THE FOURTH GRAMMATICAL TREATISE

THE FOURTHGRAMMATICAL TREATISEEDITED BY

MARGARET CLUNIES ROSSAND

JONAS WELLENDORF

VIKING SOCIETY FOR NORTHERN RESEARCH
UNIVESITY COLLEGE LONDON
2014© Margaret Clunies Ross and Jonas Wellendorf 2014

ISBN:
978 0 903521 90 1

Printed by Short Run Press Limited, Exeter

CONTENTS
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

vii

GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS

ix

INTRODUCTION

xi

1. Date, provenance and nature of FoGT
xi
2. FoGT within the traditions of grammar and rhetoricxiv
a. FoGT within the Icelandic tradition of grammaticallearningxivb. FoGT and the Latin traditionxix
3. The makeup of FoGT
xxxvii4. Knowledge of D and G in Iceland and Norwayxl
5. The nature and origin of the poetic examples in FoGT
xlv
a. Named poets and poems
xlv
b. The anonymous stanzas
xlix
c. Dominant themes of the anonymous stanzas and theirprose exegesisliii
6. The present edition: guiding principles
lvii
a. Normalisation of the Icelandic text
lvii
b. Reproduction of the text and the translation
lix
c. Commentarylxii
7. Previous editions of FoGT
lxii
TEXT AND TRANSLATION

1COMMENTARY50

DOCTRINALE (ll. 2560−2639): TEXT AND TRANSLATION145

TECHNICAL TERMS USED IN FoGT

152

BIBLIOGRAPHY

157

INDEX

173

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present edition is the result of a happy collaboration between two
scholars with particular interests in a common text, the so-called
Fourth Grammatical Treatise (FoGT ), the understanding of which
requires expertise in the medieval Latin grammatical and rhetorical
tradition that made it possible for an unknown fourteenth-century
Icelander to compose the work and, in addition, knowledge of thevernacular tradition of skaldic poetry, with which he illustrated it.
Jonas Wellendorf has been responsible for placing FoGT in its Latin
context, editing and translating the prose text and providing commentary on it, while Margaret Clunies Ross has edited, translated andprovided commentary on the poetic examples. The Introduction is thework of both editors.
Up to now, FoGT has been a somewhat neglected late medieval
Icelandic text, especially by comparison with other vernacular treatises on poetry, such as the Edda of Snorri Sturluson and The Third
Grammatical Treatise (TGT ) by Snorri’s nephew Óláfr hvítaskáld‘White poet’ Þórðarson. The editors hope that demonstrating FoGT ’s
relationship to earlier Icelandic treatises, especially to TGT, andclarifying its relationship to its sources, as well as setting out therelationship between the prose text and the poetic examples, will makeits merits as a product of fourteenth-century Icelandic scholarshipeasier to understand and appreciate.
Late in the process of preparing the edition, Jonas Wellendorf
received Cyril de Pins’s unpublished doctoral thesis ‘Hending okkenning: Les théories linguistiques dans l’Islande médiévale (XIIe–
XIVe s.): Lecture du Codex Wormianus’ (Université Paris 7-Diderot,
Dec 2013). No attempt has here been made to incorporate the findingsof this work, which includes a treatment of FoGT on pp. 546 – 609, but
it should be mentioned that the thesis, in discussing FoGT, draws on aset of glosses on Doctrinale by a Petrus Croccus. These glosses occasionally illuminate the prose text of FoGT in a different way fromthose the present edition has drawn on.
Margaret Clunies Ross would like to place on record her gratitude to
the Centre for Medieval Studies at the University of Bergen, and toProfessor Else Mundal in particular, for providing her with facilities
and accommodation in August 2011, which allowed her to work with
Jonas Wellendorf there, and to Jonas for delaying taking up an

viii
appointment in the Department of Scandinavian at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.
Jonas Wellendorf would like to thank the Centre for Medieval
Studies at the University of Bergen for generous support of a conference on vernacular grammatica in the summer of 2011 and theCommittee of Research at The University of California, Berkeley for a
research-enabling grant that allowed him to study Codex Wormianus
at the Arnamagnæan Manuscript Collection in Copenhagen. He would
also like to thank Frank Bezner (UC Berkeley), Haukur Þorgeirsson(Stofnun Árna Magnússonar í íslenskum fræðum) and Stefan Hagel(Austrian Academy of Sciences).
We are grateful to Alison Finlay, Carl Phelpstead and Anthony
Faulkes for their careful attention to our manuscript. Any remaining
errors are our own responsibility.
Margaret Clunies Ross and Jonas Wellendorf
Sydney and Berkeley, November 2014

GENERAL ABBREVIATIONSThis list excludes common abbreviations, such as e.g., cf. and etc., aswell as those of the names of the Books of the Bible. Abbreviatedtitles of frequently cited works (like SnE, TGT ) and information about
editions of these and other abbreviated bibliographical references (likeAÍ, SkP, SnE 1998) are listed alphabetically in the Bibliography at theend of the edition. Abbreviated references to Old Norse poetry edited
in SkP are to SkP sigla, which abbreviate the name of the poet (or state
Anon, if anonymous), and name of poem, and give stanza and line
number followed by relevant volume number in superscript roman,e.g. Arn Þorfdr 17,4II = Arnórr jarlaskáld Þórðarson, Þorfinnsdrápa,
stanza 17, line 4, Volume II. SkP sigla may be found on the skaldic
poetry editing project website at abdn.ac.uk/skaldic/db.php
4°
acc.
add.
adj.
c.
CE

d.
dat.
e-m
e-s
e-t
e-u
f.
fem.
fl.
fol
gen.
Gr.
hap. leg.
indic.
l.
Lat.
lit.
ll.

quarto (refers to size of manuscript leaves)accusative
added (by editors)
adjective
circa, about
Common Era
dieddativeeinhverjum
einhvers
eithvert
einhverju
folio (page)
feminine
floruit, flourished, period of someone’s active life
folio (refers to size of manuscript leaves)
genitive
Greek
hapax legomenon (pl. legomena), unique word(s)indicative
line
Latin
literallylines

xloc. cit.
masc.
ms.
mss
n.
neut.
nn.
no.
nom.
nos
pres.
pret.
ptc.
pp.
q. v.
r
r.
sg.
st.
sth.
sts
subj.
s. v.
v
x

†
[. . .]

General abbreviations
loco citato, (in) the place citedmasculine
manuscript
manuscripts
note
neuternotes
numbernominative
numberspresent
preterite
participle
pages
quod vide, which see
recto
reignedsingularstanzasomethingstanzassubjunctive
sub verbo, under the word
verso
designates paper manuscripts (in shelf marks)
textual material that is impossibly corrupt or cannot bemade sense of
indicates damaged or illegible text

INTRODUCTION
1. Date, provenance and nature of FoGTThe Fourth Grammatical Treatise (FoGT) is extant only in the Codex
Wormianus, AM 242 fol (W) of c. 1350 (ONP Indices, 438), where it
is found on pages 111–19 of the manuscript’s seventh gathering,
immediately following the end of The Third Grammatical Treatise(TGT).1 It has neither prologue nor epilogue and one is left with theimpression that it comes to an end without having been brought to aconclusion. Its text is very sparsely annotated, though some parts havebeen underlined, and its influence in the medieval period and beyond
is uncertain. However, it was definitely known to and used by MagnúsÓlafsson in the early seventeenth century. He reproduces five stanzas
and some passages of prose commentary originating from the treatisein his Edda of 1609.2 Johansson (1997) has made a close codicological and paleographical analysis of the manuscript and its components,and his views about the place of FoGT in the make-up of the manuscript are on pages 56 – 59 and 207– 08 of his monograph. He argues
that the compilation, of which FoGT is a part, is unlikely to have been
written for the first time in W, suggesting that W was a copy of an
earlier compilation, and that the scribe of W and the redactor of themanuscript were two different men. If this was so, FoGT must havebeen quite a recent work at the time of its copying into W.
The hand of the scribe of W has been identified in several othermanuscripts, all probably associated with the northern Icelandic
Benedictine monastery of Þingeyrar in the middle part of the fourteenth century (Jakob Benediktsson 1980, 9 –12). Johansson describes
these manuscripts (1997, 66−80) and lists them all at the conclusion of
his study (1997, 224). Þingeyrar in Húnavatnssýsla, established in
1133, was a centre of literary activity and manuscript production in
the fourteenth century, some of it destined for the export trade to
Norway (Stefán Karlsson 1979). It has been considered for some timethat W was probably a product of the Þingeyrar scriptorium (cf. SnE
1924, i–ii; Nordal 1931, 17−18) and that some of its contents,
1 In accordance with current scholarly practice, reference is given to page

numbers rather than folio numbers of W throughout this edition.
2 These stanzas are FoGT 7, 9, 27, 44 and 56. See further LaufE 1979,
160–61, 179, 250–52 and notes, 363– 64. Stanzas 7, 9, 27 and 56 are also in
Resen’s Edda Islandorum of 1665 (RE 1665, Gg 1v, Hh 2r, Ii 3v and Kk 1v).

xii

Introduction

including FoGT and the ókend heiti section added to W on pages
167–69, show a connection with other texts with a probable northern
focus, like Heiðarvíga saga (Nordal 1931, 17; ÍF 3, cxxxiv–cxliv;
LaufE 1979, 58; Nordal 2001, 88).
W contains versions of all four parts of the Edda of Snorri Sturluson(Snorra Edda), although Háttatal is separated from the other threeparts by all four major Icelandic grammatical treatises (see Section 2 a
below), which are present in this manuscript together with a unique
Prologue to them and various other texts (for a list, see Table 1 in
Johansson 1997, 29). Both the character of the Snorra Edda text in W,
being more expansive and learned in places than its other medieval
exemplars, and the completeness of W’s record of Icelandic grammatical literature indicate that this manuscript was the product of ascholarly environment in which both foreign and indigenous grammatical learning was cultivated. W presents the collected Icelandic
medieval grammatical literature as a package introduced by a
Prologue that many consider the work of the author of FoGT, who
may also have been the compiler of W (Sverrir Tómasson 1993).
Clearly whoever determined the contents of W was particularlyinterested in both the practice of Icelandic poetry and its analysis in
the context of grammatica.
The author of FoGT is unknown. However, beginning with Sveinbjörn Egilsson (SnE 1848 – 87, II 190 – 91 n. 1; cf. FoGT 1884,
lxxvii–lxxx), the suggestion has been made that the author of FoGT
and the redactor of W may have been Bergr Sokkason, who became amonk in the Þingeyrar monastery in 1316 or 1317 (Sverrir Tómasson
1982, 26, 162). He also studied at the only other Benedictine monastery in Iceland, Munkaþverá, and was appointed abbot there in 1325.
The date of Bergr’s death is not known for certain (Foote 1959, 24 –25
and notes 57–59). Bergr is known to have composed a Nikulás saga
erkibiskups and a number of other works (Sverrir Tómasson 1982).
FoGT cites three helmingar from a poem about St Nicholas (sts 6, 24
and 25), thus showing a parallel interest in this popular saint. There
are several other possible authors of FoGT, however, also associatedwith Þingeyrar, including Árni Lárentíusson, born c. 1304, and entered as a monk at Þingeyrar in 1316 –17 (ÍF 17, 332–33), and Abbot
Arngrímr Brandsson, the probable author of Thómas saga erkibiskups
II, Guðmundar saga biskups D and Clárus saga and a prolific composer of religious poetry, who was active at Þingeyrar from the 1340s.

Introductionxiii

The date of composition of FoGT cannot be later than the date ofW, determined by most scholars on palaeographical grounds to be c.
1350. The terminus post quem may be provided by st. 10, which refers
to a fire probably at Skálholt cathedral in 1309 during the reign of a
King Hákon, probably Hákon V háleggr ‘Long-leg’ Magnússon, whodied in 1319. Based on this evidence, a date of composition somewhere between 1320 and 1340 seems most likely, not much earlier
than the probable date of the compilation of W.
In its present form, FoGT refers to The Third Grammatical Treatise(TGT) (c. 1250) of Óláfr hvítaskáld ‘White Poet’ Þórðarson (chs 9, 11
and 12). This, and the way in which the two treatises appear one after
another in W, indicate that FoGT was conceived as a continuation,and possibly even an update of the earlier work. A three-line initialmarks the beginning of TGT in W (at p. 94), while two-line initials areused to indicate chapter divisions in this work. The beginning of
FoGT has been marked only with a two-line initial. This might beinterpreted as a sign that the scribe or compiler of W did not consider
FoGT an entity of its own, independent of TGT. When Rasmus Rask
published his edition of Snorra Edda and the related grammaticaltreatises in 1818 he too presented TGT and FoGT as a single work
(SnE 1818). The author of FoGT, on the other hand, clearly distinguishes himself from Óláfr Þórðarson, the author of TGT, and hisreferences to the latter take the form Óláfr segir ‘Óláfr says’ (chs 9
and 11).3 Both FoGT and the second part of TGT (the so-called Málskrúðsfræði ‘Knowledge of the Ornaments of Diction’) deal withrhetorical figures, but the two texts only overlap in a few instances.
FoGT st. 1 can be seen as a corrected version of the same stanza in
TGT that is presented in a garbled form in W (TGT 1884, 17 ll. 19 –
20). Another stanza found in both treatises is FoGT st. 32 (TGT 184,
77). TGT presents the stanza as an example of the incorrect use of theplural (soloecismus um talnaskipti) while FoGT explains the use ofplural as the figure lepos, a polite way of addressing a man of highstanding. One can see this example as an attempt to correct the teaching of TGT. A third instance of overlap between the two texts is moredifficult to explain (see Section 4 below).
The composition of FoGT is not likely to have been motivatedsolely by its author’s desire to complete or correct TGT. FoGT is arather different work from TGT in several respects, to be discussed
3 A third reference to TGT (in ch. 12) is formulated in a more general way.

xiv

Introduction

below. These differences include the exemplification of rhetoricalfigures through the use of a much higher percentage of anonymous
stanzas, many probably of the author’s own invention, than is found in
TGT, the strongly religious character of many of the poetic examples,
and the presence of several lengthy excursuses to the prose text inwhich the author expounds the meaning of his poetic examples interms of Christian allegory or moralisation. These excursuses go wellbeyond the level of explanation that would be required solely to
account for the rhetorical figures that occasioned the composition of
the stanzas themselves. To the extent that much of the poetry in FoGT
has a strongly religious dimension, the author of the treatise may haveseen himself as consciously expanding the scope of poetic commentary on Icelandic Christian verse beyond what was hinted at in thevery last part of TGT, which for the most part keeps to secular examples. A further difference between TGT and FoGT can be detected
through an analysis of the subject matter of the exemplificatory
stanzas, which pursue several distinct themes throughout the treatise.
These are discussed in Section 5 c below. In this respect and in its
moralising excursuses, FoGT is comparable with European prescriptive treatises on poetics from the thirteenth century, like Geoffrey of
Vinsauf’s Poetria nova, which the author may possibly have known.

2. FoGT within the traditions of grammar and rhetorica. FoGT within the Icelandic tradition of grammatical learning
FoGT is chronologically the latest of a number of Old Icelandic
vernacular texts that were to a greater or lesser extent the products ofmedieval grammatical learning. The tradition of composing themcontinued beyond the Middle Ages in Iceland in works such as
Magnús Ólafsson’s Laufás Edda (1609), some of whose contents
indicate that more grammatical material existed in medieval Icelandthan has survived today, some of it probably from lost parts of W
(LaufE 1979, 156 –79). The extant vernacular grammatical texts frommedieval Iceland can be divided into three groups. The first group islargely concerned with phonology and orthography, and includes theFirst Grammatical Treatise, the Second Grammatical Treatise and thefirst part of TGT, the so-called Málfræðinnar grundvöllr ‘The Foundation of Grammar’ (TGT 1884, 33 – 59; Wills 2001). Of these theearliest and probably the most original is the First GrammaticalTreatise, which Hreinn Benediktsson (1972, 23 –25) dates between

Introduction

xv

1125 and 1175 (cf. Haugen 1972, 4). The dating of the so-called
Second Grammatical Treatise is uncertain, though its most recent
editor, Fabrizio Raschellà (1982, 126 –32), places it in the period c.
1270 –1300. Málfræðinnar grundvöllr (c. 1250) is based largely on thefirst two books of Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae (see Section 2b below). Its principal subject is the nature of sound, including
particularly the human voice, and various ways in which sound can beanalysed and written down. It includes a discussion of the Latin andthe runic alphabets and their application to the writing of Old Norse.
The second group of texts, of which there are only two medieval
members, is principally concerned with metrics, though their authors’concerns extend beyond metrics proper to stylistic and rhetoricalaspects of the Icelandic verse-forms they exemplify in their treatises.
In both cases, the authors of these metrical texts were themselvespractising poets, and that is an important connection in a medieval
Icelandic context, where poetic theory and poetic practice were always
closely related. The earliest of the two metrical works is the poem
Háttalykill ‘Key to Verse-forms’, its title probably a calque on the
Latin term clavis metrica, composed by the Orcadian jarl Rǫgnvaldr
Kali Kolsson and the Icelander Hallr Þórarinsson in Orkney, probably
in the mid-twelfth century. Rǫgnvaldr’s death in 1158 or 1159 provides a terminus ante quem for this work, which is attributed to thetwo skalds in Orkneyinga saga (ÍF 34, 185), although the only known
manuscripts of it both date from c. 1665 (Jón Helgason and Holtsmark
1941, 7–21; Gade forthcoming). The poem consists of forty-one pairsof stanzas, each pair illustrating a particular verse-form, and each pairhaving as subject a legendary hero or historical Scandinavian king.
There is no analytical commentary in prose attached to this metricalkey, as there is for its successor, although many of the verse-forms are
named.
The second metrical treatise is the Háttatal ‘List of Verse-forms’
section (SnE 2007) of Snorra Edda (c. 1225), a work in four parts on
various aspects of the poetic arts which, in all its dimensions, escapes
precise classification as a grammatical treatise, though it is certainly
informed by grammatical learning.4 While the Skáldskaparmál
4 The first and second parts of the Edda, the Prologue and Gylfaginning ‘The
deluding of Gylfi’ (SnE 2005), present Snorri’s digest of Old Norse preChristian myth and a key to its interpretation, topics that were important forpoets to know because they were integral to the system of kennings and heiti
that is fundamental to the skaldic art. Whether Snorri’s grammatical learningxvi

Introduction‘Language of Poetry’ section of the work (SnE 1998) deals with thediction of Icelandic skaldic poetry, Háttatal describes different verseforms, all of which are exemplified in 102 stanzas of an encomium
Snorri composed in praise of the young king of Norway, Hákon
Hákonarson, and his co-regent, Jarl Skúli Bárðarson, probably shortly
after Snorri’s first visit to Norway in 1218 –20. The prose passages of
Háttatal in which the various verse-forms are defined exerted a clear
influence on the authors of both TGT and FoGT, especially thosepassages in which Snorri gives the indigenous names of some of theverse-forms and describes their stylistic effects. Thus Háttatal cannot
be classified purely as a metrical treatise, as some of its concerns
overlap with and influence works of the third group of grammaticaltreatises, discussed below. As far as the native termini technici ofskaldic poetry are concerned, Snorri appears to have been the first
person to commit them to writing in a semi-systematic way, and his
successors followed him in this, sometimes repeating his terminology,
though not always using it to refer to the same poetic device, at othertimes using different terms altogether.
The third group of grammatical treatises comprises those concernedwith poetic diction and the figures of rhetoric. Some members, principally the second part of TGT, Málskrúðsfræði ‘Knowledge of theOrnaments of Diction’, and FoGT, are clearly dependent on Latin
models for their basic content and structure and offer Icelandic versions of well-known schoolroom texts with poetic illustrations of thevarious figures either taken from the compositions of named skaldic
poets, mostly Icelanders, or from anonymous vernacular sources. The
other members, principally the Skáldskaparmál section of Snorra
Edda, and the fragmentary treatise known as Litla Skálda (SnE 1931,
255 – 59), are not so clearly dependent on specific Latin models. Theylist a series of important referents for the chief ornaments of skaldic
diction, kenningar and heiti,5 and specify how these referents should
included some direct knowledge of Latin grammatica is hard to gauge, though
it seems probable (Clunies Ross 1987, especially chapters 2 and 4; Marold2012). Faulkes, however, maintains that Snorri knew no Latin (2008, 311 andelsewhere).
5 The native term kenning, when applied to poetry, means a periphrastic
description of an unnamed referent, usually comprising two nouns or acompound noun that can be disaggregated into two parts, like Arn Þorfdr
17,8II limdolgr ‘foe of branches’ [FIRE]. A heiti is a name or appellation that isoften but not always found exclusively in poetry, like bál ‘pyre, beacon’, logi

Introduction

xvii

be described in terms of periphrases formed on conventional vernacular rhetorical models, whose names may possibly be indebted to Latin
terms (cf. Halldór Halldórsson 1975; Malm 2009), but whose essential
qualities are likely to be of native origin.
These models include terms for pre-Christian supernatural beings,
later extended to embrace the Christian belief system, men, women,
ships, battle, arms and armour, gold and other man-made ornaments,
and aspects of the natural world, like various animals, the sun andmoon, trees, the sea and rivers. In Skáldskaparmál the prescribed
periphrases are introduced using the question and answer format
familiar from medieval Latin schoolroom texts. For example, Snorri
lists the recommended periphrases for the concept ‘fire’ in this way:
Hvernig skal kenna eld? Svá at kalla hann bróður vinds ok Ægis, bana ok
grand viðar ok húsa, Hálfs bani, sól húsanna. (SnE 1998, I 39)
How shall fire be described? Thus, by calling it brother of the wind and ofÆgir, killer and damager of wood and buildings, killer of Hálfr, sun of thehouses.

Both here and in many other such lists in Skáldskaparmál we find a
combination of periphrases alluding to figures of Norse myth orlegend, like Ægir, a supernatural being of the sea, or Hálfr, a legendary king who was burnt to death in a hall fire, with references tophenomena known from early Scandinavian social life, like thedestructive effect of fire on trees and buildings. In many instances in
Skáldskaparmál, the prescribed lists are illustrated with quotations ofa helmingr or a stanza, sometimes with a number of stanzas, fromnamed or sometimes anonymous vernacular poets. These lists with
their examples are never compared directly to Latin figures or approximated to the Latin poetic examples found in Latin treatises, though it
is possible that knowledge of the format of Latin schoolroom treatises
may have served as the inspiration for Snorri’s arrangement of hismaterial.
The authors of TGT and FoGT depart radically from Snorri’s practice of listing types of kenningar and heiti, although they do illustrate
the Latin figures they present with Old Norse examples. Their aim
was to follow their Latin sources in presenting and describing Latin
rhetorical figures in Icelandic prose, and then to illustrate them with‘flame’ or eisa ‘embers’, beside the more common noun eldr ‘fire’. Heiti
provide a store of alliterative variation for both base-words and determinantsof kennings, but may also occur as simplices in poetry.

xviiiIntroduction

Icelandic examples, thus demonstrating a belief in the common originof the Norse and classical languages and poetic arts that is clearly
articulated in the introduction to TGT ’s Málskrúðsfræði:Í þessi bók má gǫrla skilja, at ǫll er ein listin, skáldskapr sá, er Rómverskir
spekingar námu í Aðenisborg á Grikklandi ok sneru síðan í latínumál, ok
sá ljóðaháttr eða skáldskapr, er Óðinn ok aðrir Asíamenn fluttu norðr
hingat í norðrhálfu heimsins, ok kenndu mǫnnum á sína tungu þesskonar
list, svá sem þeir hǫfðu skipat ok numit í sjálfu Asíalandi, þar sem mest
var fegrð6 ok ríkdómr ok fróðleikr veraldarinnar (normalised from TGT
1884, 60).
In this book it may be clearly understood that the art of poetry which the
Roman sages learnt in Athens in Greece and then transferred into theLatin language is the same art as the verse-form of songs or poetry whichÓðinn and other men of Asia brought hither northwards into the northernhemisphere; and they taught men this type of art in their own language,
just as they had organised and learnt it in Asia itself, where beauty andpower and knowledge were the greatest in the world (Clunies Ross, trans.,
2005, 190).

Sometimes the authors of both treatises admit that certain Latin figures are not commonly found in Norse poetry,7 but for the most part
they try to offer vernacular examples that they present as illustrating
the figures described in their sources. The outcome of this process isthat they frequently present examples of Norse poetics that are ofminor importance to vernacular poetry rather than of central significance to it. In terms of producing equivalences in Icelandic poetry to
the Latin examples from the treatises, the author of FoGT is amazingly skilful, as will be examined in detail in Section 5 below, but theexamples he presents are probably his own compositions invented forthe purpose rather than examples taken from existing poems in thevernacular repertoire. This phenomenon is less true of TGT, where
only 31% of the verse examples are anonymous, by contrast with justover 76% of the illustrations in FoGT (cf. Clunies Ross forthcoming).
Thus TGT and, to a greater extent FoGT, mediate between Latin and
Norse traditions; they follow their Latin sources in their choice andsequence of the figures described, but they illustrate their treatises
6 W’s reading fegrð has here been preferred to A’s fręgð (cf. SnE 2005, 4).
7 For example, the author of FoGT admits that he cannot find the kind of

exflexigesis (Latin efflexegesis) that foreshadows future events in Old Norse
poetry: en eigi finn eg það í norrænu skáldskap ‘but I do not find this in Norse
poetry’ (ch. 10).

Introduction

xixwith vernacular examples, many probably invented by themselves todemonstrate the repertoire of native poetry. In this process, somewhat
paradoxically, they depart to a certain extent from the actualities ofvernacular Norse poetic composition.
b. FoGT and the Latin tradition
The 27 chapters of FoGT define and illustrate 34 rhetorical devices
which are primarily designated with denominations of Greek origin.
Throughout FoGT refers to these devices with the term fígúra. Fígúra
is a loan word from Latin where the word figura ‘shape, form, (grammatical or rhetorical) figure’ was used as a technical term from thetime of Quintilian (c. 100 CE) onwards. In Latin, figura was usedalongside the synonymous schema that had been borrowed from theGreek σχῆμα ‘form, shape, (rhetorical or grammatical) figure’. Thissecond term is used a few times in TGT (1884, 75, 91, 101). Elsewhere TGT uses fígúra in the same way as FoGT. In the following, therhetorical devices will be referred to as figures in accordance with
FoGT and TGT.
The definitions of the figures in FoGT, their designations and theorder in which they are presented depend on Latin models. Most
important is the Doctrinale (D) by Alexander de Villa-Dei, but somematerial has also been derived from Eberhard of Béthune’s Graecismus (G). In general the doctrine of FoGT coincides nicely with theLatin tradition, and some of the verses with which the treatise illustrates the various figures are clearly patterned on examples given in D,
G or in the commentary tradition to these two texts (Dg and Gg—the gis for ‘gloss’). The importance of D, Dg, G and Gg for the understanding of FoGT was discovered and thoroughly documented by
Björn Magnússon Ólsen in his edition of the text (FoGT 1884, lxxii–
lxxiii et passim).
FoGT and Málskrúðsfræði (the part of TGT which is dependent on
Donatus’s Barbarismus) both deal with figures, but the two texts
differ from one another in that most of the examples of FoGT wereapparently devised by the author of the treatise himself with theparticular purpose of being included in the treatise. The author of
Málskrúðsfræði, on the other hand, primarily sought out his examples
in the existing corpus of skaldic poetry. This difference between the
two treatises can be accounted for by viewing Málskrúðsfræði as a

xxIntroduction

grammatical treatise and FoGT as a treatise that is primarily rhetoricalin nature.
The two disciplines, grammatica and rhetorica, have a long andcomplicated history of rivalry (see Copeland 1991, 11–21), and bothdisciplines at various points laid claim to the doctrine and lore of
figures. In antiquity the double aim of grammatica was correct
language usage and the understanding of the works of the poets—inQuintilian’s formulation recte loquendi scientia et poetarum enarratio(Quintilian I, 4.2). The first goal was to be achieved with the help of
the second, so that mastery of the rules of language came through thestudy of the classics. In many ways grammatica was a descriptive anda hermeneutic discipline. The language of the classics often deviatedfrom that which was considered normal usage, and the grammarian
would explain these perceived deviations as figures applied for one
reason or the other by the authors of the classics. Rhetorica was also
occupied with the figures, but from a different perspective. The aim of
this discipline was not correct use of language but persuasive use oflanguage; this meant that rhetorica was less concerned with thestructure of the utterance than with its function and effect. The rhetorical tradition emphasised practice and therefore tended to theprescriptive or preceptive rather than the descriptive.
Neither the Latin tradition behind Málskrúðsfræði nor the text itself
contains practical advice on the use of the figures. As grammaticaltexts they describe, define, exemplify and explain the figures alreadyfound in existing texts, but they give no guidance on how to use them.
FoGT is somewhat different in this respect and often provides advice
on the use of particular figures (see chapters 9, 12, 13 and others).
Even when no explicit advice on the use of a particular figure is given
the general tendency of the treatise can be said to be preceptive. In the
prologue to the four grammatical treatises in W, one can detect asimilar preceptive mode when the text states that nú skal lýsa …
hversu kveða skal (Ólsen, ed., 1884, 153) ‘Now it will be explained
how one shall compose [poetry]’.
The differences between the grammatical and rhetorical traditions
concerning the figures will be made clear by the following brief
outline of the Latin tradition behind Málskrúðsfræði and FoGT. At theoutset it should be mentioned that the title Málskrúðsfræði, rendered
above as ‘Knowledge of the Ornaments of Diction’, could also betranslated simply as ‘Rhetoric’. This title was first introduced in theIntroduction

xxi

edition of Sveinbjörn Egilsson (SnE 1848, 181) and has no medieval
authority.
The history of the doctrine of the figures remains to be written but it
seems clear that, at least from the time of Donatus (c. 350 CE)
onwards, it occupied the middle ground between grammar andrhetoric in the West.
Traditionally the figures were divided into two main groups: figuresof diction and figures of thought. A figure of diction is a figure that
depends on the choice and/or arrangement of words in an utterance.
One example of this is the figure epimone in FoGT (ch. 23) which isbrought about by the repetition of a given word at specific points inthe utterance. Conversely, a figure of thought is independent of thewords with which it is expressed. An example from FoGT is prosopopoeia (ch. 5), which is defined as ísetning nýrrar persónu ‘theinsertion of a new person [in a text]’, e.g. by the personification of
abstract concepts or if a speaker addresses inanimate entities. FoGT ’s
second example of prosopopoeia (st. 15) shows that it is possible tocombine the two kinds of figures in a single utterance. In this stanzaÖlmusugjöfin ‘the alms-giving’ is personified (i.e. ‘Alms-giving’),
hence it must be classified as a figure of thought. The personified
Alms-giving, however, expresses itself with the help of a figure of
diction in that all lines of the second helmingr of this stanza begin
with the same word and are structured in the same way (a subject (‘I’)
is followed by a two-syllable verb in the present tense and a onesyllable object).
Neither Málskrúðsfræði nor FoGT mention this two-fold division of
the figures into figures of thought and figures of diction, but in one
instance TGT does refer to the figures of diction:
Scemalexeos heyrir svá til soloecismum sem metaplasmus barbarismum íþví ǫllu er til lasta veit, en þó er scema miklu meirr í leyfi sett [< settr W]þvíat hon þykkir fegra skáldskap. Scema heitir á girzku en skrúð á norrǿnu. Lexeos er rǿða ok er scemalexeos nefnd svá sem skrúð máls eðrrǿðu (TGT 1884, 23).
Schemalexeos belongs to soloecismus as metaplasmus belongs to barbarismus in everything that pertains to faults [of grammar]. Schema however
is to a much greater extent classed as licence because it is considered toembellish poetry. It is called schema in Greek and skrúð in Norse. Lexeos[recte: lexis] means speech and schema lexeos means embellishment ofdiction or speech.

xxii

Introduction

At this point in the Barbarismus—the exemplar of Málskrúðsfræði—Donatus claims that there are two kinds of figures, the schemata
lexeos ‘figures of diction’ and the schemata dianoeas ‘figures ofthought’ (Holtz, ed., 1981, 663). Donatus considers the former thedomain of the grammarians and the latter as belonging to the rhetoricians (schemata dianoeas ad oratores pertinent, ad grammaticos
lexeos, Holtz, ed., 1981, 663). Although TGT takes care to explain themeaning of schema lexeos, it leaves out any reference to the figures ofthought. This might be taken as an indication that TGT sees itself as agrammatical rather than a rhetorical work. As mentioned above, theprimary difference between the two kinds of work in this respect isthat the grammatical work is hermeneutic and aimed at the interpretation of already existing discourse (poetry), while the rhetorical work
aims at creating new discourse (originally speeches, but in the Middle
Ages all kinds of discourse, including poetry) with the help of therhetorical doctrine. Correctly seen as a grammatical work, TGT
mirrors the Barbarismus exactly in this respect, since Barbarismus isessentially a listing of and commentary on the figures of diction foundin Virgil’s Aeneid, from which the text draws the vast majority of its
examples. FoGT, by contrast, should be seen as a rhetorical workwherein one can also find figures of thought defined in the text.
The first full presentation of the doctrine of figures in the West isfound in the anonymous rhetorical manual known as Rhetorica ad
Herennium. This work on oratory dates from the second decade of thefirst century BC and has been called ‘one of the most influential books
on speaking and writing ever produced in the western world’ (Murphy
1974, 18). At least from the fourth century onwards, Rhetorica ad
Herennium was considered a work of Cicero (Taylor-Briggs 2006,
94). As a rhetorical work, Rhetorica ad Herennium is practical innature and geared towards the production of discourse (speeches)rather than its analysis. The author initially stresses that theory without practice is futile and exhorts the reader to apply the precepts given(Rhetorica ad Herennium I, 1). By way of conclusion, the importanceof practice is underlined once again (Rhetorica ad Herennium IV, 69).
The author treats the five canons of rhetorical theory (invention,
arrangement, expression, memory and delivery), but most attention isdevoted to invention (inuentio) and expression (elocutio). A basic
principle of rhetorical theory is the existence of a clear-cut divide
between the contents of an utterance (res) and its expression (uerba)—although more advanced works such as Cicero’s De oratore III,

Introductionxxiii

19 –24 (Mankin, ed., 2011) also acknowledge that the res and theuerba are indeed impossible to separate. Invention is the process
through which one discovers or invents the content, while expression
shapes the content by applying adequate words and sentences. The
entirety of the fourth and last book of Rhetorica ad Herennium isgiven over to a detailed discussion of expression and it forms theoldest known western attempt at an exhaustive presentation of therhetorical figures in the Latin world.
The author claims to have constructed all his examples of thevarious figures himself (see Calboli 1969, 46 – 50 on the veracity ofthis claim) and his prolonged justification of this procedure is ofparticular interest. He rejects the practice of the Greeks, which, aspresented in Rhetorica ad Herennium (IV, 1–10), consists in using
already existing examples selected from esteemed orators and poets.
According to the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium, the Greeks
argued that one should only use examples from recognised authorities,
and they had four arguments in support of this view. The first wasmodesty: an author who concocts his own examples draws attention
away from the art he is supposed to teach and towards his own
abilities (hoc est, inquiunt, ostentare se, non ostendere artem, IV, 1),
for when one can find examples among the very greatest of
authorities, it would seem arrogant to set them aside and highlight
one’s own abilities. The second argument was testimony: examples
drawn from known authorities serve as testimonies to the correctnessof the precepts. Their third argument was exemplarity: the authoritiesof old spur the students to imitation. The fourth and final argument
ascribed to the Greeks was that it requires the highest mastery of theart of rhetoric to be able to select carefully the best illustrations fromthe widest material possible.
The author finds the first argument ludicrous; if the Greeks do notwish to display their skills, why do they say or write anything in thefirst place? He compares this to a runner at the Olympic games, who,
having stepped onto the racetrack and taken the starting position,refuses to run and prefers to praise the legendary runners of old. The
second argument is rejected by the claim that the purpose of examples
is not to testify, but to demonstrate. The author refutes the fourth andlast argument (there is no refutation of the third argument at this point)
by saying that anyone who has heard just a bit about the art ofrhetoric, and in particular about style, will be able to recognise thatwhich is artfully spoken, but only the true masters are able to speakxxiv

Introduction

artfully themselves. A skilful writer can easily discern that which is
written with great skill, but a skilful selector of examples is notnecessarily able to write skilfully. The author of Rhetorica ad Herennium also argues his case positively. The main arguments here are thatan example cited by the author of an art should testify to his own
mastery of that art and that fabricated examples are clearer and more
illustrative than borrowed examples precisely because they arecomposed to illustrate a particular point. The true masters of an art, on
the other hand, are able to conceal the artfulness so that it is not too
obvious or readily perceptible.
After these preliminaries and a discussion of the various levels ofstyle, the author begins his presentation of the figures in IV, 17 byintroducing a distinction between the embellishment (exornatio) of
speech and the embellishment of thought. This is followed by a longsection consisting of definitions and illustrations of a great number of‘embellishments of words’ (45 in all) and a smaller number of ‘embellishments of meanings’ (19 in all). This inventory of figures was tohave a formidable influence. It often reappears in later listings offigures and is frequently reproduced in modern handbooks on rhetoric
as well. The organisational principle followed in Rhetorica ad Herennium is not explained, and it has been suggested that a transitional
section might be missing (Achard 1989, 149 n. 88). The lists seem
somewhat disordered. Some figures appear to be out of place—e.g.
permissio ‘the leaving of a matter to the judgement of others’ isincluded among the ‘embellishment of words’ (IV, 39)—while otherfigures have clearly been grouped together because of perceived
similarities or dissimilarities. Thus the first four ‘embellishments ofwords’—repetitio, conuersio, conplexio and traductio—appear tohave been grouped together because all of these figures use the sameword more than once for rhetorical effect, and not because the speakeris at a loss for words (IV, 21). FoGT also testifies to the similarity of
the first three of these figures, in that it treats them as various ways offorming the figure epimone (ch. 23). The last ten figures among the‘embellishments of words’ constitute a particularly important andclearly delineated sub-group:
Nam earum omnium hoc proprium est ut ab usitata uerborum potestaterecedatur atque in aliam rationem cum quadam uenustate oratio conferatur(Rhetorica ad Herennium IV, 42).

Introductionxxv

For it is characteristic of all these [ten figures] that the utterance departs
from the common meaning of the words and with a certain charm isapplied in another sense.

This group of ten will later be known as the tropes, and it includes
among others metonymy (denominatio), metaphor (translatio) andallegory (permutatio).
It should be noted that Rhetorica ad Herennium employs Latinnames for the various figures. In the preface to the fourth book theauthor makes a special point about the use of newly coined names. He
is aware that his invented terms might sound strange initially, butprefers them because they are much more transparent than the Greek
terms (IV, 10).
Another hugely influential work was Aelius Donatus’s Latin textbook Ars grammatica (c. 350). This work was only one among a
number of Latin grammars of Late Antiquity, but Donatus’s compression and systematisation of grammatical material, presented in greater
detail in the more encyclopaedic grammatical works, turned out to be
extraordinarily useful for teachers and students alike. Donatus’s Ars
grammatica was soon divided into two works: an introductory dialogue, Ars minor, and a more comprehensive Ars maior. The aim ofArs maior is not to teach Latin to non-native speakers of the language,
but to tutor native speakers of Latin in the language of poetry. Ars
maior has aptly been characterised it as ‘a “grammar” of Vergil’s
works and other texts of high canonical status’ (Irvine 1994, 59). The
Ars maior was divided into three books: the first treated sounds,letters, syllables, metrical feet, accent and punctuation; the second, theparts of speech and morphology; and the third and last book treatedthe virtues and vices of speech. As time passed, the first two books of
Ars maior were eclipsed by books 1–16 of Priscian’s Institutiones
grammaticae (written c. 520), which treat the same subject matter inmuch greater detail. The third book of Ars maior contained material
not treated by Priscian and continued to be copied frequently.
Detached from the rest of Ars maior, this book circulated on its own
under the name Barbarismus (the first word of the text), and was oftentransmitted as an adjunct to parts of Institutiones grammaticae (Holtz
1981, 505 – 07). A somewhat similar arrangement is found in TGT, thefirst part of which consists of material directly or indirectly derived
from the first two books of Priscian’s work while the second partconsists of material derived from Barbarismus. In Barbarismus,
Donatus presents the grammatical doctrine of virtues and vices that

xxvi

Introduction

was current in his time. The book is divided into six chapters. Threekinds of vices are presented in the first three chapters and the (often
parallel) virtues are found in the last three chapters. As its point of
departure, the doctrine takes the notion of normal usage of language,referred to by Donatus as communis sermo (Holtz, ed., 1981, 653);
alþýðleg rǿða in Málskrúðsfræði (TGT 1884, 61). A deviation fromnormal usage would be classified as either a vice or a virtue dependingon the context in which the deviance was found. A deviance in normal
speech would be considered a vice while a deviance in poetry would
be regarded as a virtue. To this contextual criterion some grammarians
added a causal criterion: deviations caused by ignorance or lack oflinguistic abilities would be regarded as vices, while purposefuldeviations from normal usage would be seen as virtues. This is not
explicitly stated in Barbarismus, but it is spelled out with great clarity
by later commentators on the Ars maior, such as Servius (early fifth
century):
Quaesitum est apud Plinium Secundum, quid interesset inter figuras etuitia. nam cum figurae ad ornatum adhibeantur, uitia uitentur, eademautem inueniantur exempla tam in figuris quam in uitiis, debet aliqua esse
discretio. quidquid ergo scientes facimus nouitatis cupidi, quod tamen
idoneorum auctorum firmatur exemplis, figura dicitur. quidquid autem
ignorantes ponimus, uitium putatur. nam sicut superius diximus, <si>sciens quis dicat ‘pars in frustra secant’ et causa uarietatis hoc dicat,
figuram facit; si autem nescius, cum aliud uelit dicere, incongrue inter senumeros iunxerit, soloecismum fecisse iudicatur (GL 4, 447).
The question about the distinction between figures and vices is raised in
the writings of Pliny the Elder. For even though one should employ
figures for ornament and avoid vices, the same examples are used for
figures as well as for vices. There ought to be some distinction. Therefore,
whatever we do knowingly, eager for something new, which can besupported by examples from suitable authors, is called a figure. Whatever
we use unknowingly is considered a vice. Just as we said above, if someone knowingly says pars in frustra secant ‘a part cut in vain’, and he says
it for the sake of variation, he uses a figure. But if he said it unknowingly,
wanting to say something else, then he connected incongruent numbers
and he is considered to have committed a solecism.

The same knowledge criterion is implied in Barbarismus when Donatus allows for certain deviations because of metrical constraints or as
ornaments (metri ornatusue causa, Holtz, ed., 1981, 660). The parallel
formulation in Málskrúðsfræði is fyrir nauðsynja sakir eða fegrðar (p.
86) ‘out of necessities or for the sake of beauty’. The example above

Introduction

xxvii

highlights the apparent paradox that a given example could illustrate avice as well as a virtue. One instance where this can be observed is in
Donatus’s treatment of the pair barbarismus per transmutationem
litterae (Holtz, ed., 1981, 654) ‘Barbarism through rearrangement ofletters’ (a barbarism is defined as a vice that does not extend beyond asingle word) and metathesis (Holtz, ed., 1981, 663), a figure that
occurs if two letters of a word have changed places. In both instances
Donatus gives the name form ‘Euandre’ as an example (instead of the
expected ‘Euander’).8 Málskrúðsfræði, in its corresponding sections,gives a poetic example where ‘bort’ (i.e. burt ‘away’) is used insteadof ‘brot’ (i.e. brott ‘away’) so that it can form an internal rhyme withthe verb skorta ‘lack’ (TGT 1884, 65, 90 – 91).
Virtues/vices might extend beyond a single word. A vice of thiskind is called solecismus while the corresponding virtue is referred toas schema. An example of this is a sentence where the subject does
not agree in number with the verb. Such lack of concord is classified
among the vices in Barbarismus and designated soloecismus per
numeros (Holtz, ed., 1981, 656; cf. TGT 1884, 77). Neither Barbarismus nor Málskrúðsfræði presents a corresponding virtuous variant, but
D and FoGT fill this doctrinal gap by adding a virtuous version of thisdeviance called antitosis. FoGT also adds the cautious note thatmoderns (ný skáld) should not use this device (ch. 13).
Table 1: The theory of virtues and vices

One wordMore words
Mixed categories

Prose/Deviation
caused by ignorance
barbarism
solecismother vices

Poetry/Purposefuldeviation
metaplasm
schematropesTable 1 above shows the four possible combinations of the twoparameters: virtue : vice and one word : more words. Each of these
combinations carries a special name (barbarism, solecism, metaplasm
and schema) and Barbarismus and Málskrúðsfræði treat each in a
separate chapter. At this level, the organisational system of the deviations from normal usage presented in Barbarismus is so tight andlogical that some of the deviations from normal usage even have
8 These metatheses are probably either to be understood as Hellenisms or asarchaisms (Holtz 1981, 153).

xxviii

Introduction

corresponding vicious and virtuous versions as illustrated above.
(However, the order in which the various figures are presented within
the chapters appears to be more arbitrary.) This neat system is disturbed by the addition of two mixed categories, each presented in its
own chapter. The first is labelled De ceteris vitiis ‘On other vices’ inBarbarismus, a section which is not marked as a separate chapter in
Málskrúðsfræði. The other chapter is designated De tropis ‘On tropes’in Barbarismus and De tropo et metaphoræ [recte: metaphora] ‘On
the trope and the metaphor’ in Málskrúðsfræði. These two supplementary categories contain deviations from normal usage that do not
fit easily into the four preceding categories. The vices assembled inthe ‘other vices’ category have little in common except for the factthat they are all treated under the same heading, but four of them(numbers 5 – 8) can be said to violate the ideal of brevity while number
9 is too elliptical. This means that Barbarismus and Málskrúðsfræði
do not give an overarching definition for the ‘other vices’ category.
The ‘tropes’ category fares better. The chapter devoted to thiscategory is introduced by a definition of the trope:
Tropus est dictio translata a propria significatione ad non propriam similitudinem ornatus necessitatisue causa (Holtz, ed., 1981, 667).
A trope is a word transferred from its proper signification to a likenessthat is not proper to it for the sake of ornamentation or necessity.

Málskrúðsfræði provides a similar definition:
Tropus er framfǿring einnar sagnar af eigniligri merking til óeiginligri
merkingar með nǫkkurri líking fyrir fegrðar sakir eða nauðsynjar (TGT1884, 100).
A trope is the transference of one word from its proper signification to an
improper signification that has some similarity [to it] for the sake ofbeauty or necessity.

Roughly four and a half centuries passed between the writing of
Rhetorica ad Herennium and Barbarismus. The two works differ
greatly in purpose and scope as they belong to two different disciplines, rhetorica and grammatica. Each perceives and treats thevarious devices in different ways, as embellishments of utterances(rhetorica) or as deviations from normal language (grammatica). Bothtraditions illustrate these devices with examples, and both treat theflawed versions of the devices as well as the virtuous.
For Donatus the perversions occur in prose or because of ignorance,
while the rhetorical tract, which treats the vices alongside the virtues,

Introduction

xxix

sees the vicious versions of the figures as the results of bad taste.
Another difference is that the presentation in Barbarismus is much
more systematic and well organised. The organisational neatness of
Barbarismus was facilitated by the availability of a long tradition ofgrammatical writings on which Donatus could draw, and, not least, by
the fact that he did not include the more complicated category of
figures of thought.
The two texts that have been dealt with so far present a large number of figures, and it is to be expected that there is some overlap
between them. Murphy (1974, 36 –37) presents a tabular overview ofthe figures contained in the two texts. His chart shows that the twooverlap almost completely in the case of the tropes, but less so in thecase of the figures of diction and not at all in the figures of thought,
which are not treated by Donatus (Murphy 1974, 34 –35). It will be
remembered that Donatus explicitly left these to the rhetoricians.
The expository parts of Rhetorica ad Herennium and Barbarismus
were written in prose, the latter with poetic examples drawn from thecanonical Latin poets of antiquity, Virgil in particular. Another branchof treatises on figures was written in verse. At least one such text,
Carmen de figuris ‘Poem on figures’, was available at the time when
Barbarismus was written, but the majority of examples seem to bemuch younger. Carmen de figuris names, defines and illustrates 61
rhetorical figures. Each figure is treated in the same way. First a nameis given—Carmen de figuris uses Greek names—then a versified
definition containing a Latin translation of the Greek name, followed
by one or two examples. Three hexameter lines are devoted to eachfigure. The section on the fifth figure, antimetabola (cf. FoGT ch. 17),
provides an example:Ἀντιμεταβολή
Permutatio fit, uice cum conuertimus uerba.
‘Sumere iam cretos, non sumptos cernere amicos.’‘Quod queo, tempus abest; quod tempus adest, nequeo’, inquit.
(Schindel, ed., 2001, 182)
Antimetabola:‘Exchange’ occurs when we transpose words.
‘[One should] select already examined, not examine selected friends.’‘When I am able, there is no time; when there is time, I am unable’,he said.

The examples are mainly versified versions of examples alreadycurrent in the literature on figures. In the case of Antimetabola thexxx

Introduction

originators of the examples have been identified as Theophrastus andIsocrates (Schindel 2001, 27–28). The anonymous author of Carmende figuris does not explain why he chose to present his list of figuresin versified form, but the metrical form facilitates memorisation andthe presentation of technical subject matter in this manner may also
have been considered something of a literary feat. Carmen de figuris
is a rhetorical text in that its aim appears to have been the production
and arrangement of meaning rather than the analysis of texts. It was
written at a point in time when public speaking still held an important
position in Roman life (even though the exact date of composition is
unknown); it is thus likely that the author envisioned an audience of
future orators rather than poets or versifiers.
In the centuries after Donatus, grammar encroaches more and more
upon the territory that traditionally belonged to rhetoric, while thisdiscipline recedes into the background. When Alcuin wrote Dialogus
de rhetorica et de uirtutibus (c. 794), it was the first textbook ofrhetoric in the classical tradition that had been written in nearly two
hundred years (Knappe 1998, 12). Meanwhile, grammatical treatises
continued to flourish in particular texts that were dependent on
Donatus in one way or another. One example is Bede’s (d. 735) De
Schematibus et Tropis ‘On Figures and Tropes’. Bede begins bydeclaring that the Greeks fraudulently laid claim to the invention of
the figures and tropes. In order to show the falsity of their claim, he
presents examples of all the figures and tropes described in Barbarismus. However, instead of drawing the examples from classicalsources, Bede draws on the Bible. Thus he claims to have shown that
all the figures were used in the Bible before they were used in thewritings of the ancient Greeks and Romans, and hence that it isinconceivable that the Greeks invented the figures:
Et quidem gloriantur Greci talium se figurarum vel troporum fuisserepertores! Sed ut cognuscas, dilectissime fili, cognuscant omnes qui haeclegere voluerint quia sancta Scriptura ceteris omnibus scripturis …
preeminet …, placuit mihi collectis de ipsa exemplis ostendere quia nihil
huiusmodi schematum vel troporum valent prętendere sęcularis eloquentię
magistri, quod non in illa pręcesserit.
The Greeks boast that they were the inventors of these figures and tropes!
But in order that you, my beloved son, and indeed all who choose to readthese words may know that holy Scripture takes precedence over all otherwritings … I have decided to demonstrate by means of examples gatheredfrom its pages that there is not one of these schemes and tropes which

Introduction

xxxi

teachers of classical rhetoric boast of which did not appear in it first(Kendall, ed. and trans., 1991, 168– 69).

Treatises on rhetoric emerge again in the late eleventh century. Of
particular importance is De ornamentis uerborum ‘On the Ornamentsof Words’ by Marbod of Rennes (d. 1123). Like Carmen de figuris,
De ornamentis uerborum treats the subject of rhetorical figures inpoetic form. Marbod’s treatise contains short definitions of thirty
figures of diction. In Marbod’s day the Rhetorica ad Herennium
enjoyed an immense popularity and the names of the figures in
Marbod’s treatise, their definition and the order in which they are presented follow the corresponding section of Rhetorica ad Herennium;
however, the examples have been replaced by Marbod’s own verse
examples. The first figure of De ornamentis uerborum, Repetitio, will
here serve as an example (cf. FoGT ch. 23):
Repetitio est, cum continenter ab uno atque eodem verbo in rebus similibus et diversis principia sumuntur, hoc modo:
Tu mihi lex, mihi rex, mihi lux, mihi dux, mihi vindex;
Te colo, te laudo, te glorifico, tibi plaudo.
Femina iustitiam produxit, femina culpam.
Femina vitalem dedit ortum, femina mortem.
(Leotta, ed., 1998, 4)
Repetition is when beginnings are taken repeatedly from one and the sameword in similar or diverse matters, in this way:
You are my law, my king, my light, my guide, my protector;
I worship you, I praise you, I glorify you, I applaud you.
A woman caused justice, a woman offence.
A woman gave rise to life, a woman to death.

In the first lines of his prologue, also written in poetic form, Marbod
explains that the purpose of this treatise is to help future versifiers,
and in his epilogue he explains that they should use his examples asmodels for their own poetry. His belief is that the figures are shown
most effectively through verse examples, and that these should bememorised by the student, while prose definitions primarily function
as glosses (Camargo 2006, 270 –71; cf. Leotta, ed., 1998, 2 ll. 13 –15).
Camargo, who presents an overview of the development of treatises
on rhetorical figures in the wake of Marbod’s De ornamentis verborum (2006, 268 –77), mentions a number of treatises from the lateeleventh and twelfth centuries. Characteristic of these texts is that they
are all based on (a selection of) the repertoire of figures presented inxxxiiIntroduction

Rhetorica ad Herennium and generally follow the order of thatclassical treatise.
Around 1200, new developments take place. If the lore of the
figures had been detached from larger treatises on grammar or rhetoric, it was now reintegrated into such treatises, and it also seems thatthe two disciplines coalesce again to some degree. Both thesedevelopments can be observed in D and G, even though they arefirmly rooted in the grammatical tradition. This means that the authorof FoGT follows a general trend when he transforms his sources in adecisively rhetorical direction. Elsewhere in Europe this development
resulted in a group of hybrid texts, the arts of poetry, which have beenlabelled ‘preceptive grammars’ (Murphy 1974, 135 – 93). The highpoint of this new genre was Geoffrey of Vinsauf’s Poetria nova.
Among the many interesting features of this text, a 119 line poem on
the history of the Fall and Redemption of mankind should be highlighted. In this display of virtuosity, Geoffrey illustrates all of
Rhetorica ad Herennium’s figures of diction in the traditional order(Faral, ed., 1924, 231–34).
It was a short segment near the end of D that provided the main
foundation for FoGT. Its author, Alexander de Villa-Dei, had designed
D as a textbook of Latin grammar for intermediate students. D was an
immediate success and it has been characterised as ‘the most important pedagogical treatise of the Middle Ages’ (Rosier-Catach 2009,30). D was composed in metrical form, and in 2645 (often leonine)
hexameters the treatise condenses a great amount of grammaticalinformation. Alexander claims to have presented the material as gently
as possible (ut levius potero, D l. 12), and medieval commentators
also extol the lucidity of the work (see the quotation from the unpublished Admirantes-gloss in Thurot 1868, 101– 02). However, the baretext as it is presented in the standard edition of the work by Reichlingfrom 1893 (D) is by no means an easy read. Forcing complex grammatical subject matter, including a great number of metalinguistic
termini technici of Latin as well as Greek origin, into hexameters canonly be done at the cost of readability. Alexander and other didactic
versifiers of his age were forced to use a host of special techniques tocircumvent the problems caused by metrical constraints. The result isa text that is elliptical and obscure at many points (see Cizek 2009,xx–xxi). In defence of D and its imitators, it must be said that theintent was never for D to be read as it is presented in the modern
standard edition of the text; rather, it was a practical work intended forIntroduction

xxxiii

use in a classroom setting. The teacher would have read out andelaborated on small segments of the work, and the students were
expected to commit the verse text to memory in its entirety. An oftenquoted gloss on D (see Cizek 2009, xx–xxi) lists the advantages of themetrical form. Verse is easier to take in, it can present materials in aneat and clear way and it is easier to retain in memory than prose.9
At the very beginning of D (ll. 7–10), Alexander recommends thatthe teacher use the vernacular when expounding the rules he sets forth.
In manuscripts D is often accompanied by extensive glosses that elaborate upon the terse lines of the poem. When Reichling (1893) edited
the text without glosses he therefore presented modern readers of thework with a serious obstacle to the understanding of the text. No
modern edition of the glosses to D has been published thus far, but inrecent years some early printed texts with glosses have been digitised
and made available online, and easy access to these texts facilitates theappreciation of D. The same can also be said of Glei’s (2005) helpfulpresentation of the work and Copeland and Sluiter’s (2009, 573 – 83)
short extracts from D in English translation with an introduction andcomments. Also helpful is a complete translation of D into Spanish by
Gutiérrez Galindo (1993).
The immediate success of D led to a vogue for treatises in verse on
Latin grammar as well as other complex technical subjects. Alexander
himself has been credited with writing a metrical treatise on the Arabic numerals (Carmen de algorismos, Halliwell, ed., 1839, 73 – 83) anda number of other similar texts in verse. In an effort apparently
unrelated to FoGT, Carmen de algorismos was translated into Old
Norse prose where it is known as Algorismus.10
Of D’s twelve chapters, it is only the last one on figures which will
occupy us here (the previous chapters deal with morphology, syntax,
metrics and accentuation). In 278 lines, ch. 12 names, defines andillustrates a large number of figures. The chapter can be divided into
five distinct sections, as in the following list:

9 Sermo metricus utilis factus est ad faciliorem acceptionem, ad venustam
et lucidam brevitatem, et ad memoriam firmiorem (from Thurot 1868,
102).
10 For studies of the Old Norse Algorismus, see Bekken and Christophersen(1985) and Bekken (1986). The oldest witness to this Old Norse translation is
Hauksbók (AM 544 4°, c. 1302–10, Eiríkur Jónsson and Finnur Jónsson, eds.,
1892–96, 417–24).

xxxiv

Introduction

Section I: Barbarisms, soloecisms and other vices
Acyrologia, cacenphaton, pleonasmus, tautologia, eclipsis, tapinosis,
cacosyntheton, perissologia, macrologia, amphibologia, alleoteta11 (ll.
2361–2403)
Section II: Metaplasms
Auferesis, prothesis, syncopa, epenthesis, apocopa, paragoge, systola,ectasis (four subtypes: penthemimeris, hephthemimeris, posthephthemimeris and one unnamed), dieresis, syneresis, episynalimphe,
ecthlipsis, synalimpha, syncrisis, antithesis, metathesis (ll. 2404 – 44)
Section III: Schemata
Prolempsis, zeugma, sylempsis (three examples), hypozeuxis,
anadiplosis, anaphora, epanalempsis, epizeuxis, paronomasia, paronomoeon, schesis onomaton, homoptoton, homoteleuton, polyptoton,
hirmos, polysyndeton, dialyton (ll. 2445 – 96)
Section IV: Tropes
Metaphora, catachresis, metalempsis, metonomia, antonomasia, epitheton, synodoche, onomatopoeia, periphrasis, hyperbole, hyperbaton(five subtypes): hysterologia, syncrisis, temesis, anastropha, parenthesis), allegoria (seven subtypes: antiphrasis, charientismos, enigma,
paroemia, sarcasmos, ironia, astismos), homozeuxis (three subtypes:
icon, parabola, paradigma) (ll. 2497–2572)
Section V: [Colores]
Protheseos paralange, liptota, topographia, chronographia, hypallagium, prosopopoeia, apostropha, hendiadys, ebasis, emphasis,
efflexegesis, euphonia, lepos, antitosis, antitheton, anthypophora,
anticlasis, antimetabola, aposiopasis, euphemismus, synepthesis, oliopomenon, homophesis, epimone, anthropospathos, homopathion (ll.
2573–2639)
For the figures presented in sections I–IV, Alexander seems to havedrawn on Barbarismus, and the categories of Barbarismus are duly
mentioned and exemplified. D does deviate from Barbarismus in
11 The figures with italicised names will be discussed in section 4 below.

Introduction

xxxv

some cases (the deviations have been marked with italics in the list
above and they will be treated in Section 4 below), but it is uncertain
whether these deviations are introduced by the author or whether they
were already in his source. The selection of figures presented in
section V of ch. 12 cannot, on the other hand, be paralleled elsewhere,
and the source(s) for this important section have yet to be determined(Grondeux 2009, 137). The figures of section V are not presented
under a general heading, but in scholarship they are often referred toas the colores ‘colours’. This term, which gained currency in Latin in
the eleventh century (Murphy 1974, 39 n. 102), is sometimes usedsynonymously with ‘figure’; at other times it refers to figures thatwere not included in the canonical repertoires found in Barbarismus
and Rhetorica ad Herennium.
The number of lines spent on each of the colores varies somewhat
in D. In some cases, such as topographia (l. 2577), chronographia (l.
2578) and prosopopoeia (l. 2582), Alexander deemed a single line
sufficient, while he devoted six lines to synepthesis (ll. 2617–22). The
colores constitute the most important foundation of FoGT and the fulltext of section V is therefore reproduced with a translation in an
appendix to the present edition. To this repertoire of figures the writer
added three figures found in G but not in D, one figure that has notbeen identified in other texts (bethgraphia), and three of the tropes
treated in section IV of D’s twelfth chapter. These will be discussed ingreater detail in Section 4 below.
Graecismus, ascribed to Eberhard of Béthune (fl. c. 1200), is insome respects reminiscent of D. The two are often mentioned in thesame breath and both can be characterised as verse grammars. An
important difference between the two texts is that D organises thematerial in the traditional order inherited from Antiquity, while G, in
its present form (traditionally dated to 1212), begins with the figures.
G is divided into 27 chapters. The first three of these are devoted to
the virtues (ch. 1) and vices (ch. 2) of speech and the colores (ch. 3).
Grondeux, in a discussion of the genesis of G (2000, 9 –19), hasargued that Eberhard’s work only consisted of chs 9 –24 and that theremaining sections were added not long after his death. G is therefore
best considered a composite work. Among the added sections, we findthe first three chapters on virtues, vices and colores. The popularity of
D may have led to the addition of these four chapters. The assembled
figures are drawn from a variety of sources, including Donatus’s
Barbarismus, Cassiodorus’s commentary on the Psalms and Marbod’s

xxxviIntroduction

De ornamentis verborum. The most striking feature of these sections
is that the material has been completely rearranged. In previous texts
the figures were organised into larger groups, but within the groups
the figures were presented in no particular order. In G a clear effort
was made to group together figures somehow reminiscent of one
another. In section one, for instance, the first sub-heading announces
metaplasms (i.e. virtuous alterations of single words). Many of the
figures presented in this section are not metaplasms themselves, but
only related to figures that are metaplasms, for example by analogy. A
clear example can be seen in I, 13 –16 of this chapter:
Elipsis necat m, perimit synalimpha uocalem.
Dicitur unius uerbi defectus eclipsis.
Ast aposiopasis oratio decifiens est.
Estque superuacui pleonasmos adoptio uerbi. (G I ll. 13–16)
Ellipsis kills an m, synalimpha eliminates a vowel.
The missing of one word is called eclipsis.
But aposiopesis is an incomplete sentence.
Pleonasmos is the adoption of a redundant word.
(Copeland & Sluiter, trans., 2009, 588)

Only the first two figures, elipsis and synalimpha, can properly becalled metaplasms, and they are treated as such in Barbarismus(Holtz, ed., 1981, 662 as synaliphe and ecthlipsis) and Málskrúðsfræði
(TGT 1884, 90 as sinalimphæ and elipsis). The third figure on theother hand, eclipsis, is treated among the ‘other vices’ in Barbarismus(Holtz, ed., 1981, 659) and Málskrúðsfræði (TGT 1884, 82– 83). The
fourth figure, aposiopesis, is not treated in Barbarismus, but it isfound in D among the colores (ll. 2612–14) and therefore also in
FoGT (ch. 18). These four figures have clearly been grouped together
because of their analogous nature. At various levels, they all illustrate
the lack of one or more elements: the lack of a letter (elipsis andsynalimpha), the lack of a word (eclipsis) and an incomplete sentence(aposiopesis). The last figure, pleonasmos, must have been added at
this point because it is an example of redundancy, which can beconsidered the opposite of lack. In Barbarismus (Holtz, ed., 1981,658) and Málskrúðsfræði (TGT 1884, 80 – 81) this figure is treatedamong the ‘other vices’. At this point it should be said that the organisational efforts one can detect in G have not been carried out withgreat consequence, and Grondeux, who has outlined some of theorganisational principles in this section of G, comments that theauthor of this section of G ‘n’était décidément pas un grammairien’Introduction

xxxvii(Grondeux 2001, 322). G contains many of the figures found in thecolores section of D (and in the corresponding parts of FoGT), in
addition to many other figures. However, G provides fewer examplesof the various figures than D does, and exemplifying glosses were
therefore even more necessary than in the case of D. A set of glosseson the first three chapters of G has been edited by Grondeux (2010)(Gg). This edition has been most useful in the work on the commentary to FoGT, in particular because Dg and Gg in many cases present
the same examples.
D and G enjoyed an extraordinary popularity, but they were also
criticised. John of Garland is believed to have revised both D and G(Colker 1974; Grondeux 1999) and he also attempted to replace thetwo with a verse grammar of his own, the Compendium gramatice,completed between 1235 and 1237 (Haye 1995, 15). Another effort ofrevision was Konrad of Mure’s massive Novus grecismus ‘The New
Graecismus’ (10450 ll.) from the mid-thirteenth century (Cizek, ed.,2009). None of these larger works ever attained the same popularity as
D and G, and there is no indication that the author of FoGT was
familiar with them.

3. The makeup of FoGT
FoGT is divided into 27 chapters. Twenty-five of these treat a single
figure each, while chs 3 and 10 each treat a small handful of related
figures. All chapters present figures that are found in the Latin tradition, and the commentary to this edition points to and cites the mostimportant parallel passages in D and G and their respective commentaries (Dg and Gg). Table 2 (on the following page) presents an
overview of the figures treated in FoGT and lists the relevant parallel
passages in D and G. In the first column the (sometimes erroneous)name forms given in FoGT have been used, while the Latin terms
used in the respective editions of D and G are given in the two lattercolumns. The numbers at the far left are chapter numbers in FoGT.
They are not found in W and were first introduced in the Arnamagnæan edition (SnE 1848 –78).
Table 2 shows that FoGT in general presents the same selection of
figures as D and furthermore that FoGT and D present the figures inmore or less the same order. The majority of the figures found in
FoGT and D can also be found in the first chapter of G, but not in thexxxviii

Introduction

same order. A few of the figures in FoGT and D can be paralleled by
figures found in the second or third chapter of G.
Table 2: The repertoire of figures in FoGT and its parallels in D and G.
FoGTDoctrinale (D)1 Protheseos paraloge Proth. par. 2573 –74
2 Liptota
Liptota 2575 –76
3 Tophographia
Topographia 2577
Bethgraphia–
Cosmographia–
Cronographia
Chronographia 2578
4 Ypallage
Hypallagium 2579–81
5 Prosopophia
Prosopopoeia 2582
6 Apostropha
Apostropha 2583– 84
7 Endiadis
Hendiadys 2585 –88
8 Ebasis
Ebasis 2589– 90
9 Emphasis
Emphasis 2591– 93
10 Exflexigesis
Efflexegesis 2594
Icona
Icon 2564
Parabola
Paradigma 2565– 69
Paradigma
Parabola 2570–72
11 Euphonia
Euphonia 2595 –96
12 Lepos
Lepos 2597–98
13 Antitosis
Antitosis 2599–2603
14 Antiteton
Antitheton 2604– 05
15 Antiposora
Anthypophora 2606– 07
16 Aclacassis
Anticlasis 2608 –09
17 Ansimehisa
Antimetabola 2610 –11
18 Aposiopesis
Aposiopasis 2612–14
19 Euphemismos
Euphemismus 2615–16
20 Sineptesis
Synepthesis 2617–22
21 Onopomenon
Oliopomenon 2623 –26
22 Emophasis
Homophesis 2627–29
23 Epimenon
Epimone 2630 –33
24 Antopazia
Homopathion 2636 –39
25 Antropuspatos
Anthropospathos 2634 –35
26 Simatrismos–
27 Therethema–

Graecismus (G)Proth. par. I, 27–28
Liptote I, 58
Topographia I, 72–73–
Cosmographia I, 72–73
Chronographia I, 72–73
Hypallage I, 39
Prosopopoeia I, 106
Apostropha I, 90 –91
Hendiadys I, 56–57––
Eflexegesis I, 89–
Paradigma I, 121–22
Parabola I, 121–22
Euphonia II, 7–8–
Antitosis I, 40
Antitheton I, 68
Anthypophora I, 79–
Commutatio III, 81–82
Aposiopasis I, 15––
Brachylogia I, 84–
Epimonen I, 34 –37–
Anthropospathos II, 10
Synacrismos I, 63– 64
Teretema I, 86 –87

Introduction

xxxix

In some instances a discrepancy between FoGT and D can bediscerned:
Chapter 3: FoGT has added two figures that are not found in D:
bethgraphia, which has not been identified elsewhere, and cosmographia, which is paralleled by G.
Chapter 10: FoGT presents three subtypes of the figure exflexigesis. The three subtypes are also found in D, but there they are
subtypes of the figure homozeuxis, a figure found neither among
the colores of D nor in FoGT. In Barbarismus, Donatus treatedhomozeuxis and its subtypes among the tropes.
Chapters 24 and 25: These two figures are presented in the opposite order in D.
Chapters 26 and 27: These two figures are not paralleled in D.
Both of them can be found in G, but not in the immediate vicinity
of one another.
The author has generally structured all chapters in a similar manner.
All chapters begin with the name of the figure to be defined. To makeit easier for potential readers to orient themselves in the manuscript,
the scribe has distinguished the initial letters of all these names withlitterae notabiliores. The name of the figure is always followed by afinite verb, most often vera ‘be’, but also with some frequency verða
(chs 1, 2, 4, 14 and 17). When verða occurs in this position it isrendered with ‘occur’ in the translation. In three instances anotherverb is used: setja ‘put’ in ch. 9, segja ‘say’ in ch. 21 and glósa ‘gloss’in ch. 22. The finite verb is then followed by the definition of the
figure. The definition is typically followed by a brief announcement of
the examples, such as sem hier ‘as here’ in the case of anonymous
stanzas or sem N kvað ‘as N said’ in the case of stanzas by named
poets. One chapter (15) ends with the example, but generally theexample is followed by a brief explanation. This general structure isvaried in chapters where the author presents more than one example(usually because the figure in question has subtypes). In a few cases,
most pronounced in chs 22 and 25, the author becomes carried awayand elaborates on points that, even though they seem to be of marginal
relevance to a treatise on figures, obviously occupied his mind. In
some cases the author also passes aesthetic judgement on particularfigures and gives advice on (or against) their use (such as in chs 9, 12,
13, 17, 20, 23). In one case FoGT also presents an etymology of thexlIntroduction

name of a figure (ch. 25). Etymologies are occasionally found in Dg
as well, while Gg often gives etymological explanations.
The structure of the individual chapters may seem logical andnatural, but it is by no means the only possible way of presenting thematerial. A glance at the extract from D reproduced in the Appendix
will show that the variation in D at this point is considerable. Thismeans that when transforming his source material into FoGT the
author reshaped it systematically. A likely source of inspiration at thispoint could be TGT, which uses a similar structure.

4. Knowledge of D and G in Iceland and Norway
D and G were written in verse around 1200 and became immensely
popular in a very short time. The author of FoGT could have acquainted himself with these works during a journey abroad, e.g.
during his studies; therefore, FoGT in itself is not proof that D and G
were known in Iceland. But evidence of the presence of these works in
Icelandic libraries is provided by máldagar or church inventories
printed in Diplomatarium Islandicum (DI). Olmer studied the booklists contained in the máldagar and, among many other books, helisted the collections that had a copy of D and G (Olmer 1902 nos 63
and 100). Olmer’s list contains some inaccuracies of interpretation andidentification, therefore the relevant material is presented briefly here:
In 1396 the cathedral of Hólar kept two copies of D and one copyof G among the school books: Þessar skólabǿkr: Doctrinalia ij,
Brito á tveim bókum, Huguicio, Grecismus … (DI, III 613) ‘These
school books: two Doctrinales, Brito in two volumes, Huguicio,
Graecismus’. ‘Brito’ is Summa Britonis, a dictionary of difficult
words in the Bible (Daly and Daly, eds., 1975) while ‘Huguicio’ ismost likely Hugh of Pisa’s Derivationes (Cecchini, ed., 2004), an
etymological dictionary. The inventory goes on to list other schoolbooks.
In 1397 the Augustinians at Viðeyjarklaustr kept one copy of D
and one of G among their school books: Item í skólabókum: In
primis Doctrinale, Graecismus, Aurora … (DI, IV 111) ‘Likewise[are kept] among the school books: first and foremost Doctrinale,
Graecismus, Aurora’. Aurora is the title of a versified Bible byPeter of Riga. The inventory goes on to list other school books.

Introductionxli

In 1461 the Augustinians at Mǫðruvallaklaustr kept one copy of
Graecismus, listed as ‘Grecissimus’ among their books in Latin (ílatínubókum, DI, V 288) (cf. Stotz 1996, 100 on the special formof the title).
The preserved máldagar thus testify to the existence of three copies of
D and three copies of G in Iceland in the late fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries. It is indicative of the high regard in which D and G were
held that the first two inventories list these works as the first books
among their school books.
In addition to the manuscripts listed in the inventories, two fragments of the Latin texts might also point to the circulation of D and G
in the West Scandinavian area. 1) A half leaf of an unglossed text of D
has recently been identified in the Hanseatic archives in Lübeck (asflyleaf of AHL 1409 (the main content of AHL 1409 is described in
Asmussen et al. 2009, 255 – 56). According to Åslaug Ommundsen(oral communication) the fragment dates from the early fourteenth
century. 2) In 1837 Finnur Magnússon sold a number of manuscripts
and fragments to the British Library (see Porter 2006). Among thefragments London, BLAdd 11250 item no. 422 has recently been
identified by Åslaug Ommundsen (oral communication) as a fragment
of G (the text is from ch. 12). The fragment, a glossed double leaf,
appears to be of French origin and it is unknown how it entered into
Finnur Magnússon’s possession.
Indirect testimony to the knowledge of D in Iceland can be found in
Málskrúðsfræði of Óláfr Þórðarson’s TGT. This text, commonly dated
to c. 1250 (first attested in AM 748 I b 4°, c. 1300 –25), appears to be
based primarily on Donatus’s Barbarismus, but earlier scholarship has
also pointed to some similarities between Málskrúðsfræði and D, andconcluded that the two texts must have drawn on a common source(see Holtsmark 1960, cols 417–18; Louis-Jensen 1981, 333). Neither
Holtsmark nor Louis-Jensen described the similarities in great detail.
In a more thorough analysis, Wellendorf (forthcoming) argues that theauthor of Málskrúðsfræði drew directly on D rather than on the sourceof D. Instead of assuming that an unknown work, of which no trace
has been found thus far, had a pervasive influence on D and Málskrúðsfræði, it must a priori be considered more likely that a wellknown and popular work, that was the staple of grammatical teaching
below the university level in the thirteenth century throughout Northwest Europe, had a formative influence on Málskrúðsfræði. Thatbeing said, Málskrúðsfræði explicitly refers to Donatus and his work

xlii

Introduction

on three occasions (TGT 1884, 59 – 60, 72 and 101), while there are noreferences to D.
The instances of agreement between the two works will be presented briefly below. D spread quickly throughout Northern Europe so it
is not inconceivable that a copy made its way to Iceland as early as the
mid-thirteenth century when Málskrúðsfræði was written. Neither is itinconceivable that Óláfr, who was born in 1210, was exposed to D
during his schooling or while abroad. Since students generally learned
D by heart, it is not necessary to posit that Óláfr had a copy of D athand when he wrote Málskrúðsfræði; he could have worked frommemory. The similarities between Málskrúðsfræði and D concern
mostly the ordering and selection of figures, but occasionally thedefinitions. The list on p. xxxiv above shows that sections I–IV of thetwelfth chapter of D and Barbarismus present the same repertoire of
figures, but that there are some points of divergence (marked withitalicised letters). These will be commented upon briefly here:
Alleoteta
Alleoteta is the last figure mentioned among the ‘other vices’ in
Málskrúðsfræði. It is defined as follows: Alleotheta er þat ef skipt ertǫlum eða fǫllum eða kynjum, sem fyrr er ritat í Soloecismos (TGT1884, 85) ‘Alleoteta is when numbers, cases or genders are changed,
as was written earlier in [the section on] Soloecismus’. No example isgiven. Ólsen (1884, 85n.) has noted that alleoteta is not found in
Barbarismus. However, in Doctrinale it occurs in exactly the sameplace as in TGT, namely as the last of the ‘other vices’. D’s definition
agrees with that of Málskrúðsfræði: confundit casus, numeros, genus
alleoteta (D l. 2404) ‘Alleoteta confuses cases, numbers, gender’.
Systola and ectasis
Systola and ectasis are presented in this order in TGT (1884, 88 – 89)
and D (ll. 2412–26). Barbarismus presents them in the opposite order(Holtz, ed., 1981, 661– 62).
EctasisTGT defines the figure ectasis (written eptasis) as follows: Eptasis er
gagnstaðlig sistole ok gerir skamma samstǫfu langa, sem fyrr er ritat:[example]. Þessi fígúra hefir margar kynkvíslir í versum, en í skáldskap er hon sjaldan, nema ofljóst sé ort (TGT 1884, 89) ‘Ectasis is theIntroduction

xliii

opposite of systole and lengthens a short syllable, as written earlier:[example]. This figure has many subdivisions in [Latin] verses, but israrely found in [Norse] poetry, except in ofljóst’. Barbarismus omits
the second part of the definition and simply writes: Ectasis est extensio syllabae contra naturam uerbi, ut [example] (Holtz, ed., 1981,661) ‘Ectasis is the lengthening of a syllable contrary to the nature of
the word, as: [example]’. D defines the figure as well, but then continues to list many subdivisions in an unusually long section (ll.
2413 –26). The subdivisions carry long and arcane names (such as
posthephthemimeris in l. 2419) and are illustrated with Latin verses.
These figures are rarely, as TGT observes, used in Old Norse poetry.
Sylempsis
This figure is subdivided into three unnamed branches in TGT (1884,
93; written silemsis). The same branches are found in D (ll. 2456 –62).
The text of the parallel section of Barbarismus varies considerably
between the editions of Holtz (1981, 664) and GL (4, 397), but noneof them matches Málskrúðsfræði as closely as D.
Hyperbola and hyperbaton
Málskruðsfræði (TGT 1884, 110 –11) and D (ll. 2524 – 40) define these
two figures in the same order, while Barbarismus treats them in the
opposite order (Holtz, ed., 1981, 670 –71).
Subtypes of hyperbaton
Barbarismus (Holtz, ed., 1981, 670 –71) lists and exemplifies five subtypes of hyperbaton: 1) hysterologia, 2) anastrophe, 3) parenthesis, 4)tmesis and 5) synchysis. Málskrúðsfræði (TGT 1884, 110 –13) and D(ll. 2529 – 40) list the same subtypes, but present them in a different
order, namely: 1, 5, 4, 2 and 3.
Paradigma
Louis-Jensen (1981, 333) has pointed out that Málskrúðsfræði and D
agree in their definition of this figure, which goes against
Barbarismus. Málskrúðsfræði defines: Paradigma samjafnar fyrstnǫkkura hluti ok síðan greinir hon þá í líking (TGT 1884, 118) ‘First
paradigma compares some things, then it gives an account of thesimilarities’. This agrees with D: Hic paradigma facit, qui primum

xliv

Introduction

comparat et post assignat simile (ll. 2570 –71) ‘He makes a paradigma
who first compares and then assigns the similarity’. Barbarismus on
the other hand defines the figure as follows: Paradigma est enarratio
exempli hortantis aut deterrentis (Holtz, ed., 1981, 674) ‘Paradigma
is the telling of an exhortative or deterring example’.
Parabola and paradigma
Málskrúðsfræði’s last sections, on parabola and paradigma (TGT1884, 117–19), differ in tone and method from the preceding sectionsof the text. Throughout, Málskrúðsfræði follows Barbarismus in
exemplifying the figures discussed with examples of a secular nature,
but the last two examples are markedly clerical in their tone. Barbarismus illustrates these figures with Virgilian examples (Holtz, ed.,1981, 674), while Málskrúðsfræði uses examples drawn from therealm of biblical typology. Both of these examples are accompanied
by relatively detailed information on exegetic interpretive matters.
This learned approach does not have much in common with thepreceding sections of Málskrúðsfræði and reads more like a section
from FoGT.
In the preceding paragraphs, a number of instances have been identified where TGT differs from Barbarismus and concurs with D. Thisagreement between TGT and D is most easily explained by suggestingthat the author of TGT, in addition to the material he obviously drewfrom Barbarismus, also included material from D. If this supposition
is correct, it raises the question of what kind of relationship exists
between TGT and the D-based FoGT. It is tempting to regard them asa single work, in particular because of the similarities between thecontents of the last two figures of TGT and FoGT, but internal evidence from FoGT, as outlined above, as well as the manuscript
evidence, speak against this hypothesis. Even though W has a smoothtransition between the two treatises, the oldest ms. of TGT, A (AM748 I b 4°, c. 1300 –25), explicitly ends TGT at the point where Barbarismus ends. In the light of these facts, the most likely conclusion isthat the two treatises have distinct origins, but that they drew partly on
the same source text, namely D. One can thus assume that D was
known in Iceland before c. 1300 –25, perhaps even in the midthirteenth century when Óláfr Þórðarson wrote TGT.

Introduction

xlv

5. The nature and origin of the poetic examples in FoGT
a. Named poets and poems
There are 62 individual stanzas or part-stanzas cited by the author of
FoGT and, of these, 47 are not ascribed to any named poet. While it ispossible that some of these are by poets whose identity we do not
know, it is likely that the majority are compositions of the author of
FoGT himself or of someone composing to his direction. The reasonsfor thinking so are discussed below. Not all of the fifteen remaining
stanzas are actually attributed to a named poet, but in some cases we
can identify the composer because the stanza occurs in other sources.
Stanzas 35 and 36 of FoGT, which are unattributed in the treatise, arests 14 and 12, respectively, of Snorri Sturluson’s Háttatal. It is possible that the writer of FoGT did not name Snorri as their author
because he considered the latter’s authorship to be common knowledge among fourteenth-century Icelanders interested in poetics.
Another very well known poet, unnamed in FoGT, is Einarr Skúlason,
one of whose verses is cited as st. 56. Einarr was a skald whose works
are frequently cited in Snorra Edda and elsewhere in the grammatical
literature.12 Again, the author of FoGT may have reckoned with his
audience’s familiarity with Einarr’s poetry and not felt the need tomention his name. Stanzas 24 and 25 are said to belong to a Nikulásdrápa ‘Poem with refrain in honour of St Nicholas’, and, judging by
its subject-matter, stanza 6 belongs there as well. The author of FoGT
does not name the composer of Nikulásdrápa. Perhaps he and his
audience knew who it was, seeing that interest in St Nicholas was highin Iceland and particularly in the northern monasteries, where at least
one prose saga of the saint, by Bergr Sokkason, was written in the
fourteenth century.
All eight of the named poets cited in FoGT are mentioned only by
their personal names without patronyms, suggesting that the author
expected his audience to be familiar with them. A similar practice isfollowed much of the time in TGT, though there the poet’s personalname is often accompanied by a nickname, like Auðunn illskælda
‘Bad-poet’ or Halldórr skvaldri ‘Prattler’. The named poets of FoGT
are Þorleifr (st. 1), that is, Þorleifr jarlsskáld ‘Jarl’s poet’ Rauðfeldarson; Eiríkr viðsjá ‘the Circumspect’, whose patronym is unknown (st.
12 Einarr’s poetry is also cited in Skáldskaparmál, TGT and in the ókend heiti

section added to W, as well as in LaufE; cf. Nordal’s assessment of his keyrole in the skaldic canon (2001, 233–34).

xlvi

Introduction2); Snorri (st. 18), that is, Snorri Sturluson; Óláfr (sts 19 and 20),
probably but not certainly Óláfr hvítaskáld ‘White Poet’ Þórðarson,
author of TGT; Bragi skáld (st. 23), that is, Bragi Boddason, an early
Norwegian poet; Þorleifr (st. 27), that is, Þorleifr skúma ‘Dusky’Þorkelsson; Eilífr (st. 28), probably but not certainly Eilífr kúlnasveinn ‘Fellow with lumps’ (?); and Arnórr (st. 32), Arnórr jarlaskáld‘Jarls’ poet’ Þórðarson. The only named poet whose patronym isgiven is Eyjólfr Brúnason; however, he is not the composer of a stanzacited in FoGT but the addressee of st. 18 by Snorri Sturluson. The
treatise names him and tells the audience that he was a good poet anda good farmer, though not a wealthy one. It is possible that the authorof FoGT did not expect his audience to know anything about Eyjólfr,unlike the other poets he mentioned, and so provided some information to fill them in on his background.13
Leaving aside for a moment the anonymous stanzas that cannot be
identified as either the work of a known poet or the one poem FoGT
identifies by name, Nikulásdrápa, we see that the skaldic canonfamiliar from Snorra Edda and TGT is still represented to some extent
in FoGT through citations from the poetry of Bragi Boddason, Arnórr
jarlaskáld, Einarr Skúlason, Snorri Sturluson, and possibly Eilífr
kúlnasveinn and Óláfr Þórðarson. Of these Bragi’s stanza (Ragnarsdrápa 3) is probably cited from a version of Skáldskaparmál familiar
to the author of FoGT, though this could not have been the version in
W (see below), and Arnórr’s couplet appears also in TGT; Snorri’s
two stanzas from Háttatal and several of the prose parts of that work
must also have been known to the FoGT composer. Indeed, thepresence of a version of all parts of Snorra Edda in W makes it likelythat at least one text of this four-part work was available at Þingeyrar
or in its vicinity. Stanza 28, attributed to an Eilífr and unique to FoGT,
is probably by the same person named as Eilífr kúlnasveinn in Skáldskaparmál, where three helmingar and a couplet from a poem about
Christ are attributed to him.14 The single stanza by Einarr Skúlason
13 Only one helmingr by Eyjólfr survives in the poetic record, and that isfound only in LaufE. See introductory commentary to st. 18 (pp. 70 – 71).
His dates are unknown, but the style and subject matter of his poetrysuggests the second half of the twelfth century. Nordal (2001, 87– 88) assumes
that the late tenth-century skald Eilífr Goðrúnarson was the composer of st.
28, but this is most unlikely, given the considerable similarity of both styleand subject matter between st. 28 and the four fragments about Christ in
Skáldskaparmál.

14

Introduction

xlvii

does not appear in either Snorra Edda or TGT, however, and the two
couplets from a poem on Thomas Becket, if they are by Óláfr Þórðarson and not by some other Óláfr,15 are not recorded elsewhere.
Snorri’s lausavísa for Eyjólfr Brúnason is yet another stanza unique to
FoGT.
None of the other named poets cited in FoGT can be consideredcanonical in the grammatical tradition, though one must note that thehelmingr of Þorleifr jarlsskáld, which also appears in TGT, but toexemplify the fault of solecismus, was probably suggested to theauthor of FoGT from that work, where the example is garbled. This
helmingr appears nowhere else in the skaldic corpus. Two poets
whose works are unrepresented elsewhere in the grammatical tradition
are Eiríkr viðsjá and Þorleifr skúma. Þorleifr’s stanza is the only
surviving example of his poetry, and it is recorded in manuscripts ofJómsvíkinga saga and in Fagrskinna, as well as in FoGT and LaufE.
Aside from Eiríkr viðsjá’s stanza recorded in FoGT, this same verse
together with six others by Eiríkr are found only in Heiðarvíga saga, aconnection that is significant in terms of the FoGT author’s likely
northern geographical and intellectual milieu at Þingeyrar in Húnavatnssýsla where the saga may have also been composed (so Nordal inÍF 3, cxxxiv–cxliv). It is further significant in this context that the firstline of a stanza by Gestr Þórhallsson (Gestr Lv 2III), who also appears
as a character in Heiðarvíga saga, has been preserved as the very lastline of p. 168 of the unique additional section of ókend heiti in W,
after which there is a lacuna of two leaves (SnE 1924, 105). The fullhelmingr to which this line belongs is preserved in the Y version of
LaufE (LaufE 1979, 371),16 along with a preceding prose quotation of
a sentence in the saga that introduces Gestr Lv 1III. Faulkes (LaufE
1979, 58) has argued that this suggests that the verse is likely to havederived from a manuscript of the saga, rather than from a version of
Snorra Edda. It is possible that the author of FoGT may also have hadaccess to a manuscript of the saga.
Another way in which the stanzas of FoGT associated with known
poets can be assessed is in terms of their chronological and ethnic orregional spread across the Old Norse poetic corpus, compared with the15

If the author of these couplets was the thirteenth-century skald Óláfr
svartaskáld ‘Black Poet’ Leggsson, then he also seems to form part of thegrammatical tradition. Although only fragments of his output have survived, anumber of them have been preserved in TGT and LaufE.
16 SnE 1924 fills this lacuna in W with the text of LaufE.

xlviii

Introduction

citations from Snorra Edda and TGT. To consider the ethnic origin of
the poets first, it is only in Snorra Edda that we find a significant
number of Norwegian skalds represented, and that is because Snorri
includes several poems and lausavísur by very early skalds. Whileboth TGT and FoGT include mention of the Norwegian Bragi Boddason, doubtless in view of his iconic status as the first skald, and TGT
also mentions Starkaðr gamli ‘the Old’, the latter associated with
Danish rulers, poetry from the late ninth and early tenth centuries has
little coverage in TGT and even less in FoGT. The later tenth century
is reasonably well represented in both treatises, however, and here thepoets cited in TGT are mostly Icelanders from the west and north of
the island, as Gísli Sigurðsson has noted (2000, 108 –13). Some of
TGT ’s sources are obscure and are not mentioned elsewhere. For theeleventh and twelfth centuries, TGT relies on a number of citations
from important Icelandic skalds who served foreign rulers as theircourt poets: Arnórr jarlaskáld, Einarr Skúlason, Þjóðólfr Arnórsson,
Markús Skeggjason and Sigvatr Þórðarson. Egill Skallagrímsson, who
is cited several times in TGT, is an exception here both chronologically, as he belongs to the tenth century, and because he does not
figure in historical writings, where the poetry of the other chief poetsis largely preserved. As Nordal has observed (2001, 84): ‘Óláfr’s
canon is the same as that used in the established skaldic canon ofhistorical saga writing, in the kings’ sagas and Sturlunga saga, and in
Snorra Edda. These are the poets who are cited in the learned
literature’. Óláfr adds Snorri Sturluson to his canon, and, if he composed the anonymous stanzas in TGT, he also silently adds himself.
FoGT cites many fewer named sources than TGT, and it is, ofcourse, a rather shorter work. Its later tenth-century coverage is notdissimilar to that of TGT, though the sample is small. However, allthree poets whose work can be dated to the second half of the tenthcentury or the very early part of the eleventh, Þorleifr jarlsskáld, Eiríkrviðsjá and Þorleifr skúma, are from northern Iceland, indicating again
a particular northern interest on the author’s part. FoGT ’s coverage ofthe chief poets of the eleventh and twelfth centuries is noticeably
restricted compared with both SnE and TGT and comprises only asingle couplet by Arnórr jarlaskáld, also cited in TGT, and a stanza by
Einarr Skúlason, which is quoted anonymously. Tribute is again paid
to Snorri Sturluson by quoting three stanzas by him, two of themanonymously. The date and provenance of the stanza by an Eilífr are
uncertain, but on internal grounds of style and subject matter the verse

Introduction

xlix

is likely to be from the second half of the twelfth century, while thecouplets attributed to an Óláfr about Thomas Becket are probably of
the thirteenth century, and the same may be true of the three helmingar from a Nikulásdrápa.
FoGT cites Ragnarsdrápa 3 by Bragi Boddason (st. 23) as an
example of the figure ebasis, which the treatise defines as a departurefrom the subject matter ‘when the poet drifts off course’ (þá er skáldið
reikar afvegis). This statement is puzzling, given that the wider context of Snorra Edda indicates that Ragnarsdrápa was a shield poem inwhich Bragi described scenes, including the killing of Jǫrmunrekr by
the brothers Hamðir and Sǫrli, that he saw depicted on a shield that his
patron, Ragnarr, had given him. The full citation of the four stanzas
and a stef ‘refrain’ on this subject in three manuscripts (R, Tx and C)
of Skáldskaparmál (SnE 1998, I 50 – 51) make this circumstance clear.
The prose text of FoGT indicates that its author thought the main
subject of Ragnarsdrápa was direct praise of Ragnarr himself, andthat the legend of Hamðir and Sǫrli was a deviation from that,occasioned as an indirect compliment to Ragnarr loðbrók, who wasconsidered a descendant of the legendary family of the Niflungar insome sources, including Skáldskaparmál. A question of interest here
is what version of Snorra Edda the author of FoGT would have
known, seeing that none of the stanzas about Hamðir and Sǫrli are in
the W version of Skáldskaparmál. Clearly the author of FoGT knew
the verse quoted from somewhere, but it may have been from a sourcein which the three other stanzas and, in particular, the stef, were
missing. At any rate, the author does not seem to have been aware of
the wider subject or subjects of the drápa.
b. The anonymous stanzas
If the number of stanzas by known poets in FoGT is meagre, thetreatise makes up for its restraint in this regard by citing a very large
number of stanzas that are unattributed to either poet or poem. There
are several cogent reasons to think that many of these are the work of
the author of FoGT himself or, if not by him, then by someone working to his direction. It has been mentioned already that the abundanceof these anonymous stanzas is something that distinguishes FoGT
from its predecessors among the grammatical treatises, even thoughsome citation of unattributed verses occurs in both Snorra Edda and,lIntroduction

somewhat more plentifully, in TGT.17 It is quite likely that the authorof FoGT was influenced by some of the preceptive arts of poetry of
the thirteenth century, such as Geoffrey of Vinsauf’s Poetria nova (c.
1215), both in composing his own examples to demonstrate hisarguments and in developing long expositions of the significance ofthe citations themselves within the prose commentary.18 Geoffrey
does both these things, as does the author of FoGT. Neither can beparalleled in the earlier Icelandic grammatical treatises. Many of theanonymous stanzas, if the work of the author of the treatise or acolleague, are likely to date from the period c. 1320 – 40 and are thus
more or less contemporary with such poems as Lilja ‘Lily’ and Abbot
Arngrímr Brandsson’s Guðmundardrápa (Arngr Gd IV, securely selfdated in st. 47 to the year 1345). The language and subject matter ofsome of the anonymous stanzas in FoGT are often reminiscent ofthese two poems, particularly the former.
The anonymous stanzas can be classified using several different
criteria. There is a group that is clearly modelled on the Latin examples given in either D or G or in related commentaries and musthave been invented specifically for the purpose of reproducing in
Icelandic dress the figures recommended in FoGT ’s source texts.
These examples can be divided into two sub-groups, comprising on
the one hand stanzas or part-stanzas that imitate Latin verse examples
with exactly or almost exactly parallel Icelandic constructions, and, on
the other, those that provide a more broadly-based analogy, as, forexample, in st. 51, Sæll er sienn í milli, which illustrates the figure
homophesis, a form of obscurity, and is dependent on a definition in D
which provides examples from the technical language of astrology.
FoGT provides a stanza that depends on the exegesis of two Old
Testament prophecies, and supplies a prose interpretation of the verse
based on the writings of Christian Church fathers.
17 Snorri’s own 102-stanza encomium, which exemplifies the different verse-

forms of Old Norse poetry, is not actually attributed to him within the prosetext of Háttatal, though there are several medieval attestations to his authorship elsewhere (cf. SnE 2007, vii–viii).
18 Although no manuscript of the Poetria nova is recorded as existing inmedieval Icelandic book collections, it is very likely that the text was known
in Iceland by the early fourteenth century. It must now be taken as certain thatthe poet of Lilja (Anon Lil VII) knew and was influenced by the Poetria nova
(cf. Foote 1982 [1984]; Chase 2007, 2, 580 –85, 637–38) and the date ofcomposition of Lilja (c. 1340) is more or less contemporary with that presumed for FoGT.

Introductionli

The first sub-group, of close parallels, includes sts 11, Framan unnu
gram gunnar; 12, Mari sendu vers vinda; 13, Blies um hváfta hása;
21, Skálm vann og hjalt hilmi; 22, Þýddiz karl inn klædda; 33, Þá, er
eg leyfi mey mjóva; 34, Sveit fylla ein alla; 43, Mætum stend eg aðmóti; 45, Eigi er ván, að eg vága; 46, Það saung og í gröf geinginn(second helmingr) and 47, Víngarðr hafði öl-Giefn orðið. Detailed
support for the correspondence between the Latin sources and the
Icelandic rendition will be found in the commentary to this edition. In
general, the execution of the Icelandic examples is extremely cleverand, in some cases, of real poetic merit. In order to provide parallels,
however, a rather strained syntax or lexical meaning of Icelandic
words is sometimes required.
The second sub-group of more broadly-based parallels occurs
mostly towards the end of FoGT and, typically, in full eight-line
stanzas rather than in couplets or helmingar, as is the case with manyof the first sub-group. In some cases pairs or even larger groups ofstanzas are involved. Relevant stanzas include 48 and 49, which
illustrate the figure oliopomenon, defined in D as one in which a seriesof important events is expressed in few words. D gives as an example
a series of short clauses encapsulating the history of the Trojan war.
The author of FoGT produces two dróttkvætt stanzas, each consistingof four couplets, illustrating which he calls ávarp theologie ‘a summary of the Bible’, and describing eight key events in the life of
Christ. As he does frequently, the FoGT author gives examples fromChristian literature rather than from classical history or the liberal arts,
which his exemplars use. In this pair of stanzas FoGT provides functional equivalence of subject matter and style to its Latin exemplar.
Other examples in this sub-group are sts 50, Hugsan flýtir lysting
ljóta; 51, Sæll er sienn í milli; 57, Ádám sá, þann alt í heimi; 58 – 60
and the first part of 61, Hverr deyr? Hjarðar stýrir. Details of therelationship of these stanzas with their Latin exemplars will be foundin the commentary to this edition. The three sts 58 – 60 are particularlyinteresting in this context and reveal how cleverly and subtly theircreator worked to establish equivalences between his sources and his
Icelandic examples. These three stanzas are said to illustrate the figureof synacrismos, which the prose text defines as the collection of praiseor vices in one chapter and clause or verse in Latin but in one or morestanzas of Old Norse poetry. In fact all the examples in the threestanzas are of praise of Old Testament characters and the Christianlii

Introduction

God, but each stanza contains in addition a number of stereotyped anddeliberate metrical faults, thus illustrating both praise and vices.19
A third group of anonymous stanzas in FoGT may be distinguishedfrom the two sub-groups discussed above. These are presented as
illustrations of Latin rhetorical figures but, although they bear somerelation to the Latin models and are likely to have been composed
specifically for FoGT, they are probably as much developments ofindigenous categories of Old Norse poetry as they are attempts toapproximate Latin figures. All of them involve the use of establishedand often complex verse-forms for which precedents and technicalterms already existed in the earlier manuals of Snorra Edda and/or
TGT. In most cases the prose text of FoGT draws attention to the
Icelandic precedents for the use of these poetic ornaments.
In this category belong sts 29, 30 and 31, which are said to illustrate
the figure of euphonia, the alteration of speech sounds to make themmore pleasing to the ear. The prose commentary mentions that Óláfr
Þórðarson also discussed this issue and, in the three stanzas themselves, presents a series of couplets which all play on words that are
etymologically connected but have different stem vowels on accountof recent phonological changes in the Icelandic language. The verseform used here is áttmælt ‘eight times spoken’. Another extensive setof stanzas in this group is 37– 41, which is preceded by sts 14 and 12
of Snorri’s Háttatal. All these stanzas, including Snorri’s, are presented as illustrations of the figure antitheton, defined in the treatise as
occurring if the last words of a stanza correspond to the first andwhere other possible ways of dividing clauses within metricallycorrect stanzas are found. These stanzas constitute a virtuoso performance by their composer, as various ways are found to split a
series of semantically related clauses, and several different verseforms are used to achieve this end, including hrynhent ‘flowing
rhymed’, the variety of tøglag ‘journey metre’ called inn nýi háttr ‘thenew verse-form’ in Háttatal (Háttatal 73, SnE 2007, 31), and runhent‘end-rhymed’. Although it has been suggested that some of the variant
verse-forms presented here were likely to be new creations of the
FoGT composer (so Ólsen in FoGT 1884, 275 n. 7; Longo 2006),
most of them probably had precedents in the vernacular tradition.
Stanzas 52– 55 illustrate different types of repetition, which the prose
19 We are grateful to Kari Ellen Gade for analysing the metrical faults in thesethree stanzas and pointing out their significance.

Introductionliiicommentary of FoGT attempts to align with the indigenous technicalterms of dunhenda ‘echoing rhyme’, iðurmæltr ‘repeatedly spoken’
and greppaminni ‘poets’ reminder’, although the stanzas presented do
not correspond precisely to these native verse-forms. The final two
stanzas in the treatise, 61– 62, are said to illustrate the figure ofteretema, a series of questions and answers about the same subject.
This is rather similar to the native figure greppaminni, but the stanzas
are in fact in a form of sextánmælt ‘sixteen times spoken’, as exemplified in Háttatal 9 (SnE 2007, 9).
For the most part, the author of FoGT provided Icelandic poetic
examples that were consistent with the rhetorical purpose his Latin
exemplars attributed to their illustrative material. However, in a small
number of cases the Icelandic examples do not approximate very wellto their Latin counterparts. Two of the anonymous stanzas, 42 and 44,
are of this kind. Stanza 42, Þier giet eg, karl, ef þú kærir, is intended
to illustrate FoGT ’s definition of the figure anthypophora, which theprose text says comes about if a man responds to charges that someone has prepared against him at an assembly, thinking of an Icelandic
legal situation. The stanza illustrates just such a circumstance, butboth the Icelandic definition and the illustration are rather far from thenormal sense of the Latin figure, which involves making an anticipated response to a tacit objection. Stanza 44, Sveit lifir ill til átu,picks up on the sense of the adage used in D to illustrate the figure of
antimetabola: non, ut edas, vivas, sed edas ut vivere possis ‘youshould not live so that you may eat, but eat so that you may live’, butdoes not reproduce the essence of the figure itself, which is a demonstration of how meaning can change if one changes the arrangement ofwords, as in the adage. FoGT understands the figure as changing senseby using words of obscure signification, and introduces the coinage
þokumenn ‘fog-men’ for this purpose, explaining how this term refers
to people who waste their money on food and drink and do not see thelight of proper behaviour.
c. Dominant themes of the anonymous stanzas and their prose exegesis
Unlike its predecessors, FoGT exemplifies the rhetorical figures of its
Latin sources with a high proportion of stanzas that refer to the Christian religion and assumes an audience familiar with the beliefs andrituals of the Christian Church, as well as the principles of exegesis
and allegorical interpretation of sacred texts that are invoked right at

liv

Introduction

the end of TGT but are otherwise not used in earlier Icelandic grammatical treatises. If FoGT was the product of a member of theÞingeyrar monastic community or a related religious house, such anemphasis would not be surprising. Another consideration is that theauthor of FoGT, writing in the first half of the fourteenth century,
must have been aware that most of the skaldic poetry composed in
Iceland in his day was religious in character. His manual was thus intune with contemporary poetic practice, whereas earlier manuals had
rather stressed secular poetry, though in both Snorra Edda and TGT
some poetry with Christian subjects is included, but in neither of theseearlier treatises does it dominate.
The stanzas that address religious themes include some poetry by
known skalds together with a much larger number of anonymouscompositions. This group of subjects can be divided between thosethat deal with Christian ritual, dogma or exegesis, those that are
specifically hagiographical and a third group of moralising stanzas inwhich the voice of the preacher can be detected. The first grouppredominates and includes sts 4, Fingr vann eigi eingan; 8, Allr lýtrheimr undir hylli; 9, Sjálfráði dó síðan; 15, Vatn kalla mig; 16, Grænn
kvað viðr á víði and 17, Vátr kvað marr á móti; 28, Báru mæta móti;
44, Sveit lifir ill til átu; 46, Það saung og í gröf geinginn; 48, Berazliet frá mey mætri; 49, Píndr reis upp með anda; 51, Sæll er sienn ímilli; 52– 55, Eg em synda bót … Eg blessa þig; 56, Máni skínn af
mæni; 57, Ádám sá, þann alt í heimi; 58, Ábiels lofar ævi; 59, Trúa
lofar Ábráms ævi; 60, Moysen lofar ljósan and 61, Hverr deyr?
Hjarðar stýrir. There is a smaller group of hagiographical stanzas thatcelebrate the lives of particular saints who were popular in Iceland,
including sts 6, Firð stóð í bygð breiðri (St Nicholas); 19, Þier fremizþí með tíri and 20, Teitr giefr, Thómas, ýtum (St Thomas Becket); 24,Öll þing boða eingla (St Nicholas) and 25, Jón laut í höll hreinum (St
Nicholas, John the Baptist); 62, Hverr fell? Hörða stillir (St Óláfr
Haraldsson). The third group, which shows the influence of the arts ofpreaching, comprises sts 10, Hákon rieð fyr hauðri; 11, Framan unnu
gram gunnar; 14, Grund, taktu, bölvi blandin; 26, Píndr er stuldr, þar
er standa and 50, Hugsan flýtir lysting ljóta.
Some other thematic issues can be detected across the stanzas of
FoGT and in its prose commentary. Aside from the group of anonymous stanzas that provoke discussion of indigenous technical terms,
mentioned in section 5 b above, a significant interest in history andgovernment can be discerned (sts 10, 11, 27, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40 andIntroductionlv62) as well as an interest in the law (sts 11, 26, 42 and 43), and thislatter interest is supported by some overlap in vocabulary between theprose text of FoGT and legal writings like Jónsbók, a work that is
known to have been copied at Þingeyrar in the mid-fourteenth century.
A further thematic interest is in male-female relations, often with asuggestively sexual element, witnessed by sts 5, 22, 33, 45 and 47.
At several places in the treatise, the author of FoGT offers prose
explanations of varying lengths on the stanzas he quotes. Many are
devoted to religious ideas and are very much in the tradition of biblical and doctrinal exegesis familiar from the Latin commentary
tradition and from Latin and vernacular sermon literature. Others
involve commentary on Icelandic grammatical technical terms andincorporate the author’s opinions on the desirability or undesirabilityof certain figures. The first, relatively short excursus comes after st. 15
and explains how Alms-giving (Ölmusugjöfin) calls itself the water ofChrist in the stanza and how the equivalence between the two terms isdeveloped throughout the verse. This is followed by a much longer
explanation of the Biblical background to the paired sts 16 and 17,which the prose commentary says (erroneously) are based on the
Apocryphal Book of Baruch. After quoting the verses, the commentary then claims that the forest and the sea of the poetry should beunderstood historically as signifying the Jews and the Chaldeans. The
treatise’s discussion of the figure of ebasis, which is exemplified bothby Ragnarsdrápa 3 (st. 23) and by two helmingar from Nikulásdrápa(sts 24 –25), has been mentioned above in Section 5 a. The discussion
is of interest not only because it throws light on the author’s apparently limited understanding of Ragnarsdrápa, but also for his attitude
to the use of examples from other narratives to illuminate a specificsubject: they may be used out of necessity or for ornament or for the
ascription of blame but otherwise should be avoided at all costs!
After st. 27, by Þorleifr skúma, which employs a variety of periphrases to describe an oaken club and its likely effect on various
intended victims, the commentary introduces the idea that thisswitching of images, which it does not approve of, at least for grandpoems (stórkvæðum), can be called finngalknað ‘monstrous’, anddraws attention to Óláfr Þórðarson’s earlier use of this technical term.
This, in its turn, was dependent on Snorri Sturluson’s disapproval ofsuch changes of imagery in Háttatal (SnE 2007, 7), though there Snorri uses the term nykrat rather than finngalknað to refer to them. FoGT
also brings Óláfr’s views into the discussion again in connection withlvi

Introduction

the three sts 29, 30 and 31 that exemplify the figure of euphonia,
drawing on the precedent of Óláfr’s writing about unpleasing conjoined characters (límingarstafir). This excursus has been discussed
above in Section 5 b. Further comments and value-judgements about
indigenous verse-forms and other stylistic devices are found concentrated around sts 35 – 41, a group also discussed above. Here the author
declares his appreciation of the device called stælt ‘inlaid’, which is
exemplified by two stanzas by Snorri Sturluson (35 and 36, Háttatal
14 and 12), and mentions another term, langlokur ‘long enclosures’,
which appears in Háttalykill and, in the form langlokum, in ms. R of
Snorra Edda, though not in the main scribe’s hand, and in the list ofnames of verse-forms that precedes Háttatal in U. The paragraphpreceding sts 52– 55 has a discussion of the figure epimone in which
the same word is used more than once, drawing a distinction between
its use to reinforce meaning in theological writings and its function in
Icelandic poetry, where it is used for the sake of beauty (fyrir fegrðar
sakir) in verse-forms like dunhenda and iðurmæltr.
The author’s explanation of the ‘fog-men’ (þokumenn) stanza (44)introduces another cluster of moralising or exegetical excursuses.
Although he probably coined the term þokumaðr in imitation of theLatin word nebulo ‘worthless person, wretch’, the FoGT author
expands its implications in homiletic fashion in the prose gloss to thestanza. The excursus to st. 51, Sæll er sienn í milli, is by far the
longest and most complex in FoGT. David McDougall (1988) has
shown that it draws on two excerpts from patristic commentaries
which the grammarian probably derived directly or, most likely,
indirectly from the eighth-century homiliary of Paul the Deacon. The
commentary that follows st. 56, Einarr Skúlason’s Máni skínn af
mæni, is indebted to commonplace scientific or encyclopedic information about the relationship between the sun and the moon that formed
part of the medieval literature on computus (cf. Clunies Ross andGade 2012). The final excursus of any length in FoGT comes after st.
57, which exemplifies the figure termed anthropospathos, in which
what belongs to mankind is attributed to the Godhead. The treatise
advises its audience not to understand this transfer literally, but only ina figurative sense, giving a number of examples of human physicalmovements and their figurative senses when applied to God.

Introductionlvii

6. The present edition: guiding principles
a. Normalisation of the Icelandic text
Various kinds of evidence indicate that FoGT is a work of the firsthalf of the fourteenth century, most probably composed between 1320
and 1340, and extant in a single manuscript, W, of c. 1350. This
edition has normalised the text to reproduce orthographically the presumed state of the Icelandic language in this period. Some of thepoetry cited in FoGT dates from various periods before 1300, and in a
few cases from much earlier than that. In spite of this anomaly, a decision was made to normalise all the poetry cited in FoGT to the same
fourteenth-century standard for the sake of uniformity of presentation.
A concise analysis of the paleographical, orthographic and linguistic
characteristics of the W manuscript as a whole can be found in Hreinn
Benediktsson 1972, 17–18 and confirms the scribal hand as of the
fourteenth century but not later than its third quarter. In general, manyof the same principles of normalisation, affecting orthography, syntax
and morphology, have been followed here as are outlined in section 9of the Introduction to SkP VII (Gade 2007a, lxv–lxvii), which may beconsulted for further reference, along with Björn K. Þórólfsson (1925)
and relevant sections of ANG and Nygaard (1906). However, some of
the fourteenth-century changes exemplified in these authorities are notfound in FoGT. These include loss of er after þá ‘when’, þar ‘where’,þegar ‘as soon as’ and síðan ‘after’ (Nygaard §265, Anm. 2a) and lossof að ‘that’ after svá ‘so that’, þó ‘although’ and því ‘because’ (Nygaard §265, Anm. 2b). There is only one example of the loss of therelative particle er following a demonstrative in FoGT, and that is inst. 57/1 Ádám sá, þann alt í heimi. There is no indication that desyllabification of -r > -ur (ANG §161a) has occurred and rl has notchanged to ll. Examples of normalisations of orthography, syntax andmorphology are given below.
The normalisation of the many technical terms derived from Greek
via Latin has posed a particular problem. In most cases these terms
would have been transparent to speakers of Greek, but not to aWestern medieval audience of treatises of figures, whether in Latin,
Old Norse or some other Western language. An additional complicating factor is that many of the names were distorted during theirtransmission. The figure called antiposora (ch. 15) can be used as an
example. It is defined as a reply to an anticipated, but not spoken,
accusation. To an Old Norse reader of FoGT, there would be nolviiiIntroduction

obvious connection between the name of the term and the figure it
describes, even if the sound of the name itself might have evoked thenotion of a rhetorical figure, and someone might have recognised antias meaning ‘against’. The Greek name of this figure is anthypophora(ἀνθυποφορά), a compound consisting of the elements ant- ‘against’and hypophora ‘objection’. The last part of the compound is itself acompound and consists of hypo ‘under’ and phora ‘utterance’. To a
speaker of Greek the name of the figure fits well semantically with thedevice it names. The typical Old Norse reader, on the other hand,
would have had no way of knowing this. In the main text, therefore,
the names of the figures have not been altered from their manuscript
form. Access to dictionaries and reference works give us an advantage
over medieval readers and in most cases it has been possible todetermine the original/traditional forms of the names of the figures.
Consequently it was deemed unnecessary to perpetuate the use of thegarbled forms of the main text in the translation and the commentary.
The names of figures and other technical terms of Latin and Greek
extraction have therefore been restored in the translation and commentary. The index includes both the forms of FoGT and the corrected
forms. It is evident that the Latin audience of the collections ofrhetorical figures such as those found in D and G also occasionally
misunderstood the names of the figures. In the case of anthypophora,
Gg (p. 91) explains that this is a compound of anti, interpreted correctly as contra ‘against’, and phora misinterpreted as ferre ‘bring,bear’. Gg does not account for the middle element of the term (hypo).
A. Normalisations relevant to fourteenth-century texts
I. Phonology
1) Vowels in stressed syllablesi) é > ie (ANG §103; Björn K. Þórólfsson 1925, xiv): réð > rieð‘ruled’, þér > þier ‘to you’.
ii) e > ie | k, g, h- to denote palatal stops, but after h- only where edoes not derive from short æ (ANG §103): einkend > einkiend ‘specific to’, gefa > giefa ‘to give’, hekk > hiekk ‘hung’.
iii) e > ei | -ng (ANG §102; Björn K. Þórólfsson 1925, iv, Stefán
Karlsson 2004, 14): engi > eingi ‘no, none’, lengi > leingi ‘long’.

Introduction

lixiv) ǿ > æ (ANG §120): grǿnn > grænn ‘green’, dǿmi > dæmi ‘example’.
v) ǫ, ø > ö (ANG §115, 2; Björn K. Þórólfsson 1925, xviii–xix): hǫll> höll ‘hall’, ǫðruvís > öðruvís ‘otherwise, differently’, sløkkvir >slökkvir ‘quenches’, ørlǫg > örlög ‘fate, fortunes’.
vi) ö > au | -ng, nk (ANG §105): krönk (neut. pl.) > kraunk ‘hurtful’,söng > saung ‘sang’.
2) Consonantsi) ð > d | [+short syllable] l, n, m- (ANG §238, 1b): talði > taldi‘counted, told’.
ii) ð > d | b, lf, lg, ng, rg- (ANG §238, 1b): skelfða > skelfda‘trembled’.
iii) pt > ft (ANG §247): hváptr > hváftr ‘mouth, maw’, eptir > eftir‘after, behind’.
iv) t, k > ð, g | [- stress]- (ANG §248; Björn K. Þórólfsson 1925,
xxvii, xxxii): ek > eg ‘I’, at > að ‘that’.
v) ts ‹z› > ss (ANG §274, 2): bleza > blessa ‘bless’.
II. Morphology
1) Mediopassive voice: -sk > -z (ANG §544): kallask > kallaz ‘iscalled’.
B. Occasional syntactic change
1) Loss of the relative particle er in the combination demonstrative +relative particle (Nygaard 1906, §261): Anon FoGT 57/1 Ádám sá,þann alt í heimi ‘Adam saw the one who everything in the world’.
b. Reproduction of the text and the translation
Prose text and translation
The prose text is based on digital images of W. In general, the text of
FoGT is clearly legible, but in some instances holes and other damage
to the manuscript have rendered letters and sometimes even words
illegible. All problematic passages have been checked against themanuscript. Earlier transcriptions of the text, in particular those ofÓlsen (1884) and Johansson (2007), have been helpful throughout. Alllx

Introduction

previous editions have been consulted in those cases where uncertainty about the text remains, and their suggestions/readings are notedin the commentary. Concerning normalisation, the guidelines forfourteenth-century poetry found in the new edition of skaldic poetry(Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages) have been followed.
Since the orthography of W in many cases is quite traditional/
classical, the normalisation has resulted in a modernisation of the text.
All changes made to the text have been noted in the critical apparatus
found at the bottom of the text page and are discussed in the textualcommentary. In the cases where a manuscript reading does not containa recognisable Old Norse word, is damaged or when the exact
manuscript reading is judged to be of interest to the reader, the reading
has been enclosed in single quotation marks and rendered semidiplomatically with expanded abbreviations and a normalised set ofgraphemes.
The technical subject matter and the sometimes convoluted prosestyle of the author have in some cases rendered the text difficult tounderstand. No attempt has been made to even out this aspect of thetext in the translation, as faithfulness to the Old Norse text has been
the main goal. In determining the meaning of problematic passages,
the two earlier translations of the text have proved helpful. These are
the Latin translation in the Arnamagnaean edition of Snorria Edda
(SnE 1848 – 87, II 191–249) and Longo’s Italian translation (FoGT
2004, 59 – 81). Passages that have posed particular problems of translation are discussed in the commentary.
Poetry and its translation
In this edition the same principles have been followed as guide the ongoing new edition of Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages
(SkP). These are set out in the General Introduction to SkP I (2012). It
is anticipated that this edition will become the standard for future
research and study, though Finnur Jónsson’s 1912–15 edition (Skj)
will retain its place as a valuable reference tool. The poetry by known
skalds in FoGT will be published in several different volumes of SkP,
depending on where that poet’s works are located, while the anonymous stanzas and some of those by named skalds will be publishedin Volume III, Poetry from Treatises on Poetics. In order to be consistent with the new edition, all sigla for poems and poets conform to
those of SkP (not Finnur Jónsson’s edition) as do manuscript sigla

Introduction

lxi

cited. The latter, in cases of medieval manuscripts, are in accordancewith the sigla of ONP. A list of manuscript sigla used in this edition
can be found on p. lxiv.
For most of the poetry cited in FoGT there is only one manuscript,
W, but some of the stanzas by known skalds are extant in several
manuscript witnesses. In all cases in this edition, W’s text of a stanza
has been reproduced, unless a reading does not make sense or isdefective in some other way. If other, better manuscript readings exist
where W’s text is problematical, these have been adopted. Variant
readings are noted at the foot of each text page and, where W’s text
has had to be emended to make sense, the manuscript reading is given
at the foot of the page. Emendation is conservative, and conjectures
are avoided, unless metrical or alliterative criteria support them.
Manuscript orthography has been normalised to fourteenth-century
standards, as described above.
The treatment of FoGT ’s poetic texts follows the practices of SkP.
To assist the reader, a prose word order for each text is given either at
the foot of the text page on which the verse occurs or at the foot of thefacing translation page. The English translation of the poetry, set in its
prose context, faces the Icelandic text. The translation is as literal as it
is possible to be without seeming strange. In some cases, the literal
sense of a word or phrase is difficult to translate and here an approximate sense is given with the literal sense in square brackets, forexample ‘courtship [lit. wooing words]’. Kennings are treated fully.
All base words and determinants are translated in full, for example
neytir vargs unda appears as ‘the user of the wolf of wounds’, while
the kenning referent, which is not explicit in the poetic text, is given in
the translation in small capitals enclosed in square brackets, in thiscase ‘[AXE > WARRIOR]’. In cases of complex kennings with morethan one referent, the use of > indicates the direction that interpretation should follow from the centre of the bracketed interpretation
outward. In some cases, in this edition principally in kennings for God
or Christ, an equals sign (=) is used with the referent given in romantype to indicate that this kenning referent is unique. For example, in st.
28 the kenning siklingr skýja ‘the prince of the clouds’ has been
represented by the notation ‘[= God (= Christ)]’, to show that such akenning can refer only to God, but in this case as the Second Person of
the Godhead, because the stanza is about Christ’s entry into Jerusalem
on Palm Sunday. Notes on individual points of interest or difficulty inthe poetry are found within the commentary, keyed to relevant pages

lxii

Introduction

and lines, as are comments on interpretations proposed by earlier
editors.
c. Commentary
The commentary to the prose text focuses on points of interpretationof the literal meaning of the text. Throughout the text has been compared with D, G and with glosses to these two texts (Dg and Gg).
Ólsen showed conclusively that the author of FoGT used such glosses
when he created his text. The exact set(s) of glosses the author hadaccess to has not been determined, but a perusal of various glossed
texts of D, Grondeux’s study of glosses on G (2000) and her 2010
edition of such a set of glosses (Gg) have shown that while thecontents of the glosses and the amount of glossing vary from text totext, other elements—in particular core examples of the various
figures—remain stable from one text to another. It was found that theset of glosses that accompany D in a 1494 print from Venice byManfredus de Bonellis was most helpful. This widespread set ofglosses is ascribed to Ludovicus de Guaschis (see Reichling 1893,
lxiii–xliv). Even though this gloss is younger than FoGT, comparison
between the two texts shows that the gloss contains many features thatwere also present in the set of glosses on D to which the author of
FoGT had access. Glosses on G (Gg) are drawn from Grondeux’s
edition which is primarily based on a fifteenth-century manuscript(Paris, BnF lat. 14746). The gloss contained in this manuscript ismuch more detailed than anything found in FoGT, but again some ofits features were also present in the tradition to which the author of
FoGT had access. To avoid unnecessary anachronisms, Dg and Gg arechiefly cited in those cases where they provide parallels to thematerial presented in FoGT and they primarily serve to show that theauthor of FoGT drew on a widespread and well-established traditionof glossing.
The wordlists and citations made available online by A Dictionaryof Old Norse Prose (ONP) were very helpful when preparing thecommentary.

7. Previous editions of FoGT
There have been five earlier editions of FoGT. The first was that of
Rasmus Rask (1818) in his edition of Snorra Edda (SnE 1818, 335 –53). Rask did not consider FoGT an independent text but a part ofIntroduction

lxiii

TGT, entitled Fígúrur í ræðunni. The second edition was that of
Sveinbjörn Egilsson from 1848 in Edda Snorra Sturlusonar (SnE
1848, 200 –12), in which FoGT was entitled Seinni viðbætir við málskrúðsfræðina and the third the Arnamagnæan Commission’s edition(SnE 1848 – 87 II 190 –249; III 152– 63), whose editor-in-chief was Jón
Sigurðsson, but to which Sveinbjörn Egilsson contributed the facing
Latin translation in Volume II (1852) and a number of Latin notes inVolume III (1880 – 87). In that edition FoGT is entitled IV (Málskrúðsfræði). The fourth edition and the best known (FoGT 1884) is by
Björn Magnússon Ólsen, and this includes an Introduction, notes tothe text and separate editions and interpretations of the stanzas. The
fifth edition is the unpublished doctoral dissertation from the
University of Palermo of Michele Longo (FoGT 2004), which
includes an Italian translation and commentary on the text, includingthat of the poetry. Longo’s edition is not, however, based on a freshtranscript of W, but uses SnE 1848 – 87 II as its base text for the mostpart. The stanzas have been edited separately from the prose text by
Finnur Jónsson (Skj A II 163 – 67 and 214 –19; Skj B II 180– 85 and
231–36) and by E. A. Kock (Skald II 94 – 96 and 120 –22).

SIGLA

7
291
510
743x
2368x
A
C
Flat
FskAx
FskBx
H
Holm18
Hr
Mork
R
Tx
U
W

Holm perg 7 4°
AM 291 4°
AM 510 4°
AM 743 4°x
GKS 2368 4°x
AM 748 I b 4°
AM 748 II 4°
GKS 1005 fol
AM 303 4°x
OsloUB 371 folx
AM 66 folHolm perg 18 4°
GKS 1010 fol
GKS 1009 fol
GKS 2367 4°
Traj 1374x
DG 11
AM 242 fol

THE
FOURTHGRAMMATICAL
TREATISE

2

Text

1 P
verðr þá er önnur prepositio stendr þar erönnur ætti viðkæmiliga að vera, svá sem Þorleifr kvað:5Höfðu vier í þier, Hákon,er að hjörþingi gingum,—þú rautt Sköglar skýja
skóð—forvistu góða.

p. 111l. 18(1)Hier er ‘í’ sett óviðkæmiliga svá sem þeir hefði í Hákoni forystu góðaþá sem þeir höfðu af honum. Verðr og þessi fígúra hvervetna þar sem
um fyrirsetning er skift.
10

15

20

25

2L
verðr á þrjár leiðir. Stundum merkir hon framar en skilningorðanna stendr til, sem Eiríkr viðsjá kvað:Styrr liet snart og Snorrisverðþing háið verða,þar er geir-Nirðir gierðu
Gíslungum hlut þungan.
Enn var eigi minnaættskarð, það er hjó Barði.

(2)

Og skal svá skilja að það ættskarð er Barði gierði var meira en hitt er
áðr er greint.
Stundum er liptota útþanning orðanna sú er alt merkir, þar er sumt ertalið, sem hier:
Sprungu eigi eingirút ór—. . . sútir—bæjum, þvíað hyrr á hávar
heitr giekk fira sveitir.

W 1 Protheseos] ‘rotheseos’ W 3 Höfðu] AW(103) begin | í þier] W A, þáer W(103) 4 hjörþingi] W, hjörrógi A W(103) | gingum] W, drógumz A,
drógum W(103)
6 forvistu] ‘forostu’ W, ‘forustu’ W(103), ‘forystu’ Agóða] A W(103) end 7 óviðkæmiliga] viðkæmiliga W 12 Styrr] Holm18
begins | snart] W, snarr Holm18 13 háið] Holm18, ‘haað’ W 14 geir-Nirðir]geirníðir W, gnýverðir Holm18 15 Gíslungum] W, Gíslunga Holm18 16 var]W, varð Holm18 | minna] W, in minna Holm18 17 ættskarð] W, eitt skarð
Holm18 | Barði] Holm18 ends 22 eingir] eingar W 23 . . .] empty space in
W 24 hávar] ‘havvi’ W 25 sveitir] sveiti W(3)

Translation

3

1 PROTHESEOS PARALANGE occurs when one preposition is used
where another would have been appropriate, as Þorleifr said:(1)

We had good leadership in you, Hákon, when we went
to the sword-assembly [BATTLE]; you reddened theharmer of the clouds of Skögul ‹valkyrie› [SHIELDS >SWORD].
Here ‘in’ is used inappropriately, as if they had the good leadership in
Hákon which they had from him. This figure also occurs whenever the
preposition is changed.
2 LIPTOTA occurs in three ways. At times it signifies more than themeaning of the words implies, as Eiríkr viðsjá said:(2)

Styrr and Snorri caused a swift sword-assembly[BATTLE] to be fought, where the spear-Nirðir ‹gods›[WARRIORS] made the lot of the Gíslungar heavy. Yet
the notch in the family, that Barði cut, was not smaller.
And this is to be understood in such a way that the notch Barði hewed
in the family was greater than the other which is mentioned earlier.
Sometimes liptota is a stretching out of the words in order to signify
the whole, when a part is mentioned, as here:(3)

Not none [= very many] ran out from the farmsteads,
because hot fire spread towards the distinguished groupsof men; . . . sorrows.

1 Vier höfðu[m] góða forvistu í þier, Hákon, er gingum að hjörþingi; þú rauttskóð skýja Sköglar.
2 Styrr og Snorri liet[u] snart sverðþing verða háið, þar er geir-Nirðir gierðu
Gíslungum þungan hlut. Enn ættskarð, það er Barði hjó, var eigi minna.
3 Eigi eingir runnu út ór bæjum, þvíað heitr hyrr giekk á hávar sveitir fira; …
sútir.

4

Text

Hier er sagt að eigi eingir menn rynni af bæjum þar sem allir runnu.
Sumstaðar merkir ‘eigi eingi’ ‘nökkurn’ eða ‘mikinn’, sem hier:5

Fingr vann eigi eingan
eins með vatni hreinuGuðs á virðum víðavinning að því sinni.

(4)

Hier er ‘eigi eingi’ settr fyrir ‘nökkurum’ eða ‘miklum vinningi’.
Stundum standa tvær neitingar fyrir einni játan, sem hier:10

Eg veit, að ní neitar
Nytju logs, því er flytjameiðar geirþings . . .
Gunnr, fjarðloga runni.

(5)

Hier segir skáldið að konan sú er manni játaðiz fyrir flutning förunauta
sinna neitaði ní.
15

20

3 T
| er það ef skáldið segir frá stað þeim er tíðendingierðuz, þau er hann vill frá segja, sem hier:Firð stóð í bygð breiðri
borg Pátera sorgum,
mest áðr lýðr, frá losta
lítt gættr, í bý fættiz.
Hennar fóstsystir er

25

p. 112(6)

er frá húsi er sagt:

Leygs svelgr, en etr eigi,íugtanni lið manna;
ganga menn ór munni
margreftum fletvargi.
Hier talar skáldið af smíð hússins.
W 1 runnu] rynni W 10 logs] ‘lǫgs’ W 11 . . .] a word appears to be missingin W 17 Firð] Frið W | breiðri] ‘breðri’ W 20 lítt] ‘lut’ W 21 fóstsystir]‘f[. . .]stsystir’ W 24 menn] ‘m[. . .]n’ W | munni] ‘mun[. . .]’ W
4 Fingr eins Guðs vann víða að því sinni eigi eingan vinning á virðum með
hreinu vatni.

(7)Translation

5

Here it is said that not no men ran from the farmsteads, whereas all
were running.
In some places ‘not none’ denotes ‘some’ or ‘great’, as here:(4)

The finger of the one God gained widely at that time notone [= great] advantage for men with pure water.
Here ‘not none’ is used instead of ‘some’ or ‘a great advantage’.
At times two negations replace one affirmation, as here:(5)

I know that the Gunnr ‹valkyrie› of the flame of Nytja‹river› [GOLD > WOMAN] does not deny to the bush of
the fjord-flame [GOLD > MAN] that for which the . . .
trees of the spear-assembly [BATTLE > WARRIORS]
plead.
Here the poet says that the woman, who consented to the man on
account of the pleading of his companions, did not say no.
3 TOPOGRAPHIA is when the poet mentions the place where the eventsoccurred that he wants to describe, as here:(6)

The city of Patara stood in a broad settlement, removed
from sorrows, until the people, not at all guarded against
lust, diminished greatly in the town.
Her foster-sister is BETHGRAPHIA, when a house is described:(7)

The bear of the [hearth-]flame [HOUSE] swallows, butdoes not eat, the band of men; men issue from themouth of the many-raftered bench-wolf [HOUSE].
Here the poet speaks about the structure of the house.

5 Eg veit, að Gunnr logs Nytju neitar ní runni fjarðloga því er … meiðar
geirþings flytja.
6 Páteraborg stóð í breiðri bygð, firð sorgum, áðr lýðr, lítt gættr frá losta,fættiz mest í bý.
7 Íugtanni leygs svelgr, en etr eigi, lið manna; menn ganga ór munni margreftum fletvargi.

6

Text

C
er það er skáldið segir frá heimsins skipan, skapan,stöðu eða hætti eða setningu, sem hier:
Allr lýtr heimr undir hylli
heilags friðar deilis.
5

10

(8)

C
er það ef sagt er á hverjum tíma tíðendin gierðuz, þauer hann vill frá segja, sem hier:Sjálfráði dó síðan
sólar fróns að nóni,
sá er hiekk, en dag dökkti,döglingr, á jarnnöglum.

(9)

Svá er og in sama fígúra þó að skáldið segi hvað samtíða er eða hverirhöfðingjar löndum stýra, sem hier:15

20

Hákon rieð fyr hauðri
handsterkr, þar er Guð merkti
refsiþátt inn rietta
rangri þjóð að angri.
Laust með elding æstri
alvirkr höfuðkirkju
himnagarðs að hjörðum
hirðir glæpsku firðum.

(10)

4 Y
verðr það er sá er kallaðr þolandi sem að riettu er
gierandi, eða sá gierandi sem að riettu er þolandi, sem hier:25

Framan unnu gram gunnar†grafins seiðs† framir meiðar;biðu Jótar lið ljótan
lagagangs daga strangra.
Lofag sjaldan hóf haldið;hataz dygð, *rataz lygðir;W 3 heimr] ‘[. . .]imr’ or ‘[. . .]nnr’ W 6 hier] add.
16 að] af W 19 að] og W 28 rataz] hrataz W(11)

14 þar] ‘þ[. . .]r’ W

8 Allr heimr lýtr undir hylli heilags deilis friðar.
9 Döglingr fróns sólar, sá er hiekk á jarnnöglum, dó síðan sjálfráði að nóni, endag dökkti.

Translation

7

COSMOGRAPHIA is when the poet speaks about the order of theworld, its creation, state or nature or design, as here:(8)

The whole world bows before the grace of the holy distributor of salvation [= God].
CHRONOGRAPHIA is if it is specified at what time the events occurredthat he wants to describe, as here:(9)

The king of the land of the sun [SKY/HEAVEN > = God(= Christ)], who hung on iron nails, then died of his own
volition at nones, and the day grew dark.
It is also the same figure when the poet tells what is contemporaneousor which chieftains rule the lands, as here:(10)

Strong-handed Hákon ruled over the land where God
showed the just law of punishment to the distress of thesinful people. The shepherd of the heavens’ stronghold[= God], most careful for the flocks freed from sin,
struck the cathedral [lit. head church] with raging lightning.

4 HYPALLAGE occurs when he is called passive who is in fact active,or he [is called] active who is in fact passive, as here:(11)

The trees of the †seiðs grafins† [GOLD? > MEN], outstanding in [lit. of] battle, overcame the prominent
prince; the Jótar (Jutlanders) experienced an ugly situation of legal proceedings during harsh times. I seldom
praise moderation preserved; virtue is destroyed, lies are

10 Handsterkr Hákon rieð fyr hauðri, þar er Guð merkti inn rietta refsiþátt aðangri rangri þjóð. Hirðir himnagarðs, alvirkr að hjörðum firðum glæpsku, lausthöfuðkirkju með elding æstri.
11 Meiðar †seiðs grafins†, framir gunnar, unnu framan gram; Jótar biðu ljótan
lið lagagangs strangra daga. Lofag sjaldan haldið hóf; dygð hataz, lygðir
*rataz; megindjarfir valdar tregs vegs halda veginn arf.

8

Text
tregs halda vegs valdar
veginn arf megindjarfir.

Hier er arfrinn veginn kallaðr, sá er maðr var frá veginn sá er með
riettu hielt, er þeir tóku er hann drápu. Og í öðrum stað er sama fígúra:
5

Mari sendu vers vinda
veitendr Góins leita.

(12)

Hier er sagt að vindarnir væri sendir skipinu þar sem að riettu var
skipið sent vindunum; það er að skilja: út sett í þeirra vald eða stjórn.
Og í öðrum stað segiz svá:
10

Blies um hváfta hásahöfuðskrípamanns pípa.

(13)

Hier er pípan kölluð blása, sú sem í var blásið, og þykkir hon jafnanljót fígúra, þó að hon finniz í skáldskap sett fyrir sakir skrúðs eðanauðsynja.

15

20

25

5P
er ísetning nýrrar persónu og verðr á þrjár leiðir. Sú er
in fyrsta ef skáldið segir að lífligr hlutr tali til líflauss hlutar, sem hier:Grund, taktu, bölvi blandin,
bót fyr glæpsku ljóta!
Þier mun óhlýðni ærin,Ísland, búa píslir!
Þú mátt ófrið óttaz,
óþýð*, nema vel hlýðið,fold, þeim er sverðum sjaldan—siðir breytiz hier—neyta.
Hier talar skáldið nefndri fígúru, eggjandi undirmenn að hlýða vel
forstjórum sínum og nefnir landið í stað þeirra er það byggja.
Frá líflausum til lífligs hlutar, sem hier:W 20 píslir] ‘p[. . .]lir’ W 22 óþýð] óþýðr W 26 það] þau W
12 Veitendr leita Góins sendu vinda mari vers.
13 Höfuðskrípamanns pípa blies um hása hváfta.

(14)

Translation

9

abroad; the very bold possessors of slow honour[CONTEMPTIBLE MEN] keep hold of the slain [man’s]inheritance.
Here the inheritance—which was taken from the slain man whorightfully owned it by those who killed him—is called slain. The same
figure is found another place:(12)

The givers of the mound of Góinn <snake> [GOLD >GENEROUS MEN] sent winds to the horse of the sea[SHIP].
Here it is said that the winds were sent to the ship, when the ship was
actually sent to the winds; viz. placed under their power or rule. And
in another place it is said thus:(13)

The lead minstrel’s flute blew across hoarse cheeks.
Here the flute which was blown into is said to blow, and this always
seems an unattractive figure, even though it is found in poetry for thesake of ornament or necessities.
5 PROSOPOPOEIA is the insertion of a new person, and it occurs inthree ways. The first is when the poet says that something living is
speaking to something lifeless, as here:(14)

Country, imbued [lit. mixed] with evil, do penance for[your] ugly sin! Iceland, great [lit. sufficient] disobedience will lay punishments in store for you! You can fear
hostility, rough land, unless you obey well those who
seldom use swords; may morals here change!
Here the poet speaks using the above-mentioned figure, exhorting subjects to obey their rulers fully, and names the land instead of those
who inhabit it.
When something lifeless speaks to something living, as here:

14 Grund, blandin bölvi, tak bót fyr ljóta glæpsku! Ísland, ærin óhlýðni mun
búa þier píslir! Þú mátt óttaz ófrið, óþýð* fold, nema hlýðið vel, þeim er
sjaldan neyta sverðum; siðir breytiz hier.

10

5

10

15

20

25

30

Text
Vatn kalla mig—vil eg efla þig,hoddveitir—framshauðrfjörnis grams:
eg hreinsa alt,eg vermi kalt,
eg birti sjón,eg bæti tjón.

Hier er sagt að Ölmusugjöfin kalli sig vatn Krists og telr upp dygðir
sínar, eggjandi manninn til mildinnar, þvíað svá sem vatnið slökkvir
líkamligan eld, slíkt ið sama slökkvir ölmusan syndabruna og þvær áþá leið sál sem vatnið búkinn.
Frá líflausum hlut verðr prosopophia til líflauss hlutar sem segir íBarruk, að sjór og skógr bjugguz í grend, og vildi hvárr annan upp
taka. Af því hljóp sandr í sjóinn og eyddi svá hans yfirgang, en logi
brendi upp allan skóginn. | Hier er svá um kveðið:(15)

p. 113Grænn kvað viðr á víði—varð skrjúpr í því—djúpan:‘Út man eg rýma [. . .]ríkis míns af þínu;betr samir bolr með skrauti
blóms en unnir tómar;skóg man eg upp yfir ægi
angrlestan rótfesta.’(16)

Vátr kvað marr á móti:‘Man eg vald yfir þier halda;
skal hrís um lög ljósan—lamið rót er þá—fljóta.’Sandr luktaði sundum,
sjór fekk af stað ekki,
en sterkr um bol bjarkar
bani hvess viðar gandi.

(17)

W 3 hoddveitir] corrected in W from hold- to hodd- 19 . . .] hole in W 23 eg
upp] ‘[. . .]pp’ W 31 sterkr] sterk W | bol] ‘bǫl’ W
15 Kalla mig vatn frams grams hauðrfjörnis; eg vil efla þig, hoddveitir: eg
hreinsa alt, eg vermi kalt, eg birti sjón, eg bæti tjón.
16 Grænn viðr kvað á djúpan víði—varð skrjúpr í því—: ‘eg man rýma út …

Translation
(15)

11

I call myself water of the outstanding king of the earthhelmet [SKY/HEAVEN > = God (= Christ)]; I want tostrengthen you, gold-giver [GENEROUS MAN]: I cleanse
everything, I warm what is cold, I brighten vision, I
repair loss.
Here it is said that Alms-giving calls herself the water of Christ, andenumerates her virtues, urging the man to generosity, because, just as
the water quenches bodily fire, in the same way alms quench the fireof sins and wash the soul in the same way as water washes the body.
Prosopopoeia occurs when something lifeless speaks to anotherlifeless thing, as it says in Baruch, that the sea and the forest lived
close by one another and each wanted to take over the other. For thatreason sand rushed into the sea and thus put an end to its transgression, while fire burnt up all the forest. Here this is referred to thus:(16)

The green wood said to the deep sea—in that it was
weak—: ‘I want to expand the . . . of my kingdom fromyours; a tree-trunk with ornament of blossom looks
better than empty waves; I will fasten a forest by its
roots up over the sorrow-damaged ocean.’(17)

The wet sea spoke in reply: ‘I will keep power over you,brushwood will float upon the shining sea; the root willthen be smashed.’ Sand blocked channels, the sea got
nothing of the land [lit. place], but the strong killer ofevery tree [FIRE] gaped around the birch tree’s trunk.

ríkis míns af þínu; bolr með skrauti blóms samir betr en tómar unnir; eg man
rótfesta skóg upp yfir angrlestan ægi’.
17 Vátr marr kvað á móti: ‘eg man halda vald yfir þier; hrís skal fljóta um
ljósan lög; rót er þá lamið’. Sandr luktaði sundum, sjór fekk ekki af stað, ensterkr bani hvess viðar gandi um bol bjarkar.

12

Text

Skógr merkir júða, en sjór chaldeos. Þjóðir þær sem eyddu ríki chaldeorum merkja sand, en guðspjallig kienning eldinn, sú er í stað kom
lögmáls júða.

5

10

15

6A
er sú fígúra ef maðr talar til fráveranda manns svá semvið hjáveranda mann og setr sitt nafn í fyrstu skilningu að riettu, enþess í annarri er hann talar til. En þó finnz öðruvís giert, sem Snorrikvað:
Eyjólfi ber þú, elfarúlfseðjandi, kveðju
heim, þá er honum sómi
heyra bezt með eyrum,þvíað skilmildra skálda
skörungmann lofag örvan;hann lifi sælstr und sólu
sannauðigra manna.

(18)Þessi Eyjólfr var Brúna sonr, skáld einkar gott og búþegn góðr, en eigi
fieríkr. Sama fígúra er og ef maðr talar til heilagra manna sem Óláfr
kvað:
20

Þier fremiz þí með tíriþú ert næst Guði hæstum.

(19)

Og í öðrum stað:Teitr giefr, Thómas, ýtumtrúarbót fyr sið ljótan.
25

Er þessi fígúra *jafnan sett í briefum er menn sendaz í millum eðaþeim prologis bóka er einhverjum eru ætlaðar til riettingar eða
framburðar.
7E
er sú fígúra er tveir sundrlausir hlutir eru merktir fyrir einnóskiftiligan hlut, eða einn óskiftiligr hlutr er settr fyrir tveim

W 2 kienning] add. 24 jafnan] er jafnan W 27 er2] ‘enn’ W
18 Úlfseðjandi elfar, ber þú Eyjólfi kveðju heim, þá er sómi honum bezt heyra(20)

Translation

13

The forest signifies the Jews, and the sea the Chaldeans. The peoples
who destroyed the kingdom of the Chaldeans signify the sand while
the evangelical teaching, which supplanted the law of the Jews,
signifies the fire.
6 APOSTROPHA is that figure by which one addresses an absent person
as if to someone present, and rightly uses one’s own ‘name’ in the first
person, and the ‘name’ of the person one speaks to in the second. Yet
it can also be found in a different way, as Snorri said:(18)

Feeder of the wolf of the river [lit. ‘wolf-feeder of theriver’] [SHIP > SEAFARER], carry home [my] greeting toEyjólfr, which it befits him best to hear with [his own]
ears, since I praise the energetic leader of poets, generous with knowledge; may he live the happiest of truly
rich men under the sun.
This Eyjólfr was the son of Brúni, an exceptionally good poet and agood farmer, although not a wealthy one. It is also the same figure if
one addresses saints, as Óláfr said:(19)

Thus you gain distinction with glory, you are nearest to
God the highest.
And in another place:(20)

Cheerful Thomas, you give to men the remedy of faithinstead of ugly custom.
This figure is always used in letters exchanged by people and in those
prologues of books which are destined for correction or publication bysomeone.

7 HENDIADYS is that figure where two separate entities signify one
indivisible entity, or one indivisible entity is used for two divisible
með eyrum, þvíað lofag örvan skörungmann skilmildra skálda; lifi hann sælstr
sannauðigra manna und sólu.
19 Þí fremiz þier með tíri, þú ert næst Guði hæstum.
20 Teitr Thómas giefr ýtum trúarbót fyr sið ljótan.

14

Text

skiftiligum hlutum, og er hon undir dregin samfesting laussa hluta og
leysing fastra hluta, sem hier:Skálm vann og hjalt hilmi
hoddbeiðöndum reiðan.
5

10

15

20

25

(21)

Hier er óskiftiligr hlutr, sverðið, merkt fyrir skálm og hjalt, *sundrlausa hluti. Og enn segir svá:Þýddiz karl inn klædda
kona mín og þörf sína;eg sá karl og klæði
koma inn í því sinni.

(22)

Hier er klæddr maðr settr fyrir sjálfum sier og þeim klæðum er hanngaf konunni að fá sinn vilja, og í annað sinn er sagt að sierhvárt kominn, karl og klæði, þar sem klæddr maðr kom inn, og heitir sú endiadis
sundrlaus er fastir hlutir eru settir í stað laussa hluta. En sú endiadis
heitir samföst er lausir hlutir eru settir í stað fastra hluta, svá sem hiermá skilja á þessum dæmum, er hier standa áðr ritin.
8E
er afganga efnisins þá er skáldið reikar afvegis, sem Bragi
skáld gierði þá er hann setti í þá drápu er hann orti um Ragnar konung,þær vísur er segja um fall Sörla og Hamdis, sona Jónakrs konungs ogGuðrúnar Gjúkadóttur, er þeir fellu fyrir mönnum Erminreks konungs,
og er sjá vísa ein af þeim:Knátti eðr við illan
Erminrekr að vakna
með dreyrfáar dróttir
draum í sverða flaumi.
Rósta varð í ranni
Randvies höfuðniðja,W 3 Skálm] ‘Skamm’ W | og] ef W 5 sundrlausa] ‘sundr|sundr lausa’ W
19 Hamdis] ‘hanðis’ W 22 Knátti] R TX C begin | Knátti R TX C, ‘Knatt’ Weðr] R TX, ørr W, áðr C 23 Erminrekr] W, ‘iormvnreckr’ R, ‘Jormunrecr’ TX,‘ermenrekr’ C 24 dreyrfáar] W, ‘dreyrfar’ R C, ‘dreurfar’ TX | dróttir] W R TX,
dottur C 26 Rósta] W R TX, róstu C | varð] W R TX, vann C 27 Randvies] W
R TX, Randvérs C
21 Skálm og hjalt vann hilmi reiðan hoddbeiðöndum.

(23)

Translation

15

entities, and it is governed by the conjoining of loose entities and theloosening of joined entities, as here:(21)

Point and hilt made the ruler angry with the goldrequesters [MEN].
Here an indivisible entity, the sword, is signified by point and hilt,
separate entities. And further it says:(22)

My wife gave in to the clothed man and his desire; I saw
man and clothes come in at the [same] time.
Here a clothed man is mentioned instead of himself and the clothes
which he gave to the woman in order to obtain his desire, and in thesecond place it is said that each of the two, man and clothes, came inwhen a clothed man came in, and that hendiadys is called ‘separate’
where joined entities are used instead of loose entities. But that
hendiadys is called ‘conjoined’ where loose entities are used insteadof joined entities, such as one can observe in the examples that are
written above.
8 EBASIS is a departure from the subject matter, when the poet drifts
off course, as Bragi the poet did in the drápa he composed about King
Ragnarr when he inserted those stanzas that tell about the fall of Sǫrli
and Hamðir, the sons of King Jónakr and Guðrún Gjúkadóttir, when
they fell before the men of King Erminrekr, and this stanza is one ofthose:(23)

Erminrekr then awakened with an evil dream among theblood-stained troops in the eddy of swords [BATTLE].
There was tumult in the hall of the chief kinsmen of
Randvér [= the dynasty of the Goths], when the raven-

22 Kona mín þýddiz inn klædda karl og þörf sína; eg sá karl og klæði komainn í þvi sinni.
23 Erminrekr knátti eðr að vakna við illan draum med dreyrfáar dróttir ísverða flaumi. Rósta varð í ranni höfuðniðja Randvies, þá er hrafnbláir ofbarmar Erps hefndu harma.

16

Text
þá er hrafnbláir hefndu
harma Erps of barmar.

Stundum verðr ebasis þá er skáldið tekr stef af öðru efni en kvæðið er,sem í Nikulásdrápu er stefið er af guðligri þrenningu, sem hier:
5

10

15

20

25

Öll þing boða eingla
eining í þrenningu,órofnuðu jafnan
alls grams lofi framda.
Stundum verðr ebasis af því að skáldið tekr dæmi þeim hlutum sem
hann vill frægja eða ófrægja af öðrum frásögnum, svá er og í samakvæði Nicholao dæmi tekin | af inum sæla Johanne baptista að aukahans virðing, sem í þessi vísu:
Jón laut í höll hreinum
hjarta sals ins bjarta
meyjar mannvitsfrægrar
mildingi bragninga.
Og leiðir skáldið þar lof Johannis svá til enda að þaðan af aukiz lof
heilags Nicholai. Slíkt ið sama má og þessi fígúra verða í lastmælum
að illr maðr er kallaðr annarr Júdás eða dæmi tekin til nökkurs ills
manns að auka hans níð.
Eru þessir hlutir eða hættir ebasis—sá er Bragi lofaði frændr Áslaugar í Ragnarsdrápu að hans virðing sýndiz meiri en áðr var hon, og hinnað setja stef í jarteignakvæði heilagra manna af sjálfum Guði til þessað sýna vinnara allra tákna og samvinnara sinna vina, svá og að birta
annan helgan mann með annars dæmum, eða lasta annan illan mannmeð annars illri endrminning—fyrir nauðsyn eða skynsemi skrauss

W R TX C 1 hrafnbláir] TX C, hrafnblám W, ‘hrafnblarir’ R 2 of] R TX, og W,
um C | barmar] R TX C, barma W | R TX C end 4 í] add. 8 lofi] ‘l[. . .]fi’ W
17 þar lof] ‘þ[. . .]’ W 18 verða í] ‘[. . .]’ W 22 hinn] hin W
24 Öll þing eingla boða eining í þrenningu, jafnan framda órofnuðu lofi grams(24)

p. 114(25)

Translation

17

black brothers of Erpr [= Hamðir and Sǫrli] avenged[their] injuries.
At times ebasis occurs when the poet takes a refrain from anothersubject matter than the poem deals with, as in Nikulásdrápa where therefrain deals with the Holy Trinity, as here:(24)

All the assemblies of angels proclaim unity in Trinity,
always worshipped with unbroken praise of the ruler ofall [= God].
At times ebasis occurs when the poet takes examples illustrative of thethings he wants to praise or blame from other narratives. Thus it also
happens in the same poem to Nicholas that examples are drawn from[the life of] the blessed John the Baptist in order to increase his [Nicholas’s] reputation, as in this stanza:(25)

John bowed to the pure generous prince of princes [=God (= Christ)] in the hall of the bright chamber of theheart [BREAST > WOMB] of the maiden famous of understanding.
And the poet there concludes the praise of John in such a way that thehonour of the holy Nicholas is increased thereby. In a similar manner
this figure can also occur in defamations so that an evil man is called
another Judas, or examples are taken from some evil man in order toincrease his disgrace.
These parts or forms of ebasis—the one in which Bragi praised therelatives of Áslaug in Ragnarsdrápa so that his [Ragnarr’s] honour
should appear greater than before, and the other one, the use of arefrain about God himself in a poem about the miracles of holy men inorder to show the maker of all signs and the helper of his friends, andin the same manner to throw light on one holy man through theexamples of another, or to criticise one evil man through theunsavoury recollection of another—are surely allowed for reasons ofalls.
25 Jón laut hreinum mildingi bragna í höll ins bjarta sals hjarta mannvitsfrægrar meyjar.

18

Text

eða lastmælis vel leyfiligir, en ónýt*ar efnisafgaungur eru með ölluflýjandi.

5

10

15

20

25

30

9E
setr undirstaðligan hlut fyrir hræriligum hlut sem þá er viermerkjum nökkuð tilfelli mannsins fyrir sjálfum honum, sem að nefnaglæpinn fyrir glæpamanninum eða vizkuna fyrir vitringinum, og
geingr þessi fígúra um alla þessa vísu:
Píndr er stuldr, þar er standa
stafnreiðar hímleiðir
víða vingameiði,viðir hjá torgi miðju.
Morð eru hjólum hörðum
hegnd, þau er illa giegndu,
þar er riett vísar ræsir
rómsæll skipun dóma.

(26)

Hier er stuldrinn kallaðr píndr og morðin hegnd, þar sem morðinginn
er hegndr og þjófrinn.
Sumir menn kalla emphasen það er vápnið er kallað með því verki
sem af því gieriz, sem Þorleifr kvað:Hef eg í hendi,
til höfuðs gierva,
beinbrot Búa,böl Sigvalda,vá víkinga,
vörn Hákonar;
sjá skal verða,ef vier lifum,
eikikylfa
óþörf Dönum.
Hier er kylfan kiend eða merkt með þeim tilfellum sem af henni máttu
gieraz, og hefir ymsar líkingar í einni vísu, og kallar Óláfr það
W 1 leyfiligir] leyfiligra W | ónýtar] ónýtrar W 8 hímleiðir] hímleiða W
9 vingameiði] vingameiðar W 14 rómsæll] rómsæl W 17 vápnið] ‘vapnin’
W 19 Hef] 291 7 Flat 510 FskBX FskAX begin | Hef eg] all others, hefir W
25 verða] W Flat 510, vera 291 FskBX FskAX 26 ef] all others, er FskBX
27 eikikylfa] 291 7 Flat, eikikylfan W 510, eikiklubba FskBX, alriklubba FskAX
28 Dönum] 291 7 Flat 510 FskBX FskAX end(27)

Translation

19

necessity or of ornament or blame, but useless departures from thesubject matter are to be avoided at all costs.
9 EMPHASIS uses a substantive entity instead of a moveable entity, as
when we signify some accidental quality of a man instead of the manhimself, such as mentioning the crime instead of the criminal, or
wisdom instead of the wise man, and this figure is seen throughout
this stanza:(26)

Theft is punished by the windswept tree, where
universally loathed trees of the prow-chariot [SHIP >SEAFARERS] stand in many places near the middle of themarket-place. Murders, which were bad, are chastisedby hard wheels, where the praised [lit. applausefortunate] ruler carries out correctly the order of thecourts.
Here the theft is said to be punished and the murders chastised,
whereas the murderer is chastised and the thief.
Some men call it emphasis when the weapon is referred to by thedeed which is carried out by it, as Þorleifr said:(27)

He has in his hand, ready for a head, the bone-breakerof Búi, the ruin of Sigvaldi, the woe of vikings, the defence of Hákon; this oaken club shall prove unhelpful to
the Danes, if we [I] live.
Here the club is designated or signified by the occurrences whichmight be effected by it, and it has various comparisons in one stanza,and Óláfr calls it finngalknað when comparisons of one entity are

26 Stuldr er píndr vingameiði, þar er hímleiðir viðir stafnreiðar standa víða hjámiðju torgi. Morð, þau er giegndu illa, eru hegnd hörðum hjólum, þar errómsæll ræsir vísar riett skipun dóma.
27 Eg hef í hendi, gierva til höfuðs, beinbrot Búa, böl Sigvalda, vá víkinga,
vörn Hákonar; sjá eikikylfa skal verða óþörf Dönum, ef vier lifum.

20

Text

finngalknað er líkum er skift á einum hlut í inni sömu vísu, og berr
bezt að inn sami háttr sie haldinn um alla vísu, allra helzt í einstaka
vísum, en eigi hæfir sá háttr í stórkvæðum.

5

10

15

20

25

30

10 E
er skýring eða glöggvari greining fyrirfarandi hluta,
sem Eilífr kvað:Báru mæta mótimálmþings viðir pálma(sveit hrauð) seggja bæti(sorg), er hann kom til borgar.
Svá laðar siklingr skýja
síns hjarta til bjarta,
þá er fyrða gram færafögr verk með trú sterkri.

(28)

Er þessi fígúra kölluð af alþýðu
, og er sú grein þar í millum aðþessi fígúra exflexigesis glósar eða skýrir sanna frásögn, svá sem innágæti Salomon merkir Várn Herra, en musterið heilaga kristni.
En
setr fram tvá hluti af líku efni.
En
setr fram ólíka hluti svá sem það að kalla þenna heim
akr, þyrn auðæfin, fuglana djöfla með líking, en ei með sannleik.
Pdregr saman lík dæmi og skýrir hon sjálf það er hon
talar áðr með fígúru og eiginligri undirstöðu.
Exflexigesis hefir fleiri kynkvíslir í látínu, þvíað hon skýrir eigi aðeins um liðna hluti, heldr og eftirkomandi hluti, sem í bók Boetii, en
eigi finn eg það í norrænuskáldskap.
11 E
er gagnstaðlig
, og verðr hon á margarleiðir, þvíað hvervetna þar sem catenphaton er | flýið fyrir skynsemi aðforðaz ljótt atkvæði, þá geingr þar inn euphonia, og standa þær greinir
fullgierla frammi þar sem fyrrnefnd fígúra er fram sett. Óláfr segir og:
Euphonia verðr þar sem ófagrir límingarstafir eru skiftir í þá stafi sem
fegra hljóða, sem í þessum nöfnum: lækr og ægr, þvíað ‘æ’ þykkir

W 2 í] add. 6 mæta] mæt á W 11 bjarta] bjartir W 12 þá] ‘þeir’ W
28 fullgierla frammi] ‘full[. . .]ammi’ W
29 ófagrir límingarstafir]‘[. . .]mingar stafir’ W

p. 115

Translation

21

changed in the same stanza, and it is most appropriate that the same
comparison is kept throughout the stanza, especially in single stanzas,
but this way of doing it is unfitting for grand poems.
10 EFFLEXEGESIS is the explanation or clearer exposition of previous
things, as Eilífr said:(28)

Trees of the weapon-meeting [BATTLE > WARRIORS]
carried glorious palms to meet the curer of men [= God(= Christ)], when he came to the city; the company
banished sorrow. Thus the prince of the clouds [= God(= Christ)] invites pure [men] to his heart, those whobring the ruler of men [= God (= Christ)] beautiful
deeds with strong faith.
This figure is commonly called GLÓSA, and the distinction between
them is that this figure, efflexegesis, glosses or explains a true account,just as the illustrious Solomon signifies Our Lord, and the temple[signifies] holy Christianity.
And ICON puts forward two entities of the same material.
And PARABOLA puts forward dissimilar entities, such as calling thisworld a field, richness a thorn, devils birds in a simile, but not in truth.
PARADIGMA collects similar examples and explains itself what it
says previously with a figure and with its true meaning.
Efflexegesis has more branches in Latin because it explains not only
past things, but also future things, like in the book of Boethius, but I
do not find this in Norse poetry.
11 EUPHONIA is the opposite of CACENPHATON, and it occurs in many
ways, because wherever cacenphaton is avoided in order to steer clearof an unpleasing pronunciation, euphonia enters, and these distinctions are described clearly above where the aforementioned figure is
described. Óláfr also says: Euphonia occurs wherever unpleasing
conjoined characters are changed into those letters that sound more
beautiful, as in these nouns: ‘lækr’ [lǿkr] and ‘ægr’ [ǿgr], because ‘æ’

28 Viðir málmþings báru mæta pálma móti bæti seggja, er hann kom til
borgar; sveit hrauð sorg. Svá laðar siklingr skýja bjarta til hjarta síns, þá erfæra gram fyrða fögr verk með sterkri trú.

22

Text

hvervetna lýta mál, nema þar sem skynsemi má fyrir gjalda að þau orð
sem það stendr í, dreifaz af þeim orðum sem ‘á’ stendr í, sem hiersegir:

510

Því veldr ár, að ærirakr búmanna spakra;æra verðr með árumundan dólga fundi;ræða geingr af ráðaruna systir ólystug;órar dregr að ærumýtum skiemda flýtir.

(29)

Og enn segir svá:

15

20

25

Æli telz, það er óluósnotran mann gotnar;ælir vatn, þar er álarallstrangir fram hallaz;
heitir †lær† á †læru†,læringar kienningar;
kallaz mærr á Mæri,mæring, ef gjöf tæriz.

(30)Hætta verðr á hættu,hæting ef böl rætir;ást er nær að næra,nú er vær konan færi;skeind tekr æðrin æðaz,æðr deyr, þá er br[. . .]

(31)

12 L
er það ef rík persóna er merkt með margfaldri tölu, og er þaðþá kurteisi ef sá hefir ráðuneyti er til er talað, sem Arnórr kvað:W 2 það] þar W | á] ‘áá’ W 9 systir] systur W 13 Æli] ‘Øli’ W 15 þar]‘þat’ W 19 mærr] ‘męr’ W 25 æðrin] æðr enn W 26 br. . .] hole in W
29 Ár veldr því, að akr spakra búmanna ærir; verðr æra með árum undan fundidólga; ræða systir runa geingr ólystug af ráða; flýtir skiemda dregr órar aðærum ýtum.

Translation

23

is thought everywhere to blemish speech, except where reason may
explain that those words in which that sound is found are derived fromthose words which contain ‘á’, as it says here:(29)[Year’s] abundance is the reason that the field of wise
farmers gives a good crop; one has to row with oars to
avoid [lit. away from] a meeting with enemies; the sisterof the boar [SOW] on heat goes unwilling from the hog;
the breeder of shameful deeds [DEVIL] causes fits ofmadness to crazy men.
And further it says:(30)

He is considered a wretch, whom men brought up as an
unwise man; water causes dredging, where very strong
channels incline forwards; †lær† is named from †læra†,lessons [are called] instructions, it is called mærr inMøre, a prestation if a gift is given.

(31)

To take risks leads to danger, if threatening plants
misfortune; it is better to nourish love, now placid
women are [lit. is] fewer; the scratched vein begins tobecome angry, the eider duck dies when . . .

12 LEPOS is when a powerful person is signified with the plural number, and this is courteous if the one who is addressed has a body ofcounsellors, as Arnórr said:

30 Telz æli, það er gotnar ólu ósnotran mann; ælir vatn, þar er allstrangir álarhallaz fram; †lær† heitir á †læru†, kienningar læringar, kallaz mærr á Mæri,mæring, ef gjöf tæriz.
31 Hætta verðr á hættu, ef hæting rætir böl; nær er að næra ást, nú er vær
konan færi; skeind æðrin tekr æðaz, æðr deyr þá er br …

24

Text
Yppa ráðumz yðru kappi,
Jóta gramr, í kvæði fljótu.

5

(32)

Hier er konungsins persóna margfölduð, en ekki heyrir það að tala svá
til óbreyttra manna, og ef öðruvís er giert, þá verðr það soluecismus,
sem fyrr segir.
13 A
er umskifti talna eða falla og tíma með settu endimarki.
Um fallaskifti sem hier:10‘Þá, er eg leyfi mey mjóva,
mær er þín, fyr vild sína:’Hörn mælti það hornahjörþings við bör kringinn.

(33)

Hier er rægiligt fall sett fyrir nefniligu falli.
Um talnaskifti verðr antitosis sem hier:15

20

Sveit fylla ein alla
alls framm jóa Glamma.
Hier stendr þetta nafn ‘sveit’ sem margfalt nafn stýrt af margföldu orði‘fylla’.
Um tímaskifti standa nóg dæmi í Soluecismo, en ekki er nýjum
skáldum fallið að líkja eftir slíkum hlutum, er til þess eru að eins settað skilja fornskálda verka.

14 Averðr ef in síðustu orð svara inum fyrstum, og verðr
hon á svá margar leiðir sem orðum fær skift í vísu svá að regla sie
haldin undir riettri kveðandi, og standa þessir hættir mest í því semstælt er kveðið eða langlokum, sem hier:W 1 Yppa] C W(103) Mork Flat H Hr begin | ráðumz] A W(103) Mork H Hr,ráðum W, ‘raduzt’ Flat 2 fljótu] all others, fljóta Flat | C W(103) Mork Flat
H Hr end
32 Ráðumz yppa kappi yðru, gramr Jóta, í fljótu kvæði.
33 ‘Þá mjóva mey, er eg leyfi fyr vild sína, mær er þín:’ Hörn horna mælti það(34)

Translation
(32)

25

I mean to raise up your prowess, prince of the Jótar[DANISH KING = Magnús], in a swift poem.
The person of the king is here pluralised, but it is unfitting to speak inthis way to undistinguished men, and solecismus occurs if this is done,
as is said above.
13 ANTITOSIS is the exchange of numbers or cases and tenses for adefinite purpose.
Concerning the change of cases as here:(33)‘That slim girl whom I praise for her good will, the girlis yours:’ the Hǫrn ‹= Freyja› of drinking horns[WOMAN] said that to the smart tree of the sword assembly [BATTLE > WARRIOR].
Here the accusative case is used instead of the nominative case.
Concerning the change of numbers, antitosis occurs as here:(34)

One detachment fills all the steeds of Glammi ‹sea-king›[SHIPS] all [the way] forwards.
Here this noun sveit [detachment] is used as a plural noun, governedby the plural verb fylla [fill].
Concerning the change of tenses, sufficient examples are found in
Soloecismus, but it is not appropriate for new poets to imitate suchthings, which have only been explained so that one can understand theworks of the ancient poets.
14 ANTITHETON occurs if the last words agree with the first, and it
occurs in as many ways as it is possible to divide words in a stanza
while the rules of metrical arrangement are observed. These variants
are mainly found when the poem is equipped with inlay [stál] or late
closures [langlokur], as here:við kringinn bör hjörþings.
34 Ein sveit fylla alla jóa Glamma alls framm.

26

5

10

15

20

Text
Hákon ræðr með heiðan
(hefir dreingja vinr feingið)—lönd verr buðlungr brandibreiðfeld—(mikið veldi)
rógleiks náir ríki
remmi-Týr að stýra
—öld fagnar því—eignu;
orðróm konungdómi.

(35)

Hier giegnir þessi orð saman: ‘Hákon ræðr konungdómi’ er fyrst
standa og síðast, og er þessi regla liettust af fyrrsagðri fígúru, er
antiteton heitir.
Sú er önnur hennar species ef máli lýkr á þenna hátt í vísuhelmingi,
og sie tvau mál í vísuhelmingi, sem hier:Hákon veldr og hauldum—harðráðum Guð jarðar
tiggja lier með tíri—
teitr þjóðkonungs heiti.
Vald á víðrar foldar—vindræfrs jöfurr gæfuöðlingi skóp ungum—örlyndr skati görla.

(36)Þetta heitir stælt, og er það inn fegrsti háttr.
Sú er in þriðja species er fleiri mál ganga um eina vísu en tvau, oglýkz mál í síðustum orðum, sem hier er kveðið:25Óláfr kunni blóthús brennaBráðan hitti | Magnús váða,W
1 Hákon] R TX W(140) U(47r) U(50r) begin | heiðan] U(47r) ends
3lönd] all others, land U(50r)5náir] all others, ‘siair’ U(50r)
6 remmi-Týr] all others, renni-Týr W(140) 7 eignu] all others, eignum W
8 konungdómi] R TX W(140) U(50r) end
13 vísuhelmingi] vísuorði W
14 Hákon] R TX W(140) U(47r) U(50r) begin | og] W TX W(140) U(50r), ok
corrected from en R | hauldum] U(47r) ends 16 tiggja lier] W R TX W(140),‘ti[. . .]r’ U(50r) 17 þjóðkonungs] W TX W(140), þjóðkonungi R, þjóðkonungr
U(50r) 18 Vald] W R W(140) U(50r), ‘vauld’ TX 21 görla] W TX W(140)U(50r), ‘[. . .]’ R | R TX W(140) U(50r) end
35 Hákon ræðr konungdómi með heiðan orðróm; vinr dreingja hefir feingið

(37)
p. 116

Translation
(35)

27

Hákon rules the kingdom with radiant reputation; thefriend of warriors [RULER] has obtained great power; theprince protects the wide lands with the sword; thestrengthening-Týr ‹god› of strife-play [BATTLE > WARRIOR] is able to control his own realm; mankind
welcomes that.
Here these words which are positioned first and last belong together:‘Hákon ræðr konungdómi’ [Hákon rules the kingdom], and thisversion of the aforementioned figure, which is called antitheton, is theeasiest.
It is another variant of this figure if it concludes the sentence of thehalf-stanza in this manner, and there are two sentences in thehalf-stanza, as here:(36)

Happy Hákon commands the name ‘mighty king’ andthe freeholders; God grants the firm-ruling prince theearth with glory. The liberal-minded monarch hascomplete control of the wide land; the ruler of thewind-roof [SKY/HEAVEN > = God] created good luck forthe young lord.
This is called stælt [equipped with inlay], and that is the most elegant
metre.
This is the third variant when more than two sentences are found ina stanza, and the sentence ends with the last lines, as it is said here:(37)Óláfr, who got a famous fall to the ground [death], wasable to burn [heathen] sacrificial buildings. Magnúsmikið veldi; buðlungr verr breiðfeld lönd brandi; remmi-Týr rógleiks náir aðstýra eignu ríki; öld fagnar því.
36 Teitr Hákon veldr heiti þjóðkonungs og hauldum; Guð lier harðráðum
tiggja jarðar með tíri. Örlyndr skati á görla vald víðrar foldar; jöfurr vindræfrs
skóp ungum öðlingi gæfu.
37 Óláfr, sá hlaut ágætt fall til vallar, kunni brenna blóthús. Magnús hittibráðan váða, píndr sóttum, þá er örlög enduz. Vier frágum Harald, mildan
hjörleiks, hníga riett á enskri sliettu; arfi hans tók nú við starfa, vinr dróttar
fekk hættan helverk.

28

5

10

15

20

25

30

Text
Harald frágum vier hjörleiks mildan,
hans arfi tók nú við starfa,
dróttar vinr fekk helverk hættan.
hníga riett á enskri sliettu.
sóttum píndr, þá er örlög enduz.
ágætt fall sá hlaut til vallar.

Hier er ið fjórða og ið fimta vísuorð saman um mál. Ið þriðja og iðsietta vísuorð er sier um mál, og eru fjögur heil mál í þessi vísu sem nú
var talt.
Sú er in fjórða species innar sömu fígúru ef tvau mál ganga jafnfram
um vísu og lýkz mál í helmingi, en þó eitt efni um alla með inum
sömum tveim málum, sem hier:Haki Kraki
hoddum broddumsærði mærði
seggi leggi;
veitir neitirvella pellabáli stálibeittiz heittiz.

(38)

Hier er ið fyrsta og ið síðasta orð í fjórðungi saman og annað og iðþriðja, en mál öll lúkaz í helmingum.
Þessa vísu má og kalla anatecor er fjögur mál ganga um alla vísu, og
eru um mál saman in fyrstu vísuorð í báðum helmingum, og önnur slík
og in þriðju, og með einum hætti in fjórðu:Mætr Hákon vannen Magnús fannhjörr Eiríks hiekk
hans bróðir giekk
langfeðra láð,lögvizku ráð;W 5 örlög enduz] ‘örl[. . .]uz’ W 7 saman um] ‘[. . .]’ W 23 er] ‘enn’ W
24 eru um] ‘[. . .]’ W 28 hjörr Eiríks hiekk hans bróðir giekk] ‘h. e. h. hansbro. g.’ W
38 Haki særði leggi broddum; Kraki mærði seggi hoddum; veitir pella heittiz(39)

Translation29

encountered sudden danger, tormented by illness, when
his fortunes came to an end. We [I] have heard [that]
Haraldr, generous with sword-play [BATTLE], certainly
fell on an English field; his heir now took on the business [of government], the friend of the people [RULER =Magnús or Óláfr Haraldssynir] contracted a dangerous
mortal illness.
Here the fourth line in conjunction with the fifth make up a sentence.
The third and the sixth line constitute a sentence, and there are four
complete sentences in the stanza which has now been quoted.
This is the fourth kind of the same figure if two sentences run
parallel throughout a stanza, and the sentence ends within the halfstanza, yet one subject matter [is kept] throughout the complete stanzawith the same two sentences, as here:(38)

Haki wounded legs with pikes; Kraki (‘Pole-ladder’)honoured men with treasures; the giver of costly materials [GENEROUS MAN = Haki] was burnt [lit. heated] on apyre; the squanderer of gold [GENEROUS MAN = Kraki]
was killed by a steel weapon.
Here the first and the last word in the couplet go together, and thesecond and the third, and all sentences end within the half-stanzas.
One may also term this stanza in which four sentences run throughthe complete stanza antitheton—and the first lines of both half-stanzas
constitute one sentence, and thus the second [lines] and the third, andin the same way the fourth [lines]:(39)

Excellent Hákon won his paternal ancestors’ land, but
Magnús gained counsel of legal learning; Eiríkr’s sword

báli; neitir vella beittiz stáli.
39 Mætr Hákon vann láð langfeðra, en Magnús fann ráð lögvizku; hjörr Eiríks
hiekk á slóð rítar; bróðir hans giekk að refsa þjóð.

30

Text
á rítar slóð;að refsa þjóð.

Þessa vísu þarf skamt að færa til ins fyrra háttar:

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mætr Hákon vannen Magnús fannhjörr Eiríks hiekk
hans bróðir giekk
að refsa þjóð;á rítar slóð;lögvizku lund;langfeðra grund.

(40)

Haki Kraki
hamdi framdi
geirum eirum
gotna flotna;
hreytir neytir
hodda brodda
brendiz endiz
báli stáli.

(41)

15 A
er það ef maðr svarar þeim hlutum sem maðr býz aðkæra á hann á þingi, og stendr upp búinn að segja fram sökina, en
segir eigi:Þier giet eg, karl, ef þú kærir,kraunk orð búin—forðum
fat eg várkunnar vinnur——verðu kyrr og sit—fyrri!
Sakir áttu á mier miklar;
munu nær vera hæriþær, sem þína aura—það er hættiligt!—fætta.

W 10 lögvizku] ‘lǫgvizlv’ W
40 Mætr Hákon vann grund langfeðra, en Magnús fann lund lögvizku; hjörr
Eiríks hiekk á slóð rítar, bróðir hans giekk að refsa þjóð.
41 Haki hamdi gotna geirum; Kraki framdi flotna eirum; hreytir hodda brendiz(42)

Translation

31

hung upon the shield’s track [ARM], his brother wasbusied with punishing people.
This stanza is closely related to the previous verse-form:(40)

Excellent Hákon won his paternal ancestors’ land, but
Magnús gained a disposition of legal learning; Eiríkr’ssword hung upon the shield’s track [ARM], his brotherwas busied with punishing people.

(41)

Haki restricted [killed] men with spears; Kraki (‘Poleladder’) promoted men with tranquillity; the scatterer ofhoards [GENEROUS MAN = Haki] was burnt on a pyre;
the user of points [WARRIOR = Kraki] was killed by asteel weapon.

15 ANTHYPOPHORA comes about if one responds to those things thatsomeone else has prepared to charge him with at an assembly, andgets up ready to declare the case, but does not speak:(42)

Fellow, if you bring a charge first, I think hurtful words
will be ready for you; formerly I followed the practicesof compassion; be quiet and stay sitting! You have great
offences to charge me with; those which will diminish
your fortune, will become still greater. That’s risky!

báli; neytir brodda endiz stáli.
42 Karl, ef þú kærir fyrri, eg giet kraunk orð búin þier; eg fat forðum vinnur
várkunnar; verðu kyrr og sit! Áttu miklar sakir á mier; þær, sem fætta þínaaura, munu nær vera hæri; það er hættiligt!

32

Text

16 A
er það ef maðr setr tvenna skilninga gagnstaðliga með
einum orðum, sem hier:510Mætum stend eg að móti
mensveigjanda eigi;
rís eg við Ránar eisu
runni flærðarkunnum;því heit eg víst að veita
vígs dreingiligt geingi;þier heit eg mest að móti
meginstrangliga að ganga.

(43)

Hier er þessi fígúra tvítekin og sýnd í báðum vísuhelmingum.
17 Averðr ef maðr snýr svá sem með orðum myrkrar
skilningar, sem hier er ritað:15

20

Sveit lifir ill til átu
annlaust þokumanna,en klaustrs búi kristinnkalds, að lífið haldiz.

(44)Þokumenn eru þeir kallaðir er alla penninga sína neyta upp í ofáti og
ofdrykkju, og bera þeir það nafn sakir snápskapar síns, þvíað þeir sjá
eigi satt ljós riettrar framferðar og lifa að eins til þess að eta sem í
sitjandi myrkvastofuþoku. En siðlátir menn eta eigi meira en svá mikiðað þeir láti eigi af að lifa, og þykkir þessi fígúra mjög skaðsamlig.
18 A
er viljanlig þrotnan máls sakir hryggðar eða óþykkju,
sem hier er kveðið:25

Eigi er ván, að eg vága
viljag hyrjar þilju
eiga orðagnóga—em eg reiðr—konu leiðaz,þá er mier, en frá færumz,
W 4 mensveigjanda] mansveigjanda W 29 þá] þar W | færumz] færum W
43 Eg stend eigi að móti mætum mensveigjanda; eg rís við flærðarkunnum
runni eisu Ránar; eg heit því víst að veita dreingiligt geingi vígs; eg heit mest
að ganga meginstrangliga að móti þier.

(45)

Translation

33

16 ANTICLASIS comes about if one devices two opposing meanings
with the same words, as here:(43)

I do not stand opposed to the excellent necklacedistributor [GENEROUS MAN]; I oppose the blatantly
deceitful tree of the fire of Rán ‹goddess› [GOLD >MAN ]; I certainly promise to give valiant support in [lit.
of] a fight; I promise most to oppose you very strongly.
Here this figure is repeated and shown in both halves of the stanza.

17 ANTIMETABOLA occurs when one changes, as it were, [themeaning] with words of obscure signification, as it is written here:(44)

The evil company of fog-men lives trouble-free foreating, but the Christian inhabitant of the cold cloister[eats] to stay alive.
Those are called fog-men who spend all their money indulging in foodand drink, and they bear that name because of their folly, since they
do not see the true light of proper behaviour, and live only for eating
as if they sat in the fog of the prison cell. But virtuous men eat no
more than such that they do not cease to live, and this figure is considered very detrimental.
18 APOSIOPASIS is a deliberate interruption of an utterance on accountof grief or disapproval, as it is said here:(45)

It is not to be expected that I will want to marry theloquacious plank of the fire of the waves [GOLD >WOMAN]—I am angry—[I want to] avoid that woman
who formerly [rejected] me, and get out of the courtship

44 Ill sveit þokumanna lifir annlaust til átu, en kristinn búi kalds klaustrs [etr],
að lífið haldiz.
45 Eigi er ván, að viljag eiga orðagnóga þilju hyrjar vága—eg em reiðr—[egvil] leiðaz konu, þá er [kastaði] mier forðum, en færumz frá bænarorðum; inóprúða brúðr verðr sitja og sýta sig.

34

Text
forðum, bænarorðum;sitja verðr og sýtasig brúðr in óprúða.

5

10

Hier eru viljanliga ór vísunni þessur orð ‘sakir reiðiþokka’, ‘eg vil’, ogí öðrum stað: ‘kastaði’. Og skal svá upp taka: ‘Eigi | er ván að eg vilja,þvíað ek em reiðr, eiga þá konu orðmarga er mier kastaði þá er eg bað
hennar. Leiðaz vil eg hana þó að nú vili hon eiga mig. Siti hon og sýtiað skilja sína heimsku.’Þessi fígúra stendr í Guðs orðum þeim er hann talar til júða fyrir
fígúru undir nafni Hierusalem borgar.

p. 11719 E
er gott umskifti stafa í orðinu sem Dávíð setti‘exultat’ fyrir ‘exaltat’, sem stendr í þessi vísu:

1520

Það saung og í gröf geinginn
grundu huldr til stundarenn með iðran sannriöðlingr til refsingar:‘hugþekka mun hlakkahróðrslungin loftunga
mána valdr inn mildi
mín riettvísi þína.’(46)

Hier er sagt að tungan hlakki yfir riettvísi Guðs þar sem hitt værialþýðligra að segja að hann hæfi upp Guðs orð með tungunni. En þetta
umskifti var giert til þess að setja það orð er meira þótti vert í stað ins
minna.
25

20 Skveðið:er óskapligt umskifti talna eða skilninga, sem hier er

Víngarðr hafði öl-Giefn orðið
(unda vargs), sú er nú eru margar,(neytir skili þann krók), með kætiW
18 hróðrslungin] hróðrslung W‘[. . .]lgefn’ W(47)

19 valdr] vald W

27 öl-Giefn]

Translation

35[lit. wooing words]; let the inelegant woman sit andcommiserate with herself.

Here these words are deliberately left out of the stanza: sakir reiðiþokka [on account of anger], eg vil [I want] and in another place:kastaði [she rejected]. And the stanza should be construed thus: ‘It is
not to be expected that I would want—because I am angry—to marrythat woman of many words, who rejected me when I wooed her. I will
loathe her, although now she wants to marry me. She can sit andlament so that she can understand her stupidity’.
This figure is found in those words of God which he speaks to theJews figuratively under the name of the city of Jerusalem.
19 EUPHEMISMOS is a good exchange of letters in the word, as [when]David replaced ‘exaltat’ [exalts] with ‘exultat’ [exults], as it is foundin this stanza:(46)

The king, covered with earth for a time as punishment
and gone into the grave, yet sang that with true repentance: ‘my eulogy-encircled tongue of praise will exult
your righteousness, the merciful ruler of the moon [=God].’
Here it is said that the tongue exults over the justice of God when it
would be more common to say that he exalts the words of God withhis tongue. But this exchange was made in order to use the word thatwas esteemed higher rather than the one [esteemed] lower.

20 SYNEPTHESIS is an inappropriate exchange of numbers or persons,as it is said here:(47)

Ale-Gefn ‹= Freyja› [WOMAN], she who now are many,
had become a vineyard with cheerfulness and abandoned her preserved chastity; let the user of the wolf of46 Öðlingr, huldr grundu til stundar til refsingar og geinginn í gröf, saung þaðenn með sannri iðran: ‘hróðrslungin loftunga mín mun hlakka hugþekka
riettvísi þína, inn mildi valdr mána.’

36

5

Text
kvensku heft og látið eftir;fyrðum dugir, að ósíðr orða—oss vægðu, Guð, jafnan—lægðiz;vára þó hann í vatni skíru
verka sekt og píslarmerki.

Hier er bæði skift tölum og skilningum, og er þessi fígúra með ölluekki í vana dragandi, þó að persónum finniz skift í Saltara og öðrum
heilugum bókum.

10

15

20

25

21 O
hier:

segir eða hefir stórar sögur með fám orðum, sem

Beraz liet frá mey mætri
mætr foldsala gætir;umsniðning tók auðnu
einn veitandi hreinnar,áðr skatna vann vatni
vatnskírn jöfurs batnað;fastandi bar freistnifriðar kiennari þrenna.

(48)

Píndr reis upp með anda
angrleystu herfangi;hlýrna gramr til himna
heim sótti Guð dróttin*;sendi ástaranda
alls hirðandi virðum;sá kiemr drótt að dæmadauða lífs á hauðri.

(49)

Hier er ávarp theologie fært í tvær dróttkvæðar vísur. Þessi samafígúra kallaz öðru nafni
og hefir sömu upprás nafns og in
W 1 heft] ‘h[. . .]ft’ W | látið] láti W 9 hefir] ‘h[. . .]fir’ W 13 umsniðning]‘umsniðn[. . .]g’ W 15 vann] vanr W 22 dróttin] dróttinn W 28 sömu] add.
47 Öl-Giefn, sú er nú eru margar, hafði orðið víngarðr með kæti og látið eftir
kvensku heft; neytir vargs unda skili þann krók; dugir fyrðum, að ósiðr orðalægðiz; Guð, vægðu oss jafnan; hann þó sekt verka vára í skíru vatni og
píslarmerki.
48 Mætr gætir foldsala liet beraz frá mætri mey; einn veitandi hreinnar auðnu

Translation

37

wounds [AXE > WARRIOR] understand that ambiguity; ithelps men that a bad habit of words should be diminished; God, spare us always; he washed the guilt of oursins in pure water and [in] the sign of his passion.
Here numbers as well as persons have been exchanged, and this figure
should certainly not be used habitually, even though exchanged
persons can be found in the Psalter and other holy books.

21 OLIOPOMENON tells or covers great stories with few words, as here:(48)

The excellent keeper of the earth-halls [SKY/HEAVEN >= God (= Christ)] allowed himself to be born from an
excellent maiden; the one granter of pure destiny [=God (= Christ)] underwent circumcision, before thebaptism of the prince of men [= God (= Christ)] improved the water [lit. gained improvement for thewater]; the teacher of peace [= God (= Christ)] fasting
bore a threefold temptation.

(49)

Tortured, he rose up with the sorrow-liberated booty ofsouls; the prince of heavenly bodies [= God (= Christ)]came home to the Lord God in the heavens; the carer ofeverything [= God] sent the spirit of love to men; hewill come to judge the host of the dead on the land oflife.
Here a summary of the Bible is reworked into two dróttkvætt stanzas.
This same figure is called BRACHILOGIA by another name, and thistók umsniðning, áðr vatnskírn jöfurs skatna vann vatni batnað; kiennari friðar
bar fastandi þrenna freistni.
49 Píndr reis upp með angrleystu herfangi anda; gramr hlýrna sótti Guð
dróttin* heim til himna; hirðandi alls sendi virðum ástaranda; sá kiemr aðdæma drótt dauða á hauðri lífs.

38

Text

fyrri. Sumir meistarar segja að
sie hennar species, sú er um
jafnar gráður leiðir hverja málsgrein af annarri, sem hier:5

10

Hugsan flýtir lysting ljóta,
lysting fæðir samþykt skæða,samþykt fæðir synd og nauðir,synd spenr á sig illa venju,
ill venja dregr nauðsyn nóga,nauðsyn leiðir sál í dauða,dauði spillir æði ölluandar lífs með beisku grandi.

(50)

22 E
glósar myrkan hlut með öðrum jafnmyrkum hlut eða
myrkara, sem hier:

15

20

25

30

Sæll er sienn í millisiðvendis kvikvenda
mána ranns af mönnum
mildingr, þá er barz hingað,eða þá er djúp að djúpi
dorgtúns niða borgarum hljóðraufar hávar
hátt samþykkið vátta.
Hier eru orð Abbacuch spámanns þau er hann segir Guð dróttin sienn
milli siðvendis kvikenda og í þenna heim komanda, sett í inn fyrra
vísuhelming, en glósa yfir sett sú er Dávíð segir undirdjúp vatnanna
kalla á annað undirdjúp um þær himinborur sem cataracte kallaz ogopnuðuz er Nóaflóð drekti öllum heimi útan þeim mönnum sem íörkinni váru.
En til þess að þenna myrkleik megi skilja segir Augustinus að
spámaðrinn sá fyrir | að Guð mundi holdgaz og var sienn milli tveggja
kvikenda uxa og asna, er merkja júða og heiðingja, í milli Moysi og
Helie í myndskiftingu Várs Herra á fjallinu, og milli tveggja latróna
með sier krossfestum, og að lyktum millum tveggja lögmála.

W 1 climax] ‘dvnax’ W 3 Hugsan] W(120) begins 4 fæðir] W, flýtir W(120)9 æði] W, eðli W(120) 10 grandi] W(120) ends 16 þá] sá W 24 cataracte]‘katarakte’ W 30 myndskiftingu] myndskiftingar W
50 Hugsan flýtir ljóta lysting, lysting fæðir skæða samþykt, samþykt fæðir

(51)

p. 118Translation

39

name has the same origin as the [name of the] previous one. Some
masters say that CLIMAX, which by equal steps leads each sentencefrom another, belongs to this group, as here:(50)

Thought hastens ugly desire, desire feeds noxious
consent, consent feeds sin and sufferings, sin attracts toitself a bad habit, a bad habit brings with it compulsion
aplenty, compulsion leads the soul to death, death
destroys the whole nature of the life of the soul with
bitter injury.

22 HOMOPHESIS glosses something obscure by something equally or
more obscure, as here:(51)

The blessed prince of the house of the moon [SKY/HEAVEN > = God (= Christ)] was [lit. is] seen by men
between animals of uprightness, when he was born into
this world [lit. hither], or when the deep of the trolling
line-field [SEA] loudly bore witness [lit. bears witness]of concord to the deep across the high sound-crevices ofthe stronghold of the phases of the moon [SKY/HEAVEN].
Here are those words of the prophet Habakkuk in which he says that
the Lord God coming into this world is seen between beings of good
conduct, placed in the first half-stanza, and the explanation is added
where David says that the abyss of the waters calls to the other abyss
through those openings in the sky which are called cataracts andwhich were opened when Noah’s flood drowned the whole worldexcept those people who were in the ark.
In order that one might understand this obscurity, Augustine saysthat the prophet foretold that God would take flesh and was seen
between two beings, an ox and an ass, which symbolise the Jews andthe Gentiles, between Moses and Elĳah in the transfiguration of Our

synd og nauðir, synd spenr á sig illa venju, ill venja dregr nóga nauðsyn,nauðsyn leiðir sál í dauða, dauði spillir öllu æði lífs andar með beisku grandi.
51 Sæll mildingr ranns mána er sienn í milli kvikvenda siðvendis, þá er barz
hingað, eða þá er djúp dorgtúns vátta hátt samþykkið að djúpi um hávarhljóðraufar borgar niða.

40

5

10

15

20

25

Text

Og þessi tvau lögmál, ið forna og ið nýja, kallar Leo páfi inn málsnjalli tvenn vatnadjúp, þau er annað er yfir himnum en annað undir
himnum, og Dávíð segir að á kallaz með röddum cataractarum, það erhiminraufanna þeirra sem vötnin sendu til jarðar í flóðinu Nóa, og
merkja þær höfuðfeðr og spámenn, postula og predikara, þá erhimnesk vötn heilagrar predikanar senda á jörðina til þess að fyrirkoma Guðs óvinum, það er löstum og lýtum, og að döggva hjörtu
riettrúaðra manna með regni heilsamrar kienningar. Og er þá að sönnu
sienn sjálfr sannleikrinn, það er sjálfr Guð, milli kvikenda siðvendis,
er ið forna lögmál—fram sagt forðum af þeim feðrum sem váru fyrir
hingaðburð Guðs sonar svá sem af himni runnin vötn, er fram eru
borin milli manna þeirra, sem siðvönd kvikendi ætti að vera í heilagri
kirkju, og samþykkjanda nýju lögmáli—fagrliga fram flutt og útskýrt
með guðspjalligri kienning og af postuligum röksemdum fyrir predikara nýs lögmáls. Birtiz þá fullkomið samþykki lögmálanna, það er
þau hafa sín á milli, ef fram eru bornar spásögur heilagra feðra um
gietnað og hingaðburð, predikan, pínsl og dauða, upprisu, uppstigningVárs Herra og ástgjöf Heilags Anda og inn efsta dóm og eilíft líf, er ímóti beraz vitni af nýju lögmáli, að nær öll þessi stórmerki eru framkomin, en þau sem óorðin eru munu án efa fram koma.

23 E
er sú fígúra er ið sama orð er oftar en um sinn sett, annað
tveggja til þess að öruggligar megi skiljaz það sem flutt er, sem víðamá finna í theologia, ella er ið sama orð fyrir fegrðar sakir oftar sett,sem í dunhendu eða iðurmæltum hætti. Verðr það stundum í upphafisem í greppaminni, en stundum í miðju eða í enda, og má það kalla
háttaföll eftir fornum skáldskaparhætti, en sá má nýta er vill, og eftir
líkja, en hinn ónýta er það vill. En í upphafi, sem hier:W 13 útskýrt] útskýrd W 26 sá má] sama W | eftir2] add.

Translation

41

Lord on the mountain, and between two thieves crucified with him,
and finally between two laws.
And Pope Leo the eloquent calls these two laws, the old and thenew, two abysses, of which one is above the sky and the other below
the sky, and David says that they call upon one another with thevoices of the cataracts, that is of the openings in the sky which sent
the waters to the earth during Noah’s flood, and they symbolise thepatriarchs and prophets, the apostles and preachers who send theheavenly waters of holy preaching to the earth in order to destroy theenemies of God, that is vices and flaws, and in order to bedew thehearts of the orthodox with the rain of salutary preaching. And thenindeed Truth itself is seen, that is God himself, between two beings ofgood conduct, when the old law—pronounced in olden times by thosefathers who lived before the birth of the son of God into this world,
just like the waters that have streamed from heaven, which are carried
forth between those men, who ought to be beings of good conduct in
the holy church, and agreeing with the new law—is beautifully
presented and explained by the evangelical teaching and apostolicauthority through the preachers of the new law. The complete
agreement of the laws, that which is between them, is revealed if theprophesies of the holy fathers about the conception and birth,
preaching, torture and death, Resurrection, Ascension of Our Lord andthe gift of grace of the Holy Spirit and the Last Judgement and eternal
life are presented and the testimonies of the new law are held up
against them, [then one will see] that almost all these great wonders
have occurred while those that have not yet occurred will occur
without doubt.
23 EPIMONE is that figure where the same word is used more thanonce, either so that that which is pronounced may be understood morecertainly, as can be found widely in the Bible, or when the same word
is used more often for the sake of beauty, as in dunhenda or theiðurmæltr verse-form. Sometimes it occurs at the beginning [of theline], as in greppaminni, but at other times in the middle or at the end,
and according to the old way of composing that may be termed háttaföll, he who wants to can use and imitate it, and he who does not want
to use it can avoid it. At the beginning [of the line], as here:

42

Text
Eg em synda bót
og sæmdar hót,eg birti sál,eg bæti mál.

5Í miðju, sem hier:Þar er ekki ilt
og ekki vilt,
fæz ekki aungtog ekki þraungt.

10

25

(54)

Þessi fígúra sýniz í upphafi og í enda, sem hier:Eg blessa þig,eg bið fyr þig,eg fæ fyr þig,eg frelsa þig.

20

(53)

Í enda, sem hier:Þar er ómælt valdog ágætt vald;þar er algiert valdog eilíft vald.

15

(52)

(55)

24 A
er sú fígúra ef tveir hlutir eru svá bundnir og samþykkir
að það megi segjaz annarr giera sem annarr gierir; á þá lund sem tunga
er kölluð samþykk hjarta:
Máni skínn af mænimoldar hofs um foldiralla stund, meðan endizævi lands og sævar.
Veit eg fielaga fljótum
fróns prýði vel þjóna;
W 23 Máni] 2368X 743X begin | mæni] mæðu W 2368X 743X
52 Eg em bót synda og hót sæmdar, eg birti sál, eg bæti mál.
53 Þar ekki er ilt og ekki vilt, fæz ekki aungt og ekki þraungt.
54 Þar er ómælt vald og ágætt vald; þar er algiert vald og eilíft vald.

(56)

Translation
(52)

43

I am the remedy of sins and the mark of honour, I
illuminate the soul, I improve speech.
In the middle, as here:(53)

There is nothing evil and nothing false, there will be
nothing cramped and nothing constricted.
At the end, as here:(54)

There is unmeasured power and excellent power; there
is complete power and eternal power.
This figure appears at the beginning and at the end, as here:(55)

I bless you, I pray for you, I obtain for you, I save you.

24 HOMOPATHION is that figure in which two things are joined together and agree in such a way that it can be said that the one does
what the other does; in that way in which the tongue is said to agreewith the heart:(56)

The moon shines from the roof-ridge of the temple of
the ground [SKY > ZENITH] throughout countries all thetime while the life of land and sea endures. I know thatthe adorner of the earth [SUN] serves its swift

55 Eg blessa þig, eg bið fyr þig, eg fæ fyr þig, eg frelsa þig.
56 Máni skínn af mæni hofs moldar um foldir alla stund, meðan ævi lands ogsævar endiz. Veit eg prýði fróns þjóna fljótum fielaga vel; ýtar vitu eigi þeimauðið lífs nie dauða.

44

Text
þeim vitu eigi ýtarauðið lífs nie dauða.

5

10

15

20

25

Hier er tunglinu kient embætti sólarinnar að skína jafnliga á jörðina
fyrir því er það hefir ekki ljós af sier heldr af sólinni, og er dökkt þeimmegin sem frá henni horfir. En albjart það er að henni horfir. En þásýniz það hálft bjart er það hefir svá langt geingið frá sólinni, eða á svá
langt til hennar að það sie þá í suðri eða norðri, er hon er í austri eða
vestri. |p. 11925 A
er sú fígúra er það er kient guðdóminum sem
manndómsins er, sem það að hann standi, siti, gangi, reiðiz, gleðiz,elski, sýti, sem hier er kveðið:Ádám sá, þann alt í heimiorði skóp í gaungu forðum;þenna kiendi Stephánus standa
stórumvitr og spámenn sitja;reiði tala hans bækr sem blíðu
brögnum jafnt sem hryggð og fögnuð
ástargnótt með öðrum háttum
ýta kyns, þeim er guðdóm lýta.
En staðligar hræringar og líkamligt tilfelli megu með fígúru, en eigi
með sannleik, til Guðs talaz. Og er þá sem Guð gangi frá oss er viergaungum frá honum fyrir afbrigð hans boðorða, en til vár þá er vierkrjúpum til hans með iðran undir hans miskunn. Staða hans er várstaða í góðu eða búið fullting í nauðsynjum. Seta hans er dæming um
fólksins verðleika þvíað dómarans er að sitja. Reiði hans er refsing sú
er hann leggr á illvirki mannfólksins. Gleði hans er gæzka vár. Svefn
hans er kallaðr það er vier sofum með svefni dauðligra synda. Og
vaknan hans er það er vier vöknum við sjálfa oss. Sýting hans er það
ef hann giefr oss að sýta ill verk vár. Ást hans er það er hann giefr oss

W 2368X 743X 1 vitu] W 743X, vita 2368X 2 dauða] 2368X 743X end 28 sjálfa]‘salfa’ W(57)

Translation

45

companion well; people do not know that that one has
been allotted neither life nor death.
Here the office of the sun, to shine continuously on the earth, has been
assigned to the moon, because it does not have light from itself, butfrom the sun, and it is dark on the side which faces away from it. But
the side which faces the sun is fully shining. And half the moon
appears shining when it has passed so far away from the sun, or is atsuch a distance from the sun, that it is in the south or the north, when
the sun is in the east or the west.
25 ANTHROPOSPATHOS is that figure in which that which belongs to
mankind is attributed to the Godhead, such as that he stands, sits,
walks, gets angry, rejoices, loves, feels sorrow, as it is said here:(57)

Adam once saw walking along that one who createdeverything in the world by means of a word; greatly
wise Stephen recognised him standing and prophets[saw him] sit; books speak to men of his anger as wellas his kindness, an abundance of love equally withsorrow and joy along with other characteristics of therace of men that demean the Godhead.
Local movements and physical properties can be attributed to God in a
figurative sense, but not literally. And it is as if God departs from us
when we depart from him on account of breaches of his commands,
but [comes] to us when we, under his grace, crawl to him with
contrition. His standing is our standing in good or [our] ready support
in need. His sitting is the judgement of the worthiness of the people,
because it befits the judge to sit. His anger is the punishment he places
upon the misdeeds of mankind. His rejoicing is our goodness. It iscalled his sleep when we sleep the sleep of deadly sins. And it is his
awakening when we wake to ourselves. His lamenting is when hegives us the ability to lament our own misdeeds. His love is when hegives us the ability to love him, so that, on account of this love, he

57 Ádám sá forðum í gaungu þann skóp alt í heimi orði; stórumvitr Stephánus
kiendi þenna standa og spámenn sitja; bækr tala brögnum reiði hans sem blíðu,ástargnótt jafnt sem hryggð og fögnuð með öðrum háttum kyns ýta, þeim erlýta guðdóm.

46

5

10

15

20

25

Text

að elska sig svá að þar fyrir giefi hann oss þá giftu að vier hjálpimz
fyrir hans miskunn.
Hefir sjá fígúra nafn tekið af antropos girzku nafni því sem maðr er
á vára tungu, og pasis, það er setning svá sem vier setjum Guðimannliga reglu um hræring og aðra hluti, svá sem þeir villumenn er
antroposormite heita, er Guði ætla mannliga limu sakir einfeldi eðafátækleiks eiginligs skilnings, og skilja eigi að Guð er óskiftiligr ogóbrugðligr, hvervetna nálægr, eigi með staðligri nálægð heldr meðalmætti einum saman.

26 S
er sú fígúra er lof eða lestir eru saman lesnir í einum
capitulo og klausu eða versi í látínu, en með einni vísu eða með
fleirum í norrænu, sem hier:Ábiels lofar æviómeinsemi hreina;
öld lofar Ienóch mildan
einkiend siðavendni;
Nóe lofaz öflugs æviágætu hreinlæti;Siem lofar fært til fremdar
fórnarhald um aldir.

(58)

Trúa lofar Ábráms ævi,Ísách lofar vísan
ván; lofar Jácób* einumástsemd hugarfremdum;skýrr lofar Jóséphs æviórskurðr fyrirburða;Guðs lofar ætt og æviÁróns göfug þjónan.

(59)

W 11 capitulo] ‘kapitło’ W 23 Jácób] Jácóbs W
58 Ómeinsemi lofar hreina ævi Ábiels; siðavendni, einkiend öld, lofar mildan
Ienóch; ævi öflugs Nóe lofaz ágætu hreinlæti; fórnarhald, fært til fremdar,
lofar Siem um aldir.
59 Trúa lofar ævi Ábráms, ván lofar vísan Ísách; ástsemd lofar *Jácób einum
hugarfremdum; skýrr órskurðr fyrirburða lofar ævi Jóséphs; göfug þjónanGuðs lofar ætt og ævi Áróns.

Translation47

may give us that good fortune that we might be saved because of his
grace.
This figure has taken its name from anthropos, the Greek noun forthat which is ‘man’ in our tongue, and pasis, that is ‘placement’, as
when we impose human constraints concerning movements and otherthings upon God, like those heretics who are called ‘anthropomorphites’ who assign human limbs to God because of their simplicity
and the poverty of their own understanding, and they do not understand that God is unchanging and unvarying, omnipresent, not becauseof a physical presence but solely because of his omnipotence.
26 SYNACRISMOS is the figure where praise or vices are collected in
one chapter, [one] clause or [one] verse in Latin, but in one or morestanzas in Norse, as here:(58)

Innocence extols the pure life of Abel; integrity ofmorals, specific to mankind, commends gentle Enoch;
the life of powerful Noah is praised on account of
extraordinary purity; the observance of sacrifice, performed in honour [of God], will celebrate Shem forever.

(59)

Faith extols Abraham’s life, hope celebrates wise Isaac;love praises Jacob for singular excellences of mind; aclear interpretation of omens lauds the life of Joseph;the worthy service of God commends the kin and thelife of Aaron.

48

Text
Moysen lofar ljósan
lagamál ið brennfagra;
þig lofar allt með öllualls heims, jöfurr beima.

5

(60)

Slíkt sama er þessi fígúra saman lestr lasta.
27 T
er sú fígúra er oft er spurt af inum sama hlut og
andsvarað eftir sama hætti, sem hier:

10

15

Hverr deyr? Hjarðar stýrir.
Hví? Fyr sauða lífi.
Hvessu? Hiekk á krossi.
Hvar? Þar er Lassarus jarðaz.
Hvienær? Helzt að nóni
Hverir knúðu að? Júðar.
Hverr nýtr? Heiðni bötnuð.
Hvað gieldr? Djöfuls veldi.

(61)

Hier eru sextán mál í vísu og er jafnan spurt og svarað í vísuorði. Má
og þessi sama fígúra vera með minnr þraungdum spurningum:

20

25

Hverr fell? Hörða stillir.
Hvar? Þar er karlfólk barðiz.
Hvienær? Hneig að nóni.
Hver* var sök? Öfund vöknuð.
Hverr vá? Kálfr hielt darri.
Hverir bændu slíks? Þrændir.
Hvað nýtr? Heilsa bötnuð.
Hvað sýtir? Fira lýti.

W 3 allt] allr W 12 Helzt] ‘helldz’ W 21 Hver] hverr W 23 bændu] benduW
60 Ið brennfagra lagamál lofar ljósan Moysen; allt alls heims lofar þig meðöllu, jöfurr beima.
61 Hverr deyr? Stýrir hjarðar. Hví? Fyr lífi sauða. Hvessu? Hiekk á krossi.
Hvar? Þar er Lassarus jarðaz. Hvienær? Helzt að nóni. Hverir knúðu að? Júðar.

(62)

Translation
(60)

49

The burning fair law-giving extols bright Moses; everything of all the world praises you absolutely, lord ofmen [= God].
In the same manner, this figure is a compilation of vices.

27 TERETEMA is the figure where questions are often asked about thesame thing and answered in the same manner, as here:(61)

Who dies? The leader of the flock. Why? For the life of
the sheep. How? He hung on a cross. Where? Where
Lazarus is buried. When? About the ninth hour. Who
instigated it? The Jews. Who gets the benefit? Heathendom is reformed. What suffers? The devil’s power.
Here there are sixteen sentences in the stanza and questions are repeatedly asked and answered in the stanza. This same figure might also
occur with less compressed questions:(62)

Who fell? The ruler of the Hörðar [NORWEGIAN KING =Óláfr Haraldsson]. Where? Where men were fighting.
When? He fell at the ninth hour. What was the cause?
Awakened ill-will. Who struck? Kálfr held the spear.
Who requested such a thing? The Þrændir. What benefit
is there? Health restored. What laments? Men’s sin.

Hverr nýtr? Bötnuð heiðni. Hvað gieldr? Veldi djöfuls.
62 Hverr fell? Stillir Hörða. Hvar? Þar er karlfólk barðiz. Hvienær? Hneig að
nóni. Hver* var sök? Vöknuð öfund. Hverr vá? Kálfr hielt darri. Hverir bændu
slíks? Þrændir. Hvað nýtr? Bötnuð heilsa. Hvað sýtir? Lýti fira.

COMMENTARY
Chapter 1: Protheseos paralange
The initial part of the definition closely parallels D (ll. 2573–74). D
does not present any examples of the use of the figure but three
examples can be found in Dg (82r). The first of these is ‘multa superPriamo’ id est ‘de Priamo’ [Aen, I 750] ‘“many things over Priamus,”i.e. “about Priamus”’.
2,1 Protheseos The scribe has left space for a two-line initial and arubric at the point where FoGT begins in W. The general tendency ofthe scribe in this part of W is to mark chapter divisions with two-line
initials (on the significance of this, see p. xiii).
2,1 prepositio ‘preposition’: This is the only occurrence of this Latin
word in W. Elsewhere the Old Norse term fyrirsetning is used (at pp.
99 ll. 21, 31; 103 l. 7; 110 l. 3).
2,2 viðkæmiliga ‘appropriate’: Viðkæmiliga is an adverb, but it has
been rendered by an adjective in the English translation.
2,2 Þorleifr Þorleifr jarlsskáld ‘Jarl’s poet’ Rauðfeldarson, born at
Brekka in Svarfaðardalur, northern Iceland, some time in the second
half of the tenth century. Many sources, including Landnámabók (ÍF 1,254), both versions of Skáldatal (SnE 1848−87, III 256, 266), SnegluHalla þáttr (ÍF 9, 285–86), the Icelandic version of Oddr Snorrason’slife of Óláfr Tryggvason (ÍF 25, 191), and Haukr Valdísarson’sÍslendingadrápa (st. 18) mention Þorleifr as a skald. Most of
the poetry attributed to him and almost all the biographical information about him is found in Þorleifs þáttr jarlsskálds (ÍF 9, 213−29),
first preserved in the late fourteenth-century manuscript Flateyjarbók.
The þáttr describes Þorleifr’s antagonistic relationship with Hákon jarlSigurðarson of Hlaðir (ruled Norway 970–95), which reaches its
climax when Þorleifr, disguised as an old man, recites the poem
Jarlsníð ‘Jarl’s libel’ in the jarl’s presence. The context of the stanzacited here is unknown, though it is addressed to Hákon, and may
possibly be from the first, laudatory part of Jarlsníð (so Almqvist
1965−74, I 197), or from another poem in the jarl’s honour.
Stanza 1
A variant version of this half-stanza is also cited in TGT (mss A, 4v
and W, p. 103). In TGT the same half-stanza is quoted as an example

Commentary

51

of a solecism (a syntactic error): Stundum verðr soloecismus þá ersami partr er óviðkæmiliga settr, sem jarlsskáld kvað [st. 1]. Hér er ‘í’fyrirsetning fyrir ‘af ’ sett (TGT 1884, 17) ‘At times a solecism occurs
when [another word belonging to] the same part of speech isinappropriately used, as the earl’s poet said [st. 1]. Here thepreposition “in” is used instead of “of”’. The example of TGT in W is
garbled and does not contain the preposition í (see critical apparatus to2,3). FoGT thus provides a figure that was defined but faultily
exemplified in the W text of TGT with a name and a correct example.
FoGT occasionally refers back to TGT (18,30 – 20,1, 20,28 and 24,18),
but not at this point. In TGT the stanza is ascribed to Þorleifr jarlsskáld (A) and simply jarlsskáld (W).
2,3 Höfðu … Hákon ‘We … Hákon’: The line is metrically defective
in all mss and has no internal rhyme.
2,4 gingum ‘went’: The form from infinitive ginga is indicated by therhyme with -þingi (cf. ANG §504 and Anm. 1, 5).
2,6 forvistu ‘leadership’: The manuscript form ‘forostu’ is unmetrical,
because it is not possible to have a short first syllable for- followed bya vowel in this metrical position. It has therefore been normalised tothe earlier forvistu.
2,7 óviðkæmiliga ‘inappropriately’: An emendation first made in SnE
1818, 335 that has been adopted by all subsequent editors.
Chapter 2: Liptota
D defines liptota in two ways: 1) when words signify more than they
imply (l. 2575)—this corresponds to the definition accompanying st. 2;
and 2) when a double negation is used instead of one affirmation (l.
2576)—corresponding to the definition accompanying st. 5. No
examples are given in D, but Dg (82r−v) gives three: 1) Saying lessbut meaning more: mihi iussa capessere fas est [Aen, I 77] ‘it is fittingthat I obey orders’. D does not explain how this example, which isdrawn from Servius’s commentary to the Aeneid (ed. Thilo and Hagen
1881–1902, I 77), should be understood as ‘saying less but meaning
more’. 2) Two negations equal one affirmation: ‘nonnumquam legi’ id
est ‘multotiens legi’ ‘“I have not never read” i.e. “I have often read”’.
3) A negation equals an emphatic affirmation: non mediocriter
conturbatur animus meus .i. valde conturbatur ‘my soul is notmoderately disturbed, that is, it is very disturbed’.

52

Commentary

2,10 þrjár ‘three’: Written ‘.iij.’ in W. FoGT gives four definitions
and four examples of the figure. Therefore the reading þrjár should
perhaps be changed to fjórar ‘four’ (‘.iiij.’ in the orthography of W,e.g. p. 116 l. 5), but this chapter’s general lack of congruence between
the definitions and their illustrations suggests that the textual problems
are to be sought at a deeper level.
2,10 Stundum … 11 til ‘at times … implies’: This definition corresponds to the first definition of this figure given in D (l. 2575).
2,11 Eiríkr viðsjá The Icelander Eiríkr viðsjá ‘the Circumspect’
fought on the side of the Northerners in the battle on the heath, thought
to have taken place in 1014, and described in Heiðarvíga saga (ÍF 3,
cxxiv−cxxvii, 301−23). In this saga seven lausavísur are attributed to
Eiríkr and st. 2 is the last of these to be cited there and the only one
witnessed outside the saga. Holm perg 18 4° (Holm18) of c. 1300−50
is the main manuscript for Heiðarvíga saga. There st. 2 is preceded by
two other sts by Eiríkr, and they are cited to support the prose text’s
claim that very heavy losses of men resulted from the battle.
Stanza 2
FoGT records only the first six lines of this stanza, whereas Holm18
has two additional lines, which were probably original to it. They are(7−8): fell geysla lið Gísla | gunnrunga sunnan. If the additional lines
are added, the second helmingr can be construed thus, following
Holm18 (except for ættskarð l. 6 (2,17)): Enn varð eigi in minna |ættskarð, þat er hjó Barði |—fell geysla lið Gísla—| gunnrunga
sunnan. Prose order: Enn ættskarð gunnrunga sunnan, þat er Barði
hjó, varð eigi in minna; lið Gísla fell geysla. Translation: ‘Yet thenotch in the family of the battle-nourishers [] from the south,
which Barði cut, was not the smaller; Gísli’s band fell in great
numbers’. For other ways of construing ll. 7−8, see Skj B, I 201, Skald,
I 105 and NN §2310.
2,12 Styrr … Snorri According to Eyrbyggja saga (ÍF 4, 21), Styrr’s
given name was Arngrímr and he was the son of Þorgrímr, but he wasnicknamed Víga-Styrr ‘Killer-Stir(rer)’ because of his bellicose nature.
Snorri is Snorri goði ‘the Priest’ Þorsteinsson.
2,12 snart ‘swift’: Understood as a neuter adjective qualifyingsverðþing ‘sword-assembly’, though it could also be the adverb snart‘swiftly’. Holm18’s snarr must be taken as a masculine adjective
qualifying Styrr.

Commentary

53

2,14 geir-Nirðir ‘spear-Nirðir ‹gods› []’: An emendation
first indicated by Árni Magnússon in AM 761 b 4°x, f. 65r, andadopted in SnE 1848–87, II 192 and by Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 238−39).
It provides skothending with gierðu. The compound geir-Njǫrðr
‘spear-Njǫrðr ‹god› []’ is attested from Guðrúnarhvǫt 8,5 andthe plural -Nirðir from Eskál Vell 26,7I (hlym-Njǫrðum ‘din-Nirðir’)and Anon Pl 52,3VII (ǿski-Nirðir ‘wishing-Nirðir’, the last three lettersby emendation). Njǫrðr, name of one of the Old Norse gods of the
Vanir group, often appears in man- or warrior-kennings (Meissner
1921, 273−75). The second element in W’s geirníðir is probably a
scribal error. It could possibly be construed without emendation as an
unattested agent noun, masc. pl., -*níðir ‘mockers’, from níða ‘tocompose níð “insult, mockery, libel”’, though a warrior-kenning of thistype is not recorded and there would be no hending. The misreading
geirviðir ‘spear-trees’ [] of W’s geirníðir was first printed by
Rask in SnE 1818, 335 (see SnE 1848–87, II 193, n. 4). The same
misreading occurs in Skj A, I 210 and is reproduced in Skj B, I 201 and
Skald, I 105, as well as by Poole (1991, 185). Geirviðir is attested in
the singular as a personal name in Stjǫrnu-Odda draumr (StjOdd
Geirfl 2,8V) and as a warrior-kenning in Bjbp Jóms 25,5I. Holm18’s
variant is gnýverðir ‘noise-guardians’, in which the second element is
the nominative plural of vǫrðr ‘guardian, protector’, a common
element in kennings for men or warriors (cf. LP: vǫrðr).
2,15 Gíslungum ‘of the Gíslungar’: Literally, ‘for the Gíslungar’.
Name of a family from Borgarfjörður, within which the personal name
Gísli was common (cf. ÍF 3, 255 n. 1). These people are the southern
opponents of Barði Guðmundarson. Holm18 has the genitive pluralform Gíslunga.
2,17 ættskarð ‘the notch in the family’: Hap. leg., but W’s reading
must be correct; Holm18’s eitt ‘one’ makes no sense in context. The
image is of cutting a notch in a piece of timber.
2,17 Barði Barði Guðmundarson, a man from the north of Iceland,
who seeks vengeance from the Gíslungar on account of the death of
his brother.
2,18 er áðr er greint ‘which is mentioned earlier’: This is a reference
to the first helmingr of the stanza (2,12 – 15).
2,20 Stundum … 21 talið ‘Sometimes … mentioned’: This definition
seems to be a variant of the one given in 2,10 – 11.

54

Commentary

2,20 útþanning ‘a stretching out’: Hap. leg., cf. þenja vb. ‘stretch’.
One would perhaps expect the form útþaning.
2,21 sem hier ‘as here’: In the incompletely transmitted st. 3 ‘notnone’ means ‘very many’. Therefore the stanza does not reallyillustrate the definition it is said to exemplify.
Stanza 3
Stanza 3 is the first of the 47 anonymous stanzas or part-stanzas citedin FoGT, a proportion of the total number of 62 stanzas quoted in thetreatise much higher than what is found in earlier Icelandic vernacular
grammatical treatises. There are good grounds to infer that theseanonymous stanzas were the work of the author of the prose text; for a
discussion, see Introduction, § 5.
2,22 Sprungu ‘ran’: Springa in the sense ‘run’ was uncommon in
Icelandic before the fourteenth century. The verb’s more common
earlier meaning was ‘to burst, break asunder’ (cf. LP: springa). Kock(NN §1442) understands sútir ‘sorrows’ as the subject of springa in its
earlier sense, but the prose gloss makes it clear that it is here equivalent to renna ‘run’.
2,22 eingir ‘no’: The ms.’s eingar (fem. nom. pl.) is emended here to
the masc. form of the adjective to give the sense ‘no [men]’. The fem.
eingar could agree with either sútir ‘sorrows’ in l. 2 (2,23) or sveitir‘groups’ in l. 4 (2,25), most likely in the configuration Eigi sprungu
eingar sútir ór … bæjum ‘No sorrows ran from the … farmsteads’.
However, this interpretation does not accord with the prose gloss.
2,23 . . . The scribe of W left a gap, enough for a word of two
syllables, between ór ‘from’ and sútir ‘sorrows’, and this has caused
problems of interpretation for the whole stanza. In this edition, themissing part of … sútir has been understood as a disyllabic verb,
forming an independent clause with sútir. However, the missing verb
cannot be the greru ‘grew’ suggested by Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 240),
because this verb has a short stem, and a long stem is required by themetre, which is dróttkvætt ‘court metre’. Finnur Jónsson’s proposed
reading fengusk ‘struck’ (Skj B, II 231) would be possible here.
2,24 hávar ‘distinguished’: Literally ‘high’. This is an emendation (soSkj B, II 231, Skald, II 120 and FoGT 2004, 54) of W’s ‘havvi’(possibly an inflected form of hár adj. ‘high’) which is difficult toaccommodate to the syntax of any of the proposed interpretations of
this helmingr. It is here construed with sveitir ‘groups’ in l. 4 (2,25),
itself an emendation from W’s sveiti. Sveinbjörn Egilsson (SnECommentary55

1848−87, III 153) understood ‘havvi’ as a form of the noun hǫfuð
‘head’, while FoGT 1884, 240 emends ‘havvi’ to heima ‘homes’,
giving the clause þvít heitr hyrr giekk á heima ‘because hot fireattacked homes’, but this is far from the manuscript form.
4,1 runnu ‘were running’: The emendation of W’s rynni (3rd pers. pl.
pret. subj. of the verb renna) to runnu (3rd pers. pl. pret. indic. of thesame verb) was introduced in FoGT 1818, 336 and has been followedby all subsequent editors. Indicative is the expected mood for a causal
subordinate clause in Old Norse (cf. Nygaard 1906 §298).
4,2 Sumstaðar … mikinn ‘In some places …‘great’: This definition is
illustrated by st. 4, but it also fits st. 3 better than the one given above(2,20 – 21).
Stanza 4
Stanza 4 is a helmingr about the power of the Holy Spirit over men. Its
likely reference is to the feast of Pentecost or Whitsunday (Old
Icelandic hvítasunnudagr), which commemorates the descent of theHoly Spirit from heaven to Christ’s Apostles (Acts II), after which
they were able to begin their mission of baptising people into theChristian faith. The reference in the helmingr to ‘pure water’ in l. 2(4,4) most likely alludes to the Christian rite of baptism. It wascustomary in the Middle Ages for many catechumens to be baptised atPentecost in imitation of the events described in Acts.
4,3 Fingr … 5 Guðs ‘The finger of the one God’ [fingr eins Guðs]: A
kenning-like phrase for the Holy Spirit, paralleled in Anon Heilags
anda drápa ‘Drápa of the Holy Spirit’ (Anon Heildr 13,1, 3, 4VII
hreinn fingr hægri handar salkonungs sólar ‘pure finger of the righthand of the king of the hall of the sun [(literally ‘of the hall-king of thesun’)/> = God]’, where it is a direct imitation of dextrae
Dei tu digitus ‘you, finger of the right hand of God’, st. 3,2 of theLatin Pentecost hymn Veni Creator Spiritus. The Latin hymn, usually
ascribed to Hrabanus Maurus (d. 856), was normally sung during theoffice of Pentecost at Terce, because the Holy Spirit was thought tohave descended upon the Apostles at the third hour (cf. Acts II.15).
4,6 að því sinni ‘at that time’: That is, at the time of the visitation of
the Holy Spirit to the Apostles.
4,8 Stundum … játan ‘At times … affirmation’: This definition
parallels the second definition of Liptota given in D (l. 2576).

56

Commentary

Stanza 5
An ingenious, but cryptic helmingr, doubtless composed for the
purpose of exemplifying liptota involving the use of a double
negative, here neitar ní ‘does not deny’ in l. 1 (4,9). The negative
particle ní is a form of nei ‘no’, attested only here and in Am 48,8 in
Old Icelandic poetry.
4,10 Nytju ‘of Nytja ‹river›’: The name of a mythical river; cf. Nyt in
Grímnismál 28,4, Anon Þul Á 6,1III and Gylfaginning (SnE 2005, 33),
here forming the determinant of a regular gold-kenning.
4,11 . . . There is nothing missing in W between the words geirþings
‘of the spear-assembly’ and Gunnr, a valkyrie name, but this line is too
short, so it is clear that a word has been left out, presumably by thescribe. It must begin with g for purposes of alliteration and have twosyllables. Earlier editors have conjectured góðir ‘good’ or glaðir
‘cheerful’, both qualifying meiðar ‘trees’.
4,13 játaðiz ‘consented’: The reflexive form of the verb játa is usuallyconstructed with the preposition undir ‘under’: játask undir e-u‘consent to [i.e. under] something’. Often in the context of marriage
proposals. Occasionally, as in FoGT, it occurs with a direct object inthe dative: Þat er minn vili ok bænastaðr, at þér játiz junkera Rémundi(Rémundar saga, ed. Broberg 1909–12, 209–10) ‘it is my wish anddesire that you consent to junkeri Rémundr’.
Chapter 3: Topographia and related figures
This chapter presents four related figures whose names all havegraphia ‘-graphy’ as their second element. In W the names of three ofthe figures (topographia, cosmographia and chronographia) are
written with initials in the form of litterae notabiliores, while the nameof the last figure (bethgraphia) does not stand out in any way. The four
figures are so closely related that all previous editors have treatedthem in a single chapter. Their lead has been followed here as well. D
only defines two of the figures: topographia (l. 2577) and chronographia (l. 2578). G defines three: topographia, chronographia andcosmographia (I 72–73). Bethgraphia has no known parallels. G’s
definitions of chronographia and topographia (quoted below incommentary to 6,1 – 2) cannot be said to be better parallels to FoGT
than those of D. Neither D nor G gives any examples of the use ofCommentary

57

these figures, but a number of examples are given in Dg and Gg. Noneof these examples resembles the examples given in FoGT.
4,15 Tophographia … 16 segja ‘Topographia … describe’: D’s definition of topographia (l. 2577) agrees with the definition in FoGT.
4,15 tíðendin … 16 segja ‘the events … describe’: The same phrasing
recurs below (6,5 – 6).
Stanza 6
Stanza 6 is the first of three anonymous helmingar in dróttkvætt metre
in honour of St Nicholas, bishop of Myra near Patara in Lycia, presentday Turkey, to be cited by the writer of FoGT. The two later citations(sts 24 and 25) are said by the writer to be from a Nikulásdrápa, while
the present helmingr is probably from the same poem, to judge by its
subject-matter. No other parts of this poem survive, though there isplentiful evidence of the popularity of the saint and his cult inmedieval Norway and Iceland from at least the twelfth century,
possibly earlier, and a good deal of both prose and poetry in hishonour (Blöndal 1949; Widding 1961; Widding et al. 1963, 326−27;
Cormack 1994, 136–38; Sverrir Tómasson 1982). Bari, in South Italy,
to where Nicholas’ relics were removed in 1087, Myra and Patara are
mentioned in the Leiðarvísir ‘Itinerary’ of Abbot Nikulás (AÍ, I 20),
generally identified with Nikulás Bergsson (d. 1159), and St Nicholas
is associated with these places there. Aside from the present fragments,
there are several fifteenth-century or later Icelandic poems about
Nicholas, including a Nikulásdiktur and the hrynhent Nikulásdrápa of
the priest Hallur (Jón Þorkelsson 1888, 80–82, 315–19; ÍM, II
413–33). Skj B, II 174 dates the poem in the later thirteenth century,and places it alongside Anon HeildrVII, though it is possible that it may
be slightly younger. Stanza 6 bears some resemblance to chapter 12 ofBergr Sokkason’s fourteenth-century Nikulás saga erkibiskups. The
relevant passages are quoted in FoGT 1884, 243–44 n. 3. SnE 1848−87, II 194−95 cites sts 7−10 from the priest Hallur’s Nikulásdrápa on
the same subject. The background story is that the sinful and depraved
people of the important and wealthy city of Patara were harrassed by abasilisk, sent by God on account of their sins, an episode that forms aprelude to the legend’s account of the birth of the saintly Nicholas.
Thus this stanza is likely to have come from an early part of the drápa.
4,16 þau … segja ‘the events … to describe’: The same phrasing isfound below (6,5 – 6).

58

Commentary

4,17 Firð ‘removed’: An emendation of W’s ‘Frið’, presuming ascribal metathesis, first suggested by Sveinbjörn Egilsson in LP(1860): sorg and accepted by all subsequent editors. Firð ‘removed’,
pret. part. of firra ‘deprive, keep away from’ (cf. LP: firra 4), goes
well with sorgum ‘from sorrows’ in l. 2 (4,18), and stands inapposition to borg Pátera ‘the city of Patara’. Frið (from friðr ‘peace’)
does not fit the context. The reading fríð ‘beautiful’ while agreeing
with borg ‘city’ in l. 2 (4,18), requires the construal fríð borg Pátera
stóð sorgum í bygð breiðri ‘the beautiful city of Patara enduredsorrows in the broad settlement [the world]’. The verb standa e-u‘endure something’ is attested, though rarely, in Old Norse (cf.
Fritzner: standa 15).
4,18 borg Pátera ‘the city of Patara’: Situated in Lycia, in the southwestern part of the Mediterreanean coast of Turkey. It was thebirthplace of St Nicholas, possibly born c. 300 . He later became
bishop of the neighbouring city of Myra. Patara was a major trading
port in antiquity and the early Christian period.
4,20 lítt ‘not at all’: Literally ‘little’. W reads ‘lut’, which could beconstrued as hlut ‘lot, part, number’, a reading accepted in SnE
1848−87, II 194−95. This, however, requires the sorgum (4,18) to beunderstood as saurgum from saurigr ‘dirty, filthy’. See discussion in
FoGT 1884, 243–44.
4,21 fóstsystir ‘foster-sister’: The text of W is damaged at this point.
The emendation of SnE 1818, 336 has been followed by all subsequent
editors.
4,21 bethgraphia No other occurrences of this word have been foundin Old Norse or Latin texts. The term itself differs from its ‘fostersisters’ in chapter 3 by having a Hebrew word (beth ‘house’) as thefirst element, rather than a Greek one. That beth means house in
Hebrew was well known in the Middle Ages, even among people withno knowledge of Hebrew. Another reflection of this knowledge in Old
Norse manuscripts can be found in the homily on the Epiphany in the
Norwegian Book of Homilies: Bethleem þýðir brauðs hús (ed. Indrebø
1931, 61, see also p. 41) ‘Bethlehem means house of bread’ (see also
the sermon on the Eucharist in AM 671 4°, c. 1320–40, ed. Þorvaldur
Bjarnarson 1878, 186–87). The fourteenth-century miscellany AM 732
b 4° contains an enumeration and explanation of the names of theletters of the Hebrew alphabet on f. 6v. It begins: Notandum est quod
aleph interpretatur doctrina, beth domus, gimel … (ed. I. McDougallCommentary59

1986–89, 199) ‘Note that aleph means “doctrine”, beth “house”, gimel…’. The bethgraphia above all must have been the description of thehouse of the Lord (domus Domini), Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem(Mal. VI ff.). An elaborate description in Old Norse of the temple inJerusalem can be found in Stjórn III (ed. Astås 2009, 1021–25).
Stanza 7
An amusing helmingr about men entering and leaving a ‘manyraftered’ house, making use of conventional house-kennings, whosebase-words refer to animals, often wild ones, as here (cf. Meissner
1921, 430). This stanza appears in the Y version of LaufE among
kennings for a house (LaufE 1979, 358), and in a similar environment
in Resen’s Edda Islandorum (RE 1665, Gg 1v).
4,23 íugtanni ‘the bear’: A compound noun often used as a nickname
for a bear, or for men with the personal names Bjǫrn and Bjarni (cf.
RKet Lv 1,6IV, Anon Þul Bjarna 1,11III). The word íugtanni ‘bear’ iscorrectly spelled in RE 1665, but in some mss of LaufE the word isgiven as ‘jngtanne’. On the etymology, see AEW: íugtanni.
4,24 menn ór munni ‘men … from the mouth’: Both nouns havemissing letters in W, the e and associated common mark of abbreviation of menn have been obliterated by a hole and the last two letters ofmunni are covered by a blot; nevertheless, the restoration of thesewords is uncontroversial.
6,1 Cosmographia … 2 setningu ‘Cosmographia … design’: Not
defined in D. G defines it along with chronographia and topographia:
Temporis esse solet descriptio chronographia, | topographia loci, sedmundi cosmographia (I 72–73) ‘The description of time is usuallychronographia, [the description] of a place [is usually] topographia,
but [the description of] the world [is usually] cosmographia’. FoGT ismuch more specific than the Latin parallel in that it states that thefigure speaks frá heimsins skipan, skapan, stöðu eða hætti eða
setningu ‘about the order of the world, its creation, state or nature or
design’.
6,1 Cosmographia The name implies a description of cosmos ‘theordered universe’, but FoGT follows G in restricting the extent ofcosmos to this world (heimsins).
6,1 skipan … 2 setningu ‘order … design’: Of the five terms skipan,
háttr and setning seem to be nearly synonymous, and they are used assynonyms elsewhere in Old Norse literature as well, e.g. Rómverjar

60Commentary[…] telja ok halda Januarium af skipan ok setningu Pompilii […]fyrstan (Stjórn I, ed. Astås 2009, 419) ‘the Romans […] reckon andcount January as the first [month] because of the ordering and designof [Numa] Pompilius’ and vissi hon eigi með hverjum hætti eða skipan
hon kennir sik ór komna þeim píslum (Duggals leizla, ed. Cahill 1983,
52 middle text) ‘she [the soul] did not know how or by what means or
fashion she feels herself released from those torments’.
6,1 skipan skapan ‘order … creation’: These two alliterative words
are occasionally paired, but usually in the more logical order where
creation is followed by ordering, e.g.: hafði hann nú framit ok algertþessi vii daga verk með fyrrsagðri skapan ok skipan ok skýringu(Stjórn I, ed. Astås 2009, 38) ‘he had now done and completed thosedeeds in the course of seven days in the aforementioned creation andordering and explanation’. Another example can be found in Stjórn I,
ed. Astås 2009, 10.
Stanza 8
Stanza 8 is a couplet illustrating the figure of cosmographia in theterms laid down in FoGT. Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 245) thought it might beolder than the treatise itself, as he did not consider it a very convincing
illustration of the figure, but it seems perfectly acceptable as an
example of God’s order and design for the world.
6,4 friðar ‘of salvation’: Friðr, which may also mean ‘peace’, is here
given its specifically Christian sense of ‘salvation’ (cf. LP: friðr 5).
6,5 Cronographia … 6 segja ‘Chronographia … to describe’: As was
the case with cosmographia (6,1), the definition of FoGT is narrower
than the one given in D (l. 2578).
6,5 tíðendin … 6 segja ‘the events … to describe’: Notice how thesame phrasing is used above (4,15 – 16).
6,6 sem hier ‘as here’: At this point W has only sem ‘(such) as’.
FoGT generally introduces anonymous examples with sem hier, but
occasionally fuller forms are used: sem hier er kveðit (26,24; 32,24;
34,25 – 26; 44,11) or sem hier er ritat (32,13) ‘as is said/written here’.
Since this is the only instance in FoGT where a sem is used without anaccompanying hier to introduce an example, it seems right to follow
SnE 1848, 201 and subsequent editions in adding hier.

Commentary

61

Stanza 9
Stanza 9 is appropriate to the figure of chronographia, for it specifies
the exact time of Christ’s death on the Cross, as mentioned in three ofthe four gospels (Matt. XXVII.45−46; Mark XV.33−34; LukeXXIII.44−45), where it is said that darkness fell upon the earth at thesixth hour and lasted until the ninth, at which time Christ died. The
office of the ninth canonical hour, nones, is named in l. 2 (6,8). Thisstanza appears among terms for Christ in the Y version of LaufE(LaufE 1979, 364) and in a similar environment in RE 1665, Hh 2r.
Stanza 10
The opening line of this dróttkvætt stanza is very similar to Snorri
Sturluson’s Háttatal 14 (SnSt Ht 14,1III Hákun ræðr með heiðan), andthe writer may well have had it in mind, as Snorri’s stanza appears
later in the treatise as FoGT st. 35. Sveinbjörn Egilsson (SnE 1848−87,
II 190 n. 1) first suggested that the main event mentioned in this stanza
might be a reference to the burning of the cathedral at Skálholt by alightning strike in 1309, mentioned in many of the Icelandic annals.
Cf. Lárentíus saga biskups (ÍF 17, 304), Skálholts-Annaler (ed. Storm
1888, 202). This took place in the reign of King Hákon háleggr ‘Longleg’ Magnússon of Norway (r. 1299−1319). As the stanza represents
the event as having taken place in the past, it has been presumed todate from after Hákon’s death in 1319, thus providing a terminus post
quem for the stanza and possibly for the treatise as a whole (cf. FoGT
1884, xliii). The stanza presents the cathedral fire as God’s punishmentof the sinful Icelanders. It is an open question as to whether the writerof FoGT considered this an example of contemporaneous events or ofa named ruler of the land, or both. The stanza’s syntax is difficult if
W’s af ‘from, out of’ l. 4 (6,16) and ok ‘and’ l. 7 (6,19) are retained;
they have been emended to að in both instances, following suggestionsof Sveinbjörn Egilsson in the first instance and Jón Þorkelsson in thesecond (cf. FoGT 1884, 246 nn. 4 and 6).
6,14 handsterkr ‘strong-handed’: This adjective could be construed
either with Hákon, as here, or with Guð ‘God’.
Chapter 4: Hypallage
The definition of FoGT follows that of D (l. 2579). The same definition is provided by Gg (p. 56) while G gives one example without anaccompanying definition: ‘Trade rati uentos’ dicas, hypallage fiet (I39) ‘If you say “give the ship to the winds”, hypallage will occur’. The

62

Commentary

example given in G is the standard example of the figure, and can befound e.g. in Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae (I 36.22) and in
Servius’s commentary to Aen, I 9: … hypallage, quae fit quotienscumque per contrarium verba intelleguntur. sic alibi ‘dare classibus
austros’ [Aen, III 61], cum ventis naves demus, non navibus ventos (ed.
Thilo and Hagen 1881−1902, I 15) ‘… hypallage, which occurs
whenever words are understood by means of the contrary. Thus [hesays] elsewhere ‘to give the winds to the fleet’, when we should givethe ships to the winds, not the winds to the ships’. Servius defines thefigure in a more general way than D and FoGT.
6,21 verðr það er ‘occurs when’: The phrasing is unusual in thegrammatical literature. The more common phrase X verðr (or verðr X)
þá er ‘X occurs when’ can be found e.g. in chapter 1 (2,1), in TGT(1884, 75 l. 10) and in FGT (ed. Hreinn Benediktsson 1972, 222).
6,21 þolandi ‘passive’: This present participle is a literal translation of
the Latin term patiens ‘passive’ (lit. ‘suffering’). FoGT is the only Old
Norse grammatical text which uses þolandi in this technical sense.
TGT uses píning ‘suffering’, e.g.: í því skilsk hon [sc. hluttekning] frá
nafni at hon merkir gerð eða píning ok hefir ymsar stundir sem orð(TGT 1884, 11) ‘the participle is distinguished from the noun in that it
signifies action or suffering and has various tenses as verbs’.
6,22 gierandi1 ‘active’: This present participle is a literal translationof the Latin term agens ‘active’ (lit. ‘doing’). FoGT is the only Old
Norse grammatical text which uses gerandi in this technical sense.
TGT uses gerð ‘active’, cf. commentary to þolandi above (6,21).
6,22 sem hier ‘as here’: Stanza 11 cannot be said to illustrate thedefinition given in 6,21 – 22. The point of the verse is that the adjectiveis transferred from the word to which it logically belongs to anotherword: The slain man’s inheritance > the man’s slain inheritance.
However, in st. 11 the word from which the adjective has beentransferred (i.e. ‘man’) has been left out.
Stanza 11
This dróttkvætt stanza is in the variant form called alhent ‘fully
rhymed’ by Snorri Sturluson in Háttatal (cf. SnSt Ht 44III, SnE 2007,
21 and 83), and consists of several short, moralising statements about
the parlous state of the world. There are two pairs of full rhymes ineach line. Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 250−52) thought that the stanza, and ll.
3–4 (6,25 – 26) and 7−8 (8,1 – 2) in particular, might be an allusion to
the situation in Denmark in the interregnum of 1332−40, when theCommentary

63

kingdom was divided into four parts. He suggested that the reference
to Jutlanders (Jótar) in l. 3 (6,25) might allude to the uprising inNorthern Jutland against the German count Gert (Gerhard III of
Holstein), which resulted in his death at the hands of Niels Ebbesen
and his brothers and ultimately in the ascent of Valdimar IV to thethrone in June 1340.
6,24 grafins … meiðar ‘The trees of the †seiðs grafins† [(?) >]’ [Meiðar †grafins seiðs†]: The noun meiðar appears to be thebase-word of a man-kenning, but the phrase seiðs grafins, of which themost obvious translation would be ‘of the engraved (or “buried”)
coalfish’, does not provide a satisfactory determinant. Several
interpretations of the two untranslated words, which probably form akenning for gold, have been proposed, but none of them is entirely
satisfactory. The emendation eiðs gramnis ‘of the isthmus of thesnake’ [] was adopted by FoGT 1884, 247–48, Skj B, II 232 andFoGT 2004, 34, but gramnis is unmetrical, as a short disyllabic word
is expected here. The emendation of ‘grafins’ to gramnis was first
proposed by Jón Ólafsson of Svefneyjar (1786, 61), and has been
followed by all subsequent editors except Kock (Skald, II 120 and NN§2354), who retains grafins. This unattested manuscript form may be avariant of the snake-heiti grafningr (cf. Þul Orma 2,3III). W’s seiðs ‘ofthe saithe/coalfish’ could also form the base-word of a snake-kenning,
but would be otiose in this sense if grafins also denotes a snake. Hence
editors have emended seiðs to eiðs ‘of the isthmus’ to provide a baseword that will produce a gold-kenning following the pattern ‘land of
the snake’.
8,3 Hier … kallaðr ‘Here … slain’: On the notion of a ‘slain inheritance’, cf. Jónsbók: Ef maðr verðr fyrir þeiri villu, at hann vegr mann
til arfs eða ræðr bana fram kominn, þá hefir hann fyrirvegit þeim arfi
(ed. Ólafur Halldórsson 1904, 88 cp. 10) ‘If a man errs so that he slays
a man in order to obtain the inheritance or has him slain, then he has
forfeited the inheritance by manslaughter’.
8,4 í … fígúra ‘the same … another place’: This is a reference to Aen,
III 61, whence the example is drawn. The same example is given inDg (82v): ‘Date classibus austros’ pro ‘classes austris’ [Aen, III 61]‘“give the winds to the ships” instead of “the ships to the wind”’. A
modified form of the same Virgilian example is used as an illustrationof hypallage in G (I 39). The Old Norse example in st. 12 is clearlybased on the Virgilian line.

64

Commentary

Stanza 12
Stanza 12 uses two conventional kennings to provide an indigenous
couplet imitating its Latin model. Góinn l. 2 (8,6) is the name of amythical serpent in Grímnismál 34,4 and Gylfaginning (SnE 2005, 19);
see also Anon Þul Orma 2,2III.
8,9 í öðrum stað segiz svá ‘in another place it is said thus’: Again,stað ‘place’ refers to a passus in a particular text, namely perflavit
fistula buccas ‘the flute blew through the jaws’ in Theodulus’s
Ecloga, l. 6 (ed. Mosetti Casaretto 1997). These words are quoted in D
(l. 2581) and can also be found in Gg (p. 56). The Old Norse example
is clearly modelled on the Latin example.
Stanza 13
Like st. 12, this couplet was probably invented by the writer of FoGT
to imitate the Latin example perflavit fistula buccas (see note to 8,9above). Nevertheless, the couplet succinctly conveys a common
medieval Scandinavian disdain for the musical performances of
minstrels, which are usually represented as grotesque, both in soundand in the physical movements required to produce the sound. Cf.
Máni Lv 2II and 3II, where very similar vocabulary is used.
8,11 höfuðskrípamanns ‘the lead minstrel’s’: The compound is hap.
leg. but cf. skrípalt ‘strange gestures’ (Máni Lv 2,4II), used of aminstrel who plays both a fiddle and a flute. In Máni’s stanza skríprhymes with píp-, as here. Old Icelandic skrípi means something
monstrous or grotesque.
8,12 blása ‘to blow’: ONP takes blása to be the only attestation of afeminine noun meaning ‘wind instrument, flute’. This is the mostnatural interpretation and many parallel examples with the structure ‘X
is called Y’ can be found in the Old Norse corpus. But this interpretation is at odds with st. 13, which shows that blása must be understoodas the infinitive of the verb blása ‘blow’. SnE 1848−87, II 199 and
FoGT 2004, 62 also take blása to be an infinitive.
8,14 nauðsynja ‘necessities’: Comparing with Latin parallels, such as
ornatus necessitatisue causa (Barbarismus, ed. Holtz 1981, 667) ‘forthe sake of ornament or necessity’, one would expect the singularnauðsynjar. TGT uses the plural in one instance: fyrir nauðsynja sakireða fegrðar (1884, 86) ‘for the sake of necessities or beauty’ and theCommentary65

singular in another: fyrir fegrðar sakir eða nauðsynjar (1884, 100) ‘forthe sake of ornament or beauty’—only in ms. A, W has nauðsynja.
Chapter 5: Prosopopoeia
FoGT defines prosopopoeia as the insertion [in a poem/text] of a new
person. The definition deviates from the one given in D (l. 2582), Dg(82v) and Gg (p. 118), where the figure is defined as the formation (D)or fashioning (Dg and Gg) of a new person. G’s definition stands on
its own: Si bene quis recitet, tunc prosopopoeïa fiet ‘if one recites well,then prosopopoeïa will occur’. FoGT divides the figure into threesubgroups: 1) when something living addresses something lifeless (st.
14), 2) when something lifeless addresses something living (st. 15) and
3) when something lifeless addresses another lifeless thing (sts 16 and17). Gg divides the figure into five subgroups and the first threecorrespond exactly to those of FoGT: Quando animata res loquitur ad
inanimatam, ut Ouidius in Tristibus loquitur ad librum suum dicens‘[…]’. Vel quando res inanimata loquitur ad animatam rem, ut inMetamorphosi tellus ad Iouem ‘[…]’. Vel quando res inanimata
loquitur ad rem inanimatam, ut libri Ouidii adinuicem ‘[…]’ (p. 118)
‘When something animate speaks to something inanimate, as Ovid
speaks to his book in Tristia, saying ‘[…]’. Or when something inanimate speaks to something animate, as the earth speaks to Jupiter in
Metamorphoses ‘[…]’. Or when something inanimate speaks tosomething inanimate, as the books of Ovid speak to one another‘[…]’’. Gg adds two further subgroups: one where a rational being
speaks to an irrational being (a man to a beast) and where an irrational
being speaks to another irrational being. Ólsen quotes a condensed andcorrupt version of Gg at this point (FoGT 1884, 124–25n.). Dg’s
explanation is somewhere between FoGT and Gg: quando res animata
et rationalis loquitur ad rem inanimatam, uel econuerso, uel quando
rationale loquitur ad irrationale, uel econuerso (82v) ‘when
something animate and rational speaks to something inanimate or theother way around, or when a rational [being] speaks to an irrational
one or the other way around’.
8,15 ísetning ‘insertion’: This word appears to be attested twice in the
Old Norse corpus. The other attestation is found in a chapter headingin Jónsbók: Um arfs ísetning ok skulda lykning (ed. Ólafur Halldórsson 1904, 88). In this legal text ísetning probably means ‘illegal
possession of an inheritance (cf. NGL, 5 s. v. íseta). The Jónsbók
attestation would then be semantically unrelated to the attestatin in

66

Commentary

FoGT and translate as ‘About the illegal possession of an inheritanceand the payment of debts (cf. Schulman 2010, 117 for a different
translation).
Stanza 14
Another moralising stanza, even stronger than sts 10 and 11, here
addressed to the land of Iceland (= the Icelanders). If the writer of
FoGT was a cleric, as seems likely, he would have identified with theviews of ‘those who seldom use swords’ in ll. 7−8 (8,23 – 24).
8,20 píslir ‘punishments’: W’s reading is obscured by a hole, but theemendation is confirmed by aðalhending and by sense and has been
adopted by all editors.
8,22 óþýð ‘rough’: Feminine adjective agreeing with fold ‘land’ l. 7
(8,23); W has the masculine form óþýðr, which must therefore be
emended.
8,23 þeim … 24 neyta ‘those … swords’: That is, members of theclergy. Neyta ‘use’ normally takes the genitive of what is used, but thedative sverðum ‘swords’ here may possibly (so FoGT 1884, 253 n. 5)
have been influenced by the writer’s knowledge of Latin constructions
with a similar sense, like uti gladiis ‘to use swords’, though utor takes
the ablative rather than the dative case.
8,25 talar skáldið nefndri fígúru ‘the poet speaks using the abovementioned figure’: The construction tala e-u is unusual and the dativeis perhaps best seen as a dative of manner (cf. Nygaard 1906 §110c).
8,26 nefnir … byggja ‘names the land … inhabit it’: Geoffrey of
Vinsauf’s Poetria nova also uses the castigation of a land instead of its
inhabitants as an example of prosopopoeia, beginning: Quid, Gallia,
garris? (ed. Faral 1924, 213, l. 517) ‘Why, France‚ do you prattle?’(trans. Kopp 1971, 52). Another example of the same figure can befound in the diary of the Bergen humanist Absalon Pedersen Beyer (d.
1575) where he writes: Væ dig Bergen du fule Sodoma oc Gomorrhæ
søster (ed. Iversen 1963, 140) ‘Woe to you, Bergen, you foul sister ofSodom and Gomorrah’.
8,26 það ‘it’: The emendation of þau to það was first introduced in
SnE 1818, 338 and has been adopted in all subsequent editions.
Stanza 15
Stanza 15 illustrates the kind of prosopopoeia that attributes life andspeech to an entity normally regarded as inanimate, in this case water,

Commentary

67

which symbolises the act of alms-giving. The stanza’s metre is avariety of runhent ‘end-rhymed’ with four-syllable lines rhyming inpairs. The opening line is reminiscent of similar stanzas (in tøglag
‘journey metre’), enumerating the qualities of a poet and a troll-woman
respectively, in Bragi TrollIII and Anon (SnE) 9III, where the first lines
begin Skǫld kalla mik and Trǫll kalla mik.
10,1 kalla mig ‘I call myself’: Understood here, in conformity withthe sense of the prose commentary, to mean ‘I call myself’, eventhough this sense would more usually be rendered by köllumz. Kalla
mig could also mean ‘they call me [water]’ or ‘call me [water]’; cf.
FoGT 1884, 254 n. 1.
10,9 vatn Krists ‘the water of Christ’: The water of Christ usuallysignifies either the baptismal water or the water that ran with the bloodfrom the wound in Christ’s side at the Crucifixion (John XIX. 34). A
specimen of the rich medieval religious water symbolism can be foundin Messuskýringar (ed. Kolsrud 1952, 37–39).
10,10 svá … 11 syndabruna ‘just as … fire of sins’: FoGT here
paraphrases Sir. III.33: Ignem ardentem extinguit aqua et elemosyna
resistit peccatis (ed. Weber et al. 1994, 1033) ‘Water quencheth aflaming fire, and alms resisteth sins’ (trans. Douay-Rheims Bible).
Often quoted in the form Sicut aqua extinguit ignem, ita eleemosyna
extinguit peccatum (see Kirby 1976−80, I 120) ‘Just as water quenches
fire, so alms-giving quenches sin’. The same passage is paraphrased in
Kristinn réttr Árna Biskups: Ǫlmusugerð er it mesta miskunnarverk.
Hverr sem þetta gerir réttliga ok með góðum vilja, þá biðr hon okþiggr af Guði miskunn sínum gjafara, ok sløkkvir svá hans syndir sem
vatn sløkkvir eld (NGL, V 31) ‘The gift of alms is the greatest work ofmercy. Whoever does this rightly and with good will, then the work ofmercy asks and receives of God mercy for its giver, and it quenches
his sins, just as water quenches fire’. Kirby (1976−80, I 120–21) lists
three additional Old Norse quotations of this Biblical passage.
10,11 syndabruna ‘the fire of sins’: The compound syndabruni ‘fireof sins’ is a hap. leg.
10,14 Barruk ‘Baruch’: FoGT erroneously ascribes the parable of thebattle between the sea and the forest to the Book of Baruch. Ólsen saw
some similarity to Baruch VI.62 (FoGT 1884, 125n.), and Meissner(1932, 103–04) suggested that it referred to the Syrian apocalypse of
Baruch 36–39 but the parable comes, as Paasche has shown (1928),
from 2 Esdras (IV.13–17): Proficiscens profectus sum ad silvam

68Commentary

lignorum campi, et cogitaverunt cogitationem et dixerunt: Venite eteamus et faciamus ad mare bellum, ut recedat coram nos, et faciamus
nobis alias silvas. Et similiter fluctus maris et ipsi cogitaverunt cogitationem et dixerunt: Venite ascendentes debellemus silvam campi, ut etibi consummemus nobismet ipsis aliam regionem. Et factus est cogitatus silvae in vano, venit enim ignis et consumpsit eam. Similiter etcogitatus fluctuum maris, stetit enim harena et prohibuit eam (ed.
Weber et al. 1994, 1936) ‘I went into a forest of trees of the plain, andthey made a plan and said, “Come, let us go and make war against thesea, so that it may recede before us, and so that we may make forourselves more forests.” In like manner the waves of the sea also madea plan and said, “Come, let us go up and subdue the forest of the plain
so that there also we may gain more territory for ourselves.” But theplan of the forest was in vain, for the fire came and consumed it;
likewise also the plan of the waves of the sea was in vain, for the sandstood firm and blocked it (trans. NRSV, 1776–77)’.
10,15 yfirgang ‘transgression’: This word also carries the connotations: ‘arrogance, presumption’.
Stanzas 16 and 17
The two dróttkvætt sts 16 and 17 form a pair and must be understood
together. They provide a versified account of the passage from 2
Esdras, referred to in the prose text as from Baruch. The two stanzas
turn the Latin text into a poetic dialogue in which the forest and thesea speak directly to one another.
10,18 varð skrjúpr í því ‘in that it was weak’: That is, the forest did
not foresee that its plan to take over the sea’s territory could lead to its
own destruction by fire.
10,19 . . . W has a hole here and a word is missing. SnE 1848−87, II
202 n. 2 conjectured reitu ‘marked out space, territory’, and this has
been accepted by later editors. The word must begin with r to alliterate
and be of two syllables.
10,23 eg upp ‘I up’: W has another hole, and the eg and the u of upp
are missing.
10,31 sterkr ‘strong’: W has sterk, but the masculine adjective nominative singular is required here to qualify bani ‘killer’.
10,31 bol ‘trunk’: W’s ‘bǫl’ must be a spelling for bol ‘trunk of a tree’.
12,1 Skógr … 3 júða ‘The forest … of the Jews’: 2 Esdras alreadycontains a moral interpretation of the fable, namely that one should beCommentary

69

content with what one has. FoGT ’s allegorical interpretation, whichmight be based on a foreign source, supplements the moral interpretation of 2 Esdras.
12,1 chaldeos ‘Chaldeans’: This ethnonym is declined according to
the Latin inflection (acc. pl.).
12,1 Þjóðir … 2 eldinn ‘The peoples … by the fire’: Subjects andobjects appear to have been transposed in this passage. One would
have expected sandr merkir þjóðir þær sem eyddu ríki chaldeorum, en
eldrinn guðspjalligan kenning ‘the sand signifies the peoples who
destroyed the kingdom of the Chaldeans, while the fire signifies theevangelical teaching’. Alternatively, a passive construction could havebeen used.
12,1 chaldeorum ‘of the Chaldeans’: Declined in accordance with theLatin declension (gen. pl.).
12,2 kienning ‘teaching’: Not in W. This word was first added in SnE
1848, 202, and it has been adopted in all subsequent editions. The collocation guðspjallig kenning is also found below (at 40,14) and in
Pétrs saga postola I (ed. Unger 1874, 9).
Chapter 6: Apostropha
The initial part of the definition corresponds to the one given in D (ll.
2583–84).
12,4 ef ‘in which’: Ef is not uncommonly used to introduce a dependent relative clause (see ONP: 3ef B). The same usage is found below(42,20).
12,5 setr … 6 til ‘rightly uses … in the second’: This second part of thedefinition differs from both Dg and Gg (p. 101). Dg explains: Apostrophe est sermonis a persona ad personam directio. Et fit ut si factus
fuerit sermo de aliquo in tertia persona, et postea dirigatur adeundem in secunda, ut: ‘Nec te tua plurima Panthu labentem pietas,
nec Apollinis infula [˂ insula] texit’ [Aen, II 429–30] (82v) ‘Apostropha is the direction of speech from a person to a person, and it
occurs if speech has been made about someone in the third person, andafterwards is directed to the same in the second, such as “Neither yourgreat piety, Panthus, nor the headband of Apollo protected you, when
you fell”’. The point here is probably that Aeneas, who has justmentioned two fallen Trojans, suddenly apostrophises the deadPanthus. If this is right, ad eundem ‘to the same’ makes little sense
here.

70

Commentary

12,5 nafn ‘‘name’’: Nafn, like Latin nomen, has the double meaning of‘name, appellation’ and ‘noun’. The context apparently requires
fornafn ‘pronoun’ since neither names nor nouns have person as an
inflectional category (cf. the comment below on í fyrstu skilningu
12,5). The Old Norse definition differs from the Latin definitions andno examples are provided.
12,5 í fyrstu skilningu ‘in the first person’: Instances of skilning in thesense of ‘(grammatical) person’ have not been found outside FoGT,
but the Icelandic Book of Homilies uses skilning in the sense ‘division,
person (of the Trinity)’: Ek trúi enn ok á anda inn helga sem á fǫður
ok á son, því at þær þrjár skilningar eru aljafnar ok eitt (ed. de Leeuw
van Weenen 1993, 68v) ‘Furthermore, I believe in the Holy Ghost as
in the Father and the Son, because those three divisions are equal andone’. The Old Norse Latin primer, fragmentarily preserved in AM 921
III 4°, uses grein fem. for ‘grammatical person’ (ed. Ólsen 1884, 156).
On the Latin primer, see most recently Gade (2007b).
12,6 En þó finnz öðruvís giert ‘Yet it can also be found in a different
way’: It is not explained how the following three examples differ fromthe initial definition.
12,6 Snorri Snorri Sturluson (1179−1241) was a wealthy Icelandic
chieftain and an important political figure in the turbulent dealings
between the Icelanders and the Norwegian crown in the first half ofthe thirteenth century. He visited Norway twice and was twice lawspeaker of Iceland. The Edda (c. 1225), a treatise on poetics andmythology, is securely attributed to him, and his authorship ofHeimskringla, a series of biographies of the kings of Norway, is probable. Snorri was also a poet. Aside from his Háttatal ‘List of Metres’,a clavis metrica comprising 102 stanzas, which forms, together with aprose commentary, the fourth part of his Edda and was composed for
his Norwegian patrons, Jarl Skúli Bárðarson and King Hákon
Hákonarson, only fragments remain of his poetic oeuvre. These
include seven lausavísur, one scrap of a poem addressed to a bishop
and another about Skúli.
Stanza 18
Stanza 18 is one of Snorri Sturluson’s seven extant lausavísur and isrecorded in no other source, although it was copied by Árni Magnússon, presumably from W, in AM 761 b 4°x on f. 351r. It is a charming,light-hearted address to an unnamed seafarer, probably a merchant or
ship’s captain, about to put to sea from Norway to Iceland, to carry theCommentary

71

speaker’s, Snorri’s, greetings to a certain Eyjólfr. Snorri was in
Norway 1218–20 and again 1237–39, so this stanza is likely to datefrom one or other of those two periods.
12,8 Eyjólfi ‘to Eyjólfr’: Identified in the prose text as Eyjólfr Brúnason (see note to 12,16 on the significance of this identification). It is
not known where in Iceland he came from. Only one helmingr by thispoet has survived (Ebrún Lv 1III), and it was recorded in the X versionof LaufE, possibly from lost leaves of W (cf. LaufE 1979, 176−77,
269−70, 345n.). It is a rather amusing half-stanza about a Norwegianmerchant who buys a pair of shoes, designated by the kenningsnekkjur ilja ‘warships of the footsoles’, which is included in LaufE toillustrate poetic synonyms for the leg. It is not dissimilar in tone to
Snorri’s stanza.
12,8 elfar … 9 úlfseðjandi ‘feeder of the wolf of the river [(literally‘wolf-feeder of the river’)>]’: A playful, inverted
kenning, imagining the master of the ship ‘feeding’, i. e. loading cargoonto, his ship. Kock (NN §2825) considers the imagery refers to the
behaviour of wolves preying on corpses in the water after a naval
battle, but this context does not seem appropriate here.
12,10 heim ‘home’: That is, to Iceland, revealing Snorri’s orientation
towards his native land, as observed by Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 256 n. 1).
12,15 sannauðigra manna ‘of truly rich men’: If the prose commentary is to be believed, Eyjólfr’s riches must have comprised his skill asa poet and his generosity with knowledge rather than material wealth.
12,16 Þessi … gott ‘This … poet’: Eyjólfr Brúnason is the only poet
whose patronymic is mentioned in FoGT and the only poet whose
poetic abilities are characterised. Perhaps this is an indication that thewriter did not presume that the audience of FoGT would be familiar
with Eyjólfr and his poetry.
12,17 Óláfr It has usually been presumed, though it cannot be
confirmed, that this Óláfr, named here without a patronymic, is Óláfr
hvítaskáld ‘White poet’ Þórðarson (c. 1210−59), Snorri Sturluson’s
nephew and the author of TGT. Stanzas 19 and 20, two dróttkvætt
couplets, are all that remain of a poem, possibly a drápa, in honour of
one Thomas, generally considered to be St Thomas Becket (c.
1120−70), Archbishop of Canterbury, who was canonised in 1173. No
medieval title of the poem from which these extracts come is known toexist, but the name ‘Thomas drapa’ appears in Árni Magnússon’s copyof the two couplets in AM 761 a 4°x, f. 84r, where he speculates on

72

Commentary

whether the composer was Óláfr svartaskáld ‘Black poet’ Leggsson orsome other Óláfr. The text of this poem is extant only in W.
Stanza 19
Stanza 19 is a couplet addressed to a saint, presumed to be St Thomasfrom the stanza following.
Stanza 20
It is presumed, from the prose text’s í öðrum stað ‘in another place’(12,21), that st. 20 comes from the same poem as st. 19, and that both
couplets are about Thomas. Thomas Becket is also the subject of thefirst four stanzas of the fourteenth-century fragment Heilagra mannadrápa (Anon Heil 1−4VII) and there is a late Thómas diktur erkibyskups in the sixteenth-century manuscript AM 713 4° (ÍM, II
459−62). This charismatic medieval saint, who came to symbolise theindependence of the Church in the face of secular powers, was the
subject of several Latin and Old Norse prose lives. The two mostcomplete Old Norse texts are Thómas saga I (second half of the thirteenth century) and Thómas saga II (first half of the fourteenth
century). Thómas saga II was written by Abbot Arngrímr Brandsson,
who was also the author of a saga about Guðmundr Arason. Thisversion of the saga, together with two fourteenth-century fragments,
appears to draw on an Icelandic translation of the now lost Latin lifeof Thomas by Robert of Cricklade (Duggan 2004), probably by thepriest Bergr Gunnsteinsson, active in the late twelfth-early thirteenth
century (Widding et al. 1963, 334; Stefán Karlsson 1973; Jakobsen
1993). Thomas Becket was very popular in Iceland, especially amongchurchmen seeking independence from secular chieftains, and his
shrine at Canterbury very early became the goal of pilgrimage by
pious Icelanders such as Hrafn Sveinbjarnarson (Cormack 1994,
156−57).
12,24 Er … 26 framburðar ‘This figure … by someone’: D (l. 2584)
mentions letters, but not prologues. Cf. also Dg: Huius etiam exempla
multa reperies in auctoribus et in litteris missiuis (82v) ‘You will findmany examples of this figure in the auctores and in sent letters’.
12,24 jafnan ‘always’: All editors have removed the superfluous er
between f ígúra and jafnan.
12,25 þeim prologis bóka er einhverjum eru ætlaðar ‘in those
prologues of books which are destined [for correction or publication]

Commentary73

by someone’: The most logical antecedent of ætlaðar ‘intended’ (fem.
nom. pl.) is prologis (masc. dat./abl. pl.), which is a Latin word and inflected accordingly, but the two do not agree in gender. The antecedentof ætlaðar must therefore be bóka (fem. gen. pl.), but this makes theuse of the demonstrative þeim before prologis slightly awkward.
Therefore, Ólsen suggested an emendation of í þeim prologis bóka to í
prologis þeirra bóka ‘in prologues of those books’ or í prologis bóka
‘in prologues of books’ (FoGT 1884, 127n.).
Chapter 7: Hendiadys
The initial part of the definition does not correspond well with the one
given in D which speaks of transforming an adjective into a noun or
the other way around (ll. 2585–86). The examples below (sts 21 and22) make it clear that FoGT by sundrlauss hlutr ‘separate entity’means a distinct entity while óskiftiligr hlutr ‘indivisible entity’ meansa unified whole.
12,27 er2 ‘where’: The emendation of W’s ‘enn’ to er was introducedin SnE 1818, 339 and has been adopted in all subsequent editions.
Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 128) was the first to flag it as an emendation.
12,27 eru merktir fyrir ‘signify’: The collocation vera merkt fyrir canhave two opposite meanings. Both occur on p. 18 of Pétrs saga
postula I (ed. Unger 1874). The first meaning is ‘being signified by’:
Eru þessi líf merkt fyrir .ii. systr, veraldligt fyrir Martham, en upplitningarlíf fyrir Mariam (ll. 9–10) ‘These ways of life are signified by
the two sisters, the worldly by Martha and the contemplative life by
Mary’. The other meaning of vera merkt fyrir is ‘signify’: Þat er
hugsanda, at engi maðr misjafni með þessum inum ágætum Guðspostolum, þó at annarr sé merktr fyrir upplitningarlíf, þat sem á sér
berr líking himnesks lífs, en annarr beri líking þessa heims lífs, sá sem
merktr er fyrir verkligt líf. Því at í því lífi sem Petrus merkir váru þábáðir, en í því sem Johannes merkir váru ókomnir báðir … (ll. 19–25)‘Note that no one should make these two outstanding apostles of God[Peter and John] unequal, even though the one signifies thecontemplative life, which carries in itself a likeness to the heavenly
life, and the other, he who signifies the worldly life, carries thelikeness of the life of this world. For they were both in the life whichPeter represents, but neither of them had yet come to the life whichJohn represents…’ (Cf. Fritzner: merkja 5). FoGT requires the second
meaning of vera merkt fyrir in this context, but in 14,5, immediately
following st. 21, the first sense is required.

74

Commentary

14,1 er … 2 hluta ‘it is governed … joined entities’: It is difficult tomake sense of this part of the definition. In this edition hon (i.e. thefigure hendiadys) is taken as the subject of a passive clause (patiens)while samfesting and leysing are interpreted as agents in theaccusative. The sentence can also be construed er hon underdreginsamfesting laussa hluta …, taking samfesting as a nominative andundirdregin as an attributive adjective. SnE 1848−87, II 207 reads asin this edition, but translates: Endiadis […] est figura, qua duæ res
disjunctæ pro una indivisa significantur, aut una res indivisa pro
duabus divisis; cui figuræ subjecta est compactio rerum solutarum etsolutio rerum compactarum ‘Endiadis is the figure by which two
separate entities are signified instead of one undivided, or one
undivided instead of two separate; subsumed under this figure is thejoining together of loose entities and the loosening of joined entities’.
SnE 1848–87 thus sees samfesting and leysing as subjects in thenominative. Since the main verb of the sentence (er) is placed in thefirst position, the plural is not required even though there are two
subjects (cf. Nygaard 1906 §70a). The interpretation of SnE 1848−87
seems to require an oblique form of the pronoun while W has thenominative ‘ho’ hon.
Stanza 21
The couplet illustrates hendiadys in the way this figure is explained by
the prose text, but the scribe of W makes two transcription errors in l.
1 (14,3) of words which are correct in the prose text immediately
below, viz. skálm ‘point’, which he renders as skamm in the verse line,
and og ‘and’, which he gives as ef ‘if’. These mistakes suggest that the
scribe is very unlikely to have been either the writer of FoGT or the
redactor of W.
14,5 merkt fyrir ‘signified by’: See commentary to 12,27 above.
Stanza 22
Stanza 22 is a somewhat contrived helmingr illustrating the occurrenceof ‘joined’ and ‘loose’ entities, probably influenced by the standard
Latin examples armatum virum ‘armed man’ and arma virumque‘arms and the man’, the first two words of Virgil’s Aeneid. It imagines
a scenario in which the speaker views (presumably with jealousy inmind) the efforts of another man, karl inn klædda ‘the clothed man’(14,7), to entice the speaker’s wife to have sexual relations with him

Commentary

75

by offering her presents of fine clothes. So karl inn klædda must be
taken here to refer to the man and the clothes he was carrying, notwearing, as one might normally expect of such a phrase.
14,7 Þýddiz … 8 sína ‘My wife … his desire’: The prose gloss appears
to understand the phrase þörf sína to refer to the man’s desire for the
woman, whom he hopes to attract with a present of clothing, althoughsína, being reflexive, should properly refer back to the grammaticalsubject of the sentence, kona mín ‘my wife’ and denote her desire, notthe man’s.
14,9 karl ‘man’: Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 258) emends this second instanceof the noun karl in the helmingr to kauða ‘wretch’ to obtainskothending and to avoid repetition, but there is no manuscript support
for such a change.
14,13 heitir … 15 hluta ‘that hendiadys … joined entities’: Compare
the designations sundrlaus endiadis ‘separate hendiadys’ and samföst
endiadis ‘conjoined hendiadys’ with Dg: Endiadis est adiectiui in
substantiuum uel substantiui in adiectiuum permutatio siue resolutio,
ut in Virgilio: ‘Arma uirumque cano’, et in littera: ‘Armatumque
uirum’ etc. Et fit duobus modis, siue coniunctim et disiunctim.
Coniunctim fit quando adiectiuum et substantiuum ponitur in littera ut‘armatum uirum’. Disiunctim fit quando solum adiectiuum ponitur uel
solum substantiuum (82v) ‘Endiadis is the permutation or transformation of an adjective into a noun or of a noun into an adjective, as
in Virgil “Of arms and a man I sing” [Aen, I 1] and in the text [of D]:“an armed man” etc. And it occurs in two ways, viz. conjoined or
separate. The conjoined [hendiadys] occurs when an adjective and anoun is given in the text, such as “an armed man”. The separate[hendiadys] occurs when only an adjective is given [in the text] or only
a noun’.
Chapter 8: Ebasis
The initial definition agrees with D (ll. 2589–90). G does not contain afigure by the name of ebasis (or something similar, a common variantof the name is ecbasis) and the figure is not commonly found in
rhetorical tracts. Quintilian mentions that some call arguments derived
from causes or efficients ecbasis (Institutiones oratoriae, V 10.86).
This agrees well with the literal meaning of the Greek term (i.e.
‘outcome’). However, D and FoGT clearly had a different understanding of the figure and they are closer to the figure Quintilian calls

76

Commentary

parekbasis (Institutiones oratoriae, IV 3.14) ‘digression’. Dg explains
ecbasis as follows: Ecbasis est quedam euagatio materie, vel est
digressio quedam a principali materia, ut apud Georgica Virgilii in
tempestatis descriptione apparet. Sed nota quod hec figura nihil ualet
nisi reuertatur ad propositum. Quod si fiat pulchra est (82v) ‘Ecbasis
is a departure from the matter or it is a digression from the principal
matter, as can be seen in Virgil’s Georgics in the description of thestorm. But note that this figure is of no use unless it is brought back to
the main subject. If that happens, it is beautiful’. Dg’s source at thispoint is probably Servius’s commentary to Georgics, I 322: Est autem
hoc loco ecbasis poetica ad describendam tempestatem (ed. Thilo andHagen 1881−1902, III 200) ‘A poetic ecbasis is here used to describe
the storm’.
14,17 sem … 20 konungs ‘as … Erminrekr’: The writer evidently sees
the section on Hamðir and Sǫrli in Ragnarsdrápa as a departure fromthe actual subject matter of the poem, i.e. King Ragnarr. According to
the commonly accepted modern interpretation, Ragnarsdrápa is anekphrastic shield poem that primarily consists of descriptions of
mythological and legendary scenes. The shield was a gift of the kingto the poet, and the poem about the shield is the poet’s counter-gift(Clunies Ross 1993). The king is first and foremost extolled indirectly
through the praise of his magnificent gift to the poet. The writer sees
the mythological and legendary sections (i.e. the bulk of the preserved
parts of the poem) as excursuses, and FoGT therefore challenges ourinterpretation of the poem. It is possible that the writer knew more
about Ragnarsdrápa than we believe we do, but it is equally possiblethat he knew less. In fact, most of his comments on the contents of
Ragnarsdrápa and the story about Hamðir and Sǫrli can be extracted
from Snorra Edda. FoGT provides only one piece of information
about Ragnarsdrápa that cannot be derived directly from Snorra Edda
as it is preserved in mss R, Tx and C (the section on Hamðir and Sǫrli
is not found in W), namely that Hamðir and Sǫrli are the relatives ofÁslaug (on this see commentary to 16,21 – 22 below).
14,17 Bragi … 18 skáld ‘Bragi the poet’: Bragi inn gamli ‘the Old’
Boddason. This skald was a Norwegian who probably lived in thesecond half of the ninth century. Landnámabók (ÍF 1 vol. 1, 82) mentions him as being associated by marriage with the family of Arinbjǫrn
hersir from Firðir (Fjordane) in Western Norway, and Egils saga (ÍF 2,
182 and n. 2) places him in the same context. Bragi seems to havebeen active as a poet in Norway not long before the settlement ofCommentary77

Iceland (c. 850−70). In Skáldatal’s list of poets (SnE 1848−87, III
251−69), Bragi is the first named skald whose works have survived,
although they are probably incomplete. In Skáldatal he is associatedwith three patrons, Bjǫrn at Haugi, probably a Norwegian ruler,
though some sources consider him Swedish (Jón Jóhannesson 1940),
Eysteinn beli and Ragnarr loðbrók ‘Shaggy breeches’, there said to bea Danish king who himself composed poetry. Snorri Sturluson (SnE
1998, I 72−73) associates Bragi’s poem Ragnarsdrápa with thelegendary Viking Ragnarr loðbrók. Several legendary narratives attach
to the figure of Bragi, and it is also possible that he was considered agod, as Icelandic traditions mention a supernatural being of this same
name, often associated with the art of poetry (cf. Grímnismál 44,7,
Lokasenna, Sigrdrífumál 16,2 and Snorra Edda, especially the
introduction to Skáldskaparmál).
14,19 þær … 21 þeim ‘those stanzas … one of those’: A passage in
Vm Erp Sorla og Hamder of LaufE (LaufE 1979, 250–51) seems tohave been inspired by knowledge of these lines, while the Y2 versionof LaufE also introduces st. 23 (Bragi Rdr 3) as well as the introductory line og er þessi visa ejn af þeim er þar eru um ortar whichalmost certainly draws on FoGT (see LaufE 1979, 160–61, 251n.).
14,19 Sörla og Hamdis ‘Sǫrli and Hamðir’: FoGT, like Snorra Edda,
names Sǫrli first, while Hamðismál gives Hamðir pride of place.
14,19 Hamdis ‘Hamðir’: The correction of ‘hanðis’ to Hamdis wasintroduced in SnE 1848, 203 and has been accepted by all subsequent
editors.
14,20 Erminreks ‘Erminrekr’: On the form of the name, seecommentary to 14,23 below.
Stanza 23
Stanza 23 is preserved in two sources, the Skáldskaparmál section of
SnE (in mss R, Tx and C) and in FoGT. In Skáldskaparmál (cf. SnE
1998, I 50−51) the stanza is the first of a sequence of four stanzas anda stef ‘refrain’ specifically ascribed to Ragnarsdrápa, and thesestanzas are cited at the end of a long passage recounting various narratives about the legendary Niflungar and their descendants, amongwhom were the brothers Hamðir and Sǫrli. The Ragnarsdrápa stanzas
are introduced thus: Eptir þessum sǫgum hafa flest skáld ort ok tekit
ymsa þáttu. Bragi hinn gamli orti um fall Sǫrla ok Hamðis í drápuþeiri er hann orti um Ragnar loðbrók ‘Most poets have composed[poetry] based on these stories, and have used various parts [of them].

78

Commentary

Bragi the old composed [poetry] about the death of Sǫrli and Hamðir
in that drápa that he composed about Ragnarr loðbrók’. In the four
stanzas cited in Skáldskaparmál Bragi depicts the vengeance carriedout by the brothers Hamðir and Sǫrli, sons of Guðrún Gjúkadóttir andKing Jónakr, upon the Gothic king Erminrekr, because he had theirsister, his wife Svanhildr, put to death for supposed adultery with his
own son Randvér. The brothers attack Erminrekr in his hall and maimhim, but fail to kill him, whereupon the Goths turn upon Hamðir andSǫrli, and kill them by pelting them with stones. This legend is also thesubject of the eddic poem Hamðismál (see Dronke 1969, 159−242 for
a comparison of this and other sources), which tells that Svanhildr wastorn apart by wild horses and Randvér was hanged (Hamðismál 2–3
and 17).
14,22 Knátti … 25 draum ‘awakened with an evil dream’ [knátti aðvakna við illan draum]: An Icelandic idiom used of someone whoawakes from sleep to a nightmarish reality over which he has nocontrol (cf. Wood 1960). Some scholars (e.g. Vogt 1930, 3–5) maintainthat Erminrekr was asleep and woke from a bad dream. In Skáldskaparmál Guðrún advises the brothers to attack Erminrekr at night
while he is asleep.
14,23 Erminrekr A legendary Gothic king, whose image in Germaniclegend may have been based upon some attenuated knowledge of thehistorical Ostrogothic ruler Ermanaric (d. c. 375 ). For the historical
record, see Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum libri qui
supersunt XXXI, ch. 3 (Rolfe 1948–52, III 394–96) and Jordanes,
Getica (Mommsen 1882, 91–92). ‘Erminrekr’, the variant recorded in
W and C, more frequently given in Old Icelandic as ‘Jǫrmunrekr’(‘-rekkr’), is the older of the two forms (so FoGT 1884, 259 n. 1), andcloser to the Germanic Latinised original ‘(H)ermanaricus’; cf. AEW:Jǫrmunr, Jǫrmunrekr.
14,24 dreyrfáar ‘blood-stained’: W’s bisyllabic -fáar is required to
produce a six-syllable dróttkvætt line here.
14,26 Rósta varð í ranni ‘There was tumult in the hall’: A formulaic
introduction to the topic of a hall-fight; cf. Hamðismál 23,1 Styrr varðí ranni ‘There was uproar in the hall’ and the Old English Beowulf
1302a Hrēam wearð in Heorote (Beowulf 2008, 45) ‘There was uproarin Heorot’.
14,27 Randvies höfuðniðja ‘of the chief kinsmen of Randvier [= thedynasty of the Goths]’: Some scholars (so Finnur Jónsson in Skj B, I 1)

Commentary

79

consider this kenning to refer to Erminrekr himself, the father ofRandvér, believing that the plural hǫfuðniðjar is intended to have asingular referent. But there is no reason to abandon the plural sense,
which then denotes the Gothic royal house as a whole.
16,1 hrafnbláir ‘raven-black’: The brothers Hamðir and Sǫrli werelinked in Old Norse legend with the Niflungar, traditionally supposed
to have been dark in colour; cf. Old Norse nifl-, ‘mist’, ‘darkness’(only in compounds like Niflhel, part of the underworld), Old HighGerman nebul, Old English nifol, Latin nebula ‘fog, mist, cloud’.
16,2 Erps of barmar ‘the brothers of Erpr [= Hamðir and Sǫrli]’: This
kenning for Hamðir and Sǫrli depends upon a knowledge of the role
played by a third brother, Erpr, in the lead-up to their attack on Erminrekr. Erpr ‘the Dark Brown One’, the son of Jónakr by a different
mother, possibly a slave (inn sundrmœðri, Hamðismál 13,1), offers to
help his brothers kill Erminrekr, as an arm helps a leg, as he says inHamðismál, but his cryptically phrased offer is scornfully refused,Hamðir and Sǫrli killing him on the road. According to both Hamðismál and Skáldskaparmál, this fratricidal act means that they cannot
succeed in killing Erminrekr outright. Bragi’s use in this kenning of
the poetic noun barmi, meaning a child fed at the same breast as
another, is deeply ironic. The pleonastic particle of, attached tobarmar, is untranslatable (cf. Kuhn 1929).
16,3 Stundum … er2 ‘At … with’: This variant of ebasis has noparallel in D and appears to be an original contribution by the writer tothe doctrine of his treatise.
16,4 í ‘in’: The preposition was first added in SnE 1848, 203. All
subsequent editors have accepted this emendation.
Stanza 24
As the prose text makes clear, st. 24 is a refrain helmingr (stef) fromthe anonymous poem here identified as Nikulásdrápa, from which thewriter of FoGT has already quoted, without naming it, as st. 6. Such adrápa is likely to have had more than one stef.
16,8 alls grams ‘of the ruler of all [= God]’: Finnur Jónsson (Skj B, II174), followed by FoGT 2004, 66 and 109, takes this kenning with thefirst two lines, Ǫll þing engla boða eining alls grams í þrenningu,
which he renders as Alle engleskarer forkynder alkongens enhed i treenigheden ‘All the hosts of angels proclaim the king of all’s unity in80Commentary

Trinity’. However, it seems less disturbing of word order to take thekenning with the final two lines.
16,8 lofi ‘with praise’: The present condition of W has obscured thesecond letter of this word, but all earlier editors have read lofi without
difficulty.
16,8 framda ‘worshipped’: Preterite participle of fremja ‘further,promote, practise, worship’, inflected as a feminine accusative adjective to agree with einning ‘unity’.
16,9 Stundum … 10 frásögnum ‘At … narratives’: The writer here
continues his line of thought from 16,3 – 4 above, but now adds that
one can praise or blame the subject of a poem by introducing otherpraiseworthy or blameworthy subjects into it for the sake of comparison. The comparison remains implicit in his example (st. 25), butother (now lost) parts of Nikulásdrápa may well have made thecomparison explicit.
16,11 Nicholao ‘to Nicholas’: The name of the saint is given in thedative according to the Latin declension.
16,11 af inum sæla Johanne baptista ‘from the blessed John the
Baptist’: Two cases appear to be mixed in the prepositional phrase:
inum sæla is in the dative, while Johanne baptista is in the ablativeand inflected as in Latin.
16,12 hans ‘his’: The explanation in 16,17 – 18 below shows that theantecedent of the pronoun hans ‘his’ is Nicholas.
Stanza 25
Stanza 25 is another helmingr from Nikulásdrápa. It requires an understanding of the narrative recounted in the gospel of Luke (I.41), in
which John the Baptist, still in his mother Elizabeth’s womb, leaps inrecognition of the infant Jesus in the womb of his mother Mary, who isvisiting Elizabeth. According to Luke I.36, the two women werecousins. Exactly how the poet used this incident as a dæmi in his poem
about St Nicholas is uncertain, but the evidence of the priest Hallur’slater poem (sts 14 and 16 are cited for comparison in SnE 1848−87, II
210−11 n. 1) suggests that the circumstances surrounding the birth ofboth saints was the point of comparison. If so, this helmingr must havecome not very long after the stanza numbered 6 in FoGT.
16,13 í … 14 bjarta ‘in the hall of the bright chamber of the heart[>]’ [í höll ins bjarta sals hjarta]: Following the suggestion of Sveinbjörn Egilsson and Ólsen (SnE 1848−87, III 157; FoGT

Commentary

81

1884, 260 n. 3), this kenning has been interpreted as having twoelements, although it is possible to understand it as having only one,with the sole referent being.
16,15 meyjar mannvitsfrægrar ‘of the maiden famous of understanding’: This is a reference to John the Baptist’s mother Elizabeth,
who conceived him late in life following a visit from the angel Gabriel(Luke I.5–25). It is also possible to understand the phrase to refer tothe Virgin Mary rather than Elizabeth, in which case the kenning í höll
ins bjarta sals hjarta ‘in the hall of the bright chamber of the heart[>]’ (ll. 1−2) refers to the Virgin’s womb and to Christ
within it.
16,17 þar lof ‘there … the praise’: W is damaged at this point. All
editors have accepted the restoration of SnE 1818, 340.
16,17 Johannis ‘of John’: The name of the saint is given in the
genitive according to the Latin declension.
16,18 Nicholai ‘Nicholas’: The name of the saint is given in the
genitive according to the Latin declension.
16,18 Slíkt … 20 níð ‘In … disgrace’: Compare this sentence to
Snorri’s description of kennings for despicable men in Skáldskaparmál: Kent er ok við jǫtna heiti, ok er þat flest háð eða lastmæli (SnE
1998, I 40) ‘Names of giants are also used, and this is mostly as satireor criticism’ (trans. Faulkes 1987, 94).
16,18 verða í lastmælum ‘occur in defamations’: W is damaged at
this point. SnE 1848–87, II 210; FoGT 1884, 130 and FoGT 2004, 39
restore verða í while the earlier editions suggest vera í ‘be in’ (SnE1818, 314; SnE 1848, 204).
16,21 Eru … 18,2 flýjandi ‘These parts … at all costs’: The final
sentence of chapter 8 has an unusually long insertion that recapitulates
the substance of the chapter. When the main clause is picked up again
in 16,26 it has been broken apart and two emendations are necessary(see the commentaries to leyfiligir (18,1) and ónýtar (18,1).
16,21 ebasis ‘of ebasis’: The context requires that this word be interpreted as a genitive. Since it is written as ‘ebasis’ in W, the word must
either be uninflected or a genitive where the genitival ending (-s) has
been shortened (ebasiss > ebasis). Alternatively, one can see ebasis as
the Latin genitival form (nom. sg. and gen. sg. of this Greek loanword
into Latin are identical).
16,21 sá … 22 hon ‘the one in which Bragi … greater than before’:
These words indicate that the writer of FoGT considered the stanza he82Commentary

had cited about Hamðir and Sǫrli’s revenge on Erminrekr (st. 23) toconstitute indirect praise of Ragnarr loðbrók because of Ragnarr’s
supposed connection with the Niflungar, among whom Hamðir andSǫrli were sometimes counted (cf. Finch 1993). According to the
tradition represented in Vǫlsunga saga and apparently known to Snorri
Sturluson in Skáldskaparmál (SnE 1998, I 50), this connection was
through his wife Áslaug. The phrase frændr Áslaugar ‘the relatives ofÁslaug’ (16,21 – 22) then refers to the two brothers and their act ofvengeance. According to Vǫlsunga saga, Áslaug was the daughter of
Sigurðr Fáfnisbani and Brynhildr, and was fostered by Brynhildr’smaternal uncle Heimir after her parents’ deaths.
16,22 hinn ‘the other one’: W writes ‘hin’ which has been interpreted
as hinn (masc. nom. sg.) so that it agrees with hlutr masc. or háttrmasc. in 16,21 above. The scribe usually writes the masculine form of
the determiner hinn as ‘hin̅’. SnE 1848, 204 was the first edition to
make this emendation. It has been adopted in all subsequent editions.
18,1 leyfiligir ‘allowed’: At this point W has leyfiligra, genitive pluralof the adjective leyfiligr. This word follows two other genitives(skrauss eða lastmælis ‘of ornament or blame’), but it does not fit into
the sentence syntactically. SnE 1848, 204 emended leyfiligra to leyfiligir (masc. nom. pl.) so that it agrees with hlutir ‘parts’ and hættir
‘forms’ in 16,21 above. All subsequent editors have adopted thisreading.
18,1 ónýtar ‘useless’: W has ǫnytrar, fem. gen. sg. of the adjectiveónýtr. This does not work syntactically and SnE 1818, 341 therefore
emended to ónýtar, fem. nom. pl., so it agrees with efnisafgaungur‘departures from the subject matter’. All subsequent editors haveadopted this reading.
18,2 flýjandi ‘to be avoided’: Literally ‘fleeing’. This Latinate passive
use of the present participle is described by Nygaard (1906 §§238–39).
Chapter 9: Emphasis
This chapter presents two varieties of the figure emphasis: 1) when aquality of a man is mentioned instead of the man himself and 2) whenthe effect of an object is mentioned instead of the object itself. The
second variant, mentioning the crime instead of the criminal (as in st.
26) or the effect of the weapon instead of the weapon itself (as in st.
27), seems to be quite close to the definition of metonomia given in
TGT (1884, 106) where among other things it is defined as when gerrCommentary

83

hlutr setisk fyrir efni sínu ‘the resulting entity is mentioned instead ofits material’ (e.g. flour instead of grain).
18,3 Emphasis … 5 vitringinum ‘Emphasis … man’: Although thisdefinition clearly is related to the one given in D (ll. 2591–92) and Dg(82v) (G does not mention this figure), it is difficult to make sense of.
It appears that the order of the phrases undirstaðligr hlutr ‘substantive
entity’ and hræriligr hlutr ‘moveable entity’ needs to be reversed for
the Old Icelandic sentence to cohere logically. To mention wisdom
instead of the wise man or the crime instead of the criminal is tomention some accidental quality (nökkuð tilfelli) of a man rather thanthe man himself. At the abstract level the accidental quality mustcorrespond to the ‘moveable entity’ (hræriligr hlutr) while the manhimself must correspond to the ‘substantive entity’ (undirstaðligr
hlutr). However, FoGT states that emphasis mentions a ‘substantive
entity’ (e.g. the wise man) instead of a ‘moveable entity’ (e.g. theman’s wisdom), i.e. the opposite of what one would expect. On thisaccount, it would be reasonable to emend 18,3 from Emphasis setr
undirstaðligan hlut fyrir hræriligum hlut to Emphasis setr *hræriligan
hlut fyrir *undirstaðligum hlut ‘Emphasis uses a moveable entity
instead of a substantive entity’. However, no emendation has been
made because FoGT ’s explanation seems to mirror (at least partly) thedefinition in D and the following explanation given in Dg: Emphasis
est expressiua locutio. Et fit cum uolentes exprimere aliquod accidens
utimur nomine substantiuo pro adiectiuo significante illud accidens admaiorem expressionem, ut si ponatur ‘scelus’ pro ‘scelerato’, ut‘Dauus est ipsum scelus’. Id est ‘ipse Dauus est sceleratus et non alius
ita sicut ipse’ (82v) ‘Emphasis is a stressed utterance, and it occurs
when we, wanting to express some attribute, for greater stress use anoun instead of the adjective that signifies that attribute, as when
“impiety” [or “the crime”] is mentioned instead of “impious” [or the“criminal”], like “Davus is impiety itself”, i.e. “this Davus is impious,and there [is] no other just like him”’. Davus was a stock name for thescheming slave in New Comedy (such as Terence’s Andria ‘The
woman from Andros’) and Horace often uses the name for a similar
character (e.g. in Sermones, II 7 ll. 2, 46, 100 and in Ars poetica l.
237). From these and other texts, the name Davus entered medieval
tradition as the name of a proverbial scoundrel. One good example ofthis can be found in Matthew of Vendôme’s Ars versificatoria whichcontains a 96-line diatribe against Davus beginning: Scurra vagus,
parasitus edax, abjectio plebis | est Davus (ed. Faral 1924, 125–26) ‘A

84

Commentary

wandering buffoon, a voracious parasite, an outcast of the common
people is Davus’. It seems likely that the writer of FoGT was working
with a commentary similar to Dg but that he understood ut si ponatur‘scelus’ pro ‘scelerato’ ‘if “impiety” [or “crime”] is mentioned insteadof “impious” [or “criminal”]’ as ut si ponatur scelus pro scelerato ‘ifthe crime is mentioned instead of the criminal’.
18,3 undirstaðligan hlut ‘substantive entity’: This collocation is presumably roughly equivalent to ‘essential quality’. Undirstaðligr is acalque on Latin substantiuus. The adjective undirstaðligr is also usedin TGT: Viðrorð fegrir ok endimarkar orðit í þá líking sem viðrleggjanlig nǫfn gera við undirstæðileg (undirstǫðlig W, undirstaðligB) nǫfn, svá sem hér: Sterkr maðr bersk hraustliga (1884, 11) ‘an
adverb graces and delimits verbs in a similar manner as adjectives donouns, as here: “A strong man fights valiantly”’.
18,3 hræriligum hlut ‘moveable entity’: This collocation is presumably roughly equivalent to ‘accidental quality’. Hræriligum‘moveable’ is mirrored by mobile ‘mobile’ in D (l. 2592) and hlut
‘entity’ by proprietatem ‘quality’ (l. 2591, and implicitly by mobile inl. 2592).
18,4 tilfelli ‘accidental quality’: Tilfelli neut. is a calque on Latin accidens, used in Dg (quoted above in the comment to 18,3 – 5).
Stanza 26
Several emendations are required to make grammatical and syntactic
sense of st. 26. The modes of punishment mentioned here seem tocapture fourteenth-century penal codes very accurately; this is one ofseveral places in the treatise that reveal an interest in the law. Theft
was punished by hanging in a public place, here a market place, whilemurderers were punished by being broken on a wheel (Gade 1985).
18,7 Píndr ‘punished’: An unusual sense of the verb pína ‘torture,
torment’ (somebody), doubtless required to fulfil the conditions
established in the preceding prose.
18,8 hímleiðir ‘universally loathed’: The meaning of this otherwise
unattested compound adjective is uncertain. W reads hímleiða which
SnE 1848–87, II 212, LP (1860) and Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 261) adopt
unemended as an indeclinable compound adjective with the sense‘tired of waiting’ [to be strung up on the gallows]. It is questionable
whether such an adjective could be seen as appropriate to thedescription of criminals waiting to be hanged, unless it is usedironically. The same sense is assumed by Finnur Jónsson (Skj B, IICommentary

85233), though he emends the adjective to the masc. pl. form hímleiðir.
These editors, implicitly or explicitly, have connected the first elementof the adjective, hím-, with the Old Icelandic verb híma ‘loiter, hangaround’ and the noun hímaldi ‘laggard, dreamer, good-for-nothing’.
Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 261 n. 2) tentatively suggested the first element
could perhaps be written hvím-, and this spelling was adopted by Kock
(Skald, II 121), though without explanation. The second element of theadjective seems to be formed from leiðr ‘loathed, disliked, hateful’.
An alternative sense of hímleiðir was proposed by Finnur Jónsson in
LP. He interprets the compound (LP: hímleiðr) as = hveimleiðr,understood as composed of the elements hveim ‘by each’ and leiðr
‘loathed’, to give the sense ‘loathed by each, universally loathed’, andthis interpretation has been adopted here. It is supported by theoccurrence of hvimleiðr in the sense ‘hated, loathed’ in some latemedieval texts, including Grettis saga and Gríms saga loðinkinna (seeONP hvimleiðr), as well as in at least one early ríma (Finnur Jónsson
1926–28, 193).
18,9 víða ‘in many places’: Here construed as an adverb ‘in many
places, widely’. So also SnE 1848–87, II 212−13, III 157 and FoGT
1884, 261. Kock (Skald, II 121 and NN §2355) emends to the adjectivevíðum ‘wide, broad’ to agree with vingameiði ‘windswept tree’ in thesame line, while Finnur Jónsson (Skj B, II 233) and FoGT 2004, 40
emend to the neuter form of the adjective, víðu, to agree with torgi‘market place’ (18,10). Neither emendation is necessary to make senseof the helmingr.
18,9 vingameiði ‘by the windswept tree’: W has vinga meiðar,regarded by all editors (except SnE 1848−87, 212–13) as a compoundnoun for the gallows, following the reference in Hávamál 138,2 where
the god Óðinn claims that he hung for nine nights vindgameiði á. The
first element of the compound is a contraction of vindga- (fromvindugr ‘windy’); cf. LP: vingameiðr.
18,10 hjá torgi miðju ‘near the middle of the market-place’: Or
possibly ‘in the middle of the market-place’, though hjá is not to be
expected, if so (cf. FoGT 1884, 261−62 n. 4). Some editors (e.g. Skj B,
II 233, FoGT 2004, 110−12) take this phrase with the first clause, viz.
Stuldr er píndr hjá miðju torgi víðu/víðum vingameiði ‘Theft ispunished in the middle of the [wide] market-place by the wide
windswept tree’.
18,14 rómsæll ‘praised’ (lit. ‘applause-fortunate’): Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s emendation (SnE 1848−87, II 212) for W’s rómsæl has been

86

Commentary

adopted by all subsequent editors. This compound adjective is hap.
leg.
18,15 þar sem morðinginn er hegndr og þjófrinn ‘whereas themurderer is chastised and the thief’: The logic of this sentence would
be improved if the word píndr ‘tormented’ was appended to the end,so that it reads: Hier er stuldrinn kallaðr píndr og morðin hegnd, þar
sem morðinginn er hegndr og þjófrinn píndr ‘Here the theft is said to
be tormented and the murders chastised, whereas the murderer ischastised and the thief tormented’.
18,17 Sumir … 20,3 stórkvæðum ‘Some … poems’: This part of thedefinition has no parallel in D or Dg.
18,17 Sumir menn ‘some men’: A reference to sumir meistarar isfound below at 38,1. TGT refers to unnamed authorities in a similarway (1884, 45, 69 n. 129).
18,17 emphasen ‘Emphasis’: This Greek accusative form of emphasis
was normally used in Latin.
18,18 Þorleifr Þorleifr skúma ‘Dusky’ Þorkelsson, a tenth-century
Icelander, mentioned in accounts in both Jómsvíkinga saga andFagrskinna of the battle at Hjǫrungavágr, c. 986, in which a group of
Icelanders fought on the side of the Norwegians against the
Jómsvíkingar. Þorleifr is reported to have been killed in this battle. In
Jómsvíkinga saga (ed. Petersens 1879, 73) he is said to have been theson of Þorkell inn auðgi ‘the Wealthy’ from Mýrar in Dýrafjörður,north-west Iceland, while in Fagrskinna (ÍF 29, 131) Skúmr is given
as his personal name.
Stanza 27
Stanza 27 in fornyrðislag metre is the only surviving piece of poetry in
Old Norse attributed to Þorleifr skúma. It is said to be by him bothhere and in Jómsvíkinga saga, but is attributed to Vígfúss VígaGlúmsson in Fagrskinna. A version of this stanza clearly lies behind ashort poem recorded by Saxo Grammaticus (VII 2, 10, ed. Friis-Jensen
2005, I 450) and put into the mouth of Haldanus, who uses a club
against his Swedish opponents Sivaldus and his seven sons, in order tocounteract their supposed sorcery, which he thought might affectweapons made of iron. In the Old Norse historical sources the speakerof the stanza (Þorleifr or Vígfúss) swings a club and responds to an
observer (either Eiríkr jarl Hákonarson or Hákon jarl Sigurðarson)
who asks what this action means. Previous editors have suspected that

Commentary

87

either the third and fourth or the fifth and sixth lines of this ten-line
stanza have been inserted into it after the original composition, both on
grounds of its length (eight lines would be normal) and its loose
syntax, and because the fifth and sixth lines are absent from theFagrskinna manuscripts. Magnús Ólafsson included this stanza in thelonger, Y version of his LaufE (LaufE 1979, 380), together with asomewhat garbled version of FoGT ’s following prose commentary.
Resen’s Edda Islandorum also has this stanza and a slightly morecorrect prose text (RE 1665, Ji 3v; Faulkes 1977, 30).
18,21 Búa ‘of Búi’: Búi digri ‘the Stout’ Vésetason, one of the leadersof the Jómsvíkingar at Hjǫrungavágr.
18,22 Sigvalda ‘of Sigvaldi’: Sigvaldi jarl Strút-Haraldsson, anotherof the leaders of the Jómsvíkingar.
18,24 Hákonar ‘of Hákon’: Hákon jarl Sigurðarson (ruled Norway
970−95), leader of the Norwegians at Hjǫrungavágr.
18,27 eikikylfa ‘oaken club’: The club described by Saxo is also ofoak; Haldanus is said to have torn an oak tree up from its roots andfashioned a cudgel from it in solidam clauę speciem (VII 2, 10, ed.
Friis-Jensen 2005, I 450).
18,28 Dönum ‘to the Danes’: The Danes were allies of the
Jómsvíkingar at Hjǫrungavágr.
18,29 kiend eða merkt ‘designated or signified’: The participles kiend‘designated [by a kenning]’ and merkt ‘signified’ are synonymous
here, and they show that the writer understood the circumlocutions inst. 27 as kennings. Skáldskaparmál does not use the verb merkja inconnection with kennings, but one often finds kenna, e.g. Kona er okkend við allar Ásynjur (SnE 1998, I 40) ‘Woman is also referred to interms of all Asyniur’ (trans. Faulkes 1987, 94).
18,30 ymsar líkingar ‘various comparisons’: TGT uses the word
líking as well, but generally it means ‘similarity’ rather than ‘comparison’. One example is þá er metaphora aptrbeiðilig, ef hvern hlutmá fǿra til annars, þat er líking er á milli, sem at kalla sjóinn jǫrðskipa eðr fiska eðr sækonunga (1884, 28) ‘Metaphora is reciprocal if
the objects between which there is similarity [líking] are mutuallytransferrable, as when the sea is called the land of ships or fishes or
sea-kings’ (trans. Collings 1967, 104).
18,30 og kallar Óláfr það finngalknað ‘and Óláfr calls it finngalknað’: FoGT refers here to a passage in TGT (1884, 80) in whichÓláfr Þórðarson uses this term as an equivalent to Old Icelandic nykrat

88Commentarywhen discussing a form of the figure cacenphaton, in which theattributes of a living creature are ascribed to something inanimate. The
poetic example given (Anon (TGT) 11,1III) is of the use of the verb
gekk ‘went’ with the subject skíð flóðs ‘ski of the sea []’. This is adifferent kind of so-called fault from that complained of by the writerof FoGT, who is concerned about a variety of images being used in
one stanza for a single referent, in this case a series of diverse kenninglike phrases for a club. Whereas in Háttatal (SnE 2007, 7) Snorri
Sturluson also uses the adjectival substantive nykrat ‘monstrous,
monstrosity’ (from the preterite participle of an unrecorded verb basedon the noun nykr ‘water monster’ or ‘hippopotamus’; see ONP: nykr)
to describe frequent changes in the kenning types used to refer to asingle referent in a stanza, he nowhere uses the term finngalknað. The
TGT usage indicates that the two terms were synonymous for Óláfr.
Both have the underlying sense of ‘monstrosity’, denoting a fabulous
creature imagined to have disparate parts, part animal and part human.
In the case of the nykr, the creature was an indigenous water-horse (cf.
Old English nicor ‘water monster’) or, in exotic texts, a hippopotamus,
an animal whose name in Greek means literally ‘horse of the river’. A
finngalkn (the commonest nominal form) or finngalkan (on these
forms, see ONP: finngalkan, finngalkn) seems to have been a similarly
hybrid monstrosity, in one instance, a fragment of an Old Icelandic
Physiologus (see ONP: finngalkan), denoting a centaur. The adjectival
substantive finngalknat is found only in TGT and FoGT, and thespellings of the second part differ; in TGT ms. A has ‘finngalgknat’,
while W has ‘finngalkat’; in FoGT W spells the word ‘finngaalknat’.
The etymology of both parts of the compound noun finngalkn (orfinngálkn) is uncertain. The first element finn- probably derives fromthe name of the Saami people, Finnar, and denotes magic or sorcery(an art frequently associated with them in Old Norse sources), while
the second probably has the basic sense ‘monster, monstrosity’ (cf.
hreingalkn in Hymiskviða 24,1, where the compound is generally
thought to refer to wolves; see Kommentar, I 329−30), though its
derivation is uncertain (cf. AEW: finngálkn, -gálpn). The simplex
galkn occurs several times as the base-word of kennings for battle-axe(the connection presumably being with the axe-kenning type withtroll-woman as base word); so Hókr Eirfl 7,4I, Hfr ErfÓl 8,4I. In thesecases the stem vowel a is short and this seems likely to be correct.
20,1 berr … 3 stórkvæðum ‘it … poems’: Nothing comparable to thisstatement is found in TGT or elsewhere, but TGT rejects the use of theCommentary

89

figure implicitly by treating it as a subgroup of the figure cacenphaton‘ill-sounding’.
20,2 í ‘in’: This preposition is not found in W. It was added by Ólsen
(FoGT 1884, 131) and has been adopted by later editors.
Chapter 10: Efflexegesis
The initial part of the definition agrees well with D (l. 2594) and Dg.
The latter explains: Ephexegesis est succincta expositio precedentium(82v) ‘Ephexegesis is a succinct exposition of the preceding [words/
things]’. G defines efflexegesis as the name of a figure which is similar
to periphrasis: Periphrasim praemissorum dic expositiuam, | Eflexegesis est eadem similisque figura (I 88–89) ‘Call a periphrasis of theaforementioned expositive, efflexegesis is the same and a similar
figure’. The prose section that concludes this chapter, in which thefigure is subdivided into three variants, contains material that has beentransposed from another part of D (see commentary to 20,14 below).
20,4 skýring eða glöggvari greining ‘explanation or clearer exposition’: The two nouns, skýring and greining appear to be used assynonyms in this context, but greining has the additional meaning of‘distinction’. The initial definition of this figure is followed by st. 28,
in which the second helmingr can indeed be said to be an ‘explanation
or clearer exposition’ of the first helmingr.
20,5 Eilífr It is not certain which Eilífr is intended here. Three poets
named Eilífr are known: Eilífr Goðrúnarson (c. 1000), author ofÞórsdrápa, Eilífr Snorrason, an early thirteenth-century Icelander
from whom three humorous, secular lausavísur have been preserved(on his biography and poetry, see Nordal 2001, 160–61), and Eilífr
kúlnasveinn ‘Fellow with lumps’ (?) (Lind 1920−21, col. 225). In
Skáldskaparmál four part-stanzas by the last-named Eilífr (Ekúl
KristdrIII) are quoted in succession in illustration of kennings for
Christ (SnE 1998, I 77−78). Most scholars have considered the present
stanza, 28, in FoGT is probably by him, because of the similarity
between its style and subject-matter and those of the four
Skáldskaparmál verses. We do not know anything about this Eilífr, but
the style and subject of the stanza suggests a date for it in the late
twelfth century.
Stanza 28
This stanza is extant only in FoGT, but Árni Magnússon copied it in
AM 761 a 4°x on f. 85v. There is no known external context for it. The

90

Commentary

first helmingr refers to Christ’s entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday,
a subject also treated in Anon Leið 30VII, where similar vocabulary isused. The second helmingr draws a parallel between Christ’s entry
into Jerusalem, when crowds of people came to meet him, strewing hispath with palm fronds, and the risen Christ’s invitation to good
Christians, who have performed good deeds, to come to him in heaven,arguably to be interpreted as the New Jerusalem.
20,6 Báru mæta móti ‘carried glorious […] to meet’: The scribe of W
has obviously understood this line as Báru mæt á móti because he has
divided the text in this way. However, reading mæt ‘glorious’ requires
it to be taken with sveit ‘company’ as part of an unusually fragmented
intercalary clause spanning ll. 1 (20,6), 3 (20,8) and 4 (20,9) of thestanza’s first helmingr (so Skj B, I 566) with the sense mæt sveit hrauð
sorg ‘the glorious company banished sorrow’. This reading is possible,
though unlikely. The present edition proposes that the original ‹a› of l.
1 (20,6), which the scribe of W understood as the preposition á, wasintended as the accusative plural ending of the previous adjectivemæta ‘glorious’, which could then be construed with pálma ‘palms’.
Kock (Skald, I 274, NN §1215) emended mæt to mætt ‘gloriously’ (anunattested adverb) and construed it with the verb báru ‘[they] carried’.
20,9 til borgar ‘to the city’: The city of Jerusalem, Old Norse Jórsalaborg.
20,10 Svá … 13 sterkri ‘Thus … faith’: The syntax of these lines isdifficult, and many editors have emended some or all of the following
words, as they appear in W: laðar l. 5 (20,10), siklingr l. 5 (20,10),síns l. 6 (20,11), bjartir l. 6 (20,11) and þeir l. 7 (20,12). Skj B, I 566,
Skald, I 274 and FoGT 2004, 41 do not emend, and construe thus: sválaðar siklingr skýja til hjarta síns þeirs bjartir fœra fyrða gram fǫgrverk með sterkri trú ‘thus the king of the clouds invites to his heart
those who, pure, bring to the ruler of men beautiful deeds with strong
faith’. The present edition follows much the same interpretation,
emending only the adjective bjartir to bjarta (masc. acc. pl.), andplacing it in the main rather than the subordinate clause as direct
object of laðar ‘invites’. W’s þeir l. 7 (20,12) has also been emended
to þá to agree with its antecedent bjarta; however, there are someexamples of lack of agreement between antecedent and demonstrative(cf. Nygaard 1906 §260), so it might be possible to retain the unemended form þeir.

Commentary

91

20,14 Er … 24 norrænuskáldskap ‘This … poetry’: FoGT normallypresents the various figures in the same order as D, but there are
exceptions (the order of the figures treated in chapters 24 and 25 has
been reversed, G forms the basis of chapters 26 and 27, and material
from G has also been added in chapter 3). At this point, FoGT deviatesfrom the order of figures in its main source, D. First, the writer goes
into more detail on the figure of efflexegesis (20,14 – 16), and then hebriefly presents the figures icon, parabola and paradigma (20,17 – 21),
before he finally returns to efflexegesis once more (20,22 – 24). This
structure implies that the writer saw the figures icon, parabola andparadigma as sub-types of efflexegesis. In D on the other hand, thesethree figures are considered sub-types of the figure homozeuxis, andthey are described along with homozeuxis in ll. 2560–72. Homozeuxis
is the last figure defined and exemplified in D’s section on tropes (ll.
2497–2572), and it comes immediately before the colores section,
which forms the basis of FoGT. This means that the writer has moved
a passage in D from its original location to the present chapter. D’s
section on tropes is primarily based on the Barbarismus section of
Donatus’s Ars maior and since Barbarismus apparently formed thebasis of TGT, the same three figures (icon, parabola and paradigma)
are also defined and exemplified in TGT (1884, 116–19). In thissection, therefore, we see a rare instance of overlap between TGT and
FoGT. Perhaps this is why the figures have not been provided withverse examples in FoGT. The unusual placing of these three subtypes
of homozeuxis in FoGT might have been caused by a mistakesomewhere in the tradition. However, the figures do not seem out ofplace in FoGT, and one can therefore choose to regard them as
testimonies to the flexibility and complexity of the classificatory
system of rhetorical figures. G makes no distinction between
paradigma and parabola (I 121–22) and does not mention icon.
20,14 Er … 15 frásögn ‘This figure … account’: The text appears to
be corrupt. The writer sets out to describe the difference between glósa
and efflexegesis, but we only learn that efflexegesis ‘glosses or
explains a true account’, not how glósa differs from this. Since glósa isused of an account that must be considered true below (38,23), glósa
cannot be a figure that ‘glosses or explains an untrue account’. D does
not state that efflexegesis is commonly called glósa, but this remark
might be based on l. 2565 of D where it is said of the figure icon: haec
solet ex usu quandoque parabola dici ‘In practice, this [figure] is92Commentary

usually called parabola’. This line is not translated in FoGT ’s definition of icon (see commentary to 20,17 below).
20,14 glósa Glósa has here been rendered in the standardised Old
Norse (rather than Latin) orthography since FoGT states that it iscommonly used (af alþýðu ‘by ordinary people’). The Latin form isglosa. It often occurs in Old Norse texts as a loan word (declined likethe feminine ōn-stems). The verb glósa ‘gloss’ is also relatively
common and used twice in FoGT (in the following sentence and below
at 38,11).
20,15 inn … 16 kristni ‘The illustrious Solomon signifies Our Lord,
and the temple holy Christianity’: These allegorical interpretations ofSolomon and the Temple are homiletic commonplaces.
20,17 En icona setr fram tvá hluti af líku efni ‘And icon puts
forward two entities of the same material’: Where FoGT has af líku
efni ‘of the same material’, D has in simili genere (l. 2564) ‘of similar
kind’. According to D, this figure is commonly called parabola (l.
2565). But this sentence has been left out of FoGT, or perhaps
transferred to the remark above about efflexegesis and glósa (seecommentary to 20,14 – 15 above). Dg’s explanation begins: Icon est
personarum inter se uel eorum que personis accidunt comparatio, ut‘os humerosque deo similis’ [Aen, I 589] (81v) ‘Icon is a comparison
between persons or the attributes of persons such as “his countenanceand shoulders [are] like those of a god”’. TGT defines icon as follows:
Icon er samjafnan tveggja persóna eða þeirra tilfella (1884, 116)
‘Icon is the comparison of two persons or of their abilities’. Thisdefinition is much closer to D than FoGT ’s definition.
20,18 En … 21 undirstöðu ‘And parabola … meaning’: D’s description of the difference between paradigma and parabola (ll. 2566–72)
is not clear, but it is evident from the more detailed description in Gg(pp. 135–36) that parabola occurs when one says ‘a sower went out tosow’, while the paradigma is the explanation of the parable: ‘apreacher went out to preach’. Both D and Gg differ from Barbarismus(ed. Holtz 1981, 674) in their definitions of parabola and paradigma.
20,18 parabola … 19 sannleik ‘Parabola … truth’: Setja fram ólika
hluti ‘put forward dissimilar entities’ in this context means that one
entity is mentioned while the other is implied. The definition and thegeneral tenor of the examples agree with D (ll. 2566–70). TGT ’s
definition is: Parabola er samjafnan tveggja hluta í ójǫfnu kyni (1884,
117) ‘Parabola is the comparison of two entities of a different nature’.
The wording of this definition is closer to D than FoGT is.

Commentary

93

20,18 kalla þenna heim akr þyrn auðæfin fuglana djöfla ‘calling
this world a field, richness a thorn, devils birds’: The construction
begins kalla e-t1 e-t2 ‘to call something something (else)’, but theorder of the object and object predicate is changed after the firstcomparison so that the second and third comparisons are construed as
kalla e-t2 e-t1. This infelicity has been evened out in the translation,
but the Old Norse text has not been changed.
20,18 þenna … 19 djöfla ‘this world … devils birds’: D and FoGT use
examples from the parable of the sower (Mark IV.1–20; Matt. XIII.1–
23; Luke VIII.4–15). The implicit nature of the reference shows thatthe audience is expected to recognise this immediately. Old Norseversions of the parable can be found in the Norwegian book of
homilies (ed. Indrebø 1931, 69–70) and in Þorvaldur Bjarnarson 1878
(p. 188, on the basis of AM 672 4°, dated 1475–1500).
20,19 þyrn ‘a thorn’: Þyrn is here interpreted as a feminine noun in
the accusative singular. ONP also lists it as a feminine, while
Heizmann lists it as a masculine noun (1993, s. v.). Other morecommon forms of this noun are þorn masc. and þyrnir masc., both‘thorn, thorn bush’. The form þyrn is only known from two texts:
FoGT and Barlaams saga ok Jósaphats in Reykjahólabók (ed. Loth
1969–70, I 106). Both texts use the noun in the context of the parableof the sower. The following quotation from the Norwegian book of
homilies shows that the use of the singular is unproblematic in thiscontext: En korn þat er fell í þyrni jartegnir menn þá er auðræði hafa
mikil (ed. Indrebø 1931, 70) ‘But the seed which fell in the thorns[þyrni is acc. sg. of þyrnir masc.] signifies those men who have greatriches’.
20,19 djöfla ‘devils’: The parable of the sower only speaks of thedevil in the singular, as do the Old Norse renderings of the parable
mentioned in the note to þyrn (20,19).
20,20 Paradigma … 21 undirstöðu ‘Paradigma … meaning’: The
precise meaning of this sentence would probably have been easier tograsp had the writer provided an example. A definition with example
can be found in TGT (1884, 118–19), but that example appears to becorrupt and does not make sense without emendation (see LouisJensen 1981). If one were to imagine an exemplification of paradigma
as defined in FoGT, it might consist of one stanza in which the firsthelmingr says something með fígúru og eiginligri undirstöðu ‘with afigure and with its true meaning’. This is a reference to the typologicalmode of biblical interpretation where events in the Old Testament are94

Commentary

seen as prefigurations (með fígúru) of events in the New Testament
while historically and literally true (með eiginligri undirstöðu) at thesame time. In his De schematibus et tropis Bede refers to this as
allegoria in factis (ed. Kendall 1991, 196). In such an imagined
example the second helmingr would then explain what was said in thefirst.
20,22 Exflexigesis … 24 norrænuskáldskap ‘Efflexegesis … poetry’:In the preceding paragraphs the writer listed three branches(kynkvíslir) of efflexegesis, and he now adds that there are morebranches in Latin concerning ‘future things’, but that he has not foundanything comparable in Norse poetry. However, since the second
helmingr of his example of efflexegesis (st. 28) appears to deal with
‘future things’, the author’s remark seems odd. It might be taken as anindication that parts of the text have been moved from their original
position at one point in the history of the transmission of the text.
20,23 bók Boetii ‘the book of Boethius’: Ólsen suggested that thismay be a reference to chapter 9 in Boethius’s commentary on
Aristotle’s On Interpretation which is called De futuris contingentibus‘On future contingencies’ (FoGT 1884, 132n.). However, that chapter
does not deal with poetry but with the truth-value of assertoric
propositions about the future, such as ‘There will be a sea battle
tomorrow’ (see Marenbon 2003, 37–41). The context of FoGT hints at
a poetic example rather than a logical one and the (possibly) corrupt
state of the text as well as the vague nature of the reference makes it
hard to identify the ‘book’ referred to, whether it be by Boethius orsome other author. Boethius’s most famous work was The Consolationof Philosophy, and with 42 verse sections it does include aconsiderable amount of poetry; however, none of the poems seem tomatch the character suggested by FoGT.
20,23 Boetii ‘of Boethius’: The name is declined according to its Latin
declension. Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius was imprisoned byking Theoderic the Great and executed in 525 or 526.
20,24 eg ‘I’: The personal pronoun in the first person appears often in
the poetic examples of FoGT, but this is the only instance in the prosepart of the treatise where the authorial ‘I’ is used.
Chapter 11: Euphonia
In this chapter the writer has departed rather far from the relevant
section in D (ll. 2595–96). The text appears to be closer to G than to D,
although it is not very close. D defines euphonia as a figure that occurs

Commentary95

when one says something that sounds pleasing instead of somethingthat does not sound pleasing. D gives three examples: circuit,relliquiae and relligio. D considers these forms euphonic variants of
the regular forms circuiuit ‘he walked around’, reliquiae ‘remains’ andreligio ‘reverence’. The euphonic variants were used in Latin
hexameter poetry for metrical reasons. The hexameter requires dactyls(‒⏑⏑) or spondees (‒ ‒), but the normal (non-euphonic) forms of thesewords scan cīrcŭīuĭt, rĕlĭgĭo and rĕlĭquĭae, and they are therefore
impossible to use in the hexameter (and other dactylic metres).
Because of this, classical poets used the variant forms cīrcŭĭt, rēllĭgĭo
and rēllĭquĭae. The use of the euphonic forms was thus caused by
metrical necessity, while D sees them as aesthetically pleasing. G, like
FoGT, mentions euphonia in connection with its opposite
cacenphaton: Dictio turpe sonans cacenphaton ipsa vocatur, | Ut si
dicatur Tydides [< Tytides in G, cf. Gg (pp. 279–80)] medidiesque. |Ast euphonia sit tibi dictio pulchra sonora, | ut si dicatur Tytides [<Tydides in G, cf. Gg (pp. 279–80)] meridiesque (II 5–8) ‘An utterance
that sounds disagreeable is itself called cacenphaton, as when one says
“Tydides” and “medidies”. But let euphonia be a beautiful-sounding
utterance, as when one says “Tytides” and “meridies”’. The point in G
is that the forms Tydides ‘the Tydide [i.e. Diomedes, the son of
Tydeus]’ and medidies [< medius-dies] ‘midday’ are correct from an
etymological point of view, but that they do not have a pleasant soundand that one should prefer the euphonic variants. Folio 28r ll. 10−11 of
AM 748 I b 4to, immediately following the text of Skáldskaparmál,
contains a short note in Latin on euphonia. The note (which appears to
be unrelated to FoGT) states: Euphonia est bonus sonus ut ‘nobiscum’
et non ‘cum nobis’ uel quum littera scribitur et non pronunciatur ut‘circum amicta’ ‘Euphonia is a pleasant sound, like “nobiscum” andnot “cum nobis” or when a letter is written and not pronounced, like“circum amicta”’. FoGT explains the figure in a very different way
and this chapter of the treatise should be seen in conjunction with thethirteenth-century phonological development in Icelandic where thetwo vowel phonemes /æ:/ and /ø:/ merged into /æ:/ (see Raschellà
2000). This development, which is already observed in AM 645 4to (c.
1220) (Hreinn Benediktsson 1965, 67), appears to have been
completed around the middle of the thirteenth century (ANG §120).
The consequence of this development was that words such as lǿkr/lø:kr/ and ǿgr /ø:gr/ became lækr /læ:kr/ and ægr /æ:gr/. TGT isgenerally dated to the period when this process was reaching its

96

Commentarycompletion—Ólsen dates it between 1242 and 1252 (1884, xxxv–
xxxvii)—and the passage quoted shows that the author of TGT, Óláfr
Þórðarson, was aware of the change, and that he considered the forms
with /ø:/ more beautiful than the forms with /æ:/. His remark does notbetray an awareness of the fact that the merger is a historicalphonological development. In the fourteenth century when FoGT was
written, this development had long since been completed, but thewriter nevertheless betrays some theoretical knowledge of the
distinction between the two sounds. Throughout this chapter, it causes
complications that the scribe does not distinguish between /ø:/ and/æ:/. With only two exceptions, ‹Øli› (22,13) and ‹męr› (22,19), he
uses the graph ‹æ›.
20,25 Euphonia … 28 sett ‘Euphonia … described’: In this first partof the chapter the writer introduces euphonia in general terms as a
figure that occurs whenever one avoids unpleasing combinations ofsounds. For the various unpleasing combinations of sounds the writerrefers to a previous part (of the book/work). This is a reference to
Málskrúðsfræði (TGT 1884, 79 l. 15–80 l. 1) where various types ofcacenphaton are presented. All TGT ’s examples show words that end
in the same sound(s) as those which begin the following one(s).
20,25 Euphonia … catenphaton ‘Euphonia … cacenphaton’: Asmentioned above in the general commentary to ch. 11, G juxtaposes
the two figures explicitly, while D, having treated cacenphaton earlier(in ll. 2380–81), only treats euphonia at this point. In its treatment of
cacenphaton, D follows Donatus who dealt with cacenphaton in thechapter De ceteris vitiis (ed. Holtz 1981, 658). Donatus makes nomention of euphonia.
20,25 catenphaton ‘cacenphaton’: The scribe clearly wrote catenphaton (p. 114 l. 32 word 2). The same spelling is also used earlier onin W (p. 103 l. 25 and 31 and p. 104 l. 5 and 8–9).
20,28 Óláfr … 22,2 í2 ‘Óláfr … “á”’: Once more FoGT refers back to
TGT, but this time the reference is to Málfræðinnar grundvöllr (TGT1884, 7 ll. 24–27). The wording in FoGT suggests that the quotationfrom TGT is a direct one, but that is not the case. In the relevant
section of TGT the writer states that there are three uses of a diptongus‘diphthong’ in Latin: 1) for hljóðfegrð ‘euphony’, 2) for sundrgrein‘distinction’, and 3) for samansetning ‘compounding’. TGT then goeson to explain the uses of diptongus in Norse where it is said to have
two purposes: Fyrir greinar sakir er diptongus fundinn í norrǿnu semí þessum nǫfnum ‘mær’ [< mer W] ok ‘sær’ [< ser W] at greina þauCommentary97

frá fornǫfnum ‘sér’ [< ser W] ok ‘mér’ [< mer W] ok ǫðrum þvílíkum,en fyrir hljóðsfegrð er diptongus fundinn sem hér: ‘lǿkr’ [< løkr W]‘ǿgr’ [< øgr W], þvíat fegra þykkir hljóða heldr enn ‘lækr’ [< lækr W]‘ægr’ [< ægr W] (TGT 1884, 7) ‘In Norse the diptongus is used for thesake of distinction, as in these nouns mær “maid” and sær “sea”, inorder to distinguish them from the pronouns sér [dative of thereflexive pronoun] and mér [1st pers. dat. sg. of the personal pronoun]
and other similar [(pro)nouns], but for the sake of euphony diptongus
is found as here: lǿkr “brook” ǿgr “terrible”, because this is thought tohave a more pleasing sound than lækr ægr’.
20,29 límingarstafir ‘conjoined characters’: The term límingarstafr isequated with diptongus ‘diphthong’ in TGT (1884, 47–48). But in
TGT diptongus belongs to the phonological as well as the graphemic
level, and the term therefore not only includes the Old Norse
diphthongs (/ei/, /øy/, /au/), but also ligatures or composite characters(TGT mentions ‹æ› and ‹ø›) (see Raschellà 2000). In FoGT
límingarstafr appears to refer to the graphemic aspect of ‹æ›, andpossibly ‹ø›, and the translation ‘conjoined characters’ has therefore
been favoured. SGT uses the related term límingr ‘a “glueing”’ to referto the graphemic level (i.e. ‘ligature’).
20,30 lækr og ægr ‘lækr “brook” and ægr “mad”’: Even though thecontext implies that the euphonic variants of these words are given as
examples (/lø:kr/ and /ø:gr/), the ‹æ›’s written by the scribe have beenretained in the text. The euphonic variants have been added in square
brackets in the translation using the orthography of ONP. The writerof FoGT probably drew these examples from TGT. The adjective ǿgris also found in the Codex Frisianus version of Heimskringla where abull is characterised as gamall ok ǿgr (ed. Unger 1871a, 19) ‘old andmad’, and it appears to be a variant form of the more common ýgr‘mad’.
20,30 æ … 22,2 á ‘“æ” … “á”’: The writer here states that æ should be
avoided in all cases where it cannot reasonably be derived from a word
containing á. In other words, æ is only allowed when it is the result of
the i-mutation of á. He does not mention what one should do in thecases where æ does not derive from á. A considerable theoreticalknowledge of the language is required if this is to be carried throughwithout errors. None of the other three grammatical treatises betray asimilar theoretical knowledge of the workings of umlaut.
22,2 dreifaz ‘are derived’: The verb dreifask, normally ‘be dispersed,
expelled’, is not attested elsewhere in this technical sense.

98

Commentary

Stanzas 29–31
These three stanzas, 29, 30 and 31, are all cited in support of thewriter’s exposition of euphonia, and are very likely to have been
composed for the purpose. The metre of all three stanzas is dróttkvætt,most comparable to the subtype of áttmælt ‘eight times uttered’ that isdesignated in Háttatal (SnE 2007, 42, 77−78) as fjórðungalok‘couplets’ closure’ in manuscripts Tx and U of Snorra Edda, where astanza is divided into four discrete couplets. SnSt Ht 11III (SnE 2007,9–10) provides a close structural parallel to sts 29−31 and may havebeen their model. Jón Helgason (1970) offers a close textual andphonological analysis of these stanzas, and points out that they all play
on words whose root vowels are long: /a:/, /o:/, /æ:/ (the i-umlaut of/a:/) and /ø:/ (the i-umlaut of /o:/). Jón argues that this concentration
indicates the writer’s fascination with the mid-thirteenth century
unrounding of /ø:/ to /æ:/, a change he thought the writer disapprovedof, possibly because of what the prose text says about the figure ofeuphonia, though this opinion is in fact taken straight from TGT, hence
the reference to Óláfr [Þórðarson] in 20,28. Jón goes on to suggest(1970, 208) that whoever composed these stanzas could have beenborn as early as 1199 or 1200, composing them in his old age. He also
thought, presumably because some parts of the stanzas are semiproverbial, that they were written down from oral tradition, although
this seems very doubtful. While Jón Helgason’s general conclusions
do not seem particularly convincing (there is no reason why the poet’s
play on certain vowels should imply an old man’s disapproval of theunrounding of /ø:/ to /æ:/), his analysis of individual stanzas is often
enlightening, and has been referred to where relevant in the following
notes. Haraldur Bernharðsson (2002, 184) gives a text of these stanzas
incorporating all of Jón’s conjectural emendations.
22,4 Því … 11 flýtir ‘[Year’s] abundance … crazy men’: Stanza 29 isarranged as four discrete, somewhat aphoristic couplets, and very
artfully provides several examples of words containing the ligature ‹æ›and corresponding cognates with stem vowel graph ‹á›. These are all
found in the uneven lines 1 (22,4), 3 (22,6), 5 (22,8) and 7 (22,10) in
the stanza. In l. 1 we have ár ‘[year’s] abundance’ and ærir, 3rd pers.
sg. of the present tense used impersonally, from æra ‘to give a goodcrop’; in l. 3 æra ‘to row with oars’ matches árum ‘with oars’, while inl. 5 ræða ‘on heat’ yields to ráða (from ráði ‘hog, boar’), both phonetically and in terms of sense. In l. 7 órar ‘fits of madness’ balances

Commentary99ærum (from ærr, earlier ǿrr ‘mad, crazy’). In the last case thecorrespondence is between /o:/ and original /ø:/; cf. AEW: órar 1 andærr.
22,4 ár ‘[Year’s] abundance’: Used here in the same sense as Latinannona ‘year’s yield’. A similar sense occurs on several occasions inAnon LíknVII (see Note to Líkn 5/5VII).
22,6 æra … 7 undan ‘to row with oars to avoid’ [æra undan]: Literally‘away from’. Aside from its literal sense, this phrasal verb also means‘to give way to an enemy’, ‘to hesitate to fight’; cf. Jón Helgason(1970, 209−10) for examples.
22,8 af ‘from’: Finnur Jónsson (Skj B, II 233), followed by Kock
(Skald, II 121) emends W’s af to at l. 5 (22,8) and ólystug ‘unwilling’l. 6 (22,9) to oflystug ‘very keen, on heat’, although the manuscript
readings make perfect sense.
22,13 Æli … 20 tæriz ‘He is considered … a gift is given’: Stanza 30
continues the strategy of st. 29, at least in the first helmingr, where ll. 1(22,13) and 3 (22,15) contain pairs of words, in one of which the stem
vowel is expressed by a ligature graph and in the other by a nonligature graph for a long vowel. In l. 1 we have the pair æli (earlier ǿli): ólu and in l. 3 ælir : álar. Although the second helmingr holds someserious difficulties of interpretation, it seems that the composer’s
strategy becomes somewhat different in that there is no opposition ofligature to non-ligature, but rather the maintenance of the same
ligature in each of the two couplets. Again, as with st. 29, this stanza
resolves into four couplets or fjórðungar.
22,13 Æli ‘a wretch’: W has Øle. Sveinbjörn Egilsson (SnE 1848−87,
II 216−17 n. 7) argued for the spelling auli, but there is no problem
with ‹ø› representing original /ø:/, later /æ:/. Æli occurs nowhere else
as a simplex in Old Icelandic, though the compound mannæli
‘wretched fellow’ is recorded once, in Finnboga saga ramma (ÍF 14,256), and in later Icelandic the form ælingi occurs with a similar sense.
Corresponding forms are more evident in Norwegian; see Jón
Helgason (1970, 212) for examples.
22,15 ælir vatn ‘water causes dredging’: The verb æla ‘dredge [a deepchannel]’ is impersonal and vatn ‘water’ is accusative; so FoGT 1884,
267 n. 2 and Jón Helgason (1970, 213).
22,15 þar ‘where’: W has ‘þat’, but although ‘þat’ agrees in genderwith vatn ‘water’, being neuter, sense requires an emendation to þar‘where’, first proposed by Sveinbjörn Egilsson (SnE 1848−87, II 216
and n. 4) and adopted by all subsequent editors.

100Commentary

22,17 heitir … læru ‘†lær† is named from †læra†’: No fully convincing explanation of these two nouns has been proposed. Finnur Jónsson(Skj B, II 234), Kock (Skald, II 121 and NN §1445) and FoGT 2004,
43 adopt lær in the sense ‘thigh, upper leg’, though Finnur indicateswith a question mark that this sense is dubious. Lær must be singular,
as the verb heitir is singular, which rules out Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s
suggestion (SnE 1848−87, II 216–17 nn. 9 and 10) that lær stands forlǿr, plural of ló ‘golden plover’. He further proposed that læru could
be a variant of léru = leiru ‘mudflat, muddy shore’, but this is highly
improbable both phonologically and ecologically (cf. FoGT 1884,
267–68 n. 4). Another hypothesis is that the form læru or lǿru may be
dative singular of a noun that occurs in SnE in a list of pejorative terms
for men, viz. leyra (SnE 1998, I 106, 224−25, II 345, s. v. leyra or løra
or løri; cf. AEW: løra and discussion), which appears in various
spellings in the manuscripts and seems to mean ‘degenerate person’ or‘coward’. The sense of this line might then be ‘a thigh is so-called on adegenerate man’ (i.e. just as it is on other men), but this interpretationis really clutching at straws. Jón Helgason (1970, 213−14) postulated a*lór ‘sluggishness, inactivity’ as the basis for the mutated noun lǿra,later læra ‘degenerate, good-for-nothing’.
22,19 mærr ‘land’: W has ‘męr’. This word is here understood as the
poetic noun mǿrr (later mærr) ‘land’, especially flat land (cf. LP:mǿrr), a term that could sometimes be applied specifically to theWestern Norwegian district of that name, Møre (OIcel. Mǿrr, Mærr). It
assumes that the poet understood the semantic relationship between
the two terms. To follow the pattern set down in ll. 5−6 (22,17 – 18), all
the ligatures in ll. 7−8 (22,19 – 20) must be the same, as they would be
if the thirteenth-century Old Icelandic change of /ø:/ to /æ:/ is applied.
Other editors have understood mærr to mean ‘a man from Møre’. The
problem here is that the name for the inhabitants of Møre only occurs
in the plural Mǿrir, Mærir (cf. LP: 2. Mœrir). Finnur Jónsson (Skj B, II234) understood mærr to mean ‘swamp, marsh’. Sveinbjörn Egilsson(SnE 1848−87, II 218−19) proposed mær ‘maiden’, which is a possible
reading, although it does not make a great deal of sense in context. Jón
Helgason (1970, 216) suggested that the first word was originally mór‘moor, heath’ and that the line originally read kallaz mór á Mǿri ‘it iscalled heathland in Møre’, which would preserve the non-ligature :ligature graphic correspondence we find in st. 29 and the first helmingrof st. 30.

Commentary

101

22,20 mæring ‘a prestation’: Meaning a lavish gift. Most editors,
following Sveinbjörn Egilsson (SnE 1848–87, II 218 and n. 3), haveemended W’s mæring to give the nominative singular form of thenoun, mæringr. Kock (Skald, II 121 and NN §2356, also Jón Helgason
1970, 216) keeps the manuscript form, which he derives from mæra‘praise, honour with gifts’ (cf. LP: mæra 2), interpreting ‘it is called aprestation, if a gift is given’.
22,21 Hætta … 26 br ‘To take risks … dies when …’: Although st. 31
breaks off before it is complete, the final letters obscured by a hole inW, there is no evidence that the scribe was intending to add two
further lines to complete it, as the next line on page 115 of W begins a
new chapter of the treatise with a capital letter. As with the second
helmingr of st. 30, the poet’s desire to pair ligature graphs(límingarstafir) with non-ligatures in the uneven lines seems to havelargely gone by the board, in favour of the maintenance of a particular
ligature in both lines of a couplet. In l. 2 (22,22), hæting (from hót‘threat’) and rætir (from rót ‘root’) contain the same vowel phonemein the root syllable (classical ON /ø:/, younger /æ:/). After the mergerof /ø:/ and /æ:/, they would have been represented in writing by thesame ligature graph ‹æ›. In ll. 3−4 (22,23 – 24), there is a historicaldistinction between næra and vær, which originally contained thephoneme /ø:/, and nær and færi, containing /æ:/, but this distinction
would have disappeared around c. 1250. In ll. 5−6 (22,25 – 26), theroot vowels are either of /ø:/ (æðaz l. 5 (22,25)) or /æ:/ origin (æðr ll. 5(22,25) and 6 (22,26)).
22,21 Hætta … hættu ‘To take risks leads to danger’: This statement
may well be semi-proverbial and a variation on such adages as hefir sá
er hættir ‘he who risks, has [wins]’. Skj B, II 234 translates as man måvove faren ‘one must risk danger’. Jón Helgason (1970, 217) proposed
an emendation of hættu to háttu ‘[bad] habits’, accusative plural ofháttr ‘habits, conduct’, to produce the conventional skothending rather
than aðalhending in an odd line.
22,22 hæting ‘threatening’: Jón Helgason (1970, 217–18) suggested
this might rather be hætting ‘danger, risk’, an alternative form of hætta
‘danger’ (as in l. 1 (22,21)) with the preterite verb rǿtti ‘rooted down’.
22,22 rætir ‘plants’: A rather strained metaphorical usage of ræta(earlier rǿta) ‘cause to take root’. Finnur Jónsson (Skj B, II 234, LP:rœta), followed by Longo (FoGT 2004, 43), offers a slightly different
sense of l. 2, reading hǿting, ef bǫl rǿtir ‘it is threatening, if misfortune

102

Commentarytakes root’, understanding the verb as impersonal with bǫl in the acc.
case.
22,23 nær ‘better’: Normally, nær means ‘near’, but here the comparative degree seems to mean ‘better, preferable’; cf. LP: nær 3.
22,25 skeind ‘scratched’: Editors have debated whether W reads
skeind ‘scratched’ or skemd ‘hurt, wounded’ here. Although themeaning is not appreciably different, this edition takes W’s reading tobe skeind, as did Sveinbjörn Egilsson, Finnur Jónsson (Skj A, II 217),
Kock, Jón Helgason (1970, 222) and Longo, though Finnur emended
to skemd in Skj B, II 234. Ólsen read skemd (cf. FoGT 1884, 270 n. 4).
22,25 æðrin ‘the vein’: W has ‘æðr enn’, where enn could be read as asuffixed definite article, as here and by Ólsen, or as the adverb enn‘yet, still’ (though, as we do not know the conclusion of l. 6 (22,26),
this is hypothetical). Finnur Jónsson emends to æðr at and is followedin this by Kock (Skald, II 121). The poet is using the noun æðr in twosenses, ‘vein’ and ‘eider duck’, the first sense in l. 5 (22,25), thesecond in l. 6 (22,26). This homonym was a popular one among
Icelandic poets. Two separate riddles, Gestumbl Heiðr 35,3VIII (Heiðr
82) and Anon Gát 1,5III, rely on the same pun on æðr.
Chapter 12: Lepos
According to D, lepos occurs when one uses the plural when speaking
to a single person. One example containing speech directed to a prelate
is given (ll. 2597–98). Dg adds: Hec figura inuenta est causa honoris(83r) ‘This figure is invented for the sake of honour [i.e. to confer
honour on someone]’. Lepos is not included among the figures treatedin G. Konungs skuggsjá contains a discussion of the polite use of theplural (ed. Holm-Olsen 1983, 48).
22,28 Arnórr Arnórr jarlaskáld ‘Jarls’ poet’ Þórðarson (born c. 1012),
was a son of the farmer and poet Þórðr Kolbeinsson from Hítarnes inwestern Iceland and Oddný eykyndill ‘Island-candle’ Þorkelsdóttir.
Members of this family appear as characters in Bjarnar sagaHítdǿlakappa and in Gunnlaugs saga ormstungu. For further detailsof the full poem from which this couplet is taken and its background,as well as the poet’s other compositions, see Whaley (1998, 51−52,
114, 145−48) and Whaley’s edition in SkP II: 1, 185−86.
Stanza 32
This couplet comprises ll. 3−4 of st. 3 of a hrynhent encomium inhonour of Magnús inn góði ‘the Good’ Óláfsson (r. 1035−47), entitled

Commentary103

Hrynhenda, Magnússdrápa. It is the first securely attested skaldic
poem in hrynhent metre. In the various kings’ saga compilations inwhich the poem appears, principally Morkinskinna, Flateyjarbók andHulda-Hrokkinskinna, it is said that Arnórr composed the poem
shortly after his arrival in Norway from Iceland, when he wassummoned by the co-rulers Magnús Óláfsson and Haraldr Sigurðarson
to recite eulogies in their honour. Arnórr composed Hrynhenda for
Magnús and Blágagladrápa ‘The drápa of Dark Geese’, which has notsurvived, for Haraldr. In TGT the couplet is cited to demonstrate theuse of a plural number in place of a singular (a kind of solecism),
while in FoGT the same couplet illustrates lepos, the courteous use of
the plural number when addressing a high-ranking person. The firsttwo lines of the first helmingr of this stanza, which precede the couplet
quoted here, address Magnús directly and invite him to listen to the
poem: Magnús, hlýð til máttigs óðar; | manngi veit ek fremra annan‘Magnús, hear a mighty poem; I know no other [to be] more
outstanding’.
24,1 yðru kappi ‘your prowess’: The 2nd pers. pl. possessive pronounyðru instead of the singular form is used to compliment the king.
24,2 Jóta gramr ‘prince of the Jótar [= Magnús]’:Magnús was king of the Danes as well as the Norwegians. In l. 5 ofthe complete stanza of which this couplet is part he is called dróttinnHǫrða ‘lord of the Hǫrðar’ [= Magnús].
24,3 persóna ‘person’: Grammatical person. The same technical senseof persóna is found below (36,7). Elsewhere skilning is used in thesame sense (34,25 and 36,6).
24,4 soluecismus … 5 segir ‘solecismus … above’: This is a crossreference to the section on solecisms in TGT (1884, 16–18). TGT
presents st. 32 as an example of a solecism and adds the following
explanation: Í talnaskipti verðr soloecismus, sem Arnórr kvað ‘[st.
32]’. Hér er margfallig tala sett fyrir einfaldigri (TGT 1884, 17–18)‘In regard to the change of numbers, solecism occurs, as Arnórr said:“[st. 33]”. The plural is here used instead of the singular’.
Chapter 13: Antitosis
FoGT mentions three variants of this figure—the use of one number,
one case and finally one tense instead of another—and exemplifies thefirst two. Concerning the last variant, the treatise refers the reader to
TGT and states that modern poets should avoid it. D (ll. 2599–2603)

104

Commentary

describes the same three variants of the figure and gives them in thesame order. The relevant section in G is: ‘Urbem quam statuo uestra
est [Aen, I, 573]’, antitosis haec est. | Pro numero numerum ponas,
exallage fiet | Dicendo ‘naues armato milite complent [Aen, II 20]’ (I
40–42) ‘“The city [accusative], which I found, is yours”, this isantitosis. Exallage occurs when you use [one] number instead of[another] number by saying “The ships are filled with an armed
soldier”’. Both these examples are also found in Dg, and FoGT
imitates them in sts 33 and 34. G’s first example is also given in Dg:
Antiptosis est accidentis pro accidente positio. Et fit quando ponitur
casus pro casu, ut ‘Urbem quam statuo, uestra est’ (83r) ‘Antitosis is
the use of one grammatical form for another. And it occurs when [one]case is used instead of [another] case, like “The city [accusative]
which I found, is yours”’.
24,6 með settu endimarki ‘for a definite purpose’: It is uncertain
what the author means by this. Alternatively, this phrase might berendered ‘with a fixed endpoint’ or perhaps ‘within certain limits’.
24,7 Um fallaskifti sem hier ‘Concerning the change of cases as
here’: This passage is understood as a defective clause: Um fallaskifti[verðr antitosis] sem hier, cf. 24,13. W reads: ‘… settu endimarki um
fallaskifti sem hier’. TGT treats the use of one case instead of anotheras a solecistic subtype and provides one example in which it is claimed
that the accusative is used instead of the dative: því hefik heitit meymætri ‘that I have promised the worthy maiden’ (1884, 77). TGT
evidently considers the form mey accusative, but the same form iscommonly used in the dative (in addition to meyju) (see FoGT 1884,
187 n. 2).
Stanza 33
Ólsen is almost certainly correct (FoGT 1884, 271 n. 2) when heargues that the grammatical construction of ll. 1–2 (24,8 – 9) of st. 33
imitates a Latin construction like urbem quam statuo, uestra est ‘thecity which I found, is yours’ (Aen, I 573) (see introductory commentary to chapter 13 above). The Icelandic example here places þá mjóva
mey ‘that slim girl’ in the same position as Latin urbem ‘city’(accusative) and then in the main clause has the alternative form of thenoun mey, viz. mær er þín ‘the girl is yours’ in parallel with the Latin
nominative uestra [urbs] est. Evidently neither Finnur Jónsson (Skj B,
II 234) nor Kock (Skald, II 121) understood how closely the Icelandic
imitates the Latin here, because both editors emended W’s þá er in l. 1

Commentary105

to þá. This gives the sense in ll. 1−2 (24,8 – 9): ‘I praise that slim girlfor her goodwill; the girl is yours’. However, there is no way that thisemended construction can exemplify a change from accusative tonominative case of the noun mey/mær.
24,9 fyr vild sína ‘for her goodwill’: This phrase can either beconstrued as part of a relative clause, er eg leyfi fyr vild sína, as here,
or with mær er þín, as Ólsen does (FoGT 1884, 270, 271 n. 1), understanding it to imply ‘of her own free will’. Wellendorf (forthcoming)
also supports this interpretation. The imagined scenario may be that ofa woman giving a man permission to woo the girl, perhaps herdaughter, in marriage.
24,12 rægiligt fall ‘the accusative case’: Rægiligt fall is a calque on
Latin accusativus casus. TGT (1884, 77 and 84) uses the same term,
while Modern Icelandic uses þolfall, lit. ‘suffer case’.
24,12 nefniligu falli ‘the nominative case’: Nefniligt fall is a hap. leg.
in Old Norse. Modern Icelandic uses nefnifall, lit. ‘mention case’.
24,13 Um … 17 fylla ‘Concerning … “fylla”’: Stanza 34 is based on
the Latin example Naues armato milite complent [Aen, II 20] ‘The
ships are filled with an armed soldier’. G uses this line to exemplify
the figure exallage (I 40−42), while Gg makes clear that exallage is asubtype of antitosis, not a separate figure (p. 58). The author of Dg
might have had the same example in mind, even though he does notquote it: Numerus pro numero inquantum resultat improprietas
constructibilium, ut ‘turba ruunt in me’ [on the origin of this example,
see Grondeux 2003], vel aliter, ut ‘multo milite’ .i. ‘multis militibus’(83r) ‘[One] number instead of [another] number so that it results indiscord between the elements of the sentence, as in “the crowd arerushing against me”, or otherwise, like “many soldier”, i.e. “manysoldiers”’. The same phenomenon is illustrated by Donatus in Barbarismus and classified as a solecism in relation to number (ed. Holtz
1981, 656). In TGT ’s translation of Barbarismus this is reinterpreted
as the improper use of the plural when speaking to a single person(discussed above in the section on lepos, commentary to 22,27).
Stanza 34
Stanza 34 illustrates a difference in number between the noun subject
and its verb. It bears considerable similarities to the figure G called
exallage (see introductory commentary to chapter 13 above). In G thisexample follows immediately upon that used as the basis of st. 33.

106

Commentary

24,15 alls framm ‘all [the way] forwards’: With Ólsen (FoGT 1884,
271–72 n. 1) this adverbial phrase is understood to mean that a single
detachment of men filled the ships ‘all the way forwards to the prow’.
24,16 nafn1 ‘noun’: Nafn neut. is a direct translation of Latin nomen.
This technical term is often used in TGT, e.g.: Aristotiles inn spaki
kallar tvá parta málsgreinar, nafn ok orð, þvíat þeir gera meðal sín
samtengdir fullkomna málsgrein (1884, 56) ‘Aristotle the Wise saysthat there are two parts of speech, noun and verb, because in conjunction they make up a complete sentence’.
24,16 orði ‘verb’: Orð neut. is a direct translation of Latin verbum.
Orð is often used in FoGT, but this is the only occurrence where it
carries the technical meaning ‘verb’. It often occurs in a technicalsense in TGT (an example can be found in commentary to nafn in
24,16 above).
24,18 Um … 20 verka ‘Regarding … poets’: The cross-reference to
TGT is only partially correct as TGT merely provides one example ofthe change of tense (1884, 77 l. 13–18). TGT ’s example seems toillustrate the use of the historic present and it is surprising that thewriter should think that it was inappropriate for contemporary poets to
use this device. The remark that the figure is often found in the worksof old poets is paralleled by D’s remark that the figure is often foundin holy prophecies. To this Dg adds: Et in prophetiis ponitur preteritum perfectum pro futuro, ut in Daniel: ‘Affuit ircus ab aquilonibus’
etc. ubi ‘affuit’ ponitur pro ‘aderit’ (83r) ‘The preterite perfect is also
often used in prophecies instead of the future, as in [The Book of]Daniel: “The he-goat had come from the North” etc. where “hadcome” is used instead of “will come”’. Even though Dg explicitly
refers to the Book of Daniel, the wording is considerably closer toWalter of Châtillon’s Alexandreis, V 9 (Affuit a siccis veniens
Aquilonibus hyrcus, ed. Colker 1978, 119), than to the Book of Daniel
VIII.5 (ecce autem hircus caprarum veniebat ab occidente superfaciem totius terrae, ed. Weber et al. 1994, 1360).
Chapter 14: Antitheton
This chapter is the longest in the entire treatise and the writer departs
significantly from the treatment of antitheton in D (ll. 2604–05) and G(I 68). Material has been incorporated from the section of Háttatal
where Snorri describes and illustrates ways in which one may vary theverse-forms of the dróttkvætt metre by varying the syntactic structure

Commentary107

of the stanzas while retaining the standard metre (at breyta háttum með
máli einu, SnE 2007, 9–14, at p. 9), i.e. by changing the arrangementof the clauses in a stanza. The writer’s terminology in this chapter also
betrays his reliance on Háttatal (stælt, langloka, kveðandi and orð).
D’s definition agrees with the initial definition of FoGT, while G’s
understanding of antitheton is more like our ‘antithesis’: Uteris
antitheta dicens contraria dicta ‘You use antitheta when you utter
contrary utterances’. D gives the example: est Daniel Noë Job castus
rectorque maritus ‘Daniel is chaste, Noah a ruler, Job a husband’, andDg explains: Antitheton prout sumitur in hoc loco est subsequentium
ad precedentia reductio, ut cum singula singulis correspondent, ut
patet in littera. Est [< Sunt] Daniel etc. castus reducitur ad li Daniel,
rector ad Noe, maritus ad Job (83r) ‘Antitheton, as it is understood
here, is the bringing back of the following words to the preceding, sothat the individual [items] correspond to the individual [items], as it
can be seen in the text: “Daniel is” etc. [l. 2605] “chaste” belongs toDaniel, “ruler” to Noah, “husband” to Job’. A Latin example
somewhat similar to D’s can be found in the lower margin of f. 27r of
AM 671 4to (c.1315–45):
Clericus ecclesia laicus Norwegia leges
exultat arguitur gaudet confunditur absunt‘The clergy exults, the church blames, the laity rejoice, Norway isruined, the laws are absent’. In this example, printed in Kålund
1889–94, II 88, clericus is constructed with exultat, ecclesia witharguitur etc. Longo (2006, 1001) presents another Latin example in his
detailed treatment of this chapter (2006, 994−1001). The examples ofantitheton in FoGT show that the writer understood the figure toconsist of sentences that were split up in one way or another, and thesix examples of antitheton given in the text show various ways of
doing this.
24,21 Antiteton … fyrstum ‘Antitheton occurs … the first’: Thisdefinition agrees with the one given in D (l. 2604).
24,21 verðr2 … 24 langlokum ‘it occurs … long enclosures’: This partof the definition and the expressions stælt and langlokum draw on
Háttatal (see commentary to 26,22 and 24,24 below and Introduction§5 c for details), but Snorri’s theoretical framework has been reconceptualised.
24,22 svá að regla sie haldin undir riettri kveðandi ‘while the rulesof metrical arrangement are observed’: The key words, regla and108

Commentarykveðandi, are difficult to translate and might partially overlap inmeaning. The translation is therefore a paraphrase.
24,22 regla ‘arrangement’: Old Norse regla < Latin regula is here
understood as ‘[the correct] arrangement [of elements in a stanza]’. In
Háttatal the noun setning fem. is occasionally used in the same sense,
e.g.: Ǫnnur stafasetning er sú er fylgir setning hljóðs þess er háttr
gerir ok kveðandi (SnE 2007, 4) ‘Another aspect of spelling is the onethat belongs to the arrangement of the sound [i.e. alliteration andassonance] that constitutes a verse-form and metre’. Many of thetechnical terms of Háttatal are notoriously difficult to understand andtranslate, and a different interpretation is given in Faulkes’s translation(1987, 166).
24,23 kveðandi ‘metrical arrangement’: Kveðandi is here understoodto mean ‘metre, metrical arrangment’. Faulkes lists a number of
additional meanings of kveðandi in his glossary to Háttatal (SnE 2007,
128–29).
24,24 langlokum ‘with late closures’: Háttatal also uses the dative of
langloka without the preposition með ‘with’: þessi er hinn sjaundi;
langlokum [followed by Háttatal 14/FoGT st. 35] (ed. Finnur Jónsson
1931, 222) ‘this is the seventh [variant], with long enclosures’. The
word langlokum is found neither in W’s text of Háttatal nor in themain hands of the manuscripts of Háttatal (see SnE 2007, 10 l. 31, 42
n. 14,1).
Stanzas 35 and 36
These two stanzas are cited without attribution by the writer of FoGT.
They are, respectively, sts 14 and 12 of Snorri Sturluson’s Háttatal‘List of Verse-forms’, probably composed c. 1222 with a dual function:as an encomium for King Hákon Hákonarson and his co-regent Jarl
Skúli Bárðarson and as a key to Old Norse-Icelandic metres. See
further Faulkes’s edition of Háttatal (SnE 2007) and Gade’s edition in
SkP III (forthcoming) for both stanzas. Háttatal 14 (st. 35) exemplifies
the native phenomenon of langlokur ‘late closures’, a technical term
also found as a heading (langlokum ‘with late closures’) in the U
manuscript of Snorra Edda and as an addition in R; see further SnE
2007, 52, 79, 129. The stylistic device exemplified here is also attestedin Rǫgnvaldr jarl Kali Kolsson and Hallr Þórarinsson’s Háttalykill sts
59–60 (RvHbreiðm Hl 59−60III), and the term langlokum is also used
there. As the prose text indicates, the late closure here is produced by
the syntactic combination of the first and the last line (26,1 and 26,8).

Commentary

109

Stanza 12 of Háttatal (st. 36 in FoGT) has two enclosing clauses ineach helmingr in ll. 1 (26,14) and 4 (26,17), 5 (26,18) and 8 (26,21),
while the inner lines, ll. 2−3 (26,15 – 16) and 6−7 (26,19 – 20), of eachhelmingr form independent, intercalated units.
26,9 Hier … 10 síðast ‘Here these … ræðr konungdómi’: Thissentence has a parallel in Háttatal: Hér hefr upp mál í inu fyrsta
vísuorði ok lýkr ‹í› inu síðasta, ok eru þau sér um mál (SnE 2007, 11)‘Here the sentence begins in the first line and ends in the last, and they
constitute one sentence’.
26,10 regla ‘version’: The context seems to require that regla betranslated as ‘this arrangement of the words’, ‘version’. The usual
meaning of regla is ‘rule’ (see commentary to 24,22 above).
26,12 Sú … 22 háttr ‘It … metre’: This description is somewhat
similar to the description which accompanies Háttatal 12 (= st. 36 of
FoGT): Hér er svá: ‘Hákon veldr ok hǫldum [= first line of helmingr] |teitr þjóðkonungs heiti [= last line of helmingr]’, en annat ok it þriðja
vísuorð er sér um mál, ok er þat stál kallat (SnE 2007, 10) ‘Here it isthus: Happy Hákon commands the name “mighty king” and the freeholders’, but the second and the third line constitute one sentence, andthat is called stál [inlay]’.
26,12 species ‘variant’: Species f. ‘kind, type’ is a Latin word. It isfound three times in this chapter (also in 26,23 and 28,10) and once inchapter 21 (38,1).
26,13 vísuhelmingi ‘half-stanza’: W’s reading vísuorði ‘line’ issemantically at odds with the example given and the text has therefore
been emended. This emendation was introduced by SnE 1848, 206 andit has been adopted in all subsequent editions.
Stanza 36
See commentary to sts 35 and 36 above. Stanza 12 of Háttatal (st. 36
in FoGT) has two enclosing clauses in each helmingr, in ll. 1 (26,14)
and 4 (26,17), 5 (26,18) and 8 (26,21), while the inner lines, ll 2–3(26,15 – 16) and 6–7 (26,19 – 20), of each helmingr form independent,
intercalated units.
26,22 stælt Háttatal 12 (= st. 36) is introduced with the words: þetta
er stælt kallat (SnE 2007, 10) ‘this is called stælt [equipped withinlay]’.

110

Commentary

26,24 orðum ‘lines’: Orð, which usually means ‘word’, is here
understood as vísuorð ‘line’, cf. Ólsen’s glossary (1884, s. v.). Orð
frequently has the same meaning in Háttatal (see SnE 2007, 48 n. 1,
40–41).
Stanza 37
This anonymous hrynhent stanza illustrates a yet more intricate variantof antitheton, in which there are five complete clauses, one wrapped
inside the next; l. 1 (26,25) is completed by l. 8 (28,6), l. 2 (26,26) byl. 7 (28,5), l. 3 (28,1) by l. 6 (28,4), while ll. 4 (28,2) and 5 (28,3) go
together. This ingenious arrangement of clauses appears not to have aprecise precedent in earlier Icelandic grammatical treatises. The themeof each complete sentence is the manner of death of one of four kingsof Norway, two in battle, the other two from disease.
26,25 Óláfr … 28,6 vallar ‘Óláfr, who got a famous fall to the ground[death], was able to burn the [heathen] sacrificial buildings’ [Óláfr
kunni blóthús brenna—ágætt fall sá hlaut til vallar]: These lines refer
to King Óláfr inn helgi ‘the Saint’ Haraldsson (r. 1015−30), who diedat the battle of Stiklastaðir (Stiklestad) in Verdalen, Trøndelag, on 29
July 1030. He was known for his vigorous opposition to heathendom,
characterised here by his burning of blóthús ‘sacrifical buildings’, l. 1
(26,25).
26,26 Magnús Magnús inn góði ‘the Good’ Óláfsson, son of St Óláfr,
r. 1035−47.
28,1 Harald Haraldr harðráði ‘Hardrule’ Sigurðarson, r. 1046−66.
28,2 hans arfi ‘his heir’: This phrase, together with vinr dróttar ‘thefriend of the people [= Magnús or Óláfr Haraldssynir]’ in thefollowing line, may refer to either Magnús Haraldsson or his brotherÓláfr kyrri ‘the Quiet’ Haraldsson. The latter is probably the more
likely referent as he was the more prominent of the two brothers andruled Norway from 1067−93, while Magnús ruled briefly on his own
in 1066, during the time Haraldr and Óláfr were in England, andjointly with his brother from 1067−69. Magnús died in 1069 of theillness reformr ‘ergotism’ according to Morkinskinna (ÍF 23, 325),
brought on by eating fungus-affected grain (Andersson and Gade
2000, 446 n. 2). Óláfr kyrri also died of an unspecified illness at oneof his eastern residences in Bohuslän (Morkinskinna, ÍF 24, 16;Andersson and Gade 2000, 285; Ágrip, ÍF 29, 41; Fagrskinna, ÍF 29,
302; Heimskringla, ÍF 28, 209).

Commentary

111

28,4 riett ‘certainly’: It is also possible to construe riett with vierfrágum ‘we have heard’, l. 3 (28,1).
28,4 á enskri sliettu ‘on an English field’: At the battle of Stamford
Bridge, Yorkshire, where Haraldr harðráði was killed on 25 September
1066.
28,5 sóttum píndr ‘tormented by illness’: Magnús the Good died ofan unspecified feverish illness in Jutland on 25 October 1047, according to Morkinskinna (ÍF 23, 168–71; Andersson and Gade 2000,
181–84).
28,5 þá er örlög enduz ‘when his fortunes came to an end’: There is alarge hole in W at this point, so the emendations adopted here areconjectural, though supported in the case of enduz by skothending withpíndr. The conjecture örlög ‘fate, fortunes, death’ was first suggested
by Jón Ólafsson from Grunnavík (cf. FoGT 1884, 274 n. 3) and has
been accepted by all subsequent editors, as has Ólsen’s emendation to
enduz.
28,7 Hier … 9 talt ‘Here … quoted’: The writer could have added thatthe second and the seventh line and the first and the last line also
belong together.
28,7 er ið fjórða og ið fimta vísuorð saman um mál ‘the fourth line
in conjunction with the fifth make up a sentence’: W is damaged at
this point and has a hole between vísuorð and mál. SnE 1848, 207 andSnE 1848–87, II 222 supply sér um while FoGT 1884, 137 and FoGT
2004, 46 supply saman um. The emendation saman um has been
preferred here because it improves the flow of the text and adds lexical
variation. A similar construction below (28,24) is also the result ofemendation. The main advantage of SnE 1848’s emendation is that
Háttatal, upon which the writer drew for this chapter, often uses theconstruction vera sér um mál, e.g.: en annat ok it þriðja vísuorð er sér
um mál (SnE 2007, 10). SnE 1818, 345 avoids the problem altogether
by jumping from vísuorð (28,7) to vísuorð (28,8)—probably by
mistake.
28,11 en þó eitt efni um alla með inum sömum tveim málum ‘yet
one subject matter throughout the complete stanza with the same twosentences’: An elliptical sentence in which the verb, er ‘is’, and thehead noun of the quantifier allr ‘complete’, namely vísa ‘stanza’, havebeen left out.

112

Commentary

Stanzas 38 and 41
Stanzas 38 and 41 are in a variety of the tøglag ‘journey metre’ verseform that is called inn nýi háttr ‘the new verse-form’ in Háttatal (SnSt
Ht 73III; SnE 2007, 31), from where the composer of the FoGT stanzas
probably borrowed it. Stanza 38 offers a fourth example of antitheton
in which the first and fourth words of each couplet belong together, insuch a way that two clauses are created in a cross-over pattern in eachhelmingr, making four independent clauses in the stanza as a whole,which refer to two legendary subjects, the pirate or sea-king Haki andthe Danish king Hrólfr kraki ‘Pole-ladder’. Thus words 1, 4, 5 and 8 in
the first helmingr form one clause, and words 2, 3, 6 and 7 do
likewise. In the second helmingr words occupying the same numberedpositions as in the first helmingr (viz. 1, 4, 5 and 8) form anotherclause referring to the subject of the comparable clause in the firsthelmingr, namely Haki, while the same structure is repeated for words
2, 3, 6 and 7 in the second helmingr, and they form a clause about
Hrólfr kraki. The two words of each line rhyme internally. The dual
rhyming subjects of the stanza, Haki and Kraki, may have beensuggested by Háttatal 94, where they are also juxtaposed. The themeof the ways in which famous people met their deaths, whether they
were legendary or historical, is carried through sts 37, 38 and 41.
28,13 Haki Name of a famous pirate or sea-king. The name can beused generally in poetry for a sea-king, but here there is a specificreference to the brother of the legendary Hagbarðr. Haki is mentionedin Ynglinga saga chapters 22−23 (ÍF 26, 43−45) as a fierce andbellicose warrior, who killed Hugleikr, king of the Swedes, at Fyrisvellir ‘Plains by the Fyrisån’ (Fyris river) near Uppsala, assumed thekingship himself, and was later engaged in a second battle at Fyrisvellir, in which he was mortally wounded and placed at his own
request on a pyre on board a burning ship, which was pushed out tosea. Cf. the anonymous couplet quoted in Skáldskaparmál (Anon(SnE) 16,1III; SnE 1998, I 97), Haki var brendr á báli ‘Haki wasburned on a pyre’. A rather different account of Haki’s death appears
in Saxo (VII 8, 1–6, ed. Friis-Jensen 2005, I 476–80).
28,13 Kraki ‘Pole-ladder’: Nickname referring to the tall thin appearance of the legendary Danish king and hero Hrólfr kraki, who was the
subject of numerous narratives, including Hrólfs saga kraka and the
now lost Skjǫldunga saga. He was renowned for his generosity andSnorri Sturluson tells an elaborate narrative in Skáldskaparmál toaccount for the gold-kenning ‘seed of Kraki’ (SnE 1998, I 58−59).

Commentary

113

Accounts of his and his champions’ deaths vary across the sources, but
in all cases he dies in battle.
28,23 anatecor ‘antitheton’: Corrected to antitheton by all editors
except SnE 1818, 345 who prints ‘Ana-tekor’.
28,23 er ‘in which’: SnE 1818, 345 emended en to er and has been
followed by all subsequent editors.
28,23 og eru um mál saman ‘and constitute one sentence’: At thispoint damage in W has obliterated the characters between og and mál.
The emendation eru um was first proposed in SnE 1818, 345. It has
been adopted in all subsequent editions.
Stanzas 39 and 40
Stanza 39 is the fifth example of antitheton in FoGT. Here there are
four clauses, each of which begins in the first helmingr and finishes inthe second, following the order abcd : abcd. The following stanza, 40,
is a rearrangement of this sequence using almost the same wording, inthe order abcd : dcba. Stanzas 39 and 40 are in the metre runhent. It isof interest that at least one earlier parallel to the arrangement of st. 39
exists in the skaldic corpus, and this is a helmingr attributed to theearly eleventh-century skald Þórðr Særeksson or Sjáreksson (ÞSjár
Frag 3III); it uses exactly the same arrangement of clauses, it is in thesame metre, runhent, and all its subjects are allusions to Norse mythsor legends. This suggests that the FoGT example is not just a tour deforce occasioned by the need to exemplify a Latin rhetorical figure,but part of a native tradition. In the corresponding Latin treatises,
examples given are of Old Testament characters, so it seems that thewriter of FoGT is deliberately implying a parallel of subject-matter
between Old Testament examples and figures from Old Norse mythand legend.
28,26 Hákon King Hákon Hákonarson of Norway (r. 1217−63). Born
after his supposed father’s death, he was regarded as the illegitimate
son of King Hákon Sverrisson (d. 1 January 1204) and Inga of Varteig.
28,27 Magnús Magnús lagabǿtir ‘Law-mender’ Hákonarson (r.
1263−80), son of Hákon Hákonarson. As his nickname and l. 6 (28,30)
of this stanza indicate, Magnús was celebrated for having modified
and unified the laws of Norway. He also promulgated a new law codefor Iceland, Jónsbók ‘Jón’s book’ (see NGL, IV 183−340), which wassent to the island in 1280 and ratified by the alþingi (the general legal
assembly) in 1281.

114

Commentary

28,28 Eiríks ‘Eiríkr’s’: Eiríkr, the elder son of Magnús Hákonarson (r.
1280−99), gained the nickname ‘priest-hater’ from his poor relations
with the Church, but otherwise enjoyed a peaceful rule.
28,29 hans bróðir ‘his brother’: This was Eiríkr’s younger brother,
Hákon háleggr ‘Long-leg’ Magnússon (r. 1299−1319), who succeededhim on the throne of Norway because Eiríkr died childless. Line 8(30,2) arguably alludes to Hákon’s reputation for successfully curbing
the power of the Norwegian magnates. Hákon is probably also thesubject of st. 10, where he is characterised as handsterkr ‘stronghanded’, perhaps another allusion to his tough domestic policies. On
the implications of these references to Hákon’s reign, mentioned ashaving taken place in the past both here and in st. 10, for the dating of
FoGT, see commentary at 6,13.
30,3 Þessa … háttar ‘This stanza … previous verse-form’: This is aparaphrase of the Old Norse text rather than a translation. The prose
only mentions one stanza and one verse-form, but two stanzas (sts 40
and 41) are provided. The first can be seen as an addition to st. 39, thesecond as an addition to st. 38.
Stanza 40
Stanza 40 is a variation, both in wording and verse-form, of st. 39. See
comments on that stanza above.
30,10 lögvizku ‘of legal learning’: W’s ‘lǫgvizlu’ is probably a scribal
error caused by the copyist anticipating the following word lund‘disposition’.
Stanza 41
Stanza 41 is a variation on st. 38, and both are in inn nýi háttr (cf. SnSt
Ht 73III). Minimal word changes allow the poet to rearrange the syntaxof the four clauses of st. 41 so that clause 1 reads straight down theleft-hand side of ll. 1−4 (30,12 – 15), clause 2 straight down the righthand side of ll. 1−4 (30,12 – 15), clause 3 straight down the left-handside of ll. 5−8 (30,16 – 19) and clause 4 straight down the right-handside of ll. 5−8 (30,16 – 19).
Chapter 15: Anthypophora
FoGT ’s definition does not contradict that of D (ll. 2606–07), but thesetting at an assembly does make it more vivid and concrete than thatof D. Dg paraphrases D: Antipophora est tacite obiectioni prelata

Commentary

115

responsio (83r) ‘Anthypophora is an answer anticipating a tacit
objection’. Dg also adds two Ovidian examples (Heroides 1.37–38 and
1.2). The figure is also defined in G (I 79) and in Gg (pp. 90–91), butthese texts do not add anything of significance for the understandingof FoGT.
30,20 Antiposora ‘Anthypophora’: All earlier editors interpreted theseventh letter of antiposora as an f. It is difficult to determine whether
W has ‘antipoſora’ or ‘antipofora’. However, the scribe normally uses
the insular form of f ‹ꝼ› (rather than the carolingian ‹f›), and thecharacter in question has therefore been interpreted as ‹ſ› and renderedwith s in the normalised text. Johansson’s (2007) transcription of W
also interprets the graph in question as ‹ſ›.
Stanza 42
Stanza 42, in dróttkvætt metre, illustrates FoGT ’s definition ofanthypophora to the extent that both prose explanation and the stanza
represent men engaged in legal disputes at an assembly. In the firsthelmingr, the speaker warns another man against bringing a charge
against him first, on the ground that he has changed from being
compassionate to taking a hard line in such circumstances. In thesecond helmingr he issues a barely veiled threat that if the other man
proceeds to lay charges against him, that man will face financial ruin.
This is some way from the basic sense of the Latin figure, which
involves responding to an anticipated objection.
30,24 kraunk ‘distressing’: Krankr is a late loan word from Middle
Low German, used only here in poetry to mean ‘hurtful, insulting’;
otherwise the sense is ‘weak, sick’ (cf. Anon Mey 36,3VII krankar
kvinnur ‘sick women’).
Chapter 16: Anticlasis
The definition given in FoGT mirrors D’s (ll. 2608–09). D’s example(non obsto, sed toto posse resisto ‘I do not stand in the way, I
withstand with all my might’) also illustrates how the same word/verb,
namely sto, is used in opposite senses when it occurs twice as thesecond element of verbal compounds. Dg (83r) paraphrases D andadds an etymology. FoGT ’s example looks as if it has been modelledon D’s example, but must be considered less successful, because thelexical opposition has been removed, so that only the semantic one
remains. It is therefore not correct to state that the same words/verbs
are used with opposite meanings.

116

Commentary

32,1 gagnstaðliga ‘opposing’: Gagnstaðliga is used adverbially in thetext.
Stanza 43
FoGT ’s representation of the figure anticlassis is dependent on theprescription in D. The Icelandic examples in the first helmingr, Eg
stend eigi að móti ‘I do not stand opposed’ and eg rís við ‘I oppose’,are clearly dependent on the similar senses of the verbs obsto andresisto in the Latin example. In the second helmingr the relevance ofthe examples to the figure is less clear, though both probably indicatethat the speaker will fight or oppose his adversary (þier ‘you’ in l. 7
(32,9)); both clauses use forms of the verb heita in the sense ‘promise’rather than any of its other meanings (‘call, be called, invoke’).
32,4 mensveigjanda ‘the necklace-distributor []’: Theemendation men- ‘necklace’ from W’s man- was first proposed byÓlsen (FoGT 1884, 279−80) and has been adopted by all subsequent
editors.
Chapter 17: Antimetabola
D (ll. 2610–11) and FoGT both describe antimetabola as a change inthe meaning of an utterance achieved by changing the (order of the)words, but the figure is evidently more mysterious to the writer of
FoGT, who mentions ‘words of obscure signification’, than it is to thewriter of D. G (III 81–83) describes a similar figure under the namecommutatio. Three divergent definitions of commutatio are given in
Gg. The second of these is: commutatio est quando uerba commutantur ex quorum commutatione sententia totaliter commutatur (p.
199) ‘Commutatio is when words are interchanged, from the interchange of words the meaning is changed completely’. The example
used in D and FoGT can be found in many rhetorical treatises (e.g. in
Rhetorica ad Herennium, IV 39 and Quintilian Institutiones Oratoriae,
IX 3.85). It is ascribed to Socrates.
32,12 Ansimehisa verðr ef maðr snýr svá sem með orðum myrkrar
skilningar ‘Antimetabola occurs when one changes, as it were, [themeaning] with words of obscure signification’: This sentence lacks anobject and might be corrupt (snúa is usually constructed with an object
in the dative). The translation follows that in SnE 1848–78, II 229 inadding the object ‘meaning’ and rendering svá sem ‘as it were’.

Commentary

117

Stanza 44
It is obvious from the elaborate prose explanation of the meaning of
the hap. leg. þokumenn ‘fog-men’ in l. 2 (32,15, probably a calque on
Latin nebulo ‘a worthless person, wretch’) that the writer of FoGT
considered the use of this word in st. 44 to illustrate the figure hecalled antimetabola/ansimehisa. The use of þokumenn does not reallyillustrate the standard sense of the figure antimetabola, which D,
following earlier authorities like Isidore of Seville, defines as cum
verbis vertit antimetabola sensum: | non, ut edas, vivas, sed edas ut
vivere possis (ll. 2611–12) ‘antimetabola changes meaning withwords: you should not live so that you may eat, but eat so that you
may live’. Thus a rearrangement of the same words in two clauses canbring about a change of meaning. This is not what FoGT ’s use ofþokumenn does, but it is notable that the stanza as a whole isinfluenced by the Latin adage non ut edas vivas, sed edas ut vivere
possis. This stanza is present in both the X2 (LaufE 1979, 252) and theY1 (LaufE 1979, 363−64) versions of LaufE, together with a versionof the prose commentary that follows the stanza, in each case slightly
differently worded. The verse text is the same in each, except that in l.
3 (32,16) Y1 has klaustrs (as in FoGT), while X2 has klaustr. Neither
the stanza nor the prose commentary are in RE 1665. In X2 the extractfrom FoGT about þokumenn is included after Epilogus partis prioris,
possibly as a later addition, while in Y1 it comes at the end of thesection entitled Upprune nóckurra konga heita; for a discussion of thesignificance of these locations, see Faulkes (LaufE 1979, 179).
32,16 en ‘but’: FoGT 1884, 280 emends en to etr ‘eats’ in order bothto supply a main verb in ll. 3−4 (32,16 – 17) and to bring the Icelandic
closer to the Latin source, but it makes sense without emendation,
provided the verb is assumed.
32,17 að lífið haldiz ‘to stay alive’: Literally ‘so that life is kept’.
32,18 Þokumenn … 22 lifa ‘Those … live’: The writer appears much
more interested in the exegesis of the example than in the figure itself.
The metaphors used in this paragraph—fog, light, darkness—all
belong to the standard fare of medieval religious rhetoric, e.g. strjúk
frá augum þér myrkva ok þoku ok hreinsa hjarta þitt ok hugskot afþeiri inni fornu syndaþoku er langliga hefir þar með stórum lýtum
legit at þú megir því ǫllu betr á líta ljós guðlegrar miskunnar ok athann gefi þér birting sinna blezaðra boðorða (Barlaams saga, ed.
Rindal 1981, 106) ‘Sweep the darkness and fog away from your eyes

118

Commentaryand cleanse your heart and your thoughts of the old fog of sins which
has lain there for long with great errors so that you will be able see thelight of divine mercy better and so that He might give you the enlightenment of His blessed commands’. See also Jóns saga baptista II (ed.
Unger 1874, 866) and the Icelandic Book of Homilies (ed. de Leeuw
van Weenen 1993, 97v l. 31–98r l. 4).
32,18 Þokumenn … 20 framferðar ‘Those … behaviour’: These lines
are reproduced almost verbatim in the Y-version of LaufE (ed. Faulkes
1979, 363) where they form the introduction to st. 44. The same lines
are also given in ms. X2 of LaufE, with some variant readings:Þokumenn eru þeir kallaðir er öllum peningum sínum sóa með [W and
Y: alla penninga sína neyta upp í] ofáti og ofdrykkju, og bera þeir þaðnafn sakir snápskapar síns, því [W: því að] þeir sjá ei [W: eigi, Y:ekki] sátt ljós sinnar [W and Y: riettrar] framferðar (LaufE 1979, 252
and 363).
32,18 ofáti og ofdrykkju ‘indulging in food and drink’: The pairingof these two sins is commonplace and can be found already in Rom.
XIII.13. One Old Norse example which combines indulging in foodand drink with the loss of riches (as in FoGT) can be found in the
Icelandic Book of Homilies: Guð seldi þér auðæfi at þú megir vita
hversu mikit unað at þeim má vera ef þú hefir ást með auðæfum þínum
ok selir þau til tryggrar hirzlu. Ef þú vill þat eigi, þá mun ofát ok
ofdrykkju eða lostasemi taka frá þér auðǿfi þín eða ella mun til komabráðr dauði ok grípa þau frá þér (ed. de Leeuw van Weenen 1993,66v) ‘God gave you riches so that you might know what great bliss
one might find in them if you love your riches and entrust them to afaithful custodian. If you do not want to do that, then over-eating,over-drinking or lustfulness will take the riches from you or sudden
death will come and snatch them away from you’.
32,20 sem í sitjandi myrkvastofuþoku ‘as if they sat in the fog of theprison cell’: The word division is difficult to determine with certainty.
A verbal form is not normally inserted between a preposition and its
complement and one might therefore consider whether it would be
more appropriate to interpret the text as sem ísitjandi myrkvastofuþoku
‘as one/those sitting in the fog of the prison cell, as an inmate/inmatesin the fog of the prison cell’. The noun ísitjandi would then beinterpreted as ‘one sitting in(side)/inmate’. Ísitjandi is not recorded in
ONP or LP, but it is found in Milska, a late medieval Icelandic poem,
meaning ‘possessor’ (ed. ÍM, I 2 p. 46, st. 37). Morphologically,

Commentary

119

sitjandi/ísitjandi can be analysed as nominative singular as well asnominative plural.
32,21 myrkvastofuþoku ‘fog of the prison cell’: This compound is
not attested elsewhere.
32,22 þykkir … skaðsamlig ‘this … detrimental’: This judgement is
not paralleled by the Latin texts.
Chapter 18: Aposiopasis
The definition agrees with that given in D (ll. 2612–15). Dg’s example
and Dg’s exegesis of that example clearly inspired the writer of FoGT:
Aposiopesis est sententie per orationem interceptio, et fit quando
incipimus fari quicquam et ultro id est uoluntarie desinimus illud
quandoque quod cepimus illud tacendo, ut hoc exemplo Terentii: ‘Ego
ne illam que me que illum que [< qua] me que me non’ [cf. Terence
Eunuchus l. 65]. Hoc est: Ego ne illam digner aduentu meo, que illum
preposuit mihi que me spreuit, que non me suscepit heri (83r)‘Aposiopesis is the interruption of a sentence in the course of anutterance, and it occurs when we begin to utter something, and on ourown initiative, viz. voluntarily, break off whenever we begin by meansof leaving it unsaid, as in this example from Terence: “I not her, whome, who him, who me, who me not”. That is: I will not deem her
worthy of my visit, [she] who preferred him to me, [she] who scornedme, [she] who did not receive me yesterday’. Ólsen quotes a similar
gloss in his notes (FoGT 1884, 140n.). Dg’s explanation of the figureis almost identical to a passage in Priscian’s Institutiones (GL, III 111).
Graecismus mentions aposiopesis (I 15) while Gg illustrates the figure
with the same example as Dg (p. 32). In addition, Dg refers to
Graecismus, III 89–91 where a similar figure is treated under the nameprecisio.
Stanza 45
The figure illustrated by st. 45, in dróttkvætt metre, was understood in
Antiquity and the Middle Ages as a kind of reticence brought about bystrong feelings on the part of the orator resulting in the omission of
implicit words. In the case illustrated here the words eg vil ‘I want’
have been supplied to complete l. 4 (32,28) and kastaði ‘[she] rejected’
to complete the sense of the relative clause in ll. 5−6 (32,29 – 34,1).
The misogynistic subject-matter of this stanza was probably not theinvention of the Icelandic poet, but may have been suggested by an
example in a commentary to D (cf. FoGT 2004, 209−10). Another120

Commentary

influence upon this stanza and on the prose commentary (cf. reiðiþokka 34,4, konu 34,6) may be a couplet by Einarr Skúlason (ESk Lv
10III) quoted and interpreted by Óláfr Þórðarson in TGT (1884, 66−67,
174−75); it ostensibly refers to a horse with which the speaker is angry,
but has a double meaning, explained in the prose commentary as
referring to a married woman whom the speaker of the verse fancies.
In the prose commentary the first line of the couplet, Víst erumk hermð
á hesti ‘I truly have anger at the horse’, is paraphrased as legg ek á jóreiðiþokka ‘I place a dislike on the horse’, which can be manipulated
to give the double sense legg ek á Jóreiði þokka ‘I place a liking on
Jóreiðr’ by changing the word boundaries. As the word reiðiþokki
‘anger, wrath, dislike’ is not common in Old Icelandic (there are fivecitations, but not the one in FoGT, in ONP, plus one other poetic
usage, Anon Vitn 12,1VII), the possibility of influence from TGT is
plausible, given also that both stanzas in question refer to men’s
relationships (or wished-for relationships) with women.
32,29 þá er ‘who’: Referring back to the woman in question. Thisemendation of W’s þar er conforms to the prose gloss and was first
proposed in SnE 1848–87, II 230. It has been followed by most
editors, with the exception of Kock (Skald, II 122 and NN §2358), whokeeps the manuscript reading and introduces several unnecessary andunconvincing emendations in ll. 4−5 (32,28 – 29).
32,29 frá færumz ‘get out of’: This emendation of W’s ‘fra fęrum’was first proposed by Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 281) and has been followedby all subsequent editors except Kock.
34,4 þessur ‘these’: Neuter nom. pl. of the demonstrative sjá/þessi.
This form is characteristic of Norwegian and Norwegianising
Icelandic manuscripts. Elsewhere, e.g. at 40,1, the writer uses the
expected form þessi.
34,5 upp taka ‘be construed’: Háttatal (SnE 2007, 12) and TGT(1884, 92) also use the collocation taka upp in this technical sense.
34,9 Þessi … 10 borgar ‘This … Jerusalem’: This allusion refers most
likely to Jer. IV.12 (loquar iudicia mea cum eis ‘I will speak myjudgements with them’, trans. Douay-Rheims Bible) which is a
shortened form of Jer. I.16 (loquar iudicia mea cum eis super omni
malitia eorum ‘I will pronounce my judgements against them touching
all their wickedness’, trans. Douay-Rheims Bible). Jer. IV.12 is part ofa longer speech ‘to this people and Jerusalem’ (populo huic et Hierusalem, IV.11), and Jer. II.1–XXV.38 comprises the word of God

Commentary

121(verbum domini, II.1). This biblical passage therefore fits FoGT ’s
reference in all respects. It is furthermore used as an example of the
figure aposiopesis in Hieronymus’s six books of commentary on thebook of Jeremiah (PL 24 col. 709a). Equally strong arguments cannot
be presented in favour of Ólsen’s suggestions (FoGT 1884, 141n.) thatthe reference might be to Ezek. XVI or Hos. II.
34,10 Hierusalem borgar ‘of the city of Jerusalem’: The Old Norse
form of the name Jerusalem is Jórsalaborg, but the indeclinable Latin
form of the name Hierusalem was often used as well in Old Norse
writings.
Chapter 19: Euphemismos
The definition and the example provided are based on D (ll. 2615–16),
but the writer’s definition is narrower than D’s in that FoGT speaks ofa change of letters in a word rather than a change of words. The writer
retains D’s Latin example (exultat ‘exults’ vs. exaltat ‘exalts’) in thedescription of his example, but in the actual example these words havebeen replaced by Old Norse counterparts (hlakka ‘cry, exult’ vs. hefja
upp ‘raise, exalt’). Dg explains and paraphrases D: Euphemismos [<Euphonismos] est positio uerbi pro uerbo ut in Psalterio: ‘Exultabit
lingua mea iustitiam tuam’ [Ps L.16 iuxta lxx] .i. ‘cum exaltatione decantauit’, hoc etiam patet in littera: Exultat domini uocem [< laudem]
etc. (83v) ‘Euphemismos is the replacement of one word by another, as
in the Psalter: “My tongue will exult your justice”, that is “sang withexaltation”. This is also evident in the text: “[My tongue] exults thevoice of the Lord etc.”’. This figure is not found in G.
Stanza 46
The sense and syntactic arrangement of the words in the first helmingrof st. 46 have been the subject of some editorial differences. It is
assumed here, with Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 282 n. 2) and Longo (FoGT
2004, 142−43 and 210−11) that the first helmingr represents the
Biblical king and psalmist David as a penitent sinner, who died andspent time in the grave as a punishment for his sins before being
released at the Last Judgement. The second helmingr is thenrepresented in direct speech as what he sang from the grave in praiseof God’s righteousness. For the common medieval representation ofDavid as a type of the penitent sinner, see Canon Gamli’s Harmsól(Gamlkan Has 48−49VII and st. 49 Note [All]).

122

Commentary

34,13 og í gröf geinginn ‘and gone into the grave’: Og is here
construed with geinginn í gröf (so Skj B, II 181) rather than more
awkwardly with other phrases (ok með sannri iðran, so SnE 1848−87,
III 161; ok enn með sannri iðran FoGT 1884, 282; ok huldr grundu
FoGT 2004, 142).
34,14 til stundar ‘for a time’: Here understood to mean ‘for a time,
temporarily’ (so also SnE 1848–87, II 231, III 161, FoGT 1884, 282
and 2004, 143) in the sense that David spent time in the grave until the
day of Judgement when, as a penitent, he was released from his
punishment. Finnur Jónsson (Skj B, II 181) takes til stundar with theverb söng ‘sang’ and construes þat sǫng ǫðlingr til stundar, which hetranslates as Dette sang kongen ivrigt (?) ‘The king sang that eagerly(?)’, but this sense is hard to match (LP: stund glosses this usage as
straks ‘straight away’).
34,17 hugþekka … 20 þína The second helmingr of st. 46 is a very
clever rendition into Icelandic of the Latin text of Ps. L.16 Et exultabit
lingua mea justitiam tuam ‘And my tongue will exult your righteousness’. After the stanza, the prose text explains that the verb hlakka ‘cryout, rejoice, exult’, l. 5 (34,17) is used here instead of the morecommon hefja upp ‘raise, exalt’ in order to replace a less prestigious
with a more prestigious word.
34,18 hróðrslungin ‘eulogy-encircled’: This emendation of W’shróðrslung as a feminine adjective agreeing with loftunga ‘tongue ofpraise’, was first proposed by Konráð Gíslason (Konráð Gislason andEiríkur Jónsson 1875−89, II 205−09) and has been followed by all
subsequent editors.
34,19 valdr ‘ruler’: An emendation of W’s vald also proposed by
Konráð Gíslason (Konráð Gislason and Eiríkur Jónsson 1875−89, II
205−09) to provide a nominative singular masculine noun, whichfunctions as the base-word of a kenning for God.
34,22 hæfi ‘exalts’: Hæfi is 3rd pers. sing. of the preterite subjunctiveof the verb hefja.
Chapter 20: Synepthesis
Both the writer’s definition and his condemnation of this figure agreewith D (ll. 2617–22). The two examples given in D have beencombined in FoGT into a single stanza.
34,25 skilninga ‘persons’: See comment to 12,5 above.

Commentary

123

Stanza 47
Stanza 47 is in hrynhent metre. It is obscure in sense until one realisesthat it follows D’s examples of the figure. The first helmingr follows
D’s example of a change of grammatical number, between singularsubject and plural verb, unica facta fuit mulier, quae sunt modo plures‘one woman was made, who soon afterwards are many’. Öl-Giefn, sú
er nú eru margar, hafði orðið víngarðr ‘Ale-Giefn < = Freyja>[], she who now are many, had become a vineyard’ produces asimilar example, using a woman-kenning as singular subject, a feminine singular relative construction and a plural verb (eru) plus pluraladjective (margar). In the second helmingr there is an abrupt shift
from a second to a third person verb, as in D’s nobis parce, deus; nobis
lavet ille reatus ‘Spare us God! May he wash our guilt away’. The
Icelandic example moves from second person vægðu oss ‘spare us’, l.
6 (36,3), to third person hann þó ‘he washed’, l. 7 (36,4). Even thedisapproval of the figure expressed very strongly in both the prose andthe verse of the Icelandic text finds a more muted parallel in the Latin
ista sed in nostrum mutatio non venit usum ‘but that change is not partof our usage’. However, the disapproval of obscure language in ll. 5−6(36,2 – 3) of the stanza is not paralleled in the Latin, but may becompared with Lilja (Anon Lil 98VII) and other fourteenth-century
poetry rejecting elaborate skaldic diction.
34,27 Víngarðr … 36,1 eftir ‘Ale-Giefn … chastity’: Not only does
the first helmingr illustrate a change of singular subject to plural verb,
but it also provides an instance of obscure language, in this case awoman-kenning öl-Giefn ‘ale-Giefn’ combined with a metaphoricalequation between a woman who has lost her virginity and a vineyardthat bears fruit. This latter is the krókr ‘ambiguity’ (cf. LP: krókr 3)
referred to in l. 3 (34,29), and this kind of language is deplored in thesecond helmingr as ósiðr orða ‘a bad habit of words’, l. 5 (36,2).
36,5 píslarmerki ‘in the sign of his passion’: Here understood as acompound of píslar ‘of suffering, torment’ + dat. sg. of merki ‘mark,sign, banner’, referring to Christ’s Cross as the symbol of his passion(so FoGT 1884, 285 n. 7 and FoGT 2004, 145), and taken with í skíru
vatni ‘in pure water’, l. 7 (36,4), as representing the two main guarantees of human salvation, the water of baptism and the symbol of
Christ’s crucifixion. Cf. the more common noun píslarmark, which
always refers to Christ’s Cross. Kock (NN §3163) understands píslar
merki to refer to Christ’s blood. Both FoGT 1884, 284 and Skj B, II
182 construe ok píslarmerki with sekt verka vára, ll. 7−8 (36,4 – 5), to124

Commentary

give the sense ‘[he washed] the guilt of our deeds and signs of torment[in pure water]’. This is possible grammatically but less plausible froma doctrinal point of view.
36,7 í vana dragandi ‘to be used habitually’: On this Latinate passive
use of the present participle, see Nygaard (1906 §§238–39).
36,7 persónum ‘persons’: persóna fem. ‘[grammatical] person’ is here
used synonymously with skilning in 34,25 and 36,6 above. See alsocommentary to 24,3.
36,7 í Saltara og öðrum heilugum bókum ‘in the Psalter and otherholy books’: A general reference. Dg (83v) exemplifies this figure
with Ps. III.9 iuxta lxx (Domini est salus et super populum tuum
benedictio tua ‘Salvation belongs to the Lord, and your benediction[is] upon your people’), and this may be the passage the writer of
FoGT had in mind. Heilugum bókum ‘holy books’ is synonymous with‘sacred writings’.
Chapter 21: Oliopomenon
The initial part of FoGT ’s definition agrees with D (ll. 2623–24),
while the second part (see commentary on climax below at 38,1) has acounterpart in G (I 85). Dg explains: Oligopomenon est sub paucis
uerbis multorum comprehensio, ut patet in textu auctoris in quo per
duos uersiculos historia troiana continetur (83v) ‘Oligopomenon is
the reduction of many words to a few, as can be seen in the text of thewriter in which the trojan history is concentrated in two lines’. G treats
the same figure under the name brachylogia (see commentary to
36,27 – 28 below) and Gg explains: Brachylogia est quando plurima
sub uerbis breuibus comprehenduntur (p. 95) ‘Brachylogia is whenmany thing are covered in a few words’.
36,9 hefir ‘covers’: W is damaged at this point and reads ‘h[. . .]fr’.
Several emendations have been proposed. SnE 1818, 348 does not
emend and prints ‘l . . fir’. SnE 1848, 209 emends to h(leypr y)fir ‘runs
through, summarises’. SnE 1848–87, II 232–33 emends to hefir andtranslates exponit ‘puts forth’. FoGT 2004, 51 emends to hefir andtranslates racconta ‘tells’ (FoGT 2004, 75). FoGT 1884, 143 emends
to hefer [i.e. hefir] and suggests that it should be read as ‘hęfer (=hœfer)’ in the sense ‘afpasse “accommodate”, indskrænke “reduce”’,
although hǿfa normally governs dat. rather than acc. SnE 1848–87’s
emendation has been preferred here, and hefir is translated ‘covers’ inthe sense ‘deals with’, cf. the Latin verb comprehendo used by Gg (seeCommentary

125

introductory commentary to chapter 21 above). Fritzner gives one
example (non-metaphoric) of hafa in this sense (hafa 13): hefir
einsaman Asía helming heimsbygðarinnar ‘Asia alone covers half the
inhabited world’. The quotation is from Stjórn I (cf. ed. Astås 2009,94). Another possibility would be to interpret ‘h[. . .]fr’ as hefr fromhefja ‘begin’.
Stanzas 48 and 49
Stanzas 48 and 49 belong together and must be understood as ávarp
theologie ‘a summary of the Bible’ conveyed in two dróttkvætt
stanzas, as the prose commentary characterises them (36,27). Eachstanza uses four couplets (fjórðungalok) to illustrate four significant
events in the life of Christ. In st. 48 the four events relate to Christ’s
earthly life before his crucifixion, namely his birth from the Virgin
Mary, his circumcision (cf. Luke II.21), which was held to prefigure
his crucifixion (cf. Anon Lil 35,5VII), his baptism in the river Jordan byJohn the Baptist (cf. Anon Lil 37VII), which foreshadowed the rite ofbaptism for Christians, and his threefold temptation (cf. Matt. IV.1–11,
Luke IV.1–13) by Satan in the wilderness, which anticipated Satan’s
temptation of mankind (cf. Anon Lil 45VII). Each couplet contains akenning for God as Christ.
36,13 umsniðning ‘circumcision’: The ‘in’ abbreviation between thesecond ‹n› and final ‹g› has been torn away in W, but the emendationis unproblematical. The only other instance of this noun in poetry is
Anon Lil 35,5VII.
36,15 vann … 16 batnað ‘gained improvement’ [vann batnað]: W hasvanr, an adjective meaning either ‘accustomed’ or ‘lacking’, neither ofwhich makes grammatical sense in this context.
36,19 Píndr … 26 hauðri ‘Tortured, he rose up … on the land of life’:Stanza 49 enumerates the main events in the life of Christ after the
crucifixion in the same manner as in st. 48 (q. v.). These are the Harrowing of Hell and the Resurrection, the Ascension to heaven, thedescent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and the Last Judgement. As
both Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 143n.) and Longo (FoGT 2004, 214−15)
have pointed out, FoGT ’s model was almost certainly various
commentaries on D and D itself (ll. 2623−26 and nn.), where
oliopomenon is said to be a figure in which a series of important
events is expressed in few words, and the example is given of a seriesof short clauses encapsulating the history of the Trojan war.

126

Commentary

36,19 með anda angrleystu herfangi ‘with the sorrow-liberated
booty of souls’: As FoGT 1884, 287 n. 2 and FoGT 2004, 148 havenoted, this phrase refers to Christ’s Harrowing of Hell after the
crucifixion, while the first three words of l. 1 (36,19) píndr reis upp‘tortured he rose up’, refer to the Resurrection.
36,25 sá … 26 hauðri ‘he will come to judge the host of the dead on
the land of life’: This edition follows the interpretation of these lines
offered by Kock (NN §3164) as the only one that respects the couplet
structure of the stanza and also makes theological sense. There is no
doubt that these lines allude to the Last Judgement. Finnur Jónsson(Skj B, II 182) construed lífs á hauðri with hirðandi alls, l. 6 (36,24),
to produce the sense ‘the guardian of all life on earth’, but this violates
the couplet-based syntax of the stanza and is therefore unlikely to becorrect. Ólsen emended the text by adding ok between dauða and lífs
in l. 8 (36,26), reading sá kiemr at dæma drótt dauða ok lífs á hauðri
(FoGT 1884, 287–88) ‘he will come to judge the host of death [thedead] and life [the living] on earth’, but this produces an unmetricalline and rather strained syntax, and must also be rejected.
36,27 ávarp ‘a summary’: ONP has not registered this instance ofávarp, written ‘aurp’ in W, and glosses the word with ‘estimate’. In
Modern Icelandic the most common meaning of ávarp is ‘an address,
speech’. Neither ‘estimate’ nor ‘address’ make sufficient sense in thepresent context and ávarp has therefore been rendered as ‘summary’.
SnE 1848–87, II 235 and FoGT 2004, 76 render ávarp in a similarmanner (with summa and riassunto respectively).
36,27 theologie ‘of the Bible’: Theologie is the Latin genitive form of
theologia fem. Theologia has here been rendered as ‘the Bible’ (seecomment to l. 40,23 below).
36,27 Þessi … 28 brachilogia ‘This … name’: G treats this figure in I
84: Brachylogia refert quam plurima sub breuitate ‘Brachylogia
narrates as much as possible in a brief manner’. Gg illustrates this withthe example that Dg used for Oliopomenon (see introductorycommentary to chapter 21 above).
36,28 hefir … 38,1 fyrri ‘this … previous one’: The writer only
comments on the etymology of the names of the various figures twice(here and in 46,3 – 5). Gg, which normally gives etymologies, explainsbrachylogia as follows: Et dicitur a ‘brachos’ quod est ‘breue’ et‘logos’ quod est ‘sermo’, quasi ‘breuis sermo tamen plura comprehendens’ (p. 95) ‘And it is named from brachos which means

Commentary

127‘brief’ and logos which means ‘utterance’, as if meaning ‘a briefutterance yet containing much’’. Neither D, Dg, nor the writer of
FoGT explains the name of the figure oliopomenon, but Gg’s
explanation of the etymology of brachylogia agrees with the definitionof oliopomenon given by D, Dg and FoGT.
36,28 sömu ‘same’: This word, which is not found in W, was firstsupplied in SnE 1818, 348. All subsequent editors have made the same
addition.
38,1 Sumir … 2 annarri ‘Some … another’: It is uncertain whichauthorities the writer refers to here. G mentions climax immediately
after brachylogia, but does not classify climax as a subtype of thatfigure, writing: Sitque tibi proprie subscripta gradatio climax (I 85)‘you shall consider climax as properly belonging under [the figure]gradatio’. G does not illustrate this figure, but two examples are foundin Gg. This is the second example: Hic [< Hec] quamcumque uidet
cupit et quamcumque cupiuit | Allicit, allectam uitiat, prodit uitiatam(pp. 96−97) ‘The man, whomever he sees, he desires, and he entices
whomever he has desired, he depraves the enticed and abandons the
depraved’. Gg’s example is from G (III 50–51) where it is used as an
example of the figure gradatio. The same example is used by Marbodof Rennes in De ornamentu uerborum (ed. Leotta 1998, 14). Climax is
also described in Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae (II 21.4) where theexample is: Ex innocentia nascitur dignitas, ex dignitate honor, exhonore imperium, ex imperio libertas ‘From innocence is born dignity,from dignity honour, from honour rule, from rule freedom’.
38,1 climax W’s ‘dvnax’ is an obvious case of minim confusion andall editors have corrected to climax following Árni Magnússon who
wrote the corrected form in the right margin of W.
38,1 um jafnar gráður ‘by equal steps’: Gráða ‘step’ is a loan wordfrom Latin gradus ‘step’. The image applied here is that of a ladder(Greek κλῖμαξ ‘ladder’) with steps (gráður).
Stanza 50
The metre of the highly didactic if not homiletic st. 50 is hrynhent.
This stanza is also written on p. 120 of W, on the verso side of the final
leaf containing FoGT, in a later hand, together with some other text,
mainly in Latin. There are two minor variant readings in this versionof the stanza. The association between brachilogia and climax can befound in G (I 84−85), and it may be that the writer of FoGT was
thinking of Eberhard of Béthune when he refers to the opinion of

128

Commentary

sumir meistarar ‘some scholars’ (38,1). In a different part of G (III49−51), Eberhard describes the figure of gradatio, with examples, as
follows: De uoce in uocem descende, gradatio fiet ‘Descend fromword to word, it will become gradatio’. This is very similar to thestrategy of st. 50.
38,10 andar lífs með beisku grandi ‘of the life of the soul with bitter
injury’: All previous editors except Kock (NN §2587) have taken lífs
‘of life’ with með beisku grandi ‘with bitter injury’, but, while that is
possible, much better sense in a Christian context is produced bytaking lífs with andar ‘[the whole nature] of the life of the soul’. For
the sinner, death destroys the whole nature of the life of the soul if thesoul is damned in Hell.
Chapter 22: Homophesis
The initial definition of homophesis is based on D (ll. 2627–28), but
the example (st. 51), and the elaborate exegesis that accompanies theexample, have no parallels in D or Dg. Meissner (1932, 98–101) and
D. McDougall (1988, 477–83) traced some of the biblical and patristic
sources for this section, but no parallel has been found to the exact
combination of sources and imagery found in this chapter. Homophesis
is not among the figures defined and exemplified by G and Gg.
According to D homophesis occurs when something unknown is
explained by something that is equally or more unknown. The writerof FoGT eclipses D and replaces ‘unknown’ with ‘obscure’. Dg
explains that homophesis might occur when a Latin word is explainedby a Greek word, ut interrogando quid sit homo, respondeatur ‘antropos’ (83v) ‘as by asking what homo (a human being) is, the answer
given is anthropos (a human being)’. The example in D is from therealm of astronomy and the named items are all part of an astrolabe.
Dg gives the following explanation: Nota quod in astrolabio suntquedam tabule ad modum ligni uel lapidis [< lapis] disposite, quarum
una dicitur ‘alidada’ et alia ‘ualdagora’ que adinuicem coniuncte suntmediante cauilla que dicitur ‘alchitrop’ (83v) ‘Note that some flatpieces of wood or stone are placed in an astrolabe. One of these iscalled “alidada” and the other “valdagora”. These are joined to one
another by a spike which is called an “alchitrop”’. Kunitzsch provides
explanations of the names and functions of these parts of the astrolabe
in a glossary of termini technici in the Medieval Latin literature on theastrolabe (1982, items number 19 al-‘iḍāda, 3 basṭ al-kura and 40 alquṭb). FoGT ’s example of homophesis is drawn from the realm ofCommentary

129biblical typology, where events in the Old Testament are understood
simultaneously as historical events and prophecies of events that will
occur after the birth of Christ.
Stanza 51
Stanza 51, in dróttkvætt metre, illustrates the figure the writer of FoGT
calls emophasis (homophesis). FoGT ’s definition is dependent on asimilar one in D (see introductory commentary to chapter 22 above),
where the examples come from the technical language of astrology.
Here, however, the lengthy prose commentary that follows the stanza
depends upon two excerpts from patristic writings, ‘the first a discussion attributed to Augustine of a verse from Habakkuk, and the second
an interpretation of Ps. XLI.8, “Abyssus abyssum inuocat in uoce
cataractarum tuarum” ascribed to “leo pafi inn málsnialli”’ (D.
McDougall 1988, 478). The obscurities of the two allusions areconnected through the pivotal figure of Christ, whose birth as a humanushered in the new law; the first helmingr represents his birth in termsof two Old Testament prophecies, while the allegorical interpretationof the two abysses in the second connects the prophets of the Old
Testament and their prophecies with the new law and the words of theapostles and church fathers. David McDougall has suggested (1988,
477−83) that the Fourth Grammarian is likely to have derived hismaterial from a text of the popular medieval homiliary of Paul the
Deacon.
38,13 Sæll … 16 hingað ‘The blessed prince … into this world[literally hither]’: As both Meissner (1932, 98−101) and D. McDougall(1988) have shown, these lines depend upon the Old Latin version of
Habakkuk III.2 In medio duorum animalium cognosceris … ‘you arerecognised between two animals…’. The interpretation of this text
offered in FoGT is taken from a homiletic tract, Contra Judaeos,
paganos, et Arianos sermo de symbolo, attributed to Augustine in the
Middle Ages, but now included among the writings of Quodvultdeus,
Bishop of Carthage 437−53 (D. McDougall 1988, 479). In this tract‘Quodvultdeus seeks to confute the error of the Jews by summoning aseries of Old Testament prophets as “witnesses” of the advent of
Christ’ (D. McDougall 1988, 479). Hab. III.2 is there interpreted,
together with Isa. I.3 Agnouit bos possessorem suum, et asinus
praesepium domini sui ‘The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass hismaster’s crib’ (trans. Douay-Rheims Bible), as a prophecy of theChrist-child in the crib. In the prose of FoGT there is a further

130

Commentaryinterpretation of the ox and the ass as representing the Jews and theGentiles, an ‘exegetical commonplace’ to be found in a number of
patristic commentaries; for the details, see D. McDougall (1988, 480
and nn.).
38,14 kvikvenda ‘animals’: Most editors (Skj B, II 183, Skald, II 95)
but not Ólsen (cf. FoGT 1884, 289 n. 2) restore ‹v› in kvikvenda toregularise the metre. The spelling kvikenda is also found in the prosetext at 38,22; 38,29; 40,9 and 40,12.
38,16 þá er ‘when’: An emendation from W’s sá er, first proposed byÓlsen (FoGT 1884, 289 n. 3), and adopted by subsequent editors.
38,17 eða … 20 vátta ‘or when the deep … phases of the moon’: The
stanza’s second helmingr depends upon the second patristic example
mentioned above, Ps. XLI.8 Abyssus abyssum inuocat, in uoce
cataractarum tuarum ‘Deep calleth on deep at the noise of thy floodgates’ (trans. Douay-Rheims Bible). The prose gloss attributes its
interpretation of Ps. XLI.8 to Leo páfi inn málsnjalli ‘Pope Leo theeloquent’ (40,1 – 2), probably Leo the Great. David McDougall (1988,
481) proposed that this might be a reference to the sixtieth tractate ofPope Leo, also available in the homiliary of Paul the Deacon. The
prose gloss proposes an allegorical reading of the voice of the two
vatnadjúp ‘abysses’ (40,2), the one above the heavens, the other below
it, on several levels, including their identification with the old and newlaws and the teachings of prophets and apostles. David McDougall(1988, 481) adduces several conventional examples of such parallels.
The present interpretation of this helmingr follows those of Ólsen
(FoGT 1884, 289–90) and Kock (NN §1410) rather than Finnur
Jónsson (Skj B, II 183), who construes borgar niða ‘of the strongholdof the phases of the moon’, l. 6 (38,18), with að djúpi ‘to the deep’, l. 5(38,17), rather than with um hávar hljóðraufar ‘across the high soundcrevices’, l. 7 (38,19), in order to provide one abyss in heaven, theother below it, but his interpretation fails to take account of the prosetext’s commentary undirdjúp vatnanna kalla á annað undirdjúp um
þær himinborur sem catarakte kallaz ‘the abyss of the waters calls tothe other abyss through those openings in the sky which are called
cataracts’ (38,23 – 24).
38,20 vátta ‘bore witness’: Literally ‘bear witness’. This verb is bothplural and present tense, where one would expect the preterite váttuðu;cf. NN §1410. The plural usage with a singular subject (djúp) can
probably be explained, as Ólsen has suggested (FoGT 1884, 290 n. 5)

Commentary131

because the poet is thinking of two mighty abysses rather than one.
Ólsen emended vátta to váttar (3rd pers. sg. pres.).
38,21 Hier … 22 komanda ‘Here … conduct’: The reference is toHab. III.2 in Vetus latina: In medio duorum animalium cognosceris(ed. Sabbatier 1743–49, II 966) ‘You are recognised between two
animals’ (see Meissner 1932, 98–99). Cognosceris is morphologicallyambiguous and usually understood as a future passive ‘you will beknown’. In this commentary, and in accordance with the understandingof the writer of FoGT (cf. sienn, 38,21), it is rendered as a present
passive ‘you are recognized’.
38,21 Abbacuch spámanns ‘of the prophet Habakkuk’: Abbacuch is
to be interpreted as a genitive. Hebrew names are frequently indeclinable in Latin, and the same is often the case in Old Norse.
38,21 Guð dróttin sienn ‘that the Lord God … is seen’: An accusative with infinitive where the infinitive (vera) has been left out.
38,23 Dávíð … 26 váru ‘David … ark’: The first reference here is to
Ps. XLI.8. The second reference is to the story of the Flood: rupti suntomnes fontes abyssi magnae et cataractae caeli aperta sunt (Gen.
VII.11) ‘All the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and theflood gates of heaven were opened’ (trans. Douay-Rheims Bible).
38,24 cataracte ‘cataracts’: The declensional form of cataracte is
Latin, nom. pl. fem. The scribe uses the letter ‹k› rather than ‹c› here(‘katarakte’), but this has been smoothed out in the normalisation,
because the same word is written with ‹c›’s below (at 40,3).
38,27 segir … 31 lögmála ‘Augustine … laws’: The writer here draws
on a passage from Quodvultdeus of Carthage’s (d. c. 450) Contra
Judaeos, paganos et Arrianos: Quid est ‘in medio duum animaliumcognosceris’, nisi aut in medio duorum testamentorum aut in medio
duorum latronum aut in medio Moysi et Heliae cum eo in montesermocinantium (ed. Braun 1976, 224) ‘What is “you are recognised
between two animals”, if not in between the two testaments or in
between the two robbers or in between Moses and Elijah speaking
with him on the mountain [cf. Matt. XVII.3]?’
38,29 Moysi og Helie ‘Moses and Elijah’: Both names are given in
their Latin genitival form.
38,30 myndskiftingu ‘the transfiguration’: W has ‘myndskiftingr’,
which might be a noun in gen. sg. or nom./acc. pl. The word is thecomplement of the preposition í which usually governs the dative in
temporal and locative roles, and it has therefore been deemed

132

Commentary

advisable to follow FoGT 1884, 145 and FoGT 2004, 53 and emend
myndskiftingar to myndskiftingu (dat. sg.). SnE 1818, 349 left myndskiftingar unemended while SnE 1848–87, II 236 and SnE 1848, 209
conjectured myndskipting (acc. sg.).
40,1 þessi … 3 cataractarum ‘Pope … cataracts’: This might be areference to Pope Leo’s 60th sermon (for Palm Sunday) where he
writes: concurrentibus igitur ad eruditionem nostram et novis
testimoniis et antiquis, dum quod prophetica cecinit tuba, evangelica
pandit historia, et sicut scriptum est: ‘Abyssus abyssum invocat, invoce cataractarum tuarum’; quoniam ad enarrandam gloriam gratie
Dei paribus sibi vocibus utriusque Testamenti altitudo respondet (Depassione domini IX, PL 54, 342–43) ‘thus both the new and the oldtestimonies concur for our instruction, when the evangelic history
unfolds what the prophetic trumpet sang, as it is written: “The abyss
calls upon the abyss with the voice of your cataracts” because theprofundity of each Testament answers the other with equal voices inorder to relate the glory of God’s mercy’ (see Meissner 1932, 101 andD. McDougall 1988, 481).
40,1 Leo páfi inn málsnjalli ‘Pope Leo the eloquent’: Pope Leo I theGreat (r. 440–61).
40,2 tvenn vatnadjúp þau er annað er yfir himnum en annað
undir himnum ‘two abysses, of which one is above the sky and theother below the sky’: For the abyss above the sky, see Gen I.7.
40,2 vatnadjúp ‘abysses’: Vatnadjúp neut. ‘abyss’ is a hap. leg. It ishere used synonymously with undirdjúp neut. ‘abyss’.
40,3 cataractarum ‘of the cataracts’: This word is given in the
genitive plural according to its normal Latin declension.
40,4 himinraufanna ‘of the openings in the sky’: A brief descriptionof the Flood in Maríu saga also combines the rare noun himinrauf
with the more common undirdjúp: … er undirdjúps brunnar opnuðusk
ok þustu í verǫldina, en ofan himinraufarnar (ed. Unger 1871b, 9–10)‘… when the wells of the abyss were opened and gushed out into theworld and from above the openings in the sky [were opened]’.
40,5 merkja … predikara ‘they symbolise … and preachers’: Theinterpretation of the voices of the cataracts as the voices of prophets
and apostles is a fairly widespread one, but it is not found in Leo’s
sermon (D. McDougall 1988, 481).
40,5 þá … 8 kienningar ‘who … teaching’: Although Leo’s sermon
does not contain this imagery, it is quite common (D. McDougallCommentary

133

1988, 481 and n. 38) and parallels can be found elsewhere in Old
Norse literature, e.g. in Stjórn I (ed. Astås 2009, 46–47).
40,8 Og … 15 lögmáls ‘And … law’: An unusually complex sentence.
The present translation assumes that a finite verb er ‘is’ has been left
out in the subordinate temporal clause er ið forna lögmál … [er]fagrliga fram flutt … ‘when the old law … [is] beautifully presented…’. SnE 1848–87, II 239 interprets the words samþykkjanda nýjulögmáli as an absolute dative, and sees fram flutt and útskýrt asappositions to nýju lögmáli. This interpretation has not been chosen
here because nýju lögmáli (which is in the dative) does not agree withfram flutt and útskýrt (both in the nominative or accusative).
40,9 kvikenda siðvendis ‘beings of good conduct’: SnE 1848–87, II
237 translates animantia moralitatis ‘beings of morality’ and Meissner(1932, 100) uses the term animalia moralitatis as if it was in common
usage; this is not the case. The ox and the ass are referred to as beingsof good conduct, because Isa. I.3 says that these animals know who
their master is, in contradistinction to Israel: cognouit bos possessorem
suum et asinus praesepe domini sui. Israhel non cognouit populus
meus non intellexit. ‘The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass hismaster’s crib, but Israel hath not known me, and my people hath notunderstood’ (trans. Douay-Rheims Bible).
40,13 samþykkjanda ‘agreeing’: This participle is interpreted asneuter nom. sg. and as modifying ið forna lögmál ‘the old law’ (40,10
above).
40,13 útskýrt ‘explained’: The context requires a neuter participle
here and W’s reading útskýrd (fem.) has been changed accordingly.
40,14 fyrir predikara nýs lögmáls ‘by the preachers of the new law’:This use of the preposition fyrir is especially prevalent in learned
writings (Cleasby and Vigfusson 1957, s. v. fyrir with accusative C
VIII).
40,18 ástgjöf Heilags Anda ‘the gift of grace of the Holy Spirit’: Jóns
saga postola I explains that ‘the gift of grace of the Holy Spirit’ wasgiven to the apostles when Christ appeared to them after his death andgave them the power to forgive sins (John XX.19–23) and at the feast
of Pentecost (Acts II), and also provides an allegorical interpretationof the meaning of this gift (ed. Unger 1874, 414–15).
Chapter 23: Epimone
The basic definition of the figure (the repetition of a single word) isparalleled in D (ll. 2630–31). According to D, a word is repeated so134Commentarythat one may understand it better. The writer of FoGT adds to this thata word may also be repeated for aesthetic reasons, and all four
examples provided illustrate this second use of the figure. G also
defines and illustrates the figure (I 34–37), but D is more closely
related to FoGT. In this chapter the writer of FoGT integrates his
rhetorical doctrine with more Old Norse poetic terminology andpractice than usual.
40,22 til … 23 theologia ‘so … the Bible’: This part of the definition isparalleled and exemplified by D (ll. 2630–31) and Dg. Dg explains
D’s example: ‘Expectans expectaui Dominum’ [Ps XXXIX.1]. Hec
figura multum reperitur in sacra pagina (83v) ‘“Waiting, I have
waited for the Lord”. This figure is often found on the sacred page [i.e.
in the Bible]’.
40,23 theologia ‘the Bible’: Given in the ablative case according to
the normal Latin declension of the word. Comparison with D and Dg
shows that the writer most likely refers to the Bible.
40,24 í dunhendu ‘in dunhenda’: An indigenous technical term,‘echoing rhyme’, sometimes given as dunhent ‘echoing-rhymed’ (cf.
SnE 2007, 80−81), which was exemplified by Snorri Sturluson in
Háttatal 24 (SnSt Ht 24III), and before him in Háttalykill 65−66(RvHbreiðm Hl 65−66III).
40,24 iðurmæltum hætti ‘the iðurmæltr verse-form’: Like dunhenda
and greppaminni, iðurmæltr ‘repeatedly spoken’ involves the repetition of complete syllables either within a line or from one line toanother. Iðurmæltr is exemplified in SnSt Ht 47III and RvHbreiðm Hl
57−58III.
40,25 greppaminni ‘poets’ reminder’ involves repetition of the sameor similar words, in this case in a series of questions, posed in the firsthelmingr and answered in the second. Examples are SnSt Ht 40III and
RvHbreiðm Hl 45−46III. This device may be of some antiquity; cf.
Vésteinn Ólason (1969) and Lönnroth (1977). FoGT sts 61 and 62 arevery similar to greppaminni, though here each question and answer
occupies a single verse line. See the notes to these stanzas.
40,26 háttaföll Háttaföll are metrical faults, and particularly metricalinconsistencies. The writer of FoGT seems to be influenced at thispoint by Snorri Sturluson’s use of this term in one place in Háttatal torefer to variations of verse-form within a single stanza of a kind that
he says are found in ancient poetry (í fornkvæðum, SnE 2007, 64). He
uses the term in the prose commentary to Háttatal 58, which is an
example of a verse-form he terms Braga háttr ‘Bragi’s verse-form’,Commentary

135

named after Bragi Boddason (on Bragi, see note to 14,17), though thisexample does not correspond precisely to any of Bragi’s extant
stanzas.
40,26 sá má ‘he who wants’: SnE 1848, 202 interpreted W’s sama as
sá má. All subsequent editors have accepted this.
Stanzas 52, 53, 54 and 55
The four sts 52−55 give examples of different kinds of repetition of
the same word in different positions in the verse line. None of themcorresponds exactly to any of the verse-forms FoGT names in thepreceding prose paragraph, which are in dróttkvætt metre (íðurmælt
would be the closest), although those verse-forms do use repetition asa stylistic characteristic. All four sts 52−55 are in the metre runhent,
and, although each is free-standing, sts 52 and 55 can be understood toform an outer semantic frame, in which the speaker is Christ, and theaddressee mankind. Similarly, sts 53 and 54 belong together and canbe understood to refer to the properties of the Christian heaven.
42,2 og ‘and’: Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 291) emends og to ek (eg) in orderto have every line of st. 52 begin with the same word.
42,6 Þar … 9 þraungt ‘There is nothing evil … nothing constricted’:In st. 53 repetition of the word ekki ‘nothing’ occurs in the middle
parts of lines.
42,11 Þar … 14 vald ‘There is unmeasured power … and eternal
power’: Stanza 54 has repetition on vald ‘power’ at the ends of lines.
42,16 Eg … 19 þig ‘I bless you … I save you’: In this stanza, 55, there
is repetition of words both at the beginnings (eg ‘I’) and ends (þig‘you’) of lines.
Chapter 24: Homopathion
The writer has reversed the order of presentation of the two figuresanthropospathos (D ll. 2634–35) and homopathion (D ll. 2636–39), sothat homopathion is followed by anthropospathos. The writer’s initial
definition of the figure and the example with the heart and the tongue
agree with D, but nothing in D or Dg parallels st. 56 or the explanationof st. 56 in 44,3 – 8.
42,20 Antopazia ‘Homopathion’: The name of the figure given in
FoGT is quite far from the form in which it appears in D. But thedefinition and the initial example show that ‘antopazia’ must indeed beconsidered a (corrupted) form of ‘homopathion’.
42,20 ef ‘in which’: See commentary to ef above (12,4).

136

Commentary

42,22 samþykk ‘to agree with’: samþykk is interpreted as an adjective
modifying tunga fem. ‘tongue’.
Stanza 56
This dróttkvætt stanza is cited in FoGT as an example of the figure
antopazia (homopathion), in which an attribute of one entity enables
an attribute of another. It is also recorded in LaufE (mss GKS 2368 4°x
and AM 743 4°x) and in Resen’s Edda of 1665 (Kk 1v) (Faulkes
1977). In FoGT the stanza is not attributed to a named poet, while
Resen’s Edda attributes it in a footnote to an ‘Einar Skess’. Mss 2368x
and 743x of the longer (Y) version of LaufE attribute it to the twelfthcentury Icelandic priest Einarr Skúlason (born c. 1090); for abiography of this prolific poet, see SkP II: 2, 537. In SkP this stanza
has the siglum ESk Lv 13III. In LaufE the stanza appears in the section
on kennings for the sun under the heading figura. The prose context isvery similar to that of FoGT and was probably influenced by it. No
context for the stanza outside these pedagogical works is known.
42,23 af mæni ‘from the roof-ridge’: Mæni is an emendation from all
manuscripts’ mæðu (fem. dat. sg.) ‘weariness’, which makes little
sense in context and does not produce internal rhyme. The kenningmænir hofs moldar ‘the roof-ridge of the temple of the ground’ [>] is unique in skaldic poetry and may suggest the poet’s
acquaintance with the concept of the zenith, introduced to Western
Europe from Arabic sources, probably during the twelfth century (cf.
AÍ, II xxxvii). In the treatise Rím II, the word cenit (i.e. ‘zenith’) isused in a discussion of the pole star (AÍ, II 110).
42,27 Veit … 44,2 dauða ‘I know … nor death’: The interpretation of
the stanza’s second helmingr is uncertain. That offered here, andexplained in greater detail in Clunies Ross and Gade (2012), is inaccordance with FoGT ’s prose gloss, which discusses how the moontakes its office, to shine upon the earth, from the sun, and has no lightof its own. In accordance with that view, the kenning prýði fróns ‘theadorner of the earth’, l. 6 (42,28), is understood to refer to the sun andfljótum fielaga ‘its swift companion’, l. 5 (42,27), to the moon. The
service the sun performs for its companion is to illuminate it. Lines
7−8 (44,1 – 2) must refer to the fact that the moon gives off no light of
its own but takes its light from the sun. Other interpretations of thehelmingr are possible, however. The most likely alternative interpretation is that prýði fróns refers to the moon and fljótum fielaga to
the sun, whether prýði is understood from prýðir masc. ‘adorner’ orCommentary

137

from prýði fem. ‘adornment’, but this is inconsistent with the prose
gloss and with the stanza’s classification by LaufE under kennings forthe sun. Many medieval cosmological sources state that the moon isswifter in its course than the sun (cf. Konungs skuggsjá, ed. HolmOlsen 1983, 10; Clunies Ross and Gade 2012), but an alternative view,that the sun is the faster of the two, occurs in some texts, for example,
in Rím I (AÍ, II 58 and 78).
44,4 það … 8 vestri ‘it … west’: Cf. Rím I (AÍ, II 59–60). Rím I does
not speak about the four points of the compass as FoGT does, but thedoctrine appears to be the same: sér lítit fyrst af, en annan dag ǫðrumeira. Er þat þá fullt er þat er gagnvart sólunni. Þá teksk enn af smámþeim af tunglinu, svá sem þat nálgask sólina (AÍ, II 59) ‘One can see alittle [part of the moon] to begin with, but more each day. It is fullwhen it is directly opposite the sun. Then it wanes again bit by bit as it
approaches the sun’.
Chapter 25: Anthropospathos
The initial part of the definition agrees well with D (ll. 2634–35), but
the writer of FoGT develops D’s example (the anger of God) in st. 57
and adds an interpretation with homiletic qualities. The figure is also
exemplified in G (II 10).
Stanza 57
Stanza 57 is in the metre hrynhent. It is close in sentiment to D.
44,12 þann ‘that one who’: Demonstrates loss of the relative particle
er in the combination demonstrative + relative particle (Nygaard 1906
§261). Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 293 n. 1) suggested adding the relative
particle er to W’s þann here on the ground that the scribe of FoGT
does not elsewhere demonstrate loss of the particle before ademonstrative. He has been followed by Skj B, II 184, Skald, II 96 and
FoGT 2004, 55. However, in a fourteenth-century text this loss would
not be unexpected. The referent of þann is God and the allusion is toGen. III.8, in which Adam and Eve are said to hear the voice of God as
he walked in the garden of Eden in the cool of the day. The allusion is
also to the first humans’ sinful condition, having eaten the forbidden
fruit and having hidden themselves because they were afraid to comeface to face with God.
44,14 þenna … 15 sitja ‘greatly wise Stephen recognised him standing[lit. to stand]’: The reference is to Acts VI, in which a certain deacon

138

Commentary

named Stephen, a man of wisdom and faith (VI.6), rails against
persecutors of the infant Church and has a vision of heaven in which
he sees Jesus standing at God’s right hand (Acts VI.55−56). Finnur
Jónsson (Skj B, II 184) gives the name in the form Stéfánús, Kock
(Skald, II 96) as Stefánús, but there is no reason to depart from W’s
spelling with ‘ph’. Length has been judged here to be on the penultimate syllable (cf. Modern Icelandic Stefán) in a Type A line, position
5−6, treated as disyllabic with resolution in position 1.
44,15 og spámenn sitja ‘and prophets [saw him] sit’: The verb must
be understood from the previous clause. The allusion is to the common
image, in written texts and the visual arts, of God seated on a throne
with his heavenly retinue around him; cf., among others, 1 Kings
XXII.19, 2 Chr. XVIII.18, Isa. XXXVII.16.
44,21 með sannleik ‘literally’: Literally ‘in truth’.
44,21 Og … 46,2 miskunn ‘And it is … because of his grace’: This
elegant homiletic section has no parallel in the known sources of
FoGT.
44,28 sjálfa ‘-selves’: Sveinbjörn Egilsson’s emendation (SnE 1848,
211) has been adopted by all subsequent editors.
46,3 Hefir … 5 hluti ‘This … things’: Ólsen (FoGT 1881, 148) quotes
a parallel to the first part of this etymology culled from Thurot (1868,
476). A similar etymology is found in Gg: Et dicitur ab ‘anthropos’
quod est ‘homo’ et ‘pasis’ ‘passio’, quasi ‘humana passio’ attributa
Deo et e conuerso (p. 157) ‘And [the figure] is named from anthropos[man] which means homo [man] and pasis [> pathos “suffering”]
passio [suffering], something like “human suffering” attributed to God
and the other way around’. The writer of FoGT equates Gr pasis withsetning ‘placement’ which is not too far from the meaning of the (rare)
Greek word πᾶσις ‘acquisition, possession’ (see Liddell and Scott
1940, s. v.). The second half of his etymological explanation (fromsetning to hluti) appears to have been based on an equation between
Greek pasis and Old Norse setning ‘placement’. On the etymology ofanthropos in Norse texts, see also Nordal 2001, 304.
46,5 mannliga reglu ‘human constraints’: Mannliga reglu is in theaccusative singular.
46,5 þeir … 9 saman ‘those … omnipotence’: The anthropomorphites
are often mentioned in patristic literature. The writer’s wording recallsthat found in Isidore of Seville’s listing of heresies in his Etymologiae:
Anthropomorphitae dicti pro eo, quod simplicitate rustica Deum

Commentary

139

habere humana membra, quae in divinis libris scripta sunt,arbitrantur; ἄνθρωπος enim Graece, Latine homo interpretatur:
ignorantes vocem Domini, qui ait: ‘Spiritus est Deus’. Incorporeus est
enim, nec membris distinguitur, nec corporis mole censetur (VIII 5.32)‘The Anthropomorphites are called so because out of rustic simplicity
they believe that God has the human limbs that are described in the
Holy Writings; for the Greek word Anthropos [man] means homo[man] in Latin’. They are ignorant of the word of God which said:“God is spirit” [John IV.24]. Indeed, he is incorporeal, does not havelimbs, and should not be thought of as having bodily weight’.
46,8 óbrugðligr ‘unvarying’: óbrugðligr is a hap. leg. in Old Norse.
The positive form of the adjective (without the privative prefix) brugðligr ‘inconstant’ is a hap. leg. as well.
Chapter 26: Synacrismos
This figure is found in G where it is defined as follows: Crimina uel
laudes oratio colligat una | Multa simul, sic fit et habet fieri
synacrismos (I 63–64) ‘When one sentence collects many crimes or
praises at the same time, thus synacrismos occurs and is held to occur’.
Synacrismos is not found in D. Gg provides a few examples (pp.
79–80), but they all differ from the examples of FoGT in that they
praise or castigate one single character (rather than many characters as
do those in FoGT).
46,10 Simatrismos ‘Synacrismos’: Comparison with the Latin text
shows that synacrismos is the correct form.
46,10 í einum capitulo og klausu eða versi í látínu ‘in one chapter,[one] clause or [one] line in Latin’: G confines the use of the figure toa single sentence.
46,10 í einum capitulo ‘in one chapter’: Capitulo is here declined inaccordance with its normal Latin declension (in the ablative). As aloan word in Old Norse, it took the form kapítuli masc. The prefixedeinum probably indicates that the writer regarded Latin capitulum neut.
as a masculine noun like Old Norse kapítuli.
Stanzas 58, 59 and 60
The three sts 58, 59 and 60 are said to illustrate the figure ofsynacrismos, which the prose text defines as the collection of praise orvices in one or more stanzas of Old Norse poetry. The manner inwhich this is carried out in these three stanzas is very ingenious. As far
as the subject-matter is concerned, all the examples presented are of140

Commentarypraise, and the individual subjects are characters from the Old
Testament, except for the last example, which refers to God. However,
all these stanzas contain a number of stereotyped metrical faults,
which stand out because all other stanzas in FoGT are metricallyregular. Stanzas 58,1, 5 (46,13 and 46,17) and 59,1, 5, 7 (46,21, 46,25
and 46,27) all have metrically illicit hendingar on weakly stressed
lofar ‘praises’ and fully stressed ævi ‘life’ (voiced intervocalic [f] and[v]). In st. 60,1 (48,1), lofar alliterates (but does not rhyme) and there
is suspended resolution. This line does not correspond to any metricaltype attested in Germanic alliterative poetry. Hence it appears that allof these stanzas illustrate the rhetorical figure synacrismos on two
different levels: they unite ‘praise’ on the textual level and ‘faults’ at
the metrical level.
46,13 Ábiels … 20 aldir ‘Innocence extols … Shem forever’: Stanza
58 divides neatly into couplets (fjórðungar), devoting one couplet tothe virtues of each of four characters from the Biblical Book ofGenesis: Abel, son of Adam and Eve, the victim of the first murder by
his brother Cain; Enoch, son of Jared and great-grandfather of Noah(Gen V.18); Noah himself and his son Shem (Gen V−IX).
46,15 öld … 16 einkiend ‘specific to mankind’: Most editors regardöld as dative singular ‘to mankind’, though Kock (NN §2588) argues
that it is an adverbial accusative meaning ‘for ever’. SnE 1848−87, II
247 proposed that einkiend means ‘well known to [all men]’,translating omnibus hominibus nota (cf. Skj B, II 184 kendte formenneskene ‘known to mankind’), but it is more likely that einkiendr
means ‘specific to, belonging to’; cf. ONP: 2einkenna A 2) pret. part.
einkenndr and 3) ‘specify as belonging to’, i.e. indicating that humanbeings alone of living creatures have understanding of morality. Cf.
LP: einkendr.
46,15 Ienóch mildan ‘gentle Enoch’: This Enoch is the figure
mentioned in Gen. V, the son of Jared and great-grandfather of Noah,
who lived for three hundred and sixty-five years, walked with God andwas eventually taken by him into heaven.
46,16 siðavendni ‘integrity of morals’: Hap. leg.; cf. the similar
compound siðvendis ‘of uprightness’ in stanza 51,2 (38,14).
46,17 Nóe ‘of Noah’: The latinate genitive singular of Nói (see LP:
Nói), treated as a monosyllable, with resolution under full stress;
Skald, II 96 has bisyllabic Nóé, which would be metrically irregular.
For Noah’s purity, see Gen. VI.9.

Commentary

141

46,19 Siem … 20 aldir ‘The observance … forever’: The associationof Noah’s son Shem with religious observance alludes to a tradition,
originally midrashic, that Shem was the same person as Melchisedech,
and that there was a direct line of priesthood from Noah to Aaron,transmitted by primogeniture. Cf. Honorius Augustodunensis, Summagloria de apostolico et augusto sive de praecellentia sacerdotii prae
regno liber, chapter II (PL 172, col. 1260C). The idea goes back at
least to Jerome. So far, no direct source in Old Norse has been
identified.
46,21 Trúa … 28 þjónan ‘Faith extols … life of Aaron’: Stanza 59
continues the theme of st. 58, praise for the virtues of Old Testamentcharacters. Whereas those celebrated in st. 58 all come from the earlier
chapters of Genesis, the first four mentioned in st. 59 come from thisbook’s later chapters: Abraham, his son Isaac, Jacob, son of Isaac andJoseph, son of Jacob. The story of Aaron, brother of Moses, comes in
Exod., and looks forward to st. 60. Abraham is associated with faithbecause of his obedience to God, who required him to sacrifice his son
Isaac; the latter symbolises hope, as the physical sacrifice was averted.
Lines 3−4 (46,23 – 24) may refer to Gen. XXVIII.15–30, where Jacobis said to have worked for fourteen years for Rachel’s father, before
being allowed to marry her. The reference to Joseph is clearly to his
exile in Egypt and his ability to interpret prophetic dreams, principallythose of the Egyptian Pharaoh, while the lines on Aaron allude to hisrole as the first high priest of the Hebrews, nicely balancing thereference to Shem in st. 58,7−8 (46,19 – 20).
46,23 Jácób ‘Jacob’: W places a stop after vísan, l. 2 (46,22) and reads
ván … Jácóbs in l. 3. Finnur Jónsson (Skj B, II 184) deleted the final‹s› (genitive singular) of Jácóbs to give an accusative singular objectof lofar ‘praises’ and brought this clause into line with others in thestanza, as has been done in this edition. Ólsen kept the manuscript
reading Jácóbs, on the model of the construction in 58,5 (46,17), butemended lofar to lofaz ‘is praised’ (FoGT 1884, 294 and n. 2), readingÁstsemð Jakobs lofast einum hugar fremðum, which he paraphrased asPå grund af Jakobs udmærkede sjælelige egenskaber priser man hanskærlighed ‘on the basis of Jacob’s remarkable spiritual qualities one
praises his love’.
48,1 Moysen ‘Moses’: The spelling of the manuscript. Also possible
are Móisen, Moísen, and length on the last syllable (-én, so Skald, II96). Moses the lawgiver is well represented in skaldic verse; cf. AnonLeið 18,2VII lagavísum Móisi ‘law-wise Moses’ and especially Anon

142

CommentaryLaw 1,5VII Móyses kunni lögmáls list ‘Moses was skilled in the art oflaw-giving’.
48,2 brennfagra ‘burning fair’: The epithet is hap. leg. and probably
alludes to Exod. XIX.16–20, which describes how God appeared
before Moses on Mount Sinai in fire and smoke when he gave him the
Ten Commandments.
48,3 þig … 4 beima ‘Everything … men’: Some emendation of these
two lines is necessary to achieve grammatical sense. SnE 1848−87, II
246−47 n. 2 first suggested emending W’s allr, l. 3 (48,3) to allt, but
collocated it as allt beima ‘everything of men’, i.e. all men, which isunidiomatic. Ólsen also adopted the minimal emendation of W’s allr
to allt (FoGT 1884, 295), and his construal ‘everything of all theworld’ is followed in this edition. Finnur Jónsson in Skj B, II 185
emends þik to herr, l. 3 (48,3), and jǫfurr (nominative) to jǫfur, l. 4
(48,4), reading allr herr beima lofar með ǫllu jǫfur alls heims, which
Finnur translates as hele menneskenes skare lovpriser fuldkommenthele verdens konge ‘the whole troop of humans praises completely theking of the whole world’. Kock (NN §3165, Skald, II 96) emends þik
to þing and allr to allt, l. 3 (48,3), as well as jǫfurr to jǫfur, l. 4 (48,4),
collocating allt þing beima ‘all the assembly of men’ and jǫfur alls
heims ‘the lord of all the world’, l. 4 (48,4). FoGT 2004, 57 follows
Kock’s emendations.
Chapter 27: Teretema
G defines this figure as follows: Cum quis multotiens interrogat est
teretema, | Quod bene rhetoricum datur aspiciendo colorem (I 86–87)‘When one often asks, it is teretema, which gives a good rhetoricalcolour [ornament] for the one who will consider it’. Stanzas 61 and 62
are clearly inspired by the examples given in Gg. Gg’s first example is:
Quis moritur? presul. Cur? pro grege. Qualiter? ense. Quando? natali.
Quis locus? ara Dei (p. 97). ‘Who dies? The bishop. Why? For theflock. How? By the sword. When? At Christmas. At what place? The
altar of God’. These lines come from a poem on the murder of Thomas
Becket (d. 29 Dec. 1170) (ed. Harbert 1975, 17). In sts 61 and 62
Christ and St Óláfr have replaced St Thomas.
Stanza 61
Stanzas 61 and 62, the last in FoGT, are both in a form of dróttkvætt
called in Háttatal sextánmælt ‘sixteen times spoken’ (cf. SnSt Ht 9III;
SnE 2007, 9). In the two FoGT stanzas eight questions are matched by

Commentary143

eight replies, each pair given in a single line of poetry. Sextánmælt isvery similar to the verse-form called greppaminni ‘poets’ reminder’,which is mentioned in FoGT in connection with the figure of epimone(see commentary to 40,25). Whereas the subject of st. 61 is the deathof Christ and its significance for mankind, st. 62, in strikingly similar
wording, refers to the death of the Norwegian king Óláfr Haraldsson at
the Battle of Stiklestad (Stiklastaðir) on 29 July 1030 and the implications of the saint’s death for mankind. The parallel emphasises the
sanctity of the king.
48,10 Hvessu ‘how’: W has hversu, but all editors have followedÓlsen (FoGT 1884, 295−96) in normalising to assimilated hvessu inview of the skothending with krossu.
48,11 Lassarus ‘Lazarus’: Lazarus of Bethany, brother of Martha andMary, whose death and resurrection by Christ is described in John XI.
His revival from the dead was regarded as a foreshadowing of theresurrection of Christ and the gospel narrative was often interpreted as
an illustration of the two natures of Christ as man and deity. The ideathat his burial place was also the place where Christ was crucified has
not been traced to a source.
48,12 Helzt ‘about’: Taken here (so also SnE 1848−87, II 248 andKock, Skald, II 96 and NN §2494) with að nóni (there is a stop in the
manuscript before ‘helldz’). Ólsen (FoGT 1884, 295 and 296 n. 3),
following Konráð Gíslason (1849, 304), proposes the manuscript
punctuation is a mistake and that helzt should be understood withhvienær in the same line, as do Finnur Jónsson (Skj B, II 185),translating når omtrent ‘about when’, and Longo (FoGT 2004, 57).
The same editors construe the very close verbal parallel in st. 62,3
(48,20) in the same way.
48,12 að nóni ‘at the ninth hour’: At nones, c. 3 p.m. The same hour isgiven in st. 62 (48,20) as the time that St Óláfr fell. Cf. commentary to
6,7.
48,17 með minnr þraungdum spurningum ‘with less compressed
questions’: The verb þraungva usually means ‘squeeze, compress,
make narrow, rush’. It is uncertain what the writer refers to here. The
questions of st. 62 are not substantially different from those of st. 61.
Gg also gives two variants of the figure. In the first variant (quoted
above in the commentary to 48,6), every question deals with the same
subject (namely the murder of Thomas Becket). In the second the144

Commentaryquestions deal with various subjects but that does not seem to be thecase with st. 62.
Stanza 62
Stanzas 61 and 62 are closely parallel in structure and wording, thusemphasising the sanctity of St Óláfr Haraldsson, the subject of st. 62.
His death at the battle of Stiklestad is implicity compared to Christ’s
crucifixion, and his opponents to the Jews. The effect of Óláfr’s death,the stanza claims, is to restore mankind to health and to curb the
spread of sin.
48,21 Öfund vöknuð ‘awakened ill-will’: Probably a reference to thevarious personal scores that the magnates who opposed Óláfr at
Stiklestad wished to settle, possibly directed especially at the motivation of Kálfr Árnason (see below), whose stepsons had been killed byÓláfr (cf. ÍF 27, 300−03).
48,22 Kálfr It is generally assumed that this is a reference to KálfrÁrnason, a Norwegian magnate who dealt Óláfr one of his fatal
wounds at Stiklestad, although there is some doubt about whether thisassailant was Kálfr Árnason or Kálfr Arnfinnsson (cf. ÍF 27, 385 andn. 2).
48,23 bændu ‘requested’: From bæna (earlier bǿna) ‘to request,
entreat’. W reads bendu ‘intended [by means of a sign]’, from benda(cf. LP: 2. benda).
48,25 Hvað sýtir Fira lýti ‘What laments? Men’s sin’: Finnur Jónsson
is surely right in his gloss to this line in Skj B, II 236, that it refers to
the expectation that Óláfr’s death and sainthood will make it moredifficult for sin to flourish.

DOCTRINALE(ll. 2560–2639)

DOCTRINALE
2560

2565

2570

2575

2580

2585

2590

2595

Est et, quando rem notificabis
ex alia, cui rem possis conferre priorem,
quae sit nota minus, per eam, quae notior exstat.
Tres species: icon, paradigma, parabola, subsunt.
In simili genere qui comparat, efficit;
haec solet ex usu quandoquedici.
Sed dici poterit de iure parabola, si quisinter dissimiles res comparat, utputa: ‘Semen
est evangelium, quod nutrivit bona terra,
quod petra suscepit, quod spinae detinuerunt’.
Hicfacit, qui primum comparat et post
assignat simile: ‘Domini sunt semina verbum,
spinae divitae, mens arida petra vocatur’.
Alterius vox una tenens vim praepositiva,
ut ‘supra’ pro ‘de’, fit.
Cum plus significas, dicis minus, haec tibi fiat
; fit sub ea firmando negatio bina.
Describendo locum
faciemus.
C
solet certum describere tempus.
Si dicatur agens patiens res vel vice versa,
sive modo simili tibi sit conversio facta,
fiet: ‘Perflavit fistula buccas’.
Personamque novam formans das.
Absenti sermo directus
fiet;
sic loquor absenti, scriptam dum mitto salutem.
Est adiectivum substantivo resolutum
aut e converso; sic
tibi formo:‘Armatum’que ‘virum’ designo per ‘arma virumque’;‘armato’que ‘viro’ decet ‘arma virumque’ notare.
Extra materiam describens vana vagatur
auctor, et hancplures dixere figuram.
Eefficitur, si fixum proprietatem
significans ponis, ubi debet mobile poni.
Sic loquor expresse dicens: ‘Davus scelus ipsum’.
Est
exponens dicta priora.
Dum retices, quod turpe sonat, dic:‘Circuit’ haec et ‘relliquiae’ dant ‘relligio’que.

DOCTRINALE
H
is when you will denote one thing by a second withwhich you might compare the first thing, that which is less known bythat which is more known. Three subtypes exist: icon, paradigma,
parabola. He who makes comparisons between things of a similarkind, brings about; in practice, this is usually called.
But it can rightfully be called parabola if one makes comparisons
between different things, for example: ‘The seed is the gospel that thegood soil nourished, which the rock received, which the thorns held
back’. He brings about
who first compares and thenspecifies the likeness: the seeds are the word of the Lord, the thorns
riches; the arid mind is called a rock.
One preposition which carries the meaning of another, like ‘above’
instead of ‘of’, gives.
When you signify more, but say less, this gives you. In thisfigure, a double negation becomes a confirmation.
We will bring about
by describing a place.
C
usually describes a certain time.
If the active thing is called passive or the other way around, or you
make a similar transposition, it will become: ‘The pipe
blew through the jaws’.
You makeby fashioning a new character.
Speech directed to someone absent will become. In thisway, I speak to someone absent when I send a written greeting.
An adjective is transformed into a noun or the opposite—in this way
I createfor you. And I denote ‘an armed man’ by ‘arms
and a man’, and it is fitting that ‘arms and a man’ designates ‘anarmed man’.
The author wanders away from the material and describes insignificant matters, and many called this figure.
Eis brought about if you mention a fixed quality where achangable one should be mentioned. I speak emphatically when I say:
‘Davus [is] crime incarnate’.
E
explains what has been said earlier.
When you refrain from saying something because it sounds
disagreeable, say a: circuit, relliquiae and relligio produce
this.

Doctrinale − Text

2600

2605

2610

2615

2620

2625

2630

2635

Dicitur esse
sermo directus ad unum
utens plurali, velut hic: ‘Nostis, bone praesul’.
Pro numero numerum, pro casu ponere casum
te facit
inter se dissona iungens.
Saepius audivi tempus pro tempore poni:‘Ludere’ = ‘ludebat ad ludendumque vocabat’;inque prophetiis mutantur tempora sacris.
Verba perrespondent ultima primis:‘Est Daniel Noë Job castus rectorque maritus’.
Respondens ad ea, tibi quae sunt obicienda.
Das, cum nil tamen obiciatur.
Sensus oppositos notat
eodem
verbo: ‘Non obsto, sed toto posse resisto’.
Cum verbis vertit
sensum:‘Non, ut edas, vivas; sed edas, ut vivere possis’.
Incipimus fari quicquam quandoque, sed illud
ultro desinimus intercipimusque, tacendo;
vult
dici defectio talis.
Est
pro verbo ponere verbum:‘Exsultat domini vocem mea lingua superni’.
Contingens verbi mutat: ‘Ecceunica facta fuit mulier, quae sunt modo plures’.
Ista sed in nostrum mutatio non venit usum.
Dicuntur binae species synepthesis esse,
scilicet haec et ea, qua personam variamus:‘Nobis parce, deus; nobis lavet ille reatus’.
Vult
ex dictis plura notare;moto sermone sic plura licet memorare:‘Urit amor Paridem; nuptam rapit; armat Atriden
ultio; pugnatur; fit machina; Troia crematur’.
Exponens
est non nota per aequevel magis ignota: Dic ‘alchitrop’ esse ‘cavillam’,quae tenet ‘allidadam’ cum ‘valdagora’ sociatam.
Saepe prius dicta geminat tibi theologia
que vocat, haec si repetitio fiat,
ut, quod dicetur, sic certius esse probetur:‘Expectando’ David ‘expectans’ sic geminavit.
Si, quae sunt hominis, assignentur deitati,
est: Sic saepe ‘Dei’ legis ‘iram’.
Si sint res aliquae concordi foedere iunctae,

Doctrinale − Translation
Speech directed at one person using the plural is called, likethis: ‘Ye know, good prelate’.
A, connecting discordancies, makes you use one number
instead of another, one case instead of another. I have often heard one
tense used instead of another: ‘to play’ for ‘he played’ and ‘he called
to play’; tenses are often changed in holy prophecies.
The last words agree with the first through: ‘Daniel,Noah, Job is chaste, a helmsman and married’.
When you respond to possible objections even though none areraised, you make an.
Asignifies conflicting meanings with the same word: ‘I do
not stand in the way, I withstand with all my might’.
Ainverts the meaning along with the words: ‘You
should not live so that you may eat, but eat so that you may live’.
Whenever we begin to say something but break off voluntarily andstop by being silent . . . such ellipsis should be called.
E
is to use one word instead of another: ‘My tongue
exults the voice of the Lord above’.
Schanges the contingency of a word: ‘See, one woman
was made, who soon afterwards are many’. But that change is not partof our usage. There is said to be two kinds of synepthesis; namely thisone, and the one in which we change the person: ‘Spare us God! May
he wash our guilt away’.
Owants to denote many things by what is said. In thisway, it is possible to make mention of many things quickly: ‘Love
burns Paris, he steals the bride, revenge arms the son of Atreus, thebattle rages, the scheme is carried out, Troy is burned’.
H
explains something unknown by something equally or
more unknown: say that an alchitrop is the cavilla, which holds theallida, which is connected with the valdagora.
The Bible often repeats things which have been said earlier andsummons. This repetition occurs, so that that which is said isshown with greater certainty. David, waiting by waiting, made such arepetition.
A
is if some human traits are assigned to the deity:
thus you often read ‘the anger of God’.

Doctrinale − Text
id, quod inest uni, reliquam dices operari:
Sic linguam cordi concordem dic meditariactalem dic esse figuram.
(text from D = Reichling 1893, 172–78)

Doctrinale − Translation
If there are some matters brought together by a joint tie, then you
might say that that which belongs to one causes the other. Say in thisway that the tongue is considered united with the heart and call such afigure.

TECHNICAL TERMS USED IN FOGT
For words of non-Norse origin and obvious calques and loan translations, Latin or Greek equivalents have been given in addition totranslations. The writer presumably did not have first-hand knowledgeof Greek so terms of Greek origin have therefore found their way into
the text via Latin. In addition to ONP, Fritzner and Cleasby and
Vigfusson (1957), the list mainly draws upon the work of Thurot(1868), Ólsen (1884), Lausberg (1990) and Liddell and Scott (1996).
aclacassis < anticlasis < Gr. ἀντανάκλασις ‘bending back, use of aword in an altered sense’: 32,1.
afganga fem. ‘digression’, cf. Lat. evagatio ‘wandering’: 14,17.
anatecor see antiteton.
ansimehisa < antimetabola < Gr. ἀντιμεταβολή ‘transposition’: 32,12.
antiposora < anthypophora < Gr. ἀνθυποφορά ‘reply’: 30,20.
antiteton < antitheton < Gr. ἀντίθετον ‘antithesis’: 24,21; 26,11;
28,23 (anatecor).
antitosis < Gr. ἀντίπτωσις ‘resistance, opposition’, gramm.
‘interchange of cases’: 24,6; 24,13.
antopazia < homopathion < Gr. ὁμοιοπάθεια? ‘similarity of affection,
sympathetic emotion’: 42,20.
antropuspatos < anthropospathos < Gr. ἀνθρωποπαθῶς? ‘withhuman feelings’: 44,9.
aposiopesis < aposiopasis < Gr. ἀποσιώπησις ‘becoming silent’:
32,23.
apostropha < Gr. ἀποστροφή ‘turning away’: 12,4.
atkvæði neut. ‘pronunciation’: 20,27.
ávarp neut. ‘summary’, not recorded in this sense in the standard
dictionaries: 36,27.
bethgraphia compound of Hebrew beth ‘house’ and Gr. γραφία
‘writing’, apparently unparalleled: 4,21.
brachilogia < Gr. βραχυλογία ‘brevity in speech/writing’: 36,28.
capitulum neut. (masc.?) ‘chapter’: 46,11.
catenphaton < cacenphaton < Gr. κακέμφατον ‘ill-sounding’: 20,25;
20,26.
climax < Gr. κλῖμαξ ‘ladder, climax’: 38,1.
cosmographia < Gr. κοσμογραφία ‘description of the world’: 6,1.

Technical terms

153

cronographia < chronographia < Gr. χρονογραφία ‘chronologicalrecord’: 6,5.
drápa fem. ‘a long poem with refrain(s)’: 14,18.
dreifa (fð) ‘derive’, cf. Lat. derivare: 22,1.
dróttkvæðr adj. ‘composed in the court metre’: 36,27.
dunhenda fem. ‘echoing rhyme’: 40,24.
dynax see climax.
dæmi neut. ‘example’, cf. Lat. exemplum: 14,16; 16,9; 16,11; 16,19;
16,25; 20,20; 24,18.
ebasis < Gr. ἔκβασις ‘going out of, digression’: 14,17; 16,3; 16,9;
16,21.
efni neut. ‘subject matter’, cf. Lat. materia: 14,17; 16,3; 20,17; 28,11.
efnisafganga fem. ‘digression from the subject-matter’: 18,1.
eiginligr adj. ‘proper, specific’: 20,21; 46,7.
emophasis < homophesis < Gr. ὁμοιόφησις? ‘saying similarly’?:
38,11.
emphasis < Gr. ἔμφασις ‘setting forth, exposition, narration’: 18,3;
18,17.
endiadis < hendiadys < Gr. ἒν διὰ δυοῖν ‘one through two’: 12,27;
14,13; 14,14.
epimenon < epimone < Gr. ἐπιμονή ‘dwelling, tarrying’: 40,21.
eptirkomandi pres. ptc. ‘following, future’, cf. Lat. futurus: 20,23.
euphemismos < Gr. εὐφημισμός ‘euphemism’: 34,11.
euphonia < Gr. εὐφωνία ‘euphony’: 20,25; 20,27; 20,29.
exflexigesis < efflexigesis < Gr. ἐπεξήγησις ‘detailed account,
explanation’: 20,4; 20,15; 20,22.
fall neut. ‘case’, cf. Lat. casus: 24,6; 24,12 (twice).
fallaskifti neut. ‘change of cases’, hap. leg.: 24,7.
fígúra fem. < Lat. figura ‘figure (of speech)’: 2,7; 6,11; 8,4; 8,13;
8,25; 12,4; 12,17; 12,24; 12,27; 16,18; 18,6; 20,14; 20,15; 20,21;
20,28; 26,10; 28,10; 32,11; 32,22; 34,9; 34,10; 36,6; 36,28; 40,21;
42,15; 42,20; 44,9; 44,20; 46,3; 46,10; 48,5; 48,6; 48,17.
finngalknað pret. ptc. ‘made similar to a finngalkn (a kind of monster)’, used of incongruous metaphors: 20,1.
fjórðungr masc. ‘quarter stanza, couplet’: 28,21.
flytja (flutti) ‘move’, flytja (fram) ‘pronounce’: 40,13; 40,22.
fornskáld neut. ‘poet of old’: 24,20.
framburðr masc. ‘publication, reading aloud’: 12,26.
frásögn fem. ‘statement, story’: 16,10; 20,15.
fyrirsetning fem. ‘preposition’, cf. Lat. prepositio: 2,9.

154

Technical terms

giegna (nd) ‘meet’, giegna saman ‘belong together, agree’, cf. Lat.
convenire ‘come together, agree’: 26,9.
gierandi masc. ‘agent’, cf. Lat. agens lit. ‘(an) acting (one)’: 6,22
(twice).
glósa (að) ‘explain’: 20,15; 38,11.
glósa fem. ‘gloss’ < Lat. glo(s)sa ‘a foreign word requiring explanation’ < Gr. γλῶσσα ‘tongue’: 20,14; 38,23.
gráða fem. ‘step’, cf. Lat. gradus: 38,2.
grein fem. ‘explanation, distinction’: 20,14; 20,27.
greining fem. ‘explanation, exposition’: 20,4.
greppaminni neut. ‘poets’ reminder’: 40,25.
háttafall neut. ‘fall (fault) of metre’: 40,26.
háttr masc. ‘mode, metre’, cf. Lat. modus: 16,21; 20,2; 20,3; 24,24;
26,12; 26,22; 28,25; 30,3; 40,24; 48,7.
helmingr masc. ‘half, half-stanza’: 28,11; 28,22; 28,24.
hljóða (að) ‘sound’, cf. Lat. sonare: 20,30.
hlutr masc. ‘thing, part’, cf. Lat. res ‘thing’: 8,16 (twice); 8,27; 10,13(twice); 12,27; 12,28 (twice); 14,1 (twice); 14,2; 14,5; 14,6; 14,14(twice); 14,15 (twice); 16,9; 16,21; 18,3 (twice); 20,1; 20,4; 20,17;
20,18; 20,23 (twice); 24,19; 30,20; 38,11 (twice); 42,20; 46,5; 48,6.
hræriligr adj. ‘moveable’, cf. Lat. mobile: 18,3.
icona < icon < Gr. εἰκών ‘image, similitude, comparison’: 20,17.
iðurmæltr adj. ‘repeatedly said’: 40,24.
ísetning fem. ‘insertion’: 8,15.
jarteignakvæði neut. ‘poem about miracles’: 16,23.
játan fem. ‘affirmation’: 4,8.
kienna (nd) ‘attribute’: 18,29.
kienning fem. ‘teaching’: 12,2; 22,18; 40,8; 40,14.
klausa fem. ‘clause’, cf. Lat. clausula: 46,11.
kveða (kvað, kváðu, kveðit) ‘compose, say, sing, recite’: 2,2; 2,11;
10,16; 10,17; 10,25; 12,7; 12,18; 18,18; 20,5; 22,28; 24,24; 26,24,
32,24; 34,26; 44,11.
kveðandi neut. ‘metre’: 24,23.
kvæði neut. ‘poem’: 16,3; 16,11; 24,2.
kynkvísl fem. ‘lineage, branch’: 20,22.
langloka fem. ‘long closure/ending’: 24,24.
lepos Lat. ‘pleasantry’: 22,27.
liðinn pret. ptc. ‘past’, cf. Lat. praeteritus: 20,23.
líking fem. ‘likeness, comparison, simile’: 20,19.
líkja (kt) ‘make like’, líkja eftir (e-m) ‘imitate (sth.)’: 24,19; 40,27.

Technical terms

155

límingarstafr masc. ‘conjoined character (digraph)’: 20,29.
liptota < Gr. λιτότης ‘plainness, simplicity, understatement’: 2,10;
2,20.
mál neut. ‘speech, utterance, sentence’: 22,1; 26,12; 26,14; 26,23;
26,24; 28,7; 28,8 (twice); 28,10; 28,11; 28,12; 28,22; 28,23; 28,24;
32,23; 42,4; 48,16.
málsgrein fem. ‘sentence’: 38,2.
margfalda (að) ‘make manifold, pluralize’: 24,3.
margfaldr adj. ‘manifold, plural’: 22,27; 24,16 (twice).
meistari masc. ‘master, teacher, grammarian’: 38,1.
merkja (kt) ‘signify’: 2,10; 2,20; 4,2; 12,1; 12,2; 18,4; 18,29; 20,16;
22,27; 38, 29; 40,5; vera merkt fyrir e-t ‘being signified by sth.’:14,5; ‘signify sth.’: 7,27.
nafn neut. ‘noun, name’, cf. Lat. nomen: 12,5 (pronoun?); 20,30;
24,16 (twice); 32,19; 34,10; 38,28 (twice); 46,3 (twice).
nauðsyn fem. ‘necessity’, cf. Lat. necessitas: 8,14; 16,26; 38,7; 38,8;
44,24.
nefniligr adj. ‘nominative’, cf. Lat. nominativus: 24,12.
neiting fem. ‘negation’, cf. Lat. negatio: 4,8.
norrönuskáldskap neut. ‘norse poetry’: 20,24.
onopomenon < oliopomenon < Gr. compund of ο̕λίγος ‘little, small’and ?: 36,9.
orð neut. ‘word’: 2,11; 2,20; 22,1; 22,2; 24,21; 24,22; 26,9; 26,24;
28,21; 30,24; 32,2; 32,12; 34,4; 34,9; 34,11; 34,22; 34,23; 36,9;
38,21; 40,21; 40,23; 44,13; ‘verb’, cf. Lat. verbum: 24,16.
óskiftiligr adj. ‘indivisible’: 12,28 (twice); 14,5; 46,7.
parabola < Gr. παραβολή ‘juxtaposition’: 20,18.
paradigma < Gr. παράδειγμα ‘pattern, model, example’: 20,20.
persóna fem. ‘person’, cf. Lat. persona: 8,15; 22,27; 24,3; 36,7.
prepositio Lat. ‘preposition’: 2,1.
prologus Lat. ‘prologue’: 12,25.
prosopophia < prosopopoeia < Gr. προσωποποιία ‘dramatisation’:
8,15; 10,13.
protheseos paraloge < protheseos paralange < Gr. πρόθεσεως
παραλλαγή ‘interchange of prepositions’: 2,1.
regla fem. ‘rule, metre’, cf. Lat. regula: 24,22; 26,10; ‘constraint’:
46,5.
rægiligr adj. ‘accusative’, cf. Lat. accusativus: 24,12.
samfastr adj. ‘bound, conjoined’: 14,15.

156

Technical terms

setja (setti) ‘place, put’: 2,7; 4,7; 8,8; 8,13; 12,25; 14,18; 16,23;
20,28; 24,6; 38,22; 38,23; 40,21; 40,23; 46,4; setja fram ‘present’,
setja fyrir e-u ‘place/use instead of sth.’: 12,28; 14,11; 24,12; 24,19;
34,11; setja í stað e-s ‘place/use instead of sth.’ 14,14; 14,15; 34,23.
simatrismos < synacrismos < Gr. συναθροισμός ‘collection, union’:
46,10.
sineptesis < synepthesis < Gr. συνέμπτωσις ‘formal coincidence,
similarity of form’: 34,25.
skáld neut. ‘poet’: 4,13; 4,15; 4,26; 6,1; 6,11; 8,16; 8,25; 12,12;
12,16; 14,17; 14,18; 16,3; 16,9; 15,17; 24,19.
skáldskapr masc. ‘poetry’: 8,13.
skáldskaparháttr masc. ‘metre of poetry’: 40,26.
skifta (ft) ‘change, swap’: 2,9; 20,1; 20,29; 24,22; 36,6; 36,7.
skiftiligr adj. ‘divisible’: 14,1.
skilning fem. ‘(grammatical) person’: 12,5; 34,25; 36,6; ‘signification’: 2,10; 32,1; 32,13; 46,7.
skraut neut. ‘ornamentation’: 10,21; 16,26.
skrúð neut. ‘ornament’, cf. Lat. ornatus: 8,13.
skýra (rð) ‘explain’: 20,15; 20,20; 20,22.
skýring fem. ‘explanation’: 20,4.
soluecismus < soloecismus < Gr. σολοικισμός ‘soloecism’: 24,4;
24,18.
species Lat. ‘kind, type’: 26,12; 26,23; 28,10; 38,1.
stafr masc. ‘letter, character’: 20,2; 34,11.
standa (stóð, stóðu, staðit) ‘stand (written)’: 2,1; 4,8; 14,16; 22,2
(twice); 24,16; 29,27; 24,18; 24,24; 26,10; 34,9; 34,12; standa til‘warrant’: 2,11.
stef neut. ‘refrain’: 16,3; 16,4; 16,23.
stórkvæði neut. ‘grand poem’: 20,3.
stæla (lt) ‘equip with stál (intercalary clause)’: 24,24; 26,26.
sundrlauss adj ‘disjoined, separate’: 12,27; 14,14.
svara (að) ‘answer, correspond with’: 24,21; 30,20; 48,16.
taka (tók, tóku, tekit) ‘take’, taka upp ‘construct’: 34,5.
tal neut. ‘number’: 22,27; 24,6; 34,25; 36,6.
tala (að) ‘speak’: 8,25; 12,4; 12,6; 12,17; 22,28; 24,3; 44,21; tala af
e-u ‘speak about sth’: 4,26; tala með/fyrir fígúru ‘speak
figuratively’: 20,21; 34,9.
talnaskifti neut. ‘change of numbers’, hap. leg.: 24,13.
theologia fem. Lat. ‘theology, The Bible’: 36,27; 40,23.

Technical terms

157

therethema < teretema < Gr. ἐρώτημα ‘that which is asked,
question’: 48,6.
tilfelli neut. ‘contingency, accidental quality’, cf. Lat. accidens: 18,4;
18,29; 44,20.
tímaskifti neut. ‘change of tense’: 24,18.
tími masc. ‘tense’, cf. Lat. tempus: 6,5; 24,6.
tophographia < topographia < Gr. τοπογραφία ‘description of place’:
4,15.
umskifti neut. ‘exchange’: 24,6; 34,11; 34,23; 34,25.
undirstaða fem. ‘foundation, essence, nature’: 20,21.
undirstaðligr adj. ‘substantive’, cf. Lat. substantivus: 18,3.
útþanning fem. ‘extension’ hap. leg.: 2,20.
verk neut. ‘(literary) work’, cf. Lat. opus: 24,20.
vers neut. ‘verse, poetry’, cf. Lat. versus: 46,11.
vísa fem. ‘stanza’: 14,19; 14,21; 16,12; 18,6; 18,30; 20,1; 20,2; 20,3;
24,22; 26,23; 28,8; 28,11; 28,23 (twice); 30,3; 34,4; 34,12; 36,27;
46,11; 48,16.
vísuhelmingr masc. ‘half-stanza’: 26,12; 26,13; 32,11; 38,23.
vísuorð neut. ‘line of poetry’: 28,7; 28,8; 28,24; 48,16.
ypallage < hypallage < Gr. ὑπαλλαγή ‘interchange, exchange’: 6,21.
yrkja (orti, ort) ‘compose’: 14,18.
þolandi masc. ‘passive’ hap. leg., cf. Lat. patiens lit. ‘suffering(one)’: 6,21; 6,22.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achard, Guy, ed. 1989. Rhétorique à Herennius. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.
Aen = Virgil’s Aeneid in Mynors 1969.
AEW = Vries, Jan de 1962. Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch.
2nd rev. edn. Rpt. 1977. Leiden: Brill.
AÍ I = Kristian Kålund, ed. 1908. Alfræði íslenzk. Islandsk encyklopædisk litteratur I. Cod. mbr. AM. 194, 8vo. Samfund til udgivelse
af gammel nordisk litteratur 37. Copenhagen: Møller.
AÍ II = Natanael Beckman and Kristian Kålund, eds 1914 –16. Alfræði
íslenzk. Islandsk encyklopædisk litteratur II. Rímtǫl. Samfund til
udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur 41. Copenhagen: Møller.
Almqvist, Bo 1965 –74. Norrön niddiktning. Traditionshistoriska
studier i versmagi. Two Parts. I. Nid mot furstar. II. Nid mot missionärer. Senmedeltida nidtraditioner. Stockholm: Almqvist &Wiksell.
Andersson, Theodore M. and Kari Ellen Gade, trans. 2000. Morkinskinna. The earliest Icelandic chronicle of the Norwegian kings(1030 –1157). Islandica 51. Ithaca and London: Cornell University
Press.
ANG = Noreen, Adolf 1923. Altnordische Grammatik I. Altisländische
und altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) unter
Berücksichtigung des Urnordischen. 4th edn. Halle: Niemeyer.
Asmussen, Georg et al. 2002. Archiv der Bergenfahrerkompanie zu
Lübeck und des Hansischen Kontors zu Bergen in Norwegen von(1278) bzw. 1314 bis 1853. Findbücher 9. Lübeck: Archiv derHansestadt Lübeck.
Astås, Reidar, ed. 2009. Stjórn. 2 vols. Norrøne tekster 8. Oslo: Riksarkivet.
Bekken, Otto B. and Marit Christoffersen 1985. Algorismus i
Hauksbók i europeisk perspektiv. Fagseksjon for matematikk/
Fagseksjon for norsk. Skrifter 1985: 1. Kristiansand: Agder
distrikshøgskole.
Bekken, Otto B. 1986. On the Cubus Perfectus of the Algorismus in
Hauksbók. Fagseksjon for matematikk. Skrifter 1986: 2. Kristiansand: Agder distrikshøgskole.

Bibliography

159

Beowulf 2008 = Robert D. Fulk, Robert E. Bjork and John D. Niles,
eds 2008. Klaeber’s Beowulf and the Fight at Finnsburg, ed. Fr.
Klaeber. Toronto, Buffalo and London: Toronto University Press.
Björn K. Þórólfsson 1925. Um íslenskar orðmyndir á 14. og 15. öld og
breytingar þeirra úr fornmálinu. Reykjavík: Fjelagsprentsmiðjan.
Rpt. 1987. Rit um íslenska málfræði 2. Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.
Blöndal, Sigfús. 1949. ‘St. Nikulás og dýrkun hans, sérstaklega áÍslandi’. Skírnir 123, 69 – 97.
Braun, R., ed. 1976. Opera Quodvultdeo carthaginiensi episcopo
tributa. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 60. Turnhout: Brepols.
Broberg, Sven Grén, ed. 1909 –12. Rémundar saga keisarasonar.
Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur 38. Copenhagen:Møller.
Cahill, Peter, ed. 1983. Duggals leiðsla. Stofnun Árna Magnússonar áÍslandi, Rit 25. Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi.
Calboli, Gualtiero, ed. 1969. Cornifici Rhetorica ad C. Herennium.
Bologna: Casa Editrice Pàtron Soc.
Camargo, Martin 2006. ‘Latin composition textbooks and Ad Herennium glossing. The missing link?’ In The rhetoric of Cicero in its
medieval and early Renaissance commentary tradition. Ed. Virginia
Cox and John O. Ward. Brill’s Companions to the ChristianTradition 2. Leiden: Brill, 267– 88.
Cecchini, Enzo et al., ed. 2004. Derivationes. Edizione nazionale dei
testi mediolatini 11, serie 1/6. Florence: SISMEL.
Chase, Martin, ed. 2007. ‘Lilja’. In SkP VII: 2, 554 – 677.
Cizek, Alexandru N., ed. 2009. Konrad von Mure: Novus Grecismus
auf der Grundlage aller vorhanden Handschriften erstmals herausgegeben. Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften 81. Munich: Fink.
Cleasby, Richard and Gudbrand Vigfusson 1957. An IcelandicEnglish Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon. 2nd edn with a supplement
by Sir William A. Craigie.
Clunies Ross, Margaret 1987. Skáldskaparmál. Snorri Sturluson’s ars
poetica and medieval theories of language. The Viking Collection 4.
Odense: Odense University Press.
Clunies Ross, Margaret 1993. ‘Bragi Boddason’, in Medieval Scandinavia. An encyclopedia. Ed. Philip Pulsiano and Kirsten Wolf. New
York: Garland Publishing, 55 – 56.
Clunies Ross, Margaret 2005. A history of Old Norse poetry andpoetics. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.

160

Bibliography

Clunies Ross, Margaret. Forthcoming. ‘The Fourth GrammaticalTreatise as medial poetics’. In Mediality in Late Medieval Iceland.
Ed. Jürg Glauser and Kate Heslop. Zurich: Chronos.
Clunies Ross, Margaret and Kari Ellen Gade 2012. ‘Cosmology andskaldic poetry’. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 111,
199 –207.
Colker Marvin L. 1974. ‘New evidence that John of Garland revised
the Doctrinale of Alexander de Villa Dei’. Scriptorium 28, 68 –71.
Colker, Marvin L., ed. 1978. Galteri de Castellione Alexandreis.
Padova: Editrice Antenore.
Collings, Lucy Grace 1967. ‘The “Málskrúðsfræði” and the Latin
tradition in Iceland’. Unpublished MA Thesis. Cornell University.
Cook, Robert and Tveitane, Mattias, eds 1979. Strengleikar. An Old
Norse translation of twenty-one Old French lais. Norrøne tekster 3.
Oslo: Norsk historisk kjeldeskrift-institutt.
Copeland, Rita 1991. Rhetoric, hermeneutics and translation in the
Middle Ages. Academic traditions and vernacular texts. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Copeland, Rita and Inike Sluiter 2009. Medieval grammar andrhetoric. Language arts and literary theory, AD 300 –1475. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Cormack, Margaret 1994. The saints in Iceland. Their veneration fromthe conversion to 1400. Subsidia Hagiographica 78. Brussels:Société des Bollandistes.
D = Dietrich Reichling, ed. 1893. Das Doctrinale des Alexander deVilla-Dei. Kritisch-Exegetische Ausgabe. Monumenta Germaniae
paedagogica 12. Berlin: A. Hofmann.
Daly, Lloyd W. and Bernadine A. Daly, eds 1975. Summa Britonis
sive Guillelmi Britonis Expositiones vocabulorum Biblie. Padova:
Antenore.
De Leeuw van Weenen, Andrea, ed. 1993. The Icelandic homily book.
Perg. 15 4° in the Royal Library, Stockholm. Reykjavík: StofnunÁrna Magnússonar á Íslandi.
Dg = Doctrinale cum comento [Ludovici de Guaschis] 1494. Venice:
M. de Suffreno de Bonellis de Monteferato <http://gallica.bnf.fr/
ark:/12148/bpt6k58377b, accessed 1 July 2013>
DI = Diplomatarium Islandicum. Íslenzk fornbrefasafn, sem hefir inniað halda bref og gjörnínga, dóma og máldaga, og aðrar skrár, er
snerta Ísland eða íslenzka menn. 1857–1972. 16 vols. Copenhagen:Møller.

Bibliography

161

Douay-Rheims Bible = Swift Edgar, ed. 2010 –13. The Vulgate Bible.
Douay-Rheims Translation. 6 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Dronke, Ursula, ed. and trans. 1969. The Poetic Edda I. Heroic
Poems. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Duggan, A. J. 2004. ‘Cricklade, Robert of (d. in or after 1174)’.
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/23730, accessed
5 July 2013>
Eiríkur Jónsson and Finnur Jónsson, eds 1892– 96. Hauksbók udgiven
efter de arnamagnæanske håndskrifter no. 371, 544 og 675, 4° samt
forskellige papirshåndskrifter. Copenhagen: Thieles bogtrykkeri.
Faral, Edmond, ed. 1924. Les arts poétiques du XIIe et du XIIIe siècle.
Recherches et documents sur la technique littéraire de moyen age.
Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.
Faulkes, Anthony, ed. 1977. Edda Islandorum. Völuspá. Hávamál.
Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi, Rit 14. Vol. II of Two
Versions of Snorra Edda from the 17th Century. Reykjavík: StofnunÁrna Magnússonar.
Faulkes, Anthony, ed. 1979. Edda Magnúsar Ólafssonar (Laufás
Edda). Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi, Rit 13. Vol. I of Twoversions of Snorra Edda from the 17th century. Reykjavík: StofnunÁrna Magnússonar.
Faulkes, Anthony, trans. 1987. Snorri Sturluson Edda. London: Dent.
Faulkes, Anthony 2008. ‘Snorri Sturluson. His life and work’. In The
Viking world, ed. Stefan Brink with Neil Price. Routledge: London
and New York, 311–14.
Finch, R. G. 1993. ‘Vǫlsung-Niflung cycle’. In Medieval Scandinavia.
An encyclopedia, ed. Phillip Pulsiano and Kirsten Wolf. New Yorkand London: Garland Publishing Inc, 707–10.
Finnur Jónsson. 1926 –28. Ordbog til de af samfund til udg. af gml.
nord. litteratur udgivne Rímur samt til de af Dr. O. Jiriczek udgivne
Bósarímur. Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur 51.
Copenhagen: Jørgensen.
FoGT 1884 = Björn Magnússon Ólsen, ed. 1884, 120 – 51, 238 –96.
FoGT 2004 = Longo, Michele. n. d. [2004]. ‘Il Quarto Trattato Grammaticale Islandese. Testo, traduzione e commento’. Dottorato di
Ricerca in ‘Linguistica Sincronica e Diacronica’ (XV Ciclo). Università degli Studi di Palermo: Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia.

162

Bibliography

Foote, Peter 1959. The Pseudo-Turpin chronicle in Iceland: A contribution to the study of the Karlamagnús saga. London Mediæval
Studies, Monograph 4. London: University College.
Foote, Peter 1984. ‘Latin Rhetoric and Icelandic Poetry. Some Contacts’. In Aurvandilstá. Norse Studies. Ed. Michael Barnes et al. The
Viking Collection 2. Odense: Odense University Press, 249 –70.
First published in Saga och sed (1982), 107–27.
Friis-Jensen, Karsten, ed. 2005. Saxo Grammaticus. Gesta Danorum –Danmarkshistorien. 2 vols. Dansk oversættelse ved Peter Zeeberg.
Copenhagen: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab & Gads
Forlag.
Fritzner = Johan Fritzner 1883 – 96. Ordbog over det gamle norske
sprog. 3 vols. Kristiania: Den norske Forlagsforening. Vol. 4:
Rettelser og tillegg v. Finn Hødnebø, 1972.
G = Ioh. Wrobel, ed. 1887. Eberhardi Bethuniensis Graecismus.
Corpus grammaticorum medii aeui I. Bratislava: G. Koebner.
Gade, Kari Ellen 1985. ‘Hanging in Northern law and literature’.
Maal og minne, 159 – 83.
Gade, Kari Ellen 2007a. ‘Introduction. 9. Normalisation of fourteenthcentury poetry’. In SkP VII. Ed. Margaret Clunies Ross. Turnhout:
Brepols, lxv–lxvii.
Gade, Kari Ellen 2007b. ‘Ælfric in Iceland’. In Learning and understanding in the Old Norse world. Essays in honour of Margaret
Clunies Ross. Ed. Judy Quinn, Kate Heslop and Tarrin Wills.
Medieval Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe 18. Brepols:
Turnhout, 321–39.
Gade, Kari Ellen. Forthcoming. ‘Introduction’ to Háttalykill, in SkP
III.
Gg = Anne Grondeux, ed. 2010. Glosa super Graecismum Eberhardi
Bethuniensis capitula I–III de figuris coloribusque rhetoricis.
Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaeualis 225. Turnhout:
Brepols.
Gísli Sigurðsson 2000. ‘Óláfr Þórðarson hvítaskáld and oral poetry in
the West of Iceland c. 1250. The evidence of references to poetry in
The Third Grammatical Treatise’. In Old Icelandic literature andsociety. Ed. Margaret Clunies Ross. Cambridge Studies in Medieval
Literature 42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 96 –115.
First published as ‘Ólafur Þórðarson hvítaskáld og munnlegkvæðahefð á Vesturlandi um miðja 13. öld. Vitnisburður
vísnadæmanna í 3. Málfræðaritgerðinni’, in Samtíðarsögur. The

Bibliography

163

contemporary sagas. Forprent. The ninth international saga
conference. Ed. Sverrir Tómasson et al. 2 vols. Akureyri 1994, I
220 –32.
GL = Heinrich Keil, ed. 1855 – 80. Grammatici Latini. 8 vols. Leipzig:
Teubner.
Glei, Reinhold F. 2005. ‘Alexander de Villa Dei (ca. 1170 –1250),
Doctrinale’. In Lateinische Lehrer Europas. Fünfzehn Portraits vonVarro bis Erasmus von Rotterdam. Ed. Wolfram Ax. Cologne:
Böhlau, 291–312.
Grondeux, Anne 1999. ‘La révision du Graecismus d’Evrard de
Béthune par Jean de Garlande’. Revue d’histoire des textes 29,
317–25.
Grondeux, Anne 2000. Le Graecismus d’Evrard de Béthune à travers
ses gloses. Entre grammaire positive et grammaire spéculative duXIIIe au XVe siècle. Studia Artistarum 8. Turnhout: Brepols.
Grondeux, Anne 2001. ‘Terminologie des figures dans le Doctrinale
d’Alexandre de Villedieu et le Graecismus d’Évrard de Béthune’. In
Métalangage et terminologie linguistique. Actes du colloque international de Grenoble. Ed. Bernard Colombat and Marie Savelli.
Orbis Supplementa 18. Leuven: Peeters, 315 –30.
Grondeux, Anne 2003. ‘Turba ruunt (Ov. Her. 1,88?). Histoire d’un
exemple grammatical’. Archivum latinitatis medii aevi 61, 175 –222.
Grondeux, Anne 2009. ‘Teaching and learning lists of figures in the
Middle Ages’. New medieval literatures 11, 133 – 58.
Gutiérrez Galindo, Marco A. 1993. Alejandro de Villadei – El Doctrinal. Una gramática latina del Renacimiento del siglo XII. Clásicos
latinos medievales 2. Madrid: Ediciones Akal.
Halldór Halldórsson 1975. Old Icelandic heiti in Modern Icelandic.
University of Iceland Publications in Linguistics 3. Reykjavík:
Institute of Nordic Linguistics.
Halliwell, James Orchard, ed. 1839. Rara mathematica or A collectionof treatises on the mathematics and subjects connected with them.
Cambridge: John William Parker.
Haraldur Bernharðsson 2002. ‘Skrifandi bændur og íslensk málsaga.
Vangaveltur um málþróun og málheimildir’. Gripla 13, 175 – 95.
Harbert, Bruce, ed. 1975. A thirteenth-century anthology of rhetoricalpoems. Glasgow ms. Hunterian V.8.14. Toronto: Pontifical Instituteof Mediaeval Studies.

164

Bibliography

Haugen, Einar, ed. and trans. 1972. The first grammatical treatise. The
earliest Germanic phonology. An edition, translation and commentary. 2nd edn. London: Longman.
Haye, Thomas, ed. 1995. Johannes de Garlandia – Compendium
Gramatice. Auf der Grundlage aller bekannten Handschriften
erstmals herausgegeben und eingeleitet. Cologne: Böhlau.
Heizmann, Wilhelm 1993. Wörterbuch der Pflanzennamen im Altwestnordischen. Ergänzungsbände zum RGA 7. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Holm-Olsen, Ludvig, ed. 1983. Konungs skuggsiá. 2nd edn. Norrøne
tekster nr. 1. Oslo: Norsk Historisk Kjeldeskrift-Institutt.
Holtsmark, Anne. 1960. ‘Grammatisk litteratur om modersmålet’. In
Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder V. Ed. Finn Hødnebø et al. Oslo: Gyldendal, cols 414 –19.
Holtz, Louis, ed. 1981. Donat et la tradition de l’enseignement
grammatical. Étude sur l’Ars Donati et sa diffusion (ive–ixe siècle) etédition critique. Paris: Centre National de la recherche scientifique.
Horace = D. R. Shackleton Bailey, ed. 2001. Q. Horatius Flaccus:
Opera. Bibliotheca Teubneriana. Leipzig: Saur.
Hreinn Benediktsson 1959. ‘The vowel system of Icelandic’. Word 15,
282–312.
Hreinn Benediktsson 1965. Early Icelandic script. As illustrated invernacular texts from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Íslenzk
Handrit, Series in folio II. Reykjavík: The Manuscript Institute of
Iceland.
Hreinn Benediktsson, ed. and trans. 1972. The first grammaticaltreatise. University of Iceland Publications in Linguistics 1.
Reykjavík: Institute of Nordic Linguistics.
ÍF = Íslenzk fornrit. Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka fornritafélag.
ÍF 1 (parts 1 and 2) = Jakob Benediktsson, ed. 1968. Íslendingabók.
Landnámabók. Rpt. as one volume 1986.
ÍF 2 = Sigurður Nordal, ed. 1933. Egils saga Skalla-Grímssonar.
ÍF 3 = Sigurður Nordal and Guðni Jónsson, eds 1938. Borgfirðinga
sǫgur.
ÍF 4 = Einar Ól. Sveinsson and Matthías Þórðarson, eds 1935. Eyrbyggja saga.
ÍF 9 = Jónas Kristjánsson, ed. 1956. Eyfirðinga sǫgur.
ÍF 14 = Jóhannes Halldórsson, ed. 1959. Kjalnesinga saga.
ÍF 17 = Guðrún Ása Grímsdóttir, ed. 1998. Biskupa sögur III.
ÍF 23 –24 = Ármann Jakobsson and Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson, eds 2011.
Morkinskinna I–II.

Bibliography165

ÍF 25 = Ólafur Halldórsson, ed. 2006. Færeyinga saga. Óláfs saga
Tryggvasonar eptir Odd munk Snorrason.
ÍF 26 –28 = Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, ed. 1941– 51. Heimskringla I–III.
ÍF 29 = Bjarni Einarsson, ed. 1985. Ágrip af Nóregs-konunga sǫgum.
ÍF 34 = Finnbogi Guðmundsson, ed. 1965. Orkneyinga saga.
ÍM = Jón Helgason, ed. 1936 –38. Íslenzk miðaldakvæði. Islandske
digte fra senmiddelalderen. 2 vols. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Indrebø, Gustav, ed. 1931. Gamal norsk homiliebok. Oslo: Kjeldeskriftfondet.
Irvine, Martin 1994. The making of textual culture. ‘Grammatica’ andliterary theory 350 –1100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Isidore of Seville’s Etymologiae = W. M. Lindsay, ed. 1911. Isidori
Hispalensis episcopi Etymologiarum siue originum libri XX. 2 vols.
Oxford: Clarendon.
Iversen, Ragnvald, ed. 1963. Absalon Pedersen: Dagbok og Orationom Mester Geble. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Jakob Benediktsson, ed. 1980. Catilina and Jugurtha by Sallust andPharsalia by Lucan in Old Norse: Rómverjasaga, AM 595 a–b 4to.
Early Icelandic manuscripts in facsimile 13. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde & Bagger.
Jakobsen, Alfred 1993. ‘Thómas saga erkibiskups’. In Medieval
Scandinavia. An encyclopedia. Ed. Phillip Pulsiano and Kirsten
Wolf. New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc, 643 – 44.
Johansson, Karl G. 1997. Studier i Codex Wormianus. Skrifttraditionoch avskriftsverksamhet vid ett isländskt skriptorium under 1300talet. Nordistica Gothoburgensia 20. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis.
Johansson, Karl G., ed. 2007. AM 242 fol (Codex Wormianus).
Snorra-Edda, the four grammatical treatises, Rígsþula, Maríukvæði,and ókennd heiti. An electronic edition. Available at www.menota.
org/tekstarkiv.xml. <accessed 28 June 2013>
Jón Helgason 1970. ‘Þriðji íhaldskarl’. Fróðskaparrit 18, 206 –26.
Jón Helgason and Anne Holtsmark, eds 1941. Háttalykill enn forni.
Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 1. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Jón Jóhannesson 1940. ‘Björn at Haugi’. In Afmælisrit helgað Einari
Arnórssyni. Reykjavík: Ísafoldarprentsmiðja, 135 – 40. Rpt. in
English translation by G. Turville-Petre, Saga-Book 17 (1969),
293 –301.

166

Bibliography

Jón Ólafsson 1786. Om Nordens gamle Digtekonst, dens Grundregler,
Versarter, Sprog og Foredragsmaade. Et Priiskrift. Copenhagen:August Friderich Stein.
Jón Þorkelsson 1888. Om digtningen på Island i det 15. og 16. århundrede. Copenhagen: Høst & søns forlag.
Kålund, Kristian 1889 – 94. Katalog over den arnamagnæanskehåndskriftsamling. 2 vols. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske boghandel.
Kendall, Calvin B., ed. and trans. 1991. Bede. Libri II De arte metrica
et De schematibus et tropis – The art of poetry and rhetoric. Bibliotheca Germanica, Series nova, vol. 2. Saarbrücken: AQ-Verlag.
Kirby, Ian J., ed. 1976 – 80. Biblical quotation in Old IcelandicNorwegian religious literature. Stofnun Árna Magnússonar áÍslandi, Rit 9 –10. Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar.
Knappe, Gabriele 1998. ‘Classical rhetoric in Anglo-Saxon England’.
Anglo-Saxon England 27, 5 –29.
Kolsrud, Oluf, ed. 1952. Messuskýringar. Liturgisk symbolik frå den
norsk-islandske kyrkja i millomalderen. Oslo: Jakob Dybwad.
Kommentar = Klaus von See et al. 1997– . Kommentar zu den Liedern
der Edda. 7 vols. (in progress). Heidelberg: Winter.
Konráð Gíslason 1849. ‘Nogle Bemærkninger om Skjaldedigtenes
Beskaffenhed i formel Henseende’. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter. Femte Række. Historisk-philosophisk
Afdeling. 4, 283 –315.
Konráð Gíslason and Eiríkur Jónsson, eds 1875 – 89. Njála. Udgivet
efter gamle håndskrifter af Det kongelige nordiske oldskrift-selskab
4. 2 vols. Copenhagen: Thiele.
Kopp, Jane Baltzell 1971. ‘Geoffrey of Vinsauf. The new poetics’. In
Three medieval rhetorical arts. Ed. James J. Murphy. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 27–108.
Kuhn, Hans 1929. ‘Das Füllwort of-um im Altwestnordischen. Eine
Untersuchung zur Geschichte der germanischen Präfixe. Ein Beitragzur altgermanischen Metrik’. Ergänzungsheft zur Zeitschrift fürvergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiet der indogermanischen Sprachen 8. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Kunitzsch, Paul 1982. Glossar der arabischen Fachausdrücke in dermittelalterlichen europäischen Astrolabliteratur. Nachrichten der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen I. Philologischhistorische Klasse 1982: 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
LaufE 1979 = Faulkes, Anthony, ed. 1979.

Bibliography

167

Lausberg, Heinrich 1990. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine
Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. 3. Auflage, mit einem
Vorwort von Arnold Arens. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Leotta, Rosario, ed. 1998. Marbodo di Rennes: De ornamentis verborum – Liber decem capitulorum. Retorica, mitologia e moralità diun vescovo poeta (secc. XI–XII). Florence: SISMEL.
Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott 1996. A Greek-English
lexicon with a revised supplement. Revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with the assistance of Roderick
McKenzie, and with the cooperation of many scholars. Ninthedition. Oxford: Clarendon.
Lind, Erik Henrik 1920 –21. Norsk-isländska personbinamn frånmedeltiden. Uppsala: A.-B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln.
Longo, Michele 2006. ‘Un esempio di contaminazione di tradizioni
nel Quarto Trattato Grammaticale Islandese’. In Studio linguistici inonore di Roberto Gusmani II. Ed. Raffaella Bombi et al.
Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 989 –1003.
Loth, Agnete, ed. 1969 –70. Reykjahólabók. Islandske helgenlegender.
Editiones Arnamagnæanæ, Ser. A, 15 –16. Copenhagen: Munkgaard.
Louis-Jensen, Jonna 1981. ‘Vǫndr er Máría mynduð’. In Speculum
Norroenum. Norse studies in memory of Gabriel Turville-Petre. Ed.
Ursula Dronke et al. Odense: Odense University Press, 328 –36. Rpt.
in Con Amore. En artikelsamling udgivet på 70-årsdagen den 21.
oktober 2006. Ed. Michael Chesnutt and Florian Grammel.
Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzels forlag, 59 – 69.
LP = Finnur Jónsson, ed. 1931. Lexicon poeticum antiquæ linguæ
septentrionalis. Ordbog over det norsk-islandske skjaldesprog
oprindelig forfattet af Sveinbjörn Egilsson. 2nd edn. Copenhagen:Møller.
LP (1860) = Sveinbjörn Egilsson, ed. 1860. Lexicon poëticum antiquæ
linguæ septentrionalis. Copenhagen: Societas Regia antiquariorum
septentrionalium.
Lönnroth, Lars 1977. ‘The riddles of the Rök stone. A structural
approach’. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 92, 1– 57. Rpt. with Postscriptin The Academy of Odin. Selected papers on Old Norse literature.
The Viking Collection 19 (2011). Odense: University Press ofSouthern Denmark, 279 –355.
Malm, Mats 2009. ‘Varför heter det kenning?’. In Snorres Edda i
europeisk og islandsk kultur. Ed. Jon Gunnar Jørgensen. Reykholt:
Snorrastofa, 73 – 90.

168

Bibliography

Mankin, David, ed. 2011. Cicero – De Oratore Book III. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Marenbon, John 2003. Boethius. Great medieval thinkers. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Marold, Edith 2012. General introduction, § 5.1.1.B. ‘The terminology of Snorra Edda’. In SkP I: 1, 61– 63.
McDougall, David 1988. ‘“Pseudo-Augustinian” passages in Jóns
saga baptista 2 and the Fourth grammatical treatise’. Traditio 44,
463 – 83.
McDougall, Ian 1986 – 89. ‘Foreigners and foreign languages inmedieval Iceland’. Saga-Book 22, 180 –233.
Meissner, Rudolf 1921. Die Kenningar der Skalden. Ein Beitrag zur
skaldischen Poetik. Rheinische Beiträge und Hilfsbücher zur germanischen Philologie und Volkskunde 1. Bonn and Leipzig:
Schroeder. Rpt. 1984. Hildesheim etc.: Olms.
Meissner, Rudolf 1932. ‘Zwei Prophetenzitate in der 4. Gramm.
Abhandlung der Snorra Edda’. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum
und deutsche Literatur 69, 97–106.
Mommsen, Theodore, ed. 1882. Iordanis Romana et Getica. Monumenta Germaniae historica, Auctores antiquissimi, 5.1. Berlin:
Weidmann. Rpt. 1961.
Mosetti Casaretto, Francesco, ed. 1997. Teodulo: Ecloga. Il cantodella verità e della menzogna. Florence: SISMEL.
Murphy, James, J. 1974. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. A history of
rhetorical theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mynors, R. A. B., ed. 1969. Opera P. Vergili Maronis. Oxford:
Clarendon.
NGL = Rudolf Keyser et al., ed. 1846 – 96. Norges gamle Love indtil
1387. 5 vols. Christiania: Chr. Gröndahl.
NN = Ernst Albin Kock. 1923 – 44. Notationes Norrœnæ. Anteckningar
till Edda och skaldediktning. Lunds Universitets årsskrift. Lund:
Gleerup.
Nordal, Guðrún 2001. Tools of literacy. The role of skaldic verse in
Icelandic textual culture of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Toronto, Buffalo and London: Toronto University Press.
Nordal, Sigurður, ed. 1931. Codex Wormianus (The younger Edda)
MS. No. 242 fol. in The Arnemagnean Collection in the University
Library of Copenhagen. CCI 2. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard.

Bibliography

169

NRSV = Wayne A. Meeks, gen. ed. 1993. The HarperCollins study
Bible. New revised standard version with the apocryphal/
deuterocanonical books. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Nygaard, Marius 1906. Norrøn syntax. Kristiania: Aschehoug. Rpt.
1966.
Ólafur Halldórsson, ed. 1904. Jónsbók. Kong Magnus Hakonssons
Lovbog for Island vedtaget paa Altinget 1281 og Réttarbœtr. De forIsland givne Retterbøder af 1294, 1305 og 1314. Copenhagen:Møller.
Olmer, Emil 1902. Boksamlingar på Island 1179 –1490 enligt diplom.
Gothenburg: Wald. Zachrissons boktryckeri.
Ólsen, Björn Magnússon, ed. 1884. Den tredje og fjærde grammatiske
afhandling i Snorres Edda tilligemed de grammatiske afhandlingers
prolog og to andre tillæg. Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk
litteratur 12. Copenhagen: Fr. G. Knudtzons Bogtrykkeri.
Olsen, Magnus, ed. 1906 – 08. Vǫlsunga saga ok Ragnars sagaloðbrókar. Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur 36.
Copenhagen: Møller.
ONP = Helle Degnbol et al., ed. 1989 – . A Dictionary of Old Norse
Prose. Ordbog over det norrøne prosasprog. Indices + Vol. 1– .
Copenhagen: The Arnamagnæan Commission. The dictionary’s
word-list and other materials are available online at http://onp.ku.dk
Ovid’s Heroides = A. Ramírez de Verger, ed. 2003. Ouidius. Carmina
amatoria. Leipzig: Teubner.
Paasche, Frederik 1928. ‘Esras aabenbaring og Pseudo-Cyprianus inorrön litteratur’. In Festskrift til Finnur Jónsson, 29. maj 1928. Ed.
Johs. Brøndum Nielsen et al. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard,
199 –205.
Petersens, Carl af, ed. 1879. Jómsvíkinga saga (efter Cod. AM 510, 4:to) samt Jómsvíkinga drápa. Lund: Gleerup.
Physiologus = Verner Dahlerup 1889. ‘Physiologus i to islandske
bearbejdelser’. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie,
14 –290.
PL = J.-P. Migne, ed. 1844 – 55. Patrologia latina. 217 vols. Patrologiae cursus completus [accessed through http://pld.chadwyck.
com/].
Poole, Russell 1991. Viking poems on war and peace. A study inskaldic narrative. Toronto, Buffalo and London: Toronto University
Press.

170

Bibliography

Porter, Pamela 2006. ‘Preserving the past. England, Iceland and the
movement of manuscripts’. In Care and conservation of manuscripts 9. Ed. Gillian Fellows-Jensen and Peter Springborg.
Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 173 – 90.
Quintilian’s Institutiones Oratoriae = Jean Cousin, ed. 1975. Quintilien: Institution oratoire. 6 vols. Paris: Les belles lettres.
Raschellà, Fabrizio D., ed. and trans. 1982. The so-called second
grammatical treatise. An orthographic pattern of late thirteenthcentury Icelandic. Florence: Felice Le Monnier.
Raschellà, Fabrizio D. 2000. ‘Vowel change in thirteenth-century
Icelandic. A first-hand witness’. In International Scandinavian andMedieval studies in memory of Gerd Wolfgang Weber. Ed. Michael
Dallapiazza et al. Hesperides 12. Trieste: Parnaso, 383– 89.
Reichling, Dietrich, ed. 1893. Das Doctrinale des Alexander deVilla-Dei. Kritisch-Exegetische Ausgabe. Monumenta Germaniae
paedagogica 12. Berlin: A. Hofmann.
RE 1665 = Faulkes, Anthony, ed. 1977.
Rhetorica ad Herennium in Achard 1981.
Rindal, Magnus, ed. 1981. Barlaams ok Josaphats saga. Norrøne
tekster 4. Oslo: Norsk historisk kjeldeskrift-institutt.
Rolfe, John C., ed. and trans. 1948 – 52. Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum
gestarum libri. 3 vols. rev. and rpt. Loeb Classical Library 300, 315
and 331. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Rosier-Catach, Irène 2009. ‘Alexander de Villa Dei’. In Lexicon
Grammaticorum. A bio-bibliographical companion to the history of
linguistics. Gen. ed. Harro Stammerjohann. Second edition, revisedand enlarged. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 30 –31.
Sabbatier, Pierre, ed. 1743 – 49. Bibliorum sacrorum latinæ versiones
antiquæ, seu vetus italica, et cæteræ quæcunque in codicibus mss. &antiquorum libris reperiri potuerunt: quæ cum Vulgata latina, &cum textu græco comparantur. Accedunt præfationes, observationes,
ac notæ, indexque novus ad Vulgatam è regione editam, idemquelocupletissimus. Reims: Apud Reginaldum Florentain.
Schindel, Ulrich 2001. Die Rezeption der hellenistischen Theorie derrhetorischen Figuren bei den Römern. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht.
Schulman, Jana 2010. Jónsbók. The laws of later Iceland – The
Icelandic text according to MS AM 351 fol. Skálholtsbók eldri.
Bibliotheca Germanica, Series nova 4. Saarbrücken: AQ Verlag.

Bibliography

171

Skald = E. A. Kock, ed. 1946 – 50. Den norsk-isländska skaldediktningen. 2 vols. Lund: Gleerup.
Skj = Finnur Jónsson, ed. 1912–15. Den norsk-islandske skjaldedigtning. A 1–2. Tekst efter håndskrifterne. B 1–2. Rettet tekst. 4
vols. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. Rpt. 1967 (A) and 1973 (B). Copenhagen: Rosenkilde & Bagger.
SkP = Margaret Clunies Ross, Kari Ellen Gade, Edith Marold, Guðrún
Nordal, Diana Whaley and Tarrin Wills, eds 2007– . Skaldic Poetryof the Scandinavian Middle Ages. 9 vols. Turnhout: Brepols. See
also the edition’s database at abdn.ac.uk/skaldic/db.php
SkP I = Diana Whaley, ed. 2012. Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian
Middle Ages. Vol. I. Poetry from the kings’ sagas 1: From mythicaltimes to c. 1035. Parts 1–2. Turnhout: Brepols.
SkP II = Kari Ellen Gade, ed. 2009. Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages. Vol. II. Poetry from the kings’ sagas 2: From c.
1036 to c. 1300. Parts 1–2. Turnhout: Brepols.
SkP III = Kari Ellen Gade and Edith Marold, eds. Forthcoming.
Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages. Vol. III. Poetryfrom treatises on poetics. Turnhout: Brepols.
SkP VII = Margaret Clunies Ross, ed. 2007. Skaldic Poetry of the
Scandinavian Middle Ages. Vol. VII. Poetry on Christian Subjects.
Parts 1–2. Turnhout: Brepols.
SnE 1818 = Rasmus Rask, ed. 1818. Snorra Edda ásamt Skáldu ogþarmeð fylgjandi ritgjörðum. Stockholm: Hin Elménska prentsmiðja.
SnE 1848 = Sveinbjörn Egilsson, ed. 1848. Edda Snorra Sturlusonar,eða Gylfaginning, Skáldskaparmál og Háttatal. Reykjavík: Prentsmiðja Helga Helgasonar.
SnE 1848 – 87 = Jón Sigurðsson et al., ed. 1848 – 87. Edda Snorra
Sturlusonar. Edda Snorronis Sturlæi. 3 vols. Copenhagen: Legatum
Arnamagnæanum. Rpt. Osnabrück: Zeller, 1966. FoGT is in Vol. II(1852), pp. 190 –249, with Latin translation by Sveinbjörn Egilsson.
Commentary is in Vol. III (1880 – 87), pp. 153 – 63.
SnE 1924 = Finnur Jónsson, ed. for Det Arnamagnæanske Legat.
1924. Edda Snorra Sturlusonar. Codex Wormianus AM 242, fol.
Copenhagen and Kristiania: Gyldendal and Nordisk forlag.
SnE 1931 = Finnur Jónsson, ed. 1931. Edda Snorra Sturlusonar
udgivet efter håndskrifterne. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.

172

Bibliography

SnE 1998 = Faulkes, Anthony, ed. 1998. Snorri Sturluson, Edda.
Skáldskaparmál. Parts I and II. University College London: Viking
Society for Northern Research.
SnE 2005 = Faulkes, Anthony, ed. 2005. Snorri Sturluson, Edda.
Prologue and Gylfaginning. 2nd edn. University College London:
Viking Society for Northern Research.
SnE 2007 = Faulkes, Anthony, ed. 2007. Snorri Sturluson, Edda.
Háttatal. 2nd edn. University College London: Viking Society for
Northern Research.
Stefán Karlsson 1973. ‘Icelandic lives of Thomas à Becket. Questionsof authorship’. In Proceedings of the first international saga conference, University of Edinburgh, 1971. Ed. Peter Foote, Hermann
Pálsson and Desmond Slay. University College London: Viking
Society for Northern Research, 212– 43. Rpt. with Afterword in
Stefán Karlsson 2000, 135 – 52.
Stefán Karlsson 1979. ‘Islandsk bogeksport til Norge i middelalderen’. Maal og minne, 1–17. Rpt. with Afterword in Stefán
Karlsson 2000, 188 –205.
Stefán Karlsson 2000. Stafkrókar: Ritgerðir eftir Stefán Karlsson
gefnu út í tilefni af sjötugsafmæli hans 2. desember 1998. Ed. Guðvarður Már Gunnlaugsson. Stofnun Árna Magnússonar á Íslandi, Rit
49. Reykjavík: Stofnun Árna Magnússonar.
Stefán Karlsson 2004. Trans. Rory McTurk. The Icelandic Language.
University College London: Viking Society for Northern Research.
Storm, Gustav, ed. 1888. Islandske annaler indtil 1578. Christiania:
Det norske historiske kildeskriftfond. Rpt. 1977. Oslo: Norskhistorisk kjeldeskrift-institutt.
Stotz, Peter 1996. Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters. Dritter Band. Lautlehre. Munich: Beck.
Sverrir Tómasson. 1982. ‘Icelandic Lives of St Nicholas’. In Helgastaðabók. Nikulás saga Perg. 4to nr. 16 Konungsbókhlöðu í
Stokkhólmi. Ed. Selma Jónsdóttir, Stefán Karlsson and Sverrir
Tómasson. Íslensk Miðaldahandrit – Manuscripta Islandica Medii
Aevi II. Reykjavík: Sverrir Kristinsson, 147–76.
Sverrir Tómasson 1993. ‘Formáli málfræðiritgerðanna fjögurra íWormsbók’. Íslenskt mál 15, 221– 40. Rpt. in Sverrir Tómasson
2011, 199 –217.
Sverrir Tómasson 2011. Tækileg vitni: Greinar um bókmenntir gefnarút í tilefni sjötugsafmælis hans 5. apríl 2011. Reykjavík: StofnunÁrna Magnússonar í íslenskum fræðum.

Bibliography

173

Taylor-Briggs, Ruth 2006. ‘Reading between the lines. The textual
history and manuscript transmission of Cicero’s rhetorical works’. In
The rhetoric of Cicero in its medieval and early Renaissance commentary tradition. Ed. Virginia Cox and John O. Ward. Brill’sCompanions to the Christian Tradition 2. Leiden: Brill, 77–108.
Terence’s Andria and Eunuchus. In Robert Kauer and Wallace M.
Lindsay, ed. 1926. P. Terenti Afri Comoediae. Oxford: Clarendon.
TGT 1884 = Ólsen, Björn Magnússon, ed. 1884, 1–119, 161–237.
Thilo, Georg and Hermann Hagen, eds 1881–1902. Servii grammatici
qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii. 3 vols. Leipzig:
Teubner.
Thurot, Charles 1868. ‘Notices et extraits de divers manuscrits latinspour servir à l’histoire de doctrines grammaticales au moyen âge’.
Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque impériale etautres bibliothèques 22, 1– 540.
Unger, C. R., ed. 1871a. Codex Frisianus. En Samling af norske
Konge-Sagaer. Christiania: P. T. Malling.
Unger, C. R., ed. 1871b. Mariu saga. Legender om Jomfru Maria og
hendes Jertegn. Christiania: Brögger & Christie.
Unger, C. R., ed. 1874. Postola sögur. Legendariske fortællinger om
Apostlernes liv, deres kamp for kristendommens udbredelse samt
deres martyrdød. Christiania: B. M. Bentzen.
Vésteinn Ólason 1969. ‘Greppaminni’. In Afmælisrit Jóns Helgasonar
30. júní 1969. Ed. Jakob Benediktsson et al. Reykjavík: Heimskringla, 198 –205.
Vogt, Walther Heinrich 1930. ‘Bragis Schild. Maler und Skalde’. Acta
Philologica Scandinavica 5, 1–28.
Weber, Robert et al., ed. 1994. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem.
Fourth improved edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
Wellendorf, Jonas. Forthcoming. ‘Virtues and Vices. The Fourth
Grammatical Treatise’. In Mediality in Late Medieval Iceland. Ed.
Jürg Glauser and Kate Heslop. Zürich: Chronos.
Whaley, Diana, ed. and trans. 1998. The poetry of Arnórr jarlaskáld:
An edition and study. Westfield Publications in Medieval Studies 8.
Turnhout: Brepols.
Widding, Ole 1961. ‘Kilderne til den norrøne Nicolaus saga’. Opuscula II, 1. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana 25, 1. Copenhagen: The
Arnamagnæan Commission, 17–26.

174

Bibliography

Widding, Ole, Hans Bekker-Nielsen and L. K. Shook 1963. ‘The livesof the saints in Old Norse prose. A handlist’. Mediaeval studies 25,
294 –337.
Wills, Tarrin, ed. 2001. ‘The foundation of grammar. An edition of thefirst section of Óláfr Þórðarson’s grammatical treatise’. PhD thesis:
The University of Sydney.
Wood, Cecil 1960. ‘Skaldic notes’. Scandinavian Studies 32, 155 – 58.
Þorvaldur Bjarnarson, ed. 1878. Leifar fornra kristinna frœða
íslenzkra: Codex Arna-Magnæanus 677 4to auk annara enna elztu
brota af ízlenskum guðfrœðisritum. Copenhagen: Hagerup.

INDEX
Aaron (Árón) 46 – 47, 141.
Abel (Ábiel) liv, 46 – 47, 140.
Abraham (Ábrám) liv, 46 – 47,
141.
Adam (Ádám) li, liv, lvii, lix,
44 – 45, 137, 140.
Alcuin Dialogus de rhetorica
et de uirtutibus xxx
Alexander de Villa-Dei Carmen de algorismos xxxiii,
Doctrinale xxxii–xxxvi etpass.
Ammianus Marcellinus Rerum
gestarum libri qui supersunt
XXXI 78.
Arinbjǫrn hersir 76.
Arngrímr Brandsson xii, 72,Guðmundardrápa l.
Árni Lárentíusson xii.
Arnórr jarlaskáld Þórðarson
xliv, xlviii, 22–23, 102– 03,
Þorfinnsdrápa ix, Hrynhenda, Magnúsdrápa 103,
Blágagladrápa 103.
Áslaug 16 –17, 76, 82.
Atlamál 56.
Auðunn illskælda xlv.
Augustine 38 –39, 129, 131.
Barði Guðmundarson 2–3,
52– 53.
Barlaams saga 93, 117.
Bede De schematibus et tropis
xxx, 94.
Beowulf 78.
Bergr Gunsteinsson 72.

Bergr Sokkason xii, xlv,
Nikulás saga erkibiskups xii,
57.
Bible Gen. 131, 137, 140 – 41,
Exod. 141– 42, 1 Kings 138,
2 Chr. 138, Ps. 122, 124,
129 –31, Sir. 67, Isa. 129,
133, 138, Jer. 120, Baruch(Barruk) lv, 10 –11, 67– 68
Daniel 106 – 07, 148 –49.
Habakkuk (Abbacuch) 38 –39,
129, 131, Matt. 61, 93, 125,
131, Mark 61, 93, Luke 61,
80 – 81, 93, 125, John 67,
133, 139, 143, Acts 55, 133,
137–38, Rom. 118, 2 Esdras
67– 69, Syrian apocalypse of
Baruch 67.
Bjarnar saga Hítdœlakappa
102.
Bjarni Kolbeinsson Jómsvíkingadrápa 53.
Bjǫrn at Haugi 77.
Boethius (Boetius) 20 –21, 94
Commentary on Aristotle’s
On interpretation 94, The
consolation of Philosophy 94.
Bragi Boddason xlvi, xlviii,
xlix, 14 –17, 67, 76 –79, 81,
134 –35, Ragnarsdrápa xlvi,
xlix, lv, 16 –17, 76 –77.
Brynhildr 82.
Búi digri Vésetason 18 –19, 87.
Cain 140.
Carmen de figuris xxix–xxxi.

176
Cassiodorus Commentary on
the psalms xxxv.
Christ (Kristr) xlvi, li, lv, lxi, 7,
10 –11, 17, 21, 37, 39, 55, 61,
67, 81, 89 – 90, 123, 125 –26,
129, 133, 135, 142– 44.
Clárus saga xii.
Codex Frisianus 97.
David (Dávíð) 34 –35, 38 – 41,
121–22, 131, 148, 149.
Davus 83 – 84, 146 – 47.
Diomedes 95.
Donatus xxi–xxii, xxv–xxx,
xxxv, xxxix, xli, 91, 96, 105,
Barbarismus xix, xxii,
xxv–xxix, xxxiv–xxxvi,
xxxix, xli–xliii, xliv, 64, 91,
92, 105.
Duggals leizla 60.
Eberhard of Béthune xix, xxxv,
127–28, Graecismus xxxv etpass.
Egill Skallagrímsson xlviii.
Egils saga 76.
Eilífr xlviii, 20 –21, 89.
Eilífr Goðrúnarson xlvi, 89.
Eilífr kúlnasveinn xlvi, 89.
Kristdrápa 89.
Eilífr Snorrason 89.
Einarr skálaglammr Vellekla
53.
Einarr Skúlason xlv–xlvi,
xlviii, lvi, 120, 136.
Eiríkr jarl Hákonarson 86.
Eiríkr Magnússon 28–31.
Eiríkr viðsjá xlv, xlvii, xlviii,
2–3, 52.
Elijah (Helias) 38 –39, 131.
Elizabeth (mother of John the
Baptist) 80 – 81.

Index
Enoch (Ienóch) 46 – 47, 140.
Ermanaric (Erminrekr, Jǫrmunrekr) 14–15, 76 –79, 82.
Erpr 15 –17, 77, 79.
Eyjólfr Brúnason xlvi–xlvii,
12–13, 71.
Eysteinn beli 77.
Fagrskinna xlvii, 86 –87, 110.
Finnboga saga ramma 99.
First Grammatical Treatise
xiv, 62.
Flateyjarbók 50, 103.
Fourth Grammatical Treatise i
et pass.
Gamli kanóki Harmsól 121.
Gátur 102.
Gátur Gestumblinda 102.
Geoffrey of Vinsauf Poetria
nova xiv, xxxii, l, 66.
Gerhard III of Holstein 63.
Gestr Þórhallsson xlvii.
Gísli Þorsteinsson 52– 53.
God (Guð) lvi, lxi, 4 –7, 11–13,
16 –17, 21, 26 –27, 34 – 41,
44 – 47, 49, 53, 55, 57, 60 – 61,
67, 73, 79, 92, 118, 120 –23,
125, 131–32, 137– 42, 149.
Grettis saga 85.
Grímnismál 56, 64, 77.
Gríms saga loðinkinna 85.
Guðmundar saga biskups D xii.
Guðmundr Arason 72.
Guðrún Gjúkadóttir 14 –15, 53,78.
Guðrúnarhvǫt 117.
Gunnlaugs saga ormstunga
102.
Habakkuk (Abbacuch) 38 –39,
129, 131.
Hagbarðr 112.

IndexHaki (sea king) 28 –31, 112.
Hákon Hákonarson xvi, 26 –27,
28 –31, 70, 108 – 09, 113.
Hákon jarl Sigurðarson 2–3,
18 –19, 50 – 51, 86 – 87.
Hákon Sverrisson 113.
Hákon V háleggr Magnússon
xiii, liv, 6 –7, 61, 114.
Haldanus Biargrammus 86 – 87.
Halldórr skvaldri xlv.
Halldórr ókristni Eiríksflokkr
88.
Hallfreðr vandræðaskáld
Erfidrápa Óláfs Tryggvasonar 88.
Hallur prestr Nikulásdrápa 57,
80, Hrynhent Nikulásdrápa
57.
Hamðir xlix, 14–15, 17, 76 –79,82.
Hamðismál 77–79.
Haraldr Sigurðarson 28–29,
103, 110 –11.
Háttalykill by Rǫgnvaldr KaliKollsson and Hallr Þórarinsson xv, lvi, 108, 134.
Haukr Valdísarson Íslendingadrápa 50.
Hávamál 85.
Heiðarvíga saga xii, xlvii, 52.
Heilagra manna drápa 72.
Heilagra meyja drápa 115.
Heilags anda drápa 55.
Heimir 82.
Heimskringla 70, 97, 110.
Hieronymus Commentary on
the book of Jeremiah 121.
Honorius Augustodunensis
Summa gloria de apostolico
et augusto sive de praecel-

lentia sacerdotii prae regni
liber 141.
Horace Sermones 83, Arspoetica 83.
Hrabanus Maurus (?) Veni
creator spiritus 55.
Hrafn Sveinbjarnarson 72.
Hrólfr kraki 28 –31, 112.
Hrólfs saga kraka 112.
Hugh of Pisa Derivationes xl.
Hugleikr 112.
Hulda-Hrokkinskinna103.
Hymiskviða 88.
Icelandic book of homilies 70,
118.
Inga of Varteig 113.
Isaac (Ísách) 46 – 47, 141.
Isidore of Seville Etymologiae
62, 117, 127, 138.
Isocrates xxx.
Jacob (Jácób) 46 – 47, 141.
Jared 140.
Jesus Christ (Kristr) xlvi, li, lv,lxi, 7, 10 –11, 17, 21, 37, 39,
55, 61, 67, 80 – 81, 89 – 90,
123, 125 –26, 129, 133, 135,
138, 142– 44.
Job 107, 148 –149.
John of Garland xxxvii.
John the Apostle (Jón) 73.
John the Baptist (Jón, Johannes
baptisti) liv, 16 –17, 80 – 81,
125.
Jómsvíkingasaga xlvii, 86 – 87.
Jónakr 14 –15, 78 –79.
Jóns saga baptista II 182.
Jóns saga postola 133.
Jónsbók lv, 63, 65, 113.
Jordanes Getica 78.
Joseph (Jóséph) 46 – 47, 141.

177

178
Kálfr Árnason 48 –49, 144.
Kálfr Arnfinnsson 144.
Konrad of Mure Novus grecismus xxxvii.
Konungs skuggsjá 102, 137.
Landnámabók 50, 76.
Lausavísa on Lawgiving
141– 42.
Lazarus (Lassarus) 48 – 49, 143.
Leiðarvísan 90, 141.
Leo the Great (Leo inn málsnjalli) 40 – 41, 129 –30, 132.
Líknarbraut 99.
Lilja l, 123.
Litla Skálda xvi.
Lokasenna 77.
Magnús Hákonarson 114.
Magnús Haraldsson 29, 110.
Magnús inn góði Óláfsson
25 –27, 102– 03, 110 –11, 113.
Magnús lagabœtir Hákonarson
28 –31.
Magnús Óláfsson Laufás Edda
xi–xii, xiv–xlvii, 59, 61, 71,
77, 87, 117–18, 136 –37.
Máni skáld 64.
Manuscripts
Archiv der Hansestadt,
Bergenfahrer, Lübeck
AHL 1409 xlvi.
The Arnamagnæan manuscript collection, Copenhagen and Reykajvík
AM 66 fol (Hulda) lxiv, 24.
AM 242 fol (Codex
Wormianus) xi et pass.
AM 291 4° lxiv, 18.
AM 303 4°x lxiv, 18.
AM 510 4° lxiv, 18.
AM 645 4° 95.

Index
AM 671 4° 58, 107.
AM 672 4° 93.
AM 713 4° 72.
AM 732 b 4° 58.
AM 743 4°x lxiv, 42, 44,
136.
AM 748 I b 4° xli, xliv,
lxiv, 2, 50, 95.
AM 748 II 4° xliv, 14, 16,
24, 76 –77.
AM 761 a 4°x 71, 89.
AM 761 b 4°x 53, 70.
AM 921 III 4° 70.
British Library, London
BLAdd 11250 item no. 422
xli.
Bibliothèque nationale deFrance, Paris
BNF lat. 14746 lxii.
Uppsala University Library
DG 11 xliv, lvi, 98, 108.
The Royal Library, Copenhagen
GKS 1005 fol (Reykjavík)(Flateyjarbók) lxiv, 18,
24, 51, 103.
GKS 1009 fol (Morkinskinna) lxiv, 24, 103,
110 –11.
GKS 1010 fol (Hrokkinskinna) lxiv, 24.
GKS 2367 4° (Codex
Regius) (Reykjavík), lvi,
lxiv, 14, 16, 26, 76 –77.
GKS 2368 4°x (Reykjavík),
lxiv, 42,44, 136.
National Library of Sweden,
Stockholm
Holm Perg 7 4° lxiv, 18.

IndexHolm Perg 18 4°, lxiv, 2,
52– 53.
University of Oslo Library
OsloUB 371 folx lxiv, 18.
Utrecht University Library
Traj 1374x xlix, lxiv, 14, 16,
76 –72, 98.
Marbod of Rennes De ornamentis uerborum xxxi,
xxxv–xxxvi, 127.
Markús Skeggjason xlviii.
Martha 73, 143.
Mary 73, 80 – 81, 125, 143.
Matthew of Vendôme Ars
versificatoria 83.
Melchisedech 141.
Messuskýringar 67.
Milska 118.
Morkinskinna 103, 110 –11.
Moses (Moyses) liv, 38 –39,
48 – 49, 131, 141– 42.
Niels Ebbesen 63.
Nikulásdrápa xlv–xlvi, xlix, lv,
16 –17, 57, 79 – 80.
Nikulás Bergsson Leiðarvísir
57.
Njǫrðr 53.
Noah (Nói) 38 – 41, 46 – 47, 107,
140 – 41, 149 –50.
Norwegian book of homilies
58, 93.
Oddný eykyndill Þorkellsdóttir
102.
Oddr Snorrason Life of Óláfr
Tryggvason 50.
Óðinn xviii, 85.
Óláfr Haraldsson, St liv, 26 –27,
49, 110, 142– 44.
Óláfr hvítaskáld Þórðarson vii,
xiii, xli–xlii, xliv–xlix, lii, lv,

179lvi, 12–13, 18–21, 71, 87– 88,
96, 98, 120. Third Grammatical Treatise vii, ix, xi,xiii–xiv, xvi–xix, xxi–xxii,
xxv–xxviii, xxxvi, xl, xlii–
xxlviii, l, lii–liv, lxiii, 50 – 51,
62, 64, 71, 82, 86 – 88, 91– 93,
95 – 98, 103 –06, 120, Málfræðinnar grundvöllr xiv, xv,
96, Málskrúðsfræði xiii, xvi,
xviii–xxii, xxvi–xxviii, xxxvi,
xli–xliv, lxiii, 96.
Óláfr kyrri Haraldsson 29, 110.
Óláfr svartaskáld Leggsson
xlvii, 72.
Orkneyinga saga xv.
Paul the Deacon Homiliary lvi,
129 –30.
Peter of Riga Aurora xl.
Pétrs saga postola 69, 73.
Petrus Croccus vii.
Physiologus 88.
Placitusdrápa 53.
Priscian Institutiones grammaticae xv, xxv, 119.
Prologue to the GrammaticalTreatises in W xii, xx.
Quintilian xix, 75, 116.
Quodvultdeus 129, 131.
Ragnarr loðbrók xlix, 14 –15,
17, 76 –78, 82.
Randvér 14 –15, 77–78.
Rhetorica ad Herenniumxxii–xxv, xxviii–xix, xxxi–
xxxii, xxxv, 116.
Robert of Cricklade 72.
Rúnólfr Ketilsson 59.
Satan 125.
Second Grammatical Treatise
xiv–xv, 97.

180Servius Commentaries on theworks of Virgil xxvi, 61–62,
75.
Shem (Siem) 46 – 47, 140 – 41.
Sigvatr Þórðarson xlviii.
Sigrdrífumál 76.
Sigurðr Fáfnisbani 81.
Sigvaldi jarl Strút-Haraldsson
18 –19, 86.
Sivaldus (king of Sweden) 86.
Skáldatal 50, 76.
Skjǫldunga saga 112.
Skúli Bárðarson xvi, 70, 108.
Sneglu-Halla þáttr 50.
Snorra Edda see Snorri
Sturluson.
Snorri goði Þorsteinsson 2–3,
52.
Snorri Sturluson vii, xii–xiii,
xv–xvii, xlv–l, lii, lv–lvi, lx,
12–13, 61– 62, 69 –71, 76, 81,
87, 106 – 08, 112, 134, Snorra
Edda xii, xlv–xlix, lii, liv, lvi,
lxii, 76 –77, 97, 108,
Gylfaginning xv, 56, 63,
Skáldskaparmál xv–xvi,
xlv–xlvii, xlix, 76 –79, 81, 87,
89, 95, 112, Háttatal xii,
xv–xvi,xlv–xlvi, l, lii–liii,
lv–lvi, 61– 62, 70, 87, 97,
106 – 09, 111–12, 120, 134,
142.
Solomon (Salomon) 20 –21, 58,91.
Sǫrli xlix, 14 –15, 17, 75 –79,
81.
Nicholas, St xii, xlv, liv,
16 –17, 57– 58, 80 – 81.
Starkaðr gamli xlviii.

Index
Stephen (Stephánus) 44 – 45,
137–38.
Stjǫrnu-Odda draumr 53.
Stjǫrnu-Oddi Geirviðarflokkr
53.
Summa Britonis xl.
Svanhildr 77.
Terence Andria 83, Eunuchus
119.
Theoderic the Great 94.
Theodulus Ecloga 64.
Theophrastus xxix.
Third Grammatical Treatisesee Óláfr Þórðarson.
Thomas (Thómas) Becket xlvii,
xlix, liv, 12–13, 71–72,
142– 43.
Thómas diktur erkibyskups 71.
Thómas saga I 71.
Thómas saga erkibiskups II xii,
71.
Tydeus 95.
Þjóðólfr Arnórsson xlviii.
Þórðr Kolbeinsson 102.
Þórðr Særeksson/Sjáreksson
113.
Þorkell inn auðgi 86.
Þorleifr jarlsskáld Rauðfeldarson xlv–xlviii, 2–3, 50 – 51,
Jarlsníð 50.
Þorleifr skúma xlvi–xlviii, lv,
18 –19, 86.
Þorleifs þáttr jarlsskálds 50.
Þulur Á 56, Bjarna 59, Orma
63.
Valdimar IV 62.
Víga-Styrr 2–3, 52.
Vígfúss Víga-Glúmsson 150.

Index
Virgil xxix, Aeneid xxii, 50 – 51,
61, 63, 69, 74 –75, 92, 104,
Georgics 75.
Vitnisvísur af Maríu 120.

Vǫlsunga saga 81.
Walter of Châtillon Alexandreis 106.
Ynglinga saga 112.

181