Gripla - 20.12.2015, Qupperneq 44

GRIPLA44
modern editions but include the reading mer in R.52 Both jón Helgason
and dronke note that the reading mér is also possible on the grounds of
the manuscript’s evidence, but Dronke only refers to the ‘parallel forms
mær/miór’ in her commentary. Jón Helgason states that elsewhere in r
the scribe abbreviated mær with the er abbreviation sign, but fails to clarify
that the mær in question is the noun ‘maid’ and not the uncommon form
of the adjective mjór.53
sigurður Nordal argues that er mær sýndiz refers to the story of Loki’s
treachery as narrated in Gylfaginning.54 He explains that the passage in
Gautreks saga, quoted by Bugge, is related to tales of Óðinn putting a reed
into a man’s hand which turns out to be a spear; a similar story is found
in Styrbjarnar þáttr in Flateyjarbók (Gks 1005 fol.).55 the implication is
that Höðr was also misled into believing that the mistletoe, which seemed
slender and flexible, would not harm Baldr. However, in the light of
Gylfaginning at least, Nordal’s suggestion is unfortunate. In Gylfaginning,
Baldr is said not to be hurt by anything in the world, and it is written that,
far from choosing harmless objects to throw at Baldr, the gods took their
fun in hurling all sorts of harmful objects at him.56 It could hardly have
been the apparent fragility of the object which fooled Höðr, since the gods
did not choose their projectiles for their innocuousness.
the reading er mér sýndiz [seemed/appeared to me] in stanza 32 is very
fitting here. the story of Baldr starts in stanza 31, in which the völva says
in direct speech: Ek sá Baldri // blöðgum tívur’ [I saw Baldr, the bloody
god].57 then again, the mér/mær conundrum has no clear-cut solution and
52 Edda, ed. Neckel and kuhn, 8.
53 Eddadigte, ed. Helgason, 8; Poetic Edda, ed. and trans. Dronke, 1:14, 139.
54 Völuspá, ed. Nordal, 101. Gylfaginning, ed. Lorenz, 548–9; Edda: Gylfaginning, ed. Faulkes,
45–46; Snorre Sturlassons Edda, ed. Grape et al., II, 30–2; Edda Snorra Sturlusonar, ed.
Finnur jónsson et al., 42–43.
55 Völuspá, ed. Nordal, 101–02; Flateyjarbók, ed. Sigurður nordal et al., 4 vols. (Akranes:
flateyjarútgáfan, 1944–45), 2:148–49. Flateyjarbók is dated to ca. 1387–94 and ca. 1475–
1500. Nordal does not analyse the verse’s ambiguity, but only comments that Bugge had
wanted to write mér. the english translation of Nordal’s book mistakenly implies that
Nordal considered mér to be an emendation to the text: ‘Bugge wanted at first to emend to
mér … but later abandoned this’, see Völuspá, ed. sigurður Nordal, trans. by B. s. Benedikz
and John McKinnell (Durham: Durham and St. Andrews Medieval texts, 1980), 67.
56 see references to Gylfaginning and the Prose Edda in fn. 55.
57 Tivurr (m.) ‘god’ can also be interpreted as ‘sacrifice’.
GRIPLA XXVI. - 12.12.B.indd 44 12/13/15 8:24:29 PM