skaldic

Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages

Menu Search

Þjsk Hák 2I

Kate Heslop (ed.) 2012, ‘Þorleifr jarlsskáld Rauðfeldarson, Poem about Hákon 2’ in Diana Whaley (ed.), Poetry from the Kings’ Sagas 1: From Mythical Times to c. 1035. Skaldic Poetry of the Scandinavian Middle Ages 1. Turnhout: Brepols, p. 371.

Þorleifr jarlsskáld RauðfeldarsonPoem about Hákon
12

Hǫfðum ‘We had’

hafa (verb): have

notes

[1] hǫfðum í þér, Hôkun ‘we had ... in you, Hákon’: Hǫfðum is normalised here from ‘hǫfðv(m) ver’ in the mss, but the line is metrically defective in both its diplomatic and normalised forms. It both lacks hending and, more seriously, does not scan unless the stress is borne by the prep. í ‘in’, precisely the word which attracted the interest of the grammarians (see Context). Kock in NN §2443 suggested Hǫfðum vér þá, Hôkon ‘We had then, Hákon’, adapting the W(103) reading Hǫfðum vér þá er (in NN §3396K he instead proposes the reading presented in the Text above). The unemended W(103) reading þá er improves the metre by providing a stressed vér ‘we’, but it makes no sense, and eliminates the solecismus and therefore the point of the citation in TGT. Finnur Jónsson (TGT 1927, 51 n. 7) questions whether í þér is truly a solecism, insisting that it is ‘completely normal’ (fuldkommen normal).

Close

í ‘in’

í (prep.): in, into

[1] í þér: þá er W(103)

notes

[1] hǫfðum í þér, Hôkun ‘we had ... in you, Hákon’: Hǫfðum is normalised here from ‘hǫfðv(m) ver’ in the mss, but the line is metrically defective in both its diplomatic and normalised forms. It both lacks hending and, more seriously, does not scan unless the stress is borne by the prep. í ‘in’, precisely the word which attracted the interest of the grammarians (see Context). Kock in NN §2443 suggested Hǫfðum vér þá, Hôkon ‘We had then, Hákon’, adapting the W(103) reading Hǫfðum vér þá er (in NN §3396K he instead proposes the reading presented in the Text above). The unemended W(103) reading þá er improves the metre by providing a stressed vér ‘we’, but it makes no sense, and eliminates the solecismus and therefore the point of the citation in TGT. Finnur Jónsson (TGT 1927, 51 n. 7) questions whether í þér is truly a solecism, insisting that it is ‘completely normal’ (fuldkommen normal).

Close

þér ‘you’

þú (pron.; °gen. þín, dat. þér, acc. þik): you

[1] í þér: þá er W(103)

notes

[1] hǫfðum í þér, Hôkun ‘we had ... in you, Hákon’: Hǫfðum is normalised here from ‘hǫfðv(m) ver’ in the mss, but the line is metrically defective in both its diplomatic and normalised forms. It both lacks hending and, more seriously, does not scan unless the stress is borne by the prep. í ‘in’, precisely the word which attracted the interest of the grammarians (see Context). Kock in NN §2443 suggested Hǫfðum vér þá, Hôkon ‘We had then, Hákon’, adapting the W(103) reading Hǫfðum vér þá er (in NN §3396K he instead proposes the reading presented in the Text above). The unemended W(103) reading þá er improves the metre by providing a stressed vér ‘we’, but it makes no sense, and eliminates the solecismus and therefore the point of the citation in TGT. Finnur Jónsson (TGT 1927, 51 n. 7) questions whether í þér is truly a solecism, insisting that it is ‘completely normal’ (fuldkommen normal).

Close

‘Há’

3. hár (adj.; °-van; compar. hǽrri, superl. hǽstr): high < Hákon (noun m.): Hákon

notes

[1] hǫfðum í þér, Hôkun ‘we had ... in you, Hákon’: Hǫfðum is normalised here from ‘hǫfðv(m) ver’ in the mss, but the line is metrically defective in both its diplomatic and normalised forms. It both lacks hending and, more seriously, does not scan unless the stress is borne by the prep. í ‘in’, precisely the word which attracted the interest of the grammarians (see Context). Kock in NN §2443 suggested Hǫfðum vér þá, Hôkon ‘We had then, Hákon’, adapting the W(103) reading Hǫfðum vér þá er (in NN §3396K he instead proposes the reading presented in the Text above). The unemended W(103) reading þá er improves the metre by providing a stressed vér ‘we’, but it makes no sense, and eliminates the solecismus and therefore the point of the citation in TGT. Finnur Jónsson (TGT 1927, 51 n. 7) questions whether í þér is truly a solecism, insisting that it is ‘completely normal’ (fuldkommen normal).

Close

kun ‘kon’

1. kyn (noun n.; °-s; -): kin < Hákon (noun m.): Hákon

notes

[1] hǫfðum í þér, Hôkun ‘we had ... in you, Hákon’: Hǫfðum is normalised here from ‘hǫfðv(m) ver’ in the mss, but the line is metrically defective in both its diplomatic and normalised forms. It both lacks hending and, more seriously, does not scan unless the stress is borne by the prep. í ‘in’, precisely the word which attracted the interest of the grammarians (see Context). Kock in NN §2443 suggested Hǫfðum vér þá, Hôkon ‘We had then, Hákon’, adapting the W(103) reading Hǫfðum vér þá er (in NN §3396K he instead proposes the reading presented in the Text above). The unemended W(103) reading þá er improves the metre by providing a stressed vér ‘we’, but it makes no sense, and eliminates the solecismus and therefore the point of the citation in TGT. Finnur Jónsson (TGT 1927, 51 n. 7) questions whether í þér is truly a solecism, insisting that it is ‘completely normal’ (fuldkommen normal).

Close

hjǫr ‘the sword’

hjǫrr (noun m.): sword < hjǫrróg (noun n.)hjǫrr (noun m.): sword < hjǫrþing (noun n.): sword-assembly

kennings

hjǫrrógi;
‘the sword-strife; ’
   = BATTLE

the sword-strife; → BATTLE
Close

rógi ‘strife’

róg (noun n.; °-s): strife, slander < hjǫrróg (noun n.)

[2] ‑rógi: ‑þingi W(111)

kennings

hjǫrrógi;
‘the sword-strife; ’
   = BATTLE

the sword-strife; → BATTLE
Close

drógumk ‘we advanced’

2. draga (verb; °dregr; dró, drógu; dreginn/droget(Hirð NKS 1642 4° 146v²⁹; cf. [$962$])): drag, pull, draw

[2] drógumk: drógum W(103), gengum W(111)

notes

[2] drógumk ‘we advanced’: The m. v. form of draga is taken here as meaning ‘move (oneself)’, as often in skaldic poetry (LP: draga 12). The variants are inferior. Drógum ‘we dragged, pulled’ (W(103)) is unlikely as draga is usually transitive (TGT 1884, 183). FoGT has for l. 2 es at hjǫrþingi gengum ‘when we went to the sword-meeting [BATTLE]’, but gengum is probably, like drógum, a scribal attempt at simplification (Nj 1875-8, II, 1005).

Close

rautt ‘reddened’

rjóða (verb): to redden

Close

Skǫglar ‘of Skǫgul’

Skǫgul (noun f.): Skǫgul

kennings

skóð skýja Skǫglar.
‘the harmer of the clouds of Skǫgul. ’
   = SWORD

the clouds of Skǫgul. → SHIELDS
the harmer of SHIELDS → SWORD
Close

Skǫglar ‘of Skǫgul’

Skǫgul (noun f.): Skǫgul

kennings

skóð skýja Skǫglar.
‘the harmer of the clouds of Skǫgul. ’
   = SWORD

the clouds of Skǫgul. → SHIELDS
the harmer of SHIELDS → SWORD
Close

skýja ‘of the clouds’

ský (noun n.; °-s; -): cloud

kennings

skóð skýja Skǫglar.
‘the harmer of the clouds of Skǫgul. ’
   = SWORD

the clouds of Skǫgul. → SHIELDS
the harmer of SHIELDS → SWORD
Close

skýja ‘of the clouds’

ský (noun n.; °-s; -): cloud

kennings

skóð skýja Skǫglar.
‘the harmer of the clouds of Skǫgul. ’
   = SWORD

the clouds of Skǫgul. → SHIELDS
the harmer of SHIELDS → SWORD
Close

skóð ‘the harmer’

2. skóð (noun n.): harmer, scathe

kennings

skóð skýja Skǫglar.
‘the harmer of the clouds of Skǫgul. ’
   = SWORD

the clouds of Skǫgul. → SHIELDS
the harmer of SHIELDS → SWORD
Close

forvistu ‘leader’

forvist (noun f.): [leader]

notes

[4] forvistu ‘leader’: Usually an abstract noun, ‘leadership’, but sometimes, as here, forvista/forysta refers to the person who embodies these attributes (Fritzner: forysta). The grammarians’ citation of this stanza as an example of solecismus suggests they understood forvista as the abstract noun (as in GSvert Hrafndr 5/8IV) and hence considered í þér ‘(we had good leadership) in you’ a solecism for af þér ‘from you’. The ms. forms are forystu (A) and forustu (W, both texts), but normalised forvista, with long first syllable, is required in this metrical position.

Close

góða ‘a fine’

góðr (adj.): good

Close

Interactive view: tap on words in the text for notes and glosses

The helmingr is cited to exemplify a sub-class of the rhetorical figure solecismus (TGT; it is an example of the similar figure protheseos paralange according to FoGT). This type of solecismus, according to TGT, involves the replacement of a word by another which belongs to the same part of speech but is inappropriate in context (þá er hinn sami partr er óviðrkæmiliga settr); FoGT gives the same explanation but limits the figure to the class of prepositions. In the present stanza the authors of the Grammatical Treatises regard í þér ‘in you’ in l. 1 as a solecism for af þér ‘from you’ (though see Notes to ll. 1 and 4 below).

The stanza is attributed to Þorleifr in all mss, though FoGT has only ‘Þorleifr’ and W (TGT) only ‘jarlsskáld’.

Close

Log in

This service is only available to members of the relevant projects, and to purchasers of the skaldic volumes published by Brepols.
This service uses cookies. By logging in you agree to the use of cookies on your browser.

Close

Stanza/chapter/text segment

Use the buttons at the top of the page to navigate between stanzas in a poem.

Information tab

Interactive tab

The text and translation are given here, with buttons to toggle whether the text is shown in the verse order or prose word order. Clicking on indiviudal words gives dictionary links, variant readings, kennings and notes, where relevant.

Full text tab

This is the text of the edition in a similar format to how the edition appears in the printed volumes.

Chapter/text segment

This view is also used for chapters and other text segments. Not all the headings shown are relevant to such sections.