Hávamál 104, 1-2:

Vel keypts litar

Hefi ek vel notit

As is well known, the difficulty deciphering this passage lies in the word litar. Bugge states (p. 55): “All explanations of the common word litr seem forced.  Egilsson understands litar as a sideform to lutar, hlutar; this is unacceptable, but perhaps we should amend to lutar.” Bugge further mentions Petersen’s and Lüning’s emendation lidar, intended as genitive of a masculine líðr, drink, of which, however, he rightly remarks that the intended Norse word  is líð, which is neuter as are the corresponding forms in Old Saxon and Old High German. After Bugge published his edition of the Edda, he has took this passage into consideration anew in Årbøger for Nordic Old kyndighed 1869 ("Afterword to my version of the Sæmundar Edda” p. 251, 252) and as a result of the investigation, concluded that litar should be regarded as standing in the place of hlítar. Hence, in his second edition Grundvig has provided litar with a diacritical mark over the i and in the remarks on p. 210 for Hávamál 107 has informatively stated that, in agreement with Bugge, he interprets the passage thus: "(h)lítar vel hefi ek notit velkeypts (drykkjar).”

In Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie I, 413, Möbius translates this as: “I had the advantage of my transformation (into a snake), of my well-earned shape” but Bugge objects to this, citing the reason: “I don’t see how Odin’s transformation into a snake can be called “velkeyptr”. Simrock’s interpretation “Schlauer Verwandlungen Frucht erwarb ich" ('the fruit of sly transformation I acquired') is based on the same opinion of litar. Winkel Horn’s, like Möller’s translation assumes the premise of the text change from litar to líðar (or rather líðs). Hjort translates:

Vel monne jeg veltjent

stilling nytte,

['I now avail myself of

a well-earned position']

and Afzelius even freer:

Dyrköpta sängen

väl har jag njutit.

[The dearly bought bed

Well, I have enjoyed.]

Lüning (p. 282) and Holtzmann (pp. 79 and 115) read litar as the genitive of the common noun. litr, color, appearance, beauty, although they consider the interpretation highly uncertain and thus point out other ways in which they tentatively sought to interpret the text.

A previously completely overlooked particularity seems to me to be decisive in regard to the correct interpretation of the difficult phrase vel keypts litar. I believe attention has only once been called to what I refer and that the objections put forth by Bugge against any explanation of litar from “the common word litr” shall lose their foundation.  The presentation of the episode about Odin's journey to Suttung and the acquisition of mead with the help of Suttung’s daughter Gunlödd (v. 104-110) is from beginning to end told in a tone that leaves the impression that Odin was considered a welcome suitor, who, after successfully overcoming all the obstacles he encounters on his bridal quest, finally gets his bride and celebrates a solemn wedding with her in the giant Suttung halls. There is, in my opinion, a much richer content in the verses named than we have been accustomed to see, and that the whole narrative is far more poetic, lively and vivid, than previously understood. The image just described is alluded to in each individual scene of this event in Odin's life and the expressions are selected with extreme care, so that the style might keep its initial character throughout.

After this general account, I will proceed to a detailed explanation of what the verses contain and point out all the specific expressions through which allusions are made to the marital union between Odin and the giant's daughter in the poetic narrative. To me, such expressions are:

l. Vel keypts litar.

Litar constitutes a poetic euphemism for Gunlödd and the epithet keypts finds its explanation by such terms as kona  in  mey mundi (gulli) keypt, kaupa sér konu, brúðkaup etc. The qualifier vel placed before keypts apparently corresponds to the vel before notit, from which a certain uniformity of expression exists between the first and second lines of the verse. The translation thus becomes:

Av den lyckligt (i en lycklig stund) äktade* skönheten

har jag lyckligt (till min lycka, med lycklig utgäng) njutit.

[“Of the happy (in a happy moment) wedded* beauty

I have happily (at my happiness with the successful outcome) enjoyed.”]

*) or acquired to my own advantage.

For further elucidation of the term litar, one may apply the statements made on one hand in Hávamál 93 "lostfagrir litir”, through her fair captivating appearance (face, beauty), and on the other with Gripisspá 27 "er at Heimis fagrt álitum", 28 “þótt mær sé fögr áliti”, and 29 “fögr alití fostra Heimis”. What is called (lost)fagrir litir in Hávamál 93 means exactly the same thing as with it would applying the later song’s manner of expression, meyjar fagrar älitum (:áliti). The word face (Swedish: ansigte),  in its origin and basic meaning, is closely in tune with anlete (Swedish for visage, face), a recent compound which is etymologically related to litr and álit, can also be used to signify a person according to contemporary language, so that for example the expression “a beautiful face" may signify a woman who has a beautiful face. It is in all respects perfectly analogous to the Greek πρόσωπον (prosópon) which signifies person as well as face.

2. v. 108, 4—6:

ef ek Gunnladar ne nytak,

ennar góðrar konu,

Þeirrar er lögdumk arm yfir.

4.  v. 109, 2—4:

géngu hrímþursar
Háva ráds at fregna, etc.

5. v. 110, 1—3:

Baugeið Óðinn
hygg ek at unnit hafi,
hvat skal hans trygdum trúa?

 Suttung svikinn
hann lét sumbli frá
 ok groetta Gunnlödu.

These lines compared with the immediately preceding ones indicate that Odin was guilty of what in Sigrdrifumál v. 23 is called trygðrof, and that he thus appeared as eiðrofa. See Helreið Brynhildar v. 5 and Brot af Sigurðarkviða v. 16. Compare them with Sigurðarkviða’s svíku hann i trygð in the prose conclusion. Odin deceived his intended giant father-in-law as well as the giant’s daughter Gunlödd, which, even if for a short time, was considered his bride.
 
The word sumbl occurs not only in the sense of beverage (Álvissmál 34, and in a few places in Snorri’s Edda, concerning which see Egilsson) but more commonly in the sense of drinking feast, festive liquor (Hýmiskviða 2; Lokasenna 3, 4, 7, 8, 65— thereof see Egilsson sumbl and sund). One could well ask the question, how far this sumbl could be taken in a twofold sense and if the whole expression were purposely chosen so that its meaning would not be limited and definite. Such vague expressions, which give rise to double entendres or puns, are encountered in several places in the old Eddic songs.
 
The passage could either be translated: He left Suttung deceived on the drink and Gunlödd drenched in tears (weeping), or: He left Suttung deceived at the feast (wedding feast) and Gunlödd, etc:  i.e the conclusion was the same, that Suttung walked away from the feast deceived, etc.
 
The first three lines of v. 105:
 
Gunnlöd mér um gaf
gullnum stóli á
drykk ins dýra mjaðar

and the last of  v. 104:
 
mörgum orðum
mælta ek í minn frama
í Suttungs sölum

also indicate also that Odin, when he came to Suttung’s abode, was not only treated as an honored guest, and as such got a place to sit on the golden high-seat, where he sat and drank opposite the host, but also during a drinking feast (where the Hrimthurs, which according to v . 109 went “ens hindra dags" to Odin's hall “Háva ráðs at fregna" should have been present either as guests or as belonging to Suttung’s household), when the conversation arose with the others standing by while he used every opportunity offered to place his words well, thereby promoting his cause (in minn frama). Of course, Odin laid these not least on Gunlödd herself, whose heart he soon conquered by fair words. The connection between them was contractual and even solemnly confirmed by baugeið and trygð (v. 110). One drank to honor the ceremony (compare the expressions drekka brúðhlaup I. brúðkaup), and thereby it seems to have gone so well, that the drink, which was served at the feast to honor the groom, consisted of nothing less than the skaldic mead. It was also just that in order to get possession of it, Odin had to appear as the suitor of the giant's daughter and solemnly celebrate his union with her. On other occasions, it would have been unlikely that such a precious drink (compare v. 105, 3 and 140, 4-5 drykk ins dyra mjaðar) would have been offered to the newly-arriving guest, and that he would have had to settle for lesser varieties of mead.
 
We find here a complete counterpart to the myth presented in Þrymskviða of Thor's journey to Jötunheim. Like Thor, Odin departs for the world of the giants, in order to seek and to gain possession of a thing important beyond measure for him and all of the gods. The goal of Odin's journey is mead, which is the equivalent of the hammer in the former myth. To attain his goal, he avails himself in the same way Thor does of cunning to enter into real relationship with giant offspring. While Thor plays the role of the bride, Odin, however, appears here as the groom. For the celebration of the feast and the sealing of the genuine ceremony, here the mead is brought forth and there the hammer. Both gods take possession of a long-desired object whose precise presentation has been the goal of their strivings and the precalculated final scene of their extraordinary behavior. The inglorious end to the troublesome giant woman's persistence whose narrative forms the conclusion of Thrymskvida (v. 32) also invites an opportunity for comparison:
 
hon skell um hlaut
fyr skillinga,
enn högg hamars
fyr hringa fjöld

And the depiction of Gunnlödd’s unhappy fate in Hávamál (v. 105):
 
Ill iðgjöld
lét ek hana eptir hafa
etc.

and v. 110:
 
hann lét—
—groetta Gunnlödu.
 

Regarding the union in question between the gods and the giants’ kin, Njörd’s relationship with Skadi, and Frey’s with Gerd, and so on, may also be recalled.
 
The myth of Odin’s journey to Suttung for acquiring the mead there is also spoken of in Snorri’s Edda (Bragaræður 57, 58), where it is clad in prose form and presented far more extensively than can be the case in these few verses of Hávamál. It seems to me, however, that the short and brisk narrative in the current passage of Hávamál in several respects bears the stamp of being more original and unadulterated than the narrative in Snorri’s Edda. The latter knows nothing of Odin’s baugeið and trygð and Gunlödd’s bitter grief and says nothing about how the frost-giants ens hindra dags went Háva ráðs at fregna etc. According to the prose narrative in Snorri’s Edda "fór Bölverkr" (Bölverkr goes), as soon as he entered in through the mountain “þar til sem Gunnlöð var” (to where Gunnlödd was),  without ever seeking Suttung himself, and the entirety of Odin's case was secretly discussed between Odin and Gunlödd alone, whereas Hávamál has Odin seek out her giant father (“enn aldna jötun ek sótta”, the old giant I sought) and he appears wholley undisguised  "í Suttungs sölum," (in Suttung’s halls) where he, through his wisdom in words and actions finally gets so far that Gunlödd gave him "gullnum stóli á drykk ens dyra mjaðar" (a drink of the precious mead on a golden seat.)

I believe that the current myth in question, which is briefly touched upon also in Hávamál v. 13, 14 and 140 and in Sigrdrífumál v. 18, not only gains a deeper explanation through the foregoing analysis than it previously had, but is also presented in greater originality.
 
Already in v. 105, Odin says of Gunlödd:
 
Ill iðgjöld
lét ek hana eptir hafa
síns ins heila hugar
síns ins svára sefa
 

*) The compilation of these cited expressions from four successive verses of Gripisspá likely indicate, that the transition from the expression “kaupa mey fagra áliti l. álitum” to “kaupa (fagrari) lit” (i.e. purchase of beauty, the beauty herself, i.e. the girl with the fair appearance) cannot remain considered to be unconnected in the literature.

As a conclusion to my attempts made here to further illuminate and interpret the actual content of the account of Gunnlödd’s myth in Hávamál 104-110, I will now to take up the issue of the relationship between the beginning of the narrative in v. 104 and the closest foregoing verses. Luning, Möbius and many other editors of the Edda set a great dividing line between verses 103 and 104, in order to thereby give notice that a stand-alone and more independent section of Hávamál has been created. Bugge objects, p. 55 (in the note to v. 104): "R (i.e. Codex Regius) does not indicate that a new section begins with this verse" and has also ruled, in the case this line. To me, it seems so much clearer that no such dividing line should be contemplated, on the contrary v. 104 and the following verses stand in the closest connection with what the previous verses contain. The whole story of Odin's visit to Suttung and courtship to Gunlödd has evidently been provoked by some general observations in v. 103. Namely, it states there in the final lines:
 
fimbulfambi heitir
 sa er fátt kann segja,
þat er ósnotrs aðal
 

In Sveinbjörn Egilsson's Lexicon Poeticum (1932, p. 660), under the word ögur, which is listed as "of uncertain meaning" [af usikker betydning], occurs the following definition:

"den rimeligste er Richerts opfattelse, = byrde (madkurven som Tor bar)."

which reads,

"The most reasonable is Richert's conception, = burden (the meal-basket that Thor bears)."

This is confirmed by Beatrice LaFarge in her Glossary to the Poetic Edda (1992), which says:

"ögurr m. burden (Richert)"
   

Here are Richert's opening remarks on the word ögur in Hárbarðsljoð 13:

Hárbarðsljoð 13, 3:

ok væta ögur minn.

THOR'S BURDEN
The Trouble with Translating
—minn ögur— in Hárbarðsljóð 13