i. Content

a.      All emendations must be justified by a brief note of the reason and a source reference given for the emendation if it depends on previous scholarship.

b.      New readings should be explained.

c.       Where a stanza or (more often) part of a stanza appears to be corrupt beyond the possibility of interpretation in any ms., this should be clearly noted.

d.      Where a reading other than that of the main ms. is chosen, this may require brief explanation.

e.       Where variant readings produce equally good sense to those of the main ms., this may require comment.

f.       Where a set of variant readings yields a complete version of the stanza or helmingr which is significantly different from the main Text, the alternative should be printed in full (cf. Text above).

g.      'Abnormal' or unusual points of syntax, semantics, diction, style, or metre, including complex kennings, should be noted.

h.      Alternative possibilities offered by the ms. readings should be noted, e.g. alternative syntactic constructions (including apo koinou words or phrases such as adverbials which could be taken with more than one clause), alternative understandings of kennings or of words or phrases for which a considerable potential range of meanings exists.

j.       The main alternative scholarly interpretations should be mentioned, with references. This may include the rejection of unjustified emendations adopted by previous editors. ‡ The discussion should give a clear exposition of problems and possible solutions, with full referencing to the solutions adopted by previous editors, rather than being primarily a review of scholarship. In a complex discussion it may be useful to label a series of possible interpretations as (a), (b) etc.

‡ General editors are at liberty to re-order textual discussions if they are not sufficiently lucid.

In cases where your own interpretation of a verse or poem differs markedly from those of other/previous editors, the important thing is to be even-handed, clear and succinct. You should give a brief but clear exposition of those interpretations, together with your reasons for considering them unsatisfactory, and should make a case for your own view. If you should hold an overall view that is radically different from others in print, you are encouraged to publish it separately, and to present it and alternative interpretations briefly within the edition, with bibliographic references. (Please consult with your Volume Editor at an early stage in such circumstances.)

k.      Other explanatory material should be included as necessary, e.g. essential cultural or historical information.

l.       It may be possible to reduce the volume of Notes, and of repetition between notes, by giving an account of some recurrent features of skaldic style and diction in the Introduction and cross-referencing to that. Examples would be the use of skáld and synonyms to mean 'me'; plural verbs and pronouns used in singular sense; or the use of Hildr /hildr both as a legendary name, and as a generalised term for 'valkyrie' and hence for 'battle', and as a determinant in kennings for weapons or warriors. For the time being, however, such points as these should be annotated in situ.

References