Fróðskaparrit - 01.01.1970, Page 58

66
The oral-formulaic structure of the Faroese kvæði
But let us now consider the passage more closely, peeking
beneath the comfortable and reassuring underlining. For certain
matters are curious indeed. Two, at least, are of first impor-
tance. First, note the range of the supporting evidence just
presented: here we find that the formulaic support shows very
little spread. Thus within the range of ten stanzas in either
direction the support is very full; outside that range there is
very little. Second, note that there is very little evidence for
the formulaic structure of the last third of this passage. This
is because here lies precisely the difference between this run
of stanzas and the next which deals with Sjúrður’s second
visit to Regin’s smithy. For the next time around the sword
doesn’t break and Sjúrður doesn’t threaten, etc. This is one
significant change in a rather large scale piece of incrementai
repetition. Beginning with stanza 1.71, 1.61—67 V2 are re-
peated only minimally changed (e.g., ‘ten’ becomes ‘thirty’,
etc.), but then all is different as the story moves on.
It seems, then, that we can call the kvæði formulaic in the
sense of Parry and Lord only if we are willing to accept the
triviality of so saying. That we can underline and tot up an
impressive number of formulas obscures the general fact that
the formulaic consistency of the kvæði is much different from
the thoroughgoing formulaic structure of Beowulf, say, or of
the Serbocroatian narrative.4
Are the kvæði, then, since they are hardly formulaic in the
sense of Parry and Lord, not the result of oral composition?
Or since that conclusion is patent nonsense, is there something
basically wrong with considering the Faroese ballad from a
too narrow reading of Parry and Lord? The latter is a large
question for which I shall attempt only a partial answer. The
answer is yes.
As long ago as 1918, Boor noted that it was a characteristic
of kvæði style that it had not stopped with the formulaic line:
4) Formula counting is foolish, tricky business, full of pitfalls. See my
»Another look at oral poetry in The seafarer«, Speculum 35.596—600
(1960).