Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T04:33:03.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Syntax of Old Norse KviÐuháttr Meter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2005

Kari Ellen Gade
Kari Ellen Gade
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper seeks to explain syntactic and structural features that have puzzled earlier scholars and editors of poems composed in kviÐuháttr, one of the oldest attested Old Norse skaldic meters. More precisely, I attempt to answer the following questions: first, why do poems in kviÐuháttr fail to adhere to the stanzaic eight-line division and the four-line helmingr (half-stanza) division, which are so firmly entrenched in the ON skaldic tradition? Second, why does the syntax of kviÐuháttr poetry depart from other patterns of skaldic (and eddic) verb syntax? It will become clear that the metrical innovation that characterizes kviÐuháttr, namely, the introduction of regularized catalectic a-lines of Sievers' Types A, C, and D, imposed significant restrictions on verb syntax. Rather than violating the verb-second constraint in independent clauses, the poets were forced to relax structural rules that are observed strictly in other branches of ON poetry.I am grateful to my colleague, Robert D. Fulk, for helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper. Thanks also to the two anonymous JGL reviewers for valuable suggestions.

Information

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2005, pp. 155 - 181
Copyright
© 2005 Society for Germanic Linguistics

1. Introduction.

Unlike other ON alliterative meters, kviÐuháttr has received scant attention from scholars.1

For a recent bibliography of the scholarship on ON alliterative poetry see Fulk and Gade 2002:102–23. KviÐuháttr is discussed (briefly) in Sievers 1879:291– 294, Sievers 1893:117–118, Heusler 1956:201–204, Kuhn 1983:336, Faulkes 1991:74, 84, and Gade 2002:863–864. Most works devoted to poetry in this meter have been concerned with literary questions and with the dating of the earliest poems (see Marold 1983:114–153, Krag 1991, and Sapp 2000). The most complete treatment of kviÐuháttr is Åkerlund 1939, but that study is outdated. The meaning and etymology of the word kviÐuháttr are debated. See KonráÐ Gíslason 1881:188–189, Möbius 1883:292–293, Sievers 1893:219–220, Wessén 1915:127–141, Noreen 1924:61–65, Indrebø 1928:118, Finnur Jónsson 1929:268, Heusler 1956:215, and de Vries 1977:337–338.

This scholarly neglect is all the more to be lamented, because poems in this skaldic meter display unique metrical and syntactic characteristics that set them apart from other ON poetry.2

The earliest forerunner to kviÐuháttr is the stanza on the Swedish Rök stone, dated to around 850 (see von See 1967:47–48, Gade 1995:234–235, Gade 2002:858–859). It is generally believed that kviÐuháttr developed as a catalectic variant of fornyrÐislag (so Kuhn 1933:105, Åkerlund 1939:189, 192–194, Gade 2002:863; but compare Heusler 1956:203).

In the following, I explore and seek to explain certain peculiar syntactic features of kviÐuháttr poems that have been commented on by earlier scholars, but never explained.

KviÐuháttr was used in seven longer encomiastic poems totaling 1,926 lines from the ninth century to the thirteenth: namely, ÞjóÐólfr of Hvini's Ynglingatal (Yt: 360 lines; end of ninth century?), Egill Skallagrímsson's Sonatorrek (St: 194 lines; ca. 960) and ArinbjarnarkviÐa (Abj: 196 lines; ca. 960), Eyvindr Finnson's Háleygjatal (Hál: 100 lines; ca. 985), Þórarinn loftunga's GlælognskviÐa (Glæ: 76 lines; ca. 1032), the anonymous Nóregskonungatal (Nkt: 664 lines; ca. 1190), and Sturla ÞórÐarson's HákonarkviÐa (Hkv: 336 lines; 1263–64).3

See Skj AI:7–15 (Yt), 40–43 (St), 43–48 (Abj), 68–71 (Hál), 324–327 (Glæ), 579–589 (Nkt), Skj AII:108–119 (Hkv). The dates given for the earliest poetry are tentative (but see Sapp 2000). KviÐuháttr is also used in two stanzas by Gísli Súrsson (sts. 10–11; Skj AI:103), in Grettir Ásmundarson's ÆvikviÐa (7 sts; Skj AI:309–311) and another 8 1/2 stanzas in Grettis saga (Skj AII:439–442), in Merlinusspá (sts. 62–68; Skj AII:20–21), and in Stj

rnu-Odda draumr I (5 sts; Skj AII:208). See also Faulkes 1991:84. Note that the line counts refer to half-lines, that is, a- and b-lines, and not to long lines. In Old Norse, the conventional terms for half-lines are a- and b-lines (or odd and even lines), not a- and b-verses as in Old English.

These poems are transmitted either en bloc in the manuscripts or as narrative units or single stanzas and half-stanzas interspersed with prose in the kings' sagas and in the Prose Edda.

Unlike West Germanic alliterative poetry, ON skaldic poetry is strictly stanzaic. A stanza consists of eight lines that are divided into two four-line half-stanzas, or, to use the conventional ON term, helmingar. The helmingr is syntactically complete and inviolable.4

Syntactic completeness refers to the fact that the four-line stanzas are syntactically independent units, that is, no clause or phrase in one helmingr depends on or is appositive to a syntactic element in another helmingr or stanza (see Hollander 1947:300, Kuhn 1969, Kuhn 1983:187–188). In ON historical and poetological prose works, stanzas and half-stanzas are routinely interspersed with the prose as historical verification of events discussed or as illustrations of specific metrical and poetic peculiarities.

However, a glance at the standard editions reveals that many of the kviÐuháttr stanzas are syntactically incomplete; that is, they start in medias res, as it were, as is illustrated by the following stanza from Ynglingatal:5

The translations and editions of the poems in kviÐuháttr are my own. The lines in fornyrÐislag (and the abbreviated titles of the poems) are cited from Neckel 1962, and the translations are my own. Note that, unlike West Germanic alliterative poetry and eddic fornyrÐislag, poetry in ON skaldic meters is always printed in columns of half-lines rather than as long-lines divided by metrical caesurae. The referents of the kennings, the poetic circumlocutions that characterize ON skaldic diction, are included in the translation in small capitals within square brackets, for example, ‘the battle-distributor [WARRIOR]’.

6

The notations (expl. of) and (expl. um) are used to signal the presence of the expletive particle of (later um), which evolved in preliterary ON from earlier prefixes (see Kuhn 1929). Though required by the meter, such particles are meaningless.

Furthermore, sentence boundaries are often obfuscated by helmingr and stanza divisions, which never happens in other skaldic meters. Consider the following four lines:

This half-stanza is cited as a single, separate unit by Snorri Sturluson in his Heimskringla (ca. 1235) to verify the mythological marriage of ÓÐinn and SkaÐi. However, the genitive qualifier ocean's bone's that introduces the half-stanza does not belong syntactically to the following three lines. Rather, this phrase must have qualified an NP in the preceding, no longer extant half-stanza, thus violating the helmingr division. Clearly, the four-line helmingr was such a structural staple in skaldic poetics that Snorri automatically cited the four lines as a unit, even though the first line is nonsensical in the present context. The question is why poems in kviÐuháttr meter fail to adhere to the stanzaic eight-line division and the four-line helmingr division that are so firmly entrenched in the ON skaldic tradition.

In the following, I first examine the structure of kviÐuháttr and attempt to answer that question. Second, I show how the poets resorted to different solutions to cope with metrical constraints imposed on syntax. It will become clear that the syntax of kviÐuháttr departs from other patterns of skaldic (and eddic) verse syntax, but that the departures are principled, and the governing principles are clearly discoverable.

2. The Metrical Structure of KviÐuháttr.

KviÐuháttr is a variant of eddic fornyrÐislag, but unlike the extant fornyrÐislag, it is syllable counting.7

FornyrÐislag meter is the ON equivalent of the West Germanic alliterative meter, and it served as the basis for Sievers' formulation of his Five-Type system (see Sievers 1893).

Whereas the b-lines are tetrasyllabic and follow the metrical patterns of fornyrÐislag, the a-lines are hypometrical, that is, each a-line consists of three syllables instead of four. Because this is the distinguishing feature of the meter, I focus here on the a-lines in an attempt to explain the rather aberrant syntax of kviÐuháttr poems.

Structurally kviÐuháttr a-lines can best be characterized as catalectic, that is, they follow the same metrical patterns as fornyrÐislag lines of Sievers' Types A, C, and D, minus the last, unstressed syllable.8

That is, whereas fornyrÐislag a-lines have four metrical positions, a-lines in kviÐuháttr have three metrical positions. ON poetry in fornyrÐislag can also contain trisyllabic catalectic a-lines, but such lines are employed fairly infrequently and not according to a regular pattern as in kviÐuháttr. See Sievers 1893:68, Heusler 1956:178–180.

Types B, D4, and E do not end in an unstressed syllable; therefore there are no catalectic lines conforming to those patterns, and, consequently, no such kviÐuháttr a-lines. Consider the following metrical schemes (according to Sievers' Five Types):9

See Sievers 1893:117–118. The alliterating staves have been emphasized in the ON text. Although criticism has been raised concerning the validity of this metrical framework for ON skaldic poetry (see Gade 1995), it provides a convenient descriptive layout for the purposes of the present investigation. The metrical notations used in 3 are the following:

= alliterating lift;

= nonalliterating lift;

= alliterating short lift;

= nonalliterating short lift;

= secondary stress, long syllable;

= secondary stress, short syllable; x = unstressed syllable (dip); | = metrical foot demarcation.

10

In all ON meters, two short syllables occurring in the first lift are always resolved, that is, two short stressed syllables fill the position of one long stressed syllable (see Sievers 1878:455–456, Kuhn 1983:5–56, Gade 1995:60–66). In Yt 14/1 and 2/11, two short syllables occupy two metrical positions and resolution is suspended in positions 2–3 and 1–2, respectively. Sievers (1893:118) was at a loss to explain these two types.

The main constraint that the catalectic meter places on the syntax is that it makes it difficult to accommodate finite verbs in the trisyllabic a-lines. As the following overview of the possible placement of such verbs in bound and independent clauses shows, that circumstance in turn has consequences for the nature of sentence introduction that can occur in a-lines.

3. The Placement of Finite Verbs in Independent and Bound Clauses.

The terms bound clauses and independent clauses are used here to distinguish between clauses introduced by connectives (such as subordinating conjunctions and ok ‘and’, en ‘but, and’, eÐa ‘or’, né ‘nor’; bound clauses) and those not so introduced (independent clauses).11

For this distinction, see Kuhn 1933:30, 50–51 and Kuhn 1983:122–123.

The distinction between bound clauses and independent clauses in poetry is mainly one of word order, in particular with regard to the placement of finite verbs. In independent clauses, a monosyllabic or short disyllabic, metrically resolved verb is usually unstressed and proclitic or enclitic to the first lift in the line.12

This is known as Kuhn's First Law, according to which sentence particles must stand in the first dip of a sentence, proclitically to either the first or the second stressed word of a clause (see Kuhn 1933:8). For a convenient overview and discussion of Kuhn's First Law in OE poetry, see Stockwell and Minkova 1994.

The finite verb may also occur in the first position and carry a lift, or, more rarely, it may occur in metrical position 3 or 4 (Types E, D4 in fornyrÐislag and dróttkvætt), but it cannot be preceded by more than one sentence element without violation of the syntax. In that respect, poetic syntax in independent clauses corresponds to that of prose (the finite verb must occur in syntactic positions 1 or 2, that is, obeying the verb-second constraint).13

For discussions of the placement of verbs in independent clauses, see Kuhn 1933:30, 51–52, 58, Kuhn 1983:43, 117, 195, and Gade 1995:173–192. In eddic fornyrÐislag, there are instances of finite verbs in independent clauses occurring further back than position 2, but according to Kuhn (1933:61) the percentage is negligible (1.9%). Kuhn's percentage is a little skewed, however, because it is based on the ratio of verb placement to lines. If we look at the position of verbs in independent clauses with two constituents or more, the percentages are higher. In mythological fornyrÐislag poems such as V

luspá and HymiskviÐa, the placement of finite verbs in main clauses violates the verb-second constraint in 6.7% and 4.2% of the clauses, respectively. The numbers for the heroic poems with native narrative material is lower (HelgakviÐa Hundingsbana I, 1.7%; HelgakviÐa Hj

rvarÐssonar, 0%; HelgakviÐa Hundingsbana II, 2.5%).

Examples 4–7 show the possible placements of finite verbs in eddic fornyrÐislag (the finite verbs are bolded, the alliterating staves italicized).
14

In this example, the finite verb is still in syntactic position 2, because the unstressed expletive of does not count as a sentence element (it evolved from a prefix; see note 6 above).

The heroic poems in fornyrÐislag with West Germanic narrative material have the most violations (Brot af SigurÐarkviÐa, 13.5%; SigurÐarkviÐa in skamma, 4.8%; GuÐrúnarkviÐa I, 13.5%; GuÐrúnarkviÐa II, 15.5%; GuÐrúnarkviÐa III, 7.14%; GuÐrúnarhv

t, 16.7; HamÐismál, 7.8%). For a discussion of the placement of finite verbs in OE and ON prose, see Swan 1994.

15

The term neutralization refers to two unstressed short syllables occupying one metrical position, that is, the unstressed counterpart to resolution (see Gade 1995:61–66).

In bound clauses, on the other hand, the finite verbs typically occur later than syntactic positions 1 or 2, and they usually carry lifts, even when they are monosyllabic. In the following half-stanza, the bound clause is introduced by the connective enn ‘and’, and the finite verb (k

nnoÐo ‘watched’) occurs in syntactic position 5:

In that respect, then, we may say that independent clauses have V1 or V2 word order, whereas the bound clauses show a strong tendency toward verb-final word order.16

In this respect, the poetic word order in ON bound clauses resembles that of verb-final Modern German subordinate clauses. The main difference is that, unlike in Modern German, connectives such as but and and also trigger this word order (see Kuhn 1933:51–52, 58–68, 108).

As we see below, this has consequences for sentence introductions in kviÐuháttr. It must be emphasized, however, that the verb-final word order in bound clauses, which occurs in all skaldic meters as well as in eddic fornyrÐislag, cannot be observed in the extant ON prose (see Nygaard 1966:270–271, 347, and Swan 1994).

3.1. Finite Monosyllabic Verbs or Short Disyllabic Verbs in KviÐuháttr.

Because sentence-introductory kviÐuháttr a-lines are catalectic, monosyllabic and short disyllabic, resolved or neutralized finite verbs can be accommodated only in a small number of positions in independent clauses, as in 8–10 (the finite verbs are boldface).

17

In the following, s refers to a monosyllable, or a resolved or neutralized disyllable, and

s to a disyllabic word with a long first syllable. The finite verbs are bolded and the alliterating syllables are italicized.

18

As we see below, it appears that, in kviÐuháttr, adverbs such as nú ‘now’ could be treated as connectives to allow for bound-clause word order, in which case 9a cannot be regarded as an example of an independent clause. Note that the finite verbs in 9b–c are still in syntactic position 2 (as we have seen, the expletive particle of does not count as a sentence element). If the finite verbs had been preceded by two constituents, we would have a violation of the verb-second constraint in independent clauses (which explains the rarity of such lines in the corpus of kviÐuháttr poetry).

19

In Egill's poetry, there are occasional examples of Type D in which the verb in position 1 carries alliteration (St. 14/5, 14/7, 18/5; Abj 3/5), but such lines are not found elsewhere and appear to be an idiosyncrasy of Egill's.

Hence the fillers of kviÐuháttr A- and C-lines that introduce independent clauses are very limited from a syntactic point of view. Furthermore, the catalectic nature of the meter prohibits lines ending in an unstressed inflectional syllable, which restricts the inventory of available fillers even more. Consider the following main types:

3.2. Long-Stemmed Finite Disyllabic Verbs in KviÐuháttr.

In sentence-introductory kviÐuháttr a-lines, long-stemmed inflected disyllabic verbs in independent clauses can occur only in metrical positions 1–2 in Type A lines of the structure

s + s:

20

This type of filler is rare: Yt (3 tokens), St (5 tokens), Abj (3 tokens), Hál (1 token), Glæ (1 token), Nkt (18 tokens), Hkv (4 tokens).

Again, the syntactic fillers are extremely restricted because the word in position 3 must be monosyllabic. Trisyllabic finite verbs cannot occur at all in catalectic kviÐuháttr a-lines because such verbs end in unstressed syllables (compare Þrk 21/5 bi

rg brotnoÐo ‘mountains broke’ in 5 above).

3.3. Summary.

As we have seen, the catalectic nature of kviÐuháttr a-lines places severe constraints on the position of finite verbs in independent clauses. However, because kviÐuháttr b-lines are not catalectic, but correspond to fornyrÐislag lines with four metrical positions, monosyllabic, disyllabic, and trisyllabic finite verbs can easily be accommodated in b-lines. Yet, the placement of such verbs in b-lines necessarily violates the syntax of independent clauses introduced in a preceding a-line (that is, in syntactic position 1 or 2). Poets composing in kviÐuháttr meter circumvented that problem in different ways, as discussed in sections 4.1–4.3 below where it is shown how poets depart from an older form, that is, the correlation of stanzaic and helmingr structure with sentence structure, to comply with the requirements of a new form. It is also clear, however, that the poets in some cases were forced by the meter to resort to measures that violated syntax and word order.21

Violations of Kuhn's First Law are a case in point (see note 12 above). In Egill's poetry in kviÐuháttr, for example, finite verbs in bound clauses may occur in unstressed positions in Type C a-lines that are not sentence introductory, as in the following example from St 11/2–4: at í syni mínum | vasa ills Þegns | efni vaxit ‘that in (the) son of-mine | was-not (a) bad man's makings grown’ (‘that my son did not have the makings of a bad man’). In this line, the unstressed verb (vasa ‘was-not’), which, owing to its lack of stress, is a sentence particle, does not occur in the licensed position. Kuhn (1933:28–29) notes these instances, but makes no attempt to explain why some poems in kviÐuháttr behave in this manner.

4. Devices to Circumvent Constraints on Syntax Imposed by Meter.

4.1. Run-on Bound Clauses Obliterating Stanzaic Boundaries.

As shown above, finite verbs in bound clauses are not subject to the restrictions imposed on finite verbs in independent clauses. They occur later than in syntactic positions 1 or 2 and usually carry a lift.22

See Kuhn 1933:51–52, Kuhn 1983:43, 118–19, Gade 1995:177–208.

Hence poets composing in kviÐuháttr meter frequently resorted to a concatenation of bound clauses, which allowed for the placement of finite verbs in b-lines. Most frequently, these bound clauses are introduced by en ‘and, but’ or ok ‘and’, but such connectives as Þás ‘when’, svát ‘so that’, Þars ‘where’, unz ‘until’, áÐr ‘before’, and Þvít ‘because’ are also quite common. It may at first seem incongruous that the (now) coordinating conjunctions and and but should trigger the same word order as subordinating conjunctions. However, as Kuhn (1933) has shown, they do so in all branches of Germanic alliterative poetry. In fact, verb-final word order in and-clauses occurs in Old English, Old High German, and Middle High German prose, and it is documented in prose as late as Luther (see Kuhn 1933:63–64, 108). According to Kuhn 1933:51, the anaphoric nature of these connectives caused independent clauses to be reanalyzed as bound clauses, thus causing finite verbs to occur further back and in stressed positions.

As stated above, the extant ON prose does not have SOV word order in and-and but-clauses, but as 13 shows, that word order is common in poetry, and more so in kviÐuháttr than in the other skaldic meters and in fornyrÐislag (connectives and finite verbs are in boldface).

Such structures are especially favored by ÞjóÐólfr in Ynglingatal, but they are also found regularly in other poems in kviÐuháttr, especially in HákonarkviÐa. In longer poems composed in other skaldic meters, such run-on concatenations of bound clauses do not occur. The stanzaic eight-line units are also strictly adhered to in encomiastic poems in fornyrÐislag, as the following stanza from Gísl Illugason's poem to Magnús berfœttr shows (ca. 1104; Skj AI, 441, st. 5):23

For the sake of convenience, the stanza is printed as a sequence of half-lines.

There can be no doubt that the abundance of run-on bound clauses that characterize poems in kviÐuháttr meter and violate the stanzaic boundaries resulted from restrictions imposed by the meter on the syntax. With three exceptions (Yt 3/9, 12/1, 31/5), all the finite verbs in bound clauses in Ynglingatal are found in stressed positions in b-lines, usually in Types B (monosyllabic verb in final position: 43%) or C2 (long-stemmed disyllabic verb in positions 3–4: 29%). That circumstance has not gone unnoticed by scholars, and it has been suggested that ÞjóÐólfr used verb-final placement for psychological reasons, that is, to create a suspense that ultimately reaches its closure with the verb in final position (Åkerlund 1939:249–250; Nordland 1956:124–125). Although we cannot exclude the possibility that the preponderance of Type B and C2 b-lines in Ynglingatal could have been caused by stylistic preferences, it is more likely that we are dealing with an archaic syntactic feature, namely, the necessity to accommodate the finite verbs in bound clauses in stressed, sentence-final positions. In Sonatorrek and ArinbjarnarkviÐa, there is a similar tendency as far as Type B is concerned (38%, 56%), but in the later poetry, lines of this type are more negligible (Glæ 18%; Nkt 11%, Hkv 6%). In the later poems, verb-final position occurs much less frequently, allowing for a word order that is closer to that of prose, although V1/V2 in bound clauses is usually avoided. The poets of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries also tend to place the finite verbs in bound clauses in trochaic lines (Type ss+ss: Glæ 30%, Nkt 40%, Hkv 48% as opposed to Yt 15%, St 11%, Abj 12.5%, Hál 21%). Consider the following example from HákonarkviÐa (connectives and finite verbs are emphasized):24

In the sequence inf + aux (ríÐa knátti ‘hover could’, veita knátti ‘entertain could’) the inflected aux counts as verb-final, as in Modern German subordinate clauses.

We see, then, that there seems to be a clear correlation between the placement of finite verbs, the types of metrical lines employed by the poets, and the time of composition.

Throughout the period under examination, pronouns and adverbs, which are not connectives, could be treated as such in kviÐuháttr to allow for bound-clause word order:25

Further examples of this irregularity occur in Yt 6/9, 19/5, 29/9; St 12/5; Abj 6/1, 17/1, 19/1, 23/1; Hál 2/1; Glæ 6/1; Nkt 59/1; Hkv 22/1, 25/1, 32/1. Kuhn (1933:61) briefly noted the irregular lines in Yt. See also 9a and note 18 above.

In 16, the demonstrative Þann (m. acc. sg.) ‘that one’ takes on the function of a connective and causes verb-final word order; and in 17, the adverb Þar ‘there’ triggers the same word order (see also the adverb nú ‘now’ in 9a above). Thus, we can say that the syntax of independent clauses in poetry in kviÐuháttr meter sometimes exhibits verb-final word order, but only if these clauses are introduced by demonstratives or adverbs. There is no natural linguistic basis for treating demonstratives in Old Norse as connectives. Unlike in West Germanic, where demonstratives could occur without relative particles and cause a potential confusion between demonstrative and demonstrative + relative particle (see Kuhn 1933:52; also his note 114), in Old Norse the relative particle er was rarely omitted, and such occurrences are late and part of the learned style (see Nygaard 1966:262). Furthermore, there is no parallel elsewhere in the language to reanalysis of an adverb such as nú ‘now’ as a connective. Clearly, by treating pronouns and adverbs as connectives, the poets increased the inventory of possible bound clauses, which enabled them to avoid VPs in catalectic a-lines.

To be sure, pronouns and adverbs could function as connectives in eddic fornyrÐislag as well.26

See, for example, Vsp 10/5, 20/9, 20/10, 26/3; Hym 1/1; Þrk 8/5, 10/5, 11/5, 32/5; HH I 4/1, 47/1; HH II, 1/5, 24/5; Rm 23/5.

However, the difference is that, in fornyrÐislag, the verb-second constraint in independent clauses is not as strictly adhered to as in kviÐuháttr, and verb-final word order also occurs in independent clauses that are not introduced by adverbs and pronouns. Violations are especially prominent in the eddic heroic lays with West Germanic narrative material, and West Germanic influence on the word order of fornyrÐislag poems cannot be excluded.27

See the percentages given in note 13 above. For West Germanic influence on ON fornyrÐislag, see Kuhn 1939.

In kviÐuháttr, however, violations of the verb-second constraint in independent clauses occur only when the clauses are introduced by adverbs and pronouns. It could well be that this is an archaic feature, that is, a remnant of an older verb-final word order in independent clauses.28

That word order is found in such runic inscriptions as the Gallehus inscription from ca. 450 C.E.: ek hlewagastiÐ holtijaÐ horna tawido ‘I Hlewagastir descendent-of-Holti (the) horn made’. For this inscription, see Krause 1937:596–598.

In other skaldic meters, there are no instances in which adverbs and demonstratives take on the function of connectives, which suggests that this is another peculiarity in kviÐuháttr triggered by the necessity to accommodate finite verbs in b-lines.

4.2. Nominal Elements Obliterating Helmingr or Stanzaic Boundaries.

Rather than beginning a new clause in an a-line, poets would postpone nominal elements, thus allowing them to introduce new clauses in b-lines, even if it meant obfuscating the four- or eight-line metrical divisions that are strictly observed in other ON skaldic meters. These nominal elements are often the subject or appositions to the subject:29

In 18–20, the verbs and the connectives are bolded, elements belonging to the same NPs are italicized, and the nominal elements obfuscating the metrical boundaries are bolded and italicized.

The stanzaic division in 18 is that of the standard editions. However, in Abj 10, the NP in line 5 (tryggr vinr minn ‘the faithful friend of mine’), which begins the new helmingr, is the postponed subject from the previous half-stanza, and Arinbj

rn (st. 11/1) and vinr ÞjóÐans ‘the friend of the lord’ (st. 11/5) are NPs belonging to the same complex subject. Stanzas of this type are not found in Ynglingatal, but they are quite common in kviÐuháttr until the late thirteenth century.

If four lines are quoted separately, the helmingr is often syntactically incomplete unless it is sentence-introductory, as shown in 19.

In this half-stanza from Háleygjatal, which Snorri quotes as a separate unit in the Prose Edda to illustrate a collective name for the ON gods (jóln ‘gods’), the poetic circumlocution in line 1 (jólna sumbl ‘the gods’ drink [POETRY]’) must belong to the preceding, no longer extant helmingr. As was the case in 2 above, Snorri adhered to the four-line half-stanza unit and ignored the fact that, as it stands in the text, line 1 occurs in syntactic isolation. Again it is clear that poets composing in kviÐuháttr meter departed from a deeply entrenched convention to comply with the requirements imposed by a new form.

4.3. Preposition of Nominal Elements.

Quite often nominal elements, usually the subject or appositions to the subject, are preposed to allow for sentence introduction in a following b-line. In 20, the adjective in line 5 (lofanlig ‘praiseworthy’) modifies the subject (himna sól ‘sun of the heavens’) of the following bound clause, introduced in line 6:

As we have seen, the catalectic a-lines favor nominal fillers (Types A, C, and D), and this led poets to postpone or to prepose concatenations of nominal elements, further obscuring helmingr and stanza boundaries. Such stanzas are not found in Ynglingatal, but they are particularly prominent in Egill's poetry, in Háleygjatal, in the first and last parts of Nóregs Konungatal, and in HákonarkviÐa.30

See St 2/5, 3/1, 8/5, 17/5, 21/5, 24/5; Abj 1/5, 2/1, 8/5, 10/5, 11/1, 11/5, 13/5, 14/5, 15/5, 18/5, 19/5, 21/5, 22/5, 23/5; Hál 4/1, 6/5, 10/5, 11/5, 12/5, 13/5, 16/1; Nkt 1/5, 71/5, 72/5, 73/5, 74/5, 75/5, 76/5, 77/5, 78/5, 80/5, 81/5, 82/5, 83/5; Hkv 2/5, 6/5, 15/5, 18/5, 24/5, 25/5, 26/5, 27/5, 29/5, 31/5, 33/5, 36/5, 37/5, 38/5, 40/5, 41/5.

Earlier scholars have noted that poems in kviÐuháttr are characterized by syntactic nominal variation in a much higher degree than, for example, ON poems in dróttkvætt meter (Marold 1983:144–153).31

Nominal variation comprises epic repetition, series of poetic synonyms, and series of appositions and appellatives. Consider the variation in 18: tryggr vinr minn ‘(the) faithful friend of-mine’, betri m

rgum h

ddfinn

ndum ‘better than-most hoard-finders’, heiÐÞróaÐr hverju ráÐi ‘honor-thriving by-each counsel’, Arinbj

rn ‘Arinbj

rn’, fremstr knía ‘foremost of-men’, vinr ÞjóÐans ‘the-friend of the-lord’.

The reason for this is clear: nominal compounds, NPs, and PPs could easily be accommodated in catalectic a-lines, whereas VPs could not. To be sure, such nominal fillers are characteristic of a-lines in other Germanic meters as well, but not to the same extent as in kviÐuháttr.

As was the case with the types of fillers discussed in 4.1, there is a marked shift in the types of metrical lines used with these nominal fillers starting with GlælognskviÐa. Consider the following percentages:32

The occurrence of Type A (s+s+s) is negligible throughout the centuries, and the type has been omitted in this table. For the dates of the poetic texts, see section 1 above.

Poems traditionally (or tentatively) dated to the ninth and tenth centuries show a fairly high percentage of Type D lines, but the frequency of that type decreases dramatically in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, while at the same time there is an increase in trochaic lines (see also the discussion in 4.1 above). This circumstance would seem to have implications for the debate concerning the date ascribed to a poem like Ynglingatal.33

The distribution of other types of lines over the four centuries examined here also shows significant differences, as was pointed out in 4.1, but a discussion of that material lies outside the scope of the present discussion.

Both preposition and postponement of nominal (and other) sentence elements occur frequently in dróttkvætt poetry, too, but unlike in kviÐuháttr, such elements never obfuscate helmingr and stanzaic boundaries in dróttkvætt (see Kuhn 1983:202–205). It is clear that preposition crossing metrical boundaries is another characteristic prompted by metrical restrictions in kviÐuháttr.

5. Conclusion.

The discussion above has shown that the catalectic kviÐuháttr a-lines, the main characteristic of this meter, caused a breakdown in the syntactic and metrical structure, and this breakdown sets kviÐuháttr apart from other ON meters. First of all, the aberrant syntax of kviÐuháttr, which has been commented on by earlier scholars but never explained, is caused by metrical restrictions imposed on syntax, more specifically, on the placement of finite verbs in catalectic a-lines. Already by the time of the composition of the earliest poetry in kviÐuháttr meter, the placement of finite verbs in independent clauses was subject to the verb-second constraint. In other skaldic meters and in eddic fornyrÐislag, monosyllabic, disyllabic, and trisyllabic finite verbs could easily be accommodated in clause-introductory a-lines, but the metrical inventory of a-lines available to poets composing in kviÐuháttr meter was restricted to the catalectic versions of Types A, C, and D. In lines of these types, finite verbs could occur only in a small number of positions, that is, positions 1, 2, and 3 in a-lines, and position 1 in c-lines, proclitically to the first or the second stressed word in the sentence.34

See, again, Kuhn's First Law. Recall that finite verbs in metrical position 3 are very rare.

Placing the finite verb of independent clauses in the following b-line was not an option, because such a word order violated the verb-second constraint. The finite verbs in bound clauses, on the other hand, could occur further back and in stressed positions, and they do so in all branches of ON poetry. In fact, poetry in kviÐuháttr meter from as late as 1263 (Hkv) still displays verb-final syntax in bound clauses, even though that word order is not attested in the earliest ON prose. Furthermore, demonstratives and adverbs could function as connectives to allow for bound-clause word order. In Old Norse, there is no linguistic basis for reanalyzing demonstratives and adverbs as connectives, but this could be an archaic feature that was retained in kviÐuháttr because it increased the inventory of bound clauses and allowed the poets to place finite verbs in b-lines (sentence-final position). In HákonarkviÐa (ca. 1263), this type of bound clause is always introduced by the adverb Þar ‘there’ plus a compound (Type C; Hkv 22/1, 25/1, 32/1, 36/1). The construction is clearly no longer productive and has been reduced to a mere syntactic metric stereotype.

Second, and as a consequence of the need to accommodate finite verbs in b-lines, poems in kviÐuháttr are characterized by a strong preference for bound clauses. This in turn led to concatenations of such clauses obfuscating the eight-line stanzaic division that is inviolable in all other skaldic meters, as well as in encomiastic fornyrÐislag poetry (see 13 and 14 above).

Third, to allow for clause onset in tetrasyllabic b-lines rather than in catalectic a-lines, the poets often postponed or preposed nominal elements, making extensive nominal variation another feature characteristic of kviÐuháttr.35

Marold (1983:214), in particular, emphasizes the stylistic difference between ÞjóÐólfr's dróttkvætt and kviÐuháttr poems.

Furthermore, because of nominal variation, the poets often failed to treat the four-line half-stanza as an independent syntactic unit, unlike their practice when composing in other skaldic meters.36

Egill Skallagrímsson's poetry in kviÐuháttr (St. 194 lines; Abj, 196 lines) contains 15 violations of the helmingr unit, but his poetry in the skaldic meters runhent (H

fuÐlausn, 152 lines; Skj AI:35–39) and dróttkvætt (Lausavísur, 352 lines; Skj AI:48–59) has no violations. The corresponding numbers for Eyvindr Finnsson are as follows: kviÐuháttr has 7 violations (Hál, 100 lines), dróttkvætt has no violations (Lausavísur, 112 lines; Skj AI: 961–70). That also holds true for Sturla ÞórÐarson: kviÐuháttr has 14 violations (Hkv, 336 lines), hrynhent has no violations (Hrynhenda, 168 lines; Skj AII:102–108), hagmælt has no violations (Hrafnsmál, 160 lines; Skj AII, 119–124), and dróttkvætt has no violations (Hákonarflokkr, 88 lines; Skj AII:124–127).

Because the helmingr unit was so deeply entrenched in ON poetic tradition, later authors of prose works, such as Snorri Sturluson, automatically cited such half-stanzas in a prose context, despite the fact that they are syntactically incomplete (see 2 and 19 above).

When faced with the restrictions imposed by a new poetic form, then, poets composing in kviÐuháttr meter were forced to relax structural rules that were strictly adhered to in other skaldic meters. To observe the constraint of word order, and, more specifically, the placement of inflected verbs in independent clauses, they adopted measures that violated such Nordic innovations as the eight-line stanza and the four-line helmingr units. Thus, it is clear that the syntactic and structural abnormalities of kviÐuháttr poems are both principled and predictable. In that respect, kviÐuháttr is a valuable heuristic in regard to poetic syntax, and it lends strong support to our reconstruction of the grammar and prosody of ON poetry.

References

Åkerlund Walter. 1939. Studier över Ynglingatal. (Skrifter utg. av Vetenskaps-societeten i Lund, 23.) Lund: Gleerup.
Faulkes Anthony (ed.). 1991. Snorri Sturluson Edda: Háttatal. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Finnur Jónsson. 1929. Snorre Sturlusons Háttatal. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 45. 229– 269.Google Scholar
Fulk Robert D., and Kari Ellen Gade. 2002. A bibliography of Germanic alliterative meters. Internationales Jahrbuch für Germanistik 34. 87– 186.Google Scholar
Gade Kari Ellen. 1995. The structure of Old Norse dróttkvætt poetry. (Islandica, 49.) Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Gade Kari Ellen. 2002. History of Old Nordic metrics. The Nordic languages, vol 1, ed. by Oskar Bandle, Kurt Braunmüller, Ernst Håkon Jahr, Allan Karker, Hans-Peter Naumann, and Ulf Teleman, 865– 870. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Heusler Andreas. 1925. Deutsche Versgeschichte mit Einschluss des altenglischen und altnordischen Stabreimverses, vol. I, parts I–II. Einführendes; Grundbegriffe der Verslehre; der altgermanische Vers. (Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, 8.1.) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [2nd, unrevised edition, 1956.]
Hollander Lee M. 1947. Is the skaldic stanza a unit? Germanic Review 22. 298– 319.Google Scholar
Indrebø Gustav. 1928. Tri namn or Haakonssoga. Maal og minne, 16– 120.
KonráÐ Gíslason. 1881. Nogle bemærkninger angående Ynglingatal. Aarbøger for nordisk oldkyndighed, 185– 251.
Krause Wolfgang. 1937. Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. Halle an der Saale: Max Niemeyer.
Krag Claus. 1991. Ynglingatal og Ynglingesaga: En studie i historiske kilder. (Studia Humaniora, 2.) Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Kuhn Hans. 1929. Das Füllwort of-um im Altwestnordischen. Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der germanischen Präfixe. Ein Beitrag zur altgermanischen Metrik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Kuhn Hans. 1933. Zur Wortstellung und-betonung im Altgermanischen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 57. 1– 109.Google Scholar
Kuhn Hans. 1939. Westgermanisches in der altnordischen Verskunst. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 63. 178– 236.Google Scholar
Kuhn Hans. 1969. Die Dróttkvættstrophe als Kunstwerk. Festschrift für Konstantin Reichardt, ed. by Christian Gellinek, 63– 72. Bern and Munich: Francke.
Kuhn Hans. 1983. Das Dróttkvætt. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Marold Edith. 1983. Kenningkunst: Ein Beitrag zu einer Poetik der Skaldendichtung. (Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprachund Kulturgeschichte der germanischen Völker, Neue Folge, 80.) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Möbius Theodor. 1883. Über die Ausdrücke fornyrÐislag, kviÐuháttr, ljóÐaháttr. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 1. 288– 294.Google Scholar
Neckel Gustav (ed.). 1962. Edda: Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst verwandten Denkmälern (Germanische Bibliothek, 4th ser.), vol. 1, Texte. 4th rev. ed. by Hans Kuhn. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Nordland Odd. 1956. HÐfuÐlausn i Egils saga: Ein tradisjonskritisk studie. Oslo: Det norske samlaget.
Noreen Erik. 1924. KuiÐa: En hypotes. Festschrift Eugen Mogk zum 70. Geburtstag 19. Juli 1924, 61– 65. Halle an der Saale: Max Niemeyer.
Nygaard Marius. 1906. Norrøn syntax. Oslo: Aschehoug. [2nd, unrevised edition, 1966.]
Sapp Christopher D. 2000. Dating Ynglingatal—chronological metrical development in kviÐuháttr. Skandinavistik 30. 85– 98.Google Scholar
See Klaus von. 1967. Germanische Verskunst. (Sammlung Metzler, 67.) Stuttgart: Metzler.
Sievers Eduard. 1878. Beiträge zur Skaldenmetrik. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 5. 449– 518.Google Scholar
Sievers Eduard. 1879. Beiträge zur Skaldenmetrik. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 6. 265– 376.Google Scholar
Sievers Eduard. 1893. Altgermanische Metrik. (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte. Ergänzungsreihe II.) Halle an der Saale: Max Niemeyer.
Skj AI–AII: Den norsk-islandske skjaldedigtning, vols AI–AII. Tekst efter haandskrifterne, ed. by Finnur Jónsson. 1912– 1915. [Reprint Copenhagen: Rosenkilde og Bagger, 1967.]
Stockwell Robert P., and Donka Minkova. 1994. Kuhn's laws and the rise of verb-second syntax. Swan et al. 1994, 213– 231.
Swan Toril. 1994. A note on Old English and Old Norse initial adverbials and word order with special reference to sentence adverbials. Swan et al. 1994, 233– 270.
Swan Toril, Endre Mørck, and Olaf Jansen Westvik (eds.). 1994. Language change and language structure: Older Germanic languages in a comparative perspective. (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs, 73.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
de Vries Jan. 1962. Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden: Brill. [2nd, revised edition, 1977.]
Wessén Elias. 1915. Om kuida i namn på fornnordiska dikter: Ett bidrag till eddadiktningens historia. Edda 4. 127– 141.Google Scholar