Hrafnagaldur Óðins; Odin's Raven-Magic

Sidst in denne Udgave kommer Forspallsljóð eða Hrafnagaldr Óðins. Dette Digt bør for Fremtiden udelukkes fra Samlingen af norrone mythiske og heroiske Kvæder. Det tillhører utvilsomt et Ganske andet Standpunkt end alle de forhen omtalte Digte disse ere alle folkelige, alle gjengive de umiddelbart den Tids Forestillinger og poetiske Opfatning, i hvilken de ere blevne til, alle ha de gaat fra Mund til Mund længe for de bleve optegnede; Forspallsljóð derimod er et lærd Digt, fortattet i senare Tid af en Mand, som var vel bevandret, ja belæst i gammle Kvæder og som med Tendents søgte at efterligne en længst forgangen Tids Digtning; det blev rimelig fra først fæstet med Pen i Bog. Forholdet er omtrent det same som mellam de homeriske og de aleksandrinske Eposer. I Forspallsljóð er mangt og meget vanskeligt at tyde; saaledes er det vel ogsaa i de gamle mythiske Kvæder, men Dunkelheden i disse grunder sig væsentlig derpaa, at de tilhøre en Tid, som ligger os saa fjærn og hvis Sprog, Udtryksmaade, Forestillinger og Tro vi kun kjende i Brudstykker; i Forspallsljóð derimod ere ofte Udtrykkene kunstlede, Billederne søgte, Forfattern har selv hyllet Digtet i et mystisk Slør. Skjønt det ikke mangler Tankedybde og skjønne Skildringer, giver det Indtrykket af en prangende Udstilling af mythologisk Lærdom. Vi finde her Udtryk og Omskrivninger, som kun tilhøre den kunstige Skaldedigtning, ikke de folkelige mythiske Kvæder fra Oldtiden, f. Eks. díar 18,6; sverð áss hvíta 14, 4 = höfuð; rýgjar glygg = hugr, o.s.v. Vi finde Udtryk og Ordformer som tilhøre et meget sent Sprogstadium: hveim som relativt Pron. 13,5; æsi 17,5; gýgjur 25,6; Óðhrærir 2,5 som det synes Accus. eller Dativ. Nogle Udtryk ere uden Hjemmel, saaledes raknar 19,4, 26,1, ligesom O i Vspá I, 44,7 feilagtig har rakna for ragna; hörgar 20,4, hvis vilkaarlige Brug rimelig er fremkaldt ved SnE. I, 62: annan sal gerðu þeir, þat var hörgr er gyðjurnar áttu. Enkelte Former ere dannede ved Misforstaaelse af gamle Sprogformer, som máttk 2,7; for aðalþollar 25,4 var vistnok þolli i Vspá I, 20 Forbilledet, men þollr har Gen. Þolls. Navnlig er det at mærke, at nogle Udtryk tydelig ere fremkaldte ved Skrivfeil i bestemte gamle Haandskrifter; 7,3 forekommer hárbaðms (Var. harðbaðms) om Yggdrasel; dette unaturlige Udtryk har sikkerlig sin Oprindelse deri, at Forfatteren i R har læst hárbaðmr Vspá II, 18 skrevet som ét Ord og misforstaat dette som "Haartræet". 25,2 er iodyr brugt som jaðar; denne Ordform er vistnok ogsaa laant fra R Vspá II, 5, hvor iodyr vel er en Forvanskning af ioður. 16,5 har saagodtsom alle Afskrr. nepa for nefa; denne feilagtige Form har Forfatteren rimelig læst i r SnE. I, 534.

Hrafnagaldur Óðins eða Forspjallsljóð HOME Odin's Raven-Magic
	1867 Sophus Bugge Norrœn Fornkvæði Fortale s. XLVI
	Sidst in denne Udgave kommer Forspallsljóð eða Hrafnagaldr Óðins. Dette Digt bør for Fremtiden udelukkes fra Samlingen af norrone mythiske og heroiske Kvæder. Det tillhører utvilsomt et Ganske andet Standpunkt end alle de forhen omtalte Digte disse ere alle folkelige, alle gjengive de umiddelbart den Tids Forestillinger og poetiske Opfatning, i hvilken de ere blevne til, alle ha de gaat fra Mund til Mund længe for de bleve optegnede; Forspallsljóð derimod er et lærd Digt, fortattet i senare Tid af en Mand, som var vel bevandret, ja belæst i gammle Kvæder og som med Tendents søgte at efterligne en længst forgangen Tids Digtning; det blev rimelig fra først fæstet med Pen i Bog. Forholdet er omtrent det same som mellam de homeriske og de aleksandrinske Eposer. I Forspallsljóð er mangt og meget vanskeligt at tyde; saaledes er det vel ogsaa i de gamle mythiske Kvæder, men Dunkelheden i disse grunder sig væsentlig derpaa, at de tilhøre en Tid, som ligger os saa fjærn og hvis Sprog, Udtryksmaade, Forestillinger og Tro vi kun kjende i Brudstykker; i Forspallsljóð derimod ere ofte Udtrykkene kunstlede, Billederne søgte, Forfattern har selv hyllet Digtet i et mystisk Slør. Skjønt det ikke mangler Tankedybde og skjønne Skildringer, giver det Indtrykket af en prangende Udstilling af mythologisk Lærdom. Vi finde her Udtryk og Omskrivninger, som kun tilhøre den kunstige Skaldedigtning, ikke de folkelige mythiske Kvæder fra Oldtiden, f. Eks. díar 18,6; sverð áss hvíta 14, 4 = höfuð; rýgjar glygg = hugr, o.s.v. Vi finde Udtryk og Ordformer som tilhøre et meget sent Sprogstadium: hveim som relativt Pron. 13,5; æsi 17,5; gýgjur 25,6; Óðhrærir 2,5 som det synes Accus. eller Dativ. Nogle Udtryk ere uden Hjemmel, saaledes raknar 19,4, 26,1, ligesom O i Vspá I, 44,7 feilagtig har rakna for ragna; hörgar 20,4, hvis vilkaarlige Brug rimelig er fremkaldt ved SnE. I, 62: annan sal gerðu þeir, þat var hörgr er gyðjurnar áttu. Enkelte Former ere dannede ved Misforstaaelse af gamle Sprogformer, som máttk 2,7; for aðalþollar 25,4 var vistnok þolli i Vspá I, 20 Forbilledet, men þollr har Gen. Þolls. Navnlig er det at mærke, at nogle Udtryk tydelig ere fremkaldte ved Skrivfeil i bestemte gamle Haandskrifter; 7,3 forekommer hárbaðms (Var. harðbaðms) om Yggdrasel; dette unaturlige Udtryk har sikkerlig sin Oprindelse deri, at Forfatteren i R har læst hárbaðmr Vspá II, 18 skrevet som ét Ord og misforstaat dette som "Haartræet". 25,2 er iodyr brugt som jaðar; denne Ordform er vistnok ogsaa laant fra R Vspá II, 5, hvor iodyr vel er en Forvanskning af ioður. 16,5 har saagodtsom alle Afskrr. nepa for nefa; denne feilagtige Form har Forfatteren rimelig læst i r SnE. I, 534.	Last, in this edition comes Forspallsljóð or Hrafnagaldr Óðins. In the future, this poem should be excluded from the collection of Norse mythic and heroic poems. It obviously belongs to a very different stage than all the poems previously presented; they are all popular and, directly depict the ideas and poetic interpretations of the time, in which they were created, all having proceeded from mouth to mouth long before they were recorded; Forspallsljóð therefore is a learned poem, composed in a later time by a person, who was well acquainted, yes well-read in ancient poems and who intentionally sought to imitate the poetry of a time long past; from the beginning, it was probably composed with pen in book. The conditions are roughly the same as between the Homeric and Alexandrian epics. In Forspjallsljóð, there is much that is difficult to interpret; the same is so of the ancient mythic poems, but ignorant in their essential basis, that they belong to a time, which for us lies so far-off and whose language, means of expression, concepts and beliefs we can only know in fragments; in Forspjallsljóð therefore paraphrases/kennings are often imitated, and metaphors sought, the author himself has shrouded the poem in a mystic blur. Because it lacks depth of thought and beautiful descriptions it gives the impression of a gaudy display of mythological learning. Here we find expressions and kennings which could only belong to learned poetic tradition but not folkloric mythological (oral) poems from the olden times. For example: díar (gods) 18,6; sverð áss hvíta (sword of the white Ás, Heimdall’s sword) 14, 4 = höfuð (head); rýgjar glygg (giantesses’ wind) = hugr (mind) 14,6 etc. We find expressions and word-forms that belong to much a later stage of language; hveim (whom) as a relative pronoun, 13,5. [2] æsi (the Aesir) 17,5; gýgjur (giantesses) 25,6; Óðhrærir (a name of Mimir’s well, or the mead of poetry) 2,5 as they appear accusative or dative. Some expressions are without foundation, such as raknar 19.4, 26.1, and O in Voluspá I, 44.7 mistakenly has rakna for ragna; hörgar 20.4, whose indiscriminate use is reasonably caused by SnE I, 62: annan sal gerðu dess, þat var hörgr er gyðjurnar áttu. Some forms are created by misunderstanding the ancient language-forms, like máttk 2.7; for aðalþollar 25.4 þolli in Völuspá I, 20 was probably patterned after, but þollr has the genitive þolls. In particular, it is noticeable that some expressions are clearly introduced by scribal error in certain old manuscripts; 7.3 uses hárbaðms (variation: harðbaðms) of Yggdrasil; this unnatural expression surely has its origin in the fact that the author of R has read hárbaðmr Voluspá II , 18 written as one word and misunderstood this as "“Hair-tree.” 25.2 iodyr is used for jaðar; this word form is probably also borrowed from R Völuspá II, 5, where iodyr probably is a corruption of ioður. 16.5 is as good as all mss. nepa for nefa; this erroneous form the author has reasonably read in r (Sn E. I, 534).
	Forspjallsljód er efter dette yngre end 13de Aarh.; ja et Digt, hvis Forfatter forholder sig paa denne Maade til det gamle Sprog, kan efter kan efter mit Skjön ikke være fra Middelalderen overhoved, men maa være fra nyere Tid. Jeg tror, at det ikke er ældre end 17de Aarhundred.	From this, Forspjallsljód is younger than the 13th century. A poem whose author relates to the ancient language in this way cannot in my opinion be from the Middle Ages at all, but must be from modern times. I think that it is not older than 17^th century.
	Hertil passer godt den Mening, som jeg S.140b har fremsat i Overensstemmelse med (og som jeg mulig har laant fra) Keyser (Efterl. Skr. I, 236), at Digtet er forfattet som Indledningsdigt til den ældgamle Vegtamskv. af den samme Mand, som tildigtede de for Papirafskrr. særegne Vers og Verslinjer i Vegt.; jeg har S. 139 f. søgt at vise, at denne Mand ikke kjendte Vegt. uden fra A. Den nævnte Forbindelse med Vegt. er paapeget ved Overskriften. Denne lyder i alle de af mig benyttede Hskrr. Hrafnagaldr Óðins Forspjallsljóð, saaledes at de to Navne ere stillede ved Siden af hinanden i Cod. Stockh. Isl. chart 15 oct., Cod. Stockh. Isl. chart. 57 fol. og B; det sidste er sat i Klammer i CL; kun i det nye Hskr. M ere de forbundne ved "al". For det første Navn findes ingensom helst rimelig Tilknytning i Digtets Indhold; jeg tror derfor med Gunnar Paalssøn, som dog med urette holdt Digtet for gammelt, at Hrafnagaldr Óðins er Forvanskning af Hræfuagaldr Óðins og at dette har været ment som Fællesnavn for de to Digte, af hvilke det første, som dannede Indledningen, særlig blev kaldt Forspjallsljóð d. e. Fortaledigt, det andet Vegtamskviða, hræfagaldr istedenfor valgaldr eller nágaldr er vistnok ikke i Overensstemmelse med Brugen af Ordet hræ i det gamle Sprog, men er ganske naturligt i den sene Tid, hvori Digtet og dets Navn maa være blevet til. Ved sin abrupte Begyndelse opfordrede Vegt. til at tildigte et Indledningsdigt.	In fits well the opinion (p. 140b), which I made in agreement with (and that I possibly have borrowed from) Rudolf Keyser, (Efterladte Skrifter, “Posthumous Writings”. I, 236) that the poem was written as an introduction to the ancient Vegtamskvida by the same man who wrote the paper manuscript’s distinctive verses and lines of verse in Vegtamskvida; I have tried to show (p. 139 f.) that this man did not know Vegtamskvida outside of A. The connection with Vegtamskvida is identified by the title. This appears in all the manuscripts I have used, Hrafnagaldr Óðins Forspjallsljóð so that the two names are put side by side in Cod. Stockh. Isl. Chart. 15 oct., Cod. Stockh. Isl. chart. 57 fol. and B, the latter is set in Klammer in CL; only in the newer mss. M are they connected by the "al". The first title [Hrafnagaldur Óðins] has absolutely no reasonable relation to the poem’s content; therefore, Gunnar Pálsson, who also wrongly held that the poem was old, thought that Hrafnagaldr Óðins was a misunderstanding of Hræfagaldr Odins and that this was intended to be the common name for the two poems of which the first formed an introduction, and was especially called Forspjallsljóð the Preface-poem, and the second Vegtamskviða. Hræfagaldr, unlike valgaldr or nágaldr is probably not in conformity with the use of the word hræ- in ancient tongues, but is quite natural in the late period in which the poem and its name must come about. With its abrupt beginning, Vegtamskvida calls out for an introductory poem.
	Jeg har ovenfor udtalt den Mening, at Forspjallsljóð ikke er ældre end 17de Aarh.; det er dog aldeles vist, at det var til allerede ved Midten af 17deAarh., og rimelig noget för. Lidet er at bygge paa Udtrykkene i "En Skri-velse fra Arne Magnusen til Hr. John Haldorsen, Provst i Hitardal, dateret 18 Junii 1729 om de Böger han havde mistet i den store Kjöbenhavns Ilde-brand 1728" meddelt af Thorkelin og oversat fra Islandsk af Thorlacius i Kjöbenhavns Universitets-Journal udg. ved Prof. Jacob Baden. Fjerde Aargang1796. S. 8 (hvorpaa Gísli Brynjúlfsson har gjort mig opmærksom): "Vores Rectorsal. Olav har skrevet mig, hvilket Brev og er brændt, angaaende een af disse Oder [i Sæmunds Edda], om jeg husker ret, Hrafnagaldr Odins, at Mag. Bryn-jolv haver ladet denne Ode opskrive efter et enkelt, gammelt og skident Blad, hvilket han, saavidt jeg erindrer, udtrykkelig siger var defect i Enden. Dette er nu alt for mig, ligesom i en Taage, da jeg har mistet Documenterne." Men Digtet findes i cod. Stockh. Isl. chart. 15 oct., der er skrevet omkring 1670; cod. Stockh. Isl. chart. 57 fol., hvor Digtet særskilt er optegnet, er ogsaa skrevet mellem 1670 og 1680 (Arwidsson Förteckn.); og det er alleredei disse Hskrr. paa mange Steder forvansket, saa at det i Foveae maa haveværet flere Gange afskrevet.	I have stated the opinion above that Forspjallsljóð is not older than the end of the 17th cent., Although it is quite certain that it already existed by the middle of 17^th century and possibly before then. Little is to be based on terms in "A letter from Arni Magnusen to Mr. John Haldorsen, Provost of Hitardal dated 18 June 1729 about the books he had lost in the Great Fire of Copenhagen in 1728 issued by Thorkelin and translated from the Icelandic by Thorlacius in the Copenhagen University Journal ed. by Prof. Jacob Baden. Fourth Annual 1796. p. 8 (to which Gisli Brynjúlfsson has drawn my attention): "Our Reverend Olav wrote me this letter, concerning one of the odes [in Sæmund Edda], which burned, if I remember correctly, Hrafnagaldr Óðins that Magistrate Brynjolv let this ode be copied after a single, old and dirty sheet, which he, as far as I specifically remember said was defective in the end. This is all now to me, as in a fog, since I have lost the documents,” But the poem found in cod. Stockh. Isl. chart 15 oct., where it was written around 1670; cod. Stockh. Isl. chart. 57 fol. where the poem is written separately, was also written between 1670 and 1680 (Adolf Ivar Arvidsson, Förteckningar ['Lists'], 1848). And the manuscripts, already were corrupt in many places, so that it may have previously been copied many times.
	Gudmund Magnussön fortæller (Edda Sæm. ed.AM.I, p.204), at den islandske Digter Eírik Hallssön, der levede omkring 1650 (Finn Magnusen Overs. af den ældre Edda II, 213), i ti Aar studerede dette Digt og derpaa kastede det bortmed den Tilstaaelse, at han forstod lidet eller intet deraf.	Gudmund Magnusson (Edda Sæm. Ed. AM.I, p. 204) says that the Icelandic poet Eirik Hallsson who lived around 1650 (Finn Magnusen Translation of the Elder Edda II, 213), after ten years of studying this poem, then threw it away with the confession that he learned little or nothing from it.
	Forspjallsljóð er neppe enestaaende Frembringelse i förste Halvdel af 18deAarhundred; i dette Tidsrum synes ikke alene udfyldende Vers og Verslinjerat være blevne indskudte i de gamle mythiske Digte, men ogsaa Heidreks Svarpaa Gestumblindes Gaader at være bragte i Versform. Keysers Indvending(Efterl. Skr. I, 262), at "Begyndelsen af det 17de Aarhundrede eller den nærmest foregaaende Tid neppe kan antages at have besiddet nogen Digter med den Aand,de Kundskaber og den Fordomsfrihed, som Digtet synes at forudsætte", harvistnok Vægt, men er neppe afgjörende; jeg henstiller Sagen til islandske Lærdesnærmere Undersögelse. - For at sætte Digtet i sit sande Lys, har jeg i det ikke brugt conseqvent Skrivemaade, men i det hele beholdt Papirafskrifternes Ortho-graphi (det samme burde ogsaa have været gjort ved de uægte Vers i Vegtamskv.). I Forspjallslj. var oftere end andensteds Teksten og Fortolkningen mig uvis, hvilket er naturligt, da Digtets Udtryk ikke fölge almengyldige Love, men til-dels ere vilkaarlige. Det staar paa forskjellig Plads i de forskjellige Afskrifter: i det stockh. oct. Hskr. efter Sólarlj. og foran Vspá; i L efter Hamð. og foran Vegt.; i B efter Sól. og foran Grott.; i C efter Hamð. og foran Getspeki Heið-reks; i andre nyere Afskrr. atter anderledes. Det mangler i O og S.	Forspjallsljóð is hardly unique in the first half of 18th century; at this period not only supplementary verses and lines of verse were deposited in the old mythical poems, but also Heidrek’s answers to Gestumblind’s riddles were composed in verse form. Keyser's objection (“Posthumous Writings”. I, 262) that "the beginning of the 17th century or the closest preceding time can hardly be assumed to have possessed any poet with the spirit of knowledge and the freedom from prejudice, as the poem seems to presuppose" has some weight, but is hardly critical. I recommend the matter to the Icelandic scholars for further study. To put the poem in its true light, I have not used the consequent writings, but on the whole retained the paper manuscripts’ orthography (the same should also be said of the spurious verses in Vegtamskvida). Forspjallsljod’s text and interpretation are uncertain to me, which is natural, since the poem’s expressions do not follow universal laws, but in part are arbitrary. It occurs in different positions in different manuscripts: in Stockh. oct. mss. after Sólarljod and before Voluspá; in L, after Hamðismál and before Vegtamskviða; in B after the Grottosongr; in C after Hamðismál and before Getspeki Heiðereks; and, in more recent manuscripts, is different still. There are defects in O and S.
	2011 Annette Lassen Hrafnagaldur Óðins (Forspjallsljóð) Viking Society for Northern Research, p. 11:
	"In his edition of the eddic poems 1867, Bugge considered Hrafnagaldur to be a postmedieval antiquarian construction." "Bugge's rejection of Hrafnagaldur Óðins authenticity as a medieval poem is consistent with and an empathic endorsement of an attitude that P.A. Munch expressed in his edition of the eddic poems, where he wrote (Den ældre Edda, 1847, x-xi): 'It cannot, however, be denied that the major part of the rest, and other things too, that are found in paper manuscripts of the Edda, have a rather suspicious look. This applies especially to Gróugaldr and Hrafnagaldr Óðins...These ...are therefore omitted from the series of eddic poem proper, and only added in an appendix.' "This is also, moreover, Bugge's attitude to the poem elsewhere in his edition of the Edda, where he writes that Hrafnagaldur Óðins may be a late medieval poem (Norrœn Fornkvæði 1867, 140)." "What could count against Munch's and Bugge's interpretation of the poem's date is Árni Magnusson's mention of the poem in a letter to Jón Halldórsson (1665-1736), rural dean of Hitardalur, dated 18/6 1729, in which he asks to be sent copies that had been made earlier of documents that he had lost in the fire of 1728. Árni says that he owned copies of eddic poems ('Sæm(umndar) Eddur') that had been destroyed in the fire. He lacks Hrafnagaldur Óðins, Gróugaldur and Heiðreks gátur, which were supposed to have been in manuscripts of eddic poems that Brynjólfur Sveinsson (1605-1675) had been responsible for. According to Árni, these poems existed in copies of a copy made by Þorsteinn Eyjólfsson at Háeyri (c. 1645-1714), of which Árni himself had owned two that were burnt in 1728." ..."Gisli Brynjúlfsson had drawn Bugge's attention to this letter, which had been printed in Kjöbenhavns Universitets-Journal 4, 1796, 8 in a Danish translation by Skúli Thorlacius, but Bugge did not think that one could trust it (see Norrœn Fornkvæði 1867, xlviii)." ..."Bugge mentions as an example that hveim is used as a relative pronoun in st. 13. But hveim is also found in Baldrs draumar 6/5, which is preserved in a manuscript from about 1300. Bugge thinks there is a string of words that were inspired by Snorri's Edda and Völuspá, among others hörgr (st. 20) and hárbaðmr (st. 7). Hárbaðmr, according to Bugge, seems to be used because the author of Hrafnagaldur read hárbaðmr in Völuspá in the Codex Reguius as one word and misunderstood it to mean 'Hair-tree'. The best manuscripts of Hrafnagaldur, however, have harðbaðmr, not hárbaðmr. Bugge points out that máttkat (st. 2) is a grammatical error on the part of the author, who had misunderstood ancient word forms. In addition, he claims that the genitive -þollar (st. 25) must be a case of misunderstanding of an earlier form, since 'the genitive of þollr is þolls (xlvii)." "Bugge, in his edition of the eddic poems, supported Gunnar Pálsson’s theory that Hrafnagaldur had been composed as an introduction to Baldrs draumar, into which several stanzas had been interpolated (Norroen Fornkvæði 1867, 140)." "Einar G. Pétursson in a recent article has pointed out (2007, 150) ‘If Bugge’s guess were correct, we would expect the two poems to appear side by side in manuscripts.’ Hrafnagaldur is not written in front of Baldrs draumar in the earliest manuscripts."
	Sophus Bugge's Edition of Hrafnagaldur Óðins with an English Translation

HOME