Þjóðólfr Frag 1III/4 — fjǫllum ‘the mountains’
Hǫfuðbaðm,
þars heiðsæi,
á Fjǫrnis
fjǫllum, drýgði.
… hǫfuðbaðm á fjǫllum Fjǫrnis, þars drýgði heiðsæi.
… chief kinsman on the mountains of Fjǫrnir <sea-king> [WAVES], where he showed his reverence.
notes
[3-4] á fjǫllum Fjǫrnis ‘on the mountains of Fjǫrnir <sea-king> [WAVES]’: This interpretation of the kenning is suggested by the prose context, where Óláfr Þórðarson refers to the preceding stanza where ‘… the sea was called mountains of a sea-king’. Fjǫrnir is otherwise not attested as the name of a sea-king, but it is the name of one of Gunnarr’s servants in Akv 10/1. However, there is an abundantly attested noun fjǫrnir ‘helmet’ (cf. LP: 1. fjǫrnir). If the latter were the determinant, the kenning would mean ‘mountains of the helmet [HEADS]’. This was proposed by Detter (1896, 211). He interpreted the head-kenning as an expression for princeps ‘prince’ (cf. LP: hǫfuð 2), whom he took to be the object of drýgja heiðsæi ‘show reverence’. But since fjǫllum is dat. pl., one would have to assume that there were more than one prince to whom reverence should be paid, and his solution, albeit attractive, goes against Óláfr’s interpretation of the kenning. Yet, if the referent of the kenning fjǫll Fjǫrnis ‘the mountains of Fjǫrnir’ is ‘waves’, it is difficult to envision how one could ‘show reverence’ at sea. This problem led Björn Magnússon Ólsen (TGT 1884, 219 and 1894, 8 n. 1) to translate heiðsæi as ‘glorious deed’, and it led Bugge (1894, 131) to assume that the fragment referred to a pilgrimage. The problem is solved by placing fjǫllum Fjǫrnis/fjǫrnis (interpreted as either ‘the mountains of Fjǫrnir <sea-king> [WAVES]’ or ‘the mountains of the helmet [HEADS]’) in the fragmentary main clause rather than in the subordinate clause. This solution has been adopted in the present edn.
kennings
- fjǫllum Fjǫrnis, — the mountains of Fjǫrnir <sea-king>, [WAVES]
grammar
case: dat.
number: pl.