Afkarlig varð jarla
orðgnótt, sús hlaut dróttinn;
fylgði efnð, þvís ylgjar
angrtælir réð mæla:
at framm í gný grimmum
grafnings und kló hrafni
fúss lézk falla ræsir
feigr eða Danmǫrk eiga.
Orðgnótt jarla, sús dróttinn hlaut, varð afkarlig; efnð fylgði, þvís angrtælir ylgjar réð mæla: at ræsir lézk fúss falla feigr und kló hrafni framm í grimmum gný grafnings eða eiga Danmǫrk.
The lordly wealth of words with which the liege was endowed was prodigious; his deeds matched what the grief-beguiler [GLADDENER] of the she-wolf [WARRIOR = Magnús] did say: that the prince said, glad, he would fall doomed under the claw of the raven, ahead in the cruel clash of the graven shield [BATTLE], or else possess Denmark.
[5] at: so all others, ok Kˣ
[5] at ‘that’: (a) This, the reading of all mss except for Kˣ, produces a grammatically complicated structure, in which the second helmingr is a subordinate cl. amplifying því in þvís ylgjar angrtælir réð mæla ‘what the beguiler of the she-wolf’s grief did say’ (ll. 3-4). This being so, lézk ‘said’ is redundant: one would have expected a cl. meaning ‘that he would ...’ rather than one meaning ‘that he said he would ...’. It was doubtless this rather tangled construction which gave rise to the simpler secondary variant ok ‘and’ in Kˣ. As elsewhere, the awkwardness of the original is preserved in the translation. (b) If ok ‘and’ were the correct reading, the second helmingr would form a cl. co-ordinate with the cl. built around fylgði ‘matched, followed’ in the first helmingr. Lines 3-4 would be parenthetic.