Skáldskaparmál - 01.01.1997, Page 238

236
Matthew James Driscoll
genidve plural since the meaning is the same. This kind of variation is found
throughout. 1.16, for example, reads in 22:
Estor hét og Idús þeir
sem ávalt frömdu dáðir;
þessir fara með fránan geir
og fylgdu kóngi báðir.
The first line of this stanza is slightly different in S, reading Nejha egEster og
Itras meir, where we find the same rhyme but a different word. In the second and
fourth lines the unstressed words sem and ogare lacking, and in line two 5has ojt
er instead of ávalt. U^here has jafnan. In the third line, instead of Jfánan, S has
fagran, whereas W, as mentioned above, hasfinan. In both these cases the meaning
of the words is essentially the same, and they all satisfy the requirements of metre
and alliteration. S and 22 agree, just for the record, in having Jylgdu in line 4,
while W\\zs the present tense form, Jylg/a.
Although variation of this type can be found in nearly every stanza, there are
only two or three examples of a different rhyme being used, and even these involve
closely related words or forms. 1.17, for example, has borði and orði in 22 and W,
but borðum and orðum in S, hardly a significant difference.
There are also several examples of different alliteration, but still only a handful.
1.15, 1 and 2, for example, reads Þessir voru í siklings sal /sóma skrýddir mestum
in 22 but Þeir eru prír íþessum sal /þroska gœddir hœstum in S, with glœstum in
line 4 instead of bestum (glœstum is also the reading of W)-1-54, 1 and 2, similarly,
reads Hér rnest kom hann á hilmisfund / og hagar svo mðu sinni in 22 but Valnint
gekk á vísis Jund / og vandar mðu sinni in S. On the whole I’m not sure I don’t
prefer Ss readings here, but there is at least nothing wrongwith them (apart from
the odd case of ofituðlun, of which there are examples in all three texts). This is
not always so. II. 16, 1 has KurteislegaJyrir kónginn stéin S, as fine a line of poetry
as ever was written, but the alliteration is with hneigðum, and 22s reading,
Hœversklega fyrir herrann sté, is obviously better.
On the basis of the evidence presented by the manuscripts of Skikkjurímur it
can be said that there was a degree of instability inherent in the rímur text.32 In
the process of copying, and presumably also in performance, copyists and
kvœðamenn would not have felt themselves bound to reproduce in every detail
the exemplars in front of them. The evidence of the Stockholm manuscript
suggests further that those who memorised rímur did so by remembering the
rhyme and alliteration patterns of the individual stanzas — presumably in con-
nexion with a series of key words linked to the plot — but without committing the
32 On the notion of ‘mouvance’, the fiindamental instability of the medieval text, see Paul
Zumthor, Essai depoétique médiévale (Paris, 1972), esp. pp. 68-74; Towarda MedievalPoetics,
trans. Philip Bennett (Minneapolis, Minn., 1992), pp. 41-9.