Reykjavík, a paper
manuscript written in 1765–1766. Photograph by Jóhanna Ólafsdóttir.
The inscriptions (normalised) read:
Heimdallur með gjallarhornið.
Þá hann blæs í hornið, heyrist um allan heim.
Heimdallur er sama og Mercurius í þeirri latínsku Eddu, hann er
sendiboði guðanna og því hefur hann vængi á höfði og fótum.
Um hann má lesa XXV. eddudæmisögu.
(Heimdallr with the Gjallarhorn. When he blows on the horn, it can beheard all over the world. Heimdallr is the same as Mercury in the Latin
Edda, he is a messenger of the gods and so he has wings on his headand his feet. You can read about him in Dæmisaga 25 of the Edda.)
This refers to Laufás Edda or to the edition of P. J. Resen, Copenhagen 1665.

Printed by Short Run Press Limited, Exeter

CONTENTS
PREFACE ............................................................................................. 6
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 7

		 Previous Editions............................................................................ 8
Date and Historical context.............................................. 9
		 Date................................................................................................. 9
		 Nótt skal nema nýræða til............................................................. 18
		 The Title Hrafnagaldur Óðins/Forspjallsljóð.............................. 21
		 Content and Style.......................................................................... 23
Manuscript transmission.................................................... 26
		 Description of the Manuscripts in Group A.................................. 28
		 Description of the Manuscripts in Group B.................................. 35
		 Description of C............................................................................ 64
		 Description of D............................................................................ 65
		 Description of E............................................................................ 67
		 Relationship of the Principal Manuscripts..................................... 70
		 Manuscripts Derived from Printed Books.................................... 71
		 Other Manuscripts......................................................................... 76
		 Lost Manuscripts........................................................................... 76
		 Significance of the Manuscript Transmission for the			 Reception of Eddic Poems...................................................... 78
Treatment of the Text........................................................... 81

Text AND TRANSLATION.......................................................... 82
COMMENTARY......................................................................... 95
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES......................................... 107
INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS......................................................... 113
INDEX OF NAMES........................................................................ 115

PREFACE
In the first volume of the Arnamagnæan edition of the Edda (1787), where Hrafna­
galdur Óðins was first printed, Guðmundur Magnússon tells an anecdote about what
was probably the very first study of this poem. The learned Icelandic poet Eiríkur
Hallson at Höfði had spent a whole decade of the latter half of the seventeenth
century on a careful examination of ­Hrafnagaldur. After ten years of desperately
trying to make sense of it, he is said to have thrown his work away, saying that hestill understood little or ­nothing of it (abjecisse eam perhibetur, addens, ­nihildum
se aut parum ex ista intelligere). Since 2003, when I began researching this poem,
I have often been tempted to do the same, and never during my work have I felt asnonchalant towards the not inconsiderable difficulties it presents as Finnur Magnússon, who in 1821 bragged that he had spent much less time on it than Eiríkur (detsamme . . . neppe har kostet mig et Par Dages Tid i det hele) and yet had easily madesense of the poem, using his great insight into the system of Nordic mythology. But
then Finnur, as one may surmise from his involvement in the notorious Runamo
scandal, also had an uncanny ability to read much out of little.
If I have not despaired, this is not least thanks to the interest and help of friends
and colleagues (though it goes without saying that any remaining errors are entirely
my own fault). It was during a three month’s stay in Reykjavík in 2003 as a fellow at
Stofnun Árna Magnússonar that I began this study. Much work was also carried out
in the manuscript collection of the National and ­University Library of Iceland and at
the Centre for Manuscripts and Books at the Royal Library in Copenhagen, in which
two libraries most of the ­manuscripts containing Hrafnagaldur are today to be found.
I am grateful for the help I have received from the staff of these instititions, especiallyto Sjöfn Kristjánsdóttir and Ólöf Benedikts­dóttir, who made much Icelandic material
available to me while I was far away from Iceland. In the early phases of my workon this edition, the late Stefán Karlsson, with his usual generosity and helpfulness,read and commented on some of my drafts, for which I owe him much gratitude.
Guðvarður Már Gunnlaugsson, Eysteinn Björnsson, Alex Speed Kjeldsen, Maria
Arvidsson and Katrín Axelsdóttir also deserve my thanks for their assistance, while
Einar Gunnar Pétursson discovered several additional manuscripts that until then had
not been known to contain the poem. Einar Gunnar also generously shared with me
his vast knowledge of the seventeenth century, for which I am grateful. While I wascarrying out my work on Hrafnagaldur, Giovanni Verri was for a time working on his
own study of six of the manuscripts of Hrafnagaldur found in Iceland in connection
with his 2007 Bachelor’s thesis at the University of Iceland, which offered the twoof us a welcome oportunity to share information. I am also grateful to Christopher
Sanders for his interest, practical suggestions and great stemmatological stamina.
Peter Springborg, who to begin with was editor of the Opuscula volume in which myedition, before it grew beyond a mere article, was originally intended to be published,deserves my appreciation for much help and useful criticism. It almost goes without
saying that I owe very special thanks to Anthony Faulkes, who not only generously
offered to translate the whole edition from my Danish into his English, but during thatwork has provided detailed and useful comments, to the point of even suggesting new
solutions to unsolved problems. Finally, I am sincerely grateful to Gottskálk Jensson
for not losing faith in the importance of this work when I could sense a creeping doubt
in myself. Thanks for your time, critical inspiration and encouragement.
Copenhagen, October 2010

Annette Lassen

INTRODUCTION
Hrafnagaldur Óðins (Forspjallsljóð) is quite a short poem (208 lines)
in the eddic style, in fornyrðislag, which is not transmitted in medieval
manuscripts. This poem, which describes an unsuccessful journey to seek
wisdom, is in style and content different from the medieval eddic poems.
After the description of an apparently ominous dream, Óðinn sends
Heimdallur, Loki and Bragi off to find Iðunn to enquire of her about the
future, but she can give no reply and weeps, apparently losing all bodily
strength. Loki and Heimdallur return to the gods, who are sitting at amerry drinking feast with Óðinn and the other gods, with neither answer
nor solution, and the poem concludes with the gods retiring for the night.
It ends with the day breaking and Heimdallur blowing his horn.
Hrafnagaldur is first and foremost transmitted in manuscripts that
contain collections of eddic poems and poems in eddic metres and gounder the name of Sæmundar Edda, but also in a very few manuscripts
of more varied content. The present investigation demonstrates that
Hrafnagaldur is a postmedieval poem that was probably composed inconnection with the enormous interest in collections of eddic poems that
arose immediately after the rediscovery of the Codex Regius of the Elder
Edda in 1643 and continued for some two centuries. That Hrafnagaldur
cannot be much earlier than this is shown by among other things its useof the originally Greek proverb ‘nótt skal nema nýræða til’, the spreadof which in Western Europe is closely bound up with the Renaissance.
Hrafnagaldur is transmitted in at least 37 manuscripts, of which the earliest
are from the second half of the seventeenth century, the latest from 1870.
The present edition gives an account of the poem’s transmission in the
known manuscripts. The majority of these manuscripts have no text-criticalvalue, but they nevertheless provide an insight into an obscure part of thepostmedieval history of eddic poetry and bear witness to a considerable
antiquarian interest in and production of manuscripts in the seventeenth,eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, primarily in Iceland, but also in
Denmark and Sweden. The collection and production of manuscripts in
Iceland was principally carried out by priests and other learned men.
Hrafnagaldur is transmitted in a single version, and there are only
minor differences between the texts of the various manuscripts. Here it isedited from Stockholm papp. 8vo nr 15 (A), which contains fewer errors
than the other manuscripts, and variant readings are given from the bestmanuscript in the B group, B, and from C, D and E, that is Lbs 1562 4to,
Stockholm papp. fol. nr 57, Thott 1491 4to and Lbs 1441 4to respectively.

8

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Previous Editions
Edda Sæmundar hinns fróda. Edda Rhytmica seu antiqvior, vulgoSæmundina dicta I, København 1787, 199–232, is the first printed edition of
Hrafnagaldur. There it is edited by Guðmundur Magnússon (1741–1798)
from MS Icel. 47 (47), a manuscript edition made by Jón Eiríksson(1728–1787). 47 includes variant readings in the margin, and these wereused in the printed edition’s critical apparatus, which also made use of amanuscript that was in the possession of Geir Vídalín (1761–1823) anda commentary by Gunnar Pálsson (1714–1791) in AM 424 fol. It has notbeen possible to identify Geir Vídalín’s manuscript among those thatnow survive. An account of the manuscript relationships is to be found inGuðmundur Magnússon’s introduction (pp. xlii–xlvii).
In Edda Sæmundar hinns fróda. Collectio carminum veterum scaldorumSæmundiana dicta, edited by Rasmus Kr. Rask and Arvid August Afzelius,
Stockholm 1818, 88–92, Stockholm papp. 8vo nr 15 (A), Stockholm papp.
fol. nr 34 (34) and Stockholm papp. fol. nr 46 (46) are used. Guðmundur
Magnússon’s edition of 1787 is used as well. There is an account of themanuscript relationships in Afzelius’s introduction to the work (no page
numbering).
In Forspiallslióþ, in the series Bodsrit Bessastadaskóla, Videyjar
klaustri 1837, 24–29, edited by Hallgrímur Scheving, the text is based onGuðmundur Magnússon’s edition of 1787 and Rask’s of 1818.
In Den ældre Edda. Samling af norrøne Oldkvad, indeholdende
Nordens ældste Gude- og Helte-Sagn. Ved det akademiske Collegiums
Foran­staltning udgivet efter de ældste og bedste Haandskrifter, og
forsynet med fuldstændigt Variant-Apparat, edited by P. A. Munch,
Christiania 1847, 175–177, Forspjallsljóþ is put in an appendix without
variants. Munch gives an account of the medieval manuscripts he has
used in his work, but not of the later paper manuscripts, and so not of themanuscripts on which he based his edition of Forspjallsljóþ. His edition
includes distinctive readings from both the A and B groups, and there
are also emendations, so that it is difficult to see on which manuscript
or manuscripts it is based.
In Die Edda: Eine Sammlung altnordischer Götter- und Heldenlieder.
Urschrift mit erklärenden Anmerkungen, Glossar und Einleitung,altnordischer Mythologie und Grammatik, edited by Hermann Lüning,
Zürich 1859, 516–524, the text is printed from P. A. Munch’s edition of
1847, with occasional changes.
In Edda Sæmundar hins fróða. Mit einem Anhang zum Theil bisher
ungedruckter Gedichte, edited by Theodor Möbius, Leipzig 1860, 216–

Introduction

9219, Hrafna­galdur is printed from P. A. Munch’s edition of 1847, with afew changes.
In 1875 in Strassburg, Friedrich Wilh. Bergmann edited Hrafnagaldurwith a German tanslation in Weggewohnts Lied (Vegtams kvida), Der Odins
Raben Orakelsang (Hrafna galdr Odins) und Der Seherin Voraussicht(Völu spâ). Drei Eschatologische Gedichte der Sæmunds-Edda. There isno mention of which manuscript(s) or edition was used.
In Norrœn fornkvæði. Islands samling af folkelige Oldtidsdigte om
Nordens Guder og Heroer almindelig kaldet Sæmundar Edda hins fróða,edited by Sophus Bugge, Christiania 1867, 371–376, no information is given
about which manuscript formed the basis of his edition of Hrafnagaldur.
It seems to be an improved version of Guðmundur Magnússon’s andRask’s editions, collated with various additional manuscripts. An accountis given of the manuscript relationships on pp. xlvi–xlix, liii and lvi–
lvii. In connection with Hrafnagaldur, Bugge mentions readings fromJón Eiríksson’s manuscript, 47, Geir Vídalín’s manuscript and Gunnar
Pálsson’s commentary, which all seem to be derived from Guðmundur
Magnússon’s edition of 1787. In his text of Hrafnagaldur Bugge madeuse of A, C, NKS 1866 4to (1866), NKS 1108 fol. (1108), NKS 1109 fol.
(1109) and NKS 1111 fol. (1111).
In Eysteinn Björnsson and William P. Reaves’s edition of Hrafnagaldur,
which was posted on the internet (http://notendur.hi.is/eybjorn/ugm/hrg/
hrg.html) in 1998 and for the most part removed again in 2002, the text
was to a large extent based on Bugge’s edition of 1867, but 1109 was also
used.1In Lesbók in the Icelandic newspaper Morgunblaðið, 27/4 2002,
Hrafnagaldur was edited by Jónas Kristjánsson from A.

Date and Historical context
Date
Already Guðmundur Magnússon regarded the poem as later than the othereddic poems. Since it is not transmitted in other than paper manuscripts,
it could not, according to Guðmundur, have been composed by Sæmundrfróði or the author of the earliest collection of Eddic poems. Discussion
1
Eysteinn Björnsson and Reaves’s work on the poem led to the performanceof the choral and orchestral work ‘Hrafnagaldur Óðins’ with music by Sigur Rós,
Hilmar Örn Hilmarsson and Steindór Andersen at Listahátíð í Reykjavík 2002.

10

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

of the poem’s age continued during the years after the first edition.2
In his Danish translation of the eddic poems of 1821, the Icelandic
professor in Copenhagen, Finnur Magnússon (1781–1847), argued infavour of Hrafnagaldur’s early date. Evidence for this is the poem’s‘extremely ancient vocabulary, as well as its fragmentary nature,and in particular its genuine mythical spirit plus the fact that it only
has very few allusions to stories known otherwise from eddas or sagas’(Den ældre Edda 1821–1823, II 210). Hallgrímur Scheving (1781–1861),
on the other hand, considered the poem to be much later than the othereddic poems. He thought the poem had been written in Christian times
by someone who knew Latin.3 But since Munch’s and Bugge’s editionsof the Edda of 1847 and 1867 respectively the general opinion has beenthat Hrafnagaldur must be regarded as postmedieval both on the groundsof its style and transmission. Nevertheless, Jónas Kristjánsson has recently
put forward the thesis that the poem is from the Middle Ages and therefore
should be reaccepted into the corpus of eddic poems, though it appears
that he is not including it in his own forthcoming edition.
In his edition of the eddic poems of 1867, Bugge considered Hrafnagaldur
to be a postmedieval antiquarian construction (Norrœn fornkvæði 1867,
xlvi–xlvii):
This poem ought in future to be excluded from collections of Old Norse
mythical and heroic poems . . . Forspjallsljóð . . . is a learned poem, composedin later times by someone who was very familiar with, indeed well read in theancient poems, and who had a bent for imitating the poetry of a long past age;
it was probably from the very beginning recorded in writing.

Bugge states that while the eddic poems in general are difficult tounderstand because of their great age and the for us moderns alienmaterial, Hrafnagaldur is hardly comprehensible because of its ‘artificial’
See Fidjestøl 1999, 58. Grundtvig was an advocate for the poem’s great age
in his Nordens Mytologi of 1808 (p. 8): ‘[The poem] is in general believed tobe very late, both by reason of its style and because it is lacking in the earliest
copies. This, however, proves nothing, since its style is even less like the modern
than the ancient, and its close association with the Æsir points quite definitely toa genuine heathen as author.’3
Rask did not express an opinion about the age of the poem, but in his
edition placed it in front of Baldrs draumar, whereby he seems to support
Gunnar Pálsson’s hypothesis that Hrafnagaldur formed an introduction to that
poem. Afzelius discusses Hrafnagaldur together with, among others, Vƒluspá,
Grímnismál, Vafþrúðnismál and Baldrs draumar, which suggests that he took thepoem to be of a similar age.
2

Introduction

11

expressions and ‘far-fetched’ images (xlvii).4 After this, Bugge on linguistic
grounds concludes about the poem’s lateness (xlvi–xlvii):5
A poem, whose author’s relationship to the ancient language is such, cannot
in my view be from the Middle Ages at all, but must be from a later time.
I believe that it is no older than the seventeenth century.

Bugge’s rejection of Hrafnagaldur’s authenticity as a medieval poem
is con­sistent with and an emphatic endorsement of an attitude that P. A.
Munch ex­pressed in his edition of the eddic poems, where he wrote (Denældre Edda 1847, x–xi):
It cannot, however, be denied that the major part of the rest, and other things, too,that are found in paper manuscripts of the Edda, have a rather suspicious look. Thisapplies especially to Grógaldr and Hrafnagaldr Óðins . . . These . . . are therefore
omitted from the series of eddic poems proper, and only added in an appendix.

What could count against Munch’s and Bugge’s interpretation of thepoem’s date is Árni Magnússon’s mention of the poem in a letter to Jón
Halldórsson (1665–1736), rural dean in Hítardalur, dated 18/6 1729, in
which he asks to be sent copies that had been made earlier of documentsthat he had lost in the fire of 1728. Árni says that he had owned copies of
eddic poems (‘Sæm(undar) Eddur’) that had been destroyed in the fire.
He lacks Hrafnagaldur, Gróugaldur and Heiðreks gátur, which were supposed to have been included in manuscripts of eddic poems that Brynjólfur
Sveinsson (1605–1675) had been responsible for. According to Árni, these
poems had existed in copies of a copy made by Þorsteinn Eyjólfsson at
Háeyri (c. 1645–1714), of which Árni himself had owned two that wereburnt in 1728. Þorsteinn studied at the school of Skálholt where he finishedhis education no later than 1668. In the years 1682–1684, he was baliff
there. In his letter, Árni further writes (Bréf Árna Magnússonar 1975, 147):
4
Already in the seventeenth century the poem was renowned for being largely
impenetrable. See Guðmundur Magnússon in Edda 1787–1828, I 204.
5
Bugge mentions as an example that hveim is used as a relative pronoun inst. 13. But hveim is also found in Baldrs draumar 6/5, which is preserved in amanuscript from about 1300. Bugge thinks there is a string of words that were
inspired by Snorri’s Edda and Vƒluspá, among others hƒrgr (st. 20) and hárbaðmr
(st. 7). Hárbaðmr, according to Bugge, seems to be used because the author of
Hrafnagaldur read hárbaðmr in Vƒluspá in the Codex Regius as one word andmisunderstood it to mean ‘hair tree’. The best manuscripts of Hrafnagaldur,
however, have harðbaðmr, not hárbaðmr. Bugge points out that máttkat (st. 2)
is a grammatical error on the part of the author, who had misunderstood ancient
word forms. In addition, he claims that the genitive -þollar (st. 25) must be a caseof misunderstanding of an earlier form, since ‘the genitive of þollr is þolls’ (xlvii).

12

Hrafnagaldur Óðins
Eg hafde (sem brann) bref Sal. Sra Olafs (Skolameistara ockar) ahrærandeeina af þessum odis (mig minnir Hrafnag. Odins) ad Mag. Brÿniolfur hafe þ§
qvidu uppskrifa l§ted epter gπmlu saurugu einstaka blade, og minnir mig þarstæde, ad þar aptan vid hefde vantad, og eins kynne um fleira geingid vera.
Þetta verdur so sem allt i þoku, þvi documentenn eru burtu.

Gísli Brynjúlfsson had drawn Bugge’s attention to this letter, which had
been printed in Kjöbenhavns Universitets-Journal 4, 1796, 8 in a Danishtranslation by Skúli Thorlacius, but Bugge did not think that one could
trust it (see Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, xlviii). In his letter, Árni mentions thereference by Síra Ólafur Jónsson (1637–1688) to Brynjólfur Sveinsson’s
having had Hrafnagaldur copied from a single old and dirty leaf, and thispresents the possibility that the poem could date from the Middle Ages,6
and that the leaf could have held the author’s autograph.7 Árni Magnússon
was, however, not certain that the poem referred to was Hrafnagaldur,and he had not himself seen the supposedly old and dirty leaf. After thefire of 1728 ‘all this has become as it were in a fog, for the documents
have gone’, he writes. Even if Árni remembered the contents of the letter
correctly, this does not necessarily carry much weight as evidence, because
as Árni himself demonstrates clearly in his study of Sæmundr fróði from1690 (Vita Sæmundi multiscii), Brynjólfur and his contemporaries werepoor judges of the origins and antiquity of eddic poetry, mainly becauseof their groundless assumptions that the poems of the Codex Regius were
only a small part of a vast collection originally compiled by Sæmundr
Sigfússon (died 1133). This may also have made Brynjólfur and thoseworking for him more prone to accept ‘new discoveries’ of ancient poetry
uncritically, since they were expecting further poems to turn up from
6This is also, moreover, Bugge’s attitude to the poem elsewhere in his edition of
the Edda, where he writes that Hrafnagaldur may be a late medieval poem (Norrœn
fornkvæði 1867, 140). Cf. Jónas Kristjánsson in Hrafnagaldur Óðins 2002, 6.
7Árni presumably wrote the letter to Jón Halldórsson because Ólafur Jónsson
was Jón’s paternal uncle, hoping that Jón possessed a copy of the old and dirty
leaf. Ólafur, moreover, was principal at the school at Skálholt when GuðmundurÓlafsson, who brought A to Stockholm, and Ásgeir Jónsson, who wrote B, werestudying there. They would probably have heard Ólafur tell the story of the leaf
on which Hrafnagaldur was written that Brynjólfur had had copied, and it wasprobably the main reason for their making or acquiring copies of the poem. Ólafur
first started teaching in Skálholt in 1659 and was principal from 1667 to 1683. He
was still principal when Árni himself studied there (from 1680 to 1683), but one
may surmise, given the content of the letter, that Árni only received information
about Hrafnagaldur from Ólafur via his letter to him. This letter must have been
written before Ólafur’s death on the 24th of September 1688, and probably afterÁrni started working as Bartholin’s assistant in 1684.

Introduction

13

this vast hypothetical collection. We cannot therefore know whether thisinformation can be trusted or not. Árni seemed to remember that it said in
the letter that the end of the poem was missing.8 The poem, however, as
we have it, begins and ends with complete stanzas, which speaks against
its having been fragmentarily preserved. There are also good arguments
based on the content that both the beginning and end of the poem arepreserved. This question is discussed below (p. 23).
The poem consists of 26 eight-line stanzas. For comparison there
are 16·5 stanzas of Vƒluspá on the recto of the first leaf of the Codex
Regius of the eddic poems (GKS 2365 4to). It is thus not impossible
for the 26 stanzas of Hrafnagaldur to have been written on one leaf of amanuscript or on one sheet of about the same size as the leaves in GKS
2365 4to. The poems in the Codex Regius are not divided into stanzas,
whereas most manuscripts containing Hrafnagaldur are. But in a notein D it is mentioned that the text it was copied from was written out
continuously (as prose). In two of the earliest manuscripts, A and B, eachstanza is written as a single paragraph of prose, but both scribes makethe same mistake in the stanza division in stt. 20–21, attaching the firsthalf of st. 21 to st. 20, leaving the second half of st. 22 as a short stanza.
This mistake is likely to have been in a manuscript from which both A
and B were derived, which could have been the one used by Brynjólfur
Sveinsson for his copy. Even if the supposedly old and dirty leaf with
Hrafnagaldur on it really existed, there is no knowing how old it
actually was. Árni Magnússon’s description of the leaf as old stems
via Síra Ólafur Jónsson from a phrase apparently used by Brynjólfur,
so his statement cannot be used to support a medieval dating of
the poem. It is my conclusion that the letter cannot be used as evidence
for the poem’s early origin or date in the face of weighty arguments for
its lateness. But the letter gives valuable information in that it connects
the poem with the scholarly activity in Skálholt in the days of Brynjólfur.
If the copies of Hrafnagaldur stem from a single leaf not containing
any other poems, one might suppose that in copies of this leaf the poem
would end up in various textual contexts. In some manuscripts we find thepoem placed after Sólarljóð and before Vƒluspá, after which there follow
8
The first editor of the poem, Guðmundur Magnússon, thought in fact that thepoem lacked both beginning and end, while Finnur Magnússon in his translation of
the eddic poems (Den ældre Edda, 1821–1823, II 209 and 213) thought that a part ofthe poem had been lost. In the missing stanzas it was imagined that an explanation of
the poem’s otherwise hardly intelligible main title might be found. Apparently neitherGuðmundur Magnússon nor Finnur Magnússon knew of Árni Magnússon’s letter.

14

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

the rest of the eddic poems in the Codex Regius.9 This is the case in A and(probably originally) in B, which are two of the earliest manuscripts. The
archetype of these manuscripts would presumably have had the poems inthis order. C has the poem between Hallmundar ljóð and Hákonar saga
Hákonarsonar. In D, Hrafnagaldur comes after the Codex Regius poems
and Grottasƒngr, Gróugaldur, Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð (see Bugge’s
discussion of the placing of Hrafnagaldur, Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, xlix).
In E Hrafnagaldur comes between Fjölsvinnsmál and Grottasƒngr. Both
D and E are copies made in the eighteenth century, and they seem clearly
more remote from the original than the other three manuscripts that havetext-critical value.
Common readings in A, B, C, D and E (among others ‘Frygg’ 23/7 —though here E has ‘Frigg’ — and ‘dys’ 6/2) show that they, and presumably
their archetype, must stem from the seventeenth century,10 and as regards
the various placings of the poem, it could be a case of different antiquarians’
choices of a poetical context.
It may be added that manuscripts deriving from Brynjólfur Sveinsson’s
principal copyist Jón Erlendsson of Villingaholt (died 1672) are not exact
copies, as can be seen from his copies of Íslendingabók and Arons saga(see Jón Jóhannesson 1956, viii). In his edition of Guðmundar sögur
biskups I (1983), Stefán Karlsson compared the end of Arons saga in
AM 551 d b 4to with Jón Erlendsson’s copy of this manuscript (AM 212fol.). Stefán concluded that ‘Jón’s manuscript . . . shows signs that theoriginal had already been damaged and was in some passages difficult toread, and Jón’s text is often corrupt and in some places incomprehensible’(Stefán Karlsson 1983, clx). It is impossible to know whether it was Jón
Erlendsson that made the copy of Hrafnagaldur for Brynjólfur Sveinsson
that Árni Magnússon referred to in his letter. It is known that Jón Ólafssonof Grunnavík (1705–1779) had possessed two manuscripts of eddic
poems, of which one, which he had got from Páll Sveinsson, had been
When Sólarljóð stands at the head of many of the earliest collections of eddic
poems, it is probably because it was believed that Sæmundr fróði had composed
it. In Jón Árnason’s Íslenzkar þjóðsögur (1954–1961, I 475) we find an abbreviated statement from a manuscript, AM 254 8vo (p. 346), that is dated to the endof the seven­teenth century: ‘Sæmundur andaðist 1133, en með hverjum atburðum
höfum vær eigi heyrt, þó segja menn, að hann þridagaður hafi úr líkrekkjunnirisið og þá kveðið þá drápu, er hans ljóða-Eddu er vön að fylgja og kallast Sólarljóð.’ See also Bjarni Einarsson 1955, cv–cvi.
10
The earliest examples of i, í and ei being written for y, ý and ey or vice versa
are from the end of the period 1400–1550 (Stefán Karlsson 2000, 55; 2004, 50),
but it becomes common only in the seventeenth century.
9Introduction

15

written by Jón Erlendsson. Jón Ólafsson had this manuscript sent to him
in Copenhagen in 1727, but the ship sank (see Jón Helgason 1926, 287).
In his article in Lesbók Morgunblaðsins 27/4 2002, Jónas Kristjánsson
dates Hrafnagaldur to the fourteenth century. He uses Árni Magnússon’s
letter as support for his assumption that the poem is ancient. According to
Jónas, a lot of words and sentences in Hrafnagaldur derive from Vƒluspá inthe Codex Regius.11 The many errors in copies of the poem are supposed tohave arisen at two stages, 1) in the course of the poem’s oral transmission,and 2) in the copying of ‘an old, dirty leaf’.
On the grounds of the influence of Vƒluspá, the origin of which hedates to around ad 1000, Jónas Kristjánsson sets a terminus post quem
for Hrafnagaldur of that year. But it may be pointed out that the influenceof Vƒluspá does not of course preclude a late date. If the author of
Hrafnagaldur found himself in the milieu of Brynjólfur Sveinsson in
Skálholt, it is by no means improbable that he knew the Codex Regius of
the eddic poems, which came into Brynjólfur’s possession in 1643. Alreadyin 1665 the first eddic poems appeared in print in Resen’s editions, namelyVƒluspá and Hávamál. The author need not have used these editions, butthey were both an example of and a contribution to the sudden celebrity
and dissemination of the eddic poems in learned circles in the seventeenth
century.
Hrafnagaldur cannot, according to Jónas Kristjánsson, have been
composed before about 1300. He puts forward as evidence that the metreof the poem would be destroyed if the svarabhakti vowel in nominative
singular masculine endings were left out. The svarabhakti vowel is notfound in manuscripts from before the thirteenth century.
Kristján Árnason contradicted Jónas Kristjánsson’s dating of Hrafnagaldur
in an article in Lesbók Morgunblaðsins 25/5 2002, on the basis of an
examination of syllable length in Hrafnagaldur. Kristján found sevenlines in the poem that break the metrical rules in relation to the old vowel
Jónas considers the following to have been taken from Vƒluspá in the Codex
Regius: st. 1: elur íviðjur < Vsp. 2: níu íviðjur; st. 5: Vitið enn, eða hvat? < Vsp.’s
repeated: Vituð ér enn, eða hvat?; st. 7: hárðbaðms (or hárbaðms) < Vsp. 19: hárbaðmr (but cf. footnote 5 above); st. 12: Né mun mælti, né mál knátti < Vsp. 5:
Sól þat né vissi . . . stjǫrnur þat né vissi . . . máni þat né vissi; st. 13: Einn kemur
austan < Vsp. 50: Hrymr ekr austan; st. 13: mæran of Miðgarð < Vsp. 4: þeir erMiðgarð mæran skópu; st. 19: sjót Sæhrímni saddist rakna < Vsp. 41: rýðr ragnasjǫt rauðum dreyra; st. 23: gengu frá gildi, | goðin kvǫddu < Vsp. 23: Þá gengu
regin ǫll | á rǫkstóla . . . eða skyldu goðin ǫll | gildi eiga; st. 25: Jǫrmungrundar | íjódýr nyrðra < Vsp. 5: Sól varp sunnan | sinni Mána | hendi inni hœgri | of himinjódýr. To which I would add st. 5: Lopti med lævi < Vsp. 25: lopt allt lævi blandit.
11

16

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

quantity system, and his conclusion runs that it is improbable, if not
downright impossible, for the poem in its transmitted form to be from thefourteenth century, before the changes in Icelandic syllable quantity which
did not begin until the sixteenth century (Kristján Árnason 2002, 11). There
are, however, many stanzas that do not offend the metrical rules, so Kristján
suggests that the stanzas of the poem might be from different periods, andthat they could have been put together in the seventeenth century at theearliest.12 The poem, however, seems to have a coherent content, so thatit seems improbable that its stanzas could be from different periods.
An examination of the surviving manuscripts of Hrafnagaldur shows that
there are only minor disagreements between the word forms and spellings inthem. The poem includes archaising spellings, among other things often, but
not consistently, omitting the svarabhakti vowel. That people were capable ofarchaising the language in the eighteenth century is apparent from the late
poem Gunnarsslagur. It is transmitted in among other places NKS 1877
4to, where it is introduced with the words: ‘Ein af þeim töpuðu kviðum |Sæmundar-Eddu’. Guðmundur Magnússon discovered the poem while ona journey in Iceland in 1780 and published it in the Arnamagnæan editionof the eddic poems (Edda 1787–1828, II xxiv and 1001–­1010). In the
introduction to the second volume of Edda 1787–1828, Børge Thorlacius
mentions a rumour that Gunnar Pálsson was the author of Gunnarsslagur.
But according to a letter from Árni Þorsteinsson in Norðurmúlasýsla
to Guttormur Pálsson, Guðmundur Magnússon had found the poem ina manuscript which was a copy of an old manuscript. Árni owned thismanuscript and had received it from Skafti Skaftason, who had said thatthe thirteen eddic poems in it were copied from an old original previously
in the possession of Sigurður Eiríksson, priest at Skeggjastaðir on
Langanesströnd (died 1768). If, Thorlacius writes, Gunnarsslagur wasin this manuscript, Gunnar could not be its author. Árni, however, also
states that his son had seen the poem in a collection of Gunnar Pálsson’s
poetry (Edda 1787–1828 II, xxv–xxvi). Thorlacius notes that late paper
manuscripts, badly treated, can absorb smoke and humidity and thus
delude inexperienced eyes about their antiquity (xxvii). The language
This hypothesis agrees on some points with the Danish writer and translator
Bertel Christian Sandvig’s supposition that the poem ‘consists of nothing but
incoherent passages that a lover of the art of poetry has excerpted from a larger
poem’ (1783–1785, I 4r–4v). Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir (2001, cxxiv, cciv) has
looked at the werewulf motif in st. 8. She has not proposed a date for Hrafnagaldur,
but has pointed out that this motif in the poem is reminiscent of passages in other
Old Norse texts.
12

Introduction17and vocabulary of Gunnarsslagur are archaised (which is also the case in
Gunnar Pálsson’s autograph in JS 273 4to), and it is presented as a medieval
poem,13 but it was nevertheless composed by Gunnar Pálsson in 1745.14
Another example is Hafgeirs saga Flateyings from the eighteenth century.15
Confirmation that this saga is a product of the eighteenth century, according
to Peter Jorgensen, is the use of the adjective þankafullur (probably from
Danish tankefuld or German gedankenvoll), which is not common in
Icelandic. The word appears in the dictionary compiled by Jón Ólafssonof Grunnavík during the years 1734 to 1779 that is preserved in AM 433
fol.16 Even though an old historiographer could be deceived by this saga,
it is obviously an example of a late imitation of the ancient sagas.
13
Examples of archaisation are the omission of the svarabhakti vowel, ‘vá’instead of ‘vo’ and ‘e’ instead of ‘i’ in inflexions.
14
See Edda 1787–1828, II xxiv–xxvii and Bugge’s remarks in Norrœn
fornkvæði 1867, xlix: ‘Any doubts [about the authorship] are dispelled by the
information imparted to me by Guðbrandr Vigfússon: Gunnarsslagr is found inKvæðasafn síra Gunnars Pálssonar in British Museum 11,192 (not an autograph),and there the author himself (after 1777) has written about this poem: “Eg sendiþetta nýsmíðað þeim nafnkenda manni séra Eyjólfi á Völlum, er lét vel yfir oglagði þetta til síðast: jubeo te macte esse tanto in antiquitatibus nostris profectu;og ætla eg þetta hafi verið 1745–1746. Sveini lögmanni sendi eg og exemplar. . . er mitt litla verk vel approberaði. Framar man eg eigi af að segja, enda
máské tortýndr sé sá verki, þar mag. Hálfdan Einarsson hans eigi getr í sinni
sciagraphia hist. lit., en nefner þó aðra mína smákveðlinga. G.P.S.” ’ Gunnar
Pálsson’s autograph is probably to be found in JS 273 4to a II 7. In connection
with his BA assignment at Háskóli Íslands 2008, Haukur Þorgeirsson discovered
Eyjólfur Jónsson’s letter in reply to Gunnar Pálsson about Gunnarsslagur, dated
23. September 1745 (ÍBR 120 8vo, pp. 204–205; see Haukur Þorgeirsson 2008,
24; on the autograph, p. 29). Even though the poet did not pretend that the poem
was ancient, it was still soon apprehended as such. In the same letter Eyjólfur
Jónsson actually wrote that if he had not known better, he would have believedthat the poem was one of the medieval eddic poems.
15
Peter Jorgensen (1977) says that an Icelandic student in Copenhagen,Þorlákur Magnússon Ísfiord (c. 1748–1781), wrote this saga during the years 1774
to 1776, claimed it was copied fom a thirteenth-century manuscript and probably
sold it to the elderly and by that time half blind Bernhard Møllmann (1702–
1778), professor at Copenhagen University, royal historiographer and librarianat the Royal Library in Copenhagen, who was also, incidentally, in 1755 trying
to obtain a good copy of the eddic poems in connection with the Arnamagnæan
Commission’s plans to publish Snorri’s Edda (see Jón Helgason 1926, 286).
16
See the list of words in his dictionary on the website of Orðabók Háskólans:
http://www.lexis.hi.is/JOL­­_skra.htm. þankafullur is found later on in rímur too(see Orðabók Háskólans: http://lexis.hi.is/cgi-bin/ritmal/leitord.cgi).

18

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Hrafnagaldur also contains a loanword which can give a clue to the poem’s
age, or at least to a terminus post quem. In st. 20 the Middle Low German
loanword máltíð is found, which according to Veturliði Óskarsson is not
used regularly in Icelandic before 1500 (see Lassen 2006, 557). It appears in
an Icelandic document from 1380 and occasionally in manuscripts between
c. 1350 and c. 1530, among other places in a manuscript containing Bárðar
saga Snæfellsáss and in Flateyjarbók (Veturliði Óskarsson 2003, 281). The
use of the word in Hrafnagaldur suggests that the poem was not written
before the middle of the fourteenth century. But it can hardly be as old as that.
This is indicated by, among other things, the use of the words ‘virt’, which
is not recorded in Orðabók Háskólans from before the sixteenth century,and ‘larður’ or ‘laraður’, which are not found earlier than the seventeenth
century (see the commentary to stt. 18 and 23).
Nótt skal nema nýræða til
In st. 22 of Hrafnagaldur what looks like a proverb, ‘Nótt skal nemanýræða til’, appears. The proverb sheds light on the date of the poem, so
we shall now discuss where it comes from.
In 1843 Hallgrímur Scheving, one of the early editors of Hrafnagaldur,
published a collection of Icelandic proverbs in Bodsrit Bessastadaskóla(‘Islendskir málshættir safnadir, útvaldir og í stafrófsrød færdir af
Skólakennara Dr. H. Scheving’), in which he includes (p. 38) ‘Nótt skalnema nýræða til’, but the only occurrence he quotes is that in Hrafnagaldur.
Bjarni Vilhjálmsson and Óskar Halldórsson’s Íslenskir málshættir (1979)
include ‘Nótt skal nema til nýræða’, but their only reference is to Scheving.
The earliest medieval example of a proverb that means that night should be
used for taking counsel is in Michaelis Apostolius (c. 1422–1480), who in his
Greek proverb collection Paroιmίaι (Paroemiæ) mentions εn͗ nuktὶ boulή.
Michaelis Apostolius was a collector of manuscripts and was̉ located in Italy.
This work of his was translated into Latin by Petrus Pantinus and published inLeiden in 1619 in an edition by the famous Dutch humanist Daniel Heinsius(1580–1655), and here the proverb is rendered ‘in nocte consilium’. The mostinfluential collection of proverbs in Europe in the Renaissance period was,however, Erasmus of Rotterdam’s Adagia. Guðmundur Magnússon, in his
commentary on Hrafnagaldur (Edda 1787–1828, I 227, note) identified ‘Nótt
skal nema nýræða til’ with the Greco-Roman proverb ‘in nocte consilium’,referring to the relevant place in Erasmus’s work, and concluded that theproverb was also known in the North.
Erasmus’s work is a key to the understanding of European culturein the sixteenth century. It was based on among other things Michaelis

Introduction

19

Apostolius’s collection of proverbs, the primary dissemination of which
was via Erasmus. The latter’s collection first appeared in Paris in 1500
under the title Veterum maximeque insignium paroemiarum id est
adagiorum collectanea, and was reissued in revised forms in 1508 (Venice),
1515 (Basel) and thereafter several more times. It also soon came out intranslations into among other languages German (Georgius Spalatinus:
Man muß entweder ein konig oder aber ein narr geborn werden, 1520)
and English (Richard Taverner: Proverbes or adagies, 1539). The earliest
editions were just a small selection of proverbs compared with the laterones, which were expanded, corrected and revised.
The proverb in Hrafnagaldur is found already in some of the earliest
editions of Erasmus’s Adagia, which was disseminated enormously widelyin its various editions, and after Erasmus’s death the work continued
to be expanded. There was a copy of the 1599 edition in the library of
Brynjólfur Sveinsson, and this is now in Landsbókasafn Íslands (see Jón
Helgason 1948, 140; Ritaukaskrá Landsbókasafnsins 1926, 60). This
printed edition is considerably earlier than the earliest manuscripts that
contain Hrafnagaldur. In Brynjólfur’s copy, ‘Noctu urgenda consilia’ and‘Nox dabit consilium’ are given on pp. 328–329, and ‘In nocte consilium’
on p. 508. The Adagia was also known in Iceland earlier in the sixteenth
century. Magnús prúði Jónsson (1525–1591) compiled a rhymed collectionof proverbs that was partly based on the Adagia, though the collection asa whole is not a translation from Latin (see Grímur M. Helgason 1961). It
is preserved in JS 391 8vo, which has a reference to Erasmus on p. 107, andLbs 1199 4to, though the proverb in Hrafnagaldur is not found here.
According to the Adagia, the proverb ‘noctu urgenda consilium’ is of
Greek origin, and no earlier Latin example is quoted. Erasmus (1599, 328)
says his principal source was a school book from the second century ad,
Theon’s Progymnasmata (en nukti boules ecesqai). He also mentions
examples from Sophocles, Plutarch and an anonymous Greek writer.
Finally, he gives a French example (‘Gallicum proverbium’), ‘la nuict aconseil’. Under ‘In nocte consilium’ he mentions a commonplace among
the uneducated (‘ab idiotis nostratibus) ‘super hac re indormiam (‘I shallsleep on it’), and here he refers to Plutarch.
In Proverbes Français antérieurs au XVe siècle (Morawski 1925, ix)
we find ‘la nuit a conseil’, for which a fifteenth-century manuscript in the
Vatican (Reg. 1429) is given as a source. This manuscript contains proverbs
and legal commentaries, and the collection may have been compiled
before 1444. In the fifteenth century, Greek antiquity was rediscovered,and learned Greeks came to Italy, France and Spain (Michaelis Apostolius

20

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

was one of these learned Greeks in Italy). The proverb does not seem tobelong to any earlier French tradition, and moreover there does not seemto have been any connection between France and Iceland in the fifteenth
century either.
In Lateinische Sprichwörter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters (Walther
1963–1969) we find: ‘Visum campus habet, nemus aurem, consilium
nox’ (33811a).17 This is taken from the fifteenth-century British Museum
manuscript Harl. 3362.
It is unlikely that the proverb was known in Iceland direct from Michaelis
Apostolius’s collection or from the Greek examples that are mentioned in theAdagia, or that it reached Iceland via France or England in the fifteenth ­century.
I have found references to the proverb in only one manuscript in each of thesetwo countries, so it cannot have been widespread there. It is ­reasonable toassume that both these examples go back to Michaelis Apostolius.18
The proverb must, however, have reached Iceland via Erasmus’s Adagia.
It is after all not recorded in medieval Icelandic texts; the earliest example
is in Hrafnagaldur. It is also found in Latin in the seventeenth century in
Brynjólfur Sveinsson’s library, which was unique in Iceland. Brynjólfur
had probably brought the book with him from Copenhagen when hereturned to Iceland in 1638. The proverb became so widespread in the
Renaissance that scholars talk of the ‘in nocte consilium topos’ (Parkin2006). Erasmus’s proverb collection can thus provide a terminus post quem
for Hrafnagaldur. The proverb ‘nótt skal nema nýræða til’ constitutes ahigh point in the poem towards its conclusion, and it is hard to imagine
its having been added by a scribe who could not read what stood in an
obscure and difficult original.
Hrafnagaldur apparently existed some time before the earliest preserved
manuscripts that contain it. Guðmundur Magnússon tells us (Edda
1787–1828, I 204) that the Icelandic poet Eiríkur Hallsson at Höfði
(1614–1698) spent ten years trying to understand the poem, after which hemoreover threw it from him saying that he still only understood a little of it.
17
In spite of the title, examples in this work are taken from both medieval andpostmedieval texts. It also includes ‘Semper consilium portat nox humida secum’(27920a) and ‘In nocte consilium atra invenies candidum’ (11898a). The sourcesof these are Philosophia Patrum 2887, 2888.
18
The Danish proverbs that have a similar meaning are all later than Erasmus’s
Adagia. Compare ‘Herr Iver i Boeslundes ordsprog (Sørensen 1980, 105), written
between 1652 and 1684 (Sørensen 1980, 58). Erasmus’s and Michaelis’s proverb
collections are mentioned in Peder Syv’s proverb bibliography in Rostgaard 48
8vo (Sørensen 1988, 431–433).

Introduction

21

This means that Eiríkur started studying the poem in 1688 at the latest,
and probably earlier, since Guðmundur does not say that Eiríkur died
immediately after abandoning it, and he can hardly have begun work on
it as soon as it was written. So Hrafnagaldur may have been composed
around the middle of the seventeenth century, and would then have beenconnected with the Renaissance in Iceland, the rediscovery of the Codex
Regius in 1643 and the learned circle around Brynjólfur Sveinsson, who
was bishop at Skálholt. Some of the earliest known people to have madeor acquired copies of the poem are, as mentioned above, GuðmundurÓlafsson and Ásgeir Jónsson, who studied in Skálholt from 1673 to 1677
and from 1674 to 1678 respectively. It may be considered likely that thepoem was actually composed at Skálholt. It may therefore appear surprisingthat it so quickly gained the reputation of being ancient, but that such athing is possible is shown by the case of Gunnarsslagur (see p. 16 above);
and this reputation may have given rise to the earliest copying activity
involving Hrafnagaldur, which was perhaps initiated by Brynjólfur.
To explain why reports of Hrafnagaldur first surface in the northern dioceseof Hólar (Eiríkur Hallsson at Höfði) and from students in the southern dioceseof Skálholt (Guðmundur Ólafsson and Ásgeir Jónsson) one might suspect the
involvement of Þórður Þorláksson, who was the son of Þorlákur Skúlason,bishop of Hólar (died 1656) and brother of Gísli Þorláksson, Þorlákur’s
successor as bishop of Hólar (1656–1684). Þórður studied in Denmark andGermany, and travelled to France, Belgium and the Netherlands. After hesucceeded Brynjólfur Sveinsson as bishop of Skálholt in 1674, he brought
the Hólar press to Skálholt where he initiated the printing of medieval sagas.
Þórður Þorláksson was very active in collecting manuscripts and renewed
the antiquarian activities in Skálholt (cf. Már Jónsson 1998, 189–190).
Ólafur Jónsson was principal at the school at Skálholt during the last years ofBrynjólfur Sveinsson’s and the first years of Þórður Þorláksson’s bishopric.
Þórður may have heard about the single leaf containing Hrafnagaldur andthe rumour of it may have reached the north of Iceland via him.
The Title Hrafnagaldur Óðins/Forspjallsljóð
The main title, Hrafnagaldur Óðins, seems to be a misunderstanding, forÓðinn’s ravens play no part in the poem.19 It is possible that the poem
was originally nameless, and at a very early stage was given the title‘Hrafnagaldur Óðins’ due to a misunderstanding of ‘hugur’ in the thirdIn his commentary in AM 424 fol., Gunnar Pálsson argued that Hrafnagaldur
could be a misunderstanding of hræfvagaldur, which he then links to valgaldr inBaldrs draumar (Edda 1787–1828, I, 199).
19

22

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

stanza as an alternative form of the name ‘Huginn’ for one of Óðinn’sravens, parallel to the alternative forms Ullr/Ullinn and perhaps Óðr/Óðinn.
The title should probably be interpreted to mean ‘Song of Óðinn’s ravens’
and understood in connection with Gylfaginning ch. 38, SnE I 32/32–36.
Cf. also the poems entitled ‘Hrafnsmál’ attributed to Þorbjǫrn hornklofi,Þormóðr Trefilsson and Sturla Þórðarson.
All manuscripts that contain Hrafnagaldur include the subtitle‘Forspjallsljóð’, sometimes preceded by ‘al.’ or ‘eþur’. The use of thenoun ‘forspjall’ shows that the subtitle cannot stem from the Middle
Ages. Fritzner’s Ordbog does not include the word forspjall, but gives themeaning ‘Tale, Fortælling’ for the noun spjall. Forspjall is not included in
ONP’s word list either (http://dataonp.hum.ku.dk/index.html). The earliest
example that is given in Orðabók Háskólans is from 1649, in a verse in theÆvidrápa of Jón lærði Guðmundsson (1574–1658): ‘Forspjall lítið | framan
til ljóða | fyrir lesandann | eg læt hér vera’. The first twenty stanzas in hisÆvidrápa comprise an introductory poem of a more general character thanthe decidedly autobiographical stanzas that follow. ‘Forspjall’ (‘preface’)is used by Jón lærði in a sense that seems identical to that of the Latin‘prologus’, of which it is probably a translation. Jón belonged to the learned
circle around Brynjólfur Sveinsson and was one of the Icelanders who copied
medieval manuscripts and compiled commentaries on the ancient literatureof Iceland, among other things making a copy of the Codex Upsaliensis
of Snorri’s Edda and writing notes on Vƒluspá and Hávamál (see Faulkes
1977, 77, 89; Einar G. Pétursson 1998, 133–134). The context in which JónGuðmundsson used the word forspjall is similar to that in Hrafnagaldur,
but perhaps in the latter it applies particularly to the first stanza, in which
the poet gives an overview of the status of various beings. Thus Hallgrímur
Scheving (1837, 7) in fact suggested that the title ‘Forspjallsljóð’, which
can mean a preface in verse, applied exclusively to st. 1 of Hrafnagaldur.
The subtitle ‘Forspjallsljóð’ could have been inspired by Jón Guðmunds­
son’s Ævidrápa (even if we cannot exclude the possibility of the relationship having been the reverse), but there is no reason why an existing,­possibly untitled poem at some stage in its transmission should not havebeen given a later title, or possibly had the subtitle ‘Forspjallsljóð’ added.
In an Edda manuscript that Gunnar Pálsson possessed, Páll Vídalín (1667–1727) is said to have written by Hrafnagaldur: ‘þad er Forspjallsljód’(Scheving 1837, 5; cf. also Edda 1787–1828, I 200). Scheving wrote in
the commentary to his edition that Gunnar Pálsson did not know whether
Vídalín was the first to call Hrafnagaldur by this name. Gunnar wrote acommentary to Hrafnagaldur which is preserved in AM 424 fol., and sent

Introduction

23

it to the poem’s first editor Guðmundur Magnússon in Copenhagen. Even
though Vídalín could not (on account of his age) have been the originatorof the subtitle, it could be that it was not originally thought of as a title,
but as a description, ‘this is an introductory poem’. This description could
afterwards have become attached to the title.
It is tempting to wonder whether the poem could have been written asa preface to one of the many collections of eddic poems that were madeafter 1643. In A and B the poem stands after Sólarljóð and before Vƒluspá.
Sólarljóð could have gained its prominent position first in the collection
because it was thought in the seventeenth century to have been composedby Sæmundr fróði (see note 9 above). Hrafnagaldur could have been placednext because it was thought of as a preface in verse to Sæmundr’s Edda.
Content and Style
The Hrafnagaldur poet seems to have had a penchant for repetition ofwords within the same half-stanza, a kind of symmetrical ornamentationthat gives his poem a baroque flavour (see for example stt. 3.5–8 and4. 5–8). The content of the poem points to a date of composition later thanthat of genuinely medieval eddic poems. The action takes place among
the gods just before Ragnarǫk, and describes Óðinn’s vain attempt to gain
knowledge of the future or to find a way out for the gods. The introductorystanza gives an overview of various beings in the world of the gods (Alfǫðr,Vanir, nornir, Æsir, etc) and shows the attitudes of various groups in the
Norse mythological world towards the larger scheme of the gods’ future.
It serves to introduce the atmosphere for the poem’s narrative, like thefirst stanza of Hamðismál, which indicates that the opening is preserved.
It would appear that the conclusion of the narrative is also preserved,20
for it ends with the day breaking and Heimdallur beginning to blow hishorn, which according to Snorri’s Edda sounds precisely when Ragnarǫk
is imminent. The poem thus ends on a tragic climax. Even though it is notstated, it is clear that the gods are now going to meet their fate.
In this poem the future is not introduced, as is the case in Vƒluspá andBaldrs draumar. The journey to seek a prophecy or wise saying and theominous dream have similarities to those in other eddic poems, but in contrastGuðmundur Magnússon thought (Edda 1787–1828, I 203), as mentioned above(note 8), that both beginning and end were lacking. His arguments for the end being
missing were 1) that nothing is said about Bragi’s departure from the prophetess, 2)that there is no information about the Æsir’s further attempts to get something out ofthe prophetess, and 3) that it would have been natural, if Bragi had had no luck ingetting the prophetess to speak, for Óðinn to have taken matters into his own hands.
20

24

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

to those poems the gods gain no information here from their journey. In
the prophetic eddic poems there is a tragic element to the knowledge thatÓðinn gains. In Vƒluspá Ragnarǫk is conjured up, in Baldrs draumar Baldr’s
death. But we do not see how the gods react to these events in those poems.
We do see that, however, in Hrafnagaldur: Iðunn begins to weep, and theimpotent gods know no way out of the problems that have apparently caused
the weeping and which they themselves do not know about. In spite of theterrible portents of the future, they still sit in merry carousal towards the closeof the poem. The parallels with Vƒluspá indicate that Hrafnagaldur must be
inspired by that poem, which of course also emphasises the destruction of
the earliest heathen gods. But in Hrafnagaldur the gods’ powerlessness isaccentuated by the fact that they can neither obtain knowledge for themselves
about the future nor manage to find any counsel.
Besides having taken an interest in the art of ancient eddic poetry, which
he learned about from Snorri’s Edda, the poet also evidently knew thetradition of Latin epic. Hallgrímur Scheving argued convincingly (1837,21) that Iðunn’s shadowy life in the realm of death was inspired by GrecoRoman mythology (see, for example, Vergil’s Aeneid VI, 390):því þó lýsingar þessar séu prýddar med ordatiltækjum úr nordurlandannagudafrædi, þá er þó undirstadan og adferdin audsjáanliga løgud eptirþesskonar lýsingum rómverskra skálda, eda þeirra sem eptir þeim hafa stælt;því í gudakvædonum í Sæmundar eddu finnst ekkért þessháttar, en í hinumødrum kvædaflokki Sæmundar eddu, minnist eg einasta þess fyrsta eyrindis íHamþismálum, er álitist gæti sem eptirstælíng rómversks skáldskapar.

One might also add that the long epic simile in stt. 13–14, too, must havebeen inspired by Greco-Roman poets. Scheving’s conclusion was thatthe poem must be later than the other eddic poems, and that it must havebeen composed in the Christian period, which today seems a cautious one.
Moreover, a further element in the poem that brings it still closer to GrecoRoman mythological narratives (e.g. the final scene of the Iliad Book I) than
it is to Norse eddic poetry is the merry carousal that the gods indulge in, in
spite of the awful events that are threatening. In the other eddic poems wenowhere see the gods seated together drinking merrily. In Lokasenna, where
they are assembled for a drinking feast, the scene is not merry. The chariotof the sun in Hrafnagaldur is adorned with jewels, which leads one to thinkof Phoebus’s chariot in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (Book II 103). Finally, thedescription of Iðunn in Hrafnagaldur is also reminiscent of another passage
in Aeneid VI (469–473), the account of the sorrow-stricken Dido in the worldof the dead, where Aeneas speaks to her, but she does not answer, just looks
down and turns away. Late in the seventeenth century, when Páll Vídalín wasIntroduction

25

principal at the school of Skálholt, he was renowned for knowing the firstsix books of The Aeneid by heart (Jón Ólafsson úr Grunnavík 1950, 102).21
The poem distinguishes itself from the other eddic poems in that theygive information about and names of things, places or figures in the Norse
mythological world, which Hrafnagaldur does not do. The eddic poems
are often allusive, but Hrafnagaldur contains obscure expressions to an
exceptional degree. It uses names, words and kennings that otherwise
seldom appear, either in eddic poetry or elsewhere. It is also the case thatthe syntax is reminiscent much more of skaldic poems or rímur than eddic
poems.22 This style, peculiar for an eddic poem, is certainly the reason thatthe poem has among scholars the reputation of being particularly obscureand extraordinary. The artificial syntax and the many kennings make itprobable that the poet was more conversant with skaldic poetry and maybe
especially rímur than with eddic poetry. Most of the figures or places fromthe Norse mythological world that are used in kennings in Hrafnagaldur
are mentioned in Snorri’s Edda, as is shown in the notes to the text below.
Moreover, there is a number of names in Hrafnagaldur that are otherwise
only known from Snorri’s Edda or later texts. These are: 1) Niflheimr, 2)
Døkkálfar, 3) Bifrǫst (only in the form Bilrƒst in eddic poems), 4) Jóln/
Jólnar (apparently only recorded in Snorri’s Edda and a stanza (16 or 13)of Háleygjatal that is only transmitted in manuscripts of Snorri’s Edda), 5)
Nál, 6) Vingólf, 7) Hangatýr. In addition, there is the noun ‘díar’, which is21
Some of the syntax of Hrafnagaldur, such as the frequent asyndeton, theseveral examples of omission of a subject pronoun, and the rather frequent use of
the dative case in place of a prepositional phrase (e.g. st. 19 ‘minnishornum’, st.
23 ‘Hrímfaxa’, st. 26 ‘Gjöll’), is reminiscent of Latin.
22
The metre generally seems to be a mistaken attempt to follow Old Norse
patterns, analogously to the mistaken attempts at archaic word forms. The
examples of prepositions in stressed position at the end of a line immediately
followed by the word they govern at the beginning of the next line (stt. 5/5,
6/3, 7/3, 5) show a poor grasp of the rules of Old Norse prosody. Postpositions,on the other hand, are found in stressed position (Hrafnagaldur st. 10/6) quite
commonly, cf. Vƒluspá 38/3, Hávamál 38/2, Grímnismál 21/3, 22/2, Lokasenna
24/2. Prepositions separated from the word they govern by other words are,however, occasionally found in stressed position in eddic poems, cf. Vƒluspá 26/5.
The lines consist preponderantly of Sievers’s type A, and regularly with foursyllables only, which gives them more the flavour of rímur patterns than those of
eddic poetry; light lines such as st. 1/3 are not found in medieval fornyrðislag.
St. 15/5 (′ x x ′) is anomalous. Type E should have a half stress between thetwo stresses. (On Sievers’s five metrical types see his Altgermanische Metrik,
1893.) On the pattern of st. 1, cf. Háttatal 9; on that of st. 11/5–8, cf. the Third
Grammatical Treatise, SnE 1848–1887, II 222–226 (‘Antiteton’, species 3 and 4).

26

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

found in both Snorri’s Edda and Heimskringla, and finally ‘man(n)heim(a)r’,
which is only recorded in Ynglinga saga in Heimskringla. The number ofnames and forms of names that are only known from Snorri’s Edda showsthat the poet must have known this work extremely well, and also the poem
is really downright incomprehensible without the use of Snorri’s Edda asa reference book while it is read. The poet may have used it as a handbook
while he was writing. If it was composed under such circumstances, thiswould explain the poem’s antiquarian and learned character and the highincidence of kennings. Snorri’s Edda quotes only fragments of eddic
poems in Gylfaginning in connection with narratives about gods and the
mythological world. Just a couple of eddic poems are transmitted in a moreor less complete form in manuscripts of Snorri’s Edda (Grottasƒngr in the
Codex Regius and Rígsþula in Codex Wormianus). Of most of the eddic
poems he quotes such as Vƒluspá and Grímnismál, Snorri quotes single
stanzas or a few consecutive stanzas.
Several eddic poems are a form of wisdom poetry. In the poems where
the gods lack knowledge, Baldrs draumar and Vƒluspá, Óðinn sets out toprocure it, in Hyndluljóð it is Freyja that sets out. Hrafnagaldur is also a
wisdom poem, but it turns upside down some of the conventions that wisdom
poems otherwise conform to. Óðinn does not himself set out, but sends
other gods, and they do not get answers to their questions. But a search foran ‘original’ myth is unlikely ever to be fruitful, for the poet had scarcely
any greater knowledge of Norse mythology than he was able to get out of
reading Snorri’s Edda. If the poem is an antiquarian product, composedwith the help of Snorri’s Edda by a learned person who was proud of andinterested in the Icelanders’ ancient poetic art, this would also explain why
the content of the poem is not in keeping with the mythological stories that
we now have from the Middle Ages. The poet may have got informationfrom Snorri’s Edda about kennings and mythological figures, and fromthis constructed his own narrative about Iðunn and the gods. The poem
should not, however, be seen as a falsification, rather it should be seen as
an expression of an antiquarian interest in the ancient eddic art. In the firstprinted writings about Iceland, learned Icelanders express pride in this art.
manuscript transmission
Hrafnagaldur is transmitted in at least thirty-seven copies. One manu­­script(KB Add 14 4to) contains just a Latin translation, AM 424 fol. contains
a commentary by Gunnar Pálsson. The manuscripts are found in Iceland,(Landsbókasafnið), Denmark (Det kongelige Bibliotek), Sweden (Kungliga
biblioteket in Stockholm and Universitetsbiblioteket in Uppsala), GreatIntroduction

27

Britain (British Library in London, English Faculty Library in Oxford andNational Library of Scotland in Edinburgh), Germany (Staatsbibliothek
zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz) and the USA (Harvard University
Library). In addition, in Den Arnamagnæanske Samling in Copenhagen
there is Gunnar Pálsson’s commentary on the poem (in AM 424 fol.),which was used by Guðmundur Magnússon in Edda 1787–1828, I. The
manuscripts in question are these:
Kungliga biblioteket, Stockholm:
Stockholm papp. fol. nr 34 (34)
Stockholm papp. fol. nr 57 (C)Stockholm papp. 4to nr 11 (11)Stockholm papp. 4to nr 46 (46)
Stockholm papp. 8vo nr 15 (A)Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek:
UUB R 682 (682)
UUB R 682 a (682 a)
UUB R 691 (691)
Det kongelige Bibliotek, København:
NKS 1108 fol. (1108)
NKS 1109 fol. (1109)
NKS 1111 fol. (1111)
NKS 1866 4to (1866)
NKS 1870 4to (1870)
Thott 773 a fol. (773 a)Thott 1491 4to (D)Thott 1492 4to (1492)
KB Add 14 4to (14)Den Arnamagnæanske Samling, København:
AM 424 fol.
Landsbókasafn Íslands, Háskólabókasafn, Reykjavík:
Lbs 818 4to (818)
Lbs 966 4to (966)
Lbs 1441 4to (E)Lbs 1562 4to (B)Lbs 1588 a 4to (1588 a I and II)
Lbs 1689 4to (1689)
Lbs 2859 4to (2859)
ÍBR 36 4to (36)ÍBR 24 8vo (24)

28

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

JS 648 4to (648)
JS 494 8vo (494)British Library, London:
Add. 4877 (4877)
Add. 11165 (11165)
Egerton 643 (643)
National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh:Adv. 21.4.7 (21.4.7)
Adv. 21.5.2 (21.5.2)
Adv. 21.6.7 (21.6.7)
English Faculty Library, Oxford:
ZCJ22 (22)
Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz:
Ms. germ. qu. 329 (329)
Harvard University Library, Harvard:
Ms. Icel. 47 (47)The earliest manuscripts that contain the poem are A and B. Both were
written in the second half of the seventeenth century. A was taken to Sweden
by Guðmundur Ólafsson (c. 1652–1695) in 1681. B includes Hrafnagaldur
and a few other eddic poems in the hand of Ásgeir Jónsson (c. 1657–1707).
It will be shown below that we can reckon with five manuscripts that have
independent textual value, A, B, C, D and E. There are other manuscripts
derived from A and B, but none, as far as is known, from C, D or E.
As already stated, the poem is only transmitted in a single version. The
number and ordering of stanzas is the same in all manuscripts (thoughstt. 21 and 25 have been merged together in E), no manuscripts have any
stanzas added or omitted, and there are only minor differences in the texts
they contain. Variant readings are often just a case of words being joined
together or not, or confusion of combinations of i, u, n, and m. The poem
is composed in fornyrðislag in eight-line stanzas, and is written out instanzas of 8 lines in most manuscripts (including D and E), though in A
and B each stanza is written out as a single paragraph of prose covering
about three lines and in C each pair of lines is written side by side, giving
stanzas of four ‘long’ lines.
Description of the Manuscripts in Group A
The A group consists of Stockholm papp. 8vo nr 15 and manuscripts
derived from it. These copies reproduce the distinctive readings of A.

Introduction

29

Stockholm papp. 8vo nr 15 (A)The manuscript, which consists of 124 leaves, was written in the second
half of the seventeenth century using both Gothic and cursive script. It isbound in a leaf from an antiphonary from c. 1300. It contains eddic poemsin the following order: Sólarljóð, Hrafnagaldur (ff. 8r–10r; pp. 15–19),Vƒluspá, Hávamál, Vafþrúðnismál, Grímnismál, Alvíssmál, Lokasenna,Þrymskviða, Hárbarðsljóð, Skírnismál, Hymiskviða and Baldrs draumar.
Then follow Vƒlundarkviða and the rest of the poems in the Codex Regius in
the same order as in that manuscript, and after that Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð,Gróugaldur and Grottasƒngr. Stanza numbers are added in the margin.
A is, as stated above, one of the earliest manuscripts that contain
Hrafna­galdur. It is not known precisely when, where or by whom it was
written but it was brought to Sweden in 1681 by Guðmundur Ólafsson(1652–1695) who, as mentioned in note 7 above, probably acquired it in­Skálholt while he was studying there. It appears in Guðmundur’s own
register of the Icelandic manuscripts and books that he sold to Antikvitets­kollegiet in 1684. There it is described as ‘Sæmundar Edda, in 8:vo’ (Gödel
1897, 179; cf. also Schück 1933, 98). Guðmundur, according to Gödel,made notes in various places in the margins of the manuscript. But notes
are made in the margin in two different kinds of writing, Gothic style andcursive, which may be by two different hands. One of them (with Gothic
style script) which among other things added variant readings or corrections in the ­margin by Hrafnagaldur, is, as far as one can judge, identicalwith the hand that wrote the text. On the flyleaf stands the name ­‘Johannes{Diethericus / Theodericus} Gröner’, according to Gödel ‘written, it­appears, by the same ornate hand that executed the whole manuscript,
and from whom also papp 8:vo nr 3 and 18 derive’ (Gödel 1897–1900,
376), but there seems to be no foundation for this identification. ‘Johannes{Diethericus / Theodericus} Gröner’ is presumably the Danish diplomat
Johan Diderik Grüner (1661–1712). For a time he resided with the polymath Ole Borch (1626–1690), who belonged to the circle of Ole Wormand Thomas Bartholin the Elder. In 1683 Grüner accom­panied a relativeof Borch to Stockholm, where from 1688 to 1698 he was secretary to theDanish embassy under Bolle Christensen Luxdorph (1643–1698). Borch
may have aroused an interest in antiquities in Grüner, who could haveborrowed the manuscript from him and written his name in it.
There are the following distinctive readings in A:
st. 15: ad þeckia fyrir A] at syn var fyrir B, at syn var fyrer C, at syn
var fyrir D, ad syn var fyrir E
st. 16: Grymis A] Grimnis B, grunnis C, Grimnis D, Grimnis E

30

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

st. 24: rokna A] jarkna B, C, jarkna D, iarkna E
st. 25: jadyr A] jodyr B, C, jo dyr D, iodyr E
These four distinctive readings inAare secondary, since they are probably casesof definite errors that came about in the copying. In st. 15, ‘þeckia’ is added in
the margin in A by the same hand that wrote the poem, possibly because thescribe had accidentally omitted the word, and it is probably an error or a badguess. This couplet had no alliteration in A: ‘sokte þvi meir | ad þeckia fyrer’,
whereas it does in B, C, D and E (‘soktu/sokto þvi meir | ad syn var fyrir’). In
st. 24, the scribe of A has written ‘jokna’ in the margin by ‘rokna’, indicatingthat he knew there was something wrong in what he had written in the text.
Two readings on the other hand are in all likelihood primary:st. 7: hardbaþms A] hardbaþins B, hardbaþnis C, harþbaþnis D,
harbadms E
st. 22: Omi A] Onn B, Onn C, Oþinn D, Ome E
The two readings ‘hardbaþms’ and ‘Omi’ must be regarded as superior
to the readings of the other manuscripts in these places. ‘Oþinn’ (in D) iscertainly better, but A’s ‘Omi’ may be preferred on the principle of lectio
difficilior potior. This reading is also supported by E. ‘Onn’ in B and C
must be due to a misreading of the four minims in ‘Omi’, like the readingsof A and C for ‘Grímnis’ in st. 16, and ‘Oþinn’ could be due to a scribe’s
assumption that ‘Onn’ was an abbreviation for that name lacking the usual
superior stroke. It is more difficult to explain how ‘Omi’ and ‘Onn’ could
be derived from an original ‘Oþinn’.
Rask compares A with his text in his edition of the Edda (Stockholm1818), though he mistakenly refers to it as nr 5, and variants from A are
given to the text of Hrafnagaldur, where it is given the siglum F. Bugge,
in his edition of the Edda compared the text in A, which he refers to asSt., with the Codex Regius, but his edition of Hrafnagaldur is not basedon A, and he does not give variants from it (Norrœn fornkvæði 1867,
xlviii; xlix; liii–lv). Finally, Barend Sijmons used A in Die Lieder der
Edda (Halle 1888–1906), but did not, however, include Hrafnagaldur.
A was most recently used by Jónas Kristjánsson when he published its
text of Hrafnagaldur in Morgunblaðið (2002).
The text of Hrafnagaldur is here based on that of A, which has fewer
errors than the other manuscripts.
The following manuscripts are direct or indirect copies of A:
Stockholm papp. fol. nr 34 (34)This manuscript, which consists of 506 leaves, was written in 1684. It
is half-bound in leather, and contains both Snorri’s Edda (ff. 1–284) andIntroduction

31

eddic poems (ff. 285–506) in the same order as in A. The eddic poems,
including Hrafnagaldur, are arranged in two columns with the Icelandic
text parallel to a Latin translation.
According to Gödel (1897–1900, 144), the Icelandic text of the eddic
poems in this manuscript was copied from A in Stockholm in 1684 by
Helgi Ólafsson (c. 1646–1707), Guðmundur Ólafsson’s brother. In the textof Hrafnagaldur all the innovations of A are reproduced. ­The ­translationof the first thirteen stanzas of Hrafnagaldur was also carried out by Helgi,
but then another translator took over. Helgi worked as amanuensis at
Antikvitets­kollegiet from 1682 to 1686 with a break in 1683, when hewent to visit his family in Iceland (Gödel 1897, 188). On the last leaf iswritten: ‘Finitum Holmiæ in posterioris idibus Maij Anno 1684. Helgus
Olaus islandus’.
The part of the manuscript containing eddic poems was used in Guðmundur
Magnússon’s edition (Edda 1787–1828, I xliv), by Rask (Edda Sæmundarhinns fróda 1818) and by Bugge in establishing a terminus ante quem for
A (Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, liii).
NKS 1870 4to (1870)
This manuscript, which consists of 162 leaves, was written towards theend of the seventeenth century and bound in leather. Ff. 18v and 24v areblank, f. 104 is an inserted slip. It is mainly written in cursive on folded
sheets and in a single hand, in a part of the manuscript in two columns,
Icelandic text with parallel Latin translation. In a few cases notes areadded at the side of stanzas in a different ink, but in the same hand. The
manuscript bears the title ‘Sæmundar Edda’. On f. 1v a list of contents isadded and some remarks. Besides the eddic poems the manuscript contains
three passages with the headings ‘Hvad Gräkerne och annat Folk tagit urwåra Norska fäders aldra äldsta Skriffter. Om Gyllende Tahlet. Himmelens
Tecken’, which are written in a different hand and inserted between Brot
af Sigurðarkviðu and Guðrúnarkviða I on ff. 91v–100, and also someextracts from Resen’s Latin preface to Guðmundur Andrésson’s Lexicon
Islandicum (Havniæ 1683) on ff. 161–162.
The eddic poems appear in the same order as in A. Hrafnagaldur comeson ff. 9r–11v. After Hrafnagaldur the title of Vƒluspá is written, but thepoem itself is missing. At the end of Grottasƒngr (f. 160v) is written, as
in 34: ‘Finitum Holmiæ in posteriorib. Idib. Maj a. 1684 Helgus Olai isl.’
The eddic poems, including Hrafnagaldur, are copied from 34 (there
are a few errors in the text of Hrafnagaldur, for example st. 8: ‘syria’,
where 34 has ‘syrgia’), as is the Latin translation, in which only just a few
alterations have been made in Hrafnagaldur (especially in stt. 24 and 25).

32

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

The manuscript seems to have been written in Stockholm. It could havebeen acquired and brought to Denmark by Johan Diderik Grüner in 1698.
Variants from 1870 are quoted (with the siglum ‘Svec.’) to the textof Hrafnagaldur in the Arnamagnæan edition of the eddic poems (Edda
1787–1828, I) via Jón Eiríksson’s manuscript, denoted ‘E’, which had
been in Suhm’s collection as no. 393 4to (see under 47 below), in which
Jón had included variants from 1870.
UUB R 691 (691)This manuscript, which consists of 49 leaves, was written in the eighteenth
century in a single hand. It contains no information about when or by whom
it was written, but on the inside of the front cover it states that it had
belonged in Nordin’s collection (‘Uppsala Universitets Bibliothek. Nordins
Saml. 220’). According to Gödel’s catalogue it came into the Uppsala libraryin 1814 with that collection. It is half-bound in leather and reads on the spine:‘CARMINA ISLANDICA’. Several poems are written in two columns,
Icelandic text with Latin translation parallel. According to Gödel’s catalogue,
the manuscript is a copy of 34, which must be right, for corrections areincluded in brackets within the lines of the stanzas in the same way as
they are in 34. 691, however, has some of the poems in a different order(Þrymskviða, Skírnismál, Baldrs draumar, Vƒlundarkviða, Rúnatal in
Hávamál (i.e. stt. 138 onwards), Vafþrúðnismál, Grímnismál, Alvíssmál,
Lokasenna, Hrafnagaldur (ff. 39r–41v), Sólarljóð). It can also be said tobe the same translation as in 34, though not all the possible alternativetranslations given in 34 are included, and moreover a few changes
have been made. 691 also has certain innovations: in st. 15 it has thereading ‘jolmin’ for 34’s ‘Jölnum’. This turns up again in 1870, also a
copy of 34.
UUB R 682 (682)This manuscript, which consists of 83 leaves, was written in theeighteenth century in a single hand. F. 12v is blank. It is half-bound inleather and reads on the spine: ‘EDDA SÆMUNDI PARTES XI’.
The text in many places is written in two columns, Icelandic text with
Latin translation parallel. The manuscript includes Latin translations of
Sólarljóð, Hrafnagaldur, Rúnatal in Hávamál, Vafþrúðnismál, Grímnismál,
Alvíssmál, Lokasenna, Þrymskviða, Hárbarðsljóð and Skírnismál. Its
history is unknown, and there is no information about when it came into
Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek, nor any in the manuscript about when orby whom it was written. It is marked N:o 619 (f. 1v) and once belonged
to the same collection as UUB R 684 (cf. Gödel 1892, 27, 30), a copy ofIntroduction

33

Snorri’s Edda made by Eric of Sotberg (1724–1781), who was secretary
to Vitterhets-Akademien.
According to Gödel’s catalogue, 682 is a copy of 34, which must be
right. It has the poems in the same order as 34 (Sólarljóð, Hrafnagaldur(f. 9r–12r), Vƒluspá, Hávamál, Vafþrúðnismál, Grímnismál, Alvíssmál,
Lokasenna, Þrymskviða, Hárbarðsljóð, Skírnismál, but it includes only
the first eleven of the poems in 34 and A, cf. the title on the spine. It has
the same corrections as 34, written out in the same way, either in brackets
within the stanza or in brackets immediately at the end of the line.23 The
Latin text in 682 is also a copy of that in 34. Just a very few of the possible
alternative translations given in 34 are omitted.
Stockholm papp. 4to nr 46 (46)This manuscript, which consists of 138 leaves, was written in the latterpart of the seventeenth century, but before 1690, and its text is arranged in
two columns. It was half-bound in leather, according to information on the
flyleaf in the year 1842, and the title on the spine is ‘SÆMUNDAR-EDDA’.
46 is a copy of A in Guðmundur Ólafsson’s hand. It has the poems inthe same order as in A. Hrafnagaldur is written on pp. 13–17. Corrections
that are added in the margin in A are in a few places inserted within thestanza in 46. In st. 24 it has ‘jokna’ within the stanza and ‘rokna’ in themargin. The innovations of A appear in 46, but 46 has secondary readings
and corrections compared with A, e.g. st. 13, ‘hvǫrri’, and an instance of
misreadings of minims, st. 15, ‘jñlmun’. The secondary readings in 46 also
appear in the manuscript written by Gabriel Duhre (11), which therefore
must have been copied from 46 and not from A; they also appear in 682 a.
Besides, Duhre himself says in his copy that it was taken from GuðmundurÓlafsson’s manuscript. 682 a is also a copy of 46.
46 was used in Rask’s Edda (1818).
Stockholm papp. 4to nr 11 (11)This manuscript, which consists of 208 leaves, was written in 1690 by Gabriel
Duhre. It is half-bound in leather and reads on the spine: ‘SÆMUNDAREDDA’. Hrafnagaldur is written in two columns, but the Latin translationthat follows is written in a single column.
The manuscript contains the same poems as A and in the same order.
Gödel says in his catalogue (1897–1900, 274) that it is a copy of A, but
this is wrong. It is, as stated above, a copy of 46. Moreover at the end of
the manuscript Duhre has written: ‘Endir Sæmundar eddu. D. 19 Aprilis
In st. 24 the scribe of 682 wrote ‘(:Jokna:)’ within the stanza, whereas thisreading is given beside the line in 34.
23

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

34

A:o 1690 Lycktade iag dänna Sæmunders Edda, som effter Jsländarens
Gudmunn Olssons ägit manuscript, som war reent wackert och läsligt,
hafwer iag nu till mitt ägit behof afskrifwit. Gabriel Duhre’.
11, unlike A, gives no variant readings or corrections in the margins,but some of the corrections that are placed in the margin in A are here
incorporated into the text (st. 15, ‘þeckia’, st. 23, ‘Jarþar’, st. 24, ‘Jokna’and st. 26, ‘Niflheim’), but one correction or variant is omitted (st. 25,‘neþra’). 11 also contains the same Latin translation as 34, apart fromsometimes, where 34 gives possible alternative translations, giving only
one of the alternatives.
Bugge mentions this manuscript in Norrœn fornkvæði (1867, liii), but
says he has not seen it himself .
UUB R 682 a (682 a)This manuscript, which consists of 479 leaves, was written in the eighteenth
century. It is bound in paper and reads on the spine: ‘R. 682: a / EddaSæmundar ins fröþa.’ On f. 1r the title of the manuscript is given as‘EDDA | Sæmundar | ins | fröþa.’ F. 1v is blank, but on f. 2r begins a listof contents,‘Innehalld bñkarennar’. The book contains the eddic poemsin the same order as in A. There is no information in the manuscript about
when or by whom it was written. Additions to Hrafnagaldur are written
in the margins in the same ink and in the same cursive hand as the poem
itself.
682 a seems to be a copy of 46, since it has innovations compared with A
in common with 46. 682 a has probably, however, had further corrections
added in the margins beyond those in its original (e.g. st. 1, ‘þursar’, st. 2,‘viltu’, st. 4, ‘ofan’). Only 46 and 682 a write in st. 5 the line ‘vitiþ enn?
eþa hvaþ?’ with two question marks. They also both give the reading‘Loftur’ in the margin by st. 9. These two manuscripts are besides the
only manuscripts in the A group that have ‘jokna’ in the text of st. 24 and‘rokna’ as a variant. In the other manuscripts it is the other way round.
In 1904 this manuscript, together with other books and manuscripts,
was handed over for safe keeping at Uppsala Universitetsbibliotek byKungliga Vetenskapssocieteten.
The following stemma of the manuscripts in the A group can be drawn up:
		

		

A
__________________________
46
34________________ __________________________
11				
682 a 1870			
691		
682

Introduction

35

Description of the Manuscripts in Group B
The B group consists of Lbs 1562 4to (B) and manuscripts derived fromit. These copies reproduce the distinctive readings of B.
Lbs 1562 4to (B)This manuscript, which has 148 leaves, was, according to Páll EggertÓlason’s catalogue, written c. 1660 and in the eighteenth century. (The dateof 1660 must relate to the parts written by Ásgeir Jónsson, who was born c.
1657, and is too early. His part in the writing of the manuscript must havebeen done while he was studying in Skálholt, from 1673 to 1677.) It is inpoor condition and has in several places crumbled away so that all that is left
is the middle part of some of the original pages. It comprises a collection ofgatherings and loose leaves that originally belonged to different manuscripts.
In its present state it seems to be written in eight or nine hands.
The manuscript contains mainly eddic poems. It opens on f. 2r with
‘Registur ifer þessa Sæmundar | Eddu’, which must be a list of contents toa manuscript of which only fragments now survive in B. It is this part ofthe existing manuscript that is of interest in connection with Hrafnagaldur.
According to the list of contents it had the poems in the following order:
Sólarljóð, Hrafnagaldur, Vƒluspá, Hávamál, Vafþrúðnismál, Grímnismál,
Skírnismál, Hárbárðsljóð, Lokasenna, Þrymskviða, Baldrs draumar,Vƒlundarkviða, after which the heroic poems follow in their usual order
up to and including Hamðismál. Then come these poems: Fjölsvinnsmál,
Hyndluljóð, Gróugaldur, Grottasƒngr and Heiðreks gátur. At the end of thelist it says: ‘Getspeki Heiðreks kongs vantar mig aldeilis i báda codices’.
Heiðreks gátur now follows the list of contents and is in the same eighteenthcentury hand, but these items must have been added at a later stage, longafter the original manuscript that the list relates to had been written; ‘báda
codices’ presumably relates to Ásgeir Jónsson's manuscript and one of theothers from which B is now compiled.
The list of contents probably relates to a collection of eddic poems writtenby Ásgeir Jónsson of which only the following items now survive in B:
Sólarljóð, which is fragmentary (ff. 7r–11v) and Hrafnagaldur (ff. 12r–13v
and 16r; these two poems follow immediately after Heiðreks gátur); andAtlamál (stt. 41/8–65/5 on ff. 14 and 15, which are attached to each other,and are in the wrong place, in the middle of Hrafnagaldur, and the rest on ff.
131r–136v) and Baldrs draumar (ff. 141r–142r).
The rest of the existing manuscript did not belong to this collection of
eddic poems, and is in various seventeenth or eighteenth-century hands.
The manuscript as we have it has altogether the following items: Contents,

36

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Heiðreks gátur (both written in the same hand), Sólarljóð, Hrafnagaldur(both written in Ásgeir’s hand), brief notes and summary extracts from
Laufás Edda (written in a third hand), Vƒluspá and Hávamál to st. 63 (ina fourth hand), more from Laufás Edda (these leaves seem to have been
inserted later, and are perhaps in a fifth hand, though it is very similar to
the third; there are here also some ‘Variantes lectiones’ in a different ink
and almost certainly a different hand), continuation of Hávamál (to st. 110)(again in the fourth hand), extracts from Laufás Edda continued (one leaf inthe fifth hand), continuation of Hávamál (to st. 127), extracts from Laufás
Edda continued (two leaves in the fifth hand), the rest of Hávamál andVafþrúðnismál to Brot af Sigurðarkviðu in the order of the Codex Regius,
again in the fourth hand; then in a new, sixth hand, beginning on a new leaf,
the final stanzas of Guðrúnarkviða I, Sigurðarkviða in skamma, Helreið
Brynhildar (in this poem, the fourth hand resumes), Guðrúnarkviða II,Guðrúnarkviða III, Oddrúnargrátr, Atlakviða, Guðrúnarhvƒt, Hamðismál.
Then in a new (seventh) hand, passages from Vƒlsunga saga to cover thelacuna of the Codex Regius; Atlamál in Ásgeir’s hand; Fjölsvinnsmál,
Hyndluljóð, Grottasƒngr in a new hand (probably identical with the sixth
hand); Baldrs draumar in Ásgeir’s hand; and finally, in a further new hand,‘Evrópa’, a piece of writing about Europe and Asia.
In the list of contents for the original manuscript that contained
Hrafnagaldur, on f. 2r by the name Hávamál, has been added:
I midium Havamalum 2 erendum fyr enn biriar / Ræd eg þer / lodfafnir / –hefur Síra Helge sem var § stad skrifad þa hann var i stock holm. Annar partur
Lod fafnis liod. qvod noto si forte sveci ita vocent aut citent caput aliqvod
Sæmundar eddu. Vix aliud Mysterium suberit.

This is the first of a number of references to Helgi in the list of contents,
which may be why it is the most detailed of them. They imply that HelgiÓlafsson, Guðmundur Ólafsson’s brother, had made notes against the texts
of some of the poems in the original manuscript while he was in Stockholm
in the years 1682 to 1686 (cf. the account of 34). B has thus, like A, been
in Sweden in the hands of the brothers Guðmundur and Helgi Ólafsson atsome time. There is nothing, however, to indicate that the manuscript itself
was written in Sweden; it rather originates in Skálholt (see footnote 7 above).
It is known that Páll Vídalín owned some eddic poems that had been
written by Ásgeir Jónsson and Helgi Ólafsson (Jón Helgason 1926, 287,note), and these were probably identical with the surviving eddic poems
in B in Ásgeir’s hand (cf. the account of 1588 a below). Ásgeir was tutor
in Vídalín’s home in 1716 to 1717, and it is conceivable that he brought
his manuscript there with him. In a list of manuscripts and books in Páll’sIntroduction

37

possession made by Jón Ólafsson of Grunnavík (Add. 11245, preservedin the British Library), a manuscript is mentioned that could be identicalwith this part of B: ‘onnur [i.e. Sæmundar Edda] med hende Sr Helga og
ymsra. fyrst ä henne Sölarliöd Sæm(undar) fröda og Hrafnag(aldur) Odins
med hendi Øgm(undar) Ogm(unds)s(onar)’. Hrafnagaldur in B was not
written by Ögmundur Ögmundarson (died 1707), but Jón’s attribution tohim could be a mistake, for he wrote his catalogue of Vídalín’s libraryfrom memory in about 1730, some years after he had gone to Copenhagen(Jón Helgason 1985, 16, 20, 29).
Giovanni Verri has identified the hand that wrote Hrafnagaldur in B
as Ásgeir Jónsson’s, since it uses his characteristic ‘vellum-like’ cursive(2007, 23). According to Agnete Loth (1960, 212) it is possible that Ásgeir
Jónsson used this script in his earliest period of copying in the 1680s
when copying parchment manuscripts, though this theory has since been
contested by Hubert Seelow (1977).
Each stanza of Hrafnagaldur in B is written as a paragraph of prose in thesame way as in A, but in contrast to that manuscript, here the stanzas are notnumbered. The following distinctive readings are found in B:
st. 1: normr B] nornir A, C, D, E
st. 3: þur B] þvi A, C, D, E
st. 3: Þrains B] Þranis A, D Þr§nis C, Þraens E
st. 7: hardbaþins B] hardbaþms A, hardbaþnis C, harþbaþnis D,
harbadms E
st. 7: miðir B] undir A, C, D, under E
st. 9: sumni B] sunnu A, E, sunno C, sunno D
st. 13: ofǫnþgarð B] of miþgard A, C, of miþgarþ D, of midgard E
st. 19: Mimis B] minnis A, C, minnis D, minnes E
st. 23: mosar B] moþir A, C, moþr D, moder E
st. 26: Ulfrimar B] Ulfrunar A, C, D, E
Most of the distinctive readings in B are obviously corrupt and must be
scribal errors that arose in copying. ‘Mimis’, however, is not necessarily
an error. But all the other manuscripts have ‘minnis/minnes’ here, which
is surely correct, since in the context it is more meaningful to speak of‘minnishorn’ (‘toast-horns’) than ‘Mímis horn’ (‘Mímir’s horns’). Thisand the variants in stt. 1, 7, 9, 26 are moreover nearly all the result of
misreading of minims, and have little if any significance. On the other
hand ‘Þrains’ in st. 3 is obviously the ­correct ­reading (it is confirmed byE); in this case it is the scribes of the other manuscripts that have misread
the minims, unless ‘Þranis’ was in the archetype and it was corrected by
the scribes of B and E from their knowledge of mythology.

38

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

The majority of the preserved texts of Hrafnagaldur are derived directly
or indirectly from B. These manuscripts are as follows.
Lbs 966 4to (966)This manuscript consists of 154 leaves and according to Páll EggertÓlason’s Skrá um Handritasöfn Landsbókasafnsins, was written by threehands in the second half of the eighteenth century. Ff. 92–94, 117r, 141v,
148v–149 and 152v are blank. The existing manuscript, which is unbound,contains eddic poems, other pre-Reformation poems and legal texts.
On a loose leaf several names are written, of which some are illegible. The
following can be made out: ‘Welæruverðugum heiðursmanni | Siera EinariÓlafsine | Jón Gíslason Steinhólm | Gisle Jonsson Steinholm | Jon Gislason
Steinholm | a þessa bok | Olafur Jonsson | Gísli Jónsson | Narfi Einarsson’. On
the back of this leaf is written the end of a letter with the signature of Ólafur
Einarsson and the date ‘di 22 Februarii 1798’. On a piece of paper storedwith 966 that has probably been used for binding is written ‘Steinhólmsbók’,a name for the book which must have originated with its owners.
According to Páll Eggert Ólason the manuscript was bought by Björn
M. Ólsen in 1904. On a leaf stored with the manuscript Ólsen has written
the following notes:
Bókina hefir átt Guðrún Jónsdóttir. Jón faðir hennar var Gíslason og kallaði
sig Steinhólm, af því að hann hafði alizt upp á Steinanesi í Arnarfirði. Þessi
Jón átti 3 börn, Guðrúnu, Gísla föður Þuríðar á Núpi og Guðrúnu, sem bókina
átti. Jón var ættaður að norðan. Guðrún þessi var gipt Brynjólfi Brynjólfssyni,
sem bjó að Núpi í Dýrafirði.
Handritið af Sólarljóðum sýnist vera skyldast hddr. Cx og Lx hjá Bugge.
1853 á bókina Brynjólfur Brynjólfsson á Núpi við Dýrafjörð (eftir áskrift á
Bókinni sjálfri). (bl. 112).

Bugge’s manuscripts Cx and Lx that are mentioned by Ólsen are 1866 and1109. As far as Hrafnagaldur is concerned, 1109 is more closely related to
966 than either 1108, which was also used by Bugge in his edition, or 1866 is.
The first two gatherings of 966 contain pre-Reformation religious poems.
The third contains Sólarljóð, Hrafnagaldur (ff. 21v–23v), Baldrs draumar
and Grottasƒngr. This last poem, we are told, was ‘Ritaðr eptir Bók Páls
Sveinssonar Torfasonar, en su bók med hendi Sira Jóns sem var i Villingaholti’(f. 25v). Then follow Gróugaldur, Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð, Hávamál, royal
decrees, Snorri Sturluson’s genealogy, a chronological table from the birthof Óðinn down to the year 1000, Ólafur Jónsson of Purkey’s genealogy, acollection of legal texts and decrees, Jón Bjarnason of Rafnseyri’s gene­alogy(after which is added ‘epter hanns eiginhandar Riti’), small sections of thegenealogies of the Lund and Gilsbakki families and finally more decrees.

Introduction

39

After the last of the eddic poems, Hávamál, there is a ‘Forordning umm
afgift af erfda gótze þann 12 sept. 1792’. This heading is written in the same
hand as the preceding poems, including Hrafnagaldur, so this part of themanuscript must have been written after that date. Its text of Hrafnagaldur
reproduces the distinctive readings of B and could be a copy of B (cf. Verri2007, 40–41). But in contrast to B, Hrafnagaldur is here arranged with eachpair of verse lines written side by side so that eight verse lines cover four linesof writing, though the stanzas are unnumbered as in B. The error in stanzadivision in stt. 20–21 (see p. 13 above) is corrected. A number of innovations
in comparison with B have been introduced: st. 1, ‘okkar’, st. 13, ‘ofǫndargð’,st. 15, ‘korarnn’, st. 18, ‘vist’, st. 20, ‘himin’, st. 26, ‘himin’. In particular,
the error ‘korarnn’ in st. 15 for ‘kominn’ suggests that 966 may be a direct
copy of B, since the ‘m’ in B could at first glance be mistaken as ‘ra’.
The manuscript is discussed by Jónas Kristjánsson (1967) in connection
with Gróugaldur and Fjölsvinnsmál.
A certain number of manuscripts within the B group (1109, 1492, 773 a,
1866, 47, 21.4.7, 4877, 22, 1108, 11165) were derived from a manuscript(Jón Egilsson’s manuscript) that had been collated with a now lost manuscript
owned by Eyjólfur Jónsson (1670–1745), priest at Vellir in Svarfaðardalur
and Gunnar Pálsson’s tutor. In this sub-group variant readings have beenentered in the margins. Since there are no variants to the text of Hrafnagaldur
from Eyjólfur’s manuscript in any manuscript of this subgroup, it may be thatthe poem was not included in Eyjólfur’s manuscript. The manuscripts in thissub-group reproduce the distinctive readings of B, but also share innovations
compared with B, for instance in st. 15, ‘mar’ (line 5) and ‘Jorna’ (line 1).
NKS 1109 fol. (1109)
This manuscript consists of 251 leaves plus a letter that is bound in with
it at the beginning. It was written in the eighteenth century, has a leather
binding with gold tooling embossed with Luxdorph’s library mark (a gold
elephant, though in the course of time it has turned black). On the spine
the title ‘Edda Sæmundi’ is stamped and on the title page it reads‘Sæmundar Eddu [sic] | ens Froþa.| º: | Edda Sæmundi.’ The manuscript,
which has irregular pagination, is written in a single hand. On the versoof the end flyleaf Luxdorph has written his name at the top left.
The letter at the beginning of the manuscript is dated November 1769
by vice lawman Jón Ólafsson of Eyri in Seyðisfjörður (1729–1778). He
also informs us on a slip placed in the manuscript that it had belonged to­Luxdorph and was derived from a manuscript belonging to Jón Egils­son(1714–1784), once vice-principal at Hólar and later priest at Laufás, that
had been collated with a manuscript in Eyjólfur Jónsson’s own hand:

40

Hrafnagaldur Óðins
Dette Hr. Conference-Raad B. W. Luxdorphi Exemplar af Edda Sæmundi infolio bestaaende af 34 kvidur eller odis . . . de saa kaldte Sæmundar Liód er
en fast accurat og paalidelig Afskrift af den Edda, som forrige Con-Rector
paa Holum John Egilsen, nu Pastor Laufasensis, har været Eyere af, hvilket
Exemplar ikke alleene er bleven confereret med nogle Codicibus chartaceis
og en gl. Membr. men og med en meget ypperlig Codice chart. egenhændig
skreven af Sal. Hr. Ejulf Jonssen, fordum Præst til Walle udi Svarfaderdahl,
en mand der i sin tiid var en af de lærdeste Islændere og berömt Antiqvarius.
. . . November 1769. J. Olavssön Vice-Laugmand i Island.

It is stated as well in the letter that variants marked ‘c.E.’ came from
Eyjólfur Jónsson’s manuscript.
We are also told that the manuscript has variants from manuscripts on
paper and vellum owned by Bjarni Halldórsson (1703–1773), sheriff atÞingeyrar. From a list of printed books and manuscripts left by Bjarni
Halldórsson in NKS 1852 4to (printed in Jón Helgason 1985, 34–38), it canbe seen that he had owned three so-called Sæmundar eddur. One of them
may have been the manuscript that had previously been in the possession of
Páll Vídalín and Jón Ólafsson of Grunnavík.24 Bjarni Halldórsson, who had
married into Páll Vídalín’s family, was Jón Ólafsson’s father-in-law. Bjarni
Halldórsson’s wife, Hólmfriður, was daughter of Páll Vídalín and Þorbjörg,
daughter of Magnús Jónsson of Vigur (see Jón Helgason 1926, 287, note;
1985, 6–7, 34–37). In the surviving manuscript 1588 a there is preserved
the list of contents of a Sæmundar Edda that has the initials ‘B.H.S’,
which could be Bjarni Halldórsson (Verri 2007, 28), but the manuscript
the list relates to has not been preserved (cf. the description of 1588 a).
The order of the poems is as in the Codex Regius, but Baldrs ­draumar,
Grottasƒngr, Gróugaldur, Fjölsvinnsmál and Hyndluljóð have been inserted
between Þrymskviða and Vƒlundarkviða. After Hamðismál follow Hrafna­galdur (pp. 452–460; ff. 226v–230v), Heiðreks gátur and Sólarljóð. 1109
thus has the poems in the same order as 1492 and 773 a. Its text ends at thesame place in Sólarljóð as that in 773 a. The lacuna in the Codex Regius
is filled from Eyjólfur Jónsson’s manuscript (‘Hæc ex cod. Dni. Ey.’), thevariants marked ‘c.E.’ and ‘al’ are also found in 1492 and 773 a. The same
possible corrections to the text of Hrafnagaldur are given in all three manu24
This was probably B, and the same manuscript that Jón Ólafsson of Grunna­
vík tried to get hold of for Møllmann, royal historiographer and librarian at Det
kongelige Bibliotek, when he wanted in 1755 to obtain a good copy of the ­eddic
poems in connection with the Arnamagnæan Commission’s plans to publish
Snorri’s Edda, but Bjarni Halldórsson would neither lend it nor allow it to becopied. Bjarni’s possessiveness with this manuscript may be one of the reasons
why the text of Hrafnagaldur is so poorly preserved in Icelandic manuscripts.

Introduction

41

scripts, and st. 19, ‘Ragna’ and st. 24, ‘mannheim’ are stated to be ‘forte’. 1109
reproduces some of the distinctive readings of B (for example st. 3, ‘þur’,‘Þrains’, st. 9, ‘sumni’, st. 13, ‘ond-garþ’, st. 19, ‘mimis’, st. 23, ‘mosar’, st.
26, ‘ulfrimar’). But it does not have all of them: it has ‘nornir’ in st. 1, where
B has ‘normr’, and in st. 7, ‘harþ-baþms undir’, where B has ‘hardbaþins
miðir’. These two, however, only relate to errors in reading minims, which
any scribe can make or correct independently. 1109 has a few innovations:st. 9, ‘virir’, st. 15, ‘jotnum’, ‘mar’, st. 21, ‘syanna’. These appear in 1492
and 773 a too. All three have the error in stanza division in stt. 20 and 21. In1109 Hrafnagaldur is arranged in unnumbered eight-line stanzas.
The manuscript was once in Suhm’s collection, no. 877 fol. (‘e bibl.
Luxd.’). It was used by Bugge (Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, xlvi; xlix; lii; lx),
where it has the siglum C. It is also mentioned in Jónas Kristjánsson 1987.
Thott 1492 4to (1492)
This manuscript, which has 162 leaves, was written in the eighteenth
century and has never been bound. It contains a Sæmundar Edda. A slip
inserted at the beginning gives the following information:
Edda Sæmundar fröda º: Edda Sæmundi Polihistoris cum contextis quarundam
odarum et variantibus lectionibus collata cum codice Domini Eyulfi Pastorisprædii Vallensis in Islandia boreali /: Antiquitatum patriæ viri peritissimi :/ extribus aliis manuscriptis cartaceis et memb. Exemplar rarum, ubi in margine
litteræ c.E. indicant codicem Eyulfi et littere al. denotant cartas. 2 Edda
Snorronis impressa accuratior.

That is, the contents of this manuscript are very similar to those in 1109,
including the variant readings from the same sources. The final phrase,that says it is more accurate than the printed edition of the second Edda,
Snorri’s, fits with the prevailing view of the time, that the collection of
eddic poems was much more ancient than Snorri’s work.
The order of the poems is the same as in 1109 and 773 a. Hrafnagalduris written on ff. 146v–149r.
Variants marked ‘c.E.’ or ‘al’ are found throughout, but not to the textof Hrafnagaldur, though two alternative readings are given to the poem,‘Ragna’, st. 19, and ‘Mannheim’, st. 24, both marked ‘forte’. Like 1109, 1492
reproduces some of B’s distinc­tive readings (e.g. st. 3, ‘þur’, ‘Þrains’, st. 9,‘sumni’, st. 13, ‘ǫnd-garþ’, st. 19, ‘mimis’, st. 23, ‘mosar’, st. 26, ‘ulfrimar’),but with the same exceptions as 1109. It also has the same innovations.
Thott 773 a fol. (773 a)This manuscript, which consists of 230 leaves, was written in the eighteenth
century. It is half-bound in leather, and has gold tooling on the spine, thoughmost of it has now gone. It was restored by Birgitte Dall in 1976.

42

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

The content is eddic poems. It bears the title ‘Sæmundar Edda ens fröþa’.
On the recto of the flyleaf Thott has written: ‘Vdskrefven effter Hr. Iohn
Ejelfsen Præst paa Laafaas, hands Membrana, som holdes for at væremegedt god’. At the bottom is added ‘Kost. 10 rd.’ On the inside of thefront cover we read: ‘Sa John Ejilfssen / Præst paa Laafaas’. This must
be a mistake for the Jón Egilsson that was the owner of the manuscriptfrom which 1109 and probably 1492 were derived.
773 a gives the same variants as 1492 and 1109, has the poems inthe same order, and gives the same possible amendments to the text of
Hrafnagaldur, which is written on pp. 424–430 (ff. 212r–215r), as 1492.
It also reproduces the innovations common to 1109 and 1492. It is difficult
to determine the relationships of 1492, 1109 and 773 a, since there arevery few variant readings that they do not all three share. 1492 shares one
error with 773 a that is not in 1109, st. 26, ‘mola’ for ‘niola’. In 1109, ‘ni’in ‘niola’ is clearly written, so it seems unlikely that the error can havearisen in a copy of it. 773 a has the same error as 1109 in st. 13, ‘kinr’,
which is not in 1492. If 1109 was a copy of 773 a, and both were derived
from 1492, the error ‘kinr’ could have arisen in 773 a, and that in ‘mola’ in
1492 as confusion in the reading of the minims in ‘ni’; this obvious error
might have been corrected by the scribe of 1109 from his knowledge of
Alvíssmál or Skáldskaparmál.
NKS 1866 4to (1866)
This manuscript consists of 182 leaves irregularly paginated 1–357 (+ 3preliminary leaves and 2 blank leaves just before the back cover). It isleather bound with Luxdorph’s library mark, the gold elephant, and gold
tooling on the spine, which bears the title: ‘EDDA SÆMUNDI’. On f. 3r
there is the heading: ‘Edda | Sæmundar Pre|stz ins fröda Sigfuz|sonar at
Odda | Skrifud a äre epter | Guds Burd | 1750’. On f. 2v Luxdorph has
written his name. The title page is very elaborately executed, and at thebottom is added ‘Pinxit HKS’. It has not been possible to identify whose
initials these are. Ff. 1 and 2 contain some notes that according to a headingwere written by Bishop Peder Hersleb (1689–1757), about the Edda ingeneral and about this manuscript in particular:
Om dette Exemplars store Raritet er dette at sige, at neppe i heele Island skalfindes 2 a 3 gode Exemplarer af denne Edda, men denne er confereret med etExemplar den lærde Sa. Eyulfur Jonssen eiede, og et andet Lavmand Widalin
har hafft og altsaa er meget accurat . . .

1866 thus belongs to the group of manuscripts derived from one that had
been collated with Eyjólfur Jónsson’s manuscript, i.e. from Jón Egilsson’sIntroduction

43

manuscript. We are informed that it had been copied from the ‘membr.’ (i.e.
the Codex Regius), but there are also included variants from Hauksbók andAM 748 I a 4to. First there are the poems from the Codex Regius in their
original order. After Hamðismál is written ‘Finis’ with a tracery ornament
after it. Then follow Hrafnagaldur (pp. 321–324, ff. 161r–162v), Baldrs
draumar, Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð, Gróugaldur, Grottasƒngr, Heiðreks
gátur, Sólarljóð and Sonatorrek. This part of the manuscript is written in adifferent hand from that of the preceding poems. Hrafnagaldur is arranged
in unnumbered eight-line stanzas.
1866 has the poems in a different order from that of the other manuscriptsthat are derived from Jón Egilsson’s manuscript. In Hrafnagaldur it
reproduces the error in stanza division in stt. 20–21, and also the corrections‘Ragna’ (st. 19) and ‘Mannheim’ (st. 24), marked ‘forte’, and it has thesame variant readings from paper manuscripts as 1492, 773 a and 1109(‘al’), but no variants marked ‘c.E.’ (Eyjólfur Jónsson’s manuscript).
1866 reproduces the same distinctive readings of B as 1109, 1492 and 773
a, and has the following innovations in common with them: st. 15, ‘mar’
and st. 21, ‘syanna’. But the innovation in st. 9, ‘virir’ (found in all three),is not found in 1866, which here reads ‘vidrir’ (this could of course be an
independent correction made by a scribe who was familiar with the namesof Norse mythology). The error in st. 26, ‘mola’, which is found in 1492 and773 a, does not appear in 1866 either (though this only involves a misreadingof minims). So it seems likely that this manuscript is not derived from any ofthese three. 1866 has a few distinctive readings of its own: st. 14, ‘svrmi’ and‘orunn’ (instead of ‘svimi’ and ‘ǫrvit’), st. 15, ‘Jiorna’ and ‘jiotnum’, st. 20,‘ragu’ (instead of ‘fragu’), that are not found elsewhere in this sub-group. It
was perhaps derived from Jón Egilsson’s manuscript independently of 1109,
773a and 1492 via a sister manuscript of the source of those three.
1866 has been in the collections of Luxdorph and Suhm (Suhm no. 28
4to). It was used and called Codex Luxdorphianus in Edda 1787–1828, IIxxviii, and Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, xlvi; xlix; lii; lvi–vii), where it has the
siglum L (lvi).25 The manuscript is mentioned in Jónas Kristjánsson 1987.
Ms Icel. 47, Harvard University Library (47)This manuscript has 189 leaves, plus two extra ones at the beginning andone at the end, bound in calf with gold tooling and a stamp in gold and25
See Bugge’s note on the use of this manuscript in the Arnamagnæan edition:‘Betegnelsen af dette og andre Hskrr. i Edda Sæm. ed. AM. er meget forvildende:i Tom. II anføres Læsemaader af Codex Luxdorphianus (No. 1866) under mærket
„L.“, medens „L.“ i Tom. I betegner Codex Langebekianus; og Tom II, p. xxviii
findes om Cod. Suhmianus anført det som gjælder Cod. Luxd.’ (1867, lvi, note 1).

44

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

red. Ff. 34r–v, 39v–40v, 46r–v, 51v, 59v, 69v, 95r–v, 105v, 114r–v, 117v,
121r–v, 186v are all blank. The manuscript is described in Shaun Hughes’s
unpublished catalogue (1977) of Icelandic manuscripts in the Houghton
Library, Harvard University.
This manuscript is the so-called Codex Ericianus. It was written by
Jón Eiríksson between 1765 and 1775 and bears the title ‘Edda Sæmundi
Froda vulgo sic dicta’ on f. 2r, followed by a note on the transcription. Jón
Eiríksson with this manuscript prepared the foundation for Guðmundur
Magnússon’s edition of Hrafnagaldur in Edda 1787–1828, I.
According to information at the beginning of the manuscript, George
Stephens (1813–1895), the British scholar and collector, bought it from
Bernhard Rosenblad’s collection in January 1845. On the inside of thecover Rosenblad wrote his name and the date 22/8 1831. On the recto of
the front flyleaf is written: ‘Sæmund’s Edda. A valuable Text drawn up bysome Danish Northern Scholar about 1770. Of great importance for any
future Edition of the Edda. Bought from the Collection of the Chamberlain
Bernhard Rosenblad, Stockholm, January 5, 1845’. On f. 1r is written in
Swedish and with a pencil, probably in Rosenblad’s hand: ‘Skrifven af Jon
Erikson Over-Bibliothekarie Kjøbenhavn. 1760–70-talet’. On the same
page is written in Danish by a different hand: ‘Dette Haandskrift omtales
i Arnamagnæanske Udgave af Sæmundar Edda I Side xliii & Bugges
Udg S. lxi’. The manuscript was procured for the Houghton Library by
The Longfellow Fund in November 1937. It had originally been in Jón
Eiríksson’s possession, and in the auction catalogue of his books after his
death, Bibliotheca Ericiana, appears according to Hughes under no. 632.
On f. 1r Jón Eiríksson wrote a note, explaining which manuscripts hehad collated and based his edition on. The variants marked ‘P.S.’ comefrom a paper manuscript written by Páll Sveinsson. This manuscript had
the same readings as D, and is probably identical with it. D was owned byThott, and Jón may have gained access to it in Copenhagen. Jón Eiríksson
states that he has in addition given variants, marked ‘Sv’, ‘C.S.’ and ‘S’,
from a copy with the inscription ‘Finitum Holmiæ in posterioribus Idibus
Maj ao 1684’. This must be identical with 1870, which is a copy of 34,
Helgi Ólafsson’s copy of A. Jón Eiríksson would have had access to thismanuscript in Copenhagen.
In Edda 1787–1828, II xvii–xx there is a register of the order of the poemsin Codex Svecus (1870), Codex Langebekianus and Codex Luxdorphianus(1866) taken from Codex Ericianus (47), f. 1v–2v (cf. Hughes 1977, 91). 47 has
the poems in the following order: Baldrs draumar, Grottasƒngr, Gróugaldur,
Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð, Vƒlundarkviða, Alvíssmál. Then follow the heroicIntroduction

45

poems in the Codex Regius order, and after Hamðismál come Hrafnagaldur
and Sólarljóð. In 1866 Hrafnagaldur comes after Hamðismál and before
Baldrs draumar, and in Codex Langebekianus it is missing.
Hrafnagaldur in 47 is probably a copy of 1866, even though the two
manuscripts do not have the poems in the same order. Of the extant
manuscripts containing Hrafnagaldur, only these two have the following
innovations compared with B: st. 14, ‘orunn’ instead of ‘ǫrvit’, st. 15,‘Jiorna’ and ‘jiotnum’, st. 20, ‘ragu’ (for ‘fragu’), though 47 has corrected
the error in stanza division in stt. 20–21.
47 was used to establish the text in the Arnamagnæan edition (seeEdda 1787–1828, I xlii–xliii). Bugge mentions 47 in Norrœn fornkvæði,1867, lxi), but he did not have direct access to it. At that time it was in thepossession of George Stephens (Hughes 1977, 91). But Bugge states that
he has included a few readings from ‘Erichsens håndskrift’ taken fromthe Arnamagnæan edition.
Adv. 21.4.7, National Library of Scotland (21.4.7)
This manuscript has 285 leaves, is half-bound in leather and contains
eddic poems. On f. 1r it bears the title ‘Edda Sæmundar Prests ins Froþa
Sigfussonar at Odda’. Apart from the poems Rígsþula and Hƒfuðlausn,
the manuscript is in a single hand which has also added variant readings in
the margin in various places. From Rígsþula onwards the text is written in
two columns. Ff. 5–284 were numbered early on as nos. 1–280, and f. 3v
is blank. On the last page the initials ‘M: E S’ are written twice.
The manuscript came into the collection in Edinburgh from Finnur
Magnússon, who wrote on the front flyleaf: ‘Edda Sæmundina | sive poëtica |(proprie sic dicta. | additis pluribus borealis vetust-|tis carminibus)’.26 Thereis no information in the manuscript about when or by whom it was written,
but according to Ólafur Halldórsson, who has drawn up an unpublishedcatalogue (1967) of Icelandic manuscripts in Edinburgh, it was writtenc. 1750 by a scribe who was probably from Sauðlauksdalur, and it may
have been Eggert Ólafsson (1726–1768).
On ff. 2r–3r there is a list of contents, but it does not correspond to theorder of the poems in the manuscript. In the actual manuscript, there are firstthe poems of the Codex Regius in their original order, and after Hamðismál
26
In an article on Finnur Magnússon’s sale of Icelandic manuscripts to the
British Library, Pamela Porter cites a document that Finnur Magnússon sent in1830 to the author and diplomat John Bowring (1792–1872), now preserved in
the British Library (Add. 29537), where he speaks of a sale of 56 manuscripts to
the Advocates Library in 1826 for £120 (Porter 2006, 181). But it is not certainthat 21.4.7 was one of these.

46

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

come Rígsþula, Hrafnagaldur, Baldrs draumar, Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð,Gróugaldur, Grottasƒngr, Heiðreks gátur, Sólarljóð, Sonatorrek andHƒfuðlausn. The order of the poems not in the Codex Regius is the sameas in 1866, except for Rígsþula and Hƒfuðlausn, which are not in 1866,
but these poems, as stated above, are in a different hand. The order of thepoems also corresponds to that in 4877, though that manuscript does nothave the two poems of Egill Skallagrímsson.
Hrafnagaldur is on ff. 253r–257r. It is, apart from stt. 20 and 21, where themistake in stanza division is reproduced, arranged in unnumbered eight-line
stanzas. Shared readings show that 21.4.7 must be closely related to the subgroup of manuscripts derived from the one collated with Eyjólfur Jónsson’s
manuscript (1109, 1492, 773 a and 1866). It shares ‘mar’ in st. 15 with 1109,
1492, 773 a and 1866, and gives the correction ‘Ragna’for ‘rakna’in the margin
by st. 19. Like 1866, it does not share ‘virir’ in st. 9 and ‘mola’ in st. 26 with
1492 and 773 a, having ‘viþrir’ and ‘nióla’ instead, and it has ‘svrmi’ inst. 14 like 1866 and 47. But the readings of 1866 and 47 in st. 15, ‘Jiorna’and ‘jiotnum’, are not found in 21.4.7. It has a few readings superior to1866 and 47, e.g. ‘ǫrvit’ in st. 14 (against their ‘orunn’) and ‘fragu’ inst. 20 (where 1866 and 47 have ‘ragu’). In st. 11 it has the innovation‘burdar’ (for ‘burda’). The differences between 21.4.7 and 1866 indicatethat neither can be copied from the other, but the readings they have incommon show that there is a close relationship. The letter forms andarrangement of Hrafnagaldur in 21.4.7 are also very similar to those in1866. It is likely that 21.4.7 is a sister manuscript to 1866, and perhaps
they both derive from Jón Egilsson’s manuscript via a lost intermediary.
Add. MS. 4877, British Library (4877)
This manuscript has 228 leaves and was written in the eighteenth century. It
contains a Sæmundar Edda, ‘Edda Sæmundar prestz ins froda Sigfussonar’,and has variant readings from other paper manuscripts in the margins. It
is in the Banks Collection in the British Library. When Sir Joseph Banks
returned home from his journey to Iceland in 1772, he had with him anumber of manuscripts and printed books that he had acquired, among
them 4877, and he presented them to the British Museum in December thesame year (The British Library: Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts
1756–1782, 234–235).
After the poems that are in the Codex Regius, there follow Hrafnagaldur(188v–192v), Baldrs draumar, Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð, Gróugaldur,
Grottasƒngr, Heiðreks gátur and Sólarljóð. This order is the same as in 1866,but 4877 does not have Sonatorrek after Sólarljóð like 1866 and 21.4.7, nordoes it have Rígsþula or Hƒfuðlausn which are both in 21.4.7.

Introduction

474877 has the same divergences from B as 1109, 1492, 733 a, 1866,
47 and 21.4.7. Like those it does not have the two distinctive readingsof B, ‘normr’ in st. 1 (where it reads ‘norner’) and ‘hardbaþins miðir’(for ‘hardbadms under’) in st. 7. It shows greater affinity with 1866 and21.4.7 than with 1109, 1492 and 773 a. In contrast to these three it has(like 1866, 47 and 21.4.7) ‘vidrer’ in st. 9 (not ‘virir’). It also shares thereading ‘svrme’ in st. 14 with 1866, 47 and 21.4.7. It is closer to 21.4.7
than to 1866 and 47: 1866 and 47 have ‘Jiorna’ and ‘jiotnum’ in st. 15,
where 21.4.7 and 4877 have ‘Jorna’ and ‘jotnum’. In st. 20, 1866 and 47
have ‘ragu’, where 21.4.7 and 4877 have ‘fragu’. In st. 14, 1866 and 47
have ‘orunn’, but here 4877, like 21.4.7, has ‘ǫrvit’. 4877 and 21.4.7 sharethe innovation ‘burdar’ in st. 11. 4877 seems to be a copy of 21.4.7. Thatthe reverse is less likely is shown by the fact that 4877 does not have theerror in stanza division in stt. 20 and 21 that 21.4.7 has.
ZCJ22, English Faculty Library, Oxford (22)This manuscript, which was written in the eighteenth century, consists of 328
leaves. It contains mainly eddic poems. It has most recently been describedby Einar G. Pétursson, who has put his findings at the disposal of the present
investigator. According to a typewritten slip in the front, the manuscript
comes ‘From the library of Robert Steele Wandsworth Common’. At theside of this slip stands the name ‘Sigurður Vigfússon’, who was Guðbrandur
Vigfússon’s brother. Guðbrandur Vigfússon held a post at Oxford University,and must have brought the manuscript to Britain with him. It is now held at
the English Faculty Library on permanent loan from Christ Church.
At the beginning of the manuscript a list is given of the contents as far
as Fáfnismál. In the same hand as this list, under the name of Sigurður
Vigfússon, is written in pencil: ‘See Corpus Poeticum Boreale cap. 12’,
i.e. Guðbrandur Vigfússon and Frederick York Powell 1883, though ‘cap.
12’ appears to be a mistake. On the next leaf in a different hand there
is a list of contents covering the whole manuscript under the heading‘Contents | The “Sæmundar” Edda + other poems’. A third hand has
written the poems themselves in Gothic script.
The first poem in the manuscript is Vƒluspá, and on the first page of its
text is written ‘possidet’, and later in the same line ‘Magnussen’. According
to Einar G. Pétursson this presumably means either Skúli or Kristján
Magnussen, who were successors of Magnús Ketilsson (1732–1803),
sheriff in Búðardalur on Skarðsströnd. Underneath is written: ‘Kom mierad gióf mags míns <. . .> C. Magnússonar. affirmat JEggertsson’. Here thereference is to Jón Eggertsson (1800–1880), domestically educated farmer
in Ytri-Fagridalur on Skarðsströnd. He was married to Kristín Skúladóttir,

48

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

who was sister of Kristján Magnussen Skúlason (1801–1871; see JónGuðnason 1961, II 350). The manuscript must have been on Skarðsströnd
in the nineteenth century. According to Einar G. Pétursson, it is probablethat Guðbrandur Vigfússon got it from there, and that it may have been
written in connection with Magnús Ketilsson’s interest in the Edda.27
The manuscript contains the usual eddic poems in the order of theCodex Regius. After Hamðismál follow Hrafnagaldur, Baldrs draumar,
Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð, Grottasƒngr, Heiðreks gátur, Sólarljóð,after which there are some blank pages, then Snorri Sturluson’s
Háttatal, Háttalykill Þorláks Guðbrandssonar Vídalíns, Aldarháttur andJómsvíkingadrápa.
Hrafnagaldur is written on ff. 218v–223v and arranged in unnumbered
eight-line stanzas. It does not have the error in stanza division in stt. 20 and 21.
The manuscript has the eddic poems down to and including Sólarljóð
in the same order as 1866 and 4877, but does not have either of Egill
Skallagrímsson’s poems. The text of Hrafnagaldur is virtually identicalwith that of 4877, apart from minimal orthographical differences (in st.
11, 22 has ‘aldurtila’ where 4877 has ‘aldrtila’, in st. 13, 22 has ‘med’, but
4877 ‘með’, in st. 20, 22 has ‘maltid’, but 4877 ‘máltíd’, and in st 26, 22
has ‘nióla’, but 4877 ‘niola’). In addition there are minor palæographicaldifferences: 22 uses r rotunda more frequently than 4877. 22 might bea copy of 4877, or maybe vice versa. It seems more likely that one is acopy of the other than that they were both copied from 21.4.7, since thetwo have greater similarity with each other than either does with 21.4.7.
Whereas 21.4.7 generally uses ‘i’ in inflectional endings, the other twouse ‘e’, e.g. in st. 19, 21.4.7 has ‘raþi’, but the two others have ‘rade’,and st. 23, 21.4.7 has ‘gilldi’, but the two others have ‘gillde’. Whereas
21.4.7 generally uses ‘þ’ medially and finally, 22 and 4877 have a greater
tendency to use ‘d’ or ‘ð’. Further, 21.4.7 has the error in stanza divisionin stt. 20 and 21 which neither 22 nor 4877 has.
NKS 1108 fol. (1108)
This manuscript, which consists of 201 leaves, bears the title ‘Edda |S∂mundar Prestz | Ens | Froþa’ with the letters in black, green, red andyellow. Titles of poems are written in red. F. 138 is blank. On the flyleaf iswritten: ‘Af Bibliotheca Hytardalensi 1769 exscripta af Arna Bodvari Poët.
27
Magnús Ketilsson studied at Copenhagen University and was one of thee­ ducated Icelanders of his time. Among other things he compiled several genealogies. See Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson 1935 and Eyvind Finsen 1944. Manuscriptsthat bear witness to his interest in the Edda are AM 916 4to and NKS 1878 a 4to.

Introduction

49

Island.’ In other words, the manuscript was written in Hítardalur in 1769 by
the ríma poet Árni Böðvarsson (1713–1776), who lived at Akrar on Mýrar.
1108 contains the poems of the Codex Regius in the same order as in that
manuscript, and after that Baldrs draumar, Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð,Gróugaldur, Sólarljóð and Hrafnagaldur on pp. 269–274 (ff. 134r–137v).
Then there is a blank leaf, followed by Grottasƒngr and Heiðreks gátur.
Hrafnagaldur is arranged in unnumbered eight-line stanzas. According to
Einar G. Pétursson, 1108 is a copy of Lbs 214 4to, which was written in
Hítardalur in the first half of the eighteenth century by Jón Halldórsson andhis son Vigfús (1706–1776). That manuscript, however, contains neither
Hrafnagaldur nor Grottasƒngr (Einar G. Pétursson 2007, 149), so thesetwo poems must have been copied from a different source.
Hrafnagaldur in 1108 shares some innovations with the group ofmanuscripts derived from one collated with Eyjólfur Jónsson’s manuscriptand so must be related to them. It does not, however, give any variant
readings or corrections to the text of Hrafnagaldur, which they do. Likethat group, it reproduces the following distinctive readings of B: st. 3,‘Þrains’, st. 9, ‘sumni’, st. 13, ‘√ndgarþ’, st. 19, ‘Mimis’, st. 23, ‘mosar’,st. 26, ‘ulfrimar’. But like them it does not share all B’s readings, and has‘nornir’ in st. 1, where B has ‘normr’, and in st. 7, ‘harþbaþms undir’,where B has ‘hardbaþins miðir’. Unlike 1109, 1492 and 773 a, it does
not have the innovation ‘virir’ in st. 9, and in st. 15 it has both ‘jotnom’and ‘mar’ and in st. 21 ‘syanna’. So it seems to be more closely related to1866 and 21.4.7 than to 1109, 1492, and 773 a. In st. 14, 1108 has ‘svrmi’
like 1866, but not ‘orunn’ like that manuscript in the same stanza. In thatplace 21.4.7 has ‘ǫrvit’, but also has ‘svrmi’. ‘Svrmi’ is the only one ofthe distinctive readings of 1866 and 21.4.7 that is found in 1108, so itcannot be a copy of either of them. I have suggested above that 21.4.7 isa sister manuscript to 1866. Besides, both these give variant readings orcorrections in the margins, which 1108 does not. This also implies that1108 is not derived from either of them. But it does have some distinctive
readings of its own, in st. 3, ‘þar’ (for ‘þur’) and ‘gruma’ (for ‘guma’),st. 8, ‘ei’ (for ‘í’), st. 11, ‘En fra vitri’ (for ‘Frá en vitri’), st. 15, ‘munde’(for ‘mun þó’). In st. 12, it has ‘m∂li’, where the other manuscripts havethe abbreviation (‘m∂lti’). It looks as though 1108 is a sister manuscript ora copy of a sister manuscript to the common original of 1866 and 21.4.7
that was derived from a lost copy of Jón Egilsson’s manuscript.
1108 was once in the possession of Frederik Christian Sevel (1723–1778),
whence it was sold by auction in 1781 (Jón Helgason 1970, 118). Later it
was in Suhm’s collection (no. 394 fol.) and was used by Bugge in Norrœn

50

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

fornkvæði 1867 (see pp. xlvi; xlix; lx–xi), where it was assigned thesiglum B.
Add. 11165, British Library (11165)
This manuscript, which has 157 leaves in quarto format, was written in
the eighteenth century. On f. 2r it has the title: ‘Edda S∂mundar Prestzens fróþa Sigfúss Sonar’. On the flyleaf is written ‘Purch.d of Prof. Finn
Magnussen July 1837’. It was one of the many manuscripts purchased
by Frederic Madden, who was deceived about their value, for the British
Library from Finnur Magnússon in 1837 for the collective price of £180(cf. Porter 2006, 177).
It contains a collection of eddic poems. On f. 1v there is a table of contents
for this manuscript. First are the Codex Regius poems, then Baldrs
draumar, Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð, Gróugaldur, Sólarljóð, Grottasƒngr,Heiðreks gátur and finally Hrafnagaldur. The manuscript is written in two
hands, the first wrote all the poems except Hrafnagaldur; this was writtenby the second hand.
Variants are given to Hávamál from ‘Membr’. These are the only variants
given in brackets in the margin. Some variants are given for poems notin the Codex Regius, beginning with Baldrs draumar, marked ‘al.’, butthere are none for Hrafnagaldur.
Hrafnagaldur is arranged in unnumbered eight-line stanzas on ff.
155r–157r. Its text is virtually identical to that in 21.4.7, except that it does
not have the innovation ‘burdar’ in st. 11 and has ‘ei’ in st. 8, like 1108, so
neither of these two manuscripts can be derived from the other. It is shown
above that 21.4.7, 1866 and 1108 are closely related. Compared with 1109,
1492 and 773 a, 1866 has the distinctive readings ‘svrmi’ and ‘orunn’ in st.
14, ‘Jiorna’ and ‘jiotnum’ in st. 15 and ‘ragu’ in st. 20. 11165 has ‘svrmi’and ‘jøtnum’, but not the others. 1108 also has ‘jotnum’ and ‘svrmi’, butlike 21.4.7 has ‘ǫrvit’ and not ‘orunn’. 1108 has some distinctive readings:
st. 3, ‘þar’, ‘gruma’, st. 8, ‘ei’, st. 11, ‘En fra vitri’ and st. 15, ‘munde’. Of
these, 11165 reproduces ‘ei’, but not the others. It thus shares some readings
with 1866, 21.4.7 and 1108, but also has one reading in common with 1108
not shared by 1866 and 21.4.7, so it is likely that it is a sister manuscript of1108, derived from a sister manuscript of the common original of 1866 and21.4.7 (or is perhaps a sister manuscript of the common original of 1866
and 21.4.7, and 1108 is derived from it).
Another sub-group within the B group consists of the manuscripts 648,
1588 a I and II, 1689, 643, 21.5.2, 329 and 1111. These manuscripts sharea number of innovations compared with B, for example ‘gornar’ (st. 3),

Introduction

51‘linnit’ (st. 5), ‘biuþa’ (st. 11) and ‘yggioagi’ (st. 18), and all have thesame error in line division in st. 18 (‘vallda báþo s∂ta | at sumbli sitia’).
JS 648 4to (648)This manuscript consists of three pages containing a table of contents+ 122 pages, bound in paper and cloth. The existing manuscript comprises
parts of several originally different manuscripts and seems to be written byseven different hands. On f. 1r stands the title ‘Ljóda-Safn’ and underneath‘XVI. bindi’. A number of leaves that were damaged at the edges have been
repaired. In Hrafnagaldur the edges of the leaves have crumbled away,
but the text that had gone has been inserted by a later hand on different
paper that has been pasted in.
The existing manuscript contains various poems. The first part contains alist of Danish kings, the second part rímur composed by Árni Böðvarsson(who also wrote 1108), Árni Þorkelsson (Rímur af hvarfi og drukknan árið1768 Eggerts skálds Ólafssonar), Gísli Konráðsson, Hallgrímur Pétursson,
Hildibrandur Arason, Jón Jónsson skon, Jón Sigurðsson Dalaskáld
Gíslasonar (or his father), Sigurður Breiðfjörð, Sigurður skáldi Jónssonand Þórarinn Jónsson. The third part contains Krosskvæði and Maríuvísur.
The last part contains eddic poems: Hárbarðsljóð, Sólarljóð, Hrafnagaldur(in the manuscript’s present state on ff. 60v– 61r) and finally the beginning ofVafþrúðnismál. This part was probably written in the early eighteenth century.
Hrafnagaldur is arranged in unnumbered stanzas with the lines separated
by commas but written continuously like prose, though it still has theerror in stanza division in stt. 20 and 21. Its text is closely related to that
in B, and may be derived from B via a lost intermediate manuscript. It
does not reproduce the distinctive readings of B in st. 1, ‘normr’, where it
has ‘nornir’, and st. 7, ‘hardbaþins’, where it has ‘harbaþins’, but it does
reproduce all the others.
648 has the following innovations: st. 3, ‘gornar’ (for ‘grunar’), st. 5,‘linnit’ (for ‘linnir’), st. 11, ‘biuþa’ (for ‘burþa’), st. 14, ‘giπrvallt i’ (for‘giorvallri’), st. 18, ‘yggioagi’ (for ‘yggiongi’) and st. 22, ‘ockar’ (for‘orkar’). It seems to be related to 1588 a I and II and 1689, and Verri, who
examined these manuscripts in 2007 (40–41), believed that 1588 a I andII and 1689 went back to a sister manuscript to 648.
Lbs 1588 a 4to (1588 a)
This manuscript has 151 leaves plus three slips inserted at the beginning,and contains among other things two collections of eddic poems. Ff. 41, 42
and 43 are blank. According to the catalogue, it was written c. 1770, mostly
by vice-principal Halldór Hjálmarsson (1745–1805). A passage about the

52

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

sheriffs in Dalasýsla at the end of the existing manuscript was written by
Bogi Benediktsson of Staðarfell (1771–1849), who now owned themanuscript. Some letters to Halldór Hjálmarsson from Engilbert Jónsson(1747–1820) and Halldór’s brothers Erlendur (1750–1835) and Páll (1752–
1830) accompanied it at that time, and these are now preserved separately
as Lbs 1588 b 4to. Among these is one to Þorgrímur T<hor>láksson from Páll
Andrésson. The earliest of the letters is from 1769, the latest 1774. 1588 a is ina poor state and has been put together from four different original manuscripts.
It is now wrapped in a piece of leather that was once used for binding.
Inserted in the front of the manuscript is a list of contents and a tableof ‘hve Fingal var gamall þegar hinir og þessir atburðir gerðust’. They
are written by different hands. In the list of contents Hrafnagalduris the second poem in the collection, standing between Sólarljóð and
Hávamál. After Loddfáfnismál in this list is added in parantheses:‘qvod noto (inqvid Vidalinus) si forte Sveci ita vocent aut citent caput
aliqvod Sæmundar eddu, vix aliud Mysterium suberit’. This note,
which is here attributed to Páll Vídalín, must refer to Helgi Ólafsson’sannotations in B, which was probably in Páll Vídalín’s possession. But
the list of contents cannot apply to 1588 a 4to, for the poems in the
manuscript are not written in the same order as they are listed here. On theverso of the leaf containing the list of contents it reads: ‘Kvidur | Sæmundar| Eddu | B.H.S.’ This may refer to Bjarni Halldórsson (1703–1773), sheriffat Þingeyrar,28 who in all likelihood owned a Sæmundar Edda that had
belonged to Vídalín. 1109 is derived from a manuscript that had beencollated with a paper manuscript in Bjarni Halldórsson’s possession, but
no readings are given for Hrafnagaldur that correspond to 1109, so it may
be another manuscript that is referred to.
The first section of the existing 1588 a contains two prefaces to Snorri’s
Edda (‘Edda Íslendinga’), of which one is a new prologue to Snorris Edda
with a discussion of the manuscripts of the Edda by Eggert Ólafsson (cf.
Faulkes 1979, 143). Then follows ‘Nomenclaturæ vocum Grammaticarum
Eddu authoris’.
The second section, written in a different hand, contains the end ofHƒfuðlausn, Hrafnagaldur (ff. 9r–10v), ‘Vijsur Einars Skűla sonar um
hinar nafnkunnugre Eijar vid Noreg űr Notis Olavi Verelii yfer Hervarar
Sogu’ (an extract from the Laufás Edda; written in the same hand as
Hrafnagaldur).
The third section, written in a third hand, has on f. 13r Vigfús Scheving’s
name. This is probably Vigfús Scheving Hansson (1735–1817), who left
28

This is Verri’s suggestion.

Introduction

53

Hólaskóli in 1754 and studied in Copenhagen.29 On f. 13v is an accountof the source of the fourth section:Þesse Sæm. Edda er skrifud epter Eddu Próf. Sira Po. H.S. er hann med
eigenn hende hefur skrifad eptir Exempl. Vice L.m. sal. E.O.S. (er meinaz
med honum forgenged hafe) hún er af mier saman borenn vid eitt annad
Exemplar, gott ad sönnu, enn hyrdul√sl. skrifad, hvar fyrer þar sem þetta
mismunadi fra því, og mier virdtiz þad þo vera rettara, enn þesse, sette eg
variantem, og annadhvert f. hiá, edur forte. Sidan bar eg hana saman vid
eitt gott Exemplar i 4to, er eg meina hafe verid lögm. P. Widalins, og sie
af honom completerad, hefur þad ádur att Sira Helge, er hingad og þangad
hefur inn í þad teiknad eitt og annad, og mun hann hafa fært þad hingad úr
Svíaríke; Exemplarid er bædi gott og gamallt, enn upp á orthographiam er
þad grej-korn. Þar fyrer, þar sem her stendur þetta Teikn 4) merker þad, ad
so standi á tiedu Exempl.

The manuscript that had belonged to Páll Vídalín and Helgi Ólafsson
must, as pointed out above, be B, where it is stated in the list of contents
that Helgi Ólafsson had made annotations in the manuscript. It is assumed
that Helgi must have brought the manuscript with him from Sweden
to Iceland. On f. 14v there is another list of contents of a Sæmundar
Edda, in which Hrafnagaldur comes between Hyndluljóð and Vƒlundar­kviða. On f. 15r there is again a note on the source and the copying method that had been used. The explanations in the two places(f. 13v and f. 15r) are written in the same hand, perhaps that of Halldór
Hjálmarsson.
Þar sem annadhvert á sjalfre þessare Eddubók, edur fylgiande bæklíngur fyrer
kemur þetta teikn 4) þá merker þad eitt agætt exempl. í 4to, er siáanlega var
skrifad epter sömu bók og Jóns Ól. Edda, en líklega miklu fyrre, þad hefi eg
med nockurn vegenn gætni samanlesed vid þetta mitt, og merkt þetta 4) þviad so stande í þeirri bók, sem þad tilvisar . . . Þykiz eg hafa vered nærg√ngullí þessu, og skrifad líka, þad sem 4) hefur út á spatiunne, þegar eitt ord kannad hafa radiz á tvo vegu.

On f. 16r there is another list of contents for a Sæmundar Edda, written inanother hand, but here Hrafnagaldur is not mentioned. Then follows apreface to Snorri’s Edda, other writings about the Edda in Icelandic andLatin, a genealogy from Óðinn to the kings of Norway and an epilogue tothe Edda. These mythological items are in the hand of Einar Hálfdanarson(1695–1753), as is stated on f. 40v.
The fourth section of the existing manuscript contains a Sæmundar Edda,
written in a new hand. Here there are loose leaves with notes inserted
29This might alternatively be the farmer Vigfús Scheving Jónsson (1749–
1834), who was also educated at Hólaskóli.

54

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

among the poems. The poems as far as and including Þrymskviða are in
the order of Codex Regius. Then follow Baldrs draumar, Grottasƒngr,Gróugaldur, Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð and Hrafnagaldur (ff. 77r–78v),30
after which from Vƒlundarkviða to Hamðismál inclusive are written in theorder of the Codex Regius. Then come Rígsþula and Sólarljóð (followed
by a Latin translation). Last in this section is the above-mentioned passage
about the sheriffs in Dalasýsla.
The list of contents on f. 14v has the poems in an order that correspondswith the order in which the poems are written in this fourth section of themanuscript. Hrafnagaldur here also has variants marked ‘4)’ or ‘|: . . . :|’or ‘(: . . . :)’. Those with the last are identical with the variants that we
find in 1689. The accounts of the source on ff. 13v and 15r and the list ofcontents on f. 14v must all apply to this part of the manuscript.
It will have been noticed that the manuscript has Hrafnagaldur in two
different places (in the second and fourth sections) and in two different
hands. I label these two versions 1588 a I and 1588 a II.
1588 a I has Hrafnagaldur arranged in unnumbered stanzas mostly of 8 lines
with some confusion in line breaks, suggesting that its original had the poem
written out as prose. It also has the mistake in stanza division in stt. 20 and
21. It reflects the innovations in 648. Like 648, 1588 a I does not reproduce
B’s reading ‘normr’ for ‘nornir’ in st. 1, and in st. 7 it has ‘harbaðins’, like
648, instead of B’s ‘hardbaþins’. It shares the following innovations with
648: st. 3, ‘gornar’ (for ‘grunar’), st. 5, ‘linnit’ (for ‘linnir’), st. 7, ‘miðir’(for ‘undir’), st. 11, ‘biuþa’ (for ‘burþa’), st. 14, ‘giørvallt i’ (for ‘giorvallri’),and st. 18, ‘yggioagi’ (for ‘Yggiongi’).
1588 a I has the following innovations compared with 648, which showsthat 648 cannot be derived from it, for example: st. 8, ‘vargsbelgs ellðu’ (for‘vargsbelg seldu’, though this is written as one word in 648), st. 14, ‘svimt’(for ‘svimi’), st. 15, ‘kotarann’ (for ‘kominn’), and st. 23, ‘hrat’ (for ‘hropt’).
So 1588 a I could be a copy of 648, or be derived from a sister manuscript.
The text of 1588 a I has some readings that are given as variants(written within brackets and enclosed in colons thus ‘(: . . . :)’) in 21.5.2,
1111, 1689 and 1588 a II (cf. st. 5, ‘linnit’). Some variants given in thesemanuscripts are also found in other manuscripts besides 1588 a I (thus st.
1, ‘þi™’, which is also found in 21.6.7 and 966 and the A group and in B,
and st. 17, ‘ǫlteiti’). 1588 a I cannot have been the text from which thesevariants were taken, since it has the obviously corrupt forms ‘baðins’ in
In this part of the existing 1588 a the leaves are numbered at the top right ofeach leaf. According to this numbering Hrafnagaldur is on ff. 34r–35v.
30

Introduction

55

st. 7 and ‘yggioagi’ in st. 18, while those manuscripts have the correct
forms (‘baþms’ and ‘Yggiongi’) as variant readings. It may be that thevariants written within brackets and enclosed in colons were from various
unspecified manuscripts or were suggested emendations.
1588 a I may therefore be a copy of a sister manuscript of 648 (so Verri2007, 40), and 21.5.2, 1111, 1689 and 1588 a II may be derived from amanuscript closely related to 1588 a I.
1588 a II has Hrafnagaldur arranged in unnumbered eight-line stanzas. It
does not have the errror in stanza division in stt. 20 and 21. It reproduces
the innovations of both 648 and 1588 a I, with the exception of ‘linnit’ inst. 5, where it has ‘linnir’; ‘linnit’ is, however, given in the margin as avariant reading, as also in 1689, 21.5.2, 329, 1111, and 643.
1588 a II has a number of innovations that are perhaps due to errors in
the manuscript it was copied from (cf. the scribe’s comments quoted above,
which suggest that he did his work conscientiously). Innovations comparedwith B are found in st. 5, ‘eya’ (for ‘∂va’), st. 6, ‘fa asci hnigin’ (for ‘frá
aski hniginn’), st. 7, ‘cunnr’ (for ‘kunni’), st. 9, ‘galt’ (for ‘gátt’), st. 10,‘vera’ (for ‘vegu’), st. 12, ‘katti (for ‘knatti’), st. 13, ‘Ein’ (for ‘Eins’), st.
16, ‘gymnis’ (for ‘grimnis’), st. 17, ‘alteiti’ (for ‘√lteiti’), st. 18, ‘seta’ (for‘sæla’), st. 20, ‘spalmál’ (for ‘spakmál’), and st. 25, ‘ur þrot’ (for ‘und rot’).
Since 1588 a II does not reproduce all the innovations of 1588 a I in
its text, it is probably not copied from it, even though the one that is notin its text is in the margin (it is is likely to be from elsewhere). It may bethat it is a sister manuscript to 1588 a I, though the possibility cannot be
excluded that it derives from 1588 a I and a scribe has corrected the error‘linnit’ in st. 5.
The innovations of 1588 a II are not found in 21.5.2, 329 or 1111, though
they are in 1689 and 643. Hrafnagaldur in 1588 a II is closely related
to the text of the poem in 1689; according to Verri they could be sistermanuscripts (2007, 41–42). They are likely to have been derived from asister manuscript to 1588 a I.
Lbs 1588 4to was discussed in Faulkes (1979, 143–144).
Lbs 1689 4to (1689)
This manuscript, which consists of vi + 246 pages, has been trimmed andhalf-bound in leather. According to Páll Eggert Ólafsson’s catalogue it
was written by Sæmundur Hólm (1749–1821). The title on the spine is‘Sæmundar EDDA’. The first leaves of the original manuscript have rottedaway (as far as f. 5r), and been replaced by the beginning of Vƒluspá written
in a later hand and on different paper from the rest of the manuscript. These56

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

leaves were written by Þorleifur Jónsson of Skinnastaður (1845–1911). On
the flyleaf he has written his name and the date: ‘Þorleifr Jónsson. 1878’,
and on the flyleaf under his name: ‘Til Bókasafns Latínuskólans 1883.
Afhent Landsbókasafninu til eignar árið 1914’.
On f. 1r stands the title ‘Sæmundar-edda’, after which follows a list ofcontents, which are first the poems of the Codex Regius largely in the sameorder, but after Þrymskviða come Baldrs draumar, Grottasƒngr, Gróugaldur,
Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð, Hrafnagaldur, and then the rest of the Codex
Regius poems (Vƒlundarkviða to Hamðismál) followed by Sonatorrek,
Merlínusspá, Krákumál, Vísa Trémanns í Sámseyju from Ragnars saga,
Gullkársljóð, Hyndluljóð (again), Valagaldur Kráku. Hrafnagaldur has thesame placing between Hyndluljóð and Vƒlundarkviða in 1588 a II.
Hrafnagaldur is on ff. 50r–52r, and is the sixteenth poem in the manuscript (Hávamál and Loddfáfnismál being taken as separate poems), as
noted at the beginning of the poem in Sæmundur Hólm’s hand. It is­arranged in unnumbered eight-line stanzas. It does not have the ­errror
in stanza division in stt. 20 and 21. In 1689 it includes all the same­innovations and marginal notes as 1588 a II and 648 (cf. the descriptions of these manuscripts), but not the variants from B that are given
in 1588 a II, marked 4). Perhaps this is because 1689 and 1588 a II aresister manuscripts, both copied from a sister manuscript to 1588 a I, but
it could also be because 1689 was copied from 1588 a II before thesevariants were added in the margin.
1689 introduces only a few innovations compared with 1588 II a: st.
3, ‘ec’ (for ‘er’), st. 14, ‘glyo’ (for ‘glygio’). In st. 14, it has ‘ofsvimt’
written as one word.
The layout of both Hrafnagaldur and the other poems in 1689 is largely
the same as that in 643, which must have been written by the same scribe(Sæmundur Hólm). Hrafnagaldur is, for example, numbered ‘XVI’ in both.
There are as far as can be seen neither errors nor anything else in these twocopies that can help to judge which of the two is derived from the other.
Egerton 643, British Library (643)This manuscript is a Sæmundar Edda in quarto format, consisting of
122 leaves witten in two columns in the eighteenth century. It was soldfor £50 in October 1812 by Finnur Magnússon to Archibald Constable(1774–1827), the publisher of most of Walter Scott’s works (Porter 2006,
181). It was sold on from him to Adam Clarke (died 1832). In his collectionof manuscripts it bore according to Ward 1893 the number LXVII. After
Clarke’s death it was offered for sale by auction at Sotheby’s in 1838 by
Baynes & Son. The auction was cancelled because of a lack of bids, butIntroduction

57

subsequently bought, together with a manuscript of Snorri’s Edda whichbecame Egerton 642, by Frederic Madden for the British Museum (seePorter 2006, 184–185, 187). Before the failed auction it was advertisedas: ‘This beautiful perfect, and remarkably correct and distinctly writtenMS., may be considered as a great acquisition to this country. It contains
a good and well-adjusted text of all the pieces published in the printed
copies, with a great many others still more curious and interesting, whichhave been hitherto known only by report . . .’ (quoted from Porter 2006,183). This is identical, apart from a few details, to the beginning of thedescription on f. 1r of the manuscript.
On the front flyleaf Finnur Magnússon has written ‘Codex Thorlacianus’.
It had been owned by Børge Thorlacius, and it is from him that Finnur
Magnússon got it (see Jón Helgason not yet published). F. 1r–1v contains a
description of the manuscript in English. On f. 2r is a list of contents written
in pencil, probably by Finnur Magnússon. According to the introduction
to Edda 1787–1828, I, Finnur Magnússon used a manuscript he referred
to as ‘T.’ to collate with the poems about Helgi Hundingsbani, and it isstated in Edda 1787–1828, II xxix that ‘T.’ was Codex Thorlacianus.
According to Ward’s catalogue, however, the readings quoted from T are
not always identical with those of 643. Edda 1787–1828 gives no variants
to Hrafnagaldur from 643.
643 has first the Codex Regius poems in the same order as far as andincluding Þrymskviða, then Baldrs draumar, Grottasƒngr, Gróugaldur,
Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð and Hrafnagaldur (ff. 50r–52r, pp. 99–103).
Then follow Vƒlundarkviða and the other Codex Regius poems in the usual
order. After Hamðismál comes Rígsþula. Hrafnagaldur is in 643 placed
between Hyndluljóð and Vƒlundarkviða, as in 1588 a II and 1689. It haslargely the same layout as 1689, see the description of the latter above, andhas the same distinctive readings. As stated above, it cannot be determinedwhich of the two is copied from the other. 643 is written in the same hand
as 1689, which according to the catalogue was written by Sæmundur Hólm.
Adv. 21.5.2, National Library of Scotland (21.5.2)
This manuscript, which consists of 361 leaves, is bound in leather and has
gilding on the spine, which bears the title ‘Edda Sæmundi’. The manuscript
is described in Ólafur Halldórsson’s unpublished catalogue of Icelandic
manuscripts in Edinburgh (1967). It is paginated by the original scribe as
pp. 1–715 = ff. 1r–358r. On the front flyleaf is written ‘quondam e libris
Skulonis Theodori Thorlacii, | Islando – Dani.’ That is, the manuscript
was once in Skúli Thorlacius’s library; it may have got there via Grímur
Thorkelín (see Ólafur Halldórsson 1967).

58

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

According to Ólafur Halldórsson, 21.5.2 was written by a single handin ­Iceland in 1755–1756 and in Copenhagen in 1758. Nowhere in themanu­script is it stated who wrote it, but it was probably Eggert Ólafsson(1726–1768), who matriculated from the school at Skálholt, studied at
the university in Copenhagen and was employed by the Arnamagnæan
Commission. As part of his duties he travelled in Iceland during the years
1752–1757. 21.5.2 is written in the same hand as 329, which according
to a letter with it was probably written by Eggert (see the description of
329 below).
21.5.2 contains the eddic poems from the Codex Regius in the sameorder, but after Þrymskviða are inserted Baldrs draumar, Grottasƒngr,Gróugaldur, Fjölsvinnsmál and Hyndluljóð. After Hamðismál follow
Hrafnagaldur (pp. 455–462, ff. 228r–231v) and Sólarljóð. The manuscript
also contains poems by Egill Skallagrímsson, as well as poems from
Heimskringla and various fornaldarsögur. On ff. 227v, 334v and 340v
there is information about the manuscripts from which it was copied. Thaton f. 334v concerns the original for Merlínusspá, on 340v the original for
Ynglingatal, Hornklofavísur and Hákonarmál. What is written on f. 227v
is of interest for Hrafnagaldur:
NB. þessar efter skrifadar (it. adur nefndar Vegtams qv. etc) kvidur, liöd ogkvædi eru ür bök Sr. Vigf. J. S. Prof. i Hitardal. Á saumu bök var Sæm. Edda
skrifud af Sr. Jone Haldorssyne epter Eddu Arna M. S. hvöria hann siälfur
hafde skrifad epter membrana. Þar var ï bökinni Sn. Edda og sïdan kvædin
af hvörium eckert var annecterad Sæmundar Eddu heldur indisposité ritud,efter misjöfnum (sem mier synist) exemplaribus.

According to this, the poems from Hrafnagaldur onwards (presumably­including the poems by Egill and those from Heimskringla and fornaldar­
sögur), as well as Baldrs draumar to Hyndluljóð, were copied from amanuscript owned by Vigfús Jónsson of Hítardalur, which had been copied
by Jón Halldórsson from Árni Magnússon’s autograph copy of the Codex­Regius.31 Vigfús’s manuscript also contained Snorri’s Edda, and after thata series of poems from disparate sources (i.e. Hrafnagaldur and the rest).
The last part of 21.5.2 (f. 228r onwards) is according to Ólafur
Halldórs­son (1967, III 88) largely a copy of Lbs 214 4to, written by
Jón Halldórsson and his son Vigfús Jónsson. This manuscript must be
the source of the material after Hamðismál, but as stated above (p. 49)
31Ólafur Halldórsson (1967, 64) writes in his catalogue that the first part of
21.5.2, as far as 227v, was a copy of a manuscript belonging to Þórður Jónssonof Staðarstaður, which was copied from the Codex Regius. This cannot of course
apply to the material after f. 227v.

Introduction

59

it does not include Hrafnagaldur. 1108 is also a copy of a manuscriptin ‘Bibliotheca ­Hytardalensi’, and according to Einar G. Pétursson, its
source was also Lbs 214 4to. 1108 does not include the same poems fromoutside the Codex Regius as 21.5.2.
Hrafnagaldur in 21.5.2 is arranged in eight-line stanzas, and does nothave the error in stanza division. The text reproduces the innovations
compared with B that are found in the sub-group of manuscripts thatseem to go back to a sister manuscript to 648. It includes precisely thesame variants to the text as 1588 a II, 1689 and 643. It does not have thevariant readings of 1588 a II from B, but these were probably added later,as suggested above, for they are written in a lighter ink though by the same
hand. Hrafnagaldur does not, however, have the same placing in 21.5.2,
as it has in 1588 a II, 643 and 1689, but the source of the text in 21.5.2
must have been closely related to those manuscripts.
21.5.2 does not reproduce the distinctive readings of 1689 and 643,
whereas it does reproduce most, but not all of the distinctive readingsof 1588 a II (st. 1, ‘þrá’, st. 5, ‘eya’, st. 7, ‘cunnr’, st. 10, ‘vera’, st. 16,‘gimnis’, st. 17, ‘alteiti’, st. 18, ‘s∂ta’, and st. 25, ‘ur þrot’). The readingsof 1588 a II in st. 6, ‘fa asci hnigin’, st. 9, ‘galt’, st. 12, ‘katti’, st. 13, ‘Ein’(a reading, however, written in the margin) and st. 20, ‘spalmál’ are not
reproduced in 21.5.2, so it cannot be a copy of 1588 a II. It is possible that
it is a sister to that manuscript, or derived from a sister to it.
Ms. germ. qu. 329, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preussischer Kulturbesitz (643)This manuscript, which mainly contains eddic poems, consists of 250
pages. At the front of the manuscript is inserted a letter from Rasmus
Nyerup to Dr N. H. Julius, dated 22/3 1820. In this letter it says that themanuscript was probably written in Eggert Ólafsson’s hand. It reads:. . . über das isländische Manuscript, was ich hierdurch zurück zu senden die
Ehre habe, vollständige Auskunft geben zu können, habe ich mir zwar Mühe
gegeben, bin aber noch nicht völlig damit ins Reine gekommen. So viel ist
gewiss, dass es um die Mitte ongefähr des vorigen Jahrhunderts von einem
gelehrten Isländer |: wahrscheinlich dem berühmten Eggert Olafssen, der 1768
starb:| geschrieben.32

329 has first the poems of the Codex Regius in the same order, withthe same additional poems after Þrymskviða. After Hamðismál comes
Hrafnagaldur, followed by Sólarljóð, Gullkársljóð, Hyndluljóð, Krákumál
and finally Jómsvíkinga drápa. Hrafnagaldur is written in two columns
32
Einar G. Pétursson’s transcription. I have had access to photographs of thetext of Hrafnagaldur, but not of the whole manuscript.

60

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

on pp. 207a–210a in unnumbered eight-line stanzas. The order of thepoems as far as and including Sólarljóð is the same as in 21.5.2. Bothmanuscripts are written in the same hand, believed, as stated above, to bethat of Eggert Ólafsson.
21.5.2 and 329 have virtually identical texts of Hrafnagaldur, both asregards readings, spellings and letter forms. The only differences between
them are in st. 18, where 21.5.2 has the copying error ‘Heila’ for ‘Heilan’and in st. 21, where in 329 an ‘i’ is written to mark the palatisation of ‘g’ in‘giæti’. Also the variant readings in the margins are marked ‘al.’ whereas
in 21.5.2 they are marked ‘+’. It is likely that they are copies of the same
original, which would have been a sister manuscript (or derived from asister manuscript) to 1588 a II.
NKS 1111 fol. (1111)
This manuscript, which consists of 258 leaves, is from the eighteenth
century. It is unbound and bears the title ‘S∂mvndar-Edda’ on the same pageas Vƒluspá begins. It is written in a single hand apart from Hrafnagaldur
and the list of contents, which are written in a second and third hand
respectively.
It is clear that Hrafnagaldur in 1111 is copied from a different originalfrom the other poems that are in it. They are probably partly derived fromNKS 1869 4to, a Sæmundar Edda (which does not include Hrafnagaldur)
written in the eighteenth century by Markús Jónsson, according to Kålund’scatalogue. Before the table of contents (f. 257r) it says, in an account of the‘oder som Membrana ikke har’: ‘Den 6te Ode som kaldes Othins Ravnegalder fattedes’. The manuscript contains the eddic poems from the Codex
Regius and then: Baldrs draumar, Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð, Gróugaldur,
Sólarljóð, Grottasƒngr and Heiðreks gátur. After that in a different handcomes Hrafnagaldur. This poem must have been added to the manuscript
after the other poems had been written, possibly at the same time as thelist of contents. The placing is perhaps therefore accidental. The poem iswritten in unnumbered eight-line stanzas on pp. 500–510 (ff. 250v–255v).
Variant readings are given to the text of Hrafnagaldur, marked ‘al’ or ‘f’
in the same way as in 329, which is not how they are in other manuscripts
in this sub-group of the B group. 1111 has the same distinctive readings as
21.5.2 and 329, but it does not reproduce the error of 21.5.2 in st. 18 (‘Heila’),and in st. 21 it has ‘giæti’, like 329. On this (admittedly flimsy) foundation
rests the assumption that 1111 is a copy of 329. The two manuscripts donot, however, contain the same poems in addition to those of the Codex
Regius (which is not surprising, considering that Hrafnagaldur in 1111
was copied from a different source from the other poems).

Introduction

61

The manuscript was once in Suhm’s collection (156 fol.). It was usedby Bugge (see Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, lxi), where it is designated by the
siglum M.
Two manuscripts of the B group both seem to be derived from an apparently
lost manuscript written by Magnús Jónsson of Vigur. These are 21.6.7 and 818.
Adv. 21.6.7, National Library of Scotland (21.6.7)
This manuscript, which consists of 341 leaves, was, according to Ólafur
Halldórsson’s catalogue of Icelandic manuscripts in Edinburgh, written
during the years 1750–1753 by Jón Egilsson (1724–1807), farmer at StóraVatnshorn in Haukadalur. The existing manuscript, which was originallyin three separate volumes, now bound together, has wooden covers andin many places coloured initials. On the inside of the front cover is pasted
a leaf from a Sæmundar Edda in Jón Egilsson’s hand, and on the insideof the back cover a letter to Jón Egilsson dated 29/10 1750 and signed‘Olafur Jonsson’.
21.6.7 begins with a preface by Jón Egilsson, in which he gives anaccount of his work on the manuscript and what manuscripts it was basedon. The second volume, a Sæmundar Edda, which begins on f. 132r andends on f. 257r, was, according to Jón Egilsson, a copy of a manuscript
written by Magnús Jónsson (1637–1702) of Vigur on Ísafjörður. It has notbeen possible to identify this manuscript. It is perhaps lost. The title pageof this second volume reads: ‘Bookenn. | SÆMUNDAR | EDDA. | Edur. |Lioodabook Sæmundar Sigfws sonar, Pröf: ad Odda Stad. | Inne halldande
forn-skaalldanna Listqvednar Lioda Dr|aapur; Dulordar og dimmkvednar
forn qvidur, kiennande aa giæta Ordsnilld, Margbreittar kienningar og |Meistaralegar Skällda Reglur. Enn aa Nÿ uppritad, Epter Eiginn hende
Magnusar | Sal: Jonssonar Er Sat I Wigur vid Isafiπrd, aukenn | Nockrumägiætum qvidumm. | Skrifud I Wogie aa Skardz strǫnd Anno 1751. | af
Ione Eigils syne’.
On the title page of the third volume, f. 258r, is written: ‘Jñnas Jónsson| ™ Bñkena | ad Riettumm Erfdumm Epter Fødur Sinn | No. 28.’ At the
top is written ‘Ebenezer Henderson’, and on the same page: ‘Her hefiast| Dulkvednar Forn | Drapur | Med Imsra | Frodra Manna | Raadning |Skrifadar Anno | 1753. | af | J: E: S:’.
The second volume of the manuscript contains Sólarljóð, Hrafnagaldur(136r–137r), Vƒluspá, Hávamál, Vafþrúðnismál, Grímnismál, Alvíssmál,
Lokasenna, Þrymskviða, Hárbarðsljóð, Skírnismál, Hymiskviða andBaldrs draumar. Then come the heroic poems in the same order as the
Codex Regius, then after Hamðismál follow Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð,62

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Gróugaldur, Grottasƒngr, Heiðreks gátur, Egill Skallagríms­son’sHƒfuðlausn, Hallmundar vísur, Hákonarmál, Bjarkamál, then Appendix,
containing ¯rvar-Odds drápa, Ásbjarnarkviða, Glælognskviða, extracts
from Vellekla and Þórálfs drápa, Eiríksmál, a poem by Þorbjǫrn hornklofi,
stanzas by Guttormr sindri, an extract from Gráfeldardrápa, stanzas by
Eyvindr Skáldaspillir, Gizurr gullbrárskáld, Þorfinnr munnr and Þormóðr
Kolbrúnarskáld, Noregs konungatal, Vísa trémanns í Sámseyju from
Ragnars saga and Lítið ágrip um afguðina og gyðjurnar. The poems in
the first part of this second volume are in the same order as the poems in
the first parts of A and B. Hrafnagaldur is written continuously as prose,
but there is a kind of break or else a new line at the beginnings of stanzas.
The stanzas are unnumbered (as in B), but the error in stt. 20 and 21 ispresent. The arrangement is rather reminiscent of that of A and B. The
distinctive readings of B are reproduced (except for ‘normr’ in st. 1), so
it must be derived from B. It has none of the distinctive readings of anyof the sub-groups described above, so it cannot belong to any of them.
It has the following innovations: st. 2, ‘þoka’, st. 3, ‘garnar’, st. 7, ‘i vistom’,st. 12, ‘tindwtt’, st. 13, ‘afatre’, st. 14, ‘dauþer’, st. 15, ‘fer’. In st. 18,‘yggunge’ is written, but immediately afterwards in the text it is correctedto ‘/:yggionge:/’.
21.6.7 is described by Faulkes (1979, 129–131).
Lbs 818 4to (818)This manuscript, which consists of 3 + 166 leaves, was, according to
Páll Eggert Ólafsson’s catalogue, written between 1750 and 1800, by
four different hands. Its contents are miscellaneous. According to thecatalogue, it was originally two separate manuscripts: at the bottom of thetitle page it says ‘Samanntínt oc í eitt binde innfest og skrifad á Hrappsey
180 [sic] af Olafe Sveinssyne’, and underneath ‘I og II p.’. The existing
volume, however, seems to consist of more than just two manuscripts, ofwhich at least two contained eddic poems. The two parts of the existing
volume are prefaced by a list of contents in Páll Pálsson’s hand. Part of thevolume was written by Ólafur Sveinsson (1762–1845), but the major part,
according to Einar G. Pétursson (1998, 231), was written by Jón Ólafssonof Grímsstaðir in Breiðavík on Snæfellsnes (c. 1691–1765).
At the bottom of f. 46r is written ‘Kolbeirn Biarnarson’. This is possibly,
according to Einar G. Pétursson (1998, 232), the Kolbeinn Bjarnason who
was a smallholder at Fróðá on Snæfelssnes around 1800. Landsbókasafn
Íslands acquired the volume from Jón Pétursson, who according to Páll
Eggert Ólason could have got it from Staðarfell, since his wife, Jóhanna
Soffía Bogadóttir, came from there (Einar G. Pétursson 1998, 232).

Introduction

63

The first part of the volume contains Hávamál, Kenningar og heiti, ‘Siön
Sira Jonz Eiölfssonar’, ‘Hvπrnenn lita skal hier-lendst’, ‘Hvad Galldur kallast’,‘Um oracula’, ‘Upprune Galldra’, ‘Um Galldra Bækur’, ‘Afguder heidingjanna’, Egill Skallagríms­son’s Hƒfuðlausn, ‘Nockrar M§lsgreiner um þad
hvadan Böken Edda hefir sitt nafn’, ‘Tillegg Nockurt heirande til Snorra Eddu,
sem ecke er ad finna i þeim þricktu, ütdreiged af Skrife Biörns ä ­Skards ä’.
The second part contains mainly eddic poems: Heiðreks gátur, Hƒfuð­lausn, Sonatorrek, Fuglagáta, Gróugaldur, Alvíssmál, Hávamál, Vƒluspá,
Fjölsvinnsmál, Hymiskviða, Þrymskviða, Vafþrúðnismál, Sólarljóð,Grímnis­­mál, Skírnismál, Lokasenna, Hyndluljóð, Hárbarðsljóð, Baldrs
draumar, Sigrdrífumál, Frá dauða Sinfjƒtla, Grípisspá, Fáfnismál,Guðrúnar­kviða I, Oddrúnar grátr, Vƒlundarkviða, Helgakviða Hundings­
bana I, Helgakviða Hjƒrvarðssonar, Hamðismál, Sigurðarkviða in skamma,
Helreið Brynhildar, Guðrúnarkviða II, Atlakviða, Atla­mál in grœnlenzku,
some stanzas of Grímnismál, Gróugaldur (again), Grottasƒngr andGuðrúnarhvƒt. After this is a blank page (f. 77v), after which is a leaf
with the final stanzas of Atlamál in grœnlenzka and then Hrafnagaldur (ff.
79v–82r) and Guðrúnarhvƒt (again). These four leaves seem to be written
in a different hand from the other poems. The last item in the volume is
Gamla jólaskrá, written in yet another hand.
Hrafnagaldur is arranged in eight-line stanzas. In stt. 20 and 21
there is the error in stanza division. 818 reproduces the distinctive­readings of B ­(except for ‘normr’ in st. 1) and also has readings thatreflect the innovations of 21.6.7: st. 3, ‘garnar’, st. 7, ‘i vistom’, st.
12, ‘tind vott’, st. 13, ‘afatre’, st. 14, ‘dauþir’, and st. 15, ‘fer’. 818
also includes both the error (‘yggungi’) and its immediately following correction (‘yggionge’) in st. 18. There is just one that it doesnot ­reproduce, st. 2, ‘þoka’, which means that it is not derived from
21.6.7. In other places 818 has innovations that are not found in 21.6.7,
in st. 8, ‘varge belg’ and ‘lit om scipti’, so 21.6.7 can scarcely be a
copy of 818, which is also made unlikely by the arrangement of the­stanzas. It is likely that the two manuscripts derive independently fromthe same source, which would presumably be Magnús Jónsson’s manuscript. Since they do not have any of the innovations of 966, and 966
does not contain any of their innovations, Magnús Jónsson’s ­manu­script
must have been directly or indirectly derived from B.
The manuscript is described in Faulkes 1979, 115–116 and Einar G.
Pétursson 1998, 231–234.
The following stemma for manuscripts in the B group seems to be possible.
It is in part guesswork, since in some cases it is based on minimal differences

64

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

between texts. For instance, it has not been possible to determine whether
22 is a copy of 4877 or the reverse. The same applies to 1689 and 643.
												B_________________________________________________
M.J.’s MS
966		
J.E.’s MS*| 		|			 ____________________|___________________
21.6.7 818
648
1492
*
		
*
		
|
|		
|
_________________________
1588
a
I
773
a
*
*|
*|
		
|
|		 __________
		__________________________
		
1588 a II 1109 1866 21.4.7 1108 11165*
		 _________
|
_____
|
__
|
_____
|
21.5.2 329 1689
47 4877		___|____			
|			___
|1111 643			
22
Description of C
Stockholm papp. fol. nr 57 (C), which consists of 165 leaves, was written
in the second half of the seventeenth century. It is half-bound in leather andthe script is cursive. According to information on the front flyleaf it wasbound in 1843. On the spine it bears the title ‘I: Adskilianlegr Qved. 2. Saga
Hakonar Hakonarsonar.’ Gödel states in his catalogue that it was written byÞormóður Torfason’s (Torfæus’s) secretary Ásgeir Jónsson, but according
to Jón Helgason (1962, xi–xiv) the scribe is unknown. It is not known how
or when it got to Sweden, but it must have been already there in 1684, forin that year Helgi Ólafsson copied Hákonar saga from it. According to Jón
Helgason (1962–1981, III xiii), it can hardly be earlier than about 1680.
The first part of the manuscript (ff. 1–10) contains eighteen narrative
poems: Cecilíu kvæði, Stjúpmóður minning, Gauta kvæði, Vallara kvæði,Bjarnasona kvæði, Taflkvæði, Bóthildar kvæði, Ólufar kvæði, Ásu dans,
Ebba kvæði, Elenar ljóð, Marteins kviða, Kristínar kvæði, Sonar harmur,Þorkels kviða, Systra kvæði, Hallmundar ljóð (with a prose introduction)and Hrafnagaldur. The second part (ff. 11–165) contains Hákonar saga
Hákonarsonar.
Hrafnagaldur appears in C in a different context from that in which it isnormally found. It is written on f. 10r–10v and arranged in numbered stanzas
with each pair of lines written side by side, making stanzas of four ‘long’lines each. It is probably a sister-manuscript to A and B, see the accountsof A, B, C, D and E on pp. 29–30 and 35–37 above and pp. 65–71 below.
There are the following distinctive readings in C:
st. 7: vistar C] vistum A, E, vistum B, vistom D
st. 8: syrga C] syrgia A, B, D, E

Introduction

65

st. 10: hemis C] heimis A, B, D, E
st. 16: grunnis C] Grymis A, Grimnis B, Grimnis D, E
st. 19: bekkar C] beckjar A, beckiar B, E, becciar D
st. 22: legga C] leggia A, D, E, leggia B
Four of these distinctive readings, ‘syrga’, ‘hemis’, ‘bekkar’ and ‘legga’,are secondary, and look like careless copying errors (though with the first,
third and fourth cf. st. 14/6 ‘rygar’ and commentary). The others could
be attempts to improve the text where a scribe did not fully understandwords or names in his original, though ‘grunnis’ could easily be due to amisreading of the first four minims in ‘Grimnis’. C is not a copy of either A
or B. C has ‘þvi’ in st. 3, where the whole B group has the error ‘þur’, andin st. 13, ‘of miþgard’, where the B group has ‘ofǫnþgarð’. In st. 15, ‘atsyn var fyrir’, and st. 24, ‘jarkna’, C has similar readings to B and D and
E. In st. 1, C shares the reading ‘occar’/‘okkar’ with D against A, B and E.
In 1841 the manuscript was examined by Jón Sigurðsson, whose description of it is in AM 927 4to (see Jón Helgason 1962–1981, III xiii). It wasused by Bugge (Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, xlviii) in his edition of the ­eddic
poems. Jón Helgason edited the first sixteen of the narrative poems inÍslenzk forn­kvæði 1962–1981, III. The manuscript is described there on
pp. xi–xv.
Description of D
Thott 1491 4to (D), which consists of 237 leaves, was written in the eighteenth
century. It is bound in leather, and the spine originally had gold tooling. The
title there, which has partly disappeared at the edges, reads ‘<S>ÆMUNDA<R>| EDDA’. At the back of the manuscript a slip has been inserted on which
Hávamál 90/3–4 is quoted, and inside has been placed a letter from Skúli
Magnússon to Thott, dated Copenhagen, 2. February 1770. According to thisletter, it is accompanied by the Edda (‘Her med følger Edda’). Otherwise
it is mainly concerned with Icelandic matters, but towards the end it reads:
Nu vil man vende sig fra det her [the Icelandic content]: Vi vil gaae op i deutænkelige Tiider. Midt i Arbeydet om Menniskenne maatte Edda her for en
Dag. Den følger da her med. Hos slet ingen kand jeg deponere bedre end i
Deres højgrevelig Excellences Bogsamling.

Kålund says (1900, 333) that D appears to be put together from various
originally unrelated parts, but it is rather written by a single hand using
alternately cursive and Gothic script.
The manuscript has as its title on f. 1r: ‘Edda | Islendinga | Skrifud af
Diakna Paule | efter bestu Membrana sem | Island aa’. In 966 it said that
Grottasƒngr there was copied from a manuscript owned by Páll Sveinsson

66

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Torfasonar (1704–1784), though he had not written it himself. Páll wasa parish clerk and wrote several manuscripts, so it is probably he that ismeant here. But the colophon in D on f. 203v says that the manuscript as
far as Hamðismál was copied from one written by Síra Þórður Jónsson(1672–1720) of Staðarstaður, which was itself a copy of the Codex Regius.
The manuscript opens with the Codex Regius poems in the same order,
then some supplements to Hávamál, then Grottasƒngr, Gróugaldur,
Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð and Hrafnagaldur (introduced with the words‘Hæc Seqventia ex Libro qvodam Chartaceo exscripta, pertinent ad Paginam287’). Finally there is Björn of Skarðsá’s treatise on runes, which among
other things contains Sigrdrífumál.
On f. 208v, after the supplements to Hávamál, there is some information
about the part of the manuscript that contains the Codex Regius poems:
Hactenus Exemplar Sal. S. Þordar Jonssonar ad Stadarstad, Profasts i Snæfells
Ness Syslu, sem er med hanns þeckianlegu hendi af honum samanbored vid þá
bestu Codices bædi Membranas og a Papyri og til settar Variantes Lectiones.
Hvort Exemplar nu á S. Jon Jonsson Prestur til Flugumyrar og Hialta Stadai Skaga firde.

After Grottasƒngr, Gróugaldur, Fjölsvinnsmál, Hyndluljóð and Hrafna­
galdur there is a note on f. 229r about the manuscript that these poems
were copied from:Þessar fimm seinustu Qvidur, sydan Exemplar S. Þordar ad Stadar Stad hætte, eru
skrifadar epter oepterrettanlegu Exscripto, sem einn Vidvaningur hafde skrifad, so
eg er vijda ecki viss um, hvornig eg átte ad skipta Strophir, þvi allt þad Exscriptum
sem eg hafde, imo, þad epter hveriu Vidvaningurinn skrifad hafde, var i Sijfellu.
Somuleidis var eg opt oviss i þvi hvörnig eg stafa skillde so ad rett være. Eru soþessar Qvidur einasta til þess, ad syna þad þær vantade i hid goda Exemplar Sal.
Sr. Þordar Jonssonar sem fyrr er nefnt, en munu þo eiga ad koma aptan vid þad.
Þo mun ecke godum Codicibus öllum saman koma umm Röd qvidanna.

Páll Sveinsson, who, as stated above, wrote the manuscript, says here thatthe five listed poems were copied from a poor original written out by a
beginner. No variant readings are quoted for Hrafnagaldur. The poem iswritten in unnumbered eight-line stanzas on pp. 452–457 (ff. 226r–228v).
From st. 9 inclusive it is to save space written in two columns on each page.
There are the following distinctive readings in D:
st. 2: ættom D] ætlun A, B, C, E
st. 2: voria D] veria A, C, E, veria B
st. 3: griviar D] grunar A, C, E, grunar B
st. 6: Ivars D] Ivaldz A, Ivalds B, C, E
st. 8: vargsbelgs D] vargsbelg A, vargsbelg B, vargs belg C, vargsvelg E

Introduction67

st. 9: heim D] heims A, B, C, E
st. 11: bondo D] banda A, B, C, E33
st. 14: ǫr viþ D] ǫrvit A, B, C, oruit E
st. 15: jol mun D] jolnum A, B, jólnum C, iotnum E
st. 16: hyrþar D] hirdir A, B, hirdir C, E
st. 17: yþr D] jþar A, i þar B, iþar C, idar E
st. 18: baþiss D] baþu A, B, baþo C, badu E
st. 18: sumbla D] sumbli A, B, C, E
st. 18: yggiom D] Yggiongi A, B, E, Yggiongi C
st. 20: unorm D] undorn A, B, C, E
st. 22: Oþinn D] Omi A, Onn B, Onn C, Ome E
st. 23: varla D] valla A, B, C, E
The majority of the distinctive readings in D are secondary; they are obvious
scribal errors that arose in copying. For ‘varla’ (st. 23), A, B, C and E have‘valla’ (A also adds ‘vallda’ in parentheses within the stanza), which could
be an orthographical variant of varla at this date, but might also be gen. pl.
of ‘vǫllur’ in a kenning. Only ‘varla’ seems to be meaningful in the context,
though even so a great deal of alteration of the word order is required (seethe commentary on this stanza). St. 23 must be corrupt, so it is difficult tojudge what might have stood in the archetype. Scribes might easily substitute‘varla’ for its homophone ‘valla’ or vice versa. The distinctive reading‘Oþinn’ could be primary, and like ‘Omi/Ome’ in A and E would fit in withthe tendency in the poem for there to be four syllables in each line, unlike
Onn in B and C, but, as stated above, ‘Omi’ is to be preferred. D does not
reproduce the distinctive readings of A, B or C.
Hrafnagaldur in D must be derived from the lost common original ofA, B and C. It was copied from a manuscript that was written out as prose(‘i Sijfellu’), but this does not necessarily mean that it was not copied fromthe same original as they were (see pp. 70–71 below), but the number of
errors in the text makes it seem at a greater remove from the archetype,and it may have come through several intermediate links. Its immediate
source is unknown.
D was used by Jón Eiríksson in his preliminary work for the Arnamagnæan
edition of the eddic poems in 47. He took variant readings from it, marked‘P.S.’ [Páll Sveinsson].
Description of E
Lbs 1441 4to (E), which consists of 326 leaves + 2 flyleaves bound inleather, was written c. 1760. It is in poor condition; the binding has come33

E adds in parentheses above the line ‘borda’.

68

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

apart and the leaves have crumbled away at the edges and been repaired.
It is a collection of eddic poems and other poems in eddic metres. On thetitle page (f. 1r) is written: ‘Á þessa bök er skryfud EDDA Sæmundar
Sigfussonar hinns froda, Sóknar prests ad Odda i Rang™rvalla sijslu i
Austfyrding<a>fiordunge a Islandi, ad Störu Reikium i Midfijrde 176<0>’.
The manuscript is written in two hands. Most of the poems are according
to the catalogue written in a hand similar to that of Guðmundur Ísfold, which
has also numbered the pages. At the beginning there is a preface written
by Síra Þorsteinn Pétursson of Staðarbakki, and at the end some texts
are inserted written in the same hand: Rígsþula, Bergbúa þáttr, a seriesof arguments, Sólarljóð, Hákonarmál, Vísa trémanns í Sámseyju from
Ragnars saga, stanzas by among others Egill Skallagrímsson, a seriesof heiti, Sonatorrek and Hƒfuðlausn. Finally there is a commentary onsome of the poems.
On ff. 13r–20v there is a list of contents with notes on some of thepoems. The order of the poems is the same as in the Codex Regius, but
after Hamðismál there follow Baldrs draumar, Heiðreks gátur, Hyndlu­
ljóð, Gróugaldur, Fjölsvinnsmál, Hrafnagaldur (no. xxxv), Grottasƒngr,Rígsþula, Sólarljóð, Hákonarmál, Hƒfuðlausn, Sonatorrek, Krákumál
and Bergbúa þáttr.
After Grottasƒngr Þorsteinn Pétursson has added: ‘N.B. Fleire flokka
f. Sæmundar Eddu hef eg hvorki heirt nie sied, Resenid [sic] telur þá alls
19, og eins vor margfródi Bp. D Finnur ecke fleire, og þvi mä þessi Bök
vera hin fullkomnasta sem fäst kann ä vorum daugum. Þ.P.S.’ There is no
information about the source of the manuscript or of individual poems in it.
Hrafnagaldur is written on pp. 538–546 (ff. 289v–293v), and placed
between Fjölsvinnsmál and Grottasƒngr. It is arranged in unnumbered
eight-line stanzas. This manuscript is unique, in that it blends stt. 21 and
25 together, so that st. 25/1–2 + 5–6 follow immediately after the first halfof st. 21. Then follows the second half of st. 21 and then st. 25/3–4 + 7–8.
This error could have arisen during copying.
There are the following distinctive readings in E:
st. 1: skiria E] skilia A, B, C, scilia D
st. 2: veita E] viltu A, C, D, villtu B
st. 3: dulur E] dulu A, B, C, dulo D.
st. 4: faulnum E] follnum A, follnum B, follnom C, folgnom D
st. 8: vargsvelg E34] vargsbelg A, vargsbelg B, vargs belg C, vargsbelgs D
34
Here in the margin at the bottom of the page is written in a different hand‘án efa vargsbelg’.

Introduction

69

st. 10: ranni E] rann A, B, C, rann D
st. 11: borda bruda E35] banda burþa A, B, C, bondo burþa D
st. 12: knattu E] knatti A, B, C, D
st. 13: mid natt E36] meþ natt A, B, C, D
st. 14: gylu E] glygiu A, glygio B, C, D
st. 15: Iorun E] Jormi A, B, C, D
st. 15: iotnum E] jolnum A, B, jolnum C, jol mun D
st. 19: skolug E] Sk√gul A, B, Sk√gull C, Scaugul D
st. 24: men E] mǫn A, B, C, maun D
st. 26: upprann E] upp nam A, B, C, D
Many of the distinctive readings are secondary and appear to be carelessmistakes that arose in copying. This applies to ‘skiria’, ‘dulur’, ­‘vargsvelg’,‘knattu’, ‘borda bruda’, ‘gylu’, ‘skolug’ and ‘upprann’. Others could be
an attempt to improve the text where a scribe did not fully under­standwords or names in his original. This applies to ‘veita’, ‘ranni’, ‘midnatt’, ‘Iorun’, ‘iotnum’ and ‘men’. Of these ‘veita’ and ‘iotnum’ give
unsatis­factory sense in the context. ‘faulnum’ in st. 4 is only a spellingvariant of ‘föllnum’; the verb fella is used in the preceding line, andthe poet ­appears to have had a predilection for using homonymous andsometimes cognate words of differing meanings close to each other. In
st. 10, ‘ranni’ could be a case of an alteration or correction, since at mostoften governs the dative (cf. commentary). By line 8 in st. 13, ‘med natthvor’, ‘mid’ is written in the margin. This could be a case of alteration,and ‘mid’ was perhaps not in the scribe’s original. Most lines in the poem
moreover have four syllables, but here (in the manuscripts) there are only
three. In st. 15 the other manuscripts have the unknown word (or name)‘Jormi’. E’s ‘Iorun’ may be a case of ­­­cor­rec­tion, but it is also possiblethat it was the original reading (confusion of minims). In st. 24 the jeweladorned chariot might have inspired the scribe to make the change to‘men’, since one can imagine that the horse might have had an ornamented
collar.
Since E does not reproduce any of the distinctive readings of A,
B, C or D, it cannot be derived from any of them, and seems to have
independent textual value. The large number of distinctive readings it
contains suggests that it was derived from the archetype via several
intervening copies.
Added above the line in E in parentheses above ‘banda burda’.
‘mid’ is added in lighter ink in the same hand in the margin where the texthas ‘med natt’.
35
36

70

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Relationship of the Principal Manuscripts
A has preserved a text with fewer errors than B, C, D and E, though in a
few cases these have superior readings. There are some erroneous spellings
that appear in all five, which might suggest that the archetype was at least
at one remove from the original, though they do not amount to much:st. 13: ‘atri’st. 14: ‘glygiu’st. 16: ‘nepa’
The original reading in st. 13 may have been ‘acri’ or ‘hatri’, since c and t can bealmost identical in gothic script. ‘glygiu’ obviously should be ‘glygvi’, and theerror must be due to confusion of minims. St. 16, ‘nepa’ for ‘nefa’ is no doubt
due to the misunderstanding of an insular f (cf. commentary). These errors
could all three be due to scribes independently misreading an unclear original.
B, C, D and E have no errors in common against A (except perhaps forst. 13, ‘hvǫr/hvorr/hver/hvor’ for ‘hvǫria’, see textual notes), but each of
the five has its own innovations that are not shared by any of the others,
and there is nothing to indicate that any of them is derived from any of theothers. In st. 7, B, C and D have ‘hardbaþins’/‘hardbaþnis’, while A has‘hardbadms’ and E has ‘harbadms’. In addition, C and D share the reading‘okkar’/‘occar’ in st. 1 against A, B and E, which have ‘orrkar’/‘orkar’.
In both of these cases, the errors could easily have been made by different
scribes independently of each other.
There appears to be only one shared reading between A and B against theother manuscripts: in st. 1, A has ‘þiá’, B has ‘þia’, C has ‘þrá’, D and E have‘þra’. The verbs þjá and þrá are virtual synonyms in this context, though
the first is usually transitive, the second intransitive. This is hardly enoughto suggest a common original for A and B different from that of C, D and E,
though the way the poem is arranged in stanzas in the different manuscripts
might support the idea. In A and B the stanzas are written out continuously
as prose, with divisions between stanzas marked by paragraph breaks, andthese two manuscripts both have the same mistake in stanza division in stt.
20–21, attaching the first half of st. 21 to st. 22, leaving the second half ofst. 22 as a short stanza. But the information is given in D, which is written
out in eight-line stanzas, that its original was not arranged in stanzas, andthis may also have been the case in the archetype of all five manuscripts andperhaps also in the original poem (as was also the case in the Codex Regius).
There is an example of a manuscript derived from B (21.6.7) in which thepoem is not divided into stanzas, and there are others where it is written
in eight-line stanzas, so it is clear that some scribes could arrange a poem
written out as prose in the manuscript they were copying into stanzas, while

Introduction

71

others could change a version divided into stanzas back to one with no stanzadivisions. In E, too, the poem is arranged in eight-line stanzas, and no error
in the stanza divisions corresponding to that in A and B is found in either
D or E, but on the other hand stt. 21 and 25 are merged together in E (seethe account of this manuscript on pp. 67–69 above). This error could havearisen when the copy in E was being made, though the possibility cannot
be excluded that the error was in its original, for it is hardly likely that the
scribe of E corrected the error in stt. 20 and 21 and immediately afterwards
introduced an error that must be due to carelessness in stt. 20 and 25. In A
the scribe discovered the mistake in stt. 20 and 21and wrote a long stroke
to indicate that the second half of st. 21 belonged with the previous stanza.
This error in the stanza division must have existed in the common originalof A and B; obviously it would have been easy enough for most scribes tohave spotted it. Thus there is no error in the division of C’s stanzas written
in paragraphs of four lines each. The error could therefore have been in thearchetype of all five manuscripts. There is no good reason to think that there
is any special relationship between A and B. The similarities between themare presumably due to the fact that they both originated in Skálholt.
Establishing the five manuscript groups therefore causes no problems.
A number of innovations or secondary readings are found in the individual
groups that are not found in any of the other ones. None of the principal
manuscripts reproduces the distinctive readings in any of the principal
manuscripts of the other groups. The following stemma may therefore
reflect the relationships of the manuscripts. X, the archetype, may havebeen identical with the ‘old and dirty leaf’ (pp. 12–13 above), on which
the writing may have been unclear; this may even have been the ­author’s
autograph. It was perhaps written in imitation of the ­orthography of theCodex Regius (cf. st. 16 ‘nepa’ for ‘nefa’). This might also explain ‘atri’for ‘acri’, the muddle over minims and other misreadings:
		X							 _______________________­­
__
				
		 A
B
C
D
E
There may have been further lost links, for instance between X and D
and between X and E, which both seem more remote from what musthave stood in X.

Manuscripts Derived from Printed Books
A few manuscripts are derived from printed editions. This applies to ÍBR 36
4to, which is a copy of Edda 1787–1828, I; JS 494 8vo, a copy of Rasmus
Rask’s edition (1818); ÍBR 24 8vo, a copy of Hallgrímur Scheving’s edition(1837); and finally Lbs 2859 4to, a copy of Bugge’s edition (1867).

72

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

ÍBR 36 4to (36)This manuscript, which was written in 1829, consists of 208 leaves. It isbound in leather, on which a design is embossed. On the flyleaf is written
the title ‘QVIDUR | fornar úr svokalladri | SÆMUNDAR | EDDU | Safn
Sæmundar á ad enda á | Solar-Liódum | Koma þó fleiri fornqvidur inn
sem eg veit ei hvört hans | Safni tilheira, enn set á Spátziunni þær eg veit.
| Ritadar anno MDCCCXXIX’. After this there is a line written in runes,
stating that the scribe was Einar frá Starrastöðum. This is Einar Bjarna­son(1782–1856), who wrote a number of manuscripts. As the title implies,
the manuscript contains eddic poems and later poems in eddic style.
On f. 2r–2v There is a list of contents. They are: Vƒluspá, Hávamál,Vafþrúðnismál, Baldrs draumar, Þrymskviða, Hárbarðsljóð, ­Skírnismál,
Hrafnagaldur, Hymiskviða, Lokasenna, Rígsþula, Grottasƒngr, ­Gróu­galdur,
Grímnismál, Alvíssmál, Fjölsvinnsmál, Heiðreks gátur, Helgakviða
­Hjƒrvarðssonar, Helgakviða Hundingsbana I, Helgakviða Hundingsbana
II, Frá dauða Sinfjƒtla, Grípisspá, Reginsmál, Fáfnismál, ­Sigrdrífumál,Guðrúnarkviða I, Sigurðarkviða in skamma, Helreið Brynhildar, Dráp
Niflunga, Guðrúnarkviða II, Oddrúnargrátr, Gunnars­slagur, Atlakviða,Atlamál in grœnlenzku, Hamðismál, stanzas from Guðrúnarhvƒt, Vƒlundar­­kviða, Bjarkamál, Hyndluljóð, Krákumál, Ynglingatal, Hƒfuðlausn,
Hákonarmál, Sólarljóð. After these is added an introduction to Sæmundar
Edda by Finnur Magnússon, then Hugsvinnsmál, Merlínusspá, Háttalykill
Lopts ins ríka, Nora eðr Njörva jötuns kviða, Inntak vísnanna úr Grettis
sögu and Hellisvísur from Bergbúa þáttr with comments and ‘nokkur orðí Huldar sögu’.
The manuscript is written in four hands. The Háttalykill was written by
Einar Bjarnarson. Then follows, in the same hand as wrote all the preceding
poems, Nora eðr Njörva jötuns kviða, and finally, in the same gathering
as Nora eðr Njörva jötuns kviða, a selection of verses from Grettis saga
made by Jón Ólafsson, to which are added notes to some of the poems in
the hand of Guðmundur Einarsson, sheriff’s secretary, and some comments
to stanzas of Hellisvísur in a further unknown hand.
Hrafnagaldur is written on pp. 67–72 (ff. 35r–37v). It is arranged inunnumbered eight-line stanzas. The text is set out as in a scholarly edition:
variant apparatus is added at the foot of the page, where both variant
readings and possible emendations are given. The text has some readingsthat appear in printed editions, for example ‘illa’ in st. 2, and among thepossible emendations are some that are mentioned in Edda 1787–1828, I.
In st. 2 there is the reading ‘Oðhr∂ris scyldi | urdr geima’, where themanuscripts have ‘Óðhrærir’ in the nominative and ‘Urðar’ in the genitive.

Introduction

73

Other examples confirm that 36 is a copy of the Arnamagnæan edition, since
it includes emendations and readings that are only found there, for example‘v∂rri’ in st. 7, ‘at ranni’ in st. 10 (though see E), ‘Eins oc kémr’ and ‘af ato’in st. 13. On a later occasion the scribe has, however, added emendations
from Scheving’s edition (1837): to ‘hinnaleitar’ in st. 3, is added ‘hennar
leita’, and in st. 13, to ‘ato’ is added ‘akri’; both these are taken from there.
This manuscript previously bore the numbers ÍBR A. 57, ÍBR A. 68,
ÍBR A. 58.
JS 494 8vo (494)This manuscript consists of 189 leaves, with which four additional leaves
have been bound in at the front containing a title page and a list of contents.
It was written at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It is the twenty-fifth
volume of a collection of poems comprising fifty volumes in all (JS 470–519
8vo). It is bound in paper and cloth. On the first leaf is written: ‘Þessa bók
gaf mér Páll stúdent Pálsson í Reykjavík í September mánuði 1862. JónÁrnason.’ On the second: ‘Kvæda-safn. | XXV. | innihald. | Fyrst: nokkrar
pápiskar bænir. | sídan: Mariu- og önnur andlig | forn-kvædi, eddu-kvædi.
| o.fl. | og aptast: Lesrím Ó. Hjaltalins | ágríp af Postula-æfum | Teikn til
vedráttufars | etc. | Frá Registríu: | Allt med hendi Jóns Jónssonar, um tímafyrir svars bónda á Øndverdarnesi i Snæfellsnes s., sidan á Arnarstapa,
hvar hann dó i Stapabol, árid 1828.’ The reference is presumably to the
ríma-poet Jón Jónsson ‘langur’ (1779–1828), who lived in various places
in Iceland (see Íslenzkar Æviskrár 1948–1976, III 196; Rímnatal 1966,
II 89). On f. 3 there is an alphabetical list of the first words of the poems(‘eptir byriun kvædanna’), and on f. 4 an alphabetical list of their titles. The
first part of the manuscript contains pre-Reformation prayers and religious
poems. The second part has various eddic poems: Hugsvinnsmál, Hávamál,Vƒluspá, Vafþrúðnismál, Gróugaldur, Sólarljóð, Gunnarsslagur, Lokasenna,
Hrafnagaldur, Frá dauða Sinfjƒtla (in prose), Þrymskviða, Baldrs draumar,Vƒlundarkviða. The third part contains calendar calculations, and has on f.
132v the title ‘Nýtt | Les-ríím | sem kienner ad útreikna | Arsins adskilianlegarTídir | samt. | Túngl komur | og annad hier ad lútandi, | samann skrifad af
O. Hialtalin, | Distrikts kírurgus og konstit: | Landphysikus. | Beitistödum
1817. | Prentad á kostnad Rithöfunds | ens | af G. Scagfiörd.’ That is, thethird part was copied from a printed book that was published at Beitistaðir
in 1817. At the end of the manuscript two leaves from another manuscriptwith magical runes have been inserted.
Hrafnagaldur is in the second part of the manuscript on ff. 116v–118v(pp. 232–236) after Lokasenna and before Frá dauða Sinfjƒtla and74

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Hymiskviða. The stanzas are numbered, but the line breaks within thestanzas are random. The title is written in red.
The text in 494 follows emendations in Rask’s edition (st. 3, ‘hugenn’,st. 20, ‘huma’), that are otherwise not found in manuscripts. This applies
also to ‘illa’ in st. 2, which also appears in the Arnamagnæan edition. It
is probably a direct or indirect copy of Rask’s edition. That it cannot bea copy of Scheving’s edition is shown by the reading ‘huma’ in st. 20,
where Scheving has ‘hymia’ or ‘himia’.
ÍBR 24 8vo (24)This manuscript, which consists of 78 leaves + 1 flyleaf, was written c. 1840.
It is bound in leather, on which a design is embossed. It contains poems in
eddic metres and bears the title ‘Lioða Eðða | eðr | EDDA RHYTMICA |S∂mundar Sigfussonar | hinns froda | j Odda. ritud ar 1122.’
According to information written in a different hand on the flyleaf, it
was written by the farmer Jón Níelsson of Grænanes (died 1842). It wasgiven, together with ÍBR 25 and 26 8vo, to Landsbókasafn Íslands by SíraGuðmundur Gísli Sigurðsson, who had got it from the scribe’s son, Jóhann.
On f. 78v after the final poem is written: ‘Endir Drápunar hvöria þiodolfr
orti umm Rögnvald heidum hærra. ok prentut er i Heimskringla. Stadfestirritarinn’. Underneath is added the name ‘G. G. Sigurdsson Níelsson’, andunder that ‘Edda, Jóhann Jónsson á bokína og féck hana i sínn födur Arf
1848’. On the title page is written ‘G. G. Sigurðsson’ and in the top righthand corner the initials ‘G. G. S.’
On the verso of the flyleaf there is a list of contents: ‘Innihald Eddu­þessarar’. The poems are Hrafnagaldur, Vƒluspá, Vafþrúðnismál, Grímnis­mál, Skírnismál, Hávamál, Hárbarðsljóð, Hymiskviða, Lokasenna,Þrymskviða, Alvíssmál, Vƒlundarkviða, Helgakviða Hundingsbana I,
Helgakviða Hjƒrvarðssonar, Helgakviða Hundingsbana II, Sólarljóð,Guðrúnarkviða I, Sigrdrífumál, Rúnadeilur, Gunnarsslagur, Brísingamen,
Hugsvinnsmál and parts of Sigrdrífumál. At the end are written ‘Viðbætir
Eddu’, among other things genealogies, Fundinn Noregr and Ynglinga drápa.
Hrafnagaldur is arranged in numbered eight-line stanzas on ff. 2r–3v.
After it is written in a different hand: ‘Nyjari fornfræðingar (P. A. Munck)
telja kvæði þetta miklu yngra enn Völuspá, og þykir það ærið torskilið.
Dr. Schéving hefur gefið það út í Viðey 1832 [sic]’.
Hrafnagaldur in 24 has readings and emendations that were introduced
into the printed editions of the poem. Some of these are only found in
Scheving’s edition (1837), so Hrafnagaldur in this manuscript must be a
copy of that. There are examples in st. 3, ‘hennar leita’, ‘er dvelr’, ‘þótta

Introduction

75þráins’, ‘draumr þótta’, st. 11, ‘vörþr’, st. 21, ‘oc lítil fræga’ and st. 24,‘járna steinum’.
This manuscript previously bore the number ÍBR B. 1.
Lbs 2859 4to (2859)
This manuscript, which was written by Jón A. Hjaltalín in 1870, has 201
leaves. It is a large volume in quarto format, finely bound in red leather withgilt tooling on both binding and paper. On f. 1r stands the title ‘Sæmundar
Edda | Part second | with | an English Translation and Notes | by | Jón A.
Hjaltalín. | London 1870.’ The spine bears the similar title ‘Saemundar
Edda | Part II. | With Translation | Jón A. Hjaltalín’.
According to the catalogue the manuscript came to Landsbókasafn
Íslands in 1944 from Dr Grace Thornton, who had studied Icelandic andin the 1940s was head of the Scandinavian department at the Ministry ofInformation in London and for a time was employed as press attaché andinformation officer with the British Embassy in Denmark.
2859 is the second part of a collection of eddic poems and poems in eddic
style. It contains first the heroic poems in the usual order. After Hamðismál
follow Grottasƒngr, Gróugaldur, Fjölsvinnsmál, Sólarljóð and last of all
Hrafnagaldur (as poem no. 25, on ff. 197r–201v).
Each poem is accompanied by extensive notes at the bottom of each page.
Hrafnagaldur is introduced by the following words, which are reminiscentof Bugge’s verdict on the poem in 1867, just a few years before Hjaltalínwrote this manuscript:
There is no doubt that this song is nothing but an imitation of the genuine
Edda-songs, composed by a poet living probably in the sixteenth or theseventeenth, century. Unlike the genuine Edda-songs it was not handed down
through oral tradition from one generation to another, but was committed towriting as soon as it issued from the brain of the author . . . Therefore I endorse
without the least hesitation the suggestion of Bugge that this poem ought tobe excluded from the Edda.

2859 is the latest known manuscript to contain Hrafnagaldur. After
originally having taken a distinguished place among the earliest andtherefore the most important poems, Hrafnagaldur has now, thanks to
Hjaltalín’s introduction and its physical placing at the end of the manuscript,
been degraded. As a literary and learned product, it is now regarded as a­spurious eddic poem.
Hrafnagaldur in 2859 has several readings derived from the printed
editions, for example, st. 2, ‘máttk at’, st. 7, ‘hárbaðms’, st. 20, ‘húma’,and st. 23, ‘fóðrlarðr’, so it must be taken from one of these. Some of its
readings are only found in Bugge’s edition, so that must be its source. As

76

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

examples can be mentioned st. 21, ‘oflítilfræga’ and st. 26, ‘upp nam ár
Gjöll’. In 2859 Hjaltalín also uses the titles Svipdagsmál I and Svipdagsmál
II, which were introduced by Bugge, for the poems that in most manuscripts
are called Gróugaldur and Fjölsvinnsmál.
Other Manuscripts
KB Add 14 4to (14)This manuscript contains Latin translations of Hrafnagaldur and ­Hávamálwith a commentary in Latin to Hávamál. In addition it has word lists tovarious eddic poems. It consists of twelve leaves written in the second
half of the eighteenth century by Jón Eiríksson, chief librarian in Det
konge­lige Bibliotek, Copenhagen, who also wrote 47. It is bound, andf. 12 is blank.
The translation of Hrafnagaldur is on ff. 1r–2r. It is derived from thetranslation begun by Helgi Ólafsson, but some changes have been madecompared with the translations in both 34 and 1870 (in st. 1), while it sharessome of the changes in 1870 compared with 34 (in stt. 24 and 25). It is therefore
likely that the translation in 14 is a copy of that in 1870 with somechanges. It is not the same as Guðmundur Magnússon’s translation in
Edda 1787–1828, I.
AM 424 fol. (424)This contains Gunnar Pálsson’s autograph commentary to Hárbarðsljóð,Hymiskviða, Lokasenna, Baldrs draumar and Hrafnagaldur and to verses
in Gunnlaugs saga. It is a paper manuscript with 100 leaves from theeighteenth century which earlier bore the catalogue number Addit. 25, fol.
in the University Library, Copenhagen. The commentaries, which Gunnar
sent to Copenhagen in 1779, had been requested by the Arnamagnæan
Commission, which considered help from Iceland for the interpretationof the eddic poems a necessity. Gunnar enjoyed high regard as one of thebest interpreters of the Edda (see Finnur Jónsson 1930, 229–231).
Gunnar’s commentary on Hrafnagaldur, which is on ff. 48r–53v, wasused by Guðmundur Magnússon in Edda 1787–1828, I. The manuscript
was also used and described in Íslendinga sögur 1843–1847, II xxx.
Lost Manuscripts
Already by 1650 there existed several copies of the eddic poems, andin the course of the second half of the seventeenth century and theeighteenth century numerous collections of eddic poetry were turnedout. Demand for these manuscripts was very high, as the above accountof the manuscripts shows. Árni Magnússon possessed a number ofIntroduction

77

manuscripts of eddic poems; no fewer than fifteen collections he owned
were destroyed in the fire in 1728 (see Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, lxii). In
his letter to Jón Halldórsson (discussed on pp. 11–12 above), Árni saysthat he had owned two manuscripts written by Þorsteinn Eyjólfsson that
had both contained eddic poems, and among these Hrafnagaldur. These
were both destroyed in 1728.
It is known that Árni Magnússon had possessed at least one other text of
Hrafnagaldur. The poem was in AM 582 4to when he acquired it in Icelandin 1710. That manuscript now contains riddarasögur and fornaldarsögur,but according to a note on the flyleaf, Árni removed two texts from it:‘Hier var og i Hrafnagalldur Qdins og Dissertatiuncula de origine vocisværingiar, sem eg tok hier fr§’. The note is not in Árni’s hand, it was written
by an amanuensis at his dictation. This text of Hrafnagaldur is apparently
lost (see Jensen 1983, lxxxviii).
A number of texts of Hrafnagaldur that are mentioned in the existing
manuscripts seem to have perished. Magnús Jónsson of Vigur inÍsafjarðardjúp wrote one that cannot be identified among the surviving
manuscripts, though a copy survives of it in 21.6.7 made by Jón Egilsson,
farmer at Stóra-Vatnshorn. In the surviving manuscripts containing
Hrafnagaldur we also read that Bjarni Halldórsson and Eyjólfur Jónsson
possessed manuscripts containing collections of eddic poems, but Eyjólfur
Jónsson’s at any rate did not include Hrafnagaldur. In 1109, Jón Ólafsson,
vice lawman at Eyri in Seyðisfjörður, states that this manuscript had been
copied from a manuscript collated with several paper manuscripts and an‘ypperlig’ codex that Eyjólfur Jónsson, priest at Vellir in Svarfaðardalur,
had written. 1109 is derived from a manuscript belonging to Jón Egilsson,
once vice-principal at Hólar and later priest at Laufás. Neither Eyjólfur’snor Jón’s manuscript seems to have survived.
Halldór Hjálmarsson states in a note about the source of 1588 a I that
it was a copy of a manuscript written by Po. H. S. This may refer to Páll
Hjálmarsson, who was Halldór’s brother (see Verri 2007, 28).
Páll Sveinsson states in D that he has copied Hrafnagaldur (and fourother poems) from a manuscript, written by a beginner. According to Páll,
that text was written out continuously as prose. None of the surviving
manuscripts answers to this description, so we may assume that themanuscript is lost.
Gunnar Pálsson, who wrote a commentary to Hrafnagaldur, also owneda manuscript of the poem, in which Páll Vídalín had written by the title:‘þad er Forspiallsliód’. None of the known manuscripts of Hrafnagaldur
contains such a remark, so this manuscript too is probably lost.

78

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Finally, in the Arnamagnæan edition a manuscript belonging to Geir
Vídalín was used that cannot be identified with any surviving manuscript,
since in Guðmundur Magnússon’s variant apparatus readings are quoted
from it (marked ‘G.’) that cannot be found in any existing manuscript. So
they cannot even be used to determine the position of Geir’s manuscript in
the stemma. It has as far as possible been attempted to fit the lost manuscripts
into the stemma of the B group, but it has not always been feasible.
Significance of the Manuscript Transmission for the Reception of Eddic Poems

The many manuscripts containing collections of eddic poems are testimony
to the antiquarian interest in the eddic poems in Iceland, Denmark andSweden. This antiquarian activity, which took place primarily in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries, is to a large extent not appreciatedtoday. From the time that eddic poems first came to be known about, in
1643, learned Icelanders began to produce manuscripts that either remainin Iceland today or were presented or sold to philologists and historians
in Denmark and Sweden. Rather later in the seventeenth century, interestin the eddic poems began to spread outside Scandinavia. In 1772 theBritish botanist Sir Joseph Banks (1743–1820) travelled to Iceland tocollect plants, but he also bought manuscripts, among others one of thesemanuscripts of eddic poems, which ended up in the British Library. In
the nineteenth century Finnur Magnússon sold a number of manuscripts(amongst others, some of the Edda) to libraries in Great Britain, and at
least one reached Germany in this period.
The physical appearance of the manuscripts bears witness to the variety
of social contexts in which they were found and the prestige that in somecases was accorded to them. While in Denmark some sumptuous folios,
bound and ornamented with gold, are preserved, that have belonged tosome of the country’s most notable men, among others B. W. Luxdorph(1716–1788), P. F. Suhm (1728–1798) and Count Otto Thott (1703–1785).
On the other hand, most of the manuscripts that are preserved in Iceland are
in quarto, and as a result of heavy use, wear and tear and poor preservation,
are in a sorry state, unbound and fragmentary. The sumptuous folios showhow highly regarded the eddic poems were among those with antiquarian
interests in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Every antiquarian in
the eighteenth century would probably have wished to have a volume ofthis kind standing among his books. In the production of manuscripts for
Danish antiquarian’s collections, paper was not spared. It is significant
that today not a single one of these prestigious folios from the eighteenth
century is preserved in Iceland. This indicates that the interest in Sæmund’sIntroduction

79

Edda in Iceland was among less wealthy circles than in Denmark andSweden, among priests, poets and scholars, while in other countries
scholars and antiquarians were more often influential and wealthy men.
Count Otto Thott, P. F. Suhm and B. W. Luxdorph all owned collectionsof eddic poems in copies that had been made in Iceland. Icelandic scholars
like Páll Vídalín and Gunnar Pálsson were also interested in the eddic
poems and possessed copies of the so-called Sæmundar eddur. From
notes in some manuscripts of Hrafnagaldur we also see that Eyjólfur
Jónsson, priest at Vellir, and Jón Egilsson, vice-principal of the school at
Hólar, possessed manuscripts containing eddic poems. Árni Magnússon’s
mention in his letter (see p. 12) of the copying activity in Skálholt in thetime of Brynjólfur Sveinsson and Ólafur Jónsson is a testimony to theinterest in the Edda early on. Notes in manuscripts reveal how people wereapparently continually hunting for the best collections of eddic poems in
Iceland. Thus Bishop Hersleb (1689–1757) in a longish note in NKS 1866
4to, stresses that no more than two or three copies of the same collectionof eddic poems could be found in the whole of Iceland. Árni Magnússon,
too, was interested in the eddic poems. It was thought in the seventeenth
century that the collection of these poems had been made by Sæmundrfróði Sigfússon,37 and according to a folktale he was supposed to havecomposed Sólarljóð himself (see note 9 above), though Árni Magnússon
argued convincingly against the idea that he could have been the author.
Árni’s interest in the eddic poems must have been motivated by among
other things his research into Sæmundr fróði, which first appeared in print
after his death in Edda 1787–1828, I. At the time of the fire in Copenhagenin 1728 he possessed — and lost — fifteen manuscripts that contained
eddic poems (see Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, lxii), among them at least one
that contained Hrafnagaldur.
It was for political reasons more difficult for Swedish scholars to gethold of collections of eddic poems, which is probably why there wasmore copying activity taking place in Sweden than in Denmark. In 1685
it was at the suggestion of Thomas Bartholin the Younger forbidden tosell manuscripts from Iceland to Swedes. The first manuscript containing
Hrafnagaldur to reach Sweden (A) was brought there by GuðmundurÓlafsson in 1681 and sold to Antikvitetskollegiet, and this was copied
several times. Copies were also made of these copies, but no copies
derived from any other manuscript containing Hrafnagaldur than A haveever been found in Sweden. One of the manuscripts derived from A, NKS
37
The earliest mention of Sæmundr fróði as a collector of eddic poems is in Jónlærði Guðmundsson’s Grænlandsannáll from 1623 (Einar G. Pétursson 1998, 415).

80

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

1870 4to (1870), reached Copenhagen, and is, as far as is known, the only
one outside Sweden. All the manuscripts in the A group, therefore, werelinked to the circle of antiquarians in Sweden, where, with just the one
exception, they have always remained.
The manuscripts that were written in Iceland and sent from there to
Denmark and other places are a much more varied lot than the manuscripts
in Sweden. The relationship of the manuscripts in the B group to B ismuch more complicated than the relationship of the A group manuscripts
to A. Some B group manuscripts contain readings from more than one
manuscript in the same group, sometimes corrections have been made,and there is a number of manuscripts that have perished. The Icelandictransmission of Hrafnagaldur is both more prolific and more chaotic.
The manuscripts show how the reception of Hrafnagaldur changed
with time. Scribes and those who commissioned their work obviously
strove to create ever more ‘complete’ collections of eddic poems, which
would not only include the poems in the Codex Regius, but also ­poems
like for example Sólarljóð, Hyndluljóð, Baldrs draumar, Heiðreks
­gátur and Hrafnagaldur. The attitude in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries seems to have been that a good collection should include
all known poems in eddic metres whether or not they had been preservedin the Codex Regius. In the earliest copies made in this period Hrafna­
galdur has a prominent position near the beginning of the collection,
between Sólarljóð and Vƒluspá. Sólarljóð normally came first, as said
above, probably because it was believed at the time that Sæmundr fróði
had composed it. Hrafnagaldur was probably placed next because­originally it was thought to provide a kind of introductory poem tothe eddic poems as a whole, and a prelude to Ragnarǫk, which was
described in the next poem, Vƒluspá. In the course of time Hrafnagaldur was
moved towards the end of manuscripts, as in the manuscripts in Copenhagen,38
where it stands alongside other poems that were not in the Codex Regius.
After the appearance of the Arnamagnæan edition in 1787, copyingof compilations of eddic poems continued, but now to a lesser extent. In
Iceland in the nineteenth century, we see a new kind of scribal activity or
38
Bugge, in his edition of the eddic poems, supported Gunnar Pálsson’s theory
that Hrafnagaldur had been composed as an introduction to Baldrs draumar,
into which several stanzas had been interpolated (Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, 140).
Einar G. Pétursson in a recent article has pointed out (2007, 150) ‘If Bugge’s
guess were correct, we would expect the two poems to appear side by side inmanuscripts’. Hrafnagaldur is not written in front of Baldrs draumar in theearliest manuscripts.

Introduction

81

a different attitude to compilation, in that there come to be examples ofanthologies of a more varied content than had appeared before. We alsofind copies of the Arnamagnæan edition, and also of Rask’s and Scheving’s
editions, and the latest manuscript is a copy of Bugge’s edition with an
English translation. Here Hrafnagaldur is regarded as an inauthentic eddic
poem, with a reference to Bugge’s arguments that it ought in future to beomitted from collections of eddic poems.
TREATMENT OF THE TEXT
The transcription of the text retains the spelling of the manuscript, but
capitals are used only (and always) in proper names and at the beginningof sentences. The punctuation is editorial, designed to facilitate theunderstanding of the poem. Abbreviations are expanded and indicated by
the use of italics. The expansions are spelt in accordance with the majority
spellings of the same sounds when written out in full. Thus the sign  istranscribed as -ur, since the svarabhakti vowel is written in 90% of thecases where the ending is written out in full, and the sign ‫ ד‬is transcribed-ir, since that is the spelling in 92% of the cases where this ending is written
out in full. Superscript letters are treated as abbreviations.
Emendations are marked by an asterisk. Illegible letters or words aresupplied in pointed brackets < >.
Variant readings are quoted from B, C, D and E. On one occasion areading is quoted from 11, although it is derived from A, because it has areading that seems to be an intentional correction by the scribe. Variants
are transcribed according to the same principles as the text.
Each stanza is followed by textual notes (if any), the text printed innormalised (modern) spelling and prose word order, and a translation.

8r

Hrafna Gal|dur Oþins For|spialls Liod

1.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

		

Alfoþr orrkar,
alfar skilia,
Vanir vitu,
visa nornir,
elur Iviþia,aldir bera,þreya þussar,
þia valkyriur.

Title: Hrafna] Rafna, C 1: orrkar] okkar, C; occar, D 2: skilia] skiria, E 3: vitu]
vita, D 4: nornir] normr, B 5: Iviþia] i viþia, B 7: þussar] þursar C, D; þursar,
B 8: þia] þrá, C. þra, D, EAlföður orkar, álfar skilja, Vanir vitu, vísa nornir, elur Íviðja, aldir bera,þreyja þursar, þjá valkyrjur.
All-father exerts power, elves understand, Vanir know, norns show, Íviðja
(a trollwife) strives, humans bear, giants endure, valkyries are distressed.

2.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
		

Ætlun Æsiralla g§tu,
verpir viltu
v∂ttar rúnum.
Oðhrærer skylde
Urdar gejma,
mattkat veria
mest-um þorra.

1: Ætlun] Ættom, D Æsir] Esir, C 2: alla] emended to illa in Edda 1787–1828
4: v∂ttar] veita, E 7: mattkat] mattikat, E veria] voria, D 8: mest-um]
mestum, C; mest umm, B; mest um EÆsir gátu alla ætlun, verpir villtu vættar rúnum. Óðhrærir skyldi Urðar
geyma, máttkat verja mestum þorra.
[But] the Æsir divined the whole plan, the unpredictable ones caused
muddle with the god’s runes (or secrets). Óðhrærir had to look after Urður
(fate), he could not protect [her] from the greater part [of the plan].

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

3.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

8v

83

Hverfur þvi hugur,			hinna leytar,				
grunar guma				grand, ef dvelur;			þotti er *Þrains			þunga dr√mur,				
Daens dulu				dr√mur þotti. 			

1: þvi] þur, B 3: grunar] griviar, DÞraens E 7: dulu] dulur, E

5: *Þrains] So B; Þranis A, D; Þr§nis C;

Hverfur því hugur, leitar hinna, guma grunar grand, ef [hann] dvelur;Þráins þótti er þungadraumur, þótti Dáins duludraumur.
Therefore his courage fails, he looks for the others, the people (dwarves?)
suspect harm if he delays; Þráinn’s thought is [filled with] a weighty dream,
Dáinn’s thought [with] a deceitful dream.

		
4.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

Dugir meþ dvergum.
Dvina heimar,niþur at Ginnungsniþi s√kva;
opt Alsviþur
ofann fellir,
opt of follnum
aptur safnar.

4: niþi] niþir, B, D; nidir, E

7: follnum] folgnom, D; faulnum, E

Dugir með dvergum. Heimar dvína, sökkva niður að Ginnungs niði; oft
Alsviður fellir ofan, [og hann] oft aftur föllnum of safnar.
That’s enough of the dwarves. Worlds dwindle away, they sink down to
the darkness of Ginnungur. Alsviður (Óðinn?) often fells from above andoften gathers up the fallen again.

84

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

5.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

Stendur ∂vastrind ne r√þull,lopte meþ l∂vi
linnir ei str√mi;m∂rum dylst i
Mimis brunne
vissa vera;vitiþ enn eþa hvaþ?

		Strind né röðull æva stendur, lofti með lævi linnir ei straumi; vissa vera
dylst í mærum brunni Mímis; vitið enn eða hvað?
Neither earth nor sun stand for ever, air with its poison does not cease [toflow] in a stream; the wise being hides itself in Mímir’s renowned spring;
do you understand yet, or what?

		
6.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

Dvelur i dolum
dys forvitinn,
Yggdrasils fra
aski hniginn,
alfa ∂ttar.
Iþune hetu
Ivaldz ellri
yngsta barna.

6: Iþune] i dune, B; Idune, C; Iduni, E

7: Ivaldz] Ivars, D

Forvitin dís, álfa ættar, hnigin frá aski Yggdrasils, dvelur í dölum; eldribarna Ivalds hétu yngsta Iðunni.
The enquiring goddess, descended from dwarves, sunk down from the ash
Yggdrasill, stays in the valleys. The elder ones of the children of Ívaldur
called the youngest Iðunn.

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

		
7.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

85

Eyrde illa
ofann komu,
hardbaþms undir
haldin meiþi;kunne sist at
kundar Nƒrva,vƒn at v∂ri
vistum heima.

3: hardbaþms] hardbaþins, B; hardbaþnis, C; harþbaþnis, D; harbadms, E undir]miðir, B 4: haldin] halldinn, E 5: kunne] kunnu, E 8: vistum] vistar, C

Haldin undir meiði harðbaðms, eirði [hún] illa ofankomu; vön að værri
vistum heima, kunni [hún] síst að kundar Nörva (= Nótt).
Held beneath the hard tree’s branch, she was unhappy with her coming
down; accustomed to pleasanter lodging at home, she was least of allpleased at Nörvi’s son’s (night’s) dwelling.

8.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
		

Sia sigtivar
syrgia n√nnu
viggiar at veom;
vargsbelg seldu,
let if∂raz,
lyndi breytti,
lek at l∂visi,
litum skipte.

2: syrgia] syrga, C; n√nnu] naumu, B; naumo, D; naunno, C
vargsbelgs, D; vargsvelg, E

4: vargsbelg]

Sigtívar sjá nönnu syrgja að véum viggjar (= Yggdrasill); [þeir] seldu[henni] vargsbelg, [hún] lét í færast, breytti lyndi, lék að lævísi, skipti litum.
The victory-gods (or battle-gods) see the lady grieve by the horse’s
dwelling/sanctuary (= Yggdrasill); they gave her a wolf’s hide, she letherself be clothed in it, changed her nature, played with mischief, changed
her shape.

86

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

		
9.
			
			
			
			
9r
		
			
			

Valde Viþrir
v√rd Bifrastar
Giallar sunnu
g§tt at fretta,
heims hvivetnahvƒrt er vissi;
Bragi ok Lopturb§ru kviþu.

3: sunnu] sumni, B

5: heims] heim, D

6: hvƒrt] hvert, C, D; hvort, EViðrir valdi vörð Bifrastar að frétta gátt sunnu Gjallar hvort er vissi
hvívetna heims; Bragi og Loftur báru kvíðu.
Viðrir (Óðinn) chose Bifröst’s guardian (Heimdallur) to ask the doorpostof the sun of Gjöll (= woman) whether she knew anything at all about theworld; Bragi and Loftur (Loki) were filled with apprehension.

		
10.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

Galdur golu,
g√ndum riþuRognir ok reiginn
at rann heimis;
hlustar Oþinn
Hlidskialfi i,
let br√t vera
langa vegu.

3: reiginn] reginn, B; regin, C, E 4: rann] ranni, E heimis] hemis, C 5: Oþinn]Oþin, C; Oden, E 6: Hlidskialfi] hliþsciálfi, D, hlidskialfo, E

Rögnir og regin gólu galdur, riðu göndum að rann heimis; Óðinn hlustar
í Hliðskjálfi, lét braut vera langa vegu.
Rögnir (Óðinn) and the gods chanted spells, rode on magic poles to thedwelling place (or roof) of the world; Óðinn listens in Hliðskjálf, he said
the route was a long journey.

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

		
11.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

87

Frá enn vitri
veiga selio
banda burþa
ok br√ta sinna,
Hlyrnis, Heliar,
heimz, ef vissi
artid, ∂fi,aldurtila.

3: banda] bondo, D, borda, E (added above the line in brackets)
E (in brackets above the line)burþa] bruda,

Hinn vitri frá selju veiga burða banda og brauta sinna, ef [hún] vissi ártíð,ævi, aldurtila Hlýrnis, Heljar, heims.
The wise one asked the server of drinks (woman) about the gods’ ancestry/
offspring and their own paths, if she knew heaven’s, Hel’s, the world’s
date of death, life, end.

		
12.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
1: Ne mun] Nemun, C
feldm, B, C; falden, E

Ne mun m∂lti,
ne m§l knatti
givom greiþa,ne gl√m hialde;
tar af tindustt√rgum hiarnar,
eliun feldin
endur rioþa.
2: knatti] knattu, E

6: t√rgum] torgum, E

7: feldin]

Ne mælti [hún] mun, ne knátti greiða gífum mál, ne hjaldi glaum; tár
tíndust af törgum hjarnar, endurrjóða eljunfeldinn.
She spoke not her mind, she did not grant the greedy(?) ones words, she
did not chat about merrymaking; tears dripped from her skull-shields(eyes), they make the energy-cloaks (eyelids) red again.

88

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

		
13.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

Eins kiemur √stannur Elivagumþorn af *acriþurs hrimkalda
hveim drepur drött-e<r>
Daen allarm∂ran of Miþgard
meþ natt hvƒria.

3: þorn] þarn, D *acri] atri, A, B, C, D; atre, E 5: drepur] dr∂pr, C drött-er]
The final r appears to have been written as an alteration over another letter in A;
drott er, C; drottir, D; drotter, B, E 7: m∂ran] mƒran, D of Miþgard] ofƒnþgarð,B 8: meþ] mid, E (in the margin) hvƒria] hvƒr, B; hvorr, C; hver, D; hvor, E. In
A there seems to be an anomalous abbreviation mark to indicate the ending, which wasperhaps in the archetype but omitted by the scribes of the other manuscripts because
they could not interpret it

Eins kemur austan úr Élivogum þorn af akri þurs hrímkalda, með hveim
Dáinn drepur dróttir allar nótt hverja of mæran Miðgarð.
In the same way there comes from the east out of Élivogar a thorn fromthe rime-cold giant’s cornfield with which Dáinn pricks all people every
night over all Miðgarður.

14.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

			

Dofna þa d§þir,detta hendur,
svifur of svimisverþ Ass hvita,
rennir ƒrvit
rygar *glygvi,
sefa sveiflum
sokn giƒrvallri.

5: ƒrvit] ƒr viþ, D 6: rygar] So A, B, C, E; rigar, D; rygiar, 11. As 11 is derived
from A, this is presumably a correction made by the scribe of 11 *glygvi] glygiu,
A; glygio, B, C, D; gylu, E. The error in ABCD is presumably due to the misreadingof the three minims in -vi as iu (= ju) 7: sefa] sefi, DÞá dofna dáðir, hendur detta, svimi svífur of sverð Áss hvíta; örvit rennir
glyggvi rýgjar, [þau] sefa sveiflum sókn gjörvallri.
Then deeds become sluggish, hands fall idle, stupor hovers over the white
god’s sword (over the head); insensibility flows into the trollwife’s wind
(into the mind), these things calm in waves the whole parish.

Hrafnagaldur Óðins
		
15.
			
9v
		
			
			
			
			
			

89

Jamt þotti *Iorun
jolnum kominn
sollinn sutum,svars er ei g§tu;*soktu þvi meir
ad *syn *var fyrir,
mun þo miþur
m∂lgi dygþi.

1: *Iorun] so E; Jormi, A, B, C, D 2: jolnum] jol mun, D; iotnum, E 5: *soktu]
So B, E; sokte, A; sokto, C, D meir] m∂ir, C 6: *syn *var] þeckia A (addedin the margin) ad *syn *var fyrir] at syn var fyrir, B; at syn var fyrer, C; at syn
var fyrir, D; ad syn var fyrir, E

Jafnt þótti jólnum Jórunn komin, sútum sollin, er ei gátu svars; sóttu því
meir að syn var fyrir; mælgi dyggði þó mun miður.
Just so seemed Jórunn to the gods to be affected, swollen with sorrows,
when they could not get a reply; they sought the more in that they were
faced with refusal; a lot of talking, however, helped much less.

16.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
		

For frumqv√dull
fregnar br√ta,
hirdir at Herians
horni Giallar,
Nalar *nefa
nam til fylgiss;greppur *Grimnis
grund vardveitti.

3: hirdir] hyrþar, D at] t altered from another letter, A; at, B, C, D, E 5: *nefa]
nepa, A, B, C, D, E 7: *Grimnis] So D, E; Grimnis, B; grunnis, C; Grymis, A

Frumkvöðull fregnar, hirðir að Gjallarhorni Herjans, fór brauta; nam Nálar
nefa til fylgis; greppur Grímnis varðveitti grund.
The originator of the questioning, the keeper of Herjan’s (Óðinn’s) Gjallarhorn (Heimdallur), went on his way; he took as his companion Nál’s kinsman(Loki); Grímnir’s (Óðinn’s) poet (the god Bragi) looked after the woman.

90

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

17.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

Vingolf tokoViþars þegnar,
Forniotz sefum
fluttir b§þir;jþar ganga
Æsi kveþia
Yggiar þegar
viþ aulteite.

		

5: jþar] i þar, B; yþr, D; idar, E

ganga] gango, DÞegnar Viðars, fluttir báðir sefum Fornjóts, tóku Vingólf; ganga þar í,kveðja Æsi þegar við ölteiti Yggjar.
Viðar’s (Óðinn’s?) men, both conveyed by Fornjótur’s kinsmen (winds),
reached Vingólf; they go in there, greet the Æsir straight away at Yggur’s(Óðinn’s) merry drinking feast.

		
18.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

Heilan Hangaty
hepnastann Ása
virt ƒndveigis,
vallda baþu,s∂la at sumbli
sitia dia,∂ meþ Yggiongi
yndi halda.

3: virt] vird, E ƒndveigis] aunþvegis, D 4: baþu] baþiss, D 5: sumbli] sumbla,
D 7: Yggiongi] yggiom, D[Þeir] báðu heilan Hangatý, heppnastan Ása, valda virt öndvegis, día sitjasæla að sumbli, æ yndi halda með Yggjungi.
They wished Hangatýr (Óðinn), the most fortunate of gods, happiness as
he ruled over the high seat ale, [they wished] the gods good luck as they
sat at the feast, forever to enjoy pleasure with Yggjungur (Óðinn).

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

19.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

		

91

Beckjar sett*at B√lverks raþi,siot S∂hrimni
saddist rakna;Sk√gul at skutlum
skapt ker Hnikars
mat af miþiminnis hornum.

1: Beckjar] Bekkar, C 2: *at] So B, C, D, E; er, A B√lverks] Bolverks, C, E
5: Sk√gul] Sk√gull, C; skolug, E 6: skapt ker] skaptker, B; skaptker, C, E 8:
minnis] Mimis, B

Sjót ragna, bekkjarsett að Bölverks ráði, saddist Sæhrímni; Skögul mat
skaftker Hnikars af miði að skutlum minnishornum.
The gods’ host, seated in accordance with Bölverkur’s orders, werereplete with Sæhrímnir (meat from the boar Sæhrímnir); Skögul metedout Hnikar’s vat with mead onto trays in toast horns.

		
20.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

Margs of fragu
maltid yfir
Heimdall ha goþ,h√rgar Loka,
spar eþa spakmal
sprund ef kiende,
undorn oframm
unz nam *huma.

3: ha goþ] hágoþ, C 4: h√rgar] hƒrgar, C; horgar, E 5: spakmal] spakmál, C;
spacmal, D 7: undorn] unorm, D 8: unz] uns, E *huma] himia, A, B; hinna,
C; hinna, D, EHágoð of frágu Heimdall, hörgar [of frágu] Loka margs yfir máltíð undorn
ofram [= umfram] uns nam húma, ef sprund kendi spár eða spakmál.
The high gods asked Heimdallur, the holy ones asked Loki many things
over the meal on after mid-afternoon until it grew dark, about whether the
woman had imparted any prophecy or wise sayings.

92

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

		
21.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

Illa letu
ordid hafa
erindis leysu
oflitil fr∂ga;vant at v∂laverþa mynde,
svo af svannasvars ofg∂ti.

1–4: Stanza 21 follows st. 20 in A without a break as far as fr∂ga, where a longstroke indicates that an error has been made; Margs of fragu – fr∂ga is also
written as a single stanza in B 3: erindis leysu] eyrindis leyso, C; erinþis leysa,
D; eirendisleisu, E 4: oflitil fr∂ga] of litilfr∂ga, B 5: vant at] vantat, D 7:
svanna] vana, E[Þeir] létu erindisleysu orðið hafa illa, oflítilfræga; vant myndi verða aðvæla svo svars of gæti af svanna.
They said their fruitless errand had turned out badly, too little glorious; itwould be hard to engineer it so that an answer would be got from the lady.

22.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
10r

Ansar Omi,
allir hlyddu:‘Nott skal nemanyr∂þa til,hugsi til myrgins
hver sem orkar
raþ til leggiar√snar Asum.’

1: Omi] Onn, B; Onn, C; Oþinn, D; Ome, E
hvor, E 7: leggia] legga, C

5: myrgins] myrgis, E

6: hver]

Ómi ansar, allir hlýddu: ‘Nótt skal nema til nýræða, hugsi til morguns
hver sem orkar leggja ráð Ásum til rausnar.’Ómi (Óðinn) replies, they all listened: ‘Night shall be used for new
counsels, let him ponder until morning whoever labours to propose plans
to the glory of the gods.’

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

		
23.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

93

Rann meþ r√stum
Rindar moþir,f√þur lardur
Fenris valla
gengo fra gilde;goþinn kvoddu
Hropt ok Frygg,
sem Hrimfaxa for.

2: moþir] mosar, B; moþr, D; moder, E 3: f√þur lardur] förular dúr, E added
in margin lardur] jarþar added in the margin A; larðr, B; lardr C; larþr, D 4:
valla] varla, D; in A, vallda is added in the text in bracketsMóðir Rindar rann með röstum, föður Fenris varla larður, [þau] gengu frá
gildi; goðin kvöddu Hropt og Frigg, sem fór Hrímfaxa.
The mother of Rind ran with long strides, [she and] the scarcely tired fatherof Fenrir (Loki) left the feast; the deities said farewell to Hroptur (Óðinn)and Frigg, who went with Hrímfaxi (night).

		
24.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

Dyrum settann
Dellings m√gur
jo frammkeyrþi
*jarkna steinum;mars of manheim
mƒn af gloar
dro leik Dvalinsdr√sull i reiþ.

4: *jarkna] so B, C, D; iarkna, E; rokna, A, but jokna is written in the margin 5:
manheim] man heim, B 6: mƒn] men, E af] of, E 7: dro leik] droleik, E

Mögur Dellings framkeyrði jó, settan dýrum jarknasteinum; mön mars
glóar af of mannheim, drösull dró leik Dvalins í reið.
Dellingur’s son (Dagur, day) drove forward his steed, adorned with
precious jewels; the horse’s mane shines from it across the world of men,
his charger drew Dvalinn’s plaything (the sun) in a chariot.

94

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

25.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			

Jormungrundari *jodyr nyrdra
und rñt ytstu
adalþollar
gengo til reckio
gygiur ok þursar,
nair, dvergar
ok dockalfar.

		

1: Jormungrundar] Jormun grundar, B, C 2: *jodyr] so B, C; jo dyr, D; iodyr, E;
jadyr, A nyrdra] neþra, A (in the margin); nyrðra, B 4: adalþollar] adal þollar,
B; aþal þollar, C, D 6: gygiur] gygor, C; gygur, EGýgjur og þursar, náir, dvergar og dökkálfar gengu til rekkju nyrðra í jöður
jörmungrundar und yztu rót aðalþollar.
Trollwives and giants, corpses, dwarves and dark-elves went to bed further
north on the edge of the mighty earth under the outermost root of theforemost tree (Yggdrasill).

26.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
		

Risu racknar,rann Alfr√þull,nordur ad *Niflheim
Niola sokte;
upp nam ar Giƒll
Ulfrunar niþur
hornþyt valldur
Himin biarga.

3: Niflheim] so B, E; Nifheim, A, but adds Niflheim in the margin; Niblheim, C
ad *Niflheim] Niflheim i, D 5: upp nam] upprann, E ar Giƒll] argiƒll, A, B, C,
D; argioll, E 6: Ulfrunar] ulfrimar, B 8: Himin] Himni, B, C

Raknar risu, Alfröðull rann, Njóla sótti norður að Niflheim; ár nam uppniður Úlfrúnar, valdur Himinbjarga, hornþyt Gjöll.
The gods rose up, Álfröðull (the sun) rose, Njóla (darkness, i.e. night) went
north to Niflheimur; early Úlfrún’s son (Heimdallur), ruler of Himinbjörg,
began the sound of the horn with Gjöll (Gjallarhorn).

COMMENTARY
1. The stanza gives a picture of various beings in the world, and by way of introduction
to the story we get to know that All-father (Alfǫðr is one of Óðinn’s names in
Grímnismál 48 and SnE I 8, but here is perhaps to be understood as the ChristianGod) is the one behind the plan we hear more about in st. 2. This first stanza tells us
what the attitude of various beings to the plan is. That the stanza has previously beentaken as an overview of the state of mind in various places in the world is implied by aparagraph that was printed under the heading ‘Frjettir’ (‘News’) in the weekly Þjóðólfur,
16. November 1849, 108. The report, obviously modelled on st. 1 of Hrafnagaldur, is
supposed to characterise some of the most important cities in the northern hemisphere.
Kaupmannahöfn spýtir mórauðu. Kristjania æpir á Óðin. Stokkhólmur dregur
seyminn. Pjetursborg lítur hornauga. London miðlar málum. Edinborg dreymir.
Dublin betlar. Paris er í skollaleik. Amsterdam reiknar. Bryssel glottir. Madrid
reykir. Lissabon akar sjer. Berlin bruggar. Vinarborg gnýstir tönnum. Varschau
stynur. Rómaborg bænir sig. Konstantinopel glápir á mánann. Athenuborg áttar
sig. En hvað gjörir Reykjavík? hún sjálfsagt þenkir og ályktar.
Copenhagen spits tobacco juice. Christiania yells at Óðinn. Stockholm drags
it out. Petersburg looks askance. London mediates. Edinburgh dreams. Dublin
begs. Paris is playing blind man’s buff. Amsterdam is doing its sums. Brussels
is smiling. Madrid is smoking. Lisbon shakes itself. Berlin is brewing. Vienna
gnashes it teeth. Warsaw groans. Rome says its prayers. Constantinople gazesat the moon. Athens takes its bearings. And what is Reykjavik doing? Of course
she ponders and concludes.
Þjóðólfur was founded by Sveinbjörn Hallgrímsson, who was also its editor
from 1848 to 1852. He was Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s nephew; he matriculated from
Bessastaðir in 1834, and then lived for five years with Sveinbjörn Egilsson at
Eyvindarstaðir, where he taught during the winters. Sveinbjörn Hallgrímsson had
a son who was known as Hallgrímur Scheving (born 1846), though this was not
the Hallgrímur Scheving (1781–1861) that edited Hrafnagaldur. But the boy’s
mother, Sveinbjörn Hallgrímsson’s second wife, was daughter of Þórunn, daughterof Stefán Scheving. Possibly it was Hallgrímur Scheving, editor of Hrafnagaldur,that sent the anonymous news item to Þjóðólfur.
1.5: Íviðja is a name for a trollwife. It appears in a þula (‘Trǫllkvenna heiti’) in
Skáldskaparmál (SnE II 112, v. 425) and in Hyndlyljóð 48. It may mean ‘she wholives in the wood’. In Vƒluspá 2 we find íviðir (with the variant íviðjur in the
Hauksbók version), which perhaps means ‘inner timbers’, referring to the rootsof Yggdrasill, the World Ash.
2. The stanza should be read in conjunction with st. 1. It is All-father’s plan thatthe Æsir discover and want to bring to nothing.
2.3: ‘Verpir/verper’ is the only form the manuscripts offer. It is presumably an
adjective meaning ‘that opposes’, ‘reluctant’ or perhaps ‘changeable’, cf. verpa‘to throw’, litverpur ‘changeable in colour’. It must refer to the gods.

96

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

2.5: Óðhrærir (‘mind-mover’) appears in Hávamál 107 and 140 in the form Óðrerir,
where it means first an intoxicating drink (the mead of poetry) which Óðinn drinks
after his ritual hanging, and then the drink’s container. According to Skáldskaparmál(SnE II 3/21 and 14/11), Oðreyrir was one of the vessels in which the dwarves
saved Kvasir’s blood, while in SnE II 4/3 it is again one of the vessels containing
the mead of poetry. In Hrafnagaldur 2, Óðhrærir is apparently taken to be a
person, probably a dwarf in the world of the gods, since we are told that he has tolook after Urður, unless it is a case of a double scribal error for ‘Oðhræres skylde
Urdur gejma’ which would require two emendations. It is more likely that the poet
misunderstood, or deliberately changed, the role of Óðhrærir. He may be supposed
to be be a figure of deception, somebody who can change the appearance of things.
2.6: Urðr is known as one of the three maidens, Urðr, Verðandi, Skuld (Vƒluspá
20), often identified as the Norns in charge of fate, Past (cf. urðu, past pluralof verða), Present and Future. See also Gylfaginning ch. 15, SnE I 18/13. InVƒluspá 19 Urðar brunnr (‘Urðr’s spring or well’) lies under the ash Yggdrasill(cf. Gylfaginning chs 15 and 16, SnE I 17/30, 19/27 and 29). In Loddfáfnismál,
Hávamál 111, the speaker has to chant while sitting on the ‘þulr’s’ (‘wise man’s)seat at Urðar brunnr.
2.7: ‘máttkat’ is the 1st pers. sg. of the past tense of the verb mega ‘be able’, withthe suffixed pronoun -k (for ek) and suffixed negative -at = mátta-ek-at ‘I couldnot’ (the form is slightly anomalous; it would normally have been máttigat). The
suffixed negative -a, -at or -t, like the suffixed 1st pers. sg. pron. -k, was obsoleteby the seventeenth century, and here must be a deliberate archaism by the poet,
who has through his ignorance used the 1st pers. form instead of the 3rd pers.,
which would have been máttit.
3. As a continuation from the preceding stanza, we are told how Óðhrærir’s
courage fails as a result of his inability to control fate, and that he therefore looks
for the other dwarves. The second half of the stanza is apparently about two ofthese dwarves and their feelings, which are probably portents of what is goingto happen. This reading is supported by the fact that st. 4 actually opens with theend of the dwarves.
3.5: All manuscripts except B have ‘Þranis’, but this is an unknown name. ‘Þráinn’is a dwarf name, known from Vƒluspá 12 (in Gylfaginning ch. 14, SnE I 16/23 wefind the name Þorinn instead, but Þróinn appears a little later in the same þula,16/26). Besides, Þráinn rhymes with the next name, ‘Dáinn’, which supports theassumption that this form is correct. ‘Þránis’ probably arose from the misreading of
the minims. In Helgi Ólafsson’s Latin translation in 34 Þráinn is rendered Odinus.
3.7: Dáinn is a dwarf name that is found in the Hauksbók and Gylfaginning (ch. 14, SnE
I 16/17) versions of the same þula in Vƒluspá as Þráinn is found in. It is also found in
Hyndluljóð 7. A Dáinn carves runes for the elves in Hávamál 143. In Grímnismál 33
it is the name of a stag, and finally it is found as a fox name in a þula. It means ‘dead’.
4. The dwarves disappear from the story, and attention is turned to the worlds (nineaccording to Gylfaginning chs 3, 34, SnE I 9/5, 27/15; Vƒluspá 2; Vafþrúðnismál43), which are swallowed up into the abyss.

Commentary

97

4.1: The statement that there is no more to be said of the dwarves reminds one of
the conclusion of one of the þulur in Vƒluspá 12: ‘Nú hefi ek dverga . . . rétt umtalða’ (‘Now I have correctly enumerated the dwarves’), and again in Vƒluspá
30: ‘Nú eru talðar nǫnnur Herjans’ (‘Now have been listed Herjan’s (Óðinn’s)
maidens (the valkyries)’).
4.3: Ginnungr or ginnungi in ‘Ginnungagap’ (Vƒluspá 3; Gylfaginning chs 5, 8,
15, SnE I 10/12, 11/36, 17/13) and ‘Ginnungahiminn’ (Gylfaginning ch. 8, SnE I
12/8), probably meant originally ‘of the mighty space(s)’ or ‘filled with illusion
or magical power’ (cf. ginning; see SnE I 100; LP 182), which is probably how
the poet intended it to be taken here. Later the word was sometimes understood tobe the name of a person. In rímur, Ginnungur was used as a name for Óðinn (seeFinnur Jónsson 1926–28, 132). In þulur it turns up as a hawk name.
4.5: Alsviðr is the name of one of the horses of the sun (Grímnismál 37;
Gylfaginning ch. 11, SnE I 14/1). This does not fit the context here, but alsviðr
could mean ‘all-wise’, which would be a plausible name for Óðinn, though it is notrecorded as such elsewhere, and the activity in this stanza would fit well with oneof his characteristic roles in mythology: he decides who shall die, and he gathers
the fallen to himself in Valhǫll. If it is Óðinn that is meant here, it would appear
that the poet imagined the gods to dwell in the sky (‘ofan’ in line 6).
5. St. 5 gives a vision of the end of the world, which seems now imminent. Several
elements in the stanza, among others the idea that knowledge is hidden in Mímir’s
spring, are reminiscent of Vƒluspá. The syntax is involved, so that the style is likethat of a skaldic poem.
5.2. ‘Strind’ is a poetic word for land, ‘rǫðull’ is one for the sun (SnE II 37/25,
85/19, 133/30).
5.3. Cf. Vƒluspá 25: ‘lopt allt lævi blandit’.
5.5–6. Cf. Vƒluspá 28 (Codex Regius), quoted in Gylfaginning, SnE I 17. ‘Mærrbrunnr Mímis’ is where Óðinn has hidden his eye, and that stanza actually ends
with the prophetess’s words ‘Vituð ér enn eða hvat?’, which come almost word forword in line 8 here. We are told in the same stanza of Vƒluspá that Mímir drinks
mead every morning from Valfǫðr’s (Óðinn’s) pledge, but it is not there, but in
Snorri’s accompanying prose (SnE I 17/16–18), that we are told that wisdom andhuman intelligence are hidden in Mímir’s spring, and that Mímir drinks fromit using the horn Gjallarhorn. In another account of Mímir, in Ynglinga saga
(Heimskringla I 12–13, 18), Snorri says he was decapitated by the Vanir, after
which Óðinn embalmed his head, and then used it afterwards as a sort of adviser(cf. also Mímr’s head in Vƒluspá 46 and Sigrdrífumál 14).
5.7. The wise being is perhaps Iðunn, introduced more specifically in the next stanza.
But Helgi Ólafsson in 34 gives as an alternative translation of ‘vissa vera’, ‘certa
essentia’ (‘certain existence’). According to Orðabók Háskólans, the adjectives
vís and viss in various of their meanings in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
were interchangeable (for instance ‘dauðinn er vís’, in Marteinn Einarsson’s Ein
Kristilig handbog, København 1555; ‘Gvd hann er einungis | eilijf Guddomleg vera |almaattug | vijs | sannarleg’, in Enchiridion, translated by Guðbrandur Þorláksson

98

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

and printed in 1600 at Hólar). So the meaning of ‘vissa vera’ here could possibly be‘the wise being’, ‘certain existence’ or perhaps ‘secure existence’. The idea is maybethat secure existence is hidden in Mímir’s spring, or in other words humanity’s
knowledge of the future life is concealed.
6. Stt. 2–4 described the ominous events taking place in the world as a prelude to
the action of the poem. With st. 6, Iðunn, one of the chief figures in the story, isintroduced. We are told that she has come down from the ash Yggdrasill.
6.3: Yggdrasill is the well known ash-tree of Norse mythology, which according
to Vƒluspá 19 stands always green above Urðr’s spring. According to Grímnismál
31 it has three roots, under one of which is Hel, under the second the frost giants,
under the third human beings. Snorri says it is the biggest of trees (cf. Grímnismál44), and he adds that its branches spread out over all the world and across the sky.
According to him, of its three roots one is among the Æsir, the second among thefrost giants and the third extends across Niflheimr; Mímir’s spring is under thesecond (Gylfaginning ch. 15, SnE I 17).
6.6: Iðunn appears in only one of the eddic poems besides Hrafnagaldur, and that
one is Lokasenna, according to the prose introduction to which she is the wife of the
god Bragi (so also Gylfaginning ch. 26, SnE I 25). In Lokasenna 17 Loki accuses
her of having made love to her brother’s slayer. She is best known from the story in
Skáldskaparmál, SnE II 1–2 (alluded to in Haustlƒng, SnE II 32–33), of how Loki
lured her out of Ásgarðr into a forest from where the giant Þjazi was able to carry off
both her and her magical apples that had the power to keep the gods forever young.
6.7: The name Ívaldr is known from Grímnismál 43 and Snorri’s Edda in theform Ívaldi. Though his nature is never explicitly stated (cf. Finnur Jónsson in
LP: ‘ukendt mytisk person’), Snorri says (SnE I 36/16–17, II 41/33–34; bothpassages based on Grímnismál 43, which he quotes in SnE II 18–19) that his sonsare dwarves; they were the makers of the ship Skíðblaðnir.
7. The stanza tells us that Iðunn did not care for her sojourn under Yggdrasill,
where she is imprisoned at Night’s home (i.e. held in darkness).
7.6: Kundr, according to Snorri (SnE II 107/18) is a word for ‘relative’. Cf. LP.
Nǫrvi (or Nǫrfi/Narfi) is known from Gylfaginning ch. 10 (SnE I 13/22–23) as a
giant who lived in Jǫtunheimar and was father of Nótt (Night); the corresponding
figure in Vafþrúðnismál 25 and Alvíssmál 29 is Nǫrvi in the dative, which wouldbe Nǫrr in the nominative. Nótt, who is black and dark, was first of all married
to Naglfari, then to Annarr/Ánarr/Ónarr (their son was Jǫrð, Earth), and finally to
Dellingr (their son was Dagr, Day). ‘Nǫrvi’s son’ is a kenning for night.
8.1: ‘Sigtívar’ is the plural of sigtýr, ‘battle- or victory-god’ (Vƒluspá 44; the singularis also a name for Óðinn). In Grímnismál 45 and Lokasenna 1 the gods are referred
to as ‘sigtíva synir’.
8.2: The singular Nanna is the name of Baldr’s wife, and she is listed among goddesses
in Skáldskaparmál (SnE II 114, v. 434). Snorri says that she and Baldr were parentsof Forseti (Gylfaginning ch. 32, SnE I 26/24); Nanna died of grief at Baldr’s funeral(Gylfaginning ch. 49, SnE I 46/33). She is nevertheless present (though Baldr and HǫðrCommentary99

are not) at the feast for Ægir at the beginning of Skáldskaparmál. Nanna also appears
in Saxo’s version of the story of Balderus and Høtherus in Gesta Danorum III 1–4; shewas beloved by Balderus but married to Høtherus. A Nanna (MS manna) Nǫkkvadóttir
is mentioned in Hyndluljóð 20. In Vƒluspá 30 nanna is used in the plural (‘nǫnnur
Herjans’ ‘Óðinn’s ladies’) of valkyries. Finally, in rímur and skaldic kennings nanna
means ‘woman’, and that is probably what it means here. It presumably refers to Iðunn.
8.3: ‘Viggjar’ (genitive of vigg ‘horse’) must refer to Yggdrasill, from whichIðunn came down. Yggdrasill is thought to mean ‘Yggr’s (Óðinn’s) horse’, thesteed Óðinn was ‘riding’ when he was hanging on the tree. We were told in st. 7
that Iðunn was under the tree.
8.4: According to Hallgrímur Scheving (1837, 13), the poet is trying to depict
the gods in a ridiculous light by their treating Iðunn as a witch (‘galdranorn’) in
among other things sending her a wolf skin, but also by showing them chanting
spells and riding on wolves (st. 10).
9. The stanza says that Óðinn chose Heimdallur to ask the woman what she knew
about the world, while Bragi and Loki are filled with apprehension.
9.1: Viðrir is a name for Óðinn (Lokasenna 26; Gylfaginning ch. 3, SnE I 8/32;
Ágrip 3/14; Flateyjarbók I 564/15).
9.2: Bifrǫst is the name of the gods’ bridge from the earth to heaven, which
Snorri equates with a rainbow (Gylfaginning ch. 13, SnE I 15/4–15), adding(Gylfaginning ch. 27, SnE I 25/36–37) that Heimdallr is the gods’ guardian at
the bridge against the giants. In eddic poems (Grímnismál 44, Fáfnismál 15) the
bridge is called Bilrǫst, and it is not specially associated with Heimdallr. The
name of the bridge does not appear in any skaldic kennings for Heimdallr either(Meissner 1921, 255).
9.3–4: Gjƒll (genitive gjallar) is found as the first element in the name of Heimdallr’shorn, Gjallarhorn, and also as the name of a river that must be crossed on the road to
Hel (Grímnismál 28; Gylfaginning ch. 49, SnE I 47/8–10). It is the latter meaning thatis relevant here. The sun of a river is a kenning for gold (Skáldskaparmál ch. 33 andverse 391/2, SnE II 41 and 101), and gold’s support (or doorpost; a variation of thecommoner ‘tree of gold’, which refers to the fashion of women wearing gold ornaments)
is a kenning for a woman. Gátt is often used in rímur in kennings for women (see Finnur
Jónsson 1926–1928, 125).
9.7: The poet Bragi is according to Grímnismál 44 the most outstanding of poets,
but the god Bragi only appears in the eddic poems in Lokasenna. In Snorri’s Edda
he is the god most knowledgeable about poetry, and Iðunn is his wife. Loptr is
another name for Loki.
10. We are told that the gods set out, though Óðinn evidently stays behind. We arealso told that the gods chanted spells (‘regin gólu galdur’). It is perhaps conceivablethat the title of the poem was originally ‘Ragnagaldur’ rather than ‘Hrafnagaldur’.
10.2: ‘gandr’ has sometimes been taken to mean ‘wolf’, but here is more likely tomean something analogous to a witch’s broomstick. Cf. gandreið in Njáls sagach. 125 and the poem Gandreið by Jón Daðason (1606–1676).

100

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

10.3: Rǫgnir is a name for Óðinn, found in skaldic verse and þulur (SnE 1848–1887,
II 472, 556). Regin (n. pl.) means gods (see Gylfaginning ch. 8, SnE I 12, where
Snorri quotes Grímnismál 40–41 on the creation of the world). Reginn (m. sg.) is
the name of a dwarf (Vƒluspá 12), Fáfnir’s brother (SnE II 45–47; Reginsmál prose
introduction; cf. SnE 1848–1887, II 470, 553). In Hrafnagaldur 10.3, ‘regin’ must
be the correct form. In late manuscripts ‘n’ is commonly written with a nasal stroke.
10.4: The preposition at in the meaning ‘towards’ or ‘up to’ takes the dative, buthere ‘rann’ is anomalously accusative (cf. the variant in E), though it might bedative of the Modern Icelandic rannur (strong masc. nouns often lack the ending -i).
Finnur Jónsson 1926–1928 quotes rann himins as meaning ‘himmerige’ (‘heaven’).
‘Rann(ur) heimis’ (literally the mansion of the world; heimi is a variant form of heimr;see Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 1989) in this stanza can be understood as ‘dwellingplace of the world’, i.e. the earth, if the gods are here descending to the earth fromheaven (cf. SnE I 15/5). Alternatively, it may be just a variant of rann himins, referringto the sky as the roof over the world; the gods would then be flying across the sky
on their magic poles. Cf. glyggrann (‘the house of the wind’, ‘the sky’), SnE II 77/8.
10.6: Hliðskjálf is Óðinn’s lookout place in Válaskjálf, whence he can see over
all the world(s) (cf. the prose introductions to Grímnismál and Skírnismál; SnE I
13, 20, 31, 48). The name is also found in skaldic kennings for Óðinn (SnE II 11),
but not in medieval eddic verse.
11.1: The objects of frá are banda burða and brauta sinna.
11.2: selja is a common base word in kennings for woman, but it is uncertain
whether originally it meant the tree (willow) or the verbal noun ‘giver, server’.
Serving of drink was one of the conventional roles of women in the Viking Age
and later. See Skáldskaparmál ch. 31, especially SnE II 40/16–21.
11.3: Bƒnd (n. pl.) ‘gods’. Burðir (m. pl.; related to the verb bera ‘bear’) can mean
either ‘birth, extraction’ or ‘offspring’.
11.5: Hlýrnir was the sixth of the nine mythological heavens (see SnE II 133).
Hel was the abode of the dead, and also the name of the daughter of Loki who
presided over the world of the dead.
11.7: Ártíð ‘death day’ was the word in Christian times for the anniversary ofa person’s death, which in the case of saints was often made a feast day (ONP
I 584–585); together with st. 14.8 ‘sókn’, it is evidence that the poem does
not belong to the thought world of heathendom.
12. The stanza tells us that Iðunn does not speak a word, so that the gods get noanswer to their questions. Instead she begins to weep.
12.1–4: The unstressed proclitic negative adverb ne would have had a short vowel
in Old Icelandic (see Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 1989).
12.3: Rask suggested that ‘givom’ should be emended to ‘tívom’ (dat. pl.of týr‘god’). The adjective gífr ‘greedy’ is only deduced from a doubtful reading inFjölsvinnsmál 13, and occurs nowhere else. It is supported by the adjective gifre‘greedy’in Old English, and would fit the context here well (= greedy for answers,
referring to the gods), but the ‘-r’ is radical, and the dat. would be gífrum. Perhaps
the author mistook the inflection class in his reading of Fjölsvinnsmál.

Commentary

101

12.6: Targa (f.) ‘targe’, a kind of round shield; ‘shields of the forehead’ is a kenningfor eyes (see SnE II 108/11–12). Hjarn or hjarni (m.) ‘brain’, ‘skull’, ‘dome ofthe head’ SnE II 108/10–12. Orðabók Háskólans has examples from folk poetryof the seventeenth century and later of ‘hjarnar stjörnur’ as a kenning for eyes.
12.7: Rask suggested taking ‘eliun faldin’ as one word (‘with her energy hidden’?),but reading ‘endurrjóða eljunfeldinn’ ([they, i.e. the tears] make the energy-cloak
red again’ is also perhaps possible, taking eljunfeldur ‘cloak of energy’ as a kenningfor eyelid or cheek (cf. eljunstrƒnd ‘beach (i.e. seat) of energy’, = breast LP and
Finnur Jónsson 1926–28, 76). Eljun appears in SnE II 108/31 as a heiti for hugr,so perhaps ‘eljunfeldur’ means ‘cloak of the mind’ = eye or eyelid.
13. In stt. 13 and 14 Iðunn’s silence and weeping are compared with the magicalthorn that every night causes all the world to sleep, here brought by the dwarf
Dáinn. This myth is not found elsewhere, but cf. the folk-tale svefnþorn (‘sleep
thorn’) that causes deep sleep, like the spindle in Sleeping Beauty.
13.1: The stanza opens an epic simile that continues into the next stanza (‘Eins. . .’, ‘Likewise . . .’). Scheving suggested adding ‘ok’ after ‘Eins’ (‘Just as . . .’)13.2: Élivágar are primeval waters (rivers, according to Snorri) associated withcreation myths (Gylfaginning ch. 5, SnE I 9–10; Vafþrúðnismál 31; SnE II 22/25;
cf. Hymiskviða 5).
13.3: Þorn is the name of a giant in Þórsdrápa (SnE II 27–28) and elsewhere. A
svefnþorn is found in several Old Norse sources, for example Gǫngu-Hrólfr ispricked to sleep with one (Gƒngu-Hrólfs saga ch. 24), and in Vƒlsunga saga ch. 21,
Brynhildr says that Óðinn had pricked her with such a thorn. Scheving suggested(1837, 43) interpreting ‘þorn’ in this stanza as a svefnþorn, and that the hrime-cold
giant might be Njǫrvi, Night’s father. In view of the medieval Icelandic concept of
the svefnþorn and this stanza’s mention of ‘every night’ when the thorn is used, it
seems likely that ‘þorn’ is to be regarded as a metaphor for sleep. The emendationof ‘atri’ to ‘acri’ was suggested by Scheving too (‘c’ and ‘t’ are almost identicalin gothic script). It might also be possible to emend to ‘hatri’.
13.6: Dáinn: see commentary on st. 3/7.
13.7: Miðgarðr is the rampart made by the gods out of the primeval giant’s eyelashes
surrounding the world of men and protecting it from giants (Gylfaginning ch. 8,
SnE I 12; Grímnismál 41). It may originally have meant ‘Middle-earth’ (OldEnglish middangeard), the world of men between the worlds of gods and giants(Ásgarðr in the centre and Útgarðr round the outside). Garðr means ‘an enclosure,an enclosed space’.
13/8: It might be possible to emend this line to ‘miðnætti hvert’, ‘every midnight’.
14. The stanza continues the simile of st. 13. It is a description of the effects ofsleep. When the people of the world are overcome by sleep, they are deprived ofthe power to act and insensibility floods their minds, and the whole parish is as
it were rocked to sleep.
14.4: ‘Hvíti Áss’, the white god, is Heimdallr (SnE I 25/32; Þrymskviða 15/2).
‘Heimdallr’s sword’ is a kenning for head (SnE I 26/1, II 19/11, 108/8–9). At SnE
II 19/11 Snorri adds ‘Svá er sagt at hann var lostinn manns hǫfði í gegnum’ ‘It is102

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

said that he was struck through with a human head’, but no further explanationof this curious idea is given, any more than there is of the next kenning (line 6).
14.5: The noun örvit is recorded in Orðabók Háskólans from the seventeenth
century onwards, but ONP has a citation of ørvit from c. 1350.
14.6: ‘Rýgjar glyggvi’ (dative) ‘wind of the trollwife’ is a kenning for thought (SnE II
108/28–30), though its origin is unknown. Both this kenning and ‘Heimdallr’s sword’
as a kenning for head appear in the same passage in Skáldskaparmál (chs 69–70, SnE
II 108) as the comparatively rare uses of ‘hjarn(i) and ‘eljun’ (st. 12). This suggests thatthe poet was using Snorri’s Edda as a textbook for poetic language while he wrote.
The lack of j after a palatalised g as in ‘rýgar’ is found elsewhere, though rarely; but
the number of occurrences makes it unlikely that they are all scribal errors; cf. p. 65
above. See Noreen 1923, §263, Anm. 2; Bandle 1956, 128 (§82.3) and 140 (§89.3).
14.8: ‘sókn’ f. ‘parish (in the Christian Church)’. Cf. the comments on st. 11.7 above.
15. Jórunn’s state is compared with the state of sleep just described: She seems tobe prostrated by grief, as if she were unconscious. When the gods could not get
an answer to their questions to Iðunn, they begged harder, but this did no good.
15.1: With the introductory ‘Jamt’ (= jafnt, ‘just so’) this stanza is linked to theepic simile (introduced by ‘Eins’ ‘Likewise’) in the two preceding ones.
Jormi is a name not recorded elsewhere at all, and its function here would be
a complete mystery. Scheving suggested that it might be an error for Jórun, cf.
the reading of E (there has been a mistake in reading the four minims which anyof the scribes could have made). Rask wondered whether it could be an error for
Jórunn or Iðunn (a single n for nn is not uncommon in manuscripts of this date).
Since the name Jórunn does not appear elsewhere in the poem, and the context hererequires a reference to Iðunn, it may be that the poet meant Jórunn to be anothername (or a heiti) for Iðunn (cf. the alternatives Nál and Laufey); otherwise theonly possible explanation is that it is a scribal error.
15.2: Jólnar (m. pl.) is a name for the gods (SnE II 85/3–4).
15.4: ‘geta’ in this sense normally takes an acc. object; cf. st. 21.8.
16. The stanza tells us that Heimdallur now leaves, taking Loki with him. Bragi
on the other hand stays behind to observe the woman.
16.3, 7: Herjan and Grímnir (and Grímr) are well known names for Óðinn (SnE
I 21–22, Grímnismál 46–47 and elsewhere). Grímir is not recorded as one of his
names, and must be a scribal error.
16.4: Gjallarhorn is the horn that Heimdallr blows when Ragnarǫk is ­imminent(SnE I 50/22–24; Vƒluspá 46, quoted in SnE I 51). According to Snorri, Mímir
drinks mead from his spring out of it (SnE I 17/17–18), but it is not said elsewherethat it belongs to Óðinn. When Heimdallr’s nature and functions, along with thoseof the other gods, are described, it is said that when he blows the horn it can beheard throughout all the worlds (SnE I 25–26).
16.5: Nál is an alternative name for Loki’s mother Laufey (SnE I 26/36–37, II
19/35–36; see also Sƒrla þáttr, Flateyjarbók I 275/27). It is pointed out by Bugge(Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, 374, note), that the author could have taken the form

Commentary

103‘nepa’ from the Codex Regius of Snorri’s Edda, where nepi is found as a spellingof nefi (see SnE 1931, 188/17 and textual note). In both places the p may havearisen from the misunderstanding of an insular f.
16.8: Grund (f.) ‘ground’ is a half-kenning for ‘woman’, i.e. it is frequently foundas the base word in kennings for woman such as ‘grund bauga’, ‘grund gulls’, andhere the base word is used without a determinant. Half-kennings are not all that
uncommon; see SnE II 51, v. 155/6 runna and note.
17. We are told that Heimdallur and Loki now enter Vingólf, having been conveyed
there by the winds, i.e. they have flown (cf. st. 10 above).
17.1: The name Vingólf is not found in medieval poetry, either eddic or skaldic.
Snorri gives conflicting information: in Gylfaginning ch. 3 (SnE I 9/3) it is analternative name for Gimlé, a place in heaven; in Gylfaginning ch. 14 (SnE
I 15/25–26) it is a sanctuary owned by gyðjur (goddesses or priestesses); in
Gylfaginning ch. 20 (SnE I 21/29), it is to Valhǫll and Vingólf that Óðinn sends
his ‘einherjar’ (champions, dead heroes that will fight for the gods at Ragnarǫk).
17.2: Viðarr (or Víðarr) is a son of Óðinn (Vƒluspá 55; prose introduction to
Lokasenna; SnE II 19/23–25). He is known as the silent god (SnE I 26/15); he will
kill the wolf Fenrir after the latter has killed Óðinn (SnE I 50–52; Vƒluspá 55).
Rask was in favour of emending ‘Viþars’ to ‘Viþris’; Scheving proposed ‘Viþurs’(Viðrir and Viðurr are both names of Óðinn). Bugge thought the poet might havearbitrarily used the name Viðarr for Óðinn.
17.3: Fornjótr was a giant (SnE II 111, v. 419/5), father of wind and fire andsea (SnE II 39/13–15). See Orkneyinga saga chs 1–3. ‘Fornjotr’s kinsmen’ is akenning for winds.
17.7: Yggr is a name of Óðinn (see for example Grímnismál 53, SnE I 22/12).
17.8: Scheving (1837, 17) thought it was remarkable that the gods sat merrily
drinking in this grave situation, while in st. 21 they are so troubled about the
expedition’s failure. He claimed their unconcerned drinking feast was reminiscentof the behaviour of the Greco–Roman gods who, in contrast to their Nordic
counterparts, did not need to worry about the future.
18. Almost the whole of the stanza is indirect speech, the greeting of the newcomers
to Óðinn and the rest of the gods.
18.1: Hangatýr is a name of Óðinn (SnE II 5/19–23; in skaldic verse but not inmedieval eddic poems).
18.3: The word for wort or mash, the mixture of powdered malt and water before
fermentation into beer, in Old Icelandic is virtr (n., dat. sg. virtri, Sigrdrífumál 17).
Virt (f., dat. virt, same meaning), used here, is recorded in Orðabók Háskólans intexts, mostly rímur, from the sixteenth century onwards. In this poem the word isused to mean the beer itself (metonymy).
18.6: Díar (m. pl), ‘gods’, appears in a list of names for gods in SnE II 85/8, quoting
a verse of Kormakr (v. 308). Also used in Heimskringla, Ynglinga saga ch. 2).
18.7: Yggjungr is a name of Óðinn (Vƒluspá 28, but not mentioned in Snorri’s Edda).
19.2: Bǫlverkr is a name of Óðinn (Hávamál 109; Grímnismál 47; SnE I 22/2, II 4).

104

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

19.3–4: Grímnismál 18 mentions that the einherjar feed on meat from Sæhrímnir.
In Gylfaginning ch.38 (SnE I 32) this stanza is quoted, and Snorri explains thatSæhrímnir is a boar that is cooked every day and whole again every evening, sothat there is always enough for the einherjar to eat.
19.4: Rakni is the name of a sea-king, but his crew have no place here. It must be aspelling for ragna, gen. of regin ‘gods’. Cf. st. 26/1 and commentary. ‘Sjót ragna’
may mean the einherjar, to whom Óðinn assigns seats in Valhǫll (SnE I 21/19).
19.5: Skǫgul is a valkyrie (Vƒluspá 30; used in skaldic poetry in kennings forbattle, weapons and armour). In Grímnismál 36 (quoted in SnE I 30) Skǫgul ismentioned among the valkyries that serve ale to the einherjar, and in that poemthe suffering Óðinn wishes they could bring him a drink.
19.6: Hnikarr is a name of Óðinn (Grímnismál 47, quoted in SnE I 21; SnE I 8/30).
The name is used in skaldic verse in kennings for, among other things, battle.
20.4: ‘Hǫrgar’ (m. pl.) means ‘sanctuaries, holy places’, but the context requires aword meaning ‘gods’ (it is difficult to see that hƒrgar were particularly associatedwith goddesses, cf. LP). Either the word means ‘holy ones’ by metonymy (deities
were worshipped in holy places), or the poet was mistaken about its usage.
20.8: ‘huma’ is an emendation suggested by Rask.
22.1: Ómi is a name of Óðinn in various lists in verse and prose (SnE I 8/31;
Grímnismál 49, quoted in SnE I 22; SnE 1848–87, II 472, 556).
22.3–4. See the discussion of this proverb on pp. 18–21.
23. The first half of the stanza at least is probably corrupt; Bugge’s attempt atinterpretation (Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, 375) involves unprecedented reorderingof the words and can hardly be right: ‘Fenris fóðr (i.e. sól) rann með röstum Rindar(i.e. westwards, cf. Baldrs draumar 11); valla (i.e. varla) kvöddu goðin Hropt ok
Frigg, géngu (i.e. ok géngu) frá gildi, sem (i.e. þá er) móðir Jarðar (i.e. nótt) fór
Hrímfaxa’ ‘The sun went to the west, and the gods hardly said goodbye to Óðinn andFrigg, before they were gone from the feast, when night departed with Hrímfaxi.’
23.1: röst is a measure of distance, comparable with a league; renna með röstum
would appear to mean ‘run with league-long strides’.
23.2: Rindr is mother of Óðinn’s son Váli who avenges Baldr (SnE I 26/18,
II 19/26, 114; Baldrs draumar 11). She appears also in Saxo’s account (Gesta
Danorum III, 1–4) of Balderus and Høtherus. Nothing is known of her mother,but like Rindr, she was probably a giantess (cf. SnE II 30/10 and note). Scheving
suggested reading ‘móþr’ for ‘moþir’.
23.3: föður is a rare form for the nominative faðir. ‘larður’ is only known in thephrase ‘e–m sígur larður’ ‘one becomes weary’. The word here is perhaps anerror for or an alternative form of the past participle laraður ‘wearied’. Orðabók
Háskólans has examples of both words from the seventeenth to twentieth centuries).
23.4: Fenrir, son of Loki and the giantess Angrboða (SnE I 27/4–5), is the wolf thatkills Óðinn and destroys the sun at Ragnarǫk (Vƒluspá 53; SnE I 50; Vafþrúðnismál
47, quoted in SnE I 54), and it is he that bites off Týr’s hand (Lokasenna 38; SnE
I 25/14–19).

Commentary

105

23.7: Hroptr is a name of Óðinn (in a verse from Kormakr’s Sigurðar­drápa
quoted in SnE II 10; Vƒluspá 62; Grímnismál 8; SnE 1848–87, II 472, 555).
Frigg is Óðinn’s wife (SnE I 5/17–18, 13/14, 21/18 and elsewhere).
23.8: Hrímfaxi is the name of a horse that carries Night across the sky(Vafþrúðnismál 14; SnE I 13/30, II 90/1–2). ‘Fór Hrímfaxa (dat.)’ presumablymeans ‘went at the same time as the night, i.e. at dawn’. Since the verb 'fór' issingular, it must refer only to Frigg, oddly enough; unless Loki is meant.
24.2: Dellingr is father of Dagr (day) (Vafþrúðnismál 25; SnE I 13/25–26).
24.5: mannheimr is only otherwise recorded as pl. Mannheimar, Ynglinga saga ch.
8, Heimskringla I 21/12 (here Manheimar, perhaps ‘world of love’, Háleygjatal
3), 22/6; probably taken to mean the world of men, as opposed to Goðheim(a)r(recorded both as sg. and pl.), the world of gods.
24.5–6: clearly based on Vafþrúðnismál 12/6 ‘ey lýsir mǫn af mari’, which showsthat ‘af’ means ‘from the horse’ (cf. Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, 375).
24.7: Dvalinn is the name of a dwarf (Vƒluspá 11, 14, the first quoted in SnE I 16;
Hávamál 143), and also of a hart (SnE I 18/34–35). In Fáfnismál 13 (quoted in
SnE I 18), some of the norns were daughters of Dvalinn. In Alvíssmál 16 and SnE
II 133, v. 517/8, ‘Dvalinn’s leika’ is a kenning for the sun. Leika in these sources
may be the n. noun leika ‘plaything, toy’, or, in SnE, f. leika ‘female playmate’;in Alvíssmál the word is accusative and could be from a m. noun leiki ‘deluder’(the sun turns dwarves to stone at sunrise; see Glossary to the Poetic Edda 1992,
158). The endingless form leik in Hrafnagaldur may be an error, or it could beacc. of leikr ‘game, play’ meaning by metonymy ‘the one/thing played with’ (cf.
Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, 375).
24.8: drƒsull or drasill m. ‘horse’ is used as the name of a horse ridden by ‘Dagi’(presumably a variant of ‘Dagr’) in a þula ascribed to a poem called Alsvinnsmál
in SnE II 89 (although Snorri also refers to Alvíssmál as Alsvinnsmál, the twopoems are quite distinct).
25. The mentioning of the different beings is reminiscent of st. 1, indicating thata closure of the poem is approaching.
25.1: Jǫrmungrund ‘the mighty earth’. The word is used in among other places
Grímnismál 20, quoted in SnE I 32.
25.2: ‘jodyr’ must be derived from Vƒluspá 5/4 ‘iodẏr’, where it is probably
intended as jƒður (acc.) ‘edge’ (the ‘y’ could have been copied from a variant
form of ‘u’; cf. Norrœn fornkvæði 1867, 375). This was read as ‘iódýr’ in Edda
1787–1828. In neither place can the word have anything to do with horses or doors.
25.4: Aðalþollr: cf. Grímnismál 44: ‘Askr Yggdrasils, hann er œztr viða’ ‘The ash
Yggdrasill, it is the highest (i.e. noblest) of trees’.
25.6: ‘Gýgjur’ is anomalous; the pl. of gýgur is gýgjar or gýgir.
25.8: cf. SnE I 19/38: ‘døkkálfar eru svartari en bik’, ‘dark-elves are blacker
than pitch’. They are only known from Snorri’s Edda and Hrafnagaldur; cf.
Svartálfaheimr ‘world of the black-elves’, SnE I 28/3–4. Both these kinds of106

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

elves (if they were different) were probably invented as counterparts to the
ljósálfar ‘light-elves’ (like svartálfar, only known from Snorri’s Edda), and wereperhaps understood to be the same as dwarves (some of whom, at least, lived in
Svartálfaheimr (see SnE I 28/3–4).
26. The final stanza tells how the day dawns and the gods get up. In the second
half of the stanza, Heimdallur blows his horn early; this signals the approach of
Ragnarǫk, and awakes the gods and summons them together to a council (SnE
I 50/22–24; cf. Scheving 1837, 18). Evidently the gods have not succeeded informulating a plan during the night.
26.1: ‘racknar’ must be for ‘ragnar’, cf. st. 19/4 ‘rakna’ for ‘ragna’. It may bethat the poet took rƒgn (n. pl.) as f. nom. sg. (or regin as reginn, m. nom. sg.) of
the word for ‘god’; both would have nom. pl. ragnar, rather than the usual n. pl.
‘regin’ or ‘rǫgn’.
26.2: Álfrǫðul(l) is a name (f.) or a word (m.) for the sun, perhaps meaning ‘elfwheel’ (Vafþrúðnismál 47, quoted in SnE I 54; Skírnismál 4; SnE II 85/20, 133, v.
517/7). ‘Álfröðull rann’ presumably means that the sun rose.
26.3: Niflheimr (world of mist or darkness) appears in SnE I 9/21, 10/10–11, 17/14,
27/14, but nowhere in poetry besides Hrafnagaldur. It is evidently a cold place(SnE I 10) and lies under one of the roots of Yggdrasill; Hel (cf. st. 11) was exiled
there (SnE I 27). It was perhaps originally the same as Niflhel, a place evil ones
were sent to, analogous to the Christian Hell (SnE I 9/4, 35/32; Vafþrúðnismál
43; Baldrs draumar 2).
26.4: In Alvíssmál 30, ‘njól’ is said to be a name for night among the gods; thestanza is quoted in SnE II 99, but there the name is given as ‘njóla’. Both words
apparently mean literally ‘darkness’.
26.5: A has ‘argiǫll’ as one word (and similarly the other manuscripts), but thisis unknown either as a common noun or name. As two words (as suggested by
Bugge) it could be ár Gjǫll, ‘river Gjǫll’ (cf. note to 9/3–4 above), but it mustsurely be something to do with Heimdallr’s horn Gjallarhorn here. It is probably
dat. sg. of gjöll f. ‘a kind of trumpet’ (Blöndal, Orðabók Háskólans); perhaps aname for Heimdallr’s horn (Gjallarhorn = the horn Gjǫll, cf. Askr Yggdrasils =the ash Yggdrasill). On Gjallarhorn, see note to st. 16/4 above.
26.6: Úlfrún is one of Heimdallr’s mothers (Hyndluljóð 37; cf. SnE I 26/9–10).
26.8: Himinbjǫrg (‘defence of or that which saves heaven’) is a place at the edgeof heaven next to one end of Bifrǫst (the bridge from heaven to earth). There
Heimdallr is in charge and guards heaven from the approach of giants (SnE I
20/2–3, 25/32–37, 26/2–7 = Grímnismál 13).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir (ed.). 2001. Úlfhams saga. Rit 53. Reykjavík:
Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi.
Ágrip af Nóregskonunga sƒgum. Ed. Bjarni Einarson. In ÍF XXIX 1–54.
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon. 1989. Íslensk Orðsifjabók. Reykjavík:Orðabók Háskólans.
Bandle, Oskar. 1956. Die Sprache der Guðbrandsbiblía. Bibliotheca
Arna­magnæana XVII. Hafniæ: Ejnar Munksgaard.
Bjarni Einarsson (ed.). 1955. Munnmælasögur 17. aldar. Reykjavík:Fræðafélagið.
Bjarni Vilhjálmsson and Óskar Halldórsson. 1979. Íslenskir málshættir.
Second edition. Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið.
Blöndal, Sigfús. 1920–1924. Íslensk-dönsk orðabók / Islandsk-dansk
ordbog. Reykjavík: Þórarin B. Þorláksson.
‘Bréf Árna Magnússonar til Íslands 1729 og fleiri skjöl hans í ­Ríkis­­skjala­­safni Dana’. 1975. Ed. Jón Margeirsson. Opuscula 5 (Bibliotheca­Arnamagnæana 31), 123–180. Hafniæ: Munksgaard.
British Library. 1977. Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts 1756–
1782. Additional Manuscripts 4101–5017. London: British Museum.
Den ældre Edda: En Samling af de nordiske Folks ældste Sagn og Sange,
ved Sæmund Sigfussön kaldet hin Frode I–IV. 1821–1823. Trans. Finnur
Magnússon. København: Gyldendal.
Den ældre Edda: Samling af norrøne Oldkvad, indeholdende Nordens ældste
Gude- og Helte-Sagn. 1847. Ed. P. A. Munch. Christiania: P. T. Malling.
Die Edda: Eine Sammlung altnordischer Götter- und Heldenlieder. ­1859.
Ed. Hermann Lüning. Zürich: Meyer & Zeller.
Die Lieder der Edda. 1888–1906. Ed. Barend Sijmons. Halle: Verlag derBuchhandlung des Waisenhauses.
Edda Sæmundar hinns fróda I–III. 1787–1828. Ed. Guðmundur Magnæus,Jón Johnsonius, Jón Ólafsson, Finnur Magnússon & Gunnar Pálsson.
Havniæ: Sumtibus Legati Arna-Magnæani et Gyldendalii.
Edda Sæmundar hinns fróda. 1818. Ed. Rasmus Kr. Rask. Holmiæ.
Edda Sæmundar hins fróða. 1860. Ed. Theodor Möbius. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Einar G. Pétursson. 1998. Eddurit Jóns Guðmundssonar lærða: ‘Saman­
tektir um skilning á Eddu’ og ‘Að fornu í þeirri gömlu norrænu ­kölluðust
rúnir bæði ristingar og skrifelsi’. Þættir úr fræðasögu 17. aldar.
I: ­Inngangur. Rit 46. Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi.
Einar G. Pétursson. 2007. ‘Akrabók: Handrit að Eddum með hendi ÁrnaBöðvarssonar á Ökrum og hugleiðingar um handritarannsóknir á­Eddunum’. Gripla XVIII 133–152.

108

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Erasmus of Rotterdam. 1599. Adagiorvm chiliades ivxta locos commvnes
digestæ. Frankfurt: Sumptibus haeredum Andreae Wecheli, Claudij
Marnij, & Io. Aubrij.
Eysteinn Björnsson and William P. Reaves (eds). 2006. ‘HrafnagaldurÓðins / Forspjallsljóð’: http://notendur.hi.is/eybjorn/ugm/hrg/hrg.
html
Faulkes, Anthony (ed.). 1977. Edda Islandorum. Völuspá. Hávamál. Rit 14.
Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi.
Faulkes, Anthony (ed.). 1979. Edda Magnúsar Ólafssonar (Laufás Edda).
Rit 13. Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi.
Fidjestøl, Bjarne. 1999. The Dating of Eddic Poetry. Bibliotheca Arna­magn­æana 41. København: C. A. Reitzels forlag.
Finnur Jónsson. 1926–1928. Ordbog til de af Samfund til Udg. af gml. nord.
Litteratur udgivne Rímur. Samfund til Udgivelse af gammel nordisk
Litteratur 51. København: Carlsbergfondet.
Finnur Jónsson. 1930. Ævisaga Árna Magnússonar. Safn Fræðafjelagsins
VIII. København: Hið íslenska fræðafélag.
Finsen, Eyvind. 1944. Bidrag til slægten Finsens historie med særligt
hen­blik paa dens tilknytning til Arne Magnusson og Den arnamagnæ­anske Kommission. Samling af biografier, haandskrifter, slægtstavler,bog­fortegnelser, litteraturfortegnelser m.m. København: Munks­gaard.
Flateyjarbók I–III. 1860–1868. Ed. Guðbrandur Vigfússon and C. R.
Unger. Christiania: Malling.
Fritzner, Johan. 1883–1896. Ordbog over det gamle norske sprog I–III.
Kristiania: Norske forlagsforening.
Glossary to the Poetic Edda. 1992. Compiled by Beatrice la Farge andJohn Tucker. Heidelberg: Winter.
Grímur M. Helgason (ed.). 1961. Pontus rímur eftir Magnús Jónsson prúða,Pétur Einarsson og Síra Ólaf Halldórsson. Reykjavík: Rímnafélagið.
Grundtvig, N. F. S. 1808. Nordens Mytologi. København: Schubothe.
Guðbrandur Vigfússon and Frederick York Powell. 1883. Corpus Poeticum
Boreale I–II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gödel, Vilhelm. 1892. Katalog öfver Upsala universitets biblioteks
fornisländska och fornnorska handskrifter. Upsala: Almqvist &Wiksell.
Gödel, Vilhelm. 1897. Fornnorsk-isländsk litteratur i Sverige I. (Till
Antikvitetskollegiets inrättande). Stockholm: Hæggströms boktryckeri.
Gödel, Vilhelm. 1897–1900. Katalog öfver Kongl. Bibliotekets forn­
isländska och fornnorska handskrifter. Stockholm: Kungliga biblioteket.
Hallgrímur Scheving: see Scheving, Hallgrímur.

Bibliographical References

109

Haukur Þorgeirsson. 2008. Gunnarsslagur og Valagaldur Kráku: Eddu­kvæði frá 18. öld. Ritgerð til BA-prófs. Íslensku og menningardeild.
Hugvísindadeild Háskóla Íslands. Reykjavík. [Unpublished]
Heimskringla I–III. In ÍF XXVI–XXVIII.
Hughes, Shaun F. D. 1977. Skrá um íslensk handrit í Harvard. [Unpublished]ÍF = Íslenzk fornrit I – . 1933– . Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka fornritafélag.
Íslendinga sögur I–II. 1843–1847. Kjøbenhavn: Det Kongelige Nordiske
Oldskrift-Selskab.
Íslenzkar þjóðsögur og ævintýri I–VI. 1954–1961. Ed. Jón Árnason. New
edition ed. Árni Böðvarsson and Bjarni Vilhjálmsson. Hólar: Þjóðsaga.
Íslenzkar Æviskrár I–V. 1948–1952. Compiled by Páll Eggert Ólason.
Reykjavík: Hið íslenska bókmenntafélag.
Jensen, Helle (ed.). 1983. Eiríks saga víðfƒrla. Editiones Arnamagnæanæ
B 29. København: C. A. Reitzels forlag.
Johansson, Karl G. 2005. ‘Översättning och originalspråkstekst i handskriftstraderingens våld: Merlínusspá och Vƒluspá i Hauksbók’. In
Neue Ansätzte in der Mittelalterphilologie. Nye veier i middelalder­filologien: Akten der skandinavistischen Arbeitstagung in Münster
vom 24. bis 26. Oktober 2002, 97–113. Ed. S. Kramarz-Bein. Texte undUntersuchungen zur Germanistik und Skandinavistik 55. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Jón lærði Guðmundsson. 1916. Fjölmóður. Ævidrápa. Ed. Páll EggertÓlason. Safn til sögu Íslands og ísl. bókmennta V: 3. Reykjavík: Hiðíslenska bókmenntafélag.
Jón Guðnason. 1961. Dalamenn: Æviskrár 1703–1961 II. Reykjavík:Gefið út á kostnað Höfundar.
Jón Helgason. 1926. Jón Ólafsson frá Grunnavík. Safn Fræðafjelagsinsum Ísland og Íslendinga 5. Kaupmannahöfn: Gefið út af hinu íslenzkaFræðafélagi í Kaupmannahöfn.
Jón Helgason. 1948. ‘Bókasafn Brynjólfs biskups’. Landsbókasafn Íslands:Árbók 1946–1947, 115–147.
Jón Helgason. 1962–1981. Íslensk fornkvæði: Islandske folkeviser I–VIII.
Editiones Arnamagnæanæ B 10–17. København: Ejnar Munksgaard.
Jón Helgason. 1970. ‘Sevels islandske håndskrifter’. Opuscula 4(Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 31), 108–119. Hafniæ: Munksgaard.
Jón Helgason. 1985. ‘Bækur og handrit á tveimur húnvetnskum höfuð­bólum á 18du öld’. Landsbókasafn Íslands: Árbók 1983, 5–46.
Jón Helgason. [not yet published]. Katalog over islandske håndskrifter i
The British Library.

110

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Jón Jóhannesson (ed.). 1956. Íslendingabók Ara fróða. AM. 113a and113b, fol. Reykjavík: University of Iceland.
Jón Ólafsson úr Grunnavík. 1950. ‘Um þá lærðu Vídalína’. In MerkirÍslend­­ingar IV 71–179. Ed. Þorkell Jóhannesson. Reykjavík: Bókfells­útgáfan.
Jónas Kristjánsson. 1967. Skrá um íslenzk handrit í Svíþjóð. HandritastofnunÍslands. [Unpublished]
Jónas Kristjánsson. 1987. ‘Um Grógaldur og Fjölsvinnsmál’. In Gríms­ævintýri sögð Grími M. Helgasyni sextugum 2. september 1987 II 13–15.
Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi.
Jónas Kristjánsson (ed.). 2002. ‘Hrafnagaldur Óðins — Forspjallsljóð:Fornkvæði reist úr ösku’. Lesbók Morgunblaðsins 27/4 2002, 4–6.
Jorgensen, Peter. 1977. ‘Hafgeirs saga Flateyings: An Eighteenth-Century
Forgery’. Journal of English and Germanic Philology LXXVI 155–164.
Kristján Árnason. 2002. ‘ “Hljóðdvöl” í Hrafnagaldri Óðins’. Lesbók
Morgun­blaðsins 25/5 2002, 11.
Kålund, Kristian. 1900. Katalog over de oldnorsk-islandske Håndskrifter i
Det Store Kongelige Bibliotek. København: Gyldendal.
Lassen, Annette. 2006. ‘Hrafnagaldur Óðins / Forspjallsljóð: Etantikvarisk digt?’ In The Fantastic in Old Norse/Icelandic Literature.
Sagas and the British Isles. Preprint Papers of the 13th International
Saga Conference. Durham and York, 6th–12th August, 2006, I 551–
560. Ed. John McKinnell, David Ashurst and Donata Kick. Durham.
Loth, Agnete. 1960. ‘Om nogle af Ásgeir Jónssons håndskrifter’. Opuscula 1(Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 20) 207–212. Hafniæ: Munksgaard.
LP = Sveinbjörn Egilsson. 1931. Lexicon Poeticum antiquæ linguæ
septen­trionalis. Ordbog over det norsk-islandske skjaldesprog. Rev.
Finnur Jónsson. København: Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskrift­Selskab.
Már Jónsson. 1998. ‘Þórður biskup Þorláksson og söfnun íslenskra hand­rita á síðari hluta 17. aldar’. In Frumkvöðull vísinda og mennta: Þórður
Þorláksson biskup í Skálholti, 179–196. Ed. Jón Pálsson. Reykjavík:
Háskólaútgáfan.
Meissner, Rudolf. 1921. Die Kenningar der Skalden. Bonn und Leipzig:
Kurt Schroeder.
Morawski, Joseph. 1925. Proverbes français antérieurs au XVe siècle.
Paris: É. Champion.
Noreen, Adolf. 1923. Altisländische und Altnorwegische Grammatik.
Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Norrœn fornkvæði. 1867. Ed. Sophus Bugge. Christiania: Malling.

Bibliographical References

111Ólafur Halldórsson. 1967. Skrá yfir íslenzk og norsk handrit í Edinborg
I–III. Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi. [Unpublished]
ONP = Ordbog over det norrøne prosasprog I– . 1995– . København:
Den Arnamagnæanske Kommission.
ONP word list: http://dataonp.hum.ku.dk/index.html
Orðabók Háskólans: http://www.lexis.hi.is/indexny.html
Orkneyinga saga. Ed. Finnbogi Guðmundsson. In ÍF XXXIV 3–300.
Páll Eggert Ólason. 1918– . Skrá um handritasöfn Landsbókasafnsins I–V.
Reykjavík: Landsbókasafn Íslands.
Parkin, John. 2006. La Renaissance et la nuit (review). French Studies
LX 379–380.
Philosophia Patrum = Wegeler, J. 1877. Philosophia Patrum in lateinischen
Versen und ihre Übersetzungen. Koblenz.
Porter, Pamela. 2006. ‘Preserving the Past: England, Iceland and the Movement of Manuscripts’. Care and Conservation of Manuscripts IX 173–190.
Rímnatal I–II. 1966. Compiled by Finnur Sigmundsson. Reykjavík:
Rímnafélagið.
Ritaukaskrá Landsbókasafnsins 1925. 1926. Reykjavík: Landsbókasafn
Íslands.
Sandvig, B. C. (trans.). 1783–1785. Forsøg til en Oversættelse af Sæmunds
Edda I–II. Kiøbenhavn.
Scheving, Hallgrímur (ed.). 1837. Hrafnagaldur Ódins / Forspiallslióþ.
Bodsrit Bessastada skóla 1837. Videyjar klaustri.
Scheving, Hallgrímur. 1843. ‘Islendskir málshættir safnadir, úrvaldirog í stafrófsrød færdir’. Bodsrit Bessastadaskóla 1843. Videyjar klaustri.
Schück, Henrik. 1933. Kgl. Vitterhets historie och Antikvitets Akademien
dess förhistoria och historia III. Stockholm.
Seelow, Hubert. 1977. ‘Ásgeir Jónsson und seine “Membranartige”
Frakturschrift’. In Sjötíu ritgerðir helgaðar Jakobi Benediktssyni 20.
júlí 1977, II 658–664. Ed. Jónas Kristjánsson and Einar G. Pétursson.
Rit 12 . Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi.
Sievers, Eduard. 1893. Altgermanische Metrik. Halle: Max ­Niemeyer. ­Samm­lung Kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte. E­ rgänzungs­reihe 2.
SnE 1848–1887 = Edda Snorra Sturlusonar I–III. Ed. Jón Sigurðsson,
Finnur Jónsson and Sveinbjörn Egilsson. Hafniæ: Sumptibus Legati
Arnamagnæani.
SnE 1931 = Edda Snorra Sturlusonar. Ed. Finnur Jónsson. København.
SnE I–II = Snorri Sturluson: Edda [I]. Prologue and Gylfaginning.
Second edition. Ed. Anthony Faulkes. 2005. London: Viking Society
for Northern Research. [II]. Skáldskaparmál. Introduction, Text and112

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Notes. Ed. Anthony Faulkes. 1998. London: Viking Society for Northern
Research.
Stefán Karlsson (ed.). 1983. Guðmundar sögur biskups I. Ævi Guðmundarbiskups. Guðmundar saga A. Editiones Arna­magnæanæ B 6. København: C. A. Reitzel.
Stefán Karlsson. 2000. ‘Tungan’. In Stafkrókar: Ritgerðir eftir Stefán
Karlsson gefnar út í tilefni af sjötugsafmæli hans. Ed. Guðvarður Már
Gunnlaugsson. Rit 49, 19–75. Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar áÍslandi. Translated by Rory McTurk as The Icelandic Language. 2004.
London: Viking Society for Northern Research.
Sveinbjörn Rafnsson. 1999. ‘Merlínusspá og Vǫluspá í sögulegu
samhengi’. Skírnir CLXXIII 377–419.
Sørensen, John Kousgård (ed.). 1980. Danmarks gamle ordsprog 6:
Samlinger fra det 17. århundrede. København: C. A. Reitzel.
Sørensen, John Kousgård (ed.). 1988. Danmarks gamle ordsprog 7/2:
Danske ordsproge I, Kiøbenhafn 1688 / Peder Syv. København: C. A.
Reitzel.
Verri, Giovanni. 2007. ‘Nokkur óþekkt handrit Hrafnagaldurs Óðins /Forspjallsljóðs’. Ritgerð til BA-prófs í Íslensku fyrir erlenda stúdenta.
Hugvísindadeild Háskóla Íslands. Reykjavík. [Unpublished]
Veturliði Óskarsson. 2003. Middelnedertyske låneord i islandsk diplom­
sprog frem til år 1500. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana XLIII. København:
C. A. Reitzel.
Walther, Hans. 1963–1969. Lateinische Sprichwörter und Sentenzen desMittelalters in alphabetischer Anordnung I–VI. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
und Ruprecht.
Ward, H. L. D. 1893. Catalogue of Romances in the Department ofManuscripts in the British Museum II. London: Printed by order of thetrustees.
Weggewohnts Lied (Vegtams kvida), Der Odins Raben Orakelsang (Hrafna
galdr Odins) und Der Seherin Voraussicht (Völuspâ). 1875. Ed. Friedrich
Wilh. Bergmann. Strassburg: Trübner.
Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson. 1935. Magnús Ketilsson sýslumaður. Reykjavík:
Félagsprentsmiðjan.

INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS
Add. 4877 (4877): 28, 39, 46–48, 64
Add. 11165 (11165): 28, 39, 50, 64
Add. 11245: 37
Add. 29537: 45
Adv. 21.4.7 (21.4.7): 28, 39, 45–50, 64
Adv. 21.5.2 (21.5.2): 28, 50, 54–55, 57–60, 64
Adv. 21.6.7 (21.6.7): 28, 54, 61–64, 70, 77
AM 212 fol.: 14
AM 242 fol. (Codex Wormianus): 26
AM 424 fol.: 8: 21n, 22, 26–27, 76
AM 433 fol.: 17
AM 544 4to (Hauksbók): 43, 95–96
AM 551 d b 4to: 14
AM 582 4to: 77
AM 748 I a 4to: 43
AM 916 4to: 48n
AM 927 4to: 65
AM 254 8vo: 14
Bjarni Halldórsson’s manuscript (B): 40, 52, 77
Codex Langebekianus: 43n, 44–45
Egerton 642: 57
Egerton 643 (643; Codex Thorlacianus): 28, 50, 55–57, 59, 64
Eyjólfur Jónsson’s manuscript: 39–40, 42–43, 46, 49, 77
GKS 2365 4to (Codex Regius of the eddic poems): 7, 11–15, 21, 26, 29–30, 36,
40, 43, 45–46, 48–50, 54, 56–61, 66, 68, 70–71, 80, 97, 102
Geir Vídalín’s manuscript: 8–9, 78
Gunnar Pálsson’s manuscript: 22, 77, 79
Harl. 3362: 20
ÍBR 36 4to (36): 27, 71–73
ÍBR 24 8vo (24): 27, 71, 74–75
ÍBR 25 8vo: 74
ÍBR 26 8vo: 74
ÍBR 120 8vo: 17n
Jón Egilsson’s manuscript: 39, 42–43, 46, 49, 77, 79
JS 273 4to a II 7: 17
JS 648 4to (648): 28, 50–51, 54–56, 59, 64
JS 391 8vo (391): 19
JS 470–519 8vo: 73
JS 494 8vo (494): 28, 71–74
KB Add 14 4to (14): 26–27, 76
Lbs 214 4to: 49, 58–59
Lbs 818 4to (818): 27, 61–64

114

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Lbs 966 4to (966): 27, 38–39, 54, 63–65
Lbs 1199 4to (1199): 19
Lbs 1441 4to (E): 7, 14, 27, 29–30, 37, 64–71, 73, 81–94, 102
Lbs 1562 4to (B): 7, 12n, 13–14, 23, 27–28, 30, 35–39, 41, 43, 47, 49–51, 55–56,
59, 62–71, 80–94, 96
Lbs 1588 a 4to (1588 a): 27, 36, 40, 50–57, 59–60, 64, 77
Lbs 1588 a I 4to (1588 a I): 27, 50–56, 64, 77
Lbs 1588 a II 4to (1588 a II): 27, 50–57, 59–60, 64
Lbs 1689 4to (1689): 27, 50–51, 54–57, 59, 64
Lbs 2859 4to (2859): 27, 71, 75–76
Magnús Jónsson’s manuscript: 61, 63, 77
Ms. germ. qu. 329 (329): 28, 50, 55, 58–60, 64
Ms. Icel. 47 (47; Codex Ericianus): 8–9, 28, 32, 39, 43–47, 64, 67, 76
NKS 1108 fol. (1108): 9, 27, 38–39, 48–51, 59, 64
NKS 1109 fol. (1109): 9, 27, 38–43, 46–47, 49–50, 52, 64, 77
NKS 1111 fol. (1111): 9, 27, 50, 54–55, 60, 64
NKS 1852 4to: 40
NKS 1866 4to (1866; Codex Luxdorphianus): 9, 27, 38–39, 42–50, 64, 79
NKS 1869 4to: 60
NKS 1870 4to (1870): 27, 31–32, 34, 44, 76, 79–80
NKS 1878 a 4to: 48n
Páll Hjálmarsson’s manuscript: 77
Rostgaard 48 8to: 20n
Stockholm papp. fol. nr 34 (34): 8, 27, 30–34, 36, 76, 96–97
Stockholm papp. fol. nr 57 (C): 7, 9, 14, 27–30, 37, 64–71, 81–94
Stockholm papp. 4to nr 11 (11): 27, 33–34, 81, 88
Stockholm papp. 4to nr 46 (46): 8, 27, 33–34
Stockholm papp. 8vo nr 3: 29
Stockholm papp. 8vo nr 15 (A): 7–9, 12n, 13–14, 23, 27–31, 33–34, 36–37, 44,
62, 64–71, 79–94, 106
Stockholm papp. 8vo nr 18: 29
Thott 773 a fol. (773 a): 27, 39–43, 46–47, 49–50, 64
Thott 1491 4to (D): 7, 13–14, 27, 29–30, 37, 44, 64–71, 77, 81–94
Thott 1492 4to (1492): 27, 39–43, 46–47, 49–50, 64
UUB R 682 (682): 27, 32–34
UUB R 682 a (682 a): 27, 33–34
UUB R 684: 32
UUB R 691 (691): 27, 32, 34
ZCJ22 (22): 28, 39, 47–48, 64
Þórður Jónsson’s manuscript: 58n, 66

INDEX OF NAMES
Adagia: 18–20
Bjarkamál: 62, 72
Aeneid: 24–25
Bjarnasona kvæði: 64
Afguder heidingjanna: 63
Bjarni Halldórsson (1703–1773): 40,
Afzelius, Arvid August (1785–1871):
52, 77
8, 10nBjörn Jónsson of Skarðsá (1574–1655): 66Ágrip af Postula-æfum: 73
Björn M. Ólsen, Professor (1850–1919):
Aldarháttur: 48
38Álfrǫðull (alternative name for the sun): Bogi Benediktsson of Staðarfell (1771–
94, 106
1849): 52
Alfǫðr (alternative name for Óðinn): Borch, Ole, Professor (1626–1690):
23, 82, 95
29
Alsviðr (alternative name for Óðinn?): Bóthildar kvæði: 64
83, 97
Bowring, John (1792–1872): 45n
Alsvinnsmál: 105
Bragi (a god): 7, 23n, 86, 89, 98–99, 102
Alvíssmál: 29, 32–33, 42, 44, 61, 63, 72, Breiðfjörð, Sigurður (1798–1846): 51
74, 98, 105–106
Brísingamen: 74
Antikvitetskollegiet: 29, 31, 79
Brot af Sigurðarkviðu: 31, 36
Arnamagnæan Commission, The: 17n, Brynjólfur Brynjólfsson: 38
40n, 58, 76
Brynjólfur Sveinsson, Bishop (1605–
Árni Böðvarsson (1713–1776): 49, 51
1675): 11–15, 19–22, 79Árni Magnússon, Professor (1663– Bugge, Sophus, Professor (1833–1907):
1730): 11–15, 58, 76–77, 79
9–12, 14, 17n, 30–31, 34, 38, 41, 43n,Árni Þorkelsson (1730–1801): 51
44–45, 49, 61, 65, 71, 75–76, 80n, 81,Árni Þorsteinsson (1754–1829): 16
102–104, 106
Arons saga: 14Bǫlverkr (alternative name for Óðinn):Ásbjarnarkviða: 62
91, 103Ásgeir Jónsson (c. 1657–1707): 12n, 21, Cecilíu kvæði: 64
28, 35–37, 64
Clarke, Adam (d. 1832): 56
Atlakviða: 36, 63, 72
Constable, Archibald (1774–1827): 56
Atlamál in grœnlenzku: 35–36, 63, 72 Copenhagen: 10, 15, 17n, 20, 23, 27,
Baldr (a god): 98, 104
37, 44, 48n, 53, 58, 65, 76, 79–80, 95
Baldrs draumar: 10n, 11n, 21n, 23–24, Dáinn (a dwarf): 83, 88, 96, 101
26, 29, 32, 35–36, 38, 40, 43–46, Dellingr (father of Day): 93, 98, 105
48–50, 54, 56–58, 60–61, 63, 68, Dráp Niflunga: 72
72–73, 76, 80, 104, 106
Duhre, Gabriel: 33–34
Banks, Joseph (1743–1820): 46, 78
Dvalinn (a dwarf): 93, 105Bárðar saga Snæfellsáss: 18
Ebba kvæði: 64
Bartholin (the Elder), Thomas (1616– Edda, see Snorri’s Edda
1680): 29
Eggert Ólafsson (1726–1768): 45, 52,
Bartholin, (the Younger), Thomas
58–60(1659–1690): 12n, 79
Egill Skallagrímsson (10th century): 46,
Bergbúa þáttr: 68, 72
48, 58, 62–63, 68Bifrǫst (the gods’ bridge to heaven): 25, Einar Bjarnason from Starrastaðir (1782–
86, 99, 106
1856): 72

116

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Einar Hálfdanarson, Síra (1695–1753): 53 Grímnismál: 10n, 25n, 26, 29, 32, 35,
Eiríksmál: 62
61, 63, 72, 74, 95–106
Eiríkur Hallsson at Höfði, Síra (1614– Grímur Thorkelín, see Thorkelín,1698): 20–21­GrímurElenar ljóð: 64
Grípisspá: 63, 72
Élivágar (primeval waters or rivers): Grottasƒngr: 14, 26, 29, 31, 35–36, 38,
88, 10140, 43–44, 46, 48–50, 54, 56–58, 60,
Engilbert Jónsson, Síra (1747–1820): 52
62–63, 65–66, 68, 72, 75
Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536): Gróugaldur: 11, 14, 29, 35, 38–40,
18–20
43–44, 46, 49–50, 54, 56–58, 60,
Erlendur Hjálmarsson (1750–1835): 52
62–63, 66, 68, 72–73, 75–76
Eyjólfur Jónsson at Vellir, Síra (1670– Grundtvig, N. F. S. (1783–1872): 10n1745): 17n, 39–43, 46, 49, 77, 79
Grüner, Johan Diderik (1661–1712):
Eyvindr Finsson skáldaspillir (d. c.
29, 32990): 62Grænlandsannáll: 79nFáfnismál: 47, 63, 72, 99, 105Guðbrandur Vigfússon (1827–1889):
Fenrir (a wolf): 93, 103–104
17n, 47–48
Finnur Jónsson, Bishop (1704–1789): 68 Guðbrandur Þorláksson, Bishop (c.
Finnur Magnússon, Professor (1781–
1541–1627): 97
1847): 10, 13n, 45, 50, 56–57, 72, 78 Guðmundar sƒgur biskups: 14
Fjölsvinnsmál: 14, 29, 35–36, 38–40, Guðmundur Andrésson (d. 1654): 31
43–44, 46, 48–50, 54, 56–58, 60–61, Guðmundur Einarsson (1823–1865): 72
63, 66, 68, 72, 75–76, 100Guðmundur Gísli Sigurðsson, Síra
Fornjótr (a giant): 90, 103(1834–1892): 74
Frá dauða Sinfjƒtla: 63, 72–73Guðmundur Ísfold, see Ísfold, GuðFrigg (a goddess): 14, 93, 104–105
mundurFuglagáta: 63Guðmundur Magnússon (1741–1798):
Fundinn Noregr: 74
8–9, 11n, 13n, 16, 18, 20–21, 23, 27,
Gamla jólaskrá: 63
31, 44, 76, 78
Gauta kvæði: 64Guðmundur Ólafsson (c. 1652–1695):
Geir Vídalín, see Vídalín, Geir
12n, 21, 28–29, 31, 33, 36, 79
Ginnungi/Ginnungr (a mythological Guðrún Jónsdóttir: 38
figure or place): 83, 97
Guðrúnarkviða I: 31, 36, 63, 72, 74
Gísli Brynjúlfsson (1827–1888): 12Guðrúnarkviða II: 36, 63, 72
Gísli Jónsson Steinhólm (1804–1860): 38 Guðrúnarhvƒt: 36, 63, 72
Gísli Konráðsson (1787–1877): 51
Gullkársljóð: 56, 59
Gísli Þorláksson, Bishop (1631–1684): 21 Gunnar Pálsson (1714–1791): 8–9, 10n,Gizurr gullbrárskáld (d. c. 1030): 62
16–17, 21n, 22, 26–27, 39, 76–77,
Gjallarhorn (Heimdallr’s horn): 86, 89,
79, 80n94, 97, 99, 102, 106
Gunnarsslagur: 16–17, 21, 72–74
Gjǫll (name of a river): 86, 99, 106
Gunnlaugs saga: 76Glælognskviða: 62
Guttormr sindri (10th century): 62
Gráfeldar drápa: 62
Guttormur Pálsson, Síra (1775–1860): 16
Grettis saga: 72
Hafgeirs saga Flateyings: 17
Grímnir (alternative name for Óðinn): Hákonar saga Hákonarsonar: 14, 64
30, 89, 102
Hákonarmál: 58, 62, 68, 72

Index of Names

117

Háleygjatal: 25, 105
Himinbjǫrg (place at the edge of ­heaven):
Hálfdan Einarsson, Principal (1732–
94, 1061785): 17n
Hjaltalín, Jón A., Síra (1840–1908):
Halldór Hjálmarsson, Vice–Principal
75–76(1745–1805): 51–53, 77Hliðskjálf (Óðinn’s lookout place):
Hallgrímur Pétursson, Síra (1614–1674):
86, 100
51
Hlýrnir (the sixth of the mythological
Hallgrímur Scheving, see Scheving,heavens): 87, 100
Hallgrímur
Hnikarr (alternative name for Óðinn):
Hallmundar vísur/Hallmundar ljóð:91, 104
14, 62, 64
Hólar, Hjaltadalur: 21, 39, 53, 77, 79, 98
Hamðismál: 23, 35–36, 40, 43, 45, 48, Hólmfríður Vídalín, see Vídalin, Hólm54, 56–59, 61, 63, 66, 68, 72, 75
fríðurHangatýr (alternative name for Óðinn): Hornklofavísur: 58
25, 90, 103
Hrímfaxi (Night’s horse): 93, 104–105
Hárbarðsljóð: 29, 32–33, 51, 61, 63, Hroptr (alternative name for Óðinn):
72, 74, 76
54, 93, 104
Háttalykill Lopts ins ríka: 72
Hugsvinnsmál: 72–74
Háttalykill Þorláks Guðbrandssonar Hvad Galldur kallast: 63
Vídalíns: 48
Hvπrnenn lita skal hier-lendst: 63
Hávamál: 15, 22, 25n, 29, 32–33, 35–36, Hymiskviða: 29, 61, 63, 72, 74, 76, 101
38, 50, 52, 56, 61, 63, 65–66, 72–74, Hyndluljóð: 14, 26, 29, 35–36, 38, 40,
76, 96, 103, 105
43–44, 46, 48–50, 53–54, 56–61, 63,
Loddfáfnismál: 52, 56, 96
66, 68, 72, 80, 96, 99, 106
Rúnatal: 32
Hƒfuðlausn: 45–46, 52, 62–63, 68, 72
Heiðreks gátur: 11, 35–36, 40, 43, 46, Iðunn (a goddess): 7, 24, 26, 84, 97–102
48–50, 60, 62–63, 68, 72, 80
Iliad: 24
Heimdallr (a god): 7, 23, 86, 89, 91, 94, Ísfiord, Þorlákur Magnússon (c. 1748–
99, 101–103, 106
1781): 17n
Heimskringla: 26, 58, 74, 97, 103, 105 Ísfold, Guðmundur (1732–1782): 68
Ynglinga saga: 26, 97, 103, 105Íslendingabók: 14
Heinsius, Daniel (1580–1655): 18Ívaldr (a dwarf): 82, 98
Hel (world of the dead): 87, 98–100; Íviðja (a trollwife): 81, 95
daughter of Loki 100, 106
Jóhann Jónsson: 74
Helgakviða Hjƒrvarðssonar: 63, 72, 74 Jóhanna Soffía Bogadóttir (1823–1855): 62
Helgakviða Hundingsbana I: 63, 72, 74 Jómsvíkingadrápa: 48, 59
Helgakviða Hundingsbana II: 72, 74
Jón A. Hjaltalín, see Hjaltalín, Jón A.
Helgi Hundingsbani (legendary hero): 57 Jón Bjarnason of Rafnseyri, Síra (1721–
Helgi Ólafsson (c. 1646–1707): 31, 36,1785): 38
44, 52–53, 64, 76, 96–97
Jón Eggertsson (1800–1880): 47
Hellisvísur: 72
Jón Egilsson, Síra, Vice-principal (1714–
Helreið Brynhildar: 36, 63, 71
1784): 39, 42–43, 46, 49, 77, 79
Henderson, Ebenezer (1784–1858): 61 Jón Egilsson at Stóra-Vatnshorn (1724–
Herjan (alternative name for Óðinn):1807): 61, 77
89, 97, 99
Jón Eiríksson (1728–1787): 8–9, 32,
Hersleb, Peder, Bishop (1689–1757): 42, 79
44, 67, 76

118

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Jón Erlendsson of Villingaholt, Síra (d. Magnús (digri) Jónsson of Vigur (1637–1672): 14–15
1702): 40, 61, 63, 77
Jón Gíslason Steinhólm (1756–1828): 38 Magnús (prúði) Jónsson (1525–1591):
Jón (lærði) Guðmundsson (1574–1658):
19
22, 79nMagnús Ketilsson (1732–1803): 47–48
Jón Halldórsson, Síra (1665–1736): 11, Mannheimr (the world of men): 41, 43,
12n, 49, 58, 77
93, 105
Jón Jónsson at Flugumýri and Hjalta­ Maríuvísur: 51
staðir, Síra (1725–1799): 66
Markús Jónsson, Síra: 60
Jón Jónsson langur (1779–1828): 73
Marteins kviða: 64
Jón Jónsson skon (d. 1695): 51
Merlínusspá: 56, 58, 72
Jón Níelsson of Grænanesi (1800–1842): Metamorphoses: 24
74
Michaelis Apostolius: 18–20
Jón Ólafsson at Eyri (1729–1778): 39, 77 Miðgarðr (rampart made by the gods):
Jón Ólafsson of Grímsstaðir (c. 1691 to
15n, 88, 101
c. 1765): 62
Mímir (mythological figure): 37, 41, 49,
Jón Ólafsson of Grunnavík (1705–
84, 91, 97–98, 102
1779): 14–15, 17, 37, 40, 72
Munch, P. A., Professor (1810–1863):
Jón Sigurðsson (1811–1879): 65
8–11, 74
Jón Sigurðsson Dalaskáld (c. 1685– Møllmann, Bernhard, Professor (1702–
1720): 51
1778): 17n, 40n
Jónas Jónsson: 61
Nál (mother of Loki): 25, 89, 102
Jórunn (alternative name for Iðunn?): Niflheimr, Niflhel (world of mist or dark89, 102ness): 25, 34, 94, 98, 106
Julius, Nikolaus Heinrich (1783–1862): 59 Njóla (alternative name for night): 42,
Kolbeinn Bjarnason (1752–1833): 62
48, 94, 106
Krákumál: 56, 59, 68, 72
Nockrar M§lsgreiner um þad hvadan
Kristín Skúladóttir (1809–1880): 47
Böken Edda hefir sitt nafn: 63
Kristínar kvæði: 64
Nomenclaturæ vocum Grammaticarum
Kristján Magnussen (1801–1871): 47–48
Eddu authoris: 52
Krosskvæði: 51
Nora eða Njörva jötuns kviða: 72
Laufás Edda: 36, 52
Noregs konungatal: 62
Lesrím Ó. Hjaltalíns: 73
Nyerup, Rasmus, Professor (1759–
Lexicon Islandicum: 31
1829): 59
Lítið ágrip um afguðina og gyðjurnar: 62 Nǫrvi (father of Nótt): 85, 98
Lokasenna: 24, 25n, 29, 32–33, 35, 61, Oddi, Rangárvellir: 42, 45, 61, 68, 74
63, 72–74, 76, 98–99, 103–104
Oddrúnar grátr: 36, 63, 72
Loki (a god): 7, 86, 89, 91, 93, 98–100, Óðhrærir (a mythological figure): 72,
102–10582, 96Loptr (alternative name for Loki): 34, 86, Óðinn (a god): 7, 21–24, 26, 38, 53, 86,99
89–90, 92–93, 95–104
Luxdorph, Bolle Christensen (1643– Ólafur Jónsson, Síra (1637–1688):1698): 29
12–13, 21, 79
Luxdorph, Bolle Willum (1716–1788): Ólafur Jónsson of Purkey: 38
39–40, 42–43, 78–79Ólafur Sveinsson (1762–1845): 62
Madden, Frederic (1801–1873): 50, 57 Ólufar kvæði: 64

Index of Names

119Ómi (alternative name for Óðinn): 30, Sigurður Eiríksson, Síra (1706–1768):
92, 104
16
Páll Andrésson: 52
Sigurður (skáldi) Jónsson (18th ­century):
Páll Hjálmarsson, Síra (1752–1830):
51
52, 77Sigurður Vigfússon (1828–1892): 47
Páll (stúdent) Pálsson (1806–1877): Siön Sira Jons Eyölfssonar: 63
62, 73
Skafti Skaftason, Síra (1761–1804): 16
Páll Sveinsson (1704–1784): 14, 44, Skírnismál: 29, 32–33, 35, 61, 63, 72,
65–67, 77
74, 100, 106
Páll Vídalín, see Vídalín, Páll
Skúli Magnussen: 47
Powell, Frederick York (1850–1904): 47 Skúli Magnússon (1711–1794): 65
Ragnarǫk: 23–24, 80, 102–104, 106
Skúli Thorlacius, see Thorlacius, Skúli
Rakni (a sea-king): 104
Skǫgul (valkyrie): 69, 91, 104
Rask, Rasmus Kr., Professor (1787– Snorri’s Edda: 11n, 17n, 22–26, 30, 33,1832): 8–9, 10n, 30–31, 33, 71, 74,
40n, 41, 52–53, 57–58, 63, 95–106
81, 100–104
Gylfaginning: 22, 26, 96–106
Reginsmál: 72, 100
Skáldskaparmál: 42, 95–106
Resen, Peder Hansen, Professor (1625–
Háttatal: 25n, 48
1688): 15, 31, 68
See also Laufás EddaRígsþula: 26, 45–46, 54, 57, 68, 72
Sólarljóð: 13–14, 23, 29, 32–33, 35–36,
Rímur af hvarfi og drukknan árið 1768
38, 40, 43, 45–46, 48–52, 54, 58–61,
Eggerts skálds Ólafssonar: 51
63, 68, 72–75, 79–80
Rindr (a giantess): 93, 104
Sonar harmur: 64
Rosenblad, Bernhard (1796–1855): 44 Sonatorrek: 43, 46, 56, 63, 68
Rúnadeilur: 74
Sotberg, Eric of (1724–1781): 33
Rǫgnir (alternative name for Óðinn): Steele, Robert (1860–1944): 47
86, 100
Stefán Scheving, see Scheving, Stefán
Sandvig, Bertel Christian (1752–1786): Stephens, George (1813–1895): 44–45
16n
Stjúpmóður minning: 64
Scheving, Hallgrímur (1781–1861): 8, Stockholm: 12n, 26–27, 29, 31–32, 36,
10, 18, 22, 24, 71, 73–74, 81, 95, 99,
44, 95
101–104, 106
Suhm, Peter Friedrich (1728–1798): 32,
Scheving, Hallgrímur (b. 1846): 95
41, 43, 49, 61, 78–79
Scheving, Stefán (1766–1844): 95
Sveinbjörn Egilsson, Principal (1791–
Scheving, Vigfús Hansson (1735–1817):
1852): 95
52
Sveinbjörn Hallgrímsson, Síra (1815–
Scheving, Vigfús Jónsson (1749–1834):
1863): 95
53n
Svipdagsmál I–II: 76
Scheving, Þórunn Stefánsdóttir (1793– Systra kvæði: 64
1881): 95Sæhrímnir (a boar): 15n, 91, 103–104
Scott, Walter (1771–1832): 56
Sæmundr (fróði) Sigfússon (1056–
Sevel, Frederik Christian (1723–1778): 49
1133): 9, 12, 14n, 23, 79–80
Sigrdrífumál: 63, 66, 72, 74, 97, 103Sæmundur Hólm, Síra (1749–1821):
Sigurðarkviða in skamma: 36, 63, 72
55–57
Sigurður Breiðfjörð, see Breiðfjörð, Taflkvæði: 64
Sigurður
Teikn til vedráttufars: 73

120

Hrafnagaldur Óðins

Third Grammatical Treatise: 25n
Vƒluspá: 10n, 11n, 13, 15, 22–26, 29, 31,
Thorkelín, Grímur, Professor (1752–
33, 35–36, 47, 55, 60–61, 63, 72–74,
1829): 57
80, 95–105
Thorlacius, Børge, Professor and Rector Worm, Ole, Professor (1588–1654): 29(1775–1829): 16, 57
Yggdrasill (the mythological worldThorlacius, Skúli (1741–1815): 12, 57tree): 84–85, 94–96, 98–99, 105–106
Thornton, Grace: 75
Yggjungr (alternative name for Óðinn):Thott, Otto, Count (1703–1785): 42, 44,
54–55, 62–63, 67, 90, 103
65, 78–79
Yggr (alternative name for Óðinn): 90,
Tillegg Nockurt heirande til Snorra Eddu,
99, 103sem ecke er ad finna i þeim þricktu, üt­ Ynglinga drápa: 74
dreiged af Skrife Biörns ä Skards ä: 66 Ynglingatal: 58, 72
Torfæus, Thormod (1636–1719): 63Þórálfs drápa: 62Úlfrún (one of Heimdallr’s mothers): Þórarinn Jónsson, Síra (1755–1816): 51
94, 106Þorbjörg Magnúsdóttir (1667–1737): 40
Um Galldra Bækur: 63
Þorbjǫrn hornklofi: 22, 62
Um oracula: 63Þórður Jónsson of Staðarstaður, Síra
Upprune Galldra: 63(1672–1720): 58n, 66
Urðr (mythological figure): 72, 82, 96, 98 Þórður Þorláksson, Bishop (1637–1697):
Vafþrúðnismál: 10n, 29, 32–33, 35–36,
21
51, 61, 63, 72–74, 96, 98, 101, 104–106 Þorfinnr munnr (d. c. 1030): 62
Valagaldur Kráku: 56Þorgrímur Þorláksson: 52
Vallara kvæði: 64Þorkels kviða: 64
Vellekla: 62Þorlákur Magnússon Ísfiord, see Ísfiord,
Vídalín, Geir, Bishop (1761–1823):Þorlákur Magnússon
8–9, 78Þorlákur Skúlason (1597–1656): 21
Vídalín, Hólmfríður (1697–1736): 40 Þorleifur Jónsson of Skinnastaður, Síra
Vídalín, Páll, Principal (1667–1727):(1845–1911): 56
22–23, 25, 36–37, 40, 52–53, 77, 79 Þormóðr Bersason Kolbrúnarskáld (d.
Viðarr/Víðarr (alternative name forc. 1030): 62Óðinn): 90, 103Þormóðr Trefilsson (11th century): 22Viðrir (alternative name for Óðinn): 86, Þormóður Torfason, see Torfæus, ­Thormod
99, 103Þorn (a giant or a svefnþorn): 88, 101
Vigfús Hansson Scheving, see Scheving, Þorsteinn Eyjólfsson at Háeyri (c.
Vigfús Hansson
1645–1714): 11, 77
Vigfús Jónsson of Hítardalur, Síra Þorsteinn Pétursson of Staðarbakki, Síra
(1706–1776): 49, 58(1710–1785): 68
Vigfús Jónsson Scheving, see Scheving, Þórunn Stefánsdóttir Scheving, see
Vigfús Jónsson
Scheving, Þórunn Stefánsdóttir
Vijsur Einars Skúla sonar um hinar Þráinn (dwarf): 37, 41, 49, 75, 83,­nafnkunnugre Eijar vid Noreg: 52
96
Vingólf (alternative name for Gimlé): Þrymskviða: 29, 32–33, 35, 40, 54,
25, 90, 103
56–59, 61, 63, 72–74, 101
Vísa trémanns í Sámseyju: 56, 62, 68Ögmundur Ögmundarson (c. 1681–
Vƒlundarkviða: 29, 32, 35, 40, 44,1707): 37
53–54, 56–57, 63, 72–74¯rvar-Odds drápa: 62