Gripla - 20.12.2015, Qupperneq 32

GRIPLA32
and H, as well as variant readings in the Prose Edda.10 Bugge’s notes and
commentary concentrate on the reconstructed text and give much less at-
tention to the scribal texts that follow it – an ideal edition would also have
to engage with the texts individually.11
the study of variant readings and versions, and of the editorial deci-
sions about such variants and versions, may allow us to understand the
history of the medieval transmission of Völuspá and to reflect upon the
context and nature of variation. daniel Wakelin, for instance, discusses
the difficulty of distinguishing variance from correction; he argues that
‘in their correcting … we can hear people thinking’.12 to bring scribal
corrections to light allows us to engage with the culture, literature, and
language of the scribes, revisers and readers. By analysing the uncertain-
ties generated by scribal orthography, corrections and abbreviations, we
are also reminded of the instability of medieval texts and the elusiveness
of editorial decisions.
Himinnjódýr – himinjódyrr
due to orthographical ambiguity regarding the indication of long and short
vowels in the manuscript, the line um himinjódýr or um himinjódyr in stanza
5 of Völuspá (f. 1r, l. 10) can be read either way. In the manuscript, the y has
10 Norræn fornkvæði, ed. Bugge, 1–11 (reconstructed text), 12–18 (R), 19–26 (H), 26–33
(Prose Edda). the most recent edition of Völuspá in Eddukvæði, ed. jónas kristjánsson and
Vésteinn Ólason, 2 vols. (reykjavík: Hið íslenzka fornritafélag, 2014), 1:292 presents the
texts in r followed by that in H, although the text in r actually incorporates readings from
H.
11 In R and H, Völuspá stands as a whole poem but the stanzas of Völuspá quoted in the Prose
Edda are themselves the result of an editing process which consisted of harvesting the
poem in order to create a coherent narrative, namely Gylfaginning. each of these versions
has their individual integrity and substance; editions wishing to convey each of them fully
and integrally would need to integrate commentary considering their immediate literary
context and also the scribal practices which influence our reading of them. See, for instance,
Herschend, ‘Codex regius 2365 4to’.
12 daniel Wakelin, Scribal Correction and Literary Craft: English Manuscripts 1375–1510
(Cambridge: Cambridge university Press, 2014), 307. See also Maja Bäckvall, ‘Skriva
fel och läsa rätt? Eddiska dikter i uppsalaeddan ur ett avsändaroch mottagarperspektiv’.
unpublished doctoral dissertation, uppsala university, 2013. Bäckvall shows that the
study of so-called ‘scribal errors’ more often than not illuminates, rather than obfuscates,
the text.
GRIPLA XXVI. - 12.12.B.indd 32 12/13/15 8:24:27 PM